From the Workshop of the Mesopotamian Scribe: Literary and Scholarly Texts from the Old Babylonian Period 9781646020997

Citation preview

MOBC-Frontal Page i Thursday, January 9, 2020 10:53 AM

FROM THE WORKSHOP OF THE MESOPOTAMIAN SCRIBE LITERARY AND SCHOLARLY TEXTS FROM THE OLD BABYLONIAN PERIOD

MOBC-Frontal Page ii Thursday, January 9, 2020 10:53 AM

In Memory of Shlomo Moussaieff (1925-2015)

MOBC-Frontal Page iii Thursday, January 9, 2020 10:53 AM

Publications of the Bar-Ilan University Institute of Assyriology

From the Workshop of the Mesopotamian Scribe Literary and Scholarly Texts from the Old Babylonian Period by

Jacob Klein and Yitschak Sefati

EISENBRAUNS

| University Park, Pennsylvania

MOBC-Frontal Page iv Thursday, January 9, 2020 10:53 AM

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOGING-IN-PUBLICATION DATA

Names: Klein, Jacob, 1934- author. | Sefati, Yitzhak, author. