Czytaj książkę: «Considerations on the Proto-Euphratic Language (PE)»
Considerations on the Proto-Euphratic Language
1. Auflage, erschienen 4-2021
Umschlaggestaltung: Romeon Verlag
Text: Erlend Gehlken
Layout: Erlend Gehlken
ISBN: 978-3-96229-818-0
www.romeon-verlag.de
Copyright © Romeon Verlag, Jüchen (DE)
The work, including all its parts, is protected by copyright. Any use and reproduction of the work without the consent of the publisher is prohibited and punishable by law. All rights, including those of reprinting excerpts and translation, are reserved. The work, including parts thereof, may not be reproduced, transmitted or copied without the express written permission of the publisher. Violation obliges to compensation.
All information, results, etc. contained in the book have been prepared by the author to the best of his knowledge. They are provided without any obligation or guarantee on the part of the publisher. He therefore accepts no responsibility or liability for any inaccuracies that may exist.
Considerations on the Proto-Euphratic Language (PE)
A Daniela,
in ricordo del tempo trascorso insieme a Sanremo
CONTENTS
Preface
I.Introduction
‘Technical’ Remarks
II.The “PE Question”
III.Writing, Vocabulary and Grammar
IV.Document Observations
Various Types of Lists, Calculations, Festival Texts, Calendars, Field Texts, BA, GI & GU7, Additional Payment Notes
V.Detail Studies
EN, ḪAL GAR, UB ŠÀ, Homophones, BA & GU7: c1/168 and c1/156
VI.“Non-Sumerian” Sign Combinations, Abandoned and Retained PE Signs, New Sumerian Readings
VII.Selected PE Personal Names
Bibliography
Index of Terms
Logograms
Words
1Akkadian
2Sumerian
3Proto-Euphratic (PE)
Index of Names and Subjects
Non-PE Personal Names
Gods, Nature Spirits and Stars
Countries, Towns and Rivers
Temples and Other Buildings
Subjects
Index of Texts
Abbreviations
Literature
General Abbreviations
Conventions Used in the Transcriptions and Translations
Appendix: Cuneiform Script
Figures
Notes
PREFACE
One of the most important advanced civilisations of antiquity is to be found in Mesopotamia, a second one in Egypt. There may have been more ancient cultures, but they have not yet emerged from the mists of history. It goes without saying that this study refers to cultures that have developed a system of writing as we know it. The artists who created the paintings in the caves of Altamira, Lascaux or in the Maros-Pangkep Karst on Sulawesi were no less talented. The indigenous inhabitants of Mesopotamia are difficult to grasp as a people. In the north of the country, rain-fed agriculture was feasible, but not in the south. Accordingly, the south of the country was settled at a late stage. Nobody knows when and from where the Sumerians migrated to Mesopotamia.
No notable Assyriologist claims that the Sumerians were the first settlers in southern Mesopotamia, but almost all Assyriologists are of the opinion that the first settlers had not yet written down their language, the “Proto-Euphratic language” (henceforth PE; an artificial word). In general, the Sumerians and the Egyptians are considered to be the ones who, according to current knowledge, created the first writing systems. For Mesopotamia, one of the most prominent advocates of this opinion was the well-known Heidelberg Assyriologist Adam Falkenstein († 1966), who in 1936 was the first to publish a volume with archaic texts from the city of Uruk, from which the oldest written documents originate. His most prominent, albeit somewhat hesitant, “opponent” was Robert K. Englund († 2020), who wrote under the keyword “The 4th millennium” in the article “Uruk. A. I. Philologisch. 4.–3. Jahrtausend” in the “Reallexikon der Assyriologie” (vol. 14, published in fascicles 2014–2016): “The consensus among specialists is that the number of identified probable phonetic renderings of protocuneiform signs indicates that Sumerian was at least one of the languages employed by Late Uruk scribes (and by logical extension, the only one) (among many others, cf. Nissen 1999, 45f.; Cooper 2004; Krebernik 1994a; Rubio 2005). Englund (1998, 73–81; id. 2009, § 2.5) and Whittaker (2005) remain sceptical; s.a. the discussion in Sumer*, Sumerisch. § 6.”
This short study attempts to securely and sustainably validate the existence of a written form of the PE language. Almost all the material presented here has been published before. The aim of this publication is to gather the scattered published views so as to enable a better understanding of this discussion. Robert K. Englund’s investigation Texts from the Late Uruk Period in OBO 160/1, in which he presents and analyses the archaic text corpus of the Uruk period in an exemplary manner, remains fundamental.
This book is also addressed to the interested lay person. For this reason, explanations that the specialist colleague must consider superfluous have often been given. The appendix “Cuneiform Script” has been added for orientation.
My sincere thanks go to ROMEON Verlag (Kaarst, Germany) for publishing this study. The beneficial and cooperative collaboration – especially with the Creative Director, Mr Christian Türling – as well as the pleasing presentation of the book speak for themselves. My special thanks are due to Mr Derek O’Brien (University of Heidelberg), who carefully reviewed the English translation and, with critical questions in cases of factual doubt, made a valuable contribution to the success of this work.
| Frankfurt/Main, November 2020 | Erlend Gehlken |
I. INTRODUCTION
It is not easy to write about something that most people believe did not exist – that is, the writing of texts in the PE language. Here, however, the attempt has been made. Honest criticism would not only help (or dismiss) the recognition of the existence of a written form of the PE language, but also promote understanding of Sumerian in the archaic texts. Philological questions will be dealt with in the following chapters; at this point the external framework will be outlined first.
1. Colonisation of Mesopotamia
After smaller predecessor settlements in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic, in the Pottery Neolithic the Hassuna culture, named after the site of the same name, developed in northern Mesopotamia in the second half of the 7th millennium BC in the zone where rain-fed farming was possible1. In the regions bordering Mesopotamia there were also important centres at this early time, such as Jericho in the Levant or Chogha Mish in the Khuzistan Province (modern Iran). An example of a city outside the Fertile Crescent is Çatal Höyük, southeast of Konya (Anatolia). In Mesopotamia itself, around 6300, the Samarra culture emerged, which flourished in the south of the country contemporaneously with the Hassuna culture for quite some time before the extinction of the latter. In the area of the Samarra culture rain-fed agriculture was not possible; the first irrigation systems are to be found here. Around 6000, two other cultures came into the light of history: the Halaf culture in the north of the country and the Ubaid (Obed) culture in the south2. The area where the Halaf culture is to be found would soon extend from Samarra in the south up the Tigris River almost to its source and from there in a westerly direction far beyond the Euphrates River towards the Mediterranean Sea. A striking feature of this culture is its aesthetically pleasing polychrome painted pottery. The southern regions of Mesopotamia were only settled relatively late. Most of the countryside was previously flooded. Only climate change and the associated drop in sea level in the Persian Gulf ensured that permanently dry stretches of land were available3. A characteristic feature of the Ubaid culture is the unmistakable terracottas in which the human face is reminiscent of that of a lizard. The Ubaid culture spread rapidly. After a few hundred years, it covered the entire area of the Halaf culture in addition to southern Mesopotamia and also reached the Mediterranean Sea (the region of the east coast north of Ugarit).
None of the cultures mentioned so far can be assigned to a specific people. This only changes towards the end of the Uruk period following the Ubaid period (approximately 4000–3000 BC). There is no clear break between these periods, only visible external changes, which, however, have nothing to do with a “cultural change”: for example, a new type of fine pottery is well attested here (the first red engobe shards of the so-called “Uruk ware” already appear in layer XVIII in the deep sounding [Tiefschnitt (a5/p57)] in Eanna: Heinrich 1982, 39). According to the Sumerian King List, Eridu in southern Mesopotamia is the city where the first two kings ruled before the Flood. There is a temple in Eridu, from which 18 superimposed layers of an ever-bigger cult house are known; here the later development of the Mesopotamian temples is already anticipated. The oldest layers are from the Ubaid period, the most recent from the Uruk period, during which, however, no further changes were made. The city of Uruk can also be traced back to an Ubaid period settlement. Uruk develops into a metropolis and is (according to current knowledge) around 3000 BC the largest city in the world. In the late 4th millennium, an increase in population can generally be observed in the centres in southern Mesopotamia4.
Detailed information on the issues addressed can be found, for example, in Hrouda 1998, Nissen 1983 or Roaf 1990.
Towards the end of the Uruk period the first script is found in the city of Uruk. In the ED I–II period following the Uruk period, the texts are written in Sumerian. The city of Ur has now become a new centre. Therefore the Sumerians must have been present in southern Mesopotamia at the latest towards the end of the Uruk period; otherwise they could not have adopted or created cuneiform script.
The question of when the Sumerians migrated to (South) Mesopotamia has not yet been conclusively clarified, nor is it certain whether they encountered an already resident indigenous population there. The discussion shall not be reignited at this point, but instead a few observations and opinions shall be presented without evaluation.
The so-called ‘Uruk expansion’, which allows Uruk’s influence to be felt in cities as distant as Habuba Kabira on the Euphrates in Syria, comes to a standstill at the end of the Uruk IV period (Englund 1998, 61). A somewhat mysterious building in Uruk is the socalled “Riemchengebäude” (Riemchen building5), whose dating (Uruk V or IV?) and function are not entirely certain. It seems as if cult equipment of an (older?) cult was ritually buried here (inter alia, cf. RlA s.v. Uruk, column 463f.). In the Uruk III/Jemdet Nasr period6 the large cult houses in Uruk were replaced by less monumental buildings [Heinrich 1982, passim]. The profound changes that took place during this period need not necessarily have anything to do with the immigration of a new people; one might think of comparable innovations in architecture and painting during the transitions from Romanesque to Gothic, from Gothic to Renaissance, etc. Useful ideas are always taken up and spread quickly. A notable observation is presented by Forest: after the decline of the influence of the Uruk culture, older (autochthonous) traditions flared up again in Jemdet Nasr and other regional centres (Forest 2011). Nissen assumes that the Sumerians immigrated after 3500 BC (Nissen 1999, 161); others argue that the Sumerians immigrated before or during the Uruk IV period or even after the Uruk III period (see Englund 1998, 65 with footnote 124).
