DOCSLIB.ORG

The Export and Adaptation of Lexical Lists in the Late Second Millennium

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Export and Adaptation of Lexical Lists in the Late Second Millennium chapter 8 The Export and Adaptation of Lexical Lists in the Late Second Millennium In the late second millennium, more so than ever before, the lexical tradition spread to areas well beyond the Babylonian “heartland”. Most excavated lexi- cal texts of the period, in fact, stem from sites in Western Anatolia and along the Syrian coast. These areas are commonly referred to as the “periphery”. This problematic term is grounded in the idea of a southern Mesopotamian cen- ter, from which cuneiform writing and traditions spread to other, “peripheral” areas.1 Without disputing the southern Mesopotamian origin of cuneiform writing and the lexical tradition, I avoid the term “periphery” here, because it conveys the idea that all scribal centers outside of Babylonia were mere receiv- ers of these traditions. This does not reflect the actual historical situation. In contrast, local innovative scribal traditions existed. This chapter deals with the different ways in which the Babylonian lexical tradition was treated in the scribal centers outside of the Babylonian core, with a focus on Ḫattuša. As will become clear, we find a different grouping of lexical lists in each of the cities Ḫattuša, Emar, Ugarit, and Aššur. Also the changes made to the lists and the degree to which they were changed vary considerably. This is not very sur- prising, seeing that these cities had very different relations to Babylonia and Babylonian tradition, and to cuneiform. The different historical contexts play a key role in understanding the differences between the late second millennium lexical corpora. In §8.1 I will discuss the find-spots of late second millennium lexical lists outside of Babylonia. The transfer of the lexical material to the foreign scribal centers brought about different types of changes, of which I will offer an over- view in §8.2. In §8.3 I will zoom in on the lexical corpus from Ḫattuša, which I will compare with those from the contemporary scribal centers in §8.4, in order to find out what makes Ḫattuša special. The focus will be on the treatment of the (originally Babylonian) lexical tradition. The function of the lexical lists in Ḫattuša will be discussed in Chapter 10. 1 For example, cf. Labat 1962, 1. © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004438170_009 210 chapter 8 8.1 Find-Spots of Lexical Lists outside of Babylonia The political landscape of the area misleadingly known as the “western periph- ery” (see above) was determined by three rival empires: Mitanni, the Hittite Empire, and the New Kingdom of Egypt. Around 1350 BCE the Hittite King Šuppiluliuma I conquered large parts of territory under Mitannian influence, which led to the fall of Mitanni and made the Hittites Egypt’s new opponent in the struggle for control over the Levant. At the same time, this enabled the rise of Assyria in northern Mesopotamia. The Levant consisted of city-states, which were never fully integrated into the respective empires, but were sub- jected to them to various degrees. The majority of the textual finds from this period stem from centers under Hittite hegemony, namely, the capital city of Ḫattuša and the vassal states of Ugarit, Emar, and Alalaḫ. For the written correspondence between the great political powers (and between them and their vassals) the Akkadian language and the cuneiform script were in use. The Hittite cuneiform tradition had already started several centuries earlier, before or during the Old Kingdom (the circumstances of the Hittite adoption of the cuneiform script are debated; see §10.1). Egyptian scribes probably learned cuneiform from the Hittites.2 In Emar and Ugarit, on the other hand, cuneiform was introduced by scribes from Mitanni.3 At some of these scribal centers, the cuneiform writing system was used to put the local language into writing. In Emar, Ugarit, Aphek and Ashkelon, local scribes now and again inserted words in their native languages into the lexical lists of Mesopotamian origin.4 Cuneiform texts were being written in Elamite and Hurrian. In Ugarit, an alphabetic cuneiform script was developed. After the political crisis of the 12th century, alphabetic and hieroglyphic scripts took over in the area. By the first millennium, apart from a few texts in Aramaic, the use of Mesopotamian cuneiform for local languages is found only in Urartu and Elam.5 Along with the spread of cuneiform, the transmission of the lexical tradi- tion can be observed. Numerous lexical lists have been found in Ḫattuša, Emar and Ugarit. Occasional finds were made in Alalaḫ (Ura), Šapinuwa (Ura 10) and Ekalte (Lu), and in Siyannu, where a prism with entries from Ura and a fragment of Lu-azlag were excavated. These two lexical texts show a connec- tion with Ḫattuša, since prisms are not attested elsewhere in this period, nor is 2 Beckman 1983b, 112–114. 3 Veldhuis 2013, 270. 4 For example, in the Emar version of SaV. See Sjöberg 1998. 5 Van Soldt 2012, 104..
Load more

Recommended publications
  • On Writing the History of Southern Mesopotamia* by Eva Von
    On Writing the History of Southern Mesopotamia* by Eva von Dassow — Colorado State University In his book Babylonia 689-627 B.C., G. Frame provides a maximally detailed his- tory of a specific region during a closely delimited time period, based on all available sources produced during that period or bearing on it. This review article critiques the methods used to derive the history from the sources and the conceptual framework used to apprehend the subject of the history. Babylonia 689-627 B. C , the revised version of Grant Frame's doc- toral dissertation, covers one of the most turbulent and exciting periods of Babylonian history, a time during which Babylon succes- sively experienced destruction and revival at Assyria's hands, then suf- fered rebellion and siege, and lastly awaited the opportunity to over- throw Assyria and inherit most of Assyria's empire. Although, as usual, the preserved textual sources cover these years unevenly, and often are insufficiently varied in type and origin (e.g., royal or non- royal, Babylonian or Assyrian), the years from Sennacherib's destruc- tion of Babylon in 689 to the eve of Nabopolassar's accession in 626 are also a richly documented period. Frame's work is an attempt to digest all of the available sources, including archaeological evidence as well as texts, in order to produce a maximally detailed history. Sur- rounding the book's core, chapters 5-9, which proceed reign by reign through this history, are chapters focussing on the sources (ch. 2), chronology (ch. 3), the composition of Babylonia's population (ch.
    [Show full text]
  • History of Babylonia
    K- A -AHI BLACK STONE CONTRACT TABLET O F MARU DU N DIN , 6 page 9 . ANCIENT HISTORY FROM THE MONUMENTS. THE F BABYL I HISTORY O ONA, BY TH E LATE I GEO RGE S M TH, ES Q. , F T E EPA TM EN EN N I U IT ES B T S M E M O H T O F O I T T I I I H US U . D R R AL A Q , R ED ITED BY R EV. A . H . SAY CE, SSIST O E OR F C MP T VE P Y O O D NT P R F S S O O I HI O OG XF R . A A ARA L L , PU BLISHED U NDER THE DIRECTION O F THE COMM ITTEE O F GENERAL LITERATURE AND ED UCATION APPOINTED BY THE SOCIETY FO R PROMOTING CH ISTI N K NOW E G R A L D E. LO NDON S O IETY F R P ROMOTING C H RI TI N NO C O S A K WLEDGE . SOLD A T THE DEPOSITORIES ’ G E T U EEN ST EET LINCO LN s-INN ExE 77, R A Q R , LDs ; OY EXCH N G E 8 PICC I Y 4, R AL A ; 4 , AD LL ; A ND B OO KSE E S ALL LL R . k t New Y or : P o t, Y oung, Co. LONDON WY M N A ND S ONS rm NTERs G E T UEEN ST EET A , , R A Q R , ' LrNCOLN s - xNN FIE DS w L .
    [Show full text]
  • Babylonian Populations, Servility, and Cuneiform Records
    Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 60 (2017) 715-787 brill.com/jesh Babylonian Populations, Servility, and Cuneiform Records Jonathan S. Tenney Cornell University [email protected] Abstract To date, servility and servile systems in Babylonia have been explored with the tradi- tional lexical approach of Assyriology. If one examines servility as an aggregate phe- nomenon, these subjects can be investigated on a much larger scale with quantitative approaches. Using servile populations as a point of departure, this paper applies both quantitative and qualitative methods to explore Babylonian population dynamics in general; especially morbidity, mortality, and ages at which Babylonians experienced important life events. As such, it can be added to the handful of publications that have sought basic demographic data in the cuneiform record, and therefore has value to those scholars who are also interested in migration and settlement. It suggests that the origins of servile systems in Babylonia can be explained with the Nieboer-Domar hy- pothesis, which proposes that large-scale systems of bondage will arise in regions with * This was written in honor, thanks, and recognition of McGuire Gibson’s efforts to impart a sense of the influence of aggregate population behavior on Mesopotamian development, notably in his 1973 article “Population Shift and the Rise of Mesopotamian Civilization”. As an Assyriology student who was searching texts for answers to similar questions, I have occasionally found myself in uncharted waters. Mac’s encouragement helped me get past my discomfort, find the data, and put words on the page. The necessity of assembling Mesopotamian “demographic” measures was something made clear to me by the M.A.S.S.
    [Show full text]
  • SUMERIAN LITERATURE and SUMERIAN IDENTITY My Title Puts
    CNI Publicati ons 43 SUMERIAN LITERATURE AND SUMERIAN IDENTITY JERROLD S. COOPER PROBLEMS OF C..\NONlCl'TY AND IDENTITY FORMATION IN A NCIENT EGYPT AND MESOPOTAMIA There is evidence of a regional identity in early Babylonia, but it does not seem to be of the Sumerian ethno-lingusitic sort. Sumerian Edited by identity as such appears only as an artifact of the scribal literary KIM RYHOLT curriculum once the Sumerian language had to be acquired through GOJKO B AR .I AMOVIC educati on rather than as a mother tongue. By the late second millennium, it appears there was no notion that a separate Sumerian ethno-lingui stic population had ever existed. My title puts Sumerian literature before Sumerian identity, and in so doing anticipates my conclusion, which will be that there was little or no Sumerian identity as such - in the sense of "We are all Sumerians!" ­ outside of Sumerian literature and the scribal milieu that composed and transmitted it. By "Sumerian literature," I mean the corpus of compositions in Sumerian known from manuscripts that date primarily 1 to the first half of the 18 h century BC. With a few notable exceptions, the compositions themselves originated in the preceding three centuries, that is, in what Assyriologists call the Ur III and Isin-Larsa (or Early Old Babylonian) periods. I purposely eschew the too fraught and contested term "canon," preferring the very neutral "corpus" instead, while recognizing that because nearly all of our manuscripts were produced by students, the term "curriculum" is apt as well. 1 The geographic designation "Babylonia" is used here for the region to the south of present day Baghdad, the territory the ancients would have called "Sumer and Akkad." I will argue that there is indeed evidence for a 3rd millennium pan-Babylonian regional identity, but little or no evidence that it was bound to a Sumerian mother-tongue community.
    [Show full text]
  • Neo-Assyrian Period 934–612 BC the Black Obelisk
    Map of the Assyrian empire up to the reign of Sargon II (721–705 BC) Neo-Assyrian period 934–612 BC The history of the ancient Middle East during the first millennium BC is dominated by the expansion of the Assyrian state and its rivalry with Babylonia. At its height in the seventh century BC, the Assyrian empire was the largest and most powerful that the world had ever known; it included all of Mesopotamia, Syria, Palestine, and Egypt, as well as parts of Anatolia and Iran. Ceramics with very thin, pale fabric, referred to as Palace Ware, were the luxury ware of the Assyrians. Glazed ceramics are also characteristically Neo-Assyrian in form and decoration. The Black Obelisk Excavated by Austin Henry Lanyard in 1845 at Nimrud (ancient Kalhu), the black limestone sculpture known as the Black Obelisk commemorates the achievements of the Assyrian king Shalmaneser III (858–824 BC); a cast of the monument stands today in the Dr. Norman Solhkhah Family Assyrian Empire Gallery (C224–227) at the OI Museum. Twenty relief panels, distributed in five rows on the four sides of the obelisk, show the delivery of tribute from subject peoples and vassal kings (a king that owes loyalty to another ruler). A line of cuneiform script below each identifies the tribute and source. The Assyrian king is shown in two panels at the top, first depicted as a warrior with a bow and arrow, receiving Sua, king of Gilzanu (northwestern Iran); and second, as a worshiper with a libation bowl in hand, receiving Jehu, king of the House of Omri (ancient northern Israel).
    [Show full text]
  • Marten Stol WOMEN in the ANCIENT NEAR EAST
    Marten Stol WOMEN IN THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST Marten Stol Women in the Ancient Near East Marten Stol Women in the Ancient Near East Translated by Helen and Mervyn Richardson ISBN 978-1-61451-323-0 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-1-61451-263-9 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-1-5015-0021-3 This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial- NoDerivs 3.0 License. For details go to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by-nc-nd/3.0/ Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress. Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. Original edition: Vrouwen van Babylon. Prinsessen, priesteressen, prostituees in de bakermat van de cultuur. Uitgeverij Kok, Utrecht (2012). Translated by Helen and Mervyn Richardson © 2016 Walter de Gruyter Inc., Boston/Berlin Cover Image: Marten Stol Typesetting: Dörlemann Satz GmbH & Co. KG, Lemförde Printing and binding: cpi books GmbH, Leck ♾ Printed on acid-free paper Printed in Germany www.degruyter.com Table of Contents Introduction 1 Map 5 1 Her outward appearance 7 1.1 Phases of life 7 1.2 The girl 10 1.3 The virgin 13 1.4 Women’s clothing 17 1.5 Cosmetics and beauty 47 1.6 The language of women 56 1.7 Women’s names 58 2 Marriage 60 2.1 Preparations 62 2.2 Age for marrying 66 2.3 Regulations 67 2.4 The betrothal 72 2.5 The wedding 93 2.6
    [Show full text]
  • The Neo-Babylonian Empire New Babylonia Emerged out of the Chaos That Engulfed the Assyrian Empire After the Death of the Akka
    NAME: DATE: The Neo-Babylonian Empire New Babylonia emerged out of the chaos that engulfed the Assyrian Empire after the death of the Akkadian king, Ashurbanipal. The Neo-Babylonian Empire extended across Mesopotamia. At its height, the region ruled by the Neo-Babylonian kings reached north into Anatolia, east into Persia, south into Arabia, and west into the Sinai Peninsula. It encompassed the Fertile Crescent and the Tigris and Euphrates River valleys. New Babylonia was a time of great cultural activity. Art and architecture flourished, particularly under the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II, was determined to rebuild the city of Babylonia. His civil engineers built temples, processional roadways, canals, and irrigation works. Nebuchadnezzar II sought to make the city a testament not only to Babylonian greatness, but also to honor the Babylonian gods, including Marduk, chief among the gods. This cultural revival also aimed to glorify Babylonia’s ancient Mesopotamian heritage. During Assyrian rule, Akkadian language had largely been replaced by Aramaic. The Neo-Babylonians sought to revive Akkadian as well as Sumerian-Akkadian cuneiform. Though Aramaic remained common in spoken usage, Akkadian regained its status as the official language for politics and religious as well as among the arts. The Sumerian-Akkadian language, cuneiform script and artwork were resurrected, preserved, and adapted to contemporary uses. ©PBS LearningMedia, 2015 All rights reserved. Timeline of the Neo-Babylonian Empire 616 Nabopolassar unites 575 region as Neo- Ishtar Gate 561 Amel-Marduk becomes king. Babylonian Empire and Walls of 559 Nerglissar becomes king. under Babylon built. 556 Labashi-Marduk becomes king. Chaldean Dynasty.
    [Show full text]
  • Proto-Elamite
    L2/20­192 2020­09­21 Preliminary proposal to encode Proto­Elamite in Unicode Anshuman Pandey [email protected] pandey.github.io/unicode September 21, 2020 Contents 1 Introduction 2 2 Overview of the Sign Repertoire 3 2.1 Sign names . 4 2.2 Numeric signs . 4 2.3 Numeric signs with extended representations . 5 2.4 Complex capacity signs . 6 2.5 Complex graphemes . 7 2.6 Signs in compounds without independent attestation . 10 2.7 Alternate or variant forms . 11 2.8 Scribal designs . 11 3 Proposed Encoding Model 12 4 Proposed Characters 13 4.1 Numeric signs . 13 4.2 General ideographic signs . 17 5 Characters Not Suitable for Encoding 110 6 References 110 7 Acknowledgments 111 1 Preliminary proposal to encode Proto­Elamite in Unicode Anshuman Pandey 1 Introduction The term ‘Proto­Elamite’ refers to a writing system that was used at the beginning of the 3rd millenium BCE in the region to the east and southeast of Mesopotamia, known as Elam, which corresponds to the eastern portion of present­day Iran. The name was assigned by the French epigraphist Jean­Vincent Scheil in the early 20th century, who believed it to be the predecessor of a ‘proper’ Elamite script, which would have been used for recording the Elamite language, simply on account of the location of the tablets at Susa, which was the capital city of Elam. While no ‘proper’ descendent of the script has been identified, scholars continue to use the name ‘Proto­Elamite’ as a matter of convention (Dahl 2012: 2). Proto­Elamite is believed to have been developed from an accounting system used in Mesopotamia, in a manner similar to the development of ‘Proto­Cuneiform’.
    [Show full text]
  • Elam and Babylonia: the Evidence of the Calendars*
    BASELLO E LAM AND BABYLONIA : THE EVIDENCE OF THE CALENDARS GIAN PIETRO BASELLO Napoli Elam and Babylonia: the Evidence of the Calendars * Pochi sanno estimare al giusto l’immenso benefizio, che ogni momento godiamo, dell’aria respirabile, e dell’acqua, non meno necessaria alla vita; così pure pochi si fanno un’idea adeguata delle agevolezze e dei vantaggi che all’odierno vivere procura il computo uniforme e la divisione regolare dei tempi. Giovanni V. Schiaparelli, 1892 1 Babylonians and Elamites in Venice very historical research starts from Dome 2 just above your head. Would you a certain point in the present in be surprised at the sight of two polished Eorder to reach a far-away past. But figures representing the residents of a journey has some intermediate stages. Mesopotamia among other ancient peo- In order to go eastward, which place is ples? better to start than Venice, the ancient In order to understand this symbolic Seafaring Republic? If you went to Ven- representation, we must go back to the ice, you would surely take a look at San end of the 1st century AD, perhaps in Marco. After entering the church, you Rome, when the evangelist described this would probably raise your eyes, struck by scene in the Acts of the Apostles and the golden light floating all around: you compiled a list of the attending peoples. 3 would see the Holy Spirit descending If you had an edition of Paulus Alexan- upon peoples through the preaching drinus’ Sã ! Ğ'ã'Ğ'·R ğ apostles. You would be looking at the (an “Introduction to Astrology” dated at 12th century mosaic of the Pentecost 378 AD) 4 within your reach, you should * I would like to thank Prof.
    [Show full text]
  • Journal of Ancient Near Eastern History 2018; 5(1-2): 41–56
    Journal of Ancient Near Eastern History 2018; 5(1-2): 41–56 C. Jay Crisostomo* Language, Translation, and Commentary in Cuneiform Scribal Practice https://doi.org/10.1515/janeh-2018-0005 Abstract: Cuneiform scholarly practices systematized an exploration of mean- ing potential. In cuneiform scholarship, knowledge making emerged from multiplescribalpractices,mostnotablylist-making,analogicalreasoning, and translation. The present paper demonstrates how multilingualism stands atthecoreofcuneiformscholarlyinquiry, enabling hermeneutical exploration of possibility and potential. Cuneiform scholarly practices of translation and analogical hermeneutics coupled with an understanding of the cuneiform writing system constituted a system analogous to the medieval artes grammaticae. Keywords: translation, commentary, analogy, lists In a series of lectures given at the University of Cambridge, Ian Hacking asked the question “Why does language matter to philosophy?” He concludes “Language matters to philosophy because of what knowledge has become. … [Discourse is] that which constitutes human knowledge” (Hacking 1975: 187). Why does language matter to cuneiform “philosophy”? Or, perhaps, rather than Why, we can ask How. In order to answer this question, I examine the social and textual contexts in which a discussion of cuneiform “philosophy” can properly take place, namely in cuneiform scholarship. At the core of cuneiform scholarly practices and knowledge making is list-making. In his recent book Philosophy Before the Greeks, Marc Van De Mieroop argued that the list—the listing structure—provides the basis for a Babylonian epistemology which is grounded in the cuneiform writing system.1 As he states in his more recent work, “Lists were the dominant format in which Mesopotamian intellectuals speculated” (Van De Mieroop this 1 Van De Mieroop (2015).
    [Show full text]
  • African Origins of International Law: Myth Or Reality? Jeremy I
    Florida A&M University College of Law Scholarly Commons @ FAMU Law Journal Publications Faculty Works 2015 African Origins of International Law: Myth or Reality? Jeremy I. Levitt Florida A&M University College of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://commons.law.famu.edu/faculty-research Part of the African History Commons, International Law Commons, and the Social and Cultural Anthropology Commons Recommended Citation Jeremy I. Levitt, African Origins of International Law: Myth or Reality? 19 UCLA J. Int'l L. Foreign Aff. 113 (2015) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Works at Scholarly Commons @ FAMU Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Publications by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons @ FAMU Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE AFRICAN ORIGINS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW: MYTH OR REALITY? Jeremy 1. Levitt.* ABSTRACT This Article reconsiders the prevalent ahistorical assumption that international law began with the Treaty of Westphalia. It gathers together considerable historical evidence to conclude that the ancient world, particularly the New Kingdom period in Egypt or Kemet from 1570-1070 BeE, deployed all three of what today we would call sources of international law. African states predating the modern European nation state by nearly 6000 years engaged in treaty relations (the Treaty of Kadesh), and applied rules ofcustom (the MA 'AT) andgeneral principles of law (as enumerated in the Egyptian Bill ofRights). While Egyptologists and a few international lawyers have acknowledged these facts, scholarly * Jeremy 1. Levitt, J.D., Ph.D., is Vice-Chancellor's Chair and former Dean, University of New Brunswick Law School.
    [Show full text]
  • The Achaemenid Legacy in the Arsakid Period
    Studia Litteraria Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis 2019, special issue, pp. 175–186 Volume in Honour of Professor Anna Krasnowolska doi:10.4467/20843933ST.19.032.10975 www.ejournals.eu/Studia-Litteraria HTTP://ORCID.ORG/0000-0001-6709-752X MAREK JAN OLBRYCHT University of Rzeszów, Poland e-mail: [email protected] The Memory of the Past: the Achaemenid Legacy in the Arsakid Period Abstract The Achaemenid Empire, established by Cyrus the Great, provided a model looked up to by subsequent empires on the territory of Iran and the Middle East, including the empires ruled by Alexander of Macedonia, the Seleukids, and the Arsakids. Achaemenid patterns were eagerly imitated by minor rulers of Western Asia, including Media Atropatene, Armenia, Pontos, Kappadokia and Kommagene. The Arsakids harked back to Achaemenids, but their claims to the Achaemenid descendance were sporadic. Besides, there were no genealogical links between the Arsakids and Achaemenid satraps contrary to the dynastic patterns com- mon in the Hellenistic Middle East. Keywords: Iran, Cyrus the Great, Achaemenids, Arsakids, Achaemenid legacy In this article I shall try to explain why some rulers of the Arsakid period associa- ted their dynasty with the Achaemenids and what the context was of such declara- tions. The focus of this study is on the kings of Parthia from Arsakes I (248–211 B.C.) to Phraates IV (37–3/2 B.C.). The Achaemenids established the world’s first universal empire, spanning ter- ritories on three continents – Asia, Africa, and (temporary) Europe. The power of the Persians was founded by Cyrus the Great (559–530 B.C.), eulogised by the Iranians, Jews, Babylonian priests, and Greeks as well, who managed to make a not very numerous people inhabiting the lands along the Persian Gulf masters of an empire stretching from Afghanistan to the Aegean Sea, giving rise to the largest state of those times.
    [Show full text]