Sumerian Language Use at GarÍana On Orthography, Grammar, and Akkado-Sumerian Bilingualism* WALTHER SALLABERGER LMU MÜNCHEN Among the administrative texts from the Ur III period, the GarÍana documents stand out for their rich vocabulary and a relatively high quota of phonographic writings. This evidence becomes most fascinating since almost all scribes, who wrote the doc- uments in the prestigious Sumerian language, bore Akkadian names. This study cov- ers various aspects of language that contribute to our topic: writing and phonology, morphology, and syntax; thereby frequencies and proportions are given much atten- tion. The fact that the GarÍana scribes were mostly native Akkadians transpires rela- tively rarely in various impositions in morphology and syntax, mostly in the message domain of single speakers. The mastering especially of the diversified verbal mor- phology or the invariably Sumerian basic vocabulary is a clear sign of a high degree of language acquisition, and the phonographic spellings even hint at imitation of Sumerian phonemes. The integration of special expressions from Akkadian in a ba- sically Sumerian vernacular agrees well with the fact of a far-reaching acquisition of the non-native Sumerian language. The active Akkado-Sumerian bilingualism of the GarÍana scribes would have been unthinkable without constant communicative contacts with the native speakers of Sumerian in the region. The archive from GarÍana, a settlement in the the GarÍana documents stand out by their rath- province of Umma at the banks of the lower er frequent use of a variety of verbs and the for- Tigris, provides a unique occasion to investi- mulation in phrases. Furthermore, this homo- gate the usage of Sumerian at the end of the geneous corpus boasts a relatively high quota of third millennium. Compared to the bulk of the phonographic writings, which allows for a bet- more than sixty thousand published adminis- ter comprehension of the actual language than trative texts from this period, the time of the does the usual standard orthography. This evi- Third Dynasty of Ur (Molina 2008), which dence becomes important and most fascinating present themselves most often as lists with an because of the specific sociolinguistic situation: addition of some few administrative key terms, the population of the military settlement of * David I. Owen deserves my deepest gratitude for from discussions with Jan Keetman and, especially, providing me with transliterations of the GarÍana Wolfgang Schulze, who provided indispensable texts shortly after their acquisition and he encour- linguistic background information and literature aged me to undertake this study. The study of this and who encouraged me to describe the treated fascinating text material led to a rewarding ex- features more precisely, which eventually entailed change with David, especially in the first years of hours of counting references. the work on the archive. This study has profited 335 336 Walther Sallaberger GarÍana was mainly of Akkadian and other ori- 1. On the GarÍana Archive and Its Scribes gins, but it was situated within the Sumerian- The sheer existence of a “GarÍana archive” is speaking area of southern Babylonia; most owed to the ceaseless efforts of David I. Owen scribes, who wrote the documents in Sumeri- and Rudolf H. Mayr, who collected and pub- an, bore Akkadian names. lished more than 1400 cuneiform tablets that The discussion is ultimately devoted to this were looted at the place called GarÍana in specific situation of language contact. There- antiquity (Owen and Mayr 2007). Although fore, it concentrates on those aspects of language the archaeological context is lost, the coher- in which differences from standard Sumerian ence of the archive is remarkable: apart from a usage can be noted. A first section addresses the handful of earlier texts all dated documents relationship between written and spoken lan- belong to the ten years between fiu-Suen 4 and guage within this corpus, and a phonological Ibbi-Suen 4. They are concerned with the detail, the spelling of the infinite -e-d-e-forms, internal organization of the household and the becomes a firm witness for the representation military camp headed by the general and phy- of spoken Sumerian in these documents. On sician fiu-Kabta and his wife, the princess the other hand the imposition of Akkadian on Simat-IÍtaran (cf. Heimpel 2009, 2–4). The the Sumerian vernacular used by the GarÍana probable etymology of GarÍana as GaraÍ-Ana scribes is investigated in regard to both syntax “the camp of An” (with garaÍ as loanword of and lexicon. Akkadian kar⁄Íu “military camp”), the dedica- The