Cuneiform Written Artifacts and Missing Evidence in the Study of the Ancient Near East
April 2026 | Vol. 14.4
By Cécile Michel
The study of ancient cultures is based on archaeological discoveries and transmitted literature. Initially, Assyriologists drew on biblical texts, particularly the Book of Kings, as well as the writings of Greek historians such as Herodotus. However, these texts — which only mention the empires of the first millennium — provide an extremely inaccurate account of Mesopotamian history. Consequently, our main sources are archaeological discoveries, particularly the hundreds of thousands of cuneiform artifacts unearthed throughout Iraq, Syria, Iran and Turkey. Compared to other ancient civilizations, these written sources are abundant, and above all they are original. Nevertheless, these cuneiform sources are unevenly distributed in time and space and incomplete, having been filtered by ancient processes of preservation, loss and destruction over time, and shaped by chance discoveries and scientific practices.
Since the mid-19th century, when excavations began in Iraq, archaeologists have primarily focused on large tells sites, such as the Assyrian capitals (Kalhu, Nineveh and Dūr-Šarrukēn) or Sumerian cities (Uruk, Ur and Girsu), as well as kingdom capitals like Mari and Ebla in Syria or Hattuša in Turkey. Excavations have focused on acropolises, where palaces and temples containing institutional archives were located. While this approach has produced a wealth of cuneiform documentation relating to elites and institutions, residential areas (which were generally located in the lower parts of cities) and small rural sites have been poorly explored (except at Ur), giving thus a partial view of Mesopotamian societies.
Discoveries of cuneiform tablets. English version of the map published by Xavier Faivre, B. Lion & C. Michel ‘Les principaux sites ayant livré des tablettes cunéiformes’, in M. Sauvage (ed.), Atlas Historique du Proche-Orient ancien, Paris, Les Belles Lettres/IFPO, 2020, p. 2.
Kanesh, in Central Anatolia, is one of the few sites that yielded hardly any cuneiform tablets from the institutions on its mound, but more than 22,000 tablets from houses in the lower town. These texts date from a sixty–year period covering the first half of the 19th century BCE, and they mention more than 500 geographical names of towns and villages, the vast majority of which are in Central Anatolia. To date, however, besides Kültepe, only three of these sites have been identified and produced few cuneiform tablets.
Old Assyrian tablets belonging to the archive of Ali-ahum and his children excavated in 1993 at Kültepe, ancient Kaneš, © Cécile Michel.
The sites explored have also been greatly influenced by geographical conditions. For example, salvage excavations were carried out in response to the construction of dams. In several ancient sites, some archaeological levels are inaccessible, lying below water, or covered by modern cities (e.g., Aleppo or Kirkuk) or cemeteries. Many sites were (and still are) inaccessible for long periods because of political events, conflicts and wars which led to their abandonment by archaeologists, followed by intensive looting and the increase of unprovenanced cuneiform tablets on the antiquities market.
Such a random distribution of cuneiform sources over time and space results in dark ages in Mesopotamian history. This is the case, for example, at the end of the First Dynasty of Babylon. Following political and military crises in the 18th–17th centuries BCE, several cities in the south were abandoned and archives gradually ceased to exist. Meanwhile, new powers emerged, among which the Hurrian kingdom of Mittani in northern Mesopotamia. However, this kingdom remains poorly understood due to a lack of direct sources and the uncertain location of its capital.
Much of ancient written culture has also been lost due to the perishable nature of writing materials, such as papyrus. Assyriologists have at their disposal an abundant corpus of texts written on clay and stone. However, from the 3rd millennium BCE onwards, wax-coated wooden tablets were also used for administrative and scholarly texts, but very few have survived to the present day. In the 1st millennium BCE, the introduction of Aramaic then led to ink writing on flexible materials such as papyrus and leather, but these materials have rarely survived. Metal was also sometimes used for votive inscriptions, but these written artefacts are rare because they were regularly recycled. Consequently, much of the writing produced in ancient Mesopotamia has disappeared due to the fragility or reuse of these materials, greatly limiting the documentation available to Assyriologists.
