Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-19T03:54:41.207Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

DATE PALM AND DATE PALM INFLORESCENCES IN THE LATE URUK PERIOD (C. 3300 B.C.): BOTANY AND ARCHAIC SCRIPT

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 December 2019

Marcin Z. Paszke
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The earliest evidence suggesting the human utilisation of wild date palm fruits in the Near East is dated to the sixth and fifth millennia B.C. Despite the lack of archaeological data, it is commonly believed that at the end of the Late Uruk period (c. 3300–3100 B.C.) the Sumerians established the first date palm plantations. Nevertheless, this belief has never been well-proven by any scientific data, which makes this issue open to debate. This article points to the images of the date palm known from the pictographic script from Uruk as an important source of botanical data—a concept which has never been discussed in the literature—and elaborates on the phenotypic traits of the Phoenix dactylifera L. discernible there. It aims to establish the level and condition of horticultural knowledge of the cultivators of the date palm tree in the late fourth millennium B.C.

Many of the botanical traits found on the date palm pictographs are noteworthy, especially where the morphology of the crown, trunk, and root zone are concerned. Most importantly, the identification of pictographs representing date palm inflorescences prompts us to the conclusion that the Sumerians discovered the dioecious nature of the Phoenix dactylifera L., selecting the staminate inflorescences to pollinate female trees by at least c. 3300 B.C. The discovery of this method of artificial fertilization was a turning point in Mesopotamian agriculture since it enabled farmers to obtain a better crop while economizing on space and labour, constituting the beginning of the date palm plantations that are still such a feature of present-day Iraq.

Type
Research Article
Information
IRAQ , Volume 81 , December 2019 , pp. 221 - 239
Copyright
Copyright © The British Institute for the Study of Iraq 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Al-Sekhan, M. S. 2009. “Bunch Thinning Improves Yield and Fruit Quality of Omraheem Date Palm Cultivar (Phoenix dactylifera L.)”. Scientific Journal of King Faisal University (Basic and Applied Sciences) 10 (2), 1430: 75–82.Google Scholar
Al-Yahai, R. and Manickavasagan, A.. 2012. “An Overview of Date Palm Production” in Manickavasagan, A., Mohamed Essa, M. and Sukumar, E., eds., Dates: Production, Processing, Food and Medicinal Values. London: CRC Press, pp. 3–10.Google Scholar
Amiet, P. 1980. “The Mythological Repertory in Cylinder Seals of the Agade Period (c. 2335–2155 BC)” in Porada, E., ed. Ancient Art and Seals. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, pp. 35–53.Google Scholar
Bakheet, S. A. and Hanafy, M. S.. 2011. “Towards Sex Determination of Date Palm” in Mohan Jain, S., Al-Khayri, J. M., Johnson, D. V., eds. Date Palm Biotechnology. London: Springer, pp. 551–556.Google Scholar
Burrows, E. 1935. Ur Excavations Texts 2. Archaic Texts. London: British Museum (UET II).Google Scholar
Chao, C. T. and Krueger, R. R.. 2007. “The Date Palm (Phoenix dactylifera L.): Overview of Biology, Uses and Cultivation”. HortScience 42 (5): 1077–1082.Google Scholar
de Genouillac, H. 1934. Fouilles de Telloh, T. 1, Époques Présargoniques. Paris: Paul Geuthner.Google Scholar
Deimel, P. A. 1928. “Die Opferlisten Urukaginas und seiner Vorgänger”. Orientalia 28: 26–70.Google Scholar
Deimel, P. A. 1922. Die Inschriften von Fara 1. List der Archaischen Keilschriftzeichen. Leipzig: Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft (LAK).Google Scholar
Deimel, P. A. 1932. Sumerisches Lexicon vol. 2, no. 3. Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum.Google Scholar
Dowson, V. H. W. 1923. Dates and Date Cultivation of 'Iraq 3, The Varieties of Date Palms of the Shatt al'Arab. Agricultural Directorate of Mesopotamia. Cambridge: Heffers.Google Scholar
Dowson, V. H. W. 1921. Dates and Date Cultivation of ‘Iraq 1. The Cultivation of the Date Palm on the Shatt al'Arab. Agricultural Directorate of Mesopotamia. Cambridge: Heffers.Google Scholar
Dransfield, J. 1985. “Palmae” in Townsend, C.C. and Guest, E., eds. Flora of Iraq vol. 8. Baghdad: Ministry of Agriculture, pp. 260–266.Google Scholar
El Hadrami, I. and El Hadrami, A.. 2009. “Breeding Date Palm” in Mohan Jain, S., Priyadarshan, P.M., eds., Breeding Plantation Tree Crops: Tropical Species. New York: Springer, pp. 191–216.Google Scholar
Englund, R. K. 1994. Archaic Administrative Texts from Uruk. The Early Campaigns. Ausgrabungen der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft in Uruk-Warka 15. Archaische Texte aus Uruk 5. Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag (ATU 5).Google Scholar
Englund, R. K. and Grégoire, J-P.. 1991. The Proto-Cuneiform Texts from Jemdet Nasr, Materialien zu den frühen Schriftzeugnissen des Vorderen Orients. Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag (MSVO I).Google Scholar
Englund, R. K and Matthews, R.. 1996. Proto-Cuneiform Texts from Diverse Collections. Materialien zu den frühen Schriftzeugnissen des Vorderen Orients 4. Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag (MSVO IV).Google Scholar
Englund, R. K. and Nissen, H. J.. 1993. Die lexikalischen Listen der archaischen Texte aus Uruk. Ausgrabungen der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft in Uruk-Warka 13. Archaische Texte aus Uruk 3. Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag (ATU 3=LATU).Google Scholar
Falkenstein, A. 1936. Archaische Texte aus Uruk I. Ausgrabungen der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft in Uruk-Warka 2. Berlin: Harrassowitz (ATU).Google Scholar
Gandz, S. 1935. “Artificial Fertilization of Date-Palms in Palestine and Arabia”. Isis 23 (1): 245–250.Google Scholar
Gelb, I. J. 1970. Sargonic Texts in the Ashmolean Museum. Materials for the Assyrian Dictionary 5. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gelb., I. J., Steinkeller, P. and Whiting, R. M.. 1991. Earliest Land Tenure Systems in the Near East: Ancient Kudurrus. Oriental Institute Publications 104. Chicago, Illinois: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Georgi, L. 1982. “Pollination Ecology of the Date Palm and Fig Tree: Herodotus 1. 193. 4–5”. Classical Philology 77 (3): 224–228.Google Scholar
Goor, A. 1967. “The History of the Date through the Ages in the Holy Land”. Economic Botany 21 (4): 320–340.Google Scholar
Green, N. W. and Nissen, H. J.. 1987. Zeichenliste der archaischen Texte aus Uruk. Ausgrabungen der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft in Uruk-Warka 11. Archaische Texte aus Uruk 2. Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag (ZATU).Google Scholar
Gross-Balthazard, M., Galimberti, M., Kousathanas, A., Newton, C., Ivorra, S., Paradis, L., Vigouroux, Y., Carter, R., Tengberg, M., Battesti, V., Santoni, S., Falquet, L., Pintaud, J-Ch, Terral, J-F. and Wegmann, D.. 2017. The Discovery of Wild Date Palms in Oman Reveals a Complex Domestication History Involving Centers in the Middle East and Africa”. Current Biology 27 (14): 2211–2218.Google Scholar
Harhash, M. M., Hussein, M. A. and El-Kassas, S.E.. 1998. “Effect of Bunch/Leaf Ratio on the Yield and Quality of Zaghloul Date Palm” in Proceedings: The First International Conference on Date Palms (Al-Ain UAE, March 8–10, 1998). Al-Ain. United Arab Emirates: UAE University, pp. 365–378. http://www.pubhort.org/datepalm/datepalm1/datepalm1_32.pdf Accessed 01 June 2016.Google Scholar
Heimpel, W. 2011.“Twenty Eight Trees Growing in Sumer” in Owen, D. I., ed. Garšana Studies. Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 6. Bethesda MD: CDL Press, pp. 75–152.Google Scholar