exceptional situation of GarÍana allows tion of the main temple to the warrior god Nergal, the role of fiu-Kabta as general, the sta- for an exemplary view on Sumero-Akkadian tioning of “soldiers” (aga -ús, TÉL 171, ITT 3 bilingualism in southern Babylonia at the end 3 6174) and the high number of “troops” (eren , of the third millennium, just before the eco- 2 TCTI 2 3543) at this place, and the short period nomic, political, and social catastrophe at the of documentation between fiulgi and IÍbi-Erra end of the Third Dynasty of Ur put an end to indicate that GarÍana was mainly a military the old city Sumerian states and eventually to camp in the South, founded most probably by Sumerian as their vernacular. Ur-Namma or fiulgi of Ur. Methodologically this study has tried to The proper names reveal that persons of avoid single anecdotal observations, which mostly Akkadian origin were settled here. tend to be misleading, but to cover compre- Thus GarÍana differs sharply from the sur- hensively the various aspects of language that rounding ancient cities of Umma and ªirsu, contribute to our topic, and thereby frequen- which were dominantly inhabited by Sumeri- cies and proportions have been given more ans. Although, of course, a single name does attention than it is unfortunately too often the not reveal the actual language use of the person case in linguistic studies of Sumerian. But only bearing that name, the total evidence is very this broad coverage of the evidence allowed a clear in this regard, as the following tabulation, sound application of linguistic models of lan- based on randomly selected name lists of four guage contact and eventually led to an interpre- contemporary sites (Sallaberger 2004), illus- tation that covered all aspects of the analyses. trates: Total of names Of other or unclear City counted Sumerian Akkadian linguistic affiliation1 Nippur 1433 52 % 21 % 28 % Umma 546 68 % 15 % 17 % GarÍana 172 9 % 68 % 23 % ªirsu 1111 63 % 14 % 23 % Sumerian Language Use at GarÍana 337 GarÍana was thus inhabited by a dominant- flummid-il‹ (IS 4/01, maÍkim) ly Akkadian-speaking population, whereas the fiarakam (fiS 9/11, witness) administration of the provincial governor at fi2li⁄num (fiS 5/04, maÍkim) Umma controlled a dominant Sumerian popu- fiu-Adad (fiS 8/12, ™iri3) lation. fiu-Erra (fiS 8/06, maÍkim) The distribution of the personal names fiu-K›bum (fiS 9/09, witness) among the scribes active at GarÍana agrees with T›ram-il‹ (IS 2/02–4/01, ™iri ) the general picture. In the list of scribes attested 3 Ur-Eanna (fiS 8–IS 1/12, ™iri3, at GarÍana that is given below, the following maÍkim) information is added: the period attested in the U‰i-nawir (IS 2/05-06, ™iri ) documents for the person indicated as “scribe” 3 (dub-sar), but no attestations of the same per- Of the 23 names of scribes, son without that title; the administrative 2 are Sumerian (fiarakam, Ur-Eanna); function (™iri “go-between, responsible” or 3 18 are Akkadian (Adad-tillat‹, AÓ›ma, maÍkim “commissioner, deputy” as designa- AÓu-waqar, Aw‹lumma, Ea-d⁄n, tions of involvement in transaction) or the role Ea-Íar, Erra-b⁄ni, Ibni-Adad, Il‹- as (eye) witness; the attestation as scribe of the ‰ul›l‹, I‰‰ur-Suen, L⁄-q‹p(um), household in wage lists (text nos. 394, 399, Puzur-Ninkarak, flummid-il‹, fiu- 406). Those persons whose title “scribe” is Adad, fiu-K›bum, fiu-Erra, known only from the seal inscriptions are not T›ram-il‹, U‰i-nawir); considered (Owen and Mayr 2007, 429–439): 3 are of various or uncertain linguistic Adad-tillat‹ (fiS 6/05–fiS 8/03, ™iri3) affiliation (Babani/Ba-ba-ni, Enlil- d AÓ›ma (IS 2/01, ™iri3) bazaDU/ En-líl-ba-za-DU, AÓu-waqar (IS 1/01–3/01, ™iri3) fi2li⁄num/fie-NI-a-LUM). Aw‹lumma (IS 1/12–2/01, ™iri ) 3 In the wage lists two or three scribes are Babani (fiS 8/11–IS 3/01, ™iri ) 3 listed (Ea-d⁄n, Ea-Íar, L⁄-q‹p(um), Puzur- Ea-d⁄n (household scribe no. 399, Ninkarak); according to the anonymous fiS 6/06; no. 406, fiS 6/11) inspection lists between two and five scribes Ea-Íar (fiS 6/06–9/07, ™iri3, were employed at the building work at GarÍana maÍkim; household scribe (4 scribes: no. 379, fiS 6/05/22; 2 scribes: no. no. 394, fiS 6/05) 402, fiS 6/08; 5 scribes: no. 556, date lost). It DU Enlil-baza (IS 2/06, ™iri3) should be emphasized that the responsible Erra-b⁄ni (fiS 8/08, witness) scribes appear without or with different titles Ibni-Adad (fiS [x]–IS 3/08, ™iri3) over a longer period of time (see on the names Il‹-‰ul›l‹(AN.DÙL) (fiS 9/02, eye witness?) Heimpel 2009, 38–43). The Akkadian scribes I‰‰ur-Suen (IS 2/07, ™iri3, maÍkim) of the Akkadian settlement of GarÍana wrote L⁄-q‹p(um) (no. 394, fiS 6/05; no.