ON THE OLD BABYLONIAN UNDERSTANDING OF GRAMMAR: A REEXAMINATION OF OBGT VI-X Peter J. Huber (Klosters)
The Old Babylonian Grammatical Texts (OBGT) in MSL IV give a detailed picture of Sumerian verbal syntax as seen througb tbe eyes of an Old Babylonian grammarian. Tbe picture does not necessarily correspond to any "true" Sumerian syntax. Tbe relevance of tbese texts lies in tbe fact tbat tbey are tbe earliest serious grammatical documents and tbey are more interesting as sucb tban as evidence for "true" Sumerian grammar. It seems tbat Black (1991) and Zoiyomi (2000) were tbe first to empbasize tbis bistoryof-science aspect. All authors prior to Black, and to some extent even Black, seem to bave taken tbe opposite view: even while appreciating tbe bistorical aspect of tbe grammatical texts, tbeir analyses were primarily interested in tbe ligbt tbe texts migbt tbrow on "true" Sumerian grammar. Here I investigate tbe model of Sumerian grammatical structure as it was created and understood by Old Babylonian scribes. Thus, this endeavor may be compared to the investigations reported by Bellugi and Brown (1971), which deal with tbe peculiar grammars underlying tbe utterances of cbildren at different stages of language acquisition, and witb tbe cbildren s implied formalization of language structure. Metbodologically, for my purpose, only tbose texts are suitable tbat contain Akkadian interpretations and are sufficiently systematically organized to reveal tbe underlying grammatical structure. Tbe texts OBGT VI-X are tbe only ones tbat satisfy tbese requirements.
Diakonoff once remarked facetiously tbat tbere are as many kinds of Sumerian as tbere are authors of Sumerian grammars. This also holds true for Old Babylonian autbors. It is fortunate tbat tbe texts OBGT VI-X form a closely knit group. I will attempt to extract from tbis material, and from this material alone, tbe model of Sumerian grammar assumed by tbe autbor(s) of tbese texts, and will consult otber texts and modern grammars for comparative purposes only. In particular, tbe only permissible structural information is tbat wbicb can be pulled from tbese texts tbemselves; tbe evidence from unilingual texts and modern grammars must be ignored. For semantic information, we migbt look furtber, if necessary. Despite tbese methodological restrictions, by paying close attention to the grid structure, I believe I bave been able to go beyond Black in several repsects and sbarpen some structural conclusions. Tbese advances concern in particular tbe structure of OBGT VII, the relationship between OBGT VI and X, tbe pronomial infix cbain, and tbe causative constructions. Sumerian, Akkadian, and modern Englisb or German syntax are sufficiently different tbat a translation of isolated verbal forms is impossible outside of a sentence context, strictly speaking. In particular, tbe Akkadian verbal case system makes fewer distinctions tban tbe Sumerian. Somewbat surprisingly, direct objects never seem to be referenced by an Akkadian pronoun in tbese paradigms; tbe Akkadian accusative refers eitber to a comitative object or to a subordinate subject. 1
JCS 59 (2007)
PETER J. HUBER To furtber complicate matters, Sumerian is an ergative language. Thus, the subject of an intransitive sentence and the direct object of a transitive sentence are treated in tbe same way. But, like most ergative languages, it is split ergative. Tbis sbows up in transitive paradigms by tbe fact tbat tbe same Sumerian pronoun in the identical position sometimes refers to tbe subject and sometimes to tbe direct object, depending on factors sucb as tbe tense. Since I do not want to enter into a discussion of tbe meaning of tbe Akkadian terms maru and hamtu, I will generally use tbe notions of present and preterite tense, wbicb at least bave an establisbed meaning in tbe Akkadian language, and tbereby permit a classification of Sumerian forms according to tbeir Akkadian counterparts. In order to empbasize the structure intended by tbe OB grammarian, I sball quote tbe texts by paragrapbs ratber tban by lines. Tbe order of presentation is more or less tbe one suggested by tbe paradigms. The construction principles that seem to underly tbe paradigms OBGT VI-X can be summarized as follows: • Tbe paradigms were designed to illustrate specific, sticky issues of Sumerian verbal syntax (as understood by OB grammarians), most of tbem also controversial in modern grammars
(Tbomsen 1984, Attinger 1993, Edzard 2003, Micbalowski 2004). • Tbe paradigm grids were constructed on tbe basis of tbe Akkadian grammar, witb its coarser case structure. But it would be a gross oversimplification to consider eitber tbe Sumerian or tbe Akkadian column as a translation of tbe otber. • Tbere are didactic inserts to bighlight Sumerian peculiarities and otber features tbat do not fit into tbe Akkadian straitjacket of tbe grids. 1. The Texts The texts are published in MSL IV (1956) as OBGT VI-X, with important additions by Black (1991). Tbeir provenance bas variously been conjectured as Larsa {MSL IV, p. 1*) or more firmly attributed to Nippur (Black 1991: 11), but it remains unknown (personal communication from M. Givil). I sball refer to tbese tablets according to their present location as The Oriental Institute (01) recension. A substantial initial part of OBGT VII is also preserved in a recension from Ur {UET 7 97, 98, 100, 101; see Black 1991: 13748). A comparison between tbe recensions sbows tbat for tbe assumed Sumerian morphology, we often have to rely on the grid structure, as tbere are too many variations of spelling. For example:
VII §35:
ga-a-mu-un-se-en-ze-en (01), gen-am-si-ze-en (Ur) common morpbology: /gen/-/m/-/n/-/si/-/enzen/ = alkanissum = "come(pl.) to bim!" Grammatical texts can bigbligbt sticky points tbat become visible only wben seen througb the rigid grid of a paradigm. For example, the grid permits separating the prefix mu- from the graphically similar ventive and the pronoun of the 1st person. Furthermore, tbe paradigms can elucidate tbe pbonetical and grapbical vagaries of the cuneiform representation of morphological consonant clusters. A surprising amount of grammatical insight can be gleaned already from a careful scrutiny of tbe grid structure.
Tables 1 to 4 present extracts from tbe paradigms, designed to bigbligbt tbis grid structure. Gaps in tbe numbering of tbe paragraphs (VII §11, 14-15; VI §21-28, 35, 56-57, 64-65) correspond to tbe didactic inserts mentioned above; tbey sball be discussed separately. In Tables 3 and 4,1 bave suppressed tbe (mostly straigbtforward) Akkadian and Englisb interpretations.
ON THE OLD BABYLONIAN UNDERSTANDING OF GRAMMAR Table 1. Tbe first ten paragrapbs of OBGT VII (taken from tbe Ur recension, UET 7 100). Non-indicative forms (Ni): imperative, volitive precative. An analysis of tbe Akkadian structure is given on tbe rigbt. OBGT VII. Non-indicative forms: imperative. volitive, precative
Akk. structure
gen-am ga-am-gen be-em-du
al-kam lu-ul-li-kam li-il-li-kam
come! may I come! may be come!
-
gen-am-se ga-am-si-gen be-em-si-du
al-ka-as-sum lu-ul-li-ka-as-sum li-li-ka-as-sum
come to bim! may I come to bim! may be come to bim!
3D G V Ni
5 6 §3
7 8 9
gen-am-mu-se ga-mu-e-si-gen be-mu-e-si-du
al-kam a-na se-ri-ya lu-ul-li-ka-ak-kum li-li-ka-kum
come to me! may. I come to you! may be come to you!
ID G V Ni 2D 2D
§4
10 11 12
gen-am-ma ga-am-ma-gen be-em-ma-du
at-la-kam lu-ut-ta-al-kam li-it-ta-al-kam
come away! may I come away! may be come away!
-
§5
13 14
gen-am-ma-se ga-am-ma-si-gen 15 be-em-ma-si-du
at-la-ka-as-sum lu-ut-ta-al-ka-as-sum li-it-ta-al-ka-as-sum
come away to bim! may I come away to bim! may he come away to him!
3D Gt V Ni
§6
16 gen-am-ma-mu-se 17 ga-am-mu-e-si-gen 18 be-em-mu-e-si-du
at-la-kam a-na se-ri-ya lu-ut-ta-al-ka-ak-kum li-it-ta-al-ka-ak-kum
come away to me! may I come away to you! may he come away to you!
ID Gt V Ni 2D 2D
§7
19 gen-ni 20 ga-gen 21 be-{en-}du
a-lik lu-ul-lik li-il-lik
go! may I go! may he go!
-
§8
22 gen-en-si 23 ga-en-si-gen 24 be-en-si-du
a-lik-sum lu-ul-lik-sum li-lik-sum
go to bim! may I go to bim! may be go to bim!
3D G — Ni
§9
25 gen-ba 26 ga-ba-gen 27 ba-ba-du
at-la-ak lu-ut-ta-la-ak li-it-ta-la-ak
go away! may I go away! may be go away!
-
at-la-ak-sum lu-ut-ta-la-ak-sum li-it-ta-la-ak-sum
go away to bim! may I go away to him! may be go away to bim!
3D Gt — Ni
§1
1
2 3
§2
4
§10 28
gen-ba-si 29 ga-ba-si-gen 30 ba-ba-si-du
G V Ni
Gt V Ni
G — Ni
Gt — Ni
PETER J. HUBER Table 2. Tbe next twenty paragrapbs of OBGT VII, up to tbe end of tbe singular sections (taken from tbe Ur recension, UEn 100 and 101),firstlines only. Present (Ps) and preterite tense (Pt) forms. Paragrapb numbering according to OBGT VII, line numbering according to UET 7. Tbe paragrapbs are arranged in the ordering of the Ur recension. An analysis of the Akkadian structure is given on the rigbt. OBGT VII. Indicative forms: present, preterite §16 31 §17 34 §21 37 §18 39 §19 42 §20 45 §12 47 §13 50 §22 53 §23 56 §26 59 §27 62 §31 65 §28 67 §29 70 §30 73 §24 75 §25 78 §32 81 §33 84
Akk. structure
am-du am-si-du mu-e-si-du am-ma-du am-ma-si-du am-mu-e-si-du
illakam illakas.^um illakakkum ittallakam ittallakassum ittallakakkum
be comes be comes to bim be comes to you be comes away be comes away to bim be comes away to you
3D 2D 3D 2D
G G G Gt Gt Gt
V V V V V V
l-du in-si-du ba-du ba-si-du
illak illaksuni ittallak ittallaksum
be goes be goes to bim be goes away be goes away to bim
3D 3D
G G Gt Gt
-
Ps Ps
i-im-gen i-im-si-gen mu-e-si-gen im-ma-gen im-ma-si-gen im-mu-e-si-gen
illikam illikasSum illikakkum ittalkam ittalkassum ittalkakkum
he came he came to him he came to you he came away he came away to him he came away to you
3D 2D 3D 2D
G G G Gt Gt Gt
V V V V V V
Pt
in-gen, l-gen in-si-gen ba-gen ba-si-gen
illik illiksum ittalak ittalaksum
he went he went to bim be went away be went away to him
3D 3D
G - Pt G - Pt Gt - Pt Gt - Pt
2. The Paragraph Structure of the Paradigms As mentioned above, already some simple observations of tbe paradigm grids lead to quite subtle conclusions on tbe language structure of Sumerian and Akkadian, as perceived by tbe OB grammarian. Tbe paradigms are subdivided into paragrapbs, wbose structure is based on Akkadian conjugation. Most paragrapbs bave 3 lines, in tbe order: 3d-, 1st-, 2nd-person subject. Witb non-indicative forms, tbe order is reversed: imperative(2nd), volitive(lst), precative(3d). Tbis paragrapb structure divides the Sumerian forms into two conjugation types:
Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps
Ps Ps Pt Pt Pt Pt Pt
Suffix conjugation (l-du, l-du-un, l-du-un: "he goes," "I go," "you go") • intransitive verbal forms • present tense forms of transitive verbs • Non-indicative forms (implicit in singular, explicit in plural) • forms rendered by Akkadian passives • most stative forms Infix conjugation (mu-un-gar, mu-gar, mu-gar: "be placed," "I placed," "you placed") • preterite tense forms of transitive verbs • some stative forms
ON THE OLD BABYLONIAN UNDERSTANDING OF GRAMMAR Table 3. OBGT VI, non-indicative forms. An analysis of tbe Akkadian structure is given on top and on tbe rigbt. Akk.
OBGT VI. Non-indicative forms
Imperative
Volitive
Precative
G S G S G S
— — 3A 3A 3D 3D
—
G S G S G S
— — 3A 3A 3D 3D
V
G S G S
'/2D — '/2D — I/2D V '/2A '/2A
he-ri-ib-gar
G G S
I/2A
V —
bu-mu-ri-ib-gar
s
I/2A
V
gar-ra
ga-gar
be-gar
ga-bi-ib-gar
be-bi-ib-gar
§3:
gar-bi-ib gar-ra-an-da
ga-an-da-gar
be-en-da-gar
§4:
gar-ra-ni-ib
ga-ni-ib-gar
be-ni-ib-gar
§5:
gar-ra-na-ab
ga-na-ab-gar
be-na-ab-gar
§6:
gar-ra-na-ni-ib
ga-na-ni-ib-gar
be-na-ni-ib-gar
§7:
gar-ma-ab
ga-am-gar
be-em-gar
§8:
gar-ma-ni-ib
ga-mu-ni-ib-gar ga-am-da-gar
hu-mu-ni-ib-gar be-em-da-gar
ga-ma-ni-ib-gar
be-ma-ni-ib-gar
§11: gar-mu-un-na-ab §12: gar-mu-na-ni-ib
ga-mu-un-na-ab-gar ga-mu-na-ni-ib-gar
bu-mu-un-na-ab-gar hu-mu-na-ni-ib-gar
§13: §14: §15: §16:
ga-ra-ab-gar ga-ra-ni-ib-gar ga-mu-ra-ab-gar
ba-ra-ab-gar ba-ra-ni-ib-gar bu-mu-ra-ab-gar
ga-mu-ra-ni-ib-gar
bu-mu-ra-ni-ib-gar
ga-e-da-gar ga-mu-e-da-gar
he-e-da-gar he-mu-e-da-gar
ga-ri-ib-gar ga-mu-ri-ib-gar
§1: §2:
§9:
gar-ma-da-ab §10: gar-ma-ni-ib
gar-ma-ra — — —
§17: gar-mu-un §18: §19: gar-mu-ub §20: —
Tbere is a kind of duality: in transitive constructions, tbe position before or after tbe base not used for tbe transitive subject is used for tbe direct object. Tbe above pattern sbows tbat Sumerian in tbe preterite tense bebaves as an ergative language (tbe telltale symptom is tbat intransitive subjects and direct objects are treated alike). But in tbe present tense it uses tbe nominative-accusative pattern. Hence, as in most ergative languages, we bave split ergativity, tbougb, in tbe absence of a sentence context, furtber details of tbe split are difficult to ascertain; see Micbalowski (1980), and note tbat Edzard (2003: 90-91) still takes a negative position on split ergativity. I sball now discuss tbe individual paradigms and tbe specific issues tbey appear to address.
stem obj — — — — —
V V V V V
'/2D V —
3. OBGT VII: Intransitive Verb Tbis paradigm is concerned witb an intransitive verb (gen/du = alakum = "to go"). Apparently, it was designed to exercise tbe directional prefixes m-, ba-, mma-, and tbe singular and plural pronouns. In tbe order preferred by tbe OB grammarian (3d, 1st, 2nd person) tbese are: suffixed pronouns -0, -en, -en; -es, -enden, -enzen, indirect objects -n-, -mu-, -e-; -ne-, -me-, -ene-. Its grid is very systematically organized, especially in tbe Ur recension, wbicb omits tbe didactic additions of the pther recension and applies a more logical ordering principle. However, tbe preserved part is sborter and ends witb a catcb-line to §70, just after tbe beginning of tbe section covering
PETER J. HUBER Table 4. OBGT VI, indicative forms (first lines only). An analysis of the Akkadian structure is given on top and on the right. Stative (suffix conj.)
Preterite (infix conjugation) 0 (l- prefix) 0 (mu- prefix)
Akk. stem obj
§29: an-gar §30: ba-ab-gar
§36: l-gar §37-§39: (insert)
§44: mu-un-gar §45: mu-ni-in-gar
G S
—
§31: an-da-gar §32: ba-da-ab-gar
§40: in-da-gar §41: in-di-ni-ib-gar
§46: in-da-gar §47: in-di-ni-ib-gar
G S
3A 3A
§33: an-na-gar §34: an-na-ni-ib-gar
§42: in-na-an-gar §43: in-na-ni-in-gar
§48: in-na-an-gar §49: mu-na-ni-in-gar
G S
3D 3D
§72: a-ra-gar
§73: i-ra-an-gar i-ra-ni-in-gar
§74: mu-ra-an-gar mu-ra-ni-in-gar
G S
2D 2D
t-stem
Preterite (infix conjugation) t-stem + ventive
ventive
Akk. stem obj
§50: ba-an-gar §51: ba-ni-in-gar
§58: im-ma-an-gar §59: im-ma-ni-in-gar
§66: ma-an-gar §67: ma-ni-in-gar
G S
—
§52: ba-da-an-gar §53: ba-di-ni-ib-gar
§60: im-ma-da-an-gar §61: im-ma-di-ni-ib-gar
§68: ma-da-an-gar §69: ma-di-ni-ib-gar
G S
3A 3A
§54: ba-na-an-gar §55: ba-na-ni-in-gar
§62: im-ma-na-an-gar §63: im-ma-na-ni-in-gar
§70: ma-si-in-gar §71: ma-si-ni-in-gar
G S
3D 3D
§76: im-ma-ra-an-gar im-ma-ra-ni-in-gar
§75: ma-ra-an-gar ma-ra-ni-in-gar
G S
2D 2D
—
plural objects. See tbe excerpts listed in Tables 1 and 2. 3.L Grid Structure of OBGT VII Tbe paragrapbs of tbe Ur recension are ordered rigidly (01 is less systematic). Tbey vary fastest:
person of subject (inside paragrapb) person of object G,Gt ventive, non-ventive tense (non-indicative, present, preterite) number of subject (singular, plural) slowest: number of object (singular, plural)
Tbe grid of OBGT VII is complete, apart from tbe following systematic restrictions: • no self-references (lst-lst, 2nd-2nd person: semantic problem) • no lst-person singular objects, except witb imperative (Akkadian problem: ventive coincides witb lst-person dative). • motion toward 1st or 2nd person requires ventive (Sumerian and/or Akkadian restriction) I suspect tbat tbe exceptional four imperatives witb lst-person singular objects were selectively included in order to illustrate tbat in Sumerian tbe combination of ventive and lst-person could be expressed witbout circumlocution.
ON THE OLD BABYLONIAN UNDERSTANDING OF GRAMMAR 3.2. Additions of the 01 Version (total 8 paragraphs) 01 (but not Ur) adds 6 paragrapbs witb alternate prefixes. Tbese additions cover singular and plural, but present tense only: regular §12: regular §13: added §11: added §14: added §15:
l-du in-si-du al-du an-du an-si-du
= illak = illaksum = illak = illak = illaksum
= "be goes" = "be goes to bim" (n: belongs to prefix) (n: 3d person pronoun)
Table 4 in particular (§§29-34, §72, see section 4.2.1.), and also otber paradigms sbow tbat tbe prefixes an-, a- bave stative function (or at least: stative tendency): VIII §34: §35: §36:
l-guy-e an-guy
= ikkal = ikkal = akil
= "be eats" = "be eats" = "be is eating"'
Most modern autbors treat al- as unique among prefixes. Attinger (1993: 269) takes a-, al- as complementary expressions of tbe same prefix, written al- if it is immediately followed by tbe base, otberwise a-; see also Edzard's comments (2003: 111). Tbe OB treatment does not quite correspond to tbis. Wbile al- always is immediately followed by tbe base, our paradigms sbow tbat tbis is possible also witb a-. Tbe texts alternate between writings a- and an-. Note tbat in VII §14 (and also in VI §29) -n- cannot be a pronoun, since tbe construction is intransitive, witb suffix conjugation. I do not tbink tbat tbe OB grammarian distinguisbes between
added (§71):
ba-me-du ba-e-ne-du
= ittallak niati = ittallak kunuti
two separate morpbemes /a/ and /an/, and I would be very reluctant to assume an- to be a scribal error. Tbis induces me to conclude tbat be uses an- as a grapbic rendering of a nasalized a-, notwitbstanding tbe Sumerologists' objection tbat true Sumerian does not know sucb a pboneme. I conclude tbat be treats l-, al-, a- as tbree separate prefixes, but bas difficulties expressing tbe distinctions in Akkadian. 01 moreover adds two anomalous paragrapbs (§71 present and §74 preterite), witb unique accusative pronouns in Akkadian, and unique nonventive lst/2nd-person objects in Sumerian:
= "be goes away/rom us" = "be goes away froin you"
See Jacobsen (1960) for tbe interpretation of tbe Akkadian accusative. Witb motion toward a 1st or 2nd person, tbe ventive is mandatory, but not so witb tbe 3rd person, wbere tbe grid of tbe paradigm offers: regular (§88): ba-ne-du
= ittallak sunusi
= "be goes away to tbem"
1. For the active interpretation of akil, see AHw p. 36: a-kil-a-ti, "du bist fressend."
PETER J. HUBER Note tbat witb plural objects, tbe terminative case is not marked in tbis paradigm, creating an ambiguity witb tbe direction of motion. (Anotber paradigm, N 3513+N 3592 [Black 1991: 155-58] uses -si- also in tbe plural, demonstrating tbe multiplicity also of OB grammars!) Tbe two paragrapbs §71 and §74 are additions to a very disciplined and complete paradigm. In my opinion, tbey cannot be explained away as "errors of a careless scribe" (Black 1991: 17). I believe tbey are targeted to illustrate semantic differences between deceptively similar non-ventive Sumerian forms witb tbe separative ba-: in tbe absence of tbe ventive, tbe first two of tbe forms quoted above default to motion away from, tbe tbird to motion away toward. 3.3. The Directional Prefix: m-, ha-, mma-. Tables 1 and 2 sbow clear correspondences: Akkadian: Sumerian: ventive «-»• /m/ Gt-stem ^ /ba/ ventive + Gt /mma/ Tbe Akkadian t-infix corresponds to t-stems (not to tbe perfect, as bas been claimed by some autbors). Tbis is sbown clearly by tbe grid structure and by tbe fact tbat tbe t-infix occurs not only witb tbe ambiguous preterite, but also witb tbe present tense and witb Ni-forms, see also Black (1991: 27-28). Tbe basic meaning of tbe Akkadian t-infix is a cbange of direction (in OBGT VII it distinguisbes between "to go" and "to go away"). Tbe Akkadian ventive originally seems to express a motion towards "me," tben also toward otbers (bere it distinguisbes between "to go" and "to come"). I will denote tbe triple (/m/, /ba/, /mma/) collectively as directional prefixes, and I will use "ventive m" as a sbortband notation for a Sumerian m tbat is rendered by an Akkadian ventive. Tbis does not imply tbe existence of a Sumerian ventive, nor even tbat tbe OB scbolars responsible for tbe grammatical texts tbougbt tbere was one. But tbey certainly felt it expedient
to describe certain Sumerian features involving an m-morpbeme in terms of tbe Akkadian ventive. Table 2 sbows tbat botb m- and ba- can begin verbal forms. In tbe absence of tbe ventive m and tbe separative ba, tbe prefix i- is used, sometimes written in- (before tbe nasalized g of gen, §24, or before tbe 3d-person pronoun -n-, §13, §25), botb in tbe present and preterite tense. Before consonant clusters, a prostbetic vowel is used, a- witb Ni-forms and witb tbe present tense, i- in tbe preterite. Since, in tbe absence of consonant clusters, tbe vowel i- is used botb in tbe present and in tbe preterite tense, I believe tbat tbese prostbetic vowels are not morpbemic, but pbonemic, and serve to express a difference of pitcb or stress. But l- seems to be required witb indicative forms in tbe absence of a directional prefix. Before tbe pronoun lei of tbe 2nd person, tbe ventive consistently is written -mu-. Also Iml+lhal tben is written -mmu- (§3, §6, §20-21, §30-31). On tbe otber band, before tbe rnarti-base lei of dug4, no sucb lul appears, compare in particular IX §34: sa am-e = ikassadam = "be reacbes bere," IX §35: sa mu-e-a = ikassadaka = "be reacbes you bere." Morpbologically, we bave am-e < Iml-lel, and mu-e-a < Iml-lel-lel, witb tbe final lei being tbe maru-hase of dug4. My conclusions are, first, tbat tbe 2nd-person pronoun lei in tbese paradigms is tbougbt to be more tban a plain e, presumably *we, and, second, tbat tbe writing am seems to express a syllabic m. 3.4. Distinction Between Ventive and 1 st Person In Table 1, tbe writing gen-am-ma-mu-se = at-la-kam a-na se-ri-ya = "come away to me!" of §6 is interesting. One sbould compare tbis form to tbose of tbe preceding five paragrapbs. Morpbologically, tbe first m corresponds to tbe ventive, tbe second to an assimilated ba, and tbe tbird to a 1st person mu. It sbows tbat tbe OB grammarian bere made a pointed distinction between tbe ventive Iml and tbe 1st person /mu/. By tbe way, fully spelled-out writings witb tbree m's are rare. Tbey occur also in N 3513+N 3592 (Black 1991:
ON THE OLD BABYLONIAN UNDERSTANDING OF GRAMMAR
155-58), but very often, sucb forms are contracted. For example, §6 of tbe duplicate UET 7 101 does not distinguisb tbe separative form in writing from tbe non-separative form gen-am-mu-se = al-kam a-na se-ri-ia = "come to me!" in §3. 4. OBGT VI+X: Transitive Verbs
OBGT VI is concerned witb gar = sakdiium = "to put." As a rule, Akkadian translations bere are given only for tbe first line of eacb paragrapb. OBGT X is concerned witb gub = izuzzum = "to stand." In Sumerian, it mostly is constructed transitively(!) as "to set up." OBGT X gives only tbe first line of eacb paragrapb. Its grid agrees witb tbe systematic part of VI, but tbe latter bas several additions. Tbis duplication of tbe systematic part of tbe grid facilitates recognition of tbe common underlying structure of tbese paradigms, wbicb is not as systematic and complete as tbat of OBGT VII (see Tables 3 and 4). Tbese paradigms exercise prefixes, tbe pronomial infix cbain, and causative constructions. Note tbat tbey group tbe paragrapbs into pairs, consisting of a non-causative G-stem and tbe corresponding S-stem causative paragrapb, tbereby empbasizing and exercizing tbe causativity transformation. 4.L Tenses and Aspects A first look at Tables 3 and 4 sbows tbat tbe paradigms of OBGT VI and X are arranged according to Akkadian tenses or aspects, in tbe order: Non-indicative, stative, preterite, and present. Tbere are present tense sections at tbe end of botb VI and X (7 and 9 one-line paragrapbs, respectively), but tbey are sbort and unsystematic. Tbey do not fit into tbe grid of Table 4 and tberefore bave been omitted. 4.2. Prefixes Tbe systematic part of OBGT VI (see Table 4) distinguisbes between tbe "stative" prefixes a- and ba-, tbe "main" prefixes l-, mu- (wbicb are indistinguisbable in tbe Akkadian rendering), and tbe
"directional" prefixes ba-, m-, and mma-, corresponding to t-stems, ventive, and tbe combination of t-stem and ventive. In addition, tbere is an exceptional prefix bi- occurring in tbe irregular insert OBGT VI §37-39, see below. So tbe OB grammarian seems to recognize at least six, and perbaps up to nine, prefixes. Tbey conveniently can be be segmented into tbree groups ("stative" a-, ba-, plus possibly al-; "main" i-, bi-, mu-; "directional" m-, ba-, mma-). Tbis segmentation is based solely on tbe (Akkadian) grid structure of OBGT VI, as exbibited by Table 4. Tbe nine prefixes seem to be mutually exclusive, so tbey all seem to bave tbe same rank. But tbeir number may bave to be reduced, since one of tbem is composite (mma-, notwitbstanding tbat tbe reduction creates conceptual problems witb tbe ranks), al- may be a mere variant of a-, and two otbers may be identical (ba-), see below. It is interesting to contrast tbe OB view of tbe prefixes witb modern views of "true" Sumerian, for example Micbalowski (2004: 44): The [conjugation] prefixes [...] constitute the most controversial part of Sumerian grammar. No two Sumerologists appear to agree fully on their form, meaning, etymology and identity; the number of ranks that they occupy is equally disputed. [...] I prefer a minimalist position according to which there are only four distinct "conjugation" prefixes: mu-, ba-, i- (or V-) and imma-. [...] I do not break these down into smaller components, as do many others. 4.2.L Stative Prefixes: a- and ba-. In tbe stative section of tbe paradigm (VI §§29-35, §72), a- corresponds to tbe ordinary Akkadian G-stem stative (witb an exceptional S-stem in §34), and ba- to tbe Akkadian S-stem stative/passive. Tbe Akkadian stative is indifferent witb regard to tense, and for transitive verbs it usually bas a passive meaning ("be is placed"), but an active meaning ("be is placing") is possible too (see GAG, 100-102). Tbe Englisb translations proposed below are tentative; lacking a context, it is difficult to be certain about tbe difference between tbe suffix conjugation in §29 and tbe infix conjugation in §35:
10
PETER J. HUBER
VI §29 an-gar an-gar-re-en an-gar-re-en
sakin
VI §30 ba-ab-gar ba-ab-gar-re-en ba-ab-gar-re-en
suskun
VI §35 ab-gar a-gar e-gar
sakin
(saknaku) (saknata) (suskunaku) (suskunata) (saknaku) (saknata)
Despite tbeir seemingly disparate functions, tbe separative ba- and tbe stative-passive ba- may be identical, also in tbe OB grammarians view, cf. tbe comments on VI §56-57, §64-65 in tbe following subsection. Gonceivably, ba- bas a basic "final" function, similar to tbe Englisb "off," indicating a move out of tbe area of immediate control. In tbe paradigms tbis function is approximated variously by an Akkadian separative or a stative-passive. 4.2.2. Irregular Inserts with ba-forms. Tbe regular grid of OBGT VI does not bave any Niforms witb tbe ba- prefix, but sucb forms are
be(0) is placed I am placed You are placed be(0) was placed by someone (b) I (en) was placed by someone (b) You (en) were placed by someone (b) someone(b) is placing 1(0) am placing You(e < a-e) are placing given in an irregular addition (§22-28). Tbe corresponding paragrapbs are omitted in OBGT X, so tbey may be later additions, perbaps intended as a kind of Ni-counterpart to tbe subsequent stative section (§29-35). In any case, tbe Akkadian side of §§22-26 offers ratber surprising N-stems, indicating a passive aspect, and tbe Sumerian forms appear to be intransitive, witb -b indicating not a direct object, but a (subordinate) subject (see Section 5). Perbaps tbere is an ambiguity as witb tbe Englisb "to bide": put away sometbing or oneself. My Englisb translations are very tentative.
