The Emar Lexical Texts (Parts 1 - 4)

The Emar Lexical Texts Part 1 - Text Edition M. Gantzert

Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements

iii

Introduction to parts 1 and 2

iv

Non-bibliographic abbreviations

xv

Organizational tables

xvi

1. Inventory of Emar lexical series publication concordance and provisional sequence 2. Inventory of Emar lexical series - typology and scholarly focus 3. Presentational aspect by series 4. Parallel text editions 5. Archaeological context Key to the text edition

xvi xvii xvii xviii xix xxix

Elementary sign-lists

1

0.

Tu-ta-ti

1

1.

Syllable Alphabet A Vocubalary

2

2.1.

Syllabary A Vocabulary

10

2.2.

Syllabary A

37

2.3.

Syllabary A Palaeography

38

Thematic lists

46

3.

Weidner God List

46

4.

HAR(UR 5 ).RA = hubullu Inventory of texts Division 1 (canonical I) Division 2 (canonical II) Division 3 (canonical III-Va) Version A (unilingual) Division 3 Part 1 (canonical III) Version B (bilingual) Division 3 Part 2 (canonical IV-Va)Version B (bilingual) Division 4 (canonical Vb-VII) Division 5 (canonical VIII-IX) Division 6 (canonical X) Division 7 (canonical XI-XII) Version A (unilingual) Division 7 (canonical XI-XII) Version B (bilingual) Division 8 (canonical XIII) Version A (unilingual) Division 8 (canonical XIII) Version B (bilingual)

i

49 49 50 66 79 92 93 96 119 126 128 147 156 160

Part 1 - Text Edition Division 9 (canonical XIV-XV) Version A (unilingual) Division 9 (canonical XIV-XV) Version B (bilingual) Division 10 (canonical XVI) Division 11 (canonical XVII) Division 12 (canonical XVIII) Division 13 (canonical XIX) Division 14 (canonical XX) Division 15 (canonical XXIa) Division 16 (canonical XXIb-XXII) Version A (unilingual) Division 16 (canonical XXIb-XXII) Version B (bilingual) Division 17 (canonical XXIII) Division 18 (canonical XXIV)

164 168 170 180 182 188 192 194 199 203 219 223

LÚ=ša

226 226 243

5. Division 1 Division 2 Advanced sign-lists

248

6.

IZI=išātu Inventory and concordance of texts and fragments Izi text 1 (parallel to Proto-Izi I) Izi text 2 (parallel to Hattusha Izi) Izi text 3 (parallel to Canonical Tablet XV) Izi text 4 (no substantial parallel)

248 248 249 251 255 255

7.

KÁ.GAL=abullu

257

8.

SAĜ

9.

NÍĜ.GA=makkūru

266

10.

DIRI=watru Inventory and concordance of fragments Fragments

269 269 270

B

258

Unidentified texts

275

Notes

276

ii

Acknowledgements ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author wishes to express his gratitude for the support given by a number of professional seniors, colleagues and institutions: Professor W.H. van Soldt (Universiteit Leiden) for making possible this project and reviewing its progress. His continuous and patient support were indispensable for its realization. Professor J.M. Durand (Collège de France) for receiving me in Paris and sharing his thoughts on the Emar corpus. Professor N.C. Veldhuis (University of California Berkeley) for his continous support and the many readings of individual entries he suggested. T.J.H. Krispijn (Universiteit Leiden) for his time and effort in editing the manuscript of the Emar ĜIŠ-list. Y. Cohen (Tel Aviv University) for his comments on the Emar scribal tradition and the bibliographic references he supplied. Nederlandse organizatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (Dutch Organization for Scientific Research) for funding my research project, in the framework of which The Emar Lexical Texts were written. Centrum voor Niet-Westerse Studies (Research School of Asian, African and Amerindian Studies, Universiteit Leiden) for providing the facilities and logistic support needed for my research project.

iii

Part 1 - Text Edition INTRODUCTION TO PARTS 1 AND 2 The following introduction applies to Parts 1 and 2 of the study The Emar Lexical Texts. These two parts together comprise a re-edition of the Emarite lexical corpus. Part 1 (Text Edition) covers the edition of individual texts and Part 2 (Composite Edition) gives a composite edition of the individual series. Part 3 and 4 of The Emar Lexical Texts (i.e. the Structural Analysis and Theoretical Interpretation respectively) use the re-edition given in Part 1 and 2 as their working material but are self-contained in aim and structure - they are provided with their own introductions. The following introduction therefore only serves as a guide to the organization and use of Part 1 and 2. The discussion of the choices made in the presentation of this re-edition of the Emar lexical material will also serve to introduce some of the definitions and main concerns of cuneiform lexicology in general. Context and purpose Almost twenty years ago now, much of the epigraphic material unearthed in Emar was made accessible to the wider academic community by D. Arnaud in his four-volume work Emar VI: Les textes sumériens et accadiens. Volumes one and two contain, ordered by excavation number, the autograph publication of all Sumerian and Akkadian language tablets and tablet fragments. Their originals and are still kept in Syrian museums. Volumes three and four contain a first edition of the various texts found on the tablets. In genre they range from administrative records to literary works and they contain material from several separate archives. The first section of volume four contains a composite edition of much of the lexical material with which the present study is concerned. Arnaud’s text publication furnishes the primary material for the study of the Emar scribal and literary traditions and his text edition has become an important point of reference in philological studies of the Late Bronze Age periphery. In later years, after the initial French-led archaeological project was abandoned, some additional text material from Emar, finding its way through the antiquities market, came to light and was published in bits and pieces in several articles and books. On occasion, such additional material is of a lexical nature and has been included in the present re-edition. In the course of time, improvements were also made to many text interpretations of Arnaud’s first edition. In this respect, the review by Civil 1 offers important leads. With these two caveats in mind it may be said that, with regard to previous Assyriological publications, it is primarily in relation to (the lexical part of) Arnaud’s work that the present re-edition must define its purpose and method. Both the purpose and the method of the present re-edition are very different from those of Emar VI, which helps to explain the very different result. A number of important criticisms may be levelled at Emar VI, a succinct listing of which may be found in Durand’s review 2 - some of these are implied in the following discussion and addressed in this new edition. It should, however, be clear that most of the limitations referred to are a result of the limited purpose that Arnaud set himself. Both the review by Civil and the one by Durand recognize the ultimate value of Arnaud’s work: it should equally be acknowledged here because it provided most of the working material for this new edition. With regard to text publication the present re-edition does not seek to proceed far beyond Arnaud’s work found in volumes one and two. It will only add indications for (a considerable number of) provisional joins between many scattered fragments - these result from a reanalysis of the material and anticipate future collation. The provisional joins and a more appropriate reference system, will make it easier to access the reorganized material and to gain a coherent overview of the texts. In this re-edition the texts are, as far as possible, reconstructed into the form they had in the ancient school. In Arnaud’s publication, fragments

iv

Introduction were ordered by excavation number, irrespective of genre, textual coherence and joins. This posed no problem for his edition because a composite text was all that it aimed at. Such an organization, however, is rather cumbersome when the aim is a complete text edition, such as given in the present study. The present study will introduce a new reference system that includes references to both the relevant lexical series and its divisions (e.g. Hh Division 1) and to the specific reconstructed text in question (e.g. Hh 1T1 = Hh Division 1 Tablet 1). Arnaud’s old system will only remain in place for reference to individual fragments (e.g. Hh 1T1 consists of the fragments that Arnaud labelled 541 A, C and E). Whenever the old Arnaud count has been used to refer to a fragment and a reference to the publication autograph is needed, the excavation number has consistently been added between brackets (e.g. 541 A is specified as excavation number 731046 on page 127 of Emar VI volume 1, 541 C as 74342b on page 672 and 541 E as 74248a on page 575). In other words, the new system primarily refers to reconstructed texts whereas the old system primarily refers to individual fragments. In the reconstructed texts many fragments that were separately autographed by Arnaud now join larger tablets, showing them in their appropriate textual coherence. The old system only remains in place to identify individual fragments. The relation of the new to the old system will show that, in effect, the Emar lexical corpus consists of only a limited number of copies of a limited number of compositions. There is much less variety in texts, versions and ‘developments’ than the long inventories of scattered fragments in Arnaud’s edition or his composite texts with their multiple ‘versions’ imply. The orginal archaeological context of both reconstructed texts and individual fragments is given in Organizational Table 5, which effectively gives a reverse reference, complementing Arnaud’s catalogue (Emar VI 1 p.7-22). This table also provides a handy overview of all joins to be collated - it may prove useful for future researchers with the opportunity to investigate the original tablets. It should be noted that no collation work could be done within the framework of this research project, as the necessary permits from the Syrian authorities could not be obtained. It is in regard to text edition that the present re-edition has its main purpose: it aims to provide the reader with access to the texts as they were produced in the school and not just with abstract ‘models’ thereof (such as inevitably provided by a composite text). In this re-edition the new composite text is merely a tool, not the aim. Methodically, of course, such a tool is often indispensable for the reconstruction of the actual text, which must often be retrieved from a scattering of fragments and substantial sections of which are often lost. A concept and outline of badly damaged and fragmentary texts (i.e. a model of them) must often precede the actual reconstruction the lexical curriculum, whether in its entirety or in its detail. It should be noted that the present study of the Emar lexical material does not pretend to be any more than just one further step in a wider, ever-continuing research effort. Collation of old and publication of new material will undoubtedly soon necessitate updates and adjustments to the re-edition offered by The Emar Lexical Texts. Aside from the fact that, for now, it provides an update in itself, the value of this work is therefore to be sought in the fact that it will form the basis of a digital publication of the Emar lexical corpus in the the DCCLT database, where it can be continually updated in an interactive manner. The author wishes to express his gratitude for Professor Veldhuis’ kind invitation to make this contribution to DCCLT.

v

Part 1 - Text Edition

Method - application of external and internal models To some extent, a preconception of many lexical texts may be achieved by a tentative projection of similar, previously explored texts from other periods and places in the cuneiform tradition onto the new material: this is the use of an external model. In case of the lexical field, the obvious reference work in Assyriology is the MSL series, providing its grandest lexical model: the canonical text. This canonical text is, generally speaking, the best preserved, most elaborate and final version of various lexical compositions found evolving throughout time and which often have forerunners attested as far back as the early Old Babylonian period. Mostly, this canonical version is the version found in New Assyrian libraries. Methodically it is important to note that MSL, together with a few other standard works of lexicology, furnishes the academic reference frame and definitions which enable the modern scholar to impart scientific meaning to new lexical material and to locate it in the context of the Ancient Near Eastern text tradition as defined in contemporary western science. Terminology is obtained which may be applied to new material, allowing specific text types to be placed in a retrospectively emerging ‘stream of tradition’. Model content is given with which to compare, select and evaluate relevant material. In short: new material can be made scientifically ‘digestible’ by applying to it the accepted academic standards and references that MSL provides for cuneiform lexicology. This is why the present study gives references to MSL wherever possible, either directly, on side of the text, or indirectly, in tables and appendices. By the references to the canonical text, the diachronic place of the Emar text within the cuneiform cultural tradition can be determined. Its synchronic place, i.e. within the Late Bronze Age western periphery 3 , is more problematic and can only partially be determined by reference to MSL (e.g. by reference to its separate edition for the Ugarit material, termed the ‘Ras Shamra Forerunner’ but only systematically given starting with volume VIII). MSL does not contain a complete, updated inventory of texts from all relevant peripheral sites and there is no alternative reference work that allows such a synchronic overview. This is an important limitation in the application of external models to the reconstruction of the Emar lexical corpus. To avoid missing out on some of the insights that may be gained by synchronic comparison, an separate series of articles provides a synchroniccomparative investigation for the selected parts of the curriculum: it intends to at least partially fill the gap in documentation 4 . It should be remembered that MSL has limitations that affect its usefulness for diachronic or synchronic comparisons 5 . First, in volumes I-IX it often mixes material from different periods and places, resulting in a model text that is only ‘canonical’ in a strictly scientific-functional and abstract sense. It does not give a the canonical form of the text as it historically existed in the 1st Millennium, but presents a modern, etically interpreted, ‘canon’, giving the maximum extent of all collected historical attestations of the texts in question. It merely uses the 1st Millennium text division and inventory as a tool for organizing the resultant collection. This effectively precludes use of the earlier volumes of MSL as a tool for solid comparative studies. The later volumes are differently organized, reflecting a shift in scientific priorities in the 1970s. Old Babylonian and Late Bronze Age forerunners are presented separately in these later volumes. In this re-edition this improvement has been seized upon by giving the applicable references where possible. A second limitation of MSL lies in the fact that it gives composite editions, which are frequently cumbersome in use when it is necessary to identify specific texts. Despite these limitations, this study will systematically refer to the canonical text of MSL, recognizing it as a vital scientific tool that provides the most convenient starting point for reconstruction and comparison.

vi

Introduction Historical function and aim of the lexical material make it an elusive object when applying external models. Its function is that of educational tool, adjusted to the needs of a specific school in a specific context, and its aim is to give information about (cuneiform) writing in its widest sense - a sprawling, shifting object that was studied and speculated upon with different foci in different times and places. It is no surprise that in precise content the Emar lexical material does not conform to any external standard text format: substantial and frequent deviations from any external model, both in form and content, seem to be the rule rather than exception. In as far as these deviations are programmatic, i.e. linked to the internal organizing principles of the texts (and not mistakes by an ancient student), they must be regarded as functional in the curriculum to which they belong. When large sections of the encyclopaedic series Hh (e.g. in divisions 7-9) have two versions in Emar, both deviating from the canonical version, it can be assumed that the relevance of this deviation lies in the function that these sections had within the Emar curriculum (in this case the two versions represent sequencing variations that are linked to uni- or bilingual format). The clear and general non-conformity to any external model, canonical or otherwise, means that application of external models in text reconstruction is only of limited use. The postulation of Emar equivalents to certain external, preferably canonical, texts, with specific basic sign inventories and specific organizing principles, is primarily useful for provisional identification. When, however, some specific entry sequence or some specific content is to be reconstructed from fragmented bits and pieces, it is often more profitable to switch to an internal comparison of text fragments. Because the texts occur in archival proximity - they occur within a narrow time frame and almost exclusively within one archive - and because they are used in a specific schooling context (in one small school with a small number of pupils managed by a few teachers), such internal comparison can proceed on the assumption of unity in both educational aim and curricular method. Recapitulating, it may be said that, on the one hand, historical function and aim of the lexical corpus generally limit the application of external models, while, on the other hand, the specific context of the Emar corpus encourages internal comparison. That context justifies the postulation of a synchronically uniform and internally coherent curricular model for reconstruction of the texts used in the school. In this study, the composite edition, based on a concordance that will be referred to where needed, provides such model, presented in the form of either a Emar Standard Text (EST) or a Peripheral Standard Text (PST). Two-tiered structure of the edition This new edition proceeded to reconstruct the individual texts in three steps: first (1) it fitted the fragments into a concordance, then (2), based on this concordance, it built a composite edition of each series and finally (3) it used the composite edition to reconstruct the individual texts. The most important result of the first step was to reduce the many fragments to the smallest number of mutually incompatible texts and thereby to recover most of the actual original inventory of tablets and texts. The actual concordance is not given in the present publication, because the coherence of the texts is immediately clear by reference to the Emar Standard Text (EST) and Peripheral Standard Text (PST) numbers that result from the concordance analysis and that are provided for each reconstructable entry. Almost all individually reconstructed texts have EST/PST numbers for each fully preserved entry. Only a few small fragments with uncertain or deviating sequences lack EST/PST numbers. All individually reconstructed texts are found in Part 1 (Text Edition). The complete text of each series, with all its EST/PST entries combined, may be found in Part 2 (Composite Edition), often preceded by a commentary on its organization. For convenience of use the two parts of this new edition are printed in two separate volumes, allowing the consultation of the separate texts (Part 1) alongside the composite edition and its translations (Part 2).

vii

Part 1 - Text Edition In both parts of the edition, the different series are presented in a standardized sequence. On the basis of the near-contemporaneous corpus in the Ugarit and its curricular sequence as reconstructed by van Soldt 6 , the Emar series are provisionally sequenced in an approximately parallel manner. The series are divided in three typologically distinct groups, based on the analysis of inventory and classification found in Organizational Tables 2 and 3. Apart from the ten mayor series there is one additional ‘series’, listed under number 0 (which covers a single Tu-ta-ti-type extract) , and a small group of unidentified text fragments listed after the text edition of the advanced series. Emar Standard Text / Peripheral Standard Text numbers The direct link between both parts of the new edition is their common use of EST or PST numbers to refer to each reconstructed entry. The difference between EST and PST numbers is that, for a given series, the former are assigned on basis of a composite Emar text while the latter are assigned on the basis of a composite peripheral text. Most series have EST numbers and are based on the Emar composite edition which, as explained above, may be found in Part 2. In fact, the only series that have PST numbers are the Sa-series and G. The peripheral composite editions, i.e. the composite editions of all text from all peripheral sites combined, on which the PST numbers for the Sa-series and G are based may be found in two separate articles 7 . While the EST numbers, counting attested Emar entries, are useful as a reference tool with regard to the Emar material only, the PST numbers additionally allow direct comparison of all entries in all peripheral sites. The build-up of the EST numbers is layered to allow analysis of the text structure: entry numbers may consist of up to three elements, the first and last which may or may not be present. The first (1) is the division number (first number or first two numbers), the second (2) is the key sign number (always three numbers starting with 001) and the third (3) is the subentry. Division numbers (1) are only assigned if a series is known to consist of more than one tablet/division (Hh and Lu). For the series Izi and Diri it is likely that there was, in fact, more than one tablet, but their inventory and sequence cannot be sufficiently reconstructed, due to the fragmentary state of the material. The Izi material has been presented in four parts and, for convenient reference, the numbers of these parts replace the division number. EST key sign numbers (2) are counted only for those entries of which the content identification may reasonably be considered secure: its count proceeds without regard for gaps and breaks in the entry record because it would have been unrealistic to aim at a full reconstruction of the total original entry inventory of each series. For this reason the use of the EST key-sign numbers as a reference tool is limited to this study. Sub-entries (3) may be rendered either as letters (a-z) or as sub-numbers (.01-99). When sub-entries are merely secondary expansions of a given key sign they are rendered as letters, but when sub-entries clearly represent core content of a series they are rendered as sub-numbers. Secondary expansions are typically either repetitions of a key sign or declinational and conjugational paradigms. Core content sub-entries are empirically defined according to two criteria: either by the presence of preceeding line markers (¶) or by the intentional omission of logogram repetition for sub-entries (cf. Table 4). The build-up of PST numbers is similar to that of EST numbers, with two differences: there is no need for the division element (there are no attestations of multiple divisions in the Sa-series or G) and the key sign count is complete, i.e. all key signs, including broken and omitted entries, are counted.

viii

Introduction

Treatment of the elements of the lemma Before proceeding to a summary description of the formal features and specific uses of the text and composite editions respectively, it is appropriate to list all elements that may potentially be found within a single lexical lemma or entry and how in which parts of this reedition they are given. All of the elements will be given in Part 1, as appropriate to a complete text edition, but only some of them will be given in the composite edition. A listing is given in the table below, using the commonly used Civil-code 8 to identify the elements. It should be noted that the number 2 element, the logogram, is always the centrepiece of a lexical list: the other elements serve to analyse it and are organized by it. In earlier phases of the cuneiform lexical tradition, as late as the OB period, the logogram element was the only concern and exclusive ‘scientific’ object of the written lexical curriculum. It was only later, as the need for written elaborations and explanations arose, that other elements were added and that the traditional single-element list format was elaborated 9 . Therefore the logogram is the central element retained throughout and commented upon in the composite edition. Elements of the lexical lemma according to the Civil-code Element Description number 0 1

2

line marker gloss: syllabic rendering of (one of the) Sumerian phonetic values of the logogram logogram: Sumerian word sign

Graphic rendering ¶ gloss

LOGOGRAM/

Given in which parts 1 1 and 2

1 and 2

LOGOGRAM

3 4

sign name of the logogram Akkadian equivalent (Akkadian translation or interpretation of the logogram)

sign name Akkadian equivalent

1 1 and 2

5/6

equivalent(s) in other language(s)

n/a

n/a

Part 1 - text edition Organization - series, divisions - It has been attempted to order all texts according to series, i.e. according to the separate lexical works, or lexical text types, that were distinguished and functionally ordered within the larger curriculum. Only a few small fragments were not identified - these have been listed at the end the text edition. The series are identified using traditional Assyriological terminology, such as Sa Vocabulary (SaV) and HAR(UR 5 ).RA=hubullu (Hh). In a few instances this terminology is imprecise, in others it is used to cover similarly formatted but heterogeneous material that may in fact have belonged to different (sub-)series (cf. Izi in its relation to some of the other acrographic material). In one instance (parts of) two different series, Lu and Izi, may be found on one tablet. These matters will be discussed in more detail in Part 3 (Structural Commentary). Some series (Hh, Lu, Izi) cover extensive content, making them spread out over many tablets - such series have been subdivided into divisions. The consistent occurrence of a certain (always asociatively coherent) part of a series on a single tablet defines that part as a ‘division’ within that series. ix

Part 1 - Text Edition The term ‘division’ is preferred over the theoretically equally correct term ‘tablet’ because ‘division’ refers to text presentation spread across multiple tablets in general and not just as it is found in Emar: in other sites and in other periods another tablet-spread may be found for the same (or equivalent) series. Such divisional differences may be found when comparing the Emar material with that of other, contemporaneous peripheral sites (e.g. Emar Hh division 1416 is division 12-13 in Ugarit). The term ‘tablet’ in relation to text division will be exclusively used in relation to the canonical text, respecting its usage in MSL. Organization - tablets, fragments - In this edition individual tablets have only been reconstructed when their existence is obvious by their (almost) complete preservation, or when their combined, preferably joining, fragments show sufficient formal unity (viz. regarding number of columns, uni- and bilinguality, horizontal ruling, punctuation, orthography and ductus). In cases where doubts remains, a tablet has been restored provisionally, which is indicated by the addition of an apostrophe to the tablet number as well as by a comment preceding its edition, discussing the problems involved in reconstruction. Tablets (T) have been listed by number, and when a series or division has more than one attested tablet, a few rules are applied to their numbering: the unilingual format tablets are listed before the bilingual format tablets and the better preserved before the less well preserved. The other texts, remaining after reconstruction of the tablets, include smaller extract tablets (E) but also fragments that could not be fitted in during the tablet reconstruction. Most of these fragments have been completely edited but some smaller pieces have not - these are merely been listed (marked ‘not used’) because they are too insubstantial to make a difference in the larger reconstruction effort. Often such unused fragments have been given a short comment regarding their content and/or formal properties. Almost all extracts and fragments can be identified according to the original Arnaud reference system. Even if his organization has been rendered obsolete - his numbers often refer to imprecisely or incorrectly named text types (e.g. 577-600 ‘textes lexicographiques’) and to non-existent divisions (e.g. 544 ‘Hh IV’) -, his numbering is still useable for the unambiguous identification of specific fragments - it has been retained to avoid the needless complication of a double reference-system. A few fragments have been reassigned to another series and occassionally new fragments have been added to Arnaud’s inventory: such reassigned and new fragments have been identified according to the Arnaud system by continuing his number and letter count. Reassigned and new fragments can be recognized because their lettering is given between brackets (e.g. 603 ‘E’ refers to the reassigned fragment 74198c, ex-787). Break notation - Regarding the presentational aspect of the text edition, a word of explanation is needed regarding break notation. It should be noted that in tablets, breaks are always indicated in the conventional way (i.e.: when a part of the tablet of unknown size is broken off before a section of text that is given, it is shown by marking the following line count with apostrophe numbers, when the size of a break is known it is indicated as ‘N lines missing’ and when a part of unknown size is broken off after a section of text, it is indicated as ‘break’). However, text fragments are always assumed to be surrounded by unknown quantities of broken off text before and after it (meriting standard apostrophe line count), unless it has been specifically indicated otherwise. Such specific indications include fragments starting with the upper edge of a tablet given in regular (non-apostrophed) line count and fragments ending on a lower tablet edge marked ‘end of column’.

x

Introduction

References - Frequently extra columns are added to the right side of the text to give references to parallel material. They are included to assist in diachronic and/or synchronic comparative analysis and for the reader’s convenience. For some series (Svo, SaP/V, Nigga and Diri) reference columns had to be omiited in Part 1 due to spatial considerations - for these series references may be found in Part 2. The first or left reference column mostly gives the corresponding entries of the canonical version as given in MSL. If a series does not have a canonical equivalent (Sag B, Nigga), it gives the corresponding entries of the OB version as given in MSL. Note that for the Izi series references to the canonical text are omitted because the complete transformation of Izi between the OB and 1st Millennium period makes a direct comparison with the canonical texts useless. When a second column is added it mostly gives the parallel Ugarit version if an edition is available (much of the Ugarit material remains unpublished). Occasionally, the second column gives references to some other version considered especially relevant for the given material (e.g. Hh divisions 3-4 have references to the OB Nippur version edited by Veldhuis). Information concerning the identification of all non-canonical references is always given in the commentary preceding the composite edition of the series in question. Note that especially for Hh the use of reference columns is not always consistent, due to the inconsistent nature of the edition of the parallel material. Until its eighth volume, MSL does not give the separate editions of the Ugarit material (referred to in later volumes as ‘RS Forerunners’), while other works (Veldhuis for OB Nippur, vSoldt for LBA Ugarit) only cover parts of the series. A listing of all important reference texts for the 1st Millennium, LBA and OB periods relevant to the Emar material is provided by Organizational Table 4 (note that in that table the texts given in brackets are not included in the text edition). Notes - Some notes serve to assist in the handling of the autographs, but most serve to give due credit when this new edition follows interpretations found in existing literature. No attempt has been made to list all the changes that this new edition makes in comparison the readings proposed in other editions. It should be noted that many such changes have been made in relation to Arnaud’s primary edition (Emar VI 4). Alternative readings found in Arnaud’s edition are only specifically referred to in the notes when the interpretation of signs is still not secure - this will allow the reader to make up his own mind. When a reference is simply given as ‘Arnaud’ or ‘Civil’, respectively Arnaud’s Emar VI 4 edition and its review by Civil are meant. These works, as well as the other philological literature referred to in the notes, are discussed in the annotated bibliography following Part 2. Part 2 - composite text Standard text - The first purpose of Part 2 of this re-edition is to list, in as far as possible, all fully reconstructed entries of all texts in their original sequence. The result is a standardized composite text. Some series are only attested in a single text, and therefore no actual composite text is required - in these cases their content has been repeated in the composite edition only to provide it with an interpretation (the second purpose of Part 2, see below). In the series Hh some divisions are found in multiple versions: such versions are mostly presented in separate composite texts. Explanations of and commentaries on the reconstructed organization of a given series or a given division often precede its composite edition.

xi

Part 1 - Text Edition

Interpretation - The second purpose of Part 2 is to provide the text with an interpretation, which is needed for the structural and theoretical analyses found in Parts 3 and 4. The interpretation includes two possible elements: the first is a translation of individual entries into English and the second is an additional commentary. It should be noted that the series SaP and SaA2 give exclusively palaeographic information, with which this study is not concerned and that therefore these are not included in the composite edition. It will also be noted that in the other series some entries lack interpretions. Such entries were either already interpreted earlier in the same text section, or an reliable interpretation was not considered feasible. A thorough philological enquiry into the many interesting lexical leads found in individual entries was not feasible within the framework of this re-edition - this is why notes to secondary literature are only rarely given (the only variant readings systematically given are those found in the earlier edition by Arnaud and in Civil’s review of it). Superficial speculation was kept to a minimum: it seemed better to leave blank spaces than to bother the reader with obviously contextual interpretations. Recovering additional Sumerian lexicon hidden in these texts, requires a separate and specialized scholarly effort which may pick up where this study must leave off. Translation - For the other series the translations given will mostly refer to the Akkadian equivalent because modern knowledge of the Sumerian vocabulary depends on Akkadian sources and it is generally preferable that translation refers to the generally better known Akkadian instead of to the more distant Sumerian. In case a text has bilingual content the actual Akkadian equivalents found in Emar (rarely more than one per logogram) are given where possible. When the Emar Akkadian equivalent is broken and not reconstructable this is indicated by straight brackets ([]). In such cases the canonical Akkadian equivalent found in MSL, if available, is often added between regular brackets. In case a text has only unilingual content available canonical Akkadian equivalents are also added. Only when an Akkadian equivalent is available neither in the Emar material nor in the canonical version will the translation refer to the logogram rather than the Akkadian equivalent - such translations mostly follow the ePSD interpretation. It should be remembered that the relationship between logogram and Akkadian equivalent is not straightforward. Varying semantic ranges of words in Sumerian and Akkadian obviously result in a frequently asymmetrical relationship between the two elements, but there is an additional factor that complicates it further. The lexical texts present an approach of logograms that is valid in a very different ‘scientific’ context than that of modern western philology. Note that for PNs, DNs and GNs ‘translations’ are mostly omitted. Additional commentary - When the association of Akkadian equivalents with the logogram is not self-evident, often some explanatory notes are given in the form of bracketed comments. An example of such an explanation may be found in SaV entry 001.30 (i.e. logogram number 001 A, Akkadian equivalent number 30 kapru): here the bracketed comment (É.DURU 5 ) is found, meaning that kapru ‘village’ occurs in association with the base sign A because É.DURU 5 is its regular Sumerian equivalent, DURU 5 being one of the phonetic values of A (this equivalent in effect represents a pars pro toto or virtual graphic association). Another form of commentary are the various corrections, marked with an exclamation mark (!). An example of such a correction may be found in Hh entries 4131b-4132: here the irregular (‘phonetized’) spelling SU.DIN is found and has been corrected (!) to ŠUDUN ‘yoke’, which is the appropriate logogram expected here.

xii

Introduction References - The references columns added to the composite texts repeat the references given for the text edition in Part 1. Note that, due to spatial restrictions, for some series (Svo, Nigga and Diri) references are only given in Part 2. The use of references has been explained in the discussion of Part 1. Notes - The notes added to the composite text primarily serve to assist in the reconstruction and interpretation of logograms. They either suggest readings for unclear entries or give due credit when this new edition has used suggestions found in existing literature. Appendices - Part 2 includes four appendices which provide tables that allow further diachronic analysis of the reconstructed Emar lexical corpus. Some of the findings of Part 3 are based on these tables - the relevant references are given preceding each appendix. Bibliography - Part 2 includes an annotated bibliography that applies to both Part 1 and Part 2. This annotated bibliography is ordered by series and corpus. An alphabetically ordered bibliography may be found at the end of Part 3. Presentational aspects The following rules apply uniformly to the presentation of the material throughout both parts of the edition. The only presentational difference between those parts is that the composite edition uses bold type for rendering the main (logogram) entries in Svo, Sav, Nigga and Diri, which serves to provide an easily recognizable distinction between the main entries (logograms) and the sub-entries (Akkadian equivalents) in some otherwise condensely presented texts. The choices made in rendering logograms in the different series are explained in paragraph 11.3. of Part 3 and summarized in Organization Table 3 below. 1. Graphic rendering of logograms – In the elementary and advanced sign-lists logograms are rendered as graphemes, which means that they are merely identified as signs by listing them according to their most common values (viz. the first AbZ value) and in CAPITALS. Grapheme rendering has been applied in the presentation of all elementary and advanced series, because these lists are primarily geared to the analysis of graphemes, either individual or in combination. This analysis was achieved through describing their various divergent and convergent readings and their feasible combinations into compounds. Such an approach of logograms is very different than that found in the thematic lists, which analyse (underlying) Sumerian words rather than graphemes. Often the composite edition of those series in which logograms are rendered as graphemes also adds their applicable phonetic interpretation, i.e. their reading as words (added between brackets and in SMALL CAPS). An example is the phonetic (word) reading added to entry 1001 of Izi: after the grapheme reading NE-RI the phonetic reading DÈ.DAL is added between brackets, meaning that DÈ.DAL is the appropriate phonetic reading of the sign combination NE-RI. 2. Phonetic spelling of logograms – In the thematic series the logograms are rendered as Sumerian words, i.e. in their contextually appropriate Sumerian phonetic form, rather than as graphemes (e.g. Hh 8a012 gives UDU GUKKAL, not LU-LU-HÚL and Hh 8a033 gives UDU GUR 4 .GUR 4 , not LU-LAGAB-LAGAB). These Sumerian words have, as far as possible, been rendered with the maximum respect for the reconstructed Sumerian phoneme inventory. This means that this edition strives to use the most recent dictionary citation (ePSD) - e.g. DIĜIR, not the older form DINGIR and BISAĜ, not PISAN. Apart from scientific reasons (including the maximum phonemic distinction in the reconstruction of morpho-phonetic structure), this can

xiii

Part 1 - Text Edition be justified on grounds of the empiric relevance of these phonemes in the scribal school. Even if the graphic analysis of cuneiform signs was clearly an important element in the scribal curriculum, concern for their phonetic values is equally obvious. The assignment of correct phonetic value is the topic of the many pronunciation glosses (e.g. in Sa Voc entries 038.02-3 the Ĝ phoneme is clearly the topic of the glosses ke-eš and né-eš) and correct phonetic association is an important principle in the ordering of signs (e.g. SaV entries 096-7 LU with reading DAB is followed by TAB). The composite edition of the series in which logograms are rendered as Sumerian words often adds their graphemic rendering, i.e. their identification through their first and most recognizable reading in AbZ (added between brackets and in CAPITALS). An example is the graphemic reading added to entry 4207 of Hh: after the Sumerian word reading LÚGUD the graphemic reading LAGAB is added between brackets, meaning that LAGAB is the appropriate graphemic reading of the word LÚGUD. 3. Spelling of Akkadian entries - Akkadian syllabic spellings have been rendered conform the (AHw) dictionary form and not conform their most common phonetic values (e.g. SaV 001.12 is rendered ni-is-sà-tu 4 , not ni-iz-za-tu 4 ). When given in the composite edition, the Akkadian has been adjusted to a citation-form transcription in order to facilitate dictionary reference (e.g. SaV 066.03 ra-pu-ul-tu 4 in Tablet 1 (IV 3) becomes rupuštu in the composite edition). In the composite edition only unknown (or non-Akkadian) words are retained in hyphenated transcription and conform their most common phonetic values, allowing the reader to make up his own mind on basis of the empiric data. Justification for these adjustments is found in the function of the Akkadian forms in the lexical texts. Even if most lexical texts found in the LBA periphery are geared towards and organized by the Sumerian core of the curriculum, the Akkadian language was as much the object of study as the Sumerian language. The apprentice scribes in the LBA periphery had to master a standard, literary version of the Akkadian language, which was the international cultural lingua franca of the age as well as the instrument through which the lexical tradition approached the Sumerian language. In this context, many of their mistakes may be explained by the fact that Akkadian was not their native language and it is reasonable to postulate at least some interference from the local substrate language(s). In fact, study of such interference, and of the relation of the deviations found to the wider Semitic lexicon, may provide valuable insights into the West Semitic substrate in Emar. That does not, however, alter the fact that the Akkadian part of the lexical texts had the standard literary Akkadian language as its scholarly object, no matter how poorly or distortedly it is rendered by the apprentice scribes. Modern Akkadian dictionaries, even if working with radically different methods, have partially the same object: standard lemmas. Because modern standardization is scientifically preferable to that of the Emar apprentice scribes, it is appropriate to apply the modern dictionary form when interpretating the Akkadian words and aiming at a reconstruction of lexemes 10 .

xiv

Introduction NON-BIBLIOGRAPHIC ABBREVIATIONS The following non-bibliographic abbreviations will be used throughout all four parts of The Emar Lexical Texts. Most are in common usage in Assyriological literature, others are particular to The Emar Lexical Texts. Note that in Appendix 4 of Part 2 all lexical series are listed with brief descriptions and references to their most important editions. For bibliographical abbreviations cf. the annotated bibliography at the end of Part 2. Abbreviation

Full terminology

Aa Diri DN E Ea ED Erim EST fr G GN Hh Kagal Izi LBA LE LEE Lu MA MB MEA n/a NA NB Nigga OB Obv PEa PN PST Rev RSGT Sa SaAP SagB Sal SaP SaV SN SNT Svo T Tutati WS

canonical lexical series áA=nâqu (bilingual) lexical series di-irSI-A=watru Divine Name Extract (Type III) tablet canonical lexical series e-aA=nâqu (bilingual) Early Dynastic (2900-2350 BC) lexical series ÉRIN.HUŠ=anantu Emar Standard Text - entry identification provided from composite edition in Part 2 tablet fragment lexical series with the Weidner God List Geographic Name lexical series (HAR)UR 5 .RA=hubullu lexical series KÁ.GAL=abullu lexical series i-ziNE=išātu Late Bronze Age (for Syria 1500-1200 BC) tablet Lower Edge tablet LEft Edge lexical series LÚ=ša Middle Assyrian (1500-1000 BC) Middle Babylonian (1595-1000 BC) lexical series Table of Measures not applicable New Assyrian (1000-612 BC) New Babylonian (1000-539 BC) lexical series NÍĜ.GA=makkūru Old Babylonian (1800-1595 BC) tablet Obverse lexical series Proto-Ea (unilingual) Personal Name Peripheral Standard Text number - entry identification provided in SLT articles tablet Reverse lexical series Ras Shamra Grammatical Texts lexical series Syllabary A (unilingual) Syllabary A Appendix lexical series SAĜ B lexical series Syllable Alphabet A (‘logograms’ only) lexical series Syllabary A Palaeography lexical series Syllabary A Vocabulary (multilingual) Sign Name (entry element 3 according to the Civil code) Standard Nippur Text edition of the OB GIŠ-list in Veldhuis, Elementary Education lexical series Syllable Alphabet A Vocabulary (‘logograms’ plus equivalents) multi-column (Type I) Tablet lexical series Tu-ta-ti West Semitic (reconstructed)

xv

Part 1 - Text Edition ORGANIZATIONAL TABLES Table 1. Inventory of Emar lexical series - publication concordance and provisional sequence Note that a full inventory of all lexical series of periods II-IV is given in Appendix 4 of Part 2. Series – full name (series found in Emar are given in bold type)

Series short name 11

Publication concordance Emar VI 4 new edition edition numbers numbers

Parallel Ugarit curricular sequence 12

tu-ta-ti Syllable Alphabet A Syllable Alphabet A Vocabulary Syllabary A - Vocabulary Syllabary A Syllabary A - Palaeography Syllabary A - Appendix 1 Syllabary A - Appendix 2 e-a A=nâqu Weidner God List Ras Shamra Grammatical Texts Table of Measures UR 5 .RA=hubullu LÚ=ša i-zi NE=išātu KÁ.GAL=abullu SAĜ B NÍĜ.GA=makkūru di-ir SI-A=watru ÉRIN.HUŠ=anantu

Tu-ta-ti Sal Svo SaV Sa SaP* SaA1* SaA2* Ea G RSGT Mea Hh Lu Izi Kagal SagB* Nigga Diri Erim

601 n/a 603 538 538 E 537 538 538 n/a 13 539 n/a n/a 541-62 14 602 15 - 16 - 17 575 573-4 18 540 19 n/a

1 2 2 3 3 3 4 n/a ? 4? 4? ? 5 6 7 n/a n/a ? 8 ?

xvi

0. n/a 1. 2.1. 2.2. 2.3. 2.4 2.5. n/a 3. n/a n/a 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. n/a

Tables and Key to the Text Edition Table 2. Inventory of Emar lexical series – typology and scholarly focus Series

Series typology Cf. 11.3. in Part 3.

Scholarly focus Cf. 11.4. in Part 3.

Tu-ta-ti Svo

elementary sign-list elementary sign-list

SaV

elementary sign-list

Sa SaP SaA1 SaA2 G Hh

elementary sign-list elementary sign-list elementary sign-list elementary sign-list thematic list thematic list

Lu

thematic list

Izi

advanced sign-list

Kagal SagB Nigga Diri

advanced sign-list advanced sign-list advanced sign-list advanced sign-list

acquisition of basic phonetic signs general introduction to lexical lists; limited acquisitive and analytic exercise acquisition of basic logograms and their analysis according to integrative methodology shortened version of SaV analysis of palaeographic variants specialized extension of SaV (PNs) extension of SaP acquisition of specialized vocabulary (DNs) acquisition of varied vocabulary (material objects, flora and fauna, geography) acquisition of specialized vocabulary (professions and human attributes/categories) analysis of simple compounds according to integrative methodology acquisition of selected simple compounds acquisition of selected simple compounds acquisition of selected simple compounds acquisition of complex compounds and their analysis according to integrative methodology

Table 3. Presentational aspect by series Series

List type

Presentation of logograms Cf. 11.3. in Part 3.

Tu-ta-ti Svo SaV SaA1 SaA2 Sa SaP G Hh Lu Izi Kagal SagB Nigga Diri

elem. elem. elem. elem. elem. elem. elem. them. them. them. adv. adv. adv. adv. adv.

n/a ME-ME/ME.ME A/A SAR DAM A A D EN.LÍL UR 5 .RA

¶

no no yes no no no no no no no LÚ no NE(IZI) KÁ-GAL(KÁ.GAL) no SAG(SAĜ) no NÍG-GA/NÍĜ.GA no SI-A/DIRIG no

Graphic Presentation of repetition of EST/PST entry numbers (e.g. Hh 12.003a) logograms Division Key Sign Sub-entry n/a no yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes no no

xvii

1-18 1-2 frag. 1-4 frag. 1-9

001-005 001-122 001-215 001-050 216-243 001-215 001-215 001-091 001001001001-009 001-217 001-031 001-040

n/a .01-99 .01-99 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a a-z a-z a-z n/a a-z .01-99 .01-99

Part 1 - Text Edition Table 4. Parallel text editions Cf. the relevant methodological discussion in Chapter 14 of Part 3. * - references given only in composite edition (bracketed italics) - references not given st LBA OB Emar 1 Millennium series/ canonical peripheral equivalent division equivalent equivalent Tu-ta-ti Svo

-

(Nougayrol) 20 Nougayrol

(Kizilyay) 21 Sollberger

MSL edition volume n/a n/a

Sa(/V/P) G

MSL* 22 Weidner composite

Gantzert 23 (/ Nougayrol) Gantzert 24 / Nougayrol

(Scheil, Tanret) Weidner composite

III n/a

Hh 1

MSL Hh I composite

Hh 2 Hh 3a/.1b /.2b

MSL Hh II composite MSL Hh III composite MSL Hh IV composite

Veldhuis, SNT Veldhuis, SNT

V V V

MSL Hh V composite

Veldhuis, SNT

VI

MSL Hh VI composite

Veldhuis, SNT

VI

V

Hh 4

MSL Hh VIIa/b composite MSL Hh VIII MSL Hh IX -

Veldhuis, SNT (MSL OB Forerunner) (MSL OB Forerunner)

VI VII VII

Hh 6 Hh 7a/b

MSL Hh X MSL Hh XI MSL Hh XII

(MSL OB Forerunner) (MSL OB Forerunner) (MSL OB Forerunner)

VII VII VII

Hh 8a/b Hh 9a/b

(MSL OB Forerunner)

Hh 10 Hh 11

MSL Hh XIII (MSL RS Forerunner) 25 MSL Hh XIV composite MSL Hh XV composite MSL Hh XVI MSL RS+Alalakh Forerunner MSL Hh XVII MSL RS+Alalakh Forerunner

(MSL OB Forerunner) (MSL OB Forerunner) (MSL OB Forerunner)

VIII.1 VIII.2 IX X X

Hh 12 Hh 13

MSL Hh XVIII composite MSL Hh XIX MSL RS Forerunner

(MSL OB Forerunner)

VIII.2 X

Hh 14 Hh 15 Hh 16a/b

MSL Hh XX MSL Hh XXI

van Soldt, ‘Ugarit Version’ van Soldt, ‘Ugarit Version’ MSL RS Forerunner

(MSL OB Forerunner) (MSL OB Forerunner) (MSL OB Forerunner)

XI XI XI

Hh 5

(MSL Alalakh Forerunner) (MSL Alalakh Forerunner) (MSL Alalakh Forerunner)

MSL Hh XXII Hh 17 Hh 18 Lu 1

MSL Hh XXIII MSL Hh XXIV MSL LÚ=ša 26

-

(MSL OB Forerunner) (MSL OB Forerunner) MSL Proto-Lu

XI XI XII

Lu 2 Izi text 1 Izi text 2

MSL LÚ=ša 27 n/a n/a

n/a MSL Bogazköy A-B

MSL Proto-Lu MSL Proto-Izi I n/a

XII XIII XIII

Izi text 3

MSL Izi XV

n/a

n/a

XIII

Izi text 4

n/a

n/a

n/a

XIII

Kagal

MSL Kagal

-

n/a

Sag B Nigga Diri

XIII 28

n/a n/a

-

MSL Diri*

MSL Ugarit*

xviii

(MSL Proto-Sag) MSL OB Nigga* (MSL OB Diri)

SS 1 XIII XV

Tables and Key to the Text Edition

Table 5. Archaeological context T =Type I tablet / E = Type III tablet (extract) / fr = fragment(s) / n/u = not used in composite text Series/ Tablet Tu-ta-ti E1 Svo T1 Svo T2

Fragments edition numbers 601 603 A 603 B

Fragments museum numbers 7462 74246b 74199w+74256

M III NE M I NO M III NE

Svo fr

603 C 603 D 603 E 537 A 537 E 537 G 537 G’ 537 H 537 I 537 C 537 D 537 B 537 F 537 K 537 L 537 M 537 N 538 E 538 B+C 538 G 538 I 538 N 538 O 538 F 538 H 538 J 538 K 538 L 538 Q 538 R 538 D 538 U 538 A 538 M 538 P 538 S1 538 S2

74152c 74246a 74198c 74171b 74158a 7523b 7523a 74199d 7521 731064+74249a 74249b 74204a 74231a 74199t 7486a 74309 74199a 74132c 7469+7469a 74145 74175a 74152e 7484q 74133a+b 74148u 74193a 74228c 74117n 74127p 74133d 7483b 74123g 731080e 74117o 74107ao 7493h 7496d

M III NE M I NO M III NE M III NE M III SE Surface idem M III NE Surface M I NO idem M III NE M III SE M III NE idem M I NE M III NE M III SE M III NE idem idem idem idem M III NE idem idem M III SE M III NE idem idem M III NE M III SE Temple M 1 M III NE idem idem idem

SaV T1

SaV T2 SaV T3 SaV T4 SaV fr

Sa SaP T1

SaP T2

SaP fr SaP fr n/u

xix

Archaeological context

Part 1 - Text Edition

G T1

G fr n/u Hh 1T1 Hh 1T2 Hh 1T3 Hh 1 fr

Hh 1 fr n/u Hh 2T1

Hh 2T2 Hh 2T3

538 S3 538 S4 538 T1 538 T2 538 T3 538 T4 538 T5 539 A’+A’’ 539 B 539 C 539 D 539 E 541 A 541 C 541 E 541 D 541 B 541 Z 541 F 541 G 541 H 541 I 541 J 541 K 541 L 541 M=Hh 1 T4 541 N 541 O 541 P 541 Q 541 R 541 S 541 T 541 U 541 V 541 W 541 X 541 Y 541 AA 541 AB

74228b 74238x 7484p 7489h 74146r 74147k 74152h 74165i+74165j 7485j 74198n 74123f 7493j 731046 74342b 74248a 731059a-c 731044 731085l 74178b 731067 74171f 74106e+74221b 74122ba 74124a 74104h 74139 74104y 74132p 7496c 7490f 74198l 74293j 7498i 74164c 74122al 74101o 731084j 74107ax 74107av 74177c

M III SE M III NE idem idem M III SE M III NE idem M III SE M III NE idem M III SE M III NE Temple M 1 M IV SO M I NO Temple M 1 Temple M 1 idem M III NE Temple M 1 M III NE idem idem M III SE M III NE idem idem M III SE M III NE idem idem M I SO & M II NO M III NE M III SE M III NE idem Temple M 1 M III NE idem M III NE

542 A 542 E 542 I 542 R 542 V 542 B 542 D

74191a 74215b 74146h 7488a 74101x 731058 74342a

M III NE idem M III SE M III NE idem Temple M 1 M IV SO surface des déblais

xx

Tables and Key to the Text Edition Hh 2 fr

Hh 3aT1 Hh 3aT2 Hh 3b1T1 Hh 3b2T1 Hh 3 fr

Hh 4T1

542 C 542 F 542 G 542 H 542 J 542 K 542 L 542 M 542 N 542 O 542 P 542 Q 542 S 542 T 542 X 543-5 A 543 C 543 B 544-5 B 543 D 544 D 544 E 544 F 545 D’+D’’ 545 V 545 AA 545 AB 545 AC 545 AI 545 AV

74250 74127b 74298e 74217a 74118c 74217b 7491z 74129c 74164b 74132s 74137k 74112a 74132l 74204e 74232d 731030 74163b 7480a 731048 74171j 74114j 74107u 74104x 74209a+7526 74123a 74201a 74199j 74198ad 74209e 74232b

xxi

M I NO M III NE M I SO M III NE idem idem idem idem idem M III SE M III NE idem M III SE M III NE idem Temple M 1 M III NE M III NE Temple M 1 M III NE idem idem idem M III NE + surface M III SE Surface M III NE idem idem idem

Part 1 - Text Edition Hh 4T2

Hh 4T3 Hh 4E1 Hh 4E2 Hh 4 fr

545 C’+C’’ 545 E 545 F 545 G 545 H 545 J 545 K 545 L 545 N 545 O 545 P 545 Q 545 T 545 W 545 X 545 Y’+Y’’ 545 Z 545 AD 545 AE 545 AF 545 AG 545 AH 545 AJ 545 AK 545 AL 545 AM 545 AN 545 AP 545 AT 545 AW 545 AX 545 AY 545 U 545 AR 545 BA 545 I 545 M 545 S 545 AZ 545 R 545 AO 545 AQ 545 AS 545 BB

74233k+74233l 74234c 74233h 7498f 74211 74233t 74238d 74158f 74146n 7498m 74172c 74233f 74234m 74216e 74107w 74146g+74150c 74233b 74198i 74204c 74233e 74126a 74197h 74107d 74196k 74238h 74103w 74201e 74147f 74204b 74234o 74123h 74238i 74190c 74209c 7498j 7448 74114d 74109b 74178c 74190i 74122e 7496j 74105d 7481c

xxii

M III NE idem idem idem idem idem idem M III SE idem M III NE M III SE M III NE idem idem idem M III SE + M III NE M III NE idem idem idem idem idem idem idem idem idem idem idem idem idem M III SE M III NE M III NE idem idem M III NE M III NE idem idem M III NE ìdem idem idem idem

Tables and Key to the Text Edition Hh 5T1

Hh 5 fr

Hh 5 fr n/u

Hh 6 fr

Hh 7aT1 Hh 7aT2 Hh 7aT3 Hh 7a fr Hh 7bT1 Hh 7bE1 Hh 7bE2 Hh 7b fr

Hh 7b fr n/u

546 A’+A’’ 546 I 546 K 546 M 546 N 546 O 546 P 546 B 546 C 546 D 546 E 546 F 546 H 546 G 546 J 546 L 546 Q 547 A 547 D 547 F 547 G 548-9 D 548-9 K 548-9 Z 548-9 B 548-9 J FVH 548 Q 548-9 W 548 H 39=548 C 548 G 548 A 548 E 548 F 548 I 548 L 548 M 548 N 548-9 O+AK 548 P 548-9 S 548 V 548 AA 548 AB 548 AC 549 AF 548 R 548 T

74155+74191b 74122g 7484s 74106c 7491o 7487c 74171e 74261e 74107v 74148d 7482g 7487j 74190e 7491e 74132i 74127f 74107ad 74160f 74206b 74119c 74199b 74247 731054 74278 74105a 74171c MVF IV/75-2505 731084z 74128o 74166a 73265 74148a 74103b 74104i 74159k 74156e 74156b 74156a 74122ae 74148k+74172a 74233g 74154 74123a 74107l 74198q 74122ag 74160e 7481p 74198o

xxiii

M III NE idem idem idem idem idem idem M I NO M III NE idem idem idem idem M III NE M III SE M III NE idem M III NE idem idem idem M I NO Temple M 1 Temple M 1 déblais M III NE M III NE antiquities market Temple M 1 M III SE M III NE Chantier C M III NE M III NE idem M III SE idem idem idem M III NE M III NE + M III SE M III NE idem M III SE M III NE idem idem idem M III NE idem

Part 1 - Text Edition

Hh 8aT1’ Hh 8bT1 Hh 8bT2 Hh 8b fr

Hh 9aT1 Hh 9bT1 Hh 9b fr Hh 10T1

Hh 10T2 Hh 10 fr

Hh 11 fr

548 U 548 X 548 Y 548 AD 548 AE 548 AF 548 AG 548 AH 548 AI 548 AJ 550 A 550 C 550 I 550 D 550 B 550 E 550 F 550 G 550 H B=551 B=552 A C=551 C=552 B 551 A’+A’’ 551 E 551 D 551 F 553 A’+A’’ 553 B 553 C 553 D 553 E 553 H 553 I’’ 553 J 553 K 553 N 553 O 553 P 553 F 553 G 553 I’ 553 L 553 M 553 Q 553 R 553 S 554 A 554 B 554 C 554 E

74160c 74128r 74124b 74122ah 7491m 7484b 74101v 7481d 7484c 7485l 731079 74240a 731080o 7520 74102d 7522 74146o 7476a 74104w 7342 731086 74137a+74171a 74123b 74190g 74160i 74203e+74230a 74198af 74242a 74238o 74209f 74233s 74198y 74107e 74199o 74200c 74204f 74199s 74248c 74178a 74127j 74148v 7489p 731082 731089f 74148ab 7481h 731040a 7491ac 731050 xxiv

idem M III SE idem M III NE idem idem idem idem idem idem Temple M 1 M I NO Temple M 1 M IV NO M III NE M IV NO M III SE M III NE idem surface Temple M 1 M III NE M III SE M III NE idem M III NE+M III SE M III NE M I NO M III NE idem idem idem idem idem idem idem idem M I NO M III NE idem idem idem Temple M 1 idem M III NE M III NE Temple M 1 M III NE Temple M 1

Tables and Key to the Text Edition

Hh 12T1

Hh 12E1 Hh fr n/u Hh 13T1’ Hh 13T2 Hh 13E1 Hh 13E2 Hh 13 fr Hh 14 fr

Hh 15T1 Hh 15E1 Hh 16aT1 Hh 16bT1 Hh 16bT2

Hh 16bE1 Hh 16b fr

554 F 554 G 554 H 555 A’+A’’ 555 B 555 C 555 D 555 E 555 F 555 G 555 H 555 J 555 L 555 M 555 N 555 O 555 K 555 I 556 B 556 C 556 E 556 G 556 A 556 D 556 H 557 A 557 B 557 C 557 D A=558 A=559 K K=558 K 558 A’ 558 D=559 I 558 B’+B’’=559 A 559 F 8C=558 C 8E=558 E=559 B 9C=559 C 9E=559 E 559 D 558 H’ 558 I 558 J 558 L 559 G 559 H

731089c 74107ad 74127m 7498c+74171d 74100c 74100a 74166d 74208c 74158r 74242b 7481n 74103e 74107aa 74165c 74122w 74123q 7467 74345f 74190j 74122b 7491a 74148m 74202 74149 74190m 731053 74147g 74159f 74171g 74129e 74104p 74234b 74198b 74115+74159ac 74199v 74227 74187 74158j 74122u 7455+74155b 74114h 74117b 74104g 74232f 74199b 74232a

xxv

idem M III NE idem M III NE idem idem idem idem M III SE M I NO M III NE idem idem M III SE M III NE M III SE M III NE M IV SO M III NE M III NE idem idem M III NE M III SE M III NE Temple M 1 M III NE M III SE M III NE M III NE idem M III NE M III NE M III NE+M III SE M III NE M III SE M III NE M III SE M III NE M III NE M III NE idem idem idem idem idem

Part 1 - Text Edition Hh 16b fr n/u

Hh 17T1’

Hh 17 fr n/u Hh 18T1’

Hh 18 fr n/u Lu 1T1

Lu 1T2

558 F 558 G 558 H’’ 558 M 558 N 559 J 559 K 560 A 560 B 560 C 560 D 560 E 560 F 560 G 560 I 560 J 561 A 561 B 561 C 561 D 561 E 561 F 561 G 561 H 561 I 561 K 561 J 602 A’+A’’ 602 N 602 U 602 AI 602 D 602 F 602 G 602 H 602 S 602 AE 602 AF

74129d 74158k 7490c 74238v 74238w 74117g 74122au 7496b 74105k 74118a 74186 74271 74113a 74107o 74107ab 74199p 74217b 74234d 7491p 7489l 74127d 74160g 74208b 731084o 74109a 74197d 74143k 74121 74148p 74232e 74106e 74148b 74148l 74134d 74135j 74146d 74129d 74146t

xxvi

M III NE M III SE M III NE idem idem idem idem M III NE idem idem idem M I NO M III NE idem idem M III NE M III NE idem idem idem idem idem idem Temple M 1 M III NE idem M III NE M III NE idem idem idem M III NE idem idem idem M III SE M III NE M III SE

Tables and Key to the Text Edition Lu 1 fr

Lu 1 fr n/u

Lu 2T1

Lu 2E1 Lu 2 fr n/u Izi 1T1

Izi 1 fr Izi 1 fr n/u Izi 2A fr

Izi 2A fr n/u Izi 2BT1

602 B 602 C+I 602 E’ 602 J 602 K+O 602 R 602 V 602 W 602 Y 602 Z 602 AA 602 AD 602 Q 602 T 602 AB 602 AG 602 AH 602 E’’ 602 L 602 M 602 P 602 X 602 AK 602 AL 602 AM 602 AN 602 AO 602 AP 602 AQ 602 AJ 602 AC 567 A 567 B 567 C 567 E 567 F 567 H 567 D 567 G 564 A 565 B 566 C G+H D E F 568 A 568 B 578 C

74113b 7496a+74147c 74158d 74148c 7486d+7495c 74117k 74122o 74214c 74114c 74260 74107f 7495a 7496i 74232k 74103r 731075p 74132u 74169a 74148af 74134c 74158i 74148w 74122c 74178e 74101d 74102l 74104b 74159a 74198e 74158e 74232d 7494b 74105b 74122i 74248b 74123k 74122ab 74122h 74232j 7490b 7491ae 7498e 74238n+74127n 74198u 7479b 74198r 74164a 74259 74146f

xxvii

M III NE idem M III SE M III NE idem idem idem idem idem M I NO M III NE idem M III NE idem idem Temple M 1 M III SE M III NE idem idem M III SE M III NE idem idem idem idem idem M III SE M III NE M III SE M III NE M III NE idem idem M I NO M III SE M III NE M III NE idem M III NE idem idem idem M III NE idem idem M III SE idem idem

Part 1 - Text Edition Izi 3 fr Izi 4E1 Izi 4 fr Izi 4 fr n/u Kagal fr Sag B T1 Nigga T1 Nigga fr n/u

Diri fr 1 Diri fr 2 Diri fr 3

Diri fr 4

Diri fr 5 Diri fr 6 Diri fr 7 Diri fr 8 Diri fr n/u Unidentified

577 A+B 572 571 A+B 571 C 571 D 576 575 BLT 573 A 573 C 573 B 574 A 574 B 574 C 586 540 A 540 F

74191c+7484l 7433 74199l+74198w 7478c 731075j 74166b 731055 n/a 74103a+74104a 74106b 74103c 74190h 7480b 74100f 7488f 74152b 74133i

M III NE M III NE M III NE M III NE Temple M 1 M III NE Temple M 1 antiquities market M III NE idem M III NE idem idem idem idem M III NE M III NE

540 B 540 K 540 M 540 N 540 C 540 D 540 E 540 O 540 G 540 J 540 K 540 H 9=540 O 10=540 Q 539 E 588 590 592 595 597

74146a 74199i 74198z 74238r 74254c 74160a 74165e 74128c 74128k 74159g 74198d 74107ag 74152g 74152a 7489c 74101h 7491k 74112b 74123p 74132h

M III SE M III NE idem idem M III SE M III NE M III SE idem M III SE M III SE M III NE M III NE M III NE idem M III NE idem idem idem M III SE idem

xxviii

Tables and Key to the Text Edition KEY TO THE TEXT EDITION Note that the varying presentational forms used in the edition in the different series are explained in paragraph 11.3. of Part 3 and summarized in Organizational Table 3 above. Tablet and fragment identification: Tablet/Extract 1 000 A 000 ‘B’

-

(00000 – p.000)

-

A-Z

-



reconstructed tablet (often consisting of several fragments) fragment identified by Arnaud (Emar VI 4 edition number ) fragment identified in the Civil review (AuOr 7 (1989) 5-25) and here added to the texts edited by Arnaud fragment identified by museum number and page number of publication (Emar VI 1-2) fragments - identification in line count column fragments - join identification within the text

Entries: LARGE (LARGE)

regular-uppercase

SMALL.CAPS

SMALL.CAPS.UPPERCASE

regular italics

italics-uppercase

: ↑↓ → ruling ?

-

x [x o] [...] [] break

-

! (!...) <> << >> --

-

┌┐

└┘

grapheme: identification of sign by first value listed in AbZ graphic form of preceding sign pronunciation gloss logogram determinative or Sumerian phonetic complement phonetic Sumerian or sign name phonetic Akkadian Akkadian phonetic complement separation marker (discussed in paragraph 12.2. of Part 3) entry continues vertically upward, downward or between lines entry overlaps onto or from other side of the tablet horizontal ruling on tablet; note that continuous ruling (i.e. ruling of all entries in a given text) is only indicated in a comment preceding a text sign reading questionable damaged sign with broken corners damaged sign unreadable gap in text with estimated number of omitted signs gap in text with unknown number of missing signs tablet surface damaged but presumably no signs missing for tablets only: indication of broken column (for loose fragments a break is always assumed to follow the text unless the indication ‘end of column’ is specifically given) emendation of malformed sign emendation of preceding sign omitted sign unwarranted sign initial key word omitted but assumed

xxix

Elementary Sign-lists * Tu-ta-ti ELEMENTARY SIGN-LISTS 0. Tu-ta-ti Extract 1 - 601 (7462 – p.197) This extract tablet has an excerpt of a TU-TA-TI-like exercise used to practice Hurrian phonemes, followed by what seems to be an epistolary exercise 29 . Obverse 1. 001 2. 002 3. 003 4. 004

wu-u : pu-u wa-a : pa-a we-e : pè-e wi-i : pí-i

Reverse 5. 005 6. 7. 8. -

wu-ú : pu-ú aš-šum 1 GIĜ 4 KUG.BABBAR ┘ šá IDKUR.EN aš-šum LAGABxX 30

Upper Edge 9. 10.

I

a-bi-i-la-i kàr-ba 31

I

1

Part 1 - Text Edition 1. Syllable Alphabet A Vocabulary Tablet 1 – 603 A (74246b – p.569-70) Obverse I 1. 001.01 2. .02 3. .03 4. .04 5. .05 6. .06 7. .07 8. .08 9. .09 10. 002.01 11. .02 12. 003.01 13. .02 14. .03 15. .04 16. 004.01 17. .02 18. 005.01 19. .02

[ME-ME [

DIĜIR]

┌lu

4

m]a-lu-lu 4 sà-ar-ru háb-ba-tu 4 mu-ut-ha-li-lu 4 lu DIĜIR 4 ma-du-tu 4 D GU.LA D

NISABA ! DIĜIR.MEŠ ù UMUN(!ÚMUN).KI D

[PA]P-PAP

DUMU.MÍ PAP.SUKKAL D NISABA

A-A

a-bu D NÈ.ERI 11 .GAL D NIN.É.GAL D É.A a-bi-a-bi D É.A D NIN.GAL i-ta-ad-du-ú

A-A-A KU-KU

20. 21. 22. 23.

006.01 .02 .03 .04

[LU]-LU

šu-qal-lu-lu 4 du-uš-šu-ú ri-i-ú D LUGAL.BÀN/MAR 5 .DA

24. 25. 26. 27. 28.

007.01 .02 .03 .04 .05

MAŠ

m[a]-šu-ú ša A.ŠAG 4 ma┐-šu-ú a-ša-re-du gur-ru bi-i◦t-ru

29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36.

008.01 .02 .03 .04 .05 .06 009.01 .02

MAŠ-MAŠ

D

37.

010.01

MAŠ-NI

D

38. 39.

011.01 .02

SI-GAG

qa-an-nu ku-zu-li-lu 4

┐

NIN.URTA ┌

┐

nu-ú- ru ma-šu-ú a-ši-pu nap-pí-lu 4 maš-ma-šu D MES.LAM.TA.È.A ṣ̣a-bi-tu 4

MAŠ-GAG

2

NIN.A.ZU

!

Elementary Sign-lists * Syllable Alphabet A Vocabulary 40. 012.01 41. .02 42. 013.03 43. 014.01 44. .02 45. 015.01 46. .02 47. .03 end of column

SI-NI

D

SI!-A U-BAR

D

EN.LÍL <>

D

UTU

NIN.ĜIŠ.ZI.DA <> PA 4 .NI 9 .ĜAR.RA

kiš-šat ma-tu 4 (!ti) nu-ú-ru ba-ru-ú ba-ra-ru

BAR-BAR

II line count 1-12 reconstructed as parallel to I 1. 015.00 2. .00 3. 016.00 LÁ-[LÁ 4. .00 5. 017.00 IGI-[BAR 6. .00 7. .00 8. 018.00 BAR-[IGI 9. .00 10. 019.00 IGI-[IGI 11. .00 12. .00 13. 020.00 IGI-IG[I-IGI 14. 021.00 A-[IGI 15. 022.00 A-IGI-IGI┐ 16. 023.01 ME-A 17. .02 18. 024.01 ME-NI 19. 025.01 AŠ-NI 20. 026.01 AŠ-UR 21. 027.01 NUN-NI 22. 028.01 NUN-UR 23. 029.01 A-KU 24. 030.01 LAGAB-A 25. 031.01 A-PAP 26. .02 <<ME?>> 27. 032.01 PAP-A 28. 033.01 A-AN 29. 034.01 AN-A 30. .02 31. .03 32. .04 33. .05 34. .06

[...] [...] …] [...] ...] [...] [...] …] [...] …] [...] [...] ...] ...] [...] ┌ ┐ te [-er-tu 4 ] u’-[ú-ru] KÁ É◦[.GAL] D ┌ ┐ É. A D NIN.UR D EN.LÍL D NIN.LÍL ši-ka-ru dan-nu ša KUR a-ru-tu 4 LÚ MUŠEN.DÙ háb-ba-tu 4 nu-ú DIĜIR.MEŠ za-na-an ša-me-e za-na-nu nu-ú DIĜIR.MEŠ D tu INANNA.MEŠ 4 ba-ni!-ia-t[u 4 ] ŠAG 4 RU-DA[M o]

3

Part 1 - Text Edition 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42.

035.01 036.01 037.01 038.01 .02 .00 039.00 040.00

m[a-du-tu 4 ] 32 ta-š[i-la-tu 4 ] ba-r[u-ú] ba[-ru-ú] e[m?-qu] [...] [...] [...]

KUR-BA KUR-U-TA ME-ZU ME-PI-ZU

UĜ.MEŠ

NI-ZU A-ZU ┘

43. 041.00 ZU-[ZU probably 3 lines missing before end of column

...]

Reverse III 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

042 043 044 045 046 047 048 049 050.01 051.01

NI[-BA NI-B[A-BA A-[BA A-BA-B[A BA-BA BA-BA-A BA-ZA BA-ZA-ZA NI-A A-NI

...] ...] ...] ...] [...] [...] x[...] 33 x[...] ši[-ga-ru] še-h[u]

11. 12.

052.01 053.01

TAB-NI KASKAL-NI

ma-ki┐[-su] ka-ra-š[u]

13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31.

054.01 055.01 056.01 057.01 058.01 .02 .03 059.01 060.01 061.01 062.01 063.01 064.01 065.01 066.00 067.00 068.00 069.00 070.00

NI-UR-BA BAD-NI BAD-NI-HI GIŠ-BAD NU-NU

še-i-qu┐ kal-ṣ̣u! gu 5 -šu-ú pi-ti uz-ni e-nu ša-mu-ú la a-mi-lu 4 la-a-ru si-tu 4 iš-ta-ra ┘ [-tu 4 ] a-ra-r[u] mu-ki-i[n-nu] la-a[p-nu] mu[š-ke-nu] x[...] [...] ...] ...] ...]

A-NU SAG-TAR SAG-TAR-DA-A SAG-AN SAG-AN-TUK SAG-KUR SAG-KUR-TA TAR-DA TAR-DA- └ A ┘ GABA-[GABA GABA-GA[BA-A NIN-[GABA 4

Elementary Sign-lists * Syllable Alphabet A Vocabulary 32. 33. 34.

071.00 072.00 073.00

...] ...] ...]

074.00

NIN-[EZEN NIN-[SUKKAL NIN-SUKKA[L-ANKA TÚL-[TA

35. 36. 37.

075.00 076.00

TAR-[TA É-[TA

...] ...]

38. 39. 40.

077.00 078.00 079.00

É-TA[R-DA AN-[DÙL AN-AN[-DÙL

...] ...] ...]

i-li Éti la-ma-as-su ka-lu eb-bu ta-li-mu ĜIŠ a-šum ub-bu-bu el-lu 4 el-lu-lu 4 mu-ú-tu 4 mu-ta-nu nu-uz-zu NIR ša-ka-an la-ši-mu

...]

end of column IV 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

080.01 081.01 082.01 .02 .03 083.01 084.01 085.01 086.01 087.01 088.01 089.01 090.01 091.01 092.01 093.01 094.01 095.01 096.01 097.01 098.01

AN-GÁ AN-KAL UD-MA

22. 23.

099.01 100.01

[IGI-] └ BA-UR [HU]-HU

ša-il-tu 4 LÚ

NAGAR SIMUG

LÚ

pur-qúl-lu 4

UD-UD-MA UD-GA UD-UD-GA AN-GÀR GÀR-AN AN-ÁŠ KU(!ÁŠ)-AN AN-BA AN-BA-NI AN-NI AN-NI-ZU HI-GA HI-HI-GA ME-HI └ ME-HI-GA [I]GI-BA-NI

D

INANNA MUL

šar-rù ma-li-ku LÚ

NAR

LÚ

NAR.GAL

a-lu-zi-in-nu aš-ta-lu ša-i-lu

24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29.

101.01 102.01 103.01 104.01 105.01 106.01

[HU]-BA ┌ HU┐-UR HU-RU AN-Ú Ú-A Ú-TA

LÚ

30. 31.

107.01 108.01

PA-PA PA-GÁ

LÚ

LÚ

TIBIRA

LÚ

TA(!DUG-QA)-BUR=BAHAR MÁ.LAH 4 LÚ BUR(!KUG).DÍM LÚ

ra-qu-ú nu-ú 5

Part 1 - Text Edition 32. 33. 34.

109.01 110.01 111.01

PA-PA-GÁ └ A-A-UR [A]N-UR

ši!-la-nu pur-šu-mu D NA.BU.UM

35. 36.

112.01 113.01

[NI-]NI : NI-HI-GA [NI-]NI-A

DIĜIR

37. 38. 39. 40.

114.01 115.01 116.01 117.01

[NI-N]I-NI [NI-NI]-NI-A [AB]-BA [AB-BA-] └ MU

Ì

41. 42. 43. 44.

118.01 119.01 120.01 121.01

[AB-BA-] └ NI [AB-BA-]◦A [AB-BA-URU] [IGI-SU 4

a-bu-šu ši-ib-šu pur-šu-mu └ a ┘ -bi a-ši-ib a-lì D T]IŠPAK

[SU 4

D

45. 122.01 end of column

ba-al-ti Ì ru-uq-qu-ú šim-še[-l]i Ì re-eš-[t]u 4 a-bu ši-┌bu a-bi : ši-bi

Lower Edge Colophon ID 34 1. ŠU EN.x[...] Ì.ZU.TUR.TUR D D D 2. ÌR AK [u NISABA] u a-a

Š]UŠI[NAK](M]Ù[Š-EREN])

(By) the hand of Bēlu-[?qarrad], junior scribe, servant of Nabû [and Nisaba] and Ayya.

Tablet 2 - 603 B (74199w+74256 – p. 497) Obverse I 1’B 2’ 3’ 4’ 5’ 6’ 7’ 8’ 9’ 10’ 11’ 12’ 13’ 14’ 15’ 16’ 17’ 18’ 19’ 20’

006.04 007.01 .02 .03 .04 .05 008.01 .02 .04 .03 .06 009.01 .02 .03 010.01 011.01 .02 .03 .04 <012>.02

D

[LU-LU [MAŠ [] [] [] [] [MAŠ.MAŠ] [ [ [] [] [MAŠ]-GAG [] [] [MAŠ]-NI [SI]-GAG [] [] [] []

?

?

LUG]AL .B[ÀN/MAR 5 .DA]

ma-]┌šu-u šá ┌A┐.Š[AG 4 ] ma-šu-u a-šá-re-du 4 gur-ru bi-iq-rù D NI◦N.URTA nu-u]-rù a-š]i-pu ma┐-┌šu-u maš-ma-šu-u D MES.LAM.TA.È.A ṣ̣a-bi-tu 4 u-ma-mu D NIN.A.ZU qa-an-nu ku-zu-ul-lu 4 ub-bu-bu D D

6

SIRIS PA 4 .NI 9 .ĜAR.RA

Elementary Sign-lists * Syllable Alphabet A Vocabulary 21’ 22’ 23’ 24’ 25’ 26’ 27’ 28’ 29’ 30’ 31’ 32’ 33’ 34’

?012.03 .04 ?013.01 ?014.01 .02 015.01 .02 .03 .04 .05 016.01 .02 .03 .04

[?SI-NI] 35 [] [?SI-A] [?U-BAR] [ [BAR-BA]R [] [] [] [] [LÁ.L]Á [ [ []

ki-i-la

◦D

IŠTARAN

◦D

EN.LÍL

◦D

šá-m[aš] k]iš-šat ma[-t]i nu-u-[ru] ba-ru-┌u┐ ba-ra-rù i-tab-ru-rù šu-tab-ru-rù u-ku-u tam-]ṭa-tu 4 k]i-ru-us-sú └ iš-pi-pi-t[u 4 ]

end of column II 1’B 2’ 3’ 4’ 5’ 6’ 7’ 8’ 9’ 10’ 11’ 12’ 13’ 14’ 15’

034.00 .00 .00 .00 035.01 036.01 037.01 .02 038.01 .02 .03 .04 .05 039.01 .02

16’ 17’ 18’ 19’ 20’ 21’ 22’

040.01 .02 041.01 .02 .03 .04 .05

AN-┌A┐

[...] [...] x[...] 36 a-┌na?┐ xx[o] [UĜ.M]EŠ ma-d[u-tu 4 ] t◦a-ši-la-tu 4 [b]a-rù-u mu-di pár-ṣ̣i┐ ba-rù-u [e]m-qu [lu]m!-mu-du 4 la-ma-du 4 ha-si-su ba-rù-u mu-di Ì.ME[Š]

KUR-BA [KUR-U]-TA [ME]-ZU [] ME-PI┐-[Z]U

NI-┌ZU┐ A-ZU

ba-rù-u mu-di A.ME[Š] ba-rù-u em-qu lum-mu-du 4 la-ma-du 4┘ ha-si-su

ZU-ZU

about 10 lines missing before end of column

7

Part 1 - Text Edition Fragments: 603 C (74152c – p.384) Reverse III 1’C 075.00 2’ 076.00 3’ 077.00 4’ .00 5’ 078.00 6’ 079.00 7’ 080.01 8’ 081.01

TAR!-[TA É-x[ 37 É-TAR-DA

...] ...] [...] [...] [...] x[...] D◦ [...] [...]

AN-DÙL AN-AN-DÙL AN-GÁ └ AN ┘ -KAL ┘

break IV a few signs belonging to unidentified entries including (with overlap into III 4’): […]x ZA-MUŠ → A.MEŠ i-du-u 603 D (74246a – p.586) Obverse I 1. 001.01 2. .02

[ME-ME [

DIĜIR ] 4

break II a few traces Reverse III 1’ 069.00 2’ 070.00 3’ 071.00

[GA]B-GA[B-A [N]IN-GABA NIN-[EZEN

...] [...] ...]

NIN-[SUKKAL NIN-SUKKAL[ -AN-KA TÚL-[TA TAR-[TA É-[TA É-TA[R-DA

...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...]

AN-[DÙL AN-AN-[DÙL

...] ...]

[NI-NI : NI-HI-GA [NI-NI-A [NI-NI-NI [NI-NI-NI-A

DIĜIR

4’ 5’

072.00 073.00

6’ 7’ 8’ 9’

074.00 075.00 076.00 077.00

10’ 078.00 11’ 079.00 end of column IV 1’ 112.01 2’ 113.01 3’ 114.01 4’ 115.01

l u

ma-lu-]l◦u 4

8

ba-al-t]i Ì ru-uq-qu]-ú Ì šim-še-l]i Ì re-eš-t]u

Elementary Sign-lists * Syllable Alphabet A Vocabulary 5’ 6’ 7’ 8’ 9’

116.01 117.01 121.00 119.01 120.01

a-bu : ši-]┌bu a-bi : ši]-bi I]GI-SU 4 pur-šu-m]u? a-š]i-ib a-lì

[AB-BA [AB-BA-MU [ [AB-BA-A [AB-BA-URU

end of column 603 ‘E’ (ex-787 74198c – p.486) 38 III’ 39 1. 047.01 [BA-BA-A 2. 048.01 [BA-ZA] 3. 049.01 [BA-ZA-ZA] 4. 050.01 [NI-A] 5. 051.01 [A-N]I 6. 052.01 [TAB-NI 7. 053.01 [KASKAL-NI 8. 054.01 [NI-UR-BA

p]ur-šu-ma ↑ZA-A[Š? ooo] LÚ └ pe-es-sú-u B[A.ZA] MUNUS B[A-ZA-ZA] └ pe-es-sú-tu 4 ni-ka-rù BA . ZA [] └ a-hu-u LÚLA-x[...] m]a-ki-sú ZA-[...] k]a-ra-šu [] še-] └ i ┘ - └ qu []

9

Part 1 - Text Edition 2.1. Syllabary A Vocabulary (includes bilingual Syllabary A Appendix 1) Tablet 1 40 consisting of: 537 A (74171b – p.429-32) 537 E (74158a – p.389-90) 537 G (7523b – p.732) 537 G’ (7523a – p.732) 537 H (74199d – p.491) 537 I (7521 – p.730) Obverse I 1.A 001.01 2. .02 .03 3. 4. .04 .05 5. 6. .06 .07 7. .08 8. .00 9. .09 10. .10 11. 12. .11 .12 13. .13 14. .14 15. .15 16. .16 17. 18. .17 int(1) 19. int(2) 20. 21. int(3) 22. int(4)

¶ ¶a ¶ a-a ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ dú-IR(!ru) ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶

A A A A A A A A vacat A A A A A A A A A DIŠ HI E Á

iš 8 -tár ma-za-ru re-eš-tu 4 vacat re-mu-tu 4 ba-ba-lu 4 ki-ir-rù ni-is-sà-tu 4 mu-ú ha-pí-pu-tu 4 ki-iš-ša-tu 4 šu-ut-te-tu 4 zi-nu ra ┘ - └ at-bu A A A A

23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31.

002.01 .02 .03 .04 .05 003.01 .02 .03 .04

¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶

ŠUR ŠUR ŠUR ŠUR ŠUR PAD PAD PAD PAD

za-na-nu ra-ma-a-ku D iš 8 -tár ri-i-bu ha-la-pu ku-ru-um-ma-tu 4 ka-ra-a-rù hi-ir-su ki[-ir-ṣụ́ ]

32. 33. 34.

.00 .05 .06

¶ bad ¶ ¶

PAD PAD PAD

x[...] ka-┌sà┐[-pu] nap-ta-[nu]

mu-u a-bu a-bu a-bi lì

DIĜIR D A.A D

10

Elementary Sign-lists * Syllabary A Vocabulary 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46.

004.01 a.01 a.00 005.01 .02 .03 .04 .05 .06 .07 .08 .09

¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ha-ar ¶ ¶ ur ¶ ar ¶ MIN ¶ ki

54. ¶ 55. [¶ probably 4 lines missing 60.E 009.00 ¶ ti 61. ?.05 ¶ da-a[l 62. 010.00 ¶ 63. .01 ¶ 64. .02 ¶ ka-aš 65. 011.01 ¶ 66. .02 ¶ li ¶ za-al 67. .03 68. ¶ ti-gil .04 69. ¶e .05 70. 012.01 ¶ 71. .02 ¶ še-er ¶ ki-id 72. .03 73. ¶ šu-šar 41 013.01 74. 014.01 ¶ 75. .02 ¶ tu-uš 76. .03 ¶ 77. .04 ¶ 78. .05 ¶ 79. .06 ¶ dur 80. .07 ¶ še 81. .08 ¶ tu-kúl end of column II 1.A 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

015.03 .04 016.01 .02 .03 017.01 .02 .03

¶ ¶ ú-du ¶ ¶ šu ¶ il-lu-ur ¶ ¶ za-ah ¶ ku-ú

ŠIR ŠIR-RUM ŠIR-RUM HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR

bi-ra iš-ku x[...] ha-[šu-ú] ka-b[i?-tu 4 ] tu-li-mu ha-ar-rù se-e-mé-rù a-ra-rù ṭe 4 -e-nu sà-mi-du e-ru-ú

[x x



[RI RI BI┐ BI BI LÚ(!NI) NI NI NI NI BU BU BU ŠUD KU KU KU KU KU KU KU KU

...] ...] [...] qa-b[u] ši-ka-r[u] šu-ú le-e-u še-e-mu-u nir-bu ša-am-nu nu-ú-rù su-ú-qu pu-uh-rù ri!-ša-a-tu 4 ṣ̣a-la-lu 4 a-na i-na šu-ub-tu 4 ṣ̣u-ba-a-tu 4 šu-bu-ú!-rù eb-lu a-ša-bu

LU LU RU RU RU HA HA HA

ṣ̣a-ba-tù im-mé-rù na-du-u ma-qa-tu 4 tal-pa-a-nu ha-lu-ú ha-la-qu nu-ú-nu



11

...-d]u ...-d]u

Part 1 - Text Edition 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.

018.01 .02 .03 019.01 .02 020.01 .02 021.01 .02 .03 int(5) 022.01 023.01 .02 .03 int(6) 024.00

¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ hu-ub ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ tu-ga ¶ za-tar ¶ ¶

PEŠ PEŠ PEŠ LI LI LA LA LUM LUM LUM LAM └ SIG 4 ŠID ŠIDmaš ŠID NUMUN Z[U

5 lines missing (in 26-27 only ¶ preserved) 31.G 028.02 [¶ NA] 32. .03 [¶ NA] 33. .04 [¶ NA] 34. 029.01 [¶ BA] 35. .02 [¶ BA] 36. 030.01 [¶ ZI] 37. .02 [¶ ZI] 38. .03 [¶ Z]I 39. .04 [¶ Z]I ┌ 40. 031.01 [¶] GI 41. .02 [¶] GI 42. .03 [¶] GI 43. 032.01 ¶ GI 4 44. 033.01 ¶ GIM GIM 45. ¶ te .02 ¶ GIM 46. .03 47. 034.01 ¶ PAN ¶ ŠAG 4 -GAD 42 48. int(10) ¶ MA 49. 035.01 ¶ MA 50. .02 ¶ MA .03 51. ¶ MU 036.01 52. ¶ MU .02 53. ¶ MU 54. .03 ¶ MU .04 55. ¶ MU .00 56. probably 1 line missing

12

li-pu ma-rù še-hu-u li-li-i-tu 4 za-ma-rù la-lu-u la-ha-a-nu un-nu-bu uš-šu-bu e-ṣ̣e-em-tu 4 uš-šu-bu li-bi-it-tu 4 ku-ur- └ ba-nu mi-iš-[l]a-nu za-a[d!-r]u-u [ze-]rù ...] ┌

na┐-┌pa┐-┌ṣ̣u┐ lì

DIĜIR

la-a šu-ú su-pí-in-nu na-pu-ul-tu 4 ki-it-it(!tu 4 ) te-e-bu-u na-si-ih-tu 4 ki-i-nu ki-it-tu 4 qa-nu-u tá-a-rù ki-i-ma e-pè-šú i-tin-nu qa-al-tu 4 ma-at-nu tu

KUR 4

ti-it-tu 4

ĜIŠ

MÁ

ia-a-u ša-at-tu 4 šu-mu └ zi-ik ┘ -r[u] [...]

Elementary Sign-lists * Syllabary A Vocabulary 58.E 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78.

036.05 .06 .07 .08 .09 .10 .00 037.01 .02 038.01 .02 .03 039.01 .00 .02 .03 .04 .05 .06 040.00 -

¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ke-eš ¶ né-eš ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ga-ar ¶ x[

MU MU MU MU MU MU MU └ TAH T[AH] GIŠ GIŠ GIŠ GÁ GÁ GÁ GÁ GÁ GÁ GÁ GÁN 44 x

nu-ha-ti-im-m[u] a-pu i-na a-na ni-šu-u re-eṣ̣-ṣ̣u A-AŠ MIN re-eṣ-ṣu na-ra-rù [i-ṣ̣u-]◦ú ha-aṭ┐-ṭ[u] ša-mu-[u] a-na-ku DAG 43 tu 4 pi-še-en ┘ [-nu] a-i(!ia) i-na a-na i-ŠA(!da)-t[u 4 ] x[...] ...]

probably 1 line missing before end of column III 1.A 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23.

041.01 .02 042.01 043.01 044.01 .02 .03 045.01 .02 .03 .04 .05 .06 .07 .08 046.01 .02 .03 .04 .05 047.01 .02 .03

¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶

EN EN IN IRI EL EL EL IGI IGI IGI IGI IGI IGI IGI IGI HI HI HI HI HI KAM(HIXBAD) KAM(HIXBAD) KAM(HI-BAD)

13

be-lu LUGAL

ti-ib-nu a-lu el-lu te-lu-ul-tu 4 ar-da-tu 4 mad-du 4 sà-ar-rù le-em-nu be-t◦u-nu┐ mah-ru e-nu na-ṭá-a-lu 4 nap-lu-su e-ṣ̣e-em-tu 4 ṭá-a-bu ri ┘ -šá-tu 4 bá-a◦r-kú ma-‘a-du el-lu 4 me-ri-iš-tu 4 di-qa-a-rù

Part 1 - Text Edition 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30.G 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51.H 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58.

048.01 .02 .03 .04 049.01 050.01 051.01 .02 .03 052.01 .02 .03 .04 .05 053.01 .00 .02 .03 .04 .05 .06 054.01 055.01 .02 .03 .04 .05 .06 .07 .08 056.01 .02 .03 .04 .05

¶ ¶ ša-a ¶ dì-kar ¶ MIN [¶] [¶] ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ si ¶ kal ¶ ¶ te ¶ be ¶ ri? ¶ dah ¶ kum ¶ i-zi ¶ ¶ ¶ bi ¶ zu ¶ i![- n]im ¶ d u ¶ gi-ri ¶ MIN ¶ MIN └¶ [¶] [¶] [¶ [¶

AN AN AN AN NAB MUL HAL HAL HAL UR UR UR UR UR NE NE NE NE NE NE NE BÍL KA ┘ KA KA KA KA KA KA KA SAĜ SAĜ SAĜ └ SAĜ ┘ SAĜ]

59. traces only break

14

ša-mu-u er-ṣ̣e-tu 4 lì

DIĜIR

a-mi-lu nab-bu ka-ak-ka-bu pí-ri-iš-tu 4 ba-ru-u ša-mu-u ◦a-mi-lu qar ┘ - └ ra-du ba-a[š-t]u 4 er-ṣ̣e┐[-t]u 4 kal-ba-tu 4 ni-šu-u te 9 -em-x 45 x-nu qú-ut-rù pu-luh ┘ -tu 4 ri-i◦[-ṣ]u [um]-m[u] ◦i-ša-tu 4 eš-šu pu-u ma-ga-rù ši-in-nu a-ma-tu 4 qa-bu-u ap-pu ri-ig-mu ik-ki-il-lu ki-iš-ša-tu 4 a-mi-lu qa-aq-qa-du pa-nu └ pu-u-tu

Elementary Sign-lists * Syllabary A Vocabulary IV 1.A 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29.I 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41.

066.01 .02 .03 067.01 .02 .03 .00 .04 .05 .00 .06 .07 .08 .09 .10 .11 068.01 .02 .03 .04 .05 .06 070.01 .02 071.01 .02 .03 072.01 073.01 .02 074.01 075.01 .02 076.01 .02 077.01 a.01 078.01 .02 .03 a.01

¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ áš ¶ ¶ └¶┘ [¶ [¶ ┌ ┐ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ti-l[a ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ be-er ¶ za-la ¶ u-tù ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ [¶] [¶] ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ šu-te ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶

ÚH ÚH ÚH AŠ AŠ AŠ AŠ AŠ AŠ [AŠ [AŠ [AŠ [AŠ AŠ [AŠ A[Š] UD UD UD UD UD UD AD AD TA TA TA DA TI TI UM DUB 46 DUB MES MES AM AM-SI IM IM IM IM-TE

a-bu ra-bu-u iš-tu i-na a-na ṭe-hu-tu 4 ba-la-ṭu ṣ̣e-e-lu um-mu ṭup-pu ṭup-šar-rù eṭ-lu mi-nu-ú-tu 4 ri-i-mu ri-im-tu 4 ša-a-rù zi-nu ṭì-i-du ra-ma-nu

42. 43. 44.H

079.01 .02 .03

¶ ¶ mi-il ┌ ┐ ¶

IŠ IŠ IŠ

ba!-a-ṣụ id-ru e-pè-ru

└

su-ha

uh-hu r[u]-ú-tu 4 ra-pu-ul-tu 4 it-tu it-te-tu 4 [i-n]a x-né-el-↑tu 4 ma-]ah-rù ma-]ha-rù xx] gi-i]t-ma-lu iš-t]a-nu i]š-te-nu tu E]GIR 4 ma-‘a-du └ ma ┘ -‘a-du-tu 4 [e-n]u-ma u-mu tá-li-im-mu pe- └ ṣụ -u nam-r[ù] D

15

UTU

Part 1 - Text Edition ra-bu-u

¶ ¶ ¶

GAL NUN NUN NUN NUN NUN-ME <<-T[AG>> ME M[E M[E

¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶i ¶ ¶ ¶ ul-lu-ti ¶ x -ri ¶ ú - x-hu ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶

MI MI MI MI DUGUD GIG DIN DIN ZUR ZUR SISKUR UZ TU TU TU TU TU ÍB ÍB EGIR DIM UL 4 47 vacat vacat MAR MAR MAR [D]IB TAB TA[B LU[H LU[H

ek-le-ti mi-lu mu-šu ṣ̣a-al-mu kab-tu 4 mar-ṣ̣u ba-la-ṭu ku-ru-nu ku-un-nu-u bu-ú-rù ni-qu-ú<<-nu>> ú-su su-um-ma-tu 4 ši-ip-rù a-la-du el-lu 4 ra-ma-ku el-lu 4 qa-ab-lu 4 ar-ka-tu 4 te-e-mu ar-hi-iš vacat vacat mar-ru ša-ka-nu ri-it-tu 4 ṣ̣a-ba-tu 4 tap ┘ -pu-u e-ṣ̣]e-┌pu me-s]u-u ...]

45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50.

080.01 081.01 .02 .03 .00 a.01

¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ zi ¶ ab-gal

51. 52. 53.

082.00 .00 .00

LUGAL

ru!-bu-u ┘ ra-b[u-u] x[...] ...] [...] ...] ...]

54-55. (part) of ¶ only break V 1.A 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.I 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32.

083.01 .02 .03 .04 084.02 085.01 086.01 .02 087.01 .02 088.01 089.01 090.01 .02 .03 .04 .05 091.01 .02 092.01 093.01 int(10) int(10) int(10) 094.01 .02 .03 096.01 097.01 .02 098.01 .00

16

Elementary Sign-lists * Syllabary A Vocabulary 33. 099.00 34. .00 35. .00 36. .00 37. .00 38. 100.00 39. .00 40. .00 41. .00 42. .00 43-44. (part of) ¶ only break Reverse VII break 1’A 137.01 2’ .02 3’ 138.01 4’ .02 5’ .03 6’ 139.01 7’ .02 8’ .03 9’ .04 10’ .05 11’ int(12) 12’ int(12) 13’ int(12) 14’ 140.01 15’ .02 16’ 141.01 17’ .02 18’ .03 19’ .04 20’ .05 21’ 142.01 22’ 143.01 23’ 144.01 24’ 145.01 25’ .02 26’ .03 27’ .04 28’ .05 29’ a.01 30’ 146.01 31’ .02 32’ .03 end of column

¶ ¶ ¶ ta-an ¶ ri-ib ¶ ku!-ru-u[š ¶ ku-u[r ¶ ha-a[b ¶ la-g[a-ab ¶ ga[l-x ¶ n[i-gi-in

K[AL K[AL [KAL [KAL KAL LAGAB LAGAB LAGAB LAGAB LAGAB

...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...]

[¶ [¶

PA PA]

┌

ha┐-aṭ-ṭu ṣ̣í-in-ni-tu 4

[¶ [¶ [¶ [¶] [¶ [¶ [¶ [¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ma-aš ¶ MIN ¶ ¶ ka-ar ¶ MIN ¶ ni-in-ni ¶ ni-da ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶

U] U] U] ◦Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù NUMUN GAN NIR-NIR MAŠ MAŠ NÍG NÍG NÍG NÍG NÍG AL IL Ú Á Á Á Á Á Á-TUKU LÁ LÁ LÁ

D

17

UTU

be-lu LUGAL

ši-it-tu 4 pu-u za-ba-lu 4 a-la-du še-re-e-tu 4 a-la-du a-la-du a-la-du D

UTU

li-gi 5 -tu 4 ša-a ša-ka-nu na-da-nu mi-im-mu a-ka-lu al-lu ma-ga-ru ša-am-mu i-du tu-kúl-tu 4 rit!-tu 4 e-mu-qu qar-nu né-mé-QU(!lu) ša-qa-a-lu na-šu-u ša-ka-a-nu

Part 1 - Text Edition

VIII about 17 lines missing 1’-5’ ¶ only 6’H 155.00 7’ .00 .00 8’ 9’ 156.00 10’ .01 11’ 157.01 12’ 158.01 13’ 159.01 14’ a.01 15’ 16’ 17’ 18’ 19’G’ 20’ 21’ 22’ 23’ 24’ 25’ 26’ 27’ 28’ 29’

160.01 .02 .03 161.00 .00 162.00 .00 .00 -

¶ za-ha ¶ lá ¶ ki-id ¶ ¶ bi-ru ¶ ¶ ¶ a-ga ¶ a-bu-ul a-ga-galla-ak-ku ¶ bur ¶ ki-sal ¶ ¶ ┌ ┐ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ e┐ ig

30’A 31’ 32’ 33’ 34’ 35’ 36’ 37’ 38’ 39’ 40’

165.00 .00 .00 166.00 .00 .00 167.00 .00 .00 .01 .02



-pí-

¶ ¶ ú-ra ¶ MIN ¶ ¶ dag ¶ šu-ú-um ¶ mi-in ¶ sal mi-in-nu ¶ sal ¶ sal ¶ raq

K[ID(SAH) KID(LÍL) KID DAG 48 DAG E É KÁ KÁ.GAL

...] [...] [...] x[...] na┐[-par-ru-ru] 49 i-ku

KISAL KISAL KISAL AR AR MU[Š [MUŠ MU[Š x[ [x [x [x [x [x D[UG?(ÉPIG)

ki-sal-l[u] pu-u[h-ru] ki ┘ [-sal-luh-ha-tù] [...] [...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...]

IB┐ IB(URAŠ) IB(URAŠ) TAG TAG TAG(ŠUM) SAL(MÍN) SAL SAL SAL SAL

[...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] x[...] sí-n[i-iš-tu 4 ] ra-aq-q[u]

18

tu

É 4

ba-a-bu a-bu-ul-lu ┘

Elementary Sign-lists * Syllabary A Vocabulary 41’ 42’ 43’ 44’ 45’ 46’ 47’ 48’ 49’ 50’ 51’ 52’ 53’ 54’ 55’ 56’ 57’ 58’ 59’ 60’ 61’ 62’

168.01 .02 169.01 170.01 .02 171.01 .02 172.01 173.01 .02 174.01 175.01 .02 176.00 177.00 .01 .02 .03 .04 178.01 .02 .03

¶ ¶ e-re-eš ¶ ¶ ¶ └¶ [¶] └ gal [¶] [¶] [¶ d]a- └ gal ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ha-ši ¶ ta-ar ¶ ku-ud ¶ MIN ¶ si-la ¶ ¶ uš ¶ MIN

DAM(!NIN) DAM(!NIN) DAM AK AK IG IG GÉME AMA AMA EŠ KUR KUR QA TAR(HAŠ) TAR TAR TAR TAR BE BE BE

a-ha-tu 4 be-el-tu 4 aš-ša-tu 4 e-pè-šu D AK da-al-tu 4 na-ṣa-a-rù am-tu 4 um-mu ra-a[p-šu] D 30 ┘ ma-[tu 4 ] š[a-du] [...] x[...] hi-i[ṣ̣-bu] pa-ra┐-s[u] na-ka-a-su su-ú-qu be-lu mu-ú-tu 4 mu-ta-a-nu

BE=TIL [BE=TIL [BE=ŠUM 4 B[E B[E=IDIM

...] ...] ...] ...] ...]

TUR┐ TUR UGU UN UN

[...] [...] [...] [...] [<E/H>m]a-a-tu 4

GÚ GÚ S[IG 5 [SIG 5

<E/H>

end of column IX 2 lines missing (2 has ¶ only) 3.E 178.00 ¶ ti-i[l .00 ¶ MIN 4. 5. .00 ¶ šu-um 6. .00 ¶ ba-ad 7. (203.00) ¶ i-dim 8-13 have ¶ only 14.E 181.00 ¶ 15. .00 ¶ 16. int(15) ¶ 17. 182.00 ¶ 18. .02 ¶ 19. 20. 21. 22.

183.01 .02 186.01 .02

¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ gur

ki-ša-du ši-mi-i-tu 4 <E/H> ]da-am-qu <E/H> ]pí-qí-it-tu 4 <E/H>

19

Part 1 - Text Edition <E/H>

23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28.G’ 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53.

187.01 188.01 a.01 189.01 .02 190.01 191.01 .02 192.01 193.01 194.00 .01 .02 .03 .04 .05 195.01 .02 .03 .04 a.01 196.01 .02 .03 197.01 .02 .03 198.01 .02

¶ ¶ ¶ ka-ak-x[ ¶ ¶ ┌ ┐ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ te-em-ma ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ └¶ [¶] [¶] [¶] [¶] [¶ ] [¶ ] [¶ ] [¶ ]

[TE [KAR KAR-KID [BAL [BAL [ŠUL [ŠAH [ŠAH [LÚ [x [LUGAL [ 50 x MA[H MAH MAH MAH MAH MAH HUL HUL HUL HUL HUL-A GUL GUL GUL ÁŠ ÁŠ ÁŠ ÍL ÍL

]uš-šu l]a-sa-a-mu <E/H> h]a-ri-im-tu 4 <E/H> p]í-la-aq-qu <E/H> n]a-bal-ku-tu 4 e]ṭ-lu 4 še-]◦e-hu-u D P]AP.SUKKAL a-m]i-lu be]-lu šar-]ru ...]-tu 4 ...]x ṣ̣e┐-e-r[ù] gal-lu! kab-tu 4 ma-‘a-du ma-‘a-du-tu 4 lem-nu ma-às-ku za-ap-rù zi-i-rù ma-às-ku ub-bu-tù he-pu-u ṣ̣a-bi-it Éti ṣ̣e-e-bu-tu 4 e!51 ┘ -dir-tu 4 a-ra-rù na-šu-u

54.A 55. 56. 57.

199.01 .02 .03 .04

[¶ [¶ ¶[ ¶ MIN

GA]BA G]ABA G]ABA [GA]BA

nap-lu-su pa-ṭá-rù ir-tu 4 mi-ih-rù

58. 59. 60.

201.01 .02 .03

¶ ¶ ¶[

[ÌR] [ÌR] ÌR]

ar-du D èr-ra zi-ka-rù

[¶ [¶ [¶

EZEN] EZEN EZEN

└ za-ma-rù ra-k]a-a-su i-si-i]n-nu

[¶] ¶ i-še ¶

ŠE ŠÈ ŠÈ

[...] [...] ṭe 4 -e-m[u]

61. 202.01 62. .02 63. .03 2 lines missing 204.00 66.A 67. ?205.02 68. .01

20

<E/H>

tu

É 4

Elementary Sign-lists * Syllabary A Vocabulary 69. 206.01 70. .02 71. .03 72. .04 73. .05 74. 207.01 75. 208.01 76. .02 77. 209.01 78. .02 79. .03 80. 210.01 81. .02 82. .03 end of column X 1.E 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

211.01 .02 .03 .04 212.01 .02 213.01 .02 214.01 .02 215.03 .04 .05 .06

¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶

NIM NIM NIM NIM NIM TÙM KIŠ KIŠ NIR NIR NIR ZAG ZAG ZAG

ša-qu-u e-lu-u zu-ub-bu e-la-mu-u har-pu ta-ba-lu ki-ib-ra-tu 4

¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶

GAN GAN GAN GAN KAB KAB TIR TIR TAK 4 TAK 4 BARAG BARAG BARAG BARAG

hu-ṣạ -a-bu ma-ga-rù ka-ra-a-bu nu-uh-šu kab-tu 4 šu-mé-lu

i-ṣ̣ur i-din i-din-nam I-SAR(iMÚ) I-BI<-LU> └I┘i └ IG ┘ ( ĜÁL) ... ... ...

iṣ-̣ ṣ̣u-ur id-di-n◦am id-di-nam-ma wár-qu p[u-]ú?-šu i-]ba-aš-ši xx-]pa-ak-ku x-]pa-du-tu 4 x-] └ ra-am-mu xx-a]m-mu

Syllabary A Appendix 1 15. 001 ¶ 16. 002 ¶ 17. 003 ¶ 18. 004 ¶ 19. 005 ¶ 20. 006 ¶ 21. 007 [¶ 22. 008 [¶ 23. 009 [¶ 24. 010 [¶ some lines missing 1’A ?023a ¶ 2’ ?023b ¶ 3’ 024 ¶ 4’ 025 ¶ su

D

SUEN

e-te-el-lu tu-kul-tu ta-kal-tu pa-aṭ-ṭu e-mi-it-tu a-hu

ĜIŠ

TIR tu É 4

e-zé-bu pè-tu-u LUGAL

šu-ub-tu 4 mu-ša-bu ĜIŠ ú GU.ZA

[... x[... P[A-LU(SIPAD) P[A-LU

21



...]-šu ...]-ni re-]e-ú ]re-e-ú-tu 4

Part 1 - Text Edition 5’ 6’ 7’ 8’

028a 028b 029 030

¶ ¶ ¶ ¶

KASKAL-K[UR(BALIHA) KASKAL-KUR┐(ILLAT) KASKAL-KUR-TI KASKAL-KUR-ZU



9’ 10’ 11’ 12’ 13’ 14’ 15’ 16’ 17’ 18’ 19’ 20’ 21’ 22’ 23’ 24’ 25’ 26’ 27’ 28’

031 032 034 035 036 037 038 039a 039b 040 041 042 043 044 045 046 047 049 048 -

¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ṭa-ab ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ MAN

GA-GA pu-ú li-bur li-ba-a ṭà-ab A-A a-bi a-hi a-hi a-lì a-mur lu-mur ša-ši-at ša-ši-ERIM(!tú) ši-ma-at ri-im ri-iš D iš 8 -tár D é-a

mi-qí-it-tu 4 pu-u li-t[á-m]ar li-b[u-r]a-am ṭa-[ab] a-b[u ooo] a ┘ [-bi] a-x[ooo] a-hi a-li a-mur lu-ú-mur ša-a-šu pu-ú-ru ši-ma-at e-re-mu e-re-šu D iš 8 -tár D é-a◦ M[AN

Colophon 29’A ṭup-pi ŠU I[ ...] 53 D ÌR A[K] 30’ 31’ u DPAP.PAP D 32’ ÌR AMAR.UTU 33’ u D AR.PA.NI.TUM rest of column empty

TIL

Tablet (written by) the hand of [PN,] servant of Na[bû] and Pappap, servant of Marduk and Sarpanitu.

Tablet 2 54 consisting of: 537 C (731064+74249a – p.139-42) 537 D (74249b – p.577) all entries underlined (but visibly under logograms only) Obverse I 1’C 005.10 2’ .11 3’ .02 4’ .12 5’ .01 6’ .13 7’ .14

[¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶

]ba-li-ha ti-il-la-tu 4 ti-il<-la>-tu-IŠ 52 ti-il<-la>-at-ka

ka-ra-ru┐ sa(!ša)-ka-ṣú! ka-bi-tu 4 te-er-tu 4 ha-šu-ú ri-i-ú hu-bu-ul-lu

HAR] ┌ HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR

22

Elementary Sign-lists * Syllabary A Vocabulary 8’ .15 9’ .16 .07 10’ 11’ .17 12’ ?.03 13’ 006.06 14’ .07 15’ .08 16’ .09 17’ .10 18’ .00 19’ 008.01 20’ .02 .03 21’ 22’ .04 23’ .05 24’ 009.01 25’ .02 26’ .03 27’ .04 28’ a.01 29’ a.02 30’ 010.02 31’ .03 32’ .04 33’ 011.05 34’ .06 35’ .07 36’ 012.04 37’ .05 38’ .00 39’ 014.02 .03 40’ .09 41’ 42’ .04 43’ .10 44’ .11 45’ .07 end of column II 1’C 2’ 3’ 4’ 5’ 6’ 7’ 8’ 9’

026.02 027.01 028.01 .02 .01 .03 029.02 .03 030.01

¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ [¶] [¶ [¶

HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR AH └ AH ┘ AH AH AH AH HU HU HU HU HU RI RI RI RI RI-RI RI-RI BI BI BI NI NI NI BU └ BU B[U] KU┐ KU KU KU KU KU] KU]

[¶ [¶ [¶ [¶ [¶ [¶] [¶] [¶] ¶

SU] NU] NA] N]A N]A NA BA BA ZI

gu-ra-mi-rù ka-ma-rù ṭe 4 -e ┘ -nu ti 7 -i-tu 4 bu-┌li-bu ka-al-ma-tu 4 └ šul ┘ -lu 4 -pu ┌ pu-┌us?-hu-šu hu-ú-ru e-ru a (GLOSS) 55 MUŠEN uṣ-̣ ṣ̣ú-ru MUŠEN bu-šu MUŠEN uṣ̣-ṣú ̣ <<-ṣụ́ >><-rù> MUŠEN <uṣ->ri-ṣ̣ú-tu 4 na-par-šu-ZU(!du) i-tap-ru-šu aš-ru a-ši-ir-tu 4 da-al-lu 4 mu-tap-ri-šu šu-hu-zu ši-ka-rù ka-ar-pa-tu 4 šu-ma ša-am-nu hu-uq-qú-tu 4 ma-la-hu na-ba-bu ru-uq-qú-ú vacat a-na i-na š◦u-šu-ú šu-ub-tu 4 ṭe 4 -e-mu pa-ak-ku └ eb-lu 4

m]a?-aš-ku 13 ┌ ma-ṣ̣a-lu 4 56

me-lu

NA

na-pa-<>ṣú mi-lu

NA i-lu NA

LA(!su)-pí-nu-ú la-bi-in-tu 4 na-pí-il-tu 4

23

Part 1 - Text Edition 10’ .02 11’ .03 12’ 031.04 13’ .03 14’ .02 15’ 033.02 16’ .01 17’ .03 18’ 034.01 19’ 035.03 20’ .02 21’ .04 22’ 036.02 .03 23’ 24’ .04 25’ .11 26’ .12 27’ .05 28’ .06 29’ .07 30’ .08 31’ .09 32’ .10 33’ .05 34’ 037.01 35’ 038.01 36’ .04 37’ 039.02 38’ .07 39’ .06 40’ .03 41’ .05 42’ .04 43’ 040.01 .02 44’ 45’ 041.01 042.01 46’ 47’ 044.01 .02 48’ end of column III 1’-2’ (part of) ¶ only 3’C 053.00 4’ .00 5’ .00 6’ .00 7’ 054.00 8’ .00 9’ 055.01

¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ◦¶ [¶] ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ┌ ┐ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶

ZI ZI GI GI GI GIM GIM GIM PAN MA MA [M]A M[U MU MU MU MU MU MU MU MU MU MU MU TAH GIŠ GIŠ GÁ GÁ GÁ GÁ GÁ GÁ GÁN GÁN EN IN EL EL

ki-it-tu 4 te 9 -bu-ú i-mu!-lu 57 qà-nu-ú ki-it-tu 4 e-pé-šu ki-ma i-tí-nu qa-al-tu 4

¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶

N[E N[E N[E N[E BÍ[L BÍL KA

...] ...] ...] ...] ...] x[...] p[u-ú]

ĜIŠ

MÁ PÈŠ

ĜIŠ

na-bi-tu 4 š]a-at-tu 4 [š]u-mu-ú zi-┌ik-ru za-ka-rù zi-i-ru ha-ti-im-mu a-pu-ú i-na a-na ni-šu-ú re-eṣ-ṣú ha-ti-mu re-eṣ-ṣú-ú i-ṣú-ú [š]e-la-a-an pí-ša-an-nu dú-du-ú i-da-tu 4 ia a-na i-na i-ku-ú A.ŠAG 4 be-lu ti-ib-nu el-lu te-lu-ul-tu 4

24

Elementary Sign-lists * Syllabary A Vocabulary .04 ¶ KA a-[ma-tu 4 ] 10’ 11’ .07 ¶ KA ri-i[g-mu] 12’ .08 ¶ KA ik-ki[-il-lu] 13’ .03 ¶ KA KI(!ši)-in[-nu] 14’ 056.05 ¶ SAĜ pu-ú[-tu 4 ] 15’ .06 ¶ SAĜ re-šu[ ] 16’ .07 ¶ SAĜ aš-t[e-pí-ru] 17’ .03 ¶ SAĜ qa-qà ┘ [-du] l u ¶ .02 18’ SAĜ LÚ [ 4 ] SAĜ-SAĜ ¶ a.01 19’ x[...] SAĜ ¶ .00 20’ [...] [SA]Ĝ ¶ .00 21’ [...] SAĜ-NI ¶ b.01 22’ [...] DU ¶ 058.00 23’ [...] DU ¶ .00 24’ [...] DU ¶ .00 25’ [...] SUHUŠ! ¶ 059.00 26’ [...] KAŠ 4 ¶ 27’ 060.00 [...] ¶ 061.00 28’ I [...] ¶ 062.00 29’ IA [...] ¶ 063.00 30’ ŠU [...] ¶ .00 31’ ŠU [...] ¶ .00 32’ ŠU [...] ¶ 064.00 33’ ŠAG 4 [...] ¶ .00 34’ ŠAG 4 [...] ¶ 066.00 35’ ÚH [...] ¶ .00 36’ [...] ÚH ¶ .00 37’ [...] ÚH ¶ 067.00 38’ [...] AŠ ¶ .00 39’ [...] AŠ 40’ .00 ¶ AŠ [...] ¶ 41’ .00 [...] AŠ 42’ 068.00 ¶ [...] UD .00 ¶ [...] 43’ └ UD ┘ 44’ .00 ¶ [UD ...] ¶ .00 45’ ...] U[D ¶ .00 ...] 46’ U[D 47’-54’ only ¶ and some isolated traces belonging to unidentified entries end of column IV in lower part D has a few isolated signs belonging to unidentified entries V 1’-4’ some isolated signs only 5’D 110.01 [¶ 6’ .02 [¶ 7’ .03 [¶ 8’ 111.00 [¶ 9’ .01 ¶

lu-k]u-tu 4 58 ┌ ┐ ni -sí-iq-tu 4 ša-la-mu mu (GLOSS) kì-ru

DI DI] DI] SAR] SAR

25

Part 1 - Text Edition 10’ .02 11’ .00 12’ 112.01 13’ .02 14’ .03 15’ 113.01 16’ .02 17’ .03 end of column Reverse VI 1.D 114.01 2. .02 3. .03 4. .00 5. 115.01 6. 116.01 7. int(11) 8. 117.01 9. 118.01 10. 119.01 11. .02 12. .03 13. .04 14. 15. 16. -

¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶

SAR SAR SA SA SA NAM NAM NAM

wa-ar-qú MIN ŠU-ma ga-ir-ra 59 a-na i-na zi-rù er-bu ši-bu-ú

¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ [¶] [¶] [¶] [¶] [¶ [¶ [¶ [¶ [¶ [¶

AB AB AB AB GUD UL GAN 60 AZ UG └ GÌR G]ÌR G]ÌR GÌ]R x x x

ap-tù-ú tu

É 4

a-bu ú-tu 4 61 al-pu-ú ha-a-mu hu-ṣa-bu la-a-bu (!ašu) a-šu (!la’bu) né-šu še-pu dì-im-tù NA(!pa)-da-an-l/nu 4 ]x-bi x]x-bu : a-šar xx]x- └ mu ┘

VII in upper part D has a few isolated signs belonging to unidentified entries VIII 10 lines missing, 11-12 ¶ only 152.00 ¶ 13.C 14. .00 ¶ 15. 153.00 ¶ 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27.

154.01 .00 155.01 .00 .00 .02 .00 159.01a .02 .01b 158.01 .02

¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶

SUM SUM NAGA (SUM-IR) KU 7 KU 7 KID KID KID KID KID KÁ KÁ KÁ É É

26

[...] x[...] x[...] m[a-at-qu] x[...] ki[-i-tu 4 ] qa-[...] bi[-...] zi[-qí-qu] ku-[...] ba-[a-bu] da-[al-tu 4 ] ba-a◦[-bu] bi ┘ [-tu 4 ] ┌ ga┐[-gu-u]

Elementary Sign-lists * Syllabary A Vocabulary 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. break

.03 .04 157.01 160.04 .03 161.01 162.01 .02 a.01 163.01 .02 .03 .04 .05 164.01 .02 .03 174.02 .00 175.03 .01 .02 a.01 int(14) 165.00 .00 .00 166.00 .00

¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ [¶] [¶] [¶]

IX 1.C 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.

172.02 176.01 177.05 .05 .06 .08 .03 178.04 .05 .02 .03 .06 .07 .08 .09 179a.01

┌ ┐

17.

179b.01

¶

¶

¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶

É É E KISAL KISAL AR MUŠ MUŠ MUŠ-H◦UŠ ÚR ÚR ÚR ÚR ÚR ŠEŠ ŠEŠ ŠEŠ EŠ EŠ KUR KUR KUR KUR-KUR MA-DA IB IB IB TAG └ TAG ┘

ta-a-[ra-nu] ki-d-[di-in-nu] <> e-ku bi-t[u 4 ] ki-sal-lu-ha-tù ši-ka-rù ṣi-rù bi-tu 4 <muš->hu-uš-šu šu-nu ut-lu 4 ! še-pu pé-mu DA(!ša)-ap-rù na-ka-rù mar-rù a-h[u] eš-ši ba-la-[...] ka-š[a-du] ma-t[u 4 ] ša-d[u 4 ] ma-t[a-tu 4 ] ma-t[u 4 ] a-t[a?-...] AN-x[...] i◦[-...] [...] [...]

GÉME! QA! TAR TAR TAR TAR TAR BE BE BE BE BE BE BE BE KUGBABBAR KUG-GI

aš-ta-rù sa 19 -tu 4 ši-ik-rù ši-ib-rù ha-ar-ṣú mu-pár-ri-šu(!su)-tu 4 na!-ka-šu(!su) na-ki-šu ba-la-ṭu 4 mu-tù-ú mu-ta-nu šum-ma ga 14 -ma-rù bi-tu 4 la-BI(!qa)-tu 4 ka-aš-pu

27

hu-ra-ṣú

Part 1 - Text Edition 18. 181.01 ¶ TUR ṣe-eh-rù 19. .02 ¶ TUR la-ú 20. .03 ¶ TUR ma-rù 21. a.01 ¶ TUR-TUR ṣé-eh-hu-ru-tu 4 22. 182.01 ¶ UN ni-šu 23. .02 ¶ UN ma-tù 24. 183.01 ¶ GÚ ki-ša-du 4 25. 184.01 ¶ DUR 62 zi-ba-tu 4 26. 185.01 ¶ SIG qa 4 -at-nu 27. .00 ¶ SIG ŠU-ma 28. 187.02 ¶ TE mì-nu 63 29. 188.02 ¶ KAR e-ṭe 4 -rù 30. KAR .03 ¶ šu-zu-bu 31. .04 ¶ KAR ka-a-rù a.01 ¶ 32. KAR-KID ha-ri-im-tu 4 .01 ¶ 33. KAR la-sà-mu .05 ¶ KAR 34. na-bi-tu 4 .06 ¶ KAR 35. e-re-bu .07 ¶ KAR 36. e ┘ -ke-mu 37. .03 ¶ KAR š◦u-zu-bu 38. 189.01 ¶ BAL pí-la-qú 39. .02 ¶ BAL na-bal-ku-tu 4 40. 190.01 ¶ ŠUL eṭ-lu 4 41. int(16) ¶ SAG(!?MES) eṭ-lu 4 42. int(16) ¶mu-ia MU eṭ-lu 4 43. 191.01 ¶ ŠAH še!-hu-ú 44. .03 ŠAH ¶ šu-bu-ru 192.01 LÚ 45. ¶ └ a-mi-lu 4 46. .02 ¶ LÚ šu-ú 47. .03 ¶ LÚ ša-a 48. .00 ¶ LÚ [x]-a 49. .04 ¶ LÚ [ma-a]m-ma break; 52 preserves final part of entry: [...]x da-ma-tu 4 X 1.C 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

202.03 a.01 203.01 .02 .03 .04 .05 .06 .07 .08 .09 .10 .11 int(17) int(17)

[¶ ┌ ┐ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶

EZEN] BÀD IDIM IDIM IDIM IDIM IDIM IDIM IDIM IDIM IDIM IDIM IDIM IDIM MURUB 4

28

i-ši-in-tu 4 du-ú-ru ka-ab-tu 4 šé-eh-lu ek-le-tu 4 i-du-tu 4 ša-mu-ú ki-ir(!?sa)- └ at-tu 4 LUGAL

rù

la-mu pa-ši-šu ku-ša-ri-ku na-ag-bu i-dì-mu ši-ši-tu 4

Elementary Sign-lists * Syllabary A Vocabulary int(17) 16. ¶ 17. int(17) ¶ 18. int(17) ¶ 19. int(17) ¶ 20. int(17) ¶ 21. int(17) ¶ 22. int(17) ¶ 23. int(17) ¶ 24. 204.01 ¶ 205.02 ¶ 25. 26. 206.06 ¶ 27. .07 ¶ 28. .05 ¶ 208.01 ¶ 29. .03 ¶ 30. .02 ¶ 31. 201.01 ¶ 32. .03 ¶ 33. .04 ¶ 34. 209.01 ¶ 35. 36. 210.01 ¶ 37. .02 ¶ 38. .03 ¶ 39. 211.04 ¶ 40. .03 ¶ 41. 212.02 ¶ 42. .03 ¶ 43. 213.01 ¶ 44. 215.01 ¶ 45. .02 ¶ 46. .03 ¶ 47. .05 ¶ Syllabary A Appendix 1 48. 001 ¶ 49. 002 [¶] 50. 003 [¶ 51. 004 [¶ 52. 005 [¶ 53. 006 [¶ break

MURUB 4 MURUB 4 GUB-BA ŠI-RU KA-SIG KA-SIG GÁN-NU 64 GÁN ŠE KU NIM NIM NIM KIŠ KIŠ KIŠ ÌR ÌR ÌR NIR ZA◦G ZAG ZAG GAN GAN KAB KAB TIR BARAG BARAG BARAG BARAG i-ṣur! └ i ┘ - └ din i-din-na]m I-SAR(iMÚ)] I-BI<-LU> I-IG(iĜÁL)

LEft Edge Colophon I D ŠU ri-bi- da-gan 1.C D D 2. ÌR AK ù NISABA 3. i-na EZEN-EZENZABAR i-na UD [...] 4. ša-ak-na-ku up-pa an-na I[N.ŠAR]

šu-ta-aš-šu qa-ab-lu ma-za-zu ú-kál-li-mu šu-ub-tu 4 mu-ša-bu al-ku bi-ta-tu 4 65 e-em eb-lu ši-ib-bu ba-ba-lu har-pu ki-ib-ra-RA(!tu 4 ) ki-iš-ša-tu 4 D

SUEN

ur-du zi-ka-rù mu-rù eṭ-lu 4 pa-aṭ-ṭu 4 i-mi-tu 4 a-hu-ú nu-uh-šu ka-ra-bu šu-mé-lu ši-ik-rù qí-iš-tu 4 LUGAL

rù

šu-ub-tù mu-ša-bu a-ši-ib BARAG a-ma-ru i-dì-nam └ i-dì-nam-ma └ wár ┘ - └ qu ?pu-ú-š]u i-ba-aš-] └ ši

66

(From) the hand of Ribi-Dagan, servant of Nabû and Nisaba. In bronzen bindings 67 for/on (the) day(s) [...] I am placed (and) this tablet I[ wrote.] 68

29

Part 1 - Text Edition Tablet 3 LONG VERSION TABLET (first section of SaV PST 001 to 053 only) 537 B (74204a – p.502-3) Obverse I 1. 001.18 2. .19 3. .20 4. .21 5. .22 6. .23 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. break

.24 .25 .26 .01 .27 .28 .29 .07 .10 .11 .12 .13 .14 .15 .16 .30 .17 .00

Reverse VIII’ 1’ 056.00 2’ .00 3’ .00 4’ .00 5’ .00 6’ .00 7’ .00 8’ .00 9’ .00 10’ .08 11’ 057.sn 12’ .01 13’ .00 14’ .02

[¶] ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶

A A A A A A

hu-la┐[] ni-d[u 4 ] ša-a i-na a-na ma-ru-u

¶e ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ └¶┘ [¶ d]u-ru [¶ ] [¶ ]

A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A◦ A A A

ú-a ri-hu-tu 4 u-i a-i mu-u D

UTU É.A D IŠTARAN D

ma-za-ru ba-lu kí-ir-ru ni-is-sà-tu 4 A.MEŠ ha-bi-bu-t[u 4 ] kiš-šá-tu 4 šu-ta-at-t[u 4 ] zi ┘ -nu ka 4 [-ap-ru] ru[-uṭ-bu] x[...]

[¶ [¶ ] [¶ ] [¶ ] ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ šu-mur sag-gu-nu-u◦ 69 ¶ ¶u ¶ ku-u

30

S]A[G SAG SAG SAG SAG SAG SAG SAG SAG SAG DÙL DÙL DÙL

[...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] x[...] x[...] ni-[...] qar-d[u] ša-a[m-rù] mu-x[...] a-na-h[u]

Elementary Sign-lists * Syllabary A Vocabulary 15’ 16’ 17’ 18’ 19’ 20’ 21’

058.01 .02 .00 .00 .03 .04 .05

¶ ¶ ša-ra ¶ ki-in-na-ra ◦¶ ku-up-pa-ra [¶] [¶] [¶]

DU DU DU DU DU DU └ DU ┘

Colophon 22’ [...]x 70 NU.TIL 23’ [ŠU ID30-a-b]u LÚ M◦ÁŠ[.ŠU.GÍD.GÍD]

a-la-ku ra-ṣa-pu : ma-x[...] : ka-x[...] iz-zi-iz-zu ka-ma-šu ku-un-nu-┌šu

[...] incomplete (text) [(written by) the hand of Shaggar-ab]u, the di[viner.]

Tablet 4 LONG VERSION TABLET (first section of SaV PST 001 to approximately 065) 537 F (74231a – p.532-7) Obverse I F has a few traces in the middle part of the column II 1’ [¶ 2’ [¶ 3’ 006.01 [¶ 4’ .11 [¶ 5’ .12 [¶ 6’ 005.07 [¶ 7’ .08 [¶ 8’ [¶ 9’ [¶ perhaps 4 lines missing 1’’ [¶ 2’’ [¶ 3’’ 006.05 [¶ 4’’ .13 [¶ break (with only a few traces) III a few lines missing 1’-4’ traces only 5’ 011.00 6’ .00 .00 7’ 8’ .00 9’ a.01 10’ 012.00 11’ .00 12’ .00 13’ .00 break

x x AH] AH] AH] HAR HAR x x

o-x]-u ]x-tu 4 k◦iš-pu ru-hu-u ru-šu-u ṭ]e 4 -e-nu sà-]mi-du x]x-du x]x-ru

x x] AH] AH]

x-]ma[-...] nu-x[x-i]l-ti pé-er-š◦a-a’-u na-a-bu

¶ li-i-ú ¶ za-li-i-ú ¶ ti-gil-li-i-ú ¶ ┌šu-i-ú ¶ i-li mi-na-bi ¶ ¶ └¶ [¶]

NI NI [NI N[I-NI [NI-NI(ì-lí) [BU ┌ BU [B]U BU

31

x[...] ši[-...] ...] ...] ...] ...] [...] [...] [...]

Part 1 - Text Edition 1’’traces only 2’’ 016.01 3’’ .04 4’’ .02 5’’ .03 6’’ a.sn 7’’ a.01 end of column IV 1’ 2’ 3’ 4’ 5’ 6’ 7’ 8’ 9’ 10’ 11’ 12’

026.01 .02 027.02 .03 .04 028.01 .02 .05 .04 029.01 .04 .02

◦¶ ◦¶ šu [¶] ◦¶ il-ú[r 71 ◦¶ pa-da-i◦[-gu? š]up-pa-ak-ka 72 ◦¶

RU RU RU RU] -

[na-]d◦u[-u] [m]i-qí-it-t[u 4 ] ma-qa-tu 4 tá-al!-pa-nu -

IGI-RU-D◦A

pa-du-u

[¶ [¶ ku-u]š [¶] [¶] ◦¶ ◦¶ ◦¶ ◦¶ ◦¶ ¶ ¶ ¶

S]U SU NU NU NU NA NA NA NA BA BA BA

ra-ma-nu ma-aš-ku zi-ka[-rù] ṭe 4 -e-m[u] la-a a-mi-lu na-pa-ṣu la-a šu-ú ša-a su-up-p[í-xx]

¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶

BA BA BA BA ZI ZI ZI ZI ZI ZI ZI ZI ZI ZI ZI ZI ZI ZI ZI G[I GI GI

[...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] ...] [...] [...]

D

UTU

end of column Reverse V 1. 029.00 2. .00 3. .00 4. .00 5. 030.00 6. .00 7. .00 8. .00 9. .00 10. .00 11. .00 12. .00 13. .00 14. .00 15. .00 16. .00 17. .00 18. .00 19. .00 20. 031.00 21. .00 22. .00

32

Elementary Sign-lists * Syllabary A Vocabulary 23.

032.00

¶

G[I 4

...]

24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46.

033.00 .00 .00 034.00 int(7) 035.00 .00 .00 .00 036.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 a.00 a.00 037.00 .00 .00 038.00

¶ ¶ te ¶ te ¶ [¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ u-dú-u[n [¶] ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶

GIM G[IM(DÍM) G[IM(DÍM) P[AN x SA MA MA MA MA MU M[U M[U M[U MU MU MU UDUN UDUN TAH TAH TAH └ GIŠ ┘

[...] ...] ...] ...] ...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] ...] ...] ...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...]

47-50 only some traces, then 6 lines missing (56 only ¶) 57. 039.sn ¶ ga-ra-ga-x[... 58. .00 ¶ GÁ 59. .00 ¶ GÁ a few lines missing before end of column (line 60 has a few traces) VI 1.

039a.sn

2. 3. 4. 5.

a.01 a.02 a.03 b.sn

6.

b.01

7.

c.sn

8.

c.01

◦¶ ga-an-ga ša! bi-š[i-]ga-ak-ku nindada min ◦¶ ◦¶ ◦¶ ◦¶ u-un-n[a] min me-┌na┐ min [¶] [¶ k]a-za min t[e-e]š- └ ša min [¶]

33

-] [...] [...]

-

-

GALGA GALGA GALGA -

ṭe-e◦[-m]u ma-l[i-ku] └ ma- └ la-k[u] -

GÁXME.NA (!ÈRA 73 ) -

ša-al-ṭu : tu-n[u-...]xx 74 -

GAZI 75

[xx] MIN-u

Part 1 - Text Edition 9.

d.sn

10. 11. 12.

d.01 e.sn e.01

13.

f.sn

14.

f.01

15.

g.sn

16. 17.

g.01 g.02

18. 19. 20. 21.

[¶] si-la min ki-iš- u-ra min [¶] [¶ min e-i]a min [¶]

-

-

SILA 4 ÉSAG

pu-ha-du qì-ri-tu 4

¶ gu-šu-ur na-an-nir mi-na-bi min ¶

-

-

ÙR

[gu-]šu-ru

-

-

GÁxLI GÁxLI ┘

te-lu-ut-tu 4 na-ag-gu-ru

040.02 .01 .03 .04

¶ ú-ia 76 ša b[i-]ša-ga-akku li-la └ i ┘ - └ ku ┘ -ub ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶

GÁN ┘ G[ÁN] G[ÁN] GÁ[N

eq-lu i-ku 13 me-ri-šu a]l-ka

22. 23. 24. 25.

041.01 .03 .04 .05

¶ ¶ ¶ ¶

EN EN EN EN

be-lu be-el-tu 4 a-di ◦a-mi-lu-ut-tu 4

26. 27. 28. 29. 30.

int(8) 042a.01 043.01 a.sn

x NAG]A IN-NU IRI -

xx-]a?-nu 77 qa-qu-lu ma-ag-gu a-lu -

31. 32. 33. 34.

a.01 a.02 044.01 .04

[¶ [¶ ¶ ti ¶ ¶ na-aš-gal ša e-ri-a-LA(!ak)-ku i-gu↑i-ku-ub ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶

35. 36.

.03 .05

¶ si ¶

EL EL EL EL

37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46.

045.09 .00 .06 .07 .10 .08 .11 .01 .00 .12

¶ i-gi ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶

IGI IGI IGI IGI IGI IGI IGI IGI IGI IGI

IRIxIGI!GIŠGAL IRIxIGI!GIŠGAL

34

na-aš-gal-lu AMAR-UTU el-lu el-le-tu 4 D

ar-da-t◦u 4 te-qú-ut-t◦u 4 i-ki-ṣu (!igištu) ĜIŠ MIN e-nu na-ṭá-lu da-ga-lu nap-lu-su ba-ru-u ma-‘a-du vacat ma-ha-ru

Elementary Sign-lists * Syllabary A Vocabulary 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55.

.13 .14 .15 .05 046.01 .02 .03 .04 .05

¶ mah └¶┘ [¶] ¶ x[ [¶ ¶ [] ¶ ◦¶ šar ◦¶

IGI IGI] IGI IGI] HI] HI] HI HI HI

a-ša-re-du pa-nu ar-ku mah-r[u] e-ṣe-[em-tu 4 ] ṭá-a-bu ri-ša-tu 4 b[á-]ar-qú [m]a-a-du 4

[¶]

AN

[…]

[¶] na-ab [a-na 78 ]┌mi┐┌ na-bi 4 ¶ ¶ mu-ul a-na eš-ša-bi ¶

NAB

na-ab-bu

MUL

ka-ak-ka-bu

HAL HAL HAL HAL -

me-ri-il-tu 4 ba-ru-u ša-mu ┘ -u hal-lu -

GUR 5 UR UR └ UR ┘

uq-q[ú-ru] a-mi-l[u] └ kál-bu [ka]l-ba-tu 4

a few lines missing before end of column VII’ a few lines missing 1’ 048.00 2’ 3’

049.sn .01

4’ 5’

050.sn .01

6’ 7’ 8’ 9’ 10’

051.01 .02 .03 .04 int(9.sn)

11’ 12’ 13’ 14’

int(9) 052.01 .06 .05

¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ bur ¶ ib-bi ša ú-r[a-ak-ku gu-ga i-ku-ub 79 ] ¶ [¶] [¶] [¶]

15’ 16’

-

[¶ [¶

x x

x]x-ni-šu xx]-iš-tu 4

17’ 18’

-

[¶ [¶

x x

x]x-al-tu 4 xx]x-nu

19’ 20’ 21’ 22’ 23’ 24’

053.07 .02 .03 .04 .05 .06

¶ te ¶ be ¶ ri ¶ dah ¶ ku ¶ i-zi

NE NE [NE] [N]E NE NE

di-i[k-me-]nu nu-u◦l-x[] qu-ut-ru pu-luh-tu 4 ri-i-ṣu um-mu i-šá-tu 4

35

Part 1 - Text Edition 25’ 26’ 27’ 28’

054.02 .01 .03 .04

¶ ki [¶ [¶ [¶

BÍL B]ÍL B]ÍL B]ÍL

gi 5 -bíl-lu eš-šu q[a-l]u-u ma-ru 80

29’ 055.01 [¶] KA pu-u 30’ .09 [¶ K]A pa-za 31’ .06 ¶[ KA a]p?[-pu] 32’ .04 ¶[ KA] a-ma[-tu 4 ] 33’ .05 ¶[ KA] └ qa[-bu-u] 34’ 056.00 ¶[ SAG ...] 35’ .03 [¶ SAG] qà-q[a-du] 36’ .05 [¶ SAG] pu-u[tu] 37’-38’ have some traces, a little lower there is a partially preserved sign-name (...]-ta i-ku-ub) written vertically upwards); then perhaps still 15 lines missing before end of column Fragments: 537 K (74199t – p.496) some A (001) entries, including gloss /ia/ = A 537 L (7486a – p.219) lower left-hand corner with some ŠUR (002) entries, including gloss and sign-name 81 še-ra : še-ru-u x[…] 537 M (74309 – p.604) 1’ int(13) 2’ int(13) 3’ int(13) 4’ 141.01 5’ .02 6’ .03

[ [ [ [ [ [

BULUG BULUG BULUG NÍG(ŠÁ)] NÍG(ĜAR)] NÍG(ĜAR)]

ap-]┌lu┐ 82 ku-]┌du-u[m] p]u-lu-u[q-qu] ša-a ša-k[a-nu] na-da[-nu]

537 ‘N’ (74199a – p.490) some RI (009) entries, including gloss /te/ = RI(=DE 5 )

36

Elementary Sign-lists * Syllabary A 2.2. Syllabary A Fragment - 538 E (74132c – p.337) - Listed as a SaP text in Emar VI 4 but showing only single, unpaired entries without any characteristically palaeographic features, this is the sole attested non-palaeographic unilingual Sa text in Emar. It should be noted that the idea that 538E represents a SaP text (Rutz, NABU XXX) is not tenable in view of formal criteria that point to Sa: (1) 538E lacks the sign pairs found in SaP, (2) its single signs are not subject to right position shifts and (3) the text lacks horizontal ruling. The argument that 538E is a SaP text because its sign forms are also found elsewhere in Emar SaP is not decisive because Emar SaP consistently gives the contemporary sign forms in the first column. In fact, a comparison of the sign forms found in 538E with the sign forms found in the other Emar lexical material makes clear that the former do not show any ‘palaeographic’ distinction. I 1. 2. 3. break II 1. 2. 3. 4. break

A ŠUR [Š]IR BA ZI GI G[I 4 ]

37

Part 1 - Text Edition 2.3. Syllabary A Palaeography (includes unilingual Syllabary A appendices 1 and 2) Note that (for the SaP edition only) palaeographically rendered signs are given in ITALICS. SaP Tablet 1 consisting of: 538 B+C (7469+7469a – p.203-4) 538 G (74145 – p.360) 538 I (74175a – p.442-6) 538 N (74152e – p.384) 538 O (7484q – p.217) Obv I

II

III

IV break (1’-) 1. A A BA BA SAG S[AG] [U]B ┌UB 2. ŠUR ZI DÙL D[ÙL] [U]B UB ŠUR ZI 3. ŠUR ZI DU DU [ L]AM ŠUR ZI 4. ŠIR GI vacat SUHUŠ break GI ŠIR 5. └ PAD PAD GI vacat KAŠ 4 GI 6. [ ] vacat I HAR GI 4 GI 4 7. [ ] vacat IA GI 4 └ HAR GI 4 8. [ ŠU ] [GI]M └ GIM vacat 9. [ ŠÀ ] [ ]x ŠÀ 10. [ ] [ ŠÀ ] ŠÀ 11. [ ] [ ] Š[A] └ ŠA ┘ 12. [ ] [M]A MA┐ ÚH Ú[H] 13. [ ] MU vacat Ú[H] MU 14. [ [ ] AŠ ] MU break MU 15. ┌KU TAH [ S]A UD KU TAH [ ] 16. LU ERIM vacat GIŠ [ S]A ERIM LU 17. [R]U RU vacat GÁ AD A[D] [ NA]M 18. [R]U RU vacat GÁN DA [ D[A] N]AM ┌ EN 19. [HA] HA [ ] AB TA EN TA┐ ┌ ┐ vacat EN 20. HA TI break HA TI 21. HA IN DUB HA IN DUB IRI 22. HA MES HA IRI MES vacat IRI 23. PE[Š] PEŠ AM AM EL 24. PE◦Š PEŠ AM EL AM ┐ 25. LI IGI IM LI IGI IM┐ 26. LA HI IM LA HI IM ┘ 27. LA KAM KAM IŠ IŠ ┘ LA 28. LUM LUM AN vacat AN └ IŠ ┌ 29. LUM LUM HAL GAL HAL vacat vacat 30. SIG 4 SIG 4 UR UR NUN vacat 31. ŠID ME NE ŠID NE 32. ZU BÍL MI ZU BÍL MI 33. ZA KA MI ZA KA MI 34. └ SU KA DUGUD DUGUD SU KA 35. [ ] end GIG G[IG] NU 36. [ vacat [ ] N]A 37. [ ] ZUR [ ] NA └

38

V break GA[Z Á[G vacat vacat BUR vacat [ ] SI SU 4 vacat vacat Ù vacat NÍG NÍG AL IL Ú◦ break

(1’-) ] ] PAB GUR BU[R] B◦UR └ BAR SI SU 4 PA U Ù MAŠ NÍG NÍG AL [ ] [ ]

Elementary Sign-lists * Syllabary A Palaeography 38. [ ] 39. end

┌

Rev IX-X other exercises 1’ and colophon 2’ 3’ 4’ 5’ 6’ 7’ 8’ 9’ 10’ 11’ 12’ 13’ 14’ 15’ 16’ 17’ 18’ 19’ 20’

VIII break break [ ] vacat ┌ ÍL [G]ABA [ÁRA]D [ [ [ [ ] [ [ ] [ [ [ [ [ break

VIII Syllabary A Appendix 1 1’O ?017 2’ ?018 3’ ?019 4’ ?020 break IX 1.I 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

023b 024 025 ?028a ?028b 029?

[ ] ]

UZ ┘ [ end

NA

GUL ÁŠ┐ ÍL GABA └ ÁRAD ┘ Ì]R E]ZEN ID]IM ┌ ŠE Š]È └ NIM T]ÙM N]IR K]IŠ ZA]G ]x

VII break G[ÉME A[MA] A[M]A vacat vacat vacat vacat vacat KUG┐ KUG.B KUG.GI SA 6 TUR UN UN GÚ DUR SIG └ TE ┘ break

┌

na┐[-...] na ┘ [-...] n[a-...] ? └ ta ┘ [-...]

IGI-[DU] PA-L[U](SIPAD) PA-L[U] KASKAL-x[] KASKAL-KU[R] KASKAL-x[x]

39

VI break ] AMA┐ AMA EŠ KUR └ QA TA◦R BE [ ] KU[G.B] KU[G.GI] SA 6 TUR UN UN GÚ DUR SIG TE ┌

break U[Š SUM NAGA É É KI[SAL] KISAL [K]Á break

] SU[M] NAG[A] É É┘ KIS[AL] K[ISAL] [ ]

Part 1 - Text Edition 7. 031 G◦A-GA 8. 032 pu-ú 9. 033 tu-qa-a[‘?-u] 10. 034 li-bur ┘ 6 lines missing (11 has some traces) 17.I 046 [ri]-i[m] [r]i-iš ┘ 18. 047 D 19. 048 é-a ┘ D 20. 049 i[š 8 ?-tár] 21. TIL [TIL] Syllabary A Appendix 2 22.I 216 DAM 23. 217 KIN ┘ [K]IN 24. 5 lines missing (24 has a few traces) 30.I 219 U8? 31. 220 DAM-GÀR 32. 221 SILA 4 33. SILA 4 34. 222 ŠÀM 35. 223 KÁ 36. 224 SUHUR end of column X 1.I 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23.

225 226 227 228 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243

DAM KIN KIN





U8 DAM-GÀR [ SIL]A 4 [SILA 4 ] Š[ÀM] K[Á] SUH[UR]

[HAŠHUR] [HAŠHUR] NÍNDA BURU 14 APIN GÍR NUMUN ITI SIG 5 SIG 5 SIG 5 GIDIM NA 4 NA 4 LAM GIŠ GEŠTIN GIŠ GEŠTIN GIŠ HAŠHUR EDEN MÁŠ KUN UMBIN KIŠ

HAŠHUR HAŠHUR NÍNDA BURU 14 APIN GÍR NUMUN ITI SIG 5 SIG 5 SIG 5 vacat NA 4 NA 4 LAM ĜIŠ GEŠTIN ĜIŠ GEŠTIN GIŠ HAŠHUR EDEN MÁŠ KUN UMBIN KIŠ

40

Elementary Sign-lists * Syllabary A Palaeography 24. (244 erasure: AZU 25. ( erasure: AZU 3 lines missing Colophon 83 29.I [ŠU I]┌DHAR.AD ┌ D 30. DUMU IM.UR.SAĜ LÚ 31. HAL ša DIĜIR.MEŠ 32. ša IRIe-mar end of column LEft Edge 1. 244

vacat) vacat) [(By) the hand] of Shaggar-abu, the son of Bacal-qarrad, diviner of the gods of Emar.

AZU ┘

AZU ┘

SaP Tablet 2 consisting of: 538 F (74133a+b – p.340) 538 H (74148u – p.379) 538 J (74193a – p.475-7) 538 K (74228c – p.526) 538 L (74117n – p.290) 538 Q (74127p – p.323) 538 R (74133d – p.340) Obv 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 . 11 . 12 . 13 . 14 . 15 . 16 . 17 . 18 .

I vacat ŠUR ŠUR PAD ŠIR HAR AH A’ vacat vacat BI BI BI vacat BU ŠUD KU LU [R]U vacat HA vacat vacat HA [PE]Š P[E]Š L[I]

└A┘ [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] AH┐ A’ HU RI BI BI BI NI BU ŠUD KU LU RU RU HA HA HA HA PEŠ PEŠ LI

II NA vacat vacat ZI ZI GI GI GI 4 GI[M] GI[M PA[N PA[N] MA MU MU TAH vacat vacat vacat EN ┘ EN IN └ IRI ┘ IRI IRI EL IGI

[ ] [ ] [ ] ┌ ┐ ZI ZI GI GI GI 4 G[IM] ] ] PA[N] MA MU MU TAH GIŠ GÁ GÁ[N ] E[N] E◦N I◦N I◦RI [I]RI └ IRI EL

III brea k

brea k ŠA ÚH ÚH vacat UD AD DA TA TI vacat MES AM AM IM 41

IV

V break

break

ŠA ÚH ÚH AŠ UD AD DA TA TI DUB MES AM AM IM IM ┘ I[Š]

break traces [ ] [ ] [ ] [ LUH KAL GU GA UB UB LAM PI vacat vacat vacat vacat KI ┘ K[I] [K]I

MAR RAD └ DIB T]AB LU◦ H KAL GU G[A] UB UB LAM PI ┘ GAG IR R[A] [R]A KI K[I]

break GÀR DAR D[AR [ ZU[M KUM ┐

[GA]Z [ [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ [ ] [ ]

[ ] [ ] ] ] ] K[UM] └ GAZ ┐

Á]G PAB GUR BUR BUR B]AR S◦I S◦U 4

Part 1 - Text Edition 19 . 20 . 21 . 22 . 23 . 24 . 25 . 26 . 27 . 28 . 29 . 30 . 31 . 32 . 33 . 34 . 35 . 36 . 37 . 38 . 39 .

[L]A [L]A [L]U M [L]U M [S]IG 4 ŠID ZU ZA SU [N]U NA NA end

LA LA LUM LUM SIG 4 ŠID ZU ZA └ SU ┘

NU NA NA

Rev VIII-X other exercises 1’ and colophon 2’ 3’ 4’ 5’

HI KAM [K]A M [A]N HAL UR NE BÍL KA KA end

VII break LÚ LÚ LUGAL LUGAL MAH

IGI HI KAM KAM ┘ AN HAL ┘ U[R] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

IM IŠ┐ IŠ ┘ [ ] [ ] [ ] [ [ brea k

IŠ GAL └ NUN ┘

┐ └ ME

M]I M]I

VI break [ ] traces ┌ TAG LÚ┐ LUGAL TAG LUGAL TAG SAL MAH

42

[ ] T[AG] TA[G] SA[L]

DI SAR┐ SAR SA SA N[AM ] break

[ ] D[I] [ ] [ ] ┌ SA ┌ SA NAM

[ [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ [ [ [ ] [ ] x Á end

P]A U Ù MAŠ NÍG └ NÍG ┘ ] I]L I]L ◦Ú Ú LÀL └ LÁ ┘

Elementary Sign-lists * Syllabary A Palaeography NIN DAM AK IG IG GÉME AMA AMA vacat vacat [ K[UG end

6’ 7’ 8’ 9’ 10’ 11’ 12’ 13’ 14’ 15’ 16’ 17’

MAH HUL HUL GUL GUL vacat ÍL GABA ÁRAD ÌR end

MAH HUL HUL GUL GUL ÁŠ Í◦L G[ABA] ÁRAD┐ ÌR

Rev VIII-X other exercises 1’ and colophon 2’ 3’ 4’ 5’ 6’ 7’ 8’ 9’ 10’ 11’ 12’ 13’ 14’ 15’ 16’ 17’

VII break LÚ LÚ LUGAL LUGAL MAH MAH HUL HUL GUL GUL vacat ÍL GABA ÁRAD ÌR end

VI break [ ] traces ┌ TAG LÚ┐ LUGAL TAG LUGAL TAG SAL MAH NIN MAH DAM HUL AK HUL IG GUL IG GUL ÁŠ GÉME Í◦L AMA G[ABA] AMA ÁRAD┐ vacat vacat ÌR [ K[UG end

VIII Syllabary A Appendix 1 1’ J 2’ 011 3’ 012 4’ 013 5’ 014 6’ 015 7’ 016 8’ 017 9’ 018 10’ 019

I-x[...] I-KU i-ku-un-ka na-ra-am NA-NI-NI(NA-ì-lí) [N]A-KAD 4 ┌ NA-KAD na-ši na-ṣị -ir NA-PA-IR

43

N[IN] D[AM] [ ] [ ] I[G] G[ÉME] A[MA] A[MA] [ ] [ ] ] ]

[ ] T[AG] TA[G] SA[L] N[IN] D[AM] [ ] [ ] I[G] G[ÉME] A[MA] A[MA] [ ] [ ] ] ]

Part 1 - Text Edition 11’ 020 12’ 021 13’ 022 14’ 023a 15’ 023b 16’ 024 17’ 025 end of column IX 1.J 028a 2. 028b break 1’J 048 2’ 049 3’ Syllabary A Appendix 2 4’J 216 5’ 217 6’ 7’ 8’ 9’ 218 10’ 219 11’ 220 12’ 221 13’ 14’ 222 15’ 223 16’ 224

ta-ra-am pa-ni tap-pí IGI-DU IGI-DU PA-LU(SIPAD) PA-LU

KASKAL-KU[R](BALIHA) KASKAL-KU[R](ILLAT) [D]◦é-┌a D◦ iš 8 -tár ┘ MAN 84 MAN [] DAM KIN KIN KIN KIN ÙZ U8 DAM-GÀR vacat vacat ŠÀM(NINDAxAN) KÁ SUHUR

DAM KIN KIN KIN KIN ÙZ U8 DAM-GÀR SILA 4 SILA 4 SÁM(NÍNDAxDU-A-AN) KÁ SUHUR

SUHUR HAŠHUR └ NÍNDA BURU 14 APIN └ GÍR ┘

HAŠHUR HAŠHUR N[ÍNDA] BUR[U 14 ] APIN G[ÍR]

[EDEN] KUN┐ ÚR(!UMBIN) KIŠ AZU(NÍNDAx NUN<<-GAD?>>) AZU

[EDE]N [K]UN UMBIN (GAD-KÍD-ÚR) KIŠ vacat

end of column X 1.J 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. break 1’J 2’ 3’ 4’ 5’

224 225 226 227 228 230 239 241 242 243 244

6’ rest of column empty

┌

44

vacat

Elementary Sign-lists * Syllabary A Palaeography LEft Edge Colophon possibly 1 line missing 1’J [ŠU ID30-a-]bu ┌ ┐┌D┐ 2’ DUMU IM-UR.SAĜ L Ú [ HAL ša DIĜIR.MEŠ ša IRIe-mar]

[(By)the hand of Shaggar-a]bu, son of Bacal-qarrad, [diviner of the gods of Emar.]

Fragments: 538 D (7483b – p.199) – isolated fragment (not part of SaP T1-2) Syllabary A Appendix 2 [HAŠHUR] 1’ 225 HAŠHUR 2’ BURU 14 ] 227 BUR[U 14 APIN [APIN] 3’ 228 4’ 229 L[Ú x] GÍ[R GÍR] 5’ 230a GÍR 6’ 230b [GÍR] Colophon ID ŠU I[M-...] (By) the hand of Bac[al-?malik/bēlu 86 …] 7’ 8’ <Ì>R D! ┘ A[K 85 ...] Servant of Na[bû …] break 538 ‘U’ (74123g – p.313) – perhaps part of T1 1’ DIM 2’ vacat 3’ vacat 4’ vacat ┌ 5’ DIB 6’ [T]AB

45

D[IM] DI[M] MAR RAD DIB TAB

Part 1 - Text Edition Fragments not used: The following small fragments contain only isolated (parts of) palaeographically executed signs. 538 A (731080e – p.158) 538 M (74117o – p.290) 538 P (74107ao – p.277) 538 S (1=7493h – p.230 87 ; 2=7496d – p.234; 3=74228b – p.526; 4=74238x – p.562) 538 T (1=7484p–p.217;2=7489h–p.223;3=74146r–p.370;4=74147k–p.372;5=74152h–p.384)

46

Thematic Lists * Weidner God List THEMATIC LISTS 3. Weidner God List Tablet 1 Provisionally, all fragments have been fit into a single reconstructed tablet. Note, however, that some smaller fragments may in fact belong to the unpublished trilingual G material that is occasionally referred to in Arnaud, ‘Les textes cunéiformes suméro-accadiens des campagnes 1979-1980 à Ras Shamra-Ougarit’, Syria 59 (1982) 199-207 (e.g. note the proximity of 539D 6’ DA┐.[RI.TUM] and 9’ DB[U.LA.LA] with unpublished ‘Msk 74118’ respectively A-r]i-tum and Bu-l]a-la, mentioned on p.207 of Arnaud’s article). The fragments are: 539 A (A’=74165i + A’’=74165j – p.421-2) 539 B (7485j – p.218) 539 C (74198n – p.487) 539 D (74123f – p.313) Arnaud suggests that fragment 539 ‘E’ (7493j – p.230) fits in the gap between A’ and C in III because some of its entries seem to conform to parallel text in Ugarit (e.g. 3’ IR-IN-, 4’-5’ TU-TU-). It has not been included here because of the lack of physical joins, the positioning of certain other signs and the vertical ruling, which seems incompatible with that in T1.) Obverse I 1’A’ 003 [DEN].┌LÍL┐ 2’ 004 [DNIN].LÍL 3’ 005 [DNUS]KU : šul-mu 4’ 006 [DSA.DÀR.NUN].NA 5’ 007 [DGIB]IL 6 (NE-GI) : gí◦r?-ru 88 6’ 008 [DLI 9 ].SI 4 (NE-SU 4 ) 7’ 009 [DNIN.SIKIL].LÁ [DNAN]NA : D40 89 8’ 010 [DSU]EN : D30 9’ 011 [DNIN]. └ GAL : ni-ik-kal 10’ 013 11-12’ traces only 4 lines missing 17’A’ 024 [DNA.NA.A : na-n]a-ia 2 lines missing 20’A’ 027 [DLÚ.LÀL]┌: lu-la-ah-hu 21’ 029 [DŠAR]A 22’ 030 [DTIŠPA]K 23’ 031 [DNIN.A.Z]U 24’ 032 [DNIN.GÌRI]M 90

I03 I04 I05 I06 I07 I08 I09 I10 I11 I12

003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 013

I20

021

I23 I25 II01 II02 II02a

024 026 027 028 029

II23 II24 II25 II26

053 054 055 056

break II 1’A’ 2’ 3’ 4’

057 058 059 060

┌D┐┌

┐

EN .[KI] É.[A] D DAM.GAL.[NUN.NA] D [ ]DAM.KI.[NA] D

47

Part 1 - Text Edition 5’ 6’ 7’ 8’ 9’ 10’ 11’ 12’ 13’

061 062 063 064 065 066 067 068 069

D

[ARA] [ÍD] D Í[D.L]Ú.[RU.GÚ] D K[I.SAG 9 ] D ASAL ┘ [.L]Ú.HI D AMA[R.]UTU D └ ┘ ṢAR.BAR(!PA)[.N]I.TUM [D]AK D NA.BI.UM D

14’ 070 DTAŠ.ME.TUM 15’ 071 DMA.M◦É.E 16’ 072 DA.RA.AH.TUM 17’ 073 DMI.UŠ.ŠÁR 18’ 074 DIŠTARAN : DU-L◦UH?91 19’ 077 DDI ┘ .KUD 20’ 078 DKUD 21’ 079 DNIRA◦H 22’ 080 DI.ŠAR.MA.TI.SU D 23’ 081 └ ┘ I.ŠAR.KI.DI.SU 24’ 082 ◦DI.ŠAR.NE.RI.SU D 083 25’ └ ┘ I.ŠAR.A.RI.SU 084 [D]◦I. └ ŠAR ┘ .P[À]D.D[A] 26’ a few lines missing 1’’A’’ 089 [DMA].MI 2’’ 090 [DMA].MA 091 [DMA].LIK 3’’ 4’’ 092 [DUR.MA.ŠU]M 5’’ [DLA.AZ] 093 6’’ 094 [DŠU.BU.L]A 7’’ 095 [DI.]ŠUM [DNIN].MUG 8’’ 096 [DNIN.]MAŠ 9’’ 097 [D]HAR 10’’ 098 11’’ 099 [DP]A 12’’ 100 [DLUG]AL break (with some traces just before end of column) III a few lines missing 1’A’ 109 [DŠÍR.]x.G[I 4 ] 92 2’ 110 [DPA 4 .N]I 9 .ĜAR.R[A] 3’ 111 [D]ŠÁKKAN : ┘ [...] 4’ 112 [D]LUGAL.ĜÍR.RA [] D 5’ 113 AL(!MÈŠ).LAM.MA.TA[.È.A] D ĜIŠ 6’ 114 LUGAL. Š[INIG] D D 93 7’ 115 / LUGAL.ĜIŠÁ[SAL] D ĜIŠ 8’ 116 LUGAL. ┘ [ÙR.RA] D ĜIŠ 9’ 117 LUGAL ┘ [. NIMBAR]

48

II26a II27 II27a II28 II29 III01 III02 III03a III03

057 058 058a 059 060 061 062 063

III04 III05 III06 III07 III08 III09a III09b III10 III11 III12 III13 III14 III14a

064 065 066 067 068 069-70 idem 071 071a 072 073 074 075

III18 III19 III20 III21 III22 III23 III24 III25 III26 III27 III28 III29

079 080 081 082 083 084 085 ? ? ? ? ?

? IV09a IV10 IV11 IV12 IV13 IV13a IV14 IV15

099 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107

Thematic Lists * Weidner God List D 10’ 118 SI.M[U.UT] D 11’ 120 └ RA ┘ [.QÁ.DU] 12-14’ (parts of) D only break D TU.[TU] 1’’B 135 D 2’’ TU.BA ┘ [.KA] 137 3’’ 138 [DNA]GAR break 1’’’-6’’’ (parts of) D only 7’’’A’’ 144 DKA[L.LAP] 8’’’ 145 DŠU[L.GI] 9’’’ 146 DŠUL.P[A.È.A] 10’’’ 147 DAB.[Ú] 11’’’ 148 DGU.L[A] 149 DGU.LA.Z[ID.DA] 12’’’ 13’’’ 150 DSU.KUR.RU [] 14’’’ 151 DKUR.DIN.NAM ┘ [] 152 DNIN.UD ┘ -K[ID(!NÌĜIN).ĜAR.RA] 15’’’ 16’’’ 153 D └ DA ┘ [.GAN] 17’’’ (parts of) D only and then end of column

Reverse IV 1.A’’ 154 D └ DA ┘ [.MU] 2. 155 D ┘ .ŠE[N.ŠEN] break 1’ traces only D ┐ 2’C 173 NIN [.KAR.RA.AK] D 3’ PA.BI[L.SAĜ] 174 D 4’ 175 HENDUR.S[AĜ] D 5’ 176 KUG[....] D 6’ NI[N ...] 177 D 7’-8’ only break V’ 1’-4’ (parts of) D only D 5’D G[AZ.BA.BA] 232 D ┐ A .[RI.NI.TUM] 6’ 233 D 7’ NI[N.KIN.GAL] 234 D 8’ 235 T[A.ŠI.LA] D 9’ B[U.LA.LA] 236 D 10’ [A.MA.NU.UM] 237 D Š[ÁH.HA.AŠ] 11’ 238 D T[I.PA.NI.TUM] 12’ 239 D 13’-14’ (parts of) and a some traces only followed by some lines missing ┌D 1’’ 248 IM.[DU.DU] D 2’’ É.GU[R.RI.TUM] 249 end of column

49

IV16 -

108 109

IV28b IV29 IV30

122 123 124

V05 V06 V07 V08 V09 ? ? ? ? V31-a

129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138

? ?

139 140

? ? V24 V26 ?

155 156 157 158 ?

? VII17 ? ? VII20 VII21 ? -

212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219

-

248 249

Part 1 - Text Edition 4. HAR(UR 5 ).RA = hubullu Inventory of texts isolated

fragments incompatible with reconstructed tablets (implying that they belong to other, broken and presently unreconstructable tablets) fragments not used for the composite edition (various reasons indicated in text edition) fragments that belong to another division or series than the one implied by the number assigned in Emar VI 4 fragments that are renamed due to their double count in the Emar VI 4

not used (relocated) renamed Division/ version

Canonical tablet equivalent

Emar VI4 edition number

Tablets reconstructed

Other texts all other texts are tablet fragments except when marked E (extract) - listings by Emar VI 4 edition number

1

I

541

1, 2, 3 (4 94 )

2 3/

II III-Va

542 543-5

1, 2 95 , 3 1, 2 1, 2

541 F-Y, AA / isolated: 541 J, L, M, U / not used: 541 AB 542 C, F-H, J-Q, S, T, X 543 D, 544 D-F

4

Vb-VII

545

1, 2, 3

5

VIII-IX

546

1

6

X

547

-

XI-XII

548-9

1, 2, 3

a b 96

8/

a b

XIII

550

1’ 1, 2

545 R 97 , AO, AQ 98 , AS, BB / E1=545 I, E2= 545 M+S+AZ 546 B-H, J, Q / isolated 546 B-E / not used: 546 G, J, L, Q, 7484a 547 A, D, F, G (relocated: 547 B, C, E) 548 Q, 548-9 W / renamed: 549 AF=549 AF’ 548 A, E, F, I, L-N, P, V, AA-AC 548-9 O+AK, S, 549 AF / E1=548 C, E2=548 G / not used: 548 R, T, U, X, Y, AE-AJ 550 E-H

9/

a

XIV-XV

551-2

1

-

7/

a b

1

b 10

XVI

553

1 1, 2

11

XVII

554

-

12

XVIII

555

1

13

XIX

556

1’, 2’ 99

14 15

XX XXIa

557 558

1

551 D, F 553 G, Q, R, S not used: I’, L, M 554 A, B, C, E, F (relocated: 554 D) E1=555 K / not used: 555 I 556 H / E1=556 A, E2=556 D 557 A-D / E1=558 A

XXIb-XXII

558-9

1

not used: 558 M

1, 2

16/

a b

17

XXIII

560

1

558 H’, I, J, L, 559 G, H / E1=559 D / not used: 558 F, G, H’’, N, 559 J, K not used: 560 J 100 (relocated: 560 G)

18

XXIV

561

1

561 A-I, K / not used: 561 J

50

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 1 (canonical tablet I) Division 1 (canonical I) 1 Tablet 1 101 consisting of: 541 A (731046 – p.127) 541 C (74342b – p.672) 541 E (74248a – p.575) all entries underlined Obverse I 1.A 1001 2. 1002 3. 1003 4. 1004 5. 1005 6. 1006 7. 1007 8. 1008 9. 1009 10. 1010 11. 1011 12. 1012a 13. 1012b 14. 1013 15. 1014 16. 1015 17.C 1021 18. 1021a 19. 1021b 20. 1021c 21. 1021d 22. 1021e 23. 1021f 24. 1022 25. 1023 26. 1024 27. 1025 28. 1026 29. 1027 30. 1028 break II 1.A 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050

UR 5 .RA ŠE(!EŠ).DÉ.A ŠU.LÁ ŠE(!ŠU).B[A]L NÍĜ.BA IN.NA.AN.BA A MU.UN.NA.RU BA.AN<.DÙ> BA.BA.AL BA.AN.DU 8 102 MU.UN.NA.BA(!DÍM) ŠU ŠU ŠU ĜAR ŠU.ĜAR GI ŠU.ĜAR.RA ┌ ┐ HA .LA 103 HA.LA.Ĝ]U 10 HA.L[A.ZU] HA.L[A.A.NI] HA.LA.ME HA.LA.ZU.NE.NE HA.LA.BI.NE.NE ĜIŠ BA.ŠUB(!ŠUB.BA) ŠE.BA Ì.BA SIKI.BA TÚG.BA ŠAG 4 . └ ĜÁL ┘ ŠAG 4 .[ĜAR]

1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1018 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027

MÁŠ.BI.ŠÈ IN<.ĜAR> D MÁŠ UTU D MÁŠ UTU GI.NA MÁŠ GI.NA MÁŠ GI.NA DAH.E(!HÉ)<.DAM> MÁŠ.BI MÁŠ.BI SAĜ.BA

1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1049 -

51

Part 1 - Text Edition 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18.C 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. break III 1.A 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. break

1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062a 1062b 1062c 1062d 1062e 1063 1064

MÁŠ ĜÁ.ĜÁ<.DAM> MÁŠ DAH.E.DAM MÁŠ ŠÚM.MU.DAM MÁŠ GUR.RU.DAM MÁŠ NU.ME<<.ME>> MÁŠ AN.TUKU MÁŠ NU.AN.TUKU KI MÁŠ IRI .GIN 7 MÁŠ BA.RA.DAL(!BAL) [MÁŠ] MÁŠ MÁŠ.[BI MÁŠ] TUKU NU. TUKU AN.[TUKU] NU.AN.T[UKU] BA.AN.TU KU NU.BA.AN.TU KU SAĜ.D U É. └ GI ┘ . ◦A

1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1065 1066 1067 1068 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1078

1075a 1075b 1075c 1076a 1076b 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1081a 1082 1083 1083a 1083b 1083c 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096

NI[N] NIN ÉGIR DUMU.MUNUS IBILA NITA MUNUS DUMU.GABA DUMU.MUNUS.GABA DUMU DUMU.A.NI DUMU.MUNUS.A.NI ŠEŠ ŠEŠ GAL ŠEŠ BÀNDA ŠEŠ.A.NI NIN.A.NI AD.A.NI AMA.A.NI LUGAL.A.NI NIN.A.NI KI NAM SAĜ.ÌR SAĜ.GÉME SAĜ.GÉME.ÌR IGI 104 └ ŠU BA.AN.T[I]

1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1105 1106 1107 1108 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1121-3 1123a-6 1129 1130 1132 1134 1138

52

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 1 (canonical tablet I)

IV 5.A 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28.E 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. break

1106 1107 1108a 1108b 1108c 1108d 1108e 1108f 1108g 1108h 1108i 1108j 1108k 1109a 1109b 1109c 1110 1110a 1110b 1110c 1110d 1110e 1110f 1110g 1110h 1110i 1110j 1110k 1110l 1110m 1110n 1110o 1110p 1110q

Reverse V 1’E 1111 2’ 1111a 3’ 1111b 4’ 1111c 5’ 1111d 6’ 1111e 7’ 1111f 8’ 1111g 9’ 1111h 10’ 1111i

BU[RU 14 ...] MU.[UN.DU ŠE]

1157-9 1161 1163a-7 idem idem idem idem idem 1168-75 idem idem 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194

KI [x] KI [x] KI [x] KI [x] KI A x[] KISLAH KISLAH KISLAH KISLAH KISLAH KISLAH KANKAL KANKAL KANKAL UD UD ½ KÁM UD 1 KÁM UD 2 KÁM UD └ 3 ┘└ KÁM ┘ ┌ ┐┌ UD 4 KÁM┐ 5 KÁM └ UD ┘ UD 6 KÁM UD 7 KÁM UD 8 KÁM UD 9 KÁM UD 10 KÁM UD 15 KÁM UD 20 KÁM [UD] 25 KÁM [UD] 30 KÁM [UD N]Ú <> [UD HU]L.A

[I]T[I] [ITI.]ŠÈ 105 [SA]Ĝ ITI.ŠÈ EGIR ITI.ŠÈ UD KAŠ 4 .ŠÈ SAĜ ITI.SAKAR

1211 1212 1214 1215 1216 1218 1220 1221 1222 1223

ZAG MU ITI BÁR.ZAG.ĜAR ITI GUD.SI.SÁ └ ITI SIG 4 .A

53

Part 1 - Text Edition 11’A 12’ 13’ 14’ 15’ 16’ 17’ 18’ 19’ 20’ 21’ 22’ 23’ 24’ 25’ 26’ 27’ 28’ 29’ 30’ 31’ 32’ break VI 1’C 2’ 3’ 4’ 5’ 6’ 7’ 8’A 9’ 10’ 11’ 12’ 13’ 14’ 15’ 16’ 17’ 18’ 19’ 20’ 21’ 22’ 23’ 24’ 25’

1111j IT I ŠU.NUMUN.A 1111k ITI NE-NE D┐ 1111l ITI KIN └ INANNA 1111m ITI APIN DU 8 /GABA.A┐ 1111n ITI GAN.GAN.NE┐ 1111o ITI AB.È 1111p ITI ZÍZ.A 1111q ITI ŠE GUR 10 .KUD 1111r ITI DI[R]IG.GA 1112 KILÚ-KAL(=ULUDIN).BI.DA 1113 KI GIZKIM.BI.DA 1114a BA.RA.È.A 106 1114b BA.RA.ÈD.A.E 107 1114c BA.RA.È.A.DÈ 1115a Ì.LÁ 1115b Ì.LÁ.E 1115c Ì.LÁ.E.MEŠ 1116a IN.NA.AN.LÁ 1116b IN.NA.AN.LÁ.E 1116c IN.NA.AN.LÁ[.E.MEŠ] 1117a Ì.Á[Ĝ.ĜÁ] ?1117b I[N....]

1224 1225 1226 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1236 1235 1237 1238 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 ?

1124 1125 1125a 1126 1126a 1126b 1128a 1128b 1128c 1128d 1129 1130 1131a 1131b 1132a 1132b 1133 1134 1135 1136 1136a 1136b 1137 1138a 1138b

1275 1277 1278 1280 1281 1282 1283 1285 1286 1287 1288 1290 1291 1293 1294 1295 1296 1297 1298 1299 1300 1301 1302

TU[KUM.BI] KUG.BABBAR.NAM.T[AB.BA] KUG.BABBAR.NAM.TAB.B[A.NI] NAM.TAB.B[A] ┌ NAM.TAB.B[A] . NI NAM.TAB ┘ .B[A] .NI.NE.NE BA ┘ [.T]A.BAL [BA].TA.BAL.E.MEŠ [BA.R]A.BAL [BA.R]A.BAL.E.MEŠ KUG.BABBAR ù MÁŠ.BI ŠE u MÁŠ.BI ÍB.GI.GI ÍB.GI.GI.E.MEŠ BA.ÍB.GI.GI BA.ÍB.GI.GI.E.MEŠ KI LÚ.SILIM.MA.TA ù LÚ.SILIM.GI.NA.TA KUG.BABBAR.BI ŠU BA.AB.TE 9 SÁM SÁM.BI SÁM.BI.ŠÈ SÁM.BI.ŠÈ IN.ĜAR SÁM TIL.LA SÁM NU.TIL.LA

54

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 1 (canonical tablet I) 26’ 1139 27’ 1140a 28’ 1140b end of column VII 1145 1’C 2’ 1145a 3’ 1146 4’ 1146a 5’ 1146b 6’ 1147 7’ 1148a 8’ 1148b 9’ 1148c 10’ 1148d 11’ 1148e 12’A 1150 13’ 1151 14’ 1152 15’ 1153a 16’ 1153b 17’ 1153c 18’ 1154a 19’ 1154b 20’ 1154c 21’ 1155 22’ 1157a 23’ 1157b 24’ 1158a 25’ 1158b 26’ 1159 27’ 1160 end of column VIII 1’C 2’ 3’ 4’ 5’ 6’-7’ 8’ 9’ 10’ 11’ 12’ 13’

1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1174a 1175a 1175b 1176 1177

EGIR SÁM TIL.LA IN.ŠI.SA 10 IN.ŠI.SA 10 .E.MEŠ

1304 1305 1307

[K]I.BI 4 108 .┌ ĜAR┐.R[A] [KI.B]I 4 .NE [] GABA.RI.A GABA.RI.A.BI GABA.RI.A.BI.NE.NE ŠU.RI.ÀM 109 IGI ĜÁL 3 ÀM IGI ĜÁL 4 ÀM IGI ĜÁL 5 ÀM IGI ĜÁL 6 ÀM IGI ┘└ ĜÁL ┘ [10 ÀM] ┐110 ┌ ┐┌ ŠEŠ ŠEŠ . GIN 7 LÚ LÚ.GIN 7 NÍĜ.NAM.A.NA Ì.ĜÁL.LA Ì.BA Ì.BA.E Ì.BA.E.MEŠ Ì.GU 7 .A Ì.GU 7 .A.E Ì.GU 7 .A.E.MEŠ KUG.BABBAR.TA GUB.BA MÁŠ KUG.BABBAR.BI. ŠÈ AL.GUB 111 MÁŠ KUG.BABBAR.BI NU ŠÈ AL.GUB MU.UN.TA.AN.GUB MU.NA.AN.GUB ŠI.BA.DU 8 .E.MEŠ ÍB.SI.SI.E.MEŠ

1322-3 1324-5 1328 1329 1330 1331 ? 1335 1336 1337 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1349 1350 1351 1353 1355

ĜÁ.L[A BA.AN.DAG] └ UD ĜÁ.L[A BA.AN.DAG] 112 UD <1>KAM BÁN ŠE 1.TA Á.BI Ì.ÁĜ UD KUG.BABBAR MU.UN.DE 6 113 UD KUG.BABBAR Á.BI : MU.UN.DE 6 GÉME.A.NI BA.TÚM ÌR.A.NI BA.TÚM Á.BI ÍB.SI.SI(!SÁ) IN.NA.AN.IN(!ŠÚM)

1366 1367 1368 1369 1370 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 2001 2002

MAN MAN MAN 2001 2002

L └ TÚ

ŠU

B.BA

55

Part 1 - Text Edition Colophon (vertically written in lower part of A VIII) 1.A AL.TIL KÁRA (It has been) completed (and) cked: 2. ŠU.NÍĜIN 3 me-tì 15 MU.BI (in) total 315 (are) its lines. D 3. ŠU IM.EN Ì.ZU TUR (By) the hand of Bacal-belu, junior diviner, D 4. ÌR NA.BI.UM the servant of Nabû D 5. ù NISABA and Nisaba. 1 Tablet 2 114 - 541 D (731059a-c – p.125+136) all entries underlined Obverse I 1’a 1010 2’ 1011 3’ 1012a 4’ 1012b 5’ 1013 6’ 1014 7’ 1015 8’ 1021 9’ 1021a 10’ 1021b 11’ 1021c 12’ 1021d 13’ 1021e 14’ 1021f 15’ 1022 16’ 1023 17’ 1024 1025 18’ 19’ 1026 1027 20’ 1028 21’ 22’ 1030 23’ 24’ 1033 25’ 1034 26’ 1035 27’ 1036 28’ 1037 29’ 30’ 31’ 1040 32-3’ 1044 34’ 35’ 1045 36’ 1046 37’ 1047 38’ 1048 end of column

[BA].AN.[DU 8 ] [M]U.UN.NA.BA 115 ŠU ŠU ŠU ĜAR ŠU.ĜAR G[I] ŠU.ĜAR.RA HA.LA HA.LA.ĜU 10 HA.LA.ZU HA.LA.B[I] HA.LA.M[E] HA.LA.ZU.NE.N[E] ┐ HA.LA.BI.NE.NE 116 ĜIŠ BA ŠUB ŠE.BA Ì.BA SIKI.BA [TÚG].BA [ŠAG 4 .GA]L [ŠAG 4 .Ĝ]AR [MUR.GU]D

[...]x [IGI.DU 8 ].A [SÁ].DUG 4 [KAŠ.DÉ].A [NÍĜ.D]É.A [NÍĜ.MUNUS.ÚS].SÁ [...].A [...]x [KUG.BABBAR.PAD].DU broken [MÁŠ.BI.ŠÈ I]N.ĜAR [MÁŠ] DUTU [MÁ]Š DUTU GI.NA 117 MÁŠ GI .NA MÁŠ GI.NA DAH.E ┘ (!HÉ)<.DAM>

56

1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1032 1033 1035 1036 1037 1043 1051 1052 1053 1054 1057

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 1 (canonical tablet I)

II probably 2 lines missing (line count reconstructed from canonical sequence) 3.c 1051 [MÁŠ Ĝ]Á.ĜÁ.DAM┐ 4. 1052 [MÁŠ DA]H.E(!HÉ).DAM┐ 5. 1053 [MÁŠ GU]R.RU.DAM 6. 1054 [MÁŠ NU].ME<<.ME>>.A 7. 1055 [MÁŠ] AN.TUKU 8’ 1056 [MÁŠ NU].AN.TUKU ┘ perhaps about 20 lines missing 1’a 1066 UG[ULA DAG.GI 4 .A] 2’ 1067a NÍĜ.[ĜÁL.LA] 3’ 1067b NÍĜ.[ĜÁL.LA] 4’ 1067c NÍĜ.Ĝ[ÁL.LA] 5’ 1068 NÍĜ.KUD.[DA] 6’ 1069a DAM.D[AM] 7’ 1069b DAM.DA[M] 8’ 1070 DAM.GURUŠ 9’ 1071 DAM.LÚ DA 10’ 1072 DAM.BÀNDA DAM.KASKAL 11’ 1073 12’ 1074 DAM ┘ .TAB.B[A] 13’ 1075a ┌NIN 14’ 1075b NIN 15’ 1075c ÉGIR 1076a DUMU.MUNUS 16’ 1076b UŠ(=DUMU) 17’ 18’ 1077 NITA 19’ 1078 MUNUS 1079 [DUMU.]GABA 20’ perhaps 1 line missing before end of column III 1’a 1104 2’ 1105 3’ 1106 4’ 1107 5’ 1108a 6’ 1108b 7’ 1108c 8’ 1109 9’ end of column IV 1-6.bo 7-9. 10. 11. 12.

1109e 1109f 1110 1110a 1110b

MU.[UN.KUR 9 EBUR.ŠÈ] BURU 14 .Š[È BA.RA.ÈD.DÈ] BURU 14 x[...] MU.[UN.DU ŠE] KIS[LAH] KIS[LAH] KIS[LAH] [KANKA]L

1056 1057 1059 1060 1061 1062 1080 1082 1083 1084 1085 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094-5 1096 1097 1098 1099 1101

1156 1159 1161 1164 1165 1166 1168-75 -

[...] A

KAN[KAL] KANKAL UD UD ½ ÀM UD 1 KAM

1168-75 idem 1176 1177 1178 57

Part 1 - Text Edition 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. break

1110c 1110d 1110e 1110f 1110g 1110h 1110i 1110j

UD 2 KAM UD 3 KAM UD 4 KAM UD 5KAM [U]D 6 KAM [U]D 7 KAM [UD] └ 8 KAM ┘ [UD] └ 9 K[AM]

1179 1180 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186

[IN.NA.A]N.LÁ[.E] 118 [I]N.┌NA!.LA[L.E.MEŠ] ◦Ì.ÁĜ 119 .Ĝ[Á ] 11 Ì.ÁĜ .Ĝ[Á.E.MEŠ] ŠE Ì.ÁĜ[.ĜÁ ] ŠE NU.Ì.ÁĜ.Ĝ[Á ] KUG.BABBAR Ì.LÁ.E KUG.BABBAR NU.Ì.LÁ.E.MEŠ ŠÚM.MU.DAM [ŠÚ]M.MU.DAM.E◦[.MEŠ] [GUR.] └ RU.[DAM] [GUR.R]U[.DAM.E.MEŠ]

1244 1246 1247 1249 1250 1253 1255 1256-7 1258 1260 1262 1264

1122a 22b-g

UGU

1266 1267-75

1141 1142 1142a 1143 1143a 1144 1145 1145a 1146 1146a 1146b 1147 1148a 1148b 1148c 1148d 1148e 1149

INIM NU.ĜÁ.ĜÁ.A MU LUGAL IN.PÀD TÉŠ.BI MU LUGAL IN.PÀD UM TÚM MU.UN.TÚM AN.TI.BAL KI.BI.ĜAR.RA KI.BI.ĜAR.RA.BI.ŠÈ GABA.RI.A GABA.RI.A.BI GABA.RI.A.BI.NE.NE ŠU.RI.À[M] IGI 3 ĜÁL.À[M] IGI 4 ĜÁL.À[M] IGI 5 ĜÁL.À[M] IGI 6 ĜÁL.À[M] IGI 10 ĜÁL.À[M]

Reverse V 1’br 1116b 2’ 1116c 3’ 1117a 4’ 1117b 1118a 5’ 1118b 6’ 7’ 1119a 8’ 1119b 9’ 1120a 1120b 10’ 11’ 1121a 1121b 12’ end of column VI 1.a 2-7. break VII 1.a 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18.

(parts of) UGU

1311 1312 1313-4 1315 1316 1321 1325 1328 1329 1330 1331 1332 1334

2/3 2/3 [] 58

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 1 (canonical tablet I) 19. 20. 21. break

1150 1151 1152

ŠEŠ ŠE[Š.GIN 7 ] LÚ [LÚ.GIN 7 ] 120 └ NÍĜ ┘ .[NAM.A.NA Ì.ĜÁL.LA]

1335 1336 1337

VIII šu kal 121 1.a 1165 NINDA.BI GU 7 1361 122 2. 1166 TÚG.BI TA(AL.)MU 4 .MU 4 1362 123 3. 1168 BA.ÚŠ BA.TAK 4 .A 1364 124 4. 1169 Ú.ĜU 10 .UŠ BA.AN.DAG 1365 5. 1170 ĜÁ.LA BA.AN.DAG 1366 6-7. 1171 UD ĜÁ.LA BA.AN : .DAG 1367 8. 1172 UD <1>KAM BÁN ŠE.TA.ÀM 1368 125 9. 1173 Á.BI Ì.NE(!ÁĜ) .E 1369 10. 1174 UD KUG.BABBAR MU.UN.TÚM 1370 11. 1174a UD KUG.BABBAR Á.BI MU.UN.TÚM 1371 12. 1175a GÉME.A.NI BA.TÚM 1372 13. 1175b ÌR.A.NI BA.TÚM.MU 1373 14. 1176 Á.BI ÍB.SI.SI(!SÁ) 1374 1375 15. 1177 IN.NA.AN.IN(!ŠÚM) n/a MAN MAN MAN n/a 16. 2001 TÚL 2001 Colophon 17.a AL.TIL KÁRA It has been completed (and) cked: 18. ŠU.NÍĜIN 2 me-at (in) total 200 : 75 MU.BI.UM (and) 75 (are) its ‘names’(entries). 19. I D (By) the hand of Išma’-Dagan, 20. ŠU iš-ma-a’- KUR junior diviner, 21. Ì.ZU TUR.TUR D servant of Na[bû] 22. ÌR A[K] D and Nis[aba.] 23. ù NIS[ABA] 24. xx[x] 126 … rest of column empty 1 Tablet 3 127 consisting of: 541 B (731044 – p.125) 541 Z (731085l – p.165) Obverse I 1 line missing 2.B 1002 3. 1003 4. 1004 5. 1005 6. 1006 7. 1007 8. 1008 9. 1009 10. 1010 11. 1011

[E]Š.┌DÉ.[A [Š]U.LÁ [ ŠE ┘ (!ŠU).BAL [ NÍĜ.BA [ IN.NA.AN.BA [ A.MU.UN.NA.RU [ BA.AN.DÙ [ BA.AN.BA[L ┌ BA.AN. DU[H MU.U[N.N]A.DÍM [

...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] 59

1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011

Part 1 - Text Edition 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.

1012a 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022

ŠU [ ŠU.ĜAR ŠU.ĜAR.RA ŠU.ĜAR GI ŠU.NÍĜ.ĜÁL.LA ŠU.NAM.TIL.LA ŠU.DIRIG ŠU.ZID

23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. break

1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1041a 1041b 1042

ŠE.BA Ì.BA SIKI.BA TÚG.BA

ZID.KAR.RA HA.LA ĜIŠ.ŠUB.BA

ŠAG 4 .GAL ŠAG 4 .ĜAR MUR.GÚ MUR.GUD IGI.SÁ IGI.KÁR IGI.DU 8 .A 128

DUG 4 .SÁ KAŠ.DÉ.A

NÍĜ.DU.A NÍĜ.MÍ.ÚS.SÁ NÍĜ.ŠU.TAK 4 .MA NÍĜ.MU.PÀD.DA KUG.BABBAR.PAD.DU KI.LÁ KI.LÁ.BI ┐┌ KI.LÁ . BI.NE.NE

[ ] └ MÁŠ

II about 12 lines missing 1’B 1063 SAĜ.[DU É.[GI.A 2’ 1064 3’ 1065 DAG.G[I 4 .A 4’ 1066 UGULA DAG.[GI 4 .A 5’ 1067a NÍĜ.ĜÁL.[LA 6’ 1067b NÍĜ.ĜÁL.[LA 7’ 1067c NÍĜ.Ĝ[ÁL.LA break

60

...] g[a-ma-lu] gi-mil┐-l[u] gi-mil-lu tu┐-ur-rù ma-aš-ru-ú gi-mil-la ba-la-ṭi ú-sa-tu gi 5 -mil-li na-pu-ul-ti na-pu-ul-ti e-ṭe 4 -ri zi-it-tu iš-qu ┘ - └ tu 4

1012 1013 1015 1014 1018 1019 1016 1020 1021

ep-ru pi-iš-še-tu 4 lu-bu-šu na-al-ba-šu <ú->kúl-lu bu-bu-tu 4 im-ru ši-ih-ṭu 4 i-gi-su-u i-šar-tu 4 ta-mu-ur-tu ša-an-du-uk-ku qì-ri-tu bi-ib-lu ti-ir-ha-tu šu-bu-ul-tu za-ka 4 -ar šù-mu ši-bi-ir-tu šu-qu-ul-tu ┘ šu-qu-ul-ta ┘ -[šu] šu-q[u-ul-ta-šu-nu] ṣi ┘ -[ib-tu]

1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1030 1031 1032 1033 1035 1036 1037 1039 1043 1043 1045 1046 1047 1048

...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...]

1076 1078 1079 1080 1082 1083 1084

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 1 (canonical tablet I) Reverse VII 1’B 1143a 2’ 1143b 3’ 1143c break

MU.[UN.TÚM Ì.[TÚM └ A[N.TÚM

...] ...] ...]

VIII a few lines missing ┐ 1’B 1156 KUG.BABBAR [.TA DU 8 .A 2’ 1156a KUG.BABBAR.T[A DU 8 .A.NI 3’ 1156b KUG.BABBAR.TA DU 8 ┐.┌A┐.N[E.NE 4’ 1157a MÁŠ KUG.BABBAR.[B]I.ŠÈ AL.GU[B 5’ 1157b MÁŠ KUG.BABBAR.BI.[Š]È NU.AL.GU[B

1316 1317 1318

...] ...] ...] ...] ...]

1346 1347 1348 1349 1350 1351 1352 1353 1355 1356 1357 1358 1359 1360

6’ 7’ 8’ 9’ 10’ 11’ 12’ 13’ 14’

1158a 1158b 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163a 1163b 1164

ÍB.TA.A.AN.GUB.BA A.MU.UN.NA.A.AN.GUB.BA ŠI.BA.AB.[DU]H. x [

15’ 16’

1165 1166

NINDA .BI └ Ì.GU 7 .E TÚG ME(!.BI) AL.MU 4 .[M]U 4

iz-z[i-iz] [...] ...] ...] ...] l]i-ṭì-ir-m[a e im-ṭì] ◦i-hu-uz ◦ú-ul i-hu-u[z] [a-n]a aš-ša-ti-šu [i-hu-uz] a-ka[l-šu ik-kal] ṣu-ba-at[-su i-lab-bi-iš]

17’

1167

DA(!ŠE) <Ì.>ÀR[.RA

i]ṭ-ṭe 4 -ER 129 (!en 6 )

1363

18’ 19’ 20’ 21’ 22’

1168 1169 1170 1171 1172

BA.ÚŠ BA.A[N.TAK 4. A UGU BA.AN.D[É

1364 1365 1366 1367 1368

23’ 24’

1173 1174

Á.BI Ì.ÁĜ.E UD KUG.BABBAR MU.UN.DÉ

25’

1174a

UD KUG.BABBAR Á.BI MU.UN.DÉ

26’ 27’ 28’ 29’ 30’

1175a 1175b 1176 1177 n/a

GÉME.A.NI ŠU BA.AB.TE 9 .ĜÁ.TA.ÀM ÌR.A.NI ŠU BA.AB.TE 9 .ĜÁ.TA.ÀM Á ┘ .BI ÍB.SI.SÁ ┐ IN .NA.AN.SU(!ŠÚM)

im-t]ù-ut ih-t[a-li-iq] it-ta-bi-i]t ki it-te-[par-ku] ú-mu ki i[t-te-par-ku] ú-mu-sa-ta [BÁN-ta-àm še-im] : id-di-šu i-ma-d[a-ad] ú-mu ka-sa-ap-šu ub-ba-l[a] : ú-mu ka-sa-ap-š[u ub-ba-la] : a-ma-at-šu i-la-qì : a-ra-ad-šu i-la-qì i-di-šu i-ma-al-lu-u e-ri-ba TIL MAN

ÍB.SI.[S]Á.E.ME[Š ÍB.DIRI[G.G]A.E.ME[Š

HÉ.DIRI[G N]AM.BAL.L[Á BA.TUKU NU.BA.TUKU NAM.DAM.[Š]È BA.TUKU DA

ĜÁ.LA BA.A[N.DA]G ┐ UD ĜÁ.LA BA.AN .DAG UD 1.KAM BÁN ŠE.TA.ÀM

MAN TIL MAN

61

1361 1362

1369 1370 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 n/a

Part 1 - Text Edition Colophon ID D 31’B ŠU I[M.ma-li]k DUMU IM.UR.SA[Ĝ]

(By) the hand of Ba[cal-mali]k, son of Bacal-qarr[ad], scrib[e (and) diviner o]f the gods of Emar, [servant of Nabû] and Nis[aba, servant of Marduk] and Sarp[anitu.]

LÚ LÚ 32’ DUB.SA[R HAL š]a DIĜIR.MEŠ IRI e-mar [ÌR DAK] 33’ D 34’ u NIS[ABA ÌR DAMAR.UTU] 35’ u DṢAR.P[A.NI.TUM] end of column

Fragments: 541 F (74178b – p.452) 1’ 1125 [KUG.BABBAR NA]M.TAB.B[A 2’ 1125a [KUG.BABBAR NA]M.TAB.BA.A.N[I 3’ 1125b [KUG.BABBAR N]AM.TAB.BA.N[E.NE 4’ 1126 [NAM].TAB.[BA

...] ...] ...] ...]

1277 1278 1279 1280

541 G (731067 – p.137) 1’ 1126 [NA]M.TAB.BA 2’ 1126a [NA]M.TAB.BA.A.NI 3’ 1126b [NA]M.TAB.BA.NE.NE 4’ 1128c [BA].RA.AB.BAL.LÁ 1128d [BA]. └ RA.AB.BAL.LÁ.E!.MEŠ 5’ 6’ 1129 [KUG.BABBAR ù] MÁŠ.BI [ŠE ù] └ MÁŠ.BI 7’ 1130 8’ 1131a [ÍB.GI.GI] 9’ 1131b [ÍB.GI.GI.E.]MEŠ 10’ 1132a [BA.ÍB.GI.GI] 11’ 1132b [BA.ÍB.GI.GI.E.ME]Š

[...] [...] : ta-a[p-pi-šu-nu] it-ta-bal-k[it?] it-ta-bal-k[it-tu] ka-as-pa ù ṣi-[bat-šu] 130 e-ú ù ṣi-bat-š[u] ip-pa-al ip-pa-lu it-ta-na-ap ┘ [-pa-al] └ it-ta ┘ [-na-ap-pa-lu]

1280 1281 1282 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 1290 1291 1293

541 H (74171f – p.434) 1’ 1128d [BA.RA.AB.BAL.]┌E.MEŠ 2’ 1128c [BA.RA.AB.BAL.LÁ] 3’ 1129 [KUG.BABBAR ù MÁŠ.B]I 4’ 1130 [ŠE ù MÁŠ.B]I 5’ 1131a [ÍB.GI].GI 6’ 1131b [ÍB.GI.GI].E.MEŠ 7’ 1132a [BA.ÍB.GI.G]I 8’ 1132b [BA.ÍB.GI.GI.] └ E.MEŠ

it[-ta-bal-kit-tu] it ┘ [-ta-bal-kit] KUG.BAB[BAR ù ṣi-bat-šu] e-ú [ù ṣi-bat-šu] ip-pa-al ip-pa-lu it-t[a-na-ap-pa-al] it ┘ -[ta-na-ap-pa-lu]

1285 1283 1286 1287 1288 1290 1291 1293

62

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 1 (canonical tablet I) 541 I (74106e+74221b – p.269+316 ; 74106e is left part with most of the Sumerian column) 1’ 1082 [DUMU.MÍ.A.NI] : m[a-...] 1103 ┌ 2’ 1083 ŠEŠ [] : a-h[u] 1107 3’ 1083b ŠEŠ [BÀN.D]A 1110 : a-hu┐[...] 4’ 1083c ŠEŠ.[A.N]I 1111 : a-hu-šu ┘ 5’ 1084 NIN.A ┘ . └ NI 1112 : a-ha-t[u 4 -šu] 6’ 1089 IM.RI.A : ki-im-t[u 4 ] 1116-20 7’ 1089a IM.RI.A.┌GU(!ĜU 10 ) : └ MIN ┘ -i[a] ? 8’ 1089b └ IM ┘ . └ RI ┘ . └ A ┘ [.ZU ...] 541 J (74122ba – p.311) 1’ 1173 ◦Á.┌BI┐┌Ì┐.Á[Ĝ.E 2’ 1174 [UD] KUG.BABBAR MU.U[N.TÚM 3’ 1174a [UD K]UG.BABBAR Á.NA [MU.UN.TÚM end of column

...] ...] ...]

1369 1370 1371

541 K (74124a – p.317) Obverse IV’ 1’ 1107 [M]U.┌UN.D[U ?ŠE] 2’ 1108f KISLAH 3’ 1108g KISLAH 4’ 1108h KIS[LAH] 5’ 1108i └ KIS[LAH] 1108j [KISLAH] 6’ 7’ 1109a [KAN]KAL 131 8’ 1109b [KAN]KAL 1109c [KAN]KAL 9’ 1109d [KAN]KAL 10’ 11’ 1109e [KAN]K[AL] 12’ 1109f [KAN]K[AL] Reverse V’ 1’ 1133 [KI LÚ.SILIM.MA].TA┐ 2’ 1134 [ù LÚ.SILIM.GI.NA].TA 3’ 1135 [KUG.BABBAR.BI ŠU] BA.AB.TE.┌ĜÁ┐.┌TA.ÀM 4’ 1136 SÁM 1136a [SÁM].BI 5’ 1136b [SÁM].BI.ŠÈ 6’ 7’ 1137 [SÁM.BI.ŠÈ] IN.ĜAR 8’ 1138a [SÁM TIL].LA

1294 1295 1296 1297 1298 1299 1300 1301

541 L (74104h – p.261) 1’ 1169 [UG]U BA.A[N.DÉ 2’ 1170 ĜÁ.LA.B[A.AN.DAG 3’ 1171 UD ĜÁ.LA.[BA.AN.DAG 4’ 1172 UD 1 KAM BÁN ŠE.[TA.ÀM 5’ 1173 Á.BI Ì.Á[Ĝ]

1365 1366 1367 1368 1369

...] ...] ...] ...] ...]

63

1161 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174

Part 1 - Text Edition 6’

1174

7’

1175

8’ 9’

1175a 1175b

UD KUG.BABBAR MU.U[N.TÚM [U]D KUG.BABBAR [?À.BI MU.UN.TÚM

...]

1370

...]

1371

[GÉM]E.A ┘ [.NI BA.TÚM [ÌR.] └ A ┘ [.NI BA.TÚM]

...] ...]

1372 1373

541 M (= 1 Tablet 4) (74139 – p.325) (Obverse - Reverse only has a few signs -visible is ÌR D[ ]-, belonging to a colophon) 1. 1001 [U]R 5 .[RA ...] 1001 2. 1002 EŠ.DÉ.[A ...] 1002 3. 1003 ŠU.[LÁ ...] 1003 4. 1004 ŠE(!ŠU).[BAL ...] 1004 5. 1005 NÍĜ.[BA ...] 1005 541 N (74104y – p.263) 1’ 1109d [KANKAL 2’ 1109e [KANKAL] 3’ 1109f [KANKAL] 4’ 1110 [UD] 5’ 1110a [UD ½ KAM] 6’ 1110b [UD 1 KAM] 7’ 1110c [UD 2 KAM

a]-pi-i┐-t[u 4 ] i-šar-tu da-an-na-t[u] ┌ ú-mu mi-ši-il5 ú-m[i] ú-ma-ak-ka-[a]l ši-na] └ ú ┘ -m[i]

541 O (74132p – p.339) 1’ 1110b UD 1[ KAM 2’ 1110c UD 2[ KAM 3’ 1110d UD 3[ KAM 4’ 1110e [UD] 4[ KAM

...] ...] ...] ...]

541 P (7496c – p.234) I’ 1099 1’ [ŠU.TI.A.NI ŠU BA.A]N.┌TI┐ 1100 [ŠE GUR 10 KUD] 2’ 1101 3’ [ŠE.GUR 10 .KU]D.ŠÈ 4’ 1102 [UD ŠE.GUR 10 .K]UD 5’ 1103 [EGIR ŠE.GUR 10 .K]UD II’ 1’-4’ 1110a/d UD x[... ]

1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 1178 1179 1180 1181

1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1191-4

541 Q (7490f – p.224) 1’ 1122f [U]GU.ZU┐.NE.[NE] 2’ 1122g [U]GU.BI.NE.N[E] 3’ 1123a UGU.BI AN ┘ .[TUKU] 1123b UGU.BI.NU? [AN.TUKU ] 4’ 5’ 1124 TUKUM[?<.BI>] 6’ 1125 KUG.BABBAR.NAM.[TAB.BA] 7’ 1125a [K]UG.BABBAR.NAM.T[AB.BA.NI]

64

1272 1270 1273 1274 1275-6 1277 1278

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 1 (canonical tablet I) 541 R (74198l – p.487) 1’ 1122d [UG]U [...] 2’ 1122e [UG]U [...] 3’ 1122f [U]GU.ZU.NE.[NE] 1122g UGU.BI.NE.[NE] 4’ 5’ 1123a UGU.BI AN.[TUKU] 6’ 1123b [U]GU.BI NU.[AN.TUKU] 7’ 1124 [TU]K[UM.BI]

1269? 1270? 1272 1270 1273 1274 1275-6

541 S (74293j – p.620) 1’ 1126 [NA]M.TAB.BA 2’ 1126a [NA]M.TAB.BA.A┐[.NI] 3’ 1126b [NAM.T]AB.BA.N[E.NE]

1280 1281 1282

541 T (7498i – p.240) SÁM 1’ 1136 2’ 1136a [SÁM].BI 3’ 1136b [SÁM].BI.ŠÈ [SÁM.BI.ŠÈ] └ IN.ĜAR 4’ 1137

š[e-mu] ši-[im-šu] i-n[a ...] i-n[a ...]

1297 1298 1299 1300

541 U (74164c – p.417) 1’ 1154b [Ì.GU 7 .A].┌E 2’ 1154c [Ì.GU 7 .A].E.MEŠ 3’ 1155 [KUG.BABBAR.]┌TA GUB.BA 4’ 1156 [KUG.BABBAR].TA DU 8 .A 5’ 1156a [KUG.BABBA]R.TA DU 8 .A.NI 6’ 1156b [KUG.BABBAR.T]A DU 8 .A.NE.NE 7’ 1157a [MÁŠ KUG.BABBAR.B]I.ŠÈ AL.GUB 8’ 1157b [MÁŠ KUG.BABBAR.BI].ŠÈ NU.AL.GUB

1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 1349 1350

541 V (74122al – p.310) 1’ traces only 2’ 1121a [GUR.RU.DAM] 3’ 1121b [GUR.RU.DAM.E.MEŠ]

1262 1264

ú-ti-ir └ ut ┘ - └ te ┘ -er ┘

541 W (74101o – p.246) UGU.B[A.AN.DÉ] 1’ 1169 ĜÁ.LA ┘. [BA.AN.DAG] 2’ 1170 3’ 1171 UD Ĝ[Á.LA ┘ .BA.AN.DAG]

1365 1366 1367

541 X (731084j – p.164) 1’ 1098 [ŠU.TI] 2’ 1099 [ŠU.TI.A.NI BA.AN].TI 3’ 1100 [ŠE GUR 10 KUD] 4’ 1101 [ŠE GUR 10 KUD.ŠÈ] 5’ 1102 [UD ŠE GUR 10 KUD] 6’ 1103 [EGIR ŠE GUR 10 KUD

mi-il-qì-it-t[u 4 ] mi-il-qì-ti-š[u il-qé] e-ṣe-du i-na e-ṣe-di ú ┘ -mu e-ṣe-di ar-ka-a]t e-ṣ [e-di]

65

1144/1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151

Part 1 - Text Edition 541 Y (74107ax – p.277) 1’ NU.B[A ....] 2’ KI.BI Ì.[x] 3’ KI.BI Ì.x[] 4’ 1146 [GA]BA. └ RI ┘ . └ A ┘

1322-3 idem 1324-5

541 AA (74107av – p.277) 1’ 1097a [ŠU] BA.AN.T[ÈĜ.ĜE 26 .E.MEŠ] 2’ 1097b [ŠU] BA.AB.TÈĜ ┘ [.ĜE 26 ] 3’ 1097c [ŠU] └ BA ┘ . └ AB ┘ .T[ÈĜ.ĜE 26 .E.MEŠ]

1140 1141 1143

Fragment not used: 541 ‘AB’ (74177c – p.452) - suggested by Civil (11) but too insubstantial to be of use

66

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 2 (canonical tablet II) Division 2 (canonical II) 2 Tablet 1 132 consisting of: 542 A (74191a – p.467-70) 542 E (74215b – p.522) 542 I 133 (74146h – p.368) 542 R (7488a – p.221) 542 ‘V’ (74101x – p.246) Obverse I 1’A 2004 2’ 2005 3’ 2006 4’ 2007 5’ 2007a 6’ 2007b 7’ 2008 8’ 2009 9’ 2010 10’ 2011 11’ 2012 12’ 2013 13’ 2014 14’ 2014a 2015 15’ 2016 16’ 17’ 2016a’ 18’ 2016a’’ 19’ 2016b 20’ 2016c 21’ 2016d 22’ 2017 23’ 2017a 24’ 2017b 25’ 2017c 26’ 2017d 27’ 2018 28’ 2019 29’ 2019a 30’ 2019b 31’ 2019c 32’ 2019d 33’ 2020 2021a 34’ 35’ 2021b 36’ 2022a 37’ 2022b

[SILA.DA] KUR 9 .R[A [KA UR.G]IR 15 .A.NI.ŠÈ IN┐[.x [KA] ┌NAM.RI.A.NI.ŠÈ ŠUB.BA I[N?.x ┌ur : ÚR ÚR.BI ÚR.BI.ŠÈ ÚR.BI.ŠÈ IN.ĜAR iš-še : ÉNSI └ š a-ag-ga [] : SAĜA [š]ab-ra : TUKU-DA 134 (!ŠABRA) [U]M.MI.A.AN [x]xx 135 : UNKIN [ši-d]i : ŠID [ŠID UM.ME].A.NI []┌DI []┌DI.KUD [DI.KUD.G]AL [DI.KUD.G]AL [DI.KUD] IRI [DI.KUD] LUGAL [DI.KUD.E.N]E.NE [AB].BA [AB.] └ BA IRI [AB.BA] LUGAL [AB.BA] DI.KUD [AB.BA.E.NE.] └ NE ┘ [IGI AB.BA] IRI┐ [MA]ŠKIM [MAŠKIM IRI] [MAŠKIM LUGAL] [MAŠKIM DI].KUD [MAŠKIM.E.NE].NE [MAŠ].EN.DÙ [IN.KÚR] [IN.KÚR].E.MEŠ [IN].PÀD.DA [IN].┌PÀD┐.DA.E.MEŠ

67

...] ...] ...] su-u-nu su-un-nu-šu i-na su-ni-šu i-na su-ni-šu iš ┘ [-kun] eš-ša-ak-ku ša-gu-u ša-bi-ru um-mi-ia-a-nu pu-uh-ru mi-nu-tu mi-nu-tu ma-nu-u di-nu da-ia-nu di-qu-gal-lu ša-pí-ṭu da-ia-an IRI da-ia-an LUGAL da-ia-an-šu-nu ši-i-bu ši-bu-ut IRI ši-bu-ut LUGAL ši-bu-ut da-ia-an-ni ši-bu-ut-šu-nu └ ma-har ši-bu-ut IRI ra-bi-ṣu ra-bi-iṣ IRI ra-bi-iṣ LUGAL ra-bi-iṣ da-ia-ni ra-bi-iṣ-šu-nu muš-kì-nu ik-ki-ir ik-ki-ru it-mi i-ta-am-mu-u

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2039 2040 2042

Part 1 - Text Edition 38’ 39’ 40’ 41’ 42’ 43’ 44’ 45’ 46’ 47’ 48’

2023 2024 2025 2026 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032

49’

2033

50’ 51’ 52’ 53’ 54’ 55’ 56’ 57’ break

2034a 2034b 2034c 2034d 2035 2036 2037 2038

[NA]M.DUMU.A.NI.ŠÈ [NAM.I]BILA.NI.ŠÈ [NAM].ŠEŠ.A.NI.ŠÈ [NAM].AD.A.NI.ŠÈ [NAM].AMA.A.NI.ŠÈ [NAM.A]B.BA.A.NI.Š[È] ┐ NAM.LÚ.HUĜ.ĜÁ.NI .ŠÈ NAM.LUGAL[.A].NI.ŠÈ [NAM.Ì]R[.A].NI.ŠÈ [NAM.ZÚ.KEŠDA ÍB.T]A.È [ZÚ.KEŠDA M]U <1> KAM [KINi]n 4 DU kug-┌ba-bar? i┐-[la]-e 136 : NI KUG.BABBAR-su ↑Ì.LÁ.E [] BÍ[.IN 4 .DUG 4 ] [NU.BÍ.I]N 4 ?.AN[.DUG 4 ] 137 [BA.AN.DUG 4 ] [NU.BA.AN.DUG 4 ] [KA NA 4 KIŠIB].A.NI.ŠÈ A.NU.ME.A [É.A.NI D]Ù.A [EGIR.BI NÍĜ.] └ KALAG?[.GA] [ŠU.A.NI.ŠÈ BA.AB.SI.SÁ

a ┘ - └ na ma-ru-ut-ti-šu a-an ap-lu-ut-ti-šu a-na ah-hu-ti-šu a-na a-bu-ti-šu a-na um-mu-ti-šu a-na ši-bu-ti-šu a-na ar-du-ti-šu a-na be-lu-ti-šu └ a- └ na ar-du-ti-šu └ a- └ na ki-iṣ-↑ri ú-še-ṣi a-[n]a ki-iṣ-<<ṣi>>ri ša-at-↑ti-šu 9 KUG.BABBAR i-ša-aq-qa-al iq-bi ú-ul iq<-bi> iq-te-bi ú-ul iq-te-bi : i-na pí-i ka-ni-ki-↑šu pa-ni-i └ É-šú i-púš 138 EGIR-šú └ dan ┘ -na qa-ti-š]u i-ma-al-lu

II 1’A 2’ 3’ 4’ 5’ 6’

2046a 2046b 2047 2048

IN.[... IN.[... BA.AN.KUR 9 NU.BA.AN.KUR 9

7’ 8’ 9’ 10’ 11’ 12’ 13’ 14’ 15’

2049 2049a 2049b 2050 2051 2051a 2051b 2052 2053

ŠU.TI ŠU.TI.A.NI ŠU.TI.A.NI.NE ŠU.TI.A.NI ŠU BA.AN[.TEĜ 4

DI.BI AL.KUD INIM.BI AL.TIL

q[a-ta-tu] qa┐[-ta-ti-šu] q[a-ta-ti-šu-nu] qa-t]a-ti-↑šu il-qè] ar-[ka-tu] ar-ka[t-šu] ar-[kat-šu-nu] di-in 4 -šu [di-in 4 ] a-ma-at-šu┐[gam-rat]

16’ 17’ 18’

2054 2055a 2055b

ŠAG 4 .GA.A.NI DÙG.GA

ŠAG 4 -šu DÙG.GA

MU.UN.NI MU.UN.NE.NE

šu-um-šu šu-um-šu-nu

ZÍ.RI.DAM NA 139 PA.A[D.DI 4 KIŠIB ul ┌ ZÍ.RI]. DAM

i-gi-ri

: EGIR EGIR.BI EGIR.BI.NE.NE

68

...] ...] [ú-še-ri-ib] [ul ú-še-ri-ib] [i-pa-as-sa-as] vacat

2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2050 2048 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 2061 2062 2063 2064

2074-87 2074-87 2088 2089 2090 2092-3 . 2095 2096 2097 2098 2099 2100 2101 2102 2103 2104 2106 2107

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 2 (canonical tablet II) 19’ 20’ 21’ 22’ 23’ 24’ 25’ 26’ 27’ 28’ 29’ 30’ 31’

2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 2061 2062 2063 2064 2065 2066 2067 2068

ŠE UR 5 .RA ŠE EŠ.DÉ.A ŠE ŠU.LÁ ŠE ŠE.BAL ŠE NÍĜ.BA ŠE NÍĜ.ŠU ŠE BABBAR ŠE BA.RÍ.GA ŠE BA.AN 10

32’ 33’ 34’ 35’ 36’ 37’ 38’ 39’ 40’ 41’ 42’ 43’

2069 2070 2071 2072 2073 2074 2075 2076 2077 2078 2079 2080

Ì.DUB ZÚ.LUM.MA Ì.DUB ÍB.GI.GI Ì.DUB ŠAG 4 Ì.DUB ŠAG 4 Ì.DUB

44’ 45’ break III 1’R 2’ 3’ 4’ 5’ 6’E 7’ 8’I 9’ 10’ 11’ 12’ 13’ 14’ 15’E 16’ break

140

2108 2109 2110 2111 2112 2113 2116 2117 2118 2121 2122 2123 2124

: ŠAKAKA ŠAKAKA └ GU.LA ŠAKAKA TUR.RA ŠAKAKA GI.NA ŠAKAKA SIG 5 .GA ŠAKAKA ZÁLAG.GA ŠAKAKA KALAG.GA └ ŠAKAKA ┘ DÙG.GA

e-ia hu-bu-ul-li e-ia hu-bu-ut-te-ti e-ia qí-ip-ti e-ia šu-pu-ul-ti e-ia qí-il-ti e-ia qa-ti e-ia pe-ṣu-u pár-sik-tu 4 NI su-tu-tu 4 e-ia na-aš-pa-ki na-aš-pa-ku na-aš-pa-ak e-i na-aš-pa-ak ša-am-↑ša-am-mi na-aš-pa-ak šu-lu-up-pí na-aš-pa-ak it-ta-nap-pa-al na-aš-pa-ku ŠAG 4 na-aš-pa-ki ŠAG 4 na-aš-pa-ki ma-hi-ru ma-hi-rù ra-bu-u ma-hi-rù ṣa-ah-rù ma-hi-rù kì-nu ma-hi-rù da-am-qu ma-hi-rù nam-ru ma-hi-rù da-an-nu ma-hi-rù ṭá-a-bu

2081

[ŠAKAKA IRI A]L. └ DU ┘ . └ KA

└ i ┘ - └ na

2146

-

[...

↑ma-hi-ra-ti IRI il-la-ku ...]↑x-ša-ti-in

2084d 2085 2086 2087 2088 2089 2090 2091 2092 2093 2094 2095

[ZÌG.GA DILI.DILI [A.GA.ZI [A.GA.ZI ÍB.SI.SI [A.GA.ZI ÍB.DIRIG.GA [ÍB.TAK 4 [ÍB.TAK 4 Š]E [ÍB.TAK 4 Š]E Ì. ĜIŠ ┐ ÍB [ .TAK 4 ] ZÚ.LUM.MA ÍB.T[AK 4 NÍĜ].KA 9 NÍĜ.[ K]AS 7 ? AK.] ◦A NÍĜ.KAS 7 .[ NÍĜ.KAS 7 [ .NU.AK.] ◦A

ṭi-i-tu 4 a-hi-t]u 4 im-bu-u] im-bu-u] ◦i-ma-al-lu-u i-m]a-at-ta-ru ši-it-tu 4 ] ši-ta-[at e-i]<E/R> ši-ta-at ša-am-šá-am-mi ši-ta-a<E/R>t su-lu-p[ì] ši-ta-at ni-i<E/R>k-ka-as-s[i] ni-ik-ka-as-su ni-ik-ka-as-su ep-[šu] ni-ik-ka-as-su [la-a ep-šu]

2158 2159 2160 2161 2162 2163 2164 2165 2166 2167 2168 -

2096 2097 2098 2098a

NÍĜ[ .KAS 7 .TIL.L]A N[ÍĜ .KAS 7 .NU.TIL.L]A

: ni-ik-ka-a[s-su ga-mi-ir] : MIN la-a g[a-mi-ir] : pa-ṭá-r[u] ip-ṭ]u-ur []

2169 2170 2171 2172

ŠE Ì.DUB Ì.DUB Ì.DUB ŠE Ì.DUB ŠE Ì.ĜIŠ

da(!ša)-ga-ag-ga



[D]U 8 ? [IN.DU 8

69

2125 2126 2127 2128 2129 2130 2131 2136 2132 2134 2135 2138

?

Part 1 - Text Edition 1’’A 2’’ 3’’ 4’’ 5’’ 6’’ 7’’ 8’’ 9’’ 10’’ 11’’ 12’’

2099 2099a 2099b 2099c 2099d 2099e 2099f 2099g 2099h 2100 2101 2102

[NUMUN]

┌

MU.GUR(!KÚR) MU.BAL MU.BAL.LÁ

ze┐-rù 141 [] aš-šu iš-šu 142 ni-šu zi-ik-rù šu-mu ša-at-tu <mu->ha-al-du 4 nu-ha-ti-im-mu pá-la-at 143 pá-la-at pá-la-at

2180 2184 2185 2187 2182 2190 2192 2194-5

13’’ 14’’ 15’’ 16’’

2103 2104 2105a 2105b

MU.IM.MA MU.AN.NA MU.ÚS.SA 2-na MU.ÚS.SA <3>

ša-ad-dá-aq-di ša-na-at ša-ni-tu ša-at-tu 4 3-tu 4 ša-at-tu

2195 2196 2197 2198

17’’ 18’’ 19’’ 20’’ 21’’ 22’’

2106 2107 2108 2109 2110 2111

MU SIG 5 .GA MU HUL.ĜÁL MU NA(!?NA 4 ).GAZ MU KALAG.GA MU DÙG.GA MU DA.RI.A

ša-at-┌tu da-mi-iq-tu 4 MIN [l]e-mu-ut-tu 4 MIN i-sí-iq-tu 4 MIN dan-na-tu 4 MIN ṭá-a-bá-tu 4 MIN da-ri-tu 4

2198a -

23’’ 24’’ 25’ 26’ 27’ 28’ 29’ 30’ 31’ break

2112 2113 2114 2115 2116 2117 2118 2118’ 2118’’

MÁŠ.DA.RI.A 144 MÁŠ.DA.RI.A GÁ(!DAĜAL).LA

er-bu ra-ap-PU(!šu) ba-ru-u a-kíl ba-ri-i tam-kà-ru a-kíl tám-kà-ri ša-ma-al-lu-u ŠU ┘ - └ ma la-lu-u └ ih ┘ [-ri]

2199 2200 2201 2202 2203 2204 2205

Reverse IV 1’A 2119 2’ 2120 3’ 2121 4’ 2122 5’ 2123 6’ 2124 7’ 2125 8’ 2126 9’ 2127 10’ 2128

MU MU MU MU MU MU MUHALDIM MUHALDIM

MÁŠ.ŠU.GID.GID UGULA MÁŠ.ŠU.GID.GID DAM.GÀR UGULA DAM.GÀR

[D]UGUD(!ŠAĜAN).LA!(!LÁ) [MA.N]A.LA(!LÁ) 145 [MU.UN.BAL]

[ÉG] [PA 5 [PA 5 .LÁ] [PA 5 .SIG] [PA 5 .SÌTA [PA 5 NAM.BA]L [E SIG.GA [DÙ.A.BI [IM.DÙ.A.BI [IM.DÙ.A.BI] AK.A

└ e-k[u 8

?

] pa]l-[gu 5 ] └ a-t[á-ap-pu] └ a-tá-[ap-pu] ra]-a-ṭu [] a-tap-p[a ih-ri] e-k]à iš-pu-u[k] ka-l]a-mu pí]-ti-i[q-tu 4 ] p[í-ti]-iq-tu 4 ↑ pá-ta-qu

70

2207 2208 2209 2210 2211 2213 2214 2215 2216 2217

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 2 (canonical tablet II) 11’ 12’ 13’ 14’ 15’ 16’ 17’

2129 2130 2131 2132 2133 2134 2135

18’ 19’ 20’

2136 2137 2138

21’ 22’ 23’ 24’ 25’ 26’ 27’ 28’ 29’ 30’ 31’ 32’ 33’ 34’ 35’ 36’ 37’ 38’ 40’ 41’ 42’V 43’E

2139 2140 2141 2142 2143 2144 2145 2145a 2146 2146a 2146b 2147 2148 2149 2150 2151 2152 2153 2154 2155 2156 2157

44’ 45’

2158 2159

46’ 47’ 48’ 49’ 50’ 51’ 52’ 53’ 54’

2160 2161 2162 2163a 2163b 2164 2165 2166 2167

[NAM.É]RIM 146 .MA [NAM.ÉRIM.MA] A[K.A [NAM.RA [NAM.RA AK.A [NAM.ME.EN.NA AK.A [NAM].ME.E[N.NA [NA]M.ME.EN.N[A.ŠÈ APIN ŠE ÍB.TA.]È AN.TA KI.TA AN.TA ù K[I.TA

[ma-mi-tu 4 ] ma-mi-t]a tu-mu-u ša-al-la-tu 4 ] ša-al-la-tu 4 š]a-la-lu mì-it-ru-u] me-en-na] ↑a-na e-ri-ši e-ia ú-še-ṣi e┐[-li-iš] š[ap-li-ìš] e-li-iš ù š]ap-li-ìš

2218 2220 2221 2224 2225 2226 2227

ÚS SAĜ BÙRU

š[i-id-du] p[u-tu 4 ] š[ap-lu] m[i-lu-u] x]x-šu [i-]┌du i-di-šu i-di-šu-[nu] ṭe 6 -hu ṭe 6 - └ hu ┘ [-šu] ṭe 6 -hu-šu-nu] [...] [...] ...] ...] ...] ...] [ši-id-du] ku-[ru-u] ši-id┐-d[u] ša[p-lu] ši-id-du pu-[ti] pa-a[ṭ-t]̣ u pa-a]ṭ ki-ri-[i]

2232 2234 2235 2236 2237 2238 2239 2240 2242 2243 2244 2245 2246 2247 2249 2250 2253 2254 2252 2251 2255 2256

[SA.DUL.BI] [ÉG SA.DUL.BI]

└ e-bu- └ ru ┘

2259 2260

[DAL.B]A.NA [ÉG] DAL.BA.NA [I.Z]I? DAL.BA.NA Ì.ĜÁL NU.Ì.ĜÁL

bi 4 -ri-tu 4 e-ki bi 4 -r[i-ti] i-ga-ra→<E/R> bi 4 -ri-ti i-ba-aš-š[i] ul i-ba-[aš-ši] har-ra-a-[nu] har-ra-[a-nu] ur-[hu] har-[ra-nu …]

2262 2263 2264 2267 2268 2269 2270 2271 2274

šu-ha-ad

<: SUKUD> [?<: DAĜAL>

ta-ak-kal

Á Á.BI Á.BI.NE.NE DA DA.BI DA.BI.N[E.NE DA É ! EGIR É ÚS.SA[.DU [Ú]S.S[A.DU A.ŠAG 4 .GA [Ú]S.S[A.DU KIRI 16 [ÚS GÍD.DA ÚS L[ÚGUD. D]A ].MEŠ Ú[S BÙR S]AĜ Ú[S

[] └ ZAG ┘ [ZAG.KIRI 16 ]

└ i-ki

KASKAL HAR.RA.AN.NU HAR.RA.AN.NU<> 147 HAR.RA.AN GUR

break

71

e-[bu-ri]

2228 2229 2230-1

Part 1 - Text Edition V 1’A 2168a [GÚ.DA R]I.A 2’ 2168b [GÚ.DA R]I.A 3’ [GÚ Ì.A]K.A 2169 4’ 2170 [GÚ.NÍĜ.GILI]M.MA 5’ 2171 [GÚ.DIB.BA 6’ [... about 25 lines missing 1’’A 2181 [LÚ.ŠE.]┌UR 4 ┐[.UR 4 2’’ 2182 [LÚ.ŠE.K]I.KÉŠ.DA 3’’ LÚ.ŠE.ĜÁ.ĜÁ.A 2183 4’’ 2184 LÚ.ŠE.BAD.DA 5’’ 2185 LÚ.ŠE.DÙ.A LÚ.ŠE.LÁ 6’’ 2186 7’’ 2187 LÚ.ŠE.LÁ KI.T[A LÚ.ŠE.B[AL 8’’ 2188 9’’ 2189 LÚ.A.[BAL 10’’ some traces about 5 lines missing 1’’’A 2198 [GÀR.MAH.A.NI UMB]IN 150 [ 2’’’ 3’’’ 4’’’

2199 2200

5’’’ 6’’’ 7’’’ 8’’’ 9’’’ 10’’’

2201 2202 2203

11’’’ 2204 12’’’ 2205 13’’’ 2206

[...]x x[ [ĜIŠ.GÌR.A.NI] I[N.DU 8 ] [AMA.AR.GI.NAM.GÉME.A.NA] IN[.DU 8 [...]AN DA [x [...].A.NI I[N.x x[...].A.NI x[x ┐┌ ┐ KI.DUMU.MUNUS . NI .[M]E IN.x[ EN LUGAL.A.NI AL.TIL.LA [ LUGAL.A.NI IN.ÍL [ EGIR LUGAL.A.NI BA.A[N.DA.KU.DA DUMU.MEŠ LUGAL.A.NI ...] IN.DU-DU NÍĜ.[ĜÁL.LA NAM.GÉME.A.NI[.ŠÈ INIM] └ ĜÁ ┘ . └ ĜÁ ┘ LÚ NA-ME ┘ [...

14’’’ 2207 15’’’ traces only probably no more lines missing before end of column

72

ú-ta-x[...] na-an-da-ar ┘ -[ru] ki-it-pu[-lu] ši 148 -ik-p[e 5 ?-tu] ha-al-t]i 4 -ik-ku 13 ...] ma la []

2287 2287 2288 2289 2290 ?

ha-mi-mu] ra-ki-s[u] si-ib-b[i-lu] da-i-šu 149 [] <> ba-ab ┘ -[bi-lu] za-ru-[u] ...] ...] ] da-[lu-u]

2333 2334 2335 2336 2339 2340 2341 2342 2344

ab-bu-ut-ta-ši ṣi-ra] ú-ga-al-l[i-ib] ...] ka-ar-ṣa-ši i]p-ṭ[ú-ur] 151 ... ]

...] ...] ...]x ...-]šu ...-t]a ...]x-ar-ša it-ta-na-ša-a[š] ...]-┌li-┌li

2352b 2352c 2352d 2352e

2352f [...] [...]

- 152

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 2 (canonical tablet II) 2 Tablet 2 – 542 B 153 (731058 – p.134) Obverse I 1’ 2025 2’ 2026 3’ 2026 4’ 2027 5’ 2028 6’ 2029 7’ 2030 8’ 2031 9’ 2032 10’ 2033 11’ 12’ 13’ 14’ 15’

2034a 2034b 2034c 2034d 2035

16’ 17’ 18’ 19’

2036 2037 2038 2039

20’

2040

21’ 22’ 23’ 24’ 25’ 26’ 27’ 28’

2041a 2041b 2041c 2041d 2042a 2042b 2042c 2042d

[NA]M.Š[EŠ.A.NI.ŠÈ NAM.AD.[A.NI.ŠÈ] NAM.AMA.[A.NI.ŠÈ] ┐ NAM.AB.BA.A [.NI.ŠÈ NAM.LÚ.HUĜ.ĜÁ.A.N[I.ŠÈ NAM.LUGAL.A.N[I.ŠÈ NAM.ÌR.A.NI.ŠÈ NAM.ZÚ.KEŠDA ÍB.TA.É[D ZÚ.KEŠDA.MU 1 KAM <9> KINin 4 DU kug-[ba]-bar

...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] [...] ...] [...] [...]

2045 2046 2047 2050 2048 2049 2054 2055 2056

BÍ.IN 4 .[DU]G 4 NU.BÍ.I[N 4 .DUG 4 ] BA.AN.[DUG 4 ] NU.BA.AN.[DUG 4 ]

iq-b[i] ú-u[l iq-bi] iq-te┐-bi [ ] ú-ul iq-te-b[i] : i-na pí-i ka-ni[-ik-šu pa-ni-i] É-šú i-[púš] EGIR-šú dan-na qa- └ ti-šu i-ma-al-[lu] ha-mi-il-ti mu-ša-ri 157 : Étu 4 ep-šu┐ -

2057 2058 2059 2060 2061

id-din ul id-din it-ta-din ul it-ta-din ku-mu-ur-ru-u šu-ku-un-nu-u iš-ku-un i-ša-ka-nu

2070 2071 2072 2073 2074 2075 2076 2078

...] ...] ...] ...] ...]

2162-6 idem 2167 2168 2170

i-la-e┘154

NA

KA 4 KIŠIB[.A.NI.Š]È <MIN> NU.ME.A ! É.A.NI [D]Ù.A EGIR.BI NÍĜ.K[ALAG.G]A ŠU.A.NI.ŠÈ BA.A[B.] └ SI ┘ . └ SÁ ┘ SAR 5 (!5 SAR) É.DÙ.A 155 ĜIŠ 156 KÁ KI.KÉŠ.DA ĜIŠ SAĜ.KUL GUB.BA

ĜIŠ

IG

IN.NA.SUM NU.IN.NA.SUM BA.AN.SUM NU.BA.AN.SUM IN.GAR.RA IN.GAR.RA IN.ĜAR └ IN. └ ĜAR. └ E.ME

2062 2063 2064 2065 . 2066-8

end of column II 1’ 2088-92 2’/4’ idem 5’ 2093 6’ 2094 7’ 2095 end of column

Í[B.TAK 4 ÍB.TAK 4 [ NÍĜ.K[A 9 NÍĜ.KA 9 .AK.[A NÍĜ.KA 9 .NU.AK.[A

73

Part 1 - Text Edition Reverse VI 1. 2172 2. 2173 3. 2174 4. 2175 5. 2176 6. 2177 7. 2178 8. 2179 9. 2180 10. 2182 11. 2183 12. 2184 13. 2185 14. 2186 15. 2187 16. 2188 17. 2189 18. 2190 19. 2191 20. 2192 21. 2193 22. 2194 23. 2195 24. 2196 25. 2197 26. 2198 27. 2199 28. 2200 29. break

LÚ.ENGAR LÚ.ŠAG 4 .GÌR GUD.DA.ÚS.SA.A GUD.DA.RI.A GUD.DA.DIRIG.GA NA.GAD LÚ.ŠAG 4 .GAZ LÚ.HUĜ.ĜÁ LÚ.ŠE.GUR 10 .KUD LÚ.ŠE.KI.KÉŠ.DA LÚ.ŠE.ĜÁ.ĜÁ.A LÚ.ŠE.BAD.DA LÚ.ŠE.DÙ.A LÚ.ŠE.LÁ LÚ.ŠE.LÁ KI.TA LÚ.ŠE<>.LÁ LÚ.A<>.LÁ LÚ.AL.LA.AK.A LÚ.NÍĜ.GUL.AK.A LÚ.NÍĜ.GUD.DA.AK.A LÚ.LAG.RI.RI.GA D

IGI. UTU.ŠÈ DI.KUD NÍĜ.GI.NA GÉME LUGAL.A.NI BA.TUKU DUG.NAM.GÉME.A.NI.ŠÈ IN.[GAZ SAĜ KI.A.NI IN.È GÀR.MAH.A.NI UMBIN x[... └ ĜIŠ.GÌR.A.NI IN.DU 8 [AM]A.AR.GI NAM.GÉME ┘ .[A.NI IN.DU 8 [x]x.A.NI ┘ xx[...

ik-ka-ru ku 8 -ul-li-zù ri-id al-pí ki-im-ru at-ta-rù ku-ud-da-na-ak-te-e ha-am-ba-tu 4 ag-rù e-ṣi-du ra-ki-i-su si-ib-bi-lu da-i-šu A(=mu x ) 158 -ba-ab-bi-lu za-ru-u za-ru-u ša-pí-[il-ti] mu-še-lu-u da-lu-u ra-pí-q[u] hé-pu-u ka-si-mu la-qí-[it kur-ba-an-ni] : a-n[a ...] : an-[...] ...] : p[u-ta-ši ...] ...] : [...] ...]

2321 2325 2326 2327 2328 2329 2330 2331 2332 2334 2335 2336 2339 2340 2341 2342 2344 2346 2347 2348 2350 -

...]

?

a-na lib-bi-šú íš-k]u-[n] ub-bi-i]b ub-ba-b]u ṣi-i-t]u 4 ti-b]u-tu 4 ni-s]i-ih-tu 4 ṣi-i]-tu 4 a-hi-tu 4 im-b]u-u : bu-u i-ma-al-lu[-u] : i-ma-at-ta-ru

2150 2152 2154 2155 2156 2157 2158 2159 2160 2161

2 Tablet 3 - 542D (74342a - p.671) Obverse II 1’ 2082 2’ 2083a 3’ 2083b 4’ 2084a 5’ 2084b 6’ 2084c 7’ 2084d 8’ 2085 9’ 2086 2087 10’

[ŠAG 4 .BI.ŠÈ IN. ĜAR [IN.DADAG [IN.DADAG.E.MEŠ [ZÌG.GA [ZÌG.GA [ZÌG.GA [ZÌG.GA DILI.DILI [A.GA.ZI [A.GA.ZI ÍB.SI.S]I [A.GA.ZÍB.DIRIG.G]A

74

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 2 (canonical tablet II) 11’ 12’ 13’ 14’ 15’ 16’ 17’

2088 2089 2090 2091 2092 2093 2094

[ÍB.TAK 4 ] [ÍB.TAK 4. ŠE] [ÍB.TAK 4. ŠE Ì].ĜIŠ [ÍB.TAK 4 ZÚ.L]UM.MA [ÍB.TAK 4 ].NÍĜ.KAS 7 [...] : NÍĜ.KAS 7 [NÍĜ.KAS 7 .A]K. └ A

ši-ta-tu 4 ši-ta-at e-i ši-ta-at ša-am-šá-am-[mi] ši-ta-at su-lu-p[í] ši-ta-at ni-ik-k[a-as-si] ni-ik-ka ┘ -[as-su] MIN ep-šu ┘ []

2162 2163 2164 2165 2166 2167 2168

ṭe 6 -h[u] ṭe 6 -hu[-šu-nu] ṭe 6 -e[h É-ti] ar-k[a-at É-ti] i-t[ú] i-t[ú eq-li] i-tú┐[ki-ri-i] ši-id-du [] ši-id-du ku-r[u-u] ši-id-du ša[p-lu] ši-id-dì pu-t[i] p]a-┌aṭ-[ṭ]ú p]a-aṭ ki-ri-i └ e-bu-ru i-ki] e-bu-ri bi 4 -r]i-tu 4 e-ki bi 4 -r]i-ti

2243 2244 2245 2246 2247 2249 2250 2253 2254 2252 2251 2255 2256 2259 2260 2262 2263

break Reverse III 1’ 2146a 2’ 2146b 2147 3’ 4’ 2148 5’ 2149 6’ 2150 7’ 2151 8’ 2152 9’ 2153 10’ 2154 11’ 2155 12’ 2156 13’ 2157 14’ 2158 15’ 2159 16’ 2160 17’ 2161

[DA.B]I [DA.B]I.NE.NE [DA.]É [EGIR.]É [ÚS.SA].DU [ÚS.SA.D]U A.ŠAG 4 .GA [ÚS.SA.D]U KIRI 16 [ÚS.GÍD.DA] [ÚS.LÚGUD.DA] [ÚS.BÙR] [ÚS.SAĜ] [ZAG [ZAG.KIRI 16 [SA.DUL.BI] [ÉG SA.DUL.BI [DAL.BA.NA [ÉG DAL.BA.NA

break Right Edge 1. 2. has traces only

[...

...]x-ru-gu-un-nu

?

Fragments: 542 C (74250 – p.578) Obverse 1’ 2056 [ŠE.U]R 5 .RA 2’ 2057 [ŠE.EŠ].DÉ.A 3’ 2058 [ŠE Š]U.LÁ 4’ 2059 [ŠE Š]E.BAL 5’ 2060 [ŠE NÍ]Ĝ.BA 6’ 2061 [ŠE NÍ]Ĝ.ŠU 7’ 2062 [ŠE] BABBAR [ŠE B]A.RÍ.GA 8’ 2063 [ŠE BA.A]N 10 9’ 2064 10’ 2065 [ŠE] ┌Ì.DUB

[...] [...] e┐[-ia qí-ip-ti] e┐[-ia šu-pu-ul-ti] e-[ia qí-il-ti] e-[ia qa-ti] e-i[a pe-ṣu-u] pár-si[k-tu 4 ] NI s[u-tu-tu 4 ] e-ia [na-aš-pa-ki]

75

2108 2109 2110 2111 2112 2113 2116 2117 2118 2121

Part 1 - Text Edition 11’ 12’ 13’ 14’ 15’ 16’ 17’ 18’ 19’ 20’ 21’ 22’ Reverse 1’ 2’ 3’ 4’

2066 2067 2068 2069 2070 2071 2072 2073 2074 2075 2076 2077 -

[Ì].DUB [Ì].DUB ŠÈ [Ì].DUB ŠÈ.Ì.ĜIŠ ┌ Ì.DUB ZÚ.LUM.MA └ Ì.DUB ÍB.GI.GI Ì.DUB ŠAG 4 Ì.DUB ŠAG 4 Ì.DUB [d]a(!ša)-ga-ag-ga : ŠAKAKA [ŠA]KAKA GU.LA [ŠAKAK]A TUR.RA [ŠAKAK]A GI.NA [ŠAKAKA] SIG 5 .GA

na-aš-pa-[ku] na-aš-p[a-ki e-i] na-a[š-pa-ak ša-am-ša-am-mi] na-[aš-pa-ak šu-lu-up-pi] na-[aš-pa-ak it-ta-nap-pa-al] n[a-aš-pa-ku ŠAG 4 na-aš-pa-ki] ŠA[G 4 na-aš-pa-ki] ma-[hi-ru] ma-[hi-rù ra-bu-u] m[a-hi-rù ṣa-ah-rù] [...] [...]

2122 2123 2124 2125 2126 2127 2128 2129 2130 2131 2136 2132

[... [... [... [...

...]x x ...]x [...]x-u ...] ┌ir-gu-mu┐-ni-iš-ši ...]-ma e-li-ši ul i-šu

? ? ? ?

: er-bu ra-ap-šu ba-ru-u a-kíl ba-ri-i tám-kà-ru ◦a-kíl tám-kà-ri š]a-ma-al-lu-u ŠU-ma] la-lu-u i]h-ri

2199 2200 2201 2202 2203 2204 2205

542 F (74127b – p.321) [MÁŠ.DA.RI.A DAĜAL.]LA 1’ 2113 2’ 2114 [MÁŠ.ŠU.GID.GID] 3’ 2115 [UGULA MÁŠ.ŠU.GID.GID] 4’ 2116 [DAM.GÀR] 5’ 2117 [UGULA DAM.GÀR] 6’ 2118 [DUGUD(!ŠAĜAN).LA(!LÁ) 7’ 2118’ [MA.NA.LA(!LÁ) 8’ 2118’’ [MU.UN.BAL

542 G (74298e – p.638) Reverse (Obverse only has a few isolated final signs belonging to unidentified entries) 1’ 2123 [PA 5 .ŠÌTA ra-a-ṭ]u ┌ ┐ 2’ 2124 [PA 5 ] ┌NAM.┌BAL a -tap-pa ih-ri 3’ 2125 [ÉG] SIG.GA e-kà iš-pu-uk DÙ . A . BI 4’ 2126 ka-la-mu └ 5’ 2127 [I]M.DÙ.A.BI pí-ti-iq-tu 4 6’ 2128 [I]M.DÙ.A.BI AK.A : pí-ti-iq-tu 4 <pa-ta-qu> 7’ 2129 [NA]M.ÉRIM ma-mi-tu 4 8’ 2130 [N]AM.ÉRIM AK.A : ma-mi-ta tu-mu 9’ 2131 NAM.RA ša-al-la ┘ -tu 4 10’ 2132 NAM.RA AK.A ša-al-la-tu 4 ša-la-lu ┌ ┐ 11’ 2133 NAM.ME.EN.NA AK .A mì-it-ru-u 12’ 2134 NAM.ME.EN.NA me-en-na 13’ 2135 NAM.ME.EN.NA.ŠÈ APIN ŠE ÍB.TA.È : a-na ↑e-ri-ši e-ia ú-še-ṣi 14’ 2136 AN.TA └ e-li-iš 2137 KI.TA 15’ šap-li-iš 16’ 2138 AN.TA KI.TA e-li-ìš ù ┘ šap-li-ìš

76

2211 2213 2214 2215 2216 2217 2218 2220 2221 2224 2225 2226 2227 2228 2229 30-1

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 2 (canonical tablet II) 17’ 18’ 19’ 20’

2139 2140 2141 2142

[] ÚS [] SAĜ [BÙRU] [šu-ha-ad : SUKUD

ši-id-du pu-tu 4 šap-lu mi-l]u-u

2232 2234 2235 2236

end of column 542 H (74217a – p.504) 1’ 2204 E[GIR LUGAL.A.NI BA.AN.DA.KU.DA 2’ 2205 DUMU.[MEŠ LUGAL.A.NI NÍĜ.ĜÁL.LA ...] IN.DU-DU 3’ 2206 NAM.GÉM[E.A.NI INIM ĜÁ.ĜÁ ┌ ┐ ┐ 4’ 2207 LÚ NA-ME- NÍG -NA (!INIM.GI.NA) ku-un UN 5’ 2208 GÚ[N UN 6’ 2208a GÚN .BI 7’ 2208b MIN .BI.NE.N[E 8’ 2209 MIN A.ŠAG 4 .G[A 9’ 2210 MIN KIRI 16 10’ 2211 MIN ŠE 11’ 2212 MIN ŠE Ì.Ĝ[IŠ 12’ 2213 MIN ZÚ.LUM.M[A 13’ 2214 MIN URUDU 14’ 2215 MIN ZABAR 15’ 2216 MIN K[UG.BAB]BAR 16’ 2217 MIN GU[ŠK]IN 17’ 2218 └ MIN SIKI 18’ [MI]N <SIKI.>ÙZ 2219 19’ 2220 └ MIN GADA 20’ 2221 [MIN] HUR.SAĜ 21’ 2222 [MIN] A.AB ┘ . └ BA ┘ 542 J (74118c – p.292) 1’ 2174 [GUD.DA].┌ÚS┐.┌SA┐.┌A┐ 2’ 2175 [GUD.DA].RI.A 3’ 2176 [GUD.DA].DIRIG.GA [GUD.DA.]NA.GAD 4’ 2177 5’ 2178 [LÚ.ŠAG 4 ].GAZ 6’ 2179 [LÚ.HUĜ].GA 7’ [LÚ.ŠE.GUR 10 ].KUD 2180 8’ 2181 [LÚ.ŠE.UR 4 ].UR 4 9’ 2182 [LÚ.KI.KÉ]Š.DA 10’ 2183 [LÚ.ŠE.ĜÁ.Ĝ]Á.A 11’’ 2184 [LÚ.ŠE.BAD.D]A [LÚ.ŠE.DÙ.A 12’ 2185 13’ 2186 [LÚ.ŠE.LA]L

77

2352d ...] ...]

2352e

...] [...]

2352f -

...] [...] ...] ...] [...] [...] ...] ...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...]

2353 2354 2355 2356 2357 2358 2359 2360 2361 2362 2363 2364 2365 2366 2367 2368 2369

r[i-id al-pí] ki-[im-ru] a[t-ta-rù] ku-[ud-da-na-ak-te-e] ha-a[m-ba-tu 4 ] ag-r[ù] e-ṣ[i-du] ha-m[i-mu] ra-[ki-su] s[i-ib-bi-lu] d[a-i-šu] mu-ba-ab-bi-lu] za-[ru-u]

2326 2327 2328 2329 2330 2331 2332 2333 2334 2335 2336 2339 2340

Part 1 - Text Edition 542 K (74217b – p.504) 1. 2001 [tu]-ulTÚL 2. 2002 [ŠU]B.BA 3. 2003 [T]ÚL.DA P[ÀD.DA] 4. 2004 SILA.DA KUR 9 .[RA] 5. KÁG.UR.GIR 15 .A.NI[.ŠÈ IN.x] 2005 6. 2006 KA.NAM.R[I.A.NI.ŠÈ ŠUB.BA IN.x] u r 7. 2007 [ : ÚR] 542 L (7491z – p.228) 1’ 2217 [MIN KUG.GI 2’ 2218 [MIN SIKI 3’ 2219 [MIN (SIKI.)ÙZ [MIN GADA 4’ 2220

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

bi-la-a]t ┌KUG.GI┐ bi-la-a]t ša-pa-ti b]i-la-at ša-ra-at en-zi bi-la-at q]í-[t]e- └ e

2364 2365 2366 2367

└ ú-še<-ri>-ib

2088 2089 2090 2092-3

542 M (74129c – p.331) 1’ 2046a [BA.AN.KUR 9 ] 2’ 2046b [NU.BA.AN.KUR 9 ] 3’ 2047 [ZÍ.RI.DAM] 4’ 2048 [NA 4 KIŠIB ul PA.AD.]DI ! ZÍ.RI.DAM 5’ [ŠU.TI] 2049 6’ 2049a [ŠU.TI.A.NI] 7’ 2049b [ŠU.TI.A.NI.NE 8’ 2050 [ŠU.TI.A.NI ŠU BA.AN.TEĜ 4

ul ú-še<-ri>-ib i-pa-as-sa-as ku[-nu-ka la-bi-ra ul ú-ta up-ta-as-sa-as] qa-ta-tu └ qa-ta-at-šu qa-ta-t]a-šu-nu q]a-ta-ti<-šu> i[l-qè]

542 N (74164b – p.417) 1’ 2042c [I]N.┌GAR┐ 2’ 2042d [I]N.GAR.[E.MEŠ 3’ 2043a [I]N.DAB 5 [I]N.DAB 5 .[E.MEŠ 4’ 2043b 5’ 2044 [I]N.HUĜ.N[A

[...] ...] [...] ...] ...]

2076 2078 2079 2081 2082

ub-bi-ib ub-bi-bu

2152 2154

542 O (74132s – p.339) 1’ 2083a [IN.DADAG] [IN.DADAG.E.MEŠ] 2’ 2083b end of column 542 P (74137k – p.346) 1’ 2102 MU.BAL.[LÁ] 2’ 2103 MU.IM.[MA] 3’ 2104 [M]U.AN.N[A] 4’ 2105a [MU.]ÚS.S[A 2-na]

2095 2096 2097 2098

2194-5 2195 2196 2197

78

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 2 (canonical tablet II) 542 Q (74112a – p.269) 1’ 2133 NAM.ME.E[N.NA AK.A] 2’ 2134 NAM.ME.E[N.NA] 3’ 2135 NAM.ME.EN.N[A.ŠÈ APIN ŠE ÍB.TA.È] 4’ 2136 AN.[TA] 5’ 2137 K[I.TA]

2225 2226 2227 2228 2229

542 S (74132l – p.339) 1’ 2007 [UR :] ÚR 2’ [ÚR].BI 2007a [ÚR].BI.ŠÈ 3’ 2007b [ÚR.BI.ŠÈ] IN.ĜAR 4’ 2008 5’ 2009 [iš-še : É]NSI 6’ 2010 [ša-ag-ga :] SAĜA 7’ 2011 [šab-ra : Š]ABRA

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

542 T (74204e – p.503) 2041a [IN.NA.]SUM 1. 2041b 2. [NU.IN.NA.S]UM 3. 2041c [BA.AN.S]UM [NU.BA.A]N. └ SUM 4. 2041d

id┐-d[in] ul id-di[n] it-ta-din ul it-ta-din

542 ‘X’ (74232d – p.538) 1’ I[N....] 2’ 2046a BA.AN[.KUR 9 ] 3’ 2046b NU.BA.AN ┘ [.KUR 9 ] 4’ GÁ-A[M ...]

2070 2071 2072 2073

2083-7 2088 2089 -

79

Part 1 - Text Edition Division 3 (canonical III-Va) Version A (unilingual) 3aTablet 1 – 543-5 A (731030 – p.105-9) all entries underlined Obverse I 3a001 ĜIŠ 1. 3a002 ĜIŠ 2. 3a003 ĜIŠ 3. 3a004 ĜIŠ 4. 3a005 ĜIŠ 5. 3a006 ĜIŠ 6. 3a007 ĜIŠ 7. 3a008 ĜIŠ 8. 3a009 ĜIŠ 9. 3a010 ĜIŠ 10. 3a011 ĜIŠ 11. 3a012 ĜIŠ 12. 3a013 ĜIŠ 13. a014a ĜIŠ 14. a014b ĜIŠ 15. 3a015 [ĜIŠ] 16. 3a016 [ĜIŠ] 17. 3a017 ĜIŠ 18. 3a018 ĜIŠ 19. 3a019 ĜIŠ 20. 3a020 ĜIŠ 21. 3a021 ĜIŠ 22. 3a022 ĜIŠ 23. 3a023 ĜIŠ 24. 3a024 ĜIŠ 25. 3a025 ĜIŠ 26. 3a026 ĜIŠ 27. 3a027 ĜIŠ 28. 3a028 ĜIŠ 29. 3a029 ĜIŠ 30. 3a030 ĜIŠ 31. 3a031 ĜIŠ 32. 3a032a ĜIŠ 33. 3a032b ĜIŠ 34. 3a033 ĜIŠ 35. 3a034 ĜIŠ 36. 3a035 ĜIŠ 37. 3a036 ĜIŠ 38. 3a037 ĜIŠ 39. 3a038a ĜIŠ 40. 3a038b ĜIŠ 41. 3a039 ĜIŠ 42. 3a040 ĜIŠ 43.

TASKARIN ŠI M TASKARIN BULUH [ ] [ESI] ESI [x] ESI HÚB.[B]A KI ESI TU.R[I].IŠ KI ESI ME.LU[H].HA KI ESI MÁ.[GAN.N]A KI ESI DI[LMU]N NU 11 HA.[L]U.ÚB ŠAG 4 .KAL KÍN KÍN BABBAR [K]ÍN BABBAR lim KÍN KÍN KUKKU 5 DURU 5 (A) BABBAR KUKKU 5 TIN(!ĜEŠTIN) ĜEŠTIN GÍR !159 ĜEŠTIN GÍBIL ĜEŠTIN KA 5 .A ĜEŠTIN GA.RA.AN ĜEŠTIN GAM.MA TI ĜEŠTIN GÚR ĜEŠTIN PA.PA.AL ĜEŠTIN PÈŠ MÁ.RÍKI KI PÈŠ └ SU.BIR 4 KI PÈŠ UR[I ] KI PÈŠ URI ┘ KI PÈŠ MAR.TU< > KI PÈŠ ELAM.MA KI PÈŠ ŠE.ER.KUM<< >> AMA PÈŠ HAŠHUR HAŠHUR KUR.RA HAŠHUR KUR.RA HAŠHUR AR.MA.NU.UM 160 KUR.DI.LUM HAŠHUR

80

3001 3002 3003 3004 3005 3006 3007 3008 3011 3012 3013 3014 3015 3022 3017 3025 3029 3030a 3030b 3030c 3030e 3031 3032 3035 3036 3037 3039

001 002 003 004 005 006 006a 006b 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 014 -

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 3a (canonical tablet III-Va) 44. 45. 46. 47. break II 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43.

3a041 3a042 3a043 -

ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ

3a044 ĜIŠ 3a045 ĜIŠ 3a046 ĜIŠ 3a047 ĜIŠ 3a048 ĜIŠ 3a049 ĜIŠ 3a050 ĜIŠ 3a051 ĜIŠ 3a052a ĜIŠ 3a053 ĜIŠ 3a054 ĜIŠ 3a055 ĜIŠ 3a056 ĜIŠ 3a057 ĜIŠ 3a058a ĜIŠ 3a058b ĜIŠ 3a059 ĜIŠ 3a060 ĜIŠ 3a061 ĜIŠ 3a062 ĜIŠ 3a063 ĜIŠ 3a064 ĜIŠ 3a065 ĜIŠ 3a066 ĜIŠ 3a067 ĜIŠ 3a068 ĜIŠ 3a069 ĜIŠ 3a070 ĜIŠ 3a071 ĜIŠ 3a072a ĜIŠ 3a072b [ĜIŠ 3a073 ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ 3a074 ĜIŠ 3a075 ĜIŠ 3a076 ĜIŠ 3a077 ĜIŠ 3a078 ĜIŠ 3a079 ĜIŠ 3a080 ĜIŠ 3a081 ĜIŠ

HAŠHUR DAM.SI.LUM HAŠHUR A.AB.BA HAŠHUR BA.ZA └ HAŠHUR ┘ [...]

ŠE Ù.SUH 5 AN Ù.SUH 5 NUMUN Ù.SUH 5 PA Ù.SUH 5 SAR Ú ŠIM(BI-E) ŠIM GIG 161 ŠIM GÌR ŠENNUR ŠENNUR RA LAM GAL LAM TUR LAM BULUH AL.LA.NU.UM ÍLDAG ÍLDAG KUR.RA ÍLDAG KUR.RA ÍLDAG DAN.NA ÍLDAG EN.NA ÍLDAG BUR.RA ÍLDAG TUR KUR.RA A.AB.BA A.AB.BA ME.LUH.HA ĜI 6 .PAR 4 MA.NU MA.NU HÁD.DU.A RU MA.NU DURU 5 MA.NU ŠU AK.A MA.NU GÍBIL AK.A MA.NU A.LÙ ĜIŠ AK.A MA.]NU A.LÙ ĜIŠ AK.A [MA.NU] MUR.RA.AN MA.NU [x]x[x] MA.NU [...] MA.NU [...] MA.NU KALAG.GA MA.NU KALAG.KALAG MA.NU ĜIŠ.KAL [T]IR TIR.T[I]R TI[R KUG.]GA ┌ T[IR ŠEN.] ŠEN ĜIŠ [TIR M]A.NU

81

3040 3041 3042 ?

?

3083 3086 3084 3088 3091 3092 3093 3126 3128 3136 3137 3135 3133 3128 3140 3146 3141 3148 3152 3154 3155 3156 3158 3159 3163 3162 3167 ? ? ? 3172 3170 3176 3177 3178 3179 3185

026 027a 027 028 029 030 030a 031 032 033 034 035 037 036 038 039 040 041 042 043 ? ? ? 044a -

Part 1 - Text Edition 44. 3a082 45. 3a083 46. 3a084 47. 3a085 48. 3a086a 49. 3a086b 50. 3a086c 51. 3a087 52. 3a088a 53. 3a088b 54. 3a088c 55. 3a089 56. 3a090 3a091 57. 58. 3a092 59. 3a094 end of column III 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31.

3a095 3a096 3a097 3a098 3a100 3a101 3a102 3a103 3a104 3a106 3a107 3a108 3a109 3a110 3a111 3a112 3a113 3a114 3a115 3a116 3a117 3a118 3a119 3a120 3a121 3a122 3a123 3a124 3a125 3a126 3a127

Ĝ IŠ

[

ĜIŠ

[ [ĜIŠ [ĜIŠ [ĜIŠ [ĜIŠ [ĜIŠ [ĜIŠ [ĜIŠ [ĜIŠ [ĜIŠ [ĜIŠ [ĜIŠ [ĜIŠ [ĜIŠ [ĜIŠ

ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ

ĜIŠ

TIR ERE]N.NA TIR Ù].SUH 5 TIR A-TU-G]AB<-LIŠ> NU.ÚR.M]A ŠED.D]A ŠED.D]A ŠED.D]A ŠED.DA Ì.]LÁ ME]S ME]S ME]S 162 MES M]ES MES ME.LUH.]HA MES HA.LU.UB HAR.RA.]NA MES DUB].RA.AN ┌ MES ] TU

3180 3181 3184 3186 3195-8 idem idem 3199 3200 3201 3202 3203 3205 3208 3209 3211-2

045 046-7 idem idem 048 049 idem idem 051 051d 051b

MES [BABBAR] MES KUKKU 5 EREN EREN.NA ŠU.UR.<MI.>NU.UM ZA.BA.LUM E.LAM.MA.KUM GI.RÍ.LUM 163 GI.KU(!RIM) GI.DÌM SÍ.IR.DU.UM MI.RI.IŠ.MA.NU UR.NU.UM TI.A.LUM TI.IA.LUM I.LI.IA.NU.UM UR.ZI.NU.UM ÍSIMU LIGIMA X (IGI-TUR) LIGIMA NIMBAR NIMBAR TUR NIMBAR TUR.TUR NIMBAR KUR.RA NIMBAR DILMUN.NA NIMBAR AL.DA.RA NIMBAR AL.KUD.DA NIMBAR AL.BÀN.DA NIMBAR AL.Š[AB.]BA NIM[BAR A]L.UG 5 .GA [NIMBAR] AL.ÚŠ(!ÚS).A

3213 3214-5 3217 3225 3226 3227 3229 3231 3237 3254 3260 3250 3255 3265 3280 3288 3291-2 3282-3 3284 3315 3309 3310 3301 3303

051e 052 053 054 055 056 057 058 063 059 060 061 062 064 065 066 067 068 069 070 071 078 079

82

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 3a (canonical tablet III-Va) 32. 3a128 33. 3a129 34. 3a131 35. 3a132 36. 3a133 37. 3a134 38. 3a135 39. 3a136 40. 3a137 41. 3a138 42. 3a139 43. 3a140 44. 3a141 45. 3a142 46. 3a143 47. 3a144 48. 3a145 49. 3a146 50. 3a147 51. 3a148 52. 3a149 53. 3a150 54. 3a151 55. 3a152 end of column

ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ

NIMBAR ŠU.NIM.MA NIMBAR LUL.LA NIM GÚ.UN.NA NIMBAR AL.ĜÁL.LA NIMBAR NU.AL.ĜÁL.LA NIMBAR AL.ŠEĜ 6 .ĜÁ NIMBAR NU.AL.ŠEĜ 6 .ĜÁ NIMBAR SIG 7 .SIG 7 NIMBAR SIG 7 .SIG 7 AL.ŠEĜ 6 .ĜÁ NIMBAR U 4 .HI.IN ŠAG 4 .SUD NIMBAR U 4 .HI.IN HÁD.DA NIMBAR U 4 .HI.IN KU 7 .KU 7 NIMBAR U 4 .HI.IN DUB.DUB NIMBAR IZI GU 7 .A NIMBAR UH.TAG.GA NIMBAR GIG HAB NIMBAR LIBIŠ.BU.RA NIMBAR MAŠ.TAB.BA NIMBAR NITA 164 NIMBAR MÍ NIMBAR AN.NA NIMBAR ĜEŠTIN AN.KI.NÚ NIMBAR ŠAG 4 NIMBAR

IV lines 1-6 damaged: only some initial ĜIŠ signs (partially) visible 7. 3a159 ĜIŠ GAG [ZI.NA AN.NA NIMBAR] 8. 3a160 ĜIŠ MU[D NIMBAR] ĜIŠ 9. 3a161 MUD [AL.GAZ NIMBAR] MUD.ZÚ [NIMBAR] 10. 3a162 ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ZÚ [NIMBAR] 11. 3a163 12. 3a164 ĜIŠ ZÚ SÍK [NIMBAR] ĜIŠ 13. 3a165 ZÚ GU.LA NIMBAR 14. a166a ĜIŠ TÚG.B[A NIMBAR] ĜIŠ ┐ TÚG.BA NIMBAR 15. a166b 16. 3a167 ĜIŠ PEŠ NIMBAR 17. 3a168 ĜIŠ PEŠ TUR NIMBAR ĜIŠ 18. 3a169 PEŠ GÁ(!UŠ) NIMBAR 19. 3a170 ĜIŠ PEŠ MURGU.Á NIMBAR ĜIŠ 20. 3a171 PEŠ BÀNDA.ZI NIMBAR 21. 3a172 ĜIŠ PEŠ HA.RA NIMBAR ĜIŠ 22. 3a173 ZI.KIRI 16 NIMBAR 23. 3a174 ĜIŠ ZI.KIRI 16 .È.A NIMBAR ĜIŠ 24. 3a175 ĜÁ.LI NIMBAR 25. 3a176 ĜIŠ ĜÁ.DA NIMBAR 26. 3a177 ĜIŠ ĜÁ.DA ZÚ.LUM NIMBAR ĜIŠ 27. 3a178 AN.NA NIMBAR 28. 3a179 ĜIŠ HÉ.BAD NIMBAR

83

3317 3344 3323 3324 3325 3326 3327 3339 3340 3329 3330 3331 3341 3342 3343 3306 3294 3318 3319 3320 3347 3351

073 075 080 076 077a 074 081

3362 3398 3399 3369 3370 3373 3380 3381 3384 3386 3385 3389 3402 3403

089 091 093 094 102 103 104 -

Part 1 - Text Edition 3a180 29. 3a181 30. 3a182 31. 3a183 32. 3a184 33. 3a185 34. 3a186 35. 3a187 36. 3a188 37. 3a189 38. 3a190 39. 3a191 40. 41. 3a192 42. 3a193 43. 3a194 44. 3a195 45. 3a196 46. 3a197 47. 3a198 48. 3a199 49. 3a200 50. 3a201 51. 3a202 52. 3a203 3a204 53. 54. 3a205 3a206 55. 56. 3a207 57. 3a208 58. 3a209 59. 3a210 end of column

ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ

NÍĜ.ŠUL NIMBAR TUBALA NIMBAR ÁSAL ÁSAL KUR.RA ÁSAL HI.LI NE ÁSAL NUMUN ÁSAL ÁD KIŠI 16 KIŠI 16 UH.HA(!HAR) KIŠI 16 UH.HA(!HAR) KUR.RA SA.MA.LUM SA.MA.ZUM PEŠ.KAL ṢU.TE.NU.UM ŠI.IQ.DU.UM ZAR ZAR.AŠ.TUM ZAR.LAM.TUM

LU-UŠ GI.ZÚ.LUM.MA BU.ZÚ.NU(!LUM).MA DAL.BU.UM AN.TAG MAŠ.MAŠ MAŠ.HUŠ ! GURU 5 .UŠ DURME LAGAB DURME I.RI 9 .NA ◦A.I.RI 9 .NA

V lines 1’-4’ damaged: only initial ĜIŠ signs (partially) visible ĜIŠ 5-7’ BA.PA-x[] ĜIŠ 8’ 3a217 BA.ŠAB 9’ 3a218 ĜIŠ BA E(!KAL) 10’ 3a219 ĜIŠ BA ŠU ĜIŠ ! 11’ 3a220 BA HÚB ĜIŠ 12’ 3a221 NA.RÚ.KU(!A) ĜIŠ 13’ 3a222 GÌR-ANŠE 165 -LUM 166 14’ 3a223 ĜIŠ NÍĜ.NA.MUD ĜIŠ 15’ 3a224 GU.ZA 16’ 3a225 ĜIŠ GU.ZA GÍD.DA ĜIŠ 17’ 3a226 GU.ZA SÌR.DA 18’ 3a227 ĜIŠ GU.ZA MUNUS.E.NE 19’ 3a228 ĜIŠ GU.ZA IM x[x] ĜIŠ 20’ 3a229 GU.ZA ZAG.B[I.UŠ] 21’ 3a230 ĜIŠ GU.ZA ARATTA

84

3407 3408 3411 3412 3416-7 3421 3440 3439 3441 3441a 3447 3448 3450 3451 3238 3455/7 3456 3458 3468 3470/1 3480 3482 3487 3484-5 89-91 90a/91a 3492 3493-5 idem

105 106 107 108 109 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 122 123 125 126 127 128 132 133 134 135 136

36-51 4041 4037 4053 4054 4067 4069 4071 4072 4073 4074 4076-7

152-55b 155 155a 156 157 159 160 162 163 163a -

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 3a (canonical tablet III-Va) 3a231 3a232 3a233 3a234 3a235 3a236 3a237 3a238 3a239 3a240 3a241

ĜIŠ

33’ 3a242 34’ 3a243 35’ 3a244 3a245 36’ 37’ 3a246 3a247 38’ 39’ 3a248 40’ 3a249 41’ 3a250 42’ 3a251 43’ end of column

ĜIŠ

22’ 23’ 24’ 25’ 26’ 27’ 28’ 29’ 30’ 31’ 32’

ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ

ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ

GU.ZA NÍĜ.BA GU.ZA NÍĜ.ŠU ĜIŠ GU.ZA GIGIR ĜIŠ GU.ZA HÚB GU.ZA LUGAL GU.ZA ŠAH.ŠUM.MA GU.ZA MÁ.GAN.NA GU.ZA MÁ.LAH 4 GU.ZA KI.BAL GU.ZA GIDIM.MA GU.ZA ŠAG 4 .IRI<xAN>xMIN=ĜIŠGAL (!HUL).LA GU.ZA NÍĜ.UN(!UNKIN).NA GU.ZA KASKAL GU.ZA ANŠE ĜIŠ GU.ZA KIN.TI GU.ZA GÀR.BA GU.ZA GÀR.BA KUG.GI.ĜAR.RA GU.ZA GÀR.BA KUG.B.ĜAR.RA GU.ZA GÀR.BA ZABAR.ĜA[R.RA] GU.ZA GÀR.BA URUDU.[ĜAR.RA] ĜIŠ GU.ZA TASKARIN ┘ [] ĜI Š GU.ZA [ ...]

Reverse VI lines 1-4 only GU.ZA (and some traces in 3) visible 5. 3a252 ĜIŠ GU.ZA UR(!ŠU).NÍĜIN [] 6. 3a253 ĜIŠ KA.MUŠ [GU.ZA] ĜIŠ 7. 3a254 SAĜ G[U.ZA] DI 5 G[U.ZA] 8. 3a255 ĜIŠ ĜIŠ 9. 3a256 BANDA 4 GU.ZA i 10. 3a257 ĜIŠ IZI GU.ZA ĜIŠ 11. 3a258 NÍĜ UMBIN GU.ZA 12. 3a259 ĜIŠ NA(!NA 5 ) ĜIŠ NA(!NA 5 ) GAL 13. 3a260 14. 3a261 ĜIŠ NA(!NA 5 ) TUR 15. 3a262 ĜIŠ NA(!NA 5 ) ŠU ĜIŠ 16. 3a264 NA(!NA 5 ) A-TE-KI 17. 3a265 ĜIŠ ŠÚ-A-DIŠ 18. 3a266 ĜIŠ ŠÚ-A-DIŠ DU 10 .ÚS.SA 19. 3a267 ĜIŠ ŠÚ-A-DIŠ ŠU.I ĜIŠ 20. 3a268 ŠÚ-A-DIŠ BUR.GUL 21. 3a269 ĜIŠ ŠÚ-A-DIŠ TIBIRA ĜIŠ 22. 3a270 ŠÚ-A-DIŠ GILIM.GILIM 23. 3a271 ĜIŠ ŠÚ-A-DIŠ NÍĜ.GUL.LA 24. 3a272 ĜIŠ GÌR.GUB ĜIŠ D 25. 3a273 GÌR.GUB LÀMA ĜIŠ 26. 3a274 GÌR.GUB ZÚ SÚMUN ĜAR.RA

85

4083 4084 4085 4088 4096 4098 4100 4093 4094

166 167 168 178 179 181 186a 175

4079 4095 4097 4103 4104 4105 4107 4106 4110 ?

185 170 169 195 196 197 189 ?

4119 4120 4126 4124 4123 4125 4121 4059 4060 4061 061a-2 4068 4129 4130 4132 4134 4135 4136 4140 4143 4144 145-a

200 201 199 202 203 204 205 207 208 210 211 212 213

Part 1 - Text Edition 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. break VII 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32.

3a275 3a276 3a277 3a278 3a279 3a280 3a281 3a282 3a283 3a284 3a285 -

ĜIŠ

3a288 3a289 3a290 3a291 3a292 3a293 3a294 3a296 3a297 3a298 3a299 3a300 3a301 3a302 3a303 3a304 3a305 a306a a306b 3a307 3a308 3a309 3a310 3a311 3a312 3a313 3a314 3a315 3a316 3a317 3a318 3a319

ĜIŠ

ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ

ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ

┌

┐

NÚ NÚ AŠ.N[U] NÚ ZÌG.GA NÚ NU.ZÌG.GA NÚ UMBIN NÚ UMBIN GUD NÚ UMBIN SAL.LA a NÚ UMBIN AŠKI NÚ ŠÀ.TAG NÚ ŠÀ.TAG SIKI.G[A.R]ÍG NÚ URI.M[A] NÚ UR[I] RI(=DI 5 ? 167 ) U[RI] BA[R.DA NÚ] BAR [...]

4146 4147 4149 4154 4155 4156 4152 4157 4158 4163 idem -

214 215 217 220 221 222 224 -

BANŠUR ZAG.GU.LA DÍLIM BANŠUR UMBIN BANŠUR KA KARA X (I-KÀD) KA KARA X MES KA KARA X ZÚ SÚMUN ĜAR.RA MAŠ.TAK.DILI ÉMERAH ÉMERAH GAL ÉMERAH TUR ÉMERAH ĜEŠTUG ÉMERAH TU 7 ÉMERAH KAŠ ÉMERAH Ì ÉMERAH SI ÉMERAH TUR ZA.NU.UM U5 KUN 4 KUN 4 KUN 4 BÀD KUN 4 È.A U 5 KUN 4 ŠÙK KUN 4 168 BÚNIN BÚNIN TUR BÚNIN GU.LA BUNIN 4 ZU(!ŠID).BAR.RA BUNIN 4 É.PA.NA BUNIN ŠU.KU 6 NÀĜA NÀĜA ŠE NÀĜA ŠE Ì.ĜIŠ

4198 4200 4203 4204 4206 4208 4209 4210 4211 4216 219-20 4218 213-4 4215 4212 4223 4225 4226 4227 4231 4232 4234 235/7 4236 4238 4241 4240 4242 4243 4244

237 235 236 239 240 241 242 243 245 246 247 248-50 251 252 253 254 255 256 257

86

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 3a (canonical tablet III-Va) 33. 3a320 ĜIŠ NÀĜA ESIR.È.A ĜIŠ 34. 3a321 NÀĜA SUM.GAZ 4246 35. 3a322 ĜIŠ TUKUL NÀĜA SUM.GAZ 4247 36. 3a323 ĜIŠ GAN.NA 4248 ĜIŠ 37. 3a324 EME.ŠI 252-3 38. 3a325 ĜIŠ ŠID-BAL 39. 3a326 ĜIŠ MI(!MÁ).RÍ.ZA 4254 40. 3a327 ĜIŠ MI(!MÁ).RÍ.ZA ZAG.GI 4255 ĜIŠ 41. 3a328 MÁ 4262 42. 3a329 ĜIŠ MÁ TUR 4264 ĜIŠ 43-4. MÁ [...] ? ĜIŠ 45. MÁ ŠU[ ...] ? 46-49 only (parts of) ĜIŠ and MÁ visible and probably 2 lines missing before end of column VIII 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35.

3a330 3a331 3a332 3a333 3a334 3a335 3a336 3a337 3a338 3a339 3a340 3a341 3a342 3a343 3a344 3a345 3a346 3a347 3a348 3a349 3a350 3a351 3a352 3a353 3a354 3a355 3a356 3a357 3a358 3a359 3a360 a361a a361b a361c a361d

ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ 169 ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ

MÁ ÍD.DA.NIR.GAL MÁ NU.RI MÁ HÉ.DU 7 MÁ GI.LUM MÁ GÍD.DA MÁ ADDIR MÁ SIG MÁ LÁ ! MÁ SAL .LA MÁ PEŠ.PEŠ MÁ SU.A MÁ DAH(!DIM).DUG 4 .GA MÁ ŠAG 4 .HA MÁ DILMUN.NA MÁ MÁ.GAN.NA MÁ A.AB.BA MÁ URI.MA KI MÁ MÁ.RÍ É MÁ SI MÁ TI MÁ TI.TI MÁ DAH(!SIG 4 =MURGU) MÁ ANŠE MÁ KARA 6 └ MÁ ┘ DAHGUL(!DARGUL) MÁ.┌x 170┐ GUL AN.TAG DAH (!DARGUL) MÁ MÁ.DÙ ÚŠ MÁ.DÙ GÌR MÁ.DÙ GÌR É.MÁ.DÙ MÁ 70 GUR MÁ 60 GUR MÁ 50 GUR MÁ 40 GUR

87

4303 4312 4344 4269 4352-3 4347 4266 4267 4275 4284 4285 4286 4281 4382 4343 4280 4277 4380 4367 4369 4370 4371 4373 4382 4388 4389 4391 4392 4393 4261 4355 4356

258 259 260 262 263 264 265 287 ? ?

307 272 275 276 296 274 298 299 300 312 313 308 311 310 -

Part 1 - Text Edition 36. a361e 37. a361f 38. a361g 39. a361h 40. a361i 41. 3a362 42. 3a363 43. 3a364 44. 3a365 45. 3a366 46. 3a367 47. 3a368 48. 3a369 49. 3a370 50. 3a371 end of column

ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ

MÁ 30 GUR MÁ 20 GUR MÁ 15 GUR MÁ 10 GUR MÁ 5 GUR ME.TE MÁ AN.TI.BAL AN.TI.BAL NÍĜIN.NA GAG IR EN(!ŠIBIR) GAG EN GAG KIRI 4 KA BAR ZU.HUL ┘ (!ŠÀ.HÚL)

IX lines 1-15 preserve (parts of) final signs only (1 and 6-15 read GIGIR) ĜIŠ 16. [...]x GIGIR 171 172 17. 3a372 ĜIŠ DAL MU GIGIR ĜIŠ 18. 3a373 MU.G[Í]D GIGIR ĜIŠ 19. 3a374 GÌR.G[U]B GIGIR 20. 3a375 ĜIŠ SU.DIN GIGIR ĜIŠ ? 21. 3a376 MUD G[IGIR] 22. 3a377 ĜIŠ ZA.RA GIGIR ĜIŠ 23. 3a378 GAG ZA.RA GIGIR 24. 3a379 ĜIŠ TUM GIGIR 25. 3a380 ĜIŠ GUL GIGIR ĜIŠ 26. 3a381 GAG GUL GIGIR 27. 3a382 ĜIŠ nirMEŠ 173 GIGIR MEŠ ĜIŠ 28. 3a383 GAG nir GIGIR 29. 3a384 ĜIŠ UMBIN GIGIR GAG UMBIN GIGIR 30. 3a385 ĜIŠ 174 31. 3a386 ĜIŠ GAG SAL 4 (SÌLA) ĜIŠ 32. 3a387 ZA.RA GAG SAL 4 33. 3a388 ĜIŠ UMBIN GAG SAL 4 ĜIŠ GAG UMBIN GAG SAL 4 34. 3a389 35. 3a390 ĜIŠ ŠID.DÙ BAR.RA 36. 3a391 ĜIŠ ŠID.DÙ ŠAG 4 .GA ĜIŠ ! 37. 3a392 ŠID.DÙ ŠÁR .RA ĜIŠ 38. a393a ÙSAN ĜIŠ 39. a393b ÙSAN 40. 3a394 ĜIŠ Ù[S]AN GUD ĜIŠ 41. 3a395 [Ù]SAN AN[ŠE] 42. 3a396 ĜIŠ ┘ BAR ÙS[AN] ĜIŠ┐ 43. 3a397 KU Ù◦SAN 175 MAR.GÍD.DA 44. 3a398 ĜIŠ [MAR.G]ÍD.DA SU.BIR 4 KI 45. 3a399 └ ĜIŠ ┘ KI 46. 3a400 ĜIŠ MAR.GÍD.DA ELAM.MA ĜIŠ ? 47. 3a401 KÁM MAR.GÍD.DA

88

4357 4358 4359 4360 4361 4025 4026 4421 4422 4428 4428a 7b146 -

317 319 320 322 323 325 -

5046 5035 5047 5045 5029 5030 5043 5056 5049 5050 5054 5055 5059 5068 5070 5069 5073 5077 5078 -

337 333 338 340 341 342 343 351 352 353 355 356 347 348 357 -

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 3a (canonical tablet III-Va) 48. 3a402 49. 3a403 end of column

ĜIŠ ĜIŠ

DAL MAR.GÍD.DA DA MA[R.GÍ]D.DA

-

X break in upper part of column, followed by empty space and the Colophon AL<.TIL> IGI.KÁRA It has been (and) checked: 1. 2. ŠU.NÍĜIN.NA (in) total 3. 5 me-at 18 518 (are) 4. MU.BI.UM its lines. I D 5. ŠU ri-bi- da-gan (By) the hand of Rîbi-Dagan, 6. Ì.ZU TUR.TUR most junior apprentice-scribe, D 7. ÌR AK the servant of Nabû D 8. ù NISABA and Nisaba, D 9. ÌR a-a the servant of Ayya D 10. u PAP.PAP and Pappap u DNIN.DUB.GAL.GAL 11. and Nindubgalgal 12. u DEREŠ.KI.GAL and Ereshkigal. 176 Mannam Lušpur Incantation 1. lìb-bu-ú dá-an lìb-bu qar ┘ - └ ra-ad The heart (is) strong, the heart (is) brave. 2. ša lìb-bi dan-nim GÍD.D[A IGI.2-ša] Of the strong heart lon[g (are) its eyes.] 3. pur-ši- └ it da-mi i-na-a[š-ši] A vessel of blood it hol[ds.] 4. da!-am-qà-an i-na-zé-e[q] lìb-bu-šu i-ka 4 -sí[-š]u His heart bound him. 6. iš-ši e-na-šu └ NA◦M.TAB.BA He lifted up his eyes: “Companionship 7. ú-ul a-ha-ṭ◦á-┌šu ma-an-nu I cannot find”. Who 8. li-iš-pur a-na DUMU.MU[NUS.]ME[Š] D ┘ [a-nim ša ANe] may send to the daughters of Anu of the Heavens? 9. ša ka-an┐-┌nu┐-┌šu-nu K[UG?.GI] Whose jarstands (are) of g[old (and) 10. ša k-ar-pa-t◦u-šu-n[u NA 4 ZA.GÌN KUG.GA] Whose vessel[s (are) of pure lapis lazuli.] end of column 5.

LEft Edge 1. li-ši-a-ni líl-ša-ba-ni me-e A.BA ta!-ma!-ti [ra-pa-aš-ti] May they carry (them), may they draw the waters of the wide ocean! 2. šum-ma ša-ru a-na šu-bur-ri šum-ma da-mu a-n◦a-aš-š[i ...] 3. 4.

ši-ip-tu ú-ul i-ia-tù ši-pa-at Dda-mu The spell (is) not mine (but it is) the spell of the Damu u Dgu-la NIN TIL ÉNti [DU]MU.MUNUS a-ni <e> tar-a <<e>> 177 89

-

Part 1 - Text Edition

5.

and of Gula, the Lady of Life, the spell of the daughter of Anu. Do not return (to his heart)! TU.E.NE NU.RA

end of column 3a Tablet 2 – 543 C (74163b - p.415) all entries underlined Obverse II probably 5 lines missing 178 6. [ĜIŠx Ù.S]UH 5 [ĜIŠx Ù.S]UH 5 7. 8. [ĜIŠx ]◦Ù! 179 .SUH 5 9. 3a049 [ĜIŠŠIM].GIG [ĜIŠŠI]M.GÌR 180 3a050 10. 3a051 11. [ĜIŠ]ŠENNUR 3a052a [ĜIŠ ŠENNUR] KUR.RA 12. 3a052b [ĜIŠ ŠENNUR] KUR.RA 13. 3a053 14. [ĜIŠLA]M GAL 3a054 15. [ĜIŠLA]M TUR 3a055 16. [ĜIŠLA]M BULUH 3a056 17. [ĜIŠAL.L]A.NU.UM 3a057 18. [ĜIŠÍL]DAG ┘ break III 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. break

3a091 3a093 3a094 3a095 3a096 3a097 3a099 3a100 3a101 3a102 3a103 3a104 3a105 3a107 3a108 3a109 3a110 3a111 3a112

[ĜIŠMES HA.LU.U]B(!ÚB) HAR.RA<.NA> [ĜIŠMES] GÀM [ĜIŠM]ES TU ĜIŠ

MES BABBAR MES KUKKU 5 ĜIŠ EREN ĜIŠ EREN BABBAR ĜIŠ ŠU.ÚR.MÌN ĜIŠ ZA.BA.LUM ĜIŠ E.LAM.MA.KUM ĜIŠ GI.RÍ.LUM ĜIŠ GI.RIM ĜIŠ GI.RI 9 .UM ĜIŠ SÍ.IR.DU ĜIŠ MI.RÍ.IŠ.MA.UM ĜIŠ ? UR.Ú/NU 10 (KU ).UM ĜIŠ TI.A.LUM ĜIŠ └ ┘ [TI.] └ IA.LUM [ĜIŠI.LI.IA.NU.U]M ĜIŠ

90

3083-91 idem idem 3092 3093 3126 8/30a/32 idem 3136 3137 3135 3133 3138-9

026-7a idem idem 029 030 030a 031 032 033 034

3208 3210 3211 3213 3214 3217 3225 3226 3227 3229 3231 3237 3254-5 3258-60 3258-60 3250-2

051d 051b 051e 052 053 054 055 056 057 058 063 060 -

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 3a (canonical tablet III-Va) IV 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. break

3a147 3a148 3a149 3a150 3a151 3a152 3a153 3a154 3a155 3a156 3a157 3a158 3a159 3a160 3a161 3a162 3a163 3a164 3a165 3a166a 3a167 3a168 3a169 -

NIMBAR NITA NIMBAR MI(!MÍ) ĜIŠ NIMBAR AN.NA ĜIŠ NIMBAR ĜEŠTIN ĜIŠ AN.KI NÚ NIMBAR ĜIŠ ŠAG 4 ĜIŠ ŠAG 4 .DA ĜIŠ PA ĜIŠ PA KUD.DA ĜIŠ DÁLA ĜIŠ ZI.NA NIMBAR ĜIŠ ZI.NA AN.NA NIMBAR ĜIŠ GAG ZI.NA NIMBAR ĜIŠ MUD NIMBAR ĜIŠ MUD GAZ.ZA NIMBAR ĜIŠ MUD ZÚ NIMBAR ĜIŠ ZÚ SÍK NIMBAR ĜIŠ ZÚ GU.LA NIMBAR ĜIŠ TÚG<.BA> NIMBAR [ĜI]ŠTÚG<.BA> NIMBAR [ĜIŠ P]EŠ NIMBAR [ĜIŠP]EŠ TUR NIMBAR [ĜIŠP]EŠ UŠ NIMBAR [ĜIŠ ...] └ NIMBAR ┘

V 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. break

3a198 3a200 3a201 3a202 3a203 3a204 3a205 3a206 3a207 3a208 3a209 3a210 3a211 3a212 3a213 3a214 3a215 3a216 -

ĜIŠ

ĜIŠ ĜIŠ

?

181

ZAR .LAM<.TUM> GI.ZÚ.LUM.MA ĜIŠ BU.ZÚ.LUM.MA ĜIŠ 182 DAL .BU.UM ĜIŠ AN.TAG ĜIŠ MAŠ.MAŠ ĜIŠ MAŠ.HAŠ(!HUŠ) ĜIŠ <> GÚRU(!GURU 5 ).UŠ 183 ĜIŠ SAG-SAG-UR 184 (!DURME) ĜIŠ LAGAB SAG-NA(!DURME) ĜIŠ I.RI 9 .NA ĜIŠ A I.RI 9 .AN.NA ĜIŠ DUR(!GÚ) 185 GIL.AN.NA ĜIŠ DUR(!GÚ) GIL.BA.AB ĜIŠ 186 Ù GÁ-LÁ ĜIŠ ÚR EDIN ĜIŠ PA KUD ┘ ĜIŠ 187 GURUN ┘ ĜIŠ

x 188

ĜIŠ

91

3319 3320 3351 3356 3357 3359 3360 3361 3362 3398 3399 3370 3373 3381 3384 3386 3388 ?

081 086 087 088 090 089 093 094 102 104 ?

3458 3468 3470 3480 3482 3487 3484-5 3489-91 90a/91a 3492 3493-5 idem 98-504 3505-10 3514 3512-3a 3520-2 ?

123 125 126 127 128 130 129 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 141 ?

Part 1 - Text Edition Reverse VI 1’ 2’ 3’ 4’ 3a257 5’ 3a258 3a259 6’ 7’ 3a260 3a261 8’ 9’ 3a262 10’ 3a263 11’ 3a264 12’ 3a265 13’ 3a266 14’ 3a267 15’ 3a268 16’ 3a269 17’ 3a270 end of column VII 1’ 2’ 3a286 3’ 3a287 4’ 3a288 5’ 3a289 6’ 3a290 7’ 3a291 8’ 3a292 9’ 3a295 10’ 3a296 11’ 3a298 12’ 3a299 13’ 3a300 14’ 3a301 end of column VIII 1’ 3a344 2’ 3a345 3a346 3’ 4’ 3a347 3a348 5’ 6’ 3a349 end of column

[ĜIŠ... GU].┌ZA [ĜIŠ... G]U.┌ZA [ĜIŠ... ]GU.ZA [ĜIŠI.]┌ZI GU.ZA [ĜIŠNÍĜ U]MBIN GU.ZA ĜIŠ NA(!NA 5 ) ĜIŠ NA(!NA 5 ) GAL ĜIŠ NA(!NA 5 ) TUR ĜIŠ NA(!NA 5 ) ŠU ĜIŠ NA(!NA 5 ) ZU ĜIŠ NA(!NA 5 ) A-TE-KI ĜIŠ ŠÚ-A-DIŠ ĜIŠ ŠÚ-A-DIŠ DU 10 .ÚS.SA ĜIŠ ŠÚ-A-DIŠ ŠU.I ĜIŠ ŠÚ-A-DIŠ BUR.GUL ĜIŠ ŠÚ-A-DIŠ TIBIRA ĜIŠ ŠÚ-A-DIŠ GILIM.GILIM

[ĜIŠ] [ĜIŠ [ĜIŠ [ĜIŠ [ĜIŠ] [ĜI]Š ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ

[ĜIŠ [ĜIŠ [ĜIŠ [ĜIŠ [ĜIŠ [ĜIŠ

? ? ? 4125 4121 4059 4060 4061 4061a-2 4068 4129 4130 4132 4134 4135 4136

? ? ? 202 203 204 205 207 208 -

BANŠUR [...] ┐ BANŠ]UR SAĜ.DU BANŠ]UR ZAG ĜAR.RA BANŠ]UR ZAG GU.LA DÍLIM BANŠUR UMBIN BANŠUR KA KARA X (I-KÀD) MÉS KA KARA X ZÚ AM.SI MAŠ.TAK.DILI ÉMERAH GAL ÉMERAH TUR ÉMERAH ĜEŠTUG ÉMERAH TU 7 ÉMERAH KAŠ

4188-90 4191 4199 4198 4200 4203 4204 4208 4210 4211 4216 4219-20 4218

234 238 237 235 236 239 240 241 243 -

MÁ MÁ.GAN.N]A MÁ A.AB.B]A KI MÁ URI.MA] KI MÁ MÁ.RI] É] MÁ SI] MÁ

4382 4383 4280 4277 4380 4367

274 298 299

┐

92

Thematic Series * HAR(ur5).ra=hubullu * Division 3b Part 1 (canonical tablet III) Division 3 Part 1 (canonical III) Version B (bilingual) 3b Tablet 1 - 543 B 189 (7480a - p.211) This tablet, which is assumed to have 4 columns (2 on each side), represents the first part of division 3 (Part 1) in the bilingual version – it is continued by 3T2 . In other words: in the bilingual format division 3 was subdivided into two parts: the first part equivalent to canonical III, the second part equivalent to to canonical IV-Va. Obverse II preceded by broken section with a few signs remaining (cf. Emar IV/2 p. 59) 1’ [ĜIŠ… : g]a 14 -aṣ-ṣu 2’ [ĜIŠNIMBAR DILMUN.N]AKI 3a121 : dá-al-mu 3’ +3b001 [ĜIŠNIMBAR MÁ.G]ÁN.NAKI : ar-sa-nu ĜIŠ ┐ 4’ 3a122 NIMBAR AL .DA.RA : ri-tu-ú ĜIŠ NIMBAR AL.KUD.DA 5’ 3a123 : na-ak-su 6’ +3b002 ĜIŠNIMBAR AL.DUB.BA.A : na-ap-ṣu ĜIŠ NIMBAR AL. ŠAB.[B]A 7’ 3a125 : šar-mu 8’ +3b003a ĜIŠNIMBAR AL.GAZ.[Z]A : ┘ mi-i-tu 4 end of column Reverse III 1. +3b003b ĜIŠNIMBAR AL.G[AZ.ZA ĜIŠ 2. 3a127 NIMBAR AL.ÚŠ.A ĜIŠ 3. 3a128 [NIMBAR] AL. ŠU.N[IM.MA 4. +3b004 ĜIŠ┌NI[MBAR] MAŠ.TAB.B[A ĜIŠ ┐ 5. 3a147 NIMBAR NÍTA ĜIŠ 6. 3a148 NIMBAR MUNUS ĜIŠ 7. 3a131 NIMBAR <<1>> GÚ.UN ĜIŠ 8. NIMBAR AL.ĜÁL.LA 3a132 ĜIŠ NIMBAR NU.AL.ĜÁL.LA 9. 3a133 ĜIŠ NIMBAR AL.ŠEĜ 6 .Ĝ[Á 10. 3a134 ĜIŠ 11. 3a135 NIMBAR NU.ŠEĜ 6 .Ĝ[Á] ĜIŠ 12. 3a136 NIMBAR SIG 7 .SIG 7 ĜIŠ 13. 3a137 NIMBAR SIG 7 .SIG 7 AL.ŠEĜ 6 .ĜÁ ĜIŠ 14. +3b005a NIMBAR U 4 .HI.IN 15. +3b005b ĜIŠNIMBAR U 4 .HI.IN ┘ break IV only has a few signs remaining 190 (Emar VI/2 p. 60)

? 3284 3286 3315 3309 3311 3310 3301

? 068 069 070 071 -

d]i-ku-tu ti ┘ -[i]k-šu m]uš-ha-li-bu tu-]ú-mu [zi-k]a-rù [si-]ni-šu [iṣ] bi-la-tu 4 : ┘ [na-] └ šu-u [l]a-a na-šu b]a-aš-lu ┌ : la-a ba-aš-lu ar-qu : a-ri-qu ú-hi-n[u] a-[...]

3313 3303 3317 3318 3319 3320 3323 3324 3325 3326 3327 3339 3340 3328 29-43

078a 079 080 -

a-mu-]ur-di-in[-nu] xx]x-ku-u [] ka-ra-a]n še-li-bi is]-hu- └ na-t[u]

3013 ? 3015 3022

009 ? 010 -

Fragment: (likely to belong to 3bT1) 543 D (74171j – p.435) 1’ 3a021 [ĜIŠĜEŠTIN GÍR 2’ [ĜIŠĜEŠTIN ... 3’ 3a023 [ĜIŠĜEŠTIN KA 5 .A 4’ 3a024 [ĜIŠĜEŠTIN GA.RA.AN

93

Part 1 - Text Edition Division 3 Part 2 (canonical IV-Va)Version B (bilingual) 3b Tablet 2 - 544-5 B (731048 – p.128) This tablet, which is assumed to have 4 columns (2 on each side), is similar in lay-out (ruling) and content (bilingual format, repetition of GIŠ and consistent use of separation markers) to 3bT1, which it continues, starting from an (lost) entry positioned parallel to the start of canonical tablet IV. In other words: in the bilingual format division 3 was subdivided into two parts: the first part equivalent to canonical III, the second part equivalent to canonical IV-Va. Obverse I 1. 2. +3b006 3. 4. 3a228 3a239 5. 6. 3a240 3a241 7.

ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.

3a244 3a235 3a236 3a245 3a237 3a238 3a242 3a246 3a250

ĜIŠ

17.

3a249

ĜIŠ

18.

-

ĜIŠ

ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ

┌

┐

GU. ZA [... GU.ZA [... GU.ZA BARAG [ GU.ZA IM x[ GU.ZA KI.B[AL GU.ZA GIDIM.[MA GU.ZA ŠAG 4 .LAM(!HÚL).L[Á(!LA)] GU.ZA ANŠE GU.ZA LUGAL GU.ZA ŠAH.ŠUM.MA ĜIŠ GU.ZA KIN.TI GU.ZA MÁ.GAN.NA GU.ZA MÁ.LAH 4 GU.ZA NÍĜ.UNKIN.NA GU.ZA GÀR.BA GU.ZA GÀR.BA URUDU.ĜAR.RA ┘ GU.ZA GÀR.BA ZA[BAR.ĜAR.RA GU.ZA GÀR ┘ .[BA

...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...]

? ? 4087 ? 4093

? 186a

M[IN hu-ud lib-bi] MIN e◦[- me-ri] MIN ša[r-ri] : na-at┐̣ -[ba-hu] ku-us-sa ki┐-[iš-kit-tee] ma-ka-an-ni ša ma-la-a-hi ku-us-sa pu-u[h-ri] ku-us-sa k[í-ir-ri] : └ ku ┘ -[us-sa ]

4094 4095 4088 4096 4097 4098 4100 4103 4106

175 169 178 179 181 185 195 -

4107

197

?

?

5016 5032 5042 5056 -

345 346 330 344 -

...] ...]

break Reverse III 1’ +3b009 2’ +3b010 3’ +3b011 4’ +3b012 5’ +3b013 6’ +3b014 7’ +3b015 8’ +3b016 9’ +3b017 10’ +3b018

┌ĜIŠ┐ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ

?

É SU[HUR GIGIR KANKAL [GIGIR SUHUR GIGI[R ┐

GABA GIGIR [ GABA GAL(!ĜÁL) GIGI[R ┐ KUN GIGIR [ SI GIGIR [ GAG SI GIGIR [ GUL GIGIR GAG GUL GIGIR

94

...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] h[al-ma-at-rù] s[i-ik-ka-at hal-ma-at-ri]

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 3b Part 2 (canonical tablets IV-Va) +3b019 +3b020 -

ĜIŠ

IV 1’ 2’ 3’ 4’ 5’ 6’

+3b021 +3b022a +3b022b +3b023

ĜIŠ┐

7’ 8’ 9’ 10’ 11’ 12’

+3b024 +3b025 +3b026 +3b027 +3b028 +3b029

ĜIŠ

13’

-

-

11’ 12’ 13’ 14’

ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ┐

ZA.RA GIGIR GAG [ZA.RA GIGIR

[...] ...] ...] ...]

5029 5030 ? ?

? ?

ooo] ooo] vacat vacat vacat vacat

? -

? 358 -

UMBIN MAR.GÍD.DA GAG UMBIN <MAR.>GÍD.DA GÌR MAR.GÍD.DA IGI MAR.GÍD.DA LI.DUR MAR.GÍD.DA KANKAL MAR.GÍD.DA

vacat vacat : kùr-ṣ̣u : e-nu : ↓ab-bu-un-n[a-tu 4 ] : ↓ sa-as-su []

5092 5095g 5083 -

368 369 -

MAN TIL MAN

-

n/a

n/a

[... [...

break

ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ

ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ

[... NÍĜ.GÍD.D[A ┐ GU.ZA MAR.GÍD.DA SU.DIN MAR.GÍD.DA SU.DIN MAR.GÍD.DA GAG SU.DIN MAR.GÍD.DA

Colophon ID 14’ ŠU IM.ma-lik D 15’ DUMU IM.UR.SAĜ D 16’ ÌR AK ┘ D 17’ u N[ISABA] break

(By) the hand of Bacal-malik, son of Bacal-qarrad, the servant of Nabû and N[isaba.]

95

Part 1 - Text Edition Fragments: (likely to belong to 3bT2) 544 D (74114j – p.285) 1’ [ĜIŠ] 2’ [ĜIŠ] 3’ 3a336(a) [ĜIŠ] 4’ 3a336(b) [ĜIŠ]

┐

MÁ NI-IN M[Á N]I-IN [

ĜIŠ

3a266 +3b007 3a267 +3b008 -

ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ

└

ĜIŠ

┘

544 F (74104x – p.263) 1’ [ĜIŠ 2’ [ĜIŠ 3’ [ĜIŠ 4’ 3a361b [ĜIŠ 5’ 3a361c [ĜIŠ 6’ [ĜIŠ 3a361d 7’ 3a361e [ĜIŠ 8’ 3a361f [ĜIŠ 9’ 3a361g [ĜIŠ 10’ [ĜIŠ 3a361h [ĜIŠ 11’ -

4269/71 idem

-

Š[Ú-A

...]

4129

204

ŠÚ-A DU 10 .Ú[S.SA ŠÚ-A ŠU ┘ [ ŠÚ-A Š[U.I ŠÚ-A KA[SKAL └ ŠÚ-A ┘ [x

...] ...] ...] ...] ...]

4130 4131 4132 4133 4134-42

205 209 206-7/10

┌ ┌

? 4354 4355 4356 4357 4358 4359 4360 4361

? 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286

MÁ GÍD.D[A MÁ GÍD.D[A

544 E (74107u – p.273) li-iš-ša 191 : 1. 3a265 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

[...] ...] ...] ...]

: MIN┐ x 192 d[u? ...] : MIN ma-at [] : MIN 5 ma-x[] : MIN šu-ši : MIN 50 : MIN 40 ┌ : MIN 30 : MIN 20 : MIN 15 : MIN 10 ]x a-kíl 5 []

MÁ ...] MÁ ]x GUR MÁ x G]UR MÁ 60 GU]R MÁ 50 GU]R MÁ 40 GUR] MÁ 30 GUR] MÁ 20 GUR] MÁ 15 GUR] MÁ 10 GUR]

...

96

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 4 (canonical tablets Vb-VII) Division 4 (canonical Vb-VII) 4 Tablet 1 193 (note Obv 4 columns, Rev 5 columns) consisting of: 545 D (D’=74209a+D’’=7526 – p.508-15+730) 545 V (74143a – p.352) 545 AA (74201a – p.499) 545 AB (74199j – p.493) 545 AC (74198ad – p.489) 545 AI (74209e – p.516) (545 ‘AU’ (74117d – p.290) suggested by Civil, 11 but not followed here) 545 ‘AV’ (74232b – p.538) Obverse I 1’ AA I[G ... IG KÁ x[o 2’ 4009 4010 3’ IG KÁ GAL 4011 4’ IG P[A.PA.AH [IG] ĜIŠER[IN] 5’ 4012 ĜIŠ 6’ 4013 IG ŠU.Ú[R.MÌN ĜIŠ IG Ù.SUH 5 7’ 4014 ĜIŠ IG ÁSA[L 8’ 4015 ĜIŠ 9’ IG MA.NU 4016 10’ IG KUM.MA 4017 11’ 4018 IG KUG.GA IG GU.LA 12’ 4019 IG GIBIL 13’ 4020 14’ IG SUMUN 4021 IG LIBIR.RA 15’ 4022 16’ 4023 IG ŠU.LÁL 17’ [U 5 ]I[G 4024 about 6 lines missing SUH[UB 4 1’’ AC 4030 ┐ 2’’ 4031 ŠU KAM.MA [ 3’’ 4032 SAĜ.KUL [ 4’’ 4033 SAĜ.KUL NIM.M[A 5’’ 4034 SAĜ.KUL ŠU.LÁL [ 6’’ 4034 ÉŠ SAĜ.KUL 7’’ 4035 MUD SAĜ.KUL 8’’ 4036 [MUD GIL]IM 9’’AI 4037 [MUD 10’’ 4038 [GAG MUD 11’’ 4039 [AŠKUD X (Á-ZA-AN-MÙŠ) 12’’ 4040 [GAG MIN AB 13’’ 4041 [ÉŠ MI]N 14’’ 4042 [MUD] ┌MIN┐ 14’’ 4043 [SUHUR] 15’’ 4044 [SUHUR GUD [SUHUR ANŠE 16’’ 4045

97

...] ...] MIN a-bu-ul-li M]IN pa-pá-a-hi └ MIN e-ri-in-ni MI]N šu-ur-mi-ni [MIN] a-šu-hi MIN ṣ]a-ar-b[i-ti] x[...] MIN x[...] MIN el-l[i-tu] ra-bi ┘ -[tu] eš-ši-[tu] la-b[e-er-tu] la-be-e[r-tu] ub-bu-u[l-tu] š]a- └ li ┘ - └ mi ┘

? 47/48-50 5247a 5236 5222 5223 5224 5253

? 386-7 380a 389

e]↑-la-ra-ma ...] ...] ...] ...] e[b-li ] š[ul-bu-ú] g[iš-ru] up]-pu si]-ik-kat u[p-pi] a]-šu-ku-ut-t[u?!] s]i-ik-kat MIN e[b-l]i MIN up-p[a ]MIN mi-gi-g[u] M]IN al-[pi] MIN] i-mi-ri

5267 5268 5270 5271 5274 5275 5276 5277 5286 5287 5278 5279 5280 5281 7a148 7a149 7a150

394a 394b 398 399 401 400 405 406 -

Part 1 - Text Edition 17’’

4046

[TI.IL.PA KUR 4 .RA

k]a 4 -a-ú

5304

-

18’’ 19’’ 20’’ 21’’ 22’’ 23’’ 24’’ 25’’ 26’’ 27’’

4047 4048 4049 4050 4051a 4051b 4052 4052a 4052b 4053

[SAĜ.DU [SAĜ.DU AN.TA [SAĜ.DU KI.TA [KUR 4 .RA] [NIR.RA] [NIR.RA [ŠERIM [ŠERIM GAL [ŠERIM TUR [ŠERIM BAR.SIG

a-z]u-u : na-ba-lu MIN] e-lu-u MIN] šap-lu ◦i-ṣi ku-ra ◦i-ṣi ni-ra m]u-ṣa-ab-bi-tu 4 ṣ]i-ṣi-tu 4 ra]-bu-u ṣe]-eh-rù š]a pá-ar-si-ik-ki

5305 5306 5307 5307a 5308 5311 5300 5301 5302 5303

409 410 408 -

[SAĜ].┌BAL┐ [KUL].BAL ME.TE BAL qa-ri-im : GA.RÍG GA.RÍG GAL GA.RÍG TUR GA.RÍG SIKI GA.RÍG SAĜ.DU GA.RÍG SIKI DIĜIR.RA GA.RÍG ŠU KAM.MA GA.RÍG É.AN(!PA).NA lu-uk-ki-iš : ELLAĜ lu-uk-ki-iš : ELLAĜ la-ga-me : LAGAB mu-ud!-li : MUDUL ma-ad-li : MADAL └ma-al-la : MALLA ki-ši-mu : BU GI TUR SUHUR GI TUR zu-u-bi : ZUBI gu-ur : GÚR GÚR Á.LÁ 194 GÚR BA.AN.SIM(!DU 8 ) GÚR BA.AN.DU 8 [G]ÚR BA.AN.DU 8 .DU 8 [G]ÚR [BA]LAG 195 GÚR .DU .DI

q[a-qa-da MIN] š[u-ku 8 -du] nap-[ra-ṣu] x[...] ra-bu[-tu 4 ] ṣa-ah-r[u] ša ša-pa-ti [] ša qa-qa-dì [] : ma-ah-hu-ṣu ┘ [] ša me-ri-il-t[i] da-pa-na pa-ak-ku pí-ik-ku ha-aṭ-ṭu ↑ù[ ...] ma-aš-šu-u ma-an-du-u ma-la-lu gi 5 -ši-šu ma-al-lu-u ma-an- └ gi 5 - └ gu [ga-am-]lu [ki]p-pa-tu 4 kip-pa-at a-le-e MIN ni-pí-ti MIN ba-an-de 4 -e MIN ba-an-du-ut-te-e MIN bu-lu-ug-gi 5 MIN ti-im-bu-tu 4

6026 6027 6028-9 6012 6013 6014 6018 6043 6085 6086 6087 6084 6099 6105 6098 6100-2 6104 6106 6107

424 425 418 419 420 421a 426-8 idem idem 429-32 idem idem idem 435 -

end of column II 1’ D’ 2’ 3’ 4’ 5’ 6’ 7’ 8’ 9’ 10’ 11’ 12’ 13’ 14’ 15’ 16’ 17’ 18’ 19’ 20’ 21’ 22’ 23’ 24’ 25’ 26’ 27’ 28’

4065 4066 4067 4068 4068a 4068b 4069 4070 4071 4072 4073 4074a 4074b 4075 4076 4077 4078 4079 4080 4081 4082 4083 4084 4085 4086 4087 4088 4089

98

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 4 (canonical tablets Vb-VII) 29’ 30’ 31’ 32’ 33’ 34’ 35’ 36’ 37’ 38’ 39’ 40’ 41’ 42’-3’ 44’ 45’

4090 4091 4091a 4092 4093 4094 4095 4096 4097 4098 4099 4100 4103a

└ Á.LÁ -iš-ri : <ĜIŠ.>RÍN <ĜIŠ.>RÍN TUR <ĜIŠ.>RÍN LUL.A <ĜIŠ.>RÍN SAL.LA <ĜIŠ.>RÍN 1 GÚ.UN <ĜIŠ.>RÍN ZAG.LÁL [<ĜIŠ.>RÍN M]À.MÀ.LA [<ĜIŠ.>RÍN ZI.B]A.NA 196 [É <ĜIŠ.>RÍN [Á <ĜIŠ.>RÍN [<ĜIŠ.>RÍN DÍL]IM [...]x [... [... [APIN ŠU

a-lu-ú gi 5 -iš-[r]i-in-nu qa-ab-li-tu 4 sa-ar-ru ra-[a]q-qu ša [b]i-la-at ša mar-QA-e-ti ša ma-la-le-e └ ša [z]i-ba-ni-ti xx]x i-t]a qa-ab-li-ti : ↓ta-ab-k◦u 8 ] vacat x]-un-nu e-pi-in q]a-ti

6108 6113 6114 6116 6117 6115 5116

436 438 439 440 441 443

5154 5141 5142 5166 5167 5161 5162 5140 5139 5173 5174 5175 5180 5180a 5185 5186 -

460a 460b 463 458 460 455 456 461 468 469 470 472 -

break (a few isolated signs just before end of column visible on 545AB) III 1’ D’ 2’ 3’ 4’ 5’ 6’ 7’ 8’ 9’ 10’ 11’ 12’ 13’ 14’ 15’ 16’ 17’ 18’ 19’ 20’ 21’ 22’ 23’

4127 4128 4129 4130 4131a 4131b 4132 4133 4134 4135 4136 4137 4138 4139 4140 4141 4142 4143 4144 4145 4146 4147 4148

[MUŠ/ŠIR 10 ] APIN┐

x[...] si-kat MIN le-e-ú si-kat MIN su-ut-ti-in-nu ni-i-ru si-kat MIN ra-aq-qa-tu si-kat MIN a-hu da-a-tù ša-ha-ta-tu ma-ša-ad-du ha-ab-su-uk-ku ú-ku-u maš-ka-ak-ka-tu 4 : MIN mu-ša-ri MIN ši-in-nu ra-ba-tu : za-ru-u : si-kat MIN : ru-ku-DU : ši-in-ni-tu 4 : si-kat MIN

GAG MUŠ APIN TE(!LE).U 5 .UM APIN GAG LE.U 5 .UM APIN SU.DIN APIN SU.DIN(!ŠUDUN) APIN GAG SU.DIN(!ŠUDUN) APIN SAL.LA APIN GAG SAL.LA APIN Á APIN DA APIN DA DA APIN NÍĜ.GÍD.DA APIN GAG SAL.LA APIN BAR.BAR APIN NÍĜ.GÁN.ÙR NÍĜ.GÁN.ÙR MU.ŠAR NÍĜ.GÁN.ÙR ZÚ.GAL.GAL ZA.RA NÍĜ.GÁN.ÙR GAG ZA.RA NÍĜ.GÁN.ÙR U 5 NÍĜ.GÁN.ÙR ZÚ NÍĜ.GÁN.ÙR GAG ZÚ NÍĜ.GÁN.ÙR

99

Part 1 - Text Edition 24’ 25’ 26’ 27’ 28’ 29’ 30’ 31’ 32’ 33’ 34’ 35’

4149 4150 4151 4152 4152a 4152b 4152c 4152d 4153 4154 4155 4156

AL AL SA AL SAĜ AL ZÚ AL ZÚ 2 AL ZÚ 3 AL ZÚ 4 AL ZÚ 4

36’ break

4157

[Ù.Š]UB └ A ┘ [.AB.BA

4173b 4173c 4173d 4173e 4174a 4174b 4174c 4174d 4174e 4174f 4174g 4174h 4175 4176a 4176b 4177 4177a 4177b 4178 4179 4180 4181 4182 4183 4184 4185 4186a 4186b 4187 4188 4189

[3 SÌLA [4 SÌLA ┌ ┐ 5 [SÌL]A 5/6 SÌLA 10 GÍĜ 5 GÍĜ 3 GÍĜ 2 GÍĜ 1 GÍĜ ½ GÍĜ 1/3 GÍĜ 2/3 GÍĜ.NA.BI IGI 3 ĜÁL du SA 9 LA ŠU. DU 7 du SA 9 LA NU.ŠU. DU 7

IV 1’ D’ 2’ 3’ 4’ 5’ 6’ 7’ 8’ 9’ 10’ 11’ 12’ 13’ 14’ 15’ 16’ 17’ 18’ 19’ 20’ 21’ 22’ 23’ 24’ 25’ 26’ 27’ 28’ 29’ 30’ 31’

AL Ù.ŠUB Ù.ŠUB Ù.ŠUB SIG 4 Ù.ŠUB [SIG 4 AL.U]R 5 .RA

A

SA SA GAL SA TUR SA MAH SA LAGAB SA HAR.DA SA.GAL SA IGI GAL.GAL SA LIGIMA SA ĜIŠ IGI SA ĜIŠ SA.AD SA.AD ÉLLAĜ.DÙ ĜIDRU ÉLLAĜ.DÙ GÚR ÉLLAĜ.DÙ

100

al-lu MIN qa-ar-qu qa-qa-ad al-li ši-in-na al-li ša ši-it-ta ši-in-na-šu ša 3 KAxÉRIN 197 -šu te-tá-nu tu-ra-šu še-la-ab-tu 4 : LA(!na)-al-ba-at-tu 4 MIN li-bi-ti MIN li-bi-↑it-ti ag-gur-ri-ti MIN [a]p-ti

7a152 7a153 7a154 7a155a 7a159 7a160 7a161 7a162 7a169 7a170 7a171

477 478 480 481 482 483 485 486

7a173

484

sa-a]l-ti q[a-a] ┌ ┐ er -be-et qa-a ha-mi-RI(!il)-ti┐┌qa-┌a┐ qa-a 50 ši-qí-il e-še-er-tu 4 ha-mil-il-tu 4 ša-la-al-tu 4 ši-na ši-qí-il ši-qí-il zu-ú-zu šu-uš-ša ši-na-pu pa-ra-as-sà-a[r-ra-ab] : ša-ak[-lu-lu] : la-a MIN [] še-e-tu 4 : ma-[...] ra-bi-tu 4 sa-hi-tu 4 ša-am-ma-hu la-ga-ab-b[u ] hu-ur-du sa-as-gal-l◦u ra-ab-ba-tu 4 pa-aq-qa-t◦u 4 sa-an-na ┘ -[t]u 4 bu-si-[in-n]i-tu 4 na-as-s[à]-bu na-an-ṣa-ru él-la-an-du-u ha-aṭ-ṭì MIN kip-pát MIN

6160 6164 6165 6163 6185 6186a 6183a 6192 -

524 525 525a 525b 526 527 528 561 539 -

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 4 (canonical tablets Vb-VII) 32’ 33’ 34’ 35’ 36’ break

4190 4191 4192 4193a 4193b

Reverse V 1’D’’ 4196 2’ 4197 3’ 4198 4’ 4199 5’ 4200 6’ 4201 7’ 4202 8’ 4203 9’ 4204 10’ 4205 11’ 4206 12’ 4207 4208 13’ 4209 14’ 4210 15’ 16’ 4211 17’ 4212 18’ 4213 19’D’ 4214 20’ 4215 21’ 4216 22’ 4217 23’ 4218 24’ 4219 25’ 4220a 26’ 4220b 27’ 4221 28’ 4222 29’ 4223 30’ 4224 31’ 4225 32’ 4226 33’ 4227 34’ 4228 35’ 4229 36’ 4230 4231 37’

HAR MUŠEN.NA ĜIDRU HAR MUŠEN.NA GÚR HAR MUŠEN.NA ŠU.NIR ŠU.NIR

U 4 S[AKAR GAG U 4 SAKAR DIM DÁLA šu-gur <ŠUKUR> šu-gur <ŠUKUR>GAL ZA.U 18 .ŠA MA.ŠA.ZUM MI.ŠI.ZUM ◦E.MI.IT.TU[M] [NÍĜ.GÍ]D.DA [LÚGUD].DA il-li-i l

5 : I[LLA]R

ILLAR DU ILLAR ŠUB.B[A ILLAR ZÌG.GA ILLAR NIĜIN ILLAR ŠU LUGAL ILLAR É.PA.NA LÚGUD ILLAR PAN PAN GAG SI.SÁ ? 198

EŠ.A◦D.DU la-ab : LÁB(/KA 5 ) LUL(LIB)<.BI> LIB<.BI.DA> a-ga : A[GA] AGA GÍN AGA ÉRIN NÍĜ.GUL NÍĜ.GUL ŠU NÍĜ.GUL MUD NÍĜ.GUL A.ŠAG 4 .GA NÍĜ.GUL KIRI 16 MUD NÍĜ.GUL └ NÍĜ SAHAR.RA

[NÍĜ.SA]H[AR.] └ BÙR ┘ . └ BÙR ┘ . └ RA ┘

break

101

hu-ha-ru : ↑hu-ra ┘ [-...] ha-aṭ-ṭì MIN kip-pát MIN šu-ri-i◦n- └ nu ┘ ka-ak ┘ [-ku ]

6220 6221 6222 7a039 7a040

536 537 538 550 -

...] a[l-...] [te-em-mu] [ṣi-il-lu] šu-uk-kùr-rù šu-gur-g[al-lu] a-[ša-a]m-[ru] m[a-š]a-ṣu mi-ši-ṣu ◦e-mi-it-t[u 4 ] [a]-ri-ik-tu ku-ru-tu 4 tá-al-pa-nu : ir-ri-bu a-lik-tu m]a-qí-it-tu t]e-bu-tu 4 └ sa ┘ - └ hi-ir-tu ┘ š[a-...] d[a-pa-na] [...] q[a-aš-tu] q[a-...] na[-ah-ba-lu] še[-lib-tu] ku-u[r-si-in-nu] └ ra-k[i-il-tu] ◦a-gu [] a-gi [pa-ši] a-gi [zi-li-qu] ú-g[ul-lu] MIN q[a-ti] ┐ └ MIN ┘ up -[pi] x […] MIN eq-li ┘ MIN ki-ri! NAP?-AD?199 ù┐-[g]ul-li is-ki-il-lu : MIN pal-[li-ši]

6234 6235 6236 6237 6241 6238 6239 7a066 7a067 7a069 7a068 7a078 7a077 7a079 7a048 6195 7a242 7a243 6227 6228 7a245 7a246 7a247 7a248 7a249 7a251 7a117 7a118

576 577 548 idem 549 551 551a 552 554b 553 552a 554 554c 555 558 560 562 567 568 578 579

Part 1 - Text Edition VI 1.D’ 2.

-

ĜIŠ

3. 4. 5.

4246 4247 4248

Á<.LÁ> Á. GÁN ◦Á.LÁ GÁN.ÙR

6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

4249 4250 4251 4252 4253a

ZA.BI.TUM ŠE.BI.TUM MÁ.RÍ.TUM 200 (!UR).ZA.BA 4 .BA 4 └ IM

11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.

4253b 4253c 4254 4255 4257a 4257b 4258 4259 4260 4261 4262 4263 4264 4265 4266

26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. break

Á [...

...] ...]

-

-

-

-

7b080 7b074 7b077 7b079 7b081

603 604 605 -

[za-anMÙŠ] [za-anMÙŠ] [HAR.H]U [ĜÉŠP]U HAR.HU ZÀ.MÍ ZÀ.MÍ [K]UL ZÀ.MÍ DUB ZÀ.MÍ ÁB ZÀ.MÍ └ UR ┘ . └ GU.LA [DÌ]M.maMAR.KUR 4 .RA m a DÌM.[ ] MAR.HA.A.ŠI ti-ki-i d -l◦a [ ] [: TIG]IDLU ? MIN └ ┘ [KASKAL ] [MIN] S[A.ÚS]

a-lu┐[-u] la-[lu-u] : ◦a-la ↑gu-š[u-ru-u] sà-bi-tu 4 še-bi-tu 4 ma!-a-ri-tu 4 : ur-sà↑-ba-bi-tu 4 za-na-ru : ↑ka-[a]n-da-bi-tu 4 ki-in-na-ru ti-in-du-u ha-ar-hu-ru mu-še-lu-u sa-am-mu-u ma-an-du-u ha-an-su-u ṭup-pu ša sa-am-mé-e ha-sí-sa <sa->am-mé-e ur-gul-lu-u : hal-ma-at-ru : pa-ra-šu-u : ti-ki-it-↑ta-lu-u har-ha-du-tu ta-al-mu-ut-tu

7b186a 7b050 7b044 7b050 7b086 7b048 -

608 607 610 611 612 606 613 -

4267 4268 4270? 4271? 4272 4273 4274a 4274b 4275 4276 4277

[SA.ÚS] [MIN TIGIDLU [GÚ.UH.D]É?(!GÙ.DI) [HA.SU]R? [x]x[x [x]x[x [?... :] UZU[.LÁ [] UZU[.LÁ GAG U[Z]U.L[Á ÉŠ.L[Á ] GAG [ÉŠ.LÁ ]

ta-al-mu-ut-tu 4 MIN t]i-┌ki-it-le-e vacat : la-hu n]i-k◦a-k◦u-u[b]-bu g]iš-za- └ bar ┘ - └ gu-bu na-as-]ru na-as-]ru si-kat] └ MIN ┘ hal[-ma-at-ru] si-ka[t hal-ma-at-ri]

7b117 7a141 6218-9 -

617 629 -

VII 1.D’

4302

ĜIŠ

-

-

2. 3.

4303 4304

KIN GÍR ┘ AD.GUB K[IN GÍR AD.DA]

: ša-kar pát-ri ṣi-il-le-e MIN at-ku-up-pí ┌ : mi!-iš-li-t[u 4 ]

7b296 -

-

A

Á

[...

[za-anMÙ]Š

KIN G[ÍR DÁ]LA

102

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 4 (canonical tablets Vb-VII) 4. 4305 [Á.LÁ 5. 4306 [BISAĜ 6. 4307 [GAN.DA(!DU 7 ) 7. 4308 [GAN.DA(!DU 7 ) KÁ.NA about 5 lines missing 12’D’ [] MIN(TUKUL) [... 13’ [MIN] DIĜIR[.RA 4313 14’ 4314 [MIN DIĜI]R.RA 7 x[ 4315 15’ MIN LUGAL MIN 16’ 4316 MIN ◦DDA.MU MIN 17’ 4317 MIN ĜIŠMA.NU 18’ 4318 [ MIN] ┌ŠE [ 19’ 4318 MIN ŠE Ì.ĜIŠ ┘ [ 20’ 4319 MIN ZÚ.LUM[.MA ? 21’ 4320 TUKUL SAĜ Z[AG .NA 4 22’ TUKUL ĜIŠ ┘ [x] 4321 23’ 4322 SAĜ TUKUL SAĜ[ o 24’ 4323a [Š]U.NIR ┌ 25’ 4323b ŠU.NIR 4323c 26’ ŠU.NIR 27’ 4324 HAL[].ME[Š 28’ 4325 HAL[].ME[] ! 29’ 4162 ZI.RI.QU[M 30’ 4163 GÚ ZI.R[I.QUM 31’ 4164 NAM.LÚ.[DA.RI.A probably a few lines missing 38’D’ 4326a Z[É.NA ... 39’ 4326b Z[É.NA ... 40’ 4326c Z[É.NA ... break

a-l]u-u pi-š]a-an-nu hi-it-t]u-u MIN š]a ba-bi ...] ...] ...] MIN [...] MIN [...] MIN i[r-...] ...] MIN ša-ma-ša]-am-mi x]x 201 su-lu-up-pí h]u-ut-[p]á-lu-u ]xxx[] q]a-qa[-ad ...] xxx[...] ši ┘ - └ ib ┘ -[bi-ṭu] <ši->ib-bi-ṭ◦u[ ] x[...] qa-[ri-ti] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...]

103

6156 6224 -

600 -

7a010 7a028 7a039 7a040 7a041 6150 6153

500 502 550 491 492 493

7a081-4 idem idem

639-40 idem idem

Part 1 - Text Edition VIII a few lines missing 202 1’ D’ 4343 [...] : ┌ESI! 2’ 4344 [URIK]I 3’ 4345 [URIKI] 4’ 4346 [URIK]I 5’ 4347 [URIKI] 6’ [...] 7’ [...]x 8’ [GU.]┌ŠU.UR x 9’ 4348 [G]U.ŠU.UR 10’ 4348b GU.ŠU.U◦R 11’ 4349 TU.LÚ.BU.[BU 12’ 4350 ŠID.ŠID x[ 13’ 4351 ŠID.ŠID [DIM 14’ 4352 [NA]M.GAZ 15’ 4353 [NAM].GA[Z NÍĜ.]BÙR.BÙR.RE 16’ 4354 [NA]M.T[AR 17’ 4355 [KU]N.R[I](!SIKI) 18’ 4356 [SÌL.L]A UMBIN 19’ 4357 [TUKUL SÌ]L.LA UMBIN 20’ 4358 [] UMBIN 21’ 4359 [K]A UMBIN.NA 22’ 4360 [MU]D UMBIN.NA 23’ 4361a [t]i-hi : DÌH 24’ 4362 [n]é-eš-še : NIM 25’ 4361b [t]i-hi : DÌH 26’ [t]i-hi : DÌH 4361c 27’

4363

[D]ÌH KUR.RA

28’ 29’ 30’ 31’ 32’ 33’ 34’ 35’ 36’ 37’ 38’ 39’ 40’ 41’ 42’ 43’ 44’ break

4364 4365 4366 4367 4368 4369 4370 4371 4372a 4372b 4372c 4373 -

[r]a-ab : RAB └ GAG RAB

ŠU.LÚ NÍĜ.ŠU.LUH.HA

[] SI.KAM [GAG] └ SI ┘ .KAM [?GIL SI.]KAM [?UMBIN S]I.KAM [GI.MUŠ] [GI.MUŠ ] [?EŠKIRI GI].MUŠ [Á.KÁ]R [...] [... [... [... [...

104

[: na]p-[pa-ṣa] : ú-ru : └ pa ┘ -a[z-za] : [né-e]š-[ša] :] ṣí-[ir-ri] : └ qí-[lu-tu] : qí-[lu-tu] : [...] : [...] : [ta]-lim-[mu] ...] ...] : ṣu]-lu-um┐ [hé-la-pi] ┌ : ta-aš-šu : ta-aš-[šu ...] : p]íl-lu-ú : sa-ap-pu : mu-mar-ri-t◦u : ka-ak-ki MIN : ṣu-um-bu : pí-i ṣu-um-bi : ka-na-ṣi-rù : ba-al-tu 4 : a-sa-a-tu : a-ša-gu : i-ṣu ha-an-na-↑ap-ši-ru ba-al┐-ti ša-di-i

6054 6056 6038 7a209 3476 -

668 630 631 682 676/8 idem idem idem

3477

679

: ra-ap-pu : si-kat MIN ni-mi-du : nin-in-su-ú si-ik-ka-nu si-kat MIN it-gur-ti MIN : ṣu-pu-ur MIN gi-muš-šu pa!-ri-su : ṣe-ra-at pa-ri-si : ú-nu-tu ◦ú-nu-ut ta- └ ha ┘ -z[i] x]x-ṣu-u x]x-ba-x[] x]x-ṣu ┘ [-x] s]i-kat [...]

7b141 7b143 7b139 7a203 6244 ? ? ? ? ?

680 681 ? ? ? ? ?

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 4 (canonical tablets Vb-VII)

1’’AV 4379 [G]Á.AN.NU GA 2’’ 4380 [G]Á.AN.NU KAŠ 3’’ 4381 GÁ.AN.NU Ì 4’’ 4382 GÁ.AN.NU.TUR end of column IX ┐ ┌ĜIŠ┐┌ ┐ 1’V 4405 ZA .U 18 .Š[A ĜIŠ AR.GA.BI.N[U 2’ 4406 ĜIŠ níg 3’ ŠU. NÍĜIN.NA 4’ MAN TIL MAN [ Colophon D D ŠU IM-ma-lik DUMU I[M-UR.SAĜ] 5’V

: ša┐ [ši-iz-bi] : ša ši-k[a-ri] : ša ša-[am-mi] : ki-id┐-[du-ru-u]

7a129c 7a129d 7a130

-

...] ...] x[...] TIL]

7b304-5 7b307 7b312

704 705 706

(By) the hand of Bacal-malik, son of B[acal-qarrad,] scribe (and) diviner of the gods of Emar, [ser]vant of Nabû and Ni[saba,] [servant] of Ea and Da[mkina,] [servant] of Sîn and Šamaš, [servant of Dagan] and Š[alaš]

LÚ LÚ 6’ DUB.SAR HAL 7’ ša DIĜIR.MEŠ IRIe-mar 8’ [Ì]R DAK u DNI[SABA] 9’ [ÌR] Dé-a u DDA[M.KI.NA] 10’ [ÌR] └ D └ 30 ┘ u DUTU 11’ [ÌR DKUR] └ u Dš[a-la-aš] break (traces in 12’)

105

Part 1 - Text Edition 4 Tablet 2 203 consisting of: 545 C (C’= 74233k, C’’= 74233l - both p.542) 545 E (74234c – p.546-7) 545 F (74233h – p.542) 545 G (7498f – p.240) 545 H (74211 – p.517-8) 545 J (74233t – p.544) 545 K (74238d – p.558) 545 L (74158f – p.393) 545 N (74146n – p.369) 545 O (7498m – p.241) 545 P (74172c – p.436) 545 Q (74233f – p.541) 545 T (74234m – p.548) 545 W (74216e – p.523) 545 X (74107w – p.274) 545 Y (Y’= 74146g – p.367, Y’’= 74150c – p.383) 545 Z (74233b – p.540) 545 AD (74198i – p.487) 545 AE (74204c – p.502) 545 AF (74233e – p.541) 545 AG (74126a – p.320) 545 AH (74197h – p.483) 545 AJ (74107d – p.271) 545 AK (74196k – p.482) 545 AL (74238h – p.558) 545 AM (74103w – p.259) 545 AN (74201e – p.499) 545 AP (74147f – p.371) 545 AT (74204b – p.502) 545 ‘AW’ (74234o – p.529) 545 ‘AX’ (74123h – p.313) 545 ‘AY’ (74238i –p.559) Obverse I 1.Go 4001 2. 4001a 3. 4001b 4. 4002a 5. 4002b 6. 4003 7. 4004 8. 4005 9. 4006 10. 4007 11. 4008

[...] [...] [...] : └ te-eb-bi : ta-am-hi-ṣi : li-i [...] ...] [...] [...] : ┘ [...]

IG IG GAL IG TUR IG DIB.BA ! IG DIB.DIB.BA



IG LI 5 .U M MIN Ì MIN Ì.ŠE[Š MIN MAŠ.TAB.BA MIN ĜIŠGU.LA┐ [MIN] ĜIŠ ┘ GURUM.ME

break

106

5199 5200 5201 5208 5209 5210 5233 5234 5218-9 5211 5212

374 375 379 378 376 377 381 -

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 4 (canonical tablets Vb-VII) 1’AG MIN ĜIŠ┐[... MIN ĜIŠER[IN 2’ 4012 3’ 4013 MIN ĜIŠŠU.Ú[R.MÌN MIN ĜIŠ◦Ù.SUH 5 [ 4’ 4014 MIN ĜIŠ[ÁSAL 5’ 4015 6’ 4016 MIN ĜIŠMA.N[U 4017 MIN KUM.MA ┘ [ 7’ 8’ 4018 MIN KUG.GA [ 9’ 4019 MIN GU.LA 10’ 4020 IBIL └ MIN ┘ G AH 11’ MIN SU MUN 4021 MIN LIBIR┐.RA 12’ 4022 13’ 4023 IG ŠU.LÁL 14’ 4024 U5 [I]G 15’ 4025 ŠUK. [I]G 16’ 4026 U 4┘ [.SAKAR] IG AL 17’ [...] IG 18’ 4027 [NU].KÚŠ 19’ 4028 [NU.KÚŠ A]N.TA 20’ 4029 [NU.KÚŠ KI.T]A [SUHUB 4 ] 21’ 4030 perhaps 2 lines missing ┌ ┐ 1’’Ho 4033 SAĜ .KUL NIM.MA 2’’ 4034 SAĜ.KUL ŠU.LÁL 3’’ 4034 ÉŠ SAĜ.KUL 4’’ 4035 MUD SAĜ.KUL 5’’ 4037 MUD 6’’ 4038 GAG MUD 7’’ 4039 AŠKUD X (Á-ZA-AN-MÙŠ) GAG MIN 8’’ 4040 ÉŠ MIN 9’’ 4041 4042 MUD AŠKUD X 10’’ 11’’ 4043 SUHUR 12’’ 4044 SUHUR GUD 4045 13’’ SUHUR ANŠE 14’’ 4046 TI.IL.PA.KUR 4 .RA 15’’ 4047 SAĜ.DU 16’’ 4048 SAĜ.DU AN.TA 17’’ 4049 SAĜ.DU KI.TA 18’’ 4050 KUR 4 .RA 19’’ 4051a NIR.RA 20’’ 4051b NIR.RA 21’’ 4052 ŠERIM 22’’ 4052a ŠERIM GAL ŠERIM TUR 23’’ 4052b 24’’ 4053 ŠERIM BAR.SIG end of column

107

...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] vacat vacat vacat vacat vacat : ša-li-mi : šu-ku-u : sà-hi-rù vacat : nu-us-qu 204 vacat vacat └ : ↑◦e-la-ra-mu

? 5222 5223 5224 5253 5252 5254 ? 5264 5265 5266 5267

389 388 390 395 396 397 394a

: ma-ad-lu┐ : su-uk-kur ša ┘ [-qí-li] vacat : šul-bu : up-pu vacat : a-šu-ku-ut-tu

5271 5274 5275 5276 5286 5287 5278

399 401 400 405 406 -

vacat vacat vacat : mi-gi ┘ -gu vacat vacat : ka 4 -a-ú : a-zu-u : na-ba-lu vacat vacat vacat vacat : mu-ṣa-ab-bi-tu 4 [:]ṣi-ṣi-tu 4 : eb-bu ka-ba-rù vacat : ša ma-har-ni

5279 5280 5281 7a148 7a149 7a150 5304 5305 5306 5307 5307a 5309-10 5311 5300 5301 5302 5303

409 410 idem 408 -

Part 1 - Text Edition II 1’C’’ 2’ 3’ 4’ 5’ 6’ 7’ 8’ 9’ 10’ 11’ 12’ 13’C’ 14’ 15’ 16’ 17’ 18’

4054 4055 4056 4057 4058 4059 4060 4061a 4061b 4062 4063 4064 4064a -

break 1’’Y’ 2’’ 3’’ 4’’ 5’’ 6’’

4094 4096 4097 4098 4099 4100

[... [... [...] i l-l i-il [ ] : ÍL [Í]L SIKI

...]-ú ...]-il-ti ┌ da-pa-na maš-šu-u ha-am-bu-rù [ma]š-šu-u UZU : └ da ┘ - └ pa ┘ - └ na ┘ ú-[ku-u] p[al-u]q-qú []vacat : mu-[ki]- └ in-nu : mu-┌ki┐-iṣ-su na-mu-]lu 4 na-mu-]ṣu : pa-la-[aq-qu] na-a[t-mu-u] vacat vacat

ÍL UZU ÍL É.PA.NA BAR.BAR NÍĜ.BAL NÍĜ.ŠU(!ZU) NÍĜ.GI.NA NÍĜ.GI ┘ .[NA]

[... [... BAL [BAL] GAL [...] BAL [... B]AL

[<ĜIŠ.>RÍN 1 GÚ.UN [<ĜIŠ.>RÍN MÀ.MÀ.LA] [<ĜIŠ.>RÍN ZI.BA.NA] [É <ĜIŠ.>RÍN] [Á <ĜIŠ.>RÍN] [<ĜIŠ.>RÍN DÍLIM]

? ? ? 5314 5315 5316 5312 5319 5318 6001 6003 6019 6020? 6021-30 idem

? ? ? 411 412 414 415 422 423-5 idem

: š]a bi-la-[at] 6113 438 6114 : ma-la-le-e┐ 6112 437 : ša zi-ba-ni-ti 6116 440 : ku-uk-ku 6118 : i-d◦u : ĜIŠDÍLIM! 6116 441 qa-ab┘-li-ti 7’’ [...] : ta-ab ┘ [-b]u-uq-qu ? ? break? - note that parallel section in T1 suggests that the first entries of H below must partially cover some of the lost Sumerian entries in Y’ above 1’’’H Ú [... ...] ? ? ...] ? ? 2’’’ ID [... 3’’’ A [... ...] ? ? 4-6’’’ [... ...] ? ? 7’’’ 4101a [NA].BA.RUM : ┌MIN┐ 8’’’ 4101b N [A ].BA.RUM : MIN 9’’’ 4102 AP[IN ] : e-p[í-nu : ši-ir-ha-du] 5110 442 10’’’ 4103a AP[IN ŠU ] : e-p[í-in qa-ti] 11’’’ 4103b [APIN ŠU] : k[i-in-ṣi-ib-bu] 5116 443 d u [APIN ŠU. ] DU 7 12’’’ 4104 [: ša-ak-lu-lu] 5117 444 ĜIŠ 13’’’ 4105b [APIN NU.ŠU. d]uDU 7 : [la-a MIN] 5118 445 end of column

108

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 4 (canonical tablets Vb-VII) III 1.Eo 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

4106 4107a 4107b 4107c 4108a 4108b 4109 4110

APIN ŠU.<>KIM(!KIN) APIN GUD 2 APIN GUD 4 APIN GUD 6 ke APIN KÉŠ.DA APIN NU.MIN

9.T 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.F 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26.

4111 4112 4113 4114 4115 4116 4117 4118 4119 4120 4121 4122 4123 4124 4125 4126 4127 4128

EME APIN ŠU.<> EME APIN AMA APIN NIG MIN SAĜ.Ĝ Á MIN [GAG] SAĜ.ĜÁ MIN

break 1’J 2’ 3’ 4’ 5’ 6’ 7’ 8’ 9’ 10’ 11’

4142 4143 4144 4145 4147 4148 4149 4150 4151 4152 4152a

[NÍĜ.G]A[N.ÙR MU.ŠAR [NÍĜ].GÁN.Ù[R ZÚ.GAL.GAL ZA.RA NÍĜ.GÁ[N.ÙR GAG MIN MIN ZÚ MIN GAG ZÚ.NÍĜ.GÁN.Ù[R

12’ 13’Y’’ 14’

4152b 4152c 4152d

[AL ZÚ 3 <J/No> ┐ AL ZÚ 4 [ AL ZÚ 4 [

APIN Á. └ KÁR [APIN.]◦Á.┌KÁR.BIR.BIR.RI ┐



.KIN

[...] MIN [HAR] MIN [NÍNDA MI]N [GAG NÍNDA MIN] GAM MIN AN.ZA.TUM MIN PA Ù.KU MIN IGI.KAL MIN SU(!ŠU).SAĜ.ĜÁ MIN GAG SU.SAĜ.ĜÁ MIN MUŠ(/ŠIR 10 ) MIN └ GAG ┘ MUŠ MIN

AL AL SA AL SAĜ AL ZÚ [A]L ZÚ 2

109

: har-bu : ši-nu-ut-tu : APIN 4-ta : APIN 6-et : ṣu-um-mu-du : la-a MIN : ú-nu-tu : a-nu : e-pí-in-nu ↑ša ú-nu-tu-ša su 14 -up-pu-hu : EME har-bi : li-šá-[n]u : um-m[u] : kal-ba-tu 4 : qa-qa-du 4 : si-kat qa-qa-di : ú-zu-un-tu : še-mi-rù : it-tu-u : si-kat MIN : kip-pát MIN vacat : [na]b-ru-u : [ši-]’u-ú : ha-an-ni-iq-tu 4 : si-kat MIN : ši-[...] : [...]

5122 5133 5131 5130 5125 5126 5127 5128

446 448 -

5137 5135 5136 5136 5146 5147 5150 5151 5152 5153 5154 -

450 457 454 466 452a 452 460a 460b

...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] : [<J/No>a]l-lu : [<J/No>MI]N qa-ar-qu : [<J/No>q]a-qa-ad al-li : [<J/No>š]i-in-na! al-li : [<J/No>š]a 2 KAxUD 205 -šu : ša] └ 3 KAxUD-šu : te-ta]-nu : tu-ra-] └ šu ┘

5174 5175 5180 5180a 5186 7a152 7a153 7a154 7a155a 7a159

469 470 477 478 480

7a160 7a161 7a162

481 482

Part 1 - Text Edition 15’ 16’ 17’ 18’

4153 4154 4155 4156

19’ 20’ 21’Z 22’ 23’

4157 4158 4159 4160 4161



AL Ù.ŠUB [ Ù.[ŠUB ] Ù.ŠUB [SIG 4 .G ]A Ù.ŠUB [SIG 4. G ]A LÚ(!AL).ÙR.R[A] ┌ Ù.Š[UB A. ] AB.BA BAR.D[U A.A ]B.BA

[GAG DU 8 BA.L]AL [GAG ŠÚM BA.LÁ] [GAG ŠÚM.ŠIR.DILI]

x]xxx[] ┌ : na-a[l-ba-at-t]u : MIN [li-bi-i]t-ti [: MIN li-bi-it-t]i a-gu-↑ur-ri-ti : na-[al-ba-a]t ap-ti : bar-d[u ap-t]i : GAG nap!-[pé-e] : GAG šu-u[-me-e] : GAG tu-t[ù-re]

7a166 7a169 7a170 7a171

483 485 486

7a173 6133 6134 6135

484 488 489 490

vacat vacat vacat : tu-up-ši-ik-ku : ša m[i]-iš-ki-li-ti : ki-iš-kàr-rì : ta-pa-rù : ki-iš-kàr SIG 4 -ti : ki-iš-kàr SIG 4 a-gur 16 -ri-ti vacat : ki-iš-kàr SIG 4 pí-š]a-an-ni ...]

6150 6152 7a174 7a175 7a176

491 492 493 508 511 512

7a178 7a200

510 509

7a177 /201-2

513

[...] [...] [...] [...] [...]

-

-

[: ...] : pa-ra-as-[sà-ar-ra-ab] : ša-a[k-lu-lu] : la ┘ [-a MIN] : [...] : r[a-bi-tu 4 ] : [...] : ┘ [...]

6160 6164 6165 6163

527 528 -

...] ...] ...] ...]

6185 6186a 6183a -

-

end of column IV 1.Eo 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

4162 4163 4164 4165 4166 4167 4168 4169

ĜIŠ

9. 10.

4170 4171

DÚR A.[A]B. └ BA DÚR [BISAĜ

11.

-

└ DÚR ┘ [...

ZI.RI.QUM GÚ ZI.RI.QUM ĜIŠ NAM.LÚ.DA.RI.A ĜIŠ

tu-ub-ši-ik

: DUSU DUSU ZAG.LÁL dur

DÚR DÚR SIG 4 .GA DÚR SIG 4 .GA AL.LÚ.ÙR.RA

break 1’AJ 4173a [2] SÌLA 2’ 4173b 3 SÌLA 4 SÌLA 3’ 4173c 4’ 4173d 5 SÌLA 5’ 4173e └ 5/6 SÌLA about 7 lines missing 1’’AK 4174h [2/3 GÍN.NA] .┌BI┐ 2’’ 4175 [IGI 3 ĜÁL] 3’’ 4176a [SA 9 LA ŠU.D]UDU 7 4176b [SA 9 LA NU.Š]U.DUDU 7 4’’ K 5’’ 4177 SA 6’’ 4177a SA GAL 7’’ 4177b └ SA TUR 8’’ 4178 SA MAH ┘ probably 3 lines missing 12’’No 4182 SA I[GI.GAL.GAL 13’’ 4183 SA L[IGIMA 14’’ 4184 SA.[ĜIŠ 15’’ 4185 IGI S[A.ĜIŠ probably 1 line missing

110

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 4 (canonical tablets Vb-VII) 17’’O 18’’ 19’’ 20’’ 21’’ 22’’ 23’’ 24’’ 25’’ 26’’AM 27’’ 28’’

4186b 4187 4188 4189 4190 4191 4192 4193a 4193b 4193c 4194 4195

[SA].AD [É]LLAĜ(BIR).DÙ [ĜID]RU ÉLLAĜ.DÙ GÚR ELLAĜ.DÙ HAR MUŠEN.NA ĜIDRU MIN GÚR MIN ŠU.NIR ŠU.NIR ŠU.NIR IGI.KAL [I]G[I.KAL BÀD

: na-an-[ṣa-ru] : él-l[a-an-du-u] : ha-aṭ-ṭ[ì MIN] : kip-pát ┘ [MIN] : hu-h[a-ru] : ĜIDRU MIN : kip-pát [MIN] : šu-r[i-in-nu] : kak-[ku] : ma┐-a[ṣ-ra-hu] : ┘ [...] ...]

6220 6221 6222 7a039 7a040 7a041 4027 4028

539 536 537 538 550 543 -

...] ...] : te-em-m[u] : ṣi-i[l-lu] : šu-gur[-ru] : šu-gur-gal-[lu] a-ša-am-ru MIN MIN ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] : š[a ...] ša [...] da-p[a-na] a[d-du] ...] ...]

6234 6235 6236 6237/ 7b304 6238 6239 7a066 7a067 7a069 7a068 7a078 7a077 7a079 7a048 -

576 577 548 idem 549/ 704 551 551a 552 554b 553 552a 554 554c 555 558

...] ...] : [<X/AN>r]a-┌ki┐-┌il┐-[tu] : a-gu : gur-d[i-mu] 206 <X/AN> [ :] a-gi pa-ši <X/AN> : a-gi └ zi-li-q[u]

7a242 7a243 6227 6228 -

562 567 568 -

mar [e-pé-ri]

7b027

-

a few lines missing before end of column Reverse V 4196 1.Z 2. 4197 3. 4198 4. 4199 5. 4200 6. 4201 7. 4202 8. 9. 10. 11.Nr 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.

4203 4204 4205 4206 4207 4208 4209 4210 4211 4212 4213 4214 4215 4216 4217

ĜIŠ

U 4 .SA[KAR GAG U 4 .SAKAR [ DIM DÁLA šu-gur

<ŠUKUR> <ŠUKUR>GAL ZA.U 18 .ŠA šu-gur

MA.ŠA.ZUM MI.ŠI.ZUM ◦E. └ MI ┘ . └ IT ┘ .T[UM NÍĜ.[GÍD.DA LÚGUD.[DA il-li-il

[: ILLAR ILLAR.[DU ILLAR ŠUB[.BA ILLAR ZÌG.GA [ 5

ILLAR NIĜIN ILLAR ŠU LUGAL ILLAR É.PA.NA LÚGUD ILLAR P[AN PAN GAG [SI.SÁ

probably 1 line missing la- ab 24.X 4219 [ : LÁB(/KA 4 ) 25. 4220a LUL.[BI 26 4220b LIB TUR-MU(!BI.DA) a-ga 27. 4221 : AGA 28. 4222 AGA GÍN ! 29. 4223 AGA ÉRIN break 1’Er 4232 [MAR SAHA]R.RA

111

Part 1 - Text Edition 2’ 3’ 4’ 5’ 6’ 7’ 8’ 9’ 10’ 11’ 12’

4233 4234 4235 4236 4237 4238 4239 4240 4241 4242 4243a

13’ 4243b 14’ 4243c 15’ 4244 16’ 4245 end of column

[LAGAB] MAR [E]ME MAR IGI MAR GAG MAR KUL MAR LI.DUR MAR ŠE.RA.AH ŠU ŠE.RA.AH IN.NU.ŠU.KAM(!KIN)<<MA>> KUN ZABAR su-uk-ki-né-še

:

SUGIN(BAD) su-uk-ki-in : SUGIN su-uk-ki-in : SUGIN ĜIŠ

BALAĜ BALAĜ.DI

ĜIŠ

pi-[is-sí mar-ri] li-š[a]-┌an┐[mar-ri] pa-an m[ar-ri] GAG ma[r-ri] DUMU(!šu-mu-u) ša mar ab-bu-un-na-at mar ra-ap-šu 207 na-ah-bal!-tu 4 na-ah-bal-tu 4 : ku-uk si-pi-ir-ri : su-uk-ki-nu

7b028 7b030 7b031 7b032 7b033 7b034 7b035 7b036 7b037 6058

590 591 592

: na-ta-pu : iṣ la-b[i-ru] bu-lu-un-g[u 5 ] ti-im-bu-‘u-[t]u up-pu

6060 6063 7b039 7b040

593 594 597 598

VI 1.AP 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.Z 8. 9. 10.Nr 11. 12.

4246 4247 4248 4249 4250 4251 4253a 4253c 4254 4255

◦Á.LÁ<AP/Z> ◦Á.LÁ GÁN <AP/Z> ◦Á.LÁ GÁN.ÙR <AP/Z> <AP/Z> ZA.BI.TUM <AP/Z> └ ŠE.BI.TUM [M]Á.RÍ.TUM <AP/Z> [... [za-anMÙŠ [... [za-anMÙŠ [HAR.HU [ĜÉŠPU HAR.HU

┌

: a-lu-u : la-lu-u ┌ : al gu-ru-šu-ru-u ]vacat ]vacat ]vacat ]vacat ...] ↑┌: ka-an-da-bi-ti-iš ...]x ] ┌ti┐-in-du-u┐ ] har-har-rù ] mu-še-lu-u

7b062 7b068 7b080 7b074 7b077 ? 7b081? ? 7b186a 7b050

600 602 603 604 ? 608 607

13. 14. 15.

4257a 4257b 4258

[ZÀ.MÍ [ZÀ.MÍ [KUL ZÀ.MÍ

] sa-am-mu-u ] └ ma-an-du-u ] ha-an-su-u

7b044 -

610 611

16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.L 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28.W 29.

4259 4260 4261 4262 4263 4264 4265 4266 4267 4268 4269 4271 4272 4273

[DUB ZÀ.MÍ [ÁB ZÀ.MÍ [UR.GU.L]A [DÌM.maMAR.KUR 4 .RA] [DÌM.maMAR.HA.A.ŠI ti-ki-id-la T[IGIDLU TIGIDLU [KASKAL TIGIDLU [SA.A [SA.A SA.A [TIGIDLU BÚN [ HA.[SUR [NÍĜ.GUB ] [NÍĜ.ZABAR.GUB]

] ṭup-pu ša sà-am-mé-e ] ha-sí-sà sà-am-mé-e vacat : ┘ hal-ma-at-rù p]a-ra-su-u ti-ki-i]t- └ ta-lu-u ...] ta-al-]mu-ut-tu┐ ta-a]l-mu-ut-tu ...-t]u TIGIDLU :] la-hu m]u-pa-ri-ku ni-iš-ku-ub┐[-bu] giš-za-bar-gub[-bu]

7b050 7b049 7b086 7b048 7a141

612 606 613 629

112

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 4 (canonical tablets Vb-VII) 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36.

4274a 4274b 4275 4276 4277 4278 4279

[UZU.LÁ] [UZU.LÁ] [GAG UZU.LÁ] [ÉŠ.LÁ] [GAG ÉŠ.LÁ] [Ṣ̣I.Ṣ̣I.IG(!SÌG.SÌG)] [SÌG.SÌG É.PA.NA]

: na-as-ru na-as-rù GAG na-as-ri hal-ma-at-rù GAG hal-ma-at-ri ši-in-ni-tu 4 da-pa-na

6218-9 -

...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ┌ nam┐-┌ha┐-┌ṣú┐

7a089 7a093 7a091 7a092 7a094-5 4410 4411 4412 4413

637 638 645 646 647

ša-ak-rù ša-kar pát-ri MIN gal-la-bi MIN LÚMUHALDIM MIN aš-ka-pí MIN aš-ka 4 -ri MIN ṣi-il-le-e MIN at-ku-up-pí mi-iš-li-tu 4 a-lu-u pí-ša-an-nu hi-iṭ-ṭu-u

7b291 7b292 7b295 7b296 6156 6224 -

600 -

[ : TUKUL [M]IN-[?ŠU

...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...]

7a006 7a014

496 497

[ŠU].NIR [ŠU.] └ NIR [ŠU.] └ NIR

[...] : [x]xx[] : [š]a-bi-ṭu

7a039 7a040 7a041

550 -

probably 3 lines missing ┐┌ ┐ É GUD S[I.DILI 4283 40.P 41. 4284 SAĜ [GUD SI.DILI 4285 42. TI [GUD SI.DILI 43. 4286 TI.TI [GUD SI.DILI 44. 4287 ANŠE [GUD SI.DILI 45. 4288 GÚ.MURGU [GUD SI.DILI 46. 4289 ĜÉŠPU [MIN 47. 4290 DU.DU [MIN 48. 4291 ME.TE.NA MIN [ ni-šal 49. 4292 BI-I[Š(!GISAL) 50. 4293 BI-IŠ(!GISAL) M[IN

]┌ŠU 51. M

IN MUD 4294 52. MIN ANŠ[E]

4295 53.Q 4296 54. 4297 55. 4298 56. 4299 57. 4300 58. 4301 59.Er 4302 60. 4303 61. 4304 62. 4305 63. 4306 64. 4307 end of column VII 1.AT 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. break 1’L 2’ 3’

4308 4309 4310 4311 4312 4323a 4323b 4323c



KI N KIN[ G]ÍR KIN[ GÍR Š]U.I KIN[ GÍR MU]HALDIM KIN ┘ [ GÍR] AŠGAB GÍR] U 4 .SAKAR └ KI[N [KIN GÍR] IGI.GAG [KIN GÍR] AD.GUB 5 [KIN GÍR] AD.DA

[Á.]LÁ [B]ISAĜ [GAN.D]A(!DU 7 )

ĜIŠ

GAN.DA

┐

(!DU 7 )[KÁ.NA

ĜIŠ

GÀR.[BA GAG GÀR[.BA GÚ GÀR.B[A tu-ku l

113

-

Part 1 - Text Edition 4’ 5’ 6’ 7’ 8’ 9’ 10’

4324 4325 4162 4163 4164 -

[HAL.ME]Š [HAL.M]E [ZI.RI.QU]M [GÚ ZI.RI.]QUM [NAM.LÚ.D]A.RI.A [...]x [...]

11’ [... 12’ [... about 6 lines missing 4327a [x] ┌LÍMMU┐ 1’’P 2’’ 4327b [x] LÍMMU 3’’ 4327c [x] LÍMMU 4’’ 4328 [ŠA]Ĝ ĜIŠ 5’’ [ŠA]G 4 ĜIŠ 4329 6’’ 4330 ŠAG 4 .HUL.LÁ 7’’ 4331 NÍNDA 8’’ 4332 ŠAG 4 NÍNDA 9’’ 4333 BÙR NÍNDA U 10’’ 4334 5 NÍNDA 11’’ 4335a U 5 .BÍL.LÁ 12’’ 4335b <>BÍL.LA(!GA) 13’’ 4336 AR.GA.AN.NU.UM 14’’ 4337 BU. U.TUM 15’’ 4338 DAM.ŠI.LUM ku-ri-né-eš 16’’ 4339 : KUR ku-ri 4340a : KUR 17’’ ku-r i] 18’’ 4340b [ └ : ┘└ KUR []e-ša : ESI 19’’AW 4341 20’’ 4342 [gi-]iš ┘ -kal-la:KAL 21’’ 4343 []a-eš : ESI 22’’ 4344 [ú-r]i : URIKI [xx-z]i : URIKI 23’’ 4345 [xx-š]a : URIKI 24’’ 4346 [xx-]ri : URIKI 25’’ 4347 26’’ [xx]x DU-ŠE 27’’ [xx]x GAR ĜIŠ KI-QU ┘ [ 28’’ a few lines missing before end of column VIII 1.Hr’ 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

4348a 4348b 4348c 4349 4350 4351

ĜIŠ

GUŠUR GUŠUR GUŠUR TU ┘ .LÚ.BU.BU ŠID.Š[ID ]x ŠID.ŠID DIM

114

: ┌MIN hal-me : [qa]-ri-ti : z[i]-ri-qu : š[um]-ma-nu : [di]-lu-tu : [x]x-ub-bu : ┘ [o]kul-be-tu 4 : ↑ma-at-ri-ik-tu ...-] └ in-ni-ti ...-]nu

6150 6153 6158 ?

491 492 493 ?

? ?

? ?

: da-a-[x] : da-a-i[a] : ša 4 ┘ -t[u 4 ] : ri-iš┐ĜIŠ : ŠAG 4 .BA ĜIŠ : ka-bar-rù : it-tu-u : ŠAG 4 it-te-e : pí-la-aš MIN : il-lu-ur-ru : ú-bíl-lu-u : il-lu-ur-rù vacat vacat vacat : ku-ri : ki-it-t

a

i-iš-ki-bi-ir-ru └:┘k : └ e-šu-u : └ ma-an-du-u : nap┐-pa-ṣu : ú-ru : [ p]a-az-za : né-eš-š[a] : └ ṣi-i[r-ri] : x[...] : x[...] ...]

6046 6047 6048 6052 6053a 6054 6056 ? ? ?

656 663 664 665 666 667 668 ? ? ?

: ┌gu-šur-ŠU(ru) : t[a-l]i-mu : mi-ši-iṣ-ṣu : ša mar-ta-‘u-ú : hé-la-pu : ti-iš-tu : ṣu-lu-um hé-la-pí

6038 -

-

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 4 (canonical tablets Vb-VII) 7.

4352

NAM(!MÁ).GAZ

8. 9. 10. 11.

4353 4354 4355 4356

NAM!MÁ.GAZ NÍĜ.BÙR.BÙR.RI NAM.TAR

12. 13. 14. 15. 16.

4357 4358 4359 4360 4361a

TUKUL SÌL.LA UMBIN

17.AE 18. 19.

4362 4361b 4361c

[né-eš-šeNI]M [ti-hiDÌ]H [ti-hiDÌH

4374a 4374b 4375 4376 4377 4378 -

D[UR DU[R

break 1’AY 2’ 3’ 4’ 5’ 6’ 7’ 8’AX 9’ 10’ 11’ 12’ 13’ break 1’’AD 2’’ 3’’ 4’’ 5’’ 6’’ 7’’ 8’’ 9’’Gr 10’’

4383 4384 4385 4386 4387 4388 4389 4390 4391

KUN RI(!SIKI) SÌL.LA UMBIN

UMBIN KA UMBIN.NA MUD UMBIN.NA ti-hi

DÌH

?

...] ...] ...] ...] x[...] x[...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...]

NU[... NU[...

x[...] [...]

: ta-aš-šu : i-da-nu ša ĜIŠPAN : ta-aš-šu! pal-lu-šu : píl-lu-ú : sa-ap-pu : mu-mar-ri-tu 4 : ma-la-hu : kak-ki mu-mar-ri-ti : ṣu-um-bu : pí-i ṣu-um-bi : ka-na-zi-ru : ┘└ ba ┘ -a[l-t]u 4 : ba-a[l-tu ] [:] ┌ud┐-du┐-tu┐ : a-ša-gu : x[...] :] └ ĜIŠ ha-an-na-a[p-ši-ru]

ma

D ÌM MA[R.ŠUM ┌ DÌM.MA KU[ ... DÌM.MA N[U.TI.LA GÁ.AN.N[U

MIN [... MIN [... MIN [... [...] [DUB.BU.U]M [DUB.NUN.N]A [DUB.ŠEN].NA [ŠID] [ŠID AN.TI.IB.LÁL(!LÁ)] NÍĜIN [ALA]N [DLÀMA] KI.GAL KI.GAL LUGAL G[UB.B ]A

115

: ma┐[-...] : ṭup-[pu] : ṭup-p[í-in-nu] : ṭup-š[e-nu] : ĜIŠ mi-n[u-tu 4 ] : ma-ša-bi : ṣa-al-mu ┌ : la-ma-as-su : k[i-g]al-lu ma-an[-za-az LUGAL]

-

630

7a209 -

631 682 -

3476 -

6768 idem idem idem

7a119-23 idem ? ? ? ? 7128-33a idem idem idem

? ? ? ? -

? 7b152 7b153 7b154 7b155

? 696 -

Part 1 - Text Edition 11’’ 12’’ 13’’ 14’’ 15’’ 16’’ 17’’

4392 4393 4394a 4394b 4394c 4395 4396

AZ UG PIRIĜ PIRIĜ PIRIĜ PIRIĜ.TUR ĜIŠ UR.GIR 15

: a-su : gu 8 -ú : lu-ú : né-š[u] : la-x [x] : nim-[ṣa-rù] : kal-[bu]

7b159 7b160 7b161 ? ? ? ?

697 698 idem idem 699 700

: [...] : pa-su┐ : É pa-si : la-ma-as-si pa-s[i] : pa-as zi-ka-ri : pa-as si-in-ni

? -

701 702 -

É

er-bé-et-ta ┘ i]n-bu il-l]u-ur-ru ┌ ha┐-┌an┐- └ ni ┘ -bu sa-ba!-b[u]

7b304

704

ar-kà-bi-in-]nu vacat

7b307 7b312 n/a

705 706 n/a

end of column LEft Edge (columns I’-III’ counted from left to right) I’ ĜIŠ 1.Hr 4397 UR.GIR 15 PA.DA KUR 4 .RA ZA.NA 2. 4398 3. 4399 É ZA.NA D 4. 4400 LÀMA ZA.NA 5. 4401 NU KUN.RI ĜIŠ NU ŠE.DÙ.A 6. 4402 II’ 1.AY [É 4] 4403 2. 4404a [GURUN 3. 4404b [GURUN 4.AH 4404c [GURUN] 5. 4405 [ZA.U 18 .Š]A III’ ĜIŠ 6.AG 4406 [AR.]┌GA┐.┌BI┐.[NU níg 7. ĜIŠ ŠU. NÍĜIN [ ] 8. MAN TIL [] MAN Colophon ID 9.AG ŠU 30[-a-bu ID LÚ LÚ 208 DUMU IM-U]R.SAĜ DUB.SAR HAL

(By) the hand of Shaggar[-abu, son of Bacal-q]arrad, scribe (and) diviner.

4 Tablet 3 209 consisting of: 545 U (74190c – p.462) 545 AR (74209c – p.516) 545 ‘BA’ (7498j – p.241) Reverse VII’ 1’AR 2’ 4348a

KI N[E x GU.Š[U.UR

...] ...]

-

-

ĜIŠ mi-n]ú-tu 4

7b152 7b153

696 -

break VIII’ 1’AR 2’ 3’ 4’

4386 4387 4388 4389

[ŠID [ŠID AN.TI.IB.LÁ.NÍ]ĜIN! [ALAN [DLÀMA

ma-ša-bi 210 ṣa-]al-mu la-ma-a]s-su

116

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 4 (canonical tablets Vb-VII) 5’ 6’

4390 4391

[KI.GAL [KI.GAL LUGAL GUB.BA

break 1’BA MIN [... 2’’ UR [... 3’’ MIN TUR [ 4’’ 4398 ZA.NA [ 5’’ 4399 É ZA[.NA D 6’’ 4400 LÀMA ZA.[NA 7’’ NÍG MAN [ 8’’ 4402 NÍĜ ŠE.DÙ[.A 9’’ 4403 É [4 probably 3 lines missing 10’’U 4405 ZA.U 18 [.ŠA 11’’ 4406 AR.GA.[BI.NU 12’’ <ĜIŠ> ŠU.NÍĜIN [ 13’’ MAN TIL [ Colophon 14’’U ŠU Ix[...] 15’’ KAB.ZU.[ZU ...] ID 16’’ ÌR A[K ...] D 17’’ u EREŠ.KI┐[.GAL] visible rest of column empty

ki-gal-lu] ma-an]↑ -za-az LUGAL

7b154 7b155

-

...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...]

? -

? ? 699 701 702 -

...] ...] ...] MAN]

7b304 7b307 -

704 705 -

6218-9 -

-

-

-

(By) the hand of [PN] pup[il of PN] servant of Na[bû and DN] and Ereshki[gal]

Extract 1 - 545 I (7448 – p.189) – right side with Akkadian equivalents broken off Obv. 1. 4276 ĜIŠÉŠ.LÁ┐ 2. 4277 ĜIŠGAG ÉŠ.LÁ┐ 3. 4278 ZÍ.ZÍ.IG(!SÌG.SÌG) da[-pa-na] 4. 4279 SÌG.SÌG É.PA. 5. 6. LEdge 7. 8. 9. Rev. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

4280 4281

DAG DAG É.PA.NA []

4282 4283

E [] GUD S[I.DILI] ĜIŠ É GUD SI.[DILI]

7a088 -

634 -

4284 4285 4286 4287 4288 4289 4290 4291

[ĜIŠ]SAĜ GUD S[I.DILI] [ĜIŠTI] GUD [SI.DILI] [ĜIŠTI].TI GUD S[I.DILI] [ĜIŠANŠE] GUD SI.DI[LI] [ĜIŠGÚ.MURGU] GUD SI.[DILI] [ĜIŠĜÉŠ]PU GUD SI[.DILI] [Ĝ]IŠ┌DU-DU GUD S[I.DILI] ĜIŠ ME.TE.NA G[UD]

7a089 7a093 7a091 7a092 7a094-5 -

637 638 -

211

117

Part 1 - Text Edition Extract 2 consisting of: 545 M (74114d – p.285) 545 S (74109b – p.279) 545 ‘AZ’ (74178c – p.452) Obverse 4251 1’Mo 2’ 4252 3’ 4253a 4’ 4253b 5’ 4253c 6’ 4254 break Lower Edge 1.Mle 4255 2. 4257a 3. 4257b 4. 4258 Reverse 1. 4259 2.Mr 3.S 4260 4. 4261 5. 4262 6. 4263 7. 4264 8. 4265 9. 4266 4267 10. 11. 4268 AZ 12. 4270 13. 4271 14. 4272 15. 4273 16. 4275 17. 4274a break

┐

MÁ .R[Í.TUM UR.ZA.B[A 4 .BA 4 za-an

MÙŠ MÙŠ za-an MÙŠ HAR.HU za-an

└ ĜÉŠ[P]U HAR.HU

ZÀ.MÍ └ ZÀ ┘ . └ MÍ [KUL MIN

[... [DUB MIN [Á]B ┌MIN┐ [ [U]R.GU.LA [ [D]ÌM.ME(!LÚ).maMAR.KUR.R[A [D]ÌM.ME(!LÚ).maMAR.HA.A.Š[I TIGIDLU MIN KASKAL MIN SA.ÚS SA.ÚS MIN TIGIDLU

GÚ.U H.DÉ(!GÙ.DI) HA.S UR GUB [ NÍĜ.ZABA[R GUB GAG Ù.[ZU.LÁ UZU.L[Á

Fragments: 545 R (74190i – p.464) – possibly an extract Obverse 1’ 4384 [DUB.NUN.N]A 2’ 4385 [DUB.ŠEN].NA 3’ 4386 [ŠI]D 212 4’ 4387 [ŠID AN.]TI.IB.LÁ[L(!LÁ.NÍĜIN)] 5’ 4388 [] ALAN 6’ 4389 [] DLÀMA 7’ 4390 [K]I.GAL 8’ 4391 [KI.G]AL LUGAL GUB.BA 118

: ...] : ...] : [...] : k[i-i]n-na-ru : t[i-i]n-du-u : har-har-rù

7b077 7b079 7b081 7b186a -

604 608

: mu-še-lu-u : sa-am-mu : ma-an-d[u-u] :] ha ┘ [-an-su-u]

7b044 -

610 611

...-]u ṭup-pu ša sa-am-m]é-e <S/M> ha-sí-sa sa-am-mé-]◦e <S/M> ...] <S/M> ...] <S/M> pa-ra-šu-]u <S/M> ti-ki-it-t]a-lu-u [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] ...] ...] ...] ...]

? 7b050 7b049 7b086 7b048 7b117 7a141 -

? 612 606 613 617 629 -

7b152 7b153 7b154 7b155

696 -

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 4 (canonical tablets Vb-VII) Reverse 1. 4392 2. 4393 3. 4394a 4. 4394b break

ĜIŠ

└ MIN ┘

7b159 7b160 7b161 ?

697 698 idem

545 AO 213 (74122e – p.304) 1’ 4247 ◦Á. G[ÁN] 2’ 4248 ◦Á.ÙR.RA 3’ 4249 [ZA].BI.TUM [ŠE].BI.TUM 4’ 4250 4251 [M]Á.RÍ<><.TUM> 5’ 6’ 4252 [I]M(!UR).ZÁ.BÁ.BI.TU[M] 7’ 4253a <<Á>> za-anMÙŠ ┘ 8’ 4253b MIN 9’ 4253c MIN 10’ 4254 └ HAR.HU [ĜÉŠP]U HAR.HU 11’ 4255 [x HA]R MUŠEN.NA 12’ 4256

7b068 7b080 7b074 7b077 7b079 7b081 7b055

602 603 604 605 608 607

e-šu-u : ma-an-du-u : AB(!nap-)GIŠ(!pa)- ṣu : ú-ru

6052 6053a 6054 -

666 667 668 -

: pa-az-za : né-eš-za : ṣi!-↑ir-ri

6056

-

545 AS (74105d – p.266) I’ 215 ĜIŠ 1. KUN.SIKI [] 4355 SÌL UMBIN [] 2. 4356 3. 4357 TUKUL MIN [] U[MBIN] 4. 4358 KA [UMBIN.NA] 5. 4359

-

-

545 ‘BB’ 216 (7481c – p.213) 1’ 4342? xx 217 [...] 2’ 4343? x 218 [...] 3’ 4344? bu-ri : U[RI?KI] 4’ 4345? né-eš-še : [URIKI] 5’ 4346? bu-ri : [URIKI] 6’ 4347? bu-ri [:URIKI]

6053a 6054 6056

667 668 -

AZ UG PIRIĜ

545 AQ 214 (7496j – p.235) – possibly an extract Obv 1’ 4341 [...] : ESI┐ 2’ 4342 [gi-iš-kal]-laKAL 3’ 4343 [...] ESI 4’ 4344 [... U]RIKI LE [... URI]KI 5’ 4345 [... URIK]I 6’ 4346 7’ 4347 [... URIKI]

119

Part 1 - Text Edition Division 5 (canonical VIII-IX) 5 Tablet 1 219 (note Obv 4 columns, Rev 3 columns) consisting of: 546 A (A’=74155 + A’’=74191b – p.387+471-3) 546 I (74122g – p.305) 546 K (7484s – p.217) 546 M (74106c – p.269) 546 ‘N’ (7491o – p.228) 220 546 ‘O’ (7487c – p.220) 546 ‘P’ (74171e – p.434) Obverse I 1.A’ 5001 2. 5002 3. 5003 4. 5004 5. 5005 6. 5006 7. 5007 8. 5008 9. 5009a 10. 5009b 11. 5010 12. 5011 13. 5012 14. 5013 15. 5014 16. 5015 17. A’’ 18. 5016 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27.

5017 5018 5019 5020 5021 -

GI ! GAŠAM (NUN-ME-BI(!TAG)) MIN ŠUL.HI.A MIN Š[U]L.HI.A! AL.DA.RA MIN IZI(!ZI) MIN SAHAR.RA MIN A.SAL.BAR MIN IZI MIN IZI.LÁ MIN IZI.LÁ MIN IG IZI.LÁ MIN SAL.LA MIN IG SAL.LA

: qa-nu-u : qa-an ši-ip-ri : qa-an ša-la-lu : MIN ri-tu-u : ki-su : ṣi-ip-pa-tu 4 : ar-ti ki-si : qa-an šu-ru-ub-ti : gi-zi-lu-u : ↑šab-bu-ṭu : di-pa-rù : da-la-at gi-zi-le-e : gi-sal-lu-u : da-la-at MIN : tu-uk-šu : a-ri-tu 4 : mu-mar-ri-tu 4 : x[...] : x[...]

8001 8002 8003 8004b 8006 8007-9a 8012 8269 8370-1 idem 8276-7 8278 8279 ? 8280

KID KID MAH MIN MÁ.UD └ MIN ┘ MÁ.UD [xx] MIN MÁ.UD.A ŠAG 4 .GA MIN MÁ.UD.A ZÉ.NA

: ki!-[tu] : bur-[ru] : x[...] : [...] : š[i-ru] 222 : MIN [...] ...] ...] ...]

8286 8289 ? ? 8288a ? ? ?

MIN IG GURU 5 !(KAxME!xGU) ! IG GURU 5 (KAxME!xGU) MIN └ x ┘ MIN ┘ [...] [] KAXME(!xGU) ┌ ?221┐ GILIM .MA

MIN AN [ 223 MIN AN [ 224 MIN [...

about 3 lines missing

120

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 5 (canonical tablets VIII-IX) 1’A’’ MIN(=KID) [... 2’ 5022 MIN K[AŠ 3’ 5023 MIN GA [ 225 MIN TIT[AB(B◦ÁRA-M[UNU 4 ) 4’ 5024 5’ 5025 MIN ŠI[M 6’ 5026 MIN AGARIN 4 [ MIN GÚR.UŠ 7’ 5027 8’ 5028 MIN ĜIŠGU[.ZA 9’ 5029 MIN ĜIŠGIG[IR 10’ 5030 MIN ĜIŠMA[R.GÍD.DA 11’ 5031 MIN ĜIŠ[... ! ĜIŠ 12’ 5032 KID SI [MÁ 13’ 5033 GU[R 14’ GUR KU[ x 15’ GUR [... 16’ GUR x[... MIN x[... 17’ 18’ 5034 MIN ŠÀ.HA.A ┘ [ 19’ 5035 MIN ŠÀ.HA.A[ … 20’ 5036 MIN IN.NU.D[A 226 21’ MIN [... 22’ 5037 MIN HÚB [... 23’ 5038 └ MIN ┘ H[ÚB ... about 3 lines missing 1’’O 5039 [MIN(=GUR)] 3 └ TAB.B[A 5040 2’’ [MIN] KA-LU [ 3’’ 5041 [MIN] SIKI [ 4’’ 5042 [MIN] DUSU 5’’ 5043 [MIN ŠU.TI.]◦A 6’’ 5044 [MIN NÍNDA] ┌ MIN┐[<M/O> x]x 7’’M 8’’ MIN IGI ŠE.RA.A◦H 5046 9’’ 5047 MIN LAGABxÉRIN(!ESIR).ŠUB.BA 10’’ 5048 GUR.SAL.LA end of column II 1.A’ 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

5049 5050 5051 5052 5053 5054 5055 5056a 5056b 5057 -

GI [...

...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] : ┘ [...] ...-t]u 4 ...]x-ti : e-r]i-iq-qi ...] ...]ĜIŠMÁ ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...]

? 8297 8338 8340 8343 8326f ? ? 9001 ? ? ? 9gAj1 9046 ? 9gAa+b idem

: šu-ul-lu-]┌šu┐ ...] : gi-h]í-nu : pa-an a-ge-e : mi-il-qi-ti : na-ma-an-DU(!su) : ba-x[...] : ša MAR?-UD x[...] : ša iṭ-ṭá-a l[a-ap-tu]

9gAg 9037-9 9042

:

9gAd7-8

└ GUR ┘ └ sal ┘ -l[u]

...] ┌ : sa-a[s-sa-nu] : mu-še-[lu-u] : da-lu┐[-u] : gur-ra SAHAR┐.R[A] : gur-ra mar-qí ┘ [] : MIN li-iq-te-t[u 4 ] : MIN i-ri-qí [] : gur zi-da[-ku] : MIN ZÌ.DA-k[u?] : ┘ xxx[o] ...]



[MIN ŠU.SAL.LA] [MIN Š]E.B[A]L [MIN A].AB.LÁ [MIN] SAHAR.RA [MIN] NISIG [MIN RI.RI.G]A MIN MA[R.GÍD.D]A [M]IN [ZÌ.D]A MIN ZÌ.DA MIN AŠ.AŠ GUR x[x 121

? 9gAd9 9gAc4 9gAc5 9gAe1 9gAf ?

Part 1 - Text Edition break 2’I

[MIN]◦É DIĜIR.E.NE

: MIN É.HI┐.┌A!┐┌DIĜIR┐.M[EŠ]

-

MIN DUB.BU MIN TER.ZUM MIN NA.AH.BU MIN NA.AH.BA.TUM MIN NÍĜ MIN ÈŠ.ÈŠ MIN ŠU.ŠE.MA MIN UŠ 15 [MIN I]GI SA [MIN IG]I.KÁR [MIN IGI DU]H.A

: ṭup-pu vacat vacat vacat : MIN na-ak-ku 8 -ri : MIN eš-še!-ši : ša me-ri-il-ti ┘ : is-si-s[u] : MIN i-il-x[x] : MIN i-ša[r-ti] : t[a-mar-tu]

9051 9gBa5 9056 9359/62 -

: šá na-a◦n?-nu : šá aš-li : tab-ri-mu : šá KUŠ uh-zu : šá ESIR ŠUB.BA : na-ta-ni : ma-sab-bu vacat vaca[t] vac[at] ]vacat ]vacat ]vacat ]vacat ]vacat ]vacat ]vacat : ma-sa[b ...] : MIN ĜIŠKIR[I 6 ] : MIN ku-ur-ra

? 9gBb7 ? 9gBb4 9gBb5

5073 5074 5074a 5074b 5075 5076 5077 5078 5079 5080 5081 5082 5083 5084 5085

[MIN ...] MIN┐(=BISAĜ)[ÚNI]NNI 5 MIN [GÙN] MIN KUŠ S[IG 5 (!SIG).G]A MIN A-LAGABxU (!xKUL=ESIR).[ŠUB.B]A KA.TAB [] MA.SÁ.AB MA.SÁ.AB MAH MIN TUR MIN ŠU MIN ŠU.I [ └ MIN ┘ K[ASKAL [MIN NINDA [MIN N]INDA GUR 4 .RA [MIN ]DÌM.MA [MIN K]UG.BABBAR [MIN GU]ŠKIN [MIN ER]EN [MIN Ĝ]IŠKIRI 6 [MIN G]UR

III 5’A’’

5088

MA[.AN.SIM

: ...]x

9136-9

6’ 7’ 8’ 9’ 10’ 11’ 12’ 13’ 14’

5089 5090 5091 5092 5093a 5093b 5094 5095 5096

NÍĜ.GUHŠU NÍĜ.GUHŠU NINDA NÍĜ.GUHŠU KASKAL ĜIŠ NÍĜ.GUHŠU BAN[ŠUR

: ni ┘ [...] ┌: si-↑┌in?┐-na : [...] : [...] : ĜI]ŠBANŠUR : [...] : ┌ma-šá-hu : [...]-ku-u : x[x]x : [xx p]u-su : [xx]x ┌pu-us-su-s[u]

9206 9207 9289 idem -

227 228

5058

3’ 5059 4’ 5060 5’ 5061a 6’ 5061b 7’ 5062 8’ 5063 9’ 5064 10’ 5065 11’ 5066 12’ 5067 13’ 5068 lines missing 1’’A’’ 2’’ 5069 3’’ 5070 4’’ 5071 5’’ 5072 6’’ 7’’ 8’’ 9’’ 10’’ 11’’ 12’’ 13’’ 14’’K 15’’ 16’’ 17’’ 18’’ 19’’ 20’’ break

229

NÍĜ.SIG.GA NÍĜ.SIG.GA SIG SIG.SIG NÍĜ.SIG.SIG

122

-

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 5 (canonical tablets VIII-IX) 15’ 16’ 17’ 18’ 19’ 20’ 21’ 22’ 23’

5097 5097’ 5098 5098a 5098b -

[x] RI [x [... [... [... [xx]x [Ù]RI [ÙRI] GAL [ [ÙRI] T[UR [...] A[N.NA

...]x ...]-i-tu 4 :] GI la-bi-rù ...-]◦e?-ṣu-u : pè-hu-u : ┘ u-r[in-nu] ...] ...] ...]

9283 9286 ?

[BÚN [BÚN ŠU] [BÙN G]ÌR DU 7 (UL) NE NE ŠU.<>KIN ŠU.<>KIN TUR └ UB. └ ZAL

: n]a-ap-p[a-hu] : nap-pa-ah [qa-ti] : MIN GÌR : ha-mu : hu-ṣa-bu : qu-li-ip-[tu] : lu-ṭu-u : ta-aš-šu-u ┘ : šu-ru : hi-im-m[a-tu] : t[ù-bu-uq-tú]

9377 9378 9379 9353-60 9361-7 9337 9339 9313

HAR.DA

: h[u-ur-du]

9326

: HAR.D[A ...] : HAR.DA [...] : GI ni-i[n-da-ni] : GI am-ma-[ti] : GI ú-s[ak-...] : GI ši-si[-...] : GI te-e[m-mi] : GI ma-ku-[ti] : ša i-na NA 4 [] : GI gi-lu-ú◦[] : GI A.MEŠ di ┘ [-lu-ti] : GI NA 4 []

-

: raṭ-bu [] : ša-bu-l[u] : na-ia-[lu] : šu-ku[-ru] : ša ┘ [-...] [...]

9368 9369 -

break III/IV 230 1’P 5103 2’ 5104 3’ 5105 4’ 5106 5’ 5107 6’ 5108 7’ 5109a 8’ 5109b 9’ 5110 10’ 5111 11’ 5112 break Reverse 231 V 4’A’’ 5113 232

GAN <>BAR

ĜIŠ

5’ 6’ 7’ 8’ 9’ 10’ 11’ 12’ 13’ 14’ 15’ 16’

5114 5115 5116 5117 5118a 5118b 5120 5121 5122 5123 5124 5125

HAR.DA ┘ MÁ ĜIŠ HAR.D[A] IG

17’ 18’ 19’ 20’ 21’ 22’

5126 5127 5128 5129 5130 5130a

[] DURU 5 (A) [] HÁD.DU Á GÁN.GÁN

ku-hé

<: GI.HI.A> :1 x[-u]s-si :½ [x]x-na :½ [ŠU].DÌM.MA [x] DÌM.MA [ŠU] AK.A [x] AK.A [A] AK.A [NA 4 ] AK.A ut-tu-uš

ŠUG ŠUG ŠUB.BA ŠUG ÍB. ŠUB ┘ . └ BA ┘

break 123

Part 1 - Text Edition

VI 1’A’’ 2’ 3’ 4’ 5’ 6’ 7’ 8’ 9’ 233 10’ 11’ 12’ 13’ 14’ 15’ 16’ 17’ 18’ 19’ 20’ 21’ 22’ break

5131a 5132b 5133 5134 5135 5135a 5135b 5136 5137a 5137b 5138 5139 5140 5141 5142 5143 5144 5145 5146 5147 5148 -

┌

┐

┌ ┌

KUR. RA KUR.RA

:

SIKIL.E.D◦È K◦A.ZI.RA DUR DUR GAL [ DUR TUR [ DUR SIG<.LÁ> DUR 2 TAB.BA DUR 3 TAB.BA DILI UMBIN MUD UMBIN.NA HÚB

ha-am-bur

:HÉNBUR ? ĜIŠ K[É]Š .TI(!DA) HÉ.DU 7 !? !? 234 SIG .SIG (!BA.SIG) MÁ.GAN.NA GI DÙG.GA GI

┐

[...] : GI [...] : GI t[e-lil-ti] : ka-zi-[ru] : dur-r[ù] ...] ...] : ha-an-n[i-iq-t]u 4 : eṣ-pu : šu-uš┐-┌lu┐-┌šu : GI e-de 4 -u ┘ [] : GI ṣu-um-b[i] : ša-ak-ku-x[x] : hu-pu : ha-ab-bu-ru : GI GAG(!?er)-re-t[i?] : GI ha-an-d[u] : GI bu-u ┘ [-du] : GI [...] : G[I ...] : [...] TIL]

ĜIŠ

GI

MAN TIL M[AN

VII Colophon ID 1’A’’ [PN LÚDUB.]SAR LÚHAL D◦ 2’ ÌR [...] D◦ 3’ ÌR [...] D 4’ ÌR [...] D 5’ u [...] 235 [KAB.ZU.ZU šá IŠÚ/ki-din-DG]U.LA 6’ break

GI

[PN, scr]ibe (and) diviner, servant of [DN(s),] servant of [DN(s),] servant of [DN(s),] and [DN(s),] [pupil of Kidin-G]ula.

124

9315 8188-90 8191 9375 9376 -

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 5 (canonical tablets VIII-IX) Fragments: 236 546 B (74261e – p.581) ?5078 [M]A.┌SÁ┐[.AB NINDA] 1’ ! 2’ 5079 MA.SÁ.A[B] NINDA GUR 4 [.RA ] ? 3’ ?5080 MA.SÁ.AB D[ÌM .MA] 4’ MA.SÁ.AB MA.[...] 5’ MA.SÁ.AB MA ┘ [...] 6’ MA.SÁ.AB x[...] 7’ MA.SÁ.AB [...] 8’ [M]A.SÁ.AB [...] 9’ [M]A.SÁ.A[B ...] 10’ [MA].SÁ.A[B ...] 546 C 237 (74107v – p.273) 1’ 5118 ½ 2’ 5119 5/6 Š◦U.DÌM.MA 3’ 5120 4’ 5121 x DÌM ┘ . └ MA ┘ 5122 5’ [ŠU] AK ┘ [.A

G[I ...] GI [...] GI [...] GI [...] └ GI ┘ [...]

546 D (74148d – p.375) 1’-7’ 5033- (parts of) GI GUR 57+

?

546 E 238 (7482g – p.215) 1’-3’ ?5029 [3’: KID ĜIŠGIGIR] 4’ 5030 [KID ĜIŠMAR].┌GÍD.DA 5’ 5031 [KID ĜIŠ]x 6’ 5032 [KID SI ĜI]Š └ MÁ ┘

(parts of) GI [...] G[I ...] GI[ ...] └ GI ┘ [...]

546 F (7487j – p.220) 1’-2’ parts of MIN only 3’ [M]IN Ú◦[...] 4’ 5086 [MI]N SIKI [...] 239 5’ 5087 [M]A.SÁ.AB. └ KUŠ ┘ [.SI.GA]

? ? ?

-

546 H (74190e – p.463) 1’ traces only 2’ 5099 [SUHU]R.LÁ 3’ 5100 [Ú]R.RA 4’ 5101 [DUB].BA.A 5’ 5102 [TÙN.DUB].BA.A 6’ [...] └ GI

: qi-im-ma-t[u 4 ] : GI a-da-[at-tu] : qa-an-ṭup-p[u] : ta-kal-ti [] : GIR ┘ - └ GI [...]

125

8161 9311 ?

Part 1 - Text Edition Fragments not used: (‘floating’ fragments) 546 G (7491e – p.226) 1’-3’ [...]x 4’ [... ]SI-DI 5’ [...] └ GI ┘

(parts of) GI ša ┘ ?-x[...] x[...]

546 J (74132i – p.338 and 546) 1’ [MI]N SUMUN┐[ 2’ [M]IN PÚ [ 3’ [MI]N A.DI[RIG.GA 4’ [MI]N ŠU.TI.A [ 5’ [MIN] NINDA [ 6’ [MI]N GU.RU 7’ [MIN I]GI ŠE.RA.AH 8’ [MIN ]E[S]IR(A-LAGABxKUL) └ ŠUB ┘ . └ BA ┘

240

...]

...] ...] ...] ...] G[I ...] GI [...] GI [...]

546 L (74127f – p.322 and 546) [...] DIN.NA 2’ [...] U 4 .HI.IN 3’ [...] ZÚ.LUM.MA 4’ [...] NU.ÚR.MA 5’ [...] └ ŠU.GAN 6’

[...] [...] [...] [...] : šu-u[k-ka-nu]

546 ‘Q’ (74107ad – p.275) [BA.AN.DU]H 3’ [...]x 4’ [... ?GI].IŠ.KEŠDA 5’ [...] ÚNINNI 5 6’ 7’ [...] SIG 7 .A

: pí-it-tu 4 vacat vacat vacat vacat

126

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 6 (canonical tablet X) Division 6 (canonical X) Fragments: Note that some of the texts belonging to this division in the Emar IV edition (under number 547) are to be relocated and to be assigned other numbers: 547 B > 555 ‘L’; 547 C > 545 ‘AV’; 547 E > 548 ‘AG’. 547 A (74160f – p.409) I’ 1’ 6001 [ ÚDUL] MA[R.TU] 2’ 6002 [ ÚDUL] AR.ZA.AN.[NA] 3’ 6003 [ ÚDUL] U 4 .SAKAR 4’ 6004 [ ÚDUL] GIBIL 5’ 6005 [ ÚDUL] SUMUN [ ÚDUL] LIBIR.RA 6’ 6006 7’ 6007 [ ÚDUL] ŠU.LÁL 8’ 6008 [] KAL 9’ 6009 [] MIN 10’ 6010 [] MIN 11’ 6011 []UBUR X 2 <MAŠ.>TAB.BA 12’ 6012 [] MIN 13’ 6013 [A.KÚM.] └ MA 14’ 6014 [SE]D 15’ 6015 [TITA]B II’ 1’ 6016 MIN(=SAB) 241 Ì [] 2’ 6017 MIN Ì.ĜI[Š] 3’ 6018 MIN Ì.NUN┐[.NA] 4’ 6019 MIN Ì.ŠAH 5’ 6020 MIN Ì.DÙG.GA 6’ 6021 MIN ĜEŠTIN.NA MIN LÀL 7’ 6022 8’ 6023 [] KÍR 9’ 6023a MIN(KÍR) GAL MIN TUR 10’ 6023b 11’ 6024 MIN └ A ┘ [] 12’ MIN [...] 547 D (74206b – p.506) 6029 [DUG? 1’ 2’ 6030 [DUG? 3’ [DUG? 4’ 6031 [DUG? 5’ 6031a [DUG? 547 ‘F’ (74119c – p.292) 2’ 243 6016[DUG? 22? 4’ 6023-4? [DUG?

10054 10057 10058 10059 10060 10061 10062 10063-6 idem idem 10068 10070 10071 10072 10073 10134 10135 10136 10137 10138 10139 10140 10149 10151 10152 10153 ?

el-e-[...] 242 ú-ru x[...] ú- └ ru ┘ x[...] i[t-...] x[...]

AM.M]A.AM A]M.MA SAB

...] ] HAL HAL].GAL

10222b 10222b ? 10223 10224

] SAB [...]

10125-41

] KÍR []

10149-72a

127

Part 1 - Text Edition 547 ‘G’ (74199b – p.292) 1’ 6025 [DUG? 2’ 6026 [DUG? 3’ 6027 [DUG? 4’ 6028 [DUG?

l]u-pu-ul-tu 4 ma-]aš-la-ah-tu 4 ti-i]l-im-tu 4 t]al-lu

KÍR ŠU.LÁL KUN.RIM/A.SUD TI.LIM.DÙ DAL

128

10167 10173-4 10175 10177

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 7a (canonical tablets XI-XII) Division 7 (canonical XI-XII) Version A (unilingual) 7a Tablet 1 consisting of: 548-9 D (74247 – p.571-4) 548-9 K (731054 – p.130) 548-9 Z (74278 – p.587) all entries underlined Obverse I 7a010 16.D 17. 7a011 18. 7a012 19. 7a013 20. 7a014 21. 7a015 22. 7a016 23. 7a017 24. 7a018 25. 7a019 26. 7a020 27. 7a021 28. 7a022 29. 7a023 30. 7a024 31 7a025 32. 7a026 33. 7a027 34. 7a028 35. 7a029 36. 7a030 37. 7a031 38. 7a032 39. 7a033 40. 7a034 41. 7a035 42. 7a036 43. 7a037 44. 7a038 45. 7a039 46. 7a040 47. 7a041 48. 7a042 49. 7a043 50. 7a044 51. 7a045 52. 7a046 53. 7a047 54. 7a048 55. 7a049

KU Š

[ [

KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ

KUŠ KUŠ

┘

KU◦Š KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ

UR GIR 15 ] UR TUR] U[R DIB] ┐ UR [NI]M UR KI UR.ŠUB 5 UR.ŠUB 5 KUD.DA PIRIĜ.TUR KA 5 .A KUD.DA KIR 4 [U]GU<.DUL>.BI [SA].A SA.A.RI DÀRA DÀRA.MAŠ DÀRA MAŠ.DÀ MAŠ.DÀ AMAR MAŠ.DÀ ŠEG 8 ŠEG 8 MAŠ.DÙ LU.LIM A.LIM ! UDU TIL PA(!BAR/MAŠ) MUŠEN.NA PA(!BAR/MAŠ) MUŠEN.NA ŠE(!KUR).RA D NIN.KA 6 D NIN.KA 6 BAR.BAR D NIN.KA 6 ÍB.BA(!KÚR) D NIN.KA 6 TIR.RA D NIN.KA 6 EDIN.NA PÉŠ PÉŠ TUR PÉŠ ĜIŠ.GI PÉŠ ĜIŠ.GI.GI PÉŠ ĜIŠ.ÙR.RA PÉŠ A.ŠAG 4 .GA PÉŠ SÌLA.GAZ ! ! PÉŠ GÙN .NU .A ! PÉŠ NÍĜ.GILIM

129

11020 11021 11025 11015 11023 11028 11029 11043 11041 11042 11270 11048 11049 11035 11036 11037 11039 11040 11030 11031 11033 11032 11034 11052 11053 11054 11055 11056 11057 11058 11059 11062 11063 11067 11064 11065

Part 1 - Text Edition end of column II 1.D 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47.

7a050? 7a051 7a052 7a053 7a054 7a055 7a056 7a057 7a058 7a059 7a060 7a061 7a062a 7a062b 7a063a 7a063b 7a064a 7a064b 7a065a 7a065b 7a067 7a068 7a069 7a070 7a071b 7a072 7a073 7a074 7a075 7a076 7a077 7a078 7a079 7a080 7a081a 7a081b 7a081c 7a081d 7a082 7a083 7a084 7a085 7a086 7a087 7a088 7a089 7a090

[KUŠ [KUŠ] [KUŠ [KUŠ [KUŠ [KUŠ [KUŠ] [KUŠ [KUŠ [KUŠ [KUŠ] [KUŠ [KUŠ [KUŠ [KU]Š [KU]Š [K]UŠ └

KUŠ

KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ

]x GUD?(!?PÉŠ ŠEG 8 ) UDU UD]U BABBAR GUK]KAL Ù]Z MUNUS ÉŠ].GÀR ANŠE ANŠE KU]R.RA ANŠE E]DIN.NA ANŠE A].AB.BA ŠAH ĜÍR].TAB I.R]I 9 GU 7 .A ┐ N]U I .R◦I 9 GU 7 .A AL.HI NU.AL.[HI] AL.TAG.[G]A NU.AL.TAG NÍĜ.GU 7 .A NU NÍĜ.GU 7 .A [K]A.BA.BU.U[M] ┐ É KA.BA.BU.UM UL.LU.LUM É UL.LU.LUM NA.AH.TUM PÁR.RU.TUM DU 8 .ŠI.A A ĜÁ.LÁ A E◦DIN.NA ┐ NÍĜ .[UMB]IN.NA ZI.MU.HA.[RA] DUG LAHTAN X MÁ.RÍ.NU.UM SIKI MÚ.A BABBAR KUKKU 5 ! SU 4 .A GÙN.NU.A NÍĜ.BÙR.BÙR É.MÁ.URU 5 DAL.ÚŠ Á DAL.ÚŠ UŠ(!DABAŠIN=KU 7 ) Á UŠ(!DABAŠIN=KU 7 ) DA.BA(!DABAN=KU 7 ) Á DA.BA(!DABAN=KU 7 ) ŠU.HA(!HU). UM

130

11044 11045 11046 11gAa5/7 11gAa6/8 11105 11106 11107 11gAc 11103 11108 11109 11110 11111 -

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 7a (canonical tablets XI-XII) 48. 7a091 49. 7a092 50. 7a093 51. 7a094 52. 7a095 53. 7a096 54. 7a097 55. 7a098 56. 7a099 end of column III 1.D 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38.

7a100 7a101 7a102 7a103 7a104 7a105 7a106 7a107 7a108 7a109 7a110 7a111 7a112a 7a112b 7a113 7a114 7a115 7a116 7a117 7a118 7a119 7a120 7a121 7a122 7a123 7a124 7a125 7a126 7a127 7a128 7a129 7a130 7a131 7a132 7a133 7a134

KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ

┘

K UŠ

[

KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ

[K]UŠ [KU]Š [KUŠ [KUŠ] K UŠ [ KU Š [ KUŠ KUŠ KU Š

[

K UŠ

[

KUŠ

[

KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ

LÁ<.LÁ> HAR LÁ.LÁ MURUB 4 LÁ.LÁ E.SÍ[R(BU)] E.SÍ[R DU 8 ] E.SÍ[R ÍB] E◦[.SÍR IM.MA ] [E.SÍR MUNUS.E.NE] E.SÍR É.PA.NA MEŠ]

E.SÍR ŠU.KAM.MA DA E.SÍR 244 UM[BI]N E.SÍR DA.AŠ(!LA) ÉLLAĜ(BIR).KUŠ(!ELLAMKUŠ X ) GAL 4 .LA ÍB ÍB KALAG.GA 245 ÍB KALAG.GA DÚR.NA ÍB DUR(!ÙSAN=NUNUZ-KISIM 5 xAŠGAB) ÍB SI ÍB URU 5 ÍB NA 4 ÍB NA 4 KA.DÙ ! KA.DÙ ŠEN NA 4 KA.DÙ TÙN KA.DÙ NÍĜ.NA 4 NÍĜ.NA 4 KA NÍĜ.NA 4 KANKAL NÍĜ.NA 4 M]AR.ŠUM NÍĜ.NA 4 SUHUB ! SUHU]B E.SÍR ZI SUHUB] I◦M.MA [SUHUB MUNUS.]◦E.NE [SUHUB É.PA].NA SUHUB ŠU.KAM.M]A

...] ...] DÙG.G[AN KUG.BABBAR] DÙG.GAN KUG.[GI] DÙG.GAN MUN DÙG. GAZI DÙG.GAN NAĜA DÙG.GAN ŠIM DÙG.GAN ŠU.KAM.MA DÙG.GAN GI.DUB.BA

131

11113 11114 11115 11119 11122 11126 -

11127 11136 11184 11208 11166 11167 11169 11170 11171 11172-3 11174 11177 11179 11181 11182 ? ? 11185 11186 11189 11190 11191 11192

Part 1 - Text Edition 7a135 39. 7a136 40. 7a137 41. 7a138 42. 7a140 43. 7a141 44. D+Z 7a142 45. 46.D 7a143 D 47. 7a145 48.Z 7a146a 49. 7a146b 50. 7a147 51. 7a148 52. 7a149 53. 7a150 54. 7a151 end of column IV 1.K 2.D 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31

7a153 7a154 7a155a 7a155b 7a156 7a158 7a159 7a160 7a161 7a162 7a163 7a164 7a165 7a166 7a167 7a168 7a169 7a170 7a171 7a172 7a173 7a174 7a175 7a176 7a177 7a178 7a179 7a180 7a181 7a182 7a183

KUŠ

ĜIŠ

DÙG.GAN MAŠ. ŠINIG DÙG.GAN AN.TI.BA[L] BAR È(!ÈD).D[È]

KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ

┘

K UŠ

[

[KUŠ [KUŠ [KUŠ] [KUŠ] [KUŠ [KU]Š [KU]Š

└

KUŠ

K UŠ

[ K UŠ [ K UŠ [ KUŠ [ [KUŠ └

KUŠ

KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KU◦Š KU◦Š

[KU]Š [KUŠ [KUŠ

IM-E x[] Á.S[I] Á.SI+NÍG.GAL ĜIŠ Á ┘ .S I └ IG ┘ [Í]B ĜIŠIG [T]ÙN! MUNUS! ! A]L.HÁB ! AL.H]ÁB.AL.HÁB LÚ LÚ GÚ È.A L]Ú HI.A LU.ÚB LU.ÚB MAR.TU

LU.ÚB TI.RUM ] LÚ.ÚB PA.TI.HA.TUM ] └ LU ┘ .ÚB Ì.ĜIŠ L]U.ÚB Ì.ĜIŠ SA]Ĝ SI ! ! SAĜ S]I .SÁ ŠÌR.Š ÌR HAR ŠÌ[R. ] └ ŠÌR MURUB 4 ŠÌR.Š[ Ì]R ĜÍR.TAB ANŠE HÁŠ.TAB ANŠE GÚ.TAB ANŠE IGI.TAB ANŠE HÙL.TAB ANŠE KIB-KIB.TAB ANŠE SA ZIG TÙN TÙN A.ZU TÙN GÍR TÙN GÍR ŠU.I TÙN GÍR.MEŠ TÙN GÍR MUHALDIM BAR.BAR BAR ŠAH BAR SIKI LU.LU.BU.UM E.LI.BU.UM DA.BI.HU.UM GÀR.BA Š]E.GÍN Š]E.GÍN SIG 5

132

11187 11193 11253 11260 11262 11263-4 11194 11195

11197 11199 11200 11201 11246 11250 11251 11248 11272 11273 11276 11277 11281 11284 11285

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 7a (canonical tablets XI-XII) 32. 7a184 [KUŠ Š]E.GÍN KUG.GI 33. 7a185 [KUŠ Š]E.GÍN SU 9 34. 7a186 [KUŠ Š]E. └ GÍN LU 35. 7a187 AN 7a188 36. AN.NA 37. 7a189 AN[.BAR] 38. 7a190 AN.TA.SUR.[RA] 39. 7a191a AN SIG 7 .SIG 7 7a191b 40. AN SIG 7 BABBAR 41. 7a191c AN SIG 7 KUKKU 5 42. 7a192 AN ŠÚD(!SUD) <ÁĜ.>ĜÁ <> 43. 7a193 KÙ.GAN(!KAM) 44. 7a194a A.GAR 5 7a194b A.GAR 5 45. 46. 7a195 GAG A.GAR 5 7a196 ŠIM BI.Z[I.DA] 47. 7a197 48. ŠIM NA 4 .S[AHAR] 49. 7a198 └ SAHAR ┘└ BABBAR ┘└ KUR ┘ [.RA] about 8 lines missing before end of column V ┐ 1.K 7a203 IM DUR(!GÚ) 2. 7a204 IM EN.NA 3. 7a205 KAxA(!KI-A=PIŠ 10 ) ÍD LÚ.ÙR(!RU).DUR(!GÚ) 4. 7a206 KAxA(!ÚH) ÍD LÚ.ÙR(!RU).DUR(!GÚ) 5. E(!Á).LÁ ÍD 7a207 6. 7a208 URUDU URUDU 7. 7a209 KALAG.GA URUDU 8. 7a210 NÍĜ.KALAG.GA URUDU 9. 7a211 ZA.RÍ.IN.NU URUDU 10. 7a212 HU.LUH.HA URUDU 11. 7a213 NÍĜ.HU.LUH.HA └ D U RUDU 7a214 IŠ<.MA>.NA 12. D/ K URUDU 13. 7a215 DILMUN.NA URUDU 14. 7a216 [ NÍĜ].GÍD.DA URUDU 15. 7a217 [NÍĜ.D]É URUDU 16. 7a218 [NÍĜ M]Ú?.A URUD U 17. 7a219 [ NÍĜ HI.]◦A URUDU 18. 7a220 [ NÍĜ DÍM.D]ÍM ┘ URUDU D has traces of of initial for lines19-22 break

11287 11288 11289 11290 11291 11292 11293 11294 11304 11296 11299-303 idem 11305-7 11310 11311

11322 11324 11327 11328 11329 11331 11332 11333-4 11335 11336 11337 11340-1 11344 11345 11346 11347 11348-50

Lower Edge Z has (under Obverse III, above Reverse VIII) (with colophon?): [...] NISABA(ŠE-NAGA) NIN.LIL ┘ [...] Reverse VI most of lines 1’-25’ (in D) preserve (parts of) initial URUDU URUDU ┐ 26’D 7a248 Š EN x

133

?

Part 1 - Text Edition 27’ 28’ 28’

7a249 7a250 7a251

7a252 29’ 30’ 7a253 31’ 7a254a 32’ 7a254b K 33’ 7a254c 34’ 7a254d 35’ 7a254e 36’ 7a254f 37’ 7a254g 38’ 7a254h 39’ 7a254i 40’ 7a255 41’ 7a256 42’ 7a257 43’ 7a258 44’ 7a259 end of column VII 1’D 2’ 3’ 4’ 5’ 6’ 7’ 8’ 9’ 10’ 11’ 12’ 13’ 14’ 15’ 16’ 17’ 18’ 19’ 20’ 21’ 22’ 23’ 24’ 25’ 26’ 27’

7a260 7a261 7a262 7a263 7a264 7a265 7a266 7a267 7a268 7a269 7a270 7a271 7a272 7a273 7a274 7a275 7a276 7a277 7a278 7a279 7a280 7a281 7a282 7a283 7a284 7a285 7a286

URUDU

Š



11391 -

EN TUR ŠEN GI ŠEN GI

URUDU

URUDU



┌

URUDU

┘

I Š ZA BAR Z ABAR └ ZABAR ZABAR ZABAR ZABAR ZABAR ZABAR ZABAR IŠ ÉŠ GAL ZA.HUM HA.ZI.I[N

A MIN ZAG?- AB ŠEN GI A MIN AB.BA

11432 12001 12029-33

URUDU

ši-pí-rù KU.Ú el-lu eb-bu nam-rù aš-šu-KAL(!ú) ša-ap-pu ka-ak-ku UTU ZABAR ZABAR ZABAR ZABAR ZABAR

]

[ĜÍ]R ┌DUB┐.┌BA┐.┌A┐ ĜÍR Á NÍĜ.GU 7 .A

[ZABAR] [ZABAR] ZABAR

ĜÍR MUHALDIM ĜÍR NÍĜ.GU 7 .A GÍR GI.GU 7 .A ĜÍR HÚL 246 ĜÍR AD.KID ĜÍR AŠGAB ĜÍR ŠU.I ĜÍR UŠ DIŠ ĜÍR Á LIL ĜÍR Š[A]R BAR.RA ĜÍR ÍB.BA KUD.DU RI(!NUN) NUN ŠU NUN GU 7 ŠU ŠU BÙR ŠU BÙR.BÙR ŠUM.GAM.ME ŠUM.GAM.ME TUR KUŠ NÍĜ.BULUG NÍĜ.UGU UGU LÁ ZA.HA.AN NÍĜ.GAZ

ZABAR ZABAR ZABAR ZABAR ZABAR ZABAR

┘

ZA B AR

[]

ZABAR ZABAR ZABAR ZABAR ZABAR ZABAR ZABAR

-

ZABAR ZABAR ZABAR ZABAR ZAB



ZABAR

ZABAR ZABAR ZABAR

134

12gBa 12gBc 12gBb -

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 7a (canonical tablets XI-XII) 28’ 7a287 NÍĜ.GAZ KUD.DA 29’ 7a288a KIN GAL! 30’ 7a288b KIN TUR 31’ 7a289 BA.AN.DU 8 .DU 8 32’ 7a290a SUHUR 33’ 7a290b SUHUR 34’ 7a290c SUHUR 35’ 7a291 LI.LI.SU 36’ 7a292 HAL.HAL.LA 37’ 7a293 ŠA.Ú.ŠA 38’ 7a294 DUG 39’ 7a295 DUG LAHTAN 40’ 7a296 HA.RA 41’ 7a297 ŠE(!ŠU) ÉŠ.L[Á 42’ 7a298 ZAG ÉŠ.L[Á 43’ 7a299 GÚ.LÁ 44’ 7a300 GÚ-GAG(=DUR) 45’ 7a301 G[Ú-G]AG-GAG(!GÚ.HAŠ) 7a302 G[Ú] ŠI.I.ŠA 46’ K 7a303 [Z]AG MI.IT.TUM 47’ end of column VIII 1.Z 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.D 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27.

7a304 7a305 7a306 7a307 7a308 7a309 7a310 7a311 7a312 7a313 7a314 7a315 7a316 7a317 7a318 7a319 7a320 7a321 7a322 7a323 7a324 7a325

ZABAR ZABAR ZABAR ZABAR ZABAR ZABAR ZABAR ZABAR ZABAR ZAB A

┘

[ ]R ZAB A [ ]R ZAB AR [ ] Z ABA [ ] R ZAB AR ] Z ABAR ] ZABAR

ZABAR ZABAR ZABAR ZABAR

ZABAR

[]x HAL NAGA GIGIR [] └ HÁŠ! BU.UM [x] HA.AM.BA [x]x AR [KAM.KA]M<.MA>.TUM I[N.ZA.AB.TU ]M ┐┌ ┐ TU.DI . IT .T[UM ŠU.GUR ! EŠ .GUR

ZABAR

┘

ZABA R

[] ZAB AR [ ] ZAB AR [ ] ZA BAR [ ] ZABAR ] ZABA R [] ZABAR ZABAR

DÁLA ŠUKUR MA.SÁ.AB NÍĜ.ĜEŠTUG NÍĜ.ĜEŠTUG ZA<>.NA HAR HAR ŠU HAR GÌR HAR GÚ HAR GAZ.BA NÍĜ.DÚR.BÙR

ZABAR ZABAR ZABAR Z◦ABAR ZABAR ZABAR ZABAR ZABAR ZABAR ZABA◦R ZABAR

x[x]x ┌

ZABAR

D

ZABAR

ALAN LÀMA KI.GAL DU 8 DU 8 MAH └ U 4 .SAKAR

ZABAR ZABAR ZABAR ZABAR

135

-

12100 12101 12095 12097 12098-9 12102 12103 12109 12110 12111 12130 12131 12132 12133

Part 1 - Text Edition 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44.

7a326 7a327 7a328 7a329 7a330 7a331 7a332 7a333 7a334 7a335 7a336 7a337 7a338 7a339 7a340 7a341 7a342

45. 7a343 46. 7a344 47. 7a345 48. 7a346 49. 7a347 50. 7a348 51. 7a349 52. 7a350 end of column

ZABAR

[] AŠ<.ME> KUG.BABBAR KUG.BABBAR KUG.BABBAR KUG.BABBAR KUG.BABBAR KUG.BABBAR KUG.BABBAR KUG.BABBAR KUG.BABBAR KUG.BABBAR

GAL Ù.TU HUL.A ? HUL AK .A PAD.PAD.DU ME.ME.E ! LUH .HA ! KALAG .GA ! GAL A.GAR 5 KUG.BABBAR

GAL ZA.HUM AM.MA.AM ŠA.Ú.ŠA DUG DUG ÙSAN(NUNUZ-

KUG.BABBAR KUG.BABBAR KUG.BABBAR KUG.BABBAR KUG.BABBAR

ISIM 5 xAŠGAB!xLA=LAHTAN)

HA.RA ŠU ÉŠ.LÁ ZAG ÉŠ.LÁ GÚ.GAG(!HAŠ)

KUG.BABBAR

12201-2 -

KUG.BABBAR KUG.BABBAR KUG.BABBAR

GÚ-GAG-GAG(!GÚ.HAŠ) TUR TI.LIM.DA NÍĜ.DÚR.BÙR NÍĜ.ĜEŠTUG

IX most likely only 1 line missing 2.D 7a353 H[AR 3. 7a354 HAR Š[U 4. 7a355 HAR G[ÍR 7a356 HAR GÚ 5. 6. 7a357 HAR GAZ.BA 7a358 KAM.KAM.MA.TUM 7. 8. 7a359 IN.ZA.AB.TUM 9. 7a360 TU.DI.IT.TUM 7a361 ŠU.GUR 10. 11. 7a362 EŠ!.GUR 12. 7a363 DÁLA 13. 7a364 ŠUKUR 14. 7a365 MA.SÁ.AB 15. 7a366 NÍĜ<.ĜEŠTUG ZA>.NA 7a367 ALAN 16. 17. 7a368 DLÀMA 18. 7a369 KI.GAL 19. 7a370 DU 8 20. 7a371 DU 8 MAH 7a372 LÚ NIM 21.

KUG.BABBAR KUG.BABBAR KUG.BABBAR KUG.BABBAR

KUG.BABBAR

] ]

KUG.BABBAR

[KUG.BABBAR]

┌KUG┐.┌BABBAR┐ KUG.BABBAR KUG.BABBAR KUG.BABBAR KUG.BABBAR KUG.BABBAR KUG.BABBAR KUG.BABBAR KUG.BABBAR KUG.BABBAR KUG.BABBAR KUG.BABBAR KUG.BABBAR KUG.BABBAR KUG.BABBAR KUG.BABBAR KUG.BABBAR

136

12134 12gDa 12187 12188 -

12203 12204 12205 12194 12195 12189 12191 12192-3 12196 12197 12221 12222 12223 -

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 7a (canonical tablets XI-XII) KUG.BABBAR 22. 7a373 NIM.GÍR KUG . BABBAR 23. 7a374 U 4 .IN(!SAKAR) └ ┘ └ ┘ 24. [KUG.BABBAR] 7a375 AŠ.ME 25. -] 7a376 KUG.[GI 26. KUG.GI x[x] 247 27. KUG.GI x[o] 28. KUG.GI DUL [x] 29. KUG.GI HA.RA [x] 30. KUG.GI TUR x[o] 31. KU[G.GI] ĜEŠTUG.ĜEŠTUG x[o] 32. x[x] KUG.G[I] 33. [SAH]AR ŠU(!?BA) N◦Ú.A 7a377a KUG.GI┐ 34. SAHAR BAR.BA NÚ.A 7a377b KUG.GI 1 TA.ÀM 35. 7a378a KUG.GI 36. 2 TA ┘ .ÀM 7a378b KUG.GI 7a378c KUG.GI 37. 3 [TA].ÀM 4 [T]A.ÀM 38. 7a378d KUG.GI 39. 7a378e KUG.GI 5┐[T]A.ÀM 40. 7a378f KUG.GI 6 └ TA.ÀM 7a378g [KUG.GI 41. 7 T]A.ÀM 42. 7a378h [KUG.GI 8 T]A.ÀM 7a378i [KUG.GI 9 T]A.ÀM 43. 44. 10 T]A.ÀM 7a378j [KUG.GI 45. 11] TA.ÀM 7a378k [KUG.GI 46. 12 T]A.ÀM 7a378l [KUG.GI 46’-52’ (parts of) final KUG.GI only, after that end of column

X 1.D 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.

7a385 7a386 7a387 7a388 7a389 7a390 7a391 7a392 7a393 7a394 7a395 7a396 7a397 7a398 7a399 7a400 7a401 7a402 7a403 7a404 7a405 7a406

KUG. GI

HA.RA ŠU ÉŠ.LÁ ZAG ÉŠ.LÁ DUR(!GÚ.HAŠ) DUR.GAG(!HAŠ) TUR TI.LIM.DA NÍĜ.DÚR.BÙR NÍĜ.ĜEŠTUG NÍĜ.ĜEŠTUG ZA.NA KAxME!xBAD=BULUG HAR HAR ŠU HAR GÌR HAR GÚ HAR GAZ.BA KAM.KAM.MA.TUM IN.ZA.AB.TUM TU.DI.IT.TUM ŠU.GUR EŠ.GUR DÁLA ŠUKUR

[ ] []

KUG.G I KUG.GI KUG.GI KUG.GI KUG.GI KUG.GI KUG.GI KUG.GI KUG.GI KUG.GI KUG.GI KUG.GI KUG.GI KUG.



KUG.GI

KUG.GI KUG.GI KUG.GI KUG.GI KUG.GI

137

12224 12225 12gFb 12251-2 idem 12265 12264 12263 12262 12261 12260 12259 12258 -

12304 12305 12306 12307 12295 12296 12290 12292 12293-4 12297 12298

Part 1 - Text Edition 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. break

KUG.GI

7a407 MA.SÁ.AB 7a409 NÍĜ<ĜEŠTUG ZA>.NA 7a410 ALAN 7a411 DLÀMA 7a412 KI.GAL 7a413 DU 8 7a414 DU 8 MAH 7a415 BI.IB 7a416 ĜIŠBANŠUR 7a417 URUKI 7a418a ŠE.LÚ 7a418b ŠE.LÚ 7a419 GURUN 7a420 [HU].WA.WA [...]

KUG.GI KUG.GI KUG.GI KUG.GI KUG.GI KUG.GI KUG.GI KUG.GI KUG.GI KUG.GI KUG.GI KUG.GI KUG.GI

└

KUG.GI

┘

-

7a Tablet 2 - 548-9 B (74105a – p.264-5) all entries underlined Obverse I 4. 7a001 5. 7a002 6. 7a003 7. 7a004 8. 7a005 9. 7a006 10. 7a007 11. 7a008 12. 7a009 13. 7a010 14. 7a011 15. 7a012 16. 7a013 17. 7a014 18. 7a015 19. 7a016 20. 7a017 21. 7a018 22. 7a019 23. 7a020 24. 7a021 25. 7a022 26. 7a023 27. 7a024 28. 7a025 29. 7a026 7a027 30. 31 7a028

[KUŠ] [KUŠ] KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ

┌

AM.SI AM.SI KUR.RA SÚMUN SÚMUN KUR.RA ŠILAM ŠILAM KUR.RA UR MAH UR NIG UR BAR.RA UR GIR 15 UR TUR UR DIB UR NIM ! UR KI UR.ŠUB 5 UR.ŠUB 5 KUD.DA PIRIĜ.TUR KA 5 .A KUD.DA KIR 4 UGU.DUL 5 (!DUL).BI SA].A SA.A.RI DÀRA DÀRA.MAŠ DÀRA MAŠ.DÀ MAŠ.DÀ AMAR MAŠ.DÀ

138

11009 11010 11011 11013 11014 11012 11020 11021 11025 11015 11023 11028 11029 11043 11041 11042 11270 11048 11049 11035 11036 11037 11039 11040

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 7a (canonical tablets XI-XII) 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. break II 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. break

7a029 7a030 7a031 7a032 7a033 7a034 7a035

7a056 7a057 7a058 7a059 7a060 7a061 7a062a 7a062b 7a063a 7a063b 7a064a 7a064b 7a065a 7a065b 7a066 7a067 7a068 7a069 7a070 7a071a 7a071b 7a072 7a073 7a074 7a075 7a076 7a077 7a078 7a079 7a080 -

KUŠ

ŠEG 8 ŠEG 8 MAŠ.DÙ LU.LIM A.LIM UDU TIL MAŠ/BAR MUŠEN.NA MAŠ/BAR ┘ └ MUŠEN ┘ . └ NA ┘ └ KUR ┘ [.RA]

KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ

┌KUŠ KUŠ

? 11044 11045 11046 11gAa5/7 11gAa6/8 11105 11106 11107 11gAc ? ? ?

ANŠE ANŠE KUR.RA ANŠE EDIN.NA ANŠE A.AB.BA ŠAH ĜÍR.TAB I.RI 9 GU 7 .A NU I.RI 9 GU 7 .A AL.HI NU.AL.HI AL.TAG.GA NU.AL.TAG NÍĜ.GU 7 .A NU NÍĜ.GU 7 .A NÍĜ.ĜÁL.LA KA.BA.BU.UM É KA.BA.BU.UM UL.LU.UM É UL.LU.UM NA.AH.BU.UM NA.AH.BA.TUM PÁR.RU.TUM DU 8 .ŠI.A A ĜÁ.LÁ A EDIN.NA NÍĜ.UMBIN.NA ZI.MU.HA.RA ! DUG LAHTAN X MÁ.RÍ.NU.UM SIKI MÚ.A

KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ

[...]

┘

11030 11031 11033 11032 11034 -

xxx x[...] [...]

III 1’ and 2’ only have traces of initial KUŠ 3’ 7a108 KUŠ ÍB KALAG.GA DÚR.NA KUŠ 4’ 7a109 ÍB DUR(!ÙSAN)

139

-

Part 1 - Text Edition 5’ 6’ 7’ 8’ 9’ 10’ 11’ 12’ 13’ 14’ 15’ 16’ 17’ 18’ 19’ 20’ 21’ 22’ 23’ 24’ 25’ 26’ break

7a110 7a111 7a112a 7a112b 7a113 7a114 7a115 7a116 7a118 7a119 7a120 7a121 7a122 7a123 7a124 7a125 7a126 7a127 7a128

KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ

└

KUŠ

11166 11167 11169 11171 11172-3 11174 11177 11179 11181 11182 ? ? 11185 11186

ÍB SI ÍB URU 5 ÍB MAH(!NA 4 ) ÍB MAH(!NA 4 ) KA.DÙ ! KA.DÙ ŠEN NA 4 KA.DÙ TÙN KA.DÙ NÍĜ.NA 4 KA NÍĜ.NA 4 KANKAL NÍĜ.NA 4 MAR.ŠUM NÍĜ.NA 4 SUHUB SUHUB E.SÍR ZI SUHUB IM.MA SUHUB MUNUS.E.NE SUHUB <É.>PA<>.NA ┘ SUHUB ŠUM.K[AM.MA] BAL x[...]

[xx] DÙG.GAN [o] DÙG.GAN [KUG.BABBAR] D[ÙG.GAN KUG.GI]

IV 1’ 7a162 KUŠ ĜÍ[R.TAB ANŠE] 2’ 7a163 KUŠ HÁ[Š.TAB ANŠE] 3’ 7a164 KUŠ GÚ.[TAB ANŠE] KUŠ 4’ 7a165 IGI.[TAB ANŠE] 5’ 7a166 KUŠ HÙL.T[AB ANŠE] KUŠ 6’ 7a167 PA-KIB.TA[B ANŠE] 7’ 7a168 KUŠ SA [ZIG] KUŠ 8’ 7a169 [TÙN] 9’ 7a170 KUŠ TÙN [A.ZU] 10’ 7a171 KUŠ TÙN G[ÍR] 11’ 7a172 KUŠ TÚN GÍR Š[U.I] KUŠ TÚN GÍR [MEŠ] 12’ 7a173 13’ 7a174 KUŠ TÚN GÍR [MUHALDIM] 14’ 7a175 KUŠ BA[R.BAR] 15’-17’ preserve (parts of initial) KUŠ only break Reverse X 1’ 7a400 2’ 7a401 3’ 7a402 4’ 7a403 5’ 7a404 6’ 7a405

11246 11250 11251 11248 11272

] ] ] KUG. GI < >

KAM.K[AM.MA.TUM IN.ZA.TUM TU.DI.IT.T[UM ŠU.GUR EŠ.GUR DÁLA

KUG.GI KUG.GI

140

12295 12296 12290 12292 12293-4 12297

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 7a (canonical tablets XI-XII) KUG.GI 7’ 7a406 ŠUKUR KUG.GI 7a407 8’ MA.SÁ.AB KUG.GI 9’ 7a408 NÍĜ.ĜEŠTUG KUG.G I 10’ 7a409 NÍĜ.ĜEŠTUG NA [] KUG.GI [ 11’ 7a410 ] └ ALAN ┘ probably 2 lines missing KUG.GI 14’ 7a413 D[U 8 ] KUG.GI 15’ 7a414 DU 8 M[AH ] KUG.GI 16’ 7a415 BI.IB [ ] ĜIŠ 17’ 7a416 BANŠUR [KUG.GI] KI 18’ 7a417 URU [KUG.GI] ŠE<.LÚ> [KUG.GI] 19’ 7a418a 20’ 7a418b <ŠE.>LÚ [KU.GI] KUG.GI 21’ Ú [... ] KUG.GI 22’ 7a419 GURUN[ ] KUG.GI 23’ NE?[ ] KUG.GI 24’ NIM ┘ [?.GIR ] a few lines missing followed by 3 lines with some traces break

12298 12346

7a Tablet 3 consisting of: 548-9 J (74171c – p.433)+ FVH (MVF IV/75-2505) Note that the column count remains the same as in the FVH edition but that a different (column-specific) line count is used – the original, accumulative FVH line count has been added in the last column. All entries underlined. Obverse I 1’FVH 7a026 7a027 2’ 3’ 7a028 7a029 4’ 5’ 7a030 7a031 6’ 7a032 7’ 8’ 7a033 9’ 7a034 7a035 10’ 7a036 11’ 12’ 7a037 13’ 7a038 7a039 14’ 7a040 15’ 7a041 16’ 7a042 17’ 18’ 7a043 19’ 7a044 20’ 7a045 21’ 7a046

KUŠ┐ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ K UŠ

[ ]

KUŠ┐ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ

KUŠ KUŠ

[DÀRA MAŠ.DÀ] ┌ ┐ MAŠ .[DÀ] AMAR MAŠ.[DÀ] ŠEG 8 ŠEG 8 MAŠ<.DÀ> LU.LIM A.LIM UDU TIL └ MAŠ/BAR ┘ MUŠEN.NA [MAŠ/BAR MUŠ]EN.NA KUR.RA D┌ ┐ NIN .KILIM D NIN.KA 6 BAR.BAR ┘ D ┐ NIN.KA 6 ÍB.BA D NIN.KA 6 TIR.RA D NIN.KA 6 EDIN.NA PÉŠ PÉŠ TUR ĜIŠ PÉŠ GI ĜIŠ PÉŠ GI.GI ĜIŠ PÉŠ ÙR.RA PÉŠ A.ŠAG 4 .GA

141

11037 11039 11040 11030 11031 11033 11032 11052 11053 11054 11055 11056 11057 11058 11059 11062 11063

30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

Part 1 - Text Edition 22’ 23’ 24’ 25’ 26’ 27’ 28’ 29’ 30’ 31’ break II 1’FVH 2’ 3’ 4’ 5’ 6’ 7’ 8’ 9’ 10’ 11’ 12’ 13’ 14’ 15’ 16’ 17’ 18’ 19’ 20’ 21’ 22’ 23’ 24’ 25’ 26’ 27’ 28’ 29’ break III 1’FVH 2’ 3’ 4’ 5’

7a047 7a048 7a049 7a050 7a051 7a052 7a053 7a054 7a055 7a057

7a081b 7a081c 7a081d 7a082 7a083 7a084 7a085 7a086 7a087 7a088 7a089 7a090 7a091 7a092 7a093 7a094 7a095 7a096 7a097 7a098 7a099 7a100 7a101 7a102 7a103 7a104 7a105 7a106 7a107

7a133 7a134 7a135 7a136 7a137

KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ

KUŠ

[K]UŠ [KUŠ] [KUŠ] [KUŠ

KUŠ┐ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ

[KUŠ] KUŠ┐

KUŠ KUŠ

KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ

KUŠ

KUŠ KUŠ

KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ

[KUŠ] [KUŠ

[KUŠ] KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ



SÌLA GAZ.ZA GÙN.NU.A PÉŠ NÍĜ MA PÉŠ ŠEG 8 UDU UDU BABBAR GUKKAL ÙZ └ MUNUS ÉŠ.GÀR ANŠE KUR]. └ RA ┘

11067 11064 11070 11071 11073 11075 11077 11045

51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 61

┐

11103 11108 11109 11110 11111 11113 114-6 11115 11119 11122 11126 11127 11136 -

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117

11192 11187 11193 -

147 148 149 150 151

┌

KUKKU 5 SU 4 .A GÙN.NU.A NÍĜ.BÙR.BÙR É.MÁ.URU 5 DAL.ÚŠ Á DAL.ÚŠ UŠ(!DABAŠIN=KU 7 ) À UŠ(!DABAŠIN) DA.BA(!DABAN=KU 7 ) ◦Á DA.BA(!DABAN) Š[U].HU.UM ┌ ┐ LÁ .LÁ HAR LÁ.LÁ MURUB 4 L◦Á.LÁ E.SÍR E.SÍR DU 8┘ E.SÍR ÍB E.SÍR IM.MA E.SÍR MUNUS <> <.E.NE> E.SÍR <É.>PA.NA<> E.SÍR ŠU.KAM.MA DA E.SÍR UMBIN E.SÍR DA.LÁ ÉLLAĜ.KUŠ(!ELLAMKUŠ X ) GAL 4 .LA ÍB ÍB] └ KALAG ┘ .GA

┌

┐

DÙG .G[AN ŠU.KAM.MA] ┌ ┐┌ ┐ DÙG.GAN GI . DUB [.BA] DÙG.GAN PA(!MAŠ>.TAB.BA DÙG.GAN AN.TI.B[AL] 248 BAR <ÈD.> .D[È(NE)]

142

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 7a (canonical tablets XI-XII) KUŠ 6’ AN.TI 7a139 KUŠ 7’ 7a140 Á.SI KUŠ 8’ 7a141 Á.<SI NÍĜ.>GAL(!ĜÁL) KUŠ ĜIŠ 9’ 7a142 Á.SI IG KUŠ ĜIŠ 10’ 7a143 ÍB IG KUŠ 11’ 7a144 TÙN KUŠ 7a145 12’ TÙN MUNUS KUŠ 7a146a 13’ AL.HÁB 7a146b AL.HÁB.AL.HAB 14’ KUŠ 7a147 15’ LÚ KUŠ 16’ 7a148 LÚ GÚ È.A KUŠ 7a149 17’ LÚ HI.A KUŠ 7a150 18’ LU.ÚB KU[Š] 7a151 LU.ÚB MAR.TU 19’ KU[Š] 20’ 7a152 └ LU ┘ .ÚB SÍK KU[Š LU.] └ ÚB PA.TI.RUM 21’ 7a153 KU[Š 7a154 22’ LU.Ú]B PA.TI.HA.TUM Š ┌ ┐ ┌ ┐┌ ┐ KU 7a155a LU . ÚB . Ì .[ĜIŠ] 23’ KU Š 7a155b 24’ LU.ÚB Ì.ĜIŠ KU Š 7a156 25’ SAĜ SI KU Š 7a157 26’ SAĜ TA KU Š 7a158 27’ SAĜ SI.SÁ 7a159 28’J [KU]Š ŠÌR.ŠÌR 7a160 29’ [KU]Š HAR ŠÌR.ŠÌR KUŠ 7a161 30’ [ MURU]B 4 ŠÌR.ŠÌR 7a162 31’ [KU]Š ĜÍR.TAB] ANŠE KUŠ 7a163 32’ [ HÁŠ.TAB A]NŠE 7a164 33’ [KUŠ GÚ.TAB A]NŠE probably 1 line missing before end of column

143

11246 11260 11262 11263 11194 11195 11196 11197 11199 11200 11201 -

152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179

Part 1 - Text Edition IV 1’FVH 7a193 2’ 7a194a 3’ 7a194b 4’ 7a195 5’ 7a196 6’ 7a197 7a198 7’ 8’ 7a199 9’ 10’ 7a200a 7a200b 11’ 7a200c 12’ 7a200d 13’ 7a200e 14’ 15’ 7a201 7a202 16’ 7a203 17’J 7a204 18’ 7a205 19’ 7a206 20’ 7a207 21’ 7a208 22’ 7a209 23’ 24’ 7a210 7a211 25’ 7a212 26’ 7a213 27’ 28’ 7a214 7a215 29’ end of column V 1’J 2’ 3’ 4’ 7a221 5’ 7a222 6’ 7a223 7’ 7a224 7a225 8’ 9’ 7a226 10’ 7a227 11’ 7a228 12’ 7a229 7a230 13’ 14’ 7a231 15-6’ 7a232 17’ 7a233 18’ 7a234 end of column

-

URUDU URUDU URUDU URUDU URUDU U RUDU

[ ] [URUDU UR UDU

[

URUDU┐ URUDU URUDU

-

URUDU URUDU URUDU

-

URUDU URUDU

-

URUDU URUDU URUDU URUDU URUDU

K[Ù.KAM] A.[GAR 5 ] A.[GAR 5 ] GAG A[.GAR 5 ] ŠIM ┘ [.BI.ZI.DA] ŠI M [NA 4 SAHAR] IM S AHAR B[ABBAR KUR.RA] IM SAHAR KUKKU 5 [KUR.RA] I M [...] I M [BABBAR] ┐ I M KUKKU 5 I M SU 4 .A I M GÙN.NU.A I M SIG 7 .SIG 7 I M KAL.LA I M KAL.LA.DA [I]M DUR(!GÚ) [I]M DUR(!GÚ) EN.NA [P]IŠ 10 ÍD LÚ.ÙR(!RU).DUR(!GÚ) [K]I-A(!ÚH) ÍD LÚ.ÙR(!RU).DUR(!GÚ) ┐ E (!Á).LÁ ÍD.DA URUDU KALAG.GA NÍĜ.KALAG.GA ZA.RÍ.IN.NU HU.LUH.HA NÍĜ.HU.LUH.HA KU 7 (!IŠ)<.MA>.NA DI]LMUN.NA

...] [...] x[...] ŠUK[UR]

┐

ŠUKUR GAL ŠEN AL.KU SU.E.NE ZAG KU ZAG ME GAG IR IR GAG x ŠUM.GAM.ME ŠUM.GAM.ME TUR ŠEN GÁxIGI ŠÌR.ŠÌR HAR ŠÌR.ŠÌR MURUB 4 ŠÌR.ŠÌR

144

11296 11299 idem 11302 11305-7 11310 11311 11312 ? 11314 11316 11317 11318 11320 11322 11324 11327 11328 11329 11331 11332 11333-4 11335 11336 11337 11340-1

210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 -

? ? ? 11379 11380 11427 11428-9 11gEc3 11gEc4

-

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 7a (canonical tablets XI-XII) Reverse VI 1.J 7a235 2. 7a236 3. 7a237 4. 7a238 5. 7a239 6 7a240 7. 7a241 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. break VII 7a262 1.J 2. 7a263 3. 7a264 4. 7a265 5. 7a265 break VIII 1.J 7a304 2. 7a305 FVH 7a306 3. 4. 7a307 5. 7a308 6 7a309 7. 7a310 8. 7a311 9. 7a312 10. 7a313 break IX 1.FVH 7a345 2. 7a346 3. 7a347 4. 7a348 5. 7a349 6. 7a350 7. 7a351 8. 7a352 9. 7a353 10. 7a354 11. 7a355 12. 7a356 13. 7a357 break

?

URUDU

SIKI NIĜ .GI.NA UR NIĜIN ALAN D LÀMA └ KI.GAL DU 8 D]U 8 MAH

URUDU URUDU URUDU

└

URUDU

[URUDU] [URUDU [URUDU [URUDU [URUDU [URUDU [URUDU

x] GAG-GA x] GAG-GA x] GAL x] TUR x] ZU

[?ĜÍR MUHALDIM] [ĜÍR] ┌NÍĜ┐.┌GU 7 ┐.┌A [Ĝ]ÍR GI KA(!GU 7 )<.A> ĜÍR NUNDUN(!BIBRA=HÚL) ĜÍR ┘ AD ┘ .K[ID

ZABAR ZABAR ZABAR

└

ZABAR

┘

ZABA R

[

]

ZABAR

KAM.KAM.MA.TUM IN.ZA.AB.TUM T U.DI.IT.TUM S U(!ŠU).GUR EŠ .GUR D ÁLA Š UKUR MA.[ S]Á. └ AB ┘ NÍ[Ĝ. ĜEŠTUG └ NÍĜ ┘ [.ĜEŠTUG.ZA.NA

ZABAR ZABAR

ZABAR ZABAR

┘

Z ABAR

[ ] [ZABAR] ZABAR ] ZABAR ]

┐

ZAG ÉŠ [.LÁ] ! GÚ .HAŠ DUR(!GÚ) HAŠ TI.LIM.DA NÍĜ.DÚR.BÙR NÍĜ.ĜEŠTUG NÍĜ<ĜEŠTUG>.A(!ZA).NA UŠ 11 (KAxBAD)(!BULUG=BAD) HAR HAR ŠU HAR GÌR HAR G[Ú HAR [GAZ.BA

145

┌KUG┐ .BABBAR

[

KUG.BABBAR KUG.BABBAR KUG.BABBAR KUG.BABBAR KUG.BABBAR KUG.BABBAR KUG.BABBAR KUG.BABBAR KUG.BABBAR

┘

[KUG.BABBAR] KUG.BABBAR ] KUG.BABBAR ]

]

? ? ?

-

12gBa

-

12100 12101 12095 12097 12098-9 12102 12103 -

1’ 2’ 3’ 4’ 5’ 6’ 7’ 8’ 9’ 10’

12201-2 12203 12204 12205 12206 ?

43’ 44’ 45’ 46’ 47’ 48’ 49’ 50’ 51’ 52’ 53’ 54’ 55’

Part 1 - Text Edition X 1.FVH 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. break

7a378d 7a378e 7a378f 7a378g 7a378h 7a378i 7a378j 7a378k 7a378l 7a379 7a380 7a381 7a382 7a383 7a384 7a385 7a386 7a387 7a388 7a389 7a390 7a391 7a392 7a393 7a394 7a395 7a396 7a397 7a398

[KUG.GI [KUG.GI [KUG.GI] [KUG.GI] [KUG.GI] [KUG.GI]

4 TA.À]M 5 T]A.ÀM ◦6 TA.ÀM 7 TA.ÀM 8 TA.ÀM 9 TA.ÀM 10 TA.ÀM 11 TA.ÀM 12 TA.ÀM

┌KUG.GI┐ KUG.GI KUG.GI

GAL ZA.HUM AM.MA.AM ŠA.Ú.ŠA DUG DUG ÙSAN(!LAHTAN) HA.RA ŠU ÉŠ.LÁ ZAG ÉŠ.LÁ ! GÚ .HAŠ DUR(!GÚ). └ HAŠ ┘ [TUR TI.LIM.D[A NÍĜ.DÚR.BÙR [ NÍĜ.ĜEŠTUG[ NÍĜ<.ĜEŠTUG>.A(!ZA).N[A BULUG [ HAR [ HAR [ŠU HAR [GÌR HAR [GÚ

146

KUG.GI KUG.GI KUG.GI

KUG.GI KUG.GI KUG.GI

KUG.GI

┘

KUG. GI

[ ] KUG.GI ] KUG.GI ] KUG.GI ] KUG.GI ] KUG.GI ] KUG.GI ] KUG.GI ] KUG.GI ] KUG.GI ] KUG.GI ]

12263 12262 12261 12260 12259 12258 12288 12289 12348 12302-3 12304 12305 12306 12307

87’ 88’ 89’ 90’ 91’ 92’ 93’ 94’ 95’ 96’ 97’ 98’ 99’ 100’ 101’ 102’ 103’ 104’ 105’ 106’ 107’ 108’ 109’ 110’ 111’ 112’ 113’ 114’ 115’

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 7a (canonical tablets XI-XII) Fragments: all entries underlined 548 Q 249 (731084z – p.164) only one column preserved Obverse (Reverse has only isolated signs belonging to unidentified entries) ┌ ┐┌ ┐┌ ┐ 1’ 7a233 [URUD]U HAR ŠÌR . ŠÌR URUD U 2’ 7a234 [ ] MURUB 4 ŠÌR.ŠÌR 3’ 7a235 [URUD]U HÉ(!SIKI) NÍĜ.GI.NA URUDU 4’ 7a236 [ ] └ UR NÍĜIN.NA 5’ 7a237 [URUDU A]LAN ◦D 6’ 7a238 [URUDU] LÀMA 7’ 7a239 [URUDU KI.]GAL 548-9 W 250 (74128o – p.330) Obverse II’ (I’ only has a few traces of unidentified entries) ┌ ŠEN [x] 1’ [URUDU] ┌ ┐ URUDU ŠEN BÁN 2’ 7a242a URUDU 3’ 7a242b ŠEN 2 BÁN URUDU 4’ 7a242c ŠEN 3 BÁN URUDU ŠEN TAB.BA 5’ 7a243 URUDU 6’ 7a244 ŠEN TAB.BA NI URUDU 7’ 7a245 ŠEN TAB.BA DÙ.A URUDU 8’ 7a246 ŠEN DÙ.A ? URUDU 9’ 7a247 ŠEN DU.Ú[S .SA] Reverse III’ 1’ 7a254c [ZABAR 2’ [ZABAR 7a254d 3’ 7a254e [ZABAR 4’ 7a254f [ZABAR 5’ [ZABAR 7a254g 6’ 7a254h [ZABAR 7’ 7a254i [ZABAR] 8’ 7a255 [IŠ 9’ 7a256 [ÉŠ

147

-

? 11400 11404 el-l]u eb-b]u nam]-rù ]x-um š]a-ap-pu k]a-ak-ku D

UTU

Z ABAR

] ]

Z ABAR

-

Part 1 - Text Edition Division 7 (canonical XI-XII) Version B (bilingual) 7b Tablet 1 - 548 H (74166a – p.423) Reverse IV’ ┌ 1’ 7a153 [KU]Š MIN┐┌PA┐[.TI.RUM 2’ 7a154 KUŠ MIN PA.TI.HA.[TUM KUŠ 3’ 7a155a LU.ÚB └ Ì ┘ . └ ĜI[Š 4’ 7a155b KUŠ LU.Ú[B Ì.ĜIŠ KUŠ 5’-16’ have (parts of) only break V’ 1’ 2’ 3’ 4’ 5’ 6’ 7’ 8’ 9’ 10’ 11’ 12’ 13’ 14’ 15’

[KUŠ 7a175 7a176 [KUŠ] 7a177 [K]UŠ KUŠ 7a178 7a179(a) KUŠ 7a179(b) KUŠ KUŠ 7a180 +7b019 KUŠ +7b020 KUŠ KUŠ 7a181 +7b021 KUŠ - 251 7a182 7a183 7a184 +7b022 -

BAR.BAR] ┌

┐

BAR ŠAH BAR SIKI UL.LU.LUM UL.LU.BU UL.LI.BU ! DA.BI.HU ĜIŠ TÙN.LÁ SIKI GÀR.BA SI.ĜAR ŠE.GÍN ŠE.GÍN SIG 5 .GA ŠE.GÍN KUG.GI ŠE.GÍN KUG.GA

...] ...] ...] ...]

11197 11199 11200 11201

pá!-ru pár ši-hí-i ku-ur-ši-il-lu maš-ka! ti-zi? maš-ka ul-lu-bu maš-ka el-li-bu maš-ka ṭa-bi-hi ka-ar ṭa-ba-hu la(-)aš-na-tu 4 maš-ka kàr-ri maš-ka si-gar-ri ši-in-du 4 MIN da-mi-i[q-tu 4 ] MIN hu ┘ [-ra-ṣi] M[IN ...]

11272 11273 11276 11277 11281 11292 11284 11285 11287 11286

16’-18’ have (parts of) AN only break VI’ 1’-4’ have a few signs of the Akkadian column for some unidentified entries (see Arnaud 548 Annexe VI) 5’ [MAN] MAN MAN 252 Colophon 6’ [ŠU Izu-]ba-la [(By) the hand of Zu]-Bacla 254 , D DUMU IM-ma-lik son of Bacal-malik, LÚ LÚ 7’ [ DUB.SAR] HAL [scribe (and)] diviner 8’ [ša DIĜIR.MEŠ IRI] └ e-mar [of the gods of] Emar, D ◦D 9’ [ÌR é-a u ] dam-ki-na [servant of Ea and] Damkina, 10’ [?KAB.ZU.ZU ša 253 ] DIM-ma-lik [?pupil of] Bacal-malik 255 . visible rest of column empty

148

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 7b (canonical tablets XI-XII) Extract 1 - 39=548 C (73265 – p.52) – – right side with Akkadian equivalents possibly broken off, otherwise unilingual but in B version sequence Note that this is only lexical text not found in Archive 1 in Area M, instead it comes from Archive 7 in Area C 256 . In Emar VI is twice edited - once as individual text 39 in volume 3, and once within composite text 538 in volume 4. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. end

7a017 7a029 7a030 7a031 7a032 7a033 7a024 7a025 7a026 +7b004

KUŠ

-

11029 11030 11031 11033 11032 11034 11035 11036 11037 11038

PIRIĜ.[TU]R ŠEG 8 SA.PÁR LU.LIM 257 A<.LIM> ! UDU TIL DÀRA DÀRA MAŠ DÀRA MAŠ.DÀ DÀRA HAL.HAL

Extract 2 - 548 G (74148a – p.372) Obverse KUŠ 1. 7a041 PEŠ [ KUŠ 2. 7a042 PÉŠ T[UR KUŠ 3. 7a043 MIN ĜIŠ.┌GI [ KUŠ 4. 7a044 MIN ĜIŠ.GI.GA.┌A KUŠ 5. 7a045 MIN ĜIŠ.ÙR.RA KUŠ 6. 7a046 MIN ša A.ŠAG 4 .GA 7. +7b006 KUŠ MIN GI/ZI ┘ -GA KUŠ 8. 7a049 MIN ša NÍĜ.G[ILIM.M]A 9. +7b007 KUŠ MIN GÌR.HUL.A [ KUŠ 10. PÉŠ x[... KUŠ 11. x[... Lower Edge KUŠ 12. [... KUŠ 13. [... └ Reverse has a few traces in upper part only

149

hu-um]-ṣi[-ri] ...] ...] [iš-k]à-ra!-si [] ar-ra-[bi] h◦ar-ri-ri [] x x[] a◦r-da-ku [] ...] ...] ...]

11057 11058 11059 11062 11063 ? 11065 ? ?

...] ...]

? ?

Part 1 - Text Edition Fragments: 548 A (74103b – p.257) 1. +7b001 KU.UŠ 2. +7b002 KUŠ 3. +7b003 KUŠ KUŠ 4. 7a001 KUŠ 5. 7a002 KUŠ 6. 7a003 KUŠ 7. 7a004 KUŠ 8. 7a005 └

K[UŠ G[UD] A[M AM.SI [ AM.SI KUR.RA [

...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...]

SÚMUN ┘ [ SÚMUN K[UR.RA] └ ŠIL[AM

11001 11002 11008 11009 11010 11011 -

548 E (74104i – p.261) only Sumerian column preserved 258 ┌ 1’ 7a092(a) ┌KUŠ HAR [LÁL ...] KUŠ 2’ 7a093 ...] MURUB 4 [LÁL KUŠ HAR LÁ[L 3’ 7a092(b) ...] KUŠ 4’ 7a094 E.SÍR [ ...] K UŠ 5’ 7a096 [] ...] E.SÍR Í[B 6’ +7b010 [KUŠ] [ ...] E . SÍR KAM └ ┘ └ ┘

11114 11115 11119 -

548 F (74159k – p.405) 1’ 7a065a [KUŠ] 2’ 7a065b [K]UŠ 3’ 7a063a [K]UŠ 4’ 7a063b [KU]Š

11gAa5/7 11gAa6/8

┌

┐ ┌

┐

NÍĜ . GU 7 .A NU.NÍĜ.GU 7 .A

MIN : [...] MIN : [...] MIN [...] MIN [...]

AL.HI.A NU.AL.HI.A

548 I 259+260 (74156e – p.388) I 1’ [KUŠ ... [KUŠ 2’ ... KUŠ 3’ 7a015 [ UR.ŠUB 5 [KUŠ UR.ŠUB 5 KUD.DA 4’ 7a016 KUŠ 5’ 7a017 [ PIRIĜ.TUR 6’ 7a029 [KUŠ ŠEG 8 KUŠ 7’ 7a030 [ SA.PÁR 8’ 7a031 [KUŠ LU.LIM KUŠ 9’ 7a032 [ A.LIM [KUŠ UDU TIL 10’ 7a033 probably 2 lines missing 13’ 7a026 [KUŠ DÀRA MAŠ.DÀ probably 4 lines missing 18’ 7a019 [KUŠ KUD.DA] 19’ 7a020 [KUŠ KIR 4 ] [KUŠ KA 5 .A] 20’ 7a018 KUŠ 21’ 7a056 [ ANŠE] 22’ 7a057 [KUŠ ANŠE KUR.RA KUŠ 23’ 7a058 [ ANŠE EDIN.NA

...-š]i m]aš-ka pu-uš-↑li MIN nin-te-m]i MIN d]u-ma-mi MIN ni-im-r]i MIN q]a-du-ti MIN šap-p]a-ri MIN lu-li-]mi ...] MIN b]i-i-bi

? ? 11023 11028 11029 11030 11031 11033 11032 11034

M]IN na-al-ti

11037

┌

11041 11042 11043 11044 11045 11046

MIN┐┌gu┐-┌še┐[] MIN bu-ú-si MIN še-la-bi MIN i-mi-ri M]IN si-si-i M]IN └ si ┘ - └ ir ┘ - └ ri ┘ - └ mi ┘

150

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 7b (canonical tablets XI-XII) II 1’ 2’ 3’ 4’ 5’ 6’ 7’ 8’ 9’ 10’ 11’ 12’ 13’ 14’ 15’ 16’ 17’ 18’ 19’ 20’ 21’ 22’ 23’

+7b008 7a071a 7a071b 7a072 7a073 7a084 7a085 7a086 7a087 +7b009 7a091 7a092(a) 7a093 7a092(b) 7a094 7a096 +7b010 7a095 7a097 7a098 7a100 -

KUŠ

x[...

KUŠ

PAN É◦(!É PAN)[

KUŠ

NA.AH.BU NA.AH.BA.TUM PA.RU.TUM

KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ

DU 8 .A-ŠI(!ŠI.A) DU 8 ÚŠ Á DAL ÚŠ

KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ

KU

DA UŠ(!KU 7 ) KU Á DA UŠ(!KU 7 )

KUŠ KUŠ

ŠÚ LÁL HAR LÁL MURUB 4 LÁL

KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ

HAR LÁL

KUŠ

E.SÍR

KUŠ

E.SÍR ÍB MIN KAM

KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ

┘

548 L (74156b – p.388) 1’ 7a030 [KUŠ 2’ 7a031 [KUŠ 3’ 7a032 [KUŠ 4’ 7a033 [KUŠ 5’ 7a024 [KUŠ 6’ 7a025 [KUŠ 7’ 7a026 [KUŠ 8’ +7b005 [KUŠ 9’ 7a027 [KUŠ 10’ 7a028 [KUŠ 11’ [KUŠ 12’ 7a019 [KUŠ 13’ 7a020 [KUŠ 14’ 7a018 [KUŠ 548 M (74156a – p.388) 1’ 7a012 [KUŠ 2’ +7b004 [KUŠ 3’ 7a015 [KUŠ 4’ 7a016 [KUŠ 5’ 7a017 [KUŠ 6’ 7a029 [KUŠ

MIN DU 8 MIN IM.MA MIN MUNUS.E◦[.NE MIN ŠU.K[AM.MA [...

S]A.P[ÁR LU.L]IM A.L]IM UDU T]IL D]ÀRA DÀR]A MAŠ DÀR]A MAŠ.DÀ DÀR]A BAR(!HAL).HAL M]AŠ.DÀ AMA]R MAŠ.DÀ x]x .DÀ KU]D.DA KI]R 4 K]A 5 . └ A ┘

┌

┐

UR]. DIB U]R SIG 7

U]R GUG 4 U]R GUG 4 K[UD.DA PIRIĜ.T]UR ŠE]G 8

151

...] x]xx[x] na┐-ah-bu[] : na-ah-ba-[tu 4 ] pa-ru-tu 4 pu-šu-u as-pu : i-di! as-p[í] da-ba-š[i-in-nu] i-di [da-ba-ši-in-ni] ṣe-eh┐[-pu] ku-ru-u[s-su] ši-mar ku-ru-u[s-si] be-ri-tu qé-er-KU(!šu) še-e-nu še-nu ma-sa[-xx] še-nu qu-[...] pa!-ṭar-[tu 4 ] šá-hi-i[r-tu 4 ] ...] ...] ...]

? 11101/a 11105 11106 11107 11108 11109 11110 11111 11112 11113 11114 11116 11117 11119 11122 11126 ?

...] [...] [...] : b[u-ub-bu] : [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...]

11031 11032 11033 11034 11035 11036 11037 11038 11039 11040 11041 11042 11043

[...] : u[r-...] x[...] ...] MIN [...] : ku-x[...]

11025 ? 11027 11028 11029 11030

Part 1 - Text Edition

548 N (74122ae – p.309) – only Sumerian column preserved KUŠ ┐ 1’ 7a007 UR [MAH] KUŠ 2’ 7a008 UR NI[G] KUŠ 3’ 7a009 UR BAR.R[A] KUŠ 4’ 7a010 UR GIR 15 KU Š 5’ 7a011 [ ] UR TUR 6’ 7a012 [KU]Š UR DIB

11013 11014 11012 11020 11021 11025

548-9 O+‘AK’ (74148k+74172a – p.376+436) Obverse (O) only has a few lines of one column with (parts of) URUDU and some unidentified traces Reverse 261 III’ 1’AK [x]x.ŠA MIN(ZABAR) : za-[...] 2’ +7b037 [HÚP.P]É MIN : hu-up-p[u] MIN : ṭa-pí-h[u] 3’ +7b038 [ZA.B]I.HU 4’O 7a312(a) NÍĜ ĜE[ŠTU]G MIN : ú-zu-u[n-tu] 7a312(b) NÍĜ [ĜE]ŠTUG 5’ MIN : ka-li-t[u] 6’ 7a312(c) NÍĜ ĜEŠTUG MIN : ta-ši/lim[?-hu/tu] 7a313 : ník-za-nu[-ú] 12109 7’ NÍĜ .ĜEŠTUG>.ZA.NA MIN A MIN : šu-u[š-gar-ru-ú] 8’ +7b039 ŠU.<>ĜAR.R 9’ 7a297 ŠU ÉŠ.LÁ [MIN] : ┘└ nam ┘ [-...] 10’ 7a298 ZAG ŠU ÉŠ.[LÁ MIN ...] 11’ 7a291(a) └ ÁBxGÁN(!xDÚB=LILIZ) : li-l[i-is-su] ┌ 12’ [ÁBxGÁN] : ši-im[-...] 13’ [ÁBxGÁN … : ši]-im[-...] IV’ [... : x-ni┐[-...] ? 2’O MIN (=ZABAR)] MIN] +7b040 [GÍR.GAL : nam-ṣi-i[r-ru] 12045 3’ +7b041 [... MIN m]u-qar-ri-ir-t[u 4 ] 4’ MIN 7a291(b) [LI.LI.SU li-l]i-is-su 5’ +7b042 [... MIN še-l]i-ip-pu 6’ MIN qul-]mu-u 12125 +7b043a [ZA.HA.DA 7’ +7b043b [ZA.HA.DA MIN kal-m]a-ak-rù 12126 8’ 7a320 ṣa-al-]mu 12130 [ALAN MIN 9’ D [ LÀMA la-m]a-as-su 12131 7a321 10’ MIN 11’ MIN ki-gal]-lu [KI.GAL 12132 7a322 MIN ús-k]a 4 -rù 12133 12’ 7a325 [U 4 .SAKAR 548 P (74233g – p.541) Reverse only has 2 lines with a few signs belonging to unidentified entries (of colophon?) Obverse 1’ 7a208 [-] URUDU 11331 : i-ru-u 2’ +7b031 [URUDU ERE]N .NA : e-ri-in-n[u] URUDU 3’ 7a212(a) [ H]U.LUH : ù-lu-uh-hu

152

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 7b (canonical tablets XI-XII) 4’ 5’ 6’ 7’ 8’ 9’ 10’ 11’

7a212(b) +7b032 7a214 7a215 +7b033 +7b034 7a216 7a219

[URUDU [URUDU [URUDU [URUDU [URUDU [URUDU [URUDU [URUDU

H]U.LUH.HA IM.] └ MA.NA IŠ.M]A.NA KI

DIL]MUN.NA MÁ.GÁN.] └ NA ┘ ME.LUH.HA] NÍĜ.GÍD.DA] NÍĜ.HI.A

: ṣi-it hur-r[i] : im-ma-na-[ak-ku] : iš-ma-na-ak[-ku] : dá-al-mu-u[n-na] : ma-ag-g[a 5 -na] : me-luh[-ha] : ú-r[a-ku] :] bi-i[l-lu]

11335 11337 11340 11341 11343 11344 11347

548-9 S (74154 – p.361) – only Sumerian column preserved assumed to belong to Version B on grounds of recurrence of sequence (parallel with 548 O) Reverse 262 (the Obverse only has (parts of) some URUDU and a few signs belonging to unidentified entries) 1’ 2’ 3’ 4’

7a297 7a298 7a291(a) -

┌

┐┌

┐┌

┌

┐

ŠU . ÉŠ . LÁ MIN [ ? ZAG ŠU ┘ É[Š.LÁ] MIN [

...] ...] ...] ...]

l i-li-iš

[ ÁBxGÁN [ ÁBxGÁN

š im

548 V (74123a – p.312) I’ 1’-5’ only have (parts of) KUŠ KUŠ 6’ 7a169 TÙ[N KUŠ 7’ NI-IG-RU[ KUŠ ┐ 8’ 7a062a RÍ.IN GU 7 [.A KUŠ 9’ 7a062b RÍ.IN GU 7 .A KUŠ 10’ 7a064a AL.TAG.GA KUŠ 11’ 7a064b AL.TAG.GA KUŠ 12’ 7a147 LÚ KUŠ TÚG 13’ 7a148a LÚ GÚ.È KUŠ TÚG LÚ GÚ.È 14’ 7a148b KUŠ ! BALAĜ 15’ +7b014 KUŠ U(!BALAĜ).DI 16’ +7b015 K UŠ 17’ +7b016 [] Á LÁ ! 18’ +7b017 [K]UŠ NIR DUB.BA .A 19’ 7a021 U]GU.DAL(!DUL).BI [KUŠ 20’ +7b018 [KUŠ MUNUS U]GU.DAL(!DUL).BI

...] ...] ...] maš-┌ku┐┌MIN┐ maš-ku la[-ap-tu] maš-ku la-a M[IN] mi-iš-lu ša ┘ [...] ša bi[-...] maš-ku bu-lu[-ug-gi] maš-ka ti[-im-bu-ti] maš-ka a-l[e-e] maš!-ka dub ┘ [-dub-bi] maš-k[u ...] ma[š-ku ...]

11246-52 ? 11262 11263 11264 11265 11266 11268 11269 11270 11271

II 1’ 2’ 3’ 4’ 5’

hu-lu-hu x]x-is-t[u 4 ] x]x-┌a-tu 4 : el-mi-š[u] lu-lu-ú

11292/5 ? ? 11304 11297

7a192 7a193

[AN.ZAH UD/LÙ] [... [... [AN SUD Á]Ĝ?.ĜÁ [KÙ].GAN(!KAM)

153

Part 1 - Text Edition 6’ 7’ 8’ 9’ 10’ 11’ 12’ 13’ 14’ 15’ 16’ 17’ 18’ 19’ 20’ 21’ 22’

7a194 +7b023 +7b024 7a190 +7b025 7a196(a) 7a196(b) +7b026 +7b026’ 7a199 7a198 +7b029 +7b030 7a200c 7a201

[A.]AD(!?GAR 5 ) A-GAL [DÍLIM A.G]AR 5 [... [AN.TA.SUR.R]A [ŠIM.B]I.IZ [ŠIM.BI.Z]I.DA [ŠIM.BI.Z]I.DA [...] └ NIM [ŠIM.BI.ZI.DA SIG 7 .SI]G 7 [ŠIM KUG.GI [IM SAHAR KUKKU 5 KUR.RA [IM SAHAR BABBAR KUR.RA [... [IM GÙN.GÙN.NU [... [IM SU 4 .A [IM KAL

548 AA (74107l – p.272) 1’ +7b035 [URUDU 2’ +7b036 [URUDU 3’ 7a230 [URUDU 4’ 7a231 [URUDU 5’ [URUDU

… KÙŠ.KÙŠ] ŠUM GAM.ME] ŠUM GAM.ME TU]R

...]

a-ba-rù └ it-gur-ti MIN hu-m]e-ra a-ba-ri ṣ[a-r]i-ru 263 z[i-i]m 264 -bi-su MIN zi-da-ak-ku a-gu-ú GIŠ ŠE ni-ma 265 as-ha-ar š]ìp-pa qí-i]t-mu! a-nu-h]a-ru ...]x da-]a-‘[a-ma-tu 4 ] la-]◦a-hu-mu ša-a]r-ša-ru ka-l]u-ú

11299 11301 11300 11291 11305 11306 11308 11309 11312 11311 ? 11317 11316 11320

:]┌hir┐-ṣ[u] : ra-a-tu 4 : ša-ša-ru : nap-te-t[u 4 ] : du ┘ -d[ú]

11427 11428-9 ?

548 AB (74198q – p.488) – only Sumerian column preserved 1’ 7a133 [KUŠ] ┌GAN GI D[UB.BA KUŠ 2’ 7a136 GAN AN!.TI!.BAL KUŠ 3’ 7a135 GAN MAŠ.TAB.B[A 4’ +7b011 [K]UŠ GAN 2 TAB.B[A KU Š 5’ +7b012 [ ] GAN 3 TAB.BA┐ 6’ +7b013 [KU]Š GAN KI.KÉŠ.D[A

...] [...] ...] ...] [...] ...]

11192 11193 11187 11188 -

548 AC (74122ag – p.309) 1’ [... 2’ 7a199 [IM SAHAR KUKKU 5 KUR.RA 3’ 7a198 [IM SAHAR BABBAR KUR.RA 4’ +7b027 [IM SAHAR NA 4 KUR.RA

...]x[] qi-it-m]u a-nu]-ha-r[ù] ┐ N]A 4 ga-bi [-i]

? 11312 11311 11313

5’ 6’ 7’ 8’ 9’

ga-aṣ-ṣ[u] ha-a-pu la-hu-um M]IN? └ KA ┘ -GAR[x] ...]x 266 [x]

11314 11315 ? ?

7a200a +7b028 +7b029 -

[IM BABBAR] [IM DARA 4 ] [...] [... [...

154

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 7b (canonical tablets XI-XII) 549 AF’267 (74160e – p.409) – only Sumerian column preserved KU G.BABBAR 1’ 7a341 [DUG [ KUG. BABBAR 2’ 7a342 [D]UG ÙSAN(!LAHTAN) [ KUG. BABBAR 3’ 7a343 ◦HA.RA [ KUG. BABBAR 4’ 7a344 ŠU ÉŠ.LAL [ end of column

...] ...] ...] ...]

-

Fragments not used: The floating fragments listed here (most probably) all belong to the bilingual version but, because of their small size and lack of physical joins, there is insufficient context to allow for a reconstruction of the sequence in which their entries are to be ordered. 548 R (7481p – p.214) – fragment of multicolumn tablet, probably bilingual small fragment (of multi-column tablet) with only (parts of) some initial KUŠ and a few other traces 548 T (74198o – p.487) – only Sumerian preserved small fragment with a few signs belonging to unidentified entries, among which (4’-5’) some URUDU

548 U (74160c – p.409) – only Sumerian (perhaps also a few Akkadian signs?) preserved KUŠ 268 Ú◦R.ZÍ.IN.NU NU. [...] 1’ K◦UŠ ? 2’ MÁ.RÍ.ZUM GIŠ x[...] KUŠ 3’ NÍĜ.ĜÁL.L[A ...] 548 X (74128r – p.330) – only Sumerian preserved small fragment with only (parts of) some KUŠ and a few other signs, belonging to unidentified entries: 1’(probably) KUŠAMAR┐and 8’-9’ KUŠANŠE[ ...] 548 Y (74124b – p.318) I’ only has (parts of) unidentified Akkadian entries 269 II’ 1’-2’ have (parts of) KUŠ only KUŠ 3’ KA TA[B KUŠ GÚ TA[B ANŠE 4’ KUŠ 5’ IGI TAB [ANŠE KUŠ 6’ KA TA[B KUŠ UL [... 7’ KUŠ Ù[R.RA 8’ KUŠ 9’ NIR [... KUŠ KUN [... 10’ KUŠ KUN [... 11’ KUŠ 12’ x[... KUŠ ? 13’ PÉŠ [... KUŠ 14’ [... KUŠ A.ZU x[... 15’ KUŠ 16’ ÍB [...

155

...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...]

? 11057-69? ? -

Part 1 - Text Edition 17’ 18’ 19’ 20’ 21’

KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ

[KU]Š [KUŠ]

DA.BA [... Á MA.[... GÚ x[...

...] ...] ...] ...] ...]

[... TÙ[N xx

? 11246-52

548 AD (74122ah – p. 310) – bilingual but only Akkadian preserved small fragment with only (parts of) Akkadian of unidentified entries. Akkadian of line 7’, [...] ku-ru-us-si, should reflect an entry parallel to MSL 11113(/FVH 101) KUŠLÁL, but in that context the other entries are not in line with what is otherwise found in Version B (cf. 548 I II) 548 AE (7491m – p.227) – bilingual but only Akkadian preserved small fragment with only one identifiable entry: 2’ Akkadian MIN in-dú-hal-la-ti should reflect an entry parallel to MSL 11226(/FVH -) KUŠKUN.DAR GURIN.NA. 548 AF (7484b – p.216) – bilingual but only Akkadian preserved small fragment with only (mainly Akkadian parts of) unidentified entries; 5’ has Akkadian [... MIN] ◦a-ri-tu 4 , which could reflect an entry parallel to MSL 12046(/FVH -) GÍR GALZABAR 548 ‘AG’ 270 (74101v – p.246) – bilingual but only Akkadian preserved small fragment with only one identifiable entry: 3’ Akkadian └ mu-ša-ah-hi-nu should reflect an entry parallel to MSL 11393(/FVH -) URUDUŠEN DILIM 548 ‘AH’ (7481d – p.213) – bilingual but only Akkadian preserved small fragment taken by Civil (16) to belong to this division on semantic grounds: 2’ and 3’ have Akkadian : bu-lu-u[q-qu] and : ma-aq!-q[a-ru] respectively 548 ‘AI’, ‘AJ’ 271 (7484c, 7485l – p.216, 218) – bilingual but only Akkadian preserved (for ‘AI’ on both Obverse and Reverse) small fragments taken by Civil (16) to belong to this division on semantic grounds: among remaining signs are Akkadian [...]-us-su : ka-ri-su and (for ‘AI’) [... m]aš-né-e (those should reflect entries parallel to MSL 11113(/FVH 101) KUŠLÁ.LÁ and 11119(/FVH 104) KUŠE.SÍR respectively)

156

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 8a (canonical tablets XIII) Division 8 (canonical XIII) VERSION A (unilingual) 8a Tablet 1’ The source material is listed in the (alphabetical) publication order of Emar VI/4 but the provisionally reconstructed column count is based on the assumption that texts A, C and I are parts of one tablet (4 columns on each side with A Obv I-III/Rev VII-VIII and C Obv IIIIV/Rev V – text I might fit into Obv IV). Formal properties (size, ruling) and content (graphic repetition of key words - often left out in the bilingual texts) seem to bear out this assumption. For the reconstruction the canonical key word sequence is used (i.e. sequence UDU, US 5, UZUD, MÁŠ, SILA 4 , ZEH, GUD, ÁB, AMAR, ANŠE, DÙR, EME X ). All entries are underruled 550 A (731079 – p.156-7) Obverse I 1’ 8a001 2’ 8a002 3’ 8a003 4’ 8a004 5’ 8a005 8a006 6’ 7’ 8a007 8’ 8a008 9’ 8a009 10’ 8a010 11’ 8a011 12’ 8a012 13’ 8a013 14’ 15’ 16’ 17’ 18’ 19’ 20’ 21’ 8a014 22’ 8a015 23’ 8a016 24’ 8a017 25’ 8a018 26’ 8a019 27’ 8a020 28’ 8a021 29’ 8a022 30’ 8a023 31’ 8a024 32’ 8a025 33’ 8a026 34’ 8a027 35’ 8a028

[UDU NIGA.]┌SIG 5 !272 ┐ [UDU GÍR G]U.LA [UDU] GÍR AK.A [UDU] NÍTA [UDU] NÍTA <ĜIŠ> NI(!DÙ).A UDU UTUWA <ĜIŠ> NI(!DÙ).A UDU Ú UDU <> Ì UDU A.LUM UDU A.LUM NIGA UDU A.LUM NIGA SIG 5 UDU A.LUM GUKKAL UDU GUKKAL GUKKA[L x] GUKKAL [...] GUKKAL [...] G[UKKAL ...] [GUKKA]L [xx]x

[...]x [x]┌HU┐ x RI [UDU] RI.RI.GA [UDU] NA.RI.GA [UDU] ŠIR.RUM [UDU] KUR.RA [UDU D]IĜIR.RA Ì.GU 7 .A [UDU U]R.MAH Ì.GU 7 .A [UDU UR.BAR.] └ RA ┘ Ì.GU 7 .A [UDU SÌLA UR.BAR.]RA [UDU Í]B.GIG [UDU] ŠAG SUR [UDU] GÁN(!GAG) ŠUB.BA UDU GAN ŠUB.BA UDU UR 5 ŠUB.BA UDU DU 4 (!DU 7 ).DU 4 (!DU 7 ) UDU GUR 4 .GUR 4

157

13003 13004 13005 13007 13008 13010 13011 13012 13013 13014 13015 13023 13024-7 idem idem idem ? ? 13030-1 13032 13033 13035 13037 13038 13039 13041 13042 13043 13044 13045 13046 13047 13048

Part 1 - Text Edition 36’ 8a029 UDU DU 7 .DU 7 37’ 8a030 UDU NIM.NIM 38’ 8a031 UDU SAĜ NIM.NIM 8a032a UDU SA.AD.RA 39’ 8a032b UDU SA.AD GAL 40’ 41’ 8a033 UDU Á MURGU DA.RI.A 42’ 8a034 UDU ZÚ TAB(!SI).GA 43’ 8a035 UDU ZÚ SI.GA KUR.RA 44’ 8a036 UDU └ ZÚ AN(!SI).GA E(!MAR).TU 45’ 8a037 UDU M[ÁŠ Š]U.GÍD.GÍD 46’ 8a038 UDU M[ÁŠ D]A.RI.A 47’ 8a039 [UD]U G]AL? 48’ 8a040 [UDU KI.BI ĜA]R.RA 49’ 8a041 [UDU GÚ.BI ĜA]R.RA 50’ 8a042a [UDU] ŠÚKUR 51’ 8a042b [UDU] ŠÚKUR 8a043a [UDU ŠÚKUR DI]NANNA 52’ 53’ 8a043b [UDU ŠÚKUR DI]NANNA 54’ [UDU ...]x 55’ 8a044 [UDU MU.PÀ]D.DA 8a045 [UDU DIĜIR MU.PÀ]D.DA 56’ of next 8 lines only some final signs, belonging to unidentified entries, remain 67’ 8a046 [UDU ŠAG 4 IGI] KÁR 68’ 8a047 [UDU KI.]MAH 69’ 8a048 [UDU KI.MAH D]Ù.A 70’ 8a049 [UDU KI.MAH KALAG].GA 71’ [UDU ...] HA end of column II 1’-6’and 9’-23’ only (parts of) UDU preserved 24’ 8a050 UDU [G]IG.D[UG 4 .GA] 25’ UDU [x] BI [o] 26’ 8a051 UDU KI. └ BI ĜAR┐ 27’ 8a052 UDU ŠUM.MA 28’ 8a053 UDU ŠU ŠUM.MA 29’ 8a054 UDU ŠU GI 30’ 8a055 UD[U] └ ŠU GI┐.NA 31’ 8a056 U[DU] SÁM.MA 32’-50’ only (parts of) UDU and US 5 (U 8 ) and a few traces preserved 51’ 8a057 UZUD ŠAG 4 (!PEŠ 4 ) [] 52’ 8a058 UZUD ŠAG 4 (!PEŠ 4 ) ŠA[G 4 ] 53’ 8a059a UZUD Ù.TUD┐ 54’ 8a059b UZUD NU.Ù.TUD┐ 55’ 8a060 UZUD MÁŠ NÁ.A 56’ 8a061 UZUD MÁŠ DÙ(!DU).A 57’ 8a062 UZUD MÁŠ HUL.A 58’ 8a063 UZUD MÁŠ GA KAxSA(!SUB.)BA 59’ 8a064 UZUD ÍB.GIG 60’ 8a065 UZUD ŠAG 4 SUR 158

13049 13050 13057-8 13059-60 13067 13068 13069 13070 13071 13105 13113 13114 13122 idem 13123 13124 ? 13127 13128 13138 13139 13140 13141 ?

13172? ? 13146-8 13174 13192b-c 13192d 13192e 13190 13191 13192 13193 13194

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 8a (canonical tablets XIII) 61’ 8a066 62’ 8a067 63’ 8a068 64’ 8a069a 65’ 8a069b end of column

UZUD GAG ŠUB.BA UZUD GAN ŠUB.BA UZUD UR 5 ŠUB.BA UZUD BABBAR UZUD KUKKU 5

13195 13196 13197 13198 13199

III 1’-2’ show parts of SILA 4 (GÁxPA); 3’-8’ tentatively reconstructed in parallel to 3 pairs SILA 4 /KIR 11 in canonical version: 3’/4’ SILA 4 .[?UR 4 ]/KI[R 11 (MUNUS-[GÁxPA).?UR 4 ] SILA 4 .[?NIM]/KI[R 11 .?NIM] 5’/6’ 7’/8’ SILA 4 .NI/KIR 11 .NI[] end of column Reverse VII’ 1. 2. 3. break VIII’ 1. 2. 3. break

8a106 8a107 8a108

13256-7 13258-9 ?

AMAR ŠU[ ...] AMAR U 4 .[...] AMAR Š[U ...]

13348-9 13352-3 13348-9

DÙR AŠ.ĜEN DÙR KAŠ 4 .E └ DÙR ┘└ DA ┘ (!Á). └ DA ┘ . └ NU ┘

13381a 13381 13382

550 C (74240a – p.563) Obverse II only has traces and a few isolated signs III 1’ 8a070 [MÁŠ NÍĜ.MÍ.Ú]S.┌SA┐ 8a071 [MÁŠ NÍĜ].ŠU.TAK 4 .A 2’ 3’ 8a072 [M]ÁŠ HUL DÚB.BA 4’ 8a073 MÁŠ GI-NE LÁ 5’ 8a074 MÁŠ LIMMU(!SA).LÁ 6’ 8a075 MÁŠ SU 6 .LÁ 7’ 8a076 MÁŠ MAŠ DA(!Á).DA.NU 8a077 MÁŠ MAŠ GÚ.È.A 8’ 273 9’ MÁŠ x 8a078 MÁŠ NIM 10’ 8a079 SIL[A 4 ] 11’ 8a080 SILA 4 .GA 12’ 8a081 SILA 4 .GA GU 7 .A 13’ 8a082 SILA 4 .GA NAG.A 14’ 8a083 SILA 4 .GA GU 7 (!SUB).B[A] 15’ ? 16’ SILA 4 GABA [x] 8a084 SILA 4 GABA.RI.A 17’

13231 13232 13238 13234 13221 13236 ? 13240 13241 13242 13243 13244 159

Part 1 - Text Edition 18’ 19’ break IV 1’ 2’ 3’ 4’ 5’ 6’ 7’ 8’ 9’ 10’ 11’ 12’ 13’ 14’ 15’ 16’ break

8a085 -

SILA 4 U 5 ◦ 274 [x] └ SILA 4┘ x

-

8a086 8a087 8a088 8a089 8a090 8a091 8a092 8a093 8a094 8a095 8a096 8a097 8a098 8a099 8a100 8a101

[GU]D ┌ŠU┐G[I.NA] GUD AL(!Á).LÁ

13298-9 13302 13303 13304 13325 13315 13283 13282 13301 13307

GUD NIGA GUD NIGA SIG 5 GUD MAR.ŠUM GUD RI.RI.GA GUD NA.RI.GA GUD ŠIR.RUM GUD ENGUR(!ÍD) └ GUD NÍNDA [GU]D ÁB [GU]D SÁM.MA [GU]D KI-LUM(!ŠAKAKA) [GU]D KUN [GUD] ALIM.BU [GUD] PAB-NÁ ┘

Reverse V 1’-7’ only have some isolated final signs belonging to unidentified entries 8’ 8a105a 275 [ÁB] BABBAR 9’ 8a105b [ÁB] KUKKU 5 10’ 8a105c [ÁB S]U 4 .A 11’ 8a105d [ÁB GÙ]N.NU.A 12’ 8a105e [ÁB] SI[G 7 ] break

13339j 13339k 13339l 13339m 13339n

550 I (731080o – p.158) Obv IV? 2’ 8a102 [GU]D GA 3’ 8a103a GUD GA GU 7 .A 4’ 8a103b GUD GA GU 7 .A 5’ 8a104 GUD GA KAxSA(!SUB).BA break

-

160

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 8b (canonical tablets XIII) Division 8 (canonical XIII) Version B (bilingual) 8b Tablet 1 - 550 D (7520 – p.729) Obverse I 1’ +8b026 2’ 8a086 +8b027 3’ 4’ 5’ 8a087 6’ 7’ +8b028 8’ 8a088 9’ 8a089 10’ +8b029 11’ +8b030 12’ +8b031 13’ 8a101 14’ +8b032

[-- 276 ŠU.]G[I [-- ŠU.GI].NA [-- ] MAH [-- ].BA [-- Á].LÁ [-- ] GUD [-- TI].TI -- NIGA -- NIGA SIG 5 -- ÍB.LÁ -- AN.NA -- NÁ.A -- ZUBI -- DUMU DUTU

...] :┐[...] : MIN [...] : MIN [...] : G[UD ...] : x[...] : [...] : GUD [...] : GUD [...] : zi-[ib-ba-nu] : e◦[-lu-u] : x[...] : [...] : x[...]

13298 13299 13300 ? 13302 ? 13306 13303 13304 13309 13307 -

15’-16’ only have some isolated signs belonging to unidentified entries break Reverse VIII’ (total column count assumed to be parallel to 8a T 2, although the sequence found in I seems somewhat out of line) 1’ +8b046a MIN(=EME X ) 277 [MU ?3 ...] 2’ +8b046b MIN M[U ?2 ...] 3’ +8b046c MIN M[U ?1 ...] ...] 13382 4’ 8a108 DÙR ÈME x[ 5’ MAN TIL MAN [ TIL] Colophon ID 6’ ŠU 30-a-bu (By) the hand of Shaggar-abu, D◦ DUMU [IM.UR.SAĜ] the son of [Bacal-qarrad.] visible rest of column empty 8b Tablet 2 - 550 B (74102d – p.251) Obverse I 1’ 2’ 8a016 3’ 8a017 4’ ...

[UD]U ŠIR[ x [UD]U ŠIR.┌RUM┐[ UDU KUR.[RA UDU BÚR [x

...] ...] ...] ...]

161

13033 13035 -

Part 1 - Text Edition 5’ 6’ 7’ 8’ 9’ 10’ 11’

8a018 8a019 8a020 +8b001 8a021 8a022 8a023

UDU DIĜIR.RA Ì.GU 7 .E UDU UR.MAH Ì.GU 7 .E UDU UR.BAR.RA Ì.GU 7 .E UDU SÌLA UR.MAH UDU SÌLA └ UR.BAR.RA UDU ÍB.GIG UDU ŠAG 4 .[SU]R

vacat vacat vacat vacat vacat vacat vacat

13037 13038 13039 13040 13041 13042 13043

...] ...] ...] ...] [...] ...]

13051 13094 13095 13096 13097

break II 1’ 2’ 3’ 4’ 5’ 6’ break

+8b003 +8b004 +8b005 +8b006

UDU SIKI[ ... ┌ UDU SIKI [x] MIN [x UDU SÍL.Q[UM UDU TIR.[ZUM UDU DÌM.MA UDU DAH ┘ [.HU

Reverse VIII’ (provisional column count given by assuming number of missing entries to be similar to what is found in canonical version, i.e. about 300 divided by 50 entries per column equals 6 columns from middle of II to middle of VIII’) 1’-3’ only (parts of) MIN preserved 4’ +8b045a MIN(=EME X ) 278 HU.NU[.ME ...] 5’ +8b045b MIN HU.NU.M[E ...] 6’ +8b046a MIN MU [?3 ...] 7’ +8b046b MIN MU [?2 ...] ...] 8’ +8b046c MIN MU [?1 9’ +8b047 DÙR! LÁ-HÚB ┘ (!EME 5 )[ ...] 13382 10’ MAN TIL [MAN TIL] visible rest of column empty Fragments: 550 E (7522 – p.731) Obverse III 1. +8b009 GUD NÍĜ.ŠU.KAM.MA 2. 8a097 -- ŠÀM! 3. 8a098 -- GANBA 4. +8b010 -- KI.BI ĜAR.RA 5. +8b011 -- GÚ.BI ĜAR.RA 6. +8b012 -- bi-ga-ki:ŠÚKUR KAŠ.DÙ +8b013 -- na-aš-pa:ŠÚKUR KAŠ.ĜAR 7. 8. +8b014a -- KI DIŠKUR.RI 9. +8b014b -- KI DIŠKUR.RA 10. +8b015 -- ŠÚKUR 11. +8b016a -- ŠÚKUR DINANNA 12. +8b016b -- ŠÚKUR DINANNA

162

vacat vacat vacat vacat vacat : ša qa-ra-t[i] : ni-qi-i : ša DI[M] vacat vacat vacat vacat vacat

-

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 8b (canonical tablets XIII) 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24.

+8b017 +8b018 +8b019 +8b020a +8b020b +8b021 +8b022 +8b023 +8b024 +8b025 -

Reverse IV 1’ +8b033 2’ +8b033’ 3’ +8b034 +8b035 4’ +8b036 5’ 6’ +8b037 7’ +8b038 8’ +8b039 9’ +8b040 10’ +8b041 11’ +8b042 12’ 13’ 14’ 15’ 16’ +8b043 17’ +8b044a 18’ +8b044b 19’ +8b044c 20’ +8b044d 21’ +8b044e

-- ÈŠ.ÈŠ -- U 4 .SAKAR -- KI AN.NA -- KI DUTU -- KI DUTU -- KI DSUEN.NA -- ZAG.BI -- MU.UN.DU -- A.TU 5 .A -- ZÌG.GA MIN MIN [x] └ MIN ┘

vacat vacat vacat vacat vacat vacat vacat vacat vacat vacat vacat vacat

-

[x]x 279 [MIN NUN].NA [MIN GÌR NUN].NA [MIN] ERIN.NA [MIN B]ÁR [MIN] KUR.RA [MIN] EDIN.NA [MIN] ĜIŠGU.ZA [MIN] ĜIŠGIGIR [MIN] [ĜIŠMAR.GID.DA [MIN] <Á.>[BA]L<> [MIN] xxxx [M]IN [...] [M]IN [... [M]IN [... [M]IN NÍTA KAŠ 4 .[E [M]IN NÍTA M[U] 1? [ [M]IN NÍTA MU [?2 [M]IN NÍTA MU [?3 [M]IN NÍTA MU [?4 [MI]N └ NÍTA ┘└ MU ┘ [?5]

: pa-ru-ú : dá-am-dá-am-mu : ku-da-nu : ú-bi-ia-an-nu : ANŠE ṣa-a-bí : pa-ru-u : si-su-u : si-ir-ra-mu : ANŠE ku-us-si-i : ANŠE nir-kab-ti : š]a e!-ri-iq-qi : ba-lu-u ba-lu 280 : x[...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] : x[...]

13357 13358 13359 13373 13374 13362 13363 13364 13365 13366 ? ? ? -

...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...]

-

end of column 550 F (74146o – p.370) 1’ GUD [... 2’ GUD M[AŠ 3’ GUD MAŠ[ 4’ GUD MU[Š 5’ GUD ŠI.KI.I[N 6’ GUD LI.BI[ 7’ +8b008 GUD Ù.TU[D 8’ [GU]D Ù ┘ .T[UD

163

Part 1 - Text Edition 550 G (7476a – p.208) I’ 1’ 8a024 [UDU GA]G? ŠUB.BA 2’ 8a025 [UDU GA]N ŠUB.BA 3’ 8a026 [UDU U]R 5 ŠUB.BA 4’ 8a027 [UDU D]U 4 (!DU 7 ).DU 4 (!DU 7 ) [UDU GUR(!GUR 4 )].GUR(!GUR 4 ) 5’ 8a028 6’ +8b002 [UDU] AŠ-U [UDU DU 7 .D]U 7 7’ 8a029 [UDU NIM.N]IM 8’ 8a030 II’ 1’ UDU [... 2’ +8b005 UDU DÌM.[MA 3’ UDU GAL [... 4’ UDU SI-GA◦L x[ 5’ UDU x └ GAL ┘ [x] DÙ [ 6’ 8a052 UDU ŠUM.MA 7’ +8b007 UDU Š[AG 4 ] ŠUM.MA [ 8’ [UDU] xx ŠUM.MA x[ 550 H (74104w – p.263) UDU SI DIŠ MIN x[ 1. 2. UDU ZÚ SIG.ĜÁL [ 8a034 3. [UDU] xx ĜÁL KUR.R[A

164

vacat vacat vacat vacat vacat vacat vacat vacat

13044 13045 13046 13047 13048 13049 13050

...] ...] ...] ...] ...] [...] ...] ...]

? 13096 13146-8 13146-8

...] ...] ...]

13066 13067 13068

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 9a (canonical tablets XIV-XV) Division 9 (canonical XIV-XV) Version A (unilingual) 9a Tablet 1 consisting of: B= 551 B/552 A (7342 – p.38) C= 551 C/552 B (731086 – p.166) all entries underlined Obverse I 1.C 9a001 2. 9a002 break 1’B 281 9a003 2’-3’ 4’ 9a004 5’-6’ 7’ 9a005 8’ 9a006 9’ 9a007 10’ 9a008 9a009a 11’ 12’ 9a009b 13’ 9a009c 14’ 9a009d 15’ 9a009e end of column II 9a010 1.C 2. 9a011 3. 9a012 4. 9a013 5. 9a014 6. 9a015 7. 9a016 break 9a017 1’B 2’ 9a018 3’ 9a019 4’ 9a020 5’ 9a021 6’ 9a022a 7’ 9a022b 8’ 9a022c 9’-11’ 9a023a end of column III 9a023b 1.C 2. 9a023c 3. 9a024 4. 9a025

[M]UŠ [MUŠ SI]G 7 .SIG 7

14001 14015

[ŠILAM] KUR.R[A] [xx] [U]R BAR.RA ┘ UR [xx] ? UR [Š]AG 4 UR [N]IM UR KAL-SAR(!GUG 4 ) ! UR G[UG 4 ] KUD.D[A] [U]R [BAB]BAR [U]R [KU]KKU 5 UR [S]A 5 UR GÙ◦N.NU.A ? ? └ UR ┘└ SIG 7 ┘ . └ SIG 7 ┘

14060 ? 14068 ? 14072 14075 14076 14089 14090 14091 14092 14093

UR Š◦U [G]I UR H◦U.NU.A UR ME D └ UR ┘ < >ME-ME [UR] NIG [UR] KA [UR] A

14087 14067 14085

┌

AMAR [NÍĜ.BUN].NA BA.A[L].GI B◦A.A[L.GI TUR] ? ? NUNUZ x BA .A[L .G[I] ? AMAR BA .A[L.G]I KI[Š]I 8 KIŠI 8 KIŠ[I 8 ] E[H]

14219 14220 14220a 14221 14222 14352 idem idem 14249-53

EH EH EH A.ŠAG 4 .GA ĜIŠ EH KIRI 6

14249-53 idem 14256 14257 165

Part 1 - Text Edition 5. 9a026 EH Š[E] 6. 9a027 EH ŠE Ì.Ĝ[IŠ] 7. └ EH ┘ [...] break ┌ ┐ 1’B NIM [...] 2’ 9a028 └ NIM ┘ KU[R.RA] 3’ 9a029 [NIM U]R.MAH 4’ 9a030 NIM [U]R[.NIG] 5’ 9a031 NIM BAR.R◦A 6’ 9a032 NIM ┌GIR 15 7’ NIM [...] 8’ 9a033 NIM [ZÚ.]RA.[AH] 9’ 9a034 [NI]M A◦.[x] 10’ 9a035 [NIM] L[ÀL?] 11’ [NIM] x[x] 12’ 9a036 [NI]M Ì.N[UN.NA] 13’ 9a037 [NI]M N[ISIG?] 14’ NI[M ...] 15’ NA 282 x[...] 16’[...] BUR[U 5 ...] 17’ 18’20’ probably about 5 lines missing before end of column IV 9a038 BURU 5 MAH(!GÁN).NU 1.C 2. 9a039 BURU 5 MAH(!GÁN).NU TIR.R[A] 3. 9a040a BURU 5 IR.GI.LU[M] 4. 9a040b BURU 5 IR.GI.ZU[M] 5. 9a041 BURU 5 <> ŠÉŠLA[M](EN-ME!-L[I]) 6. 9a042 BURU 5 <> ŠÉŠLAM A Š[AG 4 .G]A [x] ŠINIG 7. 8 [x] DA? 9. [x]x A 10. [x] └ ŠINIG [x ŠI]NIG 11. break Reverse V 1’C 9a043 2’ 9a044 3’ 9a045 4’ 9a046 5’ 9a047 6’ 9a048 7’ 9a049 8’ 9a050 9’ 9a051 10’ 9a052

[NÍĜ.GI(!KI)].GI(!KI).A SU

[UZU S]AĜ.DU [UZU] SAĜ.KI [UZU] EME(!ME).ZÉ UZU

ZÉ

KA(KIR 4 ) KA(ZÚ)

UZU UZU UZU

? 14309 14310 14311 14312 ? 14318 14323 14325-7 ? 14328 14330 ? ? ? 14227-?

14235 14236 14239 14240 14237 14238 ? ? -

14403 15001 15005 15011-a 15012 15016 15019 15020 15025-7 15029-30

┌

UZU

14258 (14259) ?

EME A.Ú(!U 5 )

166

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 9a (canonical tablets XIV-XV) 11’ 9a053 end of column

UZU

?

A.Ú(!U 5 ) T[UR

]

15031

VI probably 8 lines missing U ZU 9.B [ ...] UZ U 10. [ ...] 11. 9a054 UZU [TI] 12. 9a055 UZU [TI.TI] 9a056 UZU GAG [TI] 13. 14. 9a057 UZU GAG [TI TUR] 9a058 UZU GAG Z[AG.GA] 15. 16. 9a059 UZU GAG ZA[G.GA TIR.RA] UZU [x] 17-20 UZU 21. 9a060 ŠÀ.M[AH] UZU 283 22. ŠAG 4┘ x[x] UZU ? Š[AG 4 ] K[UN ŠAG 4 .GA] 9a061 23. UZU 284 24. ŠAG 4 x[x] UZU 25. ŠAG 4 ĜAR x[x] UZU 285 26. ŠAG 4 x[x] UZU ┐ 9a062 ŠAG 4 NIĜIN .N[A] 27. UZU 9a063 ŠAG 4 ŠU NIĜIN.N[A] 28. 9a064 UZU ŠAG 4 LU.ÚB 29. 30. 9a065 UZU ŠAG 4 LU-AL-LU-NU 9a066 UZU ŠAG 4 ĜAR 32. 9a067 └ UZU ┘└ ŠAG 4┘└ TIR(!?SUL) ┘ 33. 9a068 [UZU ŠAG 4 (É.)NIN]NU([5]0) 34. break U ZU 1’C [ ...] UZU 2’ [...] 3’ 9a069 UZU NÍĜ.GIG.GI.A◦ 4’ 9a070 UZU UR 5 UZU 5’ [x] 6’ 9a071 UZU D◦A.NU 7’ 9a072 UZU DA.NU BAR.RA end of column VII 1.B 9a073 UZU DA.NU A.ŠAG 4 [.GA] 2. 9a074 UZU GAG 3. 9a075 UZU GAG TI 4. 9a076 UZU LU 5. 9a077 UZU TIR 6. 9a078 UZU TAB.BA 7. 9a079 UZU SA.A 8. 9a080 UZU SA.A GAL 9. 9a081 UZU SA.A SAL.LA 10. 9a082 UZU SA.A └ TI 11. 9a083 UZU SA.A MUD 12. 9a084 UZU SA.A UMBIN 13. 9a085 UZU ÚR

? ? 15081 15082 15083 15084 15085 15086 ? 15102-3 ? 15113 ? ? 15108 15108a-9 15106 15120 15121 15110-1? ? ? ? 15043 167

Part 1 - Text Edition 14. 9a086 15. 9a087 16. 9a088 17. 9a089 18. 9a090 19. 9a091 20. 9a092 21. 9a093 22. 9a094 23. 9a095 24. 9a096a 25. 9a097 26. 9a098 27. 9a099 28. 9a100 29. 9a101 30. 9a102 9a103 31. 32. 9a104 break 1’C 2’ 3’ 9a105 4’ 9a106 5’ 9a107 6’ 9a108 7’ 9a109 8’ 9a110a end of column VIII 1.B 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. break

9a110b 9a096a 9a096b 9a096c 9a111 9a111’ 9a112 9a113 9a114 9a115 9a116 9a117 9a118 9a119 9a120 9a121 9a122

UZU

15048 15065 15079 15gA 2 a 15209 15087 15248 15gCb

ÚR KUN BAR KUN UZU GÚ UZU GÚ MAH UZU DA.MA UZU Á DA.MA UZU MÁŠ SÌL UZU ? SÌL └ MÁŠ SÌL UZU ┐ MA .LA.KUM UZU

MA-A-KUM 286 [ ] AR◦HUŠ [U]ZU ŠIR [UZ]U GABA [UZ]U ÚS [UZ]U EŠ 287 [UZ]U SAĜ ZA-tenû [UZU] LUB.BI [UZU ]◦A └ LUB.BI [UZU ZI.IN.G]I 288 UZU

U ZU

[UZ]U K[A x] [U]ZU KA [x]

? ? 15090 15093 15037-8 15039 15217

UZU

ÁB TIR ME.HÉ UZU IGI UZU ĜEŠTUG<.2> UZU HAL.SI UZU A DUMU UZU

UZU

15217 15gAa idem idem 15gA 2 4 15092 15231 -

A DUMU ARHUŠ UZU ARHUŠ UZU ARHUŠ 289 UZU ÚŠ ÁB x UZU A SÌL ĜAR.RA UZU NÍĜ.NUNUZ GI.A UZU ÚŠ UZU LUGUD UZU Ì.<<SAL>>UDU UZU Ì.UDU GUD [U]ZU Ì.UDU UDU [UZ]U Ì.UDU ŠAH [UZU] LI.DUR [UZU] HA.LA UZU

[UZU]x A [UZU I]M.MA [UZU DAH.M]A.MAŠ

168

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 9b (canonical tablets XIV-XV) Division 9 (canonical XIV-XV) Version B (bilingual) 9b Tablet 1 consisting of: 551 A (A’+A’’=74137+74171a – p.344+428) 551 E (74123b – p.352) Obverse I 2.A’ 9a002 3. +9b004 4. +9b005 5. +9b006 6. +9b007a 7. +9b007b 8. break II 1’A’’ 2’ 3’ 4’ 5’ 6’ 7’ 8’ 9’ 10’ 11’ 12’ 13’A’ 14’ 15’ 16’ 17’ 18’ 19’ 20’ 21’A’’ 22’ 23’ 24’ 25’ 26’ 27’ 28’ 29’

+9b008 +9b009 +9b010 +9b011a +9b011b +9b012a +9b012b +9b013 +9b014 +9b015a +9b015b +9b015c +9b016 +9b017 +9b018 +9b019 +9b020 +9b021 +9b022 +9b023 +9b024 +9b025 +9b026 +9b027 +9b028 -

[MUŠ SIG 7 .SIG 7 ] [MUŠ KUR.R]A [MUŠ MAŠ.D]Ù [MUŠ Ú.NU.M]Ú.A [MUŠ DU-DU.ME] [MUŠ DU-DU.ME [M]U[Š? ...

: ar-qu : MUŠ HUR.SAĜ : ṣạ -bi-ta-nu : MUŠ ku-su-pá-ni └ : às-qu-du :] às-qu-du x]xx-du-bu

14015 14026 14032 14045 14046 14047 ?

[AMAR KIR 4 [SA.A.RI [SA.A] [?ÁB ZA.ZA ]x [?MUNUS ÁB.ZA.ZA]x [UGU.DUL.BI] [MUNUS UGU.DUL.BI

:] mu-r[a-nu] :] mu-ra-šu ┌ : šu-ra-nu : ap-šá-sa-tu 4 : ap-sa-sa-tu 4 ┌ : pí-gu :] pí-ZI(!gi)-tu 4 : ṣa-ba-ú : gu 8 -u : pí-ri-gál-lu-u : ni-šu : la-ab<-bu> : ni-im-ru : tù-du 4 : sa-pá-ru : lu-li-im-mu : li-šá-nu : bi-i-bu : tu-ra-hu : a-ia-lu : i-la-nu : na-lu : MIN : na-al-tu 4 : ṣạ -bi-tu 4 :] ú-za-lu : ar-wu : d]a-bu-u : hur-b]a-bíl-lu ...]x-ú ...-h]a-šu ...-]te-du

14106 14109 14108 14116 14117 14118 14119 14120 14121 14123 14125 14124 14135 14143 14144 14145 14144a-b 14142 14147 14148 14149 14150 14152 14154 14156 ? ? ? ?

a-su

AZ UG PIRIĜ PIRIĜ PIRIĜ P[ IRIĜ].TUR

SI(!ŠÚ)-NAGA(!ŠEG 8 ) SA .PÁR LU .LIM A .LIM u-du-t i-il :UDU IDIM

DÀRA DÀR[ A] MAŠ [DÀRA MAŠ.D]À [DÀRA HAL.HAL.L]A [MAŠ.D]À [AMAR MAŠ.DÀ

[DAM ŠAH [... [... [... [...

break

169

Part 1 - Text Edition III 1’A’’ 2’

+9b030

┌

3’ 4’ 5’ 6’ 7’ 8’ 9’ 10’ 11’ 12’ 13’ 14’ 15’ 16’ 17’ 18’ 19’ 20’ 21’ 22’ 23’ 24’ 25’ 26’

9a023a 9a024 9a025 9a026 9a027 +9b031 +9b032 +9b033 +9b034 +9b035 +9b036 +9b037 -

[EH EH [… MIN A. ŠA[G 4 .GA MIN [ ĜIŠKIR]I 6 MIN ŠE MIN ŠE Ì ◦ .ĜIŠ MIN Z[Ú.LUM].MA MIN ZÌ.DA T]ÚG └ MIN ┘ [ [MIN [SAĜ .D]U ┌ MIN┐[NISIG ] MIN [... MIN KU 6 [... MIN [... MIN [... ZA.[... ┌ ┐ ZA. RA .T[UMKKK UR 5 x[ 290 SU.D[IN SU.DIN.N[A ŠAG 4 KUN.NA x[ BAR [x] MIN [ UR 4 [... UR 4 [...

?┐ ┌

:[ ...] :[ ...]

? 14249

: kal]-ma-t[u 4 ] : kal]-ma-a[at …] : M]IN eq-[li] : MIN ki[-ri-]◦i : MIN ŠE vacat vacat : MIN ZÌ.DA.MEŠ : ṣu-┌ba-ti : └ MIN ┘ [q]a-qa-dì └ :[ MIN a]r- └ qi ┘ ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...]

14250-3 ? 14256 14257 14258 14259 14260 14266 14267 14254 14265 ? 14268-a ? ? ? ? ? 14301 idem ? ? 14280 idem

551 D (74190g – p.463) 1’ [x] ĜÁL [x] KUKKU 5 2’ 3’ [x KUKK]U 5 ? KUKKU 5 4’ +9b001a [MUŠ] ĜI 6 5’ +9b002 [MUŠ] NÁ.A 6’ +9b003a [MUŠ] BABBAR 7’ +9b001b [MUŠ] KUKKU 5 8’ +9b003b [MUŠ] SA 5 9’ +9b003c [MUŠ GÙN.NU.A]

[...] : sa-[al-mu] : sa-a[l-mu] : MUŠ m[u-...] : ṣa-la-lu┐ : pé-ṣu-u : ṣa-al-mu : sà-a-mu : ┘└ bur ┘ [-r]u-m[u]

? ? ? -

551 F (74160i – p.410) 1’ 9a022a [KI]ŠI 8 2’ +9b029a [KIŠI 8 ] BABBAR 3’ +9b029b [KIŠI 8 ] KUKKU 5 4’ +9b029c [KIŠI 8 ] SA 5 5’ +9b029d [KIŠI 8 ] GÙN [?.NU.A 6’ +9b029e [KIŠI 8 ] └ SIG 7┘ [.SIG 7

: ku-ul-[ba-bu] vacat vacat vacat ...] ...]

14352 14354 14355 14356 14357 14358

UP UP.PI

.

PU

break Fragments:

170

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 10 (canonical tablets XVI) Division 10 (canonical XVI) 10 Tablet 1 consisting of: 553 A (A’=74203e + A’’=74230a – p. 501+529-31) 553 B (74198af – p.490) 553 C (74242a – p.549) 553 D (74238o – p.560) 553 E (74209f – p.516) 553 H (74233s – p.544) 553 I’’ (74198y – p.488) 553 J (74107e – p.271) 553 K (74199o – p.495) 553 N (74200c – p.498) 553‘O’ (74204f – p.503) 553‘P’ (74199s – p.496) Obverse I 1.A’o 10001 2. 10002 3. 10003 10004 4. 10005 5. 10006 6. 7. 10007 8. 10007a 9. 10007b 10007c 10. 11. 12. 10008 13. 10008a break 1’A’’ 10009 2’ 10010 3’ 10011 4’ 10012 5’ 10013 6’ 10014 7’ 10015 8’ 10016 9’ 10015a 10’ 10015b 11’ 10015c 12’ 10017 13’ 10018 14’ 10019 15’ 10020

NA

4 KA.GI.N[A

4 KA.GI.NA.T[I.LA MIN SIG 5 .GA [ MIN ZÁLAG.GA [ MIN KALAG.GA [ MIN DIB.BA [ Z◦Ú.KÉŠ KA.GI.NA KIŠIB MIN [ LAGAB MIN [ ÉLLAĜ └ MIN ┘ [ [x E◦? .SA ESI(KAL) [ KI[ŠIB MIN

...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] : [...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...]

16002 16003 16005 16004 16006 16007 16008 16009 16010 16011 ? 16012 16013

001 002 003 005 004 006 007 008 009 010 ? 011 013

[SAĜ MIN(=ALGAMEŠ)] [BUR M]IN [ŠAGAN] MIN [ÚDUL MIN] šu-be : ŠÚBA X PA.RU.TUM DU 8 .A.ŠI DU 8 .A.ŠI MAR.HA.A.ŠI KIŠIB DU 8 .A.ŠI LAGAB MIN ÉLLAĜ MIN DAG.GA.ZUM MIN KAP.PA.TUM MIN U 4 .HI.IN MIN NUNUZ MIN

q[a-qa-ad MIN] pu-u[r-ri MIN] ši-ka 4 -a[t MIN] dì-qa-a[r MIN] : pu-h[i-ru] pa-ru-tu 4 : x[...] du-šu-u : x[...] : du-┌šu┐┌pár┐[-ra-šu] vacat vacat vacat tá-ka-as-su ṣi-mi-iṣ-ṣu ú-hé-nu ir-ni-tu 4

16021 16022 16024 16023 16025 16026 16027 16028 16029 16030 16047 16048 16050 16051

017 018 020 021 021a 022 023 024 025 026 034 035 036 037

NA

171

Part 1 - Text Edition 16’ 17’ 18’ 19’ 20’ 21’ 22’ 23’ 24’ 25’ 26’ 27’ 28’ 29’ 30’ 31’ 32’ 33’ 34’ 35’ 36’ break

10021 10022a 10022b 10022c 10023 10024 10025a 10025b 10026 10027 10028 10029 10030 10031 10032 10033 10034 -

za-ki-i[n]┌

: ZA.GÌN ZA.GÌN [DU]RU 5 ZA.GÌN [DUR]U 5 ZA.G[ÌN DUR]U 5 └ MIN ┘ [Ĝ]IŠ.DILI [MIN Z]AG.LÁL [ZA.GÌN GÚ TUMUŠEN] [ZA.GÌN GÚ TUMUŠEN] [ZA.GÌN GÚ UGAMUŠEN] [ZA.GÌN LU.ÚB.BANISIG] [ZA.GÌN ĜEŠTIN] [ZA.GÌN ANŠE EDIN.NA] [AD ZA.GÌN 291 [AD TAB ZA.GÌN [AD GÚ ZA.GÌN [HAL GÚ ZA.GÌN [HAL ZIG ZA.GÌN [... [... [... [...

II probably 6 lines missing [HAR ŠU ZA.GÌN 6.H 10042 7. 10043 [HAR GÌR ZA.GÌN 8. 10044 [HAR GÚ.GIL ZA.GÌN 9. 10045 [AŠ.ME ZA.GÌN [ŠU.NIR ZA.GÌN 10. 10046 11. 10047 [EŠ.GUR ZA.GÌN 10047’ [?HÉ.ĜÁL 292 ] 12. 13. 10047’’ [...

: uq-nu-u : ša-a-d[a-nu] za-ki-id-ru-u uq-nu-u el-lu uq-nu-u eb-bu ni-iš-di 12 -li-ik-ku pu-us-sà-at uq-ni-i qu-du-mu-uk-ku ša ki-ša-dì su-um-ma-ti ša ki-ša-dì e-ri-bi lu-up-pa-an-nu ka!-ra-na-nu si-ir-ra-ma-nu a]ṭ-ṭu-u a]t-tap-pu ]◦u-lu hi-i]-šu hal-zi-i]q-qu ...]x-tu 4 ...-t]u 4 ...-t]u 4 ...]↑ tu-ud-du ha-ar-ru

16052 16053 16054 16055 16066 16057 16058 16059 16060 16061 16062 16063 16072 16073 16074 16075 16101 ? ? ? ?

038 039-40 idem idem 041 042 043-4 idem 045 046 047 048 049 050 051 052 053 ? ? ? ?

16098 16099 16100 16104 16105 16107 -

076 077 079 -

16116 16114 16115 16117 16118 16119 16120

083 084 085 086 087 088 089

16121 16124 idem 16125 16126 16137

090 092 idem 093 094 095

14.A’’ 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.

10048 10049 10050 10048a 10048b 10048c 10051

[?gloss]BI[BRA ZA.GÌN [U 4 .HI.I]N MIN [ [NUNUZ] MIN [KIŠIB] MIN [LAGAB] MIN [ÉLL]AĜ ZA.GÌN [ NIM ZA.GÌN

ši-ma]-ar qa-ti ši-m]a-ar še-e-pí MIN ul-l]u ša-an-]šu šu-r]i-in-nu eš-g]u-ur-ru : hi-ig-lu ú-ṣ]̣ u-ur-tu 4 : ↑aš-tar MUL b]i-ib-ru-u ]◦ú-hé-nu ir-n]i-tu 4 vacat vacat vacat zu[-bu]

21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26.

10052 10053 10054 10055 10056 10057

[gu-]ug:GUG [G]UG ZI(!ZÚ) [G]UG ZI [M]IN<>MAR.HAL.LUM[ [M]IN<>MAR.HU.Š[UM ┌ MIN┐ GAZINISIG

s[a-an-du] [...] [...] ...] ...] [...]

172

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 10 (canonical tablets XVI) 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33.

10058 10059 10060 10061 10062 10063 10064

MIN GÚ.DU 8 .AKI MIN ME.LUH.HA MIN MAR.HA.ŠI MIN GÍD.DA MIN LÚGUD.DA MIN GAM.ME

34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45.

10064a 10064b 10064c 10065 10066 10067 10068 10069 10070 10071 10072 10073

KIŠIB GUG LAGA[B] GUG ÉLLAĜ GUG

46. 47. 48.

10074 10075 10076

MIN Á.KASKALxKUR(!DAL).LUM MIN MUŠ.SAL(!ĜÍR) MIN IGI MUŠ.SAL(!ĜÍR) MIN BABBAR DILI

49.

10077

[MIN] BABBAR └ MIN 5┘ . └ U ┘

50.

10078

[NÍR ŠUBA X

51. 52. 53.

10079 10080 10081

[NÍR KA.NI.IŠ [NÍR DAG.GAZ [NÍR ĜIŠ.DUB

GUG LAGAB

ni-ir

:NÍR :NIR 5 ni-ir :NÌR ni-ir

NÍR ZIZ NÍR [IGI [NÍR HU.LA.LUM] ┌ MIN┐[PA]┌MUŠEN┐[] MIN Á.LÁL.LUM

[...] [...] p[a-ra-šu-u] a[-ri-ku] ku[-ru-u] pu-u◦?[xx] pa-aš-k[u 13 ]

16130 16128 16129 16131 16133 16134 16135

096 097 098 099 100 101

vacat vacat vacat hu-la-lu [] hu-la-lu [] hu-l[a-lu] s[a-a-su] hu-l]a[-al e-ni] hu-la-lu┐[] ša ki-i-ma k[ap-pí] a-la-al-lu ma-ad-dá-al-lu

16140 16141 16142 16143 16144 16145 16144a 16146 16147 16148

102 103 104 105 106 109 107 110 111 113

mu-uš-ša-lu e-na muš-ša-li ba-bar-di-lu-u :↑ sa-a-su ba-ab-bá-armì-in-na a-]šu-ku-ut-tu 4 : nu-‘u-bu ka-] └ nu ┘ - └ ša dá-k]a-as-su ni-iš-d]u-up-pu :↑ nid-du-pu

16149 16150 16151

114 115 116

16152

117

16153

118

16155 16156 16158

119 120 122

...] [...] [...]

16159 16160 16161

123 124 125

...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...]

16163 16164 16167/8 16170 16171 16172

127 128 129/30 132 133 134

end of column III 1.Co 10065a NA 4 KIŠIB NÍ[R 2. 10065b LAGAB MIN 10065c ÉLLAĜ └ MIN ┘ 3. probably 1 line missing 5.H 10082 MIN(=ŠUBA) [GAL 6. 10083 MIN TU[R 7. 10084 MIN Á [ZI.DA/KAB.BA] 8. 10082a KIŠIB [ŠUBA 9. 10082b LAGAB ŠU[BA 10. 10082c ÉLLAĜ ŠU[BA

173

Part 1 - Text Edition 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

10085 IŠ.ME.QU[M 10086 HU-SI-BA [ 10087a aNINNI 5 (!?AMAŠ)-ME [ 10087b IA(!NA 4 ) NINNI 5 (!?AMAŠ)-ME [ 10087c IA(!NA 4 ) NINNI 5 (!?AMAŠ)-ME [

...] ...] ...] ...] ...]

break 1’-2’ have a few signs belonging to unidentified entries ┌ ┐ 3’K 10088 [BA]L NA 4 ta-aš-ri- ti 4’ 10089 [NU]NUZ ir-ni-tu 4 : ha-lu-l[u] 5’ 10090 [NUNUZ TU]R ṣi-ip-ru : ri-i[ṭ-bu] 6’ 10091 [NUNUZ G]Ú ni-ru 7’ 10092 [NUNUZ TA]B.BA ni-ru 8’ 10093 [NUNUZ GA.NU 11 ]MUŠEN ša pí-il lu-ur-mì break 1’’-2’’ have (part of) NA 4 only 3’’J [x] [NA 4 ] šu[-...] 4’’ 10094 [Z]É N◦A 4 ma[r-ti] 5’’ 10095 [T]ÉŠ NA 4 ba-a[l-ti] 6’’ 10096 []ARHUŠ N◦A 4 re-mì 7’’ 10097 []LÀMA N◦A 4 la-ma-s[i] 8’’ 10098 []◦Ù.TUD NA 4 a-la-dì 9’’ 10099 [N]U.Ù.TUD NA 4 la a-la-[dì] N 10’’ 10100 []PEŠ 4 .A [ N]A 4 e-ri-i◦ ┐ ┌ ┐┌ ┐ 11’’ 10101 []NU.PEŠ 4 .A [ N]A 4 la - a e -r[i] mu -nu-uš la-ra- ah 12’’A’’ 10102 [ N A ] 4 DU-DU(!?PAP.HAL 293 ) : [...] 13’’ 10103 D[U 14 N]A 4 ṣa-al[-ti] 14’’ 10104 [ SAĜ.K]I [ N]A 4 na-ak-kap-[ti] 15’’ 10105 G[AG ŠUB.BA NA 4 s]i-ik-ka[-ti] G[AN ŠUB.BA NA 4 ga-r]a-bi 16’’ 10106 17’’ 10107 MU[R ŠUB.BA NA 4 ha-še]-e D◦ 18’’ 10108 [DÌM.ME NA 4 la-m]a-aš-ti ? ┐┌ ┐ ]x NA 4 IGI.HI . A [] 19’’ 10109 D[U 20’’ 10110 [ĜÍR.TAB NA 4 za-qí]-qí-pí mu -un 21’’ 10111 [ MUN NA 4 ṭa-ab-t]i NA N ISIG? 22’’ 10112 ...] GAZI [ └ 4┘ end of column Reverse IV 1.A’’ 10113 2. 10114 3. 10115

[NA 4 ?]NAGA [I]GI MUŠ

a-ba-a[n ú-hu-li] [...] [...]

NA 4 NA 4

IGI KU 6

174

16173 16174 16175-6 idem idem

135 136 137 idem idem

16189 16190 16194 16191 16192 16280

148 149 150 151 -

? 16208 16212 16211 16213 16217 16218 16215 16216

? 165 166 167 168 169 170 -

16214 16210 16223 16225 16226 16227 16221 16231-3 16235 16236 16237

171 172 173 175 176 177 182 185 186

16238 16233a 16231

187 183 184

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 10 (canonical tablets XVI) 4. 5. 6. 7.

10116 10117a 10117b 10118

8. 9.

10119 10120

10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

10121 10122 10123 10124a 10124b

ki-in-ki-in

:K[ÍN [K]ÍN ZI.BU [KÍN] ZI.BU [ [KÍN Z]I.BU ŠU SI.[GA ] [K]ÍN AD.BAR [ KI(!KÍN) AD.BAR ŠU SI.G[A KÍN SI.MU.RU MIN BU.UH.RU MIN BÁHAR MIN ŠU MIN ŠU

break 1’I’’ 10125 MAR.HA[L.LUM 2’ 10126 MAR.H[U.ŠUM 3’ 10127 B[UR 4’ 10128 BUR ZA[G.GA 5’ 10129 BUR ŠU ZAG.G[A 6’ 10130 BUR SA[L.LA 7’ MIN [... 8’ └ MIN ┘ [... break 10131 IM.M[A.AN.NA 1’’D 2’’ 10131a KIŠIB [MIN 3’’ 10131b LAGAB [MIN 4’’ 10131c ÉLLAĜ [MIN 5’’ 10132 EME(!IŠKILA=ŠAG 4 xA).[DA 6’’ EME(!IŠKILA).D[A ... 7’’ EME(!IŠKILA).D[A ... 8’’ └ EME(!IŠKILA) ┘ .D[A ... perhaps 1 line missing 1’’’Cr [N]A 4 EME(!IŠKILA).D[A ... 2’’’ 10133 [NA 4 ]NA[.DÀ.A 3’’’ 10134 [N]A 4 NA.RÚ.A

...] [ z]i-i-b[u] └ MIN ┘ d]a-lu-uk-ku e-ri zi-bu a-d[i nàr-ka-bi-šu] e-r]i ad-ba-ri e]-ri └ ad ┘ [-ba-ri a-di → [<E/O> n]àr-ka-bi-šu] ┌ ┐ NA 4 [ K]ÍN s[i-mu-ri] NA 4┘ [ K]ÍN b[u-uh-ri] N[A 4 KÍN] └ pa[-ha-ri] N[A 4 ...] h[a-bi-ṣ̣u]

16239 16242 16243 16244

188 189 190 192

16248 16249

195 197

16246 16247 16251 16240 16241

193 194 198 200 201

...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...]

16269 16270 16271 16274 16275 16276 ? ?

216 217 218 219 220 221 ? ?

...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...]

16288 16289 16290 16291 16292 16293-5 idem idem

232 233 234 235 236 237-9 idem idem

...] ...] na-r[u-u]

16296-7 16299 16300

240-1 243 -

...]x-ku-u ...-k]u-u g[u-bi-la-a]k-ku-u gu-[gi-na]-ak-ku ni-ig-gi-na-ak-ku za-ki-na-ak-ku ur-ṣ̣u <e->li-it ur-ṣ̣i ṭù-u[p]-pa!-an-nu en-g◦i-iš-šu-u

? ? 16306 16306a 16308 16309 16310 16311 16312

? ? 250 250a 252 253 254 255 256

end of column V 1.A’’ 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

10135 10136 10137 10138 10139 10140 10141 10142

[NA 4 ... [NA 4 ... [NA 4 GÚ BI].LA┐ [NA 4 GÚ G]I.NA [NA 4 NÍĜ.]G[I.NA [N]A 4 ZA.GÌN.NA NA 4 NA ZAG.HI.LI.A NA 4 NA ŠU ZAG.HI.LI.A [N]A 4 DUB.BA.A NA ! 4 EN.KI.A(!ŠA 6 )

175

Part 1 - Text Edition 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18.

10143 10144 10145 10146 10147a 10147b 10148a 10148b

[K]UD.DA [Š]U KUD.DA []ESI

e-r[u-]tu 4 k[a-ru]-tu 4 [...] x[!ta-r]a-ak-tu 4 sa-ag-┌gal-lu mu-ha-aṣ-̣ ṣ̣i-[r]u ka-šu-ru-u ni-pé-šu

ESI ZIZ SAĜ KAL SAĜ KAL KA.ŠUR.RA KA.ŠUR.RA

19. 10149 SAĜ GIL [M]UD ha-aš-ma-nu 20. 10149a KIŠIB MIN vacat 21. 10149b LAGAB MIN vacat 22. 10149c ÉLLAĜ MIN vacat ÌL 23. 10150 DUR.ÙL tù-ru-u 24. 10150a KIŠIB MIN vacat 25. 10150b LAGAB MIN vacat 26. 10150c ÉLLAĜ ┘ [M]IN vacat N A [ 4 MAŠ.D]À 27. 10151 ma-aš-du NA [ 4 MAŠ.DÀ DU]RU 5 28. 10152 me-ši-il-tu 4 29. 10153 [NA 4 Ú.ŠU.U]Š<> me-ši-il-tu 4 N A ! NA 4 na -ri 30. 10154 [ 4 Í]D.DA 31. 10155 HÁŠ(ZIK).DÀ ha-aš-tu 4 ! 32. 10155a KIŠIB MIN vacat 33. 10155b LAGAB MIN vacat 34. 10155c ÉLLAĜ [H]ÁŠ.DÀ vacat 35. 10156 ŠE[ xx]x i-ia še-nu-u 36. 10157 ŠE[ xx]x NA 4 it-te-e 37. 10158 [...] NA 4 qa-te 9 -e 38. 10159 [...] za-áš-ki-tu 4 vacat 39. [...] vacat 40. [...] NA vacat 41. 10160 [ 4 AN.ZA].GUL.ME 42. 10161 [...]x al-le-g[u!] probably 2 lines missing [É]LLAĜ AL.LE.ĜÁ [...] 1’P 10161c 2’ 10162 šu-

ú [x]x └ ŠU ┘ .U 3’D 10163 [ŠU MÌN : šu-u]n-mi-in-nu : aš-g]i-gu-u 4’ 10164 [ÁŠ GIG 5’ 10165 [UGU ÁŠ GI]G : a-gu-zi-iq-qu 6’ 10166 [KUR.RA (!KUG.GA) :]◦e-ku-ru-u 7’ 10167 [KUR.RA : N]A 4 ša-dì-i 8’ [SIKIL.E.DÈ : N]A 4 te-lu-ut-ti 10168 9’ 10169 [SAĜ NU.SIKIL.D]È : NA 4 la-a el-li-ti 10’ 10170 [ÚĜ.GÙN :] pí-ri-ig-gu-lu-u about 4 lines missing to end of column with last NA 4 visible on B

176

16315 16316 16317 16318 16319-a idem 16321 16322

257 258 259 261-2 idem 263 264

16329 16331 16332 16333 16334 16335 16336 16337 16338 16339 16340 16341 !16342 !16343 16344 -

265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 !277 !279 281 -

16348-9 16350-1 16353 16354 16355 16356 16359 16360 16363

285 286 287 288 289 290 293 294 295

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 10 (canonical tablets XVI) VI 1’A’’ 2’ 3’ 4’ 5’ 6’ 7’ 8’ 9’ 10’ 11’ 12’ 13’ 14’ 15’ 16’ 17’ 18’ 19’ 20’ 21’ 22’ 23’ 24’ 25’

10171 10172 10173 10174 10175 10176 10177 10178 10179 10180 10181 10182 10183 10184 10185 10186 10187 10188 10189 10190a 10190b 10190c 10190d 10190e 10190f

26’ 10190g 27’ 10190h B 28’ 10190i 29’ 10190j 10190k 30’ 31’A’r 10190l 32’ 10190m 33’ 10190n 34’ 10190o 35’ 10190p 36’ 10190q 10190r 37’ B 10190s 38’ 39’ 10190t 40’ 10190u 41’ 10190v 42’ 10190w 43’ 10190x 45’ 10190y 46’ 10190z end of column

[Ú.BÍL [Ú [Ú NIĜ.BÙRU.BÙRU [Ú AN.NA <Ú> KI.[TA] ┐ ZI.BI [.BI.T]UM ZI.IB.[TUM] ZI.IB.BÁ[.TUM] ZI.IB.NA.T[U]M ┐ IA AR.TUM IA NI.BU GAG.GU 5 .UŠ GAG.GU 5 .UŠ BÀN.DA

ba-ši-]il-tu 4 ša-a]m-mu ša-a]m-mu pa-li-šu N]A 4 e-lu-u NA 4 šap-lu : zi-bi-bi-tu 4 zi-ib-tu 4 zi-ib-bá-tu 4 zi-ib-na-tu 4 i-ia ar-tu 4 i-ia ni-bu : e-la-lu k◦a-ak-ku-šu ka-pa-ṣu e-š[u-]u ! NA 4 t[a -]ka-al-ti NA 4 šu-[q]u-ul-ti NA 4 ta-k[a]l-ti ep-šu NA 4 šu-q[u-u]l-ti la-↑ap-tu 4 NA 4 ni-bi NA 4 bi-[l]a-at ┐ NA 4 ha-an-ša ma-né -e NA 4 er-bet-a ma-né- └ e NA 4 pí-ṭì-ir NA 4 iš-ra-a ma-né-e◦ ┐ NA 4 ha-al-še-re-et m[a-né-e] i-še-re-et [ma-n]é-e ha-mi-i[l-ti m]a-né-e └ ša ┘ [-...] ma-né-e ...] x]x[x] x[...]x pá-r[a-...]x šu-uš┐[-...]x : e-še-[re-et] : ha-[mi-il-]tu 4 : ša-l[a-aš-t]u 4 : ši-na ši-q[í-i]l : ši-qí-il [] : zu-uz : ½ GÍ[Ĝ] : ši-ni-pu : 40 GÍ[Ĝ] : pa-ra-as ṣa-ah-ru ! NA 4 ha-mi-iš-še-re-et i-še-re-et ut-ti ha-mi-il-ti ut-ti 3 ut-ti

ESI KI.MAŠ KI.LÁ KI.MAŠ.DÀ.A KI.LÁ TAG.GA HÁŠ BAR ku-un da-aš :1 GÚ.UN

50 MA.NA 40 MA.NA 30 MA.NA 20 MA.NA 15 MA.NA [10] └ MA.NA [5] └ MA.NA ┌ 4 MA. └ NA ┘ 3 M[A.NA 2 MA.┌NA┐ [m]a-na[ t]e-eš:1 MA.NA ½ MA.NA 2/3 MA.NA ki-i n-gi :10 GÍĜ ki-i n-ki ia :5 GÍĜ kii n-ki eš-še [ ] :3 GÍĜ g í g mi-na ] :2 GÍĜ [ [x ]x-da:1 GÍĜ [x b]a-ra:1/2 GÍĜ [x ši-n]a-bi:5/6NA.BI GÍĜ [x ]IGI 3 ĜÁL GÍĜ [15] U 20 [10] U 20 [5] U 20 [3] U 20

177

16398 16399 16400 16402 16403 16404 16405 16406 16407 16408 16409 16410 16412 16413 16414 16415 16416 16417 16418 16419 16420 16421 16422

325 326 327 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 339 340 341 342 342a 343 344 345 346 347 348

16423 16424 16424a 16425 16426 16427 16429 16428 16431 16432 16433 16434 16435 16437 16440 16441 16444 16445 16446 16448

349 350 350a 351 352 353 354 356 357 358 359 360 361 364 367 368 369

Part 1 - Text Edition Lower Edge (continuation of VI) 47’B 10190a [2] U 20 48’ [...] 49’ [...

ši-na ut-ti xx-ma ...-i]l it-te-ti

16449 ? ?

371 ? ?

LEft Edge (of Reverse) NA 1’’A’’ 10191 4 NÍĜ.NA 4 NA 2’’ 10192 4 NÍĜ.TUR.TUR 3’’ MAN

: a-ba-an ki-bit[-tu] : a-ba-an ṣ̣a-ah-hi-r[u] MAN MAN

16454 16456 -

378 379 -

[NA 4 KA.GI.NA TI.LA [MIN SIG 5 .G]A [MIN ZÁLAG.GA] [MIN KALAG.GA] [MIN DIB.BA] [ZÚ.KÉŠ KA.GI.NA

MIN ba]l-ṭu MIN SIG 5 MIN nam-ru MIN dan-nu MIN ṣa-bi-tu 4 ki-ṣi-i]r ša-da-nu

16003 16005 16004 16006 16007 16008

002 003 005 004 006 007

NA

...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...]

16088 16089 16089a 16089b 16090 16091 16095a

063 065 066 067 068 069 073

...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...]

? 16353 16354

? 287 288

: NA 4 šu-qu-]┌ul┐-┌ti la!-ap┐-[tu 4 ] : N]A 4 ni- bi : NA 4 bi-la-at : NA 4 50 ma-né-e

16415

342

16416 16417 16418

342a 343 344

10 Tablet 2 - 553 F (74248c – p.576) Obverse I 2. 10002 3. 10003 4. 10004 5. 10005 6. 10006 7. 10007 break II 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. break

10035 10036 10037 10038 10039 10040 10041

Reverse V’ 1’ 10161 2’ 10161a 3’ 10161b 4’ 10161c 5’-6’ 7’ 10164 8’ 10165 end of column

4 SU 6 LÁ [ZA.GÌN

IGI [MIN IGI ZAG.G[A MIN IGI BAR.R[A MIN SIG 7 .SI[G 7 LÁ IGI MIN MÁ.D[AL LÁ MIN HU[.BUR MIN

A[L.LE.ĜÁ KIŠI[B MIN LAGAB [MIN ÉLLAĜ [MIN

[... ÁŠ GIG [ NA 4 UGU ÁŠ G[IG

VI’ 1’

10188

[KI.LÁ TAG.GA

2’ 3’ 4’

10189 10190a 10190b

[HÁŠ BAR [ku-un da-aš:1] GÚ.UN [50 MA.N]A

178

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 10 (canonical tablets XVI) 5’ 10190c 6’ 10190d 7’ 10190e 8’ 10190f end of column

[40 MA].NA [30 M]A.NA [20] MA.NA [15] MA.NA

vacat : NA 4 pí-ṭí-ir vacat vacat

16419 16420 16421 16422

345 346 347 348

...] ...] ...] ...]

? 16237 16238 ?

? 186 187 ?

16244 16248 16249

192 195 197

Fragments: 553 G (74178a – p.452) 1’ [] ŠID [ 2’ 10112 [] NA 4 GAZ[INISIG 3’ 10113 [] na!-an!-ga-ab:[NAGA 4’ [x]xx [ 553 ‘Q’ (731082 – p.169) 10118 1’ [KÍN ZI.BU ŠU SI.GA 2’ 10119 [KÍN AD.BAR 3’ 10120 [KÍN AD.BAR ŠU SI.GA

e-ri zi-bu] a-di →nàr-ka-bi-šu e-ri ad-ba-]┌ri┐ e-ri ad-b]a-ri a-di→nàr-ka-bi-šu

553 ‘R’ (731089f – p.167) 10149c [N]A 4 ┌ÉLLAĜ┐[MIN 1’ 2’ 10150 [N]A 4 DUR.Ù[L? ÌL 3’ 10150a [N]A 4 KIŠIB DU[R 4’ 10150b [N]A 4 LAGAB DU[R 5’ 10150c [N]A 4 ÉLLAĜ DUR x[

...] ...] ...] ...] ...]

16333 16334 16335 16336 16337

268 269 270 271 272

553 ‘S’ (74148ab – p.380) 1’-5’ a few traces only 6’ 10139 [N]A 4 ? NA.ZA(!ZAG) H[I.LINISIG

...]

16309

253

179

Part 1 - Text Edition Fragments not used: 553 I’ (74127j – p.322) 1’ MIN┐(=BUR?)[... 2’ MIN MAR.HU[.ŠUM MIN NUNUZ GA.N[U 11 MUŠEN 3’ MIN BABBAR [ 4’ 5’ MIN ĜI 6 [ 6’ MIN SI 4 [ 7’ MIN GÙN.G[ÙN.NU 8’ MIN [... 9’ BUR SIG 7 .S[IG 7 553 L (74148v – p.379) 1’ [...] 2’ [...] 3’ [...] 4’ [... 5’ [... 6’ [... 7’ [... 8’

[...

...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...]

? 16270 16280 16283 16284 16285 16286 ? 16287

? 217 227 228 229 230 ? 231

: ┌MIN┐[...] ┌ : e-ri┐-i◦[] ┌ : e-ri-i [] :] e-ri-i [] : MI]N du-ši-i : MI]N muš-šá-li :] MIN bá-ab-AN(!bar)-di-le-e◦ ]x MIN

? ? 294 ? ? ? ? ?

? ? ? ? ? ? ?

?

?

? ? ? ? ? ?

? ? ? ? ? ?

553 M (7489p – p.223) (the preserved signs seem to reflect Akkadian) 1’ has only a few traces 2’ [... ...]-šu 3’ [... ...-] ṣu 4’ [... ...]x-ut-tu 4 5’ [... ...-l]e-e 6’ [... ...-t]e?-ri 7’ [... ...]x-ti

180

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 11 (canonical tablets XVII) Division 11 (canonical XVII) Fragments: Where no canonical equivalents are found, a provisional relative position of the Emar entries vis-à-vis the canonical version, as determined by parallels in the RS Recension, is indicated in the MSL reference column (> <) 554 A (7481h – p.213) ┌Ú┐ NISIG 1’ NÚ[MUN Ú NISIG 2’ NÚM[UN Ú NISIG 3’ NÚM[UN Ú NISIG 4’ NÚMU[N Ú NISIG NÚM[UN 5’ -

295

...] ...] ...] ...] ...]

17009-13 idem idem idem idem

-

554 B (731040a – p.120) 1. 11005 [ÚNA]M.TI.LA┐[ 2. 11006 [ÚN]AM.BA.ÚŠ [ 3. 11007 ◦ÚSA.AD NIM [ 4. 11008 ◦ÚSA.AD GAL [ 5. 11009a ◦ÚSA.AD GAL DÙ.A ┘ [ 6. 11009b ◦ÚSA.AD GAL DÙ ┘ . └ A ┘ [ 7. 11010 ◦ÚĜÍR [

...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...]

17233-42 idem idem idem idem idem 17244

130 131 32-3 idem 135

554 C (7491ac – p.229) 1. 11011 ÚKUR.RA[NISIG 2. 11012a ÚHUR.SAĜNI[SIG 3. 11012b ÚHUR.SAĜNIS[IG

...] ...] ...]

17288 17309 idem

188 189 190

17312 17313 17317 17316 17322 17318 17325 17326 ? 17323 17324

193 194 195 196 197 198? 199 200 ? 210 211

17150> <206 idem idem idem

114

554 E (731050 – p.80) 1’ 11013 [RAŠ G]A(!GA.RAŠ)[NISIG 2’ 11014 [MIN S]AĜ [RAŠ GA(!GA.RAŠ SAĜ)NISIG 3’ 11015 ┌MIN┐ ṬU(!TÚL).LA[L RAŠ GA(!GA.RAŠ)NISIG 4’ 11016 MIN NÍĜ.KUD[.DANISIG 5’ 11017 NUMUN RAŠ! GA(!GA.RAŠ)[NISIG 6’ 11018 U-IŠ(!?UGU ĜIŠ)LAGAB(!xU=TÚL)RAŠ[.GA(!GA.RAŠ)NISIG 7’ 11019 ZAG HI.LI[NISIG 8’ 11020 └ NUMUN ZAG HI.LI[NISIG 9’ ZI [... 10’ 11021 [B]ABBAR HI[NISIG 11’ 11022 [NUMU]N BABBAR HI[NISIG 554 F (731089c – p.167) 1’ 11001 ◦ÚKA ŠÈR x[x 2’ 3’ 4’

11002 11003 11004

...]

◦Ú

UL.LU x[x UL.LU.B[U.UM ◦Ú EL.LI.B[U.UM

...] ...] ...]

◦Ú

181

...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...]

115 116

Part 1 - Text Edition Fragments not used: 554 G (74107ad – p.275) 1. [ÚNÚMU]N 2. [ÚNÚ]MUN 3. [x]x 4. [x] PA MIN 5. [x] IŠNISIG 6. [x] NÚMUN 7. [x] SIG 7 .A

vacat vacat : pi-it-tu 4 vacat vacat vacat vacat

17009-13 idem ? ? ? ? ?

? ? ? ? ?

554 H (74127m – p.322) 1’ only has a few traces 2’ [D]U 8 ? DAG x[ ◦Ù 3’ NI[M ◦Ù 4’ NIM[ Ù 5’ NI[M ◦Ù 6’ NI[M

...] ...] ...] ...] ...]

? 17099 idem idem idem

? 165 idem idem idem

182

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 12 (canonical tablets XVIII) Division 12 (canonical XVIII) 12 Tablet 1 consisting of: 555 A (A’+A’’= 7498c+74171d – p.238+434) 555 B (74100c – p.242) 555 C (74100a – p.242) 555 D (74166d – p.424) 555 E (74208c – p.507) 555 F (74158r – p.395) 555 G (74242b – p.549) 555 H (7481n – p.214) (555 I (74345f – p.677) not used only a few KU 6 ’s and some isolated signs belonging to unidentified entries) 555 J (74103e – p.258) 555 ‘L’ (ex-547 B, 74107aa – p.275) 555 ‘M’ (ex-579, 74165c – p.418) 555 ‘N’ (ex-593, 74122w – p.308) 555 ‘O’ (ex-596, 74123q – p.315) Obverse I ku-ú-ia 1.A’ 12001 KU 6 2. 12002 GÚ.BI 3. 12003 SUHUR 4. 12003a SUHUR.MÁŠ SUHUR MAŠ 5. 12003b 6. SUHUR SUN 4 .LÁ 12004a 7. 296 12004b SUHUR SUN 4 .LÁ 8. 12005 SUHUR APIN 12006 9. KUD(!GUD=EŠTUB).DA IZI.DIB(!EŠTUB) 10. 12007 11. SAĜ x[... 12. SAĜ ┘ [... 13. S[AĜ ... perhaps no lines missing 297 1’D [x]x UBI 2’ 12008 [U]BI A.AB.BA 3’ 12009 UBI ÍD.DA 4’ 12010 UBI SAĜ lu 5’ 12011 TAR 298 6’ 12012 PA-DA 7’ 12013 IZI SIS 8’ 12014 9’ 12015 ĜIŠ.ŠUR.RA

-

KU KU KU KU KU KU KU

6 6 6 6 6 6 6

K U

[

6

[KU 6 KU

KU KU

KU KU KU KU KU KU KU KU KU

183

6 6 6

6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6┘

nu-u[n-nu] ku 8 -up-p[u] pu-ra-du su-hu-ur-ma-šu bi-it-ru zi-iq-na-nu ša-at-te-ru a]r-su-up-pu a]r-su-up-pu ...]x-su ...-b]u-u ...-t]i

18001 18002 18003 18004 18005 18006 18007 18009 18010 ? ? ?

[...] [...] x[...] x[...] x[...] x[...] [...] [...] [...]

18011 18012 18013 18016a ? 18017 18019 18019a

Part 1 - Text Edition 10’ 12016 EME-DIR 11’ 12017 NÍĜ.GU 7 (!BÚN).NA 12’ 12018 NUNUZ NÍĜ.GU 7 (!BÚN).NA 13’ 12019 A[MAR NÍĜ.GU 7 (!BÚN).NA L [M]U.UR.RA [ 14’ 12020 15’ 12021 [M]U.UR.RA A.A[B.BA [M]U.UR.RA Í[D.DA 16’ 12022 17’ 12023 [M]U.UR.RA A[L.ÚS.SA 18’ 12024 MU.UR.RA TÙ[N.NA 19’ 12025 ◦A.DA.GUR 4 (!?GUR 5 ) [ 20’ 12026 [G]ÌR A.DA.GUR 4 (!?GUR 5 ) 21’ 12027 AGARGAR(NUN-tenu) [ 22’ 12028 [AG]ARGAR GIŠ-LA [ 23’ 12029 [AGAR]GAR A.AB.B[A 24’ 12030 [AGARG]AR ÍD.D[A 25’ 12031 [AGARG]AR GIBIL [ 26’ 12032 [AGARGAR] BAR [ 27’ 12033 [AGARGAR] └ BAR ┘ [.HUŠ about 7 lines missing 1’’N [GIR ŠÚ 2’’ 12034 [GIR.GÍD 3’’ 12035 [GIR A.AB.BA 4’’ 12036 [GIR ÍD.DA 5’’ 12037 [GIR ŠU.LUH.HA 6’’ 12038 [E.SÍR probably only 1 line missing before end of column II 3.A’’ 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. break 1’N 299

2’ 3’

KU KU

[ 6 K U [ 6 KU KU KU KU KU KU

[

KU KU KU KU KU KU KU

KU KU KU KU KU KU

KU

AL.LU.ÚS.SA.A └ AL ┘ .LU.ÚS.SA.A SIG 5 [AL.L]U.ÚS.SA.A BURU 5 [AL.LU].ÚS.SA.A KU 6 .A [A]L.LU[.ÚS.SA.A …

KU

-

[x]┌RA┐[x

KU

[K]A-GIR(PEŠ) [x KA-GIR x[x

KU

UR

GIR 15

KU KU

BÀD

6 6 6 6 6 6

K U

[KA 5 .A

┐

6

K U

12039 12040 12041 12042 12043 12044 12045 12046 12047 12048 12049 12050 12051 12056 -

┐┌

6

IZI IZI TAG.GA NÍĜ.KI

KU

TU TU.MAH

KU

ŠAG 4 BAR.RA ŠAG 4 LUH.HA

KU

KU KU

KU

KU

KU KU

6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6

6] 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6

K U

[

KU

6

6

KU

184

6

6 6 6

[...] [...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...]

18020 18023 18024 18025 18027 18028 18029 18030 18031 18032 18033 18038 18039a 18039b 18039c 18040 18041

...]x ta-ap]-pí-in-nu ta-pí-i]n a-ia-ba-ak-ku ta-pí-]n i-da-ak-ku me]-su-ú še-e-n]u

18061 18062 18064 18065 18067 18069

še-la-bu kal-bu nu-un tu-um!-ri nu-un i-ša-ti nu-un ta-aš-ri-ti e-ṭu-tu 4 su-um-ma-tu tu-um-ma-hu qa-al-pu me-su-u ši-iq-qu ši-iq ┘ - └ qu ┘ └ MIN ┘ [...] ...] ...]

18071 18072 18072c 18079 18079b 18079c 18079d 18079e 18079f 18079g 18079h

...]

-

...] ...]

-

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 12 (canonical tablets XVIII) 4’ 5’ 6’ 7’ break

-

KU

AL.NÍND[AxX AL.NÍN[DAxX

...] ...] ...] ...]

-

...] ...] ...]

18126 18127 18114

] ka-mu-u u-su]-uk-ku u-su]-uk-ka ┘ - └ nu ┘

18141 18142 18143

MUŠEN

an-zù-u]┌: ar-ga-b[u] 301

18157

[... 2’’ 3’’ 12064 [NUNUZ SI.MIN.NA 4’’ 12065 [AMAR SI.MIN.NA 5’’ 12066 [ÙRI 6’’ 12067a [ŠÚR.DÙ 7’’ 12067b [ŠÚR.DÙ 8’’ 12068 [KA.ŠU.KUD.DA some traces in 9’’ break some traces in 1’’’ 2’’’H [... 3’’’ 12069 [BURU 5 GI.ZI 4’’’ 12070 [BURU 5 Ú.ĜÍR 5’’’ 12071 [BURU 5 UGU.DÙ.A [BURU 5 HABRUD.DA 6’’’ 12072 7’’’ 12073 [ŠEN.ŠEN BAL

MUŠEN

xx] MIN pi-i]l ṣ̣e-e a-tam] ṣ̣e-e ] hu-ri-in-nu šu-u]r-du-u ka-s]u-su : ša-a-i◦[-hu] ka-su-s]u : ša-a-i[-hu]

18159a 18159b 18159c 18156 18162

? 18179 18178 18181 18185 18187

8’’’

MUŠEN

] šu-ku-lu ] uṣ-̣ ṣ̣u-ur ┌ki-is-[si] ] iṣ̣-ṣụ -ur eṭ- ṭe 4 -e[-tu] ] ap-pa-an-nu ] uṣ-̣ ṣ̣u-ur hu-ur-┌ri hu-] └ ur ┘ - └ um ┘ -b[a-]al-lu hu-ru-um-ba-k]a-an-nu : ma- └ ṣ̣i-ṣ̣i-ia ┘ [-nu]

KU KU

KA x[x KUM [x

KU

III 6.A’’ 12057 M[UN NISIG 12058 7. GA[ZI 12059 8. ŠU[.I break 1’F 12060 [GAMBI 2’ [E.ZI 12061 3’ 12062 [A.ZAG.GÙN.NU some traces in 5’-7’ break 1’’M 12063 [ANZU

KU KU KU

6 6 6 6

6 6 6

MUŠEN MUŠEN MUŠEN

300

12074

MUŠEN MUŠEN MUŠEN MUŠEN MUŠEN MUŠEN

MUŠEN MUŠEN MUŠEN MUŠEN MUŠEN MUŠEN

[ŠEN.ŠEN AL.BA.ÚŠ

18188

break Reverse IV probably 5 lines missing 6.B T[I 8 ... 7. GAL[ ... 8. 12075 KISLA[H 9. 12076 NIM [

MUŠEN MUŠEN MUŠEN MUŠEN

185

...] ...] ...] ...]

? ? 18213 ?

Part 1 - Text Edition 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.F 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. break 1’O

12077 12078 12079a 12079b 12080 12081 12082 12083 12084 12085 12086 12087 12088 12089 12090 12091 12093 12094 12095 12096 12097

KIB KIB ŠÚ D KIB NIN.KILI[M D KIB NIN.KILIM[

M UŠEN

SIPA LÁ SIPA TUR(!TIR).RA

MUŠEN

ĜI 6 NÁ.A

MUŠEN

└

MUŠEN

[

MUŠ EN

[

MUŠEN MUŠEN

MUŠEN

MUŠ EN

[

302 S[A-… ┘└ BIR ┘

...] ...]

x]x-me-e m]a-a-ru-u [ r]e-e’-u bar ┘ - └ ma! ┘ - └ at ┘ [...] ...] ...] ...] : ha-aš-ta-ru : iṣ̣-ṣụ -ru : si-nu-un-tu 4 : ša-‘a-ba : su-um-ma-tu 4 : wa-at-tu 4 : tu-ma-hu : gir-ri-bu : su-ku-un-ni-in-nu : gi-ri-sa-ak-ku : ni-ga-ak-ku : MIN :] MIN :] pe-ṣ[̣ u] :] na[m-ru]

18235 18236 18237 18238 18239 18241 18242 18243 18244 18246 ? ? 18246 18249 18250 18261-7 idem idem ? 18258 18256





[ŠIM 303 [... [...] [...] [TU] [TU MAH [TU GAN] GI.RI.SA GÌR(!KIR 4 ) PA.AB GÌR(!KIR 4 ) A.MU.RU [... [GÌR(!KIR 4 ) BABBAR [GÌR(!KIR 4 ) ZALAG

MIN MIN] MIN MIN MIN M]IN MIN MIN MIN MIN] MIN MIN MIN

-

[...

MUŠEN

x-m]u-mu

?

12098 12099 12100 -

[KIB.KIB [HAR.HAR [... [DUG AM.MA.AM [...

MUŠEN

k]ap-kap-pu ha-ar-har-ru ]x-bi-ir-ru 305 t]u-am-mu 306 ]x ME-IM-N[A]

18270 18278 ? 18280? ?

V 1.B 2. 3. 4. 5.

12101 12102 12103

[... [... [SU.DIN [SU.DIN MÌN.NA [...

MUŠEN

? ? 18296 18297 ?

6. 7.

12104 12105

[ĜIŠKIRI 6 [NÍĜ.GA MU.UN.TÚ]M

MUŠEN

8.

12106

MUŠEN

9. 10. 11.

12107 12108 12109

[G]Ù.BI BÚLUG(!BALAĜ) di-qár È ŠUBA [LI.LI.GI SIG 7 .SI]G 7 [...] [...]x

...-Š]A-LA : [↑...] ...] BE ZA-AB-HA su-t]i-in-nu šu-r]i-iq-qu ]┌su-KUR(!din)-niin-ni-tu 4 ]iṣ̣-sụ -ur ki-ri-i : na(!ma)-SI(!ak)-kur bi-la ┘ -at :↑ku-ur-ti x[...] a-ra-aq-ra-aq a-ra-aq-ra- └ aq às-ki-ku 13

18305 -

304

2’ 3’ 4’ 5’ 6’ break

MUŠEN MUŠEN MUŠEN MUŠEN

MUŠEN MUŠEN MUŠEN MUŠEN

MUŠEN

MUŠEN MUŠEN MUŠEN

186

]

18300 18301 18303β

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 12 (canonical tablets XVIII) MUŠEN

12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.C 18.

12110 12111 12112 12113 12114 12115

[G]A.NU 11 [NUNUZ GA.NU 11 ] [AMAR GA.NU 11 [Ù.KU.KU [... ┌ GAG-RA-AH : x[ IRI DÙ MAŠ

MUŠEN

19. 20.

12116 12117

SAĜ.KI ÙR.RA

MUŠEN MUŠEN

21. 22. 23. 24. break 1’’D 2’’ 3’’ 4’’ 5’’ 6’’ 7’’E

12118 12119 12120 -

A.RA.BU : A A 307 A RA 4 (UD -DU ).BU [A]ARA 4 .BU NÍTA A A RA 4 .BU MIN NÍTA A A RA 4 .BU ŠU ÙR.RA ┘ A A RA 4 . └ BU ┘└ MIN ┘ [...

Ú┐[-NAGA ... Ú-NA[GA ... Ú-NAG[A ... Ú-NAGA ┘ [... Ú-NAGA ┘ [... └ Ú ┘ - └ NAGA ┘ [... Ú[-NAGA ...

MUŠEN

308

-

MUŠEN MUŠEN MUŠEN

]

M UŠEN

]

MU ŠEN

]

MUŠEN MUŠEN M UŠEN

[

MUŠEN

MUŠEN MUŠEN MUŠEN MUŠEN MUŠEN MUŠEN

MUŠEN

8’’ 12121 MIN KUKKU 5 [ 9’’ 12122 MIN SA 5 [ 10’’ 12123 MIN GÙN.A [ 11’’ 12124 MIN SIG 7 .SIG 7 [ 12’’ 12125 └ Ú ┘ - └ NAGA ┘└ NUMUN ┘ a few lines missing 1’’’A’’ BUR-ŠIR[ ... 2’’’ BUR-ŠIR ┘ [x]x A end of column

MUŠEN MUŠEN MUŠEN M UŠEN

[

MUŠEN MUŠEN

VI [...] 1’G 2’ 12126 [ZUM.B]I 3’ 12127 [ZUM.B]I TIR.RA 4’ 12128 [U 5 Z]A.NÍĜIN 5’ 12129 [U 5 Z]A.NÍĜIN TIR.RA 6’ 12130a ◦U 5 .BI 7’ 12130b ◦U 5 .BI 8’ 12130c [U 5 .] └ BI ┘ 9’ 12131 [U 5 SIM a few lines missing 1’’D 12132 ┌U 5 ┐N[UMUN] 2’’ 12133 U 5 GA[Z] 3’’ 12134 U 5 GA[Z B]UR 4’’ 12135 U 5 NÍĜ.D◦É.A

MUŠ EN

[

MUŠEN MUŠEN MUŠEN MUŠ EN

[

MUŠEN MUŠEN

└

MUŠEN

MUŠEN

]

┘

┌MUŠEN┐ MUŠEN MUŠEN┐ MUŠEN

187

: ┘ lu-ur-mu pí ┘ -┌il lu-ur-mu └ a ┘ -tam lu-ur-mu ṣ̣a-al-la-lu MIN : a-zu-pí-ru └ : xxx ↑MUŠEN ša ku-ub-ši [ ...]↑x-ri [...

18306 18307 18308 18309 idem 18312

zi[-ka-ru] ú[-...] ...] ...]

18315 18316 -

...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...]

18348+ idem idem idem idem idem idem

...] ...] ...] ...] ...]

18348a 18348d

...] ...]

18338-47 idem

...] [...] [...] [...] ...] d[u-...] bu-ku-[...] ad-d[u-...] └ qa ┘ [-qu-u]

? 18365 18367 18371-2 idem idem 18375

[...] [...] [...] : x[...]

18378 -

18313 18314

Part 1 - Text Edition 5’’ 12136 NUNUZ 6’’ 12137 AMAR 7’’ 12138 MUŠEN [ESSADU 8’’ MAN Colophon ID◦┌ ŠU IM-ma-lik 9’’D D 10’’ DUMU IM.UR.SAĜ LÚDUB.SAR LÚ┐[HAL] └ 11’’ [ša D]IĜIR.MEŠ IRIe-mar ÌR DAK after a blank space of about 8 lines: 309 1’’’E [KAB.ZU.ZU ša ]Iki-din-DGU.LA and (somewhere in that vicinity) 1’’’’A’ ŠU.NÍĜIN x[...] rest of column empty

[MUŠE]N [MUŠEN] -

pi-lu-u┐ at-m[u!] i]s-hu MAN

18380 18381 18384 -

(By) the hand of Bacal-malik, son of Bacal-qarrad, scribe (and) [diviner] [of the g]ods of Emar, servant of Nabû. [pupil of] Kidin-Gula.

Extract 1 – 555 K (7467 – p.201) Sumerian entries given in phonetic instead of logographic spelling Obverse 1. 12075 2. 12076 3. 12077 4. 12078 12079a 5. 6. 12079b 7. 12080 8. 12081 9. 12083 10. 12082 Lower Edge 12. 12084 13. 12085 Reverse 1. 12086 2. 12087 3. 12088 4. 12089 5. 12090 6. 12092 7. 12093 8. 12094 9. 12095 end

┌

ki x └ nu ┘ -uš [x I]B? GIŠ nim [ki-]ib [ki-i]b-uš 310 ┌ ki-bi-a MIN ni-ga nu-ni-iš su-pa nu-nu si-pa tu-ra mu-┌uš na-a mu-uš ga

ki-iš ┘ -la-ah[-hu] GA┐? x UR ┘ [...] ki-bu na-aš-ru vacat me-ru-ú re-ú : ku-ub-šu ba!-a[r-ma-at] ṣ̣a-la!-NU(!lu) ṣi(!ṣ̣u)-ir(!ur) mu-ši

18213 ? 18235 18236 18237? 18238? 18239 18241 18243 18242

húl!-ri! gu- └ ru ┘ - └ uš šu-ú

hu-xxx 311 ŠU-Š[IM?]

18244 ?

im-gu-gum bi-ri buru 5 mah tu ┌ tu mah tu kur-kur g◦i-ri-sa g[ìr] pa-ab gìr a-mu-ru

ha┐<-aš>-ta-ru-ú e-ri-bu BA(!si)- └ nu-un-tu 4 su!-ma-[t]u 4 tù-m◦a-hu su-ka-ni-nu gi-ri-sa-ku ni-ga-ku ni-ga-ku

18244 18246 18249 18251-a 18261-7 idem idem

188

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 13 (canonical tablets XIX) Division 13 (canonical XIX) 13 Tablet 1’ 312 - 556 B (74190j – p. 465) Obverse I (1’ traces only) (SIKI) 2’B BAR x[xx 3’ 13006 ÁB K[UN] 4’ 13007 SAĜ KUN 5’ 13008 UDU ÙR.RA 6’ 13009 HÉ.NA 7’ 13010 MAR.TU 8’ 13011 SAL.LA 9’ 13012 HUŠ.A 10’ 13013 GU.ZA 11’ 13014 NÍĜ.MU 4 12’ 13015 ALAN 13’ 13016 ZA.GÌN.NA 14’ 13017 [S]IKIHÉ.ME.TA 15’ 13018 [SIKI]SAĜ ┘└ GIL ┘└ MUD ┘ 16 [...

...] ┌ :[ ...] : ha-[...] : UDU im-m[a-ar ru-ug-bi] : hé-na-ta┐[] : a-mur-ra-ta : ša ra-qa-ti : ša hu-še-e : ša il-lu-ur-ri : ša lu!-bu-ši : ša ṣ̣a-al-mi : uq-ni-tu 4 : dú-↑-uh!-šu : na-bá-su : i-ki-ṭu :] └ ha-aš-ma-nu : dú-uh-šu xx]xx[x]x- └ ma

19077 19087 19086 19090 19079 19078 ?

035 040 041 042 043 044 045 046 047 048 049 050 051 ?

...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...]

-

253 254 255 256 257 258 259

end of column Reverse 313 VI 314 1.B 13042 2. 13043 3. 13044 4. 13045 13046 5. 6. 13047 7. 13048

MIN(?GADA) A.x(?!RÁ/RA)[ MIN <MIN?> DIĜIR.RA┐[ MIN <MIN?> LUGAL [ MIN <MIN?> NIN.DIĜIR.RA [ MIN? ŠU.ZI ┘ . └ IB ┘ [ !? GAD[A] └ MIN ┘ DIĜIR.RA GA[DA MIN LUGAL

break

189

Part 1 - Text Edition 13 Tablet 2 315 consisting of: 556 C (74122b – p.302) 556 E (7491a – p.225) 556 G (74148m – p.377) V’ 316 (TÚG) 1’G 13019 MU 4 .[MU 4 LUGAL 2’ 13020 MU 4 .MU 4 N[IN.DIĜIR.RA 3’ 13021 A.RA(!RÁ) [ 4’ 13022 A.RÁ(DU) [DIĜIR.RA 5’ 13023 A.RÁ [LUGAL 317 6’ 13024 A.RÁ NI[N.DIĜIR.RA ┌ ┐┌ ┐┌ ┐ 7’ 13025 ŠU . ZU . UB [ 8’ 13026 MIN DIĜIR.R[A! 9’ 13027 MIN LUGAL [ 10’ 13028 MIN] └ NIN ┘ .DIĜIR.R[A break 1’’C 13029 GADA [ 2’’ 13030 GADA [MAH 13031 3’’ GADA [DIĜIR.RA 13032 GADA [LUGAL 4’’ 13033 5’’ GADA NIN.DIĜIR.[RA 6’’ 13034 MIN [NÍĜ.MU 4 7’’ 13035 MIN NÍĜ.MU 4 [DIĜIR.RA 8’’ MIN MIN [LUGAL 13036 9’’ 13037 MIN MIN NIN.[DIĜIR.RA 10’’ 13038 MIN [MU 4 .MU 4 11’’ 13039 MIN MU 4 .MU 4 [DIĜIR.RA 12’’ 13040 └ MIN ┘ MU 4 .MU 4 [ 13’’ 13041 [MIN MU 4 .MU 4 NI]N.DI[ĜIR.RA probably 2 lines missing 16’’C 13044 MIN(GADA) MIN(A.RÁ) [LUGAL 17’’ 13045 MIN MIN NIN.[DIĜIR.RA 18’’ 13046 MIN ŠU.ZU[.UB 19’’ 13047 MIN MIN [DIĜIR.RA 20’’ 13048 MIN MIN [LUGAL 21’’ 13049 GADA MIN [NIN.DIĜIR.RA GADA ŠU.Z[U.UB 22’’ 23’’ └ ŠAG 4┘ [?GADA probably 1 or 2 lines missing before lower edge VI’ 1’E [x] GADA┐[ 2’ [x] GADA 3’ 13065 [GA]DA ÍB.LÁ 4’ 13066 []GADA AN.DUL 7 5’ 13067 [A]N.DUL 7 6’ 13068 [AN].DUL 7 GUL 7’ MAN TIL MAN [ visible rest of column empty

190

...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...]

19290 -

215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224

...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...]

19344 -

240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252

...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...]

-

255 256 257 258 259 260 261?

...] : x[<E/G>xx]┌KU┐TA [...] : [<E/G>né]-be-eh [...] : [<E/G>x]x-ku : ┘ [<E/G>?ṣu-lu-l]i? : [tak<E/G>-t]i-mu <E/G> TIL]

19345 -

? ? 265 266 -

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 13 (canonical tablets XIX)

Extract 1 – 556 A (74202 – p.500) 1. 13001 SIKI SI.SÁ 2. 13002 IGI ZAG.GA 3. 4. 5. end

13003 13004 13005

a-ga

:ÀKA MUK MUK ŠÚ(=H<ÚL>)

: iš-ri-t[u 4 ] : na-às-q[a-tu 4 ]

19024 19029

024

: it-qu : mu-uk-ku nu-qa-ru

19093 19094 19095

025 026 027

Extract 2 – 556 D (74149 – p.381-2) 318 Sumerian followed by complete phonetic spelling and Akkadian. The resulting long entries continue from obverse over right edge and cover the reverse as well. The phonetic spellings, always starting on the obverse, are mostly partially found to continue on the reverse. For convenient reference, however, here they are given in complete transliteration together with the Sumerian entries of the obverse. Obverse/Right Edge+ - Sum and complete phonetic spelling ka-ad-ka šab-ri-i]š 1’ 13042 [GADA A.RÁ ka-]┌ad-k[a šab-ri-i]š ti-g[i-r]a 2’ 13043 [GADA A.RÁ DIĜIR.RA] ┌ ┐ 3’ 13044 [GADA A.RÁ LUGAL] ka -ad-ka š[ab-ri-i]š lu-ga-al 4’ 13045 GADA ZA(!A).RÁ NIN.DIĜIR.RA ka-ad-ka šab-[r]i-iš i-ri-iš-ti-g[i-r]a 5’ 13046 GADA ŠU.ŠU.UB ka-ad šu!-šu-ub GADA ŠU.ŠU.UB DIĜIR.RA 6’ 13047 ka-ad šu-šu-ub ti-g[i]-ra GADA ŠU.ŠU.UB LUGAL 7’ 13048 ka-ad šu-šu-ub lu-ga-al 8’ 13049 GADA Š◦U.ŠU.UB NIN.DIĜIR.RA ka-ad šu<-šu>-ub i-ri-iš-ti-gi-[ra] 9’ 13050 GADA AN.DÙL ka-ad an-ti-il ka-ad nu-ú◦ 10’ 13051 GADA NU.NU GADA I.RI ka-ad i ┘ [-r]i 11’ 13052 13053 12’ GADA NU.I.R◦I k◦a-ad ┌nu i-ri 13’ 13054 GADA G◦Ú └ È ┘ k[a-a]d k◦a-ad ┌ ┐ 14’ 13055 GADA BAR SÍ[G] k[a]-ad bar-ši-ik! ┌ ┐┌ ┐ 15’ 13056 GADA DILMUN . NA ka-te-e ta-al-mu-na! GADA MÁ.GAN.NA ka-te-e ma-ga!-na 16’ 13057 ku-ú ša-ga!-da 17’ 13058 GADA ŠAG 4 .GA.DÙ 18’ 13058a GADA ŠAG 4 .GA.DÙ BABBAR ku-ú ša-ga-da ba-ab-ar 19’ 13058b GADA ŠAG 4 .GA.DÙ KUKKU 5 ku-ú ša-ga-da ki-ik-ki 13058c GADA ŠAG 4 .GA.DÙ SA 5 20’ ku-ú ša-ga-[a]d še 13058d GADA ŠAG 4 .GA.DÙ GÙN. └ A 21’ ku-ú ša-ga-a◦d gu-na 13059 22’ GADA ŠAG 4 .GA.DÙ GADA ku-ú š-ga-ad ki-te ! 13060 23’ GADA ŠAG 4 .GA.DÙ SIKI ku-ú ša-ga-ad ši-ki 24’ 13061 GADA ŠAG 4 .GA.D<Ù> ku-ú ša-ga-ad za-ki-na ! SIKI ZA<.GÌN> 13062 25’ GADA ŠAG 4 .GA.DÙ SIKI HÉ.MI.TA ku<-ú> ša-ga-ad hi-me-ta 13063 26’ GADA ŠAG 4 .GA.DÙ ŠAG 4 .KI ku-ú ša-ga-ad ša-ki ! GADA ŠAG 4 .GA.DÙ ba -ah 13064 27’ ku-ú ša-ga-da hé-mi-ta end

191

Part 1 - Text Edition Reverse – Akkadian equivalents of entries on Obverse and Right Edge 13042 x n[a-...] 1’ 2’ 13043 x[...] 3’ 13044 <še->ši-hi-ta-a[t šar-ri] 4’ 13045 še-ši ┘ [-hi-]ta-at i┐-┌ti 5’ 13046 šu-šu-pu 13047 šu-šu-[up] ◦i-l◦i 6’ 13048 šu-šu-up ša◦r[-ri] 7’ 8’ 13049 [šu-šu-]up i-ti 13050 an-dì- └ lu! 9’ 10’ 13051 qé-e 11’ 13052 ┌ka┐-┌te bi-ri-tu 4 12’ 13053 ka-te si-mì-i-ru 13’ 13054 na-ah-la-ap-it ki-te 14’ 13055 pár-ši 4 -ig! kí-te 15’ 13056 ša! da!-al-mu<-na> 16’ 13057 ka-te ma-ga-na 13058 né-be-hu 17’ 18’ 13058a né-be-hu pè-ṣ̣u 13058b né-be-hu ṣ̣a-al-mu 19’ 20’ 13058c né-be-hu sa 19 -mu 21’ 13058d né-be-hu bar-ru-mu 22’ 13059 né-be-[h]u kí-tù 23’ 13060 né-be-hu [š]a-pa-ti 24’ 13061 né-be-eh uq-ni 25’ 13062 na-ba-ah na-ba-ši 26’ 13063 ša-ki-ku 13 13064 <<ŠA KA>> né-↑ba-ah na<>-ba-ši 27’ end

19345 -

253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 -

19078 -

050 051

Fragment: 556 ‘H’ (74190m 319 – p.466) 1’ 13017 HÉ.┌ME┐[.TA 2’ 13018 SAĜ GIL ┌MUD┐ 3’-5’ traces only

...] x[...]

192

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 14 (canonical tablets XX) Division 14 (canonical XX) Although much of the material for this division is lost, the sequence of the following fragments can be largely reconstructed: A has the beginning of 14 (with parallel in D) while C clearly has the lower part of the first column and the upper part of its reverse side. Only the position of B relative to A-D and C is unclear - it has provisionally been fitted in parallel to the position of the equivalents of 14036 in Ugarit (i.e. 6:17/7:07). Fragments: 320 557 A (731053 – p.129) 1. 14001 A.ŠAG 2. 14002 4 A.ŠAG 3. 14003 4 A.ŠAG 14004 4. 4 A.ŠAG 14005 5. 4 A.ŠAG 14006 6. 4 7.

14007

A.ŠAG

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

14008 14009 14010 14011 14012 14013 14014

A.ŠAG

15. 16. 17. 18. 19.

14015 14016 14017 14018 14019

A.ŠAG

20.

14020

A.ŠAG

21. 22. 23. 24. 25.

14021 14022 14023 -

A.ŠAG

A.ŠAG A.ŠAG A.ŠAG A.ŠAG A.ŠAG A.ŠAG

A.ŠAG A.ŠAG A.ŠAG A.ŠAG

A.ŠAG A.ŠAG A.ŠAG A.ŠAG

A.ŠAG 4 GAB GAB.RI.A D

NISABA NISABA GU.LA D NISABA TUR.RA D

4

LAGAB(!xU=TÚL).LÁ MUŠEN.NA É MÁ.RU É 50 A IGI HA.BA.ZÉ HU.UM.BI.ZÉ

4

TA

4 4 4 4 4

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

557 B (74147g – p.372) ◦A.ŠAG 1’ 14033 4 A.ŠAG 2’ 14034 4 A.ŠAG 3’ 14035 4 A.ŠAG 4’ 14036 4

IŠ.TU

QA.RI.IM

4

LAGABxA (!XKUG=ĜARIM) LAGABxA(!ĜARIM) GU.LA LAGABxA(!ĜARIM) TUR.RA LAGABxA(!ĜARIM) DEN.LÍL LAGABxA(!ĜARIM) ĜIŠ.DÙ.A LAGABxA(!ĜARIM) KUG.MÁ x[ LAGABxA(!ĜARIM) GÁxLA x[ A.GÀ[R ... A.GÀR G[U.LA A.GÀR TU[R.RA A.GÀR [... A.GÀR [...

APIN LAL LÚ LAL APIN NU.ZU GAN(!GÁN).NA.ZU

193

eq-l[u] ┐ A.ŠAG 4 ir [-ti] ┐ A.ŠAG 4 mi-ih [-ri] A.ŠAG 4 ni-is-sà-[ba] A.ŠAG 4 ni-is-sà-b[a ...] A.ŠAG 4 ni-is-sà-b[a ...]

-

1:01 1:02 1:03 1:04 1:05

TÚL.LÁ MUŠEN.NU.U

-

1:06

A.ŠAG 4 é-bu-ri ┘ A.ŠAG 4 É 50

205:01 201:04 201:07 -

1:07 1:09 1:10 1:11 -

-

-

-

-

-

2:03 2:04 2:05 ? ?

A.ŠAG 4

pa-si-si ha-am-ba-ṣ̣i┐ hu-um-be-eṣ̣[ ...] TA.A iš-t[u 4 ] ti-i-m[e-er-tu 4 ] ti-i ┘ [-...] ti-[...] t[i-...] [...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...]

[...] e-x[...] l[a e-re-šu] [...]

202:22 202:18 6:17/ 7:07

Part 1 - Text Edition 557 C (74159f – p.403) Obverse A. ŠAG 1’ 14024 [ 4 A.ŠAG ┐ 2’ 14025 4 A.ŠAG 3’ 14026 4 A.ŠAG 4’ 14027 4 A.ŠAG 5’ 14028 4 A.ŠAG 6’ 14029 4 end of column Reverse A.ŠAG 1. 14030a 4 A.ŠAG 2. 14030b 4 A.ŠAG 3. 14030c 4 A.ŠAG 4. 14030d 4 A.ŠAG 5. 14031 4 A.ŠAG 6. 14032 4 7.

-

A.ŠAG

4

557 D (74171g – p.435) A.ŠAG 1’ 14004 4 A.ŠAG 2’ 14005 4 A.ŠAG 3’ 14006 4 ◦A.ŠAG 4’ 14007 4 ◦A.ŠAG 5’ 14008 4 ◦A.ŠAG 6’ 14009 4

SU]HUB SUMUGAN D GUD SUMUGAN

A.ŠAG 4 A.ŠAG 4 A.ŠAG 4

ka-ab-ba[-su] ki-ib-s[u] ki-ib-s[u] ri-ib-[...] HÉ-ŠA[R ...] ka-x[...]

-

3:35 3:36 3:37 3:38 -

2/3(=ŠANABI)BI x[ ĜAR.R[A

...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...]

-

MI[N ...

...]

204:18 b-c idem

D◦

...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...]

205:01 205:02

1:03 1:04 1:05 1:06 1:07 -

┌D┐┌

AL.LA.AK.KA NÍ[Ĝ.KI]N.AK.A ┐┌ ┐ NIĜ . KUD .DA.AK.A

IGI 3 ĜÁL T[A.ÀM IGI 4 ĜÁL TA.À[M IGI 5 ĜÁL TA.À[M IGI 10 ĜÁL TA.À[M

[NISABA [NISABA GU.LA D N[ISABA TUR.RA TÚL[.LÁ MUŠEN.NA É[ MÁ.RU 321 É[ 50 D◦

194

-

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 15 (canonical tablets XXIa) Division 15 (canonical XXIa) 15 Tablet 1 consisting of: A = 558 A=559 K (74129e 322 – p.332-3) K = 558 K (74104p – p.262) Obverse I 1.A 15001 2. 15002 3. 15003 15004 4. 5. 15005 6. 15006 7. 15007 8. 15008 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 15009a 16. 15009b 17. 15009c 18. 19. 15010a 20. 15010b 21. 15010c 22. 15011a 23. 15011b 24. 15011c 25. 15012 26. 15013 27. 15014 28. 15015 29. 15016 30. 15017 31. 15018 32. 15019 33. 15020 34. 15021 35. 15022

KI

NIBRU UNUG ÚR(ŠEŠ<-UNUG>) ARARMA MIN UL!.GAG(!LÍ) MIN EDIN.NA

KI KI

MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN] MIN] MIN] MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN

ŠÚ-NIM 323 (!KÈŠ) └ KIŠ ┘

[...] [...] [...] [... [... [... [TÚL] [TÚL] [TÚ]L [x] NÁ.ÀM Ú

MIN MIN BÀD

MIN MIN MIN DIĜIRlì I.LIB A.LÁB MUK.TUM GIR.SU ÁB.ZU ÁB.ZU.NA ÁB.ZU.LÁ DILMUN └ NUN.NA SAĜ MÁ.KAM.MA ME.LUH.[H]A

195

211:01/2:02 211:11/2:08 211:16/2:05 212:06/2:06 211:09 217:19 217:20 ? ? ? ? ? ? 213:24 213:25 213:26 212:14 213:22 213:23 214:04 214:05

? ? ? 8:04 8:05 8:06 8:07 8:08 8:09 8:10 8:11 8:12 8:13 8:14 8:15 8:16 8:17 8:20 8:21 8:22

Part 1 - Text Edition 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43.

15023 15024 15025 15026 15027 15028 15029 15030

É.DANNA MIN ÉŠ.DAM MIN └ DAM MIN DSA.BAD MIN DSUEN MIN DŠU SUEN MIN LUGAL É MUNUS.A.IR(!NI)

MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN

214:06 214:08 214:07 214:10 214:14 214:11 214:12

8:23 8:24 8:25 8:26 8:27 8:28 -

É 50

[KI]

MIN HU.BI MIN ŠIR 324 MIN ĜÍR!.LAM 325 Ú(!?É) PEŠ 5 MAŠ.KÁN.DIĜIR MIN BU.ŠU MIN BU.BU MIN DDA.DA MIN ŠI DDA.DA MIN ŠABRA MIN AM.MI.DI.DÁ.A.AN MIN AM.MI.Ṣ̣A.DUG 4 .GA MIN SA.AM.SU.[D]I.TA.A.AN TIN.TIR ! KI .BAL MAŠ.DÁ ĜIŠ KI KUR EREN.NA KI MIN SU.BIR 4 .A MIN GÚ.DU 8 .AKI MIN ZAG MIN MIN MAR.TU MIN MAR.HA.A.ŠI MIN ŠI.RUM MIN ŠIR.RUM MIN IGI.NIM MIN IGI.SIG A.MA.AL A.BA.AL A.BA.AK A.PI 5 .ŠAL A.GA.DÈ

MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN

214:24 214:25 214:26 214:23 214:27 214:28 214:29 214:30-1 214:33 214:35 214:37 214:39 214:40 214:36 214:41-2 214:43 215:08 215:09 215:15 215:16

8:29 8:37 8:38 8:39 8:40 -

KI

end of column II 1.A 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31.

15031 15032 15033 15034 15035 15036 15037 15038 15039 15040 15041 15042 15043 15044 15045 15046 15047 15048 15049 15050 15051 15052 15053 15054 15055 15056 15057 15058 15059 15060 15061

196

KI┐

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 15 (canonical tablets XXIa) 32. 15062 33. 15063 34. 15064 35. 15065 36. 15066 37. 15067 38. 15068 39. 15069 40. 15070 41. 15071 42. 15072 43. 15073 44. 15074 45. 15075 46. 15076 end of column III 1.A 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31.

15077 15078 15079 15080 15081 15083 15084 15085 15086 15087 15088 15089 15090 15091 15092 15093 15094 15095 15096 15097 15098 15099 15100 15101 15102 15103 15104 15105 15106 15107 15108

AN.ZA.GÀR MIN DEN.LIL MIN BU.ŠU MIN BU.BU MIN DDA.DA MIN ŠI DDA.DA MIN LUGAL MIN UR.GIR 15 MIN KIN.A 326 + 327 BÀD GU.LA

PA-HÚB-Ú 328 ZAR.BI.LUM ZAR.BA.TUM AR.PÁD AR.PÁD BAL.RI IRI

MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN

215:17 215:18 215:21 215:24 217:03 217:05 217:07 217:08 217:09

9:02 9:03 9:05 9:07 9:09 9:10 9:11 9:12

KI

217:14 217:16 218:01 217:17 217:18 217:23 217:42 217:28 217:29

9:13 9:15 9:16 9:17 9:18 9:19 9:20 9:24 9:25 9:26 9:27 9:31 9:32 9:33 9:34

KI

[I]RI KUG.GA [MIN] DÙ.A [MIN] └ BA.NI.TUM [MIN]┌BA.TI.TUM [MIN] ÙZ MIN KAR MIN ŠU MIN ŠU.I MIN ŠU.HA.A MIN MU.TA.A.AN MIN GUL MIN GUL.GUL MIN DUMU.MÍ ZA.GÌN I◦RI BA.IA MIN BA.ZA MIN BA.NA MIN AL.BA.NA AL.BA.NA Ú ĜÍR.LAM MIN GU.LA MIN TUR.RA Ú.ZAR MIN BAL MIN SUHUR MIN UZU MIN SUMUN MIN LIBIR.RA KA.ÍD.DA KA.ÍD.DA DIDLI KI GÚ.DU 8 .A KAR MIN

MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN

197

Part 1 - Text Edition 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48.

15109 15110 15111 15112 15113 15114 15115 15116a 15116b 15117 15118 15119 15120 15121 15122 15123a 15123b

AKŠAK Ú(!É) <MIN> ! KAR <MIN> AŠ.ME ŠUL.GI D ŠUL.GI NANNA IL.DAG IL.DAG BAL.RI !

IM

MIN MIN KU.UZ MIN SU.BIR 4 .A!KI MIN ELAM.MA!KI MIN GÚ.DU 8 .AKI MIN EDIN.NA 329 UL<ME>.MAŠ KI.MAŠ KI.MAŠ

MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN

217:30 217:31 217:32 217:33 217:34 217:35 217:36 217:37-9 idem -

9:35 9:36 9:37 9:38 9:39 9:40 9:41 9:42 10:01 10:02

MIN!(=KI) MIN ] M]IN MIN MIN

-

? 10:24 ? ? 10:27-8 10:27/9

MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN]

-

10:31 10:32 ? 10:34 10:33 -

MIN MIN

- 334

- 335

-

- 336 -

KI

end of column Reverse IV 1’A [...]x 330 2’ [?BÀD DSUEN.MU.BA.AL].LI.IṬ 331 3’ [... 4’ [... 332 5’ [....]◦A.AN 6’ [....T]A.A.AN probably 1 line missing 8’K 15124 [HUR.SAĜ]K[ALAM.]┌MA 9’ 15125 [ĜIŠ.]KIN.TI 10’ [...]x 11’ 15126 [K]Á.DIĜIR.RA 12’ 15127 [KÁ.]DLÚ.LÀL ┘ [IR]INUNUZ-KISIM 5 xSA ┘ 333 [ 13’ 15128 break [...] 1’’’A 2’’’ [...] 3’’’ 15129 ◦Ú(!É) DURU 5 MÁ.KAM.NA end of column V (vertically written text!) 1’A [...] 2’ [....A]M? KÁ 3’ [...]x 4’ [... 5’ [...]

KI

KI KI

[K]I KI ] └

198

KI

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 15 (canonical tablets XXIa) Extract 1 - 558 A’ 337 (74234b – p. 545) Obverse 1. 15073-4? 2. 3. 4. 15075 5. 15076 6. 15077 7. 15078 8. 15079 9. 15080

[… […] […] [AR.PÁ]D AR.PÁD BAL.RI IRI KUG.GA MIN DÙ.A MIN BA.NI.TUM MIN BA.TI.TUM

Lower Edge 1. 15081 MIN ÙZ 2. 15083 MIN MU.UD Reverse 1. 15084 MIN ŠU 2. MIN ŠU.I 15085 3. 15086 MIN ŠU.HA.A rest of column empty

MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN

]x za-x[…] 338 vacat vacat vacat : ar-pád ša e-be-er-ta : IRI el-lu┐ : IRI ṣa-a-ti vacat vacat

? ? ? 217:08 217:09 217:14 217:16 -

? ? ? 9:11 9:12

MIN MIN

vacat vacat

-

-

MIN MIN MIN

vacat vacat vacat

218:01 -

-

KI

199

9:13 9:15 -

Part 1 - Text Edition Division 16 (canonical XXIb-XXII) Version A (unilingual) 16a Tablet 1 – 558 D=559 I (74198b – p.484-5) all entries underlined Obverse I KI section: 1’ 16a001 2’ 16a002 3’ 16a003 4’ 16a004 5’ 16a005 6’ 16a006 7’ 16a007 8’ 16a008 9’ 16a009 10’ 16a010 11’ 16a011 12’ 16a012 13’ 16a013 14’ 16a014 15’ 16a015 16’ 16a016 17’ 16a017 end of column II KI section: 1’ 2’ 3’ 4’ 16a018 5’ 16a019 6’ 16a020 7’ 16a021 8’ 16a022 9’ 16a023 10’ 16a024 11’ 16a025 12’ 16a026 13’ 16a027 14’ 16a028 15’ 16a029 16’ 16a030 17’ 16a031 18’ 16a032 19’ 16a033 20’ 16a034 end of column

[BUR].┌ZI┐.BÁ[HAR? [N]I.NÁ.A ┌ NÁ.A BU.BI.A ME.KE.EL.TUM IB.RUM IB.RA.AT AR.ŠI.A TA.ŠI.A TA.ŠI.LA BU.LA.LA HU.HU.NU.RI ELAM.MA AN.DU.PA LUGAL.ZU

KI

]

KI┐ KI KI KI KI KI KI KI KI KI KI KI KI KI

KAR IŠTARAN ÚR.MA

D

KI

[... [...]x [xx]x HA.LA.BA HA. Ú.RA QA.TE 9 .E QA.TA.NA KA.AK.MU.UM KA.NI.IŠ PU.RU.UŠ.HA.AN.DA AR.RA.AP.HU.UM ÚR.SAL ÚR.BÉ.E ÚR.BÉ.E AN.NA ÚR.BÉ.E KI.TA LÀL.ÚR LÀL.ÚR AN.NA LÀL.ÚR KI.TA

K I

KI

]

KI KI KI KI KI KI KI KI KI KI KI KI KI KI KI KI KI KI

BAL BAL BAL.RI

KI

200

213:01/3 213:02 -

aI19 aI21 aI22 aI23 aI24 aI25 aI26 aI27 aI28 aI33 -

? ? ? 2110:09 2110:10 2110:11 2110:19 2110:20 2110:21 -

? ? ? aII14 aII60 aIII03 -

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 16a (canonical tablets XXIb-XXII) III KI section: 1’ 2’ 3’ 4’ 5’ 6’ 7’ 8’ 9’ 16a035 10’ 16a036 11’ 16a037 12’ 16a038 13’ 16a039 14’ 16a040 15’ 16a041 ÍD section: 16’ 16a042 17’ 16a043 18’ 16a044a 19’ 16a044b 20’ 16a045 21’ 16a046 22’ 16a047a 23’ 16a047b 24’ 16a048 25’ 16a049 26’ 16a050 27’ 16a051 28’ 16a052 29’ 16a053 end of column IV ÍD section: 1’ 2’ 16a054 3’ 16a055 4’ 16a056 5’ 16a057 6’ 16a058 7’ 16a059 8’ 16a060 9’ 16a061 10’ 16a062 11’ 16a063 12’ 16a064 13’ 16a065 14’ 16a066 15’ 16a067 16’ 16a068 17’ 16a069

K I

[... [...] [...]x [...]MA [...] ZA-I-DI [...] DUTU [xx].TUM [x].RI.TUM [H]U.BA.RI.TUM MÁ.AL.GI.A ÁŠ.NIK <ÁŠ.>NIQ.QUM NE.RI.IB.TUM DI.NE.EK.TUM ÁŠ.NUN.NA -

ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD

[ÍD [ÍD] [Í]D ┌ÍD

ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 216:10 2111:17 2111:18

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? aII19 aIII09 aIII10 aIII11

ÍD IDIGNA BURANUN BURANUN KIR 6 .SIG AB.GAL D ME SUEN.NA D ME SUEN.NA D ME ŠU SUEN.NA D ŠI.MA.AT SUEN.NA IL.GÍM BURANUN BUR LAHTAN X BÁN.DA HI.NUN

222:01 222:03 222:04 idem 227:15 idem -

aIII12 aIII13 aIII14 idem aIII15 aIII16 aIII18 idem aIII19 -

]x BA x[xx] ┌ KAL.KAL.LA ME KAL.KAL.LA D ┐ EN.LÍL GÚ.GAL D D NAN EN.LÍL GÚ.GAL ZI.LÁ.QUM ŠÁR.RA.RA ŠAR.BI.ID

? 223:06 224:15 224:17 -

? aIII23 aIII24 aIII27 aIII43 -

]

┌KI KI KI KI KI KI KI KI KI KI KI KI KI KI

D

NIRAH

ÍD

D

ÍD

KAD 5

A UTU NU.ZU KUR.RA PA.LI.IŠ.TUM D ! A.ŠUR 4 (A-!LÁL-SAR) KI MAŠ.KIŠ D IŠ.HA.RA D HA.IÀ.AN

ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD

D

201

Part 1 - Text Edition 18’ 16a070 19’ 16a071 20’ 16a072 21’ 16a073 22’ 16a074 23’ 16a075 24’ 16a076 25’ 16a077 26’ 27’ 16a078 28’ 16a079 29’ 16a080 30’ 16a081 31’ 16a082 32’ 16a083 33’ 16a084 34’ 16a085 end of column Reverse V ÍD section: 1. 2. 3. 4. 16a086 5. 6. 16a087 7. 16a088 8 16a089 9. 16a090 10. 16a091 11. 16a092 12. 16a093 13. 16a094 14. 16a095 15. 16a096 16. 16a097 17. 16a098 18. 16a099 19. 16a100 20. 16a101 21. 16a102 22. 16a103 23. 24. 16a104 25. 16a105 26. 16a106 27. 16a107 28. 29. 16a108

ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD

HUR.SAĜ

KA-UD-KAM A.RA.AH.TUM UR.SAĜ GAL ZU D INANNA MU.UN.ĜE[N] MÁŠ-ME-NU-ŠE 339 A.LIK.TUM A DÉ.A◦ A KA x[] ? SAL.L[A ] TU.TU TU.TU HÉ.ĜÁ[L] D

UTU UTU HÉ[.ĜÁL] D ! A.A H[É .ĜÁL] D NA.[BI.UM] D NA.[BI.UM HÉ.ĜÁL] D

ÍD

D

ÍD

D

ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD

-

ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD

[Í]D

EN [x]

[x] TA [x] ┐ LA.TA.RA [.AK] HA [x] ĜIŠ ŠI[NIG] MAŠ.TAB.B[A] UG?-N[A] 340 ÉNSI ŠABRA ! ┐ UD.UL.LI .ZA (!A) EDIN.NA ! SU.MU.A.BI.UM SU.MU.LA.ÈL Ṣ̣A.BI.UM Ṣ̣A.BI.UM.HÉ.Ĝ[Á]L D A.PÍL. SU[EN].NA D A.PÍL. SUEN.NA.HÉ.ĜÁL D SUEN<.MU>.BA.LI.IṬ HA.AM<.MU>.RA.PÍ.IH HA.AM<.MU>.RA.PI.IH.HÉ.ĜÁL HA.AM<.MU>.RA.PI.IH.HÉ.ĜÁL. : NU.HU<.UŠ>.NA.ŠI AM.MI.DI.DA.NA AM.MI.Ṣ̣A.DUG 4 .GA AM.MI.Ṣ̣A.DUG 4 .GA.HÉ.ĜÁL AM.MI.Ṣ̣A.DUG 4 .GA.HÉ.ĜÁL. : NU.HU<.UŠ>.NA.ŠI

PAP-KISIM 5 xPAP-PAP-KAM 341

202

223:05 224:27 7:29-30 -

aIII32 aIII22 aIII52 aIII58 aIII59 aIII60 aIII61

? ? ? ? 227:24 227:26 224:12 226:07 226:08 226:09 226:10 226:12

? ? ? ? aIII35 aIII31 aIV01a aIV01b aIV03 aIV04 aIV05 aIV06 aIV07 aIV11 aIV12 aIV13

-

aIV20 -

-

-

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 16a (canonical tablets XXIb-XXII) 30. 16a109 [Í]D PAP-KISIM 5 xPAP-PAP-KAM.A.BI.ŠU.UH ÍD 31. ]x 1.KAM [ 32. [ÍD x] Ú-DA break VI ÉG and TÚL sections: 1. 16a110 ÉG 2. 16a111 ÉG SI.GA 3. 16a112 ÉG MURUB 4 4. 16a113 ÉG SA(!ŠA).KU.DA 5. 16a114 ÉG DAL.BA.NA 6. 16a115 ÉG ŠUL.GI ÉG ŠUL.HI 7. 16a116 ÉG SU.MU.A.BI.UM 8 16a117 ÉG SU.MU.LA.ÈL 9. 16a118 10. 16a119 ÉG ṢA.BI.UM 11. 16a120 ÉG PI(!IGI) HUR.SAĜ.ĜÁ ÉG A.AB.BA.HÉ.ĜÁL 12. 16a121 13. 16a122 ÉG A.BU.LA.LA 14. 16a123 ÉG GU.LA 15. 16a124 ÉG GIBIL 16. 16a125 ÉG SUMUN 17. 16a126 ÉG LIBIR.RA ĜIŠ 18. 16a127 ÉG ŠINIG 19. 16a128 └ ÉG TÚL.LÁ 20. 16a129 []TÚL [TÚL] LÁ 21. 16a130 [x] AL 22. 23. [...]x KI 24. [...] NA 25. [...] MA 27’-28’ traces of final signs only break VII MUL section: MUL 1. ŠUL ĜIDRU È.A 16a131 MUL 2. 16a132 AMAR-UTU MUL 3. 16a133 UZUD MUL 4. 16a134 PAN MUL 5. 16a135 GAG PAN MUL ĜIŠ 6. 16a136 APIN MUL 7. ĜÍR.TAB 16a137 MUL 8 16a138 AL.LUL MUL 9. 16a139 KA 5 .A MUL MUŠEN 10. 16a140 TI 8 MUL MUŠEN KUR.GI.A 11. 16a141 MUL LÚ 12. 16a142 HUĜ.ĜÁ MUL 13. 16a143 UD.LÚ(!ZAL).LI.TA.ĜÁ └ ┘ 14. [MUL xx]xxx MUL 15. ....] └ E.NE [ break VIII vacat 203

? ?

? ?

229:03 229:04 229:08 229:14 229:15 229:16 229:20 229:21 229:21a 229:17 ? ? ? ?

aIV38 aIV54 aIV55 aIV05 aIV29 aIV30 ? ? ? ?

2211:07 2211:06 2210:06 2211:03 2211:05 2211:08 ? ?

-

Part 1 - Text Edition Division 16 (canonical XXIb-XXII) Version B (bilingual) 16b Tablet 1 consisting of: 558 B=559 A (B’=74115 + B’’=74159ac – p.286-8 + 407) 559 F (74199v – p.496) Obverse II KI section: a few lines missing 1’B’ [... probably 4 lines missing 6’B’ [... 7’ [... 8’ 16b034 [... 9’ 16b035 [... 10’ 16b036 [IRI BU.UŠ 11’ [IRI ZI.IB.BA.NU.UM 16b037 12’ 16b038 [IRI HAL.HAL.LA 13’ [... 14’ [... 16b039 15’ 16b040 [IRIÈŠ 16’ 16b041 [IRI ÈŠ.MAH 17’ 16b042 [IRIMA.AL.GA [IRI MA.AL.GI.A 18’ 16b043

KI

...-]re-e

?

?

KI

xx]x xx-r]a : ta-a]m-ru : ta-am-]ru : bu-u]š : zi-ib-] └ ba-an-nu : ha-al-ha-]al ...]-ri : e-ru-t]u 4 : e-eš] : eš-ma-a]h : ma-al-gu] : ma-al-gi-i]a

? ? ? ? 216:08 216:09 216:10

? ? aII09 aII10 aII12 aII11 aII13 ? ? aII16 aII17 aII18 aII19

KI KI KI KI KI KI KI KI KI KI KI KI

204

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 16b (canonical tablets XXIb-XXII) KI 16b049 19’ [IRIB]A.N[I.TUM IRI KI 20’ 16b050 [ B]A.TI.[TUM 21’ 16b051 [IRI]┌UZUD [KI IRI 22’ 16b052 [ ]MU.UD [KI KI┐ 23’ 16b055 [IRI]ŠU.HA.A IRI KI 24’ 16b056 [ K]AR IRI K I 25’ 16b057 [ G]UL [ K I 26’ 16b058 [IRIGUL.GU]L [ IRI KI 27’ [ xx] └ GAG ┘ [x KI 28’ [IRI… IRI D KI 29’ 16b059 [ ANZU.BABBAR KI 30’ 16b060 [IRILUGAL.ZAG.GA IRI KI 32’ 16b061 [ QA.SUR.SUR KI 16b061’ [IRI]H[UR? DEN.LÍL 33’ IRI KI 34’ 16b062 [ H]É[.RI.SU IRI KI [ ]HÉ[.BA.RI.SU 35’ 16b063 KI [IRI]HÚB[.ŠÚ 36’ 16b064 IRI KI [ TI]R.Q[A.AN 37’ 16b065 38’ 16b066 [IRITIR.QA.AN IGI HUR.SAĜ KI KI [IRIZAG.NÁ 39’ 16b067 KI 40’ 16b068 [IRITIR.MA.NU.UM IRI KI 41’ 16b069 [ NU.HU.UR KI 42’ 16b070 [IRIIB.BI.DU.DU IRI KI 43’ 16b071 [ LAGAŠ IRI KI 44’ 16b072 [ KA.ZAL.LUH KI 45’ 16b073 [IRIMAR.TA IRI KI 46’ 16b074 [ MAR.RU.UD KI 47’ 16b075 [IRIKAR KU.UZ IRI D KI 48’ 16b076 [ KAR NA.BI.UM KI 49’ 16b077 [IRIKAR DSUEN IRI D KI 50’ 16b078 [ KAR ŠU SUEN KI 51’ 16b079 [IRIKAR DUTU perhaps a few lines missing before end of column

...] ...] ...] : mu-t]i?342+ 343 ...]x ...] ...]x ...]BAR ...]ZA.GÌN ...]x ...-ba-]↑ba-ar ...-zi-]ik-ki ...-↑šu-]ur-šu-ur ...]x-il-li-il ...-]tu 4 ...-r]i-tu 4 ...-s]u : ti-ir]-qa-an ...]pa-ni ↑ša-dì-i : zi-n]u : ti-ir-m]a-an-nu : nu-hu-u]r?-ru ...]x-tu-tu ...]x la-ga-sà! : ka-za-l]u-uh : mar-t]u : ]◦a[-m]a-ru-↑ud ...]x xx-]◦Dna-bi ...]-ni ...]-si-ni : ka-ri D]UTU

217:17 217:18 ? 218:04 2110:01 217:10 217:11 2110:05

KI

...]

Ú[R ... ÚR ┘ [... Ú[R ...

KI

RA.PI.Q[UM RA.SU.Q[UM

KI

DUL 6 . S[UEN DU.UN.NU [... DU.UN.NU [... DU.UN.NU.ZA.[MI.IT

D

KI

HA.BU.UZ HA.BU.UZ BAL.RI

[KI K I [

...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...]

2110:08a11 idem idem idem 2110:14-6 idem 2110:15 2110:17 2110:18

III a few lines mising continued KI section: 1’B’ Ú[R ... 2’ 3’ 4’ 5’ 6’ 7’ 8’ 9’ 10’ 11’ 12’

16b081 16b082 16b083 16b084 16b085 16b086

KI KI

KI

KI KI KI

205

aII26 aII27 aII30 aII31 aII32 ? aII34 aII33 aII38 aII39 aII40 aII41 aII42 aII43 aII44 aII45 aII46 aII47 aII48 aII50 aII51 aII52 aII53 aII55 aII56

aII60-3 idem idem idem aII65 aII66 aII67-9 idem aII70 aIII01 aIII02

Part 1 - Text Edition 13’ 14’ 15’ 16’ 17’ 18’ 19’ 20’ 21’ 22’ 23’

16b087 16b088 16b089 16b090 16b091 16b092 16b093 16b094 16b095 16b096 16b097 KUR section: 24’B’ 16b098 25’ 16b099

LÀL.ÚR LÀL.ÚR BAL.RI

KI

NAM.TAR NAM.TAR BAL.RI

KI

ZI.TAR ZI.TAR BAL.RI

KI

BÚR.TAR BÚR.TAR BAL.RI

KI

NI.RIB.TUM ! DI .NI.IK.TUM EŠ.NUN.NA

KI

-

KI

KI

KI

KI KI

KUR

KUR

x[...] HU[R.SAĜ] LI[L MUN

26’ 27’ 28’

16b100 16b101 16b102

KUR

29’ 30’ 31’ 32’ 33’ 34’ 35’ 36’ 37’ 38’ 39’ 40’ 41’ 42’ 43’ 44’ 45’ 46’ 47’ 48’ 49’ 50’

16b103 16b104 16b105 16b106 16b107 16b108 16b109 16b110 16b111 16b112 16b113 16b114 16b115 16b116 16b117 16b118 16b119 16b120 16b121 16b122

┌KUR┐

51’ 52’ 53’ 54’ 55’ 56’ 57’

16b123 16b124 16b125 16b126 16b127 16b128 16b129

KUR

└

KI

KUR

[KUR KUR KUR KUR KUR KUR KUR KUR KUR KUR KUR KUR KUR KUR KUR KUR KUR KUR KUR KUR KUR KUR

KUR KUR KUR KUR KUR KUR

… ┌

┐

HA .[MA.NU HA.[... HA.B[UR] LA.AB.BA.NA.NA ┐ SI.RA.RA ZIL.HUŠ DI.PA(!BAR)

x x[ 344 SIG 7 .[S]IG 7 PI-PI ! ! Á U 5 (HU -SI) HA(!HÁŠ).BAR ┐ ZAR LÚ.LÀL LÚ.LÀL BUR.MUG(!GÙN).NA ZAR.ŠUM RI.BI.NA TI.LA ŠUM.MA ZAR.DU[H].A Á.KAL KUL.LU.ÚB.BA KU.UD.BI ! KI.IG <MU.>.NA SAĜ.ĜAR EN.TI

HI-HI BA.[ŠÁR ! TE .ME.[EN.NA

206

[...] : [...] vacat vacat vacat vacat vacat vacat : ni-r◦i-ib-t[u 4 ] vacat : eš-nu-un

2110:19 2110:22 2110:23 2111:17 2111:18

aIII03 aIII04 aIII05 aIII06 aIII09 aIII10 aIII11

: ša-du-u : HUR.SAĜ D EN.UN(!LÍL) ┌ : šu-bat DNIN.MAH :]┌šu<-bat> DIM : ni-] └ ri ┘ - └ ib D D UTU ù A[.A] : KUR e-ri-] └ ni ...] ┌ : MIN [...] : MIN [...] ┌ : [...] : ┘ [...] [...] ...] : MIN a[l-l]a-nu : MIN lu-pá-ni : MIN bu-ra-ši : MIN KUG.BABBAR : └ MIN KUG.GI ┘ :┌MIN KUG.GI : MIN a-na-ki : MIN a-na-ki : MIN e-ri-i : MIN e-ri-i : MIN e-ri-i : MIN du-ši-i ┘ : MIN muš-[ša-ri] : MIN pá-ap ┘ [-pá-ar-di-li] : MIN └ MIN ┘ [] : MIN [...] : x[...] : [...] [...] ...] ...]

221:01 221:02

-

221:03 221:04 221:05

-

221:06 ? 221:07 221:10 221:09 221:12 221:14 ? 221:16 221:17 221:18 221:19 221:29 221:27 221:31 221:32

-

221:34 -

-

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 16b (canonical tablets XXIb-XXII) end of column Reverse IV about 12 lines missing ÍD section: Í D 1’B’ [ ÍD 2’ ÍD 3’ ÍD 4’ ÍD 5’ 16b135 ÍD 6’ 16b136 ÍD 7’ 16b137 ÍD 8’ 16b138 ÍD 9’ 16b139 ÍD 10’ 16b140 ÍD 11’ 16b141 ÍD 12’ 16b142 ÍD 13’ 16b143 ÍD 14’ 143’ ÍD 15’ 143’’ ÍD 16’ 143’’’ ÍD 17’ 16b144 ÍD 18’ 16b145 ÍD 19’ 16b146 ÍD 20’ 16b147 21’ 16b148 [ÍD

... [... [... ME.E [... D ME.E SUEN D ME.E ŠU SUEN D ŠI.MA<.AT> SUEN Ú(!ZAG).KIN TUR A.RA.AH.TUM D

EN.LÍL G◦Ú.GAL ┘ NANNA G◦Ú.G[AL D PA 5 NA[NNA DUG PA 5 LA[HTAN D PA 5 DA.[DA PA 5 DA.[DA PA 5 ŠI DA.[DA D

BAL.[RI SÌLA.[QUM AN.NÉ[.PÀD.DA AŠ[.ŠIR.PÀD.DA P]ÀD.[DA

207

...] ...] ...] ...] vacat vacat vacat vacat vacat ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...]

? ? ? 227:15 223:05 225:01 224:14 224:15 227:01 227:02

? ? ? aIII18 aIII19 aIII20 aIII21 aIII22 aIII23 aIII24 aIII26 aIII27 aIII28 aIII29 aIII30

Part 1 - Text Edition 22’ 23’ 24’ 25’ 26’ 27’ 28’

16b149 16b150 16b151 16b152 16b153 16b154

ÍD

29’

16b155

ÍD

ÉNSI

30’ 31’ 32’ 33’

16b156 16b157 16b158 16b159

ÍD

SAĜA ŠABRA [TUM 4 .]MA.AL

34’ 35’ 36’ 37’ 38’ 39’ 40’

16b160 16b161 16b162 16b163 16b164 16b165 16b166

ÍD

41’ 42’ 43’ 44’ 45’ 46’ 47’ 48’ 49’ 50’ 51’ 52’ 53’

16b167 16b168 16b169 16b170 16b171 16b172 16b173 16b174 16b175 16b176 16b177 16b178 -

ÍD

ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD

ÍD ÍD ÍD

ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD

ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD

[Í]D [ÍD] [ÍD]

Š<ÉŠ>(ŠÍK-L)

x

345

[...

ŠU.ŠUM EDIN.NA HUR.SAĜ HUR.SAĜ KALAM.MA PA 5 ÉNSI

BUR!-ŠIR-DIŠ (!LAGAŠ) KA.ZAL.LUH KU 6 MUŠEN MUŠ ! ĜÍR.TAB TAB.BA.MÚ.MÚ ZÚ.ŠAR. AN-ME(!RAT) MES.HA.TIR.RA ME.E GAL.GAL DA.BA.AN ŠE(!HI).BI.IB NIN MU.UN.ĜEN D NANNA MU.UN[.ĜEN

I.KUR.RA PÁ<.LI>.IŠ.TUM [ !D A. ŠAG 4 NAN[NA HUR.SAĜ GAL [ D NIN S[I 4 AN.NA D ? T[U .TU D

└ ┘ [...

...] ...] : MIN [...] : MIN [...] :┌MIN┐[...] : MIN x[...] : MIN pa-a[t-xx -]┌ki-zu : MIN eš-ša[-… ]x-ak-ki : MIN ša-an-┌gi┐ : MIN ša-ba-re-e : MIN tu-um-ma-al : MIN la-ga-as

227:03 227:05 228:20 227:24

aIII30a aIII31 aIII32 aIII33 -

-

aIII37

227:26 -

aIII38 aIII39 aIII40 -

: MIN ka-sa-al-lu-uh : MIN nu-ú-ni : MIN iṣ̣-ṣ̣u-ri : MIN ṣ̣e-ri : MIN zu-qì-qí-pi : tap-pá-ma-am-ma : su!?-am-ma-šar-ru

224:17 227:11 227:10 227:12

aIII41 aIII42 aIII43 aIII44 aIII45 aIII46

: mes-ha-tir-r[a] : me-e-ga-ak[-xx] vacat : hi-bi ┘ - └ ib ┘ [] : ┘ [...] ...] : [...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...]

224:26 224:27 227:20 ?

? aIII49 aIII50 aIII51 aIII52 aIII53 aIII54 aIII55 aIII56 aIII57 aIII59 ? ?

-

aIV01a aIV01b

end of column V continued ÍD section: 1.B’ [ÍD 2. [ÍD 3. [ÍD 4. 16b179 [ÍD 5. 16b180 [ÍD

...].NA xx].IŠ.TUM xx.I]Š.TUM SU.U]M.A.BI SU.U]M.LA.I.LA

208

: ì-<si->ni-t[u 4 ] vacat vacat vacat vacat

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 16b (canonical tablets XXIb-XXII) 6.B’’ 7.

16b181 16b182

[ÍD] [ÍD]

SÀ. A .BU ◦D A.PÍL . SUEN

8.

16b183

[Í]D

9.B’ 10.

16b184 16b185

Í D

11. 12.

16b186 16b187

ÍD

13.

16b188

ÍD

14.

16b189

ÍD

15. 16. 17. 18.

16b190 16b191 16b192 16b193

ÍD

19. 20. 21. 22. 23.

16b194 16b195 16b196 16b197 16b198

ÍD

A.PÍL.[ S]UEN. HÉ.ĜÁL D ┐<’’/’> SUEN .MU.BA.LI.IṬ D <’’/’> N.MU.BA.LI.IṬ. SUE HÉ.ĜÁL <’/’’> H A.AM.MU .RA.PÍ <’/’’> HA .AM.MU.RA.PÍ. HÉ.ĜÁL HA.A[M.MU.]RA.PÍ. NU.HUŠ.NI.ŠI HA.AM[.MU.]RA.PÍ. NA.GÁB.↑NU.HUŠ.NI.ŠI SA.AM.[S]I.LU.NI SA.AM.SI.LU.IR(!NI).HÉ.ĜÁL SA.AM.SI.LU.NI.NU.HUŠ.NI.ŠI SA.AM.SI.LU.NI.NA.GÁB. ↑NU.HUŠ.NI.ŠI A.BI.ŠU [A]M.MI.DI.TA.A.AN [A]M.MI.<Ṣ̣A.>DUG 4 .GA [S]A.AM.SU.DI.TA.A.AN ĜIŠ.KIN.TI

/

Í D

/

ÍD

ÍD ÍD ÍD

ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD

┌

┌ ┐

D

ÍD ĜIŠ.KI.KÉŠ.DA 16b199 ÍD 16b200 MUN ┘ .NA ÍD 16b201 GI[BIL] ÍD 16b202 [SUMUN ÍD LIBI[R.RA 16b203 16b204 [ÍD.DIDLI TÚL, PA 5 and ÉG sections: tu -uL 30.B’ 16b205 [ TÚL 31. 16b206 T[ÚL LÁ 32.F 16b207 [T]ÚL [SIG 33. 16b208 TÚL KU[G.GA D 34. 16b209 TÚL SUEN 35. 16b210 TÚL [LUGAL.G]I.NA 36. TÚL ĜIŠ.G[ÍN].MAŠ 16b211

24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29.

37. 38. 39. 40.B’ 41. 42. 43. 44. 45.

16b212 16b213 16b214 16b215 16b216 16b217 16b218 16b219 16b220

TÚL A KÚM.MA └ TÚL ┘ A ŠED 10 [TÚL] └ A └ DÙG ┘ [.GA [TÚL A HAB [TÚL A ŠEŠ [TÚL GÍD.DA [TÚL LUGUD.DA [ÉG] [PA 5 TÙN.NA

vacat : ÍD↑a-pílD◦ [EN-ZU] vacat

226:07

? aIV05

226:08

aIV06

vacat vacat

-

aIV07 aIV08

vacat vacat

226:09 226:10

aIV11 aIV12

-

226:12

aIV13

-

226:11

aIV14

vacat vacat -

226:13 226:14 226:16 226:15

aIV15 aIV16 aIV17 aIV18

vacat vacat vacat vacat : ÍD ki-iš-↑ka-te 10 -e : ÍD ir-ri-ti : ÍD ṭá-ab-ti : ÍD eš-šu :] ÍD la-bi 4 -ru :] ÍD la-bi 4 -rù : n]a-ra-tu 4

226:17

aIV19 aIV20 aIV22 aIV23

226:18 226:19 -

aIV24 aIV25 aIV26 aIV27 aIV28

? -

aIV29 aIV30 aIV31 ? aIV35

229:03 228:01

aIV36 aIV37 aIV38 aIV39

: b]u-ur-tu 4 : a-s]u-u : k]a-la-ak-ku : b]u-ur-tu 4 ↑el-la-tu 4 : bu-ur]-ti D ┘└ 30 ┘ [ : b[u-ur-ti šar-ru-ki] : b[u-ur-]ti ↑il-┌ga┐[-mèš] : bu[-ur-]ti A.MEŠ em-mu-ti : bu[-ur-t]i A.MEŠ ki!-ṣụ́ -u : bu-ur-]ti A.MEŠ ṭá-bu-ti : bi-i]š-tu 4 : mar-r]a-tu 4 : bu-u]r-ti ar-ku : bu-ur-t]i ku-ru-u └ : ik-ku : pa-a]l-gu 209

Part 1 - Text Edition 46. 16b221 [PA 5 LÁ 47. 16b222 [PA 5 SIG/ŠÌTA 48. 16b223 [PA 5 ŠÌTA 49. [... 50. 16b224 [PA 5 ÉNSI 51. 16b225 [PA 5 SAĜA 52. 16b226 [PA 5 ŠABRA 53. 16b227 [PA 5 A DÉ.A] 54. 16b228 [PA 5 A DÉ.DÉ.A] 55. 16b229 [... 56. [... 57. [... 58. 16b230 [... 59. 16b231 [...] 60. 16b232 [ÉG ?DAL.BA.AN.NA about 6 lines missing before end of column

: a-tap-]pá : a-tap-]pá : ra-a]-ṭu x] A ih-ri : pa-l]a-ag eš-ša-ak-ki : pa]-la-ag ša-ge-e : p]a-la-ag ša-ba-re-e : MIN ]A.MEŠ ub-lu : MIN ]A.MEŠ it-ta-na-bá-lu : na]-ag-ga-ru ]x ki-bi-ti ...]x : t]um-ma-al-hu : ]su-pu-ri : bi-]ri-ti

228:02 228:03-4 228:05 ? 228:20 228:22 228:10 228:11 ? ? ? 229:08

aIV40 ? ? aIV45 aIV44 aIV46 aIV47 ? ? ? aIV52 -

:] i-ki-bu [] : ka-ak-k[a-bu] : sa-ap-pu : ka-lu-tu 4 : dì-il-bat : ni-ik-ka-ra-a[k] : ti-ša-at-ta-lu : ni-ru

229:23 229:25 229:26a 229:25a -

aIV60 aIV62 aIV63 aIV64 -

: ma-ru-du-uk : šul-BAD(?bi 4 ) : ma-an-za-ta : il-tar ka-bi : il-tar ka-ka-bi : e-ri-du 4 : MUL ha-ba-↑ṣ̣i-na-nu MUL ti-nu-ur

2211:06 22gJg

aIV65

-

-

VI

MUL

B’

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

section: 16b233a 16b233b 16b234 16b235 16b236 16b237 16b238

[ [[MUL [MUL [MUL [MUL [MUL [MUL

MU]L MU]L M]UL DIL.BAT] GU.L]A SIPA.E].NE E MU.UN.K]UR 9 : KI.KÉŠ.DA

9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

16b239 16b240 16b241 16b242 16b243 16b244 16b245

[MUL [MUL [MUL [MUL [MUL]

AMAR]-ÉRIN(!UTU) ŠUL.B]I.IN 4 TIR] AN.NA NI]N SI(!SI 4 ) AN.NA DIL.BAT

MUL

ERIDU EN.TE.NA BAR.HUŠ

16.

16b246

MUL

┌MUL┐

KI

IM ŠU.RIN MUNUS KA.DA.UŠ.↑E.NE

ÚS

URUDU

210

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 16b (canonical tablets XXIb-XXII) 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33.

16b247 16b248 16b249 16b250 16b251 16b252 16b253 16b254 16b255 16b256 16b257 16b258 16b259 16b260 16b261 16b262 16b263

MUL

34. 35. 36.

16b264 16b265 16b266

MUL

section: 37.B’ 16b267 38. 16b268 39. 16b269 40. 16b270 41. -

└

MUL

MUL MUL MUL

[MU]L [MU]L [M]UL [M]UL [M]UL MUL MUL MUL MUL MUL MUL MUL

MUL MUL

MAR.GÍD.DA ÙZ PAN GAG SI.SÁ GAG Ú.TAG.GA MAŠ.TAB.BA ĜÍR.TAB MUŠEN UGA MUŠEN TI 8 UDU IDIM QÀ.AN.DUH MAR.TU KA 5 .A KU 6 MUŠEN SIM MAH LÚ ! SA .GAZ LÚ

HUN.ĜÁ IM.ZU(!ZUH) U 4 .ZIL.LAL

: i-ri-iq-qu : en-zu : qa-al-tu 4 : ša-ku 8 -du : ši-il-ta-hu : tu-u’-ú-mu : zu-qì-qí-pu : e-ri-bu : e-ru-u : bi-i-bu : pa-ṭí-rù : a-mu ┘ - └ ru! : še-la┐-bu 346 : nu-ú-nu : iṣ-ṣụ -ri : si-nu-un-tu 4 : MUL ha-am-ba-t[a] : MUL a-ga-ri : MUL šar!-ra-qu : MUL ni-ma-ra PA[xx]

2210:06 2210:05 22gJf 2210:09 2210:11 2211:05 -

-

2211:03 2211:08

-

: eb-lu : e ┘ [-bil-mah-hu] : […] : ┘ […] …]

2211:10 2211:08 2211:12 2211:13 -

-

-

aI21 aI23 aI24 aI25 aI26 aI27 aI28 -

ÉŠ

ÉŠ ÉŠ MAH [ÉŠ] GAL

[ÉŠ Ú.]RI.IN.NU [ÉŠ Ú.RI.]IN x[…

16b Tablet 2 consisting of: 8C = 558 C (74227 – p.525) 8E = 558 E=559 B (74187 – p.461) 9C = 559 C (74158j – p.394) 9E = 559 E (74122u – p.307) Obverse I KI section: 1’ traces of first sign only ! 2’8E 16b001 NA.NA 3’ 16b002 BU.BA 4’ 16b003 ME.GIL.TUM 5’ 16b004 ÍB.RU ÍB.RAT 6’ 16b005 7’ 16b006 AR.ŠA 16b007 AR.ŠA.NA 8’ 9’ 16b008 TA.ŠA 10’ 16b009 TA.ŠA.NA 11’ 16b010 QA.TA QA.TA.NA 12’ 16b011

KI KI KI KI KI KI KI K I

[ [ K I [

K I

KI

211

[…] […] […] […] […] […] […] …] …] …] […]

Part 1 - Text Edition 13’ 16b012 TA.ŠI[.HU 14’ 16b013 BU.L[A.LA IRI 15’ 16b014 ┘ [?A.RI.A 16’traces of first sign only break II 1’8C 2’ 3’ 4’ 5’ 6’ 7’ 8’ 9’ 10’ 11’ 12’ 13’ 14’ 15’ 16’ 17’ 18’ 19’ 20’ 21’ 22’ 23’ 24’ 25’ 26’ 27’ 28’ 29’ 30’ 31’ 32’ 33’ 34’ break

KI KI KI

┌KI

16b030 16b031 16b032 16b033 16b034 16b035 16b036 16b037 16b038 16b039 16b040 16b041 16b042 16b043 16b044a 16b044b 16b045 16b046 16b047 16b048 16b049 16b050 16b051 16b052 16b053 16b054 16b055 16b056 -

[...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [IRIBU.U]Š [IRIZI.IB].BA.AN.NU [IRIHAL.]HAL.LA [IRI... ]IRI [IRI...] [IRIÈŠ] [IRIÈŠ.M]AH [IRIMA.AL].GA [IRIMA.A]L.GI.A [IRI]BA.A [IRI]BA.A [IRI]BA.NA [I]RI[A]L. └ BA.NA [I]RI[x.]AN.NAM [I]RI[DÙ].A IRI [B]A.NI.TUM IRI [B]A.TI.TU[M]

[IRI...]

└

III 1’8C 2’

16b080 -

IRI

KI

ÚR [...

KI

3’ 4’

-

ÚR [... ÚR [...

KI

KI KI KI KI KI KI KI KI KI KI KI KI KI KI KI KI KI KI

└

┘

KI KI KI KI KI KI KI

IRI

KI

G[A.ŠU.BA

┘

KI

KI

IRI

UZUD MU.UD IRI ŠU IRI ŠU.I IRI ŠU.HA.A IRI └ ┘ KAR

┘

KI KI KI KI

KI

212

KI

┘

…] …] …]

213:01-3 213:05 213:06

aI33 aI35

vacat vacat : ú-ru : i-ni-ik : a-na-ak : pa-ra-rù vacat vacat : ta-am-ru : ta-am-ru vacat vacat : hal-hal vacat : e-ru-tu 4 : e-eš : eš-mah : ma-al- └ gu : ma-al ┘ -┌gu vacat vacat vacat vacat : a-li na-bi-ti : a-li ṣ̣a-a-ti vacat vacat vacat vacat vacat vacat vacat vacat [...]

