ARCHEOLOGIE MOCI TÉMA A Sumerian and an Elamite Fragment of Cuneiform Royal Inscriptions This contribution offers an Col. i Col. ii edition of two fragments of royal building inscriptions in 1 cuneiform script which are 1 currently in possession of individuals from the region of Hradec Králové in Czechia. Fragment No. 1 comes from late 3rd millennium BC southern Iraq and preserves part of an inscription in Sumerian, fragment No. 2 stems from late 2nd millennium BC south- western Iran and bears part of 5 a text in the Elamite language. 4 n Luděk VACÍN No. 1: An Inscription of Gudea n Fig. 3 An inscription of Gudea. Hand-copy of the entire inscription (Luckenbill 1930, No. 33) with the signs preserved in the new fragment marked in red. The first fragment (fig. 1–2) con- tains a few signs from the inscripti- on of the famous Lagaš II ruler Gu- Gudea 48; Edzard 1997, 135–136, (modern Telloh), the centre of the dea (ca. 2141–2122 BC; Falkenstein E3/1.1.7.37). city-state of Lagaš, is a more likely 1957–1971; for the entire inscripti- candidate than the ancient town of on see fig. 3). The shape and pla- The shape (flat surface) and materi- Lagaš proper (modern al-Hibah). cement of the signs leave no doubt al (clay) of the fragment betray that the original carrier of the text was that they once belonged to the Transliteration standard inscription commemora- a brick, a frequently attested speci- ting Gudea’s wholesale restoration men, perhaps stamped with a mi- Col. i of the Eninnu (literally “House-Fif- rror matrix of the inscription. So- 1. [dni]n- ĝír -su ty”), the major temple in Ĝirsu, the meone wrote the letters LA in blue 2. [ur-sa]⌈ĝ kala-ga⌉ residential city of Gudea’s city-sta- ink on the back side of the frag- 3. [den-líl-lá-ra] te, which was consecrated to the ment. Those may stand for “Lagaš” 4. [gù-dé-a] chief deity of the state pantheon, but should this be taken as an indi- 5. [ensi2] ki Ninĝirsu (Steible 1991, 304–311, cation of provenance, ancient Ĝirsu 6. [lagaš -ke4] n Fig. 1 An inscription of Gudea. Photo of the fragment No. 1. n Fig. 2 An inscription of Gudea. Hand-copy of the fragment No. 1. ŽIVÁ ARCHEOLOGIE – REA 19/2017 22 TÉMA ARCHEOLOGIE MOCI Col. ii 1. ní[ĝ-du7-e pa mu-na-è] d mušen 2. [é-ninnu- anzu2 -babbar2-ra-ni] 3. [mu-na-dù] 4. [ki-bé mu-na-gi4] Translation i 1–6) [For (the god) Ni]nĝirsu, the mighty [warr]ior [of (the god) En- lil, Gudea, prince of Lagaš, ii 1–4) made appropriate] thin[gs appear (again); (i.e.) he built and res- tored for him his (temple) Eninnu – “The White Lion-Headed Eagle”]. No. 2: An Inscription of Šutruk-Naḫḫunte I The second fragment (fig. 4–5) be- longs to the corpus of commemo- rative inscriptions commissioned n Fig. 4 An inscription of Šutruk-Naḫḫunte I. Photograph of the fragment No. 2. by the Elamite king Šutruk-Na- ḫḫunte I (ca. 1190–1155 BC; for the entire inscription see fig. 6). Ha- ving been the founder of a power- ful Middle Elamite ruling house, this king left his mark on ancient Near Eastern history particular- ly by his and his son’s campaings in Babylonia during which they pillaged several cities and brou- ght to Elam significant monu- ments, including the Victory Stele of Narām-Su’en and the basalt ste- le with the Ḫammurāpi Law Code (Carter – Stolper 1984, 39–41). Tho- se were discovered in the ruins of the Elamite capital city of Susa by the French expedition at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries and are currently among the highlights of the Louvre collection of Orien- tal antiquities. n Fig. 5 An inscription of Šutruk-Naḫḫunte I. Hand-copy of the fragment No. 2. Yet, Šutruk-Naḫḫunte was not only a plunderer of foreign cities but may have fallen off during that pro- Transliteration also a builder of religious structu- cedure and was subsequently glued res in his kingdom, particularly back in place. 