2. Natural Science Issues
Different peoples or tribes do not need to speak different languages, but may have originally spoken various languages (think of the Red Indians in North America, most of whom now speak English). But if different peoples or ethnic groups speak different languages, that does not mean that they are of different origin (think of the Indo-European languages in Europe). Nevertheless, it would be interesting to use bone finds to investigate whether local differences can be determined in the early population of Mesopotamia by means of aDNA analyses, i.e. whether, for example, in Jemdet Nasr, from which only texts from the Uruk period are known7, a population that can be separated from the Sumerian or Semitic might have been native. The physician (palaeopathology) and anthropologist Professor Dr Dr Michael Schultz, University of Göttingen, who, among other bone finds, studied the skeletal remains from the queens’ tombs in Nimrud wrote to me to say that by means of aDNA examinations with optimal bone preservation, Assyrians, possibly also Babylonians, could be distinguished from Sumerians with a very high degree of probability8. Unfortunately, there are currently very few bone finds from this early period in museums and collections, so that an appropriate investigation has had to be postponed to a later date.
3. Corpus of the Archaic Texts
The corpus of the archaic texts includes the texts from the Uruk period (writing phases [Uruk V], Uruk IV and Uruk III) as well as those of the ED I–II period (see Englund 1998, note 123). The history of the excavations and the progress made in the study of the texts have been described in several publications; for the Uruk period reference is made exemplarily to Englund 1994 (introduction) and 1998 (passim). According to Englund, 5820 archaic texts are known (Englund 1998, 65); if the search engine of the CDLI is used, 7432 entries are found for the Uruk period (excluding ED I– II)9. About 85% of the documents are administrative texts, the remaining 15% are lexical lists (LL), school texts, and similar. Literary texts do not yet exist (the LL a3/TRIBUTE could be an exception10). Texts are found not only on clay tablets but also, for example, on tags (m1/239), clay cones (a7/21842; possibly ED I), seals (‘City Seal’ [MSVO 2]; UET 2, no. 1 [ED I–II]), jugs (m1/244) and kudurrus (boundary stones) (OIP 104)11. Texts from writing phase Uruk IV are only attested in Uruk, those from writing phase III mainly in Uruk and Jemdet Nasr, though also in Urum and Larsa. Individual finds are known from Kiš or Ešnunna, for example12.
Most of the texts from the Uruk period are published in the volumes ATU 1, (2), 3, 5, 6 and 7 [Uruk]; CUSAS 1 [texts from clandestine excavations; presumably documents from Uruk and Jemdet Nasr, possibly from Umma and other places], CUSAS 21 [origin of the texts uncertain; no. 129: Zabalam?] and CUSAS 31 [texts from Umma (?) and further texts of uncertain origin] as well as in MSVO 1 [Jemdet Nasr], 3 [probably all texts originate from Uruk] and 4 [texts mainly from Urum, Larsa, Uruk]. All texts (published and unpublished, including the volume MSVO 3) are accessible online via the CDLI. As already mentioned in the preface, there is disagreement as to the language in which the texts mentioned are written. The tablets of the chronologically subsequent text corpus, the archaic texts from Ur (ED I–II), are definitely written in Sumerian. There is a gap of about 100–200 years between the Uruk texts and the Ur texts, depending on the source used. The Ur texts were published by Burrows in UET 2 (Burrows 1935). Occasional text finds from other cities, including Uruk, also date from this era (see Englund 1998, note 123).
4. PE in (mainly) older publications
The “fight for the recognition of the PE” was preceded by a comparable fight for the recognition of Sumerian (in this case successful). A further three quarters of a century after deciphering the cuneiform script, the Orientalist Joseph Halévy declared that Sumerian was not a natural language, but a kind of cryptograph for rendering Akkadian13. Even the well-known Orientalist Friedrich Delitzsch, who was after all then to publish a “Sumerian Glossary” and a Sumerian grammar in 1914, initially adopted this view.
When Sumerian was “established” as a language, texts that were clearly older than the known Sumerian texts were first discovered in Susa (Iran): These Proto-Elamite tablets are written in a script of their own, which is (at least in appearance) remotely related to cuneiform script. In terms of time, they belong to the Uruk III writing phase. Proto-Elamite has not yet been completely deciphered. Currently, J. Dahl at Oxford University is devoting considerable effort to understanding these documents. The first tablets were published by Jean-Vincent Scheil in 190014. In Mesopotamia, Uruk III texts were first brought to light in Jemdet Nasr in 192515. The signs are partly reminiscent of hieroglyphics, but are the direct predecessors of the later cuneiform script. Englund refers to them as ‘proto-cuneiform (script)’ (ATU 5, note 4)16. The first publication was by Langdon (~ 1928). In Uruk, a larger lot of archaic clay tablets was first salvaged in the 1929/30 campaign17. The publication was not long in coming (Falkenstein 1936). That publication is considered a masterpiece, even though some of the views expressed there now have to be put into perspective as a result of newly gained knowledge. Falkenstein took the view that the texts were written in Sumerian. His main argument was that the supposed name Enlil-ti (“[the god] Enlil keep [her, him] alive”), written EN-É-TI, established Sumerian as language, since only in the Sumerian language are the words for “arrow” (the sign TI is the representation of a bow and arrow) and “to live” homonymous (a1/p37f.)18. The texts quoted by Falkenstein belong to the writing phase Uruk III; they are from Jemdet Nasr and Urum. Meanwhile a text from Uruk is also known (W 17729,ee). Falkenstein thinks it is therefore reasonable to consider the few older texts of the writing phase Uruk IV as Sumerian texts as well, but he does not categorically rule out another language (a1/p40f.). Krebernik wants the name EN-É-TI to be understood as “Der En (Priesterfürst) ist einer, der das ,Haus‘ (É, gemeint ist wohl eine zentrale Institution, etwa der Tempelhaushalt) am Leben erhält (TÌL)” – “The En (priestly lord) is one who keeps the ‘house’ (É, meaning probably a central institution, such as the temple household) alive (TÌL)”19. Englund takes the view that EN-É-TI is not a personal name (Englund 1998, 74–76). A text like MS 2500 might speak against this view; in that list sheep and goats are assigned to persons, including EN-É-TI. The reading of the name remains unknown. In theory it could be a Sumerian name that appears in a PE list. Since the texts of the Uruk period are incomprehensible (i.e. cannot be read in Sumerian) unless they are simple lists of animals or objects, a single expression (“Enlil-ti”; Falkenstein’s main argument) is not sufficient to identify a language (in English, the three “signs” B–A–D mean “bad, evil”, in German “bath and bathroom”; for the three signs EN–UNUG–ḪI → V–1, note 4). It should be emphasised in advance that the Sumerian pantheon does not yet exist in the Uruk period texts (as far as concretely demonstrable, sacrifices are made only for the later Sumerian goddess Inanna, who is equated with Venus: there are feasts for Venus as morning and evening star [text a7/21671; → V–1–a and ~e]). The cuneiform sign for Inanna is a drawing of the so-called ring-post (Schilfringbündel; a5/p57: ‘reed bundle’), which is reminiscent of the reed doorposts of the reed houses known from many illustrations20; possibly Inanna was worshipped in a similar way to Hestia/Vesta. The sign EN is discussed in detail in → V–1. It does not mean “city ruler” in the texts of the Uruk period.
Landsberger pointed out that mainly many place names and occupational names made a ‘non-Sumerian’ impression (Landsberger 1944). He coined the name ‘Proto-Euphratic’ (PE) for this language, but assumed that it was never written (in other words: according to Landsberger, writing was probably created [“invented”] by the Sumerians). The ‘Proto-Tigridians’, who were different from the Proto-Euphratians, were (according to Landsberger) resident in northern Babylonia. The situation in Greece is comparable: many toponyms are of non-Greek origin (Wendt 1961, 134). Rubio then drew a symbolic final stroke to the discussion (Rubio 1999). He concludes “Thus, there is no monolithic substratum that would have left, in a sort of primeval age, its vestiges in the Sumerian lexicon. All one can detect is a complex and fuzzy web of borrowings ...” (~, p. 11). He concedes that the toponyms are non-Sumerian (~, p. 6). When examining the names of professions, in some cases no interpretation is given21, reference is made to other authors (passim) or it is stated that the word could well be Sumerian: “simug (DÉ) ‘smith.’ The structure of this word (CiCuC) is not unknown in Sumerian (for instance, lirum, zikum)” (~, p. 4). The latter criterion could just as well be used to prove that most names of professions are PE. Later, cautious resistance arose again against Rubio’s view (cf. the foreword [Englund]; see also Lecompte 2013, 14f.: “The divergence between Uruk and Ur cultures (and probably languages) is made evident by many examples: ...”).
Languages can disappear without a trace, think of (meanwhile “revived”) Cornish (1777). The Kassites had long provided the kings in Babylonia, but they adapted to Babylonian culture. Apart from the royal names and a few words, nothing is known of their language. Often it takes a lot of luck to find out that a language was actually written. In the Sumerian texts of the Fara period (around 2600 BC) there are some Semitic names, but texts written in Semitic (i.e. Babylonian) are difficult to prove (according to the CDLI only 14 tablets). The situation is different with PE. It is easier to dismiss the texts as still incomprehensible “archaic” Sumerian texts than to prove that some passages or expressions cannot be Sumerian at all and therefore have to be PE. PE might have died out after the Uruk III period – Englund also believes this to be possible (Englund 1998, 65) – but we still have written evidence of that language (in the opinion of the author of this book) in the form of the archaic cuneiform texts of that period.
‘Technical’ Remarks
1. Dating
Dates according to Brinkman 1964 for historical time, according to the entries in the CDLI for the periods of the earliest written documents.
It should be noted that in works dealing with the early periods of Mesopotamia, dates do not necessarily coincide (one often finds variation ranges of ± 100 years, in extreme cases even greater ones).
Rough dating of the writing phases (all dates BC)22:
| (Uruk V | 3500–3350) | |
| Uruk IV | 3350–3200 | |
| Uruk III/Jemdet Nasr | 3200–3000 | |
| ED I–II | 2900–2700 | (Early Dynastic I–II, archaic Ur) |
| ED IIIa | 2600–2500 | (Fara) |
| ED IIIb (OS) | 2500–2340 | (period before the first Akkadian Empire of Sargon of Akkad) |
| OAkk. | 2340–2140 | (Old Akkadian) |
| NS | 2140–2020 | (Neo-Sumerian; Third Dynasty of Ur, Ur III period) |
| OB | 1950–1530 | (Old Babylonian) |
| MB | 1530–1000 | (Middle Babylonian) |
| NB | 1000–625 | (Neo-Babylonian) |
| LB | 625–75 AD | (Late Babylonian; 74/75: last known cuneiform tablet) |
2. Geographical Names
The transcription of Mesopotamian place names is not uniform. One and the same place name can be rendered differently in French, English and German, even within one language there are differences (Bagdad and Baghdad in German). In this study “conventional” English (partly also German) spellings are used; no attempt is made to standardise the spelling. “Hypercorrectness”, which does not provide an additional gain in knowledge, but only a useless burden for the reader, is rejected.
3. Pronunciation
| c | (Ayin); a voiced pharyngeal fricative (Arabic) |
| ç | ch in church (in Turkish words) |
| ǧ | j in journal |
| ĝ | ng in ring |
| ḥ | an unvoiced pharyngeal fricative [a rasping H-sound] (Arabic) |
| ḫ | ch in Scottish Loch Ness (“kh”) |
| ṣ | emphatic s (Arabic) |
| š | English “sh” |
4. Transcriptions
Since the PE pronunciation of cuneiform signs is unknown, PE readings are given by their “sign names” (after Borger, ABZ); approximate pronunciation indications are enclosed in “/ /” (e.g., NUN.ME (=) /abgal/). Sumerian words are written in normal Roman type (but not spaced, as was customary in the past), Babylonian words in italics.
In some cases, full stops are placed between logograms to indicate that the logograms form a separate unit compared to another logogram (example: GÁN EN, GÁN BU.KI: EN and BU.KI are [functionally] equivalent); in some cases hyphens are used to identify units as such (EN-É-TI). These designations are inevitably subject to a certain arbitrariness.
Sign variants (ENa vs. ENb) will only be marked if they are necessary.
The distinction between g and ĝ has been dispensed with, apart from a few exceptions (especially in the index).
Generally, a “conventional” transcription is used in order to also offer interested lay people the possibility of verification (Inanna instead of Innana, etc.; only professionals will know that, in Civil’s opinion, ḫirinx should be read instead of ŠAGAN [Civil 2013, 58]). This means that by and large the transcription offered in ATU 2 has been adopted23.
The line/‘case’ designations used by Englund (passim; → chapter II, note 1) such as O0102 etc. (see m1/p10) have mostly been simplified, in the given example to obv. i2. Line numbers are only given if the search would take longer in the case of larger texts (exception: entries in → VII). Englund’s convention of marking the first preserved line of a text with “1” (instead of “1'” if lines are broken before it) has been adopted.
Minor breaks are only marked in the transcription, not in the translation.
5. General Information
In order not to overload the study, OBO 160/1 is quoted if possible (i.e. usually Englund, even if Englund refers to other authors there).
The attached illustrations are for guidance only; they have been drawn “free-hand” from copies or photographs; in case of doubt the reader should consult the original sources.
Since this study is based on the assumption that PE was not only a spoken but also a written language, “assumed” or “postulated” is not added at every occurrence of the word/(abbreviation) “PE”. Sometimes “PE” and “from the Uruk period” are used synonymously; the entire Uruk period is never meant, but always only the (time of the) writing phases Uruk IV and III.
II. THE “PE QUESTION”
The title of this chapter is borrowed from Englund, who wrote a sub-chapter (4.4) called “The Sumerian Question” in OBO 160/1, 73–81. In principle, it is about one and the same thing, only PE instead of Sumerian comes to the fore here. All questions that are necessary or could be useful in order to “pin down” those who created cuneiform (‘proto-cuneiform’) are addressed by Englund. Among other things, he deals with numerical systems, the sequence of signs in ‘cases’1, Sumerian readings in general, the “inadequacy of cuneiform in representing the phonetic structure of Sumerian words”, possible multivalent signs, phonetic elements, the conceivable adoption of PE readings into Sumerian, the “verbs” BA and GI as well as the Uruk III period personal names, which usually cannot be interpreted as Sumerian. Reference is always made to Englund where relevant.
1. General Information
Most of the texts (or expressions) of the Uruk period do not make sense when translated as Sumerian texts (examples: → III–1–h and VI–1; texts: a7/21914, m4/79). Yet almost all scholars adhere to the opinion that they are written in the Sumerian language. In addition to the passage quoted in the preface, explicit reference shall be made to § 6 in the RlA, article “Sumer, Sumerisch”.
When working with a pictographic writing system (the first known script besides the Egyptian hieroglyphic script) where only the essentials are recorded in a kind of telegram style, it is not easy to distinguish two languages from each other. As late as in the ED I–II period, hardly any grammatical elements were written (cf. among others Burrows 1935, 22f. and Lecompte 2013, 9), which – not surprisingly – shows that for a Sumerian the texts were understandable even without (written) grammatical elements. There is a tendency to classify the records from Uruk as “readable in any language” if the meaning of the individual signs is known; the (document) form is considered “the grammar” (for example, cf. Nissen et al. 159; Englund 1998, 79). This is not entirely correct, as the order of the signs (in the Uruk period almost always corresponding to the spoken language [→ III–3–g], in the following ED I–II period “sloppy” [Burrows 1935, 27]) definitely allows conclusions to be drawn about the language. In Japanese, for example, the standard word sequence is subject – object – predicate, whereas in Chinese it is subject – predicate – object. It is well known that the same characters (with different pronunciation) are used for writing in both languages; in Japanese syllable characters are additionally used for writing grammatical elements. A Japanese person can roughly understand a Chinese text; it should also be the case the other way round.
In the Uruk period, no bilingual texts are to be expected, since there were presumably only PE scribes (and possibly Sumerian pupils) and no literature existed yet (an exception could be the lexical list a3/TRIBUTE, → III–1–h). Glosses might exist; unfortunately, it has not been possible to identify one yet. It seems rather likely that glosses do not exist. Just think of the Middle Ages in Europe – the monks wrote Latin; the Old High German gloss “diutisce gellit” (“in German: ‘Schale’ [bowl]”), which explains galeola, seems to be a “fortunate” exception. Bilingual dictionaries are not known (→ Index of Terms, Words–3b [PE]).
Three examples in which one and the same fact is represented in the language of the Uruk period texts by different sign combinations are discussed in → III–note 4 (EN.KID/É vs. EN.NUN), V–2 (HAL.GAR vs. NAGAR) and V–3 (UB.ŠÀ vs. ŠÀ.URI).
In the ED I–II period there seem to have been no glosses (and certainly no Sumerian–PE bilingual texts); the document form of the texts is different; they were almost certainly only written by Sumerians. The aforementioned kudurrus pose certain difficulties (→ I–3; Gelb et. al.1989; 1991).
Therefore PE must be made accessible more or less “from out of itself” (compare NABU 2018/93 and 2019/58).
2. Criteria that could argue for a change from PE to Sumerian
The following selection is to be understood as an anticipatory look ahead with cross-references. With a few exceptions (in my view), the criteria set out below are not necessarily conclusive as one could always argue that there has been a development over time (though the temporal gap between the PE and the ED I–II texts is, as already mentioned, not that significant).
–Calendar: the leap year probably existed already in the Uruk period, names of months did not exist yet (→ IV–7 and ~ 9).
–Document form changes (externally: the ‘subcases’ disappear, apart from a few exceptions [Lecompte 2013, 8]; internally: there are – again apart from a few exceptions – no more subscripts [Lecompte 2013, 8]).
–The numerical and metrological systems change (Lecompte 2013, 15–20; cf. also Englund 1998, 77f. and a3/p35 top).
–With few exceptions (cf. c1/70 “U4 GIBIL” vs. c1/83 “GIBIL U4”; → III–2–b ad GAL.SANGA.SANGA; → III–3–c ad Enlilti), the order of the signs in the cases was strictly regulated in the Uruk period (cf., for example, the sign sequence BA-AB.APIN in m1/97–99 or the boustrophedon subscript in m1/20); in the ED I–II period, however, it was relatively free (Burrows 1935, 27).
–The old “realm of the gods” (MÙŠ.U4/SIG – Venus as morning and evening star [→ IV–7]) disappears; from the ED III period onwards, the Sumerian pantheon is established (SF 1: long list of gods from Fara); in the time in between (ED I–II) only a few deities are attested (UET 2, pp. 19–21; ATFU, p. 11). In the Uruk period there were probably no “gods” yet – there was also no sign for the abstract term ‘god’ (‘AN’, later ‘god’, means ‘star’ in the Uruk period, → III–2–f; IV–7). The “gods” of the Uruk period (MÙŠ = Venus, possibly BU+DU6 = snake deity, Niraḫ [cf. ATFU, p. 65 with note 26]) are more likely to have been elves, nymphs and satyrs (nature spirits). The religion was probably a nature religion, comparable to the Minoan or Old Hellenic. The Greek god Pan still bears features of this archaic religion. Apart from the “standard deities”, the Sumerian pantheon gives the impression of having been “conceived” by scholars in the Fara period.
–Disappearance of the former occupational names (apart from a few exceptions); the lexical list a3/Lú A is “replaced” by Lú E (Englund 1998, 85 and 88–89; ATFU, p. 15 top).
–Changes in the onomasticon that cannot be overlooked (for the Uruk period cf. Englund 2009, for the later periods Th. E. Balke, Das altsumerische Onomastikon. Namengebung und Prosopografie nach den Quellen aus Lagas, dubsar 1, Münster 2017; M. Krebernik, Zur Struktur und Geschichte des älteren sumerischen Onomastikons, AOAT 296 [2002] 1–74). In addition to a structural comparison (PE vs. Sumerian names), Englund offers a list of approximately 440 PE personal names of “slaves/prisoners”, which can be easily identified by their designations MÍ and KUR (Englund 1998, 176–179; → VII). The fact that there were slaves/prisoners at that time is clearly proven by the so-called prisoner seals (figure in Englund 1998, p. 44). As foreigners, prisoners may have had names in a non-native language (cf. Englund 1998, note 407), but they may also have been given PE names. In the first case, it should be considered whether they could be written with the PE script (cf. also Englund 1998, 79–80). A list of personal names (personal names cannot always be strictly separated from occupational names) that are not necessarily names of slaves or captives can be found in → chapter VII2. It is indicated whether the name can also be found among the slave names in Englund’s list; this allows certain conclusions to be drawn about the language behind the names.
–ABGAL, written NUN.ME; the element ME occurs eleven times in the list of occupational names, a3/Lú A, in compounds with other signs (in four of them, however, apart from NUN.ME itself, NUN.ME is a constituent of the compound); a Sumerian explanation can hardly be found; → III–1–g.
–Disappearance of PE verbs (e.g. GI; see NABU 2018/93; cf. → IV–11, note 51).
–Reduplications of signs lose their meaning (ŠE.ŠE in m1/1 and many others); the reduplication as such is given a new function (e.g. designation of the plural), → III–2–b.
–Non-designation of the plural (passim without any exception; 14 MÍ+ZATU751b [m1/215], 13 UDU [m1/208], 7 SUḪUR [m1/116], ...), → III–3–d.
–The adjective is placed before the noun in the PE texts, and after the noun in the Sumerian texts of the ED period, as is customary in the Sumerian language (Englund 1998, note 170; → III– 3–g); this fact can hardly be dismissed as a “development”.
–Sign substitutions in Sumerian (AN [star; → IV–7] → AN.AN.AN = MUL [AN is assigned the meaning “deity”]; EN → PAD.AN.MÙŠ or ĝeš-tag-ga, respectively; → V–1–a).
–In Sumerian, an animal head is used for the word “foot” instead of the sign for foot (DU): GÌR /ĝìri/; → III–2–c.
–Inexplicable reading of the sign for beer (KAŠ /kaš/) as /bi/ in Sumerian; → III–2–c.
–Appearance of previously undocumented syllabic spellings (áš-gàr; Lecompte 2013, 9) in the ED I–II period (Sumerian); presumably the PE language was not suitable for this “technique” because of its word structure; otherwise those spellings should have occurred before (PE people must have possessed a high ability to abstract; think of the sophisticated number systems), cf. → III–1–g and ~h.
–Special cases: EN = “sacrifice” and “the one who offers up the sacrifice (= priest)” in PE, “priest” and “Lord” in Sumerian (→ V–1); GÁN EN (m1/2–6) denotes a quality of the field, not the field and its owner (→ V–1–d); there is no evidence for EN = “Lord” in PE.
III. WRITING, VOCABULARY AND GRAMMAR
As already mentioned in → chapter II, there are apparently no glosses, bilingual dictionaries1 or even bilingual texts in the Uruk period. The texts must be deciphered without assistance.
Initially, the signs as such do not allow any conclusions to be drawn about the written language; over time, they develop graphically from their (mostly pictorial, but sometimes also abstract) original form into more abstract signs, which – depending on the language – can be read in different ways in context.
The PE vocabulary is significantly different from the Sumerian vocabulary. Hardly any of the entries in the so-called Vocabularies can be interpreted as Sumerian (a3/VOCAB; see a3/p37), but for obvious reasons, in most cases its PE meaning cannot be deduced either. The same applies to the “school texts” in CUSAS 21 (c21/156–303 [cf. S. F. Monaco, c21/pp6–8]). Entries consisting of only one sign (for example, c21/162: ŠUBUR) or those which will continue to be used in the ED period (NUN.ME = ABGAL) can, of course, also be read as Sumerian.
Since glosses and bilingual texts are missing, the PE grammar can only be distinguished from the Sumerian grammar by means of possible ‘indirect bilingual texts’ and grammatical peculiarities (e.g. the word order). Furthermore, it has to be proven that a Sumerian interpretation, no matter how “archaic” the supposed Sumerian language period might be, is not possible. ‘Indirect bilingual texts’ are understood to be texts in which one and the same (administrative) process (e.g. a cattle inspection [amirtu]) is very likely to be written down in different languages. Some field survey texts and sacrificial texts resemble indirect bilingual texts (→ V– 1–d and ~e), but may not provide clear evidence for the existence of PE texts. In many cases the Sumerian document differs so markedly from the PE form that no direct comparisons are possible (see Green 1980). However, this could be interpreted as the result of a temporal development. The only known indubitable point against considering the Uruk III period texts as Sumerian texts is the positioning of the adjective. It is the declared aim of this chapter to work out a few more candidates (some points have already been addressed in the previous chapter with reference to chapters IV and V).
1. Writing
a) Every sign has a basic meaning, which is given by what is pictorially represented or – in the case of abstract signs such as UDU – by the meaning assigned by definition.
b1) As early as in the Uruk period, meanings derived from a sign occur; three examples:
i) U4: rising sun (primal meaning, derived from the pictorial representation); day, month and year (U4 plus various numerals, see a5/p20); “morning” (in “Venus as morning star” [U4 AN MÙŠ], a7/21671 i3; →IV–7); white: a3/CATTLE no. 3 (U4 ÁB [white cow, followed by GI6 ÁB – black cow2]).
ii) ZATU753: a product (m1/179, line i1b4); a personal or occupational name (a3/OFFICIALS no. 8).
iii) ‘A’: water (primal meaning, to be derived from the pictorial representation, compare the lower register of the Uruk Vase [→ V–1–a]); the derived meaning (or possibly function) is unknown. ‘A’ can be found at the end of many sign combinations and cannot have the functions known from Sumerian grammar in this position (formation of the participle, nominalization, etc.). Examples: ENA [Sumerian: “Lord + A”] (a5/9656,n2 rev. ii2, m4/63 i3, ...), NUN-A [“prince + A”] (a5/6110, a3/WOOD no. 22, ...), BU-A [“*snake + A” (not water snake)] (a5/9656,eu rev.; a3/GEOGR 3, ii10, ...). The text a3/UNID 44 offers a compilation of sign combinations ending in ‘-A’. It is not clear a priori whether ‘A’ is to be understood as an independent word homonymous to “water” which “modifies” the other sign (e.g. as a verb which changes “noise” into “to make noise”), as a “grammatical modifier” (inflectional ending) or as an element to be re-interpreted on a case-by-case basis (→ on this below III–1–e and III–3–b). The X-A combinations have for the most part disappeared in Sumerian (BU.A [UET 2, 184] is retained, but could have a different meaning; cf. NABU 2018/93, note 1); what was denoted in PE by the addition of ‘-A’ no longer has any meaning in Sumerian. For example, IM and IM.A = NÍ coincide (see ZATU under no. 396).
b2) A sign can have several variants (e.g. ENa, ENb and ENc). It is not always certain whether different meanings are associated with them; for KID see especially Englund 1998, note 151, for AB NABU 2014/58 and c21/281 (school text: ABb ABa É), for GÁ a7/22112 (rev. i4: GÁa, rev. ii5: GÁb), for EN → V–1–d. A sign can also be renamed in the case of rotations (and other “operations”): ŠU (hand) → TAK4 (rotated clockwise by 90°; the meaning is also likely to have been different from “hand” in earliest times). In some cases, a sign could have been rotated for no particular reason (“handwriting”) or for lack of space (presumably GI in a5/9579,dz near the right margin); ligatures can also be dissolved for lack of space, see NÁM EŠDA in a3/20708 ii2 (pl. 81) or PAP BU NÁM (rather NÁM BU PAP) in m4/45 rev. i2.
c) As early as in the Uruk period, as in Egyptian, determinatives are used to divide nouns into classes (wooden objects are preceded by the word “wood”, etc.); the meaning must be defined (“bird + red” could mean, for example, robin or bullfinch, “plant + red” red beech or rose). It is noticeable that the determinative “d” used in Sumerian (image of a star; denotes deities) does not yet exist in PE (→ IV–7; for the ED I–II period see UET 2, p. 19f.). The star still denotes a star, possibly also an adjective “sparkling” or similar. The (pseudo) determinatives AB and É for place names, which are still frequent in the lexical list a3/CITIES, are no longer perceived as such by the Sumerians (see NABU 2013/55, note 13); they additionally use the Sumerian place determinative KI (ki). Some determinatives are in front of (GIŠ [giš] – wood), others behind (KU6 [kU6] – fish) the noun to be classified. Unfortunately, nothing can be concluded from this. The later determinative DUG [dug] (jar, vessel; not yet used as determinative in PE; see a3/VESSELS) precedes KAŠ [kaš] (beer) in m1/244 (as does the determinative later), but could mean something else.
d) The writing is not phonetic (→ III–1–g)3, but descriptive or possibly “associative”4: a combination of several signs designates a certain word, if necessary a process or a state (“a situation”); compare modern traffic signs, especially the one for the “Beginning of a pedestrian priority area”. Signs like NINKUM, consisting of seven individual signs, are probably to be understood in a similar way.
e) The meaning of the combination “sign A + sign B” must have been fixed; in many cases it cannot be guessed (cf. in Chinese WOMAN + SON = GOOD [hăo]; TREE + SON = PLUM [lĭ]; see Tong & Shen 1995). Often it is not the cultural background but simply the language that provides the key to understanding (a German rebus: the “signs” UHR [clock] + LAUB [foliage] = URLAUB [holidays]). In the simplest case, the sign combination is language-independent and immediately obvious: HEAD (SAG) + BREAD (NINDA) = TO EAT (GU7). Sign combinations (as well as individual signs: → III–1–b1) can have different meanings: 1N57 + BA occurs as a personal name (→ VII), but is hardly a name or part of a name in a5/6066,a, ~b, a5/6288 and ~7343,1; compare also 1N57 + U4 as a personal name in → VII and as an age group in the → “Index of Terms”. The meaning of PE sign combinations in which the pairing of the individual elements does not make any recognisable sense (NUN + ME = ABGAL [sage]) can only be determined if they are still used in Sumerian. In this sense, ligatures are no longer to be classified as something special; they can be formed for aesthetic reasons (NÁM+EŠDA), but also to distinguish one term from another, cf. EN+NUN (a5/9578,b ii2; see ZATU s.v.) vs. EN NUN (m1/112 ii11). “Enclosing signs” (standard signs into which others are inscribed) such as GÁ or LAGAB serve a similar purpose.
f) Reverse spellings: A peculiarity of Sumerian orthography is some spellings that are read in the opposite order to the written signs; the best known example is ZU.AB with the reading /abzu/. The later Sumerian word for king (lugal) also occurs – albeit rarely – already in the Uruk III period texts as an inverse spelling (GAL.LÚ). Probably GAL.LÚ means “the great LÚ” in PE, in which LÚ presumably did not originally denote “man”. The Sumerians later read it as “lugal” – “the great man”, just as “WHITE + COW” (PE) became “COW + WHITE” in Sumerian; see NABU 2015/1.
g) Provided that the texts of the Uruk III period are not written in Sumerian (→ II–1), the claim that the writing is not phonetic (i.e. “syllabic”, with syllables for which homophonic words/signs are used in the respective case regardless of their meaning) can only be made plausible (not proven) by means of examples of words adopted into Sumerian, since PE, as an unknown language, is not phonetically legible5. ABGAL [sage] /abgal/ is written NUN.ME (in Sumerian it could have been written “syllabically” as AB-GAL; the known Sumerian phonetic values of NUN and ME do not permit a reading /abgal/). The ME constituent also occurs in EN.ME.GI /engiz/, but this reading has nothing to do with /abgal/. NUN occurs in the so-called “City Seal” (Matthews 1991) in the place name Nippur; also Nippur /nibru/ has nothing to do with /abgal/6. There are no indications of phonetic spellings.
Likewise, phonetic indicators that would have opened the door to the use of syllabic spellings have not been proven with certainty. The few cases in which one could think of phonetic indicators (such as EN in GÁ×EN “=” MEN; literature in note 5) are likely to be based on chance; they are not statistically relevant. Think of the adoption of the Phoenician alphabet by the Greeks. “Signs” (letters) that were in existence were retained but reinterpreted (spelling of vowels with letters denoting Semitic sounds that did not exist in Greek).
In summary, no convincing example is known of syllabic spellings or phonetic indicators being used in the texts of the Uruk period. One can only “translate” with certainty place names and occupational titles whose spelling is retained by the Sumerians. They are definitely not written syllabically. Animals, food, adjectives etc. are mostly represented by only one sign each. Longer passages in subscripts or subtotals often cannot be interpreted or even “read” (phonetically). Another indication that syllabic spellings are unlikely is the fact that the most frequent signs (Englund 1998, 70) all have a concrete meaning and can be understood – as far as possible – in that meaning in the texts (the signs are therefore not used syllabically; for the sign ‘A’ → III–I–b1 und III–3–b).
Syllabic spellings, on the other hand, already appear in the earliest Sumerian texts: áš-gàr (ATFU, text no. 2). Rebus spellings attested in the PE language (→ III–1–e) would almost automatically have pointed the way to a syllabary; had the Proto-Euphratians been able to use this technique, they probably would have done so. No evidence can be provided for such things for the time being. Ergo: any “syllabic” spellings in PE texts should be Sumerian. It would not be surprising to find a few Sumerian terms embedded in a PE text. After all, the Sumerians lived together with the Proto-Euphratians in Mesopotamia.
h) It is particularly revealing to take a look at the Uruk III period lexical list ‘Tribute’, which some scholars believe is the first piece of literature (a3/TRIBUTE; Englund 1998, 99–102; Civil 2013; NABU 2017/29). This list is known in redacted copies from the ED up to the OB period (for details see Civil 2013). Civil in particular tries to prove that ‘Tribute’ was written in the Sumerian language. The first two ‘cases’ (→ II, note 1) read as follows
Uruk III (according to a comparison of the copies in ATU 3; case 1):
SAG KI AD
(orKI SAG AD)
Civil writes instead of that:
UD:ADKI:SAG
Civil for ED–OB:
AD:GI4KI:SAG
Uruk III (copies; case 2 [contains two lines, here separated by “|”]):
ḪAL DUAD | NUN.ME
(orDU ḪAL AD)
Civil writes instead of that:
AD:ḪAL | NUN:ME:DU
Civil for ED–OB:
AD:ḪAL | NUN.ME.DU
NUN.ME = ABGAL (→ III–1–g), NUN.ME.DU = ABRIG (an administrator). ABRIG (Civil’s reading) is only attested in this text and in the OB period, which means more than 1000 years later. As a comparison of the above transcriptions shows, ABRIG is not attested in the Uruk period. In both cases, AD is at the end of the line or half-line, not at the beginning, as transcribed by Civil. The sign UD (= U4), which is not found in all texts, looks like it was shoehorned in afterwards. The order of the signs in texts of the Uruk period (in contrast to the ED I–II period) is relatively fixed (→ II–1), although two interchanges occur just here (see the transcription). The regroupings carried out by Civil are likely to go too far. KI.SAG was perceived as a unit, see a3/TRIBUTE no. 84; possibly this also applied to DU.ḪAL, hence perhaps the sign transpositions. The delimitation of KI.SAG and DU.ḪAL against AD is unambiguous, as a glance at the copies shows, as is the unit NUN.ME. “The compound word ad -ḫal [the Sumerian reading of AD.ḪAL; analogue in the following statements] seems otherwise unattested in archaic or ED texts” (Civil, p. 24); therefore it must not have existed either, nor is it in the text. “It seems more reasonable ... to take ad and ḫa l separately, taking a d as ‘advice’ or ‘decision’, as in line 01, and ḫal as ‘share’”(Civil, p. 24). According to the ePSD, “share” in the spelling ḪAL is only attested after 2000 BC. In “line 01”, AD is not translated as “advice”; rather it says there: “The meaning of the phrase AD-GI4, ‘deliberation, deliberated decision, advice,’ is not controversial.” According to the ePSD ‘ad-gi4’ means “to give advice” (‘gi4’ means “to return”, ‘ad’ might be “voice”); AD alone is not attested in the meaning “advice” (AD looks like a tool; it occurs in the list a3/WOOD). All sources except the Uruk source have GI4 (the oldest copies of the list are from the Fara period, so they are about 400 years younger than the original). The GI4 was presumably “added” at a later date in order to give meaning to the archaic Uruk text, which had now become incomprehensible. Should Sumerian AD.GI4 have been meant for AD from the outset, it could and should have been written by a Sumerian on the assumption that it is an expression composed of two components (“to give [GI4] advice [AD]” or similar; this is presumably what Civil means by “phrase”, see above), since AD, taken by itself, means something else (cf. the use of the sign ‘A’ in a figurative sense, → III–3–b): there was the sign GI47. Should AD.GI4 have been a word whose etymology was no longer known (as in German, e.g. Himbeere [raspberry]), which was only broken up into the two components AD+GI4 in order to be able to write it (similar to the sign for Dilmun in NI+TUK for technical reasons of writing), a Sumerian in the Uruk period would have written only the first syllable of the word (“syllabic” with a sign [AD] which – taken by itself – means something else). This is extremely unlikely: he would thereby have recognised the syllabic structure of the language; one could have written everything syllabically, as in later times. However, this was not the case (so in the Uruk version of the list a3/TRIBUTE, AD was meant, not AD.GI4). AD.GI4 occurs once in the name (?) ḪI.AD.GI4 in the Uruk III period text m4/79 (but could mean something else there; in any case, the text shows that AD.GI4 could be written). The text is therefore not Sumerian and remains incomprehensible. There are further inconsistencies in the list a3/TRIBUTE (such as the alleged occurrence of EN.GÁN = *BURU14 [harvest] in line 83), which will not be listed here; the reader is referred to the literature cited above.
2. Vocabulary
a) The determinatives AB u É disappear (→ a3/CITIES) and are no longer recognised as such in Sumerian (addition of ‘ki’: ŠEŠ(“=” ÙRI).ABki); this does not necessarily mean that there are two different languages involved (→ II–2 and III–1–c). Determinatives can be placed before (uru, dug) and after (MUŠEN [mušen], KU6 [kU6]) a word.
b) Reduplication: A reduplication can be regarded as a special case of “sign A + sign B” (→III–1–e). By reduplication, a new word is formed – in a different way than in Sumerian –, the meaning of which cannot be directly deduced from the sign. A new term is implied, e.g. by ÁB.ÁB in a3/CATTLE (no. 25) and EN.EN in a3/VOCAB 3 (ii3); these terms also occur in administrative texts, see below. Sumerian equivalents are not known. The reduplication does not denote the plural as in Sumerian (ŠE.ŠE [“barley.barley”; m1/1] would be meaningless; nor is a genitive compound possible here). GÁN ŠE.ŠE does not exist in Sumerian8, but ‘gán še’ does (cf. P247596 rev. ii2–4 [ED IIIb], fields with barley, white emmer and wheat [še, zíz-babbar and gig]), which, however, also occurs in PE: m1/7. Further examples that speak against the plural: a7/20274,12 i2: 1 NE ÁB.ÁB (see a3/CATTLE nos. 2 and 25), c1/63 rev. i3: 1 MÍ TUR.TUR. In a regens-rectum compound, it seems that both the regens and the rectum can be reduplicated. Rectum: cf. besides the cases already mentioned, GAL KIDb.KIDb (a3/Lú A no.124 [no. 123: GAL KIDb]; another possibility is to take GAL as an adjective and KIDb.KIDb as a new term in the sense mentioned above); GAL SANGA.SANGA (many attestations, including m3/73 i5; sometimes written SANGA-GAL-SANGA [m3/79 rev. ii], but probably always to be understood as GAL SANGA.SANGA). Regens: EN.EN KIDa (m1/107 rev.; possibly, however, to be read EN.KIDa, EN); KIDb.KIDb EN (m3/30 ii3; hardly: KIDb.EN.UR4, KIDb.TI); c31/89 ii8: MÍ A, c31/101 ii2: MÍ.MÍ A, though in this case it is not clear whether MÍ denotes a woman. For a comparable example from a later period, see the references s.v. sarru (thief) in the CAD: lú.IM = sarru, lú.IM.IM = šarrāqu (thief).
Reduplications can be adopted into Sumerian: DAḪ = MU+MU, NIR = NUN+NUN (sign form of writing phase Uruk III).
c) Adoption of the PE pronunciation of signs into Sumerian: Englund presumably rightly assumes that the PE sign for foot (DU) in Sumerian was replaced by the sign of an animal (GÌR) because of the consonance of the PE animal name and the Sumerian word for foot (Englund 1998, 80). It could be similar with the sign for beer (KAŠ), which was retained (and pronounced as Sumerian), but additionally assigned the otherwise hardly justifiable phonetic value ‘bi’: was ‘bi’ an echo of the PE word for beer (Englund 1998, 80)? Another candidate is the “bevelled rim bowl” (Glockentopf) denoting “bread” (Sumerian ninda); the additional reading ‘ĝar’ = “to put” could be due to PE pronunciation. It is likely that PE words in which the signs are read singly in Sumerian (and subsequently no longer make sense) can be adopted. An example could be the place name Girsu (a3/CITIES no. 59: GÍR.SU; SF 23 IV 4: ⌈su⌉-gír; OIP 99, 21 iv10: su-[ ]). There is still something similar today. The Japanese word jindō “humanity”, which is written with two characters (“jin + dō” = “human + way”; Wendt 1961, 169), has been adopted in Chinese in this form; however, the characters here are not read in Japanese but in Chinese: réndào (jin = rén, dō = dào) [Tong & Shen, 1995].
d) Substitution of PE words by Sumerian words: NÁM.DI (a3/Lú A no. 3; almost certainly “chief judge” [Sumerian: NÁM (nám) = Lord, DI (di) = legal decision]) → di-kud = judge (Sumerian ‘kud’ = to cut, to decide).
e) The most frequent sign, EN, means (almost certainly) in PE “offering” and “the one who offers up the sacrifice (= priest)”, in Sumerian “priest” and (because of the linguistic similarity) “Lord”. There is not a single passage in the texts of the writing phases Uruk IV and Uruk III which – as is commonly accepted – requires the translation “Lord”, → V–1.
f) AN does not mean “god” as in Sumerian, but “star”, → IV–7.
g) KI in PE means “field, (ground)” (m1/1), in Sumerian it no longer exists in this sense; cf. → V–1–d.
h) “GI”, one of the three most common PE verbs (BA, GI and GU7), no longer exists in Sumerian (→ IV–11). There is no known replacement.
3. Grammar
a) Traceability
Since, as already mentioned in → II–1, in the earliest texts (Uruk and Ur [ED I–II]) only the most necessary information is recorded in a kind of telegraphic style, little can be said about the grammar (for the ED I–II period cf. UET 2, p. 5 and p. 22f.; ATFU, p. 9 and Wilcke 1995, 669f.) Even in the ED III period, the statements are quite concise (compare, for example, “The instructions of Shuruppak” with the later versions [see Biggs 1974, 57–62]). Information for the Uruk period can only be expected from the lexical lists, longer entries in administrative texts, colophons and possibly the archaic kudurrus (OIP 104). (Written) conjugation and declension endings cannot be identified, nor can prepositions, conjunctions and subordinators. The only verifiable “grammatical” elements are the determinatives discussed above under → III–1–c and under III–2–a.
b) “Modifiers”
Modifiers that change a word in any way (→ see III–1–b1–iii) do not seem to exist. A suitable sign that could be used for this purpose should appear particularly often in the text corpus. There is no known example of this. “-A” could – with a little goodwill – be addressed as a pseudo-modifier, an independent word whose function was no longer relevant to the Sumerians (→ III–1–b1–iii). As already mentioned in → III–3–a, grammatical endings are still sparingly designated in the ED I–II period. An example may shed light on this: GU7 means “consumption” in PE (as a noun or as a corresponding verb), → IV–11. This also applies in the ED I–II period (ad UET 2, no. 186 ii7 [UDU GU7 “=” udu kú] see Wilcke 1995, 670 top). In the OS period one finds the expression “udu-kúa-PN” – “sheep consumption of PN” [Selz 1989, Nik 148]). The PE “-A combinations” such as NUN-A (NUN.A), BU-A or EN-A (meaningless in Sumerian, → III–1–b1) no longer exist in Sumerian; instead, one finds the “-a” endings familiar from Sumerian grammar (locative “-a” etc.). Ergo: “-A” has a different function in the texts of the Uruk period than in Sumerian, so the (written) language of the Uruk period (PE) and Sumerian are presumably different languages. In both languages “-A” is used in a figurative sense (→ III–1–b1; this again shows that also the Proto-Euphratians possessed a high ability to abstract)9.
c) Gender
There was no written feminine ending (→ III – 3 – a). The fact that female names are indicated in the texts by the sign MÍ (“woman”) does not necessarily mean that they were pronounced differently from male names (presumably this was not the case either). Examples: Englund 1998, 177; the female name ZI.AN mentioned there also occurs in c31/19, line “2.d2” as a female name (AN.ZI, cf. line “2.d1”). The female name DIM given in c31/19, line “4.d2” occurs as a female name in a6/17981,a ii2, as a male (or unmarked) name in several texts (e.g. in a5/9123,ac i3 or in a6/14731,c i2). Very revealing is also Englund’s Enlil-ti compilation (Englund 1998, 75; → I–4); cf. especially the two entries from m1/212: EN.É.TI and MÍ-EN.É.TI (the actual order of the signs is somewhat “unorthodox” in m1/212).
d) Plural
As stated in → III–3–a, the plural is not marked (which does not mean that it was not expressed in the spoken language). In Sumerian, the noun to be rendered plural can be written twice. As already stated in → III–2–b, the double placement of a sign has a different meaning in PE. A summary can (but need not) be expressed in PE (as well as in Sumerian) in other ways: m ZÍZ + n ŠE = m + n ŠE (m emmer + n barley = m + n barley [here, barley in the sense of grain]): m1/38; m ÙZ + n MÁŠ = m + n UDU (mnanny goats + n billy goats = m + n sheep [here, sheep in the sense of small cattle]): m4/61. Further expressions: GU4.ÁB (bulls and cows [in the sense of cattle]): a5/7227,a rev.; MÍ.KUR (female and male workers): m1/212 rev. ii1; MÍ+ZATU751 (“ZATU751-women”): m1/215 rev.; LAGAB (sum, total): m1/1 rev.; ... .
e) Case
The genitive is denoted by juxtaposing the regens and the rectum: SANGA-AB AB-GÌR.gunû (m1/184 i1) can hardly mean anything other than “the SANGA-official of the AB-household, the AB-official of the GÌR.gunû (a title)”; GÍR UDU (a3/METAL no. 67; Englund 1998, note 329) “knife (for the) sheep” (genetivus obiectivus); EN TÚG (a3/VESSELS no. 90) “the cloth of/for the EN (literally: of the EN <its/his> cloth)”. The preceding genitive is used like an adjective in English: the ‘EN’ cloth.
f) Occupational designations
In occupational designations, the defining element (“the chief of ...”) comes first in PE (see particularly a3/Lú A: NÁM, GAL, ...). It is noticeable that GAL appears as an adjective in the occupational names adopted into Sumerian: GAL.UKKIN → kingal, kin-gal; GAL.NAR → nar-gal (presumably a more recent word coinage); GAL.BÚR → ušumgal; GAL.LÚ → lugal; but: GAL.NIMGIR (a3/Lú A no. 65) likewise in P270817 iii5 (ED IIIa). Further attestations: see SF 28 rev. IV 1–3.
g) Adjective
In contrast to Sumerian, the adjective precedes the substantive (Englund 1998, note 170; → III–3–e). An example: Lexical list a3/CATTLE no. 4: GI6 ÁB (“black cow”); a6/14275 ii2: 2N1 GI6 ÁB (“two black cows”; administrative document). An exception is the “adjective” TUR (image of a bosom; “small“; see Englund 1998, note 136): m3/11 i1 and i2 – n GAL ŠEN, m ŠEN TUR (“n large cauldrons, m small cauldrons”); c21/109 i1b – n GAL GÁ, m GÁ TUR; a3/Lú A nos. 35 and 36 – GAL IM, IM TUR; ŠÀ TUR (“child” = “heart/interior + TUR”; see Englund 1998, note 406); EN TUR (“a child out of preschool age”, → V–1–i). The fact that the “adjective” can precede or follow the noun has nothing to do with the phenomenon, known from Italian, that some adjectives have a different meaning depending on their position (un dolce ricordo – a “sweet” [= dear] memory; il vino dolce – the sweet wine [= dessert wine]).
h) Syntax
In every language there are rules for word order; that these were expressed in writing in PE has just been demonstrated (→ III–3–g; cf. further UB–ŠÀ vs. ŠÀ–URI [→ V–3]). The verb is obviously (as in Sumerian) at the end of the sentence: n DUG, GI.GI BA, GU7; ZATU648 (a7/20274,139 [→ fig. 2]): GU7 and BA are verbs (ad libitum also nominal expressions; → IV–11), GI.GI is a personal name, ZATU648 designates an institution, DUG means jug. The given example also shows that subordinate clauses (GI.GI BA) can be inserted into main clauses. Since information in administrative texts will not always have been written down in the order of the spoken language, deviations occur (cf. the subscript in a7/20274,39: n DUG, GU7, GI.GI; ZATU648; compare NABU 2018/93).
IV. DOCUMENT OBSERVATIONS
Since this study is primarily concerned with the language of the archaic texts and not with their structure, the explanations can be kept brief. Only a selection of document types1 that can be interpreted with certainty is presented together with typical text representatives2. Of central importance, disregarding the so-called lexical lists, is always the question of whether the form can still be found in the archaic Sumerian texts from Ur and the other texts of the ED period in the same or slightly modified form. Individual form types have already been studied several times, such as the lexical lists in ATU 3 or the cattle texts by Green in her article “Animal Husbandry at Uruk in the Archaic Period” (Green 1980)3. Almost the entire spectrum of all occurring form types is discussed in OBO 160/1 (Englund 1998), similarly already by Nissen et al. 1990 (here, special reference should be made to the treatment of brewery texts [pp. 66–75]). Larger groups of texts are referred to in many publications (see, e.g., ATU 5, catalogue entry to a5/5233,a). The results achieved are referred to at the appropriate place, but they are not compiled again separately at this point.
Texts whose content is in principle clear (m1/18: addition of a barley and an emmer amount), but which are nevertheless not understood in all their details because the subscript4, which explains the sum, remains unclear in its meaning, are not discussed. The situation is similar, for example, with the fragment m4/10. This category also includes (almost) completely preserved texts such as m1/20 or m1/21, which can be theoretically interpreted but cannot be clearly assigned.
Topics:
| 1) | – Lexical lists (LL) |
| 2) | – Lists with names of persons |
| 3) | – Rations lists |
| 4) | – Lists of goods |
| 5) | – Mixed accounts (and accounts) |
| 6) | – Texts with calculations |
| 7) | – Feasts and festivals |
| 8) | – Offerings for Uruk? |
| 9) | – Time and calendar |
| 10) | – Field texts |
| 11) | – The three most common verbs: BA, GI and GU7 |
| 12) | – Additional payment notes |
1) – Lexical lists (LL; see ATU 3 and Englund 1998, 82–106)
In the LL, nouns are arranged according to subject areas (professions, plants, birds, fish etc.). The first LL were already compiled in the Uruk IV period, but in part not yet in the later canonical form (i.e. “only” so-called Vorläufer [precursors]). In the Uruk III period, the system was fully developed. An excellent compilation can be found in Englund 1998 on p. 88f. In later times (ED period), only a few new lists were added, such as the list ‘Lú E’ (‘dubsar’), which itemises typical Sumerian occupational designations5 in place of the PE names of professions (‘a3/Lú A’). Particularly noteworthy are the lists of gods, which definitely did not exist in PE times6. Many of the LL were still being copied in later times (such as a3/Lú A as well as Lú E; the signs were each written in the contemporary modern form), although the meaning was often no longer understood. A particularly good example of this is the a3/TRIBUTE list already mentioned (→ III–1–h). The other lists were “adapted” as well (see, e.g., NABU 2013/55, note 3). Sometimes it remains unclear whether it was an oversight or intention (substitution of the sign NIM by the similar-looking sign NIb: PE a3/Lú A no. 23 – GAL NIMa; in UET 2 [ED I–II] one finds GAL NIb instead).