? ? ? ? ? 216:08 216:09 216:10 217:16 218:01 ?

? ? ? ? aII09 aII10 aII12 aII11 aII13 ? aII16 aII17 aII18 aII19 aII20 idem aII21 aII23 aII26 aII27 aII28 ?

...] ...]

2110:08a11 idem idem

aII59 aII60-3

...] ...]

idem idem

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 16b (canonical tablets XXIb-XXII) KI

5’ ÚR [... 6’ 16b081 RA.[PI.QUM 7’ 16b082 RA.[SU.QUM D 8’ 16b083 D[UL 6 SUEN ┐ 9’ DU [.UN.NU … 10’ DU.[UN.NU … 11’ 16b084 DU.U[N.NU ZA.MI.IT 12’ 16b085 HA.[BU.UZ 13’ 16b086 HA.[BU.UZ BAL.RI 14’ 16b087 L[ÀL ÚR probably 3 lines missing 18’8C ?16b091 Z[I?.TAR 19’ ?16b092 Z[I?.TAR BAL.RI break Reverse IV’ ÍD section: 1’9E 2’ 16b137 3’ 16b138 4’ 16b139 5’ 16b140 6’ 16b141 7’ 16b142 8’ 16b143 9’ 16b143’ 10’ 16b143’’ 11’ 16b143’’’ 12’ 16b144 13’ 16b145 14’ 16b146 15’ 16b147 16’ 16b148 17’ 16b149 18’ 16b150

┌ÍD┐ ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD

<ÍD>

ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD

[ÍD]

KI KI KI KI KI KI KI KI KI

KI KI

[... D ŠI[.MA.AT SUEN NE [... A.RA.A[H.TUM D EN.LÍL [GÚ.GAL D NANN[A GÚ.GAL D PA 5 NAN[NA DUG PA 5 L[AHTAN D PA 5 D[A.DA PA 5 D[A.DA PA 5 [ŠI.DA.DA B[AL.RI SÌ[LA.QUM AN ┘ [.NÉ.PÀD.DA AŠ[.ŠIR.PÀD.DA PÀ[D.DA Š[ÉŠ ŠU[.ŠUM

break

213

...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...]

idem 2110:14-6 idem 2110:15 2110:17 2110:18 2110:19

idem aII65 aII66 aII67-9 idem aII70 aIII01 aIII02 aIII03

...] ...]

-

-

...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...]

? 223:05 225:01 224:14 224:15 227:01 227:02 227:03 -

? aIII20 aIII21 aIII22 aIII23 aIII24 aIII26 aIII27 aIII28 aIII29 aIII30 aIII30a -

Part 1 - Text Edition V ÍD

section: 1’8E 16b190 2’ 16b191 3’ 16b193

[ÍD] [Í]D [Í]D ┌ÍD┐

┌

┐┌

SA . AM.SI.L[U.NI SA.AM.SI.LU.NI H[É.ĜÁL ┌ ┐ SA.AM.SI.LU.NI NA. QÁB [.NU.HUŠ.NI.ŠI A.BI.ŠU AM.MI.DI.TA.A.AN AM.MI<. A>.DUG 4 .GA SA.AM.SU.DI.TA.A.AN ĜIŠ.KIN.TI

4’ 5’ 6’ 7’ 8’

16b194 16b195 16b196 16b197 16b198

9’ 10’

16b199 16b200

ÍD

11’ 12’

16b201 16b202

[Í]D

GIBIL SUMUN

13’

16b203

ÍD

LIBIR.RA

-

ÍD.DIDLI

14’

16b204 TÚL section: 15’8E 16b205 16’ 16b206 17’ 16b207 18’ 16b208 19’ 16b209 20’ 16b210 21’9E 16b211 22’9C 16b212 23’ 24’ 25’ 26’ 27’ 28’ break

16b213 16b214 16b215 16b216 16b217 -

ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD

└

ĜIŠ.KI.KÉŠ.DA ÍD

ÍD

MUN

[t]u-ul:TÚL

vacat] vacat] vacat] vacat vacat vacat vacat : ÍD ki-iš-k[a]-te 9 -e : ÍD ir-r[i<8E/9E>]-ti : ÍD ṭá-a<8E/9E>b-ti : ÍD eš-šu <8E/9E> : ÍD la-b<8E/9E>i 4 -ru : ÍD la-<8E/9E>bi 4 -ru : na-ra-[t<8E/9E>]u 4 : bu-ur-[t<8E/9E>]u 4 : a-s[u<8E/9E>]-u : k<8E/9E>a-la-ak-ku :<8E/9E> bu-ur-tu 4 el-la-tu 4 :<8E/9E> bu-ur-ti D30 :<8E/9E>] bu-ur-ti šar-ru-ki : b]u-ur-ti gi 5 -il-ga-mèš ┌ <9C/9E> :[ bu-ur-t]i A.MEŠ em ┘ - └ mu ┘ - └ ti ┘ : bu-ur-[ti A.MEŠ ki-ṣ̣ú-u] : bu-ur-ti A.MEŠ ṭ[á-bu-ti] : bi-iš-tu 4 : mar-ra-t[u 4 ] : bu-ru a[r-ku] : ┘└ bu ┘ - └ ru ┘ [...]

TÚL LÁ TÚL SIG TÚL KUG.GA D TÚL SUEN [TÚL] └ LUGAL ┘ . └ GI ┘ [.NA [TÚL ĜIŠ.GÍN.MAŠ [TÚL A KUM.M]A

[TÚL ŠE]D 7 [TÚL DÙG.] └ GA [TÚL x]x [TÚL A Š]EŠ [TÚL GÍ]D.DA [TÚL x]x IŠ ┘ 347

226:13 226:14 226:16

aIV15 aIV16-7 aIV18

226:17

aIV19 aIV20 aIV22 aIV23

-

aIV24 -

226:18

aIV25 aIV26

226:19

aIV27

-

aIV28 -

aIV29 aIV30 aIV31 aIV34 aIV35 aIV36

-

aIV37 -

VI

MUL

section: 1’8E 16b235 2’ 16b236 3’ 16b237 4’ 16b238

┌MUL┐ MUL MUL MUL

[DIL].┌BAT┐ GU.LA SIPA.E.NE E MU.UN.KUR 9 KI.KÉŠ.DA

214

[...] :┌ni┐-i[k-ka-ra-ak] : ti-ša-at┐[-ta-lu] : n[i-ru]

229:25a -

aIV64 -

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 16b (canonical tablets XXIb-XXII) 5’ 6’ 7’ 8’ 9’ 10’ 11’

16b239 16b240 16b241 16b242 16b243 16b245 16b246

MUL

12’ 13’ 14’ 15’ 16’ 17’ 18’ 19’ 20’ 21’ 22’ 23’ 24’ 25’ 26’ 27’ 28’ break

16b247 16b248 16b249 16b250 16b251 16b252 16b253 16b254 16b255 16b256 16b257 16b258 16b259 16b260 16b261 16b262 16b263

MUL

AMAR-UTU ŠUL.BI.IN 4 TIR.AN.NA NIN.SI 4 .AN.NA DIL.BAT EN.TE.NA BAR.HUŠ ÚS IM ŠU.RIN MUNUS DÚB.TA.E.NE ĜIŠ MAR.GÍD.DA

MUL MUL MUL MUL MUL MUL

MUL MUL MUL MUL MUL MUL MUL MUL MUL MUL MUL MUL MUL MUL

└

MUL

[MUL

┘

ÙZ PAN GAG SI.SÁ GAG Ú.TAG.GA MAŠ.TAB.BA ĜÍR.TAB MUŠEN UGA MUŠEN TI 8 UDU IDIM QÀ.AN.DU 8 MAR.TU KA 5 .A KU 6 MUŠEN └ SIM ┘└ MAH LÚ SA.GAZ]

215

: ma-ru-du-uk : šul-bi 4 : ma-an-za-ta : il-tar ka-ka-bi : il-tar ka-ak-ka-bi : MUL ha-ba-ṣi-na-nu ↑MUL ti-nu[-ur URUDU]

2211:06 22gJg -

aIV65 -

: i-ri-iq-qu : en-zu : qa-al-tu 4 : ša-ku 8 -du : ši-il<-ta>-hu : tu-u’-ú-mu : zu-qì-qí-pu : e-ri-bu : e-ru-u : bi-i-bu : pa-ṭí-ru : a-mur-ru : še-la-bu : nu-ú-nu : iṣ̣-ṣụ -ru : si-nu-un-tu 4 └ : └ MUL ┘└ ha ┘ -am-ba-ti

2210:06 2210:05 22gJf 2210:09 2210:11 2211:05 -

-

Part 1 - Text Edition Extract 1 - 559 D (7455+74155b – p.193) – right side with Akkadian equivalents possibly broken off, otherwise unilingual but in B version sequence Obverse 1. 16b144 2. 16b145 3. 16b146 4. 16b147 5. 16b148 6. 16b149 7. 16b150 8. 16b151 9. 16b152 Lower Edge 1. 16b153 Reverse 1. 16b154 2. 16b155 3. 16b156 4. 16b157 5. 16b158 6. 16b159 7. 16b160 8. ?16b161 9. lower edge

ÍD

MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN └ MIN ┘ [M]IN

BAL<>.RI ! SÌLA .QUM AN.NÉ.PÀD.DA AŠ.ŠIR.PÀD.DA PÀD.DA ┌ ŠÉŠ ŠUR.ŠUM EDIN.NA HUR.SAĜ

[M]IN

HUR.SAĜ K[ALAM.M]A

MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN └ MIN MIN

PA 5 ÁŠ.ŠE(!ÉNSI) ÉNS[I] [SAĜA] ŠAB[RA] TUM 4 .[MA.AL]

BUR-ŠIR-[LA(!LAGAŠ] KA.ZAL.LU◦H [...] x[...]

216

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 16b (canonical tablets XXIb-XXII) Fragments: 558 H’ (74114h – p.285) probably part of 16bT2 I 1’ 16b016 [GUL.L]A.BA 2’ […].A 3’ 16b017 [MÁ.R]Í 4’ 16b018 [SA.AD].MÁ.RÍ 5’ 16b019 [SA.A]D.BA.RI 6’ 16b020 [SA.A]D LÀL 7’ 16b021 [SA.A]D.DUG.RI ┘ .IŠ 8’ 16b022 [IR]I[L]U.BA(!ÚB).D[U? 9’ [IR]I┌LU.BA(!ÚB) ┘ […

KI KI KI KI KI KI

└

KI

KI KI

558 I (74117b – p.289) probably part of 16bT1 I KI.ÙR 1’ 16b023 2’ 16b024 KI.NIR 3’ 16b025 KI.NIR ŠA 4’ 16b026 KI.NIR ŠID 5’ 16b027 KI.NIR ŠABRA 6’ 16b028 └ DIL.BAT 7’ 16b029 [UZ]UD

[KI KI KI KI KI KI K I

[

558 J (74104g – p.261) part of a 16b text 1’ 16b074 [MA]R.RU.UD┐ 2’ [KA]R KU.UZ 16b075 3’ [KA]R DNA.BI.UM 16b076 4’ [KA]R DSUEN 16b077 5’ 16b078 [KA]R └ ŠU D └ SUEN ┘ 6’ [KA]R D ┘ [UTU 16b079

[KI KI KI KI

[KI KI

558 L (74232f – p.538) probably part of 16bT1 I 1’ 16b011 [ Q]A.TA.[NA 2’ 16b012 [T]A.ŠI.HU 3’ 16b013 [BU.]LA.LA 16b014 4’ [IRI]A!.RI.A 5’ 16b015 [IRINA]M.ME.EDIN ┘ .N[A

KI KI┐ KI KI KI

559 G (74199b – p.490) part of a 16b text, perhaps part of 16bT2 V Í D 1’ [ [… Í D 2’ [] [… 3’ [Í]D [… Í D D 4’ 16b183 [] A.P[ÍL. SUEN.HÉ.ĜÁL D 5’ 16b184 [Í]D S[UEN.MU.BA.LI.IṬ Í D D 6’ 16b185 [] SUE[N.MU.BA.LI.IṬ.HÉ.ĜÁL 217

┘

vacat vacat vacat vacat […] […] […] …] …]

? 213:09 213:11 213:12 213:14 213:16 -

aI34 ? aI36 aI38 aI39 aI41 aI42 -

…] […] […] : […] : ┘ […] […] …]

213:18 213:19 -

aI45 aI46 -

…] […] […] […] …] …]

-

aII53 aII55 aII56

…] […] […] […] …]

13:01-3 213:05 213:06 213:08

aI33 aI35 -

…] …] …] …] …] …]

? ? ? 226:08 -

? ? ? aIV06 aIV07 aIV08

Part 1 - Text Edition 7’ 8’ 9’ 10’

16b186 16b187 16b188 16b189

[ÍD [ÍD [ÍD [ÍD

H]A.AM.MU[.RA.PÍ HA.A]M.MU[.RA.PÍ.HÉ.ĜÁL HA.A]M.MU[.RA.PÍ.NU.HUŠ.NI.ŠI HA.AM.M]U[.RA.PÍ.NA.GÁB.NU. HUŠ.NI.ŠI

…] …] …] …]

559 H (74232a – p.538) part of a 16b text, could belong to either 16bT1 IV or 16bT2 IV ┌ 1’ [KUR …] : MIN x[…] 2’ 16b130a [Í]D : na-r[u] 3’ 16b130b [Í]D.DA : na-ru [] ÍD 4’ 16b131 [ IDIGNA DÁ]L.LAL : i-di-ig-n[a] 5’ 16b132 [ÍD BURANUN.N]A : pu-ra-at-t[u] ┌ 6’ …] : iš-me-e-tu 4 [ÍD 16b133 ÍD [ :] └ ap-kal-li-t[u 4 ] 7’ 16b134 NUN.GAL

226:09 226:10 226:12 226:11

aIV11 aIV12 aIV13 aIV14

222:01 222:03 222:04 -

aIII12 aIII13 aIII14 aIII16

Fragments not used: With the exception of 558 M, all floating fragments listed here (most probably) belong to the bilingual version of 16 but, because of their small size and lack of physical joins, there is insufficient context to allow for a reconstruction of the sequence in which their entries are to be ordered. 558 F (74129d – p.331) part of a 16b text but deviating: does not join 16bT 1 or 2 1’ traces only 2’ [IRI]ŠU 3’ [IRIŠU].I 4’ [IRIŠU.HA].A 5’ [IRINÍĜ.KUD].DA 6’ [IRIS]A.GAZ 7’ [IRIH]UN.ĜÁ [IRIx] SU 8’ 9’ [IRIx]KID [ 10’ traces only 558 G (74158k – p.394) probably part of 16bT1 or 2 1’-2’ some ‘:’ divider signs and a few traces only 3’ …] GAN 4’ […] MU 5’ [Š]EN.ŠEN.NA 6’ [UR.SAL.ĜA]RKI 7’ […]KI 8’ […]x UNUGKI 9’ […]x 10’ [… 11’ traces only

218

: MIN x[…] : MIN ga[l-la-bi] : MIN ba-[i-ri] : MIN mi-k[i-si] : MIN ha[-bi-ri] : MIN […] : └ MIN ┘ […] …]

: AN[ …] : AN x[…] : AN x[…] : IRI ur-sal[-gar] : IRI ki-iš [] : IRI šu-ma┐[-…] ? └ : IRI šu-r]u -…] : IR]I pa-r[a-ši]

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 16b (canonical tablets XXIb-XXII) 558 H’’ (7490c – p.224) probably part of 16bT1 or 2 1. […]x GAB x[… 2. [IRISA.AD.D]UG.RI.IŠ [

…] …]

558 M (74238v – p.562) isolated fragments with a few signs belonging to unidentified entries; unilingual but neither part of 15 Tablet 1 (because M has KI instead MIN) or of 16a Tablet 1 (because M lacks ruling of each entry) KI 1’ […] KI 2’ [… U]NUG KI 3’ […]x UZ KI [… T]IR 4’ KI [… N]E 5’ KI […] 6’ KI […] NA 7’ ┘ 558 N (74238w – p.562) 1’ [] KAR DIĜIR.MEŠ┐[ 2’ [...] 3’ [... 4’ [... 5’ traces only

...] : hu-ur-be [] ...-]ri-ši ...-]ri-ši-šu ┌

559 J (74117g – p.290) probably part of a 16b text 1’ a few traces only 2’ [MI]N LUGAL [... ┌ MIN SU.UM.[... 3’ MIN SU.UM.[... 4’ MIN SU.UM.[... 5’ 6’ [MI]N HA.MU.R[A.PÍ [MIN S]À. └ AM ┘ [... 7’

...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...]

559 ‘K’ (74122au – p.311) part of a 16b text but only has a few ÍD’s without context

219

Part 1 - Text Edition Division 17 (canonical XXIII) 17 Tablet 1 consisting of: 560 A (7496b – p.234) 560 B (74105k – p.267) 560 C (74118a – p.291) 560 D (74186 – p.460) 560 E (74271 – p.586) 560 F (74113a – p.283) 560 G (74107o – p.272) 560 ‘I’ (74107ab – p.275) It is assumed that all fragments found for division 17 belong to one tablet (with 3 columns on each side). Formal properties (size, ruling) and content (repetition of key words often indicated with MIN) seem to bear out this assumption. Because the preserved fragments lack coherence, they are mostly ordered using the canonical key word sequence (i.e. sequence TU 7 , KAŠ, ŠIM, BAPPIR, SÚN, TITAB, MUNU 4 , NÍĜ.ÀR.RA, DU 8 , ZÍD, NINDA) and the canonical column count (with KAŠ filling most of I and II and NINDA filling most of V and VI). Note that little of the text is preserved and that much of its content deviates from the canonical version - the reconstruction given here cannot be other than provisional. Obverse I ┐ 1’A TU 7 [... ...] 2’ 17001 TU 7 [SIG 5 um-ma-r]u da-am-qu 23Ia03 3’ 17002 TU 7 G[Ú GAL MIN h]u-ul-lu-ri 23Ia04 4’ 17003 MIN G[Ú TUR MIN k]a-ak-ké-e 17004 MIN G[Ú NÍĜ.ÀR.RA MIN g]u-ni-mu-ur-↑re-e 5’ ? MIN G[Ú … ]x IM A └ RI ┘ [...] 6’ 7’ 17005 MIN A[R.ZA.NA ...] 8’ [MIN A]R[.ZA.NA ?SIG 5 ...] break 1’’Do 17006 [MIN(TU 7 ) xx]x DA : ni-┌iq┐[-dì] 2’’ [MIN … S]AR vacat 3’’ 17007 [MIN ...] mu-tar-ti SIG 5 -ti 4 ? ! 4’’ 17008 [MIN ...]GABA ku -un-ši 5’’ 17009 [MIN ...]x šar-ma-di 6’’ 17010 [MIN … r]a-bi-k◦u 13 7’’ 17011 [MIN ...] : bi-qí-qì └ F 8’’ 17012 [MIN ZÍD.D]A r a- └ bi ┘ - └ ku 13┘ 9’’ 17013 [MIN ZÍD ZÚ.LUM.M]A bi-qí┐-[qì] 10’’ 17014 [MIN ...]x pa-ap-pa-si 11’’ 17015 [MIN ...] MIN pa-ap-pa-si SIG 5 -qí break 1’’’B []┌TU 7 ?┐[... ...] 2’’’ 17016 [] KAŠ [...] 3’’’ 17017 [MIN(KAŠ)] ĜARZA : [...] [MIN] KASKAL 4’’’ 17018 : K[AŠ ...] 5’’’ 17019 [MIN ŠE].SA.A : KAŠ.M[EŠ ...] 6’’’ 17020 [MIN] KIR 6 : KAŠ.M[EŠ ...] 7’’’ [MIN ]x : g[i-...] end of column 220

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 17 (canonical tablets XXIII)

II break 1’-4’ MIN’s only 5’Do 17021 MIN(KAŠ) x[ 6’ 17022 MIN xx[ 7’ 17023 MIN xx LA[ ooo] 8’ [MIN x]x[x]x 9’ [MIN … 10’C [MIN … F ┌ 11’ MIN┐[… 12’ MIN [… 13’ MIN [… 17024 14’ MIN ┌ZÍZ MIN IMĜAĜA(ÁŠ15’ 17025 AN-NA) 16’ 17026 MIN ĜARZA 17’ 17027 18’ 17028 MIN ĜARZ[A] MAH 19’ 17029 MIN NAG.AB 20’ 17030 MIN NAG.AB LUGAL 21’ 17031 MIN GIBIL SUMUN └ MIN ┘ perhaps 1 or 2 lines missing 1’’’Co [... about 5 lines missing 1’’Co [... 2’’ [... break III 1’Co 2’ 3’ 4’ 5’ 6’ 7’ 8’ 9’ 10’ 11’ 12’ 13’ 14’ 15’

17032 17033 17034 17035 17036 17037 17038 -



MIN ša-bu]-┌lu MIN] dam- └ qu : MIN[n]a-aš-p[u]-u : [MIN x]x-ba-aš-mi ...] …-]me? ...] ...]x ...]-ki-in vacat vacat vacat vacat : KA◦Š.MEŠ ↑ša-te-e : ša-te-e LUGAL vacat vacat

23If08 -

]↑si!-ka-ar ra-x-su

-



┌

MIN [x K]AŠ [ KAŠ [x] KAŠ [ ŠIM

MIN(ŠIM) [... MIN [DURU 5 ] MIN [HÁD] MIN IGI.ZAG┐.G[A] └ MIN ┘ AL.ŠEĜ 6 .G[A] [MIN] NU.AL.ŠEĜ 6 [.GA] [] SÚ[N x SÚN ŠU[R x └ SÚN ┘└ AL ┘ . └ ŠEG 6┘ [.GA x[... ┐ ZÍD [?.MUNU 4 MUNU 4┘ [

break

221

┐?

KAŠ.]MEŠ a- su [-...] KAŠ.]MEŠ ha-su ┘ [-...]

-

...] ...] [...] [...]xx[] raṭ-bu ┌ : ša-bu-lu vacat vacat vacat ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...]

23III12 23III13 23III15 23III26 -

Part 1 - Text Edition Reverse IV position of G unclear - placement provisional 1’G [ZÍ]D [... ┐ 2’ ZÍD AN.DA [x 3’ ZÍD ĜIŠ.ĜIŠ [x 4’ ZÍD [… 5’ 17039 ZÍD ŠE Ì.[ĜIŠ 6’ ZÍD ZU.LUM.[MA 17040 7’ ZÍD SAĜ x[x break 1’Cr 2’ 3’ 4’ 5’ break

17041 17042 17043 17044 17045

-

: NINDA┐.┌MEŠ┐ kib-ri-ti : gul-gul-tu 4 : tu-ma-gu : ku-si-ib-tu 4 : hu-li-iš-tu 4

[NINDA ]x [NINDA] IŠ=MIL [NINDA] LÀL(!BU 5 ) [NINDA] PAD? [NINDA P]AD?

V 1.E 17046 [NI]NDA KUŠÁ.ĜÁ<.LÁ> 2. 17047 [NIN]DA KUŠLU.ÚB.BA 3. 17048 [NIN]DA GARZA 4. 17049 [NIN]DA KASKAL 5. 17050 [NIN]DA NÍĜ ŠE SA.A 6. 17051 [NINDA] GÚ.GAL 7. 17052 [NINDA] GÚ.TUR 8. 17053 [NINDA] GÚ NÍĜ!.ÀR.RA 9. 17054 [NINDA G]Ú GAL.GAL 10. 17055 [NINDA] ZÍD 11. 17056 [NINDA IM]ĜAĜA [NINDA ZÍD] GIG 12. 17057 [NINDA E]ŠA 13. 17058 [NINDA EŠ]A SIG 5 14. 17059 (15’ a few traces only) break followed by 4 lines with only NINDA (and a few traces) in Dr break VI 1’Dr 2’ 3’ 4’ 5’ 17060 6’ 17061 4 lines missing

...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...]

[...] [...] [...] [...]x [NINDA G]U.LA ┘ [NINDA] PÈŠ ┘

: NINDA.MEŠ na-ru-q[u] : NINDA.MEŠ lu-up-p[í] : NINDA.MEŠ pár-ṣi : NINDA.MEŠ KASKALni : NINDA.MEŠ qa-ia-ti : NINDA.MEŠ hu-ul-lu-ri vacat vacat vacat : NINDA.MEŠ ki-ib-ti vacat vacat vacat vacat

-

┌

-

┐┌

NINDA . MEŠ [...] NINDA.MEŠ MIN [...] : NINDA.MEŠ ┘ M[IN ...] ┌

: ┘ [...] [...] [...]

222

23V26 23V27 -

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 17 (canonical tablets XXIII) [... 11’Dr 12’ 17062 [NINDA SA]L.L[A 13’ 17063 [NINDA KA.K]AR.TUM┐ 14’ 17064 [NINDA PA.N]A.NI.KUM 15’ [MAN ] └ TIL rest of column empty

…-]┌a┐-ti :]┌NINDA┐.MEŠ ba-ba<-ni>-ti 348 : ka-ak-kar-tu 4 : pa-an-ni-gu MAN

Fragment not used: 560 ‘J’ 349 (74199p – p.495) 1’ [...] GU 7 (!?NAG) vacat 2’ [...] LUGAL vacat 3’ [...] GIBIL vacat 4’ [...] SUMUN vacat 5’ [... R]A vacat [...] MA 6’ vacat 7’ [...] LAM vacat vacat 8’ [...]x DI [...]x KU(!?HUĜ).ĜÁ vacat 9’ [...]x IŠ 10’ : ki-iš-šu-u about 12 lines missing (vacat in Akkadian column) 1’’-2’’ isolated RU sign and traces only

223

-

Part 1 - Text Edition Division 18 (canonical XXIV) 18 Tablet 1 The source material is listed in the (alphabetical) publication order of Emar VI/4 but the column count used is based on the assumption that all texts are parts of one tablet (4 columns on each side with A Obv I/Rev VIII, E Obv IV/Rev V and G VII/VIII with the final MAN [TIL] line). Formal properties (ruling, bilingual format and consistent use of ‘:’ indicators as well as of MIN to repeat key words) seem to bear out this assumption. Except where obvious deviations are encountered, this reconstruction provisionally maintains the canonical key word sequence (i.e. sequence LÀL, Ì, ŠIM, GA, ŠE, IN.NU, NU,ÚR.MA, ZÚ.LUM.MA, U 4 .HI.IN, MUN, NAGA, ÚKUŠ, ESIR). 561 A (74217b – p.504) Obverse 350 I 1’-2’ (parts of) MIN only 3’ Ì[... end of column Reverse VIII 1. [x] └ BA ┘ . └ BA.ZA 2. [x BA.BA.Z]A SIG 5 3. [x BA.BA.ZA M]UN 4. [x BA.BA.ZA ]SIG 5 5. traces only 561 B (74234d – p.548) I 1’ 18001 [] Ì 2’ 18002 [] Ì.Ĝ[IŠ 3’ 18003 ◦Ì.ĜIŠ BARAG.AK.A 4’ 18004 ◦Ì.ĜIŠ ZAG.GA 5’ 18005 [Ì].ĜIŠ DÙG.GA 6’ 18006 ◦Ì.NUN.NA 18007 7’ [Ì.]NUN.NA LÀL 18008 [MIN MIN] ZAG.G[A 8’ 9’ 18009 [MIN MIN] DÙG.GA

...]

?

: pa-pa[-su] : pa-p[a-su ...] : pa ┘ [-pa-su ...] : [...]

?

[...] ...] [...] [...] [...] : [...] : [...] ...] [...]

24014 24015 24016 24017 24035 24037

: šu-x[...] : Ì [...] : Ì.ME[Š ...] : MIN ka-[...] : MIN bar-x[... ]

? ? ? ? ?

10’ traces only 561 C (7491p – p.228) I/II 1’ ‘:’ only 2’ [...] 3’ [...]┌UL┐ 4’ [...] AZ 5’ [...] SAH.HU 6’ [...] HU

224

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 18 (canonical tablets XXIV) 561 D (7489l – p.223) II 1’ traces only 2’ 18013 [GA KU 7 ] 3’ 18014a [GA HAB 4’ 18014b [... 5’ traces only 561 E (74127d – p.321) Obverse IV’ 1’-2’ traces only 3’ 18015 [NU.ÚR.]MA end of column Lower Edge 1. 18016 [MIN] DURU 5 Reverse V’ 1. 18017 [MIN] └ HÁD.DU 2. 18018 [MIN SIG 5 561 F (74160g – p.410) VII’ 1’ traces only ┌ 2’ KI [... 3’ KI x[...] 4’ ZÚ.LUM.M[A ! 5’ Ú .GA ┘ [... 6’ LAM(!?ÚKUŠ) [... 7’ LAM(!?ÚKUŠ) [... a few traces lower in column VIII’ (NAGA=uhulu-section) 1’ [... 2’ [... 3’ [...

: GA.MEŠ ma┐[-at-qu] : k]i-ši-im-m[u] : k]i-ši-im ┘ -m[u]

24099-100 24101 idem

: nu-ur-┌mu┐

24237

vacat

-

: ša-bu-lu :] └ da-am ┘ - └ qu

-

...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...]

? ? ? ? ? ?

...]x uh-hu-li ...]x-ta MIN ... u]h-hu-li

561 G (74208b – p.507) VII’ 1’ TI-R[I? ... ? 2’ LÀL ŠE [... 3’ SAĜ[ ... VIII’

...] ...] ...]

225

? ? ?

? ? ?

Part 1 - Text Edition 1’ 2’ 3’ 4’ 5’ 6’ 7’ 8’ 9’ 10’

18026 18027 18028 18029 18030 18031 18032 18033a 18033b -

: i]ṭ-ṭu : la-ba-ra-a[k] : raṭ-bu : ku-up-ru : ESIR ku-pa-ra-↑at-t[u 4 ] : pa-an it!-te-e : qí-i-ru : na-ap-ṭu : na-ap-ṭu MAN

[ESIR [...] [... [ESIR HI.]┌A [...]x.LÁ SÍL.LÁ [... IGI] ESIR [...] ESIR [...] ESIR [Ì.KUR].RA [MAN]

24313-4 24315 24317 -

561 H (731084o – p.164) only Sumerian column preserved V [U 4 .HI.I]N x ┌MA┐ 1’ [...] 18019 [U 4 .HI.I]N GANBA 2’ [...] 18020 [U 4 .HI.I]N KI.KÁG.SILIM 3’ [...] 18021 [U 4 .HI.I]N ŠU.KÁRA 4’ [...] 5’ 18022 [] ZÚ.LUM.MA ┘ [...] 6’ 18023 [ZÚ.LUM.MA] DURU 5 [...] 7’ 18024 [ZÚ.L]UM.MA HÁD.DU [...] 8’ [...] 18025 [ZÚ.LU]M. └ MA ┘ SIG 5

24242 24244

561 ‘I’ (74109a – p.279) II 1’ and 5’ traces only 1’ 18010 [GA 2’ 18011 [GA GÁRA 3’ 18012 [GA NIGA

24090 24091 -

ši-]┌iz-bu l]i-il-du ] ma-a-ru

561 ‘K’ (74197d – p. 483) V/VI’ 1’-2’ (parts of) MUN and traces only 3’ MUN A[L. … MUN NU.A[L. … 4’ end of column

...] ...]

-

Fragment not used: 561 ‘J’ (74143k – p.353) Civil (p.20) suggests that this fragment may belong to division 18. Formal properties (ruling, bilingual format, frequency of MIN’s for repeated key words) as well as the entry hé-e-qu, from hiaqu ‘to mix’, makes this plausible, but the fact that no entries identifiable as belonging to division 18 can be reconstructed with certainty makes it impossible to place it in context.

226

Thematic Sign-lists * LÚ=ša * Division 1 5. LÚ=ša Division 1 1 Tablet 1 consisting of: 602 A (74121 – p.294-300) this piece is divided into two fragments: A’ = Obv left/Rev right and A’’ = Obv right/Rev left 602 N 351 (74148p – p.378) 602 U (74232e – p.538) 602 ‘AI’ (74106e – p.269) Obverse I 1.A’ 1001a 2. 1001b 3. 1001c 4. 1001d 5. 1001e 6. 1001f 7. 1001g 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008a 1008b 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014

22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30.

1015 1016 1017 1018a 1018b 1019 1020 1021 1022

31.

1023

LÚ LÚ LÚ LÚ LÚ LÚ LÚ LUGAL ŠÚ u

352

MIN 5 <:10 > MIN ú-mi-na : 5(!7) MIN in-nu-u : 50 MIN NÍĜIN MIN KIŠ MIN ŠÁR 353 MIN ŠÁR.RA MIN KI.ŠE(!ŠÁR).RA MIN NIN AL.LA.AK.A MIN IM.KI(!GI) MIN AB.ZU MIN MAR.TU MIN KI.EN.GI ZA(!URI)KI.MA MIN AN.NA UB.DA 4.BI MIN GI.NA MIN .E.NE DUMU LUGAL DUMU.MÍ LUGAL DUMU NUN.NA DUMU GUR 4 .RA la-ga-a r

[ :LÀGAR(SAL-HÚB) : <>SAL-HÚB (!EME 5 ) LI.BI.IR e-me

227

: šu-ú : ša-a : ma-am-ma : mi-im-ma : be-lu : a-mi-lu : šar-ru

1002 1001 1003 1005 1007 1004

001 -

: LUGAL KUR kiš-šá-ti : MIN : MIN : MIN : MIN : MIN : MIN : MIN : LUGAL KUR kiš-šá-ti : LUGALrù kul-la-li : MIN ha-am-mi : MIN ap-si-i : MIN a-mur-ri : MIN KURti šu-mé-ri ↑ak-ka-di : MIN kib-ra └ a ┘ [-ar-ba-t]i : MIN kí-n[u] : šar-r[a-nu] : DUMU ┘ [...] : DU[MU ...] : [...] : ┘ [...] ...] : ┘ [...]

1046 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1063-4 1061 1060 1057

-

1059 1074 1076 1077 1078 1079 1085 -

002a -

: [...]

1086

-

Part 1 - Text Edition 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59.

1024 1025 1026 1027 1028a 1028b 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1042’ 1043 1044

60.

1045

61. 62. 63. 64. 354 65. 66.

SUKKAL SUKKAL.MAH MIN IRI MIN LUGAL MIN Ì.DU 8 MIN Ì.DU 8 MIN GIR 5 .GIR 5 MIN LÚKAŠ 4 MIN DI.KU[D MIN NÍĜ.UNKIN.NA MIN ÉNSI MIN SAĜA MIN ŠA[BRA(PA-[AL)

MIN [... MIN [... MIN [... MIN [... SUKKAL.[SUKKAL EGI[R.SUKKAL ZAB[AR.DAB GAL.Z[U └ GAL ┘ .Z[U.UNKIN.NA ĜIŠ [?GU.ZA.LÁ ! AD .[GI 4 .GI 4 GI(!KI).M[AH.AD.GI 4 .GI 4 RA.A[B SIK.KA.TIM RA.A[B SIK.KA.TIM GÁN[.NU Á.ZI.DA RA.A[B SIK.KA.TIM GÁ[N.NU Á.GUB.BA

1046 1047 -

RA.A[B RA.A[B MAR.TU RA.[?GABA RA.[?GABA RA.[?GABA

: š[u-kal-lu] : š[u-kal-mah-hu] : LÚ[ ...] : MIN LU[GAL] : MIN i◦[-tu-ú] : x[...] :[ ...] : ┘ [...] ...] [...] [...] [...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] : ra-ab sík-]ka-ti x[xx] : ra-ab sík-k]a-t[i] : ra-ab sí]k-ka-ti kà-an-nu] └ ša e-mi-it-ti

1087 1088 1089 1092-5 idem 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 ? ? ? ? 1107a 1108-9 1121 1116 1117 1125 1127 1128 1129

004 005 007 idem 009 011 012 ? ? ? ? 012a 013 015 017 016 018 019

: ra-ab sík-ka-] └ tu 4 kà-an-nu ša šu-]mé-li : ra-bi-a-n]u : ra-bi-]an a-mur-ri ...] ...] ...]

1130

020

1131 idem idem

021 022 023-4 idem idem

[...] ...] ...] ...] ...] [...] : u[m-...] : MIN[...] : MIN [...]

1133 1135a ? ? 1135f 1135g 1135h -

025 028 ? ? 030 030a 030b

about 10 lines missing before end of column II 1.A’ 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054

ku

BISAĜ ÉNS[I

.DUB.BA┐.┌A┐

[... [... UGULA É[NSI ┐ UM.MI.A.AN UM.MI.A.AN IRI MIN LUGAL MIN É.NA 4 KIŠIB.DUB.BA.A

228

Thematic Sign-lists * LÚ=ša * Division 1 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40.

1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060a 1060b 1060c 1060d 1060e 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074a 1074b 1075a 1075b 1076 1077 1078 1079

41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50.

1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089

MIN GI.DUB.BA.A MIN ĜIŠKÍĜ.TI MIN KI.UŠ(!ÚŠ) : KI.SIG 10 UM.MI.A.AN KI.SIG 10 DUMU.MEŠ É.DUB.BA.A ŠÀ.TAM ŠÀ.TAM ŠÀ.TAM <ŠÀ.TAM> ŠÀ.TAM [ŠÀ.TAM].GAL [MIN I]RI [MIN LU]GAL [MIN K]Á.GAL [MIN ]◦É.GAL [MIN KÁ ]◦É.GAL [MIN G]UR 7 [MIN Ĝ]IŠKIRI 6 [MIN ] ◦É [MIN É NA.KAM.]TUM [MIN É NA.DI.]TI [MIN É ]ĜI 6 .PAR 4 (!PÀR) [MIN É] UZU [MIN É ]UŠ.BAR [MIN É ]UŠ.BAR ┌ MIN┐[É NÍĜ.GÚN].NA MIN É◦ ┌NÍĜ┐.┌GÚN┐.NA MIN É NÍĜ.ŠÁR.RI MIN MAR.TU MIN NIN MIN NAM.DUMU.A.NI

MIN É DIĜIR.E.NE └ ŠÀ ┘ . └ TAM.E.NE [GÁB].SAR [MU].SAR [] DUB.SAR [MIN M]AH [MIN IR]I [MIN LUGAL] [MIN ZAG.G]A [MIN KI-SU-L]U-NÍG-ŠÈ (!-ŠÈ-NÍG=UGNIM) 51. 1089’ [MIN ÉRIN 52. 1090 [MIN KURU 7 (SIG 5 ).AK (perhaps) a few lines missing 1’-5’ have MIN only MIN um-ma [ÚMUN 6’A’ 1091 7’ 1092 MIN : šu-na [SUN 5 =BÚR

229

: MIN q[a-an tup-pí] : MIN ki[-iš-ka-te] : MIN ki-is┐[-pí] : MIN a-mu[-...] : ma-ru-u É.DUB GI[ ...] : ša-at-ta-am-mu : el-lu : eb-bu : nam-rù : qí-pu : ša-at-tam-gal-lu : MIN IRI : MIN LUGAL : MIN a-bu-ul-li : MIN É.GALli : MIN KÁ É.GALli : MIN ka-re-e : MIN ki-ri-i : MIN Éti : MIN É na-ak-kam-ti : MIN É na-di-ti : MIN É gi-pá-ri : MIN É UZU : MIN É uš-bá-ri : MIN É uš-bá-ri : MIN É ú-nu-ti : MIN MIN : MIN MIN : MIN a-mur-ri : MIN be-el-ti : MIN ma-ru-ut-ti-šu ↑ : ZU ma-aṣ-ha-ra-ta-šu : MIN É.HI.A DIĜIR.MEŠ : ša-at-tam-mu : pur-kúl-lu : mu-šá-rù : ṭú-up-šar-rù : ṭup-šar-ma-hu : MIN IRI : MIN LUGAL : za-za-ak-ku : MIN um-ma-ni

1135j 1136 1135k 1135l 1135m 1137a 1137b 1137c 1137f 1137d 1137e 1137h 1137i 1137j 1137k 1137n idem 1138 idem -

031 032 035 033 034 044 043a 036 037 idem -

1138h 1139 1139a 1140 1140a 1140b 1141 1141a

045 046 047 049 050 048 054

: MIN ṣa-a-b]i : MIN pí-qí-t]i

1141b 1141c

058

...] ...]

1141i 1141j

059 -

Part 1 - Text Edition 8’ MIN [ 9’ 1093 MIN DÙN┐[ 355 10’ 1093’ └ MIN ┘└ GAL ┘ . └ LA ┘ . └ AN.ZU 11’ [MIN ...].ZU [MIN] └ KUG ┘ .ZU ┘ 12’ 1093’’ about 10 lines missing before end of column III about 20 lines missing 1’-4’ have MIN only 5’A’ MIN(ŠU.I) IŠ [... 6’ MIN AŠ x[... MIN G[ÚN.NA 7’ 1094 8’ 1095 MIN G[ÚN.ZUM 9’ 1096 MIN E[GIR.RA 10’ 1097 ŠU.I Z[U.ZU 11’ 1098 UGULA [ŠU.I 12’ 1099 [MUHALDIM 1100 MUHALDIM [GAL 13’ MUHALDIM [MUŠEN 14’ 1101 15’ 1102 MUHALDIM [MAŠ.DÀ MUHALDIM NINDA. 16’ 1103 GAG[-GAG(!KU 7 .KU 7 ) ĜIŠ 17’ 1104 MUHALDIM BA[NŠUR URI 18’ 1105 UGULA [MUHALDIM ] 19’ 1106 GUD.[GAZ ] ĜÍR.RI.A◦(!LÁ) 20’ 1107 LÚ.ÙR.R[A ] 21’ 1108 22’ 1109 ÚKU R 23’ 1110 LÚ ŠAH.ŠUM[.MA ] 24’ MA.AN.DU 1111 25’ 1112 MIN GAL MIN GU.LA 26’ 1113 27’ 1114 MIN TUR.RA MIN IRI 28’ 1115 29’ 1116 MIN LUGAL ĜIŠ 30’ 1117 MA.AN.DU G[U.ZA ] 31’ 1118 [ŠU-S]ÌLA-GABA-A (!SÌLA-ŠU-GABA=SAGI) 32’ [MIN] GAL 1119 33’ 1120 [MIN] IRI ┘ [MIN LUGAL 34’ 1121 35’ 1122 [MIN NIN

230

...] ...] : [...] : x[...] [...]

1141j 1141l ? 1141k

-

...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...]

1157f 1159

087 086 094 095 096 -

...] ┌ : a-kíl nu-ha-ti-i[m-mi] : pa-li-ku └ MIN ┘ : a-ri-ru : lu-ur-ra-ak[-ku] : ṭì-ib-bi[-hu] : ṭì-ib-b[i!-hu] : ma-an-du-u : ma-an-du-gal<-lu> : MIN ra-bu-u : MIN ṣa-ah- └ ru : MIN IRI ┘ : MIN L[UGAL] : M[IN ĜIŠGU.ZA] : [š]a[-qu-u]

1160 1161 -

097 098 099 100 106 107 118

: MI[N gal-lu] : MIN [IRI] :] MIN L[UGAL] : [M]IN be[-el-ti]

-

119 121 124

Thematic Sign-lists * LÚ=ša * Division 1 36’ 37’ 38’ 39’ 40’ 41’ 42’ 43’ 44’ 45’ 46’ 47’ 48’ 49’

1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1137

[EN.NU.ÙĜ [MIN IRI [MIN LUGAL [MIN KÁ.GAL [MIN É.G]AL [MIN KÁ.]◦É.GAL [MIN GU]R 7 [MIN ĜIŠKIR]I 6 [MIN É] [MIN É DIĜIR.E.N]E [EN.NU.ÙĜ.]E.NE [UGULA GÁ]N.NU Ì.DU 8 Ì.DU 8 IRI

50’ 1138 Ì.DU 8 LUGAL 51’ 1139 └ Ì ┘ [.DU 8 ]KÁ.GAL [Ì.DU 8 É.GA]L 52’ 1140 [Ì.DU 8 KÁ É.GAL] 53’ 1141 54’ 1142 [Ì.DU 8 GUR 7 ] perhaps a few lines missing before end of column IV about 15 lines missing 1’U 1146 [UGULA AGA.ÚS.E.NE] 2’ 1147 [UGULA SIPA.E.NE] 3’ 1148 [UGULA UR.SAĜ.E.NE 4’ [UGULA É 1149a 5’A’’ 1149b [UGULA É 6’ [UGULA] KI[SAL] 1150 7’ 1151 [UGULA] SIMUG 8’ [UGULA] NAGAR 1152 [UGULA DUG-SÌLA]-BUR 9’ 1153 =BÁHAR [UGULA] BUR.GUL 10’ 1154 11’ 1156 [UGULA] NÍĜ.GUL 12’ 1157 [UGULA] KUG.DÍM [UGULA] TIBIRA 13’ 1158 14’ 1159 [UGULA NAGAR] SIG 15’

1160

[UGULA] DÍM

16’ 1161 [UGULA ĜÍR].Ì.GU 7 .E 17’ 1162 [UGULA] Ì. └ ŠUR ┘ 18’ 1163 [UGULA] └ ŠUR ┘ .[Ì probably 8 lines missing 27’A’’ 1171 [UGULA É DUB.BÁ.A probably 7 lines missing 32’-34’ traces only 35’A’’ 1176b [UG]ULA A.SI.[RI

231

: ma-a]ṣ[-ṣa-ru] : ma-a]ṣ-x[x IRI] : MIN] LU[GAL] : MIN a]-bu-u◦l-l[i] : [MIN ]◦É.GALli : MIN KÁ┐ É.GALli┐ : MIN ka-re-e : MIN ki-ri-i : MIN Ét[i ] : MIN É.HI..A DIĜIR.MEŠ : ma-aṣ-ṣa-[a]r-tu : a-kíl kà-an-n[i] : i-tu-u’-u : i-tu-u’[-u IRI]

2I14 2I19 2I17 2I18 2I26 2I22 2I23 -

129 130 -

: MIN LUGAL : MIN a-bu[-ul-li] : MIN É.[GALli] !? li └ : MIN K[Á É.GAL ] : MIN ka-]r[e-e]

-

139 138 140 -

: a-kíl [...] : a-kíl [...] :] a-kíl [...] : a-k]íl └ É ┘ : MIN ša-p]i-ir [MIN] ┌ ┌ ┐ ┌ : a - kíl ki-s[a-al-li] : a-kíl nap-pa┐[-hi] : MIN na-ag-ga-r[i] : MIN pa-ha-ri : x[...]

-

147 147a 190 -

: MIN pur-gul-li : MIN ni-ig-gul-li : MIN ku-ut-ti-im-mi : [...] : MIN qur-qur-ri : MIN na-ag-ga-ar qa-AB(!at)-ni┐ : MIN i-ti-in-ni : M[IN s]i- └ kà-rù : MIN mu-ša-‘i-k[i-lu] : ┘└ ṣa ┘ -h[i-ti Ì.ĜIŠ] ...]

-

-

-

-

-

-

: tu-ur-t]e-en-nu

-

-

...]

-

-

Part 1 - Text Edition 36’ 1177 [UG]ULA SI.IK.[KA.TUM 37’ 1178a [UG]ULA NAM 1 me-at 38’ 1178b [UG]ULA NAM 5 me-a[t 39’ [UG]ULA NAM 1[ ... about 10 lines missing before end of column Reverse V about ten lines missing 1’A’’ 1191 [la-ga-ar : LAGAR] 2’ 1192 [EN LUGAL 3’ 1193 [NU.ÉNSI(!ÈŠ.A) gud-da 4’ 1194 : [GUDUG 5’ 1195 GUDUG AB.[ZU 6’ 1196 GUDUG [AB.BAL.LÁ ┐┌ ┌ 7’ 1197 GUDUG BAL.LÁ SU 6 . LÁ 8’ 1198 GUDUG BAL.LÁ GUB.BA 9’ 10’ 11’ 12’ 13’

1199 1200 1201 1202 1203

14’ 15’ 16’ 17’ 18’

1204 1205 1206 1207 1208

GUDUG BAL.LÁ.TA. └ É◦D GUDUG BAL.LÁ KUR 9 .[RA ┐ ĜIŠ┐ GUDUG BAL.LÁ NE E[REN] [G]UDUG BAL.LÁ DINANNA

[ù-]ru-uh : URUH (ŠITA-AN-MÙŠ) ┌i-zi-ib : IŠIB IŠIB GAL IŠIB KI.GAL D IŠIB INANNA

└ MÚŠ ┘ -B[U=SUSBU

...] [...] ...] ...]

2II06’ 2II11’ 2II10’ ?

174 173b ?

┌

: la-ZA(!a)-┌ga┐-┌ru┐ : MIN LU]GAL : ne-] └ ša-ak-ku : pa-š]i-šu : ma-hi-ru : g]u-da ap-su : g]u-da ab-la-al : zi-iq-na-nu : ma-an-za-az ma-an-za-al-ti : a-ṣe-e ma-an-za-al-ti :] └ e-ri-ib ma-an-za-al-ti : e-ri-na-ak-ku : p[a-š]i!-iš Diš 8 -tár : ú◦-ru-uh-hu

1085 4078 4061 4071-2 4075

206 207 208 209 212 210 212b

4074 -

212a 211 255

: i-sí-i◦p-pu : i-sí-[i]p-gal-lu : i-s[í-]ip ki-gal-lu : iš[-ta-r]i-tu 4 : ra-am-]ku

4042 4045 4046 4084

213 214 217

...]

2III03’’ 245

[...]

2III04’’ 246

...] : [...] : i[š-ta-ri-tu 4 ] [...]

2III05’’ 4023-5

243 257

? 3III81 idem

? -

break VI 1.A’

1209

2.

1210

3. 4. 5. 6.

1211 1212 1213 1214

EN-GAG-SIG 7 -NUN-ME[EZEN(!UBARA=ENKUM) NIN-GAG-SIG 7 -NUN-MEEZEN┐(!UBARA=NINKUM) ? KIŠIB.Ĝ[ÁL [MIN] GAL [MIN D]INANNA [xx]̣x┌: LUKUR(SAL-ME)

in 7-8 only the signs “:” and LA, respectively, are visible, followed by about 15 lines missing ĜURUŠ [... ...] 1’A’ 2’ 1215 ĜURUŠ [TUR ...] 3’ 1216a ĜURUŠ TA[B ...] 4’ 1216b ĜURUŠ TAB.B[A ...]

232

Thematic Sign-lists * LÚ=ša * Division 1 5’ 6’ 7’ 8’ 9’ 10’ 11’ 12’ 13’ 14’ 15’ 16’ 17’ 18’ 19’ 20’ 21’ 22’ 23’

1218 1219 1220a 1220b 1221a 1221b 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1230 1231 1232 -



ĜURUŠ [ DILI] SAĜ DILI SAĜ. ÚS SAĜ. ÚS

KISAL.LUH MUNUS KISAL.LUH UGULA KISAL.LUH

AMA ┘

AMA



IRI

MIN LUGAL MIN LUL.A MIN N[Í.]ZU MIN L[Ú SA.GA]Z MIN L[ÚIM.RI.A MIN e-[er : ÉR MIN A◦[.NIR MIN [... MIN [... └ MIN ┘ [...

about 10 lines missing 356 1’’N 1233 MIN(AMA) [Ú.TUD 2’’ 1234 MIN NU.[Ú.TUD 3’’-5’’ have MIN only perhaps 8 lines missing before end of column VII A’ has some traces for line 1 about 13 lines missing 357┌ ┐ ŠEŠ [... 1’AI 2’ ŠEŠ [... 3’ ŠEŠ [... 4’ 1235 NIN.A◦[.NI 5’ IM.RI.A◦[ 6’ IM.RI.A [... 7’ 1236 └ IM ┘ . └ RI ┘ . └ A ┘ [DAĜAL A’ 8’ 1237 [GÚ.DÚB.BU 358 ? 9’ K[I.NE.NE.GUL.GU]L 1238 10’ x[... 11’ [... 12’ [...]x 13’ 14’ 15’ 16’ 17’ 18’

1239 1240a 1240b 1240c 1241 1242

┌

: e┐-┌du┐ : e-du : ka-ia-ma-nu : mu-ki<-il> re-ši : ki-sa-al-lu-hu : ki-sa-luh-ha-tu 4 : a-kíl MIN : um-mu : um-ma IR[I] : um-ma LUGA[L] : MIN sa-ar-ri┐ : MIN šar-ra-qí : MIN ha-am-ba-ti : ]MIN ki-im-ti : MI]N bi-ki-ti : MIN t]a-ni-hi : MIN taq-]ri-ib-t[i] ...-n]i-ti ...]x

3III80 4201 idem 2I02 2I03 2I04 3IV04’ 3IV05’ 3IV52-4 -

314 316 316a idem 317 318 319 320 323 328 ? ? ?

...] ...]

-

334a 335

...] ...] ...] ...] ...]

-

? ? ? 376 377 ? ? ?

-

? 379 380 381 382 -



x]x[xx] : MIN r]a-pa-aš-t[u 4 ] : gu-d]u-bu-uk-ku┐ x]xx ki-nu-ni x]xx-bu : u]s-su┐[-m]u : KI(!qú)-ur-ru-ru : ↑ga 14 -ar-g[a 14 -ru] : DUMU GÉME : ú-ru : bi-iṣ-ṣu-ru : su-uh-šu : iz-bu : li-pí-is-si 20 -tu 4 :↑ṭá-an-na-pu : ha-an-du-tù

ir!┐

[: ÌR?] gal : GAL 4 gal : GAL 4 SIKI.GAL 4 .LA PI.IN.ZI.NI(!IR) SIKI NA BI

233

Part 1 - Text Edition 19’ 20’ 21’ 22’ 23’ 24’ 25’ 26’

1243 1244 1245 1246a 1246b 1247a 1247b 1248

EME.DA EME.DA GAL D EME.DA INANNA

: ta-ri-tu 4 : ta-ri-↑’i-tu 4 : e-me-dá-gal-li-tu 4 : il-ta-ri-tu 4 : ši-ib-tu 4 : pur-šu-um-tu 4 : ši-ib-tu 4 : pur-šum-tu 4 : pu-ur-šum-tu 4 :↑MUNUS ši-ibtu 4 : ši-bu : ši-bu IRI : ši-bu-ut LUGAL : ši-bu-ut da-ia-ni : ši-bu-ut-šu-nu : ma-har ši-bu-ut IRI : a-bu : a-bu : a-bu : a-bi a-bi : a-bi a-bi : muš-ta-hu : ↑ x[...] : muš-tar-hu : [...] : MIN : MIN : m[u]-ul-te-bi-il ↑a-ma-ti : ┘ [m]u-ul-ta-bal a-ma-ti ]: na-gi 5 -rù :] └ na ┘ - └ gi 5┘ -rù [...] [...] [...] [...] ...] ...] ...]

AMA.SIKI AMA.SIKI mu-um-mu

: UM.MA

UM.MA

[BUR.]ŠÚM.MA

1249 27’ [AB].BA 28’ 1250 [AB.B]A IRI 1251 [AB.BA] LUGAL 29’ 30’ 1252 [AB.BA] DI<.KUD> 31’ 1253 [AB.BA.N]E.NE 32’ 1254 [IGI AB].BA IRI 33’ 1255 AB 34’ 1256 AD 35’ A 1257 36’ 1258 A.A 37’ 1259 [PA 4 .B]ÍL.KI 38’ 1260a [ŠAG 4 ].KI.SAĜ 39’ 1260b [ŠAG 4 ].KI.SAĜ 40’ 1261a [AD.G]I.GI 41’ 1261b [AD.GI].GI 42’ 1262a [INIM ŠÁR].ŠÁR 43’ 1262b [INIM ŠÁR.ŠÁR] 44’ 1263a [xx]: [NIĜIR 45’ 1264 [xx]: [NIĜIR DAG 46’ 1263b [NIĜ]IR 47’ 1265 MIN IRI 48’ 1266 NIĜIR IRI A.ŠAG 4 49’ 1267 HA.ZA.AN.NU ša-ag-gu-nu 50’ 1268 : ┘ [ŠAGGINA 51’ 1269 ŠAGGINA [LUGAL 52’ 1270 └ ŠAGGINA ┘ [ŠAG 4 .GA assumed end of column 359 VIII 1.A’ 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277

[ŠAGGINA].E.NE [NU].BÀN.DA ┐ NU .BÀN.DA GAL GUD.DA └ ÚS GUD.DA [RI.]◦A GUD.D[A DIRIG.GA GUD.DA ┘ [NA.GAD

: ša-ak-k[à-na-ak-ku] : nu-ba-an-d[u] : nu-ba-an ┘ -d[u-gal-lu] : ri-id G[UD] : ┘ ki-im ┘ [-rù] : a]t-ta[-rù] :] └ ku-ut-t[a-na-ak-te-e]

234

3IV65 3IV79 3IV83 3IV80 3IV81 -

385 386 399 400 -

3IV75 3IV72 3IV68 3IV70 3IV74a -

403 405 407 411 413 idem 418 idem 420 422 426 427 432a

-

435 440 441 -

Thematic Sign-lists * LÚ=ša * Division 1 8. 9. 10. 11. 360

1278a 1278b 1279 1280 1281 1282

AB.[SÍN AB.[SÍN AB.SÍN [SÍ.SA ┐ AB.SÍN MURUB 4 ? AB.SÍN NÍĜ.GILIM.M[A AB.SÍN AB[.SÍN

12. 13. 14. 1283 DUR 15. DUR [... 16. DUR LU [... 17. DUR LU [... 361 18. 1284 LU.[GÚ 19. 1285 GÁN.N[A.AN.KUD.DA about 5 lines missing Colophon 362 1’A’ [ŠU HA]R.AD D 2’ D[UMU IM.UR.]SAĜ L Ú LÚ 3’ [ x ]AZU(NÍNDAXNUN) D 4’ DU[MU z]u-ba-la L Ú 5’ [ HAL ša] DIĜIR.MEŠ 6’ ša[ IRIe-m]ar D 7’ DUMU[ IM.U]R.SAĜ LÚ LÚ 8’ └ ┘ [x] AZU break

: a]b-ši- └ im ┘ [-mu] ...] ...] [...] ...] ...]

-

451a idem idem 453a -

: x[...] ...] ...] ...] [...] ...]

-

460-1 462-a idem 462c -

[(By) the hand of Shagga]r-abu, s[on of Bacal-qar]rad, [... (and)] soothsayer, s[on of Z]u-Bacla, [diviner of] the gods of [Em]ar, son of [Bacal-qa]rrad, [...] (and) soothsayer.

1 - Tablet 2 consisting of 363 : 602 D (74148b – p.373-4) 602 F (74148l – p.377) 602 G (74134d – p.342) 602 H (74135j – p.343) 602 S (74146d – p.366-7) 602 ‘AE’ (74129d – p.331) 602 ‘AF’ (74146t – p.370) Obverse IV note that, if 602 C+I should also prove to be part of 1 T 2, fragment C has a few traces of the initial signs in the first part of IV in AF (perhaps including UGU[LA and Ì◦ in 1’-4’) 1’AF 1134 [UGULA GÁN.NU : a-kíl k]à[-an-ni] 2’ 1135 [Ì.DU 8 : i-tu-]u’-┌ú┐ 1136 3’ [Ì.DU 8 GAL : MI]N -gal-lu 4’ 1137 [Ì.DU 8 IRI : MI]N IRI about 5 lines missing, then 3 lines with a few signs and traces belonging to unidentified entries, then break 1’’D [... ...]-ši x[] 2’’ [... x k]a-ak-k[i] ┌ ĜIŠ 3’’ [... :] MIN GIGIR 4’’ [?AGA.ÚS :] re-du-ù -

235

130 -

Part 1 - Text Edition 5’’ 6’’ 7’’ 8’’ 9’’ 10’’ 11’’ 12’’ 13’’ 14’’ 15’’ 16’’ 17’’ 18’’ 19’’ 20’’ 21’’ 22’’ 23’’ 24’’ 25’’

1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149a 1149b 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162

[...]x [...]x [...]x [...]x [UGUL]A AGA.ÚS.E◦[.N]E [UGUL]A SIPA.E.N◦E [U]GULA UR.SAĜ.E.N◦E 364 [UG]ULA É◦ [UG]ULA É◦ [UGUL]A KISAL┐ [UG]ULA SIMUG [UG]ULA └ NAGAR [UG]ULA BAHA[R] UGULA BUR.GUL [UGUL]A NÍĜ.GUL [UGUL]A KUG.DÍM [UGUL]A TIBIRA [UGUL]A NAGAR SIG.GA

-

147 147a 190 -

-

-

-

156c

1173a 1173b 1174 1175a 1175b 1176a 1176b

[UGUL]A ŠUR ┘ . └ Ì [U]GULA x[ [U]GULA ŠU [U]GULA ŠU.I [UGUL]A ŠU.KU 6 .A [UG]ULA ŠU.KUD.DA [UGUL]A LÚSA.GAZ [UG]ULA IM-[K]U-GÁ [UG]ULA ZUH!(AD) ZU [UGUL]A É ┌ DU[B ].BÁ.A! [UG]ULA É NA ┘ . └ KAM ┘ . └ TUM ┘ [UG]ULA É Ĝ[I 6 .PÀR [UG]ULA É [ĜI 6 .PÀR [UGULA É UZU [UGULA É UŠ.BAR [UGULA É UŠ.BAR [UGULA A.SI.RI [UGULA A.SI.RI

[: a]s-ku : eṭ-lu : ra-bu-u : ša-pí-rù : a-kíl re-di-i : ┌MIN┐┌ re-i : MIN qar-ra-dì : MIN Éti : MIN ša-pí-ir MIN : MIN ki-sa-al-li : MIN nap-pa-hi : MIN na-ag-ga-ri : MIN pa-ha-ri : MIN pur-gul-li : MIN nig-gul-li : MIN ku-ut-ti-im-mi : MIN qur-qur-ri : MIN na-ga-ar! ┘ qa-at-ni : MIN i-ti-in-n[i] : MIN mu-ši-k[i-lu] : KU(!MIN) ṣa-ŠE(!hi)-ti Ì◦[.ĜIŠ] : MIN re-hi[-ṣi] : ] └ MIN ┘ an[-...] : MIN┐x[...] : MIN ga[l-la-b]i : MIN ba-┌i!-ri : MIN mi-ik-si : MIN ha[- a]m-ba-ti : MIN x-ku : └ MIN ┘ [ ša]-ra-qì [: MIN e]-du-bi : ↑tu-ra-ta-nu [: MI]N na-ak-kam-ti : MIN É] na-di-ti : MIN ] ┌É gi 5 -pá-ri : MIN É] UZU : MIN É] uš-bá-ri :]┌MIN É MIN :] MIN a-si-ri :] └ MIN a-si-rù

26’’ 27’’ 28’’ 29’’ 30’’ 31’’ 32’’ 33’’ 34’’ 35’’

1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171

36’’

1172

37’’ 38’’ 39’’S 40’’ 41’’ 42’’ 43’’

2II02’ idem -

152 153 idem -

44’’ 45’’ 46’’ break

1177 1178a 1178b

[UGULA SI.IK.KA.TUM [UGULA NAM 1 me-at [UGULA NAM 5 me-at

: MIN si-ik-k]a-tu : MIN] └ ma-at : MIN m]a-t[i]

2II06’ 2II11’ 2II10’

174 173b

365

UGULA DÍM UGULA ĜÍR.Ì.GU 7 .E [U]GULA Ì.ŠUR

236

Thematic Sign-lists * LÚ=ša * Division 1 Reverse V S preserves a few signs above D but the only complete Akkadian word is └ : ši-ba-tu 4 , belonging to an unidentified entry 1’-2’ only isolated signs belonging to unidentified entries [PA]-AN=[ĜAR]ZA 3’D 1179a : pa┐-┌ar┐ṣu 4’ 1179b [PA]-AN=[BILU]DA : BI.DA 10 tu 4 5’ 1180 [MIN DIĜIR.R]A : pa-ar-ṣu DIĜIR.ME[Š] 6’ 1181 [MIN L]UGAL : MIN LUGAL 7’ 1183a [MIN PA]-IB=ŠAB : MIN en-ti DIĜIR.MEŠ 8’ 1183b [MIN] └ PA ┘ - └ IB ┘ └ : ┘ na-ka-su 9’ 1183c [MIN : ša-]ra-mu 10’ 1183d MIN : ha[-r]a-rù 11’ 1183e MIN : ha-ra-ṣu 12’ 1183f MIN : e-se 20 ┐-qu 13’ 1183g MIN : e-se 20 -pu 14’ 1183h MIN : sú-‘u-tu 4 15’ 1183i MIN : qa-ab-la-tu 4 16’ 1183j MIN : na-aš-pa-LU(!ku) : ma-ši-mu 17’ 1183k MIN : maš-hu-tu 4 18’ 1183m ŠAB : ša-[a]p!-pu NA

19’ 20’ 21’ 22’ 23’ 24’ 25’F 26’ 27’ 28’

1184 1185 1186a 1186b 1187a 1187b 1188a 1188b 1189a 1189b

UGULA 4 KIŠIB É.DÙ.TUM UGULA GI.DUB.BA.A

29’ 30’ 31’ 32’ 33’ 34’G 35’ 36’ 37’

1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198

E[N

38’ 39’

1199 1200

[M]IN BAL.LÁ.TA É[D [MIN] BAL.LÁ KUR 9 .RA

40’ 41’

1201 1202

[MIN BAL.] └ LÁ NE ĜIŠE[REN [MIN BAL.LÁ] └ D ┘└ INANNA ┘

nu-un-gi

: LÚĜ.ĜÁ

LÚĜ.ĜÁ

[N]U. LÚĜ.ĜÁ [N]U. LÚĜ.ĜÁ P[A]-MU[L] PA┐-MUL ┘ PA.PA.AL PA.PA.A[L ?

la-ga-ar

: L[AGAR

EN L[UGAL NU.ÉNS[I(!ÈŠ) gud-da ┌

┘ [: GUDUG

GUDUG [AB.ZU GUDUG AB.BAL.LÁ MIN BAL.LÁ SU 6 .LÁ┐ MIN BAL.LÁ GUB.BA

237

-

172 172a 179 180 181 182 83-8 idem idem idem idem

-

idem -

: a-kíl É NA 4 KIŠIB : a-kíl gi-dub-bi : ṣu-u◦l-la-nu : ṣu-ul┐-┌la-an-tu 4 : la-a MIN : la-a └ MIN ┘ [] └ : ┘ x[...] [...] [...] ...]

-

196 idem 199 idem 200 idem

...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] [...] [: zi-iq-n]a-nu [: ma-an-za-az ma-an-z]a-al-ti :a-ṣe-e ma-a]n-za-al-ti : e◦[-ri-ib ma-an-za-al-t]i ...]x [...]

1135c 1085 4078 4061 4071-2 4075

205 206 207 208 209 212 210 212b

4074 -

212a 211

-

-

Part 1 - Text Edition 42’H 1203 43’ 1204 44’ 1205 45’ 1206 46’ 1207 end of column

┌ù┐-┌ru┐-┌uh┐┌ ┐┌

: ŠITA┐AN -MÙŠ(URUH) [i-]┌zi-ib : IŠIB [IŠI]B GAL [IŠIB ] └ KI.GAL [IŠIB] ◦DINANNA ┌

┐

:┐[...]

-

255

: i-[sí-ip-pu] : i-s[í-ip-gal-lu] : i-s[í-ip ki-gal-lu] : i[š-ta-ri-tu 4 ]

4042 4045 4046 -

213 214 -

Fragments: To assist in possible future reconstruction of the other tablets, all fragments have been assigned a (provisional) column count based on comparison with equivalent sections in 1T1). 602 B (74113b – p.283) (Obverse II) 1’ 1080 [MIN(ŠÀ.TAM) É DIĜIR.E.N]E 2’ 1081 [ŠÀ.TAM.E.N]E 3’ 1082 [GÁB.SA]R 4’ 1083 [MU.SA]R 5’ 1084 [DU]B.SAR 6’ 1085 [MIN MA]H 7’ 1086 [MIN IRI 8’ 1087 [MIN LUGAL 9’ 1088 [MIN ZAG.GA] 10’ 1089 [MIN KI-SU]- └ LU-NÍG-ŠÈ (!-ŠÈ-NÍG=UGNIM) 11’ 1089’ [MIN ÉRIN 12’ 1090 [MIN KURU 7 .AK (III) 1’-2’ isolated signs only 3’ 1094 [MIN(ŠU.I) GÚN].NA 4’ 1095 [MIN GÚN].ZUM 5’ 1096 [MIN EGIR].RA 6’ 1097 [ŠU.I Z]U.ZU 7’ 1098 UGULA ŠU.I 8’ 1099 MUHALDIM 9’ 1100 MUHALDIM GAL 10’ 1101 MIN MUŠEN 11’ 1102 MIN MAŠ.DÀ 12’ 1103 MIN A(!NINDA).DÙ13’ 1104 DÙ(!KU 7 .KU 7 ) MIN ĜIŠGIŠ-URU-URUDU <-DU>(=BANŠUR) U◦RI 14’ 1105 U[GULA M]UHALDIM

: [...] : ša-at-tam-NA(!mu) : kab-še-ru : mu-ra-rù : ṭù-up-KA(!šar)-rù : ṭù-up-šar-ma-hu : D]UB.ŠAR! IRI :] MIN LUGAL : za-za-ku :↑ ṭup-šar um-ma-ni

1138h 1139 1139a 1140 1140a 1140b 1141 1141a

045 046 047 049 050 048 054

: ṭ]up-šar-um-m[a-ni] : MIN p]í-qí-t[i]

1141b 1141c

058

: MIN [...] : MIN x[...] : ar-qu [...] : ta-lam┐[-...] : a-kíl ga[l-la-bi] : nu-ha-ti-i[m-mu] : MIN -gal-lu : MIN MUŠEN : MIN mu-pa-ri-ṭ[ì] : MIN e-pè-e[š 15 x] : ma-x[...]

1157f 1159 -

087 086 094 095 096 -

└:

-

097

xx[...]

15’ traces only 602 C+I (7496a – p.234 + 74147c – p.371) 366 (Obverse III) 1. 1105 [UG]ULA M[UHALDIM

238

...]

-

097

Thematic Sign-lists * LÚ=ša * Division 1 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.I 13. 14.

1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118

15. 1119 16. 1120 17. 1121 18. 1122 19. traces only (IV) traces only

[G]UD.GAZ┐ GÌR(!ĜÍR).RI.A(!LÁ) ! LÚ.ÙR.RA ÚKUR LÚ ŠAH.ŠUM.MA MA.AN.DU MA.AN.DU GAL MIN GU.LA MIN TUR.RA [MI]N IRI [MIN ] LUGAL [MA.AN.DU] ĜIŠ┐GU. └ ZA ┘

[Š]U-SÌLA-GABA-A┐ (!SÌLA-ŠU-GABA=SAGI) [MI]N GAL [MI]N IRI [MIN] LUGAL [MIN] NIN

602 E’ (74158d – p.391) (Reverse V) 1’ 1190 EN 2’ 1191 LAGAR 3’ 1192 EN LUGAL EN(!NU.)ÉNSI(!ÈŠ) 4’ 1193 5’ 1194 GUDUG 6’ 1195 AH(!-ME=GUDUG)DA AB.ZU 7’ 1199 MIN <> BAL<.TA.È> 8’ 1198 MIN MIN GUB.BA 9’ 1200 MIN MIN TUR 367 (!KUR 9 ).RA 10’ 1201 MIN MIN NE ĜIŠ┘E[REN 11’ 1202 MIN MIN DINANNA ù-lu h [ : URUH 12’ 1203 13’ 1204 I[ŠIB IŠIB GAL 14’ 1205 15’ 1206 IŠIB SI(!KI).GÁL(!GAL) 16’ 1208 MÚŠ-BU=SUSBU SI [... 17’ 18’ [xx] MIN

239

...] : a-r[i-ru] : lu-ra┐-┌ak┐-┌ku┐ : ṭì-bi-hu : ṭì-bi-hu : ma-an-du-u : MIN -gal-KU(!lu) : MIN [ra-]bu-u : MIN ṣa-ah-rù : MIN IRI : MIN LUGAL : MIN ĜIŠGU ┘ . └ ZA [: š]a-qu-u

1160 1161 -

098 099 100 106 107 118

: [MIN ] └ gal-lu : MIN IRI┐ : MIN LUGAL : MIN be-e[l-ti]

-

119 121 124

[...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] ...] [...] ...] ...] [...] [...] [...] ...] [...]

1085 4078 4061 4074 4075 4073 4042 4045 4046 4084 ? ?

200 206 207 208 209 212a 212b 255 213 214 217 ? ?

Part 1 - Text Edition 602 J (74148c – p.375) (Reverse VIII) 1269 [ŠAGGINA LUGAL 1’ 2’ 1270 [ŠAGGINA ŠAG 4 .GA 3’ 1271 [ŠAGGINA.E.NE] 4’ 1272 [NU.BÀN.DA] 1273 [NU.BÀN.DA GAL] 5’ 6’ 1274 [GUD.DA.ÚS] 7’ 1275 [GUD.DA.RI.A] 8’ 1276 [GUD.DA.DIRIG.G]A 9’ 1277 [GUD.DA.NA.GAD] [AB.SÍN 10’ 1278a 11’ 1278b [AB.SÍN 12’ 1279 [AB.SÍN SÍ.SA 13’ 1280 [AB.SÍN MURUB 4 14’ 1281 [AB.SÍN NÍĜ.GILIM.MA

: š]ar-ru : ]┌lì-ib-bi┐ ┌ : ša-ak-na-ku : nu-ba-an-du : MIN -gal-lu ┌ : ri-dì GUD : ki-im!-rù : at-ta-r[ù] └ : ku- └ ut-ta-n[a-ak-te-e] :] ab-ši-im-m[u] : še]-er-ú : i-š]a-ru 368 : MIN q]a-ab[-li-tu 4 ] : MIN] bi[-ti-ki-du 369 ]

-

432a 435 440 441 451a idem idem 453a -

602 K+O (7486d – p.219 + 7495c - p.233) (Reverse VII) 1’K 1244 [EME].DA [GAL ┌ D 2’ 1245 EME.DA [ INANNA 3’ 1246a AMA.[SIKI 4’ 1246b AMA.[SIKI

...] ...] ...] ...]

3IV79 3IV83

386 -

...] : [...] : pur-TE(!šúm)-t[u 4 ] : ši-bu : ši-b[u-ut IRI] : MIN L[UGAL] : MIN d[a-ia-ni] : MIN [...] ┌ : ma-h[ar ši-bu-ut IRI] : a-b]u

3IV80 3IV81 3IV75 3IV72

399 400 403 405 -

...] ...] ...] ...] ...]

-

440 441 -

5’ 1247a 6’ 1247b 7’ 1248 O 8’ 1249 9’ 1250 10’ 1251 11’ 1252 12’ 1253 13’ 1254 14’ 1255 end of column

mu-um-mu

: ┘ UM.[MA [ : ]UM.MA [BU]R.ŠÚM.[M]A [AB.B]A [AB.BA IR]I [AB.BA LUGA]L [AB.BA DI.KUD] [AB.BA.NE.NE] [IGI AB.BA IRI] [AB mu-um-m u

602 R (74117k – p.290) (Reverse VIII) 1’ 1273 [N]U.BÀN.DA GA[L 2’ 1274 [G]UD.DA.Ú[S 3’ 1275 [G]UD.DA.RI ┘ [.A 4’ 1276 [G]UD.DA.D[IRIG.GA 5’ 1277 [G]UD.DA.NA.[GAD

240

Thematic Sign-lists * LÚ=ša * Division 1 602 V (74122o – p.306) (Obverse III/IV) 1’ 1127 [MIN(=EN.NU.ÙĜ) É.GA]L 2’ 1128 [MIN KÁ É.G]AL 3’ 1129 [MIN G]UR 7 4’ 1130 [MIN] ĜIŠKIRI 6 5’ 1131 [MIN] É 6’ 1132 [MIN É.DIĜIR.E.] └ NE ┘ 7’ 1134 [UGULA GÁN.NU] 602 W (74214c – p.520) (Reverse VII) 1. 1223 []x AMA [A]MA IRI 2. 1224 3. 1225 [MIN] LUGA[L 602 Y (74114c – p.285) (Reverse VII) 1’ 1262a [INIM ŠÁR.ŠÁR 2’ 1262b [INIM ŠÁR.]┌ŠÁR┐ ┌ 3’ 1263 NIĜIR 4’ 1264 [NIĜIR] DAG 5’ 1265 [NIĜIR] IRI 6’ traces only 602 Z (74260 – p.580) (Reverse VII) 1’ traces only 2’ 1227 [MIN(=AMA) NÍ.ZU [MIN LÚSA.GAZ 3’ 1228 4’ [MIN LÚHUĜ.ĜÁ 1229 5’ 1230 [MIN LÚIM.RI.A] [MIN ÉR] 6’ 1231 7’ [MIN A.NIR] 1232 [MIN ... 8’ 9’ traces only 602 AA (74107f – p.271) (Reverse VI) 1’ 1215 [ĜURUŠ TU]R 2’ 1216a [ĜURUŠ TA]B 3’ 1216b [ĜURUŠ TAB.B]A 4’ 1217 [ĜURUŠ DE]N-ZU 5’ 1218 [ĜURUŠ DILI] 6’ 1219 [SAĜ DIL]I 7’ 1220a [SAĜ ÚS] 8’ 1220b [SAĜ ÚS] 9’ traces only 241

: ma[-aṣ-ṣa-ar É.GALli] : MIN KÁ É◦[.GAL] : MIN ka[-re-e] : MIN ki-r[i-i] : MIN Ét[u 4 ] : MIN É.HI ┘ . └ A ┘ [ša DIĜIR.MEŠ] └ : └ a ┘ -k[íl kà-an-ni]

2I17 2I18 2I26 2I22 2I23 -

129 -

: u[m-mu] : ┘ [...] ...]

3IV04’ 3IV05’ -

319 320 -

: m]u-┌ul┐-┌te┐-b[i-il a-ma-ti] : mu-ul-ta ┘ [-bal a-ma-ti] : na-gi 5┘ [-rù] : na-g[i 5 -...] : na ┘ [-gi 5 -...]

-

418 idem 420 -

: ša]r-ra-qí :]┌MIN ha-<-am->ba-ti : M]IN ag-ri ┌ : MIN ki-im-ti ┌ : MIN bi-ki-ti : MI]N ta-ni-hi x]x-ir-ib-t[i]

?

328 ?

: ba-tu-lu : MIN : MIN : MIN : i-du : MIN : ka-ma-nu : mu-ka[-...]

3III81 idem 3III80 4201 idem

314 316 316a idem

Part 1 - Text Edition

242

Thematic Sign-lists * LÚ=ša * Division 1 602 AD (7495a – p.233) (Reverse VII) ┐ 1’ 1238 KI [.NE.NE GUL.GUL 2’ xx[... 3’ ZA x[...[ K[I ... 4’ ir 5’ 1239 [: ÌR? gal 6’ 1240a [: GAL 4 gal 7’ 1240b : [ GAL 4 8’ 1240c SIKI.[GAL 4 .LA 9’ 1241 PI.I[N.ZI.IR 10’ 1242 [SÍ]G NA-┌BI┐ end of column (VIII) Colophon 1’-2’ traces only (1’ ends in HA]L) 370 3’ DUM[U ...] 4’ KAB[.Z]U[.Z]U 5’ ša IDIM-↑ma-lik

...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ┌ ┌ : ha┐[-an-du-tù]

so[n of PN,] pupil of Bacal-malik.

243

-

377 ? ? ? ? 379 380 381 382 -

Part 1 - Text Edition Fragments not used: 602 Q (7496i – p.235) 371 1’ traces only 2’ [... 3’ [LUGAL.A.RA.ÚS.SA 4’ [LUGAL.A.RA.ÚS.SA 5’ [ŠU.I 6’ traces only

...]x É.GAL ]┌LUGAL GAL A.RA.Ú[S.SA] ] mu-ur-te-d[i 372 LUGAL] g]al-la-b[u]

602 T (74232k – p.539) - appears to show deviating sequence ┌ : gal-la-a[b ...] 1’ [...] : nu-ha-ti ┘ [-im ...] 2’ [...] 3’ [LÚ.ÙR.RA] └ : └ lu ┘ -u[r-r]a[-ku] 602 AB (74103r – p.259) 373 [x] UR┐.[SAĜ] 374 1’ 2’ [x] NAM ME [...] 3’ [x] NI[N ...] 4’ [MI]N MAR.T[U] 5’ MIN NAM.DUMU ┘ [...] 6’ MIN DUB.[...] 7’ traces only 602 ‘AG’ (731075p – p.150) 375 602 ‘AH’ (74132u – p.340) (Reverse VI) 376 1’ EN┐[ 2’ NI[N 3’ ŠU [

...] ...] ...]

4’ traces only (VII) 377 1’ traces only 2’ 3’ 4’ 5’ 6’ 7’ 8’

]x MU-NI-↑ŠA-N[A] : š]e-er-ru : ]ṣa-ah-ru : ]la-a-ku-u : ]še-er-u : sạ -a]h-rù : la-]◦a- └ ku ┘

[... [... [... [... [... [... [...

244

Thematic Sign-lists * LÚ=ša * Division 2 Division 2 2 Tablet 1 Inventory and edition concordance of fragments belonging to 2T1 Side/ column

Fragments new (adjusted) edition number

Fragments old Emar VI 4 edition number

Museum number and Emar VI 1-2 publication page

Obv/I I I II/III II II/III Rev/V V V V V V/VI (VI? 378 VI/VII VIII LEE/I II

602 M 602 ‘AK’ Obv 602 ‘AL’ 602 ‘AM’ 602 ‘AN’ 602 ‘AO’ Obv 602 X 602 L 602 P 602 ‘AP’ 602 ‘AQ’ 602 E’’ 602 AC 602 ‘AO’ Rev 602 ‘AK’ Rev 602 ‘AL’ LEE(Izi 379 ) 602 ‘AK’ LEE(Izi)

602 M 569 587 602 X 602 L 602 P 602 E 602 AC 569 569

74134c – p.342 74122c – p.302 74178e – p.452 74101d – p.244 74102l – p.254 74104b – p.260 74148w – p.379 74148af – p.380 74158i – p.393 74159a – p.396-400 74198e – p.486 74169a – p.425 74232d – p.538) 74104b – p.260 74122c – p.303 74178e – p.452 74122c – p.303

Obverse I 2001 ┌si-pa-a : SIPAD┐ 1.M 2. 2002 SIPAD TUR 3. 2003 MIN KALAM.MA 4. 2004 MIN SAĜ.ĜI 6 .GA.A 5. 2005 MIN GUD ┘ 6. 2006 [MI]N ÁB.GUD.HI.A ┘ 7. [MI]N GUD [... 8. [MIN] └ ÁB [... break AK has a few traces above line 1’ 1’AK 2007 ŠURUM(LAGABxSUM) x[ 2’ 2008 SI ŠURUM GUD 3’ 2009 SIG 4 ŠURUM GUD 4’ 2010 MIN(!A).ĜAR.ĜAR break 1’’AL 2011 ĜIŠKIM(AGRIG) 2’’ 2012 MIN [TI 3’’ 2013 MIN [SAG 9 .GA 4’’ 2014 ĜIŠKIM NU[.TIL.LA end of column 245

: [...] : k[a-par-ru] : └ re ┘ [-...] : ┘ [...] [...] [...] ...] ...]

3I01 -

463 465 466 468 -

...] : [...] : [...] : [...]

-

486 487 489

[...] ...] ...] ...]

-

495 496 497 498

Part 1 - Text Edition

II’ AO has some traces of the Akkadian column above AN+AM 2015a A.[ÍL : ŠU] 1’AN 2’ 2015b A.[ÍL : za-bil ]A.MEŠ 3’ 2016a GA ┘ [.ÍL : ŠU] 4’ 2016b GA[.ÍL : za-bil ši-]┌iz-bi 5’ 2017a KAŠ.[ÍL : ŠU] 6’ 2017b KAŠ.[ÍL : za-bil] KAŠ.MEŠ ┌ ┐ 2018 7’ IM.ME.LUH. HA .[ÍL xx-] └ mu-uk-ti 8’AM 2019 [IM.ÍL : MIN ṭ]ì-i-ṭi 9’ 2020 [SAHAR.ÍL : MIN ]◦e-pe-ri 10’ 2021 [ĜIŠ.ÍL : MIN ]┌ĜIŠ.MEŠ 11’ 2022 : MIN] di-ik-me-ni [DIDAL(NE).ÍL 12’ :] za-ki-il-lu [SAĜ.ÍL 380 2023 13’ : za-bil ki-na[-ti] 2024 [x.Í]L 14’ 2025 [ÀR.ÀR : ] └ ṭa-i-nu break

3I13’

567 idem 568 idem 572 569 574

III’ 1’-4’ have KU only 5’AO 2026 ALAN ┘ [.ZU 6’ 2027 UD.D[A.TUŠ 7’ 2028 SÙH.[SÙH 8’ Á.Ú◦[.A 2029 9’ 2030 KA.[DUG 4 .DUG 4 10’ 2031 GU 4 .[UD.DA 11’ 2032 HÚB.[BÉ 12’ traces only break AM has a few traces before 1’ ZA.[AM.ZA.AM 1’’AM 2033 2’’ N[E ... 3’’ G[Ú ... 4’’ 2034 K[I.RU.GÚ 2035 KI ┘ [.ŠÚ 5’’

...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...]

4245 4245a 4237 4230 4235 4238 4233

581 582 584 583

...] ...] ...] ...] ...]

-

619 620 621

Reverse V’ 1’AQ 2036 2’ 2037 3’ 2038 4’ 2039 5’ 2040 6’ 2041

[BUR.GUL] [UGULA BUR.GUL] [ZA.DÍM] [UGULA ZA.DÍM] [KUG.D]ÍM [UGULA KUG.DÍM]

: pur-[kul-lu] : a-[kíl MIN] : šá-t[i-im-mu] : a-k[íl MIN] : ku-u[t-ti-im-mu] í[l MIN] └:└a┘k

-

673 670 671 -

7’X 8’

[SIMU]G [UGULA] SIMUG

: nap-pa[-hu] : a-kíl ┘ [nap-pa-hi]

-

672 -

2042 2043

246

Thematic Sign-lists * LÚ=ša * Division 2 9’L 10’ 11’ 12’ 13’

2044 2045 2046 2047 2048

14’E’’ 2049 15’ 2050 16’ 2051 17’ 2052 18’ 2053 19’ 2054 20’ 2055 21’ 2056 22’ 2057 23’ 2058 24’P 2059 25’ 2060 26’ 2061 27’ 2062 28’ 2063 29’ traces only break VI’ 1’ traces only 2’E’’ 2064 3’ 2065 4’ 2066 5’ 2067 6’ 2068 7’ 2069 8’ 2070 9’ 2071 10’ 2072 11’ 2073 12’ 2074 13’ 2075

[] NAGAR [UGULA] NAGAR [DUG-SÌLA]-BUR=BÁHAR [BÁHAR] GAL [UGULA BÁH]AR

: na-a[g-ga-ru] : a-kíl ┘ [na-ag-ga-ri] : pa-ha-[ru] : pa-h[ar-gal-lu] : a-k[íl pa-ha-ri]

-

667 -

ti-bi-la

...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] :┐[...] : ┌MIN┐[...] : MIN [...] : MIN [...] : MIN [...] : MIN [...] : MIN [...] : e-peš ┘ [...] : e-pe[š ...]

-

674 676 ? 680 681 -

...] [...] [...] [...] [...] : ┘ [...] [...] : [...] : x[...] : ki-zi┐-┌ir┐[-tu 4 ] : ša har-ra-ni : ha-ri-im-tu 4

4031 -

705 706 708d -

: ha-ri-im-tu 4 : mah-hu-tu 4 : su-qa-i-tu 4 : ša KASKALni : eš-ta-am-me : sa-hi-ra-at IRI : MIN ú-ga-ri : ti-li : pa-al-gi 5 la-sa-mu [m]u[-u]n-na-ak-ru

5III09’ 5III10’

713 714 721 724 723 725 727

┘ [: TIBIRA

UGULA [TIBIRA

[ZADIM UGULA [ZADIM DIĜIR D[ÍM D <E’’/P> ┌ A[LAN ] DÍM┐[ D <E’’/P> L[AMA ] MIN <E’’/P KI.GA >L MIN <E’’/P> URUD U MIN <E’’/P> Z ABAR MIN [N]A 4 ZA.GÌN MIN KUG.BABBAR MIN KUG.GI MIN KUG.DÍ[M] MIN TÚG NÍĜ.URI DÍM.DÍM.MA └

[MUNUS NU].GI[G [MUNUS ĜEŠTI]N.NA [MUNUS Ú].HUB 381 [MUNUS x] IG [MUNUS A].ZU [MUNUS DU]B.SAR [MUNUS]x HI.LI GÍD.DA [MUNUS]┌SI-NÍG [M]UNUS ZÌG.GA MUNUS SUHUR.LÁ MUNUS KASKAL MUNUS KAR<.KID>

14’ 2076 KAR<.KID> 15’ 2077 KAR<.KID> GUB.BA KAR<.KID> E.SÍR 16’ 2078 17’ 2079 KAR<.KID> KASKAL 18’ 2080 KAR<.KID> ÉŠ.DAM 19’ 2081 IRI GI 4 .GI 4 (!NÍĜIN) A.GÀR GI 4 .GI 4 (!NÍĜIN) 20’ 2082 21’ 2083 DU 6 GI 4 .GI 4 (!NÍĜIN) 22’ 2084 PA 5 GI 4 .GI 4 (!NÍĜIN) 23’ 2085a KAR 24’ 2085b KAR 25’ only DU in Akkadian column readable 247

Part 1 - Text Edition break 382 1’AO 2086a 2’ 2086b 3’ 2087 4’ 2088 5’ 2089 2090 6’ 7’ 2091 8’ 2092 9’ 2093 10’ 2094 11’ 2095 12’ 2096 13’ traces only break

┌

BÀN.DA BÀN.DA KU.[LI KU.LI.[LI DU 10 .ÚS.[SA GÉME.[ÌR ┐ AN.TA TA[B].BA

[...] [...] ...] ...] x ]IGI? 383 -[...] [: k]i-na-t[u 4 ] [: tap-p]u-u [: tap-]pu-u [...] [...] x[...] : x[...]

3III69 3III70 -

775 idem 776 777 778 781 782 784 785 786

VIII’ 1’ traces only (parallel horizontals may indicate E[DIN) 3’AK L◦A x[... ...] 4’ LA x[... ...] 5’ [... ...] 6’ KID [...] AN : [...] ĜIŠ 7’ 2114 KID GI : tak[-ku-us-su] 8’ 2115 KI.SIKIL : ar-da-t[u 4 ] KI.SIKIL KID : ar-da-at ┘ [...] 9’ 2116 LÚ KI.SIKIL DAM.GÀR : ar-da[-at ...] 10’ 2117 11’ 2118 AB-ŠÚ-ŠÚ : ki-ri-t[u 4 ] 12’ 2119 AB-NIM : ab-ni[-im-mu] 13’ 2120 AB-NIM-NIM : ab-ni[-im-ni-im-mu] 14’ 2121 AB-LÁ : x[...] 15’ ...] AB-LÁ [... 16’ ...] AB-L[Á ... 17’ AB-[LÁ ... ...] 18’ AB-L[Á ... ...] 19’ A[B-LÁ ... ...]

-

830 831 838 -

20’ 21’ 22’

-

? ? 840

ZU ┘ .A [DÙG.GA] MU

[MI.I]Q.DU [DÈ]. └ HU ┘ (!HI)

VII’ AO has some traces of the Akkadian entries in the lower part of VII

-

AB [... AB [... └ AB ┘ - └ TI ┘ [...

...] ...] ...]

23’-24’ traces only break

248

Thematic Sign-lists * LÚ=ša * Division 2 LEft Edge 384 Izi I’ 1.AL IZI 1: 2. 1001 3. 1002 4. 1003 5. 1004 end of column

[...]x NE-RI AN-BÀD AN-BÀD BIR-RI an-bar : ┘ A◦N-NE

: ┘ [ ...]-u : [ di-]┌ta-al-lu : [ t]a-bi-nu : ┘ ta-bi-nu sà-ap-hu : ┘ mu-uṣ-la-lu

Proto-Izi: 1005 1014

AN ┘ [-N]E AN-EN-KID [x ]AN-NE NE [... AN [... du-GIR 385 :IM-GÚ 386┐

: ra-ma[-...] : BÀD x[...] ...] ...] :[ ...]

1016 -

2 Extract 1 – 602 ‘AJ’ (ex-583 74158e – p.392) Obverse 1’ [... 2’ [... 3’ [... 4’ [... 2097 5’ [TÚG.BA [SI.IL.LÁ 6’ 2098 7’ 2099 [KURU 7 [ŠU ŠÚM.MA 8’ 2100 [ÉRIN 9’ 2101a 10’ 2101b [ÉRIN [ÉRIN 11’ 2101c 12’ [...

...-]┌šu 14 ┐ xx]-ú x]x-še-ru x]-bu-tu 4 na-] └ al-ba-šu pí-q]í-it-tu 4 pa-]qa-tu 4 MIN] ṣa]-bu x]-in-tu 4 um]-ma-nu x]x-rù

? ? ? ? ?

? ? ? ? 796-7 798 799 801 idem idem ?

end of column Reverse 1. 2102 2. 3. 4. 2103 5. 2104 6. 2105 7. 2106 8. 2107 9. 2108 10. 2109 11. 2110 12. 2111 13. 2112 14. 2113

x] ra-bu-u x L]ÚKÚR x]x BE RI r]i-i-um ki]-šu-ú kar]-tap-pu ┌ ku-ub-bu-lu ku-ub-bu-ul-tu 4 hu]-um-mu-ru mu-ur-ṣ◦u!390 ša] MURUB 4 še-eb-ru š]a qa-ta še-eb-ru š]a GÌR-šu še-eb-ru ša] └ ti ┘ -ik ┘ - └ ka-šu └ MIN ┘

? ? 1119 4340 4344 ? -

803 ? ? 804 805 807 808 809c ? 809a 809h 809f -

II’ 1.AK 1005 2. 3. 4. 5. 1006 end of column

[ÉRIN GAL.GAL [... [... [ÉRIN SAĜ.GI 4 .A 387 [KUŠ 7 [KÌRI.DAB [AD 4 AT.Ṭ]U 388 [AD 4 MUNUS.AT.ṬU] [GÌR.A.HUM] []x 389 [ÍB KUD [Á KUD [GÌR KUD [GÚ KUD

break 249

Part 1 - Text Edition ADVANCED SIGN-LISTS 6. IZI=išātu Inventory and concordance of texts and fragments Text (n/u = not used)

Fragments Fragments - old edition new edition number numbers: listings in Emar VI 4 / ‘Texts’, AuOr 7 p. 20-1 resp.

Museum number and Emar VI 1-2 publication page number

Lu2 T1 Lu2 T1 Izi 1 T1 Izi 1 T1 Izi 1 T1 Izi 1 n/u Izi 1 T1 Izi 1 T1 Izi 1 n/u Izi 1 fr Izi 2A fr Izi 2A fr Izi 2A fr Izi 2A n/u Izi 2A n/u Izi 2A n/u Izi 2A fr Izi 2A fr Izi 2B fr Izi 2B fr Izi 2B fr Izi 3 fr Izi 3 fr Izi 4 T1 Izi 4 T1 Izi 4 n/u Izi 4 n/u Izi 4 E1

602 ‘AK’ 602 ‘AL’ 567 ‘A’ 567 ‘B’ 567 ‘C’ (567 ‘D’ 567 ‘E’ 567 ‘F’ (567 ‘G’ 567 ‘H’ 564 ‘A’ 565 ‘B’ 566 ‘C’ (‘D’ (‘E’ (‘F’ ‘G’ ‘H’ 568 ‘A’ 568 ‘B’ 578 ‘C’ 577 ‘A’ 577 ‘B’ 571 ‘A’ 571 ‘B’ (571 ‘C’ (571 ‘D’ 572

74122c – p.303 74178e – p.452 7494b – p.232 74105b – p.265 74122i – p.305 74122h – p.305) 74248b – p.575 74123k – p.314 74232j – p.539) 74122ab – p.309 7490b – p.224 7491ae – p.229 7498e – p.240 74198u – p.488) 7479b – p.210) 74198r – p.488) 74238n – p.560 74127n – p.323 74164a – p.416-7 74259 – p.580 74146f – p.367 74191c – p.474 7484l – p.217 74199l – p.494 74198w – p.488 7478c – p.210) 731075j – p.150) 7433 – p.176

569 / a -/a 567 / b 567 / b 567 / b 567 / b 594 / b 567 / b 567 / -/b 564 / c 565 / c 566 / c -/c -/c -/c 537 J / c -/c 568 / d 568 / d 578 / d 577 571 / e 571 / e 571 / e -/e 572 / e

250

Advanced Sign-lists * IZI=išātu Izi 1 (parallel to Proto-Izi I) Izi 1 Tablet 1 consisting of: 567 ‘A’ (7494b – p.232) 567 ‘B’ (74105b – p.265) 567 ‘C’ (74122i – p.305) (567 ‘D’ (74122h – p.305) not used has part of I with (parts of) AN signs but lacks subentries or direct joins) 567 ‘E’ (74248b – p.575) 567 ‘F’ (74123k – p.314) (567 ‘G’ (74232j – p.539) not used has part of LEE with traces of a PN in a colophon but lacks direct joins) Obverse I 1.B 1007 2. 1008 3. 1009 4. 1010 5. 1011 6. 1012 7. 1013 8. 1014a 9. 1014b 10. 1015 11. 12. 391 13.C 14. 15. 16. -

AN-Ú[R ] Ú[R AN-PA-A AN-<>-ŠAG 4 -GA AN-TAR(!MULĜÍR.AN.BAR) AN-TAR-TAR(!MULĜÍR.TAB) [A]N-DAGAL-LA └ AN-SUD-SUD [AN-]SUD-SUD ┌ AN┐-BAR-AN ┘ [-TA AN-BAD ┘ 392 [ 393 └ AN ┘ [... AN x 394 [... AN-Š[U ... AN-Š[U ... AN-NE┐ 395 [...

17-21 AN and a few traces only in C break 1016 AN-la-am┐[-maKAL 1’E 2’ 1017 AN-[UDUG 3’ 1018 AN-NIN-PÉŠ 4’ 1019a MUL-[MUL 5’ 1019b MUL-[MUL 6’ 1019c └ MUL ┘ [MUL break 1’’F 1021a [HAR-HAR] 2’’ 1021b [HAR-HAR] 3’’ 1021c [HAR-HAR] 4’’ 1022a [KIN-KIN 5’’ 1022b [KIN-KIN] 6’’ 1022c [KIN-KIN 7’’ 1023 [KIN 8’’ traces of –tu 4 only

251

ú-pu┐[-ú] i]l-di ┌šá-me-e◦ i-la-a šá-me-e◦ qé-re-eb šá[-me-e] pí-it-ru ša šá[-me-e] al-lu-ta-nu! ša-mu-u └ ra ┘ [-ap-šu-tu] x[...] [...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...]

1018 1018a 1023 -

...] ...] [...] ...] ...] ...]

1028 1029 1030-2 idem idem

◦e-ṣe-[du] ha-mi-mu ha-ma-mu š]i-te-e’-u ┌ sà-hi-rù s]à- └ ha-rù ši-] └ ip ┘ -rù

1045a 1045 1044 1042 1043 1046

Part 1 - Text Edition Reverse VI’ 1’B 2’ 1024a 3’ 1024b 4’ 1025 5’ 1026 6’ 1027 7’ 1028a 8’ 1028b 9’ 1028c 10’ 1029a 11’ 1029b 1029c 12’

NIM [ NIM-NIM┐ NIM-NIM GIŠ-MI GIŠ-MI HI-GA GIŠ-MI DAGAL U U U KU-[KU-KU 396 KU ┘ -[KU-KU KU ┘ [-KU-KU

...] [...] [...] [...] MIN [...] MIN [...] [...] [...] [...] ...] ...] ...]

1375 idem 1283 1284 1284a -

[... [... [MAN

...-]rù ...]x-i-šu ]MAN

? ? -

end of column LEft Edge I 1’E 2’ 3’ end of column

II Colophon 397 2’C [...]┌DUMU?┐ ┌DI[M.UR.]SAĜ LÚHAL 398 3’ [ÌR DUT]U u D40 K[AB.Z]U.ZU šá I D ŠÚ. GU.LA end of column

[... PN,] son of B[acal-qar]rad the diviner, [servant of Shama]sh and Sîn, pupil of Kidin-Gula.

Izi 1 fragment: 567 ‘H’ (74122ab – p.309) Note that, if this fragment is to be positioned (i.e. sequenced and distanced) in relation to Izi 1 T1 in parallel to that of the positioning of entries 1509-13 in Proto-Izi, it must belong to another (second) tablet. Of course, considering the fragmentary state of the Izi material, it is equally possible that its relation to the rest of the Izi text is different. 1’ 2’ 3’ 4’ 5’ 6’ 7’ 8’ 9’

1030 1031 1032 -

EN┐[-NU-UN MIN [... MIN [... MIN └ MURUB 4┘ [ MIN UD[-NI-LI-DA MIN [... EN-NU-U[N ... IN [... └ IN ┘ [...

...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...]

break

252

1509a ? ? 1511 1513 ? ? ? ?

Advanced Sign-lists * IZI=išātu Izi 2 (parallel to Hattusha Izi) Izi 2A fragments: Note that fragment lettering and provisional column count have been assigned to reflect the reconstructed sequence according to the occurrence of parallel entries in Hattusha Tablet A. 564 ‘A’ (7490b – p.224) (Obverse II’) 1. 2A001a [A-]ÁŠ 399 2. 2A001b [A-]ÁŠ 3. 2A001c [A-]ÁŠ 4. 2A001d [A-] └ ÁŠ ┘ 5. 2A002a [Á-TAR] 6. 2A002b [Á-TAR] 7. 2A002c [Á-TAR] 8. 2A002d [Á-TAR] 9. 2A002e [Á-TAR (III’) 1. GÚ-[... 2. 2A005a GÚ-NÍG 3. 2A005b GÚ-NÍG 4. GÚ-[... GÚ-[... 5. 2A006 GÚ-GÁ-[GÁ 6. 2A007a GÚ-ŠÈ-GÁ ┘ [-GÁ 7. 8. 2A007b GÚ-ŠÈ-GÁ ┘ [-GÁ 9. GÚ-[... GÚ-[... 10. 565 ‘B’ (7491ae – p.229) (I’ some traces only) (Obverse II’) 1’ traces of GÚ only 2’ 2A003a GÚ-RU[-BA 3’ 2A003b GÚ-RU[-BA 4’ 2A003c GÚ-RU-B[A? 5’ 2A003a └ GÚ-BU ┘ [ 6’ 2A004b [G]Ú-BU ┘ [ 7’ 2A004c [GÚ]-BU ┘ [ 566 ‘C’ (7498e – p.240) (Obverse III’) 1’’ 2A008 [A-MA-]R[U-K]AM 2’’ 2A009 [G]Ú-LAGAB-LAGAB 3’’ 2A010 GÚ-LAGAB-LAGAB KUR-RA 4’’ 2A011a GÚ-GAM 5’’ 2A011b GÚ-GAM 6’’ 2A012 GÚ-GAM-GAM end of column

253

a-sa-ak-ku : har-hu-ru mur-ṣu di!-ú ni-is-sà-tu 4 : bu-šu-ut-tu!400 i-du na-ak-su i-du šap-ṣu i-du qa-at-pu i-du ha-ar-ṣu i-du h]a- └ aṣ-ṣu

- 401 -

...] [...] [...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...]

? 117-8 idem ? ? 121-3 ? ? ? ?

...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...]

107-9 idem idem 110-1/113-6 idem idem

a-nu-m[a] nap- └ ha ┘ [-ru] nap ┘ [-har KURti] k[à-na-šu] [...] [...]

178 179 181 182 idem 183

Part 1 - Text Edition ‘G’+‘H’ (74238n=ex-537 J+74127n – p.560+323) (Reverse IV’) high in IV’ F has an entry starting with NU followed by four entries starting with SI (parallel to A184-201) 1’G [ZAG] i-x[...] ? 2’ 2A013a [ZAG] a-na ┌ ┐ 3’ 2A013b ZAG i-d[u] 4’ 2A013c ZAG e-m[i-it-tu] 241 5’ 2A013d ZAG e-li 6’ 2A013e ZAG iš-dú ┘ 7’ 2A013f ZAG a-d[i] 8’ 2A013g ZAG x[...] ? 9’ 2A013h ZAG [...] ? 10’ ...] └ ZAG ┘ :[ (V’) 1’G [x ...]-tu 4 : [...] 2’ [x ...]x-tu 4 pa-x[...] 3’ [GAZ ...]x-u 4’ 2A014a [GAZ ...]: ma-ha-ṣu 5’ 2A014b [GAZ x]x-ku : šar-pa-u 6’H 2A014c [GA]Z [ h]a-ša-lu 402 7’ 2A014d G◦AZ [ x]x-aṣ-ṣu 8’ 2A014e GAZ [ xx]-ru ┌ 9’ 2A014f GAZ ga-az-zu 10’ 2A014g GAZ da-aṣ-ṣu 11’ 2A014h GAZ ta-ba-ku 12’ 2A014i GAZ na-mas-su-u 13’ 2A014j GAZ ba-ku-u G 14’ 2A015a [x] hé-pu-u 15’ 2A015b [x] hé-su-u 16’ 2A015c [x] hu-us-su-u 17’ 2A015d [x] a-pá-rù 18’ 2A015e [x] └ da-a-lu ┘ 19’ only some traces Izi 2A fragments not used: Note that the following small fragments, which also seem to contain entries paralleled in Hattusha Tablet A, have not been used because they are lacking identifiable subentries as well as direct joins. Note, however, that their lettering indicates their place vis-à-vis the fragments edited above. Also, in line with the above reconstruction, they have been provided with a provisional column count. ‘D’ (74198u – p.488) part of I or II with (parts of) Á-ŠIM entries ‘E’ (7479b – p.210) part of II or III with (parts of) GÚ signs ‘F’ (74198r – p.488) part of (Rev) IV with SI signs

254

Advanced Sign-lists * IZI=išātu Izi 2B Tablet 1 consisting of: 568 ‘A’ (74164a – p.416-7) 568 ‘B’ (74259 – p.580) 578 ‘C’ (74146f – p.367) Obverse II’ 1’ traces only 2B001a 2’A 3’ 2B001b 4’ 2B001c 5’ 2B001d 6’ 2B001e 7’ 2B001f 8’ 2B001g 9’ 2B002 10’ 2B002’ 11’ 2B003a 12’ 2B003b 13’ 2B003c 14’ -

[GIŠ-TÚG-PI-ŠIR-TAR [GIŠ-TÚG-PI-ŠIR-TAR [GIŠ-TÚG-P]I[-ŠIR-TAR [GIŠ-]TÚG[-P]I-ŠIR-TA[R ┌ GIŠ-TÚG-PI-ŠIR-TAR GIŠ-TÚG-PI-ŠIR-TAR GIŠ-TÚG-PI-ŠIR-TAR GIŠ-TÚG-PI-ŠIR-TAR-GÀR GIŠ-ŠU-IG-x[ ki-iš GIŠ GIŠ GIŠ └ GIŠ ┘ […

: uq]-qú-u : ú-]te-eq-qú-u vacat?] : ha-si]-su [: q]u-u-lu : ┌qa-a-lu : né-eš-mu-u : tah-ši-iš- └ tu 4 : né-e]š-mu-u◦ i-ṣu [] ha-aṭ-ṭ[u] te-e[r-tu 4 ] ...]

-

break III’ fragment A preserves a few (parts of) signs (visible are two entries starting with NI[M followed by one with MA) Reverse IV’ 1.A 2. 3. 4. 5. 2B004 6. 2B005 7. 2B006 8. 2B007 9. 2B008 10. 2B009 11. 2B010 12. 2B011 13. 2B012 14. 15. 16. 17 18. break

IGI-D[UB IGI-DU[B IGI-DU[B KI [... └ ŠEN └ ŠEN-KAL [Š]EN-GIM-MA [KI]-Á-GÁ [KI]-GÁ-AN KI-EŠ-BAR KI-EŠ-ŠE-NI KI-ZA-ZA KI-Á-ÁG-RU KI-x[... KI-[... KI-[... KI-[... └ KI ┘ -[...

...] ...] ...] ...] [...] : ┘ [...] : [...] : x[...] : x[...] : K[I ...] : [...] : [...] : ┘ [...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...]

255

-

Part 1 - Text Edition V’ 1.A 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.

2B013a 2B013b 2B013c 2B013d 2B014a 2B014b 2B015a 2B015b 2B015c 2B015d 2B015e 2B015f 2B015g 2B015h 2B015i 2B015j

KI-BI-RI-A! KI-BI-RI-A KI-BI-RI-A KI-BI-RI-A SI-IL-LÁ SI-IL-LÁ i-di-im :BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD └ BAD ┘ [BAD

break 1’C 2’ 3’ 4’ 5’ 6’ 7’ 8’ 9’ 10’ 11’ 12’ 13’ 14’ 15’ 16’

2B015k 2B015l 2B015m 2B016 2B017 2B018 2B019 2B020a 2B020b 2B020c 2B020d 2B020e -

[x] [BAD] [BAD] [BAD] [IGI-DIM] [IGI-]DIM [BAD] [BAD-UD] [x-]NAM-NÁ [x]-NÁ [MUD] [MUD] [MUD] [MUD] [MUD] [MUD]

2B021a 2B022b

BU-LUH-SI-IL-L[Á BU-LUH-SI-IL-LÁ

2B023 2B024 2B025 2B026 2B027 -

ZI-[IG]-AZ(!ZI.IG.ZA.AK ZA) [xx]-IL [xx]-IL ŠE-[Š]E-GA NU-U[M-ŠE-ŠE-] └ GA ┘ DI-[...

: ri!-ib-ba-tu 4 : mi-iṭ-ṭa-tu 4 : im-ṭu-u : ma-ṭu-u : im-ṭu-u : ma-ṭu-u : na-ag-bu kab-tu 4 qa-al-lu ša-mu-u er-ṣe-tu 4 ek-le-tu 4 e-ṭu-tu 4 ú-la-lu a-la-lu p]i- └ it ┘ - └ tu ┘ - └ ú ┌

ši┐[-...] né-su-u ru-‘u-tu 4┘ tap-TU(!šu)-hu : ṣé-e[h-hu-ru-tu 4 ] : sa-a[ṣ-ha-ru] da-a-mu šar-ku : [...] : n[a-...] up-pu pá-ar-d[u 4 ] da-mu da-a’-a-m[u] dú-u’-ú◦[-mu] x-nu- └ ú ┘

- 403 -

break VI’ 1.B 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. break



256

: g]i 5 -li-ta ma-lu-u :┐[g]i 5 ?-li-ta ma-KU(!?lu)-u 404 : za- └ za-ah-hu-ku : ku-ša-ru : mi-ta-ag-gu-ru : ┘ [ m]a-ga-ru [ : l]a- └ a ┘ ma-ga-ru ...]

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ?

Advanced Sign-lists * IZI=išātu Izi 3 (parallel to canonical XV) Izi 3 fragment: 577 (‘A’=)74191c+(‘B’=)7484l – p.474+217 Obverse 1’B 3001a []┌IGI┐-┌BAR┐- └ RA 405 2’ 3001b [I]GI-BAR-┌RA 3’ 3001c [I]GI-BAR-┌RA 4’ 3001d [] IGI-BAR-[R]A 5’ 3001e [] IGI-BAR-[R]A 3001f [IGI-BAR-R]A 6’A 7’ 3001g [IGI-BAR-RA] 8’ 3002 [...

: da-la-pu : ba-ru-u : nap-lu-su : a-ma!-ru : na[-ṭ]a[-lu] : kú◦l-[lu-mu] : da-ga┐-┌lu┐ :] ba-ru-u

AII03’ AII05’ AII02’ AII04’ ?

Reverse 406 1’A 2’ 3’ 4’ 5’ 6’ -

...]-a-[x]x ...]-lu[-x]x ┌ : nu-up-┌pu┐-ṣu : ]up-pu-šu : ]┌nu-us-su!-qú ┘ [] : xx-di-iš ┘ []

? ? ? ? ? ?

[... [... [...] [... ŠI[D(ZÀG) x[x]x

Izi 4 (no substantial parallel) Extract 1 – 572 (7433 – p.176) Obverse 1. 4003a ŠU-BU ka-mu-u 2. 4003b ŠU-BU ma-as-ku 3. 4004 ŠU-GALAM-MA ši-it-tu 4 4. 4005 ŠU-LUH šu-luh-hu 5. 4006a ŠU-KÀD na-pa-šu 6. 4006b MIN ša-p◦a-┌ṣu 7. 4006c MIN le-e-tu 4 8. 4006d MIN ša-la-tu 4 9. 4006e MIN sà-la-tu 4 10. 4006f MIN pa-ša-hu 11. 4006g MIN e-piš SIKI end of column Reverse (large open spaces above and under the text) 1. 4007a ŠU-BU qa-tu 4 ṣa-ba-→tu 4 2. 4007b ŠU-BU ba-ru-u 3. 4007c ŠU-BU ba!-ṭ◦a-lu 4. 4007d tu-bu-ul< ŠU-BU> e◦[-l]e-↑pu end of column

257

Part 1 - Text Edition Izi 4 fragment: 571 407 (‘A’=)74199l+(‘B’)=74198w – p.494+488 Obverse I 1’ traces only 2’B 4001a [N]IR 3’ 4001b [] NIR 4’ 4001c [] NIR 5’A 4002a NIR-IG 6’ 4002b NIR- └ IG 7’ 4002c NIR-IG 8’ 4002d NIR-IG 9’ NIR [... 10’ NIR [... 11’ NIR [... end of column Lower Edge 1.A 2. 3. 4. end of column Reverse IV’ 1.A 4007 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8-9 ŠU only break

[...] ta┐-┌a┐-m[ar-tu 4 ] da-ga ┘ [-lu] e-te-e[l-lu] MIN └ MIN ┘ [...] ...] ...] ...]

NIR-IM x[ NIR-RA [... NIR-RA [... NIR-RA [...

...] ...] ...] ...]

ŠU-B[U ŠU-x[... ŠU-x[... ŠU-[... ŠU-[... ŠU-SI-D[I ŠU-x[...

...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...]

Izi 4 fragments not used: Note that the following small fragments, which seem to contain entries parallel those found in Izi 4 fragment 571 and Izi 4 Extract 2, have not been used because they are lacking both identifiable subentries and direct joins. 571 ‘C’ (7478c – p.210) not used – only isolated entry-initial signs, mostly ŠU 571 ‘D’ (731075j – p.150) not used – only a few times ŠU-BU without subentries or direct joins

258

Advanced Sign-lists * KÁ.GAL=abullu 7. KÁ.GAL=abullu Fragment – 576 (74166b – p.423) 1’ 2’ 3’ 4’ 5’ 6’ 7’ 8’ 9’

001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009

[] IM-IRI-LU [] IM-SI-DI [] IM-KUR-RA [] IM-MAR-TU [IM [IM-SI-SI-IG [... [IM-ŠITA [IM-HAR-DU

: š[u-tu] : il-[ta-nu] : ša-d[u-u] : a-mur ┘ [-rù] :] zi-qu :] zi-iq-zi-qu : š]a-pár-zi-qu : d]a-al-ha-mu-na : mu-u]r- └ mu ┘ -ur-ru ┘

259

D012’ D013’ D014’ -

Part 1 - Text Edition 8. SAĜ B Tablet 1 consisting of: 575 (731055 – p.131) BLT (Institute of Oriental Culture, Tokyo – no number) Notes: 1. Horizontal ruling could not be indicated on the BLT-fragment because it has not been indicated in the publication. 2. The 10-line marks have been transcribed as ‘<’ markers in transcription. 3. The separation markers in use on this tablet take the form of single Winkelhaken and have also been transcribed as ‘<’ markers in the transcription (the regular ‘GAM’-signs (‘:’), encountered elsewhere, are not found on this tablet). Obverse I 1.BLT 001a 2. 001b 001c 3. 001d 4. 5. 001e 6. 001f 7. 001g 8. 001h 9. 001i 10. < 001j 11. 002 12. 003 13. 004a 14. 004b 005a 15. 005b 16. 006a 17. 006b 18. 007a 19. 20. < 007b 007c 21. 007d 22. 007e 23. 007f 24. 008a 25. 008b 26. 009 27. 010 28. 011a 29. 30. < 011b 012a 31. 012b 32. 013 33. 014 34.

SAG SAG SAG SAG SAG SAG SAG SAG SAG SAG SAG-SAG SAG-SAG-SAG SAG-UR-SAG SAG-UR-SAG SAG-ZI SAG-ZI SAG-KAL SAG-KAL SAG-ÍL-LA SAG-ÍL-LA SAG-ÍL-LA SAG-ÍL-LA SAG-ÍL-LA SAG-ÍL-LA SAG-UŠ SAG-UŠ SAG-HA-ZA SAG-DU-HA-ZA SAG-DU SAG-DU SAG-GAG SAG-GAG SAG-GAG-GAG SAG-GAG-TUKU

DIĜIR

408

re-e-šu 14 re-eš-tu 4 ma-hi-ru pa-nu-ú qa-aq-qa-du 4 pu-tu 4 ar-du am-tu 4 i-mu MIN im-ta-nu qar-ra-du as-sí-nu na-še re-ši a-le-e re-ši ŠU-ma a-ša-re-du < na-še re-ši a-le re-ši ša-qa-a-an re-ši re-ša-an ša-↓qa-tu 4 MIN a-le-tu 4 a-ša-re-du 4 ka-ia-ma-nu-um mu-ki-il re-ši ku-ul-lu 4 re-eš ku-ul-↓li qa-aq-qa-du na-ab-ni-tu 4 pá-at-qu pu-ut-tu-qú pu-ut-tu-qa-tu 4 i-šu

260

Advanced Sign-lists * SAĜB 35. 015 36. 016 37. 017 38. 018 39. 019 40. < 020 41. 021 42. 022 43. 023 44. 024a 45. 024b 46. 025 47. 026 48. 027 49. 028a 50. < 028b 51. 029a end of column II 1.BLT 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. < 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. < 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. < 30.

029b 029c 029d 030 031 032a 032b 033 034a 034b 035 036 037 038 039 040 041 042 043 044 045 046 047 048 049 050 051 052 053 054

SAG-GAG-NU-TUKU SAG-GAG SAG-GAG-GA SAG-KI SAG-KI-GAL-GAL SAG-BUL SAG-BUL-BUL SAG-AN-NA SAG-KI-TA SAG-KI SAG-KI SAG-KI-GAL SAG-SAG 9 -GAL SAG-GÚ-GAL SAG-LI-TAR SAG-LI-TAR SAG-AŠ

la i-ša-nu ŠU-ma ŠU-ma pu-úh-rù MIN ra-bi-ti mu-uš-ši qa-aq-↓
SAG-AŠ SAG-AŠ SAG-AŠ SAG-BÚR-RA SAG-BÚR-NA SAG-MIR SAG-MIR SAG-MEN SAG-KAL-LA SAG-KAL-LA SAG-ZI-DA SAG-┌LUL┐-LA SAG-DIŠ SAG-NÍG-GA SAG-NÍG-GU-NA SAG-UD-SAR SAG-MI SAG-MI-MI-GA SAG-NUMUN SAG-NUMUN-LÁ-LÁ SAG-NUMUN-NUMUN SAG-DU SAG-DU-AN-NA SAG-DU-KI-TA SAG-SU 6 -BAR-RA SAG-ŠU-BAR-RA SAG-MU-LUM SAG-BÚR-RU-BA SAG-SAL-LA SAG-É-A

e-de 4 -nu┐[-ú] gi-it-ma-┌lu 4 ┐ pí-ri-iš-t[u 4 ] ab-rù šal-ṭu 4 ab-rù a-gu-ú MIN aq-rù šu-qú-rù ki-i-nu sa 19 -ar-tu 4 sa 19 -an-ta-ku re-eš nam-ku-ri <<MIN>> re-eš bi-il-↓di si-ik-ku-rù MIN si-ik-ku-ri ši-ik-ku-ra-tu 4 a-šu-ú MIN e-lu-ú 3(!MIN) ša-ap-lu ŠU-ma ŠU-ma gu-bu<-hu> MIN ra-aq-qú ta-al-la-ak-↓
261

Part 1 - Text Edition 31. 055a 32. 055b 33. 056 34. 057a 35. 057b 36. 058 37. 059a 38. 059b 39. < 060a 40. 060b 41. 061a 42. 061b 43. 061c 44. 062 45. 063 46. 064a 064b 47. end of column III 1.575 2.[<] 3. 4.BLT 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

065 066 067 068 069a 069b 070 071 072 073

SAG-GÁ-GÁ SAG-GÁ-GÁ SAG-SUM-MU SAG-GIŠ-RA SAG-GIŠ-RA SAG-GIŠ-RA-RA SAG-GALAM-DA SAG-GALAM-DA SAG-TAB SAG-TAB SAG-TAB-BA SAG-TAB-BA SAG-TAB-BA SAG-ZI-IG SAG-SIKI SAG-SIKI-MU-BU SAG-SIKI-MU-BU

re-e-šu 14 ša-ka-nu he-GIŠ(!e)-šu 14 da-a-ku ma-ha-ṣú ra-pá-sú ar-ku 8 ku-ú-ru ŠU-ma šu-ur-ru-ú šu-tap-zu-ru tap-pu-ú ka-ba-šu re-eš ši-ki-in-↓
[S]AG-AN [S]AG-AN-TUKU [SA]G-AN-NU-TUKU SAG┐- └ KUR-RA SAG-P[AB-]┌RA SAG-PAB┐-RA SAG-TAR-D[A] SAG-BAL-LA┐ SAG-BU-I SAG-BU-I(!BU)-I

a-i-il i-li ┘ ra-ši i-li┐ la ra-ši i-li┐ re-eš ša-di ša-nu-ú na-ak-rù └ za-i-ri-nu na-bal-ka-tu 4 šu┐- └ ur-rù ma-al-hu

262

Advanced Sign-lists * SAĜB 11. 12. < 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. < 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. < 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. < 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48.

074 075 076a 076b 076c 077 078 079 080a 080b 080c 080d 081 082 083 084a 084b 085a 085b 085c 086 087 088 089 090 091 092a 092b 093 094 095 096 097a 097b 098 099 100 101

SAG-KI-BU SAG-GÍN DÙL-Ù DÙL-Ù DÙL-Ù-AK-AK ki-ri KA KA-DU KA-GALAM-DA KA-HAR KA-HAR KA-HAR KA-HAR KA-SI-IL-LA KA-TAB KA-DIB KA-NÍG-RA KA-NÍG-RA KA-TAR KA-TAR KA-TAR KA-haTAR KA-DIB-BA KA-EN-TE-NA KA-ŠU!-IG KA-TÚL KA-UD-DU-A KA-LUM KA-LUM KA-ŠAG 4 -GA KA-SIKI- ŠAG 4 -GA KA KA-MAH KA-GU-LA KA-GU-LA(!KA-GUL) KA-SI-A-GA KA-BÚR-RA KA-GI-NA ┘ └ KA ┘ [-NU-GI-N]A

gu-ub-b[u]-hu ša-as-su-ku! ma-na-hu a-na-h[u] šu!-t[a]-↓na-hu ap-pu ar-ku ku-ru-ú ga-na-ṣu ha-na-ṣu ša-na-ṣu na-ha-rù MIN a-BU(!še)-tu 4 ki-ri-di-ip-[pu] ŠU-ma ap-pu ša-qa-t[u 4 ] na-ak-šu ga 14 -az-zu ha-am-sụ́ ke-el-t[u 4 ] ṣa-ab-tu 4 ša-hi-il-t[u 4 ] la-ba-nu bi-i-šu ša-bu-lu 4 hu-um-mu-ṣ[u] ha-am-šu ŠU-ma pé-eir-tu 4 pu-ú ŠU-ma ra-bu-ú┐ ab-tu at-rù ab-r[ù] └ ki ┘ - └ nu ┘ ┌ ┐┌ ┐ la ki -nu

end of column IV 4.575 5. 6. [<] 7. 8.

-

K[A ... K[A ... KA-N[U ... KA-NU-[... KA-AN-[...

...] ...] ...] ...] ...]

9.

102a

KA-AN-TAR┐

[...]

263

Part 1 - Text Edition 10. 11. 12. 13.

102b 102c 102d 103

KA-!TAR KA-!TAR KA-!TAR KA-AN(!TAR)-ZI

x[...] na┐[-...] da┐-[li-lu] da-l[i-la ...]

14. 15. 16. [<] 17. 18. 19.

104 105a 105b

KA-AN(!TAR)-SI-IL-LÁ └ KA-HUL-A [KA-] └ HUL-A

da-li┐-l[a? ...] lem-nu zi-i-rù

106a 106b 107

[KA-H]UL [KA-H]UL [KA-HUL-] └ IG

lem-nu ma-às-ku 13 lem-nu-t[u 4 ]

575 has some traces in line 20 and BLT has parts of KA in lines 22-4 break Reverse V 1’575 108 109 2’ 110 3’ 4’ 111 5’ 112a 6’ 112b 7’ < 113 8’ 114a 9’ 114b 10’ 115 11’ 116a 12’ 116b 13’ 117 14’ 15’ 16’ 17’ < 18’ 19’

[K]A-KUG┐-UD┐ [K]A-ÚH-┌A┐ [K]A-ÚH-A ┌ KA-EZEN KA-EZEN-EZEN KA-EZEN-EZEN KA-RAD-NA KA-GAL(!GÍR-GAL) KA-GAL(!GÍR-GAL) KA-HAR-RA KA-NE KA-N[E KA-GU[L K[A ... KA ┘ [... K[A ... K[A ... K[A ... K[A ...

[...] [...] x[...] ki┐[-iṣ-ru] [...] ki┐[-iṣ-ru] ra-a-ṭ[ù] nam-ṣa-rù pa-a ┘ [-at-ru] e ┘ [-se-qu] [...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...] ...]

end of column

264

Advanced Sign-lists * SAĜB VI 1.BLT 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. < 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. < 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. < 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. < 40. 41.

151 152a 152b

KAxME-AŠ-ŠA KAxME-U-AŠ-ŠA KAxME-AŠ-ŠA-AŠ-ŠA KAxME-TAR-KAL-TUKU K◦AxME-SI-DI KA┐xME-SI-DI KAxME-SI-<>DI KAxME-UR◦I-MA-KI KAxME-MA◦R-TU KAxME-SU-[T]I-UM K◦AxME-SU-[EDE]N-KI K◦AxME-NIM-MA-KI┐ KAxME-GU-TI-UM KAxME-PAB KAxME-PAB KAxME-PAB-PAB KAxME-HUL-IG KAxME-HUL-GIG KAxME-BAL KAxME-HA-MUN KAxME-SAG-GI-A KAxME-SI-A KAxME-HAL(!BAR)-BI KAxME-HI-GA [K]AxME- └ NU ┘ - └ HI ┘ - └ GA ┘ KAxME-<ŠU->BAR-RA KAxME-KI-EN-GI KAxME-KI-EN-NA-KI vacat KAxME-ŠÈ-ME KAxME-ŠID-GÁ KAxME-IGI-ŠID-GÁ KAxME-UR-SUM<<-A>> KAxME-GIL-GIL-MA ┘ KAxME-SÙH-SÙH KAxME-SIG 409 KAxME-SIG KAxME-SIGKA-KA(!-GU 7 -GU 7 ) i-nim KA KA-NÍG KA-NÍG

42.

153

KA-ZI-D[A]

ki-it-tù

43. 44. 45. 46.575

154 155 156 157

KA-GI-NA KA ┘ - └ NU-GI-NA KA-AN-NA [K]A-KI-TA

ki-it-tù la ki-it-tu e-li-tu 4 ša-pí-il 5 -tu 4

118 119 120 121 122a 122b 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130a 130b 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150a 150b 150c

265

ša-ti-iq-t[u 4 ] ka 4 -ṣí-ir-t[u 4 ] lu-ru ku-uṣ-ṣú-r[ù] ŠU-ma i-ša-ar-t[u 4 ] la i-ša-ar ┘ -↓tu 4 ak-ka 4 -di-t[u 4 ] a-mur-ri-t[u 4 ] su-ti-t[u 4 ] su-ba-r[i-tu 4 ] i-la-mi-t[u 4 ] gu-ti-t[u 4 ] na-a[k-ri-tu 4 ] ša-[...] na-a[k-ri-tu 4 ] l[e-mu-ut-tu 4 ] z[i-ri-tu 4 ] 410 na-[...] na-x[...] l[a-...] a-tar ┘ [-tu 4 ] a-hi-[tu 4 ] ṭà-a ┘ [-bu] la [ṭà-a-bu] uš-šu-u[r-tu 4 ] ma-x[...] ma-[...] < šu-me-ri URI.MA < a-[...] šu-me-[ri-tu 4 ] re-š[u-tu 4 ] na ┘ [-si-iq-tu 4 ] x[...] [x]x-ri a[s-gu 5 -g]u 5 šu-ub-[t]u 4 mu-š[a-]bu kar-ṣú ↓a-ka ┘ [-lu] [a-wa]-tu 4 ŠU ┘ -ma ša-ka-nu

Part 1 - Text Edition 47. 158a 48. 158b end of column VII 1.BLT < 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. [<] 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. [<] 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. < 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. < 41. 42. 43. 44. 45.

158c 159 160a 160b 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173a 173b 174 175 176a 176b 177 178 179 180 181a 181b 182 183 184 185a 185b 185c 185d 185e 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194

[K]A-É-GAL [K]A-É-GAL

e-kál-li si-il-la-↓
KA-É-GAL KA-EL-GAG-A KA-SI-A KA-SI-A KA-SI-DI KA-SI-<>DI KA-<ŠU->BAR-RA KA ┘ - └ HUL ┘ - └ A ┘ [... [KA-DUGU]D KA-AN-RA KA-LUGAL KA-KAL-LA KA-KAL-KAL-LA KA-GIL-GIL-MA KA-LUL-LA KA-AN [K]A-AN [K]A-ŠU-KÁR-GA [] KA [K]A-NÍG [KA]-NÍG [KA]- └ NÍG-RA KA┐-x[...]x KA-GÁ-G◦Á KA-SAR KA-RI-A KA-RI-A KA-LU-LU-A(!LÙ-LÙ-A) KA-ŠU-GA KA-NÍG KA-DÉ-A KA-DÉ-A KA-DÉ-A KA-DÉ-A KA-DÉ-A KAxNUN KAxNUN-GAL-GAL KAxNUN-KAL-KAL-LA KAxNUN-MAH KAxNUN-SAG 9 -GA KAxNUN-BÚR-NA KAxNUN-GI-NA KAxNUN-NU-GI-NA KAxNUN-HI-GA

ta-aš-li-im-tu 4 ma-ki-rù ma-li-tu 4 a-tar-tu 4 i-šar-tu 4 la i-šar-tu 4 uš-šu-ur-tu 4 └ le-mu-ut-tu 4 k]a-ṣi-ir-tu 4 ka-b◦i-it-↓t◦u 4 i-li šar-ri šu 11 -qú-rù šu 11 -qú-ra-tu 4 mu-ug-↓
266

Advanced Sign-lists * SAĜB 46. 195 end of column

KAxNUN-NU-HI-GA

la ṭá-ab-↓tu 4

VIII 1.BLT 196 KAxNUN-KA-UD-RA 2. 197 KAxNUN-AŠ-ŠA-AŠ-ŠA-RA 198 KAxNUN-LUL-LA 3. 199 KAxNUN-ŠU-TAB-BA 4. < 200 KAxNUN-TÚL-BA 5. 201 KA-GA 6. 202 KA-GA-MAH 7. 203 KA-GA-GU-LA 8. 204 KA-GA-ZI-DA 9. 205 KA-GA-NU-PAB-RU 10. 206 KA-AN-RA 11. 207 KA-LUGAL 12. 13. 208 KAxSA 209 KAxSA-ZA-KUR-NA 14. < 210a KAxSA-UD-DU-NE 15. 210b KAxSA-UD-DU-NE 16. 210c KAxSA-UD-DU-NE 17. 211 šeKAxGÁ(!xŠID) 18. 212 KAxGÁ(!xŠID)-GI-NA 19. 213 ga-naKAxIM(!MI) 20. 214 ur-guKAxIM(!NE) 21. 215a ušKAxLI 22. 215b MINKAxLI 23. 216 tu-úKAxIM 24. < 217a ru-puKAxIM 25. 217b ru-puKAxIM 26. 27. MAN MAN Colophon 28.BLT AL.TIL IGI.KÁR 29. ŠU.NÍĜIN 3 me-tì 52 30. MU.BI.IM ID 411 ŠU IM.MÁŠ.ŠU.GÍD.GÍD 31. LÚ Ì.ZU 32. D D ÌR AK u NISABA 33. rest of column empty

267

qí-bi-tu 4 lu-ut-ta-↓tu 4 sa 19 -ar-tu 4 šu-un-nu bi-iš-tu 4 qí-bi-tu 4 ŠU-ma ra-bi-tu 4 ki-i[t-tu] la n[a-ka-]↓ar ┘ [-t]u 4 i-l[i] šar-r[i] zi-i[q-nu] el-[la-]tu 4 su-[xx] ↓zu-x-[xx] zu-[...] za-a[q-na-nu] ša-š[u-ú] ki-nu┐[-tu 4 ] i-te┐-x[xx] li-ib┐[-ba-]↓tu 4 ┐ ru-‘u-tu 4 ru-pu-uš-tu 4 šu-lu-tu 4 ru-‘u-tu 4 ru-pu-uš-tu 4 MAN It has been completed (and) checked: (in) total 352 (are) its lines. (By) the hand of Bacal-bārû, the student, the servant of Nabû and Nisaba.

Part 1 - Text Edition 9. NÍĜ.GA=makkūru Tablet 1 consisting of 412 : 573 ‘A’ (74103a+74104a – p.255-6) 573 ‘C’ (74106b – p.268) Obverse I 1’C 001.01 2’ 002.01 3’ 003.01 4’ A 5’ 004.01 6’ 005.01 7’ .02 8’ 006.01 9’ .02 10’ .03 11’ 007.01 12’ 008.01 13’ 14’ 15’ 16’ 17’ 18’ 19’ 20’ 21’ 22’ 23’ 24’ 25’ 26’ 27’ 28’ 29’

break II break 1’A 2’ 3’ 4’ 5’ 6’ 7’

009.01 .02 .03 .04 .05 010.01 011.01 012.01 013.01 014.01 015.01 016.01 017.01 018.01 .02 019.01 -

-

[NÍG-NE-RU] NIG-Á◦[-ZI] NÍG-Á[-KÍD-]NÍG(!A) [... [NÍG-Š]U-KÍ[D-A] [NÍ]G-GIG┐ [NÍG-]GIG-GA-A [NÍG]-AL-DI [NÍ]G-AL-DI-AK [N]ÍG-ME-NÍG

[N]ÍG-ZI [NÍG]-┌GI-NA NÍG-LUL NÍG-LUL-A NÍG-SI-DI └ NÍG-NU-SI-DI [NÍG]-SAG 6 -GA [NÍG]- └ SAG 6 -SAG 6 -GA [NÍG-] └ RU-BA [] [NÍĜ-KI-NUN]-DA []

[... [... [... [... [... [... [... 268

┌

ra┐[-an-gu] ṣí-[-i-nu] t[e-qí-tu 4 ] ...] K◦I [...] ik-ki-b[u] ma-ru-u[š-tù] ik-ki-b[u] ma-ru-uš-tù mar-ṣa-tu 4 e-ri-ìš-tu 4 MIN e- └ pe ┘ -šu

005 006 007 ? 008 009 030 010 -

qu-[ú-lu] na-a-┌ru┐ re-eš-tu 4 ri-šá-tu 4 iš-di-hu ki-it-tu 4 MIN sa-ar!-rù MIN e-še-rù la-a MIN du-um-qu du-um-qa-tu 4 na-di-tu 4 └ na ┘ - └ du ┘ -u mi-i[q-tu 4 ] ma ┘ -du 413 []

060 055 054 053 102 ?

...-]mu ... Š]AB ...] š◦ap-šu ...-]il-du ...]x-[ṣ]u ...]-šu-ṣu ...] ma-du-ú

? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Advanced Sign-lists * NÍĜ.GA=makkūru 8’ 9’ 10’ 11’ 12’ 13’

-

[... [...] [...] [... [... [...

...]-pu-šu ZU-i-nu ma-al kab-te ┘ š]a qa-t[a?] ...]-šu ...]-qu

? ? ? ? ? ?

14’ 15’ 16’ 17’ 18’ 19’ 20’ 21’ 22’ 23’ 24’ 25’ 26’ 27’ 28’ 29’ 30’ 31’ 32’ 33’ 34’ 35’ 36’ break

020.00 .00 .01 .02 021.01 022.01 023.01 .02 .03 024.01 .02 025.01 .02 026.01 .02 027.01 .02 .03 .04 028.01 029.01 030.01 .02

[NÍG-PAB-DI] [ [ [] NÍG-PAB-DI!415 -A[K] NÍG-PAB-AK-AK NÍG-AK

x-k◦i-tu x]-ni-du š]a- └ na?-an-tù 414 na-kar-tu 416 GIR 5 (KAŠ 4 ) NA(!ša)-na-ti ? 417 MU └ MIN ┘ ša-na-ti ki-ìš-pu ru-hu-u ru-šu- └ u ┘ e-ri-[tu 4 ] up-ša-[šu] KUG-NI [] 418 pu-na-[na-ru] MIN MIN mi-še-ri ša ša-ar-gi/qì-ti ša ša-ah-lu-uq-ti AŠ(!mi)-im-ma sa-bi/pí-qu MIN ši-i-mi MIN └ ma ┘ -U(!hi)-ri └ MIN ┘ [ m]a-ša-ru MIN ṭa-a-] └ bu

038 064 065 -

...] ...] ...]

? 034 ?

...]x da-la-te ...]A i-na-ma-ru ...]-ú ...]-ú ...]-b◦a?

? ? ? ? ?

N[ÍG-]┌AK-AK NÍG- └ DÍM-MA NÍG- └ D◦ÍM-AK NÍG-GI[L-]MA

NÍG-SÁM-MA └ NÍG ┘ -KI-LAM [NÍG]-HI ┘ [-G]A [

Reverse IV some traces above 1’ ┌ NÍG┐-A[ 1’C 2’ NÍG-T[E?-EN 3’ NÍG-N[E some traces in 6’ LEft Edge I 1.C 2. 3. 4. 5. end of column

[... [... [... [... [...

269

Part 1 - Text Edition II 1.C 031.01 2. .02 3. .03 4. .04 5. end of column

ga-ar N[ÍG └ MIN

...] ...] ...] ...] [MAN]

117 idem idem idem -

573 ‘B’ (74103c – p.257) 419 [N]ÍG-HA-LAM-MA 1. 2. 3. 4. NÍG-É-[T]E?-A

[...] [...] [...] [...]

084 idem idem -

5. 6. 7.

[...] x[...] ...]

?

...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] ...]

-

NÍG [ MIN NÍG[ MIN NÍG┐[ MAN

Fragments not used: (‘floating’ fragments)

NÍG-SAG-AŠ └ NÍG-x[...

574 ‘A’ (74190h – p.464) 420 some traces of another column to the left 1’ NÍG-T[UM(NÍĜ.ÍB) 2’ NÍG-TUM 3’ NÍG-TUM-KÍD┐( NÍĜ.ÍB.TAK 4 ) 4’ NÍG-TUM-KÍD 5’ NÍG-PAD-PAD(NÍĜ.SUR.SUR) 6’ NÍG-PAD-PAD 7’ NÍG-HA[R

574 ‘B’ (7480b – p.212) a few incomplete entries including 1’ └ NÍG-NU-[ and 3’[N]ÍG-NU-DA-x[ 574 ‘C’ (74100f – p.243) a few incomplete entries including 1’ NÍG-UD-[ and 3’ └ NÍG ┘ - └ ŠAG 4┘ [ 586 (7488f – p.222) 421 deviating from T1 in lay-out (absence of ruling between key-sign sections) and entry sequence ┌ ┐ ┌ ┐ 1’ [NÍG-LUL-A] sa - ar -t[u 4 ] 2’ [NÍG-NU-NÍG-RA nu-la-a-t[u 4 ] (NÍĜ.NU.ĜAR.RA)] 3’ [NÍG-ZI t]e-bu-tu 4┘ 4’ [] tah-li-t[u 4 ] 5’ n]u-kúr-tu 4 ┐ [NÍG-PAB-DI 6’ [ l]e-em-nu 7’ h]u-ul-x[...] [ end of column

270

060 ? ?

Advanced Sign-lists * DIRI=watru 10. DIRI=watru Inventory and concordance of fragments Sequential listing

Fragments new (adjusted) edition number

Fragments old Emar VI 4 edition number

Fragments – MSL XV edition number

Museum number and Emar VI 1-2 publication page number

1 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 6 7 8 (9 not used (10 not used (-

540 A 540 F 540 B 540 ‘L’ 540 ‘M’ 540 ‘N’ 540 C 540 D 540 E 540 ‘O’ 540 G 540 ‘J’ 540 ‘K’ 540 H 540 ‘P’ 540 ‘Q’ 545 ‘AW’ in Hh 4T2

540 A 540 F 540 B 570 600 540 C 540 D 540 E 554 D 540 G 599 540 H 563 A 563 B 540 I

A B C C C C G G D D E F H -

74152b – p.384 74123i – p.314 74146a – p.361 74199i – p.493 74198z – p.489 74238r – p.562 74254c – p.580 74160a – p.408 74165e – p.419 74128c – p.327 74128k – p.329 74159g – p.403 74198d – p.486 74107ag – p.276 74152g – p.384) 74152a – p.383-4) 74234o – p.549)

271

Part 1 - Text Edition Fragments: Fragment 1 – 540 A (74152b – p.384) 1’ 001.01 [ AMAR-AMAR 2’ .02 [ 3’ .03 [ [ 4’ .04 [ 5’ .05 ] 6’ .06 [ ] 7’ 002.01 [ KU 7 -KU 7 8’ .02 [ 9’ .03 [ 10’ [ 11’ [ 12’ [ 13’ [ 14’ traces only Fragment 2 – 540 F (74123i – p.314) 422 1’ traces only 2’ 001.06 [ AMAR-AMAR 3’ 002.01 [ KU 7 -KU 7 4’ .03 [ 5’ .02 [ ] 6’ [ ...] 7’ [ ]

ku-u]n-nu┐ ku-t]e-en-n[u] s]u-up-pu-u s]u-ul-lu-[u] ṣu-uh-hu┐ šu-te-me-qu ma]t-qu ṭ]a-a-bu d]a-aš-pu xx]-ru xx]-ru xx]x-u ...-]du

: šu-te-me-q]u : m]a-at-qu : d]a-aš-pu ┌ : ṭa-a-bu : ša a-ka-li : ša a-ka-l[u?]

8’ traces only Note that 540 F also shows some overruns from the Reverse’ (i.e. written upside down): 1’ [… u]z-zu-hu-lu 2’ […]-ti-da-ti Fragment 3 consisting of 423 : 540 B (74146a – p.361) 540 ‘L’ (74199i – p.493) 540 ‘M’ (74198z – p.489) 540 ‘N’ (74238r – p.562) 1.B 003.00 [ 2. .01 [ 3. .02 [ 4. 004.01 [pa-li-il] 424 5. .02 [ 6. .03 [ 7. .04 [ 8. .05 [ 9. .06 [igi-ṭu] 10. .07 [ 11. .08 [ 12. .09 [ 13. .10 [

IGI-IGI] ] ] IGI-D]U ] ] ] ] IGI-D]U ] ] ]

272

x[...] pù◦l-lu-s[ú] da-ab-du 4 a-ša-re-du 4 a-lik pa-ni a-lik EGIR-k[a] a-lik mah-ra u DIĜIR IGI.DU a-ša-re-d[u 4 ] a-lik pa-ni a-lik EGIR-ka a-lik mah-ra m]a-ah-ru-u

Advanced Sign-lists * DIRI=watru 14. traces only and a few lines missing 1’-2’ traces and a few isolated signs only 3’L 005.00 IGI-BU-DA ú-i◦a 4’ 006.01 IGI-A(!-É) 425 5’ .02 6’ .03 7’ .04 8’ .05 igi-du 9’ 007.01 IGI-DU 8 8 10’ .02 └igi-gíd 11’ 008.01 IGI-BU 12’ .02 [i]m?-hu-ul 426 13’ 009.01 IGI-A 14’ 010.01 [] IGI-BI ┘ 15’ 011.01 [] IG[I-GA 16’ 012.01 [ IGI-DUB] 17’ .02 [ab-ra-a]k 18’M .03 [ 19’ [ 20’ .04 [ 21’ .05 [ 22’ .06 [ 23’N 013.01 [h]ul I[GI-UR 24’ .02 25’ .03 26’ .04 27’ .00 28’ .00 29’ .00 30’ 014.00 [n]i-in 4 -ni LAGAB[-LAGAB

za[-...] tab-ra-t[u 4 ] hi-a-ṭ[ù] hi-a-ru h◦i-a-šu a-ma-rù a-ma-[rù] nap-lu-[s]u a-ma-rù nap-lu-su hu-ur-hu-ma-at A [MI]N KAŠ MI]N GA ag-ri-iq-qu a-ba-ra-ak-ku i]t-tu 4 ]x-me-tu 4 ta]k-kal-tu 4 ta]k-ka-lu 4 gi]s-qi-mu! lem]-nu [ ma-]às-ku [za]-ap-r[u] [z]i- └ i ┘ [-ru] [...] [...] [...] ...]

Fragment 4 consisting of 427 : 540 C (74254c – p.580) 540 D (74160a – p.408) 540 E (74165e – p.419) 540 ‘O’ (74128c – p.326-7) Obverse II’ 1’-2’ parts of isolated signs only 015.01 [ 3’O 4’ 016.01 [ 5’ 017.01 [ 6’ 018.01 [ 7’ 019.01 [ 8’ 020.01 [

Ú-HAR-SAG-SAR Ú-DIN-TIR-SAR Ú-BURU 14 -SAR Ú-KI-AN-IM-SAR Ú-ŠAG 4 -SAR Ú-NUMUN- ŠAG 4 -SAR

a-z]u-pí-rù k]a-mu-nu ba]-li-il-tu 4 qut]-ru-u š]a-ad-lu 4 i]m!-ka-lu-lu 4

9’ 10’ 11’

Ú-GIŠ-KIRI 6 -SAR] Ú-KI-KAL-SAR] Ú-KI-KAL-SAR]

mut-hu-um-mu si-is-sa-tu 4 la-ar-du

021.01 022.01 .02

[ [ [

273

Part 1 - Text Edition 12’ 023.01 13’ 024.01 14’ .02 15’ .03 16’ .04 end of column Reverse III’ 1.E 024.05 2. .06 3. 025.01 4. .02 IV’ 1’C 2’D 3’

035.00 036.01 .02

4’ 5’

.00 .03

6’ 7’ 8’ 9’ 10’ 11’ 12’ 13’ 14’

.04 .05 .06 037.01 .02 .03 036.01 .00 037.00

[ [ [ [ [

Ú-...] Ú-KI-SUM-GA

ki-su-tu 4 q]in-nu-u hi]-i-lu 4 k]u-ma-ṣu k]u-ša-[ru]

[] [] [di-mu-u]š! []

◦Ú-KI-SUM-GA ◦Ú-KI-SUM-GA Ú-GIŠ-MI

hi-<E/N>◦i-lu 4 [<E/N> ṣi-i]l-lu 4 [<E/N> hi]◦i-lu 4 [<E/N> ku-ma]-ṣu

[] [mu-d]u[-ul] [ma]-ad-

GIŠ-GURUN┐ GIŠ-BU GIŠ-BU

[...] x[...] MIN [... ]

[?

GIŠ-BU GIŠ-BU

x x[...] ma-la-[lu]

[? ] [ga-zum-]└bi [g]a-zum-bi i◦ -i r [ ]

GI]Š-B[U] GIŠ┐-┌BU GIŠ-BU GIŠ-URI

gi-bi-il

GIŠ-ŠÚ-ÁŠ!

gu-šu-ur

[GIŠ-ÙR

a-la-[lu] ga-ši-[šu] ga- └ az-m[a-nu] ap- └ pa-[ta-an] ṣe-ni-[ta-an] ṣe-ri-[ta-an] └ gi ┘ - └ bil- └ lu ┘ [...] ...]

l

a [ma]-la giš- └ma-l◦a

]

a -la

Fragment 5 – 540 G (74128k – p.329) ú-ga┐ ┌ ┐ 1’ 026.01 Ú -N[AGA-HU bu-ru 2’ .02 Ú-NA[GA-HU mu-su-ug 3’ 027.01 Ú-KA┐ MIN 4’ 028.01 Ú-SAG MIN 5’ 029.01 Ú-KUR-MUNUS-TUKU x[ nam-ru 6’ 030.01 Ú-ZA-M[ÙŠ 7’ traces only

...] ...] [...] [...] ...] ...]

Fragment 6 – 540 ‘J’ (74159g – p.403) 428 – possible near-join with fragment 7 in 12’ 429 la-ah 1’ 031.00 [ L]AH 4 430 […] 2’ .00 […] 3’ .00 […] 4’ .00 […] 5’ .00 […] 6’ .01 r[e-du-ú] 7’ .00 ú◦[-húl-…]

274

Advanced Sign-lists * DIRI=watru 8’ 032.01 9’ .02 10’ .03 11’ .04 12’ traces only 431

la-ah-la-ah

LAH 4 -LAH 4

LA[H 4 …] i◦[-ta-ru-ú] re[-du-ú] r[i-te-du-ú]

Fragment 7 – 540 ‘K’ (74198d – p.486) 432 – possible near-join with fragment 6 before 1’ 1’ 033.01 (KAŠ 4 -KAŠ 4 ) qa-┌al┐-┌lu-┌lu 2’ .02 hi-ta-lu-pu 3’ .03 na-pa-gu 5 .04 4’ ṭi!-bu-u .05 5’ ṭi!-ta-bu-u 6’ .06 hi-tal-pu .07 7’ hi-tal-pu-pu su-u 8’ 034.01 BÚR-BÚR x └ bi ┘ - └ ru ┘└ BÚR ┘ -BÚ[R] bu-ru 9’ .02 BÚR-B[ÚR ...] 10’ traces only Fragment 8 – 540 H (74107ag – p.276) 433 1’ traces only 2’ 040.01 [ÀM.K]U 4 .KU 4 (NÍG-GÚG) 3’ [NU].SI.SÁ .02 4’ .03 [ÍB.]TA.È 5’ .04 [NU.SILI]G.GA 6’ .05 [NÍĜ.LUGA]L.KE 4 7’ traces only

275

i┐[-ru-ub-ma] ul i◦[-ma-al-li] ú-ṣ[i-ma] └ ul ┘ [...] [...]

Part 1 - Text Edition Fragments not used: The next two fragments were listed as possible parts of Diri in Civil’s review (p.24), but are not included in his edition in MSL XV. Their presentational form is superficially similar to that found in Diri but their content does not have substantive parallels in either the canonical or the Ugarit version. Note, however, that the glosses in 540 P may reflect entries fitting in with ‘tablet VII’. The fragments are given here in transcription but are not used in the composite edition. Fragment 9 – 540 ‘P’ (74152g – p.384) 434 ú-du-ug 1’ : x[... 2’ x[... 3’ x[... gi- di-im 4’ [ ] : x[... 5’ x[...

...] ...] ...] ...] ...]

Fragment 10 – 540 ‘Q’ (74152a – p.383-4) Obverse ga-ga 1. GÁ-GÁ 2. 3. [] RA 4. [] RA-RA

ša-ka 4 [-nu] ša-k[a-nu] ra-ha[-ṣu] da-a[-šu]

Reverse 1’-4’ only have single, isolated signs (-du and –mu) in the Akkadian column ┌ 5’ [] GÁxNÍG mil┐-ku 6’ [] ra-mu └ GÁxMUNUS ┘ 7’ [ ...] re-du-u 8’ [ ...] za-ba-lu end of column

276

Unidentified Texts Unidentified texts A few text fragments listed in Emar VI 4 remain unidentified. Suggestions regarding these fragments by Arnaud and Civil and an indication of their content are listed here. Bracketed texts may not belong of the lexical genre. Emar VI 4 Museum number Arnaud’s Civil’s edition and Emar VI 1-2 description description number page number

Indication of content

539E

7489c - p.222

trilingual G

n/a

part of Akkadian text+MIN

588

74101h - p.245

lexical

?

bu-šu / bu-ša-a / bu-ša-ia

590

7491k - p.227

lexical

Izi?

hé-pu / sa-la-tu 4 / hu-up-pu

592

(74112b - p.269)

lexical

literary?

part of text 771-2?

595

74123p - p.314

lexical

IGI-compounds pí-qi-it-tù / pa-qa-du

597

(74132h - p.338)

lexical

astronomical?

bi-ir-su

-

(74102g - p.253)

isolated colophon

-

cf. note in paragraph 13.2. of Part 3

277

Part 1 - Text Edition Notes An annotated bibliography relevant to both Part 1 and 2 is found at the end of Part 2. In order to allow the reader to use Part 1 independently, each first reference to a given publication in the following notes has also been provided with full bibliographic data. Note that the three most important reference works, i.e. the first publication and edition by Arnaud in Emar VI, the reviews of it by Civil and Cohen’s dissertation on the Emar school, are referred to only by the name of the author: i.e. as ‘Arnaud’, ‘Civil’ and ‘Cohen’ respectively. 1

M. Civil, ‘The Texts from Meskene-Emar’, AuOr 7 (1989) 5-25. J.M. Durand, ‘Daniel Arnaud, Recherches au Pays d’Aštata, Emar VI, Textes sumériens et accadiens, Ed. Recherche sur les civilisations, Paris, 1986, vol. 1, 2 et 3.’, RA 83 (1989) 163-91 and RA 84 (1990) 49-85 3 A summary discussion of the periodization of the Emar material may be found in W.W. Hallo, ‘The Syrian Contribution to Cuneiform Literature and Learning’ in: M.W. Chavalas and J.L. Hayes (eds.), New Horizons in the Study of Ancient Syria. Bibliotheca Mesopotamica 25 (Malibu 1992) 80. 4 M. Gantzert, ‘Syrian Lexical Texts’, UF (forthcoming). 5 Cf. N.C. Veldhuis, Elementary Education. The Listst of Trees and Wooden Objects (Groningen 1997) 3-4. 6 W.H. van Soldt, ‘Babylonian Lexical, Religious and Literary Texts and Scribal Education at Ugarit and Its Implications for the Alphabetic Literary Texts’ in: M. Dietrich and O. Loretz (eds.), Ugarit. Ein ostmediterranes Kulturzentrum im Alten Orient 1: Ugarit und seine altorientalische Umwelt. Abhandlungen zur Literatur AltSyrien-Palästinas 7 (Münster 1995) 172-4. 7 Gantzert, ‘SLT’ (forthcoming). 8 M. Civil, Lexicography’ in: Lieberman (ed.), Sumerological Studies in Honor of thorkild Jacobsen on his Seventieth Birthday June 7, 1974. AS 20 (Chicago and London 1975) 124-5. 9 For a sketch of the diversification process cf. Ibidem, 127-8. 10 Relevant discussion in J. Ikeda, ‘A New Contribution to Northwest Semitic Lexicography’, BiOr 60-3/4 (2003) 268-9. 11 Where applicable conform van Soldt, ‘Babylonian Texts’, 72-3; new abbreviations are marked with an asterisk. 12 Reconstructed in van Soldt, ‘Babylonian Texts’, 72-4. 13 Arnaud lists 563 as ‘Série Ea’ but actually its two texts belong to Diri (cf. Civil, 20) - A and B are therefore renamed 540 ‘P’ and 540 ‘Q’ respectively. 14 Numbers to be added: 579-82, 584-5, 591, 593, 596. 15 Numbers to be added: 569, 583, 587, 589, 598. 16 Numbers: 537 J, 564-8, 571-2, 577-8, 594 - note that 602 ‘AK’(=569) + ‘AL’ gives first section of Izi 1 on Lu 2T1. 17 Number: 576. 18 Number to be added: 586. 19 Numbers to be added: 554 D, 563, 570, 599-600. 20 No references included due to lack of parallel content. 21 No references included due to lack of parallel content. 22 References given in Appendix 1 of the composite edition. 23 Gantzert, ‘SLT 1’ (forthcoming) establishes a peripheral concordance with PST numbers. 24 Gantzert, ‘SLT 3’ (forthcoming) establishes a peripheral concordance with PST numbers. 25 Not included due to fragmentary state. 26 References to the ‘Standard Recension’ (for which note the lack of a parallel divisional organization). 27 References to the ‘Standard Recension’ (for which note the lack of a parallel divisional organization). 28 References not included due to fragmentary state. 29 The interpretation of the content of lines 6-10 as an exercise text follows Cohen, 135. 30 Krispijn (personal communication) suggests possible reading: U 8 ‘ewe’. 31 Interpretation by Arnaud and followed by D.E. Fleming, Time at Emar: the Cultic Calendar and the Rituals from the Diviner’s Archives (Winona Lake 2000) p.29 n.46. Note that if IDKUR.EN is read Bacal-belu, the subject may be identified with the author of Hh 1T1, whose grandfather in all likelyhood may be identified as Karbu (cf. Cohen, p.112 Figure 9). Krispijn (personal communication) points out that a possible reading u-qar-ba would provide the expected verbal form. 32 Arnaud: (unù.meš) ma-d[u-tu 4 ] - autograph shows only (UN.MEŠ) m[a-…]. 33 Arnaud: B[A.AN.ZA] 34 Cf. Cohen, p.151 n.261. 2

278

Notes

35

In line with what is found everywhere else in this text, the broken-off logograms in this section are assumed to be separated by horizontal lines. This means that T2 has DPA 4 .NI 9 .ĜAR.RA under SI-GAG (instead of under SI-NI as in T1). It also means that, assuming that T2 has the full logogram inventory, SI-NI, SI-A and U-BAR must be found in the section I 21’-25’. This section, however, seems to show only one horizontal line (perhaps the damage in line 23’-24’ caused the second horizontal line to be lost). In any case, this section considerably deviates from T2 in content, hindering satisfactory reconstruction. 36 Arnaud: n[a-. 37 Arnaud: é-t[a! 38 For the horizontal organization of entries in this fragment cf. W. von Soden, ‘Weitere Bemerkungen zu Texten aus Emar’, NABU 1989 1/8. 39 Note that the upper right hand reverse tablet corner formed by 603 E is compatible in shape and content with the lower right hand obverse corner missing in T1. 40 Cohen ‘Copy 1’ - he provides sketches in Figures 13-4 (p.166-7 - note that F Obv must be read A Obv) and autograph joins in Figures 15-6 (p.168-9). 41 Note that UL ŠÁR = râšu. 42 Sumerian logogram mostly found for matnu ‘(bow)string’ is SA. 43 Arnaud: é!-tu 4 . Note that Sumerian GÁ may stand for GÁ.GI 4 .A gagû ‘cloister’ in parallel to Akkadian DAG for DAG.GI.A bābtu ‘city quarter’. 44 The signform KÁR (AbZ 105 II) coincides with that of GÁN (AbZ 105 I). 45 Arnaud: ti-im-r[ù]. 46 I has identical signforms for 068 UM and 069 DUB. 47 Arnaud: MUNUS?.GÍR. 48 Signform DAG/PÀR (AbZ 280) found in place of canonical Sa DÀG/BAR 4 (AbZ 229). 49 Reading by Å.W. Sjöberg, ‘Studies in the Emar Sa Vocabulary’, ZA 88 (1998) 270. 50 Civil, 10: DIM [di-im(?)]-tu 4 . 51 Arnaud incorrectly gives four ÁŠ-entries, dividing IX 23’ into 671’ (Akkadian ki-[ ) and 672’ (Akkadian e-dirtu 4 ). 52 Arnaud: ti-il--tu-ka!. 53 Arnaud: [D20-a-bu] – reconstruction in 604.9. 54 Cohen ‘Copy 2’ - he provides autograph joins in Figures 17-8 (p.170-1). Note that the suggestion that T2 had only three columns on each side (Cohen, 174) is not tenable when the spread of content over the columns is compared with that of T2. In this regard note the following: 1) the comparible number of lines per column, (2) the approximately equal division of entry numbers over first three obverse columns of each tablet and (3) the number of the first entry of the reverse on each tablet (T1 between 100 and 137, T2 number 114). 55 Readings for Akkadian of I 19’-22’ are an adjusted version of those of Cohen, 185. 56 For Akkadian equivalents in II 3’-6’ cf. Cohen, 184. 57 Arnaud: i-mu-qú!. 58 Civil, 11. 59 Civil, 11: ‘…misunderstanding of the sign name (sa) giddu of SA...’. 60 Sign GAN (AbZ 143) is graphically close to HUŠ (AbZ 402) and GÌR=HÚŠ (AbZ 444). 61 Arnaud: é?!-tu 4 . 62 Sign DUR (AbZ 108) graphically close to GUN (AbZ 108*), which is a (semi-)homophone of KUN (AbZ 77). 63 Civil, 11, interprets te = me-nu as a sign name. 64 Sjöberg, ‘Studies’, 278 suggests underlying ĜEN.NA=alkam. 65 Cohen, 186 suggests reading <še->e-em. 66 This interpretation is an adjusted version of that of Cohen, 442. 67 Arnaud reads EZEN.EZEN as ŠÌR.ŠÌR. 68 Van Soldt (personal communication) points out that an alternative, active reading of the stative form šaknaku is conceivable in the WSem context of Emar. 69 DÙL=SUMUR. 70 Arnaud (and Cohen, 187): [igi.kar]á. 71 Interpretation Civil, 10. 72 Interpretation Y. Gong, ‘Die mittelbabylonischen Namen der Keilschriftzeichen aus Hattuša und Emar’, RA 85 (1995) 57. 73 MEN=ÈRA=ĜÁxME.EN. 74 Arnaud: tu-nu[x x x] li-la?!. 75 GAZI=ĜÁxPA; ĜÁxÁŠ is the older form of GAZI. 76 UIA = U+ÍA. 77 Arnaud: [IN ti-i]b?!-nu.

279

Part 1 - Text Edition

78

Reconstruction Gong, ‘Namen der Keilschriftzeichen’, 56. Reconstruction Gong, ‘Namen der Keilschriftzeichen’, 57. 80 Note that Sumerian for marû is ŠE and that alternative Sumerian spelling for preceding qalû II is ŠE.SA.SA (AHw 896). 81 Civil, 10. 82 Interpretation Arnaud, Emar IV 2 p.30 (‘Annexe X’). 83 Reading and interpretation follow Fleming, Time, p.31-2 n.61. 84 The autograph has some additional unidentified traces above first MAN. 85 Interpretation follows Cohen, 162; Arnaud: še meš x[. 86 Suggestion by Cohen, 110. 87 Fragment 538 S1 has part of a colophon. 88 Arnaud: ni-im?!-ru. 89 Reading confirmed by Colophon of Izi1 T1 (LEE II 3’). 90 Positioning of traces of last sign, under [z]u of preceding entry, suggest compound form [DNIN.A-HA-KUDD]U (=[DNIN.GÌRI]M), parallel to Weidner II2a, rather than [DUT]U. 91 Arnaud: dU-gur?!. 92 Arnaud: [dšir-a]š-gi 4 , conform Ugarit parallel. 93 Before entry LUGAL.ĜIŠÁ[SAL] there are two determinatives, located vertically above each other, as if another entry precedes or follows it. Because of the lack of traces of such an entry, and in light of the parallels, it is possible this extra determinative reflects a scribal error. 94 Fragment M (Obv with 1002-5 and Rev with part of colophon) indicates that a fourth (bilingual) tablet (T4) must have existed – it cannot be further reconstructed because, without physical joins, many of the other bilingual fragments (G-J, N, T, V, X) may belong either to it or to T3. 95 Hh 2T2 and 2T3 might be parts of one single tablet 96 Version B (bilingual) is subdivided into two parts: Part 1 is equivalent to canonical III, Part 2 to canonical IVVa. 97 Possibly an extract. 98 Possibly an extract. 99 Perhaps 1’ and 2’ are parts of one single tablet. 100 Possibly also part of T1. 101 Cohen ‘Manuscript A’ - he provides autograph joins in Figures 21-2 (p.197-8). 102 Arnaud: -DÍM. 103 Arnaud: [ŠU-NÍG-GÁL]-LA; this is expected according to parallel 541 B but initial entries of (joining fragment) C suggest start of HA.LA-series. 104 Reconstruction Arnaud. 105 Reconstruction follows J. Huehnergard and W.H. van Soldt, ‘A Cuneiform Lexical Text from Ashkelon with a Cannanite Column’, IEJ 49 (1999) p.190 and n.16. 106 Entries 12’-14’ show inconsistencies (e.g. alternation verbs È/ÈD) compared to canonical version. 107 Arnaud: ba-ra-è-a-e; however autograph shows DU 6 = ÈD/E 11 . 108 Possibly ┌BI┐. 109 Inversion for IGI.NUMBER.ĜAL. 110 Probably no gap between lower C VII and upper A VII. 111 Inversion for MÁŠ KUG.BABBAR.BI.ŠÈ NU.AL.GUB. 112 Inversion for UD 1.KAM BÁN ŠE.TA. 113 One lemma on two lines. 114 Cohen, 199-200 ‘Manuscript D’. 115 Arnaud: -dím!. 116 Inversion for ĜIŠ.ŠUB.BA. 117 The scribe seems to have started out with AN and then changed the sign to GI. 118 Arnaud: [ì-]è-me and [nu-]ì-è-me. 119 Arnaud reads ÁĜ as tab-bi but a (palaeographic) form of NÍNDAxNE is clearly visible. 120 Reconstruction parallel to 541 A+C. 121 Akkadian phonetic complements: akalšu ikkal. 122 Arnaud: al!-mu 4 -mu 4 (parallel with 541 B). 123 In light of the MSL parallel the entry with final -A could here be interpreted as residual from ZÁH (HA-A). 124 Arnaud: ú-gu!-uš. 125 NE defective for ÁĜ (NÍNDAxNE). 126 Arnaud indicates two options: 1. phonetic gi-dub (qan ṭuppi) 2. misspelled nin!-dub-[gal]. 127 Cohen, 199 ‘Manuscript B’. 79

280

Notes

128

inversion for SÁ.DUG 4 . Arnaud: i]ṭ-ṭe 4 -n (parallel to 541 D). 130 For the še’u - u’’u discussion cf. Cohen, 239-44. 131 Arnaud: nun , however number of KI-KAL entries consistent with MSL 1167-1175. 132 Cohen, 200 suggests two joins with 2T1 (542 A+)which cannot be maintained. The first suggested join, D, does not fit into 2T1 column III, where R+E+I cover the entries 2084d-94 (a direct join of these fragments with A through V is established on the Rev in column IV), thus excluding D. Because D is also incompatible with 2T2 (there is an overlap for the entries 2093-4) it is listed as (the biggest remaining fragment of) a third tablet (2T3) in the present edition. The second suggested join, M, also does not fits into 1T1 column II, where the last sign of entry 2048 (DAM) and the last part of entry 2050 (-ti-šu il-q[è]) are clearly visible in the joining fragment I (which has a direct join R+E in III, which in turn have a direct join with A through V on the Rev in IV), thus excluding M. 133 First of two listings for 542 J in Emar IV.2 must be corrected to 542 I. 134 Arnaud: pa!-al!. 135 Arnaud: x-gu?. 136 Phonetic spelling suggests intended gloss. 137 Arnaud: nu-bí-en-du 11 . 138 Reconstruction by Arnaud. 139 With regard to this scribal error note that AbZ 355 LUL also has reading LIBI. 140 For the še’u - u’’u discussion cf. Cohen, 239-44. 141 In view of the far-left positioning of ze-rù it is possible that it represents a gloss. 142 iššu AHw, 399. 143 Reading suggested by Krispijn (personal communication). 144 Scribal error for DAĜAL(ĜÁxAN)LA – 542F has Akkadian ir-bu ra-ap-šu. 145 Arnaud: ma-na-lá. 146 RU-element of ÉRIM (NE-RU) still visible. 147 Arnaud: ha-ra-an uru! – perhaps entry parallel to MSL 274. 148 Misformed sign with elements of AbZ 592 ŠIK. 149 Akkadian da-i-šu corresponds to Sumerian lú-še-ús-sa (MSL 2338) – Sumerian LÚ ŠE.BAD(.DA) is Akkadian pi-tu-ú (MSL 2336). 150 ÚR-element still visible (GAD-KÍD-ÚR = UMBIN). 151 Parts of the Akkadian translations of this section are preserved on Er V, but its exact position vis-à-vis the damaged A entries is unclear (passage non replacé’ Emar IV.2 p. 54). 152 Canonical 2351-2 starts with lú-enim- . 153 Cohen, 200 suggests two joins with 2T2 (542 B) which should be treated with caution. The first suggested join, C, does not fit into 2T2 due to an overlap in the entries 2093-4 (also note the incompatible respective locations of the vertical ruling). The second suggested join, K, could be part of 2T2, but lacks a direct link-up and therefore may equally belong to a third tablet (which is attested by the fact that C is incompatible with both 2T1 and 2T2). 154 The spelling suggests that a gloss is intended. 155 A logogram KÁ is not otherwise found in this context but is semantically related to following IG and SAĜ.KUL. 156 Reading suggested by Veldhuis (personal communication). 157 The Akkadian translation continues on line 20 of the text. 158 Interpretation by von Soden, NABU 1989 1/8. 159 Arnaud: giš-geštin-má 160 Note formal similarity with UKUŠ (cf. AbZ palaeography). 161 Arnaud: šim tur?. 162 Arnaud: [giš-mes-Má-ga]n-[n]a 163 Expected is LAGAB with reading RIM – here the LAGAB form has been given additional horizontals. 164 The reading MÍ instead of MUNUS is suggested by the phonetic variant MI found in 3T2 (Cohen, 232). 165 In view of the MSL parallel a conceivable reading would be defective DÙR (ANŠE-element without attached ÌR-element), involving positional inversion of DÙR and GÌR (equivalent to MSL GAR), leaving only LUM unexplained (perhaps a phonetic complement for Akkadian pronunciation). 166 Arnaud: HÉ-GÌR-LUM. 167 Reading DI 5 suggested by Veldhuis, Elementary Education, 173 (SNT commentary). 168 Signs indicated as defined in AbZ (p.289): LAGABxA=BUĜIN, LAGABxNÍĜ=BÚĜIN, LAGABxUA=BUĜIN 4 . 169 Two times ĜIŠ above each other for one entry. 170 Arnaud: -má-da; the parallel canonical entry 3388 has MÁ-MUG=DARGUL. 129

281

Part 1 - Text Edition

171

Arnaud: [giš-x-x-]zi-gigir. Arnaud: hub-MU-gigir. 173 Arnaud: ŠUDUL(ŠÚ-DUN 4 ); here nir is interpreted as Akkadian translation of ŠUDUL (with MEŠ as gloss marker). 174 Arnaud: gag-maš. 175 Arnaud: šu!-ùsan. 176 The following interpretation partially follows Cohen, 446-54 and W. Farber, ‘‘Mannam Lušpur ana Enkidu: Some New Thoughts about an Old Motif’, JNES 49 (1990) 310 - also cf. their analysis for references to the literary parallels. 177 Interpretation in parallel to baM 574 IV 17-18 apud Cohen, 451 (with inversion of vetitive particle). 178 No consistent line-up of entries between different columns. 179 Arnaud: ]TAR A SI 4 . 180 Arnaud: šim-tur?. 181 Arnaud: giš-SIKI?-x . 182 Cf. Veldhuis, Elementary Education, 170 – an alternative reading could be RI.BU.UM (with MSL AŠ-bu-um as rú-bu-um). 183 Arnaud: giš-guru 5 !-uš. Here, instead, the GAM-element has been interpreted with reading GÚRU, as a phonetic spelling for GURU 5 . 184 Perhaps scribal inversion for UR.SAĜ, which is within semantic range of phonetically similar ĜURUŠ. 185 Note that MSL has GÚ where 543 C has DUR: DUR is a graphic extension of the GÚ-base. 186 Civil, 11 suggests metathesis for (ù.)luh.ha. 187 Arnaud: giš-lú[ . 188 Arnaud: giš-m[í ; the traces also allow reading –s[uhur], parallel to MSL 3517. 189 Note that Cohen, 202 refers to both 3T3.1 and 3T3.2 as ‘Manuscript B’ – in fact 3T3.1 and 3T3.2 are 543 B and 544-5 B respectively, which are Arnaud’s parallel numbers for two completely different fragments. This is confusing but Arnaud often uses similar parallel numbering for editing one and the same fragment in his various artificial divisions, e.g. 731030 is referred to as 543 A, 544 A and 545 A. 190 su-lu-pi (543 Annexe B 33). Note MSL 3410 giš-kid-da zú-lum-ma ri-ri-ga gišimmar = tu-hal-lu mal-qat sulu-up-pu. 191 Cf. Arnaud 543-5 A n.65. 192 Arnaud: MIN má-x[ . 193 Cohen ‘Tablet 1’ - he provides autograph joins in figures 23-4 (p.204-5). Note that these figures do not include fragments 545 AI (Obv middle of column I, between 545 AC and AB) and V (Rev column IX). 194 Civil, 14; Arnaud: ba-an-du 8 . 195 MSL parallel suggests DU reflects a phonetic rendering of DÚB. 196 Rest of Sumerian reconstructed by join with H (Civil, 14). 197 Note that in Hittite orthography KAxUD is ‘tooth’: cf. J. Friedrich, Hethitisches Keilschrift-lesebuch (Heidelberg 1975) no. 118 p.27 (reference kindly supplied by Veldhuis). 198 Arnaud: eš-bàd. 199 Arnaud: up?!-pa?! ú-gul-li. 200 Arnaud: ur 4 !- . 201 Arnaud: ah. 202 The remaining entries allow a join with 545 BB (the vertical ruling of which also conforms with what is found on D). 203 Cohen ‘Tablet 2’ - he provides autograph joins in Figures 25-28.2 (p.206-10). Note that, on the Obv, these Figures do not include fragments 545 Y’, AJ and AK and that Z and AF are misplaced. For the Rev Cohen also omits the joins in columns V-VII and in the LEE (the latter has the fragments 545 AH and AY). 204 Metathesis – Akkadian nukuššu. 205 Note that in Hittite orthography KAxUD is ‘tooth’: cf. J. Friedrich, Hethitisches Keilschrift-lesebuch (Heidelberg 1975) no. 118 p.27 (reference kindly supplied by Prof. Veldhuis). 206 Interpretation Civil, 14. 207 Corruption of narpasu. 208 Reconstruction follows Cohen, 212. 209 Cohen ‘Tablet 3’ - he provides autograph joins in Figure 29 (p.211). 210 Arnaud: x ZUM ša-bi-b[u. 211 Arnauds reads ĜIŠ and supposes it to continue previous entry. 212 Arnaud: [giš-mè]š. 172

282

Notes

213

Civil lists 545 AO as unilingual multi-column - the vertical dividing lines on the fragment and a second column with only MIN entries preserved, just after 2’-4’, do indeed suggest absence of separate Akkadian column. 214 Civil, 13 suggests a possible join with 545 BB (7481c) but note that 545 BB + D (Tablet 1) is equally feasible. 215 545 AS is a multi-column fragment: to the left of I’ there is clearly another column, which shows sign IG in line 1. 216 Civil, 13 notes the possibility of a join with 545 AQ but note that 545 BB + D (Tablet 1) is equally feasible. 217 Civil, 13 suggests ┌ge-eš┐-[kal-la… . 218 Civil, 13 suggests KAL!. 219 Cohen ‘Tablet 1’ - he provides autograph joins in Figure 30 (p.214). Note that this figure does not include fragment 546 I (column II between N and A’’). Fragment 546 P, also not included, may cover the higher parts of columns III and IV. 220 Join suggested by Cavigneaux, NABU 1988 26. 221 Civil, 15: EME-[tab]-ba. 222 Reconstruction according to Arnaud. 223 Arnaud: min-an-[dùl. 224 Arnaud: min-an-t[a-šu]b[ . 225 Civil, 15: MIN ga-[àr. 226 Reading by Arnaud parallel to MSL. 227 I 1’ only has traces of three MIN-signs in the right half of the column. 228 546 I is given by Arnaud as Annexe II and he suggests options BISAĜ and BUNIĜ as possible base words. Here 546 I is joined in the broken section of II between A’ and A’’ (with about 25 lines missing). The vertical ruling pattern matches and the entries are compatible in contents to the canonical sequence, where the BISAĜ-section follows immediately after GUR (base word BUNIĜ only follows after base word MA.SÁ.AB and other entries in the canonical sequence). 229 A’’III 1’-4’ (parts of) initial MIN only; MIN of 3’ and 4’ written as ZA on autograph. 230 546 ‘P’ is a ‘floating join’: it seems to belong here according to form (layout and ruling pattern) and content (bilingual format and parallel to canonical sequence), but there is no direct join with surrounding fragments. 231 The Rev has only 3 columns. 232 A’’V 1’-3’ (parts of) initial SA only. 233 Arnaud’s note, ‘Cette ligne a été oubliée sur l’autographie’, must be applied to his line 134, not 135. 234 Arnaud: ZA-tenû-ZA-tenû. 235 Reconstruction Y. Cohen, ‘Kidin-Gula – the Foreign Teacher at the Emar Scribal School’, RA 1998 (2004) 87. 236 546L (74127f – p.322 Annexe IV) and 7484a (- p.216, cf. canonical 9316ff., suggested as additional source by Civil, 15) do not permit certain identification as belonging to canonical tablets VIII-IX - they have therefore not been included in this edition. 237 Civil (15) supposes 546C to be unilingual, the right-hand GI-column, however, can also be interpreted as containing logographically read GI’s remaining of a broken-off Akkadian column, parallel to what is found in 546 T1. 238 Arnaud lists 546E as bilingual, which is possible if the GI’s of the right-hand column are read logographically. Civil (15), however, supposes a unilingual format, which is equally conceivable in view of the clear vertical ruling dividing the the two columns. 239 Reconstruction according to Civil, 15. 240 The entries behind the vertical ruling on right-hand side may either be the Akkadian column of a bilingual text or another Sumerian column of an unilingual text. 241 Identification of base word as (MIN=)SAB is reasonably secure as the subsequence Ì-LÀL, repeated in the canonical and Alalah versions (Alalah given in MSL VII p.115-20) for a number of base words (HAB, DAL and HAL), is here directly followed by base word KÍR. 242 Arnaud: [du-am-]a-am-sikil-e-[dè. 243 Other lines traces only. 244 Arnaud: nigin.e.sír (parallel to 11133). 245 Arnaud: íb-kala-ga-nigin!-na. 246 Arnaud: gub x . 247 Arnaud: hu[š.a. 248 The FVH edition gives these values without brackets but they are lacking on autograph. 249 Q could be part of T1 or 2 in column V/VI (a join with Tablet 3 is excluded due to overlap).

283

Part 1 - Text Edition

250

W could be part of T2 in column V/VI (joins with other tablets are excluded, due to either an overlap (T1) or to fact that this section must occur on one single side - T3 in column III of Rev -, and not spread over two sides). 251 Note that the determinative KUŠ is discontinued and note graphic similarity between KUŠ and GÍN. 252 Cf. Cohen, 89-90 and M. Yamada, ‘The Family of Zū-Bacla the Diviner and the Hittites’ in: S. Izre’el, I. Singer and R. Zadok (eds.), Past Links. Studies in the Languages and Cultures of the Ancient Near East. Israel Oriental Studies 18 (Winona Lake 1998), 326. 253 Reconstruction on basis of available space in broken section of 7b T1 VI’10’ and of parallel in Lu1 fragment 602AD VIII’ 5’. 254 For the reading Zu-Bacla cf. Yamada, ‘Zu-Bacla’, p.324 n.4. . Cohen, 90 assumes that this [Izu]-ba-la is not the same as the patriarch and diviner. Note that, if Cohen is correct, the author of the tablet ([...]-ba-la) may in fact be a son of the patriarch’s grandson Bacal-malik. 255 For line 10’ the reconstruction by Cohen, 89, is followed. 256 Cf. M. Dietrich, ‘Die akkadischen Texte der Archive und Bibliotheken von Emar’, UF 22 (1990) 32-3. 257 The signs of the entries are vertically lined out in ‘columns’ – the signs in the second ‘column’ are horizontally somewhat displaced vis-à-vis those of the first – .LIM may belong to LU. or to A. 258 Tentative reconstruction; the sequence deviates from those in texts of Tablet I and B as well as from FVH. 259 Possible join I+L but L 4’ does not seem to fit I I 10’ (b[u-] resp. [b]i-i-bi). 260 Possible join I+M but M 6’ does not seem to fit to I I 6’. 261 Though the determinative is lacking, the entries are assumed to belong to ZABAR section (cf. Civil, 16). 262 Interpretation follows Civil, 16 - entries are assumed to belong to ZABAR section. 263 Reconstruction Arnaud. 264 Arnaud: šim!-bi-su. 265 Arnaud: giš am!-ma. 266 Arnaud: SIG 4 ?. 267 Arnaud assigns number 549 AF, which conflicts with his numbering of 7484b as 548 AF - here 74160e will be referred to as 549 AF’. 268 Arnaud assumes that these signs reflect Akkadian translations. 269 Note that I 17’ has [...] ma-sà-ar še-pu-ti ↑šak-nu. 270 Edited by Arnaud as 547 E; recount follows Civil, 16. 271 548 ‘AI’ = Arnaud 584. 272 Arnaud: ni[m]. 273 Arnaud: sig. 274 Arnaud; ki[ . 275 The reconstruction is based on the assumption that the GUD section of Obv IV is followed by the ÁB section in Rev V, parallel to both canonical and Forerunners’ order. 276 The vacant space is assumed to reflect repetition of GUD because GUD recurs in Akkadian (and because of following specific adjectives). It must be noted that the GUD entry sequence in I seems out of place. 277 Here assumed to refer to EME X (female of ANŠE), which would correspond to RS Forerunner MSL 8,1 p.102 – the canonical version does not have the corresponding MU X section. 278 Here assumed to refer to EME X (female of ANŠE), which would correspond to RS Forerunner MSL 8,1 p.102 – the canonical version does not have the corresponding HU.NU.ME and MU X sections. 279 Arnaud: [min-ŠU]DUN?. 280 Arnaud: [min-a-a]b-ba e!-ba-lu. 281 Note that the Obverse of 551B is mostly damaged – the transcriptions given here were made from the autograph and cannot wholly follow the Emar IV 2 transcription, which refers to the original (relevant comment of Arnaud p.114). 282 perhaps overrun from II (approximately around 1’ AMAR BUN.NA). 283 Arnaud: uzu-šà-š[u-nigin]. 284 Arnaud: uzu-šà-l[á-sù]. 285 Arnaud: uzu-šà-š[ul]. 286 Arnaud: uzu-sìl?-tum!. 287 Arnuad: uzu-ZA-tenû. 288 Interpretation Arnaud. 289 Arnaud: uzu-BAD-áb-ba. 290 The interpretation of 21’-26’ follows Arnaud but other readings are also conceivable (e.g. for 23’ UŠ MIN Ì.NUN.NA X and for 25-6’ UR). 291 The reconstruction of lines 28’-32’ follows Civil, 17. 292 Suggested by Civil, 17. 293 Suggested by Civil, 17.

284

Notes

294

Note that KÍN (=eru ‘mill-stone’) occurs in 16239ff. . Arnaud: ú-ninni[ . 296 The autograph of A’ omits its part of this line (Emar IV, 2 note 7. p.133) – the part on A’’ is given. 297 Theoretically it is possible that 9 corresponds to 0’ (where ruling is preserved that might fit in broken-off edge before missing determinative in 9); more likely a few lines are missing in the gap. 298 Gloss lu in line with Akkadian in MSL: lu-pu-u. 299 Commentary in Å.W. Sjöberg, ‘Some Emar Lexical Entries’ in: A.K. Guinan a.o. (eds.), If a Man Builds a Joyful House: Assyriological Studies in Honor of Erle Verdun Leichty (Leiden and Boston 2006) 427. 300 Reconstruction tentatively follows Civil, 19. 301 Reconstruction follows Cohen, 238. 302 Arnaud: sim S[A. 303 Reconstructed from 12E1 LE 13 in parallel to MSL 18246. 304 Ex-596 as source for Division 11 is suggested in Civil, 18 – its insertion in Rev IV follows MSL sequencing. 305 Sjöberg, ‘Lexical Entries’, 428 suggests q]i?-pí-ir-ru. 306 Commentary in Sjöberg, ‘Lexical Entries’, 428. 307 Note the combined logographic and phonetic use of DU-element: logographic as part of UD-DU compound, phonetic with value RÁ. 308 The direction of break makes it likely that no lines are missing between D and E. 309 Reconstruction Cohen, ‘Kidin-Gula’, 87. 310 Reconstruction by Veldhuis (personal communication). 311 Arnaud: hu-ú!-s[i-g]u. 312 Perhaps joined to Tablet 2’. 313 The column count is based on the estimate that, in terms of the RS Forerunner, the format of which substantially corresponds with what is found here, at least about 160 entries must be missing between the end of Bo and the start of Br. 314 Arnaud considers the entries found on Br to be the equivalent of RS Forerunner series GADA A.RÁ and GADA ŠU.ZU.UB (253-60) (cf. Emar VI 2 p.134-5), which means they overlap with C and that B belongs to one tablet and (G+)C(+E) to another . Pending collation, this assumption is followed here, but with the following notes: 1) the damaged sign after MIN A. is actually not likely to be either DU(RÁ) or RA (phonetic spelling); 2) the end section of Tablet 2’ shows entries not found in the canonical or RS versions – it is theoretically possible that what are here termed Tablets 1’ and 2’ are part of one tablet, with the text of Br reflecting a section also deviating from these versions; 3) in terms of the RS Forerunner, the gap between Bo and Br amounts to 160 entries and with about 50 lines per column this would make the occurrence of the section 253-60 more probable in V than in VI (which is another argument in favour of supposing Tablets 1’ and 2’ are in fact part of one tablet). 315 Perhaps to be joined to Tablet 1’ - cf. preceding note. 316 The column count is based on the estimate that, in terms of the RS Forerunner, the format of which substantially corresponds with what is found here, and with an average of about 50 lines per column, at least about 210 entries must have preceded G. 317 Horizontal ruling assumed in broken area under 6’. 318 Cf. D. Fleming, ‘The NIN.DINGIR/ittu at Emar’, NABU 1990 1/8. 319 Emar VI 3 lists 70190m – correct is 74190m. 320 Not included in this edition is the text edited as H (LB 2776) in W.H. van Soldt, ‘The Ugarit Version of Harra-hubullu 20-21a. A New Source’ in: M. Dietrich and O. Loretz (eds.), Mesopotamica – Ugaritica – Biblica. Festschrift für Kurt Bergerhof zur Vollendung seines 70. Lebensjahres am 7. Mai 1992 (Neukirchen 1993) 42746. That text has some features that make an Emar provenance likely, but some others that rather point to Ugarit. If it is indeed part of the Emar corpus, it deviates in form and content from the other material: it follows the Ugarit division for Hh, not otherwise attested in Emar - it also is unilingual while the attested Emar texts are exclusively bilingual. 321 Horizontal ruling assumed in break under 6’. 322 Emar VI 4 lists 74129a – correct is 74129e. 323 Arnaud: Kèš!. 324 Arnaud: min-sám!. 325 The interpretation follows van Soldt, ‘Ugarit Version’, 435 n. 63. 326 Arnaud: min-ka 5 !-a. 327 Follows van Soldt, ‘Ugarit Version’, 436 n. 68 (Ugarit parallel has an.za.gàr.kun.na.ki). 328 Arnaud: Uru-sag-rig 7 !. 329 Arnaud: Ul!-maš. 330 Ugarit 20:23 has bàd.a.píl.dEN.ZU.ki. 295

285

Part 1 - Text Edition

331

The base word BÀD is reconstructed in parallel to Ugarit text (the number of missing entries in IV is roughly equal to what is found in Ugarit 10 02 - 10 24). 332 IV 5’-6’ must be BÀD followed by RNs – Arnaud suggests Am-mi-di-ta-a-]an MIN and Sa-am-su-di-t]a-a-an MIN respectively. 333 Value ÙSAN. 334 Entries starting É DURU 5 in 219:11’-20’. 335 Entries starting É DURU 5 in 10:56-58. 336 Entries with KÁ in 10:33-43. 337 Arnaud has assigned number 558 A two times: once to 74129e (15 Tablet 1) and once to this extract tablet, which is here renamed 558 A’. 338 Arnaud: ur]u Za-a[r!339 Arnaud: íd-nam-me-nu-še. 340 Arnaud: íd-geštin?!-n[a]. 341 Arnaud: íd-zu-bi (note that PAP-KISIM 5 -GÀR has values ZUBI and GÀM). 342 Arnaud: li]l. 343 The vertical break in this column makes it difficult to determine to which entries the isolated Akkadian traces, often bent vertically upward, belong. 344 Arnaud: kur-en!-x. 345 Arnaud: id-š<éš> mí. 346 (damaged) -bu apparently to be inserted on autograph (cf. Emar VI/4 n.177 p.151) 347 Arnaud: [túl-lu]gud-d[a]. 348 Arnaud: ninda-meš ba-ba-nu!-u. 349 Civil, 20 assumes that this fragment belongs to a duplicate tablet, with equivalents of entries 17028-31ff. . Here, however, it has so far been assumed that all fragments found for division 17 are part of one single tablet 560 ‘J’ may also belong to this same tablet, repeating the paradigm NAG-LUGAL-GIBIL-SUMUN for some other, as yet unidentified, key word occuring in III or IV. 350 The BA.BA.ZA entry could theoretically be the first line of the Obverse and, consequently, the first line of Emar division 18, but note that: a. in the canonical version an entry starting with BA.BA.ZA can only be found in Hh XXIII (23IV23), where it is not a key word, and that b. Ì’s position as the last sign at the bottom of VIII in such a scenario is not in line with the make-up of VIII in 561 G (which has the expected MAN [TIL] line, positioned somewhere higher than the bottom) but fits in very well with what would be expected as a last line of I (the Ì-section). The content of 561 A only fits into a reconstruction for a single division 18 tablet when it is supposed that the side of 561 A with Ì is in fact its Obverse (in line with what would be the expected entry ending column I, under 561 B and C) and that the BA.BA.ZA entry is the first entry in the last column of the Reverse. It is possible that BA.BA.ZA is in fact preceded by a keyword broken off in A. If it is not, it represents an entry not found in Landsberger’s reconstruction of that part of canonical tablet XXIV (which is, it should be noted, fragmentary for this section). 351 Cohen, 252 thinks that 602 N does not belong to 1T1, but note the parallel horizontal ruling shared between A and N in column VII. 352 Phonetic rendering of ‘10’: Civil, 21. 353 Arnaud: min-kur. 354 Civil, 21 suggests that 602 AG may belong in the Akkadian column of this section, with AG 2’ Akkadian [s]ar-ru joining A1 64 Sumerian RA.[GABA.KI.BAD.DU]. Note that this is inconsistent with the horizontal ruling of the two fragments. An earlier placement of AG, with 4’ : ra-ki-bu joining A1 64 RA.[GABA ...], would be consistent with the horizontal ruling but is also problematic because it does seem to allow for a coherent reconstruction of the Akkadian text spread over both fragments. 355 Reconstruction follows Taylor’s MB Lu 137 in DCCLT. 356 The reconstruction follows Civil, 22. 357 The reconstruction of first part of VII follows Civil, 22. 358 The reconstruction of the Sumerian forms for 1237-8 follows Civil, 22 - note that Proto-Lu 376-7 has gú-bidub-ba and gú-bi-gul-gul. 359 Civil, 22. 360 Fragment 602 AI has a few traces of the missing Akkadian column in this section of VIII – it probably also shows an overrun into VII of the double closing line that precedes the colophon. 361 Reconstruction follows Taylor’s MB Lu 540-1 in DCCLT. 362 Reading and interpretation follow Fleming, Time, p.31-2 n.61.

286

Notes

363

1T2 may be part of the same tablet as the large fragment 602 C+I. Between 11’ and 12’ there is an overrun from V’ ([ -t]i-šu). 365 Before and after 23’ there are overruns from V’. 366 602 C+I may be part of the same tablet as 1T2. 367 The spelling TUR.RA is an incorrect ‘grapho-phonetic’ rendering of TU(=KUR 9 ).RA. 368 Reconstruction follows J. Taylor’s MB Lu 532 in DCCLT. 369 Reconstruction follows J. Taylor’s MB Lu 534 in DCCLT. 370 Cohen, 109 reads 2’ as x[o-o-o dIM-ur]-sag!?. 371 Reconstruction follows Taylor’s MB Lu 153-5 in DCCLT. Placement of this fragment, containing possible parallels to canonical entries 080 and 083, is problematic because the remaining text is not conclusive with regard to the logograms and does not seem compatible with either the canonical or the OB version. 372 Note that murteddû is also GUD.DA.ÚS. 373 Civil, 21 suggests possible placement in SUKKAL-section (MIN=SUKKAL) 374 Reconstruction by Arnaud (602 Annexe IV). 375 Civil, 21 suggests that 602 AG may belong in the Akkadian column of this section, with AG 2’ Akkadian [s]ar-ru joining A1 64 Sumerian RA.[GABA.KI.BAD.DU]. Note that this is inconsistent with the horizontal ruling of the two fragments. An earlier placement of AG, with 4’ : ra-ki-bu joining A1 64 RA.[GABA ...], would be consistent with the horizontal ruling but is also problematic because such a join does not allow for a coherent reconstruction of the Akkadian text spread over both fragments. 376 These are entries between the SUSBU and ĜURUŠ-sections; Arnaud suggests EN-/NIN-PAP-SIG 7 -NUN-MEUBARA for ENKUM and NENKUM, parallel to OB Proto-LÚ 245-6. 377 These are entries between AMA and KI.NE.NE GUL.GUL; Civil, 22 suggests parallels from OB Proto-LÚ: 352ff. provide parallels (DUMU, TUR, IBILA, TUR-DIŠ etc.). His placement is followed in Taylor’s MB Lu 462-8 in DCCLT. 378 The small fragment 602 AC may precede 602 AO (fitting into the break after 602 E’’) in VI, but could also overlap (entries DU 10 .[ÚS.SA.A, BA.AN.[DA, NU.BA.AN.[DA) – it has been omitted in the reconstruction of 2 T1. 379 For comment on relation of series Lu and Izi in Emar, see the introductory remarks in the composite edition of Izi. 380 Reconstruction Civil, 23. 381 Arnaud reconstructs [mí-ú]-hub, which would associate 2066 [Ú]HUB(!HÚB) ‘vegetable’ with preceding 2065 ĜEŠTIN.NA. This reconstruction is also found in Taylor’s MB Lu Segment J 4 in DCCLT. 382 The small fragment 602 AC may precede 602 AO (fitting into the break after 602 E’’) in VI, but could also overlap (entries DU 10 .[ÚS.SA.A, BA.AN.[DA, NU.BA.AN.[DA) – it has been omitted in the reconstruction of 2 T1. 383 Civil, 24 suggests that the IGI may in fact be part of a –ù- or -u’- sign (for ru-u’-ù). 384 Autograph join in LEE given by Cohen, Figure 3 (p.268) - note that his 74178c should be read 74178e. 385 Note that the gloss seems to refer to DUNGU, properly written IM-SI-A meaning ‘cloud’, which is also what is found in the following entry 1007 (upû). 386 Logograms IM=TUMU ‘wind’ and GÚ ‘force’. 387 Reconstruction follows Taylor’s MB Lu Segment l 19 in DCCLT. 388 Cf. AHw, 497. 389 The remainder of sign before mu-ur-ṣ◦u! suggests [ GI]G. 390 The actual sign form seems rather -t◦u 4 , but the interpretation of Arnaud is followed due to the semantic context. 391 Reconstruction 13ff. by Civil, 20. 392 Perhaps gloss for AN.BÀD ‘heaven’s heights’. 393 Sjöberg, ‘Lexical Entries’, 408 suggests restoring an-bad-[DU]. 394 Perhaps AN-G[ÚxGAG/NUN]=USAN ‘evening’. 395 Civil suggests reading an-úr. 396 Restorations in 1029 entries follow Sjöberg, ‘Lexical Entries’, 409. 397 The reconstruction of the LEE follows Cohen, ‘Kidin-Gula’, 82-4 for fragments 567 E (+) C + B, but not for 567 G. Cohen fits 567 G between 567 and C (as do Arnaud and Civil), transliterating it 1’ ŠU ID[ and 2’ IDIM-[malik. Note that there are a number of problems with his interpretation: 1) the traces in G 1’ do not seem to show a ŠU (note the shift in the start of the lower horizontal wedge), 2) the positions of the supposed starting points of line 1’ and 2’ are not vertically aligned and 3) there is a vertical ruling in the fragment that may indicate that the signs to the left of it (the ‘ŠU’ in 1’) should belong, in fact, to another column. The ‘ŠU’ in 1’ seems to fit above E as part of the continued Akkadian text of Izi in the left part of LEE, which is conformed by the location of the ‘completion line’ (MAN). 398 Arnaud: ]x u dIš 8 -t[ár dE-r]u 6 -a u dGu-la. A detailed discussion of the sign readings in this line is found in Cohen, ‘Kidin-Gula’, 82-4. 364

287

Part 1 - Text Edition

399

The reconstruction [Á-]ÁŠ follows Arnaud. An interpretation of the entries without reconstructed [A-] may be found in Sjöberg, ‘Lexical Entries’, 402-3. Note that parallels to 2A001 Á-ÁŠ and 2A002 Á-TAR may be found in Proto-Izi II (unilingual 47 and 85 respectively). 400 Alternative reading by Cohen, p.266 n.430. 401 Note that, although no exact parallels are found, entries starting with Á- also precede those starting with GÚin Izi Boghazköy A (respectively 12-84 and 85-183). 402 Reconstruction follows Cohen, 267. 403 Note that, although no exact parallels are found, entries with BAD also precede those starting with BU-LUHin Izi Boghazköy B (respectively 8’-20’ and 12-6 – note that MSL 13, p.143-5, has switched Obv and Rev). 404 For reading ma-ku-u cf. Sjöberg, ‘Lexical Entries’, 413. 405 Sjöberg, ‘Lexical Entries’, 424 proposes to restore [ù-igi-bar]-ra – this suggestion has not been followed here due to canonical parallel entry forms (Izi XV). 406 For interpretations cf. Sjöberg, ‘Lexical Entries’, 425. 407 Cohen, 269 suggests there is no join 571 A+B, but note the direct fit in 5’-8’. 408 Alternative reading by Cohen, 276-7. 409 Interpretation follows MSL SS 1, 33 (entries 267-9) but note that the sign SIG could also be interpreted as SÍG (respectively AbZ 539 and 592). The latter interpretation would allow the graphic association between SÍG and SI 4 (=GUNU X ) for 150a-b šubtu and mūšabtu. 410 suggestion MSL SS 1, 250. 411 Cf. Fleming, Time, p.28 n.43 and Cohen, 273-4. 412 Note that, in parallel to OB bilingual Nigga (entries 2-4, MSL 13 115), the content of Diri fragment 7 (540H) is theoretically compatible with the first part Nigga lost in column I of T1. However, because there is no direct join and the content is closer to the canonical Diri text than to OB bilingual Nigga (cf. note for Diri fragment 7) 540H has been included in the Diri rather than the Nigga edition. 413 The entry ma-tù would fit to preceding NÍĜ.GURUD.DA. 414 Taken to reflect tašnintu, which is line with following entry. 415 Arnaud: níg-kúr-ki-ag; interpretation here follows Sjöberg, ‘Lexical Entries’, 419. 416 Sjöberg, ‘Lexical Entries’, 419: ša {na} na<-kar>-ti. 417 Sjöberg, ‘Lexical Entries’, 419: MU x ša na<-kar>-ti. 418 Sjöberg, ‘Lexical Entries’, 419: UD-ni-[x]. 419 Arnaud assumes that this fragment is part of T1 (573) and that it is positioned at the beginning of Obv II. On grounds of lay-out (ruling patterns ) and content (non-repetition of key-signs) the association with T1 seems likely, but the positioning is uncertain. The sequentially deviating parallels of OB Nigga, edited in MSL 13 (with e.g. NÍG-HALAM-MA, found in number 102 of the OB unilingual version), do not allow positional reconstruction of this fragment in the Emar material – if it belongs to T1 it could also belong high in Rev III. 420 Commentary in Sjöberg, ‘Lexical Entries’, 420-1. 421 Commentary in Sjöberg, ‘Lexical Entries’, 426-7. 422 Note that the relation of fragment 2 to the other Diri fragments is somewhat problematic: among other deviant content, the entries in line 6’-7’ do not match to the parallel text of fragment 1. It also deviates in form: is the only fragment which uses the Glossenkeil and the only one that does not show sub-columns within the Akkadian column. Considering that this fragment is also the only one that contains duplicate text it could be suggested that it in fact does not belong to Diri. Alternative entries compatible with the content of its Akkadian equivalents may be found in Hh divisions 17-8. 423 The join 540 K and L is noted by A. Cavigneaux, ‘Lexicographie’, NABU 1988 2/26. 424 Reconstruction of the glosses in 4’ and 9’ based on the parallel Ugarit version (1320 and 1322 respectively). 425 Interpretation by Cavigneaux, NABU 1988 2/26. 426 Cavigneaux, NABU 1988 2/26 interprets [uh]-hu-ul, which seems to fit better with the traces. 427 The restoration of this fragment from the four smaller sub-fragments listed below follows the collation in MSL 15 (p. 84, text D+G). 428 Identified in M.T. Rutz, ‘More Diri from Emar’, NABU 2006 4/85. 429 Reconstructions mostly follow Rutz, NABU 2006 4/85. 430 For remarks on the reading of the LAH 4 -sign in fragment 6 cf. Rutz, NABU 2006 4/85 p.87 n.8’. 431 Rutz, NABU 2006 4/85 (p.86-7) suggests reading the single Winkelhaken in 12’ as [… B]Ú[R?], which implies that 540 J would be incompatible with 540 K. Assuming that there was only one version and that the two fragments are compatible, the alternative reading [K]A[Š 4 ] or [DU-]K[I] (the latter in parallel to canonical Diri 2036) could be suggested. 432 According to Cavigneaux, NABU 1988 2/26 fragment 6 belongs to the same tablet as fragment 3. 433 Note that the content of this text is also close to that of entries 2-4 of the bilingual version of OB Nigga (MSL 13 115) but that it has been assigned here to Diri because the division and sequence of the entries in Emar is P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

R

R

R

R

R

R

P

R

P

P

P

P

288

R

P

Notes

closer to that found in canonical Diri. Unlike the text of OB bilingual Nigga, the text of canonical Diri spreads the phrases ÀM.KU 4 .KU 4 NU.SI.SÁ and ÍB.TA.È NU.SILIG.GA over two entries and has the phrase NÍĜ.LUGAL.KE 4 after the others. 434 Cf. entry 3244 of the Ugarit Forerunner and the discussion and attestations of canonical Diri ‘VII’ in MSL 15, p. 83 and 196-7 respectively. R

R

R

R

R

P

R

P

289

The Emar Lexical Texts Part 2 – Composite Edition M. Gantzert

Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS Key to the text edition

iii

Elementary sign-lists

1

0.

Tu-ta-ti

1

1.

Syllable Vocabulary A Alphabet

2

2.1.

Syllabary A Vocabulary

9

2.2.

Remarks on Syllabary A

27

2.3.

Remarks on Syllabary A Palaeography

27

2.4.

Syllabary A Appendix 1

28

2.5.

Remarks on Syllabary A Appendix 2

29

Thematic lists

30

3.

Weidner God List

30

4.

HAR(UR 5 ).RA=hubullu Division 1 (canonical I) Division 2 (canonical II) Division 3 (canonical III-Va) Version A (unilingual) Division 3 Part 1 (canonical III) Version B (bilingual) Division 3 Part 2 (canonical IV-Va)Version B (bilingual) Division 4 (canonical Vb-VII) Division 5 (canonical VIII-IX) Division 6 (canonical X) Division 7 (canonical XI-XII) Version A (unilingual) Division 7 (canonical XI-XII) Version B (bilingual) Division 8 (canonical XIII) Version A (unilingual) Division 8 (canonical XIII) Version B (bilingual) Division 9 (canonical XIV-XV) Joint Edition of Versions A and B Division 10 (canonical XVI) Division 11 (canonical XVII) Division 12 (canonical XVIII) Division 13 (canonical XIX) Introduction to division 14-17 (canonical XX-XXIII) Division 14 (canonical XX) Division 15 (canonical XXIa) Division 16 (canonical XXIb-XXII) Version A (unilingual) Division 16 (canonical XXIb-XXII) Version B (bilingual) Division 17 (canonical XXIII) Division 18 (canonical XXIV)

i

33 34 41 46 56 56 58 68 72 73 83 87 90 92 97 103 104 108 110 111 112 115 119 126 128

Part 2 – Composite Edition 5.

LÚ=ša

129 130 138

Division 1 Division 2 Advanced sign-lists

141

6.

Izi text 1 (parallel to Proto-Izi I) Izi text 2 (parallel to Hattusha Izi) Izi text 3 (parallel to Canonical Tablet XV) Izi text 4 (no substantial parallel)

141 143 144 147 147

7.

KÁ.GAL=abullu

148

8.

SAĜ

9.

NÍĜ.GA=makkūru

156

10.

DIRI=watru

158

IZI=išātu

B

149

Appendices - diachronic analysis 1. 2. 3. 4.

162

Historical development of Sa key-sign inventory and sequence Historical development of the Hh tablet divisions Concordance of Hh Division 1-2 and KI.ULUDIN.BI.ŠÈ=ana ittišu Inventory of the lexical series of periods II-IV

Annotated bibliography

162 167 168 171 173

Organization List of abbreviations Primary references ad 1. Syllable Alphabet A Vocabulary as 2. Syllabary A Vocabulary ad 3. Weidner God List ad 4. HAR(UR 5 ).RA=hubullu ad 4.1. Divisions 1-2 ad 4.2. Divisions 3-4 ad 4.3. Divisions 5-7 ad 4.4. Divisions 8-13 ad 4.5. Divisions 14-18 ad 5. LÚ=ša ad 6-9 IZI=išātu, KÁ.GAL=abullu and NÍĜ.GA=makkūru ad 8. SAĜ B ad 10. DIRI=watru Emar colophons; Emar bibliographies; cuneiform lexicology in general Notes

173 174 175 176 177 178 179 179 179 180 181 181 182 183 184 184 185 186

ii

Key to the Composite Text KEY TO THE COMPOSITE TEXT EST/PST numbering: 0000 .001 / a-z ... (+1?) (...) int(1)

-

main entry numbers sub-entry numbers gap, entries missing gap, indication of number of entries missing end of text fragment but probably no gap SaV only: interpolation (with reference number) with explanation added (/gr/aphic, /ph/onetic or /sem/antic association)

-

Sumerian reconstructed from MSL variant formed with phonetic complement Sumerian not preserved, Akkadian text given instead

Logograms: [.ĜE 26 ] (.A) Akk:

Akkadian equivalents: Akkadian Ak-ka-di-an [] (Akkadian)

-

Akkadian equivalent found in Emar, adjusted to AHw form Akkadian equivalent found in Emar, original spelling Akkadian equivalent not preserved no Akkadian equivalent found in Emar (unilingual version) Akkadian equivalent found in canonical series as edited in MSL, adjusted to AHw form

iii

Part 2 – Composite Edition

iv

Elementary Sign-lists * Tu-ta-ti ELEMENTARY SIGN-LISTS 0. Tu-ta-ti Organization of the material: There is only one extract (E1) and no composite edition is needed but the text is given here in order to provide it with an interpretation. Interpretation: 1 In view of the fact that Tu-ta-ti is regularly attested in Ugarit, it is remarkable that in Emar no complete texts of this series are found. In fact, doubt may be shed on the identification of E1 as a Tu-ta-ti text. The only similarity found between the Tu-ta-ti exercises as found in Ugarit 2 and E1 lies in the fact that in both the content provides a systematic listing of phonetic spelling of vowels in combination with given consonants. In case of E1 both the vowels and the consonant are particularly relevant to the writing of Hurrian. It should be noted that the consonants (w and p) that are treated in E1, the only text with a ‘Tu-ta-ti-like’ phonetic exercise in Emar, are also the only consonants that are systematically omitted from the traditional (OB) inventory found in the Ugarit Tu-ta-ti texts 3 . This ‘complementary distribution’ suggests that the phonetic values treated in E1 may have been treated separately in both Ugarit and Emar, perhaps because in both sites a need was felt for a separate approach to training in the spelling of Hurrian. The first column of the exercise may be interpreted as a complete series of spellings of the Hurrian /f-v/ consonantal phoneme (rendered with the PI sign) in combination with each of the Hurrian vowel phonemes. Note the characteristic graphic distinction of /o/ with spelling –u (line 1) and /u/ with spelling –ú (line 5). The second column of the Tu-ta-ti exercise attempts to give an approximate Akkadian phonetic rendering of each item: the shared sign values with p- are the only ones consistent with the Hurrian phonemes /f-v/. EST ... 001 002 003 004 005 ...

Hurrian spelling ... wu-u wa-a we-e wi-i wu-ú ...

Akkadian phonetic rendering ... pu-u pa-a pè-e pí-i pu-ú …

1

Interpretation Hurrian phonemes … /fo/; /vo/ /fa/; /va/ /fe/; /ve/ /fi/; /vi/ /fu/; /vu/ ...

Part 2 – Composite Edition 1. Syllable Alphabet A Vocabulary Organization of the material: There are two tablets and a few fragments. Fragments C and D may be part of T 2 but since there are no physical joins and since fragment E is isolated (which means that another, third tablet must have existed) this is not certain. Not only is E, which forms the top right-hand corner of a tablet, isolated with relation to the other texts, but the horizontal organization of its entries also deviates from that of the other texts (for commentary cf. von Soden, NABU 1989 1/8). Interpretation: Since Landsberger’s commentary on Çig’s edition of the Old Babylonian Syllable Alphabet B from Nippur (Çig, ‘Zwei Schulbücher’, 97-116) it is common usage to assume that the ‘logograms’ found in the Syllable Alphabets are originally (elements of) PNs and that the Akkadian entries associated with them in the Syllable Alphabet Vocabulary texts are later, secondary additions that contain ‘speculative interpretations’. In line with this convention, this composite edition offers two different sets of interpretations: the first set of interpretations are those that refer to the ‘logograms’ themselves (given in bold print), the second set of interpretations are those that refer to the Akkadian subentries (given in italics). The first set gives, in as far as possible, approximate translations of the Sumerian ‘logograms’ - some of these are clearly interpretable as (elements of) PNs 4 . When the second set, i.e. the translations of the Akkadian sub-entries, does not match the first set, the theoretically appropriate Sumerian equivalents are added in brackets. Where the theoretically appropriate Sumerian equivalents completely deviate from the logograms actually found in the Svo text, they are marked with a correction marker (!). It will be seen that in many cases the theoretically appropriate equivalents at least partially correspond to actual the logograms given by the Svo text. References: Note that there is no edition of the ‘canonical’ 1st Millennium version of Svo (Svo has not been edited in MSL) 5 . The first reference column gives the Ugarit parallels edited by Nougayrol. In it, A-G are part of Nougayrol’s composite edition sections and H and N are his additions (respectively Nougayrol, ‘Vocalisés’, 33-9 and the separate edition of RS29103 in Nougayrol, ‘Nouveau Silbenvokabular’, 83-85). The second reference column gives a parallel Old Babylonian text: Sollberger’s edition of BM 13902 (Sollberger, ‘Silbenvokabular A’, 218). The equivalent logograms in that text are indicated by Sollberger’s numbers - they are mostly parallel to the EST count. If an equivalent of the Akkadian is also found (a hyphen means no Akkadian equivalent is found), the appropriate column is referred to (b or c are the second and third column respectively). In both reference columns an asterisk (*) indicates that a reading has minor deviations in content compared to the Emar entry.

2

Elementary Sign-lists * Syllable Alphabet A Vocabulary

EST LOGOGRAMS and Akkadian 001 [ME-ME] [DIĜIR]lu 4 .01 .02 malālu .03 sarru .04 habbātu .05 muttahlilu lu DIĜIR 4 (!parṣū) mādūtu .06 D GU.LA .07 D NISABA .08 DIĜIR.MEŠ u .09 UMUN(!ÚMUN).KI 002 PAP-PAP D DUMU.MÍ PAP.SUKKAL .01 D NISABA .02 003 A-A .01 abu D .02 NÈ.ERI 11 .GAL D .03 NIN.É.GAL D .04 É.A 004 A-A-A .01 abi abi D .02 É.A 005 KU-KU D .01 NIN.GAL .02 itaddû 006 .01 .02 .03 .04 007 .01 .02 .03 .04 .05 008 .01 .02 .03 .04 .05 .06 009 .01 .02

[LU]-LU šuqallulu duššu rē’û D LUGAL.BÀN/MAR 5 .DA MAŠ māšu ša A.ŠAG 4 māšu ašarēdu gur-ru bitrû / bi-iq-rù 6 MAŠ-MAŠ D NIN.URTA nūru māšu wāšipu nappilu mašmašu MAŠ-GAG(MAŠ.DÀ) D MES.LAM.TA.È.A ṣ̣abītu

Interpretation

Ugarit

OB

‘ordinance’ god to plunder liar (!IGI-IGI=LILIB) thief (!LILIB) bandit (!LILIB) many rites (!ME.ME) Gula Nisaba gods and place of scholarship ‘older brother’ daughter of DN Nisaba ‘father’ father (!A/AB.BA) Nergal Nin-egal Ea ‘grandfather’ father’s father Ea Nin-gal nadû Ntn Inf to place - 10 to hang (!LÁ.LÁ) luxuriant shepherd (PA-LU) Lugal-banda ‘twin’ ‘twin of the field’ twin foremost (!MÁŠ.SAĜ)

A01-12/B01-14 A01* A02 A05/B04 A07/B07 A08*/B08 A09/B10 A11 A10/B11 A12*/B13

001 b ? ?

A13-6/B14-7 A13/B14 A14/B15 A16-9/B18-21/NI01-2 A16*/B18 A17/B19 A18/B20/NI01 A19/B21/NI02 A20-1/B22-3/N03-4 A20/B22/NI03 A21/B23/NI03 A22/B24-5/05-8 B24*/NI05* B25/NI06

002 003 004b 004 005 b/c* -

B26-29/NI09-12 B26/NI07* B27NI09 B28/NI10 B29/NI12 B30-2/NI13-8 B30/NI13 NI14 NI15 NI16 B32/NI17 B33-8/NI19-22 B33/NI18* NI19 B35/NI21 NI20 B37 NI22 B39-40/NI23-4 B39/NI23 B40

006 b/c 007 008 007b/c 009 010b/c -

magnificent (>barû)/? ‘sorcerer’ Nin-urta light (!ZALAG) twin (!MAŠ) priest larva (!ZIBIN) priest ‘gazelle’ Meslamtaea gazelle

3

Part 2 – Composite Edition .03 010 .01 011 .01 .02 .03 .04 012 .01 .02 .03 .04 013 .01 014 .01 .02 015 .01 .02

umāmu MAŠ-NI D NIN.A.ZU SI-GAG qannu kuzullu ubbubu D

SIRIS

SI-NI D NIN.ĜIŠ.ZI.DA PA 4 .NI 9 .ĜAR.RA ki-i-la D

IŠTARAN SI-A(DIRIG) D EN.LÍL

U-BAR D

UTU

kiššat māti BAR-BAR nūru barû

.03 .04 .05 016 .01 .02 .03 .04 017 018 019 020 021 022 023 .01 .02

barāru itabruru šutabruru LÁ-[LÁ] ukû tamṭītu kurussu ibabtu 7 IGI-[BAR] BAR-[IGI] IGI-[IGI](BAD 5 .BAD 5 ) IGI-IGI-[IGI] A-[IGI](ÉR) A-IGI-IGI ME-A têrtu wurru

024 .01 025 .01 026 .01 027 .01 028 .01

ME-NI KÁ É.[GAL] AŠ-NI D É.A AŠ-UR D NIN.UR NUN-NI D EN.LÍL NUN-UR D NIN.LÍL

010 011 012 011b/c b 013 b/c 014 b/c 015 -

animals (!Ú.MA.MU) Nin-azu border, hem (!SI) reed bundel (!UGRA) cleansed (!TAM.TAM) Siris (beer god) Nin-gishzida Ishtaran ‘supreme’ Enlil ‘foreigner’ Shamash all countries ‘reed’ light (!ZALAG) diviner (!MÁŠ.ŠÚ.GÍD.GÍD) to sparkle (!UR 4 .UR 4 ) idem Gtn Inf idem Št(n) Inf shuttle (!BAR.BAR) shortage belt (!LÁ) grass, plant (!ÚLÁ) ‘scout’ ‘defeat’ ‘tear’ ‘where?’ instruction (!Á ÁĜ.ĜÁ) wâru D Prt to order (!Á ÁĜ.ĜÁ) ‘palace gate’ 11 Enki Nin-ur Enlil Ninlil

4

C03 C04-5 C06-7 C08-12 C13-4 C15 C16 C17-8 C17 C18

016 017 018 019 020 021 022 023 b -

C19 C19 C20 C20 C21 C21* C22 C22 C23 C23

024 b 025 b* 026 b* 027 b* 028 -

C01-3 C02

Elementary Sign-lists * Syllable Alphabet A Vocabulary 029 .01 030 .01 031 .01 .02 032 .01

A-KU šikāru LAGAB-A dan-nu ša KUR A-PAP arūtu LÚ USANDU(HU-GAG) PAP-A háb-ba-tu 4

033 .01 034 .01 .02 .03 .04 .05 .06 035 .01 036 .01 037 .01 .02 038 .01 .02 .03 .04 .05

A-AN(ŠÈĜ) nu-ú DIĜIR.MEŠ AN-A zanān šamê zanānu nu-ú DIĜIR.MEŠ D tu INANNA.MEŠ 4 baniatū ŠAG 4 RU DA[M o] KUR-BA UĜ.MEŠ mādūtu KUR-U-TA tašīltu ME-ZU barû mūdî parṣ̣ī ME-PI-ZU (ME ĜEŠTUG ZU) barû emqu lummudu lamādu hasīsu

039 .01 .02 040 .01 .02 041 .01 .02 .03 .04 .05 042 043 044 045

NI-ZU(Ì.ZU) barû mūdî Ì.MEŠ A-ZU barû mūdî A.MEŠ ZU-ZU barû emqu lummudu lamadu hasīsu NI-[BA](Ì.BA) NI-BA-[BA] A-[BA] A-BA-BA

beer (!KAŠ) ‘clay pipe; canal’ libation pipe bird-catcher (?habatu IV ‘to dig out’) 12 ‘rain’ gods heavenly rain (!ŠÈĜ) to rain (!ŠÈĜ) gods goddesses (female) creators

C24/NII01 C24* C25-6/NII02-3* C27-8/NII04-5 C27 C28 C29-32/NII06 -

029 030* 031 032 -

C33-7/NII07-8 C33 C38-41/NII09-10

033 034 b* 035 036 037 -

C39 C38* C40

many peoples splendour (!KA.ZAL) ‘rite’ + ‘to know’ diviner ritual (ME) expert (ZU) ‘rite’ + ‘ear’ + ‘to know’ diviner wise man (!GAL.ZU) scholar to learn (!ZU) ear; wisdom (!ĜEŠTUG) ‘oil expert’ diviner oil expert ‘water expert’ diviner water expert ‘to know’ diviner wise man scholar to learn wisdom ‘oil ration’ D01 ‘who?’ D02 -

5

038 039 040 041 042 043 044 045

Part 2 – Composite Edition 046 047 .01 048 .01 049 .01 050 .01 051 .01 052 .01

BA-BA BA-BA-A puršumu BA-ZA pessû BA-ZA-ZA pessûtu NI-A ni-ka/ga 14 -rù/ši-[ga-ru] A-NI še-hu/[še]-e-hu-u TAB-NI mākisu

053 .01 054 .01 055 .01 056 .01 057 .01 058 .01 .02 .03 059 .01 060 .01 061

KASKAL-NI karāšu NI-UR-BA še-i-qu BAD-NI(be-lí) kal-ṣ̣u BAD-NI-HI(be-lí-DÙG) gu 5 -šu-ú GIŠ-BAD pitî uznī NU-NU e-nu šamû lā awīlu A-NU la-a-ru SAG-TAR si-tu 4 SAG-TAR-DA-A (SAĜ KUD.DA.A) ištarītu SAG-AN arāru SAG-AN-TUK mukinnu SAG-KUR lapnu SAG-KUR-TA muškēnu TAR-DA(KUD.DA) TAR-DA-A(KUD.DA.A) GABA-[GABA] GABA-GABA-[A] NIN-[GABA] NIN-[EZEN] NIN-[SUKKAL]

.01 062 .01 063 .01 064 .01 065 .01 066 067 068 069 070 071 072

‘old man’ old man ‘lame; cripple’ 13 lame man (!BA.AN.ZA) lame woman ‘exclamation’ (
D03 D04 D04 D05 D05* D06 D06* D07 D07 D08* D08 D09/NIII01 D09

046 047 048 049 050 051 052 -

D10/NIII02 D10 D11/NIII03 D11 D12/NIII04 D12 D13/NIII05 D13 D14/NIII06-7

heaven not human -

D18*/NIII09

-

D19/NIII10

‘cut-off head’

D20/NIII11

053 054 055 056 057 058 059 060 061

priestess (!NU.GIG) - 14 to curse (!NAM KUD) 15 ‘he holds the head’ witness ‘a fish’ poor man (!NU.TUKU) dependent; bondsman ‘cut off’ ‘cut off’ -

D20* D21/NIII12 D21 D22/NIII13 D22 D24/NIII15 D24 D25/NIII16 D25 D26/NIII17 D27 D28 D29 D30 D31 D32

062 063 065 067b 066 067 068 069 070 071 072

‘my lord’ ‘my lord is good’ open the ears! -

6

D15-7/NIII08

Elementary Sign-lists * Syllable Alphabet A Vocabulary 073 074 075 076 077 078 079 080 .01 081 .01 082 .01 .02 .03 083 .01 084 .01 085 .01 086 .01 087 .01 088 .01 089 .01 090 .01 091 .01 092 .01 093 .01 094 .01 095 .01 096 .01 097 .01 098 .01

NIN-SUKKAL-[AN-KA] TÚL-[TA] TAR-[TA](SILA.TA) É-[TA] É-TAR-DA(É KUD.DA) AN-DÙL AN-AN-DÙL AN-GÁ ili Éti AN-KAL(DLÀMA) lamassu UD-MA(TAM.MA) kalû/ ebbu talīmu ĜIŠ a-šum UD-UD-MA (TAM.TAM.MA) ubbubu UD-GA(ZALAG.GA) ellu UD-UD-GA el-lu-lu 4 AN-GÀR mūtu GÀR-AN mutānu AN-ÁŠ nu-uz-zu NIR KU(!?ÁŠ)-AN ša-ka-an AN-BA la-ši-mu AN-BA-NI(DIĜIR-ba-ni) D

INANNA MUL

AN-NI šarru AN-NI-ZU māliku HI-GA(DÙG.GA) LÚ

NAR

HI-HI-GA LÚ NAR.GAL ME-HI(ME.DÙG) aluzinnu ME-HI-GA(ME.DÙG.GA) aštalû IGI-BA-NI šā’ilu

‘from the well’ ‘from the street’ ‘from the house’ ‘separated house’ ‘cover’ god of the house Lamassu protective deity ‘purified’ lamentation priest / purified favourite

D33 D34*/H01* D35*/H02* D36*/H03* D37*/H04-5* H06 H07 H08

‘cleansed’

H11

cleansed ‘shining’ shining death (!NAM.ÚŠ) plague (!NAM.ÚŠ) ‘litter’ ‘god is builder’ Ishtar of the star king (!LUGAL) advisor (!AD.GI 4 .GI 4 ) ‘good; sweet’ musician musician ‘good ordinance’ jester (!UD.DA.TUŠ) ‘good ordinance’ musician (!ÈŠ.TA.LÚ) dream interpreter (!ENSI)

7

H09 H09 H10 H10b / c

073 074 075 076 077* 078 079 080 081 082 b/ 083c 083 b 084 b 085 b* 086 087 088 089 090 091 092 093 094 095 096 097 098 -

Part 2 – Composite Edition 099 .01 100 .01 101 .01 102 .01 103 .01 104 .01 105 .01 106 .01 107 .01 108 .01 109 .01 110 .01 111 .01 112 .01 113 .01 114 .01 115 .01 116 .01 117 .01 118 .01 119 .01 120 .01 121 .01 122 .01

[IGI]-BA-UR šā’iltu [HU]-HU LÚ

NAGAR

[HU]-BA

LÚ

SIMUG

HU-UR LÚ purqullu HU-RU LÚ

TIBIRA

AN-Ú LÚ

BAHAR

Ú-A LÚ

MÁ.LAH 4 Ú-TA LÚ KUG.DÍM PA-PA(SÌG.SÌG) LÚ (mu)raqqū 8

PA-GÁ(LÚĜ.ĜÁ) nuwā’u PA-PA-GÁ(LÚĜ.LÚĜ.ĜÁ) sullānu 9 A-A-UR puršumu AN-UR D NA.BU.UM [NI]-NI(ì-lí )/ NI-HI-GA(Ì.DÙG.GA) DIĜIR bāšti [NI]-NI-A(Ì LÍ.A) Ì ruqqû [NI]-NI-NI(Ì NI-NI) Ì šimeššalî [NI-NI]-NI-A(Ì NI-NI-A) Ì rēštu [AB]-BA abu/šību [AB-BA]-MU abi/šībi [AB-BA]-NI abušu/šībšu [AB-BA]-A puršumu [AB-BA-URU] abi/wāšib ali IGI-SU 4 [D]TIŠPAK(MÚŠ) [SU 4 ] [D]ŠUŠINAK(MÙŠ-EREN)

female interpreter carpenter smith stonecutter(!BUR.GUL) - 16 sculptor - 17 potter ‘provisioner’ sailor silver smith ‘breeze’ presser, perfumer (!Ì.RÁ.RÁ) ‘impudence’ fool (!NA.ĜÁ.AH) deceiver elder (!A/AB.BA) Nabû ‘god’/ ‘good oil’ god of honour (!TÉŠ) pressed (LÍ) oil (Ì) box tree oil quality (SAĜ) oil (Ì) ‘father’ father/witness ‘my father’ my father/witness ‘his father’ his father/witness elder ‘city elder’ city elder/inhabitant ‘red eye’ Tishpak ‘red’ In-shushinak

8

E01-4/NIV01 E01/NIV01 E04-6/NIV02 E04/NIV02 E07-8/NIV03 E07/NIV03 E09-10/NIV04 NIV05* E11-2/NIV05* NIV04* E13/NIV06-7 NIV06-7 E14/NIV08 NIV08 NIV09 NIV10* NIV11-2 NIV11 NIV13 NIV12* F01/NIV14 NIV14 F02/NIV15

099 100 101 102 103 104 105 106* 107 108 109 110 111 112

113 114 F03/NIV16 115 NIV16 F04-5/G01/NIV17-8 116 NIV17-8 b/c F06-7/G02-3/NIV19-20 117 F06-7/NIV19-20 b F10-1/G07-8 118 F10-1/G07-8 b F08-9/G04-5 119 -18 F12-3/G09 120 F12-3/G09 b F14/G10 121 F14* 123b F16/G12 123 F16* -

Elementary Sign-lists * Syllabary A Vocabulary 2.1. Syllabary A Vocabulary Organization of the material: There are four tablets and some fragments. Of the four tablets, T1 and T2 give the whole text of SaV before continuing with an exercise that has been named Syllabary A Appendix 1 (SaA1). T3 and T4 give a substantially expanded version of SaV, in which most Sa sign have been given many more equivalents than found in the other tablets. This increased amount of entries results in a lenghtening of the text and therefore tablets T3 and T4 have only room for the first 58 Sa signs. No tablets with a similar expansive treatment have been found for the other Sa signs. Of the fragments, M may be part of T2 but lacks physical joins - it also contains an interpolation not found in T1. The other fragments are very small, giving a few isolated signs only and lack physical joins - they have not been used for the composite edition. References: References to the edition of the canonical version of SaV in MSL are not included here but may be found in Appendix 1, which gives the historical development of the SaV sign inventory. PST 19

LOGOGRAMS, and

glosses

APPROPRIATE PHONETIC READINGS

001 .01 .02 .03 .04 .05 .06 .07 .08 .09 .10 .11 .12 .13

A a a-a

Akkadian, (COMPLETE VERSIONS OF DEFECTIVE READINGS) and (!CORRECTIONS)

Interpretation

mû abu abu abi

water father father’s father god Ayya Ishtar ---Sjöberg: WSem ‘boil’? joy clemency to carry (water) (water) pitcher lamentation (ÉR=A-IGI ‘tear’) ---Sjöberg: WSem ‘to wash’; hapapu II ‘to cleanse’ ---Sjöberg: mil kiššati Kish flood (water) (water) ditch rain (water) wet ---Sjöberg:WSem ‘purification’? (Sjöberg) spit GENETIVE SUFFIX LOCATIVE SUFFIX DATIVE AFFIX ---Sjöberg: ‘son’

lì

DIĜIR D A.A D

ištar ma-z/ṣ̣a-ru rīštu rēmūtu wabālu kirru nissatu mû ha-pí-pu-tu 4

.14

kiššatu

.15 .16 .17 .18 .19 .20 .21 .22 .23

šuttatu zunnu (!ŠÈĜ=A-AN) ratbu hu-la ni-du 4 ša ina ana māru

dú-IR(!ru)

/DURU 5

9

entries marked with ‘---’ give suggestions from Sjöberg, ‘Studies’, ZA 88 (1998) 240-83; when these are tentative they are (bracketed)

Part 2 – Composite Edition .24 .25 .26 .27 .28 .29 .30 int(1) int(2) int(3) int(4) 002 .01 .02 .03 .04 .05 003 .01 .02 .03 .04 .05 .06 004 .01 a.01 005 .01 .02 .03 .04 .05 .06 .07 .08 .09 .10 .11 .12 .13 .14 .15 .16 .17 006 .01 .02 .03

e

rihūtu (!A.RI.A) u’a ai D

UTU É.A D IŠTARAN(KA-DI) kapru (!É.DURU 5 ) D

du-ru

/DURU 5 /?/ DIŠ /gr/ HI /ph/ E /ph/ Á ŠUR

PAD ŠUK

ŠIR ŠIR-RUM/ŠIR DILI HAR MUR UR 5 MUR ha-ar

ÀR ar /ÀR MIN /ÀR ki /KÍN HUR UR 5 UR 5 GUR 14 MUR

AH

- (!HI.A) - (A=E 4 ) zanānu ramāku D ištar rību halāpu kurummatu karāru hirsu ki-[ir-ṣụ́ ] kasāpu naptanu bi-ra (!ŠIR-BUR =BURU 4 āribu) išku hašū kabattu ṭulīmu harru (!HI-AŠ=SÙR) semeru arāru ṭênu sāmidu erû karāru šakāṣụ têrtu ri-i-ú hubullu gu-ra-mi-rù kabāru tītu kišpu rūtu (aAH) rupuštu (aAH)

10

offspring, sperm, outpouring woe! woe! Shamash Ea Ishtaran village SINGULAR/PLURAL SUFFIX to rain to wash Ishtar (ŠUR-DIŠ=INANNA) water butt to slip inside ration to place (Sjöberg; bread) slice pinched-off matter to cut; break off meal offering crow (single) testicle lung liver spleen watercourse ring, bracelet miller to grind miller millstone to place to look angry omen liver, instruction ---Sjöberg: re’u ‘angry’ debt to be thick nourishment magic (spell) spittle excretion

Elementary Sign-lists * Syllabary A Vocabulary .04 .05 .06 .07 .08 .09 .10 .11 .12 .13 [007 008 .01 .02 .03 .04 .05 009 .01 .02 .03 .04 a.01 a.02 010 .01 .02 .03 .04 011 .01 .02 .03 .04 .05 .06 .07 a.01 012 .01 .02 .03 .04 .05 013 .01 014 .01

EH EH UH UH EH EH EH

A’ HU MUŠEN

RI (da-al?)/DAL DAL RI/DE 5 DAL

RI-RI=DAL.DAL RI

BI BÉ

ka-aš

/KAŠ

NI li

/LÉ

za-al

/ZAL /DIG

ti-gil e

/Ì

NI-NI(ì-lí) BU še-er

/SÍR

ki-id(KID

10

ŠUD šu-šar /SÙ KU

)

ú-tu 4 perša’u kalmatu šeleppu pu-us-hu-šu hurru (!U) arû (!BURU 8 ) ruhū (!KAxLI=UŠ 7 .RI) rusū(!KAxBAD=UŠ 7 ) nābu I ] iṣ̣sụ̄ ru būṣu iṣsụ̄ ru iṣsụ ritu naparšudu itaprušu ašar (!A/I.DA.AL) aširtu II (!NA.RI/DE 5 ) tallu muttaprišu šuhuzu (!IZI RI) qabû (!MU.UN.NA.BÉ 21 ) šikāru karpatu (!BIxA=DUG) šu(ma) -šu lē’u šêmu narbu šamnu hu-uq-qú-tu 4 ma-la-hu [-] nūru sūqu (!E.SÍR) puhru (!PU.UH.RU.UM) nabābu ruqqu (!SUD) rīštu ṣ̣alālu (!Ù KU 22 )

11

flea louse turtle hole 23 to vomit enchantment, spell spell insect eggs 24 bird partridge to flee to fly Ntn Inf right now! guardianship vessel winged ---Sjöberg: Š Inf ‘to kindle fire’ to speak beer vessel DEMONSTRATIVE SUFFIX POSSESSIVE SUFFIX tablet, register (Sjöberg: WSem ‘moisture’) fat soft oil ---Sjöberg: WSem ‘sore’ ---Sjöberg: WSem ‘to salt’ god light street assembly ---Sjöberg: ‘to pipe’ far joy to lie down

Part 2 – Composite Edition .02 .03 .04 .05 .06 .07 .08

tu-uš

/ŠÈ

ŠÈ TUŠ TÚG dur /DÚR še /ÉŠ

tu-kúl(KU=TUKUL)

ana ina šubtu ṣ̣ubātu šuburru (!SA.DÚR) eblu wašābu

seat, residence cloth rear, behind rope to sit, stay

šu-šu-ú ṭēmu pakku rē’u (!PA-LU=SIPAD) rēdû ṣ̣abātu immeru nadû maqātu talpanu miqittu pa-du-u (SN?)

našû Š Inf insight consideration shepherd to lead to seize sheep to cast to fall projectile fall (Sjöberg: petû ‘to open, reveal’)

ha-lu-ú (SN?) halāqu (!ZÁH=HA-A) nūnu līpu (!PEŠ.TUR.ZI) māru šehu lilitu (!LÍL) zamāru (!E.LI.LUM) láû lahannu(!DUGLA.HA.AN) unnubu (!Ú.LUM) uššubu eṣ̣emtu uššubu libittu kurbanu mišlānu zadrû

(Sjöberg: WSem ‘to be sick’) to perish fish offspring son ---Sjöberg: ‘pig’ female demon to sing abundance bowl to bear fruit plentiful bone plentiful mudbrick lump drainage tile idem

zēru

seed

/TUŠ .09 .10 .11 015 .01 .02 .03 .04 016 .01 .02 .03 .04 a.01 017 .01 .02 .03 018 .01 .02 .03 019 .01 .02 020 .01 .02 021 .01 .02 .03 int(5) 022 .01 023 .01 .02 .03 int(6)

UMUŠ UMUŠ

LU

DIB ú-du

/UDU RU ŠUB šu /ŠUB

il-lu-ur/il-úr

/ ILLURU /ŠUB /gr/ IGI-RU-DA (PÀD.DA) HA šu

za-ah ku-ú

/KU 6 PEŠ

GIR

LI LA LUM hu-ub(LUM=HU ) 5

/gr&ph/ LAM SIG 4 ŠID LAG tu-ga

ŠIDmaš za-tar ŠID (!ZANDARA) /?/ NUMUN

12

Elementary Sign-lists * Syllabary A Vocabulary 024 [025 026 .01 .02 027 .01 .02 .03 .04 028 .01 .02 .03 .04 .05 029 .01 .02 .03 .04 030 .01 .02 .03 .04 031 .01 .02 .03 .04 032 .01 033 .01 .02 .03 034 .01 int(7) 035 .01 .02 .03 .04 036 .01 .02 .03

ZU ZA SU KUŠ

ku-uš

/KUŠ

NU

NA

] ramānu mašku maṣ̣allu (!NÚ) zikaru ṭēmu (!NU.KA.AŠ) lā awīlu napāṣ̣u ilu lā

D

BA

ZI ZID ZÌG ZÌG

GI

GI 4 GIM GIN 7 te /DÍM ŠITIM

PAN /sem/SA/ŠAG 4 .GAD MA PÈŠ

UTU

šu supinnu libittu ša napuštu kittu tebû nasihtu kinu kittu qanû i-mu-lu(!?qú) târu kima epēšu itinnu qaštu matnu tu KUR 4 (!MA.DA) tittu ĜIŠ

MÁ

MU ĜU 10

nabîtu -ia šattu šumu

13

self skin sleeping place male (genitalia) decision (Sjöberg: emû ‘spin’) NEGATION PREFIX man to push off god(Sjöberg:na’ilu‘watercourse’) NEGATION PREFIX Shamash POSSESSIVE SUFFIX cutting tool mudbrick (Sjöberg: labinu ‘brickmaker’) POSSESSIVE SUFFIX throat, breath, life justice to rise levy fixed, firm justice, trust reed to return like, as to make architect bow tendon, string land fig ship (
Part 2 – Composite Edition .04 .05 .06 .07 .08 .09 .10 .11 .12 a.01 037 .01 .02 038 .01 .02

MUHALDIM MUHALDIM

u-tu-un

U-MU=UDUN TAH

GIŠ ke-eš

.03 .04 039 .01 .02 .03 .04 .05 .06 .07

né-eš

a.02-3 b.01 c.00 d.01 e.01 f.02 g.01 g.02 040 .01 .02 .03 .04

GÁxNÍG=ĜALGA GÁxME.NA=ÈRA GÁxÁŠ=GAZI GÁxPA=SILA 4 GÁxŠE=ÉSAG GÁxNIR=ÙR GÁxLI

041 .01 .02 .03 .04 .05 042

EN

GÁ BISAĜ EŠDÀ EŠDÀ

GÁN IKU GÁNA

zikru nuhatimmu ēpū ina ana nīšu rēṣụ (!Á.TAH.MU) zakāru zēru [-] rēṣụ (!Á.TAH) nerāru (!ÉRIN.GAB;SAĜ.TAB) iṣụ haṭtụ (!ĜIŠPA=ĜIDRU) šamû šīlān (!ĜIŠ.ŠÚ) anāku pišennu -ia ina ana i-da!-tu 4 dūdu ṭēmu, māliku, malāku šalṭu (!ĜÁ.ĜÁ) [-] puhādu qarītu gušūru teluttu (!I.BI.LU) nagguru ikû eqlu mērešu al-ka (!ĜEN) or: AL DUG 4

bēlu

LUGAL

IN

bēltu adi (!EN.NA) awīlutu -

14

word baker idem oath aid to mention, name seed, progeny oven aid aid wood sceptre heaven ---Sjöberg: ‘in the west’ I crate POSSESSIVE SUFFIX

vessel; drum (Sjöberg: udu ‘road’) counsel, advisor, to advise authoritative (GAZI ‘condiment’) lamb granary beam, roof (
Elementary Sign-lists * Syllabary A Vocabulary .01 int(8) a.01 043 .01 a.01 044 .01 .02 .03 .04 .05 045 .01 .02 .03 .04 .05 .06 .07 .08 .09 .10 .11 .12 .13 .14 .15 046 .01 .02 .03 .04 .05 047 .01 .02 .03 048 .01 .02 .03 .04 049 .01 050 .01 051

/gr/, /sem/ NAGA=TÈ ti IN-NU IRI IRIxIGI(!xMIN= ĜIŠGAL) EL SIKIL SIKIL si /SIKIL SIKIL

IGI

IGI IGI IGI IGI i-gi

/IGI

IGI IGI mah

/IGI

IGI

HI DÙG

šar(HI=ŠÁR)

KAM ERIŠ 6 ÚTUL

AN ša-a dì-kar MIN

NAB MUL HAL

tibnu qaqullu mekku II? ālu našgallu; DAMAR-UTU ellu tēliltu wardatu (!KI.SIKIL) ellutu tiquttu mādu sarru (!IGI-IGI=LILIB) lemnu bītanu mahru īnu naṭālu (!IGI DU 8 ) naplusu (!IGI BAR) igištu (!IGI.DU) dagālu (!IGI ĜÁL) barû (!IGI TAB) mahāru (!GI) ašarēdu (!IGI.DU) pānu warku eṣ̣emtu ṭābu rīštu (!HIxÁŠ=MURMURA) berqu (!HI.HI) mādu (!HI.A) ellu mēreštu (<erešu) diqāru šamû

erṣ̣etu

LÌ

DIĜIR

awīlu na-ab-bu kakkabu -

15

straw type of plant idem (IN.NU ‘straw’) city station, attendant; Marduk (---Sjöberg: gišgallu ‘seat’) shining purification maiden purity glance(of the eye-anticipates045) much, many false bad, evil inside, indoors before, TERMINATIVE AFFIX eye to behold to look at first to view to inspect, divine to receive first one, superior front, face backside bone, frame good jubilation lightning PLURAL SUFFIX pure wish, desire jar heaven earth god man SN star -

Part 2 – Composite Edition .01 .02 .03 .04 int(9) 052 .01 .02 .03 .04 .05 .06 053 .01 .02 .03 .04 .05 .06 .07 054 .01 .02 .03 .04 055 .01 .02 .03 .04 .05 .06 .07 .08 .09 056 .01 .02 .03 .04 .05 .06 .07 .08 a.01 b.01 057 .01 .02

bur(HAL=BUR ) 8

/sem/ IRIxGU=GUR 5 UR

TÉŠ si

kal

NE be ri

/BÍ

dah

/

AH /KÚM i-zi /IZI te /DÈ kum/ku

BÍL GIBIL ki /GIBIL

KA bi(KA=PI ) 4 zu

/ZÚ /INIM du /DUG 4 gi-ri /KÌRI MIN /GÙ MIN /GÙ i-nim

SAG

SAG-SAG SAG-NI DÙL ŠÙR ku-u

/KÚŠ

pirištu barû šamû hallu uqquru awīlu qarradu (!UR.SAĜ) bāštu erṣ̣etu (!URAŠ) kalbatu kalbu nīšu qutru puluhtu (!NÍ) rēṣ̣u (!Á.TAH) ummu išātu dikmēnu eššu gibiltu qalû (also: ŠE.SA.SA) marû (!ŠE) pû magāru (!KA-ME-DU) šinnu awātu qabû appu rigmu ikkilu pa-za kiššatu awīlu qaqqadu (!SAĜ.DU) pānu (!SAĜ.KI) pūtu rēšu aštapīru (!SAĜ.GÉME.ÌR) qardu (!UR.SAĜ) [-] [-] šamru anāhu (!KÚŠ.Ù) 16

secret diviner heaven thigh cripple 25 ma hero dignity, honour earth bitch dog people smoke fear aid heat fire ash new (gibillu=touch wood, tinder) to roast fat(tened) (Sjöberg: ‘sow’) mouth to consent tooth word to speak nose noise wailing world man head front, face stern head domestic servant heroic wild, raging to tire

Elementary Sign-lists * Syllabary A Vocabulary 058 .01 .02 .03 .04 .05 059 060 061 062 063 064 [065 066 .01 .02 .03 067 .01 .02 .03 .04 .05 .06 .07 .08 .09 .10 .11 068 .01 .02 .03 .04 .05 .06 [069 070 .01 .02 071 .01 .02 .03 072 .01 073 .01

DU ĜEN ša-ra

GUB

SUHUŠ KAŠ 4 I IA ŠU ŠAG 4 ŠA ÚH

AŠ áš

RUM DILI

ti-la(AŠ=TIL ) 4

UD

TAM

be-er(UD=BÍR)

/BABBAR /ZALAG u-tù /UTU ERIM AD za-la

TA

DA TI TÌL

alāku raṣ̣āpu (!DU 8 ) izzizu kamāšu (!DU 10 .GAM) kunnušu (!GÚ ĜÁ.ĜÁ) ] uhhu rūtu rupuštu ittu (!UŠ) ettutu ina mahru mahāru gitmālu ištanu ištēnu tu

EGIR 4

mādu mādūtu inūma ūmu talīmu peṣ̣û

shining Shamash father big, great from ABLATIVE AFFIX

namru D

to go to pile/build up to stand to kneel to make submit snail saliva excretion (border) sign spider in first to receive perfect ---Sjöberg: ‘one’ one, alone back much, many multitude when day favourite white

UTU

] abu rabû ištu ina ana ṭehûtu

companionship, COMITATIVE AFFIX to live

balāṭu

17

Part 2 – Composite Edition .02 074 .01 075 .01 .02 076 .01 .02 077 .01 a.01 078 .01 .02 .03 a.01 079 .01 .02 .03 080 .01 081 .01 .02 .03 a.01 082 083 .01 .02 .03 .04 084 .01 085 .01 086 .01 .02 087 .01 .02 088 .01 089 .01 090

UM DUB ŠID MES šu-te

/ŠUDUM AM AM-SI IM

MÙRU

IM-TE=NÍ.TE IŠ SAHAR

mi-il(IŠ=MIL)

/MIL /SAHAR GAL

su-ha

NUN

ṣ̣ēlu (!UZUTI) ummu III ṭuppu ṭupšarru (!DUB.SAR) eṭlu minûtu rīmu rīmtu (!pīru) šāru zunnu ṭīdu ramānu bāṣ̣u idru eperu rabû rubû rabû [-]

rib reed rope tablet scribe hero reckoning, account wild bull wild cow wind rain clay self sand ---Sjöberg: ‘saltpetre’ dust big, great king dignitary big, great -

ekletu mīlu mūšu ṣ̣almu kabtu marṣ̣u balāṭu kurunu kunnu būru nīqu ūsu -

darkness flood night black heavy sick to live beer cared for, cherished calf offering, sacrifice wild duck -

LUGAL

ab-gal

NUN-ME

=ABGAL ME MI ĜI 6 ĜI 6 KUKKU 5

DUGUD GIG DIN TIN KÚRUN

ZUR AMAR

SISKUR UZ TU

18

Elementary Sign-lists * Syllabary A Vocabulary .01 .02 .03 .04 .05 091 .01 .02 092 .01 093 .01 int(10) 094 .01 .02 .03 [095 096 .01 097 .01 .02 098 .01 099 100 [101 [102 [103 [104 [105 [106 [107 [108 [109 110 .01 .02 .03 111 .01 .02 112 .01 .02 .03 113 .01 .02

TUD

ÍB

i

EGIR DIM /?/ ul-lu-tiUL 4 MAR

RAD DIB DAB/DIB TAB LUH KAL LAGAB GU GA UB LAM PI GAG IR RA KI DI

SILIM

SAR KIRI 6 NISIG

SA

NAM BIR 5 BIR 5

summatu ši-ip-rù walādu ellu ramāku (!TU 5 ) ellu qablu warkatu timmu arhiš marru šakānu rittu ] ṣ̣abātu tappû eṣ̣ēpu mesû ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] lu-ku-tu 4 SN? nisiqtu šalāmu kirû warqu ga-ir-ra ana ina zīru (!BURU 5 .TUR) erbu (!NAM-

19

pigeon ---Sjöberg:WSem‘to make shine’ to give birth pure to bathe pure middle, hips back pillar speadily spade to place shovel to seize friend to double to wash (Sjöberg: luqutu ‘merchandise’?) selection to be well orchard vegetation SN? dwarf locust locust

Part 2 – Composite Edition

.03 114 .01 .02 .03 115 .01 116 .01 int(11) 117 .01 118 .01 119 .01 .02 .03 .04 [120 [121 [122 [123 [124 [125 [126 [127 [128 [129 [130 [131 [132 [133 [134 [135 [136 137 .01 .02 138 .01 .02 .03 139 .01 .02 .03 .04

AB

ERIM=BURU 5 ) šību (!AB.BA) aptu tu

É 4

GUD UL /gr/ GAN AZ UG GÌR PIRIĜ

ALIM HUŠ ANŠE LUL NAGAR GÀR DAR ZUM KUM GAZ ÁĜ PAB GUR BUR BAR=MAŠ SI SU 4 PA ĜIDRU SÌG

U

abu alpu hāmū hušābu (!GI.GAN)

asu lābu nēšu šēpu dimtu padānu (!GÍR) ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] haṭtụ ṣ̣innatu D

UTU

UMUN UMUN

bēlu

Ù

šittu pû zabālu walādu (!Ù TUD)

LUGAL

20

elder (cf. 114) opening, window house father cow ---Sjöberg: ‘litter (of reed etc.)’ twig (but note also ha abu=HUZ) bear lion lion foot tower path sceptre woodwind-instrument Shamash lord king sleep mouth to carry, bring over to give birth

Elementary Sign-lists * Syllabary A Vocabulary .05 int(12) /sem/ NUMUN, GAN, NIR-NIR 140 MAŠ ma-aš .01 /MAŠ .02 MIN int(13) /gr/ BULUG 141 .01 .02 .03 .04 .05 142 .01 143 .01 144 .01 145 .01 .02 .03 .04 .05 a.01 146 .01 .02 .03 [147 [148 [149 [150 [151 152 153 154 .01 155 .01 .02 156 .01 157 .01 158 .01 .02

NÍG ŠÁ

ka-ar

/ĜAR /ĜAR ni-in-ni /NÍĜ ni-da /NINDA AL MIN

IL Ú Á

Á-TUKU LÁ

LÁL LÀL ZÍ DÉ UŠ SUM NAGA KU 7 KID LÍL

DAG /PÀR E

bi-ru

EG

É

šerru walādu

infant to give birth

-

Shamash

D

UTU

ligittu aplu; kudurru; puluqqu ša šakānu nadānu mimmu akālu allu magāru šammu idû tukultu rittu emūqu qarnu nēmelu šaqālu našû šakānu ] ] ] ] ] [-] matqu kītu ziqiqu naparruru īku bītu gagû (!ĜÁ.GI.A)

21

heir; eldest son; needle GENETIVE PARTICLE to place to give something bread, food hoe to agree vegetation arm assistance hand strength horn profit to weight to carry to place sweet reed mat wind; ghost ---Sjöberg: ‘to spread out’ levee house cloister

Part 2 – Composite Edition .03 .04 159 .01 .02 a.01 160 .01 .02 .03 .04 161 .01 162 .01 .02 a.01 163 .01 .02 .03 .04 .05 164 .01 .02 .03 165 166 167 .01 .02 168 .01 .02 169 .01 170 .01 .02 171 .01 .02 172 .01 .02 173

KÁ

a-ga

KÁ-GAL KISAL bur /BUR 6 ki-sal

AR MUŠ MUŠ-HUŠ ÚR

ŠEŠ

IB TAG SAL sal

raq

/RAQ NIN e-re-eš

DAM AK IG gal

/ĜÁL GÉME AMA

tarānu kidinnu (!GÁxNIR=ÙR) bābu daltu abullu kisallu puhru kisalluhatu bītu ši-ka-rù ṣ̣erru bītu mušhuššu šunu utlu šēpu pēmu šapru (!HÁŠ) nakaru (ŠEŠ=ahu ↔KÚR=ahû; nakaru) marru (!SIS) ahu sinništu raqqu ahātu bēltu aššatu epēšu D AK daltu naṣ̣āru amtu aštapīru -

22

cover sanctuary gate door city gate courtyard assembly courtyard sweeper house ---Sjöberg: WSem ‘dawn; sunrise’ 26 snake house 27 dragon lap idem foot thigh thigh foreign; enemy bitter brother woman thin sister lady wife to make Nabû door to keep, guard servant girl domestic personnel -

Elementary Sign-lists * Syllabary A Vocabulary .01 .02 174 .01 .02 175 .01 .02 .03 a.01 int(14) 176 .01 177 .01 .02 .03 .04 .05 .06 .07 .08 178 .01 .02 .03 .04 .05 .06 .07 .08 .09 [179 179a 179b [180 181 .01 .02 .03 a.01 int(15) 182 .01 .02 183 .01 .02 184

da-gal

/DAGAL

EŠ KUR

KUR-KUR /sem/ MA-DA QA SÌLA

TAR /HAŠ

ta-ar

ku-ud(TAR=KUD) MIN si-la

/KUD /SILA

HAŠ KUD

BE IDIM uš /ÚŠ

MIN/ÚŠ TIL BAD TIL TIL

KUG KUG-BABBAR KUG-GI SA 6 TUR BÀNDA DUMU

TUR-TUR /ph/ UGU UN KALAM

GÚ

DUR

ummu rapšu D 30 eššu II (!ÈŠ) mātu šadû kašādu mātatū mātu šûtu hiṣḅ u parāsu nakāsu sūqu ši-ik-rù šebru harṣ̣u muparrrisutu bēlu mūtu mutānu na-ki-šu balāṭu (!TÌL) šumma gamāru bītu laqātu ] kašpu

hurāṣ̣u ] ṣ̣ehru la’û māru ṣ̣ehhurutu [-] nīšu mātu kišādu šimītān (!GÚ-NUN=USAN) -

23

mother wide Sîn temple land mountain to reach, arrive, conquer lands land sutu ‘measure’ chip, cutting to divide to cut street broken cut off to divide D Ptc lord death plague to live if to accomplish house to pick up, gather in silver gold small weak son smallness people land neck, riverbank evening -

Part 2 – Composite Edition .01 185 .01 186 .01 .02 187 .01 .02 188 .01 .02 .03 .04 .05 .06 .07 a.01 189 .01 .02 190 .01 int(16) 191 .01 .02 .03 192 .01 .02 .03 .04 193 .01 194 .01 .02 .03 .04 .05 195 .01 .02 .03 .04 a.01 196 .01 .02

SIG SIG 5 gur

/GÚRUM TE TEMEN

KAR

ka-ak-X xx

[ ]KAR-KID

BAL ŠUL /sem/ SAĜ; mu-iaMU ŠAH ŠUBUR ŠUBUR

LÚ

LUGAL MAH

HUL

HUL-A GUL

zibbatu (!KUN) qatnu damqu piqittu uššu mīnu (!TE.E.ÀM) lasāmu eṭēru šuzzubu kāru na-bi-tu 4 erēbu (!TU=KUR 9 ) ekēmu harimtu pilaqqu nabalkutu eṭlu eṭlu šahû D PAP.SUKKAL šuburu awīlu šu ša mamma šarru sīru gallu kabtu mādu mādūtu lemnu masku zapru zēru (!HUL.GIG) masku ubbutu (!GUL.GUL) hepû

24

tail narrow good commission, inspection foundation what to run to save idem quay ---Sjöberg: nābutu ‘to run away’ to enter to take away prostitute spindle to overthrow lad idem pig Nin-šubur Assyria, Assyrian? man PERSONAL PRONOUN RELATIVE PRONOUN INDEFINITE PRONOUN king exalted great weighty much multitude bad, evil bad bad hatred bad to destroy to break

Elementary Sign-lists * Syllabary A Vocabulary .03 197 .01 .02 .03 198 .01 .02 199 .01 .02 .03 .04 [200 201 .01 .02 .03 .04 202 .01 .02 .03 a.01 203 .01 .02 .03 .04 .05 .06 .07 .08 .09 .10 .11 int(17) int(17) int(17) int(17) int(17) int(17) 204 .01 205 .01 .02 206 .01

ÁŠ

ÍL

ṣ̣ābit Éti ṣ̣abûtu edirtu (!ÁŠ-A-AN=UDRA) arāru (!ÁŠ BAL) našû tu

GABA DU 8 DU 8 MIN

ÁRAD ÌR

NÍTA

EZEN ŠÌR KEŠDA

EZENxBAD=BÀD IDIM=BE

sn 20 IDIM sn MURUB 4 sn GUB-BA sn ŠI-RU sn KA-SIGsn GÁN-NU ŠE ŠÈ=KU UMUŠ i-še /ÉŠ

NIM

É 4

naplusu (!IGI DU 8 ) paṭāru irtu mihru ] wardu D erra zikaru muru (!ANŠE.NÍTA) zamāru rakāsu isinnu dūru kabtu šelû I ekletu (!ZAL/ KUKKU 5 ) eṭūtu šamû ki-ir(!?sa)-at-tu 4 rù LUGAL (!be-lu) lawû (!NÍĜIN) pašīšu (!IŠIB) kušarikku nagbu i-dì-mu šišitu, šutaššu, qablu mazzāzu ukallimu šubtu, mušabu alku,bitātu še’u ṭēmu eblu šaqû

25

seizer of the house wish darkness to curse to raise house to behold to loosen breast copy slave, servant Erra male ---Sjöberg: ‘foal’ to sing to bind festival wall weighty blunt darkness idem heaven king to surround anointed (priest) bull-man underground water SN wrist, šasu Št inf (!DÉ), middle stand, post kullumu D Prt 3pl 28 dwelling, inhabitant alaku G Prt 3pl barley thought, plan rope high

Part 2 – Composite Edition .02 .03 .04 .05 .06 .07 207 .01 208 .01 .02 .03 209 .01 .02 .03 210 .01 .02 .03 211 .01 .02 .03 .04 212 .01 .02 .03 213 .01 .02 214 .01 .02 215 .01 .02 .03 .04 .05

ELAM

(ELAM) TUM 4

TÙM KIŠ

elû zubbu elamû harpu šibbu (!MIR) babālu tabālu kibratu D

NIR

ZAG

GAN HÉ HÉ

KAB GÙB

TIR

SUEN

kiššatu etellu (!NIR.ĜÁL) tukultu takaltu pāṭu emittu ahu hiṣ̣ābu (!GI.GAN) magāru (!HÉ.ÀM) karābu (!KU.NU) nuhšu (!HÉ.ĜÁL) kabtu šumelu ši-ig-ru qištu tu

TAKA 4 BARAG

É 4

ezēbu petû -

LUGAL

šubtu mušabu ĜIŠ ú GU.ZA wāšib BARAG

26

upper fly Elamite early snake to bring to take away (world) edges Sîn Kish empire, world nobleman confidence bag frontier shoulder side twig to consent to bless abundance heavy left ---Sjöberg: WSem ‘to run, flow’ forest house to abandon to open king dwelling inhabitant throne he that is seated on the -

Elementary Sign-lists * Remarks on Syllabary a and Syllabary A Palaeography 2.2. Remarks on Syllabary A Organization of the material: There is only one small fragment with Sa material (538 E). This fragment was listed in Emar VI 4 as a SaP text but it shows only single, unpaired entries without any characteristically palaeographic features and may be considered as the sole attested, non-palaeographic and unilingual Sa text in Emar. No composite edition is given because Sa only gives a list of signs, offering exclusively graphic information. 2.3. Remarks on Syllabary A Palaeography Organization of the material: There are two tablets (T1-2) and a number of fragments. On both tablets the regular SaV entries are followed by two other exercises, which have been named Syllabary A Appendix 1 (SaA1) and Syllabary A Appendix 2 (SaA2). Of the fragments, D preserves parts of SaA2 but is incompatible with T1-2, which means that a third tablet with SaP material must have existed. The other fragments lack physical joins and are all very small, carrying isolated palaeographic signs only - they have not been used for the composite edition. Some of these smaller fragments may in fact have text that belongs to colophons, in which signs are often executed in palaeographic form, also if they conclude SaP exercise. No composite edition is given because SaP only gives a list of signs and their palaeographic equivalents, offering exclusively graphic information.

27

Part 2 – Composite Edition 2.4. Syllabary A Appendix 1 Organization of the material: There are no separate tablets with the text of SaA1: the SaA1 exercise follows after the regular sequence of Sa key signs in the SaP and SaV texts. After the SaP texts it is found in unilingual format and after the SaV texts the SaA1 text is found in bilingual format (i.e. in the former the ‘Akkadian’ column is omitted). In SaV T2 the text is broken after the first entries of SaA1 (after entry 006 in line 53) and probably this tablet did not have space for the whole exercise (column X may have fitted the entries up to approximately PST 030). PST

LOGOGRAMS

and other spellings

Akkadian (bracketed: grammatical analysis)

Interpretation

001 002 003 004 005 006 (007) 29 (008) (009) (010) (... 011 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019 020 021 022 023a 023b 024 025 30 028a 028b 029 030 031 032 033 034

i-ṣ̣ur i-din i-din-nam I-SAR (iMÚ) I-BI<-LU> I-IG(iĜÁL) [...] [...] [...] [...] ... I-KU i-ku-un-ka na-ra-am NA-NI-NI(NA-ì-lí) NA-KAD 4 NA-KAD na-ši na-ṣị -ir NA-PA-IR ta-ra-am pa-ni tap-pí IGI-DU IGI-DU PA-LU(SIPAD) su PA-LU(suSIPAD) KASKAL-KUR(BALIHA) KASKAL-KUR(ILLAT) KASKAL-KUR-TI KASKAL-KUR-ZU GA-GA pu-ú tu-qa-a’?-[u 31 ] li-bur

iṣ̣sụ r (naṣạ̄ ru G Prt) iddinam (nadānu G Prt+vent) iddinamma (idem+encl) warqu 32 pūšu ibašši (bašû G Prs) [x]-pa-ak-ku [x]-pa-du-tu 4 [x]-ra-am-mu [xx]-am-mu ... [] [] (kânu G Prt+pron.sf) [] (narāmu st.c) [] [] [] [] (našû G Ptc st.c) [] (naṣ̣āru G Ptc st.c) [] [] (tarāmu st.c) [] (pānu st.c) [] (tappû st.c) [] (ašarēdu) [] rē’û rē’ûtu Balih tillatu ti-il<-la>-tu-IŠ 33 tillatka miqittu 34 pû [] (qu’’û D Prs) (bâru G Prec)

he preserved he gave idem green his utterance he shall be

28

...) he established you beloved man of god herdsman he that lifts protector beloved face friend first; foremost idem shepherd shepherding Balih assistance your assistance fall mouth she shall wait (may he reveal)

Elementary Sign-lists * Syllabary A Appendices

035

li-ba-a

036 037 038 039a 039b 040 041 042 043 044 045 046 047 048 049

ṭà-ab

ṭà-ab A-A a-bi a-hi a-hi a-lì a-mur lu-mur ša-ši-at ša-ši-ERIM(!tú) ši-ma-at ri-im ri-iš D é-a D iš 8 -tár

littamar (amāru Gt Prec) (bâ’u G Prec) libūram (bâru G Prec) ṭāb (ṭâbu G Stat) abu abi (abu + PRON. SUFFIX) ahi (ahu + PRON. SUFFIX) ahi ali amur (amāru G Prt) lumur (amāru G Prec) šašu (PERSONAL PRONOUN) pūru šimat (šimtu st.c) e-re-mu (!râmu III G Stat) 35 erēšu (!riašu G Stat) Ea Ištar

may he behold (may he come) may he reveal he/it is good (grand)father my father my brother idem where (is)? I saw may I see he destiny idem gift (of) joy (of) Ea Ishtar

2.5. Remarks on Syllabary A Appendix 2 Organization of the material: There are no separate tablets with the text of SaA2: SaA2 follows after the regular sequence of Sa key signs and SaA1 on SaP tablets 1 and 2. No composite edition is given because SaA2 only gives a list of signs and their palaeographic equivalents, offering exclusively graphic information.

29

Part 2 – Composite Edition THEMATIC LISTS 3. Weidner God List Organization of the material: There is only one tablet (T1) and no composite edition is needed but the text is given here to provide it with an interpretation. References: Note that there does not exist a ‘canonical’ 1st Millennium version of G and that this series has not been edited in MSL. The first column gives the standard reference, viz. the composite text reconstructed by Weidner (Weidner, ‘Götterlisten’ 9-18 and 71-81). The second reference column gives the parallel Ugarit composite text reconstructed by Nougayrol (Nougayrol, ‘Vocabulaires’, 210-24 and 246-9). D

determinatives omitted in the composite edition

PST 36

LOGOGRAMS :

Akkadian

Interpretation (and commentary from

Weidner Ugarit

‘OB’ Weidner list: = identification with ; x married to ; < child of)

... 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 013 ... 024 ... 027 029 030 031 032 ... 057 058 059 060

(+2) [EN].LÍL(EN-KID) [NIN].LÍL(NIN-KID) NUSKU(PA-TÚG) : šul-mu [SA.DÀR.NUN].NA GIBIL 6 (NE-GI) : gír-ru [LI 9 ].SI 4 (NE-SU 4 ) [NIN.SIKIL].LÁ D 37 NANNA(ŠEŠ-KI) : 40 D SUEN(EN-ZU) : 30 [NIN].GAL : ni-ik-kal (+6) [NA.NA.A : na]-na-ia (+2) [LÚ.LÀL] : lu-la-ah-hu ŠARA(BARAG) TIŠPAK(MÚŠ) [NIN.A].ZU [NIN].GÌRIM(NIN-A-HA-TAR-DU) (+?) EN.[KI] É.[A] DAM.GAL.[NUN.NA] DAM.KI.[NA]

... Enlil (‘lord wind’) Ninlil (‘lady wind’ x Enlil) Nusku (minister of Enlil) Sadarnuna (x Nusku) Girru (‘fire’) Lisi Ninsikilla (x Lisi) Sîn (moon god) idem Ningal (‘great lady’ x Sîn) ... Nanaya ... (=La-tarak) Shara (< Marduk) Tishpak Ninazu (‘lord healer’) ... Ea (god of the Apsû) idem Damkina (x Ea) idem

30

... I03 I04 I05 I06 I07 I08 I09 I10 I11 I12 ... I20 ... I23 I25 II01 II02 II02a ... II23 II24 II25 II26

... 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 013 ... 021 ... 024 026 027 028 029 ... 053 054 055 056

Thematic Lists * Weidner god List 061 062 063 064 065 066 067 068 069 070 071 072 073 074 077 078 079 080 081 082 083 084 ... 089 090 091 092 093 094 095 096 097 098 099 100 ... 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 120 ... 135

[ARA](ŠA) [ÍD] ÍD.LÚ.[RU.GÚ] KI.[SAG 9 ] ASAL.LÚ.HI AMAR.UTU ṢAR.BAR(!PA).NI.TUM AK NA.BI.UM TAŠ.ME.TUM MA.MÉ.E A.RA.AH.TUM MI.UŠ.ŠÁR D ? IŠTARAN(KA-DI) : U-L◦UH DI.KUD KUD NIRAH(MUŠ) I.ŠAR.MA.TI.SU I.ŠAR.KI.DI.SU I.ŠAR.NE.RI.SU I.ŠAR.A.RI.SU I.ŠAR.PÀD.DA

(+3?) [MA].MI [MA].MA [MA].LIK [UR.MA].ŠUM [LA].AZ [ŠU.BU].LA [I].ŠUM [NIN].MUG [NIN].MAŠ HAR PA LUGAL

(+?) [ŠÍR].x.GI 4 [PA 4 ].NI 9 .ĜAR.RA (PAB-U-UD-KID-NÍG-RA) ŠÁKKAN(GÌR) : [...] LUGAL.ĜÍR.RA AL(!MÈŠ).LAM.MA.TA.[È.A] ĜIŠ LUGAL. ŠINIG(GAD-NAGA) ĜIŠ LUGAL. ÁSAL(A-TU-GAB-LIŠ) ĜIŠ LUGAL. [ÙR.RA] ĜIŠ LUGAL.[ NIMBAR] SI.MU.[UT] RA.[QÁ.DU] (+?) TU.[TU]

Usmû (minister to Ea) River God divine River Ordeal (‘sweet place’ =Damkina) (=Marduk) Marduk (‘calf of Shamash’) Sarpanitu (x Marduk) Nabû (scribe god) idem Tashmetu (x Nabû) Mamu (dream god) a Sutian goddess idem Ishtaran (‘judgment’ =Mandanu) (idem) Nirah (snake god) (=Nergal) (=Nergal) (=Nergal) (=Nergal) (=Nergal) ... Mami (x Nergal) Mama (‘mother’) (‘counsellor’ =Nergal) (=Zababa) (=Bau) (=Nergal) (=Nergal) (=Meme) (=Shamash) Bacal; Adad (storm god) ... (‘cella elder’) Sumugan (wildlife god) (‘dagger king’) (‘tamarisk king’) (‘poplar king’) (‘beam king’) (‘date palm king’) … (=Marduk)

31

II26a II27 II27a II28 II29 III01 III02 III03a III03 III04 III05 III06 III07 III08 III09a III09b III10 III11 III12 III13 III14 III14a ... III18 III19 III20 III21 III22 III23 III24 III25 III26 III27 III28 III29 ... ? IV09a

057 058 058a 059 060 061 062 063 064 065 066 067 068 069-70 idem 071 071a 072 073 074 075 ... 079 080 081 082 083 084 085 ? ? ? ? ? ... 099 100

IV10 IV11 IV12 IV13 IV13a IV14 IV15 IV16 ... IV28b

101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 ... 122

Part 2 – Composite Edition 137 138 ... 144 145 146 147 148

TU.BA.[KA]

149 150 151 152 153 ... 154 155 ... 173 174 175 176 ... 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 ... 248 249 ...

GU.LA.ZID.[DA] SU.KUR.RU KUR.DIN.NAM NIN.UD-KID(!NÌĜIN).[ĜAR.RA] DA.[GAN]

NAGAR (+?) KAL.[LAP] ŠUL.[GI] ŠUL.PA.[È.A] AB.[Ú] GU.LA

(+1) DA.[MU] .ŠEN.[ŠEN] (+?) NIN.[KAR.RA.AK] PA.BIL.[SAĜ] HENDUR.SAĜ(PA-SAG) KUG.[...] (+?) GAZ.[BA.BA] A.[RI.NI.TUM] NIN.[KIN.GAL] TA.[ŠI.LA] BU.[LA.LA] [A.MA.NU.UM] ŠÁH.[HA.AŠ] (+?) IM.[DU.DU] É.GUR.[RI.TUM] ...

(=Ishtar) (=Ishtar) … Messenger God 38 (divine) Shulgi (‘appearing youth’) (aspect of) Tammuz Gula (‘great’) (healing goddess)

(‘lady stillbirth’) Adad (storm god) ... Damu (‘blood’ < Gula) ... (aspect of) Gula Pabilsag (< Enlil) (=Ishum) (=Nisaba) ... (‘bow’) 39

... ...

32

IV29 IV30 ... V05 V06 V07 V08 V09

123 124 ... 129 130 131 132 133

? ? ? ? V31-a ... ? ? ... ? ? V24 V26 ... ? VII17 ? ? VII20 VII21 ? ... ? ? ...

134 135 136 137 138 ... 139 140 ... 155 156 157 158 ... 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 ... 248 249 ...

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Introductory Remarks 4. HAR(UR 5 ).RA=hubullu Organization of the material: All relevant information concerning the reconstruction of tablets and the interrelation of fragments, specified per division, can be found in the Inventory of Hh texts which precedes the text edition. For a few divisions, however, where reconstruction of the composite text is particularly problematic, some additional remarks precede the relevant composite version below. Edition of multi-version divisions: Note that in a certain divisions (3, 7-9 and 16) there are two versions of the text, in which both inventory and sequence of entries differ from each other significantly. These versions are related to uni- and bilingual content (referred to as version A and B respectively) and mostly they are presented in separate composite editions. Exceptionally, division 9 is presented in a joint composite text (cf. the remarks preceding the composite text). EST numbers in multi-version divisions: In the composite edition of these divisions the unilingual version is provided with regular EST numbers (e.g. 7a001). The bilingual version, however, essentially uses the EST numbers of the unilingual text and only adds extra bilingual EST numbers (e.g. 7b001) for those entries that are not attested in the unilingual text. These extra bilingual EST numbers are marked with a “+” to emphasize the fact that the bilingual texts, in effect, consist of a (somewhat modified) framework of unilingual entries to which (often sizeable) interpolations are added. Exceptionally, version B of division 16 does not use the unilingual EST numbers (cf. the remarks preceding the composite text). References: All divisions are provided with standard references to the MSL canonical text, even if the reconstruction found there is lacking in coherence. The canonical references are given in the first reference column. In most divisions for which MSL gives a separate edition of the RS Forerunner (only provided from volume VIII onwards), references to these RS editions are also provided: they are added in the second reference column. Where necessary, additional notes on complications regarding the MSL reference system are given in remarks preceding the divisions to which they apply. Note that, for convenient reference, an edition concordance between the edition of the Emar material offered here and the edition of the canonical material offered in MSL is provided in Appendix 2. In addition to the references to MSL, references to the Veldhuis edition of the OB Nippur ĜIŠ-list (with its Standard Nippur Text numbers) are included for divisions 3-4: they are found in the second reference column.

33

Part 2 – Composite Edition EST

LOGOGRAMS and

glosses

Akkadian

Interpretation

[] (hubullu)

interest-bearing loan

1001

[] (hubuttatu)

interest-free loan

1002

[] (qiptu)

security; pledge

1003

[] (šupiltu)

exchange

1004

[] (qištu)

gift

1005

[] (iqīssu)

he gave to him

1006

[] (išruk)

he dedicated to him

1007

[] (īpuš)

he built; made

1008

[] (ihri)

he excavated

1009

[] (issuh)

he removed

1010

[] (ušepiš)

he had made for him

1011

[] (gimillu)

favour

1012

References

Division 1 (canonical I) 40 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012a 1012b 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1021a 1021b 1021c 1021d 1021e 1021f 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039

UR 5 .RA ŠE(!EŠ).DÉ.A ŠU.LÁ ŠE(!ŠU).BAL NÍĜ.BA IN.NA.AN.BA A MU.UN.NA.RU BA.AN.DÙ BA.AN.BAL BA.AN.DU 8 MU.UN.NA.DÍM ŠU ŠU ŠU ĜAR ŠU.ĜAR GI ŠU.ĜAR.RA ŠU NÍĜ.ĜÁL.LA ŠU NAM.TIL.LA ŠU DIRIG ŠU ZID ZID KAR.RA HA.LA HA.LA.ĜU 10 HA.LA.ZU HA.LA.A.NI HA.LA.ME HA.LA.ZU.NE.NE HA.LA.BI.NE.NE ĜIŠ ŠUB.BA ŠE.BA Ì.BA SIKI.BA TÚG.BA ŠAG 4 .ĜÁL ŠAG 4 .ĜAR MUR.GÚ MUR.GUD IGI.SÁ IGI.KÁR IGI.DU 8 .A SÁ.DUG 4 KAŠ.DÉ.A NÍĜ.DÉ.A NÍĜ.MÍ.ÚS.SÁ NÍG.ŠU.TAK 4 .MA NÍĜ.MU.PÀD.DA

[]

-

gamālu

to do a favour

gimillu turru

to return a favour

gimillu

favour

mešru

grant of property

gimilli balāṭi

gift of life

usatu

1013 1014 1015 1018 1019 1016

gimilli napulti

pardon

napulti eṭēru

to take life

zittu

share

-

my ahare

-

your (SG) -

-

his -

-

our -

-

your (PL) -

-

their share of it

išqutu

allotment

1021

epru

barley ration

1022

piššetu

oil -

1023

lubušu

wool -

1024

nalbašu

cloth –

1025

ukullu

sustenance

1026

bubūtu

hunger

1027

imru

fodder

-

šihṭu

foddersack

1028

igisû

annual tax

1030

išartu

sacred gift

1031

tamurtu

audience gift

1032

šandukku

(regular) offering

1033

qerītu

banquet

1035

biblu

bride price

1036

terhatu

marriage gift

1037

šubultu

gift

1039

zakar šumi

invoking a name

1040

34

1020 -

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 1 (canonical tablet I) 1040 1041 1041a 1041b 1042 … 1044

KUG.B.PAD.DU KI.LÁ KI.LÁ.BI KI.LÁ.BI.NE.NE MÁŠ

(+1/2) MÁŠ.BI.ŠÈ IN.ĜAR D

1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061

MÁŠ UTU D MÁŠ UTU GI.NA MÁŠ GI.NA MÁŠ GI.NA DAH.E(!HÉ)<.DAM> MÁŠ.BI MÁŠ.BI SAĜ.BA MÁŠ ĜÁ.ĜÁ.DAM MÁŠ DAH.E.DAM MÁŠ ŠÚM.MU.DAM MÁŠ GUR.RU.DAM MÁŠ NU.ME<<.ME>>(.A) MÁŠ AN.TUKU MÁŠ NU.AN.TUKU KI MÁŠ IRI .GIN 7 MÁŠ BA.RA.DAL(!BAL) MÁŠ MÁŠ MÁŠ.BI MÁŠ TUKU

1062a 1062b 1062c 1062d 1062e 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067a 1067b 1067c 1068 1069a 1069b 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075a 1075b 1075c 1076a

NU.TUKU AN.TUKU NU.AN.TUKU BA.AN.TUKU NU.BA.AN.TUKU SAĜ.DU É.GI.A DAG.GI 4 .A UGULA DAG.GI 4 .A NÍĜ.ĜÁL.LA NÍĜ.ĜÁL.LA NÍĜ.ĜÁL.LA NÍĜ.KUD.DA DAM DAM DAM.DAM DAM.GURUŠ DAM.LÚ DAM.BÀNDA DAM.KASKAL DAM.TAB.BA NIN NIN ÉGIR(NIN) DUMU.MÍ

šibirtu

lump of silver

1043

šuqultu

weight

1045

šuqultišu

its weight

1046

šuqultišunu

their weight

1047

ṣ̣ibtu

interest

1048

…

…

…

[]

he determined its interest

1051

[] (ṣibat Šamši)

interest of Šamaš

1052

[] (- kittu)

righteous; just interest

1053

[] (- kittu)

fixed interest

1054

[] (- uṣ̣ṣab)

fixed interest he shall add

1055

[] (ṣị batšu)

its interest

1049

[]

its interest; its capital

-

[] (ṣị btu iššakkan)

interest to be determined

1056

[] (- uṣ̣ṣab)

- he shall add

1057

[] (- inaddin)

- he shall give

1058

[] (- uttar)

- shall be returned

1059

[] (ša lā ṣ̣ibtu)

interest-free

1060

[] (ṣị bta išu)

interest it bears

1061

[] (- lā -)

interest it does not bear

1062

[] (- kima ali)

interest city-rated

1065

[] (- ittabalkit)

the interest(-rate) has changed

1066

[] (ṣị bat ṣ̣ibti)

interest on interest

1067

[]

its interest (bears) interest

1068

[] (ul īšu)

to have

1071

[] (īšu)

not to have

1072

[] (ul īšu)

idem

1073

[] (īšu)

idem

1074

[] (ul īšu)

idem

1075

[] (qaqqadu)

head

1076

[] (kallatu)

bride; daughter-in-law

1078

[] (bābtu)

city quarter

1079

[] (ākil bābti)

overseer of a city quarter

1080

[] (būšu)

possessions

1082

[] (bāšitu)

property

1083

[] (maršitu)

livestock

1084

[] (miksu)

revenue; produce-tax

1085

[]

spouse

1089

[] (aššat muti)

wife of a husband

-

[] (- eṭli)

spouse of a young man

1090

[] (- awīli)

spouse of an awilu

1091

[] (še’itu)

junior wife

1092

[]

journey mistress

1093

[] (tappatu, ṣẹ rretu)

lady companion

1094-5

[] (ahātu)

sister

1096

[] (bēltu)

lady; mistress

1097

[] (rubātu)

princess

1098

[] (mārtu)

daughter

1099

(ana ṣ̣ibtišu iškun)

(ṣ̣ibassu ṣ̣ibassu)

35

Part 2 – Composite Edition 1076b 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1081a 1082 1083 1083a 1083b 1083c 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1089a 1089b (… 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 … 1097a 1097b 1097c 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 … 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108a 1108b 1108c 1108d 1108e 1108f 1108g

IBILA(DUMU-UŠ) NITA MUNUS DUMU.GABA DUMU.MÍ.GABA DUMU DUMU.A.NI DUMU.MÍ.A.NI ŠEŠ ŠEŠ GAL ŠEŠ BÀNDA ŠEŠ.A.NI NIN.A.NI AD.A.NI AMA.A.NI LUGAL.A.NI NIN.A.NI IM.RI.A IM.RI.A.GU(!ĜU 10 ) IM.RI.A.[ZU]

declination 1089 in fr I only KI NAM SAĜ.ÌR SAĜ.GÉME SAĜ.GÉME.ÌR IGI ŠU BA.AN.TI

(+1?) ŠU BA.AN.TÈĜ.[ĜE 26 .E.MEŠ] ŠU BA.AB.TÈĜ.[ĜE 26 ] ŠU BA.AB.TÈĜ.[ĜE 26 .E.MEŠ] [ŠU.TI] [ŠU.TI.A.NI ŠU BA.AN].TI [ŠE GUR 10 (KIN)] KUD [ŠE GUR 10 ] KUD.ŠÈ [UD ŠE GUR 10 ] KUD [EGIR ŠE GUR 10 KUD]

(+?) MU.[UN.KUR 9 EBUR.ŠÈ] BURU 14 .ŠÈ [BA.RA.ÈD.DÈ] BURU 14 [...] 42 MU.UN.DU [ŠE] KI [x] KI [x] KI [x] KI [x] KI A x KISLAH(KI-UD) KISLAH

[] (aplu)

male heir

1100

[]

male

-

[]

female

-

[]

breast-fed child, male

1101

[]

breast-fed child, female

1102

[] (māru)

son

1103

[] (mārušu)

his son

1105

[] (mārassu)

his daughter

1106

ahu

brother

1107

[]

elder brother

1108

[] (ahu ṣ̣ehru)

younger brother

1110

ahišu

his brother

1111

ahassu

his sister

1112

[] (abušu)

his father

1113

[] (ummašu)

his mother

1114

[] (bēlšu)

his king

1115

[] (bēlessu)

his lady

1116

kimtu

clan; family

1117-20

MIN-ia

my -

-

[]

your (sg) -

-

…

…

…

[] (various)

with; place; earth

1120-3

[] (various)

in; fate

1123a-6

[] (wardu)

servant; slave

1129

[] (amtu)

servant; slave-girl

1130

[] (aštapīru)

retainer; domestic servant

1132

[] (īnu)

eye

1134

[] (imtahhar)

he has received

1138

…

…

…

[] (ileqqū)

they will accept

1140

[] (ilqe)

he has accepted

1141

[] (ileqqū)

they will accept

1143

melqetu

loan

1144-6

milqitišu ilqe

he has accepted his loan

1147

eṣ̣ēdu

barley harvest

1148

ana eṣẹ̄ di

until the -

1149

umu eṣ̣ēdi

at the time of the -

1150

warkat eṣ̣ēdi

after the -

1151

…

…

…

[] (ana šuburti eburi)

until the in-gathering of the harvest

1156

[] (ina eburi illi)

in the harvest he shall lose

1159

)

1157-8?

[] [] (šurbut še’i)

in-gathering of barley

1161

[]

-

[]

-

[]

-

[]

-

[]

-

[] (kislahhu) [] (maškanu)

36

threshing floor

1163a 1164

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 1 (canonical tablet I) 1108h KISLAH 1108i KISLAH 1108j KISLAH 1108k KISLAH 1109a KANKAL(KI-KAL) 1109b KANKAL 1109c KANKAL 1109d KANKAL 1109e KANKAL 1109f KANKAL 1110 UD 1110a UD ½ KAM 1110b UD 1 KAM 1110c UD 2 KAM 1110d UD 3 KAM 1110e UD 4 KAM 1110f UD 5 KAM 1110g UD 6 KAM 1110h UD 7 KAM 1110i UD 8 KAM 1110j UD 9 KAM 1110k UD 10 KAM 1110l UD 15 KAM 1110m UD 20 KAM 1110n UD 25 KAM 1110o UD 30 KAM 1110p UD NÚ <> 1110q UD HUL.A … (+?) 1111 ITI 1111a ITI.ŠÈ 1111b SAĜ ITI.ŠÈ 1111c EGIR ITI.ŠÈ 1111d UD KAŠ 4 .ŠÈ 1111e SAĜ ITI.SAKAR 1111f ZAG MU 1111g ITI BÁR.ZAG.ĜAR 1111h ITI GUD.SI.SÁ 1111i ITI SIG 4 .A 1111j ITI ŠU.NUMUN.A 1111k ITI NE.NE 1111l ITI KIN.DINANNA 1111m ITI APIN DU 8 /GABA.A 43 1111n ITI GAN.GAN.NE 1111o ITI AB.È 1111p ITI ZÍZ.A 1111q ITI ŠE.GUR 10 .KUD 1111r ITI DIRIG.GA 1112

KILÚ-KAL 44 (=ULUDIN).BI.DA

[] (nidûtu)

flat surface

1165

[] (teriqtu)

1166

[] (turbalu)

1167

[]

-

[] teriqtu

1170

[] (turbalu)

1171

[] (kankallu)

1172

apītu

bare ground

1173

ašartu

building plot

1174

dannatu

hard ground

1175

ūmu

day

1176

mišil umi

half day

1177

umakkal

1178

šina ūmu

1179

[] (šelašti -)

1180

[] (erbetti -)

1181

[] (hamišti -)

1182

[] (šeššit -)

1183

[] (sebti -)

1184

[] (samanti -)

1185

[] (tilti -)

1186

[] (ešarti -)

1187

[] (šapattu -)

half month’s day

1188

[] (ešru -)

1190

[] (warhi mithur)

1191 1192

[] (šelaša ūmu) [] (bubbulu)

new moon’s day (‘of lying-down’)

1193

[] (ūmu lemnu)

evil day

1194

…

…

…

45[] (warhu)

moon; month

1211

[] (ana warhi)

within a month

1212

[] (ana reš -)

until the beginning of the month

1214

[] (ana warkat -)

until the end of the month

1215

[] (ūmu lismu)

until the ‘running day’

1216

[] (reš warhi)

beginning of the month

1218

[] (reš šatti)

new year

1220

[] (nisannu)

March/April

1221

[] (ayaru)

April/May

1222

[] (simanu)

May/June

1223

[] (du’ūzu)

June/July

1224

[] (abu)

July/August

1225

[] (ulūlu)

August/September

1226

[] (arahsamna)

October/November

1228

[] (kislīmu)

November/December

1229

[] (ṭebētu)

December/January

1230

[] (šabaṭu)

January/February

1231

[] (addaru)

February/March

1232

[] (warhu watru

intercalary month

1233

conform its summons

1236

ša addaru) [] (ana ittišu)

37

Part 2 – Composite Edition 1235

1113

KI ĜIZKIM.BI.DA

[] idem

1114a 1114b 1114c 1115a 1115b 1115c 1116a 1116b 1116c 1117a 1117b 1118a 1118b 1119a 1119b 1120a 1120a 1121a 1121b 1122a 1122b 1122c 1122d 1122e 1122f 1122g 1123a 1123b 1124 1125 1125a 1125b 1126 1126a 1126b 1128a 1128b 1128c 1128d 1129 1130 1131a 1131b 1132a 1132b 1133 1134 1135

BA.RA.È.A BA.RA.ÈD(!È).A.E BA.RA.ÈD.A.DÉ Ì.LÁ Ì.LÁ.E Ì.LÁ.E.MEŠ IN.NA.AN.LÁ IN.NA.AN.LÁ.E IN.NA.AN.LÁ.E.MEŠ Ì.ÁĜ.ĜÁ Ì.ÁĜ.ĜÁ.E.MEŠ ŠE Ì.ÁĜ.ĜÁ ŠE NU.Ì.ÁĜ.ĜÁ KUG.B Ì.LÁ.E KUG.B NU.Ì.LÁ.E.MEŠ ŠÚM.MU.DAM ŠÚM.MU.DAM.E.MEŠ GUR.RU.DAM GUR.RU.DAM.E.MEŠ UGU UGU [...] UGU [...] UGU [...] UGU [...] UGU.ZU.NE.NE UGU.BI.NE.NE UGU.BI AN[.TUKU] UGU.BI NU.AN[.TUKU] TUKUM<.BI> KUG.B NAM.TAB.BA KUG.B NAM.TAB.BA.NI [KUG.B] NAM.TAB.BA.NE.[NE] NAM.TAB.BA NAM.TAB.BA.(A.)NI NAM.TAB.BA.(NI.)NE.NE BA.TA.BAL BA.TA.BAL.E.MEŠ BA.RA.(AB.)BAL(.LÁ) BA.RA.(AB.)BAL.E.MEŠ KUG.B ù MÁŠ.BI ŠE u MÁŠ.BI ÍB.GI.GI ÍB.GI.GI.E.MEŠ [BA.ÍB.GI.]GI [BA.ÍB.GI.GI].E.MEŠ KI LÚ.SILIM.MA.TA ù LÚ.SILIM.GI.NA.TA KUG.B.BI ŠU BA.AB.TEĜ 4

[] (ūṣ̣i)

he has moved out

1237

[] (ittaṣ̣ṣi)

he shall move out

1238

[] (utelli)

he shall go up

1240

[] (išqul)

he has weighted

1241

[] (išaqqal)

he shall weight

1242

[] (išaqqalū)

they shall weight

1243

[] (išqul)

he has weighted for him

1244

[] (išaqqal)

he shall weight for him

1245

[] (išaqqalū)

they shall weight for him

1246

idem; LITERALLY: ‘upon its mark; omen’

[] (imdud)

he has measured

1247

[] (imaddadū)

they shall measure

1249

[] (še’i imdud)

the barley he has measured

1250

[] (- ul -)

- not -

1253

[] (kaspu išaqqal)

the silver he shall weight

1255

[] (- ul -)

the silver they shall not weight

1256-7

[] (iddin)

he has given

1258

[] (inaddinū)

they shall give

1260

[] (utīr)

he has returned

1262

[] (utārū)

they shall return

1264

[] (eli)

upon

1266

[]

1267-70

[]

idem

[]

idem idem

[] [] (elikunu)

upon you (PL)

1272

[] (elišunu)

upon them

1271

[] (elišu īši)

he has upon him

1273

[] (- ul -)

he does not have upon it

1274

[] (šumma)

when; if

1275

[] (kasap tappî)

silver of a partnership

1277

[] (- tappîšu)

- of his partnership

1278

[] (- tappîšunu)

- of their partnership

1279

[] (tappî)

partner

1280 47

[] (tappîšu)

his -

1281

tappîšunu

their -

1282

-

he has turned out

-

-

they shall turn out

-

ittabalkit

he has turned over

1283

ittabalkittu

they shall turn over

1285

kaspu u ṣ̣ibassu

its silver and its interest

1286

46 še’u u ṣ̣ibassu

barley and its interest

1287

ippal

he shall return (pay) it (back)

1288

ippalū

they –

1290

ittanappal

it shall be paid for

1291

ittanappalū

they -

1293

[] (itti šalmi

from all the debtors

1294

[] (- u kini)

and from all guarantors

1295

[] (kasapšu ileqqi)

he has taken its silver

1296

38

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 1 (canonical tablet I) 1136 1136a 1136b 1137 1138a 1138b 1139 1140a 1140b … 1141 1142 1142a 1143 1143a 1143b 1143c 1144 1145 1145a 1146 1146a 1146b 1147 1148a 1148b 1148c 1148d 1148e 1149 1150 1151 1152

SÁM SÁM.BI SÁM.BI.ŠÈ SÁM.BI.ŠÈ IN.ĜAR SÁM TIL.LA SÁM NU.TIL.LA EGIR SÁM TIL.LA IN.ŠI.SA 10 IN.ŠI.SA 10 .E.MEŠ

(+?)

INIM NU.ĜÁ.ĜÁ.A MU LUGAL IN.PÀD TÉŠ.BI MU LUGAL IN.PÀD UM TÚM MU.UN.TÚM Ì.[TÚM] AN.[TÚM] AN.TI.BAL KI.BI.ĜAR.RA KI.BI.ĜAR.RA.BI.ŠÈ GABA.RI.A GABA.RI.A.BI GABA.RI.A.BI.NE.NE ŠU.RI.ÀM IGI 3 ĜÁL.ÀM IGI 4 ĜÁL.ÀM IGI 5 ĜÁL.ÀM IGI 6 ĜÁL.ÀM IGI 10 ĜÁL.ÀM

2/3 2/3

šīmu

price

1297

šīmšu

its price

1298

[] (ana šīmišu)

as its price

1299

[] (- iškun)

as its price he has determined

1300

[] (šīmu gamru)

total price

1301

[] (- lā -)

incomplete price

1302

[](ana warkat šīmišu)

rest of the price

1304

[] (išâm)

he shall pay for him

1305

[] (išâmū)

they shall pay for him

1307

…

…

…

[] (ana lā ragāmi)

not to lay a claim

1311

[] (nīš šarri itmî)

the oath of the king he swore

1312

[] (nīš šarrišunu

their king’s oath

1313-4

ištēniš izkurū)

together they have pronounced

[] (ūbilam)

he took away

1315

[] idem

he has taken away

1316

[] idem

1317

[] idem

1318

[]

sign

-

[] (pihatu)

exchange object; pledge

1321

[]

as his pledge

-

[] (mehru)

equivalent

1325

[]

its -

-

[]

their -

-

[] (mišlānū)

half

1328

[] (šalšatu)

third

1329

[] (ribatu)

1330

[] (hanšatu)

1331

[]

-

[] (ešritu)

1332

[] (šinipatu)

1334

ŠEŠ ŠEŠ.GIN 7 LÚ LÚ.GIN 7 NÍĜ.NAM.A.NA Ì.ĜÁL.LA

[] (ahu kima ahi)

equally (‘brother like brother’)

1335

[] (awīlu kima awīli)

equally (‘man like man’)

1336

[]

whatever there is

1337

1153a 1153b 1153c 1154a 1154b 1154c 1155 1156

Ì.BA Ì.BA.E Ì.BA.E.MEŠ Ì.GU 7 .A Ì.GU 7 .A.E Ì.GU 7 .A.E.MEŠ KUG.B.TA GUB.BA KUG.B.TA DU 8 .A

[] (izūz)

he has divided

1339

[] (izâz)

he shall divide

1340

[] (izâzū)

they shall divide

1341

[] (īkul)

he has consumed

1342

[] (ikkal)

he shall consume

1343

[] (ikkalū)

they shall consume

1344

[] (kasap mazzāzzi)

in silver pledged

1345

[] (kasap mazzāzzi

in silver redeemed

1346

1156a 1156b 1157a

KUG.B.TA DU 8 .A.NI KUG.B.TA DU 8 .A.NE.NE MÁŠ KUG.B.BI.ŠÈ AL.GUB

[] (- ipṭirišu)

in silver his redemption

1347

[] (- ipṭirišunu)

in silver their redemption

1348

[] (ṣị bat kaspišu

for the interest of its silver it stands

1349

1157b 1158a

MÁŠ KUG.B.BI.ŠE NU.AL.GUB ÍB.TA.A.AN.GUB.BA

[] (- ul -)

- not -

1350

ušziz

he has vouched for it

1351

(mimma mala bašû)

ipṭiri)

izzaz)

39

Part 2 – Composite Edition 1158b 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163a 1163b 1164 1165 1166 1167 41 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1174a 1175a 1175b 1176 1177

A.MU.UN.NA.A.AN.GUB.BA ŠI.BA.(AB.)DU 8 .E.MEŠ ÍB.SI.SÁ.E.MEŠ ÍB.DIRIG.GA.E.MEŠ HÉ.DIRIG NAM.BAL.LÁ BA.TUKU NU.BA.TUKU NAM.DAM.ŠÈ BA.TUKU NINDA.BI Ì.GU 7 .E TUG.BI AL.MU 4 .MU 4 ŠE <Ì.>ÀR.[RA ] BA.ÚŠ BA.(AN.)TAK 4 .A UGU/Ú.ĜU 10 .UŠ BA.AN.DÉ ĜÁ.LA BA.AN.DAG UD ĜÁ.LA BA.AN.DAG UD 1.KAM BÁN ŠE.TA.ÀM Á.BI Ì.ÁĜ.E UD KUG.B MU.UN.DE 6 UD KUG.B Á.BI MU.UN.DE 6 GÉME.A.NI BA.TÚM ÌR.A.NI BA.TÚM(.MU) Á.BI ÍB.SI.SÁ IN.NA.AN.ŠÚM

[] (ul -)

he has not vouched for him

1352

[] (ul uptaṭṭar)

they shall not redeem it

1353

[] (umallū)

they shall fulfil it

1355

[] (utarrū)

they shall exceed it

1356

litirma ai imṭi

let it exceed (but) not fall short

1357

īhuz

he has taken (in marriage)

1358

ul īhuz

he has not taken

1359

ana aššatišu īhuz

in betrothal he has taken

1360

akalšu ikkal

his food she shall eat

1361

ṣ̣ubāssu ilabbiš

his cloth she shall wear

1362

iṭṭen

barley shall be ground

1363

imṭut ihtaliq

he has died (or) got lost

1364

ittabit

he has disappeared

1365

kī itteparku

if he has interrupted (work)

1366

ūmu kī itteparku

when he has interrupted (work)

1367

ūmusata sūta še’i

each day 1 sutu barley

1368

idišu imaddad

(as) his wage he shall measure out

1369

ūmu kasapšu ubbal

when the silver he shall bring

1370

idem

when for its wage he -

1371

amassu ileqqi

his servant girl he shall take

1372

warassu ileqqi

his man-servant he shall take

1373

idišu imalli

its wage he shall compensate

1374

irībam

he shall pay (him)

1375

40

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 2 (canonical tablet II) Division 2 (canonical II) 48 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

tu-ul

TÚL ŠUB.BA TÚL.DA PÀD.[DA] SILA.DA KUR 9 .RA KA UR.GIR 15 .A.NI.ŠÈ IN.[x]

[] (burtu // well)

2001

[] (nadi // it is thrown down)

2002

[] (ina burti wātû // in a well it is found)

2003

[] (ina sūqi šurub // from the street it is brought in)

2004

[] (ina pî kalbi ekim //

2005

from the mouth of a dog it is taken)

KA NAM.RI.A.NI.ŠÈ ŠUB.BA IN.[x] 2006 ur 2007 ÚR 2007a ÚR.BI 2007b ÚR.BI.ŠÈ 2008 UR.BI.ŠÈ IN.ĜAR iš-še ÉNSI 2009 ša-ag-ga 2010 SAĜA šab-ra ŠABRA(PA-AL) 2011 2012 UM.MI.A.AN 2013 UNKIN(IRIxBAR) ši-di 2014 ŠID 2014a [ŠID UM.ME].A.NI 2015 DI 2016 DI.KUD 2016a’ DI.KUD.GAL 2016a’’ DI.KUD.GAL 2016b DI.KUD IRI 2016c DI.KUD LUGAL 2016d DI.KUD.E.NE.NE 2017 AB.BA 2017a AB.BA IRI 2017b AB.BA LUGAL AB.BA DI.KUD 2017c 2017d AB.BA.E.NE.NE IGI AB.BA IRI 2018 2019 MAŠKIM(PA-KAŠ 4 ) 2019a MAŠKIM IRI MAŠKIM LUGAL 2019b 2019c MAŠKIM DI.KUD 2019d MAŠKIM.E.NE.NE 2020 MAŠ.EN.DÙ 2021a IN.KÚR 2021b IN.KÚR.E.MEŠ 2022a IN.PÀD.DA 2022b IN.PÀD.DA.E.MEŠ 2023 NAM.DUMU.A.NI.ŠÈ 2024 NAM.IBILA.NI.ŠÈ 2025 NAM.ŠEŠ.A.NI.ŠÈ 2026 NAM.AD.A.NI.ŠÈ NAM.AMA.A.NI.ŠÈ 2026 2027 NAM.AB.BA.A.NI.ŠÈ 2028 NAM.LÚ.HUN.ĜÁ.NI.ŠÈ

[] from the mouth of … fallen …

-

sūnu // lap

2006

sūnišu // his lap

2007

ina sūnišu // into his lap

2008

ina sūnišu iškun // into his lap he placed

2009

iššiakku // city ruler

2010

šāqû // priest

2011

šabrû // chief administrator

2012

ummiānu // craftsman

2013

puhru // assembly

2014

minûtu // count; vote

2015

minûtu manû // to count votes

2016

dīnu // verdict

2017

dajjānu // judge

2018

diqugallu // senior judge

2019

šāpiṣ̣u // idem

2021

dajjān IRI // judge of the city

2022

dajjān LUGAL // judge of the king

2023

dajjānšunu // their judge

2024

šību // elder; witness

2025

šībūt IRI // elders of the city

2026

šībūt LUGAL // - of the king

2027

šībūt dajjāni // - of the judge

2028

šībūssunu // their elders

2029

mahar šībūt IRI // before the elders of the city

2030

rābiṣ̣u // bailiff; sheriff

2031

rābiṣ̣ IRI // - of the city

2032

rābiṣ̣ LUGAL // - of the king

2033

rābiṣ̣ dajjāni // - of the judge

2034

rābissunu // their bailiff

2035

muškēnu

2036

ikkir // he became hostile; different ikkirū // they itmî // he swore itammū // they shall swear ana mārūtišu // into his son-ship ana aplūtišu // - heir-ship ana ahhūtišu // - brother-ship ana abbūtišu // - father-ship ana ummūtišu // - mother-ship 52 ana šībūtišu // - elder-ship ana wardūtišu // - hireling-ship

41

2037 2039 2040 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2050

Part 2 – Composite Edition 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033

NAM.LUGAL.A.NI.ŠÈ NAM.ÌR.A.NI.ŠÈ NAM.ZÚ.KEŠDA ÍB.TA.È ZÚ.KEŠDA MU 1 KAM 9 KUG.BABBAR Ì.LÁ.E 49

ana bēlūtišu // - kingship

2048

ana wardūtišu // - servitude

-

ana kiṣṛ i ušēṣ̣i // he has made to go out in bondage

2054

ana kiṣṛ i šattussu // for a yearly bond

2055

9 KUG.BABBAR išaqqal //

2056

2034a 2034b 2034c 2034d 2035

BÍ.IN 4 .DUG 4 NU.BÍ.[IN 4 .DUG 4 ] BA.AN.[DUG 4 ] NU.BA.AN.[DUG 4 ] NA KA 4 KIŠIB.A.NI.ŠÈ A.NU.ME.A

iqbi // he stated

2057

2036 2037 2038 2039 2040

É.A.NI DÙ.A EGIR.BI NÍĜ.KALAG.GA ŠU.A.NI.ŠÈ BA.AB.SI.SÁ SAR 5(!5 SAR) É.DÙ.A ĜIŠ ĜIŠ ĜIŠ KÁ KI.KÉŠ.DA IG SAĜ.KUL GUB.BA IN.NA.SUM NU.IN.NA.SUM BA.AN.SUM NU.BA.AN.SUM IN.GAR.RA IN.GAR.RA IN.ĜAR IN.ĜAR.E.ME(Š) IN.DAB 5 (KU) IN.DAB 5 .E.MEŠ IN.HUĜ.NA

2041a 2041b 2041c 2041d 2042a 2042b 2042c 2042d 2043a 2043b 2044 … 2046a 2046b 2047 2048 2049 2049a 2049b 2050 2051 2051a 2051b 2052 2053 2054 2055a 2055b 2056 2057 2058

nine <sheqels> silver he shall pay 2058 2059

ul iqtebi // he has not stated

2060

ina pî kanīkišu pānî //

2061

according to the word of his earlier deed É-šu

īpuš // he built his house

EGIR-šu

(+?) BA.AN.KUR 9 NU.BA.AN.KUR 9 ZÍ.RI.DAM NA

ul iqbi // he did not state iqtebi // he has stated

4 KIŠIB LIBIR PA.AD.DI ZÍ.RI.DAM

dannu // its inheritance (is) in force

2062 2063

qātišu imallû // his hand he shall fill

2064

hamištī mūšarī É epuš // five musar real estate

2065

[] ... door (and) lock are fixed

2066-68

iddin // he gave

2070

ul iddin // he did not give

2071

ittadin // he has given

2072

ul ittadin // he has not given

2073

kumurrû // pile; addition

2074

šukunnû // handling

2075

iškun // he placed

2076

išakkanū // they shall place

2078

[] (iṣḅ at // he took)

2079

[] (iṣạ bbatū // they shall take)

2081

[] (iggar // he will hire)

2082

…

…

ušērib // he brought in

2088

ul ušērib // he did not bring in

2089

ipassas // he will erase

2090

kunukka labīra ul ūta iptassas //

2092-3

the old seal that was not found will be erased

ŠU.TI ŠU.TI.A.NI ŠU.TI.A.NI.NE ŠU.TI.A.NI ŠU BA.AN.[TEĜ 4 ] i-gi-ri EGIR EGIR.BI EGIR.BI.NE.NE DI.BI AL.KUD INIM.BI AL.TIL ŠAG 4 .GA.A.NI DÙG.GA MU.UN.NI MU.UN.NE.NE ŠE UR 5 .RA ŠE EŠ.DÉ.A ŠE ŠU.LÁ

qātātu // security; pledge

2095

qātātišu // his -

2096

qātātišunu // their -

2097

qātātišu ilqe // his security he took

2098

warkatu // inheritance

2099

warkassu // its -

2100

wartkassunu // their -

2101

dīnšu dīn // its verdict has been passed

2102

awāssu gamrat // its case has been closed

2103

-šu DÙG.GA // his heart (is) content

2104

ŠAG

4 šumšu // his name

42

2106

šumšunu // their -

2107

še’û hubulli // (interest-bearing) debt of barley

2108

še’û hubuttāti // (interest-free) debt -

2109

še’û qīpti // credit -

2110

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 2 (canonical tablet II) 2059 2060 2061 2062 2063 2064 2065 2066 2067 2068 2069 2070

ŠE ŠE.BAL ŠE NÍĜ.BA ŠE NÍĜ.ŠU ŠE BABBAR ŠE BA.RÍ.GA ŠE BA.AN 10 ŠE Ì.DUB Ì.DUB Ì.DUB ŠE Ì.DUB ŠE Ì.ĜIŠ Ì.DUB ZÚ.LUM.MA Ì.DUB ÍB.GI.GI

2071 2072 2073 2074 2075 2076 2077 2078 2079 2080 2081

Ì.DUB ŠAG 4 Ì.DUB ŠAG 4 Ì.DUB da(!ša)-ga-ag-ga ŠAKAKA(KI-LAM) ŠAKAKA GU.LA ŠAKAKA TUR.RA ŠAKAKA GI.NA ŠAKAKA SIG 5 .GA ŠAKAKA ZÁLAG.GA ŠAKAKA KALAG.GA ŠAKAKA DÙG.GA ŠAKAKA IRI AL.DU.KA

… 2082 2083a 2083b 2084a 2084b 2084c 2084d 2085 2086 2087 2088 2089 2090 2091 2092 2093 2094 2095 2096 2097 2098 2098a … 2099

(+?)

še’û šupêlti // exchange -

2111

še’û qīšti // gift -

2112

še’û qāti // available -

2113

še’û peṣ̣û // white barley

2116

parsiktu // (barley) bushel

2117

NI su-tu-tu // 10 ban barley 4 še’û našpaki // barley of the storage

2118

našpaku // storage

2122

našpak še’î // storage of barley

2123

našpak šamaššammī // - sesame

2124

našpak suluppi // - dates

2125

našpaku ittanappal //

2126

2121

the storage will be compensated našpaku ŠAG našpaki // storage inside the storage 4 ŠAG našpaki // inside the storage 4 mahīru // market price; rate

2127

mahīru rabû // high -

2130

mahīru ṣẹ hru // low -

2131

mahīru kīnu // steady; reliable -

2136

mahīru damqu // good -

2132

mahīru namru // shining -

2134

mahiru dannu // strong -

2135

mahīru ṭābu // good -

2138

ina mahīrāti IRI illakū //

2146

2128 2129

by the exchange rates of the city they will proceed

ŠAG 4 .BI.ŠÈ IN.ĜAR IN.DADAG IN.DADAG.E.MEŠ ZÌG.GA ZÌG.GA ZÌG.GA ZÌG.GA DILI.DILI A.GA.ZI A.GA.ZI ÍB.SI.SI A.GA.ZI ÍB.DIRIG.GA ÍB.TAKA 4 ÍB.TAK 4 ŠE ÍB.TAK 4 ŠE Ì.ĜIŠ ÍB.TAK 4 ZÚ.LUM.MA ÍB.TAK 4 NÍĜ.KA 9 NÍĜ.KAS 7 NÍĜ.KAS 7 AK.A NÍĜ.KAS 7 NU.AK.A NÍĜ.KAS 7 TIL.LA NÍĜ.KAS 7 NU.TIL.LA DU 8 IN.DU 8

(+?) [NUMUN]

43

…

…

ana libbišu iškun // inside it he placed it

2150

ubbib // he cleansed (himself from debt)

2152

ubbabū // they shall clean (themselves -)

2154

ṣītu // expenditure

2155

tibûtu // levy

2156

nisihtu // temple-levy

2157

ṣītu ahitu // incidental charges

2158

ibbû // loss

2159

ibbâ imallū // they will compensate the loss

2160

iwattarū // they will exceed the loss

2161

šitātu // remainders

2162

šitāt še’î // - of barley

2163

šitāt šamaššammī // - of sesame

2164

šitāt suluppi // - of dates

2165

šitāt nikkassi // balance of account

2166

nikkassu // account

2167

nikkassu epšu // drawn-up account

2168

nikkassu lā epšu // account not drawn-up

-

nikkassu gamir // the account (is) settled

2169

nikkassu lā gamir // - not settled

2170

paṭāru // to redeem

2171

ipṭur // he redeemed

2172

…

…

zēru // seed

2180

Part 2 – Composite Edition 2099a 2099b 2099c 2099d 2099e 2099f 2099g 2099h 2100 2101 2102 2103 2104 2105a 2105b 2106 2107 2108 2109 2110 2111 2112 2113 2114 2115 2116 2117 2118 2118’ 2118’’ ... 2119 2120 2121 2122 2123 2124 2125 2126 2127 2128 2129 2130 2131 2132 2133 2134 2135 2136

MU MU MU MU MU MU MUHALDIM(MU) MUHALDIM(MU) MU.GUR(!KÚR) MU.BAL MU.BAL.LÁ MU.IM.MA MU.AN.NA MU.ÚS.SA 2-na MU.ÚS.SA <3> MU SIG 5 .GA MU HUL.ĜÁL MU NA.GAZ MU KALAG.GA MU DÙG.GA MU DA.RI.A MÁŠ.DA.RI.A MÁŠ.DA.RI.A DAĜAL.LA MÁŠ.ŠU.GID.GID UGULA MÁŠ.ŠU.GID.GID DAM.GÀR UGULA DAM.GÀR DUGUD(!ŠAĜAN).LA(!LÁ) [MA].NA.LA(!LÁ) [MU.UN.BAL]

(+?) [ÉG] [PA 5 ] [PA 5 .LÁ] [PA 5 .SIG] [PA 5 .SÌTA ] PA 5 NAM.BAL E SIG.GA DÙ.A.BI IM.DÙ.A.BI IM.DÙ.A.BI AK.A NAM.ÉRIM.MA NAM.ÉRIM.MA AK.A NAM.RA NAM.RA AK.A NAM.ME.EN.NA AK.A NAM.ME.EN.NA NAM.ME.EN.NA.ŠÈ APIN ŠE ÍB.TA.È AN.TA

aššum // on account of

2184

iššū // he (3 SG VERBAL PREFIX)

-

nīšu // oath

2185

zikru // name

2187

šumu // idem

2182

šattu // year

2190

<mu->ha-al-dum // GLOSS

-

nuhatimmu // baker; cook

2192

palû // (year) term

-

idem

-

idem

2194-5

šaddaqdi // last year

2195

šanassu // this -

2196

šanītu šattu // second -

2197

3-tu šattu // third 4 šattu damiqtu // good -

2198

MIN lemuttu // bad -

2198a

MIN isiqtu // notch -

-

MIN dannātu // strong years

-

MIN ṭâbātu // good -

-

MIN dārītu // eternal -

-

erbu // (fixed) income

-

erbu rapšu // large income

-

bārû // diviner

2199

wakil bārī // overseer of diviners

2200

tamkāru // merchant

2201

wakil tamkārī // overseer of merchants

2202

šamallû // clerk (‘purse-bearer’)

2203

ŠU-ma la-lu-u // clerk (‘weigh-bearer’)

2204

ihri // he dug

2205

...

...

īku // dyke

2207

palgu // ditch

2208

atappu // (small) canal

2209

idem

2210

rāṭu // pipe

2211

atappa ihri // he has dug a ditch

2213

īka išpuk // he piled up a dyke

2214

kalâmu // everything; entirety

2215

pitiqtu // mud wall

2216

pitiqta patāqu // to make a mud wall

2217

māmītu // oath

2218

māmīta tummû // to swear an oath

2220

šallatu // booty

2221

šallata šalālu // to plunder

2224

mitru // mighty

2225

me-en-na (šapṣu // strong; enduring)

2226

ana erēši še’a ušeṣ̣i //

2227

-

for cultivating barley he made go out eliš // above

44

2228

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 2 (canonical tablet II) 2137 2138 2139 2140 2141 2142 2143 2144 2145 2145a 2146 2146a 2146b 2147 2148 2149 2150 2151 2152 2153 2154 2155 2156 2157 2158 2159 2160 2161 2162 2163a 2163b 2164 2165 2166 2167 … 2168a 2168b 2169 2170 2171 … 2172 2173 2174 2175 2176 2177 2178 2179

KI.TA AN.TA (ù) KI.TA ÚS(UŠ) SAĜ BÙRU šu-ha-ad <SUKUD> dá-ag-gal Á Á.BI Á.BI.NE.NE DA DA.BI DA.BI.NE.NE DA É EGIR É ÚS.SA.DU ÚS.SA.DU A.ŠAG 4 .GA ÚS.SA.DU KIRI 16 [ÚS GÍD.DA] ÚS LÚGUD.[DA] ÚS [BÙR](.MEŠ) ÚS SAĜ ZAG [ZAG KIRI 16 ] [SA.DUL.BI] [ÉG SA.DUL.BI] [DAL].BA.NA [ÉG DAL.BA.NA] I.ZI DAL.BA.NA Ì.ĜÁL NU.ĜÁL KASKAL HAR.RA.AN.NU HAR.RA.AN.NU<<.NU>> HAR.RA.AN GUR

(+?) GÚ.DA RI.A GÚ.DA RI.A GÚ Ì.AK.A GÚ.NÍĜ.GILIM.MA GÚ.DIB.BA (+25?) LÚ.ENGAR LÚ.ŠAG 4 .GÌR GUD.DA.ÚS.SA.A GUD.DA.RI.A GUD.DA DIRIG.GA GUD.DA NA.GAD LÚ.ŠAG 4 .GAZ LÚ.HUN.GA

45

šapliš // below

2229

eliš u šapliš // high and low

2230-1

šiddu // side

2232

pūtu // front

2234

šaplu // depth

2235

mīlu // high water (mark)

2236

[] (rupšu // width)

2237

idu // arm; side

2238

idišu // its -

2239

idišunu // their -

2240

ṭēhu // neighbouring -

2242

ṭēhušu // its -

2243

ṭēhušunu // their -

2244

ṭēh É-ti // side of the house

2245

warkat É-ti // rear of the house

2246

itû // boundary; neighbour

2247

itû eqli // - of the field

2249

itû kirî // - of the garden

2250

šiddu // (long) side

2253

šiddu kurû // short -

2254

šiddu šaplu // lower -

2252

šiddu pūtu // front -

2251

pāṭu // border

2255

pāṭ kirî // - of the garden

2256

aburru // backyard; meadow

2259

īki aburri // dyke of the -

2260

birītu // intermediate expanse; common

2262

īki birīti // dyke of the -

2263

igār birīti // wall of the -

2264

ibašši // there is

2267

ul ibašši // there is not

2268

harrānu // road

2269

idem

2270

urhu // path; route

2271

[] (kanagurru // circular road)

2274

…

…

[]

2287

nanduru II // embracing

idem

kitpulu // entwined

2288

šiqbu // twisted voice

2289

haltikku // vessel

2290

…

…

ikkaru // farmer

2321

kullizu // cattle driver

2325

rīd alpi // ox driver

2326

kimru // herd(‘s man)

2327

wattaru // spare (ox)

2328

ku-ud-da-na-ak-te // GLOSS (ox herdsman)

2329

habbātu // bandit

2330

agru // hired labourer

2331

Part 2 – Composite Edition 2180 2181 2182 2183 2184 2185 2186 2187 2188 2189 2190 2191 2192 2193 2194 2195 2196 2197 2198 2199 2200 … 2201 2202 2203 2204 2205 2206 2207 2208 2208a 2208b 2209 2210 2211 2212 2213 2214 2215 2216 2217 2218 2219 2220 2221

LÚ.ŠE.GUR 10 (KIN).KUD LÚ.ŠE.UR 4 .UR 4 LÚ.ŠE.KI.KÉŠ.DA LÚ.ŠE.ĜÁ.ĜÁ.A LÚ.ŠE.BAD.DA LÚ.ŠE.DÙ(.A) LÚ.ŠE.LÁ LÚ.ŠE.LÁ KI.TA LÚ.ŠE.BAL LÚ.A.BAL LÚ.AL.LA.AK.A LÚ.NÍĜ.GUL.AK.A LÚ.NÍĜ.GUD.DA.AK.A LU.LAG.RI.RI.GA D IGI. UTU.ŠÈ DI.KUD NÍĜ.GI.NA 50 GÉME LUGAL.A.NI BA.TUKU DUG NAM.GÉME.A.NI.ŠÈ IN.[GAZ] SAĜ.KI.A.NI IN.È 51 GÀR.MAH.A.NI UMBIN x[... ]

ēṣ̣idu // harvester

2332

hāmimu // collector

2333

ĜIŠ.GÌR.A.NI IN.DU 8 AMA.AR.GI NAM.GÉME.A.NI IN.DU 8

karṣ̣aši ipṭur // her fetter he has released

-

[] (into) freedom (from) her servitude

-

rakisu // binder

2334

si-ib-bi-lu / (murakkisu // binder)

2335

dā’išu // thresher

2336

mubabbilu // carrier

2339

zārû // strewer; scatterer; grower

2340

zārû šapilti

2341

mušēlu // winnower

2342

dalû // (water) hoister

2344

rāpiqu // hacker; shovel worker

2346

hēpû // (ground) breaker

2347

kāsimu // cutter

2348

lāqit kurbāni // lump collector

2350

[] before Šhamash the verdict (is) fixed

-

[] her lord has taken the slave girl

-

[] the vessel for her servitude

-

he has [broken] [] her forehead he has cleared

-

abbutaši ṣ̣īra ugallib //

-

her distinctive hairknot he has shaved off

he has released (her)

(+3 - traces in T1 and T2) KI.DUMU.MUNUS.NI.ME IN.x EN LUGAL.A.NI AL.TIL.LA LUGAL.A.NI IN.ÍL EGIR LUGAL.A.NI BA.AN.[DA.KU.DA] DUMU.MEŠ LUGAL.A.NI NÍĜ.[ĜÁL.LA ...] IN.DU-DU NAM.GÉME.A.NI [INIM] ĜÁ.ĜÁ LÚ NA-ME-NÍG-NA(!INIM.GI.NA) ku-un UN GÚN[ ] UN GÚN .BI MIN.BI.NE.NE MIN A.ŠAG 4 .GA MIN KIRI 16 MIN ŠE MIN ŠE Ì.ĜIŠ MIN ZÚ.LUM.MA MIN URUDU MIN ZABAR MIN KUG.BABBAR MIN KUG.GI MIN SIKI MIN <SIKI.>ÙZ MIN GADA MIN HUR.SAĜ MIN A.AB.BA

…

…

[]

-

[] (as long as) the master, her lord, is alive

2352b

[] her lord will carry(=support) her

2352c

[] after her lord has discharged her

2352d

[] the sons of her lord property

2352e

... they will bring(?) her

46

[] his servants having raised a claim

2352f

[] (kattû // confirmer)

2351-2

[] (biltu // tribute)

2353

[] (bilassu // its -)

2354

[] (bilassunu // their -)

2355

[] (bilat eqli // field -)

2356

[] (bilat kirî // garden -)

2357

[] (bilat še’i // barley -)

2358

[] (bilat ša šamaššammî // sesame -)

2359

[] (bilat suluppi // date -)

2360

[] (bilat werî // copper -)

2361

[] (bilat siparri // bronze -)

2362

[] (bilat kaspi // silver -)

2363

[] (bilat hurāṣ̣i // gold -)

2364

[] (bilat šīpāti // wool -)

2365

[] (bilat šārti enzi // goat hair -)

2366

[] (bilat kitî // flax -)

2367

[] (bilat šadî // mountain -)

2368

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 2 (canonical tablet II) [] (bilat tiamti // maritime -)

2222

47

2369

Part 2 – Composite Edition Division 3 (canonical III-Va) Version A (unilingual) ĜIŠ

determinatives omitted in the composite edition last column gives SNT count 3a001 TASKARIN(KU) 3a002 TASKARIN BULUH(HAL)ŠIM 3a003 [ESI(KAL)] 3a004 ESI [x] 3a005 ESI HÚB.BA 3a006 ESI TU.RI.[IŠKI] 3a007 ESI ME.LUH.HAKI 3a008 ESI MÁ.GAN.NAKI 3a009 ESI DILMUNKI 3a010 NU 11 (ŠIR) 3a011 HA.LU.ÚB 3a012 ŠAG 4 .KAL 3a013 KÍN(HAR) a014a KÍN BABBAR a014b KÍN BABBAR 3a015 KÍNlim 3a016 KÍN KUKKU 5 3a017 DURU 5 (A) 3a018 BABBAR 3a019 KUKKU 5 3a020 TIN(!ĜEŠTIN) 3a021 ĜEŠTIN GÍR 3a022 ĜEŠTIN GÍBIL 3a023 ĜEŠTIN KA 5 .A 3a024 ĜEŠTIN GA.RA.AN 3a025 ĜEŠTIN GAM.MA 3a026 TI ĜEŠTIN 3a027 GÚR ĜEŠTIN 3a028 PA.PA.AL ĜEŠTIN 3a029 PÈŠ(MA) 3a030 MÁ.RÍKI 3a031 PÈŠ SU.BIR 4 KI a032a PÈŠ URI[KI] a032b PÈŠ URIKI 3a033 PÈŠ MAR.TU 3a034 PÈŠ ELAM.MAKI 3a035 PÈŠ ŠE.ER.KUM<> 3a036 AMA PÈŠ 3a037 HAŠHUR a038a HAŠHUR KUR.RA a038b HAŠHUR KUR.RA 3a039 HAŠHUR AR.MA.NU.UM 3a040 HAŠHUR KUR.DI.LUM 3a041 HAŠHUR DAM.SI.LUM 3a042 HAŠHUR A.AB.BA

(taskarinnu // boxtree)

3001

001

aromatic boxtree

-

-

(ušû // ebony)

3002

002

-

-

(HÚB foot)

-

-

ebony of Tukrish

-

-

- of Meluhha

-

-

- of Magan

-

-

- of Dilmun

-

-

(samullu)

3003

003

(haluppu // oak)

3004

004

(šakkullu // willow)

3005

005

(kiškanû // birch?)

3006

006

(kiškanû peṣ̣û // white -)

3007

006a

-

-

-

-

3008

006b

-

-

-

-

(iṣ̣u ṣ̣almu // dark wood)

3011

007

(karānu // vine)

3012

008

(amurdinu)

3013

009

(pillû II)

3014

-

(karān šēlebi // ‘fox’vine)

3015

010

(ishunnatu // vine grape)

3022

-

(karān lê )

3017

011

vine shoot

-

-

- circle; loop

-

-

(tillatu II // vine shoot; sprout)

3025

-

(tittu // fig )

3029

012

- of Mari

3030a

-

- of Subartu

3030b

-

- of Akkad

-

-

- of Akkad

-

-

- of Amurru

-

-

- of Elam

3030c

-

string of figs

3030e

-

(kiškanû ṣ̣almu // dark -)

(kannu titti // flowercup of the fig)

3031

-

(hašhuru // apple)

3032

013

(supurgillu // quince)

3035

014

(armannu // apricot)

3036

-

idem

3037

-

(kurdillu // cucumber)

3039

-

(damšillu)

3040

-

(tâmû // ‘sea apple’)

3041

-

48

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 3a (canonical tablet III-Va) 3a043 ... 3a044 3a045 3a046 3a047 3a048 3a049 3a050 3a051 a052a a052b 3a053 3a054 3a055 3a056 3a057 a058a a058b 3a059 3a060 3a061 3a062 3a063 3a064 3a065 3a066 3a067 3a068 3a069 3a070 3a071 a072a a072b 3a073 ... 3a074 3a075 3a076 3a077 3a078 3a079 3a080 3a081 3a082 3a083 3a084 3a085 a086a a086b

HAŠHUR BA.ZA

(+?) ŠE Ù.SUH 5 AN Ù.SUH 5 NUMUN Ù.SUH 5 PA Ù.SUH 5 SAR Ú ŠIM(BI-E) ŠIM GIG ŠIM GÌR ŠENNUR(KIB) ŠENNUR KUR. RA ŠENNUR KUR. RA LAM GAL LAM TUR LAM BULUH AL.LA.NU.UM ÍLDAG(A-AM) ÍLDAG KUR.RA ÍLDAG KUR.RA 53 ÍLDAG DAN.NA ÍLDAG EN.NA ÍLDAG BUR.RA ÍLDAG TUR KUR.RA A.AB.BA A.AB.BA ME.LUH.HA ĜI 6 .PAR 4 MA.NU MA.NU HÁD.DU.A RU MA.NU DURU 5 MA.NU ŠU AK.A MA.NU GÍBIL AK.A MA.NU A.LÙ ĜIŠ AK.A [MA].NU A.LÙ ĜIŠ AK.A [MA.NU] MUR.RA.AN

(+3) MA.NU KALAG.GA MA.NU KALAG.KALAG MA.NU ĜIŠ.KAL TIR TIR.TIR TIR KUG.GA TIR [ŠEN].ŠEN [TIR ĜIŠ]MA.NU [TIR ĜIŠ]EREN.NA [TIR Ù].SUH 5 [TIR A-TU]-GAB [NU.ÚR].MA [ŠED].DA [ŠED].DA

(pessu // crooked) 59

3042

-

...

...

...

(terrunnātu // cone)

3083

026

(ṣ̣ippatu III // spadix)

3086

027a

(zēr ašūhi // seed of pine; fir)

3084

-

(arti ašūhi // twig of -)

3089-90

027

(ṣ̣ubabû) (ŠIM aromatics)

3091

028

(kanaktu // incense tree)

3092

029

(asu I // myrtle)

3093

-

(šallūru // medlar)

3126

030

(kameššaru)

3128

030a

(supurgillu; armahhu)

3130a/32

-

(buṭuttu // pistachio)

3136

031

(šer’azu)

3137

032

(lupānu)

3135

-

(allānu // oak)

3133

033

(adaru // poplar)

3128

034

(adar šadî // highland -)

3140

035

idem

-

-

‘strong’ poplar

-

-

(ina raṭišu nilu)

3146

037

(niplu // shoot)

3141

036

(lammu // plane tree)

3148

-

(ĜIŠ šadî // mountain tree)

3152-3

038

(kušabku // thorn tree)

3154

039

- of Meluhha

3155

040

(lipāru)

3156

041

(ēru // willow)

3158

042

dry willow

-

-

(raṭbu // wet)

3159

-

(qalpu // peeled)

3163

043

(ĜIŠ MA.NU qilûti // ‘willow of the fire’)

3164

-

(ēhiru; ēru)

3165

-

(sā’u)

3166

-

(murranu // ash tree)

3167

-

...

...

...

(šabbiṭu; giškallu // sceptre; staff)

3171-2

044a

....

-

(giškallu // heavy staff)

3170

-

(qištu // grove; wood)

3176

-

(qišātu // forest)

3177

-

(qištu ellitu // sacred grove)

3178

-

(qištu ebbitu // pure forest)

3179

-

(qišti ēri // willow -)

3185

-

(qišti erēni // cedar -)

3180

-

(qišti ašūhi // pine -)

3181

-

(qišti ṣ̣arbati // poplar -)

3184

-

(nurmû // pomegranate)

3186

045

(niplu // shoot; sprout)

3195-8

046-7

(ziqpu // shaft)

idem

idem

49

Part 2 – Composite Edition a086c 3a087 a088a a088b a088c 3a089 3a090 3a091 3a092 3a093 3a094 3a095 3a096 3a097 3a098 3a099 3a100 3a101 3a102 3a103 3a104 3a105 3a106 3a107 3a108 3a109 3a110 3a111 3a112 3a113 3a114 3a115 3a116 3a117 3a118 3a119 3a120 3a121 3a122 3a123 3a124 3a125 3a126 3a127 3a128 3a129 3a131 3a132 3a133 3a134

[ŠED].DA [ŠED.DA Ì].LÁ MES MES MES [MES] MES [MES ME.LUH].HA [MES HA.LU].UB(!ÚB) HAR.RA.NA [MES DUB].RA.AN [MES] GÀM(PAB-NÁ) [MES] TU MES BABBAR MES KUKKU 5 EREN EREN.NA EREN BABBAR ŠU.UR.MI.NU.UM ZA.BA.LUM E.LAM.MA.KUM GI.RÍ.LUM GI.RIM GI.RI 9 .UM GI.DÌM SÍ.IR.DU(.UM) MI.RI.IŠ.MA.NU(.UM) UR.NU.UM TI.A.LUM TI.IA.LUM I.LI.IA.NU.UM UR.ZI.NU.UM ÍSIMU(GUL-SAR) LIGIMA X (IGI-TUR) LIGIMA(IGI-TUR-TUR) NIMBAR(SA 6 ) NIMBAR TUR NIMBAR TUR.TUR NIMBAR KUR.RA (KI) NIMBAR DILMUN.NA NIMBAR AL.DA.RA NIMBAR AL.KUD.DA NIMBAR AL.BÀN.DA NIMBAR AL.ŠAB.BA NIMBAR AL.UG 5 .GA [NIMBAR] AL.ÚŠ(!ÚS).A NIMBAR ŠU.NIM.MA NIMBAR LUL.LA NIMBAR GÚ.UN(.NA) NIMBAR AL.ĜÁL.LA NIMBAR NU.AL.ĜÁL.LA NIMBAR AL.ŠEĜ 6 .ĜÁ

idem

idem

3199

048

(mēsu)

3200

049

(lammu // plane tree)

3201

idem

(ṣulmu // black wood)

3202

idem

(ṣulum mēsi)

3203

-

3205

051

(dupranu // juniper)

3208

051d

idem

3209

-

(šaššugu // fruit tree)

3210

-

(kullaru)

3211-2

051b

(tialu // white cedar)

3213

-

(ṣ̣ulāmu; ṣ̣ulum mēsi)

3214-5

051e

(erēnu // cedar)

3217

052

-

-

white cedar

-

-

(šurmīnu // cypress)

3225

053

(supālu // juniper)

3226

054

Elam tree

3227

055

(girimmu)

3229

056

(inbu // fruit // illuru // flower /

3231-5

057

mēsu / hulamīsu / serdu)

idem

-

(serdu // olive)

3236

-

idem

3237

058

-

063

(urnu // cedar)

3254

059

(tijālu // white cedar)

3260

060

idem

-

-

(iriānu)

3250

061

(urzīnu // sycamore)

3255

062

(per’u // bud; sprout)

3265

064

shoot; sapling

-

-

(ligimû // germ; bud)

3268-71

-

(gišimmaru // date palm)

3280

065

(suhuššu // womb)

3288

066

(tālu; šakīnu // seedling)

3291-2

-

(gurummadu // highland date palm)

3282-3

067

Dilmun date palm

3284

068

(letû // split)

3315

069

(urrû // cut off)

3309

070

supported date palm

-

-

(šarmu // cut out)

3310

071

(dīku // killed)

3313

idem

(dīšu // dragged)

3303

079

(mušahripu // early ripe)

3317

-

(sarru // false)

3344

073

(iṣ̣ bilti // tribute date tree)

3323

-

(našû // elevated)

3324

-

(lā našû)

3325

-

(bašlu // ripe)

3326

075

(šitlū // shoot; sprout)

50

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 3a (canonical tablet III-Va) 3a135 3a136 3a137 3a138 3a139 3a140 3a141 3a142 3a143 3a144 3a145 3a146 3a147 3a148 3a149 3a150 3a151 3a152 3a153 3a154 3a155 3a156 3a157 3a158 3a159 3a160 3a161 3a162 3a163 3a164 3a165 a166a a166b 3a167 3a168 3a169 3a170 3a171 3a172 3a173 3a174 3a175 3a176 3a177 3a178 3a179 3a180 3a181 3a182 3a183

NIMBAR NU.(AL.)ŠEĜ 6 .ĜÁ NIMBAR SIG 7 .SIG 7 NIMBAR SIG 7 .SIG 7 AL.ŠEĜ 6 .ĜÁ NIMBAR U 4 .HI.IN ŠAG 4 .SUD NIMBAR U 4 .HI.IN HÁD.DA NIMBAR U 4 .HI.IN KU 7 .KU 7 NIMBAR U 4 .HI.IN DUB.DUB NIMBAR IZI GU 7 .A NIMBAR UH.TAG.GA NIMBAR GIG HAB NIMBAR LIBIŠ.BU.RA NIMBAR MAŠ.TAB.BA NIMBAR NITA NIMBAR MÍ NIMBAR AN.NA NIMBAR ĜEŠTIN AN.KI.NÚ NIMBAR ŠAG 4 .NIMBAR ŠAG 4 .DA PA PA KUD.DA DÁLA(IGI-GAG) ZÉ.NA NIMBAR ZÉ.NA AN.NA NIMBAR GAG ZI.NA AN.NA NIMBAR MUD NIMBAR MUD AL.GAZ NIMBAR MUD ZÚ NIMBAR ZÚ [NIMBAR] ZÚ SÍK NIMBAR ZÚ GU.LA NIMBAR TÚG.BA NIMBAR TÚG.BA NIMBAR PEŠ NIMBAR PEŠ TUR NIMBAR PEŠ UŠ NIMBAR PEŠ MURGU Á NIMBAR PEŠ BÀNDA ZI NIMBAR PEŠ HA.RA NIMBAR ZI KIRI 16 NIMBAR ZI KIRI 16 .È.A NIMBAR ĜÁ.LI NIMBAR ĜÁ.DA NIMBAR ĜÁ.DA ZÚ.LUM NIMBAR AN.NA NIMBAR HÉ.BAD NIMBAR NÍĜ.ŠUL NIMBAR TUBALA(TÚG-LÁ) NIMBAR ÁSAL(A-TU-GAB-LIŠ) ÁSAL KUR.RA

(lā bašlu // unripe)

3327

-

(warqu // green)

3339

-

(warqu bašlu // green ripe)

3340

080

(šīṣ̣ūtu // pitless date)

3329

-

(bušul ṣ̣īti // dried date)

3330

-

(matqu // sweet date)

3331

-

(arhanu)

3341

-

(ša IZI aklu // fire-consumed)

3342

076

(ša kalmatu laptu // vermin-invested)

3343

-

(marru // bitter)

3306

077a

(labbu II // weak; inferior)

3294

074

(tū’amu // twin)

3318

-

(zikaru // male)

3319

-

(sinništu // female)

3320

-

(elû // high)

3347

-

date wine

-

-

-

-

(libbi iṣ̣i // heart of the tree)

3351

081

bolstered date palm

-

-

(aru // twig; stalk; stem)

3356

086

(urrû // cut off / našba u)

3357

087

(ṣ̣illû II // thorn; needle)

3359

088

(zinû // rib of palm frond)

3360

090

(wāṣ̣ītu // shoot)

3361

-

(sikarû II)

3362

-

(uppu I // stump)

3398

089

(uppu dīku // killed stump)

3399

-

-

-

(zû II // fibre)

3369

091

(zû qattanūtu // thin fibres)

3370

-

(urṭu)

3373

093

(ṣ̣ubātu // cover)

3380

-

idem

3381

094

(libbu // heart; innards)

3384

102

3386

-

3385

-

-

103

-

104

-

-

-

-

-

-

3389

-

-

-

-

-

3402

-

(sissinnu // panicle)

3403

-

(mušēšertu // broom)

3407

-

(tubalû // climbing harness)

3408

-

(ṣ̣arbatu // poplar)

3411

105

(ṣ̣arbat šadî // highland poplar)

3412

106

51

Part 2 – Composite Edition 3a184 3a185 3a186 3a187 3a188 3a189 3a190 3a191 3a192 3a193 3a194 3a195 3a196 3a197 3a198 3a199 3a200 3a201 3a202 3a203 3a204 3a205 3a206 3a207 3a208 3a209 3a210 3a211 3a212 3a213 3a214 3a215 3a216 ... 3a217 3a218 3a219 3a220 3a221 3a222 3a223 3a224 3a225 3a226 3a227 3a228 3a229 3a230 3a231 3a232

ÁSAL HI.LI NE ÁSAL NUMUN ÁSAL ÁD(GÍR) KIŠI 16 (Ú-GÍR) KIŠI 16 UH.HA(!HAR) KIŠI 16 UH.HA(!HAR) KUR.RA SA.MA.LUM SA.MA.ZUM PEŠ.KAL

ṢU.TE.NU.UM ŠI.IQ.DU.UM ZAR<.SI> ZAR.AŠ.TUM ZAR.LAM.TUM

LU-UŠ GI.ZÚ.LUM.MA BU.ZÚ.LUM.MA DAL.BU.UM AN.TAG MAŠ.MAŠ MAŠ.HUŠ GURU 5 (IRIxGU).UŠ DURME(SAG-EZEN) 54

LAGAB DURME I.RI 9 .NA A.I.RI 9 .(AN.)NA DUR(!GÚ) GIL.AN.NA DUR(!GÚ) GIL.BA.AB Ù.GÁ-LÁ(!LUH) ÚR EDIN(!SUHUŠ) PA KUD GURUN

(+7) BA ŠAB BA E(!KAL) BA ŠU BA HÚB NA.RÚ.KU(!A)

GÌR-ANŠE-LUM NÍĜ.NA.MUD GU.ZA GU.ZA GÍD.DA GU.ZA SÌR.DA GU.ZA MUNUS.E.NE GU.ZA IM x [x] GU.ZA ZAG.BI.[ÚS] GU.ZA ARATTA(LAMxKUR-RU) GU.ZA NÍĜ.BA GU.ZA NÍĜ.ŠU

blossoming of poplar

-

107 60

(tiālu / gergiššu)

3416-7

108

(zanzaliqqu)

3421

109

(eddittu // thorn bush)

3440

111

(ašāgu // spring plant)

3439

112

3440

113

3441a

114

3447

115

3448

116

(ṣ̣udiānu)

3450

117

idem

3451

-

(šiqdu // almond)

3238

122

3455/7

123

3456

-

3458

-

-

-

(gišlammu)

3468

125

(buṣ̣innu // wick; pit)

3470

126

3480

127

3482

128

(giṣ̣ṣu // thorn)

3487

-

(kalbanu)

3484-5

-

(kisittu // branch; bough)

3489-90/91

132

(kuṣ̣īmu // crooked timber)

3491a

133

(kurṣ̣imātu // ‘scales’)

3492

134

(šuršu // root / šinbiltu // nard root)

3493-4

135

idem

136

3498-504

137

-

138

(uluhhu // sapling / haṭṭu // sceptre)

3505-10

139

(išdu // fundament)

3514

-

(urrû // cut off / našbaṭu)

3512-3a

141

(inbu // fruit // illuru // flower / hānibu)

3520-2

-

...

...

...

(našramu // chisel)

4041

155

-

155a

(suppīn qāti)

4037

-

(HÚB foot)

4053

156

(iṣ̣ narî // stele)

4054

157

4067

-

(lāmû / larû // twig; bough)

-

159

(kussû // chair; seat)

4069

160

(kalakku // box)

4071

162

(kussî serdî // sedan chair)

4072

163

(kussî sinnišāti // women’s chair)

4073

163a

-

-

(kussî nēmedi // arm chair)

4074

-

Aratta chair

4076-7

-

(ša qīšti // of a gift)

4083

166

(ša qāti)

4084

167

52

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 3a (canonical tablet III-Va) 3a233 3a234 3a235 3a236 3a237 3a238 3a239 3a240 3a241 3a242 3a243 3a244 3a245 3a246 3a247 3a248 3a249 3a250 3a251 ... 3a252 3a253 3a254 3a255 3a256 3a257 3a258 3a259 3a260 3a261 3a262 3a263 3a264 3a265 3a266 3a267 3a268 3a269 3a270 3a271 3a272 3a273 3a274 3a275 3a276 3a277 3a278 3a279

4085

168

-

-

(kussî šarri // throne of a king)

4088

-

(kussî naṭbāhi // slaughter bench)

4096

178

Magan chair

4098

179

(ša malāhi // boatman’s chair)

4100

181

rebel’s throne

-

-

(kussî eṭemmi // ghost’s chair)

4093

186a

(kussî hūd libbi // heart’s rejoicing chair)

4094

175

assembly seat

-

185

(ša harrāni // road chair)

4079

170

(kussî imēri // donkey saddle)

4095

169

(kussî kiškittî // chair of craftsman)

4097

-

(kussî karri // chair knob)

4103

195

(ša karrišu hurāṣ̣i uhhuzu //

4104

-

(ša karrišu kaspi uhhuzu)

4105

196

(ša karrišu siparri uhhuzu)

4107

197

(ša karrišu werî uhhuzu)

4106

-

(ša karrišu taskarinni uhhuzu)

4110

189

...

...

...

(kussî mithurti // assembly seat)

4119

-

(kammuššaku)

4120

-

(pūtu // front)

4126

200

GU.ZA GIGIR ĜIŠ GU.ZA HÚB GU.ZA LUGAL GU.ZA ŠAH.ŠUM.MA GU.ZA MÁ.GAN.NA GU.ZA MÁ.LAH 4 GU.ZA KI.BAL GU.ZA GIDIM.MA GU.ZA ŠAG 4 .IRI<xAN>xMIN =ĜIŠGAL/LAM(!HUL).LA GU.ZA NÍĜ.UNKIN.NA GU.ZA KASKAL GU.ZA ANŠE ĜIŠ GU.ZA KIN.TI GU.ZA GÀR.BA GU.ZA GÀR.BA KUG.GI ĜAR.RA

(kussî narkabti // chariot seat)

GU.ZA GÀR.BA KUG.B ĜAR.RA GU.ZA GÀR.BA ZABAR ĜAR.[RA] GU.ZA GÀR.BA URUDU [ĜAR.RA] ĜIŠ GU.ZA TASKARIN

ĜIŠ

(+4) GU.ZA UR(!ŠU).NÍĜIN KA.MUŠ [GU.ZA] SAĜ GU.[ZA] DI 5 GU.[ZA] BANDA 4 (BAD) GU.ZA i IZI GU.ZA NÍĜ UMBIN GU.ZA NA(!NA 5 ) NA(!NA 5 ) GAL NA(!NA 5 ) TUR NA(!NA 5 ) ŠU NA(!NA 5 ) ZU NA(!NA 5 ) A-TE-KI (li-iš-ša)ŠÚ-A-DIŠ 55 ŠÚ-A-DIŠ DU 10 .ÚS.SA ŠÚ-A-DIŠ ŠU.I ŠÚ-A-DIŠ BUR.GUL ŠÚ-A-DIŠ TIBIRA ŠÚ-A-DIŠ GILIM.GILIM ŠÚ-A-DIŠ NÍĜ.GUL.LA GÌR.GUB D GÌR.GUB LÀMA GÌR.GUB ZÚ SÚMUN ĜAR.RA NÚ NÚ AŠ.NU NÚ ZÌG.GA NÚ NU.ZÌG.GA NÚ UMBIN

with a gold-plated knob)

(gištu // bar)

4124

201

(kablu // support)

4123

199

(amartu // side wall)

4125

202

(ṣ̣upru // finger; toe)

4121

203

(pitnu // chest)

4059

-

(rabû // big)

4060

-

(ṣ̣ehru // small)

4061a-2

-

(ša qāti)

4063

-

-

-

-

-

(littu // stool)

4129

204

(litti narmakti // bathing stool)

4130

205

(litti gallabi // barber’s stool)

4132

-

(litti parkulli // seal cutter’s stool)

4134

207

(litti qurqurri // sculptor’s stool)

4135

208

(litti namzāqi // keyman’s stool)

4136

-

(litti nigguli)

4140

210

(gerṣ̣eppu // footstand)

4143

211

(gerṣ̣eppi Lamassi // socle of DN)

4144

212

cow tooth-plated footstand

-

-

(eršu IV // bed)

4146

214

(dinnutû // place of bed)

4147

215

(eršu ša rēšaša šaqâ // bed with raised head)

4149

217

-

-

4154

-

(eraš ṣ̣upri // bed leg)

53

Part 2 – Composite Edition 3a280 3a281 3a282 3a283 3a284

NÚ UMBIN GUD NÚ UMBIN SAL.LA a NÚ UMBIN AŠKI(ZI/ZI-LAGAB) NÚ ŠÀ.TUKU 5 NÚ ŠÀ.TUKU 5 SIKI GA.RÍG

3a285 NÚ URI.MA … (+?) 3a286 BANŠUR SAĜ.DU 3a287 BANŠUR ZAG.ĜAR.RA 3a288 BANŠUR ZAG.GU.LA 3a289 DÍLIM BANŠUR 3a290 UMBIN BANŠUR 3a291 KA.KARA X (I-KÀD) 3a292 KA.KARA X MES 3a293 KA.KARA X ZÚ SÚMUN ĜAR.RA 3a294 KA.KARA X ZÚ AM.SI 3a295 MAŠ.TAK.DILI 3a296 ÉMERAH(SAL-KAB) 56 3a297 ÉMERAH GAL 3a298 ÉMERAH TUR 3a299 ÉMERAH ĜEŠTUG 3a300 ÉMERAH TU 7 (KÁM) 3a301 ÉMERAH KAŠ 3a302 ÉMERAH Ì 3a303 ÉMERAH SI 3a304 ÉMERAH TUR 3a305 U 5 ZA.NU.UM a306a KUN 4 (I-LU) a306b KUN 4 3a307 KUN 4 BÀD 3a308 KUN 4 È.A 3a309 U 5 KUN 4 3a310 ŠÙK(LAGABxA) KUN 4 3a311 BÚNIN 57 3a312 BÚNIN TUR 3a313 BÚNIN GU.LA 3a314 BUNIN 4 ZU(!ŠID).BAR.RA 3a315 BUNIN 4 É.PA.NA 3a316 BUNIN ŠU.KU 6 3a317 NÀĜA(KUMxŠE) 3a318 NÀĜA ŠE 3a319 NÀĜA ŠE Ì.ĜIŠ 3a320 NÀĜA ESIR.È.A 3a321 NÀĜA SUM.GAZ 3a322 TUKUL NÀĜA SUM.GAZ 3a323 GAN.NA 3a324 EME.ŠI(!SIG) 3a325 ŠID-BAL 3a326 MI(!MÁ).RÍ.ZA

(eraš ṣ̣upur alpi // cow-legged bed)

4155

-

(eršu ša ṣ̣upurša raqqat // thin-legged bed)

4156

-

(eraš urbati // reed bed)

4152

-

(eraš šē’iti // bed mattress)

4157

220

(eršu ša pušikki šē’iti //

4158

221

Akkad bed

4163

222

...

...

...

(ša qaqqadi)

4191

-

(paššūr aširti // sanctuary table)

4199

238

(paššūr sakki // table of cultic allotment)

4198

237

(itqūrti paššūri // table spoon)

4200

235

(ṣ̣upur paššūri // table leg)

4203

236

(kanaškarakku // table type)

4204

239

(ša mēsi)

4206

-

cow tooth-plated table

-

-

combed-woolen bed mattress

(ša šinni pīri itaddû // elephant tooth-)

4208

240

clepsydra?

-

241

(kūtu // jug)

4209

242

(rabû)

4210

-

(ṣ̣ehru)

4211

-

(kūt uzni // jug ear)

4216

-

(kūt ummari // soup jug)

4219-20

243

(kūt šikāri // beer jug)

4218

-

(kūt šamni // oil jug)

4213-4

-

(kūt qarni // jug horn)

4215

-

(masla’u // can)

4212

-

4223

245

4225

246

(simmiltu // stairs; ladder)

-

-

(simmilti dūri // wall stairs)

4226

247

(arammu // dam)

4227

-

(hūqu // step of a stairs)

4231

248-50

(šukû // ladder bar)

4232

251

(buginnu // tray; trough; tub)

4234

252

(sussullu // idem)

4235/7

253

(rabû)

4236

-

(muhhuṣ̣u)

4238

254

(tāpalu // pair)

4241

-

(ša bā’iru // of the fisherman)

4240

-

(esittu // mortar)

4242

255

(esitti še’i // barley mortar)

4243

256

(esitti šamaššammi // sesame mortar)

4244

257

bitumen mortar

-

258

(madakku // stamper)

4246

-

(kak madakki // mortar weapon)

4247

259

(bukannu // club)

4248

260

(meṭēnu // plank)

4252-3

262

(paršiktu // bushel; ship’s equipment)

-

-

(parīsu // helm; rudder)

4254

263

54

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 3a (canonical tablet III-Va) 3a327 MI(!MÁ).RÍ.ZA ZAG.GI 3a328 MÁ 3a329 MÁ TUR … (+8?) 3a330 MÁ ÍD.DA.NIR.GAL 3a331 MÁ NU.RI 3a332 MÁ HÉ.DU 7 3a333 MÁ.GI.LUM a334a MÁ.GÍD.DA a334b MÁ.GÍD.DA 3a335 MÁ ADDIR 3a336 MÁ SIG 3a337 MÁ.LÁ 3a338 MÁ SAL.LA 3a339 MÁ PEŠ.PEŠ 3a340 MÁ SU.A 3a341 MÁ DAH(!DIM).DUG 4 .GA 3a342 MÁ ŠÀ.HA 3a343 MÁ DILMUN.NA 3a344 MÁ MÁ.GAN.NA 3a345 MÁ A.AB.BA 3a346 MÁ URI.MA 3a347 MÁ MÁ.RÍKI 3a348 É MÁ 3a349 SI MÁ 3a350 TI MÁ 3a351 TI.TI MÁ 3a352 DAH(!SIG 4 =MURGU) MÁ 3a353 ANŠE MÁ 3a354 KARA 6 (GUR 7 ) MÁ 3a355 DAHGUL(!DURGUL) MÁ.DA 3a356 AN.TAG DAHGUL(!DURGUL) MÁ 3a357 MÁ.DÙ 3a358 ÚŠ.MÁ.DÙ 3a359 GÌR.MÁ.DÙ 3a360 GÌR É.MÁ.DÙ a361a MÁ 70 GUR a361b MÁ 60 GUR a361c MÁ 50 GUR a361d MÁ 40 GUR a361e MÁ 30 GUR a361f MÁ 20 GUR a361g MÁ 15 GUR a361h MÁ 10 GUR a361i MÁ 5 GUR 3a362 ME.TE MÁ 3a263 AN.TI.BAL 3a364 AN.TI.BAL NÍĜIN.NA 3a365 GAG 3a366 IR

(parīsi ṣ̣iṣ̣ṣi // rudder bar)

4255

264

(eleppu // boat)

4262

265

(maturru)

4264

287

...

...

...

4303

-

4312

-

ornamented boat

-

-

(magillu)

4344

-

(makkitu // procession boat)

4269

-

(šaddatu // pulled)

4271

-

(eleppi igri; nēberi // rented; ford boat; ferry)

4352-3

307

(siqtu // narrow ship)

4347

-

(malallû // freight ship

4266

-

(mašallû)

4267

-

(muštabrītu // ‘duration’; sea-going ship)

4275

272

(ṭebītu // sunken)

4284

275

(harištu // attached; moored)

4285

276

(šahhitu // sailing ship)

4286

-

4281

296

4382

-

4343

-

4280

-

(elep ajjabi // open sea ship)

4277

274

(bīt eleppi // boat house)

4380

298

(qarni eleppi // ‘horn’ of boat)

4367

299

(ṣ̣īl eleppi// ‘ribs’; frame)

4369

-

(igārati eleppi // planking; walls of ship)

4370

-

(eṣ̣emṣ̣eri eleppi // carcass of ship)

4371

-

(imēr eleppi // ‘donkey’ of ship)

4373

300

(karû eleppi // quay; port of ship)

4382

-

(tarkullu // mooring post; mast)

4388

312

(namhaṣ̣u // peg; plug; pin)

4389

313

(maduššu)

4391

308

(ušmadû // side plank)

4392

311

4393

310

(hinnu // ship’s cabin)

4261

-

ship of 70 gur tonnage

-

-

-

-

(elep hanšā)

4355

-

(elep erbâ)

4356

-

(elep šalāšā)

4357

-

(elep ešrā)

4358

-

(elep hamiššeret gurri)

4359

-

(elep ešeret)

4360

-

(elep hamišti)

4361

-

ship’s fittings

-

-

(ṣ̣addu // sign; signal; signal post)

4025

317

(ṣ̣addu limûtu // round; ring sign)

4026

-

(sikkatu // peg)

4421

319

(erru II // ring; band)

4422

320

55

Part 2 – Composite Edition 3a367 3a368 3a369 3a370 3a371 .. 3a372 3a373 3a374 3a375 3a376 3a377 3a378 3a379 3a380 3a381 3a382 3a383 3a384 3a385 3a386 3a387 3a388 3a389 3a390 3a391 3a392 a393a a393b 3a394 3a395 3a396 3a397 3a398 3a399 3a400 3a401 3a402 3a403

EN(!xKÁR=ŠÍBIR) GAG EN(!xKÁR=ŠÍBIR) GAG KIR 4 (KA) KA.BAR ZU.HUL(!ŠÀ.HÚL) (+?) DAL MU GIGIR MU.GÍD GIGIR GÌR.GUB GIGIR SU.DIN GIGIR MUD GIGIR ZA.RA GIGIR GAG ZA.RA GIGIR TUM GIGIR GUL GIGIR GAG GUL GIGIR nirMEŠ 58 GIGIR MEŠ GAG nir GIGIR UMBIN GIGIR GAG UMBIN GIGIR

GAG-SÌLA ZA.RA GAG-SÌLA UMBIN GAG-SÌLA GAG UMBIN GAG-SÌLA ŠID(KIŠIB).DÙ BAR.RA ŠID.DÙ ŠAG 4 .GA ŠID.DÙ ŠÁR.RA ÙSAN ÙSAN ÙSAN GUD ÙSAN ANŠE BAR ÙSAN KU ÙSAN MAR.GÍD.DA [MAR].GÍD.DA SU.BIR 4 KI KI MAR.GÍD.DA ELAM.MA KAM MAR.GÍD.DA DAL MAR.GÍD.DA DA MAR.GÍD.DA

(urinnu II // standard)

4428

322

(sikkat urinni // peg of standard)

4428a

323

peg of bridle

-

- 61

(kaparru I // shepherd’s crook)

7b146

325

-

- 62

...

…

…

(DAL gištallu crossbar of chariot)

-

-

(mašaddu // shaft)

5046

-

(mazzaštu // footstand)

5035

337

(šuttinnu // ‘bat’)

5047

333

(uppu // wrapping)

5045

338

(zarû // shaft)

5029

-

(sikkat zarî // peg of shaft)

5030

-

(zibbatu // tail-end)

5043

-

(halmatru)

5056

-

-

-

(nīru // yoke)

5049

340

(sikkat nīri // peg of yoke)

5050

341

(magarru // wheel)

5054

342

(sikkat magarri // peg of wheel)

5055

343

(saparru // freight cart)

5059

351

-

352

-

353

-

-

(taktaku)

5068

355

(arītu)

5070

356

(haršu)

5069

-

whip

-

347

-

348

ox whip

-

-

donkey whip

-

-

ploughing whip

-

-

-

-

5073

357

5077

-

5078

-

wagon stand

-

-

crossbar of wagon

-

-

side board of wagon

-

-

(ereqqu // cart; wagon)

56

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 3b-4 (canonical tablets III-VII) Division 3 Part 1 (canonical III) Version B (bilingual) ĜIŠ

determinatives omitted in the composite edition last column gives SNT count … 3a021 … 3a023 3a024 ... 3a121 +3b001 3a122 3a123 +3b002 3a125 +3b003a +3b003b 3a127 3a128 +3b004 3a147 3a148 3a131 3a132 3a133 3a134 3a135 3a136 3a137 +3b005a +3b005b ...

(+?) [ĜEŠTIN GÍR] (+1) [ĜEŠTIN KA 5 .A] [ĜEŠTIN GA.RA.AN] (+?) [NIMBAR DILMUN].NAKI [NIMBAR MÁ].GÁN.NAKI NIMBAR AL.DA.RA NIMBAR AL.KUD.DA NIMBAR AL.DUB.BA.A NIMBAR AL. ŠAB.BA NIMBAR AL.GAZ.ZA NIMBAR AL.GAZ.[ZA] NIMBAR AL.ÚŠ.A [NIMBAR] AL.ŠU.NIM.[MA] NIMBAR MAŠ.TAB.BA ┐

NIMBAR NÍTA NIMBAR MUNUS NIMBAR <<1>> GÚ.UN NIMBAR AL.ĜÁL.LA NIMBAR NU.AL.ĜÁL.LA NIMBAR AL.ŠEĜ 6 .ĜÁ NIMBAR NU.ŠEĜ 6 .ĜÁ NIMBAR SIG 7 .SIG 7 NIMBAR SIG 7 .SIG 7 AL.ŠEĜ 6 .ĜÁ NIMBAR U 4 .HI.IN NIMBAR U 4 .HI.IN

...

...

...

amurdinnu // rose

3013

009

...

...

...

karān šēlebi // ‘fox wine’

3015

010

ishunnatu // grape

3022

-

...

…

…

dá-al-mu // Dilmun (date palm)

3284

068

assanû // ‘Dilmun date’

3286

-

letû // split (date palm)

3315

069

naksu // cut-off (date palm)

3309

070

napṣ̣u // ground (date palm)

3311

-

šarmu // broken-off (date palm)

3310

071

mītu // dead (date palm)

3301

-

dīku // killed (date palm)

3313

078a

ti-ik-šu 63 // dead (date palm)

3303

079

muš-ha-li-bu (mušahripu // early ripe)

3317

-

tū’amu // twin (date palm)

3318

-

zikaru // male (date palm)

3319

-

sinništu // female (date palm)

3320

-

iṣ̣ bilatu // (date palm) wood tribute

3323

-

nāšû // (fruit) carrying (date palm)

3324

-

lā našû // not -

3325

-

bašlu // ripe (date palm)

3326

-

lā bašlu // unripe (date palm)

3327

-

warqu // green (date palm)

3339

-

wāriqu

3340

080

uhinnu // fresh (palm) date

3328

-

[] (šīṣ̣utu // pitless date)

3329-43

-

...

…

…

(+?)

Division 3 Part 2 (canonical IV-Va) Version B (bilingual) ĜIŠ

determinatives omitted in the composite edition last column gives SNT count ... +3b006 3a228 3a239 3a240 3a241 3a244 3a235 3a236

(+?) GU.ZA BARAG GU.ZA IM x GU.ZA KI.BAL GU.ZA GIDIM.[MA] GU.ZA ŠAG 4 .LAM(!HÚL).LÁ(!LA) GU.ZA ANŠE GU.ZA LUGAL

…

...

...

[] (kussi parakki // dais seat)

4087

-

[]

?

?

[]

-

-

[]

4093

186a

MIN hūd libbi // chair of heart’s rejoicing

4094

175

MIN imēri // donkey’s chair

4095

169

MIN šarri // king’s throne

4088

-

naṭbāhu // slaughter bench

4096

178

57

Part 2 – Composite Edition 3a245 3a237 3a238 3a242 3a246 3a250 3a249 … 3a265 3a266 +3b007 3a267 +3b008 ... 3a334a 3a334b ... 3a361b 3a361c 3a361d 3a361e 3a361f 3a361g 3a361h ... +3b009 +3b010 +3b011 +3b012 +3b013 +3b014 +3b015 +3b016 +3b017 +3b018 +3b019 +3b020 ... +3b021 +3b022a +3b022b +3b023 +3b024 +3b025 +3b026 +3b027 +3b028 +3b029

GU.ZA ŠAH.ŠUM.MA ĜIŠ GU.ZA KIN.TI GU.ZA MÁ.GAN.NA GU.ZA MÁ.LAH 4 GU.ZA NÍĜ.UNKIN.NA GU.ZA GÀR.BA GU.ZA GÀR.BA URUDU.ĜAR.RA GU.ZA GÀR.BA ZABAR.[ĜAR.RA]

(+?)

li-iš-ša

ŠÚ-[A] ŠÚ-A DU 10 .ÚS.[SA] ŠÚ-A ŠU ŠÚ-A ŠU.[I] ŠÚ-A KASKAL (+?) MÁ GÍD.DA MÁ GÍD.DA (+?) [MÁ 60] GUR [MÁ 50] GUR [MÁ 40 GUR] [MÁ 30 GUR] [MÁ 20 GUR] [MÁ 15 GUR] [MÁ 10 GUR] (+?) É SUHUR [GIGIR] KANKAL [GIGIR] SUHUR GIGIR GABA GIGIR GABA GAL(!ĜÁL) GIGIR KUN GIGIR SI GIGIR GAG SI GIGIR GUL GIGIR GAG GUL GIGIR ZA.RA GIGIR GAG [ZA.RA GIGIR]

(+?) GU.ZA MAR.GÍD.DA SU.DIN MAR.GÍD.DA SU.DIN MAR.GÍD.DA GAG SU.DIN MAR.GÍD.DA UMBIN MAR.GÍD.DA GAG UMBIN <MAR.>GÍD.DA GÌR MAR.GÍD.DA IGI MAR.GÍD.DA LI.DUR MAR.GÍD.DA KANKAL MAR.GÍD.DA

kussi kiškittî // artisan’s chair

4097

-

makanni // Magan (chair)

4098

179

ša malāhi // (chair) of the seaman

4100

181

kussi puhri // assembly seat

-

185

kussi karri // seat knob

4103

195

[]

4106

-

[]

4107

197

...

...

...

[]

4129

204

[]

4130

205

[] (litti qāti // ‘hand’ footstool; treadle)

4131

-

[]

4132

-

[] (litti harrāni // ‘road’ -)

4133

209

...

...

...

[] (makkītu // procession boat)

4269

-

[] idem

idem

-

...

...

...

MIN šūši // 60 (gur tonnage) ship

4354

279

MIN 50

4355

280

MIN 40

4356

281

MIN 30

4357

282

MIN 20

4358

283

MIN 15

4359

284

MIN 10

4360

285

...

…

...

[] (ištuhhu // whipholder of chariot)

5016

-

[] (sassu // bottomplate of -)

5032

-

[] harnessed part of -

-

-

[] ‘chest’ of -

-

345

[]

-

346

[] (zibbatu // tail)

5042

330

[] ‘horn’ of -

-

344

[] peg of ‘horn’of -

-

-

halmatru

5056

-

sikkat halmatri

-

-

[]

5029

-

[] (sikkat zarî // peg of shaft)

5030

-

…

…

...

vacat // wagon seat

-

358

vacat // ‘bat’ of wagon

-

-

vacat

-

-

vacat // peg of ‘bat’ of wagon

-

-

vacat // (ṣ̣umbu // wheel)

5092

368

vacat // (kanasarru // wheel disk)

5095g

369

kurṣ̣u // fetter (of wagon)

-

-

īnu // ‘eye’ (of wagon)

-

-

abunnatu // ‘umbilical cord’ (of wagon)

5083

-

sassu // bottom (plate of wagon)

-

-

58

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 3b-4 (canonical tablets III-VII)

Division 4 (canonical Vb-VII) ĜIŠ determinatives omitted in the composite edition / last column gives SNT count 5199 [] (daltu // door) 4001 IG 5200 [] (rabitu // big) 4001a IG GAL 5201 [] (ṣẹ hertu // small) 4001b IG TUR 5208 dippu (DIB to pass) 4002a IG DIB.BA 5209 tamhiṣ̣u // plated door 4002b IG DIB.DIB.BA 5210 lē’u // door panel 4003 IG LI 5 .UM 5233 [] (dalat šamni) 4004 MIN Ì<.BA> 5234 [] (dalat piššati) 4005 MIN Ì.ŠEŠ(!ŠE 8 ) 5218-9 [] (tū’amātu // twin doors 4006 MIN MAŠ.TAB.BA 5211 [] (šagammu // door hinge) 4007 MIN ĜIŠGU.LA 5212 [] (kuṣ̣īmu // door handle) ĜIŠ 4008 [MIN] GURUM.ME ... … … (+?) [] 4009 IG KÁ 5247a MIN abulli // gate door 4010 IG KÁ.GAL 5236 MIN papāhi // sanctuary 4011 IG PA.[PA.AH] 5222 MIN erēni // cedar-wooden ĜIŠ 4012 IG ERIN 5223 MIN šurmēni // cypress4013 IG ĜIŠŠU.ÚR.[MÌN] 5224 MIN ašūhi // pineĜIŠ 4014 IG Ù.SUH 5 MIN ṣạ rbati // poplar4015 IG ĜIŠÁSAL [] willowĜIŠ 4016 IG MA.NU [] knocked down 4017 IG KUM.MA MIN ellitu // sacred 4018 IG KUG.GA rabitu // big 4019 IG GU.LA eššitu // new 4020 IG GIBIL labirtu // old 4021 IG SUMUN labirtu // old 4022 IG LIBIR.RA ubbultu // ‘weight-door’ 4023 IG ŠU.LÁL 5253 ša-li-mi (šagammu // door hinge) 4024 U 5 IG 5252 šukû // (door) handle 4025 ŠUK IG 5254 sāhiru // ‘revolving door’ 4026 U 4 .[SAKAR] IG … … (+1) … 5264 nukuššu // pivot 4027 [NU].KÚŠ 5265 vacat // upper support 4028 [NU.KÚŠ] AN.TA 5266 vacat // lower support 4029 [NU.KÚŠ KI].TA 5267 e-la-ra-ma/mu // bolt 4030 SUHUB 4 (ŠU-DI-ÉŠ) 5269/a [] (napraku) // bolt 64 4031 ŠU KAM .MA 5270 [] (sikkūru // bolt; bar) 4032 SAĜ.KUL 5271 madlû // bucket (lock) / 4033 SAĜ.KUL NIM.MA

374 375 379 378 376 377 381 ... 380a 389 388 390 … 395 396 397 394a 394b 398 399

(muterru // ‘raised’ lock)

4034 4034 4035 4036 4037 4038 4039

SAĜ.KUL ŠU.LÁL ÉŠ SAĜ.KUL MUD SAĜ.KUL MUD GILIM MUD GAG MUD AŠKUD X (Á-ZA-AN-MÙŠ)

sikkūr šaqīli // ‘weight lock’

5274

401

vacat // ‘rope lock’

5275

400

šulbu // ‘lock block’

5276

-

gišru // ‘cross block’

5277

-

uppu // stump; trunk

5286

405

sikkat uppi // peg of -

5287

406

aškuttu // partition

5278

-

59

Part 2 – Composite Edition 4040 GAG MIN 4041 ÉŠ MIN 4042 MUD AŠKUD X 4043 SUHUR 4044 SUHUR GUD 4045 SUHUR ANŠE 4046 TI.IL.PA KUR 4 .RA 4047 SAĜ.DU 4048 SAĜ.DU AN.TA 4049 SAĜ.DU KI.TA 4050 KUR 4 .RA 4051a NIR.RA 4051b NIR.RA 4052 ŠERIM(TAK-TÚG) 4052a ŠERIM GAL 4052b ŠERIM TUR 4053 ŠERIM BAR.SIG … (+?) 4054 il-li-ilÍL 4055 4056 4057 4058 4059 4060 4061a 4061b 4062 4063 4064 4064a … 4065 4066 4067 4068 4068a 4068b 4069 4070 4071 4072 4073 4074a 4074b 4075 4076 4077 4078

sikkat MIN // peg of -

5279

-

ebli MIN // rope of -

5280

-

uppa MIN // bar of -

5281

-

mekkû // bobbin

7a148

-

MIN alpi // oxen -

7a149

-

MIN imēri // donkey -

7a150

-

akajû

5304

-

asû II // beam / na-ba-lu

5305

-

MIN elû // upper -

5306

-

MIN šaplu // lower -

5307

-

iṣ̣ kūri

-

409

iṣ̣ nīri // wood of the yoke

5308

410

muṣ̣abbittu // loom ‘grip’

5311

-

ṣ̣īṣ̣ītu // loom heddle

5300

408

rabû // big (loom handle)

5301

-

ṣ̣ehru // small (loom handle)

5302

-

ša parsīgi // (loom handle) of the sash

5303

-

...

…

…

maššu I // carrier basket /

5314

411

habbiru // tenter; loom trigger

5315

-

maššu UZU // meat basket

5316

-

tāpalu // (lever) pair

(nanšu // lever)

ÍL SIKI ÍL UZU ÍL É.PA.NA BAR.BAR NÍĜ.BAL NÍĜ.ŠU(!ZU) NÍĜ.GI.NA NÍĜ.GI.[NA]

-

-

ukû // shuttle

5312

412

palluku // ‘needle pair’

-

-

vacat (haṭṭu // sceptre)

5319

414

mukānu // cloth beam

5318

415

mukiṣ̣ṣu

-

-

Akk: [na-mu]-lu 4 Akk: [na-mu]- u

namullu (lūtu)

6001

-

namāṣ̣u // butter vessel

6003

-

pilakku // spindle

6019

422

natmu

6020

-

...

…

…

[] (qaqqad pilakki // spindle head)

6026

424

šukūdu

6027

-

napraṣụ // crowbar

6028-9

425

[] (muštu // comb)

6012

418

rabu // big (comb)

-

-

ṣ̣ehru // small (comb)

-

-

ša šīpāti // (comb) for wool

6013

419

ša qaqqadi // (comb) for the head

6014

420

mahhuṣ̣u

-

-

ša merešti // (‘comb’) for harvesting

-

-

tāpanu // pair (of combs)

6018

421a

pakku // ball

6043

426-8

lu-uk-ki-iš

pikku // idem

-

idem

la-ga-me

haṭṭu // sceptre

-

idem

BAL [BAL] GAL

(+?) [SAĜ] BAL [KUL] BAL ME.TE BAL qa-ri-im GA.RÍG GA.RÍG GAL GA.RÍG TUR GA.RÍG SIKI GA.RÍG SAĜ.DU GA.RÍG SIKI DIĜIR.RA GA.RÍG ŠU KAM(!GAN).MA GA.RÍG É.AN(!PA).NA lu-uk-ki-iš 65 ELLAĜ(LAGAB) ELLAĜ LAGAB mu-ud-li MUDUL(BU) ma-ad-li MADAL(BU) ma-al-la MALLA(BU)

maššu // basket

6085

429-32

mandu // bar

6086

idem

malālu // mortar

6087

idem

60

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 3b-4 (canonical tablets III-VII) 4079 4080 4081 4082 4083 4084 4085 4086 4087 4088 4089 4090 4091 4091a 4092 4093 4094 4095 4096 4097 4098 4099 4100 ...

ki-ši-mu

BU

GI TUR SUHUR GI TUR zu-u-bi ZUBI(KAM 4 ) gu-ur GÚR(GAM) GÚR Á.LÁ GÚR BA.AN.SIM GÚR BA.AN.DU 8 GÚR BA.AN.DU 8 .DU 8 GÚR BALAG 66 GÚR .DU .DI Á.LÁ iš-ri<ĜIŠ.>RÍN <ĜIŠ.>RÍN TUR <ĜIŠ.>RÍN LUL.A <ĜIŠ.>RÍN SAL.LA <ĜIŠ.>RÍN 1 GÚ.UN <ĜIŠ.>RÍN ZAG.LÁL [<ĜIŠ.>RÍN] MÀ(GÁ).MÀ.LA [<ĜIŠ.>RÍN ZI].BA.NA [É.<ĜIŠ.>RÍN] [Á.<ĜIŠ.>RÍN] [<ĜIŠ.>RÍN] DÍLIM(LIŠ)

(+3 in T1 - note, however, apparent discrepancies in T2) 4101a NA.BA.RUM 4101b NA.BA.RUM 4102 APIN 4103a APIN [ŠU] 4103b APIN [ŠU] 4104 [APIN ŠU].duDU 7 4105 [APIN NU.ŠU].duDU 7 4106 APIN ŠU.<>KIM(!KIN) 4107a APIN GUD 2 4107b APIN GUD 4 4107c APIN GUD 6 4108a APIN keKÉŠ.DA 4108b APIN NU.MIN 4109 APIN Á.KÁR 4110 [APIN].Á.KÁR BIR.BIR.RI 4111 EME APIN ŠU.<>KIN 4112 EME APIN 4113 AMA APIN 4114 NIG MIN 4115 SAĜ.ĜÁ MIN 4116 [GAG] SAĜ.ĜÁ MIN 4117 Akk: ú-zu-un-tu 4118 [HAR] MIN 4119 [NÍNDA] MIN 4120 [GAG NÍNDA MIN]

gašīšu // stake

6084

idem

mallu

-

-

mekkû // bobbin

-

-

gamlu // stick

-

-

kippatu // ring; round handle

6099

-

kippat alî // - of drum

6105

-

MIN napāṣ̣i // - of drumstick

6098

435

MIN ba-an-de -e 4 MIN banduddî // - of bucket

6100-2

-

6104

-

MIN balangi // - of drum

6106

-

MIN tibutti // handle of harp

6107

-

alû III // drum

-

-

gišrinnu // scales

6108

436

qablitu // ‘middle’ (of scales)

-

-

sarru // false (scales)

6110/2

-

raqqu // ‘fine’; precise (scales)

-

-

ša bilti // (scales) for talent(s)

6113

438

ša mar-QA-e-ti

-

-

ša malallî // (scales) of the freightship

6114

-

ša zibānīti // (scales) of balance

-

439

kukku II // ‘house’ (of scales)

6116

440

idu // ‘arm’ (of scales)

6117

-

6115

441

...

...

...

[] cage

-

-

[] idem

-

-

epinnu // plough / ši-ir-ha-du 71

5110

442

epin qāti // hand plough

5116

443

agadibbu // idem

-

-

šuklulu // complete (plough)

5117

444

lā šuklulu // incomplete (plough)

5118

445

harbu // fallow land (plough)

5122

446

ši-nu-ut-tu // 2 oxen plough

5133

-

ĜIŠ DÍLIM

qabliti // ‘spoon’of scales

APIN

4-ta // 4 oxen -

5131

448

APIN

6-et // 6 oxen -

5130

-

ṣ̣ummudu // harnessed (plough)

5125

-

lā MIN // unharnessed (plough)

5126

-

unūtū // (plough) accessories / a-nu

5127

-

unūtūša suppuhu // scattered (plough) acc.

5128

-

-

-

lišānu // ‘tongue’ (of plough)

5137

450

ummu // ‘mother’ (of plough)

-

-

kalbatu // ‘bitch’ (of plough)

-

457

qaqqadu // ‘head’ (of plough)

5135

-

sikkat qaqqadi // peg of ‘head’ (of plough)

5136

454

uzuntu

5136

-

šawiru // ring (of plough)

-

-

ittû I // seed funnel (of plough)

5146

-

sikkat MIN // peg of seed funnel (of plough)

5147

-

EME

harbi // ‘tongue’ of fallow (plough)

61

Part 2 – Composite Edition 4121 4122 4123 4124 4125 4126 4127 4128 4129 4130 4131a 4131b 4132 4133 4134 4135 4136 4137 4138 4139 4140 4141 4142 4143 4144 4145 4146 4147 4148 4149 4150 4151 4152 4152a 4152b 4152c 4152d 4153 4154 4155 4156 4157 4158 4159 4160 4161 4162 4163 4164 4165

GAM MIN ? AN.ZA.<MA .>TUM MIN PA Ù.KU 67 MIN IGI.KAL(!ĜÁL) MIN SU(!ŠU).SAĜ.ĜÁ MIN GAG SU.SAĜ.ĜÁ MIN MUŠ(/ŠIR 10 ) APIN GAG MUŠ APIN TE(!LE).U 5 .UM APIN GAG LE.U 5 .UM APIN SU.DIN APIN SU.DIN(!ŠUDUN) APIN GAG SU.DIN(!ŠUDUN) APIN SAL.LA APIN GAG SAL.LA APIN Á APIN DA APIN DA DA APIN NÍĜ.GÍD.DA APIN GAG SAL.LA APIN BAR.BAR APIN NÍĜ.GÁN.ÙR NÍĜ.GAN.ÙR MU.ŠAR NÍĜ.GÁN.ÙR ZÚ.GAL.GAL ZA.RA NÍĜ.GÁN.ÙR GAG ZA.RA NÍĜ.GÁN.ÙR U 5 NÍĜ.GÁN.ÙR ZÚ NÍĜ.GÁN.ÙR GAG ZÚ NÍĜ.GÁN.ÙR AL AL SA AL SAĜ AL ZÚ AL ZÚ 2 AL ZÚ 3 AL ZÚ 4 AL ZÚ 4 AL Ù.ŠUB Ù.ŠUB Ù.ŠUB SIG 4 (.GA) Ù.ŠUB [SIG 4 ](.GA) LÚ(!AL).ÙR.RA Ù.ŠUB A.AB.BA BAR.DU [A]. AB.BA [GAG DU 8 BA].LÁ [GAG ŠÚM BA.LÁ] [GAG ŠÚM ŠIR.DILI] ZI.RI.QUM GÚ ZI.RI.QUM 68 NAM.LÚ.DA.RI.A tu-ub-ši-ik DUSU(ÍL)

kippat MIN // round handle of plough

-

-

vacat

-

466

nabrû

5150

-

ši-‘u-ú (nabrītu)

5151

452a

hanniqu // presser of plough

5152

452

sikkat MIN // peg of presser of plough

5153

-

[] (šeršerratu // chain of plough)

5154

460a

sikkat MIN // peg of plough

-

460b

lē’u // panel (of plough)

5141

463

sikkat MIN // peg of panel (of plough)

5142

-

šuttinnu // ‘bat’ (of plough)

-

-

nīru // yoke (of plough)

5166

458

sikkat MIN // peg of yoke (of plough)

5167

460

raqqu // thin (blade of plough)

5161

455

sikkat MIN // peg of thin (blade of plough)

5162

456

ahu II // side (of plough)

5140

-

dātu

5139

461

šahātu // corner; side (of plough)

-

-

mašaddu // shaft (of plough)

-

-

ha-ab-su-uk-ku // peg of shaft of plough

-

-

ukû // shuttle (of plough)

-

-

maškakatu // harrow

5173

468

MIN mūšari // plot -

5174

469

MIN šinnū rabiātu // ‘big-toothed’ -

5175

470

zarû // shaft (of harrow)

5180

-

sikkat MIN // peg of shaft (of harrow)

5180a

-

rakābu

5185

472

šinnu // ‘tooth’ (of harrow)

5186

-

sikkat MIN // peg of ‘tooth’ (of harrow)

-

-

allu // hoe

7a152

477

MIN qa-ar-qu

7a153

-

qaqqad alli // ‘head’ of hoe

7a154

-

šinna alli // ‘tooth’ of -

7a155a

478

ša šitta šinnašu // (hoe) with double ‘teeth’

7a159

480

ša 3 KAxÉRIN/UD-šu // (hoe) with triple -

7a160

481

titennu // fork

7a161

-

turāšu // harvest(-fork)

7a162

482

šēlebtu // ‘vixen’ hoe

7a166

-

nalbattu // mould

7a169

483

MIN libitti // brick -

7a170

485

MIN libitti agurriti // brick-burning -

7a171

486

nalbat apti // mould frame

7a173

484

bardî apti // frame holder

-

-

GAG

nappî // peg of sieve

6133

488

GAG

šūmi // peg of onion

6134

489

GAG

tutturi // peg of onion bulb/slice

6135

490

vacat (zuruqqu // pole)

6150

491

vacat

-

492

vacat (zuruqqu // (sowing) pole)

6153-4

493

tupšikku // carrier basket

-

-

62

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 3b-4 (canonical tablets III-VII) 4166 4167 4168 4169 4170 4171 ... 4173a 4173b 4173c 4173d 4173e 4174a 4174b 4174c 4174d 4174e 4174f 4174g 4174h 4175 4176a 4176b 4177 4177a 4177b 4178 4179 4180 4181 4182 4183 4184 4185 4186a 4186b 4187 4188 4189 4190 4191 4192 4193a 4193b 4193c 4194 4195 ... 4196 4197

DUSU ZAG.LÁL dur DÚR(KU) DÚR SIG 4 .GA DÚR SIG 4 .GA AL.LÚ.ÙR.RA DÚR A.AB.BA DÚR [BISAĜ]

(+?) [2] SÌLA 3 SÌLA 4 SÌLA 5 SÌLA 5/6 SÌLA 10 GÍĜ 5 GÍĜ 3 GÍĜ 2 GÍĜ 1 GÍĜ ½ GIĜ 1/3 GÍĜ 2/3 GÍĜ.NA.BI IGI 3 ĜÁL du SA 9 (MAŠ) LA ŠU. DU 7 du SA 9 LA NU.ŠU. DU 7 A

SA SA GAL SA TUR SA MAH SA LAGAB SA HAR.DA SA.GAL SA IGI GAL.GAL SA LIGIMA(IGI-TUR-TUR) SA ĜIŠ IGI SA ĜIŠ SA.AD SA.AD ÉLLAĜ(BIR).DÙ ĜIDRU ÉLLAĜ.DÙ GÚR ÉLLAĜ.DÙ HAR MUŠEN.NA ĜIDRU HAR MUŠEN.NA GÚR HAR MUŠEN.NA ŠU.NIR ŠU.NIR ŠU.NIR IGI.KAL IGI.KAL BÀD

(+?) U 4 SAKAR GAG U 4 SAKAR

ša mi-iš-ki-li-ti

-

-

kiskirru // box; board / ta-pa-rù

7a174

508

kiskir SIG -ti // brick 4 kiskir SIG agurriti // tile 4 kiskir SIG pišanni // tile frame 4 [] (kiskir pišanni // basket box)

7a175

511

7a176

512

7a178

510

7a200

509

...

...

...

[] 2 qâ

-

-

šalašti qâ

-73

-

erbetti qâ

-

-

hamišti qâ

-

-

qâ 50 šiqil

-

-

ešertu

-

524

hamištu

-

525

šalaštu

-

525a

šina

-

525b

šiqlu

-

526

zūzu

-

-

šuššā

-

-

šinepā

-

-

parasrab

-

-

šuklulu // complete (SA half) 9 lā MIN // incomplete

-

-

-

-

šetu // net

6160

527

rabitu // big -

6164

528

ṣ̣ehertu // small -

6165

-

šammahu // large -

6163

-

lagabbu

-

-

hurdu // doormat

-

-

sa-as-gal-lu // GLOSS

-

-

rabbûtu (šalhu)

6185

-

pāqātu // ‘small-eyed’ net

6186a

-

sannu // net

6183a

-

businnitu

-

-

nassapu // measure container

6192

561

nanṣ̣āru

-

-

él-la-an-du-u // GLOSS ‘ball keeper’

-

539

haṭṭi MIN // stick of -

-

-

kippat MIN // round handle of -

-

-

huhāru // bird trap

6220

536

haṭṭi MIN // stick of -

6221

537

kippat MIN // hoop of -

6222

538

šurīnu // emblem

7a039

550

kakku // (coat of) arms

7a040

-

maṣ̣rahu // socle

7a041

-

[] (ṣạ ddu // signal pole)

4027

543

[] (ṣạ ddu dūri // - of the city wall)

4028

-

...

...

...

[] crescent-shaped object

-

576

[] peg of -

-

577

63

Part 2 – Composite Edition 4198 DIM 4199 DÁLA(IGI-GAG) 4200 šu-gur<ŠUKUR(IGI-GAG)> 4201 šu-gur<ŠUKUR>.GAL 4202 ZA.U 18 (GIŠGAL).ŠA 4203 MA.ŠA.ZUM 4204 MI.ŠI.ZUM 4205 E.MI.IT.TUM 4206 NÍĜ.GÍD.DA 4207 LÚGUD(LAGAB).DA 4208 il-li-i l 5 ILLAR(RU) 4209 ILLAR DU 4210 ILLAR ŠUB.BA 4211 ILLAR ZÌG.GA 4212 ILLAR NIĜIN 4213 ILLAR ŠU LUGAL 4214 ILLAR É.PA.NA 4215 LÚGUD ILLAR 4216 PAN 4217 PAN GAG SI.SÁ 4218 EŠ.AD.DU 4219 la-abLÁB(LUL=KA 5 ) 4220a LUL[<.BI>] 4220b LIB(LUL)<.BI.DA> 4221 a-gaAGA 4222 AGA GÍĜ 4223 AGA ÉRIN 4224 NÍĜ.GUL 4225 NÍĜ.GUL ŠU 4226 NÍĜ.GUL MUD 4227 NÍĜ.GUL A.ŠAG 4 .GA 4228 NÍĜ.GUL KIRI 16 4229 MUD NÍĜ.GUL 4230 NÍĜ.SAHAR.RA 4231 [NÍĜ].SAHAR. BÙR.BÙR(!BÚR.BÚR).RA (+?) ... 4232 [MAR] SAHAR.RA 4233 [LAGAB] MAR 4234 EME MAR 4235 IGI MAR 4236 GAG MAR 4237 KUL MAR 4238 LI.DUR MAR 4239 ŠE.RA.AH 4240 ŠU ŠE.RA.AH 4241 IN.NU.ŠU.KAM.MA 4242 KUN ZABAR 4243a

su-uk-ki-né-še

SUGIN(BAD)

timmu // post; pole

-

-

ṣillû // thorn

6234

548

šukurru // spear

6235

idem

šukurgallu // big -

6236

-

asmaru // spear

6237

549

ma-ša-ṣ̣u

6241

-

mi-ši-ṣ̣u

-

-

imittu // propped-up (spear)

6238

-

ariktu // long (spear)

6239

551

kurutu // short (spear)

-

551a

tilpanu // dart / ir-ri-bu

7a066

552

aliktu // ‘going’ (dart)

7a067

554b

maqittu // ‘falling’ (dart)

7a069

553

tebitu // ‘rising’ (dart)

7a068

-

sahirtu // ‘turning’ (dart)

7a078

-

[] (dart) of the king’s hand

-

552a

da-pa-na // double (dart)

7a077

554

addu

7a079

554c

qaštu // bow

7a048

555

[] ‘straight-pegged’ -

-

558

nahbalu // trap

6195

560

šēlebtu // ‘fixen’

7a242

-

kursinnu // knuckle; ankle

7a243

562

ra-ki-il-tu // ax

-

-

agû // crown

6227

567

agî pāši // crown of ax

6228

568

a-gi zi-li-qu

-

-

akkullu // hatchet

7a245

-

MIN qāti // hand -

7a246

-

MIN uppi // tube -

7a247

-

MIN eqli // field -

7a248

-

MIN kirî // garden -

7a249

-

NAP?-AD? ù-gul-li // hatchet-tube

7a251

-

išqarrurtu

7a117

578

MIN palliši // (BÙR to spread out)

7a118

579

...

...

...

mar eperi // sand shovel

7b027

-

pīsi marri // winnowing -

7b028

-

lišān marri // ‘tongue’ of -

7b030

590

pān marri // front of -

7b031

-

marri // peg of -

7b032

-

GAG

7b033

591

abunnat marri // ‘umbilical cord’ of -

7b034

-

narpaṣụ // flail

7b035

-

nahbašu // pounder

7b036

-

idem

7b037

-

ku-uk si-pi-ir-ri // GLOSS /

-

-

6058

592

DUMU(!šumû

II) ša marri // handle of -

(kurrubu) bronze ‘tail’ su-uk-ki-nu // GLOSS decaying wood

64

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 3b-4 (canonical tablets III-VII) 4243b 4243c 4244 4245 4246 4247 4248 4249 4250 4251 4252 4253a 4253b 4253c 4254 4255 4256 4257a 4257b 4258 (... 4259 4260 4261 4262 4263 4264 4265 4266 4267 4268 4269 4270 4271 4272 4273 4274a 4274b 4275 4276 4277 4278 4279 4280 4281 4282 4283 4284 4285 4286

su-uk-ki-in

nutāpu // old wood

6060

593

su-uk-ki-in

iṣ̣ labīru // idem

6063

594

balangu // harp; drum

7b039

597

tibbutu // harp / uppu III // drum

7b040

598

alû III

7b062

600

lalû

7b063

601

al/a-la gu-ru-šu-ru-u // GLOSS

7b068

602

sabītu // lyre

7b080

603

šebītu // small lyre

7b074

-

ma-a-ri-tu

7b077

604

7b079

605

7b081

-

SUGIN SUGIN

BALAĜ BALAĜ.DI Á.LÁ Á.LÁ GÁN Á.LÁ GÁN.ÙR ZA.BI.TUM ŠE.BI.TUM MÁ.RÍ.TUM IM(!UR.)ZA.BA 4 .BA 4

4 urzababītu

za-an

kandabitu / zannaru

za-an

kinnaru // zither

MÙŠ MÙŠ za-an MÙŠ HAR.HU

ĜÉŠPU HAR.HU X HAR MUŠEN(.NA) ZÀ.MÍ ZÀ.MÍ KUL ZÀ.MÍ

+1 only in 4E2 DUB ZÀ.MÍ ÁB ZÀ.MÍ UR.GU.LA ma DÌM. MAR.KUR 4 (!GUR 8 ).RA ma DÌM. MAR.HA.A.ŠI ti-ki-id-la TIGIDLU(ŠAG 4 -TAR) TIGIDLU KASKAL TIGIDLU SA.ÚS SA.ÚS/A MIN TIGIDLU BÚN GÚ.UH.DÉ(!GÙ.DI) HA.SUR [GUB ] NÍĜ.ZABAR.[GUB] UZU.LÁ UZU.[LÁ] GAG UZU.LÁ ÉŠ.LÁ GAG ÉŠ.LÁ ZÍ.ZÍ.IG(!SÌG.SÌG) SÌG.SÌG É.PA. DAG DAG É.PA.NA GUD SI.[DILI] É GUD SI.[DILI] SAĜ GUD SI.[DILI] TI GUD [SI.DILI] TI.TI GUD SI.[DILI]

-

tindu

7b186a

-

harharu

-

608

mušelu // ‘raiser’

-

-

[]

7b050

607

sammu // lyre

7b044

610

mandu

-

-

hansu (KUL handle; shaft)

-

611

...

...

...)

hasis sammi // ‘ear’ of -

7b049

-

ur-gul-lu-u // GLOSS

7b086

606

halmatru

7b048

-

pa-ra-su/šu-u 72

-

-

ti-ki-it-ta-lu-u // GLOSS

-

613

harhadu

-

-

ta/ilmuttu

-

-

idem

-

-

[]

-

-

la-hu // bellows

-

-

la-hu (īnu)

7b117

617

muparriku

-

-

ni-iš/ka-ku-ub-bu // GLOSS

-

-

giš-za-bar-gu/gub-bu // GLOSS

7a141

629

nasru // meathook

-

-

idem

-

-

sikkat nasri // peg of meathook

-

-

halmatru // snare

6218-9

-

sikkat halmatri // peg of -

-

-

šinnitu // flute

-

-

tāpanu // pair (double flute)

-

-

[] saddle hook

-

-

[] double -

-

-

[] (jāšibu // battering-ram)

7a088

634

[] ‘house’ of battering-ram

-

-

[] (qaqqad jāšibi // head of -)

7a089

-

[] ‘rib’ of -

-

-

[] ‘carcass’ of -

-

-

ṭuppu ša šammi // ‘tablet’ of a sammu lyre

65

7b050

612

Part 2 – Composite Edition 4287 4288 4289 4290 4291 4292 4293 4294 4295 4296 4297 4298 4299 4300 4301 4302 4303 4304 4305 4306 4307 4308 4309 4310 4311 4312 ... 4313 4314 4315 4316 4317 4318 4318 4319 4320 4321 4322 4323a 4323b 4323c 4324 4325 4162b 4163b 4164b ... 4326a 4326b 4326c

ANŠE GUD SI.DILI GÚ.MURGU GUD SI.[DILI] ĜÉŠPU GUD SI.[DILI] DU-DU GUD SI.[DILI] ME.TE.NA GUD[SI.DILI] ni-šal BI-IŠ(!GISAL) BI-IŠ(!GISAL) MIN ŠU MIN MUD MIN ANŠE KIN KIN GÍR KIN [GÍR] ŠU.I KIN [GÍR] MUHALDIM KIN [GÍR] AŠGAB KIN [GÍR] U 4 .SAKAR KIN GÍR IGI.GAG KIN GÍR AD.GUB 5 KIN [GÍR] AD.DA [Á].LÁ BISAĜ [GAN].DA(!DU 7 ) GAN.DA(!DU 7 ) [KÁ.NA] GÀR.[BA] GAG GÀR.BA GÚ GÀR.BA tu-kul [TUKUL]

(+1 - traces in T2) [MIN(TUKUL)] DIĜIR.[RA] [MIN] DIĜIR.RA 7 x MIN LUGAL MIN MIN DDA.MU MIN MIN ĜIŠMA.NU [MIN] ŠE MIN ŠE Ì.ĜIŠ MIN ZÚ.LUM.[MA] 69 TUKUL SAĜ ZAG.[NA 4 ] TUKUL ĜIŠ [x] SAĜ TUKUL SAĜ ŠU.NIR ŠU.NIR ŠU.NIR HAL.MEŠ HAL.ME ZI.RI.QUM GÚ ZI.RI.QUM NAM.LÚ.DA.RI.A 70

(+?) ZÉ.[NA ...] ZÉ.[NA ...] ZÉ.[NA ...]

[] ‘donkey’ of -

7a093

-

[] ‘backbone’ of -

7a091

637

[] (umāšu // ‘clasp’ of -)

7a092

638

[] (mutallikat // ‘swinger’ of -)

7a094-5

-

[] battering-ram accessories

-

-

[] (gišallu // oar)

4410

645

[] (gišal qāti // hand oar)

4411

646

[] (gišal uppi // oar tube)

4412

-

namhaṣ̣u // plug (of oar)

4413

647

šikru // handle

7b291

-

šikir patri // knife handle

7b292

-

MIN gallabi // barber’s -

7b295

-

MIN LÚ MULHALDIM // baker’s -

-

-

MIN aškāpi // shoemaker’s -

-

-

MIN uskāri // ‘crescent’-

-

-

MIN ṣị llî // ‘thorn’-

-

-

MIN atkuppi // matbinder’s -

7b296

-

mišlitu

-

-

alû III // drum

6156

600

pisannu // basket

6224

-

hittu // lintel

-

-

MIN ša bābi // - of the gate

-

-

[] (GÀR knob)

-

-

[]

-

-

[]

-

-

[] (kakku // weapon; mace)

7a006

496

...

...

...

[] (kakki ša DIĜIR.MEŠ // divine mace)

7a010

500

[] 7-(headed?) divine mace

-

-

[] king’s -

-

-

[] DN’s -

-

-

[] willow wood -

-

-

[] barley -

-

-

MIN šamaššammi // sesame -

-

-

MIN suluppi // date -

-

-

huppalu // double ax

-

-

[]

-

-

[] (rēš kakki)

7a028-9

502

[] (šurīnu // emblem)

7a039-41

550

šibbitu

idem

-

idem

idem

-

[]

-

-

qarītu // bar

-

-

zuruqqu // pole

6150

491

šumannu // neck-pole

-

492

dilûtu // drawing labour

6153

493

...

…

…

[] (kalbanatu // scaling ladder)

7a081-4

639-40

[]

idem

idem

[]

idem

idem

66

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 3b-4 (canonical tablets III-VII) ... 4327a 4327b 4327c 4328 4329 4330 4331 4332 4333 4334 4335a 4335b 4336 4337 4338 4339 4340a 4340b 4341 4342 4343 4344 4345 4346 4347 ... 4348a 4348b 4348c 4349 4350 4351 4352 4353 4354 4355 4356 4357 4358 4359 4360 4361a 4362 4361b 4361c 4363 4364 4365 4366

(+?) [x] LÍMMU [x] LÍMMU [x] LÍMMU SAĜ ĜIŠ ŠAG 4 ĜIŠ ŠAG 4 .HUL.LÁ NÍNDA ŠAG 4 NÍNDA BÙR NÍNDA U 5 NÍNDA U 5 .BÍL.LÁ <>BÍL.LA(!GA) AR.GA.AN.NU.UM BU. U.TUM DAM.ŠI.LUM ku-ri-né-eš KUR ku-ri KUR ku-ri KUR e-ša ESI(KAL) gi-iš-kal-la KAL x -a-eš [ ] ESI [ú]-riURIKI KI URI KI URI KI URI

(+3) GUŠUR(ÙR) GUŠUR GUŠUR TU.LÚ.BU.BU ŠID.ŠID x ŠID.ŠID DIM NAM(!MÁ).GAZ NAM(!MÁ).GAZ NÍĜ.BÙR.BÙR.RI NAM.TAR KUN.SIKI SÌL.LA UMBIN TUKUL SÌL.LA UMBIN UMBIN KA UMBIN.NA MUD UMBIN.NA ti-hi DÌH(NIM)

...

…

…

[]

-

-

da-a-ia

-

-

ša 4-tu

-

-

-

-

ŠAG .BA ĜIŠ // ‘heart of wood’ 4 kabarru

-

-

-

-

ittu // seed funnel

-

656

-

-

4 rēš ĜIŠ // ‘head of wood’

ŠAG

itti // inside of -

4 pilaš MIN // hole of –

-

-

illuru // flower

-

-

upillu // coal

-

-

illuru // flower

-

-

vacat // plant

-

-

vacat

-

-

vacat // cucumber plant

-

-

kūru // furnace

6046

663

ki-it-ta (kuddu)

6047

664

kiškibirru // kindling wood

6048

665

ušû // ebony

6052

666

mandu I // bar

6053a

667

nappaṣ̣u // club

6054

668

ūru

-

-

pa-az-za

-

-

ne-eš-ša

-

-

ṣ̣i-ir-ri (ṣ̣erratān)

6056

-

...

...

...

gušūru // beam

-

-

talīmu

-

-

mišiṣ̣ṣu

-

-

ša marṣā’u // of the puncheon

6038

-

helapu / tištu

-

-

ṣ̣ulum helapi

-

-

taššu / idanu ša PAN

-

630

taššu pallušu

-

631

pillu // mandrake

-

-

zappu // wool brush

7a209

682

mumarrītu // ‘plucker’ / malāhu // to pull out

-

-

kakki mumarrīti // weapon of ‘plucker’

-

-

ṣ̣umbu // wheel

-

-

pî ṣ̣umbi // ‘mouth’ of wheel

-

-

kanasarru // wheel disk

-

-

baltu // sping plant

3476

676-8

né-eš-še

asītu // tower; post / ud-du-tu

-

idem

ti-hi

ašāgu // acacia

-

idem

iṣ̣ hannapširi

-

idem

balti šadî // mountain springplant

3477

679

rappu // cane

7b141

680

sikkat rappi // peg of -

7b143

-

nemettu // crutch

7b139

681

NIM

DÌH ti-hi DÌH DÌH KUR.RA ra-ab RAB(LUGAL) GAG RAB ŠU.LÚ

67

Part 2 – Composite Edition 4367 4368 4369 4370 4371 4372a 4372b 4372c 4373 ... 4374a 4374b ... 4375 4376 4377 4378 (... 4379 4380 4381 4382 ... 4383 4384 4385 4386 4387 4388 4389 4390 4391 4392 4393 4394a 4394b 4394c 4395 4396 4397 4398 4399 4400 4401 4402 4403 4404a 4404b 4404c 4405

NÍĜ.ŠU.LUH.HA SI.KAM [GAG] SI.KAM [GIL SI].KAM [UMBIN] SI.KAM [GI.MUŠ] [GI.MUŠ] [EŠKIRI GI].MUŠ [Á].KÁR

(+?) DUR DUR

(+4) DÌM.MA MAR.[ŠUM] DÌM.MA KU [...] DÌM.MA NU.[TI.LA] GÁ.AN.NU … GÁ.AN.NU GA GÁ.AN.NU KAŠ GÁ.AN.NU Ì GÁ.AN.NU.TUR (+?) [DUB.BU].UM [DUB.NUN].NA [DUB.ŠEN].NA ŠID [ŠID AN.TI.IB].LÁL(!LÁ) NÍĜIN ALAN D LÀMA(KAL) KI.GAL KI.GAL LUGAL GUB.BA AZ UG PIRIĜ(GÌR) PIRIĜ PIRIĜ PIRIĜ.TUR UR.GIR 15 UR.GIR 15 PA.DA KUR 4 .RA ZA.NA É ZA.NA D LÀMA ZA.NA NU KUN.RI NU/NÍĜ ŠE.DÙ.A [É 4] [GURUN] [GURUN] [GURUN] ZA.U 18 .ŠA

nemsu // tub

7a203

-

sikkānu // rudder

-

-

sikkat MIN // peg of -

-

-

itgurti MIN // ‘crossing’ of -

-

-

ṣ̣upur MIN // ‘claw’ of -

-

-

gimuššu // rudder bar

-

-

parīsu // idem

-

-

ṣ̣erret parīsi // rope of -

-

-

unūtu // accessories

6244

-

...

...

...

[] (buršiktu) (DUR knot; rope)

7a119

-

[]

idem

-

...

...

...

[] (DÌM damšilu // cucumber bed)

-

-

[]

-

-

[]

-

-

[] (kannu // vessel stand)

7a128

-

...

...

...

ša šizbi // milk stand

7a129c

-

ša šikāri // beer -

7a129d

-

ša šamni // oil -

-

-

kandurû // vessel

7a130

-

...

...

...

ṭuppu // (wooden) tablet

-

-

tupninnu

-

-

-

-

-

-

mašabu

-

-

ṣ̣almu // statue

7b152

696

lamassu // DN

7b153

-

kigallu // socle

7b154

-

mazzaz LUGAL // king’s socle

7b155

-

asu II // bear

7b159

697

uggu

7b160

-

lû // bull

7b161

698

nēšu // lion

?

idem

lābu // lion

?

idem

nim-ṣ̣a-rù // lion cub

?

699

kalbu // domestic dog

?

700

[] ‘KUR -wood found by dog’ 4 passu // figurine

-

-

-

701

-

702

lamassi passi // DN figurine

-

-

pas zikari // male figurine

-

-

pas sinni // female figurine

-

-

tupšinnu // tablet receptacle ĜIŠ minūtu

É

// accounting board

passi // doll-house

erbettu

-

-

inbu // fruit

-

-

É

)

illuru // flower

-

-

hannibu // sprout

-

-

sappu II // scraper (cf. 4202: asmaru // spear)

7b304

704

68

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 3b-4 (canonical tablets III-VII) 4406 -

AR.GA.BI.[NU](!AR.GIBIL) níg ĜIŠ ŠU. NÍĜIN.NA

arkabinnu // incomplete door

7b307

705

vacat (naphar iṣị // wood(list) completed)

7b312

706

69

Part 2 – Composite Edition Division 5 (canonical VIII-IX) Guide to the MSL edition of the canonical version: 1. Sequence of larger key words sections: Hh 8 GILIM 157-182 DUR 185-197 SA 198-223 KID.DA 286-349 Hh 9 GUR 1-49, including gap A BISAĜ 50-70 + part of gap B MA.SÁ.AB part of gap B + 116-135 MA.AN.SIM 136-139 + part of gap C BUNIĜ 212-222 2. Position of gaps in canonical version (indicated as 9gA, 9gB in reference column): Hh 9 9gA 3-32 (including part of GUR-section) 9gB 71-115 9gC 140-176 9gD 243-282 9gE 290-302 9gF 343-352 GI determinatives omitted in the composite edition 8001 qanû // reed 5001 GI 8002 qan šipri // - craftsmanship 5002 GAŠAM(NUN-ME-BI!TAG) 8003 qan šalālu // reed type (ŠUL.HI outer wall) 5003 MIN(GI) ŠUL.HI.A 8004b MIN letû // cut 5004 MIN ŠUL.HI.A AL.DA.RA 8006 kīsu // reed type 5005 MIN IZI(!ZI) 8007-9a ṣ̣ippatu // reed type (SAHAR dust) 5006 MIN SAHAR.RA 8012 arti kīsi // reed stalk 5007 MIN A.SAL.BAR 8269 qan šurpi // reed fire 5008 MIN IZI 8270-2 gizillu // reed torch / šabbiṭu // staff 5009a MIN IZI.LÁ idem dipāru // idem 5009b MIN IZI.LÁ dalat gizilli // door torch 5010 MIN IG IZI.LÁ 8276-7 gisallû // reed roof MIN SAL.LA 5011 8278 dalat MIN // door of 5012 MIN IG SAL.LA 8279 tukšu // door shield MIN IG GURU 5 (KAxME!GU) 5013 arītu // door shield 5014 IG GURU 5 (KAxME!GU) mumarrītu // ‘plucker’ (cf. 4356) 5015 Akk: mu-mar-ri-tu 4 … … ... (+1) 8280 [] (tashīrtu) 74 5016 [MIN] KAxME(!GU) GILIM .MA 8286 kītu // mat 5017 KID 8289 burû // cover 5018 KID.MAH 8288 [] (burû) 75 5019 MIN MÁ.UD … … (+1) 8288a šēru IV // mat 5020 MIN MÁ.UD.A ŠAG 4 .GA [] 5021 MIN MÁ.UD.A ZÉ.NA … … … (+7?) [] beer cover 5022 MIN(KID) KAŠ 8297 [] cream cover 5023 MIN GA 8338 [] (kītu titāpi // beer-mash cover) 5024 MIN TITAB(BÁRA-MUNU 4 ) [] beer malt cover MIN ŠIM 5025 8340 [] (kītu bappiri // beer-mash cover) 5026 MIN AGARIN 4 (AMA-ŠIM) 70

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 5 (canonical tablets VIII-IX) 5027 5028 5029 5030 5031 5032 5033 … 5034 5035 5036 … 5037 5038 … 5039 5040 5041 5042 5043 5044 ... 5046 5047 5048 … 5049 5050 5051 5052 5053 5054 5055 5056a 5056b 5057 … 5058 5059 5060 5061a 5061b 5062 5063 5064 5065 5066 5067 5068 …

MIN GÚR.UŠ MIN ĜIŠGU.[ZA] MIN ĜIŠGIGIR MIN ĜIŠMAR.[GÍD.DA] MIN ĜIŠ[...] ! ĜIŠ KID SI MÁ GUR

(+4) MIN(GUR) ŠÀ.HA.A MIN ŠÀ.HA.A […] MIN IN.NU.DA (+1) MIN HÚB [...] MIN HÚB [...] (+3?) MIN(GUR)] 3 TAB.BA [MIN] KA-LU [MIN] SIKI [MIN] DUSU(ÍL) [MIN ŠU.TI].A [ 76 MIN NÍNDA] (+1) MIN IGI ŠE.RA.AH MIN ESIR.ŠUB.BA GUR SAL.LA (+1) [MIN(GUR) ŠU.SAL.LA] [MIN] ŠE.BAL [MIN A].AB.LÁ(!BAL) [MIN] SAHAR.RA [MIN] NISIG(SAR) [MIN RI.RI].GA MIN MAR.[GÍD].DA MIN [ZÌ].DA MIN ZÌ.DA MIN AŠ.AŠ (+?) [MIN(BISAĜ)] É DIĜIR.E.NE MIN DUB.BU MIN TER.ZUM MIN NA.AH.BU MIN NA.AH.BA.TUM MIN NÍĜ MIN ÈŠ.ÈŠ MIN ŠU.ŠE.MA MIN UŠ 15 (SI-A) [MIN] IGI SA [MIN] IGI.KÁR [MIN IGI].DU 8 .A (+?)

[] (kītu nakbasi // stair -)

8343 86

[] chair -

8326f

[] chariot -

-

ereqqi // wagon (cover)

-

[]

?

[]

-

[] (pānu II // basket / kurru)

9001

…

…

[] (šahhû // cloth)

9gAj1

[]

-

[] (mangāru // basket) (IN.NU straw)

9046

…

...

[] (huppu // basket)

9gAb8-9

[]

idem

…

...

šullušû // triple (basket)

-

[]

-

gihinnu // wool basket

9gAg

pān agî // handband basket (pānu II // basket)

-

melqeti // (basket) of tax

-

namaddu // measurement container

-

...

…

[]

9037-9

ša iṭṭâ laptu // (basket) covered with bitumen

9042

GUR sellu

9gAd7-8

// basket

...

...

sassannu // receptacle

9gAd9

mušelu // lever (napšaru)

9gAc4

dalû // drawing bucket

9gAc5

gurrî SAHAR.RA // dust bucket

-

gurrî warqi // greenery basket

9gAe1

MIN liqtātī // collecting basket

9gAf

MIN ereqqi // wagon basket

-

gur zi-da-ku // GLOSS flour bucket

-

MIN ZÌ.DA-ku

-

[] bread basket

-

...

…

MIN É.HI.A DIĜIR.MEŠ // box housing the gods

-

uppu // tablet (box)

9051

vacat (pisan terṣ̣i // offerings box)

9gBa5

vacat // bucket

-

vacat (nahbātu // container)

9056

MIN namkūri // property box

-

MIN eššēši // festival box

-

MIN mērešti // supply box

-

uššu III / receptable

9359/62

[]

-

MIN išarti

-

tamartu // ‘viewing’ (box)

-

...

…

71

Part 2 – Composite Edition 5069 5070 5071 5072 5073 5074 5074a 5074b 5075 5076 5077 5078 5079 5080 5081 5082 5083 5084 5085 … 5086 5087 … 5088 5089 5090 5091 5092 5093a 5093b 5094 5095 5096 … 5097 … 5097’ 5098 5098a 5098b … 5099 5100 5101 5102 … 5103 5104 5105 5106

MIN(BISAĜ)[Ú]NINNI 5 (TIR/TIR) MIN [GÙN] MIN KUŠ SIG 5 (!SIG 10 ).GA MIN ÉSIR.[ŠUB].BA KA.TAB MA.SÁ.AB MA.SÁ.AB MAH MIN TUR MIN ŠU MIN ŠU.I MIN KASKAL 77 [MIN NINDA] [MIN] NINDA GUR 4 .RA [MIN] DÌM.MA [MIN] KUG.B. [MIN] KUG.GI [MIN] EREN(GUR 7 ) [MIN] ĜIŠKIRI 6 [MIN] GUR (+?) MIN(MA.SÁ.AB) SIKI MA.SÁ.AB KUŠ.[SI.GA] (+?) 78 MA.[AN.SIM] NÍĜ.GUHŠU(SIG 4 /SIG 4 -ŠÚ) NÍĜ.GUHŠU NINDA NÍĜ.GUHŠU KASKAL ĜIŠ NÍĜ.GUHŠU BANŠUR NÍĜ.SIG.GA NÍĜ.SIG.GA SIG SIG.SIG NÍĜ.SIG.SIG

(+2) Akk: GI la-bi-rù (+2) Akk: pè-hu-u ÙRIK [ÙRI] GAL [ÙRI] TUR

(+?)

79

SUHUR.LÁ ÚR.RA [DUB].BA.A [TÙN.DUB].BA.A

(+?) [BÚN] 80 [BÚN ŠU] [BÙN] GÌR DU 7 (UL)

ša ašli// rope (box)

9gBb7

tabrīmu // multicoloured (box)

?

ša KUŠ uhhuzu // leather-covered (box)

9gBb4

ša ESIR ŠUB.BA // bitumen-covered (box)

9gBb5

natanu // lid

-

masabbu // basket

-

vacat // large -

-

vacat // small -

-

vacat // hand -

-

vacat // barber’s -

-

vacat // road -

-

vacat // bread -

-

vacat // ‘thick-bread’ -

-

vacat // figurine -

-

vacat // silver -

-

vacat // gold -

-

[] cedar -

-

MIN ĜIŠ KIRI // garden 6 MIN kurri // gur-weight -

-

...

…

[] wool basket

-

[] leather-covered basket

-

...

…

[] (nappitu // sieve)

9136-9

[] (guhšu // reed altar)

9206

[] reed altar food (offering)

-

[] road(-side) reed altar

-

ĜIŠ BANŠUR

// (reed altar) table

-

9207

ma-šá-hu (kikillu // reed screen)

9289

[]

idem

[]

-

[]

-

[]

…

... GI

labiru // old reed

-

…

…

pè-hu-u 84

-

urinnu // standard, emblem

9283

[] (urigallu // standard)

9286

[]

-

...

…

qimmatu // plume

8161

GI

adattu // nest

-

qanṭuppu // writing reed

9311

takaltu // writing reed-bag

-

...

…

nappahu // bellows

9377

nappah qāti // hand bellows

9378

MIN GÌR // foot bellows

9379

hāmū // reed ear

9353-60

72

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 5 (canonical tablets VIII-IX) 5107 5108 5109a 5109b 5110 5111 5112 … 5113 5114 5115 5116 5117 5118a 5118b 5119 5120 5121 5122 5123 5124 5125 5126 5127 5128 5129 5130 5130a … 5131a 5132b 5133 5134 5135 5135a 5135b 5136 5137a 5137b 5138 5139 5140 5141 5142 5143 5144 5145 5146 5147 5148

GAN <> BAR

NE NE ŠU.<>KIN ŠU <>KIN TUR(!TUR.KIN) UB.ZAL (+?) HAR.DA ĜIŠ HAR.DA MÁ ĜIŠ HAR.DA IG ku-hé <: GI.HI.A> 81 ut-tu -uš :1 x-us-si :½ [x]-x-na : ½ 5/6 [ŠU].DÌM.MA Akk: GI ma-ku-[ti] [ŠU] AK.A Akk: GI gi-lu-ú [A] AK.A [NA 4 ] AK.A DURU 5 HÁD.DU Á AŠAG.AŠAG 82 ŠUG(!SUG ) ŠUG(!SUG) ŠUB.BA ŠUG(!SUG) ÍB.ŠUB.BA

(+?) KUR.RA KUR.RA SIKIL.E.DÈ KA.ZI.RA DUR DUR GAL DUR TUR DUR SIG<.LÁ> DUR 2 TAB.BA DUR 3 TAB.BA DILI UMBIN MUD UMBIN.NA HÚB ha-am-bur HÉNBUR(ŠE-GAG) ĜIŠ KÉŠ.TI(!DA) HÉ.DU 7 83 SIG.SIG (!BA.SIG) MÁ.GAN.NA GI DÙG.GA ĜIŠ GI GI

huṣ̣ābu // reed twig

9361-7

qulēptu // reed scales

-

luṭû // reed knot

-

daššu // hook 85

-

šūru // reed type

9337

himmatu // collected reed

9339

tubuqtu // young reed

9313

...

…

hurdu // mat

9326

[]

-

[] doormat

-

GI

nindakki // ninda-measure yardstick

-

GI

ammati // reed yardstick (UT.TU ‘count’)

-

[]

-

[]

-

[]

-

GI

timmu // reed post

-

GI

makutu // reed post; pillar

-

ša ina NA // (reed pillar) made in stone 4 GI gillu // rolled reed

-

GI A.MEŠ

-

GI NA

dilûti // reed of water irrigation

// stone (sculptured) reed

4 raṭbu // wet (reed)

-

šābulu // dry (reed)

-

najjalu // reed-irrigation work(er)

-

šukkuru // reed ration

9368

[](šutukku // cultic reed cabin)

9369

[]

-

...

…

[] burnt reed

-

[]

-

GI

teliltu // purified reed

kezēru // knotted (reed) urru // (reed) knot

9315 87 -

[] (durgallu // line; cord)

8188-90

[]

-

hanniqtu // ‘strangled’; pressed (reed)

8191

eṣ̣pu // double (knotted reed)

9375

šullušû // triple (knotted reed)

9376

GI

wēdu // single reed

-

GI

ṣ̣umbi // reed disk

-

[] tube of (reed) disk

-

huppu // (reed) basket

-

habbūru // (reed) stalk

-

GI erreti

-

// shore plantation reed

handu // reed ornament

-

būdu

-

[]

-

[] sweet reed

-

[] reed thicket

-

73

Part 2 – Composite Edition Division 6 (canonical X) DUG

determinatives broken off or omitted in text

... 6001 6002 6003 6004 6005 6006 6007 6008 6009 6010 6011 6012 6013 6014 6015 ... 6016 6017 6018 6019 6020 6021 6022 6023 6023a 6023b 6024 ... 6025 6027 6026 6028 ... 6029 6030 ... 6031 6031a ...

(+?) [ÚDUL] MAR.[TU] [ÚDUL] AR.ZA.AN.[NA] [ÚDUL] U 4 .SAKAR [ÚDUL] GIBIL [ÚDUL] SUMUN [ÚDUL] LIBIR.RA [ÚDUL] ŠU.LÁL MIN=ÚRRUB(KAL) MIN=ZÚRZUP(KAL) MIN=SÍLIMA(KAL) UBUR X (KISIM 5 xU) 2 <MAŠ.>TAB.BA MIN [A KÚM].MA SED(A-MÙŠ-DI) TITAB(BÁRA-MUNU 4 ) (+?) MIN(SAB) Ì MIN Ì.ĜIŠ MIN Ì.NUN.[NA] MIN Ì.ŠAH MIN Ì DÙG.GA MIN ĜEŠTIN.NA MIN LÀL KÍR(ÁBxŠAG 4 ) MIN GAL MIN TUR MIN A (+?) [KÍR ŠU.LÁL] [KUN.RIM/A.SUD] [TI.LIM.DÀ] [DAL] (+?) [AM].MA.AM AM.MA<.AM> SAB (+1) HAL [HAL].GAL

(+?)

74

...

…

[] Amorite tureen

10054

[] groats -

10057

[] (šaharratu) crescent-shaped -

10058 88

[] (eššetu // new)

10061 89

[] (labirtu // old)

10059 90

[] (idem)

10060 91

[] (lupputu // dirty)

10062

[] (urruppu)

10063

[] (urṣ̣uppu)

10065

[] (hubšašû)

10066

[] (tū’amtu // twin)

10068

[] (kabittu // stomach)

10070

[] (karpat mê emmūti // hot water vessel)

10071

[] (karpat mê kaṣụ̄ ti // cold water vessel)

10072

[] (karpat titāpi // mash container)

10073

..

…

[] (ša šamni // (jar) of oil)

10134

[] (ša elli // of good sesame)

10135

[] (ša himēti // of butter)

10136

[] (ša nāhi // of lard)

10137

[] (ša šamni ṭābi // of good oil)

10138

[] (ša karāni // of wine)

10139

[] (ša dišpi // of honey)

10140

[] (kirru // pitcher)

10149

[] (rabû // big)

10151

[] (ṣẹ hru // small)

10152

[] water pitcher

10153

...

…

luputtu // dirty (pitcher)

10167

maslahtu // sprinkling (pitcher)

10173-4

tilimdû // libation vessel

10175

tallu

10177

...

…

[] (ammammu // jar)

10222b 92

ammašabbu // pot

10222b 93

...

…

[] (hallu // pot)

10223

[] (rabû // big)

10224

…

…

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 7a (canonical tablets XI-XII) Division 7 (canonical XI-XII) Version A (unilingual) KUŠ

section: ... ... KUŠ 7a001 KUŠ 7a002 KUŠ 7a003 KUŠ 7a004 KUŠ 7a005 KUŠ 7a006 KUŠ 7a007 KUŠ 7a008 KUŠ 7a009 KUŠ 7a010 KUŠ 7a011 KUŠ 7a012 KUŠ 7a013 KUŠ 7a014 KUŠ 7a015 KUŠ 7a016 KUŠ 7a017 KUŠ 7a018 KUŠ 7a019 KUŠ 7a020 KUŠ 7a021 KUŠ 7a022 KUŠ 7a023 KUŠ 7a024 KUŠ 7a025 KUŠ 7a026 KUŠ 7a027 KUŠ 7a028 KUŠ 7a029 KUŠ 7a030 KUŠ 7a031 KUŠ 7a032 KUŠ 7a033 KUŠ 7a034 KUŠ 7a035 KUŠ 7a036 KUŠ 7a037 KUŠ 7a038 KUŠ 7a039 KUŠ 7a040 KUŠ 7a041 KUŠ 7a042 KUŠ 7a043 KUŠ 7a044 KUŠ 7a045 KUŠ 7a046

... AM.SI AM.SI KUR.RA SÚMUN(GUL) SÚMUN KUR.RA ŠILAM(NUN-LAGARxMUNUS) ŠILAM KUR.RA UR MAH UR NIG UR BAR.RA UR GIR 15 UR TUR UR DIB UR NIM UR KI UR.ŠUB 5 (ZI/ZI-LAGAB) UR.ŠUB 5 KUD.DA PIRIĜ.TUR KA 5 .A KUD.DA KIR 4 (KA) UGU(U-KA)<.DUL>.BI [SA].A SA.A.RI DÀRA DÀRA.MAŠ DÀRA MAŠ.DÀ MAŠ.DÀ AMAR MAŠ.DÀ ŠEG 8 (ŠÚ-NAGA) ŠEG 8 MAŠ.DÙ LU.LIM A.LIM UDU TIL MAŠ/BAR MUŠEN.NA MAŠ/BAR MUŠEN.NA KUR.RA D NIN.KA 6 D NIN.KA 6 BAR.BAR D NIN.KA 6 ÍB.BA(!KÚR) D NIN.KA 6 TIR.RA D NIN.KA 6 EDIN.NA PÉŠ PÉŠ TUR PÉŠ ĜIŠ.GI PÉŠ ĜIŠ.GI.GI PÉŠ ĜIŠ.ÙR(GÁxNIR).RA PÉŠ A.ŠAG 4 .GA

75

...

...

(mašak pīri // elephant skin/leather)

11009

(mašak ibili // camel skin)

11010

(mašak rīmti // wild cow skin)

11011 -

cow skin

-

(mašak nēši // lion skin)

11013

(mašak nēšti // lioness’ skin)

11014

(mašak barbari // wolf skin)

11012

(mašak kalbi // domestic dog skin)

11020

(mašak mīrāni // puppy skin)

11021

(mašak gerri // idem)

11025

lion skin

-

(mašak kalab ursị )

11015

(mašak mindini // tiger skin)

11023/7

(mašak dumāmi // leopard skin)

11028

(mašak nimri // lion cub skin)

11029

(mašak šēlebi // fox skin)

11043

(mašak kušî // crab skin)

11041

(mašak būṣ̣i // hyena skin)

11042

(mašak pagî // monkey skin)

11270

(mašak šurāni // cat skin)

11048

(mašak muraššî // wild cat skin)

11049

(mašak turāhi // Capricorn skin)

11035

(mašak āli // ram skin)

11036

(mašak najjali // deer skin)

11037

(mašak ṣ̣abīti // gazelle skin)

11039

(mašak huzāli // gazelle cub skin)

11040

(mašak atūdi // he-goat; buck skin)

11030

(mašak sappāri // wild ram skin)

11031

(mašak lulīmi // deer skin)

11033

(mašak ditāni // bison skin)

11032

(mašak bibbi// mufflon skin)

11034

(mašak hurbabilli / ajjari) 94

-

(mašak šikki // mouse skin)

11052

(mašak tarpaši // yard mouse skin)

11053

(mašak paṣuddi)

11054

forest mouse skin

11055

(mašak šikki wāṣ̣î // ‘outgoing’ mouse skin)

11056

(mašak humširu // rodent skin)

11057

(mašak peruruti // house mouse skin)

11058

(mašak ušummi // reed mouse skin)

11059 -

(mašak arrabi // dormouse skin)

11062

(mašak harriri // field-vole skin)

11063

Part 2 – Composite Edition 7a047 7a048 7a049 7a050 7a051 7a052 7a053 7a054 7a055 7a056 7a057 7a058 7a059 7a060 7a061 7a062a 7a062b 7a063a 7a063b 7a064a 7a064b 7a065a 7a065b 7a066 7a067 7a068 7a069 7a070 7a071a 7a071b 7a072 7a073 7a074 7a075 7a076 7a077 7a078

KUŠ

7a079 7a080 7a081a 7a081b 7a081c 7a081d 7a082 7a083 7a084 7a085 7a086 7a087

KUŠ

KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ

KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ

PÉŠ SÌLA.GAZ(.ZA) PÉŠ GÙN.NU.A PÉŠ NÍĜ.GILIM(.MA) PÉŠ ŠEG 8 UDU UDU BABBAR GUKKAL(LU-HÚL) ÙZ MUNUS ÉŠ.GÀR ANŠE ANŠE KUR.RA ANŠE EDIN.NA ANŠE A.AB.BA ŠAH ĜÍR.TAB I.RI 9 GU 7 .A NU I.RI 9 GU 7 .A AL.HI NU.AL.HI AL.TAG.GA NU.AL.TAG NÍĜ.GU 7 .A NU.NÍĜ.GU 7 .A NÍĜ.ĜÁL.LA KA.BA.BU.UM É KA.BA.BU.UM UL.LU.LUM É UL.LU.LUM NA.AH.BU.UM NA.AH.BA.TUM PÁR.RU.TUM DU 8 .ŠI.A A ĜÁ.LÁ A EDIN.NA NÍĜ.UMBIN.NA ZI.MU.HA.RA DUG LAHTAN X

(mašak hulî // shrew mouse skin)

11067

(mašak šikki barmi // multi-coloured -)

11064

(mašak aštakissi)

11065 -

sheep skin

-

white sheep -

-

fat-tail sheep -

-

goat -

-

female kid -

-

(mašak imēri // donkey skin)

11044

(mašak sisî // horse skin)

11045

(mašak serrēmi // onager skin)

11046 -

pig skin (ĜÍR.TAB scorpion)

-

(letû // felted) (lā letû // unfelted) affected leather unaffected (NÍĜ.GU food) 7 (NÍĜ.ĜÁL.LA property) leather sling ‘house’ of leather armour ‘house’ of leather armour (nahbātu II // bucket) container (parutu II) (dušû // raw leather)

11gAa5/7 11gAa6/8 11105 11106 11107 -

(zinbuharu) idem vat

(KISIM 5 -HAL-KISIM 5 ) MÁ.RÍ.NU.UM SIKI MÚ.A

11gAc -

wool-growing skin

BABBAR KUKKU 5 SU 4 .A GÙN.NU.A NÍĜ.BÙR.BÙR É.MÁ.URU 5 DAL.ÚŠ Á DAL.ÚŠ UŠ(!DABAŠIN=KU 7 ) Á UŠ(!DABAŠIN=KU 7 )

white dark red multi-coloured (išpatu // quiver) (aspu // sling) (idi aspi // ‘arm’ of sling) (dabašinnu) (idi dabašinni)

76

11103 11108 11109 11110 11111

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 7a (canonical tablets XI-XII) 7a088 7a089 7a090 7a091 7a092 7a093 7a094 7a095 7a096 7a097 7a098

KUŠ

7a099 7a100 7a101 7a102 7a103 7a104 7a105 7a106 7a107 7a108 7a109

KUŠ

7a110 7a111 7a112a 7a112b 7a113 7a114 7a115 7a116 7a117 7a118 7a119 7a120 7a121 7a122 7a123 7a124 7a125 7a126 ... 7a127 7a128 7a129 7a130 7a131 7a132 7a133

KUŠ

KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ

KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ

KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ

...

KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ

DA.BA(!DABAN=KU 7 ) Á DA.BA(!DABAN=KU 7 ) ŠU.HU.UM LÁ.LÁ HAR LÁ.LÁ MURUB 4 LÁ.LÁ E.SÍR(BU) E.SÍR DU 8 E.SÍR ÍB E.SÍR IM.MA E.SÍR MUNUS <> <.E.NE> E.SÍR <É.>PA.NA <> E.SÍR ŠU.KAM.MA DA E.SÍR UMBIN E.SÍR DA.LÁ ÉLLAĜ(BIR 4 ).KUŠ(!ELLAMKUŠ X ) GAL 4 .LA ÍB ÍB KALAG.GA ÍB KALAG.GA DÚR(KU).NA ÍB DUR(!ÙSAN=

(šardappu // leather harness)

-

‘arm/side’of -

-

(šuhhu II // seat)

-

(kurussu // belt)

11113

(semer kurussi // ring of belt)

11114

(lallartu // ‘creaking’ belt)

11115

(šēnu // sandal; shoe)

11119

(paṭīrtu // loose shoe)

11122 -

(ša sinnišāti // of women)

11126

pair of sandals; shoes

-

(ša erišti // that are in demand)

11127 -

(ubānu // finger; toe)

11136

side binding leather

-

bladder skin

-

(biṣ̣ṣuru // female genitals)

-

leather hip (girdle)

-

strong -

-

(DÚR buttocks)

-

NUNUZ-KISIM 5 xAŠGAB)

-

ÍB SI ÍB URU 5 ÍB NA 4 ÍB NA 4 KA.DÙ KA.DÙ ŠEN(ŠU-A) NA 4 KA.DÙ TÙN KA.DÙ NÍĜ.NA 4 NÍĜ.NA 4 KA NÍĜ.NA 4 KANKAL NÍĜ.NA 4 MAR.ŠUM NÍĜ.NA 4 SUHUB(ŠU-MUL) SUHUB E.SÍR ZI SUHUB IM.MA SUHUB MUNUS.E.NE SUHUB <É.>PA<>.NA SUHUB ŠU.KAM.MA

(erimtu II // cover)

11166

leather cauldron cover

-

(erim takalti // bag cover)

11167

(erim kīsi // purse cover)

11169

(kīsu // purse)

11170

(pî kīsi // ‘mouth’ of purse)

11171

base of purse

11172-3

‘bed’ of -

11174

(šuhuppatu // boots)

11177 11179

(+2) DÙG.GAN [KUG.BABBAR] DÙG.GAN KUG.GI DÙG.GAN MUN DÙG. GAZI DÙG.GAN NAĜA DÙG.GAN ŠIM DÙG.GAN ŠU.KAM.MA

77

(ša sinnišāti // of women)

11181

pair of boots

-

(ša erišti // in demand)

11182

...

...

(tukkannu kaspi // silver bag; purse)

11185

(tukkannu hurāṣ̣i // gold bag)

11186

(tukkannu ṭābti // salt bag)

11189

(tukkannu kasî // spice bag)

11190

(tukkannu uhuli // potash bag)

11191

aromatics bag

-

bag in demand

-

Part 2 – Composite Edition 7a134 7a135

KUŠ

7a136 7a137 7a138 7a139 7a140 7a141 7a142 7a143 7a144 7a145 7a146a 7a146b 7a147 7a148 7a149 7a150 7a151 7a152 7a153 7a154 7a155a 7a155b 7a156 7a157 7a158 7a159 7a160 7a161 7a162 7a163 7a164 7a165 7a166 7a167 7a168 7a169 7a170 7a171 7a172 7a173 7a174 7a175 7a176 7a177 7a178 7a179 7a180

KUŠ

KUŠ

KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ

DÙG.GAN GI.DUB.BA ĜIŠ DÙG.GAN MAŠ. ŠINIG

(GAD-NAGA) DÙG.GAN AN.TI.BAL BAR È(!ÈD).DÈ(NE) IM-E x AN.TI Á.SI Á.SI NÍĜ.GAL(!ĜÁL) ĜIŠ Á.SI IG

(tukkannu qanṭuppi // writing reed bag)

11192

(ĜIŠ ŠINIG tamarisk)

-

(šutablakkutu // ‘token’ bag)

11193

strap

11253? -

ĜIŠ

ÍB IG TÙN TÙN MUNUS AL.HÁB AL.HÁB AL.HÁB LÚ LÚ GÚ.È.A LÚ HI.A LU.ÚB LU.ÚB MAR.TU LU.ÚB SÍK LU.ÚB PA.TI.RUM LÚ.ÚB PA.TI.HA.TUM LU.ÚB Ì.ĜIŠ LU.ÚB Ì.ĜIŠ SAĜ SI SAĜ TA SAĜ SI.SÁ ŠÌR.Š ÌR HAR ŠÌR.ŠÌR MURUB 4 ŠÌR.ŠIR ĜÍR.TAB ANŠE HÁŠ(ZIK).TAB ANŠE GÚ.TAB ANŠE IGI.TAB ANŠE HÙL(KIB).TAB ANŠE PA/KIB-KIB.TAB ANŠE SA ZIG TÙN TÙN A.ZU TÙN ĜÍR TÙN ĜÍR ŠU.I TÙN ĜÍR.MEŠ TÙN ĜÍR MUHALDIM BAR.BAR BAR ŠAH BAR SIKI LU.LU.BU.UM E.LI.BU.UM DA.BI.HU.UM

strap

-

property -

-

door -

-

door ‘girdle’

-

(takaltu // bag)

11246

woman’s bag

-

(bīšu // bad; malodorous)

11260 -

(mašlû // bucket)

11262

(nahlaptu)

11263-4 -

(luppu // bag)

11194

(gusānu // bag)

11195

(patīru // bag)

11196

idem

11197

(patīhu // tube; hose)

11199

(nūhu // oil tube)

11200

(wāṣ̣u // ‘outgoing’)

11201 -

(ĜÍR knife)

-

(HÁŠ thigh)

-

(GÚ neck)

-

(IGI eye)

-

(HÙL rein)

-

(takaltu // bag)

11246

(takalti asî // phycisian’s bag)

11250

(takalti patri // knife bag)

11251

barber’s knife bag

-

baker’s -

-

(pāru II)

11272 11273 -

(ullulu II// leather armour)

11276

(ṭabihu // butcher)

78

11277

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 7a (canonical tablets XI-XII) 7a181 7a182 7a183 7a184 7a185 7a186

KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ

GÀR.BA ŠE.GÍN ŠE.GÍN SIG 5 ŠE.GÍN KUG.GI ŠE.GÍN SU 4 .A ŠE.GÍN LU

AN, IM, URUDU, ZABAR, KUG.BABBAR

7a187 7a188 7a189 7a190 7a191a 7a191b 7a191c 7a192

7a193 7a194a 7a194b 7a195 7a196 7a197 7a198 7a199 ... (+1) 7a200a IM [BABBAR] 7a200b IM KUKKU 5 7a200c IM SU 4 .A 7a200d IM GÙN.NU.A 7a200e IM SIG 7 .SIG 7 7a201 IM KAL.LA 7a202 IM KAL.LA.DA 7a203 IM DUR(!GÚ) 7a204 IM DUR(!GÚ) EN.NA 7a205 PIŠ 10 (KI-A) 95 ÍD LÚ.ÙR(!RU).DUR(!GÚ) 7a206 KAxA/KI-A(!ÚH) ÍD LÚ.ÙR(!RU).DUR(!GÚ) 7a207 E(!Á).LÁ ÍD(.DA) 7a208 URUDU 7a209 URUDUKALAG.GA 7a210 URUDUNÍĜ.KALAG.GA 7a211 URUDUZA.RÍ.IN.NU 7a212 URUDUHU.LUH.HA 7a213 URUDUNÍĜ.HU.LUH.HA 7a214 URUDUIŠ.<MA.>NA 7a215 URUDUDILMUN.NA 7a216 URUDU[NÍĜ].GÍD.DA 7a217 URUDU[NÍĜ].DÉ 7a218 URUDU[NÍĜ].MÚ.A

11281

(šimtu // marking; paste; glue)

11284

(šimtu damiqtu)

11285

(šimtu hurāṣụ )

11287

red paste; glue

-

and KUG.GI sections:

AN AN.NA AN.[BAR] AN.TA.SUR.[RA] AN.SIG 7 (!?ZAH) SIG 7 AN.SIG 7 (!?ZAH) BABBAR AN.SIG 7 (!?ZAH) KUKKU 5 AN ŠÚD(BU!SUD) <ÁĜ>ĜÁ <> KÙ.GAN(!KAM) A.GAR 5 (GÚG) A.GAR 5 GAG A.GAR 5 ŠIM BI.ZI.[DA] ŠIM NA 4 .SAHAR IM SAHAR BABBAR KUR.[RA] IM SAHAR KUKKU 5 [KUR.RA]

(mašak karri // leather knob)

-

(Anu // DN)

11288

(annaku // tin)

11289

(parzillu // iron)

11290

(ṣ̣āriru // alloy)

11291

(anzahhu // glass)

11292

(huluhhu)

11293

(kutpû // saltpetre)

11294

(elmēšu)

11304

... -

(lulû II // ore)

11296

(abāru // lead)

11299-303

(humīru)

idem

lead peg

-

antimony paste

11305-7

(lēru // paste)

11310

(annuhara // alum)

11311

(qitmu // black paste)

11312

...

…

(gaṣ̣sụ // gypsum)

11314

black paste

-

(šaršerru // red paste)

11316

(da’āmu // dark)

11317

(idem)

11318

(kalû II // paste)

11320 -

(qadūtu // ground salt; mire)

11322

(qadūti šikāni//ground salt deposit)

11324

(kibri D ÍD // river bank)

11327

-

(rūti D ÍD // river foam)

11328

-

(šakin nāri // river silt)

11329

(werû // copper)

11331

(werû dannu // strong copper)

11332 -

(gurnu // coarse)

11334

(mesû // washed)

11335

( īt hurri // mined)

11336

(ešmekku // malachite)

11337 11340-1

79

(urāku // copper bar)

11344

(pitqu // mould)

11345

(huššû // red copper)

11346

Part 2 – Composite Edition 7a219 URUDU[NÍĜ.HI].A 7a220 URUDU [NÍĜ.DÍM].DÍM ... (+?) 7a221 URUDUŠUKUR 7a222 URUDUŠUKUR GAL 7a223 URUDUŠEN AL.KU 7a224 URUDUSU.E.NE 7a225 URUDUZAG KU 7a226 URUDUZAG ME 7a227 URUDUGAG 7a228 URUDUIR 7a229 URUDUIR GAG x 7a230 URUDUŠUM.GAM.ME 7a231 URUDUŠUM.GAM.ME TUR 7a232 URUDUŠEN GÁxIGI ŠÌR.ŠÌR 7a233 URUDUHAR ŠÌR.ŠÌR 7a234 URUDUMURUB 4 ŠÌR.ŠÌR 7a235 URUDUSIKI NIĜ.GI.NA 7a236 URUDUUR NIĜIN(.NA) 7a237 URUDUALAN 7a238 URUDU DLÀMA 7a239 URUDUKI.GAL 7a240 URUDUDU 8 7a241 URUDUDU 8 MAH ... (+?) 7a242a URUDUŠEN BÁN 7a242b URUDUŠEN 2 BÁN 7a242c URUDUŠEN 3 BÁN 7a243 URUDUŠEN TAB.BA 7a244 URUDUŠEN TAB.BA NI 7a245 URUDUŠEN TAB.BA DÙ.A 7a246 URUDUŠEN DÙ.A 7a247 URUDUŠEN DU.ÚS.[SA] (+?) ... 7a248 URUDUŠEN x 7a249 URUDUŠEN TUR 7a250 URUDUŠEN GI 7a251 URUDUŠEN GI A MIN ZAG-AB 7a252 URUDUŠEN GI A MIN AB.BA 7a253 IŠURUDU 7a254a ZABAR(UD-KA-BAR) ši-pí-rù 7a254b ZABAR ku-ú 7a254c ZABAR el-lu 7a254d ZABAR eb-bu 7a254e ZABAR nam-rù 7a254f ZABAR aš-šu-KAL(!ú) 7a254g ZABAR ša-ap-pu 7a254h ZABAR ka-ak-ku 7a254i ZABAR DUTU 7a255 IŠ

... … … -

ZABAR

80

(billu II // alloy)

11347

(epšu // worked up copper)

11348-50

...

…

(šukurru // lance)

11379

(šukurgallu // big lance)

11380 -

peg

-

peg

-

(šaššaru // saw)

11427

(naptētu // key / quppû // knife)

11428-9 11gEc3 11gEc4 -

copper statue

-

Lamassu (statue) of copper

-

copper socle

-

pile of copper

-

mighty pile of copper

-

...

…

(BÁN sūtu)

-

(paštu // ax)

11400 -

(kibirru // bolt)

11404

...

…

(ŠEN ruqqu cauldron)

?

(tangussu // saucer; bowl)

11391 -

(šuhtu // verdigris)

11432

siparru // bronze

12001

(KUG ellu pure)

-

ellu

-

ebbu // bright

-

namru // shining

-

aš-šu-KAL(!ú) 97

-

sappu // basin

-

kakku // weapon

-

(šuhtu // verdigris)

-

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 7a (canonical tablets XI-XII) 7a256 ÉŠ 7a257 GAL 7a258 ZA.HUM 7a259 HA.ZI.IN ... (+?) 7a260 ĜÍR DUB.BA.A 7a261 ĜÍR Á NÍĜ.GU 7 .A 7a262 ĜÍR MUHALDIM 7a263 ĜÍR NÍĜ.GU 7 .A 7a264 ĜÍR GI.GU 7 .A 7a265 ĜÍR BIBRA(HÚL) 7a266 ĜÍR AD.KID 7a267 ĜÍR AŠGAB 7a268 ĜÍR ŠU.I 7a269 ĜÍR UŠ DIŠ 7a270 ĜÍR Á LIL 7a271 ĜÍR ŠAR BAR.RA 7a272 ĜÍR ÍB.BA 7a273 KUD.DU 7a274 RI(!NUN) 7a275 NUN ŠU 7a276 NUN GU 7 7a277 ŠU 7a278 ŠU BÙR 7a279 ŠU BÙR.BÙR 7a280 ŠUM.GAM.ME 7a281 ŠUM.GAM.ME TUR 7a282 KUŠ NÍĜ.BULUG 7a283 NÍĜ.UGU 7a284 UGU LÁ 7a285 ZA.HA.AN 7a286 NÍĜ.GAZ 7a287 NÍĜ.GAZ KUD.DA 7a288a KIN GAL 7a288b KIN TUR 7a289 BA.AN.DU 8 .DU 8 7a290a SUHUR 7a290b SUHUR 7a290c SUHUR 7a291 LI.LI.SU 7a292 HAL.HAL.LA 7a293 ŠA.Ú.ŠA 7a294 DUG 7a295 DUG LAHTAN (NUNUZ-KISIM 5 xLA) 7a296 HA.RA 7a297 ŠE(!ŠU) ÉŠ.LÁ 7a298 ZAG ÉŠ.LÁ 7a299 GÚ.LÁ 7a300 DUR(GÚ-GAG)

ZABAR

-

ZABAR

-

ZABAR

(šahu // basin)

-

ZABAR

(haṣ̣innu // ax)

12029-33

…

...

…

ZABAR

-

ZABAR

-

ZABAR

baker’s knife

-

ZABAR

-

ZABAR ZABAR

bird-shaped knife

-

ZABAR

(mašlahtu // matbinder)

12gBa

ZABAR

leather worker’s knife

12gBc

ZABAR

(naglabu // barber)

12gBb

ZABAR

-

ZABAR

-

ZABAR

-

ZABAR

-

ZABAR

(KUD to cut)

-

ZABAR

(nunnu)

-

ZABAR

-

ZABAR

-

ZABAR

hand-held bronze (mirror)

-

ZABAR

-

ZABAR

-

ZABAR

saw

-

ZABAR

key; knife

-

ZABAR

needle for leatherwork

-

ZABAR

-

ZABAR

-

ZABAR

-

ZABAR

-

ZABAR

-

ZABAR

big sickle

-

ZABAR

small -

-

ZABAR

bucket

-

ZABAR

drumstick; tool

-

ZABAR

-

ZABAR ZABAR

kettledrum

-

ZABAR

(thunder) drum

-

ZABAR

lance

-

ZABAR

pot

-

ZABAR

vat

-

ZABAR

container

-

ZABAR

chain

-

ZABAR

(ZAG šerretu nose-bond)

-

ZABAR

wrapping

-

ZABAR

binding

-

81

Part 2 – Composite Edition 7a301 7a302 7a303 ... 7a304 7a305 7a306 7a307 7a308 7a309 7a310 7a311 7a312 7a313 7a314 7a315 7a316 7a317 7a318 7a319 ... 7a320 7a321 7a322 7a323 7a324 7a325 7a326 7a327 7a328 7a329 7a330 7a331 7a332 7a333 7a334 7a335 7a336 7a337 7a338 7a339 7a340 7a341 7a342 7a343 7a344 7a345 7a346 7a347 7a348

GÚ-GAG-GAG(!GÚ.HAŠ) GÚ ŠI.I.ŠA ZAG MI.IT.TUM (+4) KAM.KAM.MA.TUM IN.ZA.AB.TUM TU.DI.IT.TUM ŠU.GUR EŠ.GUR DÁLA(IGI-GAG) ŠUKUR(IGI-GAG) MA.SÁ.AB NÍĜ.ĜEŠTUG NÍĜ.ĜEŠTUG ZA<>.NA

ZABAR

-

ZABAR

-

ZABAR

(right) side lance

-

…

...

…

ZABAR

(kamkammatu // earring)

12100

ZABAR

(anṣ̣abtu // idem)

12101

ZABAR

(tudittu // breast ornament)

12095

ZABAR

(unqu // (seal)ring)

12097

ZABAR

(taṣ̣ītu // small plate)

12098-9

ZABAR

(ṣ̣illû // needle)

12102

ZABAR

(šukurru // spear)

12103

ZABAR

basket

-

ZABAR

(uzuntu // (ear)ring)

-

ZABAR

(ZA.NA figurine)

-

HAR HAR ŠU HAR GÌR HAR GÚ HAR GAZ.BA NÍĜ.DÚR(KU).BÙR(U)

ZABAR

(semeru // ring)

12109

ZABAR

(semer qāti // hand ring)

12110

ZABAR

(semer šēpi // foot ring)

12111

ZABAR

neck ring

-

(+1)

…

...

…

ZABAR

(ṣ̣almu // statue)

12130

ZABAR

(Lamassu // DN)

12131

ZABAR

(kigallu // socle)

12132

ZABAR

pile of bronze

-

ZABAR

mighty pile of bronze

-

ZABAR

(uskāru // crescent)

12133

ZABAR

(šāšu)

12134

-

silver

-

ALAN D LÀMA(KAL) KI.GAL DU 8 DU 8 MAH U 4 .SAKAR(SAR) AŠ<.ME> KUG.BABBAR KUG.BABBAR GAL KUG.BABBAR Ù.TU KUG.BABBAR HUL.A KUG.BABBAR HUL AK.A KUG.BABBAR PAD.PAD.DU KUG.BABBAR ME.ME.E KUG.BABBAR LUH.HA KUG.BABBAR KALAG.GA KUG.BABBAR GAL A.GAR 5 GAL ZA.HUM AM.MA.AM ŠA.Ú.ŠA DUG DUG ÙSAN(!LAHTAN) HA.RA ŠU ÉŠ.LÁ ZAG ÉŠ.LÁ GÚ.HAŠ(TAR) DUR(!GÚ).HAŠ TUR TI.LIM.DA

ZABAR

-

ZABAR

-

broken silver

12gDa?

clean -

-

strong -

-

(A.GAR lead) 5

-

KUG.BABBAR

basin

12188

KUG.BABBAR

jar

-

KUG.BABBAR

lance

-

KUG.BABBAR

pot

-

KUG.BABBAR

vat

-

KUG.BABBAR

container

-

KUG.BABBAR

chain

-

KUG.BABBAR

-

KUG.BABBAR KUG.BABBAR

neck mace

82

-

KUG.BABBAR KUG.BABBAR

12187

vessel

12201-2

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 7a (canonical tablets XI-XII) 7a349 NÍĜ.DÚR.BÙR 7a350 NÍĜ.ĜEŠTUG 7a351 NÍĜ<.ĜEŠTUG> A(!ZA).NA 7a352 UŠ 11 (KAxBAD)(!BULUG=BAD) 7a353 HAR 7a354 HAR ŠU 7a355 HAR GÍR 7a356 HAR GÚ 7a357 HAR GAZ.BA 7a358 KAM.KAM.MA.TUM 7a359 IN.ZA.AB.TUM 7a360 TU.DI.IT.TUM 7a361 ŠU.GUR 7a362 EŠ.GUR 7a363 DÁLA 7a364 ŠUKUR 7a365 MA.SÁ.AB 7a366 NÍĜ<.ĜEŠTUG ZA>.NA 7a367 ALAN 7a368 DLÀMA 7a369 KI.GAL 7a370 DU 8 7a371 DU 8 MAH 7a372 LÚ NIM 96 7a373 NIM.ĜÍR 7a374 U 4 .IN(!SAKAR) 7a375 AŠ.ME 7a376 KUG.GI ... (+1) 7a377a KUG.GI SAHAR ŠU(!?BA) NÚ.A 7a377b KUG.GI SAHAR BAR.BA NÚ.A 7a378a KUG.GI 1 TA.ÀM 7a378b KUG.GI 2 TA.ÀM 7a378c KUG.GI 3 TA.ÀM 7a378d KUG.GI 4 TA.ÀM 7a378e KUG.GI 5 TA.ÀM 7a378f KUG.GI 6 TA.ÀM 7a378g KUG.GI [7] TA.ÀM 7a378h KUG.GI [8] TA.ÀM 7a378i KUG.GI [9] TA.ÀM 7a378j KUG.GI [10] TA.ÀM 7a378k KUG.GI [11] TA.ÀM 7a378l KUG.GI [12] TA.ÀM 7a379 GAL 7a380 ZA.HUM 7a381 AM.MA.AM 7a382 ŠA.Ú.ŠA 7a383 DUG 7a384 DUG ÙSAN(!LAHTAN) 7a385 HA.RA

-

KUG.BABBAR KUG.BABBAR

(ear)ring

-

KUG.BABBAR KUG.BABBAR

needle

-

KUG.BABBAR

ring

12203

KUG.BABBAR

hand -

12204

KUG.BABBAR

foot -

12205

KUG.BABBAR

neck -

-

KUG.BABBAR KUG.BABBAR

earring

12194

KUG.BABBAR

idem

12195

KUG.BABBAR

breast ornament

12189

KUG.BABBAR

(seal)ring

12191

KUG.BABBAR

small plate

12192-3

KUG.BABBAR

needle

12196

KUG.BABBAR

spear

12197

KUG.BABBAR

basket

-

KUG.BABBAR KUG.BABBAR

silver statue

12221

KUG.BABBAR

Lamassu (statue) of silver

12222

KUG.BABBAR

silver socle

12223

KUG.BABBAR

pile of silver

-

KUG.BABBAR

mighty pile of silver

-

KUG.BABBAR KUG.BABBAR

(birqu // flashing)

-

KUG.BABBAR

silver crescent

12224

KUG.BABBAR

(šāšu)

12225

… -

(hurāṣ̣u // gold)

-

...

...

KUG.GI

basin

12289

KUG.GI

jar

-

KUG.GI

lance

-

KUG.GI

pot

-

KUG.GI

vat

-

KUG.GI

container

-

12251-2 idem 12265 12264 12263 12262 12261 12260 12259 12258 12288

KUG.GI

83

Part 2 – Composite Edition 7a386 ŠU ÉŠ.LÁ 7a387 ZAG ÉŠ.LÁ 7a388 GÚ.HAŠ 7a389 DUR(!GÚ).GAG(!HAŠ) TUR 7a390 TI.LIM.DA 7a391 NÍĜ.DÚR.BÙR 7a392 NÍĜ.ĜEŠTUG 7a393 NÍĜ.ĜEŠTUG ZA.NA 7a394 BULUG(UŠ 11 =KAxBAD) 7a395 HAR 7a396 HAR ŠU 7a397 HAR GÌR 7a398 HAR GÚ 7a399 HAR GAZ.BA 7a400 KAM.KAM.MA.TUM 7a401 IN.ZA.AB.TUM 7a402 TU.DI.IT.TUM 7a403 ŠU.GUR 7a404 EŠ.GUR 7a405 DÁLA 7a406 ŠUKUR 7a407 MA.SÁ.AB 7a408 NÍĜ.ĜEŠTUG 7a409 NÍĜ.ĜEŠTUG NA 7a410 ALAN 7a411 DLÀMA 7a412 KI.GAL 7a413 DU 8 7a414 DU 8 MAH 7a415 BI.IB 7a416 ĜIŠBANŠUR 7a417 URUKI 7a418a ŠE.LÚ 7a418b ŠE.LÚ 7a419 GURUN 7a420 [HU].WA.WA (+?) ...

KUG.GI

chain

-

KUG.GI

-

KUG.GI

-

KUG.GI

-

KUG.GI

vessel

KUG.GI

-

KUG.GI

(ear)ring

-

KUG.GI KUG.GI

needle

-

KUG.GI

ring

12304

KUG.GI

hand -

12305

KUG.GI

foot -

12306

KUG.GI

neck -

12307 -

KUG.GI KUG.GI

earring

12295

KUG.GI

idem

12296

KUG.GI

breast ornament

12290

KUG.GI

(seal)ring

12292

KUG.GI

small plate

12293-4

KUG.GI

needle

12297

KUG.GI

spear

12298

KUG.GI

basket

-

KUG.GI

(ear)ring

-

KUG.GI KUG.GI

golden statue

-

KUG.GI

Lamassu (statue) of gold

-

KUG.GI

golden socle

-

KUG.GI

pile of gold

-

KUG.GI

mighty pile of gold

-

KUG.GI KUG.GI

golden table

-

KUG.GI

‘golden city’

-

KUG.GI

golden coriander

-

KUG.GI

idem

-

KUG.GI

golden flower

-

KUG.GI

…

84

....

...

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 7b (canonical tablets XI-XII) Division 7 (canonical XI-XII) Version B (bilingual) Reconstruction of the version B text: Reconstruction of version B is hampered by the fragmentary state of the bilingual texts available. There are two larger fragments, I and H, covering what are, in the canonical version, the first part of the KUŠ section and the section before URUDU respectively. H (identified as 7bT1) ends with a colophon, probably after the ŠIM and IM sections. There are also two extracts and a number of smaller fragments. Some of the smaller fragments lack context and have too few identifiable entries to make inclusion in a composite text feasible. KUŠ

section: +7b001 KUŠ +7b002 KUŠ +7b003 KUŠ 7a001 KUŠ 7a002 KUŠ 7a003 KUŠ 7a004 KUŠ 7a005 ... (+?) KUŠ 7a007 KUŠ 7a008 KUŠ 7a009 KUŠ 7a010 KUŠ 7a011 KUŠ 7a012 KUŠ +7b004 KUŠ 7a015 KUŠ 7a016 KUŠ 7a017 KUŠ 7a029 7a030 7a031 7a032 7a033 7a024 7a025 7a026 +7b005 7a027 7a028 ... 7a019 7a020 7a018 7a056 7a057 7a058

KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ

[] (mašku // skin; leather)

11001

[] (mašak alpi // cow -)

11002

[] (mašak rīmi // wild bull -)

11008

[]

11009

[]

11010

[]

11011

[]

-

[]

-

...

...

UR [MAH] UR NIG UR BAR.RA UR GIR 15 UR TUR UR DIB UR SIG 7 UR GUG 4 UR GUG 4 KUD.[DA] PIRIĜ.TUR ŠEG 8 (ŠÚ-NAGA)

[]

11013

[]

11014

[]

11012

[]

11020

[]

11021

[]

11025

[] yellow dog skin

-

MIN mindini // tiger skin

11023

SA.PÁR (in 7a: ŠEG 8 MAŠ.DÀ) LU.LIM A.LIM [UDU] IDIM(BAD) DÀRA DÀRA MAŠ DÀRA MAŠ.DÀ DÀRA HAL.HAL MAŠ.DÀ AMAR MAŠ.DÀ

MIN sappāri // wild ram skin

11031

MIN lulīmi // deer -

11033

[] (mašak ditāni // bison -)

11032

MIN bibbi // mufflon -

11034

[]

11035

[]

11036

MIN najjalti // doe skin

11037

[] (mašak najjali // deer skin)

11038

[]

11039

[]

11040

...

...

MIN kušî // crab skin

11041

MIN būṣ̣i // hyena -

11042

MIN šēlebi // fox -

11043

MIN imēri // donkey -

11044

MIN sisî // horse -

11045

MIN serrēmi // onager -

11046

KUŠ(SU) GUD AM AM.SI AM.SI KUR.RA SÚMUN SÚMUN KUR.[RA] ŠILAM

...

KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ

11028 11029

MIN qa-du-ti

11030

(mašak atūdi // buck; ram)

(+1) ... KUŠ

MIN dumāmi // leopard MIN nimri // lion cub -

KUD.DA KIR 4 KA 5 .A [ANŠE] [ANŠE KUR.RA] [ANŠE EDIN.NA]

85

Part 2 – Composite Edition ... 7a041 7a042 7a043 7a044 7a045 7a046 +7b006 7a049 +7b007 ... 7a065a 7a065b 7a063a 7a063b ... +7b008 7a071a 7a071b 7a072 7a073 7a084 7a085 7a086 7a087 +7b009 7a091 7a092(a) 7a093 7a092(b) 7a094 7a096 +7b010 7a095 7a097 7a098 7a100 ... 7a133 7a136 7a135 +7b011 +7b012 +7b013 ... 7a153 7a154 7a155a 7a155b ...

(+?) KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ

(+?) KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ

(+?) KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ

(+?) KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ

(+?) KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ

(+?)

... PEŠ PÉŠ TUR PÉŠ ĜIŠ.GI PÉŠ ĜIŠ.GI.GA.A (in 7a: ĜIŠ.GI.GI) PÉŠ ĜIŠ.ÙR.RA PÉŠ ša A.ŠAG 4 .GA PÉŠ GI/ZI.GA PÉŠ ša NÍĜ.GILIM.MA PÉŠ GÌR.HUL.A

... NÍĜ . GU 7 .A NU.NÍĜ.GU 7 .A AL.HI.A NU.AL.HI.A

… PAN É (!É PAN) NA.AH.BU NA.AH.BA.TUM PA.RU.TUM DU 8 A-IGI(!ŠI.A) DAL.ÚŠ Á DAL.ÚŠ UŠ(!DABAŠIN=KU 7 )KU KU Á UŠ(!DABAŠIN=KU 7 ) ŠÚ LÁL (in 7a: LÁ.LÁ) HAR LÁL MURUB 4 LÁL HAR LÁL E.SÍR E.SÍR ÍB E.SÍR KAM E.SÍR DU 8 E.SÍR IM.MA E.SÍR MUNUS.E.[NE] E.SÍR ŠU.KAM.[MA]

... GAN GI DUB.[BA] GAN AN.TI.BAL GAN MAŠ.TAB.BA GAN 2 TAB.BA GAN 3 TAB.BA GAN KI.KÉŠ.DA ... LU.ÚB PA.[TI.RUM] LU.ÚB PA.TI.HA.[TUM] LU.ÚB Ì.ĜIŠ LU.ÚB [Ì.ĜIŠ] …

86

...

...

humṣị̄ ru // mouse (skin)

11057

[]

11058

[]

11059

iškarissu // marsh rat (skin)

-

arrabu

11062

harriru // field mouse (skin)

11063

[]

?

ar-da-ku (aštakissu)

11065

[] (hulû // shrew mouse skin)

11068

...

...

[]

-

[]

-

[]

11gAa5/7

[]

11gAa6/8

...

...

[] (bīt qašti // bow ‘house’)

11101

nahbû // (leather) bucket

-

nahbātu // (leather) receptable

11105

parūtu II

11106

dušû // raw leather

11107

aspu // (leather) sling

11108

idi aspi // arm of -

11109

dabašinnu

11110

idi dabašinni

11111

sehpu // (leather) cover

11112

kurussu // (leather) belt

11113

semer kurussi // ring of -

11114

bertu // (leather) band

11115

qeršu // (leather) strip; bandlet

-

šēnu // (leather) sandal; shoe

11119

[] ‘legging’ -

-

[]

-

paṭīrtu // loose -

11122

šāhirtu // (leather) shoe buckle

-

[]

11126

[]

-

...

...

[]

11192

[]

11193

[]

11187

[] double bag

-

[] (šutāhātu // pair-ordered)

11188

[] bag binding

-

...

...

[]

11197

[]

11199

[]

11200

[]

11201

...

...

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 7b (canonical tablets XI-XII) 7a169 ... 7a062a 7a062b 7a064a 7a064b 7a147 7a148(a) 7a148(b) +7b014 +7b015 +7b016 +7b017 7a021 +7b018 (... 7a175 7a176 7a177 7a178 7a179(a) 7a179(b) 7a180 +7b019 +7b020 7a181 +7b021 7a182 7a183 7a184 +7b022 ...

KUŠ

TÙN

(+1) ... KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ

...

KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ KUŠ

- 98 (+?)

RÍ.IN GU 7 .[A] RÍ.IN GU 7 .A AL.TAG.GA AL.TAG.GA LÚ TÚG LÚ GÚ.È TÚG LÚ GÚ.È BALAĜ U(!BALAĜ).DI Á.LÁ NIR DUB.BA.A UGU.DAL(!DUL).BI [MUNUS] UGU.DAL(!DUL).BI

... [BAR.BAR] BAR ŠAH BAR SIKI UL.LU.LUM UL.LU.BU UL.LI.BU DA.BI.HU ĜIŠ TÙN.LÁ SIKI GÀR.BA SI.ĜAR ŠE.GÍN ŠE.GÍN SIG 5 .GA ŠE.GÍN KUG.GI ŠE.GÍN KUG.GA

…

AN, IM, URUDU, ZABAR, KUG.BABBAR

7a192 7a193 7a194 +7b023 +7b024 7a190 +7b025 7a196(a) 7a196(b) ... +7b026 +7b026’ 7a199 7a198 +7b027 7a200a +7b028

and - (in 7a: A.GAR 5 ) (+1) -

KUG.GI

[]

11246

...

...

[]

11gAa3

mašku MIN

11gAa4

mašku laptu // affected leather

-

mašku lā laptu // unaffected -

-

mašlû // (leather) bucket

11262

[] (nahlaptu)

11263

[] (banbirru)

11264

mašak balangi // drum cover

11265

mašak timbuti // idem

11266-7

mašak alî // idem

11268

mašak dubdubbi

11269

[] monkey skin

11270

[] (mašak pagīti // female -)

11271

...

...)

pāru II

11272

pār šahî

11273

ku-ur-ši-il-lu

-

maš-ka ti-zi

-

maš-ka ul-lu-bu

-

maš-ka el-li-bu

11276

mašak ṭabāhi // butcher’s skin

11277

ka-ar ṭa-ba-hu

-

la(-)aš-na-tu

-

4 mašak karri // leather of knob

11282

šimtu // marking; paste; glue

11284

MIN damiqtu // good -

11285

MIN hurāṣ̣i // gold -

11287

[] silver -

-

...

...

sections: [AN SUD] ÁĜ.ĜÁ [KÙ].GAN(!KAM) [A].GAR 5 .A.GAL [DÍLIM A].GAR 5 Akk: [hu]-me-ra a-ba-ri [AN.TA.SUR].RA [ŠIM].BI.IZ [ŠIM.BI].ZI.DA [ŠIM.BI].ZI.DA ... [ŠIM.BI.ZI.DA] SIG 7 .SIG 7 [ŠIM KUG.GI] [IM SAHAR KUKKU 5 KUR.RA] [IM SAHAR BABBAR KUR.RA] [IM SAHAR NA 4 KUR.RA] [IM BABBAR] [IM DARA 4 ]

87

11281

mašak šigarri // - of bolt

elmēšu

11304

lulû II

11296

abāru // lead

11299

itgurti MIN//spoon

11301

humīri abāri

11300

ṣ̣āriru//red shining

11291

šimbizidu//antimony

-

MIN zi-da-ak-ku

11305-7

egû II // antimony

idem

...

...

ashar

11308

šīpu // paste

11309

qitmu // black paste

11312

annuhara

11311

gabû // alum

11313

gaṣṣu III // gypsum

11314

hāpu

11315

Part 2 – Composite Edition +7b029 +7b030 7a200c 7a201 ... 7a208 +7b031 7a212(a) 7a212(b) +7b032 7a214 7a215 +7b033 +7b034 7a216 7a219 ... +7b035 +7b036 7a230 7a231 ... +7b037 +7b038 7a308(a) 7a308(b) 7a308(c) 7a309 +7b039 7a297 7a298 7a291(a) ... +7b040 +7b041 7a291(b) +7b042 +7b043a +7b043b 7a320 7a321 7a322 7a325 ... 7a341 7a342 7a343 7a344 ...

(+?) -

URUDU URUDU URUDU URUDU URUDU URUDU URUDU URUDU URUDU URUDU

(+?)

URUDU URUDU URUDU URUDU

(+?) [HÚP].PÉ [ZA].BI.HU NÍĜ.ĜEŠTUG(PI) NÍĜ.ĜEŠTUG NÍĜ.ĜEŠTUG NÍĜ.<ĜEŠTUG.>ZA.NA ŠU<>.ĜAR.RA ŠU ÉŠ.LÁ ZAG ŠU ÉŠ.[LÁ]

ÁBxGÁN(!xDÚB=LILIZ) (+?) [GÍR.GAL] Akk: mu-qar-ri-ir-tu 4 [LI.LI.SU] Akk: [še]-li-ip-pu [ZA.HA.DA] [ZA.HA.DA] [ALAN] [DLÀMA] [KI.GAL] [U 4 .SAKAR] (+?) [DUG] DUG ÙSAN(!LAHTAN) HA.RA ŠU ÉŠ.LÁ (+?)

da’mātu // dark

11317

la(-a)-hu-mu/um

-

šaršerru // red paste

11316

kalû II // paste

11320

...

...

werû II // copper

11331

erēnu

-

huluhhu

-

ṣ̣īt hurri // mined -

11335

amnakku

-

ešmekku

11337

dá-al-mu-un-na

11340

ma-ag-ga -na 5 me-luh-ha

11342

urāku // copper bar

11344

billu II // - alloy

11347

... Akk: hir- u [KÙŠ.KÙŠ] [ŠUM GAM.ME] [ŠUM GAM.ME] TUR ...

...

...

herṣ̣u

-

rāṭu // gutter;drain

11423

šaššāru // saw

11427

naptētu // key

11428-9

...

...

ZABAR

uppu I // tube; shell

-

ZABAR

zāpihu 99

-

ZABAR

uzuntu // earring

-

ZABAR

ka-li-tu

-

ZABAR

[]

-

ZABAR

ník-za-nu-ú

12109

ZABAR

šugurru //

-

[IM GÙN.GÙN.NU] Akk: la(-a)-hu-mu/um [IM SU 4 .A] [IM KAL] ... URUDU EREN.NA HU.LUH HU.LUH.HA [IM].MA.NA [IŠ].MA.NA KI DILMUN.NA [MÁ.GÁN].NA [ME.LUH.HA] [NÍĜ.GÍD.DA] [NÍĜ.HI.A]

11343

cylinder seal ZABAR

[]

-

ZABAR

[]

-

ZABAR

lilissu//kettledrum

-

…

...

...

ZABAR

namṣạ ru // sword

12045

ZABAR

mu-qar-ri-ir-tu

-

ZABAR

lilissu

ZABAR

še-li-ip-pu 100

-

ZABAR

qulmu // ax

12125

ZABAR

kalmakru//battle ax

12126

ZABAR

ṣ̣almu // statue

12130

ZABAR

lamassu // DN

12131

ZABAR

kigallu // socle

12132

ZABAR

uskāru // sickle

12133

…

...

...

KUG.BABBAR

[]

-

KUG.BABBAR

[]

-

KUG.BABBAR

[]

-

KUG.BABBAR

[]

-

…

...

...

88

4

-

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 8a (canonical tablets XIII) Division 8 (canonical XIII) Version A (unilingual) … 8a001 8a002 8a003 8a004 8a005 8a006

(+2) [UDU(LU) NIGA(ŠE)] SIG 5 [UDU GÍR].GU.LA [UDU] GÍR AK.A [UDU] NÍTA [UDU] NÍTA<ĜIŠ>NI(!DÙ).A 101 UDU UTUWA( ) <ĜIŠ>NI(!DÙ).A

8a007 8a008 8a009 8a010 8a011 8a012 8a013 ... 8a014 8a015 8a016 8a017 8a018 8a019 8a020 8a021 8a022 8a023 8a024 8a025 8a026 8a027 8a028 8a029 8a030 8a031 8a032a 8a032b 8a033 8a034 8a035 8a036 8a037 8a038 8a039 8a040 8a041 8a042a 8a042b 8a043a

UDU Ú UDU <> Ì UDU A.LUM UDU A.LUM NIGA UDU A.LUM NIGA SIG 5 UDU A.LUM GUKKAL(LU-HÚL) UDU GUKKAL

(+7) [UDU] RI.RI.GA [UDU] NA.RI.GA [UDU] ŠIR.RUM [UDU] KUR.RA [UDU] DIĜIR.RA Ì.GU 7 .A [UDU] UR.MAH Ì.GU 7 .A [UDU UR.BAR].RA Ì.GU 7 .A [UDU SILA 4 UR.BAR].RA [UDU] ÍB.GIG [UDU] ŠAG SUR [UDU] GÁN(!GAG) ŠUB.BA UDU GAN ŠUB.BA UDU UR 5 ŠUB.BA UDU DU 4 (TUM).DU 4 UDU GUR 4 (LAGAB).GUR 4 UDU DU 7 (UL).DU 7 UDU NIM.NIM UDU SAĜ NIM.NIM UDU SA.AD.RA UDU SA.AD GAL UDU Á MURGU(SIG 4 ) DA.RI.A UDU ZÚ TAB(!SI).GA UDU ZÚ SI.GA KUR.RA UDU ZÚ AN(!SI).GA E(!MAR).TU UDU MÁŠ.ŠU.GÍD.GÍD UDU MÁŠ DA.RI.A UDU GAL [UDU KI.BI] ĜAR.RA [UDU GÚ.BI] ĜAR.RA [UDU] ŠÚKUR(ŠUK) [UDU] ŠÚKUR [UDU ŠÚKUR D]INANNA(MÙŠ)

…

…

(immeru marû damqa // well fattened sheep)

13003

(arru // marked)

13004

(kâṣ̣u // skinned sheep)

13005

(zikaru // male)

13007

(immeru ša ana rakābi wuššuru // - set free to ‘ride’)

13008

idem

-

(immer šammi // pasture sheep)

13010

(immer šamni // ‘oil’ sheep)

13011

(pasillu)

13012

(pasillu marû)

13013

(pasillu marû damqa)

13014

(pasillu gukkallu)

13015

(gukkallu // fat-tailed sheep)

13023

...

...

(UDU miqittu // fallen sheep)

13030-1

(šuparruru)

13032

(ālu II // ram)

13033

(immeri šadî // mountain sheep)

13035

(ukulti ili // food of the god)

13037

(ukulti nēši // - of the lion)

13038

(ukulti barbari // - of the wolf)

13039

(sulî barbari // bait for wolf)

13041

(ša qablu marṣ̣u)

13042

(ša nishi // selected)

13043

(ša sikkati // ill)

13044

(ša garābu // scabbed)

13045

(?ašû II)

13046

(dummuqu)

13047

(kurkurranu)

13048

(muttakpu // ‘thruster’)

13049

(harpu // early)

13050

(immer samānu / rapādu // ill sheep)

13057-8

(?sadru // lined up)

-

(immer šaššaṭu / rapādu // ill sheep)

13059-0

(MURGU būdu shoulder / DA.RI supported)

-

(UDU buqūmu // shearing; fleece sheep)

13067

(UDU šadî // highland sheep)

13068 13069

(UDU barî // diviner’s sheep)

13070

(UDU erbi) // sheep income

13071

(UDU rabû)

13105

(immer pīhāti // sheep of the district)

13113

(immer nemetti // sheep delivery)

13114

(UDU kurummati // sheep offering; ration)

13122

idem

idem

(UDU nindabî // idem)

13123

89

Part 2 – Composite Edition 8a043b ... 8a044 8a045 ... 8a046 8a047 8a048 8a049 ... 8a050 ... 8a051 8a052 8a053

[UDU ŠÚKUR D]INANNA (+1) [UDU MU].PÀD.DA [UDU DIĜIR MU].PÀD.DA (+8) [UDU ŠAG 4 IGI].KÁR [UDU KI].MAH [UDU KI.MAH] DÙ.A [UDU KI.MAH KALAG].GA (+?) UDU GIG.DUG 4 .[GA] (+1) UDU KI.BI ĜAR UDU ŠUM.MA UDU ŠU ŠUM.MA

8a054 8a055 8a056 ... 8a057 8a058 8a059a 8a059b 8a060 8a061 8a062 8a063

UDU ŠU GI UDU ŠU GI.NA UDU SÁM(NÍNDAxŠE-AN).MA

8a064 8a065 8a066 8a067 8a068 8a069a 8a069b ... 8a070 8a071 8a072 8a073 8a074 8a075 8a076 8a077 ... 8a078 8a079 8a080 8a081

(+20) UZUD(ÙZ) ŠAG 4 (!PEŠ 4 ) UZUD ŠAG 4 (!PEŠ 4 ) ŠAG 4 UZUD Ù.TUD UZUD NU.Ù.TUD UZUD MÁŠ NÁ.A UZUD MÁŠ DÙ(!DU).A UZUD MÁŠ HUL.A UZUD MÁŠ GA KAxGUD (!xGA=SUB).BA UZUD ÍB.GIG UZUD ŠAG 4 SUR UZUD GAG ŠUB.BA UZUD GAN ŠUB.BA UZUD UR 5 ŠUB.BA UZUD BABBAR UZUD KUKKU 5

(+?) [MÁŠ NÍĜ.MÍ].ÚS.SA [MÁŠ NÍĜ].ŠU.TAKA 4 .A MÁŠ HUL DÚB.BA MÁŠ GI-NE LÁ MÁŠ LIMMU(!SA).LÁ MÁŠ SU 6 (KAxSA).LÁ MÁŠ MAŠ DA(!Á).DA.NU MÁŠ MAŠ GÚ.È.A (+?) MÁŠ NIM SILA 4 SILA 4 .GA SILA 4 .GA GU 7 .A

(UDU taklīmi // idem)

13124

...

...

(UDU mupaddî // name-giving offering)

13127 13128

...

...

(UDU bibil libbi // sheep of heart’s desire)

13138

(UDU kimahhi // sheep of the burial place)

13139

(UDU kimahhi malî) (DÙ.A malû complete)

13140

(UDU haribti // wasteland)

13141

...

...

(izbu // abortion)

13172

...

... -

(šusummu // delivery / nudunnû // dowry //

13146-8

puquddu trust) returned; repaid sheep

-

(ša šīmi // of the buying price)

13174

...

...

(UZUD enzu she-goat)

13192bc -

goat having given birth

13192d

goat not -

13192e

goat ‘lying down’ with young (in labour)

-

goat with young

-

goat having a miscarriage

-

goat with young lactating

-

ill goat

13193 13194

ill goat

13195

scabbed goat

13196 13197 13198 13199

...

...

bride payment he-goat

13231

transferred goat

13232 13238 -

(ibhu)

13234

(ziqnu)

13221 -

(tahlappanu)

13236

...

...

early he-goat

-

(puhādu // lamb)

13240

(puhād šizbi // milk-lamb)

13241

(puhād šizbi ikkalu // milk-lamb that eats)

13242

90

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 8a (canonical tablets XIII) 8a082 8a083 ... 8a084 8a085 ... 8a086 8a087 8a088 8a089 8a090 8a091 8a092 8a093 8a094 8a095 8a096 8a097 8a098 8a099 8a100 8a101 ... 8a102 8a103a 8a103b 8a104 ... 8a105a 8a105b 8a105c 8a105d 8a105e ... 8a106 8a107 8a108 ...

SILA 4 .GA NAĜ.A SILA 4 .GA GU 7 (!SUB).BA

(puhād šizbi inniqu // milk-lamb that sucks)

13243

(puhād šizbi inaṣ̣ṣabu // milk-lamb that suckles)

13244

...

...

SILA 4 GABA.RI.A SILA 4 U 5

(GABA.RI.A equal; copy)

-

...

...

GUD ŠU GI.[NA] GUD AL(!Á).LÁ GUD NIGA GUD NIGA SIG 5 GUD MAR.ŠUM GUD RI.RI.GA GUD NA.RI.GA GUD ŠIR.RUM GUD ENGUR(!ID=A-ENGUR) GUD NÍNDA GUD ÁB GUD SÁM (NÍNDAxŠE-A-AN).MA GUD KI-LUM (!-LAM=ŠAKAKA) GUD KUN [GUD] ALIM(GÍRxIGI).BU [GUD] ZUBI(PAB-NÁ)

(šību // old / šuginû // offering ox)

13298-9

(puṭāru // grazer)

13302

(marû // fattened)

13303

(marû damqa // well fattened)

13304

(alap mayyalti // stable ox)

13325

fallen ox

-

(šuparruru)

-

(alap nāri // river ox)

13315

(bīru // young bull)

13283

(mīru // breeding bull)

13282

buying price ox

-

market-rate ox

-

(KUN tail)

-

(alimbu // bison)

13301

(luhhumu)

13307

...

…

milk cow

-

milk-fed cow

-

(+1) (+?)

(+?) GUD GA GUD GA GU 7 .A GUD GA GU 7 .A GUD GA KAxSA (!xGA=SUB) 102 .BA

(+?) [ÁB] BABBAR [ÁB] KUKKU 5 [ÁB] SU 4 .A [ÁB] GÙN.NU.A [ÁB] SIG 7 (+?) DÙR(ANŠE-NÍTA) AŠ.ĜEN(DU) DÙR KAŠ 4 .E DÙR DA(!Á).DA.NU (+?)

-

-

lactating cow

-

...

…

(peṣitu // white)

13339j

(ṣ̣alimtu // black)

13339k

(samtu // red)

13339l

(burrumtu // multi-coloured)

13339m

(wariqtu // yellow)

13339n

...

...

(akkānu // wild donkey)

13381a

(lāsimu // running donkey)

13381

(atānu // she-ass)

13382

...

...

91

Part 2 – Composite Edition Division 8 (canonical XIII) Version B (bilingual) ... (+?) ... [] 8a016 UDU(LU) ŠIR.RUM [] 8a017 UDU KUR.[RA] … (+1) ... vacat 8a018 UDU DIĜIR.RA Ì.GU 7 .E vacat 8a019 UDU UR.MAH Ì.GU 7 .E vacat 8a020 UDU UR.BAR.RA Ì.GU 7 .E vacat (sulî nēši // lion bait) +8b001 UDU SÌLA UR.MAH vacat 8a021 UDU SÌLA UR.BAR.RA vacat 8a022 UDU ÍB.GIG vacat 8a023 UDU ŠAG 4 .SUR ... (... ... vacat 8a024 [UDU] GAG ŠUB.BA vacat [UDU] GAN ŠUB.BA 8a025 vacat 8a026 [UDU] UR 5 ŠUB.BA vacat [UDU] DU 4 .DU 4 8a027 vacat 8a028 [UDU GUR(!GUR 4 )].GUR(!GUR 4 ) vacat +8b002 [UDU] AŠ-U vacat 8a029 [UDU DU 7 ].DU 7 vacat 8a030 [UDU NIM].NIM ... ... (+?) 8a034 UDU ZÚ SIG.ĜÁL ... ... (+?) [] (silqu // slaughter animal) +8b003 UDU SÍL.QUM [] (terṣ̣u // stretched-out; offering) +8b004 UDU TIR.[ZUM] [] (takmisu // offering) +8b005 UDU DÌM.MA [] (tahmu // replacement) +8b006 UDU DAH.[HU] ... ... (+?) [] 8a052 UDU ŠUM.MA [] UDU ŠAG 4 ŠUM.MA +8b007 ... (+?) ... [] cow that has given birth GUD Ù.TUD +8b008 ... (+?) ... vacat +8b009 GUD NÍĜ.ŠU.KAM.MA vacat 8a097 -- ŠÀM(NÍNDAxAN) vacat -- GANBA(KI-LAM) 8a098 vacat +8b010 -- KI.BI ĜAR.RA vacat // cow for (tribute) delivery +8b011 -- GÚ.BI ĜAR.RA ša qarīti // of the banquet bi-ga-ki 103 +8b012 ŠÚKURKAŠ.DÙ -nīqi ša D IM // offering of DN +8b013 -- na-aš-paŠÚKURKAŠ.ĜAR vacat D +8b014a -- KI IŠKUR(IM).RI vacat (ēqu 105) +8b014b -- KI DIŠKUR.RA vacat // cow offering; ration +8b015 -- ŠÚKUR vacat (nindabû) D +8b016a -- ŠÚKUR INANNA vacat (taklimu) +8b016b -- ŠÚKUR DINANNA vacat (eššēšu // monthly festival) +8b017 -- ÈŠ.ÈŠ vacat (warhu // month) +8b018 -- U 4 .SAKAR vacat 106 -- KI AN.NA +8b019 vacat (uddakku // daily offering) +8b020a -- KI DUTU

92

… 13033 13035 … 13037 13038 13039 13040 13041 13042 13043 ...

)

13044 13045 13046 13047 13048 13049 13050 … 13067 … 13094 13095 13096 13097 … 13146-8 … … -

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 8b (canonical tablets XIII) +8b020b +8b021 +8b022 +8b023 +8b024 +8b025 ... +8b026 8a086 +8b027 ... 8a087 ... +8b028 8a088 8a089 +8b029 +8b030 +8b031 8a101 +8b032 ... +8b033 +8b033’ +8b034 +8b035 +8b036 +8b037 +8b038 +8b039 +8b040 +8b041 +8b042

-- KI DUTU -- KI DSUEN(EN-ZU).NA -- ZAG.BI -- MU.UN.KUR 9 -- A.TU 5 (ŠU-NAGA).A 104 -- ZÌG.GA (+?) [--(GUD) ŠU].GI [-- ŠU.GI].NA [--] MAH (+1) [--(GUD) Á].LÁ (+1) [--(GUD) TI].TI -- NIGA -- NIGA SIG 5 -- ÍB.LÁ -- AN.NA -- NÁ.A -- ZUBI(PAB-NÁ) -- DUMU DUTU (+?) Akk: pa-ru-ú [MIN(ANŠE) NUN].NA [MIN GÌR NUN].NA [MIN] ERIN.NA [MIN] BÁR [MIN] KUR.RA [MIN] EDIN.NA [MIN] ĜIŠGU.ZA [MIN] ĜIŠGIGIR [MIN ĜIŠMAR.GID.DA] [MIN] <Á.>BAL<>

... +8b043 +8b044a +8b044b +8b044c +8b044d +8b044e ... +8b045a +8b045b +8b046a +8b046b +8b046c 8a108

(+4) MIN(ANŠE) NÍTA KAŠ 4 .[E] MIN NÍTA MU 1 MIN NÍTA MU [2] MIN NÍTA MU [3] MIN NÍTA MU [4] MIN NÍTA MU [5] (+?) MIN(EME X ) HU.NU.[ME] MIN HU.NU.ME MIN MU [3] MIN MU [2 ] MIN MU [1 ] DÙR(ANŠE-NÍTA) LÁ-HÚB(!MÍ-=EME 5 ) /ÈME(MÍ-ANŠE)

vacat

-

vacat (gizinakku)

-

vacat (pūdu 107)

-

vacat (šurubtu // delivery)

-

vacat (rimku // cleansing)

-

vacat (tibûtu / nisihtu // delivery; tribute)

-

...

…

[] (šību // old)

13298

[]

13299

[] (alimbu // bison)

13300

...

…

[]

13302

...

…

[] (ṣẹ̄ lānu // ribs)

13306

[]

13303

[]

13304

zibbānu // fat tail

-

elû

13309

[]

-

[]

13307

[]

-

...

…

parû I // onager

13357

damdammu // mule

13358

kūdanu // mule / ú-bi-ia-an-nu

13359

ṣạ̄ bi // donkey herd

ANŠE

-

parû I

-

sisû // horse

13373

serremu // onager; wild ass

13374

ANŠE

kussî

13362

ANŠE

narkabti // chariot donkey

13363

ša ereqqi // of the wagon

13364

ba-lu-u 108

13365

(tēnû // counterpart; replacement donkey ) ...

…

[] running donkey

-

[] one year old donkey

-

[]

-

[]

-

[]

-

[]

-

...

…

[] crippled she-ass

-

[]

-

[] three year old she-ass

-

[]

-

[]

-

[] (atānu // female foal)

13382

(DÙR alone is here interpreted as gender-neutral ‘foal’)

93

Part 2 – Composite Edition Division 9 (canonical XIV-XV) Joint edition of versions A and B: Unilingual and bilingual versions are only simultaneously attested for the same text in three small sections (viz. immediately following the base words MUŠ, KIŠI 8 and EH). However, in each of these three instances the bilingual texts have additional entries: for MUŠ and KIŠI 8 they add colour specifications not found in the unilingual format, while for MUŠ and EH they also give additional entries before or after the base word. It is therefore reasonable to assume that there were, as in divisions 7 and 8, two systematically distinguished versions. Since there is little material found where the two versions overlap, unlike the situation in divisions 7 and 8, it has been decided to present both versions of division 9 in a combined composite edition, allowing an easy overview of all material. 9a001 … +9b001a +9b002 +9b003a +9b001b +9b003b +9b003c 9a002 +9b004 +9b005 +9b006 +9b007a +9b007b … 9a003 … 9a004 … 9a005 9a006 9a007 9a008 9a009a 9a009b 9a009c 9a009d 9a009e 9a010 9a011 9a012 9a013 9a014

MUŠ

A: no break between 9a001/2 B: (+?) [MUŠ] ĜI 6 [MUŠ] NÁ.A [MUŠ] BABBAR [MUŠ] KUKKU 5 [MUŠ] SA 5 [MUŠ GÙN.NU.A] [MUŠ SIG 7 .SIG 7 ] [MUŠ KUR].RA [MUŠ MAŠ].DÀ [MUŠ Ú.NU].MÚ.A [MUŠ DU-DU.ME] [MUŠ DU-DU.ME] A: no break between 9a002/3 B: (+?) [ŠILAM] KUR.RA (+2) UR BAR.RA (+2) UR ŠAG 4 UR NIM UR KAL-SAR(!GUG 4

=ZI/ZI-LAGAB) UR GUG 4 KUD.DA

UR BABBAR UR KUKKU 5 UR SA 5 UR GÙN.NU.A UR SIG 7 .SIG 7 UR ŠU GI UR HU.NU.A UR ME D UR < >ME-ME(GULA) [UR] NIG

(ṣ̣erru II // snake)

14001

...

...

[] night snake

-

ṣ̣alālu // to sleep

-

peṣ̣û // white

-

ṣ̣almu // black

-

sāmu // red

-

burrumu // multi-coloured

-

warqu // yellow

14015

MUŠ HUR.SAĜ

// highland snake

14026

ṣ̣ābitānu // ‘catcher’ (ṣạ bītu // gazelle)

14032

MUŠ kusīpāni

14045

asqūdu

14046

idem

14047

...

…

(lītu // cow)

14060

...

…

(barbaru //wolf)

14068

...

… -

(gerru II // cub)

14072

(mindinu // tiger)

14075

(dumāmu // leopard)

14076

(peṣ̣û // white)

14089

(ṣ̣almu // black)

14090

(sāmu // red)

14091

(burrumu // multi-coloured)

14092

(warqu // yellow)

14093

returned dog

-

crippled -

-

(kalab D ŠAMAŠ)

14087

(nēštu // lioness)

14067

94

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 9 (canonical tablets XIV-XV) 9a015 9a016 ... +9b008 +9b009 +9b010 +9b011a +9b011b +9b012a +9b012b +9b013 +9b014 +9b015a +9b015b +9b015c +9b016 +9b017 +9b018 +9b019 +9b020 +9b021 +9b022 +9b023 +9b024 +9b025 +9b026 +9b027 +9b028 ... 9a017 9a018 9a019 9a020 9a021 9a022a 9a022b 9a022c +9b029a +9b029b +9b029c +9b029d +9b029e … +9b030 9a023a 9a023b 9a023c 9a024

[UR] KA [UR] A (+?) [AMAR KIR 4 ] [SA.A.RI] [SA.A] Akk: ap-šá-sa-tu 4 Akk: ap-sa-sa-tu 4 [UGU.DUL.BI] [MUNUS UGU.DUL.BI] a-su

AZ UG PIRIĜ PIRIĜ PIRIĜ PIRIĜ.TUR

SI(!ŠÚ) -NAGA(!ŠEG 8 ) SA.PÁR LU.LIM A.LIM u-du-ti-il

UDU IDIM

DÀRA DÀRA MAŠ [DÀRA MAŠ].DÀ [DÀRA HAL.HAL].LA [MAŠ].DÀ [AMAR MAŠ.DÀ] [DAM ŠAH]

(+?) AMAR [NÍĜ.BUN].NA BA.AL.GI BA.AL.[GI TUR] NUNUZ x BA.AL.GI AMAR BA.AL.GI KIŠI 8 (DAG-KISIM 5 -ĜÍR) KIŠI 8 KIŠI 8 [KIŠI 8 ] BABBAR [KIŠI 8 ] KUKKU 5 [KIŠI 8 ] SA 5 [KIŠI 8 ] GÙN.[NU.A] [KIŠI 8 ] SIG 7 .[SIG 7 ]

A: no break between 9a0022/3 B: (+?) UP.PI EH EH EH

MIN(EH) A. ŠAG 4 .[GA]

(kalab mê // water dog)

14085

...

…

mīrānu // lion; hyena cub

14106

murāšu // wild cat

14109

šurānu // cat

14108

apsastu // sphinx

14116

apsastu // idem

14117

pagû // monkey

14118

pagtu // female monkey

14119

ṣ̣a-ba-ú (asu // bear)

14120

uggu

14121

pirigallu

14123

nēšu // lion

14125

lābu // lion

14124

nimru // lion cub

14135

atūdu // he-goat

14143

sappāru // ram

14144

lulīmu // deer

14145

lišānu (ditānu; kušarikku)

14144a-b

bibbu // mufflon

14142

turāhu // capricorn

14147

ayyalu (ālu) // ram

14148

nālu // deer

14149

nāltu // doe

14150

ṣ̣abītu // gazelle

14152

huzālu; armu // young gazelle

14154

dabû // bear

14156

...

…

(watam šeleppi // young turtle)

14219

(raqqu II // turtle)

14220

(āsabu)

14220a

(pēl raqqi // turtle egg)

14221

(watam raqqi // young turtle)

14222

kulbabu // ant

14352 idem idem

vacat // white ant

14354

vacat // black -

14355

vacat // red -

14356

[] multi-coloured -

14357

[] yellow -

14358

…

…

(uplu // head louse)

14249

(nābu // insect eggs / kalmatu // vermin /

14250-3

perša’u // flea) idem

idem

idem

idem

MIN eqli // field vermin

14256

95

Part 2 – Composite Edition 9a025 9a026 9a027 +9b031 +9b032 +9b033 +9b034 +9b035 ... +9b036 ... +9b037 ... 9a028 9a029 9a030 9a031 9a032 ... 9a033 9a034 9a035

MIN [ĜIŠ]KIRI 6 MIN ŠE MIN ŠE Ì.ĜIŠ MIN ZÚ.[LUM].MA MIN ZÌ.DA MIN TÚG [MIN] SAĜ.DU MIN[NISIG(SAR)] (B: +1) MIN(EH) KU 6 (HA) (B:+3) ZA.RA.TUM (+?) NIM KUR.[RA] [NIM] UR.MAH NIM UR.[NIG] NIM BAR.RA NIM GIR 15 (+1) NIM [ZÚ].RA.[AH]

... 9a036 9a037 ... 9a038

(+1)

9a039 9a040a 9a040b 9a041 9a042 ... 9a043 9a044 9a045 9a046 9a047 9a048 9a049 9a050 9a051 9a052 9a053 ... 9a054

NIM A [NIM] LÀL

NIM Ì.NUN.[NA] NIM NISIG(SAR)

(+12?) BURU 5 (HU-ŠE-ERIM) MAH(!GÁN).NU BURU 5 MAH(!GÁN).NU TIR.RA BURU 5 IR.GI.LUM BURU 5 IR.GI.ZUM BURU 5 <> ŠÉŠLAM(EN-ME-LI) BURU 5 <> ŠÉŠLAM A ŠAG 4 .GA (+?) [NÍĜ.GI(!KI].GI(!KI).A SU UZU

[ ] SAĜ.DU [UZU] SAĜ.KI [UZU] EME(!ME).ZÉ UZU UZU UZU UZU

ZÉ

KA(?KIR 4 ) KA(?ZÚ)

EME A.Ú(!U 5 ) UZU ? A.Ú(!U 5 ) TUR UZU

(+10?) UZU [TI]

MIN kirî // garden -

14257

MIN ŠE // barley -

14258

vacat // sesame -

14259

vacat // date -

14260

MIN ZÌ.DA.MEŠ // flour -

14266

ṣ̣ubāti // of cloth

14267

MIN qaqqadi // head lice

14254

MIN warqi // vegetation vermin

14265

...

…

[] (ašāšu // fish vermin)

14268-a

...

…

[]

-

...

… -

(zubbi nēši // lion’s fly)

14309

(zubbi nēšti // lioness’ -)

14310

(zubbi barbari // wolf’s -)

14311

(zubbi kalbi // dog’s -)

14312

...

...

(kuzāzu // wasp)

14318

(zubbi mê // water fly)

14323

(lálartu // bee / nambubtu // wasp /

14325-7

zubbi dišpi // honey fly) ...

...

(zubbi himēti // butter fly)

14328

(tambukku)

14330

...

...

(zizānu // cricket)

14235

(zizāni qišti // forest cricket)

14236

(ergilu // locust)

14239

idem

14240

(šā’ilu // fortune-teller)

14237

(šā’il eqli // field fortune-teller)

14238

...

…

(zermandi qaqqari // ground insects)

14403

(šīru // flesh; meat)

15001

(qaqqadu // head)

15005

(pūtu // stern)

15011-a

(isu // chin)

15012

(martu // gall bladder)

15016

(appu // nose)

15019

(šinnu // tooth)

15020

(lišānu // tongue)

15025-7

(amu // saliva / ālik pî)

15029-30

(napšaru)

15031

...

…

(ṣēlu // rib)

15081

96

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 9 (canonical tablets XIV-XV) 9a055 9a056 9a057 9a058 9a059 ... 9a060 ... 9a061 ... 9a062 9a063 9a064 9a065 9a066 9a067 9a068 ... 9a069 9a070 ... 9a071 9a072 9a073 9a074 9a075 9a076 9a077 9a078 9a079 9a080 9a081 9a082 9a083 9a084 9a085 9a086 9a087 9a088 9a089 9a090 9a091 9a092 9a093 9a094 9a095 9a096a 9a097 9a098 9a099

UZU

(bāmtu // ribs)

15082

UZU

(sikkat ṣēli // joint)

15083

(naspadu)

15084

(kaskasu)

15085

(katappatu)

15086

...

…

(erri kabti // large intestine)

15102-3

...

…

(riqītu // stomach)

15113

...

…

(tīrānu // ‘windings’)

15108

(erri suhhurutu // winding intestine)

15108a-9

(erru ša dāmu malû)

15106

[TI.TI] GAG [TI] UZU GAG [TI TUR] UZU GAG ZAG.[GA] UZU GAG ZAG.[GA TIR.RA] (+4) UZU ŠÀ.MAH (+1) UZU ŠAG 4 KUN [ŠAG 4 .GA] (+3) UZU ŠAG 4 NIĜIN.NA UZU ŠAG 4 ŠU NIĜIN.NA UZU ŠAG 4 LU.ÚB UZU ŠAG 4 LU-AL-LU-NU

-

UZU

(mīru III)

15120

UZU

(bandillu // belly)

15121

(persu // ‘separation’)

15110-1

...

…

ŠAG 4 ĜAR ŠAG 4 TIR(!?SUL) [UZU ŠAG 4 (É.)]NINNU(50)

(+?) UZU UZU

NÍĜ.GIG(!?KIN).GI.A UR 5

(+1)

liver

-

...

… -

UZU

DA.NU UZU DA.NU BAR.RA UZU DA.NU A.ŠAG 4 .[GA] UZU GAG UZU GAG TI UZU LU UZU TIR UZU TAB.BA UZU SA.A UZU SA.A GAL UZU SA.A SAL.LA UZU SA.A TI UZU SA.A MUD UZU SA.A UMBIN UZU ÚR UZU ÚR KUN UZU BAR KUN UZU GÚ UZU GÚ MAH UZU DA.MA UZU Á DA.MA UZU MÁŠ SÌL UZU SÌL MÁŠ SÌL UZU MA.LA.KUM UZU UZU UZU

MA-A-KUM ARHUŠ(GÁ-MUNUS)

ŠIR GABA UZU ÚS(UŠ) UZU

15043 (kišādu // shoulder)

15048 -

(naglabu // hip)

15065 -

(mālaku I)

15079 -

(rēmu)

15gA2a

(išku // scrotum)

15209

(irtu // breast)

15087 -

97

Part 2 – Composite Edition 9a100 9a101 9a102 9a103 9a104 ... 9a105 9a106 9a107 9a108 9a109 9a110a 9a110b 9a096a 9a096b 9a096c 9a111 9a111’ 9a112 9a113 9a114 9a115 9a116 9a117 9a118 9a119 9a120 ... 9a121 9a122 ...

UZU UZU

-

EŠ

SAĜ ZA-tenû [UZU] LUB.BI [UZU] A LUB.BI [UZU ZI.IN].GI

(+?) UZU

ÁB TIR UZU ME.HÉ UZU IGI UZU ĜEŠTUG<.2> UZU HAL.SI UZU A DUMU UZU A.DUMU UZU ARHUŠ UZU ARHUŠ UZU ARHUŠ UZU ÚŠ ÁB x UZU A SÌL ĜAR.RA UZU NÍĜ.NUNUZ GI.A UZU ÚŠ UZU LUGUD(BAD-UD) UZU Ì.<<SAL>>UDU UZU Ì.UDU GUD UZU Ì.UDU UDU UZU Ì.UDU ŠAH [UZU] LI.DUR [UZU] HA.LA

(+1) [UZU] IM.MA [UZU DAH].MA.MAŠ (+?)

(kamakissu)

15248 -

(kiṣ̣allu // knuckle bone)

15gCb

...

…

(paršu // intestinal content)

15090

(himṣ̣u // fat tissue)

15093

(īnu // eye)

15037-8

(uznu // ear)

15039 -

(edamukku // belly skin)

15217

idem

idem

(rēmu)

15gAa

idem

idem

idem

idem -

blood

-

(šarku // puss)

15gA24

fat

-

cow fat

-

sheep fat

-

pig fat

-

(abunnatu // umbilical cord)

15092

(HA.LA zittu meat share)

-

...

...

(gurušgaraš // vulva)

15231 -

...

98

...

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 10 (canonical tablets XVI) Division 10 (canonical XVI) NA

4 determinatives omitted in the composite edition last column has references to the MSL edition of the RS Forerunner

10001 10002 10003 10004 10005 10006 10007 10007a 10007b 10007c ... 10008 10008a ... 10009 10010 10011 10012 10013 10014 10015 10016 10015a 10015b 10015c 10017 10018 10019 10020 10021 10022a 10022b 10022c 10023 10024 10025a 10025b 10026 10027 10028 10029 10030 10031 10032

KA.GI.NA KA.GI.NA TI.[LA] MIN SIG 5 .GA MIN ZÁLAG.GA MIN KALAG.GA MIN DIB.BA ZÚ.KÉŠ KA.GI.NA KIŠIB MIN LAGAB MIN ÉLLAĜ MIN

(+1) E .SA ESI(KAL) [ ] KIŠIB [MIN] (+?) [SAĜ MIN (ALGAMEŠ=UD-MÍ-HÚB)] [BUR] MIN [ŠAGAN] MIN [ÚDUL MIN] šu-be ŠÚBA(Á-ZA-AN-MÙŠ) PA.RU.TUM DU 8 .A.ŠI DU 8 .A.ŠI MAR.HA.A.ŠI KIŠIB DU 8 .A.ŠI LAGAB MIN ÉLLAĜ MIN DAG.GA.ZUM MIN KAP.PA.TUM MIN U 4 .HI.IN MIN NUNUZ MIN za-ki-in ZA.GÌN(KUR) ZA.GÌN DURU 5 ZA.GÌN DURU 5 ZA.GÌN DURU 5 MIN ĜIŠ.DILI [MIN] ZAG.LÁL [ZA.GÌN GÚ TUMUŠEN] [ZA.GÌN GÚ TUMUŠEN] [ZA.GÌN GÚ UGAMUŠEN] [ZA.GÌN LU.ÚB.BANISIG] [ZA.GÌN ĜEŠTIN] [ZA.GÌN ANŠE EDIN.NA] [AD ZA.GÌN] [AD.TAB ZA.GÌN] [AD GÚ ZA.GÌN]

[]

16002

001

MIN balṭu // living hematite

16003

002

MIN SIG // good 5 MIN namru // shining -

16005

003

16004

005

MIN dannu // strong -

16006

004

MIN ṣạ bītu // magnetic -

16007

006

kiṣ̣ir šadâni // lump of -

16008

007

[] (kunukku // seal of - = -1-)

16009

008

[] (šibirtu // block of - = -2-)

16010

009

[] (takpitu // cameo of - = -3-)

16011

010

...

…

…

(ušû // diorite)

16012

011

[] -1-

16013

013

...

...

…

qaqqad MIN // head of -

16021

017

pūri MIN // bowl of -

16022

018

sikkat MIN // dish; basin of -

16024

-

diqār MIN // pot of -

16023

020

[]

-

021

parūtu // agate

16025

021a

dušû // quartz

16026

022

dušû parrašu // marcasite

16027

023

vacat // -1-

16028

024

vacat // -2-

16029

025

vacat // -3-

16030

026

takkasu // block

16047

034

ṣ̣imittu // binding

16048

035

uhinnu // date

16050

036

ernettu (erimmatu) // egg

16051

037

uqnu // lapis lazuli / ša-a-da-nu

16052

038

za-ki-id-ru-u // GLOSS

16053

039

uqnu ellu // sacred lapis lazuli

16054

040

uqnu ebbu // pure -

16055

idem

ni-iš-di

16066

041

-li-ik-ku // GLOSS

12 pu-us-sà-at uq-ni (pussulu // bent)

16057

042

qu-du-mu-uk-ku

16058

043

ša kišādi summati // of the pigeon’s neck

16059

044

ša kišādi āribi // of the raven’s neck

16060

045

lu-up-pa-an-nu (laptu // turnip)

16061

046

karānu // wine

16062

047

serremānu // onager

16063

048

aṭ-ṭu-u (emšu // belly)

16072

049

adappu // pin (mehṣ̣u // coiled)

16073

050

hullu // necklace

16074

051

99

Part 2 – Composite Edition 10033 10034 ... 10035 10036 10037 10038 10039 10040 10041 ... 10042 10043 10044 10045 10046 10047 10047’ 10047’’ 10048 10049 10050 10048a 10048b 10048c 10051 10052 10053 10054 10055 10056 10057 10058 10059 10060 10061 10062 10063 10064 10064a 10064b 10064c 10065 10066 10067 10068 10069 10070 10071

[HAL GÚ ZA.GÌN] [HAL ZIG ZA.GÌN] (+?) SU 6 LÁ [ZA.GÌN] IGI [MIN] IGI ZAG.GA [MIN] IGI BAR.RA [MIN] SIG 7 .SIG 7 [LÁ IGI MIN] MÁ.DAL [LÁ MIN] HU.[BUR MIN] (+?) [HAR ŠU ZA.GÌN] [HAR GÌR ZA.GÌN] [HAR GÚ.GIL ZA.GÌN] [AŠ.ME ZA.GÌN] [ŠU.NIR ZA.GÌN] [EŠ.GUR ZA.GÌN] Akk: hi-ig-lu Akk: [ú]-ṣ̣u-ur-tu 4 / aš-tar MUL BIBRA(HÚL) [ZA.GÌN] [U 4 .HI].IN MIN [NUNUZ] MIN [KIŠIB] MIN [LAGAB] MIN ÉLLAĜ ZA.GÌN NIM ZA.GÌN [gu]-ugGUG(ZA-GUL) GUG ZI(!ZÚ) GUG ZI

MIN<>MAR.HAL.LUM MIN<>MAR.HU.ŠUM MIN GAZI(GÁxPA)NISIG MIN GÚ.DU 8 .AKI MIN ME.LUH.HA MIN MAR.HA.ŠI MIN GÍD.DA MIN LÚGUD.DA MIN GAM.ME GUG LAGAB KIŠIB GUG LAGAB GUG ÉLLAĜ GUG ni-ir NÍR ni-ir NIR 5 ni-ir NÌR NÍR ZIZ NÍR [IGI] [NÍR HU.LA.LUM] MIN(NÍR) [PA]MUŠEN

16075

052

16101

053

...

...

…

[] (ziqnu // beard)

16088

063

[] (īnu // eye)

16089

065

[]

16089a

066

[]

16089b

067

[] (šuhru)

16090

068

[] (papatu)

16091

069

[] (hubšašu)

16095a

073

…

…

…

semer qāti // hand ring

16098

-

semer šēpi // foot -

16099

-

MIN hullu // neck -

16100

-

šamšatu // sundisk

16104

076

šurinnu // emblem

16105

077

eš-gu-ur-ru (taṣ̣ītu // plate)

16107

079

higlu

-

-

uṣ̣urtu // plan; drawing /

-

-

bibrû //bird-shaped vessel

16116

083

uhinnu // date

16114

084

ernettu // egg

16115

085

vacat // -1-

16117

086

vacat // -2-

16118

087

vacat // -3-

16119

088

zubbu // fly of quartz

16120

089

samtu // cornelian

16121

090

[] (ṣụ rrānitu // obsidian)

16124

092

[]

idem

idem

[] (marhallu)

16125

093

[] (marhušu)

16126

094

[] (kasanitu // condiment)

16137

095

[]

16130

096

[]

16128

097

parašu

16129

-

arku // long

16131

098

kurû // short

16133

099

[]

16134

100

pašku II // lump

16135

101

vacat // -1-

16140

102

vacat // -2-

16141

103

vacat // -3-

16142

104

hulālu

16143

105

idem

-

-

idem

-

-

sāsu // ‘moth’

16144

106

hulāl īni

16145

109

hulālu

16144a

107

ša kīma kappi // which (is) like a bird wing

16146

110

hīšu // neckband

ištar MUL // star goddess

100

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 10 (canonical tablets XVI) 10072 10073 10074 10075 10076 10077 10078 10079 10080 10081 10065a 10065b 10065c ... 10082 10083 10084 10082a 10082b 10082c 10085 10086 10087a 10087b 10087c ... 10088 10089 10090 10091 10092 10093 ... 10094 10095 10096 10097 10098 10099 10100 10101 10102 10103 10104 10105 10106 10107 10108

MIN Á.LÁL.LUM MIN MÁ. KASKALxKUR(!DAL).LUM MIN MUŠ.SAL(!ĜÍR) MIN IGI MUŠ.SAL(!ĜÍR) MIN BABBAR DILI [MIN] BABBAR MIN 5 (AŠ-AŠ).U [NÍR ŠUBA X (Á-ZA-MÚŠ)] [NÍR KA.NI.IŠ] [NÍR DAG.GAZ] [NÍR ĜIŠ.DUB] KIŠIB NÍR LAGAB MIN ÉLLAĜ MIN

(+1?) MIN(ŠUBA) [GAL] MIN TUR MIN Á [ZI.DA/KAB.BA] KIŠIB [ŠUBA] LAGAB ŠUBA ÉLLAĜ ŠUBA IŠ.ME.QUM

HU-SI-BA a NINNI 5 (!?AMAŠ).ME IA(!NA 4 ) NINNI 5 (!?AMAŠ).ME IA(!NA 4 ) NINNI 5 (!?AMAŠ).ME (+?)

alālu

16147

111

madallu

16148

113

muššāru

16149

114

īni muššāri

16150

115

ba-bar-di-lu-u // GLOSS / sāsu // ‘moth’

16151

116

ba-ab-bá-ar-mì-in-na // GLOSS

16152

117

aškuttu / nību 110 // ‘bolt’

16153

118

16155

119

takkassu // block

16156

120

ni-iš-du-up-pu; nid-du-pu // GLOSSES

16158

122

[] -1-

16159

123

[] -2-

16160

124

[] -3-

16161

125

...

...

…

[] (rabû // big)

16163

127

[] (ṣẹ hru // small)

16164

128

[] (imnu / šumēlu)

16167-8

129

[] -1-

16170

132

[] -2-

16171

133

[] -3-

16172

134

[] (ešmekku // malachite)

16173

135

[]

16174

136

[] (abašmu)

16175-6

137

[]

idem

idem

[]

idem

idem

...

...

…

ta-aš-ri-ti (tašniqtu // examination) 4 irnittu // egg / hulālu

16189

-

16190

148

ṣ̣ipru // cone

16194

149

nīru // yoke

16191

150

idem

16192

151

ša pēl lurmi // of an ostrich egg

16280

-

...

BAL NUNUZ [NUNUZ] TUR<.TUR> [NUNUZ] GÚ [NUNUZ] TAB.BA [NUNUZ GA.NU 11 ]MUŠEN

NA

ZÉ TÉŠ ARHUŠ LÀMA Ù.TUD NU.Ù.TUD PEŠ 4 (ŠAG 4 -A) NU.PEŠ 4

NA

DU 14 [SAĜ].KI GAG [ŠUB.BA] GAN [ŠUB.BA] MUR [ŠUB.BA] D [DÌM.ME]

NA

(+?)

mu-nu-uš la-ra- ah

[ ] DU-DU(!?PAP.HAL)

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

4 4 4 4 4 4 4

...

…

marti // stone of the gall bladder

16208

165

bāšti // - of dignity

16212

166

rēmi // - of mercy

16211

167

Lamassu // - of DN

16213

168

walādi // - of child-bearing

16217

169

lā walādi

16218

170

arî // - of pregnancy

16215

-

lā arî

16216

-

16214

171

ṣ̣alti // battle stone

16210

172

nakkapti // eyebrow -

16223

173

sikkati

16225

175

garābi // leprosy -

16226

176

hašî // lung -

16227

177

Lamašti // stone of DN

16221

-

4 [] (šupšuqtu // women’s labour stone)

NA NA NA NA NA

4 4 4 4 4 4

101

Part 2 – Composite Edition 10109 10110 10111 10112 10113 10114 10115 10116 10117a 10117b 10118 10119 10120 10121 10122 10123 10124a 10124b ... 10125 10126 10127 10128 10129 10130 ... 10131 10131a 10131b 10131c 10132 ... 10133 10134 ... 10135 10136 10137 10138 10139 10140 10141 10142 10143 10144 10145 10146 10147a 10147b 10148a

Akk: NA 4 IGI.HI.A [ĜÍR.TAB] mu- un [ MUN] NISIG

GAZI NAGA IGI MUŠ IGI KU 6 ki-in-ki-in KÍN(HAR) KÍN ZI.BU [KÍN] ZI.BU [KÍN] ZI.BU ŠU SI.[GA] KÍN AD.BAR KI(!KÍN) AD.BAR ŠU SI.GA KÍN SI.MU.RU MIN BU.UH.RU MIN BÁHAR(DUG-SÌLA-BUR) MIN ŠU MIN ŠU

(+?) MAR.HAL.[LUM] MAR.HU.[ŠUM] BUR BUR ZAG.[GA] BUR ŠU ZAG.GA BUR SAL.[LA]

(+?) IM.MA.[AN.NA] KIŠIB [MIN] LAGAB [MIN] ÉLLAĜ [MIN] EME(!IŠKILA=ŠAG 4 xA).[DA] (+4?) NA.[DÀ.A] NA.RÚ.A (+2) [GÚ BI].LA [GÚ] GI.NA [NÍĜ].GI.[NA] ZA.GÌN.NA NA ZAG.HI.LI.A NA ŠU ZAG.HI.LI.A DUB.BA.A EN.KI.A(!ŠA 6 ) KUD.DA ŠU KUD.DA ESI ESI ZIZ SAĜ.KAL SAĜ.KAL KA.ŠUR.RA

16231

-

16235

182

NA ṭābtu // salt 4 [] abankasû // mustard -

16236

185

16237

186

aban uhūli // herb -

16238

187

[] (aban īni iṣ̣sụ̄ ri // bird’s eye -)

16232

183

[] (aban īni nūni // fish eye -)

16231

184

[] (erû // millstone; grind -)

16239

188

MIN zibî // cumin -

16242

189

da-lu-uk-ku

16243

190

e-ri zi-bu a-di nàr-ka-bi-šu

16244

192

erû atbaru // black basalt mill stone

16248

195

erû atbaru adi narkabišu

16249

197

Simurri

16246

193

buhri // cooking -

16247

194

pahāri // potter’s -

16251

198

NA NA

NA NA NA

4 4

4 4

IGI.HI.A // eyes

stone

zuqaqīpi // scorpion -

4 [] (erî qāti // hand millstone)

16240

200

ha-[bi-ṣ̣u]

16241

201

...

...

…

[]

16269

216

[]

16270

217

[] (pūru I // bowl)

16271

218

[]

16274

219

[]

16275

220

[]

16276

221

...

...

…

[] (immanakku)

16288

232

[] -1-

16289

233

[] -2-

16290

234

[] -3-

16291

235

[] (išqillatu // pebble)

16292

236

...

...

…

[] (nadu)

16299

243

narû // stele

16300

-

...

...

…

gu-bi-la-ak-ku-u // GLOSS

16306

250

gu-gi-na-ak-ku // GLOSS

-

-

ni-ig-gi-na-ak-ku // GLOSS

16306a

250a

za-ki-na-ak-ku // GLOSS

16308

252

urṣụ // mortar

16309

253

elīt urṣ̣i // upper part of mortar

16310

254

ṭuppānu // tablets

16311

255

en-gi-iš-šu-u // GLOSS

16312

256

e-ru-tu (erû // millstone) 4 ka-ru-tu 4 [] (ušû // diorite)

16315

257

16316

258

16317

259

tariktu // pounder of diorite

16318

-

ša-ag-gal-lu // GLOSS

16319-a

261-2

mu-ha-aṣ̣-ṣ̣i-ru

idem

idem

kašurru // basalt

16321

263

102

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 10 (canonical tablets XVI) 10148b 10149 10149a 10149b 10149c 10150 10150a 10150b 10150c 10151 10152 10153 10154 10155 10155a 10155b 10155c 10156 10157 10158 10159 ... 10160 10161 10161a 10161b 10161c 10162 10163 10164 10165 10166 10167 10168 10169 10170 ... 10171 10172 10173 10174 10175 10176 10177 10178 10179 10180 10181 10182 10183

KA.ŠUR.RA SAĜ GIL MUD KIŠIB MIN LAGAB MIN ÉLLAĜ MIN ÌL 109 DUR.ÙL KIŠIB MIN LAGAB MIN ÉLLAĜ MIN [MAŠ].DÀ [MAŠ.DÀ] DURU 5 [Ú.ŠU].UŠ <> ÍD.DA HÁŠ(ZIK).DÀ KIŠIB MIN LAGAB MIN ÉLLAĜ HÁŠ.DÀ

Akk: i-ia-še-nu-u Akk: it-te-e Akk: qa-te 9 -e Akk: za-áš-ki-tu 4 (+3) [AN.ZA].GUL.ME AL.[LE.ĜÁ] KIŠIB [AL.LE.ĜÁ] LAGAB [AL.LE.ĜÁ] ÉLLAĜ AL.LE.ĜÁ ŠU.U [ŠU.MÌN] [ÁŠ GIG] [UGU ÁŠ] GIG [KUR.RA(!KUG.GA)] [KUR.RA] [SIKIL.E.DÈ] [SAĜ NU.SIKIL].DÈ [PIRIĜ(GÌR) GÙN] (+?) [Ú.BÍL] [Ú] [Ú NIĜ.BÙRU.BÙRU] [Ú AN.NA] <Ú> KI.TA ZI.BI.[BI].TUM ZI.IB.[TUM] ZI.IB.BÁ.[TUM] ZI.IB.NA.TUM IA AR.TUM IA NI.BU GAG.GU 5 .UŠ GAG.GU 5 .UŠ BÀN.DA

nēpešu

16322

264

hašmānu // blue-coloured stone

16329

265

vacat // -1-

16331

266

vacat // -2-

16332

267

vacat // -3-

16333

268

ṭurru II // band; knot

16334

269

vacat // -1-

16335

270

vacat // -2-

16336

271

vacat // -3-

16337

272

mašdû

16338

273

mešiltu // whet-stone

16339

274

idem

16340

275

16341

276

-

-

-

-

vacat // -2-

-

-

vacat // -3-

!16342

!277

i-ia-še-nu-u

-

-

it-te-e

-

-

qa-te -e 9 za-áš-ki-tu

!16343

!279

-

-

…

…

vacat

16344

281

al-le-gu

-

-

[] -1-

-

-

[] -2-

-

-

[] -3-

-

-

šû II

16348-9

285

šu-un-mi-in-nu // GLOSS

16350-1

286

ašgigû // arsenic

16353

287

a-gu-zi-iq-qu // GLOSS

16354

288

e-ku-ru-u // GLOSS (É.KUR-stone)

nāri // river stone

NA

4 ha-aš-tu

4 vacat // -1-

...

4

16355

289

šadî // mountain stone

16356

290

teliltu // purification -

16359

293

lā teliltu

16360

294

16363

295

...

…

…

bašiltu // burnt

16398

325

šammu // plant; herb

16399

326

šammu palīšu // penetrating -

16400

327

elû // high (vegetation) stone

16402

329

šaplu // low -

16403

330

NA NA NA

4 4

4 pí-ri-ig-gu-lu-u // GLOSS

NA NA

4

4 zibibītu // herb

16404

331

zibtu

16405

332

zibbatu // tail

16406

333

zibnu // mat

-

-

i-ia artu // twig stone

16407

334

i-ia nibû // weed - / e-la-lu

16408

335

kakkušakku

16409

336

kapāṣ̣u // incense stone

16410

337

103

Part 2 – Composite Edition 10184 10185 10186 10187 10188 10189 10190a 10190b 10190c 10190d 10190e 10190f 10190g 10190h 10190i 10190j 10190k 10190l 10190m 10190n 10190o 10190p 10190q 10190r 10190s 10190t 10190u 10190v 10190w 10190x 10190y 10190z 10190aa … 10191 10192

ESI KI.MAŠ KI.LÁ KI.MAŠ DÀ.A KI.LÁ TAG.GA HÁŠ BAR ku-un da-aš 1 GÚ.UN 50 MA.NA 40 MA.NA 30 MA.NA 20 MA.NA 15 MA.NA [10] MA.NA [5] MA.NA 4 MA.NA 3 MA.[NA] 2 MA.NA ma-na te-eš 1 MA.NA ½ MA.NA 2/3 MA.NA ki-in-gi 10 GÍĜ ki-in-ki ia 5 GÍĜ ki-in-ki eš-še 3 GÍĜ gíg mi-na 2 GÍĜ [...] 1 GÍĜ ba-ra 1/2 GÍĜ ši-na-bi 5/6NA.BI GÍĜ IGI 3 ĜÁL GÍĜ [15] U 20 [10] U 20 [5] U 20 [3] U 20 [2] U 20

(+2) NÍĜ.NA 4 NÍĜ.TUR.TUR

-

-

tākalti // bag stone

16412

339

šuqulti // weight -

16413

340

tākalti epšu

16414

341

šuqulti laptu

16415

342

nibî // ‘weed’ stone (emšu // belly stone)

16416

342a

bilti // talent weight stone

16417

343

hanšā mana // 50 mina (weight) stone

16418

344

erbâ mana

16419

345

piṭir

16420

346

ešrā mana

16421

347

hammiššer mana 4 ešeret mana

16422

348

16423

349

hamšat mana

16424

350

[]

16424a

350a

[]

16425

351

[]

16426

352

[]

16427

353

[]

16429

354

[]

16428

-

ušû // diorite NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

ešertu // 10 (sheqel weight stone)

16431

356

hamištu

16432

357

šalaštu

16433

358

šina šiqil

16434

359

šiqil

16435

360

zūzu / ½ GÍĜ

16437

361

šinipû / 40 GÍĜ

16440

364

paras ṣ̣ehru

16441

-

16444

-

NA

hamiššer // 15 (uṭṭatu weight) stone

4 ešeret uṭtạ ti

16445

367

hamšat uṭtạ ti

16446

368

3 uṭṭati

16448

370

šina uṭtạ ti

16449

371

...

...

…

abnu kabittu // main (weight) stone

16454

378

abnu ṣ̣ehheru // very small (weight) stone

16456

379

104

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 11 (canonical tablets XVII) Division 11 (canonical XVII) last column has references to the MSL edition of the RS Forerunner … 11001 11002 11003 11004 ... 11005 11006 11007 11008 11009a 11009b 11010 ... 11011 11012a 11012b ... 11013 11014 11015 11016 11017 11018 11019 11020 ... 11021 11022 ...

(+?) Ú

KA ŠÈR x[x] Ú UL.LU x[x] Ú UL.LU.BU.[UM] Ú EL.LI.BU.[UM]

(+?) [Ú]NAM.TI.LA [Ú]NAM.BA.ÚŠ Ú SA.AD NIM Ú SA.AD GAL Ú SA.AD GAL DÙ.A Ú SA.AD GAL DÙ.A Ú

ĜÍR

(+?) Ú

NISIG

KUR.RA[ ] NISIG HUR.SAĜ Ú NISIG HUR.SAĜ Ú

(+?) [RAŠ] GA(!GA.RAŠ)[NISIG] [MIN] SAĜ [!GA.RAŠ SAĜNISIG] MIN ṬU(!TÚL).LÁ [!GA.RAŠNISIG] MIN NÍĜ.KUD.[DANISIG] ! NISIG NUMUN RAŠ GA(!GA.RAŠ)[ ] U-IŠ(!?UGU-ĜIŠ)LAGAB (!xU=TÚL)RAŠ.[GA(!GA.RAŠ)NISIG] NISIG ZAG HI.LI[ ] NISIG NUMUN ZAG HI.LI[ ] (+1) NISIG BABBAR HI[ ] NISIG NUMUN BABBAR HI[ ] (+?)

... [] (manašimtu) [] [] (ullupu) [] (ellipu) ... [] (balāṭu // life) [] (mūtu // death) [] (ṣ̣īdānu // faintness) [] (rapādu I // illness) [] [] [] ... [] (nīnû // umbel) [] [] (azupirānu // saffron) ... [] (karašu) [] (geršānu // leek type) [] (šinītu III // idem) [] (kismu // idem) [] (NUMUN karaši) [] (bisru // leek type)

… 17150><206 idem idem idem ... 17233-42 idem idem idem idem idem 17244 ... 17288 17309 idem ... 17312 17313 17317 17316 17322 17318

… 114 115 116 ... 130 131 32-3 idem 135 ... 188 189 190 ... 193 194 195 196 197 198

[] (sahlu // cress) [] (NUMUN sahli) ... [] (papparhû//purslane) 111 [] (NUMUN papparhî) ...

17325 17326 … 17323 17324 …

199 200 … 210 211 ...

105

Part 2 – Composite Edition Division 12 (canonical XVIII) phonetic Sumerian entries provided by 12E1 omitted in the composite edition 12001 12002 12003 12003a 12003b 12004a 12004b 12005 12006 12007 … 12008 12009 12010 12011 12012 12013 12014 12015 12016 12017 12018 12019 12020 12021 12022 12023 12024 12025 12026 12027 12028 12029 12030 12031 12032 12033 … 12034 12035 12036 12037 12038 … 12039 12040

ku-ú-ia

KU 6 GÚ.BI SUHUR SUHUR.MÁŠ SUHUR MAŠ SUHUR SUN 4 .LÁ SUHUR SUN 4 .LÁ SUHUR APIN KUD(!GUD=EŠTUB).DA IZI.DIB(for EŠTUB)

-

(+4?) UBI A.AB.BA UBI ÍD.DA

…

KU KU KU KU KU KU KU KU KU

KU KU

UBI SAĜ

KU

KUD PA-DA

KU

lu

KU

6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6

IZI SIS(ŠEŠ) ĜIŠ.ŠUR.RA EME.DIR NÍĜ.GU 7 (!BÚN).NA NUNUZ NÍĜ.GU 7 (!BÚN).NA AMAR [NÍĜ.GU 7 (!BÚN).NA] MU.UR.RA MU.UR.RA A.AB.[BA] MU.UR.RA ÍD.[DA] MU.UR.RA AL.[ÚS.SA] MU.UR.RA TÙN.[NA] A.DA.GUR 4 (LAGAB!?GUR 5 ) GÌR A.DA.GUR 4 (!?GUR 5 ) AGARGAR(NUN-tenu) AGARGAR GIŠ-LA AGARGAR A.AB.BA AGARGAR ÍD.DA AGARGAR GIBIL [AGARGAR] BAR [AGARGAR] BAR [HUŠ]

KU

(+8) [GIR.GÍD] [GIR A.AB.BA] [GIR ÍD.DA] [GIR ŠU LUH.HA] [E.SÍR] (+3) [KA 5 .A]

…

UR GIR 15

KU KU KU KU KU KU KU KU KU KU KU KU KU KU KU KU KU KU KU KU

KU KU KU KU KU

6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6

… KU KU

6 6

nūnu // fish kuppu // goby purādu // (bizz-)carp suhurmašu // ‘goat’ fish bitru // exquisite ziqnanu // bearded sapsappanu // lipped datteru arsuppu // carp idem ... [] (abūt tiamti) [] (abūt nāri) [] [] (lupû) [] [] (nūn išāti // fire fish) [] (marru // bitter; brackish) [] [] (ṣ̣urārû // egg shells) [] (šeleppu // turtle) [] (pēl šeleppi // egg of -) [] (watam šeleppi // chick of -) [] (girītu // muraena) [] (girīt tiamti // sea -) [] (girīt nāri // river -) [] (girīt šiqqi//brine;seasoning of -) [] [] (adagurru // libation vessel) [] [] (agargarû // fish spawn) [] [] seafish spawn [] riverfish [] new [] (ziqtu // sting; quill) [] (HUŠ red) ... tappinnu tappin a-ia-ba-ak-ku tappin i-da-ak-ku mesû // washed šēnu // sandal ... šēlebu // fox kalbu // dog

106

18001 18002 18003 18004 18005 18006 18007 18009 18010 ... 18012 18013 ? 18016 ? 18017 18019 18019a 18020 18023 18024 18025 18027 18028 18029 18030 18031 18032 18033 18038 18039a 18039b 18039c 18040 18041 ... 18062 18064 18065 18067 18069 … 18071 18072

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 12 (canonical tablets XVIII) 12041 12042 12043 12044 12045 12046 12047 12048 12049 12050 12051 12056 … 12057 12058 12059 … 12060 12061 12062 … 12063 … 12064 12065 12066 12067a 12067b

BÀD(EZENxBAD)

KU

6

IZI IZI TAG.GA NÍĜ.KI TU TU.MAH ŠAG 4 BAR.RA ŠAG 4 LUH.HA AL.LU.ÚS.SA.A AL.LU.ÚS.SA.A SIG 5 [AL].LU.ÚS.SA.A BURU 5 [AL.LU].ÚS.SA.A KU 6 .A

KU

MUN NISIG GAZI[ ] ŠU.[I]

KU

(+?) [GAMBI(MÍ-ÚS-SÁ)] [E.ZI] [A.ZAG.GÙN.NU] (+?) [ANZU] (+1) [NUNUZ SI.MIN.NA] [AMAR SI.MIN.NA] [ÙRI] [ŠÚR.DÙ] [ŠÚR.DÙ]

…

12068 … 12069 12070

[KA.ŠU.KUD.DA] (+?) [BURU 5 GI.ZI] [BURU 5 Ú.ĜÍR]

MUŠEN

12071 12072 12073 12074 … 12075

[BURU 5 UGU.DÙ.A] [BURU 5 HABRUD.DA] [ŠEN.ŠEN BAL] [ŠEN.ŠEN AL.BA.ÚŠ] (+?)

MUŠEN

KISLAH

MUŠEN

12076 12077 12078 12079a 12079b 12080 12081 12082 12083

NIM KIB KIB ŠÚ D KIB NIN.KILIM(PÉŠ) D KIB NIN.KILIM 112 SIPA LÁ SIPA TUR(!TIR).RA ĜI 6 NÁ.A

MUŠEN

(+?)

KU KU KU KU KU KU KU KU KU KU

6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6

… KU KU

6 6 6

MUŠEN MUŠEN MUŠEN

…

MUŠEN

…

MUŠEN MUŠEN MUŠEN MUŠEN MUŠEN

…

MUŠEN MUŠEN

MUŠEN MUŠEN MUŠEN

…

MUŠEN MUŠEN MUŠEN MUŠEN MUŠEN MUŠEN MUŠEN MUŠEN

nūn tumri // glowing ash fish nūn išāti // fire fish nūn tašriti eṭūtu // darkness summatu // pigeon tummahu // ‘festively attired’ qalpu // peeled mesû // washed šiqqu // brine; seasoned idem (šiqqu damqu) [] (āribu // crow) [] ... [] (nūn ṭābti // fish of salt) [] (nūn kasî // - of condiment) [] (gallabu // barber) ... [] (kumû // crane) u-su-uk-ku uzun qanî // ‘reed ear’ … argabu // pigeon / Anzû … pēl ṣ̣e-e watam ṣ̣e-e urinnu I // eagle [šu]-ur-du-u kassūsu // hunting falcon / ṣ̣ajjāhu // ‘laugher’ idem ... iṣ̣sụ̄ r kisi // reed bird iṣ̣sụ̄ r eṭṭetti // thornbush bird (ašāgu) appannu // colonnade hurru // hole bird urballu // quail harbaqanu / ma-ṣ̣i-ṣ̣i-ia-nu ... kislahû (iṣ̣ṣūr maškani // threshing floor bird) [] ki-bu na-aš-ru (kibšu) [] mērû // pregnancy (!PEŠ) rē’û // shepherd kubšu barmu // multi-coloured tuft iṣ̣sụ̄ r mūši // night bird ṣ̣alālu // lying-down

107

18072c 18079 18079b 18079c 18079d 18079e 18079f 18079g … 18126 18127 18114 … 18141 18142 18143 … 18157 … 18159b 18159c 18156 18162 … 18179 18178 18181 18185 18187 18188 … 18213 ? 18235 18236 18237 18238 18239 18241 18242 18243

Part 2 – Composite Edition BIR(HIxŠE) 113 [ŠIM] Akk: ha-aš-ta-ru(-ú) Akk: iṣ-̣ ṣ̣u-ru / e-ri-bu Akk: si-nu-un-tu 4 / ša-‘a-ba

-

12084 12085 12086 12087 12088 12089

MUŠEN

TU

MUŠEN

12090 12091 12092 12093 12094 12095 … 12096 12097 … 12098 12099 … 12100 … 12101 12102 12103

TU MAH [TU GAN] [TU GUR 4 ] GI.RI.SA GÌR(!KIR 4 ) PA.AB GÌR(!KIR 4 ) A.MU.RU

MUŠEN

12104 12105 12106 12107 12108 12109 12110 12111 12112 12113 … 12114 12115 12116 12117 12118 12119 12120 … 12121 12122 12123

(+1) [GÌR(!KIR 4 ) BABBAR] [GÌR(!KIR 4 ) ZALAG] (+?) [KIB.KIB] [HAR.HAR] (+1) [DUG AM.MA.AM] (+?) [SU.DIN] [SU.DIN MÌN.NA] Akk: su-KUR(!din)-niin-ni-tu 4 [ĜIŠKIRI 6 ] [NÍĜ.GA MU.UN].TÚM GÙ.BI BÚLUG(!BALAĜ) di-qár È ŠUBA(ZA-MÙŠ) [LI.LI.GI SIG 7 ].SIG 7 Akk: a-ra-aq-ra-aq Akk: às-ki-ku 13 GA.NU 11 [NUNUZ GA.NU 11 ] [AMAR GA.NU 11 ] [Ù.KU.KU] (+1) Akk: a-zu-pí-ru IRI DÙ MAŠ SAĜ.KI ÙR.RA a-ra-bu A A 114 A RA 4 (UD -DU ).BU A A RA 4 .BU NÍTA A A RA 4 .BU MIN NÍTA A A RA 4 .BU ŠU ÙR.RA

(+?) MIN(UGA=Ú-NAGA)

KUKKU 5 MIN SA 5 MIN GÙN.A

MUŠEN MUŠEN MUŠEN MUŠEN

MUŠEN

-

MUŠEN MUŠEN MUŠEN

…

MUŠEN MUŠEN

…

MUŠEN MUŠEN

…

MUŠEN

…

MUŠEN MUŠEN MUŠEN

MUŠEN MUŠEN MUŠEN

MUŠEN MUŠEN MUŠEN MUŠEN MUŠEN MUŠEN MUŠEN

…

MUŠEN MUŠEN MUŠEN MUŠEN MUŠEN MUŠEN MUŠEN

…

MUŠEN

MUŠEN MUŠEN

[] [] ha-aš-ta-ru(-ú) iṣ̣sụ̄ ru / āribu // raven sinuntu // swallow / ša-‘a-ba 115 summatu // turtle dove / wa-at-tu 4 116 tumahhu / girribu sukannunu // rock dove idem (urtu) gi-ri-sa(-ak)-ku ni-ga(-ak)-ku ni-ga(-ak)-ku ... (peṣ̣û // white (beaked)) (namru // shining) ... kipkippu 117 harharru ... tū’amu // twin … šuttinnu // bat surinakku su-KUR(!din)-ni-in-ni-tu 4

18244 18246 ? ? 18246 18249

iṣ̣sụ̄ r kirî // garden bird makkūr bilti // property of burden [] ‘its voice rises above the drum kettle’ multi-coloured (bird) a-ra-aq-ra-aq // colocynth-yellow idem askiku lurmu // tuft (bird) pēl lurmi // egg of watam lurmi // chick of ṣ̣alālu // lying down ... azupīru // saffron MUŠEN ša kubši // bird of the tuft [] (SAĜ.KI pūtu forehead) [] (arabû) zikaru // male [] (urballu) [] ... [] (āribu // raven)

18300 18301 18303β

[] red [] multi-coloured -

-

108

18250 18251-a 18261-7 idem idem … 18258 18256 … 18270 18278 … 18280 … 18296 18297 ?

18305 18306 18307 18308 18309 … 18312 18313 18314 18315 18316 ... 18348a

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 12 (canonical tablets XVIII) 12124 12125 … 12126 12127 12128 12129 12130a 12130b 12130c 12131 … 12132 12133 12134 12135 12136 12137 12138

MIN SIG 7 .SIG 7 UGA NUMUN

(+?) [ZUM].BI [ZUM].BI TIR.RA [U 5 ] ZA.NÍĜIN [U 5 ] ZA.NÍĜIN TIR.RA U 5 .BI U 5 .BI [U 5 ].BI [U 5 SIM] (+?) U 5 NUMUN U 5 GAZ U 5 GAZ BUR U 5 NÍĜ.DÉ.A NUNUZ AMAR MUŠEN [ESSADU

MUŠEN MUŠEN

…

MUŠEN MUŠEN MUŠEN MUŠEN MUŠEN MUŠEN MUŠEN MUŠEN

…

MUŠEN MUŠEN MUŠEN MUŠEN MUŠEN MUŠEN

-

[] yellow; green [] ... [] (pinku // button; knob) [] [] [] [] (šāt kapru) [] [] [] (qaqû) ... [] [] [] [] (NÍĜ.DÉ.A biblu dowry) pelû // egg watmu // chick ishu // fin, flipper

(AB-HA-ZAG-GABA-HU)]

109

18348d ... 18365 18367 18371-2 idem idem 18375 ... 18378 18380 18381 18384

Part 2 – Composite Edition Division 13 (canonical XIX) last column has references to the MSL edition of the RS Forerunner (unilingual) phonetic Sumerian entries provided by 13E2 omitted in the composite edition … 13001 13002 13003 13004 13005 … 13006 13007 13008 13009 13010 13011 13012 13013 13014 13015 13016 13017 13018 … 13019 13020 13021 13022 13023 13024 13025 13026 13027 13028 … 13029 13030 13031 13032 13033 13034 13035 13036 13037 13038 13039 13040 13041

(+?) SIKI SI.SÁ IGI ZAG.GA a-ga ÀKA(ŠID) MUK MUK ŠÚ(=H<ÚL>)

(+?) (SIKI)

ÁB KUN SAĜ KUN UDU ÙR.RA HÉ.NA MAR.TU SAL.LA HUŠ.A GU.ZA NÍĜ.MU 4 ALAN ZA.GÌN.NA SIKI HÉ.ME.TA SIKI [ ]SAĜ GIL MUD

(+?)

(TÚG)

MU 4 .[MU 4 LUGAL] MU 4 .MU 4 NIN.[DIĜIR.RA] A.RA(!RÁ) 118 A.RÁ(DU) [DIĜIR.RA] A.RÁ [LUGAL] A.RÁ NIN.[DIĜIR.RA] ŠU.ZU.UB MIN DIĜIR.RA MIN LUGAL [MIN] NIN.DIĜIR.RA

(+?) GADA GADA [MAH] GADA [DIĜIR.RA] GADA [LUGAL] GADA NIN.DIĜIR.[RA] MIN [NÍĜ.MU 4 (TÚG)] MIN NÍĜ.MU 4 [DIĜIR.RA] MIN MIN [LUGAL] MIN MIN NIN.[DIĜIR.RA] MIN [MU 4 .MU 4 ] MIN MU 4 .MU 4 [DIĜIR.RA] MIN MU 4 .MU 4 [LUGAL] [MIN MU 4 .MU 4 ] NIN.DIĜIR.[RA]

...

…

…

(šipātu) išarātu // regular (wool)

19024

-

nasqātu // selected

19029

024

itqu // fleece

19093

025

mukku // tow; wool combings

19094

026

nuqāru // low-value

19095

027

...

…

…

[]

-

-

-

040

19077

041

hé-na-ta

19087

042

Amorite wool

19086

043

ša raqqati // thin cloth

-

044

ša huššî // red

19090

045

ša illūri // of red paint; rouge (!GURUN)

-

046

ša lubūšu // of garment

-

047

ša ṣ̣almi // of statue

-

048

uqniātu // blue wool / dušû // leather 120

19079

049

nabāsu // purple wool / i-ki-ṭu 121

19078

050

hašmānu // blue wool / dušū

-

051

...

…

...

[] garment

-

215

[]

-

216

[]

-

217

[] god’s garment = -1-

-

218

[] king’s garment = -2-

-

219

[] UDU

immer rugbi // ‘loft’ sheep (wool)

[] divine consort’s garment = -3-

-

220

[] (šušippu // cloth)

19290

221

[] -1-

-

222

[] -2-

-

223

[] -3-

-

224

...

…

...

[] flax

-

240

[] (gadamahu // garment)

19344

241

[] -1-

-

242

[] -2-

-

243

[] -3-

-

244

[] (MU lubūšu garment) 4

-

245

[] -1-

-

246

[] -2-

-

247

[] -3-

-

248

[]

-

249

[] -1-

-

250

[] -2-

-

251

[] -3-

-

252

110

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 13 (canonical tablets XIX) 13042 13043 13044 13045 13046 13047 13048 13049 13050 13051 13052 13053 13054 13055 13056 13057 13058 13058a 13058b 13058c 13058d 13059 13060 13061 13062 13063 13064 … 13065 13066 13067 13068

[GADA] A.[RÁ] [GADA A.RÁ] DIĜIR.RA [GADA A.RÁ] LUGAL 119 GADA ZA(!A).RÁ NIN.DIĜIR.RA GADA ŠU.ZI/ZU/ŠU.IB/UB GADA ŠU.ŠU.UB DIĜIR.RA GADA ŠU.ŠU.UB LUGAL GADA ŠU.ŠU.UB NIN.DIĜIR.RA GADA AN.DÚL GADA NU.NU GADA I.RI GADA NU.I.RI GADA GÚ È GADA BAR.SIKI GADA DILMUN.NA GADA MÁ.GAN.NA GADA ŠAG 4 .GA.DÙ GADA ŠAG 4 .GA.DÙ BABBAR GADA ŠAG 4 .GA.DÙ KUKKU 5 GADA ŠAG 4 .GA.DÙ SA 5 GADA ŠAG 4 .GA.DÙ GÙN. └ A GADA ŠAG 4 .GA.DÙ GADA ! GADA ŠAG 4 .GA.DÙ SIKI GADA ŠAG 4 .GA.DÙ SIKI ZA<.GÌN> GADA ŠAG 4 .GA.DÙ SIKI HÉ.MI.TA GADA ŠAG 4 .GA.DÙ ŠAG 4 .KI GADA ŠAG 4 .GA.DÙ ba-ah

(+?)

GADA ÍB.LÁ GADA AN.DUL 7 AN.DUL 7 [AN].DUL 7 .GUL

[] (šišihu 122)

-

253

[] -1-

-

254

šišihitāt šarri (-2-)

-

255

šišihitāt enti (-3-)

-

256

šušippu // cloth

-

257

šušip ili (-1-)

-

258

šušip šarri (-2-)

-

259

šušip enti (-3-)

-

260

andullu // screen (taktimu // flaxen wrapper)

-

-

qû // (flaxen) thread

-

-

kitû birītu

-

-

kitû si-mì-i-ru

-

-

nahlapti kitî // flaxen shoulder coat

-

-

paršīg kitî // flaxen cap

-

-

-

-

-

-

nābehu // (flaxen) girdle; belt

-

261

nābehu peṣ̣û // white -

-

-

nābehu ṣ̣almu // dark -

-

-

nābehu sāmu // red -

-

-

nābehu burrumu // multi-coloured -

-

-

nābeh kitî // flaxen -

-

262

nābeh šipāti // woollen -

-

-

nābeh uqnî // lapis-lazuli (coloured) -

-

-

nābehu nabāsu // purple -

-

-

šakīku // ‘strung’ girdle; belt

-

-

nābehu nabāsu 123

-

-

...

…

...

[] (ÍB.LÁ belt)

-

-

[] (taktimu // wrapper)

19345

-

[] (AN.DUL

-

265

-

266

ṣ̣ulūlu shade)

7 taktimu // wrapper

111

Part 2 – Composite Edition Introduction to divisions 14-17 (canonical XX-XXIII) References: 1. Sequence of entries in MSL: MSL does not give a coherent reconstruction of canonical tablets XX-XXIII, instead it gives unconnected sections to present the limited and fragmentary source materials. Lacking context, these sections are ordered according to the sequences found in OB or RS Forerunners. Note that the MSL edition of RS Forerunners for Hh XX-XXIa has been made largely obsolete by the revised and expanded reconstruction of the Ugarit material in van Soldt, ‘Ugarit Version’, 429-40. A few addenda to van Soldt’s edition may be found below. 2. Numbering: Prompted by the MSL edition format discussed under 1, the canonical reference numbers used here are constructed as follows: the first two numbers (20-23) are, as usual, tablet numbers (for tablet XX-XXIII), the third is the (MSL) section number and the last two numbers (after ‘:’) are the line numbers within that section. The MSL RS Forerunners’ reference numbers in MSL are only given for division 16 because for divisions 14-15 they have been replaced by the reference numbers used in van Soldt’s improved reconstruction of the Ugarit text (mentioned under 1) while in division 17 MSL gives none. The references to van Soldt’s reconstruction give section (1-10) and line numbers separated by “:” markers. Addenda to van Soldt, ‘Ugarit Version’, p. 440 n. 120: 1. The identification of Arnaud’s fragment ‘558 A’ needs correction. Arnaud has assigned this number twice: the first time for 74129e, which is part of 15T1 (note that this fragment is also identical to Arnaud’s 559 K because Arnaud edits this tablet in two artificial divisions, presenting the Emar material in parallel to the MSL edition of the canonical version), and the second time for 74234b, which is 15E1 - the latter has been renamed 558 A’ in this edition. 2. 558 K (74104p) is not a duplicate of 558 A - instead these two fragments make up two parts of one tablet 15T1: K joins A in Rev IV. 3. Not 558 C but 558 D (74198b) equals 559 I. 4. 558 D (74198b = 559 I) is not part of 558 C(+) but is a separate tablet (16aT1) with a different (unilingual) version of this division. 5. Of the other fragments listed as joining 558 C in 16bT2 only E (74187) has a direct physical join with it. F (listed with ‘?’) has a deviating sequence and does not join either 16bT1 or T2. Fragments H, I, J and L are likely to belong to 16bT2 with 558 C but lack physical joins. 6. Two other fragments that have physical joins with 16bT2 (i.e. 558 C+E+) are not listed: 559 C (74158j) and 559 E (74122u). 7. 559 B is not a second duplicate of 558 B but is the same as 558 E (this again is a double listing, used by Arnaud to maintain his artificial divisions). 8.In 558 C (16bT2) the KUR-section is not omitted but merely broken (in columns III-IV).

112

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 14 (canonical tablets XX) Division 14 (canonical XX) A.ŠAG

4 determinatives omitted in the composite edition last column has references to van Soldt’s ‘Ugarit Version’ edition (section:line count)

14001 14002 14003 14004 14005 14006 14007 14008 14009 14010 14011 14012 14013 14014 14015 14016 14017 14018 14019 14020 14021 14022 14023 … 14024 14025 14026 14027 14028 14029 14030a 14030b 14030c 14030d 14031 14032 … 14033 14034 14035 14036 …

A.ŠAG 4 GABA GABA.RI.A D NISABA D NISABA GU.LA D NISABA TUR.RA TÚL.LÁ MUŠEN.NA É MÁ.RU É 50 A IGI HA.BA.ZÉ HU.UM.BI.ZÉ iš-tu TA 4 qa-ri-im

LAGABxA(!xKUG=ĜARIM) LAGABxA(!ĜARIM) GU.LA LAGABxA(!ĜARIM) TUR.RA LAGABxA(!ĜARIM) DEN.LÍL LAGABxA(!ĜARIM) ĜIŠ.DÙ.A LAGABxA(!ĜARIM) KUG.MÁ x LAGABxA(!ĜARIM) GÁxLA x A.GÀR A.GÀR GU.[LA] A.GÀR TUR.[RA] (+?) SUHUB(ŠÚ-MUL) D SUMUGAN(GÌR) D

GUD SUMUGAN AL.LA.AK.KA NÍĜ.KIN.AK.A NIĜ.KUD.DA.AK.A IGI 3 ĜÁL TA.[ÀM] IGI 4 ĜÁL TA.ÀM IGI 5 ĜÁL TA.ÀM IGI 10 ĜÁL TA.ÀM 2/3(ŠANABI)BI x ĜAR.RA

(+?) APIN LÁ LÚ LÁ APIN NU.ZU GAN(!GÁN).NA.ZU

(+?)

eqlu // field

-

1:01

A.ŠAG

-

1:02

A.ŠAG mehri // opposite 4 field of DN

-

-

-

1:03

big -

-

1:04

small -

-

1:05

4

irti // adjoining -

-

1:06

ebūri // harvest field

205:01

1:07

É 50

-

-

pasisi // ‘extinguished’ field

201:04

1:09

-

1:10

[]

201:07

1:11

ta-a // GLOSS / ištu // from; after

-

-

tamirtu // meadow

-

-

[] big -

-

-

[] small -

-

-

[] - of Enlil

-

-

[] - of breeding stock

-

-

[]

-

-

[]

-

-

[] (ugāru // common)

-

2:03

[]

-

2:04

[]

-

2:05

...

...

...

kubussu // trampled down field

-

-

kibsu // traced; furrowed field

-

3:35

TÚL.LÁ MUŠEN.NU.U (TÚL A.ŠAG A.ŠAG A.ŠAG

4 4

hirītu ditch)

4 humbuṣ̣u // ‘swollen’ -

A.ŠAG A.ŠAG

4 4

-

3:36

[] hoe-worked field

-

3:37

[] (KIN sickle)

-

3:38

[] (NIĜ.KUD miksu revenue)

-

-

[]

-

-

[]

-

-

[]

-

-

[]

-

-

[]

-

-

[]

204:18b

-

...

...

...

[] tilled field

-

-

[]

-

-

lā eršu // uncultivated field

204:17

-

[] (A.ŠAG mēreši // cultivated field) 4

204:18

6:17/

...

...

idem

113

7:07 ...

Part 2 – Composite Edition Division 15 (canonical XXIa) KI

determinatives omitted in the composite edition Akkadian equivalents only given in 15E1 (specified in interpretation column) last column has references to van Soldt’s ‘Ugarit Version’ edition (section:line count) 15001 NIBRU(EN-KID) Nippur 211:01/2:02 15002 Uruk 211:11/2:08 UNUG Ur 211:16/2:05 15003 ÚR(ŠEŠ<-UNUG>) Larsa 212:06/2:06 15004 ARARMA(UD-UNUG) (ša ṣ̣âti) 211:09 MIN UL!.GAG(!LÍ) 15005 15006 MIN EDIN.NA (ša ṣ̣ēri) 217:19 ŠÚ-NIM(!KÈŠ) Kish 15007 217:20 idem 15008 KIŠ ... (+6) ... ... 15009a [TÚL] (TÚL būrtu well) 15009b [TÚL] 15009c TÚL ... ... (+1) … 15010a Ú (Ú šammu pasture) 213:24-6 idem 15010b MIN idem 15010c MIN 15011a BÀD (BÀD dūru wall) 15011b MIN 15011c MIN lì 212:14 15012 MIN DIĜIR 213:22 15013 I.LIB 213:23 15014 A.LÁB 15015 MUK.TUM 15016 GIR.SU Girsu 15017 ÁB.ZU ÁB.ZU.NA 15018 15019 ÁB.ZU.LÁ DILMUN(MÍ-TUKU) NUN.NA SAĜ 15020 Dilmun 214:04 15021 MÁ.KAM.MA Magan 214:05 15022 Meluhha ME.LUH.HA É.DANNA(KASKAL-BU) 214:06 15023 (bīt bīri) MIN ÉŠ.DAM 214:08 15024 (bīt aštammi) 15025 214:07 MIN DAM idem 15026 214:10 MIN DSA.BAD (bīt D GU.LA) D 15027 MIN SUEN 15028 214:14 MIN DŠU SUEN 15029 214:11 MIN LUGAL (bīt šarri) 15030 214:12 (bīt mārati šarri) É.MI.A.IR(!NI) 15031 É 50 15032 MIN HU.BI 15033 MIN ŠIR ! 15034 MIN ĜÍR .LAM 15035 (bīt napāši) Ú(!?É) PEŠ 5 15036 MAŠ.KÁN.DIĜIR 15037 214:24 MIN BU.ŠU

114

... 8:04 8:05 8:06 … 8:07 8:08 8:09 8:10 8:11 8:12 8:13 8:14 8:15 8:16 8:17 8:20 8:21 8:22 8:23 8:24 8:25 8:26 8:27 8:28 8:29 8:37 8:38

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 15 (canonical tablets XXIa) 15038 15039 15040 15041 15042 15043 15044 15045 15046 15047 15048 15049 15050 15051 15052 15053 15054 15055 15056 15057 15058 15059 15060 15061 15062 15063 15064 15065 15066 15067 15068 15069 15070 15071 15072 15073 15074 15075 15076

MIN BU.BU MIN DDA.DA MIN ŠI.DDA.DA MIN ŠABRA(PA-AL) MIN AM.MI.DI.DÁ.A.AN MIN AM.MI. A.DUG 4 .GA MIN SA.AM.SU.DI.TA.A.AN TIN.TIR ! KI .BAL MAŠ.DÁ ĜIŠ KI KUR EREN.NA KI MIN SU.BIR 4 .A MIN GÚ.DU 8 .AKI MIN ZAG MIN MIN MAR.TU MIN MAR.HA.A.ŠI MIN ŠI.RUM MIN ŠIR.RUM MIN IGI.NIM MIN IGI.SIG A.MA.AL A.BA.AL A.BA.AK A.PI 5 .ŠAL A.GA.DÈ AN.ZA.GÀR MIN DEN.LIL MIN BU.ŠU MIN BU.BU MIN DDA.DA MIN ŠI DDA.DA MIN LUGAL MIN UR.GIR 15 MIN KIN.A BÀD GU.LA IRI PA-HÚB-Ú ZAR.BI.LUM ZAR.BA.TUM AR.PÁD AR.PÁD BAL.RI

15077 15078 15079 15080 15081 15082 15083 15084 15085

IRI KUG.GA MIN DÙ.A MIN BA.NI.TUM MIN BA.TI.TUM MIN ÙZ MIN MU.UD MIN KAR MIN ŠU MIN ŠU.I

Babylon (nēbir ṣ̣ābi) (māt erēni) Subartu Gutium (māt pāṭ Guti) Amurru

Akkad (dimtu // tower)

(dimti šarri) (dimti kalbi)

15E1: vacat 15E1: Arpad ša eberti 15E1: IRI ellu 15E1: IRI ṣ̣âti 15E1: vacat 15E1: vacat 15E1: vacat 15E1: vacat 15E1: vacat 15E1: vacat 15E1: vacat (IRI gallabi)

115

214:25 214:26 214:23 214:27 214:28 214:29 214:30-1 214:33 214:35 214:37 214:39 214:40 214:36 214:41-2 214:43 215:08 215:09 215:15 215:16 215:17 215:18 215:21 215:24 217:03 217:05 217:07 217:08 217:09

8:39 8:40 9:02 9:03 9:05 9:07 9:09 9:10 9:11 9:12

217:14 217:16 218:01

9:13 9:15 -

Part 2 – Composite Edition 15086 15087 15088 15089 15090 15091 15092 15093 15094 15095 15096 15097 15098 15099 15100 15101 15102 15103 15104 15105 15106 15107 15108 15109 15110 15111 15112 15113 15114 15115 15116a 15116b 15117 15118 15119 15120 15121 15122 15123a 15123b ... 15124 15125 .... 15126 15127 15128 .... 15129 ...

MIN ŠU.HA.A MIN MU.TA.A.AN MIN GUL MIN GUL.GUL MIN DUMU.MÍ ZA.GÌN IRI BA.IA MIN BA.ZA MIN BA.NA MIN AL.BA.NA AL.BA.NA Ú ĜÍR.LAM MIN GU.LA MIN TUR.RA Ú.ZAR MIN BAL MIN SUHUR MIN UZU MIN SUMUN MIN LIBIR.RA KA.ÍD.DA KA.ÍD.DA DIDLI KI GÚ.DU 8 .A KAR MIN AKŠAK (UD-KÚŠU) Ú(!É) <MIN> ! KAR <MIN> AŠ.ME ŠUL.GI D ŠUL.GI NANNA(ŠEŠ-KI) IL.DAG IL.DAG BAL.RI

15E1: vacat

Gutium (KAR kāru port)

Ishme-Shulgi (ša ebirtā) (mu-ru; en-ni-gi; ka-ak-ra)

IM

MIN MIN KU.UZ MIN SU.BIR 4 .AKI MIN ELAM.MAKI MIN GÚ.DU 8 .AKI MIN EDIN.NA UL.<ME.>MAŠ KI.MAŠ KI.MAŠ (+?) [HUR.SAĜ].KALAM.MA [ĜIŠ].KIN.TI (+1) KÁ.DIĜIR.RA D KÁ. LÚ.LÀL IRI NUNUZ-KISIM 5 xSA (+?) Ú(!É) DURU 5 MÁ.KAM.NA (+?)

… …

… …

116

217:17 217:18 217:23 217:42 217:28 217:29 217:30 217:31 217:32 217:33 217:34 217:35 217:36 217:37-9 idem … … … …

9:16 9:17 9:18 9:19 9:20 9:24 9:25 9:26 9:27 9:31 9:32 9:33 9:34 9:35 9:36 9:37 9:38 9:39 9:40 9:41 9:42 10:01 10:02 ... 10:31 10:32 ... 10:34 10:33 ... ...

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 16a (canonical tablets XXIb-XXII) Division 16 (canonical XXIb-XXII) Version A (unilingual) last column has references to the MSL edition of the RS Forerunner (sections in Roman numerals, line count in Arabic numerals, a = Recension A) 16aKIsection: (+?) ... [BUR].ZI.BÁHAR 16a001 16a002 NI.NÁ.A 16a003 NÁ.A 16a004 BU.BI.A 16a005 ME.KE.EL.TUM 16a006 IB.RUM 16a007 IB.RA.AT 16a008 AR.ŠI.A TA.ŠI.A 16a009 16a010 TA.ŠI.LA 16a011 BU.LA.LA 16a012 HU.HU.NU.RI 16a013 ELAM.MA 16a014 AN.DU.PA 16a015 LUGAL.ZU D 16a016 KAR IŠTARAN(KA-DI) 16a017 ÚR.MA ... (+?) 16a018 HA.LA.BA 16a019 HA.Ṣ̣Ú.RA 16a020 QA.TE 9 .E 16a021 QA.TA.NA 16a022 KA.AK.MU.UM KA.NI.IŠ 16a023 16a024 PU.RU.UŠ.HA.AN.DA 16a025 AR.RA.AP.HU.UM 16a026 ÚR.SAL 16a027 ÚR.BÉ.E ÚR.BÉ.E AN.NA 16a028 16a029 ÚR.BÉ.E KI.TA 16a030 LÀL.ÚR 16a031 LÀL.ÚR AN.NA 16a032 LÀL.ÚR KI.TA 16a033 BAL 16a034 BAL BAL.RI ... (+?) 16a035 HU.BA.RI.TUM 16a036 MÁ.AL.GI.A 16a037 ÁŠ.NIK 16a038 <ÁŠ.>NIQ.QUM NE.RI.IB.TUM 16a039 16a040 DI.NE.EK.TUM 16a041 ÁŠ.NUN.NA

...

...

KI

Nineveh

KI

KI KI KI KI KI KI KI KI KI KI KI KI KI KI KI

...

...

KI

Hazor

KI

KI KI KI KI KI KI KI

Kanesh Burushhanda Arrapha

KI KI KI KI KI KI KI KI

... KI

...

KI KI KI KI KI KI

117

Eshnunna

... 213:01/3 213:02 … 2110:09 2110:10 2110:11 2110:19 2110:20 2110:21 ... 216:10 2111:17 2111:18

... aI19 aI21 aI22 aI23 aI24 aI25 aI26 aI27 aI28 aI33 … aII14 aII60 aIII03 ... aII19 aIII09 aIII10 aIII11

Part 2 – Composite Edition 16aÍDsection: 16a042 ÍD 16a043 16a044a ÍD 16a044b ÍD ÍD 16a045 ÍD 16a046 16a047a ÍD 16a047b ÍD ÍD 16a048 ÍD 16a049 ÍD 16a050 ÍD 16a051 ÍD 16a052 ÍD 16a053 … … ÍD 16a054 ÍD 16a055 ÍD 16a056 ÍD 16a057 ÍD 16a058 ÍD 16a059 ÍD 16a060 ÍD 16a061 ÍD 16a062 ÍD 16a063 ÍD 16a064 ÍD 16a065 ÍD 16a066 ÍD 16a067 ÍD 16a068 ÍD 16a069 ÍD 16a070 ÍD 16a071 ÍD 16a072 ÍD 16a073 ÍD 16a074 ÍD 16a075 ÍD 16a076 ÍD 16a077 … … ÍD 16a078 ÍD 16a079 ÍD 16a080 ÍD 16a081 ÍD 16a082 ÍD 16a083 ÍD 16a084 ÍD 16a085 … …

(nāru // river) Tigris Euphrates idem

ÍD IDIGNA BURANUN BURANUN KIR 6 .SIG AB.GAL D ME SUEN.NA D ME SUEN.NA D ME ŠU SUEN.NA D ŠI.MA.AT SUEN.NA IL.GÍM BURANUN BUR LAHTAN X BÁN.DA HI.NUN

(AB.GAL sage)

Euphrates

(+1)

…

KAL.KAL.LA ME KAL.KAL.LA D EN.LÍL GÚ.GAL D D NAN EN.LÍL GÚ.GAL ZI.LÁ.QUM ŠÁR.RA.RA ŠAR.BI.ID D NIRAH D

(GÚ.GAL dikereeve)

(ŠAR.ŠA 4 .BÌD)

KAD 5

(KAD 5 =ÈSIR sandal)

D

A UTU NU.ZU KUR.RA PA.LI.IŠ.TUM D A.ŠUR 4 (A-LÁL-SAR) KI MAŠ.KIŠ D IŠ.HA.RA D HA.IÀ.AN HUR.SAĜ

(KUR mountain)

(HUR.SAĜ mountain)

KA-UD-KAM A.RA.AH.TUM UR.SAĜ GAL ZU D INANNA MU.UN.ĜEN MÁŠ-ME-NU-ŠE A.LIK.TUM A.DÉ.A … SAL.LA TU.TU TU.TU HÉ.ĜÁL

(A.DÉ.A irrigation) … (SAL thin; narrow) (HÉ.ĜÁL abundance)

D

UTU UTU HÉ.[ĜÁL] D A.A HÉ.[ĜÁL] D NA.[BI.UM] D NA.[BI.UM HÉ.ĜÁL] D

...

(+3)

118

222:01 222:03 222:04 idem 227:15 idem … 223:06 224:15 224:17 223:05 224:27 … 7:29-30 …

aIII12 aIII13 aIII14 idem aIII15 aIII16 aIII18 idem aIII19 … aIII23 aIII24 aIII27 aIII43 aIII32 aIII22 aIII52 … aIII58 aIII59 aIII60 aIII61 …

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 16a (canonical tablets XXIb-XXII) 16a086 … 16a087 16a088 16a089 16a090 16a091 16a092 16a093 16a094 16a095 16a096 16a097 16a098 16a099 16a100 16a101 16a102 16a103

ÍD

16a104 16a105 16a106 16a107

ÍD

16a108 16a109

ÍD

LA.TA.RA.[AK]

… (+1) ÍD

ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD

ÍD ÍD ÍD

… (ĜIŠŠINIG tamarisk) (MAŠ.TAB.BA twin)

ĜIŠ

ŠINIG MAŠ.TAB.BA

UG-NA ÉNSI ŠABRA UD.UL.LI.ZA(!A) EDIN.NA SU.MU.A.BI.UM SU.MU.LA.ÈL Ṣ̣A.BI.UM Ṣ̣A.BI.UM.HÉ.ĜÁL D A.PÍL. SUEN.NA D A.PÍL. SUEN.NA.HÉ.ĜÁL D SUEN<.MU>.BA.LI.IṬ HA.AM<.MU>.RA.PÍ.IH HA.AM<.MU>.RA.PI.IH.HÉ.ĜÁL HA.AM<.MU>.RA.PI.IH.HÉ.ĜÁL. NU.HU<.UŠ>.NA.ŠI AM.MI.DI.DA.NA AM.MI.Ṣ̣A.DUG 4 .GA AM.MI.Ṣ̣A.DUG 4 .GA.HÉ.ĜÁL AM.MI.Ṣ̣A.DUG 4 .GA.HÉ.ĜÁL. NU.HU<.UŠ>.NA.ŠI

PAP-KISIM 5 xPAP-PAPKAM PAP-KISIM 5 xPAP-PAP… … KAM A.BI.ŠU.UH (+?) 16a ÉG and TÚL sections: ÉG 16a110 16a111 ÉG SI.GA 16a112 ÉG MURUB 4 ÉG SA(!ŠA).KU.DA 16a113 16a114 ÉG DAL.BA.NA 16a115 ÉG ŠUL.GI 16a116 ÉG ŠUL.HI 16a117 ÉG SU.MU.A.BI.UM 16a118 ÉG SU.MU.LA.ÈL ÉG SÀ.BI.UM 16a119 ÉG PI(!IGI) HUR.SAĜ.ĜÁ 16a120 16a121 ÉG A.AB.BA.HÉ.ĜÁL 16a122 ÉG A.BU.LA.LA 16a123 ÉG GU.LA 16a124 ÉG GIBIL 16a125 ÉG SUMUN 16a126 ÉG LIBIR.RA ĜIŠ 16a127 ÉG ŠINIG

(ÉNSI governor) (ŠABRA administrator) (UL.LI distant; remote) (EDIN ṣ̣ēru steppe) (Sumu-abu 1894-1881) (Sumu-la’el 1881-45) (Sabium 1845-1831) (Apil-Sîn 1830-1813) (Sin-muballit 1812-93) (Hammu-rapi 1792-50)

… aIII35 aIII31 aIV01a aIV01b aIV03 aIV04 aIV05 aIV06 aIV07 aIV11 aIV12 aIV13 aIV20 -

(Ammiditana 1683-47) (Ammisaduga 1647-25) -

ÍD

(Abi-shuh 1712-1684) …

(īku // levee) (īku šapku // raised -) (MURUB 4 middle) (īku birītu) (Shulgi 2094-2047) (ŠUL.HI outer wall) (Sumu-abu 1894-1881) (Sumu-la’el 1881-1845) (Sabium 1845-1831)

(eššu // new) (labiru // old) idem (īku bīni//tamarisk levee)

119

… 227:24 227:26 224:12 226:07 226:08 226:09 226:10 226:12

-

-

…

…

229:03 229:04 229:08 229:14 229:15 229:16 229:20 229:21 229:21a 229:17

aIV38 aIV54 aIV55 aIV05

Part 2 – Composite Edition 16a128 ÉG TÚL.LÁ 16a129 TÚL 16a130 [TÚL] LÁ ... (+?) 16a MUL section: 16a131 MUL ŠUL ĜIDRU È.A 16a132 MUL AMAR-UTU 16a133 MUL UZUD 16a134 MUL PAN 16a135 MUL GAG PAN 16a136 MUL ĜIŠÀBSIN(APIN) 16a137 MUL ĜÍR.TAB 16a138 16a139 16a140 16a141 16a142 16a143 ...

MUL MUL MUL MUL MUL MUL

...

AL.LUL KA 5 .A MUŠEN TI 8 MUŠEN KUR.GI.A LÚ HUĜ.ĜÁ UD.LÚ(!ZAL).LI.TA.ĜÁ

(+?)

(būrtu // well; ditch) ...

...

Man Raising the Scepter Star (nēberu // ford) (UZUD enzu goat) *Lyra* (qaštu // bow) *Canis Maior* (GAG sikkatu peg) (ÀBSIN šer’u furrow) *Virgo* (ĜÍR.TAB zuqaqīpu scorpion) *Scorpius* (sarru // false) *Cancer* (šēlebu // fox) (TI 8 erû eagle) (KUR.GI kurkû goose) (HÚĜ agāru to rent) *Aries* (kakkab nawāri // shining star) ...

120

aIV29 aIV30 ... 2211:07 2211:06 2210:06 -

-

2211:03 2211:05 2211:08 ...

-

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 16b (canonical tablets XXIb-XXII) Division 16 (canonical XXIb-XXII) Version B (bilingual) Reconstruction of version B: Both versions of division 16 start around the same point in the KI-series (both 16aT1 and 16bT2 lack an approximately equal portion of their first column and then have a number of common entries) and both end with the ÉŠ-section, but there are a number of significant differences. Not only do the shared sections deviate both in content and internal sequencing, but also - more importantly - not all sections are shared: version A has an ÉG-section that is missing in B while B has a KUR-section lacking in A. Some floating B-version fragments (H’, I, J, L, H) are provisionally placed in sequential conformity to the parallel RS Forerunner A, which is closely followed in the rest of the Emar 16b texts. Some other, smaller fragments lack context and have too few identifiable entries to make inclusion in a composite text feasible - they are not used for the composite edition. EST numbers of version B: In the other divisions with multiple versions (3, 7-9) it was possible to present the bilingual Bversions as elaboratations of the unilingual A-versions and, by not assigning independent EST numbers to them, they where presented as such in their composite editions. Because of the much larger sequential discrepancies and because of the omission of complete sections of A in B and vice versa, such an edition format is not feasible here. Therefore the B version has here been given its own EST numbers, independent from version A. Other notes: interpretation column:

last column:

* the indication ‘GN’ in the interpretation column means that the Akkadian gives a phonetic spelling of a GN * an interpretation between asteriskes (*[]*) indicates modern astronomical terminology * references to the MSL edition of the RS Forerunner (sections are given in Roman numerals, line count in Arabic numerals, a = Recension A)

16bKIsection: ... (+?) 16b001 NA.NA BU.BA 16b002 ME.GIL.TUM 16b003 ÍB.RU 16b004 16b005 ÍB.RAT AR.ŠA 16b006 AR.ŠA.NA 16b007 TA.ŠA 16b008 TA.ŠA.NA 16b009 16b010 QA.TA 16b011 QA.TA.NA TA.ŠI.HU 16b012 [BU].LA.LA 16b013 16b014 [IRI]A.RI.A

121

...

...

...

...

KI

[]

-

aI21

KI

[]

-

aI23

KI

[]

-

aI24

KI

[]

-

aI25

KI

[]

-

aI26

KI

[]

-

aI27

KI

[]

-

-

KI

[]

213:1/3

aI28

KI

[]

-

-

KI

[]

-

-

KI

[] Qatna

-

-

KI

[]

213:01-3

-

KI

[]

213:05

aI33

KI

[]

213:06

aI35

Part 2 – Composite Edition 16b015 ... 16b016 ... 16b017 16b018 16b019 16b020 16b021 16b022 ... 16b023 16b024 16b025 16b026 16b027 16b028 16b029 .. 16b030 16b031 16b032 16b033 ... 16b034 16b035 16b036 16b037 16b038 ... 16b039 16b040 16b041 16b042 16b043 16b044a 16b044b 16b045 16b046 16b047 16b048 16b049 16b050 16b051 16b052 16b053 16b054 16b055 16b056 16b057

KI

[]

213:08

-

...

...

...

...

KI

vacat

-

aI34

...

...

...

...

KI

vacat // Mari

213:09

aI36

KI

vacat

213:11

aI38

KI

[]

213:12

aI39

KI

[]

-

-

KI

[]

213:14

aI41

KI

[]

213:16

aI42

...

...

...

...

KI

[]

213:18

aI45

KI

[]

-

-

KI

[]

213:19

aI46

KI

[]

-

-

KI

[]

-

-

KI

[] Dilbat

-

-

UZUD

KI

[]

-

-

(+?) Akk: ú-ru Akk: i-ni-ik Akk: a-na-ak Akk: pa-ra-rù (+2) Akk: ta-am-ru Akk: ta-am-ru [IRIBU].UŠ [IRIZI.IB].BA.AN.NU [IRIHAL].HAL.LA (+1) Akk: e-ru-tu 4 [IRIÈŠ] [IRIÈŠ].MAH [IRIMA.AL].GA [IRIMA].AL.GI.A [IRI]BA.A [IRI]BA.A [IRI]BA.NA IRI AL.BA.NA Akk: a-li na-bi-ti IRI [DÙ].A IRI BA.NI.TUM IRI BA.TI.TUM

...

...

...

...

KI

GN

-

-

KI

GN

-

-

KI

GN

-

-

KI

GN

-

-

KI

...

...

...

KI

GN

-

aII09

KI

GN

-

aII10

KI

GN

-

aII12

KI

GN

-

aII11

KI

GN

-

aII13

...

...

...

...

KI

GN

-

-

KI

GN

216:08

aII16

KI

GN

216:09

aII17

KI

GN

-

aII18

KI

GN

216:10

aII19

KI

vacat

-

aII20

KI

vacat

-

idem

KI

vacat

-

aII21

KI

vacat

-

-

KI

āli nabîti

-

-

KI

āli ṣ̣âti

217:16

aII23

KI

[]

-

-

[IRI]NAM.ME.EDIN.NA (+?) [GUL].LA.BA (+1) [MÁ].RÍ [SA.AD].MÁ.RÍ [SA].AD.BA.RI [SA].AD.LÀL [SA].AD.DUG.RI.IŠ IRI LU.BA(!ÚB).DU (+?) KI.ÙR KI.NIR KI.NIR.ŠA KI.NIR ŠID KI.NIR ŠABRA DIL.BAT

KI

[]

-

-

IRI

KI

[]

-

aII26

IRI

KI

GN

-

aII27

UZUD MU.UD IRI ŠU IRI ŠU.I IRI ŠU.HA.A IRI KAR [IRI]GUL

122

KI

vacat

-

-

KI

vacat

218:01

aII28

KI

vacat

-

-

KI

vacat

-

-

KI

[]

217:17

aII30

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 16b (canonical tablets XXIb-XXII) 16b058 [IRIGUL].GUL ... (+2) 16b059 [IRI DANZU.BABBAR] 16b060 [IRILUGAL.ZAG.GA] [IRIQA.SUR.SUR] 16b061 16b061’ [IRI]HUR [DEN.LÍL] [IRI]HÉ.[RI.SU] 16b062 16b063 [IRI]HÉ.[BA.RI.SU] [IRI]HÚB.[ŠÚ] 16b064 16b065 [IRI]TIR.QA.[AN] 16b066 [IRITIR.QA.AN.IGI.HUR.SAĜ] 16b067 [IRIZAG.NÁ] 16b068 [IRITIR.MA.NU.UM] [IRINU.HU.UR] 16b069 16b070 [IRIIB.BI.DU.DU] 16b071 [IRILAGAŠ] [IRIKA.ZAL.LUH] 16b072 [IRIMAR.TA] 16b073 [IRI]MAR.RU.UD 16b074 16b075 [IRI]KAR KU.UZ 16b076 [IRI]KAR DNA.BI.UM 16b077 [IRI]KAR DSUEN 16b078 [IRI]KAR ŠU DSUEN 16b079 [IRI]KAR D[UTU] ... (+?) IRI 16b080 GA.[ŠU.BA] ... (+4) 16b081 RA.PI.QUM 16b082 RA.SU.QUM D 16b083 DUL 6 . SUEN ... (+2) 16b084 DU.UN.NU ZA.[MI.IT] 16b085 HA.BU.UZ 16b086 HA.BU.UZ BAL.RI 16b087 LÀL.ÚR LÀL.ÚR BAL.RI 16b088 16b089 NAM.TAR 16b090 NAM.TAR BAL.RI 16b091 ZI.TAR 16b092 ZI.TAR BAL.RI 16b093 BÚR.TAR 16b094 BÚR.TAR BAL.RI 16b095 NI.RIB.TUM 16b096 DI.NI.IK.TUM EŠ.NUN.NA 16b097 16bKURsection: 16b098 KUR 16b099 KUR HUR.SAĜ DEN.UN(!LÍL) 16b100 KUR HUR.[SAĜ] 16b101 KUR LIL.[MUN]

KI

[]

217:18

aII31

...

...

....

...

KI

[]

218:04

aII34

KI

[]

-

aII33

KI

[]

-

aII38

KI

[]

-

aII39

KI

[]

-

aII40

KI

[]

-

aII41

KI

[]

-

aII42

KI

GN

-

aII43

KI

GN pāni šadî

2110:01

aII44

KI

GN

-

aII45

KI

GN

-

aII46

KI

GN

-

aII47

KI

[]

-

aII48

KI

[]

-

aII50

KI

GN

217:10

aII51

KI

GN

217:11

aII52

KI

GN

-

aII53

KI

[]

-

-

KI

[]

-

aII55

KI

[]

-

-

KI

[]

-

-

KI

GN

2110:05

aII56

...

...

…

…

KI

[]

-

aII59

...

...

…

…

KI

[]

-

aII65

KI

[]

-

-

KI

[]

-

aII66

...

...

...

...

KI

[]

2110:15

aII70

KI

[]

2110:17

aIII01

KI

[]

2110:18

aIII02

KI

[]

2110:19

aIII03

KI

[]

-

aIII04

KI

vacat

2110:22

aIII05

KI

vacat

2110:23

aIII06

KI

vacat

-

-

KI

vacat

-

-

KI

vacat

-

-

KI

vacat

-

-

KI

GN

-

aIII09

KI

vacat

2111:17

aIII10

KI

Eshnunna

2111:18

aIII11

221:01

-

mountain

221:02

-

šubat D NIN.MAH // residence of DN

221:03

-

šubat D IM

221:04

-

šadû // mountain HUR.SAĜ D EN.LÍL // Enlil

123

Part 2 – Composite Edition 16b102

KUR

nēreb D UTU u D ayya //

Akk: [ni]-ri-ib DUTU ù DA.[A]

221:05

-

pass; defile of Shamash and Ayya

16b103 KUR HA.[MA.NU] … … (+1) 16b104 KUR HA.BUR 16b105 KUR LA.AB.BA.NA.NA 16b106 KUR SI.RA.RA 16b107 KUR ZIL(NUN).HUŠ 16b108 KUR DI.PA(!BAR) … … (+1) 16b109 KUR SIG 7 .SIG 7 16b110 KUR PI-PI 16b111 KUR Á U 5 (HU!-SI) 16b112 KUR HA(!HÁŠ).BAR 16b113 KUR ZAR LÚ.LÀL 16b114 KUR LÚ.LÀL 16b115 KUR BUR.MUG(!GÙN).NA 16b116 KUR ZAR.ŠUM 16b117 KUR RI.BI.NA 16b118 KUR TI.LA 16b119 KUR ŠUM.MA 16b120 KUR ZAR.DUH.A 16b121 KUR Á.KAL 16b122 KUR KUL.LU.ÚB.BA 16b123 KUR KU.UD.BI 16b124 KUR KI.IG.<MU.>.NA 16b125 KUR SAĜ.ĜAR 16b126 KUR EN.TI 16b127 KUR HI-HI 16b128 KUR BA.[ŠÁR] 16b129 KUR TE.ME.[EN.NA] 16bÍDsection: 16b130a ÍD ÍD.DA 16b130b ÍD [IDIGNA] DÁL.LÁ 16b131 ÍD 16b132 [BURANUN].NA ÍD Akk: iš-me-e-tu 4 16b133 ÍD NUN.GAL 16b134 ... … (+?) ÍD D 16b135 ME.E. SUEN ÍD D ME.E.ŠU. SUEN 16b136 ÍD D 16b137 ŠI.MA.AT. SUEN ÍD Ú(!ZAG).KIN.TUR 16b138 ÍD A.RA.AH.TUM 16b139 ÍD D EN.LÍL.GÚ.GAL 16b140 ÍD D 16b141 NANNA.GÚ.GAL ÍD D 16b142 PA 5 NANNA

221:06

-

…

…

…

[]

221:07

-

[] (KUR šurmēni // cypress land)

221:10

-

[]

221:09

-

[] (taskarinnu // boxtree)

221:12

-

[] (butụ ttu // pistachio)

221:14

-

…

…

…

MIN allani // oak mountain

221:16

-

MIN lupāni // pistachio -

221:17

-

MIN burāši // juniper -

221:18

-

KUR

erinni // cypress land

MIN KUG.BABBAR // silver -

221:19

-

MIN KUG.GI // gold -

-

-

idem

-

-

MIN anāki // lead -

221:29

-

idem

-

-

MIN erî // copper -

-

-

idem

-

-

idem

-

-

MIN dušî // quartz

221:27

-

MIN muššāri

221:31

-

MIN pappardili 124

221:32

-

idem

-

-

idem

221:34

-

[]

-

-

[]

-

-

[]

-

-

[]

-

-

[]

-

-

nāru // river

222:01

aIII12

idem

-

-

GN

222:03

aIII13

Purattu // Euphrates

222:04

aIII14

iš-me-e-tu

-

-

4 apkallatu // the wise

124

-

aIII16

…

…

…

vacat

227:15

aIII18

vacat

-

aIII19

vacat

-

aIII20

vacat

-

aIII21

vacat

223:05

aIII22

[]

-

aIII23

[]

-

aIII24

[]

-

-

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 16b (canonical tablets XXIb-XXII) 16b143 16b143’ 16b143’’ 16b143’’’ 16b144 16b145 16b146 16b147 16b148 16b149 16b150 16b151 16b152 16b153 16b154 16b155 16b156 16b157 16b158 16b159 16b160 16b161 16b162 16b163 16b164 16b165 16b166 16b167 16b168 16b169 16b170 16b171 16b172 16b173 16b174 16b175 16b176 16b177 16b178 ... 16b179 16b180 16b181 16b182 16b183 16b184 16b185 16b186 16b187 16b188

ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD

... ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD ÍD

DUG

PA 5 LAHTAN D PA 5 DA.[DA] PA 5 DA.[DA] PA 5 ŠI.DA.[DA] BAL.RI SÌLA.QUM AN.NÉ.PÀD.DA AŠ.ŠIR.PÀD.DA PÀD.DA ŠÉŠ ŠU.ŠUM EDIN.NA HUR.SAĜ HUR.SAĜ KALAM.MA PA 5 ÉNSI ÉNSI SAĜA ŠABRA TUM 4 .MA.AL BUR-ŠIR-[LA](!LAGAŠ) KA.ZAL.LUH KU 6 MUŠEN MUŠ ĜÍR.TAB TAB.BA.MÚ.MÚ ZÚ.ŠAR.AN-ME(!RAT) MES.HA.TIR.RA ME.E GAL.GAL DA.BA.AN ŠE(!HI).BI.IB NIN MU.UN.ĜEN D INANNA MU.UN.[ĜEN] I.KUR.RA PÁ<.LI>.IŠ.TUM D A.ŠAG 4 . NANNA HUR.SAĜ GAL D NIN SI 4 (DÉ).[AN.NA] D TU.[TU]

(+4) [SU].UM.A.BI [SU].UM.LA.I.LA SÀ.A.BU D A.PÍL. SUEN D A.PÍL. SUEN.HÉ.ĜÁL D SUEN.MU.BA.LI.IṬ D SUEN.MU.BA.LI.IṬ.HÉ.ĜÁL HA.AM.MU.RA.PÍ HA.AM.MU.RA.PÍ. HÉ.ĜÁL HA.AM.[MU].RA.PÍ.

[]

-

-

[]

-

-

[]

-

-

[]

-

-

[]

224:14

aIII26

[]

224:15

aIII27

[]

-

aIII28

[]

227:01

aIII29

[]

227:02

aIII30

[]

227:03

aIII30a

[]

-

-

[]

-

aIII31

[]

-

aIII32

[]

227:05

aIII33

[]

228:20

-

MIN iššakki

227:24

-

MIN šangî

-

aIII37

MIN šabrî

227:26

aIII38

MIN GN

-

aIII39

MIN GN

-

aIII40

MIN GN

-

-

MIN nūni

-

aIII41

MIN iṣsụ̄ ri

-

aIII42

MIN ṣẹ̄ ri

224:17

aIII43

MIN zuqaqīpi

-

-

GN

227:11

aIII44

GN

227:10

aIII45

GN

227:12

aIII46

[]

-

?

vacat

-

aIII49

GN

-

aIII50

[]

224:26

aIII51

[]

224:27

aIII52

[]

-

aIII53

[]

-

aIII54

[]

-

aIII55

[]

-

aIII56

[]

227:20

aIII57

[]

-

aIII59

...

…

...

vacat (Sumu-abu 1894-1981)

-

aIV01a

vacat (Sumu-la’el 1881-1845)

-

aIV01b

vacat (Sabium 1845-1831)

-

?

226:07

aIV05

vacat

226:08

aIV06

vacat (Sîn-muballit 1812-1793)

-

aIV07

vacat

-

aIV08

vacat (Hammu-rabi 1792-1750)

226:09

aIV11

vacat

226:10

aIV12

vacat

226:12

aIV13

ÍD

125

Apil-DSîn (1830-1813)

Part 2 – Composite Edition

16b189

ÍD

16b190 16b191 16b192

ÍD

16b193

ÍD

ÍD ÍD

NU.HUŠ.NI.ŠI HA.AM.[MU].RA.PÍ. NA.GÁB.NU.HUŠ.NIŠI SA.AM.SI.LU.NI SA.AM.SI.LU.NI.HÉ.ĜÁL SA.AM.SI.LU.NI. NU.HUŠ.NI.ŠI SA.AM.SI.LU.NI. NA.GÁB.NU.HUŠ.NI.ŠI A.BI.ŠU AM.MI.DI.TA.A.AN AM.MI.<Ṣ A.>DUG 4 .GA SA.AM.SU.DI.TA.A.AN ĜIŠ.KIN.TI ĜIŠ.KI.KÉŠ.DA MUN(.NA) GIBIL SUMUN LIBIR.RA ÍD.DIDLI

ÍD 16b194 ÍD 16b195 ÍD 16b196 ÍD 16b197 ÍD 16b198 ÍD 16b199 ÍD 16b200 ÍD 16b201 ÍD 16b202 ÍD 16b203 16b204 16b TÚL, PA 5 and ÉG sections: tu-ul 16b205 TÚL 16b206 TÚL LÁ 16b207 TÚL SIG 16b208 TÚL KUG.GA D 16b209 TÚL SUEN 16b210 TÚL LUGAL.GI.NA 16b211 TÚL ĜIŠ.GÍN.MAŠ 16b212 TÚL A KÚM.MA 16b213 TÚL A ŠED 10 (MÙŠ-DI) 16b214 [TÚL] A.DÙG.GA 16b215 Akk: bi-iš-tu 4 16b216 [TÚL A] ŠEŠ [TÚL] GÍD.DA 16b217 16b218 [TÚL LUGUD.DA] 16b219 [ÉG] 16b220 [PA 5 TÙN.NA] [PA 5 LÁ] 16b221 16b222 [PA 5 SIG/ŠÌTA] 16b223 [PA 5 ŠÌTA] ... (+1) 16b224 [PA 5 ÉNSI] 16b225 [PA 5 SAĜA] 16b226 [PA 5 ŠABRA] 16b227 [PA 5 A DÉ.A] 16b228 [PA 5 A DÉ.DÉ.A] 16b229 Akk: [na]-ag-ga-ru ... (+2) 16b230 Akk: tum-ma-al-hu 16b231 Akk: su-pu-ri

126

vacat

226:11

aIV14

vacat (Samsu-iluna 1750-1712)

226:13

aIV15

vacat

226:14

aIV16

vacat

226:16

aIV17

vacat

226:15

aIV18

vacat (Abi-shuh 1712-1684)

-

aIV19

vacat (Ammi-ditana 1683-1647)

-

aIV20

vacat (Ammi-saduga 1647-1625)

-

-

vacat (Samsu-ditana 1625-1595)

-

aIV22

ÍD

kiškittî // craftsman’s river

226:17

aIV23

ÍD

erreti // shore plantation -

-

aIV24

ÍD

ṭābti // salt -

-

-

ÍD

eššu // new -

-

aIV25

ÍD

labiru // old -

226:18

aIV26

idem

226:19

aIV27

nārātu // rivers

-

aIV28

būrtu // well; ditch

-

aIV29

waṣụ̂

-

aIV30

kalakku // levy

-

aIV31

būrtu ellitu // sacred well

-

-

-

-

?

?

-

aIV35

būrti A.MEŠ emmūti // hot water well

-

aIV36

būrti A.MEŠ kaṣ̣ūti // cold water -

-

aIV37

būrti A.MEŠ ṭābūti // good water -

-

-

bīšūti // stinking

-

-

marrūti // bitter

-

-

būrtu arku // long ditch

-

-

būrtu kurû // short -

-

-

īku // levee

229:03

aIV38

palgu // canal (PA .TÙN reservoir) 5 atappu // ditch

228:01

aIV39

228:02

aIV40

idem

228:03-4

?

rāṭu // trench; gutter

228:05

-

…

...

...

palag iššakki // governor’s canal

228:20

aIV45

palag šangî // priest’s canal

-

-

palag šabrî // administrator’s canal

228:22

aIV44

MIN A.MEŠ ublu // canal that carries water

228:10

aIV46

MIN A.MEŠ ittanablu // - permanently

228:11

aIV47

[na]-ag-ga-ru

?

?

…

...

...

tum-ma-al-hu

-

-

su-pu-ri

-

aIV52

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 16b (canonical tablets XXIb-XXII) 16b232 [ÉG DAL.BA.AN.NA] ... (+7) 16bMULsection: 125 16b233a MUL 16b233b MUL MUL 16b234 MUL Akk: ka-lu-tu 4 16b235 MUL [DIL].BAT 16b236 MUL GU.LA 16b237 MUL SIPA.E.NE 16b238 MUL ÉG MU.UN.KUR 9 KI.KÉŠ.DA 16b239 MUL AMAR-UTU 16b240 MUL ŠUL.BI.IN 4 16b241 MUL TIR.AN.NA 16b242 MUL NIN.SI 4 .AN.NA 16b243 MUL DIL.BAT 16b244 MUL ERIDUKI 16b245 MUL EN.TE.NA BAR.HUŠ 16b246 MUL IM.ŠU.RIN !NU.KÚŠ.Ù.E.NE! 16b247 MUL (ĜIŠ)MAR.GÍD.DA 16b248 MUL UZUD 16b249 MUL PAN 16b250 MUL GAG SI.SÁ 16b251 MUL GAG Ú.TAG.GA 16b252 MUL MAŠ.TAB.BA 16b253 MUL ĜÍR.TAB 16b254 MUL UGA(Ú-NAGA)MUŠEN 16b255 MUL TI 8 (ID)MUŠEN 16b256 MUL UDUIDIM 16b257 MUL QÀ.AN.DU 8 (=GI.DU 8 ) 16b258 MUL MAR.TU 16b259 MUL KA 5 .A 16b260 MUL KU 6 16b261 MUL MUŠEN 16b262 MUL SIM.MAH 16b263 MUL LÚSA!.GAZ 16b264 MUL LÚHUĜ.ĜÁ 16b265 MUL IM.ZU(!ZUH) 16b266 MUL U 4 .ZIL.LÁ 16b ÉŠ section: 16b267 ÉŠ 16b268 ÉŠ MAH 16b269 [ÉŠ] GAL 16b270 [ÉŠ Ú].RI.IN.NU ... ...

birītu // intermediate (levee)

229:08

-

…

...

...

kakkabu // star

229:23

aIV60

zappu // comb *Pleiades*

229:25

aIV62

kalītu // kidney

229:26a

aIV63

Dilbat // GN *Venus*

-

-

ni-ik-ka-ra-ak (GU.LA big; great) *Aquarius*

229:25a

aIV64

ti-ša-at-ta-lu (SIPA shepherd)

-

-

nīru // yoke

-

-

2211:06

-

šul-BAD

-

-

manziat // rainbow *Andromeda*

-

-

ištar kakkabi // goddess of the stars* Venus*

-

-

Dilbat // GN *Venus*

-

-

Eridu // GN

-

-

habaṣ̣īrānu *Centaurus*

22gJg

aIV65

MUL tinūr URUDU

-

-

ereqqu // cart *Ursa Maior*

-

-

enzu // goat *Lyra*

-

-

qaštu // bow *Canis Maior*

2210:06

-

šukūdu // arrow *Sirius*

2210:05

-

šiltāhu // idem

-

-

tū’amu // twin *Gemini*

-

-

zuqaqīpu // scorpion *Scorpius*

-

-

āribu // raven

22gJf

-

erû // eagle *Corvus*

-

-

bibbu // mufflon (one of the planets)

2210:09

-

paṭīru // altar

-

-

GN

2210:11

-

šēlebu // fox

2211:05

-

nūnu // fish

-

-

iṣ̣ṣūru // bird

2211:05

-

sinuntu // swallow star

-

-

MUL

habbāti // bandit’s star *Mars*

-

-

MUL

agri // hired man’s star *Aries*

-

-

MUL

šarrāqi // thief’s star *Mars*

2211:03

-

2211:08

-

eblu // rope

2211:10

-

ebīhu // cord; leash; strap

2211:08

-

[]

2211:12

-

[] (urinnu II)

2211:13

-

...

…

...

MUL nawāri

127

// oven star *Venus*

// shining star

Part 2 – Composite Edition Division 17 (canonical XXIII) ... 17001 17002 17003 17004 ... 17005 ... 17006 … 17007 17008 17009 17010 17011 17012 17013 17014 17015 … 17016 17017 17018 17019 17020 ... 17021 17022 17023 ... 17024 17025 17026 17027 17028 17029 17030 17031 ... 17032 ... 17033 17034 17035 17036 17037 17038 ...

(+?)

... ummaru damqu // good soup halluru // pea – kakku // pea – gu-ni-mu-ur-re-e ... [] groat soup ... niqdu // caraway soup ... mu-tar-ti SIG 5 -ti 4 kunāšu // emmer wheat soup šarmadu rabīku // soup extract bi-qí-qì rabīku bi-qí-qì pappāsu // porridge pappāsu SIG 5 // good porridge ... [] (diqāru // beer) [] (ĜARZA=parṣ̣u // ritual) [] [] roasted barley beer [] ... šābulu // dry (beer) damqu // good beer našpu // thinned beer ... vacat // wheat beer vacat // emmer beer vacat vacat KAŠ.MEŠ šatî // beer drinkers šatī LUGAL // king’s vacat vacat ... [] beer malt ... raṭbu // wet beer malt šābulu // dry beer malt vacat // premium beer malt vacat // cooked beer malt vacat [] spice …

TU 7 [SIG 5 ] TU 7 GÚ.[GAL] MIN GÚ.[TUR] MIN GÚ.[NÍĜ.ÀR.RA]

(+1) MIN AR.[ZA.NA] (+?) Akk: (TU 7 ) ni-iq-[dì] (+1) Akk: (TU 7 ) mu-tar-ti SIG 5 -ti 4 Akk: ku-un-ši Akk: šar-ma-di Akk: ra-bi-ku 13 Akk: bi-qí-qì Akk: ra-bi-ku 13 Akk: bi-qí-[qì] Akk: pa-ap-pa-si Akk: pa-ap-pa-si SIG 5 -qí (+?) KAŠ

[MIN] ĜARZA(PA-AN) [MIN] KASKAL [MIN ŠE].SA.A [MIN] KIR 6 (ÁBxKAR) (+?) [MIN(KAŠ) ša-bu]-lu [MIN] dam-qu MIN na-aš-pu-u (+6) MIN(KAŠ) ZÍZ MIN IMĜAĜA(ÁŠ-AN-NA) MIN ĜARZA MIN ĜARZA MAH MIN NAG.AB MIN NAG.AB LUGAL MIN GIBIL MIN SUMUN (+?) ŠIM

(+1) MIN(ŠIM) [DURU 5 ] MIN [HÁD] MIN IGI.ZAG.GA MINAL.ŠEĜ 6 (NE).GA [MIN] NU.AL.ŠEĜ 6 .[GA] SÚN(GUL) (+?)

128

... 23Ia03 23Ia04 ... ... ... ... ... 23If08 ... ... ... 23III12 23III13 23III15 ...

Thematic Lists * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu * Division 17 (canonical tablets XXIII) 17039 17040 ... 17041 17042 17043 17044 17045 ... 17046 17047 17048 17049 17050

ZÍD ŠE Ì.[ĜIŠ] ZÍD ZU.LUM.[MA]

[] sesame flour [] date flour ... NINDA.MEŠ kibrīti kukkušu // low quality flour tumāgu kusīpātu hu-li-iš-tu 4 ... NINDA.MEŠ narūqu//bread sack NINDA.MEŠ luppi // idem NINDA.MEŠ parṣi NINDA.MEŠ KASKAL NINDA.MEŠ qalīti // roasted barley bread NINDA.MEŠ hallūri // pea bread vacat vacat vacat NINDA.MEŠ kibti // wheat bread vacat // emmer bread vacat // spoilt wheat bread vacat // fine flour bread vacat ... [] [] ‘fig’ bread ... NINDA.MEŠ babbanitū // high quality bread kakkartu // round bread pannigu // bread pastry

(+?) Akk: NINDA.MEŠ kib-ri-ti Akk: gul-gul-tu 4 Akk: tu-ma-gu Akk: ku-si-ib-tu 4 Akk: hu-li-iš-tu 4 (+?) KUŠ NINDA Á.ĜÁ<.LÁ> KUŠ NINDA LU.ÚB.BA NINDA GARZA NINDA KASKAL NINDA NÍĜ ŠE SA.A

17051 17052 17053 17054 17055 17056 17057 17058 17059 ... 17060 17061 ... 17062

NINDA GÚ.GAL NINDA GÚ.TUR [NINDA] GÚ NÍĜ.ÀR.RA [NINDA] GÚ GAL.GAL [NINDA] ZÍD [NINDA] IMĜAĜA [NINDA ZÍD] GIG [NINDA] EŠA(A-TIR) [NINDA] EŠA SIG 5

17063 17064

[NINDA KA].KAR.TUM [NINDA PA].NA.NI.KUM

(+?) [NINDA] GU.LA [NINDA] PÈŠ(MA) (+5) [NINDA] SAL.LA

129

... 23V26 23V27 ... ... ... -

Part 2 – Composite Edition Division 18 (canonical XXIV) ... 18001 18002 18003 18004 18005 18006 18007 18008 18009 ... 18010 18011 18012 ... 18013 18014a 18014b ... 18015 18016 18017 18018 ... 18019 18020 18021 18022 18023 18024 18025 … 18026 18027 18028 18029 18030 18031 18032 18033a 18033b

(+?)

… [] (šamnu // oil) [] (ellu II // sesame oil) [] (halṣ̣u // pressed -) [] [] good oil [] (himētu // butter) [] honey butter [] [] ... GA šizbu // milk GA lildu // cream milk GA marû // fat milk ... GA.MEŠ matqu // sweet milk kišimmu // sour milk idem ... nurmû // pomegrate vacat // wet pomegrate šābulu // dried (pomegrate) damqu // good (pomegrate) ... [] market-price date [] ‘glorified’ date [] ‘slandered’ date [] date [] wet date [] dried date [] good date ... iṭtụ̂ // bitumen la-ba-ra-ak raṭbu // wet (bitumen) kupru // (dry) bitumen ku-pa-ra-at-tu 4 pān iṭtị qīru // asphalt napṭu // naphta idem

Ì Ì.ĜIŠ Ì.ĜIŠ BARAG.AK.A Ì.ĜIŠ ZAG.GA [Ì].ĜIŠ DÙG.GA Ì.NUN.NA [Ì].NUN.NA LÀL [MIN MIN] ZAG.GA [MIN MIN] DÙG.GA

(+?) Akk: [GA ši]-iz-bu Akk: [GA] li-il-du Akk: [GA] ma-a-ru (+?) Akk: GA.MEŠ ma-[at-qu] Akk: ki-ši-im-mu Akk: ki-ši-im-mu (+?) [NU.ÚR].MA [MIN] DURU 5 [MIN] HÁD.DU [MIN SIG 5 ] (+?) [U 4 .HI].IN GANBA(KI-LAM) [U 4 .HI].IN KI.KÁG(KA).SILIM(DI) [U 4 .HI].IN ŠU.KÁRA ZÚ.LUM.MA [ZÚ.LUM.MA] DURU 5 [ZÚ].LUM.MA HÁD.DU [ZÚ].LUM.MA SIG 5 (+?) [ESIR] Akk: iṭ-ṭu Akk: la-ba-ra-ak Akk: raṭ-bu Akk: ku-up-ru Akk: ku-pa-ra-at-tu 4 Akk: pa-an iṭ-ṭe 4 -e Akk: qí-i-ru Akk: na-ap-ṭu Akk: na-ap-ṭu

130

… 24014 24015 24016 24017 24035 24037 … 24090 24091 … 24099-100 24101 idem ... 24237 … 24242 24244 ... 24313-4 24315 24317 -

Thematic Lists * LÚ=ša * Introductory Remarks 5. LÚ=ša Organization of the material: 1. Division 1: There are two tablets (1T1-2) and a number of fragments. Some fragments (C+I, J, K+O, R, V, W, Y, Z, AA and AD) may belong to T2 but lack physical joins. Other fragments (E’ and T) are incompatible with the two reconstructed tablets, suggesting that there may have been a third one. A few smaller fragments have not been used for the composite edition - their reconstruction as part of the larger text is impossible due to the lack of both physical joins and reliable parallels. 2. Division 2: There is one tablet (2T1) and one extract (2E1). All relevant information about the organization of fragments within 2T1 is given in the Inventory and edition concordance of fragments belonging to 2T1 which precedes its text edition. Note that the first section of Izi series is also found on 2T1, directly following Lu 2 (the LEE preserves some entries but the Izi text must have started in column X, which is broken). References: 1. MSL references: The reconstructed text is provided with references to both the canonical text (left-hand reference column) and the OB text (right-hand reference column) editions as found in MSL XII. The canonical text that is relevant to the Emar Lu material is LÚ=ša, which MSL presents in three (interrelated) recensions; the references given here apply to its ‘Standard Recension’ only. Of the OB texts edited in MSL XII, only Proto-Lu is relevant to Emar Lu (despite its name, OB Lu - also known by its incipit, LÚÁZLAG=ašlāku - is a completely different series). Therefore, the right-hand reference column numbers only refer to Proto-Lu. 2. Numbering: For the canonical text, the first figure in the reference numbers given here always specifies the tablet number of LÚ=ša in the ‘Standard Recension’ (1-5) but the organization of the subsequent figures differs per tablet, reflecting the varying organization in MSL XII. MSL XII gives tablets 1 and 4 with a continuous line count but tablets 2, 3 and 5 are given with a (broken and incomplete) line count according to reconstructed columns: for easy reference these respective methods are maintained here. For the OB text, the continuous line count found in the MSL edition of Proto-Lu is given.

131

Part 2 – Composite Edition EST

LOGOGRAMS and

glosses

Interpretation

References

šū PRONOMEN PERSONALE ša PRONOMEN RELATIVUM mamma // somebody mimma // anybody bēlu // lord awīlu // man šarru // king LUGAL KUR kiššati // king of the universe idem (U ten) idem (IMIN seven) idem (NINNU fifty) idem idem idem idem idem LUGAL kilīli (!ME.EN.AK.A) // king of the tiara MIN hammā’ī // rebel king MIN apsî MIN amurri KUR šumeri akkadî MIN kibrātī arba’i // king of the four heavenly regions MIN kīnu // true; righteous king šarrānu // kings PLURAL [] [] [] son of a prince [] (mar kabti // son of an important person) [] minister EMESAL []

1002 1001 1003 1005 1007 1004 1046

001 -

1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1063-4

-

1061 1060 1057 1059

-

1074 1076 1077 1078 1079

002a -

1085 -

-

[] (sukkallu) EMESAL sukallu // secretary; court official sukkalmahhu // chief minister [] [] [] [] [] (sukkal ubārī // secretary of the foreigners) [] (lāsimu // courier) []

1086 1087 1088 1089 1092-5 idem 1096

004 005 007 idem -

1097 1098

009 -

Division 1 1001a 1001b 1001c 1001d 1001e 1001f 1001g 1002

LÚ LÚ LÚ LÚ LÚ LÚ LÚ LUGAL ŠÚ

1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008a 1008b 1009 1010

MIN u 5 <10> MIN ú-mi-na5(!7) MIN in-nu-u50 MIN NÍĜIN MIN KIŠ MIN ŠÁR MIN ŠÁR.RA MIN KI.ŠE(!ŠÁR).RA MIN NIN AL.LA.AK.A

1011 1012 1013 1014 1015

MIN IM.KI(!GI) MIN AB.ZU MIN MAR.TU MIN KI.EN.GI ZA(!URI)KI.MA MIN AN.NA UB.DA 4.BI

1016 1017 1018a 1018b 1019 1020

MIN GI.NA MIN.E.NE

1021 1022

la-ga-ar

1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028a 1028b 1029 1030 1031

DUMU LUGAL DUMU.MÍ LUGAL DUMU NUN.NA DUMU GUR 4 .RA

[LÀGAR(SAL-HÚB)] <>SAL-HÚB) (!EME 5 ) LI.BI.IR e-me

SUKKAL SUKKAL.MAH MIN IRI MIN LUGAL MIN Ì.DU 8 MIN Ì.DU 8 MIN GIR 5 .GIR 5

MIN LÚKAŠ 4 MIN DI.KUD

132

Thematic Lists * LÚ=ša * Division 1 1032 1033 1034 1035 ... 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1042’ 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 ... 1048 1049 ... 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055

MIN NÍĜ.UNKIN.NA MIN ÉNSI MIN SAĜA MIN ŠABRA (+4) SUKKAL.[SUKKAL] EGIR.[SUKKAL] ZABAR.[DAB] GAL.ZU GAL.ZU.[UNKIN.NA] ĜIŠ [GU.ZA.LÁ] AD.[GI 4 .GI 4 ] GI(!KI).MAH.[AD.GI 4 .GI 4 ] RA.AB [SIK.KA.TIM] RA.AB [SIK.KA.TIM GAN.NU Á.ZI.DA] RA.AB [SIK.KA.TIM GAN.NU Á.GUB.BA] RA.AB RA.AB [MAR.TU] (+13?) ku BISAĜ .DUB.BA.A ÉNSI

(+2) UGULA ÉNSI UM.MI.A.AN UM.MI.A.AN IRI MIN LUGAL MIN É.NA 4 KIŠIB.DUB.BA.A MIN GI.DUB.BA.A

1056

MIN ĜIŠ.KÍĜ.TI

1057

MIN KI.UŠ(!ÚŠ) : KI.SIG 10

1058 1059 1060a 1060b 1060c 1060d 1060e 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068

UM.MI.A.AN KI.SIG 10 DUMU.MEŠ É.DUB.BA.A ŠÀ.TAM ŠÀ.TAM ŠÀ.TAM <ŠÀ.TAM> ŠÀ.TAM [ŠÀ.TAM].GAL [MIN] IRI [MIN] LUGAL [MIN] KÁ.GAL [MIN] É.GAL [MIN KÁ] É.GAL [MIN] GUR 7 [MIN] ĜIŠKIRI 6

[] [] [] [] ... [] courier of the secretary [] vice-secretary [] ‘bronze holder’ (official) [] wise man [] wise man of the assembly [] ‘chair carrier’ (official) [] (māliku // advisor) [] (KI.MAH // tomb; cultic place) rāb sikkati // ‘chief of the pegs’ rāb sikkati kannī ša imitti // - of the right side (vessel-)stands rāb sikkati kannī ša šumēli // - of the left side (vessel-)stands rabiānu // overseer; mayor rabiān amurri ... [] (šaddabakku // archivist) [] city ruler ... [] overseer of the city ruler [] expert; master [] [] [] MIN qanṭuppī // master of the writing reeds MIN kiškattī // master of the craftmen MIN kispi // - of the funerary offering (KI.ÚS // waste ground) [] [] šatammu // auditor; administrator ellu // pure ebbu // radiant namru // shining qīpu // trustee šatamgallu // chief administrator MIN IRI MIN LUGAL MIN abulli MIN É.GAL MIN KÁ É.GAL MIN kāri // - of the granary MIN kirî

133

1099 1100 1101 1102 ... 1107a 1108-9 1121 1116 1117 1125 1127 1128 1129

011 012 ... 012a 013 015 017 016 018 019

1130

020

... 1133 1135 ... 1135f 1135g 1135h -

021 022 ... 025 028 ... 030 030a 030b -

1135j

-

-

-

1136 1135k 1135l 1135m 1137a 1137b 1137c 1137f 1137d 1137e -

031 032 035 033 034 -

Part 2 – Composite Edition 1069 1070

[MIN] É [MIN É NA.KAM].TUM

1071

[MIN É NA.DI].TI

1072 1073 1074a

[MIN É] ĜI 6 .PAR 4 (!PÀR) [MIN É] UZU [MIN É] UŠ.BAR

1074b 1075a

[MIN É] UŠ.BAR MIN[É NÍĜ.GÚN].NA

1075b 1076 1077 1078 1079

MIN É NÍĜ.GÚN.NA MIN É NÍĜ.ŠÁR.RI MIN MAR.TU MIN NIN MIN NAM.DUMU.A.NI

1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089

MIN É DIĜIR.E.NE ŠÀ.TAM.E.NE [GÁB].SAR [MU].SAR DUB.SAR [MIN] MAH [MIN] IRI [MIN] LUGAL [MIN ZAG].GA [MIN KI-SU]-LU-NÍG-ŠÈ (!-ŠÈ-NÍG=UGNIM) MIN ṣābi//scribe for labour troops [MIN ÉRIN] [MIN KURU 7 (IGI-ERIM).AK] MIN piqitti // scribe of the inspection; review … ... MIN(DUB.SAR) [] (ÚMUN // scholarship) um-ma [ÚMUN] MIN šu-na[SUN 5 (BÚR)] [] (šalṭu // authorative) (+1) ... MIN DÙN [] (šassukku // bookkeeper) MIN GAL.LA.AN.ZU [] (eršu // craftsman) (+1) ... [MIN] KUG.ZU [] (emqu // specialist) (+36?) ... MIN(ŠU.I) GÚN.NA [] MIN GÚN.ZUM [] MIN EGIR.RA [] assistant barber [] apprentice barber ŠU.I ZU. ZU [] overseer of barbers UGULA ŠU.I MUHALDIM [] baker MUHALDIM GAL [] [] MUHALDIM MUŠEN

1089’ 1090 (... 1091 1092 ... 1093 1093’ ... 1093’’ ... 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101

MIN É MIN É nakkamti // chief administrator of the store-house MIN É nadīti // chief administrator of the priestess’ house MIN É gipari // - of the cloister MIN É UZU // - of the meat house MIN É išpari // chief administrator of weaver’s house idem MIN É unūti // chief administrator of the lumber room idem idem MIN amurri MIN bēlti MIN mārūtišu 126 / ZU ma-aṣ-ha-ra-ta-šu MIN É.HI.A DIĜIR.MEŠ šatammū PLURAL purkullu // stone garver; engraver mušarru // ‘name writer’; notary ṭupšarru // scribe 127 ṭupšarmahhu // chief scribe MIN IRI MIN LUGAL // royal scibe zazakku // land registrar’s scribe MIN ummāni

134

1137h

044

1137i

043a

1137j 1137k 1137n

036 037

idem 1138

idem -

idem -

-

1138h 1139 1139a 1140 1140a 1140b 1141 1141a

045 046 047 049 050 048 054

1141b 1141c

058

... 1141i

...) 059

1141j ... 1141k 1141l ...

… ...

... 1157f -

… 087 086 094 095 096 -

Thematic Lists * LÚ=ša * Division 1 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 ... 1143 1144 1145 1146

MUHALDIM MAŠ.DÀ MUHALDIM NINDA GAGGAG(!KU 7 .KU 7 ) ĜIŠ MUHALDIM BANŠUR URI UGULA MUHALDIM GUD.GAZ ĜÍR.RI.A(!LÁ) LÚ.ÙR.RA ÚKUR(GAL-ŠAH) LÚ ŠAH.ŠUM.MA MA.AN.DU MIN GAL MIN GU.LA MIN TUR.RA MIN IRI MIN LUGAL ĜIŠ MA.AN.DU GU.ZA

[ŠU]-SÌLA-GABA-A (!SÌLA-ŠU-GABA=SAGI) [MIN] GAL [MIN] IRI [MIN] LUGAL [MIN] NIN [EN.NU.ÙĜ] [MIN IRI] [MIN LUGAL] [MIN KÁ.GAL] [MIN É].GAL [MIN KÁ.] É.GAL [MIN] GUR 7 [MIN] ĜIŠKIRI 6 [MIN] É [MIN É DIĜIR.E].NE [EN.NU.ÙĜ].E.NE [UGULA] GÁN.NU Ì.DU 8 Ì.DU 8 GAL Ì.DU 8 IRI Ì.DU 8 LUGAL Ì.[DU 8 ] KÁ.GAL [Ì.DU 8 É].GAL [Ì.DU 8 KÁ É.GAL] [Ì.DU 8 GUR 7 ]

(+?) Akk: etḷ u Akk: ra-bu-u Akk: ša-pí-ru

[] [] baker of sweet bread

1159

-

[] baker of the ‘table of Akkad’ wakil nuhatimmī pāliku // butcher āriru // cutter 128 / (ṭābihu // butcher) lurrakku ṭābihu // butcher idem mandu // soldier mandugallu MIN rabû MIN ṣehru MIN IRI MIN LUGAL MIN ĜIŠGU.ZA šāqû // cup-bearer

1160

097 098 099

1161 -

100 106 107 118

MIN-gallu MIN IRI MIN LUGAL MIN bēltu maṣṣāru // guard maṣṣār IRI MIN LUGAL MIN abulli MIN É.GAL MIN KÁ É.GAL MIN kāri // guard of the granary MIN kirî MIN É MIN É.HI.A DIĜIR.MEŠ maṣṣārū PLURAL wakil kannī // overseer of the (vessel-)stands atû // gatekeeper MIN-gallu MIN IRI MIN LUGAL MIN abulli MIN É.GAL MIN KÁ É.GAL MIN kāri //- of the granary ... eṭlu (!PA)// (young) man rabû // great (man) šāpiru (!UGULA) // instructor wakil rēdī //

2I14 2I19 2I17 2I18 2I26 2I22 2I23 -

119 121 124 129 -

… -

130 139 138 140 … ?

135

Part 2 – Composite Edition UGULA AGA.ÚS.E.NE

1147 1148 1149a 1149b 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1156 1157

UGULA SIPA.E.NE UGULA UR.SAĜ.E.NE UGULA É UGULA É UGULA KISAL UGULA SIMUG UGULA NAGAR UGULA BÁHAR UGULA BUR.GUL UGULA NÍĜ.GUL UGULA KUG.DÍM

1158 UGULA TIBIRA

1159 [UGULA NAGAR] SIG(.GA) 1160 [UGULA] DÍM 1161 1162 1163 ... 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171

UGULA ĜÍR.Ì.GU 7 .E [UGULA] Ì.ŠUR UGULA ŠUR.Ì

(+1) UGULA ŠU UGULA ŠU.I UGULA ŠU.KU 6 .A UGULA ŠU.KUD.DA LÚ UGULA SA.GAZ UGULA IM-KU-GÁ ZU UGULA ZUH(KA) UGULA É DUB.BÁ.A

1172 UGULA É NA.KAM.TUM

1173a 1173b 1174 1175a 1175b 1176a 1176b 1177 1178a 1178b ... 1179a 1179b

UGULA É ĜI 6 .[PÀR] UGULA É [ĜI 6 .PÀR] [UGULA É UZU] [UGULA É UŠ.BAR]

[UGULA É UŠ.BAR] [UGULA A.SI.RI] UGULA A.SI.[RI] UGULA SI.IK.[KA.TUM] UGULA NAM 1 me-at UGULA NAM 5 me-at (+?) ĜARZA(PA-AN)

overseer of the soldiers wakil rē’î // - of the shepherds wakil qarrādī // - of the heroes wakil É MIN šāpir MIN wakil kisalli // - of the courtyard wakil nappāhi // - of the smith MIN nagāri // - of the carpenter MIN pahāri // - of the potter MIN parkulli // overseer of the stone-cutter MIN ni-ig-gu-li (NÍĜ.GUL // vessel) MIN kutīmi // overseer of the silver smith MIN qurqurri // overseer of the metal worker MIN nagāri qatni // overseer of the fine carpenter / MIN si-ga-rù MIN itinnī // overseer of the master builders MIN mušākilu // - of the feeder MIN ṣāhiti // - of the oil-presser MIN rāhiṣu // - of the pourer ... [] MIN gallābi // - of the barber MIN bā’iri // - of the fisherman MIN miksi // - of tax; tribute MIN hābbati // - of the robber [] MIN šarrāqi // - of the thief 129 MIN bīt ṭuppī / tartānu HURRIAN MIN nakkamti // overseer of the store-house MIN É naditī MIN É gipari // - of the cloister MIN É UZU // - of the meat-house MIN É išpari // overseer of the weaver’s house idem MIN āsiri // – of the prisoner idem [] [] [] ... parṣū // rites

136

-

? ? 147 147a 190 -

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

… -

… -

-

156c

2II02’

152 153

idem 2II06’ 2II11’ 2II10’ … -

idem 174 173b … 172 172a

Thematic Lists * LÚ=ša * Division 1 1180 1181 1183a 1183b 1183c 1183d 1183e 1183f 1183g 1183h 1183i 1183j

BILUDA(PA-AN) [MIN] DIĜIR].RA [MIN] LUGAL [MIN ŠAB(PA]-IB) ŠAB(PA-IB)

[MIN] MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN

1183k 1183m MIN ŠAB 1184 NA 1185 UGULA 4 KIŠIB É.DÙ.TUM 1186a UGULA GI.DUB.BA.A 1186b nu-un-giLÚĜ.ĜÁ 1187a LÚĜ.ĜÁ 1187b NU.LÚĜ.ĜÁ 1188a NU.LÚĜ.ĜÁ 1188b PA-MUL 1189a PA-MUL 1189b PA.PA.AL 1190 PA.PA.AL 1191 EN la-ga-ar 1192 LAGAR 1193 EN LUGAL 1194 NU.ÉNSI(!ÈŠ) gud-da GUDUG(AH-ME) 1195 1196 GUDUG AB.[ZU] GUDUG AB.BAL.LÁ 1197 1198 GUDUG BAL.LÁ SU 6 .LÁ 1199 GUDUG BAL.LÁ GUB.BA 1200 GUDUG BAL.LÁ.TA.È 1201 GUDUG BAL.LÁ KUR 9 .[RA] ĜIŠ 1202 GUDUG BAL.LÁ NE EREN D 1203 GUDUG BAL.LÁ INANNA ù-ru-uh ŠITA<-AN-MÙŠ> 1204 (URUH ) i-zi-ib 1205 IŠIB 1206 IŠIB GAL IŠIB KI.GAL 1207 D 1208 IŠIB INANNA SUSBU(MÚŠ-BU) ... (+?) 1209 EN-GAG-SIG 7 -NUN-ME-

pilludû // rituals parṣū DIĜIR.MEŠ//rites of the gods MIN LUGAL // - of the king MIN en-ti DIĜIR.MEŠ 130 nakāsu // to cut šarāmu // to break off harāru // to dig out harāṣu // to break off esēqu // to notch esēpu // to gather together sūtu (!BÁN) // container qablu // hips; middle našpaku (!ÀRAH/Ì.DUB) // storage vessel / ma-ši-mu mašhutu (< mašāhu // to measure) šappu // jar wakil É NA 4 KIŠIB wakil qanṭuppī ṣullanu ṣullantu lā ṣullanu idem [] [] [] bud; shoot [] [] lord lagaru // priest MIN LUGAL nešakku // priest; dignitary pašīšu // priest / māhiru // receiver gu-da ap-su gu-da ab-la-al // rotating; shift priest ziqnānu // bearded (priest) mazzaz mazzazti //standing (priest) wāṣê mazzazti // outgoing (priest) ērib mazzazti // incoming (priest) erinakku pašīš Dištar // priest of Ishtar uruhhu // priest išippu//sorcerer; incantation priest išipgallu išip kigalli // incantation priest of the pedestal ištarītu // hierodule ramku // priest ...

137

1135c 1085 4078 4061 4071-2 4075 4074 4042 4045 4046 4084 ... 2III03’’

179 180 181 182 1838 idem idem idem idem idem 196 idem 199 idem 200 idem 205 206 207 208 209 212 210 212b 212a 211 255 213 214 217 ... 245

Part 2 – Composite Edition 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 ... 1215 1216a 1216b 1217 1218 1219 1220a 1220b 1221a 1221b 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 ... 1233 1234 ... 1235 ... 1236 1237 1238 ... 1239 1240a 1240b 1240c 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246a 1246b

[EZEN](!UBARA=ENKUM) NIN-GAG-SIG 7 -NUN-MEEZEN(!UBARA=NINKUM) KIŠIB.ĜÁL [MIN] GAL [MIN D]INANNA LUKUR(SAL-ME) (+18?) ĜURUŠ [TUR] ĜURUŠ TAB ĜURUŠ TAB.BA [ĜURUŠ D]EN-ZU ĜURUŠ [DILI] SAĜ DILI SAĜ.ÚS SAĜ.ÚS KISAL.LUH MUNUS KISAL.LUH UGULA KISAL.LUH AMA AMA IRI MIN LUGAL MIN LUL.A MIN NÍ.ZU MIN LÚ[SA].GAZ [MIN LÚHUĜ.ĜÁ] MIN LÚ[IM.RI.A] MIN e-[erÉR] MIN A.[NIR]

(+13?) MIN(AMA) [Ú.TUD] MIN NU.[Ú.TUD] (+?) NIN.A.[NI] (+2) IM.RI.A [DAGAL] [GÚ.DÚB.BU] KI-[NE.NE GUL].GUL (+3) ir [ÌR] gal

GAL 4 GAL 4 SÍK GAL 4 .LA PI.IN.ZI.NI(!IR) gal

SÍK NA BI EME.DA EME.DA GAL D EME.DA INANNA AMA.SIKI

[] (enkummu // temple treasurer)

2III04’’

[] (ninkummu // - functionary)

2III05’’ 4023-5 ... 3III81 idem 3III80 4201 idem 2I02 2I03 2I04 3IV04’ 3IV05’ 3IV524 ... ... ... ... -

243 257 ... 314 316 316a idem 317 318 319 320 323 328 ... 334a 335 ... ... 376 377 ... ? 379 380 381 382

3IV65 3IV79

385 386 -

246 [] seal bearer [] ištarītu // hierodule (nadītu / šugītu) ... [] young man batūlu idem idem wēdû // single (young man) idem kajjamānu // fixed; permanent mukil rēši // ‘holder of the head’ kisalluhhu //courtyard sweeper kisalluhhatu // female wakil MIN ummu // mother umma IRI umma LUGAL MIN sarri // mother of a liar MIN šarrāqi // - of a thief MIN hābbati // - of a robber MIN agri // - of a hired man MIN kimti // - of the family MIN bikīti // - of weeping MIN tānēhi // - of lamentation ... [] birth mother [] ... [] his sister ... MIN rapaštu // extended family gudubukku [] (KI-NE-NE=kinūnu // coal pan) ... DUMU GÉME // son of a slave girl ūru // female privy parts biṣsụ̄ ru // female genitals suhšu / nesbu 131 // public hair lippišatu // female genitals / ṭannapu //unclean handuttu // vulva tārītu (!UM-ME) // wet-nurse e-me-dá-gal-li-tu 4 ištarītu

138

Thematic Lists * LÚ=ša * Division 1 1247a 1247b 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260a 1260b 1261a 1261b 1262a 1262b 1263a 1264 1263b 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278a 1278b 1279 1280 1281 1282 1283 ... 1284 1285

AMA.SIKI mu-um-mu UM.MA mu-um-mu UM.MA BUR.ŠÚM.MA [AB].BA [AB].BA IRI [AB.BA] LUGAL [AB.BA] DI<.KUD> [AB.BA].NE.NE [IGI AB].BA IRI AB AD A A.A [PA 4 ].BÍL.KI [ŠAG 4 ].KI.SAĜ [ŠAG 4 ].KI.SAĜ [AD].GI.GI(!GI 4 .GI 4 ) [AD].GI.GI(!GI 4 .GI 4 ) [INIM ŠÁR].ŠÁR [INIM ŠÁR].ŠÁR NIĜIR [NIĜIR] DAG NIĜIR MIN IRI NIĜIR IRI A.ŠAG 4 HA.ZA.AN.NU ša-ag-gu-nu [ŠAGGINA] ŠAGGINA [LUGAL] ŠAGGINA [ŠAG 4 .GA] [ŠAGGINA].E.NE [NU].BÀN.DA NU.BÀN.DA GAL GUD.DA.ÚS GUD.DA.RI(!?RA).A GUD.DA.DIRIG.GA GUD.DA.NA.[GAD] AB.[SÍN] AB.[SÍN] AB.SÍN [SÍ.SA] AB.SÍN MURUB 4 AB.SÍN NÍĜ.GILIM.MA AB.SÍN AB.[SÍN]

DUR (+3) LU.[GÚ] GÁN.NA.[AN.KUD.DA]

šībtu // old woman; witness puršumtu // old woman šībtu puršumtu puršumtu / MUNUSšībtu šību // old man; witness šību IRI šībūt LUGAL šībūt dayyāni šībūtšunu mahar šībūt IRI abu // father idem idem abi abi idem muštarrihu // ‘strong of heart’ muštarhu idem (AD.GI 4 .GI 4 // advice) idem muštabil awatī // ‘mixer of words’ idem nagiru // herald idem [] [] [] [] mayor [] governor [] [] šakkanakkū // governors PLURAL nu-ba-an-du (laputtû // lieutenant) nu-ba-an-du-gal-lu rīd GUD // cattle herder kimru // (cattle) herd wattaru // spare (ox) ku-ut-ta-na-ak-te-e (naqidu // herdsman) absinnu // furrow šer’u // furrow išāru // straight (furrow) qablitu (MURUB 4 // middle) [] (NÍĜ.GILIM // rodent) [] [] balk; bond; socket ... [] twisted (furrow) []

139

3IV83 3IV80 3IV81 3IV75 3IV72 3IV68 3IV70 3IV74a -

399 400 403 405 407 411 413 idem 418 idem 420 422 426 427 432a 435 440 441 -

... -

451a idem 452 453a 453 ... 462c -

Part 2 – Composite Edition Division 2 132 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 … 2007 2008 2009 2010 … 2011 2012 2013 2014 … 2015a 2015b 2016a 2016b 2017a 2017b 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 … 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 … 2033 … 2034 2035 … 2036 2037 2038

133

si-pa-a

[] (rē’û // shepherd) kaparru // shepherd boy [] shepherd of the land [] - of the ‘black-headed’ = mankind [] - of oxen [] - of cows ... (+?) ŠURUM(LAGABxSUM) x [] (kabû // droppings (of cattle)) SI ŠURUM GUD [] (putru // hard droppings of cattle) [] mudbrick from cattle droppings SIG 4 ŠURUM GUD [] (piqannu // droppings) MIN(!A).ĜAR.ĜAR ... (+?) [] (ittu // sign; omen) ĜIŠKIM(AGRIG) [] (tukultu // trust) MIN [TI] MIN [SAG 9 .GA] [] good sign; omen [] incomplete omen ĜIŠKIM NU.[TIL.LA] ... (+?) [] A.[ÍL] zābil mê // water carrier A.[ÍL] [] GA.[ÍL] zābil šizbi // milk carrier GA.[ÍL] [] KAŠ.[ÍL] zābil šikari // beer carrier KAŠ.[ÍL] [] carrier of Meluhha clay IM.ME.LUH.HA.[ÍL] MIN ṭīṭi // clay carrier [IM.ÍL] MIN eperi // sand carrier [SAHAR.ÍL] MIN ĜIŠ.MEŠ // wood carrier [ĜIŠ.ÍL] [IZI.ÍL] MIN dikmēni // ash carrier Akk: za-ki-il-lu za-ki-il-lu Akk: za-bil ki-na-[ti] za-bil ki-na-ti [ÀR.ÀR] ṭē’inu // miller (+?) ... ALAN.[ZU] [] (aluzinnu // clown) UD.DA.[TUŠ] [] SÙH.[SÙH] [] (raqqidu // dancer) Á.Ú.[A] [] (a’û // fool) KA.[DUG 4 .DUG 4 ] [] (zammeru // singer) GU 4 .[UD.DA] [] (raqqidu // dancer) HÚB.[BÉ] [] (huppû // acrobat) (+?) ... ZA.[AM.ZA.AM] [] (samsammu // kettle drum) (+2) ... KI.[RU.GÚ] [] (šeru // song) KI.[ŠÚ] [] (kīlu // hold; arrest) 134 (+?) ... [BUR.GUL] parkullu // stone cutter [UGULA BUR.GUL] wakil MIN // overseer of the [ZA.DÍM] zadimmu // stone cutter SIPAD SIPAD TUR MIN KALAM.MA MIN SAĜ.GÍG.GA.A MIN GUD MIN ÁB.GUD.HI.A

140

3I01 … … … 3I13’ … 4245 4245a 4237 4230 4235 4238 4233 … … … -

463 465 466 468 … 486 487 489 … 495 496 497 498 … 567 idem 568 idem 572 569 574 … 581 582 584 583 … 619 … 620 621 … 673 670

Thematic Lists * LÚ=ša * Division 2 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 2061 2062 2063 ... 2064 2065 2066 2067 2068 2069 2070 2071 2072 2073 2074 2075 2076 2077 2078 2079 2080 2081 2082 2083 2084 2085a

[UGULA ZA.DÍM] [KUG].DÍM [UGULA KUG.DÍM] SIMUG [UGULA] SIMUG NAGAR [UGULA] NAGAR BÁHAR [BÁHAR] GAL [UGULA] BÁHAR ti-bi-la [TIBIRA] UGULA [TIBIRA] [ZADIM] UGULA [ZADIM] DIĜIR DÍM D ALAN DÍM D LAMA MIN KI.GAL MIN URUDU MIN ZABAR MIN NA 4 ZA.GÌN MIN KUG.BABBAR MIN KUG.GI MIN KUG.DÍM MIN TÚG NÍĜ.URI DÍM.DÍM.MA

(+?) [MUNUS NU].GIG [MUNUS] ĜEŠTIN.NA [MUNUS Ú].HUB (HÚBxUD) [MUNUS x]-IG [MUNUS A].ZU [MUNUS] DUB.SAR [MUNUS] x HI.LI GÍD.DA [MUNUS] SI.ĜAR MUNUS ZÌG.GA MUNUS SUHUR.LÁ MUNUS KASKAL MUNUS KAR<.KID> KAR<.KID> KAR<.KID> GUB.BA KAR<.KID> E.SÍR KAR<.KID> KASKAL KAR<.KID> ÉŠ.DAM IRI GI 4 .GI 4 (!NÍĜIN) A.GÀR GI 4 .GI 4 (!NÍĜIN) DU 6 GI 4 .GI 4 (!NÍĜIN) PA 5 GI 4 .GI 4 (!NÍĜIN) KAR

wakil MIN // overseer of the kutīmu // silversmith wakil MIN // overseer of the nappāhu // smith wakil MIN // overseer of the naggaru // carpenter wakil MIN // overseer of the pahāru // potter pahārgallu wakil MIN // overseer of the potter [] (qurqurru // metal worker) [] [] (sasinnu // bow maker) [] [] maker of gods [] - of statues [] - of lamassu’s [] - of socles; pedestals [] copper worker [] bronze – [] lapis lazuli – [] silver – [] gold – [] precious metal – [] Akkad-cloth workers ... [] (qadištu // priestess) [] wine woman [] (sukkuku // deaf woman)

… 4031 -

671 672 667 674 676 ? 680 681 … -

[] [] (asītu // female physician) [] (ṭupšarratu // female scribe) [] [] (SI.ĜAR // bolt) [] (ZIG // to rise; threshold) kezertu // (woman with) curled hair-do ša harrāni // (woman) of the road harimtu // prostitute idem mahhūtu // prophetess sūqā’ītu // street woman ša KASKAL // (woman) of the road eš-ta-am-me (ÉŠ.DAM // tavern) sāhirat āli // she that circles the city MIN ugāri // - the common tīli // (-) the (ruin) mound palgi // (-) the ditch lasāmu // to run

-

705 706 708d 713 714 721

5III09’

724 723 725

141

Part 2 – Composite Edition 2085b … 2086a 2086b 2087 2088 2089 2090 2091 2092 2093 2094 2095 2096 ... 2097 2098 2099 2100 2101a 2101b 2101c ... 2102 ... 2103 2104 2105 2106 2107 2108 2109 2110 2111 2112 2113 ... 2114 2115 2116 2117 2118 2119 2120 2121 ...

KAR

(+?) BÀN.DA BÀN.DA KU.[LI] KU.LI.[LI] DU 10 .ÚS.[SA] GÉME.[ÌR] AN.TA TAB.BA ZU.A [DÙG.GA] MU [MI].IQ.DU [DÈ].HU(!HI) (+?) [TÚG.BA] [SI.IL.LÁ] [KURU 7 ] [ŠU ŠÚM.MA] [ÉRIN] [ÉRIN] [ÉRIN] (+1) [ÉRIN GAL.GAL] (+2) [ÉRIN SAĜ.GI 4 .A] [KUŠ 7 ] [KÌRI.DAB] [AD 4 AT].ṬU [AD 4 MUNUS AT.ṬU] [GÌR.A.HUM] Akk: mu-ur-ṣu [ÍB KUD] [Á KUD] [GÌR KUD] [GÚ KUD] (+?) KID ĜIŠGI KI.SIKIL KI.SIKIL KID LÚ KI.SIKIL DAM.GÀR AB-ŠÚ-ŠÚ AB-NIM AB-NIM-NIM AB-LÁ (+?)

munnarbu 135 // escapee ... [] child [] [] (ibru // friend; colleague) [] (itbaru // close friend) (ru’u // idem) kinattu //employee; domestic personnel tappû // companion, partner idem [] (edû // acquaintance) [] ‘name sayer’ [] (miqtu // fall; case) [] supporter ... nalbašu // cloak piqittu // allocation; delivery paqādu // to entrust; deposit [] ṣābu // troops [] ummānu // troops ... [] ... rē’û // shepherd kizû // animal trainer kartappu // (animal) driver kubbulu // cripple kubbultu // female cripple hummuru // paralyzed murṣu // diseased ša qablu šebru // broken hips ša qātā šebrū // broken hands ša šēpāšu šebrū // broken feet ša tikkašu šebru // broken neck ... takkussu // reed stalk; stylus wardatu // girl [] [] girl of the merchant kirītu // rope (AB=ÈŠ) ab-ni-im-mu ab-ni-im-ni-im-mu [] band; tie ...

142

5III10’ … 3III69 3III70 ... ... ... 1119 4340 4344 ... ...

727 … 775 idem 776 777 778 781 782 784 785 786 … 96-7 798 799 801 idem idem … 803 ... 804 805 807 808 809c ? 809a 809h 809f … 831 838 …

Advanced Sign-lists * IZI=išātu * Introductory Remarks ADVANCED SIGN-LISTS 6. IZI=išātu Organization of the material: 0. Introductory remarks - Due to a combination of the incomplete and fragmentary state of the acrographic text material in Emar and the deficient attestation of parallel texts, a coherent reconstruction of the Izi material is impossible at present. The parallels from the OB forerunners and the 1st Millennium canonical series (both edited in MSL XIII) are of limited use for the reconstruction of the Emar Izi material. The historical development of Izi shows a pronounced flexibility in form and content as well as a marked tendency to (exponential) expansion, with the canonical versions absorbing material from other series. The preserved Emar material suggests that, in form and size, it stands half-way between the compact, welldefined OB Proto-Izi and the heterogeneous, encyclopaedic-size, 1st Millennium canonical Izi. After joining some fragments and classifying content, the scattered remains of the Emar material are presented here according to the available parallels. Thus, the groups of material presented here as Izi 1-4 are not text versions or divisions reflecting the actual textual situation in Emar. Rather, they are mere presentational devices, relying on chronologically diverging parallels. Under points 1-4 a few remarks shall be made on the possible relations between the groups, but there are no sufficient leads for a coherent reconstruction except to say that, to accommodate all the material found, there must have been (an)other tablet(s) after Izi 1T1. Details information regarding the placement and interrelation of individual text fragments is provided in the Inventory and concordance of Izi texts preceding the text edition. 1. Izi 1 (parallel to Proto-Izi I) - Some of the material appears to initially follow Proto-Izi in both sequence and content: this is the case with the Izi material that follows Lu 2 (on the LEE of Lu 2T1) and with the fragments listed below. In fact, taken in parallel to Proto-Izi, Izi 1T1 continues from the point where Lu 2T1 ended - this implies that in the Emar school Izi followed immediately after Lu and seems to have been considered as an actual continuation of Lu. It seems unlikely that a small chunk of Izi - more than a mere catch-line but less than a half-column - would have been given directly after Lu, instead of starting it on a new tablet, unless it was considered a direct continuation of it. If fragment 74122ab (p.309), which has EN-NU-UN entries, is part of Izi, then, counting according to its Proto-Izi sequence, it does not fit on Izi 1T1 but must have been part of another Izi tablet. It should be noted that this fragment does not belong to Lu, where Emar has different EN.NU.ÙĜ-entries (matched in the Standard Recension as well as Excerpt II 136 ). Next, the question arises how these Proto-Izistyle texts relate to the material of the other groups, which have their parallels in the Hattusha and canonical versions rather than in Proto-Izi. This question, in turn, is related to the larger, unresolved issue of the relation of Proto-Izi to the later Izi versions (a preliminary discussion is found in MSL XIII, 154-5). 2. Izi 2 (parallel to Hattusha Izi A-B) - As noted in the Civil review, some material follows the parallels in Hattusha rather than those in Proto-Izi, even if, due to the poor state of preservation of both the Emar and the Hattusha material, the points of contact that can be established are not very numerous. The material of Izi 2 relates to Hattusha tablets A and B, hence the specifications 2A and 2B. A possible relation of Izi 2 to Izi 1 may be suggested by the fact that the Izi 2 material shares some content with Proto-Izi II (A has Á and ZAG, B has BAD). Note that the shared material of 2B, and hence that of Hattusha B, actually precedes that of 2A in Proto-Izi (B - BAD 1157ff and A – Á-AŠ 2047/ZAG 2259 respectively) - for

143

Part 2 – Composite Edition easy reference, however, the lettering has been made to conform to the lettering used in the MSL XIII edition of the Hattusha texts. Strictly theoretically therefore, the 2B material may have belonged to Izi 1 T1 and the 2A material to another, later tablet, but with the general lack of joins in the material and with too many interpolations and sequential deviations in the attested text, this can not be ascertained. In any case, the content indicates that the Izi 2 text continues the Izi 1 text, maintaining a skeleton of Proto-Izi entries while adding many additions around it. Generally, the relation of Emar Izi to Proto-Izi seems to be similar to that of the canonical version to Proto-Izi, even if the Emar text never reaches the extent of rearrangement witnessed in the latter. 3. Izi 3 (parallel to canonical Izi XV) - The single text listed here has no parallels in either Proto-Izi or Hattusha but it has a parallel in canonical Izi tablet XV. The reason that it is assumed to belong to Izi is twofold. First, the combination of systematic use of compound logograms with the graphic repetition of key-signs means it does not belong to the other signlist series (cf. Organizational Table 4 of the text edition). Second, the repetition of barû in the last Akkadian entry (EST 3002) suggests that the Sumerian equivalent for this entry must be reconstructed as another IGI-compound, which fits in with the parallel context of canonical Izi XV. A possible relation of Izi 3 to the preceding groups may be suggested by the occurrence of IGI-compounds in Izi 2B (Rev IV’): Izi 3 may have preceded it as part of the same tablet, reflecting a similarity in content with canonical Izi XV. 4. Izi 4 (no substantial parallel; ŠU and NIR-sections) - Even more than for the other Izi material, establishing the exact identity of the texts listed here as Izi 4 is hampered by the lack of parallels. The reason that they are listed as belonging to Izi is twofold. First and generally, the historical expansion of Proto-Izi, growing into an acrographically arranged collection of heterogeneous material may be clearly seen in the other Emar Izi texts. This makes it likely that acrographically arranged material which does not obviously fit in elsewhere, such as the material in question, belongs to the expanding Izi series. The combination of systematic use of compound logograms with the graphic repetition of key-signs means it does not belong to the later advanced sign-lists (cf. Organizational Table 4 of the text edition). This is confirmed by its specific content: Nigga has ŠU but not NIR while Kagal has neither. Second, an overlap with Proto-Izi may be found for the NIR-section (Proto-Izi I 180ff). However, it is unlikely that Izi 4 is part of Izi 1 T1 because this would have meant that column I ends with the NIRsection and that column VI’ starts with the ŠU-section. This would be unexpected after the preceding early entry sequence of Izi 1T1, which otherwise tends to follow the Proto-Izi parallel sequence. The Izi 4 material seems to belong to another Izi tablet that originally followed 1 T1. References: The only reference numbers added to individual entries are those that establish the primary parallels which were used to reconstruct the text groups Izi 1-3: these are indicated (between brackets) in title of each group. Izi 4 lacks substantial parallels and therefore the texts in this group also lack references.

144

Advanced Sign-lists * IZI=išātu EST LOGOGRAMS and glosses

Interpretation 137

References

Izi 1 (parallel to Proto-Izi I) ... 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 … 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014a 1014b 1015 … 1016 1017 1018 1019a 1019b 1019c … 1021a 1021b 1021c 1022a 1022b 1022c 1023 ... 1024a 1024b 1025 1026 1027 1028a 1028b 1028c

(+?) NE-RI(DÈ.DAL) AN-BÀD AN-BÀD-BIR-RI an-bar AN-NE(AN.BAR 7 ) AN-NE AN-EN-KID(AN.BAR 7 D EN.LÍL) (+3) du-GIR IM-GÚ AN-ÚR ÚR AN-PA-A AN-<>-ŠAG 4 -GA AN-TAR(!?MULĜÍR AN.BAR)

... ditallu // ashes tabīnu (!Á.BÀD) // cover; roof tabīnu saphu // scattered cover muṣlālu // siesta time; midday [] ... [] upû (!DUNGU) // cloud išdī šamê // horizon elat šamê // zenith qereb šamê // ‘interior of heaven’ ?patru ša šamê 138 // ‘Sword of Heaven’ =Cagni Epopea 139 alluttu 140 // Cancer šamū rapšutu // wide heavens [] 141 [] [] ... [] Lamassu (protective spirit) [] Utukku (demon) [] Ninkilim (mongoose goddess) [] (napāhu Gtn//to kindle;inflame) [] (nabāṣ̣u Gtn // to shine forth) [] ... eṣēdu // to harvest hāmimu // collector hamāmu // to collect še’û // Gtn to search sāhiru // wanderer sahāru // to wander; roam šipru // mission; charge; message ... [] [] [] shade [] good shade [] wide shade [] (U=ŠUŠ // cover)

MUL

AN-TAR-TAR(!? ĜÍR.TAB) AN-DAGAL-LA AN-SUD-SUD [AN]-SUD-SUD AN-BAR-AN-[TA] (+?) AN-la-am-[maKAL](DLAMA) AN-[UDUG] (DUDUG) AN-NIN-PÉŠ(DNIN.KILIM) MUL-[MUL] MUL-[MUL] MUL-[MUL] (+?) [HAR-HAR(UR 5 .UR 5 )] [HAR-HAR(UR 5 .UR 5 )] [HAR-HAR(UR 5 .UR 5 )] [KIN-KIN] [KIN-KIN] [KIN-KIN] [KIN] (+?) NIM-NIM NIM-NIM GIŠ-MI(ĜISSU) GIŠ-MI-HI-GA(ĜISSU DÙG.GA) GIŠ-MI-DAGAL(ĜISSU DAĜAL) U U

145

... 1005 1014 1016 ... 1018 1018a ... 1028 1029 1030-2 idem idem ... 1045a 1045 1044 1042 1043 1046 ... 1375 idem 1283 1284 1284a -

Part 2 – Composite Edition 1029a 1029b 1029c ... 1030 ... 1031 1032 …

U KU-[KU-KU] KU-[KU-KU] KU-[KU-KU] (+?) EN-[NU-UN](EN.NU.ÙĜ) (+2) MIN MURUB 4 MIN UD-[NI-LI-DA](UD.ZAL.LE.DA) (+?)

[] (KU=TÚG // cloth(cover)) [] [] ... [] (maṣṣartu // guard; watch) ... [] (qablitu // middle watch (shift)) [] (šāt urri // ‘those of the day’) ...

... 1509a ... 1511 1513 ...

... asakku I (!Á.SÀG) // illness demon / har-hu-ru murṣu // illness di’u I // illness nissatu // grief; worry / bu-šu-ut-tu idu naksu // cut-off arm idu šapṣu // ‘resistant; obstinate’ arm idu qatpu // depilated arm idu harṣu // skinned arm idu huṣṣuṣu // cracked arm ... [] (aha nadû // to neglect) [] (ṣēnu I // angry; hateful) [] (ṣabātu // to seize) [] (šapāṣu / hanāqu) // to oppress; strangle) [] [] ... [] (kanāšu // to bow down) [] (puhhuru // to gather) ... [] to bow down; gather

... -

Izi 2A (parallel to Hattusha Izi Tablet A) ... 2A001a

(+?) [Á]-ÁŠ

2A001b 2A001c 2A001d

[Á]-ÁŠ [Á]-ÁŠ [Á]-ÁŠ

2A002a 2A002b 2A002c 2A002d 2A002e ... 2A003a 2A003b 2A003c 2A004a

[Á-TAR(Á KUD)] [Á-TAR] [Á-TAR] [Á-TAR] [Á-TAR(Á HAŠ)] (+?) GÚ-RU-[BA](GÚ ŠUB.BA) GÚ-RU-[BA] GÚ-RU-BA GÚ-BU(GÚ GÍD)

2A004b 2A004c ... 2A005a 2A005b ... 2A006 2A007a 2A007b ... 2A008 2A009

GÚ-BU [GÚ]-BU (+?) GÚ-NÍG(GÚ ĜAR) GÚ-NÍG (+2) GÚ-GÁ-[GÁ] GÚ-ŠÈ-GÁ-[GÁ] GÚ-ŠÈ-GÁ-[GÁ] (+?) [A-MA]-RU-KAM GÚ-LAGAB-LAGAB (GÚ.NIĜIN) GÚ-LAGAB-LAGABKUR-RA GÚ-GAM GÚ-GAM GÚ-GAM-GAM (+?)

2A010 2A011a 2A011b 2A012 ...

146

... 107-9 idem idem 110-1/113-6

... anumma // now napharu // total; sum

idem idem ... 117-8 idem ... 121-3 144 ? ? ... 178 179

naphar māti // the whole land

181

kanāšu // to bow down; submit [] [] ...

182 idem 183 ...

Advanced Sign-lists * IZI=išātu 2A013a 2A013b 2A013c 2A013d 2A013e 2A013f 2A013g 2A013h ... 2A014a 2A014b 2A014c 2A014d 2A014e 2A014f 2A014g 2A014h 2A014i 2A014j 2A015a 2A015b 2A015c 2A015d 2A015e ...

[ZAG] ZAG ZAG ZAG ZAG ZAG(EN 7 ) ZAG ZAG (+?) [GAZ] [GAZ] GAZ GAZ GAZ GAZ GAZ GAZ GAZ GAZ Akk: hé-pu-u Akk: hé-su-u Akk: hu-us-su-u Akk: a-pá-ru Akk: da-a-lu (+?)

ana idu // side; arm imittu // right side eli // upon išdu // foundation; root adi // until [] [] ... mahāṣu // to beat šar-pa-u 142 hašālu // to break [] [] gazzu // shaved dâṣu // to afflict tabāku // to spill (blood) namāšu // to move bakû // to weep hepû 143 // to beat; break; dash hesû // to cover hesû D // to hide apāru // to bind; cover (the head) dâlu // to go round ...

241 ? ? ... ...

Izi 2B (parallel to Hattusha Izi Tablet B) .... 2B001a 2B001b 2B001c 2B001d 2B001e 2B001f 2B001g 2B002 2B002’ 2B003a 2B003b 2B003c ... 2B004 2B005 2B006 2B007 2B008 2B009 2B010

(+?) [GIŠ-TÚG-PI-ŠIR-TAR(ĜIZZAL)] [GIŠ-TÚG-PI-ŠIR-TAR] [GIŠ-TÚG]-PI-[ŠIR-TAR] [GIŠ]-TÚG-PI-ŠIR-TAR GIŠ-TÚG-PI-ŠIR-TAR GIŠ-TÚG-PI-ŠIR-TAR GIŠ-TÚG-PI-ŠIR-TAR GIŠ-TÚG-PI-ŠIR-TAR GÀR(!GAR) GIŠ-ŠU-IG(ĜIZZAL.ĜÁL) x ki-iš GIŠ GIŠ(ĜIDRU) GIŠ (+?) ŠEN ŠEN-KAL ŠEN-GIM-MA(ŠEN.DÍM.MA) [KI]-Á-GÁ [KI]-GÁ-AN KI-EŠ-BAR KI-EŠ-ŠE-NI

147

... waqû D // to await waqû Dt [] hāsisu // clever one qâlu // to be attentive; silent qâlu D nešmû // hearing tahsistu // memory

... - 148 -

nešmû iṣu // wood; tree haṭtụ // sceptre tertu // instruction ... [] cauldron; battle [] [] [] place of command [] [] place of decisions []

... -

Part 2 – Composite Edition 2B011 2B012 ... 2B013a 2B013b 2B013c 2B013d 2B014a 2B014b 2B015a 2B015b 2B015c 2B015d 2B015e 2B015f 2B015g 2B015h 2B015i 2B015j ... 2B015k 2B015l 2B015m 2B016 2B017 2B018 2B019 ... 2B020a 2B020b 2B020c 2B020d 2B020e ... 2B021a 2B022b 2B023 2B024 2B025 2B026 2B027 ...

KI-ZA-ZA KI-Á-ÁG-RU(KI Á.ÁĜ.ŠUB) (+?) KI-BI-RI-A KI-BI-RI-A KI-BI-RI-A KI-BI-RI-A SI-IL-LÁ SI-IL-LÁ i-di-im BAD(IDIM) BAD BAD BAD BAD(KIR 5 ) BAD BAD BAD BAD [BAD] (+?) [BAD] [BAD(ÚŠ!UŠ 7 )] [BAD] [IGI-DIM(HENZER)] [IGI]-DIM [BAD(ÚŠ)] [BAD-UD(LUGUD)] (+2) [MUD] [MUD] [MUD] [MUD] [MUD] (+?) BU-LUH-SI-IL-LÁ BU-LUH-SI-IL-LÁ ZI-[IG]-AZ(!ZI.IG.ZA.AK ZA) Akk: ku-ša-ru Akk: mi-ta-ag-ga-ru ŠE-ŠE-GA NU-UM-[ŠE-ŠE]-GA (+?)

[] (ZA.ZA // to bow down) [] (Á ÁĜ // to command) ... ribbatu // arrears miṭītu // decrease imṭû // loss, shortage maṭû // to be little imṭû maṭû (!LAL) nagbu // underground water kabtu // weighty; important qallu // light, unimportant šamû // heaven erṣetu // earth ekletu // darkness (!ÍTIMA) eṭutu // idem (!ÍTIMA) ulālu // weak, helpless alālu 145 pi-it-tu 146 ... nesû // to be far rūtu // spittle tapšāhu // resting place ṣehrūtu // youth saṣhartu // youth dāmu // blood šarku // puss ... uppu I // tube; socket pardu // fear 147 dāmu // blood da’āmu // to be dark da’āmu D // to darken ... gilitta malû // to fill with fear idem za-za-ah-hu-ku kušāru (!DIMUŠ) // reed shelter magāru Gtn // to agree; accept magāru lā magāru ...

148

... - 149 ... ... ... 15 150 16 17 18 19 20 21 ...

Advanced Sign-lists * IZI=išātu Izi 3 (parallel to Canonical Tablet XV) ... 3001a 3001b 3001c 3001d 3001e 3001f 3001g 3002 ...

... dalāpu (!IGI.LIB) // to awake barû // to look at; inspect 151 naplusu // to regard amāru // to see naṭālu (!IGI.DU) // to look kullumu // to show dagālu (!IGI.ĜÁL) // to look at barû // to look at; inspect ...

(+?) IGI-BAR-RA IGI-BAR-RA IGI-BAR-RA IGI-BAR-RA IGI-BAR-RA [IGI-BAR]-RA [IGI-BAR-RA] Akk: ba-ru-u (+?)

Izi 4 (no substantial parallel) ... 4001a 4001b 4001c 4002a 4002b 4002c 4002d ... 4003a 4003b 4004 4005 4006a 4006b 4006c 4006d 4006e 4006f 4006g 4007a 4007b 4007c 4007d (…

(+?) NIR NIR NIR NIR-IG(NIR.ĜÁL) NIR-IG NIR-IG NIR-IG (+?) ŠU-BU ŠU-BU ŠU-GALAM-MA ŠU-LUH ŠU-KÀD(PEŠ 6 ) MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN ŠU-BU(ŠU.GÍD) ŠU-BU ŠU-BU tu-bu-ul < ŠU-BU(DUBUL)> …

... [] tāmartu // observation; reading dagālu (!IGI.ĜÁL) // to view etellu // pre-eminent idem idem [] ... kamû (!ŠU.DÙ) // to bind; capture masku (!HUL) // bad; evil 152 šittu // remainder šuluhhu // cleansing (of hands) napāšu I // to breathe šapāṣu (!LIRUM) // to clasp; twist le-e-tu 4 153 šalāṭu II // to cut into; divide salātu // to split; cut pašāhu // to calm; cool 154 ēpiš šīpāti // ‘maker of wool’ qāta ṣabātu // ‘to catch the hand’ barû // to examine baṭālu // to cease elēpu // to sprout ...)

149

... AII03’ AII05’ AII02’ AII04’ ? …

Part 2 – Composite Edition 7. KÁ.GAL=abullu Organization of the material: There is only one small fragment (576) that may be classified as ‘Kagal’ and no composite edition is needed but the text is given here to provide it with an interpretation. References: The references given refer to the parallel ‘canonical’ (actually OB 155 ) Kagal material edited in MSL (Tablet D Section 1 2’-l4’). EST LOGOGRAMS

Interpretation

References

... 001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 ...

… šūtu // southwind ištānu // northwind šadû // eastwind amurru // westwind zīqu // breeze zīqīqu // wind; storm šaparziqqu da-al-ha-mu-na // dust storm [mu]-ur-mu-ur-ru // roaring wind ...

… D 1 02’ D 1 03’ D 1 04’ …

(+?) IM-IRI-LU(TUMU.ULU 4 LU) IM-SI-DI(TUMU.SI.SÁ) IM-KUR-RA(TUMU.KUR.RA) IM-MAR-TU(TUMU.MAR.TU) [IM(TUMU)] [IM-SI-SI-IG(TUMU.SI.SI.IG)] Akk: ša-pár-zi-qu [IM-ŠITA(DALHAMUN)] [IM-HAR-DU(TUMU.MURUM.ŠA 4 )] (+?)

150

Advanced Sign-lists * SAĜB 8. SAĜ B Organization of the material: There is only one tablet (T1) and no composite edition is needed but the text is given here to provide it with an interpretation. References: No references are given due to the fact that all other Sag texts (OB and LBA Hattusha) show considerable differences in entry inventory and sequence. EST

LOGOGRAMS and glosses

Interpretation

001a 001b 001c 001d 001e 001f 001g 001h 001i 001j 002 003 004a 004b 005a 005b 006a 006b 007a 007b 007c 007d 007e 007f 008a 008b 009 010 011a 011b 012a 012b 013 014 015

SAG SAG SAG SAG SAG SAG SAG SAG SAG SAG SAG-SAG SAG-SAG-SAG SAG-UR-SAG SAG-UR-SAG SAG-ZI SAG-ZI SAG-KAL SAG-KAL SAG-ÍL-LA SAG-ÍL-LA SAG-ÍL-LA SAG-ÍL-LA SAG-ÍL-LA SAG-ÍL-LA SAG-UŠ SAG-UŠ SAG-HA-ZA SAG-DU-HA-ZA SAG-DU SAG-DU SAG-GAG(SAĜ.DÙ) SAG-GAG SAG-GAG-GAG(SAĜ.DÙ.DÙ) SAG-GAG-TUKU(SAĜ.DÙ TUKU) SAG-GAG-NU-TUKU(SAĜ.DÙ NU.TUKU)

ilu // god rēšu // head rēštu // foremost mahrû // first pānu // front, first qaqqadu // head pūtu // forehead wardu // slave amtu // slave girl i-mu (ewû II // to burden) idem imtanu // tuft qarradu // hero assinnu // catamite našī rēši ēlī rēši idem ašarēdu // foremost našī rēši ēlī rēši šākan rēši re-ša-an ša-qa-tu 4 MIN a-li-tu 4 ašarēdu // foremost kajjamānu // reliable; constant mukīl rēši // permanent assistant kullu // to hold rēš kulli qaqqadu // head nabnītu // creation; figure patqu // formed patāqu D // to build; to form pu-ut-tu-qa-tu 4 išû // to have (form) lā išānu // insignificant

151

Part 2 – Composite Edition 016 017 018 019 020

SAG-GAG SAG-GAG-GA SAG-KI SAG-KI-GAL-GAL SAG-BUL(SAĜ TUKU 4 )

021 022 023 024a 024b 025 026 027 028a 028b 029a 029b 029c

SAG-BUL-BUL(SAĜ TUKU 4 .TUKU 4 ) SAG-AN-NA SAG-KI-TA SAG-KI SAG-KI SAG-KI-GAL SAG-SAG 9 -GAL SAG-GÚ-GAL SAG-LI-TAR(SAĜ.ÈN.TAR) SAG-LI-TAR SAG-AŠ(SAĜ.DILI) SAG-AŠ SAG-AŠ

029d 030 031 032a 032b 033 034a 034b 035 036 037 038 039 040 041 042

SAG-AŠ SAG-BÚR-RA SAG-BÚR-NA(SAĜ.DUN 5 .NA) SAG-MIR SAG-MIR(SAĜ.AGA) SAG-MEN SAG-KAL-LA SAG-KAL-LA SAG-ZI-DA SAG-LUL-LA SAG-DIŠ(sagSANTAG) SAG-NÍG-GA SAG-NÍG-GU-NA SAG-UD-SAR(SAĜ U 4 .SAKAR) SAG-MI(SAĜ.ĜI 6 ) SAG-MI-MI-GA(SAĜ.GÍG.GÍG.GA)

043 044 045 046 047 048 049 050 051

SAG-NUMUN(SAĜ.KUL) SAG-NUMUN-LÁ-LÁ(SAĜ.KUL.LÁ.LÁ) SAG-NUMUN-NUMUN(SAĜ.KUL.KUL) SAG-DU SAG-DU-AN-NA SAG-DU-KI-TA SAG-SU 6 -BAR-RA SAG-ŠU-BAR-RA SAG-MU-LUM(SAĜ MU.HUM)

052 053 054

SAG-BÚR-RU-BA(SAĜ BÚR.ŠUB.BA) SAG-SAL-LA SAG-É-A

152

idem (SAĜ.GAG // triangle) idem puhru (!KÌLIB) // congregation large congregation mu-uš-ši qa-aq-qa-di (TUKU 4 // to rock) mu-uš-šu pu-tu 4 pūtu elītu // high forehead pūtu šaplitu // low forehead pūtu pānu šarhu (!SAĜ.GÙ.ĜÁL) // proud idem idem ašāru // to supervise; guide paqādu // to take care; supervise wēdu // single; lone ēdēnu // alone gitmalu (!AŠ-DU / ŠAG 4 .GAN) // whole; perfect pirištu (!URAŠ) // secret abru II (!Á.BÚR) // nook šalṭu I // masterly; haughty abru I // powerful agû // crown idem waqru // precious šūquru // most precious kīnu // righteous sartu // lie; falsehood santakku // triangle; wedge rēš namkuri //head;capital;interest rēš bilti // interest on tribute rēš warhi // monthly interest erbu // evening ; erpu // clouded ṣalmat qaqqadi // ‘blackness of heads’ = mankind sikkuru // bolt; bar MIN si-ik-ku-ri ši-ik-ku-ra-tu 4 a-šu-ú (ašû II // headache) MIN e-lu-ú MIN ša-ap-lu idem idem (ŠU BAR // to release) gubbuhu // bald-headed (HUM // to snapp off) idem raqqu // thin tallaktu // going; walk; motion 159

Advanced Sign-lists * SAĜB 055a 055b 056 057a 057b 058 059a 059b 060a 060b 061a 061b 061c 062 063 064a 064b 065 066 067 068 069a 069b 070 071 072 073 074 075 076a 076b 076c 077 078 079 080a 080b 080c 080d 081 082 083 084a 084b 085a 085b 085c 086 087 088

SAG-GÁ-GÁ SAG-GÁ-GÁ SAG-SUM-MU SAG-GIŠ-RA SAG-GIŠ-RA SAG-GIŠ-RA-RA SAG-GALAM-DA(SAĜ.SUKUD.DA) SAG-GALAM-DA SAG-TAB SAG-TAB SAG-TAB-BA SAG-TAB-BA SAG-TAB-BA SAG-ZI-IG(SAĜ ZI.ĜÁL) SAG-SIKI SAG-SIKI-MU-BU(SAĜ.SIKI.MU.DUR 7 ) SAG-SIKI-MU-BU SAG-AN(SAĜ.DIĜIR) SAG-AN-TUKU(SAĜ.DIĜIR TUKU) SAG-AN-NU-TUKU(SAĜ.DIĜIR NU.TUKU) SAG-KUR-RA SAG-PAB-RA(SAĜ.KÚR.RA) SAG-PAB-RA SAG-TAR-DA(SAĜ.KUD.DA) SAG-BAL-LA SAG-BU-I(SAĜ GÍD.I) SAG-BU-I-I(SAĜ GÍD.GÍD.I) SAG-KI-BU(SAĜ KI.GÍD) SAG-GÍN(SAĜ.SUG 5 ) DÙL-Ù(KÚŠ.Ù) DÙL-Ù DÙL-Ù-AK-AK(KÚŠ.Ù AK.AK) ki-ri KA(KÌRI) KA-DU(KÌRI.DU) KA-GALAM-DA(KÌRI.SUKUD.DA) KA-HAR(KÌRI UR 5 ) KA-HAR KA-HAR KA-HAR KA-SI-IL-LA(KÌRI SI.IL.LA) KA-TAB(KÌRI.TAB) KA-DIB(KÌRI.DIB) KA-NÍG-RA(KÌRI.ĜAR.RA) KA-NÍG-RA KA-TAR(KÌRI KUD) KA-TAR KA-TAR KA-haTAR(KÌRI HAŠ) KA-DIB-BA(KÌRI DIB.BA) KA-EN-TE-NA(KÌRI EN.TE.NA)

153

rēšu šakānu hiāšu // to oppose dâku // to kill mahāṣu // to beat rapāsu // to hit; to stamp arku // long head (SUKUD//height) kurû (!LÚGUD) // short head idem šurrû // to begin pazāru Št // to hide tappû // companion; friend kabāsu // to stamp; flatten rēš šikinni // head of a creature pānit pērti // head hair malû II // dirty (hair) karru III // mourning (hair) awīl ili // man of god rašî ili // gaining a god lā rašī ili rēš šadî // top of the mountain šanû // other; foreign nakru // enemy zā’eru (!GÚ.DÙ.A) // hater; enemy nabalkutu // to overthrow šurrû I (!GÚ GÍD) // to bow down malhu // pulled out gubbuhu // bald-headed šassuku // bookkeeper mānahu // labour anāhu // to tire anāhu Št appu // nose arku (!GÍD.DA) // long kurû (!LÚGUD) // short ganāṣu // to snarl; to mock hanāṣu // idem šanāṣu // idem nahāru II // idem idem ašātu // (nose-)reins kiridippu // driver idem appu šaqātu nakšu // cut-off nose gazzu // shaved-off hamṣu // torn-off kettu ṣabtu // caught (by the nose) ša-hi-il-tu 4 (EN.TE.NA // winter)

Part 2 – Composite Edition KA-ŠU-IG(KÌRI ŠU.ĜÁL) KA-TÚL(KÌRI HÁB) KA-UD-DU-A(KÌRI È.A) KA-LUM(KÌRI HUM) KA-LUM KA-ŠAG 4 -GA(KÌRI ŠAG 4 .GA) KA-SÍG-ŠAG 4 -GA(KÌRI SIKI.ŠAG 4 .GA) KA KA-MAH KA-GU-LA KA-GU-LA KA-SI-A-GA(KA DIRIG.GA) KA-BÚR-RA KA-GI-NA KA-[NU-GI]-NA (+8) KA-AN-TAR KA-TAR KA-TAR KA-TAR KA-AN(!TAR)-ZI KA-AN(!TAR)-SI-IL-LÁ KA-HUL-A [KA]-HUL-A [KA]-HUL [KA]-HUL [KA-HUL]-IG(KA HUL.ĜÁL) (+?) KA-KUG-UD(ZÚ KUG.BABBAR) KA-ÚH-A(ZÚ.ÚH.A) KA-ÚH-A KA-EZEN(ZÚ.KÉŠ) KA-EZEN-EZEN(ZÚ.KÉŠ.KÉŠ) KA-EZEN-EZEN KA-RAD-NA(ZÚ.ŠÌTA.NA) KA-GAL(KÌRI.GAL!ĜÍR.GAL) KA-GAL KA-HAR-RA(ZÚ UR 5 .RA) KA-NE(ZÚ-NE) KA-NE KA-GUL(ZÚ.GUL) (+6) KAxME-AŠ-ŠA(EME AŠ-ŠA) 156 KAxME-U-AŠ-ŠA(EME U-AŠ-ŠA) KAxME-AŠ-ŠA-AŠ-ŠA(EME AŠ-ŠA-AŠ-ŠA) KAxME-TAR-KAL-TUKU (EME.TAR-KAL 157 .TUKU) 122a KAxME-SI-DI(EME SI.SÁ) 122b KAxME-SI-DI 123 KAxME-SI-<>DI(EME NU.SI.SÁ)

089 090 091 092a 092b 093 094 095 096 097a 097b 098 099 100 101 ... 102a 102b 102c 102d 103 104 105a 105b 106a 106b 107 … 108 109 110 111 112a 112b 113 114a 114b 115 116a 116b 117 … 118 119 120 121

154

labānu // to stroke (the nose) bīšu // bad; stinking (nose) šābulu // dried hummuṣu // torn-off hamšu // snapped-off idem pērtu // hair pû // mouth idem (MAH // mighty) rabû abtu (!KA.GUL) // destroyed watru // oversize mouth abru // powerful kīnu // steady; reliable lā kīnu ... [] [] [] dalīlu // hommage; praise [] [] lemnu // evil (mouth) zēru // hateful lemnu masku // bad lemnutu ... [] silver tooth [] [] kiṣru // knot [] kiṣru rāṭu // gutter; drainage channel namṣāru // sword blade patru // idem esēqu // to tear (with teeth) [] (ZÚ-NE=ZÚ.BIR 9 to laugh) [] [] ... šatiqtu // split (tongue) kaṣirtu // knotted; tied lu-ru kuṣsụ ru//knotted; twisted (tongue) idem išartu // straight (tongue) lā išartu

Advanced Sign-lists * SAĜB 124 125 126 127 128 129 130a 130b 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150a

KAxME-URI-MA-KI(EME URI.MAKI) KAxME-MAR-TU(EME MAR.TU) KAxME-SU-TI-UM(EME SU.TI.UM) KAxME-SU-EDEN-KI(EME SU.BIR 4 KI) KAxME-NIM-MA-KI(EME ELAM.MAKI) KAxME-GU-TI-UM(EME GU.TI.UM) KAxME-PAB(EME KÚR) KAxME-PAB KAxME-PAB-PAB(EME KÚR.KÚR) KAxME-HUL-IG(EME HUL.ĜÁL) KAxME-HUL-GIG(EME HUL.GIG) KAxME-BAL(EME BAL) KAxME-HA-MUN(EME HA.MUN) KAxME-SAG-GI-A(EME.SAĜ.GI.A) KAxME-SI-A(EME DIRIG) KAxME-HAL(!BAR)-BI KAxME-HI-GA(EME DÙG.GA) KAxME-NU-HI-GA(EME NU.DÙG.GA) KAxME-<ŠU->BAR-RA(EME <ŠU.>BAR.RA) KAxME-KI-EN-GI(EME KI.EN.GI) KAxME-KI-EN-NA-KI(EME KI.EN.NAKI) KAxME-ŠÈ-ME(EME GIR 15 .ME) KAxME-ŠID-GÁ KAxME-IGI-ŠID-GÁ KAxME-UR-SUM<<-A>>(EME TÉŠ.SÈ.A) KAxME-GIL-GIL-MA(EME GILIM.GILIM.MA) KAxME-SÙH-SÙH(EME SÙH.SÙH) KAxME-SIG 158 (EME.SIG)

150b 150c 151 152a 152b 153 154 155 156 157 158a 158b 158c 159 160a 160b 161 162 163 164 165

KAxME-SIG KAxME-SIG-KA-KA(!-GU 7 -GU 7 ) i-nim KA(INIM) KA-NÍG(INIM.ĜAR) KA-NÍG KA-ZI-DA(INIM ZID.DA) KA-GI-NA(INIM GI.NA) KA-NU-GI-NA(INIM NU.GI.NA) KA-AN-NA(INIM AN.NA) KA-KI-TA(INIM KI.TA) KA-É-GAL(INIM É.GAL) KA-É-GAL KA-É-GAL KA-EL-GAG-A(INIM.SIKIL.DÙ.A) KA-SI-A KA-SI-A(INIM DIRIG) KA-SI-DI(INIM SI.SÁ) KA-SI-<>DI(INIM NU.SI.SÁ) KA-<ŠU->BAR-RA(INIM <ŠU.>BAR.RA) KA-HUL-A(INIM HUL.A) Akk: ka-ṣì-ir-tu 4

155

akkaditu // Akkadian (language) amurritu // Amorite sutitu // Sutian subaritu // Subarian elamitu // Elamite gutitu // Gutian nakritu // enemy [] nakritu lemuttu // evil (language) zēritu // hateful [] (EME BAL // to translate) [] (HA.MUN // harmony) [] watartu // superfluous (speech) ahitu // side; surrounding ṭābu lā ṭābu wuššurtu [] (KI.EN.GI // Sumer) [] sumeritu // Sumerian (language) rēšūtu // (language of) servitude nisiqtu // (language of) choice [] (TÉŠ // unity; SÈ // to be equal) [] (GILIM // crossways) ašgagu // (language of) strife šubtu // residence 160 (EME.SIG // floor plank) mūšabu // residence karṣu akālu // to speak a falsehood awātu // word idem (Ì.ĜAR // oracular utterance) šakānu // to place (a claim) kittu // right(eous); true (word) idem lā kittu elitu šapiltu ekalli // (word of) the palace šillatu // (word of) insolence tašlimtu // supplementary (word) makkāru // tradesman(‘s word) malītu // full (wording) watartu // surplus (word) išartu // order lā išartu wuššurtu // release (order) lemuttu kaṣirtu

Part 2 – Composite Edition 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173a 173b 174 175 176a 176b 177 178 179 180 181a 181b 182 183 184 185a 185b 185c 185d 185e 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208

[KA]-DUGUD(INIM DUGUD) KA-AN-RA(INIM DIĜIR.RA) KA-LUGAL(INIM LUGAL) KA-KAL-LA(INIM KAL.LA) KA-KAL-KAL-LA(INIM KAL.KAL.LA) KA-GIL-GIL-MA(INIM GILIM.GILIM.MA) KA-LUL-LA(INIM LUL.LA) KA-AN KA-AN KA-ŠU-KÁR-GA KA(GÙ) KA-NÍG(GÙ ĜAR) [KA]-NÍG [KA]-NÍG-RA(GÙ ĜAR.RA) Akk: hu-bu-rù KA-GÁ-GÁ(GÙ ĜÁ.ĜÁ) KA-GIŠ-SAR(GÙ.<ĜIŠ>KIRI 6 ) KA-RI-A(GÙ RI.A) KA-RI-A KA-LU-LU-A(GÙ LU.LU.A!GÙ LÙ.LÙ.A) KA-ŠU-GA KA-NÍG(GÙ.ĜAR!GUR.GÚ) KA-DÉ-A(GÙ DÉ.A) KA-DÉ-A KA-DÉ-A KA-DÉ-A KA-DÉ-A KAxNUN(NUNDUM) KAxNUN-GAL-GAL(NUNDUM GAL.GAL) KAxNUN-KAL-KAL-LA(NUNDUM GAL.GAL.LA) KAxNUN-MAH(NUNDUM MAH) KAxNUN-SAG 9 -GA(NUNDUM SAG 9 .GA) KAxNUN-BÚR-NA(NUNDUM.DUN 5 .NA) KAxNUN-GI-NA(NUNDUM GI.NA) KAxNUN-NU-GI-NA(NUNDUM NU.GI.NA) KAxNUN-HI-GA(NUNDUM DÙG.GA) KAxNUN-NU-HI-GA(NUNDUM NU.DÙG.GA) KAxNUN-KA-UD-RA KAxNUN-AŠ-ŠA-AŠ-ŠA-RA KAxNUN-LUL-LA(NUNDUM LUL.LA) KAxNUN-ŠU-TAB-BA(NUNDUM ŠU.TAB.BA) KAxNUN-TÚL-BA(NUNDUM HÁB.BA) KA-GA(DUG 4 .GA) KA-GA-MAH(DUG 4 .GA MAH) KA-GA-GU-LA(DUG 4 .GA GU.LA) KA-GA-ZI-DA(DUG 4 .GA ZID.DA) KA-GA-NU-PAB-RU(DUG 4 .GA NU.KÚR.RU) KA-AN-RA(DUG 4 DIĜIR.RA) KA-LUGAL(DUG 4 LUGAL) KAxSA(SUN 4 )

156

kabittu // weighty (word) ili // (word) of a god šarri // (word) of a king šūquru // most precious (word) šūqurātu maglalu // rolling (word) sartu // false (word) idem šā’ilu 161 // dream interpreter idem rigmu // voice; noise ragāmu // to call; to charge rigimtu // charge; complaint idem hubburu habāru I // to make noise; be loud ki-ri-tu 4 (GÙ.KIRI 6 // battle cry) nabrarû (
Advanced Sign-lists * SAĜB 209 210a 210b 210c 211 212 213 214 215a 215b 216 217a 217b

KAxSA-ZA-KUR-NA(SUN 4 ZA.GÌN.NA) KAxSA-UD-DU-NE(SUN 4 È.DÈ) KAxSA-UD-DU-NE KAxSA-UD-DU-NE še KAxGÁ(!xŠID)(ŠEG 10 ) KAxGÁ(!xŠID)-GI-NA(ŠEG 10 GI.NA) ga-na KAxIM(!xMI=KANA) ur-gu KAxIM(!xNE=MURGU) uš KAxLI(UŠ 7 ) MIN KAxLI tu-ú KAxIM(!XLI=TU 6 ) ru-pu KAxIM ru-pu KAxIM

157

ellatu // pure; sacred beard [] (È // to raise; grow) [] ziqnānu // bearded šasû // to call (ŠEG 10 // voice) kinûtu [] (KANA // to be dark) libbatu // rage rūtu // spittle rupuštu // ejection šūlūtu // incantation rūtu rupuštu

Part 2 – Composite Edition 9. NÍĜ.GA=makkūru Organization of the material: There is one tablet and there are some floating fragments. The fragments are not used because, due to the lack of direct joins or close parallels, their placement in the reconstructed text is not feasible. The single tablet does not warrant a composite edition but the text is given here to provide it with an interpretation. References: The references given refer to version B of the parallel bilingual OB text. Note that some additional parallel entries may be found in the unilingual OB text 162 . EST

LOGOGRAMS, glosses and Akkadian

Interpretation

References

... 001 .01 002 .01 003 .01 ... 004

(+?) [NÍG-NE-RU] (NÍĜ.ÉRIM) raggu NIG-Á-[ZI] ṣīnu NÍG-Á-[KÍD]-NÍG(!NÍĜ.Á.TAK 4 .A) tēqitu (+1) [NÍG]-ŠU-KÍD-[A] (NÍĜ.ŠU.TAK 4 .A)

005 .01 .02 006 .01 .02 .03 007 .01 008 .01 009 .01 .02 .03 .04 .05 010 .01 011 .01 012 .01 013 .01

NÍG-GIG ikkibu maruštu [NÍG]-GIG-GA-A ikkibu maruštu marṣūtu [NÍG]-AL-DI erištu NÍG-AL-DI-AK erišta epēšu NÍG-ME-NÍG(NÍĜ.ME.ĜAR) qūlu na’āru rīštu rišātu išdihu NÍG-ZI kittu [NÍG]-GI-NA kittu NÍG-LUL sartu NÍG-LUL-A sartu

... evil idem violence anger rubbing; ointment ... gift (šūbultu) bad; forbidden thing taboo evil bad; forbidden thing

... 005 005 006 006 007 007 ... 008 (008) 009 009 030 030 010 010 059-60 060 055 055 054 054 053 053

bad; ill condition request demand; request to make a request to make a request silence; jubilation silence to roar jubilation idem profit righteousness truth; righteousness truth falsehood falsehood falsehood

158

Advanced Sign-lists * NÍĜ.GA=makkūru 014 .01 015 .01 016 .01 017 .01 018 .01 .02 019 .01 ... 020 .01 .02 021 .01 022 .01 023 .01 .02 024 .01 .02 025 .01 .02 026 .01 .02 027 .01 .02 .03 .04 028 .01 029 .01 030 .01 .02 ... 031 .01 .02-4

NÍG-SI-DI(NÍĜ.SI.SÁ) ešēru NÍG-NU-SI-DI(NÍĜ.NU.SI.SÁ) lā ešēru [NÍG]-SA 6 -GA dumqu [NÍG]-SA 6 -SA 6 -GA dumqātu [NÍG]-RU-BA(NÍĜ.ŠUB.BA) nadītu nadû [NÍĜ-KI-NUN]-DA(NÍĜ.GURUD.DA) miqtu (+?) [NÍG-PAB-DI] (NÍĜ.KÚR.DI) tašnintu nukurtu NÍG-PAB-DI-AK(NÍĜ.KÚR.DI.AK) GIR 5 / šanītu NÍG-PAB-AK-AK(NÍĜ.KÚR.AK.AK) kišpu NÍG-AK ruhû rusû NÍG-AK-AK erretu upšašû NÍG-DÍM-MA KUG-NI pinnanāru NÍG-DÍM-AK MIN MIN NÍG-GIL-MA(NÍĜ.GILIM.MA) mi-še-ri ša ša-ar-gi/qì-ti ša šahluqti mi-im-ma sa-bi/pí-qu NÍG-SÁM-MA šīmu NÍG-KI-LAM(NÍĜ.GANBA) mahīru [NÍG]-HI-GA(NÍĜ.DÙG.GA) mašāru ṭābu (+?) NÍG(ĜAR) ga-ar [...] MIN NÍG

159

justice to be right; just injustice to be wrong; injust goodness goodness goodness PLURAL that what has fallen that what has been dropped to throw down; drop that what has been throw fall ... hostility conflict hostility stranger magic; sorcery magic spell; witchcraft magic curse sorcery magic rodent 163

of destruction 164

price price market price market price good thing to slide; drag 165 good thing ... to put; place

056-7 102 102 ... 052 038 ? 064 064 065 065 ... 117 -

Part 2 – Composite Edition 10. DIRI=watru Organization of the material: The scattered remnants of the Emar Diri material are too fragmentary to allow a comprehensive reconstruction of its sequence. Provisionally, the present text and composite editions give the fragments, as far as possible, in the sequence of the parallel Ugarit material. For two sections, the AMAR-AMAR/KU 7 -KU 7 and NÍG-GÚG sections, the equivalents in the Ugarit texts are missing - these have been related to the rest of the material by positioning them in parallel to the canonical version (respectively before and after the rest of the text fragments). It should be noted, however, that the sequences found in the Ugarit and canonical versions differ from each other significantly. All relevant information on the placement and interrelation of individual fragments is found in the inventory and concordance of fragments preceding the text edition. References: The references given refer to the parallel canonical and Ugarit texts. Note that both these texts are spread over multiple tablets: the canonical and Ugarit have at least six and three tablets respectively 166 . It therefore seems likely that the Emar text originally also had more than one tablet. EST LOGOGRAMS, glosses and Akkadian

Interpretation

Canonical Ugarit

… 001 .01 .02 .03 .04

(+?) [AMAR-AMAR](ZUR.ZUR) kunnu kutannu suppu sullu

… 2011-6 2011 2012 -

… -

.05 .06 002 .01 .02 .03 … 003 .01 .02 004 .01 .02 .03 .04 .05 .06 .07

ṣ̣uhu šutemuqu KU 7 -KU 7 matqu ṭābu dašpu (+?) [IGI-IGI] pulluṣu dabdu [IGI]-DU(PALIL/IGIŠTU) 167 [pa-li-il]ašarēdu alik pāni alik warka alik mahra u DIĜIR IGI.DU [igi-ṣ̣u]ašarēdu alik pāni

… to take care of kanû D // to (at)tend kanû Dt to pray prayer (!AMARxŠE=SISKUR) laughter emēqu Št // to implore to be sweet; good sweet sweet; good honey ... to defeat palāsu D // to look at 168 BAD 5 .BAD 5 : defeat foremost foremost he that goes in front he that goes last he that goes first the god that goes in front foremost

2016 2014 1247-52 1248 1247 1249 … 2079-? 2092-4 2092 2094 2093 -

… 1324-? 1325 1328 1320-3 1322 1320 -

160

Advanced Sign-lists * DIRI=watru .08 .09 .10 … 005 006 .01 .02 .03 .04 .05 007 .01 .02 008 .01 .02 009 .01 010 .01 011 .01 012 .01 .02 .03 … .04 .05 .06 013 .01 .02 .03 .04 … 014 .01 … 015 .01 016 .01 017 .01 018

alik warka alik mahra mahru (+?) IGI-BU-DA(IGI.GÍD.DA) IGI-A(!-É=U 6 ) ú-ia tabritu hiaṭu hiaru hiašu amāru IGI-DU 8 igi-du 8 amāru naplusu IGI-BU(IGI.GÍD) igi-gíd amāru naplusu IGI-A(IMHUR 4 ) im-hu-ul hurhummat A IGI-BI(ÍMHUR) MIN KAŠ IGI-[GA](ÌMHUR) MIN GA [IGI-DUB](AGRIG/ĜIŠKIM) agriqqu [ab-ra]-akabarakku ittu (+1) tukultu takālu giskimmu IGI-[UR](HUL) hul lemnu masku zapru zēru (+3) LAGAB[-LAGAB](NÍĜIN) ni-in -ni 4 [...] (+?) [Ú-HAR-SAG-SAR] (ÚHUR.SAĜNISIG) azupīru [Ú-DIN-TIR-SAR] (ÚTIN.TIRNISIG) kamūnu [Ú-BURU 14 -SAR] (ÚSULLIMNISIG) (šam)baliltu [Ú-KI-AN-IM-SAR]

... ‘mountain plant’

… 2110 2110 2110 2111 2111 2112 2112 2100-9 2108 2109 2100 … 2102 2103 2104 2132-43 2132 2133 2135 2134 … ... 4002

… ?-1347 ?-1347 1405-12 1412 1411 … 1410 1354-5 … 1276-? … -

saffron ‘Babylon plant’

4002 4003

-

cumin -

4003 4004

-

clover -

4004 4009

-

first ... to look with disfavor admiration face; aspect to check; ponder to chose (!IGI KÁR) to hasten inside (!SAĜ SUM) to see (!IGI SUM; BAR; DU 8 ) to see to see to look at to look with disfavor to see to look at foam water foam foam beer foam foam milk foam steward/sign; omen AGRIG: steward AGRIG: administrator ĜIŠKIM: sign; omen ... ĜIŠKIM: trust ĜIŠKIM: to trust ĜIŠKIM: sign; omen to be bad bad; evil bad bad hatred (!HUL.GIG) ... to (en)circle

161

Part 2 – Composite Edition

.01 019 .01 020 .01 021 .01 022 .01 .02 023 .01 024 .01 .02 .03 .04 .05 .06 025 .01 .02 … 026 .01 .02 027 .01 028 .01 029 .01 030 .01 … 031 .01 … 032 .01 .02 .03 .04 (…) 033 .01

(ÚKI.AN.IMNISIG) qutrinnu [Ú-ŠAG 4 -SAR](ÚŠAG 4 NISIG) šaddaru [Ú-NUMUN-ŠAG 4 -SAR] (ÚKUL.ŠAG 4 NISIG) imikkaruru [Ú-GIŠ-SAR-SAR] (ÚĜIŠ.KIRI 6 NISIG) muthummu [Ú-KI-KAL-SAR] (ÚHIRIMNISIG) sassatu lardu [Ú-...] kissatu Ú-KI-SUM-GA(GÙD) qinnu hīšu kumāṣ̣u kušāru hīšu ṣ̣illu Ú-GIŠ-MI(DIMUŠ) [di-mu]-ušhīšu kumāṣ̣u (+?) Ú-NAGA-[HU](UGAMUŠEN) ú-ga [...] bu-ru [...] Ú-KA(MÚZUG) mu-su-ug [...] Ú-SAG(MÙZUG) MIN [...] Ú-KUR-SAL-TUKU(UZUG) x MIN [...] Ú-ZA-MÙŠ(ŠUBA) nam-ru [...] (+?) [la-ah]LAH 4 redû (+1) LAH 4 -LAH 4 la-ah-la-ah LAH 4 […] itarrû redû riteddû (join fragments 6+7?) [KAŠ 4 -KAŠ 4 ](GIR 5 .GIR 5 ) qa-al-lu-lu

incense (!NA.DÈ) ‘heart plant’ grass (!ŠAG 4 .LAM.BI) -

4009 4016 4016 4017

-

grass ‘garden plant’

4017 4019

-

garden fruit grass

4019 4020

-

grass cover nard root grass ? straw, fodder nest nest nest ring (!GIGÙD) bush bush shelter (!DIMUŠ)

4020 4021 4025-7 4025 4027 4029-35 4032 … 4038 4044 4045 4046 4047 … 2017-29 2019 … 2030-5 2031 2030 (…) 2039-47 -

… ?-2077 2078 2079 2080 … 2098-104 2103 … 2105-8 2106 2107 2108 (…) 2095-104 -

shade (!GIŠ-MI=ĜISSU) reed shelter; nest nest ring (!GIGÙD) bush shelter … raven sparrow (!BURU 5 MUŠEN) impure person impure person priest multicoloured; glittering shining; purified ... to bring to lead (away) … to bring warû Gtn // to lead (away) redû Gtn (…) to slip; glide

162

Advanced Sign-lists * DIRI=watru .02 .03 .04 .05 .06 .07 034 .01 .02 … 035 036 .01 .02 .03 .04 .05 .06 037 .01 .02 .03 038 .01 … 039 .01 … 040 .01 .02 .03 .04 .05 …

hitallupu napāgu ṭebû ṭitabbu hi-tal-pu hi-tal-pu-pu BÚR-BÚR su-u [...] bu-ru [...] (+?) GIŠ-GURUN GIŠ-BU(MUDUL, MADAL, ĜIŠ MALA, GAZINBU) [mu]-du-[ul...] [ma]-ad-la[...] [?giš]-ma-lamālalu [?a]-laalallu [ga-zum]-bigašīšu ga-zum-bi gazimānu GIŠ-URI i-ir appatān ṣ̣innitān ṣ̣erretān GIŠ-ŠÚ-ÁŠ(KÍBIR) gi-bi-il kibirru (+1) [GIŠ-ÙR] gu-šu-ur [...] (+?) [NÍG-GÚG] [ÀM].KU 4 .KU 4 īrubma [NU].SI.SÁ ul imalli [ÍB].TA.È uṣ̣ṣima [NU].SILIG.GA ul [ikâd] [NÍĜ].LUGAL.KE 4 [makkūr šarri] (+?)

halāpu Gtn // to slip inside to slip; to glide to plunge ṭebû Gtn // to plunge to spread out; cover SUN 5 : to enter PL ... fruit; flower pole; mortar; bar MUDUL: pole MADAL: pole MALA: wooden mortar stick (!A.LA.LA) GAZINBU: pole; post GAZINBU: bar; rod

2041 2045 2039 2040 2042-3 idem 2048-58 … 2310-1 2315-37

2335 2329 2330 3006-8 3006 3008 3007 3002-5 sharp implement 3002 … … 3017-9 tree-trunk; beam … … offering; cake 5181-7 erebu Prt // he entered 5183 malû Prs // he does not fill 5184 waṣ̣û Prs // he goes out 5185 kâdu Prs // he does not hold 5186 property of the king 5187 ... …

163

2096 2109-17 … … … …

Part 2 – Composite Edition APPENDICES - DIACHRONIC ANALYSIS Appendix 1 - Diachronic development of Sa key-sign inventory and sequence Commentary on Appendix 1 may be found in paragraphs 2.1.2.1., 2.3.3. and 14.2. of Part 3. Key to Appendix 1: [000] + s [] ? -

-

Base signs

A ŠUR PAD ŠIR HAR AH A’ HU RI BI NI BU ŠUD KU LU RU HA PEŠ LI LA LUM SIG 4 ŠID ZU ZA SU NU NA BA ZI GI

reconstruction (in PST from MSL; in MSL from Kish School Texts) attested attested in deviating sequence expected but probably broken possible traces expected but omitted PST

001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019 020 021 022 023 024 025 026 027 028 029 030 031

LBA Emar SaP

SaV

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + [] + + + + + + 164

Canonical version 169

MSL canonical key-sign number

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019 020 021 022 023 024 025 026 027 028

Appendix 1 GI 4 GIM PAN MA MU TAH GIŠ GÁ GÁN EN IN IRI EL ŠI SIG 7 HI KAM AN NAB MUL HAL UR NE BÍL KA SAG DÙL DU SUHUŠ KAŠ 4 I IA ŠU ŠAG 4 ŠA ÚH AŠ UD ERIM AD TA DA TI UM DUB ŠID URUDU AM IM IŠ

032 033 034 035 036 037 038 039 040 041 042 043 044 045 046 047 048 049 050 051 052 053 054 055 056 057 058 059 060 061 062 063 064 065 066 067 068 069 070 071 072 073 074 075 076 077 078 079

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + s + + s + + + + + + + +

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

165

029 030 031 032 033 034 035 036 037 038 039 040 041 042 043 044 045 046 047 048 049 050 051 052 053 054 055 056 057 058 059 060 061 063 062 064 066 065 067 068 069 070 071 072 073 074

Part 2 – Composite Edition GAL NUN ME MI DUGUD GIG DIN GEŠTIN ZUR SISKUR UZ TU ÍB EGIR DIM MAR RAD DIB TAB KASKAL LUH KAL LAGAB GU GA UB LAM PI GAG IR RA KI DI SAR SA NAM AB GUD UL AZ UG GÌR ALIM HUŠ ANŠE LUL NAGAR GÀR DAR ZUM

080 081 082 083 084 085 086 087 088 089 090 091 092 093 094 095 096 097 098 099 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 [120] [121] [122] [123] [124] 125 126 127

+ + + + + + [] + + [] [] [] [] + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + [] [] + + [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] + + +

+ + + + + + + + + [] + + + + + [] + + + + + s + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] + + + + + + + + + + [] [] [] [] [] [] [] []

166

075 076 077 078 079 080 081 082 083 [084] 085 086 087 088 089 [090] 091 093 094 095 096 092 097 098 099 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 119 120 121 123 124 125

Appendix 1 KUM GAZ ÁG PAB GUR BUR BAR SI SU 4 PA U Ù MAŠ NÍĜ AL IL Ú Á LÁ LÁL LÀL ZÍ DÉ UŠ SUM NAGA KU 7 KID DAG E É KÁ KISAL AR MUŠ ÚR ŠEŠ IB TAG SAL NIN DAM AK IG GÉME AMA EŠ ZIB KUR QA

128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 [147] 148 [149] [150] [151] 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + [] + + + + [] s [] [] [] + + + + + [] [] [] [] [] + + + + + + + + + + +

+ + + + s + + + + + + + + + + + + [] [] [] [] [] [] + [] + + + + + s + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

[] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] + + + + + + + + + + [] [] [] [] [] + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

167

126 127 128 129 122 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 [144] [142] [143] [145] [146] [147] 149 [148] 150 151 152 153 155 154 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171

Part 2 – Composite Edition TAR BE KUG SA 6 TUR UN GÚ DUR SIG SIG 5 TE KAR BAL ŠUL ŠAH LÚ LUGAL MAH HUL GUL ÁŠ ÍL GABA ÁRAD ÌR EZEN IDIM=BE ŠE ŠÈ=KU NIM TÙM KIŠ NIR ZAG GAN KAB KIB TIR TUK TAK 4 BARAG

177 178 [179] 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215

+ + + + + + + + + [] [] [] [] + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ? [] [] [] [] [] []

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

+ + + + + + + + + + + + [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] + s + + + + + + s + + + + + + + + +

168

172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 [184] [185] [186] [187] [188] [189] [190] [191] [192] [193] [194] 196 195 197 198 199 200 201 202 118 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211

Appendix 2 Appendix 2 - Diachronic development of the Hh tablet divisions Commentary on Appendix 2 may be found in paragraph 4.3. of Part 3. a/b - indicates multiple versions; (fr) - indicates fragmentary preservation determinati+es (SUPERSCRIPT) or main sections (REGULAR SCRIPT) found in preser+ed Emar Hh material

LBA LBA OB Nippur Ugarit Emar

-

ana ittišu 1

ĜIŠ

170

1 2 3

4

GI

2

DUG KUŠ

, AN, IM, ,

URUDU

ZABAR KUG.BABBAR KUG.GI

1 2 3a/3.1b 171 /3.2b

3

MUŠ, UR, KIŠI 8 , EH, NIM, BURU 5

4

4 MUŠEN

6,

SIG TÚG

,

A.ŠAG

8a/b

XIII

VIII.1

9

9a/b

10

10 11 (fr) 12 13

XIV XV XVI XVII XVIII XIX

VIII.2 IX X X VIII.2 X

XX XXI

XI XI

XXII

XI

XXIII XXIV

XI XI

12 13

(

ÍD

,) , ÉG, TÚL, (PA 5 ,)

MUL

14 15 16a/b

, ÉŠ

TU 7 , KAŠ, ŠIM, SÚN, ZÍD, NINDA

6

14 15

Ì, GA, NU.ÚR.MA, U 4 .HI.IN, ZÚ.LUM.MA, [MUN, NAĜA,] ESIR

169

VI VI VII VII VII VII VII

8

KI

KUR

VI VIIa/b VIII IX X XI XII

6 (fr) 7a/b

, GADA 5

VI

6 7

11

4

V

5

Ú KU

V V V V

5

UZU NA

I II III IV

4

,

UDU, UZUD, MÁŠ, GUD, ÁB, ANŠE, EME X , DÙR

1st MSL Millennium edition canonical volume version

17 (fr) 18 (fr)

Part 2 – Composite Edition Appendix 3 - Concordance of Hh Division 1-2 and KI.ULUDIN.BI.ŠÈ=ana ittišu Commentary on Appendix 3 may be found in paragraph 14.4.1. of Part 3. EST MSL Entry KI.ULUDIN.BI.ŠÈ =ana ittišu 1001 1002 1003 1004 ... 1006 ... 1023 ... 1042 ... 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 ... 1075b ... 1087 1088 ... 1090 ... 1092 ... 1096 ... 1097b 1097c …

1001 1002 1003 1004 ... 1006 ... 1022 ... 1048 ... 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1049 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1065 1066 1067 1068 ... 1097 ... 1115 1116 ... 1120-3 ... 1129 ... 1138 ... 11141 1143 …

UR 5 .RA ŠE(!EŠ).DÉ.A ŠU.LÁ ŠE(!ŠU).BAL

... IN.NA.AN.BA

... ŠE.BA

... MÁŠ

... MÁŠ.BI.ŠÈ IN.ĜAR D MÁŠ UTU D MÁŠ UTU GI.NA MÁŠ GI.NA MÁŠ GI.NA DAH.E(!HÉ)<.DAM> MÁŠ.BI MÁŠ.BI SAĜ.BA MÁŠ ĜÁ.ĜÁ.DAM MÁŠ DAH.E(!HÉ).DAM MÁŠ ŠÚM.MU.DAM MÁŠ GUR.RU.DAM MÁŠ NU.ME<<.ME>>(.A) MÁŠ AN.TUKU MÁŠ NU.AN.TUKU KI MÁŠ IRI .GIN 7 MÁŠ BA.RA.DAL(!BAL) MÁŠ MÁŠ MÁŠ.BI MÁŠ TUKU

... NIN

... LUGAL.A.NI NIN.A.NI

... KI

...

SAĜ

ÌR

... ŠU BA.AN.TI

... ŠU BA.AB.TÈĜ.[ĜE 16 ] ŠU BA.AB.TÈĜ.[ĜE 26 .E.MEŠ]

…

170

2 I 57 2 I 69 2 I 76 2 I 79 ... 1 I 35-7 ... 5 A3 9 ... 2I1 ... 2I4 2 I 16 2 I 17 2 I 18 2 I 20 2I2 2 I 44 2 I 45 2 I48 2 I 51 2 I 15 2 I 11 2 I 12 2 I 34 2 I 35 2 I 22 2 I 23 ... 5 A 1 18 ... 5 A 1 2-3 5 A 1 19 ... 2 II 56 ... 3 IV 47 ... 2 II 27 ... 2 II 37-8 2 II 39-40 ...

Appendix 3 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 … 1105 ... 1107 ... 1112 1113 1114a 1114b ... 1115a 1115b 1115c 1116a 1116b 1116c 1117a 1117b ... 1133 1134 1135 1136 1136a 1136b 1137 1138a 1138b 1139 ... 1141 1142 ... 1145 1145a ... 1148a 1148b 1148c ... 1148e ... 1153a ...

1144-6 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 ... 1159 ... 1161 ... 1236 1235 1237 1238 ... 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1249 ... 1294 1295 1296 1297 1298 1299 1300 1301 1302 1304 ... 1311 1312 ... 1321 ... 1329 1330 1331 ... 1332 ... 1339 ...

[ŠU.TEĜ 4 ] [ŠU.TI.A.NI ŠU BA.AN].TEĜ 4 [ŠE GUR 10 KUD] [ŠE GUR 10 KUD.ŠÈ] [UD ŠE GUR 10 KUD] [EGIR ŠE GUR 10 KUD] … EBUR.ŠÈ [BA.RA.ÈD.DÈ] .. MU.UN.KUR 9 [ŠE] ... KILÚ-KAL (=ULUDIN).BI.DA KI ĜIZKIM.BI.DA 172 BA.RA.È.A BA.RA.ÈD(!È).A.E ... Ì.LÁ Ì.LÁ.E Ì.LÁ.E.MEŠ IN.NA.AN.LÁ IN.NA.AN.LÁ.E IN.NA.AN.LÁ.E.MEŠ Ì.ÁĜ.ĜÁ Ì.ÁĜ.ĜÁ.E.MEŠ ... KI LÚ.SILIM.MA.TA ù LÚ.SILIM.GI.NA.TA KUG.B.BI ŠU BA.AB.TEĜ 4 SÁM SÁM.BI SÁM.BI.ŠÈ SÁM.BI.ŠÈ IN.ĜAR SÁM TIL.LA SÁM NU.TIL.LA EGIR SÁM TIL.LA

... INIM NU.ĜÁ.ĜÁ.A MU LUGAL IN.PÀD

... KI.BI.ĜAR.RA KI.BI.ĜAR.RA.BI.ŠÈ

... IGI 3 ĜAL.ÀM IGI 4 ĜAL.ÀM IGI 5 ĜAL.ÀM

... IGI 10 ĜAL.ÀM

... Ì.BA ...

171

2 II 9 2 II 11 3I5 3I6 3I7 3I8 ... 3 I 13 ... 3 I 18 ... 1I1 1I2 1I7 1 I 10 ... 1 II 1 1 II 3 1 II 4 1 II 5 1 II 7 1 II 8 1 I 62 1 I 65 ... 2 II 68 idem 2 II 69 2 III 36 2 III 37 2 III 38 2 III 39 2 III 40 2 III 41 2 III 45 ... 6 I 57 6 II 28 ... 2 III 46 2 III 47 ... 4 II 43 4 II 46 4 II 49 ... 4 II 52 ... 1 I 29-31 ...

Part 2 – Composite Edition 1155 ... 1158b ... 1174 ... 1177 ... 2003 2004 2005 ... 2021a 2021b 2022a 2022b 2023 2024 ... 2032 ... 2034a ... 2040 2041a ... 2042c 2042d 2043a ... 2047 2048 ... 2051 ... 2073 2074 2075 2076 ... 2079 2080 ... 2146 ... 2149 ... 2160 2161

1345 ... 1352 ... 1370 ... 1375 ... 2003 2004 2005 ... 2037 2039 2040 2042 2043 2044 ... 2055 ... 2057 ... 2066-8 2070 ... 2076 2078 2079 ... 2090 2092-3 ... 2099 ... 2129 2130 2131 2136 ... 2135 2138 ... 2242 ... 2247 ... 2262 2263

KUG.BABBAR.TA GUB.BA

... ÍB.TA.A.AN.GUB.BA

... UD KUG.BABBAR MU.UN.TÚM

... IN.NA.AN.ŠÚM

... TÚL.DA PÀD SILA.DA KUR 9 .RA KA UR.GIR 15 .A.NI.ŠÈ IN.[x]

...

IN.KÚR IN.KÚR.E.MEŠ IN.PÀD.DA IN.PÀD.DA.E.MEŠ NAM.DUMU.A.NI.ŠÈ NAM.IBILA.NI.ŠÈ

...

KÁM

ZÚ.KEŠDA MU 1

... BÍ.IN 4 .DUG 4

...

is-qí

KÁ KÉŠ.DA IN.NA.SUM

ĜIŠ

IG

ĜIŠ

SAĜ.KUL GUB.BA

... IN.ĜAR IN.ĜAR.E.ME(Š) IN.DIB

... ZÍ.RI.DAM NA 4 KIŠIB LIBIR PA.AD.DI ZÍ.RI.DAM

…

i-gi-ri

EGIR

…

da-ga-ag-ga

GANBA GANBA GU.LA GANBA TUR.RA GANBA GI.NA

… GANBA KALAG.GA GANBA DÙG.GA

… DA

… ÚS.SA.DU

… [DAL.BA.NA] [É DAL.BA.NA]

172

2 I+ 21 ... 1 IV 57 ... 2 IV 41 ... 3 II 70 ... 3 III 32 3 III 33 3 III 34 ... 1 III 58-9 1 III 60-1 1 III 24-6 1 III 27-9 3 III 60 3 III 64 ... 6 II 81 ... 1 IV 73 ... 4 IV 2-3 1 I 21 ... 1 II 9-10 1 II 15-6 1 III 72-4 ... 6 IV 14 6 IV 13 ... 6 II 29 ... 2 III 17 2 III 18 2 III 19 2 III 23 ... 2 III 22 2 III 24 ... 6 IV 44 ... 6 IV 65 ... 6 IV 46 6 IV 47

Appendix 4 Appendix 4 - Inventory of the lexical series of periods II-IV 173 Series with certainty attested in Emar are specified in bold type. A.

Canonical series and their forerunners

Syllabaries 1. 2a. 2b. 3a. 3b. 3c. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19.

Tu-ta-ti (basic syllabic writing) Syllable Alphabet A/B (basic signs, onomasticon) Syllable Vocabulary A/B (Syllable Alphabet with added vocabulary) Syllabary A (basic logograms, canonical series - MSL III) Syllabary A Vocabulary (Syllabary A with added vocabulary – MSL III) Syllabary A Palaeography (palaeographic study of Syllabary A logograms) Syllabary B Vocabulary (extended version of Syllabary A Vocabulary - MSL III) e-a A=nâqu (basic logograms with or without vocabulary - MSL II and XIV) á A=nâqu (extended version of e-a:A=nâqu, canonical series - MSL XIV) Aa Commentary (MSL XIV) Reciprocal Ea (homophone syllable index to Ea - MSL XIV) a Á=idu (excerpt of á:A=nâqu) i-zi NE=išātu (acrographic compound-word list - MSL XIII) di-ir SI-A=watru (complex compound logograms - MSL III and XV) IGI.DUH.A=tāmartu (summary of Izi - AfO 18 (1957-8) 81-6.) ALAN=lānu (acrographic word list) ÉRIN.HUŠ=anantu (Akkado-Sumerian ‘dictionary’ with synonym, antonym and homonym vocabulary - MSL XVI) AN.TA.ĜÁL=šaqû (extended version of ÉRIN.HUŠ=anantu - MSL XVI) ÚLUTIN=nabnitu (etymological Akkado-Sumerian ‘dictionary’ - MSL III and XVII) šarru (bilingual group vocabulary) malku=šarru (Akkadian synonym list) Emesal vocabulary (MSL IV)

Thematic lists 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29.

AN=anum and other gods lists (Litski, Weidner) (HAR)UR 5 .RA=hubullu (encyclopaedic compendium - MSL V-XI) MUR.GUD=imrû:ballu (commentary to Hh and Lu - MSL V-XI, alongside Hh) KI.ULUTIN.BI.ŠÈ=ana ittišu (administrative and legal terminology, partially parallel transmitted forerunner to Hh I-II - MSL I) LÚ=ša and other LÚ lists (continuation of Hh - MSL XII) Ú Ú URU.AN.NA= maštakal (plants, stones and insects - MSL VIII/2 and X) šammu šikinšu (plants) abnu šikinšu (stones) Practical Vocabulary (excerpts from Hh and Lu - AfO 18 (1957-8) 328-40 and MSL XII) grammatical texts (MSL IV)

173

Part 2 – Composite Edition B.

Exclusively pre-canonical series

Syllabaries 1. 2. 3.

KÁ.GAL=abullu (acrographic word list - MSL XIII) NÍĜ.GA=makkūru (acrographic listing of compound SAĜ A and B (compound words - MSL SS 1)

words - MSL XIII)

Thematic lists 4. 5. 6.

UGU.ĜU 10

(body parts, forerunner to Hh XV - MSL IX) profession lists such as ED Lu A and E and Names and Professions (MSL XII) LÚ ÁZLAG=ašlakku (professions and human properties, supplement to protoLÚ=ša - MSL XII)

174

Annotated Bibliography ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY Organization … confusa et noxia illa librorum multitude … All text publications, editions and commentaries used for the new edition of the Emar material provided by parts 1 and 2 of The Emar Lexical Texts are listed in the following annotated bibliography. It should be noted that a few lexical texts from Emar are published and/or edited outside Arnaud’s Emar VI: in the following bibliography such text publications and editions are marked with a bracketed asterisk (*). The most important works, each covering the Emar material as a whole, are listed first in the section Primary references. These are the first publication and edition by Arnaud in Emar VI, the reviews of it by Civil, Durand and Klengel as well as Cohen’s dissertation on the Emar school. These works are frequently referred to in the present study and in the notes to parts 1 and 2 they are simply referred to by the name of the author (i.e. ‘Arnaud’, ‘Civil’ and ‘Cohen’). Apart from the primary references and a final section dealing with miscellaneous publications, this bibliography has been organized by presenting the relevant books and articles in sections, according to the relevant lexical series and/or chronological span they cover. Each title is followed by a short description of content. This presentation is meant to provide the reader with some guidance in the often inconsistent and fragmented literary landscape of Assyriology. Note that a regular, alphabetically organized bibliography for parts 1-3 of The Emar Lexical Texts will be found at the end of Part 3. For the new edition of the Emar texts given in this study, parallel texts were used extensively and a systematic listing of all important parallel texts, including 1st Millennium canonical, LBA peripheral and OB versions, is found in Organizational Table 4 of Part 1. Many of these parallel texts may be found in MSL (the appropriate volumes are briefly discussed in the relevant sections of the bibliography below). Additionally, a more detailed discussion of MSL is given in the introduction to Part 1. With regard to other Emar-related themes further literature may be found by referring to the Emar Bibliography section below.

175

Part 2 – Composite Edition List of bibliographical abbreviations Note that the only abbreviations given in italics are those that refer to periodicals. Abbreviation Full reference AbZ AfK AfO AHw AOAT AS ASJ AuOr baM BiOr BLT BM BSNESJ BTG CRAIBL CT Di DCCLT ePSD FVH IEJ KBo JCS JNES KAv LB MSL MSL SS MVaG NABU OECT OLz OrNS PBS RA RlA RS SLT UF YBC ZA

R. Borger, Assyrisch-babylonische Zeichenliste. AOAT 33/33A (Neukirchen-Vluyn 1981) Archiv für Keilschriftforschung: internationale Zeitschrift für die Wissenschaft vom Alten Orient Archiv für Orientforschung: internationale Zeitschrift für die Wissenschaft vom Alten Orient W. von Soden, Akkadisches Handwörterbuch I-III (Wiesbaden 1959-1981) Alter Orient und Altes Testament Assyriological Studies Acta Sumerologica (Japan) Aula Orientalis. Revista de estudios del Próximo Oriente Antiguo Die babylonisch-assyrische Medizin in Texten und Untersuchungen Bibliotheca Orientalis M. Yoshikawa and E. Matsushima, ‘Bilingual Lexical Tablet’, BSNESJ 23.2 (1980) 1-23 British Museum catalogue number Bulletin of the Society for Near Eastern Studies in Japan M. Civil, ‘HAR-ra=hubullu: Tablet X dug=karpatu’ in: W. Sallaberger, Der babylonische Töpfer und seine Gefässe nach Urkunden altsumerischer bis altbabylonischer Zeit sowie lexikalischen und literarischen Zeugnissen. Mesopotamian History and Environment Series II Memoirs III (Ghent 1996) Comptes rendus - Académie des Inscriptions & Belles-Lettres Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum Sippar excavation number (catalogue in Tanret, Schooltabletten) Digital Corpus of Cuneiform Lexical Texts (http://cdli.ucla.edu:1680/dcclt/) electronic Pennsylvania Sumerian Dictionary (http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/) K. Watanabe, ‘Freiburger Vorläufer zu HAR-ra=hubullu XI and XII’, ASJ 9 (1987) 277-91 Israel Exploration Journal Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazköi Journal of Cuneiform Studies Journal of Near Eastern Studies O. Schroeder, Keilschrifttexte aus Assur verschiedenen Inhalts (Leipzig 1920) Liagre-Böhl catalogue number Materialien zum sumerischen Lexikon, later: Materials for the Sumerian Lexicon Materials for the Sumerian Lexicon. Supplementary Series Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft Nouvelles assyriologiques brèves et utilitaires Oxford Editions of Cuneiform Texts Orientalische Literaturzeitung: Monatschrift für die Wissenschaft vom ganzen Orient und seinen Beziehungen zu den angrenzenden Kulturkreisen Orientalia. Nova Series Publications of the Babylonian Section, Universit of Pennsylvania Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale Reallexikon der Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archäologie Ras Shamra excavation number M. Gantzert, ‘Syrian Lexical Texts 1-3’, UF 38 (2007) Ugarit Forschungen Yale Babylonian Collection catalogue number Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und verwandte Gebiete

176

Annotated Bibliography Primary references Arnaud, D., Recherches au pays d’Aštata. Emar VI (Paris 1985-7) --- Volumes 1 and 2 contain the autograph publication of almost all epigraphic material unearthed by the Mission Archéologique d’Emar led by Margueron. This material is ordered by excavation number and a catalogue (Volume 1 p. 7-21) lists the exact locations where each text fragment was found. Volume 4 contains Arnaud’s original composite edition of the Emar lexical material - in it each text fragment is given an edition number ordered by series (e.g. 537 is SaV, 540 is Diri etc.). Note, however, that some edition numbers refer to unspecified generic text types (fragments acrophoniques, lexicographiques etc.) and that the numbering within Hh reflects improvisation rather than actual tablet divisions. Some commentary on the characteristics and limitations of the Arnaud edition is provided in the introduction preceding the new text edition provided by this study. Civil, M., ‘The Texts from Meskene-Emar’, AuOr 7 (1989) 5-25. --- This review of Emar VI pays special attention to the lexical material, giving some additions, suggesting certain joins as well as providing alternative readings. Cohen, Y., The Transmission and Reception of Mesopotamian Scholarly Texts at the City of Emar (Ann Arbor 2003) --- This study of the Emar school texts dedicates a special chapter (Chapter 3) to analysis of most of the lexical material (it does not treat G, Kagal, Nigga and Diri). Apart from the orthographic-linguistic analysis that is its main purpose, Chapter 3 offers some autograph joins, mostly based on Civil’s review, and various excursus on scribal errors. Among the other contributions to the study of the Emar school texts provided by Cohen are a contextual, socio-historical analysis of the school (partially based on a study of the colophons) and a study of some non-lexical genres (the omen and incantation texts). References to various improved readings and relevant text analysis in Cohen are systematically included in the present edition by means of footnotes. Durand, J.M., ‘Daniel Arnaud, Recherches au Pays d’Aštata, Emar VI, Textes sumériens et accadiens, Ed. Recherche sur les civilisations, Paris, 1986, vol. 1, 2 et 3.’, RA 83 (1989) 163-91 and RA 84 (1990) 49-85 --- This review of Emar VI focuses on part of the non-lexical texts in the Arnaud publication and consists of a general commentary followed by a list of improved readings and addenda (the first part of this list is found in RA 83, the second in RA 84). The general commentary contains many remarks that are also valid for the lexical part of the Emar VI. Klengel, H., ‘Die Keilschrifttexte von Meskene und die Geschichte von Aštata/Emar’, OLz 83.6 (1988) 645-53 --- This review provides the Emar VI texts with background, information, giving an overview of the historical context of the Emar archives and a listing of the attestations of the city of Emar in cuneiform documents from other parts of the Ancient Near East.

177

Part 2 – Composite Edition 1. Syllable Alphabet A Vocabulary (Svo) General Beaulieu, P.A., ‘An Excerpt from a Menology with Reverse Writing’, ASJ 17 (1995) 1-14 --Contains an analysis of selected entries from Svo in the context of examples of retrography in cuneiform literature. Farber, G., ‘Kleiner Leitfaden zum Silbenvokabular A’ in: B. Böck (ed.), Munuscula Mesopotamica. Festschrift für Johannes Renger (Münster 1999) 117-33 --- Contains a general introduction to Sal/Svo as well as a complete inventory of all known texts, ordered by period and provenance. Hallo, W.W., ‘The Lame and the Halt’, Eretz Israel 9 (1969) 66-70 --- Contains a discussion of the Svo entries BA.ZA and BA.ZA.ZA (EST 048-9), including references to their attestations as PNs. Landsberger, B., ‘Die angebliche babylonische Notenschrift’, AfO Beiheft 1 (1933): Aus fünf Jahrtausenden morgenländischer Kultur. Festschrift Max Freiherrn von Oppenheim zum 70. Geburtstage gewidmet von Freunden und Mitarbeitern 170-8 --- Contains a composite edition of OB and NA Sal A texts, defines the Syllable Alphabet as a series, relates it to the added vocabularies and places it in a historical and literary context. Emar Cavigneaux, A., ‘Lexicographie’, NABU 1988 2/26 --- Offers identification, transliteration and interpretation of additional fragments. Soden, W. von, ‘Weitere Bemerkungen zu Texten aus Emar’, NABU 1989 1/8 --- Offers identification and transliteration of an additional Svo fragment. LBA Periphery Nougayrol, J., ‘“Vocalisés” et “syllables en liberté” à Ugarit’, in: H.G. Güterbock and Th. Jacobsen (eds.), Studies in Honor of Benno Landsberger on his Seventy-Fifth Birthday: April 21, 1965. AS 16 (1965) 29-39 --- Contains the composite edition of the tu-ta-ti, Sal A and Svo A texts from Ugarit with a commentary. Fragments are mostly reconstructed in larger multi-column tablets and the preserved sections are listed by tablet and tablet face (letters A-G) as well as line number. In addition, one excerpt tablet was found and has been edited separately on page 39 (in this study it is referred to as text H). Nougayrol, J., ‘Nouveau “Silbenvokabular A” d’Ugarit (RS 29103)’, RA 63 (1969) 83-5 --Contains the edition of the Svo A text of RS 29103, found after the publication of the Ugarit material published by Nougayrol in FS Landsberger. Old Babylonian Çiğ, M. and H. Kizilyay, Zwei altbabylonische Schulbücher aus Nippur (Ankara 1959) --Contains an edition of tu-ta-ti and Sal B texts from Nippur, a concordance of the latter with the composite Sal A text reconstructed by Landsberger in FS Oppenheim (1933) and a commentary by Landsberger in which he interprets Sal as a list of (parts of) PNs and Svo as adding speculative secondary interpretations.

178

Annotated Bibliography Sollberger, E., ‘A Three-column Silbenvokabular A’ in: H.G. Güterbock and Th. Jacobsen (eds.), Studies in Honor of Benno Landsberger on his Seventy-Fifth Birthday: April 21, 1965. AS 16 (1965) 21-8 --- Contains an edition of the Svo A text of BM 13902, with reconstructions from parallel texts. 2. Syllabary A/Vocabulary/Palaeography (Sa/V/P) Emar Sjöberg, Å.W., ‘Studies in the Emar Sa Vocabulary’, ZA 88 (1998) 240-83 --- Contains inventory, commentary and index for all new or deviating glosses, logogram readings and Akkadian forms occurring in the Emar SaV. This article also includes a detailed study of the West Semitic vocabulary that may underlie some of these forms. Gong, Y., ‘Die mittelbabylonischen Namen der Keilschriftzeichen aus Hattuša und Emar’, RA 85 (1995) 47-57 --- Contains a synchronic study of all sign names found in Emar and Hattusha as well as systematic diachronic references to the canonical version edited in MSL. LBA Periphery Gantzert, M., ‘Syrian Lexical Texts 1-2’, UF 38 (2007) (abbreviated SLT 1-2) --- The first article of this series (SLT 1) contains a synchronic analysis of the peripheral SaP texts, including a comparison with the SaV texts. The second article (SLT 2) gives a an analysis of the LBA peripheral appendices of Sa(V), including re-editions and reinterpretations of part of the relevant text corpus. The concordances included in both articles provide a comprehensive Peripheral Standard Text reference system for the Saformat lists as well as their appendices. Nougayrol, J., ‘Textes suméro-accadiens des archives et bibliothèques privées d’Ugarit’, Ugaritica V (Paris 1968) 1-446 --- Contains publication and edition of most Sa and SaV material from Ugarit (publication respectively 409-410 and 418-23; edition respectively 203-10 and 230-50). Soldt, W.H. van, ‘The Ugarit Version of Syllabary A’ --- Contains a new edition and analysis of all Ugarit Sa/P material, including a comparison with the Ugarit SaV material. Canonical Landsberger, B., Das Syllabar A; das Vokabular Sa; das Vokabular Sb; Berichtigú.ungen und Nachträge zu MsL II; Indices zu MSL II. MSL III (Rome 1955) --- Contains a composite text for Sa and SaV that intends to establish a canonical version. It should be noted that, in fact, both composite texts contain much material from periods earlier than the 1st Millennium: the Sa text (p. 3-45) is partially reconstructed from the Old Babylonian Kiš school-text and the SaV text (p. 49-87) is actually a mixture of 2nd Millennium Assur and Hattusha texts.

179

Part 2 – Composite Edition 3. Weidner God List (G) Emar (*) Laroche, E., ‘La version hourrite de la liste AN de Meskène-Emar’, CRAIBL 1989 8-12 --Contains some remarks on the unpublished Sumero-Hurrian version of G (‘Astata VII 1’). General Lambert, W.G., ‘Götterlisten’, RlA Band 3: Fabel-Gyges und Nachtrag (Berlin 1957-1971) 473-9 --- Contains an overview of the typology and history of the lists of DNs, including a discussion of the form and content of the Weidner List. Schroeder, O., ‘Ein neuer Götterlistentypus aus Assur’, ZA 33 (1931) 123-47 --- Contains the first systematic identification as well as a partial reconstruction of the list that is now generally known as the Weidner List, including a somewhat dated but still useful alphabetic inventory of all DNs with commentary. Weidner, E.F., ‘Altbabylonische Götterlisten’, AfK 2 (1924-5) = AfO 1-3 (1923-6) 1-18 and 71-82 --- Expanding Schroeder’s edition, this article adds the OB material and gives a full composite edition, provided with extensive commentary. This edition is the standard basic reference point for the reconstructed list, now mostly referred to as the ‘Weidner List’. LBA Periphery Arnaud, D., ‘Les textes cunéiformes suméro-accadiens des campagnes 1979-1980 à Ras Shamra-Ougarit’, Syria 59 (1982) 199-222 --- Contains the autograph publication and edition of an additional G text from Ugarit. The commentary includes some comparisons with the Emar material. Gantzert, M., ‘Syrian Lexical Texts 3’, UF 38 (2007) (abbreviated SLT 3) --- The third article of the SLT series contains a synchronic analysis of the peripheral G texts and the concordance included gives a comprehensive Peripheral Standard Text reference system for G. Nougayrol, J., ‘Textes suméro-accadiens des archives et bibliothèques privées d’Ugarit’, Ugaritica 5 (1968) 1-446 --- Contains a composite edition of the Ugarit G material (including critical apparatus) on pages 210-30. Note that another G text is found on a tablet together with SaV, and is edited separately as part of text 137 on pages 246-9. Secondary literature Black, J., and A. Green, Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia. An Illustrated Dictionary (London 1992) --- This thematic dictionary examines most of the divinities listed in G, offering an overview of their names, titles, attributes and interrelations.

180

Annotated Bibliography 4. HAR(UR 5 ).RA=hubullu (Hh) Note that for Hh an overview of the correspondences between the Emar divisions and the canonical tablets published in MSL, with a parallel listing of the relevant volumes, is provided in Appendix 2 of Part 2. 4.1. Divisions 1-2 LBA Periphery Arnaud, D., ‘Les textes cunéiformes suméro-accadiens des campagnes 1979-1980 à Ras Shamra-Ougarit’, Syria 59 (1982) 199-207 --- Contains an edition of Ugarit Hh 1 extract RS 1979-22, which has added phonetic spelling of the Sumerian entries and text parallel to Emar 1167-1177, including translation and comparative commentary. Huehnergard, J. and W.H. van Soldt, ‘A Cuneiform Lexical Text from Ashkelon with a Canaanite Column’, IEJ 49 (1999) 184-92 --- Contains the edition of a Hh 1 fragment found in Ashkelon which also offers a systematic comparison with the relevant sections of the Ugarit and Emar material and a reconstruction of the Canaanite entries to the ITI-entries equivalent to 1111a-f. Old Babylonian Landsberger, B., Die Serie ‘ana ittišu’. MSL I (Rome 1937) --- Contains the series KI.ULUDIN.BI.ŠÈ=ana ittišu, which includes much material that partially precedes or runs parallel to Emar divisions 1-2. It offers an English translation, a concordance with canonical tablets I-II and an extensive commentary. Not that a revised concordance with MSL, a new concordance with Emar and a commentary on the relation between KI.ULUDIN.BI.ŠÈ is provided in Appendix 3. Canonical Landsberger, B., The Series ‘HAR-ra=hubullu’, Tablets I-IV. MSL V (Rome 1957) --Contains the edition of the first part of Hh (canonical tablets I-IV), covering the material parallel to Emar divisions 1-2 (canonical tablets I-II), which is provided with an English translation. 4.2. Divisions 3-4 Emar Farber, G., ‘Mannam Lušpur ana Enkidu: Some New Thoughts about an Old Motif’, JNES 49 (1990) 299-321 --- Contains a partial transliteration and interpretation of the Mannam Lušpur incantation found following the Hh text of 3aT1. The article provides an overview of the whole literary tradition of the incantation, listing all known parallels.

181

Part 2 – Composite Edition Old Babylonian Veldhuis, N.C., Elementary Education at Nippur. The Lists of Trees and Wooden Objects (Groningen 1997) --- Contains a composite edition of the Old Babylonian ĜIŠ-list material found in Nippur, resulting in a Standard Nippur Text (SNT) of 707 entries. This Standard Nippur Text is provided with extensive philological commentary, including a systematic comparison with the relevant Emar material. A discussion about the historical and educational context precedes the actual edition and a concordance is added to it. Canonical Landsberger, B., The Series ‘HAR-ra=hubullu’, Tablets I-IV. MSL V (Rome 1957) --Contains the edition of the first part of Hh (canonical tablets I-IV), covering most of the material parallel to Emar division 3 (canonical tablets III-IV). Landsberger, B., The Series ‘HAR-ra=hubullu’, Tablets V-VII. MSL VI (Rome 1958) --Contains the edition of canonical tablets V-VII, covering the rest of the material parallel to Emar divisions 3-4 (canonical tablets V-VII). Canonical tablet VII has been edited in two versions (A and B). 4.3. Divisions 5-7 Emar (*) Watanabe, K., ‘Freiburger Vorläufer zu HAR-ra=hubullu XI and XII’, Acta Sumerologica 9 (1987) 277-91 (abbreviated FVH) --- Contains the photo publication and an edition of a large fragment of 7aT3, acquired by the Freiburg Museum für Völkerkunde. This fragment has been re-edited in this study as part of the larger tablet to which it belongs (7a T 3) - it will here be referred to as the FVH-fragment, in reference to its first edition provided in this article. Canonical Civil, M., ‘HAR-ra=hubullu: Tablet X dug=karpatu’ in: W. Sallaberger, Der babylonische Töpfer und seine Gefässe nach Urkunden altsumerischer bis altbabylonischer Zeit sowie lexikalischen und literarischen Zeugnissen. Mesopotamian History and Environment Series II Memoirs III (Ghent 1996) (abbreviated BTG) --- Contains an updated and revised edition of canonical tablet X, presenting the material in approximately the same modernized format as provided by the later MSL publications. Sallaberger’s book, of which this edition is a part, also provides useful indexes to Sumerian and Akkadian vocabulary (p. 95-118) found in the DUG-list (Emar division 10) as well as an extensive relevant bibliography (p. 119ff.). Landsberger, B., The Series ‘HAR-ra=hubullu’, Tablets VIII-XII. MSL VII (Rome 1959) --Contains the edition of canonical tablets VIII-XII, covering the material parallel to Emar divisions 5-7. Note that the edition of canonical tablets IX and XII is riddled with big gaps, at times hindering a coherent reconstruction. In this study, a commentary about the gaps in the MSL edition of canonical tablet IX precedes the composite edition of division 5.

182

Annotated Bibliography 4.4. Divisions 8-13 Emar Fleming, D., ‘The NIN.DINGIR/ittu at Emar’, NABU 1990 1/8 --- Contains remarks on the use and reading of the term NIN.DIĜIR.RA in Emar with a discussion of the relevant passage in 13E2 (556 D). Canonical Civil, M. and Landsberger, B., The Series ‘HAR-ra=hubullu’, Tablet XV and Related Texts, with Additions and Corrections to MSL II, III, V and VII. MSL IX (Rome 1967) --Contains the edition of canonical tablet XV, which is the part of the material parallel to Emar division 9 that was not covered in MSL VIII. It also edits the series UGU.ĞU 10 , which is thematically related to the UZU-list. Landsberger, B., The Fauna of Ancient Mesopotamia. MSL VIII 1-2 (Rome 1960-2) --Thematically arranged, this volume of MSL covers the tablets with domestic and wild animals, fish and birds. Divided into two parts, part one contains the edition of canonical tablet XIII, covering the material parallel to Emar division 8. Part two contains the edition of canonical tablets XIV and XVIII, covering the material parallel to part of Emar division 9 and to the whole of Emar division 12. In addition, part two edits sections of the series ÙURU.AN.NA=Ùmaštakal, Practical Vocabulary of Assur and malku=šarru that are thematically related to the list of domestic animals in division 9. Note also that each part contains an excursus on some specific vocabulary. Landsberger, B. and Reiner, E., The Series ‘HAR-ra=hubullu’, Tablets XVI, XVII, XIX and related Texts. MSL X (Rome 1970) --- Contains the edition of canonical tablets XVI, XVII and XIX, covering the material parallel to Emar divisions 10-12. It also edits the Neo-Babylonian Stone List and a section of the series ÙURU.AN.NA=Ùmaštakal, thematically related to the NA 4 -list. 4.5. Divisions 14-18 LBA Periphery Soldt, W.H. van, ‘The Ugarit Version of Harra-hubullu 20-21a. A New Source’ in: M. Dietrich and O. Loretz (eds.), Mesopotamica – Ugaritica – Biblica. Festschrift für Kurt Bergerhof zur Vollendung seines 70. Lebensjahres am 7. Mai 1992 (Neukirchen 1993) 427-46 --- Contains a revised edition of the Ugarit material parallel to canonical tablets XX-XXIa (Emar divisions 14-15), which including a new text (LB 2647) and replaces the incomplete and jumbled edition of the RS Forerunners in MSL XI. Note that a few addenda to this article are provided in the remarks preceding the composite edition of divisions 14-17.

183

Part 2 – Composite Edition Canonical Reiner, E., The Series ‘HAR-ra=hubullu’, Tablets XX-XXIV. MSL XI (Rome 1974) --Contains the edition of canonical tablets XX-XXIV, covering the material parallel to Emar divisions 14-18. No coherent reconstruction is offered - instead, the limited and fragmentary source materials are presented in loose sections. Note that van Soldt’s revised edition of the Ugarit material (‘Ugarit Version’) now replaces the (incomplete and jumbled) edition of the RS Forerunners to canonical tablets XX-XXI given in this part of MSL. 5. LÚ=ša (Lu) Emar Soden, W. von, ‘Weitere Bemerkungen zu Texten aus Emar’, NABU 1989 1/8 --- This note identifies fragment 74198c, edited as ‘texte de contenu indéterminé’ in Emar VI 4 (787), as belonging to Lu and offers improved readings and some discussion about the deviating horizontal organization of its entries. It also offers some remarks about the lexical item A=MU X and the lemma ummūtu. OB Taylor, J., ‘A New OB Proto-Lu-Proto-Izi Combination Tablet’, OrNS 70.3 (2001) 209-34 --Contains the edition of an OB tablet combining parts of Proto-Lu and Proto-Izi, similar to what is found on Emar Lu 2T1. The transliterations are accompanied by a translation and followed by an extensive commentary, much of which is relevant to the interpretation of equivalent entries found in the later part of Lu 2. Canonical Civil, M., The Series lú=ša and Related Texts. MSL XII (Rome 1969) --- Contains the collected editions of all series with the theme LÚ from all places and all periods starting with the ED period, as far as known at the time of publication (i.e. before the discovery of the Emar texts). This includes the canonical series LÚ=ša and its forerunner OB Proto-LÚ, the latter of which is followed quite closely in the Emar material. This part of MSL also offers useful introductions to the material it covers. General Landsberger, B., ‘Babylonian Scribal Craft and Its Terminology’ in: D. Sinor (ed.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Third International Congress of Orientalists Cambridge 21st-28th August 1954 (London 1954) 123-7 --- Contains a listing of Sumerian terminology relevant to scribal work and the school, including interpretations of many titles and epithets encountered in Lu.

184

Annotated Bibliography 6. IZI=išātu (Izi), 7. KÁ.GAL=abullu (Kagal) and 9. NÍĞ.GA=makkūru (Nigga) Emar Sjöberg, Å.W., ‘Some Emar Lexical Entries’ in: A.K. Guinan a.o. (eds.), If a Man Builds a Joyful House: Assyriological Studies in Honor of Erle Verdun Leichty (Leiden and Boston 2006) 401-29 --- Contains interpretations of many individual entries found in the various texts listed by Arnaud as Fragments de listes acrophoniques and Fragments de textes lexicographiques (564-600), which include (part of) the Izi, Kagal and Nigga material. These interpretations include cross-references to other lexical and literary texts from Emar and elsewhere and offer many Semitic etymologies. LBA Periphery Weiher, E. von, ‘Ein Vokabularfragment aus Boğazköy (KBo XVI 87)’, ZA 62 (1972) 109-14 --- Contains an edition of some additional Izi material from Hattusha that is to be added to the sources of MSL XIII p. 132, covering numbers Tablet E 170-83 as well as some extra IGI-compounds. Wilhem, G., ‘Die zweite Tafel der serie Kagal in Hattusa’, ZA 79 (1989) 73-9 --- Contains an edition of additional Kagal fragments and reconstructs the spread of the various keysign sections of Hattusha Kagal across two tablets. OB Taylor, J., ‘A New OB Proto-Lu-Proto-Izi Combination Tablet’, OrNS 70.3 (2001) 209-34 --Contains the edition of an OB tablet combining parts of Proto-Lu and Proto-Izi, similar to what is found on Emar Lu 2T1. The transliterations are accompanied by a translation and followed by an extensive commentary, much of which is relevant to the interpretation of equivalent entries found in the first part of Izi 1 (1001-15). General Civil, M., Izi=išātu, Ká-gal=abullu and Níg-ga=makkūru. MSL XIII (Rome 1971) --Contains edition of the canonical versions of the series listed in the title as well reconstructions of their forerunners. It should be noted that OB Izi tends to expand as it is transmitted into later periods, evolving to a canonical version of encyclopaedic size that incorporates material of earlier separate series. For the canonical version so far 21 tablets have been reconstructed (mostly only partially and without certainty about their sequencing), compared to the two tablets of its OB forerunner. Some canonical tablets contain sections relevant to the Emar material. Other relevant material is found in the edition of Hattusha Izi. This part of MSL offers useful introductions to the material covered and discusses, among other topics, the complicated relation between the different texts over different periods.

185

Part 2 – Composite Edition 8. SAĜ B (SagB) Emar Sjöberg, Å.W., ‘Some Emar Lexical Entries’ in: A.K. Guinan a.o. (eds.), If a Man Builds a Joyful House: Assyriological Studies in Honor of Erle Verdun Leichty (Leiden and Boston 2006) 401-29 --- Contains interpretations of many individual entries found in the various texts listed by Arnaud as Fragments de listes acrophoniques and Fragments de textes lexicographiques (564-600), which include (part of) the Sag B material. These interpretations include cross-references to other lexical and literary texts from Emar and elsewhere and offer many Semitic etymologies. (*) Yoshikawa, M., and E. Matsushima, ‘Bilingual Lexical Tablet’, BSNESJ 23.2 (1980) 1-23 (abbreviated BLT) --- Contains the photo and autograph publication and an edition of the largest fragment of T 1, acquired by the Institute of Oriental Culture in Tokyo. This fragment has been re-edited in this study as part of the larger tablet to which it belongs - it will here be referred to as the BLT-fragment, in reference to its first edition provided in this article. General Civil, M., O.R. Gurney and D.A. Kennedy, The Sag-tablet; Lexical Texts in the Ashmolean Museum; Middle Babylonian Grammatical Texts; Miscellaneous Texts. MSL SS 1 (Rome 1986) --- Contains a re-edition of the BLT-fragment as part of a complete edition of all Sag-related material known at the time (i.e. without joining it to the fragment later published as number 575 in the Arnaud edition). This volume, the first in the MSL Supplementary Series, also contains a discussion of the place of the different Sag-materials in the wider acrographic tradition. 10. DIRI=watru (Diri) Emar and general Civil, M., The Series DIRI=(w)atru. MSL XV (Rome 2004) --- Contains the collected editions of all presently known Diri texts, including the material from Emar. The Emar material, collated for the MSL edition, is presented in a composite format but with a concordance specifying the reconstructed texts. Note that some minor corrections and additions to this edition and a concordance of the Emar VI 4 and the MSL editions can be found in the text edition of present study. MSL XV also offers useful general introductions to the material covered. Rutz, M.T., ‘More Diri from Emar’, NABU 2006 4/85 --- Contains the transliteration of a newly identified Diri fragment (fragment 6 - 74159g) and gives the parallel Ugarit text.

186

Annotated Bibliography Emar colophons Cohen, Y., ‘Kidin-Gula – the Foreign Teacher at the Emar Scribal School’, RA 1998 (2004) 81-100 --- Contains a discussion of the identity of one of the teacher’s appearing in the colophons found in the lexical material and corrects of some of the readings offered by Arnaud. Fleming, D.E., Time at Emar: the Cultic Calendar and the Rituals from the Diviner’s Archives (Winona Lake 2000) --- In the discussion of the ‘diviner’s archive’ (Chapter 2), attention is given to the colophons found in the lexical material (p. 26ff.). Yamada, M., ‘The Family of Zū-Bacla the Diviner and the Hittites’ in: S. Izre’el, I. Singer and R. Zadok (eds.), Past Links. Studies in the Languages and Cultures of the Ancient Near East. Israel Oriental Studies 18 (Winona Lake 1998) 323-34 --- Contains a reconstruction of the genealogy of the family of Zu-Bacla the diviner, in whose library most of the Emar lexical material was found. It offers a detailed discussion of many colophons found in the lexical material of the diviner’s library. Emar bibliography Ikeda, J., ‘A New Contribution to Northwest Semitic Lexicography’, BiOr 60-3/4 (2003) 26480 --- This article reviews Pentiuc’s West Semitic Vocabulary but also contains a complete list of all published Emar text material with notes and references (276-80). Cuneiform lexicology in general Cavigneaux, A., ‘Lexicalische Listen’, RlA Band 6: Klagegesang-Libanon (Berlin and New York 1980-3) 609-41 --- This article gives a comprehensive overview of cuneiform lexicology and contains references to all publications, editions and secondary literature available at the time of its publication. Civil, M., ‘Lexicography’ in: S.J. Lieberman (ed.), Sumerological Studies in Honor of thorkild Jacobsen on his Seventieth Birthday June 7, 1974. AS 20 (Chicago and London 1975) 123-57. --- This article contains a historical and methodological introduction to cuneiform lexicology as well as a discussion of the main literature. Civil, M., ‘Ancient Mesopotamian Lexicography’ in: J.M. Sasson (ed.), Civilizations of the Ancient Near East IV (New York 1995) 2305-14. --- This article gives a short general introduction to cuneiform lexicology. Hoskisson, P.Y., ‘Emar as an Empirical Model of the Transmission of Canon’ in: K. Lawson Younger, W.W. Hallo and B.F. Batto (eds.), The Biblical Canon in Comparative Perspective. Scripture in Context IV. Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Studies 11 (Lewiston and Queenston 1991) 21-31 --- Contains a discussion of selected parts of the Emar lexical curriculum (p. 23-4) with regard to their diachronic position within the larger lexical tradition. A general characterization of the whole curriculum is given in the conclusion (p.26-8).

187

Part 2 – Composite Edition NOTES 1

Cf. Cohen, 135. Cf. Nougayrol, ‘“Vocalisés”’, 29-31. 3 Ibidem, 30. 4 Note, however, that the vertical organization is primarily geared to graphic analysis, including of such features as reduplication and retrograde spelling. The latter resulted in sequences such as 031-4 A-PAP, PAP-A, A-AN, AN-A - cf. Beaulieu, ‘Reverse Writing’ 7-9. 5 A recent overview of available publications and editions for all periods is found in Farber, ‘Leitfaden’. 6 Perhaps a scribal error for bi-it-rù, but cf. Cohen, 154. 7 Cohen, p.154, n.265. 8 Note the parallels for 107.1 and 108.1 in Ugarit N (RS 29103) IV06-07: ru-qu-u ša Ì.DÙG.GA i-du-u : nu-‘-ú ša mim-ma ú-ul i-de 4 and IV08: nu-‘-ú LÚ.ba-ar-hu. 9 Cohen, 155. 10 LU.LU<.BU.NA> would be read ‘offspring’ 11 Term current in haruspicy: Nougayrol, ‘Vocalisés’, p.35 n.54. 12 Note that PAP.E ‘canal’ would be within the semantic range of the Akkadian. 13 Cf. Hallo, ‘The Lame and the Halt’, 67-70. 14 Note that SAG-AN is found with the value TIRIGI (cf. ePSD), suggesting its reading as graphic variant of SIA=DIRIG. 15 Note the parallel in Ugarit D21 a-ri-ra, probably referring to the deverbal noun ariru ‘priest’. 16 HU.RU<.UM> would be read ‘child’. 17 AN.Ú<.SA 11 .AN> would be read ‘evening’. 18 Cf. Cohen, 155-6. 19 Note that the count for SaV is based on the concordance covering all peripheral Sa material found in Gantzert, ‘SLT 1’, UF 38 (forthcoming), using Peripheral Standard Text numbers. In other words, the PST numbers refer to the reconstructed score text of all peripheral material combined and the PST count used here does not only counts entries preserved in the attested Emar SaV texts, but also those that are lost in broken sections and (possibly) some that are only found in other peripheral sites. A concordance of PST count and the Sa reference numbers of MSL 3 may be found in Appendix 1. 20 Note that interpolation 17 may be interpreted as the sign name of EZEN(=ŠÌR) IDIM MURUB 4 .GUB.BA ŠI-RU KASIG-GÁN ‘IDIM standing inside, širu the pronunciation’) with a somewhat twisted writing of the Sumerian expression KA.KA.SI.GA (‘pronunciation’). The fact that the words are spread over several lines may be an indication that the student was writing down oral instructions, the elements of which he additionally provided with multiple individual Akkadian equivalents. 21 Suggestion by Veldhuis (personal communication). 22 Suggestion by Veldhuis (personal communication). 23 Alternative interpretations for 006.09-10 offered by Cohen, 178-9. 24 Interpretations for 008.1-4 follow Cohen, 185. 25 Note that the Akkadian equivalent uqquru means ‘cripple’ and that the sign name is ib-bi, which seems to refer to IB ‘hips’, allowing a semantic association with both preceding HAL ‘thigh’ and following UR=awilu ‘man’. 26 Critical evaluation by Cohen, p.179 n.306. 27 Alternative interpretation by Cohen, p.179, n.307. 28 Cf. Cohen, p.175 n.293. 29 Note that both a distance calculation between the fragments in SaV T1 and the line count in the parallel Ugarit text RS 20.135+ (= Ugaritica V 113 = van Soldt, ‘The Ugarit Version of Syllabary A’ text B 1 ) make it likely that the sections 5-10 and 11-23 in fact (partially) overlap. The present reference numbers 5-23 and the present gap indication are merely given to furnish the maximum amount of information until complete restoration becomes possible. 30 Note that PST numbers 26-7 are missing in the line count to make the numbering conform to the concordance with the parallel Ugarit and Assur material given in Gantzert, ‘SLT 2’ (forthcoming). 31 Emendation from probable parallel in RS 20.135+21.63, Ugaritica V 113+117, vSoldt, ‘The Ugarit Version of Syllabary A’ (forthcoming) text B 1 ) VIII 26’. 32 The Akkadian equivalent warqu ‘green’ may be explained by reading SAR=NISIG, instead of the reading SAR=MÚ which is suggested by the prefix i-, appropriate to a verbal form. 33 Note that this may be interpreted as a ‘broken spellings’, cf. B. Groneberg, ‘Zu den gebrochenen Schreibungen’, JCS 32.3 (1980) 163-4. 34 The Akkadian equivalent miqittu ‘fall’ seems to refer to an alternate spelling of Sumerian DIRIG ‘to fall’, (normally SI-A), viz. as GA, which is sometimes found for homophone DIRIG ‘to be supreme’ (cf. ePSD). 35 Cf. J.J. Stamm, Die akkadische Namengebung (Leipzig 1939) 259. 2

188

Notes

36

Note that the count for G is based on the concordance covering all peripheral material found in Gantzert, ‘SLT 3’, UF (forthcoming), using Peripheral Standard Text numbers. In other words, the PST numbers refer to the reconstructed score text of all peripheral material combined and the PST count used here does not only counts entries preserved in the attested Emar G text, but also those that are lost in broken sections and (possibly) some that are only found in other peripheral sites. 37 Reading confirmed by Colophon of Izi1 T1 (LEE II 3’). 38 Cf. kallāpu AHw, 425. 39 For suggestions concerning identification of 235-8 as Elamite DNs cf. Nougayrol, Ugaritica V p.229 n.215. 40 Appendix 3 gives a table of concordance with the KI.ULUDIN.BI.ŠÈ=ana ittišu series, with references to MSL 1 edition (which has translations of the specified lexical items and an gives additional commentary of many items on p. 109-252). 41 The section 1167-77 has an interesting parallel in Ugarit which gives a phonetic spelling of the Sumerian entries: RS 1979-22 - publication and edition with attention to the Emar material in: Arnaud, ‘Textes cunéiformes 1979-1980’, 199-203. 42 Lexicalization with nominal value, variant of Ur III MU.DU. 43 Note the omission of the 7th month, tašrītu. 44 Reading suggested by Krispijn (personal communication). 45 For reconstruction of and commentary on the Canaanite equivalents for entries 1111a-f, found in the text fragment from Ashkelon (Ash97-50.49.L485B178 #49535), cf. Huehnergard and van Soldt, ‘Ashkelon’,191-2. 46 For the še’u - u’’u discussion cf. Cohen, 239-44. 47 MSL has variants 1280-2 TAB, TAB.BA.NI, TAB.BA.NE.NE with variants NAM.TAB.BA, NAM.TAB.BA.A.NI, NAM.TAB.BA.NE.NE, 541 F seems to have both. 48 Appendix 3 gives a table of concordance with the KI.ULUDIN.BI.ŠÈ=ana ittišu series, with references to MSL 1 edition (which has translations of the specified lexical items and an gives additional commentary of many items on p. 109-252). 49 Glosses 542A I 49’ and 542B I 10’. 50 The following passage has a parallel in PBS 8,2 137 and is treated in M. Roth, Scholastic Tradition and Mesopotamian Law: a Study of FLP 1287, a Prism in the Collection of the Free Library of Philadelphia (Language, Ancient), 103-14 (reference kindly supplied by Krispijn). 51 After UMBIN the expected verbal form would have the root KUD(TAR). 52 Cf. discussion offered by von Soden, NABU 1989 8. 53 Presumably KAL-NA reflects Akkadian loan DAN.NA (dannu) for KAL=KALAG. 54 Note that LAGAB also has the reading KUR 4 , appropriate to the Akkadian equivalent kurṣimu. 55 The phonetic value is probably /ša/; a discussion is available in Veldhuis, Elementary education, 172. The sign form found in the OB and canonical versions is ŠÚ-A but 543 A clearly has an in-written A-element (formal likeness with AbZ 522 AMBAR) . 56 Parallel to emerah(UD-SAL-HÚB) in both canonical version and OB Nippur (Veldhuis, Elementary education, 173). 57 Signs indicated as defined in AbZ (p.289): LAGABxA=BUĜIN, LAGABxNÍĜ=BÚĜIN, LAGABxU-A=BUĜIN 4 58 Arnaud: ŠUDUL(ŠÚ-DUN 4 ); here nir is interpreted as an Akkadian translation of ŠUDUL (with MEŠ as gloss marker). 59 Cf. Hallo, ‘The Lame and the Halt’, 69. 60 ásal-dùg, i.e. ásal-HI. 61 Cf. Veldhuis, Elementary education, 175. 62 Cf. Ugarit attestation ŠAG 4 .HUL.LA discussed in SNT commentary p.176. 63 Note phonetic proximity of ÚŠ/EŠ and ti-ik-šu/takšu I ‘drilling’ (AHw, 1309). 64 Perhaps graphically defective GILIM(.MA) for napraku ‘bolt’, or phonetic for GAN.NA sikkuru. 65 Discussion Veldhuis, Elementary education, 179-80. 66 The MSL parallel suggests that DU reflects a phonetic rendering of DÚB. 67 Perhaps a hybrid based on (AHw, 699) IGI.GÁL APIN nabritu and PA.GABA APIN nabru. 68 Perhaps corruption of NAM.NU.TAR.RA/E. 69 Parallels in AHw, 356. 70 Note that the section 4326a-c, found in T1, covers part of the gap between 4325+4162-4 and 4327 found in T2 – this gap is about 10 lines long, which means that missing text between 4164-4326a and 4326c-4327 can only be a few lines in size. 70 Arnaud: ŠUDUL(ŠÚ-DUN 4 ); here nir is interpreted as an Akkadian translation of ŠUDUL (with MEŠ as gloss marker). 71 Cf. [šerha..] AHw, 1216. 72 Krispijn: ‘(of) Fars (Persia)’ (personal communication).

189

Part 2 – Composite Edition

73

Canonical Hh VIIa has a series of SÌLA-entries but without the exact measurement equivalents (MSL 6 p.104). Civil, 15: EME-[tab]-ba. 75 Arnaud reads šú! but the sign form rather seems to indicate UD or GADA (or, combining the MÁ and UD elements, corrupted HÚB). 76 Reconstruction according to Civil, 15. 77 Reconstruction according to Civil, 15. 78 Reconstruction according to Civil, 15. 79 Reconstruction according to Arnaud Annexe I. 80 Reconstruction according to Civil, 15-6. 81 Cf. qanû I AHw, 898. 82 Canonical Hh lists SUG=šutukku ‘swamp’, but here it has been replaced by ŠUG=šukurru ‘ration’. 83 Arnaud: ZA-tenû-ZA-tenû. 84 Cf. pehû II AHw, 853. 85 Note that phonetically related dešu means ‘sprout’. 86 kid-gìr-uš. 87 Interpretation as KUN.ZI.DA by Civil, 16. 88 Improved BTG count. 89 Improved BTG count. 90 Improved BTG count. 91 Improved BTG count. 92 Improved BTG count. 93 Improved BTG count. 94 Cf. FVH Commentary note 38f. . 95 Note that graphically related KAxA has the value NAĜ, which in turn is a phonetic variant of NAĜA, meaning ‘mortar’, conform the contextual semantic range. 96 LÚ.IM would be sarru ‘false’. 97 Perhaps reflecting uššu III AHw, 1442. 98 The ŠE.GÍN section not preceded by KUŠ in Version B but is here given as part of the KUŠ section, following MSL 7, 137-8. 99 Interpretation follows Sjöberg, ‘Lexical Entries’, 426. 100 Semantic range of metal work: šeleppaju AHw, 1210. 101 DAG-KISIM 5 xLU+MÁŠ. 102 Possible alternative reading: NUNDUM(KAxNUN).MA. 103 Note how the gloss reflects the graphic form (with BI for KAŠ and GAG for DÙ) instead of the phonetic values. 104 Reconstruction follows Civil, 17. 105 Cf. MSL 13, 163. 106 For interpretation 8b019-21 cf. MSL 13, 160-2. 107 For gloss PU-DU cf. MSL 8,1 n. 163a(2) p.22; also note that ZAG = paṭu ‘border’. 108 Note that Emar pá-lu-u may either reflect ibilu ‘camel; dromedary’ or refer to the BAL element. 109 W.w. Hallo, ‘Correction to Seals Lost and Found BM 6 (1977), 55f.’, RA 75 (1981) 95. 110 Cf. Cohen, 237. 111 Cf. urû V AHw, 1436. 112 A systematic comparison of the phonetic Sumerian entries of 12E1 and the regular logogram entries in 12T1 given by Cohen, 220. 113 Possible readings for BIR include GIRIŠ ‘butterfly’ and ZANZANA ‘dragonfly’ - the former is found in MSL 18244. Note that 12T1 IV 18 has the remains of sa- after BIR but that 12E1 LE 12 has the gloss gu-ru-uš. 114 Note the combined logographic and phonetic use of DU-element: logographic as part of UD-DU compound, phonetic with the value RÁ. 115 Cf. WS etymology for AHw šâbu I. 116 Ptc watû ‘to find; discover’. 117 Commentary in Sjöberg, ‘Lexical Entries’, 428. 118 The MSL 10 edition of the RS Forerunner (p. 152 notes to 217-20 and 253) suggests the reading A-DU=tuše on the basis of the gloss tu-še in Diri. However, here A-DU will be read A.RÁ based on the phonetic spelling A.RA found in 13021. The Diri gloss tu-še may reflect the Akkadian word (equivalent tu-un-šu) rather than the Sumerian word. Also note the phonetically and possibly semantically relevant words A.RÁ=alaktu (attestations AHw, 31) and arāmu ‘to cover’. 119 Akkadian i-ti for entu - cf. Fleming, NABU 1990 1/8. 120 Note that spelling suggest Hurrian derivation (tuhšiwe AHw, 1367). 74

190

Notes

121

Cf. Semitic etymology for ekēdu AHw, 193. Note the phonetic proximity with šišītu I ‘skin’ AHw, 1250. 123 Akkadian equivalent (né-ba-ah na<>-ba-ši) is assumed to reflect repetition of 13062 in view of the Sumerian phonetic gloss hé-mi-ta found in 13E2 27’. 124 The parallel logogram for pappardilu is NA 4 NÍR BABBAR.DILI. 125 Some of the identifications offered in the interpretation were supplied by van Soldt (personal communication). 126 Cf. Cohen, 258. 127 For interpretation of various scribal titles cf. Landsberger, ‘Babylonian Scribal Craft’, 125-6. 128 arru II AHw, 71. 129 Cf. Cohen, 259-60. 130 Cf. Fleming, NABU 19901/8. 131 Cf. Cohen, 261 - note that the reading iz-bu ‘abortion’ is contextually equally appropriate. 132 Note that the same division between tablets I/II is also found in Ugarit and that there is no reason to contrast the Ugarit and Emar traditions at this point (as proposed in Hoskisson, ‘Emar’, 23). 133 For interpretation of OB equivalents for many entries from 2064 onwards cf. Taylor, ‘OB Proto-Lu-ProtoIzi’, 215-31. 134 Note ŠÚ = kalû cult singer. 135 The adjustment munnakru > munnarbu follows Civil, 23 (note, however, also that KÚR = nakāru (Dt)). 136 MSL 12, 117 and 107 respectively. 137 For interpretation of OB equivalents of entries Izi 1 1005-15 cf. Taylor, ‘OB Proto-Lu-Proto-Izi’, 219-20 and 231-4. 138 A discussion of the word AN.BAR as referring to meteoric metal and of the magic properties of knives may be found in M. Eliade, Cosmologie et alchimie babyloniennes (Paris 1991) 58 and 62ff orig.: Cosmologie şi alchimie babiloniană (Bucharest 1937). 139 For alternative interpretation of pitru (AHw, 870) cf. Sjöberg, ‘Lexical Entries’, 406. 140 For other interpretations of al-lu-ta-nu cf. Sjöberg, ‘Lexical Entries’, p.406 n.11. 141 For interpretations of entry 1014 cf. Sjöberg, ‘Lexical Entries’, 407. 142 Perhaps related to šarbābu ‘release of strenght’. 143 Entry series 2A015 may also have the logogram GAZ: the first Akkadian equivalent (hepû) is regularly rendered GAZ (cf. attestations of AHw, 340). 144 Note parallels with ÚLUTIN=nabnitu for entries 2A009-11 listed by Sjöberg, ‘Lexical Entries’, p.40 n.2. 145 For interpretation cf. Sjöberg, ‘Lexical Entries’, 412-3. 146 Perhaps related to pittu ‘sphere of power’ or BAD = petû ‘to open’. 147 Alternative reading bartu ‘rebellion’ suggested by Sjöberg, ‘Lexical Entries’, 425. 148 Note that the sequence GIZ.ZAL-GIŠ is not attested in Izi Hattusha or in any other Izi text but has a parallel in Proto-Kagal 514ff. (MSL 13, 81). 149 Note that although in Hattusha there are no direct parallels for the Emar entries, a BAD section is also found on Hattusha Tablet B (MSL 13, 144-5). 150 Line of Tablet B Obverse. Note that, based on the Emar sequence (which has BAD before MUD - cf. 2BT1 V’ 1’-15’), the sides of Hattusha Tablet B may have to be reversed. Note that a systematic comparison of the Emar entries 2B021-7 and their Hattusha equivalents is given by Cohen, 269. 151 Sjöberg, ‘Lexical Entries’, 424 suggests reading pá-ru-u and a connection to Arabic fry ‘to become confounded’. 152 Sjöberg, ‘Lexical Entries’, 414 suggests a connection to Arabic msk ‘to arrest, take hold of’. 153 Semantic context suggests relations to either līṭu I/ luṭû ‘knotted’ or to letû II ‘to split’. Note that the appropriate logogram to the latter alternative, DAR, is also appropriate to following 4006e salātu. 154 Sjöberg, ‘Lexical Entries’, 415 suggests a connection to Syriac pšḥ ‘to tear to pieces’. 155 Cf. MSL 13, 125, 227 and 242ff. 156 Note that the presence the element AŠ found in 118-20 suggests the logograms KAD 6 and KAD 8 , which have the meaning ‘to tie’. 157 Perhaps TAR-KAL is a phonetic spelling for DURGUL ‘mooring pole’. 158 Note that the sign SIG could also be interpreted as SÍG (respectively AbZ 539 and 592), a graphic association could be established between SÍG and SI 4 (=GÚ.UNU X ) for 150a-b šubtu and mūšabtu. 159 Perhaps a phonetic association with SAĜ ÉD ‘to take precedence’. 160 For reading šubtu as ‘ambush’ cf. Sjöberg, ‘Lexical Entries’, p.422 n.39. 161 Note the partial phonetic association between logogram and Akkadian equivalent: KA-AN = šā’ilu. 162 Cf. MSL 13, 96ff. 163 For interpretation cf. Sjöberg, ‘Lexical Entries’, 420. 122

191

Part 2 – Composite Edition

164

For interpretation cf. Sjöberg, ‘Lexical Entries’, 420. For a connotation with the ritual aspect of (confirming) transactions cf. entries in AHw, 624. 166 Cf. MSL 15, 5. 167 For lack of explicit evidence (the relevant glosses are lost) the order of the reconstructed glosses for entries 004.01-5 and 6-10 respectively (PALIL-IGIŠTU) is based on the Ugarit parallel (note that the canonical version lacks IGI-DU=IGIŠTU). 168 Reading of van Soldt (personal communication). Note that IGI-IGI balṭu would be ‘goggle-eyed’. 169 Based on the NA composite edition given in MSL 3, 3-45. The MSL text in turn is based on the composite text publication CT 11 1-5 (the constituent parts are given in CT 11 6-13) with additions from CT 12 32 and ZA 4 (1889) 394-5. Entries missing in CT were emended from the Kish school texts (OECT 4 5ff.). 170 Discussion of OB divisional structure and listing of relevant sources in W.W. Hallo, ‘Notes from the Babylonian Collection, II: Old Babylonian HAR-ra’, JCS 34 (1982) 81-93, there 87. 171 Only the bilingual texts have a subdivision (3.1 equivalent to canonical III, 3.2 equivalent to IV-Va), the unilingual texts are given on single tablets. 172 In ana ittišu this entry is related to the preceding clause in 1113 with É.TA (‘out of the house’). 173 Periodization follows the lexicological chronology given by Civil, ‘Ancient Mesopotamian Lexicography’, 2305. Succinct descriptions of the various series may be found in Cavigneuax, ‘Lexikalische Listen’ and Civil, ‘Lexicography’. P

P

165 P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

192

The Emar Lexical Texts Part 3 - Structural Analysis M. Gantzert

Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS List of tables and figures

v

Introduction to Part 3

vii

Aim Organization Formal and organizational features Formal features Organizational features Didactic functionality and curricular structure The Emar curriculum as structurally and functionally representative of the lexical tradition SERIES ANALYSIS 1.

2.

vii viii ix ix x xii xiii 1

Syllable Alphabet A Vocabulary

1

1.1. Text corpus- inventory and typology 1.2. Formal features 1.2.1. Horizontal organization 1.2.2. Vertical organization 1.3. Vertical organization of content 1.4. Curricular position Summary

1 1 1 7 7 14 15

The Syllabary A Format Series

16

2.0. The Sa-format series in Emar 2.1. Syllabary A Vocabulary 2.1.1 Text corpus – inventory and typology 2.1.2. Formal features 2.1.2.1. Horizontal organization 2.1.2.2. Vertical organization 2.1.3. Vertical organization of content 2.2. Syllabary A 2.3. Syllabary A Palaeography 2.3.1. Text corpus – inventory and typology 2.3.2. Formal features 2.3.2.1. Horizontal organization 2.3.2.2. Vertical organization 2.3.3. Vertical organization of content 2.4. Appendix 1 – ‘Syllabary A Onomasticon’ 2.5. Appendix 2 – ‘Syllabary A Additional Palaeography’ Summary

16 17 17 17 17 25 26 30 30 30 30 30 31 31 32 32 33

i

Part 3 - Structural Analysis 3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Weidner God List

34

3.1. Text corpus- inventory and typology 3.2. Formal features 3.2.1. Horizontal organization 3.2.2. Vertical organization 3.3. Vertical organization of content Summary

34 34 34 38 38 38

HAR(UR 5 ).RA=hubullu

39

4.1. Text corpus- inventory and typology 4.2. Formal features 4.2.1. Horizontal organization 4.2.2. Vertical organization 4.3. Vertical organization of content 4.4. Curricular order within Hh Summary

39 40 40 46 48 60 68

LÚ=ša

69

5.1. Text corpus- inventory and typology 5.2. Formal features 5.2.1. Horizontal organization 5.2.2. Vertical organization 5.3. Vertical organization of content Summary

69 69 69 74 76 82

IZI=išātu

83

6.1. Text corpus- inventory and typology 6.2. Formal features 6.2.1. Horizontal organization 6.2.2. Vertical organization 6.3. Vertical organization of content Summary

83 83 83 91 91 96

KÁ.GAL=abullu

97

7.0. The Kagal series in Emar 7.1. Inventory, typology, formal features and vertical organization of content 7.2. Curricular position Summary

97 97 97 98

ii

Table of Contents 8.

9.

10.

99

SAĜ B

8.0. The SagB series in Emar 8.1. Text corpus- inventory and typology 8.2. Formal features 8.2.1. Horizontal organization 8.2.2. Vertical organization 8.3. Vertical organization of content Summary

99 99 100 100 103 103 106

NÍĜ.GA=makkūru

107

9.0. The Nigga series in Emar 9.1. Text corpus- inventory and typology 9.2. Formal features 9.2.1. Horizontal organization 9.2.2. Vertical organization 9.3. Vertical organization of content Summary

107 107 108 108 109 110 111

DIRI=watru

112

10.1. Text corpus- inventory and typology 10.2. Formal features 10.2.1. Horizontal organization 10.2.2. Vertical organization 10.3. Vertical organization of content Summary

112 112 112 114 115 119

CURRICULAR ANALYSIS 11.

12.

120

Formal and organizational comparison

120

11.0. Formal-organizational units 11.1. Tablet typology 11.2. Formal features 11.2.1. Horizontal formal features 11.2.2. Vertical formal features 11.3. Vertical organization of content 11.4. Curricular sequence Summary

120 121 122 122 129 130 134 138

General scribal conventions

140

12.0. Non-distinctive features 12.1. Right position shifts 12.2. Separation markers 12.3. Vertical determinative sequences Summary

140 140 141 142 143

iii

Part 3 - Structural Analysis 13.

14.

Scribal redaction notes

144

13.0. Aim and organization 13.1. New presentation of the scribal redaction note material 13.2. Distribution and function of various redaction note types 13.3. Overview of colophon data concerning the scribes Summary

144 144 150 154 158

Diachronic context

159

14.0. Aim and organization 14.1. Syllable Alphabet A Vocabulary 14.2. The Sa-format lists 14.3. Weidner God List 14.4. HAR(UR 5 ).RA=hubullu 14.4.1. Divisions 1-2 14.4.2. Divisions 3-4 14.4.3. Division 8 14.4.4. Division 13 14.4.5. Division 14-16 14.5. LÚ=ša 14.6. IZI=išātu 14.7. KÁ.GAL=abullu 14.8. SAĜB 14.9. NÍĜ.GA=makkūru 14.10. DIRI=watru 14.11. Synthesis - diachronic position of the Emar curriculum as a whole Summary

159 160 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 170 172 173 178 179 182 185 188 192

Main conclusions

194

Bibliography

195

List of bibliographical abbreviations Alphabetic register

195 196

iv

List of Tables and Figures LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES TABLES Table 1

Elements of the lexical lemma according to the Civil-code

x

Table 2

Hierarchy of organizational features

xi

Table 3

Semantic classification of unexplained Akkadian equivalents in Svo

6

Table 4

Svo patterned sequences

9

Table 5

Analysis of the gloss/sign name combinations in SaV

20

Table 6

Additional Sa key-sign inventory in Emar

26

Table 7

Interpolations in SaV

29

Table 8

Element-4 entries in G

36

Table 9

Key-sign organization in Hh divisions 1 and 3

49

Table 10

Relation of key-signs and key-words in Hh division 1

52

Table 11

Content of Hh divisions

57

Table 12

Provisional reconstruction of curricular order within Hh

67

Table 13

Key-sign and key-word organization in Lu

76

Table 14

Realization typology of the relation between elements 2 and 4 in Izi

87

Table 15

Key-sign transitions in Izi

94

Table 16

Inventory of Type III tablets

121

Table 17

Column-count on Type I tablets across formal-organizational units

122

Table 18

Sub-column use typology across formal-organizational units

124

Table 19

Entry element inventory across formal-organizational units

125

Table 20

Distribution of realization types in the relation between logogram and Akkadian equivalents across formal-organizational units

128

Table 21

Distribution of association types in the vertical organizational structure across formal-organizational units

131

Table 22

Oscillation of acquisitive and analytic foci throughout the curriculum

135

v

Part 3 - Structural Analysis Table 23

Attestation of right position shifts

140

Table 24

Attestation of separation markers

141

Table 25

Attestation of virtual determinative sequences

142

Table 26

Inventory of redaction notes

144

Table 27

Attested use of end-of-text-unit markers

152

Table 28

Colophons listed by series

156

Table 29

Scribes listed in alphabetic order

157

Table 30

The sequence of the LBA Hattusha Izi Tablet A key-signs in OB Proto-Izi

176

Table 31

Diachronic position of the Emar curriculum

188

Composition process of Diri

118

FIGURES Figure 1

vi

Series Analysis * Introduction INTRODUCTION TO PART 3 Aim The aim of Part Three of The Emar Lexical Texts is to give a structural analysis of the lexical corpus. This means that the following text commentary will primarily describe formal and organizational relationships, appearing within or between various lexical compositions, irrespective of content. These relationships will be empirically defined as specific formal and organizational features. By setting up an inventory of empiric data concerning formal and organizational phenomena and by relating them systematically to content, it will be possible to expose the underlying structural properties of the various compositions and to compare their occurrence throughout the curriculum. In Part 4 (Theoretical Interpretation) of The Emar Lexical Texts, some of these structural properties will be used to interpret aspects of Mesopotamian ‘science’ in terms of selected anthropological theories on classification. On the one hand the content of the text corpus under investigation may be expected to have been affected, to some degree, by specific developments resulting from the specific historical and cultural setting of the Emar school. On the other hand the structure of that text corpus, used in the scribal school as a carrier of the traditional Mesopotamian ‘science of writing’ 1 , may be assumed to reflect the particularities of that underlying knowledge system 2 and thus as largely context-independent. This assumption stems from the remarkable continuity of the Mesopotamian lexical compositions, despite shifts and transformations in their content. Thus, the traditional Mesopotamian knowledge system can be interpreted as a relatively static structure within which a relatively dynamic agency, viz. the historic institution of the Emar school, is operating 3 . In the interaction of structure and agency, the schooling of scribal apprentices may be considered as a pragmatic interpretation (viz. scribal education) of a normative model (viz. cuneiform ‘science’). The text witnesses for the Emar school may be assumed to reflect the interaction of both. The pragmatic, or historically particular, aspect of the Emar text corpus has already been the subject of a number of earlier publications and this study will focus on its normative, or model, aspect. Although a number of specific Syrian particularities will occasionally be mentioned in various remarks (as well as in a series of related publications 4 ), for the ultimate purpose of this study, viz. understanding of Mesopotamian ‘science’, the Late Bronze Syrian context is essentially incidental. The research focus will be primarily on the (underlying) structural properties of the lexical compositions found in Emar. Because all of these compositions have a long history and because they consistently recur in educational contexts this focus should allow insight into the classification system 5 they sought to impart to apprentice scribe, viz. the Mesopotamian

1

The term is derived from N.C. Veldhuis, Elementary Education at Nippur : the Lists of Trees and Wooden Objects (Groningen 1997) 139-40. 2 The term ‘knowledge system’ is here used as referring to a socially constructed and culturally unique discourse. A general introduction and references regarding the cultural anthropological debate about knowledge systems may be found in T.H. Eriksen, Small Places, Large Issues. An Introduction to Social and Cultural Anthropology (London and Sterling 2001) 211ff. . 3 A general introduction and references regarding the concepts of structure and agency may be found in T.H. Eriksen, Small Places, Large Issues. An Introduction to Social and Cultural Anthropology (London and Sterling 2001) 86-7 and T.H. Eriksen and F.S. Nielsen, A History of Anthropology (London and Sterling 2001) 128-31. 4 M. Gantzert, ‘Syrian Lexical Texts 1-3’, UF 38 (forthcoming). 5 The term classification is here used in its anthropological sense, viz. as relating to socially pre-established categories within a given, always uniquely socially-embedded, knowledge system. Cf. Eriksen, Small Places, Large issues, 233ff. .

vii

Part 3 – Structural Analysis ‘science of writing’ 6 . The primary task of this structural analysis is to give a synchronic description rather than a diachronic comparison because it is not the development but the continuum in Mesopotamian ‘science’ that is its focus. However, as it may be felt that the historical dimension should not be wholly ignored even in a theoretical-structural study of this kind, an excursus has been added to discuss some historical developments in the lexical tradition in the light of the Late Bronze Syrian text witnesses. Organization The structural properties of the texts under consideration will be investigated in two steps. The first step will be to investigate each series in the lexical corpus separately in a series analysis (chapters 1-10). Each attested series (except Tu-ta-ti, which is not properly represented in Emar) will be described in a separate chapter and all chapters are structured in a fairly standardized manner. In case the status of a given series in the curriculum is problematic (as is the case in a few of the advanced series) this will be discussed in some introductory remarks to the chapter in question. Next, the first paragraph (Text corpus) will briefly describe the inventory and typology of the attested text material 7 . The second paragraph (Formal features) will investigate the texts according to certain form-related criteria. The third paragraph (Vertical organization of content) will treat the structural presentation of content through considering certain organizational criteria. The formal and organizational criteria selected for use in these second and third paragraphs will be explained in more detail later on in this introduction. In case the findings of the earlier paragraphs warrant a more detailed investigation, a fourth paragraph will be added regarding the relevant series’ curricular structure or position. All chapters of the series analysis conclude with a summary of their findings. After the investigation of each separate series, the second step will be to compare them and provide a synthetic discussion of the lexical corpus as a whole in a curricular analysis (chapters 11-14). Such a comparative and synthetic approach is justified in view of the fact that the corpus is found in a coherent archival context that reflects the operation of the school over a limited period of time. In other words, all texts in that corpus may be assumed to have had a simultaneous relevance in the school. This does not imply that all texts were simultaneously used as exercise material or equally covered by all apprentice scribes. In fact, it is conceivable that some texts had the status of reference material instead of that of exercise material. The fact, however, that all texts occur in the same coherent and chronologically narrow archival context suggest that they were at least known simultaneously. This means that together they represent a coherent body of lexical knowledge, even if not every text was used in the same manner. The curricular analysis will start with a chapter providing a comparative analysis of the formal and organizational features found in the various series (Chapter 11 - Formal and organizational comparison). This chapter will also address the issue of curricular sequence, 6

The diachronic continuity in methodology visible in the lexical compositions from the OB to the NB periods is also observed by A. Cavigneaux, Die sumerisch-akkadischen Zeichenlisten: Überlieferungsprobleme (München 1975) 1. 7 The status of Type I tablets as exercise texts has been called into question by N.C.Veldhuis (dissertation referee report). Based on the presently available evidence, however, this doubt seems unwarranted. Apart from various content-related arguments (e.g. typical Hörfehler made in the course of dictation), the most important clue to the status of the Type I tablets is found in their colophons, which explicitly show the writers to be ‘junior scribes’ and ‘pupils’.

viii

Series Analysis * Introduction both from a formal-organizational and from a didactic-functional perspective. Next, Chapter 12 (General scribal conventions) will discuss a few generalized formal properties, i.e. formal features that are found throughout the lexical curriculum as a whole. Chapter 13 (Scribal redaction notes) will be dedicated to the redactional features of the lexical corpus, including the colophons. The fourteenth chapter (Diachronic context) is actually an excursus that has been added to give a historical perspective to the findings of the preceding chapters. Finally, the main results of the structural analysis are summarized in a short listing of conclusions. Formal and organizational features The formal and organizational criteria investigated in this study are derived solely from explicit, empiric data but will serve to expose an implicit, underlying organizational structure. The implicit nature of the organizational structure may be assumed from the historical context of the lexical texts. The lists obviously aim at transmitting an ancient tradition (there is a remarkable continuity in form and content and in Emar no new compositions are found) but at the same time, not a single explicit explanation of the organizational system behind the lexical lists has been found. This suggests that the systematic aspect of the lexical lists was not the subject of an explicit discourse and that the lists were the object of deferential reproduction (i.e. reproduction in deference to the scribal tradition) rather than analytical production. It is therefore the task of modern scholarship to find explicit criteria to expose the implicit structures of ancient scholarship. In the following analysis these criteria are sought in the various formal and organizational features found in the texts. The same sets of features will be consistently investigated for all series in order to make the subsequent structural comparison between the various series meaningful. The selected features may be classified as referring primarily to either form or organization and will be discussed below. Formal features There are two sets of formal features: distinctive features, which distinguish between series or various versions of a series, and non-distinctive features, which do not distinguish series or versions from each other but are generally found in the lexical corpus as a whole. The distinctive features will be investigated in two steps: first for each series separately (paragraph 2 of chapters 1-10) and then across all series combined (Chapter 11). 1. 2. 3. 4.

vertical ruling (primarily related to horizontal organization) entry element inventory (related to horizontal organization) - the various entry elements are identified according to the Civil-code specified in Table 1 below horizontal ruling (related to vertical organization) tablet division (related to vertical organization)

The non-distinctive features will be analyzed as reflecting general scribal conventions with validity throughout the whole lexical corpus (Chapter 12). 1. 2. 3.

right position shift separation marker virtual determinative sequences

ix

Part 3 – Structural Analysis Table 1. Elements of the lexical lemma according to the Civil-code Element Description number

Graphic rendering

0 1

¶

2

line marker gloss: syllabic rendering of (one of the) Sumerian phonetic values of the logogram logogram: Sumerian word sign

gloss

LOGOGRAM/

Relevant parts of the edition 1 1 and 2

1 and 2

LOGOGRAM

3 4

sign name of the logogram Akkadian equivalent (Akkadian translation or interpretation of the logogram)

sign name Akkadian equivalent

1 1 and 2

5/6

equivalent(s) in other language(s)

n/a

n/a

Organizational features The organizational features are listed in Table 2 below according to their organizational levels, i.e. according to their vertical range in the text covered. The shortest vertical range is that of a single entry (level 1) - on this level only intra-entry organization is found (i.e. organization between various elements of the entry), which is here referred to as horizontal organization 8 . In this horizontal organization the relation between the logogram and Akkadian equivalent - the two core entry elements - may be developed in a variety of different ways, here referred to as realization types. The other, longer vertical ranges are relevant to inter-entry relational structure, which is here referred to as vertical organization 9 . The vertical organizational features show various possible association types - these are listed in the last column. There are four possible association types: a. Graphic association: association of consecutive entries according to the graphic form of one or more of their signs. b. Phonetic association: association of consecutive entries according to their phonetic form c. Semantic association: association of consecutive entries according to their meaning. d. Traditional-conventional association: traditionally transmitted entry sequences that are not recognizably associated according to the earlier listed principles10 , i.e. association based on convention.

8

In Cavigneaux’ classification scheme this would be his category A, viz. Listeneinträge einzeln betrachtet (Cavigneaux, Zeichenlisten, 29). 9 In Cavigneaux’ classification scheme this would be his category B, viz. Listeneinträge als Teil eines Ganzen (Cavigneaux, Zeichenlisten, 29). 10 Cf. Cavigneaux, Zeichenlisten, 2.

x

Series Analysis * Introduction Table 2. Hierarchy of organizational features Organization level 1 2 3 4

Vertical range

Organizational features

single entry horizontal organization related consecutive key-sign entries key-word / sub-entry all entries text division on a tablet all entries series in a composition

Association types n/a graphic or phonetic semantic semantic or traditional-conventional (graphic-)semantic or traditional-conventional

Level 1. On the level of the single entry, horizontal organization refers to the relation between the various elements in a given entry. The link between these elements is primarily identification and not association, i.e. the entry adds elements 1, 3 and 4 in order to identify the central element 2 (in Emar the status of element 0 as an entry element is doubtful - cf. 2.1.2.1.). In case of element 4 (the Akkadian equivalent), however, its identificative relation to element 2 (the logogram) often involves associative processes: the relation between these two elements can be realized in various ways, which are referred to as realization types. The most basic of these is the one-to-one translation of element 2 by element 4, which involves non-associative identification. The other realization types will be discussed in the course of the series analysis as they appear in the various series. Horizontal organization is closely linked to the horizontal formal features - in the series analysis it will therefore be discussed in the paragraph dealing with formal features (i.e. in paragraph 2 of chapters 1-10). In the curricular analysis an inventory of realization types and an analysis of their distribution throughout the curriculum (11.2.1.) are provided. Level 2. On the level of related consecutive entries, certain signs may be shared throughout a shorter or longer series of successive entries. The term key-sign 11 refers to those signs that are shared between consecutive entries primarily through graphic association. Sometimes a specific shared graphic form results in a shared phoneme (e.g. in Izi-compounds) and sometimes it does not (e.g. in Diri-compounds). Whenever key-signs also have word status, i.e. whenever they are also shared between consecutive entries through semantic association, they will be referred to as key-words. Level 3. On the level of the combined entries found on a single tablet, text division refers to an organizational unit that may be defined as a specific section of text that is consistently selected for presentation on a separate tablet. In some series such a section of text shows semantic association between the entries it brings together. In others the consistent selection of a given text section for presentation on a single tablet is not related to any recognizable graphic, phonetic or semantic association between the entries - in such cases text selection is empirically related to a traditional-conventional association of its entries. Such traditionalconventional association is properly the subject of diachronic research: it finds its origin in a remote past and its original formation falls outside the scope of this study. In a synchronic study such as this one only marginal comments can be made on the entry inventories and sequences resulting from traditional-conventional association. Such marginal commentary will rely on analysis of internal variations within the text corpus and of external deviations in 11

Terminology related to that used in A. Cavigneaux, ‘Lexikalische Listen’, RlA 6: Klagesang-Libanon (Berlin and New York 1980-3) 632-3 (i.e. his signe-clé).

xi

Part 3 – Structural Analysis parallel texts. These variations and deviations may expose aspects of the compositional process, including the selective criteria of the vertical organization. In many cases, however, they are in short supply. Level 4. On the level of the combined entries found for a given lexical composition, series refers to that composition as a whole. The various series are diachronically defined, viz. as traditional compendiums with specific content and function. They are identified by conventional assyriological terminology 12 . Series may have content that is associated either semantically or traditionally-conventionally, in a manner similar to that found for text division. Sometimes such semantic association involves simultaneous graphic association (graphic-semantic association, also known as ‘acrographic’ association, found in SagB and Nigga) but mostly it does not. For several compositions the organizational features of series and division actually coincide because they comprise one tablet only. It should be noted that a series may have multiple versions. Didactic functionality and curricular structure Earlier four possible associative principles were listed, viz. graphic, phonetic, semantic and traditional-conventional association. Separately or in combination, the first three of these do not only describe the organization of the lexical compositions but they are also didactically functional in as far they provide different analytical approaches to the writing system. In contrast, the fourth principle lacks such an intrinsic didactic functionality. In synchronic terms, i.e. irrespective of its origins, traditional-conventional association has no other didactic function than that of providing a presentational device through which content is transmitted to the apprentice scribe. It will be seen that each series and each version of each series may be considered as a distinct formal-organizational unit (cf. 11.0.) and that the formal and organizational features of each of these units can be related to their respective didactic functionality in the wider curricular context (cf. 11.3.). However, given the preponderance of traditional-conventional association on organizational levels 3 and 4 (cf. 11.2.1.), it is clear that for many series intrinsic didactic functionality is only found on organizationals levels 1 and 2. In other words, the intrinsic didactic functionality of many series relies on intra-entry and short-range inter-entry relations rather than any overall classificatory concepts. In the composition of the Emar lexical series traditionally transmitted conventions clearly outweight functional classificatory considerations. The relation between didactic functionality and traditional-conventional composition will be the subject of a synchronic analysis (11.4.) as well as a diachronic excursus (Chapter 14).

12

Cf. Cavigneaux, ‘Lexikalische Listen’.

xii

Series Analysis * Introduction The Emar curriculum as structurally and functionally representative of the lexical tradition By a diachronic definition of their texts (i.e. by defining them in terms of traditionally transmitted models) the ancient scribes established synchronically normative conventions. These conventions are explicit only with regard to content but may also be assumed to contain implicit structures. This assumption may be made on basis of the fact that if content would not have been transmitted within a stable organizational structure, over time it would have become unrecognizable - this is generally not the case when the Emar texts are compared to their OB forerunners (it is the case for the diachronic development of some advanced series after the period under investigation). The core traditional-conventional content of the various lexical series finds its origin in a remote past and the original formation of this core falls outside the scope of this study. However, the fact that their traditional-conventional core content often remained virtually unaltered across a long span of centuries indicates that the lexical lists remained structured in the same manner. Furthermore, the fact that these lists also remain in use in educational contexts implies that they remained functional in the same manner too. In view of the structural and functional continuum represented by the lexical lists, it may be assumed that the Emar lexical corpus is largely representative of the knowledge system underlying it - a system that was perpetuated by scribes throughout the whole of the post-Ur III period. It is the purpose of this structural analysis to describe some of the overall structural parameters of this knowledge system, i.e. of the Mesopotamian ‘science’ it represents. Thus, the description of a single archive found in a small school located in a peripheral region may aim at a larger scientific relevance than suggested by its immediate context.

xiii

Series Analysis * Syllable Alphabet A Vocabulary SERIES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 1 - SYLLABLE ALPHABET A VOCABULARY 13 1.1. Text corpus – tablet inventory and typology The attested Svo material consists of two Type I tablets (T1-2) and three fragments. Both T1 and T2 had two columns on each side of the tablet. Most fragments are very small and probably part of T1 or 2, though lacking in direct joins (fragments C and D may be part of T2 but there are no physical joins). Fragment E is incompatible with T1-2, which means that another tablet must have existed. Fragment E, which forms the top right-hand corner of a tablet, is not only incompatible with the other texts, but also deviates from the other texts in the horizontal organization of its entries (cf. von Soden, NABU 1989 1/8). 1.2. Formal features 1.2.1. Horizontal organization Vertical ruling Vertical ruling serves to provide the lay-out of the text with columns and sub-columns. In both tablets each column has two sub-columns, creating two slots for horizontal organization. In the Svo exercise the first slot contains the logogram and the second the Akkadian equivalent. Entry element inventory The juxtaposition of a logogram and an Akkadian equivalent is the essential feature of the horizontal structure in Svo, even if the frequent absence of the first is an obvious characteristic of the tablet lay-out. The logograms are consistently provided only once, even though they are frequently followed by multiple Akkadian equivalents, resulting in long stretches of empty space in the first sub-columns. The only other texts which share this feature of the Svo texts are those of the two advanced series Nigga and Diri, i.e. it occurs only at the presumed start and end of the lexical curriculum. A possible reason for the omission of the logogram (and its implied ‘virtual presence’) is that repetition was felt to be unnecessary when the value to be read was the same for all equivalents. In the similarly organized Nigga and Diri series the multiple Akkadian equivalents also always apply to a single, specific and unequivocal reading of the logograms. From this perspective, the situation in Svo is the logical inverse of that in SaV, which is the only other series in which logograms are systematically provided with multiple Akkadian equivalents. SaV always repeats the logograms because in SaV the logogram frequently has multiple readings. Such multiple readings of the same logogram are often explicitly indicated by the glosses provided in SaV it should be noted that no glosses are found in Svo. In view of the comparison with these other series, the use of ‘virtual logograms’ in Svo may be considered as functional, reflecting a

13

The status of Svo as a school text has been called into question by N.C.Veldhuis (dissertation referee report). Based on the presently available evidence, however, two arguments may be found to indicate that Svo formed an integral part of the school curriculum: (1) Svo shows formal, organizational and content structures similar to those of the other lexical texts, and (2) Svo T1 has a colophon in which the writer identifies himself as a (junior) student (Ì.ZU.TUR.TUR – colophon 1, p.144).

1

Part 3 – Structural Analysis primary focus on the detailed analysis of single-reading sign combinations, an analysis provided by giving them multiple Akkadian equivalents. Element 2 – the logogram (status, definition) In terms of structural hierarchy the essential element of the horizontal organization is obviously element 2, because it is the focus of multiple Akkadian equivalents. The sign combinations found in the element 2 position occupy the slot occupied by the logogram in other series. However, the nature of these sign combinations in Sal/Svo in general has puzzled modern scholars, due to several factors: (1) the perceived lack of actual logographic content of the ‘logograms’, (2) their problematic relation to the Akkadian equivalents 14 and (3) the combination of the ‘logograms’ of Svo with the Creation Myth 15 . These issues mostly relate to the historical origins and development of the Sal/Svo text as well as to the relation between the lexical and literary genres - topics that this study is not concerned with. However, in order to compare the function and aim of Svo in relation to the other lexical series it is important to determine the status (logographic or otherwise) of the sign combinations that are found in the slot occupied by logograms in the other series. Also, in this study, necessarily focussed on structure rather than content, it should be established how (as opposed to why) these sign combinations are related to the Akkadian equivalents. The first two of the three issues listed above will be considered within narrow methodological limits: the question of logographic status will be treated as a question of definition and the question of logogram relation to the Akkadian equivalent as a question of classification. The third issue, concerning the Creation Myth, does not arise in the Emar material. The issue of logographic status, relevant to element 2, will be treated in this paragraph and the issue of the relation to the Akkadian equivalents, relevant to element 4, will be treated in the next paragraph. With regard to the status of the Svo sign combinations as ‘logograms’ it should be noted that the question of logographic status arises due to two factors: (1) the relative lack of non-lexical attestations and (2) the didactic context of Svo, i.e. the attested early position of the Svo series in the curriculum 16 . (1) Concerning the relative lack of non-lexical attestations, the most important restriction on the interpretation of the Svo ‘logograms’ is that, outside SaL/Svo, they can, if at all, mostly be identified only as (parts of) archaic, mostly Sumerian-read, PNs 17 . However, this identification neither applies to all sign combinations 18 nor does it self-evidently explain the relation of the assumed PN elements to the Akkadian equivalents 19 (or to the Creation Myth). It should also be noted that from their presentational form it is not clear whether the Svo ‘logograms’ actually refer to PNs: the Personennamenkeil (DIŠ-marker), which is consistently found as determinative before PNs in other lexical series (e.g. in Ugarit Tu-ta-ti20 and Emar SaV Appendix 1) is lacking in Svo. To this observation may be added that, on 14

Cf. the discussion offered by B. Landsberger, ‘Die angebliche babylonische Notenschrift’, AfO Beiheft 1 (1933): Aus fünf Jahrtausenden morgenländischer Kultur. Festschrift Max Freiherrn von Oppenheim zum 70. Geburtstage gewidmet von Freunden und Mitarbeitern, 170-8. 15 G. Farber, ‘Kleiner Leitfaden zum Silbenvokabular A’ in: B. Böck (ed.), Munuscula Mesopotamica. Festschrift für Johannes Renger (Münster 1999) 120-1. 16 Ibidem, 118-9. 17 M. Çiğ and H. Kizilyay, Zwei altbabylonische Schulbücher aus Nippur (Ankara 1959) 101ff. 18 Ibidem, 102. 19 Farber, ‘Leitfaden’, 119. 20 J. Nougayrol, ‘“Vocalisés” et “syllables en liberté” en Ugarit’ in: H.G. Güterbock and Th. Jacobsen (eds.), Studies in Honor of Benno Landsberger on his Seventy-Fifth Birthday: April 21st, 1965. AS 16 (1965) 30.

2

Series Analysis * Syllable Alphabet A Vocabulary occasion, Svo sign combinations are, in fact, read as nouns with non-human referents rather than as self-evident PNs (e.g. in 001.06 ME-ME is a proper Sumerian word, correctly translated by Akkadian parṣū mādūtu ‘rites, plural’, as is, in 009.02, MAŠ-GAG=MAŠ.DÀ, correctly translated by ṣabītu ‘gazelle’). Many other sign combinations may potentially be read as nouns without necessarily implying reference to any PN. This also holds true if a given Akkadian equivalent do not match such nominal readings (e.g. 014 U-BAR is a proper Sumerian word meaning ‘foreigner’ - cf. the semantically related interpretation 014.02 kiššat māti ‘all countries’ and 039 NI-ZU=Ì.ZU is a word used in colophons as the title for a student scribe - cf. the professionally related interpretations 041.01-2 barû, mūdî Ì.MEŠ ‘diviner’, ‘expert of oils’). Whether or not, in the context of Svo, such nouns reflect onomastic elements, is actually immaterial to the more important conclusion to be drawn from this evidence: viz. that many of the Svo sign combinations actually may be read as logograms. Effectively, all Svo sign combinations, whether or not they are interpretable as logograms by modern scholars, were, through frequent juxtaposition with Akkadian equivalents, empirically considered interpretable as such by the ancient scribes. This means that, in empiric terms, the Svo sign combinations function as logograms and should be defined as such in the analysis of the horizontal organization. (2) Concerning the early curricular position of Svo, it should be noted that Svo has been identified as an exercise that was positioned in the curriculum immediately after the most basic formal exercise found, the Tu-ta-ti exercise. Only one extract with content related to the Tu-ta-ti exercise has been found in the Emar school archives but this, of course, does not necessarily imply that it was not widely practiced as it may have been considered too basic for inclusion in the school archive. However, the Tu-ta-ti exercise is widely found to be followed by Svo in scribal schools elsewhere (e.g. in near-synchronous Ugarit). Tu-ta-ti exclusively taught phonetic spelling using a basic phonetic sign inventory and did so by listing signs according to sounds patterns. Because Svo followed Tu-ta-ti in the curriculum and both exercises teach basic signs in patterned sequences, it should be investigated whether Svo pursued the same didactic object as Tu-ta-ti, viz. phonetic spelling with a basic sign inventory. An indication that, at least in Ugarit, there is a relation between the two series with respect to content is provided by the fact that in the Ugarit curriculum Tu-ta-ti was expanded with phonetically spelled PNs 21 . This may indicate a continuity of content with the next exercise, Svo, because in Svo many sign combinations are non-lexically attested as PNs or variants of PNs. However, the difference between the PNs of the expanded Ugarit Tu-ta-ti exercise, and those of Svo, is that the first are given almost exclusively in Akkadian phonetic spelling and that the latter hardly ever permit an Akkadian reading. It would seem, then, that in Ugarit Svo was linked to Tu-ta-ti in content material (PNs) but not in didactic object: Tu-ta-ti focussed on Akkadian phonetic spellings, including those used in Akkadian PNs, while Svo focussed on Sumerian readings, viz. on the reading of words that are Sumerian. In this respect it is immaterial whether or not these words were originally a list of PNs. The early position of Svo in the curriculum shows that there was an early curricular emphasis on mastering the Sumerian language, which, in its written form, appears as the primary object of scribal education. After only one exercise with basic inventory of phonetic values in Tu-ta-ti, enabling the student to phonetically write Akkadian words, the next exercise, Svo, immediately confronted the student with the Sumerian language. As discussed in the previous paragraph, the fact that the sign combinations found in the element 2 slot in Svo are described by Akkadian equivalents (implying that these combinations were learnt in the same way that logograms were learnt in later series) and the fact that many of these sign combinations 21

Ibidem, 30-1.

3

Part 3 – Structural Analysis represent actual Sumerian words, lead to the conclusion that, empirically, they must be considered as logograms. This in turn means that, unlike Tu-ta-ti, Svo had the Sumerian language as its object. With respect to didactic method, however, Svo is actually a quite suitable continuation of Tu-ta-ti. This is due to the fact that it shares two important features with Tu-ta-ti: viz. both cover basic signs (i.e. frequently occurring signs) and both teach these signs in patterned sequences. Tu-ta-ti has patterned sequences that simultaneously repeat and contrast sound, giving the same consonant with various vowels (e.g. UM-AM-IM; UN-ANIN 4 22 ). Svo has patterned sequences that simultaneously repeat and contrast signs, giving one recurring sign in different combinations with other recurring signs (e.g. 017-26 IGI-BAR; BAR-IGI; IGI-IGI; IGI-IGI-IGI; A-IGI, A-IGI-IGI; ME-A; ME-NI; AŠ-NI; AŠ-UR). Element 4 – the Akkadian equivalent In the previous paragraph it was established that the sign combinations occurring in the element 2 slot in Svo empirically functioned as logograms - the mere occurrence of Akkadian equivalents suggested as much. However, individual relations between logogram content and Akkadian equivalent content throughout Svo can rarely be interpreted in terms of a straightforward translation. To investigate these relations it is important to first separate those relations which can be explained in terms of obvious associative mechanisms from those that cannot. Regarding the former group, the horizontal relations of the Akkadian interpretation to the logogram may be classified according to specific realization types: 1. Realization through a straight, one-on-one, translation of the logogram is not often found but it does occur. Examples: 001.06 ME-ME parṣū mādūtu ‘great rites’; 009.02 MAŠGAG=MAŠ.DÀ ṣabītu ‘gazelle’ and 016.02 LAL-LAL tamṭītu ‘shortage’. 2. Realization may occur through a translation of only one element of a multi-element logogram, resulting in a pars-pro-toto rendering of its meaning. Examples: 011.01 SI-GAG, where qannu ‘border; hem’ translates only the SI part of the logogram; 016.03 LÁ-LÁ, where kurussu ‘belt’ translates only one single LÁ sign and 038.04-5 ME-PI-ZU, where lamādu ‘to know’ translates only the ZU sign and hasīsu ‘ear; wisdom’ only the PI=ĜEŠTUG sign. 3. Realization may occur through a translation that applies to a logogram that is different than the one actually found, but with which there is a graphic relation. Example: in 080.01 the translation ili bīti ‘god of the house’ would be appropriate to AN-É=DIĜIR É, but is given for graphically related AN-GÁ - note that in this example the signs É and GÁ also have a shared semantic field ‘house’. 4. Realization may be through a translation that applies to a logogram that is different than the one actually found, but with which it shares a phonetic value. Example: in 006.01 the translation šuqallulu ‘to hang’ would actually be appropriate to LÁ-LÁ, but is given for phonetically related LU-LU. 5. Realization may be through a semantic association with the logogram. Example: in 039.012 NI-ZU=Ì.ZU is interpreted as barû ‘diviner’ and mūdi šamnī ‘expert of oils’: these are titles that refer to the professional association of scribe and diviner in the Emar school: the title Ì.ZU ‘junior scribe’ is frequently found in the colophons.

22

Ibidem, 30.

4

Series Analysis * Syllable Alphabet A Vocabulary 6. The realization of the Akkadian interpretation may be based on an Akkadian, phonetic reading of the Sumerian logogram, in effect associating the logogram with an Akkadian word by reading it as an Akkadian phonetic sign. Example: in 015.02-5 the logogram BAR-BAR seems to trigger the interpretations barû, barāru, itabruru and šutabruru on the basis of no other association than through such a phonetic reading. It should be noted that on the few occasions that the logogram actually may be read as a ‘real’, i.e. conventionally written, Akkadian text, such a reading is mostly not obviously reflected in the Akkadian interpretation (e.g. 055.01 BAD-NI=be-lí is interpreted as kal-ṣu (?); 056.01 BAD-NI-HI=be-lí-DÙG as gu 5 šu-ú (?) and 091.01 AN-BA-NI=DIĜIR-ba-ni as DINANNA MUL). In some cases a combination of more than one of the above listed realization types may be found - e.g.: the interpretation ašarēdu ‘foremost’ for MAŠ in 007.03 combines a pars-prototo reading (realization type 2) with a phonetic association (realization type 4) because the correct Sumerian form for the phonetic element /maš/ in this case would be MÁŠ and the correct complete Sumerian word would be MÁŠ.SAĜ. Of course, the above realization types explain only a part of the many Akkadian interpretations of logograms in Svo, but, before looking at the other, unexplained associations, it is important to draw a conclusion from the preceding analysis: there is a variety of strategies to realize the Akkadian interpretation and there is no single guiding principle. It should also be noted that the same strategies may be found in certain other lexical series. As a matter of fact, by applying a multiple strategies Svo closely resembles an exercise that occurs next in the curriculum, viz. the SaV exercise. The multiple strategy approach sets aside both series from the thematic series: in the thematic series the relation between logogram and Akkadian interpretation tends to be descriptive rather than analytical. In the thematic series the role of the Akkadian interpretation tends to be limited to that of an auxiliary element: it is functionally restricted to the definition of meaning. In contrast, in Svo and SaV the Akkadian interpretation functions as an analytical tool: the Akkadian element is generally employed to investigate multiple aspects of the logogram and to explore its potential associations. While in Svo there remain many unexplained relations between logograms and Akkadian translations, in SaV the multiple-strategy analytical methodology shows itself in a very pronounced fashion: in the latter series all horizontal relations may be explained through multiple, interrelated association strategies. Further discussion of the analytical methodology will be given in the chapter dealing with SaV. What is obvious meanwhile, however, is that, in didactic terms, the teaching of investigative and associative skills for the interpretation of logograms is an aim common to both Svo and SaV, both of which are series that occur early in the curriculum. With regard to those relations between logogram and Akkadian interpretation that remain unexplained in terms of obvious associative mechanisms, it may be expedient to resort to a descriptive rather than analytical approach. Before proceeding to such a description it should be noted that the lack of obvious explanation may be caused by the choice of research methodology rather than by particularities of the text. Because, if no obvious associative mechanism can be found, this implies either that there is no associative mechanism guiding these relations or that there exist such a mechanism, but it is not understood. It may be assumed that the first possibility is unlikely due to the fact that the unexplained relations covered by Svo text are not a random, isolated phenomenon in Emar alone, but rather a uniformly normative phenomenon in the LBA Periphery and beyond 23 . If it is not the 23

Farber, ‘Leitfaden’, 126-8.

5

Part 3 – Structural Analysis associative mechanism that is lacking, but rather modern understanding of it, than this lack could be explained by the limitations imposed by a synchronic approach. Indeed, the Svo text as found in Late Bronze Emar may be considered the result of a undoubtedly prolonged historical process. Therefore it may be that what remains unexplained in a synchronic investigation could be explained by a diachronic investigation (including further research into the link with the Creation Myth). It remains an open question as to what extend the ancient scholars were explicitly aware of such a now-lost associative mechanism. It should be born in mind what remains unclear in terms of present-day research may, in fact, have been perfectly clear for the ancient scholars, who had access to the oral tradition. Proceeding to the description of the unexplained associations, it should be noted that in Emar, counting all entries including repetitions, there are in total 160 Akkadian interpretations preserved. Of these 62 may be explained in terms of the realization types given earlier. For 16 of the remaining 98 unexplained entries, the correct word has not been reconstructed (e.g. for 007.04 gur-ru and 012.03 ki-i-la the precise meanings are not known), which leaves unexplained 82 entries to be described. The most obvious method of their description is by a classification in terms of semantic field, as given in Table 3 below. Table 3. Semantic classification of unexplained Akkadian equivalents in Svo 1. DNs: 27 (e.g. 001.07 DGU.LA; 002.02 DNISABA; 003.02 DNÈ.ERI 11 .GAL) 2. Professions: 20 (e.g. 031.02 LÚUSANDU ‘bird-catcher’; 052.01 mākisu ‘tax collector’; 092.01 šarru ‘king’) 3. Other human qualifications: 10 (e.g. 001.03 sarru ‘liar’; 063.01 mukinnu ‘witness’; 065.01 muškēnu ‘bondsman’) 25 4. Other categories (including various nouns, adjectives and verbs): (e.g. 008.02 nūru ‘light’; 011.03 ubbubu ‘cleansed’; 062.01 arāru ‘to curse’) Without venturing into unsubstantiated speculations regarding the use of these categories in the case of individual logograms, commentary to the above findings will be limited to a few general observations. With regard to category 1, the DNs, it is obvious that DNs are frequently used as elements in the Mesopotamian onomasticon. The frequent use of this category in Svo strengthens the argument that the Svo logograms derive from (archaic) PNs. However, any attempt at a systematic combined reading of the attested DNs (i.e. the Akkadian element) with their equivalent logograms will not systematically yield readable PNs. With regard to categories 2 and 3, it seems unlikely that the professional titles and other human qualifications should themselves be read as PN elements (the Mesopotamian onomasticon generally includes few such elements) 24 , but the fact should be noted that categories 2 and 3 have one common feature with category 1: all three categories have a human referent. Only the small group of various entries in category 4 does not have a strictly human referent, even in these cases, however, a human referent cannot be excluded. On balance therefore, Svo 24

It could be suggested that, if the Svo ‘logograms’ were indeed originally PNs, then the professions and other qualifications may originally have referred to actual individuals. The ED ‘Names and Profession Lists’ (also known in Ebla) are known to give entries in a similar format. In theory, the Sal/Svo list may represent late version of an unknown pre-OB precursor, in which, at the formative stage, associations between professions and PNs was made with reference to actual individuals who united a given profession or quality with a given PN. Again in theory, such a list may have become part of the school curriculum, in effect ‘freezing’ specific profession-PN associations that became utterly irrelevant outside the original context. Due to the limited scope of this study and due to the lack of relevant Vorlagen, no certain conclusions regarding such a scenario are possible at this point. An alternative interpretation of the content of Sal/Svo is given in paragraph 14.1. of Part 3.

6

Series Analysis * Syllable Alphabet A Vocabulary shows a preponderance of a human referent in the Akkadian equivalents. This in turn suggests that the content of the Svo logograms which these Akkadian equivalents refer to (as far as such content may be established), relates to the sphere of human qualities. Thus, the idea that Svo originally served to analyse (archaic) PNs may be compatible with the preceding statistical analysis. 1.2.2. Vertical organization Horizontal ruling In the Svo material horizontal ruling is used intermittently 25 and linked to the occurrence of logograms: it occurs only when a new logogram is given. Because each new logogram is only given once, irrespective of the number of Akkadian equivalents following it (a virtual logogram is apparently assumed for all but the first entry), horizontal ruling is an important instrument of vertical organization. It alone gives a formally explicit indication of the textual organization of the Svo text. This is quite unlike the situation in the other early lexical series, in which repeated logograms are always written out and in which horizontal ruling is therefore primarily an auxiliary compositional device. In fact, the situation in Svo regarding lay-out is reminiscent of that found in the later advanced lexical series (Nigga and Diri - cf. Organizational Table 4 in Part 1). 1.3. Vertical organization of content Analytical approach Both within the Emar corpus and in parallel attestations from other places and periods the Svo logograms show a very rigid inventory and sequence. Due to the problematic status of its logograms and the lack of variants the Svo text may be said to show a synchronically impenetrable traditionally-conventionally associated structure. As stated in the introduction, this study does not aim at a diachronic analysis of the content of the lexical series found in Emar. Therefore, generally it will not be attempted to analyse entry inventories and sequences that show traditional-conventional (i.e. text-historically determined) associations, such as found in Svo. Instead of an organizational analysis, however, a structural description of the Svo logograms may be given by applying the key-sign criterion. It should be noted that this description ignores the Akkadian equivalents 26 because key-signs are a feature particular to logograms and in Svo the relation between its ‘logograms’ and Akkadian equivalents is partially unclear. In any case, as the logogram is the core entry element in all other series and may be assumed to have the same status in Svo the proposed description will provide information relevant to the organization of that series. The main motivation for giving a structural description of the Svo ‘logograms’ is that this series shows many obvious key-sign sequences and that it is the task of this study to describe this feature for all of the series, even if the resulting description will not suffice to explain the entire organization of a given series. An additional reason is that data regarding the content organization of Svo are needed in order to allow for a meaningful comparison of all series in the curricular analysis. It should be emphasized that the following description of the Svo ‘logograms’ is only a partial description 25

It should be noted that in T1 Arnaud’s autographs show the horizontal ruling only in the logogram sub-column (the lines do not appear to extend into the Akkadian slot of the entry) - this does not change the fact that this ruling is intermittent. 26 It should be noted that, unlike the overall logogram sequence in Svo, the secondary Akkadian sequences grouped under individual logograms show considerable deviations from those in the Ugarit version.

7

Part 3 – Structural Analysis of its surface organization (viz. of the formal relations between entries) and that it does not explain its original concept (for a suggestion cf. 14.1.). Patterned sequences - typology Two types of patterns are found to recur in the vertical organization of the Svo logogram sequence. First, there are key-sign sequences. If a key-sign is defined as the single sign that recurs over the largest stretch of consecutive multi-element signs combinations, than there are about thirty sequences with such key-signs (note that some key-signs occur in more than place). Second, various strategies guiding the horizontal positioning of logogram elements are repeated throughout many consecutive entry-clusters, resulting in various positionally patterned sequences. Together, these two pattern types may be used to describe the whole text (cf. Table 4), even if these patterns do not everywhere overlap and do not explain all linkages between all sequences. Regarding the key-sign sequences, it may be said their coverage of the text is almost complete. Occasionally they overlap (e.g. in 017-8 IGI-BAR and BAR-IGI the BAR key-sign, covering 014-8, and the IGI key-sign, covering 017-22 overlap) or have a graphic association (e.g. in 005-6 KU and LU), explaining the links between individual key-sign sequences, but frequently these links remain elusive. Regarding the positionally patterned sequences, three distinct strategies of the positioning of key-sign vis-à-vis non-key-sign elements may be distinguished (there is a possible fourth patterning strategy but it is of doubtful status). Reduplication (1) is a strategy by which consecutive entries are linked by repetition of one element in each entry, irrespective of content. In most cases this element is the key-sign (e.g. the 001-6 reduplication sequence links five key-signs). Reverse positioning (2) is a strategy by which two consecutive entries are linked by a shared two-element content (of two equal or graphically related elements) and through a two-way presentational order of the elements involved (e.g. 031-2 A-PAP/PAPA) 27 . Extension (3) is a strategy by which one or more elements in the entry take on an auxiliary role with respect to another element - this auxiliary role may be that of determinative (e.g. in 081 AN-KAL should be read DLÀMA), phonetic complement (e.g. in 082 and 084 -MA and -GA indicate that UD- should be read TAM respectively ZALAG) or declination suffix (e.g. in 074-6 –TA refers to the Sumerian ablative case: TÚL.TA, SILA.TA 28 and É.TA may be translated respectively as ‘from the well’, ‘from the street’ and ‘from the house’). It should be noted that a possible fourth positioning strategy may be discerned in the paradigmatic patterns (4) found in entry pairs 009-10, 011-2, 025-6, 027-8 and 098-9. In these entry pairs the basic sign(-combination) remains the same and a recurring two-element paradigmatic set is added to it. The first paradigmatic set (p1) is GAG/NI, which is added to 009-10 and 011-2, and the second set (p2) is NI/UR, which is added to 025-6, 027-8 and 098-9 (for the latter also note the enigmatic entry 054 NI-UR-BA). It should be noted that the NI and UR entries of p2 are consistently linked to the masculine and feminine gender respectively: 025, 027 and 098 (NI) are all entries referring to the masculine gender, while 026, 028 and 099 (-UR) all refer to the feminine gender 29 . Even if the content of these paradigmatic sets is not necessarily semantically distinctive the patterns they create are unmistakable. It should be noted that, unlike the key-sign sequences, which cover almost the whole text, all the types of positional 27

For a commentary on the reverse writing in Svo cf. P.A. Beaulieu, ‘An Excerpt from a Menology with Reverse Writing’, ASJ 17 (1995) 1-14. 28 Cf. Hh EST 2001 and 2003-4. 29 Cf. Nougayrol, ‘“Vocalisés”’, p.35 n.56.

8

Series Analysis * Syllable Alphabet A Vocabulary sequences together only cover about half of the Svo text: for many entry sequence no common positional strategy may be detected. This means that positional strategy was apparently of secondary importance in the organization of Svo. Table 4. Svo patterned sequences EST Logograms

Key-sign sequences

Positionally patterned sequences red reduplication rev reverse position pairs ext extension as: - dt - determinative - pc - phon. complement - cx - case suffix - px - pronominal suffix p1-2 - paradigm. pattern

A A MAŠ MAŠ MAŠ MAŠ SI SI SI BAR BAR BAR/IGI BAR/IGI IGI IGI IGI A/IGI A/ME ME/NI NI/AŠ AŠ NUN NUN A A A A A

red red red red red red red p1 (gag) p1 (ni) p1 (gag) p1 (ni) red red rev rev red red red p2 (ni) p2 (ur) p2 (ni) p2 (ur) rev rev rev rev rev

italics – graphic association ruling – sequential discontinuation (i.e. simultaneous absence of key-sign and positional sequence) 001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019 020 021 022 023 024 025 026 027 028 029 030 031 032 033

ME-ME PAP-PAP A-A A-A-A KU-KU LU-LU MAŠ MAŠ-MAŠ MAŠ-GAG MAŠ-NI SI-GAG SI-NI SI-A U-BAR BAR-BAR LÁ-LÁ IGI-BAR BAR-IGI IGI-IGI IGI-IGI-IGI A-IGI A-IGI-IGI ME-A ME-NI AŠ-NI AŠ-UR NUN-NI NUN-UR A-KU LAGAB-A A-PAP PAP-A A-AN

9

Part 3 – Structural Analysis 034 035 036 037 038 039 040 041 042 043 044 045 046 047 048 049 050 051 052 053 054 055 056 057 058 059 060 061 062 063 064 065 066 067 068 069 070 071 072 073 074 075 076 077 078 079 080 081 082 083

AN-A KUR-BA KUR-U-TA ME-ZU ME-PI-ZU NI-ZU A-ZU ZU-ZU NI-BA NI-BA-BA A-BA A-BA-BA BA-BA BA-BA-A BA-ZA BA-ZA-ZA NI-A A-NI TAB-NI KASKAL-NI NI-UR-BA BAD-NI BAD-NI-HI GIŠ-BAD NU-NU A-NU SAG-TAR SAG-TAR-DA-A SAG-AN SAG-AN-TUK SAG-KUR SAG-KUR-TA TAR-DA TAR-DA-A GABA-GABA GABA-GABA-A NIN-GABA NIN-EZEN NIN-SUKKAL NIN-SUKKAL-AN-KA TÚL-TA TAR-TA É-TA É-TAR-DA AN-DÙL AN-AN-DÙL AN-GÁ AN-KAL UD-MA UD-UD-MA

A KUR KUR ZU ZU ZU ZU ZU BA BA BA BA BA BA BA BA NI NI NI NI NI NI/BAD NI/BAD BAD NU NU SAG SAG SAG SAG SAG SAG TAR TAR GABA GABA GABA/NIN NIN NIN NIN TA TA TA/É É AN AN AN AN UD UD

10

rev red red red red red+pc (BA.A) red rev rev ext - px (.NI) ext - px (.NI) p2 (ni-ur) red ext - pc (KUD.DA.A) ext - cx (KUR.TA) ext - pc (KUD.DA) ext - pc (KUD.DA.A) red red+ext - pc (GABA.A) ext - cx (TÚL.TA) ext - cx (SILA.TA) ext - cx (É.TA) ext - pc (KUD.DA) red ext - dt (DLÀMA) ext - pc (TAM.MA) red+ext - pc (TAM.MA)

Series Analysis * Syllable Alphabet A Vocabulary 084 085 086 087 088 089 090 091 092 093 094 095 096 097 098 099 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122

UD-GA UD-UD-GA AN-GÀR GÀR-AN AN-ÁŠ KU-AN AN-BA AN-BA-NI AN-NI AN-NI-ZU HI-GA HI-HI-GA ME-HI ME-HI-GA IGI-BA-NI IGI-BA-UR HU-HU HU-BA HU-UR HU-RU AN-Ú Ú-A Ú-TA PA-PA PA-GÁ PA-PA-GÁ A-A-UR AN-UR NI-NI / NI-HI-GA NI-NI-A NI-NI-NI NI-NI-NI-A AB-BA AB-BA-MU AB-BA-NI AB-BA-A AB-BA-IRI IGI-SU 4 SU 4

UD UD AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN HI HI HI HI IGI IGI HU HU HU HU Ú Ú Ú PA PA PA UR UR NI NI NI NI AB-BA AB-BA AB-BA AB-BA AB-BA SU 4 SU 4

ext - pc (ZALAG.GA) red+ext - pc (ZALAG.GA) rev rev rev rev ext - pc (DÙG.GA) red+ext - pc (DÙG.GA) ext - pc (DÙG.GA) p2 (ni) p2 (ur) red red ext - pc (LÚĜ.ĜÁ) red+ ext - pc (LÚĜ.ĜÁ) red / ext - pc (DÙG.GA) red red red ext - px (.MU) ext - px (.NI) ext - pc (BA.A) -

11

Part 3 – Structural Analysis The two sequence patterns partially overlap and show a partial complementary use in the vertical organization of content. Where the transition of one key-sign sequence to the next cannot be explained in terms of overlapping key-signs or graphic association, sometimes the transition may be explained in terms of a continuum in positional strategy (e.g. the transition from the key-sign sequence A in 003-4 to the key-sign sequence KU/LU in 005-6 is explained through the positional sequence 001-6, based on reduplication). Vice-versa, with the secondary role of positional strategy, key-sign strategy is found to frequently explain the coherence of sequences when positional strategy is absent (e.g. for the entry sequence 070-4 a positional strategy is lacking, but the sequence is explainable in terms of key-sign strategy through the overlapping key-words GABA and NIN). Even so, after combining the two types of sequence patterns, about twenty key-sign transitions remain elusive (indicated in Table 4 by rulings in the logogram section). This implies that some additional principle(s) must have played a role in determining the organizational structure of the text. In this respect it should be noted that some key-signs are found in more than one sequence (e.g. A occurs in 003-4 as well as in 029-34 and NI occurs in 050-6 as well as in 112-5), confirming that the traditionalconventional sequence of Svo involved not just patterned repetitions within clusters of entries with common key-signs but also between such clusters. In other words, there are patterns in the recurrence of key-signs throughout the text. In the Svo text techniques of what may be termed ‘variations on a theme’ were thus activated on more than one level. In view of the observed reduced semantic content and in view of Svo’s early curricular position, it may be suggested that exercising with patterned sequences, through variation techniques, was considered more important than any semantic coherence in the resulting complete text. In the next paragraph this will be investigated by analyzing the patterned sequences in terms of curricular functionality. Patterned sequences – curricular functionality In terms of key-sign sequences, Svo may be said to be both too complicated and too easy as an early exercise. On the one hand it is too complicated because, theoretically, patterns around a given key-sign are primarily aimed at exploring the potential contexts of the key-sign in question, which requires analysis in terms of compounding techniques that are only perfected in the later stages of the lexical curriculum, viz. in the advanced series. Such an approach would not only be premature in terms of method, but also in terms of content because the actual (logographic) values of the signs used were not yet taught to the beginning student. Only in one of the following exercises, SaV, is the student systematically instructed with regard to sign values - in fact, almost all signs covered by Svo are extensively revisited in SaV. On the other hand, Svo is too easy an exercise because it does not systematically link Sumerian logograms to Akkadian vocabulary. Among the Sumerian entries many are ‘empty’ of (directly relevant) logographic meaning. Also no consistent relation is established between the Sumerian and Akkadian entries: the repetition of key-signs in consecutive sequences provides writing practice rather than instruction in the properties of these signs. However, this combination of a simultaneous surplus and shortage in complexity only refers to the content of Svo. The main use of Svo, in terms of key-sign sequences, seems to have been in its function as an exercise in key-sign form and potentiality. The student was introduced to the way key-signs can be used in the vertical structure of the lexical list by learning what kinds of combinations with a given key-sign are possible and how they may be presented in a word lists. He was also taught how vertical structure interrelates with horizontal structure by recognizing the ways in which these different combinations can affect the Akkadian equivalents.

12

Series Analysis * Syllable Alphabet A Vocabulary In terms of positionally patterned sequences, Svo teaches many techniques that are relevant for writing Sumerian. The repetition of positioning strategies in multiple entry sequences shows that Svo was used with the explicit goal of teaching the writing and composition of Sumerian words and phrases. The strategies distinguished earlier, will now be discussed and provided with examples. Regarding sign reduplication (1) it should be noted that in Sumerian writing reduplication codes aspects of nominal declination and verbal conjugation and that Svo often gives explicit information in this regard in the Akkadian translations (e.g. in 005.06 ME-ME is given the appropriate plural nominal form parṣū (mādūtu) ‘(great) rites’ and in 005.02 KU-KU is given the appropriate Ntn Inf form itaddû). Even in those cases where Svo matches reduplicated logograms with inappropriate Akkadian content, it often still manages to do so in the appropriate form (e.g. in 015.03-5 BAR-BAR is wrongly translated with the verb barāru 30 ‘to sparkle’, for which the correct logogram is UR 4 , but this verb is still given in forms that are appropriate to the reduplication and in 016.01 LÁ-LÁ 31 is wrongly translated with the noun ukû ‘shuttle’ but the fact that this noun is rendered with a reduplicated sign is an appropriate formal reference - the correct logogram is BAR.BAR). Unlike reduplication, reverse positioning of signs (2) does not seem to teach a strategy used in the composition of Sumerian words or phrases. However, it is a fact that there are various attestations of reverse writing in cuneiform documents 32 . Alternative directions of writing, common in archaic texts, are also occasionally found in later periods (and do not necessarily imply cryptography) 33 . It is therefore conceivable that the reverse positing of signs was practiced in Svo not because it was relevant to Sumerian composition, but because it was relevant to cuneiform writing generally, viz. because it served to make the student aware of the existence of alternative writing directions. One indication that this may indeed have been the case is the fact that for a number of reverse positioned pairs the Akkadian equivalents cover the same semantic field, implying that both sign orders were to be interpreted with reference to the same reading (e.g. for both entries 033-4 A-AN/AN-A the Akkadian equivalent DIĜIR.MEŠ is given 34 and for both entries 086-7 AN-GÀR/GÀR-AN the Akkadian equivalents, respectively mūtu ‘death’ and mutānu ‘plague’, share the same etymology and semantic sphere). For sign extension (3), there is clear evidence that it served to teach Sumerian word and phrase composition (relevant examples were given previously). In this respect the Svo list introduced vital techniques to the beginning student: determinatives, phonetic complements and affixation are some of the basic ingredients needed for the composition of Sumerian words and phrases.

30

Note the phonetic match BAR-BAR = barāru. Note that LÁ is graphically close to BAR and that 016 LÁ-LÁ shows up as an interpolation in the key-sign sequence with BAR, covering the other entries 014-18. 32 Beaulieu, ‘Reverse Writing’ - the Sal and Svo material is referred to on pp. 7-9. 33 Beaulieu, ‘Reverse Writing’, 3. 34 Also note that the equivalent zanān šamê ‘heavenly rain’ is given for 034(.01) AN-A instead of the correct equivalent, which is the reverse written A-AN(ŠÈĜ): this indicates that AN-A was supposed to be read as referring to A-AN. 31

13

Part 3 – Structural Analysis 1.4. Curricular position In the analysis of horizontal organization, it was found that, with respect to its method of presenting logograms, Svo was a quite suitable continuation of Tu-ta-ti (both exercises covered basic signs and both taught these signs in patterned sequences). Also, the teaching of various investigative and associative skills for the interpretation of logograms, through exploration of various horizontal associative mechanisms, was found to be an approach common to both Svo and SaV - series that both occur early in the curriculum. In short: the horizontal realizations of logogram content and inter-element association show the curricular functionality of Svo as an introductory exercise. In the analysis of vertical organization the use of horizontal ruling in Svo was found to deviate from that in other early lists. From a didactic standpoint, it may not have been a coincidence that the lay-out of Svo, the earliest list in Emar, closely resembles that of the most advanced lists, viz. Nigga and Diri. The fact that the student’s earliest lexical list was given in the presentational form of the most advanced lists is not surprising because one of the purposes of Svo seems to have been to acquaint him with the lexical list format in general. As long as a general introduction, rather than training in one specific aspect of cuneiform writing, was the aim, the specific format presented by Svo might as well be that of the most advanced lists in the curriculum - in effect, the student was shown what format he was working towards. In the analysis of vertical organization of content several features suggested that, in terms of curricular functionality, Svo offered an exercise that is didactically suited to serve as an introduction to the lexical curriculum in general. On the one hand, key-sign sequences were shown to be implicitly geared to training the student to recognize both the potential function of key-signs and the presentational form of the lexical list in general. The student was effectively introduced to the workings of horizontal and vertical structure in lexical lists, proceeding from the notion that key-signs, and by extension logograms in general, determined their organization. On the other hand, the positional entry sequences were shown to be geared to introduce essential aspects of cuneiform writing and Sumerian word and phrase composition. Again extending the notion of introductory functionality, it should be noted that Svo also introduced aspects of Sumerian word and phrase composition by other means. A fair number of individual logograms in fact implicitly introduce additional compositional techniques, such as Izi-compounding (e.g. 009 MAŠ-GAG = MAŠ.DÀ through 009.02 = ṣabītu), Diri-compounding (e.g. 033 A-AN = ÈR through 034.01 = zanān šamê) and even sentence construction (e.g. 063 SAG-AN-TUK a phrase similar to the administrative terminology found in Hh 1 - cf. EST 1061-3). On balance, it may be proposed that in content, form and organization Svo was a suitable didactic tool in the early stage of the lexical curriculum. Methodically it concentrates on familiarizing the student with his material and introducing some of the various analytical skills needed. In terms of knowledge content the goals of Svo seem to have been limited. Through the logograms a limited number of mostly basic signs were drilled without necessarily linking them to a set of relevant Akkadian readings. The amount of Akkadian learnt was also limited: many logograms have only a single Akkadian equivalent (e.g. all logograms from 047 to 057) and many equivalents are repeated for more than one logogram (e.g. the recurrent barû and mūdī entries in 038-41). The fact that, on balance, the Akkadian equivalents in Svo show a statistic preponderance of divine and human referents, possibly related to an archaic onomastic nature of the composition, which may indicate that its content inventory was semantically coherent. However, the established curricular (viz. introductory) functionality may be considered as a synchronically more relevant feature of the Svo exercise.

14

Series Analysis * Syllable Alphabet A Vocabulary

Summary 1.1.

Material – tablet inventory and typology:

1.

The attested material includes two Type I tablets as well as a few fragments, some of which are incompatible with the two reconstructed tablets.

1.2.

Formal features:

1.

Vertical ruling organizes text lay-out primarily to provide columns and secondarily to provide slots for the various elements found in the horizontal entry. The horizontal organization in terms of the Civil-code is 2-4. The sign-combinations occurring in the element 2-slot have the empiric function of logogram, even if their actual use outside of the context of Svo is sometimes unattested. The logograms in Svo share important didactic features with the entries of Ugarit Tu-ta-ti: both cover only basic signs and both teach signs in patterned sequences. The relation between the logograms and the Akkadian equivalents has only been explained for about 40% of the cases. In these cases it has been found as realized in a number of ways. The realization of that relation as a straightforward translation of the former into the latter is found only quite rarely. The unexplained relations may be classified in semantic categories and then analysed statistically. On balance, most Akkadian equivalents, explained as well as unexplained, may be said to have a human referent (professions, qualities etc.), which is compatible with the thesis that Svo originally referred to (archaic) PNs. In providing multiple realization types in the relation between logograms and Akkadian equivalents, Svo deviates from the advanced series but closely resembles SaV, which also occupies an early place in the curriculum. Horizontal ruling is intermittent and is related to content. It groups Akkadian equivalents according to the logogram they belong to – the logogram itself is not repeated (‘virtual logograms’). In this respect, Svo deviates from the other basic sign lists but conforms to the advanced series Nigga and Diri.

2. 3. 4. 5.

6. 7.

1.3.

Vertical organization of content:

1.

The overall logogram sign sequence in Svo may be described in terms of two types of partially overlapping and complementary patterned sequences: key-sign sequences and positionally patterned sequences. The first type covers almost the whole text. The second type only covers parts of the text and within it three main strategies regarding sign sequencing may be detected: reduplication, reverse positioning and extension. The positionally patterned sequences detected in the overall logogram sequence may be interpreted as functional in terms of the curriculum: the key-sign sequences serve to acquaint the student with the structures and mechanisms occurring in lexical texts in general and the positional sequences teach aspects of writing and composition of Sumerian words and phrases.

2.

1.4.

Curricular position:

1.

The formal and organizational comparison shows that Svo was a didactic tool that was eminently suitable to the early stage of the lexical curriculum. It is focussed on introducing the student to the lexical list and its methodology generally, rather than on imparting specific or substantive knowledge content.

15

Part 3 – Structural Analysis CHAPTER 2 - THE SYLLABARY A FORMAT SERIES 2.0. The Sa-format series in Emar The various Sa-format series 35 In Emar there are three series that are structured around the Sa key-sign inventory: due to their common structure they will here be referred to as the Sa-format series. Two of these are unilingual, viz. Syllabary A (Sa, series 2.2.), which merely gives a one-column listing of the key-signs, often repeated a number of times, and Syllabary A Palaeography (SaP, series 2.3.), which is similar to Sa but adds a second sub-column with (often multiple and varying) palaeographic sign forms. The third series is bilingual Syllabary A Vocabulary (SaV, series 2.1.), which adds other elements (glosses, sign names and Akkadian equivalents) to the Sa entries. In Emar SaV is attested in two versions: a short and a long version. The latter generally has a much larger number of Akkadian equivalents, resulting in a much longer list. This expanded version has only been found for the first part of SaV. In terms of curricular order it seems likely that SaV preceeded Sa because the repetition of key-signs in Sa presupposes knowledge of multiple values, which is taught in SaV: effectively, Sa is an shortened, advanced version of SaV. SaP in turn seems to presuppose familiarity with Sa as it would be didactically appropriate to give palaeographic variant forms only after giving the contemporaneous forms, which are provided by SaV and Sa. As far as possible, the three Saformat series need to be analysed separately to account for their particular formal and organizational features, which are related to different use within the wider curricular context. The Sa-appendices 36 On both the SaP and SaV tablets the respective main exercises are consistently followed by additional exercise material that is only partly attested elsewhere. This additional material is divided in two sections that occur as fixed-position appendices (the term ‘appendix’ follows the usage of van Soldt, SAU, 750-1 for the parallel material in Ugarit). Appendices 1 and 2 are listed as separate lists (2.4. and 2.5. respectively) in the series inventory of this study, but this is solely for convenient reference because they do not actually have equal status as independent series. Because of the value of the Emar material in respect of these appendices (only in Emar are they almost completely preserved) and because study of them has been relatively neglected in the literature to date, two extra paragraphs (2.4. and 2.5.) with a short discussion of their form and content will be added after the analysis of the SaP and SaV texts.

35 36

Cf. the comparative analysis of the LBA peripheral material in Gantzert, ‘SLT 1’ (forthcoming). Cf. the comparative analysis of the LBA peripheral material in Gantzert, ‘SLT 2’ (forthcoming).

16

Series Analysis * The Syllabary A Format Series 2.1. Syllabary A Vocabulary 2.1.1. Text corpus – tablet inventory and typology The attested SaV material consists of four Type I tablets and a few fragments. The first two tablets (T1-2) originally contained the complete SaV text, written in five columns on each side of the tablet (on both tablets the last part of column X has Appendix 1). The other two tablets (T3-4) originally contained a strongly expanded version of the first part of the SaV text, written in four columns on each side of the tablet. The fact that only about the first quarter Sa key-signs (PST 001-058) fits on these latter two tablets, shows the extend of the expansion. It is remarkable that no further tablets, covering the later Sa key-signs, are attested for the expanded version. There are also no extract tablets. The few fragments, edited separately, likely belong to one of the expanded-version tablets but lack direct joins. 2.1.2. Formal features 2.1.2.1. Horizontal organization Vertical ruling Vertical ruling serves to provide the lay-out of the text with columns and sub-columns. In T1, T3 and T4 there are three such sub-columns, creating slots for respectively the gloss (preceded by the line marker), the logogram and the Akkadian equivalent. In T2 there are only two sub-columns: the slot for the gloss is omitted because no glosses are given (the sole exception is discussed in 2.1.2.2) - the line marker immediately precedes the logogram. Entry element inventory All five of the regular elements of the lexical lemma may be found in the combined corpus of SaV material, but their distribution is not equal in the different tablets. There are two main discrepancies within the material. First, the short-version tablets (T1-2) lack the sign name element provided by the long-version tablets (T3-4). Second, T2 lacks the gloss element. It should be noted that when (long-version) tablets provide the sign name element, this element always occupies the same slot as the gloss (in other words, the gloss slot of position 2 may either contain a real gloss, such as in T4 III 3’’ and 5’’, or a real sign name, such as in T4 III 5’-9’). Often the position 2 slot occupies a full horizontal line, preceding the logogram on the next line (e.g. T4 VI 1). In no case is the ‘correct’, canonical use of position 4 as the sign name slot found in Emar SaV. Element 0 – the line marker The only attested Emar series that use the line marker (the DIŠ sign, indicated with a ¶ marker in transcription) is SaV. Line markers are even omitted in the otherwise closely related Sa and SaP texts. All SaV tablets consistently use the line marker throughout the whole lexical text they contain, i.e. including the SaA1 text that follows the regular Sa key-sign entries. The name ‘line marker’ has been chosen because this marker introduces each single line - it does not indicate a lemma or entry because it also occurs before each single line when one entry is spread over more than one line of the text (e.g. in T4, where the sign name is given in one line and the rest of the entry in a second). The fact that element 0 is not related to individual entries means that, at least in the Emar corpus, it is actually not an entry element. The fact,

17

Part 3 – Structural Analysis however, that in SaV only the lines of the lexical text and not those of the colophon are introduced by the line marker indicates that this marker must have been considered functional specifically in the context of the SaV exercise, and only there. The obvious value of these markers is that they allow easy counting of the number of lines 37 , but if that was their purpose than it was apparently only felt in respect to SaV and not to many other (including more basic) texts with similar numbers of lines but without line markers. If so, this would imply that the number of lines was somehow especially important with regard to the SaV exercise 38 . Element 1 – the gloss One of the basic functions of SaV as an educational tool is to teach the polyphonic values of the Sa key-sign inventory, an inventory that covers many of the signs that are most frequently used in cuneiform writing. Mastering the various phonetic realizations of the Sa key-signs was a fundamental step in the early education of apprentice scribes. The means by which knowledge of the various phonetic values was expressed in writing the SaV exercise was the inclusion of pronunciation glosses. The absence of regular glosses in T2 is therefore a-typical and invites closer inspection. The only gloss that this tablet contains is mu-ia for MU=e -lu 4 , an interpolation theoretically following PST 190 ŠUL, not actually found in T1. If it is assumed that glosses are only given for signs that are new to the scribe at any given stage in their schooling, which is what the curriculum shows (e.g. Hh only gives glosses for signs that were not glossed in earlier series), than it must be assumed that this single gloss mu-ia has is the only phonetic value not familiar to the student that wrote this text (note that this gloss may interpret MU with its value IA 5 39 ). In that case T2 was written by an advanced student, who reproduced the SaV exercise without glosses 40 . Concerning the glosses it should be noted that their application of glosses was not a straightforward matter - any discussion of these ‘glosses’ should be made with a number of caveats in mind. In this regard, a short analysis of the many glosses provided by T1, T3 and T4 allows the following observations: 1. The glosses tend to be given in a spelling that seems to partly deviate from the reconstructed phonetic values of modern Assyriology (e.g. 048.03 ti-kar for AN=DIĜIR, 076.02 šu-te for ŠID=ŠUDUM, 156.01 bi-ru for DAG=PÀR). Two factors that may contribute to such discrepancies are actual (hearing) ‘mistakes’ by the student and dialectically determined conventions regarding the graphic rendering of phonemes. However, the possibility should not be excluded that some spellings may reflect a glimpse into a now lost oral tradition in which, in the circles of the learned, at least some Sumerian phonetic particularities were preserved that are not otherwise seen in writing 41 . One case in which a seeming inconsistency certainly reflects such an oral tradition is the double gloss 038.02/03 ke-eš / né-eš for GIŠ=ĜIŠ (reflecting the /ĝ/ phoneme). 37

Civil, M., ‘Ancient Mesopotamian Lexicography’ in: J.M. Sasson (ed.), Civilizations of the Ancient Near East IV (New York 1995), 2308. 38 Perhaps a particular need was felt to quantify the amount of knowledge mastered by pupils - given the limited number of Sa key-signs, SaV does indeed offer an opportunity for the objective ‘measuring’ of knowledge, viz. by counting the number of phonetic and semantic associations recalled. 39 Suggestion by Prof. van Soldt (personal communication). 40 A similar omission of the gloss by more experienced students is noted for (non-Nippurian) PEa texts (MSL 14, 4). Parenthetically, it may be noted that SaV T2 has a uniquely worded colophon which could be interpreted as specifying the day it was written. It is attractive to speculate that šakānu is to be read contextually as ‘to submit’, viz. in terms of an ‘examination’ (note, however, that some of the colophon text is broken). 41 Cf. M. Civil, ‘The Sumerian Writing System: Some Problems’, OrNS 42 (1973) 29-30.

18

Series Analysis * The Syllabary A Format Series

2. The glosses mostly do not give a complete rendering of the Sumerian words behind the logograms. Many glosses give the abbreviated form of the full phonetic form of the key-sign they precede (e.g. 005.09 ki for HAR=KÍN, 016.02/04 šu for RU=ŠUB, 033.02 te for GIM=DÍM). Conversely, some glosses offer a longer phonetic form than seems to be called for (e.g. 011.04 ti-gil for NI=DIG, 141.04 ni-in-ni for NÍG=NIĜ, 205.02 i-še for ŠÈ=ÉŠ). These systematic deviations seem to indicate that the function of the gloss was to serve as an indication of phonetic content rather than as a complete phonetic rendering of Sumerian vocabulary. The abbreviations may have been intended as mere reminders and the enlarged forms may be conventional terms to describe signs rather than phonetic values. 3. Some glosses are not appropriate to the specific entry they occur in, i.e. the phonetic value they suggest does not match the Akkadian equivalent (e.g. 014.02 tu-uš for KU=ŠÈ=ana, 045.13 mah for IGI=IGI<.DU>=ašarēdu, 046.04 šar for HI=HI<.HI>=berqu). These mismatches are likely to indicate student mistakes but show interesting insights into the associative context in which they occurred. In 014.02 tu-uš is one of the values of KU(TUŠ) but it is not placed in the correct line, as is the case for šar in 046.04, which is one of the values of HI(ŠÁR). These mistakes may imply that at this point the student concentrated more on the phonetic inventory than on meaning. It is conceivable that the audible, phonetic aspect, which the student got right, had (initial) priority over the semantic aspect, which he got wrong. In 045.13 mah for IGI seems to reflect some kind of Akkadian interference by referring to IGI=mahāru (< IGI=mahru) in 045.12, the preceding entry in T4. The fact that mah, a non-existent value for IGI, is added as a gloss may reflect the use of a gloss as a didactic tool to assist in the assignment of Akkadian equivalents. 4. The long-version tablets seem to have two types of glosses. Apart from regular, phoneticdescriptive gloss there seems to be a second type of gloss with what could be described as doubled analytical content. Of this apparent second type there are two series attested, one in T3 (VIII’ 16’-18’) and another in T4 III 5’-9’. The first series provides the key-sign DU with three glosses: ša-ra, ki-in-na-ra and ku-up-pa-ra. The most obvious interpretation of these glosses would be DU=ŠA 4 /RÁ, DU=GIN/RÁ and DU=GUB/RÁ respectively, giving three different, individual readings of DU in combination with one shared reading of DU as the compound verbal element RÁ (‘to address’). No solid confirmation of these interpretations can be found in the Akkadian equivalents. Of those, only the first two are readable and of these only the second (ra-ṣa-pu ‘to pile, build up’) seems to share some of its semantic field with that of the postulated Sumerian logographic counterpart (GIN ‘to establish’). Neither, however, do these Akkadian equivalents exclude the suggested interpretations - throughout SaV the relations between the Akkadian element, the gloss-element and the logogram element are consistently unstable. The second attested series seems to provide the key-sign NI with the three glosses lii-ú za-li-i-ú , and ti-gil-li-i-ú (5’-7’). Next, there follow two lines (8’-9’) that are likely to refer to the compound logogram NI-NI and that also have elements preceding the logogram: šu?-i-ú and i-li mi-na-bi respectively. The first of these elements looks like a gloss (the ending –i-ú indicates continuity with the preceding gloss entries) but the second is a regular sign name. The most obvious interpretation would be to follow the parallel text of T1 and read the first three entries as NI=LÉ, NI=ZAL/LÉ, NI=DIG/LÉ. The fourth entry may reflect NI=SÚŠ but that does not take into account the fact that the actual logogram is likely to be N[I-NI], a likelihood due to the horizontal ruling that lumps in line 8’ with line 9’ (i-li mi-na-bi). Again, the Akkadian is of limited use (ši-, perhaps for šêmu) in 6’ but otherwise broken). Nevertheless, a pattern seems to arise when the glosses under discussion in T3 and T4 are compared. In both series there is a double content that is constructed by prefixing an individually distinctive element to a shared

19

Part 3 – Structural Analysis and stable reference element. Such double content, in effect, allows a double identification of the logogram. If such double identification is indeed intended in these glosses, they could be regarded as a hybrid gloss-annex-sign name element - they contain variable phonetic component as well as a shared identification component. The postulated hybrid state of these glosses would be line with their position in the double-duty second slot, which is where, in the other SaV texts, glosses as well as sign names are located. Element 3 – the sign name The sign name, the third element of the entry counted by the Civil-code, will be treated before the logogram, the second element. The reason for this is that in Emar, where the sign name occurs relatively rarely, it occupies the slot before the logogram, sharing it with the gloss, the second element in the entry. There are relatively few sign names preserved for the SaV material because large parts of the long-version tablets T3 and T4, the only tablets that systematically provide them, are broken. Only one sign name is found in the short-version tablet. All attested sign names are included Table 5, which separates them from the glosses that precede them and clarifies their structure. Note that additional synchronic and diachronic comparative analysis of the Emar sign names may be found in the study by Gong (‘Namen der Keilschriftzeichen’). Table 5. Analysis of the gloss/sign name combinations in SaV Tablet

PST

Logogram

Gloss

T1 T3 T4

159 057 011 int(4) 039a 039b 039c 039d 039e 039f 039g 043a 049 050 int(9)

KÁ-GAL(abullu) DÙL(SUMUR) NI-NI(ì-lí) PÀD-DA GÁxNÍG(ĜALGA) GÁxME.NA(!ÈRA=DÁN) GÁxÁŠ(GAZI) GAxPA(SILA 4 ) GÁxŠE(ÉSAG) GÁxNIR(ÙR; gušūru) GÁxLI IRIxIGI(!ĜIŠGAL) NAB MUL GUR 5 (IRIxGU)

a-bu-ul šu-mur

-

pa-da ga-an-ga ṭu-un-na

ka-za si-la

[…]

gu-šu-ur ú-ia na-aš-gal na-ab mu-ul ib-bi 42

Sign name (bold = ‘in-written’ element) a-ga 43 -gal-la-ak-ku šag gu-nu-u i-li mi-na-bi i-[gu?]-šup-pa-ak-ka 44 ša bi-ši-ga-ak-ku nindada min min me-na min min te-eš-ša min min ki-iš- u-ra min [min e]-ia min na-an nir mi-na-bi 45 min ša bi-ša-ga-ak-ku li-la 46 i-ku-ub ša e-ri-ak!-ku i-gu i-ku-ub [a-na] mi-na-bi 4 a-na eš-ša-bi ša ú-ra-[ak-ku gu-ga i-ku-ub] 47

In T3 and T4 the entries that have sign names are generally given in two lines: in the first line are given both the gloss and the sign name, in the second follow the logogram and the 42

Note that the Akkadian equivalent uqquru means ‘cripple’ and that the sign name ib-bi seems to refer to IB ‘hips’, allowing a simultaneous semantic association with both preceding 051.04 HAL ‘thigh’ and following 052.01 UR=awilu ‘man’. 43 Cf. Y. Gong, ‘Die mittelbabylonische Namen der Keilschriftzeichen aus Hattuša und Emar’, RA 85 (1995), p.56 n.41. 44 Interpretation by Gong, ‘Namen der Keilschriftzeichen’, 57. 45 Cf. Gong, ‘Namen der Keilschriftzeichen’, 52. 46 Ibidem, p.55 n.34. 47 Ibidem, 57.

20

Series Analysis * The Syllabary A Format Series Akkadian equivalent. Only the element i-li-mi-na-bi (011a.01 in T4 III 9’), the terminology of which (viz. the use of the term mi-na-bi to express doubling of a graphic element) indicates that it is a sign name, does not seem to fit this rule. It should be noted that, although gloss and sign name share the same slot before the logogram, the gloss consistently precedes the sign name. If the long-version SaV texts have indeed two types of gloss, as was suggested earlier, then there is common ground between these two types: phonetic information consistently precedes other information about the sign. In the entries which have both regular glosses and sign names, listed in Table 5, the gloss always precedes the sign name and in the entries with ‘hybrid-type’ glosses, treated previously, specific phonetic information always precedes the shared part of the sign description. This permits the formulation of the rule that in the horizontal organization of the SaV texts the left-most position (after the line marker) is always taken up by the description of the logogram, be it a phonetic gloss or a sign name. Element 2 – the logogram Here the logogram, the central element of SaV as well as all other lexical compositions, will be investigated more closely in order to better understand what object it actually presented to the ancient scribes themselves. The SaV exercise is built up around a limited and sequentially fairly stable inventory of common key-signs, mostly presented with multiple logographic readings. The principle that guides the selection of signs in the Sa key-sign inventory is that it collects signs that carry either the most frequent phonetic values used for spelling Akkadian words or the most common Sumerian logographic values - often indeed a combination of both is found. This means that the Sa key-signs may be considered as the most basic signs used in cuneiform writing. The function of the various exercises using the Sa key-sign inventory is to make pupils acquainted with their various properties, graphic, phonetic and semantic. However, the selection of key-signs thus achieved does not automatically result in a sign collection of unified graphic appearance: the phonetic and semantic criteria used in choosing signs have a random result in terms of graphic properties. In terms of graphic presentation, the inventory of the Sa key-signs was thus determined conventionally rather than systematically. To present their pupils with an exercise that balances the diverse associative principles which they needed to master, the ancient scholars presented the Sa key-sign inventory in a fixed sequence which is equally guided by graphic, phonetic and semantic criteria. At this point the text history of the Sa text is of interest. Of course its original purpose may theoretically have been different from that of its later users, but whether a deliberate, programmatic composition determined its sequence, or whether it grew organically out of other lists is immaterial to the historically attested function of the Sa key-sign list in the curriculum. What is relevant, is that it functioned as an important basic exercise in schools throughout the whole area of cuneiform culture and throughout all of its later period. The limited and fixed inventory and the stability of its sequence seem to explain the remarkable historical continuity of the Sa text (cf. Appendix 1 of Part 2). Its attestation starts in the OB period, with the rise of written Akkadian and the lexical effort to preserve the Sumerian literary tradition after the demise of Sumerian spoken language, and it stops only shortly before cuneiform writing itself stops. If the concise presentation of fixed inventory and the stable sequencing are the strengths of the Sa list, they are also its limitations. There is friction between the pragmatic selective criteria applied in the Sa list (viz. usage frequency in phonetic spelling and double phonetic-

21

Part 3 – Structural Analysis logographic value) and the systematic classificatory analysis (viz. separate studies of graphic, phonetic and semantic associative mechanisms) found in much of the further curriculum. A single-focus analysis is attested in many other parts of the lexical curriculum: the curriculum shows an approach that focuses on different aspects of the writing system in different lexical works. The focus of Tu-ta-ti is on phonetic association, that of the thematic lists (G, Hh, Lu) is on semantic association and in the advanced lists graphic association is important. In the organization of the logogram inventory the Sa list does not have such a single focus. This helps explain the occurrence of many of the deviations found in different attestations of SaV. On the level of horizontal organization, it explains the frequent occurrence of compound forms for what should be single, basic signs. Often the basic Sa key-signs are found in a compound form. In examples such as 011a NI-NI, 036a U-MU, 039a GÁxNÍG, 077a AM-SI and 078a IM-TE it may be noted that various elements are affixed to the basic form (rendered BOLD), resulting in compound forms and non-standard added entries. Such non-standard additions to the Sa key-sign inventory, attested in most individual SaV texts, are contextually determined expansions that occur when the analytical approach occasionally takes precedence over the conventional limitations of the Sa text. The compounded forms of the basic signs follow the same mechanism of graphic association that is also productive in the standard Sa text: sequences that show graphical association through compounding are also frequently found within the regular Sa key-sign inventory (e.g. 014-015 KU - LU(KU+DIŠ), 036-037 MU - TAH(MU+ZIB), 046-7 HI - KAM(HI+BE), 074-075 UM - DUB(UM+DIŠ)). The only criterion for determining what is a valid compound addition in the Sa text is by following the traditional convention - otherwise all compounds follow an analytical method that is equally valid. The conventional inventory itself, it should be noted, is not entirely stable throughout the tradition (Appendix 1 of the composite edition compares the Emar and canonical Sa keysign inventories). Because of their contextual determination, the additions to the regular inventory will be primarily treated in the analysis of the vertical organization of content, in the appropriate paragraph below. There, an analysis will also be made of other, non-compound additions to the Sa key-sign inventory. Element 4 – the Akkadian equivalent In the SaV material the relation between the key-sign and the Akkadian equivalent is unstable. Even if the translation of one specific logographic reading of the key-sign is most often the obvious aim of the Akkadian element, it may also stand in other types of relations to it. Summing up, the horizontal relation of the Akkadian element to the key-sign may be observed to have the following realization types: 1. The ‘regular’ realization is that the Akkadian element provides a straightforward, one-onone translation of a specific reading of the logogram represented by the key-sign. Multiple Akkadian equivalents may be used to cover a diverging semantic field implied by a single Sumerian reading (e.g. in 014.10-11 two Akkadian equivalents, ēmu (‘insight’) and pakku (‘consideration’), are used to cover the semantic field of Sumerian UMUŠ). This strategy should not be confused with the use of different Akkadian equivalents to cover different grammatical uses of the same Sumerian reading (e.g. in 016.02 and .04 Akkadian maqātu (‘to fall’) and miqittu (‘fall’) cover different uses of the Sumerian morpheme ŠUB, viz. verbal and nominal root). It should also not be confused with the use of different Akkadian equivalents for different Sumerian readings of the same sign in case of polyphone signs (e.g. in 055 the sign KA, originally a pictogram of head with lines through the face, may be read KÁG

22

Series Analysis * The Syllabary A Format Series ‘mouth’, ZÚ ‘tooth’, KÌRI ‘nose’, INIM ‘word’, GÙ ‘noise’ and DUG 4 ‘to speak’). When the Akkadian equivalents shift their reference to a different Sumerian reading, this is often indicated by a simultaneous change in the gloss (e.g. in 016.02 and .04 the gloss šu indicates the reading ŠUB, but in 016.03 the gloss is il-lu-ur or il-úr, indicating that RU should here be read ILLURU). It should be remembered, however, that the application of glosses was neither straightforward nor entirely consistent (cf. preceding remarks on element 2). 2. The Akkadian element may give a partial translation of the logogram. In SaV this means that the Akkadian equivalent gives a translation that would apply to a larger phrase (or compound form) of which the logogram (or key-sign) could be only part: effectively, the logogram is interpreted by postulating a semantic value on a pars-pro-toto basis. Examples: in 001.16 zunnu ‘rain (water)’ is the translation appropriate to ŠÈĜ, which is written A-AN, not A; in 001.30 kapru ‘village’ is the translation appropriate to É.DURU 5 , which is written É-A, not A; in 015.01 rē’u ‘shepherd’ is the translation appropriate to SIPAD, which is written PALU, not LU. In all these cases the meaning of a larger phrase is projected onto one of its components. 3. The Akkadian element may give a translation that applies to another logogram, but one that is graphically related to the actual logogram it describes. In such a case the logogram is interpreted by postulating a theoretical semantic value through empirical graphic association. Examples: in 005.04 harru ‘ditch, watercourse’ is the translation appropriate to SÙR, which is written HI-AŠ, not HI-ÁŠ (note that the both logograms share both a graphic element in the first compound-element and a common phonetic value for the second compound-element); in 038.02 ha u ‘stick, sceptre’ is the translation appropriate to ĜIDRU, which is written PA, not GIŠ (note that GIŠ is not only graphically close but is also relevant as the appropriate determinative to be used with ĜIDRU); in158.02 gagû ‘cloister’ is the translation appropriate to ĜÁ.GI.A, the initial sign of which is graphically close to the actual logogram, É (note the shared semantic field ‘house’). In all these cases the meaning of another, graphically related logogram is projected on the logogram that is actually treated. 4. The Akkadian element may give a translation that applies to another logogram, but one with which it shares a phonetic value. In such a case the logogram is interpreted by postulating a theoretical semantic value through empirical homophony. Examples: in 006.09 hurru ‘hole’ is the translation appropriate to U but is given for UH; in 027.01 maṣallu ‘sleeping place’ is appropriate to NÚ but is given for NU; in 053.03 puluhtu ‘fear’ is appropriate to NÍ but is given for NE. In all these cases the meaning of another, homophone logogram is projected on the logogram that is actually treated. 5. The Akkadian element may give a translation that applies to another logogram on the mere basis of semantic association. In such a case the logogram is interpreted by postulating a theoretical extension of its semantic field. Examples: in 006.11-2 rūhu and rusū (‘spell’) are added to the interpretations of AH because of a shared semantic range in the sphere of magic (AH means also ‘spittle’), despite the fact that rūhu and rusū are properly written KAxLI-RI and KAxBAD, both graphically unrelated to AH, and despite the fact that they have only partially related Sumerian pronunciations, /ušri/ and /uš/; in 163.05 šapru (‘thigh’) is added to the interpretations of ÚR because of a shared semantic range in the sphere of body parts (ÚR means also ‘leg’), despite the fact that šapru is properly written ZIG, graphically unrelated to ÚR, and despite the fact that it has an equally unrelated Sumerian pronunciation, /haš/. The logical premises of semantic association found in the SaV lists has likely not been reconstructed in all cases that it applies, but definitely includes the attraction of classificatory

23

Part 3 – Structural Analysis opposites. Examples of the latter are 041.01/.03, explaining EN first as bēlu (‘lord’) and then as bēltu (‘lady’) and 048.03/.04, explaining AN first as ilu (‘god’) and then as awīlu (‘man’). 6. The Akkadian element may interpret a key-sign not as a logogram but notice it as a partial phonetic rendering of an Akkadian word. Such an Akkadian word may or may not be a loanword in Sumerian. In such a case the key-sign is exclusively used for its phonetic value. Examples: in 012.03 puhru is the interpretation of BU on the basis of the loanword tu PU.UH.RU.UM ‘assembly’; in 035.01 mātu (spelled KUR 4 ) is the interpretation of MA on the basis of the loanword MA.DA ‘land’. In 178.01 bēlu (‘lord’) the key-sign BE just happens to be a frequent sign used in the Akkadian spelling of that specific word. Finally, it should be remembered that the horizontal relation of the Akkadian element to the key-sign may occasionally be implemented through various combinations of the above listed realization types. Examples: in 017.02 the Akkadian element halāqu relates to the key-sign HA in a double manner: on the one hand it gives a translation that would apply to a compound sign of which the sign would be only part (viz. HA-A=ZÁH) (type 2 realization) , and on the other hand it is a partial phonetic rendering of the Akkadian word ha-la-qu (type 6 realization); in 053.04 the key-sign NE relates to the Akkadian element by simultaneously applying two realization strategies: its single sign value ṢAH, applying the pars-pro-toto type (type 2) realization, is taken to represent a Akkadian equivalent (rēṣu meaning ‘aid’) that actually needs to be written with two signs (Á.TAH) – this is only possible by simultaneously applying a homophone (type 4) realization (i.e ṢAH for TAH). Integrative methodology in the horizontal organization Regarding the larger issue of the Mesopotamian ‘science of writing’, it may be appropriate to draw attention to the methodology of the ancient scholars for establishing relations between the horizontally organized elements of each single SaV entry. In SaV, which played a crucial role in the curriculum, they analysed these relations with a different approach to linguistic phenomena than found in contemporary western science. Modern western science tends to a compartmentalized approach of knowledge, considering each field of study as a collection of (potential) specializations and sub-specializations. Linguistic phenomena are studied separately from literary and cultural historical phenomena. Within linguistics there are further separations, causing graphology, phonology, morphology and semantics to develop into sub-sciences with diverging objects of inquiry. The phenomena particular to each of these objects are further dissected and classified as mutually exclusive (e.g. regarding graphology: individual ductus vs. collective orthography, synchronic conformity vs. diachronic divergence). This method could be described as a segregating approach to knowledge, resulting in a monographic presentation of knowledge. On the other hand, the lexical work of the ancient scribes systematically investigates the relations between phenomena that modern science considers as pertaining to separate objects of inquiry. The above analysis of the relation between horizontally organized elements has shown a sophisticated interaction of graphic, phonological, morphological, semantic associations. The ancient scribes were well aware of the different lines of inquiry that are used in modern western science - the grapho-morphologically, phonetically and semantically ordered sections of the lexical curriculum clearly prove this -, they just did not systematically keep these approaches separate in SaV.

24

Series Analysis * The Syllabary A Format Series The method of the ancient scribes was to establish (speculative) relations between what would now be considered scientifically unrelated phenomena, i.e. without the constraint of many of the classificatory boundaries imposed by modern science. The ancient scribes established relations between what, in modern terms, are considered scientifically unrelated units of speech and of writing. Their method could be described as an integrative approach, which is reflected in the resulting non-monographic presentation of knowledge 48 . In the lexical curriculum such a presentation is achieved in a systematic description of cross-classificatory connections between heterogeneous (graphic, phonetic, semantic) elements 49 . The lexical curriculum, in fact, shows a methodology that is also found in the process through which cuneiform writing had progressed beyond pictography in the first place. That progress had depended on establishing relations between sub-phrasal auditory units (phonemes and morphemes) and sub-real visual units (graphic symbols). Effectively, the integrative methodology that had allowed the initial development of the writing system remains productive in the lexical curriculum 50 . The lexical series may be said to establish rather than describe a writing system 51 . This is especially clear in SaV, a series specifically used to introduce students to the application of the integrative methodology. Many of the complicated, often twisted associations found in various relations between various horizontal elements are a sure measure of the progress made by the student in applying the integrative methodology that he was supposed to master. A similar observation may be made for deviations found in the vertical organization, i.e. those with regard to inventory and sequence. Such deviations may have been misplaced in as far as they fell outside the conventional inventory of SaV established by tradition, but they are equally a measure of the student’s progress in establishing connections through application of the integrative methodology. This topic will be again touched upon in the analysis of content (2.1.3.). 2.1.2.2. Vertical organization Horizontal ruling There are two types of horizontal ruling attested: T1, T3 and T4 have intermittent ruling, the positioning of which is related to the content of the text, and T2 has continuous ruling (in the autograph it only extends to the logogram sub-column). In T1 the intermittent ruling mostly serves to separate blocks of repeated entries for each single Sa key-sign, more rarely such blocks include more than one key-sign (e.g. column II with LI and LA or column IX with HUL, GUL, ÁŠ and ÍL). In T3 and T4 the intermittent ruling basically functions like in T1 but additionally serves to create subdivisions within certain particularly long stretches of repetitions for single key-signs (e.g. T3 column I with a subdivision within A and T4 column VI with a subdivision within IGI). Such additional blocks are consistently marked wherever a (new) gloss is given for the key-sign in question. This proves that horizontal ruling, which in SaV is always content-related, is not a feature that is exclusively linked to graphic content.

48

Cf. N.C. Veldhuis, ‘TIN.TIR=Babylon, The Question of Canonization and the Production of Meaning’, JCS 50 (1998) 84. 49 Cf. Cavigneaux, Zeichenlisten, 118-9 and 125-6. 50 Ibidem, 127-8. 51 Relevant examples of production of signs (‘allographs’) in various series of periods II-IV are discussed in Cavigneaux, Zeichenlisten, 122-5. Earlier ‘theoretical signs’ resulting from the integrative methodology are discussed by Th.J.H. Krispijn, ‘The Early Mesopotamian Lexical Lists and the Dawn of Linguistics’, JEOL 32 (1991-2) 14 (also note the comments of Veldhuis, Elementary Education, 13).

25

Part 3 – Structural Analysis The aberrant continuous ruling found in T2 could be explained in terms of the contentrelatedness of horizontal line positioning: T2 is the only tablet which has continuous ruling but it is also the only one which does not systematically provide glosses (it has only one gloss, mu-ia in IX 42, which does not fit into the vertical lay-out). The continuous ruling of T2 seems to indicate that T2 was used in a slightly different manner than the other SaV texts, viz. without exercising the phonetic values by means of the otherwise frequently inserted glosses. Division No divisions are found in the short-version tablets but for the long-version text a divisional organization is implied by the fact that, theoretically, a complete long-version of SaV would have required several divisions. The preserved incomplete long-version material shows that, due to the exponential growth of the number of entries particular to the long version, only about a quarter of the Sa key-signs could be fitted on a single long-version tablet. Text material is only attested for one such long-version ‘division’, viz. covering the first quarter of the Sa key-signs (T3 has the signs up to PST 058, T4 probably extended to about the same sign). The complete lack of any long-version text fragment for the later key-signs seems to indicate that these were not covered by the Emar curriculum: apparently only the first part of the SaV exercise was produced in two versions. If this is true, the short- and long-version must have had complementary uses, i.e. they served different purposes within the curriculum. This seems to be born out by the fact that the long-version material has a different horizontal organization (it includes the sign name element not found in the short-term material) and that many Akkadian sub-entries show complimentary distribution. 2.1.3. Vertical organization of content Limitations of the content analysis The general remarks on the limitations of the content analysis for the Sa-format series given in the paragraph discussing the content SaP (2.3.3.) also apply to SaV. There it is said that any content outside the traditional-conventional key-sign core (i.e. Emar-specific content), may be assumed to be valuable for understanding the particular implementation of the Sa-format in the Emar curriculum: such non-core, Emar-specific content will here be analysed. If the traditional Sa key-sign core is defined as the 211 signs of the canonical version given by MSL (which gives a suitable diachronic composite), then there are three types of content that fall outside it: (1) additional key-signs, (2) incidental compound forms with any of the key-signs and (3) other, non-key-sign and non-compound interpolations. A convenient overview of the Emar and canonical Sa key-sign inventories is found in Appendix 1 of the composite text edition. Additional key-signs Additional key-sign are defined as non-Izi-compound signs that systematically recur in the Emar Sa-format series but are not part of the canonical Sa key-sign inventory. Izi-compound signs are excluded because, as a norm, no such compounds are part of the canonical Sa keysign inventory - the only exceptions are the compound forms KUG.BABBAR and KUG.GI. With systematic recurrence is meant that the additional key-sign is attested in more than one text attested with either the SaV or the SaP series. Thus defined, the Emar Sa key-sign inventory includes 11 signs that do not occur in the canonical version. Parenthetically, it should be noted that the listed additions to the Emar Sa key-sign inventory do not necessarily imply that it was

26

Series Analysis * The Syllabary A Format Series (much) larger than the canonical version in absolute terms because, vice-versa, at least five signs that are part of the canonical key-sign inventory are not found in Emar (042 SIG 7 , 071 URUDU, 081 GEŠTIN, 094 KASKAL and 169 ZIB). Table 6 lists these signs and specifies how they are imbedded in the text through various associations. Table 6. Additional Sa key-sign inventory in Emar PST

Key-sign

004 022 023 034 049 050 062 085 146 153 169

ŠIR SIG 4 ŠID PAN NAB MUL IA GIG LÁ NAGA DAM

Contextual associations /gr/ - graphic; /ph/ - phonetic; /sem/ - semantic /gr/ - preceding PAD, through virtual BUR (004.01 bi-ra) /gr/ - preceding LUM and LAM /sem/ - preceding SIG 4 (libittu – kurbanu) /gr/ - preceding GIM /gr/ - preceding AN /gr/ - preceding AN and NAB; /sem/ - preceding AN (šamû – kakkabu) /gr/ - preceding I /gr/ - preceding MI and DUGUD /gr/ - following LÁL; /ph/ - following LÁL and LÀL /gr/ - preceding SUM /gr/ - preceding SAL and NIN; /sem/ - preceding SAL and NIN (sinništu – ahātu – aššatu)

Table 6 clearly shows that the various associative mechanisms determining the vertical organization of the canonical Sa key-sign inventory are also found to be productive in the positioning of the additional key-signs particular to the Emar corpus. The fact that the same mechanisms are productive in both allows the conclusion that the function of the Late Bronze SaV exercise in the Emar school was to teach the same approach to the writing system that guided the original composition of the OB Sa-list. This common approach to vertical organization may be considered another effect of the integrative methodology that was previously postulated as an explanation for the horizontal organization. Incidental compound forms with key-signs Often a key-sign is followed by a compound which adds another graphic element to the keysign. If a compound is defined as a sign consisting of distinct graphic elements that can carry sound and meaning separately, than many key-sign are compounded forms of preceding keysigns. E.g. 062 IA is written I-A, 088 SISKUR is written ZURxŠE and 153 NAGA is written SUM-IR; all of these signs are part of the basic key-sign inventory of Sa, but may be considered compound forms of the preceding signs (respectively 061 I, 087 ZUR and 152 SUM). Note that none of the compounded key-signs in canonical list is an Izi-compound logogram (IA is not a logogram). Izi-compounds are therefore to be considered as foreign to the Sa-format lists 52 . Incidental compounds are here defined as compounds that incidentally follow key-signs but are not key-signs themselves in either the Emar or the canonical corpus. Such incidental compounds principally include all Izi-compounds, even if they recur regularly (PST 188a KAR-KID is found in all attested sources of that part of the SaV text). Diri-compounds are only considered incidental compounds if they do not recur regularly - if they do recur 52

Also noted in the discussion of the differences between Sa and PEa given in MSL 14, 166.

27

Part 3 – Structural Analysis regularly they are considered part of the Emar key-signs inventory. Each incidental compound is indicated in the text edition by adding a letter (a-z) to the preceding key-sign that recurs in the compound. The Emar incidental compounds may be grouped into four types: 0. Key-sign+phonetic complement. Sign-combinations with phonetic complements are actually ‘virtual compounds’ because in them the phonetic complement is merely a reading aid – it indicates a sound that is implied in the reading of the key-sign. In the Emar corpus there are three examples of such combinations: 004a ŠIR-RUM, 042a IN-NU and 195a HULA. This type of ‘virtual’ incidental compound may be considered as intended to assist in the correct reading of the key-sign and not as an interpolation. 1. Reduplicated key-sign. The doubled key-sign implies the reduplication of the nominal or verbal Sumerian root. In the Emar corpus there are four examples of such reduplications: 009a RI-RI(DAL.DAL), 056a SAG-SAG, 175a KUR-KUR and 181a TUR-TUR (there is also the reduplication NI-NI in 011a, but that must be considered to represent the Akkadian phonetic reading ì-lí). Generally, this type of incidental compound may be considered as merely giving additional information about the key-sign (plurality, intensification etc.). 2. Izi-compounds. All Izi-compounds are considered to be incidental compounds: they are elements that are foreign to the basic format of the Sa-format because such compounds are as a rule excluded from the canonical Sa key-sign inventory. Examples: 078a IM-TE(NÍ.TE); 145a Á-TUKU; 159a KÁ-GAL. 3. Diri-compounds. Many Diri-compounds are regularly found as part of the basic Sa key-sign inventory of all versions, in Emar and elsewhere. Occasionally another Diri-compound is found in an individual text and remains unconfirmed by the canonical text. On pragmatic grounds such isolated Diri-compounds are considered incidental compounds. Examples of such incidental Diri-compounds in the Emar text are: 036a U-MU(UDUN), 081a NUNME(ABGAL) and 202a EZENxBAD(BÀD). Other interpolations After classifying most non-core content either as additional key-signs specific to the Emar corpus or as incidental compounds, there are still a number of other interpolations left. These other interpolations are neither of a recurring nature nor identifiable as compounds of keysigns. Table 7 lists them, in order of occurrence, and gives a specification of the various associations by which they are embedded in the text. Note that some interpolations include multiple entries that are all similarly related to the main text.

28

Series Analysis * The Syllabary A Format Series Table 7. Interpolations in SaV Interpolation Content number int(1) int(2) int(3) int(4) int(5) int(6) int(7) int(8) int(9) int(10) int(11) int(12) int(13) int(14) int(15) int(16) int(17)

Contextual associations /gr/ - graphic; /ph/ - phonetic; /sem/ - semantic

DIŠ=A HI=A E=A Á=A LAM=uš-šu-bu NUMUN=[ze]-rù SA;ŠAG 4 -GAD=ma-at-nu NAGA=qa-qu-lu GUR 5 =uq-qú-[ru]

/sem/ - following HI (HI.A‘plural’↔DIŠ‘singular’) /sem/ - A (HI.A ‘plural’) /ph/ - A=E 4 /ph/ - A=A /gr/ and /ph/ - preceding LUM ? /sem/ - preceding PAN (‘bow’ > ‘string’) /gr/ and /sem/ - preceding IN (‘straw’ > ‘plant’) /sem/ - preceding HAL and /sem/ + /ph/ following UR (‘thigh’ > ‘cripple’ > ‘man’) UL 4 =ar-hi-iš /gr/ - preceding DIM 53 GAN=hu-ṣa-bu /gr/ - following AZ 54 NUMUN; GAN; NIR-NIR /sem/ - preceding Ù (Ù.TUD ‘to give birth’) =a-la-du BULUG=various /gr/ - preceding MAŠ MA-DA=ma-tu 4 /sem/ - preceding KUR (‘land’) UGU=[xxx] /ph/ - following UN=ÙĜ SAG; MU=eṭ-lu 4 /sem/ - preceding ŠUL (‘young man’) IDIM MURUB 4 GUB-BA sign name of preceding BÀD (EZENxBAD) 55 ŠI-RU KA-SIG-GÁN-NU

It will be noted that all interpolations (except for number 17, which is a sign name) relate to the key-sign entries that precede or follow them in associations similar to those found for the other non-core content. These associations may be of a graphic, phonetic, semantic or combined nature. Note that the vertical organization shows associative strategies similar to those found in the horizontal organization treated in the previous paragraph (E.g. interpolation 12 semantically associates with preceding pars-pro-toto Ù<.TUD>). Note also that an interpolation may be introduced to create a connection between otherwise unrelated regular key-signs (E.g. interpolation 9 IRIxGU(!MIN)=uqquru ‘cripple’ semantically links 051 HAL hallu ‘thigh’ and 052 UR awīlu ‘man’ and simultaneously establishes the phonetic link GUR 5 !UR. This phonetic link also explains the scribal error in the writing of GUR 5 with a the phonetically attracted GU- instead of the correct MIN-infix). Integrative methodology in the vertical organization of content The three types of non-core content show that, despite the stability of the traditional key-sign inventory, the SaV exercise tends to frequently include improvised expansions. The second type (the incidental compounds) represent associations of a primarily graphic nature, but other associations (phonetic, semantic and combined) are equally important in the first and third 53

For palaeography UL 4 =GÍR (AbZ 10) and DIM (AbZ 94) cf. AbZ p. 6 and 11 respectively. Note that the sign GAN (AbZ 143) is graphically close to HUŠ (AbZ 402) and GÌR=HÚŠ (AbZ 444). 55 Note that interpolation 17 may be interpreted as the sign name of EZEN(=ŠÌR) IDIM MURUB 4 .GUB.BA ŠI-RU KASIG-GÁN ‘IDIM standing inside, širu the pronunciation’) with a somewhat twisted writing of the Sumerian expression KA.KA.SI.GA (‘pronunciation’). The fact that the words are spread over several lines may be an indication that the student was writing down oral instructions, the elements of which he superfluously provided with multiple individual Akkadian equivalents. 54

29

Part 3 – Structural Analysis types (respectively the additional key-signs and the other interpolations). Apparently the type of methodological approach involved, viz. the integrating approach, regularly led the scribes to include associations that, strictly speaking, fell outside the narrow traditional-conventional framework set for the SaV exercise. The friction caused by the traditional maintenance of artificial-conventional limitations in an exercise that was supposed to teach a highly varied associative methodology may also explain the generalized occurrence of slight deviations in the overall inventory of the SaV corpora between various sites and various periods. 2.2. Syllabary A For the first of the three Sa-series, unilingual Sa, only one small fragment is preserved: 538E. Although 538E was listed as a SaP text in Emar VI 4, it clearly shows only single, unpaired entries without any characteristically palaeographic features and must therefore be considered as the sole attested non-palaeographic unilingual Sa text in Emar. Too little content is preserved to allow a proper analysis or a proper comparison with the bilingual SaV series. The mere presence of a Sa text, however, is significant in terms of curricular structure - this will be discussed in the curricular analysis found later on in this commentary. 2.3. Syllabary A Palaeography 2.3.1. Text corpus – tablet inventory and typology The attested SaP material consists of two Type I tablets (T1-2) and a number of fragments. Most of the fragments are very small and probably part of T1 or 2, though lacking in direct joins. One fragment, 538 D, duplicates a palaeographically executed section of Appendix B and has part of a colophon, which proves it must have been part of a third tablet, the rest of which is now lost. Both T1 and T2 had five columns on each side of the tablet and on both tablets columns IX and X contained (unilingual) Appendix 1 as well as Appendix 2. 2.3.2. Formal features 2.3.2.1. Horizontal organization Vertical ruling Vertical ruling serves to provide the lay-out of the text with columns and sub-columns. In both tablets each column has two sub-columns, creating two slots for horizontal organization. In SaP these slots serve to present different graphic aspects of the Sa key-sign logogram, which is the sole entry element given in SaP. In the first slot the logogram is given in its contemporary LBA form and in the second it is given in a palaeographic variant form. It should be noted that some of the ‘palaeographic’ forms are in fact either artificially ‘archaizing’ forms or mere orthographic variants. For some key-signs only the contemporaneous and no palaeographic form is given - in these cases the contemporaneous form is shifted to the second slot and the first slot is left empty (indicated vacat in the transcription).

30

Series Analysis * The Syllabary A Format Series Entry element inventory As noted earlier, the sole entry element presented in SaP is the logogram, which it describes exclusively in terms of graphic variation. This single-element set-up of the entry in SaP is also found in the Sa exercise (attested only in the single fragment 538 E). It means that in both the SaP and Sa series in Emar the 0-element (Civil-code) is missing, although it is consistently found in the other Sa-format series, SaV. In Ugarit the situation is different: there the 0element is also missing in SaP, but is attested in both Sa and SaV. 2.3.2.2. Vertical organization Horizontal ruling In the SaP material horizontal ruling is intermittent and serves to distinguish texts blocks covering one or more Sa key-signs. In the latter case, signs may be grouped together according to either graphic (e.g. MI-DUGUD; SAL-NIN-DAM) or phonetic criteria (e.g. LILA; NU-NA). There is no complete consistency in the location of the divider lines in T1 and T2 (e.g. in T1 there is divider line between LUM and SIG 4 , which is not found in T2). 2.3.3. Vertical organization of content Limitations of the content analysis The combination of the diachronic and synchronic stability in the traditional content of the Sa list format, clearly attested from the OB period to the 1st Millennium (cf. Appendix 1 of Part 2), as well as its general lack of a single organizational focus imply that an investigation of the structure of the Sa key-sign core of the Sa format series cannot be the subject of the mere synchronic analysis aimed at by this study. The content outside that core, i.e. the content particular to the Emar corpus, however, may be assumed to be valuable for understanding the particular implementation of the Sa-format in the Emar curriculum and has been analysed in the discussion of the SaV exercises (2.1.3.3.). The content of SaP is primarily geared to palaeographic sign values, but a palaeographic analysis falls outside the remit of this study. The only aspect of the content of SaP that will be analysed here is its relation to that of SaV, in order to determine the relation that the two series had to each other in the curriculum. The content of SaP will therefore be compared to that of SaV in terms of categories relevant in terms of organizational structure, i.e. key-sign inventory and number of entries per key-sign. Sa key-sign inventory Although there is no complete consistency in Sa key-sign inventory between T1 and T2 (T1 has ERIM which is omitted in T2) and although there are considerable gaps in the attestation record, it may be said that, generally, the SaP key-sign inventory significantly deviates from that of SaV. SaV has many signs that are omitted in SaP (NAB, MUL, UM, SISKUR, LAGAB, KU 7 , KID, DAG, E, SIG 5 ) and, vice versa, SaP has many signs that are omitted in SaV (A’, ŠA, ERIM, RAD, NIN, SA 6 , ÁRAD). This discrepancy may be partially explained by postulating complementary distribution, which would assume that certain signs were purposefully included in SaV rather than in SaP and vice versa. Of the signs omitted in SaP the compound signs (NAB, MUL, SISKUR) may have been considered non-essential in respect to a purely graphic treatment because the main element had already been treated (i.e. the AN-element of NAB and MUL and the ZUR-element of SISKUR). Vice versa, one of the

31

Part 3 – Structural Analysis signs omitted in SaV, A’, is an artificially created, post-OB modification of another sign, AH. Such an artificial sign lacked an intrinsic logographic value that would have warranted its inclusion in a vocabulary exercise such as SaV. Number of entries per Sakey-sign Although there is no complete consistency in the number of entries for each Sa key-sign between T1 and T2 and although there are considerable gaps in the attestation record, the number of entries per sign in SaP may generally be said to be much lower than that in SaV. This implies that the number of palaeographic variants treated in SaP was regarded as unrelated to the number of logographic readings treated in SaV. Taken together with the discrepancies in key-sign inventory noted earlier, the discrepancies in the number of entries per key-sign imply that the SaP exercise was composed independently from the SaV exercise, even if both are largely structured around a shared key-sign sequence. This independence of the respective exercises is of course consistent with their different functions in the curriculum. 2.4. Appendix 1 – ‘Syllabary A Onomasticon’ The first of the appendices (series 2.4. is Appendix 1) follows directly after the last of the Sa key-signs (PST 215 BARAG). Because the first entry of this appendix (i-ṣur) is nowhere separated from the preceding Sa-format series by an ‘end-of-text-unit-marker’ or any other graphic device, it seems to have been considered as an integral part of the exercise. The fixed link to the Sa-format is confirmed by the fact that, where preserved, the last line of Appendix 1 in both the SaP and SaV material is consistently followed by a ‘end-of-text-unit-marker’. The formal properties (use of entry-markers, lay-out, ruling) of Appendix 1 conform to those of the respective series that they are attached to. The content of Appendix 1, however, has a different focus than the regular Sa-format series: it gives combinations of signs -mostly to be read syllabically- which represent onomastic elements. Considering its content and its apparently fixed connection to the Sa-format, ‘Syllabary A Onomasticon’ could be proposed as an appropriate name for Appendix 1. When Appendix 1 follows the SaP texts, its sign combinations are provided with palaeographic equivalents (in fact continuing the palaeographic approach of the preceding exercise) - the result is here referred to as its ‘unilingual’ version. When Appendix 1 follows the SaV texts, its sign combinations are provided with Akkadian equivalents that may be read as phonetic variants (e.g. 001 i-ṣur = iṣ-ṣu-ur and 002 i-din = iddi-nam) or ‘explanations’ (e.g. 034 li-bur = li-t[à-m]ar, which explains the G Prec of bâru by giving the Gt Prec of amāru). Some of these ‘explanations’ seem to have gone awry (e.g. 047 ri-im = e-re-mu and 048 ri-iš = e-re-šu), others are actually Akkadian translations of Sumerian logograms (e.g. 025 P[A-LU(SIPAD) = re-]e-ú). The expanded version of Appendix 1 following the SaV texts may be conveniently referred to as its ‘bilingual’ version. 2.5. Appendix 2 – ‘Syllabary A Additional Palaeography’ In the SaP material Appendix 1 concludes with the ‘end-of-text-unit-marker’ but is consistently followed by another appendix. This second appendix (series 2.5. is Appendix 2) gives a limited number of signs, starting with DAM and ending with AZU, provided with palaeographic equivalents. In fact, Appendix 2 continues the palaeographic approach of preceding SaP+Appendix 1. Most of the signs of Appendix 2 are not covered by the Sa-format

32

Series Analysis * The Syllabary A Format Series and some may be considered to be of a more ‘complicated nature’ (the signs in question are less frequent and often compounded); in this sense Appendix 2 may be considered an appropriate addition to the very basic sign inventory offered by the Sa-format. The principle of graphic association, commonly found in the sequencing of key-signs in the Sa-format, also seems to guide some of the sequences of the signs in Appendix 2 (e.g. 240-2 MÁŠ-KUNUMBIN - all three start with a single horizontal and a single vertical). Considering its content and its apparently fixed connection to the SaP exercise (it is not found after SaV), ‘Syllabary A Additional Palaeography’ could be proposed as an appropriate name for Appendix 2. Summary 2.1.1./2.3.1.

Material - tablet inventory and typology:

1.

The attested material includes the following: for Sa only one small fragment; for SaP two Type I tablets as well as a number of fragments (among them is one that is incompatible with two reconstructed tablets); for SaV four Type I tablets as well as few fragments.

2.1.2./2.3.2.

Formal features:

1.

Vertical ruling organizes text lay-out to provide columns and to provide slots for the various elements found in the horizontal entry. The horizontal organization in terms of the Civil-code is: for Sa -2-; for SaP -2-2-; for short-version SaV 0-12-4; for long-version SaV 0-1-3-2-4. In long-version SaV the gloss and sign name share the second slot in the entry – if both occur simultaneously then the gloss precedes the sign name. The specific use of element 0 in the SaV texts makes the name line marker appropriate. As it counts lines rather than entries it is actually not an entry element in the Emar corpus. The glosses do not have a predictable relation to the reading of the logograms – there are a number of possible relations, including mismatches. A number of glosses may, in respect to content, be characterized as a gloss-annex-sign name hybrids element. The relation between the Sa key-sign and the Akkadian equivalent within SaV may be realized in a number of ways, including straightforward translation of the former into the latter, reinterpretation by various associations, and reading of the key-sign as a phonetic value. Horizontal ruling is intermittent and related to content in both SaP and SaV. In SaP it groups different Sa keysigns together according to graphic or phonetic criteria. In SaV it separates consecutive Sa key-signs. In the long-version SaV tablets, additionally, it groups entries within each key-sign section according to the relevant pronunciation gloss. The attested long-version SaV text covers one whole tablet with the first 58 Sa key-signs. There is no longversion text attested that covers the later key-signs but this implies that there was a (theoretical) divisional organization within long-version SaV. The particularities of the horizontal organization show that, in regard to methodology, the ancient scribes pursued an integrating approach, which implies that they were seeking to establish interrelations between various graphic and linguistic phenomena that are unrelated in modern scientific terms.

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

8. 9.

2.1.3./2.3.3.

Vertical organization of content:

1.

There are significant discrepancies in the Sa key-sign inventory and the number of entries per key-sign between the SaP and the SaV corpora. Synchronic and diachronic deviations in the content of SaV are caused by friction between the pragmatic criteria of its traditional-conventional inventory and the systematic classificatory methodology that SaV and the other lexical series seek to teach. The deviations mentioned under 2 include additions to the Sa key-sign inventory. In comparison to the 1st Millennium canonical key-sign inventory Emar SaV adds three types of non-core content: (1) additional keysigns, (2) incidental compounds with standard key-signs (including all Izi-compounds, which are per definition not part of SaV) and (3) other interpolations. The methodology guiding the addition of non-core content shows that the integrating approach noted in the horizontal organization is equally important in the vertical organization of content. In Emar there are two recurring appendices which are formally treated as integral parts of SaP (appendices 1 and 2) and/or SaV (Appendix 1 only). Considering its content, Appendix 1 may be termed Syllabary A Onomasticon – it occurs in a unilingual version in SaP and in a bilingual version in SaV. Appendix 2 may be termed Syllabary A Additional Palaeography because it adds a series of (less frequent and more ‘complicated’) new signs to the Sa key-signs – it is attested only in SaP.

2. 3.

4. 5.

33

Part 3 – Structural Analysis CHAPTER 3 - THE WEIDNER GOD LIST 56 3.1. Text corpus – tablet inventory and typology It should be noted that the structural analysis provided by this chapter is based on the incomplete text publication of the G material: Emar VI only includes the Sumero-Akkadian version while the Sumero-Hurrian version remains unpublished57 . This means that the findings of this commentary must be considered as preliminary and provisional. The published G material consists of a number of fragments. The fact that their content shows them to be mutually compatible and the fact that they share the same formal features seems to indicate that most of these fragments are in fact part of one single Type I tablet, provisionally reconstructed as T1. Note, however, that some smaller fragments may belong to the unpublished Sumero-Hurrian G material occasionally referred to by Arnaud in his article ‘Les textes cunéiformes suméro-accadiens des campagnes 1979-1980 à Ras Shamra-Ougarit’, Syria 59 (1982) 199-207 (e.g. note the proximity of 539D 6’ DA┐.[RI.TUM] and 9’ DB[U.LA.LA] with unpublished ‘Msk 74118’ respectively A-r]i-um and Bu-l]a-la, mentioned on p. 207 of Arnaud’s article). The spread of the text, which is very close of that found in the parallel OB and Ugarit material in entry sequence and inventory, and the fact that the observe of T1 has three columns make it likely that the reverse also had three columns. 3.2. Formal features 3.2.1. Horizontal organization Vertical ruling Vertical ruling serves to provide the lay-out of the text with columns and sub-columns. Each column is divided into three sub-columns and the use of the first or left-hand slot is reserved for the (consistently repeated) determinative (D). The use of the other two slots, i.e. the middle and right-hand slots, is not as may be expected from parallel usage of similar slots attested in other lexical series (such as preceding SaV or following Hh), where different slots serve to accommodate different elements of the horizontal entry. Except for the obligatory logogram element (element 2), the G text in T1 occasionally also provides the Akkadian element (element 4), but the distribution of text over the slots shows that the slots in T1 do not serve to separate or align these elements. Rather, the third slot is always used for giving the last sign of the logogram element. When an Akkadian equivalent is given, it follows that last logogram sign in the third slot, always preceded by a Glossenkeil (i.e. a GAM sign). It should be noted that there is always one logogram sign in the third slot (and never more). When a logogram only consists of a single sign, in accordance with the general scribal convention of right-shift position, the second slot is left blank and the single sign is given in the third slot (e.g. II 12 AK; II 20-1 KUD and NIRAH).

56

Cf. the comparative analysis of the LBA peripheral material in Gantzert, ‘SLT 3’ (forthcoming). Glimpses of the Sumero-Hurrian material are provided in two articles: E. Laroche, ‘La version hourrite de la liste AN de Meskène-Emar’, CRAIBL 1989, 8-12 and D. Arnaud, ‘Les textes cuneiforms suméro-accadiens des campagnes 1979-1980 à Ras Shamra-Ougarit’, Syria 59 (1982) 199-222. 57

34

Series Analysis * The Weidner God List Entry element inventory The G text provides maximally two of the regular elements found in the horizontal entry: (2) the logogram and, occasionally, (4) the Akkadian equivalent. The status of the 2-element as a logogram is clear: the systematic inclusion of the D determinative element indicates that the 2element entries are to be read as DNs. The status of the 4-element as an ‘Akkadian’ equivalent, however, is more problematic - it will be discussed below. Element 2 – the logogram In the G text, the logogram element always consists of two sub-elements, graphically separated by vertical ruling, viz. the actual logogram and the determinative that precedes it. This recurring relation is essential in order to define the actual logograms as belonging to the semantic sphere of divinities. Without this determinative, most logograms may be read in various ways; often without any obvious association with the divine sphere (e.g. without their D determinatives 062 ÍD and 068 AK may be read as the Sumerian noun ‘river’ and the Sumerian verb ‘to make’ respectively). This means that not only the overall character of G as thematic list but also the content of its individual logograms depend on the determinative for definition. Apart from establishing the semantic range by means of the D determinative, the skills needed to write the DN logograms given in G include proficiency in a wide variety of other compositional techniques. The DNs are composed through the application of a complex web of graphic, phonetic and semantic associations. To appreciate the scope of the necessary proficiency the different compositional techniques will be listed and illustrated. Only part of the listed DNs is given in actual Sumerian logograms - many others are given in phonetic spelling. Among the DNs given in logographic form, some are written with signcombinations that may be read as meaningful Sumerian phrases (e.g. 003 EN.LÍL and 086 AMAR.UTU may be translated as ‘Lord Wind’ and ‘Calf of Shamash’ respectively), others are written with signs that establish an iconic relation (e.g. 029 BARAG and 079 MUŠ are the signs for ‘socle; sanctuary’ and ‘snake’ respectively but are conventionally read as the DNs D ŠARA and NIRAH when accompanied by the determinative). In a some cases iconic elements are combined with phonetic elements (e.g. both 007 and 008 start with the NE sign, originally a pictogram of a torch, and then add a ‘phonetic complement’, resulting in NE-GI and NE-SI 4 respectively, the conventional writings of the DNs Girru and Lisi – note that girru is the Akkadian word for ‘fire’ and that the Divine Fire in 007 is listed right after the gods Nusku and Sadarnuna in 005-6, both associated with fire and light). It should be noted that not all logograms in use for DNs are clearly understood, their meaning or the associative principle linking to a given divinity cannot be always be established with certainty (e.g. 098 HAR and 099 PA). Also another potential variant of logographic writing of DNs should be mentioned: writing by magical number. In G, however, this variant is only rarely found and then only in the form of glosses (in 010 and 011). Some DNs may be written with either logograms or phonetic spellings, reflecting respectively the Sumerian and the Akkadian forms of the name in question (e.g. in 010 ŠEŠ-KI the moon god is listed by his Sumerian name, Nanna, and in 011 EN-ZU - the conventional metathesis for Suen –by his Akkadian name, Sîn; in 057 the god of the underground ocean and magic is listed by his Sumerian name, Enki, and in 058 by his Akkadian name, Ea). The fact that G lists the two forms of the DNs consecutively indicates that mastering their dual form was an explicit learning goal.

35

Part 3 – Structural Analysis Many DNs are only found written in phonetic spelling. Some of these phonetically written DNs clearly reflect Sumerian words (e.g. 148 GU.LA is a phonetic variant of GAL ‘great’) and some names may even belong to an earlier linguistic stratum (cf. 090 MA.MA or 135 TU.TU), but most are of Semitic origin. Examples of names with a clear Semitic etymology are 070 TAŠ.ME.TUM ‘favourable hearing’, 091 MA.LIK ‘counsellor’ and 154 DA.MU ‘blood’. Often these Semitic names are rendered according to OB scribal convention, viz. they preserve the OB mimation (e.g. 067 ṢAR.PA.NI.TUM, 069 NA.BI.UM and 070 TAŠ.ME.TUM). These OB forms are not only found in LBA Emar but also in NA and NB texts: in effect, such DNs remained ‘frozen’ in their OB form and were treated as logograms. The conventional rendering of these ‘frozen’ forms is one more skill that is taught in the logograms provided by G. Element 4 – status and distribution Some particularities of the element-4 entries occurring in G have been mentioned before: (1) they do not have their own sub-column slot and (2) there are very few of them. Another particularity that should be mentioned is that (3) some of the element-4 entries should be read as glosses rather than as Akkadian equivalents. Because there a so few element-4 entries in the G text they are conveniently collected for individual analysis in Table 8. Of course it should be remembered that the only published G tablet (T1) is fragmentary and that some additional element-4 entries, now lost, may have been included in missing text sections 58 . The table will show which of the element-4 entries have parallels in the MA material edited by Schroeder and Weidner. It should be noted that in the Ugarit material Hurrian and Ugaritic equivalents are found but Akkadian equivalents are omitted (i.e. element-5/6 entries are found but element-4 entries are omitted). Also, it will provide tentative interpretations of their content. Table 8. Element-4 entries in G PST 005 007 010 011 013 024 027 074

Element 2 logogram [D]NUSKU [D]GIBIL 6 [D]NANNA [D]EN.ZU [DNIN].GAL [DNA.NA.A] [DLÚ.LÀL] D

IŠTARAN

Element-4 signs values šul-mu gír?-ru D 40 D 30 ni-ik-kal [na]-na-ia lu-la-ah-hu D U-LUH? 60

Element-4 OB parallels 59 ◦D gi-ir┐[-ra] 61 D […] D 30 62 -

58

Element-4 suggested interpretations Akkadian: ‘health’ Akkadian: ‘fire’ DN logogram: ‘40’ 63 DN logogram: ‘30’ pronunciation gloss pronunciation gloss sign name DN logogram: ŠU 4 .LUH ‘cleansing’

T1 III 7 preserves a Glossenkeil after the logogram ([D]GÌR), indicating it must have been followed by a element-4 entry, now lost. 59 Cf. E.F. Weidner, ‘Altbabylonische Götterlisten’, AfK 2 (1924-5) = AfO 1-3 (1923-6) 8ff. 60 Note that D. Arnaud, Recherches au pays d’Aštata. Emar VI 4 (Paris 1985-7) 34 reads (l. 39’) dU-gur?!, which is the logographic writing found for the DN Nergal (and would translate ‘Divine Sword’). His ‘GUR’-sign, however, ends in a clear Winkelhaken and contains three, not two, verticals – making the reading LUH much more likely. For the reading of U as ŠU 4 cf. ePSD. 61 The relevant text of KAv 63 was collated and reconstructed by Weidner, ‘Götterlisten’, p.10 n. 1. 62 O. Schroeder, ‘Ein neuer Götterlistentypus aus Assur’, ZA 33 (1931) p.128 n.5. 63 The regular numerical logogram for Nanna-Sîn is 30, not 40 (40 is used for Ea).

36

Series Analysis * The Weidner God List Comparing the various element-4 entries, three groups may be distinguished. There is a group (1) that consists of DN equivalents, viz. a group of entries in which the DN given in the logogram is matched by another DN, comprising the entries 010, 011 and 074. The twoelement DN+DN horizontal organization found in this group is also found in the MA material edited by Schroeder and Weidner (and at least one element-4 entry, 010, has an exact parallel). The DN equivalent found in this group is obviously not the Akkadian equivalent expected in the element-4 slot. In other words, for group one the element-4 entry (a second DN) is regular in form, in as far as that form has parallels in the MA texts, but not in content (it does not give an Akkadian equivalent). There is another group of element-4 entries (2) that offers actual Akkadian equivalents, consisting of the entries 005 šul-mu and 007 gír-ru. The absence of the D determinative and the spelling (non-mimated nominative singulars) suggest that these entries are intended to be read as nouns. In this group the use of the element-4 slot matches that found in earlier and later lists (SaV respectively Hh) but seems hardly appropriate for a list of names 64 . In other words, for group two the element-4 entry is irregular in form (there are no parallel G texts known where the DNs are followed by Akkadian nouns) but regular in content, in as far as the 4-slot is normally used for real Akkadian equivalents in earlier and later lists. The last group (3), consisting of entries 013, 024 and 027, may be said to include the category ‘miscellaneous’: it has two pronunciation glosses (013 and 024 have phonetic spellings of the preceding DNs) and one entry which has the form normally found for sign name (027 gives the pronunciation followed by the ending –u often found for sign names 65 ). In terms of the other Emar lexical material these entries are completely irregular in form (glosses and sign names regularly occupy the slot before the logogram in Emar). In terms of parallel material, however, it should be noted that in the 5-column MA fragments 66 glosses as well as sign names may be found (even though there the gloss is also given in the slot before the logogram). On balance the 4-slot found in T1 seems to have been used primarily as a convenient place to locate various, pragmatically added auxiliary elements. The slot was not reserved for one regular type of entry; rather, it was mostly left unused and appears to have been used only when the need was felt for the introduction of some form of auxiliary element. Some types among the attested auxiliary elements (equivalent DNs, glosses, sign names) are also found in parallel texts outside Emar. Finally, it should be noted that almost all of the entries found in the 4-slot are found in the early part of the text (in column I) - this may indicate that the need for improvised auxiliary elements decreased as the student progressed through the material. Such a progressive phasing out of auxiliary elements makes sense in terms of the curricular position of G between the elementary sign list SaV, which systematically provides glosses and sign names, and the next thematic series Hh, which only rarely includes such elements.

64

It should be noted that a parallel for 005 gír-ru is found in the phonetic spelling gi-ir-[ra] in the MA material, but in the latter case it is preceded by the appropriate D determinative. 65 The spelling –ah-hu may reflect a glottal stop resulting from adding the –u sign name ending after omission of the final consonant in LÀL. 66 VAT 10220 and VAT 10249, listed by Schroeder, ‘Götterlistentypus’, 127 and Weidner, ‘Götterlisten’, 8 as texts D and E respectively. The first editions are found in, respectively, O. Schroeder, ‘Eine Götterliste für den Schulgebrauch’, MVaG 21 (1916) 178-81 and O. Schroeder, ‘Zur “Götterliste für den Schulgebrauch” (MVaG 1916 S. 175ff.)’, OLz 1918 5/6 127-8.

37

Part 3 – Structural Analysis 3.2.2. Vertical organization Horizontal ruling In T1 horizontal ruling is intermittent and gives subdivisions between variously sized blocks of text. Although their organization is not entirely consistent, these subdivisions often set aside text blocks according to either shared key-sign (graphic association) or shared semantic field (semantic association). Some of the most obvious examples of organization according to key-sign are found in the sections II 22-6’ (where the entries 080-4all start with the common key-signs I.ŠAR) and III 6-9’ (where the entries 114-7 all start with the common key-sign LUGAL). Examples of organization according to semantic field are found in II 9-11’ (where the entries 065-7 refer to either the god Marduk or his consort) and II 12-3’ (where both entries are variant writings for the name of the scribe god). 3.3. Vertical organization of content Level 2 - Key-word collection The entry inventory of G consists of a collection of semantically associated key-words, viz. a collection of DNs. The exclusively semantic definition of this collection means that G may be described as a thematic series (this definition and the typology of the various series will be discussed in 11.3.). In as far as the semantic field of DNs implies that all entries share a common determinative (D), the semantic association of G is supplemented by graphic association, a characteristic that this series shares with much of Hh. The organization of the entry sequence shown by G is problematic. The diachronic and synchronic stability 67 of the G logogram sequence, clearly attested from the Ur III to the NB period 68 and the fact that it is strictly adhered to in Emar, means that a study of the vertical organization of content in G cannot be the subject of the mere synchronic analysis intended in this study. In short: analysis of the entry sequence in the Emar G material is not feasible in the framework of this study. Summary 3.1.

Material – tablet inventory and typology:

1.

The attested material includes a number of compatible fragments that have provisionally been reconstructed as belonging to one single Type I tablet. The trilingual G material remains unpublished.

3.2.

Formal features:

1.

Vertical ruling organizes text lay-out primarily to provide columns and secondarily to provide slots for the various elements found in the horizontal entry. However, the second and third slot are both used for the logogram element where an element-4 entry is found it does not have its own slot but shares the third slot with the logogram. The horizontal organization in terms of the Civil-code is 2a-b<-4>. The status of the element-4 entry is not uniform: except for Akkadian ‘translations’ it may include DN equivalents or even glosses and sign names. The distribution of the element-4 entries, viz. mostly in the first part of the text, suggests they may have been pragmatically added auxiliary elements that were phased out as the student progressed. Horizontal ruling is intermittent and its use is related to (graphic or semantic) content.

2. 3. 4. 5.

67

Regarding the synchronic status of the Emar G material it may be said that in content it hardly deviates from the texts found elsewhere in the LBA periphery - cf. the comparative analysis of the LBA peripheral material in Gantzert, ‘SLT 3’ (forthcoming). 68 Overview of attestations in W.G. Lambert, ‘Götterlisten’, RlA 3: Fabel-Gyges und Nachtrag (Berlin 19571971) 474.

38

Series Analysis * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu CHAPTER 4 - HAR(UR 5 ).RA=hubullu 4.1. Text corpus - tablet inventory and typology For a full inventory of all attested Hh material the reader is referred to the table preceding the text edition. Here only two additional remarks will be made concerning the text inventory. First, it should be noted that the only Emar lexical text found outside Archive 1 in Area M is part of the Hh corpus: 7bE1 was found in Archive 7 in Area C 69 . Second, it should be noted that the Hh corpus includes one fragment that is not part of the otherwise nearly complete collection of Emar lexical texts kept in the Aleppo museum. This fragment forms the main body of 7aT3 (where it joins with the Aleppo fragment 548-9J) and is now found in the Freiburg Museum für Völkerkunde. It will here be referred to as the FVH-fragment, after the title of its original publication 70 . With regards to tablet typology, there are two types of tablet on which Hh texts are found: regular (multi-column) tablets and small (single column) extract tablets. In terms of Civil’s tablet classification 71 , the first are Type I tablets and the second are Type III tablets. The two types will be dealt with mostly in separate analysis, but it will be seen that the relation between the two is important in terms of curricular structure - it will be discussed in 4.4. . Generally, Type I tablets have the same number of columns on the reverse as on the obverse, with the columns on the observe to be read from left to right and those on the reverse from right to left. The number of columns on each side of a tablet can vary from two to five. First, sometimes a tablet does not have an equal number of columns on obverse and reverse, as is the case for 4T1 and 5T1. It is a common phenomenon that when scribes do not need the same amount of space on the reverse as on the obverse columns, they leave excess space empty on the reverse rather than continue writing across a conventional division boundary. The occurrence of such empty excess space should always be considered a possibility when reconstructing severely fragmented or damaged tablets. Generally, Type I tablets contain only material of one genre (in this case the lexical genre). A few minor deviations from these general rules should be noted. It is uncommon is for the reverse to have more columns than the obverse. This, however, is the case for 5T1 (cf. Sketch XX). A second deviation from the standard format is found in 3T1, there the scribe fills up the excess space left on a lexical exercise tablet with a non-lexical text: an incantation text is written vertically along the long tablet axis following (under and besides) the colophon 72 . Generally, Type III tablets give a single, short section of a text, selected from the larger text corpus found in unabbreviated form on Type I tablets. Such a section tends to contain from about five to perhaps fifteen lines of text on the obverse and often continues (sometimes with the same number of lines) across the lower edge onto the reverse, in the same fashion as a multi-column tablet. Among the nine attested extracts, only two (7bE1 and 13E1) do not have text on the reverse. One extract, 13E2, is exceptional because it continues its reading onto the reverse sideways, i.e. each entry continues over the right side onto the reverse. The reason for this deviating textual presentation is the length of each entry, which is exceptionally long due 69

Cf. M. Dietrich, ‘Die akkadischen Texte der Archive und Bibliotheken von Emar’, UF 22 (1990) 32-3. In Arnaud, Emar VI 3-4 the text of 7bE1 has been twice edited, once as individual text 39 (volume 3), and once within composite text 538 (volume 4). 70 K. Watanabe, ‘Freiburger Vorläufer zu HAR-ra=hubullu XI und XII’, ASJ 9 (1987) 277-91. 71 Civil, ‘Ancient Mesopotamian Lexicography’, 2308. 72 Identification in M. Civil, ‘The Texts from Meskene-Emar’, AuOr 7 (1989) 11.

39

Part 3 – Structural Analysis to the fact that it includes not only Sumerian logograms and Akkadian translations but also, placed between them, a full phonetic rendering of the Sumerian words. 4.2. Formal features 4.2.1. Horizontal organization Vertical ruling Vertical ruling occurs on all the multi-column tablets to provide column division. In bilingual texts, however, additional vertical ruling is also used to provide additional sub-columns. This results in the division of columns into three or four sub-columns. It may be noted that the use of vertical ruling for sub-columns is a feature that the Emar material shares with the Ugarit corpus 73 . The first use of such sub-columns is to provide slots for different elements within each entry. E.g. in 3T3 the determinative, the logogram and the Akkadian translation each have their own slot. Such slots are not always used entirely consistently, due to omissions and overlaps. E.g. in 4T1 the determinatives are left out, resulting in a mostly empty first subcolumn, while there are substantial sections in which the Sumerian text of the second column entries actually continue into the third column: in such sections divider signs (GAM signs, rendered as ‘:’ in the text edition) are used to indicate the end of the Sumerian element. Another use of the slots provided by sub-columns is to provide slots for sign positioning (including positioning of entire graphic clusters) within logograms (e.g. 1T3 column I). The latter use will be discussed in more detail in the relevant paragraph of the chapter on Lu (5.2.1.), where it is also encountered. Entry element inventory The next paragraph (4.2.2.) will cover vertical formal features, which concern large-scale organizational structures, such as tablet, division and linguistic format. The resulting analysis will serve to identify distinct curricular units within the Hh series, the make-up of which will shed light on the construction and direction of the scribal educational program. In contrast, this paragraph will cover horizontal formal features, which concern small-scale organizational structures, such as entry element inventory and inter-element relations. The horizontal organizational structutr will show the means by which the educational program was implemented. The location of each individual entry is dependent on vertical organization, i.e. it is contextually determined (e.g. association by graphic, phonetic or semantic context), but its content is dependent on horizontal organization, which juxtaposes different reference items in a standardized fashion. These different referent items appear as different elements of the horizontal entry. In Hh four such elements (numbered according to the Civil-code) are attested: (1) gloss, (2a) logogram, (2b) determinative and (4) Akkadian translation. Both the relation of vertical to horizontal organization and the juxtaposition of these elements within the horizontal organization can be illustrated by the following example. The occurrence of the weapons sections and the ILLAR section in the middle of division 4 (EST 4208-15) is triggered by the context of wooden objects and utensils (indicated by the determinative ĜIŠ). Individual entries within this section, in turn, are triggered by the key-word ILLAR. Thus, the vertical organization is clearly guided by semantic association. However, 73

J. Krecher, ‘Scheiberschulung in Ugarit: die Tradition von Listen und sumerischen Texten’, UF 1 (1969)143.

40

Series Analysis * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu actual semantic content is not realized in the vertical organization. Rather, it is realized by combined contributions from the various different elements juxtaposed in the horizontal structure. The most important of these elements is the logogram (element 2a), a conventional graphic representation that may be described as RU. This graphic representation, however, is a discretionary carrier and may denote various words, including the verbs ‘to impose’ and ‘to fall’ (realized through its readings as RU and ŠUB respectively) as well as various nouns, including one meaning ‘ball’ or ‘dart’ - the latter noun is realized by its reading as ILLAR. It is the latter semantic content that is meant here, but only by combining the graphic form RU with other reference items can this exact meaning be achieved. These reference items appear in the form of the other elements of the horizontal structure. Among these elements the determinative (element 2b) is closely related to the logogram because it also involves graphic rendering: it classifies the logogram conventionally, in this case as a wooden object (ĜIŠ). With this addition, the semantic range of the logogram has now been narrowed down to that of a wooden object. However, there is still more than one option because ĜIŠRU may be read as either ĜIŠGEŠBU ‘bow; javelin’ or as ĜIŠILLAR ‘ball; dart’. Logographic writing, developed by and inherited from the Sumerians, remained traditionally bound to and formulated in the Sumerian language, even if that language was extinct outside literate circles. Therefore, in addition to graphic form, the phonetic value of each logogram had to be specifically learned, which explains the need for the gloss (element 1) in the horizontal organization of entries of many series. In Hh they also occur, but infrequently because phonetic values were mostly taught at an earlier stage and in other series. In 4208 the logogram ILLAR has the (phonetically slightly deviating) gloss il-li-il 5 . With this third element the possible semantic range of the RUsign has been narrowed down to just one: ILLAR ‘ball; dart’. Because the mastering the writing system involved learning another language, Sumerian, however, a fourth element was added: a translation. At an early stage in the educational curriculum, this translation (element 4) had to be provided in order to define the meaning of words in the dead Sumerian language. In Old Babylonian school texts, written during a period that Sumerian was already extinct as a spoken language, the Akkadian translation is mostly not written out and must have been provided orally 74 . However, in Emar and elsewhere in the periphery such an Akkadian translation was (mostly) written out in the lexical texts because, in addition to the Sumerian curriculum, the students also had to master Akkadian as a foreign language. Akkadian was of great administrative and cultural significance, but was not spoken natively. This is why, in the early, bilingual stage of the Hh curriculum, the Akkadian translation talpanu is added to the logogram ILLAR in entry 4208. Having established the inventory and having illustrated the general process of the production of meaning in the horizontal organization of Hh, it is now necessary to proceed with a more precise analysis of the specific functions of each element found in the horizontal organization in Emar Hh. Which elements occur where and why? Element 1 – the gloss Before analysing the gloss as an element of the horizontal organization of the entry, it should be defined more precisely vis-à-vis the phenomenon of phonetic complement. Properly speaking, gloss is a full phonetic rendering of the key-word logograms that it precedes (e.g. tuul before the sign LAGABxU with the reading TÚL in 2001). A phonetic complement, on the other hand, is treated as an integral part of the logogram itself. Phonetic complements give an indication of the Sumerian phonetic shape of the logogram and may be found attached in front 74

Veldhuis, Elementary Education, 46-7.

41

Part 3 – Structural Analysis of, within or behind the logograms they refers to (e.g. respectively iIZI GU.ZA in 3a257, KILÚ.KAL=ULUDIN in 1112 and TÚMUM in 1143). In certain cases it is difficult to determine if a sign is a phonetic complement or if it constitutes part of the logogram or (e.g. GI and BU signs in GI.ZÚ.LUM.MA and BU.ZÚ.LUM.MA in 3a200-1, translated gišlammu and buṣinnu respectively 75 ). The glosses proper, then, distinguish themselves from phonetic complements by their full phonetic rendering of the following logogram and by their fixed slot in the entry, always in the first slot, before the logogram. The Hh text gives relatively few glosses, and these serve either to resolve reading ambiguities or to shed light on some reading difficulty. In the first category are glosses that handle absolute ambiguity, such as the single gloss dur for 4167 which specifies that the single KU entry must be read as DÚR ‘board’, and not as (equally plausible in the context of the ĜIŠ list) TUKUL ‘weapon’, as well as glosses that handle relative ambiguity, such as the multiple glosses for 4076-9, which specify that the repeated sign BU has four different readings in a row. In the second category are glosses that were apparently considered necessary for the understanding of infrequent readings or ‘difficult’ sign forms. The reading SUGIN for BAD in 4243 (gloss su-uk-ki-in), for example, could be considered relatively infrequent. That certain sign forms may be considered ‘difficult’ is shown by the fact that sometimes only glosses can help modern reconstruction of correct sign forms. In 4292 the gloss ni-šal shows that the following BI-IŠ should have been BI-GIŠ (AbZ 226), which has the reading ĜISAL referred to by the gloss. Similarly, in 14014 the gloss qa-ri-im shows that the following LAGABxA should have been LAGABxKUG (AbZ 513) which has the reading ĜARIM that is referred to. In a some cases the gloss even replaces the logogram: in 4200-1 the gloss šu-gur is given but the expected logogram ŠUKUR (written IGI-GAG the same form with which DÁLA in preceding entry 4199 is written) is not. These examples show that, even if rarely found in Hh, the gloss element may be of vital significance within the horizontal organization for establishing the meaning of the logogram. It seems reasonable to suppose that in those cases when a gloss is given, it was indispensable to the student for the correct interpretation of the logogram. Glosses are relatively rare, always function to resolving ambiguities or difficulties and there are very few that could be construed as referring to basic readings. In other words: in Hh glosses are not standard because this lexical series did apparently not serve to teach phonetic values. Glosses were only added as a last resort, viz. when they were indispensable for understanding the text. This means that, stated in the Civil-code, the horizontal structure of the Hh text must have been <1->2a(-b)(-4), i.e. either uni- or bilingual (-4) and with a relatively rare use of the gloss element <-1>. It should be noted that no glosses are found in unilingual texts, suggesting that the unilingual texts were produced at a more advanced stage in the curriculum. Element 2a – the logogram The logogram is the indispensable central element of each entry: it is what all other elements in the horizontal structure are geared to expand upon. It is never completely omitted and when a part of it is missing, as attested on a limited number of occasions, that part must be assumed as a virtual presence. Sometimes it is replaced by the sign MIN, which is the Sumerian word for ‘two’ but is here to be interpreted as ‘repetition of key-word’. Such replacement does not imply absence, but merely reflects a convenient abbreviation. It seems significant, though, that such replacement only occurs in bilingual texts (15T1 is considered as a ‘virtual’ 75

Veldhuis (personal communication) suggestes that GI and BU signs are unlikely to represent Akkadian glosses as they are also found in unilingual OB parallels.

