Kitabı oku: «Considerations on the Proto-Euphratic Language (PE)», sayfa 3

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; 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 NI_b: PE a3/Lú A no. 23 – GAL NIM_a; in UET 2 [ED I–II] one finds GAL NI_b 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+ZATU751_b, 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 ZATU751_b, ZATU751_a, 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-KID_a with m1/107: EN-KID_a EN or EN.EN-KID_a?; → 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):

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).