Willem, 

     This is a very good discussion of Robson's arguments concerning
   why Plimpton 322 is probably effectively a teacher's problem list rather 
   than a very early example of something like trigonometry table or even
   a list of Pythagorean triples, etc. 

     I think the main lesson Robson wants us to take from her discussion
   is that all mathematics is done in a specific context.  When there
   is no evidence that the Old Babylonians even had a notion of a measure
   of an angle in a triangle, or in the abstract, and certainly no 
   understanding of mathematical functions either, then reading something
   like our understanding of the trigonometric functions defined using 
   ratios of lengths of sides in a right triangle into what they did is 
   clearly anachronistic.

     But I also think that what you are saying is possibly anachronistic
   in one way.  Namely, I'm not sure there is any real distinction
   between teachers of scribes and "mathematicians" at this point in 
   time.  The only people who were doing any mathematics were the scribes
   and the students in training to be scribes.  So I don't think it 
   is accurate to say that there were other "mathematicians" at this 
   time who might have had a deeper understanding of the mathematics.  

     Unfortunately, a more thorough proofreading pass would have cleaned
   up the presentation of the paper a lot and caught the rather numerous
   typos -- the many different versions/misspellings of the word "Babylonian" 
   in particular.  Since that is such a central word for your topic, it 
   seems sloppy to have it misspelled in so many different ways!  If you turn on 
   spell-checking as you type, you can have the software help out on
   this.  (Add the word, correctly spelled, to the dictionary if it's not 
   there already.  And watch for words that get underlined--flagged as
   misspelled--as you type.  Turn off auto-complete too if you are 
   using that.  That causes more problems than it solves!)  

   Grade:  A-