861 Reviews of Books Pp. 138–39: The role of domestic weaving cannot be compared to the enormous concentration of enslaved female weavers in public factories (almost totally ignored in this volume), producing for internal (yearly rations) and external (foreign trade) use by the palace and temple agencies. Pp. 146–53: Writing was clearly introduced in order to manage the public economy, and the pres- ence of scribal tools (the lexical texts) and school exercises does not contradict the exclusive economic purpose of writing in its early phases. Pp. 268 and 320: The strange idea that Amorite, since it is never attested outside of proper names, cannot be a language but is just a dialect of Akkadian is untenable. Amorite has a lexicon and a morphol- ogy quite diferent from Akkadian. It is the earliest attested Western Semitic tongue (while Eblaite still belongs to a stage before the division between eastern and western sub-families). Of course, to deny the existence of an Amorite language supports the denial of the existence of an Amorite people, but see the Ammi-saduqa Edict, where the subjects of the entire Babylonian kingdom are divided between “Akka- dians” and “Amorites” (while tribal entities like Numkhia and Yamutbal serve as names for provinces). Pp. 320–321 and passim, concerning the Jebel Bishri: The currently accepted movement of the Amorites—here denied—and their provenance in the west is a phenomenon that is similar to the later movement of the Aramaeans. Such a parallel is never mentioned in this study (not even in order to dismiss it), and the entire question of the displacements of the Semitic peoples during historical times is never broached, probably because the author considers it to be outdated or obsolete. It is interesting to note how the denial of grand movements of peoples is dismissed in our own times when we coexist with a major phase of population displacements (of “Biblical proportions,” as newspapers often say). Summing up, I remain of the opinion that nomadic peoples (not to be confused with the trans- humant portion of “dimorphic” settlements), when able to act of their own will, were a negative factor in the processes of urbanization and state formation. They did not contribute to these but tried to resist. Sometimes they could destroy a settlement: the village of wooden huts superimposed on the ruins of the Arslantepe palace complex should teach us something. In the long run—the very long run, with cycles of ups and downs—they were inally marginalized. Certainly we can celebrate their memory, admire their life-style, and appreciate the interaction between diferent components of the society, but we cannot ground a sound historical reconstruction of the past on our present feelings. MARIO LIVERANI ROME The Sumerian Poem Enmerkar and En-suḫkeš-ana: Epic, Play, Or? Stage Craft at the Turn from the Third to the Second Millennium B.C. By CLAUS WILCKE. American Oriental Series, Essay 12. New Haven: American Oriental Society, 2012. Pp. ix + 117. $58 (paper). The Sumerian Poem Enmerkar and En-suḫkeš-ana: Epic, Play, Or? Stage Craft at the Turn from the Third to the Second Millennium B.C. is Claus Wilcke’s edition of a diicult and enigmatic Sumerian composition, re-edited in light of new manuscripts. In addition to providing a score and translation, Wilcke examines the context of the composition, and ofers a new interpretation focused on its the- atrical performance in antiquity (p. 10). In chapter 1, Wilcke discusses the genre of the composition, arguing that it is “a mix of epic narration and play” (p. 36). In chapter 2, he speculates as to the setting for which the composition was irst created and, in chapters 3 and 4, he outlines the plot, envisioning how each scene was enacted on stage. Chapter 5 details the grammatical and other textual indicators for performance, and chapter 6 ofers possible occasions for performance. Wilcke’s argument for performance is based on four internal textual features; the irst two are grammatical, the latter are those of “substance and structure” (p. 32): 1) the use of demonstratives and personal pronouns to indicate stage directions (pp. 18–20, 29–31); 2) the use of the ergative case to mark animals, implying underlying human actors (p. 32); 3) the lack of a central character (pp. 32–33); and 4) regular scene changes and coinciding character changes (p. 33).