42

Series Analysis * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu bilingual text). The only occasion when a part of the logogram is really intentionally left out, without replacement by MIN and without implying a unintentional omission (a mistake), is found in division 8: in the bilingual version the key-word (GUD) must be assumed to be virtually present in the section covered by entries 8a097-8b032. Element 2b – the determinative Before analysing the determinative as an element of the horizontal organization of the entry, it is important to define what is precisely meant by it. Much of Hh is vertically organized in divisions in which all entries are preceded or followed by a sign that ia conventionally referred to as a ‘determinative’. It is important to be careful with the use of term ‘determinative’ because it refers to a implicit category of signs in the cuneiform sources, i.e. a category of signs the existence of which is assumed from their specific use, a use not least attested in Hh. Modern research considers the signs in that category as explicitly different in quality from other signs found in the logogram and it is therefore marked (by SUPERSCRIPT). However, it is worth noticing that ‘determinatives’ are not explicitly marked as qualitatively different from other signs in the original cuneiform texts, and that they may also occur as a ‘regular’ (logographic or phonetic) signs. E.g.: the sign KI may be a determinative (indicating a land as in geographic location, which is how it occurs in divisions 15-16), it may be a logogram (meaning ‘land’, Akkadian erṣetu) or it may be a CV syllable (with phonetic value /ki/). These three uses may be compared to the following near-analogue meanings of English ‘land’ in the following contexts: ‘Britain’ (not pronounced but implied as a concept, i.e. LAND BRITAIN ), ‘England’ (explicit qualification, i.e. ANGEL.LAND), ‘land’ (independent noun, i.e. LAND) and ‘island’ (phonetic presence in lexicalized morpheme-compound, i.e. IS.LAND). Any definition of the term ‘determinative’ is bound to be relevant only in the modern scientific context, and of limited use even there. Such a definition may have a limited descriptive value only, with little relevance to the historical context of the scribal school and its lexical texts. However, because the term ‘determinative’ has become part of the Assyriological vocabulary it shall be conventionally employed, and used to refer to those signs that are empirically found to be added (before or after) logograms to classify them as belonging to a certain semantic field, without adding their specific phonetic value to them. This pragmatic definition allows easy reference to certain signs, even if not necessarily covering a classificatory category actually relevant in the texts themselves. Because determinates occur in much of the Hh material, it should be attempted to specify their actual determining function with regard to the entries they are added to. To shed some light on this function, it may be useful to contrast the occurrence of determinatives in that part of the text with their absence in other parts. The most obvious absence of determinatives is found in divisions 1-2, which are compilations of administrative and legal terminology with added paradigms and some excursions. That no determinatives are called in these divisions for is related to their semantic content. Unlike the rest of Hh, they treat abstract entities and actions and not concrete material objects or locations, which is what the use of determinatives is reserved for. However, within the rest of Hh there are large parts of the text, even whole divisions (cf. Table 11) that treat concrete material objects but where no determinatives are used. In these parts of Hh the entries are grouped together according to initial key-words and these groups belong to coherent semantic fields. E.g.: there are no determinatives in division 8, but all entries are grouped according to ten or so initial key-words (UDU, UZUD, MÁŠ, GUD etc.), which all belong to the semantic range of life-stock. Because the divisions where entries are preceded or followed by determinatives simultaneously group these entries within specific semantic fields, the overall (vertical) organizing principle of Hh may be said to be that of

43

Part 3 – Structural Analysis semantic field - not determinative, initial sign or key-word. Determinatives, initial signs and key-words only happen to occur in many of the semantic fields. In other words: the determinative alone is not a classificatory category relevant to the vertical organization of the Hh text. Because possession of a determinative is no prerequisite for the inclusion of an entry of any kind into the Hh text and because, in fact, many entries in Hh have no determinative, it was earlier listed as a ‘possible’ element in the horizontal entry. It actual appearance as a separate element is due to the fact that, throughout large sections of the text, it frequently repeats when the logograms keep changing. The only reason that it is repeated in these sections (most importantly in divisions 3-5) is simply because it is the only way to unequivocally specify many of the logograms as belonging to the particular semantic field that is covered in the section they belong to. E.g.: the sign KU in 3001 may be read in many ways (TUKUL, TÚG etc.) and the only way to know that it should be read TASKARIN is by adding the ĜIŠ determinative, which specifies it as belonging to the category wood and the context of tree names narrows down its possible meaning to TASKARIN (‘box tree’). Similarly the sign HAR in 9a070 may be read in many ways (KÍN, ÀR etc.) and only by adding the UZU determinative is it shown as a having a reading with reference to a body organ (UR 5 ‘liver’). Effectively, the logogram functions as part of the logogram. This is confirmed by the fact that it always occupies the same slot in the entry, i.e. it is always immediately before or after the key-word logogram. On the few occasions that an entry has both a gloss and a determinative preceding the key-word logogram, the determinative is placed after the gloss, and not before it: entry 3a265 in fragment 544 E gives li-iš-ša : ĜIŠŠ[Ú-A ] 76 . This shows that the determinative does not have an independent status as a separate entry element: it does not remain in the first slot independently, but ‘sticks’ to the logogram. Another indication of its mere auxiliary status is found in its frequently complementary distribution with the Akkadian translation: in the unilingual format the determinative is always given, but in the bilingual format the determinative is often almost completely omitted (often only in the first and last entries of a column are given, especially in the earlier divisions). This means that in the those texts the determinative or the Akkadian translation may apparently equally serve to determine a logogram. This confirms that, in the school texts at least, the logogram can do without the determinative if there is another determinant factor (the Akkadian translation). The determinative is merely a functional auxiliary without independent status in the horizontal structure. In the earlier part of Hh curriculum the determinative can be designated as an empirically conditional part of the logogram. Position-bound to the logogram and not independently carrying a particular aspect of content, it can not be given equal status among the other elements of the horizontal structure, hence its designation as element 2b. It should be noted that the partial complementary distribution of determinative and Akkadian equivalent shows again that within the Hh curriculum there was a phased approach to the writing system. If it is assumed that the initial phase of the Hh curriculum consisted of bilingual composition, then it was geared explicitly to teaching the meaning of logograms by giving the translation: the Akkadian meaning was written out (the local West Semitic language may be assumed to have been added orally). Only in unilingual composition, presumably a later phase in the curriculum, is the correct writing of the logogram fully implemented by the consistent addition of the determinative. The endless repetition of determinatives, which is mandatory in the unilingual lists, could therefore to be regarded as didactically functional for a later stage of the curriculum. 76

Commentary on this gloss in Veldhuis, Elementary Education, 172.

44

Series Analysis * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu

Element 4 – the Akkadian equivalent In Hh the most frequent relation of the Akkadian equivalent to the logogram is that of straightforward translation, which is what may be expected in a thematic list. The only other relation found is that of partial translation, which mostly occurs when the Akkadian equivalent only refers to the attribute of a repeated key-sign. More complex than its implementation, however, is the distribution of Akkadian equivalent: in some (bilingual) texts it is found and in other (unilingual) texts it is omitted. It will be established in the analysis of its vertical organization that the default format of Hh is bilingual. All divisions of the text are attested in bilingual format and many of them only in that format. The first stage in the Hh curriculum may be assumed to have aimed at the reproduction of (most of) the series as a collection of semantically grouped logograms with Akkadian translations, establishing their meaning and practising their graphic rendering. Having accomplished this, the student was likely instructed to proceed to a next stage in which only selected parts of the series were reworked (and partially reorganized) in an exclusively unilingual format. For that second stage the meaning of the logograms was apparently supposed to have been mastered already to such an extent that the student could reproduce them in the correct, traditional Sumerian graphic form (i.e. with the correct determinatives) and without the need for an explicit Akkadian translation. However, indications that the Akkadian translation was eventually scheduled to be phased out are not lacking in bilingually formatted texts either. Even in the divisions belonging to the first part of the bilingual curriculum it is occasionally found that the Akkadian equivalent is omitted. In bilingual 3bT2 the Akkadian equivalent is omitted for the entries 3b021-5, which list parts of the MAR.GÍD.DA ‘wagon’. Translations for these entries may have been considered superfluous as they repeat items that were already treated in earlier comparable sections, treating the GIGIR and the GAG-SÌLA, the ‘chariot’ and the ‘freight cart’. In 4T2 more omissions of superfluous repetitions are attested: in the entries 4018-4052, covering the key-words from IG ‘door’ to TAK-TÚG ‘loom heddle’, key-words are found with translations but no translations are found for the subentries: they are systematically left out. These sub-entries involve basic vocabulary, such as the common adjectives GU.LA, GIBIL and LIBIR.RA, and must have been assumed as familiar material, not necessarily warranting repetition of the translations. Even if in another text (4T1) these same entries are fully translated, this omission confirms that the phasing out of Akkadian entries is found in the bilingual format and that it started with the omission of recurring and common vocabulary found in the sub-entries (which frequently repeat similar qualifications for different key-words). Yet another example of such omissions in an early division is found in 5T1, were no Akkadian is given for the sub-entry adjectives MAH, TUR and ŠU when added to the key-word MA.SÁ.AB ‘basket’ (5074-5). In the later divisions, as the student progresses through the Hh curriculum, omissions are found more and more frequently. In 8bT2 and the bilingual fragments of division 8 there are systematic omissions of the Akkadian translation for all the subentries belonging to the keywords UDU and GUD. The material of divisions 9-11, even if often fragmentary, shows similar omissions (e.g. 9bT1 9a027-9b030, 9b Fragment 551 F 9b029, 10T1 10021-3, 10T2 10210 and 11 Fragment 554 F). Theoretically some of the left-out translations may have been previously given somewhere else, in some lost section of these fragmentarily preserved texts, but because there are only a few key-words and many omissions it is likely that they were not given at all. On many occasions, familiarity with the un-translated vocabulary seems to have been assumed (in fact much of it was indeed covered in the earlier divisions) and only new,

45

Part 3 – Structural Analysis unfamiliar material may have been selected for translation. If such familiarity is indeed implied, the later divisions of bilingual Hh may effectively have doubled as a ‘control exercise’ for the material covered in the earlier divisions. Students were apparently assumed acquainted with Akkadian entries that are omitted, such as those corresponding to GANBA 8a097 and ZÌG.GA 8b025 (8bT2), which may be found in earlier exercises (division 2 respectively 2073 and 2084). The omissions effectively imply cross-referencing within the Hh material. Additionally, the increasing frequency of the systematic omission of the Akkadian translation may have been functional in the curriculum in as far as it allows, as the student progresses, speedier coverage of later divisions. In some of the last divisions of the bilingual format the omission of the Akkadian entries takes on epidemic proportions: there are long sections and even a whole division where Akkadian translations are omitted. In divisions 15 and 16 this affects much of the geography section (the KI and ÍD entries). In fact, in 15T1 division 15 has been rendered only in the structural skeleton of the bilingual format (preserving only its presentation with intermittent ruling), a situation that is also found in some of the extracts. Obviously it could be argued that geographical terminology often requires no actual translation. However, 16bT1 column II shows that the teacher could always opt for adding the Akkadian column anyway, using it as an exercise for giving an ‘akkadizing’ phonetic and simplified rendering of the Sumerian logograms and CVC signs. It therefore appears that the increase in systematic omissions attested in these divisions is primarily an extension of the development shown in the earlier divisions (even if it is also happens to be quite appropriate to much of the content). It may be said, then, that there is a gradual increase in the omission frequency of the Akkadian translation as the curricular program advances, culminating in the complete abandonment of the bilingual format (sometimes after still maintaining its form without its content) and followed by a change-over to the unilingual format. This phenomenon seems functional in as far as it allows increased speed in doing exercises and prepares the student for the unilingual stage of the Hh curriculum by encouraging his progressive independence from the Akkadian translation. 4.2.2. Vertical organization Horizontal ruling Two different types of horizontal ruling patterns may be found on Type I tablets: the first type gives full ruling in the whole text, i.e. lines between each entry, the second gives only intermittent ruling between selected entries within the text. The first type is found in unilingual texts, the second in bilingual texts. There are a few intermittently ruled texts that have unilingual content but these conform in sign inventory and entry sequence to the bilingual format - these texts will be discussed below (and will be termed virtually bilingual in 4.4.). These two horizontal ruling types must therefore be considered as formal features particular to each linguistic format. These features may, on occasion, assist in the identification of badly damaged fragments. The choice of entries for intermittent ruling in the bilingual format is random in terms of line count (i.e. ruling does not divide a text in sections of a particular number of lines). It is, however, related to the (graphic or semantic) content of the entries and the issue of intermittent ruling will require closer inspection in the later discussion of the vertical organization of content. On Type III tablets (extracts) have either intermittent ruling or none. Intermittent and lack of ruling are attested on extracts with (apparent) unilingual as well as bilingual content and when all apparently unilingual extracts are considered as virtually bilingual the latter may be considered as a mere variant of the

46

Series Analysis * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu former, i.e. the lack of horizontal ruling may be related to the unitary content of the text covered. Tablet and text division As elsewhere and in other periods, the text of Hh in Late Bronze Emar is found spread over multiple tablets, but the number of tablets and the (vertical) organization of the text across them are particular to the Emar corpus. This particularity invites a simultaneous investigation of the empirical data concerning the formal features of the physical tablet and those concerning text content. The most obvious point of departure for such an investigation is the definition of divisional organization. The divisional organization of the Hh text (i.e. the location of tablet boundaries in the text) is not random, but systematically related to content. This is shown by the repetition of divisional boundaries on different tablets with the same content. The data pertaining to tablet, i.e. the physical text carrier, and those pertaining to division, i.e. the selection of text for that carrier, both provide empirical evidence and will be brought into relation with each other. The application of linguistic format will be analysed as the primary process that affects this relation in the Emar Hh corpus. Bilingual tablets generally tend to have less columns th a unilingual tablets, reflecting the spatial effect of the lengthening of the entries caused by the addition of the Akkadian component. Unilingual text, providing the entries in a more condense manner, allows for a larger number of entries to be included on a single tablet. In general terms, the addition of Akkadian content has the overall effect of forcing the spread of the text over more tablets. In diachronic perspective. This process may be seen at work when comparing the tablet division found in Emar with that found for Old Babylonian Nippur. In Nippur the texts are still given in an exclusively unilingual format. Appendix 2 of Part 2 shows how the text section treating stones, vegetation, fish, birds and cloth (canonical tablets XVI-XIX) is given on two tablets (4-5) in Nippur, but on four (divisions 10-13) in Emar. Similar observations may be made for other parts of the text. Within the Emar material itself, this spreading process can actually be seen at work: the first ĜIŠ-division needs only one tablet when given in a unilingual format (in 3aT1-2) but is split in two when given in a bilingual format (in 3bT1-2). This specific split will later become standardized in the canonical 1st Millennium version. There, the process reaches its historically maximal segmentation, resulting in an expansion to 24 (canonical) tablets from an original number of six tablets in Old Babylonian Nippur. Between these extremes, the division into 18 tablets in Hh in Late Bronze Emar accurately shows the extent to which its internal dynamics, related to the process of bilingualization of the lexical corpus, had developed in the direction of those of the canonical version. With regard to the bilingual split in division 3, it should be noted that it represents the only time that there is more than one option for text division in the Emar Hh corpus and that the option involving an extra division is related to the use of the bilingual format. This indicates that, through column size, there is a relation between linguistic format and text division: introduction of the bilingual format tends to lead to more divisions. The empiric data (all tablets respect the a single divisional boundary point except in case of the bilingual version of division 3) suggest that unity of divisional presentation, irrespective of linguistic format, was aimed at. There were two ways to maintain this unity: either (1) a given division was presented in single linguistic format only, or (2) it was presented in two different versions. Leaving aside division 6 (for which no tablets could be reconstructed and too few fragments

47

Part 3 – Structural Analysis of which are available to determine its length), the first strategy is found in divisions 2, 4 77 -5, 10-15, 17-18 and the second strategy in divisions 7-9 and 16. The only exceptions are found in divisions 1 and 3. The former exception may be due to the small size of division 1: its 177 entries could be fitted on one tablet irrespective of linguistic format. The latter exception involves a break-down in unity of divisional presentation but also gives an instructive illustration of the driving mechanism behind the historical progressive subdivision as well as the transformation of content within Hh, viz. the need to accommodate the bilingual format in a traditionally unilingual list. The specific choice of a linguistic format for a given text may be assumed to pertain to the function of that text within the wider curriculum and will be discussed in the paragraph concerned with the reconstruction of curricular order (4.4.). 4.3. Vertical organization of content Analytical approach After the formal aspect of vertical organization was discussed in 4.2.2., this paragraph, in turn, means to investigate its content aspect: it aims to relate the formal organizational structure found in the text to its content. Its central question is: how is content realized in the vertical text structure? As was noted in the preceding discussion about the determinative, the basic overall organizing principle of Hh is its ordering by semantic field (which may be expressed by a determinative or otherwise). This is why it is classified as a thematic series. Within Hh, semantic fields can be defined at different levels: that of the individual entry may be defined as its most basic or lowest level and that of the complete text as its most expanded or highest level. These two extremes of semantic field are not relevant here because they can not provide empiric data concerning the vertical realization of content. The lowest level refers only to the horizontal organization of aspects of meaning across elements of the individual entry and was discussed previously. The highest level refers to the meaning of the Hh text as whole and is only relevant with regard to its function within the wider curriculum. The present analysis must focus on the intermediate levels, viz. on semantic fields that are defined by different but equally valid empirical data. In fact, two intermediate levels of organization can be empirically distinguished: that of key-sign/-word and that of division. These will be labelled ‘level 2’ and ‘level 3’ respectively. The lowest level, that of the individual entry and its paradigms, and the highest, that of the full text, could be termed as levels 1 and 4 respectively. Level 2 - Key-sign, key-word and subentry In lists which collect logograms, i.e. graphic representations of words, in a thematic manner, such as Hh, vertical sequences of consecutive logograms often share a common grapheme. As the smallest common denominator of these logograms such a grapheme may be termed the key-sign. It may either reflect a morpheme or a word and it can occur alone or in a compound or larger phrase. Where the shared key-sign reflects a word it is also termed a key-word. Entries that combine key-words with other elements may be termed subentries if they are defined in relation to the key-word. Sequences of consecutive key-sign, key-word and subentry entries together form semantically coherent units. These units reflect empirically 77

With fragment 545 R taken as a likely extract, only fragments 545 AO and AS may potentially be construed as unilingual, but their fragmentary state and the contrary indication of the intermittent ruling (mostly a reliable indicator of bilingualism) make this uncertain.

48

Series Analysis * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu valid semantic fields above the level of the individual entry but under that of the division. The empiric quality of the semantic field covered by text sections formed by key-sign-keywordsubentry combinations allows insight into the classificatory strategies employed by the ancient scribes in organizing content. In this respect it should be noted that these combinations also include nominal and verbal paradigmatic sequences. The organization of these paradigms is obvious and paradigmatic groups can be treated as long single entries, for this reason subentries in paradigms are not given separate numbers in the EST count but are referred to by letters added to a single entry number. Application of the key-sign and key-word criteria – examples The use of the key-sign and key-word criteria on the second level of the analysis of content organization may be illustrated by applying it to some samples of the text, to show how these criteria can expose underlying organizational structure. Tables 8 and 9 will show which entries are organized by grouping according to key-sign and key-word semantic fields and how these fields interrelate. In Table 9 two samples will be given because Hh has two parts with very different content: division 1 will be taken to represent the first two divisions, which treat abstract administrative and legal terminology, and division 3 will be taken to represent the rest of the Hh, which treats concrete material objects and locations. All key-signs (i.e. signs that are shared by multiple consecutive entries) will be listed and those key-signs that are also key-words will be marked. The semantic range of each key-sign and key-word will be indicated by English translations - these ranges combined will set the semantic parameters for the next level of analysis. Table 9. Key-signs organization in Hh divisions 1 and 3 EST

Key-sign hyphens (-) indicate morpheme status bold type indicates key-sign=key-word

Semantic field italics indicate morpheme status bold type indicates key-word

ŠU-BA BA.ANŠU-BA ŠAG 4 MURIGI-DÉ NÍĜMÁŠ -GI 4 NÍĜDAM DUMU -A.NI ŠUŠE GUR 10 KUD EBUR

‘hand’ ‘to give’ CONJUGATION PREFIX ‘favour’ ‘ration’ ‘heart; inner part’ ‘fodder’ ‘eye’ ‘to bring’ ‘thing’ interest ‘to turn go around; change’ ‘thing’ spouse child POSSESSIVE SUFFIX ‘hand’ barley harvest harvest ‘place’

Hh 1 1003-4 1005-6 1008-10 1012-9 1022-6 1027-8 1029-30 1031-3 1035-6 1036-9 1042-61 1065-6 1067-8 1069-74 1076-82 1081-89 1096-9 1100-3 1104-6 1108-9

KI49

Part 3 – Structural Analysis 1112-3 1117-8 1122-3 1125-6 1136-40 1147-8 1150-1 1153-4 1155-7 1157-8 1159-61 1161-2 1163-4 Hh 3 3a003-9 3a013-5 3a020-28 3a029-36 3a036-43 3a044-7 3a048-50 3a051-2 3a053-5 3a057-62 3a064-5 3a067-76 3a077-84 3a088-96 3a097-9 3a100-13 3a117-52 3a152-3 3a154-5 3a157-81 3a182-6 3a188-90 3a191-98 3a197-8 3a200-1 3a204-5 3a207-8 3a211-2 3a217-9 3a224-58 3a259-64 3a265-72 3a273-5 3a276-86 3a287-91

KI-

‘place’ to measure upon; against partnership price DISTRIBUTIVE SUFFIX DECLINATION SUFFIX CONJUGATION PREFIX silver to stand; guarantee CONJUGATION SUFFIX to exceed to have

ÁĜ UGU NAM.TAB.BA SÁM -ÀM -GIN 7 ÌKUG.BABBAR GUB -E.MEŠ DIRIG TUKU

ebony ? vine fig apple pine incense medlar pistachio poplar kušabku willow grove; wood big tree cedar AKK. DECLINATION AFFIX date ‘heart; inner part’ branch date poplar ašagu AKKADIAN NOUN sheaf date fruit PHONETIC ASSOCIATION chain foliage cutting tool chair; seat box stool foot-stand bed table

ESI KÍN ĜEŠTIN PÈŠ HAŠHUR Ù.SUH 5 ŠIM ŠENNUR LAM ÍLDAG A.AB.BA MA.NU TIR MES EREN -UM NIMBAR ŠAG 4 PA NIMBAR ÁSAL KIŠI 16 -UM ZAR ZÚ.LUM.MA MAŠDURME GIL BA GU.ZA NA

ŠÚ-A-DIŠ GÌR.GUB NÚ BANŠUR

50

Series Analysis * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu 3a292-5 3a297-305 3a307-12 3a313-8 3a319-23 3a328-9 3a330-64 3a365-6 3a369-70 3a370-1 3a374-87 3a388-91 3a392-4 3a395-9 3a400-5

KA.KARA X ÉMERAH KUN 4 BÚNIN/BUNIN 4 /BUNIN NÀĜA MI.RÍ.ZA MÁ AN.TI.BAL ŠÍBIR GAG GIGIR

table jug stairs; ladder bucket mortar helm; rudder boat sign(post) standard peg chariot freight cart ? whip cart; wagon

GAG-SÌLA ŠID.DÙ ÙSAN MAR.GÍD.DA

In division 1 it is found that key-signs are as likely to be loose morphemes as (key) words. A number of morphemes are declination or conjugation affixes, but most are nominal or verbal elements that occur in series of compounds. These elements have intrinsic meanings which are frequently irrelevant to the meaning of the compound words in which they are found (such meanings are given in quotation marks). This implies that a substantial part of the actual sequence of entries was guided by a semantic association under the level of word association. Apparently many entries were grouped together so as to repeat certain morphemes, which systematically coincide with certain graphemes. This shows that the text was partially organized according to sign form. Even if the thematic nature of division 1 is undoubted (as will be shown next), the initial part of the Hh curriculum may therefore be said to include a certain degree of vocabulary acquisition organized by graphic association, a principle known from other series. In division 3, on the contrary, key-sign is virtually synonymous with key-word and key-signs with morpheme status, such as frequently found in division 1, are rare. An interesting feature uncovered by applying the key-sign criterion, however, is that it shows that some groups of entries are ordered by the Akkadian declination suffix –UM. These entries are, in fact, Akkadian words: the -UM suffix, which includes mimation, represents Old Babylonian spelling and was a conventional attribute of Akkadian loanwords in Sumerian. On at least one occasion an Akkadian loan word is actually the translation of a logographic Sumerian form that precedes it: 3a194 ṢU.TE.NU.UM is the translation (AHw form ṣudianu) of 3a193 PEŠ.KAL. Generally these words tend to occur in clusters in the tree list part of division 3. This means that key-sign clusters consist either of collections of key-word entries or of collections of Akkadian words. The vertical organization of content within Hh 3, in other words, functions almost exclusively at the level of word-association, unlike that in Hh 1, where graphic distinction at morpheme level is also found. When those key-sign clusters are seen in the context of all other logograms (cf. composite edition) it is found that the whole entry inventory for this division represents a simple word list, clearly semantically associated as trees, wood types and wooden objects, and that the only forms of sub-organization found in this listing are the repetition of key-words in compound expansions (which include many adjectives) and the clustering of the occasionally included Akkadian loan words.

51

Part 3 – Structural Analysis For division 3 key-signs have been found to systematically overlap with key-words, but for division 1 they cover distinctly separate semantic fields. For division 1, however, it was established that part of the organization depends on association under word level, clearly setting it aside from division 3. Because the example of division 1 represents both divisions 1 and 2 and the example of division 3 represents all other divisions, it may be said that the early part of Hh (Hh 1-2) was differently organized than the rest. The hybrid vertical organization of content in the first two divisions, combining graphically organization with thematic organization, effectively provides a transitional exercise between the elementary sign-lists and the thematic lists. In this regard G may be considered as a continuation of the PN/DN analysis started in SaAP1. A closer inspection of the division 1 sample will show how this hybrid status was effectuated: Table 10 below will investigate how in Hh1 the relation between graphic organization and thematic organization was established through assigning key-word status to the key-signs (the latter were identified in Table 9). Table 10. Relation of key-signs and key-words in Hh division 1 Entry Key-sign Key-word bold type indicates italics indicate key-sign key-sign=key-word bold type indicates key-word 1001 1002 1003-4 1005-6 1007 1008-10 1011 1012-9 1020 1021 1022-6 1027-8 1029-30 1031-3 1034 1035-6 1036-9 1040 1041 1042-61 1062 1063 1064 1065-6 1067-8 1069-74 1075 1076-82 1081-9 … 1090

ŠU-BA

BA.AN-

ŠU-

BAŠAG 4 MURIGI-

-DÉ NÍĜ-

MÁŠ

-GI 4 NÍĜDAM

DUMU -A.NI

… -

UR 5 .RA EŠ.DÉ.A ŠU.LAL/BAL NÍĜ/IN.NA.AN.BA A MU.UN.NA.RA BA.AN.DÙ/BAL/DUH MU.UN.NA.DÍM ŠU.ĜAR GI/NÍĜ.ĜÁL.LA etc. ZI KAR.RA HA.LA ĜIŠ ŠUB/ŠE/Ì/SÍG/TÚG.BA ŠAG 4 .ĜÁL/ĜAR MUR.GÚ/GUD IGI.SÁ/KÁR/DUH.A SÁ.DUG 4 KAŠ/NÍĜ.DÉ.A NÍĜ.MÍ.ÚS.SÁ/ŠU.TAK 4 /MU.PÀD KUG.BABBAR.PAD.DU KI.LAL D MÁŠ ( UTU) etc. NU/BA.AN.TUKU SAĜ.DU É.GI.A (UGULA) DAG.GI 4 .A NÍĜ/NÍĜ.KUD.DA DAM (GURUŠ/LÚ/BÀNDA etc.) NIN DUMU (MÍ/-UŠ/GAB) DUMU/ŠEŠ/NIN/AD/AMA.A.NI etc.

… KI

52

Semantic field bold type indicates key-word loan loan gift; transfer gift; to give to dedicate to build to create favour to take life share allotment; ration sustenance; hunger fodder tax; tribute offering to bring gift; (bride)price; oath lump of silver weight interest not having; bearing head bride city quarter possessions; revenue spouse females child relatives ... place; earth

Series Analysis * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu 1091 1092-4 1095 1096-9 1100-3 1104-6 1107 1108-9 1110 … 1111 1112-3 1114 1115(-6) 1117-8 1119 1120 1121 … 1122-3 1124 1125-6 1128 1129 1130 1131(-2) 1133 1134 1135 1136-40 … 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147-9 1150-1 1152 1153-4 1155-7 1157-8 1159-61 1161-2 1163-4 1165 1166 1167 1168

-

SAĜ

ŠUŠE GUR 10 KUD EBUR

KI… KIÁĜ

… UGU

NAM.TAB.BA

SÁM

… -ÀM -GIN 7 ÌKUG.BABBAR GUB -E.MEŠ DIRIG TUKU

-

NAM SAĜ ÌR/GÉME/GÉME.ÌR IGI ŠU BA.AN.TI/ etc. (UD/EGIR) ŠE GUR 10 KUD(.ŠÈ) MU.UN.KUR 9 EBUR.ŠÈ etc. MU.UN.KUR 9 ŠE -UD=KISLAH/-KAL=KANKAL UD

… ITUD

-KAL/ĜIZKIM.BI.DA ÉD/ÈD LAL (ŠE) Ì.ÁĜ.ĜÁ(.E.MEŠ) KUG.BABBAR LÁ ŠÚM GUR

… UGU.ZU.NE.NE/BI.NE.NE etc. TUKUM.BI KUG.B. NAM.TAB.BA etc. BAL KUG.B ù MÁŠ.BI ŠE u MÁŠ.BI GI.GI KI LÚ.SILIM.MA.TA ù LÚ.SILIM.GI.NA.TA KUG.B.BI ŠU BA.AB.TEĜ 4 SÁM.BI(.ŠÈ) IN.ĜAR/TIL.LA etc.

… INIM NU.ĜÁ.ĜÁ.A MU PÀD TÚM AN.TI.BAL KI.BI.ĜAR.RA GAB.RI.A ŠU.RI.ÀM/IGI 3 ĜAL.ÀM etc. ŠEŠ ŠEŠ.GIN 7 /LÚ LÚ.GIN 7 NÍĜ.NAM.A.NA Ì.ĜÁL.LA Ì.BA/GU 7 .A KUG.B.TA GUB.BA/DUH.A etc. MÁŠ KUG.B.BI.ŠÈ AL.GUB etc. DUH/SI.SÁ.E.MEŠ ÍB.DIRIG.GA.E.MEŠ etc. (NU.)BA.TUKU etc. NINDA.BI Ì.GU 7 .E TUG.BI AL.MU 4 .MU 4 ŠE <Ì.>ÀR.[RA ] BA.ÚŠ BA.(AN.)TAK 4 .A

53

in; fate domestic personnel eye to take (a fee) to harvest harvest in-gathering of barley threshing floor;ground day count ... month count conform its summons to move out; go up to weight to measure (barley) to weight silver to give to return ... (to have) upon soon; if (silver of)partnership to turn over PHRASE PHRASE to return; pay back PHRASE PHRASE PHRASE price; to pay ... PHRASE to swear an oath to take away sign exchange equivalent DISTRIBUTIVA equally PHRASE to divide; consume silver to guarantee to redeem; fulfil to exceed to have; take PHRASE PHRASE PHRASE PHRASE

Part 3 – Structural Analysis 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1174a 1175a 1175b 1176 1177

-

UGU/Ú.ĜU 10 .UŠ BA.AN.DÉ ĜÁ.LA BA.AN.DAG UD ĜÁ.LA BA.AN.DAG KAM UD 1 BÁN ŠE.TA.ÀM Á.BI Ì.ÁĜ.E UD KUG.B MU.UN.TÚM UD KUG.B Á.BI MU.UN.TÚM GÉME.A.NI BA.TÚM ÌR.A.NI BA.TÚM(.MU) Á.BI ÍB.SI.SÁ IN.NA.AN.ŠÚM

PHRASE PHRASE PHRASE PHRASE PHRASE PHRASE PHRASE PHRASE PHRASE PHRASE PHRASE

As in division 3, the inventory of semantic fields for division 1 (right-hand column of above table) can be explained as a simple listing of word(group)s, that are semantically related on an abstract level. In the final analysis this means that division 1 is intended as a thematic list. In fact, historically the text of Hh divisions 1-2 is a separate thematic exercise, dealing with administrative and legal phraseology and was only secondarily incorporated in Hh in an adjusted and expanded form (cf. Appendix 3 of the composite edition). An residue of the original structure may be found in some entries that consist of complete administrative and legal phrases, rather than the mere words or noun phrases that are found in the other divisions of Hh. Some of these entries have to be read consecutively (e.g. 1113 ‘Conform its summons...’ 1114 ‘...he has moved out’; 1133 ‘From all debtors...’ 1134 ‘...and from all guarantors’; 1152 ‘Whatever there is of it...’ 1153 ‘...he has divided’). The last section of division 1 as well as the entries 194-200 of division 2 actually consists of complete blocks of legal texts (concerning marriage and the manumission of slaves). Within its semantically coherent framework, however, divisions 1-2 systematically set out to group entries according to graphic association: relevant expressions and terminology are collected in clusters according to graphic criteria (e.g. the BA.AN- verbal prefix cluster 100810, the ŠU cluster 1012-9, the MÁŠ cluster 1042-61 and the SÁM cluster in 1136-40). Sometimes one graphic association is linked to the next, such as in 1036 NÍĜ.DÉ.A, where the DÉ element is shared with preceding 1035 and the NÍĜ element with following 1037-9. The shared graphic element may be a morpheme or a word, but it is the graphic link that counts as the organizing principle guiding the formation of these clusters. The mixed collection of graphic and semantic associations and text passages effectually results in an exercise that involves working with different aspects of cuneiform writing. The positioning, at the start of Hh, of an exercise that in some regards continues the integrative methodology found in earlier series and in other regards simultaneously represents a thematic lists, could be considered didactically functional (conceivably its positioning was intentional in this regard). Hh 1-2 effectively functions as an exercise that combines training in basic compositional skills and the mastering of the integrative methodology, found in the elementary series, with the acquisition of thematically organized vocabulary that dominates the thematic series. Horizontal ruling Before proceeding to the next level of content analysis, which involves abstract semantics, it is appropriate to reconsider horizontal ruling, a phenomenon already mentioned earlier as a formal feature but apparently also related to the organization content at an intermediate level. Appendix 2 of the text edition clearly shows that continuous ruling between all entries is a feature particular to the unilingual format and that, vice versa, intermittent ruling between

54

Series Analysis * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu selected entries is particular to the bilingual format. In the first case ruling obviously does not organize content on a level above that of the individual entry, but in the second case the question is what criterion is applied to the choice of entries to be divided by ruling. A few criteria can immediately be discounted. Nowhere in the Emar Hh text is intermittent ruling used for counting lines, a device known from other texts found elsewhere. Neither is intermittent ruling in the bilingual format dependent on any inventory relation between the uni- and bilingual versions: this is clear from a comparison of those texts that have the same version in both formats (divisions 1-2). The actual criterion applied therefore must be contentrelated, even if it only happens to be applied in bilingually formatted texts. A closer look at the actual autographs of the bilingual texts, allows the formulation of some rules for the selection of entries for ruling. First, the lines are not ‘under-rulings’ of particular entries but rather divider lines that primarily serve to mark text blocks. Second, those blocks are mostly graphically distinct in an obvious fashion. E.g., in the autograph of 1T3 (731044 – p.125) column I shows lines around blocks with the entries such as 1012-9, 1023-6 and 10369, which have common graphic elements that clearly stand out in the lay-out (respectively initial ŠU, final BA and initial NÍĜ). Third, in sections that lack characteristically distinctive graphic elements, such as those with longer phrases or sentences, a relation to graphic distinction could not be strictly maintained and the divider lines were instead used to mark text blocks that are semantically coherent. E.g. the sentence UD 1 KAM BÁN ŠE.TA.ÀM / Á.BI Ì.ÁĜ.e ‘each day one sutu of barley / as wage shall he measure out.’ is divided over the two entry lines 1172-3 but is marked off as a text block by divider lines. In certain cases both a graphic and a semantic division is indicated, e.g. in 10T1, which deals with stones and marks of text blocks that often have the standard sequence: 0 stone type (key-word entry), 1 KIŠIB (‘seal made of’) + stone type, 2 LAGAB (‘block of’) + stone type and 3 ÉLLAĜ (‘cameo made of’) + stone type. Throughout the bilingual texts it is found that in some instances divider lines are applied in a somewhat haphazard fashion, but it may be said that, as a rule, intermittent application of horizontal ruling in the bilingual format primarily serves to indicate graphic distinction and more rarely semantic distinction. This primarily graphic criterion means that, by and large, the occurrence of divider lines coincides with the occurrence of keysigns, which in the later divisions of Hh mostly have key-words status. An answer to the question why intermittent divider lines are particular to bilingual texts may be sought in the curricular position of the bilingual format, which represents the first stage in the treatment of the Hh texts. Apparently, at this earlier stage it was felt that the student was in need of some ‘crutches’ before tackling Hh in its final form. One of these ‘crutches’ was the addition of the Akkadian translation of the entries and another was the subdivision of the text by means of divider lines, primarily according to graphic distinction of the entries. This intermittent application of divider lines in the early stages of the treatment of Hh is a practice also found to be consistently applied in the lists that precede Hh in the curriculum (such as Svo and SaV) - effectively it allowed the student to continue working with the new text along familiar lines. The link between intermittent ruling and the bilingual format may be seen as didactically functional in terms of the curricular program. Between level 2 and level 3 Investigation of the vertical organization of content on both levels 2 and 3 (key-sign/-word and division respectively) can use empirical data derived from the text material. However, on the intermediate level between them, an exclusively synchronic investigation would involve abstract semantic criteria that lack explicit, empirical criteria. Such an approach is bound to

55

Part 3 – Structural Analysis invite projection of modern categories and classification strategies on material for which no relevant explicit discourse is available. It is tempting to speculate on the reasons why, within a given division, key-words occur in a certain sequence and about the possible semantic categories distinguished within each sequence. However, ‘hard’ evidence in the form of verifiable, empiric data is lacking when the synchronic approach is followed. An example of the limitations on empiric verification may be found in the interpretation of the combined translations for division 3. This interpretation shows that a section on trees or wood types is followed by subsequent sections on wooden furniture, boats and wagons. However, the semantic fields implied by the translations are not confirmed by empiric data such as consistently shared key-signs, let alone explicit remarks on inventory78 . Therefore, no definite conclusions regarding the compositional principle are possible: the overall composition may have resulted from intentional semantic distinctions but may equally be the result of random historical accretion. In general, graphic association (such as provided by key-words) seem to cause entry-clusters 79 , but why such clusters are ordered they way they are and whether the semantic fields that may be projected on them by the modern observer were actually relevant to the ancient composers, are questions that remain open in a synchronic analysis. The answer to these questions ought to be sought in a diachronic approach. Such an approach falls largely outside the scope of this study, but a few general remarks should be made about the historical transmission of the Hh text. The purpose of Hh is to teach a large inventory of logograms representing Sumerian words that need a number of explanations: graphic analysis, pronunciation and translation. In the larger curricular context Hh occurs after a number of more elementary exercises which serve to teach basic writing skills through focus on graphic analysis. Once a student had mastered such basic writing skills he was then required to acquire a large vocabulary in order to actually read and write Sumerian texts: Hh, with its extensive inventory of words, obviously served to provide him with part of this vocabulary. This choice of Hh was compulsory and all texts that served the education of scribes were part of a traditionally transmitted corpus. In it, there was little room for improvisation or manipulation on the part of either teacher or student, which explains it remarkable stability throughout large areas of the Ancient Near East and throughout long ages. The inventory and sequence of the text, in other words, had to be reproduced by successive generations of scholars in a form that was intended to preserve tradition. Change that occurs over time, including addition of vocabulary, involved content rather than structure and it was organic rather than programmatic. If the need was felt for reinterpretation, reorganization or simplification the old lists were not replaced, but new lists were added to the scholarly repertory. Such new lists always are always formed in reference to the old lists. This could take the form of excerpts (Practical Vocabulary of Assur), expansions (Aa), commentaries (HAR.GUD) or rearrangements (Izi). This process may be seen at work in the organic growth and resulting increase in subdivisions as Hh progresses towards its final canonical version as well as in the later composition of its HAR.GUD commentary. Modern questions concerning the entry inventory and sequence of Hh may therefore be considered to be of a diachronic, text historical, rather than of a synchronic semantic nature. The genesis of Hh from a collection of historically separate texts is an established fact: divisions 1-2 are variants of the texts found as KI.ULUTIN.BI.ŠÈ in the OB schools and other divisions have ‘forerunners’ in various separate thematic lists, some of which date back to the earliest stage of written history 80 . Hh as a whole may be considered as a pedagogically geared repository of historically heterogeneous thematic lists. Therefore, the vertical organization of content between levels 2 and 3 can only 78

Closer analysis of organization of the ĜIŠ-list in Veldhuis, Elementary Education, 84-126. Ibidem, 111-3. 80 E.g. the ED name lists (cf. MSL 12 4ff.) 79

56

Series Analysis * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu be profitably studied by a text historical approach. Mostly, the diachronic field of enquiry falls outside the scope of this study but a few forays will be appropriate in the next paragraph, because they touch on the relation of semantic field and divisional text organization. Level 3 – Division To assist in the following division-level analysis of content, Table 11 below gives an overview of the content of the Hh series by listing the sections of each division, distinguished according to shared determinatives or key-words. Translations are added for the determinatives and key-signs specified. Some extra lines of commentary have been added, either to specify the content in more detail or to describe parts of the text not covered by single key-words. The specification of content and a detailed description of the consecutive text sections are needed because the division-level analysis of content can only proceed after additional sub-division level investigation. Such investigation is possible based on the attestation of additional subdivisions in diachronically equivalent Hh material, viz. in the canonical equivalents. In Table 11 such additional subdivisions are indicated by double division lines. In conjunction with attestation of other subdivision strategies in other periods and places, including synchronically in Ugarit (cf. Appendix 2 of Part 2), the additional subdivisions suggest that certain divisions attested in Emar were empirically ‘sub-divisible’ into smaller units. A confirmation of the validity of this ‘sub-divisibility’ is provided by the fact that Emar division 3 is found as a single unit in most attested texts but is exceptionally subdivided on one occasion (3bT1 and 2). On that occasion the split occurs exactly where it is consistently found in the canonical version. Because divisions were always defined in a semantically coherent manner, the ‘sub-divisibility’ indicates that the ancient scribes distinguished semantic units within certain divisions even although they appear as single units. What was the extent of these additional semantic distinctions, is probably not fully retraceable. The maximum extent of ‘sub-divisibility’ in Hh is found in the canonical version and other semantic subdivisions recognized by the ancient scribes remain hidden. What may be done, however, is to project the rules applied by the ancient scribes in determining the attested division borders on parts of the text without explicit semantic distinctions. Some of these rules may be reconstructed from the diachronic analysis, i.e. by comparing the Emar and the canonical tablet division and relating the differences to content. A concise comparison is provided in Table 11 below. Table 11. Content of Hh divisions broken line: Emar tablet division // double line: canonical tablet division Emar Content MSL Translation of determinatives and DETERMINATIVES 81 and KEY-WORDS tablet division description of content SMALL CAPS: translation; italics: description 1 2 3 3.1

ĜIŠ

3.2

81

I II III IV V

Cf. Cavigneaux, ‘Lexikalische Listen’, 627.

57

administrative and legal terminology administrative and legal terminology WOOD : trees, palm tree cultivation, tree parts WOOD : tools, furniture, boats WOOD : wagons

Part 3 – Structural Analysis WOOD

4 VI VII 5

GI

6 7

DUG KUŠ

, URUDU, AN, IM, ZABAR KUG.BABBAR KUG.GI , ,

VIII IX X XI

: doors, locks, loom parts : tools, agricultural equipment WOOD :weapons,music instruments,statues REED : walls, covers REED : mats, baskets, handicrafts WOOD

POTTERY LEATHER

: skin types, shoes, clothing, bags

TIN, PASTE,

COPPER

XII

BRONZE SILVER GOLD

,

,

8

UDU, UZUD, MÁŠ, GUD, ÁB, ANŠE, EME X , DÙR

XIII

SHEEP, GOAT, HE-GOAT, LAMB, OX, COW, DONKEY, SHE-ASS, DONKEY-FOAL

9

MUŠ, UR, various wild mammals, BA.AL.GI, KIŠI 8 , EH, NIM, BURU 5 ,

XIV

SNAKE, CANINE AND FELINE PREDATORS,various wild mammals, TURTLE, ANT, VERMIN, FLY, INSECT

XV XVI

MEAT:

XVII XVIII XIX XX XXI

VEGETATION

UZU

10

NA

11 12 13 14 15 16

Ú KU

4

6,

MUŠEN

SIG TÚG

,

A.ŠAG

, GADA

4

KI

(KUR,) ÍD, ÉG, TÚL, (PA 5, )

XXII

MUL

17

, ÉŠ TU 7 , KAŠ, ŠIM, SÚN, ZÍD, NINDA

XXIII

anatomy : stone types, jewellery, medicinal stones, tools, weights STONE

FISH BIRDS

,

WOOL CLOTHING

, , FLAX: various garments : field and cultivation types PLACE : topography - cities, lands PLACE : topography - cities, lands MOUNTAIN ( ,) RIVER, LEVEE, WELL, (CANAL): topography - mountains,watercourses STAR , ROPE SOUP, BEER, MALT, SPICE, FLOUR, FIELD

BREAD

18

Ì, GA, NU.ÚR.MA, U 4 .HI.IN, ZÚ.LUM.MA, [MUN, NAĜA,] ESIR

XXIV

OIL, MILK, POMEGRATE, DATES, [SALT, MORTAR,] BITUMEN

In order to gain insight into the semantic categories relevant to the ancient scholars it will be attempted to reconstruct some of their own rules for semantic distinction. Other than those implied in the synchronically attested divisional divides, the only other semantic distinctions that may be considered empirically valid are those based on an analysis of the relations between diachronically diverging tablet divisions. For the relation between the LBA Emar and the 1st Millennium canonical tablet divisions these divergences are found where the 1st Millennium divisions cut into the Emar divisions. These intersections are indicated in Table 11 – note that the 1st Millennium divisions are marked by double ruling. There are two types of semantic distinction that emerge: 1. Grapho-semantic distinction. These are distinctions made with reference to a unifying determinative or key-sign (i.e. a determinative or key-sign that is found vertically repeated across a significant number of entries) on at least one side of the new divide. These 58

Series Analysis * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu distinctions are characterized as grapho-semantic to indicate that they are not independent from graphic criteria, even if a semantic shift is implied. E.g. the relation of Emar division 5 to canonical division VIII/IX shows that a simultaneous graphic and semantic distinction was made between the section guided by key-sign KID (EST 5016-32, MSL 8286-349) and the section guided by key-sign GUR (EST 5033-57, MSL 9001-49). Similar distinction are found in the relations between Emar 7 to canonical XI/XII and Emar 9 to canonical XIV/XV, where they refer to the determinatives or key-signs URUDU/ZABAR and BURU 5 /UZU respectively. 2. Abstract semantic distinction. These are distinctions made without reference to a unifying determinative or key-sign on either side of the new divide. These distinctions are abstract in as far as semantic quality is here clearly considered separate from the object it applies to, viz. writing. E.g. the relation of Emar division 3 to canonical division IV/V shows that a semantic distinction was made between the sections ‘masts-poles-standards’ (equivalents of MSL 3396-430) and ‘wagons-chariots-carts’ (equivalents MSL 4001-103). Neither of these sections has a common, distinctive key-sign. Similar distinctions are apparent in the relations of Emar division 4 to MSL V/VI and MSL VI/VIIa, where they refer to ‘textile industrial machinery’/‘craftsman’s wheels’ and ‘spears’/ ‘(other) weapons’ respectively. The fact that there are two types of semantic distinction, at least for the LBA and 1st Millennium Hh texts, has two implications. First, it shows that divisional organization was treated pragmatically: abstract semantic distinction was apparently as acceptable as grapho-semantic distinction. This means that divisional organization, as attested in Emar and the canonical version, was pragmatically implemented. This pragmatic implementation may have resulted in synchronically normative, i.e. traditional-conventional, boundaries but in diachronic perspective these are just coincidences. Second, it implies that semantic distinction did occur independently from graphic distinction. If abstract classification in the lexical curriculum is defined as the consideration of meaning separately from the graphic and phonetic object of study than it may be said that the ancient scribes could and did use abstraction in their analysis of the Hh text. In other words, the organization of the written Hh text is at least partially determined by abstract classification. It is conceivable that the situation is different regarding earlier Hh texts. Abstract semantic distinctions may have been absent in earlier texts, as seems to be suggested by a superficial comparison of the OB and later divisional structure (cf. Appendix 2 of the composite edition). If so, it may be possible to argue that the accretion process and resulting quantitative growth in Hh over time caused the development of abstract semantic distinctions, i.e. it forced the scribes to think of strategies for the formal inclusion of additional material into the traditional lists. In that case the simple accumulation of knowledge would explain the rise of abstract semantic analysis: quantitative change resulting in qualitative change. This line of inquiry, however, is more relevant to a diachronic approach of lexical composition.

59

Part 3 – Structural Analysis 4.4. Curricular order within Hh Linguistic format Here the application of linguistic format will be treated as a empirical criterion by which to approach the apparent priorities in the curriculum and to explain the sequencing of the attested texts. This paragraph will address the issue of choice of linguistic format that presented itself at the conclusion of the analysis of the vertical organization in 4.2.2. . To make this possible, a statistical analysis of linguistic format needs to be conducted first, which will furnish information about its empirically verifiable use. An overview of the relevant data will be found in Appendix 1 of the text edition. A summary of the curricular order within Hh as provisionally reconstructed through the following analysis will be found in Table 12. It is remarkable that in all but one of the divisions presented in a single linguistic format, this format is always bilingual. The exception is division 15, which has the KI-section in an (apparent) unilingual format, an which is attested only on one tablet, 15T1, and on one extract, 558 A. Before considering the apparent pre-eminence of the bilingual format, this exceptional case should be looked at more closely. It should be noted that 15T1 also happens to be the only tablet in all of the Hh material that has both a unilingual format and intermittent ruling. Elsewhere in Hh intermittent ruling may be considered a reliable indication of linguistic format. This suggests that 15T1 is actually bilingually formatted. This is conformed by the extract: the extract conforms in content and sequence to the equivalent section of the unilingual tablet but also adds (some) actual Akkadian text. It may have been that the author formatted tablet 15T1 as a bilingual text, giving it the appropriate intermittent bilingual (as opposed to continuous unilingual) ruling, but that he simply left out the Akkadian. Such an omission is precisely what is found for most of the entries on the extract (only three of its eleven completely preserved entries have an Akkadian equivalent). An explanation for this aberration may be found in the analogous treatment of the rest of the KI-section when it is continued in the bilingual version of division 16. In the continued KI-section, in both attested bilingual tablets (16bT1 and 2) as well as in the only relevant fragment to preserve a substantial piece of its Akkadian column (558 H’), there are large parts (16bT1 III, 16bT2 I-II) in which the entries are not provided with an Akkadian translation. It appears that for this part of the Hh text, which gives geographical names that do not necessarily need translation, it was customary to dispense with (much of) the Akkadian content. This customary dispensation seems to have been consistently applied by the author of 15T1, who, to all appearances, treated his part of the KI-section as if to give an implicitly bilingual text. Thus it can be argued that, given its exceptional format, 15T1 in fact represents a virtual bilingual text. Given, then, that all divisions attested in single linguistic format could actually be labelled as bilingual, it may be said that the bilingual format is empirically their regular, standard format. If we also consider that there are many divisions attested in a single linguistic format and that, in fact, there are no divisions which have the opposite preferential format, it may be said that the bilingual format is also the standard format for all of the Hh divisions. In other words, while all divisions of Hh can always be expected in the bilingual, they should apparently only be expected in the unilingual format for a special reason. Empirically, the bilingual format is the default format and the unilingual format the marked format, i.e. the attested material shows the empiric rule that unless the marked (unilingual) format is explicitly required for rendering a specific division, it is always, by default, rendered in the unmarked (bilingual)

60

Series Analysis * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu format. Now it remains to be explained why in Hh the unilingual format appears as the marked format, and the bilingual format as the default format. Application of linguistic format Assuming that the text material under investigation always had some function in an educational framework, it follows that the marked or default status of each linguistic format also must be functional when applied to a given text. A choice was made regarding the application of each format to a given text based on the function of that format in the curriculum. If it is assumed that mastery of an exclusively unilingual format indicates a more advanced stage in the curriculum, in parallel to what has been shown in the nearcontemporaneous curriculum of Ugarit 82 , some conclusions can be drawn concerning the Emar curriculum. It should be remembered, however, that, lacking explicit data concerning the curricular organization, the resulting reconstruction can only be hypothetical. It is possible that the linguistic formats were, at least to a certain extent, applied in parallel, with material for each division being treated in the one and the other format in turn before the student proceeded to the next division. It is also likely that the curriculum could be slightly differently applied for each student, for example when one student needed to pay more attention to a specific exercise than another student. This may account for some of the unevenness in attestation record and format selection. A search for a rigid standard form for the Hh curriculum is discouraged not only by the loss of much text material and all of the oral curricular component, but also by its flexible appearance and eclectic nature. The following hypothesis, therefore, gives only a rough outline of the curriculum. When a student had arrived at the stage of his education that he had to tackle Hh, it may have been first treated in the default (bilingual) format, perhaps in its entirety. In this first treatment the emphasis must have been on the first divisions because attestations for those generally outnumber those for the later divisions. The first divisions were, apparently, more commonly used material than the later divisions. This may indicate that, generally, the curriculum foresaw in a thorough mastering of the first divisions, followed later, perhaps only in as far as was deemed necessary, by progress into the later divisions. Later, at some appropriate point, the student was made to switch to the marked (unilingual) format, which was, however, only selectively applied. The record (Appendix 1 of the text edition) shows that relatively few Hh texts were produced in the marked format and that only some divisions were selected for its application. An attempt should be made to find objective criteria applied in this selection. First divisions - core curriculum and complementary distribution of linguistic format The first batch of unilingual texts on the inventory list (Appendix 1 of the text edition) is found in divisions 1 and 3, i.e. from among the same divisions that are quantitatively prioritized in the bilingual curriculum. Apparently these divisions, with cover legal phraseology (1-2) and the ĜIŠ-list (3-4), were considered as an especially important part of the Hh curriculum. This importance is shown by the quantity of attestations: the texts covering divisions 1-4 quantitatively cover about half of all attested Hh texts. The selection of this part of Hh for re-treatment in the marked (unilingual) format, therefore, does not seem random. 82

Cf. W.H. van Soldt, ‘Babylonian Lexical, Religious and Literary Texts and Scribal Education at Ugarit and Its Implications for the Alphabetic Literary Texts’ in: M. Dietrich and O. Loretz (eds.), Ugarit. Ein ostmediterranes Kulturzentrum im Alten Orient 1: Ugarit und seine altorientalische Umwelt. Abhandlungen zur Literatur AltSyrien-Palästinas 7 (Münster 1995) 175 with a discussion pertaining to this issue in Ugarit, including references to the situation in the Old Babylonian school as well.

61

Part 3 – Structural Analysis The frequently copied first divisions may be assumed to represented core curriculum. The first Hh text, division 1, is not only treated relatively frequently but is also given special treatment in respect of linguistic format. This division is the only one that retains the same logogram inventory and sequence in texts of both linguistic formats. The advancing student starting with the unilingual format was apparently made to rework the very first part of Hh without the Akkadian entries, but could stick to the familiar logogram inventory and sequence practiced in the bilingual format. Thus, the wide initial application of the default (bilingual) format, possibly even to Hh in its entirety, was followed by a narrow, selective application of the marked (unilingual) format to parts of it. The application of the marked format starting with the reworking of the core curriculum, the content and sequence of which initially remained unaltered. Looking more closely at the attestations of the linguistic formats within the core curriculum, nuances may be detected in text treatment within it. Considering the bilingual format the following remarks may be made about its distribution in the core curriculum. The later parts of both the legal phraseology section and the ĜIŠ-section, i.e. divisions 2 and 4 respectively, are exclusively found in bilingual format, but with relatively many attestations (three tablets for each of these divisions). Their earlier parts, i.e. divisions 1 and 3 respectively, attested in both formats, have less attestations in the bilingual format than in the unilingual format (division 3 has two bilingual tablets, but these form are actually one text covering the whole division). This seems to imply a (partial) complementary distribution in the use of the respective formats for the core section of Hh: divisions frequently treated in bilingual format are not treated in unilingual format and divisions infrequently treated in bilingual format are treated in unilingual format. If the attestation record is taken to be reflect of the priorities of the curricular program, and not a whim of the teachers or some other coincidence, then it suggests a considerable degree of pedagogical sophistication. The only texts that were repeated in both formats are the initial sections of the two components of the core curriculum: the beginning of the legal phraseology and the beginning of the ĜIŠ-list. The selection of texts for specific exercises, according to the perceived priority of their content, is of course a basic pedagogical tool. The selection of choice texts for unassisted reproduction (i.e. without the ‘crutches’ provided in the bilingual format) is one possible implementation of this tool. In the Emar school such choice texts apparently also existed: at a certain stage students were expected to be able to reproduce the choice texts of divisions 1 and 3 in their traditional, exclusively Sumerian form (the unilingual format).

62

Series Analysis * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu Later divisions - progressive compositional flexibility In contrast to the situation in the textually stable first division, when the unilingual format is applied to later divisions, these take on a consistently and profoundly different aspect. In these divisions completely different versions (different in entry inventory as well as in sequence) are found and these versions systematically and exclusively coincide with a specific choice in linguistic format. After the core curriculum, unilingual texts are found in two places. The first of these is in divisions 7-9 and the second (only one text) in division 16. What is remarkable is that these are divisions in which, contrary to the first divisions and to some later ones, a single determinative no longer covers each whole division. The first division for which a unilingual text is attested after the core section of the curriculum, division 7, also happens to be the first division in which no single determinative is found: instead, it contains at least five determinatives (KUŠ and the metal determinatives) that give it structure in conjunction with additional key-words (cf. Table 11). The substantial deviations from the bilingual version attested in the unilingual version of the later divisions may actually be linked to the absence of a single unifying determinative. The inherent thematic segmentation of these divisions seems to have resulted in compositional flexibility, as reflected in the different versions of the text in the respective linguistic formats. At first, in divisions 3 and 7-9, the alterations observed (as far as their sometimes problematic reconstruction allows) are not of a very radical nature. Individual entries occurring in the bilingual version, or small groups of them, may be omitted in the unilingual version and (less frequently) vice versa, and many short sequences are inverted, but larger sections organized by the determinatives or the key-words are not omitted or inverted (cf. the different versions given in the composite edition). If, however, the last attested unilingual text is considered in this light, the textual differentiation between the two linguistic formats is of a much more radical nature. In this text, 16aT1, the difference with the bilingual version, still limited in divisions 3 and 7-9, is considerable: the deviations are no longer limited in scope and now involve whole determinative or key-word sections, which may be omitted or added. No longer are all determinatives or key-words shared between texts of both linguistic formats: the unilingual version adds an E-section missing in the bilingual version and omits the KUR-section found in the bilingual section (cf. notes preceding concordance of 16b version). The increased interversion differentiation suggests that compositional flexibility was in fact progressive as the curriculum advanced. This may imply that, as apprentice scribes progressed through the Hh curriculum, they were actually confronted with textual divergences, in which case compositional flexibility may have been intentional. In any case, the simultaneous existence of different text versions in the same archival context suggests awareness of divergences in the transmission and tradition of the Hh text on the part of the teachers. Later divisions - structural omission The attestation record clearly shows a general decrease in the number of tablets of both linguistic formats as Hh continues into the higher division numbers. Not only are less tablets found, also less of these tablets tends to be preserved. It appears that the later divisions where subject to (some degree of) structural omission: the production level of texts that treat the later divisions appears to have been consistently lower. This tendency may be considered as inherent in the structure of the curriculum. In the larger educational context it must be assumed that reproduction of the Hh text was not a purpose by itself, but a means to an end. Texts must have been copied only in as far as this served something else than mere text reproduction, otherwise an equal attestation frequency should be expected for all of the

63

Part 3 – Structural Analysis divisions. Copying texts, then, must have had some other aim. If that aim is assumed to be the mastery of certain techniques, then both the tendency to progressive textual flexibility (resulting in multiple versions) and the tendency to structural omission of the later divisions, could be explained. The former could be explained by the compositional techniques, which apparently involved an increasingly flexible approach to the Hh text. The latter could be explained by the improved application of those techniques, i.e. by the progress of the apprentice scribes: as they advanced in skill, they may have been allowed to abandon the full rendering of full divisions. The attestation record suggests that for the later divisions only rarely a full text was produced. Once the techniques taught in applying the bilingual format were mastered, there would no longer have been a need to continue copying each full Hh division. The more advanced application of the unilingual format in any case only applied to selected parts of Hh and seems to have been likewise abandoned once its technique was mastered. Instead, the pensum may easily have been covered by piecemeal treatment in extracts. This would have effectively meant continuing the regular initial treatment of any given lexical text 83 but abandoning the more advanced treatment provided by a full copy. This would explain why only a few multicolumn tablets are found for the later divisions. It also shows the ambivalent status of fully written lexical texts: on the one hand they are meant as complete records of what is learnt, on the other hand the fact that they are produced at all implies that the apprenticeship of the author is not yet completed. From this perspective, true mastery of the lexical pensum may be defined as the ability to teach others rather than to produce a given text 84 . Thus, the apparent fragmentary treatment of Hh, as shown by the increased omission of complete text rendering, is in fact an indication of the function of Hh, viz. that of an exercise in an educational context. On the one hand, this causes complications in modern text edition, due to the considerable variations found and due to the difficulty of reconstructing the fragmentarily attested later divisions. On the other hand, studying the functionality of the educational program allows insights into its aims and methodology. Extracts - distribution and linguistic format Nine extract tablets with Hh material have been identified with certainty. In division 4 two further fragments, 545 R and 545 AQ, may also be extracts. A systematic listing of these extracts (and all others found in the Emar corpus) may be found in paragraph 11.1. . Three of the Hh extracts are (apparently) unilingual and the other six are bilingual. One of the bilingual extracts, 12E1, has phonetic instead of logographic Sumerian entries and another, 13E2, adds a third column between the Sumerian logograms and the Akkadian translations which offers a full phonetic spelling of the Sumerian words - these two extracts will be given special attention later on. If an extract is always an exercise that is preliminary to a complete text in relation to which it is defined 85 and if bilingual treatment represents a stage preceding that of unilingual treatment, then it may be expected that the use of linguistic format found in extracts is related to that in multi-column tablets. It will now be investigated what the attestation record has to say in this regard.

83

W.W. Hallo, ‘Notes from the Babylonian Collection II: Old Babylonian HAR-ra’, JCS 34 (1982) 88ff. M. Civil, ‘Lexicography’ in: Lieberman (ed.), Sumerological Studies in Honor of thorkild Jacobsen on his Seventieth Birthday June 7, 1974. AS 20 (Chicago and London 1975) 130-1. 85 Krecher, ‘Schreiberschulung’, 132. 84

64

Series Analysis * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu Comparing the attested distribution of multi-column tablets with that of extracts across the divisions (Appendix 1 of the text edition), a striking contrast can be observed. For the multicolumn tablets it was established that, relative to the material for the first four divisions, which account for about half of all Hh material found, the later divisions may be said to show structural omission. Regarding the extracts the situation is reversed: of the nine extracts, only two are found in the earlier divisions (4E1 and 4E2 covering the weaponry and the music instruments sections respectively). No extracts are founds at all for the core curriculum. In fact, extracts are found for some of the divisions that are among the least frequently found in the multi-tablet material. E.g. in divisions 12 and 13 the same number of attestations (one and two respectively) is found for multi-columned tablets as for extracts. The relative frequent attestation in the school archive of extracts for the later part of the Hh curriculum could be considered the mirror-effect of the structural omission of full texts discussed earlier. Lacking full texts, the archivist seems to have compensated this by preserving a relative high number of extracts in his collection. The bilingual extracts conform in inventory and sequence to their multi-column counterparts and may be assumed to have been integrated in the bilingual stage of the Hh curriculum in a regular manner. The situation for the three unilingual extracts is very different. They are ostensibly unilingual but the only other common ground they show with the unilingual multicolumn tablets is the absence of Akkadian equivalents: in form (intermittent ruling) and content (logogram inventory and sequence) they otherwise show the characteristics of the bilingual format. Extracts - inter-version exercises The first unilingual extract, 4E1, is the only unilingual text attested for division 4. There are two indications that, in fact, 4E1 was a bilingual text: first there is the sign da- in Obverse 4, which may be a remainder of the broken-off Akkadian column, and second there is the presence of horizontal rulings, which is a feature elsewhere consistently associated with the bilingual format. Of the other two unilingual extracts found in the later divisions, 7bE1 and 16bE1, the first is the only lexical text found outside the context of Archive 1. In form, however, it is matched by the second, allowing a joint analysis in terms of structural properties. Both these extracts are found among those of the later divisions that are attested in both the unilingual and the bilingual format. Here an interesting phenomenon can be observed: these two extracts only give the Sumerian logograms, but they give them according to the bilingual inventory and the bilingual sequence. In respect to ruling (partial or none) they also show the bilingual format. In effect, they completely conform to the bilingual format and only leave out the Akkadian element of the entries. It is conceivable that, in fact, they are bilingual extracts, the Akkadian column of which was broken off during exercises 86 . If, however, these tablets would prove to have lacked Akkadian equivalents in their original state as well, they could be considered virtual bilingual texts, a phenomenon that was also noted in the multi-column text 15T1 which also belongs to the later divisions. In any case, these unilingual extracts effectively represent the ‘missing link’ between the two formats. Their logogram inventory and sequence consistently conforms to the standard bilingual text version but their lack of Akkadian equivalents shows that the learning goal of the bilingual format must have been the Sumerian text. Before proceeding to the unilingual format, the students had to be able to reproduce the bilingual version in Sumerian only - the 86

Veldhuis (personal communication). Note that the square corners on the autographs are meant to indicate the original edges.

65

Part 3 – Structural Analysis ‘inter-version’ exercises shown by the unilingual extracts attest to it. If the assumption of a broken-off Akkadian column is correct, then the fact that extracts 7bE1 and 16b1 show a unilingual rendering of the bilingual logogram inventory and sequence also explains the difference between the unilingual and bilingual text versions: the bilingual version is only kept because originally there was a direct reference to the bilingual version. When no such referent is available, as in the multi-column tablets, the text versions given in each linguistic format immediately become divergent. Extracts - phonetic exercises Unique within the Hh corpus is 13E2, which is a bilingual extract but adds an extra column between the Sumerian logograms and the Akkadian translations, in which the Sumerian words are fully phonetically spelled. The slot that the extra phonetic spelling occupies within the entry (Civil-code 3) is that which in documents of later periods is regularly occupied by the sign name 87 . Within the Emar corpus, however, sign names are consistently found in the slot before the logogram (Civil-code 1), often instead of the pronunciation glosses expected there (cf. SaV T3-4). The extra entries given after the logograms in 13E2 are neither sign names nor glosses, but are clearly intended as a rendering of the full pronunciation of the Sumerian words represented by those logograms (e.g. ka-ad an-ti-il for 13050 GADA AN.DÚL). This attempt at full phonetic rendering seems only partially successful (especially with regard to vocalization) and raises questions about the level attained in the field of Sumerian studies in the peripheral school 88 . Also, it may reflect a certain degree of confusion between the categories pronunciation and sign name (e.g. the consistent rendering of NIN.DIĜIR.RA as i-riiš-ti-gi-ra or the rendering of ĜI 6 and SÍG in 13058b and 13060 as ki-ik-ki and ši-ki respectively). Taking these aberrations into account, it is conceivable that this extract actually gives a glimpse of a (Late Bronze) stage of development in the lexical list format during which slot assignment within the entry was still fluid, open to different realizations, a stage that ended when list format became canonized. Even if the exact phonetic object that the added column aims at and the normative context of slot assignment in 13E2, is occasionally somewhat ambivalent, it is clear from the added column of 13E2 that more knowledge of Sumerian was exercised in the school than normally meets the eye on the logographic surface of the most frequent Type I tablets. This is confirmed by the 12E1, which is unambiguously geared to phonetic rendering of Sumerian phrases: it omits the Sumerian logograms altogether and replaces them with a purely phonetic rendering. Apparently it was relevant for the apprentice scribe to practice the correct phonetic value of the Sumerian noun phrases before proceeding to the unilingual stage of the Hh curriculum, i.e. the stage at which the written text is given exclusively in logograms. This means that the required skills extended beyond the mere written command of Sumerian. Apprentice scribes were required to explicitly master a skill that has so far not been encountered in the attested curriculum: the coherent phonetic rendering of complex Sumerian word groups. Such phonetic rendering was primarily relevant in an oral educational context and only rarely do texts afford a glimpse of this lost oral dimension, which is why the two extracts 12E1 and 13E2 are of particular interest.

87

Civil, ‘Ancient Mesopotamian Lexicography’, 2308 notes that the addition of this element is first attested in the Middle Babylonian period. 88 Civil, ‘Texts’, 19.

66

Series Analysis * HAR(UR5).RA=hubullu Table 12. Provisional reconstruction of curricular order within Hh Stages 1. bilingual excerpts for all divisions

Exercise consistent implementation excerpts with Akkadian equivalents or excerpts with Sum. pronunciation 2. bilingual consistent implementation full text for the full texts with Akkadian equivalents core curriculum and some glosses

Relevant text material only sporadically preserved: 4E1-2, 7bE1-2, 13E1, 15E1, 16bE1 12E1, 13E2 1T3-4, 2T1-3, 3b1T1, 3b2T1, 4T1-3

3. unilingual full text for a selection of core curriculum 4. bilingual full text for all later divisions

pragmatic selection full text without glosses - same as bilingual version or - different from bilingual version pragmatic selection subject to progressive structural omission full texts but Akkadian occasionally omitted

1T1-2

5. unilingual full text for a selection of later divisions

pragmatic selection full text without glosses - different from bilingual version

67

3a1T1, 3a2T1 5T1, 7bT1, 8bT1-2, 9bT1, 10T1-2, 12T1, 13T1’-2’, 15aT1, 16bT1, 17T1’, 18T1’ 7aT1-3, 8aT1’, 9aT1, 16aT1

Part 3 – Structural Analysis Summary 4.1.

Material - tablet inventory and typology:

1.

The attested material includes many Type I and a few Type III tablets - a full inventory list precedes the text edition of Hh.

4.2.

Formal features:

1.

Vertical ruling organizes text lay-out primarily to provide columns and secondarily to provide slots for the various elements found in the horizontal entry as well for sign positioning within the logogram. The horizontal organization in terms of the Civil-code is <1->2a(-b)(-4). Glosses (<1->) are not a standard part of the horizontal organization - they only occur when didactically considered indispensable. They only occur in bilingual texts. Determinatives (2b) do not represent a category of classification relevant for the analysis of the overall vertical organization of Hh. The vertical organization of content in Hh is guided by thematically defined semantic fields, many of which only happen to be indicated by determinatives. Continuous and intermittent horizontal ruling are found to be features particular to the unilingual and bilingual format respectively. Intermittent ruling is related to (primarily graphic aspects of) content. Variation and expansion in the number of divisions, diachronic and synchronic, is primarily caused by addition of Akkadian translations through the resultant increased size of the entries.

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 4.3.

Vertical organization of content:

1.

Semantic field may be analysed at two empirically verifiable levels between the level of the individual entry and that of the Hh text as a whole: key-sign/-word and division. The application of the key-sign/-word criterion shows a difference between the organizational structure of divisions 12 and that of the rest of the series. The marked emphasis on graphic key-sign association in divisions 1-2 makes them an exercise that effectively occupies a transitional position between the preceding basic sign-list series and the thematically organized Hh divisions 3-18. The application of intermittent horizontal ruling is related to (primarily graphic) content. The exclusive use of intermittent horizontal ruling in the bilingual format is in line with the earlier curricular position of the bilingual stage: its use continues the application of intermittent ruling in the series preceding Hh. Synchronic analysis of vertical organization of content on a level between that of key-sign/-word and divisions (attempted in previous literature by projection of anachronistic semantic interpretations), cannot be based on empirical data within the text corpus. For analysis on such an intermediate level a diachronic (text historical) approach is appropriate. In this respect, Hh as a whole could be characterized as a pedagogically geared repository for a collection of historically heterogeneous thematic lists. Diachronic comparison of the LBA and 1st Millennium divisional organization of Hh shows that there are two emically valid principles of semantic distinction: grapho-semantic and (non-graphic, abstract) semantic distinction. Both are applied pragmatically, resulting in pragmatic divisional boundaries. The scribes used abstract (semantic) distinction in their analysis of the Hh text and the organization of the list is partially guided by abstract classificatory principles.

2.

3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 4.4.

Curricular order within Hh:

1. 2.

In curricular context the bilingual and unilingual formats are, respectively, the default and the marked format. The outline of a didactically geared program, which gives specific texts with specific exercises in a certain order, may be reconstructed within the Hh curriculum. Tablet 15aT1, of unilingual content but bilingually formatted, is a virtual bilingual text. Certain divisions may, by quantitative and qualitative criteria, be distinguished as core curriculum. The occurrence of increasingly diverging text versions implies a progressive compositional flexibility related to the inherent thematic segmentation of the later divisions of Hh. The relatively poor attestation record of Type I tablets for the later divisions may imply that the mastery of compositional skills by the students led to functional structural omission once that mastery was achieved. The structural omission of Type I tablets and the simultaneous relative frequency of Type III tablets in the coherent archival context of M1 imply an ambivalent status of fully written lexical texts: such texts offer complete records of the pensum but the fact that they are produced at all also shows the incomplete proficiency of the author: true mastery of the lexical pensum relates to recall for transmission rather than to written production. The primary bilingual stage focuses on semantic and phonetic definition and the secondary unilingual stage on correct writing.

3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

8.

68

Series Analysis * LÚ=ša CHAPTER 5 - LÚ=ša 5.1. Text corpus – tablet inventory and typology The attested Lu material consists of three Type I and one Type III tablets as well as a number of loosely edited fragments. All Type I tablets have four columns on each side. Two of the Type I tablets (1T1-2) and all of the loosely edited fragments belong to Lu division 1. Lu division 2 is only found in one of the Type I tablets (2T1) and in the single Type III tablet (2E1). Regarding the reconstruction of the division 1 material it should be noted that 1T2 is only very fragmentarily preserved but that not all loose fragments, which include the remains of the colophon in 602AD, may automatically be assumed to belong to it. There are two fragments, 602 E’ and 602T, that are incompatible with both 1T1 and 1T2, indicating that a third Type I tablet covering division 1 may have existed 89 . Because the loose fragments are all incompatible with 1T2 they may have been part of either 1T2 or of a unreconstructed third tablet. Regarding the reconstruction of the division 2 material it should be noted that all material consists of small fragments. However, because all of these fragments (except 602AJ, which covers an extract) are mutually compatible (some even have direct joins) and they all show the same formal features (bilingual format, horizontal and vertical ruling) they are provisionally assumed to be part of the single tablet 2T1. Due to the complexity of the reconstruction and the need for extensive corrections in the Emar VI 4 edition of the constituent fragments of 2T1, a table with an inventory and an edition concordance precedes the text edition. It should also be noted that 2T1 is unique within the Emar lexical corpus because it is the only attested Sammeltafel: it contains not only the text of Lu division 2 but also the first section of Izi (found on the LEE fragments 602AK+AL). Even if this implies that the scribes considered Lu and Izi as a single text unit - at least in certain respects - the Lu and Izi material will here be treated as separate compositions, due to clear differences in content and their conventional separation in other contexts (including the canonical text). 5.2. Formal features 5.2.1. Horizontal organization Vertical ruling Vertical ruling serves to provide the lay-out of the text with columns and sub-columns. In all material of both divisions most columns are divided into three sub-columns. On a few occasions subdivision of the column is omitted, viz. on 1T1 in VIII and on 1T2 in V, on both occasions, however, this applies only to one single column on a multi-column tablet. On one occasion more sub-columns, i.e. not three but four, are found, viz. on 1T1 in I (discussed below). The division of columns in sub-columns is often related to the positioning of the various different elements found within the horizontal entry, as was the case in the earlier series. This is clearly illustrated by sections such as found in 1T1 I-II, where the Akkadian equivalent occurs as the sole element in the last sub-column. However, throughout Lu the link between sub-column division and entry-element positioning is generally weaker than in the preceding series, including the basic sign lists and most of Hh. In Lu, instead, vertical ruling and sub-columns can also serve for sign positioning within the logogram element, i.e. for the

89

Subject to collation. In fact, 602E’ could be unilingual (it may be an extract) and 602T has a highly irregular entry sequence - features which are not matched in any of the other fragments. All other fragments are compatible with 1T2.

69

Part 3 – Structural Analysis juxtapositioning of individual signs within it. This phenomenon was also found in the bilingual Hh texts and should be looked at in more detail. Dual use of sub-columns – entry element separation and key-sign separation In Lu, the first sub-column is quite consistently reserved for the first sign of the logogram, even if the text remains subject to the general scribal convention of right-shift position, which applies to those logograms that consist of only a single sign. Similarly, the third sub-column is quite consistently found to start with the last sign of the logogram. In this case the Akkadian equivalent is always located to the right of the last logogram sign, i.e. in the same sub-column, and it is always preceded by a separation marker. As a result of these positioning strategies, which place the first and last signs of the logogram in the first and third subcolumns respectively, the second sub-column is often left vacant (e.g. 1T1 I 12-15; III 25’29’; 1T2 IV 12’-16’). The observed rules in the relation between sub-column division and sign position are by no means applied consistently. Most importantly, they do not apply if they would have interfered with the regular order of the different elements in the horizontal entry. Glosses always precede the logogram, even if it means that the gloss will replace the first sign of a logogram in the first sub-column slot (e.g. 1T1 I 29-30; V 4’; 13’-14’; 1T2 V 21’; 30’; 33’; 42-43’). This implies that the frequent relation of sub-column division to sign positioning found in the Lu material reflects merely a secondary purpose in the use of sub-columns by the scribes. It seems that, in Lu, sub-columns are primarily used for the purpose of separating various entry elements from each other and only secondarily for the purpose of separating various components within one of these elements, viz. within the logogram. This duality of purpose explains the noted unevenness in use of vertical ruling throughout Lu. The basic sequence of elements in the horizontal sequence (i.e. gloss-logogram-Akkadian equivalent) always remains unchanged underneath the raster of vertical lines and that same sequence guides at least part of the sub-column lay-out. Only secondarily did the scribes use sub-columns to separate signs within the logogram. This dual use is clearly illustrated in the first column of 1T1. Here there is an additional sub-column to cover purposes simultaneously: a fourth subcolumn is added to accommodate the Akkadian equivalent separately after the last sign of the logogram in the third sub-column. Clearly here sub-columns did not serve only the purpose of separating different entry elements but also the purpose of separating signs within logograms. A parallel phenomenon (i.e. a similar dual use of sub-columns) is found in many bilingual texts in Hh: logograms are systematically segmented by sub-columns in Hh divisions 1-2, 8-9 and 17-18. That such logogram segmentation by means of sub-column ruling occurs only in bilingual texts is to be expected because sub-columns are only found in bilingual texts 90 . What should be noted, however, is that the listed Hh divisions and Lu share their lack of initial determinatives. In view of the fact that initial determinatives are elsewhere always found in a separate sub-column, it is clear that bilingual thematic texts always use a separate sub-column for the positioning of their first sign. In other words, a sub-column for the first sign is provided not only where initial determinatives are found (such as in G and most divisions of Hh), but also where this is not the case. An explanation of this shared form may be found in shared content: in the first sub-columns of any bilingual thematic texts the first sign always tends to be a single, repeated key-sign, either in the form of a determinative or 90

The only exceptions are the SaP texts and Hh 15T1: the former is explained by the fact that the palaeographic texts give two instead of one logograms in each horizontal entry line, the latter is explained by the virtual bilingual nature of the tablet in question (discussed in the paragraph on Hh).

70

Series Analysis * LÚ=ša otherwise. These key-signs repeat in the same slot (i.e. in the first sub-column) throughout longer or shorter entry sequences and its boundaries of which are formed by horizontal lines. A closer look at the lay-out of the Lu text makes this clear. E.g. on the obverse of Lu 1T1 the first sub-column of each column is subdivided into vertical sections by horizontal ruling and the content of these sections consists of either repeated key-signs or repeated MIN signs. Similar examples may be found in the relevant Hh material (cf. lay-out of bilingual material for the divisions listed above). Thus, the evidence of Lu clearly shows that vertical ruling in sub-columns has a function in horizontal text organization as well as in vertical text organization: in the former in the distinction of elements for horizontal text organization and in the latter in the distinction of key-sign blocks in the vertical text. The latter function it fulfils in conjunction with horizontal ruling, effectively creating blocks of key-signs as distinct units within the lay-out of bilingual texts. This combined operation explains the simultaneous difference in vertical and horizontal ruling between uni- and bilingual texts evident in certain divisions in Hh. There, unilingual texts omit all vertical sub-column ruling and have continuous (i.e. non-distinctive) horizontal ruling. In unilingual texts neither vertical nor horizontal lines serve to distinguish blocks of text. In contrast, bilingual texts have vertical sub-column ruling as well as intermittent horizontal ruling: these ruling patterns combined serve to distinguish text blocks. These different lay-out strategies suggest different didactic purposes for each linguistic format. On the one hand, the bilingual lay-out strategy systematically contrasts those parts of the text that remain the same (key-sign blocks) with those that do not, marking compositional contrasts between consecutive entries through focus on their minimal graphic oppositions. On the other hand, the unilingual lay-out strategy does not provide such a contrast and requires composition without any aid from tablet ruling. The implication is that unilingual composition required greater skill on the part of the apprentice scribe. In this regard it may be significant that none of the advanced lexical series in the Emar curriculum, including Lu, is attested in unilingual format. Apparently, the advanced series involved exercises that were considered merely auxiliary in terms of compositional skill, i.e. they focussed on logogram analysis rather than text composition. This results in a clear contrast between the exclusively bilingual advanced series and the frequently unilingual thematic series: the former are systemic (they analyse the writing system) while the latter are compositional exercises (they aim at the correct reproduction of a given composition). Entry element inventory In the Lu text three types of entry elements are found: glosses, logograms and Akkadian equivalents. With regard to entry element inventory the Lu series deviates from the Hh series it by its omission of determinatives. Rather, it matches the advanced series that follow it: the Lu entry element inventory appears to recur in all later series. Anticipating the below discussion of its constituent elements, its structure may be summarized by the Civil-code formula <1->2b-4. Element 1 – the gloss The use of glosses in the Lu series conforms to their use in the preceding Hh series: there are relatively few of them and they serve either to resolve ambiguities (e.g. in 1021-2 SAL-HÚB is glossed for two different readings, viz. la-ga-ar and e-me respectively) or to assist in the reading

71

Part 3 – Structural Analysis of rare logograms (e.g. 1091 um-ma for ÚMUN and 1194 gud-da for GUDUG). In the commentary on the entry elements of Hh it was suggested that in the later stages of the lexical curriculum glosses are only added exceptionally and only when they are indispensable to the student. The frequency and distribution of glosses in Lu, a series which belongs in the same thematic stage of the curriculum as Hh, empirically conforms to this pattern. Special contexts in which glosses occur in Lu are the use of phonetic writing for numbers, in 1003-5 where u 5 , ú-mi-na and in-nu-u are used for U ‘10’, IMIN ‘7’ and NINNU ‘50’, and for Emesal words, in 1021-3 where la-ga-ar and e-me are followed by the phonetic spelling LI.BI.IR. Element 2 – the logogram With Lu continuing the thematic exercises G and Hh, it is no surprise to find that the role of the logogram in Lu is similar to that found in these other exercises: it is the indispensable central element of each entry, the semantic field of which the other elements serve to analyse. In an important contrast to G and Hh, however, the logograms of Lu are not systematically accompanied by their appropriate determinative. In G and Hh all entries that have a determinative outside the lexical corpus are given their appropriate determinatives, even if these sometimes take on a virtual form (i.e. if they are written only in the first and last few entries of each column and assumed for all entries in between). In Lu the human LÚ determinative, appropriate to its logograms and consistently added to them when they occur outside the lexical corpus are almost completely omitted. A few apparent exceptions will be looked at before investigating the reason for this deviation. After the first few entries of Lu (1001a-g), where the sign LÚ is given alone and provided with a number of different Akkadian equivalents, its only attestations in initial position (i.e. before an entry, as appropriate when occurring as a determinative) are in 1108 LÚ.ÙR.RA and 1110 LÚ ŠAH.ŠUM.MA. That these attestations do not reflect inconsistencies due to scribal error is clear from the fact that that they are repeated for the same entries in two different texts (1T1 and fragment 602C+I). It could be proposed that in these two cases LÚ is explicitly written because it is not be read as a determinative but rather as an indispensable (part of a) word, i.e. similarly to how LÚ is read as a word in the initial entry sequence 1001a-g. The same situation occurs in English with certain words for professional titles, such as ‘fireman’ and ‘postman’, which cannot be written without the explicit morpheme ‘man’. This proposition is confirmed by the fact that in 1108 the texts give the Akkadian equivalent as lurrakku (i.e. an Akkadized reading of the complete Sumerian logogram LÚ.ÙR.RA), indicating a pronunciation that included the LÚ morpheme.;; In parallel to the word reading of LÚ in the above instances when it occurs in initial position, the feminine counterpart to LÚ, MUNUS, should also be read as a word when it is found in initial position (i.e. in 2068-75 and presumably to be reconstructed additionally in 2064-7 and 2015). It may be assumed that if LÚ can be omitted as a determinative in Lu, than MUNUS can also be omitted because it functions in an identical manner to LÚ: it too may be used as a word as well as a determinative. That this is the case is confirmed by the attestation of feminine nouns in the Akkadian equivalents for some entries which omit the MUNUS determinative for the logogram (viz. šāhirat in 2081-4): i.e. in Lu a logogram can be feminine without the need for a determinative. That MUNUS should indeed be read as a word when it is found in initial position is also shown by the content of some of the logograms in question: 2074 KASKAL and 2075 KAR mean just ‘street’ and ‘quay’ if not preceded by the word ‘woman (of the)’. To give a specific feminine reference to the logograms in question, which is undoubtedly meant in

72

Series Analysis * LÚ=ša view of the Akkadian equivalents, they must be accompanied to the explicit word ‘woman’. The same applies when a gender specification is needed for a basically gender-neutral professional title such as 2069 DUB.SAR ‘writer’ (the male equivalent is already listed in 1084). On the basis of the above discussion it may concluded that Lu indeed shows a complete and systematic omission of both of the human-referent determinatives LÚ and MUNUS. This is, as noted, unusual in view of what is found for G and Hh, the other two thematic lists preceding it. A possible explanation may be that Lu should not be considered as a ‘thematic’ list in the same manner as G and Hh. There are two indications that the ‘thematic’ status of Lu may be doubted. First, Lu in fact has many entries that do not have an exclusively human referent. Starting with entry 1179 ĜARZA (parṣū ‘rites’), there are frequent text sections that give words, both in the logogram and the Akkadian equivalent, that lack an obvious human referent. These include concrete referents (e.g. 1239-42 giving a list of nouns referring to the feminine genitals), abstract concepts (e.g. 1179-80 ĜARZA and BILUDA, parṣū ‘rites’ and pilludû ‘rituals’) and verbs (e.g. 1183a-f ŠAB with equivalents nakāsu ‘to cut’, šarāmu ‘to break off’, harāru ‘to dig out’ etc.). Second, if Lu and Izi are considered to be a single text, than the ‘thematic’ nature of the Lu-part could be considered dubious unit because Izi is clearly not thematic in nature. The fact that 2T1, in which Lu is directly followed by (the first section of) Izi, is the only Sammeltafel attested in the whole corpus indicates that Lu and Izi were treated as a single text unit by the scribes. That this is not just a unexpected aberration particular to one Emar text is clear from the fact that Lu-Izi combinations are known outside Emar 91 . If the ‘thematic’ nature of Lu may be doubted, than the fact that Lu deviates from the ‘core’ thematic lists with respect to formal organization, i.e. in its systematic omission of the determinatives, comes as less of a surprise. Rather, it may be argued that Lu omits the determinative precisely because it is not (only) a thematic list. This issue of the ‘thematic’ nature, or otherwise, of Lu itself will be addressed in the appropriate section on content organization (cf. paragraph 5.2.2.). Element 4 – the Akkadian equivalent As in the preceding series Hh, the general purpose of the Akkadian equivalents in Lu is to provide a straightforward translation of the logogram, as expected for a thematic series. What should be noted, however, is the fact that there are few occasions when the relation between the logogram and the Akkadian equivalent is not that of a straightforward translation of the former by the latter. Such deviant relations are sometimes found when a logogram alone is repeated a number of times for a number of different Akkadian equivalents: among these different equivalents some may be straightforward translations but other others may not. Clear examples are 1001e and g bēlu and šarru for LÚ, 1060b-d ellu, ebbu and namru for ŠÀ.TAM and 1183g and j sūtu and mashutu for ŠAB. The entries 1001 e and g, bēlu and šarru, reflect pars-pro-toto relations because the LÚ sign is part of the logogram required by both of these two Akkadian words, viz. LUGAL. These entries effectively anticipate the key-word LUGAL found in the following entries, 1002-1018. The relation of the other Akkadian equivalents to their logograms may be described as semantic association: the adjectival qualifications found in 1060b-d were apparently considered appropriate to the ŠÀ.TAM official, while the nouns found in 1183g and j, sūtu and mashutu 92 , are both associated with SAB ‘jar’ (1183k šappu) in 91

J. Taylor, ‘A New OB Proto-Lu-Proto-Izi Combination Tablet’, OrNS 70.3 (2001) 209-34 contains the edition of an OB tablet combining parts of Proto-Lu and Proto-Izi. Also cf. Veldhuis, ‘A Late Old Babylonian ProtoKagal/Nigga Text and the Nature of the Acrographic Series’, ASJ 20 (1998) 209. 92 Cf. AHw, 625 mašhu I (< mašāhu) ‘Bierbecher’.

73

Part 3 – Structural Analysis the semantic field of ‘container’. These examples show that in Lu the relation between the logogram and Akkadian elements is occasionally realized differently than through straightforward or partial translation. In this regard Lu deviates from Hh. A parallel for such variety in the realization of the relation between elements 2 and 4 may be found in the elementary series Svo and SaV: semantic associations may be found in those series as well (cf. 1.3.1. and 2.3.2.1. respectively). It should be noted that such realizations of the relation between elements 2 and 4 consistently occur in those entry sequences which repeat a logogram a number of times: this is exactly what is found in SaV, which tends to give long series of repeated logograms. It should not be assumed that Lu had the same didactic purpose as SaV, but rather that it occasionally uses the same didactic strategy. In fact, by the occasional use of this strategy, i.e. the varied realization of the relation between elements 2 and 4, Lu does not so much return to a previous series type as anticipate the next series type. It will be seen that, with regard to horizontal organization, Lu shows affinity with the advanced series. In another deviation from the earlier thematic series, Lu texts are found exclusively in bilingual format. An important aim of the Hh exercises was to enable apprentice scribes to reproduce unilingual compositions: the curricular structure of Hh has been shown to be geared towards this aim and many unilingual texts have been found as its end-product. Because the single published G text is bilingual in form but nearly completely unilingual in content (a similar phenomenon is also found in Hh), it could be said that unilingual composition was exercised in both of the first two thematic series. For Lu, however, no unilingual compositions are attested. In fact, no unilingual texts have been found for any of the advanced lexical series: the series that followed Hh in the curriculum are attested exclusively as bilingual texts. If it is assumed that the preserved lexical corpus is representative for the scribal curriculum in LBA Emar, as has been done until now, and that it is representative for its later series (Lu and the advanced lists) no less than for its early series (the elementary series and the thematic series G and Hh), then it may be concluded that the aim of reproducing a unilingual endproduct did apparently not apply to any of the later series, including Lu. In terms of the curricular position of the various series the implication is that such production was not considered didactically functional in the later series and that these series must have had a different didactic function than the earlier series. The (partially superficial) similarity in content between the earlier thematic series and Lu, viz. their shared thematic content, tends to obscure this functional dissimilarity. In terms of didactic functionality the exclusively bilingual format suggests that Lu is closer to the following (advanced) series rather than to the preceding (thematic) series. The distribution of linguistic format throughout the different series and their respective didactic functionality will be discussed in the curricular analysis provided later on in this commentary. 5.2.2. Vertical Organization Horizontal ruling In all Lu texts of both attested tablet types horizontal ruling is intermittent, resulting in subdivisions of the text into variously sized blocks of entry sequences. Although their organization is not always entirely consistent, these subdivisions mostly define text blocks either by shared key-signs (graphic association) or by shared semantic fields (semantic association). Examples of such text blocks may be found for the former type in 1T1 I 1-7 and II 15-19 (shared key-signs LÚ and ŠÀ.TAM respectively) and for the latter in 1T1 I 8-16 and 2T1 III 8’-11’ (shared semantic fields through shared Akkadian equivalent LUGAL KUR kiš-šá-

74

Series Analysis * LÚ=ša ti and through entertainment association respectively). Generally the findings for the relation between horizontal ruling and content organization in Hh (cf. 4.3.) may be said to apply also to Lu. The interaction between horizontal and vertical (sub-column) ruling in arranging vertical text organization should be noted (cf. 5.2.1.). Division If the Lu series is defined as a separate composition, which is justified in view of parallel texts found elsewhere and in other periods (references to the relevant canonical and OB material may be found in the text edition), then the Emar Lu series may be said to comprise only two divisions. In this view Lu is the only series apart from Hh for which multiple divisions are attested with complete certainty. The text of its first division is attested on two multi-column tablets (there are some additional fragments) and the text of its second division is only very partially attested on one badly damaged multi-column tablet (there is also one badly damaged extract). In fact, the situation regarding the divisional organization in Lu is less straightforward than it seems. The last part of the second division Lu text is lost but it is clear that on 2T1 it was immediately followed by the first part of Izi (cf. remarks on the organization of material preceding the composite edition of Izi). This complicates the issue of divisional organization in Lu and Izi. If Lu and Izi are considered a single text unit (which is what the unique Sammeltafel organization on 2T1 and parallels outside Emar suggest - cf. remarks in paragraph 5.2.1.), then the number of its divisions would be at least three because there is at least one more tablet with Izi material which continues exactly from the point where the Izi text on 2T1 ends. If, alternatively, Lu and Izi are considered as separate text units this obviously violates their empirically attested unity in Emar. This said, it should be noted that in this study the Lu and Izi texts are treated as a separate compositions, but only as a matter of convenience. Even when maintaining the established reference terminology for the separate Lu and Izi texts, however, an attempt will be made to explain their united appearance in the Emar corpus in the curricular analysis provided later on in this commentary. With regard to the positioning of the dividing point between Lu divisions 1 and 2 the only clue provided by a synchronic analysis of the preserved material is that it is likely that 1T1 as well as the other tablet(s) covering the first part of Lu (1T2 and fragments) ended at the same point. The positioning of the obverse/reverse change-over point in 1T2 is similar to that in 1T1 (on both tablets the UGULA-entries and GUDUG-entries are located in the middle of columns IV and V respectively), suggesting a very similar column spread and making it very likely that they ended at the same point. This implies that the dividing point between the two divisions, i.e. the divisional organization of the Lu text across tablet boundaries, is not random, but systematically related to content – this is similar to what was found with regard to divisional organizationin Hh (cf. paragraph 4.2.2.). Although diachronic analysis is not the aim of this study, two facts may be mentioned with regard to the historical divisional structure of Lu. First, the dividing point found between Lu divisions 1 and 2 is not only attested in the LBA periphery (Emar and Ugarit) but is already indicated in earlier sources 93 . Second, combinations of Lu and Izi texts are also already attested in the OB period 94 . 93 94

Civil, ‘Texts’, 21 and MSL 12, 26-7. MSL 12, 27,78-80, now add the source of Taylor, ‘Proto-Lu-Proto-Izi’.

75

Part 3 – Structural Analysis 5.3. Vertical organization of content Analytical approach With regard to the vertical organization of content in Lu, the following analysis will repeat the method employed in Hh: the organization of the text will be investigated at two semantic levels, i.e. level 2 (key-sign and key-word) and level 3 (division). The reason that the same analytical approach will be repeated for Lu is that it allows investigation of the qualification ‘thematic’: it should establish whether or not Lu is organized by key-word association. Thus, a key-sign/key-word analysis will show in how far the organizational structure of Lu conforms to that of Hh. As the relevant terminology has already been introduced in the parallel paragraph in the Hh commentary (4.3.), the analysis can now proceed to discuss the level 2 organization found in the Lu text. Level 2 – key-sign and key-word Similar to how Table 11 approached the text of Hh 1 (only in a slightly more abbreviated form), Table 13 will give a key-sign and key-word analysis for the text of Lu. Table 13. Key-sign and key-word organization in Lu EST

Logograms + indicates entry sequence with compounds italics indicate key-sign bold type indicates key-word ruling indicates phonetic association

Semantic field bold type indicates key-word

LÚ LUGAL + DUMU LUGAL DUMU NUN.NA DUMU GUR 4 .RA LÀGAR(SAL-HÚB) EME 5 (SAL-HÚB) LI.BI.IR SUKKAL + ZABAR.DAB GAL.ZU + ĜIŠ GU.ZA.LÁ

man king son of son of son of minister ? minister minister ‘bronze holder’ ‘wise man’ ‘chair bearer’ ... ‘grave adviser’ chief ... archivist ruler expert

Division 1 1001a-f 1002-18 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024-37 1038 1039-40 1041 ... 1042 1043-47? ... 1048 1049-50 1051-8

... GI.MAH.AD.GI 4 .GI 4 RA.AB +

...

ku

BISAĜ .DUB.BA.A ÉNSI + UM.MI.A.AN +

76

Series Analysis * LÚ=ša 1059 1060-81 1082 1083 1084-93? ... 1094?-98 1099-105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111-7 1118-22 1119-33 1134 1135-42? ... 1146?-89 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194-202 1203 1204-7 1208 ... 1209 1210 1211-3 1214-? ... 1215?-8 1218 1219 1220 1221-2 1223-34 ... 1235 ... 1236 1237 1238 ... 1239 1240 1240c

DUMU.MEŠ É.DUB.BA.A ŠÀ.TAM + GÁB.SAR MU.SAR DUB.SAR +

... ŠU.I + MUHALDIM + GUD.GAZ ĜÍR.RI.A LÚ.ÙR.RA GAL.ŠAH LÚ ŠAH.ŠUM.MA MA.AN.DU + SAGI + EN.NU.ÙĜ + UGULA GÁN.NU Ì.DU 8 +

…

UGULA(PA) + EN LAGAR EN LUGAL NU.ÉNSI(!ÈŠ) GUDUG + URUH IŠIB + SUSBU

… EN-GAG-SIG 7 -NUN-ME-EZEN NIN-GAG-SIG 7 -NUN-ME-EZEN KIŠIB.ĜÁL + LUKUR

… ĜURUŠ + ĜURUŠ DILI SAĜ DILI SAĜ.ÚS KISAL.LUH AMA +

… NIN.A.NI

… IM.RI.A DAGAL GÚ.DÚB.BU KI-NE.NE GUL.GUL ...

‘sons of the tablet house’ administrator engraver inscriber writer ... barber baker butcher tattoo cutter ? butcher butcher soldier cup-bearer guard ‘chief of the (vessel) stands’ gate keeper ... chief; overseer lord priest ? priest priest priest sorcerer priest ... temple treasurer temple functionary seal bearer priestess ... young male single young male ‘single head’ permanent attendant courtyard sweeper mother ... ‘his sister’ extended family ? ? ... son of a slave girl female genitals ?

ÌR GAL 4 SÍK GAL 4 .LA

77

Part 3 – Structural Analysis 1241 1242 1243-5 1246 1247 1248 1249-54 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263-6 1267 1268-71 1272-3 1274-7 1278-81 1282-? ...

PI.IN.ZI.IR SÍK NA BI EME.DA + AMA.SIKI UM.MA BUR.ŠÚM.MA AB.BA + AB AD A A.A PA 4 .BÍL.KI ŠAG 4 .KI.SAĜ AD.GI.GI INIM ŠÁR.ŠÁR NIĜIR + HA.ZA.AN.NU ŠAGGINA + NU.BÀN.DA + GUD.DA + AB.SÍN +

female genitals vulva nurse old woman old woman old woman old man father father father grandfather ancestor ‘strong of heart’ advisor ‘mixer of words’ herald mayor governor lieutenant cattle furrow

DUR + ...

...

Division 2 2001-6? … 2007?-10? … 2011-4? … 2015?-24 2025 … 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 … 2033 … 2034 2035 … 2036-7 2038-9

SIPAD +

shepherd ... droppings ... trust; aid (AGRIG ‘steward’) ... carrier miller ... clown clown dancer fool singer dancer acrobat ... music instrument/song ... musical notation ? ... stone cutter stone cutter

... ŠURUM +

... ĜIŠKIM(AGRIG) +

... + ÍL ÀR.ÀR ... ALAN.ZU UD.DA.TUŠ SÙH.SÙH Á.Ú.A KA.DUG 4 .DUG 4 GU 4 .UD.DA HÚB.BÉ ... ZA.AM.ZA.AM ... KI.RU.GÚ KI.ŠÚ ... BUR.GUL + ZA.DÍM +

78

Series Analysis * LÚ=ša 2040-1 2042-3 2044-5 2046-8 2049-50 2051-2 2053-63? ... 2064?-75 2075 2076-80 2081-4 2085 … 2086 2087 2088 2089 2090 2091 2092 2093 2094 2095 2096 ... 2097 2098 2099 2100 2101-3 ... 2104 2105 2106-7 2008 ... 2110-13? ... 2114 2115-7 2118-21? ...

KUG.DÍM + SIMUG + NAGAR + BÁHAR + TIBIRA + ZADIM + + DÍM

silver smith smith carpenter potter sculptor stone cutter; bow maker maker ... woman ‘woman of the quay’ prostitute ‘she that goes round’ to run ... child friend close friend friend domestic personnel companion; partner companion; partner acquaintance ‘speaking the name’ ? supporter ... cloak allocation; delivery to entrust; deposit to entrust; deposit troops ... animal trainer (animal) driver cripple paralysis ... broken ... reed stalk; stylus girl

… MUNUS MUNUS KAR<.KID> KAR<.KID> + GI 4 .GI 4 KAR

… BÀN.DA KU.LI KU.LI.LI DU 10 .ÚS.SA GÉME.ÌR AN.TA TAB.BA ZU.A DÙG.GA MU MI.IQ.DU DÈ.HU

… TÚG.BA SI.IL.LÁ KURU 7 ŠU ŠÚM.MA ÉRIN

… KUŠ 7 KÌRI.DAB AD 4 GÌR.A.HUM

… + KUD … KID ĜIŠGI KI.SIKIL AB- + ...

...

Table 13 shows all entries of Hh which share either key-signs or -words in italics respectively bold type. In as far as Lu shows many long key-word sequences and only a few key-sign associations which do not simultaneously have key-word status, it may be said to show a structural similarity with Hh. In terms of overall semantic range (i.e. the range of all Lu keywords combined), however, the result is less unanimous. The findings of the analysis of content organization in Lu provided by Table 13 may be summed up as follows.

79

Part 3 – Structural Analysis

With regard to key-sign association Lu may be said to show a few instances where entry sequences are associated below word level. These include some both graphic and phonetic associations (e.g. 1146?-89 PA+ and 1039-41 GAL.ZU/GU.ZA.LÁ respectively). These deviations from the key-word associations typical for thematic lists (cf. 4.3.) are significant in terms of the relation between Lu and Izi and will be discussed in 6.3. . With regard to key-word association, Lu shows much similarity to Hh 3-18. When reduced to its structural skeleton, the long list of about 550 reconstructed entries found for Lu in Emar may be summarized as showing only about 130 key-words. Because the complete Lu text of Emar probably counted more than 900 entries (a conservative count derived from a projection of the average line and column count found in division 1 onto division 2), an accurate estimate of the total number of key-words in the original text would probably be around 200. The basic inventory of bare key-word entries (sometimes repeated themselves to allow for different Akkadian equivalents) is systematically expanded as many entries combine the keyword with various compound elements throughout shorter or longer entry sequences. In the resulting compounds the key-word is often abbreviated to ‘MIN’ (e.g. the key-word LUGAL found in 1002 is rendered MIN when compounded in 1003-17). Similar ‘expanded’ sequences are also frequently encountered in Hh (e.g. Hh 4313-9 gives the abbreviation MIN for the key-word TUKUL). In Lu such sequences often repeat certain standard sequences with fixed compounds. Note for example the repetition of the standard compound sequence IRI/LUGAL, often expanded to include KÁ.GAL/É.GAL/KÁ.É.GAL, after the key-words MA.AN.DU 1115-6, SAGI 1120-1, EN.NU.ÙĜ 1124-8 and Ì.DU 8 1137-41. Parallels to this phenomenon are frequently encountered in Hh (e.g. the standardized colour sequences ĜI 6 /SA 5 /GÙN.NU.A/SIG 7 .SIG 7 added to the key-words MUŠ 9b001-9a002, UR 9a009a-e and KIŠI 8 9b029a-e). On balance, Lu may be said to closely conform to Hh in terms of key-word organization. In terms of semantic association Lu largely conforms to Hh in as far as it is primarily (but not exclusively!) organized according to word-association. The semantic range of Lu, however, may be said to progressively veer away from its thematic departing point, which could be described as ‘man and his various conditions’. Deviations from this theme become more frequent as the text progresses and are endemic in division 2. Division 1 starts with the pronominal and nominal uses of LÚ (1001) and then proceeds with a list of titles and professions. In the later part of division 1 and in division 2 this list is repeatedly interrupted to include other topics. Some of those topics, like those concerning kinship and household (1223-39), acquaintances (2087-96) and physical condition (2104-13) may be semantically coherent if the theme is extended to include the human condition in general, but other topics are not thematically relevant in any way. The first doubtful interpolations are the adjectival associations found for ŠÀ.TAM in 1060b-d (ellu, ebbu, namru) 95 but the problem becomes acute with the abstract nouns (parṣū ‘rites’ and pilludû ‘rituals’) and the subsequent verb series found in 1179-83 for PA-AN and PA-IB. These are associations which are graphically but not thematically appropriate: they are Diri-compounds with the preceding key-sign PA, which alone is read as UGULA in 1146-1178. Other drastic departures, such as the agricultural terminology in 1278-81 and the musical terminology in 2033-5, are neither graphically nor thematically appropriate but seem to have been triggered by semantic associations outside the thematic scope of the human condition (respectively the agricultural workers in 1274-7 and the entertainers in 2026-32). It is clear that the frequency and extent of such deviations from 95

Note that these entries may be considered a ‘stereotype paradigm’ (Cavigneaux, Zeichenlisten, 111-2).

80

Series Analysis * LÚ=ša the originally clearly delineated‘human’ theme increases as the list progresses into the second division, even if the state of the material (which, especially in the second division, shows large lacunae) does not allow a definitive assessment of the complete content. On balance, it may be argued that Lu is not a thematic list in the strict sense of the word but rather a list of progressively diverging semantic associations with a thematic point of departure 96 . Because, however, Lu effectively starts out as a continuation of the preceding thematic series and because its thematic point of departure sets it apart from the following advanced series it seems justifiable to retain its conventional classification as a thematic list. The last section of Lu is not preserved in the Emar material but was directly followed by the text of Izi, which is certainly not a thematic list. The fact that the Lu text progressively deviates from its original theme to include various interpolations on the basis of un-thematic associations and then changes, to all appearances seamlessly, into Izi suggests that the relation between Lu and Izi should be investigated in terms of the curricular coherence of these series. Such an investigation will be given in the curricular analysis later on. Level 3 - division The discussion of the organization of Lu at level 3 (division) may be short because there is only one divisional divide (cf. discussion in paragraph 5.3.2. above). This divide is not marked by a transition of determinative, as often found in the preceding series Hh. It is also not marked by a major transition in implicit semantic field, such as found in some Hh divisions that lack determinatives (e.g. between the domestic and wild animals from division 8 to 9 or between ropes (ÉŠ) and foodstuffs from division 16 to 17). Division 2 of Lu actually continues to list entries that fit into the same (implicit) semantic field found in the last section of division 1, viz. agricultural workers and agricultural terminology. Division 1 ends with the key-words GUD.DA ‘cattle’ and AB.SÍN ‘plow furrow’ (1274ff.) and division 2 starts with the keywords SIPAD ‘shepherd’ and ŠURUM ‘(animal) droppings’ (2001-14). The only explicit marking of the divisional divide in Emar is found in the appearance of a new key-word sequence. Even if the last entries of division 1 in Emar are lost, it is certain that the divisional divide is located on a key-word divide because the first entry of division is a single key-word (2001 SIPAD) which is always the first in a new series of key-word entries. Depending solely on a key-word divide, the divisional divide in Lu may be described as a semantically trivial transition, i.e. as a transition without significant semantic implications. The semantically trivial status of the divisional transition in Lu is matched in the very last divisional divide in Hh: Hh division 18 continues with entries in the (implicit) semantic field of food-stuffs that was started in division 17. On this basis it may be argued that divisional transition in the thematic series (taking G, Hh and Lu as a whole) is progressively less semantically-distinct as the curriculum advances. Key-signs are collected within (implicit) semantic fields that are so loosely defined (‘foodstuffs’ in Hh 17-18 and ‘human conditions’ in Lu) that divisional divides no longer coincide with distinctly separate semantic fields, leading to semantically trivial divisional transitions. This progressive widening of semantic fields occurs as the curriculum approaches its advanced stage, viz. the stage in which the thematic organization of lexical entries (as found in G, Hh, Lu) is abandoned and replaced by their graphemic organization (as found in the advanced series). In this regard ‘graphemic’ may be defined as an organization of entries based on their intrinsic qualities (as writing symbols) rather than on their external referents (to concrete objects or locations). It may be no 96

Cf. commentary on Lu and its OB forerunner, Proto-Lu, by Cavigneaux, ‘Lexikalische Listen’, 629.

81

Part 3 – Structural Analysis coincidence that the loss of divisional semantic distinction becomes visible when the thematic lists no longer deal with naturally defined referents (raw materials, fauna, flora and geography) but with culturally defined referents (‘foodstuffs’, ‘human attributes’). Summary 5.1.

Material – tablet inventory and typology:

1.

The attested material includes three Type I (2T1 is a Sammeltafel) tablet and one Type III tablet as well as some incompatible fragments.

5.2.

Formal features:

1.

9.

Vertical ruling organizes text lay-out according to columns and sub-columns. The sub-columns have a dual use: they serve to provide slots for the various elements found in the horizontal entry but also partly to provide vertical alignment for individual logogram signs. Where vertical ruling serves to align individual logogram signs it combines with horizontal ruling to distinguish text blocks, allowing easy analysis of the text structure by focus on minimal graphic oppositions. This implies that the bilingual format, which is the only format found in the advanced series, systematically provides an analytical aid in the text lay-out. This aid is lacking in the unilingual format found in the preceding series, Hh, confirming that unilingual composition represents an more advanced stage within the Hh curriculum. The formal contrast between the exclusively bilingual advanced series and the frequently unilingual thematic series noted above implies that the former are systemic exercises (focussed on analysis of the writing system) while the latter are compositional exercises (focussed on the reproduction of a given composition). The horizontal organization in terms of the Civil-code is <1->2b-4. Glosses (<1->) are a mere auxiliary element in the horizontal organization - they appear only when they may be considered indispensable for the apprentice scribe. No determinatives (2a) are found in Lu. Horizontal ruling in Lu is exclusively intermittent (which reflects the fact that Lu is only attested in bilingual format) and its use is related to (primarily graphic aspects of) content. In the Emar corpus the definition of Lu as a separate series is problematic due to its combination with Izi in a Sammeltafel (2T1), a combination also found elsewhere. The Lu text has two divisions of which the latter is combined with the first section of Izi on 2T1.

5.3.

Vertical organization of content:

1.

The application of the key-sign/key-word criterion shows that Lu is mostly organized similarly to Hh in as far as it mostly links entries through semantic association (key-words). Occasionally Lu shows key-word relations inappropriate for a thematic list. In this respect it anticipates the abandonment of the key-word status of the keysign that is observed in Izi. Lu deviates from the other thematic series in that the thematic unity of its inter-key-word semantic associations is progressively weakened in the later stages of the text. Lu is not a thematic list in the strict sense of the word but rather a list of progressively diverging semantic associations with a thematic point of departure. Divisional organization in Lu is characterized by a semantically trivial transition, similar to what is found in the last divisional divide in Hh (17-18). The progressively less semantically-distinct character of the divisional transition in later Hh and Lu is related to the advance in the curriculum towards the non-thematic advanced series. This advance involves the change of thematic organization to graphemic association and occurs closely behind the shift from naturally defined external referents in Hh 3-16 to culturally defined external referents in Hh 17-18 and Lu.

2.

3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

2. 3. 4. 5.

82

Series Analysis * IZI=išātu CHAPTER 6 – IZI=išātu 6.1. Text corpus – tablet inventory and typology Except for the initial section of Izi found on tablet Lu 2T1, the attested Izi material consists of a number of loose fragments. Most of these fragments have been collected under the heading ‘Izi’ because their content has direct parallels in the series (Proto-)Izi. Other fragments have no such parallels but show a combination of acrographic content and specific formal features that makes it likely that they belong to Izi and not to another (advanced) series 97 . The fragmentary state of the material does not, at present, allow for a satisfactory reconstruction of the tablets that these fragments originally belonged to. In this situation, and for lack of a better method, the text edition provisionally organizes the fragment material in four groups: the first three are reconstructed according to their parallel sources. For group 1 parallel contentmay be found in Proto-Izi I, for group 2 in Hattusha Izi A-B, and for group 3 in canonical Izi XV. For group 4 there is no parallel source. The reconstruction and (possible) coherence of these improvised groups has been described in more detail in the introduction to the composite edition. The composite edition also provides a table with a full fragment inventory and edition concordance. It should be kept in mind that the groups of material listed here as Izi 1-4 are not text versions or divisions reflecting the actual textual situation in Emar, but merely presentational devices which rely on chronologically diverging parallels. Summarizing the inventory of the Izi material it may be said to include (at least) two Type I tablets with mutually incompatible content (i.e. two tablets that must have each covered a different division of Izi), as well as one Type III tablet and a number of loose fragments. In view of the fact that between the preserved materials there are no overlaps in content, it is likely that in the Emar school archive Izi was only kept in a single full copy (there is of course also one extract text 572). This situation is similar to that found for many other texts in the advanced curriculum: Hh 17-18, Lu 2, SagB, Nigga and Diri are either certain or likely to have been preserved each only in a single copy. 6.2. Formal features 6.2.1. Horizontal organization Vertical ruling Vertical ruling serves to provide the lay-out of the text with columns and sub-columns. In the Type I tablet material columns are divided into sub-columns (the extract tablet 4E1 does not show any use of ruling). The number of attested sub-columns varies: the material of groups 1 and 4 shows a consistent division into four sub-columns, but the material of group 2 shows a lower number of sub-columns (the single fragment in group 3 is too damaged to provide conclusive evidence). This variation in sub-column division does not necessarily identify some groups as belonging to one specific tablet and other groups as belonging to another because variation in the number of sub-columns is also attested within one and the same tablet: 2BT1 has only two sub-columns on the obverse but three on the reverse. Such variation 97

Note that acrographic content combined with specific formal features found in Izi are also found in fragment 576, listed as ‘Kagal’. It is possible that this single ‘Kagal’ fragment in fact belongs to Izi, or that, vice-versa, some material (e.g. the GÚ- and GIŠ-entries) listed as ‘Izi’ in fact belongs to Kagal. After the MA period Kagal disappears as separate series (parts of its content absorbed are observed in Izi) but the situation in the LBA periphery is unclear (cf. commentary in MSL 13 227).

83

Part 3 – Structural Analysis in the number of sub-columns in different columns on the same tablet is paralleled in the preceding Lu series. In other respects too, the use of sub-columns in Izi shows similarities to that in Lu: in both series sub-columns serve the dual purpose of providing slots for different elements of the horizontal entry as well as for individual signs in the logogram entry. On the one hand, the provision of slots for different entry elements in Izi is found in a consistent and exclusive use of the last sub-column for the Akkadian equivalent in many texts (e.g. 567B in 1T1, 564A, 566C, G+H and 571), a use paralleled in Lu. On the other hand, the provision of slots for separate parts of the logogram can also be found. It is most elaborated in the Type I texts of groups 1 and 4. In Izi, as in Lu and the earlier thematic series, the first sub-column is always reserved for the first logogram sign alone (subject to the general scribal convention of right position shift for single-sign logograms), resulting in vertical sequences of single, repeated signs in the first sub-column. Another positional device with parallels in Lu and frequently found in Izi is the location of the last logogram sign in the last sub-column - in this case the last sub-column is shared between the last logogram sign and the Akkadian equivalent (e.g. 568 in 2BT1 and 577). These similarities between the use of vertical ruling in Izi and that in Lu and the resulting similarity in overall ruling lay-out, which marks selected text blocks by simultaneous use of both vertical and horizontal ruling, are not unexpected in view of the fact that Lu and Izi are empirically treated as a single text unit (the text of Izi directly continues that of Lu on Lu 2T1). Entry element inventory As in the series Lu preceding it and the advanced series following it, three types of entry elements are found in Izi: glosses, logograms and Akkadian equivalents. The standard structure of the horizontal entry of Izi may be summarized according to the Civil-code as <1>2-4. Element 1 – the gloss Similar to what was found in the preceding thematic series, the frequency of glosses in Izi is very low. In contrast, in regard to distribution their use is different in as far as they do not exclusively occur for rare logogram readings. Only three among a total of six glosses found in the preserved Izi material relate to (somewhat) rare logograms readings (1004 an-bar for ANNE, 1006 du-GIR for IM-GÚ and 1016 la-am-[ma] for [KAL]) - two of these (1004 and 1006) are found on Sammeltafel Lu 2T1. Among the three remaining glosses two refer to quite common logogram readings (2B003a ki-iš for GIŠ and 2B015a i-di-im for BAD), both covered by the basic sign list SaV. These two glosses both occur as the first in a sequence of repeated single sign logograms. However, glossing of such entries does not constitute a rule because several first entries of similar sequences are elsewhere attested without glosses (1028 U, 1029 KU and 2B020 MUD). The poor state of the material causes a lack of comparative data and thus prohibits further investigation of this phenomenon. The last gloss attested in the Izi material occurs in the extract 4E1. Entry 4007d tu-bu-ul obviously refers to the logogram ŠU-BU(=DUBUL), which is found in the preceding entry series 4007a-d but omitted in 4007d itself. Logogram omission and gloss status of tu-bu-ul in 4007d must be assumed because elsewhere Izi the element 2-slot only has logograms: no other purely phonetic spellings are encountered.

84

Series Analysis * IZI=išātu Element 2 – the logogram In the preceding discussion on vertical ruling it was said that, as in Lu, sub-column divisions in Izi have a dual purpose and that one of their purposes is to provide slots for separate elements of the logogram. In Izi the contrast between logogram elements, highlighted by such sub-column slots, is more important than in earlier texts where multi-element logograms are found. The divisions between various parts of the logograms indicated by the sub-columns highlight the contrast between logogram elements: it is this contrast between logogram elements which is important in both the horizontal and vertical organization of Izi. The vertical organization of Izi will be discussed in the appropriate paragraph below but its implication is that the horizontal organization of Izi can only be understood in terms of its vertical organization and this must be discussed here. Logograms in Izi must be viewed differently than logograms in the preceding series. While in the preceding series it is the logogram as a whole that is the object of the lexical investigation, in Izi it is rather the logogram as a collection of units that is the object. The listing of logograms in Izi neither results in a basic compendium for the acquisition of elementary writing skills, such as found in the elementary sign lists, nor in a thematic compendium for the acquisition of vocabulary, such as found in the thematic lists. Rather, the logogram listing presented by Izi results in an analysis of the logogram itself, viz. in an analysis of the logogram as a construct, consisting of one or more basic units 98 . In Izi vertical ruling divides each logogram into its various constituent units and effectively assists in the construct-analysis that the series aims at. Because in some earlier series subdivision of the logogram by means of sub-columns may also be found (cf. 5.2.1.) it could be objected that sub-columns also provide a construct-analysis of the logogram in these series. However, while in Izi such an analysis is explicitly aimed through systematic acrographic listing, this is not the case for the earlier series. It may be assumed that in the earlier series a construct-analysis of the logogram was at most latently implied by the sub-columns. This may be deducted from the function of these earlier series: in earlier lists the apprentice scribe was supposed to learn how to recognize and use logograms. For this he had to learn the relevant phonetic values, sign names, equivalents as well as the logogram sign forms. In this he was often assisted by sub-columns, which provided him with an auxiliary ruling raster in which to fill in the (often repeated) constituent parts of the logogram. This raster allowed focus on minimal graphic oppositions in logogram composition in consectutive entries without such composition itself being a topic of enquiry. In Izi, however, the apprentice scribe was supposed to learn how to analyse logograms: for this he had to master the potential relations between the various graphemes and in Izi the sub-columns served as an aid by marking the boundaries of the relevant writing units, i.e. marking those points at which relations between units were established. Izi analyzes the construction of logograms by focussing on the relations between graphemes (defined as the smallest units of writing that still carry distinct meanings), resulting in long listings of various possible graphemic combinations. Most of these combinations are to be pronounced as they are written, i.e. as morpheme sequences. E.g. in 2A007 the combination of the graphemes GÚ+RU+BA is pronounced as /gu+šub+ba/. This type of sign combination is conventionally given the name of the present lexical series, viz. Izi-compound. Except for actual Izi-compounds Izi also lists logograms that do not match this type. In this regard two 98

Cf. Veldhuis, ‘Proto-Kagal/Nigga’, 208 and H. Vanstiphout, ‘Memory and Literacy in Ancient western Asia’ in: J.M. Sasson (ed.), Civilizations of the Ancient Near East IV (New York 1995) 2191-2.

85

Part 3 – Structural Analysis phenomena should be distinguished. First, not all sign combinations found in Izi are in fact Izi-compounds: some combinations are to be read differently than as the mere sum of their components (e.g. the entries 2B017 IGI-DIM and 4006a ŠU-KÀD should be read as the single words HENZER and PEŠ 6 respectively). Second, not all entries in Izi give compounds. Rather, Izi treats individual graphemes as well as the compounds build around these individual graphemes. Thus, Izi offers a full analysis of logographic composition: it defines the potential range of each individual grapheme (by listing its various appropriate values and associations) as well as its actual range (by listing the various combinations in which it actually occurs). Finally a remark should be made concerning the status of the determinative in Izi. It should be noted that when determinatives occur in initial position (attested only 1016-8) they must be considered as integral parts of the logogram because key-sign sequences are always based on the initial sign, irrespective of its determinative status or otherwise. This is why in the summary Civil-code formula of Izi (<1->2-4) it was not explicitly specified whether the logogram includes or excludes the determinative (otherwise it is coded as sub-element ‘2a’). Element 4 – the Akkadian equivalent Although many individual Akkadian equivalents provide a one-on-one translation of the logograms they refer to, in Izi such a realization of the relation between elements 2 and 4 is by no means the rule. There are only relatively few entries in Izi for which the logogram and the Akkadian equivalent are reliably preserved or restorable simultaneously. To derive the maximal possible insight into the horizontal organization of the Izi text from these relatively scarce entries, all of them will be investigated individually. Table 14 lists all relevant entries and, where possible, specifies the realization types they show for the relation between elements 2 and 4. The five realization types found show similarities with the first five realization types found in the analysis of SaV (2.3.2.1.) and they are numbered in parallel (the sixth realization type found for SaV, i.e. phonetic Akkadian reading of the logogram is not found in the preserved Izi material). The five realization types found in Izi may be summarized as follows: 1. The Akkadian equivalent gives a one-on-one translation of the logogram. 2. The Akkadian equivalent gives a partial translation of the logogram. 3. The Akkadian equivalent translates a graphically associated logogram. 4. The Akkadian equivalent translates a phonetically associated logogram. 5. The Akkadian equivalent translates a semantically associated logogram.

86

Series Analysis * IZI=išātu Table 14. Realization typology of the relation between elements 2 and 4 in Izi EST

Element 2 – logogram

Element 4 – Akkadian equivalent

Realization type

1001 1002 1003 1004 ... 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 ... 2A001a

NE-RI=DÈ.DAL AN-BÀD AN-BÀD-BIR-RI AN-NE=AN.BAR 7 ... AN-ÚR ÚR AN-PA-A AN-A-ŠAG 4 -GA AN-TAR AN-TAR-TAR AN-DAGAL-LA ... [Á]-ÁŠ

2A001b 2A001c 2A001d

[Á]-ÁŠ [Á]-ÁŠ [Á]-ÁŠ

... 2A008 2A009 2A010

1. one-on-one 4. ph.: AN.BÀD & Á.BÀD 4. ph.: AN.BÀD & Á.BÀD 1. one-on-one ... 5. sem.: ‘cloud’ 99 1. one-on-one 1. one-on-one 1. one-on-one 5. sem.: MULĜÍR.AN.BAR 100 5. sem.: MULĜÍR.TAB 101 1. one-on-one ... 3. gr.: ÁŠ and PA / Akkadian unclear 5. sem.: ‘ill’ 5. sem.: ‘illness’ 5. sem.: ‘wailing’ / Akkadian unclear ... 5. sem: ‘urgency’ 102 1. one-on-one 1. one-on-one

2A011a ... 2A013a 2A013b 2A013c 2A013d 2A013e

... [A-MA]-RU-KAM GÚ-LAGAB-LAGAB GÚ-LAGAB-LAGABKUR-RA GÚ-GAM … [ZAG]=EN 7 ZAG ZAG ZAG ZAG

ditallu tabīnu = Á.BÀD tabīnu saphu muṣlālu ... upû išdī šamê elat šamê qereb šamê patru ša šamê alluttu šamū rapšutu ... asakku I=Á.SÀG(Á-PA) / har-hu-ru murṣu di’u I nissatu / bu-šu-ut-tu ... anumma napharu naphar māti kanāšu ... ana idu imittu eli išdu

2A013f ... 2A014a 2A014b 2A014c ... 2A014f 2A014g 2A014h

ZAG=EN 7 … [GAZ] [GAZ] GAZ … GAZ GAZ GAZ

1. one-on-one ... 4. ph.: EN 7 & ana 1. one-on-one 1. one-on-one 1. one-on-one 5. sem. with 2A013d: ‘fundament’ & ‘upon’ 1. one-on-one ... 1. one-on-one Akkadian unclear 1. one-on-one ... 1. one-on-one 5. sem.: ‘to afflict’ 5. sem.: ‘to spill (blood)’

adi ... mahāṣu šar-pa-u hašālu ... kaṣāṣu dâṣu tabāku

99

Also note the simultaneously graphic and semantic association with 1006 du-GIRIM-GÚ (DUNGU=IM-SI-A). Semantic association ĜÍR ‘sword’ and TAR ‘to cut’. 101 As in previous but with ‘double sword’ (ĜÍR.TAB). 102 Cf. AHw, 55. 100

87

Part 3 – Structural Analysis 2A014i 2A014j

GAZ=KUMxŠE GAZ

namāšu=LAGABxEŠ bakû = ÉR PAD

... 2B001a 2B001b ... 2B001d 2B001e 2B001f 2B001g 2B002 2B002’ 2B003a 2B003b 2B003c ... 2B013a 2B013b 2B013c 2B013d 2B014a 2B014b 2B015a 2B015b 2B015c

… [GIŠ-TÚG-PI-ŠIR-TAR] [GIŠ-TÚG-PI-ŠIR-TAR] ... [GIŠ]-TÚG-PI-ŠIR-TAR GIŠ-TÚG-PI-ŠIR-TAR GIŠ-TÚG-PI-ŠIR-TAR GIŠ-TÚG-PI-ŠIR-TAR GIŠ-TÚG-PI-ŠIR-TAR GÀR GIŠ-ŠU-IG x GIŠ GIŠ=ĜIDRU GIŠ ... KI-BI-RI-A KI-BI-RI-A KI-BI-RI-A KI-BI-RI-A SI-IL-LÁ SI-IL-LÁ BAD=IDIM BAD=IDIM BAD=IDIM

... waqû D waqû Dt ... hāsisu qâlu qâlu D nešmû tahsistu nešmû iṣu haṭtụ tertu = TÚG ... ribbatu miṭītu imṭû maṭû imṭu= LÁ maṭu= LÁ nagbu kabtu qallu

2B015d

BAD=KIR 5

šamû

2B015e 2B015f 2B015g 2B015h 2B015i 2B015j ... 2B015k 2B015l 2B015m

BAD=KIR 5 BAD=IDIM BAD=IDIM BAD=IDIM BAD=IDIM [BAD] ... [BAD] [BAD]=ÚŠ [BAD]=ÚŠ

erṣetu ekletu=ÍTIMA(UDxMI) eṭutu = ÍTIMA ulālu alālu pi-it-tu ... nesû rūtu = UŠ 7 (KAxLI) tapšāhu

... 2B017 2B018 2B019 ... 2B020a 2B020b 2B020c 2B020d

... [IGI]-DIM=HENZER [BAD]=ÚŠ [BAD-UD]=LUGUD ... [MUD] [MUD] [MUD] [MUD]

... saṣhartu dāmu šarku ... uppu I pardu dāmu da’āmu

88

3. gr.: sign form 4. ph. with 2A014i: ÉR with LAGABxEŠ=ER ... 1. one-on-one 1. one-on-one ... 1. one-on-one 1. one-on-one 1. one-on-one 1. one-on-one 1. one-on-one 1. one-on-one 1. one-on-one 1. one-on-one 3 gr. with 2B001: TÚG ... logogram_unclear logogram_unclear logogram_unclear logogram unclear 2. partial: LÁ 2. partial: LÁ 1. one-on-one 1. one-on-one 5. sem.: opposite ‘light’ & ‘heavy’ 5. sem.: opposite ‘heaven’ & ‘earth’ 1. one-on-one 4. ph.: IDIM & ÍTIMA 4. ph.: IDIM & ÍTIMA 1. one-on-one 4. ph.: ulālu & alālu Akkadian unclear ... 1. one-on-one 4. ph.: ÚŠ & UŠ 7 5. sem.: ‘death’ & ‘resting place’ ... 1. one-on-one 1. one-on-one 1. one-on-one ... 1. one-on-one 1. one-on-one 1. one-on-one 4. ph. with 2B020c: dāmu & da’āmu

Series Analysis * IZI=išātu 2B020e ... B021a-b 2B023

[MUD] ... BU-LUH-SI-IL-LÁ ZI-[IG]-AZ

da’āmu D ... gilitta malû za-za-ah-hu-ku

... 2B026 2B027 ... 3001a 3001b 3001c 3001d 3001e

... ŠE-ŠE-GA NU-UM-[ŠE-ŠE]-GA … IGI-BAR-RA IGI-BAR-RA IGI-BAR-RA IGI-BAR-RA IGI-BAR-RA

... magāru lā magāru … dalāpu = IGI-LUL barû naplusu amāru naṭālu = IGI-DU

3001f

[IGI-BAR]-RA

kullumu

3001g

[IGI-BAR-RA]

dagālu = IGI-IG

... 4001b

… NIR

... tāmartu

4001c 4002a-c ... 4003a 4003b 4004 4005 4006a 4006b 4006c 4006d 4006e 4006f 4006g 4007a 4007b 4007c 4007d

NIR NIR-IG=NIR.ĜÁL ... ŠU-BU ŠU-BU ŠU-GALAM-MA ŠU-LUH ŠU-KÀD=PEŠ 6 MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN MIN ŠU-BU=ŠU.GÍD ŠU-BU=ŠU.GÍD ŠU-BU tu-bu-ul < ŠU-BU=DUBUL>

dagālu = IGI-IG etellu ... kamû = ŠU-GAG masku šittu šuluhhu napāšu šapāṣu = ŠU-KAL le-e-tu 4 šalāṭu salātu pašāhu ēpiš šīpāti qāta ṣabātu barû baṭālu = ŠUB(RU) elēpu

89

4. ph. idem ... 1. one-on-one 4. ph.: Akkadian gives ph. spelling of logogram ... 1. one-on-one 1. one-on-one ... 3. gr.: IGI1. one-on-one 1. one-on-one 1. one-on-one 3. gr.: IGI- and 5. sem.: ‘to look’ 5. sem.: ‘to look at’ & ‘to show’ 3. gr.: IGI- and 5. sem.: ‘to look at’ ... 5. sem. with 4001c: ‘view’ & ‘to look at’ 3. gr. with 4002a-c: -IG 1. one-on-one ... 3. gr.: ŠUrelation unclear relation unclear 1. one-on-one 1. one-on-one 3. gr. ŠUAkkadian unclear 5. sem.: ‘to cut; slice’ 5. sem.: ‘to cut; slice’ 5. sem.: ‘to breathe’ 5. sem.: ‘cutting work’ 1. one-on-one 1. one-on-one 4. ph.: ŠU BU & ŠUB 1. one-on-one

Part 3 – Structural Analysis Table 14 shows that, even if the single most common realization type is the one-on-one translation, about half of the attested entries have other realization types. Among these other realization types semantic association is most frequent. It should be noted that some entries show double realization types. This is for example the case for 3001e IGI-BAR-RA = naṭālu ‘to look’ and 3001g IGI-BAR-RA = dagālu ‘to look at’: in these two entries the relation between elements 2 and 4 is realized simultaneously through graphic association (the appropriate logograms for the Akkadian words, IGI-DU and IGI-IG respectively, share the first sign) and semantic association (IGI-BAR means to ‘to look at’). Summarizing, two phenomena may be observed in the horizontal organization of Izi: The first phenomenon is the general variety of realization types found in the horizontal structure. It should be noted that this variety is frequently emphasized by the vertical structure: often series of consecutive entries show variously related Akkadian equivalents for one and the same logogram. E.g. the BAD logogram in 2B015 is not only investigated for its own values (subentries a, b, e, h, k) but also for its phonetic (f, g, l) and semantic associations (c, d, m). The general variety of realization types and their direct juxtaposition in the vertical structure shows that Izi aimed to investigate individual logograms on different levels. The second phenomenon is the occasional realization of the relation between logogram and Akkadian equivalent through secondary association. This phenomenon may be defined as a situation in which the specific relation of one Akkadian equivalent to a given logogram can only be understood in terms of the relation of another Akkadian equivalent with another logogram found in a neighbouring entry. E.g. the entry 2B003c GIŠ = tertu may be explained as referring to the virtually shared graphic element TÚG, which is appropriate for tertu but is actually found in the logogram of the neighbouring entries 2B001-2, GIŠ-TÚG-PI-ŠIR-TAR. In this example the meaning of the virtually shared element, TÚG, is projected on the actually shared element, GIŠ, as a result of their combination in the (semantically related) compound GIŠ-TÚG-PI-ŠIR-TAR. Another example of secondary association is found in 4001c, where NIR = dagālu may be explained through the virtually shared element IG, which is part of the appropriate logogram for dagālu (i.e. IGI-IG) but is actually found in the logogram of the neighbouring entry 4002, NIR-IG = etellu. In this example the value of the virtually shared element, IG, is again projected on the actually shared element, NIR, as a result of their combination in the compound NIR-IG. Secondary association confirms the interrelation between horizontal and vertical organization in Izi, already noted earlier with regard to the use of vertical and horizontal ruling. The two phenomena of general variety of realization types and of secondary association show that the integrative method of classification of writing elements observed for SaV (cf. 2.3.2.1. and 2.3.3.) is also found in Izi. The Izi logograms are systematically described in terms of cross-classificatory connections, i.e. of connections between (graphic, phonetic, semantic) categories that are unrelated in terms of modern science. In this respect, the difference between the two series is that SaV focuses on the values of single signs whereas Izi focuses on the values of signs in relation to each other (as in compounds and other sign combinations). A final feature to be mentioned, and which Izi shares with Lu, is its exclusively bilingual attestation. The fact that all later series, i.e. Lu and all advanced series, share the feature of exclusive bilingual attestation, already noted in the commentary to Lu (5.2.1.), will be commented on in the curricular analysis provided later on.

90

Series Analysis * IZI=išātu 6.2.2. Vertical organization Horizontal ruling In all Izi texts found on Type I tablets horizontal ruling is intermittent, resulting in subdivisions of the text into variously sized blocks of entry sequences (the single Type III tablet does not show any ruling). Generally these subdivisions define text blocks by shared key-signs (graphic association). Only occasionally such key-sign blocks show internal subdivisions (e.g. the internal divisions in the large text block with the shared key-sign AN, which follow the entries 1012, 1013 and 1017). The poor state of preservation of the relevant sections does not allow definitive conclusions regarding the distribution of these internal subdivisions but it is conceivable that horizontal ruling may also be used to mark off text sections according to non-graphic association, a phenomenon previously attested in SaV and Hh (cf. 2.3.2.2 and 4.3.). The interaction between horizontal and vertical (sub-column) ruling in arranging vertical text organization has already been noted (cf. 6.2.1.). Division As stated in the relevant commentary on Lu (cf. 5.2.2.), the question of divisional organization in the empirically combined series Lu+Izi is complicated. Izi 1T1 directly continues the Izi text found on the LEE of Lu 2T1, which implies a divisional organization involving at least three divisions for the combined Lu+Izi series. Moreover, in the organizational analysis preceding the composite edition of Izi it was found that the fragmentary Izi material following that in Lu 2T1 was likely spread over more than one division. In this case the combined Lu+Izi series of Emar would have consisted of at least four divisions. A possible count of two tablets for the Izi material in Emar would match the situation found for Proto-Izi, which also had two tablets 103 . In terms of content, however, most of the Emar material does not match Proto-Izi. As the length of key-sign sequences attested in Emar is moderate compared to what is found in canonical Izi, another possible scenario is that in Emar Izi was represented by a slightly enlarged version of Proto-Izi, i.e. a version with more than two but less than the much higher number of tablets found in the canonical version 104 . At present, however, no conclusive evidence concerning the divisional structure of Izi is available. The relation of Izi to the other, often rather fragmentarily attested, advanced series will be discussed in the curricular analysis. 6.3. Vertical organization of content Analytical context The vertical organization of content in the previously reviewed series was, as far as possible, analyzed through the key-sign and key-word approach. For Svo this method has permitted description of its content organization in terms of a patterned and positional sequencing of key-signs. For SaV it has allowed important aspects of vertical organization (viz. deviations from the traditional key-sign sequence) to be described in terms of the interrelating properties of key-signs. For the thematic series Hh and Lu it has allowed the content organization to be shown as primarily guided by semantic association between key-words. On balance, the

103

Cf. MSL 13, 7. Such an intermediate recension is found among the canonical materials edited in MSL 13 (cf. introduction to the canonical version on p.154-5).

104

91

Part 3 – Structural Analysis elementary series and the thematic series were found to be primarily organized according to key-sign and key-word relations respectively. The question that now remains is by what association type the later series, including Izi, are organized. Because conventionally Izi has been described as an ‘acrographic’ series 105 , a term that suggests organization by graphic association and hence by key-sign relations, it should first be determined in how far this description is accurate. Acrographic organizational features The term acrographic implies description of the initial sign form. An acrographic list would therefore be a list that is fully organized according to initial sign forms. In Izi, however, acrographic organization is only found within individual key-sign sequences (e.g. the sequence of signs starting with AN in 1002-17 or that starting with GÚ in 2A003-12). The relations between these key-sign sequences are not systematically organized according to the acrographic principle. Occasionally, transitions between consecutive key-sign sequences may be explained through acrographic association (e.g. 1018/9 AN/MUL), but such transitions are the exception rather than the rule. Due to the fragmentary state of the material only ten keysign transitions are sufficiently preserved (cf. Table 15) but among these only one transition (1018/9) shows a distinctively graphic association. From this evidence (and from that of the parallel OB and canonical material) it may be concluded that acrographic association does not apply to the large majority of key-sign transitions. In other words: acrographic organization does not guide overall vertical organization of content in Izi. Strictly speaking, this implies that the classification ‘acrographic’ is technically incorrect for Izi as a whole 106 . Because, however, large sections of the text share the same key-sign it may be considered as at least partially descriptively appropriate. For this reason and for the sake of convenient conventional reference the term will be employed as a reference term in the following analysis. Now that fully acrographic organization has been shown to be absent from Emar Izi it should be asked whether another graphic principle guided it. It has been suggested for the OB forerunner to Izi, Proto-Izi, that (some) key-sign transitions are linked to each other by means of overlapping key-signs (e.g. Proto-Izi I 14 AN-NE links preceding key-sign NE with following key-sign AN) 107 . If this was originally consistently the case (which is not certain), this would imply that key-sign organization was originally the overall guiding principle behind Proto-Izi and that inconsistencies in various textual deviations could be explained as the result of later interpolations. However, even if such an elegant graphic organizational principle lay originally behind the older versions of Izi, it is not any longer visible in the LBA version of Izi found in Emar. No overlapping key-signs are detectable around the attested keysign transitions (e.g. the entry 1004 AN-NE in Emar Izi has shifted to third place in the AN key-sign sequence, away from the key-sign transition point). In Emar Izi, therefore, the overall vertical organization of content must have depended on other than graphic criteria. Semantic organizational features Because the question of the overall vertical organization of content in Izi still remains open, it is useful to investigate another suggestion made with regard to Proto-Izi, viz. that it originally represented a compendium of thematic sections in which thematic unity was frequently 105

E.g. Cavigneaux, ‘Lexikalische Listen’, 632. Cf. discussion in MSL 13, 3-4. 107 MSL 13, 8. 106

92

Series Analysis * IZI=išātu combined with acrographic unity and that the acrographic organization tended to become dominant in later parts of Proto-Izi 108 . In this regard it should be noted that even if semantic coherence is found within various sequences of consecutive entries this does not necessarily extend to a systematic thematic organization between such sequences. The suggestion is nevertheless useful in that it draws attention to the connection between semantically and acrographically organized sequences in Izi. This connection will be investigated by determining the distribution of semantically organized sequences throughout Izi. Analysis of the distribution of semantically organized sequences in Izi shows that there are two types of such sequences. The first type includes semantically coherent listings of consecutive Akkadian equivalents under a single logogram (e.g. 2B001a-h and 3001b-g). Such listings not only establish the semantic values of a given logogram but also investigate their semantic associations. This is done by listing direct Akkadian translations (e.g. 3001b-d IGI-BAR-RA = barû, naplusu and amāru) as well as indirect, associative translations (e.g. 3001e-g IGI-BAR-RA = naṭālu, kullumu and dagālu - these translations actually refer to the logograms IGI-DU, LÁ and IGIIG respectively) 109 . Because many logograms, through polyphony, have several different readings covering different semantic fields and because Izi seeks to cover all of these, multiple semantic fields are often found for a single logogram. E.g. 2B015 BAD is read IDIM (a-c and f-i), KIR 5 (d-e), BAD (k) and ÚŠ (l-m) – there are at least seven different semantic fields for the single logogram BAD. Thus, semantically organized sequences of this first type are found to occur within acrographically organized sections. It should be remembered that within acrographically organized sections coherence between consecutive entries is not only or necessarily based on semantic association - it may also be based on phonetic (and other types of graphic) association 110 (cf. Table 14 above). The second type of semantically organized sequences includes semantically coherent listings of consecutive logograms, i.e. sequences that cross the transition point between acrographically organized sections. Unfortunately, the fragmentary state of the Emar material means that only a limited number of key-sign transitions are available for analysis and that it is impossible to determine to what extent semantic coherence applied across key-sign transitions. It should be noted that in the parallel Hattusha material graphic coherence seems to predominate (cf. 14.6. and Table 30.). Table 15 lists the preserved transitions in Emar and, where possible, gives suggestions regarding the associative principle evident across these them.

108

Ibidem, 3-4. Note that these entries may be considered a ‘stereotype paradigm’ (Cavigneaux, Zeichenlisten, 111). 110 Cf. Cavigneaux, Zeichenlisten, 34. 109

93

Part 3 – Structural Analysis Table 15. Key-sign transitions in Izi EST

Key-sign transition

Suggestions for association principle

1001>2 1018>9 1021>2

NE>AN AN>MUL HAR>KIN

1024>5 1027>8 1028>9 2B006>7 2B013>4 2B014>5 2B015>7

NIM>GIŠ GIŠ>U U>KU ŠEN>KI KI>SI SI>BAD BAD>IGI

2B022>3

BU>ZI

? graphic: AN > AN/AN-AN phonetic: KÍN > KIN & semantic: hamāmu ‘to collect’ > še’û ‘to search’ phonetic: NI 7 > ĜIŠ semantic: ĜISSU ‘shade’ > ŠUŠ ‘cover’ semantic: ŠUŠ ‘cover’ > TÚG ‘cloth(cover)’ ? semantic: maṭû/imṭû ‘to be little/loss’ > idem ? phono-semantic: BANDA 4 (!BÀNDA) > HENZER ‘child’ & semantic: IDIM ‘weak’ > HENZER ‘child’ semantic?: BU.LUH SI ‘to fill with fear’ > ZI.IG.ZA.AK ZA ‘to rumble’

From the limited evidence gathered from table 15 it may be concluded that semantic association across key-sign transitions is relatively frequent 111 . Only in two cases the preservation of the full entry makes it certain that semantic association should be completely ruled out (i.e. NE-RI = ditallu > AN-BÀD tabīnu and SI-IL-LÁ = maṭû > BAD = nagbu). Synthesis of vertical organization of content From the above discussion it appears that the vertical organization of content in Izi is multilayered. At the lowest level (1) sub-entries with various interpretations of repeated logograms are often grouped together according to various types of association (graphic, phonetic or semantic). These groupings may include entries in which the Akkadian equivalent is not necessarily an accurate translation. It may, in fact, refer to a different logogram as long as the association is considered relevant. At the mid level (2) logograms are consistently grouped together according to their acrographic principle. At the higher level (3) these acrographic sequences are frequently connected through various associations, most often semantic. The fact that acrographic associative consistency is only found at mid-level suggests that acrographic organization was not the actual guiding principle of the series as a whole, but merely a device for bringing together various attestations for a given key-sign once that keysign had been given according to some other (higher) level principle. The simultaneously mixed and layered associative structure found in Izi will be termed mixed-stepped association 112 . At the lower level, i.e. that of sub-entries, organizational consistency may be found in the systematic use of associative variation. This may be considered functional in as far as it allows an investigation of all possible relations between signs. SaV also uses varied association and there it primarily serves to investigate the properties of each single key-signs. In Izi, on the other hand, it primarily serves to investigate the relational values of signs, often through a study of the properties of compound signs. The mid-level acrographic sequences 111 112

Ibidem, 35. Cf. Veldhuis, ‘Proto-Kagal/Nigga’, p.208 n.6.

94

Series Analysis * IZI=išātu show that the investigation of the relations between signs is primarily achieved by consistently (and often exhaustively) contrasting the various uses of a given grapheme (i.e. a given sign, irrespective of its status as phoneme, morpheme or word). Once a given sign has been treated, there are no pre-set criteria to determine which sign should be treated next there is only the conventional order of signs for the Izi composition as transmitted by the lexical tradition. In this respect, the order of key-signs in Izi is of the same nature as that in Sa: it was conventionally established in the (remote) past and only a diachronic analysis of the lexical tradition can determine its exact origin. The only synchronic empiric data relevant to the order of key-signs signs in Izi are the frequent semantic associations across key-sign transitions (as found Table 15). In other words, the order of the Izi key-signs is not determined by an acrographic but by conventional principle and this conventional principle seems to involve a certain degree of semantic association. A similar combination of conventional order and semantic association is also found in parts of Lu, a series which in Emar is (the earlier) part of a single Lu-Izi composition. The thematic principle, still implied in the early part of Lu, has been completely abandoned in Izi but the principle of semantic association is retained at least partially113 . In fact, the acrographic principle that permeates the Izi text could be considered as an outgrowth of a well known strategy for establishing semantic fields in the thematic lists: the repetition of key-words and addition of modifying elements. Thematic lists often take a key-word and add other words to it to modify the meaning of the key-word (e.g. Hh 8a001-56 UDU+modifiers; 8a057-69 UZUD+modifiers; Lu 1146-78 UGULA+modifiers). The abandonment of the thematic principle is merely a by-effect of the abandonment of the key-word status of the key-sign, a phenomenon already noted in the later parts of Lu (e.g. 1179 PA+modifiers). Effectively, Izi takes the analysis of sign combinations a step further than the preceding thematic lists: it looks at all possible combinations of signs, not just those involving words. That Izi has a different function than the preceding lists is confirmed by the fact that it repeats many signs that are found in earlier lists: it seeks to treat the same signs from a different perspective, viz. as graphemes instead of words. In this graphemic approach Izi uses many associative strategies already found in the elementary series, especially Sa, but it applies them primarily to sign relations, not just single signs. The focus on words and their meaning, evident in the elementary and the thematic series, is shifted to graphemes and their function in the advanced series. The multi-layered and mixed-associative vertical organization of content in Izi described above implies that the same integrative methodology that was observed in its horizontal structure also pervades its vertical structure. The purpose of Izi was apparently to collect as many associations as possible around each given grapheme and to effectively establish relations between these various types of associations. Such relations systematically cut through the classificatory boundaries of modern science, which is a typical characteristic of the integrative methodology used by the ancient scribes.

113

An earlier discussion of the classification and interrelation of the thematic and advanced series may be found in Veldhuis, ‘Proto-Kagal/Nigga’, 201-16. Note that there the special relationship between thematic Lu and acrographic Izi in Emar, parallelled in the OB material, is discussed on p.209.

95

Part 3 – Structural Analysis Summary 6.1.

Material – tablet inventory and typology:

1.

The attested material includes (at least) two Type I tablets and one Type III tablet as well as a number of fragments. Due to the fragmentary state of the material the coherence of the Izi text and its divisional structure are unclear.

6.2.

Formal features:

1.

Vertical ruling organizes text lay-out according to columns and sub-columns. The positioning of the sub-columns serves partly to provide slots for the various elements found in the horizontal entry and partly to provide vertical alignment for individual logogram signs. In Izi the latter strategy is functional: it provides a contrast between logogram elements that is important in Izi because Izi approaches logograms as grapheme collections rather than as units. The graphemic approach provided by Izi involves analysis of individual signs (regarding their potential range) as well as analysis of sign combinations (regarding their actual range as found in actual compounds). The horizontal organization in terms of the Civil-code is <1->2-4. Glosses are infrequent in Izi but are not, as in the preceding thematic series, restricted in use to ambiguous or uncommon readings. In terms of vertical (acrographic) organization determinatives in initial position are treated as integral parts of the logogram. Not all logogram sign combinations given in Izi are actually ‘Izi-compounds’. The relation between the logogram and the Akkadian equivalent shows a general variety of (sometimes combined) realization types, these include not only straightforward translation of the former into the latter but also translation on the basis of various graphic, phonetic and semantic associations. Realization of the relation between the logogram and the Akkadian equivalent is occasionally effectuated by secondary association, i.e. by the interpretation of a horizontal relation in one entry in reference to another horizontal relation in another entry. The particularities of the horizontal organization show that the ancient scribes pursued an integrative approach which implies that they were seeking to establish relations between phenomena unrelated in modern scientific terms. Horizontal ruling is exclusively intermittent (which reflects the fact that Izi is only attested in bilingual format) and what is known from its (insufficiently documented) use suggests a primary relation to graphic content. In the Emar corpus the definition of Izi as a separate series is problematic due to its combination with Izi in a Sammeltafel (2T1) - a combination that is also attested elsewhere and in other periods. The preserved Izi text shows at least two incompatible divisions. In terms of content - which shows considerable expansions compared to Proto-Izi - it is possible that Izi had more than two divisions.

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 6.3.

Vertical organization of content:

1.

The classification of Izi as ‘acrographic’ is strictly speaking incorrect because the transitions between the various key-sign sequences (themselves acrographically organized) do not show acrographic associations. Many preserved key-sign transitions show semantic association. Vertical organization in Izi is multi-layered: at the lower level (sub-entry) association is varied (i.e. graphic, phonetic and semantic), at the mid level (key-sign sequence) association is acrographic and at the higher level (between keysign sequences) association is traditionally-conventionally determined (varied associations, often semantic). The simultaneously mixed and layered associative structure found in Izi will be termed mixed-stepped association. The multi-layered vertical organization of Izi is functional in as far as it is suitable to the investigation of graphemic relations. The combination of conventional ordering and semantic association on the higher level of vertical organization in Izi is in line with what was found in Lu, which in Emar is the earlier part of the combined Lu-Izi composition. The dominant acrographic principle of Izi may be considered as an outgrowth of a well known strategy found in the thematic lists, viz. of giving key-words in combination with modifying elements. The adaptation of this strategy in Izi is effectuated by abandoning the key-word status of the key-sign, thus expanding the scope of lexical investigation. The abandonment of the thematic principle in Izi is a side-effect of the abandonment of the key-word status of the key-sign. The multi-layered and mixed-associative vertical organization of content implies that the integrative methodology noted in the horizontal organization of Izi is equally important in its vertical organization.

2. 3.

4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

96

Series Analysis * KÁ.GAL=abullu CHAPTER 7 – KÁ.GAL=abullu 7.0 The Kagal series in Emar In Emar there is only one text fragment, 576, that can only be classified as ‘Kagal’. Lacking direct joins and other parallels, the text of 576 is here provisionally listed as ‘Kagal’ due to the parallel content found in ‘canonical’ (actually OB 114 ) Kagal tablet D Section 1 (2’-4’). Theoretically, 576 could be the sole surviving fragment of a tablet belonging to a separate Kagal series but the existence of a separate Kagal series in Emar cannot be assured on basis of this single small fragment alone. In this respect it should be noted that Kagal is not found in the synchronically parallel Ugarit corpus (but then again, neither is SagB) and that Kagal material has been shown to have been progressively absorbed into Izi after the OB period. However, because the series is still attested separately in the MB period in the Assur and Hattusha corpora 115 , the continued existence of a separate Kagal series in Emar remains a possibility. 7.1. Inventory, typology, formal features and vertical organization of content The material relevant to this chapter is limited to the single small fragment 576, which may or may not have belonged to a separate Kagal series in Emar. It is impossible to be completely certain whether this fragment belonged to a multi-column tablet or to an extract but the fact that the fragment has 8 lines on a single side but no preserved tablet edges suggests it was not part of an extract (most extracts have about 10 lines on a single side). Some formal features, viz. intermittent horizontal ruling, bilingual format and use of the Glossenkeil, are very similar to those found in the preceding series, Izi. The lack of vertical ruling between elements 2 and 4 of the horizontal ruling may also be found in some parts of the Izi text (e.g. 568A Obv and 577). The vertical organization of content in 576 may be presumed as consistently acrographic (initial IM-signs) but the visible horizontal line between lines 4’ and 5’ is relevant to lay-out (IM- is located relatively far to the right in lines 1’-4’ and (presumably) relatively far to the left in lines 5’-9’) as well as to content (lines 1’-4’ refer to wind direction and lines 5’-9’ refer to wind speed). This points to a mixed-stepped association in the vertical organization of content. 7.2. Curricular position Sub-classification of the advanced material Due to the fragmentary state of the material and the lack of close parallels a proper reconstruction of the advanced series Izi and Kagal in Emar is at present impossible. The only reliable evidence concerning the classification of the advanced lexical material in Emar comes from its formal features. The Emar advanced series share a number of formal features, such as bilingual format and intermittent horizontal ruling, but there are also a two criteria that allow them to be classified in two different groups. The first is the use of sub-columns. In some series they only to differentiate individual signs within logograms - this is what is found in the Izi, Kagal and SagB material. In others they also differentiate individual signs within the Akkadian equivalent - this is what is found in the Nigga and Diri. The second criterion is whether or not a logogram is consistently written out when it is repeated. Repeated logograms are consistently written out in Izi and SagB (and presumably Kagal) but are systematically 114 115

Cf. MSL 13, 127 and 227. Ibidem.

97

Part 3 – Structural Analysis omitted in Nigga and Diri. On the basis of the available evidence it may be assumed these two alternative presentational strategies are not mixed within a single series. Because the two criteria show supplementary distribution (i.e. they always occur in conjunction) they allow the sub-classification of the advanced material into two groups. The first comprises of those series in which sub-columns-differentiation applies to logograms only and in which the logogram is consistently written out when repeated. The second group comprises those series in which sub-columns-differentiation applies to both Akkadian equivalents and logograms and in which the logogram is not written out when repeated. The former group includes Izi, Kagal and SagB and the latter group includes Nigga and Diri. Fragment 576, with its repeated IM-logograms is part of the first group, which makes it likely that it is either part of Izi or of a separate Kagal series. Curricular order of the advanced series On the basis of the fact that Izi directly followed Lu in the curriculum, and in view of the curricular sequence reconstructed for the synchronically parallel Ugarit material as well as for the OB forerunner, the formal typology discussed above may be used to determine the curricular position of the various advanced series. Thus the early advanced series, Izi, Kagal and SagB, may be formally opposed to the later advanced series, Nigga and Diri. Summary 7.1.

Inventory, typology, formal features and vertical organization of content:

1.

The attested material includes a single fragment which was part of a (probably multi-column) tablet that covered either an expanded version of Proto-Izi or a (otherwise lost) separate version of Kagal. The discernable formal features include intermittent horizontal ruling, bilingual format, use of the Glossenkeil and the consistent writing of repeated logograms. Content is organized primarily by acrographic principle and secondarily by semantic principle (mixed-stepped association).

2. 3. 7.2.

Curricular position:

1.

There are two supplementary criteria that may be used as a combined diagnostic tool for the sub-classification of the advanced series: (1) use of sub-columns to distinguish individual signs either in the logogram only or in the Akkadian equivalent as well as the logogram and (2) consistent writing of repeated logograms. On this basis the Kagal fragment may be said to formally conform to the Izi texts rather than to the Nigga and Diri texts. In the sub-classification of the advanced series the early advanced series (Izi, Kagal and SagB), may be differentiated from the later advanced series (Nigga and Diri).

2.

98

Series Analysis * SAĜB CHAPTER 8 – SAĜ B 8.0. The SagB series in Emar In the present analysis of the Emar lexical tradition all material and all attested series are primarily investigated in terms of structure and function. Generally speaking, a description of both structure and function of a given series is at least partially possible without necessary reference to the other series. In the case of the Emar series, however, their (almost totally) unified archival context additionally permits a curricular contextualization of their structure and function. In other words, in Emar a structural and functional comparison between the various lexical series is justified by their archival unity. However, as already stated in the introduction to this structural analysis, such a contextual approach must have the caveat that the archival unity of the text corpus does not necessarily imply a simultaneous use of all attested series in schooling practice. Before proceeding with the commentary on the SagB series it should be noted that for this series this caveat is especially relevant. Even if SagB is edited alongside the other advanced series and its analysis is given among the other series’ analyses, it should be noted that there are indications that the sole preserved SagB text should be classified as belonging to another, earlier composition stratum than the rest of the series. In as far as these indications are of a formal nature, they will be discussed in the following commentary - otherwise the reader is referred to the relevant literature 116 . It should be remembered that, notwithstanding a possible deviating compositional stratigraphy noted above, the fact of the matter remains that the SagB material was found in the same archival context as the rest of series - it must therefore have had some kind of function in the school. The fact that SagB - or any other series for that matter - was included in the school archive implies that it was deemed to have some relevance to the living lexical tradition. This would also be true if it was used only as a reference work (a status that may theoretically also be applicable to some of the other texts). The use or disuse of a given series as a school exercise does not automatically qualify or disqualify it with regard to analysis in the present study. As stated in the introduction to this commentary, the present study is concerned with the Emar lexical texts as witnesses to lexical scholarship, and not just as witnesses to schooling, even if investigation of lexical scholarship mostly relies on evidence gleaned from school texts. Even if a given individual text, such as SagB, was not part of the school exercises, it certainly was part of the lexical corpus - it will be therefore be discussed in the same manner as the other series. 8.1 Text corpus – tablet inventory and typology The attested SagB material consists of two joining fragments that together cover most of one single multi-column tablet. This single type I tablet is the only SagB text found in Emar. The larger of the two fragments is not part of the (otherwise nearly complete) collection of Emar lexical texts kept in the Aleppo museum. Instead, it is kept in the Institute of Oriental Culture in Tokyo and here it will be referred to as the BLT-fragment, after the title of its original publication 117 .

116

Y. Cohen, The Transmission and Reception of Mesopotamian Scholarly Texts at the City of Emar (Ann Arbor 2003) 291-2 (also cf. 271-81). 117 M. Yoshikawa and E. Matsushima, ‘Bilingual Lexical Tablet’, BSNESJ 23.2 (1980) 1-23.

99

Part 3 – Structural Analysis It should be noted that the separate publication of the two fragments has resulted in some unevenness in documentation. The publication of the BLT-fragment differs from the publication of the other fragment, Emar VI 4 575, in that it does not give the vertical and horizontal ruling on the original tablet. Nevertheless, the evidence provided by fragment 575 is sufficient to allow analysis of the ruling pattern on the whole of the original. 8.2. Formal features 8.2.1. Horizontal organization Vertical ruling Vertical ruling serves to provide the lay-out of the text with columns and sub-columns. On the tablet the columns are divided into two sub-columns, which provide slots for the two main elements occurring in the horizontal entry, viz. the logogram and the Akkadian equivalent. Occasionally, longer logograms overlap into the slot of Akkadian equivalent. Remarkably, overlaps on the same entry line do not normally cause insertion of a Glossenkeil-type marker between the two elements, as is consistently the case in texts belonging to other series. Only a single exception to this rule is found in I 19 where the logogram overlaps into the Akkadian slot and the Akkadian equivalent is preceded by a Glossenkeil-type marker. In fact, except for this one deviant occurrence, the Glossenkeil-type marker occurs only when a part of the Akkadian element continues below the starting line. E.g. in the entries I 40-1 a Glossenkeiltype marker twice occurs before a part of the Akkadian element that is found below its starting line. In this context another formal deviation from the other texts found in the SagB tablet should be noted: the Glossenkeil-type marker found on the SagB tablet consists of only one Winkelhaken (the U-sign) - i.e. it does not use the two Winkelhaken (the GAM-sign) Glossenkeil found in the other lexical texts. Vertical rulings do not separate elements of the Akkadian equivalent, which means that, in terms of its classification among the advanced series according to this criterion (7.2.), SagB clearly belongs to the group of the early advanced series, i.e. it belongs in the same group as the Izi and Kagal material. Entry element inventory As in Izi, three types of entry elements are found in SagB: glosses, logograms and Akkadian equivalents. The standard structure of the horizontal entry for SagB according to the Civilcode may be summarized as <1->2-4. It should be noted that in the SagB tablet another element, not covered by the Civil-code, may occur in the horizontal entry: the entry count marker. This element occurs as a single large Winkelhaken (the U-sign), it has the regular reading ‘10’ and its use in the SagB tablet is unique within the Emar lexical corpus. It is consistently used to count every tenth entry throughout the text. It should be kept in mind that an entry count is not the same as a line count because entries are sometimes spread over more than one line. E.g. the entry count markers in column VIII count the tenth and fifteenth entries (EST 205 and 210a respectively) as single entries, even if both cover two lines (in both the last part of the Akkadian equivalent is continued on the next line). Thus, the entry count marker, which occurs in (the single tablet of) SagB, should be differentiated from the line count marker (Civil-code ‘0’), which is found on the SaV tablets.

100

Series Analysis * SAĜB

Element 1 – the gloss As was found in the preceding thematic series and in Izi, the frequency of glosses in SagB is very low. The occurrence of glosses in SagB is very similar to that in Izi in two other respects: it is not systematic (it does not consistently occur for new signs or new phonetic values) and it is not restricted to rare readings (as it was in the thematic series). Of the six different glosses attested in SagB two refer to relatively basic readings (070 ki-riKA=KÌRI and 151 inim KA=INIM). The other four refer to relatively rare readings, which occur as a cluster in the last section of the list (VIII 18ff.). Element 2 – the logogram Despite the fact that the SagB tablet, unlike the other advanced series, does not use subcolumns to highlight distinctions between different elements within the logogram, the nature of its content is such that such a distinction is immediately evident in its lay-out. Except in those entries where the first line of a new key-sign is introduced (i.e. in those where the general scribal convention of right position shift is applied), all initial elements are consistently vertically aligned. Because all initial elements are graphically related, the lay-out automatically provides a clear contrast between those elements that remain unchanged (the initial key-signs) and those that do not (the other, compounded elements). Thus, the SagB tablet visually emphasizes the contrast between logogram elements in its lay-out. The phenomenon of visual emphasis on contrasts within the logogram may therefore be said to recur in the lay-out of all advanced series - it is just differently implemented in different series. The series Izi and Kagal it is achieved primarily through vertical sub-columns while in SagB it is achieved primarily through the consistent graphic relation between vertically aligned initial signs. In other respects, the typology of logograms in SagB shows similarities to that in the other advanced series: logograms include both single-element as well as compound logograms and the compound logograms are of various types. With regard to the varied typology of compound logograms it should be noted that although SagB does not have Diri-compounds involving key-signs, such compounds do occur in other parts of the logogram (e.g. EST 137 KAxME-SI-A=EME DIRIG). In this regard it should be noted that some of multi-element initial key-signs are not strictly speaking Diri-compounds, but are rather single signs that include inwritten elements. Signs such as KAxME, repeated in entries 118-50, and KAxNUN, which recurs in entries 186-200, are composed of a basic form (KA) in combination with an inwritten element (ME and NUN respectively). Because they are written as a single unit in the logogram they may be considered single, non-compound signs (in the given examples the inwritten ME- and NUN-elements could actually be considered as phonetic complements). Repeated logograms are consistently written, which means that, in terms of its classification among the advanced series according to this criterion (7.2.), SagB clearly belongs to the group of the early advanced series, i.e. it belongs in the same group as the Izi and Kagal material.

101

Part 3 – Structural Analysis Element 4 – the Akkadian equivalent Similar to what was found for the preceding Izi series, the relation of the logogram to the Akkadian equivalent in SagB may be realized in a number of ways. The typology used for the analysis of Izi (6.2.1.) may also be applied to SagB: the occurrence of the same types (numbered 1-5) in SagB will here be illustrated by some examples. 1. As in Izi, the first type, viz. a one-to-one translation, is very common and, as its principle speaks for itself, no examples need to be given. 2. The second type, viz. a partial translation of the logogram by the Akkadian equivalent, is also quite common. In SagB, however, the second type should be considered as a systematic variant of the first type because the partial Akkadian rendering of the logogram systematically applies to the variable elements added to the key-word. E.g. in EST 009 SAG-HA-ZA = kullu the Akkadian equivalent applies only to the variable part HA-ZA and not to the key-word SAG; similarly in 014 SAG-GAG-TUKU = išû the Akkadian equivalent applies only to the variable part TUKU and not to the key-word SAG-GAG. In these cases the Akkadian equivalents, which omit the interpretation of the key-word, are simply abbreviated one-to-one translations. The other realization types are less frequent than the full and partial one-to-one translations but they do occur and may be illustrated with some examples. 3. An example of the third realization type, viz. translation of a graphically associated logogram, is found in 018 SAG-KI = puhru, in which SAG is interpreted as graphically related to LAGAB-LAGAB, read KÌLIB ‘entirety; assembly’ (the KI element can here additionally be interpreted as an appropriate phonetic complement). 4. Examples of the fourth realization type, viz. translation of a phonetically associated logogram, are found in 070 SAG-TAR-DA (read SAĜ.KUD.DA), 097b KA-GU-LA and 114 KA-GAL(read KÌRI.GAL): in these entries the Akkadian equivalents, respectively zā’eru ‘hater’, abtu ‘destroyed’ and namṭāru/patru ‘sword’, interpret the actually given logograms as homophones for their theoretically appropriate logograms, viz. GÚ.DÙ.A, KA.GUL and ĜÍR.GAL respectively. Note that in case of entry 070 the relation between logogram and Akkadian equivalent is simultaneously of partial (type 2) and phonetically associative (type 4). 5. Examples of the fifth realization type, viz. translation of a semantically associated logogram, are found in 059a/b SAG-GALAM-DA (read SAĜ.SUKUD.DA) and 061a SAG-TABBA: in these entries the Akkadian equivalents, respectively arku/kurû ‘long’/‘short’ and pazāru Št ‘to cause to be hidden’, are semantically related to the logograms, viz. SUKUD ‘height’ and TAB ‘to lay flat’ 118 . Note that in both of these examples the relation between logogram and Akkadian equivalent is again simultaneously of two types: partial (type 2) and semantically associative (type 5).

118

In addition, there is a phonetic proximity between SUKUD ‘height’ and LÚGUD ‘short’.

102

Series Analysis * SAĜB With respect to the general variety in realization types, the horizontal structure of SagB may be said to conform to that found in Izi. The integrating approach to the classification of writing elements, implied by this structure, is therefore shared by both series. This, in turn, suggests that even if the SagB tablet belongs to a deviating compositional stratum (cf. 8.0.) there is some structural unity between it and the other advanced series. Exclusive bilingual format is another feature which SagB shares with the other advanced series (cf. 6.2.1.), reinforcing the emerging picture of structural unity. 8.2.2. Vertical organization Horizontal ruling As far as can be observed in the available evidence (cf. relevant remarks in 8.1.), horizontal ruling in the SagB tablet is intermittent and generally serves to divide the text into blocks of entries. Such blocks may either be graphically or semantically distinct. An example of the former type is found in the entry block III 1-3, in which the two initial signs SAG+AN are shared. An example of the latter type is found in the entry block VI 44-5, which contains two entries, the second of which (EST 155 KA-NU-GI-NA) is the negation of the first (154 KAGI-NA). Use of horizontal ruling to mark off text sections in relation to semantic content, as opposed to graphic content and as found in the latter example, is also found in Hh (cf. 4.3.). 8.3. Vertical organization of content Acrographic organizational features The SagB text may be said to have a systematically acrographical organization: the initial key-signs of its logograms are all graphically related to each other. In fact, the whole text could be said to cover just three graphically related key-signs, viz. SAG, DÙL and KA, the last of which occurs either alone or with various in-written elements. In graphic terms the most basic of these signs is the one listed first, SAG, the original pictographic form of which represents a stylized human head. The other two signs, DÙL and KA, repeat this basic pictogram but add some other graphic elements: DÙL and KA are (originally) based on the same ‘head’ sign but the former adds hatches (in sign names this is described as gunû ‘coloured’ 119 , hence its reading SUMUR ‘angry’) and the latter adds facial features (specifying the nose and mouth). SagB also includes many KA-signs which have added in-written graphic elements (KAxME, KAxNUN, KAxSA, KAxGÁ, KAxIM and KAxLI), which specify their readings through phonetic and/or semantic complements. The fact that all KA-signs, i.e. both those with and those without added in-written elements, are classified as a single group is implied by their order: those with such added elements are not separated from those without and both groups are mixed (KA alone occurs in the sections 077-117, 151-85 and 201-7, while KA with in-written elements occurs in the sections 118-50, 186-200 and 208-17). The pictographic relation between all key-signs having thus been established, the acrographic organization of SagB may be said to result from the fact that all key-signs occur in initial position.

119

ePSD GUNU ‘to be speckle, multicolored’.

103

Part 3 – Structural Analysis Semantic organizational features SagB and Nigga are the only two series that show a fully acrographic organization. In view of this fact, it may be asked how, in terms of organization, SagB and Nigga (the latter which will be discussed in Chapter 9) relate to the other series in the advanced part of the curriculum, i.e. to Izi before them and Diri after them. As it is found that both Izi and Diri show mixedstepped association, the most obvious approach to this question is to determine whether or not SagB additionally shows (elements of) a semantic organization. It is possible that, aside from its acrographic organization, SagB also shows other associative principles, as typically found in mixed-stepped association. There are two indications that this is indeed the case. The first indication is that semantic association, sometimes joined to phonetic association, is frequently found linking consecutive entries within key-sign sequences. E.g. EST 011 SAGDU (read SAĜ.TÚM) and 012 SAG-GAG (read SAĜ.DÙ), which both share the key-sign SAG, also share the semantic field of ‘creation; formation’; 028 SAG-LI-TAR and 029 SAG-AŠ can both refer to officials (even if the Akkadian translations do not specify this); 035 SAG-ZIDA and 036 SAG-LUL-A cover the semantic opposites ‘right’ and ‘false’ and the entries 1249 all refer to various languages spoken in the Ancient Near East. This means that semantically coherent entry sequences occur within acrographically organized sections in SagB composition, similar to how semantically organized sequences occur within acrographically organized sections of Izi (cf. 6.3.). It should be noted that in SagB, as in Izi, not only semantic organization but also phonetic organization may be found within acrographically coherent sections. E.g. 015 SAG-GAG-NU-TUKU and 016 SAG-GAG share not only the phonetic value /saĝ/ but also that of /tak/, in as far as the latter logogram may be read /santak/ (cf. ePSD), and 082 KA-TAB and 082 KA-DIB share not only /kiri/ but also the phonetically related morphemes /tab/ and /dib/. The second indication is that the overall organization of SagB is not merely guided by (acro)graphic but simultaneously by semantic (and, to a lesser extent, by phonetic) association: in case of SagB the common pictographic origin of its key-signs implies that there is a (albeit somewhat residual) common semantic field, viz. ‘the head, its parts and expressions’. If the parallel between the organizational structure of SagB with that of the other advanced series is considered, it may be suggested that, in SagB too, the semantic organization is primary and that the acrographic organization is a secondary by-effect. Synthesis of vertical organization of content The fact that semantic association may be found between entries belonging to a single keysign sequence as well as between different key-signs implies that content in SagB is actually similarly organized to that in Izi: both series show mixed-stepped association. In this regard the main difference between SagB and Izi is quantitative: SagB contains only very few keysigns compared to Izi. Historically, only Nigga has a similarly low number of key-signs 120 . In relation to the other advanced series SagB could therefore be considered as similar in its mixed vertical organization of content, i.e. semantic-acrographic. It just happened that SagB (and Nigga) treated a relatively limited number of key-signs which, due to their importance and polyvalence, took up the space of an entire tablet to treat in all their aspects. The elegant acrographic unity of SagB, resulting from a fortuitous combination of pictographically related key-signs, is likely to be a mere by-effect rather than a programmatic goal. In fact, the 120

MSL 13, 91.

104

Series Analysis * SAĜB evidence of parallel OB material suggests that the sequence SAG-DÙL-KA found in SagB is a mere variation of the traditional-conventional sequence SAG-KIŠI 4 -KA-IGI-ŠAG 4 ) found in earlier material (e.g. BM 54728+78947) 121 . In diachronic perspective DÙL may be considered a mere graphic and phonetic variation (KIŠI 4 >KÚŠ.Ù). The systematic acrographic organization found in SagB seems to be a fortuitous ‘coincidence’ and an exception rather than a rule among the advanced lexical lists. In the Emar version of Nigga, close to SagB in curricular position, there is no such coincidence because it only has one single key-sign. In fact, in its OB version Nigga had a higher number but similarly limited number of key-signs that were of equal importance to those found in SagB and that similarly covered an entire tablet in traditional-conventional sequence - these key-signs, however, are not graphically related. This observation regarding the ‘coincidental’ nature of the acrographic organization of SagB should be qualified by considering the methodological approach of the ancient scribes that made such ‘coincidences’ possible. Both the horizontal and the vertical organization principles of SagB have been shown to conform quite closely to those of Izi and the integrative methodology may be said to be equally visible in both series: the methodological integration of scientifically unrelated phenomena in the horizontal and vertical organization is found in SagB as well as Izi. During its initial discussion (2.3.2.1.) the integrative methodology was said to have contributed to the original development of the cuneiform writing system because it had allowed cross-classificatory relations (i.e. relations between heterogeneous, unrelated phenomena) to be established: the original logograms were established by assuming a cross-classificatory unity between form (grapheme), sound (phoneme) and idea (semantic field). The SagB tablet illustrates exceptionally well to what extent the lexical studies of the ancient scribes kept relying on the integrative methodology: it shows that an advanced lexical work treats key-signs as simultaneously related in various ways. In SagB all key-signs are simultaneously graphically and semantically related: the former relation is shown in the full acrographic unity and the latter in the residual semantic field ‘the head, its parts and expressions’. The phonetic unity is unavoidably incomplete but also receives attention as in two regards. First, throughout each key-sign section the key-sign itself is consistently pronounced in the same manner for each entry until it is replaced by another key-sign: SagB systematically omits Diri-compounds involving its key-signs. Second, an effort seems to have been made to establish phonetic relations between most consecutive key-signs: 075/6 SAĜ/KÚŠ is linked through šassuku/KÚŠ.Ù, 076/7 KÚŠ/KÌRI through KÚŠ.Ù AK.AK/KA, 094/5 KÌRI/KA through KÌRI SÍG.ŠAG 4 .GA/KA, 174/5 INIM/GÙ through INIM.ŠU.KÁR.GA/GÙ and 212/3 ŠEG 10 /KANA through ŠEG 10 GI.NA/KANA. In SagB the ancient scribes clearly managed to present the wide range of various possible connections between key-signs in a manner that was coherent on various classificatory levels (graphic, phonetic and semantic) simultaneously. In this regard the acrographic nature of SagB is not really coincidental because graphic association was a valid mechanism in the integrative methodology. It was, however, a fortuitous aesthetic achievement within the scholarly framework of the ancient lexicographers because their integrative methodology per definition avoided an exclusively acrographic organization.

121

MSL SS 1, 7. Note that the organization of lexical entries here depends on consecutive key-signs that are all body parts.

105

Part 3 – Structural Analysis Summary 8.1.

Material – tablet inventory and typology:

1.

The attested material includes two joining fragments of a single Type I tablet. The larger of the two fragments has become separated from the rest of the lexical corpus: it is kept in the Institute of Oriental Culture in Tokyo and has been published separately.

8.2.

Formal features:

1.

Vertical ruling organizes text lay-out according to columns and sub-columns. The sub-columns serve to provide slots for elements 2 and 4 in the horizontal entry. The lack of further sub-columns for individual signs or sign-clusters within these elements indicates that SagB belongs to the group of the early advanced series. The standard horizontal organization for SagB in terms of the Civil-code is <1->2-4. Visual contrast between logogram elements recurs in all advanced series but in SagB it is achieved through consistent vertical alignment of repeated initial elements. The horizontal organization of entries in the SagB tablet includes an element not found elsewhere in the Emar lexical corpus: the entry count marker, which counts every tenth entry (≠line) and occurs as a single large Winkelhaken (the U-sign). SagB shows a deviant use and form of what is the Glossenkeil in other series: in SagB a Glossenkeil is not used for separating overlapping elements on the same entry line, as found in the other texts, whereas in other contexts a Glossenkeil-type marker is found consisting of a single Winkelhaken (instead of the double Winkelhaken found otherwise). Glosses found in SagB conform in frequency and distribution to those found in Izi: they are infrequent but not restricted to uncommon readings. The consistent writing of repeated logograms indicates that SagB belongs to the group of the early advanced series. As in Izi, the relation between the logogram and the Akkadian equivalent shows a (somewhat less pronounced) general variety of (sometimes combined) realization types, which includes not only straightforward translation of the former into the latter but also translation on the basis of various graphic, phonetic and semantic associations. As in Izi, the variety of realization types in the horizontal organization show that the ancient scribes pursued an integrating approach which implies that they were seeking to establish interrelations between phenomena which are unrelated in modern scientific terms. Horizontal ruling is exclusively intermittent, reflecting the fact that SagB is only attested in bilingual format, and the resulting text blocks are either graphically or semantically distinct in content.

2. 3. 4. 5.

6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

8.3.

Vertical organization of content:

1.

SagB shows a full and systematic acrographic organization but except for acrographic coherence the key-signs in SagB also show semantic coherence: the series is organized by mixed-stepped association. SagB shows semantic association within key-sign sequences as well as between key-sign sequences and in this regard it matches the other advanced series with regard to organizational principles. The acrographic organization of the SagB series is a fortuitous side-effect of its semantic organization that was possible because it only lists a few important key-signs which fill an entire tablet. The order of these key-signs was not determined by acrographic consideration but by a traditional-conventional sequence of signs. The SagB tablet is an exceptionally elegant product of the integrative methodology of the ancient scholars. This integrative methodology sought to establish the maximum number of simultaneous associations applicable to a given key-signs. For the key-signs treated in SagB the ancient scholars exceptionally managed to come up with a list that was simultaneously fully coherent both in acrographic and semantic terms.

2. 3. 4.

106

Series Analysis * NÍĜ.GA=makkūru CHAPTER 9 - NÍĜ.GA=makkūru 9.0 The Nigga series in Emar In the primary edition of the Emar lexical material it was recognized that some fragments contained material paralleled in the OB series Nigga 122 but it was not explicitly stated that a separate Nigga-type composition existed in Emar. The existence of a separate Nigga series can now be confirmed on basis of the fact that two of the fragments can be joined and that they together preserve (most of) the upper half of a two-column tablet (T1), which includes parts of the beginning and end sections of the text. All entries attested on this tablet, including the first and last sections, share the initial key-sign NÍG, and many entry sequences have parallels in the OB material: this means that the text of this tablet represents an Emar version of Nigga. Because, however, T1 concludes with an end-of-text-unit marker (LEE II 5) it is clear that this Emar version deviates from the OB version with regard to text division: the Emar tablet only has entries with the initial key-sign NÍG, while the OB tablets also include other key-signs (ŠU, SA, BAL, GÚ and KI). Theoretically, it is possible that Emar Nigga was divided in multiple divisions and that the other divisions are lost. However, the fact that most of the other key-signs of OB Nigga are extensively covered in Izi (ŠU in Izi 4, GÚ in Izi 2A and KI in Izi 2B) makes it likely that in Emar the Nigga series was limited to a single tablet. If so, the material covered by OB Nigga was split in two parts which were handled quite differently in LBA Emar. The first part (key-sign NÍG) continued to exist as a separate series, albeit of reduced scope, and the second part (the other key-signs) was transformed into, and/or merged with, another acrographic series. In Emar the relevant evidence suggests that the second part of OB Nigga amalgamated with the Izi-series. The reduced core version of Nigga found in Emar may be classified as belonging to the later advanced series: vertical lining subdivides Akkadian elements and its logograms are not written when repeated. The rest of OB Nigga recurs, at least partially, in Izi, which belongs to the early advanced series. This difference in curricular positioning implies that the NÍG-material was separated from the rest of the OB Nigga material because it was used differently. 9.1. Text corpus – tablet inventory and typology The attested Nigga material consists of a number of fragments. Two of these join into the upper half of a two-column Type I tablet. One of the other fragments, 586, only preserves some Akkadian entries that seem to refer to Nigga logograms but show a deviating order (1’ sartu and 5’ nukurtu should refer to respectively EST 012-3 NÍG-LUL(-A) and 020 NÍGPAB-DI but 3’ tibûtu should refer to NÍG-ZI, which is 010 in T1). It should be noted that fragment 586 does not only deviate in content but also in form: it omits the otherwise usual horizontal rulings between consecutive entry sections of different logograms as well as the otherwise usual vertical subdivision rulings in the Akkadian equivalent. This may indicate that 586 does not belong to T1 (and perhaps not even to Nigga). As long as this issue remains unresolved, the apparent overlap of 586 with T1 implies that there was more than one copy of at least part of Nigga. This in turn means that the fragments that do not have direct joins should not be automatically assumed to belong to T1.

122

Arnaud, Emar VI 4 168-9.

107

Part 3 – Structural Analysis 9.2. Formal features 9.2.1. Horizontal organization Vertical ruling In T1 vertical ruling is used to create columns as well as sub-columns: each column is subdivided into five sub-columns with are consistently used in the same manner. When given, the logogram occupies the first two sub-columns and its last sign is always located in the second of these. When the logogram is not given, the first two sub-columns are left empty. The Akkadian equivalent occupies the other three sub-columns and its last sign is always located in the last, fifth, sub-column. The fragments not joinable to T1 are too small to determine whether or not they conform to this vertical ruling pattern (the situation in 586 has already been discussed in 9.1.). The vertical ruling pattern described, which sets apart various signs within the logogram as well as within the Akkadian equivalent, strongly deviates from that found in the preceding series. A similar vertical ruling pattern, however, may be found in the following Diri series. In the commentary on the ‘Kagal’ fragment (7.3.) this difference was linked to the simultaneous difference in treatment of repeated logograms. These combined differences were then used as a diagnostic tool for distinguishing between two types of advanced series. On the basis of the curricular order of the parallel Ugarit curriculum these are referred the early and later advanced series. Given that Nigga shows the use of subcolumns to separate signs both within the logogram and the Akkadian equivalent, as well as the omission of repeated logograms, Nigga clearly belongs to the later advanced series. Entry element inventory As in the other advanced series preceding and following it, three types of entry elements are found in Nigga: glosses, logograms and Akkadian equivalents. The standard structure of the horizontal entry of Nigga may be summarized according to the Civil-code as <1->2-4. Element 1 - the gloss In the preserved part of T1 only one gloss, viz. ga-ar, repeated four times in LEE II 1-4, is found. Even considering the quite fragmentary preservation of T1 this implies that the frequency of glosses in Nigga is low - in this regard it conforms to what is found in the other advanced series. The same seems true with regard to the distribution of glosses in Nigga, as gaar (for ĜAR) refers to a quite common reading of the corresponding logogram (NÍG). Element 2 - the logogram As in Izi and Kagal, Nigga achieves visual emphasis on contrasts within the logogram through the use of sub-columns (cf. above remarks on virtual ruling). The typology of logograms in Nigga shows similarities to that in the other advanced series: logograms include both single-element as well as compound logograms and the compound logograms are of various types. As in SagB, Nigga does not have Diri-compounds involving the initial key-sign (which is always NÍG), but such compounds do occur in other parts of the logogram (e.g. EST 029 NÍG-KI-LAM=NÍĜ.GANBA). The fact that a systematic omission of Diri-compounds with the initial key-sign is found in both of the true ‘acrographic’ series, SagB and Nigga, contrasts with what is found in the other advanced series: Izi and Diri both

108

Series Analysis * NÍĜ.GA=makkūru have Izi- as well as Diri-compounds. The selective omission of Diri-compounds from the keysign inventory for SagB and Nigga not only implies that such compounds were considered didactically inappropriate for these exercises, showing the systematic nature of the curriculum, but also confirms that (acro)graphic association alone was not the principle on which the selection of entries for these series was based. As noted earlier, logograms are omitted when repeated, confirming that Nigga belongs to the group of the late advanced series (i.e. it belongs in the same group as the Diri material). Element 4 – the Akkadian equivalent As the fragmentary state of the material makes definite conclusions concerning the variation of realization types in Nigga impossible, the following description is provisional. Apart from the fact that in some entries the meaning of either the logogram or the Akkadian entry remains unclear, in comparison to the preceding advanced series the preserved text of Nigga seems to show a consistent singularity in the relation between the logogram and the Akkadian equivalent, viz. the latter is consistently an one-to-one translation of the former. In this regard the relation of these two elements in Nigga seems to deviate from that found in some of the early advanced series. In terms of curricular context, however, this contrast is not entirely surprising. If the partial realization type (i.e. type 2) is considered as a variant of the one-toone type (cf. 8.2.1.), then the preceding exercise, SagB, already showed a clear preponderance of the one-to-one type. In this regard it may be appropriate to speak of a tendency to reduced variance in realization types as the advanced curriculum progresses. Nigga could be said to merely take this reduced variance the furthest of all advanced series. Due to its fragmentary state, the preserved text does not allow the conclusion that Nigga completely excluded all other realization types, but it certainly shows a decrease in realization type variance. The evidence thus shows that a wide variation of realization types in the horizontal relation between elements 2 and 4 is not a common feature of all advanced series. The fact that typological variation was already found early in the curriculum (in SaV) shows that such variation is functionally linked to individual exercises (most notably SaV and Izi), rather than to the advanced series as a group. Like all other advanced series, Nigga is only attested in bilingual format. 9.2.2. Vertical organization Horizontal ruling The use of intermittent horizontal ruling in Nigga conforms to that in the preceding series Kagal and SagB (and possibly Izi): it distinguishes blocks of text according to either graphic or semantic association. The many occasions where horizontal ruling sets aside blocks with only a single logogram (such as in I 6’-10’ and II 20’-6’) are examples of the former type. Examples of the latter type are found in the two-line blocks I 22’-3’ and II 33’-4’: in the first example the second line (EST 015 NÍG-NU-SI-DI) negates the first (014 NÍG-SI-DI) and in the second example both lines concern themselves with pricing terminology (028 NÍG-ŠÁMMA and 029 NÍG-KI-LAM).

109

Part 3 – Structural Analysis Division As noted earlier, the possibility of the existence of other Nigga tablets should not be excluded. In view of the evidence from parallel texts it is theoretically possible that in Emar Nigga also had multiple divisions and that the other divisions are lost. It was also noted earlier, however, that as some of the other key-signs of OB Nigga are extensively covered in Emar Izi, it is more likely that in Emar the Nigga series was, in fact, limited to one single tablet. 9.3. Vertical organization of content Acrographic organizational features The Nigga text could be said to be completely acrographically organized, for purposes of an exclusively synchronic analysis, however, this is a meaningless statement because all entries in Nigga start with the same initial key-sign (NÍG). However, this same acrographic unity may explain the synchronic curricular position of Nigga between the other advanced series if it is viewed in terms of the diachronic development of the advanced series generally. In terms of diachronic analysis the mere fact that among the various advanced series, which otherwise have many different initial key-signs, a separate tablet was reserved for treatment of entries that all start with NÍG is remarkable in itself. In conjunction with the evidence of SagB, it shows that the process of incorporation of various separate OB series with limited key-sign inventories (such as Proto-Kagal, Proto-Sag and Nigga) into the single NA Izi composition was still far from complete in LBA Emar. Some smaller traditional series remain recognizably independent despite the clearly visible expansion of the series Izi and Diri, which replace them in later periods. In case of SagB and Nigga it may be suggested that their survival is related to the fact that in the Emar version these two series happened to show an acrographic unity which kept them relevant at that stage of the development of the advanced part of the curriculum. In LBA Emar the two other advanced series of the curriculum, Izi and Diri, are at a half-way stage in their transformation into systematic acrographic sign-collections, a transformation that is only completed in their canonical versions. At this half-way stage they had not yet completely absorbed the material of the older series (Proto-)Sag and (Proto)Nigga because Izi and Diri were apparently not yet re-defined to include all older series. It seems that, as long as these older series showed sufficient acrographic unity, they could coexist with Izi and Diri. Semantic organizational features Within the single NÍG key-sign sequence offered by Nigga there are indications of semantic association between consecutive entries. E.g. the entries 010-7 all deal with various descriptions of the relation ‘right/wrong’ and the entries 018-9 both deal with ‘falling/dropping’. This implies a similar mixed-stepped association as found in the previously treated advanced series. Because the only key-sign found in the material identified as Nigga is NÍG and because no information is available as to which key-signs preceded or followed it in other series, no conclusions can be drawn regarding the type of possible association that the NÍG key-sign had with the key-signs in other series. It is impossible to say if inter-key-sign semantic association, such as found between various key-signs in Izi and SagB, also determined the position of Nigga vis-à-vis the other series.

110

Series Analysis * NÍĜ.GA=makkūru Synthesis of vertical organization of content Even if there is no evidence regarding inter-key-sign association, Nigga conforms to the previously treated advanced series (Izi, SagB) with regard to vertical organization of content in two other respects: it shows frequent low-level semantic association (i.e. within single keysign sequences) and consistent mid-level acrographic organization (i.e. entry clusters according to shared initial key-signs). In terms of the vertical organization of content Nigga may therefore be said to differs from the other advanced series not qualitatively but only quantitatively: it does not have a different organization but it has just one key-sign to organize. Summary 9.1.

Material – tablet inventory and typology:

1. 2.

The attested material includes a number of fragments of which two have (most of) the upper part of a Type I tablet. Theoretically, it is possible that in Emar Nigga was divided in multiple divisions and that the material for the other divisions has been lost, but it seems more likely that the Emar Nigga series was limited to a single tablet.

9.2.

Formal features:

1.

Vertical ruling organizes text lay-out according to columns and sub-columns. The sub-columns serve to provide separate slots for elements 2 and 4 in the horizontal entry as well as for individual signs or sign-clusters within these elements, indicating that Nigga belongs to the group of the later advanced series. The standard horizontal organization for Nigga in terms of the Civil-code is <1->2-4. The glosses found in Nigga conform in frequency and distribution to those found in Izi: they are infrequent but not restricted to uncommon readings. As in Izi and Kagal, Nigga achieves visual emphasis on contrasts within the logogram through the use of sub-columns. The omission of repeated logograms indicates that Nigga belongs to the later advanced series. The attested relations between logogram and Akkadian equivalent in Nigga show a single realization type: the one-toone translation of the former by the latter. The gradual decrease of realization type variance in the earlier advanced series and the apparent single realization type in Nigga suggest a tendency to reduced variance in realization types as the advanced curriculum progresses. Horizontal ruling is exclusively intermittent, reflecting the fact that Nigga is only attested in bilingual format, and the resulting text blocks are either graphically or semantically distinct in content.

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.3.

Vertical organization of content:

1. 2.

The Nigga text is fully acrographical because all entries start with the same initial key-sign, NÍG. Nigga also shows the mixed-stepped associative organization found in the previously treated advanced series in terms of vertical organization of content in as far as it shows semantic association within the NÍG key-sign sequence as well as acrographic association. The absence of inter-key-sign semantic association found in the other advanced series merely reflects a quantitative, not a qualitative difference. Nigga is not differently organized but has just one key-sign to be organized. The synchronic curricular position of Nigga may be explained by the general diachronic development of the advanced series. Various separate OB advanced series that are absorbed by Izi and Diri in the 1st Millennium, including Nigga, remain recognizable in Emar despite the fact that the expansion of Izi and Diri is already evident. The expansion of Izi and Diri results from a process of progressive acrographic systematization which tends to encroach upon the other advanced series but this process is not yet complete in Emar 123 . The acrographic unity of (the first part of) Nigga seems to have kept this series independent into the LBA period. A similar situation may apply to the SagB series in Emar and explains its continued independent attestation.

3.

123

Cf. Cavigneaux, ‘Lexikalische Listen’, 633.

111

Part 3 – Structural Analysis CHAPTER 10 - DIRI=watru 10.1 Text corpus – tablet inventory and typology The attested Diri material consists of a number of fragments, some of which may be joined together. Some show multiple columns and belong to Type I tablets, for others a typology cannot be established with absolute certainty. The fragmentary state of the material does not, at present, permit a satisfactory reconstruction of the tablets that these fragments originally belonged to. The fact that the preserved fragments show some congruency with the parallel texts of Ugarit and canonical Diri and the fact that these parallel texts were spread over multiple tablets combine to suggest that Emar Diri too may have had multiple divisions. The attestation record for the advanced series in Emar is generally quite poor but for Diri this is especially true. In this situation, the text edition presents the fragments as they are. They are ordered, as far as possible, according to the entry sequence found in Ugarit. It should be noted that fragment 2 (540 F) preserves a few Akkadian entries that are paralleled in fragment 1 but that it also shows some deviations and incompatible traces (e.g. fragment 2 6’ and 7’ have ša a-ka-li/lu where fragment1 10’ff. has …]-ru). Further, it should be noted that fragment 2 does not only deviate in content but also in form: it is the only fragment to use the Glossenkeil, otherwise completely absent in the later advanced series, and also the only one that shows no sub-columns for the Akkadian entries. This could indicate that fragment 2 does not belong to Diri (cf. relevant note in the text edition). As long as this issue remains unresolved, the apparent overlap of fragments 1 and 2 implies that there was more than one copy of at least one of the Diri tablets. 10.2. Formal features 10.2.1. Horizontal organization Vertical ruling As far as visible, in all Diri fragments (except fragment 2, as discussed in 10.1.) vertical ruling is used in a similar manner as in Nigga (cf. 9.2.1.). Columns are sub-divided in five sub-columns, the first two of which are occupied by the gloss and the logogram whenever these are given. In this respect the main difference between Nigga and Diri is that in Diri the logogram is more frequently preceded by a gloss than in Nigga. As in Nigga, when the logogram is not given the first two sub-columns are left empty. The Akkadian equivalent always occupies the last three sub-columns. This vertical ruling pattern is most clearly visible in fragment 3. The combination of this vertical ruling pattern with a simultaneous omission of repeated logograms may be used as a diagnostic tool for determining that Diri belongs to the later advanced series. Entry element inventory As in the other advanced series preceding it, three types of entry elements are found in Diri: glosses, logograms and Akkadian equivalents. The structure of the horizontal entry for Diri, may be summarized according to the Civil-code as 1-2-4.

112

Series Analysis * DIRI=watru Element 1 - the gloss As far as can be determined from the fragmentary evidence, the frequency of the gloss in Diri is much higher than that in the other advanced series. This is not surprising given the fact that Diri systematically provides compound logograms for which the phonetic value cannot be reduced to the sum of the their parts, i.e. the so-called Diri-compounds, named after this series. The increased frequency of glosses in Diri confirms what was suggested earlier in this commentary, viz. that gloss frequency is functional in as far as glosses tend to occur where new phonetic values need to be learnt. In this respect it is unsurprising to find distinct peaks in gloss frequency in the series SaV and Diri. One particularity of the glosses in Diri is that some give the same spelling as the logogram (EST 007.01 igi-du 8 IGI-DU 8 and 008.01 igi-BU IGI-BU). The fact that in these cases the gloss does not give additional phonetic information may be related to the fact that the logograms they refer to are not Diri-compounds but Izi-compounds. In other words, the repetition of the logographic spelling in the gloss apparently serves as an indication of the Izi-compound status of the logogram. Whether this empiric rule extends to the whole of the Emar Diri-text cannot be verified due to the fragmentary state of the material. Another particularity of the glosses in Diri is that some refer to the Akkadian rather than to the Sumerian reading of the logogram (012.02 [ab-ra]-ak [IGI-DUB] 124 and 030.01 nam-ru Ú-ZAMÙŠ). Irrespective of the (possibly questionable) level of knowledge of Sumerian in the Emar school, a direct Akkadian reading of logograms may indicate that the actual use of logograms was also considered a priority in educational context. Element 2 – the logogram For the other advanced series it was found that sub-columns provided a visual emphasis on contrasts within the logogram. This is much less clearly the case in Diri because it has a much higher frequency of glosses. These glosses occupy space (generally most of the first subcolumn) and tend to ‘push’ the logograms into the second sub-column. Even so, many logograms are found to cross the sub-column divide, which suggests that the logogram slot was in fact conceived of as including both of the first two sub-columns. If so, the frequent positional shifts between gloss and logogram, which result in a lack of vertical alignment for these two elements, may be explained as an attempt to write the logogram as far to the left as possible (as shown most clearly in fragment 5). Thus, it may be argued that the strategy of visual sub-division of the logogram slot through vertical ruling found in the other advanced series also applies to Diri - it just happens to be obscured by the much higher frequency of glosses. The typology of logograms in Diri differs from that in the other advanced series: logograms include almost only compounds (the only non-compound entry is the single element entry RA found in fragment 10 Obv 3) and these compounds are almost all either Diri-compounds or reduplication compounds - the latter may be presumed to represent irregular pronunciation variations 125 . Diri contains only very few real Izi-readings, which may or may not represent secondary interpolations 126 . 124

Note the status absolutus form (cf. Cavigneaux, Zeichenlisten, 91-2). MSL 15, 3. 126 Ibidem, 4. 125

113

Part 3 – Structural Analysis As noted earlier, logograms are omitted when repeated, confirming that Diri belongs to the group of late advanced series (i.e. it belongs in the same group as the Nigga material). Note, however, that a logogram is always repeated for every variant gloss that is given (e.g. fragment 3 has IGI-DU twice, in line 4 as well as line 9). Finally, a remark should be made concerning the status of the determinative in Diri 127 . It should be noted that when determinatives are found in initial position, they occur as part of larger sequences in which the same initial key-sign is sometimes a determinative and sometimes not. In the entry sequence with initial key-sign Ú- this key-sign is found as a determinative in some entries (015-22) and as a non-determinative compound-element in others (023-30). A similar situation may be found in the entry sequence with initial key-sign GIŠ- (035-9), where at least one entry uses it as a determinative (036.06 ĜIŠBU=ĜIŠGAZINBU). This means that entries were collected according to common initial key-sign irrespective of its determinative status. This is why in the summary Civil-code formula of Diri (<1->2-4) it was not explicitly specified whether the logogram includes or excludes the determinative (otherwise coded as sub-element ‘2a’). The fact that ‘determinative’ status was not a emically 128 valid criterion for the classification of signs (i.e. ‘determinative status’ is an etic projection of modern scientific criteria on the ancient texts) has already been noted in the discussion of the logogram element in Hh and Izi (cf. respectively 4.2.1. and 6.2.1.). Element 4 – the Akkadian equivalent In Diri the attested relations between the Akkadian equivalent and the logogram show only very limited variation. Most relations are of the one-to-one translation type. Only on a few occasions other realization types are found. Partial translation may be found once in 013.04 (HUL = zēru ‘hatred’ refers to HUL.GIG). Graphic association may be found once in 001.04 (AMAR-AMAR = sullu ‘prayer’ refers to AMARxŠE). Phonetic (and semantic) association may be found once in 036.04 (alallu ‘stick’ actually refers to A.LA.LA, not MALA) Semantic association may be found a few times more (e.g. in 024.03-4 kumāṣu ‘bush’ and kušāru ‘bush shelter’ are locations associated with GÙD = qinnu ‘nest’). On balance, it may be said that Diri shows the same tendency to reduced variance in realization types noted earlier for the other advanced series that come after Izi. Like all other advanced series, Diri is only attested in bilingual format. 10.2.2. Vertical organization Horizontal ruling The use of horizontal ruling in Diri differs from that in the other advanced series in that it may distinguish blocks of text according to either graphic or phonetic association. The first association type is evident in the systematic distinction of entry blocks for each consecutive new logogram. The second association type is evident in the occasional sub-division of such entry-blocks. In such sub-divided entry-blocks the logogram is always repeated and always given a new gloss. A clear example of such a sub-divided entry-block is found for the logogram GIŠ-BU in fragment 4 IV’ 3’-8’. The only other series in which phonetic association was found in the application of horizontal ruling was SaV (cf. 2.3.2.2.). The 127 128

Cf. Cavigneaux, ‘Lexikalische Listen’, 626. A definition of the terms emic and etic may be found in Eriksen, Small Places, Large Issues, 36-7.

114

Series Analysis * DIRI=watru reason for this similarity between SaV and Diri is that both series systematically teach the polyphone values of logograms, as evidenced by the use of glosses. The fact that intermittent horizontal ruling in bilingual texts has been found to distinguish content according to various types of associations in different series implies that its varied use may be considered a general feature. In other words, the varied relation of intermittent horizontal ruling to content in bilingual texts reflects a general scribal convention rather than a distinctive feature of a specific series or of a specific part of the curriculum. While in SaV and Diri it is related to graphic and/or phonetic association, in the thematic series and the other advanced series it is related to graphic and/or semantic association. As the content of the series varies, so does the use of horizontal ruling. Division As noted earlier, it is very likely that the Emar version of Diri had multiple divisions. The fragmentary state of the material, however, does not allow a satisfactory reconstruction of this tablet division. 10.3. Vertical organization of content Acrographic organization of content Despite the fragmentary state of the material one aspect of the vertical organization of content in Diri is immediately clear: compounds are grouped together on the basis of common initial key-signs (e.g. in 003-13 all entries start with IGI- and in 015-30 all entries start with Ú-). This means that Diri shares acrographic association as a mid-level organizational principle with the other advanced series. Semantic organization of content As in the other advanced series, semantic association may be found in the lower-level organization, i.e. in the organization of entries within key-sign sequences (e.g. the logograms in 006-9 all relate to the semantic field of ‘seeing’ and those in 015-22 all relate to the semantic field of ‘plants’). The associative principle underlying the higher-level inter-key-sign organization (i.e. the principle guiding the transitions between consecutive initial key-signs), which is often found to be semantic in earlier advanced series, remains unclear. Only two such transitions (013-4 IGI>LAGAB and 033-4 KAŠ 4 >BÚR) are clearly attested in the Emar material and neither of these shows an obvious associative principle. The only way to approach the inter-key-sign organization of Diri would be to study the evidence from better-preserved parallel texts and to project the resulting analysis on the Emar material. However, even the few fragments of Emar Diri that remain show substantial deviations from these parallel texts, in inventory as well as sequence. Therefore such a projection would not necessarily be methodically valid.

115

Part 3 – Structural Analysis Synthesis of vertical organization of content As pointed out above, Diri conforms to the other advanced series with regard to low-level and mid-level organizational principle (i.e. semantic association within key-sign sequences and acrographic association of larger entry clusters). In this regard it may be said to show the same mixed-stepped associative organization. The question remains what was its high-level organizational principle. In as far as inductive evidence is lacking from the fragmentary Emar material some deductive argumentation may be attempted. A test will be made of the hypothesis that Diri was purposefully composed as a collection of one special class of compounds, viz. the Diri-compounds. It was seen that two of the preceding series, SagB and Nigga, show a seemingly systematic omission of Diri-compounds with regard to their key-signs. It was also seen that Diri establishes a systematic collection of exactly such compounds. These two circumstances suggest that the systematic treatment of Diri-compounds may have been expressly reserved for the Diri-exercise. This could be true even if Diri-compounds were occasionally pragmatically included in earlier series and even if the Diri-compounding principle was already familiar to apprentice scribes before they started with the Diri series itself. If it is hypothetically assumed that the ancient scribes recognized Diri-compounds as a distinct class of words and then purposefully set out to produce a series that collected them all 129 , this would a priori have determined the entry inventory of the Diri series. However, an entry inventory does not in itself establish an entry sequence and the question arises according to what principle the inventory was ordered. In this regard it is remarkable that the main distinctive feature of the compound type which Diri seemingly sets out to collect, viz. phonetic value as separated from graphic value, did not determine the organization of its entry sequence: the Diri entries are not ordered by phonetic value. On the contrary, in terms of lowand mid-level organizational principles, Diri closely conforms to the organizational format of the other advanced series, which show a multi-levelled, mixed use of (mostly graphic and semantic) associative principles. In other words, the sequence of Diri is not phonetically determined even although its inventory appears to be determined by a phonetic form criterion. This means that the organization principle of content in Diri is independent from the apparent selection principle of that content. To explain this inconsistency it may be useful to consider the impact on Diri of the integrative methodology particular to Mesopotamian scholarship. Integrative methodology in the vertical organization of content Even if the hypothetical assumption about the recognition of Diri-compounds as an abstract classificatory category and about the purposeful composition of the Diri-series as a repository for this category by the ancient scribes is correct, it may be argued that at no point they completely abandoned the integrative methodology. If abstraction is defined as the consideration of qualities apart from a given object, then the recognition of ‘Diri-compounds’ as a classificatory category may be taken as a clear abstraction from the object of study, viz. cuneiform writing signs, because it requires the separation of pronunciation from graphic form. The collection of ‘Diri-compounds’ in a special list, seemingly implied by the selective inventory of Diri, may be taken as prove of the use of abstract analysis in list composition 130 . This use, however, remained limited: it only determined the inventory and not the sequence of the resulting composition. Despite the hypothetically abstract inventory conception of Diri, its organizational conception shows all the hallmarks of the integrative methodology: graphic, 129 130

Various inconsistencies in content make it doubtful that this was actually the case (cf. MSL 15, 3-4). Cf. Veldhuis, ‘Proto-Kagal/Nigga’, 206.

116

Series Analysis * DIRI=watru phonetic as well as semantic association may be found in the organization its vertical sequence. The fact that some entries do not classify as Diri-compounds may be taken to illustrate the overriding concern of the integrative method, viz. the association of signs on multiple levels, irrespective of any abstract selection criterion. No single classificatory criterion, graphic, phonetic or semantic, ultimately determines the organization of any lexical composition. In certain series more than in others, certain association types may have been emphasized (or rather: emphatically practiced) but apparently never to the point that the other (potential) types were completely ignored. Diri is the only series in which two fundamental associative mechanisms used in the integrative method, viz. graphic and phonetic value, systematically collide - this is what defines the remarkably abstract quality of its inventory conception. If it is postulated that the integrative methodology of the ancient scholars resulted from their search for a consistent and close relation of their writing system to concrete categories (concrete categories by definition admit of multiple abstract associations), the introduction of a deviant, abstract selection mechanism may be assumed to result from the breakdown of this consistent and close relation with regard to Diri-compounds. It could be argued that abstract analysis had a mere auxiliary function for the ancient lexicographers. It was only used after the basic associative mechanisms of their integrative method had failed them and they were forced to resort to alternative means for classifying their material. In this regard it is probably not a coincidence that Diri is found as the last series in the lexical curriculum: it consisted of a residual category of compounds which did not fit in elsewhere. The series name itself, DIRIG ‘surplus’, suggests that the scribes recognized it as such 131 . It may be that, in order to present apprentice scribes with some sort of guideline through the unpredictable readings of the Diri-compounds, the Diri series presented its compounds in the same mixed-stepped organizational format familiar to them from the other advanced lists. Theoretical reconstruction of the composition process of Diri Taking the deductive method one step further, the concept of the integrative methodology may be used to reconstruct the composition process of Diri from the textual evidence found in Emar and elsewhere. To illustrate it, Figure 1 schematically presents a theoretical model that includes some text samples. The composition process may be assumed to have been shaped by the interaction of three different types of input (‘ingredients’): concept (the abstract category of the ‘Diri-compound’), methodology (the integrative method) and textual tradition. Because the integrative methodology and textual tradition had a normative status, the vertical organization of Diri was bound to be shaped by them, even if the compound inventory was originally selected on the basis of an abstract concept. The fact that the actual Diri key-sign sequences as they appear in Emar and elsewhere show similarities to each other but nowhere show a single coherent associative mechanism, strongly suggests that the Diri key-sign sequence was conventionally established, meaning that it depended on a traditionally transmitted normative model text. This traditional model text, presumably some earlier lexical list, may originally not have had the purpose of collecting Diri-compounds. In this regard, the presence of non-Diri-compound content may be significant. The identification of this model text is a task appropriate to diachronic research.

131

MSL 15, 3.

117

Part 3 – Structural Analysis Figure 1. Composition process of Diri Ingredients:

abstract concept

normative methodology

normative textual tradition

Processing: ‘Diricompound’ concept

integrative methodology sets the parameter for any lexical list: viz. multiple association

traditionally transmitted model texts

inventory of Diri-compounds

acrographic associations of entry clusters and semantic associations within these clusters

The DIRI-text has a conventional entry sequence reflecting some traditional model text

118

Sample: inventory filtered through integrative methodology

associations fitted into slots provided by traditionally transmitted model text.

Samples of application of integrative methodology: 1. IGI-compound acrographic key-sign cluster and subdivision into various semantic clusters such as ‘seeing’: U 6 ; IGI.DU 8 ; IGI.GÍD / ‘foam’: IMHUR-group 2. Ú-compound acrographic key-sign cluster and subdivision into various semantic clusters such as ‘plants’: Ú…NISIG-group / ‘nest’: GÙD; DIMUŠ

Samples of application of conventional sequencing of consecutive key-signs: 1. Ugarit 2: A – Ú – EN – DU – BÚR – TAK 4 – GIŠ 2. canonical 2: AMAR – DU – HAR – IGI - GIŠ These sequences do not reflect a single associative mechanism and because of their relative diachronic stability must be considered as traditionally transmitted conventional sequences.

Series Analysis * DIRI=watru Summary 10.1.

Material – tablet inventory and typology:

1.

The attested material consists of a number of fragments, some of which belong to Type I tablets. Due to the fragmentary state of the material the coherence of the Izi text and its divisional structure are unclear.

10.2.

Formal features:

1.

Vertical ruling organizes text lay-out according to columns and sub-columns. The sub-columns serve to provide separate slots for elements 2 and 4 in the horizontal entry as well as for individual signs or sign-clusters within these elements, indicating that Diri belongs to the group of the later advanced series. The standard horizontal organization for Diri in terms of the Civil-code is 1-2-4. Particularities of the glosses in Diri include the occasional repetition of the spelling of the logogram (which seems related to the Izi-compound status of logograms) and the occasional Akkadian reading in glosses. The use of sub-columns for achieving visual contrast between logogram elements is hindered by the systematic inclusion of glosses. The omission of repeated logograms indicates that Diri belongs to the later advanced series. In parallel to what was found for the other advanced series, the relation between the logogram and the Akkadian equivalent shows a (limited) general variety of realization types, which mostly includes straightforward translation of the former into the latter but also some translation on the basis of various graphic, phonetic and semantic associations. The tendency to reduced variance in realization types as the advanced curriculum progresses, noted for SagB and Nigga, is confirmed in Diri. Horizontal ruling is exclusively intermittent, reflecting the fact that Diri is only attested in bilingual format, and the resulting text blocks are either graphically or phonetically distinct in content. The fact that the use of intermittent horizontal ruling in bilingual texts for both graphic and semantic distinction has now been found in many different series implies that it may be considered a general feature. The varied relation of intermittent horizontal ruling to content in bilingual texts reflects a general scribal convention rather than a distinctive feature of a specific series or specific part of the curriculum. In view of the substantial parallels in content between the Emar material and the parallel Ugarit and canonical texts it is very likely that the Emar version of Diri had multiple divisions but the fragmentary state of the material does not allow a satisfactory reconstruction of its tablet division.

2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

7. 8. 9.

10.

10.3.

Vertical organization of content:

1.

Diri conforms to other advanced series in terms of vertical organization of content in as far as it shows both semantic association within key-sign sequences and acrographic association in key-sign clusters, i.e. mixed-stepped association. The systematic treatment of Diri-compounds suggests that the Diri-list was conceived as a repository for such compounds but this abstract inventory criterion may be contrasted with the integrative methodology evident in the organization of that inventory. The use of abstract classification (i.e. the recognition of the abstract category ‘Diri-compound’), evident in the entry inventory of Diri, may be explained as an auxiliary device used in case of failure of the standard associative mechanisms of the integrative method (i.e. the clash between graphic and phonetic association in Diri-compounds). A reconstruction of the composition process of Diri depends on recognizing the normative status of both the integrative methodology and the textual tradition.

2. 3. 4.

119

Part 3 – Structural Analysis CURRICULAR ANALYSIS CHAPTER 11 - FORMAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL COMPARISON 11.0. Formal-organizational units In the preceding chapters it was found that in the Emar lexical texts the various formal and organizational features investigated are generally not particular to individual tablets or individual scribes but primarily related to the series they belong to. In other words, the occurrence of a given feature is not random, but determined by the series. The only variations in formal and organizational features found apart from those determined by the series are those that are determined by linguistic format, i.e. determined by the uni- or bilingual linguistic format of a given series. In the Emar school most series are attested in a single linguistic format (SaP only occurs in the unilingual format and Svo, SaV, G as well as the advanced series occur only in bilingual format), which means that there is no variation of formal and organizational features within these series. The only series in the Emar curriculum that is attested in both unilingual and bilingual format - and therefore showing two varying sets of features - is Hh. Each series and each linguistic format within each series (the latter in Hh only) constitutes a formal-organizational unit and the formal and organizational features of each individual text with material belonging to such a unit are predictable. It should be noted that with regard to a few specific analytic criteria such units may show some internal unevenness - this will be noted where applicable. In the present chapter it will be investigated how these formal-organizational units relate to each other. This will allow a formal and organizational evaluation of the curriculum as a whole. There are two caveats to the curricular evaluation given in this chapter. First, for some series their status in the Emar curriculum in unclear (Tu-ta-ti and Kagal) or their attested material is too fragmentary to allow a sufficient evaluation (Sa). This leaves eleven units to compare, viz. ten different series and a double linguistic format for Hh – their numbering will conform to that used in the text edition. The implication is that the curricular evaluation must remain incomplete. Second, it is possible that some of the evaluated material belongs to a deviating compositional stratum, especially in case of the single SagB text (cf. 8.0.). This means that the curricular evaluation is of a provisional character. The first three paragraphs will give a comparative analysis for each of the investigated features in the same sequence as they are given in the chapters of the series analysis: 11.1. will cover tablet typology, 11.2. will cover formal features and 11.3. will cover vertical organization of content. Next, the issue of the curricular position of the various series will be investigated in paragraph 11.4. . As this chapter effectively gives a synthesis of the preceding series analysis, frequent references to the preceding chapters will be made by adding bracketed paragraph numbers to the text. The issue of curricular order proceeds from the basis of the working hypothesis that the Emar school curriculum gave the various lexical series in the same order as that reconstructed for LBA Ugarit 132 which, in turn, largely conforms to that found in the OB school 133 . Despite the fact that the Emar corpus offers only one Sammeltafel to confirm part of this hypothesis, it will be seen that there are empirically verifiable formal and organizational features that point to its applicability. 132 133

Van Soldt, ‘Babylonian Texts’, 72-4. Veldhuis, Elementary Education, 41-63.

120

Curricular Analysis * Formal and Organizational Comparison 11.1. Tablet typology For each formal-organizational unit all or most text material was found on Type I tablets. Additionally, for a few units (Hh, Lu and Izi) one or more Type III (one-column extract) tablets were found. Where applicable, some apparent differences in formal and organizational features between the two tablet types will be discussed in the relevant sections of the next two paragraphs. Both types, however, may be said to actually consistently fit into a single formalorganizational unit. For convenient reference, Table 16 below gives a listing of all actual and possible Type III tablets found in the Emar lexical text corpus. Table 16. Inventory of Type III tablets ? indicates possible extract

Formalorganizational unit

Tablet number

0. 4b.

Tutati E1 Hh 4E1

Tu-ta-ti Hh

Old edition Emar VI 4 number 601 545 I

Museum and publication page number 7462 – p.197 7448 – p.189

? ? Hh 7bE1 Hh 7bE2 Hh 12E1

545 M + 545 S + 545 AZ 545 R 545 AQ 548 C 548 G 555 K

74114d – p.285 74109b – p.279 74178c – p.452 74190i – p.464 7496j – p.235 73265 – p.52 74148a – p.372 7467 – p.201

Hh 13E1 Hh 13E2

556 A 556 D

74202 – p.500 74149 – p.381-2

Hh 15E1 Hh 16bE1

558 A’ 559 D

Lu 2E1 Izi 4E1

583 572

74234b – p.545 7455 + 74155b – p.193 74158e – p.392 7433 – p.176

Hh 4E2

5. 6.

Lu Izi

121

Linguistic format bilingual originally bilingual (breakage) bilingual virtually bilingual bilingual virtually bilingual bilingual bilingual (phonetic Sumerian) bilingual bilingual (phonetic Sumerian) bilingual virtually bilingual bilingual bilingual

Part 3 – Structural Analysis 11.2. Formal features 11.2.1. Horizontal formal features Vertical ruling - columns All Type I tablets in the Emar lexical corpus use vertical ruling to provide columns. In contrast, Type III tablets are defined as single-column tablets. The number of columns given on a particular Type I tablet surface varies from two to five. In Table 17 below the number of columns on the Type I tablets of each formal-organizational units is specified. Table 17. Column-count on Type I tablets across formal-organizational units Note that due to their fragmentary state for some tablets only an estimate can be made. This estimate is either based on the column count in parallel Emar tablets or by assuming a number of entries equal to that found in the canonical version and dividing it by the estimated average line count per column. When the result is uncertain it is given a question mark (?).

Formalorganizational unit

Linguistic format

Tablets and number of columns (Obverse/Reverse)

1. 2.1. 2.3.

Svo SaV SaP

bilingual bilingual unilingual

T1: 2/2, T2: 2/2 T1: 5/5, T2: 5/5, T3: 4/4, T4: 4/4 T1: 5/5, T2: 5/5

3. 4a.

G Hh 1 Hh 3 Hh 7 Hh 8 Hh 9 Hh 15 Hh 16 Hh 1 Hh 2 Hh 3 Hh 4 Hh 5 Hh 7 Hh 8 Hh 9 Hh 10 Hh 12 Hh 13 Hh 16 Hh 17 Hh 18 Lu 1 Lu 2 Izi Sag B Nigga Diri

bilingual unilingual

T1: 3/3 T1: 4/4, T2: 4/4 T1: 5/5, T2: 5/5 T1: 5/5, T2: 5/5, T3: 5/5 T1’: 4/4 T1: 4/4 T1: 3/3 (virtual bilingual) T1: 4/4 T3: 4/4, T4: ? T1: 3/3, T2: 3/3, T3: 3/3 T1: 2/2, T2: 2/2 T1: 4/5, T2: 4/4, T3: 4/4? T1: 4/3 T1: 3/3? T1: 4/4?, T2b 4/4? T1: 3/3 T1: 3/3, T2: 3/3 T1: 3/3 T1’: 3/3? , T2’: 3/3? T1: 3/3, T2: 3/3 T1’: 3/3 T1’: 4/4? T1: 4/4, T2: 4/4 T1: 4/4 1T1: 3/3, 2BT1: 3/3 T1: 4/4 T1: 2/2 fragments only (2:2 tablets?)

4b.

5. 6. 8. 9. 10.

bilingual

bilingual bilingual bilingual bilingual bilingual

122

Curricular Analysis * Formal and Organizational Comparison

The distribution of the low and high column-counts, i.e. the two- and five-column tablets respectively, found in Table 17 will be briefly commented upon. A low column-count, i.e. a two-column tablet, is found relatively rarely and only in certain formal-organizational units, viz. in Svo, Nigga and bilingual Hh 3. The fragmentary evidence suggests that the Diri-material too was probably also written on two-column tablets. The fact that bilingual Hh 3 has two-column tablets may be assumed to be linked to the fact that division 3 is the only part of Hh where the two different linguistic versions have a different tablet division: the unilingual version shows a single division but the bilingual version is spread over two divisions (termed 3.1 and 3.2). The bilingual version exceeded the space available on a single tablet, but this excess was limited, so that no more than two columns were needed on two tablets. In case of the other formal-organizational units, i.e. Svo, Nigga and (probably) Diri, it should be noted that the fact that they all have two columns coincides with the fact that these three series have a lay-out feature not found in other series: all three show systematic omission of repeated logograms (discussed in more detail in 7.2.). This ‘coincidence’ seems to point to a scribal convention that linked this type of lay-out to the specific number of two columns. A high column-count, i.e. a five-column tablet, is found almost exclusively in those formalorganizational units that have relatively short horizontal entries, as found in SaP (rarely more than two signs per horizontal entry), SaV (mostly one-sign logograms) and unilingual Hh (which omits the Akkadian equivalent). The only attested five-column tablet outside of such units is Hh 4T1, which manages to include five columns on the Reverse - note that the Obverse has four columns. Generally, it appears that five was the maximum number of columns per tablet surface deemed feasible in lexical compositions. Vertical ruling - sub-columns On all Type I and most Type III tablets in the Emar lexical corpus vertical ruling is used to provide sub-columns. The use of sub-columns on Type III tablets generally conforms to that on Type I tablets. Of the eleven Type III tablets identified with certainty nine belong to Hh (viz. 4E1-2, 7bE1-2, 12E1, 13E1-2, 15E1, 16bE1). These nine belong to the bilingual formalorganizational unit, even if some (viz. 4E1, 7bE1, 16bE1) lack the actual Akkadian equivalents (cf. 4.4.). All except one show dual purpose use of sub-columns: the one exception is the unique tablet 13E2, which is the only extract to add a separate column of phonetic Sumerian and also is the only one on which the reverse is read as a horizontal continuation of the obverse. The remaining two Type III tablets belong to Lu and Izi (Lu2E1 and Izi4E1 respectively) and show no discernible sign of sub-column use (note that Lu2E1 is damaged). In Table 18 below the type of use made of sub-columns in each formalorganizational units is specified. There are three types of use: 1. single purpose use - which is generally to provide slots for different elements in the horizontal entry. Only in case of SaP is the single purpose involved different, viz. to provide slots for graphic variants of the logogram. 2. dual purpose use - which is to provide slots for entry elements as well as slots for sign positioning within logograms. This type of use has been discussed in detail in the relevant paragraph dealing with Lu (5.2.1.). 3. elaborate dual purpose use - which is to provide slots for entry elements as well as slots for sign positioning within both logograms and Akkadian equivalents.

123

Part 3 – Structural Analysis Table 18. Sub-column use typology across formal-organizational units Formalorganizational unit

Linguistic format

Number of sub-columns

Type of use of sub-columns

1. 2.1. 2.3.

Svo SaV SaP

bilingual bilingual unilingual

2 2/3 2

3. 4a. 4b. 5. 6. 8. 9. 10.

G Hh Hh Lu Izi SagB Nigga Diri

bilingual unilingual bilingual bilingual bilingual bilingual bilingual bilingual

3 none 2/3/4 3/4 2/3/4 2 5 5

single purpose use single purpose use single purpose use (slots for graphic variants) dual purpose use n/a dual purpose use dual purpose use dual purpose use single purpose use elaborate dual purpose use elaborate dual purpose use

The first conclusion to be drawn from the analysis provided by Table 18 is that the use of vertical ruling for sub-columns is only found in those formal-organizational units in which the horizontal entry is built up of more than one element. This excludes all unilingual texts except those which repeat their single element, i.e. except SaP, which gives multiple graphic versions of the Sa key-sign logograms. The second conclusion to be drawn is that the type of use of sub-columns is generally linked to the list-type covered by the formal-organizational unit in question: the elementary sign-lists (Svo, SaP, SaV) show single purpose use, the thematic lists and the early advanced list Izi show dual purpose use and the later advanced lists (Nigga, Diri) show elaborate dual purpose use. The only formal-organizational unit that does not conform to this empiric rule is SagB. In this respect it is appropriate to again refer to the hypothesis that SagB in fact belongs to a deviating compositional stratum (cf. 8.0.). The use of sub-column typology as a diagnostic tool for identifying lexical fragments as belonging to specific formal-organizational units has already been suggested earlier (cf. 7.2.). It should be noted that the exclusive attestation of elaborate dual purpose use for Nigga and Diri could be a formal reflection of the originally (historically) deviating content of these two series: they are the only series that were systematically provided some sort of explicit Akkadian translation in the OB curriculum 134 . Entry element inventory Superficially there are some deviations between the entry element inventories of Type I and Type III tablets found in bilingual Hh. Bilingual Hh has three Type III tablets that appear to show unilingual content and two others that show the insertion of phonetic Sumerian spellings. However, these two phenomena do not imply an actual difference in entry element inventory as the former is due either to breakage or to virtual bilingualism (cf. 4.4.) whereas the latter merely concerns an alternative rendering of a single element, viz. the logogram. Therefore Table 19 below gives a single inventory of entry elements for all formalorganizational units, regardless of tablet type. Entry elements which do occur but are attested relatively infrequently in a given unit are given in pointed brackets (< >) - such elements 134

Veldhuis, ‘Proto-Kagal/Nigga’, 209-10.

124

Curricular Analysis * Formal and Organizational Comparison frequently have the character of auxiliary elements. Observations concerning the analysis provided by Table 19 will be given below in order of the relevant elements. Table 19. Entry element inventory across formal-organizational units Formalorganizational unit

Linguistic format

1. 2.1. 2.3. 3. 4a. 4b. 5. 6. 8. 9. 10.

bilingual bilingual unilingual bilingual unilingual bilingual bilingual bilingual bilingual bilingual bilingual

1

Svo SaV SaP G Hh Hh Lu Izi SagB Nigga Diri

Entry elements (Civil-code) 0 13line gloss sign marker name 3 + + (+)4 <+> <+> <+> <+> <+> + -

2logogram +1 + +2 + + + + + + + +

4Akkadian equivalent + + <+>5 + + + + + +

The status of the logogram in Svo is discussed in 1.2.1. The Sa key-sign logograms in SaP are given in multiple graphic variants 3 The omission of glosses in SaV T2 is discussed in 2.1.2.1. 4 Sign names are (almost) exclusively attested in the long-version tablets (SaV T3-4) 5 The status of the element 4-entries in G I discussed in 3.2.1. 2

Element 0 - the line marker For undetermined reasons this element only occurs in SaV. There it was said that, as element 0 is not related to individual entries, in the Emar corpus at least, it is actually not an entry element. (cf. 2.1.2.1.). Element 1 - the gloss Glosses are only systematically added in two formal-organizational units, viz. SaV and Diri. In Svo, SaP, G and unilingual Hh glosses are systematically omitted and in the other units they do occur, but only relatively infrequently. A discussion of gloss omission will be given first, followed by a discussion of gloss frequency. For Svo this omission may be explained by the deviant status of its element 2-entries: if these are not regular logograms (as argued in 1.2.1.), then it is not surprising that Svo lacks glosses because glosses generally serve to provide phonetic information about logograms. For SaP the omission of glosses is due to the fact that SaP provides an exercise exclusively concerned with the graphic and not with the phonetic values of the Sa key-sign logograms - the latter values are provided by SaV. In G the issue of glosses is somewhat complicated because some element 4-entries, even if placed after the logogram, in fact take on the form of glosses. It could be argued that the low frequency of such ‘glosses’ in G is caused by its tendency to progressively phase out of auxiliary elements (cf. 3.2.1.). The omission of glosses in unilingual Hh may be explained by the fact that the unilingual version of Hh most likely represents an more advanced stage of the curriculum, i.e. a stage at which the apprentice scribe was supposed to be already familiar with the phonetic values of the logograms. 125

Part 3 – Structural Analysis

Concerning the relatively low gloss frequency in bilingual Hh, Lu, Izi, SagB and Nigga (marked < > in Table 19) it was already suggested (4.2.1.) that it may be explained by didactic functionality: in these series glosses were only given when indispensable for resolving ambiguities or explaining unusual readings. The uneven frequency of glosses in different formal-organizational units is functional in as far as a higher frequency tends to occur whenever many new phonetic values need to be learned. It is therefore unsurprising to find distinct peaks in gloss frequency in the series SaV and Diri. SaV served to teach all the essentials of writing including most basic phonetic values. In the course of the further curriculum the phonetic knowledge acquired in SaV was occasionally supplemented by (relatively infrequent) glosses in the following series. When the apprentice scribe arrived at the last lexical exercise, Diri, he was confronted with a large residue of compounds which, due their specific nature, had not fitted into the other series (in terms of the integrative methodology Diri-compounds show a conflict between graphic and phonetic value - cf. 10.3.). At that point he had to systematically learn the values of those compounds of which the phonetic sum and the graphic sum did not match each other and which had not been treated previously, hence the second peak in gloss frequency in Diri. Element 3 - the sign name Sign names are only found in SaV, where they share the number 2 slot with the gloss. Their positioning, unusual in terms of the canonical sequence of entry element, and their relation to the gloss element were discussed in 2.1.2.1. . In terms of curricular structure the exclusive occurrence of sign names in SaV makes good sense: SaV tends to simultaneously concentrate on various aspects of its key-sign logograms and the sign-name is one of the aspects of every logogram. What is remarkable in this respect, however, is that the listing of sign names tends to be a phenomenon exclusively restricted to the long-version tablets (SaV T3-4). In their vast expansion of the number of Akkadian equivalents per key-sign these long-version tablets approach the series Aa in scope and organization 135 (though not in key-sign sequence). It should be noted that in this respect the long-version tablets effectively ‘replace’ the Ea/Aa series, which are not attested in Emar. Not matched in any earlier or parallel text, the expanded scope of SaV of the Emar long-version tablets may reflect an innovation particular to the LBA period. This would fit in with the explicit writing of sign names found in these tablets, a phenomenon generally associated with later periods 136 . Element 2 - the logogram All formal-organizational units have the logogram at their core and their organization is set up around this core. What should be reiterated here, however, is the fact that different units treat the logogram in different ways. In the elementary sign-list SaV a relatively short list of keysign logograms is investigated simultaneously from several different angles (graphic relation, polyphony, semantic scope). This allowed the apprentice scribe to become familiar with some basic signs and to gain some basic insights into the various aspects of writing. In the various thematic lists the logograms are primarily investigated as words which are presented in semantically coherent clusters. This, in turn, allowed the apprentice scribe to master a wide range of vocabulary. In the advanced lists logograms are primarily approached as the potential or actual elements of compounds, i.e. they are investigated for their various graphic, phonetic and semantic combinatory possibilities. As a result the apprentice scribe gained compositional 135 136

Aa has the horizontal structure 0-1-2-(3-)4 (Cavigneaux, ‘Lexikalische Listen’, 621). Cavigneaux, ‘Lexikalische Listen’, 611.

126

Curricular Analysis * Formal and Organizational Comparison skills and learnt to analyse the writing system by isolating and rearranging its smallest relevant elements, viz. its graphemes. In Diri, the final lexical exercise these skills were extended to a large residual category of compounds that were (mostly) conventionally read without regard for the phonetic values of individual graphemes. In the course of the curriculum different formal-organizational units repeated many individual signs in different contexts. E.g. in the elementary sign-list SaV the sign GIŠ (PST 038) is treated from various associative perspectives, viz. graphic (039 GÁ also start with two horizontals), phonetic (038.02-3 have the glosses ke-eš and né-eš) and semantic (iṣu ‘wood’ and haṭtụ ‘sceptre’). In the thematic list Hh the same sign recurs as the determinative for a large semantic field extended throughout two divisions (3-4) and is concluded with appropriate sentence ĜIŠ ŠU.NÍĜIN.NA ‘the wood(list is) complete’. In the advanced list Izi the sign GIŠ (EST 2B001-3) returns in another context, viz. as a potential (2B003) and actual (2B001-2) combinatory element in compounds. Such recurrences illustrate how the various formalorganizational units did not relate to each other as complementary inventories but as supplementary methods. Overlapping content was approached from different angles in various series. With regard to the formal presentation of the logogram it was found that two different strategies may be found within the Emar curriculum, viz. either a full rendering of each repeated logogram or omission of repeated logograms. The former strategy is encountered in most formal-organizational units, the latter only in Svo, Nigga and Diri. For the latter two it was found that omission of repeated logograms, in conjunction with elaborate dual purpose use of sub-columns, may be used as a diagnostic tool for determining whether a given text (fragment) belongs to the early or to the later advanced series. Element 4 - the Akkadian equivalent In this paragraph an important aspect of variation in the horizontal organization between the various formal-organizational units will be investigated, viz. the variation in realization types occurring in the relation between logogram and Akkadian equivalent. In the series analysis preceding this chapter it was found that different units showed different realization types. Table 20 below gives a systematic analysis of the resulting organizational variations throughout the curriculum. It should be noted that SaP and unilingual Hh are not listed because these series do not include Akkadian equivalents. There are six possible realization types found in the relation of logogram and Akkadian equivalent - sometimes these may be combined in a single entry. Examples of each type may be found in the relevant paragraphs of the series analysis (e.g. for Svo in 1.2.1. and for SaV in 2.3.2.1.) 137 .

137

In terms of Cavigneaux’ classification the approximate equivalents of these realization types may be listed as follows: 1. regular = A.1. Isolexie; 2. pars-pro-toto = A.3. Taxilexie; 3/5. graphic/semantic association = A.4. Metalexie and 4. phonetic association = A.2. Paralexie (Cavigneaux, Zeichenlisten, 29-36). Note that Cavigneaux’ category A.5. Dyslexie does not have an equivalent in the realization typology of this study as it is felt that the identification of ‘mistakes’ involves an etic projection of contemporary methodology on ancient scholarship. Such identification may be inappropriate in terms of the integrative methodology used by the ancient scribes.

127

Part 3 – Structural Analysis 1. a ‘regular’, one-to-one translation. In this case the Akkadian equivalent aims to give a straightforward translation of the logogram. Note that frequently more than one Akkadian word is given so as to cover the diverging semantic range of a single Sumerian word. 2. a partial translation. In this case the Akkadian equivalent either translates only part of the logogram or, vice-versa, projects the meaning of a virtual larger phrase on a single element that may be part of such a phrase. In some series (Hh, Lu, SagB) this type is merely a systematic variant of type 1, viz. when the partial rendering consistently and exclusively refers to the variable elements added to key-words (i.e. when it is used merely as an abbreviation strategy). 3. the equivalent refers to another logogram that is graphically associated with the logogram actually found. 4. the equivalent refers to another logogram that is phonetically associated with the logogram actually found. 5. the equivalent refers to another logogram that is semantically associated with the logogram actually found. 6. the Akkadian equivalent is triggered by an Akkadian, i.e. phonetic reading of the logogram. Realization types that occur relatively infrequently in a given unit are given between pointed brackets (< >). When the state of the material does not allow definite conclusions regarding the occurrence of a certain realization type in a given unit this is indicated by square brackets ([]). Note that the record for G is uncertain due to the limited inventory and problematic status inventory of the element 4-entries available. It should also be noted that in G equivalent Sumerian and Akkadian DNs tend to be listed in vertically consecutive entries rather than in a single horizontal entry. Table 20. Distribution of realization types in the relation between logogram and Akkadian equivalent across formal-organizational units Formalorganizational unit 1. Svo 2.1. SaV 3. G 4b. Hh 5. Lu 6. Izi 8. SagB 9. Nigga 10. Diri 1

Realization types 1 2 + + + + ?1 + (+) + (+) + + + (+) + [] + <+>

3 + + + <+> [] <+>

4 + + + <+> [] <+>

5 + + ?1 <+> + <+> [] <+>

6 <+> <+> [] [] []

Cf. discussion on the status of the element 4-entries in G in 3.2.1.

The distribution of realization types across the various units found in Table 20 shows two clear tendencies. It should be noted that these tendencies will also be discussed later on, as relevant to the issue of didactic functionality (11.4.). The first tendency is that there is a wide variety of realization types at two points in the curriculum: the first in the elementary sign-lists (Svo and SaV) and the second in the advanced series, especially in Izi. For the elementary sign-lists this wide variety was recognized as didactically appropriate with regard to the postulated integrative methodology (2.1.2.1.). A similar didactic functionality has been postulated for the recurrence of wide 128

Curricular Analysis * Formal and Organizational Comparison variety in Izi because Izi applies the integrative methodology to multiple logograms (6.2.1.) in the same manner as SaV applied it to single logograms. The decreased variety in the other advanced series shown in Table 20 was also noted in the series analysis (9.2.1. and 10.2.1.) and suggests a differentiation in functional focus between the various advanced series. In this respect it may be relevant to point to the contrast between the diachronic development of Izi and that of the smaller series SagB and Nigga: in later times Izi expands while SagB and Nigga disappear. The different focus of the smaller advanced series, i.e. on the maintenance of a traditional-conventional presentation of vocabulary, may account for their eventual disappearance as it made them increasingly irrelevant during the development of the advanced series towards the 1st Millennium. In view of the development of Izi in the direction of its canonical version (i.e. its expansion and transformation in comparison to the OB version), which is clearly visible in Emar, it may be argued that the presence of SagB and Nigga in Emar is vestigial (cf. 14.6.). Finally, the last series, Diri, must be considered separately because its very specialized inventory concept kept it independently relevant during the otherwise sweeping unification of the earlier, heterogeneous ‘acrographic’ material into Izi. The second tendency is the narrow variety in realization types in the thematic series 138 , which shows a clear contrast between the elementary and advanced series on the one hand and the thematic series on the other. In fact, if it is considered that in the thematic series realization type 2 is a systematic variant of type 1 (as explained under point 2 above), these may be said to show hardly any variety. In the thematic series the only real departure from this limited variety is found in the later part of Lu, where it is due to its progressive deviation from its original thematic organization and the close relation of Lu and Izi (cf. 5.3.). 11.2.2. Vertical formal features Horizontal ruling Concerning horizontal ruling the most important finding of the series analysis is that there are two types of ruling patterns that are linked to linguistic format. In 4.2.2. it was shown that in Hh full and intermittent horizontal ruling were features particular to respectively the unilingual and bilingual format. The use of intermittent ruling was found to be linked to (primarily graphic) content in all formal-organizational units. In those units that showed omission of repeated logograms (Svo, Nigga and Diri) intermittent ruling is an important instrument in the vertical organization of content but overall its primary function was that of an auxiliary compositional device. In this regard it should be reiterated that uni- and bilingual texts differ with regard to both vertical (sub-column) ruling and horizontal ruling simultaneously. Effectively, the specific types of vertical and horizontal ruling found in the lay-out of bilingual texts provided apprentice scribes with assistance in composing their content. A more detailed discussion of the auxiliary function of ruling in bilingual texts was given earlier (cf. 4.3. and 5.2.1.). It should be noted that the application and function of the ruling patterns found in the Emar curriculum may conceivably be similar in other text corpora. Even if this would turn out not to be the case, a comparison of the application and function of ruling between different lexical corpora may still offer an interesting avenue of further research.

138

Cavigneaux, Zeichenlisten, 2.

129

Part 3 – Structural Analysis Division The general relation between tablet and text division was discussed in the analysis of the divisional structure of Hh (4.2.2.). If the term tablet refers to the physical text carrier, then the term division refers to the conventional choice of content for that carrier. Except for Hh, the only other formal-organizational units showing multiple divisions are Lu, Izi and (probably) Diri, although evidence of the exact divisional organization is lacking for the latter two. The only variation in divisional organization attested in the Emar material is that between uni- and bilingual Hh: for the first part of the wood-list unilingual Hh has a single division (Hh3) whereas bilingual Hh has two divisions (Hh3.1 and 3.2). Further investigation allowed the formulation of two important principles concerning the formal feature of division. The first is that the relation between tablet and division is not static but dynamically related to developments in content. In the relatively short diachronic span covered by the Emar corpus the only such development visible is in divergent divisional structures of uni- and bilingual Hh. The second principle is that multilingualism can be a driving force for progressive subdivision. In the Emar corpus it was found that the need to accommodate bilingual content in a traditionally unilingual list may cause transformations in content, attested in the different text versions for each linguistic format in Hh 3, 7-9 and 16, and/or transformations in divisional structure, attested in the extra subdivision in bilingual Hh3. 11.3. Vertical organization of content Based on the findings of the series analysis, Table 21 below summarizes the distribution of associative strategies evident in the vertical organization of content throughout the curriculum. The various possible associative strategies were defined in the introduction (cf. Table 2) and are now considered in their curricular context.

130

Curricular Analysis * Formal and Organizational Comparison Table 21. Distribution of association types in the vertical organizational structure across formal-organizational units Formalorganizational unit 1. 2.1. 2.3. 3. 4.

5. 6. 8 9. 10. 1

Svo SaV SaP G Hh 1-2 Hh 3-16 Hh 17-18 Lu Izi SagB Nigga Diri

Level 2 Key-sign/ Key-word graphic / unclear mixed mixed semantic mixed semantic semantic semantic1 mixed-stepped mixed-stepped mixed-stepped mixed-stepped

Level 3 Division

Level 4 Series

Series type

-2 conventional semantic conventional conventional conventional -3 conventional

conventional conventional conventional semantic semantic

elementary sign-list elementary sign-list elementary sign-list thematic list thematic list

semantic conventional4 graphic-semantic graphic-semantic conventional5

thematic list6 advanced sign-list advanced sign-list advanced sign-list advanced sign-list

Some mixture of association types in the last part (cf. 5.3. and 6.3.). Note that long-version SaV should theoretically have had more than one division (cf. 2.1.2.2.). 3 It is uncertain whether in Emar Nigga had more than one division (cf. 9.2.2.). 4 The traditional-conventional association of the Izi series involves a certain degree of semantic organization (cf. 6.3.). 5 In Diri the entry sequence is traditionally-conventionally determined but its entry inventory is subject to an abstract selection criterion (cf. 10.3.). 6 More precisely Lu is actually a list of progressively diverging semantic associations with a thematic point of departure (cf. 5.3.). 2

The following analysis will start with a level-by-level discussion of vertical organization. Note that level 1, i.e. horizontal organization, has already been discussed in 11.2.1. . It should also be noted that on levels 2 and 3 the formal-organizational unit of Hh shows some internal unevenness: different parts of Hh show different associative principles than others - to account for this, these parts are listed separately in Table 21. After the discussion of the various levels the issue of series typology will be addressed. Level 2 – key-sign and key-word On this level the organizational features of key-sign and key-word refer to graphic(-phonetic) association and semantic association respectively. Two important observations may be made concerning the distribution of associative types on level 2. The first observation is that in some series these association types are either mixed or mixedstepped throughout the vertical structure. The mixed type exercise was recognized as didactically appropriate to the introduction of the integrative methodology (2.1.3.). The mixed-stepped type is found in the advanced series and implies that different types of associations are found hierarchically stacked: semantically associated entry sequences occur within graphically associated entry sequences and these graphically associated entry sequences may in turn be linked by semantic associations (cf. 6.3.). The second observation is that the distribution of association types throughout the various series largely coincides with the postulated curricular position of these series: mixed association is found in the early parts of the curriculum (SaV, Hh 1-2), semantic association is found in the middle part (G, Hh and Lu) while mixed-stepped association is found in later part 131

Part 3 – Structural Analysis (Izi, SagB, Nigga and Diri). In this regard the only apparent anomaly is the first part of Hh (divisions 1-2) which shows mixed associations between the otherwise semantically associated lists G and Hh 3-18. This anomaly is less surprising if Hh 1-2 are considered as a transitional exercise and if G is considered as effectively constituting a continuation of the PN/DN analysis started in SaAP1 (cf. 4.3.). The use of specific association types at specific points in the curriculum may be considered as didactically functional. It was already observed that the occurrence of mixed association in SaV can be related to its introduction of the integrative methodology. The occurrence of mixed association in (the latter parts of) Lu may be related to its transitional status (cf. 5.3. and 6.3.). The preponderance of semantic and mixed-stepped association in respectively the thematic and advanced series likewise reflects diverging analytic foci and presentational schemes. In more general terms the noted link between the distribution of association types in the various series and their postulated curricular positions suggests a structural-organizational coherence of the curriculum that goes some way to explain its internal order as well as its diachronic resilience. Level 3 – division On the level of division it may be observed that there is a clear preponderance of the conventional-traditional association type. Only Hh 3-16 show semantic association as the decisive factor in the assignment of divisional boundaries. All other divisional boundaries may be described as showing semantically trivial transitions (cf. 5.3.). In the last divisions of Hh and in Lu this phenomenon appears as a result of the progressive loss of semantic distinction between divisions. This loss of distinction occurs at the juncture where the thematic lists switch from naturally defined referents to culturally defined referents and when the organization of content starts giving way to graphemic organization (cf. 5.3.). In the diachronic analysis of divisional boundaries in Hh (4.2.2.) it was found that in the LBA and 1st Millennium periods, these boundaries were established either on the basis of combined graphic-semantic distinction between entry-blocks or on the basis of abstract semantic distinction alone. The latter type implies that abstract classification was (or had become) relevant to the organization of lexical compositions (cf. 4.3.). In more general terms it may be observed that divisional structure is only attested in the middle and later parts of the curriculum. The eighteen divisions found in Hh are followed by two in Lu and a undetermined number in Izi. The last series, Diri, in all likelihood also had multiple divisions (cf. 10.1). Concerning the two single-tablet advanced series, SagB and Nigga, it may be proposed that they were vestiges of an older corpus of shorter advancedcurriculum compositions. These shorter compositions included Proto-Izi and Kagal and were increasingly overshadowed by the expansion of the transforming Izi series. Due to their fortuitous ‘acrographic’ content SagB and Nigga may have been considered usable in the curriculum as long as the expansion of Izi had not proceeded to the point of including their content - as it eventually was (cf. 9.3.). Level 4 – series On the level of series it is found that the distribution of association types largely coincides with the postulated curricular position of these series. This is similar to what was found on level 2, even if the association types themselves are different. On level 4 traditionalconventional association is found in the early and late series and semantic association is found

132

Curricular Analysis * Formal and Organizational Comparison in the intermediate series. The only anomaly found is for SagB and Nigga: these series show graphic-semantic association while the preceding and following series (Izi and Diri respectively) show traditional-conventional association. The anomalous typology of SagB and Nigga on level 4 may be considered as confirmation of the deviant (vestigial) status of these two series in the advanced curriculum earlier suggested in the discussion of their level 3 typology. It should be noted that, if SagB and Nigga are ignored as anomalies and it is kept in mind that the traditional-conventional association found in Izi involves a certain degree of semantic association (cf. 6.3.), all thematic and most advanced series show at least some measure of internal semantic coherence. From this perspective the only series of the lexical curriculum that show an exclusively traditional-conventional association on level 4 are the elementary sign-lists and Diri. As found for level 2, the noted link between the distribution of association types in the various series and their postulated curricular positions suggests a structural-organizational coherence of the curriculum. Series typology Table 21 shows that the associative principles found for the various formal-organizational units can be different for their various organizational levels (e.g. Lu shows semantic organization on level 2, traditional-conventional association on level 3 and semantic association on level 4). In order to describe each series in structural-analytic terms the juxtaposition of different associative principles on levels 2 and 4 effectively constitutes a typological definition of each series (in this regard level 3 organization is obviously irrelevant because it is the series and not the division which is to be described). The juxtaposition of mixed or mixed-stepped organization on level 2 and traditionalconventional organization on level 4 results in a sign-list, i.e. a list which primarily has graphemes as its study object and in which the presentational format (i.e. series inventory and sequence) is unrelated to semantic criteria. Such sign-lists are found in the early and later parts of the curriculum. The early sign-lists primarily involved acquisition and analysis of basic signs and may be referred to as elementary sign-lists. Because Svo also treats basic signs and in many respects represents a suitable introductory exercise (cf. 1.4.) it is listed as an elementary sign-list but it should be noted that its exact purpose remains unclear (cf. 1.3.). The later sign-lists primarily concerned themselves with (the analysis of) compound signs and may be referred to as advanced sign-lists. The juxtaposition of semantic or mixed organization on level 2 and semantic organization on level 4 results in a thematic list, i.e. a list which primarily has an abstract theme as its study object and in which the presentational format is unrelated to graphemic criteria. In this respect an abstract theme may be defined as a subject that is a (semantically defined) quality considered separate from a concrete object (e.g. the quality ‘wooden’ may cover concrete objects as diverse as trees and shipping utensils). Such thematic lists are found in the intermediate part of the curriculum and primarily involve the acquisition of a wide range of vocabulary.

133

Part 3 – Structural Analysis The juxtaposition of mixed-stepped organization on level 2 and graphic-semantic (‘acrographic’) organization on level 4 is only found in SagB and Nigga, two lists that belong to the advanced part of the curriculum. Earlier in this paragraph it was suggested that their anomalous position in the Emar curriculum may be interpreted as a vestigial and anachronistic presence. In the text and composite edition of the text material it has been attempted to reflect this organizational typology, in conjunction with the formal typology discussed earlier, by assigning different presentational aspects to different series (cf. Organizational Table 3 in Part 1). 11.4. Curricular sequence Didactic-functional analysis In the preceding part of this chapter the issue of the curricular sequence of the various series was addressed through a formal-organizational approach. The various series were compared as formal-organizational units. It was shown that, in terms of both the horizontal and vertical organization of content (11.2.1. and 11.3. respectively), the curriculum shows structuralorganizational coherence. It was also said that this coherence goes some way to explain the internal sequence as well as the diachronic resilience of the lexical curriculum. In this paragraph the issue of curricular sequence will be addressed through a different approach, viz. from the point of view of didactic-functionality. As the value of a functionalist analysis of any cultural phenomenon, including education, is a descriptive rather than explanatory contribution 139 , the following analysis will be limited in aim. It will merely describe phenomena in didactic-functional terms - it will not attempt to explain their occurrence as related to their function. Acquisitive and analytic foci By projecting a didactic functionality on the curriculum as a whole, two phenomena observed in the analysis of horizontal organization of content may be related to each other. These are the contrasting tendencies of respectively wide and narrow variety of realization types in certain parts of the curriculum (cf. 11.2.1. and Table 20). These may be viewed as reflecting contrastive effects of a didactic-functional oscillatory principle involving alternating combinations of the acquisitive (‘know what’) and analytic (‘know how’) foci. Table 22 below schematically shows the oscillations between these foci throughout the curriculum by contrasting the levels of the acquisitive and analytic exercises provided by each formalorganizational unit. Acquisitive focus is measured by the degree of new sign values that have to be absorbed in relation to preceding series. In this respect only SaP and Izi score low, the former because it repeats the Sa key-signs taught in SaV and the latter because it frequently repeats and combines signs that were already taught in earlier series. Analytic focus is measured by two empirically synchronized criteria: (1) the width of variety in realization types and (2) the number of entry elements (cf. 11.2.1. Tables 20 and 19 respectively). The latter criterion shows the number of simultaneous information types to be processed, which is considered high if above average, i.e. above two. In order to cover all units in this table SaP and 139

This issue is introduced in Eriksen, Small Places, Large Issues, 85.

134

Curricular Analysis * Formal and Organizational Comparison unilingual Hh, which were excluded from the analysis of the relation type variety, are now included. They are described as having analytic and acquisitive foci respectively, which seems appropriate because SaP analyzes graphic variance of signs already taught in Sa/SaV and because unilingual Hh is merely a shortened version of bilingual Hh. Note that, as Table 22 aims to present the various formal-organizational units in their actual curricular order, unilingual Hh has been listed after bilingual Hh. Table 22. Oscillation of acquisitive and analytic foci throughout the curriculum Formalorganizational unit 1. 2.1. 2.3. 3. 4b. 4a. 5. 6. 8. 9. 10. 1

Svo SaV SaP G Hh (bilingual) Hh (unilingual) Lu Izi SagB Nigga Diri

Focus Acquisitive limited range high low high high very high high low high high high

Analytic limited range high high low low low shift from low to high high low low high1

Diri has a narrow variety of realization types but a high variety of entry elements (cf. Table 19).

Note that a summary listing of the different scholarly foci in the different series is also found in Organizational Table 2 in Part 1. The analysis provided by Table 22 may be commented upon as follows. The first series, Svo, had a generally limited range in terms of either acquisitive or analytic value, i.e. parts of it have neither. As suggested in the series analysis (1.4.), Svo could be viewed as primarily geared to a general introduction of the lexical genre. Next among the elementary lists, SaV shows a high level of analytic focus - here the apprentice scribe was introduced to the principles of the integrating methodology. Progressing to the second stage of the lexical curriculum, i.e. the thematic lists, the focus shifts to the acquisition of vocabulary. At the third and last stage of the lexical curriculum Izi reverts to an analytic focus in order to extend the application of the integrating methodology to compound logograms, a shift which is anticipated in the later parts of Lu. With regard to analytic focus the next two series, SagB and Nigga do not agree with Izi. The final series, Diri, is a special case due to its uniquely abstract inventory conception dealing with what effectively is, from the integrative-methodological perspective, a residual category of compounds (cf. 10.3.). If the lexical curriculum is viewed as a didactically-functionally integrated system the Emar lexical corpus shows two important typological anomalies. The first of these typological anomalies is the occurrence of one isolated unilingual formalorganizational unit in an otherwise almost exclusively bilingual corpus, viz. unilingual Hh. In this regard it should be noted that even within the Hh corpus unilingual texts are relatively infrequent: the bilingual format is the default format (cf. 4.4.). With regard to the infrequent attestation of unilingual texts within the corpus it should be noted that SaP can be ignored because its linguistic content is irrelevant to its aim, which is to teach graphic variants only. In fact, except for unilingual Hh, the only other unilingual composition in the Emar curriculum is the single Sa fragment. In diachronic perspective the anomalous position of unilingual Hh (and Sa) may be explained as a remnant from the earlier, predominantly unilingual, OB 135

Part 3 – Structural Analysis lexical tradition. Perhaps the prestige of that tradition caused a survival of the unilingual format in core sections of the curriculum, such as Sa and Hh 3. In this respect the Emar tradition may actually show a snapshot insight into the transformative process leading from the predominantly unilingual OB tradition to the predominantly bilingual canonical tradition. The second typological anomaly is the presence in the later curriculum of two series, viz. SagB and Nigga, that do not show the high analytical focus found in the others. These two series do not have a primarily analytic focus but are topical, ‘acrographic’ lists of limited, i.e. single-tablet, scope. Again, a diachronic perspective may suggest an explanation for this anomaly. In the canonical curriculum SagB and Nigga have vanished, their content having been largely absorbed into Izi. Their survival in Emar could be considered as indicative of an intermediate stage in the transformation of the advanced curriculum (cf. 9.3.). At the canonical stage this transformation had resulted in the acrographic systematization of Izi as well as its exponential growth, involving the absorption of (much material from) older series into Izi. In Emar this transformation had apparently not yet progressed to the point of eliminating SagB and Nigga as separate series, although it is likely that SagB already belonged to an older compositional stratum (cf. 8.0.). In this regard it should be noted that in Emar Kagal too may have survived as an independent series (cf. 7.0.). Relation of horizontal focus and vertical association The preceding didactic-functional interpretation of the curricular structure was based solely on an analysis of the horizontal organization of content. In terms of didactic functionality, however, horizontal and vertical organization of content can be related. The distribution of focus types found in the horizontal organization may be related to the distribution of association types in the vertical organization. Two such relations may be found by comparing Tables 21 and 22. First, there is a relation between high analytical focus and mixed or mixed-stepped association on level 2 of the vertical organization, a combination found in SaV and Izi. This implies a simultaneous application of the integrative methodology in both the horizontal and vertical organization of content at those points of the curriculum that show high analytic focus. In terms of didactic-functionality the series SaV and Izi may be said to be the core or analytic key series of the curriculum: it is here that the integrative method is taught. In SaV it is taught for single elementary signs, in Izi for compounds (cf. 6.2.1.). In this perspective Diri does not belong to this core as it seeks to teach a specific concept rather a methodology. In contrast to the analytic key series, Diri has a high analytic focus that depends on a high variety of entry elements rather than on a high variety of realization types. In terms of the integrative methodology the content of Diri (phonemes unrelated to graphemes) is random and residual (cf. 10.3.). Second, there is a relation between high analytic focus and traditional-conventional association on level 4 of the vertical organization, a combination found for SaV, Izi and Diri. This means that those series which are crucial in terms of teaching either a method or a concept consistently show methodologically and conceptually unstructured environments, viz. traditionally-conventionally associated lists. In contrast, those series that have a low analytic but high acquisitive focus consistently show environments with a clear methodological structure, viz. an associative vertical organization: G, Hh and Lu are semantically associated while SagB and Nigga are grapho-semantically associated. The contrasting oppositions of analytic focus in methodologically unstructured environment and acquisitive focus in

136

Curricular Analysis * Formal and Organizational Comparison methodologically structured environment may be explained if the definition of methodological structure is considered. If methodological structure is defined in modern terms, as was done in the preceding sentences, than the environment (i.e. vertical organization on level 4) found in the series with high analytic focus is indeed unstructured. In modern scientific terms this environment can only be synchronically analyzed as conforming to traditional-conventional association. If, however, methodological structure is defined in terms of the postulated integrative approach of the ancient scribes (cf. 2.1.2.1.), this environment is not unstructured. Rather, any environment, i.e. any key-sign inventory and sequence on any organizational level, may be approached through the integrative methodology. The aim of the integrative methodology was always to search for as well as establish the maximum number of possible relations in any environment. This holds true irrespective of the fact that many of these may be termed speculative or inappropriate in terms of modern classification. Some of the sequences and associations that constitute classificatory discrepancies (including many traditional-conventional associations) in terms of modern scientific criteria, would have constituted classificatory opportunities in terms of the integrative methodology. Where the modern scientist would stop at the diagnosis of a classification deficit, the ancient scribes would often see an opportunity for further analysis (e.g. in the added, non-core content found in SaV - cf. 2.1.3.). In other words, those series that show traditional-conventional association in their organization of content on the level of the series as a whole are unstructured only in terms of modern scientific methodology. In terms of the integrative methodology they are neither structured nor unstructured - they are merely traditionally transmitted texts used as exercise material. Of course the question remains what is the origin of these texts, but that question can only be answered on the basis of a diachronic study and is synchronically irrelevant.

137

Part 3 – Structural Analysis Summary 11.0.

Formal-organizational units:

1.

Each series and each linguistic format within each series constitutes a formal-organizational unit and the formal and organizational features of each text belonging to such a unit are predictable.

11.1.

Tablet typology:

1.

For each formal-organizational unit all or most text material consists of Type I (multi-column) tablets or tablet fragments. Only for a few units (Hh, Lu and Izi) one or more Type III (one column extract) tablets were found.

11.2.

Formal features:

1.

A low-column count (i.e. the two-column tablet) is almost exclusively found in specific formal-organizational units, viz. Svo, Nigga and (most likely) Diri. This coincides with the fact that these units show a lay-out feature not found elsewhere, viz. systematic omission of repeated logograms, which suggests a conventional link between this lay-out and the two-column form. A high-column count (i.e. the five-column tablet) is almost exclusively found for formal-organizational units with relatively short horizontal entries (viz. SaP, SaV and unilingual Hh). There are three types of sub-column use: (1) single purpose use (slots for different entry elements), (2) dual purpose use (slots for entry elements as well as sign positioning within the logogram element) and (3) elaborate dual purpose use (as in dual purpose use but additionally for sign positioning within the Akkadian equivalent). The type of use is generally linked to the list-type found in the various formal-organizational units: type 1 is found for the elementary sign-lists, type 2 is found for the thematic lists and Izi, type 3 is found in the later advanced lists. Entry element 0, i.e. the line marker, only occurs in SaV but as it related to lines rather than entries it is actually not an entry element. The omission and frequency of entry element 1, i.e. the gloss, throughout the various formal-organizational units may be explained as a related to the didactic functionality of glosses: high frequencies are found whenever many new phonetic values need to be learned, viz. in SaV and Diri. Entry element 3, i.e. the sign name, only occurs in the long version of SaV. The fact that this long version appears to be an innovation particular to the LBA period coincides with the fact that the explicit writing of sign names is a phenomenon generally associated with later periods. Entry element 2, i.e. the logogram, is treated differently in different formal-organizational units, viz. as multiassociatable single sign in the elementary sign-lists, as a word in the thematic lists and as a compound(-element) in the advanced sign-lists. This explains the frequent recurrence of specific signs in different series: overlapping content implies different approaches in different series. Various realization types may be found (and combined) in the relation between entry elements 2 and 4, i.e. the logogram and the Akkadian equivalent respectively: (1) one-to-one translation, (2) partial translation, (3) graphic association, (4) phonetic association, (5) semantic association and (6) Akkadian (i.e. phonetic) reading of the logogram. A wide distribution of realization types is only found in certain formal-organizational units (the elementary sign-lists and the advanced series, especially SaV and Izi) and can be related to their didactic functionality. There are two patterns of horizontal ruling: (1) continuous ruling is particular to the unilingual format and (2) intermittent ruling is particular to the bilingual format. The differences in vertical (sub-column) and horizontal ruling found in the two linguistic formats are simultaneous. In bilingual texts both types of ruling combined serve to provide the apprentice scribe with an auxiliary compositional device. The relation between tablet and divisional structure is not static but dynamically related to developments in content. The introduction of multilingualism is one of the factors driving the progressive subdivision of various series.

2. 3.

4. 5. 6. 7.

8.

9. 10. 11. 12. 11.3.

Vertical organization of content:

1.

On level 2 of the vertical organization of content (i.e. key-sign or key-word) the association types found (i.e. graphic, phonetic or semantic association) differ per formal-organizational unit. In some series association types occur mixed or mixed-stepped (the latter implies hierarchical stacking of association types according to the length of vertical content they cover). The distribution of association types on level 2 across the various formal-organizational units coincides largely with their postulated curricular position: mixed association is found in the early parts of the curriculum (SaV, Hh 1-2), semantic association is found in the middle part (G, Hh, Lu) while mixed-stepped association is found in the latter part (Izi, SagB, Nigga, Diri). This coincidence can be related to shifts in didactic functionality throughout the curriculum. Generally, the link between the distribution of association types in the various series and their postulated curricular positions suggest a structural-organizational coherence of the curriculum that goes some way to explain its internal order as well as its diachronic resilience.

2.

3.

138

Curricular Analysis * Formal and Organizational Comparison 4.

5.

6.

On level 4 of the vertical organization of content (i.e. series) the distribution of association types coincides with the postulated curricular position of the various series: conventional-traditional association is found in the elementary and advanced sign-lists whereas semantic association is found in the thematic series. This confirms the postulated structural-organizational coherence of the curriculum. The juxtaposition of different association types on different levels for each series allows the establishment of a series typology. Juxtaposition of mixed or mixed-stepped organization on level 2 with traditional-conventional association on level 4 results in sign-lists which have graphemes as their study-object and in which the presentational format is unrelated to semantic criteria, either for basic signs (the elementary sign-lists Svo and Sa) or for compound signs (Izi and Diri). Juxtaposition of semantic organization on level 2 with the same on level 4 results in thematic lists which have abstract themes as their study-object and in which the presentational format is unrelated to graphemic criteria (G, Hh and Lu). In terms of the patterns found on levels 3 and 4 of the vertical organization of content and with regard to series typology the series SagB and Nigga represent typological anomalies that may be explained as resulting from their vestigial status.

11.4.

Curricular sequence:

1.

In terms of didactic functionality the lexical curriculum may be described as subject to a oscillatory principle involving its acquisitive and analytic foci, which are measurable by empiric criteria. SaV scores high with regard to both foci, after which the thematic lists show a combination of high acquisitive and low analytic focus. Next, Izi shows low acquisitive focus and high analytic focus. Finally, Diri again scores high with regard to both foci. SagB and Nigga deviate from the high analytic focus typifying the other advanced series. If the lexical curriculum is viewed as a didactically-functionally integrated system SagB and Nigga again represent typological anomalies. Relating horizontal focus and vertical association two links may be established. The first between high analytic focus and mixed or mixed-stepped association on level 2, showing a simultaneous application of integrative methodology in both horizontal and vertical organization of content (SaV and Izi). The second between high analytic focus and traditional-conventional association on level 4, showing that series which teach a method or concept do so in methodologically and conceptually unstructured environments, while series which focus only on acquisition consistently show methodologically structured environments. The contrast of structured and unstructured environments is only valid in terms of modern scientific criteria and not in those of the integrative methodology postulated for ancient Mesopotamian scholarship.

2. 3.

4.

139

Part 3 – Structural Analysis CHAPTER 12 – GENERAL SCRIBAL CONVENTIONS 12.0. Non-distinctive features In the introduction the formal features to be investigated were divided into two groups: distinctive features, which distinguish various formal-organizational units, and non-distinctive features, which do not. The latter group will be discussed in this chapter. The features involved are not relevant to the analysis of curricular structure and are merely discussed in order to contribute to a more complete description of the scribal conventions evident in the Emar lexical corpus. 12.1. Right position shifts A single-sign logographic entry is always horizontally shifted to a right position within its slot, resulting in a indentation in the column lay-out. In bilingual texts, such entries are often shifted to a position right next to the Akkadian equivalent. Determinatives are not subject to this rule: they remain in their slot irrespective of the occurrence of a right position shift in the logograms they belong to. The first entry where the logogram is subject to the shift is always preceded by horizontal lining. Table 23 below shows the general nature of the right position shift phenomenon by listing, in as far as the state of preservation of the material allows, examples of for all series. Table 23. Attestation of right position shifts Svo SaV

E.g. T1: I 24 MAŠ All logograms consistently occupy a slot leaving a reserved space to its left, resulting in a standard indentation in column lay-out 140 . SaP The left-side entry (contemporaneous sign form) is shifted to the right position when the right-side entry (palaeographic form) is omitted. E.g. T1: III 4-8 SUHUŠ-KAŠ 4 -I-IA-ŠU; T2: I 9-10 HU-RI Hh E.g. 1T1: I 12-13 ŠU, VI 20 SÁM; 1T2: I 3’-4’ ŠU; 1T3: I 12 ŠU, I 44 MÁŠ; 2T1: III 2’’9’’ MU, IV 21’-23’ ÚS-SAĞ-BÙRU; 3aT2: II 6 EREN; 4T1: III 24’ AL Lu E.g. 1T1: 1-7 LÚ, III 12 [MU], VII 33-35 AB-AD-A; 1 fr 602 E’: 1’-2’ EN-LAGAR; 2T1: 16’ [ZADIM] E.g. 1T1: VI’ 7’-12’ U-KU; 2a fr G+H: IV’ 3’-9’ ZAG; 4E1: 1’-4’ NIR Izi Kagal relevant text not preserved SagB E.g. T1: I 1-10 SAG, III 41 KA, V 14 KA=EME, VII 20 KA=GÙ and 37 KAxNUN=NUNDUM Nigga relevant text not preserved relevant text not preserved Diri

140

This also holds true for T2, which systematically omits the gloss element to the left of the logogram: the provision for space between the entry marker (¶) and the right-shifted logogram is visible on the few occasions that a logogram or double-element logogram occurs (e.g. IX 21 TUR-TUR, IX 42 mu-ia MU and X 48 i-ṣur).

140

Curricular Analysis * General Scribal Conventions 12.2. Separation markers The GAM-sign (transliterated ‘:’) is used as a separation marker between different elements in the horizontal entry whenever one element intrudes or overruns into a slot appropriate to another element. This includes overruns of the content of one horizontal entry from one line onto the next line. The marker may separate all types of elements, e.g. glosses from logograms, logograms from Akkadian equivalents and even multiple Akkadian equivalents from each other. The name Glossenkeil, often found in older literature, is actually imprecise: often the separation marker happens to find itself positioned next to a gloss but this does not mean that all glosses are necessarily accompanied by it (e.g. in SaV glosses are consistently placed in their appropriate slot, without the need for the use of a separation marker). Table 24 below shows the general nature of the separation marker phenomenon by showing its distribution throughout the various series. It is found that it is only completely absent in Svo, SaP and Nigga. It is also relatively infrequent in Diri. In SaP the lay-out shows no cross-slot overruns and thus no separation markers can be expected. The absence or infrequent use of separation markers in Svo, Nigga and Diri can be related to the fact that their lay-out is different from that of the other series. In these series the logogram has a separate horizontal slot within which it is only given once and the entry slots provided by the sub-columns are generally consistently respected, so that generally no separation markers are needed. The fact that a few separation markers can be found in Diri proves that separation markers can occur in all series and thus represent a general phenomenon. Table 24. Attestation of separation markers Svo SaV SaP G Hh

Lu Izi Kagal SagB 141 Nigga Diri

no separation markers found E.g. gloss/logogram fr 537L; logogram/Akk T3: VIII’ 17’-18’; double entry T2: VI 15’; T4: VI 6. no separation markers found E.g. logogram/Akk T1: I 3, 5, 10 and 20; double entry T1 I 8 and 9. E.g. gloss/logogram 2T1: 4’ and 8’-10’; logogram/Akk 1T3: 23’ and 25’-27’ ; 2T2: VI 22’-23’, 25’ and 27’; double entry 4T1: I 18’’, IV 14’-15’ and 32’, V 13’, VI 10’; overrun on next line 1T1: VIII 7’; 1T2: VIII 7’ and 18’-19’ (2 me-at : 75 MU.BI). In 5T1, 8bT1-2, 9bT1, 13T1 and 16bT1-2 (probably also in the fragmentarily preserved tablets 17T1 and 18T1) all logograms and Akk equivalents are separated by markers. In 1T1-2 and 2T1 all logograms and Akk equivalents are separated by markers 142 . E.g. logogram/Akk 2bT1: II 1’-2’and 5’-10’; double entry: 1 fr 564A: 1 and 4; 1 fr G+H: V 1’, 4’ and 5’. In the single fr, 576, all logograms and Akk equivalents are separated by markers. E.g. logogram/Akk T1: I 19; overrun on next line T1: I 40-41, II 18, 30 and 44. no separation markers found E.g. logogram/Akk fr 2: 2’-7’

141

The separation markers found on SagB T1, a tablet which also shows other deviating formal features, are rendered in the form of a single Winkelhaken, rather than that of the regular ‘GAM’-sign found elsewhere. 142 The only exception in the preserved text sections is Lu 2T1 VI 23’ KAR la-sa-mu.

141

Part 3 – Structural Analysis 12.3. Virtual determinative sequences When repeated over long entry sequences covering multiple columns, determinatives are frequently found to be systematically omitted except in the first and last few lines of the column. In these cases they were apparently assumed as a virtual presence. Within the lexical curriculum the repetition of determinatives throughout long entry sequences only occurs in the thematic series. Table 25 below shows, as far as the preservation of the material allows, the attestation of virtual determinatives in these series. With regard to the Lu series it should be noted that the LÚ determinative is completely omitted for all entries of all texts. This complete omission appears to results in virtual determinatives for many entries but is in fact related to the fact that Lu is not precisely a ‘thematic’ series (cf. 5.2.1.). With regard to the other series it should be noted that the attestation of virtual determinatives is restricted to the bilingual format. It was earlier suggested that this the consistent repetition of determinatives in the unilingual format could be considered didactically functional in as far as it emphasizes writing as opposed to meaning, the latter being the central concern of the bilingual format (cf. 4.2.1.). Not all series and divisions show virtual omission - it clearly was an optional strategy. This optional strategy, however, can be considered a general phenomenon in itself in as far as it is generally found on multiple text copies of the same divisions. In this regard the only exceptions are the extracts 7bE1 and 12E1, which are the only texts of their divisions that show virtual determinatives. The latter case of 12E1 may be explained as due to its phonetic rendering of the logogram: in such rendering the unpronounced determinative may be expected to be omitted. The former case may be explained by the fact that 7bE1 is a text that does not belong to Archive 1: it may have been produced in a different school. Table 25. Attestation of virtual determinative sequences Series/ division G Hh 1-2 Hh 3a Hh 3b Hh 4 Hh 5 Hh 6 Hh 7a Hh 7b Hh 8a/b Hh 9a Hh 9b Hh 10 Hh 11 Hh 12 Hh 13 Hh 14 Hh 15 Hh 16a Hh 16b Hh 17-18 Lu 1-2

Determinatives D

n/a GIŠ GIŠ GIŠ GI DUG KUŠ URUDU ZABAR KUG.B. KUG.GI

/ / n/a

/ /

/ /

/ /

KUŠ URUDU ZABAR KUG.B. KUG.GI

UZU UZU NA Ú KU

4 MUŠEN

6/

SÍG TÚG

/

A.ŠAG KI

4

ÍD MUL

/

KUR ÍD MUL

/ / n/a

LÚ

Unilingual material n/a n/a no omission n/a n/a n/a n/a no omission n/a n/a no omission n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a no omission n/a n/a n/a

142

Bilingual material no omission n/a n/a no omission virtual determinatives in all texts virtual determinatives in all texts relevant text not preserved n/a virtual determinatives only in E1 n/a n/a relevant text not preserved virtual determinatives in all texts no omission virtual determinatives only in E1 virtual determinatives in all texts no omission no omission (note: T1 uses MIN) n/a no omission (note: E1 uses MIN) n/a complete omission in all texts

Curricular Analysis * General Scribal Conventions Summary 12.1.

Right position shifts:

1.

There is a general scribal convention that single-sign logographic entries (which never include the determinative) always horizontally shift to the right-most position in its slot.

12.2.

Separation markers:

1.

There is a general scribal convention that GAM-sign markers are used to separate different entry elements in case of overruns of one element into the slot of another or of an entry onto a next line.

12.3.

Virtual determinative sequences:

1.

There is a general (but optional) scribal convention that, when repeated over long entry sequences covering multiple columns, determinatives may be omitted except in the first an last few lines of the column.

143

Part 3 – Structural Analysis CHAPTER 13 - SCRIBAL REDACTION NOTES 13.0. Aim and organization This chapter deals with the scribal redaction notes found in the Emar lexical curriculum. Scribal redaction notes are defined as those elements in the tablet text that are not part of a compositional unit, but rather serve to give explicit information regarding the redaction or organization of the tablet text. As the existing literature on the Emar colophons is quite extensive (cf. Annotated Bibliography of Part 2), the aim of this chapter is limited to making selected supplementary research contributions. The first contribution it seeks to make is to provide a new presentation of all material, rearranged according to curricular sequence and including various improved readings. The second contribution is an investigating into a thus far under-exposed aspect, viz. the distribution and function of the different types of scribal redaction notes. The third and last contribution is a newly arranged overview of data pertaining to the Emar scribes. According the above listed order of selected contributions, this chapter will be organized in the following manner. First (13.1.), all relevant material will be presented in a single table, allowing a convenient overview. This presentation, found in Table 26 below, assigns reference numbers to the relevant attestations, which will be used to refer to them throughout the further text. Next (13.2.), the different types of scribal redaction notes and their functions will be determined by an investigation of their distribution 143 . Finally (13.3.), following some introductory remarks, all data concerning scribes attested in the lexical material will be summarized in two tables: the first will order the data by tablet, the second by PN. These tables will systematically include notes with references to much of the relevant literature. 13.1. New presentation of the scribal redaction note material Table 26 below lists almost all scribal redaction notes in curricular order. The only material not included here is that of three other damaged tablets in which the colophons are (presumably) broken off and only the end-of-text-unit markers are (partially) preserved. These tablets are Hh 10T1, 13T2 and Nigga T1. Table 26. Inventory of redaction notes 1. Svo T1 (603A / 74246b – p.569-70) Lower Edge no end-of-text-unit marker found but note that the part of the Lower Edge following the last entry is broken ID 1. ŠU EN.x[xxx] Ì.ZU.TUR.TUR By) the hand of Bēlu-[?qarrad], junior scribe, D D D 2. ÌR AK [u NISABA] u a-a servant of Nabû [and Nisaba] and Ayya.

143

It should be clearly noted that the findings of this part of the excursus apply only to the material actually investigated, i.e. the Emar lexical corpus - they are be no means necessarily valid elsewhere.

144

Structural Analysis * Scribal Redaction Notes 2. SaP T1 (538 I / 74175a – p.442-6) Reverse column X no end-of-text-unit marker 29. [ŠU I]┌DHAR.AD 30. ┌DUMU DIM.UR.SAĞ 31. LÚHAL ša DIĞIR.MEŠ 32. ša IRIe-mar

[(By) the hand] of Shaggar-abu, the son of Bacal-qarrad, diviner of the gods of Emar.

3. SaP T2 (538J / 74193a – p.475-7) LEft Edge preceding section broken 1’ [ŠU ID30-a-]bu ┌ ┐┌D┐ 2’ DUMU IM.UR.SAĞ L Ú [ HAL ša DIĞIR.MEŠ ša IRIe-mar]

[(By) the hand of Shaggar-a]bu, son of Bacal-qarrad, [diviner of the gods of Emar.]

4. SaP Fragment 538D (7483b – p.199) no end-of-text-unit marker 7’ ŠU IDI[M-xxx] 8’ <Ì>R D! ┘ A[K xxx]

(By) the hand of Bac[al-?malik/bēlu] Servant of Na[bû ...]

5. SaV T1 (537A / 74171b – p.429-32) Reverse column X 28’ 29’ 30’ 31’ 32’ 33’

MAN TIL M[AN] tup-pi ŠU I[ xxx] D ÌR A[K] D u PAP.PAP D ÌR AMAR.UTU D u SA  R.PA.NI.TUM

end-of-text-unit marker Tablet (written by) the hand of [PN,] servant of Na[bû] and Pappap, servant of Marduk and Ṣarpanitu.

6. SaV T2 (537C / 731064+74249a – p.139-42) LEft Edge preceding section broken I D 1. ŠU ri-bi- da-gan D D 2. ÌR AK ù NISABA 3. i-na EZEN-EZENZABAR i-na UD [xxx] ša-ak-na-ku tup-pa an-na I[N.ŠAR] 4.

(From) the hand of Ribi-Dagan, servant of Nabû and Nisaba. In bronzen bindings for/on (the) day(s) [xxx] I am placed (and) this tablet I[ wrote.]

7. SaV T3 (537B / 74204a – p.502-3) Reverse column VIII’ no end-of-text-unit marker 22’ [xxx]x NU.TIL 23’ [ŠU ID30-a-b]u LÚ M◦ÁŠ[.ŠU.GÍD.GÍD]

[...] incomplete (text). [(Written by) the hand of Shaggar-ab]u, the di[viner.]

145

Part 3 – Structural Analysis 8. Hh1 T1 (541A / 731046 – p.127) Reverse column VIII MAN MAN MAN 12’ └ TÚL 13’ ŠUB.BA

end-of-text-unit marker catch line catch line

colophon written vertically across lower part of Fragment A Column VIII 1. It has been completed (and) cked: AL.TIL KÁRA 2. ŠU.NÍĞIN 3 me-tì 15 MU.BI (in) total 315 (are) its lines. D 3. ŠU IM.EN Ì.ZU TUR (By) the hand of Bacal-belu, junior diviner, D the servant of Nabû 4. ÌR NA.BI.UM 5. ù DNISABA and Nisaba. 9. Hh1 T2 (541D / 731059a-c – p.125+136) Reverse column VIII 16’ 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24.

MAN MAN MAN

end-of-text-unit marker catch line It has been completed (and) cked: (in) total 200 (and) 75 (are) its lines. (By) the hand of Išma’-Dagan, most junior diviner, servant of Na[bû] and Nis[aba.] …

TÚL AL.TIL KÁRA ŠU.NÍĞIN 2 me-at : 75 MU.BI.UM I D ŠU iš-ma-a’- KUR Ì.ZU TUR.TUR D ÌR A[K] D ù NIS[ABA]

xx[x]

10. Hh1 T3 (541B / 731044 – p.125) Reverse column VIII 30’ 31’

MAN TIL MAN TIL MAN ID D ŠU I[M.ma-li]k DUMU IM.UR.SA[Ğ]

32’ 33’ 34’ 35’

LÚ

end-of-text-unit marker (By) the hand of Ba[cal-mali]k, son of Bacal-qarr[ad], scrib[e (and) diviner o]f the gods of Emar, [servant of Nabû] and Nis[aba, servant of Marduk] and Sarp[anitu.]

LÚ

DUB.SA[R HAL š]a DIĞIR.MEŠ e-mar [ÌR DAK] u DNIS[ABA ÌR DAMAR.UTU] u DSAR.P[A.NI.TUM]

IRI

146

Structural Analysis * Scribal Redaction Notes 11. Hh3a T1 (543-5A / 731030 – p.105-9) Reverse column IX break in upper part of column, followed by empty space before the colophon 1. AL<.TIL> IGI.KÁRA It has been (and) checked: 2. ŠU.NÍĞIN.NA (in) total 3. 5 me-at 18 518 (are) 4. MU.BI.UM its lines. I D 5. ŠU ri-bi- da-gan (By) the hand of Rîbi-Dagan, Ì.ZU TUR.TUR 6. most junior apprentice-scribe, D 7. ÌR AK the servant of Nabû D 8. ù NISABA and Nisaba, D 9. ÌR a-a the servant of Ayya 10. u DPAP.PAP and Pappap D u NIN.DUB.GAL.GAL 11. and Nindubgalgal u DEREŠ.KI.GAL 12. and Ereshkigal. followed by a Mannam Lušpur incantation 12. Hh3b T2 (544-5B / 731048 – p.128) Reverse column IV MAN TIL MAN ID 14’ ŠU IM-ma-lik D 15’ DUMU IM.UR.SAĞ D 16’ ÌR AK ┘ D 17’ u N[ISABA] break

end-of-text-unit marker (By) the hand of Bacal-malik, son of Bacal-qarrad, the servant of Nabû and N[isaba.]

13. Hh4 T1 (545V / 74143a – p.352) Reverse column IX 3’ 4’ 5’

ĞIŠ

níg

ŠU.

NÍĞIN.NA x[xxx] MAN TIL MAN [x] D D ŠU IM-ma-lik DUMU I[M-UR.SAĞ]

The wood(list) (is) complete. end-of-text-unit marker (By) the hand of Bacal-malik, son of B[acal-qarrad,] scribe (and) diviner of the gods of Emar, [ser]vant of Nabû and Ni[saba,] [servant] of Ea and Da[mkina,] [servant] of Sîn and Shamash, [servant of Dagan] and Sh[alash]

LÚ LÚ 6’ DUB.SAR HAL 7’ ša DIĞIR.MEŠ IRIe-mar [Ì]R DAK u DNI[SABA] 8’ [ÌR] Dé-a u DDA[M.KI.NA] 9’ 10’ [ÌR] └ D └ 30 ┘ u DUTU [ÌR DKUR] └ u Dš[a-la-aš] 11’ break (with some traces in 12’)

14. Hh4 T2 (545AG+G / 74126a – p.320 + 7498f – p.240) sub-column III’ of LEft Edge 7. 8. 9.

níg

The wood(list) (is) complete. end-of-text-unit marker (By) the hand of Shaggar[-abu, son of Bacal-q]arrad, scribe (and) diviner.

ĞIŠ ŠU. NÍĞIN MAN TILMAN ID ŠU 30[-a-bu ID LÚ LÚ DUMU IM-U]R.SAĞ DUB.SAR HAL

147

Part 3 – Structural Analysis 15. Hh4 T3 (545U / 74190c – p.462) Reverse column VIII’ 12’’ 13’’ 14’’ 15’’ 16’’ 17’’

<ĞIŠ> ŠU.NÍĞIN MAN TIL MAN I ŠU x[xxx] KAB.ZU.[ZU xxx] ID ÌR A[K xxx] u DEREŠ.KI┐[.GAL]

(is) complete. end-of-text-unit marker (By) the hand of [PN] pup[il of PN] servant of Na[bû and DN] and Ereshki[gal]

16. Hh5 T1 (546A’’ / 74191b – p.471-3) Reverse column VI/VII in column VI: 22’ MAN TIL M[AN x] break

end-of-text-unit marker

in column VII: 1’ [PN LÚDUB.]SAR LÚHAL D◦ 2’ ÌR [xxx] D◦ 3’ ÌR [xxx] D 4’ ÌR [xxx] D 5’ u [xxx] 6’ [KAB.ZU.ZU šá IŠÚ/ki-din-DG]U.LA break

[PN, scr]ibe (and) diviner, servant of [DN(s),] servant of [DN(s),] servant of [DN(s),] and [DN(s),] [pupil of Kidin-G]ula.

17. Hh7b T1 (548H / 74166a – p.423) Reverse column VI’ 5’ 6’ 7’ 8’ 9’ 10’

MAN] MAN MAN [ŠU Izu-]ba-la D DUMU IM-ma-lik [LÚDUB.SAR] LÚHAL [ša DIĞIR.MEŠ IRI] └ e-mar [ÌR Dé-a u ]◦Ddam-ki-na [?KAB.ZU.ZU ša] DIM-ma-lik

[(By) the hand of Zu]-Bacla, son of Bacal-malik, [scribe (and)] diviner [of the gods of] Emar, [servant of Ea and] Damkina, [?pupil of] Bacal-malik.

18. Hh8b T1 (550D / 7520 – p.729) Reverse VIII’ 5’ 6’

MAN TIL MAN [x] ID ŠU 30-a-bu D◦ DUMU [IM.UR.SAĞ]

end-of-text-unit marker (By) the hand of Shaggar-abu, the son of [Bacal-qarrad.]

148

Structural Analysis * Scribal Redaction Notes 19. Hh12 T1 (555D / 74166d – p.424; 555E / 74208c – p.507; 555A’ / 7498c – p.238) Reverse VI in D: 8’’ MAN MAN ID◦┌ 9’’ ŠU IM-ma-lik 10’’ └ DUMU DIM.UR.SAĞ LÚDUB.SAR LÚ┐[HAL] 11’’ [ša D]IĞIR.MEŠ IRIe-mar ÌR DAK

end-of-text-unit marker (By) the hand of Bacal-malik, son of Bacal-qarrad, scribe (&) [diviner] [of the g]ods of Emar, servant of Nabû.

in E (after D there is a blank space of about 8 lines): 1’’’ [KAB.ZU.ZU ša ]Iki-din-DGU.LA [pupil of] Kidin-Gula. in A’ (somewhere near fragment E): ŠU.NÍĞIN [xxx] 1’’’’

Total [...]

20. Lu1 T1 (602A / 74121 – p.294-300) Reverse column VIII preceding section broken 1’ [ŠU HA]R.AD D 2’ D[UMU IM.UR.]SAĞ L Ú LÚ 3’ [ x ]AZU(NÍNDAXNUN) D 4’ DU[MU z]u-ba-la L Ú 5’ [ HAL ša] DIĞIR.MEŠ 6’ ša[ IRIe-m]ar D 7’ DUMU[ IM.U]R.SAĞ LÚ LÚ 8’ └ ┘ [x] AZU break

[(By) the hand of Shagga]r-abu, s[on of Bacal-qar]rad, [... (and)] soothsayer, s[on of Z]u-Bacla, [diviner of] the gods of [Em]ar, son of [Bacal-qa]rrad, [...] (and) soothsayer.

21. Lu1 fragment (602AD / 7495a – p.233) Rev column VIII’ (may be part of Lu1 T1 or T2) lines 1’-2’ have traces only (1’ ends in HA]L) 3’ DUM[U …] 4’ KAB[.Z]U[.Z]U 5’ ša IDIM-↑ma-lik

so[n of PN,] pupil of Bacal-malik.

22. Izi1 T1 (567E / 74248b – p.575; 567B / 74105b – p.265; 567C / 74122i – p.305) sub-columns I/II of LEft Edge in I (fragment E): 3’ [MAN] MAN in II (fragments B/C): 2’ […]┌DUMU?┐ ┌DI[M.UR.]SAĞ LÚHAL [ÌR DUT]U u D40 K[AB.Z]U.ZU šá 3’ I D ŠÚ. GU.LA

149

end-of-text-unit marker [... PN,] son of B[acal-qar]rad, the diviner, [servant of Shama]sh and Sîn, pupil of Kidin-Gula.

Part 3 – Structural Analysis 23. SagB T1 (BLT=Tokyo fragment) Reverse column VIII 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33.

MAN MAN MAN AL.TIL IGI.KÁRA ŠU.NÍĞIN 3 me-tì 52 MU.BI.IM ID ŠU IM.MÁŠ.ŠU.GÍD.GÍD LÚ Ì.ZU D D ÌR AK u NISABA

end-of-text-unit marker It has been completed (and) checked: (in) total 352 (are) its lines. (By) the hand of Bacal-bārû, the student, the servant of Nabû and Nisaba.

13.2. Distribution and function of various redaction note types Colophons The first type of redaction note is the colophon. For the approximately 50 to 60 Type I tablets attested in the Emar lexical corpus, (parts of) 23 colophons have been preserved (cf. Table 26 above). Because of this relatively high preservation rate and because there is not a single typeI tablet attested that may with certainty be said to have omitted a colophon (i.e. there is no evidence to the contrary) it seems reasonable to assume that all type-I tablets in fact did carry a colophon. The information included in colophons primarily includes data regarding authorship, mostly name, father’s name, professional title and religious affiliation. Often, but not necessarily, this information may include a teacher’s name (found in numbers 15, 16, 19, 21 and 22 - possibly also in 17 144 ). Except for information regarding the author, often a colophon also includes the sum total of the line count of the tablet (found in numbers 8, 9, 11 and 23). When such a sum total is given, it is always introduced by the clause AL.TIL IGI.KÁRA ‘it has been completed (and) checked’. This introductory clause and the sum total are always found together (they do not occur separately) and therefore may be assumed to form a unit. On one occasion a colophon (number 6) is found to include some kind of personal note by the author, the content of which, lacking parallels and additional documentation, remains rather enigmatic. Because they often give the sum total of the tablet line count and in view of the fact that they always occur as the last section of the text, colophons may be said to be a type of scribal redaction note that always applies to the complete text of a given tablet rather than of a given composition. In other words, colophons were added after all the text on a tablet was completed and when the tablet was considered finished. Confirmation of this is found in the unique wording of colophon number 5, in which the standard phrase ŠU PN, ‘by the hand of PN’, is preceded by the word ṭup-pi ‘tablet’. This implies that the standard formula introducing the authorship section of a colophon may be read as ‘This is a tablet written by the hand of PN...’, which is often abbreviated to ‘hand of PN’. Thus, colophons refer to the finished, complete text of the tablet and the colophon is located at the end of it. They do not refer to a certain part of the text or to a single compositional unit within the larger text. At first glance, this statement may seem rather superfluous, as the total text on a tablet mostly contains no more than a single compositional text unit. However there are exceptions and there is another type of redaction note, which relates to compositional text unit in the same way that the colophon relates to the total text of a tablet, viz. the end-of-text-unit marker. 144

Reconstruction on basis of available space in broken section of 7bT1 VI’10’ and of parallel in Lu1 fragment 602AD VIII’ 5’.

150

Structural Analysis * Scribal Redaction Notes One apparent exception to the mentioned position of the colophon in the last section of a tablet is found in Hh3a T1: there the colophon, in the middle of column X, is actually followed by a short literary composition, viz. a Mannam Lušpur incantation. The incantation text is written in the lower section of column X and continues onto the LEft Edge, i.e. it is written after the colophon. This exception could be explained by assuming that the incantation was a secondary addition. This is plausible in view of the fact that there are no other attestations of type-I tablets combining lexical compositions with other text genres. The original tablet Hh3a T1 may well have been originally composed in a regular manner (i.e. with exclusively lexical material and concluded by a colophon) - the incantation may have been added as an afterthought, or even at a later stage 145 . Another indication that the addition of the incantation text should be considered as an aberration is the fact that the text in the lower part of column X is written at a 90o angle compared to the regular lexical entries on the rest of the reverse (i.e. the is written in a vertical manner) – such drastic direction shifts are not attested in lexical texts elsewhere within the corpus. With regard to the distribution of the colophons a final remark should be made concerning the occurrence of palaeographically written colophons. Without offering an explanation, it seems useful to provide the relevant data and define the problem of their distribution somewhat more precisely than has been done previously. The following colophons numbers are executed in palaeographic writing: 2 (SaP T1), 3 (SaP T2), 20 (Lu1 T1), 21 (Lu1 fragment 602AD 146 ) and 22 (Izi1 T1) 147 . At first glance the fact that the colophon also uses palaeographic writing in the palaeographic SaP exercises may appear to be a predictable phenomenon, however, colophon number 4 - the only other SaP colophon attested - is written in regular script and shows that matching palaeographic writing in the colophon cannot be taken for granted. The case of the Lu and Izi colophons confirms this: there is no necessary match between the writing style of the exercise material and that of the colophon. Except for writing style, the only obvious common ground between the palaeographic colophons is that the ones which preserve the name (2, 3 and 20) have the same author, viz. Shaggar-abu, son of Bacal-qarrad. In case of the two others (21 and 22), which do no preserve the author’s name, one (22) shows Shaggar-abu’s patronym and may also be his, while the other (21) is likely not to be a separate colophon but rather part of either number 20 or number 21. However, even if it is true that the palaeographic writing of colophons is linked to the authorship of one individual scribe (in casu: Shaggar-abu), that still does not explain his choice of the material: the same scribe is also attested as the author of non-palaeographic colophons (numbers 7, 14 and 18). On balance it appears that the phenomenon of palaeographic writing in colophons has as yet to be adequately explained 148 .

145

In view of the similar ductus, the author of both the regular Hh text and the incantation seems to have been the same Ribi-Dagan. It should be noted that plaintive content of the incantation text may well fit into the circumstances alluded to by Ribi-Dagan in another colophon (number 6 = SaV T2). 146 Note that Lu 1 fragment 602 AD may actually have been part of Lu 1T1 or T2. 147 Note that there is another palaeographic colophon fragment that cannot presently be joined to any specific text (and which, in fact, may not belong to a lexical text): 74102g (p.253) has: 1’ ù◦[ …] 2’ ÌR […] 3’ ù D◦[…] 4’ KA◦B.Z[U.ZU] 5’ ┌ša […] end of column 148 Cohen, Transmission, 46 suggests that archaic calligraphy served the purpose of professional prestige but in that case the question arises why the palaeographic spelling only occurs in the Lu and Izi colophons.

151

Part 3 – Structural Analysis End-of-text-unit markers The second type of scribal redaction note is the end-of-text-unit marker. The end-of-text-unit marker is a graphic device occurring after the last entry of a distinct compositional text unit is completed, often separating the text from the following colophon 149 . This device consists of double horizontal lines between which the sign MAN or the combination of the signs MAN and BE are repeated a number of times. All attested uses of the end-of-text marker are listed in Table 27. Table 27. Attested use of end-of-text-unit markers Series/ Tablets with preserved final text section division with end-of-text-unit without end-of-text-unit marker preceding the marker preceding the colophon colophon Svo SaP T1, T2, fr 538D SaV T1 T3 G Hh 1 T1, T2, T3 Hh 2 Hh 3 bT2 aT1? Hh 4 T1, T2, T3 Hh 5 T1 Hh 6 Hh 7 bT1 Hh 8 bT1, bT2 Hh 9 Hh 10 T1 Hh 11 Hh 12 T1 Hh 13 T2’ Hh 14 Hh 15 Hh 16 Hh 17 T1 Hh 18 T1 Lu 1 Lu 2 Izi 1T1 Kagal SagB T1 Nigga T1 Diri 149

Tablets without preserved final text section T1, T2 T2, T4 T1 T1, T2, T3 aT2, bT1 aT1, aT2, aT3 aT1 aT1, bT1 T2 T1’ T1 aT1, bT1, bT2 T1, T2 T1 2bT1 -

Various theories have been put forward for the reading of the ‘content’ of the end-of-text-unit marker. Another, theoretically possible, explanation is that the ‘cryptic colophon’ indeed gives a ‘cryptic’, viz. abbreviated, rendering of the full clause AL.TIL IGI.KÁRA, with BE=TIL and ‘MAN’=GAM=GÚR as a phonetic spelling for KÁRA=GUR 6 . Of course such an explanation would only be valid if it is assumed that this meaning was actually forgotten by the Emar scribes, because on a number of occasions both the end-of-text-unit marker and the full clause are found (viz. in colophon numbers 8, 9 and 23).

152

Structural Analysis * Scribal Redaction Notes

The function of the end-of-text-unit marker becomes clear when its distribution throughout the lexical text corpus is considered. There are four attestations of a tablet on which regular text is directly followed by a colophon without an end-of-text-unit marker preceding the colophon: in SaV T3 and in all three SaP texts (T1-2 and fragment 538D) – a possible fifth case, Hh 3a T1, is uncertain 150 . The case of SaV T3 offers a clear explanation of the absence of the end-of-text-unit marker: the text was not considered completed (note the entry NU.TIL ‘incomplete’ in the following colophon). In actual fact SaV T3 is the first tablet of the long version of SaV, covering only about the first quarter of the Sa key-signs. This explanation is confirmed by the case of SaP fragment 538D: it is clear that the text of that fragment really is incomplete - it only has the first part of Appendix 2 (up to entry 230b GÍR). In fact, in all SaP texts an end-of-text-unit marker occurs not at the end of the tablet but between two distinct compositions, viz. on the boundary between Appendix 1 and Appendix 2. This could imply that the text of Appendix 2 was not considered complete in case of SaP T1-2 either, despite the fact that no more lines of this composition are known than what is found in these Emar texts 151 . The combined evidence from SaV T3 and the SaP material shows that use of the marker is not related to the total text on a given tablet, as was the case for colophons, but that it is related to marking the end of a given text unit 152 , hence the choice of the term ‘end-oftext-unit marker’. This term seems more appropriate than that of ‘cryptic colophon’, found in Arnaud and Cohen: the markers nowhere substitute colophons and neither do they necessarily share the location of the colophons, which invariably is the very end of the tablet. The fact that the end-of-text-unit marker is often found in conjunction with the colophon is to be expected, because most tablets end where a given text composition ends, but this conjunction is still no more than a coincidence. It should be noted that there are three cases in which there is an explicit textual note indicating the end of a text, a note that precedes the end-of-text-unit marker. All three cases involve the same text composition: in all three attested sources of Hh4 (T1, T2 and T3) the text ĞIŠ ŠU.NÍĞIN (with variant spellings) is found, meaning ‘the wood(list) (is) complete’. This line, however, should not be understood as a scribal redaction note and as conflicting with the above given definition of the end-of-text-unit marker. Instead it should be read as an integral part of the ‘wood-list’ found in Hh divisions 3 and 4: it is already found as such in the OB material. This line could actually be considered as a ‘fossilized’ scribal redaction note that became absorbed into the lexical composition of which it once only marked the end.

150

The case of Hh 3aT1 is uncertain because the upper part of column X is broken and the end-of-text-unit marker may have been lost, together with an unknown number of Hh3a entries. On the other hand, it is conceivable that 3aT1 was considered as incomplete because the bilingual version in fact shows many more MAR.GÍD.DA entries than are found in the unilingual version preserved in 3aT1. Due to lack of parallel textual evidence (the relevant section in 3aT2 is broken) no absolutely certainty is possible. Note also that after the broken section there is also still some open space left in the upper part of column X before the colophon. 151 In view of the fact that the text breaks off at the same point on both tablets SaP T1 and T2 (and because the composition ‘Appendix 2’ is hardly attested outside Emar) it is (unlikely but) theoretically possible that the endof-text-unit marker was actually omitted because the exercise ‘Appendix 2’ was somehow not counted as an actual ‘text’ or composition. 152 Note that this use is very similar to that of the OB doxology DNISABA ZÀ.MÍ described by Veldhuis, ‘ProtoKagal/Nigga’, 211-2.

153

Part 3 – Structural Analysis Catch lines The third type of redaction note is the catch line. A catch line occurs when the last line of a completed text is followed by the first line of another text, announcing that the former will be followed by the latter. This mechanism is well attested elsewhere, not only within series, such as some of the larger, multi-tablet literary compositions but also for indicating the order between series, including lexical series. In the whole of the Emar lexical corpus, however, there are only two attestations of catch lines, both occurring between the same text units (viz. Hh1 and 2). Neither the scarcity of catch lines (which means modern research lacks useful data for the reconstruction of the curricular order of the various lexical series), nor the reason why only these two specific attestations 153 occur can be satisfactorily explained at this stage. It can only be noted that the two catch lines precede two very similarly structured colophons written by two scribes at approximately the same stage of education (both are designated Ì.ZU.TUR(.TUR) and both write the same text). Actually both of these scribes are related and attested as indented into the service of the Zu-Bacala clan as infants by means of the famous footprint documents. An important feature of the two attestations for the catch line-type scribal redaction note is their positioning vis-à-vis the other two types of redaction notes: both occur between the endof-text-unit marker and the colophon. This positioning conforms to the observations made earlier about the end-of-text-unit marker and the colophon. The former always marks the end of a text unit (Hh1) and the latter always occurs at the very end of the tablet. The catch line, not being part of the preceding text but still part of the tablet text, is appropriately positioned between them. 13.3. Overview of colophon data concerning the scribes Limitations to the analysis of data concerning the scribes Many publications deal with the content of the colophons and with the identification of the scribes; in this regard the only contribution this study aims to make is to give a summary overview of the data available in the lexical colophons. It could not be the aim of this study to attempt a reconstruction of the careers of the teachers and students in the school or of individual influence on it on the basis of the lexical material alone. But even if the other school texts were included for investigation, such a reconstruction would be a hazardous undertaking: many, probably most, colophons – vital material for the reconstruction of individual corpora – are broken or lost, as shown by Table 26. In addition, work would have to proceed on basis of the uncertain record of a historically coincidental text collection that lacks explicit organization and is based on archaeological chance. For purposes of this study, however, an even more important objection against the hypothetical project of reconstructing individual careers and influences is the theoretical methodology adopted at the outset. Theoretical perspective on individual scribal achievement The purpose of this study is to reconstruct the Mesopotamian lexical tradition, exemplified by a given school curriculum in a given place and time. It aims to reconstruct what the scribes aspired to in terms of that tradition, not what distinguished them as historical individuals. Undoubtedly it is true that they, as historical individuals shaped by specific linguistic and 153

Note that although both cover the same transition (Hh1 to 2), marking this transition with a catch line is apparently not required elsewhere: in another text, Hh1 T3, the catch line is omitted.

