Ancient Zoology

The Sumerian cuneiform system, like the Egyptian script, includes a system of classifiers. However, the Sumerian classifier system differs from the Egyptian one in a few important aspects that have already been conveniently pointed out by the specialists. In concrete terms, the animal world is a domain where the classifier system of the Egyptian script reflects a different cultural attitude when compared to the cuneiform system. Recent comparative studies have obtained very promising results towards an understanding of the functioning of animal classification through comparative graphemic studies (Goldwasser 2002; Selz, Grinevald & Goldwasser 2017 and Vives Cuesta & Nicolás Alonso 2020) and by including lexical acculturation as a theoretical framework (Brown 1999).
As is well known, in the case of Egyptian and Sumerian, classification is also reflected at the level of the writing system. The mainly ideographic Egyptian writing, like the Mesopotamian cuneiform, incorporates much more than simple linguistic content (phonology of words and sentences): it contains information which often allows an encyclopaedic study. This multi-layered semantic information can be revealed through a comparison of the Egyptian and Sumerian writing systems for “felines” (especially cats and lions). In this sense, we depart from the opinion of, among others, Gerke (2017), who argues that there was no general Ancient Egyptian view of the animal world and no standardised nomenclature or taxonomy.
With regard to the status of felines in Egypt, it should be noted that by the end of the Old Kingdom, the classifier was suddenly extended to the classification of living animals that have “hide and tail”. At a first stage, the logogram of the [hide & tail (F27)] represented the concept of “hide”, the “tail” being mostly ignored The tail became a featured part of the ideogram in a decisive way, only when it came to classify living quadrupeds. In this second phase of evolution in semiotic representation, the first animal known to bear the classifier was the lion, a big carnivore with no obvious utilitarian quality.
Against the background of these ideas, we aim to achieve a twofold objective:
(a)  Graphemic classification: comparison of the form and function of the classifier signs associated with the feline group in both types of writing.
(b)  Lexical Categorization: based on the words (etymology) which were created for the felines, it seems that the conceptualization of these animal started out from rather different perspectives in each of the two cultures under scrutiny before it eventually became lexically more acculturated. In order to find a prototype for the whole category which specifies the lexical-semantic scope, an exhaustive lexical study of the main hyperonyms referring to felines (provided with the appropriate classifiers) will be proposed. In Sumerian, the terms piriĝ; ug; urgula; urmaḫ; urnim for ‘lion’ and gullum, sua and suari for ‘cat’ will be analysed, while in Egyptian, the terms mAi; mAi-has,rw rw.ti for ‘lion’ and miw.t,  mi.t for ‘cat’ will be reviewed, alongside other related terms. Eventually, references to other felines will be included in this study.

In summary, on the basis of the two preceding parameters applied to the lexical domain of felines, our main objective is to offer some glimpses into the importance of these animals in the Egyptian epistemic world. We hope to lay the foundations for showing that felines played a pivotal role for humans in very significant spheres. From practical empiricism to theoretical undertakings from the secular to the sacred, felines were also sources of positive and negative emotions by way of conceptual metaphors. Thus the importance of the images alluding to the power of the felines for ancient Egyptians and Mesopotamians was based not only on its utilitarian function but also on the rich relations between humans and the feline family at many different levels of representation reflected in the language and writing system.