1. [ú mšu-ut-ru-uk-dnaḫ-ḫu-un-te ša]-ak the temple precinct of Inšušinak, ḫal-lu- du -u[š-din-šu-ši-na-ak- / the tutelary deity of the capital. A There is a sticker on the back of the 2. kí-ik⌈ su-un-ki-ik⌉ an-za-an number of bricks bearing Šutruk- fragment with handwritten Czech šu-šu]- un -ka4 e-ri-e[n-tu4-um -Naḫḫunte’s standard building in- description of the origin and da- ti-pu-u⌈ḫ] ⌉ scription were excavated in the ting of the piece: “Ziggurat Chogha 3. [a-ak ḫi-ia-an din-šu-ši-na-a]k area, mostly in the hypostyle hall Zanbil, Khuzestan province, sou- na -pír- ú -ri-[me a-ḫa-an (König 1977, 13, 71–72, No. 18; Mal- thern Iran, ca. 1250 BC, the Elami- ḫ⌈ a-li-i⌉ ḫ-ma⌈ ⌉ḫu- / bran-Labat 1995, 79–81). te period.” This location and date 4. tak ḫa-li-ku-me din-šu-ši-na-ak] would point to an inscription of na-pír-ú -ri i[n li-na te-la-ak-ni] The fragment edited below once king Untaš-Napiriša (Carter – Stol- ⌈ ⌉ belonged to one of them. The pie- per 1984, 37–39), yet the text proves Translation ce is quite thin now, resembling a otherwise. It is undoubtedly a rem- tablet of clay with admixtures, but nant of Šutruk-Naḫḫunte’s buil- 1. [I, Šutruk-Naḫḫunte, so]n its perfectly flat back side makes it ding inscription attested only at of Ḫalludu[š-Inšušinak, clear that it was cut off from a bro- Susa (König 1977, 13, 71–72, No. 18; 2. King of Anšan and Sus]a, ken brick. The upper right corner Malbran-Labat 1995, 79–81). [shaped] baked bri[cks, 19/2017 ŽIVÁ ARCHEOLOGIE – REA 23 ARCHEOLOGIE MOCI TÉMA n Fig. 6 An inscription of Šutruk-Naḫḫunte I. Hand-copy of an exemplar of the five-line version of the entire inscription (König – Bork – Hü- sing 1925, No. 18; for a photograph see Scheil 1901, Pl. VII, 1) with the signs preserved in the new fragment marked in red. 3. and here I set about creating a edited. Note that this inscription is Kozuh, M. 2014: Elamite and Akkadian hypostyle hall of Inšušinak], my in most cases written over five lines Inscribed Bricks from Bard-e Karegar god. (König 1977, 13, No. 18: „Fünfzeilige (Khuzistan, Iran). In: M. Kozuh – W. F. M. Henkelman – C. E. Jones – C. Woods (eds.), 4. W[hat I have done and accomp- Backsteine aus Susa mit variieren- Extraction & Control: Studies in Honor lished shall be presented as a gift to der Zeileneinteilung.“). The transla- of Matthew W. Stolper. Studies in Ancient Inšušinak], my god! tion of this line follows Hinz – Koch Oriental Civilization 68. Chicago, 131–161. 1987, 598, s.v. ha-li-h, ha-li-h-ma. König, F. W. – Bork, F. – Hüsing, G. 1925: Corpus inscriptionum Elamicarum I. Die Malbran-Labat 1995, 79 translates Notes altelamischen Texte: Tafeln. Hannover. «et ainsi j’ai édifié la salle hypostyle König, F. W. 1977: Die elamischen 1. The AG sign has two pairs of ho- d’Inshushinak, mon dieu». Königsinschriften. Archiv für rizontals in its middle part (cf. Ste- Orientforschung Beiheft 16. Osnabrück. Luckenbill, D. D. 1930 ve 1992, 58–59, No. 97). The writing 4. Difficulties with the distributi- : Inscriptions from Adab. Oriental Institute Publications 14. of Ḫalluduš-Inšušinak’s name wit- on of text can clearly be observed Chicago. hout the determinative of person in this line. The signs PÍR, Ú and Malbran-Labat, F. 1995: Les inscriptions does occur in other brick inscripti- RI follow very closely after one ano- royales de Suse. Briques de l’époque paléo- ons of his successor (König 1977, 77, ther with no empty space between élamite à l’Empire néo-élamite. Paris. Scheil, V. 1901: Textes Élamites-Anzanites: No. 23; cf. Kozuh 2014, 138, Type 5) them. The RI sign is smaller than Tome III. Mémoires de la Délégation en but it is rare and apparently not yet in the previous lines. Only traces of Perse 3. Paris. attested for this inscription. There the uppermost horizontal and the Steible, H. 1991: Die neusumerischen Bau- seems to have been an upright st- final vertical of the Ú sign are visi- und Weihinschriften: Teil 1. Inschriften roke in the damaged DU sign (cf. ble and this sign was clearly quite der II. Dynastie von Lagaš. Freiburger altorientalische Studien 9/1. Stuttgart. Steve 1992, 82–83, No. 206). squeezed, as is the whole sequence Steve, M.-J. 1992: Syllabaire élamite: histoire et na-pír-ú-ri compared to the same in paléographie. Civilisations du Proche-Orient 2. The shape of the QA sign is much line 3. The translation of the con- II: Philologie 1. Neuchâtel – Paris. closer to the occurrences of this struction *ḫutak ḫalik-u-me follows sign in the inscriptions of Šutruk- Hinz – Koch 1987, 599, s.v. ha-li- Souhrn -Naḫḫunte’s grandson Ḫuteluduš- -ik.ú-me, the translation of *in lina -Inšušinak (Steve 1992, 51, No. 62). telakni is based on Hinz – Koch 1987, Příspěvek přináší filologické zpracování dvou zlomků klínopisných stavebních nápisů. Prv- 316, s.v. te-la-ak-ni, cf. 729, 831, s.v. ní z nich pochází z jižní Mezopotámie konce 3. There is an upright stroke at hu-ut-ta-ak, li-na.