154

Structural Analysis * Scribal Redaction Notes educational backgrounds, may have left some individual imprint on their lexical output, but this individual imprint is not what is primarily relevant. Even if it was, it could only be understood in terms of the larger tradition they were part of, viz. in terms of developments in orthography, spelling, phoneme distribution and linguistic substratum. Rather, what is primarily relevant with regard to the aims of this study is that individual apprentice scribes strove to conform to collectively held, institutionally transmitted traditional scholarly models. Their professional goal was certainly to achieve mastery of functional (writing) skills but this was only attained through a curriculum of set-piece lexical texts. Model versions of these may be assumed to have existed primarily as virtual compositions in the memory of accomplished scholars. It follows that all or most text attestations left for the modern researcher to study may be considered as no more than exercises, i.e. more or less successful attempts by apprentice scribes to conform to these virtual models. In turn, the virtual models transmitted by accomplished scholars were primarily defined in terms of conformity to an ancient tradition. This is proven by the remarkable continuity of individual compositions throughout the centuries. It follows that, as the apprentice did nothing but acquire the virtual model presented by his master, so the master did nothing but transmit an ancient tradition. The scribes implicitly recognized the authority of the tradition in which they stood: in the colophons they consistently refer to their gods (primarily the gods of writing, Nabû and Sarpanitu), speaking of themselves as ÌR ‘servant’, as well as their teachers. These combined were the guardians of the tradition they aimed to serve. In short, the scholarship reflected in the lexical texts may be described as primarily deferential. In this sense, these texts may be considered as striving to conform to ‘ideal texts’, i.e. model texts which exist only in the virtual realities of memory and tradition. It may be argued that a reconstruction of the Mesopotamian lexical tradition owes to focus on the reconstruction of the ‘ideal texts’ behind the individual text witnesses, rather than on these text witnesses themselves. With this in mind, the present study focuses on typical, structural features of collective scholarly achievement rather than on a-typical, particular features of an individual academic record. Having said this, modern scholarship must acknowledge the debt it owes to those ancient students and teachers known by name: they were the bearers of the scribal tradition and also provided individual text variants that often shed light on the ideas current in the wider text tradition they belong to. It is therefore appropriate to proceed with the roll-call of the Emar scribes.

155

Part 3 – Structural Analysis Table 28. Colophons listed by series Colophon number

Series/ division

Tablet/ fragment number

Name of scribe 154

Patronym

Title 155

Teacher

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23.

Svo SaP+ SaP+ SaP+ SaV+ SaV+ SaV Hh 1 Hh 1 Hh 1 Hh 3a Hh 3b Hh 4 Hh 4 Hh 4 Hh 5 Hh 7b Hh 8b Hh 12 Lu 1 Lu 1 Izi 1 SagB

T1/603 A T1/538 I T2/538 J 538D T1/537 A T2/537 C T3/537 B T1/541 A T2/541 Da T3/541 B T1/543-5 A T2/544-5 B T1/545 V T2/545 AG+G T3/545 U T1/546 A’’ T1/548 H T1/550 D T1/555 D+?E T1/602 A 602AD 156 T1/567 B+C T1/BLT

Bēlu-[?qarrad] Shaggar-abu [Shaggar]-abu Bacal-[malik/bēlu] 157 ? 158 Ribi-Dagan [Shaggar]-abu Bacal-belu Ishmah-Dagan Bacal-malik Ribi-Dagan Bacal-malik Bacal-malik Shaggar-[abu] 159 ? ? [Zu]-Bacala 160 Shaggar-abu Bacal-malik Shaggar-abu ? ? Bacal-bāru 161

Bacal-qarrād Bacal-qarrād ? Bacal-qarrād Bacal-qarrād Bacal-qarrād [Bacal]-qarrad ? ? Bacal-malik [Bacal-qarrad] Bacal-qarrād Bacal-qarrād ? Bacal-qarrād -

Ì.ZU TUR.TUR

? ? Kidin-Gula ? ?Kidin-Gula Bacal-malik Kidin-Gula -

154

? MÁŠ.ŠU.GÍD.GÍD Ì.ZU TUR Ì.ZU TUR.TUR DUB.SAR & HAL Ì.ZU TUR.TUR

DUB.SAR& HAL DUB.SAR & HAL

? ? [DUB.SAR]&HAL DUB.SAR& HAL [HAL]&AZU 162 ? HAL Ì.ZU

Cf. D.E. Fleming, Time at Emar : the Cultic Calendar and the Rituals from the Diviner’s Archive (Winona Lake 2000) p.26-7 n.41 for the reading DIM as Bacla. He also suggests reading DHAR.AD as well as D30 as Shaggar (p.31-2 n.61). Both readings are followed here. 155 For possible functional differentiation between ranks cf. Fleming, Time, p.27-8 n.43. 156 Colophon on fragment 602 AD may be part of Lu 1T2. 157 Suggestion by Cohen, Transmission, 110. 158 Arnaud: I[D20-a-bu] (reconstruction Arnaud, Emar VI 4 604.9). 159 Reconstruction follows Cohen, Transmission, 212. 160 For the reading Zu-Bacla cf. M. Yamada, ‘The Family of Zū-Bacla the Diviner and the Hittites’ in: S. Izre’el, I. Singer and R. Zadok (eds.), Past Links. Studies in the Languages and Cultures of the Ancient Near East. Israel Oriental Studies 18 (Winona Lake 1998) p.324 n.4. Cohen, Transmission, 90 assumes that this [Izu]-ba-la is not the same as the patriarch and diviner. Note that, if Cohen is correct, the author of the tablet ([xxx]-ba-la) may in fact be a son of the patriarch’s grandson Bacal-malik. 161 Fleming, Time, p.28 n.43. 162 Note that the titles in colophon Lu 1T1 are followed by three consecutive patronyms. The first patronym is that of his father, the second that of his grand-father and the third seems to repeat that of his father. The titles following the grandfather’s name ([HAL] ša DIĞIR.MEŠ) deviate from those following the father’s name ([HAL] and AZU). It seems likely that the grandfather was still alive and still carried all his titles. The titles after the father’s name probably are those of the grandson.

156

Structural Analysis * Scribal Redaction Notes Table 29. Scribes listed in alphabetic order Name of scribe

Patronym

Bacal-bāru 166 Bacal-belu 167 Bacal-malik

Title 164 Generation c in Zu-Ba ala’s genealogy 163

165

Bacal-qarrād

n/a n/a 2 171

Ì.ZU Ì.ZU TUR 174 DUB.SAR&HAL

Bēlu-[?qarrad] Ishmah-Dagan 168 Ribi-Dagan D HAR.AD= Shaggar-abu 169 D 30-a-bu= Shaggar-abu [?Zu]-Bacala 170

Bacal-qarrād

2 172 n/a n/a 2 173

Ì.ZU TUR.TUR Ì.ZU TUR.TUR 175 Ì.ZU TUR.TUR 176 [x]&AZU

Bacal-qarrad

2

177

Bacal-malik

3

DUB.SAR&HAL /MÁŠ.ŠU.GÍD.GÍD [DUB.SAR]&HAL

163

Series/division/tablet Sag B T1 Hh 1T1 (SaP 538D?) Hh 1T3, 3bT2, 4T1, 12T1 (SaP538D?) Svo T1 Hh 1T2 SaV T2, Hh 3aT1 SaP T1, Lu 1T1 SaP T2, SaV T3, Hh 4T2, 8bT1 Hh 7bT1

Members of Zu-Bacala’s family are identified by generation count (Zu-Bacala=0, Bacal-qarrad=1, Bacalmalik/Shaggar-abu=2), following the analysis of Yamada, ‘Zu-Bacla’, 327-8, adjusted by Cohen, Transmission, p.114 Figure 10. 164 Note Fleming’s remark, Time, p. 26 and n. 40, that in colophons the titles DUB.SAR and HAL were not regularly combined: according to him they are only combined in the colophons of Bacal-malik. However in two cases the combined titles were applied to another person: in Hh4T2 to Shaggar[-abu] and in 7bT1 to [Zu]-Bacala (in the latter tablet the positioning of the preserved signs strongly suggests that LÚHAL was preceded by LÚ DUB.SAR). 165 Note that Yamada, ‘Zu-Bacla’, 332 suggests that the title ‘diviner of the gods of Emar’ was reserved for members of the Zu-Bacala family - in this supposition he is followed by Fleming, Time, 26. 166 Fleming, Time, p.28 n.43. 167 Likely to be identified with an infant of the same name sold to Bacal-malik (Cohen, Transmission, 106-9 and Figure 9 p.112). 168 Likely to be identified with an infant of the same name sold to Bacal-malik (Cohen, Transmission, 106-9 and Figure 9 p.112). 169 Note that Yamada, ‘Zu-Bacla’, 329 identifies DGÌR.AD (=Rashap-abu ) with D30-a-bu (=Sîn-abu), which is followed by Fleming, Time, p.31-2 n.61. Fleming, however, reads HAR instead of GÌR, translated Shaggar instead of Rashap. Both Yamada’s identification and Fleming’s interpretation are tentatively followed here. 170 For the emendation [Izu]- in 7bT1 and for the phonetic reading Zu-Bacla cf. Yamada, ‘Zu-Bacla’, respectively p.326 and p.324 n.4. Cohen, Transmission, 90 assumes that this [Izu]-ba-la is not the same as the patriarch and diviner. Note that, if Cohen is correct, the author of the tablet ([xxx]-ba-la) may in fact be a son of Bacal-malik, the patriarch’s grandson. 171 According to Yamada, ‘Zu-Bacla’, 329 both Shaggar-abu and Bacal-malik are likely to have been sons of c Ba al-qarrad, with the latter succeeding his brother Shaggar-abu when he died. 172 Cf. Cohen, Transmission, p.151 n.261 and Figure 10 p.114. 173 According to Yamada, ‘Zu-Bacla’, 329 both Shaggar-abu and Bacal-malik are likely to have been sons of c Ba al-qarrad, with the latter succeeding his brother Shaggar-abu when he died. 174 The title DUB.SAR & HAL is found in Hh1 T3, 4 T1 and 12T1 (no titles are found in 3bT2). 175 The title Ì.ZU.TUR.TUR is only found in Hh3a T1 (no titles are found in SaV T2). 176 The title AZU is only found in Lu 1T1 (no titles are found in SaP T1). Note that the colophon of this tablet is also the only palaeographically written colophon that preserves the author’s title: there may be a compositional link between the palaeographic writing and the deviant writing AZU. 177 The title DUB.SAR & HAL is only found in Hh 4T2, the title MÁŠ.ŠU.GÍD.GÍD only found in SaV T3 (no titles are found in SaP T2 and Hh 8bT1).

157

Part 3 – Structural Analysis Summary 13.2.

Investigation of the distribution and function of various redaction note types:

1. 2.

There three types of redaction notes: (1) colophons, (2) end-of-text-unit markers and (3) catch lines. Colophons represent scribal redaction notes that apply to the complete text of a tablet rather than of a composition - this in contrast to the end-of-text-unit marker. There is no link between palaeographic content and palaeographic colophons or between non-palaeographic content and non-palaeographic colophons. The end-of-text marker is graphic device serving to mark the end of a compositional unit (and not necessarily of the end of the text on a tablet). The term ‘cryptic colophon’ is incorrect in terms of distribution. The position of catch lines is always between the end-of-text marker and the colophon: the catch line is not part of the preceding composition but is still part of the tablet text.

3. 4. 5.

158

Structural Analysis * Diachronic Context CHAPTER 14 – DIACHRONIC CONTEXT 14.0. Aim and organization Aim and analytic framework This last chapter in fact constitutes a diachronic excursus added to a synchronic studies. In this excursus the diachronic position of the various series attested in the Emar corpus will be discussed in short summary commentaries. This diachronic position will be approached primarily from three selected criteria: linguistic format, entry inventory and keysign/word/determinative sequence. It should be noted that, in line with previous usage, the terms key-sign and key-word apply to the (elementary and advanced) sign-lists and the thematic lists respectively. Only for Svo the term logogram will be substituted. The first of the three above-mentioned criteria is a core aspect of horizontal organization and the other two are core aspects of vertical organization. They allow a (admittedly partial) diachronic extension of the synchronic structural description given in the preceding chapters of Part 3. The comparison of these three core aspects of horizontal and vertical organization throughout diachronically consecutive versions may help to explain the organizational structure found in the Emar material as in part due to diachronic developments. In this regard, easy comparison is made possible by the systematic provision of references to parallel versions added to parts 1 and 2. A complete inventory of all references provided is given in Organizational Table 4 preceding Part 1. For the most convenient comparison between the Emar material and the parallel materials, use of Part 2 is recommended as it gives a composite text of all preserved entries. It should be noted that, due to spatial constraints, the parallel references for some series, viz. Svo, Nigga and Diri are only given in Part 2. Other avenues of diachronic research, primarily the formal and didactic-functional approaches, have not been systematically explored due to the limited scope of the study. In this respect the following paragraphs will only provide a few occasional remarks. A formal approach would be important to determine to what extent the formal features (ruling, entry element inventory) found in the Emar corpus are shared by earlier and later corpora and whether or not their implementation in Emar is symptomatic of wider diachronic developments. Regarding a didactic-functional approach, various remarks may be found in previous literature, suggesting that the use of certain series changed through time 178 ; a systematic study, however, has yet to be made. These are approaches that may be suggested as important contributions yet to be made to the study of the lexical genre. Organization This chapter will proceed to give a summary series-by-series analysis of the Emar material in view of selected diachronic parallels, which are mostly those given in the references added to parts 1 and 2. As said before, a complete listing of these may be found in Organizational Table 4 in Part 1. Paragraphs 14.1-10 will discuss each of the Emar lexical series in the same order as these series were treated in the preceding synchronic analysis. Where possible, this discussion will be preceded by a short investigation of the possibility of comparing the LBA peripheral version as a whole with other versions. The rest of the discussion will consist of the actual diachronic comparison by applying the three above mentioned criteria, i.e. linguistic format, entry inventory and key-sign/word sequence. Due to the uneven availability of 178

E.g. the changing use of Sal discussed by Çiğ and Kizilyay, Schulbücher, 114-6.

159

Part 3 – Structural Analysis editions of parallel material from other periods, different parts of Hh will be treated separately, as dictated by the availability of such editions. For Hh divisions 1-2 a comparison is made to another lexical series altogether. The final paragraph, 14.11, will give attempt to give a synthetic summary by characterizing the diachronic position of the Emar curriculum as a whole. It should be reiterated that, within the framework of the synchronic investigation intended by this study, this chapter cannot aim at anything more than a superficial reconnaissance of an issue of this magnitude. Any observations, let alone ‘conclusions’, are therefore of an entirely provisional nature. 14.1. Syllable Alphabet A Vocabulary The LBA peripheral version of Svo The proximity of the Ugarit and Emar versions has been noted in previous literature 179 . The inventory and sequence of the Svo ‘logograms’ are very similar: of the 126 entries found in Ugarit Sal only very few are not exactly matched in Emar (a few omissions and some slight deviations are found in numbers 39, 65, 79, 81, 112-3, 123 and 126) 180 . When the Ugarit and Emar versions are compared, there are two main differences. First, Ugarit has a unilingual (Sal) 181 as well as a bilingual version (Svo), whereas Emar only has a bilingual version. In view of the fact that the inventory and sequence of the ‘logograms’ themselves stay the same, however, the uni- and bilingual texts can still be considered as representing a single tradition. Second, the bilingual versions found in both sites differ with regard to inventory and sequence of the Akkadian equivalents given to specific ‘logograms’. In view of the fact that the same flexible relationship between ‘logograms’ and Akkadian equivalents is also found within the Ugarit corpus 182 and in other corpora 183 , this phenomenon may indeed be considered a regular feature of Svo in general. On balance, it is therefore possible to speak of a coherent Syrian version of Svo. Because the published MA material suggests that this version is also adhered to in Assur 184 , it may be proposed that this coherence also characterizes the whole extent of the LBA peripheral version of Svo. This synchronically coherent version Svo as a whole can be compared with versions from other periods. Earlier and later versions The texts from Ugarit and Emar are among the last attestations of unilingual Sal and bilingual Svo as independent school exercises. The only later attestations of Sal and Svo are as citations in other lists or as additions to the text of the Creation Myth 185 . Earlier, Sal and Svo are widely attested as school texts in the OB curriculum, both in Nippur and elsewhere 186 , but it may be assumed that their composition can be dated back to the Ur III period 187 . The most conveniently accessible OB version of Svo is provided by Sollberger’s edition of BM

179

Farber, ‘Leitfaden’, 119. Nougayrol, ‘“Vocalisés”’, 31-3. 181 Cf. Cavigneaux, ‘Lexikalische Listen’, 619 and Farber, ‘Leitfaden’, 119. 182 Nougayrol, ‘“Vocalisés”’, 38. 183 Farber, ‘Leitfaden’, 119. 184 Overview, references and additional readings in Farber, ‘Leitfaden’, 127-30. 185 Landsberger, ‘Notenschrift’, 175-8 and Farber, ‘Leitfaden’, 120-1. 186 Farber, ‘Leitfaden’, 119. 187 Çiğ and Kizilyay, Schulbücher, 112-6. 180

160

Structural Analysis * Diachronic Context 13902 188 : references to it have been systematically added in the composite edition of Emar Svo provided by Part 2. Diachronic development of linguistic format Because for Svo it is difficult to determine to what extent element 4 is intended as an interpretation of element 2 (cf. 1.2.1.), it is difficult to say whether Svo can be interpreted as a ‘bilingual’ text. Therefore it is problematic to apply any of the terms ‘linguistic format’, ‘unilingual’ or ‘bilingual’. It may be more accurate to state that Sal gives its entries in a single column whereas Svo gives them in multiple columns. The OB version under consideration can be described as a Svo text because it gives multiple columns. In fact, BM 13902 gives three columns whereas the peripheral version of Svo gives only two, i.e. the former adds two elements to each ‘logogram’ whereas the latter adds only one 189 . A second difference between peripheral Svo and BM 13902 is that the former frequently gives multiple entries for each ‘logogram’ whereas the latter never gives more than a single entry per ‘logogram’. A possible explanation of these two differences may be sought in their interconnection. The net result of both strategies is a multiplicity of relations between the element 2 and element 4. Considering that the relation between these two elements is flexible it could be suggested that generally the function of Svo was merely to provide a structure or framework for the presentation of multiple relations listed according to a stable series of ‘logograms’, irrespective of the variable ‘content’ seemingly implied by these relations. In BM 13902 this was achieved by adding two elements to ‘logograms’ that are given in one-line entries, whereas in peripheral Svo this was achieved by adding a one element to a ‘logogram’ that was often given in more than one entry line. It is conceivable that the first strategy was abandoned 190 in favour of the second as a result of organizational systematization. In post-OB times most lists took on a bilingual form in which only one ‘Akkadian equivalent’ is given per entry and in which the logogram is repeated when more than one equivalent was given. Svo seems to have been remoulded to conform to this form but the continuing instability of the relations between elements 2 and 4 still suggests that its primary function is that of a presentational device. The noted re-modification may also explain the fact that form and use appear to be that of a regular exercise but are only very partially matched by the actual content of that ‘exercise’. The question of what content the ‘presentational device’ presented in Svo was actually meant to present is a different issue altogether 191 . 188

E. Sollberger, ‘A Three-column Silbenvokabular A’ in: H.G. Güterbock and Th. Jacobsen (eds.), Studies in Honor of Benno Landsberger on his Seventy-Fifth Birthday: April 21, 1965. AS 16 (1965) 21-39. 189 Farber, ‘Leitfaden’, 119. 190 The format of BM 13902 is not matched in any later texts (a listing of all attested Svo texts is found in Farber, ‘Leitfaden’, 126-8). 191 If the suggestion of the original function of Svo as a presentational device is related to the stability of the Sal/Svo ‘logograms’, it follows that the ‘logogram’ inventory and sequence represent the constant factor. The ‘logogram’ might or might not be linked to a number of ‘equivalents’ but the presentation of such ‘equivalents’ always involved ordering according to the ‘logogram’ sequence. This ordering takes places without it implying a necessary association between the ‘logogram’ and the ‘equivalents’. If ordering is taken as the functional purpose of Svo than it is conceivable that this purpose extends to the ‘logogram’ sequence of Sal as well. If the signs of which the ‘logograms’ are made up are considered separately from this perspective, then some common ground between the ‘logograms’ and the ‘equivalents’ appears: almost all of the former appear as key-signs and almost all of the latter either as key-words or as translations throughout various other lexical series. As a suggestion for its original concept it may be proposed that Svo may in fact represent a study scheme for the lexical curriculum as implemented in the school. If it is assumed that parts of various series were studied simultaneously, this would explain the co-occurrence of the logograms (conceivably from Sa, Izi and the other advanced series, possibly more than one simultaneously) with DNs (from G) and Akkadian equivalents (from Hh

161

Part 3 – Structural Analysis

Diachronic development of ‘logogram’ inventory and sequence When comparing the EST numbers with the reference numbers of Sollberger’s edition it is clear that Svo shows a remarkable diachronic stability in terms of its ‘logogram’ inventory and sequence. In this respect the OB and peripheral version of Sal/Svo are practically identical. 14.2. The Sa-format lists The LBA peripheral version of Sa/V/P In a separate investigation it was established that the LBA SaV and SaP materials from Ugarit and Emar show sufficient homogeny in their vertical organization of content to allow the reconstruction of a single, coherent composite text 192 . In fact, in previous research it was found that the synchronic homogeny of SaV and SaP found in Syria also applies to Sa and extends to all of the LBA periphery (Sa-format lists are also attested in Akhetaten, Hattusha and Assur 193 ) 194 . This homogeny involves distinct stability in key-sign inventory and sequence, irrespective of the frequency of repetitions or the number of equivalents found for each key-sign (in this regard there is considerable variation throughout the various sites and versions). The relative synchronic textual coherence allows the LBA peripheral version of Sa/V/P as a whole to be compared to earlier and later material. Earlier and later versions For the rather fragmentarily preserved OB text (from Sippar) there is no systematic edition195 , but as it has been investigated in an earlier study 196 it will be considered in the following

and Lu). This co-occurrence may reflect the combined daily pensum of lines from different exercises. In this respect note the matches between the Akkadian content of Svo and the content of Hh/Lu (cf. for example the ‘professions’ of 092.01ff. with those of Lu). Almost all Akkadian equivalents found in Svo may be found in the various lexical series (especially G and Lu). The quantity of pensum per series per day suggested in previous literature (Hallo, ‘Notes’) may prove to be projectable onto this Svo ‘study scheme’. Within the scope of the present study no full investigation is possible of this avenue of research, especially because it would have to focus on the development of Sal/Svo in the context of earlier curricula. If the explanation of Svo as a ‘study scheme’ is correct, then Landsberger’s hypothesis concerning the Sal/Svo ‘logograms’ would be invalid: the ‘logograms’ should be interpreted as incipits rather than PNs. Note that even if the ‘study scheme’ explanation would be correct, it would still be possible that Sal/Svo had a hybrid status and simultaneously served as an ‘introductory exercise’, perhaps due to ‘faulty’ reinterpretation. For Sal/Svo as an exercise, irrespective of its suggested ‘study scheme’ function, the structural description given in 1.3. therefore remains relevant. 192 Gantzert, ‘SLT 1’ (forthcoming). 193 With regard to the inclusion of Assur in the peripheral lexical tradition, cf. Cavigneaux, ‘Lexikalische Listen’, 617. 194 M. Gantzert, Two Hunderd Pillars of Wisdom. Quantitative Analysis of the Syllabary A Format in the Late Bronze Periphery (unpublished MA thesis, Leiden 2004), 30-1, relevant bibliography on p. 80-3 of Appendix B. 195 The relevant texts may be found in V. Scheil, Une saison de fouilles à Sippar. Mémoires publiés par les members de l’institut français d’archéologie orientale du Caire sous la direction de M.E. Chassinat 1 (Paris 1902) 34-7 (Sippar 140, 208-10, 350, 503, 667) and M. Tanret, Oudbabylonische “schooltabletten” en documentaire teksten uit het huis van Ur-Utu, opperklaagpriester van Annunītum te Sippar-Amnānum (unpublished dissertation, Ghent 1981) publication pp. 42, 51, 6, 73, 79, 82-3 edition pp. 240-6 (Di 94, 117, 132, 134). 196 Gantzert, Two Hunderd Pillars, 30-1.

162

Structural Analysis * Diachronic Context remarks. Appendix 1 of part 2 provides a systematic comparison of the LBA peripheral version with the 1st Millennium version edited in MSL III 197 . Diachronic development of linguistic format It is remarkable that the LBA peripheral version is the only version that occurs in a unilingual as well as a multilingual format: the OB and 1st Millennium versions are both exclusively unilingual 198 . It has been suggested that this may be related to shifts in the didactic functionality of Syllabary A 199 . Diachronic development of key-word inventory and sequence From a comparison of the PST and MSL numbers (the former represent the LBA peripheral version, the latter the canonical version) it is immediately clear that, despite occasional omissions, additions and sequential inversions, Sa/V/P shows a remarkable degree of diachronic stability with regard to key-word inventory and sequence. This diachronic stability also extends back in time to the earliest Sa texts from OB Sippar 200 . 14.3. Weidner God List The LBA peripheral version of G In a separate investigation it was found that the various LBA peripheral G materials (G is attested in Ugarit, Emar, Akhetaten and Assur) show sufficient homogeny in their vertical organization of content to allow the reconstruction of a single, coherent composite text 201 . G shows a fairly stable inventory and sequence of key-words throughout the whole LBA periphery, irrespective of the frequently deviating horizontal structure. Thus, it is possible to speak of a coherent LBA peripheral version of G, which as a whole can be compared to versions from other periods. Earlier and later versions The text edition of G given in Parts 1-2 includes standard references to the composite edition of Weidner entitled ‘Altbabylonische Götterlisten’. It should be noted, however, that this title does not fully match the material used in that edition. Actually, much of this material is not from the OB but from the LBA period: texts A-E 202 are MA 203 (text G is Ur III). The text edition of G found in Parts 1-2 is based on a new composite edition of all peripheral material which includes this MA material - a comparison with the Weidner edition would therefore result in circular argumentation. In fact, in Parts 1-2 references to the Weidner edition have 197

The Sa sources (OB and 1st Millennium) are listed on pp. 7-10 and the SaV sources (MA and LBA peripheral) are listed on pp. 49-50. 198 Cavigneaux, ‘Lexikalische Listen’, 622-3. 199 Ibidem, 623. 200 Cf. Tables 5, 11 and 14 in Appendix A of Gantzert, Two Hunderd Pillars. 201 Gantzert, ‘SLT 3’ (forthcoming). 202 Inventory in Weidner, ‘Götterlisten’, 8. 203 Texts A1-5 in Gantzert, ‘SLT 3’ (forthcoming). For periodization refer to O. Pedersén, Archives and Libraries in the City of Assur: a Survey of the Material from the German Excavations I. Studie Semitica Upsaliensia 6 (Uppsala 1985) 31ff. (M2) and O. Pedersén, Archives and Libraries in the City of Assur: a Survey of the Material from the German Excavations II. Studie Semitica Upsaliensia 8 (Uppsala 1986) 11ff. (N1). In this regard note the incorrect periodization given for KAv 46, 47, 62, 63 and 65 in Lambert, ‘Götterlisten’, 474.

163

Part 3 – Structural Analysis only been included for the convenience of the reader. This means that no systematic edition of the G material from other periods is available. The sole fact, however, that the Weidner edition managed to present material from various periods, ranging from Ur III to the 1st Millennium, in a coherent composite text, implies at least a certain degree of diachronic stability. Diachronic development of linguistic format Due to the fact that when ‘Akkadian equivalents’ is added to the G logograms these tend to be references to other DNs, in case of G it is actually inappropriate to speak of ‘linguistic format’. It would be more accurate to state that G may give either single- or multiple-element entries. Only in the LBA version G may occur with multi-element entries, even if the entry element inventory of G texts from various sites is highly variable 204 . In the earlier and later periods G texts only give the logogram element 205 . Diachronic development of key-word inventory and sequence As said earlier, the diachronic composite edition of Weidner implies a certain degree of diachronic stability. If the text from various periods are compared more closely with regard to key-word inventory and sequence, it may in fact be said that G shows a high degree of diachronic stability. Didactic-functional perspective With regard to the didactic functionality of G and its position in the wider school curriculum, there are two phenomena should be noted. First, in both the Emar and MA texts the G entry element inventory is often expanded to include glosses and sign-names, exactly as in many other school texts. Second, in the MA corpus G may be found sharing the same tablet with Sa(V) 206 . These phenomena establish without a doubt that, at least in the LBA period, G was a school text 207 . 14.4. HAR(UR 5 ).RA=hubullu Methodological limitations With regard to a diachronic evaluation of Hh there are three methodological problems concerning the access to parallel texts from other periods with which to compare the Emar version. The first problem is that for some divisions no systematic text editions are available for such texts. In the introduction to Part 1 the limitations of the use of MSL as a reference tool were discussed. For many of the earlier divisions of Hh the earlier volumes of MSL give a composite edition that mixes material from different periods and places. In certain cases this composite edition reflects a certain degree of actual diachronic stability (e.g. for Hh 1-2) but in other cases it is an artificial compilation of mutually irreconcilable materials (e.g. in case of canonical tablet VII 208 ). This results in a ‘canonical’ model that does not reflect the text as it historically existed in the 1st Millennium and that is largely unusable for diachronic research. 204

Gantzert, ‘SLT 3’ (forthcoming). Lambert, ‘Götterlisten’, 474. 206 Gantzert, ‘SLT 3’ (forthcoming). 207 Lambert, ‘Götterlisten’, 474. 208 Multiple versions listed in MSL 6, 81ff. 205

164

Structural Analysis * Diachronic Context As a complete revision of the MSL edition falls outside the scope of this study, this means that, when no alternative edition is available, for some of the early divisions no comparison is feasible. An overview of the relevant parallel text editions is given in Organizational Table 4 of Part 1. The second problem is that for some divisions either the available parallel texts from other periods or the reconstructed Emar texts themselves are too fragmentary to allow a reliable comparison. The third problem is that for some divisions a comparison is feasible and has been postponed pending further research. For different divisions these problems have been dealt with in different ways, as summarized below. Note that the division count used is always that of Emar Hh unless explicitly stated otherwise. Implementation of comparative analysis For divisions 1 and 2 no usable edition of earlier or later parallel texts is available and instead an excursus has been given on the relation of Hh 1-2 to the earlier series KI.ULUDIN.BI.ŠÈ=ana ittišu. For divisions 3 and 4 there is an alternative to the largely unusable MSL edition, viz. the Veldhuis edition of the Nippur text 209 , which allows a regular comparison with the OB text. For division 5 the MSL edition of the canonical version is too fragmentary to allow a reliable comparison (cf. notes preceding the composite edition in Part 2). For divisions 6-7 and 10-11 a diachronic comparative investigation has been postponed and will be discussed in a separate study of the LBA peripheral corpus for these divisions 210 . For divisions 8 and 1316 a regular diachronic comparison will be given, based on the MSL editions of the relevant parallel materials. For divisions 9 and 12 no usable edition of parallel material from other periods is available. For divisions 17-18 both the MSL edition and the reconstructed Emar texts themselves are too fragmentary to permit a reliable comparison. 14.4.1. Divisions 1-2 Comparison with KI.ULUDIN.BI.ŠÈ=ana ittišu Hh divisions 1-2 may be considered as a secondarily added and therefore diachronically distinct unit within Hh 211 . To show it in its text-historical context a concordance of the entries shared between Emar Hh 1-2 and KI.ULUDIN.BI.ŠÈ=ana ittišu is provided by Appendix 3 of Part 2. It extends (and partially corrects the canonical Hh reference numbering of) the table of comparison given in MSL I (p. x-xii). The historical relation between Hh 1-2 and KI.ULUDIN.BI.ŠÈ=ana ittišu There is substantial similarity between the content of LBA Emar Hh 1-2 (continuing into the 1st Millenium canonical version of Hh I-II) and that of the older thematic list KI.ULUDIN.BI.ŠÈ=ana ittišu - attention to this similarity was already drawn in MSL I. The version of the latter found in the 1st Millennium probably originates in the time of Hammurabi, even if it is likely to have originated in the time of 1st Dynasty of Isin 212 . The relation between KI.ULUDIN.BI.ŠÈ=ana ittišu and Hh 1-2 is complex and not necessarily of a linear generic nature 213 . Both texts seem to use material of similar semantic range (legal 209

Veldhuis, Elementary Education, 151-252. Gantzert, ‘SLT 4’ (forthcoming). 211 W.W. Hallo, ‘Notes from the Babylonian Collection, II: Old Babylonian HAR-ra’, JCS 34 (1982) 85-6. 212 MSL 1, iii. The oldest certain attestation of Hh I-II dates to the reign of Samsuiluna - cf. also Hallo, ‘Notes II’, 86, with references. 213 Discussion Veldhuis, Elementary Education, 79. 210

165

Part 3 – Structural Analysis phrases and paradigms of relevant verbs) for different purposes. KI.ULUDIN.BI.ŠÈ=ana ittišu is an exercise that is thematically strictly limited. Compared to it, Hh 1-2 adds many unrelated elaborations, such as kinship terminology EST 1069-89, chronology 1110-11 and professions 2016-19; 2172-93. The widely differing sequencing indicates that, even if there is some kind of genetic relation between the two, in Hh 1-2 the didactic selection made from current Sumerian legal terminology (which is also found in other school texts, viz. model contract exercises) has resulted in a radically deviating educational tool. The differences between the two are possibly due to origins in different traditions. KI.ULUDIN.BI.ŠÈ =ana ittišu, belonging in the Nippur tradition, may have been separately transmitted, ending in the library of Assurbanipal as traditional lore without wider educational application. The material from which Hh 1-2 originates may belong to another, North Babylonian tradition, similarly to what may be the case for the rest of the peripheral lexical tradition: predecessor texts of Hh 1-2 are found in OB Sippar and Meturan 214 . It has been suggested that another ‘formula book’, with a compilation somewhat similar to that of KI.ULUDIN.BI.ŠÈ=ana ittišu, may have been the source of Hh 1-2 215 . What is certain is that Hh 1-2 is of a younger origin, as evident in its impoverished and decaying Sumerian (e.g. plural E.MEŠ where E.NE is expected) 216 . 14.4.2. Divisions 3-4 Earlier and later versions Due to the diachronically conflated nature of the canonical version edited in MSL V-VI no reliable comparison between the Emar and 1st Millennium versions is possible. The following commentary is based on a comparison of the Emar text with the OB Nippur text as edited by Veldhuis 217 - it has been consistently referred to in the right-most reference column in Parts 1 and 2. Diachronic development of linguistic format The most obvious difference between the OB and Emar versions is that the former is exclusively unilingual whereas the former is found in a unilingual as well as a bilingual format. In terms of diachronic development this means that the Emar version stands half-way between the OB 218 and 1st Millennium versions. It should be noted that in the Emar corpus most text material attested for division 3 is unilingual whereas most material attested for division 4 is bilingual. Such a complementary distribution suggests that the Emar texts reflect a transitional stage in the development of Hh, viz. a stage at which the old unilingual format was being phased out but may still be found in certain (core) parts of the curriculum (cf. 4.4. and 11.4.). Diachronic development of entry inventory The entry inventory of the Emar version is considerably lenghtier than that of the OB version: the OB version omits many entries found in the Emar version whereas the Emar version rarely omits an entry found in the OB version. This is the case for the unilingual as well as the bilingual material found in Emar and therefore not exclusively related to linguistic format. In 214

Ibidem, p.79 n.256. MSL 1, x. 216 Ibidem, iii. 217 Veldhuis, Elementary Education, 151-252. 218 Cf. Cavigneaux, ‘Lexikalische Listen’, 626-7. 215

166

Structural Analysis * Diachronic Context view of the fact that the 1st Millennium version of Hh, in turn, is lengthier than the Emar version (cf. the resulting development of divisional structure shown in Appendix 2 of Part 2), it may be said that the expansion of the Emar version of Hh 3-4 vis-à-vis the OB version is an effect of a wider and general tendency to diachronic expansion. This tendency is not only visible in Hh but can also be noticed in other lexical lists (cf. 14.11.). Without attempting a full diachronic analysis of the phenomenon, it may be suggested that one of the possible explanation of this tendency to diachronic expansion may be the accumulative impact of integrative methodology of ancients scholarship. a unavoidable effect of the continuous search for multiple associations throughout successive generations of scholarship is the progressive accumulation of elaborations and interpolations. If the early lexical exercises, with a limited program involving a limited number of basic signs, may be to a certain extent - immune to such diachronic expansion, there are no programmatic limitations to the expansion of systematically thematic series such as Hh (or systematically acrographic series such as Post-OB Izi). Diachronic development of key-word sequence By and large the key-word sequence found in the OB version is maintained in the Emar sequence of both the unilingual and bilingual texts as a skeletal structure around which extra content is accumulated. In this respect only few major deviations may be found (mainly the repetition of SNT entries 491-3 and 550 and the interpolation of SNT entries 496, 500 and 502 in the EST entry block 4312-64 as well as the lack of SNT parallels in the extensive EST entry block 4367-86). Minor sequential deviations tend to affect the sequencing within keyword blocks rather than the sequencing of the key-words themselves. Examples of such minor deviations may be found within the key-word clusters NIMBAR (3a117ff.), GU.ZA (3a224ff.) and IG (4001ff.). Due to the fact that no separate edition of the 1st Millennium version is available, it is impossible to determine whether the OB skeletal structure remains discernable in later texts of this part of Hh. 14.4.3. Division 8 Earlier and later versions The following commentary is based primarily on a comparison of the Emar version of Hh 8 with the 1st Millennium version as edited in MSL VIII.1 219 and as referred to by the reference column found in Parts 1 and 2. As MSL also offers a separate edition of the forerunners, some additional remarks will be given concerning the OB version 220 . Diachronic development of linguistic format The Emar text is found in a unilingual as well as a bilingual version whereas the 1st Millennium text is only found in a bilingual version. As OB Hh is exclusively unilingual, this puts the Emar version at a half-way point between the OB and 1st Millennium traditions. This is similar to what was found for Emar Hh 3-4. If for Hh 8 the bilingual texts from Emar and the 1st Millennium are compared to each other it is found that in the former the Akkadian equivalents are very frequently omitted, a phenomenon not encountered in the latter. Even considering the poor attestation record for many text sections, it seems that in Emar the 219 220

MSL 8.1, 7-52. The OB forerunners to canonical tablet XIII are edited in MSL 8.1, 83-94.

167

Part 3 – Structural Analysis omission of Akkadian equivalents in bilingual texts is generally most frequent in those divisions that are also attested in a different unilingual version (i.e. divisions 3, 7-9 and 16). This may be interpreted as a confirmation of the transitional stage in the diachronic development of Hh represented by the Emar corpus suggested earlier (cf. 14.2.2.). For certain divisions the older unilingual format was apparently still in use next to the new bilingual format. The unilingual format represented a more advanced stage in the curriculum and this may have motivated the apprentice scribes to already start omitting the Akkadian equivalents wherever possible in the bilingual texts. Diachronic development of entry inventory If the preserved material is considered representative for Emar Hh 8 as a whole, it could be said that the unilingual version often shows an inventory that is clearly more limited than that of the 1st Millennium version. While the Emar version generally maintains a very similar sequence, counting the MSL reference numbers shows that there are many omissions vis-à-vis the 1st Millennium version. E.g. in the section 8a014-43 about sixty MSL reference numbers have no Emar parallels. In the more fragmentarily preserved bilingual version this tendency is less clear. Vice versa, both the uni- and bilingual Emar versions show some expansions that have no match in the 1st Millennium version: the GUD-section in 8a102ff. and 8b009ff. and the ANŠE-section in 8b043ff. . Due to the fragmentary state of the material it is impossible to determine whether or not, on balance, the Emar version had a much smaller entry inventory than the 1st Millennium version. What is certain is that the OB Nippur version had a considerably smaller entry inventory (269 entries) than the 1st Millennium version (382 entries) and that it is quite possible that the entry inventory of the Emar version occupies a middle position between the two. Diachronic development of key-word sequence Similarly to what was found for Hh 3-4, in Hh 8 the key-word sequence of the OB version forms the skeletal structure around which the Emar version is built. In case of Hh 8 this structural diachronic continuity can also be seen to extend to the 1st Millennium version. The basic key-word sequence UDU-U 8 -UZUD-MÁŠ-SILA 4 -ZEH-GUD-ÁB-AMAR-ANŠE-EME X /DÙR can be discerned under the OB Nippur and the LBA Emar as well as the 1st Millennium versions. All sequential deviations may be considered minor deviations within blocks of entries that share a common key-word. In this regard the expansion of the Emar GUD- and ANŠE-sections that are not matched in the 1st Millennium version is a structurally unmarked phenomenon, i.e. a phenomenon that merely reflects varying content implementations within a unvarying organizational structure. 14.4.4. Division 13 The LBA Syrian version of Hh 13 Hh 13 is the first of the divisions investigated here for which a comprehensive edition of the Ugarit material is available 221 . The Emar and Ugarit versions of Hh 13 show sufficient homogeny in their vertical organization of content to allow the reconstruction of a single, coherent composite text. Despite its fragmentary state the Emar material shows such close conformity to the Ugarit material in entry inventory and sequence that it is safe to speak of a 221

The RS forerunner to canonical tablet XIX is edited in MSL 10, 149-53.

168

Structural Analysis * Diachronic Context coherent LBA Syrian version of Hh 13. The main difference between the two corpora is that the Ugarit material is unilingual and the Emar material is bilingual. Earlier and later versions The following commentary is based primarily on a comparison of the Emar version of Hh 13 with the 1st Millennium version as edited in MSL X 222 and referred to by the first reference column found in Parts 1 and 2. As MSL X also offers a separate edition of the forerunners, some additional remarks will be given concerning the OB version 223 . Diachronic development of linguistic format Like most later Hh divisions, Emar Hh 13 is found exclusively in a bilingual format. However, as the Ugarit material is unilingual, it may be said that the LBA Syrian version as a whole stands at a half-way point between the OB and 1st Millennium traditions. Apparently, the Syrian version of Hh 13 could be realized in different linguistic formats in different schools, just as the Emar version of Hh 3-4 and 8 could be realized in different formats within a single school. Whether or not such linguistic variation applies to the Syrian Hh corpus as a whole cannot be established until all relevant material from Ugarit is published. Diachronic development of entry inventory As part of the LBA Syrian version, the fragmentary Emar material is assumed to have had an entry inventory similar to that found for Ugarit. With regard to inventory size the 266 entries of the Ugarit version of Hh 13 represent a developmental half-way point between the 138 entries of the OB version and the 346 entries of the 1st Millennium version. This confirms that the wider tendency to diachronic expansion observed for the earlier divisions (cf. 14.4.2.) may apply to Hh as a whole. Diachronic development of key-word sequence The key-word sequence of the LBA Syrian version of Hh 13 may be compared to that of the OB and 1st Millennium versions through the RS references added to the respective editions in MSL X. Such a comparison appears to show significant discrepancies between the various versions when the jumble of reference numbers is considered. On closer inspection, however, it may be seen that the sequence of key-words remains the same, viz. SIKI-TÚG-GADA. The considerable deviations in the entry sequence within these key-word sections may be explained to their relative length. The key-word sections of Hh 13 are much longer than those found in for example Hh 8 and thus leave much more room for internal variation within these sections. This internal variation itself, however, is a structurally unmarked phenomenon, similar to the expansion of the Emar GUD- and ANŠE-sections found in Hh 8.

222 223

MSL 10, 128-37. The OB forerunners to canonical tablet XIX are edited in MSL 10, 143-9.

169

Part 3 – Structural Analysis 14.4.5. Divisions 14-16 Comparison of the LBA Syrian versions of Hh 14-6 For Hh 14-16 a comprehensive edition of the Ugarit material is available in MSL XI but this should be used with caution for two reasons. First, the two ‘Ras Shamra Recensions’ it gives are actually two different parts of Hh: ‘Recension A’ covers Hh 16 (canonical tablets XXIbXXII) and ‘Recension B’ covers Hh 14-15 (canonical tablets XX-XXIa) 224 . This means that whereas canonical tablets XX-XXII are covered by three tablets in Emar, they are covered by only two in Ugarit 225 . Second, for the latter ‘recension’ there is now available an expanded and improved edition 226 . In the new edition of the Emar material found in parts 1 and 2 this results in the use of different sets of references to the Ugarit parallels: the Ugarit references for Emar Hh 14-15 refer to the edition of van Soldt, whereas those for Emar Hh 16 refer to MSL XI ‘Recension A’. Comparing the Ugarit and Emar versions, some important differences can be noticed. First, as mentioned earlier, the divisional structure is different: Ugarit has a two-fold divisional structure (Hh 14+15 and 16) whereas Emar has a three-fold divisional structure (Hh 14, 15 and 16). Second, in Ugarit all divisions are attested in both uni- and bilingual format, whereas in Emar divisions 14-15 are only attested in bilingual format, even if in most text material of division 15 (and some of division 16) this bilinguality is virtual (cf. 4.4.). Third, Emar Hh 16 is attested in uni- as well as bilingual format but these different formats are linked to wholly different versions: not only does the entry inventory and sequence attested within specific key-word sections differ but the inventory of the key-word themselves differs (version A has an extensive ÉG-section missing in B, while B has a KUR-section lacking in A – cf. introductory notes to the composite edition of 16b). In Ugarit the situation is different: both linguistic formats found for Hh 16 reflect the same version of the text 227 . On balance it seems that, despite fairly substantial similarities in content throughout large text sections, it is not possible to speak of a single, homogeneous Syrian version of Hh 14-16. Earlier and later versions For Hh 14-16 editions of the canonical version can be found in MSL XI but these are largely fragmentary and their reconstructed sequence is frequently based on those of material from earlier periods 228 . Therefore for these divisions no completely reliable, systematic comparison with the 1st Millennium version is possible. The references to the canonical editions added to the Emar text in parts 1 and 2 are mainly provided as a convenience for the reader. Apart from some general remarks, the following commentary will only consider those specific features of the canonical version that are verifiably particular to the 1st Millennium period. Regarding a comparison of the Emar material with the OB materials edited in MSL XI the following commentary will only consider the Forerunner 1 from Larsa 229 , which shows much more similarity to the peripheral material than the Nippur forerunner 230 . 224

W.H. van Soldt, ‘The Ugarit Version of Harra-hubullu 20-21a. A New Source’ in: M. Dietrich and O. Loretz (eds.), Mesopotamica – Ugaritica – Biblica. Festschrift für Kurt Bergerhof zur Vollendung seines 70. Lebensjahres am 7. Mai 1992 (Neukirchen 1993), 429. 225 Ibidem, 440. 226 Ibidem, 427-446. 227 MSL 11, 42-49. 228 Ibidem, 3, 8-9, 21. 229 Ibidem, 129-36; more specific identification in van Soldt, ‘Ugarit Version’, 429. 230 Van Soldt, ‘Ugarit Version’, 441.

170

Structural Analysis * Diachronic Context Diachronic development of linguistic format For Hh 14-15 the Emar text is only found in a bilingual version but for Hh 16 it shows a unilingual as well as a bilingual version. As OB Hh is exclusively unilingual and the 1st Millennium text is exclusively bilingual, it may be said that, in terms of linguistic format, Emar Hh 14-15 conforms to the canonical version while 16 stands at a half-way point between the OB and 1st Millennium traditions. The latter phenomenon is in line with what was found for Emar Hh 3-4 and 8 as well as for Syrian LBA Hh 13. Diachronic development of entry inventory With regard to Hh 14 the fragmentary state of the Emar version makes an entry count impossible but with regard to Hh 15-16 the preserved material, through projection of column length on broken sections, allows an estimate of the number of entries for the various keyword blocks. The KI-section of Hh 15 combined with that of the uni- and bilingual versions of Hh 16 must have comprised at least 200 entries and 260 entries respectively. In both versions the other shared key-word blocks, viz. ÍD and MUL, must have comprised about 70 and 30 entries respectively. For OB Forerunner 1 the entry count for the KI, ÍD and MUL sections may be estimated at approximately 200, 40 and 20 respectively. This means that, for those key-words common to OB Forerunner 1 and both Emar versions, the entry inventory shows the same tendency to diachronic expansion as observed or suspected for earlier divisions (cf. 14.4.2., 14.4.3. and 14.4.4.). In case of virtually bilingual Hh 15 and unilingual 16 this tendency seems to be somewhat less pronounced, implying that the unilingual version stands closer to the OB tradition than the bilingual version. Diachronic development of key-word sequence After the stable key-word sequence A.ŠAG 4 -KI found in Hh 14, 15 and early 16, the rest of Hh 16 shows important differences in key-word sequence between the uni- and bilingual Emar versions. The unilingual version certainly has the sequence ÍD-ÉG-TÚL-MUL (PA 5 may have been present in the broken section between TÚL and MUL, but this is not likely if it is considered that the lower part of 16aT1 VI probably had at least some MUL-entries) whereas the bilingual version has KUR-ÍD-TÚL-PA 5 -ÉG-MUL-ÉŠ. If these two sequences are juxtaposed with the keyword sequence found in OB Forerunner 1, which has ÍD-ÉG-MUL-PEŠ (i.e. omitting ÉŠ), it is clear that the unilingual Emar version is closer to that of OB Forerunner 1 than the bilingual Emar version. The former only deviates with regard to the interpolation of TÚL, whereas the latter deviates with regard to the interpolation of KUR, TÚL, PA 5 as well as ÉŠ. The impression that the two linguistic formats found in Emar effectively represent contrasting diachronic strata is reinforced by the fact that the bilingual version has a KUR-section also found in the 1st Millennium version 231 but completely lacking in both the unilingual version and OB Forerunner 1. This evidence is well in line with the diachronic position of the unilingual version suggested by the preceding analysis of linguistic format and entry inventory.

231

MSL 11, 21.

171

Part 3 – Structural Analysis 14.5. LÚ=ša Lu material in the LBA periphery Before proceeding with a comparison of the various versions found in the LBA periphery it should be noted that, although the Emar version is undoubtedly a variant of the series Lu, its title actually deviates from that of the canonical title. The title of the canonical series is that of its first entry, which is LÚ=ša - in Emar this entry is shifted to the second line and replaced by the entry LÚ=šū. In the following commentary this difference is of minor importance as the series will be referred to by the neutral abbreviation ‘Lu’. Apart from Emar, Lu texts are attested in three LBA peripheral sites, viz. Nuzi, Ugarit and Hattusha. As far as published, these are edited in MSL XII 232 . It should be noted that most of the Ugarit material remains unpublished - the only exception is a single unilingual fragment. The Nuzi and Ugarit material is unilingual but in terms of key-word inventory and sequence it largely conforms to the Emar version: the ŠÀ.TAM and DUB.SAR entries found in Nuzi and Ugarit are mostly matched in the EST section 1070-1093’’. The similarity is sufficient to postulate a common Syrian Lu tradition shared by Nuzi. With regard to the Hattusha material the situation is less clear. The bilingual Hattusha texts cover a number of entries that have parallels in the later parts of canonical Lu (Lu II in the Short Version) but are very fragmentary, so that there are very few overlaps for a comparison with the also quite fragmentary Emar text. With regard to the only substantial overlap, the KAR.KID-section, the Hattusha and Emar versions show considerable deviations in entry inventory as well as sequence. Based on the presently available evidence, therefore, it is impossible to postulate a common Lu tradition for all peripheral sites. Earlier and later versions The Lu series is attested from the OB to the 1st Millennium period and separate editions of the attested materials for the different periods are available in MSL XII. In regard to the materials found in MSL XII two remarks should be made. First, it is important not to confuse the series Lu, i.e. LÚ=ša, with the series called OB Lu, i.e. LÚÁZLAG=ašlāku - the latter has thematically related content but represents a different composition that only occurs in the OB period and is therefore not found in Emar. To differentiate between the OB version of LÚ=ša and LÚ ÁZLAG=ašlāku, the former is referred to as Proto-Lu and the latter as OB Lu. Second, it should be noted that the canonical 1st Millennium version of Lu is found in two distinct versions: a Short and a Standard Recension233 - the former is divided into two, the latter into five tablets. Diachronic development of linguistic format Proto-Lu is found almost exclusively in unilingual format, whereas in the 1st Millennium Lu is found exclusively in bilingual format. Despite the fact that the Syrian texts appear to share a common key-word inventory and sequence they do not show a consistently shared linguistic format: the Ugarit version is attested in both unilingual and bilingual format 234 whereas the Emar version is only attested in the bilingual format. In this regard the Emar and Hattusha versions may be said to be more ‘modern’ than the Ugarit version. 232

MSL 12, 77-84.. A third version, viz. the so-called ‘Long Recension’, may in fact be considered as the first tablet of the Standard Recension (the first tablet listed for the Standard Recension itself actually belongs to the Short Recension) - cf. MSl 12, 89. 234 Van Soldt, ‘Babylonian Texts’, 203-4. 233

172

Structural Analysis * Diachronic Context

Diachronic development of entry inventory With regard to entry inventory it may be observed that the Emar version of Lu shows a considerable expansion in comparison to Proto-Lu. In Emar the total number of entries must have been around 1100 (about 75 lines per column multiplied by eight respectively sevenand-a-half columns on the first and second tablets), whereas in Proto-Lu this number is just under 850. Proto-Lu is found as a single-tablet composition, whereas Emar Lu is found on two tablets. This means that, for the Emar version of Lu, the entry inventory shows the same tendency to diachronic expansion as observed in Hh (14.4.2., 14.4.3., 14.4.4.). It should be noted that although the two-tablet structure is also found in the Short Recension of the canonical version this does not necessarily imply that Emar Lu necessarily conforms to the Short Recension with regard to either entry inventory or key-word sequence. In fact, in terms of entry inventory size the Emar version is much closer to the Standard Version than to the Short Version 235 . Diachronic development of key-word sequence In terms of key-word sequence the Emar version quite closely adheres to Proto-Lu; the main difference between the two is that the former shows frequent expansions within key-word sections and some interpolations between them. The only part of Emar Lu that shows a keyword sequence somewhat similar to that found in the 1st Millennium version is the section EST 1001-1110 and this is only due to the fact that, exceptionally, this section of Lu is transmitted from Proto-Lu to canonical Lu (I) in a fairly stable form. On balance, it may be said that in terms of key-word sequence Emar Lu is closer to Proto-Lu than to canonical Lu. 14.6. IZI=išātu Comparison of the LBA peripheral versions of Izi Apart from Emar, Izi texts are attested in two other LBA peripheral sites, viz. Ugarit and Hattusha. As far as published, these are edited in MSL XIII 236 . It should be noted that most of the Ugarit material remains unpublished - the only exception is a single unilingual text which has a short version of OB Proto-Izi II. The Emar material shares only a few individual keysign sections (Á and ZAG) with Proto-Izi II and this Ugarit text and these sections are found in a deviating sequence. It is therefore certain that there is no common Syrian Izi version. With regard to the Hattusha version, however, a number of fragments of Emar Izi show some parallel content. In fact, for much of Emar Izi the only substantial parallels available are those found in Hattusha. The specific parallels in question are discussed in more detail in the introductory notes preceding the composite edition. Due to large gaps in the attestation record for both sites it is impossible, at this stage, to say whether the Emar and Hattusha Izi fragments reflect a common version, but this is certainly not inconceivable.

235 236

Cf. MSL 12, 89 Table II. MSL 13, 125-47.

173

Part 3 – Structural Analysis Earlier and later versions The Izi series is attested from the OB to the 1st Millennium period and separate editions of the attested materials for the different periods are available in MSL XIII 237 . With regard to the rather badly preserved canonical version three remarks should be made. First, it should be noted that it includes some materials from before the ‘canonical’ 1st Millennium period: Tablets I and XV contain some (Late) OB Sippar texts whereas Tablets G and M contain some MA texts. Second, among the the 1st Millennium (NA) texts there appear to be two versions 238 . There is a ‘short version’, which actually constitutes an extended version of Proto-Izi (Tablets H and J match Proto-Izi I whereas Tablets Q and R match Proto-Izi II) and which, hypothetically, may have had four tablets. There is also a ‘long version’, which in terms of sequence has little common ground with Proto-Izi but shows an exponential quantitative expansion both in terms of key-signs and Akkadian equivalents - this ‘long version’ seems to have included at least sixteen tablets. Third, in its canonical version Izi contains much content which in earlier periods is found in other series (e.g. Tablet F has the key-signs GÚ and KA, which in the OB period are found in Kagal and Sag). For a comparison of Emar version of Izi with the 1st Millennium version there two main methodological problems. The first problem is that of the diachronic transformation of Izi, which involves its complete redefinition. In the OB curriculum the Proto-Izi series is limited in scope (two tablets) and shows a mixed thematic-acrographic organization 239 , whereas the long canonical version is of encyclopaedic proportions and tends to a systematically acrographic organization 240 . This transformation includes the progressive absorption of material previously covered in smaller, separate series, leading to the complete disappearance of series such as Kagal, Sag and Nigga (cf. 11.4.). Effectively, this implies that a comparison of OB or LBA Izi with 1st Millennium Izi constitutes a comparison of two very different compositions, which may indeed have served very different purposes. The second problem is that, in any case, the fragmentary state of the Emar as well as the canonical material implies that no complete or fully systematic comparison of Emar and 1st Millennium versions is possible. Due to these methodological limitations the following remarks must be - at least as far as the 1st Millennium comparison is concerned - of a provisional nature. Diachronic development of linguistic format In contrast to some other advanced series, such as OB Lu and Diri, Izi is only very rarely found in the bilingual format during the OB period 241 . On the other side of the diachronic spectrum, canonical Izi is found exclusively in the bilingual format. From this perspective it is important to note the difference within the LBA periphery between Ugarit on the one hand and Emar-Hattusha on the other hand. The single published Ugarit Izi text adheres closely to its forerunner, OB Proto-Izi, with regard to content (key-sign inventory and sequence) as well as linguistic format (unilingual text). Even if some of the other (unpublished) Ugarit material is bilingual 242 , the mixture between uni- and bilingual texts still clearly contrasts with the

237

MSL 13 gives the OB (Proto-Izi), LBA (pre-canonical and peripheral) and 1st Millennium (canonical) versions on pp. 8-59, 125-47 and 154-226 respectively. 238 Cf. MSL 13, 154-5. 239 Ibidem, 7. 240 Ibidem, 154-5. 241 Ibidem, 10. 242 Van Soldt, ‘Babylonian Texts’, 204-5.

174

Structural Analysis * Diachronic Context Emar and Hattusha texts: these not only abandoned the OB inventory and sequence but also consistently show a bilingual format. Diachronic development of entry inventory As mentioned above OB Proto-Izi is a list of limited length (two tablets) in comparison with which canonical Izi shows exponential growth. This growth is visible in terms of key-sign inventory as well as in terms of the number of Akkadian equivalent given per key-signs. The former is visible in the absorption of many key-signs previously found in Kagal, Sag and Nigga, whereas the latter is visible by noting the lengthening of entry-blocks for individual key-signs. In this regard the Emar and Hattusha material may be said to show a clear tendency to develop in the direction of the canonical version. An example of the inclusion of material from another series in Emar is found in the key-sign GÚ (2A003-12), which in the OB period is found in Kagal. An example of the lengthening of entry-blocks for individual key-signs in Emar is found in the entry-block for ZAG (2A013), which in Proto-Izi has four entries 243 but in Emar has at least nine entries. In the canonical version the tendency to diachronic expansion, also found for other series (14.4.2., 14.4.4., 14.4.5., 14.5.), is more pronounced, but it is clear that Emar and Hattusha Izi already show this phenomenon. In this respect, the published unilingual version Ugarit Izi seems to point to a divergent transmission chronology but it should be noted that the situation may be different with regard to the unpublished bilingual bilingual version. Diachronic development of key-sign sequence As in the case of entry inventory discussed above, there is a clear opposition between the Ugarit and Emar-Hattusha Izi series in terms of key-sign sequence. Whereas the Ugarit version conforms largely to the Proto-Izi sequence, the versions from Emar and Hattusha show significant deviations. As far as can be made out from the fragmentary evidence, the key-sign sequences of Emar and Hattusha show some similarity (e.g. the order GÚ-Á and the proximity of BAD and MUD). Unfortunately, the equally fragmentary state of the canonical material does not allow a detailed study of the later development of Izi. Due to the fact, however, that in Emar and Hattusha (parts of) the older lists Kagal, Sag and Nigga survive as independent compositions, it is clear that the process causing the transformation of Proto-Izi into canonical Izi, with its full absorption of these older lists, is not yet complete. As the transformation of Proto-Izi into canonical Izi also predates the full acrographic systematization characteristic of the canonical series (Emar Izi still shows a mixed-stepped vertical organization of content - cf. 6.3.), Emar (and Hattusha) Izi may be said to show an early stage of the transformative process through which Proto-Izi became canonical Izi. A comparison of the original OB list with one of the earliest versions of the transformed list, viz. the LBA Hattusha version, may give some insight into the early triggering mechanism of this transformation. Diachronic transformation of Izi At its early stage, the transformative process is primarily characterized by growth in entryinventory and rearrangement of the key-sign sequence. In the LBA version no programmatic elimination of the other acrographic series is visible. In other words, even if canonical Izi eventually did absorb many other series, that phenomenon is likely to be a non-programmatic 243

MSL 13, 48.

175

Part 3 – Structural Analysis side-effect of another transformative mechanism. In this respect the most obvious lead is provided by the clear rearrangement of the key-sign sequence. If the longest preserved sequence of LBA Hattusha is compared to that of Proto-Izi it is seen that the former is a complete rearrangement of the latter (Table 30). Table 30. The sequence of the LBA Hattusha Izi Tablet A key-signs in OB Proto-Izi Key-sign

AbZ number palaeography pp.5-35

Position in Hattusha Izi Tablet A MSL XIII pp.132-43

Position in unilingual OB Proto-Izi MSL XIII I: pp. 17-34; II: pp. 41-59

[] gap or unclear Á GÚ SI [] NÍG [] ZAG DA ŠE [] DAG / KIB MÁŠ

334 106 112 [] 597 [] 332 335 367 [] 280 / 228 076

11-84 85-183 184-201 [202-227] 228-234 [235-238] 239-257 258-272 273-276 [277-296] 297-307 / 308 309-318

II 1-101 not found (Kagal key-sign) I 525-531 [] not found (Nigga key-sign) [] II 259-275 II 102-107 II 161-168 [] I 142-154 / not found II 344-348

If the key-sign transitions preserved in Hattusha (Á>GÚ, GÚ>SI etc.) are analyzed it is found that in almost all cases there is a close graphic association between the key-signs involved. Á and GÚ share the HI-element, GÚ and SI share two uneven horizontals, ZAG and DA share three horizontals whereas in their older form DAG, KIB and MÁŠ share two slanted wedges in their final sections (cf. AbZ palaeography). This clearly shows that the Hattusha version shows an increased acrographic systematization in comparison to OB Proto-Izi. Only in case of the transition DA>ŠE the key-sign transition is not characterized by graphic but by semantic association: DA(.RÍ.AN.ŠUB) is associated with ŠE(.BE.DA) over patālu ‘to twist; wind’. This exception implies that the process of acrographic systematization is not yet completely dominant in guiding the key-sign sequence in Hattusha Izi. The analysis of the preserved Emar key-sign transitions (6.3. Table 15) has shown that in Emar semantic association seems to be more frequent than in Hattusha (note, however, that the available samples for both sites are quite narrow). If this is so, this may indicate a slight difference between the Emar and Hattusha versions in terms of the developmental stage of Izi in the two sites: the Emar version may be slightly less advanced in terms of acrographic systematization. Such a slightly more conservative form would not be surprising if it is considered that the Emar school also retains at least one older series that is completely omitted in the Hattusha curriculum, viz. Nigga (the same may also be the case for the Sag series).

176

Structural Analysis * Diachronic Context Modular structure of the ‘acrographic’ series The diachronic transformation of Izi clearly shows that individual key-sign blocks found in Izi and the other ‘acrographic’ series were treated as autonomous ‘modules’: they could be rearranged within a series or transferred between series as the need was felt. For Izi this meant that, in its later versions, ‘modules’ from other series were increasingly added to its original OB inventory. In the discussion of the other ‘acrographic’ series it will be seen that, due to various factors, there also was a constant reshuffling (addition, omission and transferral) of ‘modules’ in the other series. These factors include the introduction of the bilingual format, the general tendency to diachronic growth and different types of associative systematization. The mixed-stepped organization on the key-sign organizational level (i.e. level 2 of the vertical organization of content) found in the advanced series (cf. 11.3) meant that these series intrinsically encouraged a ‘modular’ approach to key-signs, i.e. they invited investigation of there various potential associations. Taken in conjunction with the above mentioned factors this intrinsic feature resulted in a rather loose, diachronically manipulatable modular structure. Modular structure and the transformation of the advanced curriculum Eventually, this modular structure was responsible for the abandonment of the traditionalconventional definition of most series originally found in the OB advanced curriculum. Izi absorbed the smaller ‘acrographic’ series and was transformed into an nearly fully acrographic series. Due to its special status, the only other OB advanced series to survive into the canonical lexical corpus was Diri (cf. 11.4.). Lu, originally narrowly related to Izi, was also involved in this redefinition progress as it was progressively consolidated into a almost fully thematic series, loosing its Izi-type interpolations 244 . Effectively, it may be said that the combination of mixed-stepped (level 2) and the traditionalconventional (level 4) organization of content found in many advanced series proved untenable on the long run. Their traditional-conventional organization form was eliminated or rather made unrecognizable and irrelevant - by accumulated shifts in a modular structure that was empirically an essential feature of the mixed-stepped organization form. Simultaneously, in the remaining series, single-association organization forms (acrographic in case of Izi, semantic in case of Lu) superseded the mixed-stepped organization form in which they had previously coexisted (cf. 11.2.1.). In the long run, the traditional-conventional organization form on level 4 proved diachronically resilient only for two types of lexical compositional. The first type includes series in which traditional-conventional organization on level 4 was linked to single-associative organization on level 2 (semantic association in case of G, Hh and Lu and acrographic association in case or canonical Izi). The second type includes a few series which had a functionally (didactically) irreplaceable original key-sign inventory (Sa and Diri).

244

Cf. MSL 12, 87.

177

Part 3 – Structural Analysis 14.7. KÁ.GAL=abullu Kagal material in the LBA periphery In the absence of conclusive evidence for Ugarit, the only certain attestations of Kagal in the LBA periphery (excluding Assur) are found in Hattusha. Hattusha Kagal is edited in MSL XIII 245 . Aside from some Sag-material, which may have been part of Kagal (as is the case in the parallel MA corpus - cf. 14.8.), the Hattusha corpus includes fragments with the key-signs KÁ-GAL, KISAL, KÁ and É. It should be noted that at least one key-sign found in OB Kagal 246 , viz. GÚ, in Hattusha is not found in Kagal but in Izi 247 . This is similar to the situation in Emar (cf. Izi EST 2A003-12) and shows that Hattusha and Emar show some shared developments in their advanced curricula. For the existence of the Kagal series in Emar, however, no conclusive evidence is available. The only Emar text fragment that can not be classified as part of another series is 576, which shows a series of entries with the shared key-sign IM. For this key-sign, however, there is no parallel in Hattusha Kagal or any other Hattusha series. The question that should be answered is whether the key-sign IM necessarily represents Kagal content. Outside the Emar corpus the only attested parallel for an acrographic list with key-sign IM is found in OB Nippur, presumably preceding material with Sag-type content (cf. 14.8.). In MSL XIII this material was classified as an ‘unlabeled acrographic list’ and described as part of Kagal (Kagal Tablet D) 248 on the basis of the fact that in the MA corpus Sag-material is listed as belonging Kagal. It is impossible to ascertain whether the classification ‘Kagal’ for either the Sag-material or the associated IM-material may be projected on either the OB Nippur source in question or on Emar text 576. The only thing that is certain is that, according to formal and organizational criteria, the Emar IM-section does not belong to either Sag, Nigga or Diri (cf. 7.1-2.). According to the same criteria, it could theoretically have belonged to Izi, but for lack of more conclusive evidence, it is convenient to keep the present classification. The fact that individual key-sign blocks can be shown to be attachable or detachable in the ‘acrographic’ series (e.g. causing Sag to be merged into Kagal in Assur), or even exchangeable between them (e.g. causing GÚ to appear in Kagal Hattusha), is further prove of their postulated modular structure (cf. 14.6., 14.8., 14.9.). Earlier and later versions The series Kagal is only attested in the OB and LBA periods and most relevant material has been edited in MSL XIII 249 . With regard to this edition two remarks should be made. First, the so-called ‘canonical’ version in fact refers to a mixture of OB and LBA texts (the latter are found in Assur in Hattusha). Of these texts only those edited under Tablets A-D and H actually contain material that has been dated later than the OB period. Second, not all ‘canonical’ material has been identified as belonging to Kagal with certainty, this is especially so for the so-called ‘unlabelled acrographic lists’ (Tablets D, F-H). Like some other

245

MSL 13, 148-53, now add G. Wilhelm, ‘Die zweite tafel der Serie Kagal in Hattusa’, ZA 79 (1989) 73-9. ‘Canonical’ Kagal Tablet I in MSL 13, 227-31. The key-sign GÚ is found in entries 362-85. 247 Izi Boghazköy Tablet A in MSL 13, 132-43. The key-sign GÚ is found in entries 85-183. 248 MSL 13, 124. 249 Now add Wilhelm, ‘Kagal Hattusa’. 246

178

Structural Analysis * Diachronic Context ‘acrographic’ series, Kagal completely disappears after the LBA period: it is not found in a ‘canonical’ 1st Millennium version. Diachronic development of linguistic format OB Kagal is found in uni- as well as bilingual format - in this respect bilingual Emar fragment 576 conforms to the parallel Assur. It should be noted that for Hattusha Kagal both uni- and bilingual material is attested. Diachronic development of entry inventory and key-sign sequence The evidence of fragment 576, which only preserves part of the entries for one single keysign, is not sufficient to allow for conclusions regarding either the quantitative or sequential aspect of the key-signs of whatever series it belonged to. 14.8. SAĜ B Definition of Sag In order to study the diachronic position of the Emar SagB material it is first necessary to define the series Sag in relation to the other lexical series. This issue is addressed in the introduction of MSL SS 1: there it is shown that in the OB and LBA periods lexical material with Sag-content was integrated into larger advanced compositions, which include the ‘acrographic’ series as well as Proto-Lu 250 . In at least one instance Sag-content was classified by the ancient scribes as belonging to the larger series known as Kagal 251 . Effectively, larger advanced compositions appear to have been sub-divisible into shorter independent series - one such independent series is the ‘Sag series’. This modular structure wa also found in other OB and LBA advanced series and represents a general feature of all ‘acrographic’ series as well as (Proto-)Lu (cf. 14.6., 14.7. and 14.9.). In the OB corpus there are four tablets where Sag-content appears together with other lexical material: a bilingual tablet, where Sag-content occurs in conjunction with the key-sign IM 252 , and three unilingual tablets, where it occurs following OB LuD 253 . There is, however, a fifth, bilingual OB tablet on which the Sag series appears independently 254 - this is the recension commonly referred to as SagA. On some tablets the evidence for the key-sign sequence is limited but not incompatible with that found on the others, viz. SAG-KA-compounds-IGI, which may be followed by ŠAG 4 . It should be noted that there is no evidence that the OB Sag-material, whether it occurs within larger compositions or independently, was ever classified by the ancient scribes as belonging to Kagal. The LBA Sag material may be divided into two corpora. First, there is the Sag-content found in ‘canonical’ Kagal ‘Tablet B’ 255 . With regard to this material it should be noted that the term ‘canonical Kagal’ used in MSL is somewhat misleading: Kagal disappears as an 250

MSL SS 1, 3. The association between Proto-Lu and the ‘acrographic’ series, including Sag, is discussed by Veldhuis, ‘Proto-Kagal/Nigga’, 209. 251 MSL 13, 233-4 colophon of ‘canonical’ Kagal Tablet B in source C. 252 Ibidem, 243-7 ‘canonical’ Kagal ‘Tablet D’ source A. 253 MSL SS 1, 7ff. Proto-Sag sources A-C. 254 Ibidem, 17ff. SagA source YBC 9868. 255 MSL 13, 233-7.

179

Part 3 – Structural Analysis independent series before the ‘canonical’ 1st Millennium period 256 . All texts collected under the heading ‘canonical Kagal’ date from the OB and LBA periods and their only common feature is that they are bilingual versions of the series. ‘Canonical’ Tablet B is, in fact, a collection of MA texts from different tablets 257 and will henceforth be referred to as such. Second, there is the peripheral material, which is found in two sites: Emar and Hattusha. In the Emar version it shows the sequence SAG-DÙL-KA-compounds and it is this recension that is commonly referred to as SagB. Before proceeding to the diachronic comparison, the relation of the Emar version to the other peripheral material as well as to MA Kagal ‘Tablet B’ will be briefly touched upon below. It will be noticed that the differentiation between the recensions A and B found in MSL SS 1 is meant to refer to two different forms of the bilingual text. Effectively, however, it refers to texts from two different periods, viz. the OB and MB periods respectively. Differences in content should be viewed in relation to diachronic development and therefore it would be more accurate to use the terms OB Sag and LBA Sag - the former can occur either in unilingual (‘Proto-Sag’) or in bilingual form. As observed earlier, both OB and LBA Sag could occur either as part of larger ‘acrographic’ compositions or as an independent series. Sag material in the LBA periphery Except for Emar the only other LBA peripheral site where Sag-type material may be found is Hattusha - a listing of the relevant fragments found in Hattusha may be found in MSL SS 1 258 . Note that three of these fragments are edited in MSL XIII 259 , where they were originally classified as belonging to Kagal. In fact, due to its fragmentary state it is at present not clear whether the Hattusha material belongs to a separate Sag series or whether it is indeed part of any larger lexical composition. Considering that other Kagal material is attested in Hattusha, the main argument for classifying the Hattusha Sag-material as belonging to Kagal would be that this conforms to the classification of Sag-material in the parallel MA corpus. It should be noted, however, that such classification does not account either for the different chronological strata to which the Assur and Hattusha corpora belong or for the different strata attested within the Hattusha corpus. Due to the fragmentary state of the material it is impossible to determine what was the keysign sequence of the Hattusha text. A more detailed comparison with the Emar version shows that in terms of the entry sequences within key-sign blocks there are considerable deviations between the Emar and Hattusha material. Even if many individual entries may be found in both versions (e.g. Hattusha Fragment A 1’-10’ has parallels for EST 001b-e and g-h), their sequences never consistently match (e.g. in Hattusha Fragment B lines 2’, 3’, 4’ and 5’ have differently sequenced parallels in Emar, viz. EST 055, 057, 058 and 007 respectively). Although it is theoretically possible that in Hattusha too Sag was an independent series Sag, possibly even sharing its key-sign sequence with the OB or Emar version, the attested deviations between the Hattusha and Emar versions suggest that there certainly was no fully unified LBA peripheral version of Sag.

256

Ibidem, 227. Ibidem, 233-4. 258 MSL SS 1, 36-8. 259 MSL 13, 243ff. sections 4, 10 and 12; corrections and addenda in MSL SS 1, 36. 257

180

Structural Analysis * Diachronic Context Comparison of the LBA peripheral and MA versions It should be reiterated that the MA materials presented as ‘Tablet B’ in MSL XIII are, in fact, a collection of fragments of different tablets 260 . The heterogeneous nature of this material and the fact that all of the fragments only preserve text with a single key-sign (SAG) makes a systematic structural comparison of the peripheral and MA versions impossible. Only two observations can be made. First, there is evidence that, although the MA Sag-material was considered part of the Kagal series 261 , it was given on a separate tablet: source A of ‘Tablet B’ gives a piece of the first column of a tablet 262 . In the MA curriculum the Sag-material thus appears to have been treated as a separate division within Kagal. Second, in terms of the entry sequences within key-sign blocks there are considerable deviations between both peripheral versions and the MA version. A number of individual entries are shared (e.g. SAG-LI-TAR = EST 028, Hattusha Section 12 1’-2’, MA ‘Tablet B’ 302-4), but for none of these the sequential context is the same. Earlier and later versions As a distinct compositional unit the Sag series is only found in the OB and LBA periods and its various attestations in both periods has been discussed already. Comparison of the Emar version with the OB version is possible on the basis of the MSL SS 1 edition, which gives the unilingual OB material as ‘Proto-Sag’ and the bilingual OB material as ‘SagA’. In later periods the content of Sag is absorbed into Izi - a similar phenomenon may be observed with regard to other small ‘acrographic’ series. This wider process, resulting in the transformation of Izi as well as the complete disappearance of these older series, including Sag, has been commented upon in paragraph 14.6. . Diachronic development of linguistic format The OB Sag-material is found in both uni- and bilingual format. It should be noted that combinations of Sag-material with OB LuD are only attested in the unilingual texts. The only OB bilingual text that explicitly shows a combination of Sag-material with other lexical material on a single tablet is source A of the so-called ‘Canonical Kagal Tablet D’. In source A, however, Sag-material does not occur together with OB LuD, but with an IM-section 263 . If this phenomenon is linked to the fact that all later Sag-material is multilingual and is given, as far as can be observed, either as an independent series or as a separate division within Kagal, it may be suggested that for Sag the shift from uni- to multilingual format coincides with the development of Sag into an independent series. It seems that at approximately the same time that the bilingual format was introduced in the Late OB period, the ‘acrographic’ material became separated from OB LuD, which it had previously followed. In the OB bilingual texts the SAG and KA logograms are still linked to some other ‘acrographic’ material (i.e. the IMsection in source A and the IGI-section in SagA), but no longer to Proto-Lu. It is only in the LBA texts that the Sag-text occurs completely independently, i.e. in Emar SagB and, most likely, MA Kagal ‘Tablet B’. Given the modular structure of the larger ‘acrographic’ series, to 260

MSL 13, 233-4. Ibidem, 233-4 colophon of ‘canonical’ Kagal Tablet B in source C. 262 Ibidem, 233. 263 Note that if the IM-section is assumed to follow the Sag-material, as assumed in the original publication (E. Chiera, Sumerian Lexical Texts from the Temple School of Nippur (Chicago 1929) text 248 p. 124), its presence may be explained as a graphically associated expansion of the Sag-list, viz. KAxIM > IM. 261

181

Part 3 – Structural Analysis which the Sag originally belonged, the combination of the introduction of the bilingual format and the general tendency to diachronic expansion (see below) produced the independent Sag series. Diachronic development of entry inventory With regard to entry inventory it has already been observed in earlier literature 264 that Sag shows a similar tendency to diachronic expansion as found for some of the other series discussed earlier: the number of Akkadian equivalents given for each logogram tends to increase. This tendency to diachronic expansion is only one of the factors contributing the lengthening of series such as Sag. The lengthening of the series is a different, albeit related, phenomenon. In this regard two processes should be distinguished. On the hand, there is the increase in the horizontal length of each entry due to the introduction of the bilingual format. This means that less key-signs can be covered on a single tablet: Proto-Sag has SAG-KA-IGI-ŠAG 4 whereas SagA only has SAG-KA-IGI. On the other hand there is the tendency to diachronic expansion, i.e. the expansion of the number of entries per key-sign: this shortens the number of key-signs covered even further: LBA SagB only has the key-signs SAG and KA left. Diachronic development of key-sign sequence If the the KA-compounds are considered variants of the KA key-sign, then Emar SagB only contains three key-signs, given in the order SAG-DÙL-KA. Within the KA key-sign block a number of variant readings (KÌRI, ZÚ, INIM, GÙ, DUG 4 ) and compound variants (xME, xNUN, xSA, xGÁ, xIM, xLI) are given, but this does not affect the larger key-sign sequence itself. If DÙL, read KÚŠ(.Ù), is considered a graphic and phonetic variant of OB KIŠI 4 (Proto-Sag VIII 23’ and SagA II 28 265 ), then this sequence may be said to faithfully mirror the OB sequence. Due to the fragmentary state of the relevant material it is not possible to say whether this diachronic stability also applies to the MA version. 14.9. NÍĜ.GA=makkūru Definition of Nigga In order to study the diachronic position of the Emar Nigga material it is first necessary to define the series Nigga in relation to the other lexical series. Despite the fact that Nigga is clearly attested as an independent series in the OB period, and now in LBA Emar as well (cf. 9.0.), more generally its independence and relation to the other acrographic may be described as problematic issues. In the OB and LBA periods Nigga-type material is also frequently found as part of larger ‘acrographic’ compositions, variously classified as either Kagal or Izi 266 . This implies that the modular structure earlier observed for Lu, Izi and SagB also applies to Nigga, confirming that it is indeed a general OB and LBA feature of the ‘acrographic’ series as well as (Proto-)Lu. Later on, in the 1st Millennium period, the distinction between various smaller ‘acrographic’ series is completely lost: Kagal, Sag and Nigga completely disappear and most of their content is absorbed into and spread throughout the exponentially expanded canonical series Izi. 264

MSL SS 1, 5. Ibidem, 8 and 20 respectively. 266 Cf. Veldhuis, ‘Proto-Kagal/Nigga’, 211ff. 265

182

Structural Analysis * Diachronic Context

In order to determine the status of Nigga in a given corpus, such as that of the various LBA peripheral sites discussed next, it is useful to investigate all Nigga-type material, regardless of what series it occurs in. Here, Nigga-type material will be defined as text material that covers those key-signs that are found in the independent OB series Nigga, viz. NÍG, ŠU, SA, BAL, GÚ and KI (the last key-sign is only found in the unilingual version) 267 . Nigga-type material in the LBA periphery Except for Emar, Nigga-type material is attested in two other peripheral sites: Ugarit and Hattusha 268 . For Ugarit the relevant material, viz. one single text in the Rap’ānu archive 269 , remains unpublished and therefore can not be evaluated. For Hattusha some Nigga-type material is found embedded in texts that have been classified as belonging to either Izi or Kagal. The relevant Hattusha Izi material includes Tablet A, which has GÚ and NÍG sections, and Tablet D, which preserves a BAL-section 270 . The relevant Hattusha Kagal material is found in Kagal II, which has a GÚ-section 271 . The fact that in Hattusha all Nigga-type material consistently occurs directly embedded in non-Nigga contexts (i.e. mixed among keysigns not found in OB Nigga) clearly shows that in Hattusha Nigga does not occur as an independent series. This implies that, with regard to the ‘acrographic’ part of the curriculum, the Emar and Hattusha lexical traditions are significantly different. Earlier and later versions As stated earlier, Nigga has disappeared as an independent series in the 1st Millennium curriculum. In fact, the Emar text represents the last attestation of Nigga as a separate compositional unit. Regarding the earlier versions it should be noted that when Nigga appears as a separate series in the OB period, it may be found in a unilingual as well as bilingual version. The bilingual version maintains nearly the same key-sign sequence as the unilingual version. It only omits the final KI-section, which it replaces by a section with a number of longer phrases but without a shared key-sign. Comparison of the Emar version with the OB version is possible on the basis of its full edition in MSL XIII edition. In later periods the content of Nigga is absorbed into Izi - a similar phenomenon may be observed with regard to other small ‘acrographic’ series. This wider process, resulting in the complete disappearance of these older series, including Nigga, has been commented upon in paragraph 14.6. . Diachronic development of linguistic format The OB Nigga texts are found in both uni- and bilingual format whereas the LBA texts are only found in the bilingual format. Unlike Sag, Nigga is already attested as an independent series before the introduction of the bilingual format in the Late OB period. More generally, this confirms that the postulated modular structure of the ‘acrographic’ series is not historically conditioned (i.e. related to the introduction of the bilingual format), but that it represents a general organizational feature related to content. In case of Sag it was seen that, 267

MSL 13, 96ff. A detailed listing with references is given by Veldhuis, ‘Proto-Kagal/Nigga’, 212. 269 RS 20.221 listed by van Soldt, ‘Babylonian Texts’, 205. 270 MSL 13, 132ff. 271 Wilhelm, ‘Kagal Hattusa’, 74. 268

183

Part 3 – Structural Analysis given the background of this modular structure, the introduction of the bilingual format and the general tendency to diachronic expansion triggered the development of an independent Sag series. In case of Nigga its modular structure meant that already in the Early OB period the same material could be presented in two different ways, viz. integrated into Kagal (source BM 54712 272 ) or given separately (sources given in MSL XIII, 91ff.), quite independently from linguistic format. In other words, whereas the linguistic format of ‘acrographic’ series such as Nigga is a distinctive feature for a diachronic comparison covering the OB and LBA periods, their modular structure is not. Diachronic development of entry inventory Considering that in all Nigga texts attested for the OB period, regardless of their compositional independence or their linguistic format, multiple key-sign blocks are fitted on a single tablet, it is remarkable that the Emar text fills a whole tablet with just one key-sign (NÍG). In the uni- and bilingual OB versions have 155 and 119 entries with a NÍG key-sign respectively - for Emar a conservative estimate (four columns with 50 entries each) would put this number at about 200. Thus, Nigga shows a similar tendency to diachronic expansion as found for many of the other series discussed earlier: the number of Akkadian equivalents given for each logogram tends to increase with time. Diachronic development of key-sign sequence As noted above, in Emar the entire text of Nigga has only a single key-sign, viz. NÍG. Earlier it was said that the possibility of the existence of other Nigga tablets, covering the other keysigns, can not be ruled out (9.2.2.). It is possible that in Emar Nigga had multiple divisions and that the other divisions are lost. However, as some of the other key-signs found in OB Nigga are extensively covered in Emar Izi, it seems more likely that in Emar the Nigga series was limited to one single tablet. Apparently, the other Nigga key-signs were reassigned to other series (cf. 9.0.). This would imply that in the ‘acrographic’ series sub-divisibility, characteristic of their modular structure, extended all the way down to level 2 of the vertical organization unit, i.e. to single key-sign blocks. It seems that in the OB and LBA periods there was a certain liberty with which individual key-sign blocks were treated within the ‘acrographic’ curriculum. Within certain limits, such blocks could be combined or separated into larger or smaller series. In case of the Nigga keysigns this liberty was taken to great lenghts. In the Early OB period all modules may be found together (OB Nigga) as well as separated and mixed with others (the ‘Proto-Kagal/Nigga’ combination), whereas in the Late OB period the last module (key-sign) is replaced by another. In the LBA period a further mixing variant, involving Izi as well as Kagal material, is found in Hattusha whereas in Emar the sub-divisibility of the original Nigga key-sign sequence is taken to its very extreme, leaving only one module (the NÍG key-sign). This compositional liberty should be primarily defined as a diachronic phenomenon - there is no proof that it caused the same content to be covered by multiple, synchronically diverging texts within a single school at any given time 273 . Its consistent recurrence throughout a long period, however, indicates that a modular-structural conception of much of the advanced lexical curriculum persisted from the OB to the LBA period. 272

Edition by Veldhuis, ‘Proto-Kagal/Nigga’, 201-5. In this regard it should be noted that the apparent occurrences in Hattusha of GÚ-sections in both Kagal (C) and Izi (A) actually reflect divergent compositional strata, as determined by palaeographic criteria (Scheucher – personal communication).

273

184

Structural Analysis * Diachronic Context

14.10. DIRI=watru The LBA peripheral versions of Diri MSL XV provides complete editions of all Diri versions found in the LBA periphery, including that found in Emar. Its edition of the Emar material has been updated in parts 1 and 2 of The Emar Lexical Texts, which offer some additions and changes (cf. inventory and concordance preceding the text edition in Part 1). The other LBA peripheral sites for which Diri material has been attested are Ugarit, Hattusha and Akhetaten. It is likely that the Ugarit version originally consisted of four tablets but only (parts of the first) three of these can be reconstructed with certainty 274 . As far as possible, systematic references to the Ugarit version are given in the composite edition of Diri in Part 2. For the other sites the fragmentary state of the material does not allow a comprehensive reconstruction of its divisional structure. What can be observed, however, is that many key-signs are shared and that such key-signs frequently show fairly similar numbers of equivalents (e.g. KAŠ 4 -KAŠ 4 is attested in Ugarit, Emar, Hattusha and Akhetaten with 4, 7, 6 and 6 entries respectively275 ). This suggests that the total length of Diri in the various peripheral sites was quite similar. The material from Ugarit is fairly well preserved but the fragmentary state of Diri in the other sites means that no comprehensive comparison of the various corpora is possible. What can be gathered from the fragmentary evidence, however, is that a standard version of Diri can be found neither in the periphery as a whole nor in Syria alone. Emar logogram sequences are found reversed or repositioned in Ugarit (e.g. the Emar sequence 012/3 IGI-DUB/IGI-UR is found split and reversed in Ugarit entries 1410 and 1354). Neither do Akkadian equivalents for specific logograms in Emar necessarily match those of Ugarit (e.g. of the seven Emar equivalents for DU-š-DU-š only one is matched in Ugarit). A similar situation can be observed if the Emar material is compared with that of Hattusha (e.g. in Emar LAGABLAGAB is preceded by IGI-UR, whereas in Hattusha it is preceded by TAK 4 -TAK 4 ) and Akhetaten (e.g. in Emar AMAR-AMAR is followed by KU 7 -KU 7 , whereas in Akhetaten it is followed by DU-DU). It is clearly impossible to speak of a single, coherent LBA peripheral version of Diri 276 . The Emar version, therefore, will have to be compared with earlier and later versions on its own merits. Earlier and later versions Diri is attested from the OB period to the 1st Millennium and MSL XV offers mostly separate editions of the material from various periods, allowing proper comparison of the Emar version with earlier and later versions. The only caveat to be made is that the edition canonical version actually partially represents a conflation of MA and NA/NB materials 277 . It should be noted that the introduction to MSL XV offers some observations on the diachronic development of the series that already partially cover the ground to be covered by this paragraph 278 .

274

MSL 15, 5. Ugarit 2105-8 (MSL 15, 77), Emar EST 033, Boghazköy 3:06-10 (MSL 15, 91), El-Amarna 1.3.03-8 (MSL 15, 100). 276 Cf. MSL 15, 5. 277 Ibidem, 6. 278 Ibidem, 4-6. 275

185

Part 3 – Structural Analysis Before proceeding to a comparison of the Emar version with earlier and later versions, two general phenomena should be observed with regard to the key-sign sequence in Diri. First, it should be noted that a fairly stable key-sign sequence is found not only in the 1st Millennium period (i.e. in its standardized ‘canonical’ version) but also in the OB period. If the three main OB versions edited in MSL XV (Nippur, ‘Oxford’ and Sippar) are compared, a common key-sign sequence (with occasional inversions and interpolations) may be recognized in the first half of all three texts. For Nippur and ‘Oxford’ their common key-sign sequence for the first half of OB Diri may be summarized as SI-KA-UD-TUK-TAK 4 LAGAB-AMAR-DU-BÚR-HAR-IGI-GIŠ-ZA-Ú-A-PA. For convenience, this sequence will here be referred to as the ‘Nippur sequence’. For Sippar evidence for some of the first few key-signs is missing but the only proven deviation from the given sequence is in the disappearance of the TAK 4 -LAGAB-AMAR-section, which may have been given in another, now lost, part of the text. In the Nippur and Sippar sources the second half of Diri is fragmentary, but for the ‘Oxford’ prisms the key-sign sequence of the second half may be summarized as ŠU-KI-TÚG-NUN-SAL-É-NÍG-EN-IM-ŠE-DUG-KAŠ-AMA-MAŠ-AN. Second, in terms of key-sign sequence a certain degree of continuity may be observed between the OB and canonical versions. In the first half of the canonical version of Diri (tablets I-III) - despite some minor inversions and sizable interpolations - the OB Nippur sequence can be recognized as its underlying ‘skeleton’ structure. With regard to the second half of Diri a comparison of the canonical and the OB ‘Oxford’ versions shows that there is hardly any common ground in terms of key-sign sequence. Diachronic development of linguistic format All versions of Diri, including the Emar version, are bilingual (the Hattusha material additionally has a Hittite equivalent) 279 . This means that, with regard to linguistic format, Diri shows complete diachronic stability. Diachronic development of entry inventory With regard to entry inventory it has already been observed in earlier literature 280 that Diri shows the same tendency to diachronic expansion found for some of the other series discussed earlier (14.4.2., 14.4.4., 14.4.5., 14.5., 14.6.): both the number of logograms and the number of Akkadian equivalents given for each logogram tends to increase. As a result, the number of tablets covered by the series increases from one in OB Nippur to (probably) four in LBA Ugarit and then to (probably) seven in the 1st Millennium canonical version. In this respect it was suggested that the total length of Diri in the various peripheral sites, including Emar, was fairly similar. Diachronic development of key-sign sequence As stated earlier, the general sequential organization of Diri shows a certain degree of stability between the various OB versions as well as between the OB and 1st Millennium versions. In this regard it should be noted that the LBA Ugarit version shows more significant deviations from the OB Nippur sequence than the canonical version. It has been suggested that this is due to the derivation of the peripheral tradition from a non-Nippur OB Vorlage. In this view 279 280

Cavigneaux, ‘Lexikalische Listen’, 625-6. MSL 15, 4.

186

Structural Analysis * Diachronic Context the canonical sequence is a continuation of the Nippur tradition 281 . In fact, the Ugarit key-sign sequence deviates from the Nippur sequence as well as the Sippar sequence. Significantly, the key-signs DU and BÚR, which in Sippar are found some distance before the HAR-AH-IGIsection, in Ugarit are shifted to a position some distance after IGI (viz. after A and Ú in tablet II). In Ugarit the key-signs HAR and AH the are divorced from their Sippar neighbours BÚR and IGI and shifted even further forward (viz. following the SAL and IM sections in tablet III). Actually, the only similarity of the Sippar and Ugarit sequences is that they do not conform to the Nippur sequence, a feature, however, that is much more pronounced in the Ugarit than in Sippar. It was already noted that the Emar sequence does not conform to the sequences found in other peripheral sites, so now it remains to be seen to what extent it conforms to (any of) the OB and canonical sequences. The only key-sign sequences preserved in the fragmentary Emar material are AMAR-KU 7 , IGI-LAGAB and DU(LAH 4 -KAŠ 4 )-BÚR. Only the last of these is matched in all of the attested OB and canonical sequences - the other two are matched in none. This evidence suggests that, although the Emar and Ugarit traditions differ substantially, together they share one common feature: they both deviate from the ‘standard sequence’ found in OB Nippur. From whatever Vorlage the Syrian Diri tradition was derived, it was certainly not the OB Nippur tradition. Although not directly relevant to the diachronic position of Emar Diri, some additional remarks may be made regarding the attested versions of Diri in Hattusha and Akhetaten. With regard to the Hattusha material it should be noted that it shows at least one important similarity to the OB ‘Oxford’ sequence: it has the same TUK-TAK 4 -LAGAB sequence 282 that is found in ‘Oxford’. In keeping TUK and TAK 4 before LAGAB the Hattusha version maintains the OB Nippur tradition, abandoned in OB Sippar as well as LBA Syria. Unfortunately the rest of the fragmentary Hattusha material does not permit this evidence to be elaborated into a rule. With regard to the Akhetaten material a similar phenomenon may be observed: it keeps AMAR before DU 283 . In doing so the Akhetaten version maintains the OB Nippur tradition, abandoned in OB Sippar as well as LBA Emar (the relevant Ugarit text is lost). If this, admittedly meagre, evidence is indicative of the transmission of Diri into the LBA periphery it would imply that the Hattusha and Akhetaten texts are closer to the OB Nippur tradition than the Syrian texts.

281

Ibidem, 6. Ibidem, 90 Section 2. 283 Ibidem, 100. 282

187

Part 3 – Structural Analysis 14.11. Synthesis - diachronic position of the Emar curriculum as a whole Criteria for determining the diachronic position of the Emar curriculum In the preceding paragraphs the diachronic position of the individual series three criteria have been consistently used: (1) linguistic format, (2) entry inventory and (3) key-sign/word sequence. In order to establish the diachronic position of the Emar curriculum as a whole, the findings for these three criteria in the preceding paragraphs will now be compared (Table 31). The manner in which this is done is by describing the compared OB, LBA Ugarit, LBA Emar and 1st Millennium versions in terms of a few basic, empirically verifiable data. These data are: attestation of uni- or bilinguality for (1) linguistic format, number of divisions for (2) entry inventory and recognisability of the OB sequence for (3) key-sign/word sequence. With regard to the last data-set it should be emphasized that ‘OB sequence’ is here meant to refer to the sequencing of key-signs/words and determinatives only, ignoring the often important deviations within entry blocks which share common key-signs/words or determinatives. The OB references used are all specified in Organizational Table 4 of Part 1. Obviously, the criteria selected here only provide a partial insight in the larger diachronic development which they are meant to shed some light on. It should also be reiterated that some of the data available for the various series (especially Hh) and periods (especially the 1st Millennium) may be incomplete. In line with the mere reconnaissance aimed at in this chapter, this means that the commentary which follows Table 31 is of a tentative nature. Table 31. Diachronic position of the Emar curriculum Series / divisions

1. Linguistic format uni-/bi-/multilinguality OB LBA Ugarit1 Emar

1.

Sal/Svo

uni/bi

bi

2. Entry inventory 1st M

number of divisions OB LBA Ugarit Emar 1

1st M

3. Key-sign/word/determinative sequence recognisability of the OB sequence OB LBA 1st Ugarit Emar M

OB sequence maintained 2. Sa/V uni uni/bi/m bi uni 13 OB sequence maintained 3. G uni uni/m bi/m2 uni 1 OB sequence maintained 4. Hh uni uni/bi bi 6 154 18 24 OB sequence in skeletal structure7 5. Lu uni uni/bi bi 1 2 2/45 OB sequence transformed in skeletal structure sequence8 6 6. Izi uni uni/bi bi 2 2 4? 4/16 OB sequence transformed maintained sequence9 7. Kagal uni/bi ? (bi) 1 ? OB ? seq. 8. SagB uni/bi bi 1 1 OB short seq. OB 9. Nigga uni/bi bi 1 OB ? short seq. OB 10. Diri bi 1 4? 4? 6 OB transformed seq. sequence 1 For Ugarit a systematic overview of linguistic format is found in van Soldt, ‘Babylonian Texts’, 196-206. 2 Cf. discussion in Gantzert, ‘SLT 3’ (forthcoming). 3 Note that in Emar there was, except a ‘regular’ single-tablet version, also a long version which theoretically may have had four tablets (cf. 2.3.2.2.). 4 Cf. van Soldt, ‘Babylonian Texts’, 173. 5 The Short and Standard Recension respectively (cf. 14.5.). 6 The ‘short’ and ‘long’ versions respectively (cf. 14.6.). 7 Examples of some deviations in key-word sequence are discussed in 14.4.5. . 8 Only canonical Lu I maintains the OB key-word sequence (cf. 14.5.). 9 The transformation process of Izi is discussed in 14.6. .

188

Structural Analysis * Diachronic Context Linguistic format In terms of linguistic format it can be observed that generally the Emar version tends to conform to the 1st Millennium rather than to the OB version. The only Emar series that show differences with the 1st Millennium version are Sa/V, G and (a few divisions in) Hh. In LBA Emar these series are found in bi- or multilingual format, whereas in the 1st Millennium version they are found in unilingual format. As Sa/V and G show remarkable stability in terms of the two other criteria (entry inventory and key-sign sequence), this difference is not related to a compositional transformation. Rather, it was suggested that Sa/V and G may have had a different educational implementation in the LBA periphery (14.2.). The introduction of explicitly rendered Akkadian equivalents (which remain implicit with Sa, i.e. in the unilingual version) is not surprising in the context of the LBA periphery, where Akkadian is not natively spoken. With regard to the occurrence of unilingual versions for selected Hh divisions it was suggested that it implies that the Emar texts are witnesses to a transitional stage in the development of Hh, during which the older unilingual format was being phased out but could still be found in certain (core) parts of the curriculum (14.4.2.). It may be noted that in terms of linguistic format the Ugarit version shows a more conservative tendency than the Emar version. Many series that are only found in bilingual format in the Emar and 1st Millennium versions (Svo, SaV, Lu and Izi) are still found in both uni- and bilingual format in Ugarit. Entry inventory When investigating the second criterion, entry inventory, the various series may be divided into three groups. The first group includes those series that are always contained on a single tablet and that are consistently attested in all periods (SaV and G). The second group includes those series that tend to be contained on a single tablet but that disappear in the later periods (Svo, Kagal, SagB and Nigga). The third group includes those series that start out as or develop into multi-divisional structures (Hh, Lu, Izi and Diri). The first group, i.e. single-tablet series that are consistently attested in all periods, also shows diachronic stability with regard to key-sign/word sequence and may be said to be remarkably change-resistant. Considering that the series involved, viz. Sa/V and G, both occur in the early curriculum it could be suggested that this resistance may be linked to their curricular position: as basic exercises they seem to have had a didactic functionality that made them relatively immune to transformative tendencies affecting in other series, such as the tendency to diachronic expansion. From this perspective the attestation of SaV and G in Emar, Ugarit, or anywhere else, merely reflects the expected presence of diachronically standardized curricular items. The second group, i.e. single-tablet series that have disappeared from the canonical curriculum, may have their disappearance explained in various ways. For Svo it may be explained by a shift in perception of of its content: Svo seems to have disappeared from the school curriculum but to have lived on literary contexts (i.e. in the context of the Creation Myth - cf. 14.1.). In view of its limited acquisitive and analytic value (cf. 11.4.) this disappearance and the apparent reinterpretation of its content is not surprising. If its postulated origin as a study scheme (cf. 14.1.) is considered, it could be suggested that, after its original purpose was forgotten, it was, in fact, reinterpreted twice: first as a lexical exercise in its own right and later as a text with mythological value. From this perspective the

189

Part 3 – Structural Analysis attestation of Sal/Svo in the LBA periphery merely provides a terminus post quem for the reinterpretation of its content. The other disappeared series, viz. Kagal, SagB and Kagal, are all ‘acrographic’ series, belonging to the advanced part of the curriculum. Their disappearance and absorption into Izi has already been discussed as part of the larger process of the historical transformation of the advanced curriculum, a process related to the modular structure of all series involved (14.6.). The attestation of (some of) these series in the Emar curriculum suggests that this process was not complete in the LBA periphery. Taken in conjunction with the fact that in Emar a transformation of Izi can already be noted in terms of both an increased entry inventory and a changed key-sign sequence, however, it can be said that in that period this process was certainly under way. For Ugarit the situation is different: on the one hand Izi still retains much of its OB outlook (some texts in unilingual format, a two-fold divisional structure and a similar key-sign sequence) but on the other hand Kagal and SagB have disappeared - of the older ‘acrographic’ series only Nigga is still attested. In this regard it should be noted that, while missing some of the older ‘acrographic’ series, the Ugarit curriculum includes some newer compositions not found in Emar, including Erimhuš (and perhaps Ea) 284 . The fact that, in comparison with the Emar curriculum, the Ugarit curriculum shows a mixture of conservative and innovative features could be explained as resulting from a the combination of an earlier Vorlage for most series with a later stratum of scholarly innovations for some series, innovations partially matched in Hattusha 285 . In comparison to the Ugarit curriculum, the Emar curriculum has a uniformly ‘modern’ appearance and could very well have been transmitted directly from Mesopotamia at a later point in time 286 . The third group, i.e. the multi-divisional series, all show a diachronically progressive increase in the number of divisions. Two mechanisms contributing to this process were previously discussed: the introduction of the bilingual format (4.2.2.) and the tendency to diachronic expansion (cf. 14.4.2., 14.4.4., 14.4.5., 14.5-6., 14.10.). As in case of the criterion of linguistic format, the criterion of divisional count shows that the Emar version tends to be closer to the 1st Millennium rather than to the OB version. The lower count for Hh and Izi shows that the Ugarit version tends to be, once again, more conservative than the Emar version. Key-sign/word/determinative sequence When the recognisability of the OB sequence is taken as the criterion for investigating the diachronic development of the key-sign/word/determinative sequence found in the various series, there are three possibilities: (1) the OB sequence is (by and large) maintained, (2) the OB sequence is recognisably maintained as a skeletal structure underneath the diachronically expanded content (i.e. structural diachronic continuity of the sequence - cf. 14.4.3.) or (3) the OB sequence is transformed beyond recognition. The various Emar series may be divided into three groups according to these possibilities. The first group, i.e. those series that maintain the OB sequence, includes Svo, SaV, G, SagB and Nigga. In the preceding discussion of entry inventory it was already noted that the change-resistant nature of the early series SaV and G may be related to their early position 284

Van Soldt, ‘Babylonian Texts’, 173-4. Erimhuš is attested early in Hattusha too (Cavigneaux, ‘Lexikalische Listen’, 636). A chronological investigation relevant to the transmission of Mesopotamian scholarly tradition to Hattusha is found in: G. Beckman, ‘Mesopotamians and Mesopotamian Learning at Hattuša’, JCS 35 (1983) 97-114. 286 This is, in fact, what is argued by Y. Cohen, ‘Kidin-Gula - the Foreign Teacher at the Emar Scribal School’, RA 98 (2004) 81-100. 285

190

Structural Analysis * Diachronic Context and didactic functionality in the curriculum. It was also said that, as long as Svo too was treated as a (basic) lexical exercise, it showed the same diachronic stability as SaV and G - it was only after its content was reinterpreted and delegated to a different text genre that it was transformed and eliminated from the lexical curriculum. With regard to entry sequence Svo, SaV and G have a largely uniform appearance in Ugarit and Emar. Concerning SagB and Nigga it may be observed that these series too maintain the OB sequence but that they were shortened. They maintain the OB sequence but show less of it, i.e. less key-signs, because their increased length allowed less key-signs to be included on a single tablet. This is mainly due to the same tendency to diachronic expansion that is also attested in many other series. It should be reiterated that for Kagal the preserved corpus does not provide sufficient evidence for the possible existence and developments in LBA Emar. For Nigga, the only one of the older ‘acrographic’ series that is also found in both Emar and Ugarit, no comparison is possible with regard to entry sequence due to the delay in publication of the Ugarit materials. The second group, i.e. those series in which the OB sequence is maintained as a skeletal structure in LBA Emar, includes Hh and Lu. In these series the basic OB sequence stays, by and large, recognizable but the key-word sections have become increasingly expanded and interpolated. It should be noted that in certain divisions of Hh there is some degree of transformation in certain key-sign sequences (14.4.5.). Although for many divisions an investigation of the 1st Millennium version of Hh is hampered by the lack of separate editions, the evidence for those divisions for which adequate editions are available (cf. 14.4.3-4.) shows that the structural diachronic continuity of the Hh key-word sequence found between the OB and LBA versions tends to extend all the way to the 1st Millennium version. With regard to Lu, however, this is generally not the case: only the first section of Lu shows a fairly stable key-word sequence throughout all periods (cf. 14.5.). It may be argued that the PostLBA transformation of Lu is related to the simultaneous transformation of Izi. Originally, these two series were closely related, but after the LBA period they move in opposite directions. While the transformation of Izi involved acrographic systematization, the transformation of Lu involved thematic systematization (cf. 14.6.). Considering its originally gradual shift from thematic to ‘acrographic’ association, still visible in the LBA version (cf. 5.3. and 6.3.), it is not surprising that in the first section of canonical Lu the OB key-word sequence remained more or less intact. With regard to the entry sequences of Hh and Izi the description just given for the Emar material also largely applies to the Ugarit material. The third group, i.e. those series in which the OB sequence is abandoned in LBA Emar, includes Izi and Diri. These series show far-reaching transformation of their key-sign sequences. It is important to note that, whereas Diri shows transformation in both the Ugarit and Emar versions, Izi only shows it in the Emar version. In terms of the general diachronic development of the lexical curriculum this implies that the OB sequence of Diri had been completely abandoned before its transmission to the LBA peripheral sites, whereas the OB sequence of Izi is still preserved in Ugarit. With regard to Izi the Emar text may therefore be said to provide insight into the earliest stages of its transformation.

191

Part 3 – Structural Analysis Summary 14.1.

Svo:

1.

Considering the diachronically unstable relation between entry elements 2 and 4 in Svo, which suggests a use of Svo as a mere presentational device, and considering that (almost) all its ‘logograms’ and ‘equivalents’ appear as key-signs or key-words in other lexical series, it may be suggested that Svo originally represented a study scheme for the lexical curriculum as a whole. Over time, this function may have been combined with or replaced by its use as an introductory exercise.

14.4/6.

General features:

1.

Throughout the post-OB history of the lexical curriculum there is a general tendency to diachronic expansion in Hh and a number of other series. It was suggested that this phenomenon may be related to the accumulative impact of the integrative methodology of ancient scholarship: its continuous research into multiple associations may have caused a progressive accumulation of elaborations and interpolations. Only those series used in the early part of the curriculum, to which strict didactic-functional limitations were applied, seem to have been immune to diachronic expansion.

2.

In the OB and LBA periods Izi and the other, smaller ‘acrographic’ series (Kagal, Sag, Nigga) show a diachronically manipulatible modular structure: individual key-sign blocks were treated as autonomous ‘modules’ that could be rearranged within a series or transferred between series. This modular structure allowed a transformation process to take place in the advanced series.

3.

In Post-OB times there was a general transformative process in the advanced curriculum characterized by: a. Loss of the traditional-conventional definition of most of the advanced series that had existed in the OB period. This loss was related to accumulated shifts in the modular structure which was an essential feature of their mixed-stepped organization form. These accumulated shifts made the original traditionalconventional inventories and sequences unrecognizable and irrelevant. b. Acrographic systematization and exponential expansion of Izi in conjunction with the disappearance of various smaller ‘acrographic’ series (Kagal, Sag and Nigga)– these were effectievly absorbed into Izi. c. Thematic systematization of Lu, resulting in sequential transformations that especially affected its later sections - these sections originally had provided a seamless transition from early thematic Lu into mixed thematic-acrographic Izi.

14.11.

Diachronic position of the Emar curriculum: The diachronic position of the Emar curriculum was analyzed using three criteria: (1) linguistic format, (2) entry inventory and (3) key-sign/word/determinative sequence. These three criteria were applied by investigating three sets of empiric data - respectively uni- and bilinguality, number of divisions and recognisability of the OB sequence.

1.

2.

In terms of linguistic format the Emar texts mostly are bilingual and therefore mostly conform to the 1st Millennium version rather than to the OB version. In this respect the Emar texts show a more consistently innovative tendency than the Ugarit texts. The attestation of some unilingual texts for Hh suggests, however, that the Emar corpus reflects a transitional stage in the development of the lexical curriculum. In terms of entry inventory the Emar series may be divided into three groups: a. The first group, including the early series SaV and G, shows a consistent single-division structure in all periods. This structure is linked to diachronic stability in terms of key-sign/word sequence and these series may be characterized as change-resistant, perhaps due to their didactic functionality as early exercises. This characterization applies to all periods and sites of attestation, including Ugarit. b. The second group, including Svo and the traditional ‘acrographic’ series SagB and Nigga (perhaps also Kagal), also shows single-division structure but disappears from the lexical curriculum after the LBA period. For as long as it is attested, Svo shows the same change-resistant character as the other early series, but after the LBA period it disappears from the lexical curriculum, apparently due to a reinterpretation of its content. The disappearance of SagB and Nigga is a result of the historical transformation of the advanced curriculum - for Kagal evidence is lacking. With regard to this second group it may be said that the Ugarit curriculum considerably deviates from the Emar curriculum: in Ugarit the older series SagB and Kagal are lacking but the newer series Ea and Erimhuš are introduced. In view of the fact, however, that the Ugarit curriculum is more conservative in other respects (it retains Izi in its OB sequence), it may be characterized as mixed conservative-innovative. c. The third group, including Hh, Lu, Izi and Diri, shows a diachronically progressively increasing multidivisional structure. Two mechanisms can be said to contribute to this process: the introduction of the bilingual format and the tendency to diachronic expansion. The lower divisional count for Hh and Izi found in Ugarit indicates the slightly more conservative tendency of the Ugarit curriculum.

192

Structural Analysis * Diachronic Context 3.

In terms of key-sign/word/determinative sequence the Emar series may be divided into three groups: a.

b.

c.

The first group, including Svo, SaV, G, SagB and Nigga, maintains the OB sequence. For the early series Svo, SaV and G this phenomenon, also observed in Ugarit (and generally in all other periods and sites), was related to their consistent single-division structure. For SagB and Nigga the maintenance of the OB sequence combined with a tendency to diachronic expansion results in their shortening (less keysigns can fit on a single-tablet) - for Kagal insufficient evidence is available. For the only older ‘acrographic’ series attested in Ugarit, Nigga, no publication is available, making a comparison with the Emar material impossible. The second group, including Hh and Lu, maintains the OB sequence as a recognizable skeletal structure around which they are expanded. This is also found in the same series in Ugarit. As far as can be determined, this skeletal structure also remains recognizable in the 1st Millennium version of Hh. For 1st Millennium Lu this only holds true for its first section - the later sections, originally progressively less thematically coherent, were subject to thematic systematization as part of the larger process of the PostOB transformation of the advanced curriculum. The third group, including Izi and Diri, does not maintain the OB sequence in any form but shows farreaching transformations in the Emar material. In Ugarit Diri shows the same phenomenon, indicating that the transformation process dates back to the Late OB period. Ugarit Izi, however, shows a maintenance of the OB sequence, implying that the Emar version provides perhaps the earliest witness to the transformation of Izi.

193

Part 3 – Structural Analysis MAIN CONCLUSIONS 1. Each series and each linguistic format within each series constitutes a formalorganizational unit, implying that the formal and organizational features of any individual text witness belonging to such a unit are predictable. 2. Both formal features (use of ruling; linguistic format; entry element inventory) and organizational features (horizontal distribution of realization types in the relation between elements 2 and 4; vertical distribution of association types) are related to the didactic functionality and curricular position of a given formal-organizational unit. 3. The relation between the formal-organizational features and didactic functionality of the various formal-organizational units shows the structural-organizational coherence of the curriculum. The structural-organizational typology of the various series, based on realization type and association type distribution throughout the lexical curriculum, largely agrees with the curricular sequence postulated on basis of the Ugarit corpus. 4. In terms of didactic functionality the lexical curriculum shows systematic oscillation between empirically definable acquisitive and analytic foci. Anomalies occurring in this system may be explained as caused by the presence of some residually anachronistic material in a otherwise diachronically evenly developed curriculum. 5. The ancient scribes pursued an integrative methodology, aimed at establishing relations between various graphic and linguistic phenomena that are unrelated in modern scientific terms. In terms of this integrative methodology a high analytic focus is shown by SaV and Izi: these analytic key series teach its application to single, basic signs and combined, compound signs respectively. 6. In contrast to the colophon, the end-of-text marker is a graphic device which marks the end of a compositional unit and not necessarily the end of the text on a tablet. 7. In Emar, as well as the OB and LBA periods generally, Izi and the other, smaller ‘acrographic’ series (Kagal, Sag, Nigga) show a modular structure that is diachronically manipulated in various ways: individual key-sign blocks are treated as autonomous ‘modules’ that can be rearranged within a series or transferred between series. This modular structure allowed the relatively drastic Post-OB transformation process to take place in the advanced series of the curriculum. 8. In terms of diachronic position the LBA Emar curriculum may be generally said to occupy the middle ground between the OB and 1st Millennium but to be somewhat more innovative than the Ugarit curriculum. The Emar series tend to be further developed in the direction of the almost exclusively bilingual format and the expanded divisional structure found in the 1st Millennium version. In terms of the Post-OB transformation of the advanced curriculum, the Emar corpus shows an early stage of that transformation. On the one hand some of the older, smaller OB acrographic series (SagB, Nigga) can still be found, on the other hand the divisional structure and key-sign sequence of Proto-Izi have already been abandoned. 9. The term ‘acrographic’ does not provide an organizationally relevant description of any series.

194

Bibliography BIBLIOGRAPHY List of bibliographical abbreviations Note that the only abbreviations given in italics are those that refer to periodicals. Abbreviation Full reference AbZ AfK AfO AHw ANET AOAT AS ASJ AuOr baM BiOr BLT BM BSNESJ BTG CRAIBL CT Di DCCLT ePSD FVH IEJ KBo JCS JNES KAv LB MSL MSL SS MVaG NABU OECT OLz OrNS PBS RA RlA RS SLT UF YBC ZA

R. Borger, Assyrisch-babylonische Zeichenliste. AOAT 33/33A (Neukirchen-Vluyn 1981) Archiv für Keilschriftforschung: internationale Zeitschrift für die Wissenschaft vom Alten Orient Archiv für Orientforschung: internationale Zeitschrift für die Wissenschaft vom Alten Orient W. von Soden, Akkadisches Handwörterbuch I-III (Wiesbaden 1959-1981) Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Studies Alter Orient und Altes Testament Assyriological Studies Acta Sumerologica (Japan) Aula Orientalis. Revista de estudios del Próximo Oriente Antiguo Die babylonisch-assyrische Medizin in Texten und Untersuchungen Bibliotheca Orientalis M. Yoshikawa and E. Matsushima, ‘Bilingual Lexical Tablet’, BSNESJ 23.2 (1980) 1-23 British Museum catalogue number Bulletin of the Society for Near Eastern Studies in Japan M. Civil, ‘HAR-ra=hubullu: Tablet X dug=karpatu’ in: W. Sallaberger, Der babylonische Töpfer und seine Gefässe nach Urkunden altsumerischer bis altbabylonischer Zeit sowie lexikalischen und literarischen Zeugnissen. Mesopotamian History and Environment Series II Memoirs III (Ghent 1996) Comptes rendus - Académie des Inscriptions & Belles-Lettres Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum Sippar excavation number (catalogue in Tanret, Schooltabletten) Digital Corpus of Cuneiform Lexical Texts (http://cdli.ucla.edu:1680/dcclt/) electronic Pennsylvania Sumerian Dictionary (http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/) K. Watanabe, ‘Freiburger Vorläufer zu HAR-ra=hubullu XI and XII’, ASJ 9 (1987) 277-91 Israel Exploration Journal Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazköi Journal of Cuneiform Studies Journal of Near Eastern Studies O. Schroeder, Keilschrifttexte aus Assur verschiedenen Inhalts (Leipzig 1920) Liagre-Böhl catalogue number Materialien zum sumerischen Lexikon, later: Materials for the Sumerian Lexicon - volumes I, III, VVIII and X: see Landsberger; volumes IX, XII, XIII and XV see Civil, volume XI see Reiner Materials for the Sumerian Lexicon. Supplementary Series - volume I see Civil Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft Nouvelles assyriologiques brèves et utilitaires Oxford Editions of Cuneiform Texts Orientalische Literaturzeitung: Monatschrift für die Wissenschaft vom ganzen Orient und seinen Beziehungen zu den angrenzenden Kulturkreisen Orientalia. Nova Series Publications of the Babylonian Section, Universit of Pennsylvania Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale Reallexikon der Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archäologie Ras Shamra excavation number M. Gantzert, ‘Syrian Lexical Texts 1-3’, UF 38 (2007) reference Ugarit Forschungen Yale Babylonian Collection catalogue number Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und verwandte Gebiete

195

Part 3 – Structural Analysis Alphabetic bibliography Arnaud, D., Recherches au pays d’Aštata. Emar VI 1-4 (Paris 1985-7) Arnaud, D., ‘Les textes cunéiformes suméro-accadiens des campagnes 1979-1980 à Ras Shamra-Ougarit’, Syria 59 (1982) 199-222 Beaulieu, P.A., ‘An Excerpt from a Menology with Reverse Writing’, ASJ 17 (1995) 1-14 Beckman, G., Beckman, ‘Mesopotamians and Mesopotamian Learning at Hattuša’, JCS 35 (1983) 97-114 Cavigneaux, A., Die (München 1975)

sumerisch-akkadischen

Zeichenlisten:

Überlieferungsprobleme

Cavigneaux, A., ‘Lexicalische Listen’, RlA Band 6: Klagegesang-Libanon (Berlin and New York 1980-3) 609-641 Cavigneaux, A., ‘Lexicographie’, NABU 1988 2/26 Chiera, E., Sumerian Lexical Texts from the Temple School of Nippur (Chicago 1929) Civil, M. and Landsberger, B., The Series ‘HAR-ra=hubullu’, Tablet XV and Related Texts, with Additions and Corrections to MSL II, III, V and VII. MSL IX (Rome 1967) Civil, M., The Series lú=ša and Related Texts. MSL XII (Rome 1969) Civil, M., Izi=išātu, Ká-gal=abullu and Níg-ga=makkūru. MSL XIII (Rome 1971) Civil, M., ‘The Sumerian Writing System: Some Problems’, OrNS 42 (1973) 21-34 Civil, M., ‘Lexicography’ in: S.J. Lieberman (ed.), Sumerological Studies in Honor of thorkild Jacobsen on his Seventieth Birthday June 7, 1974. AS 20 (Chicago and London 1975) 123-57 Civil, M., O.R. Gurney and D.A. Kennedy, The Sag-tablet; Lexical Texts in the Ashmolean Museum; Middle Babylonian Grammatical Texts; Miscellaneous Texts. MSL SS 1 (Rome 1986) Civil, M., ‘The Texts from Meskene-Emar’, AuOr 7 (1989) 5-25 Civil, M., ‘Ancient Mesopotamian Lexicography’ in: J.M. Sasson (ed.), Civilizations of the Ancient Near East IV (New York 1995) 2305-14 Civil, M., ‘HAR-ra=hubullu: Tablet X dug=karpatu’ in: W. Sallaberger, Der babylonische Töpfer und seine Gefässe nach Urkunden altsumerischer bis altbabylonischer Zeit sowie lexikalischen und literarischen Zeugnissen. Mesopotamian History and Environment Series II Memoirs III (Ghent 1996) Civil, M., The Series DIRI=(w)atru. MSL XV (Rome 2004)

196

Bibliography

Çiğ, M. and Kizilyay, H., Zwei altbabylonische Schulbücher aus Nippur (Ankara 1959) Cohen, Y., ‘Kidin-Gula – the Foreign Teacher at the Emar Scribal School’, RA 1998 (2004) 81-100 Cohen, Y., The Transmission and Reception of Mesopotamian Scholarly Texts at the City of Emar (Ann Arbor 2003) Dietrich, M., ‘Die akkadischen Texte der Archive und Bibliotheken von Emar’, UF 22 (1990) 25-48 Durand, J.M., ‘Daniel Arnaud, Recherches au Pays d’Aštata, Emar VI, Textes sumériens et accadiens, Ed. Recherche sur les civilisations, Paris, 1986, vol. 1, 2 et 3.’, RA 83 (1989) 163-91 and RA 84 (1990) 49-85 Eliade, M., Cosmologie et alchimie babyloniennes (Paris 1991) orig.: Cosmologie şi alchimie babiloniană (Bucharest 1937) Eriksen, T.H., Small Places, Large Issues. An Introduction to Social and Cultural Anthropology (London and Sterling 2001) Eriksen T.H., and Nielsen, F.S., A History of Anthropology (London and Sterling 2001) Farber, G., ‘Mannam Lušpur ana Enkidu: Some New Thoughts about an Old Motif’, JNES 49 (1990) 299-321 Farber, G., ‘Kleiner Leitfaden zum Silbenvokabular A’ in: B. Böck (ed.), Munuscula Mesopotamica. Festschrift für Johannes Renger (Münster 1999) 117-133 Fleming, D., ‘The NIN.DINGIR/ittu at Emar’, NABU 1990 1/8 Fleming, D.E., Time at Emar : the Cultic Calendar and the Rituals from the Diviner’s Archive (Winona Lake 2000) Gantzert, M., Two Hunderd Pillars of Wisdom. Quantitative Analysis of the Syllabary A Format in the Late Bronze Periphery (unpublished MA thesis, Leiden 2004) Gantzert, M., ‘Syrian Lexical Texts 1-3’, UF 38 (forthcoming) Gong, Y., ‘Die mittelbabylonischen Namen der Keilschriftzeichen aus Hattuša und Emar’, RA 85 (1995) 47-57 Hallo, W.W., ‘The Lame and the Halt’, Eretz Israel 9 (1969) 66-70 Hallo, W.W., ‘Notes from the Babylonian Collection II: Old Babylonian HAR-ra’, JCS 34 (1982) 80-93 Huehnergard, J. and W.H. van Soldt, ‘A Cuneiform Lexical Text from Ashkelon with a Canaanite Column’, IEJ 49 (1999) 184-92 197

Part 3 – Structural Analysis

Hoskisson, P.Y., ‘Emar as an Empirical Model of the Transmission of Canon’ in: K. Lawson Younger, W.W. Hallo and B.F. Batto (eds.), The Biblical Canon in Comparative Perspective. Scripture in Context IV. ANET 11 (Lewiston and Queenston 1991) 21-31 Ikeda, J., ‘A New Contribution to Northwest Semitic Lexicography’, BiOr 60-3/4 (2003) 26480 Klengel, H., ‘Die Keilschrifttexte von Meskene und die Geschichte von Aštata/Emar’, OLz 83.6 (1988) 645-53 Krecher, J., ‘Scheiberschulung in Ugarit: die Tradition von Listen und sumerischen Texten’, UF 1 (1969) 131-158 Krispijn, T.J.H., ‘The Early Mesopotamian Lexical Lists and the Dawn of Linguistics’, JEOL 32 (1991-2) 12-23 Lambert, W.G., ‘Götterlisten’, RlA 3: Fabel-Gyges und Nachtrag (Berlin 1957-1971) 473-479 Landsberger, B., ‘Die angebliche babylonische Notenschrift’, AfO Beiheft 1 (1933): Aus fünf Jahrtausenden morgenländischer Kultur. Festschrift Max Freiherrn von Oppenheim zum 70. Geburtstage gewidmet von Freunden und Mitarbeitern 170-8 Landsberger, B., Die Serie ‘ana ittišu’. MSL I (Rome 1937) Landsberger, B., ‘Babylonian Scribal Craft and Its Terminology’ in: D. Sinor (ed.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Third International Congress of Orientalists Cambridge 21st-28th August 1954 (London 1954) 123-7 Landsberger, B., Das Syllabar A; das Vokabular Sa; das Vokabular Sb; Berichtigú.ungen und Nachträge zu MsL II; Indices zu MSL II. MSL III (Rome 1955) Landsberger, B., The Series ‘HAR-ra=hubullu’, Tablets I-IV. MSL V (Rome 1957) Landsberger, B., The Series ‘HAR-ra=hubullu’, Tablets V-VII. MSL VI (Rome 1958) Landsberger, B., The Series ‘HAR-ra=hubullu’, Tablets VIII-XII. MSL VII (Rome 1959) Landsberger, B., The Fauna of Ancient Mesopotamia. MSL VIII 1-2 (Rome 1960-2) Landsberger, B. and Reiner, E., The Series ‘HAR-ra=hubullu’, Tablets XVI, XVII, XIX and related Texts. MSL X (Rome 1970) Laroche, E., ‘La version hourrite de la liste AN de Meskène-Emar’, CRAIBL 1989 8-12 Nougayrol, J., ‘“Vocalisés” et “syllables en liberté” à Ugarit’, in: H.G. Güterbock and Th. Jacobsen (eds.), Studies in Honor of Benno Landsberger on his Seventy-Fifth Birthday: April 21, 1965. AS 16 (1965) 29-39 Nougayrol, J., ‘Nouveau “Silbenvokabular A” d’Ugarit (RS 29103)’, RA 63 (1969) 83-5

198

Bibliography

Pedersén, O., Archives and Libraries in the City of Assur: a Survey of the Material from the German Excavations I. Studie Semitica Upsaliensia 6 (Uppsala 1985) Pedersén, O., Archives and Libraries in the City of Assur: a Survey of the Material from the German Excavations II. Studie Semitica Upsaliensia 8 (Uppsala 1986) Reiner, E., The Series ‘HAR-ra=hubullu’, Tablets XX-XXIV. MSL XI (Rome 1974) Rutz, M.T., ‘More Diri from Emar’, NABU 2006 4/85 Scheil, V., Une saison de fouilles à Sippar. Mémoires publiés par les members de l’institut français d’archéologie orientale du Caire sous la direction de M.E. Chassinat 1 (Paris 1902) Schroeder, O., ‘Eine Götterliste für den Schulgebrauch’, MVaG 21 (1916) 178-81 Schroeder, O., ‘Zur “Götterliste für den Schulgebrauch” (MVaG 1916 S. 175ff.)’, OLz 1918 5/6 127-8 Schroeder, O., ‘Ein neuer Götterlistentypus aus Assur’, ZA 33 (1931) 123-47 Soden, W. von, ‘Weitere Bemerkungen zu Texten aus Emar’, NABU 1989 1/8 Soldt, W.H. van, ‘The Ugarit Version of Harra-hubullu 20-21a. A New Source’ in: M. Dietrich and O. Loretz (eds.), Mesopotamica – Ugaritica – Biblica. Festschrift für Kurt Bergerhof zur Vollendung seines 70. Lebensjahres am 7. Mai 1992 (Neukirchen 1993) 427-46 Soldt, W.H. van, ‘Babylonian Lexical, Religious and Literary Texts and Scribal Education at Ugarit and Its Implications for the Alphabetic Literary Texts’ in: M. Dietrich and O. Loretz (eds.), Ugarit. Ein ostmediterranes Kulturzentrum im Alten Orient 1: Ugarit und seine altorientalische Umwelt. Abhandlungen zur Literatur Alt-Syrien-Palästinas 7 (Münster 1995) 171-212 Soldt, W.H. van, Studies in the Akkadian of Ugarit : dating and grammar. AOAT 40 (Neukirchen-Vluyn 1991) Sollberger, E., ‘A Three-column Silbenvokabular A’ in: H.G. Güterbock and Th. Jacobsen (eds.), Studies in Honor of Benno Landsberger on his Seventy-Fifth Birthday: April 21, 1965. AS 16 (1965) 21-8 Sjöberg, Å.W., ‘Studies in the Emar Sa Vocabulary’, ZA 88 (1998) 240-83 Sjöberg, Å.W., ‘Some Emar Lexical Entries’ in: A.K. Guinan a.o. (eds.), If a Man Builds a Joyful House: Assyriological Studies in Honor of Erle Verdun Leichty (Leiden and Boston 2006) 401-29

199

Part 3 – Structural Analysis Tanret, M., Oudbabylonische “schooltabletten” en documentaire teksten uit het huis van UrUtu, opperklaagpriester van Annunītum te Sippar-Amnānum (unpublished dissertation, Ghent 1981) Taylor, J., ‘A New OB Proto-Lu-Proto-Izi Combination Tablet’, OrNS 70.3 (2001) 209-34 Veldhuis, N.C., Elementary Education at Nippur. The Lists of Trees and Wooden Objects (Groningen 1997) Veldhuis, N.C., ‘A Late Old Babylonian Proto-Kagal/Nigga Text and the Nature of the Acrographic Series’, ASJ 20 (1998) 201-216 Veldhuis, N.C., ‘TIN.TIR=Babylon, The Question of Canonization and the Production of Meaning’, JCS 50 (1998) 77-85 Vanstiphout, H., ‘Memory and Literacy in Ancient western Asia’ in: J.M. Sasson (ed.), Civilizations of the Ancient Near East IV (New York 1995) 2181-2196 Watanabe, K., ‘Freiburger Vorläufer zu HAR-ra=hubullu XI und XII’, ASJ 9 (1987) 277-91 Weidner, E.F., ‘Altbabylonische Götterlisten’, AfK 2 (1924-5) = AfO 1-3 (1923-6) 1-18 and 71-82 Weiher, E. von, ‘Ein Vokabularfragment aus Boğazköy (KBo XVI 87)’, ZA 62 (1972) 109-14 Wilhelm, G., ‘Die zweite tafel der Serie Kagal in Hattusa’, ZA 79 (1989) 73-9 Yamada, M., ‘The Family of Zū-Bacla the Diviner and the Hittites’ in: S. Izre’el, I. Singer and R. Zadok (eds.), Past Links. Studies in the Languages and Cultures of the Ancient Near East. Israel Oriental Studies 18 (Winona Lake 1998) 323-334 Yoshikawa, M., and Matsushima, E., ‘Bilingual Lexical Tablet’, BSNESJ 23.2 (1980) 1-23

200

The Emar Lexical Texts Part 4 Theoretical Interpretation M. Gantzert

Maastricht, 2011

The Emar Lexical Texts PROEFSCHRIFT TER VERKRIJGING VAN DE GRAAD VAN DOCTOR AAN DE UNIVERSITEIT LEIDEN, OP GEZAG VAN DE RECTOR MAGNIFICUS PROF. MR. P.F. VAN DER HEIJDEN, VOLGENS BESLUIT VAN HET COLLEGE VOOR PROMOTIES TE VERDEDIGEN OP DINSDAG 14 JUNI 2011 KLOKKE 13.45 UUR DOOR MERIJN GANTZERT GEBOREN TE ZEIST IN 1968

PROMOTIECOMMISSIE Promotor:

Prof. dr. W.H. van Soldt

Overige leden:

Prof. dr. H.W. van den Doel Prof. em. dr. J. Oosten Prof. em. dr. M. Stol Prof. dr. N. Veldhuis Dr. J.G. Dercksen Dr. F.A.M. Wiggermann

Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS List of tables

iii

Acknowledgements

iv

Introduction to Part 4

v

Aim Method Organization The theoretical models chosen Methodological limitations

v vi vi vii ix

Chapter 1.

THE THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

1

1.1.

1

1.2.

The lexical lists as representative of the Ancient Mesopotamian knowledge system Excursus on the critical reception of Goody’s model

Chapter 2.

THE EPISTEMOLOGICAL PERPECTIVE

8

2.0. 2.1. 2.1.1. 2.1.2. 2.1.2.0. 2.1.2.1. 2.1.2.2.

Aim, method and organization Epistemological comparison Foucault’s episteme(s) TE-AME comparison TE features to be investigated Similitude in the AME The signature in the AME its coding in the horizontal organization of the lexical texts The figures of similitude in the AME their coding in the vertical organization of the lexical texts The limitations of knowledge in the AME CE-AME comparison CE features to be investigated Representation in the CE its epistemological position relative to the TE similitude and its role in the AME Order in the CE and AME respectively The elements of the CE disposition of order in the context of the AME texts Functional limitation of knowledge in the context of the AME texts ME-AME comparison ME features to be investigated Organization in the AME

2.1.2.3. 2.1.2.4. 2.1.3. 2.1.3.0. 2.1.3.1. 2.1.3.2. 2.1.3.3. 2.1.3.4. 2.1.4. 2.1.4.0. 2.1.4.1.

i

4

8 10 10 11 11 13 17 24 30 33 33 35 38 39 48 50 50 55

Table of Contents 2.1.4.2. 2.1.4.3. 2.1.4.4. 2.2. 2.3. 2.3.1. 2.3.2. 2.3.3. 2.4.

History in the AME The methodological features of the ME applied to the AME The conceptual limitation of the ME in the context of the AME texts The diachronic position of the AME Universal language The TE concept of universal language The CE concept of universal language The ME concept of universal language Summary

56 58 62 66 70 70 71 72 74

Chapter 3.

THE TECHNOLOGICAL PERPECTIVE

78

3.0. 3.1. 3.1.1. 3.1.2. 3.1.3. 3.1.3.1. 3.1.3.2. 3.1.3.3. 3.1.3.4. 3.1.3.5. 3.2. 3.3.

Aim, method and organization Key notions applied Generative transmission Functional cognitive system Figures of the written word The list The table The formula The recipe Evaluation of Goody’s general conclusions Avenues for diachronic research Summary

78 81 81 89 96 97 101 106 108 113 115 117

Chapter 4.

THE STRUCTURALIST PERSPECIVE

121

4.0. 4.1. 4.2. 4.3. 4.4. 4.5. 4.6.

Aim, method and organization Bricolage technique Systematic transformations Classificatory levels: species Classificatory levels: proper names History in totemic classification Summary

121 123 131 137 145 148 150

Main conclusions

153

Alphabetic register of terminology

156

Bibliography

157

Samenvatting (Dutch)

158

Curriculum Vitae (Dutch)

161

ii

List of Tables LIST OF TABLES Table 1.

Tropes in the semantic relation between pictograms and their interpretations

19

Table 2.

Figures of similitudes in the semantic association between consecutive logograms

26

Table 3.

The pragmatic contexts of semantically applied mathesis in the AME texts

41

Table 4.

Inventory of entries relevant to the theme of ‘man’ in the Emar lexical corpus

63

Table 5.

Examples of contrasting pairs and systematic transformations

iii

135

Acknowledgements ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author wishes to express his gratitude for the support given by a number of professional seniors, colleagues and institutions: Professor W.H. van Soldt (Universiteit Leiden) for making possible my research project, for patiently supervising all four of its volumes and for his unstinting support throughout all of the five years they took to complete. Professor J.G. Oosten (Universiteit Leiden) for his assistance in formulating an interdisciplinary approach, for clarifying various methodological issues and for kindly continuing his support after his official retirement. W.S. van Egmond (Universiteit Leiden) for editing and commenting Chapter 3 and for his valuable suggestions related to the issue of the literacy-orality debate. Leiden University Institute for Area Studies (formerly: Centrum voor Niet-Westerse Studies) for funding and providing the facilities and logistic support for my research project, in the framework of which The Emar Lexical Texts were written.

iv

Introduction INTRODUCTION TO PART 4 L’histoire du savoir ne peut être faite que à partir de ce qui lui a été contemporain, et non pas certes en terms d’influence réciproque, mais en terms de conditions et d’a priori constitués dans le 1 temps .

Aim It was felt that a description of empiric features and organizational structures, i.e. a scientific analysis*, such as attempted in Part 3, could contribute to our present understanding of ancient Mesopotamian lexical texts, such as those found in the LBA Emar school. It was felt, in other words, that by employing the methods of contemporaneous scientific research such texts could be made understandable in terms of our modern knowledge system*. This, however, does not automatically mean that we can also understand them on their own terms, i.e. as part of the Ancient Mesopotamian knowledge system itself. Such an understanding should, theoretically, include insight into their original composition principles and their original uses. To understand these texts on their own terms - assuming this is at all possible - requires distancing ourselves from our own knowledge system, once again assuming this is possible at all. Thus, we would need to establish the position of our own knowledge system in relation to other knowledge systems. In this respect one encouraging characteristic of our contemporary Western knowledge system, which modern science forms part of and within which this study aims to be of value, is its extreme self-reflexivity*. The philosophical and anthropological branches of modern science have produced a number of methodological models that can serve the purpose of establishing its own relative position. The aim of the theoretical interpretation provided by Part 4 is to apply three of these models to the Emar lexical corpus and to investigate how they can inform us about the character of the ancient Mesopotamian knowledge system that produced them. Where modern philological and text-historical sciences limit themselves to descriptive, quantitative and categorical descriptions and evaluations of ancient texts, philosophical and anthropological models may provide actual explanations. The explanations sought here are the answers to two specific questions: (1) ‘why do these texts look the way they look?’ and (2) ‘why do they consistently remain recognizable (to some extent at least) throughout a centuries-long scholarly tradition?’ It is clear that, even if certain answers to these questions are found by the application of the theoretical models proposed here, what remains problematic is the extent to which these answers can actually provide an understanding of the texts on their own terms. This problem has such profound theoretical and methodological implications that it must rightly be argued to properly belong to the specialized disciplines of Philosophy and Anthropology. Certainly it cannot be solved in the limited framework of this study. At the outset of this study it has been resolved, however, not to let this problem obstruct an attempt at getting a better understanding of the study object by means of a theoretical interpretation. Some more specific remarks concerning this issue will be found in the last paragraph of Chapter 1, which deals with the contentious issue of Cultural Relativism*. 1

M. Foucault, Les mots et les choses. Une archéologie des sciences humaines (1966) 221.

v

Introduction Method The method used here will be to select some important theoretical models relevant to knowledge and classification* systems and to apply these models to the ancient Mesopotamian lexical material. In this regard it should be noted that the theoretical models are applied to an object - i.e. the lexical material - which may be said to empirically form a coherent body of knowledge 2 but which, at the same time, remains generally undefined in terms of its precise function or use. Thus, the validity of the theoretical interpretations given here is not conditional upon the assumed function of the lexical texts as exercise materials (elementary or otherwise), or upon their assumed use in an educational context (either as exercises or as reference works). In other words, these theoretical interpretations are concerned not with the function or use of the knowledge found in the lexical material, but rather with its nature. Only in paragraphs 3.1.3.4-5 do some aspects of one of the theoretical models touch upon the function and use of the texts - in these paragraphs it is merely assumed that the lexical texts functioned as educational tools in an unspecified, general manner. The choice of the specific models used is briefly discussed later in this Introduction. Before proceeding to explain the organization of the text, a word of caution is needed. It should be kept in mind that the models chosen are based on theories and hypotheses which lack the objective (i.e. empirically verifiable) validity that can be aimed at in a purely linguistic or philological study. The models chosen may easily be - and frequently have been - disputed on specific points or even as a whole. The point of the investigation offered here, however, is not to prove or disprove their underlying theories and hypotheses. Here the theoretical models chosen merely serve as convenient points of departure for a number of thought experiments. It is felt, in fact, that interdisciplinary speculation (preferably not too superficially informed) may be the only approach available to answer the kind of ‘why’ questions asked above - questions which the purely linguistic and philological approaches are not equipped to deal with. It should be noted that, although it is not the aim of this study to prove or disprove any of the theoretical models used in its thought experiments, one of the models chosen, viz. the ‘technological’ model of J. Goody, has attracted so much criticism in the past that a short excursus on its critical reception seemed warranted. This excursus may be found in Chapter 1. Organization Preceding the actual application of the theoretical models chosen, Chapter 1 (Theoretical Framework) seeks to briefly deal with two theoretical issues. The first is the relation of the lexical genre - the Emar version of which is the object of this study - to other text genres found in cuneiform literature. It does so by referring to the primarily philological analysis offered by Bottéro’s 1974 article ‘Symptômes, signes, écritures’. The investigation of inter-genre relations should serve to determine to what extent the application of theoretical models to the lexical genre may be relevant for cuneiform scholarship in general. The second is the criticism of Goody’s theoretical model 2

Cf. the relevant methodological remarks found in the Introduction to Part 3, viii.

vi

Introduction mentioned earlier. Chapters 2-4 will proceed with the actual application of three theoretical models. Finally, based on the findings of these chapters, some theses (listed under Main Conclusions) are proposed with regard to the ancient Mesopotamian knowledge system in general. It is important to note that although the context and content of the theoretical models to be used will be briefly summarized, it cannot be the purpose of this study to provide an exhaustive description of each of them. This means that no reproduction can be expected of all the examples, illustrations and elaborations that each of the authors amply provided around their theories in their respective works. The reader is therefore asked to be content with the brief historical and theoretical summaries given. Either they will serve to refresh what he is basically already familiar with, or they will provide him with the references needed in order to locate the relevant source materials. In addition, the alphabetic register of terminology will provide an elementary guide to some of the specialized terminology used. This terminology is derived from the fields of Philosophy and the Social Sciences and it should be noted that the terms and concepts covered in the alphabetic register have a very specific content which is at times not immediately obvious from the surface meaning of the word 3 . To avoid misunderstanding, all special terminology has been marked with an asterisk (*) the first time it is used. Finally, it should be noted that the non-bibliographic abbreviations used in the text are listed immediately after the Introduction to Part 1. The theoretical models chosen ... (les sciences humaines) représentent pour tous les autres savoirs comme un danger permanent: certes, ni les sciences déductives, ni les sciences empiriques, ni la réflexion philosophique ne risquent, si elles demeurent dans leur dimension propre, de <<passer>> aux sciences humaines ou de se changer de leur impureté; mais on sait quelles difficultés, parfois, rencontre l’établissement de ces plans intermédiaires ... c’est que la moindre déviation par rapport à ces plans rigoureux, fait tomber la pensée dans le domain investi par les sciences humaines: de là le danger du <>, du <<sociologisme>>, - de ce qu’on pourrait appeler d’un mot l’<> - qui devient menaçant dès que par example on ne réfléchit pas correctement les rapports de la pensée et de la formalisation, ou dès qu’on n’analyse pas comme il faut les modes d’être de la vie, du travail et du langage. (l’<>) est de nos 4 jours le grand danger intérieur du savoir .

The above quotation points at the difficulty of the approach attempted in this Theoretical Interpretation, viz. the difficulty of interdisciplinary research seeking to utilize theories developed in the social sciences in the interpretation of empiric data gathered in an empiric science. For the (supposedly) empiric linguistic science of Ancient Near Eastern 3

Methodically it is relevant to note that the author’s has chosen to view the actual content of the scientific terminology used in this study as pre-determined by a series of Wittgensteinian Sprachspiele played in the modern scientific disciplines of Philosophy and the Social Sciences (methodological reference kindly suggested by Prof. Oosten). This caveat emphasizes the unresolved problem of how the emic (participant, i.e. Ancient Mesopotamian) and etic (observer, i.e. modern scientific) visions of classification relate to each other. 4 Foucault, Les mots, 359.

vii

Introduction philology such interdisciplinary research has been attempted before in a tentative manner - beginnings have been made and avenues of research have been pointed out 5 . The most considerable of these attempts in recent years may be found in Veldhuis’ analysis of the Ancient Mesopotamian ‘science of writing’ 6 . The aim of the fourth and final part of this present study is to further investigate some points raised in his study. In fact, Veldhuis specifically suggested one of the three theoretical models chosen here, viz. Goody’s ‘technological’ model, as worthy of further research. Another reason for including Goody’s model is the wish to do justice to both sides of the great anthropological divide which formerly ran - to use oversimplified terms - between the ‘empiric’ Anglo-Saxon approach and the ‘philosophic’ continental European approach. Goody may be seen as a trying to strike a balance between the overly mathematical and deterministic science that has at times characterized the former and the sometimes quite abstract quality that has at times isolated the latter. The other two models, Foucault’s and Lévi-Strauss’, are both from the continental European tradition in the social sciences and have been chosen in order to shed light on the subject matter from different disciplinary angles. These models may not constitute obvious choices, as their authors focus on the organisation and dynamics of knowledge in general terms, without specifically addressing lexical systems. It is felt, however, that they have an important value in facilitating a manipulation of perspective, allowing the modern observer to look at etnographic or historical data in a different matter 7 . On the one hand, Foucault’s epistemological model primarily offers a philosophically considered cultural-historical critique that still retains some of the original iconoclastic, ‘revolutionary’ power it had when it was formulated in the Sixties. On the other hand, Lévi-Strauss’ structuralist model offers the kind of amalgamation of philosophical methodology and empiric fieldwork that lies at the heart of classic continental Anthropology. Both thinkers, however different their respective approaches maybe, offer a depth and scope of analysis that is unmatched - for this reason alone a choice of their models may be considered an interesting challenge.

5

Key references maybe found in the bibliography of H. Vanstiphout, ‘Memory and Literacy in Ancient Western Asia’ in: J.M. Sasson (ed.), Civilizations of the Ancient Near East IV (New York 1995) 2181-96. 6 N.C. Veldhuis, Elementary Education at Nippur. The Lists of Trees and Wooden Objects (Groningen 1997). 7 (Variant of) a methodological formulation kindly suggested by Prof. J.G. Oosten.

viii

Introduction

Methodological limitations 8 The most important criticism that may be levelled at the methodology applied in this study is the admittedly problematic definition of what exactly constitutes a ‘knowledge system’. In this context it is useful to paraphrase the manner in which one authority in the field of Structural Anthropology has put this problem: ‘(i)t cannot be assumed that, as in a given culture knowledge is shaped in different domains (e.g. language, technology, material culture, language, social organisation, cosmology), all these domains will be governed by a single dominant classification system. Rather, it may be assumed that these different domains will show different classificatory structures and dynamics’ 9 . When introducing this Theoretical Interpretation it must, therefore, be stated clearly that the Ancient Mesopotamian knowledge system and episteme pursued here will be primarily the knowledge system and episteme as they appear in the material remains of Ancient Mesopotamian lexicology. Based on the theoretical models chosen, however, two possibilities are postulated here: first that a description of one specific (in this case: lexical) knowledge system may be of heuristic value in understanding other, parallel knowledge systems (in this case: other systems found in Ancient Mesopotamia, cf. 1.1. below). Methodologically, this parallels Foucault’s investigation of (aspects and parts of) Western scientific history and his discovery of developmental and structural similarities between various disciplines. Whether or not his conclusions, e.g. his proposition of a coherent developmental curve between successive epistemes, can stand the test of a more detailed analysis or of a wider definition of ‘scientific’ knowledge, is a matter that cannot be addressed in this study. The parallel drawn here merely serves to point to the value of the chosen approach as a heuristic tool. The second possibility postulated here is that there may be sufficient parallel structures and dynamics between different knowledge systems found within a single culture to justify the definition of a coherent, single episteme for that culture. On different levels such epistemical entities are proposed, directly or indirectly, in all three models chosen: in the Traditional, Classical and Modern Epistemes of Foucault, in the dynamics of Goody’s alphabetic literacy and in Lévi-Strauss’ totemic logic. Whether or not their models allow sufficient operationalization in empiric research to reach epistemological definitions in the investigation of any random culture, is again a question beyond the scope of this study. Here it is proposed, however, that at least in this investigation of the Emar lexical corpus, these models can indeed be helpful in defining its wider diachronic and synchronic epistemological position. Another important remark should be made with regard to the way in which the concepts ‘knowledge system’ and ‘episteme’ will be pursued here: the scientific categories and concepts with which this study will attempt to analyze the Ancient Mesopotamian lexical texts are anchored in Western culture and history and cannot be assumed to have even 8

The author wishes to express his gratitude to Prof. J.G. Oosten for offering the methodological considerations that this paragraph will address. 9 Prof. J.G. Oosten - personal communication

ix

Introduction approximate equivalents in any other culture, such as Ancient Mesopotamia - let alone universal validity. It is recognized that, in the final analysis, this study will merely serve to impose a Western scientific cognitive framework on the material it aims to study. The contribution aimed at, is to do so in a novel manner, through the manipulation of the working material by means of the theoretical models chosen. It is conceivable that the perspectives thus opened will allow the modern observer to grasp (aspects of) its elusive emic quality. A final criticism to be anticipated from some quarters in the Social Sciences is that the three models chosen are now ‘outdated’, in the sense that they have been thoroughly criticized and perhaps even (ostensibly) superseded by subsequent counter-models and post-modern reinterpretations and deconstructions. Two remarks may be made in this regard. First, that this view by no means reflects the Anthropological consensus. Second, that it is obvious that any such criticism does not factually diminish the value of the chosen models as analytic tools - such value must become evident from their application and its results. In this context it seems useful to, once again, remind the reader of the primary and strictly limited aim of this study: viz. to conduct a number of thought experiments in relation to the Ancient Mesopotamian lexical material at hand.

x

Chapter 1 - The Theoretical Framework CHAPTER 1 – THE THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 1.1. The lexical lists as representative of the Ancient Mesopotamian knowledge system Methodological remarks As the three models treated in the Theoretical Interpretation, the final part of The Emar Lexical Texts, are tested exclusively on the lexical genre, the question may be asked to what extent any conclusions reached are applicable to the Ancient Mesopotamian knowledge system as a whole. As stated in the Introduction, the basic aim of this study is strictly limited to providing a series of tests for these models, without necessarily reaching definitive conclusions either about the validity of these models or about the nature of the Ancient Mesopotamian knowledge system as a whole. Nevertheless, the question posed may be considered significant enough to merit a preliminary investigation preceding the three theoretical experiments that will make up the bulk of this study. Indeed, this Theoretical Interpretation would not have been attempted if, from the outset, it would not have been considered possible - even likely - that its results could have some general relevance for the field of Assyriology as a whole. Various attempts to give an epistemological characterization of the Ancient Mesopotamian knowledge system as a whole have been made within the field of Assyriology in the past, but it was felt that one attempt in particular indicated that this knowledge system was of such a nature as to allow the extrapolation of the findings of the theoretical interpretation of one of its genres to its entirety. The work in question is Bottéro’s 1974 article ‘Symptômes, signes, écritures en Mésopotamie ancienne’, in which such an extrapolation is made on the basis of a hermeneutical analysis of the Ancient Mesopotamian divinatory genre. The main points of Bottéro’s analysis will here be presented as preliminary arguments in favour of the possible relevance of the conclusions of this study, beyond the lexical genre, to the Ancient Mesopotamian knowledge system as a whole. This, it is felt, may go some way to justify the attempt that will be made in the course of this study to extrapolate various findings to a field as large, complex and distant as Ancient Mesopotamian epistemology. Some of the points that Bottéro makes will here be provided with specific anticipatory references to Chapter 2-4 (given in brackets), allowing the reader to crossexamine the relevant paragraphs of this study. Although, in any case, the reader will have to judge the findings of this study on their own merits, the following summary of Bottéro will serve to remind him of some of the epistemological issues at hand. General divinatory hermeneutical approach of Ancient Mesopotamian scholarship Bottéro gives a characterization of the Ancient Mesopotamian knowledge system as a whole from the perspective of its divinatory arts (cf. Foucault’s assumption of a generalized divinatory hermeneutical approach for the TE in 2.1.2.4.), for which he finds some very specific formal features: … selon une mise en forme tout à fait caracteristique de la literature scientifique mésopotamienne depuis les temps les plus reculés les oracles ont alignés <<en liste>> et classés, en function des protases, selon une ordre

1

Chapter 1 - The Theoretical Framework généralement rigoureux, et constant pour un meme sujet, lequel ordre est fondé sur une analyse plus ou moins poussée de l’objet oraculaire 10 . In this one sentence several important observations are made, viz. regarding (1) a preponderance of the list-form in which knowledge is presented (cf. the analysis of the list* as the literary device par excellence in 3.1.3.1.), (2) a characteristic formulation of knowledge in a juxtaposition of protasis and apodosis 11 (cf. the analysis of binary oppositions in 4.2.) and (3) a classificatory order based on concrete references rather than abstract concepts (cf. its relation to tabular presentation in 2.1.3.2. and to the principles of bricolage in 4.1.). Important in relation to the ‘empiric’ nature of Ancient Mesopotamian knowledge system is also Bottéro’s postulate that even its divinatory art had a solidly ‘empiric’ basis: … le plus vieux procédé qui a dû server à l’établissement de oracle de divination deductive, et sans doute même présider à la proper <> de cette divination (est) la constation des coincidences entre le deux series de la forme des présages et des événements de l’histoire. …Il y a tout lieu de supposer que telle a été, en Mésopotamie, la dialectique grace à laquelle s’est élaborée la divination comme discipline et type de connaissance 12 . This postulate of the overall importance of ‘empiric’ evidence and of concrete references in Ancient Mesopotamian scholarship is relevant for viewing it in terms of totemic logical quality (cf. 4.1.). In its divinatory practices Bottéro finds a generalized logical pattern of the Ancient Mesopotamian knowledge system which sees ‘things through other things’ and which is most distinctly related to its writing system: (e)t à quoi se résume le trait essential … sinon à designer des choses par des choses? L'écriture pictographique tissait donc entre les choses une multiple de rapports plus ou moins inattenus ou subtils: elle habituait l’ésprit à voir et à sentir ces liens que les vieux Mésopotamiens n’ont pas pu oublier, c’est une telle manière de regarder le monde materiel, autour d’eux, qu’ils ont acquise très anciennement et qu’ils ne se sont jamais résolus à abandoner. … tout le principe foncier de la divination deductive est là: elle aussi voit des choses (l’oracle) à travers d’autres choses (le presage) 13 . Aside from bringing up the important issue of how specific writing systems affects knowledge systems (cf. 2.1.2.1., 3.1.2. and 3.1.3.5.), Bottéro’s analysis strongly reinforces the arguments that will be made for viewing the Ancient Mesopotamian knowledge system in terms of Foucault’s theoretical model, a model that assumes that modern science became possible through the rigorous methodological separation of things and words (cf. 2.1.4.3.). General characterization of the Ancient Mesopotamian knowledge system Extrapolating from his analysis of the divinatory arts, Bottéro proceeds to a characterization of the Ancient Mesopotamian knowledge system in general with two 10

J. Bottéro, 'Symptômes, signes, écritures en Mésopotamie ancienne' in: J.P. Vernant (ed.), Divination et rationalité (Paris 1974) 84. 11 … une logique universéele … depuis au moin la fin du IIIe millénaire … dans laquelle sont coulé non seulement des rituels, mais plus ou moins tous les traits scientifiques … fait(e) d’une suite de propositions immuablement composées chacune de deux parties qui, pour le grammairien, apparaisent, la première comme une <<protase>>, introduite par šumma: <<s’il se trouve que>>, <<pose>> ou <<suppose que>>, la seconde comme une <>, qui lui répond. - Ibidem, 81-2. 12 Ibidem, 149-50. 13 Ibidem, 157.

2

Chapter 1 - The Theoretical Framework main features: (1) a prosaic rationality* with a marked preoccupation with schematic classification 14 and (2) an intense preoccupation with the techniques of writing. In his discussion of this second feature Bottéro states his conviction that the impact of writing technique on the Ancient Mesopotamian knowledge system can cannot be overestimated, both in general, i.e. as writing per se 15 (cf. the excursus regarding Goody’s model in 1.2. below), and specifically as logographic writing, which, as quoted above, saw ‘things through other things’ and which brought about a scholarship that was closed in the figurative as well as in the literal sense of the word (cf. 3.1.2. and 3.1.3.4. respectively). In Bottéro’s analysis especially important among the specific effects of cuneiform writing on the Ancient Mesopotamian knowledge system is its intense grip on the direction of scholarly enterprise 16 (cf. Foucault’s analysis of rhetoric figures in logographic knowledge systems in 2.1.2.2.). Neither Bottéro’s general characterization of the Ancient Mesopotamian knowledge system, nor the present attempt to extrapolate findings for the lexical curriculum to this system in general should be taken to imply a static view of the Ancient Mesopotamian episteme. In fact, as will be seen, there is an interesting partial parallel between the diachronic developmental scheme Bottéro develops for divinatory scholarship and the epistemological evolutionary scheme developed in this present study. Bottéro postulates a breaking point between an ‘empiric’ and ‘scientific’ phase of Ancient Mesopotamian divination around 2000 BC 17 and he describes the latter phase as characterized by the rise of rational analysis, visible in a heightened exploitation of polyvalency in the apodosis and in a deductive search for invariable and abstract categories 18 . This breaking point is matched in the epistemological evolutionary scheme postulated in Chapter 2, where 2000 BC marks the end of the early Ancient Mesopotamian Episteme (cf. 2.2.). A dynamic perspective on the Ancient Mesopotamian scholarly tradition, stretching from the early development of writing to the disappearance of cuneiform writing, will be an essential aspect of this study. 14

…une tendance indiscutable à la curiosité pour les choses; une propension à les analyser et ranger; une sorte de rationalité qui explique la très archaïque passion de ces gens pour la mise en listes, la classification, les dictionnaire; la preponderance d’une façon de proseïsme raissonable et lucide, mais terre à terre, et qui refroidit en quelque sorte, jusqu’à leur poésie et la deprive de cette extraordinaire puissance, de l’image et vehémence du discourse qu’on trouve si couramment chez d’autre vieux Sémites, comme le Hébreux et les anciens Arabes: bref, comme une attitude objective et logique, qui a pénétré meme la religion, et dont on n’a peut-être pas encore mesuré la profondeur et la portée. … la forme littéraire que (la divination) a finalement pris, celle des traits et de listes classifiées des présages, rejoint, l’énorme literature de <<mise en ordre>> dont les plus vieux témoins sont contemporains des tout premier débuts de l’écriture. - Ibidem, 153. 15 Il n’est pas imaginable qu’une pareille découverte, qui joue dans l’ordre de l’intelligence le rôle de l’invention du feu dans la domaine de la technique, n’ait point révolutionné les habitudes de pensée de ses auteurs: quand on peut objectiver ce que l’on pense, le fixer en déhors de soi et en garder non seulement une image détachée de soi, mais une mémoire aussi perpétuelle qu’exacte, on ne pense plus come avant. Ibidem, 154. 16 … à côté des signes pris pour leur valeur phonétique, c’est-à-dire syllabique, les vieux usagers de l’écriture cunéiforme ont obstinément conservé l’emploi de les memes signes en leur antique valeur de pictogrammes, et cet usage primitif et obsolète, manifestement inviscéré en quelque sorte, à l’écriture des vieux Mésopotamiens, a duré autant qu’elle … - Ibidem, 156. 17 Ibidem, 143. 18 Ibidem, 180-3.

3

Chapter 1 - The Theoretical Framework 1.2. Excursus on the critical reception of Goody’s model Aim and organization In the social sciences Goody’s ‘technological’ approach to literacy has attracted strong criticism from some quarters. As stated earlier, it is not the purpose of this study to either prove or disprove any specific theoretical theory - it merely uses certain models as tools in a series of theoretical experiments. There is, therefore, no explicit need to burden the reader with a discussion of the prolonged social scientific debates which followed the formulation of the theories in question. An exception seems appropriate, however, with regard to Goody’s theory, as some may feel that the sheer amount and intensity of criticism warrants at least some consideration of the substance of that criticism. The present excursus seeks to provide this in the form of a review of what may be considered the single most comprehensive piece of criticism of Goody, viz. that given in B.V. Street, Literacy in Theory and Practice (Cambridge a.o. 1984). For the reader interested in a further investigation of the debate stirred up by Goody’s theories on the ‘consequences’ of literacy, Street’s works provides ample references to relevant literature. It should be added that Goody gives a reply to his critics in an interview published in M.L. PallaresBurke, The New History. Confessions and Conversations (Cambridge 2002) 7-30 19 . This excursus is organized into two parts. The first is a review of the two opposing models of literacy which Street proposes and which he uses to challenge the validity of Goody’s theoretical approach. The second is a brief general discussion of the anthropological principle of Cultural Relativism, the ideological implications of which Street’s work is concerned with. The ‘autonomous’ vs. the ‘ideological’ model It is Street’s contention that the practice of literacy in any given society is a function of its social context, i.e. the outcome of specific processes of social formation. Street rejects the notion that the skills and concepts of literacy are autonomous, i.e. inherent in literacy – instead he argues that they are embedded in the given ‘ideology’ of a given society 20 . Thus, an ‘autonomous’ model of literacy may be opposed to an ‘ideological’ model and Street views Goody as a proponent of the former. Ultimately, Street argues, Goody’s ‘autonomous’ model, which approaches literacy as a simple set of neutral technological tools that some societies have developed and others have not, is an unacceptable reincarnation of the antiquated, now discredited ‘Great Dichotomy’ found in early Anthropology, which employed opposing terms such as primitive-advanced, mythicalscientific etc. . In Street’s view, the ‘autonomous’ model is simply another erroneous ‘universal’ theory resulting from the projection of (literary) practices specific to modern Western culture on previous or contemporary non-Western societies. In his view, the change of emphasis from cognitive capacity to cognitive development in the ‘autonomous’ model of literacy still implies an ethnocentric judgment in as far as the

19 20

Reference kindly supplied by W.S. van Egmond. B.V. Street, Literacy in theory and Practice (Cambridge a.o. 1984) 1.

4

Chapter 1 - The Theoretical Framework logic developed in a literate society is still considerate superior and valued higher 21 . This implicit superiority is reflected in the fact that it provides the standard by which ‘the others’ are measured and to which they are made to aspire (e.g. in literacy programs). Such an etic approach Street rejects, pointing to the fact that any literate technology is unavoidably ideologically charged, as it is always a historically-conditioned construct resulting from specific social conditions and from specific political and economic structures. He argues, for example, that the action of abstraction* itself constitutes a cultural (educational) convention22 . More specifically, Street criticizes Goody on the following points: (1) the overstated significance of literacy and the concomitant understated significance of oral communication, (2) the misplaced polarization of the literate and oral modes resulting from insufficient attention to mixed realities and (3) the distortion of developmental processes and of the role of ideology in the anthropological description of societies 23 . Street proposes to reject the ‘autonomous’ model in favor of his own ‘ideological’ model, a model in which the meaning of literacy depends on its social context and in which this meaning is instilled by the institutional (educational) processes through which literacy is transmitted. As a result, the meaning of literacy would be different for every society: there is not one kind of literacy, rather there are many kinds of literacies 24 . Here it is proposed that in Street’s approach two issues should be clearly distinguished: (1) the ‘ideological’ issue and (2) the theoretical-methodical issue. Considering the former there is undoubtedly a case to be made for Street’s argument that when literacy is transmitted, either in time or in space, it comes with ‘strings attached’. Street points to the fact that many contemporary literacy programs effectively act as carriers of specific political and economic interests 25 and that imposition of literacy through compulsory schooling serves to uphold specific forms of social control as well as the transfer of specific dominant cultural values 26 . He is obviously correct when he states that certain forms of literacy theory developed in the social sciences may come to serve as ‘scientific’ justifications for such literacy programs. When literacy is assumed to have cognitive consequences, i.e. to be essential for the development of certain (presumably desirable) intellectual competencies, social theory may easily become relevant in political arguments. From this perspective Street’s critical approach to literacy theory of the ‘autonomous’ variant is wholly understandable. It should be remembered, however, that possible political abuse of any given scientific theory does not automatically disqualify this theory itself. In this respect, the label that Street gives to his own theoretical model, viz. ‘ideological’, is bound to give pause to his readers: it indicates Street’s preoccupation with the political extension of his own scientific discipline, i.e. of Cultural Anthropology. Street’s model is relevant to value systems, not to epistemology* or technology. Which brings the discussion to the second issue at hand, viz. the question of the actual scientific,

21

Ibidem, 29. Ibidem, 29-32. 23 Ibidem, 5. 24 Ibidem, 8. 25 Ibidem, 13. 26 Ibidem, 19. 22

5

Chapter 1 - The Theoretical Framework theoretical-methodical validity of respectively the ‘autonomous’ and the ‘ideological’ models proposed and opposed to each other by Street. In his eagerness to undermine any possible justification which over-zealous politicians may seek to derive from literacy theory, Street simply misses the point of Goody’s theory. The point of Goody’s theory is to address the impact of literate ‘technology’ on cognition and logic: this impact is not necessarily negated by the fact that it happens to be described in terms of the cognitive and logical framework particular to modern Western science. Neither does the wide range of classificatory sophistication found in many nonliterate societies, as documented in anthropological literature and repeatedly referred to by Street 27 , automatically invalidate Goody’s thesis that certain features of cognition and logic are particular to literate as opposed to oral societies. Rather, the particular features assumed to be due to literacy by Goody should be judged on their specific merits. Street’s criticism of Goody, however, completely fails in this respect: he does not offer any substantial counterargument concerning the various literate devices - such as the list, the table and the recipe - which constitute the pillars of Goody’s theory. This is hardly surprising, as these devices, and the specific classifications and logic which they allow to develop, are undeniably inconceivable in an exclusively oral context. The fact is that literacy allows the development of certain cognitive skills, such as tabular classification and complex abstract formulae, which remain undeveloped in an exclusively oral context, where these skills are simply unconceivable. The Mesopotamian lexical texts attest to this: without the literate device of the table, for example, there would have been no way to attribute a variety of homophone and polyphone values to any graphic symbol in reference to a dead language. The abstract categories of ‘gloss’ and ‘sign name’ are inconceivable in an exclusively oral context. The table as used in the lexical texts constitutes a device which is ‘good to think’, but a device also exclusively found in a literate context 28 . Without anticipating further precise examples, for now it will suffice to say that Chapter 3 shows that the Mesopotamian lexical texts are actually a good illustration of Goody’s argument that certain cognitive skills are uniquely particular to written contexts. Cultural Relativism In essence, Street’s proposed opposition of the ‘autonomous’ and the ‘ideological’ model may be seen as reflecting concern for the near-axiomatic anthropological principle of Cultural Relativism. This principle - ultimately derived from Kant’s and Herder’s philosophical analysis of the mediated nature of human cognition - gained recognition as an indispensable anthropological method in the wake of the research innovations introduced by Boas (1858-1942). Essentially, the methodological principle of Cultural Relativism establishes the need to understand each culture on its own terms, refraining from ethnocentric typologies that establish ‘levels of development’ 29 . Cultural Relativism meant that anthropologists had to (attempt to) rise above culture-bound judgments - a 27

Ibidem, 36-7. Cf. Street, Literacy, 36-7. 29 T.H. Eriksen, Small Places, Large Issues. An Introduction to Social and Cultural Anthropology (London and Sterling VA 2001) 14. 28

6

Chapter 1 - The Theoretical Framework principle which potentially has methodological as well as ethical implications. On the methodological level the Cultural Relativism of Boas meant the need to contextualize concrete objects and abstract phenomena in the wider culture where they occur while eliminating any a priori preferential taxonomies (e.g. by ethnography based on a certain attempt at enculturation). On the ethical level Cultural Relativism, however, may take on a doctrinal quality when it is wielded as an instrument of culture critique and confused with ‘moral relativism’. The methodological principle of Cultural Relativism, stating that different cultures each have an autonomous logical cohesion within which their different value systems are autonomously valid, is then confused with the notion of a ‘moral relativity’ where there is a lack of any absolute or universal moral standards. It can safely be said that such an erroneous projection of the methodological principle into the sphere of ethical debate is a problem of politics rather than of Anthropology, the fact remains, however, that concern with the ethical dimension of Anthropology tends to haunt any discussion of the implications of Cultural Relativism. It is such projection that may be observed in much of the criticism levelled at Goody’s work on literacy, including that of Street. While ostensibly taking a ‘cultural relativist’ position to defend native cultures against Goody’s supposed ethnocentric or universalist functionalism, Street in fact ignores Boas’ own argument that, when comparing similar phenomena in different cultural settings, it should be remembered that similar as well as different causes can produce similar effects. Following this line of thought, Goody’s approach to the phenomenon of writing and literacy is wholly compatible with the application of the methodological principle of Cultural Relativism. Similar communication techniques inherent in writing may very well have similar effects on the development of cognitive skills and logic in different cultural contexts. Finally, it may be appropriate in this context to add a few words on how this present study itself should be regarded from a ‘cultural relativist’ perspective. This study, obviously written in the specific cultural framework of modern Western civilization and academic science, does not aim at fully understanding its object, the Ancient Mesopotamian lexical text corpus from Emar, on its own terms. Due to the impossibility of fully knowing the long-dead cultural context or of reconstructing it from the scarce and fragmentary archaeological and written sources, such understanding may very well prove beyond the capacities of modern science. In any case, even an attempt at such understanding would require a full-fledged multi-disciplinary approach including a professional anthropologist. The author of this study is not qualified as such and has limited himself to merely applying existing theories from the social science to the study object at hand. In this way the Ancient Mesopotamian lexical texts can gain meaning in terms of our own modern Western culture itself. What is aimed at here, in other words, is primarily a greater understanding of these texts in terms of our own culture as represented by our own Philosophy and Anthropology. Such an understanding is valuable, so it is proposed, not only functionally within the narrow framework of the academic discipline of Assyriology, but also in a wider sense, viz. by allowing us to mirror our Philosophy and Anthropology on the fascinatingly exotic monuments of Ancient Mesopotamian scholarship. In this enterprise we can exploit that special feature of our own unique culture which Lévi-Strauss termed our special capacity for self-reflexivity.

7

Chapter 2 - The Epistemological Perspective CHAPTER 2 – THE EPISTEMOLOGICAL PERPECTIVE 2.0. Aim, method and organization Aim The aim of this chapter is to analyse the Mesopotamian knowledge system represented by the Emar lexical texts from an epistemological perspective. The first question to be addressed here may be formulated as follows: ‘what is the episteme, i.e. the nature and method of knowledge, in these texts?’. As the Emar lexical texts represent (variant) reproductions of traditional scholarly compositions, this question may be assumed to be relevant to the knowledge system found in ancient Mesopotamia as a whole, at least during the period that the compositions in question were recognizably used in a scholarly context. This does not mean that a single, static epistemological definition can adequately describe the whole Mesopotamian knowledge system over the whole time span that these compositions may be recognized in the scholarly compositions, i.e. starting in the OB period and ending with cuneiform writing itself. Rather, it means that the epistemological analysis of the lexical text corpus from one school produced during a relatively short period - such as that of the Emar school during the LBA period - can constitute a relevant point of departure for the epistemological analysis of other compositionally and methodologically related corpora. These related corpora of earlier and later date may very well contain indications of epistemological transformations in the Mesopotamian knowledge system, but they will always show them in relation to that reference point. The second question to be addressed here is the following: ‘what is the historic position of the ancient Mesopotamian episteme?’. This question brings up the issue of the position of the Mesopotamian episteme relative to other epistemes, especially to the one underlying modern western science. In seeking an answer to this question the ancient Mesopotamian episteme will be narrowly defined as the one specifically underlying the Emar lexical text. The diachronic transformation of the lexical curriculum between the OB and 1st Millennium canonical versions (cf. Part 3 Chapter 14) will be approached in terms of epistemological development. Method As announced in the Introduction, each chapter of this Theoretical Interpretation will aim at offering a different perspective on its object, viz. on the lexical texts of Emar, and each of these perspectives will be formulated in terms of a single key theory developed in the modern philosophical and social sciences. The epistemological perspective offered in this chapter will be formulated in terms of the theoretical concepts developed by M. Foucault in his 1966 work Les mots et les choses. His work aims at an ‘archaeological’ investigation of the foundations of modern western science 30 , exposing its ‘stratigraphy’ as far back as the 16th C. Without necessarily assuming any common ground, such as a generic epistemological connection, between the object of Foucault’s study (viz. western science from the 16th C onwards) and that of this study (viz. the Mesopotamian 30

Foucault, Les mots, 13.

8

Chapter 2 - The Epistemological Perspective knowledge system as appearing in specific Late Bronze Age text witnesses), this chapter aims at making use of the conceptual tools developed by Foucault. In other words, an attempt will be made to apply Foucault’s methodology to another study object. The value of the proposed approach will be measured by its results. Before the attempt is made, however, two preliminary justifications can be given. First, the objects of Foucault’s book and this chapter may be very different in spatial and temporal situation, but not in quality: both are concerned with knowledge systems. Both Foucault’s book and this chapter aim at a (developmental) analysis of the epistemes underlying these knowledge systems. Second, it was Foucault’s own explicit intention to develop conceptual tools that could be made use of outside the original context in which he had developed them 31 . To operationalize Foucault’s methodology two complementary strategies will be followed. First, the episteme underlying the Mesopotamian knowledge system, as it appears from the Emar lexical texts, will be characterized by comparing it with the successive epistemes which Foucault distinguishes in his history of western science. Second, the concept of universal language as applied by Foucault to the successive epistemes of Western culture will be applied to the AME texts under consideration. In view of the fact that in the scribal school these texts were used for learning language(s) (most importantly Sumerian), it is deemed appropriate to give special attention to this concept. The first strategy will allow the determination of the relative position of the Mesopotamian episteme vis-à-vis that of epistemes which are more familiar to the modern western observer. It allows the modern western and ancient Mesopotamian knowledge systems to be compared in an epistemological sense. The second strategy aims at understanding the knowledge system which produced the lexical texts on its own terms: it may help explaining their enigmatic appearance in the eyes of the modern reader and allow them to be appreciated as intellectual achievements in their own right. Organization The first two paragraphs of this chapter, 2.1. and 2.2., set out to address its first and second aim respectively. The nature and methods of the Mesopotamian knowledge system, as it appears in the texts under consideration, will be investigated in 2.1. . The historical position of the Ancient Mesopotamian episteme and epistemological developments within the Mesopotamian knowledge system itself, will be addressed in paragraph 2.2. . These first two paragraphs apply the first of the two methodological strategies outlined above. Paragraph 2.3. proceeds with the application of the second methodological strategy, viz. the application Foucault’s concept of universal language. Each of these paragraphs is divided into sub-paragraphs to allow for a precise analysis of each of Foucault’s successive epistemes. The chapter closes with a short summary in paragraph 2.4., providing a listing of its main findings. 31

I would like my books to be a kind of tool-box which others can rummage through to find a tool which they can use however they wish in their own area … I don’t write for an audience, I write for users, not readers. - M. Foucault, ‘Prisons et asiles dans le mécanisme du pouvoir’ in: Dits et écrits 2 (Paris 1994) 523-4.

9

Chapter 2 - The Epistemological Perspective 2.1. Epistemological comparison Ce que nous laissent les civilisations et les peuples comme monuments de leur pensée, ce ne sont pas tellement les texts, que les vocabularies et les syntaxes, les sons de leurs langues plutôt que les paroles qu’ils ont preparés, moins leurs discourse que ce qui les rendit possibles: la discursivité 32 de leur langage .

2.1.1. Foucault’s episteme(s) The Greek word επιστήμη means simply ‘knowledge’ or ‘science’, which is the sense in which it is used in the term ‘epistemology’, viz. the science of the origins and methods of knowledge 33 . Foucault, however, uses the word épistémè as an analytic concept referring to the preconditions of knowledge - it may be defined as the historically contingent a priori condition of any given knowledge system and its discourses 34 . Thus, the episteme of a given knowledge system refers to the spatially and temporally bound modalities that determine the laws of that system. Effectively, its analytic position is that of an interface between the fundamental, implicit codes of direct knowledge and the interpretative, explicit codes of reflexive knowledge 35 . In his work Les mots et les choses Foucault uses the concept of the episteme to give a developmental analysis of the western scientific knowledge system between the 16th Century and the present. He concludes that the apparent continuity in European thought from the Renaissance to modern times is no more than a surface illusion. The drastic transformations he describes actually lead him to postulate a number of different successive epistemes, each of which corresponds to a new incarnation of the western knowledge system 36 . The three successive epistemes of western culture he describes may be (with approximate dates) chronologically ordered as follows: (1) the Traditional Episteme, dominant until the early 17th C; (2) the Classical Episteme, dominant from the mid-17th C to the late 18th C; (3) the Modern Episteme, dominant from the late 18th C until the present day. Foucault was committed to understanding a given knowledge system on its own terms, and he worked toward this end by determining its episteme. Writing about the 17th C theory of ‘natural history’, Foucault shows its conditional validity by analyzing it as a discourse fully embedded in the Classical Episteme. He goes on to point to the many alternative discourses about ‘nature’ or ‘life’ possible in other epistemes and to explain how the a priori episteme determines the formation of knowledge: Sans doute, il y eut, dans cette region que nous appelons maintenant la vie, bien d’autres recherches que les efforts de classification, bien d’autres analyses que celle des identités et des differences. … toutes reposaient sur une sorte d’a priori historique qui les 32

Foucault, Les mots, 102. Cf. A.L. Hayward and J.J. Sparkes, The Concise English Dictionary (London 1982) 383. 34 Foucault, Les mots, 13. 35 Ibidem, 11-3. 36 Ibidem, 13-4. 33

10

Chapter 2 - The Epistemological Perspective autorisait en leur dispersion, en leurs projects singuliers et divergents, qui rendait également possibles tous les débats d’opinions dont elles étaient le lieu. …Cet a priori, c’est ce qui, à une époque donnée, découpe dans l’expérience un champ de savoir possible, définit le mode d’être des objets qui y apparaissent, arme le regard quotidien de pouvoirs théoriques, et définit les conditions dans lesquelles on peut tenir sur les choses un discourse reconnu pour vrai 37 . In the following three sub-paragraphs (2.1.2-4) the three successive epistemes of western culture listed above will be separately compared to the ancient Mesopotamian episteme underlying the Emar lexical texts. It will be attempted to pinpoint similarities and dissimilarities between the features of each of these epistemes, as described by Foucault and as shown by the Emar lexical material respectively. It should be reiterated that in these comparisons the ancient Mesopotamian episteme will be approached as an object yet to be defined. Although some aspects of ancient Mesopotamian epistemology have been touched upon in earlier Assyriological literature 38 , insufficient research has been done to allow precise assumptions regarding this object. In the present study, therefore, it will be approached strictly empirically. As the material basis for this study is limited to the Emar lexical texts, strictly speaking, the results apply only to the contemporary version of the ancient Mesopotamian episteme that they reflect. As that version, however, does in fact constitute a relevant reference point for the wider epistemological analysis of cuneiform scholarship (cf. discussion in 2.0.), here the wider term ‘Ancient Mesopotamian Episteme’ will be used to refer to it. It should be noted that the various epistemes to be compared will be abbreviated: Traditional Episteme (TE), Classical Episteme (CE), Modern Episteme (ME) and Ancient Mesopotamian Episteme (AME); as stated earlier, the latter term always refers to the version appearing in the Emar lexical texts. 2.1.2. TE-AME comparison 2.1.2.0. TE features to be investigated Four main features of the TE will be discussed here: (1) its general epistemological configuration, (2) its main analytic category, (3) its main analytical methods and (4) its limitations. (1) The general epistemological configuration of Foucault’s TE may be characterized as depending on similitude, touching all its aspects and implications, i.e. the observation, description and interpretation of likenesses and resemblances as well as the establishment of comparisons and metaphors. Until the beginning of the 16th C, in Foucault’s view, the concept, theory and method of the similitude was the foundation of all western knowledge - it was this episteme that shaped and held sway over all endeavors in all

37

Ibidem, 171. Relevant references regarding the intellectual background aspect of the ‘cultural history approach’ may be found in Veldhuis, Elementary Education, 4-7. 38

11

Chapter 2 - The Epistemological Perspective fields of arts, science and philosophy 39 . This was achieved, in the terms of modern western science, by consistently superimposing the methods of semiology (i.e. the identification and definition of signs) and hermeneutics (i.e. the interpretation and decipherment of signs). Foucault describes how this superimposition affected traditional thought as follows: (c)hercher le sens, c’est mettre au jour ce qui se ressemble. Chercher la loi des signes, c’est découvrir les choses qui sont semblables. La grammaire des êtres, c’est leur exégèse. Et le langage qu’ils parlent ne raconte rien d’autre que la syntaxe qui les lie 40 . (2) In this ‘exegesis’ the ‘grammatical’ tool, or analytic ‘category’ of choice, was the signature, i.e. the marker by which a similitude could be recognized. Effectively, the signature is a semiological description of the hermeneutically deciphered resemblance 41 . Foucault describes the role of the signature, allowing similitude to emerge, and the form in which it was experienced, as follows: (l)e système des signatures renverse le rapport du visible à l’invisible. La ressemblance était la forme invisible de ce qui, du fond du monde, rendait les choses visibles; mais pour que cette forme à son tour vienne jusqu’à la lumière, il faut une figure visible qui la tire de sa profonde invisibilité. C’est pourquoi le visage du monde est couvert de blasons, de caractères, de chiffres, de mots obscurs de <> … 42 . Thus, in the study of all things natural or cultural there should be a close scrutiny for the signatures of similitudes. (3) The four main figures by which, according to Foucault, similitude was actually expressed in the traditional western knowledge system are 43 : convenientia, aemulatio, analogia and sympathia. These figures of similitude could be considered as analytic ‘techniques’, offering different avenues of approaching knowledge to be defined in terms of similitudes. The exact definition of each of these figures will be considered later on, when they will be related to the organizational structure of the Emar lexical texts. (4) Foucault distinguishes the following main conceptual limits inherent in the TE 44 : a. as the elements of knowledge are always individual similitudes, which are relatable only through accumulation, the sole link between them is addition; b. the validity of similitudes is based on preconceived concepts of microcosm and macrocosm, therefore the knowledge system is necessarily conceptually finite. c. knowledge that is classified as magic or irrational in terms of modern western science is necessarily valid due to the inherently divinatory nature of knowledge acquisition in the TE, which depends on the search for signatures; d. the study of the natural world as well as that of literarily transmitted knowledge are subject to the same divinatory hermeneutical approach: (l)’héritage de l’Antiquité est 39

Foucault, Les mots, 32ff. It should be borne in mind that Foucault uses the word similitude in a rather abstract manner: it primarily refers to a philosophical concept and method rather than to the actual literary similtudes by which this concept was expressed and by which it was made operational. 40 Ibidem, 44. 41 Ibidem, 45. 42 Ibidem, 41-2. 43 Ibidem, 32-8. 44 Ibidem, 45-7.

12

Chapter 2 - The Epistemological Perspective comme la nature elle-même, un vaste espace à interpréter; … les Anciens ont déjà des interprétations que nous n’avons plus qu’à recueiller 45 . For a comparison of the TE with the AME, as underlying the Emar lexical texts, it will be investigated to what, if any, degree the four above mentioned aspects of the TE are also applicable to the content and structure of these texts. First, it will be discussed what is the general role of similitude in the texts under consideration (2.1.2.1.). After that, specific evidence will be studied for the relevance of the category signature (2.1.2.2.) and for the ‘techniques’ convenientia, aemulatio, analogia and sympathia (2.1.2.3.). Finally, it will be discussed to what extent the conceptual limits imposed by the TE may also be relevant for the AME (2.1.2.4.). 2.1.2.1. Similitude in the AME As stated above, it is the view of Foucault that the status of similitude as the dominant epistemological configuration of traditional western thought was achieved by the superimposition of semiology and hermeneutics. Effectively, under the aegis of the TE, the production of knowledge consisted of bridging the discrepancy between juxtaposed phenomena (semiology) by means of a discourse on meaning (hermeneutics) that takes the form of similitudes. The alphabetically coded discourse, however, could never render these similitudes in a form even remotely approaching a formal match: … parce qu’il y a un <> entre les similitudes qui forment graphisme et celles qui forment discours, le savoir et son labeur infini recoivent là l’espace qui leur est propre: ils auront à sillonner cette distance en allant, par un zigzag indéfini, du semblable à ce qui lui est semblable 46 . It is interesting, however, to note the caveat preceding this passage, viz.: (t)out serait immédiat et évident si l’herméneutique de la ressemblance et la sémiologie des signatures coïncidaient sans la moindre oscillation 47 . With other words: if there were no such ‘notch’ between graphic and discursive similitudes, knowledge would be ‘immediate’ because semiological discourse would exactly match hermeneutic interpretation. Here it will be proposed that in ancient Mesopotamia, in fact, there originally was such a match and that this original match partly determined the shape of the Emar lexical texts, in which it may at times still be recognized. In ancient Mesopotamian culture the means by which knowledge was coded was of a profoundly different nature than that in western culture. Cuneiform writing evolved from a large repository of pictograms and ideograms which carried logographic values, formulated in Sumerian. From these, in turn, phonetic values were derived - the use of these derived values gained special prominence after the ascendancy of Akkadian as the main administrative language, replacing Sumerian around the time it died out as a spoken language. Sumerian and logographic writing, however, remained at the heart of scholarly learning. This is clearly visible in the lexical curriculum, which constituted the basic instruction material of apprentice scribes: the learning of logograms and logographic composition are its main concerns. With the passing of the ages, through gradual changes 45

Ibidem, 48. Ibidem, 45. 47 Ibidem, 45. 46

13

Chapter 2 - The Epistemological Perspective in their graphic shapes, the signs may have become increasingly removed from the original pictograms and ideograms, the scribes, however, were well aware of this process. They developed specialized palaeographic studies and even made the occasional conscious, if scientifically ‘flawed’, effort to return to the graphic ‘roots’ (e.g. by the attempted reintroduction of the older OB sign in some NB institutional documents). What certainly remained constant in the scholarly tradition was the knowledge and usage of the original logographic values: scribal competence was to a large degree defined by the knowledge and application of these values in learned compositions. It is in the essential role of logographic writing that the profoundly different nature of the coding of knowledge in ancient Mesopotamia resides. Both logographic writing and alphabetic writing serve as a discrete code for conveying discourse. In case of the TE, Foucault has stated, this discourse concerned itself with the signatures of similitudes - it remains to be seen if this also holds true in the AME. What should be noted first, however, is that in the AME records vital elements of the code itself, viz. the logograms, ultimately derive their validity from the fact that they constitute similitudes in themselves. They do so by establishing graphic resemblances to external referents. As stated earlier, logograms originate from pictographic and ideographic markers, formed with the intention to graphically evoke the visual form of selected external referents, viz. various natural phenomena and cultural artefacts. The fact that in logographic writing all discourse is conveyed in the form of similitudes means that, inevitably, its content too is always interpretable as such. This potentiality is exactly what is realized in the lexical texts under consideration: it is the logogram that is consistently the core of their discourse (cf. Part 3 11.2.1). In other words: here the hermeneutic interpretation of the texts matches their semiological discourse. Effectively, the lexical texts under consideration are nothing but a discourse on cuneiform logography by means of the logograms themselves, formulated in long lists of graphic analysis. The exact match of graphic and discursive similitudes - which Foucault observed to have eluded the TE scholarship - may, to a certain extent, be sought in those ancient Mesopotamian lexical compositions that exclusively contain logograms, viz. in the unilingual Sumerian texts. In these unilingual lexical texts the logograms define each other: they are expressed in terms of their graphic (dis)similitude, i.e. in relation to each other. Such texts effectively represent a self-contained knowledge system, which in its actual operation 48 relies on concrete internal references instead of on abstract external references 49 . Foucault’s figurative description of the TE knowledge system may be said to apply literally to the AME knowledge system appearing in these lexical texts: La ressemblance … n’est fixée que si elle renvoie à une autre similitude, qui en appelle à son tour de nouvelles; de sorte que chaque ressemblance ne vaut que par l’accumulation 48

This obviously does not mean that these lists were originally created without reference to the real life world of objects and phenomena, including real life relations between such objects and phenomena. Rather, it means that these lists came to be used in a closed knowledge system which had the writing system rather than the real life world as its object. 49 With concrete as opposed to abstract references here are meant the relation between the actual cuneiform signs juxtaposed in the texts as opposed to the relations that these signs might actually or potentially have had to any object or phenomenon in the real life world.

14

Chapter 2 - The Epistemological Perspective de toutes les autres, et que le monde entier doit être parcouru pour que la plus mince des analogies soit justifiée, et apparaisse enfin comme certaine. C’est donc un savoir qui pourra, qui devra procéder par entassement infini de confirmations s’appelant les unes les autres. … La seule forme de liaison possible entre les éléments de savoir, … c’est l’addition. De là ces immenses colonnes, de là leur monotonie 50 . Of course, instruction was needed to teach apprentice scribes, but this remained largely textually invisible as long as the language of instruction, i.e. the Sumerian language, matched the language of the texts. It was only with the demise of Sumerian as a spoken language that the addition of a visible ‘interface’, in the form of phonetically written glosses, translations and comments was first conceived of. This secondary introduction of additional, abstract references, through the non-logographic (phonetic-Akkadian) use of signs, eventually resulted in fully bilingual texts. This means that, concerning a bilingual text as a whole, the exact match between hermeneutic interpretation and semiological discourse was lost. From that point onwards, roughly in the OB period, the exact match was only preserved to the extent that the lists retained their original logogram inventories and sequences - found in ever scarcer unilingual copies - or preserved in the unilingual column of bilingual tablets 51 . However, as the bilingualization of the lexical curriculum progressed over time and as list inventories and sequences were transformed and new compositions arose, even here the exact match was increasingly lost. It can therefore be argued that a successful match of hermeneutic interpretation and semiological discourse was dependent on the predominant use of logographic (as opposed to phonetic) coding. The eventual loss of the match between hermeneutic interpretation and semiological discourse is ultimately inherent in the nature of logographic writing itself. For any pictographic and ideographic codes to be expanded into logographic writing, abstract phonetic values must be assigned to selected graphemes. These graphemes (starting with phonetic complements and verbal prefixes in Sumerian) must be read, in specific contexts, without reference to their pictographic and ideographic values. Inevitably, any historic developments entailing the use of a given logographic system for another language than its original language (e.g. use of Sumerian writing for Akkadian or the use of Chinese writing for Japanese) will lead to an expansion of non-logographic coding. Thus, the bilingualization of the Mesopotamian lexical tradition constitutes a process by which the match between hermeneutic interpretation and semiological discourse is lost in the AME. The inventory transformations and expansions set in motion simultaneously with the bilingualization of the lexical compositions (cf. Chapter 14 of Part 3), could be interpreted as attempts to cope with this new discrepancy by realigning and adding content. The realignments and additions constitute analysis needed to come to grips with a knowledge system which could no longer be understood on its own terms. Effectively, the addition of external references (i.e. the phonetic-Akkadian interpretations), although 50

Foucault, Les mots, 45. The question to what extent the content of (certain) early unilingual OB lexical compositions was, in fact, already shaped by the bilingualization process, falls outside the scope of this study, it is however certainly relevant for any diachronic epistemological study with a wider scope. 51

15

Chapter 2 - The Epistemological Perspective meant to understand the old system in terms of new references, caused it to collapse. The replacement of its original semiological discourse signalled the fall of the original system, which had relied on the superposition of hermeneutics and semiology. What resulted, was a new system, with new compositions for which the old sign lists only served as raw material. In this new system, the old sign lists were approached as a heritage to be interpreted through the new discourse. If the old (unilingual) system constitutes the first instance of a literate semiology, the new (bilingual) system constitutes the first instance of literate erudition. For the first time, knowledge is produced by approaching the written discourse of the ancients as a sign to be deciphered 52 . The form in which this decipherment took place was, again, similitude. In deciphering the records of the old system, the new system extended the usage of similitudes from the concrete to the abstract. Whereas the old system had used concrete (graphic) similitudes to constitute its logograms, the new system used abstract (semantic) similitudes to express these logograms in terms of Akkadian words. In the resulting bilingual lexical texts each juxtaposition of a logogram and an Akkadian interpretation represents an abstract similitude in as far as it constitutes a comparison based on an invisible (exclusively semantic) resemblance of some kind. Effectively, the old lexical records, which had content solely expressed in concrete, graphic similitudes, were adopted and adjusted so that this content could additionally be expressed in abstract, semantic similitudes. Comparing the status of similitude in the TE and the AME, it may be said that whereas in the TE the similitude was the aim of all knowledge, in the AME it was the precondition of all knowledge. Whereas in the TE the similitude was sought as original knowledge 53 , in the AME it constituted original knowledge. In the lexical records it does so either as concrete, graphic content alone (the unilingual texts) or through abstract, semantic comparison as well (the bilingual texts). Whereas in the TE the production of knowledge consisted of establishing similitudes by bridging the discrepancy between hermeneutically interpreted resemblances and semiologically described signatures, in the AME originally no such production took place because originally there was no such discrepancy. Knowledge production similar to that during the TE only sets in with the end of the monopoly of the logogram as the vehicle of knowledge recording (the bilingualization of the lexical curriculum starts in the OB period) and even then it originally constitutes only an adaptation of the old texts to a new linguistic context. In terms of this development, the Emar lexical curriculum provides an important insight into the shift from the older to the younger Mesopotamian knowledge system: it is the last known text corpus to provide conclusive evidence for the simultaneous and systematic use of both uni- and bilingual lists in basic apprentice training 54 . The continued 52

… (Eruditio) va du graphisme immobile à la claire parole: elle redonne vie aux langages en sommeil Foucault, Les mots, 48-9. 53 Ibidem, 50. 54 It should be noted that it is very well conceivable that such usage in fact continued even longer in other sites – at present the textual evidence is simply lacking. Incidentally it should also be noted that no sharp shift in either educational practices or textual development, let alone epistemelogical development, is implied here. The developments that ultimately led to the transformed, ‘canonized’ 1st Millennium texts most likely were of a gradual nature and may have taken place over a span of multiple centuries.

16

Chapter 2 - The Epistemological Perspective production of unilingual lists shows that even in the 12th C BC scribes were still being trained in making the direct match between hermeneutic interpretation and semiological discourse particular to the older compositions. This evidence alone is a powerful argument in favor of assuming a great deal of continuity in the AME. In summarizing the above analysis it may be said that in terms of Foucault’s analysis in both the TE and the AME the general epistemological configuration may be characterized as geared to the pursuit of similitudes. The main difference between the two is that in the AME the coding of knowledge itself takes on the form of a (logographic) similitude, meaning that in the originally unilingual logographic texts there is a near-match between hermeneutic interpretation and semiological discourse. This match is progressively lost with the bilingualization of cuneiform literary culture (the Late AME). 2.1.2.2. The signature in the AME - its coding in the horizontal organization of the lexical texts Whereas the alphabetic writing used in the TE records can merely convey messages concerning the signatures that these records pursue, the logographic symbols used in the AME records actually constitute signatures themselves, regardless of the messages they convey. Alphabetic writing in itself always constitutes an abstract visual code for the spoken word, from which the conveyed message can be reconstructed. Signature status may or may not be consistently assigned to parts of the message, depending on the episteme underlying the knowledge system in which the message is produced. By contrast, logographic writing in itself per definition meets the definition of a signature: it is a visible marker of similitude because it gives an actual visual image of the conveyed meaning, or aims to do so. Thus Foucault’s figurative description of the TE knowledge system, applies literally to the AME records: … l’espace des immédiates ressemblances devint comme un grand livre ouvert; il est hérissé de graphismes; on voit tout au long de la page des figures étranges qui s’entrecroïsent et parfois se répètent. Ils n’est plus que de les déchiffrer … Les reflets muets (des choses) sont doublés par des mots qui les indiquent 55 . It will be noted that Foucault’s description actually gives a quite accurate description of an Ancient Mesopotamian lexical list. The signature may have been the main analytic category of the TE, but signature status was not an inherent feature of its writing system. The similitude, the main pursuit of the TE, is not actually visibly marked in its writing system. In the AME, by contrast, signature status is an intrinsic feature of the elements of its writing system. This implies that a text produced in cuneiform writing is always made up of visual signatures, which holds true even if in many documents only the phonetic values associated with such signatures are actually in use in relation to the message they convey. After the demise of Sumerian as a spoken language, cuneiform writing used in what could be termed a ‘practical’ (administrative, legal, epistolary) context did indeed develop into a largely syllabic script. In a scholarly context, however, this was not the case. On the contrary, in Mesopotamian scholarship the signature status of elements of the writing system itself always remained an object of scholarly inquiry. Clear prove of this is found in the 55

Foucault, Les mots, 42.

17

Chapter 2 - The Epistemological Perspective evolution of the lexical corpus, which shows a consistent accumulation of interpretations (e.g. the diachronic growth visible in compositions such as Hh and Izi) and a persistent tendency to inquisitive revaluation (e.g. through the diachronic transformation of existing series and development of new series). It may be argued that it was precisely the visual signature status of elements of the writing system which determined the specific configuration of the AME. In this respect it is useful to follow Foucault’s analysis of how logographic writing could develop from pictorial depiction in the first place: (l)’écriture véritable a commencé lorsqu’on s’est mis à représenter non plus la chose elle-même, mais un des éléments qui la constituent, ou bien une des circonstances habituelles qui la marquent, ou bien encore une autre chose à quoi elle ressemble 56 . It is these associative strategies that result in the signature status of the constitutive elements of a logographic writing system. Foucault argues that these associative strategies can be analyzed as depending on the use of three types of tropes (i.e. rhetorical figures of speech): synecdoche (i.e. pars pro toto), metonymy (i.e. replacement) and catachresis (i.e. an improper, mixed metaphor). The validity of Foucault’s analysis for the lexical corpus under consideration will be investigated by applying it to a sample text. In order to apply Foucault’s analysis, what must be investigated here is, in fact, the manner in which logograms become logograms, i.e. the manner in which logograms attain their primary semantic values. In the texts under consideration explicit information relevant to this issue can be found on the level of their horizontal organization, as many Akkadian equivalents provide explicit discourse concerning the primary semantic value of the logograms by giving descriptions of their original pictographic content. It should be kept in mind that what is to be investigated here is the relation between pictograms and their interpretations, not the relation between the logograms and their interpretations. Thus, what is investigated in the sample text from the Emar lexical corpus of Table 1 is the manner in which its explicit interpretations (i.e. the Akkadian equivalents, described as element 4 in Table 1 of Part 3) semantically relate to the original pictographic values of its key-signs (i.e. those of its key-sign logograms, described as element 2 in Table 1 of Part 3) 57 . This semantic relationship is expressed using the terminology found in Foucault’s analysis. By thus investigating the cognitive processes underlying the formation of logograms, it will be shown how logograms can acquire the status of signature, i.e. how they can establish meaning through the expression of various kinds of similitudes. The sample chosen for Table 1 consists of the first five keys-signs of SaV and their interpretations as found in Emar - note that excluded from this sample are those equivalents which refer exclusively to Sumerian grammar (e.g. 001.20ff.) and those which remain uncertain (e.g. 001.18-9). It should be remembered that the semantic relations listed in Table 1 are possible, often plausible, but that they do not necessarily constitute the sole cause for a given key-sign to be provided with a specific interpretation

56

Ibidem, 126. In this respect, a logographic reading may be defined as the means by which permanence is given to any specific interpretation of a pictogram; this permanence of interpretation is effectuated by means of assigning specific phonetic values. 57

18

Chapter 2 - The Epistemological Perspective - other types of relations may also be found. All types of relations occurring in Table 1, semantic and otherwise, will be commented upon below. Table 1. Tropes in the semantic relation between pictograms and their interpretations SaV

Key-sign

Pictogram Interpretation

PST 001.01 A .02 .03

i.e. Akk equivalent water

.04 .05 .11 .12 .15 .16 .17 .24 .30 002.01 ŠUR

bowl with spout 58

.02 .03 .04 003.01 PAD

bowl with divider 59

.05 004.01 ŠIR a.01 005.01 HAR

58 59

bulb liver; millstone 60

Semantic relation between pictogram and interpretation with specification of tropes

mû - water abu - father abu abigrandfather

simple representation catachresis: water > seed > father catachresis: water > seed > father > grandfather ilu - god catachresis: water > seed > father > dead ancestor > god D A.A - Ayya catachresis: water > seed > father > dead ancestor > god > Ayya kirru - pitcher metonymy: water - pitcher nissatucatachresis: lamentation water > tear > lamentation šuttatu - ditch metonymy: water - ditch zunnu - rain synecdoche: water = rain ratbu - wet metonymy: water - wet rihūtucatachresis: water > seed > impregnation impregnation kapru - village none (f-graph. ass. É-A) zanānu - to rain catachresis: bowl with spout > to pour out > to rain ramāku - to wash catachresis: bowl with spout > to pour out > to wash D ištar - Ishtar none (graph. ass. ŠUR-DIŠ) rību-water butt; catachresis: bowl with spout > cask to pour out > (overflowing) cask kurummatu - ration simple representation kasāpu - to cut; break off BURU 4 - crow išku - testicle hašū - lung

A. Deimel, Šumerische Grammatik (Rome 1939) nr.78 p.25. Ibidem, nr.285 p.78.

19

metonymy: ration - to cut off metonymy?: bulb-bulb shape? metonymy: bulb - testicle metonymy: liver - lung (organs)

Chapter 2 - The Epistemological Perspective .02 .03

kabattu - liver ṭulīmu - spleen

.04 .05

harru watercourse semeru - ring

.06 .07 .08 .09 .12

arāru - miller ṭênu - to grind sāmidu - miller erû - millstone têrtu - instruction

.14 .16

hubullu - debt kabāru - to be thick tītu - nourishment

.17

simple representation metonymy: liver - spleen (organs) none (f-graph. HI-AŠ; phon. /har/) metonymy: millstone ring(form) metonymy: millstone - miller metonymy: millstone - to grind metonymy: millstone - miller simple representation catachresis: liver > omen > instruction none (phon. ass. UR 5 ) none (phon. ass. GUR 14 ) none (phon. ass. MUR)

Before listing the relation types and the comments that can be deduced from Table 1 a word of caution must be given concerning the difference between the realization types discussed earlier (2.1.2.1. of Part 3) and the relation types discussed here. The former are the various realizations possible in the relation between logograms and their Akkadian equivalents, the latter are the various types of relations occurring between pictograms and their interpretations. In the former, the realization of a given relation between a logogram and an Akkadian equivalent reflects a production of meaning that is valid emically*, i.e. its validity is conditional upon its context, viz. the Ancient Mesopotamian knowledge system. These realizations produced by the ancient scribes can be considered as reflecting an informed choice, based upon relevant traditions and teachings, but they are not necessarily intrinsically meaningful from the perspective of another knowledge system, such as modern science. In the latter, however, the relation between a pictogram and its interpretation - as investigated here - is valid etically, i.e. it is valid in terms of the modern science, viz. as a reconstruction of historically attested grapho-semantic developments. From the examples found in Table 1 it is possible to postulate four types of relations between the original pictograms and their interpretations as found in Emar SaV. The first two types are semantic associations, the other two types are non-semantic associations (in Table 1 the latter two are marked ‘none’). Although the focus here is on the semantic relations, for completeness’ sake the non-semantic relations will be briefly commented upon and shown in their function relative to the semantic relations. Thus, the four types may be described as follows: (1) Meaning derived from the semantic relation of simple representation. E.g. PST 001.01 interprets key-sign A, a pictogram of flowing water, as simply meaning ‘water’, 60

Ibidem, nr.242 p.67-8.

20

Chapter 2 - The Epistemological Perspective giving the corresponding logographic readings Sumerian A and Akkadian mû. In Table 1 these meanings are marked ‘simple representation’. (2) Meaning derived from the semantic relation of association through the rhetoric figures of speech distinguished by Foucault. E.g. PST 001.17 interprets key-sign A as meaning ‘wet’, giving the corresponding logographic readings Sumerian DURU 5 and Akkadian ratbu, by establishing a metonymous relation (viz. substitution based on contingency). It should be noted that in the Emar texts many of the interpretations derived from association through rhetoric figures could be designated ‘inappropriate’ in terms of modern lexical analysis. E.g. in PST 001.11 the interpretation of A as kirru ‘pitcher’ ignores the fact that the common logogram for kirru is not A but ÁBxŠÀ (AbZ 424 61 KÍR) . But this is beside the point: the association was considered valid by the Emar scholars and indeed shows the way logographic meaning can be arrived at. It has already been said in Part 3 that ‘inappropriate’ interpretations may be considered an inevitable result of the integrative approach of Mesopotamian lexical scholarship (cf. Part 3 2.1.2.1. and 2.1.3.). It was also said that such interpretations can, in fact, be considered as indicating that the original methodology underlying the development of the writing system remained productive in Mesopotamian lexicology. Foucault’s analysis now allows the cognitive processes within this methodology to be specified. In Table 1 the appropriate terminology is specified where applicable. (3) Meaning not derived from a semantic relation but from phonetic association. In this type of relation the semantic field established by a type 1 or type 2 relation is extended to include the meanings belonging to homophonous words (i.e. following the ‘rebus’ principle). E.g. PST 005.14, .16 and .17 interpret the key-sign HAR, a pictogram of a liver, as ‘debt’, ‘to be thick’ and ‘nourishment’ respectively, by admitting the (semi)homophonous readings of /ur/ for ‘debt’, /gur/ for ‘to be thick’ and /mur/ 62 for ‘fodder’. Occasionally, cross-linguistic homophony (i.e. between Akkadian and Sumerian words) is also admitted, as is the case in PST 005.04 were HAR is interpreted as harru ‘watercourse’ on the basis of a shared phonetic element /har/ 63 . Of course this phenomenon could be designated, once again, as ‘inappropriate’ in terms of modern linguistics. It should be born in mind, however, that it was exactly such ‘inappropriate’, versatile use of cuneiform that guaranteed its extraordinary spread and longevity beyond the geographic and chronological boundaries of its cradle in 3rd Millennium Sumer. It was only through the cross-linguistic application of phonetically read writing elements that cuneiform could be used for another language after Sumerian died out as a spoken language. (4) Meaning not derived from semantic but from formal-graphic association, i.e. graphic association that ignores the primary pictographic values of the associated elements. In this type of relation the semantic field established by a type 1 or type 2 relation is 61

AHw. 484. Note that /mur/ also phonetically coincides with the word for ‘spleen’, which is also written HAR on the basis of its metonymy with UR 5 ‘liver’. 63 Note that the commonly used logogram for harru is HI-AŠ (AbZ 405 SÙR), which shares a graphic element with HI-ÁŠ=HAR. 62

21

Chapter 2 - The Epistemological Perspective extended to include the meanings belonging to words which are otherwise written with shared elements or in a graphically similar manner. E.g. in PST 001.30 and 002.03 the interpretations kapru and Dištar are based on the fact that here graphic elements are found which are shared with the logograms commonly used for these words (É-A=É.DURU 5 and D ŠUR-DIŠ=DINANNA respectively). Similar to phonetic association, formal-graphic association is not phenomenon to be dismissed lightly as merely reflecting ‘inappropriate’ relations in terms of our scientific criteria. There are several instances where formalgraphic association in lexical lists serves to identify important issues regarding the definition of and boundaries between logograms. In some cases logograms which have become formally indistinguishable in non-scholarly texts, are explicitly specified as derived from originally distinctly separate origins (e.g. SaV PST 014 KU vs. 205 ŠÈ and 178 BE vs. 203 IDIM). In other cases, vice versa, the juxtaposition of graphically associated logograms serves to emphasize detailed or even artificially created differences in signs that have a very similar graphic shape (e.g. SaV PST 168-9 NIN-DAM and 006-7 AH-A’). Effectively, it may be argued that the boundaries of logograms are, to a certain extent, fluid and open to interpretation. Formal-graphic association is one of the methods by which the ancient lexicographers were able to work on this definition. To dismiss formal-graphic associations as ‘inappropriate’ therefore does not necessarily do justice to their scholarship. Within its traditional framework, the scholarship that created the texts under consideration was of an empirically highly inquisitive nature, seeking to (re)establish all types of cross-connections wherever possible (cf. Part 3 2.1.2.1.). It should be born in mind that the four types of relations between pictogram and interpretation listed above can and do overlap with each other to a certain extent. It is possible for a semantic relation to be matched by phonetic or formal-graphic association (or both, as in PST 001.02, .03 and .05). In fact, it may be said that in many instances the relations between pictograms and interpretations are characterized by multiple associations. E.g. the interpretations 001.12 A=nissatu ‘lamentation’ and 001.16 A=zunnu ‘rain’ show a semantic relation ‘supplemented’ by a formal-graphic association: respectively through ‘tear’=ÉR=A-IGI and through zunnu=ŠÈĜ=A-AN). Table 1, however, focuses on the semantic relations, as they reflect the primary layer of meaning that is constructed. It is only on the basis of the rhetoric figures of speech established in this primary layer that, secondarily, any phonetic associations of the ‘rebus’ type can be developed. It is of course only in that secondary layer of meaning that the threshold of fully developed ‘writing’ is reached. The search for phonetic or formal-graphic signatures is also a common theme in the pursuit of knowledge in TE texts 64 . To the extent that AME lexicography progresses beyond the semantic analysis of pictograms it may be said to pursue the kinds of signatures that also concerned TE scholarship - be it within a wholly different cultural reference frame. Only when the logogram is no longer primarily relevant as a pictogram, it becomes the topic of the search for non-pictographic signatures of similitude 65 . 64

For respective examples cf. Foucault, Les mots, 51 and 54. Although it might be tempting to view this development as the first attestation of a ‘TE-type’ approach to the similitude, it should be noted that no such suggestion is necessarily intended here. Research into the epistemes of intervening epistemes (primarily of the Classical world), needed to support such a hypothesis, falls outside the scope of this investigation. 65

22

Chapter 2 - The Epistemological Perspective

In Foucault’s view the rhetoric figures of speech effectively determine the whole epistemological configuration of any knowledge system that uses logographic writing: … c’est en suivant la nervure qu’elles prescrivent que les langages doublés d’une écriture symbolique vont pouvoir évoluer. Ils se chargent peu à peu de pouvoirs poétiques; les premières nominations deviennent le point de départ de longues metaphors: celles-ci se compliquent progressivement et sont bientôt si loin de leur point d’origine qu’il devient difficile de le retrouver. … (A)insi naissent … les savoirs ésotériques chez ceux (les prêtres) qui se transmettent de génération en génération des metaphors; ainsi naissent les allégories du discourse (si fréquentes dans les littératures les plus archaïques), et aussi cette illusion que le savoir consiste à connaître les ressemblances 66 . This presumably unavoidable ‘poetic-esoteric’ development may in fact help to explain some of the more ‘exotic’ associative strategies that riddle the lexical series (perhaps Svo and certainly Izi may be regarded as extreme examples in this regard). What is here more important, however, is that, following Foucault’s analysis, an episteme such as the AME is necessarily inward-looking in as far as it is preoccupied with dealing with its own signatures and may therefore be qualified as ‘static’ 67 . From the modern western epistemological perspective, which necessarily measures any object of inquiry by the criterion of its own perceived historic ‘evolution’ and its own perceived scientific ‘progress’, the AME may be characterized as unavoidably scientifically stagnant and lacking in historic dimension 68 . Summing up the above analysis it may be said that in Foucault’s TE, as well as in the AME text witnesses under investigation here, the main analytic category by which similitude is recognized is the signature. Unlike the writing system used in the text witnesses of the TE, however, the writing system used in AME texts itself actually consists of signatures, viz. of logographic elements that can be historically defined as 66

Foucault, Les mots, 127. … l’histoire du langage doté d’une écriture figurée est vite arrêtée. C’est qu’il n’est guère possible d’y accomplir des progrès. Les signes ne se multipluent pas avec l’analyse méticuleuse des représentations, mais avec les analogies les plus lointaines: de sorte que c’est l’imagination des peoples qui est favorisée plus que leur reflexion. La crédulité, non la science. De plus la connaissance nécessite deux apprentissages: celui des mots d’abord (comme pour tous les langages), celui des sigles ensuite qui n’ont pas de rapport avec la pronunciation des mots; une vie humaine n’est pas trop longue pour cette double education; et si on a eu, de surcroît, le loisir de faire quelque découverte, on ne dispose pas de signes pour la transmettre. Inversement, un signe transmis, puisqu’il n’entretient pas de rapport intrinsèque avec le mot qu’il figure, demeure toujours douteux: d’âge en âge on ne peut jamais être sûr que le meme son habite la meme figure. Les nouveautés sont donc impossibles et les traditions compromises. … le seul souci des savants est de garder <> pour les lumières reçues des ancêtres, et pour les institutions qui en gardent l’héritage … - Foucault, Les mots, 127-8. 68 C’est … dans (l)e rapport de l’espace au language, que se situe … l’essentielle difference entre l’Orient et l’Occident. Comme si la disposition spatiale du langage prescrivait la loi du temps; comme si leur langue ne venait pas aux hommes à travers l’histoire, mais qu’inversement ils n’accédaient à l’histoire qu’à travers le système de leurs signes. C’est dans ce noeud de la représentation, des mots, et de l’espace (les mots représentant l’espace de la représentation, et se représentant à leur tour dans le temps) que se forme, silencieusement, le destin des peoples. - Ibidem, 128. 67

23

Chapter 2 - The Epistemological Perspective derived from particular pictograms. Foucault’s analysis of the possible strategies - the rhetorical figures of speech - for arriving at signature status in any logographic knowledge system, as well as his ideas concerning their epistemological consequences, were found to be fully applicable to the AME. 2.1.2.3. The figures of similitude in the AME - their coding in the vertical organization of the lexical texts In 2.1.2.1. and 2.1.2.2. it was argued that in the AME lexical texts under consideration the elements of the writing system themselves constituted similitudes and that the pictographic values they contain figured prominently among the signatures pursued by the ancient scribes. This means that, in as far as it deals with the analysis of the actual elements of the writing system, the pursuit of the signatures of similitudes by AME scholarship necessitated a wholly different set of technical skills than those relevant to TE scholarship. It was found that in the AME texts under consideration the elements of the writing system themselves actually constitute tangible similitudes expressed as visual signatures, i.e. similitudes that do not necessarily warrant figurative representations such as found in the TE. It is important, however, to investigate whether the figurative representations of similitude described by Foucault for the TE are relevant in AME scholarship to the extent that the latter pursues similitudes beyond the analysis of the actual elements of its writing system. In the AME lexical texts under consideration such similitudes are conceivable in those places where different logograms occur in contrastive relationships. Whenever such contrastive relationships are of a (primarily) semantic nature, it is possible that they, in fact, constitute figuratively represented similitudes recognizable in terms of Foucault’s analysis. Obviously, a multitude of contrastive relationships between different logograms is found at the level of the vertical organization of the lexical lists, i.e. in the vertical variations between consecutive key-signs and key-words. Thus, whereas the signature status of the writing elements themselves - which were shown to be ultimately dependent on the various tropes distinguished by Foucault - was found coded in the horizontal organization of the lexical lists, the figures of similitude distinguished by Foucault must be sought in their vertical organization. The investigation of their presence there is the primary objective of Table 2 below. It should be noted that, in as far as figuratively represented similitudes can indeed describe the vertical variations of key-signs and key-words, the semantic relationships they imply do not preclude the additional validity of other types of relationships, i.e. the additional validity of graphic and phonetic associations. In fact, the integrative methodology used by the ancient scribes in both the horizontal and vertical organization of content (i.e. their pursuit of interrelations between graphic, phonetic and semantic associations, cf. Part 3 11.4.), results in the frequent simultaneous validity of various types of relationships. The manner in which the semantic relations implied by Foucault’s figures of similitude relate to the other types of relationships is relevant to the epistemological-theoretical interpretation sought in this chapter. In Table 2 below, therefore, it will not only be investigated to what extent the figures of similitude

24

Chapter 2 - The Epistemological Perspective described by Foucault for the TE apply to (samples of) the AME texts under consideration, but also to what extent the semantic relationships implied by these figures of similitude occurred simultaneously with other types of relationships. Samples will be given from most lexical series - the exceptions are SVo (for which the precise status of its logograms is uncertain - cf. Part 3 1.2.1. and 14.1.), SaP (which contains only palaeographic information), Izi (for which in Emar only fractions of sequences are preserved) and Kagal (its status as an independent series is unclear - cf. Part 3 7.0.). In the commentary following Table 2 it will be attempted to investigate what, if any, systematic discrepancies occur in the distribution of the different figures of similitude across the different lexical series. At this point, before proceeding with the analysis of Table 2, it is necessary to provide a more detailed definition of the four figures of similitude distinguished by Foucault. The following are the four main figures, or articulations, of the TE similitude, as summarized from Foucault’s own description69 : (1) Convenientia: a similitude based on (a degree of) (mutual) adjustment or adaptation necessitated by a spatial (physical) connection or proximity. (2) Aemulatio: a similitude based on the formal similarity of otherwise spatially (physically) disconnected elements. Aemulatio involves a degree of willed action to (cause to) equal or excell. (3) Analogia: a similitude based on relational or proportional agreement projected by man through an assumption of reversibility or polyvalence. Analogia is only (cognatively) imposed and (artificially) applied by the choice of man and is therefore independent of actual proximity or similarity to the objects concerned. (4) Sympathia: a similitude based on the shared identity of objects that may occur in dispersion but belong together in substance and show affection and assimilation (possibly resulting in mobility). In this respect antipathia may be understood as a (reversed) form of sympathia. It should be noted that in Table 2 these different figures of similitude will not be considered as mutually exclusive: multiple figures may simultaneously apply to different aspects of the sample texts.

69

Ibidem, 32-8.

25

Chapter 2 - The Epistemological Perspective Table 2. Figures of similitudes in the semantic association between consecutive logograms Note that matching graphic and semantic associations are indicated in bold type. Series

Graphic Phonetic Semantic association association assocation with specification of figures of similitude

PST-EST SaV 006 AH 006 70 AH

007 A’ 008 HU

graphic derivation ?

/ah/ - /a’ /

-

/Vh/ - /hV/

008 HU

009 RI

added vertical

-

009 RI

010 BI

-

-

010 BI

011 NI

start with two horizontals

-

sympathia: shared aspect of identity (as ‘flying’: EH-MUŠEN/flea; louse bird) sympathia: shared aspect of identity (as ‘flying’: MUŠEN - DAL / bird - to fly) convenientia: spatial connection (DAL tallu - KAŠ šikāru / vessel beer) analogia: projected relation 71 (šu(ma) / he; his - it; its )

004

elements D & KID

element /lil/ -

G 003 D EN.LÍL

D

NIN.LÍL

004

005

element

D

D

D

NIN.LÍL

005 D

NUSKU

NUSKU

006 SA.DÀR.NUN.NA 007

element

D

D

D

006 D SA.DÀR.NUN.NA 007

008

elements

D

D

D

GIBIL 6

(NE-GI)

GIBIL 6 LI 9 .SI 4

-

element D

(NE-SU 4 )

& NE

3a310

elements

ĜIŠ

ĜIŠ

-

sympathia: shared aspect of identity (as ‘divinity’, ‘wind’ & by marriage) convenientia: spatial connection (mistress - servant) sympathia: shared aspect of identity (as ‘divinity’) sympathia: shared aspect of identity (as ‘divinity’ & by marriage) sympathia: shared aspect of identity (as ‘divinity’) sympathia: shared aspect of identity (as ‘divinity’ & as ‘fire’)

Hh 3a309 ĜIŠ U 5 .KUN 4

ŠÙK.KUN 4

element 72 /kun/

& I-LU

70

aemulatio: disconnected similarity (step of stairs - bar of ladder) sympathia: shared aspect of identity

As SaV PST 007 A’ may be considered a recent interpolation in the orginal Sa key-sign sequence, the relation that is relevant here is that between originally consecutive 006 AH and 008 HU. 71 Because in Sumerian the morphemes BI and NI both serve as demonstrative and possessive suffixes, the logograms may be considered related in as far as they can function in a similar manner with regard to their referents, i.e. they are analogous with regard to their projected function. 72 Note that the entries 3a309-10 also share a similar morpho-phonetic construction on more than one level: both are constructed by the combination of the element KUN 4 ‘stairs; ladder’ with a preceding logogram that doubles as a phonetic rendering of its Akkadian equivalent, viz. U 5 and ŠÙK for /hu/ and /šuk/ in respectively hūqu and šukû.

26

Chapter 2 - The Epistemological Perspective

3a310

3a311-6

ĜIŠ

ĜIŠ

3a311-6

3a311-22

elements & LAGAB element

ĜIŠ

ĜIŠ

ĜIŠ

3a311-22

3a323

element

ĜIŠ

ĜIŠ

ĜIŠ

3a323

3a324

element

ĜIŠ

ĜIŠ

ĜIŠ

2089

-

-

-

-

ŠÙK.KUN 4

BÚNIN/BUNIN 4

NÀĜA

GAN.NA

BÚNIN/BUNIN 4

NÀĜA

GAN.NA

EME.ŠI(!SIG)

-

ĜIŠ

-

elements /naĝa/-/gana/ -

(as ‘wood’ & as parts of stairs/ladder) sympathia: shared aspect of identity (as ‘wood’) convenientia: spatial connection (tray or trough and a mortar within it) sympathia: shared aspect of identity (as ‘wood’) aemulatio: disconnected similarity (mortar - club) sympathia: shared aspect of identity (as ‘wood’) aemulatio: disconnected similarity (club - plank) sympathia: shared aspect of identity (as ‘wood’)

Lu 2087-8 KU.LI

DU 10 .ÚS.SA

2089 DU 10 .ÚS.SA

2090

2090

2091-2 AN.TA/TAB.BA

-

-

GÉME.ÌR

2091-2 AN.TA/TAB.BA

2093

-

-

ZU.A

2093 ZU.A

2094 DÙG.GA MU

-

-

166 KA-DUGUD

167 KA-AN-RA

element KA

word /inim/

167 KA-AN-RA

168 KA-LUGAL

element KA

word /inim/

168 KA-LUGAL

169-70 KA-KAL

element KA

word /inim/

169-70 KA-KAL

171 KA-GIL

element KA

elements /inim/

GÉME.ÌR

analogia: projected relation (colleague - friend) sympathia: shared aspect of identity (as ‘human’) analogia: projected relation (friend - domestic personel) sympathia: shared aspect of identity (as ‘human’) analogia: projected relation (domestic personel - companion; partner) sympathia: shared aspect of identity (as ‘human’) analogia: projected relation (companion; partner - acquaintance) sympathia: shared aspect of identity (as ‘human’) analogia: projected relation (acquaintance - ‘name sayer’) sympathia: shared aspect of identity (as ‘human’)

SagB

27

analogia: projected relation (weighty - divine) sympathia: shared aspect of identity (as ‘word’) analogia: projected relation (divine - royal) sympathia: shared aspect of identity (as ‘word’) analogia: projected relation (royal - most precious) sympathia: shared aspect of identity (as ‘word’) sympathia: shared aspect of identity (as ‘word’)

Chapter 2 - The Epistemological Perspective

171 KA-GIL

& /gal/ - /gil/ word /inim/

172 KA-LUL

elements KA & crossbars

026 Ú-NAGA-HU (UGAMUŠEN) 027 Ú-KA (MÚZUG)

027 Ú-KA (MÚZUG) 028 Ú-SAG (MÙZUG)

element Ú

-

elements Ú & KA-SAG

word /muzug/

028 Ú-SAG (MÙZUG)

029 Ú-KURSAL-TUKU (UZUG)

element Ú

element /uzug/

Diri

73

sympathia: shared aspect of identity (as ‘word’)

convenientia: spatial connection (mouth - head) sympathia: shared aspect of identity (as ‘impure’) sympathia: identification as opposites (impure person - priest)

In commenting Table 2 the following conclusions may be drawn: (1) The first conclusion concerns the applicability of Foucault’s figures of similitude in general. In this regard it may be said that (a) indeed they do apply to the relations between many of the vertically consecutive entries in the lexical texts under consideration, that (b) all four of them may be recognized in the sample collection of Table 2 as whole and that (c) frequently more than one of them applies at same time to a single relation. The frequency of this multiple applicability of the various figures can mostly - but not exclusively - be explained by the fact that throughout large sections or the whole of certain series a similitude based on sympathia will automatically result from the presence of shared key-words or determinatives (e.g. all the entries of G share the D determinative, resulting in a necessarily shared aspect of identity). (2) The second conclusion concerns the extent to which the semantic relations implied by presence of Foucault’s figures of similitude occur simultaneously with other types of relationships (graphic, phonetic). It can be seen that this simultaneity is not uncommon. What is important to note, however, is the fact that in many instances the figures of similitude not only show themselves in the semantic analysis of the relations between consecutive entries, but that they also express themselves through graphic similarity. In other words, in many instances there is an exact match between the visible graphic and the invisible semantic association implied by Foucault’s figures of similitude (this phenomenon is indicated in Table 2 by the use of bold type). In most cases this match is merely the automatic result of the presence of shared key-words or determinatives throughout large sections or the whole of a series. These grapho-semantic matches only refer to a limited aspect of the content of the entries in question. In some other cases, however, the match results from a direct graphic coding of another (additional) figure of similitude in the logogram which in such cases may reach its maximally conceivable extent. E.g. in G PST 007-8 the match extends to the D determinative (divinity) and the

73

Note that although between entries 026-7 there is no direct phonetic association, there is an indirect mixed grapho-phonetic association: the actual phonetic value of 026 /uga/ matches the potential phonetic value of 027 Ú-KA.

28

Chapter 2 - The Epistemological Perspective NE logogram (‘fire’), leaving out only a single phonetic element (GI 74 and SI 4 respectively), which establishes the discretionary value of each entry. (3) The third conclusion concerns the distribution of the various figures of similitude across the various series. It should be born in mind that in this respect the evidence provided by Table 2 depends on rather narrow samples and that therefore this conclusion should be considered provisional. With this caveat in mind, the most important phenomena to be noted are the following: Concerning the distribution of aemulatio: this figure is only found in the Hh sample, which may indicate that similitudes based on the formal (visually definable) similarity of otherwise spatially (physically) disconnected elements can be expected mostly in those lexical series that list physical objects, whether natural or man-made. Concerning the distribution of analogia: this figure is (not restricted to but) very prominent in Lu, which is not unexpected given its definition as based on nothing more than human cognitive projection. Following the rest of the definition given earlier, it may further be said that nowhere is such projection as a means of establishing (nuances in) relational agreements more appropriate than in Lu - about which more will be said shortly. Concerning the distribution of sympathia: this figure is clearly the most commonly found figure. Its presence is systematic in certain series, viz. in those that constitute thematic lists rather than sign-lists 75 : in those series it obviously reflects systematically shared graphic elements. What should be noted in this regard is that there is one series, Lu, in which - despite the obvious common (human) identity of its entries - the corresponding shared graphic element is lacking. Finally the juxtaposition and use of some of the figures of similitude in Lu should be noted. Based on the above mentioned observations concerning analogia and sympathia it may be said that in Lu two significant phenomena coincide: the prominence of the analogia figure coincides with the systematic omission of graphic expression of the sympathia figure (the sympathia figure applies between many of its entries due to their shared identifiability as humans). The fact that this omission runs contrary to the common scribal convention of providing all word for humans with the LÚ determinative seems to indicate that it has been omitted purposefully: throughout the preceding thematic series (G and Hh) determinatives are used regularly 76 , but Lu shows a sudden deviation from in this regard. In view of the findings of the preceding Structural Analysis concerning its pivotal position in the curricular switch from naturally to culturally defined external referents (Part 3 5.3.), this may be significant. It may, in fact, imply that the omission of 74

In view of this analysis it may be suggested that the reading NE+GI as GIBIL 6 (as opposed to BIL X GI=GI↔BIL X or GIBIL X GI) may be considered as an arbitrary convention of modern science which does not necessarily offer a realistic view of the lexical construct intended by the ancient scholars. 75 For the terminology used in series typology cf. Part 3 11.3. . 76 Note that the virtual status of determinatives in certain texts is not relevant in this respect (cf. Part 3 12.3.).

29

Chapter 2 - The Epistemological Perspective the explicit graphic expression of sympathia was intentional and that it served to deemphasize one relational aspect, viz. sympathia, tangible through shared substantial identity, in favour of another, viz. analogia, intangible as it relies on projection of relational agreement only. It is not surprising that the figure of analogia, which basically involves the creation of artificial relations, gains in prominence when a given lexical list pursues culturally rather than naturally defined external referents. In as far as Lu is concerned with human beings, it focuses mainly on the culturally defined differences between them rather than on their naturally defined identities. As the cultural definitions involved essentially reflect unnatural, artificial (social) concepts (such as profession, rank, status and function), analogia is the obvious figure of choice for expressing many of the vertical relations found in Lu. 2.1.2.4. The limitations of knowledge in the AME The main typifying characteristics of the text witnesses under consideration, as resulting from the general configuration of the AME, have already been described in 2.1.2.1.. The purpose of this paragraph is to investigate in more detail in how far this general configuration results in quantitative and qualitative limitations that are related to the epistemological limits referred to by Foucault for the TE. It should be noted that here the term ‘limitations’ has been chosen because this investigation is meant to be relevant primarily within a etic reference frame, viz. to describe epistemological ‘short-falls’ and ‘restrictions’ in relation to modern western science. It will be shown to what degree Foucault’s ‘limits’ are useful tools to determine these ‘limitations’. The four main points raised by Foucault will be addressed here in the same order (a-d) as they were introduced in 2.1.2.0. under (4): a. Addition as the sole relation between elements of knowledge. In Foucault’s analysis all TE knowledge is formulated in similitudes on the basis of signatures and these signatures always refer to external referents. From this it follows that each single similitude is ultimately valid only by the validity of all other similitudes: knowledge is therefore basically dependent on their accumulation. Applying this analysis to the AME text corpus under investigation, it perfectly explains the appearance of the lexical texts. The knowledge represented by these texts present, individually as well as collectively, is achieved exclusively by the accumulation of many individual elements that remain basically separate. The individual elements within the horizontal organization of each entry as well as the individual entries within the vertical organization remain basically unintegrated - they are merely juxtaposed by means of addition. In this system no synthesis of any sort is given or needed because there is no systemic prerequisite for it and no utilitarian functionality requiring it. Any ‘scientific progress’ or ‘advance’ in knowledge - terms that unavoidably imply etic projections - must here be measured exclusively in terms of further addition. Which is precisely what is diachronically observable, viz. the internal growth of compositions (e.g. Hh, Izi) and the external addition of other compositions that serve as extended (cross-)commentaries (e.g. Hg, Erimhuš). The limitative effect of this phenomemon described by Foucault for the TE may be said to apply in a very literal manner to the AME as it appears in the lexical texts:

30

Chapter 2 - The Epistemological Perspective ... le savoir ... s’est condamné à ne connaître toujours que la même chose, mais à ne la connaître qu’au terme jamais atteint d’un parcours indéfini 77 . b. The finite nature of knowledge resulting from the assumed relation microcosmmacrocosm. In Foucault’s analysis all TE knowledge is formulated in similitudes and these similitudes ultimately derive their validity from the preconceived notion that macrocosmic order is reflected in a stepped hierarchy of microcosms 78 . As the various observable microcosmic creations mirror the macrocosmic order and as their content is ultimately quantifiable and knowable, the implication of this notion is that knowledge is ultimately finite. It is within the finite knowledge domain thus defined, that the TE similitude gains epistemological validity and purpose. For the AME lexical corpus it may be argued that the cuneiform writing system, which is the object it pursues, constitutes a microcosm in its own right, in as far as its logograms aim to reflect the world through many tiny graphic-visual reconstructions. With all microcosms assumed to reflect the macrocosmic order, it is not surprising that the ultimate authorship of the writing system was presumed to be of a transcendent nature (viz. ascribed to the gods) and that the ancient scribes always took care to clarify their own position in this regard (viz. to refer to themselves as mere servants of the specific gods in charge of their microcosm). Concerning the presumed transcendent and ultimately finite nature of the ancient scribal microcosm, Foucault’s description of the macrocosm-microcosm relation in the TE may be said to be equally well suited: ... il existe une créature de privilège qui reproduit, dans ses dimensions restreintes, l’ordre immense du ciel, des astres, des montagnes, des rivières et des orages ... c’est entre les limites effectives de cette analogie constitutive que se déploie le jeu des ressemblances. Par ce fait même, la distance du microcosme au macrocosme a beau être immense, elle n’est pas infinie; les êtres qui y séjournent ont beau être nombreux, on pourrait à la limite les compter; et par conséquent les similitudes qui, par les jeu des signes qu’elles exigent, s’appuient toujours les unes sur les autres, ne risquent plus s’enfuir indéfinement. Elles ont, pour s’appuyer et se renforcer, un domaine parfaitement clos 79 . c. Inclusion of ‘unscientific’ knowledge due to the inherently divinatory nature of knowledge acquisition. In Foucault’s analysis all TE knowledge formulated in similitudes is obtained from the study of signatures, which, pursued as a formal method does not distinguish between ‘scientifically’ or ‘rationally’ valid and invalid content 80 . The application of modern western scientific criteria is therefore an anachronistic and emically invalid undertaking. The perspective of modern linguistics, from which many associations in the AME texts will appear intractable, or just plainly ‘wrong’, may simply be inappropriate. As possible examples of ‘magically’ but not necessarily otherwise valid associations may be cited: SaV PST 006.01-3 (AH with the associative series ‘magic>spittle>excretion’); 203.09-11 (IDIM with the associative series ‘anointed priest>bull-man>underground water’). As a matter of fact, many associations found in the horizontal or the vertical organization of the lists may elude modern research simply 77

Foucault, Les mots, 45. Ibidem, 46. 79 Ibidem 80 Ibidem, 47. 78

31

Chapter 2 - The Epistemological Perspective due to the (partially unavoidable) un-reconstructability of ‘divinatory’ associative mechanisms and of their context in general. It should be realized, however, that the original cause of many associations may have been as unclear to the ancient scribes as to the modern researcher: associations may have been considered appropriate for no other ‘reason’ than that they were transmitted by teachers and reproduced from older texts. This issue will be addressed in more detail under point d. below. Concerning the role of divinatory techniques, in conclusion, it may be said that the following quote from Foucault seems quite appropriate to put some of the ‘irrationalities’ of the AME texts under consideration in an emic perspective: (l)a divination n’est pas une forme concurrente de la connaissance; elle fait corps avec la connaissance elle-même 81 . d. A divinatory hermeneutical approach to textually transmitted knowledge. In Foucault’s analysis all TE fields of study are approached in the same manner, viz. as objects of a universally applied divinatory hermeneutical approach. This means that in the TE, traditionally transmitted literary texts were not approached differently than the empirically accessible life-world 82 . Eruditio, in other words, did not impose the duty to make any effort at text-historical research, let alone text criticism. L’héritage de l’Antiquité est comme la nature elle-même, un vaste espace à interpréter; … les Anciens ont déjà des interprétations que nous n’avons plus qu’à recueiller 83 . This analysis seems to be particularly relevant to the AME texts under consideration as they were primarily the object of reproduction (cf. Introduction to Part 3) and much less the result of production. The limited degree of visible analytic production took place primarily in reference to earlier texts, often in the form of additions to them. This implies that the ancient scribes considered the content transmitted in their lexical compositions frequently preserved in recognizable form across many centuries - as valid ipso facto. In fact, it may be argued that the relatively limited diachronic development shown by the AME texts is an indication that in the AME the difference between signature and word was smaller still than in the TE due to the fact that writing of the AME itself was effected by (graphic, visual) signatures (cf. 2.1.2.2.). Thus, Foucault’s observations on the timeless quality and unquestioned validity of the transmitted written text in the TE hold true to an even greater degree, and in a very literal sense, for the texts transmitted in the AME: ...le discours des Anciens est (lié) à l’image de ce qu’il énonce; s’il a ... la valeur d’un signe précieux, c’est parce que, du fond de son être, et par la lumière qui n’a cessé de le traverser depuis sa naissance, il est ajusté aux choses mêmes, il en forme le miroir et l’émulation; il est à la vérité éternelle ce que les signes sont aux secrets de la nature (il est de cette parole la marque à déchriffrer); il a, avec les choses qu’il dévoile, une affinité sans âge. Inutile, donc, de lui demander son titre d’autorité; il est un trésor de signes liés par similitude à ce qu’ils peuvent désigner 84 .

81

Ibidem Entre les marques et les mots, il n’y a pas la différence de l’observation à l’autorité acceptée, ou du vérifiable à la tradition. Il n’y a partout qu’un même jeu, celui du signe et du similaire, et c’est pourquoi la nature et le verbe peuvent s’entrecroiser à l’infini, formant pour qui sait lire comme un grand texte unique. - Ibidem, 49. 83 Ibidem, 48. 84 Ibidem, 49. 82

32

Chapter 2 - The Epistemological Perspective 2.1.3. CE-AME comparison 2.1.3.0. CE features to be investigated In 2.1.2. it was found that a number of essential features distinguished by Foucault for the TE were highly relevant to the AME text witnesses under investigation. In order to determine how the AME relates to the episteme described by Foucault next, viz. the CE, here it will be established to what degree and in what manner the main features of the TE were subject to transformations and developments in the CE. This should indirectly provide information concerning the position of the AME relative to the CE because what replaced the main features of the TE in their respective epistemological positions during the CE is clearly relevant to this question. First it is necessary to establish which are, among the many concepts developed by Foucault, the CE equivalents for the four main features described for the TE, viz. (1) its general epistemological configuration, (2) its main analytic category, (3) its main analytical methods and (4) its limitations. (1) The general epistemological configuration of Foucault’s TE may be characterized as depending on representation, which is defined as the conventionally determined functional value assigned to an arbitrary sign. This implies a profound shift in the concept of signs between the TE and the CE. Unlike the signs of the TE, which were assumed to reflect hidden identities providing multiple, variable clues (signatures) for the formulation of multiple, variable similitudes, the signs of the CE are valued exclusively in terms of their representative function. To be more precise, in the CE signifier and signified are conceptually separated and the signifier status of a CE sign is exclusively defined in terms of its representative function and only to the extent of its actual intrinsic capacity to represent 85 . In the words of Foucault: (à) l’âge classique, la science pure des signes vaut comme le discours immédiat du signifié 86 . This fundamental identification of signifier and representation implies that henceforth the sign has value only in as far as it is functional in relation to what is signified, which is identical with what is represented. This functional value is the analytic instrumentality of the signifier: the signifier represents the signified by constituting its de-contextual measurement in terms of space and time. A striking example of such instrumentality given by Foucault is the new role of precious metals due to the ‘wealth analysis’ science developed in the CE (i.e. the Classical counterpart to modern economic science). In this ‘wealth analysis’ precious metals are no longer intrinsically valuable, but merely instruments. They have become signifiers, viz. exchange tokens, which represent something else. What they signify or represent is ‘wealth’, as defined by (varying) human desires 87 . It should be noted that the superimposition of the methods of semiology (i.e. the identification and definition of signs) and hermeneutics (i.e. the interpretation and decipherment of signs), observed in the TE, can also be found in the CE, but that in the former it was effectuated in the similitude, whereas in the latter it is effectuated in the representation. This implies that in the CE there is no theory of signs as distinct from a theory of meaning: any meaning is assumed to be fully contained within the sign that expresses it. Meaning is therefore 85

Ibidem, 79. Ibidem, 81. 87 Ibidem, 186-7. 86

33

Chapter 2 - The Epistemological Perspective automatically assumed to be completely revealed by a systematically ordered (typically tabular) inventory of signs 88 . (2) The main analytic category of the CE, viz. the means by which it establishes representation (in other words: the means by which representative value is recognized), may be described as (the knowledge of) order 89 . This implies that order is no longer an a priori assumption, as it was in microcosm-macrocosm equation of the TE, but rather something that needs to be creatively established. In other words, order is still the necessary precondition of knowledge, but henceforth it must be produced instead of deciphered. In relation to empirically observable objects and phenomena this order is now essentially arbitrary because they are no longer taken to reflect the a priori cosmic order assumed during the TE 90 . Thus the nature of knowledge itself is changed. It no longer requires a (infinite) juxtaposition of similitudes, as seen in the TE, but rather a (finite) enumeration of measurable calculus units - which implies an epistemological shift from analogy to analysis. Knowledge is no longer viewed as a system of relative probabilities to be investigated, but as one of absolute order to be established. Whereas interpretations of the TE investigate possibility, the calculations of the CE investigate veracity. Consequently, the aim of knowledge is changed too: in the TE it was the diagnosis of a transcendentally relevant truth (the divination of a ‘divine message’), in the CE it is the calculation of an immanently functional truth 91 . The change in the nature of knowledge is paralleled by a change in analytic methods, a subject touched upon next under point (3) below. (3) In Foucault’s view the analytic methodology that the CE uses to formulate its representations, depends on a three-fold disposition of order 92 . Its first element is mathesis, which he defines as the universal science of measurement (the assignment of calculable units) and order (the definition and serialization of objects according to their most basic form) 93 . Mathesis is the science of equalities, and hence of attribution and equation - it applies to simple phenomena, expressing them in terms of mathematical quantity. Its ultimate referent is the abstract truth. Its second element is taxinomia, which is defined as a science of articulation and classification - it applies to complex phenomena, expressing them in terms of comparative identification. Its ultimate referent is the empiric being. The third element is genesis, which is defined as historical semiology (i.e. the knowledge of the origin and chronological formation of signs) - it applies to all signs and applies to their temporal analogies. Its ultimate referent is time. These three elements relate to each other as follows. Mathesis is a prerequisite of taxinomia because all empiric phenomena are assumed to be analyzable as simple mathematical phenomena (i.e. in terms of the abstract truth). Vice versa taxinomia is a prerequisite of mathesis because it defines the conditions under which anything can be known (i.e. it establishes an ontology). Finally, genesis - and with it, for the first time, a 88

Ibidem, 80. Ce qui rend possible l’ensemble de l’épist ème classique, c’est d’abord le rapport à une connaissance de l’ordre. - Ibidem, 86. 90 Ibidem, 68. 91 Ibidem, 76-7. 92 Ibidem, 86-9. 93 Ibidem, 70-1. 89

34

Chapter 2 - The Epistemological Perspective historic dimension in science - is a requirement of taxinomia because the latter seeks to establish continuities for its phenomena that frequently require their projection across temporal gaps: (d)e là la nécessité, toujours manifestée au long de l’âge classique, d’interroger l’origine des connaissances 94 . It is clear that the three elements of the knowledge of order do not represent separate domains but rather constitute different aspects of a single epistemological configuration. (4) Foucault distinguishes one main conceptual limit inherent in the CE, viz. the complete transparency of the representations with regard to the signs that order them 95 . This transparency implies that every concept of order is inevitably stated in terms of functional values, i.e. it implies an analytic functionality resulting from the complete match of representation and sign. Any other expression of order or of the relations between signs is inconceivable. In this respect Foucault points at concepts and projects aiming at universal order that may be considered a result of this conceptual limitation and typical of the CE, such as universal language, universal discourse and the encyclopedia 96 . In the following comparative analysis it will be investigated in what manner the CE relates to the AME partially by investigating the relations of the main features of the CE to those of the preceding TE. As the TE features were found to be highly relevant to the AME texts under consideration this will, to a certain extent, automatically result in indications relevant to the relation of the CE and the AME. Close attention, however, must also be paid to the possible divergences between the TE-CE and AME-CE relations. Such divergences will serve to more precisely define the AME in its own right. In a manner similar to that used in the comparative analysis of the TE-AME relationship found in the preceding paragraph (2.1.2.), the next four sub-paragraphs will systematically treat the four aspects of the episteme under discussion. 2.1.3.1. Representation in the CE - its epistemological position relative to the TE similitude and its role in the AME Comparing the TE and the CE, it may be said that the relative epistemological positions of knowledge and similitude have undergone a drastic shift. Whereas in the TE the similitude represents knowledge itself, in the CE it merely represents the raw material base for its production. In the CE similitudes serve only as indicators of potentially shared elements, elements which in turn determine the representative status of a given sign. In other words, in the CE the similitude is no more than a cognitive pied-à-terre, a temporary station at which relations between phenomena are imagined, relations which are to be investigated at a subsequent stage 97 . Thus, it may be said that in the CE the similitude is the necessary precondition of knowledge and that it is related to actual knowledge, i.e. to representation, through the analysis of imagination. It is this analysis of imagination that allows virtual elements in spatial simultaneity, suggested by similitudes and natural resemblances, to be projected as representations that are 94

Ibidem, 87. Ibidem, 91. 96 Ibidem, 98-101. 97 Ibidem, 81-3. 95

35

Chapter 2 - The Epistemological Perspective scientifically valid in actual, linear time. The necessary scientific complement to the analysis of imagination is the analysis of nature: the latter provides the empiric observation needed to corroborate the theoretical models provided by the former 98 . In 2.1.2.1. it was said that in both the TE and the AME the general epistemological configuration may be characterized as geared to the pursuit of similitudes. It was, however, also said that there was a very important difference, because in the AME the coding of knowledge itself took on the form of (logographic) similitude. Intrinsically present in the originally unilingual logographic texts, i.e. in the historical Vorlage of each of the AME texts under consideration, is a near-match between hermeneutic interpretation and semiological discourse. The strategies by which the signature status of elements of the AME writing system was actually achieved, were found to depend on the use of the same tropes or rhetorical figures of speech that produce the TE’s similitudes in Foucault’s analysis. From this perspective, the main difference between the use of tropes in the TE and the AME is that, unlike in the TE, in the AME tropes are intrinsically present and systematically expressed in each element of its writing system. It is with this difference in mind, i.e. the difference in relative positioning of the rhetorical operations, that it is possible to relate the AME configuration around the similitude to the CE configuration around representation. The question of relative positioning of rhetoric operations is addressed in Foucault’s concept of rhetorical space, which is the space where spoken and written signs obtain, change and loose meaning and where, ultimately, the evolution of individual languages and writing systems takes place and which, in the final analysis, results from the fact that spoken language is constructed as a temporal succession of sound elements that maybe projected in space 99 . In the TE this space could be said to be used in an exclusively onedimensional manner. A single object or phenomena is assumed knowable through its equation with words, an equation showing up as a similitude, constituted by means of rhetorical figures of speech. Thus, in the TE the use of rhetorical space is strictly ‘horizontal’, limited to a single referent and a single object-word relation. In the CE, on the other hand, rhetorical space could be said to be used in a multi-dimensional manner. Multiple objects or phenomena must be constantly related to each other in order to become knowable in terms of their representative, i.e. conventional functional, value. In the CE the use of rhetorical space may be said to be necessarily of a ‘vertical’ nature as the representative value of each single referent is knowable only in terms of the other referents that precede or follow it in space and/or time. When the AME texts under consideration are approached from the analytical perspective of rhetorical space, it is immediately obvious that these texts also operate in multidimensional rhetorical space. In order for the AME writing elements - which are the study object of the lexical texts - to be defined they need to be juxtaposed to each other. As in the CE, in the AME texts under consideration spatial simultaneity and juxtaposition of signs is required for these signs to become meaningful. In a very literal sense the various lexical compositions provide this spatial simultaneity and juxtaposition. In fact, it 98 99

Ibidem, 83-5. Ibidem, 130f. .

36

Chapter 2 - The Epistemological Perspective may be said that the AME texts show a very remarkable similarity to the CE in as far as the preferred form of expression of both is that of the table. In many respects the particular suitability of the tabular expression of knowledge as described by Foucault for the CE may be said to apply equally to the AME texts: Entre la mathesis et la genèse, s’étend la région des signes, - des signes qui tranversent tout la domaine de la représentation empirique, mais ne la débordent jamais. Bordé par le calcul et la genèse, c’est l’espace du tableau. En ce savoir, il s’agit d’affecter d’un signe tout ce que peut nous offrir notre représentation … c’est-à-dire articuler l’ensemble de la représentation en plages distinctes, séparées les unes des autres par des traits assignables; ils autorisent ainsi l’établissement d’un système simultané selon lequel les représentations énoncent leur proximité et leur éloignement, leur voisinage et leurs écarts, - donc le réseau qui, hors chronologie, manifeste leur parenté et restitue dans un espace permanent leurs relations d’ordre. Sur ce mode peut se dessiner le tableau des identités et des différences 100 . Foucault also points out what may be the reference points (internal; contextual; analogous) on the basis of which representative value can be established in the rhetoric space opened by tabular analysis: Si bien au fond du langage parlé comme de l’écriture, ce qu’on découvre, c’est l’espace rhétorique des mots: cette liberté du signe de venir se poser, selon l’analyse de la représentation, sur un élément interne, sur un point de son voisinage, sur une figure analogue. … (L)es mots ont leur lieu, non dans le temps, mais dans un espace où ils peuvent trouver leur site originaire, se déplacer, se retourner sur eux-mêmes, et déployer lentement toute une courbe: un espace tropologique 101 . The reader may consult the relevant tables found in Part 3 (Tables 9-10, 13, providing an analysis in terms of key-signs and key-words, graphic, phonetic and semantic association), to notice the high degree to which Foucault’s analysis of representation in the CE also applies to the AME texts. Based on these systemic and formal similarities, it may be proposed that the AME texts under consideration aimed at establishing the representative value of their content in a manner similar to that of CE scientific treatises. In other words, it may be proposed that representation is central to the configuration of the AME. If this is true, the question arises how this relates to the fact that, as found in 2.1.2.1., the AME general epistemological configuration can also be characterized as geared to the pursuit of similitudes. The solution to this seeming contradiction must be sought in the closed nature of the AME knowledge system, i.e. in the fact that it has narrow boundaries, restricting the range of conceivable representative values. The AME texts under consideration pursue similitudes, but only to the extent that this serves to establish representative values for the limited inventory of its writing elements. 100 101

Ibidem, 87-8. Ibidem, 130.

37

Chapter 2 - The Epistemological Perspective Vice versa, these texts aim at establishing representative values for these writing elements, but never beyond the scope of their conventionally determined functional value, which is exclusively that of a writing element. In other words, in the AME texts, the pursuit of similitude and representative value are simultaneous and interdependent. The main difference between the analysis of signs in the CE and that in the AME is that the signs of the latter are not arbitrary. Rather, they constitute similitudes in themselves and these are never considered representative or functional in terms of anything except the writing system. The individual cuneiform sign remains the smallest, indivisible unit of investigation - the ‘atom’ of the Ancient Mesopotamian knowledge system. In AME lexical texts a given logogram can be qualified in innumerable ways but never in terms of anything that it does not in itself explicitly (visibly) express. E.g. the logogram for ‘sheep’ (UDU) may attract a long series of qualifications (Hh EST 8a001-56) but it will not itself be qualified as a representative of some larger unit that is not explicitly expressed by the logogram. In the AME texts it is only with regard to the intrinsic values of the (limited inventory) of logograms that any representative value is conceivable. This sharply contrasts with its Linnaean classification in the CE, abounding in external references (representing simultaneously the kingdom of animalia, the phylum of chordata, the class of mammalia, the order of artiodactyla, the family of bovidae, the subfamily of caprinae and the genus of ovis). In terms of Foucault’s analysis it could be said that the AME texts admit only a vertical articulation of representative value (i.e. progress from substance to quality resulting from adding an adjective to a noun, e.g. sheep>wild sheep), whereas the analysis that becomes possible in the CE, which is not restricted by the conceptual limitations imposed by logographic formulation, also admits its horizontal articulation (i.e. progress from individual to general, e.g. sheep>animal) 102 . It is only after the abandonment of logographic writing in favor of alphabetic writing, Foucault argues, that language becomes fully analyzable in terms of representation: (l)a rupture du parallelisme exact entre représentation et graphisme permet de loger la totalité du langage, même écrit, dans le domaine general de l’analyse ... 103 . 2.1.3.2. Order in the CE and AME respectively In 2.1.3.0. it was said that the main analytic category of the CE, i.e. its main instrument to recognize representative value, was order. As in 2.1.3.1. it was said that the establishment of the representative value of their content was also a central concern of the AME texts under consideration, the question arises to what degree the role of order is the same in the CE and the AME. To address this question, two aspects of order discussed by Foucault for the CE will be examined for the AME: (1) the manner in which it is obtained (to be established or to be assumed) and (2) its relation to the empirically observable life world (arbitrary or reflective with respect to it). (1) In regard to the first aspect it was observed that, unlike the TE, the CE required order to be established or created instead of assuming it as a result of microcosm-macrocosm correspondences. With regard to the AME texts it maybe said that although they establish the representative value of signs in a manner very similar to that found in the CE (viz. 102 103

Ibidem, 113. Ibidem, 128.

38

Chapter 2 - The Epistemological Perspective through the tabular presentation of data), the signs they deal with are of a profoundly different nature. In the CE, as in the TE, all conceivable natural and cultural signs are potentially interpretable (as representations or as signatures respectively) - this is not the case in the AME texts. In the AME texts the sign inventory dealt with is closed, because it is limited in advance to the traditionally transmitted inventory of cuneiform signs. Effectively, this closed nature of the Ancient Mesopotamian knowledge system precludes the possibility of an exact comparison with that of the CE. What is certain, however, is that, in as much as normative, prescriptive text models were transmitted over long periods of time, the ordering of knowledge in the AME was a reconstructive much more than a creative effort. If, then, a comparison is attempted for the manner in which order is obtained in the CE and AME respectively, it could be said that in the former it was to be established creatively from a potentially unlimited range of signs, whereas in the latter it was largely a priori assumed based on the available evidence from traditionally transmitted inventories. (2) In regard to the second aspect it is clear that in the AME texts order is not formulated as it is in the CE: in the AME texts representative value is not established independently from empirically observable surface phenomena. The arbitrary relation of order to the empirically observable life world found in the CE is obviously absent from the AME texts. In many lexical texts the ordering of content is determined by non-semantic principles of a didactic (graphic and phonetic association) and/or text-historical (traditional-conventional) nature, but in those instances where a semantic principle can be recognized, it invariably shows close adherence to the empirically observable life world (cf. Part 3 11.3.). In the thematic lists the representative value of what is described is never projected beyond the obvious and visible peculiarities held in common between objects and phenomena, either in a material or in a utilitarian sense. E.g. in the ‘wood’ section of Hh 3-4 tree-related terminology is not listed according botanical criteria but rather in relation to agricultural utility, as obvious in e.g. the ‘date tree’ sub-section (Hh 3a117-180), which is organized by criteria such as the state of the produce (e.g. ripe/unripe/green/pit less/dried/sweet), the health of the tree (e.g. burnt/vermin invested) and relevant equipment (e.g. broom/climbing harness). The ordering of objects and phenomena from the natural world in the thematic lists is not determined by consideration of the structural properties of these objects and phenomena themselves (the form, quantity, distribution and relative size of elements which are the central methodological criteria in CE natural history 104 ), but by utilitarian criteria such as raw material status or domestication (respectively Hh 3-7: wood, reed, clay, leather, metal and Hh 8: life stock 105 ). 2.1.3.3. The elements of the CE disposition of order in the context of the AME texts In the two preceding sub-paragraphs (2.1.3.1-2) it was shown that although representation was central to the configuration of both the CE and AME, the order by which it was established was of a profoundly different nature. This divergence was explained by the closed nature of the knowledge system represented by the Ancient Mesopotamian lexical 104 105

Ibidem, 146. Cf. Part 3 Table 11.

39

Chapter 2 - The Epistemological Perspective corpus, i.e. by the fact that it constitutes a closed discourse exclusively concerned with the writing system itself, a system with a pre-set inventory and transmitted in a pre-set format. With this divergence in mind the question arises to what extend the analytic methods of the CE distinguished by Foucault are relevant in the AME texts under consideration. In 2.1.3.0. the elements of Foucault’s three-fold disposition of order in the CE were listed as mathesis, taxinomia and genesis. In this paragraph it will be investigated if and, when yes, to what extent each of these elements can be recognized in the AME texts. (1) In the AME texts under consideration the element of mathesis, i.e. calculable order expressed in equivalences, is clearly attested in two types of application: a. Its first type is the application of mathesis to the order of elements of the writing system. Most of the graphic associations which partially guide the order of the elementary and advanced sign-lists can be viewed as mathesis applied to the form of spatially juxtaposed, consecutive key-signs. E.g. The sign RI given in SaV PST 009 may be viewed as calculably adding an element (viz. one extra vertical wedge) to the sign HU preceding it. Such calculable sign variations may also be found applied to multiple signs simultaneously. E.g. Diri EST 032-3 LAH 4 -LAH 4 and KAŠ 4 -KAŠ 4 . This application type applies to elements distinguishable within signs (horizontal and vertical wedges, Winkelhaken, etc.) as well as to signs as a whole. E.g. Izi EST 2A011-2 GÚ-GAM and GÚ-GAM-GAM, where the whole sign GAM is given first once and is then given in reduplication. Thus, in many instances mathematical, calculable order is provided by the sign-lists by the systematic juxtaposition of graphically associated signs. It should be noted that the ‘calculability’ of graphic association is not always a matter of addition and deduction alone: spatial dispersion and formal variation can also play a role. E.g. Hh EST 3a310-6 gives the graphic variants LAGABxA (the A-element has three horizontals) , LAGABxNÍG (the NÍG-element also has three horizontals but in a different spatial configuration) and LAGABxU-A (the U-element adds a fourth element but of a different form). b. The second type is the application of mathesis to semantics, i.e. the imposition of calculable order not on the graphic presentation of key-signs but on their semantic content. This second type potentially overlaps with the first in as far as the graphic association of key-signs may be matched by a semantic association. E.g. SaV PST 055-6 KA and SAG with the meanings ‘mouth’ and ‘head’ and Hh PST 1060 MÁŠ MÁŠ meaning ‘interest on interest’. In many instances, however, this is not the case and calculable order is projected through numerals qualifying a given key-sign. As no mathematical compositions are found among the published Emar school texts, it is difficult to gain insight into the extent to which abstract mathesis was conceived of in Emar scholarship. In as far as mathesis is practiced in the available scholarly material under consideration, however, it may be said to consistently occur only in a pragmatic context, i.e. in practical application to a non-abstract referent. Table 3 below lists all instances of explicit semantically applied mathesis (i.e. mathesis made explicit by the use of numerals) found in the Emar lexical corpus and it shows them in their consistently pragmatic contexts.

40

Chapter 2 - The Epistemological Perspective Table 3. The pragmatic contexts of semantically applied mathesis in the AME texts Series/ EST-PST

Entries ... - use of numerals

Pragmatic context italics - pragmatic context derived from preceding or following entries

G 010-1 Hh 1110

D

Hh 1147-8

ŠU.RI.ÀM / IGI ... ĜÁL.ÀM

Hh 2103-5

MU.IM.MA/MU.AN.NA/MU.ÚS.SA

numerical order of divinities day count in context of administrative/legal terminology accounting in trade and inheritance cf. context 1146 and 1150ff. year count in context of administrative/legal terminology shipping tonnage count of plough oxen count of hoe ‘teeth’ metric content of (wooden) baskets/boxes cf. preceding DÚR-sequence (reed) yard stick measures cf. Akk equivalents: GI nindakki / ammati count of reed knots metric content of (copper) vessels measure of gold purity count of (leather) bags

40 / D30 UD ... KAM

... Hh 3a361 Hh 4107 Hh 4152 Hh 4173-4

ĜIŠ

MÁ ... GUR APIN GUD ... ĜIŠ AL ZÚ ... ĜIŠ ... SÌLA / GÍĜ ĜIŠ

Hh 5117-9 GI ...

Hh 5137-8 Hh 7a242 Hh 7a378 Hh 7b0112 Hh8b044 Hh 10190 Hh 14030 Lu 1003-5 Lu 1178

GI DUR ... TAB.BA / DILI URUDU ŠEN ... BÁN KUG.GI ... TA.ÀM KUŠ GAN ... TAB.BA

age of donkeys weight stones field revenues range of royal authority range of overseer’s authority

ANŠE NÍTA MU ... NA 4 ... GUN / MA.NA / GÍĜ / U 20 A.ŠAG 4 IGI ... ĜÁL TA.ÀM LUGAL ... UGULA NAM ... me-at

Two main conclusions may be drawn from Table 3. First, it shows that in all instances where it is empirically attested by the use of numerals in the texts, semantically applied mathesis is consistently pragmatically embedded. There is no single example of exclusively abstract treatment of mathematical operations to be found among the listed entries. Direct pragmatic referents in the entries themselves may be lacking in some instances (Hh 1147-8 and 4173-4) but also in these cases the textual context clearly suggests that the mathematical operations described have highly practical applications. Second, Table 3 shows that all instances of empirically explicit, semantically applied mathesis are to be found exclusively in the thematic series, i.e. in those series that can be defined as semantically coherent units of which the presentational format is conceived independently from graphemic criteria (cf. discussion of series typology in Part 3 11.3.).

41

Chapter 2 - The Epistemological Perspective From the above findings it may be concluded that there is a partially supplementary distribution of the two application types of mathesis in the AME texts under consideration: type a. (with application to the elements of the writing system) occurs throughout all series but type b. (application to semantics) occurs only in semantically, viz. thematically organized series. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the type b. application is merely an auxiliary organizational device used in the thematic lists. If the limited development of this type of mathesis and a general lack of abstract mathesis holds true for the AME in general, it may be explained from the different orientation of mathesis in scribal scholarship, viz. its primary orientation towards the writing system itself. Finally there remains the question to what extent other types of mathesis may be relevant for the analysis of the AME texts under consideration. Two non-numerical types of mathesis suggest themselves: type c. spatial (geographical, topographical) and type d. temporal (chronological). c. Concerning the former type the question arises if (and, when yes, in what manner) it determines the ordering of geographic elements and locations in Hh 15-6. Generally, it may be said that modern reconstruction of the ancient topography found in these lists has not progressed sufficiently to come to definite conclusions in this regard. A few preliminary remarks, however, can be made. First, many entry sequences are ordered according to shared, initial key-signs rather than discernable relative geographic location. E.g. the sequences Hh EST 15023ff. and 16a026ff. give city names starting with respectively the key-words É and ÚR, independently of their actual location. Similar acrographic order is of course exactly what is also found on a higher level of organization in Hh 15-6: the geographic parts of these lists are consistently divided in sections that share the same determinative or key-words (Hh 15 has KI, Hh 16a has KI, ÍD, ÉG and TÚL and Hh 16b has KI, KUR, ÍD, TÚL, PA 5 and ÉG). This suggests that spatial, topographic mathesis is not the main organizing criterion for these lists. Second, some entry sequences involving waterways and levees are clearly not ordered according to geographic location but according to the chronology of their historic construction: Hh EST 16a094ff./16b179ff. and 16a115ff. respectively order sizeable portions of the ÍD and ÉG sequences in this manner. Third and finally, it is conceivable that another, additional organizational principle is at work in ordering the geographic entry sequences, viz. pragmatic utility with regard to the routing of trade and commerce. It could be suggested that there is some (admittedly meager) evidence in entry sequences such as Hh EST 15020-2, which gives the traditional trade route through the Persian Gulf to India: 106 DILMUN-MÁ.KAM.MA-ME.LUH.HA (often identified as Bahrain, Oman and the western coast of the Indian subcontinent respectively). In view of this possibility it is difficult to determine whether certain apparently coherent geographic entry clusters (e.g. 16a019ff., which lists cities in Syria and Anatolia) reflect pragmatic utility, such as listings of cities along trade routes, or actual abstract topographic mathesis. In view of the above evidence, however, it may be suggested that the balance of evidence is tilted in favor of the absence of such abstract spatial mathesis. Whatever analysis in terms of the spatial aspect of mathesis was conceived of by the ancient scholars seems to have been related 106

Cf. Hh EST 3a343-5.

42

Chapter 2 - The Epistemological Perspective primarily to the (spatial) juxtaposition of the elements of the writing system, i.e. to have been conceived of in terms of the first of the application types discussed earlier. With regard to the possible presence of spatial mathesis, finally, attention should be drawn to the fact that Hh 16 also contains a MUL-section, giving the names of heavenly bodies (Hh EST 16a131ff./16b233-66). In addressing the issue of (possible) spatial mathesis, it would be important to determine the ordering principle underlying the sequencing of its entries because an obvious acrographic order beyond the shared MUL-determinative is lacking. Concerning this issue, there are a number of complicating factors: (1) there are two different sequences (Hh 16a and 16b) of which one is broken, (2) not all entries have been identified in terms of modern astronomical definitions and (3) the Emar list mixes planets and fixed stars. Unfortunately, the scope of this study does not allow this issue to be addressed beyond raising it. d. Concerning the latter type, i.e. temporal mathesis, it is obvious that explicit attestations of chronological order of entries are almost completely lacking in the lexical curriculum. In fact, the only two instances found are Hh EST 1111, which gives the names of the months in chronological order, and Hh EST 16a094-107/16b179-97 and 16a115-9, which order portions of respectively the ÍD and ÉG sequences according to the OB chronology of royal succession and their (presumed) construction by consecutive kings. It should be noted that in both cases the chronological ordering of the entries does not take place in a specifically suitable analytic context but rather within a distinctly pragmatic analytic context. The first sequence is not part of a mathematical treatise on the calendar, but rather of a compendium of administrative and legal phraseology in which knowledge of the calendar was simply relevant to the scribal competences it set out to teach. The second sequence is not part of treatise on historical chronology, but rather of a list of waterways. In both instances temporal mathesis, in the form of chronological order, appears to be merely an auxiliary tool for obtaining order in a form of scholarship that clearly prioritized other forms of order. (2) To measure the use of the element taxinomia in the AME texts under consideration, i.e. to measure the degree to which these texts articulate and classify complex phenomena in terms of each other (express them in terms of comparative identification), it seems appropriate to work with the main concept by which Foucault explains its operation in the CE, viz. taxonomical continuity. CE taxinomia is based on two central assumptions: first, that the visible world (things) and discourse (words) can be reduced to each other (i.e. that the latter can represent the former) and second that individual things only become knowable when defined in a universal table of discourse that establishes the relative differences 107 . Such a table assumes, requires and creates taxonomical continuity, i.e. it will result in a network of objects known through spatial juxtaposition 108 . In order to make use of this concept of taxonomical continuity for the AME texts, it is necessary to investigate what precisely is Foucault’s view of it, a view developed in most detail in his discussion of the CE discipline of natural history. There, Foucault describes how it results in a scientific system, i.e. in knowledge structured through the coordination of differences: 107 108

Foucault, Les mots, 144 and 157 respectively. Ibidem, 162.

43

Chapter 2 - The Epistemological Perspective

Pour les systématiciens, la continuité n’est faite que de juxtaposition sans faille des différentes regions que les caractères permettent de distinguer clairement; il suffit d’une gradation ininterrompue des valeurs que peut prendre, dans le domaine entire des espèces, la structure choisie comme caractère; à partir de ce principe, il apparaîtra que toutes ces valeurs seront occupées par des êtres réels, même si on ne les connaît pas encore 109 . It is important to note that the taxonomical continuity of the CE is here conceived of exclusively in space and not in time: it implies no evolutionary relation between the elements that it juxtaposes 110 . Taxonomical continuity is assumed to exist independently with respect to time - it is actually assumed to constitute the precondition of any temporal succession of elements. In sequences of related elements a range from primitive prototypes to perfect end-types is consistently distinguished, but no evolutionary principle of modification internal to individual elements is admitted. Foucault distinguished two characteristic features resulting from the taxonomical continuity thus conceived of in the CE: the monster and the fossil. In his analysis of CE natural history these terms have, to a certain extent, a literal application to phenomena observed in the natural world 111 . However, they can alo be used in an exclusive figurative sense with regard to order, so that they become applicable to the intended analysis of the AME texts in terms of the CE’s taxinomia. Thus, the ‘monster’ and the ‘fossil’ will be regarded as figurative descriptions of two essential analytical tools used to establish taxonomical continuity. The monster, on the one hand, is a concept necessary to grasp the taxonomical continuity disguised behind the chaos and catastrophic loss which any element inventory is submitted to in the course of time. Monsters allow (or, actually, constitute) the (imaginative) conception of a multitude of possible variations and cross-connections within a given element inventory: … la prolifération de monstres sans lendemain est nécessaire pour qu’on puisse redescendre du continu au tableau à travers une série temporelle 112 .The fossil, on the other hand, is a concept necessary to recover that part of an element inventory which existed only in the past and which has since become unrecognizable due to (a series of) historical metamorphoses. Fossils embedded in contemporaneous (natural and cultural) forms allow the reconstruction of past variations and cross-connections within a given element inventory. By investigating AME texts in terms of these two features of taxonomical continuity it should be possible to determine if, and when yes, to what degree the establishment of such continuity was in fact also (explicitly or implicitly) aimed at in the scholarship that produced them. Next, it will therefore be attempted to see if, and when yes, what types of ‘monsters’ (a.) and ‘fossils’ (b.) can be found in the AME texts: a. A monster may generally be defined as a gross exception to the norms otherwise valid within a given system, but it also has the intrinsic semantic value of ‘sign’ or ‘omen’ 109

Ibidem, 159. Ibidem, 162-3. 111 Ibidem, 168-70. 112 Ibidem, 169. 110

44

Chapter 2 - The Epistemological Perspective (Latin etymology monstrum < monere ‘to warn’). In determining what constitutes a monster in the AME texts under consideration, both this definition and this intrinsic semantic value can be considered appropriate. In terms of its definition, a ‘monster’ in these texts may be said to be an entry that doesn’t conform to the norms of form and content set by scribal tradition. In terms of its intrinsic semantic value, in these texts it may be said to be a specific ‘sign’ in the literal sense of the word, viz. a grossly inappropriate or unfit element of the writing system. Combining the search parameters thus obtained, the ‘monsters’ to be looked for are therefore simultaneously non-normative entries and non-normative elements of the writing system. As the central element of all entries in all lists is their logogram element (element 2), this means the ‘monsters’ to be looked for are non-normative logograms. A number of problems arise, however, when considering the normative or non-normative status in the texts under consideration. First, the norms of form and content applicable to lexical compositions can generally not be sufficiently ascertained. They were principally determined text-historically, i.e. in reference to (specific) preceding text traditions and these traditions have generally not been sufficiently reconstructed. Only for (parts of) a few series the (OB) Vorlage is sufficiently known to allow statements about the degree to which the Emar texts deviate from them. Second, the fragmentary preservation of the Emar material for many series means that insufficient reference material is available for a systematic comparison. Third, in some instances it is difficult to determine the difference between scribal errors and an intentionally inserted non-normative logograms, especially in view of the fact that the lexical series were (mostly) reproduced as school exercises by apprentice scribes. Some errors may be identified as such with reasonable certainty: e.g. Hörfehler in Hh EST 1002 (ŠE.DÉ.A for EŠ.DÉ.A) and 1059 (MÁŠ BA.RA.DAL for MÁŠ BA.RA.BAL), use of inappropriate phonetic spelling in Hh EST 2118’ (MA.NA.LA for MA.NA.LÁ) and 3a091 (MA.NA HA.LU.UB for MA.NA HA.LU.ÚB) and confusion between graphically similar sign forms in Hh EST 3a211-2 (DUR for GÚ) and 7a274 (RI for NUN). Some of such errors may, in fact, have resulted from a corrupted textual transmission rather than from the incompetence of an apprentice scribes: in that case such errors are only be retrospectively recognizable as ‘errors’ by the modern scholar. In other instances it is almost impossible to distinguish between mistakes and unusual but intentional writings. E.g. Hh EST 1112 has KI-LÚ-KAL which may have been an intentional ‘analytical’ rendering of regular KI-KAL=ULUDIN with the added LÚ-element serving as a phonetic complement (hence the proposed reading KILÚ-KAL). In another example, Hh 3a115 IGI-TUR may have been an intentionally inserted variant of following 3a116 IGI-TUR-TUR=LIGIMA, perhaps indicative of an attempt by the scribe to render a semantic continuum between 3a114 ÍSIMU per’u ‘bud; sprout’ and 3a116 LIGIMA ligimû ‘germ; bud’). In these and many other cases it is difficult to tell what constitutes a scribal error and what an intentionally given non-normative logogram. This problem is particularly acute in the advanced sign-lists. Unlike the elementary sign-lists (which focus primarily on the values single logograms) and unlike the thematic lists (the predictable semantic organization of which makes it relatively easy to reconstruct the ‘correct’ logogram fitting a given entry), the advanced sign-lists aim at investigating (all) the (possible) relational values of signs (cf. discussion concerning Izi given in Part 3 6.3.), which makes it very difficult to determine which entries have potential (merely analytical) rather than actual (historically realized) validity. The question can be posed, e.g., whether, in view of its possible reading as alluttu, Izi

45

Chapter 2 - The Epistemological Perspective EST 1012 AN-TAR-TAR is just a scribal error (for MULĜÍR.TAB, giving only one ANelement instead of the three needed to write MUL and giving graphically related TAR instead of GÍR), or actually a clever way of indicating the potential content of the ANsign in relation to the heavens (which is the semantic context of Izi EST 1004-15) and simultaneously investigating the relation of the TAR-sign to GÍR by doubling it: the TAR is graphically similar to GÍR and by doubling it is called to mind in its combination with TAB (TAB meaning ‘double’). Similar questions may be asked about many other ‘erroneous’ or obscure entries found in the advanced sign-lists (e.g. the ‘wrong’ inwritten elements in the KA-entries found in SagB EST 211ff.). On balance, it may seem that the texts under consideration may very well contain plenty of ‘monster’ logograms, but it requires some conclusive attestations in at least one series to make this hypothesis reasonable. Fortunately, there is one series which is sufficiently reconstructed in its Vorlage as well as its Emar version to furnish some conclusive evidence, viz. SaV. Moreover, Part 3 has already provided an in-depth analysis of the non-core content attested in Emar, i.e. of the logograms outside the traditional-conventional key-sign core of the series (Part 3 2.3.3.). In that analysis plenty of ‘monsters’ show that they perform the same function in AME texts as that which Foucault found for them in the CE, viz. of establishing taxonomical continuity by giving cross-connections in a given element inventory. Different types of ‘monsters’ in the form of different types of non-core content perform this function: additional key-signs (e.g. PST 022 SIG 4 showing graphic variants of preceding 022 LUM and int(5) LAM), incidental compound forms with key-signs (e.g. PST 081a NUN-ME=ABGAL, a mythical creature of wisdom rising from the sea, graphosemantically linking 080 NUN ‘prince’ with 082 ME ‘water’) and other interpolations (e.g. int(9) GUR 5 ugguru ‘cripple’ between 051 HAL hallu ‘thigh’ and 052 UR awīlu ‘man’) link otherwise unconnected key-signs. As the SaV series contains plenty of ‘monsters’ helping to establish taxonomical continuity, it does not seem unreasonable to suspect that they occur in the other series too. Furthermore, the fact that the ‘monsters’ in SaV may be considered as systemically resulting from the integrative methodology, found to prevail in the Ancient Mesopotamian scribal art (cf. Part 3 2.1.2.1. and 2.3.3.), implies that this integrative methodology may be interpreted as resulting from the same quest for taxonomical continuity that is characteristic of the CE. The difference between this quest in the AME and the CE must be sought primarily in its direction: in the former it is directed exclusively at the writing system whereas in the latter the abstract nature of the alphabetic writing ensures that there is no such restriction. In the former it occurs in a ‘closed’, in the latter in an ‘open’ knowledge system. b. A fossil may generally be defined as the preserved remains or traces of an element that existed within a given system in the past. The etymology of the word fossil (Latin fossus ‘dug up’) indicates that these remains or traces are embedded (often hidden) within formations shaped by historical processes. In case of a knowledge system, the various chronologically sequenced strata of its written records may be considered its fossiliferous sediments. The study of the ‘fossil’ elements of a given knowledge system, i.e. the analysis of their encoding across time in its written records, can contribute otherwise unattainable information on its emergence and development 113 . Information, in other 113

Cf. ‘Fossil’, Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia (28 June 2008). Retrieved 9 July 2008 from: http://en.wikipedia.org.

46

Chapter 2 - The Epistemological Perspective words, that allows the reconstruction of taxonomical continuity across time. In the AME lexical texts under consideration ‘fossil’ elements will be investigated from two perspectives. First, ‘fossils’ will be identified in the individual entries of the texts and it will be determined how they relate to the contemporaneous knowledge they are meant to convey. Second, ‘fossils’ will be identified as collective ‘deposits’ in chronologically sequenced ‘strata’ found throughout the lexical corpus as a whole: this second perspective may provide insights into the emergence and development of the AME as a whole. With regard to the first perspective, it should be determined whether ‘fossil’ status can be attributed to the original pictographic value of the logogram around which each entry of the lexical lists is constructed. In certain cases this original pictographic value is still explicitly recognized by the ancient scribes, as is shown by some of the Akkadian interpretations they provide, i.e. those of the ‘simple representation’ type found among the different types of semantic relations between pictogram and Akkadian interpretations analyzed in Table 1. E.g. SaV PST 001.01 gives the Akkadian interpretation mû ‘water’ for the logogram A, which is a pictogram of flowing water. In other cases the original pictographic value has apparently lost its relevance but may be reconstructed through modern research. E.g. SaV PST 002 gives a number of Akkadian interpretations for the logogram ŠUR, but none directly refer to the underlying pictographic value, which, based on paleographic analysis, can be reconstructed as a bowl with a spout. Based on the evidence provided by Table 1, which shows a clear statistical preponderance of relation types other than ‘simple representation’, it may be suggested that in fact the original pictographic values of the logograms had largely become of secondary relevance to the scribes by the time of the composition of the Emar lexical texts. In the logograms many derived values, i.e. secondary values constructed by means of tropes or by means of phonetic or formal-graphic association, have accumulated over the original pictographic values, which often have become invisible or ‘buried’ under many layers of these derived values. It may therefore be argued that these pictographic values have indeed true ‘fossil’ status: they are the skeletal remains of the primordial elements of the writing system, embedded within the lexical texts found in LBA Emar. They remain important, however, in terms of Foucault’s taxonomical continuity: they can serve to reconstruct the mechanisms by which far-flung derivations are arrived at (as shown in the analysis of the tropes given in Table 1). With regard to the second perspective, viz. that of ‘fossils’ in collective deposits throughout the lexical corpus as a whole, it should be determined in what manner the individual ‘fossils’ detected using the first perspective relate to each other within the series in which they occur as well as between different series. In other words, it should be determined if and, when yes, how the ‘fossilized’ (pictographic) values of individual entries can help explain the order of entry sequences within a given series and even between different (related) series. An example of sequential coherence in pictographic values within a given series may be found in the SaV sequence PST 002-3 ŠUR (bowl with spout)-PAD (bowl with divider). This sample does not imply that the key-sign sequence of the whole SaV series is based on similar congruencies of the ‘fossilized’ pictographic values of its key-signs, but it may explain why PAD follows ŠUR. Another example is the key-sign sequence SAG (head)-KA (mouth) found in SagB. It should be noted that the SAG-KA sequence was extended in Proto-Sag to continue with the key-signs IGI (eye) and SAG 4 (heart) (cf. discussion in Part 3 14.8.), which suggests a fossilized key-sign structure underlying part of the advanced sign-lists based

47

Chapter 2 - The Epistemological Perspective on a top-to-bottom listing of body-parts. Finally, it is important to note that any more substantial investigation into ‘fossil’ elements in the lexical texts can only proceed on the basis of a reasonably solid text-historical record and in conjunction with extensive diachronic philological research. The former is unfortunately not (yet) available and the latter falls outside of the scope of this study. In conclusion of this preliminary investigation, however, it may be said that the concept of ‘fossils’ generally is a useful perspective for the analysis of the AME lexical texts in terms of the taxonomical continuity they seek to establish. (3) In the AME texts under consideration attestations of the element of genesis previously defined as historical semiology (the knowledge of the origin and chronological formation of signs) and a precondition of taxinomia (because the latter seeks to establish continuities for phenomena that often require their projection across temporal gaps) must obviously be sought in relation to the specific kind of sign inventory they are concerned with, viz. in relation to the writing system. Thus, to establish the presence of the element of genesis in the AME texts, what must be sought is explicit knowledge of the temporal analogies of the writing system. Implicit knowledge may possibly be found in the orthographic variations attested between various texts in as far as they represent different chronological layers (a subject extensively dealt with in by Cohen 114 ), explicit knowledge, however, is only found in the SaP texts. The series SaP deals explicitly with temporal analogies in the writing system by systematically contrasting contemporaneous and paleographic forms. The question to what extent the paleographic forms given in SaP actually do represent the sign forms found in real OB text is irrelevant in this regard: what matters is that the ancient scribes made a conscious effort to deal with the genesis, i.e. the historical semiology, of their writing system. This clear attestation means that all three elements of the disposition of the order by which representation was established according to Foucault’s model are also found in the AME, as represented by the lexical texts under consideration. The main difference between the CE and the AME is that the latter represents a closed system*, exclusively concerned with the writing system. It is remarkable that in all of the considerable body of knowledge contained in the lexical corpus, the only attestation of any type of historical semiology is directed exclusively at the writing system. This may be interpreted as meaning that all knowledge was conceived of as being exclusively contained in the traditionally transmitted sign inventory by which it was coded. In other words, no historically generic, temporal (let alone ‘evolutionary’) evaluations of any other kind are found because these could be said to be simply inconceivable in the AME. 2.1.3.4. Functional limitation of knowledge in the context of the AME texts It was said that Foucault distinguishes one main conceptual limit inherent in the CE, viz. the inevitable statement of any concept of order in terms of exclusively functional values. In his analysis this is due to the complete transparency of the representations with regard to the signs that order them: a complete match of representation and sign is assumed. The question to be answered here is whether such an exclusive ordering of signs in terms of 114

Y. Cohen, The Transmission and Reception of Mesopotamian Scholarly Texts at the City of Emar (Ann Arbor 2003) 71-6 and 271-94.

48

Chapter 2 - The Epistemological Perspective their functional values is found in the AME too, and if so, what that functionality of these values consists of. As the signs which the AME texts under consideration are concerned with are the elements of the writing system itself, i.e. the elements of knowledge coding itself, this question may be immediately answered in the affirmative: it is the functionality of the elements of the writing system as such that determines their ordering in these texts. In terms of the postulated integrative methodology of the ancient scribes (cf. Part 3 2.1.2.1.) all series were found to constitute methodologically structured environments which are didactically functional with regard to the purpose scribal training (cf. Part 3 11.4.). In other words, the order of signs in the AME texts is determined by their functional value as elements of the writing system, to be taught to apprentice scribes. This holds true even if this sign order appears to be imposed, or rather projected, on traditionally transmitted texts in which the original (traditionally-conventionally established) ordering principle of key-sign escapes modern synchronic research (e.g. the Sa-series, Izi and Diri 115 ). On balance, the AME as appearing in the lexical texts may be said to contain only one type of knowledge, viz. knowledge assumed to be contained in and retrievable from the traditionally transmitted signs of the writing system. In the AME these signs truly exclusively represent - and effectively replace - the empiric sign inventory of the real life world of natural and cultural phenomena. Such phenomena are validly known (defined, analyzed, ordered) solely in as far as they are relatable to the signs of the writing system. Their full representative potential is conceived of as already realized within these signs. Knowledge is gained not by approaching a given real-world phenomenon on its own terms but by learning the intricacies of the writing system, traditionally transmitted in the lexical curriculum, a writing system which is assumed to represent a divinely provided microcosmic repository of all knowledge. In this approach to knowledge a modern scientific analysis, involving the collection of empiric data and the formulation of hypotheses regarding given natural or cultural phenomena on their own terms is basically inconceivable. Or put another way: such an analysis is not found because it is irrelevant to the emic definition of knowledge in the AME. It may therefore be said that the functional limitation of knowledge which Foucault found to apply to the CE fully applies to the AME as well, but that in addition the AME represents a closed system in which the functionality itself is limited (viz. to the writing system and its transmission through learning). Finally, it may be appropriate to draw attention to one of the effects of the functional limitation of the CE found by Foucault and referred to earlier on, viz. the resultant project of collecting knowledge in an encyclopedic format. The CE encyclopedia aims at collecting all knowledge in a specifically functional manner, viz. in a manner that allows it to be retrieved by exclusively formal (non-content related), abstract (alphabetic) reference. In the CE encyclopedic project knowledge is thematically de-contextualized and aimed at as a sum total, to be arrived at through a full tabular (alphabetic) listing of articles. It may be argued that a similar encyclopedic project is implicitly aimed at the AME lexical series because ultimately these series too aim at the listing of all knowledge in a specifically functional manner, viz. in a manner that explains how it is coded within the elements of the writing system. The various series offer different perspectives on this coding (cf. Part 3 11.3-4.), much like the different articles found in an alphabetic 115

But cf. the sample diachronic analysis in the discussion of ‘fossils’ in 2.1.3.3. above.

49

Chapter 2 - The Epistemological Perspective encyclopedia offer different perspectives on shared external referents. The elementary sign-lists primarily study single graphemes, presenting them in a format that as a whole is unrelated to semantic criteria. The advanced sign-lists do the same for compounded graphemes. The thematic lists studies the same signs as the sign-lists but grouped according to abstract semantic themes. The various kinds of lists complement each other and only their sum total provides all the knowledge coded and code-able in the elements writing system. 2.1.4. ME-AME comparison L’histoire du savoir ne peut être faite que à partir de ce qui lui a été contemporain, et non pas certes en terms d’influence réciproque, mais en terms de conditions et d’a priori constitués dans 116 le temps .

2.1.4.0. ME features to be investigated As far as possible, this paragraph will proceed to investigate the relation between Foucault’s last episteme, the ME, and the AME in parallel to the investigative methods used in the two preceding paragraphs. First, the main features of the ME will be defined in a manner similar to the one used for the CE treated in 2.1.3, i.e. these feauture will be defined in relation to the preceding episteme. Effectively, this allows the reader a convenient overview of the transformative relations between all three of Foucault’s epistemes. As in 2.1.3., the sub-paragraphs will analyze the AME texts under consideration in terms of the main features of the ME. Before proceeding with the actual investigation intended in this paragraph it seems appropriate to draw attention to an important conceptual condition on which its validity hinges, viz. to the fact that this investigation interprets the AME texts not in terms of modern science but in terms of the Modern Episteme (as defined by Foucault). (An attempt at) a modern scientific (philological and structural) investigation of the texts has been provided in Parts 1-3. The present investigation, by contrast, effectively requires a critical evaluation of the modern scientific approach itself. This paragraph must proceed to investigate the AME texts under consideration not in terms of modern science, which represents the output of the ME, but in terms of the epistemological preconditions of the ME, which represents its input. The question to be answered here is not how modern science relates to the AME texts, but how the epistemological preconditions of the modern (scientific) knowledge system relate to those of the ancient Mesopotamian knowledge system that produced these texts. In this sense, modern science is here as much the object of investigation as ancient Mesopotamian scholarship itself, with the obvious caveat that this study bases itself on Foucault’s interpretation with regard to the former object. The seeming logical contradiction in the fact that, by such an approach, modern science analyzes itself - inherently present in any reearch project dealing with objects to be approached in what is basically an anthropological or ethnological manner may be countered by the relevant analysis Foucault offers of modern ethnology as particularly conditioned by the ME: 116

Foucault, Les mots, 221.

50

Chapter 2 - The Epistemological Perspective

(L’ethnologie) suspend le long discours <> par lequel nous essayons de réfléchir à l’intérieur d’elle-même notre propre culture, pour nous faire surgir des corrélations synchroniques dans d’autres formes culturelles. Et pourtant l’ethnologie n’est elle-même possible qu’à partir d’une certaine situation, d’une événement absolutement singulier, où se trouvent engagées à la fois notre historicité et celle de tous les hommes qui peuvent constituer l’objet d’une etnologie ...: l’ethnologie s’enracine en effet dans une possibilité qui appartient en propre à l’histoire de notre culture, plus encore à son rapport fondamental à toute histoire, et ce qui lui permet de se lier aux autres cultures sur le mode de la pure théorie 117 . Proceeding with the investigation at hand it is now necessary to establish which are, in Foucault’s analysis, the ME equivalents for the four main features earlier found for the TE and the CE, viz. (1) its general epistemological configuration, (2) its main analytic category, (3) its main analytical methods and (4) its limitations. (1) The general epistemological configuration of Foucault’s ME can be described as organization, which may be defined as a functional combination of internal relations between elements. Whereas the epistemological configuration of the CE, representation, was achieved by the ordering of elements according to their identity or difference, the epistemological configuration of the ME, organization, is achieved by ordering the relations between elements, irrespective of their particular individual identities118 . And whereas the order established by the CE is based on a perceived seamless synchronic continuity between elements, expressed by a permanent tabular exposition of that continuity in synchronic space, any ordering of the objects of the ME, viz. any ordering of organizations, is necessarily of a diachronic nature. It is, in fact, only in the diachronic succession of functional analogies that any organizational continuity can be defined: ... désormais les ressemblances contemporaines et observables simultanément dans l’espace ne seront que les formes déposées et fixées d’une succession qui procède d’analogie en analogie 119 . (2) From this it follows that the main analytic category of Foucault’s ME, viz. the means by which it defines organization, is history: A partir du XIXe siècle, l’Histoire va déployer dans une série temporelle les analogies qui rapprochent les unes les autres les organisations distinctes ... l’Histoire donne lieu aux organisations analogiques, tout comme l’Ordre ouvrait le chemin des identités et des différences successives. ... (l’Histoire) c’est le mode d’être fondamental des empiricités, ce à partir de quoi elles sont affirmées, posées, disposées et réparties dans l’espace du savoir pour d’eventuelles 117

Ibidem, 388. ...l’espace général du savoir n’est plus celui des identités et des différences, ... mais un espace fait d’organisations, c’est-à-dire de rapports internes entre des éléments dont l’ensemble assure un fonction ... ces organisations sont discontinues ... certaines sont de même niveau tandis que d’autres tracent des séries ou des suites linéaires ... on voit surgir, comme principes organisateurs de cet espace d’empiricités, l’Analogie et la Succession: d’une organisation à l’autre le lieu ... ne peut plus être l’identité d’un ou plusieurs éléments, mais l’identité du rapport entre les éléments ... et de la fonction qu’ils assurent ... Ibidem, 230. 119 Ibidem 118

51

Chapter 2 - The Epistemological Perspective connaissances et pour des sciences possibles 120 . The organizations which are the objects of knowledge in the ME are of a profoundly historical, or rather historicized, nature: all objects of knowledge are questioned regarding their origins and regarding what makes them possible. Crucial to the constitution of the ME in this regard is the philosophical and ontological investigation of the relation between the conditions of possibility of empiric objects and the conditions of possibility of experience itself. Foucault underlines the importance of Kant’s work for understanding the transcendental referents around which, as a result of such an investigation, all knowledge is constructed in the ME, viz. Life, Labour and Language (at the centre of the new ME sciences biology, economy and linguistics respectively) 121 . In his analysis, effectively, each scientific endeavour of the ME can be interpreted as an exegesis of a given set of historical phenomena (in biology: life forms and their evolution; in economy: the chronology of labour productivity and capital accumulation; in linguistics: phonological and morphological transformations). In the final analysis, this exegesis always approaches its object in reference to the new transcendental objects of Life, Labour and Language. The transformation of knowledge between the CE and the ME may be said to originate in the discovery of autonomous historical dynamics particular to each of the key analytic elements Life, Labour and Language (Foucault draws attention to the pivotal works of Ricardo, Cuvier and Bopp respectively): this meant that these categories were no longer representable in terms of other elements and gained transcendental status: ... la pensée qui nous est contemporaine et avec laquelle ... nous pensons se trouve encore largement dominée par l’impossibilité ... de fonder les synthèses dans l’espace de la représentation et par l’obligation corrélative ... d’ouvrir le champs transcendantal de la subjectivité, et de constituer inversement, au-delà de l’objet, ces <> que sont pour nous la Vie, le Travail, le Langage 122 . The transcendental status of Life, Labour and Language, around which all knowledge is henceforward constructed, means that all synthetic knowledge is necessarily of a a posteriori nature (i.e. no substances but only phenomena can be known), which in turn explains the rise of the positivist sciences which characterizes the ME 123 . The methodological preconditions of these positivist sciences is of a profoundly different nature than that found in the CE, as will discussed under (3) below. (3) The most essential features of the methodology of knowledge production in the ME are determined by the fact that ME organizations are defined in terms of their historicity. The analysis of this historicity imposes certain specific conditions on the medium in which knowledge is necessarily produced, i.e. on language itself. What is required of language as the medium of knowledge production in the ME is that it allows analysis to 120

Ibidem, 231. Le travail, la vie et le langage apparaisent comme autant de <> qui rendent possible la connaissance objective des êtres vivants, des lois de la production, des formes du langage. En leur être, ils sont hors connaissance, mais ils sont, par cela même, conditions de connaissances ... Foucault, Les mots, 257. It may be noted that, using Lévi-Strauss’ model as found in Chapter 4 it could be argued that the scientific theory which most strongly incorporates the historicized transcendental status of Life in the ME, viz. Evolution Theory, actually is nothing but a modern form of totemism, where symbolic representation of social categories is effectuated by means of natural elements. 122 Ibidem, 262. 123 Ibidem, 257-8. 121

52

Chapter 2 - The Epistemological Perspective be formulated in a de-historicized manner. This implies that in the ME language itself is of a profoundly different nature than in the CE: (a)u XVIIe et a XVIIIe siècle (le langage) ... était la première ébauche d’un ordre dans les représentations du monde, parce qu’il était la manière initiale, inévitable de répresenter les représentations. ... A partir du XIXe siècle le langage se replie sur soi, acquiert son épaisseur propre, déploie une histoire, des lois et une objectivité qui n’appartiennent qu’à lui. Il est devenu un objet de la connaissance parmi tant d’autres à côté des êtres vivants, à côté des richesses et de la valeur, à côté de l’histoire des événements et des hommes. ... Connaître le langage n’est plus s’approcher au plus près de la connaissance elle-même, c’est appliquer seulement les méthodes du savoir en général à un domain singulier d’objectivité 124 . In epistemological terms the resultant conditions of language in the ME may be considered as the effects of its objectification. Foucault distinguishes three specific effects, which here will be considered as methodological features particular to the ME 125 . The first is the search for and use of scientific language, i.e. of a ‘neutral’ language purified of its own historical dimension 126 . The kind of medium needed and aimed at in the ME sciences is a purified scientific notation, which can reflect pure logic and which is independent from the formal and semantic constraints inherent in grammars and words of historical languages 127 . This need explains the multitude of ME projects resulting in scientific coding systems, model reconstructions and artificial languages (e.g. constructs such as the ‘IPA’ or ‘Proto-IndoEuropean’ in linguistics). The second is the use of language as an object of exegetical investigation, in which language provides material for critical investigation by means of a philological approach. 128 To exemplify the exploitation of this newly acquired critical value of language Foucault argues that the whole of Marx’s economic theory and the whole of Nietzsche’s philosophy could be interpreted as nothing more than the exegesis of a few words (among them ‘capital’ respectively ‘good’ and ‘bad’). The third methodological feature is the rise of a conceptually isolated ‘literary’ language, which Foucault views as a logical counterpart to the scientific objectification of language 129 : in a cultural domain separated from science and philosophy - and increasing in contrast and opposition to them 130 - language reconstitutes itself as an indisputably unified agent of expression. (4) The obvious conceptual limit of the ME implied by the analysis of Foucault is the transcendental nature of the referents around which knowledge is constructed in the ME, i.e. Life, Labor and Language. This transcendental nature inevitably means that all 124

Ibidem, 308-9. Ibidem, 309-13. 126 C’est le rêve positiviste d’un langage qui serait maintenu au ras de ce qu’on sait: un langage-tableau ... en ce sens que il se tient à une certaine distance de la nature pour en ... recueiller finalement le portrait fidèle. - Ibidem, 309. 127 Ibidem, 310. 128 La vérité du discours est piégée par la philologie. De là, cette nécessité de remonter des opinions, des philosophies et peut-être même des sciences jusqu’aux mots qui les ont rendu possibles ... La philologie comme analyse de ce qui se dit dans la profondeur du discours est devenue la forme moderne de la critique.- Ibidem, 311. 129 Ibidem, 312-3. 130 ... la littérature se distingue de plus en plus du discours d’idées et s’enferme dans une intransitivité radicale: elle se détache de toutes les valeurs qui pouvaient à l’âge classique la faire circuler (le goût, le plaisir, le naturel, le vrai) ...- Ibidem, 313. 125

53

Chapter 2 - The Epistemological Perspective knowledge concerning the relation of man to these referents, i.e. the kind of knowledge as pursued by the humanities, cannot be of an objective nature as it must necessarily be constructed by means of reference to unconscious constructs. It is here that the humanities, which do not study man as a natural phenomenon, but always in relation to the transcendental referents, arise 131 . For Life (biology) to be related to man the new discipline of ‘psychology’ links known, conscious functions to unknown, unconscious norms. Similarly, for Labor (economics) to be related to man, ‘sociology’ links conscious conflicts to unconscious rules and for Language (linguistics) to be related to man ‘literary and cultural studies’ link conscious significations (meanings) to an unconscious system (of signs) 132 . Effectively, the humanities focus on the revelation of unconscious structures guiding human existence. Not only do these new disciplines, following Foucault’s analysis, lack in objective character, they also ultimately lack in systematic character due to their inevitable historic conditioning 133 . From the epistemological point of view, therefore, even although they constitute knowledge disciplines particularly configured by the ME, the humanities may be said to be ‘unscientific’ 134 . The effect of the new relation between the transcendental referents and man is to de-historicize the latter 135 , which in itself represents a conceptual limit to what may be known about and by man.

131

... les sciences humaines ne sont pas analyse de ce que l’homme est par nature; mais plutôt analyse qui s’étend entre ce qu’est l’homme en sa positivité (être vivant, travaillant, parlant) et ce qui permet à ce même être de savoir (ou de chercher à savoir) ce que c’est que la vie, en quoi consistent l’essence du travail et ses lois, et de quelle manière il peut parler. Les sciences humaines occupent donc cette distance qui sépare (non sans les unir) le biologie, l’économie, la philologie, de ce qui leur donne possibilité dans l’être même de l’homme. Ibidem, 364-5. 132 Ibidem, 368-9. 133 A chaque science de l’homme (l’Histoire) donne un arrière-fond qui l’établit, qui fixe un sol et comme une patrie: elle détermine la place culturelle - l’épisode chronologique, l’insertion géographique - où on peut reconnaître à ce savoir sa validité; mais elle les cerne d’une frontière qui les limite, et ruine d’entrée de jeu leur prétention à valoir dans l’élément de l’universalité ... Même lorsqu’elles évitent toute référence à l’histoire, les sciences humaines (et à ce titre on peut placer l’histoire parmi elles) ne font jamais que mettre en rapport un épisode culturel avec un autre (celui auquel elles s’appliquent comme à leur objet, et celui où elles s’enracinent quant à leur existence, leur mode d’être, leurs méthodes et leurs concepts). Foucault, Ibidem, 382-3. 134 Ibidem, 376-7. 135 Les choses ont reçu d’abord une historicité propre qui les a liberées de cet espace continu qui leur imposait la même chronologie qu’aux hommes. Si bien que l’homme s’est trouvé comme dépossédé de ce qui constituait les contenus les plus manifestes de son Histoire: la nature ne lui parle plus de la création ou de la fin du monde, de sa dépendance ou de son prochain jugement; elle ne parle plus que d’un temps naturel; ses richesses ne lui indiquent plus l’ancienneté ou le retour prochain d’un âge d’or; elles ne parlent plus que des conditions de la production qui se modifient dans l”Histoire; le langage ne porte plus les marques d’avant Babel ou de premiers cris qui ont pu retentir dans la forêt, il porte les armes de sa propre filiation. L’être humain n’a plus d’histoire, ou plutôt puisqu’il parle, travaille et vit, il se trouve, en son propre être, tout enchevêtré à des histoires qui ne lui sont ni subordonnées ni homogènes. - Ibidem, 380.

54

Chapter 2 - The Epistemological Perspective In the following comparative analysis it will be investigated in what manner the ME relates to the AME by investigating to what extent the AME texts under consideration may be analyzed in terms of the main features of the ME discussed above. In a manner similar to that used in the comparative analysis of the TE-AME and CE-AME relationships found in the preceding paragraphs (2.1.2. and 2.1.3.), the next four subparagraphs will systematically treat the four aspects of the episteme under discussion. 2.1.4.1. Organization in the AME Part 3 of this study has described the Emar lexical texts in terms of the ME concept of organization by providing a structural analysis such as current in the ME sciences: it has primarily investigated the relations between the various elements that may be isolated in these texts. It has shown that such an analysis can bring to light various forms of (unconscious, implicit) formal-organizational as well as a didactic-functional coherence. On various levels of text structure, systematic ‘organizations’ have been detected (cf. Part 3 11.2-4.). The fact, however, that the AME texts under consideration can be described in terms of ME organization does not necessarily imply that this is caused by an inherently similar epistemological configuration of the AME. The question to be addressed in this sub-paragraph is whether the structural features of the AME texts, detectable by a (modern scientific) application of the ME concept of organization, were in fact purposefully pursued by the ancient scribes as the result of a configurative match between the AME and the ME. Considering the fact that many of the AME texts are traditional-conventionally associated at their highest organizational level and they represent methodologically unstructured environments in terms of didactic functionality (cf. Part 3 11.4), it may be concluded that this question should be answered in the negative. Irrespective of the structural coherences that may be projected on them by modern science, the original composition of the texts themselves appears not to have been guided by an epistemological configuration similar to that of ME organization. Clearly, modern science can describe some relations between some elements of the lexical lists in terms of ME organization (which is what Part 3 aims at). By and large, however, such relations do not combine into functional systems beyond single, horizontal pairs of elements which are meant to represent each other. The vertical relations between the entries of the lexical lists rather serve to show the minimal contrasts between various representations, in a manner not untypical of the tabular listings described by Foucault for the CE. Thus, it can be shown that the projection of an earlier episteme of western culture (the CE) on the knowledge produced in a foreign episteme (the AME) can assist in determining the limitations of an interpretation of the latter in terms of the contemporary western episteme (the ME). An interpretation of the AME texts exclusively in terms of ME organization would inevitably show these texts to be the products of an ‘underdeveloped’, ‘pre-modern’ and ‘primitive’ mode of thinking. This is why it is useful to supplement an etic approach, implicit in the application of modern scientific (philological, structural) methods, as in Parts 1-3, with an emic (theoreticalinterpretative) approach, as attempted here in Part 4.

