The Akkadian Language in Its Semitic Context. Studies in the Akkadian Of
0993-8_BIOR_2008/1-2_01 21-04-2008 14:39 Pagina 77
149 BOEKBESPREKINGEN — ASSYRIOLOGIE 150
accepted,2) but if proven to be correct, they will cause the scholars to discard the image of the homogeneous Akkadian language in the third millennium BC. It is fair to say that the Leiden conference brought together the leading authorities in the early history of Akkadian. The rest of the review will be devoted to a case-by-case discus- sion of their contributions. The paper by John Huehnergard “Proto-Semitic and Proto- Akkadian” serves as the appropriate introduction to the vol- ume as a whole. The author rigorously applies the Stamm- ASSYRIOLOGIE baum model to the discussion of relationship between Akkadian, Eblaite, and the other Semitic languages. The most reliable criteria for genetic subgrouping, according to him, DEUTSCHER, G., and N.J.C. KOUWENBERG (Eds.) — are common morphological innovations, whereas shared The Akkadian Language in its Semitic Context. Studies sound laws are more likely to represent instances of parallel in the Akkadian of the Third and Second Millennium evolution. A handful of innovations present in Eblaite as BC. (PIHANS CVI). Nederlands Instituut voor het opposed to all the dialects of Akkadian ensures its status as Nabije Oosten, Leiden, 2006. (26,5 cm, XII, 298). ISBN a separate branch of East Semitic. A larger group of 90-6258-317-2. isoglosses separating Akkadian and Eblaite, on the one hand, The volume under review encompasses twelve papers first from West and South Semitic, on the other hand, bears wit- presented at a conference “The Akkadian Language in its ness to the primary split between East Semitic and the rest of Semitic Context”, which took place in Leiden in December the Semitic family. Huehnergard meticulously discriminates 2004. The goal of the symposium was to assess the progress between instances of archaisms and innovations in East made in the study of the Akkadian language in the last Semitic. Most of the isoglosses he addresses have been decades. Although Akkadian philology had been established already discussed in isolation in the previous literature, but de jure as a separate research discipline already in the nine- their systematic treatment within the Neo-Grammarian frame- teenth century, in practice it was too frequently perceived, work appears to be unprecedented, and indeed raises the dis- and sometimes is still perceived, as an appendix to Biblical cussion of the Semitic linguistic phyliation to a new level. Studies. The strict application of the comparative method has, Gene Gragg’s paper “The “weak” verb in Akkadian and however, enabled scholars to demonstrate that Akkadian rep- Beja” represents one of the few instances where Afroasiatic resents an outlier within the Semitic family. Therefore, mod- comparison is directly invoked for the explanation of Akka- ern Semitists have largely abandoned the attempts to squeeze dian grammar in the volume under review. The two lan- the Akkadian data into the procrustean bed of a Proto-Semitic guages, Akkadian and Beja (North Cushitic), apparently dis- reconstruction obtained through a comparison between play very similar patterns of adapting the original Hebrew and Arabic. One can draw a parallel with the situa- biconsonantal verbal roots to the dominant triconsonantal tion in the Indo-European studies, where the decipherment of template. The largest part of Gragg’s article is devoted to a Hittite and its close Anatolian relatives triggers the ongoing synchronic description of stem formation in Beja. Two other revision of the Proto-Indo-European reconstruction, whose papers by the same author devoted to Beja verbal morphol- initial state was largely based on the comparison between ogy are in press, and one must hope that their publication will Greek and Sanskrit. shed further light on the relevance of Beja data for the recon- Another factor that boosted the interest toward the lin- struction of Proto-East-Semitic. guistic study of Akkadian is the discovery of the cuneiform Walter Sommerfeld devotes his contribution to sifting archive in the Early Bronze Age city of Ebla in Syria in through the evidence for early Akkadian borrowings into 1970s. Although some of the Italian scholars, who were the Sumerian. A lengthy methodological introduction to this first to work with the Eblaite texts, stressed their West paper contains the outline of criteria that are to be used in Semitic features, the communis opinio of the later years has discriminating between real borrowings and chance similar- endorsed the view that Eblaite is a language or dialect closely ities. It also features a mock list of some 75 lexical loan- related to Akkadian. Among the varieties of Akkadian proper, words from Sumerian into German, which was compiled Old Akkadian causes much discussion in the recent literature. without a strict adherence to the above criteria. The author While many scholars assumed on chronological grounds that proceeds to dissecting the evidence for Akkadian loanwords this third millennium dialect represented an ancestor of Baby- in the Sumerian of Late Uruk and Jemdet-Nasr periods, argu- lonian and Assyrian dialects of the later period, Sommerfeld ing that the words belonging to this group are approximately defines it as “the mother tongue of the rulers of Akkade and as likely to have been borrowed as the German words cited their elites” and hypothesizes that its ultimate origin is to be in his list. Besides fortuitous resemblances, he mentions a sought in a peripheral region of Mesopotamia.1) On the other group of forms that, in his view, may represent Sumerian hand, he claims that there is certain grammatical continuity borrowings into Akkadian. The first tangible evidence for between Pre-Sargonic Akkadian, Akkadian of the Ur III the Akkadian lexical material in Sumerian texts can be dated period, and Old Babylonian. These views are not universally back to the Fara period (Early Dynastic IIIa). From the Semitological viewpoint, the main positive result of the
1) W. Sommerfeld, “Bemerkungen zur Dialektgliederung Altakkadisch, 2) For a different view, see R. Hasselbach, “The Affiliation of Sargonic Assyrisch und Babylonisch”, in: G.J. Selz (ed.), Festschrift für Burkhart Akkadian with Babylonian and Assyrian: New Insights concerning the Kienast, AOAT 274, Münster, 2003, p. 585. Internal Sub-Grouping of Akkadian”, JSS 52 (2007), p. 21-43. 0993-8_BIOR_2008/1-2_01 21-04-2008 14:39 Pagina 78
151 BIBLIOTHECA ORIENTALIS LXV N° 1-2, januari-april 2008 152
paper under discussion is the more precise definition of the therein range from the comparative analysis of the syllabaries Pre-Sargonic Akkadian corpus, whose dialectal position con- used in Pre-Sargonic Mesopotamia vs. Ebla to the discussion stitutes the topic of Sommerfeld’s current work. of the origin of the Akkadian durative stem iparras and its Dietz Otto Edzard passed away before he could attend the Semitic cognates. The author addresses in some detail the Leiden colloquium, and the task of preparing his preliminary common archaisms of East Semitic and South Semitic, which notes for publication fell to Walther Sallaberger. The most he explains through the peripheral status of both subgroups. useful part of Edzard’s contribution, entitled “das Ebla- Regrettably, Rubio’s treatment of the phonetic differences Akkadische als Teil des altakkadischen Dialektkontinuums”, between Eblaite and the East Semitic dialects of are the carefully prepared tables illustrating the pronominal Mesopotamia is rather confusing. The claim that “in Sargonic declension and the verbal conjugation of Eblaite. As for the Akkadian the spelling suggests that *q merged with *s and author’s claim that Eblaite represents a dialect of Akkadian *s” (p. 119) is demonstrably false,4) while the graphic ambi- and not a separate language, there is no way to either verify guity between *∂ and *z in Mesopotamia no more needs to or falsify this contention. The distinction between “language” correspond to phonetic reality than the graphic ambiguity and “dialect” has less to do with the mutual intelligibility of between *q and *∂ in Ebla or between *s (shin) and *s (sin) the two forms of speech or the lack thereof than with the in Epigraphic Hebrew. social attitudes of the respective groups of speakers. We sim- David Testen discusses a number of Akkadian nouns with ply do not know whether the denizens of Ebla identified unproductive vocalic templates, which represent perfect coun- themselves as members of the same ethnic group with their terparts to the Arabic stem-based diminutives. Thus Akk. close linguistic relatives in Mesopotamia, or whether they uniqum ‘young female goat’ corresponds to Arab. ‘unayy- distanced themselves from their West Semitic neighbors. iqun, a regular stem-based diminutive of ‘anaqun. It is rather Manfred Krebernik uses the Eblaite data in order to estab- unlucky for the author that many of his conclusions have lish the chronology of several specific phonetic and gram- already been anticipated by Wolfram von Soden.5) matical developments in Akkadian. In particular, he argues Bert Kouwenberg argues against the commonly held that the change Sem. *CaCaCV > Akk. CiCCV was not assumption that five of the six “guttural” (i.e. post-velar) caused by penultima stress, as hypothesized by Dolgopol- consonants merged into a glottal stop in Akkadian. He justly sky,3) but rather reflects vowel fronting next to a particular remarks that the change *h>’ or *Ì>‘ represents a fortition, set of consonants. Most of the forms where the change did whose context-free application would be typologically very occur contain the etymological Semitic interdentals of the tra- unusual. One can only hope that the Indo-Europeanists, who ditional reconstruction, which are reinterpreted as palatalized frequently assume that the three Indo-European “laryngeals” affricates within Diakonoff’s version of the Affricate Theory. merged into the glottal stop in Proto-Indo-Iranian,6) pay atten- This fragment of Diakonoff’s reconstruction was, however, tion to this simple observation. The main part of Kouwen- derived from the Afroasiatic comparison alone. Krebernik’s berg’s paper is devoted to the descriptive analysis of the conclusions, if correct, support the contention that the reflexes of individual gutturals in Old Assyrian. In particu- phonemes *q and *∂ still had a palatal or palatalized pro- lar, he convincingly argues that that the reflexes of [¿] and nunciation in Proto-East-Semitic. Yet, since the number of [¡] in postconsonantal position manifest themselves through examples illustrating vowel fronting next to these phonemes broken spellings (e.g. i-ni-is-a-am [ini√¿am] ‘he brought is rather small, the matter must remain sub judice. along’, √ ns’), while the reflexes of *Ì show an alternative The contribution of Alfonso Archi is concerned with the spelling with a glide (e.g. li-qí-a-am [liqjam] ‘take along’, philological aspects of Eblaite studies. Many of the tablets √lqÌ). Based on this and similar facts, the author concludes excavated in Ebla are provided with colophons, while the that *Ì and *h have been dropped and replaced by a long short period of some three generations between the beginning vowel or a glide, depending on their position in the word, in of the scribal tradition and the destruction of the city facili- Old Assyrian. tates the prosopographic analysis of the local archives. Archi The topic of Leonid Kogan’s contribution is lexical dif- concludes that literacy had probably been first exported to ferences between Old Assyrian and Old Babylonian. The Ebla from Mari, and that the locally trained scribes contin- paper is organized as a series of lexical entries devoted to the ued to visit Mari in order to obtain new texts. He also dis- items that are present in Old Assyrian but not in Old Baby- cusses the instances of grammatical variation between the lonian, have a higher frequency in the first dialect than in the parallel versions of the same texts, which reflect a continuum second one, or display semantic distinctions between the two of imperfect learning in the Ebla epigraphic community. dialects. This is but one from a series of studies by the same While the scribes apparently aspired to write the form of author aimed at elucidating the lexical peculiarities of indi- Akkadian that they perceived as “standard”, many of them vidual Semitic languages, which he deems no less important could not help slipping into the local vernacular. This state for classification purposes than the study of grammatical of affairs invites caution in making inferences about the spo- developments (cf. a different opinion of J. Huenergard on p. ken language of Ebla from the available written texts, as the 6 of the same volume). While I agree in principle with gap between this language and “standard” Pre-Sargonic Akkadian may be larger than normally assumed. The title of Gonzalo Rubio’s contribution “Eblaite, Akka- 4) Cf. Huehnergard and Woods, “Akkadian and Eblaite”, in: R. dian, and East Semitic” does not do a full justice to the rich Woodard (ed.), The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World’s Ancient Lan- guages, Cambridge, 2004, p. 235. and heterogeneous content of this essay. The topics treated 5) W. von Soden, “Deminutiva nach der Form qutail > qutil und ver- gleichbare vierkonsonantige Bildungen im Akkadischen”, in A. Kaye (ed.), Semitic Studies in Honor of Wolf Leslau, Wiesbaden, 1991, Vol. 2, pp. 1488-92. 3) A. Dolgopolsky, “On Phonetic Stress in Proto-Semitic”, IOS 8 6) Cf. e.g. R.S.P. Beekes, A Grammar of Gatha-Avestan, Wiesbaden, (1978), p. 1-12. p. 50. 0993-8_BIOR_2008/1-2_01 21-04-2008 14:39 Pagina 79
153 BOEKBESPREKINGEN — ASSYRIOLOGIE 154
Kogan’s view, the particular piece of work discussed here controversial nature of some of the claims shows that Akka- does not specify the procedure of drawing phylogenetic dian linguistics represents an intellectually stimulating field implications from the data collected. L. Kogan distances him- where many problems remain unsolved and, consequently, self from phenetic methodologies, such as glottochronology much work remains to be done for the present and the future or lexicostatistics, but at the same time he does not system- generations of scholars. atically discriminate between archaisms and innovations in Old Assyrian, thus undermining the value of his research for University of Chicago Ilya YAKUBOVICH cladistic studies. Notwithstanding this, Kogan’s paper November 2007 remains a useful reference source for the synchronic study of Old Assyrian. ** Michael Streck presents arguments for his view that the * reflexes of Proto-Semitic [s] (traditional *s) and [t√] (tradi- tional * ) merged in Old Babylonian and acquired the com- s TALON, Ph. — The Standard Babylonian Creation Myth. mon phonetic realization of the lateral affricate [t√]. The main En ma Eli . Introduction, Cuneiform Text, Translitera- rational for Streck’s theory is the plausible assumption that u s tion, and Sign List with a Translation and Glossary in the Akkadian affricate [ts] underwent lenition to [s] in Old French. (State Archives of Assyria Cuneiform Texts Vol- Babylonian, except in word initial position or when gemi- ume IV). State Archives of Assyria Project, Helsinki, nated. The result of this lenition was normally written with 2005. (25 cm, XX, 138). ISBN 952-10-1328-1. ISSN S-signs in the Code of Hammurapi, whereas -signs were S 1455-2345. $ 34.00. reserved for the reflexes of [s] and [t√]. It is indeed probable that the original *[s] underwent a chain shift after the new [s] The Enuma elis stands behind only the Epic of Gilgames had emerged as an allophone of [ts], but the context-free for- in importance for the history of Akkadian literature. George tition [s]>[t√] is no more likely than the context-free fortition Smith first published fragments of the epic in 1876. Over the [h]>[¿] rejected by Kouwenberg. From the diachronic per- next half century, several scholars worked on the poem, until spective, it is more natural to assume that *[s] and [t√] coa- René Labat completed the first true critical edition in 1935. A lesced into the lateral fricative [√], or even into [s], which generation later, in 1966, W. G. Lambert printed a very valu- represents an undisputed outcome of their merger in Middle able composite text for use in the classroom. Since then, how- and Neo-Babylonian. ever, no modern critical edition of the text has yet appeared, Streck objects to this solution on the grounds that it does and the Assyriological community continues to wait patiently not allow him to explain several synchronic morphophone- for Lambert’s promised collection of creation myths. Mean- mic alternations in a phonetically natural way. This argument, while, in the present book, Philippe Talon (T.) has undertaken in my opinion, is not compelling since the alternations in a thorough revision of Lambert’s school edition, with a sim- question may reflect the telescoping of several rules.7 Thus ilar pedagogical objective, as the fourth SAACT volume pub- the counterintuitive sandhi [s]+[s]→[ts] may represent an lished by the NATCP. After a brief summary of the structure older rule [s]+[s]→[ts] (with a typological parallel in San- of the book, the main body of this review will address a series skrit), which was modified by sound changes that occurred of specific passages in the text, transliteration, and translation within Old Babylonian. This solution is particularly likely if of this complex and difficult poem. the change [s] > [√/s] remained in progress in Old Babylon- The prefatory matter includes a brief “Introduction” (pp. ian, completed in some dialects but not in others. Whatever ix-xi), an important note “On the Present Volume” (pp. xi- one thinks of Streck’s phonetic conclusion, his careful doc- xii) outlining the unique format of the text and transliteration, umentation of Old Babylonian morphophonemics will remain a full inventory of the “Manuscripts” (pp. xiii-xviii), and, an asset to whoever will tackle the same problems in the finally, a list of “Abbreviations” (p. xix). As in other vol- future. umes in the series, T. offers a (computer-generated) The paper by Aage Westenholz concludes the volume cuneiform text (pp. 1-30) and a full transliteration (pp. 31- with an eloquent plea against the normalized trancriptions 76). Moreover, he also furnishes a very helpful translation of of Akkadian and has a polemical title “Do not trust Assyri- the composite text (pp. 77-108, cf. p. xii). In a significant ologists”! The author cites several examples of how the improvement over previous volumes, the printed cuneiform commonly accepted practices of transliteration and tran- more precisely represents the partially restored characters and scription may obfuscate the difference between minimal damaged signs, although without any pretensions to scientific pairs or trigger unwarranted phonological interpretations. accuracy (pp. xi-xii). In a similar vein, the variant apparatus The examples in the appendix of his article, which illus- appears not at the bottom of the page, but instead after each trate the problems involved in the transliteration of the Old of T.’s (generally four-line) stanzas (pp. ix-x and xii). The Babylonian sibilants, are very similar to those adduced by supplementary matter includes the usual “Glossary” (pp. Streck. 111-125), as well as indices of “Noms divins” (pp. 125-126) The average level of papers collected in the book under and “Noms de lieux” (p. 126), in addition to a useful inven- review far exceeds what one expects to find in a conference tory of “Logograms and Their Readings” (p. 109). The book proceedings volume. All the authors, without exception, concludes with a (again, computer-generated) “Sign List” limited their contribution to testable claims and abstained (pp. 127-138). This format — cuneiform, transliteration, from egocentric intimations or from idle theorizing. The translation, and ancillary material — makes the volume an excellent edition for use in the classroom, superior to Lam- bert’s bald text. 7) For the phenomenon of telescoping in general, see J. Blevins, Evolu- Nevertheless, there are “several” passages which require tionary Phonology: the Emergence of Sound Patterns, Cambridge, 2004, p. 69 (with references). further comment: 0993-8_BIOR_2008/1-2_01 21-04-2008 14:39 Pagina 80
155 BIBLIOTHECA ORIENTALIS LXV N° 1-2, januari-april 2008 156
1.98 ki-ma su-a-tu: T. mistranslates this vague phrase as for his own transliteration: “Ils… et partirent”. The verbal “comme lui (Anu)”. Foster (F.) more correctly renders it as form here derives from *nagarsû (or perhaps N garasu “in like number” (BM3), cf. Bottéro (B.) “en pareil nombre” instead?). For a correct translation, cf. F. “they swarmed (Mythologie) and Lambert (L.) “gleicherweise” (TUAT III/4). together and came”, B. “et de courir, à la débandade, pour T. similarly interprets it as “comme Lui (Marduk)” in 1.146 arriver auprès d’Ansar”, and L. “dann erhoben sich und gin- (GIM su-a-ti) = 2.32 (ki-ma su-a-ti) = 3.36 (GIM su-a-tú) = gen”. 3.94 (ki-ma su-a-tu). Again, F. offers a more accurate trans- 4.23 li-’a-a-bit: T. understands this verbal form as active. lation: “on this wise”, cf. B. “c’est bien tels que” and L. It is much more likely to be passive (< N abatu I), cf. F., B., “von dieser Art”. and L., all of whom translate it so. Similarly, T. reads the ver- 1.127 KI.KAL-sú: This reading (karasu = “military bal form as active in 4.25 (u’-a-bit), but it is again likely to camp”) is likely incorrect. The same signs also permit the be passive (i’-a-bit). more general interpretation qé-reb-sú. In fact, T. himself 4.32 a-na pu-uz-ra-tum: “en des lieux inconnus”: T. reads this sequence as a form of qerbu the two other times again follows B. “au Secret”, but this interpretation is uncon- which it occurs in the text, in 1.9 (qé-reb-sú-un) and 6.76 (qé- vincing. Reading a-na bu-us-ra-tu instead, F. translates the reb-sú). Furthermore, all three of these forms (1.9, 1.127, and phrase as “as glad tidings”, and L., as “um die Nachricht”. 6.76) are verse-final. F. reads “within it”, B. “là-dedans”, T. commits the same error in 4.132 (pu-uz-rat for bu-us-rat) and L. “darinnen”. and 5.83 (pu-uz-ra-ti for bu-us-ra-ti). 2.1 ú-kab-bit-ma ti-a-ma-tum pi-ti-iq-su: “Tiamat mit 4.99 i-za-nu-ma: T. correctly translates this verbal form ainsi la dernière main à son oeuvre.” Both the transliteration as “remplirent”, although the transliteration should rather be and the translation are inaccurate. The verbal form here i-Òa-nu-ma (< G Òânu, not za’anu). Furthermore, in the glos- should rather be ú-kap-pit-ma (< D kapatu, not kabatu). For sary, he erroneously groups this form together with za-’i-nu a correct translation, cf. F. “Tiamat assembled her creatures”, (4.115) under the entry zânu “remplir”, instead of distin- B. “Tiamat, ayant donc rameuté sa production”, and L. “Es guishing between the verbs Òânu and za’anu. sammelte Tiamat ihre Schöpfung”. 4.115 su-ut pul-Ìa-ti za-’i-nu: “qui étaient emplies de ter- 2.2 ta-Ìa-[za ik]-ta-Òar a-na DINGIR.DINGIR ni-ip-ri- reur”: although T. correctly transliterates the verbal form, he su: “en alignant pour la guerre les dieux, sa progéniture”: does not derive it from the correct root (see above). For a cor- T. misconstrues the syntax of the verse, perhaps due to a mis- rect translation, cf. F. “the ones adorned with glories”, B. interpretation of B. “réunit ses troupes pour la bataille con- “celles environnées d’épouvante”, and L. “die mit Furcht tre les dieux, sa descendance”. In contrast, both F. “[Tiamat] beladen waren”. drew up for battle against the gods her brood” and L. “und 4.124 su-ri-sam: “comme un taureau”: this is an inter- [Tiamat] bereitete Kampf vor gegen ihre göttlichen esting idea for a famous crux. Nachkommen” offer a more exact rendering of the original. 5.70 d60: this is Anu, not Ea (= d40), cf. Ea in the “Noms 2.56 a-li ma-Ìar-sá: T. correctly translates this clause as divins”, with the same error. “où est son égal?”, but his transliteration is unsatisfactory. 5.73 ú-[ma-mis]: “comme des [bêtes sauvages]”: this idea The nominal form here should rather be ma-Ìír-sá (< maÌiru, resembles that in 4.124. not maÌru). Al-Rawi and George (Iraq 52 [1990]: 149-157) 5.124 lu-mur sar-ru-ti: “et je contemplerai ma royauté”: read ma-Ìi-ir-sa (manuscript “n” in T.’s variant apparatus) T. offers another unorthodox reading, lu-mur (< G amaru) and translate “where is her equal?”. for the usual lu-kín (< G kânu). For a correct translation, cf. 2.70 lu-u: T. repeats the sole error in Al-Rawi and F. “I shall establish my kingship”, B. “pour y établir mon George’s transliteration of the fragment from the Sippar règne”, and L. “und [ich will] mein Königtum etablieren”. Library. Close inspection of their hand copy of the cuneiform 6.1 ina se-mi-sú: The transliteration should rather be ina reveals that the correct reading is instead lu-ú. Since T. does se-mé-sú, cf. semû in the glossary, where the correct form not cite any other authority for his reading here, it is to be does occur. assumed that he is following Al-Rawi and George. 6.94-95: T. postulates a lacuna of one line between these 2.84 i-zak-kàr-ma: This is an error for i-zak-kàr-su, the two verses (p. x), but he does not indicate why or what the reading in Al-Rawi and George, cf. zakaru in the glossary, contents of the missing passage might be. where the correct form does occur. 6.115 ep-supi-i-su dis-ta-ris li-siq-qa: “qu’à son ordre, ils 2.124 ma-Ìa-ri-is ti-amat ul uÒ-Òii-na sap-ti-[sú?]: “pour élèvent son Istar”: T. alters the verbal form to li-siq-qa (< G affronter Tiamat, aucun n’ose ouvrir les lèvres”: this is a very saqû II) from the more normal li-piq-qa (< D puqqu). For a difficult passage. F. perhaps more convincingly renders it as correct translation, cf. F. “at his command let them heed their “against Tiamat would none go as [he] ordered?” (cf. the goddess(es)”, B. “qu’à sa parole ils traitent avec respect leurs parallelism with 2.123); in contrast, B. and L. refrain alto- déesses”, and L. “da er es befahl, sollen sie ihre Göttinnen gether from venturing a translation. achten”. 3.127 †[e4-mi-n]i: This appears to be another error, for †[è- 6.157 3.ÀM: This should rather be 3.
157 BOEKBESPREKINGEN — OUDE TESTAMENT 158
again following B., incorrectly counts ma-ru dUTU-si (1.127) e.g., read not NUNDUN-su-nu but NUNDUN.ME-su-nu in as a divine name, giving ten names instead of the explicitly 2.122, and not be-lum but be-el in 7.20. These minor errors required nine. In truth, this name is merely a part of the and omissions aside, T. has performed an excellent service lengthy exegesis on the first divine name, dAMAR.UTU for all of those interested in this fascinating and challenging (6.123-132, cf. 1.101-102), a passage clearly designed to bal- epic of creation. ance the similarly lengthy exegesis on the forty-ninth divine name, dné-bé-ru (7.124-134), in an elegant long-range ring New Haven, October 2007 John JACOBS structure. 7.60-65: This is the first of the two errors in line-counting which originate in Lambert’s school edition. T. numbers the KORTE AANKONDIGING verses 7.60-65 by uniting 62 and what would have been 62b into one verse. In these lines, T. reads the forms be-ra-a-ti HASSELBACH, R. — Sargonic Akkadian. A Historical and (7.60) and be-rat (7.64), from birtu I, but F., B., and L. all Comparative Study of the Syllabic Texts. Verlag Otto evidently read these nouns as forms of mi†ratu instead: mi†- Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden, 2005. (24,5 cm, XVI, 292). ra-a-ti (7.60) and mi†-rat (7.64). ISBN 3-447-05172-8. / 78,-. 7.81 mu-rab-bi-tum dam-qa-a-[ti]: “la nourrice qui leur donne de bonnes choses”: T. is compelled to interpret the This is the first grammar of Old Akkadian since that writ- participle as feminine in gender because he interprets the ten by I.J. Gelb (1952). The book studies syllabary, phonol- form as a D participle from rabû II instead of the more cor- ogy and morphology; syntax is not studied separately. The rect mu-saÒ-bi-tum, a masculine St2 participle from Òabatu. Introduction (Chapter 1, p. 1-25) discusses general problems: For a correct translation, cf. F. “provider of good things”, B. the textual evidence from the Fara to the Sargonic period, the “inaugurant le Bon-ord[re]”, and L. “aber auch Gunst place of Old Akkadian in the Semitic languages, notably the verteilt”. Akkadian of the Ur III period (it is not “Old Akkadian”) and 7.84-88: T., once more following B., counts dZU.LUM- Eblaite. Care is taken to distinguish between different time UM.MU (7.87) as one of the divine names, but he does not periods: Pre-Sargonic and Sargonic sources; between royal include dmu-um-mu (7.86). In contrast, L. does include dmu- inscriptions and letters / economic texts, and the provenience um-mu, but not dZU.LUM-UM.MU, while F. counts both of texts. Literary texts can survive in later copies, with errors dZU.LUM-UM.MU and dGIS.NUMUN.ÁB (7.89) as the (p. 11-13). Chapter 2 gives a survey of the syllabary, with thirty-fifth divine name, a clearly inadvertent mistake. In the special attention to the gutturals, glides and sibilants (p. 27- end, T. and B. reach fifty-two names, L., fifty-one, and only 97). Chapter 3, on the phonology (“the most neglected F., the correct sum of fifty. To reach the desired total, it is aspect”), studies vowel changes and harmonies in various necessary to divide the divine names in tablet 7 into two sec- regions (southern Babylonia, northern Babylonia [Kish/Umm tions of twenty names each (7.1-77 and 7.78-134), with el-Jir], the Diyala region, Gasur in Assyria); for example all dEN.KUR.KUR as the fiftieth and final name (7.135-136). five Semitic gutturals, glides and sibilants; some suffixes (p. Since every other divine name is verse-initial, the verse-final 99-146). Chapter 4, morphology, follows the classic organi- dZU.LUM-UM.MU is most likely an explanation for dmu-um- sation of a Semitic grammar, beginning with pronouns (p. mu. 147-229). Notable are the various subordinate case markers 7.120-125: This is the second of the two errors in line- (p. 204-209). The footnotes are rich in short comments on counting which originate in Lambert’s school edition. Here, problematical passages and parallels in later stages of Akka- T. numbers the verses as 7.121a and 7.121b. dian. At the end of the book a Conclusion where the innov- 7.137-142: T., like B. and L., erroneously includes dÉ.A ative character of the Diyala dialect is pointed out and as the final divine name, while only F. again interprets the isoglosses linking the languages with later Babylonian and passage correctly. After the conclusion of the Igigi’s main Assyrian are given (p. 231-235). The literary language is hymn (names 10-49), Enlil bestows the name dEN.KUR.KUR more archaic. Follow a Bibliography, the Corpus of Sargonic on Marduk, a clear pun on the equation d50 = dEN.LÍL, with Akkadian texts, and an index of words cited. the result that the fiftieth name is the number fifty (7.135- 136). Then, in this passage, Ea bestows his own name on his son, a similar pun on the equation d40 = dÉ.A, with reference to the forty names which the Igigi have just celebrated. This analysis alone yields the required fifty names (= 9 in 6.123- 156 + 40 in 7.1-134 + dEN.KUR.KUR in 7.135-136, cf. the parallel in 6.121-122 ~ 7.143-144).
All in all, T. has produced an important volume which will serve as the main text of the Enuma elis until the badly needed critical edition appears. He explains in his introduc- tion that, while he intends his text to be an update of Lam- bert’s school edition, he has “given priority to the published exemplars when the reading he [i.e., L.] proposed is clearly based on unpublished material” (p. x-xi; the quotation is from p. x). And yet, T. could have, and probably should have, reported these unpublished readings from L. more systemat- ically. To make matters worse, T. sometimes misreports him,