This category also comprises the so-called VOCABULARIES, according to a3/p37 “offenbar Zusammenstellungen von Zeichen sowie möglicherweise von Wörtern und Phrasen einer uns unbekannten Sprache (...). Der Sinn ist unklar, ebenso die Beziehung zu der folgenden Gruppe, die unter der Bezeichnung ‘Schultexte’ läuft”7. In ATU 3 there is furthermore the group UNIDENTIFIED; this designation is self-explanatory.
2) – Lists with names of persons (cf. Englund 1998, 176–181, “Labor organization”)
There is no need to emphasise that there have always and everywhere been lists with names of persons. In the Uruk period, personal names are not usually preceded by a determinative as in later times (I [male names] or MÍ [female names], see texts MS 2428 [a list] or m1/11 [an administrative text; ŠU.ŠU is a PN]). In many cases one has “mixed” lists with personal names and occupational designations: c1/18 (BU.PAP+NÁM in ii8 is a typical title of an official, ŠU.ŠU in ii1 is the just mentioned PN). If a name is preceded by the number “1” (PE: 1N1), which corresponds to the later “Mr wedge” (I [determinative before male names, see above]), this means, as is usual in lists, “new entry”, not “Mr” (m1/68: men’s names; m1/219: women’s names). In cases of doubt, it is not clear whether 1N1 means “new entry” or “number of entities: 1”8. Texts m1/212–214 list prisoners (or slaves?); different age groups are recorded in W 20274,2. Attention should also be drawn to a group of texts in which the expression UB.AB, which is no longer used in later times, appears (13 texts). In m1/215, a list with personal names, the subscript reads “n MÍ+ZATU751b, UB.AB” – “n ...-women, UB.AB”; in m1/219, a fragment of a similar list, the number of women is missing. It is interesting that in the list m1/215 the person’s name is in many cases replaced by the “substitute sign” UB. One might assume that UB denotes a type of (female) worker; the names may not have been known in all cases (or, since they were foreign, they were difficult to spell, → II– 2). UB.AB would then be “worker of/for the AB household”; less likely: the “AB official of the workers” (m1/219: AB.UB, but otherwise always the other way round; cf. NABU 2019/56, last paragraph). A variant of the sign ZATU751b, ZATU751a, also occurs as a designation in the aforementioned prisoner texts m1/212–214. The shape of the sign is reminiscent of a withers yoke. Text m1/68, another UB.AB list, has as subscript “n UB.AB, BAR” – “n additional9 UB.AB”10. The other UB.AB texts do not necessarily support the assumption put forward. Thus, it must remain open whether it is true or not. In any case, the considerations exemplify the difficulties one faces in interpreting the archaic texts.
3) – Rations lists
The classic article on this topic was written by I. J. Gelb: “The Ancient Mesopotamian Ration System” (JNES 24 [1965] 230–243); the “classical” ration in Mesopotamia (Sumer), ‘še-ba’, does not yet exist in the Uruk period11. The characteristic ration bowl for cereals (še) of the Uruk period is the so-called bevelled rim bowl (Glockentopf) with a capacity12 of approximately 0.8 l (the other types of rations are only examined here in passing). Rations are characterised by the fact that all portions are of the same size (possibly larger for those persons higher in rank). Texts of this kind are rare in the Uruk period, and if one looks at them, one notices, as already said, that the term ‘še-ba’ is not used (but this does not necessarily mean anything). Instead of this designation, one finds “normal” numbers (nN1), with which bevelled rim bowls could have been counted13. A typical ration list appears to be m1/112; here, in the preserved part, food is distributed in the vessels ŠITA (= ?) and UKKIN (Englund 1998, 103: “a vessel for dairy oil”; fig. on p. 159)14. Another example is m1/146 (according to Englund in the text catalogue to MSVO 1 “an account of probable rations”). Other products occur here, including 1N1 KAŠ (1 <mug> of beer) and 1N1 SÌLA×KU6 (1 ... fish (product)). For the unit ZATU659×1N1, also mentioned in the text, see Englund’s catalogue entry on m4/55. Grain rations in the capacity measures system are recorded in m4/60. Of particular interest is m1/147, in which “n EN NINDA” – “n ‘gifts’ (EN?; → V–1) <of> bread (NINDA)” is found in the first ‘case’ (line) alongside the designations occurring in m1/146. This EN could continue to serve as a heading for the following entries “1N1 KAŠ” – “1 <mug> of beer”, “2N1 ŠITA” – “2 ...” and so on. Could “EN NINDA” be the equivalent of ‘še-ba’ (the conventional translation would be “Lord (of) bread” or vice versa)15? The total on the reverse lists the amount of NINDA, KAŠ and ŠITA units (bread, beer and ?) spent. The subscript of m1/146 reads “KAŠ NINDA NI+RU U4+1N57” – “beer (and) bread (in) NI+RU [a building or toponym] (for) one/the first year.”
Barley deliveries in general (seed grain, crop yields, larger deliveries to economic businesses or from those, etc.) are to be separated from the rations lists. It is not easy to break down the archaic texts according to such criteria. It is characteristic that – in contrast to rations lists – the size of the amounts from/for the individual persons is naturally different. Reference should be made in this context to Englund 1998, 184–188 (“Grain distribution”); for (special) barley allocations (‘še-gar’) in the Old Sumerian period, see Selz 1989, p. 40 (catalogue). The signs ŠE and BA certainly occur together in one ‘case’ (line) in the Uruk period, but not in the sense of ‘še-ba’ in the later Sumerian rations lists. Examples: m1/104 (“ŠE BA, SANGA NI+RU” – “barley, delivered [‘brought before (one’s) eyes’]; the SANGA official of the NI+RU”), m4/48, m4/49 and c1/88. The comparison of the two texts m1/26 and m1/27 (partly the same officials with the same amounts) is instructive. In m1/26 the barley is only allocated, in m1/27 already debited [consumed] (→ below, IV–11, “The three most common verbs”). The text m1/78 is, according to Englund (text catalogue of MSVO 1), a hybrid text – a “grain account” in which rations are probably additionally recorded.
4) – Lists of goods
A distinction can be made between four basic types: a) lists which – apart from the subscript – only deal with products (in the broadest sense) as such; b) lists in which products are assigned to persons or institutions; c) lists in which products are assigned to products (→ below, IV–6); d) lists in which products are compiled for a purpose (→ below, IV–7 [festivals as an example]). The intended use of the listed goods is generally indicated in the subscript. For “derived” lists such as balance sheets or Sammeltafeln, reference is made to Englund 1998 (a good example can be found there in fig. 76). There are countless mixed forms; one example is MS 4162: after a list of various sheep and goats, a person (?) to whom the animals are assigned follows on the obverse of the tablet in each case; see also below, → IV–5.
This classification is independent of the PE language; only for the sake of completeness are a few examples listed here. Differences to lists from later times might be found in the type of products occurring, (the arrangement of the entries) as well as (linguistically) in the subscript. Such an investigation will not be presented here.
a) “Products” (animate beings enclosed)
– humans: m1/220 (slaves); → generally above under IV–2
– animals: c1/45 (sheep), c31/65 (do.), a6/14361 (cattle), c21/54 (asses or onagers [KIŠ]), c31/53 (do.), MS 2963 (do.), W 21107 (fish and fish products16), m4/11 (fish and birds)
– animal products (including artisanal products made from these): a6/10585 (wool and textiles), MS 2782/15 (do.), W 20274,97 (dairy fat, textiles and cheese)
– plants and products of or made from them: a5/9656, bp (amongst others figs and apples), a7/20044,58 (different types of “biscuits”), m3/52 (groats and malt), a7/19408, 21 (beer?)
– textiles, groats, an ox, dried fish, ...: m4/19
– fields and garden plots: – (there are probably no examples; a6/15772,k could fit, but most of the tablet is missing)
– objects: a6/13946,n1 (metal objects), m4/21 (do.)
– unnamed objects: – (only ‘numerical tablets’ like a5/6245,c; see Englund 1998, 50–51)
b) Products & persons or institutions (in many cases there is an overlap with rations lists)
– humans: MS 2436
– animals: m4/8 (sheep and goats), a5/7227,a (cattle); c31/44 (asses or onagers [KIŠ]), W 20367,1 (fish and fish products)
– animal products (including artisanal products made from these): W 20274,80+ (wool and textiles), a7/20274,39 (dairy fat)
– plants and products of or made from them: W 21081,1 (apples; calculation error in the sum), W 20907,3 (figs and apples), m1/20 (barley), a5/9311,c (beer), c1/168 (do.), W 19408,50a (do.)
– fields and garden plots: m1/1
– objects: – (no clear example found; W 19948,1??)
– unnamed objects (possibly the designation is just not preserved): a5/6252 (but „LAGAR“ could be the object), m1/66, m1/184, m1/224, m4/20, m4/34
5) – Mixed accounts (and accounts)
‘Mixed account’ is a term frequently used by Englund in his text catalogues (see there, passim) to characterise comparable types of tablets in which different products are listed together on one tablet (in m1/93, for example, malt, groats, beer, sheep, a fish product, ...). In many mixed accounts one finds a time specification (m1/85: “32 months”, m1/89 “three years [third year?]”); see below, → IV–9. The fact that many details remain unclear in the subscripts (compare m1/95: EN-KIDa with m1/107: EN-KIDa EN or EN.EN-KIDa?; → III–2–b), has nothing to do with the classification of the texts.
By ‘account’ in general Englund means quite simple texts like m1/26 (“account ... of large grain rations ...”; see above, → IV–3 at the end) as well as very complex texts like m1/85 (on this, see Englund 1988, 154–155). Texts such as m1/163 (“account of dried fruits and a grape product (?)”) are classified differently in this study, see below, → IV–8. This again shows the difficulty of reasonably classifying the (larger) archaic administrative texts, which mostly consist of a list and a subscript. With the neutral term ‘account’ one is on the safe side, but it does not necessarily help the reader to understand the texts.
Since the ‘mixed accounts’ do not form a homogeneous group, no meaningful statement can be made about their continued existence17. Form types like m1/85 are not found later in that style, but the information collected could have been given in another form.
6) – Texts with calculations
This term is used for texts in which the quantity of raw materials for final products is calculated (e.g. the quantity of barley required for a certain number of mugs of a particular type of beer). The texts are not all structured in the same way, but in principle both the number of end products (e.g. n [filled] mugs of a certain type of beer), the amount of raw material (e.g. malt) needed to produce – to stick to the example – the n mugs of beer and the amount of raw material (e.g. barley in the form of groats or malt) required for all end products together (mugs with different types of beer) are recorded. Corresponding information can also be found in several ‘mixed accounts’ (e.g. in m1/93, see below; cf. → IV–5). Good studies on this topic can be found in Nissen et al. 1990, 71–75 and 79–82 and in Englund 1998, 188–204. For text examples for bread and types of “biscuits” see a5/5233,a (cf. the catalogue entry in ATU 5), m1/93, m3/2, m4/56 (see MSVO 4, pp. 17–19); for beer: m1/107, m3/2, m3/11. Two examples of the continuation of this practice in the Old Sumerian and Old Akkadian period, respectively, are presented by Nissen et al. 1990 on pp. 82–84.
7) – Feasts and festivals
The sign EZEN (Sumerian reading ‘ezen/m’, adopted into Akkadian as isinnu), which was used in later times for “feast, festival”, may also have meant “feast” in PE times, as the entry i3 in a7/21671 makes likely (“EZEN U4 AN MÙŠ” – “feast (for) the morning star [U4 AN, Venus] (who is the “goddess”) MÙŠ [Sumerian reading: Inanna]”). The sign for feast is the representation of a round, woven mat as a place mat for food (Boehmer 2014, his note 9). The sign ‘AN’ (drawing of a star) does not yet stand for “god (determinative: d)”18, but – as is suggested by the picture and as will be shown from here on – for “star”19. In PE, therefore, U4 AN and SIG AN (image of the rising or setting sun + star) mean “(Venus as) morning star” and “evening star”, respectively20. As a ligature (“morning+evening star”), U4 and SIG appear in addition to the Uruk period seal discussed in Boehmer 2014 (MÙŠ; U4+SIG AN, EZEN) only in four PE texts: a6/14111,o (without MÙŠ, AN, EZEN), a6/15897,c11 (without MÙŠ, EZEN), m3/55 (with MÙŠ, AN and EZEN) [→ fig. 3] and W 20274,33 (without MUŠ, AN, EZEN; in this document it is presumably not to be related to a feast; U4+SIG could be part of a name21). From the ED period onwards, the ligature U4+SIG is no longer attested. The arrangement of the signs on the seal and the fact that ‘MÙŠ’ is missing in a6/15897,c11 suggest that AN refers to the morning and evening star and not to MÙŠ (as a symbol of the “goddess”). Another piece of evidence that AN has nothing to do with MÙŠ (but can, of course, occur in names together with MÙŠ) is the text a7/20274,13 (see below; U4 AN EZEN). It is not compulsory to write the terms EZEN, AN or MÙŠ; often the backgrounds were known to contemporaries. Texts with the expression “(EZEN) MÙŠ (AN) U4 and/or SIG” occur exclusively in Uruk (Uruk IV and III). There are no corresponding notations in the ED period (only (d)MÙŠ without U4/SIG). This shows that the worship of the morning and evening star was a PE tradition. Venus was the symbolic personification of the “front-door protector” MÙŠ (Schilfringbündel, → I–4) in the sky. When she reappeared in the morning or evening sky, offerings may have been presented to her to pray for the well-being of the family and for her remaining in the sky. MÙŠ was the only “goddess” in PE times to whom sacrifices were verifiably offered22. This (“astral”) aspect initially recedes somewhat into the background in the ED period, although Venus always remained connected with dMÙŠ (= [Sumerian] Inanna); impressive are the observations of Venus made under King Ammiṣaduqa (1646–1626 BC), which are recorded on tablet 63 of the Babylonian omen series Enūma Anu Enlil (Reiner 1975)23.
The terms “sacrifice”, and “priest” (and “Lord”) are discussed in detail in → V–1; there one also finds useful information on feasts in general.
Finally, a compilation of relevant texts (a selection) and notes will be provided:
Feast texts
Texts which, apart from the first text, use the term EZEN (abbreviations: E – EZEN, S – SIG or U4, A – AN, M – MÙŠ):
a5/5233,b (SAM), a5/5233,c (E 2N57)24, a7/20274,13 (ESA; MÙŠ.ME is probably to be considered as a unit: a3/Lú A no. 58), a7/20274,46 (ESAM; the order of the signs is unusual: SEMA), a7/20327,10 (ESM), a7/20493,6+ (?; EZEN in connection with NUN [“prince”?]), a7/21671 (→ V–1–e), c1/140 (EZEN URU), c1/150 (EZEN EN SAG), m3/11 (ESAM), m3/55 (ESAM), W 15770,i (ESAM), W 15771,m (EAM), W 15773,f+ (ESM), W 20274,26 (EM (?) [surface of the tablet destroyed], EM), W 20274,31 (ESAM), W 20274,77 (ESAM, ESM), W 20274,86 (“ESAM”), W 20327,3 (ESAM), W 20494,5 (ESAM), W 20511,1 (ESAM), W 20511,2 (E[ ]M), W 23968 (ESAM, EAM), W 24025 (EAM).
Texts without the term EZEN (these texts do not necessarily have to be feast texts):
a5/6288 (SAM), m3/28 (SAM), W 15833,a6 (AM; presumably not a feast text; AM is a name, cf. texts like a7/20274,122 [list with allotments] or m3/35 [do.]); W 17879,t (SAM), W 23973,1 (SAM), W 24012,10 (SAM), W 24021,10 (SAM).
EZEN, AN and MÙŠ can (presumably) be personal names or constituents of them (examples in selection):
| AN | many names, → VII s.v. |
| AN.EZEN | c1/82 (obscure) |
| AN.MÙŠ | a7/20274,122; m3/35 (probably an official); → VII25 |
| EZEN | a6/14804,a+ ii12; c31/42; MS 3160; furthermore, EZEN appears as an entry in a3/VESSELS Vorläufer; cf. c14/217 rev. 2 (ED IIIb) |
| EZEN.MÙŠ | a6/15897,a2; MÙŠ.EZEN: a3/Lú A no. 80 |
| EN.EZEN | a5/9311,q; a6/14360; a7/21733,8; MS 3035 and others. In some instances one might have to translate “festive gift” instead (→ V–1–e; one does not exclude the other, cf. the name Theodor); compare en-ezem in c14/142 iii6 (ED IIIb) |
| MÙŠ | a5/7024; → VII |
| MÙŠ.ME | (an official, a3/Lú A no. 58) |
| MÙŠ.AB | m3/18 ii6; toponym (ZABALAM5): a3/20266,148 (= GEOGR X) |
It is noticeable that the sign NAGAR is mentioned in connection with festivals (→ V–1–e): a7/21671 iii8 “EN.NAGAR.ÙRI”; m3/11 iii8 “1N14 DUG, EZEN, NAGAR AN SIG MÙŠ, U4+2N8” – “10 jars (for) the ‘NAGAR’ festival (for Venus as) evening star, (represented by the symbol) MÙŠ (Sumerian: Inanna); second day (or: two days)”. Compare on this a7/21671 ii1 “EZE[N] AN SIG MÙŠ” – “feast (for Venus as) evening star, (represented by the symbol) MÙŠ”. Similar is m3/55 i1: “1N14 2N1 ḪI.gunû (a grain) AN U4+SIG MÙŠ NAGAR EZEN.” This could possibly include NAGAR ŠAGAN in a3/TRIBUTE (→ V–2).
One more peculiarity should be pointed out: in m4/52 there could be a reference to sacrifices for statues (substitutes); cf. Selz 1989 on this, text Nik 23, R 11 (see also Nik 59 *6); sacrifices for shrines: Nik 26, R 7; see also below, → IV–8.
The names of months are often formed in later times with the names of festivals (for the ED I–II period cf. UET 2, p.18 “N”; for later times see Alberti & Pomponio 1986, 53f). Englund (~ 1998, 127) and Monaco (c1/p195) consider this conceivable as early as in the PE period.
In the ED period, EZEN occurs in contexts still unfamiliar in PE, cf. for example “u4 ezem gu7 šúm ninda” – “on the day of the feast of consumption of onion and bread” (Lecompte 2013, p. 11). Entries such as “ezem-dba-ba6-ka” (Pinches 1908, no. 2) remind one of the PE texts.
Finally, attention should be drawn to the somewhat puzzling text a6/15897,a1, which includes U4, SIG und U4+SIG. In the text catalogue (a6/p27), “ungewöhnliche Zeitnotationen” (“unusual time notations”) are assumed.
8) – Offerings for Uruk?
Two toponyms – Uruk and the place where the tablet was issued – are characteristic of a small number of texts, most of which are sealed with a so-called ‘City Seal’.
The City Seals (there is not only one) are discussed in detail by Matthews in MSVO 2. On these seals the cuneiform spellings of several cities are pictorially represented. The order of the cities, as far as recognisable on the seals, is by and large based on the lexical list a3/CITIES (m2/p39)26. It is noticeable that Uruk, the largest city at the time, never appears in first place. There has been much speculation about the reasons. Englund, for example, initially thinks of CITIES as a “mythological or cultic hierarchy” (Englund 1998, 92)27, but because of the almost identical order of the cities on the seals and in the lexical list, he also considers possible a “political or economic meaning in the list, reflecting a ‘league of cities’” (Englund 1998, 94)28. According to Matthews, the “significance of certain shrines or tribal meeting places which existed before the rise in Mesopotamia of what were the world’s first cities” could be reflected in the order (m2/p48). Be that as it may, the seals undoubtedly point to early city leagues. From the ED period the “hexapolis” of Uruk, Adab, Nippur, Lagaš, Šuruppak and Umma (without a comparable seal) is known (see Nissen et al. 1990, 121–122; Pomponio & Visicato 1994, 10–20).
Darmowy fragment się skończył.