Assyrian scribes counting booty; the front scribe writes in cuneiform on a wax wooden board while the second scribe writes with ink and Aramaic alphabet on papyrus or leather. South-West Palace at Nineveh, 7th century, British Museum. Photo: Omsama Shukir Muhammed Amin FRCP (Glasg), CC BY 4.0.
Furthermore, a significant proportion of cuneiform sources are now simply missing because they were not intended for preservation. Clay tablets, which were most of the time unbaked, could easily be erased, recycled and the clay reused into new writing materials. The tablets could also be reused in building construction. Additionally, certain administrative documents were only kept temporarily, such as some daily accounts, which were replaced by monthly and then annual summaries. Similarly, loan contracts were generally destroyed once the debt had been repaid. Consequently, much of the information produced in ancient times has disappeared because it was intended to be ephemeral.
Although Mesopotamian civilization was largely based on writing, not everything was systematically recorded on clay tablets. Marriage contracts are a good example of this; the documents preserved from the early 2nd millennium BCE mainly concern specific situations, such as exchanges of gifts, adoption linked to marriage, divorce, and second marriage. This suggests that ordinary unions were concluded orally in front of witnesses. Contrary to the idea that writing provides a better guarantee of an agreement, the testimony of those present often played a more important role than the written document.
Cuneiform clay tablets were rarely found in isolation but as organized groups in specific locations. Cuneiform archives, whether private or royal, offer historians a partial and fragmentary glimpse into the activities of their owners. This is because the composition of the archives depended on conservation choices and the mobility of the tablets. In private homes, archives accumulated practical texts — contracts, letters and accounts — throughout the occupants’ lifetimes. However, some tablets could be moved to other houses or cities, recycled or lost, creating gaps for historians. Letters, in particular, represent one-way communication and only provide a fraction of the conversation. Contracts and administrative documents, meanwhile, could be archived temporarily. The archives of Assyrian merchants in Kaneš and the royal palace of Mari, for example, show that despite the preservation of several thousand tablets, a significant proportion of sources are missing, scattered, or reorganized by others — such as the Babylonian army scribes after the conquest of Mari. As a result, historical reconstruction is always partial and requires careful analysis of the choices made when archiving and circulating documents.
Excavated archives are never complete. They are the result of ancient sorting and archaeological choices, which makes any reconstruction provisional and subject to revision when new information comes to light. While spectacular new discoveries can reveal previously unknown aspects of ancient cultures, they also highlight all that has been lost. Successive discoveries, from Babylon to Mari and Ebla, have revealed that Mesopotamian history is not singular, but multiple; each site and period has its own history. Such new evidence must be treated with caution and with an awareness of its incomplete nature and the risks of overinterpretation. Cuneiform sources provide an uneven picture of Mesopotamian society over time and across space, offering more insight into the lives of the elite and men than into the experiences of ordinary people and women.
Palatial archives of Ebla Palace G (Syria), discovered during excavations in 1974-1975. Photo: Moshe Marlin Levin /Meitar Collection / National Library of Israel / The Pritzker Family National Photography Collection / CC BY 4.0.
All ancient sources are inherently fragmentary and must be interpreted within their broader cultural and archaeological contexts. However, disciplinary biases often lead researchers to favor certain types of evidence over others. This selective use of sources can distort historical reconstructions. Only by integrating all available evidence across disciplinary boundaries can we develop a more accurate understanding of the ancient world. Despite the lack of evidence, we are tempted to treat collections of cuneiform texts as complete and to prioritize sites and events with more documentation. Therefore, to understand ancient cultures in a nuanced way, it is essential to contextualize documents and be critical of the discrepancies between abundant sources and grey areas.
Cécile Michel is Senior Researcher at the National Centre for Scientific Research (Nanterre, France) and Professor of Assyriology at the University of Hamburg (Germany).
Further Reading
How to cite this article:
Michel, C. 2026. “Cuneiform Written Artifacts and Missing Evidence in the Study of the Ancient Near East”, The Ancient Near East Today 14.4. Accessed at: https://anetoday.org/cuneiform-written-artifacts/.
Want to learn more?
The Myth of the Servant: A New Tale of Kingship from the Ancient Near East
Post a comment