Hodel, D. R. 2009. “Biology of Palms and Implications for Management in the Landscape”. HortTechnology 19 (4): 676–681.Google Scholar
Hodel, D. R. and Pittenger, D. R.. 2003. “Studies on the Establishment of Date Palm (Phoenix dactylifera ‘Deglet Noor’) Offshoots. Part 1, Observations on Root Development and Leaf Growth”. Palms 47 (4): 191–200.Google Scholar
Johnston, A. 1904. “The Common Date Palm (Phoenix dactylifera)”. Journal of the Royal African Society 3 (10): 177–182.Google Scholar
Labat, R. 1988. Manuel d’épigraphie akkadienne. 6th edition. Paris: Librairie orientaliste Paul Geuthner. (=Labat)Google Scholar
Landsberger, B. 1967. “The Date Palm and its By-Products According to the Cuneiform Sources”. Archiv für Orientforschung 17: 1–70.Google Scholar
Legrain, L. 1947. Ur Excavation Texts III. Business Documents of the Third Dynasty of Ur. London: British Museum (UET III).Google Scholar
Myhrman, D. W. 1910. Sumerian Administrative Documents Dated in the Reigns of the Kings of the Second Dynasty of Ur from the Temple Archives of Nippur Preserved in Philadelphia. The Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania Series A: Cuneiform Texts. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Nissen, H. J., Damerow, P. and Englund, R. K.. 1993. Archaic Bookkeeping. Early Writing and Techniques of Economic Administration in the Ancient Near East. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Nagel, W. 1966. “Getreide C”. Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 3 (4): 315–318.Google Scholar
Nixon, R. W. 1951. “The Date Palm: “Tree of Life” in the Subtropical Deserts”. Economic Botany 5 (3): 274–301.Google Scholar
Omar, M. S., Hammed, M. K. and Al-Rawi, M. S.. 1992. “Micropropagation of the Date Palm (Phoenix dactilifera L.)” in Bajaj, Y. P. S., ed., Biotechnology in Agriculture and Forestry 18, High-Tech and Micropropagation II. Berlin: Springer, pp. 471–492.Google Scholar
Oudejans, J. H. M. 1984. “Date Palm” in Simmonds, N. W., ed., Evolution of Crop Plants. Edinburgh: Longman Scientific & Technical, pp. 229–231.Google Scholar
Popenoe, P. 1922. “The Pollination of the Date Palm”. Journal of the American Oriental Society 42: 343–354.Google Scholar
Postgate, J. N. 1980. “Palm-Trees, Reeds and Rushes in Iraq Ancient and Modern” in Barrelet, M. T., ed., L'archéologie de l'Iraq du début de l’époque néolithique a 333 avant notre ère. Perspectives et limites de l'interprétation anthropologique des documents. Colloques Internationaux du Centre Nationale de La Recherche Scientifique 580. Paris; Èditions du Centre Nationale de La Recherche Scientifique, pp. 99–109.Google Scholar
Postgate, J. N. 1987. “Notes on Fruit in the Cuneiform Sources”. Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture 3: 115–144.Google Scholar
Potts, D. T. 1997. Mesopotamian Civilization. The Material Foundations. London: Athlone Press.Google Scholar
Powell, M. A. 1981. “Three Problems in the History of Cuneiform Writing: Origins, Direction of Script, Literacy”. Visible Language 15 (4): 419–441.Google Scholar
Powell, M. A. 1987. “The Tree Section of ur5 (=HAR)-ra = hubullu”. Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture 3: 145–151.Google Scholar
Pruessner, A. H. 1920. “Date Culture in Ancient Babylonia”. The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 36 (3): 213–232.Google Scholar
Rajmohan, K. 2011. “Date Palm Tissue Culture: A Pathway to Rural Development” in Mohan Jain, S., Al-Khayri, J. M. and Johnson, D. V., eds. Date Palm Biotechnology. London: Springer, pp. 29–45.Google Scholar
Rosengarten, Y. 1967. Répertoire commenté des signes présargoniques sumériens de Lagash. Paris.Google Scholar
Roth, M.T. 1995. Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor. Writings from the Ancient World Society of Biblical Literature 6. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press.Google Scholar
Roth, M.T., Collins, T., Hunger, H., Jas, R., Meyers, J., Reiner, E. and Westenholz, J.G.. 2010. The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, Vol. 20 U/W. Chicago, Illinois: Oriental Institute.Google Scholar
Rubio, G. 1999. “On the Alleged ‘Pre-Sumerian Substratum’.” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 51: 1–16.Google Scholar
Sarton, G. 1936. “Third Note on Date Culture in Ancient Babylonia”. Isis 26 (1): 95–98.Google Scholar
Scheil, V. 1913. “De l'exploitation des dattiers dans l'ancienne Babylonie”. Revue d'Assyriologie et d'Archéologie Orientale 10 (1/2): 1–9.Google Scholar
Schwab, E. 1983. “Some Agricultural and Metrological Terms in Akkadian”. Sumer 39 (1/2): 146–149.Google Scholar
Tengberg, M. 2012. “Fruit Growing” in Potts, D. T., ed., A Companion to the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, vol. 1. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 181–200.Google Scholar
Tomlinson, P. B. 1990. The Structural Biology of Palms. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Uhl, W. and Moore, H. E. Jr. 1977. “Correlations in Inflorescence, Flower Structure, and Floral Anatomy with Pollination in Some Palms”, Biotropica 9 (3): 170–190.Google Scholar
Van De Mieroop., M. 1992. “Wood in the Babylonian Texts from Southern Babylonia”. Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture 6: 155–161.Google Scholar
Vinchon, J. and Ader, E.. 1964. Collection de cachets et cylindres orientaux. Bijoux antiques en or. Paris, Hôtel Drouot. 20 Avril 1964. Paris.Google Scholar
Zaid, A. and de Wet, P. F. 2002. “Botanical and Systematic Description of the Date Palm” in Zaid, A., ed. Date Palm Cultivation. FAO Plant Production Paper 156 Rev. 1. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/Y4360E/y4360e00.htm#Contents, accessed 01 June 2016.Google Scholar
Zohary, D. and Hopf, M.. 1994. Domestication of Plants in the Old World. The Origin and Spread of Cultivated Plants in the West Asia, Europe and the Nile Valley. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar