Akkad Akkadian Language

697 Akkadian Language 698

Pongratz-Leisten, “Prozession(sstraße),” RLA 11, Lieferung Bibliography: ■ J. Cooper, The Curse of Agade (Baltimore, 1/2 (Berlin/New York 2006) 98–103. ■ E. Weissert, “Royal Md. 1983). ■ D. Frayne, “Geographical Notes on the Land Hunt and Royal Triumph in a Prism Fragment of Ashur- of Akkad,” in From the Upper Sea to the Lower Sea: Studies on banipal (82–5–22,2),” in Assyria 1995 (eds. S. Parpola/R. M. the History of Assyria and Babylonia in Honour of A. K. Gryson Whiting; Helsinki 1997) 339–58. (eds. G. Frame/L. Wilding; Leiden 2004) 103–176. ■ D. R. Beate Pongratz-Leisten Frayne, Sargonic and Gutian Periods (Royal Inscriptions of See also /Astrology, Astronomy: Ancient Near Mesopotamia 2; Toronto 1993). ■ I. J. Gelb, Old Akkadian East Writing and Grammar (Chicago, Ill. 1961). ■ J. Goodnick Westenholz, Legends of the Kings of Akkade (Winona Lake, Ind. 1997). ■ M. Liverani (ed.), Akkad, the First World Empire (Pa- dova 1993). ■ A. Westenholz, “The Old Akkadian Period,” Akkad in id./W. Sallaberger, Akkade-Zeit und Ur III-Zeit (1999), vol. 3 The city of Akkad is mentioned only once in the of Mesopotamien (ed. P. Attinger; OBO 160; Göttingen 1998– Bible (Gen 10 : 10), as belonging with Babylon and 2004) 15–117. Erech (Uruk) to the kingdom of fabulous Nimrod. Mario Liverani The city (in the general area of modern Baghdad) has not yet been located, but it was the capital of a famous dynasty (ca. 2350–2200 BCE) dominating Akkadian Language all of Mesopotamia, conquering the Sumerian city- The name Akkadian derives from the city and the states in the South, submitting Ebla in the far West 3rd-millennium empire of Sargon of Akkad(e). It is and Elam in the far East, and extending from Up- the language of the ancient Assyrians in northern per to Lower Sea (Mediterranean and Persian Gulf). Mesopotamia and the Babylonians in the south. As For the first time, the political project went beyond opposed to the more numerous West Semitic lan- the limits of the city-states (typical of the Sumerian guages, Akkadian forms the East Semitic branch of period) and tried to encompass the entire known the Semitic language family together with Eblaite world (cf. the royal title “king of the four quar- (ca. 2300–2200 BCE). In fact, the oldest known Se- ters”). After a period of successful expansion, the mitic texts are written on clay tablets in the cunei- dynasty was perhaps enfeebled by a climatic crisis form script of Akkadian. Due to this script, origi- and finally submerged by the Gutian invaders. The nally invented for the writing of Sumerian, written destruction of Akkad and its temple E-Ulmash gave Akkadian is a mixture of phonetic signs (syllables origin to a famous “Lamentation.” Since then, the or parts of them), word signs (logograms), and clas- name of Akkad remained attached to the Semitic- sifiers (determinatives) which help in semantic speaking north (vs. Sumer being the south) of identification. Many of the signs were used in all Lower Mesopotamia and eventually became a of these three different ways. Besides, signs are learned synonym for Babylon. But still in Neo-Bab- homophonic (i.e., several discrete signs can pho- ylonian times there was a (minor) town Akkad, and netically be read in the same way, but in translitera- the E-Ulmash temple was still active. The name of the language, “Akkadian” came to designate the tion modern scholars distinguish between them by Eastern Semitic language of Mesopotamia, includ- using diacritical marks, e.g., li, lí, li8; mi, mí) and ing the Babylonian and Assyrian dialects (and is polyphonic (i.e., the same sign can be read in many still used in this sense by Semitists). ways, e.g., the sign UD can be interpreted as ud, tú, The kings of Akkad, especially the founder Sar- lih˚, par, pir or tam, depending on the context). gon and his grand-son Naram-Sin, erected monu- Unlike West Semitic languages, Akkadian never ments (most famous is the stele of Naram-Sin developed into a consonantal writing system, and found in Susa) with inscriptions celebrating their individual consonants cannot be written (cf. the military victories and with lively figurative repre- West Semitic cuneiform alphabet of Ugaritic). An- sentations. These monuments remained visible for other peculiar feature is that Akkadian was written centuries in the Ekur of Nippur and in other major from left to right. Throughout its long history – temples of Mesopotamia, and they gave rise to pop- attested ca. from the middle of the 3rd millennium ular legends, preserved to us in apocryphal inscrip- (Early Dynastic III) until the 1st century CE – Akka- tions and poems. In the literary tradition, the kings dian was spoken and written in Mesopotamia of Akkad were considered the models for kingship: (roughly today’s Iraq), but the influence of Akka- a positive model in the case of Sargon, always act- dian spread throughout the ancient Near East. The ing according to the divine orders and always victo- so-called Western peripheral Akkadian, for exam- rious; a negative model in the case of the presump- ple, is attested along the Syro-Palestinian coast and tuous and unlucky Naram-Sin. Their fame appears in Anatolia (Alalakh, Amorite Akkadian, Emar, also in their mention in omens and in late chroni- Ugarit; Hattusha). In the east, outside Mesopota- cles. Still in Neo-Babylonian times (the time of the mia, Akkadian is attested in Mitannian Nuzi and Jews’ exile in Babylon), the Chaldean kings were Elamite Susa. The cuneiform writing system of Ak- looking for the foundation inscriptions of the Ak- kadian was adapted by various peoples to write kad kings and even forging charters for temple their own languages, including for example, the privileges in their names. Elamites, Hittites, Hurrians, and Urartians. Akka-

Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception vol. 1 Authenticated | [email protected] © Walter de Gruyter, Berlin/New York, 2009 Download Date | 11/24/18 5:46 PM Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception 1 (© Walter de Gruyter, Berlin/New York 2009) 699 Akkadian Language 700 dian also functioned as an international lingua cases in the singular: subject (nominative: kalbum – franca in the Amarna diplomacy of the late 2nd mil- “dog”), direct object (accusative: kalbam), and geni- lennium BCE. tive (indicating possession and also used after prep- The customary periodization of Old Akkadian ositions: kalbim), but only two (subject and oblique) and its subsequent dialects is as follows: in the plural. The construct form or status construc- – Old Akkadian (ca. 2500–2000 BCE) tus expresses the genitive relationship between two – Old Assyrian (ca. 2000–1700 BCE) nouns by attaching the possessed in as short a form – Old Babylonian (ca. 2000–1600 BCE) as possible to the possessor: kalab sˇarrim (“dog of – Middle Assyrian (ca. 1500–1000 BCE) the king”). Akkadian does not have any definite ar- – Middle Babylonian (ca. 1600–1000 BCE) ticle. Conditions are expressed by the so-called sta- – Neo-Assyrian (ca. 1000–600 BCE) tive. The same personal suffixes can be added to – Neo-Babylonian (ca. 1000–600 BCE) primary nouns (sˇarr-a¯ ku: “I am king”) or verbal ad- – Late Babylonian (ca. 600–100 BCE) jectives (sˇakn-a¯ ku: “I am placed”) that are used as 1. Characteristics. Continuous linguistic changes the predicates of a sentence. occurred during the long history of Akkadian. Old Verbs are conjugated in four tenses (alterna- Akkadian is a practical, collective term for the writ- tively, aspects): Perfect with infixed -t- after the ings of the 3rd millennium which are not linguisti- first root radical (isˇtakan: “He has placed/will have cally uniform. Compared to later dialects, Old Ak- placed”); preterite for the past (isˇkun: “He placed”); kadian still preserved more of the original Semitic present/future (isˇakkan: “He places/will place”), and consonants and archaic forms. Most of the Old As- imperative (sˇukun: “Place!”). The morpheme called syrian texts were unearthed in modern Kültepe the ventive indicates action, mostly motion, in the (eastern Turkey) because of the intensive Assyrian direction of the speaker: illik (“he went”), but il- trading activity in the area. Contrary to Old Babylo- likam (“he came”). Another morpheme -u (subjunc- nian and later dialects, Old Assyrian preserved cer- tive) marks the verb in a subordinate clause. Non- tain adjacent vowels uncontracted. On the other finite forms of the verbs are the infinitive (sˇaka¯ num: hand, most of the modern grammars of Akkadian “to place”), active participle (pa¯ lihum: “one who are based on Old Babylonian. It is considered the fears; worshipper”), and verbal adjective (sˇaknu: classical and ideal form of the language where- “placed”). There are four different themes or stems: upon, from Middle Babylonian onward, a literary G or basic (also known as I): ipallah (“He fears”), D Akkadian was based called Standard Babylonian or (II) factitive or intensive: upallah (“He frightens”); Sˇ Hymnal-Epic Dialect. Myths, epics, and many royal (III) causative (usˇasˇkan) “He causes to be placed,” N inscriptions are written in Standard Babylonian. (IV) passive or reflexive (isˇsˇakkan) “It is to be Thousands of Old Babylonian letters discovered in placed.” Further modifications are expressed with Mari in modern Syria form one of the major ar- infixed t, denoting reciprocal or passive, occasion- chives written in Akkadian cuneiform. In Middle ally reflexive, action, and occurring in the first Babylonian and Middle Assyrian, which are both three themes, whereas infixed tan could be placed less well-known dialects than those of the preced- in all four themes denoting repeated or enduring ing and successive periods, case endings lose dis- action. tinction, final m is lost from nominal forms, and 4. Syntax. Akkadian has verb-final word order be- phonetic changes occur. Increasing Aramaic influ- cause of Sumerian influence, but at the latest in the ence is attested in Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylo- late 2nd and early 1st millennium BCE, there is nian, and it is possible that only the urban elite some evidence for deviations from the normal word spoke Akkadian at the end of this era. Early late order. Subordinate clauses usually precede the Babylonian, at least, was in all probability a living main clause. Gender and number agreement con- and spoken language. cerns both the verbs and adjectives with their sub- 2. Phonology. Many Proto-Semitic consonants are ject. Two conjunctions may connect clauses: (1) In- lost in Akkadian, presumably both by sound shifts dependent u often connects nouns (abum u ummum: and limitations of the cuneiform writing system. “Father and mother”), (2) the enclitic particle -ma Akkadian has three basic vowels a/a¯ , i/ı¯ , u/u¯ (dis- joins clauses which are intimately linked (illikam- tinctively short and long), as well as the secondary ma iksˇud: “He came and conquered”). vowel e/e¯ . Some phonetic laws are typical of Akka- Akkadian has a rich, mainly common Semitic dian, including Geer’s law: two different emphatic vocabulary, but many of the most essential words consonants cannot occur in one word (e.g., *søaba¯ øtu are unique to it, including the frequent preposi- “to seize” > søaba¯ tu); and Barth’s law: in nouns the tions ana “to, for” and ina “in.” initial m becomes n if b, p,orm is part of the word ■ (e.g., markabtu “chariot” > narkabtu). Bibliography: J. Aro, Studien zur mittelbabylonischen Gram- matik (StOr 20; Helsinki 1955). ■ R. Borger, Mesopotami- 3. Morphology. Common Semitic features, i.e., sches Zeichenlexikon (AOAT 305; Münster 2004). ■ G. Deut- regular forms for nouns and verbs, are typical of scher, Syntactic Change in Akkadian (Cambridge 2000). ■ G. Akkadian. Nouns and adjectives distinguish three Deutscher/N. J. C. Kouwenberg (eds.), The Akkadian Language

Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception vol. 1 Authenticated | [email protected] © Walter de Gruyter, Berlin/New York, 2009 Download Date | 11/24/18 5:46 PM Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception 1 (© Walter de Gruyter, Berlin/New York 2009) 701 Akrabbim 702 in Its Semitic Context (Uitgaven van het Nederlands Institut is missing in the parallel verse of Neh 7 : 48, al- voor het Nabije Oosten te Leiden = Publications de l’Institut though this is likely due to scribal error there. Néerlandais pour le Proche Orient à Leiden 106; Leiden 2006). ■ I. J. Gelb, Old Akkadian Writing and Grammar (MAD 2; Chicago, Ill. 21961). ■ J. Hämeen-Anttila, A Sketch of Neo- 3. The Levite Assyrian Grammar (SAA.S 13; Helsinki 2000). ■ R. Hassel- Nehemiah 8 : 7 lists Akkub as one of the people bach, Sargonic Akkadian (Wiesbaden 2005). ■ K. Hecker, who helped Ezra to teach the law to the community Grammatik der Kültepe-Texte (AnOr 44; Rome 1968). ■ J. of returned exiles, resulting in the celebration of Huehnergard, A Grammar of Akkadian (Atlanta, Ga. 1997). the Festival of Booths (8 : 13–18). ■ S. Kaufman, The Akkadian Influences on Aramaic (AS 19; Chi- cago, Ill. 1974). ■ M. Luukko, Grammatical Variation in Neo- Assyrian (SAA.S 16; Helsinki 2004). ■ P. V. Mankowski, Ak- 4. Son of Elioenai kadian Loanwords in Biblical Hebrew (HSS 47; Winona Lake, 1 Chronicles 3 : 24 names Akkub as a post-exilic de- ■ Ind. 2000). W. Mayer, Untersuchungen zur Grammatik des scendant of David. The Davidic genealogy of 3 : 1– Mittelassyrischen (AOATS 2; Neukirchen-Vluyn 1971). ■ E. Reiner, A Linguistic Analysis of Akkadian (The Hague 1966). 24 places Akkub either seven or eleven generations ■ S. L. Sanders (ed.), Margins of Writing, Origins of Cultures (depending on whether one follows the MT or LXX (Oriental Institute Seminars 2; Chicago, Ill. 2006). ■ W. reading of 3 : 21) after Zerubbabel, a governor in von Soden, Grundriß der akkadischen Grammatik (AnOr 35; the Persian period province of Yehud who was asso- 3 Rome 1995). ■ P. Stein, Die mittel- und neubabylonischen ciated with the rebuilding of the temple near the Königsinschriften bis zum Ende der Assyrerherrschaft (Wiesbaden 2000). ■ M. P. Streck, Zahl und Zeit (Cuneiform Mono- end of the 6th century (Hag 1 : 1). Assuming 20 graphs 5; Groningen 1995). ■ N. Woodington, A Grammar years per generation, this would put Akkub in of the Neo-Babylonian Letters of the Kuyunjik Collection (Diss. either the first half of the 4th century or in the late Yale 1982). 4th/early 3rd centuries BCE. Mikko Luukko 1 Chronicles 3 : 24 states that Akkub is the son of Elioenai, and an Aramaic inscription on the gravestone from a cemetery in use in Alexandria Akko during the 3rd/2nd centuries reads, “Aqqabiah son /Acco of Elioenai” (Horbury and Noy 1992: 3). It is doubt- ful, however, that this Aqqabiah is the Davidide Akkub (Horbury and Noy: 5–6; Kalimi). Akkub ■ Bibliography: W. Horbury and D. Noy (eds.), Jewish In- The name Aqqûb is an alternate form of a longer scriptions of Graeco-Roman Egypt (Cambridge 1992). ■ T. Ilan, name like Aqabya¯ hû (“YHWH has Protected”), Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity, Part I (TSAT 91; which is attested as a Jewish personal name in an- Tübingen 2002). ■ I. Kalimi, “Könnte die aramäische cient inscriptions (Ilan: 203–4). It is related to the Grabinschrift aus Ägypten als Indikation für die Datierung name Yaaqo¯ b, which is short for Yaaqo¯ b-e¯ l (“God der Chronikbücher fungieren?,” ZAW 110 (1998) 79–81. Protects”), or the like. ■ G. Knoppers, “Hierodules, Priests, or Janitors?,” JBL 118 (1999) 49–72. 1. Ancestor of Gatekeepers David Janzen “The descendants of Akkub” are listed in Ezra 2 : 42 (= Neh 7 : 45) as one family of Levitical gatekeepers who returned to the land following the ex- Akrabattene ile. This family or division of gatekeepers is one of A district in the hill country of Samaria where Ju- six different gatekeeper families named in this das Maccabeus defeated the Idumeans in 163 BCE verse, and in Neh 11 : 19 Akkub is again mentioned (1 Macc 5 : 3; Josephus A.J. ii.8.1). Confusion with as a family of gatekeepers, along with one of the the territory of Idumea and the Ascent of Akrab- other families named in Ezra 2 : 42. bim, both to the south of Judea, has resulted in The family is also listed with two of the other corruptions in the transmission of 1 Macc 5 : 3, but families of Ezra 2 : 42 (Talmon and Shallum) in Neh the correct location is reflected in Jub. 29 : 14; Jose- 12 : 25 (= 1 Chr 9 : 17), although Neh 12 : 25 renders phus B.J. ii.12.4; iii.3.4; iv.9.9; and Eusebius’ Ono- the latter name as Meshullam. 1 Chr 9 : 17–34 spec- mastikon. ifies the guarding of the temple gates as only one of several of the tasks of the gatekeepers (see 1 Chr Bibliography: ■ A. F. Rainey/R. S. Notley, The Sacred Bridge 26 : 1–19 for a fuller description of their duties). (Jerusalem 2006) 311–12. ■ J. Goldstein, I Maccabees (AncB The Chronicler in general expands Levitical duties 41; Garden City, N.Y. 1976) 294. beyond those acknowledged in the pre-exilic era Bradley Gregory (Knoppers). 2. Ancestor of Temple Servants Akrabbim The Masoretic Text of Ezra 2 : 45 lists “the descend- Literally translated “Scorpions,” this site (MT Aq- ants of Akkub” as a family of temple servants who rabbîm; LXX Ακρα ιν) marks the boundary of Ju- returned to the land following the exile. This name dah’s territory in Josh 15 : 3, and “the Ascent of