55

Chapter 2 - The Epistemological Perspective 2.1.4.2. History in the AME For the ME it was found that its main analytic category, history, determined the transcendental status of the few central referents around which all knowledge production came to be centered (i.e. Life, Labour and Language). Approaching the AME texts with Foucault’s analysis of the historicized nature of any ME organization in mind, the question to be addressed in this sub-paragraph is whether the knowledge object of these texts is of similar transcendental nature as the ultimate objects of knowledge in the ME. Concretely, the question is whether or not the elements of the cuneiform writing system, which are the objects of knowledge found in the texts, had a transcendental status in the AME. Because this question is posed from the perspective of the ME and because it raises - again, as in the preceding sub-paragraph - the issue of an etic vs. an emic interpretation of the AME material, it is here proposed that there are two conceivable answers to this question. The first answer, provided by the etic approach, is that, because they originally constitute referents to natural and cultural artifacts (viz. across their pictographic values), the elements of the cuneiform writing system inevitably have a derived transcendental status. Analyzed in terms of the ME, ultimate reference to the transcendental objects of the ME, Life, Labor and Language is necessarily implied in the nature of the logographic writing system employed in the AME. From this perspective, however, the knowledge produced in the AME can be viewed as nothing more than a primitive, underdeveloped early version of the scientific knowledge found in the ME. Due to its preoccupation with the coding of knowledge, resulting from its insufficient analytic distinction between signifier and signified, the AME was incapable to provide either the historical nature of knowledge objects or their theoretical preconditions (and with it the transcendental nature of their ultimate referents) with the analytic transparency necessary to arrive at an authentically scientific output. The second answer, provided by the emic approach, is that the elements of the writing system did not have transcendental status because there was nothing that was principally unknowable about these elements - they were certainly treated as fully (one might say at times, exhaustingly) knowable and analyzable in the texts under consideration. The elements of the writing system were used as fully transparent signs that could represent natural and cultural referents as well as each other, in a manner reminiscent of the full representability found for the elements of knowledge in the CE (cf. 2.1.3.1.). With regard to the question of transcendental reference in the AME the reader may, however, also be referred back to the comparison of the relation microcosm-macrocosm in the AME and the TE found in 2.1.2.4. . In terms of a microcosm-macrocosm relation the cuneiform writing system may be interpreted as the microcosmic reflection of the transcendental macrocosmic order. In 2.1.2.4. it was also discussed that the ancient scribes ascribed a transcendental origin to their writing system. However, the reflection of and origin in a macrocosmic transcendental order, should be carefully distinguished from an actual transcendental status of the elements of the writing system as objects of knowledge themselves, which the emic approach precludes.

56

Chapter 2 - The Epistemological Perspective If the object of knowledge in the AME texts, i.e. the writing system itself, is not defined in terms of history, the question arises what, in emic terms, is the nature of the relation between synchronic and diachronic knowledge in the AME. In other words: what is the manner in which the ancient scribes conceived of history in relation to knowledge production? Explicit emic discourse on this subject takes the form of myths describing the divine origin of knowledge, which was always conceived of being established by writing. This origin was projected into a far, mythical past (‘before the Deluge’) and caused a scrupulous deference to the scribal patron gods, as shown by the colophons with which the scribes concluded their works (a listing for the Emar material is found in Part 3 Chapter 13). The divine origin ascribed to writing and knowledge explains their state of semi-stasis in the AME: knowledge was not supposed to be produced but re-produced. This reproduction primarily involved ensuring that knowledge was handed down to the next generation of scholars in its traditional form. Any attempt at innovation or investigative endeavor visible in cuneiform scholarship was solely aimed at ensuring a better understanding of a basically static inventory of knowledge. From this perspective, the expansion of lexical works such as Hh and Izi in the 1st Millennium does not represent an expansion of knowledge but rather an attempt at recovering and discovering meanings and associations already implied by and derivable from the traditional core of knowledge around which these series were built. Similarly, the creation of new lists such as Ea and Aa may be viewed as merely providing new auxiliary devices for studying a field of knowledge of which the object (i.e. the elements of the writing system) remained basically unchanged. Undoubtedly such innovations involved a certain degree of reinterpretation and reevaluation of specific cuneiform sign (including some newly ‘recovered’ readings), but they hardly ever resulted in alterations either of the signs themselves or of their inventory. In view of this state of affairs, it can be said that the relation between synchronic and diachronic knowledge in the AME is one of (nearcomplete) identification. Past knowledge was basically not differentiated from present knowledge because the scribes made the latter conform to the former. In the AME texts under consideration the only explicit juxtaposition of what could be called ‘past’ and ‘present’ forms of knowledge is found in SaP, which offers a paleographic study of the basic Sa sign inventory, opposing old and new sign forms. It is important to note that this juxtaposition does not present any developmental, let alone evolutionary, analysis - it merely identifies different sign forms as variants of each other. The SaP aim of a description of conceivable formal variances instead of an analysis of actual historical developments is clearly shown by the fact that many of the ‘paleographic’ forms given by SaP are in fact mere orthographic variants or artificial ‘archaisms’ (cf. Part 3 2.3.2.1.). On balance it can be said that knowledge in the AME is of a timeless nature, because in the AME all knowledge that is produced (or rather: reproductively achieved) at any given moment in time is always formulated in terms of a predefined and conceptually closed classificatory system. In effect, any historical innovation or development was absorbed into a ‘timeless’ knowledge system. Modern philology may etically apply its methodology on the written legacy of AME and thus reconstruct ‘objective’ systematic diachronic developments ranging from developments in the semantic range of specific words to transformations in specific compositions (e.g. the diachronic analysis offered in Part 3 Chapter 14), this does not, however, affect the emically ‘timeless’ nature of the Ancient Mesopotamian knowledge system.

57

Chapter 2 - The Epistemological Perspective

In this context it is useful to balance the philological perspective with the anthropological perspective on knowledge systems developed by Claude Lévi-Strauss. In terms of LéviStrauss’ analysis any ‘timeless’ knowledge system, such as the one appearing in the AME texts, can be typified as ‘time-repressing’ in the sense that (similar to a myth) it constitutes a mechanism which organically absorbs any ‘history’, i.e. any external events, influences, innovations or developments 136 . To this issue more attention is given in Chapter 4. 2.1.4.3. The methodological features of the ME applied to the AME In 2.1.4.0. it was discussed that the most essential features of the methodology of knowledge production in the ME are those concerning its specific use of language, viz. those deriving from the objectification of language. In this sub-paragraph the AME texts will be investigated in terms of two of the three specific features distinguished by Foucault, viz. (1) the search for and use of scientific language and (2) the use of language as an object of exegetical investigation. The third feature discussed by Foucault, i.e. the rise of an isolated literary language, cannot be investigated in this study as the AME texts it seeks to interpret are all belong to the lexical genre, a genre that necessarily excludes any content interpretable as paralleled in ME literature. In this regard it should, however, be noted that any projection of ‘literature’ as Foucault’s defines it for the ME (he views it as a unique product of a unique epistemological configuration), on any other episteme would seem to be an etic enterprise par excellence, necessarily resulting in anachronistic projections and skewed concepts. (1) With regard to the issue of scientific language it was said that the ME is concerned with the search of a neutral medium in order to achieve a purely scientific notation. In effect, this implies an attempt to surmount the conceptual restraints and cultural embeddedness particular to any given natural language. Projecting this concern on the AME texts under consideration it could be argued that the Ancient Mesopotamian scribes faced a reverse problem: they strove to decipher and interpret a traditionally transmitted code (logograms constructed in an artificially maintained dead language) into a natural language (Akkadian in case of the Emar texts). This reversal of direction when comparing AME and ME scholarship can be viewed from two perspectives, viz. (a) the scholarly use of a dead vs. a living language and (b) the use of a logographic vs. an alphabetic coding system. With regard to the first perspective (a) it should be noted that the rise of the ME, with its concern with ‘scientific language’, takes place at the same time that Western scholarship finally completely abandoned its formerly universal language of learning, Latin (supplemented to a certain degree by Greek). To a certain extent the use of the long dead Latin language had provided a ‘scientifically neutral’ medium of scholarship - albeit not in the exact sense required by the ME, as in the ME Latin would of course be only one 136

M. Hénaff, Claude Lévi-Strauss and the making of Structural Anthropology (Minneapolis 1998) 225ff.

58

Chapter 2 - The Epistemological Perspective language among many. Previously, the cultural and literary heritage of the Classical World had provided an unquestioned point of reference, constituting an ultimate ‘scientific’ authority, and similarly the language(s) in which the knowledge of the Classics was originally written down had an unquestioned status as the language(s) of knowledge, to the extent that hardly any scholarly work was written in the vernacular until the Reformation (and in many disciplines this monopoly lasted longer still). Until the beginning of the 19th C no serious scholarship was possible in any field without at least a solid passive command of Latin - a situation which radically changed with the rise of the ME and the formation of the modern sciences. In the AME the position of the Sumerian language is, to a certain extent, comparable to that of Latin in the TE and CE: it was the primary language of scholarship. Even if Akkadian was the indispensable medium though which Sumerian was taught, the ultimate aim of a scribal education remained command of Sumerian. Whereas the degree to which this was actually achieved and the degree to which ‘academic Sumerian’ became an artificial medium after the demise of Sumerian as a spoken language are debatable, the scholarly status of this ‘academic Sumerian’ in the AME is not. In view of the parallel positions of Latin in the TE and CE and of Sumerian in the AME, it may be argued that the very idea of abstract scientific notation as divorced from any historic language becomes only conceivable in an epistemological configuration which abandons the authority of knowledge transmitted from earlier epochs. This clearly is not the case in the TE, CE and AME - it is the case in the ME 137 . It may, however, be argued that the gain of the ME, viz. conceptual autonomy from and analytic perspective on language, is at the same time its loss. The basis on which the ME denies the a priori validity of inherited knowledge and the concomitant universality of Latin, viz. the domination of the new transcendental referents Life, Labor and Language, also means that the knowledge it produces (the sciences: biology, economy, linguistics) can henceforth only describe phenomena - it can no longer provide insights into substances or into substantive universal truth. Similarly, the incidental relations it can observe between these (biological, economic, linguistic) phenomena and man (which are described by the humanities, i.e. psychology, sociology, literary studies etc.) lack any claim to universal validity: such relations are necessarily historically conditioned contingencies (cf. the summary of Foucault’s analysis with applicable references in 2.1.4.0.). By contrast, in the AME, knowledge is formulated in terms of substantive identity (as indicated by equivalences and often formulated through similitudes) which necessarily implies (emically) universal validity. With regard to the second perspective, viz. the use of a logographic vs. an alphabetic coding system (b), it should be noted that in the ME the difference between the coding used in the scientific notations and the coding used for natural languages is that between ideographic and phonetic coding. The various scientific notations achieved in the ME, such as mathematical notation and computer languages, express abstract ideas (abstract 137

In this context it would be relevant to extend the epistemological research of Foucault beyond his chosen geographical and chronological boundaries and investigate what, if any, are the parallels for the degree to which the authority of earlier knowledge is abandoned at the transition from CE to ME (perhaps the rise of Classical Greece could be considered). Also it would be relevant to determine in what manner such an phenomenon is related to religious-ideological and technological-economic developments - a relation which Foucault, who emphasizes the autonomy of epistemological dynamics, does not concern himself with.

59

Chapter 2 - The Epistemological Perspective concepts) whereas the alphabet used for writing natural languages expresses concrete sounds (concrete phonemes). By contrast, the single coding system found in the AME, i.e. cuneiform writing, consists of logograms which constitute both an ideographic and a phonetic coding. Logography, such as found in cuneiform writing, codes whole words, including those representing ideas, as well as the phonetic values derived - by means of the rebus principle - from these words. The word values themselves have their origin in pictograms, i.e. in symbols that represent either abstract or concrete referents by means of illustrations, a category that includes a whole range of ideograms, i.e. of symbols that represent abstract referents (ideas, concepts). On the one hand, it could therefore be argued that the cuneiform writing system, by inherently constituting an ideographic coding, renders superfluous any concept of a separate ‘neutral’ or ‘scientific’ code: the logograms in themselves provide such a code. On the other hand, the unavoidable consequence of this constitution is that any inquiry of a ‘linguistic’ nature will tend to direct itself to graphemic analysis. The isolation and combination of pictographic elements and associations that tangibly and visibly offer themselves to investigation, will have greater priority than a philological or philosophical evaluation of words which would focus on their abstract meaning. Which is exactly what is found in the ‘science of writing’ developed by the ancient scribes and in the resulting lexical corpus. In keeping with Foucault’s analysis it may be said that in cuneiform scholarship things, as represented in logograms, have not yet been separated from words. In Foucault’s analysis this separation, with all its implications, is achieved only in the CE, during which he notes that (l)es choses et les mots vont se séparer. … Le discours aura bien pour tâche de dire ce qui est, mais il ne sera rien de plus que ce qu’il dit 138 . The ME is built on the separation of things and words achieved in the CE. (2) With regard to the issue of language as the object of exegetical investigation it was said that in the ME language is approached as material for critical investigation, conducted by means of a philological approach. This implies that language is simultaneously the medium by which knowledge is acquired and an object of knowledge acquisition in its own right, to the extent that its transparency as a medium becomes problematic - hence the concern with ‘scientific notation’ discussed under point (1) above. Turning to the AME, the question to be addressed here is whether in the texts under consideration language is also the object of an exegetical, ‘philological’ investigation. Again, as in the preceding sub-paragraph, because this question is unavoidably posed in the (scientific) context of the contemporary ME, it necessitates a two-fold answer, viz. an answer formulated in terms of an etic interpretation and an answer in terms of an emic interpretation. The first answer, i.e. that provided by an etic interpretation, is that an exegesis of language equivalent to the approach found in the ME was impossible - or more precisely: inconceivable - in the AME because the prerequisite scientific instruments of the philological discipline developed in the ME are lacking in Ancient Mesopotamian scholarship. Lacking the tools, the ancient scribes were technically incapable of conducting an exegesis of language as found in the ME. In reference to the four formative elements distinguished by Foucault in the formation of the positivist philology that 138

Foucault, Les mots, 58.

60

Chapter 2 - The Epistemological Perspective became possible in the ME, the technical ‘deficiencies’ of the AME may be summed up as follows 139 : (a) the only elements analyzed are those with concrete external referents, meaning there is no conceptual break between speaking and thinking, (b) the elements analyzed are of a visible, written nature instead of a audible, spoken nature, meaning that there is no separate analysis of spoken language, (c) the smallest constituent elements conceived of ultimately all have nominal instead of verbal referents, meaning that all analysis ultimately concerns the nomination of concrete objects and phenomena instead of the expression of willed or undergone activity 140 and (d) the juxtaposition of different languages only takes place in the framework of an analysis of visible representation (viz. written language), meaning that no systematic comparative grammatical study of spoken languages is possible. It may be argued that ancient scholarship did know the phenomenon of ‘speech’ but not the phenomenon of ’language’ and that neither the first nor the second was conceived of as an object of scholarship. The former was studied only in as far as (some of) it was reflected in the writing system and the latter was not studied at all, being utterly irrelevant to what was basically a ‘science of writing’. The second answer, i.e. that provided by an emic interpretation, is that the knowledge produced in the AME is composed in a ‘language’ of a profoundly different nature than that found in the ME (or the TE and the CE). The only ‘language’ ever studied and used in Ancient Mesopotamian scholarship is a written code of conventionally established form and inventory, which finds its primary (pictographic) referents in a specific, temporally and chronologically bounded, natural and cultural environment. Natural language, as defined and studied by ME scientists, has a relation to this code only to the extent that one specific natural language, Sumerian, provided the original phonetic projection indispensable for graphemes to cross the threshold between pictograms and logograms. Beyond the point at which the cuneiform code achieved full logographic expressiveness through this phonetic projection, however, the concept of natural language was irrelevant to the scholarship that employed it. This irrelevancy can be illustrated by two phenomena: (a) the end of the use of Sumerian as a natural, spoken language (perhaps around 2000 BC) did not significantly affect the cuneiform code itself and the scholarship that employed it prospered for another two millennia and (b) the usage of the cuneiform code for many other languages (Akkadian, Elamite, Hittite, Hurrian, Urartian etc.) barely left a trace on the cuneiform code itself. Essentially, then, it may be argued that the ‘language’ in which knowledge was produced in cuneiform scholarship, i.e. the cuneiform code, was of an artificial nature. It could therefore be said that, in terms of an emic interpretation, ironically, the cuneiform code constituted a ‘scientific notation’ divorced from natural language in much the same manner as the artificial scientific languages created by ME scholarship.

139

Ibidem, 297-304. With this regard it should be noted that single-sign logograms (Civil-code element 2) found in the lexical lists (cf. specifically SaV) are never interpreted exclusively by verb phrases: they all have consistently at least one nominal interpretation.

140

61

Chapter 2 - The Epistemological Perspective 2.1.4.4. The conceptual limitation of the ME in the context of the AME texts In 2.1.4.0. it was said that the conceptual limit of the ME implied by the analysis of Foucault is the transcendental nature of the referents around which knowledge is constructed in the ME (Life, Labor and Language). On the one hand, these transcendental referents, introduced in western thought with the rise of ME, opened up new fields of scientific exploration (biology, economics, linguistics), but on the other hand, they could be said to have closed off the possibility for the objective and systematic pursuit of any knowledge that is substantially relevant to the actual human condition. In the ME all knowledge pertaining to man is exclusively conceived of in terms of its transcendental referents, i.e. in terms of the biological, economic and linguistic conditions to which he is viewed as being subjected. The humanities construct such knowledge, i.e. they describe empirically observed phenomena in terms of their essentially unknowable transcendental referents, by proposing and assuming a variety of ‘unconscious’ categories and processes. Examples of such ‘unconscious’ categories are Freud’s ‘Id’, ‘Ego’ and ‘Super-ego’ in psychology, Durkheim’s ‘collective representation’ in sociology and Radcliffe-Brown’s ‘social organism’ in cultural anthropology. In Foucault’s view, the use of these ‘unconscious’ categories and processes implies that knowledge in the humanities lacks scientific objectivity. Furthermore, the historical conditionality of all phenomena studied by the humanities means that all knowledge they produce is of a fundamentally unsystematic nature. Approaching the texts under consideration with Foucault’s analysis of this conceptual limitation of the ME (i.e. the lack of an objective and systematic approach to the sphere of man and human endeavor) in mind, the question to be addressed in this sub-paragraph is whether or not this limitation has an equivalent in the AME. This issue will be addressed here by establishing the inventory of knowledge related to man found in the AME texts under consideration and investigating whether or not that knowledge is presented in a different manner than other knowledge. Before proceeding with an analysis of the inventory of relevant material presented in Table 4 below it is necessary to comment on the selection criteria applied. First, entries from the sign-lists are excluded because such lists do not systematically collect knowledge according to any specific semantic field or theme 141 , such as the theme of ‘man’ investigated here. Therefore, only entries from the thematic lists (G, Hh and Lu) are considered. Second, entries that refer to human products, such as tools and manufactured foodstuffs and including architectural artifacts such as cities and canals, are excluded because such products represent material objects - which is exactly how they are classified in the Ancient Mesopotamian lexical texts. Third, entries representing phrases belonging to coherently quoted, multi-entry text excerpts (e.g. Hh 2194-206) are ignored as the content of such individual entries is only interpretable in a larger context.

141

This includes the listing of PN elements found in Sa Appendix A, which is organized according to (initial) signs rather than meaning (PST 001-12 I-; 013-9 NA-; 028-30 KASKAL-; 034-5 LI-; 037-41 A-).

62

Chapter 2 - The Epistemological Perspective Table 4. Inventory of entries relevant to the theme of ‘man’ in the Emar lexical corpus Series

EST

Content

Hh 142

1063 1064 / 69-89 1066 1092-4 1126 2009-12 2013 2016-20 2099h 2115-18’’ 2172-94 2207 1001 1002-20 1021-81 1082-93’’ 1094-110 1110-42 1143-78 / 84-5 1190-214 1215-9 1220-2 1223-35 1236 1243-8 1249-59 1260-6 1267-73 1274-7 2001-6 2015-24 2025 2026-32 2036-63 2064-84

‘head’ (i.e. person) relatives overseer of a city quarter domestic personnel business partner city ruler; priest; chief administrator; craftsman assembly judiciary baker diviners; merchants; clerks agricultural workers ‘confirmer’ (i.e. witness) ‘man’ royalty officials engravers; scribes; scholars barbers; bakers; butchers military; guards overseers religious personnel young men; bachelors various institutional employees women (mothers; sisters) extended family women (nurses; old women) elders; witnesses advisors; heralds officials agricultural workers shepherds porters miller entertainers artisans women (professionals; prostitutes)

Lu

142

Note that the ‘anatomical’ section of Hh9 (i.e. the entries starting with UZU 9a044-122) is here taken to refer not to humans but to animals because (a) it follows immediately after the ‘wild animals’ section (after the key words MUŠ, UR, BA.AL.GI, KIŠI 8 , EH, NIM, BURU 5 ) and (b) it includes entries that specify animal variants (9a116-8 UZUÌ.UDU GUD/UDU/ŠAH). It should also be noted that human anatomy is dealt with extensively in the advanced sign lists (e.g. Izi 2B018 BAD(=ÚŠ); 2B020 MUD, SagB 001 SAG; 077 KA(=KÌRI); 095 KA; 175 KA(=GÙ)).

63

Chapter 2 - The Epistemological Perspective 2086 2087-96 2101-2 2103-5 2106-13 2115-7

child friends; partners; acquaintances troops animal drivers invalids; sick people girls

The following observations are relevant to the entry inventory found in Table 4: (1) There are two series where entries are found relevant to the theme of ‘man’: Hh and Lu. In Hh such entries only occur in the first two divisions, where they are relatively sporadic and they are widely dispersed across the text. It should be noted that in terms of vertical organization as well as actual content the first two divisions of Hh deviate substantially from the other divisions. Unlike the other divisions of Hh, divisions 1 and 2 list administrative and legal terminology rather than concrete objects, artifacts or locations (cf. Part 3 4.3.). Among this terminology some entries refer to human beings in various administrative or judicial capacities. E.g. entries referring to relatives (EST 1064 and 1069-89) occur in a context of entries relevant to ownership (EST 1062 paradigm of the verb ‘to have’ and 1067-8 ‘possession’, ‘property’, ‘livestock’, ‘revenue’) and a list of judicial functionaries (EST 2016-20) is followed by contractual phrases (EST 2021-56, ranging from declinations of ‘to swear’ to conjugations of ‘security’ and ‘inheritance’). It should be noted that occasionally an entry seems to be triggered by the polyphony of signs rather than the semantic associations between words. E.g. the entry EST 2099h MU=MUHALDIM ‘baker’ appears to be due to scribal concern with a systematic listing of polyphone values rather than with semantic coherence (both the preceding single MU’s and the following compounds with MU- represent administratively relevant terms: ‘oath’, ‘name’, ‘year’ and year qualifications respectively). In Lu, on the other hand, the relevant entries found constitute the large majority of content: relatively few entries do not refer to the theme of ‘man’. Unlike what is found in Hh 1-2, where aspects of human status and endeavor are listed merely as properly belonging in a collection of administrative and legal vocabulary to be learnt by the apprentice scribe, in Lu the theme of ‘man’ is dominant. (2) Neither in Hh 1-2 nor in Lu is the complete inventory of entries relevant to the theme of ‘man’, even if in the latter series this theme is dominant. Thematically inappropriate entries are found scattered throughout the Lu text, increasing in frequency in the later part (cf. Part 3 5.3.). This is due to integrative approach of Mesopotamian scholarship, in which different associative principles (graphic, phonetic, semantic) are combined - in the composition of lexical lists these principles are supplementary rather than complementary (cf. Part 3 2.1.2.1. and 2.1.3.). It can therefore be concluded that, unlike in modern science, in Ancient Mesopotamian lexical scholarship ‘man’ as a classificatory concept is lacking. Any knowledge with a human referent, i.e. the kind of knowledge that in the ME is distinguished and systematized by the humanities as a specialized discipline, in the AME is classified in the same manner as any other kind of knowledge, viz. by analyzing its coding in logograms. In this sense, it may be argued, the emic knowledge of ‘man’ in the AME, unlike that in the ME, is of an objective and systematic nature. Unlike in the

64

Chapter 2 - The Epistemological Perspective ME, in the AME there are no ‘unconscious’ categories which preclude empirically verifiable and objectively substantive knowledge and there is no historic conditionality which precludes a systematic description in universally valid terms. The objective and systematic, universal validity of the knowledge in the AME, including that concerning ‘man’, is determined by the full representability of that what is signified, i.e. any given natural or cultural phenomenon, by means of the signifier system that it employs, i.e. the cuneiform writing code (cf. 2.1.3.1. above). In concluding this discussion of the different approaches to knowledge of ‘man’ found in the ME and the AME, it is appropriate to draw attention to the fact that the medium through which knowledge is defined and produced in the AME, viz. the cuneiform code, by itself is wholly definable in relation to man. The cuneiform code was not conceived or used as a collection of arbitrary signifiers (cf. 2.1.3.2. above), but instead it is based on pictographic references to the empirically verifiable, visual experience of man. The pictographic referents are either natural objects and phenomena (e.g. A ‘water’ and HU ‘bird’) or cultural artifacts and phenomena (e.g. É ‘house’ and DUB ‘tablet’) of which man has empirically verifiable, visual experience. All cuneiform signs are directly or indirectly relatable to such originally pictographic referents and thus ultimately definable in terms of man himself. The most striking expression of the implied conceptual relation between the writing system and the human life world is found in the many signs which are based on pictograms of body parts. It should be noted that in the lists which most strongly defy the application of a single modern classificatory principle, i.e. in the advanced sign-lists (cf. Part 3 6.3. and 11.3.), the most important key-signs are logograms based on body part pictograms. Looking at the (admittedly incomplete) evidence of the Emar texts the following observations may be made: Izi is for a very large part organized around Á ‘arm’, GÚ ‘neck’ (2A), GIŠ-TÚG-PI ‘ear’ (2B), IGI ‘eye’ (3), ŠU ‘hand’ (4), SagB is almost completely organized around SAG ‘head’ and KA ‘nose, mouth’ and Diri has again IGI ‘eye’. It could be argued that whereas these series lack etic classificatory coherence, i.e. lack a single classificatory principle as distinguished by modern science, the prominence of anatomical referents may emically very well have provided a large degree of coherence 143 . What is certain is that in the AME texts under consideration knowledge relevant to man was coded and produced in the same manner as any other kind of knowledge. Knowledge concerning man may be said to have been conceptually fully integrated in the ‘science of writing’ of the ancient scholars.

143

It is, in fact, not inconceivable that an important part of the oldest strata of the advanced sign-lists were originally organized according to a body part sequence: cf. in Part 3 the discussion about the modular structure and diachronic transformation of the advanced curriculum (14.6.) in combination with the remarks about Proto-Sag (14.8.).

65

Chapter 2 - The Epistemological Perspective 2.2. The diachronic position of the AME Introductory remarks In the preceding paragraph the AME and the various epistemes of the western world distinguished by Foucault were compared in primarily synchronic terms, i.e. the AME was analyzed in parallel to the TE, CE and ME without regard to their respective chronological position vis-à-vis each other. This paragraph, however, is intended to put the AME in a diachronic perspective. What will be attempted in this paragraph is the consideration of the degree to which the AME may be conceived of as part of a systematic epistemological continuum. The manner in which this consideration will be effectuated is by establishing the position of the AME relative to the general epistemological configuration of the TE, as analyzed by Foucault. The reason that no comparible specific effort will be made with regard to the CE and the ME is that only the gap between the AME and the TE remains to be bridged - the development from the TE to the CE and to the ME has been sufficiently outlined by Foucault. The main issue to be addressed in attempting to determine the diachronic position of the AME is the manner in which it relates to the TE-CE-ME conglomerate as a whole. In approaching this issue, the general epistemological configuration of the TE, which Foucault typifies as determined by similitude, will be taken as the point of departure, projecting it, as it were, backwards in time. By viewing the AME from the perspective of the TE similitude and by considering to what degree it lacks or shares common ground with the TE in its general configuration, it the diachronic position of the AME in relation to TE should become clear. It should be noted that this approach, without necessarily assuming or seeking to prove any ‘evolutionary’ principle or any ‘guiding’ epistemological development in time, at least admits its possibility. This is due to the fact that a diachronic approach cannot but establish an evaluation, viz. a qualitative and quantitative comparison, of the various epistemes in terms of each other and that such an evaluation necessarily implies a set of value judgments in which the characteristic configuration of each episteme is postulated as a point of reference with objective value. Thus, the AME will be evaluated in terms of the TE episteme and vice versa. Obviously the objective validity or ‘proof’ of these evaluations depends on the reference frame within which that judgment is made. From the perspective of modern science this means that the only evaluation that could possibly aspire to ‘objective’ or ‘scientific’ validity would be that of the AME in terms of the ME - with the caveat that such an evaluation would require a more thorough study of the epistemes following the AME and preceding those of the modern epoch than is feasible in the framework of this study. From that perspective, the evaluation of the AME in terms of the TE is no more than a thought experiment. The ultimate purpose of this paragraph, therefore, can be no more than to aim at emphasizing the unique quality and the often radical ‘otherness’ of the AME.

66

Chapter 2 - The Epistemological Perspective Evalution of the AME in terms of TE similitude It was said that similitude is the constitutive principle of the early AME knowledge system, but the constructive principle of the TE knowledge system (cf. 2.1.2.1.). Tentatively assuming that the chronologically intervening epistemes - most importantly that of the Classical World - can be projected into a consistent curve of congruent historic development, it may be proposed that, in terms of knowledge arrived at by similitude, there is a wider historical tendency to epistemological decline. In this context the qualification ‘decline’ reflects the fact that, in terms of its constituent similitudes, the nature of (written) knowledge itself becomes increasingly less cohesive. What may be found at the point of departure of this proposed historical epistemological development, i.e. in the episteme at the beginning of (written) history, in the framework of which the first writing systems were developed, is that of the original, full similitude. At first, knowledge of the natural and man-made world is captured and recorded as a visual similitude, as is the case in the lexical cuneiform records of the early AME and also in other logographic writing systems (Egyptian hieroglyphs, Chinese characters, Mayan glyphs). In terms of this original similitude, knowledge proceeds to decline due to a progressive dislocation of the originally match of hermeneutic interpretation and semiological discourse (cf. 2.1.2.1.). In the Mesopotamian context the replacement of Sumerian as the main language of administration and commerce by Akkadian necessitated the imposition of a secondary, phonetic interpretation of the written signs, in which the original visual similitude of these signs is strictly speaking irrelevant. The phonetic (Akkadian) text could not recapture the (visual, graphic) similitudes from which the Sumerian signs derived their meaning: the Akkadian translation of a Sumerian logogram, as found in the lexical lists, cannot do more than describe its phonetic and semantic meanings. Such a translation relies entirely on abstract descriptions. From this perspective, the bilingual lexical lists may be seen as attempts to cope with the discrepancy between the primary and the secondary interpretation of their subject matter, i.e. of the elements of the writing system. As the distance between the original and the actual interpretation increasingly widens over the centuries, so does the body of lexical learning accumulate. The accumulation of shifts in practical usage and of valid associations for many logograms is recognized in the scholarly tradition and necessitates an ever larger inventory of lexical knowledge. This is reflected by the exponential growth and partial reordering of lexical compositions such as found in Hh and Izi. Increasingly, the original constitutive principle of the AME, i.e. the original similitude, is lost through the accumulative deformation of the textual tradition. Measured in terms of this development, the AME may be divided into distinct periods. The original primary use of cuneiform writing to directly visually simulate meaning ended with the death of Sumerian as a spoken language and with the ascendancy of Akkadian in its written form. Perhaps the period of Early AME could be said to have ended about 2000 BC. The resulting epistemological void led to a slow epistemological shift, viz. a slow reorientation in the scholarly tradition. This reorientation was only complete when the scholarly attempt to artificially preserve access to the lost original episteme, by predominantly transmitting knowledge through traditionally formatted

67

Chapter 2 - The Epistemological Perspective (unilingual) compositions, was finally abandoned. The transformation of the lexical corpus may be seen as the most reliable indicator of the progress of this reorientation. When the lexical curriculum was finally transformed into a predominantly bilingual instrument and when it had finally lost its compositional and formal dependence on OB ‘forerunners’, this reorientation, and the Transitional AME with it, may be said to have been complete. The Emar lexical corpus may be considered as one of the last witnesses to this Transitional AME period, which maybe lasted until about 1100 BC. Thus, the Emar text witnesses effectively provide insight into the formative stage of the final stage in the development of the AME, viz. the Late AME. The Late AME may be seen as resulting in a knowledge system that is in certain respects similar to that of the western TE: in both cases knowledge is configured around similitude, but in both cases similitude is a reconstructive method rather than a constitutive principle. In the lexical records of the Late AME similitude is still a latent or potential constitutive particularity of writing itself, but the text is no longer exclusively organized around this constitutive principle. The textual discourse in any Late AME document, including the lexical records, rather relies on the establishment of abstract similitudes. In the Late AME lexical records such similitudes are produced within and between lemmas by interpreting the meaning of lemmas and their elements in terms of abstract similitudes (graphic, phonetic, semantic) to each other. The long, ever expanding lists of often far-sought semantic associations found for single logograms in the canonical lists bear witness to this production of value and meaning. The production of value and meaning of logograms by contextual interpretation basically implies that in the Late AME lexical compositions the unity of writing and discourse has been abandoned. From this point onwards, the value and meaning of logograms relies on perceived rather than on intrinsic similitudes; it is produced rather than perceived. The logograms themselves are no longer the ultimate referent of their assigned values and meanings. From this point onwards, the lexical lists are bound to expand as the interpretations of these perceived similitudes shift and accumulate. This process is described by Foucault as follows: … parce qu’il y a un <> entre les similitudes qui forment graphisme et celles qui forment discours, le savoir et son labeur infini recoivent là l’espace qui leur est propre: ils auront à sillonner cette distance en allant, par un zigzag indéfini, du semblable à ce qui lui est semblable 144 . Effectively, the role of similitude in CE is largely matched by that in the Late AME. The difference is that in the Late AME an important element of the written medium itself, viz. the logogram, still incorporates constitutive similitudes from which many contextual interpretations are ultimately derived. What the CE and the Late AME share, however, is that in the written documents of both knowledge systems a name and a word can be interpreted fully independently from a picture. The potentially full separation of word and picture is particular to both the Late AME and the CE and distinguishes them from the Early AME. It may thus be proposed that the loss of the original name-plus-picture unity in written language made it possible for the epistemological role of the similitude to shift from a constitutive to a reconstructive principle. This means that after this loss, in all later Near Eastern and Western epistemes until the 17th Century AD, similitude appears as a method, aimed at reconstructing meaning through abstract interpretation. After the possibility of unequivocal interpretation of meaning, relying on the similitudes expressed 144

Ibidem, 45.

68

Chapter 2 - The Epistemological Perspective in the written medium itself, was lost, abstract interpretation took its place. As meaning was now constructed instead of given, it opened the way for ever an increasing selfreflexivity by allowing the possibility of interpretations of interpretations. In this sense the Late AME lexical compositions shows the same problem of interpretative accumulation applicable to the TE and noted in the sentence by Montaigne quoted by Foucault: (i)l y a plus à faire à interpréter les interprétations qu’à interpréter les choses; et plus de livres sur les livres que sur tout autre suject; nous ne faisons que nous entregloser 145 . The literary culture carried by the Late AME eventually utterly collapsed, leaving hardly any trace. It can be suggested that this is not surprising given its utter preoccupation with the interpretation of its own interpretations 146 , especially visible in the stupendous output of its divinatory and lexical literature. Here one might apply to the Late AME the same characterization of literary culture given to the TE by Foucault: (c)’est ne point là le constat de faillite d’une culture ensevelie sous ses propres monuments; mais la définition du rapport inévitable que le langage du XVIe siècle entretenait avec lui-même 147 . It could be argued that after the rise of alphabetic writing and the final demise of logographic writing, all later Near Eastern and Western epistemes have been shaped by the same process, viz. the process of epistemological ‘decline’, which had been set in motion with the development of abstract writing systems. In this respect, a fitting commentary on the epistemological significance of logographic writing may be found in the following quote from Foucault - the reader only need to substitute Foucault’s word peinture by the word ‘logogram’: (L)es noms propres formeraient d’utiles repères, éviteraient des désignations ambiguës… Mais le rapport du langage à la peinture (= logogram) est un rapport infini … Ils sont irréductibles l’un à l’autre … Le nom propre … n’est qu’un artifice: il permet … de faire passer subrepticement de l’espace où l’on parle à l’espace où l’on regarde, c’est-à-dire de les renfermer commodément l’un à l’autre comme s’ils étaient adéquats. Mais si on veut maintenir ouvert le rapport du langage et du visible … de manière à rester au plus proche de l’un et de l’autre, alors il faut effacer les noms propres et se maintenir dans l’infini de la tâche. C’est peut-être par l’intermédiaire de ce langage gris, anonyme, toujours méticuleux et répétitif … que la peinture (= logogram) … allumera ses clartés 148 . In western culture the meticulous work of simultaneously thinking (ordering, speculating, fantasizing) about the world and expressing it in visual codes is almost exclusively confined to the sphere of arts. In Ancient Mesopotamia, however, it was the essence of scholarship itself - its lexical text monuments are among the most impressive witnesses to its intriguing ‘otherness’.

145

Montaigne, Essais, liv. III, chap. XIII apud Foucault, Les mots, 55. Obviously many historical factors contributed to the end of cuneiform literary culture - here only the epistemological perspective is discussed. 147 Foucault, Les mots, 55. 148 Ibidem, 25. 146

69

Chapter 2 - The Epistemological Perspective If the postulated - dynamically ‘involutionary’ - process of epistemological decline in terms of similitude, increasing from the Transitional AME to the ME, is followed, than it may be summarized as follows: in as far as knowledge was originally arrived at and defined in terms of similitudes, there has been, ever since, a historical development of epistemological decline because of the ever-increasing gap between hermeneutic interpretation and semiological discourse. 2.3. Universal language This paragraph seeks to interpret the AME texts under consideration in terms of the various concepts of universal language that existed in the epistemes investigated by Foucault. By determining to what extent these concepts are applicable to the Emar lexical texts, it may be possible to shed light on the specific relation between language and knowledge in the AME. The AME texts will be discussed in terms of the concept of universal language found in each of Foucault’s successive epistemes according to their chronological order. 2.3.1. The TE concept of universal language Le langage fait partie de la grande distribution des similitudes et des signatures. Par conséquent, 149 il doit être étudié lui-même comme une chose de nature .

The above quotation conveniently summarizes what Foucault proposes is the essence of language in the TE: TE scholarship approached language as a system of similitudes and readable signs in the same manner as any other natural or cultural phenomenon. Basically, language was considered as one more esoteric discourse mirroring and revealing a transcendent macrocosmic order. Obviously, the fractured nature of this discourse, due the existence of many different languages, meant that it lacked transparency. In accordance with the authority of Scripture, language was thought of as having lost its original transparency as a result of the catastrophic destruction of the original universal language at Babel (cf. Gen.11:1-9): (s)ous sa forme première, quand il fut donné aux hommes par Dieu lui-même, le langage était un signe des choses absolument certain et transpararent, parce qu’il leur ressemblait. … Cette transparence fut détruite à Babel pour la punition des hommes. Les langues ne furent séparées les unes des autres et ne devinrent incompatibles que dans la mesure où fut effacée d’abord cette ressemblances aux choses qui avait été la première raison d’être du langage 150 . Thus the scholars of the TE explained the distinction between signifier and signified in language as due to a loss of their original unity. After that loss, language entered the world of similitudes and signatures as an instrument for humanity to redeem itself by learning and interpreting the word of God. Ultimately all languages combined, in their combined relation to the world, were readable as a single symbolic system that allowed an analysis of the macrocosmic order. In terms of achieved instrumentality, the use and spread of

149

150

Ibidem, 50. Ibidem, 51.

70

Chapter 2 - The Epistemological Perspective Latin - the language of the Church, the instrument of God on earth - was understood as the achievement of a new universal language, a sign of the grace of God 151 . With respect to the AME here two features should be noted as particularly relevant to the universal language conceived of in the TE: this original universal language, in which the signifier (the word) perfectly matched the signified (the thing), was supposed (1) to have existed at some point in the far past preceding the confounding of languages and (2) it was conceived of as written. This second point reflects the conceptual primacy of the written over the spoken word in the TE, which in turn explains the fact that in the TE there was essentially no distinction between what is seen and what is read. The written word was conceived of as the original source of knowledge and belonged to the created, visible world in much the same way as nature. Foucault elaborates on the TE concept of the written word in relation to the original universal language that preceded the confounding of languages as follows: … l’écrit avait toujours précédé le parlé … même dans le savoir des hommes. Car il se pourrait bien qu’avant Babel, qu’avant le Déluge, il y ait eu une écriture composée des marques mêmes de la nature, si bien que ces caractères auraient eu pouvoir d’agir directement sur les choses, de les attirer ou de les repousser, de figurer leurs propriétés, leurs vertus et leurs secrets. Écriture primitivement naturelle, dont peut-être certains savoirs ésotériques … ont conservé la mémoire dispersée et tentent de resaissir les pouvoirs depuis longtemps endormis 152 . On the basis of the two features mentioned above, it may be proposed that the language employed in the AME texts under consideration can, in fact, be identified as the universal language preceding the confounding of language conceptualized in the TE. With regard to the first feature it should be noted that the Ancient Mesopotamian scribes too, ascribed the origin of their writing system to a remote past before the Deluge. With regard to the second feature it should be observed that the quote from Foucault given above accurately describes the qualities with which the cuneiform writing system was associated by the ancient scribes themselves. From the epistemological perspective of the TE, the cuneiform writing system constitutes no less than the long-lost antediluvian universal language itself. 2.3.2. The CE concept of universal language In the TE universal language was conceived of as a lost original, leaving behind clues in the form of signatures deposited in its successor languages. In the CE, however, it is conceived as a project which could be realized by the categorical ordering of knowledge by the final fixation of the representative value of words. With this kind of universal language the CE sought to overcome the imperfect match, found in the use of any natural language, between what does the representing (words) and what is being represented

151 152

Ibidem, 51-2. Ibidem, 53-4.

71

Chapter 2 - The Epistemological Perspective (things) 153 . The CE project of achieving a universal language depended on unambiguously defining the exact representative values of the words found in natural languages: ... à l‘horizon peut-être indéfinement reculé du langage, on projette l’idée d’une langue universelle où la valeur representative des mots serait assez nettement fixée, assez bien fondée, assez évidemment reconnue pour que la réflexion puisse décider en toute clarté de la vérité de n’importe quelle proposition … 154 . To achieve this, the use of natural language was to be counterbalanced by the use of the catalogue, the dictionary and the encyclopedia - works which are typical of and of pivotal importance to the CE (cf. 2.1.3.0.) 155 . The end result of the CE project of universal language would be, in the phrase used by Foucault, ... un langage parfaitement distinct (que) permettrait un discourse entièrement clair... 156 . In investigating the AME texts under consideration in terms of the CE concept of universal language it is important to note how Foucault describes the constitution of its ideal universal language, viz. as an ars combinatoria. Looking the AME texts a number of things may be noted: (1) the language used by the scribes, i.e. the cuneiform writing system itself, constitutes an ars combinatoria in the most literal sense of the word, (2) in the scribal educational curriculum knowledge acquisition equals language acquisition and (3) language is learnt from catalogue-, dictionary- and encyclopedia-style lists. In view of these observations it may be proposed that the AME texts under consideration, in fact, constitute the kind of universal language aspired to in the CE. From the epistemological perspective of the CE, the Ancient Mesopotamian lexical texts constitute no less than an actual realization of its universal language project. 2.3.3. The ME concept of universal language In the TE universal language was conceived of as having originally existed as a natural language in which the words, spoken or written, were wholly and transparently representative of things. This language was assumed to have been lost, but scholars could pursue clues left behind in the signatures deposited in its successor languages. In the CE, universal language was no longer projected into the (antediluvian) past, but into the (remote) future, when natural language would be transformed into an ars combinatoria capable of transparently expressing a scientifically established order of the world. This ars combinatoria would achieve the categorical ordering of knowledge by means of a 153

En un moment donné … et à l’intérieur d’une langue singulière, les hommes ont à leur disposition un ensemble de mots, de noms qui s’articulent les uns sur les autres et découpent leurs représentations; mais cette analyse est si imparfaite, elle laisse subsister tant d’imprécision et tant de chevauchements qu’avec les mêmes représentations les hommes utilisent des mots divers et formulent des propositions différentes: leur reflexion n’est pas à l’abri de l’erreur. Entre la designation et la derivation, les glissements de l‘imagination se multiplient; entre l’articulation et l’attribution, prolifère l’erreur de la reflexion. - Ibidem, 217. 154 Ibidem 155 … l’exercice de toute langue réelle doit être double d’une Encyclopédie qui définit le parcours des mots, prescript les voies les plus naturelles, dessine les glissements légitimes du savoir, codifie les relations de voisinage et de ressemblance. Le Dictionnaire est fait pour contrôler le jeu des dérivations à partir de la désignation première des mots, tout comme la Language universelle est faite pour contrôler, à partir d’une articulation bien établie, les erreurs de la réflexion quand elle formule un jugement. - Ibidem 156 Ibidem

72

Chapter 2 - The Epistemological Perspective final fixation of the representative value of words. In the ME, however, the link between word and representation, taken for granted in the preceding epistemes, is cut, leaving no place for natural language as a carrier or medium for knowledge. In Foucault’s words: (l)e seuil du classicisme à la modernité ... a été définitivement franchi lorsque les mots ont cessé de s’entrecroiser avec les représentation et de quadriller spontanément la connaissance des choses ... 157 . From that point onwards, modern science seeks to substitute natural languages with artificial codes that aim at a scientifically neutral coding of knowledge. Arguing from an epistemological perspective, Foucault effectively proposes that in the ME natural language has ceased to exist except as an object of study in itself and as a repository of discretionary elements used in the creation of its new scientific codes: (d)étaché de la représentation, le langage n’existe plus désormais, et jusqu’à nous encore, que sur un mode dispersé: pour les philologues, les mots sont comme autant d’objets constitués et déposés par l’histoire; pour ceux qui veulent formaliser, le langage doit dépouiller son contenu concret et ne plus laisser apparaître que les formes universellement valables du discours ... 158 . This means that in the ME there can be no universal language - there can only be a universally valid scientific discourse. In effect, the various modern scientific disciplines each have developed a code that establishes such a scientific discourse, each choosing the form and structure befitting it (e.g. algebraic code, chemistry code, IPA). With regard to the AME the question must now be asked whether the text corpus under investigation can be qualified as formulated in a universally valid scientific discourse in terms of the ME. The answer to this question is that it can indeed be qualified as such. From the etic point of view, i.e. from the modern scientific (philological) perspective, the AME lexical text corpus constitutes a specialized discourse on the theme of the cuneiform writing system, simultaneously establishing and using the code particular to that system. From the etic point of view, therefore, this discourse could be accurately described as a ‘science of writing’ 159 . From the emic point of view (i.e. in terms of what was intended by the ancient scribes themselves), however, it may be argued that whereas the lexical text corpus does indeed effectively constitute a kind of ‘scientific discourse’, the scope of the ‘science’ in question extends far beyond the realm of the writing system only. The combined lexical lists do indeed give a description and analysis of the writing system but they simultaneously constitute a classificatory interpretation of the empiric life world. The knowledge they construct concerning a phletora of natural and cultural phenomena constitues, in fact, the AME equivalent to the knowledge constructed in the ME by such scientific disciplines as theology, biology, anatomy and economy. The fact that in the AME texts under consideration the study of natural and cultural phenomena was never pursued separately from the study of the writing system implies that they constitute a ‘science’ of more than writing alone. It also implies that knowledge as such was conceived of in an entirely different manner than in the ME. This difference is due to the fact that in the AME there was a very different relationship between language and knowledge than that found in the ME, as pointed out by Foucault.

157

Ibidem, 315. Ibidem, 315. 159 Veldhuis, Elementary Education, 139-40. 158

73

Chapter 2 - The Epistemological Perspective 2.4. Summary 2.1.

Epistememological comparison:

2.1.2.

TE-AME comparison:

1.

The general epistemological configuration of the TE is realized through similitude, in which there is a match between semiological discourse and hermeneutical interpretation - in the AME the same position of the similitude is found, but there it is realized in the principle building block of the writing system itself, viz. in the logogram. In the TE similitude is a sought aim, in the AME an assumed precondition. In the AME the original match between semiological discourse and hermeneutical interpretation is lost due to the combined interference of phonetization and bilingualization. This implies that, from the OB period onwards, the original knowledge system is no longer understood on its own terms - transformations and expansions in the lexical texts can be understood as attempts to cope with this growing discrepancy by means of realignments and additions. The main analytic tool or logical category of the TE is the signature – it is the marker by which the similitude is recognized. In the TE these signatures are conveyed in alphabetic textual messages, but in the AME the logographic elements of the writing system themselves have signature status. Interpretations, reinterpretations and re-evaluations inevitably focus on and accumulate around these logograms. In the lexical texts signatures are interpreted on the horizontal level, i.e. in the horizontal organization around the logograms. In this horizontal organization logograms acquire signature status through the same logical processes that are found in TE signatures, viz. through tropes (synecdoche, metonymy, catachresis). These will inevitably determine the epistemological configuration of a logographically expressed knowledge system, such as the AME. In such a system the ‘symbolic’ nature of writing itself will inevitably lead to a poetic-esoteric development of knowledge and give it an in-ward looking and static character due to its preoccupation with its own signatures. This explains its scientific stagnation and lack of historic dimension. In the lexical texts the similitude is expressed on the vertical level, i.e. through vertical associative mechanisms. In this vertical organization the same techniques are found as in the expression of similitude in the TE, viz. through figures of similitude (convenientia, aemulatio, analogia, sympathia) The conceptual limits of the TE are also found in the AME, viz. (a) the addition as the sole relation between knowledge elements (knowledge production only through accumulation), (b) the finite concept of knowledge due to an assumed microcosm-macrocosm relation, (c) the divinatory nature of knowledge acquisition, leading to the inclusion of ‘uncientific’ knowledge, and (d) the divinatory approach to textually transmitted knowledge, i.e. a lack of conceptual differentiation between traditionally transmitted texts and the empirically accessible life-world.

2.

3.

4.

6. 7.

2.1.3.

CE-AME comparison:

1.

The general epistemological configuration of the CE is realized through representation, i.e. by the conventional determination of a specific value assigned to an arbitrary sign. In the CE similitude only serve as indicators to find shared elements for a determination of representative value in a given sign and empiric observation is need to corroborate these indicators. In the CE, rhetorical space, i.e. in the space where signs obtain meaning, becomes multi-dimensional because the conventional representative value of objects and phenomena can only be established in a simultaneous sequential relation to multiple other objects and phenomena. The preferred form of expression for the required simultaneity and juxtaposition of elements is the table - which is where an important systemic and formal similarity occurs between the CE and the AME. The fact that the general epistemological configuration of the AME revolves around similitude (as in the TE) as well as representation (as in the CE) may be explained by the closed nature of its knowledge system – the AME pursues similitudes but only to the extent that this serves to establish representative values for its limited element inventory, viz. for the elements of the writing system. The main difference between the CE and the AME is that the signs of the latter are not arbitrary, constituting similitudes in themselves, and that they are never representative of anything except in terms of functional value. The individual grapheme remains the smallest, indivisible unit of investigation - it is the ‘atom’ of the AME knowledge system. The main analytic tool or logical category of the CE is order, which it requires to obtain representative value. Comparing the CE to the AME regarding order, two things are important: (1) in the former it was established creatively from a potentially unlimited range of signs, whereas in the latter it was reproduced from traditionally transmitted sources that imposed strictly closed sign inventories, and (2) in the former representative value is in principle established independently from empiric observation of surface phenomena, whereas in the latter it is not - in the AME lexical texts any reconstructable order derives either from graphic and phonetic associations or from functional-utilitarian semantic associations that adhere to the empirically observable life-world.

2.

3.

74

Chapter 2 - The Epistemological Perspective 4.

5.

6.

7.

The analytic methodology of the CE depends on a combination of three interdependent ordering principles: mathesis (establishing equalities in relation to abstract truth), taxinomia (establishing classification in relation to empiric being) and genesis (establishing semiology in relation to time). These principles may be recognized in the AME as follows. Mathesis is found applied to the ordering of the elements of the writing system throughout all series but applied to semantics only in the thematic series, where it may be typified as an auxiliary organizational device. There are only rudimentary indications of spatial (geographic, topographic) and temporal (chronological) mathesis, again as mere auxiliary tools. Taxinomia is found in taxonomical continuity, which can be detected by the analytical categories of the ‘monster’ and the ‘fossil’. The former appear as non-normative logograms that help plug perceived gaps in taxonomical continuity by means of nonstandard variations and cross-connections. The latter appear as the individual original pictographic values attached to the primordial elements of the writing system - often embedded under accumulated layers of derived meaning - and also as in skeletal combinations, allowing a sub-surface reconstruction of taxonomical continuity. Genesis is found in explicit temporal analogies concerning the object of the ancient scribes, viz. concerning the writing system: such explicit analogies are found in the SaP texts. The single conceptual limit of the CE, viz. the need for complete transparency of representations vis-à-vis the signs that order them, implies that any CE concept of order will be stated in terms of exclusively functional values – this phenomenon is also found in the AME because in the AME the written signifier is conceived of as fully transparent to the empiric signified of the real life world and it is the functionality of these signifiers that determines their order. In the AME knowledge is not gained primarily in relation to the real-life world but rather in relation to the writing system, which is assumed to represent a microcosmic repository of all knowledge. Thus, in the AME a modern scientific analysis, which primarily relates to empiric data and formulation of hypothesis derived from their observation, is basically inconceivable – such an analysis would be irrelevant to its emic definition of knowledge. One effect of the complete transparency of representations vis-à-vis signs in the CE is the project of collecting all knowledge in an encyclopaedic format, which allows it to be aimed at as a sum total in a thematically decontextualized manner and to be retrieved by exclusively formal and abstract reference. This effect is also visible in the AME lexical texts to the extent that the lexical curriculum also aims at listing all knowledge in a specifically functional manner, i.e. in a manner that shows the coding of all knowledge in the cuneiform writing code.

2.1.4.

ME-AME comparison:

1.

The general epistemological configuration of the ME is realized through organization, i.e. by the functional combination of internal relations between elements. Whereas CE order was achieved by the juxtaposition of elements according to identity or difference in a synchronic continuum, ME organization is achieved by the juxtaposition of the relations between elements (i.e. irrespective of their particular identities) in a diachronic succession of functional analogies. Because the AME texts show traditional-conventional associations at their highest organizational level and because they represent methodologically structured environments in terms of didactic functionality, it should be concluded that the ME epistemological configuration of organization is not found in the AME. Interpretation of the AME texts in terms of the ME epistemological configuration of organization will inevitably lead to an etic classification of these texts as products of ‘underdeveloped’, ‘premodern’ and ‘primitive’ logic. Due to the diachronic dimension in which ME organization is realized, the main analytic tool or logical category of the ME is history – ME organization is defined by means of history and ME science effectively is the exegesis of historical phenomena. This led to the discovery of the autonomous historic dynamic processes Life (biological evolution), Labour (capital accumulation) and Language (phonological and morphological transformation) which gained transcendental status. This meant that henceforth only phenomena (as opposed to substances) could be known, which explains the development of the positivist sciences characteristic of the ME. When the central object of AME lexical scholarship, i.e. the cuneiform writing system, is investigated in terms of possible transcendental status there are two possible answers: (1) etically it inevitably has derived transcendental status (in as far as ultimately - across its pictographic reference system - it may be linked to the transcendental objects of ME science) and (2) emically it does not have transcendental status because it was empirically treated as fully transparent in terms of its representative value. In contrast to the situation in ME science, historical analysis did not play a role in AME knowledge production - in AME scholarship synchronic and diachronic knowledge are not differentiated. In the ME, the inevitable historicism applied to any organization means that the medium in which ME knowledge is transmitted, i.e. its language, leads to its objectification, which in turn leads to certain specific effects that may be considered as methodological features specific to the ME. The AME lexical texts were investigated in terms of two of these ME methodological features (1) the search for ‘neutral’ scientific language and (2) the use of language as an object of exegetical investigation. With regard to (1) two conclusions are possible, viz. (a) that the ME idea of abstract scientific notation divorced from any historic

2.

3. 4.

75

Chapter 2 - The Epistemological Perspective

5.

language becomes possible only in conjunction with the abandonment of the notion of traditional (textual) authority and is inconceivable in the AME with its universal scholarly medium of Sumerian and its high deference for traditionally transmitted knowledge, and (b) that the ME distinction between scientific coding and natural language coding, i.e. between ideographic and phonetic coding, is inconceivable in the AME where logographic writing combines both and where exegetical investigation will inevitably tend to the graphemic rather than to the philological spheres. With regard to (2) two interpretations are possible, viz. (a) that etically exegesis of language in the AME was impossible due to the lack of the required tools (there was no break between speaking and thinking, no separate analysis of spoken language, no analysis of willed or undergone activity and no comparative grammatical study of spoken language) and (b) that emically the ‘language’ studied by AME scholarship was not a natural language in a modern scientific sense but rather an artificial cultural code. The single conceptual limit of the ME, viz. the transcendental nature of the central referents around which in the ME knowledge is constructed (Life, Labor and Language), means that man is exclusively conceived of in terms of these referents, i.e. in terms of the biological, economic and linguistic conditions to which he is viewed as being subjected. This effectively means that there is no longer any possibility of an objective and systematic pursuit of knowledge which is substantially relevant to the actual human condition: the humanities developed in the ME merely measure man in terms of ‘unconscious’ categories and historical contingencies, categories which lack substantive scientific objectivity. When entries that are relevant to the theme of ‘man’ are investigated in the lexical texts, it may be concluded that ‘man’ as an abstract classificatory concept - set aside and studied separately in the ‘humanities’ constructed by the ME - is essentially lacking in the AME. In AME lexical scholarship knowledge with a human referent is classified and analyzed in the same manner as any other knowledge, viz. in terms of its logogram coding. This means that any knowledge concerning ‘man’ was conceptually fully integrated into the body of knowledge produced by AME lexical scholarship.

2.2.

The diachronic position of the AME:

1.

It is possible that, in terms of knowledge derived from similitude, from ancient to modern times there is an accumulative historical tendency to epistemological decline, implying that, in terms of its constituent similitudes, the nature of (written) knowledge itself has become increasingly less cohesive. Originally, at the start of history, knowledge was expressed through full similitudes, as in early logographic writing. As the original match between hermeneutic interpretation and semiological discourse is increasingly dislocated, knowledge based on similitude declines. The diachronic developments within the Ancient Mesopotamian textual tradition attest to this epistemological decline and are, in turn, explained by it in detail. In terms of epistemological development the AME could be divided into three phases: (1) the Early AME (till ca. 2000 BC), which ended with the death of Sumerian and the end of the hegemony of direct visual similitude in written knowledge production, (2) the Transitional AME (ca. 2000-1100 BC), which, under pressure of accumulative transformations in its text corpus, saw the abandonment of an artificial scholarly attempt to maintain access to the former episteme, and (3) The Late AME (ca. 1100 BC till the end of cuneiform culture), in which similitude is no longer a productive constitutive principle but rather a reconstructive method (as it was found to be in Foucault’s CE). In the Late AME the production of semantic value was based on perceived contextual interpretations rather than on the intrinsic similitudes of the logograms themselves, implying that the unity of writing and discourse was abandoned. Starting with the Late AME, the original possibility of unequivocal interpretation of meaning, relying on the similitudes expressed in the written medium itself, was lost and abstract interpretation took its place. It is possible to view the eventual utter collapse and complete disappearance of cuneiform literary culture as a inevitable consequence of a scholarly preoccupation with accumulatively layered interpretations of interpretations and a concomitantly rising level of abstraction. To the extent that this increasingly arcane scholarship was an exclusive, culture-specific social domain and that it was primarily occupied with a hermeneutically closed sign inventory, this meant that it eventually was bound to reach a degree of complexification that made its exercise socially, culturally and intellectually incompatible with the rising new late-Semitic and Hellenic epistemes and their convenient alphabetic media.

2.

3.

76

Chapter 2 - The Epistemological Perspective

2.3.

Universal language:

1.

In the TE universal language was conceived of as a lost original. The cuneiform writing system as conceived by the ancient scribes themselves may be argued to constitute a reflection of exactly the antediluvian universal language itself: (1) its pictographic, ideographic origin matches the supposition of the TE about the origin of the lost universal language in a remote past, preceding the confounding of languages and (2) it was conceived of as written from its very origin. In the CE universal language was conceived of as a project to be realized through categorical ordering was meant to overcome the imperfect match between representing words and represented things by a perfectly transparent ars combinatoria hence the, rise of the catalogue, the dictionary and the encyclopedia. The AME lexical texts could be argued to constitute no less than the actual realization of the CE universal language project: (1) the cuneiform writing system itself may technically be seen as an ars combinatoria in the literal sense of the word, (2) in the lexical curriculum knowledge acquisition empirically equals language acquisition and (3) in the lexical texts learning is achieved by means of catalogue-, dictionary- and encyclopedia-style lists. In the ME the link between representing words and represented things, realized differently in the TE and the CE but important in both, is broken - natural language is abandoned as a medium for knowledge, to be replaced by artificial, scientifically neutral codes. The concept of universal language has been replaced by that of a supposedly universal scientific discourse. From an etic, modern scientific point of view, the AME lexical texts could be argued to represent a kind of (seriously flawed) ‘scientific discourse’ on the Ancient Mesopotamian ‘science of writing’. From the emic point of view, however, the knowledge contained in them was conceived in an entirely different, ‘pre-scientific’ manner, which can be understood better in terms of the TE and the CE than in terms of the ME.

2.

3.

77

Chapter 3 – The Technological Perspective CHAPTER 3 – THE TECHNOLOGICAL PERPECTIVE 160 If we are to understand the particular contribution of ... any ... science to the development of human thought, then we must be a good deal more precise about the matrix from which it was emerging, about the pre-existing conditions and the nature of ‘pre-scientific thought’. Thus the attempt to gain precision leads us inevitably into an examination of the ways of thinking of earlier times and of other cultures, as well as of the manner in which these ways of thinking were 161 related to particular modes of communication ...

3.0. Aim, method and organization Aim The aim of this chapter is to analyze the Mesopotamian knowledge system represented by the Emar lexical texts as a product of technological conditioning. It may, in fact, be more convenient to introduce here the hyphenated expression ‘techno-logical’, to emphasize that the kind of technology relevant to this chapter is of a kind most accurately expressed by the combination of the two terms which constitute it, viz. τέχνη, ‘craft’, and λογος, ‘word’. The technology relevant here is of the kind where techniques or ‘tools’ interact with knowledge, where the former shape the latter by imposing specific organizations and systems on transmission and communication. The question to be addressed here may be formulated as follows: ‘to what degree and how is the Mesopotamian knowledge system found in the Emar lexical texts conditioned by the specific technology employed for its transmission?’. The proposed ‘techno-logical’ investigation of the Emar texts is meant to relate the mode of transmission, i.e. the specific techniques employed, to the form knowledge takes in these texts. Thus, knowledge content is investigated as a function of a given organizational and systemic framework. To be interpreted as ‘technology’ are some of the most fundamental characteristics of the lexical text corpus, viz. its persistent appearance in the form of lists and tables as well as its consistent methodology of spatially juxtaposing specific isolated elements. It should be noted that the ‘techno-logical’ investigation intended here is of a primarily synchronic nature, i.e. it primarily aims at analyzing only the Emar text corpus in terms of a given theoretical model (discussed under ‘method’ below) and it mostly ignores the question of diachronic developments in the wider lexical tradition. Only occasionally will reference be made to the manner in which the earlier and later (respectively the OB and 1st Millennium) sources of the lexical tradition show deviations from the LBA Emar corpus. This restriction is due to the limitations of purpose and scope particular to the research project in which this investigation is carried out, rather than to the chosen theoretical model - which, in fact, attempts to explain differences between various knowledge systems in terms of technological developments over time. However, as it was felt that a diachronic application of the chosen theoretical model would also offer a promising avenue of research, this chapter will include a short paragraph with some lines questioning that may be relevant to future research. 160

The author wishes to express his gratitude to W.S. van Egmond for reviewing the first part of this chapter and for the suggestions he offered. 161 J. Goody, The Domestication of the Savage Mind (Cambridge 1977) 50-1.

78

Chapter 3 – The Technological Perspective Method This chapter seeks to offer, as do the other chapters of this Theoretical Interpretation, a specific theoretical perspective on the study object at hand, i.e. the lexical texts of Emar, and it aims to do so in terms of a single relevant key theory. The technological, or rather ‘techno-logical’, perspective offered in this chapter will be formulated in terms of the theoretical concepts developed by J. Goody in his 1977 work The Domestication of the Savage Mind. It should be noted that the theory presented in this work is firmly embedded within, and indeed intended to be a further contribution to, a long-standing theoretical debate in the social sciences concerning the ‘Great Divide’. The dichotomy this involves represents the opposition of ‘us’ (‘modern’ western society) and ‘them’ (‘traditional’ societies elsewhere in time and/or space), extended into the sphere of sociological, anthropologic and philosophic theory. This opposition utilizes various conceptual contrasts such as ‘science’ vs. ‘magic’, ‘logico-empirical’ vs. ‘mythopoeic’ thought, ‘abstract’ vs. ‘concrete’ thought (the engineer vs. the bricoleur), ‘history’ vs. ‘myth’ and ‘open’ vs. ‘closed’ societies 162 . The ‘Great Divide’ debate has served as a testing ground for a long succession of scientific theories which aim at accounting for the observed differences in social as well as cultural phenomena between different societies. Among the issues it touches are those of technological evolution and cognitive development, issues central to Goody’s work. The position of Goody’s work in the wider ‘Great Divide’ debate can be understood as a reaction to C. Lévi-Strauss’s 1962 work La pensée sauvage; the title of Goody’s work is of course a direct reference to the title of Lévi-Strauss’s work in its (perhaps somewhat inadequate 163 ) English translation, The Savage Mind. Goody opposes Lévi-Strauss’s theoretical constructs - in his view of a rather static and abstract nature - by proposing a processual and developmental approach to the ‘Great Divide’ 164 . It should be noted that the theoretical model developed in LéviStrauss’ La pensée sauvage will be the topic of Chapter 4. In The Domestication of the Savage Mind Goody analyzes the relation between communication technology and cognitive development (‘modes of thought’) as resulting in different ‘technologies of the intellect’ 165 , emphasizing the ‘material concomitants’ to the cognitive process of domestication, assuming these to be not merely manifestations (or products) of thought, but to constitute its determining features 166 . He does so on the basis of his (somewhat modified) earlier thesis, formulated in an article co-authored by

162

Cf. Goody, Domestication, 146 ff. La pensée sauvage could be rendered as The Wild (or Untamed) Thought (rather than The Savage Mind) but is also the name of the little flower Viola Tricolor (shown on the cover of the original edition of LéviStrauss’ book). 164 The respective positions taken by Lévi-Strauss and Goody in the ‘Great Divide’ debate may actually be interpreted as a continuation of the opposing concepts of continental Rationalism (Descartes) and AngloSaxon Empiricism (Hobbes, Locke) found in 17th C social philosophy. 165 ... differences in the means of communication are of sufficient importance to warrant an exploration of their implications for developments in human thought; and, in particular, to see whether they can give us a better account of observed differences than the dichotomies we have earlier rejected. - Goody, Domestication, 10. 166 Ibidem, 9. 163

79

Chapter 3 – The Technological Perspective I.P. Watt 167 , which proposed that modern western logic, understood as an instrument of analytic procedures, is a function of writing as writing allowed the manipulation of ‘captured’ speech and the development of syllogistic forms of reasoning 168 . After the invention of writing important further transformations in the ‘technology of the intellect’ are to be attributed to other technological developments such as the introduction of alphabetic writing and that of the printed word. By introducing more specific criteria for the ‘Great Divide’ categories and by attributing many oppositions found in the ‘Great Divide’ debate to specific ‘technologies of the intellect’, related to developments in communication technology, Goody in fact criticizes the ‘Great Divide’ concept itself: in his view it neglects specific historical factors and contexts, ‘including intellectual tradition, institutional setting and mode of communication’ 169 and implies simplistic value judgments 170 . Goody explains the neglect of technological factors in social scientific theory as a result of its bias in favor of ‘social facts’ and of ‘superstructure’ (emphasized by respectively Durkheim and Weber, the founders of classical sociology, and underpinning the status of their investigative endeavor as a distinct scientific discipline) 171 . As noted in the Introduction, Goody’s ‘technological’ approach to literacy has attracted strong criticism from some quarters in the social sciences. It was also noted that it is not the purpose of this study to either prove or disprove any specific theoretical theory: this study merely uses certain models as tools in a series of theoretical experiments. It was therefore generally considered unnecessary to expand this study with a discussion of the social scientific debates sparked by any of these models. In Goody’s case, however, the amount and intensity of criticism seemed to warrant an exception. Thus, a relevant excursus, consisting of a commentary on the most comprehensive critical review of Goody, viz. B.V. Street, Literacy in Theory and Practice (Cambridge a.o. 1984), can be found appended to Chapter 1. The reader is invited to consult the appropriate section of that chapter for references to Goody’s own responses to his critics. There are a number of reasons that make the application of Goody’s model particularly appropriate for inclusion in this Theoretical Interpretation. First, it is intended as an empirical instead of an abstract theoretical approach which offers a number of tangible notions (such as that of the list, table, formula, recipe and prescription) that may be operationalized in a concrete manner. Second, it allows the differences between Ancient Mesopotamian scholarship and modern western science to be approached without either the etic categorization dominating ‘Great Divide’ theories or the dogmatic rejection of differences in cognitive structures and processes dominant in the opposing cultural relativist position 172 . Third, Goody’s model itself includes an investigation of the Ancient Mesopotamian scholarship, focusing on its appearance as Listenwissenschaft and 167

J. Goody and I.P. Watt, ‘The consequences of literacy’, Comparative Studies in History and Society 5 (1963) 304-45. 168 Goody, Domestication, 11. 169 Ibidem, 4. 170 Such movement (i.e. between the terms of the ‘Great Divide’) inevitably tends to be phrased not only in terms of process but of progress too ... - Ibidem, 3. 171 Ibidem, 10-1. 172 Cf. Goody, Domestication, 36.

80

Chapter 3 – The Technological Perspective including an analysis of its lexical lists. This specialist investigation, practically unique in the field of social scientific theory, could by itself be considered sufficient reason for including Goody’s theory in this Theoretical Interpretation, especially in view of the fact that Goody’s theory has received until now only a marginal response in Assyriological literature 173 . To operationalize Goody’s theoretical model a number of Goody’s key notions will be projected on the text corpus under investigation and it will be determined to what extent they are applicable and valid. This projection will, it is hoped, shed more light on the question of what kind of knowledge system - as compared to the modern western knowledge system - is represented by the Ancient Mesopotamian lexical lists. It may help to determine more precisely the nature of what has frequently been termed the Ancient Mesopotamian Listenwissenschaft. Organization The first paragraph (3.1.) will investigate a number of Goody’s key notions - each of the sub-paragraphs starts with an outline of the theoretical implication of one such notion and continues with its application to the Emar lexical corpus. The second paragraph (3.2.) offers a short overview of issues relevant to the diachronic application of Goody’s model that was otherwise ignored in this primarily synchronically directed investigation. This overview takes the form of a shortlist of research questions and a few relevant comments. The chapter closes with a short summary (paragraph 3.3.), listing its main findings. 3.1. Key notions applied 3.1.1. Generative transmission In his discussion of intellectual activity and the position of individual intellectuals in oral (or ‘pre-literate’) respectively literate traditions, Goody develops the notion of generative transmission as characteristic of the former. In his view, communication and transmission of knowledge in an oral tradition is characterized by ... its capacity to swallow up the individual achievement and to incorporate it in a body of transmitted custom ... 174 . The anonymous incorporation or rejection of individual achievement in the transmission process profoundly affects the nature of intellectual creativity in oral tradition. First, it means that there is a permanent, intricate relation between individual creation and collective culture. This relation is decisive with regard to any innovation and variation (i.e. the interaction between individual and society determines which elements can be added and dropped) in cultural products such as poems, ballads, myths etc. 175 . Second, it means that such cultural products inevitably lack permanent form and content: creativity and transmission are inextricably linked as composition and performance take place

173

Cf. Veldhuis, Elementary Education, 7-8. Goody, Domestication, 27. 175 Goody illustrates this process by discussing the variations found in the Bagre myth of the LoDagaa in Ghana - Ibidem, 28-9. 174

81

Chapter 3 – The Technological Perspective simultaneously 176 . According to Goody, this impermanence applies even to the ‘magic’ and ‘religious’ spheres, where ritual, belief and cosmology are often assumed to represent the most static fixtures of any society - even if the ‘turn-over rate’ in those spheres may be much lower 177 . In the transmission of cultural products within oral tradition there is generally ample scope for pragmatic adjustments to individual creativity and/or contextual developments. Thus, central features of generative transmission are (1) its anonymous authorship, (2) its amalgamation of creativity and transmission, (3) the lack of permanence of its objects and its (4) pragmatic dynamism. It is now to be considered how Goody’s concept of generative transmission, serving to explain the particularities of intellectual endeavor in oral traditions, can be applied in the analysis of the study object under consideration, viz. the Emar lexical texts, which are known only in their literate form. It is here proposed that what is important in this respect is the extent to which the features of generative transmission are applicable to the study object. This implies that whenever the features of generative transmission are found to be applicable to a written text, this text may be assumed to have been the product of an environment where literacy occurred side by side with a significant oral tradition. Assuming, for now, that generative transmission is a phenomenon uniquely particular to oral traditions (an issue to be discussed later on) it could, in fact, be argued that whenever the features of generative transmission are found to apply to a written text, such a text may be assumed to have been produced in an environment where the oral tradition was dominant. In that case the written text in question could, in effect, be considered as merely constituting a written reflection of an oral tradition. Before addressing the question of whether or not generative transmission is uniquely particular to oral traditions, it should now be investigated to what extent its four main features are to be found in the Emar lexical texts. Anonymous authorship 178 Concerning the feature of anonymous authorship, it should be noted that the large majority of the Emar lexical texts may be assumed to have had named authors. The findings of the structural analysis given in Part 3 (13.2.) suggest that all Type I tablets, which constitute the bulk of the preserved material, originally had a colophon, which has a standardized form that includes the name of the author. Only the Type III tablets, short single-column exercise tablets, systematically omit colophons. Strictly speaking, this state of affairs suggests that only the Type III tablets could be considered as the product of generative transmission. It is certainly conceivable that the Type III tablets in fact 176

Ibidem, 26-7. Ibidem, 29-30. 178 The use of the words ‘author’ and ‘authorship’ tends to be considered problematic in literary theory, where a distinction may be made between ‘authors’ and ‘writers’. One definition of the word ‘author’ that addresses this problematic status is that of ‘a person who originates or gives existence to anything’ - ‘the “anything” most usually associated with written work’. In terms of this definition ‘authorship’ may be described as what ‘determines responsibility for what is created’ (cf. ‘Author’, Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia (9 December 2008). Retrieved 27 February 2009 from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Author). It should be noted that this issue is, in effect, exactly what is addressed in Goody’s discussion of ‘anonymous authorship’ – here, therefore, his terminology is maintained. 177

82

Chapter 3 – The Technological Perspective reflect short texts dictated by teachers and written down by pupils. In this respect it may be significant to note that a significant proportion of preserved Type III tablets (three out of twelve identified with certainty, cf. Part 3 Table 16) focuses on special phonetic exercises. Strictly taking the criterion of anonymous authorship as indicative of generative transmission and oral tradition, it seems clear that only the very early stages of scribal training has a significant oral component (as reflected in for example stage one of the curricular order within Hh described in Part 3 Table 12). For several reasons, however, it may be argued that the question of anonymous authorship must be approached more subtly. First, it should be noted that the colophons are the only indicators of authorship - nowhere else are there any other references specifying the name, the person or the personal contribution of the author. Throughout the texts themselves there are no references to any authors, neither as sources, nor as attributions, nor as indications of any form of personal authority. No personal opinions or observations are ever mentioned - the first person form (I, my or me) is, in fact, totally absent. Second, there is the form of the colophon to consider. In many colophons the first statement serves to indicate completion and control rather than authorship. E.g. SagB T1 (Part 3 Table 26 Colophon 23) first gives the statement (28) AL.TIL IGI.KÁRA (29) ŠU.NÍĜIN 3 me-tì 52 (30) MU.BI.IM ‘It has been completed (and) checked: (in) total 352 (are) its lines.’ and only then the name of the author is given. In five of the eighteen colophons where the relevant sections are preserved such indicators are found and in three more of these, such indicators are absent in the colophon itself but given before the colophon as the last line of the text (cf. Part 3 Table 26) 179 . There are two aspects to this phenomenon: (a) it suggests that the preceding text was clearly not primarily considered as an individual creation but mainly as an individual copy of a standard model and (b) it suggests that the name of the author was included solely for the purposes of control in an educational context. Third, the colophons bear witness to a scrupulous deference of the ancient scribes to the gods, which were recognized as the ultimate source of the knowledge in general and as the indispensable patrons of the scribal craft. Earlier, it has been argued that the scribal art was, in fact, basically conceived of as an attempt to preserve and reproduce the body of knowledge of ultimately divine origins (cf. 2.1.4.2.). Thus, Ancient Mesopotamian scholarship could be considered as a custodial rather than creative occupation. On balance, it may be argued that although in cuneiform scholarship authorship was not strictly speaking anonymous, this scholarship was of a thoroughly impersonal nature. In view of the preceding arguments it may be argued that the Ancient Mesopotamian scholars were primarily copyists rather than authors. Any form of creative authorship in Ancient Mesopotamian may be considered as having had a very limited scope and merely marginal significance.

179

In addition it may be noted that it is conceivable that the very frequent end-of-text-unit markers themselves represent a ‘cryptic’ rendering of the phrase ‘completed and checked’, cf. Part 3 n.147).

83

Chapter 3 – The Technological Perspective Amalgamation of creativity and transmission Concerning the feature of amalgamation of creativity and transmission, it is proposed that its most convenient measure is the extent to which creativity and transmission empirically coincide. In oral tradition, Goody argues, creativity and transmission are inseparable. He illustrates this point by stressing that during his fieldwork in the oral society of the LoDagaa in Ghana, he found that even its most institutionalized and standardized cultural product, the Bagre myth, is subject to significant variation and innovation as it is recited by different individuals and as it is passed on in time 180 . In deciding whether a similar amalgamation of creativity and transmission can be found in the Emar lexical texts, it is therefore important to determine the degree of variation and innovation found within and relative to that text corpus. Especially variation and innovation within that text corpus, which derives almost entirely from a single and synchronically unified archive (i.e. it spans a relatively short period of time), is important in this regard. Without extensively giving examples, many of which may be found by even the most cursory reading of the text edition (Part 1 allows a comparison of all individual text witnesses), it can be said that generally the Emar lexical text corpus does indeed show considerable internal variation and innovation. The non-conformity of the texts to any precise standard, either synchronically or diachronically, in fact presents a considerable obstacle in reconstructing and editing these texts - an issue extensively discussed in the Introduction to Parts 1-2 in the paragraph Method - application of external and internal models. A single example must suffice to illustrate the point made here: in Hh1 the complete series of entries listed as EST 1016-20 (giving compounds with the key-signs ŠU and ZID) is only found in one single text witness (T3) - it is omitted in the others (T1 and T2). As all three text witnesses have different authors (T1 Bacal-belu, T2 Ishmah-Dagan, T3 Bacal-malik), this difference is clearly a matter of variation by an individual author (in this case by Bacal-malik). As a matter of fact, the difference may be explained by the fact that the author who included the extra entry series was a more advanced scholar: unlike him, the other two are both specified as mere Ì.ZU TUR.TUR ‘junior diviner’ and he was the son of the diviner, whereas the other two were mere servants bought by the family 181 . This does not mean, however, that the text variation in question is merely to be seen as resulting from an omission or mistake by less advanced students: the fact that the texts of both ‘juniors’ show the exact same omission may suggest that they in fact followed the same oral dictation (which would be confirmed by other precisely identical sequences in both T1 and T2, such as EST 1148a-e, which counts ‘a third, a fourth, a fifth, a sixth, a tenth’, omitting the divisions by seven, eight and nine, a sequence not found in the canonical version). Moreover, a comparison of section EST 1016-20 found in T1-2 and 180

During the recital itself, new elements are being introduced all the time ... something new gets incorporated all the time, just as something old gets dropped. We have here a process of composition that ... gives rise to a great number, indeed, an infinite number of variants. ... each reciter is an author, though some are more creative than others. - Goody, Domestication, 29. 181 Cf. Part 3 Table 29 and n. 165-6 with references. Also cf. Y. Cohen, ‘Change and Innovation in the Administration and Scribal Practices at Emar during the Hitite Dominion’, TA 32 (2005) 192-203 and Y. Cohen and I. Singer, ‘A Late Synchronism between Ugarit and Emar’ in: Y. Amit, E. Ben Zvi, I. Finkelstein and O. Lipschits (eds.), Essays in Ancient Israel and Its Near Eastern Context. A Tribute to Nadav Na’aman (Winona Lake 2006) 123-39.

84

Chapter 3 – The Technological Perspective T3 with its equivalent in the canonical version regarding both entry inventory and sequence suggests that, at least until its 1st Millennium ‘canonization’, there was no single, ‘correct’ standard version. Such a comparison, in fact, suggests that the T3 version of the relevant text section, authored by the more advanced scholar Bacal-malik, itself represents a variation or deviation of the more common version, because the last two of his entries, EST 1019-20 ŠU.ZID and ZID KAR.RA, are found neither in the other Emar material nor in the later canonical version. Such entries may represent innovations, but probably this kind of innovation was appropriate and even encouraged within the scholarly tradition: EST 1019 ads another ŠU compound to the ŠU-section starting in EST 1012 and EST 1020 continues the ZID theme taken up in EST 1019 - procedures which simply apply and extend the key-sign and key-word principles around which Hh 1-2, as well as many other lexical series, are built (cf. Part 3 4.3.). The discussion of this sample variation illustrates that the Emar lexical corpus shows the kind of amalgamation of creativity and transmission that is characteristic of Goody’s generative transmission. Within the Ancient Mesopotamian scholarly tradition the transmission of each series that is recognized as a distinct composition in modern science was in fact matched, in varying degrees, by a slowly accumulating series of innovations contributed by a long line of individual scholars. Over time, the accumulated effect caused some series to become transformed almost to the point of being unrecognizable (cf. Part 3 14.11.). This slow transformation may be considered as a slow-motion version of the generative transmission process that Goody described for oral traditions. The Assyriological concept of a ‘stream of tradition’ in which literary compositions are slowly formed and transformed may be interpreted as the literary deposit of this slowmotion generative transmission. At this point it is important to note that it is generally supposed that in the 1st Millennium the form and content of the various series finally became ‘frozen’ in what has been called a process of ‘canonization’. It could be argued that what actually took place was a further slowing down in the process of generative transmission, almost to the point of standstill. The most obvious explanation for such a development is that generative transmission is not so much a process unique to oral tradition as much as a reflection of the kind of ‘technologies’ employed for the communication of knowledge in a given culture. Some of these technologies, such as a purely oral medium, encourage a fast turn-over rate (i.e. a high intensity of variation, innovation and transformation), whereas others, such as a purely written medium, slow it down. At the extreme ends of this technological spectrum is found on the one hand the pure oral tradition, which impedes textual stability to the degree that the stability and recognizability of its cultural products across any significant duration of time is highly problematic, and on the other the pure written tradition, which can bring the development of any specific, independently recognizable text to a virtual standstill. At these extreme ends are found on the one hand the fairy tale and the nursery rhyme and on the other the sacred books of religion. Perhaps the complete disintegration of generative transmission is found at neither end of the spectrum. On the one hand it seems reasonable to assume that there are rules governing the transformations in the kind of generative transmission found in oral tradition which, up to a certain point, allow the reconstruction of the basic fabric of myths and other thought constructs (as is the premise

85

Chapter 3 – The Technological Perspective of structuralist social theory). On the other hand it seems equally reasonable to suspect that no literate tradition can indefinitely avoid the developmental process of generative transmission, even if only because of those occasional catastrophes found throughout history which can wipe out the very skills of literacy in a society. Lack of permanence of cultural constructs Concerning the feature of the lack of permanence of cultural constructs in generative transmission, it may be argued that this feature is a function of the degree of oral vs. literate ‘technology’ found in a given culture. In the preceding discussion of the amalgamation of creativity and transmission it was argued that the employment of specific techniques, oral and/or literate, determine the place of any given tradition has in the technological spectrum, ranging from high susceptibility to various transformation processes to virtual immunity to any form of change. Thus, the permanence of cultural constructs in general and of compendia of scholarly knowledge, such as the Ancient Mesopotamian lexical compositions in particular, may be seen as dependent on the degree to which literate ‘technology’ dominates their transmission. In view of the fact that on the one hand the lexical series remain largely recognizable, but that on the other hand their content and form show a considerable degree of flexibility in the synchronic as well as diachronic dimension, it can be argued that the place of the Emar lexical tradition on the proposed technological scale is somewhere in the middle, but inclining somewhat to the side of literate technology. Based on the evidence of an - admittedly superficial analysis of the earlier and later stages of the Ancient Mesopotamian lexical tradition in this study (cf. Part 3 14.11.), it may be argued that for that tradition as a whole the position on the technological scale actually shifted over time. As it moves from the LBA period into the 1st Millennium, it appears to shift from the middle position, where oral and written technologies are still employed simultaneously and interactively, towards the side of literate technology. That shift seems to near completion with the 1st Millennium ‘canonization’ of the lexical series. Given the fact that for this ‘canonical’ version modern science works still resorts to ‘composite editions’, which tend to ‘smooth over’ variations and innovations, and given the fact that its reconstruction of the lexical record for the 1st Millennium is still far from complete, the question may be asked to what degree this ‘canonization’ actually resulted in complete textual stability. The evaluation of possible developments for the Ancient Mesopotamian lexical tradition as whole in this regard will be possible only after further research. Pragmatic dynamism Concerning the feature of the pragmatic dynamism of generative transmission its presence in the Emar lexical corpus may be shown in two ways. First, it is synchronically evident in the significance of the integrative methodology in the formal-organizational structure in key series (cf. Part 3 11.4.). This integrative methodology is characterized by a premium on interpretative improvisation and on innovation regarding problems of classification (a detailed treatment of this phenomenon is found in Part 3 2.1.2.1. and 2.1.3.), leading to concrete transformations in texts such as additions and interpolations (many examples may be found in Part 3. 2.1.3.). Second, pragmatic dynamism is

86

Chapter 3 – The Technological Perspective diachronically evident in the historic development of many compositions (cf. Part 3 Chapter 14). These developments may be viewed as systematizations resulting from pragmatic reinterpretations of the texts involved. Important examples of such systematizations are the progressive thematic and acrographic reinterpretations of respectively Lu and Izi. As regarding the feature of lack of permanence of cultural constructs raised in the preceding subparagraph, the question remains whether pragmatic dynamism decreased with the assumed 1st Millennium ‘canonization’ of the lexical texts. Concluding remarks On balance, it may be said that all features distinguished by Goody for generative transmission do apply to the Emar lexical texts at least to some degree. It should be reiterated that, even when a significant oral dimension is assumed for the LBA stage of the lexical tradition, this means that generative transmission is not a phenomenon unique to an exclusively oral context but rather that it constitutes a universal process affecting any given cultural product in proportion to the kind of communication ‘technology’ employed. The most distinctly different categories of communication ‘technology’ that affect generative transmission undoubtedly are the oral and literate modes, but, as pointed out by Goody, other categories (the logographic vs. the alphabetic mode, the manuscript vs. the printed mode etc.) may also be assumed to be relevant. On the basis of the features distinguished by Goody for generative transmission it may be argued that the Emar lexical texts show a mixed use of oral and literate technologies. The degree to which some of the concrete literate techniques discussed by Goody (his ‘figures of the written word’) are evident in the Emar lexical texts will be discussed in 3.1.5. below. The final remark to be made here regarding the issue of generative transmission concerns the apparent analytic relation between one of the features of generative transmission and its intensity. It appears that anonymous authorship and generative transmission relate to each other in a manner of proportionality: the higher the degree of anonymity, the higher, or faster, its intensity. In exclusively oral traditions anonymity is virtually total across any longer period of time and simultaneously the intensity of generative transmission is very high, resulting in very rapid and very profound transformations in its cultural products 182 . In strongly literate traditions the situation seems to be reversed: author anonymity is virtually eliminated, and the speed of generative transmission of any given cultural product (e.g. a given work of art or a given scientific work) has slowed-down to the point of arrest. In a strongly literate context, such as 21st C science, individual intellectual achievement is very much emphasized, even to the point that many ideas are referred to as ‘authored’ and even ‘owned’ (e.g. ‘Darwinist’ theory, ‘Marxist’ theory, the ‘Safir-Whorf’ thesis). Knowledge is conceived of as originating in individual authors who are supposed to have ‘produced’ it, possessing exclusive ‘ownership’ rights to it (e.g. patents and copyrights). Such labeling may in fact be challenged and is, in fact, possible only by ignoring the historic dimension of knowledge: most if not all scientific discoveries are in fact visions 182

A discussion and appropriate illustration of such transformations may be found in Lévi-Strauss, Pensée, 90-2.

87

Chapter 3 – The Technological Perspective which only became possible on top of the accumulation of many generations of earlier work and most if not all scientific theories are merely reformulated and re-assembled conglomerates of knowledge deposited throughout earlier ages. ‘Individual achievement’, it could be argued, is in fact merely the mastery and continuation of the ‘collective’ work preceding it, often throughout long ages. From this perspective, any ‘individual achievement’, however distinguished in the eyes of contemporary experience, is irrelevant compared to the general human achievement of knowledge itself. With this in mind it is clear that the modern concept of ‘authored’ science is diametrically opposed to any traditional vision of knowledge, where the scholar is merely its vessel and where his individuality or name is of little consequence. It should, in parenthesis, be noted that in the strongly literate context of the contemporary western world the emphasis on individual achievement could well be more pronounced in the sciences than in other fields of intellectual endeavor, such as literature, where the (thematic, structural) ties with earlier creations are likely to be stronger. However, any assessment of the principle of generative transmission for such other fields, and especially the arts, falls outside the scope of this study. The counterpart to the individual authorship found in a strongly literate context such as modern science is the extreme slow-down in generative transmission. In such a context there are relatively few generatively transmitted, collectively-owned works and there are few cultural products that constitute works-in-progress worked on by consecutive generations of scholars. Instead, knowledge is increasingly individualized, atomized and ‘frozen’ in individually authored records that are intended as ‘final products’ and meant to ‘conclude’ some scientific issue or other. In such an environment there is bound to occur an exponential drive towards specialization, in which individual scholars attempt to fence off ever-narrowing fields of expertise, frequently limiting themselves to the point of absurdity and irrelevance. The few remaining works that still have a wider scope, such as some dictionaries and encyclopedias, are the only ones that still preserve some features of generative transmission. Such works may still be regularly re-edited and updated and even if all contributions to them are individually authored - the result is larger than the sum of these individual contributions. Such works may still see multiple individual scholars working as a collective and the works themselves may continue across multiple generations 183 . Such works may be said to still bear some resemblance to the products of Ancient Mesopotamian scholarship, which, with its much more intense generative 183

One way of arguing in favor of the continued relevance of the principle of generative transmission in the context of modern science is by viewing the modern scientific emphasis on individual achievement as principally a function of its tendency to ever-increasing specialization. Many of the atomized individual contributions could be seen as simply opening up new (sub)fields of specialization and they could still be considered as accumulatively, synchronically constituting a single body of knowledge, subject to diachronic generative transmission with each new generation of scholars. The principle of generative transmission could then be recognized only in the sum of the individual works produced, rather than in any single, shared and continuous scholarly creation. In such an approach, the difference between ‘modern’ generative transmission and its earlier, ‘traditional’ form is most importantly that the former generally lacks the explicitly shared creations which lend (or impose on) the latter its coherence and coordination. The increase in specialization furthermore decreases the level of mastery that any single scholar may wield in any single discipline of wider scope. Thus, the ‘modern’ form of generative transmission basically precludes its recognition at all but the most abstract (epistemological) macro-level, effectively rendering it irrelevant in relation to intent and experience at the level of the individual scholar.

88

Chapter 3 – The Technological Perspective transmission, occupies the middle ground between the anonymous, dynamic products of exclusively oral traditions and the individually-authored, static output of modern, ‘superliterate’ knowledge systems. 3.1.2. Functional cognitive system In his discussion of the relation between literacy and the growth of knowledge Goody presents two main theses. The first is of a general nature and proposes that changes in the modes of communication affect the development of cognitive structures and processes by influencing the storage, analysis and creation of knowledge. The second is more specific and proposes that alphabetic writing allowed the development of modern western science by increasing the scope for critical scrutiny of general and by increasing the potentiality for knowledge accumulation. According to the first thesis different modes of communication result in different functional cognitive systems - together these differences account for much of the differences between cultures. According to the second thesis modern western science is an example of one such a functional cognitive system, ultimately made possible by alphabetic writing (and shaped by later developments in communication technology such as printing) 184 . Now it is to be considered how to apply Goody’s concept of the functional cognitive system to the study object under consideration, viz. the Emar lexical texts. The question to be addressed here is what kind of functional cognitive system is reflected by these texts. Following Goody’s first general thesis, the answer to this question is to be sought in the mode of communication technology that underpins the functional cognitive system. In order to profit from the theoretical considerations found in Goody’s work the approach to be followed here is to investigate the differences between the communication technology on which Goody’s analysis focuses, viz. alphabetic writing, and that found in the Emar lexical text corpus, viz. logographic writing. Goody’s offers a series of reflections on certain earlier theories, commenting on them from his ‘technological’ perspective among these is R. Horton’s. Open and closed systems R. Horton postulated a closed-open system dichotomy, in which closed systems are characterized by the absence of alternatives and anxiety about threats to the system 185 , a dichotomy that basically runs parallel to the traditional-modern dichotomy found elsewhere in the Great Divide debate. Goody offers a systematic reconsideration of the criteria Horton gives for this dichotomy by reviewing them in terms of differences in communications technology 186 . Here the most important of Horton’s criteria and Goody’s reviews of them will be looked at more closely: they will be considered with Mesopotamian logographic ‘technology’ instead of Goody’s western alphabetic ‘technology’ in mind.

184

Goody, Domestication, 36. R. Horton, ‘African traditional thought and Western science’, Africa 37 (1967) 50-71 and 155-87. 186 Goody, Domestication, 41-6. 185

89

Chapter 3 – The Technological Perspective Magic vs. science First, there is Horton’s criterion of the magical (closed system) vs. the scientific (open system) attitude to words: the magical attitude depends on a unity of the word with ideas and with reality, whereas in the scientific attitude words, ideas and reality are conceived of as independent registers. Goody argues that in as far as ‘word magic’ is replaced by the scientific attitude, which in his view effectively replaces it by ‘print magic’, this is actually an effect of the objectification of words in writing: ... words assume a different relationship to action and to object when they are on paper than when they are spoken. They are no longer bound up directly with ‘reality’; the written word becomes a separate ‘thing’, abstracted to some extent from the flow of speech, shedding its close entailment with action, with power over matter 187 . Looking at this matter with cuneiform writing in mind, it may be proposed that Goody’s argument applies specifically to alphabetic writing rather than to writing as such. In many logographic writing systems, such as the cuneiform system found in the Emar texts, the relationship between word and reality is determined at least in part pictographically. In the Emar lexical corpus plenty of evidence of such relations is found in the ‘pictographic’ readings of logograms (e.g. SaV PST 117-8 AZ and UG read as asu ‘bear’ and lābu ‘lion’) or in the ‘pictographic’ interpretations contained in sign-names (e.g. SaV PST 057 DÙL = šag gu-nu-u ‘shaded head’). Such relations mean that, even if there is an undeniable break between word and speech, there is no complete break between word and idea - or between word and reality. Certainly the separate ‘thing’ that the word has become in logographic writing is of profoundly different nature than that in alphabetic writing - a ‘thing’ with nothing approaching the abstraction level of the alphabetically spelled word. In this sense it may be said that a certain capacity for ‘word magic’ is inevitably inherent in logographic writing, a capacity that may indeed be said to have been fully exploited in the lexical lists of the Ancient Mesopotamian scholars. It may therefore be argued that while Goody’s arguments may hold true for alphabetic writing, they are not necessarily valid for logographic writing. In fact, when Horton’s concept of a ‘magical’ attitude to words is applied to cuneiform scholarship, it is not inconceivable that it accounts for (some of) those aspects of classification which elude modern research. Occasion- vs. idea-bound ideas Second, there is Horton’s criterion of occasion-bound (closed system) vs. idea-bound (open system) ideas, only the latter of which permit de-contextualized or abstract formulations. Goody attributes this difference, again, to the effect of the objectification of words in writing. Considering this matter with cuneiform writing in mind it would seem that, again, Goody’s argument is applicable to alphabetic writing rather than to writing as such. If, as proposed in discussion of magic and science above, logographic writing avoids the break between word and idea, or the break between word and reality, that characterizes alphabetic writing, it seems reasonable to assume that any scholarly endeavor based on logographic writing will tend to direct itself towards the ideas and realities that are visibly contained in, or contextually associated with the logograms that 187

Ibidem, 46.

90

Chapter 3 – The Technological Perspective provide its medium. Such a tendency to investigate ‘occasion-bound’ ideas indeed characterizes the kind of scholarship found in the Mesopotamian lexical tradition, with its strong emphasis on analyzing tangible contextual (visible, audible) associations. An example of the effects of this type of contextual-associative scholarship may be found in the vertical organization of the SaV sequence PST 055-8, giving a list of basic, simple (non-compounded) logograms. Entry 055 KA is based on the pictogram of a face. Among its multiple readings are the graphically visible references KAG pû ‘mouth’, ZÚ šinnu ‘tooth’ and KÌRI appu ‘nose’ but also the graphically invisible references INIM awātu ‘word’, DUG 4 qabû ‘to speak’ and GÙ rigmu ‘noise’. The readings collected around KA are clearly not selected either solely on the basis of the graphic visibility or solely on the basis of the close thematic unity of the referents. Entry 055 KA is followed by 056 SAG, based on the pictogram of a head. Again, its readings include graphically visible references, such as rēšu ‘head’ and pūtu ‘stern’, as well as to graphically invisible references, such as awīlu ‘man’ and even kiššatu ‘world’, the latter possibly a meaning conceived due to the traditional position of Kish as the ‘head’ of the early Sumerian league of cities. A thematic association may be read in the sequence of KA-SAG as both entries refer to closely linked body parts, the next entry, however, does not continue this theme. Instead, 057 DÙL follows 056 SAG based on graphic rather than thematic association (DÙL is SAG with an added graphic element). In turn, the next entry, 058 DU, interrupts the graphic association linking KA, SAG and DÙL: DU does not have a graphic link to the preceding sequence. Instead, the most obvious association between DÙL and DU is phonetic - less obvious is the semantic contrast between the readings DÙL=KÚŠ pars-pro-toto for KÚŠ.Ù anāhu ‘to tire’ and DU=ĜEN alāku ‘to go’. From this example it is clear to what extent SaV lacks a single unifying organizational principle no single abstract concept guides its sequence. Rather, the associations found in SaV are of various kinds and determined, as far as they are reconstructable, by the direct context. What dominates Ancient Mesopotamian lexical scholarship is its concern with the constructive principles of the writing system itself - these tend to shape the classification of knowledge in general. These principles rely on a contextual interpretation of signs (by means of the pictographic and rebus principles) and are distinctly occasion-bound: they are bound to the imaging of specific visual referents (viz. the original pictograms) as well as to the reflection of specific acoustic referents (viz. Sumerian phonemes and morphemes). As any concept expressed in cuneiform writing is necessarily simultaneously interpretable within the limited framework provided by these referents, Mesopotamian lexical scholarship may well be described as having a natural tendency to structure itself a self-contained or closed knowledge system. It is reasonable to expect such closure to be reinforced by the phenomenon of ‘conditioning’ postulated for many knowledge systems. Goody described the ‘conditioning’ postulated for ‘normal science’ by T. Kuhn as follows: ... (such normal) science, proceeds to work within one paradigm* by solving the puzzles offered by it. The very boundaries of a paradigm are a condition of growth of a subject, a development from a pre-paradigmatic stage since, by limiting the scope of enquiry, they create specialist areas of concentration 188 . In the case of 188

Ibidem, 48, in reference to T. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago 1962) - Goody also discusses the criticism to Kuhn and the subsequent adjustments he made to his theory.

91

Chapter 3 – The Technological Perspective cuneiform scholarship such ‘conditioning’ may have been especially pronounced in view of the sheer effort of learning the writing system, with all its nuances of graphic, phonetic and semantic association, learning which includes mastering the many interpretations accumulated around it throughout earlier generations of scholarship. An illustration of the closed nature of Mesopotamian lexical scholarship is found in the particularities of the thematic lists, which are the only ones to show any classificatory principle other than those to be derived from the particularities of the writing system itself (the other ‘sign-lists’ all serve to teach either associative techniques or specific graphemic principles, e.g. a special category of compounds in Diri). Although the thematic lists treat categories (‘themes’) which may be considered to contain an abstract conceptual aspect (e.g. the ‘wood’ section of Hh, which includes trees as well as music instruments), they in fact show a considerable organizational similarity to the sign-lists: these thematic lists too are structured by graphemic devices, such as determinatives, keysigns and key-words. The fact that the cuneiform writing system may be said to favor context- or occasionbound ideas in the lexical lists has two implications with regard to Goody’s stance concerning Horton’s concept occasion- vs. idea-bound ideas. On the one hand, it suggests that Goody’s attribution of the difference between these kinds of ideas to the technology of writing should be modified to the more specific technology of alphabetic writing. On the other hand, it reinforces Goody’s more general main thesis which proposes that changes in the mode of communication affect the development of cognitive structures and processes. The specific mode of communication under consideration here, viz. the logographic writing utilized in cuneiform scholarship, was found to affect - indeed shape - knowledge in a very specific way in its lexical product. Unreflective vs. reflective thinking Third, there is Horton’s criterion of unreflective- (closed system) vs. reflective (open system) thinking, of which only the latter permit the development of logic (rules of thought), epistemology (grounds for thought) and philosophy. A usable definition of reflective thinking relevant to this criterion may be found in M.W. Wartofsky’s description of rationality quoted by Goody: ... (rational practice) entails ... the selfconscious or reflective use of concepts, i.e. the critical attitude towards scientific practice and thought, which constitutes not simply scientific knowledge alone (which is its necessary precondition), but the self-knowledge of science, the critical examination of its own conceptual foundations 189 . Goody rejects Horton’s unreflective-reflective distinction and instead attributes the development of logic, epistemology and philosophy to the development of specific techniques: he argues that ‘(t)raditional’ societies are marked not so much by the absence of reflective thinking as by the absence of the proper tools for constructive rumination 190 . He suggests that the emergence of logic, epistemology and 189

M.W. Wartofsky, ‘Metaphysics as a Heuristic for Science’ in: R.S. Cohen and M.W. Wartofsky (eds.), Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science 3 Proceedings of the Boston Colloquium for the Philosophy of Science 1964/1966 (New York 1967) 123-72 there 151 apud Goody, 48. 190 Goody, Domestication, 44.

92

Chapter 3 – The Technological Perspective philosophy as coherent, formalized constructs are linked to writing. In his view, the formalization of propositions in logic, epistemology and philosophy relies on the abstraction from the flow of speech and the formalized inspection of communication that become possible with the introduction of writing. Considering this matter with cuneiform writing in mind it may be asked if Goody’s argument applies to logographic writing in the same way as it applies to alphabetic. In other words, does logographic writing provide the same kind of tool for reflective thinking as alphabetic writing? Given the absence of anything resembling the logical, epistemological or philosophical categories and procedures of western thought in Ancient Mesopotamian scholarship, it seems that the answer must be negative. However, an alternative answer may be conceived of if it is argued that it depends on the definition of logic, epistemology and philosophy. If logic, epistemology and philosophy are interpreted strictly according to the formal definitions that have historically developed in western science, they are absent in Ancient Mesopotamian scholarship. A wider interpretation is, however, conceivable, e.g. on the basis of etymological considerations. Thus the term ‘logic’ derives from λογική, the adjective for the ‘possession of reason, intellect and dialectic argumentation’, derived from the noun λόγος, ‘word; thought; idea; argument; account; reason; principle’ certainly the meanings of both the adjective and the noun are relevant in any description of the lexical lists. Similarly, the term ‘epistemology’ refers to the application of λόγος, ‘word’ or ‘thought’ to επιστήμη, ‘knowledge’, an application that can be expected to be made by certain specialists as long as a class of scholars exists that is in need of professional standards and of a reference framework for these standards. Such a class most certainly existed in Ancient Mesopotamia, as did explicit honorific terminology for its members (e.g. Lu 1039 LÚGAL.ZU ‘great knowing man’, 1051 ummānu ‘expert’ and 1085 LÚDUB.SAR MAH ‘chief scribe’) and as did explicit abstract terminology for scholarship (e.g. Lu 1091-2 speak of ÚMUN ‘scholarship’ and SUN 5 ‘authority’ as attributes of scribes). Finally, the term ‘philosophy’, derived from φιλοσοφία, indicates the ‘love of knowledge; of wisdom’, which many monuments of Ancient Mesopotamian literature attest to as being held in high esteem among scholars. Thus, it can be argued that forms of logic, epistemology and philosophy in their wider sense certainly existed in Ancient Mesopotamia. When such wider interpretations are admitted, it may be said that, rather than lacking them, Ancient Mesopotamian scholarship has other kinds of logic, epistemology and philosophy. What is evident in the lexical tradition is its concern with very different issues, resulting in a very different classificatory logic, a very different grounding of knowledge and a very different definition of knowledge itself. One of the main concerns evident from the form and content of the lexical lists is the preservation and maintenance of the relation between word, idea and the empiric life world. This concern stems obviously from the medium of these lists, cuneiform writing, in which words, ideas and the empiric life world relate to each other in a manner very different from that found in alphabetic writing. Their relation in cuneiform writing could be somewhat simplistically summarized as ‘the medium makes the message’ 191 . In the study of lexical lists the question is not so much what messages were coded in writing but rather what messages are created from the elements of cuneiform writing themselves. In 191

A variant of the expression that the ‘medium is the message’, found in the title of M. MacLuhan, The Medium is the Message: an Inventory of Effects (Corte Madera 2001).

93

Chapter 3 – The Technological Perspective this sense the ‘message’ of the lexical lists depends on the creative potential of the principles of cuneiform writing. The integrative methodology, which the lexical curriculum has been shown to teach (cf. Part 3 2.1.2.1. and 2.1.3.), in fact emphasized an actively creative study of these principles: lexical scholarship not merely sought to preserve and maintain knowledge concerning the creative potential of these principles - it sought to expand and explore it further. Protective vs. destructive attitude to established theory Fourth, there is Horton’s criterion of the protective (closed system) vs. destructive (open system) attitude to established theory in general and to the category system in particular. The former attitude is said to block out any questioning of the particular paradigms established by a given knowledge system, whereas the latter is said to encourage such questioning, which can be viewed as the hallmark of ‘scientific’ thought. In Horton’s analysis the mechanism crucial to the development of the destructive attitude is essential skepticism (or conceptual, explicit skepticism) 192 . Goody, however, argues that it is, in fact, not skepticism as such that distinguishes scientific thought, but rather the accumulation of skepticism, which becomes possible with writing. He illustrates this point by showing how a written text can be subjected to forms of critical analysis that are impractical with respect to oral discourse. It should, in parenthesis, be noted that with regard to Horton’s view that the regulation of the category systems in protective, closed traditions relies on taboos, Goody suggests that any categorical ‘taboo’ merely reflects a linguistic designation for a certain form of social behavior rather than a conceptual boundary - basically putting this notion aside 193 . It seems appropriate to clarify what’s at stake in this debate by carefully reconsidering the concepts involved. It should be noted that Goody’s thesis concerning accumulation of skepticism does not address the issue raised by Horton concerning skepticism itself. In fact, Goody’s apparent assumption is that the occurrence of skepticism is universally found in all knowledge systems. This assumption, however, needs argumentation argumentation different than that relevant to the relation between literacy and the accumulation (or intensification) of skepticism. Only if Goody’s apparent assumption holds valid, and skepticism is indeed a universal feature of all knowledge systems, can a debate about its accumulation be conducted in a structured manner. Only then it can be asked whether the accumulation of skepticism applies to logographic systems, such as the Ancient Mesopotamian one, to the same extent as to alphabetic systems. Above all it is therefore important to determine whether skepticism is indeed a universal feature of all knowledge systems.

192

The requirements for a community of criticism, presaging the scientific community, is central … as a condition for rationality. - M.W. Wartofsky, ‘Metaphysics as a Heuristic for Science’ in: R.S. Cohen and M.W. Wartofsky (eds.), Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science 3 Proceedings of the Boston Colloquium for the Philosophy of Science 1964/1966 (New York 1967) 123-72 there 168 apud Goody, Domestication, 42. 193 Goody, Domestication, 45ff.

94

Chapter 3 – The Technological Perspective Here two propositions will be made concerning this issue. (1) First, it is proposed that skepticism is not a universal feature of all knowledge systems. This proposition is arrived at by applying the most common scientific definition to the term ‘skepticism’, viz. its reference to a specific philosophical method of obtaining knowledge through systematic doubt and continual testing. As even in the western philosophical tradition there are alternative methods and schools, such a systematic practice of doubt or testing as a hermeneutic method can obviously not be assumed to be a universal feature found in all knowledge systems. Rather, here it is proposed that ‘skepticism’ is merely a specific particularity found in a specific kind of knowledge system, a view recognizable in Horton’s scheme. (2) Second, it is proposed that the relation between literacy and skepticism is of an indirect nature. Literacy has been shown to slow down the process of generative transmission, a slow-down during which individual authorship increasingly replaces anonymous authorship (cf. 3.1.1.). It was said that individualized authorship resulted in a ever increasing multitude of static, atomized forms of knowledge, ‘frozen’ in isolated, individualized ‘final products’ of an increasingly specialized nature. If literacy can thus be said to produce a slowdown in generative transmission, with a concomitant increase in individualized authorship, then the rise of systematic skepticism may be interpreted as a function of individualized authorship. Skepticism results from the individualization of scholarship due to the inevitable friction between contradictory and mutually rejected interpretations and theories. Increasingly, interpretations and theories are authored and ‘owned’ by isolated individuals engaged in increasingly incoherent attempts at knowledge production. In fact, the application of the skeptical method may come to increasingly constitute an unavoidable professional requisite in the specific knowledge system that is modern science, shaping the product of individual authors. In as far as modern science is concerned with issues beyond those of mere material or social utility, the ultimate consequence of this kind of skepticism would be the replacement of knowledge by opinion. What Goody describes as the ‘accumulation of skepticism’ is merely a conglomerate of techniques developed at the extreme end of literacy to serve the needs of competing individual authors working in a very specific, probably unique environment, viz. that of modern science. The example offered by Goody to illustrate the issue of accumulation of skepticism in the social sciences gives a good impression of both the techniques involved and the kind of special environment in with they are relevant 194 - an environment characterized by polarized ‘debates’, competitive ‘exchanges’ and opinionated ‘reviews’. The ‘skeptical’ and unstable character of modern science, causing an ever-increasing credibility deficit especially in the fields of the social sciences and the humanities, may, in the final analysis, be traced to the abandonment of any universally valid transcendental referent, a referent ultimately indispensable for the maintenance of internal coherence in any given knowledge system 195 . This wider theoretical issue, however, is not the subject of this study. The proposition that neither ‘skepticism’ nor its accumulation are a necessary outcome of the development of literacy is confirmed by the multitude of examples to be found of literate systems which lack anything like Horton’s ‘essential skepticism’, let alone 194

Ibidem, 48-50. Cf. for example the analysis of modern science offered by J. Evola, Revolt against the Modern World (Rochester, Vermont 1995) 319ff orig.: Rivolta contro il mondo moderno (Rome 1969)

195

95

Chapter 3 – The Technological Perspective Goody’s accumulation of it. The Ancient Mesopotamian knowledge system, although of a clearly literate nature, could generally be described as of a decidedly conservative nature, lacking the skeptical qualities found to be characteristic of modern scientific thought. In as much as Ancient Mesopotamian scholarship lacked the theoretical diversity of modern science it can be described as monolithic. In as much as individual scholars in successive generations were concerned with the generative transmission of a single, unified body of knowledge, rather than with the incessant creation of multiple autonomous specializations, Ancient Mesopotamian scholarship may also be described as static. In view of these properties and of its lack of ‘essential skepticism’, which combine to contribute to a state of continuity, stability and consensus, it appears that the Ancient Mesopotamian knowledge system may well deserve Horton’s epithet ‘protective’. To answer the question why Ancient Mesopotamian scholarship did not develop the ‘essential skepticism’ found in modern scholarship, it may be argued that the investigative and critical skills of its scholars were bound to be directed in a different direction due to the nature of its category system. This fits in neatly with Horton’s theory, which specifically distinguishes a ‘protective’ attitude to the category system as one of the criteria for ‘closed’ knowledge systems. As all classificatory categories in Ancient Mesopotamian scholarship were inevitably formulated in reference to the logograms that constituted its medium, knowledge could only be conceived of and expressed in the specific forms and associations found within a tradition-bound, ‘closed’ logographic matrix. Thus, any investigative, ‘critical’ effort was effectively ‘bounced’ back and forth within the boundaries of this paradigm. The nature of the integrative methodology as described for the lexical lists illustrates the direction investigative and critical scholarship was bound to take: it was bound to investigate new (kinds of) cross-connections between the elements rather than to question, let alone reject, the ones already established. The diachronic development of the lexical tradition (cf. Part 3 14.11.) shows that the main contribution of new generations of scholars was indeed of a accumulative rather than of a transformative nature (e.g. the general tendency to diachronic expansion). In those instances that real transformations do occur (e.g. the acrographic systematization of Izi), they are the result of the organic, gradual processes particular to generative transformation rather than of the radical theoretical shifts particular to ‘essential skepticism’. 3.1.3. Figures of the written word Most of Goody’s work The Domestication of the Savage Mind is taken up by a discussion of the effects of certain specific non-speech uses of language on the organization and development of knowledge in literate societies. Goody describes these different nonspeech uses as figures of the written word and he views them as constituting pivotal elements of the literate ‘technology of the intellect’ which, in the final analysis, underpins the eventual development of the modern western knowledge system. The first aim of the investigation offered in this subparagraph is to determine the analytic value of the most important of Goody’s figures of the written word for describing the knowledge system underlying the Ancient Mesopotamian lexical texts, viz. the list, the table, the formula

96

Chapter 3 – The Technological Perspective and the recipe (3.1.3.1-4.). Its second aim is to evaluate some of Goody’s general conclusions in terms the relevant evidence thus gathered (3.1.3.5.). 3.1.3.1. The list In his discussion of the list as a literate device Goody proposes two complementary theses relevant to the study of the Mesopotamian lexical corpus. It should be noted that he, in fact, actually discusses the Mesopotamian lexical lists to illustrate his theory - one of the rare examples of Assyriological evidence being used in relation to social and anthropological theory. The first of Goody’s theses is that writing changes cognition by affecting the capacity and manner of recall and by encouraging a systematic reflection upon information, causing it to be organized differently 196 . The shift from the oral to the written medium led, in Goody’s words, to …significant developments of a sort that might be loosely referred to as a change in consciousness and which in part arose from the great extension of formal operations of a graphic kind 197 . The second thesis is that an important role in this change was played by the rise of the written list, which he sees as …characteristic of the early uses of writing, being promoted partly by the demands of complex economy and state organization, partly by the nature of scribal training, and partly by a ‘play’ element, which attempts to explore the potentialities of this new medium. He proposes that the list generally represents ...an activity which is difficult in oral cultures and one which encourages the activities of historians and observational sciences, as well as on a more general level, favoring the exploration and definition of classificatory schemas 198 . These two theses are complementary in the sense that the introduction of the written list can be viewed as of crucial importance in the development of the new ‘information technology’ of the written word. In order to determine the value of Goody’s theses for the interpretation of the Emar lexical material it will now be attempted to measure the actual tangible effects that they predict. With regard to the first thesis, i.e. the change of cognition due to writing, the most important of the predicted effects of the introduction of writing is the effect on classification, viz. the sharpened outline of categories, due to a reappraisal of the nature of classes prompted by their graphical juxtaposition 199 . Describing the written list as a device ... that permits and requires explicit expression of certain implicit semantic categories and relations ... 200 , Goody illustrates his point in reference to the Mesopotamian lexical lists as follows: (t)he explicit formulation of category systems or semantic fields e.g. kinship terminology, zoological species and literary genres, is a function of the reduction of classificatory terms to writing, and not simply writing in a linear fashion but writing that takes words out of their speech context and places them, so abstracted, in a unilateral relationship with words (concepts/morphemes, lexical units, possibly phrases) deemed to be of a similar ‘class’, i.e. possessing certain common features which may relate to the concrete world outside (i.e. animals, trees) or to some 196

Goody, Domestication, 109. Ibidem, 75. 198 Ibidem, 108. 199 Ibidem, 102. 200 Ibidem, 106. 197

97

Chapter 3 – The Technological Perspective other ordering concern 201 . The examples of the explicit expression of implicit categories given in this quote obviously refer to the organization of content found in specific parts of the lexical curriculum: kinship terminology is the theme around which a part of Hh1 is organized (EST 1069-89) whereas zoological species are the themes found in Hh8-10/12. What should be noted, however, is that the level of ‘abstraction’ found in the lexical series is limited: the organizational principles of the various series mostly involve concrete, graphic associations in some form or other. It could, in fact, be argued that in the Mesopotamian lexical corpus Goody’s ‘reduction of classificatory terms to writing’ is mostly realized through a rather concrete kind of association, viz. through graphically explicit key-sign association. In the Mesopotamian lexical lists the new, ‘abstract’ classes which Goody refers to as triggered by writing are actually classes that are based primarily on the specific particularities of the cuneiform writing system: the ‘common features’ of these classes are mostly shared graphic values rather than anything abstract on the level of an implicit ‘concept’ or ‘idea’. Such graphic similarities between written words happen to largely coincide with empiric similarities between things in the outside world (e.g. words written with the sign ĜIŠ coincide with things made from wood and words written with GI coincide with things made from reed). The level of actual classificatory ‘abstraction’ is quite limited. This obviously does not invalidate Goody’s thesis, but it does serve to draw attention to the specific manner in which writing has effects on classification when the writing in question is of the logographic variety. The classificatory tools specified by Goody as arising with the written list are (1) determinatives, (2) spatial separations and (3) diacritical markers. The role of these three tools for organizing content in the Mesopotamian lexical texts has been sufficiently described for the Emar corpus in Part 3. (1) Determinatives are arguably vital for the organization of content, although this derives from their role as key-signs rather than from their existence as an actual, independent classificatory category (cf. Part 3 4.2.1.). In this respect the role of determinatives as classificatory tools by Goody should be seen as empirical rather than categorical. With this caveat, the definition of determinatives given by Goody seems empirically accurate enough, viz. ... a form of classification which is imposed by writing upon speech; it is a visual sign that characterizes the common features of series of objects or actions 202 . (2) Spatial separation within a list, which in the Mesopotamian lexical tradition is linked to the use of vertical and horizontal ruling, was found to be vitally important both for providing the basic structures of any given text and for distinguishing different compositions as different formal-organizational units (cf. Part 3 11.2.). With respect to (3) diacritical markers attention may be drawn to the use of line markers and separation markers (cf. Part 3 2.1.2.1. and 12.2. respectively). The use of the latter should be considered as an auxiliary device, providing spatial separation only where other devices, such as position shifts and vertical ruling, have failed. In this respect it should be noted that in those lexical series where vertical ruling and exclusive slot positioning suffices to separate words, the use of separation markers is very limited. It could be argued that in the lexical lists the use of diacritical markers is a secondary phenomenon, arising only at the point that the list-form itself was threatened by elements

201 202

Ibidem, 104-5. Ibidem, 104.

98

Chapter 3 – The Technological Perspective intruding across slot-boundaries. On balance, the importance Goody attaches to these three phenomena as special classificatory tools occurring in written lists seems justified. With regard to the second thesis, i.e. that the written list played an important role in the change of cognition linked to the shift from the oral to the written medium, it is appropriate to pay closer attention to the specific effects Goody attributes to the Mesopotamian lexical texts. In his view they represent a special kind of list with two specific characteristics: (1) their abstract nature and (2) their tendency to trigger the growth of knowledge. Concerning the first characteristic Goody writes that (u)nlike (administrative and event lists,) ... lists of this kind appear to have no immediate ‘advantage’ for those who compile them ... Such lists are much less activity-oriented than inventories of estates or lists of contributions to a sacrifice; they represent an abstraction, a decontextualisation, a game and sometimes a conceptual prison 203 . With regard to this first characteristic it is important to clarify the exact definitions to be applied to Goody’s implied ‘non-utilitarian’ and ‘abstract’ status of the lexical lists. If ‘non-utilitarian’ is merely meant to imply the absence of direct economic usage, the description may be considered accurate enough. If, however, it is meant to imply the absence of any practical usage it would be highly misleading. Certainly up to the LBA, the lexical lists mostly served a quite practical and mundane purpose, viz. the purpose of providing exercise material for scribal apprentices seeking to become proficient in writing and reading cuneiform signs. The Emar colophons abundantly attest to this purpose. If ‘abstract’ is merely meant to imply the absence of specific, concrete reference objects for the words found in these school texts, the description may again be considered accurate enough, because - unlike in inventory lists and other administrative lists - such concrete, outside referents are indeed lacking in the lexical corpus. E.g. when the apprentice scribe was studying terminology relevant to sheep (Hh EST 8a001-56) there were no concrete situations in the outside world to which this terminology actually and necessarily referred. If, however, ‘abstract’ is meant to imply that the lexical texts were composed according to classificatory concepts similar to those found in modern science (e.g. according to modern linguistic criteria such as ‘morphemic analysis’ or ‘semantic range’), it would not be appropriate. Even if the modern scientist can sometimes successfully project such abstract categories on some (parts of the) lexical compositions, there is no doubt that these projections only happen to coincide with what was otherwise evidently the sole purpose of the ancient scribes, viz. to provide a compendium of graphemes for educational usage. E.g. the modern scientist may project various biological, economical or even anthropological classificatory principles on (parts of) the lists of animals found in Hh8-9, for the ancient scribes themselves, however, these lists did not serve the expression or development of such abstract concepts - for them they primarily represented compendia of writing elements, i.e. of very concrete tools used in a very concrete professional setting. During the later stages of Mesopotamian lexical scholarship, i.e. after the ‘canonization’ of the lists visible in the 1st Millennium, this situation may very well have changed. It could be argued that in later lexical scholarship more ‘abstract’ classificatory criteria and concepts did develop (as visible in e.g. acrographic and thematic systematization), possibly as a function of a different usage of the list material. The considerable increase in the length of certain (new) lexical 203

Ibidem, 94.

99

Chapter 3 – The Technological Perspective compositions (e.g. Aa, Ea) and the systematic transformation of certain others (e.g. Izi, cf. Part 3 14.6.) point in this direction. The sheer encyclopedic size of certain compositions in the 1st Millennium curriculum, even if still used as exercise materials in an educational context 204 , increasingly makes them take on a scope that in modern scientific terms is normally associated with scholarly reference works. Here it is proposed that Goody’s first characteristic of the lexical lists, viz. abstraction, becomes proportionally more pronounced as his second characteristic, viz. of the tendency to trigger the growth of knowledge, bears fruit. A number of 1st Millennium texts attest to this process. What Goody describes as a tendency to trigger a growth in knowledge is clearly visible in the diachronic development of most lexical compositions (cf. Part 3 14.11.). In the 2nd Millennium this development appears to have been slow but steady for most series, whereas in the 1st Millennium it appears to have accelerated. It may, in fact, be suggested that at some point around the turn of the Millennium the growth of knowledge, as reflected in the increased size of many lexical compositions, reached a tipping point, beyond which both the original ‘practical’ purpose and the original classificatory criteria of the texts broke down under the weight of the accumulated knowledge. The sheer accumulation of collected data achieved by the end of the 2nd Millennium may effectively have triggered a re-think of their organization and of their usage. It seems that the rise of more abstract, ‘scientific’ classificatory principles and the rise of ‘encyclopedic’ ‘research’ in lexical scholarship, both beyond the exercise format of the original school texts, may be interpreted as a result of this development 205 . On balance, therefore, Goody’s statement that lists ... crystallize problems of classification and lead to increments of knowledge, to the organization of experience ... 206 seems to be fully appropriate with regard to the Mesopotamian lexical lists. A final point to make with regard to Goody’s description of the Mesopotamian lexical lists is to reconsider his phrase ‘conceptual prison’ 207 . The question is how to explain the fact that, although these lists show Goody’s characteristics of abstraction and the growth of knowledge, they still seem to warrant such a description. The most obvious answer is that such a description is merely an etic label which can do no justice to the emic reality of Mesopotamian scholarship. Such an answer, however, leaves unexplained why a contemporary scientist may experience the Mesopotamian material as a ‘conceptual prison’ - an experience perhaps more common than explicitly admitted. Here Goody’s view that the list represents a device characteristic of early literate societies which profoundly affects the classification of knowledge in those societies may offer a solution. Following this view it can be suggested that in Mesopotamian scholarship the list-form itself was conceived of as indispensable for the production and transmission of certain kinds of knowledge. In other words, in Ancient Mesopotamia, the list-form may be said to have formed part of the very condition, or basic paradigm, of certain kinds knowledge. 204

The colophons of such texts frequently state that they were written by ‘students’. Cf. also A. Cavigneaux, ‘Lexicalische Listen, Reallexikon der Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archäologie Band 6: Klagesang-Libanon (Berlin and New York 1980-3) 609-41. 206 Goody, Domestication, 94. 207 Ibidem 205

100

Chapter 3 – The Technological Perspective Modern observers, operating in a wholly different scientific paradigm, are bound to experience difficulty in conceiving of such a condition, which for them inevitably constitutes a conceptual limitation. They are bound to experience a conceptual boundary rather than a conceptual framework. If, however, as Goody argues, the list is indeed characteristic of early literate societies and it does indeed shape cognition by shaping classification, leading to the increased abstraction and growth of knowledge, then the conception of the list as a necessary condition of (certain kinds of) knowledge need not come as a surprise. 3.1.3.2. The table Here, unlike in Goody’s book, the table as a literary device is treated after the list because the table may be said to constitute a specialized species of list, i.e. a specific type of list. A list basically contains information read in a single direction, most commonly in a single column, whereas a table always contains information that must be approached from multiple, different directions. The distinction between the two is important with respect to Mesopotamian lexicology because originally the early, unilingual lexical compositions constituted single-column lists of logograms rather than multi-column tables. At a later stage explicit graphic expressions of various kinds of interpretations were added to the logograms, a process which started with the occasional addition of glosses that gave Akkadian equivalents. As a result, many compositions that started out as lexical lists developed into lexical tables over time. It is possible that at least a few compositions (such as Diri, cf. Part 3 14.10.) were originally conceived of as multicolumn tables rather than as single column lists; for such originally tabular compositions, however, no evidence survives which predates the OB period. Generally, the shift of a given series from a single-column list into a multi-column table over time involves a transformation in terms of logogram inventory and sequence as well as a gradual expansion in the number of equivalents (cf. Part 3 14.11.). It may therefore be suggested that the development of relatively complex tables out of relatively simple lists is an important illustration of Goody’s thesis, confirming that the list as a literary device indeed does tend to foster the growth of knowledge, even to the point of causing the increased complexity and eventual transformation of the device itself. This transformation is ultimately triggered by an external development, viz. the shift from a unilingual (Sumerian) to a bilingual linguistic medium (Sumerian-Akkadian), but the fact that the list could accommodate, perhaps even encourage, this development illustrates its capacity to foster the expansion of knowledge in a horizontal as well as vertical direction. Goody’s main thesis with regard to the table, however, is that it tends to reduce and distort the complexities of reality expressed in oral communication to graphic simplifications: ... since the table is essentially a graphic (and a frequently literate) device, its fixed two-dimensional character may well simplify the reality of oral communication beyond recognition and hence decrease rather than increase understanding 208 . Goody applies this thesis mainly as a critique of anthropological research methodology, it may, however, also be applied to any knowledge object expressed in a tabular format, including the Mesopotamian lexical texts. In fact, applying 208

Ibidem, 54.

101

Chapter 3 – The Technological Perspective Goody’s thesis to these texts raises the important issue of the relation between the written and the oral medium in the Ancient Mesopotamian school. It raises the question to what extent the written texts reflect the actual width and the organizational structure of knowledge available in its original - certainly partially oral – context, i.e. in de educational contexts in which these texts were produced. Goody’s thesis predicts that any attempt to reconstruct the original, underlying body of knowledge and classification system ‘coded’ in written tables will be highly problematic: (t)he result (i.e. the table) is often to freeze a contextual statement into a system of permanent (relations), an outcome that may simplify reality for the observer but often at the expense of a real understanding of the actor’s frame of reference 209 . There are two ways in which this problem applies to the Mesopotamian lexical texts: first in the relation of the written text to its original context at the time of its production and second in the relation of modern scientific interpretation to the preserved written text. In the first relation it is unclear to what extent and in what manner oral knowledge exceeded the knowledge contained in the written record. Later written records, from the 1st Millennium, show that the lexical texts had by then become ‘canonized’, standardized and, one might say, ossified to such an extent as to suggest that the oral tradition, at least with regard to a number of important compositions, had been replaced by a primarily written tradition. In that tradition, the established scholarly practice seems to have had a distinctly formalized, literary character. That the situation was different and that the oral tradition was still important in LBA Emar, however, may be assumed on the basis of various factors: there are many synchronic variants that suggest that in the written record somehow choices and selections were made from a (much) larger available repository of memorized knowledge, a body of knowledge presumably maintained and accessed with ease in oral discourse. For the preceding OB period previous studies have established that, although in the scribal school the primary study object was writing itself, in the living oral tradition that constituted its context, a large unwritten repository of knowledge was actually available. In relation to that unwritten knowledge, which could be viewed as a collection of ‘virtual’ ‘model’ texts, any written text may be viewed as a merely incidental text witness or as an imperfect, partial reflection of the larger body of unwritten knowledge 210 . To what extent such a living oral tradition and such a different, larger repository of (memorized) knowledge 211 are still relevant in the context of LBA Emar is debatable. However, the closeness of the compositions to their OB ‘forerunners’, the continued use of unilingual texts as well as the attestation of some apparent Hörfehler, make it not unlikely that in the Emar school the OB oral tradition continued to live on at least to some degree. From the quality of the texts it may be postulated that it did so in a quantitatively reduced and qualitatively degraded manner - a reflection of its chronological and geographic distance from the former centers of learning. Irrespective of this state of affairs, however, the question of the relation between the written text and its oral context in LBA Emar remains open. The question is to what extent the written 209

Ibidem, 71-2. Cf. Veldhuis, Elementary Education, 141-2. 211 In this context it should be noted that in the Emar material there is evidence of the presence of multiple teachers as well as of at least one foreign teacher (cf. Y. Cohen, ‘Kidin-Gula – the Foreign Teacher at the Emar Scribal School, Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 98 (2004) 81-100). 210

102

Chapter 3 – The Technological Perspective text represents a simplification of the wider, combined written-oral context in which it was presumably produced. The inevitable discrepancy between the two with regard to any symbolic system, including cuneiform writing, is emphasized by Goody: ... the basic trouble lies in the attempt to apply a single graphic device (the table) to the study of ‘symbols’ in an oral culture. It is doubtful if words and their meanings can ever be subjected to such reductionism with any degree of profit ... For this simplification produces a superficial order that reflects the structure of a matrix more obviously than the structure of the (or a) human mind and thus produces gross general similarities in all this type of construct 212 . Applying Goody’s idea to the Mesopotamian material at hand means that the problem of the relation between written and oral knowledge was a problem faced by the ancient scribes themselves. One way of investigating this problem is to ask to what extent the written text found in Emar still betrays its origins in a partially oral body of knowledge in terms of what from a modern scientific perspective would be termed logical ‘flaws’ or, perhaps better, ‘systematic aberrations’. Goody suggests a number of typical ‘flaws’ to be expected: (a) the lack of systematic application of logical categories and (b) the tendency to add impromptu series of context-dictated qualifications 213 . With regard to the former there is indeed found a consistent mingling of logical categories such as ‘opposition’ and ‘equivalence’, examples of which are SaV, where PST 001 A is rendered rīštu ‘joy’ (001.08) as well as nissatu ‘lamentation’ (001.12) and 048 AN is rendered šamû ‘heaven’(048.01) as well as erṣetu ‘earth’ (048.02) and DIĜIRlì ‘god’ (048.03) as well as awīlu ‘man’ (048.04). With regard to the latter examples of a tendency to render exhaustive series of context-dictated qualifications to key-words are found in Hh9, where EST 9a023 EH ‘vermin’ is followed by specifications of the places where vermin may be found (9a024 gives A.ŠAG 4 .GA ‘field’, 9a025 ĜIŠKIRI 6 ‘garden’, 9a026 ŠE ‘barley’ etc.). Studying the preserved or reconstructed sections of the longer, coherent texts (Part 2) it will be noticed how these two phenomena recur consistently throughout the lexical curriculum - they present, as it were, a picture of systematic aberrations. This consistent presence of these embedded phenomena may reflect the closeness of the written text to the lost oral tradition in which it was produced. In the second relation to be considered, i.e. that of the practice of modern scientific interpretation to the preserved written text, the most obvious problem is the manner in which the former will inevitably distort the latter, thus increasing the distance between, on the one hand, the original, combined oral-written, knowledge system underlying the preserved text and, on the other hand, the modern student of that text. A short critique of a sample of modern scientific interpretation will suffice to illustrate the point. If the reader considers the first section of the reconstructed, composite edition of SaV (Part 2 2.1.) he will observe a number of striking divergences between this modern ‘interpretation’ and the actual texts on which it is based. First, the actual cuneiform signs have been replaced by a Latinized coding system. The text does not give the first logogram (PST 001) by reproducing the three vertical cuneiform wedges used for writing the ‘water’ pictogram, but rather it gives a Latinized reconstruction of its Sumerian 212 213

Goody, Domestication, 67-8. Ibidem, 70ff.

103

Chapter 3 – The Technological Perspective pronunciation, viz. the letter A. This distance to the text inevitably means that the user of this modern interpretation cannot immediately note the (partial) graphic correspondences between successive key-words, such as those between 001 A, 002 ŠUR as well as 003 PAD, or such as those, more obvious ones, between 008 HU and 009 RI. Thus, a vital ingredient of the organizational principle of the ancient composition is bound to impress the user of the modern texts less than he would be if he would use the original text. Second, to achieve an unambiguous graphic coding of the cuneiform signs the scientific convention selects a single reading of any given sign, chosen from what is in reality mostly a considerably larger inventory of phonetic readings available. E.g. SaV PST 005, a composite sign consisting of three horizontal wedges ‘stapled’ on top of each other by a single vertical wedge and preceded by four smaller wedges ordered in a diagonal triangle (HI-ÁŠ), is conventionally rendered as HAR, but in reality its readings also include the variant values ÀR, HUR, GUR 14 , UR 5 , MUR and KÍN. The modern scientific rendering HAR effectively obscures the full polyphonic content associated with the graphic sign-form. Third, the modern scientific interpretation tends to isolate graphemes, phoneme(-cluster)s as well as specific semantic meanings within the text, even although the text empirically emphasized a multifaceted relational aspect - this aspect is bound to become obscured in such a modern analytic approach. Many lexical compositions teach how various graphic shapes in signs have sound and meaning relative to each other, i.e. the explain how certain logographic values are arrived at in relation to others. E.g. the positioning of 001 A followed by 002 ŠUR shows their graphic relation (the last part of ŠUR embeds the three verticals of A) as well as a their semantic relation (001 A .01 mû ‘water’ > .16 zunnu ‘water’ > 002 ŠUR .01 zanānu ‘to rain’ > .02 ramāku ‘to wash’). The phonetic and semantic ranges associated with individual signs are of an eminently relative nature: the various possible phonetic and semantic values of the signs are made possible by the pragmatic extension of their pictographic associations. E.g. the key pictographic association between graphic HI-ÁŠ and semantic ‘liver’, with the phonetic value UR 5 , is simultaneously semantically and phonetically extended to include ‘spleen’ and MUR and hence again (secondarily) to ‘nourishment’, which happens to represent an alternative semantic content of the homophone MUR. It should be noted that a second pictographic association of HI-ÁŠ, viz. ‘millstone’, is ingeniously linked to its first pictographic association by the inclusion of the entries 005.06-8 HAR=ÀR arāru ‘miller’, ṭênu ‘to grind’ and sāmidu ‘miller’: this clearly represents a convenient extension of the phonetic interpretability of the sign HI-ÁŠ from /ur/ to /ar/ as a function of its varied pictographic interpretability. This results in an empiric relativity of the graphic, phonetic and semantic values associable with HI-ÁŠ. In the lexical texts the logograms effectively (originally, empirically) served as a series of clues for the scholarly investigations into their traditional and potential graphic, phonetic and semantic associative range. In regard to this role, the modern scientific transliteration or transcription of these texts inevitably fails to reflect their true content and aim. The fourth and last divergence between the actual SaV text as found in Emar and its modern ‘interpretation’ found in Part 2 2.1. concerns the fact that the modern text is an artificial construct which collects the maximum amount of data from many individual texts and text fragments and presents these data in a structure (entry sequence) based on statistical averages. The modern ‘composite text’ may serve a number of scientific purposes (e.g. inventory,

104

Chapter 3 – The Technological Perspective reconstruction, diachronic comparison), it fails, however, to give the modern observer access to the actual texts produced by the actual scribes. On balance, it may be concluded that the divergences between ancient and modern scholarship, i.e. the shown differences in scholarly methods and aims, are bound to represent yet another obstacle to the modern effort to understand the oral context in which the ancient texts were produced. A systematic description in terms of the categories that are important in modern linguistic analysis (palaeography, phonology, morphology, lexicology) is inevitably bound to ignore much of the actual issues and questions with which the ancient scribes sought to come to terms. Many of the categories important in modern scientific research are of such a high abstraction level that they are bound to either collide with or simply ignore the kind of concrete, context-bound associative strategies found in the ancient texts. The distance of modern science to the oral context underlying these texts, i.e. the context where these strategies originated and formed themselves, can be said to present a formidable obstacle indeed. One way in which Goody proposes that the table is likely to distort any oral reality is by its tendency to simplification. Goody argues that …(t)he complexity of (the table) lessens as the range of material widens. This lessening of complexity is accompanied by the attribution of increasing generality to the result 214 . In other words, the literary device which is the table projects features of organization that are alien to the oral reality it seeks to code, distorting many of the ambivalences inherent in oral classification. Observing the Mesopotamian lexical corpus with Goody’s proposition in mind it can be suggested that this may, in fact, explain certain tendencies visible in the diachronic development of that corpus. It could help explain the fact that the ‘canonization’ of the curriculum in the 1st Millennium was matched by a ‘systematization’ of certain series - most notably the thematic systematization of Lu and the acrographic systematization of Izi (cf. Part 3 14.11.). The elimination or drastic decrease of ‘non-systematic’ classificatory principles and of ‘mixed’ associative strategies apparent in these developments could be considered as due to an increase in abstract conceptualization. Here is visible what Goody would term the ‘attribution of increasing generality’ and ‘simplification’. It may be that the progressive loss of the oral component or oral context during the continuous reproduction of the texts allowed them to eventually develop into exclusively literary creations with a tendency to become increasingly ‘systematized’, a tendency due to an exclusively literary - hence increasingly abstract - conceptualization. The extent to which this development may be typified as ‘progress’ is a manner of opinion, but it may be appropriate to quote Goody’s observation in this regard: (t)he reduction of cultures to writing, whether by actors or observers, by Cabalists or by anthropologists, tends to order perception in similar ways, providing simplified frameworks for the more subtle systems of oral reference... (author’s italics) 215 . It would seem that a decrease in classificatory subtlety and in conceptual capacity is the inevitable consequence of the tabular presentation of knowledge in an exclusively literary knowledge regime.

214 215

Ibidem, 67. Ibidem, 70.

105

Chapter 3 – The Technological Perspective 3.1.3.3. The formula In Goody’s view the formula may be considered a typical figure of the written word, i.e. a typically literary device, because only in writing it can achieve fully the fixed standard form which it seeks to impose on communication. The full degree of fixed formalization to which the formula tends can only be found in a literary context: ... writing permits a further stage of formalization, the extreme form of which appears in the list and the table 216 . He argues that while in both oral and literate context the composition of texts depends on the reworking of earlier materials, in a literate context there will be much more of such material available. Similarly, he argues that while in both types of contexts the reproduction of texts depends on the model available, only in a literate context a truly standardized model is available 217 . Goody proposes that the differences between oral and literate societies with regard to the composition and reproduction of texts may be expressed in terms of their different positions in a formulaic continuum, a continuum in which ... the standard oral forms of non-literate societies fall towards the variable rather than the repetitive ends of the continuum; that is, they may be standard both with regard to ‘genre’ and in contract to the syntax of ordinary utterance, and standard too in certain aspects of their construction, but not necessarily with regard to their content 218 . In an oral setting the lack of fixed formulae, i.e. of fixed standard forms, means that compositional creativity and text reproduction are bound to mix - resulting in the process of generative transmission that was discussed earlier (cf. 3.1.1. above). In relation to the Emar text material two observations will be made regarding Goody’s interpretation of the formula as a literary device. First, Goody considers the list and the table as an extreme stage of formalization. The manner in which this is true for the Emar lexical texts and the way formulae play a role in these texts may be illustrated by a few examples. Looking at the unilingual lexical texts, which constitute (single-column) lists, the interpretation of logograms may be said to have been achieved by means of a vertically read formula. The core element in this formula was the key-sign logogram. E.g. the GUD ‘ox’ key sign found throughout the entire sequence Hh8a086-104, which establishing a common identity for all these entries. Readings of individual entries within this entry series are achieved by vertical juxtaposition of secondary elements. E.g. the fertility distinctions between bulls ‘young’ and ‘breeding’ in 8a097-8 are expressed by the vertical juxtaposition of the elements NÍNDA and ÁB, similarly the price level distinctions between ‘buying price’ and ‘marketrate’ in 8a097-8 are expressed by the vertical juxtaposition of the elements SÁM.MA and ŠAKAKA. In short: the ‘formula’ of the unilingual lists is achieved by the vertical juxtaposition of multiple different elements. Looking at the bilingual lexical texts, which are (multi-column) tables rather than (single-column) lists, the interpretation of logograms is more complicated: it is achieved by vertical as well as horizontal juxtaposition. E.g. bilingual Hh8b presents the GUD-section in a different manner than the corresponding unilingual version. The first difference is that the GUD key-word is only given for the first entry of the section and that in all other individual entries it is omitted. 216

Ibidem, 114. Ibidem, 117-8. 218 Ibidem, 119-20. 217

106

Chapter 3 – The Technological Perspective It should be noted that this omission resembles the omission of the (key-sign) determinatives found in many texts (the so-called ‘virtual determinative sequences’, cf. Part 3 12.3.) and that such omissions are only found in bilingual texts. This indicates that the omission phenomenon is related to the use of a different formula in bilingual texts. The second difference is that on a horizontal level the logogram is structurally juxtaposed to other elements, viz. the gloss (in the bilingual GUD-section only found in Hh8b012-3) and the Akkadian interpretation. It should be noted that these elements are often omitted as well. As generally the gloss is in limited use in Emar Hh the frequent omission of the Akkadian interpretation is the most striking: it is, for example, completely omitted in the GUD-sequences 8a097-8b011 and 8b014-25 on fragment 550E (7522 – p.731). When the Akkadian interpretation is given, it often omits any reference to the key-word. E.g. in 8b030 AN.NA the Akkadian elû refers to AN.NA only, completely ignoring the omitted key-word GUD. Similarly in 8b012-3 ša qarīti and nīqi ša DIM refer to the qualifications ŠÚKUR KAŠ.DU and ŠÚKUR KAŠ.ĜAR, again ignoring the omitted key-word GUD. It should be noted that the omission of a reference to the key-word in the Akkadian interpretation is not related to the omission of the key-word itself: the former phenomenon may also occur when the key-word is not itself omitted. E.g. in Hh9a002 MUŠ SIG 7 .SIG 7 is interpreted by Akkadian (w)arqu ‘green’, which refers to the qualification SIG 7 .SIG 7 only, ignoring the key-word MUŠ ‘snake’. Thus, as extra elements are introduced into the basic two-element ‘formula’ of the original (unilingual) lexical lists, the ‘formula’ itself becomes more complex (i.e. it expands to include a horizontal juxtaposition in addition to a vertical juxtaposition) and achieves a greater level of abstraction, as shown by the abstract coding (omission) of certain elements. Second, it must be asked what position the Emar material should be assigned in the formulaic continuum postulated by Goody: does it lean towards the variable, non-literate or towards the repetitive, literate end of such a continuum? Decisive in regard to this question is the level of standardization of content visible in the text material under consideration. Goody points to the fact that in a primarily oral context no standard, fixed model is available to guide text reproduction, which means that the lack of such a model for the Emar texts would suggest a significant oral component in their production process. As the relation between the text and composite edition (respectively parts 1 and 2 of this study) in fact shows the lack of fully standardized models for any of the compositions of which more than one text is attested, it may be concluded that in terms of Goody’s theory the Emar text corpus was produced in the context of a still partially oral transmission process. Thus, on the evidence of the analysis provided in parts 1-3, it may be argued that Goody’s characterization of reproduction in oral societies indeed still partially applies to the Emar text corpus: (a)ny model we may erect is simply an average of the variations in the number of versions we happen to have collected; it is a statistical artifact, not the authorized version 219 . With regard to the exact relation between the oral and literate component of the transmission process in LBA Emar it may be suggested that reproduction still took place in a basically oral context in which the written text was primarily an auxiliary tool. The true text object reproduced in the school could be said to be of a virtual, oral nature - in which case the written reflections merely constitute byproducts of a basically oral process. In view of the postulated ‘canonization’ of the lexical 219

Ibidem, 118.

107

Chapter 3 – The Technological Perspective texts in later times, which in terms of Goody’s theory indicates a shift to a primarily literate compositional process, it is not inconceivable that the Emar text corpus in fact represents one of the last witnesses of the original, primarily oral compositional process. 3.1.3.4. The recipe In his penultimate chapter Goody describes how two more figures of the written word, viz. the recipe and the prescription (as the latter is a variant of the former and here only the former term will be used), become possible with the rise of nominal lists. He adds that, in turn, scientific experiment becomes possible on the basis of these additional figures. Goody’s argument is that certain features of nominal lists encourage new forms of thought - such as those expressed in recipes and prescriptions - and ultimately formalized scientific experiments. These features encourage the distinction and creation of new classificatory categories, effectively serving as instruments of cognitive development, viz. (a) diacritical demarcation (Goody’s example: the addition of initials to the names of people with mere ‘dining rights’ on a dining list), (b) lateral displacement in a matrix (Goody’s example: the lateral shifts given to names of mere ‘guests’ in a dining list - indicating the category of people of ‘protected but interstitial status’), (c) combining the specification of variables with the omission of constants (Goody’s example: the specification of wines as opposed to the omission of beer on a menu) and (d) inclusion of what is foreign at the expense of what is local (Goody’s example: the preferential use of French on menus) 220 . These four above mentioned instruments are indeed attested in the Emar lexical corpus. Diacritical demarcation (a) is found, for example, in the use of vertical and horizontal lining (cf. Part 3 9.2.). Lateral displacement in a matrix (b) can be found in the general scribal convention of the ‘right position shift’ (cf. Part 3 12.1.). The combination of a specification of variables and an omission of constants (c) can be found in the ‘virtual determinative sequences’ as well as in formulaic omission of key-signs (discussed in Part 3 12.3. and Part 4 3.1.3.3. respectively). The inclusion of what is foreign at the expense of what is local (d) can be found in the focus on and dominance of the scholarly language of Sumerian in the lexical curriculum (obvious in the older unilingual compositions but persisting in the later bilingual compositions). In Goody’s view the recipe, which is basically a set of formulaic instructions found in both oral and literate settings, gains enhanced potential as an instrument for the exploration of and experimentation with knowledge when it is endowed with the instruments of the written nominal list. The consequences of this enhanced instrumentality specified by Goody are: (a) the extension of knowledge range made possible by depersonalized storage, (b) the development of experimental thought (i.e. the testing of quantitative and qualitative variations) made possible on the basis of the explicit formulae which the original recipe provides, (c) the democratization of knowledge made possible by depersonalized programmatic learning (i.e. by availability of knowledge independent from a teacher - in as far as instructions are not purposefully coded) and (d) the specialization of labour made possible by the separation of practice and theory 221 . If the various lexical compositions found in Emar are considered as 220 221

Ibidem, 130-1. Ibidem,137ff.

108

Chapter 3 – The Technological Perspective intrinsically constituting ‘recipes’ (i.e. sets of formulaic instructions), for obtaining certain kinds of knowledge about the writing system, then it should be asked to what extent the four consequences listed by Goody actually apply to the Ancient Mesopotamian knowledge system which underlie these compositions. It seems that Goody’s first consequence, viz. (a) the extension of knowledge range, may indeed be said to apply as the lexical curriculum as a whole as it shows a general tendency to diachronic expansion (cf. Part 3 Ch. 14 Summary 14.4/6.1.). The Emar corpus, however, shows that this tendency had not yet led to the phenomenal growth visible in later 1st Millennia products (e.g. Aa and Izi). On the one hand, the physical expansion of the LBA Emar texts relative to their OB predecessors may be partially explained by the intervening introduction of the bilingual format in many series, which led to an inevitable increase in the physical space taken up by every single entry on the tablet (e.g. triggering the expansion of Hh – cf. Part 3 4.2.2.). On the other hand, a general tendency to diachronic expansion is also visible in absolute terms, i.e. in the increase in the number of entries. It has been suggested that this was due to the accumulative effect of the integrative methodology postulated for ancient scholarship (cf. Part 3 14.4.2.). The question is whether either the physical expansion due to the introduction of the bilingual format or the accumulative effect of the integrative methodology can be identified as aspects of the extension of knowledge range which Goody sees as due to the propensities of the nominal list and of the instrumentality of the recipe. Here it is proposed that they can be so identified because the nominal list did indeed provide the basic framework in which the bilingual format was be accommodated and because the formulaic instructional ‘recipes’ represented by the various lexical compositions did indeed provide the basis for further scholarly investigation along the line of a integrative methodology. Two things should be borne in mind however. First, the actual change from unilingual list to bilingual table - even if it shows the adaptability of the former as an instrument of a versatile literary scholarship – was triggered by a change in the environment of that scholarship, viz. the demise of Sumerian as a spoken language and the consequent intrusion of Akkadian into the educational domain. Second, the accumulation of written lexical knowledge over the period from the OB to the LBA period seems quantitatively modest and qualitatively restrained in comparison to the stupendous growth found in the 1st Millennium. An explanation for this discrepancy may be sought in the strong oral component of lexical scholarship up to the LBA postulated in 3.1.3.3. above: such a oral context may have somewhat inhibited the ‘extension of the knowledge range’, which would have been of a much more pronounced nature in a more literate context. On the basis of its output, it may be speculated that 1st Millennium lexical scholarship was a much more literate endeavor - perhaps it was partially removed from the educational context in which it was found in earlier ages. In the texts under consideration, Goody’s second consequence, viz. (b) the development of experimental thought by means of testing quantitative and qualitative variations, must be seen as directed exclusively at a very specific object which remains without conceptual equivalent in the context of modern western science, viz. the cuneiform writing system. Efforts at ‘experimental thought’ may be detected in the lexical lists, but only in relation to the writing system itself. The various approaches to the writing system

109

Chapter 3 – The Technological Perspective found in the various lexical compositions effectively constitute a series of experiments in terms of an integrative methodology, where various (graphic, phonetic, semantic) aspects of writing elements were systematically analyzed in relation to each other in a variety of ways. The resulting classificatory schemes and compositional units found in the lexical texts must be understood as at least in partially shaped by this kind of experiments - in effect each separate lexical composition may be viewed as a result of a specific development in experimental thought. Thus ‘the development of experimental thought’ proposed by Goody may be accepted in relation to these texts, but only if such a development is not associated with the directions and developments of such thought in modern western science. Goody’s third consequence, viz. (c) the democratization of knowledge, is difficult to discern in the Ancient Mesopotamian context in which the Emar texts were produced. Goody argues that ‘depersonalized programmatic learning’, i.e. the availability of knowledge independent from a teacher, allows knowledge to become accessible to nonspecialists. In practical terms this means to postulate the availability of the lexical texts outside of the school, which would allow for some form of self-teaching. With regard to the possibility of such forms of ‘depersonalized programmatic learning’ occurring in Ancient Mesopotamia two issues must be addressed. First, it may be doubted that any ‘depersonalized’ learning is feasible if the student lacks basic familiarity with the medium in which the text is written. It is exactly this kind of basic familiarity which the Emar lexical texts seek to impart - they are, in other words, the indispensable basis for mastering that medium. In a modern context one may argue that anybody who masters at least the alphabetic writing system and some basic grammar may, in theory, proceed with relative ease to learning in a ‘depersonalized’ manner. Even in a modern context, however, this still leaves the issue of actually mastering the alphabet and some basic grammar. It may be argued that, in a modern context too, some form of oral instruction remains indispensable. In Ancient Mesopotamia, where even the most simplified forms of the writing involved a much more complex system, this would have been the case much more emphatically. Compounding the problematic concept of ‘depersonalized’ learning in Ancient Mesopotamia is the much more limited accessibility of appropriate text material. On balance, Goody’s ‘depersonalized programmatic learning’ may be said to be an issue applicable only to those who are at least basically familiar with the medium in which knowledge is coded. As the Emar lexical lists serve to create that basic familiarity, their content cannot be expected to shed light on any form of ‘democratization of knowledge’ which may or may not have been experienced by the students after they had mastered the basic skill of writing. The second issue raised by Goody’s suggested ‘depersonalized programmatic learning’ is the definition of ‘knowledge’ itself: what knowledge was aimed at and where? The evidence of the lexical lists is that the student was taught a large amount of knowledge that far exceeded the practical demands of private and public administration 222 . The education of a scribe was not a strictly functional preparation in craftsmanship which merely imparted the minimum practical skills needed for a professional career. Rather, this education involved a comprehensive program geared to the transmission of a large body of traditional knowledge, knowledge 222

Veldhuis, Elementary Education, 82-3.

110

Chapter 3 – The Technological Perspective thought to be of divine origin and held in high regard 223 . It was also geared to instilling a set of special analytic skills related to that body of knowledge in a select group, probably of mostly privileged young people 224 . Undoubtedly many fully trained scribes went to fill positions where they worked on various rather mundane clerical and other administrative tasks. That, however, does not change the fact that the knowledge aimed at in the school, even in its initial phases where the lexical curriculum was taught, was certainly not of a primarily, practical utilitarian nature. On balance for Ancient Mesopotamian lexical scholarship Goody’s concept of the ‘democratization of knowledge’ must be rejected because the knowledge aimed at in the scribal school simply did not lent itself to ‘democratization’: its transmission aimed a perpetuating a very specialized knowledge tradition which was of a primarily non-practical, non-utilitarian nature. At least until the LBA much of this knowledge transmitted in the scribal school was transmitted in the oral medium and scholarly achievement was primarily conceived of as the memorization of knowledge and the internalization of analytic skills, probably combined with the acquisition of a certain amount of what may be termed ‘cultural capital’ 225 . Even if educated men outside of the select circle of those who had completed the long years of training provided by the scribal schools, such as traders or soldiers, mastered some skills in writing and reading (most likely phonetically spelled) cuneiform (the evidence concerning the OA trade correspondence is a case in point), the question arises to what extent such men would have been actually able - or motivated - to gain access to the arcane dissertations with which these scholarly circles occupied themselves. Regarding Goody’s fourth consequence, viz. (d) the specialization of labour, allowed by the separation of practice and theory arising with written formulae, it is important to consider the possible uses of the kind of knowledge pursued in the scribal school. These uses determine the extent to which the texts it produced may have led to labour specialization. The first use of these texts is in the scribal profession and in school. Explicit information regarding labour division within the field of scribal activity we find in the profession lists embedded in Lu1. Many administrative professions, such as the SUKKAL ‘secretary’ and the ŠÀ.TAM ‘auditor; administrator’, as well as many cultic professions, such as the GUDUG ‘(shift) priest’ and the IŠIB ‘sorcerer; incantation priest’, probably required (some) literate skills. Lu1 shows long lists of various functions in which such professionals could be working. It could therefore be argued that writing did indeed create many new professional specializations, including specializations between various kinds of scribes. Here, however, the question must be if the lexical texts themselves could and did cause any specific specialization of labour by opening some gap between practice and theory in the manner conceived by Goody. The answer to this question could be affirmative but needs two important qualifications. The first is that there was a labour division but only in the school itself and only as result of the (re)production of these text themselves (a lists of titles among the scribes known by name is found in Part 3 Chapter 13 Tables 28-9, the issue of the ranks they reflect is discussed in the secondary literature referred to in the bibliography provided in Part 2). The second qualification is that the only separation of practice and theory arising from these texts was 223

Ibidem, 142ff. Ibidem, 144-5. 225 Ibidem, 143-4. 224

111

Chapter 3 – The Technological Perspective that students had to do writing practice while teachers held the theory needed for this practice. The lexical text as found in Emar was a written practice (viz. a written exercise) aimed at reflecting an unwritten theory (viz. an unwritten model text). The concrete practice material, i.e. the tablet written by the student, ultimately aimed at achieving an abstract mastery of the theory material, i.e. the memorization of a virtual text. As long as the oral component remained essential and the virtual model text remained central to the lexical curriculum - which, it was proposed earlier, remained the case until the LBA period -, ‘practitioners’ aimed to become ‘theorists’ and all ‘theorists’ had at one time been ‘practitioners’. At least until the LBA therefore, any ‘labour specialization’ resulting from the lexical texts does not reflect a static divide between different professions or social groups but rather reflects a dynamic divide between different generations within a single professional and/or social group. As such generational divides maybe considered to be a universal phenomenon throughout all societies, oral or literate, it can be argued that the lexical texts themselves did not trigger any additional specialization of labour within the school. These texts constituted a minimum body of knowledge which all scribes had to master and as such could not trigger professional specialization. The second use of the lexical texts is that in relation to the wider society of which scribes were a part, i.e. its ‘social’ use. In this respect it should be noted that there is no evidence of any direct usage of the lexical texts by anybody but the scribes themselves. It may be argued, however, that there was a ‘social’ use of an indirect nature, viz. by helping to create a next generation of the socially distinguished scribal professional group as an educational tool. In other words, it may be argued that the lexical texts served to re-create or perpetuate the long-standing labour specialization between scribe and non-scribe. Such an argument, however, requires two qualifications. First, the lexical texts did not by themselves re-create or perpetuate this labour specialization: this was only achieved through the curriculum as a whole - the lexical texts where merely one part of this curriculum. Second, as the scribal curriculum had an important oral component, its literary output - such as the lexical lists - did not constitute either an actual mechanism or a recognized demarcation with regard to the social distinction imparted by scribal education. On balance, it may therefore be proposed that the lexical texts did not by themselves trigger any specialization of labour - they were mere tools in a larger educational mechanism which perpetuated the existing labour specialization between scribe and non-scribe. Thus, of the mechanism by which labour specialization comes about in Goody’s theory, viz. the separation of practice and theory that supposedly results from literary devices such as the ‘recipe’, the lexical texts can be said to constitute merely a minute part.

112

Chapter 3 – The Technological Perspective 3.1.3.5. Evaluation of Goody’s general conclusions In this sub-paragraph it will be considered how some of Goody general conclusions, as formulated in his final chapter, may be applied to the Emar lexical texts. First, it may be asked what type of literacy is represented by the texts under consideration. Goody proposes that there are two types of non-general literacy, viz. restricted and specialized literacy 226 . The former, restricted form of literacy implies a limitation in the range of its application, e.g. literacy restricted to application in administration only. In LBA Emar no such restrictions apply: the texts found in many archives attest to a wide variety of literate genres, including the administrative, the epistolary, the divinatory, the astronomical, the medical etc. Perhaps it is possible to postulate some forms of restricted cuneiform literacy for other, earlier periods of Mesopotamian history, this, however, is certainly not the case for LBA Emar. The latter, specialized form of literacy implies a limitation in the range of its practice, e.g. literacy restricted to practice by a priestly class only. The textual evidence of the Emar school and its context shows that, as in earlier periods of cuneiform culture, scribal training was geared to creating a professional group which had its own professional standards, its own nomenclature, its own hierarchy and its own privileges. This, in conjunction with the concentrated attribution of literary products to a few named individuals, suggests that literacy in LBA did indeed tend to be of the specialized type. Even if a limited use of literate skills by people outside the scribal professional group is certainly conceivable and even likely (e.g. traders conducting their own business correspondence), literacy seems to have been the exclusive domain of a few specialist interest groups. Parenthetically, it may be of interest to note Goody’s suggestion that specialized literacy tends to produce … not only … its own particular written forms but its own particular oral ones as well. ... the oral component in societies with writing may be influenced in a whole variety of ways by the presence of this additional register 227 . This effectively implies that specialized literacy will actually help shape oral discourse or even create specialized forms of it. An obvious example relevant to this phenomenon is how oral discourse in modern academies will show very significant deviations from other, more common forms of oral discourse. This should be borne in mind in any discussion of the oral component of scribal education: the form and content of that oral component will, to a certain extent, inevitably be shaped by the literate register. Second, it may be asked in what kind of linguistic situation the Emar texts were produced. Goody proposes that there are three conceivable linguistic situations relative to literacy: (1) the exclusive oral situation, (2) the combined oral plus literate situation and (3) the exclusively literary situation 228 . Each of these three different linguistic situations indicates a different status regarding the language in question. In the published lexical material from Emar two languages are found, viz. Sumerian and Akkadian. With regard to the former it is likely that, besides the Sumerian formulae used in the cultic and divinatory spheres, there was still a residual oral use of Sumerian in scribal training (cf. 226

Goody, Domestication, 152-3. Ibidem, 52. 228 Ibidem, 154ff. 227

113

Chapter 3 – The Technological Perspective the analysis of the phonetic exercises in Part 3 4.4.). As a living, spoken language, however, Sumerian had died out centuries earlier - it was kept alive only as a language of learning, often in a somewhat artificial fashion. Thus, it may be said that in the case of Sumerian Goody’s third type of linguistic situation applies, i.e. that of the exclusively literary use. This means that, in his terminology, Sumerian may be described as a classical language. With regard to Akkadian the situation is different. In the LBA Akkadian was still a spoken language: not only was it still the mother tongue of much of the population of the Mesopotamian heartland, it was also the language of governance, diplomacy and commerce throughout the periphery, including Syria. Many of the idiosyncrasies of the Akkadian found in the Emar text material, including the lexical texts, may be attributed to the fact that for native scribes Akkadian was a foreign language: their spelling and grammar betray a certain degree influence from their native (West Semitic) language(s). Irrespective of this substrate influence, however, it is clear that in Emar Akkadian was the oral as well as the written medium of communication of choice. To Akkadian, therefore, Goody’s second type of linguistic situation applies, i.e. that of combined oral and literate use. In his terminology Akkadian may be described as a world language. Finally, Goody’s third type of linguistic situation may be said to apply to the largely invisible native language of Emar - an unspecified form of West Semitic -: this language existed in an exclusively oral register and may be described as a local language. Third, it may be asked how the Emar lexical texts are to be evaluated in terms of Goody’s general concluding statement that the ‘figures of the written word’ were instrumental in the changing the construction of knowledge itself. In a somewhat playful reference to Lévi-Strauss’ pensée sauvage Goody states that ... depending on social as well as technological conditions, (writing) encourages special forms of linguistic activity associated with developments in particular kinds of problem-raising and problemsolving, in which the list, the formula and the table played a seminal part. If we wish to speak of the ‘savage mind’, these were some of the instruments of its domestication 229 . In the preceding analysis it has been shown that in the Emar lexical texts various ‘particular kinds of problem-raising and problem-solving’ can indeed be explained by the various ‘figures of the written word’ distinguished by Goody - even if not all the consequences he suggests are found to consistently apply. The question is to what degree this statement affirms the postulate of a direct relation between the technology of writing and cognition, i.e. the process of thought itself. In this regard it is important to make clear that the only aspect of cognition deemed accessible in the present study is its logical aspect, i.e. the part of cognition that may be described in terms of the laws of demonstration and inference. Thus the above postulate must here be modified somewhat to read: ‘is there a link between the literate techniques employed in the lexical texts and the logic followed in its content?’. On the basis of the preceding analysis it is felt that the answer to this question must be affirmative. The literate techniques of list, table and recipe may be said to dictate the logic found in the content of the texts because these techniques establish inevitable relations between the various units of information that are inserted in them. Information units are juxtaposed in 229

Ibidem, 162.

114

Chapter 3 – The Technological Perspective such a way that relations between them become unavoidable, triggering unavoidable classificatory questions. In case of the cuneiform writing system these classificatory questions are bound to be different than they are in an alphabetic writing system because more types of association are possible between cuneiform signs as these signs have various pictographic and graphic associations, multiple, simultaneous phonetic readings as well as more flexible semantic ranges. Items in an alphabetic word list may be arranged following a number of clearly distinct methods (e.g. in alphabetic order, by rhyme, by semantic association), the selection of any one of these methods for items in a cuneiform list, however, unavoidably contradicts the inherent polyvalence of values assignable to cuneiform signs. The Emar lexical texts seek to come to terms with concrete polyvalence rather to impose any abstract classificatory criteria. The consistent application of a single classificatory criterion, i.e. what would be termed ‘systematization’ in modern scientific terms, is not found - only in the later, ‘canonical’ version of the 1st Millennium can any tendency to ‘abstract’, single-method association be detected. In short: there is no lack of logic in the lexical lists, it just happens to be of a fundamentally different kind. The laws of demonstration and inference are formulated in an entirely different fashion and the list-format, the table-format and the recipe-format determine this difference. When subjected to the same formats apparently not every writing system will allow the development of a similar logic - rather, in accordance with the unique input provided, these instruments seem to guarantee the development of a unique output. And if Ancient Mesopotamian thought does not strike the modern observer as particularly ‘domesticated’, this may to be due to the specific logographic nature of the cuneiform writing system rather than to the ‘figures of the written word’. Perhaps the power of the contextual associations and interpretative ambivalences inherent in cuneiform writing was too great for ancient scholarship - perhaps too challenging and too fascinating - to ever approach the abstraction levels found in the ‘domesticated’ logic of modern science. 3.2. Avenues for diachronic research The preceding application of Goody’s theory to the Ancient Mesopotamian knowledge system was necessarily limited to a synchronic approach because only the Emar lexical material was considered as evidence of that knowledge system. The question remains what picture would emerge when a diachronic approach would be attempted. Even a superficial diachronic comparison such as found in Part 3 Chapter 14 has shown that there are some important differences between the Emar material and the earlier OB material on the one hand and - especially - the later 1st Millennium material on the other hand. The differences with the 3rd Millennium material will undoubtedly be even more striking. In terms of Goody’s theory, these differences may be due to (multiple) developments in the nature of literacy throughout the long centuries throughout which the Ancient Mesopotamian lexical tradition endured. Here only two preliminary research questions are formulated, with the idea that the challenging issues they raise can perhaps be taken up at a later point. (a) What are the changes in the types of literacy reflected in the lexical material? To be investigated are for example possible changes in the range of literacy, i.e. in the kind of

115

Chapter 3 – The Technological Perspective specialists who used (certain types of) the lists. Given the exponential growth of certain lists it is conceivable that in the 1st Millennium (certain of) the lists evolved outside of the basic educational context, possibly taking on the role of reference work rather than exercise material. If true, it may point to scholarly specialization in the field of lexicology, with a concomitant narrowing in the range of effective literacy. In this regard also worth investigation are changes in the type of linguistic situation. The question then becomes: how did shifts in spoken language, such as from Sumerian to Akkadian and from Akkadian to Aramaic, affect the production of the lexical lists? Although there is no Aramaic-language cuneiform material, the replacement of Akkadian by Aramaic may have affected the composition of (certain) lists, for example by triggering a purposeful additional storage of Akkadian references - a situation possibly somewhat similar to the OB attempt to ‘store’ knowledge of Sumerian when it died out as a spoken language. Another shift in linguistic situation that is likely to have affected the composition of the lists is the need to accommodate the use of a third, fourth and fifth language in certain LBA peripheral sites (most strikingly in Ugarit) 230 . (b) What are the effects of palaographic developments on the development of literacy? More specifically, it could be asked whether the increasingly stylized, abstract form of cuneiform writing, with the concomitant accumulative loss of recognizable pictographic value, affected the way in which literate knowledge was stored, organized and transmitted. If so, paleographic developments it is conceivable that the allowable scope for the interpretation of logograms widened, or at least changed, as the knowledge or more likely - the importance of their original pictographic associations diminished. Under such conditions a higher degree of abstraction in the interpretation of the logogram could have occurred, widening its discretionary scope. This may help explain the veritable ‘explosion’ in the number of Akkadian equivalents given for each logogram visible especially in certain 1st Millennium lexical compositions such as Aa. Certainly the increasing graphic stylization of the logograms throughout the centuries may have affected scholarly attempts at acrographic analysis. Old lists may have lost some of their acrographic analytic coherence (e.g. SaV 116 UL is close to the following 117 AZ and 118 UG in its OB graphic form - all of them have a ‘triangular’ shape in their left-most and right-most parts - which is not the case with its NA graphic form), whereas new lists may have reorganized old key-sign sequences to conform to new acrographic values.

230

A matter presently being investigated by T. Scheucher.

116

Chapter 3 – The Technological Perspective 3.3. Summary Note: the remarks listed under points ‘0’ below serve as short explanatory introductions, whereas those under other points summarize the actual findings of this study. 3.1.

Key notions applied:

3.1.1.

Generative transmission:

0.

Goody’s generative transmission, defined as a feature of oral tradition in which the communication and transmission of knowledge that implies a ‘capacity to swallow up individual achievement and to incorporate it in a body of transmitted custom’, has four central features in terms of which the lexical texts are investigated, viz.: (1) anonymous authorship, (2) amalgamation of creativity and transmission, (3) lack of permanence of cultural constructs and (4) pragmatic dynamism. Concerning anonymous authorship there are three relevant observations to be made: (1) there is a complete lack of explicit reference to authorship aside from the colophons, (2) the presence of colophons is not a sufficient counter-indication because the colophon is only concerned with (a) the copy status of the text and with (b) educational control and (3) ultimate authority is consistently and explicitly ascribed to the divine sphere. On balance, Ancient Mesopotamian lexical scholarship appears as a collective and custodial rather than an individual and creative enterprise. Concerning amalgamation of creativity and transmission it may be observed that in the lexical texts creativity and transmission empirically coincide: the texts show a slowly accumulating series of innovations contributed by a long line of individual scholars. Even within the Emar lexical curriculum, deriving from a single, synchronically unified archive, variation and innovation occur simultaneously. Over longer periods of time, the accumulated effect the process of transformation caused by amalgamated creativity and transmission caused some lexical series to become transformed almost to the point of being unrecognizable. This slow transformation may be considered as a slow-motion version of the generative transmission process that Goody described for oral traditions Concerning lack of permanence of cultural constructs it is proposed that this feature may be seen as dependent on the degree to which literate ‘technology’ is seen to dominate in the transmission of the lexical texts. Because on the one hand the lexical series remain largely recognizable but on the other hand their content and form show considerable synchronic as well as diachronic flexibility, the place of the Emar lexical tradition could be said to be somewhere in the middle of the proposed technological scale, even if inclining somewhat to the side of literate technology. Based on the evidence of a limited analysis of the earlier and later stages of the Ancient Mesopotamian lexical tradition in this study, it is argued that for the lexical tradition as a whole its position on the technological scale shifted over time. As it moves from the LBA period into the 1st Millennium, it appears to shift from a middle position, where oral and written technology are still employed simultaneously and interactively, towards the ‘literate’ technological position, a shift that is near to completion with the 1st Millennium ‘canonization’. Concerning pragmatic dynamism it may be said that the synchronic integrative methodology, with its premium on interpretative improvisation and classificatory innovation, as well as the diachronic development of systematization indicate a dominance of pragmatic interpretation in Ancient Mesopotamian lexical scholarship. It appears that generative transmission and anonymous authorship relate to each other in a manner of proportionality: the higher the degree of anonymity, the higher, or faster, its intensity. In exclusively oral traditions anonymity is virtually total across any longer period of time and simultaneously the intensity of generative transmission is very high, resulting in very rapid and very profound transformations in its cultural products. In strongly literate traditions the situation seems to be reversed: author anonymity is virtually eliminated, and the speed of generative transmission of any given cultural product (e.g. a given work of art or a given scientific work) has slowed-down to the point of arrest. It appears that strong emphasis on individual intellectual achievement as well as increasing disciplinary specialization, such as visible in modern western science, are by-products of the extreme slow-down in generative transmission inevitable in ‘super-literate’ knowledge systems.

1.

2.

3a.

3b.

4.

5a.

5b.

117

Chapter 3 – The Technological Perspective

3.1.2.

Functional cognitive system:

0.

Goody’s functional cognitive systems are the results of specific modes of communication that affect the development of cognitive structures and processes by influencing the storage, analysis and creation of knowledge. The specific character of the functional cognitive system reflected in the Emar lexical texts is investigated by contrasting its communication technology, i.e. logographic writing, with that of modern Western science, i.e. alphabetic writing. This investigation will follow Goody’s analysis of Horton’s theory of open and closed systems, operationalizing the various conceptual dichotomies offered by the latter. The difference between the magical and the scientific attitude to words is that in the former there is a supposed unity of word, idea and reality which is lacking in the latter - in Goody’s analysis the objectification of words in writing breaks the magical unity. It is here proposed that if such a break is achieved by alphabetic writing, it is not necessarily achieved by logographic writing, such as cuneiform writing, where no complete abstraction of idea from word is achieved and where a capacity for magic (across pictographic and ideographic associations) remains inherent. The difference between occasion-bound and idea-bound ideas is that only the latter allow de-contextualized or abstract formulations - in Goody’s analysis this kind of formulations are made possible by the objectification of words in writing. It is here proposed that, unlike alphabetic writing for which Goody’s theory may hold true, logographic writing will rather tend to direct scholarly endeavour to the tangible, visible and audible, realities associated with the logogram - this is exactly what is found in Ancient Mesopotamian lexical scholarship with its empiric concern with the constructive principles of the cuneiform writing system itself. The dominance of context- or occasion-bound ideas in the lexical lists does, however, reinforce Goody’s general thesis that specific modes of communication will result in the development of specific cognitive structures and processes. The difference between unreflective and reflective thinking is that only the latter allows the development of logic, epistemology and philosophy - in Goody’s analysis, however, this distinction is attributed to the presence or absence of specific techniques which are the prerequisite tools for certain kinds of constructive rumination, techniques developed by writing. It is here proposed that the attributes of reflective thinking, i.e. logic, epistemology and philosophy, should be defined very precisely before a judgment is made about the possible lack thereof in Ancient Mesopotamian lexical scholarship. It may be said that the ancient scholars were concerned with very different issues, resulting in a very different classificatory logic, a very different grounding of knowledge and a very different definition of knowledge itself. The difference between the protective and the destructive attitudes to established theory is that the former blocks out any questioning of the particular paradigms established by a given knowledge system, whereas the latter is said to encourage such questioning, which may be viewed as the hallmark of ‘scientific’ thought. In this dichotomy the mechanism crucial to the development of the destructive attitude is essential scepticism (conceptual, explicit scepticism) - in Goody’s analysis, however, it is not scepticism as such that distinguishes scientific thought, but rather the accumulation of scepticism, which becomes possible with writing. It is here proposed that (1) scepticism is not a universal feature of all knowledge systems but rather a particularity of a specific kind of knowledge system, as it is in Horton’s scheme, and that (2) the relation between literacy and scepticism is of an indirect nature, with systematic scepticism a function (a professional prerequisite) of individualized authorship, which itself is a function of the extreme slow-down of generative transmission in any ‘super-literate’ knowledge system. The Ancient Mesopotamian knowledge system is an example of literate system in which essential scepticism did not develop: it is monolithic (i.e. it lacks theoretical diversity) and static (i.e. it transmits a single body of knowledge rather developing specializations). This may be attributed to the fact that investigative and critical scholarship was guided in a different direction by the very nature of its category system, which is ‘closed’ and subject to a protective attitude similar to the one proposed in Horton’s scheme. It is proposed that ultimately the logical consequence of the development of essential scepticism - part of the intrinsic dynamics of modern Western science - would be the replacement of knowledge by opinion. In the final analysis this phenomena can be traced back to the abandonment of a universally valid transcendental referent, which is indispensable for the maintenance of internal coherence in any given knowledge system.

1.

2.

3.

4a.

4b.

3.1.3.

Figures of the written word:

3.1.3.1.

The list:

0.

Goody proposes that as a new ‘information technology’ writing changes cognition and that an important role in this change was played by the rise of the written list, which encourages empirical observation and historical recording as well as the definition and exploration of classificatory schemes.

118

Chapter 3 – The Technological Perspective 1. 2.

3. 4.

The importance Goody attaches to the classificatory tools arising with the written list, viz. (1) determinatives, (2) spatial separation and (3) diacritical markers appears justified in the light of the empirical evidence of the Ancient Mesopotamian lexical list. Goody’s suggestion that the Ancient Mesopotamian lexical lists show an ‘abstract’ and ‘non-utilitarian’ nature may be somewhat misleading in as far as, at least in the earlier texts, ‘abstract’ categories were often expressed by concrete graphic markers and that the texts were used in a quite practical and mundane educational context. It could be argued that at a later stage in the lexical tradition (i.e. after the 1st Millennium ‘canonization’) Goody’s suggestion is more applicable. Goody’s suggestion that the lexical texts ‘crystallize problems of classification and lead to increments of knowledge’ seems to be borne by empiric evidence regarding the diachronic development of the texts. Goody’s description of the lexical lists as a ‘conceptual prison’ is an etic qualification due to the fact that contemporary science is bound to experience a conceptual boundary where ancient scholarship experienced a conceptual framework indispensable for the production and transmission of certain kinds of knowledge.

3.1.3.2.

The table:

1.

The development of the relatively complex multi-column table out of the relatively simple single-column lists confirms Goody’s thesis that the list as a literary device does indeed tend to foster the growth of knowledge, even to the point of causing the increased complexity and eventual transformation of the device itself. Goody proposes that the table, as a graphic device of a fixed two-dimensional character, will simplify the complexity of any underlying oral body of knowledge and knowledge classification and that the reconstruction of the latter from the former will therefore be highly problematic. With regard to the relation between the preserved written text and its original mixed oral and written context it should be noted that in the OB lexical curriculum there existed an unwritten, virtual ‘model’ text of which any written version was merely a partial reflection - there are indications that in LBA Emar this OB oral tradition continued to live on, even if in a quantitatively reduced and qualitatively degraded manner. With regard to relation between the preserved written text and its modern scientific interpretation it should be noted that the latter will inevitable distort the former in many ways (alphabetic coding of logograms, selective phonetic interpretation, distortion of relational aspects, loss of divergences in composite interpretation). The divergences between ancient and modern scholarship are bound to represent a formidable obstacle to the modern effort to understand the original oral context in which the ancient texts were produced. A systematic description in terms of the categories that are important in modern linguistic analysis (palaeography, phonology, morphology, lexicology) is inevitably bound to ignore much of the actual issues and questions with which the ancient scribes sought to come to terms. Many of the categories important in modern scientific research are of such a high abstraction level that they are bound to either collide with or simply ignore the kind of concrete, context-bound associative strategies found in the ancient texts. Goody postulates ‘attribution of increasing generality’ and ‘simplification’ as a result of the introduction of the written table. A corresponding ‘canonization’ and ‘systematization’ visible in the diachronic development of the lexical curriculum indeed suggests that the progressive loss of oral context during the continuous reproduction of the texts allowed them to eventually develop into exclusively literary creations with a tendency to become increasingly ‘systematized’, a tendency due to an exclusively literary, and hence increasingly abstract conceptualization.

2.

3.

3.1.3.3.

The formula:

0.

Goody proposes that in an oral setting the lack of fixed formulae, i.e. of fixed standard forms, means that compositional creativity and text reproduction are bound to mix (resulting in the process of generative transmission that was discussed earlier). Thus the differences between oral and literate societies with regard to the composition and reproduction of texts may be expressed in terms of their different positions in a formulaic continuum in which ‘the standard oral forms of non-literate societies fall towards the variable rather than the repetitive ends of the continuum’. In the lexical texts fixed formulae are indeed found, operating either only vertically (in the unilingual lists) or both vertically and horizontally (in the bilingual tables), achieving greater levels of abstraction as their complexity rises (e.g. in ‘virtual determinative sequences’). The position of the LBA Emar material in Goody’s formulaic continuum may be decided by the level of standardization of content visible, because the lack of such standardization in primarily oral contexts, Goody argues, results in the lack of fixed models for text reproduction. In this respect the divergence between individual text witnesses (given in Part 1) and the reconstructed ‘virtual’ composite model text (given in Part 2) would suggest a significant residual oral component in the production process of the former. In view of the subsequent ‘canonization’ and ‘systematization’ evident in the lexical tradition, the fact that the transmission process in LBA Emar still took place in a basically oral context (with the written text still

1. 2a.

2b.

119

Chapter 3 – The Technological Perspective having the status of an auxiliary tool), then the Emar lexical texts may well represent one of the last witnesses of the original form of primarily oral compositional process. 3.1.3.4.

The recipe:

0.

Goody proposes that the recipe - which includes the prescription variant - is a form of thought that is enhanced with the rise of the written nominal list, and which ultimately allows the rise of formalized scientific experiments. The four features of the nominal lists that allow the recipe to develop are also found in the lexical lists, viz.: (a) diacritical demarcation in vertical and horizontal lining, (b) lateral displacement in a matrix in the ‘right position shift’, (c) combination of specifications of variables with omissions of constants in ‘virtual determinative sequences’ and (d) inclusion of what is foreign at the expense of what is local in the dominance of Sumerian. Of Goody’s four consequences of the enhanced instrumentality of the recipe in written nominal lists two are also found in the lexical lists, viz.: (a) the extension of knowledge range in the general tendency to diachronic expansion and (b) the development of experimental thought in the different approaches to writing proposed in each different lexical composition. The third consequence, viz. (c) the democratization of knowledge, must be rejected as the knowledge aimed at in the scribal school simply did not lent itself to ‘democratization’: its transmission aimed a perpetuating a very specialized knowledge tradition which was of a primarily nonpractical, non-utilitarian nature. The fourth consequence, viz. (d) the specialization of labour (based on the separation of practice and theory) is relevant with regard to two different uses of the lexical texts, viz. (1) use in the scribal professional itself, where any labour division achieved was found only in the school itself and where (temporary, generational) separation of theory and practice is only found between teachers and students, and (2) use in relation to the wider society, where the lexical texts indirectly contributed to labour specialization by being a (small) part in a larger mechanism that (re)created the socially distinct group of professional scribes.

1.

2.

3.1.3.5.

Evaluation of Goody’s general conclusions:

1.

In terms of Goody’s classification literacy in LBA Emar may be typified as non-general and specialized (i.e. unrestricted in its range of application but limited in its range of practice). In terms of Goody’s classification the linguistic situation in LBA Emar may be typified as exclusively literary with regard to Sumerian, which had the status of classical language, as combined oral and literate with regard to Akkadian, which had the status of world language, and as exclusively oral with regard to West Semitic, which had the status of local language. In support of Goody’s central thesis it may be said that for the lexical texts investigated there is an undeniable link between the literate techniques they employ and the kind of logic found in their content: the literate techniques of list, table and recipe may be said to dictate the logic found in the content because these techniques inevitably certain specific relations between the various units of information that are inserted in them. From the ‘technological’ perspective it may be said that the difference between the logic found in alphabetbased Western knowledge system and the logic found in the logogram-based Ancient Mesopotamian knowledge system is that the laws of demonstration and inference are formulated in an entirely different fashion and that the list-format, the table-format and the recipe-format determine this difference. Apparently, when subjected to the same formats, not every writing system will allow the development of a similar logic rather, specific writing systems seem to guarantee the development of unique output.

2.

3a.

3b.

3.2.

Suggested avenues for diachronic research:

1.

The development of literacy reflected in the lexical tradition (more specifically regarding range of literacy and type of linguistic situation). The effects of palaeographic developments on the development of literacy (more specifically the effect of the loss of recognizable pictographic value).

2.

120

Chapter 4 – The Structuralist Perspective CHAPTER 4 – THE STRUCTURALIST PERSPECIVE L’explication scientifique ne consiste pas dans le passage de la complexité à la simplicité, mais 231 dans la substitution d’une complexité mieux intelligible à une autre qui l’était moins .

4.0. Aim, method and organization Aim The aim of this chapter is to analyze the Ancient Mesopotamian knowledge system represented by the Emar lexical texts in terms of the theory on classification developed by C. Lévi-Strauss in his 1962 work La pensée sauvage. This theory re-examines the enigmatic ‘totemic’ quality that earlier anthropologists had assigned to a large variety of classificatory schemes found in a large number of non-literate societies around the world, societies deemed ‘primitive’ by Western scientists until fairly recently. Between many of these schemes, applied to - and often linking - varying fields, from kinship to cosmology, earlier anthropologists thought to notice vague resemblances in various societies around the world. The common denominator of many of these schemes, earlier qualified as ‘primitive’ or ‘pre-logic’, was generally held to be their ‘totemic’ nature. The anthropological term ‘totemic’, derived from the Ojibwe 232 word doodem ‘clan’ in a context of differentiation of social groups by means of varying non-human ancestries, was - rather vaguely - applied to the general phenomenon of analogies between natural and cultural phenomena found in many non-literate societies. Anthropologists have approached ‘totemism’ from a number of different functional perspectives (e.g. from the perspective of social and religious identity by Durkheim or from the perspective of empiric bio-functionality by Malinowski), but it was Lévi-Strauss who discerned its cognitive functionality, i.e. its function as a classificatory tool. Lévi-Strauss views ‘totemism’ as only one (albeit striking) expression of what was earlier generally referred to as ‘primitive’ thought. Lévi-Strauss uses the term sauvage ‘wild’ thought, interpreted by Goody as ‘undomesticated’ thought - thought which depends on analogue rather than on analytic reasoning and which uses natural objects as referents, in contrast to modern Western science which uses abstract concepts. In Lévi-Strauss’ analysis such ‘undomesticated’ thinking differs from ‘scientific’ thinking not in terms of capacity but of interest: it is interest that determines both, even if the specific interest of each are directed differently. To measure knowledge by the degree to which it is abstract - that is to say abstract conform modern Western scientific standards - is merely a matter of convention. If, for example, a given society lacks the abstract concept ‘wood’ or ‘animal’ this does not imply it lacks the capacity for abstract thinking, but merely that it has no interest in and no need for a concept with this kind of abstract value. It should be remembered that in Lévi-Strauss’ view such a lack of specific - one might say irrelevant terminology does not indicate that ‘primitive’knowledge is only functionally utilitarian, but rather that the conceptual relation between what is (practically) useful and what is

231

C. Lévi-Strauss, La pensée sauvage (Paris 1962) 328. A language of the Central Algonquian language group spoken in the Eastern Great Lakes area of North America.

232

121

Chapter 4 – The Structuralist Perspective (theoretically) interesting varies between societies 233 . Lévi-Strauss actually proposes that practical usefulness and theoretical interest found in particular societies are shaped by the structure of their particular knowledge systems. He gives examples of extraordinarily developed non-utilitarian knowledge found in many primitive societies 234 and concludes that ... (d)e tels exemples, qu’on pourrait emprunter à toutes les régions du monde, on inférait volontiers que les espèces animals et végétales ne sont pas connues, pour autant qu’elles sont utiles: elles sont décrétées utiles ou intéressants, parce qu’elles sont d’abord connues 235 . It follows that the primary object of what he terms the ‘science of the concrete’, found in many non-literate, ‘primitive’ societies, is not of a practical but of an intellectual nature. The primary concern shared by all knowledge systems, ‘domesticated’ or ‘undomesticated’, may be said to be the imposition of order, order achieved by the classification of objects and phenomena - ... le classement quel qu’il soit, possédant une vertu propre par rapport à l’absence de classement 236 . It is the nature of ‘undomesticated’ classification and its relation to ‘domesticated’ classification that LéviStrauss seeks to investigate. The means by with he does so is a structuralist approach, i.e. an approach which assumes that surface cultural phenomena - including classificatory schemes - are manifestations of subsurface cognitive structures. The present chapter aims to apply this structuralist approach to the Ancient Mesopotamian classification system, as apparent in the lexical texts under consideration, by following the investigative framework set up by Lévi-Strauss in La pensée sauvage. The question which it attempts to answer may be formulated as follows: ‘to what extend are Lévi-Strauss’ conclusions about ‘undomesticated’ classification relevant for the Ancient Mesopotamian classification system found in the Emar lexical texts?’. It may be asked whether the Ancient Mesopotamian classification system is at all comparable with the ‘undomesticated’ classification systems treated by Lévi-Strauss. At first glance, any such comparison may seem awkward, as the former is the product of a literate civilization steeped in history and scholarly tradition, whereas the latter are the products of small-scale, non-literate cultures, profoundly different in technological and material accomplishment. Any such a priori objection, however, would miss the point of the thought experiment aimed at in this chapter, viz. the comparative analysis of underlying classificatory principles, irrespective of transmission technology or historical longevity. In any case, it is the result of this investigation, not its experimental nature, which should decide its value. Method Before explaining the investigative method chosen for this chapter, a note should be made regarding terminology: the term totemic will henceforth be used to refer to the kind of ‘wild’, ‘undomesticated’, non-literate logic, classification and knowledge systems which Lévi-Strauss aims to analyse. This is done merely for convenience, without necessarily implying any of the concrete animal or kinship associations inherent in the 233

Lévi-Strauss, La pensée, 3-6. Ibidem, 14. 235 Ibidem, La pensée, 15. 236 Ibidem, La pensée, 16. 234

122

Chapter 4 – The Structuralist Perspective original meaning of the word ‘totem’ and without necessarily subscribing to any notions attached to this term by anthropologists preceding him. Following Lévi-Strauss, it thus becomes possible to speak of totemic classification and totemic logic as opposed to scientific classification and scientific logic. The actual content of what is totemic classification in Lévi-Strauss’ analysis will be discussed as this chapter develops its arguments. Obviously, Lévi-Strauss’ use of the term totemic implies a measure of generalization - this is intentional and meant to achieve a scientific model, a model which does not necessarily match any empirically verifiable classification system encountered in the real world. The resultant scientific model, however, will be tested in at least one empirically verifiable classification system, viz. the Ancient Mesopotamian classification system, as encountered in the lexical texts under consideration. To determine to what extend Lévi-Strauss’ analysis of totemic classification apply to the lexical texts Lévi-Strauss’ key concepts will be systematically tested on them. First, the lexical texts will be positioned in terms of Lévi-Strauss’ opposition of the techniques of totemic respectively scientific logic, viz. of bricolage vs. engineering. Subsequently, it will be investigated how the lexical texts handle certain of what Lévi-Strauss’ considers key structural operations, viz. systematic transformations, classifications as species and classifications as proper name. Organization This chapter is divided into five paragraphs - the first three apply three of Lévi-Strauss’ key notions concerning totemic classification to the lexical texts. The fourth constitutes an excursus of a philosophical nature concerning the degree to which Lévi-Strauss’ analysis of history in totemic logic and that may help explain certain tendencies visible in the development of the Ancient Mesopotamian lexical tradition. The final, fifth paragraph gives a summary of the findings of this chapter. 4.1. Bricolage technique Bricolage vs. science Lévi-Strauss uses the term bricolage intellectuel to describe the operations of totemic logic 237 . In his view, the operations of the totemic bricoleur may be viewed as opposed to those of the scientific ‘engineer’ primarily in terms of the scope of their respective instrumental inventories. Whereas scientific logic - the modern ‘engineer’ - works with concepts, which always require the incorporation of human mediation (i.e. interpretation, reorganization), totemic logic - the ‘primitive’ bricoleur - works with signs. The totemic sign is conceived as an object totally transparent to reality, effectively it is merely a pretransmitted message received by the bricoleur 238 . In Lévi-Strauss’ analysis, the difference between totemic and scientific logic is essentially reduced to a difference in operational scale: ... les éléments que collectionne et utilise le bricoleur sont <<préconstraints>> ... On pourrait être tenté de dire qu(e l’ingénieur) interroge l’univers, tandis que le 237 238

Ibidem, 26. Ibidem, 30.

123

Chapter 4 – The Structuralist Perspective bricoleur s’addresse à une collection de résidus d’ouvrages humains, c’est-à-dire à un sous-ensemble de la culture 239 . In this analysis there are two aspects of the difference in operational scale that can help explain the often very peculiar - or simply ‘wrong’ - appearance of totemic classification systems in the eyes of the modern scientific observer (e.g. the concept of ‘magic’ as critically investigated by Lévi-Strauss himself 240 ), viz. (1) the rigorous application of a single organizing principle found in totemic logic and (2) the single-level, nonhierarchical approach of totemic logic, as opposed to the multi-level, hierarchical approach of scientific logic. The first aspect may be viewed as an imperative, intransigent form of determinism that would be untenable in scientific logic 241 . The second aspect may be viewed as a totalizing micro-perequation of all possible objects and phenomena at a single conceptual level, allowing their incorporation into a single, unified system with no equivalent in (or perhaps eluding) modern science 242 . These two aspects will here serve as criteria by which to measure to what degree the Ancient Mesopotamian texts under investigation - which by no stretch of imagination can qualify as ‘scientific’ in the modern sense in either appearance or character - could actually be explained as constituting a totemic classification system. Intransigent determinism and totalizing micro-perequation With regard to the first criterion, i.e. intransigent determinism, a single organizing principle, consistently applied, may indeed be found in the lexical texts, viz. the integrative methodology pursued by the ancient scholars as analyzed in Part 3. As stated in Part 3 (2.1.2.2., 2.1.3.), this methodology consists of the establishment of relations between what are, in terms of modern science, unrelated phenomena, and is achieved by the systematic description of cross-classificatory connections between scientifically heterogeneous (graphic, phonetic, semantic) elements. There is no plurality of scientific principles or criteria in the lexical curriculum: its classification system is exclusively determined by one criterion only, viz. the potential (theoretical, projected) relation between cuneiform signs. This potential relationship is actualized by applying the noted integrative methodology, which ignores modern scientific categories. The lexical lists are exclusively cuneiform sign lists, i.e. lists of historically transmitted cuneiform grapheme inventories. In these lists there is no pursuit of any specialized scientific discipline, even if modern scientific interpretation may be able to project some semblance of specialized ‘scientific’ (e.g. botanic, geographic, astronomic) classification on some of them. The exclusive determinating principle underpinning the knowledge contained in the lexical lists is the interpretability of the cuneiform sign by means of the integrative method. In this sense, any particular composition (i.e. any particular lexical series) attested in any given historical period and any particular individual realization (i.e. any specific tablet) 239

Ibidem, 29. Ibidem, 18-9. 241 ... n’est-ce pas que (cette) pensée... se distingue moins de la science par l’ignorance ou le dédain du déterminisme, que par une exigence de déterminisme plus impérieuse et plus intransigeante, et que la science peut, tout au plus, juger déraissonable et précipitée?- Ibidem, 18. 242 Ibidem, 19. 240

124

Chapter 4 – The Structuralist Perspective attested in any specific school may be considered a bricolage product, i.e. an ad hoc improvisation constructed from a historically limited element inventory. Lévi-Strauss’ analysis of how the bricolage ‘game’ works gives a strikingly fitting description of how the lexical curriculum is in fact constantly re-worked, re-created and re-defined: ... la règle du ... jeu (de bricolage) est de toujours s’arranger avec le ‘moyens du bord’, c’est-à-dire un ensemble à chaque instant fini d’outils et de matériaux hétéroclites au surplus, parce que la composition de l’ensemble n’est pas en rapport avec le projet du moment, ni d’ailleurs avec aucun projet particulier, mais est le résultat contingent de toutes les occassions qui se sont présentées de renouveler ou d’enrichir le stock , ou d’entretenir avec les résidus de constructions et de destructions antérieures. ... les éléments sont recueillis ou conservés en vertu du principe que <<ça peut toujours servir>>. ... Tous ces objets hétéroclites qui constituent son trésor, (le bricoleur) les interroge pour comprendre ce que chacun d’eux pourrait <<signifier>>, contribuant ainsi à définir un ensemble à réaliser ... 243 . Thus, the lexical lists, with their limited and constantly re-worked inventory of cuneiform signs, can be interpreted as a particular univers instrumental clos 244 within which the ancient scholars operated. The historical development of these lists across the centuries can be interpreted as a series of variations on a single bricolage theme. It should be noted, however, that the speed of the transformations found in this particular Ancient Mesopotamian bricolage ‘game’, as evident from durable written documents, may be considerably lower than the transformations occurring in non-literate traditions, such as constitute the bulk of Lévi-Strauss’ empiric material. Also it should be noted that the mechanisms behind the slower transformations are probably - at least partially - of a very different logical order than those found in non-literate traditions. This issue will be discussed in 4.2. below. For now, however, it should be noted that the basic set-up of the lexical lists resembles that of any bricolage operation. The applicability of Lévi-Strauss’ bricolage concept to the lexical lists also may be seen with regard to the second criterion, i.e. to totalizing micro-perequation, as the lexical lists do indeed show a persistent single-level logical approach. This approach consists in the interpretation of all objects and phenomena in terms of (graphically expressed) signs. What the lexical lists effectively serve to do is to provide an equation for all conceivable natural and cultural objects and phenomena to a limited, traditionally accepted body of signs, i.e. to a sign code. The sole ultimate purpose of the lists is the transmission of this sign-code. The fact that the presentation of this sign code varies over time, as evident from the diachronic transformation and synchronic variation in the various attested compositions, does not alter the fundamental fact that the lists are never concerned with a pursuit of knowledge other than that of (re-)formulating a sign-code. There is no evidence of any other investigative interest - even obviously separate logical categories such as graphic, phonetic and semantic value are never consistently investigated separately. The modern scientist may discern, here and there, in some parts of the curriculum, rudimentary ‘beginnings’ of quasi-scientific investigative endeavor (e.g. in later quasi243 244

Ibidem, 27-8. Ibidem, 27.

125

Chapter 4 – The Structuralist Perspective ‘acrographic’ versions of Izi), but never does the Ancient Mesopotamian lexical list quite manage to rise above the single logical level of what has been called its Listenwissenschaft. An explanation of this single-level logical approach may be found in Lévi-Strauss’ analysis of the nature of the smallest knowledge units in bricolage, i.e. the nature of the kind of elements that it deals in: (c)haque élément représente un ensemble de relations, à la fois concrètes et virtuelles; se sont des opérateurs, mais utilisable en vue d’opérations quelconques au sein d’un type. ... (ils) se situent toujours à mi-chemin entre de precepts et de concepts 245 . In other words: the kind of elements that bricolage occupies itself with are of a binary nature and this is exactly the kind of element the lexical lists are concerned with, viz. the sign 246 . The type of signs dealt with in the lexical lists is, more precisely, the logogram. The logogram indeed has a binary status, referring to both concrete precepts (i.e. their original pictographic referents) and virtual concepts (i.e. their derived associative content), which effectively precludes any discourse that separates the former from the latter: (i)l serait impossible d’extraire les premiers (les precepts) de la situation concrète où ils sont apparus, tandis que le recours aux seconds (les concepts) exigerait que la pensée puisse, provisoirement au moins, mettre ses projets entre parenthèses 247 . Following this line of thought, it may be suggested that the occasional appearances of quasi-scientific analysis in the lexical lists, such as occasional ‘grammatical’ investigations (e.g. the declination and conjugation sequences in Hh) and ‘acrographic’ investigations (e.g. the series SagB), are, in fact, examples of what LéviStrauss calls ‘provisional’ conceptual ‘excursions’. These appearances should therefore be considered as atypical relative to what, in view of its exclusively logographic origin and element inventory, cannot be other than a bricolage system. Having found that the lexical curriculum fulfills the criteria of both intransigent determinism and totalizing micro-perequation, it should be concluded that, in terms of Lévi-Strauss’ theory, the lexical curriculum, in fact, constitutes a bricolage system, a system operated on the basis of totemic logic. It should be noted that in addition to the logical evidence presented here, formal evidence can be produced for this conclusion. The general theoretical question of formal procedure will be pursued in paragraph 4.2., but it should be noted that specific formal comparison of the lexical lists with ethnographic evidence will not be pursued here. This would require a professional reassessment of the ethnographic evidence impossible in the context of the present study. Perhaps a formal comparative analysis of the lexical curriculum - and other genres of cuneiform literature - in terms of Lévi-Strauss’ ethnographic evidence could be attempted in another context. For now, however, a single clue to its promise must suffice. Even the most cursory investigation of the mass of empiric evidence from ‘primitive’ classification systems provided by Lévi-Strauss reveals striking formal similarities between these systems and the classification system constituted by the lexical lists in terms of their heavy reliance on the mechanism of systematic oppositions used in the construction of 245

Ibidem, 27-8. Note Lévi-Strauss’ definition: Or un intermédiaire existe entre l’image et le concept: c’est le signe, puisqu’on peut toujours le définir, de la façon inaugurée par Saussure à propos de cette catégorie particulière que forment les signes linguistiques, comme un lieu entre une image et un concept, qui dans l’univers ainsi réalisée, jouent respectivement les roles de signifiant et de signifié. - Ibidem 247 Ibidem 246

126

Chapter 4 – The Structuralist Perspective identity and function. Elements of a given inventory are systematically opposed in different arrangements, allowing a different use and the establishment of different identities and functions. Whatever is the nature of the elements involved - whether they be totemic geographic sites, as in the case of Lévi-Strauss’ re-analysis of social structures in the New Hebrides 248 , or whether they be cuneiform logograms, as in the case of the Ancient Mesopotamian lexical lists - is essentially immaterial. What matters is the great similarity found in the formal procedure of opposition. This may serve as an indication of the avenues available to formal approach. Concluding this sub-paragraph, it may be said that the lexical texts, despite their origin in a literate culture and a urban civilization, present the modern scientist with the kind of classificatory system and logical quality more commonly associated with non-literate, ‘primitive’ cultures. In view of the profound implications of this conclusion, it is felt that it would be appropriate to explore some of these implications in more depth. Thus, it will be attempted to relate two important aspects of Lévi-Strauss’ theoretical model to the lexical texts, viz. the historical aspect and the artistic aspect. History in totemic classification In Lévi-Strauss’ theory, science distinguishes contingent events and necessary structures (scientific structures here being defined as the general theories underlying specific scientific theses), but bricolage derives its structures from events (bricolage events here being defined as témoins fossiles de l’histoire d’un individu ou d’une société 249 ). Thus, it could be said that science and bricolage proceed with a reversed view of what is diachronic and what is synchronic relative to their classificatory structures. With this in mind it can be understood that, for Lévi-Strauss, history is not an objective reality, but a social construct taking on the form of structural discourse: ... l’histoire n’est pas liée à l’homme, ni à aucun objet particulier. Elle consiste entièrement dans sa méthode, dont l’expérience prouve qu’elle est indispensable pour inventorier l’intégralité des éléments d’une structure quelconque, humaine ou non humaine 250 . On the one hand, modern historical methodology is constructed by means of a historical code, based in turn on date classes, each defined by their respective frequency and each constituting a historical domain. Thus, historical events can appear as ordinal or cardinal numbers (all of these relative only in relation to other numbers) and simultaneously as members of class (a year class, a month class, a date class etc.) 251 . The value of historic events is determined solely by this structural framework, within which each event is related to a specific social function: (c)e qui rend l’histoire possible, c’est qu’un sousensemble d’événements se trouve, pour une période donnée, avoir approximativement la même signification pour un contingent d’individus qui n’ont pas nécessairement vécu ces 248

Ibidem, 105ff. Ibidem, 32. 250 Ibidem, 345. 251 (La) quantité variable de dates appliquées sur des périodes d’égale durée, mesure ce qu’on pourrait appeler la pression de l’histoire: il ya des chronologies <>, qui sont celles des époques où de nombreux événements offrent, aux yeux de l’historien, le caractère d’éléments différentiels. - Ibidem, 343. 249

127

Chapter 4 – The Structuralist Perspective événements, et qui peuvent même les considérer à plusieurs siècles de distance. L’histoire n’est donc jamais l’histoire, mais l’histoire-pour 252 . On the other hand, in totemic classification, the present (social) context (or: functionality) tends to continually re-shape the structural framework of historic discourse, to the extent of eliminating historic contingency: (i)l y a ... une sorte d’antipathie foncière entre l’histoire et les systèmes de classification (totèmiques)... Dans le totémisme ... la fonction l’emporte inévitablement sur la structure 253 . Thus, a classification system based on totemic logic will inevitably seek to annul any historical event, by incorporating the event by imposing a fixed homology between the natural and cultural paradigms, a procedure which lies at its core. It will, in effect, ‘absorb’ the event into these paradigms. Although it has to deal with historical events no less than any other thought system 254 , totemic logic seems to be ‘absorbing’ them directly into a-historical classificatory schemes: ... on ... découvre (l’histoire) déjà enracinée dans la pensée sauvage, (mais) ... elle ne s’y épanouit pas. Le propre de la pensée sauvage est d’être intemporelle; elle veut saisir le monde, à la fois, comme totalité synchronique et diachronique … 255 . A totemic classificatory scheme will integrate knowledge irrespective of its chronological provenance and such a scheme will inevitably lack concern with any explicit genealogy. Thus, paradoxically, the near-total transparency of totemic classification to historical contingency actually imparts it with a seemingly ‘timeless’ quality. Totemic logic has no use for explicit analysis of historical causality and relativity - instead, it incorporates historical developments by juxtaposing them with and filing them along formally parallel signs, adding them to the larger sign inventory without changing the structure of that inventory. Lévi-Strauss describes the resultant total sign inventory as essentially nothing but a collection of aide-mémoires based on similitude: (u)ne multitude d’images se forment simultanément, dont aucune n’est exactement pareille aux autres; dont chacune, par conséquent, n’apporte qu’une connaissance partielle (du monde réel), mais dont le groupe se caractérise par des propriétés invariantes exprimant une vérité. La pensée sauvage approfondit sa connaissance à l’aide d’imagines mundi. Elle construit des édifices mentaux qui lui facilitent d’intelligence du monde pour autant qu’ils lui ressemblent. En ce sense, on a pu la définir comme pensée analogique 256 . This description, in fact quite well fits the Ancient Mesopotamian lexical lists. These lists contain a multitude of graphic images, none exactly equal to the other, clustered in groups, each group characterized by invariable properties and each group expressing a particular classificatory ‘truth’. These graphic images, i.e. the cuneiform logograms, may be considered imagines mundi in the most literal sense - they allow knowledge to be constructed by means of associative mechanisms which, in the final analysis, depend on the resemblances between the logograms and their real world referents. 252

Ibidem, 341. Ibidem, 301. 254 Long ... que la recherche d’intelligibilité aboutisse à l’histoire comme à son point d’arrivée, c’est l’histoire qui sert de point de départ pour toute quête de l’intelligibilité. ... l’histoire mène tout, mais à condition d’en sortir. - Ibidem, 348. 255 Ibidem 256 Ibidem 253

128

Chapter 4 – The Structuralist Perspective Viewing the cuneiform lexical lists as a species of totemic classificatory system also explains the clear disregard for what the modern scientist would term the ‘historical value’ of these texts by their authors. These authors simply modified the texts, according to current curricular needs and local context, as seemed suitable to them, discarding the ‘original’ versions. Interpretations and vocabulary could be inserted into or omitted from a lexical composition, irrespective of the ancient origin of the core of that composition and irrespective of the eventual accumulative changes in the nature of the composition itself (cf. the transformations in Lu and Izi discussed in Part 3 14.5-6.). Even the most textually stable compositions, such as SaV, which shows some stability at least with regard to its key-word inventory and sequence (cf. Part 3 14.2.), are subject to such modifications. More importantly, nowhere is any attempt made at an historical analysis of the lexical material itself: there is no explicit analysis of any historical phenomena such as etymological connections, phonetic developments or semantic shifts. Causality and relativity are never explicitly explored in the historical dimension. Here Lévi-Strauss’ term ‘analogue thinking’ comes to mind as a quite appropriate description for the logic behind the Ancient Mesopotamian lexical lists. Art in totemic logic ... l’exigence d’organisation est un besoin commun à l’art et à la science et ... par voie de conséquence la taxinomie, qui est la mise en ordre par excellence, possède une éminente valeur 257 esthétique .

In Lévi-Strauss’ view there is an intermediate stage between magic and scientific knowledge, viz. authentic traditional art 258 . His argument is that any authentic traditional art object is essentially a reduced model, which has universal aesthetic appeal due to its implicit reversal of the process of knowing (in his view enlargements are, simply put, reduced models as well, resulting from reverse reduction). Lévi-Strauss proposes that, whereas in real life knowledge of parts precedes that of the whole, in the reduced model knowledge of the whole precedes that of the parts: the quantity-quality experience is reversed and man-made experience supplants real-life experience 259 . Lévi-Strauss posits that traditional art and totemic logic are similar in procedure. To arrive at his reduced model the traditional artist will always incorporate contingent ‘events’ of what he is modelling (e.g. the color of the sky in a painting or the facial expression of his subject in a sculpture). In terms of formal procedure this process is similar to the bricolage of totemic logic, which always proceeds from - and incorporates - such elements as are contextually available. In this sense, traditional art maybe viewed as ‘concrete’ in the same way as totemic logic was found to be the ‘science of the concrete’. It could be said that both traditional art and totemic logic proceed by means of bricolage in as far as both use contingent events, definable as ... témoins fossiles de l’histoire d’un individu ou d’une société ..., to obtain structure 260 . 257

Ibidem, 21. Ibidem, 33ff. 259 Ibidem, 35. 260 Ibidem, 32. It may be noted here how the procedures of modern science and totemic logic are opposed by a reversal in the relation between the diachronic and the synchronic: the former proceeds from necessary 258

129

Chapter 4 – The Structuralist Perspective

A side-effect of the bricolage procedure found in both traditional art and totemic logic is that it enables both to incorporate non-sense, something modern science cannot achieve: (d)e son côté, la pensée mythique (le bricolage) n’est pas seulement la prisonnière d’événements et d’expériences qu’elle dispose et redispose inlassablement pour leur découvrir un sens, elle est aussi libératrice, par la protestation qu’elle élève contre le non-sens, avec lequel la science s’était d’abord résignée a transiger 261 . This feature of totemic logic may be one way of explaining the fact that in the eyes of the modern scientific observer its products - such as the Ancient Mesopotamian lexical lists - tend to be profoundly lacking in ‘logical’ adequacy. Lévi-Strauss’ analysis also allows another perspective, especially applicable to the Ancient Mesopotamian lexical lists, viz. to view them as possessing a clear artistic value. If Lévi-Strauss’ proposition, outlined above, is followed and reduced models are said to have universal esthetic appeal, then the lexical lists certainly qualify as art objects. In front of these lists the reader is factually transformed into a viewer of collections of what are in effect miniaturized ‘reduced models’, viz. the logograms. One of the things that art does, in Lévi-Strauss’ view, is to imbue the viewer with the powers of the author, by giving him access to a variety of potential modalities regarding a given object, access which is achieved by the one specific, actual modality of the object in question chosen by the artist. In his own words: (c)omme le choix d’une solution entraîne une modification du résultat auquel aurait conduit une autre solution, c’est donc le tableau de ces permutations qui se trouve virtuellement donné, en même temps que la solution particulière offerte au regard du spectateur, transformé de ce fait - sans même qu’il le sache - en agent 262 . In fact, in the lexical lists, such a ‘table of permutations’ is given not only virtually, but also - at least partially - factually. The universal esthetic appeal of the reduced model, applicable also to the lexical lists, may perhaps best be summarized by Lévi-Strauss’ statement that ... le vertu intrinsèque du modèle réduit est qu’il compense la renonciation à des dimensions sensibles par l’acquisition de dimensions intelligibles 263 . Which is, it may be added, exactly the principle that guided the invention of cuneiform logograms in the first place.

structure (theory, hypothesis) to contingent event, whereas the latter proceeds from contingent event to improvised structure. 261 Ibidem, 33. 262 Ibidem, 35-6. 263 Ibidem

130

Chapter 4 – The Structuralist Perspective 4.2. Systematic transformations Introductory notes Two precautionary remarks are necessary before investigating how totemic logic depends on the structural operation of systematic transformations and before determining to what degree this kind of operation is found in the lexical lists. First, it should be noted that there are two important difficulties in understanding totemic classification: (1) the identification of significant elements and (2) the difference between these and their discretionary functions. What should be remembered is that the elements found in bricolage operations are not raw material - they have concrete, real-life referents, but these referents are ‘recycled’ and applied out of their original context. They may be said to be heterogenic in content and analogue to each other only in form. In other words, the value of the terms (or elements) of bricolage classification are not determined primarily by their specific ‘surface’ content, but rather by their position in the overall classification system 264 . In case of the lexical lists this principle is evident in the fact that the cuneiform signs consist mostly of original pictograms that are re-interpreted as ideograms, logograms and phonograms (e.g. UD, originally a pictogram of the sun rising over the horizon, carrying the ideographic association ‘day’, may be read as a logogram with value ZALAG namru ‘shining’, as in SaV PST 068.05, and as a phonogram with value /ut/, as in SaV T2 VIII 38 ÚR ut-lu 4 ‘lap’). Thus, it is evident that the value of the element UD is primarily determined by it’s position in the system. Concerning the identification of significant elements in cuneiform lexicology it is striking that - despite the limited total inventory of logograms and many having a reconstructable genealogy dating back to the dawn of writing itself - the precise pictographic origins of a considerable number of these logograms still remain obscure. Here applies the general difficulty, noted by Lévi-Strauss, faced by modern science when it comes to reconstructing a logic which was primarily imparted by the practical conditions and which depended on concrete knowledge, knowledge doubly intellectual and affective, conditioned by a lost natural life-world 265 . In the words of Lévi-Strauss: bricolage classification systems, such as the one underlying cuneiform lexicology, ... opèrent avec des logiques à plusieurs dimensions, dont l’inventaire, l’analyse et l’interprétation exigeraient une richesse d’informations ethnologiques et générales qui font trop souvent défaut 266 . Which implies that (part of) the origin, significance and functionality of the elements under investigation most likely escape modern scientific analysis. As a result, any modern scientific understanding of the cuneiform logograms is limited to an empirically gained, but inevitably only partially achieved reconstruction of functions - a reconstruction based on an inevitably very fragmentary understanding of their original real-life referents or their originally associated context. Second, it should be noted that whenever a ‘pure’ totemic classification system, such as found in exclusively oral, so-called ‘primitive’ societies, is subjected - perhaps slowly, 264

Ibidem, 48-9. Ibidem, 52-3. 266 Ibidem, 86. 265

131

Chapter 4 – The Structuralist Perspective gradually - to fusion, incorporation, replacement or deformation under pressure of other classification systems, such as those intrinsically inherent in writing (cf. the discussion of the ‘techno-logical’ implications of writing in Chapter 3), the totemic classification will tend to progressive entropy. To understand this, it is appropriate to look at the internal dynamic of the ‘pure’ totemic classification system. There, every content relation in totemic classification, i.e. all content carried by its juxtaposed discretionary elements, is of a temporary, unstable nature. Only the formal operation of the totemic classificatory system is of a constant, stable nature: (p)ar son caractère formel et par la <<prise>> qu’il exerce sur toute espèce de contenus, (l)e souci (des écarts différentiés qui imprègne l’activité empirique aussi bien que spéculative de ceux que nous appelons primitifs) explique que les institutions indigènes puissent, bien qu’emportées elles aussi dans un flux de temporalité, se maintenir à distance constante de la contingence historique et de l’immutabilité d’un plan, et navigues, si l’on peut dire, dans un courant d’intelligibilité 267 . In a ‘pure’ totemic classification system the actual content handled by its formal operations, i.e. the contents assigned to discretionary elements at a certain point in time, is imbued with a certain amount of ‘weight’ - this content, or at least (residual) association with this content, is not easily completely dislodged. Systemically this implies a certain ‘unwieldiness’, a tendency to delay and an intrinsic ‘resistance’ to radical alterations in logical process. Lévi-Strauss describes this quality and explains its effects in relation to the myths and rites, which he takes as frequent examples of totemic logic: (l)es mythes et les rites changeront, mais avec un certain retard et comme s’ils étaient doués d’une rémanence qui préserverait en eux, pendant un temps, tout ou partie de l’orientation primitive. Celle-ci demeurera donc, à travers eux, indirectement agissante pour maintenir les nouvelles solutions structurales dans la ligne approximative de la structure antérieure. A supposer un moment initial (dont la notion est toute théorique) où l’ensemble des systèmes ait été exactement ajusté, cet ensemble réagira à tout changement affectant d’abord une de ses parties comme une machine à <>: asservie ... par son harmonie antérieure, elle orientera l’organe déréglé dans le sens d’un équilibre qui sera, à tout le moins, un compromis entre l’état ancien et le désordre introduit du dehors 268 . Obviously, when other kinds of logic (for Ancient Mesopotamian lexicology read: those implied in the ‘techno-logy’ of writing) intrude and become dominant, this ‘feed-back’ machine, inherent in totemic logic, inevitably breaks down. Content and form transmitted from the old totemic logic will be forced into different relations as logical patterns shift. Old contents and old formal relations can become ‘frozen’ and become unrecognizable as they are assigned new functions. In the lexical material under investigation here, a good example of elements ‘frozen’ and re-assigned may be found in the series Diri, which in construction and function distinguishes itself by a level of abstraction far removed from the concrete pictographic referents which originally gave life to its constituent elements, i.e. to the graphemes combined into Dirivalues (cf. Part 3 Chapter 10). Lévi-Strauss’ argument, that the most ‘pure’ totemic classification systems are found in the most ‘primitive’ contexts 269 , is of profound significance here. From this argument it effectively follows that the classification system found in the Ancient Mesopotamian lexical lists can be considered as a totemic 267

Ibidem, 99. Ibidem, 92. 269 Ibidem, 98. 268

132

Chapter 4 – The Structuralist Perspective classification system in a state of entropy. This idea is consistent with the conclusion of the diachronic research presented in Part 3 (14.4-6.), which was, in short, that throughout the centuries the lexical curriculum was subject to a transformative process (slightly unevenly), evident throughout its different parts and caused by a combination of internal and external dynamics (most importantly respectively the accumulative impact of its own integrative ‘logic’ and the introduction of the bilingual format). New functions were projected on old texts, which were not abandoned, but which were transformed and progressively lost any residual ‘totemic’ characteristics in the process. As will be seen next, Lévi-Strauss’ theoretical model in fact offers an explanation of how such a development is the inevitable outcome of classificatory complexification inherent in totemic logic itself. It is important, however, to finally re-emphasize the conclusion that the Ancient Mesopotamian lexical texts can be interpreted as a fossilized bricolage-type classification system. The mechanism of systematic transformation In Lévi-Strauss’ view the mistake of the older, ‘classical’ interpretation of ‘totemism’ was to link the coded elements of the totemic system to actual specific content. Instead, he argues, totemic logic should be viewed as a method to assimilate any kind of content by means of discretionarily used elements 270 . He exemplifies this by radically reinterpreting Frazer’s ‘classical’ view of the totemic social structure in the New Hebrides (present-day Vanuatu). In that society, different populations on different islands have different totemic food prohibitions and different totemic rules of exogamy. Lévi-Strauss shows that these differences are not to be explained by looking at the nature of the totemic symbols themselves but by looking at the structure of the differences in question. What is really relevant is not the difference between one totemic symbol and another, but rather the structure of the opposition itself. Food prohibitions are individual in one group and collective in another. Exogamy is transitive in one group (where children are considered to constitute a distinct social group) and intransitive in another (where children are considered merely the reproduction of the parental group). Important is that the elements of the totemic classification system within one given inventory can be rearranged and functionally re-defined in discretionary fashion 271 . The actual process of rearrangement and re-definition is what constitutes systematic transformation. Lévi-Strauss shows that the mechanism through which systematic transformation is practically effectuated is that of systematic opposition. He proposes that (l)e principe logique (totémique) est de toujours pouvoir opposer des termes, qu’un appauvrissement préable de totalité empirique permet de concevoir comme distinct. 272 . The logical operation of (systematic) opposition constitutes a coding process, i.e. the formal replacement of the elements in one logical register by those in another, a replacement which by necessity implies a selection, i.e. a logical reduction of the natural and cultural empiric life-world. In the words of Lévi-Strauss: …les systèmes de dénomination et de classement, communément appelés totémiques, tirent leur valeur opératoire de leur 270

Ibidem, 101. Ibidem, 105-12. 272 Ibidem, 100-1. 271

133

Chapter 4 – The Structuralist Perspective caractère formel: ce sont des codes aptes à véhiculer des messages transposables dans les termes d’autres codes et à exprimer dans leur système propre les messages reçus par le canal de codes différents 273 . In Lévi-Strauss’ view the reliance of totemic logic on systematic transformations effectuated by systematic oppositions is simply explained by its basic, original function, viz. the mediation between nature and culture274 . An illustration of this mediating function may be found in his analysis of food prohibitions: in a given totemically organized society for certain social groups certain consumables may be prohibited whereas certain non-consumables are privileged in symbolic ‘consumption’ - this serves to de-naturalize the natural resemblances between these social groups and makes them culturally distinct 275 . Systematic transformation in the lexical curriculum With regard to the lexical texts two aspects of Lévi-Strauss’ theory of systematic transformation in totemic logic are of special relevance: (1) the status of bricolage classificatory element inventories as totemic inventories and (2) the problem of systemic complexification resulting from accumulating transformation. With regard to the first aspect, it is here proposed that the element inventory of the lexical texts is to be regarded as of a totemic nature. Even if, as argued earlier, the later LBA texts show the totemic classification system of the original lexical compositions to in a state of entropy, still the elements themselves, viz. the logograms, remain conceived of as they would be in a totemic classification system. The lexical texts present cuneiform logograms as discretionary signs, defined by systematic horizontal oppositions and subject to systematic vertical transformation. Horizontally logograms acquire meaning through contrast with other elements, such as pronunciation glosses and translations, whereas vertically they shift in meaning through systematic transformations, transformations that may be described in terms of associative strategies (e.g. graphemic transformation, effected by substitution of writing elements, may be described in terms of graphic association - for further analysis of the various associative strategies cf. Part 3 11.3.). In other words, if Lévi-Strauss analysis of totemic logic as an epistemological superstructure is followed, the lexical texts may be described as based on a totemic classification system because (a) they depend on contrasting pairs of discretionary elements (viz. of various horizontally and vertically contrasted entry elements) and because (b) they rely on systematic transformations to achieve meaning in each of their consecutive individual horizontal entries. These horizontal entries may be regarded as the constitutive units of the lexical texts, which, taken together, reflect a logical system in which a synthesis between idea and fact is achieved by transforming the latter into a sign. In Lévi-Strauss’ words: (l)’esprit va ainsi de la diversité empirique à la simplicité conceptuelle, puis de la simplicité conceptuelle à la synthèse signifiante 276 . A few examples of how the lexical lists are build around the two principles of contrasting pairs and systematic transformations are given in Table 5 below. It should be noted that the 273

Ibidem Ibidem, 120. 275 Ibidem, 142. 276 Ibidem, 174. 274

134

Chapter 4 – The Structuralist Perspective both contrasts and transformation may involve multiple (graphic, phonetic, semantic) principles simultaneously. Table 5. Examples of contrasting pairs and systematic transformations Series/ E/PST

Entries Contrasting elements and transforming sequences Gr – graphic association; Ph – phonetic association; S – semantic association; grammatical contrasts are indicated in LARGE case

Vertical

Horizontal contrasted to Akkadian equivalents LOGOGRAMS

SaV 170-1

AK-IG

SaV 174-5

EŠ-KUR

Sag 075-7

SAGDÙLKA

170 to 171: Gr: stable initial elements (single horizontal + single vertical) succeeded by varying final elements Ph: stable final consonant (G) preceded by varying initial vowels 170.1. to 170.2.: Gr: AK succeeded by DAK 171.1. to 171.2.: NOUN → VERB S: ‘door’ succeeded by ‘to guard’ 174 to 175: Gr: stable number of elements (3 wedges) in different relative positions 174.1. to 174.2.: S: DN ‘Sîn’ succeeded by noun ‘temple’ 175.1. to 175.2.: S: ‘land’ succeeded by ‘mountain’ 175.2. to 175.3.: NOUN → VERB Ph: šadû succeeded by ka-šādu 075 to 076: Gr: stylized ‘head’ with added hatches 075 to 077: Gr: stylized ‘head’ with added facial features 076a to 076b: NOUN → VERB Ph: m-ānahu succeeded by anāhu S: ‘labour’ succeeded by ‘to tire’ 076b to 076c: G VERB →Št VERB

170.1 AK contrasted to equivalent verb epēšu 170.2. AK contrasted to AK with added D determinative 171.1. IG contrasted to equivalent noun daltu ‘door’ 171.2. IG=ĜÁL contrasted to equivalent verb naṣāru ‘to guard’ 174.1. EŠ contrasted to EŠ with added D determinative 174.2. EŠ contrasted to equivalent noun eššu II ‘temple’ 175.1. KUR contrasted to equivalent noun mātu ‘land’ 175.2. KUR contrasted to equivalent noun šadû ‘mountain’ 175.3. KUR contrasted to equivalent verb kašādu ‘to reach’ 076a. KÚŠ.Ù contrasted to equivalent noun mānahu ‘labour’ 076b. KÚŠ.Ù contrasted to equivalent verb anāhu ‘to tire’ 076.c. KÚŠ.Ù AK.AK contrasted to equivalent verb anāhu Št ‘to tire’ 077 KÌRI contrasted to equivalent noun appu ‘nose’

With regard to the second aspect, i.e. that of systemic complexification, it is here proposed that in the course of many centuries the original totemic classification system underlying the lexical texts became increasingly complex as a result of historical developments and internal dynamics. Eventually, the original compositions had been expanded and modified to a point at which they had effectively become transformed into something very different. Historical factors, such as the growing distance to the extinct Sumerian language, the introduction of the bilingual format and shifting functional demands in the educational context in which the texts were reproduced, may all be assumed to have played a role in this transformative process. At least as important, however, must have been the unceasing scholarly endeavour to apply what has been termed the integrative methodology, by which each generation of scholars would dissect, 135

Chapter 4 – The Structuralist Perspective re-evaluate, re-define and add to the knowledge passed on from earlier generations (cf. Part 3 14.4-6.). It is here proposed all these transformative factors contributed to a complexification process of such intensity as to effectively and relatively early cause the loss of the original totemic classificatory coherence of the transmitted texts. The loss of certain compositions (Sal-Svo, Kagal, Sag, Nigga), the drastic expansion or entire transformation of others (Harra, Izi) and the rise of completely new composition (Ea, Aa) may be seen as the inevitable outcome of a centuries-long textual transmission process during which the original classificatory system becomes progressively obscured. In fact, it is conceivable that even in the OB period, the original totemic classificatory coherence of the texts had already been largely lost in much of the lexical curriculem 277 . This issue, regarding diachronic development, however, would require a specialized investigation which is impossible in the framework of the present study. Lévi-Strauss describes the loss of the original classificatory structure as follows: (i)ntelligible au départ, la structure atteint, en se ramifiant, une sorte d’inertie ou d’indifférence logique 278 . In the final analysis it is the accumulation of knowledge, in the form of interpretations or otherwise, which causes any totemic classificatory scheme to eventually loose its workability, relevance and validity: (p)lus nos connaissances s’accumulent, plus le schème d’ensemble s’obscurit, parce que les dimensions se multiplient et que l’accroissement des axes de référence au delà d’un certain seuil paralyse les méthodes intuitives: on ne parvient plus à imaginer un système, dès que sa représentation exige un continuum dépassant trois ou quatre dimensions 279 . Various elements originating in the collapsed totemic classification system may of course have been preserved and incorporated in the new classification system that replaced it. It must be denied, however, that in case of the cuneiform lexical curriculum, i.e. a literate tradition subject to the various ‘techno-logies’ particular to writing, any classification system that replaced the original one could still possibly be in any way termed authentically ‘totemic’. Rather, a different historical development suggests itself. It may be argued that the only authentically totemic classification system that can ever be found in (logographic) writing is probably the one which at the very outset lends its element inventory to writing, shaping it and giving it impetus (i.e. which shapes its pictograms, ideograms and logograms). Thus, the origin of logographic writing could be explained as simply a graphic projection of a totemic classification scheme. In the subsequent early literate context the signs used for logographic writing can still be viewed as classified in the same way as other totemic sign inventories in non-literate societies, i.e. they can be viewed as still fitted in a totemic classificatory scheme. Over time, however, as writing becomes the subject of institutionalized education and professional scholarship, it is inconceivable that writing should not develop its own, autonomous ‘techno-logical’ dynamics (cf. Chapter 3 277

Some survivals of the original totemic classificatory system may assumed to exist in those instances where early texts were integrally incorporated in later series (e.g. the early ‘wood lists’ which are still recognizable in Emar Hh 3-4). In those instances the original classificatory system remains accessible and the question then arises how it affects its new educational context – remark by Prof. van Soldt (personal communication). 278 Ibidem, 211. 279 Ibidem, 117.

136

Chapter 4 – The Structuralist Perspective on Goody’s ‘techno-logical’ model). To the extent that an understanding of the original pictographic and ideographic content of logograms remains visible in the lexical scholarship of later centuries, the working of totemic logic may be assumed to remain at least marginally relevant in a logographically written scholarly tradition. Thus, due to their origin and inherent character, the logographic elements found on all lexical lists, i.e. the logograms themselves, may in principle be regarded as of a totemic nature, regardless of when they were composed. The organization and analysis of these elements within these lists by the writers, however, will inevitably have become increasingly influenced by non-totemic forms of (literate) logic with the passage of time. Diachronic developments must inevitably have interfered with the originally conceived structure of the lists, lists which were originally exclusively synchronically defined 280 . Obviously, diachronic developments also interfere with synchronic structures in exclusively oral societies, i.e. societies that know and maintain exclusively totemic forms of classification 281 . The difference, however, is that in a literate society such interference will inevitably also include non-totemic forms of classification, viz. forms of classification inherent in, triggered by and derived from the literate ‘techno-logy’ which it utilizes (cf. Chapter 3). The lexical lists as found in LBA Emar could be said to effectively constitute hybrids of originally totemic elements organized according to subsequent non-totemic classification - ... résulte d’un processus historique d’accrétion, plutôt que d’une entreprise systematique 282 . 4.3. Classificatory levels - species Species An important structural operation distinguished by Lévi-Strauss is that of the establishment of classification levels. In his view, totemic classification lacks hierarchy: its classificatory levels are functionally fluid, each allowing growth and expansion of the binary logic by which they were established in the first place 283 . What is clear, however, is that there is a differentiated, rising level of abstraction. The central classificatory level is that of species, suspended between concrete individual referents (the level of proper names) and the more abstract classes (the levels of elements, categories and numbers). Species, adjustable downwards or upwards, is the totemic classificatory medium par excellence 284 . In reference to the natural world, to which the notion of species is inextricably linked and in which it has empiric validity, the Lévi-Strauss describes its classificatory operation as follows: (l)a notion d’espèce possède ... une dynamique interne: collection suspendue entre deux systèmes, l’espèce est l’opérateur qui permet de passer (et même y oblige), de l’unité d’une multiplicité à la diversité d’une unité. ... la 280

An example of this kind of process is discussed in Part 3 14.11., which treats the diachronic processes, visible in the development of the lexical curriculum, by which layers of various organisational structures are superimposed on each other. 281 Dans de telles sociétés synchronie et diachronie sont engagées dans un conflit constamment renouvelé, et dont il semble que chaque fois, la diachronie doive sortir victorieuse ... (une) lutte constante entre l’histoire et le système ... - Ibidem, 204/7. 282 Ibidem, 205. 283 Ibidem, 182ff. 284 Ibidem, 197.

137

Chapter 4 – The Structuralist Perspective diversité des espèces fournit à l’homme l’image la plus intuitive dont il dispose et elle constitue la manifestation la plus directe qu’il sache percevoir, de la discontinuité ultime du réel: elle est l’expression sensible d’un codage objectif. ... d’une combinatoire objectivement donnée dans la nature et que l’activité de l’esprit, et la vie sociale ellemême ne font que lui emprunter pour l’appliquer à la création de nouvelles taxinomies 285 . In other words, the notion of species naturally offers itself for use as a classificatory tool - it constitutes a classificatory notion that can be projected on all kinds of knowledge and used in all forms of analysis. It is here that must be sought the cause of the misinterpretation of ‘totemism’ in earlier western science: totems were interpreted in terms of their apparent functions (economic, social, religious), instead of being recognized for what did were, viz. as part of the classificatory schemes to which they belonged 286 . Here the question must be in what manner Lévi-Strauss’ notion of species is relevant to the lexical texts - whether, in fact, in these texts it constitutes a classificatory medium in the manner to be expected in totemic logic. To answer this question it is proposed that in these texts the concept species was expressed in specific logograms, viz. in key-words and determinatives, i.e. those graphemes that were shared throughout various entry sequences, either pronounced or left unpronounced (cf. Part 3 4.3.). It will be seen whether or not the usage of key-words and determinatives in the lexical texts complies with the four characteristic particularities of the totemic classificatory medium species distinguished by Lévi-Strauss. These four particularities will be investigated here point by point: (1) lack of hierarchy, (2) passage between species and category in natural taxonomy, (3) expansion of binary logic triggered by an original scheme and (4) a rising level of abstraction 287 . It should be noted that the following investigation will be limited to the thematic lists (G, Hh, Lu). The other lists are primarily sign-lists, meaning that in their organization species had a graphemic rather than a semantic definition (i.e. the other lists treated key-signs rather than key-words). Although the sign-lists could equally be viewed in terms of abstractly extended totemic logic (viz. extended into the field of graphics), the thematic lists offer an opportunity to keep the investigation closer to the empiric life-world of the ‘primitive’, non-literate cultures on which Lévi-Strauss bases his theory. Lack of hierarchy A good example of the lack of explicit, i.e. graphemic, hierarchy between different determinatives and key-words is found when looking at the organization of Hh divisions 3-18, i.e. of those divisions covering those natural or cultural creatures, objects, artefacts and locations, that are neither divine nor human (divine identity and human identity are extensively dealt with in the preceding series G and the following series Lu respectively). It should be emphatically reiterated that what will be primarily investigated here is graphemically empirical hierarchy, not any other kind of (abstract, semantic) hierarchy. A short overview of the content of Hh maybe found in Part 3 Table 11.The texts dealing 285

Ibidem, 180-1. ... les croyances hététogènes, arbritrairement rassemblées sous l’étiquette du totémisme ... s’apparentent à d(es) croyances et practiques directement ou indirectement liées à des schèmes classificatoires, permettant de saisir l’univers naturel et social sous forme de totalité organisée. - Ibidem, 178. 287 Ibidem, 182, 185,188 and 197 respectively. 286

138

Chapter 4 – The Structuralist Perspective with wood (indicated by the initial ĜIŠ determinative) may occupy two full divisions (Hh34) and may occur earlier than the single division (Hh5) dealing with reed (indicated by the initial GI determinative), but no hierarchy is implied. The only detectable relations between the adjoining wood and reed section are, in fact, graphic association through juxtaposition (ĜIŠ has two horizontal wedges followed by one vertical wedge, whereas GI starts with one horizontal wedge followed by two vertical wedges) as well as phonetic association (/ĝi(š)/ - /gi/). These associations may have influenced the placement of earlier separate lists vis-à-vis each other during the accretion process which eventually resulted in the encyclopaedic series now known as Hh. It should be pointed out, however, that such associative mechanisms may not have been the only or even the main organizational principle by which earlier separate series may were ‘glued’ together into the larger Hh series - it is also conceivable that the earlier separate series were placed visà-vis each other rather on the basis of their respective historical prestige and/or their perceived value as educational tools 288 . In any case, the various associative mechanisms (graphic, phonetic, semantic) have a formal-organizational rather than a hierarchical effect. On the whole Hh3-18 treats its all its key-words and determinatives on a single level: it simply lists key-word and determinative sequences one after another, leaving the subject ‘wood’ at the same level as the subjects ‘reed’, ‘pottery’, ‘leather’ and ‘metal’. The complete absence of explicit hierarchy between different key-word and determinative sequences becomes even clearer upon closer inspection of divisions 8-9 and 17-8. These divisions lack even the unifying determinatives that distinguish most of the other divisions. Division 8 has eight key-words, each representing a specific domesticated animal. Division 9 lists wild animals and meats, partially by means of some key-words and a determinative but partially without bothering with either (e.g. EST 9b008-17). In those sections without key-words or determinatives, there is an almost complete lack of any consistent, graphemically explicit hierarchy. A mixture of associative strategies may be seen to organize the text (e.g. graphic association in EST 9b013-4 AZ-UG and phonetic association in EST 9b19-20 LU.LIM-A.LIM). Again very clear is the lack of hierarchy in divisions 17-8 - these simply gives a list of foodstuffs followed by a section on mortar and bitumen, all formulated in multiple short key-word sequences. The impression that no overall semantic hierarchy is implied in the encyclopaedic collection presented by Hh is strengthened by the fact that there is a lack of semantic hierarchical cohesion even on the level of tablet content: some tablets treat natural materials (Hh3-4 wood, Hh5 reed, Hh10 stone), others treat agricultural industrial products (Hh6 pottery, Hh7 leather and metal products, Hh13 clothing, Hh17 processed foods, Hh18 agricultural and building materials), but others treat the natural world (Hh89 animals, Hh11 vegetation, Hh12 fish and birds) and yet others land management (Hh14) or geography and astronomy (Hh15-6). In fact, it is likely that any visible semantic hierarchical cohesion on the level of tablet content is unintentional. This may be illustrated by the fact that the same semantic category ‘industrial products’ which defines divisions 6, 7, 13 and 17-8 may be found to define sub-divisions within another division, viz. in the second part of Hh3, which has industrial products, but only those made from wood.

288

It is also conceivable that the number of entries of earlier separate compositions played a role in determining their placement within the larger Hh series (van Soldt - personal communication).

139

Chapter 4 – The Structuralist Perspective The only organizational principles seen at work throughout Hh are those of key-word and determinative, which effectively juxtapose various lexical species, i.e. a totemic classificatory species as validly distinguished in cuneiform writing. One species of organic material, ‘wood’, is juxtaposed to another, ‘reed’ and one species of inorganic material, ‘tin’, is juxtaposed to others, like ‘clay’ and ‘copper’. One species of domesticated animal, ‘sheep’, is juxtaposed to others, like ‘goat’ and ‘cow’. It should be noted that these are species distinguished and valid only in terms of the Ancient Mesopotamian writing system - they do not necessarily match any species known to modern Western science. For example UDU (Hh8) does not exactly match modern ovis aries, which is evident from the fact that SILA 4 refers to the lamb, i.e. the young version of a sheep. Similarly, EH and NIM (Hh9) refer to ‘crawling vermin’ and ‘flying vermin’ rather than to any specific insect species. On balance, the lexical species seem to aim at empirically useful references rather than at abstract definitions in the modern scientific meaning of the word. In the texts the various lexical species are not hierarchically ordered but rather merely juxtaposed. The exact juxtaposition sequence, in the MBA text largely a question of traditionally transmitted convention, may originally very well have been a reflection of empiric context (e.g. the first part of Hh9, starting with its MUŠ (snake) and UR (canines and felines), may have been conceived as a systematic overview of all predators threatening life stock in the field), but its reconstruction is problematic in an exclusively synchronic study. For now it should suffice to say that the definition of the lexical series as aiming at empirically useful references rather than at abstract definitions helps to explain the lack of overall hierarchical semantic structure in the encyclopaedic series Hh. It should, however, be noted that, up to a point, something of a semantic hierarchical structure may be discerned in the other two thematic series, G and Lu, which deal with divinities and humans respectively. It would, in fact, be surprising if in these two texts the respectively applicable hierarchies would not be reflected - lexical species after all deal with empirically useful references, and nothing was more empirically useful in a description of the divine and human spheres than to make them reflect the religious and social hierarchies which pervaded Mesopotamian culture. It remains to be seen, however, to what extent the content of these two series is fully determined by a semantic hierarchy. G starts with the highest divinities in the pantheon, always paired with their ‘spouses’, and then more or less descends to the lower echelons, finally naming peripheral and local deities. It should be noted, however, that the order of DNs does not precisely follow the exact hierarchy of any known pantheon and that some names may simply be different epithets of a god mentioned earlier in a different place (e.g. Marduk is found in PST 0656 (ASAL.LÚ.HI and AMAR.UTU) but also under the epithet TU.TU in PST 135; similarly Damkina is found in PST 059-60 (DAM.GAL.NUN.NA and DAM.KI.NA) but also under the epithet KI.SAG 9 in PST 064). It should also be noted that Ancient Mesopotamian religious synchretism (where originally different dieties are identified which each other) complicates the maintenance of the ranking system of its original pantheon. On balance it is clear, however, that the sequence of G is not consistently fully hierarchical with regards to semantic content.

140

Chapter 4 – The Structuralist Perspective A similar picture emerges for Lu. After treating the word LÚ ‘man’ itself, Lu starts with the king, his family and his court, continues with high civil officials, writers and administrative personnel and then lists palace staff and security personnel. Next are found the ‘overseers’ (perhaps something like guild masters) and temple personnel. Starting with EST 1215, the list changes to giving relational terminology and it ends, after giving the titles of various city officials, with a long list of ‘common’ professions. It seems, in fact, that after EST 1215 Lu no longer strictly reflects a specific social hierarchy and becomes simply a ‘list’ pure and simple. Also it should be noted that, starting from EST 1179, Lu increasingly lists non-thematic, non-human entries around its core thematic content (cf. Part 3 5.2.1. and 5.3.). These entries mark the beginning of the curricular transition to the advanced sign-lists, which start in the series Izi, a series that in Emar is still closely related to Lu. On balance, as in the case of G, Lu is certainly not consistently fully hierarchical with regards to semantic content. What is remarkable to note in this context is the fact that, after many older separate thematic lists coalesced in Hh, G and Lu remained separate series. Despite the fact that G and Lu are thematic series and not quantitatively deviant (they are both not any larger than for example the wood-list in Hh3-4) they were apparently seen as qualitatively distinct. It may be suggested, however, that this was not due to any intrinsic hierarchical semantic structure in their texts - which in any case was seen to rather limited in scope -, but rather that it may have been caused by an effort to keep the lexical species ‘god’ and ‘man’ as a whole separate from other lexical species, irrespective of their internal subspecies hierarchy. In the case of Lu, however, even such modest effort was not completely successful, in as far as this series shows an intrinsic tendency to shift from a thematic to a sign-list format, increasingly mixing human and non-human referents based on graphic association. On balance, it can be concluded that the lexical texts give only very limited evidence of any hierarchical organization - only in some parts of G and Lu is there any evidence of such an organization, and even there it is not of a consistent nature. Passage between species and category in natural taxonomy In a modern scientific description of a given totemic classification of the natural world the concepts of species and category will inevitably become problematic because totemic classifications equivalent to species and category are basically classifications of convenience 289 . Here it is important to elucidate how the phenomenon of ‘classification of convenience’ affected the lexical texts. For this it is convenient to consider those sections of the lexical curriculum that directly thematically treat the natural world, viz. the early part of Hh3 and Hh8-12. Already it was said that in Hh9 the lexical species EH and NIM expressed what in modern Western science would be termed a category rather than a species (respectively ‘crawling 289

Often they are also temporary modes, i.e. modes that maybe exchanged when (re)classifying shifting cultural phenomena in terms of shifting natural phenomena. To analyse this modality in the lexical texts, however, would require a diachronic study of some depth.

141

Chapter 4 – The Structuralist Perspective vermin’ and ‘flying vermin’). In order to clearly distinguish the classification system of the lexical texts (here presented as of totemic nature) from that of modern science it here seems appropriate to introduce the terms lexical species and lexical category. The first term, lexical species, has already been used and may be more concretely defined as the empiric classificatory unit expressed by a key-word logogram (such as e.g. UR ‘canine or feline predator’). The second term, lexical category, can be defined as the empiric classificatory united expressed by a determinative (such as MUŠEN ‘something that flies’). In addition it should be noted that there are a few instances where a lexical category is empiric but not concretely expressed by a determinative. There are, however, only a few instances that such implicit categories may be assumed with certainty. Examples are the categories ‘domesticated’ and ‘wild’ animal life implied by the semantically coherent content of HhXIII-XIV. Although it could be argued that classification of the natural world was one of the major preoccupations of the lexical texts, it is clear that there are many instances that their classificatory devices, viz. lexical species and categories, are patently invalid in modern scientific classification. Lexical species such as the SUHUR cover a number of entries (EST 12003-5) that probably include different kinds of fish, but sharing some common formal characteristic, a characteristic apparently evident and relevant in its Mesopotamian context - it does not constitute a ‘species’ in terms of modern biology. Another example is the case of the lexical species of AGARGAR (EST 12027-33), which does not even cover fish of any similar appearance, but rather the general phenomenon of spawn, applicable to sea- as well as river-fish. The lexical species in these examples are both included in a larger lexical category, indicated by the determinative KU 6 , which must have had a quite wide and loose definition as applying to ‘whatever lives in water’, including fish as well as turtles (EST 12017). It may be approximately equivalent to the modern term ‘marine life’. The general impression of the classifications encompassed by the Ancient Mesopotamian lexical species and lexical categories is that they are indeed classifications of convenience, serving to achieve quick identification of natural phenomena, mostly by rather superficial associations. Expansion of binary logic triggered by an original scheme Lévi-Strauss describes totemic classification as basically dependent on binary oppositions and he shows that any systemic opposition scheme has the potential to trigger new juxtaposition schemes, i.e. new systematic opposition scheme: ... les schème initial, agissant comme catalyseur, déclenche la cristallisation d’autres schèmes, binaires, ternaires, quarternaires ou d’ordre numérique plus élevé 290 . Here three examples will be given to illustrate the applicability of this thesis in the texts under consideration: Example 1. The elementary sign-list SaV is designed to teach basic signs one by one. Following PST 039, however, the sign GÁ triggers a secondary scheme in which the original grapheme GÁ is supplemented with different ‘in-written’ elements, viz. PST 039a. GÁxNÍG, b. GÁxME.NA, c. GÁxÁŠ, d. GÁxPA, e. GÁxŠE, f. GÁxNIR and g. GÁxLI. This secondary expansion is found only on one tablet, SaVT3, which gives a 290

Lévi-Strauss, La pensée, 188.

142

Chapter 4 – The Structuralist Perspective very much longer version of the elementary composition SaV. Effectively, this expansion creates a collection of the different possible ways in which the basic sign GÁ, pictographically depicting a crate, may be directly complemented with other graphemes, to give different ‘diri’ readings. This is achieved by systematically opposing the different alternatives in a vertical sequence. The sign GÁ ‘crate’, when complemented with the ‘shepherd’s stick’ sign PA gives SILA 4 ‘lamb’, as opposed to its complementation with the sign ŠE ‘barley’, which gives ÉSAG ‘granary’ etc.. In this example oppositions are implemented by graphic contrasts. Example 2. The first two divisions of Hh are designed to teach administrative and legal terminology and is structured around key-word and key-sign sequences (cf. Part 3 5.3.). In fact, most of the content is made up of secondary schemes triggered by these keywords and key-signs. Some of these secondary schemes appear as a type of interpolation, termed ‘sub-entry’ in the composite edition, and add systematic semantic qualifications to the basic entry. In Hh1 EST 1021 gives the key-word HA.LA ‘share’ and in two of the three preserved tablets (Hh1T1-2) this entry is followed by a sub-entries series of a grammatical nature, viz. EST 1021a-f HA.LA-ĜU 10 , -ZU, -A.NI, -ME, -ZU.NE.NE, -BI.NE.NE, establishing a list of all possible pronominal suffixes. The grammatical paradigm thus introduced may be presumed to have had an educational function when included but what is interesting about this example is that this specific paradigm was not a fully stable part of the standard text - it is not found in either Hh1T3 or in the 1st Millennium standard version. This shows the clear secondary status of this specific expansion: it is triggered by a standard key-word (HA.LA) but not included in the standard text. In this example oppositions are implemented in a grammatical paradigm, i.e. by semantic contrasts. Example 3. An example in Hh1 of an altogether more essential form of expansion is found in EST 1042, where the key-word MÁŠ ‘interest’ triggers a secondary scheme in which the original word MÁŠ is supplemented with different qualifications, resulting in fixed expressions and phrases relevant to administration and justice. The sequence EST 1044-61 gives MÁŠ.BI DUTU ‘interest of Shamash’ (the sun god and dispenser of justice), D D MÁŠ.BI UTU GI.NA ‘fixed interest of Shamash’, MÁŠ.BI UTU GI.NA HÉ.DAM ‘fixed interest of Shamash he shall add’, etc. What is seen here effectively constitutes a secondary expansion that is an integral part of the standard text: it is found in both of the tablets that preserve the relevant section (Hh1T1 and T2). Effectively, this expansion creates a collection of the most important administrative and legal expressions in which the word MÁŠ is used. This represents the kind of collection Hh1-2 are meant to provide the student with. Vertical structure is achieved by contrasting different expansion levels (e.g. EST 1042 noun MÁŠ vs. 1047 noun MÁŠ + adjective GI.NA vs. 1048 noun MÁŠ + adjective GI.NA + verb HÉ.DAM) as well as by opposing alternative complements in given horizontal structure (e.g. EST 1053 MÁŠ ŠÚM.MU.DAM ‘interest shall be given’ vs. 1054 MÁŠ GUR.RU.DAM ‘interest shall be returned’). In this example oppositions are implemented by semantic contrasts. In the three examples given above the operation of secondary expansions of a basic (keysign or key-word) scheme in the lexical texts is illustrated in its principle as well as in its function within the compositional process. In the first example the expansion is a distinct

143

Chapter 4 – The Structuralist Perspective interpolation, i.e. a addition in relation to the standard text, unique in relation to the archive under consideration. What should be noted, however, is that the maximum inclusion of interpolations (and of extra interpretations in general) is apparently exactly what is aimed at in the so-called ‘long version’ of SaV, which could be considered to constitute an intermediate (be it eventually abortive) stage in the development from the traditional short Sa/SaV format of the OB period to the longer Ea/Aa format of the 1st Millennium 291 . In the second example the expansion is neither an exception nor rule, but rather an optional sub-entry sequence. Effectively it shows how an expansion may potentially - become absorbed during the development of a composition over time. In this case the grammatical expansion in question was not absorbed into the 1st Millennium standard text - it may be suggested that its exclusion could be explained as a corollary to the rise of specialized grammatical exercises. Finally, in the third example a secondary expansion triggered by a given key-word can be interpreted as an integral part of the text itself, showing how secondary expansions remain distinct at the very core of the standard lexical compositions. On balance, it may be said that binary opposition, be it graphic, phonetic or semantic in nature, constitutes the most basic operation in the lexical texts and shaped its basic structure. Much of the content of the lexical text may be analyzed as consisting of secondary (and tertiary) expansions of the binary principle, a principle which remains recognizable at its very core. Sometimes these expansions may appear as interpolations or sub-entries but mostly they are simply an integral part of the standard texts, which means that the expansion principle must have been at the root of the original compositional process itself. This is in line with Lévi-Strauss’ argument that the expansion of binary operations is an intrinsic ingredient in totemic classification as such. Rising level of abstraction Lévi-Strauss’ postulates that a rising level of abstraction is bound to occur after any sustained application of totemic classification principles. Given a certain durability, in a totemic classification system, the rise of the concepts of species and category will cause classificatory boundaries to be gradually defined less and less in terms of concrete natural referents. The rise of abstract semantic distinction in the lexical curriculum, at least in its later stages, was indicated in several places during the structural analysis offered in Part 3 (e.g. 4.3. regarding divisional boundaries; 10.3. regarding the composition process of Diri; 14.11. regarding historical tendencies to acrographic and thematic systematization). Other indications to this effect were noted earlier in this paragraph - mainly concerning the abstract nature of certain lexical categories and the abstract notion of the grammatical paradigm underpinning certain secondary expansions added onto the core texts. The most obvious evidence of a certain level of abstraction, however, remains the simple fact that the central and all-pervasive concern of the lexical texts is always cuneiform writing itself. As the cuneiform logograms developed beyond the point of pictographic 291

It is possible that this specific intermediate development reflects not a general, but a specifically peripheral phenomenon (van Soldt - personal communication).

144

Chapter 4 – The Structuralist Perspective references, they, by definition, came to constitute abstractions in relation to the empiric life-world of nature and material culture. Thus, the classification system found in the lexical lists is per definition dealing with abstractions, albeit on a different level than and inevitably with different result than classification systems based on non-logographic, syllabic or alphabetic writing. However, what is important to remember with regard to the proposal to view the lexical texts as incorporating a totemic classification system, is that the potential level of abstraction remained low. The classificatory schemes of the ancient Mesopotamian lexical scholars remained bound to the real and presumed natural and material referents in terms of which they investigated their logographic writing inventory. The empirical, textual evidence shows that, in their view, cuneiform logograms remained interpretable in terms of such referents. This inevitably focussed their interest, guiding the direction of their research and it inevitably restricted the potential level of abstraction. It may be suggested that, although the level of abstraction visible in the classification system underlying the lexical texts was empirically and potentially lower than that reached in modern Western science, it probably rose above that of any other totemic classification system in any non-literate society. In this regard it is important to note what Lévi-Strauss terms the inherent complexification tendency of totemic classification systems over time. He proposes that … (i)ntelligible au départ, la structure atteint, en se ramifiant, une sorte d’inertie ou d’indifférence logique. Sans contredire à sa nature première, elle peut désormais subir l’effet d’incidents multiples et variés, qui surviennent trop tard pour empêcher un observateur attentif de l’identifier et de la classer dans un genre 292 . In other words, totemic classification systems, left to develop without major disruption, will incur so many transformations over time as to become ultimately unrecognizable. The analogy with the genealogy of language may be appropriate in this context: given time, systematic transformations will eventually change any given language into an unrecognizably altered new language. It may be argued that for a totemic classification system in a logographic literate context the impact of such systemic complexification will be even greater. In a non-literate context the natural and material referents which form the basic vocabulary used in totemic classification may be freely accessed by succeeding generations. In a logographic literate context, however, this access is cut off after the canonization of the logographic inventory: by necessity, all subsequent external input and all subsequent internal transformation will be dealt with in a hermeneutically closed system. All classificatory development will inevitably be of an abstract nature, because it will inevitably formulate itself in the abstract terms of its own medium, i.e. those of its own writing. Effectively, a logographic classification system such as found in the Mesopotamian lexical texts, cannot be but a denaturalized, dematerialized totemic system, i.e. a system based in an originally totemic logical process - in its original pictographic constitution but where this process has inevitably become abstracted from the natural and material wealth of referents that feed non-literate totemic classification systems. In the lexical texts the means of reference are defined for once and all in its limited logogram inventory, something which the scholar-bricoleur has to work with in an increasing separation from the real life-world to which the non-literate bricoleur retains access. The 292

Lévi-Strauss, La pensée, 211.

145

Chapter 4 – The Structuralist Perspective result inevitably is a separate conceptual universe with its own particular internal dynamics. These particular dynamics are of an inevitably abstract nature and are shaped by a unique developmental history, determined by its precise original set-up in terms of inventory. In classificatory terms, the procedures of totemic logic remain applicable - at least as long as logograms are not replaced by syllabic writing - but they are applied only to a very limited inventory and according to these particular internal dynamics. This is why it is not surprising that recognition of the totemic nature of classification in the Mesopotamian lexical texts will depend on a structuralist approach and analysis. 4.4. Classificatory levels - proper names Proper names In the previous paragraph the lexical texts were investigated in terms of the classification level of species, as species may be considered a key concept in any totemic analysis. In addition, the present paragraph will consider the lowest classification level, viz. that of the proper name. The reason for this is that Lévi-Strauss’ analysis of the proper name may offer insights in the Ancient Mesopotamian manner of dealing with two types of proper names, the PN and the DN. The lexical texts dealing with PNs and DNs are SaA1 and G respectively (the former has a spelling exercise with PNs, the latter a thematic list of DNs) - they will here be looked at in terms of Lévi-Strauss’ analysis of proper names. Lévi-Strauss proposes that any given totemic classification scheme has two possible processes by which it may be extended, viz. (1) universalization and (2) particularization. The first process, universalization, allows the formulation of abstract concepts which can be systematically operationalized in relation to each other. E.g. the abstract concepts ‘plant’, ‘animal’, ‘human’ can be operationalized ‘medically’ by systematically opposing specific animal totems to specific combinations of human ailments and plant remedies assumed relevant to these ailments. The second process, particularization, allows the identification of individual objects, phenomena or persons, i.e. the establishment of proper names. A proper name may be defined, to use Lévi-Strauss’ words, as a ... moyen d’assigner une position dans un système qui comporte plusieurs dimensions... 293 . This definition means that, within a given totemic classificatory system, a proper name is always arrived at by a process of de-totalization in relation to a given totemic inventory. Individual objects, phenomena and persons may be seen as aspects or functions of a totemic species to which they are related. E.g. within a given animal species a single member may be distinguished by a body part or attitude, or within a certain human social segment a single member may be distinguished by his individual socially relevant attributes. Another way of explaining proper names in this manner is to view them as no more than a type of title: (d)u nom au titre, on passe ... par une transition insensible, qui n’est liée à aucune propriété intrinsèque des termes considérés, mais au rôle structural qu’ils jouent dans un système classificatoire dont il serait vain de prétendre les isoler294 . What constitutes a proper name in a culture ultimately does not depend on either its surface reference value (e.g. the person Rosie in reference to a flower) or its relation to 293 294

Ibidem, 248. Ibidem, 252.

146

Chapter 4 – The Structuralist Perspective other words (e.g. ‘Rosie’ in relation to ‘rosy’), but rather on its classification system, i.e. on the way in which a culture makes distinctions and sets limits in relation to the questions it has posed itself. If a word is used as a proper name it means a point has been reached where no more classification is needed in that specific cultural context: (l)e nom propre demeure toujours du côté de la classification 295 . Having thus established the principle of the discretionary nature of the proper name, it now becomes possible to study the PNs attested in the lexical material in terms of Lévi-Strauss’ analysis of the proper name. SaA1 and G in terms of Lévi-Strauss’ analysis of proper names Lévi-Strauss ascribes three general characteristics to proper names in totemic classification systems - here the PNs of SaA1 and the DNs of G will be looked at in terms of these three characteristics: (1) Regular classificatory derivation - which implies that proper names, instead of forming a separate classificatory category, have the same classificatory status as other terms 296 . SaA1 largely consists of a list of nominal phrases and verbal phrases commonly found as part of Ancient Mesopotamian PNs and used in conjunction with either reference to family members or, more frequently, to divinities. In fact, a few SaA1 entries contain family references (PST 037-9 A-A, a-bi and a-hi) and divinities (PST 048-9 Dé-a and Diš 8 -tár) with which the remaining entries may be combined. With the two DNs in its last two entries, PST 048-9, SaA1 in effect initializes the list of DNs found in the exercise that immediately follows it in the curriculum, viz. G. All individual entries in SaA1 derive their ultimate classificatory validity as parts of PNs either directly or indirectly from their theoretical juxtaposition with the genealogical or theological vocabulary found elsewhere in the thematic series (G, Hh, Lu). They may be said to constitute indirect derivations in as far as they rely on other vocabulary which has been derived itself. By contrast, the entries of G, forming a list of DNs, are mostly directly derived, to the extent that they relate to concrete referents through either their logographic (e.g. PST 003-4 D D EN.LÍL and NIN.LÍL for ‘lord wind’ and ‘lady wind’) or phonetic readings (e.g. PST 2356 DTA.ŠI.LA and DBU.LA.LA for the gods of two cities found in Hh16a009-10). Even where the appropriate phonetic readings of the logograms are unrelated to their pictographic referents (e.g. PST 029-30 with BARAG, the ‘altar’ sign, read ŠARA and MÚŠ, the ‘snake’ sign, read TIŠPAK), their derivation is often direct. Such DNs have direct, concrete referents in natural phenomena (heavenly bodies, animals etc.) and geography (rivers, cities etc.). A few of G’s entries, however, are indirect derivations, arrived at through a projection of divine identity on human attributes (e.g. PST 077 DI.KUD ‘judgment’ and PST 100 LUGAL ‘king’). It should be noted not only that the entries of both SaA1 and G have regular classificatory derivations (whether direct or indirect), but also that they formally present their content in a manner similar to that found in all other lexical series (i.e. in regular formatted lists), emphasizing the equal classificatory status suggested by Lévi-Strauss.

295 296

Ibidem, 283-5. Ibidem, 259.

147

Chapter 4 – The Structuralist Perspective (2) Classificatory auxiliary status - which implies that in certain ways proper names occupy a subordinate place in any classification system: ... dans (un) système complexe, les noms propres occupent une place subordonnée. ... Le nom propre souffre ainsi d’une véritable dévalorisation logique. Il est le marque du <> ou de l’obligation temporaire, où sont des candidats à la classe, de se définir aux-mêmes comme horsclasse 297 . With regard to SaA1 the subordinate place of PNs in the scholarly system constituted by the lexical curriculum is confirmed by the fact that SaA1 itself always is a mere appendix to the Sa(V) series. With regard to G it is evident that, although it constitutes a whole series to DNs, still these DNs are treated separately, confirming LéviStrauss’ proposition that proper names are always hors-classe within a given totemic classification system. This is exactly what maybe observed in SaA1 and G: they separate proper names from other content, indicating their special status. (3) Neutralization of structural threats - which implies that proper names are always means to handle the structural threat posed by the admission of new elements in a given classification system, in casu the admission of new members of society or of the pantheon in need of identification by means of PNs and DNs. Because, in the words of Lévi-Strauss, ... n’importe quel système qui traite de l’individuation comme une classification ... risque de voir sa structure remise en cause, chaque fois qu’il admet un membre nouveau 298 . It is clear that in the case of PNs the Ancient Mesopotamians handled this structural threat by resorting to positional shifts. They constructed different PNs by juxtaposing phrases from a few limited categorical inventories (such as ‘leadership epithets’ and ‘family relations’ found in SaA1 PST 013-24 and 037-9 respectively) in different combinations. In case the need arose to incorporate new elements in the DN inventory, this could be achieved by juxtaposing two names, identifying the first as the second. A few of such juxtapositions are found in Emar G (PST 005-6 and 010-1) - many more in the OB Weidner list (the latter are listed in the interpretation of Emar G in Part 2). Another way of incorporating new elements in the DN inventory was to reassigning GNs to the G list, effectively repositioning GNs by combining them with a D instead of a KI determinative. These various operations visible in the construction of PNs and DNs show that the Ancient Mesopotamians managed to control PNs and DNs within their classificatory system through the repositioning of a relatively limited inventory of autonym elements. It should also be remembered that here another confirmation may be seen of the proposed thesis that the lexical curriculum constitutes a totemic classificatory system in terms of Lévi-Strauss’ analysis: in his view the ‘recycling’ of discretionary elements - such as seen here with regard to the construction of Ancient Mesopotamian PNs and DNs - is one of the most salient characteristics of totemic bricolage. 4.5. History in totemic classification To conclude the application of Lévi-Strauss’ theoretical model to the lexical texts, some remarks will be made regarding his view of the relation between synchronic structure and diachronic contingency in totemic classification. These remarks may help to look again at 297 298

Ibidem Ibidem, 261.

148

Chapter 4 – The Structuralist Perspective the singularly ‘timeless’ quality of the lexical tradition, a quality which impresses the modern observer by a number of empirical observations concerning the lexical texts: their lack of explicit historical discourse, their centuries-long unbroken transmission, their slow but seamless transformative development and the emphatic deference to tradition by the scholars that produced them. Effectively, the question to be answered here is to what extent Lévi-Strauss view of history in totemic classification can explain these observations. Lévi-Strauss proposes that in a totemic classification system history is subordinated to system, because such a system will always view any diachronically contingent development in terms of the same homology between the natural and cultural paradigms that forms its very basis. In other words, the existing totemic classification system will always deal with subsequent historic developments (which bring about subtractions and additions to its element inventory as well as developments in the relative positions of known elements) by incorporating them. Effectively, the system will reformulate historic developments so as to be able to absorb them, simply ‘annulling’ them in order to maintain its equilibrium 299 . Given enough time, this will eventually lead to a progressive accumulation of absorptions sufficient to - perhaps very gradually - transform the original content beyond all recognition. Thus, although diachronic contingency is absorbed by synchronic system, paradoxically over time the former will overcome the latter. What is important to remember, however, is that a radical transformation of content may very well leave the classification system intact in form: ... la grande leçon du totémisme c’est que la forme de la structure peut, parfois, survivre, quand le structure elle-même succombe à l’événement 300 . This, it may be proposed, offers an explanation of some of the phenomena observed in the diachronic development of the lexical curriculum. Over time, this curriculum often shows slow, gradual developments (e.g. expansions, systematizations) but these eventually accumulate and lead to very drastic transformations in the textual compositions transmitted (cf. Part 3 Chapter 14). On the one hand, purpose and function of compositions may shift and content may be absorbed and transformed. On the other hand, old labels (old names of series) and old content may remain recognizable in ‘skeletal’ structures. These seemingly contradictory phenomena are well explained by Lévi-Strauss’ model, which allows for the possible survival of formal synchronic structure in totemic systems over time. Following this brief discussion of Lévi-Strauss’ analysis of the role of history in totemic classification systems, it seems appropriate to conclude this chapter with a quotation relevant to the general question of how a different view of history - and of time in general - makes totemic logic essentially different from modern scientific thinking: ... on ... découvre (l’histoire) déjà enracinée dans la pensée sauvage, (mais) ... elle ne s’y épanouit pas. Le propre de la pensée sauvage est d’être intemporelle; elle veut saisir le monde, à la fois, comme totalité synchronique et diachronique, et la connaissance qu’elle en prend ressemble à celle qu’offrent, d’une chambre, des miroirs fixés à des murs opposés et qui se reflètent l’un l’autre, ... mais sans être rigoureusement parallèles. Une multitude d’images se forment simultanément, dont aucune n’est exactement pareille aux 299 300

Ibidem, 308-10. Ibidem, 307.

149

Chapter 4 – The Structuralist Perspective autres; dont chacune, par conséquent, n’apporte qu’une connaissance partielle de la décoration et du mobilier, mais dont le groupe se caractérise par des propriétés invariantes exprimant une vérité. La pensée sauvage approfondit sa connaissance à l’aide d’imagines mundi. Elle construit des édifices mentaux qui lui facilitent d’intelligence du monde pour autant qu’ils lui ressemblent. En ce sense, on a pu la définir comme pensée analogique 301 . These words grasp the very essence of the thinking that produced the lexical texts - texts which quintessentially preserve, transmit and elucidate the imagines mundi of Ancient Mesopotamian scholarship. Viewing these images as arranged in a system of totemic logic (Chapter 4), shaped by the technology of writing (Chapter 3) and reflective of an episteme of similitude, essentially different from that of modern man, (Chapter 2) has been the aim of this study. 4.6. Summary Note: the remarks listed under points ‘0’ below serve as short explanatory introductions, whereas those under other points summarize the actual findings of this study. 4.1.

Bricolage technique:

0.

Whereas scientific logic and the modern engineer work with concepts, which require a priori incorporation of human mediation (interpretations, organizations), the ‘primitive’, totemic logic of the bricoleur works with signs, which are conceived of as objects totally transparent to empiric reality. The procedures of modern science and totemic logic are opposed by a reversal in the relation between the diachronic and the synchronic: the former proceeds from necessary structure (theory, hypothesis) to contingent event, whereas the latter proceeds from contingent event to improvised structure. Essentially these differences are caused by a difference in operational scale: the scientific ‘engineer’ addresses the universe, whereas the bricoleur addresses merely the limited element inventory to his specific cultural heritage. Hence the two criteria of totemic classification, viz.: (1) imperative, intransigent determinism (based on a single organizing principle) and (2) totalizing microperequation (based on a single-level, non-hierarchical approach). The first criterion of totemic classification, intransigent determinism, applies to the classification system found in the lexical texts because it is exclusively determined by its integrative methodology, i.e. by the interpretability of cuneiform signs in terms of their potential (theoretical, projected) interrelations. Any specific individual realization of any specific lexical composition may be considered a bricolage product, i.e. an ad hoc improvisation constructed from a historically limited element inventory that is transmitted in a series of variations in a single bricolage theme. The second criterion of totemic classification, totalizing micro-perequation, applies to the classification system found in the lexical texts because it shows a persistent single-level logical approach, viz. the exclusive interpretation of all objects and phenomena in terms of signs. In the lexical texts effectively serve to provide an equation of all conceivable natural and cultural objects and phenomena to a sign code - no knowledge is pursued aside from the (re-)formulation of this sign code. Based on the evidence listed under points 1. and 2. above it is found that the lexical curriculum originally constitutes a bricolage system, i.e. a system based on totemic logic. The consequences of this thesis from the historical and artistic perspectives are summarized under points 3. and 4. below. Historical perspective. Science and bricolage result in a diametrically opposed treatment of history: science distinguishes contingent event and necessary structure, whereas bricolage derives structures from events. This means that in totemic classification contingent context and functionality tend to continually re-shape the structural framework of historic discourse. It will effectively annul any historical event by incorporation it by imposing a fixed homology between the natural and cultural paradigms. Totemic logic, therefore, results in ahistorical classificatory schemes: it has no use for an explicit analysis of historical causality and relativity, instead, it incorporates historical developments by juxtaposing them with and filing them along formally parallel signs, adding them to the larger sign inventory without changing the structure of that inventory. It is the resulting

1.

2.

3. 4.

301

Ibidem, 348.

150

Chapter 4 – The Structuralist Perspective

5.

near-total transparency of totemic classification to historical contingency which imparts it with the kind of ‘timeless’ quality that is found in the Ancient Mesopotamian lexical tradition: causality and relativity are never explicitly explored in the historical dimension. Artistic perspective. In Lévi-Strauss’ view there is an intermediate stage between magic and scientific knowledge, viz. authentic traditional art. He states that any authentic traditional art object is essentially a reduced model with universal aesthetic appeal due to its implicit reversal of the process of knowing: whereas in real life knowledge of parts precedes that of the whole, in the reduced model knowledge of the whole precedes that of the parts. Traditional art and totemic logic may be said to be similar in terms of procedure: to arrive at his reduced model the traditional artist will always incorporate contingent ‘events’ of what he is modelling. This process is similar to the bricolage of totemic logic, which always proceeds from - and incorporates - such elements as are contextually available. This artistic perspective helps explain two features of the lexical tablets that will strike the modern observer, i.e. (1) their lack of ‘logical’ adequacy due to incorporation of (contingent, contextually determined) non-sense elements and (2) their artistic value due to their visual presentation of what are, in effect, tables of permutation filled with reduced (pictographic, ideographic) models.

4.2.

Systematic transformations:

1.

Due to the fact that the logic of writing (its ‘techno-logy’) became dominant in the Ancient Mesopotamian knowledge system, the ‘feed-back’ mechanism in the underlying totemic classification system broke down: old content and old formal relations became ‘frozen’ and unrecognizable by being assigned new functions. From this point onwards, the lexical texts represent a fossilized totemic classification system in a state of entropy. Systematic transformation is the process of rearrangement and functional re-definition of discretionary classificatory elements within a given inventory. The mechanism through which systematic transformation is achieved is that of systematic opposition, which is a coding process by which elements of one register formally replace those in another (and which originally has the function of mediation between nature and culture). For the lexical texts two proposition are made with regard to systematic transformation, viz.: (1) that - despite the state of entropy of the overall classification system - the elements within that system were still conceived of as belonging to a totemic inventory, where the logograms are discretionary signs which depend on contrasting pairs and systematic transformations to achieve meaning, and (2) that accumulating transformation resulted in a systemic complexification of such intensity that the original totemic classificatory coherence of the texts was lost relatively early (with the loss of certain compositions, the drastic transformation of others as well as the rise of completely new ones). The origin of logographic cuneiform writing may be conceived of as a graphic projection of a totemic classification scheme. However, as this original scheme was subjected to institutionalized education and professional scholarship, written ‘techno-logy’ inevitably imposed its own dynamics. In case of the lexical curriculum the result may be termed a hybrid of originally totemic elements organized according to subsequent non-totemic classificatory principles.

2.

3.

4.3.

Classificatory levels - species:

0.

Totemic classification levels lack hierarchy as they are functionally fluid, allowing growth and expansion based on a dynamic development of binary oppositions, but they do allow for differentiated levels of abstraction. The most important of these levels is species, which is adjustable downwards (to concrete individual referents on the level of the proper name) and upwards (to abstract classes such as elements, categories and numbers) - it is the totemic classification medium par excellence. It is proposed that in the lexical texts the classification medium of species is expressed in specific logograms, viz. in key-words and determinatives. The usage of these logograms will be investigated for the four characteristics that Lévi-Strauss distinguishes for species, viz.: (1) lack of hierarchy, (2) passage between species and category in natural taxonomy, (3) expansion of binary logic triggered by an original scheme and (4) a rising level of abstraction. Regarding point (1), lack of hierarchy, it is noted that there is indeed no detectable semantic hierarchy in the sequencing of key-words or determinatives - there is a lack of hierarchy even at the level of tablet content, where completely unrelated semantic categories can follow each other. The only organizational principles visible are the key-word and the determinative, which indicate lexical species that at empirically functional references rather than at abstract definitions - they are not hierarchically ordered but merely juxtaposed. Regarding point (2), passage between species and category in natural taxonomy, it is noted that whereas keysigns function as lexical species, determinatives function as lexical categories, the latter having a far wider range than the latter but not reaching the level of unexpressed abstraction and always functioning as classifications of functional convenience based on rather superficial associations. Regarding point (3), expansion of binary logic triggered by an original scheme, it is noted that in a number of examples the implementation of expansions in the texts is indeed effectuated by paradigmatic contrasts reducible to binary oppositions. According to the frequency of inclusion of these expansions in the textual record they

1.

2.

3.

4.

151

Chapter 4 – The Structuralist Perspective

5a.

5b. 5c.

maybe classified as interpolations, optional sub-entry sequences or integral parts of the text. Regarding point (4), a rising level of abstraction, Lévi-Strauss’ postulates that a rising level of abstraction is bound to occur after any sustained application of totemic classification principles. Given a certain durability, in a totemic classification system, the rise of the concepts of species and category will cause classificatory boundaries to be gradually defined less and less in terms of concrete natural referents. Obviously, the classification system underlying the lexical texts may be said to deal with abstractions per definition, as it deals with writing elements which constitute abstractions in relation to the empiric life-world. In addition, a certain rise in abstraction is found in certain secondary expansions and paradigms. On balance, the potential level of abstraction in the lexical texts remained low overall as the writing elements they deal with ultimately remained interpretable in terms of the real and presumed natural and cultural referents to which they were linked through their pictographic and ideographic values. The abstraction level of the classification system underlying the lexical texts may be said to be empirically and potentially lower than reached in modern Western science, but it probably rose above that of totemic classification systems in non-literate societies. The inherent complexification tendency of totemic classification systems, which, when left to develop without major disruption, will incur so many transformations over time as to become ultimately unrecognizable, seems to be very pronounced in case of the cuneiform literate context. The logographic inventory is cut off from reinforcements from the natural and cultural life-world and therefore all subsequent external input and all subsequent internal transformation will be dealt with in a hermeneutically closed system. All classificatory development will inevitably be of a very peculiar abstract nature, because it will inevitably formulate itself in the abstract terms of its own medium, i.e. those of its own writing.

4.4.

Classificatory levels - proper names:

0.

In totemic classification the formation of proper names is achieved by the operation of particularization, i.e. by a process of de-totalization in relation to a given totemic classificatory inventory, in which individualization of objects, phenomena and persons are viewed as aspect or functions of the totemic species to which they are related. The constitution of the proper name depends completely on the classification system in which it is formed - this is the principle of discretionary nature of the proper name. The proper names in the lexical texts will be investigated for the three characteristics that Lévi-Strauss distinguishes for the usage of proper names in totemic classification systems, viz.: (1) regular classificatory derivation, (2) classificatory auxiliary status and (3) neutralization of structural threats. Regarding point (1), regular classificatory derivation, it is noted that, when compared to other kinds of entry elements, the PNs and DNs found in the lexical texts show regular classificatory derivation, either directly or indirectly, through their theoretical juxtaposition with other (genealogical or theological) vocabulary found elsewhere in the curriculum. They are also presented in a formally similar manner, emphasizing their regular derivation. Regarding point (2), classificatory auxiliary status, it is noted that the separation of proper names (in SaA1 and G) indicate their special, hors-classe status in the classification system underlying the lexical texts. Regarding point (3), neutralization of structural threats, it is noted that in the lexical texts proper names are created by positional shifts between a limited inventory of elements that could be variously juxtaposed. This allows for the assignment of new proper names to new elements (new members) without the need to enlarge the limited inventory of lexical categories from which such names had to be created. This is an example of the ‘recycling’ of discretionary elements typically found in totemic classification systems.

1.

2. 3.

4.5.

History in totemic classification:

1.

Lévi-Strauss’ model postulates the absorption of diachronic contingency by synchronic system but at the same time it shows that the former will eventually overcome the latter, as a progressive accumulation of absorbed ‘events’ will transform the original content and structure beyond all recognition. In this process it is possible, however, that a radical transformation of the contents will leave intact the form. This explains the singular ‘timeless’ quality of the lexical curriculum, as visible in its lack of explicit historical discourse, its centuries-long unbroken transmission, its slow but near-seamless transformative development and the emphatic deference to tradition shown by the ancient scholars. The curriculum shows slow, gradual developments which eventually accumulate and lead to very drastic transformations in the textual compositions transmitted. On the one hand, purpose and function of compositions may shift and content may be absorbed and transformed, on the other hand, however, old labels and old content may remain recognizable in ‘skeletal’ structures. These seemingly contradictory phenomena are well explained by Lévi-Strauss’ model, which allows for the possible survival of formal synchronic structure in totemic systems over time.

152

Main Conclusions MAIN CONCLUSIONS 1.

2.

3.

Projecting Foucault’s epistemological analysis of the TE on the AME, it may be concluded that in the latter the original match between semiological discourse and hermeneutical interpretation is lost due to the combined interference of phonetization and bilingualization. This implies that, from the OB period onwards, the original knowledge system is no longer understood on its own terms transformations and expansions in the lexical texts can be understood as attempts to cope with this growing discrepancy by means of realignments and additions. Projecting Foucault’s epistemological analysis of the TE and the CE on the AME, it may be concluded that the general epistemological configuration of the AME revolves around similitude (as in the TE) as well as representation (as in the CE). This is explained by the closed nature of its knowledge system: the AME pursues similitudes but only to the extent that this serves to establish representative values for its limited element inventory, viz. for the elements of the writing system. The main difference between the CE and the AME is that the signs of the latter are not arbitrary, constituting similitudes in themselves, and that they are never representative of anything except in terms of functional value. In the AME the individual grapheme remains the smallest, indivisible unit of investigation - it constitutes its knowledge ‘atom’. In terms of similitude, as analyzed by Foucault for the TE, it is possible to extrapolate a universal accumulative historical tendency to epistemological decline as in terms of its constituent similitudes the nature of (written) knowledge itself has become increasingly less cohesive. Originally, as in early logographic writing, knowledge was expressed through full similitudes, however, as the original match between hermeneutic interpretation and semiological discourse became increasingly dislocated, knowledge based on similitude declined. For the AME, diachronic developments within textual tradition attest to this epistemological decline and are, in turn, explained by it in detail. The AME may be divided into three phases: (1) the Early AME (till ca. 2000 BC), which ended with the death of Sumerian and the end of the hegemony of direct visual similitude in written knowledge production, (2) the Transitional AME (ca. 2000-1100 BC), which, under pressure of accumulative transformations in its text corpus, saw the abandonment of an artificial scholarly attempt to maintain access to the original episteme, and (3) The Late AME (ca. 1100 BC till the end of cuneiform culture), in which similitude is no longer a productive constitutive principle but rather a reconstructive method, as was found to be the case in Foucault’s CE. In the Late AME the production of semantic value was based on perceived contextual interpretations rather than on the intrinsic similitudes of the logograms themselves, implying that the unity of writing and discourse was abandoned. Starting with the Late AME, the original possibility of unequivocal interpretation of meaning, relying on the similitudes expressed in the written medium itself, was lost and abstract interpretation took its place.

153

Main Conclusions 4.

5.

6.

7.

The lexical texts fulfill a large part of Goody’s criteria for generative transmission, which he considers an important indicator oral tradition: they show a type of authorship that is collective and custodial rather than individual and creative, they show a slow-motion version of the amalgamation of creativity and transmission normally found in oral context, they show a long-term lack of permanence of cultural constructs and their integrative methodology indicates a dominance of pragmatic interpretation. The phenomena Goody terms generative transmission and anonymous authorship relate to each other in a manner of proportionality: the higher the degree of the latter, the higher the intensity of the former. In exclusively oral traditions anonymity is virtually total across any longer period of time and simultaneously the intensity of generative transmission is very high, resulting in very rapid and very profound transformations in its cultural products. In strongly literate traditions the situation seems to be reversed: author anonymity is virtually eliminated, and the speed of generative transmission of any given cultural product (e.g. a given work of art or a given scientific work) has slowed-down to the point of arrest. The strong emphasis on individual intellectual achievement as well as increasing disciplinary specialization visible in modern western science are by-products of the extreme slow-down in generative transmission inevitable in ‘super-literate’ knowledge systems. Against Goody it is here proposed that scepticism is not a universal feature of all knowledge systems but rather a particularity of a specific kind of knowledge system and that the relation between literacy and scepticism is of an indirect nature: systematic scepticism is a function and professional prerequisite of individualized authorship, which in itself is a function of the extreme slow-down of generative transmission in any ‘super-literate’ knowledge system. The Ancient Mesopotamian knowledge system is an example of a literate system in which essential scepticism did not develop: it is monolithic, i.e. it lacks theoretical diversity, and static, i.e. it transmits a single body of knowledge rather than developing specializations. This may be attributed to the fact that its investigative and critical scholarship was guided in a different direction by the very nature of its category system, which is ‘closed’ and subject to a ‘protective attitude’ as proposed in Horton’s scheme. In support of Goody’s central thesis it may be said that for the lexical texts investigated there is an undeniable link between the literate techniques they employ and the kind of logic found in their content: the literate techniques of list, table and recipe may be said to dictate the logic found in the content because these techniques inevitably involve certain specific relations between the various units of information that are inserted in them. From Goody’s ‘technological’ perspective, it could be maintained that the difference between the logic found in alphabet-based Western knowledge system and the logic found in the logogram-based Ancient Mesopotamian knowledge system is that the laws of demonstration and inference are formulated in an entirely different fashion and that the list-format, the tableformat and the recipe-format determine this difference.

154

Main Conclusions 8.

Analyzing the lexical curriculum according to Lévi-Strauss’ criteria of intransigent determinism (as visible in the integrative methodology) and totalizing microperequation (as visible in the exclusive interpretation of all empiric knowledge as signs) it may be said to constitute a bricolage system, i.e. a system based on totemic logic. 9. Due to the fact that the logic of writing (its ‘techno-logy’) became dominant in the Ancient Mesopotamian knowledge system, the ‘feed-back’ mechanism in the underlying totemic classification system broke down: old content and old formal relations became ‘frozen’ and unrecognizable by being assigned new functions. From this point onwards, the lexical texts represent a fossilized totemic classification system in a state of entropy. Originally, logographic cuneiform writing may be conceived of as a graphic projection of a totemic classification scheme. However, as this original scheme was subjected to institutionalized education and professional scholarship, written ‘techno-logy’ inevitably imposed its own dynamics. In case of the lexical curriculum the result may be termed a hybrid of originally totemic elements organized according to subsequent non-totemic classificatory principles. 10. It is proposed that in the lexical texts Lévi-Strauss’ totemic classification medium of species is expressed in specific logograms, viz. in key-words and determinatives. The usage of these logograms fulfils the criteria he distinguishes for species: lack of hierarchy, passage between species and category in natural taxonomy, expansions of binary logic triggered by the original scheme and a (limited) tendency to higher abstraction. 11. Lévi-Strauss’ postulated inherent complexification tendency of totemic classification systems, which, when left to develop without major disruption, will incur so many transformations over time as to make them ultimately unrecognizable, seems to be very pronounced in case of the cuneiform lexical context. The totemic (in casu: logographic) inventory is cut off from reinforcement from the natural and cultural life-world; therefore all subsequent external input and all subsequent internal transformation is dealt with in a hermeneutically closed system. All classificatory development will inevitably be of a very peculiar, abstract nature, inevitably formulated exclusively in the abstract terms of its own medium, i.e. conceived of exclusively in terms of its writing system.

155

Bibliography ALPHABETIC REGISTER OF TERMINOLOGY Abstraction

… (T)he mental separation of an element from the situation or context in which it is embedded … - P. Greenfield, ‘Oral or Written Language: the Consequences for Cognitive Development in Africa, U.S. and England’, Language and Speech 15 (1972) 169.

Analysis

From Gr. ανάλυσις ‘loosening; break-up’ - the process of breaking up a complex object into smaller parts to gain a better understanding of it.

Classification

... (A) mode of bringing data under control which is intrinsic to the whole range of sciences ... Goody, Domestication, 46; or: to obtain what is abstract and general from what is concrete and specific – cf. Lévi-Strauss, La pensée, 287.

Closed system

... (A) science (that) proceeds to work within one paradigm by solving the puzzles offered by it. The very boundaries of a paradigm are a condition of growth of a subject, a development from a preparadigmatic stage since, by limiting the scope of enquiry, they create specialist areas of concentration, based on positive results. - T. Kuhn’s definition as summarized by Goody, Domestication, 48.

Cultural Relativism

A (axiomatic) anthropological principle which states that each culture needs to be understood on its own terms and that ethnocentric typologies that establish ‘levels of development’ should be refrained from - cf. Eriksen, Small Places, 14 (discussion in 1.2.).

Emic/etic

… (T)erms used by anthropologists and by others in the social and behavioral sciences to refer to two different kinds of data concerning human behavior. In particular, they are used in cultural anthropology to refer to kinds of fieldwork done and viewpoints obtained. An ‘emic’ account is a description of behavior or a belief in terms meaningful (consciously or unconsciously) to the actor; that is, an emic account comes from a person within the culture. Almost anything from within a culture can provide an emic account. An ‘etic’ account is a description of a behavior or belief by an observer, in terms that can be applied to other cultures; that is, an etic account is (supposedly) ‘culturally neutral’. - ‘Emic and etic’, Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia (4 January 2009). Retrieved 16 June 2010 from: http://en.wikipedia.org.

Epistemology

From Gr. επιστήμη ‘knowledge; science’ - the science of the origins and methods of knowledge. Note that Foucault uses the word episteme as an analytic concept referring to the preconditions of knowledge which may be defined as the historically contingent a priori condition of any given knowledge system and its discourses. Thus, the episteme of a given knowledge system refers to the spatially and temporally bound modalities that determine the laws of that system and its analytic position is that of an interface between the fundamental, implicit codes of direct knowledge and the interpretative, explicit codes of reflexive knowledge (cf. 2.1.1.).

Knowledge system

The sum total of discourses, i.e. of formal debates, empirically attested in a given cultural complex, i.e. the empiric output of its specific episteme.

List

… (A) catalogue or roll consisting of a row or series of names, figures, words, or the like - Goody, Domestication, 80.

Paradigm

Primarily a linguistic concept referring to a class of similar grammatical elements, secondarily a less specific scientific reference to any kind of philosophical or theoretical framework.

Rationality

... (Rationality) entails ... the self-conscious or reflective use of concepts, i.e. the critical attitude towards scientific practice and thought, which constitutes not simply scientific knowledge alone (which is its necessary precondition), but the self-knowledge of science, the critical examination of its own conceptual foundations. - Wartofsky, ‘Metaphysics’, 167.

Syntagma

An element of syntagmatic structure, i.e. of the mode of time-awareness imposed by the message (e.g. ‘narrative’, ‘epic’, ‘lyrical’) - in semiotics syntagmatic analysis is the analysis of syntax or surface structure rather than of paradigms.

156

Bibliography BIBLIOGRAPHY Bottéro, J., 'Symptômes, signes, écritures en Mésopotamie ancienne' in: J.P. Vernant (ed.), Divination et rationalité (Paris 1974) Foucault, M., Les mots et les choses. Une archéologie des sciences humaines (1966) Cavigneaux, A., ‘Lexicalische Listen, Reallexikon der Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archäologie Band 6: Klagesang-Libanon (Berlin and New York 1980-3) 609-41 Cohen, Y., The Transmission and Reception of Mesopotamian Scholarly Texts at the City of Emar (Ann Arbor 2003) Cohen, Y., ‘Change and Innovation in the Administration and Scribal Practices at Emar during the Hitite Dominion’, Tel Aviv 32 (2005) 192-203 Cohen, Y., and Singer, I., ‘A Late Synchronism between Ugarit and Emar’ in: Y. Amit, E. Ben Zvi, I. Finkelstein and O. Lipschits (eds.), Essays in Ancient Israel and Its Near Eastern Context. A Tribute to Nadav Na’aman (Winona Lake 2006) 123-39 Eriksen, T.H., Small Places, Large Issues. An Introduction to Social and Cultural Anthropology (London and Sterling VA 2001) Evola, J., Revolt against the Modern World (Rochester, Vermont 1995) orig.: Rivolta contro il mondo moderno (Rome 1969) Goody, J., and Watt, I.P., ‘The consequences of literacy’, Comparative Studies in History and Society 5 (1963) 304-45 Goody, J., The Domestication of the Savage Mind (Cambridge 1977) Hénaff, M., Claude Lévi-Strauss and the making of Structural Anthropology (Minneapolis 1998) Horton, R., ‘African traditional thought and Western science’, Africa 37 (1967) 50-71 and 155-87 Kuhn, T., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago 1962) Lévi-Strauss, C., La pensée sauvage (Paris 1962) MacLuhan, M., The Medium is the Message: an Inventory of Effects (Corte Madera 2001) Street, B.V., Literacy in theory and Practice (Cambridge a.o. 1984) Vanstiphout, H., ‘Memory and Literacy in Ancient Western Asia’ in: J.M. Sasson (ed.), Civilizations of the Ancient Near East IV (New York 1995) Veldhuis, N.C., Elementary Education at Nippur. The Lists of Trees and Wooden Objects (Groningen 1997) Wartofsky, M.W., ‘Metaphysics as a Heuristic for Science’ in: R.S. Cohen and M.W. Wartofsky (eds.), Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science 3 Proceedings of the Boston Colloquium for the Philosophy of Science 1964/1966 (New York 1967) 123-72

157

Samenvatting SAMENVATTING De vier delen van The Emar Lexical Texts werden geschreven in het kader van het onderzoeksproject ‘Kennisoverdracht en cognitie in een spijkerschriftcultuur’ van de Universiteit Leiden. Onder supervisie van Professor W.H. van Soldt van de vakgroep Talen en Culturen van Mesopotamië en Anatolië beoogt dit project de filologische ontsluiting en sociaal-theoretische interpretatie van de schoolteksten die werden overgeleverd in de westelijke periferie van de Mesopotamische schriftcultuur gedurende de Late Bronstijd (Syrië-Anatolië ca. 1500-1200 v.Chr.). De bijdrage van The Emar Lexical Texts aan dit project is het onderzoek naar de lexicale teksten, dat wil zeggen van de kleitablet lijsten gebruikt in de eerste fase van het schrijversonderricht, gevonden bij opgravingen in de oude stad Emar. In de periode in kwestie (een betrekkelijk kort tijdsbestek ca. 1200 v. Chr.) werd deze stad bestuurd door de Hettitische vice-koningen van Karkemish en was Emar een belangrijk handelsknooppunt aan de Eufraat in Syrië. Dit lexicale tabletten materiaal, vrijwel geheel afkomstig uit één enkel archief van één schooltje met een beperkt aantal vaak met naam bekende leraren en leerlingen, geeft een waardevolle momentopname van een zeer oude kennistraditie. Enerzijds gaan de binnen die traditie eeuwenlang getrouw overgeleverde woord- en tekenlijsten terug op voorlopers uit de vroegste periode van schriftgebruik in Mesopotamië - ze bewaren een schat aan kennis van het Sumerisch, de belangrijkste Mesopotamische geleerdentaal, dat al rond 2000 v.Chr. als gesproken taal was uitgestorven. Anderzijds bevatten de Emar teksten variaties in vorm en inhoud die kenmerkend zijn voor de periferie van de Mesopotamische schriftcultuur en meer specifiek voor de Syrische spijkerschrifttraditie. Het onderzoek naar de lexicale teksten in The Emar Lexical Texts valt uiteen in twee deeltaken: ten eerste is er de noodzaak tot (verdere) filologische ontsluiting van het waardevolle bronnenmateriaal en ten tweede is er de wens te komen tot een interdisciplinaire theoretische interpretatie van het materiaal. De eerste deeltaak heeft derhalve mede tot doel de wetenschappelijke basis te leggen voor de interpretatie beoogd in de tweede deeltaak en vindt zijn weerslag in de eerste drie delen van The Emar Lexical Texts. De tweede deeltaak wordt beantwoord door het vierde en laatste deel. Het filologisch deel van het onderzoek wordt gepresenteerd in drie afzonderlijke delen, hetgeen het tegelijkertijd werken met de losse teksten, de compositietekst en de tekstanalyse vergemakkelijkt. Deel 1 geeft de volledige teksteditie van alle teksten afzonderlijk, voorzien van een uitgebreid referentiesysteem verwijzend naar parallelle teksten uit andere periodes en vindplaatsen alsmede een notenapparaat met referenties naar relevante vakliteratuur. Deel 2 geeft een zgn. compositie-editie van de opeenvolgende soorten lijsten die in het schrijversonderwijs aan bod komen. Deze compositie-editie voorziet in gebonden transscripties en vertalingen alsmede een systematisch referentiesysteem en een aantal bijlages ten behoeve van teksthistorisch onderzoek. Deel 3 tenslotte geeft een ‘structurele analyse’ waarin eerst de vorm en inhoud van elk soort lijst worden onderzocht in relatie tot elkaar en waarin daarna alle lijsttypen typologisch met elkaar worden vergeleken. In Deel 3 wordt verder speciale

158

Samenvatting aandacht besteed aan de ‘redactionele noten’ die de schrijvers plachten toe te voegen aan hun werk en aan de historische positie van de Emar lijsten binnen de wijdere Mesopotamische lexicale traditie. Door een systematische beschrijving van het Emar materiaal via een structurele methodiek kunnen een aantal waardevolle conclusies worden getrokken met betrekking tot de dydactische techniek van de schoolteksten en met betrekking tot het soort ‘wetenschap’ beoogd door de Mesopotamische geleerden. Afgezien van de volledig nieuwe tekstuitgave en een systematische taalkundige herinterpretatie van de teksten - inclusief vertalingen - die men aantreft in de delen 1 en 2, resulteert het filologisch onderzoek in een aantal belangrijke conclusies ten aanzien van de tekststructuur - deze vindt men samengevat in de sectie ‘Main Conclusions’ aan het slot van Deel 3. Onder meer blijken de verschillende lexicale series formeelorganisatorische eenheden te representeren die een gespecialiseerde didactische functionaliteit hebben, gerelateerd aan hun positie in een curriculum van oplopende complexiteit. Het blijkt dat in het Mesopotamische schrijversonderwijs een met modernwetenschappelijke benaderingen onverenigbaar beginsel werd onderwezen, dat men een ‘integrerende methodologie’ zou kunnen noemen en waarin relaties werden gezocht tussen wetenschappelijk gezien ongerelateerde grafische en taalkundige fenomenen. Ook blijkt er in het lexicale materiaal een duidelijke modulaire structuur te zijn die werd gemanipuleerd gedurende de ontwikkelingsgeschiedenis van het lexicale curriculum en die een aantal diachrone transformaties beter laat begrijpen. Tenslotte blijkt ook dat het Emar tekst corpus een belangrijke intermediaire plaats inneemt in de ontwikkelingsgeschiedenis van de lexicale traditie, een plaats van waaruit zowel de eerdere Oud-Babylonische vormen als de latere canonisatie van het 1st Millenium v. Chr. goed kunnen worden begrepen in termen van de transformatieve processen die beide met elkaar verenigen. Het theoretische deel van het onderzoek komt aan de orde in Deel 4, waarin de confrontatie wordt aangegaan met een aantal tot nu toe onopgeloste wetenschappelijke vraagstukken. De oplossing van deze vraagstukken wordt gezocht door middel van een interdisciplinaire benadering waarin de geschiedsfilosofie en de antropologie worden gebruikt voor een interpretatie van het Mesopotamische tekstmateriaal. Onder meer komen een aantal specifiek op de Mesopotamische teksten toepasselijke vragen aan de orde: Hoe werkt het overleveringsmechanisme van de lexicale teksten? Wat was de relatie van het gesproken met het geschreven woord in de Mesopotamische ‘wetenschap’? Waarom had in de Mesopotamische ‘schriftwetenschap’ geschreven kennis zo vaak de vorm van een lijst? Maar ook komen in deze laatste fase van het onderzoek een aantal meer algemene sociaal-wetenschappelijke en wetenschapsfilosofische vragen aan bod: Welke sociale en culturele mechanismen kunnen de opmerkelijk lange duur en de speciale vorm van de schriftcultuur in de westelijke periferie verklaren? Wat was de aard van die schriftcultuur in vergelijking met latere, alfabetische schriftculturen? Wat is de epistemologische verhouding tussen het oude Mesopotamische kennissysteem en de moderne wetenschap? Aan de hand van drie verschillende theoretische modellen, ontwikkeld in de sociale wetenschappen, blijken verschillende soorten antwoorden mogelijk. De specifieke benaderingen hier gekozen

159

Samenvatting zijn de epistemologische van Foucault, de technologische van Goody en de structuralistische van Lévi-Strauss. De toepassing van de drie gekozen theoretische modellen, samengevat onder de kop ‘Main conclusions’ aan het slot van Deel 4, hebben een aantal waardevolle resultaten opgeleverd, zowel met betrekking tot de doelstelling, namelijk een beter begrip te krijgen van de denkwereld achter de lexicale teksten, als met betrekking tot de theoretische methodiek zelf. Foucault’s epistemologische model liet onder andere zien dat er overeenkomsten zijn tussen de configuratie van het Europese Traditionele Episteme en het Mepotamische Episteme, beide geconstrueerd rond het concept ‘gelijkenis’. Het bleek dat in beide een verschuiving van de oorspronkelijke overeenkomst tussen semiologisch discours en hermeneutische interpretatie in de ‘gelijkenis’ een epistemologische verschuiving te weeg bracht: in Europa naar het Klassieke Episteme, vanaf ca. het midden van de 17de eeuw, en in Mesopotamië naar een Interim Mesopotamisch Episteme, vanaf ca. 2000 v. Chr.. Op zijn beurt liet Goody’s technologische model zien dat bepaalde trekken van orale transmissie techniek doorleven in de Mesopotamische lexicale traditie: er was sprake van het soort generative transmissie dat normalerwijze wordt geassocieerd met een orale context. Anderzijds bleek dat Goody’s veel-bekritiseerde centrale stelling omtrent het verband tussen schrift en cognitieve ontwikkeling wel degelijk in overeenstemming is met de aantoonbare invloed van bepaalde specifieke schriftelijke technieken op de specifieke karakteristieken van de Mesopotamische logica. Tenslotte leidde de toepassing van Lévi-Strauss’ structuralistische model tot de verrassende conclusie dat de lexicale traditie feitelijk een totemisch logisch systeem representeert dat functioneert middels hetzelfde soort bricolage procedures als gevonden bij wat men vroeger wel ‘primitieve’ volkeren noemde. De in dat systeem aangetroffen beginselen van ‘binaire oppositie’ en ‘soorten klassificatie’ zijn belangrijke compositionele principes die ten grondslag liggen aan de lexicale lijsten. De interne dynamiek van het totemisch logisch systeem, zoals geanalyseerd door Lévi-Strauss, blijkt ook veel van de diachrone ontwikkeling in de lexicale traditie te kunnen verklaren. Door de toepassing van de drie theoretische modellen wordt nu veel van het enigmatische en exotische karakter van de lexicale teksten - te lang afgedaan als pre-logische Listenwissenschaft - verhelderd en naderbij gebracht. * Gegeven Den Haag, 17 juni 2010 *

160

Curriculum Vitae CURRICULUM VITAE In 1968 werd ik te Zeist geboren als de zoon van een Duits-Joodse luchtmachtofficier en een Nederlandse kunstenares. Mijn levensloop is in aanmerkelijk mate beinvloed door een aangeboren stoornis tegenwoordig veelal beschreven als passend in het Autisme Spectrum. Van 1981 tot 1987 voltooide ik het Gemeentelijk Gymnasium te Apeldoorn en daaropvolgend vervulde ik van 1988 tot 1989 mijn militaire dienstplicht gestationeerd in West-Duitsland. In de jaren daarna verbleef ik geruime tijd in verschillende plaatsen in het buitenland en daar hield ik mij zelfstandig bezig met de studie van verschillende wetenschappelijke onderwerpen, zoals de Nieuwe en Nieuwste geschiedenis, 19de eeuwse geschiedsfilosofie en verschillende Oost-Europese talen en culturen. Van 2001 tot 2004 voltooide ik de opleiding Semitische Talen en Culturen aan de Universiteit Leiden, met specialisatie Assyriologie en met Zuid-Semitisch als extra bijvak. In die tijd besteedde ik ook enige aandacht aan de klassieke en structuralistische stromingen binnen de Culturele Antropologie. In de jaren 2005-2010 was ik aangesteld als Junior Researcher bij het Centrum voor Niet-Westerse Studies (inmiddels overgegaan in het Leiden Institute of Area Studies) van de Universiteit Leiden voor het doen van een promotie-onderzoek naar de lexicale teksten gevonden in de archieven van de Late Bronstijd stad Emar (in het tegenwoordige Syrië). Sinds 2010 woon ik in Boedapest, Hongarije, samen met mijn vrouw, prinses Sona Khanom Bahadori - zij is de dochter van de Iraanse schilder Bijan Khan Bahadori en stamt af van Nader Shah Afshar, keizer van Iran 1736-1747.

161