VI §22 gar-ba
naskin
bave (it) put away! (?)
VI §23 gar-ba-na-ab
naskinsum
bave it put away for bim! (?)
VI §24 gar-am-ma
naskinam
bave (it) put away bere! (?)
VI §25 gar-am-ma-se- [eb] naskinassum VI §26 gar-am-ma-se
bave (it) put away toward bim bere! (?)
naskinassui OT>put away toward bim bere! (?)
§§27-28 seem to empbasize tbe separative aspect of -ba- by adding tbe ablative particle -ta-:
VI §27 gar-ba-ta VI §28 gar-/ba-na\-ta
sitkan
sitkassum
put away! put away for bim!
Two furtber additions (§§56-57, §§64-65) witb indicative forms and suffix conjugation, also omitted in OBGT X, are even more unsual, since tbey use Akkadian Nt-stems. Tbey seem to bigbligbt tbe dual separative and stative/passive aspect of -ba-:
ON THE OLD BABYLONIAN UNDERSTANDING OF GRAMMAR
VI §56 ba-gar
ittaskan
be/it was put away
VI §57 ba-na-gar
ittaskansum
be/it was put away for bim
VI §64 im-ma-{an-}gar
ittaskanam
be/it was put away bere
VI §65 im-ma-na-gar
ittaskanassum
be/it was put away bere for bim
11
4.2.3. The Prefixes i-, mu- and bf. In tbe para- D.OBJ, tbe 3d-person direct object being invisible in suffix position); it is rendered by straigbt Akkadigms, tbe use of a conjugation prefix seems to be dian G-stems. Often, parallel forms witb l- or mandatory for indicative forms. Tbis implies tbat mu- prefix are given (VI §36 l-gar, §37 bi-in-gar, tbere must be a default prefix, to be used wben §44 mu-un-gar, all = iskun; X 26 i-gub = izziz, tbe basic, unmodified meaning of tbe verb is inX 27 bi-in-gub = usziz, probably a scribal error tended. Tbis prefix by definition tben does not for izziz, X 34 mu-un-gub = izziz; VIII §27 [l]modify tbe meaning of tbe verb. Tbe most likely guy, §32 bi-in-guy, §33 mu-un-guy, all = ikul). candidate for sucb a default prefix is l-, since it bas Sometimes only tbe bi-version is given (VIII §18 tbe widest use and can be used botb witb intrankas4 bi-in-dug4 = ilsum, IX §27 sa bi-in-dug4 = sitive and transitive constructions. iksud). Witb Ni-forms, tbe only visible conjugation preTbe second construction consists of simple fixes are tbe directional ones, and tbere is no firm causatives witb suffix conjugation (bi-ib-BASEevidence for a mandatory conjugation prefix. Tbe SUBJ). It is rendered by straigbt Akkadian S-stems, vowel appended to tbe naked base for imperative mostly in tbe preterite tense (VI §38 bi-ib-gar = forms (usually -a) migbt perbaps be interpreted usaskin; X 28 bi-ib-gub = usziz; VIII §28 bi-ibas a version of tbe prefix l-, but tbis vowel could guy = [usakil]; IX §28 sa b[i-ib-dug4l = {usak]sid), also be a mere pbonetic pbenomenon. plus a few examples in tbe present tense witb unIn tbe paradigms tbe mu-prefix occurs only witb clear construction (VI §83 bi-ib-gar-re = usaskan; transitive constructions. Sucb exclusive usage may X 69 bi-ib-gub-be = uszaz). imply tbat mu- expresses some special relationsbip Tbus, wben tbere is a definite personal pronoun between subject, action and direct object. Most (be, I, you) before tbe base, tbese bi-prefix forms occurrences are preterite tense forms using tbe in Akkadian are interpreted as ordinary transitive infix conjugation, apart from one occurrence witb constructions "be/I/you placed bim/it," witb an inpresent tense and suffix conjugation: VIII §14 kas mu-si-ib-be = i-la-sum-sum, "be runs toward bim." visible 3d-person direct object in suffix position. Witb tbe indefinite pronoun -b- (it, somebody, etc.) Tbe mu- bere is not tbe ventive; tbe latter occurs in VIII §16 kas4 am-si-ib-be = i-la-su-ma-as-sum. before tbe base, tbey are interpreted as causative constructions witb tbe minimum number of two In OBGT VI tbe ventive is distinguisbed from tbe participants, and tbe suffixed personal pronoun is prefix mu- by tbe writing ma- (see Table 4, §§66taken as tbe subject. Wbetber tbe subordinate 71, 75 against §§44-49, 74), but elsewbere mu- can subject, to wbicb -b- presumably refers, is suffering be used also for tbe ventive, witbout discernible tbe action ("be/I/you caused it to be placed") or system. Gompare in particular IX §29 sa ma-anperforming it ("be/I/you made someone eat") is dug4 = ik-su-dam, "be reacbed bere," to VIII §19 difficult to decide witbout sentence context. kas4 mu-un-dug4 = il-su-ma-ain, "be ran bere." Tbere is insufficient evidence to decide Tbe prefix bi- occurs in four different paradigms wbetber and bow tbe OB grammarians would (OBGT VI, VIII, IX, X) witb five different verbs, bave analyzed tbe prefix bi- (for "true" Sumerian, but only witb two ratber restricted constructions. it bas been proposed tbat bi- is ba- followed by a Tbe first construction consists of simple transilocative). tive forms witb infix conjugation (bi-SUBJ-BASE-
12
PETER J. HUBER
4.3. The Pronomial Infix Chain Tbe verbal forms bave a pronomial tbree-slot structure (witb strict order): (indirect object+case) + (subordinate subject) + (direct object or subject)
Tbis tbree-slot infix cbain is placed after tbe directional prefix, before tbe base. Any or all of tbe slots can be empty. I prefer tbe term "infix" to "prefix," since tbese elements apparently cannot begin a verbal form—at least, tbey never do in tbe paradigms. Tbe situation can be illustrated by tbe following forms excerpted from Tables 3 and 4.
gar-ma-ab = suknam = "place it(b) bere(m)!" gar-ma-da-ab = suknassu = "place it(b) witb bim(da) bere(m)!" gar-ma-ni-ib = suskinassu = "make bim(ni) place it(b) bere(m)!" gar-mu-na-ni-ib = suskinassum = "make bim(ni) place it(b) for bim(na) bere(m)!" ma-si-ni-in-gar = usaskinassum = "be(n) made bim(ni) place it to bim(si) bere(m)" Witb multiple Sumerian pronouns tbe Akkadian pronouns refer to tbe first element present in tbe sequence, but somewbat unexpectedly, tbe direct
object never is referenced by an Akkadian pronoun. Tbe paradigms use tbe coarser Akkadian case structure:
Akkadian accusative: Sumerian comitative or subordinate subject Akkadian dative: Sumerian dative or terminative, rarely locative On tbe Sumerian side, tbe following pronouns are used in tbe paradigms. In tbe last slot, tbe subject is: 3d-person -n-, more rarely -b-, lst-person -0-, 2nd-person -e-; -n- and -e- often are elided. Tbe direct object for tbe most part is -b-, witb a few questionable instances of -n- (e.g., in VI §17). Tbe indirect object in tbe first slot always is referenced by an Akkadian pronoun. It is: 3d-person -n-, lst-person -mu-, 2nd-person -'we- > -e-. Among tbe cases, tbe Akkadian accusative corresponds to tbe Sumerian comitative -da-, tbe Akkadian dative to tbe Sumerian dative (3d-person -na-, lst-person -ma-, 2nd-person -ra-), or to tbe terminative -si-, rarely to tbe locative -ri- (only a few 2nd-person instances seem to occur). Tbe paradigms suggest tbat tbe dative forms may bave been interpreted as <pronoun>+/ra/, namely as -n-ra- > -n-na- > -na(VI §11), -ma-ra- > -ma- (VI §13), -*we-ra- > -ra-. §2:
gar-bi-ib ga-bi'-ib-gar §4: gar-ra-ni-ib ga-ni-ib-gar §19: gar-mu-ub ga-ri-ib-gar
= suskin = lusaskin = suskissu = lusaskissu = suskinanni = lusaskikka
Tbere are isolated instances of an ablative -ta(OBGT VI 27-28, IX §11) not mirrored by an Akkadian pronoun or case. 4.3.1. Subordinate Subject: Causatives. Tbe subordinate subject requires a more extensive discussion. Eor tbe purposes of tbe present discussion I prefer to denote tbe corresponding Sumerian case by tbe name "subordinative," and to distinguisb it from tbe "locative" case, since it seems tbat tbe paradigms keep tbem syntactically distinct. In particular tbey separate tbese cases by correlating tbe Sumerian locative -ri- witb tbe Akkadian dative (VIII §20-23 and IX §42), and tbe subordinative -ri- witb tbe accusative. Gompare tbe following basic forms witbout prefix and witbout indirect object, excerpted from Table 3:
= "make someone place it!" = "let me make someone place it! = "make him place it!" = "let me make him place it!" = "make me place it!" = "may I make you place it!"
ON THE OLD BABYLONIAN UNDERSTANDING OF GRAMMAR
13
Tbis comparison suggests tbat subordinate subjects are marked as follows: -bi-ni-mu-ri-
3rd person indefinite 3rd person definite 1st person 2nd person
no Akkadian pronoun Akkadian -su Akkadian -anni Akkadian -ka
Tbese elements presumably are composed from a pronoun and a subordinative case marker HI. Tbe correspondence between -ni-, -mu- and -ri- on one band and 3d-, 1st-, and 2nd-person subordinate subjects on tbe otber band, is establisbed witbout doubt by tbe Akkadian pronouns. But in tbe absence of Akkadian pronouns, tbe interpretation of -bi- is less secure and is based on analogy alone. In view of tbe discussion of tbe prefix bi- above, tbe grammatical particle referring to tbe subordinate subject migbt alternatively, and perbaps even preferably, be identified witb tbe second b of -bi-ib- (tbat is: gar-bi-ib = "bave something placed"), tbe otber b tben being a prefix. Eitber cboice could bave been tbe one preferred by tbe OB grammarians, but botb bave unpleasant ramifications, once one goes beyond tbe simple forms of VI §2 and §38. Witb tbe first cboice (-bi- for tbe subordinate subject), one would bave to admit tbe existence of two bomopbonous elements witb different compositions and functions, namely a prefix -bi- and an infix -bi-. Tbe second cboice (witb -b- for tbe indefinite subordinate subject) does not seem to agree witb tbe treatment of causatives in tbe indicative sections of tbe paradigm. But perbaps tbe paradigms are sligbtly inconsistent, or perbaps I am misinterpreting tbe evidence. Witb some misgivings I am leaning toward tbe first cboice, and sball assume tbat tbe indefinite subordinate subject ordinarily is referred to by a (morpbological) infix -bi-, often written -ni-. I sbould empbasize once more tbat tbis discussion is not about "correct" Sumerian, but about its OB formalization. Tbe subordinate subject is tbe only feature in tbese paradigms wbere tbe n and b tbemes are distinguisbed by a formally different treatment, and tbe treatment of tbe split is bigbly interesting and illuminating. For tbis discussion, it does not
matter by wbicb b of -bi-ib- tbe subordinate subject is referred to. According to modern grammars, "true" Sumerian does not distinguisb gender, but (depending on tbe grammarian) splits between animate and inanimate, or between person and non-person. Akkadian cannot duplicate sucb a distinction. Tbe surrogate Akkadian split used in tbe paradigms, between -su and ino pronowi>, is between definite and indefinite. Tbis suggests tbat tbe split n — b in tbe paradigms sbould be taken as: a definite person — .something else, wbicb actually comes quite close to a person — non-person split (in a sentence context, a personal pronoun almost inevitably is definite, since it refers to a person mentioned beforeband). 4.3.2. Dissimilation bi > ni after (labial)+ (vowel). Guriously, -ni- sometimes is mirrored by an Akkadian -su, sometimes not. Tbe most striking example occurs in VI §8, wbere gar-ma-ni-ib corresponds to suskinam = "make someone place it bere!," wbile in §10 tbe identical form corresponds to suskinassu = "make bim place it bere!" (see Table 3). Wby? For tbe purposes of tbe following discussion I will temporarily distinguisb between a "definite -ni-" (mirrored by -sii) and an "indefinite -ni-" (not mirrored). A first clue is found wben one inspects tbe ventive transformation tbat transforms tbe non-ventive forms of VI §§1-6 into tbe ventive forms §§7-12 by inserting -mu- or -ma-. One notes tbat tbe "indefinite -ni-" of §8 gar-ma-ni-ib originates from §2 gar-bi-ib, tbat is from an indefinite -bi-, wbile tbe "definite -ni-" of tbe identical form in §10 bas its origin in §4 gar-ra-ni-ib, tbat is from a genuine -ni-. Tbe grid permits several more comparisons of forms to tbeir "basis," (i.e., to tbe bomologous non-ventive, non-separative paragrapb):
14 Paragraphs with ni, but without -SM:
PETER J. HUBER
basis:
VI §8 (= X 8) ventive ma-, muVI §2 (= X 2) (bi) VI §45 (= X 35) mu-prefix (*) VI §51 (= X 41) separative baC) VI §59 (= X 47) ventive+separative m-maVI §67 (= X 53) ventive ma(*) VI §39 (= X 29) mi- (< bi?) IX §12 separative ba(*) IX §16 ventive+separative m-maIX §3 (bi) IX §24 separative baIX §3 (bi) IX §30 ventive maIX §28 (bi) IX §39 ventive+separative m-ma-
§28 (bi) (X 29 mi-ni-ib-gub) ('): VI §38 bi-ib-gar (X 28 bi-ib-gub), VI §39IXmi-ni-in-gar IX §28 (bi)
Paragraphs with ni and -su:
basis:
VI §10 (=X 10) ventive maVIII §5 ventive maIX §8 ventive maVIII §25 ventive ma-
VI §4 (ni) VIII §4 (ni) IX §2 (ni) VIII §25 (ni)
It tbus turns out tbat tbe "indefinite -ni-" always bas -bi- in its ancestry, w"bile tbe "definite -ni-" goes back to a genuine -ni-. Hence tbe "indefinite -ni-" seems to be notbing else tban a morpbological -bi-. We note tbat all instances of tbe "indefinite -ni-" are preceded by (labial) + (vowel). Tbe labial can bave diverse morpbological origins (prefix mu-, ventive -m-, separative -ba-). Sucb a distribution could be caused by dissimilation bi > ni after (labial) + (vowel). Tbis was proposed already by Falkenstein (1949), but rejected by Edzard (2003: 102), wbo cites, for example, mu-bi "tbis year." Edzard's argument bolds for bi, but not necessarily for bi. A searcb in ETGSL gave only a single, ratber irrelevant bit for (labial) + (vowel) + bi: i^'-'ur-za-ba-bi-tum (a type of instrument). Tbe assumption of sucb a dissimilation may irritate. Perbaps tbere is an alternative nonpbonetical, purely syntactical explanation, say tbat bi cannot be preceded by a prefix and tberefore is replaced by ni? Tbis is refuted by cases wbere tbe ventive transformation inserts -am- instead of -ma-, and wbere bi is assimilated to tbe immediately preceding ventive m. Tbus it turns IX §3:
sa dug4-ga-bi-ib = suksid = "make someone reacb!" into IX §7: sa dug4-ga-am-mi-ib = sukSidam = "make someone reacb bere!" Note tbat otber examples sbow tbat n is not assimilated to m, for example in VII §86: am-ne-du = illakam sunusi = "be comes to tbem," Tbe didactic insert: VI §37-39 (= X 27-29) is curious. It consists of tbree paragrapbs witb somewbat unexpected Sumerian renderings of iskun and usaskin (for discussion by tbe teacber?). Formal analogy witb tbe mu-prefix column migbt make one expect tbe form *in-ni-in-gar in tbis space. But if tbe proposed dissimilation model bolds, tbis Sumerian form would correspond to usaskissu, not to usaskin required by tbe grid. Tbus, my second guess was tbat tbe text sbould offer *i-bi-in-gar, witb infix conjugation. But tbe insert offers neitber of tbese forms:
ON THE OLD BABYLONIAN UNDERSTANDING OF GRAMMAR
15
VI §37 bi-in-gar bi-/gar\ bi-gar
iskun (askun) (taskun)
bi-n-B bi-B bi-e-B
be(n) placed it(0) 1(0) placed it(0) you(e) placed it(0)
VI §38 bi-ib-gar bi-ib-gar-re-en bi-ib-gar-re-en
usaskin (usaskin) (tusaskin)
bi-b-B bi-b-B-en bi-b-B-e-en
be(0) caused it(b) to be placed I(en) caused it(b) to be placed you (en) caused it(b) to be placed
VI §39 mi-ni-in-gar mi-ni-in-gar-re-en mi-ni-in-gar-re-en
usaskin (usaskin) (tusaskin)
bi-bi-n-B bi-bi-n-B-en bi-bi-n-B-e-en
be(0) bad bim(n) put by someone(bi) (?) I (en) bad bim(n) put by someone (bi) (?) you(en) bad bim(n) put by someone(bi) (?)
Tbe parallel OBGT X bas an analogous insert but offers only tbe first line of eacb paragrapb: 27: bi-in-gub = usziz (error for izziz) 28: bi-ib-gub = usziz 29: mi-ni-ib-gub = usziz (note tbe b in X against tbe n in VI)
Here, VI §37 and X 27 appear to be bi-prefix alternatives to tbe immediately preceding noncausative l-prefix versions VI §36 and X 26, witb tbe same Akkadian rendering. Tbe forms of VI §38 and X 28 bave been discussed in section 4.2.3.; tbey may offer tbe irregular standard version of a causative construction witb tbe minimum number of participants, replacing a regularly formed *i-bi-in-gar. Tbe mi-ni- of VI §39 and X 29 is unique in tbese paradigms. I suspect tbat it bides a dissimilated prefix + infix combination bi-bi- > mi-ni-. I do not tbink tbat mi-ni- sbould be interpreted as a pbonetical variant of mu-ni- (wbicb occurs in §45 in tbe murprefix section), even tbougb §39 and §45 are synonymous from tbe Akkadian point of view. Listing a pbonetical variant of mu- in tbe i-prefix section would amount to an error (in botb VI and X), namely to an unusual morpbological misclassification. Moreover, VI §39 uses suffix conjugation, wbicb is compatible witb tbe bi-prefix, but does not seem to be used witb tbe mu-prefix. Admittedly, I cannot claim to understand tbe construction of VI §39. A construction tbat combines bi-prefix, suffix conjugation and bi-infix looks like a second order causative to me. Sucb a construc-
tion migbt reasonably be expected witb intransitive verbs sucb as "to rise," wbere tbe first order causative is "to make rise" = "to raise," and tbe second order is "to make raise," but not witb an originally transitive verb like "to put." 5. OBGT VIII+IX: Tvvo-Part Verbs Tbese paradigms cover tbe two-part verbs: kas4 ... dug4 = lasamum = "to run" (OBGT VIII) and sa... dug4 = kasadum = "to reacb" (OBGT IX). Tbey are less systematic tban tbe otbers. Like OBGT VI+X, tbey illustrate tbe formation of causatives. In fact, OBGT IX conspicuously groups tbe paragrapbs into pairs, eacb pair consisting of a non-causative and tbe corresponding causative paragrapb, but only tbe Ni-section arranges tbose pairs in a systematic fasbion. A remarkable feature of tbe paradigms OBGT VIII + IX is tbat tbey exercise tbe differences between transitive and intransitive constructions. Ordinarily, botb verbs are constructed transitively, witb -b- referencing tbe direct object kas4 or sa. Tbe forms are transformed into causative ones by inserting bi or ni:
16 VIII §1: VIII §3: IX §4: IX §5:
PETER J. HUBER kas4 dug4-ga-ab kas4 dug4-ga-bi-ib sa dug4-ga-na-ab sa dug4-ga-na-ni-ib
= lusum = sulsim = kusuzzum = suksizzum
• "run!"
: "make someone run!" • "reacb for bim!"
• "make bimj reacb for
However, witb ventive + terminative case, tbey are preferentially constructed intransitively, witbout reference to a direct object: = lusmassum VIII §7: kas4 dug4-ga-am-se VIII § 11: kas4 dug4-ga- [mu] - se = lusmam ana seriya IX §21: sa dug4-ga-mu-se = kusdam ana seriya
• "run toward bim bere!'
• "run toward me bere!" : "reacb for me bere!"
If -b is added to tbese forms, tbey are made causative, but apparently -b bere does not reference kas4 or sa, but an indefinite subordinate subject: VIII §9: kas4 dug4-ga-am-ma-si-ib VIII §12: kas4 dug4-ga-am-mu-se[-ebl IX §22: sa dug4-ga-mu-se-eb
= sulsimassum = "make someone run to bim bere!" = sulsimam ana seriya = "make someone run to me bere!" = suksidam = "make someone reacb for me bere!"
Tbe double-m in VIII §9 and §12 seems to be merely grapbical and bas no morpbemic significance, as a comparison witb tbe non-causative forms and witb IX §22 sbows. Tbese constructions raise tbe question wbetber tbe causativity marker -b- bere is meant as a sbortened -bi-, or ratber as a kind of ergative counterpart of a transitive direct object -b-. It does not seem tbat tbis question can be decided on tbe basis of tbe paradigms. To complicate matters, tbe OB autbor of OBGT Vlll and IX seems to play deliberately witb multiple Sumerian renderings of Akkadian structures. In several of tbe paragrapbs quoted above, be switcbes tbe Sumerian construction in mid-
paragrapb. Inside VIII §11, be keeps tbe terminative case but switcbes from an intransitive hamtu-hased imperative to transitive marii-based volitives and precatives (kas4 ga-mu-e-si-ib-be = "let me run toward you bere!"). In tbe seemingly parallel IX §21, be switcbes instead from an intransitive terminative to a transitive dative construction (sa ga-mu-ra-ab-dug4 = "let me reacb for you bere!"). In VIII §12 and IX §22, tbe most likely interpretation is tbat be keeps tbe intransitive construction, but switcbes from tbe terminative to tbe locative case (kas4 ga-am-ma-r[i-ib]-dug4, sa gamu-ri-ib-dug4 = "let me make someone run/reacb to you bere!").
References AHw = von Soden, W, 1965- Akkadisches Handworterbuch. Harrassowitz, 81 Wiesbaden, Attinger, E 1993 Elements de Hnguistique surnerienne. Gottingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht. Bellugi, U., and Brown, R. (eds.) 1971 The Acquisition of Language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Black, J. A. 1991 Sumerian Grammar in Babylonian Theory. 2nd edition. Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum. Edzard, D. O. 2003 Sumerian Grammar. HdO 1.71. Leiden: Brill. Falkenstein, A. 1949 Grammatik der Sprache Gudeas von Lagas. AnOr 28-29. Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum.
ON THE OLD BABYLONIAN UNDERSTANDING OF GRAMMAR
GAG = von Soden, W. 1952 Grundriss der Akkadischen Gramniatik, AnOr 33. Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum. Jacobsen, Th. 1960 'Itallak niatir JNES 19: 101-16. (Reprinted in Toward the Image of Tammuz, ed. W. L. Moran [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1970].) Michalowski, P. 1980 Sumerian as an Ergative Language. fCS 32: 86-103. 2004 Sumerian. Pp. 19-59 in The Gamhridge Encyclopedia of the World's Ancient languages.
17
ed. R. D. Woodard. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. MSLIV = Landsberger, B.; Hallock, R; Jacobsen, Th.; and Falkenstein, A. 1956 Materialien zum Sumerischen Lexikon IV Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum. Thomsen, M.-L. 1984 The Sumerian Ijinguage. Copenhagen Akademisk Forlag. Zolyomi, C. 2000 Structural Interferences from Akkadian in Old Babylonian Sumerian. Acta Sumerologica 22: 335-60.
[-ATR] HARMONY AND THE VOWEL INVENTORY OF SUMERIAN Eric }. M. Smith (University of Toronto)
It has long been accepted that Sumeriim exliibited some form of vowe! harmony, and early description.s of Siimerian vowel harmony (Poebel 1931; Kramer 1936) framed that harmony data in the context of a six-vowel inventory. While the arguments in favor of vowel harmony are now accepted, the expanded vowel inventory has largely been dismissed for the past seventy years. Instead, modern descriptions of the Sumerian vowel inventory are restricted to the four vowels that are visible through the filter of Akkadian. After decades of neglect, Keetman (2005) reopened the discussion of the relationship between Sumerian vowel harmon\- and tho languages vowel inventory. Although he is definitely on the rigbt track, the solution he suggests, which requires two forms of vowel barmony to be operating simultaneously, is overly complicated. This paper shows how the choice of appropriate phonological features can simplify Keetman's analysis, and explain the data as the result of a single vowelharmony process, The goal of the paper is to reexamine the vowel harmony described by Poebel and Kramer, and situate it in n modern phonological framework. Contrastive and typological factors indicate that tbe observed vowel harmony behavior is best explained by a seven-vowel inventory. By examining Old Babylonian lexical texts and tbe Sumerian lexicon, we hnd additional support for a sevenvowel inventory. By drawing together the data from vowel harmony, from lexical texts, and from (loss-linguistic imiversals, I conclude that Sumerian actually had a seven-vowel inventory.
1 begin in section 1 by discussing exi.sting arguments for an expanded vowel inventory tbat draw upon orthographic data. In section 2, I present the vowel harmony patterns that led Poebel and Kramer to propose their six-vowel inventory. In section 3, the core of the paper, I reframe the earlier analysis of vowel harmony in modern terms, and shows how a seven-vowel inventory is the most plausible one. Section 4 ties together the lexical and phonological evidence to provide additional support for a seven-vowel inventory. 1. Orthographic Evidence Much of our knowledge of how Sumerian was actually pronounced comes from the lexical texts of the Old Babylonian period. Since tbe Old Babylonian scribes were no longer native speakers of Sumerian, they took extra care in representing the full phonology of the words being written. These lexical lists are invaluable to modern scholars because they spell out syllabic writings for Sumerian words wbose pronunciation would otherwise be completely opaque. Although lexical lists are vital to our understanding of Sumerian phonology, most of them come with two significant limitation.s. First, most of the exemplars available to us appear to bave been exercises used as part of the .scribal training process (Civil 1979), whicb means that they are not without errors. More fundamentally, the problem is tbat tbese lists represent tbe pronunciation of Sumerian as filtered through the Akkadian phonological system. 19
JCS 59 (2(107i
20
ERIC J.M. SMITH
The limitations of the Akkadian inventory are particularly problematic for our reconstruction of the Sumeiian vowel system. Since Akkadian has a system with four vowel-qualities (/a/, /e/, /i/, and /u/), any Sumerian vowels that cannot be represented within that system are hidden to us. Scholars of Sumerian have tended to he extremely conservative when it comes to admitting new phonemes into the inventory (e.g.. Black 1990). Hence., the most recent accounts of the Sumerian vowel system, such as Michalowski (2004) and Edzard (2003) have restricted themselves to the /a/. k'L /i/, /u/ system, which can ,securely be supported by Akkadian, Some scholars, notably Edzard f2003) have argued that Sumerian, like Akkadian, had a distinction in vowel length, but this view does not seem to have garnered much support. In any event, the existence of vowel length is orthogonal to the questions of vowel quality that are the focus of this paper.
by repeating the vowel. So for instance, the in line 17 told the scribe that the sign is to be read /be/ and not /bi/, Consider lines 10 and 11 of the fragment transcribed in (1), which clearly indicate that and represent two distinct pronunciations of the grapheme. (1) A Fragment of the Lexical List Proto-Ea (Landsberger 1951,1955; Civil 1979) Line
Pronunciation
10
ku-U3
KU
11
ku-U2
KU
12
SU2-US
KU
13
tu-us
KU
15
su-uh2 si-i
KU
16 17
be2-e
18
bi-id
KU KU
19
da-ab
KU
20
du-ur
KU
/./. Evidence from Lexical Texts
21
du-ru
KU
It has long been accepted that certain signs that shared a single phonetic value in Akkadian had multiple values in Sumerian, with the best example being the signs and a long /u:/, and not a diphthong; evidently though, there was an ailophonio variation depending on the underlying origin of the /u:/, and this \ariation manifested itself in written Akkadian. The same scribal tradition that used and to distinguish an Akkadian allophone of /u/ used the same graphemes to render the Sumerian phoneme lol (Lieberman 1977). Somewhat more controversial is the attempt by Bohrova and Militarev (1989) to build upon Liebermans work and extend the Simierian vowel system even further, Bobrova anfi Militarev made an analysis of spelling variations in the pronunciation guides provided in other lexical lists. So for example, in one lexical list the <MIN> grapheme is indicated with a pronunciation of <mi-in> while in another it is indicated as <ma-an>, and they argued that this a:i variation is evidence for the existence of a front /a/ phoneme. In similar fashion, they used u:i, i:e, and a;u variations to argue for the vowel system shown in (2). (2) Extended Vowel Inventory for Sumerian (Bobrova and Militarev 1989) i, 0
u 3 or i e
0 a
a
Undercutting their analysis, however, is the fact that the spelling alternations in question were largely drawn from later texts that post-date the presumed extinction of spoken Sumerian. Moreover, their methodology depends on comparing prontmciation guides from different lexical texts, which could be subject to variation for reasons other than the attempt to render distinctions in vowel quality. While such an inventory cannot be ruled out, there does not appear to he sufficient evidence to support it Lieberman is on some-
21
what more secure grounds, since the variations he observed are all within a single lexical text. 2. Vowel Harmony Data When considering data from lexical lists, it mu.st be remembered that, with the exception of a handful of early lists from Ebla, such lists date from the Old Babylonian period at the earliest. Since they were written by and for Akkadianspeaking .scribes, they might well have heen composed in a period when there were no longer any native speakers of Sumerian. Fortunately, there is other orthographic evidence that clearly dates from Sumerian texts written by Sumerianspeaking scribes. Specifically, there appear to be a fair number of orthographic patterns that can best be explained as a consequence of vowel harmony. Within two-syllable stems, there appears to be a tendency towards having the same vowel in both syllables (Poebel 1923; Michalowski 2004). A typical example is the Sumerian word for "bronze," zahar. This appears to he a Kulturwort common to a number of languages in the region. In the neighboring Akkadian, the word is siparru, while in Eiamite (southwestern Iran) the word is zuhar. This suggests that vowel harmony operated on this word after it had been adopted into Sumerian, turning the high vowel of the first syllable into a low vowel. To date, no tomptehensive study has been done on stem-internal vowel harmony in Sumerian, although a brief outline of some of the data will be provided in §4.2. Most of the attention, rather, has been devoted to studying vowel harmony in the Sumerian "verbal chain." Sumerian is an agglutinative language, and verbal stems are generally accompanied by a number of prefixes and suffixes. For many decades scholars have noted that these affixes in the verbal chaiTi tend to exhibit vowel changes depending Oil the stem to which they are attached. The general structure of the Sumerian verb complex is shown in (3). The exact forms, functions, and ordering of these affixes has been the subject of much-heated debate among Sumerologists. However, since we are interested here
22
ERIC J. M. SMITH
only in the phonological combinations that these affixes set up, all that is important here is the general rule that within each "slot," the affixes are
mutually exclusive. A number of the affixes have allomorphs, which are indicated in (3) separated by slashes.
(3) Order of Elements in Sumerian Verbal Chain (Thomsen 1984; Michalowski 2004) 1. Mood 2. Conjunction 3. Conjugation . i f — I
4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.
Indirect object Dimensional prefixes Agreement prefixes Verbal stem -ed suffix Agreement suffixes Nominalization suffix
I he-, nu-, ha-/he2-/hu-, bara-, u-, na-, ga-, sa-} | inga-} j mu-/ma-, ba-/bi9-/be9-, i-!-/e-, al-} 1
^
i
-
^
^
i
j
'
'
{ a-, ra-, na-, me-, ne-} { da-, si-/se3-, ta-, ra-, ni-/ne-, i-} | e-, n-, b-) {-ed ) | -en, -enden, -enzen, -ene, -es } | -a |
Already in the first comprehensive study of Sumerian (Poebel 1923), a wide range of both regressive and progressive vowel harmony was identified in the verbal chain. Subsequent studies have found further instances of vowel harmony. Upon closer examination, it appears that the term "vowel harmony" is being applied rather broadly here, and that there are two somewhat different phenomena involved. In the first type of vowel harmony, the vowel of the affix assimilates completely to the trigger vowel. So, for instance, the conjugation prefix muappears with the 2nd-person singular dative prefix ra- as <ma-ra>; with the prefix 7U- we get <mi-ni> (Poehel 1923). This t\pe of harmony also operates progressively, as is the case of the verbal suffix -ed, which changes to -ud when following a verbal stem containing a lul vowel, producing a form like rather than \tum-ed-a> (Poebel 1923; Thomsen 1984). While this phenomenon is interesting, it does not provide much insight towards reconstructing the vowel inventory. 2.1. ilannouy in the Conjugation Prefixes -le- and hi-lbe- (Poehel 1931 and Kramer 1936) The dearest type of vowel harmony is illustrated in Old Sumerian texts from southern Mesopotamia, particularly from the city state of Lagas. Early studies by Poebel (1931) and
Kramer (1936) showed that the conjugation prefixes I- and hi- become e- and be% respectively, whenever the verbal stem to which they are attached contains an /a/vowel. The conjugation prefix i- is ordinarily written as .^ This in itself is rather curious because there is a very common grapheme, but this particular morpheme is consistently written as instead. It has been argued that the underlying form of the morpheme may actually be III (Thomsen 1984), but this is not widel\- accepted. Whatever the case, this l + nasal] feature does not appear to have any effect on the prefixs behavior with respect to vowel harmony. Before stems with a lul, /i/, or lei vowel, the prefix is written as . So we observe forms like , , , , and However, before stems with an /a/ vowel we observe the prefix being written <e>, as in <e-ak>, <e-ba>, <e-bal>, and <e-gal2>. There are isolated exceptions (e.g., appears once instead of the usual <e-gaz>), but these form a tiny fraction of the corpus (Poebel 1931). There is a similar patterning for the conjugation prefix bi-. Before stems with lul and HI vowels, 2. An aniMiyinoLis reviewer has pointed out that the prefix is oftfn written in the [.sin-Lai'.sa and later periods. However, this is perfectly understandable, sincv it would reflect scribal practice after the period in whith harmony was an active phenomenon in Sumerian.
[-ATR1 HARMONY AND THE VOWEL INVENTORY OE SUMERIAN the prefix is written as ; before stems with /a/ vowels it is written as and prefixes: ru, sur, urg, and ur4. Of these, ru and sur are found in Proto-Ea with orthographies that plausibly represent an hi vowel. Line 736' of Proto-Ea, containing the sign, is found on only one tablet, and the pronunciation column is too damaged to read. Line 872, containing the sign, gives only as the pronunciation, which provides no indication of whether an hi vowel might or might not be present, Nonetheles.s, it is reassuring that the Proto-Ea data at least does not contradict the existence of those hi vowels that are suggested by the vowel harmonv behavior.
7. Apparently Poehels change in position was dup to the recognition that the <deb2> sign also had a value of . The existence of forms like <e-deb2> had been the initial motivation for Poebels arguments in favor of an /6/ (or Izf) vowrl. However, there are several otber verbs, such as gen, me, and dp^, whic'h also t-o-ot'cur with the e- form of the prefix, and hence provide evidence for Izl.
ERIC J.M. SMITH
32
(17) Correlating Proto-Ea /o/vowels with vowel harmony data Verb
Gloss '3
Ur,
to ride
SU^
to be empty, to drown
U7-U4
to sow, to ctiltivate to lay down
ru sur
Prefix forms Reconstructed phonology bio e be2
4
lol
29 /
/so/
to produce a fluitl
However, the vowel-harmony data do point towards the existence of both lol and hi. If, as Lieberman had suggested, there is only a single /o/-t\'pe vowel, then it is hard to explain why u^ and ur»4 are written with the prefix, while sur and ru are written with the <e> and prefixes. The existence of a distinct hi and lol vowels, one with and one without the spreadable [-ATR| feature, provides the necessary explanation for this diflerence. It would have been useful if the lexical lists contained similar orthographic evidence supporting the IeI vs. IEI distinction in Sumerian. However, such a distinction is not to be found in Proto-Ea, which is the earliest such li.st. It has to be remembered that the Sumeriati wiiting system was not rigorous in distinguishing even between IeI and HI; it is hardly surpri.sing that the much subtler distinction between IeI and kl is nol represented at all. Evidence from the Lexicon While evidence for the expanded vowel inventory has drawn on vowel harmony in the prefix chain, it has also been noted that vowel harmony seems to he present elsewhere in the language. In particular, Michalowski (2004J notes a tendency for both vowels of a two-syllable word to harmonize. While a full study of the harmony within the Sumerian lexicon is beyond the scope of this paper, it is worth ptesenting some of the tnore relevant observations.
lovul
3 1
H-DI
IS3VI
The electronic version of the Pennsylvanian Sumerian Dictionary (Sjoberg, Leichty, and Tinney 2004) lists 4336 lexical entries. These can be broken down as shown in (18). It should he cautioned that this is based on a ctirsory s\irvey of the contents of the PSD. A more exhaustive study should be able to reduce the residue of unexplained violations of vovi^el harmony further.'* There is an interesting class of compound verbs that refer to tnaking noise of various sorts. These imiformly violate regressive vowel harmony, typically consisting of a syllable with an HI or lul vowel followed by the same syllable with an /a/ vowel. Examples include zikzak.. .za, pudpad... za, wuwa ... za, and in a more extended template, duhuldahal... za (Black 2003). Evidently there is some onomatopoeic factor here, but it is telling that this is expressed as a violation of the normal constraints on vowel harmony. In accordance with Casali (2003), Sutnerian shotild not display strong assimilatory |-ATR] dominance in compounds. That is to say, there is no reason to consider a form such as nigsaga "goodnes.s" (from nig |derivational motpheme] + .sag, "to please ) to be a violation of the rules of vowel harmony within Sumerian. 8. An anonymous revievt'er has su^gesteH that many apparent CVCVC and CVC^IV words in Sumerian miiv actually represent an attf'mpt to render fonsonant chisters f/ccve/and hvvf respectively). He also suggests that a lar^e number of CVCVC vt'ords in Sumerian are SemiHc loanword.s. Either of these factors may help to reduce further the residue of words that appear to be violating vowel harmony.
[-ATR] HARMONY AND THE VOWEL INVENTORY OE SUMERIAN
33
(18) Breakdown of Harmony within the Pennsylvania Sumerian Dictionary 4336 1190 single-syllable words total 3146 155 with no establed reading entries multi2275 unambiguously obey vowel-harmonv rules syllable 36 appear to deliberately violate hannony for onomatopoeic reasons words 871 contain an /e-a/, /i-a/, 335 can be analyzed as compounds or /u-a/ sequence that 97 appear to have a final /a/ that originated as a suffix (e.g., genitive case -ak) may violate vowel at least 19 appear to be loanwords from Akkadian or Hurrian hannony 209 have an orthography where it is possible that an apparent lul is rules actually an hi or an apparent IeI is actually an kl 175 lack an obvious explanation
Similarly, Casali would predict that Sumerian suffixes should not be dominant. That is, a |-ATR] suffix should fail to spread |-ATRi to the stem. This is the case with the genitive case suffix -ak, as in Iu inimak "witness" {from Iu "person" + inim "word" + genitive -ak). In many cases, it may be productive to reanalvze the reconstructed prontmciation to see whether an apparent lul or IeI might actually conceal an hi or an kl. That is to say that guza "chair" might actually be pronoimced /gDza/, and erigar "fanner" might actually be /engar/. There does remain a residue of multi-syllable words that appear to disobey the rules of vowel harmony. However, this fraction is relatively small, only 176 out of the 4336 total words, or 4.1 percent of the total. These words, such as nitah, "male," and sipad, "shepherd," are difficult to analyze as anything other than an unequivocal hannony violation. The existence of such words, which clearly violate the phonological rules of Sumerian, has been used as evidence for a proposed pre-Sumerian substrate language, although the existence of such a substrate has strongly been challenged (Rubio 1999).
5. Conclusions In this manner, Sumeiian behaves in a fashion identical to niodern-da\- languages that display tongue-root hannony. The patterns of weak assimilatory [-ATR1 dominance and the 4Ht(M) inventory fit perfectly with the model described by Casali. While it is impossible to state unequivocally that the contrastive feature in Sumerian was phonetically realized as |-ATR}, from a phonological standpoint, it acts just as if it really were [-ATR]. By correlating the data from lexical lists and the vowel haimony behavior, we see that Poebels six-vowel inventory is inadequate for explaining the observed data. An additional lol vowel is required to explain the apparent discrepancies. Such an lol vowel produces a symmetrical seven-vowel inventory, which accords nicely with Calabre.ses system of marking statements. In addition, this seven-vowel inventory appears far more common cross-linguistically than the asymmetrical inventory hypothesized by Poebel. Although the feature model proposed here is necessarily speculative, it explains the observed data much better than the generally accepted fourvowel system that is visible to us through the filter of Akkadian.
34
ERIC J. M. SMITH References
Bauer, J.
Keetman, J. 2005 Die altsumerisrhe V{)kalharmonie und die 1972 Altsumerifiche Wirtachaftstexte OILS Lagasck Vokale des sumerischen. JC.S57: 1-16 Rome: Biblical Institute Press. Kramer, S. N. Black, J. A. 1936 The Sumerian Prefix Forms he- and hi- in the 1990 The Alleged 'Extra" Phonemes of Sumerian. Time of the Earlier Princes of Laga.i Chicago; RA 84; 107-18. University of Chicago Press. 2003 Sumerian Noises: Ndeophones in Context. Pp. 35-.'52 in Literatur.. Politik. uiirf Recht in Krecher, J. Mesojxitamien: Festschrift fur Clans Wilcke, 1987 Morphemeless Syntax in Sumerian as Seen eri. W. Saliaherger. Wieshaden: Hanassowitz. on the Background of Wnrd-Composition in Bobrova, L V, and Militarev, A. Yu. Chukchee. AS; 9; 67-88. Landsberger, B. 1989 Towards the Recon.struction of Sumerian Phonology. Pp. 96-105 in Liny^viNtichc.skaija 1951 Die Serie llr-e-a = naqu, Materialen zum Rekoustrukcii/a i Dreiiieyshaya Istorhja VosSumerischen Lexikon II. Rome: Pontifi})edia of the World's Ancient languages, Pontificium Institutum Biblicum. ed. Roger D. Woodard. Camhridge: Cambridge Dresher, B. E. University Press. 2003 Contrast and Asymmetries in Phonology. Pp. 239-.57 in Asymmetry in Grammar, Vol. 2: Poebel, A. Morphology. Phonology. Ac(iuisitUni, ed. A. di 1923 Grti7idziige der sumerischen Grammatik, Sciullo. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Rostocker orientalistische Studien, 1. Rostock: Selbstveriag des Verfassers. Dresher, B. E., und Zhang, X. 2004 Phonological Contrasts and Phonetics in 1931 The Sumerian Prefix Forms e- and i- iii the Manchu Vowel Systems. Pp. 59-71 in ProTime of the Earlier Princes of iMgas. Chicago; ceedings of the R^rketey Linguistic S(x:iety 29, The Oriental Institute of the University of ed. P M. Nowak, C. Ycx^uelet, and D. Mortensen. Chicago. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society. 1939 Studies in Akkadian Grammar. Chicago; The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Edzard, D 0. Rubin, G. 2003 Sumerian Grammar. HdO 1.71. Leiden: Brill. Frayne, D. 1999 On the Alleged Pre-Sumerian Substratum. forth;_CS 51: 1-16. coming Pre-Sar^^onic Period {2700-2350 BC), RIME 1. Sjoberg, S. W.; Leichty, E.; and Tinney, S. 2004 Electronic Pennsylvania Sumerian Dictionary Toronto: University of Toronto Pre.ss, van der Hulst, H., and van de Weijer, J. . 1995 Vowel Harmony. Pp. 495-534 in The Handhook Thomsen, M, L. of Phonological Theory, ed. J. A Coldsmith. 1984 The Sumenari Language: AJI Introduction to Cambridge, MA: BlackweU. Its History and Grammatical Structure, Jakobson, R, and Halle, M. Mesopotamia 10. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag. 1956 Fundamentals of iMnguage. The Hague; Mouton.
[-ATR] HARMONY AND THE VOWEL INVENTORY OF SUMERIAN
35
Appendix A: Possible lol orthographies in Proto-Ea {Landsberger 1951,1955; Civil 1979)
Line Pronunciation 10 38 63 66 67 69 76 77 79 94 112 113 SU-U2, su-u, SU-U4 121 SU-U2, SU-U4 128 145 151 164 SU2-U2, su-u, SU-U3 172 mu-u, mu-u4 190 230 U4 310 346 U3-gu-ur 362 368 374 408 U2, U4 416a 476 SU2-U2, SU2-U 497 du-U2, du-u 512 SU-U2, SU-U4, SU4-U2, su-u 522 539 540 541 575 U4 594
Sign
Gloss
KU
ku "to place"'' umah "blow" udu "sheep" mu4 "to get dressed" tug2 "textile, garment" umus "sagacity" ukur "poor" usar "neighbor" la'u "arrears" mu5 "good" u "hole"
LAGABxU+A
LU TUG2 TUG2 TUG2 LAL2.DU LAL2.SAR LAL2.KAK
NI U U
SU4 "red"
SU2
SUS2/SU2 "to cover"
HUSI
tnai
U5 "to ride, mount" uri "a vessel" xx
UD
U4/ud "day"
LAGARxSE
HI AH
sur/su7 "threshingfloor;to produce a fluid mu "name, vear"'' uruda/urudu "copper" U2 "plant(s)" ugu "skull" ugur "sword" lud/ulud "a cup, bowl" dub3 "knee" or dug3/dui() "good" uman "insect{s), bug(s)"'
IGLDIB
U3 "sleep"
EN
urun/uruie "to be strong, exalted" sud/su3 "to be empty, to drown" du "to go (sing.)" sub2 "to go (pi.)", sug2 "to stand (pi.)" uru4 "to sow, to cultivate" urum/uruji urujs"flood" uru2 "city" ug^ "light uras "earth"
MU URUDU Uo UKA U.GUR DUG
SUD
DU DU DU
APIN
URU URUxA
URUxUD PIRIGxUD IB
a In those later tablets that provide an Akkadian gloss, the pronunciation coliimn contains , so it is likely that Ihe meaning "tn place" is properly associated with line 11 and nol wilh line 10 . h. Line 171 has a proiiimeiiiHon of <mu-ii2> fbi the <MU> sign, suggesting thai the sign had Iwo different pronunciations (/mu/ and /m.i/ by (iiir reronstriietion). However, there are no surviving tablets with an Akkadian gloss for this sign, so it is not clear whether mu "year" and mu ""name" were pronounced the .same, or differently.
36
ERIC J. M. SMITH
597 619
ru-U3, ni-U2
RU
ru "to lay d o w n
du-U4, tu-U4
TUK
d u i 2 "to take"
669
tu-U2, tu-U4
tui5 " w i n d "
671
ku-U2
IM MI
766
U4-un
EZENxKAS
un3 "to arise, to b e h i g h "
772
U4-di-ni-im,
EZENxSIGy
u d n i m , a place n a m e
774
U3-ud-nim
lEZENxSlGyCP)]
u d n i m , a place n a m e
830
U3-bur
DAG.KISIM5XGA
ubur"breasr
ku|() (in kuiQ-ku|Q, "black
Appenrlix B: Co-occurrence Data for Conjugation Prefixes The following table represents a s>'nthesis of data from Poebel (1931), Kramer (1936), Bauer (1967), the Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia (Frayne, forthcoming), and the Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative (Englund and Damerow 2000-), Verbs that tend to co-orour with atid are listed first, followed by verbs that tetid to cooccur with <e> and . Data is drawn from all available Early Dynastic texts from southern Mesopotamia, chiefly from the city-state of Lagas.
<e>
Stem
1
bil " b u r n "
5
bu^(r) "to t e a r out"
1
13
de2 "pour"
11
11
120
1
duf^ "open, loosen"
3
d u g 4 / d u j | "speak, talk"
1
dub "heap up" durun "sit (pi.)" gi4 "return" gid2 "be long, measure out" gU7 "eat" gub "stand" gul "destroy" hug "hire, rent" il2 "lift, carry" kes2 "bind" ku4(r) "enter" mu7 "make noise" se3(g/k) "place" se|2 "dwell" si "be full, fill" sig7 "be pleasant" su "replace"
2
3
5 4
31
1
30 5
1 5
12
1
188 1
17 6 2
4
1
3 2
du3 "build"
[-ATR] HARMONY AND THE VOWEL INVENTORY OF SUMERIAN
SU3 "drown" su8(g) "stand"
29 2 5
24
24 1 1 3 35 19 4 1
SU2 "cover, overwhelm" te/ti "approach" til "finish, cea.se, perish" tu5 "bathe, wash" tUi7
5"
13
3
1 1
1
1
2
1
2
1 2 5
I
63
U
6
8*^ 2 1 1 1
1
37
14 4 57 2 4 14 17 14 1 3 9 5 3 3
1
tuku "have" tus "sit, dwell" U5 "ride, mount" uru4 "plough" US2 "follow. }oin, reach" zig3 "rise, stand tip" ha-lam "ruin, destroy"'' sed/sid "count, recite" ag2 "measure" ak "make, do" ba "give" bal(a) "cross, transfer" bar "open, split" dab.-j "seize, catch" deQ "hring" gaz "slattghter, kill" gaU "be (somewhere)" gar "place" gen "go, come" had2 "dry" hal "deal out, distribute" Ia2 "carrv. hang, weigh" me "be" nag "drink" a ... ru "dedicate" sagg "to be good"
a. Al! live of Ihese exceptions eome from a single tablet, RTC 76. b.On the strength of the form , Poebel (1931) reads the sign as .The value of this sign is attested in ?rot 2.000
\aneh the first visible feature as one approaches the town of Islamabad from kilometers away. Therefore, it comes as no surprise that Chogba Gavaneh has long been a subject of curiosity.
Fig. 1. Map of western Iran and Mesopotamia showing the location of Chogha Gavaneh.
Research al Chogha Gavaneh
constrtiction, while the hip;h motind has contintted to be quarried and shaved off from the sides and top to clear room for building activitie.s. Consequently, Ghogha Gavaneh is now only about 4 hectares in area, perhaps as little as ten percent (if its original size (fig. 3). The most prominent part of the site today is the "high mound" (fig. 4), where one can find the longest preserved sequence of occttpational deposits (as early as the Early Neolithic Period to the Middle Bionz.e Age. according to test excavations at Operation W263 and STl; see Ahdi forthcoming), The "lower town," where one tnight have expected to find deposits of later periods, is now completely covered by the town of Islamabad. Despite extensive damage, Chogha Gavaneh is still the largest site of prehistoric and early historic times on the Islamabad Plain and one of the largest archaeological sites in the West-Central Zagros Mountains. The high mounds massive volume and towering height of over 25 meters above the plain level (fig. 4) makes Chogha Ga-
Several early travelers (cf. Jones 1857) passed throtigh the Islamabad Plain (then called the Harunabad Plain) in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, but none seem to have remarked on the archaeological remains in the area Th(^ first traveler/archaeologist to give a hrief description of the region was Aurel Stein, who visited the town of Harunabad in 1936 during his general survey of western Iran (Stein 1940; 420). T^ater the same year Erich Sc hniidt f!ew over the Plain during his aerial reconnaissance in western Iran (Schmidt 1940). In 1959-1960, as part of the Iranian Prehistory Project of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, Robert Braidwood and his team briefly surveyed the Plain (Braidwood 1961), but they do not seem to have explored Chogha Gavaneh in any detail, A few years later, Clare Gofl' (1966) of the British Institute of Persian Sttrdies visited the Plain during her general survey of the Central Zagros Mountains. The first series of archaeological excavations at Chogha Gavaneh were carried out in 1967 by Ali-Akbar Karegar Sarfaraz, Mohammad-Rahim
A CUNEIFORM ARCHIVE FROM CHOGHA GAVANEH, WESTERN IRAN
41
Fig. 4. The high mound iu 1997.
Fig. 3. Topographic plan of the high incjuud as of 1998. Sarraf, and Ismai'l Yaghma'i (from the then Archaeological Service of Iran). This team opened a step trench at the northeast side of the high mound to study its stratigraphy, finding levels from the Chalcolithic Period to the Ir"on Age as well as disturbed remains of later periods. Following the 1967fieldwork, although the site was registered in the list of national monuments., infringements upon Chogha Gavaneh by the locals intensified. In a matter of just three \ears, as a result of the growth of the town, the slopes of the high mound were covered with houses. Early iu 1970, the town municipality cleared the conical-shaped top of the mound to establish a tea house. Notified of the.se activities, the Archaeological Service of Iran dispatched Mahmoud Kordevani to prevent further damage to the site arrd conduct excavations in cjuarried areas. For three months in the summer of 1970, Kordevani and his team cleared an area of about 0.8 hectares on the top of the high mound, exposing a major architectural complex (fig. 5). The finds from this architectural complexincluding the collection of tablets discus.sed here— and the evidence for conflagration in some places led Kordevani (1971: 46-50) to date the complex to the late Iron Age II of the Central Zagros {ca. 800 B.c:.) and to interpret it as one of many settlements the Neo-Assyrian kings claimed to have sacked and burned in the Zagros.
Despite its tremendous potential, work at Chogha Gavaneh did not continue beyond the first season. Kordevani was dispatched to work at Persepolis with Akbar Tajvidi, and Chogha Gavaneh was left to the mercy of the locals, who continued with their destructive activities. For a short season in 1980, Mahmoud Mousavi, Ismail Yaghma'i, and Ali Valinouri from the then Iranian Center for Archaeological Research returned to Chogha Gavaneh to make another attempt at preserving the site from further destruction. Kamyar Abdi began a regional archaeological project in the Islamabad plain in 1997. Abdis field research was primarily focused on the early prehistory of the area (Abdi 1999a, 1999b, 2000, 2001a, 2001b, 2002, 2003; Abdi, Biglari. and Heydari 2002; Abdi et al. 2002; Biglari and Abdi 1999; Heydari 2001; Mashkour and Abdi 2002), but a re-study of old excavations at Chogha Gavaneh was also on the agenda, especialh' the recovery of the tablets and other finds from the 1970 excavations in the storage facilities of the Iran National Museum in Tehran, where they were stored after the excavations, and limited excavations that would shed more light on the archaeological context of the tablets. Abdi is pleased to inform the reader that he has been able to locate and document most of the finds from the 1970 excavations. They are currently under study and will be published in another paper in the not too distant future.
42
KAMYAR ABDI AND GARY BECKMAN
Fig. 5. Plan of the architectural complex excavated in 1970. Redrawn after the original field map, courtesv of Mahmoud Kordevani.
The Archilectiiral Complex The architectural complex (fig. 5) in which the tablets were discovered demonstrates the characteristics of a pre-planned and well constructed compound. In terms of general layout, the complex resembles a range of public and private buildings excavated at Mesopotamian sites such as Ur (cf. Woolley 1976: pi. 128) and Tell ed-Der (Baqir and Mustafa 1945:fig.4; Gasche 1989: pi. 2), dating to late third and early second millennia B.c:. Despite relatively extensive excavations (abotit 0.8 h) it seems that only a portion of the compound has been exposed. The excavated parts seem to be the inner quarters of the compound, while the more peripheral rooms and walls that may once have surrounded it have been quarried or
eroded away. Functional interpretation of excavated rooms is difficult in absence of a detailed description of finds from individual loci, but general observation indicates that the compound consists of a number of irregularly-shaped rooms in the northeast corner, which may have been for domestic activities, and a series of residential spaces to the east, to the north of a feature which may have been an entrance to the compound at the north side of a courtyard. To the west one can see a number of larger rooms whose function is unknown, but which may have been the administrative part of the compound, where a large reception hall and behind that a repository for tablets (Room B15) were located.
A CUNEIFORM ARCHIVE FROM CHOGHA GAVANEH, WESTERN IRAN
Fig. 6. Room B15 prior to excavation. Re-excavating Room B15 According to Koidevanis report, the tablets were discovered in Room B15. In this room was also found a clay figurine of an animal (4 cm in length), a nude female plaque ( 7 x 5 em)., and a bronze arrowhead (about 6 cm long). In the excavation report there is also reference to a bronze blade inscribed with the words "Palace ... day" (Kordevani 1971: 43), but it is not clear whether the blade came from this room or elsewhere in the complex. In any event, Abdis attempt to locate this blade met with no success; it may have undergone conservation over the years and been transferred to one of many departments in the Iran National Museum or have been sent on long-term loan to a regional mu.seum. The cylinder seal discussed iu this paper (figs. 33-34) was also di.scovered in room B15. In order to study the archaeological context of the archive., Abdi re-excavated Room B15 on Jtily 21-25, 1998.' The primary goal of reexcavation was to study the internal organization of the room and di.scover any clues as to the context of the tablets. Finding additional artifacts, including tablets, was not a possibility, since Kordevanis team had already cleared the room down to the floor level and removed all thefinds.Since Kordevani was hoping to return to the site for a second 1, Abdi is grateful to Abbas Motarjeni (tbe lepresentative of the Imntan CuilunU Heritage Organization), Jebreil Nokandeh, Ali Farahani, and Mamid-Reza Valipour for tbeir as.si.stanre with the excavations.
43
l-'ig. 7. Krnuniug tlu^ underbrush prior lo excavations. Note in the background the hummock erected during the Iran-Iraq War as support for an anti-aircraft battery.
season of excavations (which never took place), he did not refill his excavations, but over time the complex had been partially reburied due to natural erosion. Further, there have been several changes in the topography of the area on top of the mound, inehrding a hrrmmock erected during the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-1988 to install an antiaircraft battery. This hummock has since eroded away and become part of the mound's topography (see fig. 7), making discernment of the layout of the compound and the location of individual rcroms more difficult. The only clue as to where to look for Room B15 was its known genera! location towards the north .side of the ccmipound and patterns on the surface that might be interpreted as remnants of the erosion of the ancient mudbrick walls some thirty years after they had been excavated. After some probing, we settled on an area as the possible location of Room 15 (fig. 6). After clearing the area of underhrush (fig. 7), we sprayed water to mark the mudbrick walls from the fill (fig. 8), an archaeological trick that proved successful, as color differentiation immediately showed us where the mudbrick walls were. Hence, we began excavation from the south side of the room (fig. 9). The first features to be exposed were a doorway with a pivot to the right-hand side as one entered the room and a block of stone to the left (fig. 10), presirmahly for a wooden door to sit on the pivot and be closed with the block.
44
KAMYAR ABDI AND GARY BECKMAN
Fig. 10. Doorway to Room B15 with a stone pivot to the right and a door-stop to the left.
Fig. 8. Spraying water reveals mudbrick walls.
Fig. II. Southeast corner of Room B15 showing the position of the doorway vis-^-vis stone slab, presumably used as a bench.
Fig. 9. Excavation begins at the southern end of Room B15.
Fig. 12. Traces of burning visihle iu tiie area around the stone bench on the eastern wall of Room B15.
A CUNEIFORM ARCHIVE FROM CHOGHA GAVANEH, WESTERN IRAN
Fig. 13. The eastern side of Room B15 with the location of the doorway, stone bench, and mudbrick platform.
Fig. 14. Northern side of Room B15 with the lot ation of the nuidhrick platform (NE corner) vis-a-vis ashy and silty feature (NW corner).
Fig. 15. Ashy and siltv feature in the NW corner of Room B15 prior to excavations.
As excavations progressed, we fotind another block of stone about 2 meters north of the doorway along the eastern wall of the room, presumably a bench (fig. 11). The area aiound this hlock and the wall behind it showed clear evidence of fire in the form of discoloration (fig. 12). Farther up, in the northeast corner of the room we found a mudbrit k benc h with some traces of ash (fig. 13). As excavations progressed along tbe northern wall of the room, we encountered a peculiar ashy/silty
45
deposit opposite the mrrdbrick bench on the northwest corner of the room (fig. 14). Upon further excavation and removal of the top la\er of deposit, we encountered a large ashy deposit (fig. 15). Once this deposit was removed, a peculiar feature emerged; It consisted of a fragmentary pottery vessel placed in a pit with .sloping sides leading to a ridge marked with mudbricks. To the west was found a supporting buttress behind this feature and the room wall, with two baked bricks intact (fig. 16). The function of this feature still eludes us, but the abundance of ash in and around it would make some sort of fire installation a feasible explanation. However, the only way we can explain the amount of ash still preserved at this area is to assume that Kordevanis excavators backfilled this area with its own fill after they were done with the excavations. Unfortunately we never had the opportunity to ask Kordevani about this. Excavations continued along the western wall, where we ohserved some patterns in the brickwork that could be interpreted as a coved cornice (fig. 17). Once the entire interior- surface of the walls was exposed, we C'ontiuued to (>robe the floor; Only 20-25 cm below the surface a r"ough floor made from hardened plaster was recovered (fig. 18). As expected, no finds were made in the (ourse of excavation. Room B15 is roughly rectangular in shape and about 12 x 15 m in size (fig. 19), with mudbrick walls preserved in some places to a height of 70 cm. The walls of the room ave regular and made from standard-size mudhricks of roirghly 35 X 35 X 10 cm, often plastered and in some cases painted. Small-scale clearing of the plaster suggests that mudbricks were geuerally laid in stretcher-stretcher form on the exterior surfaces (fig. 20). Scraping ofF the rrpper snrface of a wall section indicates that beyond the exter ior courses of full bricks, the interior of the wall is filled in a multitude of ways with full, half, or fragmentary hricks(fig.21). According to the original excavation report, the tablets were discovered sitting on the floor along the southern wall of Room 15 (Kordevani 1971: 45), but we had uo way to verify this, nor have we any information on their arrangemerrt. Our reconstruction of the room (fig. 22), its internal
46
KAMYAR ABDI AND GARY BECKMAN
Fig. 16. The feature in the NW corner after excavation.
Fig. 18. General view of Room B15 seen from SE to NW.
Fig. 17. SW corner of Room B15 with traces of coved cornice.
Fig. 19. Schematic ground plan of Room B15 and cross-section of the NW corner feature.
organization with benches and fire installations, and its position vis-a-vis the other rooms in the compound, suggest that this was the seribes oflEice as well as the tablet archive for the administrative apparatus functioning out of this complex. We now tnrn to the tablets to find out more about this administration and its function. The Tablets (by Gary Beckman) Dedicated to the memorij ofHarald Ingholt 11896-198.5), excavator of Tell Shemsliara
In accordance with the Iron Age II date assigned to the excavated material bv Mahmoud Korde-
1
I
I
Fig. 20. Schematic profile of a wall in Room B15 showing stretcher-stretcher brickwor k.
vani (see above). Dr. Abdi had told me to expect tablets fr-om Neo-Assyrian times, but paleographic analysis dates this archive to the Old Babylonian period, more precisely to the early eighteenth century B.c;. (middle chronology). The script is similar to that of the letters of Hammurapi to Samas-
A CUNEIFORM ARCHIVE FROM CHOGHA GAVANEH, WESTERN IRAN
Room B15
N
t Fig. 21. Overview plan of the eastern wall of Room B15 showing irregular brickwork on the interior section of the wall held together by regrrlar brickwor'k on the exterior
Fig. 22. Three-dimensional reconstr'uction of Room B15.
hazer, for example, or to that used in economic records from the reign of Rim-Srn I of Larsa. Mimation is for the most part still present. In his
47
work on Old Bahylonian material from the Rania plain, Jesper Eidem noted; "The finds from Shemshara indirectly prove that contemporary written sources should be available at other sites in the western Zagros" (Eidem and L8ess0e 2001: 58). The Chogha Gavaneh tahlets, discovered before Eidem wr'ote but unknown to philologists until now. confirm tbe perspicacity of this prediction. All of these doctrments are written in Akkadian, with a frequency of Sumerograms comparable to that of contemporary Mesopotamian usage. The syllabary is that of the Diyala region: note the use of WI for walivilwn (ChG 20 rev. vi 13' and passim) and QA (ChG 1;22), The archive consists of fifty-six tablets, many very worn and practically all incomplete, another twenty-eight fr-agments deemed worth copying, and one cylinder seal. Jirdging fVom the number of half tablets and fragments that could be joined neither to another tablet nor to one another, the corpus of texts must have originally been significantly larger than what came down to me. Assuming that the building in which the tablets were found has been correctly dated to the first millennium, the Old Babylonian texts must have found their way thither as fill, and may therefore already have been in poor and fragmentary condition when deposited. The primary concerns of the archive are agricultural and pastoral. Letters deal with barley rations (ChG 3) and with draft animals (ChG 2), and we find an account of work performed by slaves and asses (ChG 16) and another of sheep (ChG 12), Among the few professional designations appearing in these records are SIPA, "shepherd" (ChG 20 v 4', 12') and NA.GADA, "chief herdsman" (ChG 20 i 17'; 23 i 7'). Other texts are concerned with textiles (ChG 3; 4; 17?) and with soldiers bearing the unusual designation A dozen small tablets (CbG 6-10; 11?) record the receipt of a commodity, apparently seed gr'ain. There are a large number of lists—ration li.sts and simple lists of names, probably duty rosters. It is interesting that many of the personal names recorded here are those of women. These are the
48
KAMYAR ABDI AND GARY BECKMAN
records of a redistributive economy, in which connection note also the occtjrrente of the term SUKU, "food allowance" (ChG 33: 9', 12'; 44: 2', 3', 4'). The onomasticon i.s overwhelmingly Akkadian, with a small admixture of Amorite names (13 of 180 complete names, or 7,2 percent—see Index 1), There is no clear sign of Elamites or Hurrians (with the possible exception of Zuzzu), or for that matter of Gutiansor LuUn. The single mention of li^i^m^Ijapirf, (ChG F3:8') is uncertain. Besides the seal legend, which mentions ''ISKUR—certainly to be read Adad here, we encounter no divinities in these texts. In theophoric names Sin is by far the hest-represented god, followed at some distance by Istar, Amurrum, Samas, and Adad. Also attested are Ea, Gula, Ishara, Lahma, Mama, Namar, Tispak, and Tutu, See Index III. Around thirty place names appear in the records—most only once—but the great majority of these cannot yet be identified with toponyms attested elsewhere. See Index II. The towns of Nikkum (RIA 9: 569-70), Me-Turan(?) (RIA 8: 150), Haburatum (Wafler 2001: 82), Agade, and D?r lead us down the eastern Diyala drainage through the Hamrin basin to the Tigris and into Mesopotamia, (For the historical geography and archaeological sites of this region .see Postgate 1979; Muhamed 1992: 10-25; and Saporetti 2002: 144-65). There is little evidence in the tablets to allow us to determine the ancient name of Chogha Gavaneh itself, but it is just possible that it was called Palum (see commentary to GhG 5 below). Our archive comes from further up the Great Khorasan Road than any other published group of cuneiform records; see map in Levine (1974: 101) for a particularly clear indication of its location (as Shahabad). We are literally in unknown territory. Consequently, it is not certain just what the region in which the mound is located was called in ancient times. However, if Nikkum is to be located at or near Haninqln (so Rollig, RlA 9 [1998|: 92; cf. also Frayne 1992: 64), then Chogha Gavaneh may well have been part of the land of
Namar/Namri, In this connection, note the occurrence of the deified geographic term in the personal name Su-Namar (ChG 19:17) and cf. map 11 in Parpola and Porter (2001). Most of these records are undated, and the few that do bear dates include only tbe month and day. The three attested month names; Kinunu(m) (ChG 8:5; 9:5), Tamhirum (ChG 7:5; 10:5), and Saharatum (ChG 11:6), indicate affinities, as might be expected, with the calendar of the Diyala region (see Cohen 1993: 251-54). We can conchide that the settlement only partially excavated at Chogha Gavaneh was inhabited by Mesopotamians linked to the towns of the lower Diyala, and most likely to the kingdom of Esnunna in particular. It seemingly sustained itself through the raising of sheep and the cultivation of grain, as well as perhaps by the production of textiles in workshops staffed primarily by women. Catalog No. 1 No, 2 No, 3 No, 4 No. 5 No. 6 No. 7 No. 8 No, 9 No. 10 No. 11 No. 12 No, 13 No, 14 No. 15 No, 16
No, 17 No. 18
letter letter letter letter receipt of seed(?) receipt of seed receipt of seed receipt of seed receipt of seed receipt of seed receipt of seed(?) account(?) of sbeep account of slaves disbursement of seed grain and barlev rations receipt(?) of flour(?) ledger account of days worked by slaves and asses(?) disbursement of linen cloths(?) list of soldiers
41x68x22 35x42x21 37x23x19 40x29x20 21x26x17 23x25x16 25x24x16 27x26x16 29x28x20 28x22x16 19x26x17 29x21x18 34x57x18 27x31x14 25x12x18 27x40x19
60x62x30 56x45x21
A CUNEIFORM ARCHIVE EROM CHOGHA GAVANEH, WESTERN IRAN
No. 19 list of numbers of slave 41x83x29 girls and personal names, bv towns No. 20 list of persons 80x73x38 No. 21 list of persons 30x25x12 37x31x22 No. 22 ration list—badev No. 23 list of persons 86x121x52 No. 24 list of persons 33x58x22 No. 25 list of persons 22x32x19 No. 26 list of persons 20x35x22 ration list 31x26x20 No. 27 No. 28 ration list 32x37x17 No. 29 ration li.st 35x35x15 No. 30 ration list 48x60x17 No. 31 ration list—barley 31x43x17 No. 32 ration list 36x48x20 No. 33 disbursement of barlev 32x30x17 tinn fldiir cl J l\-l IIIL^LII
No. 34 No. 35 No. 36 No. 37 No. 38 No. 39 No. 40 No. 41 No. 42 No. 43 No. 44 No. 45 No. 46 No. 47 No. 48 No. 49 No. 50 No. 51 No. 52 No. 53 No. 54 No. 55 No. 56
ration list ration list ration list ration list ration list ration list ration list ration list ration list ration li.st bulla—disbursement of barley ration list account(?) of barley ration list ration li.st unc'ertain record of slaves bulla—disbursement of ft)odstutf ration li.st—barleyCr") ration list ration list ration list ration list
40x60x21 38x44x20 40x38x16 42x23x17 36x50x21 44x72x20 44x87x23 49x58x22 32x36x17 40x29x25 38x26 26x40x20 20x26x20 22x33x08 24x17x14 28x29x22 31x24x21 41x37 33x29x21 36x34x17 46x36x22 46x38x21 38x34x18
49
Fragments Fl F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 FIG FU F12 F13 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 F19 F20 F21
F22 F23 F24 F25
F26 F27 F28
list of persons uncertain uncertain list of persons list of persons; indirect join to No. 20 list of persons list of persons list of persons list of persons list of persons(?) disbursement(?) ration list uncertain uncertain list of persons list of persons list of persons uncertain list of persons list of persons list of persons(?) ration list list of persons list of persons uncertain list of persons uncertain ration list
30x36x15 39x36x21 40x57x09 30x29x12 36x23x10 34x23x12 • 24x30x14 29x22x11 18x22x11 17x29x13 40x16x19 21x15x18 26x16x12 25x29x20 22x24x16 23x13x13 23x17x15 20x13x15 27x15x23 13x21x13 18x30x22 18x21x09 19x22x10 40x32x18 33x48x19 33x37x22 31x27x24 30x19x22
50
KAMYAR ABDI AND GARY BECKMAN 10. u iS'ie-en s\a T^'Ha-bu-h-a 11. id'-hia^-as-su-nu-si-im-ma LoE 12. iY"?j-.s'»-|7i(/l li'il-li-ku 13. ANHU-/[w|"i rev. 14. at-{t\aa-b\i t]i-di 15. X X X [ 0 |-//-aH-7j/
Fig. 23. ChG 1 obv.
UE
16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.
ki-a-am
.sJa fa-o[/"''-^|a'-^a-/cu H as-sum *''^/c[a-ii]a-.sa-ar-' sa In-ba-x [ o' ] x x | iq'hi-a-kn-u\m /cw-uH|/-|'ri-;;ia ^'^^ka-na-^sa^-ar-Wa}-\am\
la is-ti'iii-is ^da^-[am-qa-am\ i
Say to Ammu[...], thus says Isar-|.. .|: This young child(?) of mine |.. .| Kuhburum and(?) |...] May they [...] the inspector(?). And now |. ..| and send here! Give them one of (the town) Nakitta(?) and one of (the town) Haburatu(?), and let them ^o w ith them. You, my father, know ... to me thus that you will depait. And concerning the pole pin(?) that Inba ... 1.,.) spoke to you about; "I..) and withold the pole pin(?)" Let him encircle the cart with good |.. .| oil. You shall not pour [out] the [good] oil all at once.
Fig. 24. ChG 1 rev.
ChGl (figs. 23-24) obv.
1. 'a'-MH \A\ni-mu-x [ 2 ni-b\i~nia\ 3. um-ma l-Har^-^x [ 4. an-ni-a da-aq-qf sa-x \ 5. ""Ku-ub-bu-ritni hY^ x-la6. mu-wa-m-am-ma Hi^-\ 7. u a-nu-um-ma ta-\ [ 8. u Hu-bi-Ham'^-ma X \ 9. is'-te-en sa ^'^^^'N\a^-k\r-it
The word order in this letter is often unusual; see especially lines 14 and 24f. obv. 4: For daqqum as "small (child)," see CAD D, 107. obv. 6: CAD M/II, 196, translates mumassii as "slave inspectorC?)," but since it is simply the participle of mussu, "to distinguish" {CAD M/II, 235-36), perhaps sucb a restricted rendering is not necessary. rev. 17, 21: CAD K, 143, lists attestations from Mad and Ischali for '^^^kana.ssarum as an agricultural implement, but the lexical section also indicates its use as part of a wbeel, wbich may fit better with ^-'^MARGiaiDA] in rev. 23. rev. 19: It is unclear wbere the quotation introduced here ends. rev. 20: For the rare usage of kalu in the D-stem, seeCA/iK, 102f.
A CUNEIFORM ARCHIVE FROM CHOGHA GAVANEH, WESTERN IRAN ChG 2 obv.
rev.
1. [a-n|a Su-mu-li-si 2. qi-bi-hna^ 3. um-ma '^EN.ZV-i-Uji-sa-am^-m\a] 4. a-nu-um-ma a-n[a''] i-x-ti 5. [i]e-ti^ANSE\m.Asaln-ba'X 6. [ 0 o 1 X at-ta-ar'-da-am 7. [ o 0 \-^da'^-am' li-fa-at-\[ (probably only one line lost) 8'. x{-)a-bi{-)\ 9'. [u\m'-hna^ GAL X \
51
12'. [ o 0 1 X a-hi ma-an-\
13'. (traces) |.. .| two garments |.. .| all of them. Perhaps they will indeed convey those washed two or three times into the possession of Kinialluh. When you (f.) wrote to me; "1...) in (the town) Palum |..., or] in (the town) Almati |.. .| mv brother (...)"'
10'. [ o l x - a / x [ Say lto| Sumu-lisi, thus says Sin-iqt§am: Now I have sent 1...] with the asses of Inba... Let him/ them I.. .|
ChG 3 obv.^
r. 2'. 3'. 4'. 5'.
[ 1x1 |SlEVBA-i.HI.Arsaix| X SO" tup-pi an-tum x4 [ ol
LoE
6'. 6-.SW i-nu-ma-tum
rev.
7'. U-^ik-lu 8'. r§Ei.BA.HI.A GIR 9'. X I I X 'sa IN'.NU
I am unable to make connected sense of tbis fragmentary letter tbat seems to be concemed with disbursement of barley rations and with a large quantity of linen cloths, i-nu-ma-tum in line 6' is puzzling. ChG 4 obv.
1'. 2'. 3'. A'. 5'. LoE 6'. 7'. 8'. rev. 9'. 10'.
[ [ o o 0 ] 2 fiihba~tu [ o o ] x-i.5 ka-lu-u-m-nu \S[a 2-su m 3-su me-e-si 'mi-id-de a-na" ^Ki-ni-al-lu-uh a-na le-et bti-H-im Iti-ii i-re-ed-du-ii i-nu-ma ta-as-pu-ri-im xx-f/ia^Ti-na'^'™Pa-/i*^' [ ]-nim
Fig. 25. ChG 5 rev.
ChG 5 (fig. 25) 1. '2,1.01 NU[MUN''1 2. N|IG.S|U''EN.'ZUi-x 3. {na\m-\h]ar-Hi^ 4. "'Be-el-su-nu LoE 5. ' ™ l ^ ' P ' ' ' 6. e-zu-ub rev. 7. 7ZlZm 8. maaliri'tim' 9. [SlUNIGIN^ 15 ma-an-^di^ S1E| 10. KA/SAG NIG.GA X X
obv.
2,1.0 of seed, via Sin-..., received by Belsunu (of the town) Palum, excluding the earlier... for the mandiisoldiers (to he provisioned withO barley. Total: fifteen »iiindu-soldiers (to be provisioned withO barley ...
Gf.ChGia LoE 5: Does tbe mention of the town Palum in connection with tbe recipient perhaps indicate tbat this was the ancient name of Chogha Gavaneb? rev. 7: For mandu as a type of soldier, previously attested only in lexical lists, see CAD , 209.
52
KAMYAR ABDI AND GARY REGKMAN
ChG 6 obv.
1. 2. 3. 4.
[ NUM|UN NIG.'SU' SO-\i\m-gur-ra-a?i'ni SUTI.A "'Be-el-^su^-nu Sealing: Be-el-su-nu DUMU Da-aq-tum ARAD 1-ni-ib-sar-ti
UE
0,0.5'' .seed, at the disposal of Sin-imguranni, received bv Sri-AmiiiTum. Second dav of Tamhiniin. ChG 8 obv,
\.. .\ seed, at the disposal of Stn-iniguranni, received hy Belsiiiiii. No date.
The legend of the cylinder seal has been reconstructed from tbe partial impressions found on GhG 6-10; of the pictorial portion of tbe sealing only a single standing figure may be made out, but no details are recognizable. Since tbe personage of whom a seal owner is said to be the servant is— if not a deity—normally a human ruler, Inib-sarri must have been an important figure. The only prominent individual bearing this name known to me is the daughter whom Zimri-Lim of Mari gave in marriage to Ibal-Adad of Aslakka (Ziegler 1999; 62). But since this polity was located in northern Syria, it is unlikely that we are dealing with the same person here. Remarkably, Belsunu identifies himself as both the son of one woman and the servant of another. To Daqtum, cf. Daqatum (Ziegler 1999: 268).
6. UD2.KAM Sealing as on ChG 6
rev. UE
1. 2. 3. 4. .'5. 6.
0,0.5 NUMUN NiaSV SO-im-gur-an-ni ^nam-har^-ti |"'S]i/-''''iMAR.TU "'|K|i-n»-n» UD.2a'KAMi Sealing as on ChG 6
0,0.5 seed, at the disposal of Sin-imguranni, received bv Sn-Amurriim. Twent\'-third dav of Kinunii. ChG 9 obv.
rev.
1. 1 1 NUMUN 2. INIG.I^SUi |'*E|N.ZU-im-gwr 3. hiam'^-har-^fi^ 4. ^'"^Bt-ei-sii-nu 5. 6. 'UD126.KAM Sealing as on ChG 6
]...] seed, at the disposal of Sin-imguranni, received by Belsnnu. Twenty-sixth day of Kinunu. ChG 10 obv.
1. 0,1.0 NUMUN
2. NiG.su '^E^ZV-Hm-gur^-au-ni 3. \na\m-\har-ti\ Fig. 26. ChG 7 obv. ChG 7 (Hg. 26) obv.
rev.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
0,0.5"^ NUMUN mCSU QO-im-gui-an-ui nam-ljar-ti "'Sn-MAR.TU
rev.
4. [ " I 5. '[''"'J'Tam-/i/'-ru;jiUD.10,KAM Sealing as on ChG 6
0.1.0 seed, at the disposal of Sin-imguranni, received bv 1.. .1. Tenth dav of Tamhirum.
ChG 11 ohv.
1. I 2. 1271 X
A GUNEIEORM ARCHIVE FROM CHOGHA GAVANEH, WESTERN IRAN
LoE rev.
3. 4. 5'. 6'.
NfG.§U Sa-x nam-har-t\i] j '^'Sa-/ia-rla-l
ChG 15 obv.
ChG 12
LeE
1. 3,1.2
i
2. rev.
obv.
I. me 20 UDU.HI.fA 2. m^UDU.Hl.A[ 3. |m|plO^U[DU.HI. l.MES 4'.
3. \?iam-ljar-ti\ 4', [ 5'. ''^^
rev. 5': From the typical layout of receipts, one might expect a month name here, but the traces do not correspond to any attested month listed in RIA 5, 297-303, sub Kalender.
ChG 13 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. LoE 9. rev. 10. 11.
nbv.
20 20 20 10 '12'i 16 49^1
'2'.|KA1M '3l[KA]M •4l|KA]M |5|.fKAMi fO'.KAM •7'.KAM '8'.KAM [116[9.KAM] SU.NIGIN 1 me 43 AIMD.x erasure
GhG16 obv.
11+
^2+1
5 3 3 3
4 2
rev.
I. \N Hmpa -mMU.l.KAM(?)l 2. U2^^ 2.K|AMi
4. 5. 6. LoE 7. 8. 9. rev. 10.
3.fKAMi 4.KAM 5.KAM '^6.KAMi 7.KAM •8'.KAM f9lKAM
23 31 28 14 10 [N] [SUNIGIN] x-^5 SE.NUMUN
11. 1 1 r 1
SE.BA I erasure
obv. 1: Restored after CbG 1:1.
[ 1
1
11
11
X
7
[ 1
X
11
11 11
[
[ 1
]
7'. X 1 8'. AN[SE 9'. X I
10'. 2 rue [ 11'. 2 me [ 12'. 2 mex [
ChG 14
3. fl6-i
2 2
2 4
11
Note that the sum of the individual entries, 139, does not match tbe total given in line 10.
obV.
53
13'. 7mc'x [ 14'. ARAD.GEM[E LeE
15'.
liq mt^l
,S'N3ARADMES1'X
16'. 4me86ANSE.[HI.A
54
KAMYAR ABDI AND GARY BECKMAN
9. 10. LoE II. 12. 13. rev. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.
I x-BV-fum \x-sa-xi-)\ -k]i-mi-xi-) ]x-tu{-)\ ]xxx I lxxx[ 1 x-'iui-x f
-s/f\a'-ma'-l\a(-) |x-x-/a'-a/jG|ADA| ]{-)x-ra'tu7n 1
GADA 22.
\ X ^ki
nu''ma-in-iz''
Eig. 27. GhG 17 obv. Tbis ratber tbick tablet is of unusual sbape; mucb of tbe surface is very worn. It seems to record tbe disbursement of linen clotbs to various individuals. Because of tbe uncertainty of interpretation, wbat appear to be fragmentary personal names bave not been included in tbe index. ChG 18 obv.
1. 7 ma-an-di^ A'mu'ur^-\ri] 3. 3 ERIN pu-hu'-um 4. fia A-ga-de 5. ^8^ Sa-li I-di
rev.
Fig. 28. CbG 17 rev.
7. 18 UGULA^ IM^ ma-an-di 8. SE
Seven Amorite mandu-soldievs from Der. Tbree .substitiite soldiers from Agade. Eight (soldiers) of Silli(ya),
ChG 17 (figs. 27-28) obv.
1. [
]
2. i 5. 1
] x-mu-^m'-^-NAMGADA' ] PU.SA-ya GADA 1 x-NI-BI GADA |-'/fl'^-/??-j/flGADA
6. [
1 'a-i-»a NIM^'^GADA
3. [ 4. [
^A^-pif-Ku'-bi'\-GADA'
7. 1 -s]a'-na-mu GADA 8. [ -s\a-pa-ar-s\a{-)
/[i-(/o) ChGF13
UE^
1'. 2' 3'. 4'. 5'. 6'.
[1[ (traces) ^1 Ru^-^x I 1 UGULA ARAD.[MES/GF.ME 1 l-la-[f>i-na/su-nu\ 9 fA-ix [ lOM
1'. [ IxBU(/afo/ZUx 2'. I \x ZI sa X [ 3'. (traces)
ChG F20
ChG F U I AN PA TE
1'- [ 2'. [
rev. ChG F15
1'. 2'. 3'. 4'. 5', 6'. r.
[ [ [ [ [ [ j
r. 2'. 3', 4', 5'.
-a\d' X \ ERIN' [X \-tum \ ^
\ x-af-kam'' 1 GEME-MAR.TU ChGF21
x-am-ba'-tum
1'. [ 3'. [ 4'. [ 5'.
(traces)
Ixx'a'/;
2;. [
\-x-du-pa'-a\yi-am{-)\ (traces)
ChGFl 6 obv.
1. 2. 3. 4'.
Mu-na-w\i-ir-tum D\a-mi-iq-tum
ChGFl 7 obv,' 1'. LoE 2'. S'. 4'.
|xx[ 1 lM-ma-s{a-fum\ I n-ta-n{i] (shallow traces, added later?)
ChG F22 1'. 2'. 3', 4'. 5'.
0,0,1 XX [ 0,0.1 A-ha-\Tu-tu'\ 0,0.1 30-|im-gu;-a?i-H/1 0,0.1 n-\ta-ni]
ChG F23
r, 2'.
65
66
KAMYAR ABDI AND GARY BECKMAN
ChG F24
r . [ 1 x-um-[ 2'. rp \M\i-nu-u\m3'. n^ Na-bi-\-\li-su\A'. ' I ' x [ 5'. •8
ChG F27
obv,^ r. 2',
col. i^ 1'. 2', 1 x-su 3'. x-x-ya 4'. 1 [ col. ii' 5', '6^ [ 6', sa a'-x 1
]x
3'. 4'.
rev.^ ChG F25
X
X'la-tum
5'.
]x
6'. 7'. 8'. 9'.
10'.
-la 11)
-lam X s/la-qa-KAM x
U[
U ChG F28
r.
1 Be-la-nu- um\
2', 0,0,3'i A'pil-Ku'bi ', X
ChG F26 obv,
1'. 1 X [ 2'. l x [
3'. l ' [ rev.
4'. 1 DUMU.MUNUS-[J%-ta'r] 5'. K'^KlSi.ZV-e-ri-\ba-atn\
A CUNEIEORM ARCHIVE EROM CHOGHA GAVANEH, WESTERN IRAN
67
r cm 0 •
Fig. 33. Cylinder seal and modern impression.
Fig. 34. Drawing of cylinder seal impression by Ryan Burkhalter, Cylinder Seal Se-mi-tum DUMUMUNUS Nu-ri-ri GEME ,50 ^ISKUR
Semitum daughter of Nuriri servant-girl of Adad
I have been able to study this seal only in photograph. No particulars as to its dimensions or material, or concerning its particular findspot within Room B15, are available. One might even question whether it belongs with the archive presented bere. Note, however, that the proper name Semitum is attested on one of the tablets, and tbat Nuriri may also be present—see Index I. Tbe iconography of the seal is very simple: A female figure does obeisance to a god who bas
placed one foot on a stool. No elements besides these two personages and the sea! legend are present, Cf. CoUon (1987: No. 166). The legend informs us that Semitum was a devotee of Adad, and the lightning-bolt held by the primary figure accordingly identifies him as the Storm-god. Since the head of the worshipper is too worn to reveal whether sbe is graced with horns, it is not clear whether this figure represents an intercessory deity, as so often on seals of tbis period, or the seal owner herself. An interesting feature of tbe text is the use of the SA-sign witb the syllabic value /Sa/, known only sporadically from Mesopotamian sources, but common in those from Elam—.see von Soden and R6llig,AuOr42,No,224.
68
KAMYAR ABDI AND GARY BECKMAN Indices I. Personal Names (* = Amorite; * = uncertain etbnicitv)
*A--ba'-an-na-an-an-nu-um: 20 i 7' ^Abnunu Ab'tiu-nu: 23:21' Abu-waqar A-bu-iva-qar: 20 iv 17'; 23:23'; 48:6'(?) Aham-arsi Ahat-ahhi "A'ha-at-ah-hi: 34:7(?); 40:6; 43:6'; 45:2'; 56:8' Ahat-Kubi A-ha-af-K\u-bi\: 50:2 Aha-Tutu A-/ia-7«-^u: 21:5; 28:1; 31:14'; 38:5; 39:11; 53:10'; F22:2'(?) Ahi-guUub A-hi-gii-ul-lu-\ub]: 34:2 Ahi-sagis \-hi-sa-gi-is: 20B:5'; FlO:r(?) Ahu-waqar A-hu-wa-qar: 20 vi 13'; F8:2', 4' Ai-ahi A-(/a-/i':36:12'(?) A-ij\a''-]a-hi: 40:9(?) Akitum A-ki-fum: 24:11(?); 31:5'(?); 39:2; 41:18'(?); Ali-ahi A-/fa-/ii: 30:12'; 31:4; 40:12 Ali-dacluva A-li-cla-dii-ya: 30:9'; 31:13'; 36:7' Ali-nisuva A-li-m-su-ya: 22:12'; 29:6', 10'; 30:5'; 33:2'; 35:5'; 36:4' A-U-ni-su-il-a: 40:34'; 56:9' A-li-ni-su-a: 23:7' A-Jf-ni-HU-l. 51:6' A-li-ni- : 24:13 \A-li-n\i-su-\\ 55:3' Alitum A-li-fum: 24:15; 40:13; 41:5'(?); 54:2; 55:5'; 56:7' A-li-tum: 29:7' Amat-Amurrum GEME-'^MAR.TU: 30:21'; 40:29' GEME-MARTU: F20:7'
Amat-ilim GEME'DINGIR: 30:22' Amat-Kubi GFME'Ku-bi: 48:4 A mat-Sin GEME.30: 26:13' Apil-Kfibi A-pit-ku-bi.H: l(?);20vi 14'(?); Fi:4'; F28:2' Apliya Anabum Ar-ra-b[u-urn\: 20 ii 8' Awat-Kobi KA-Ku-bi: 19:8 Awil-ili A-wi-
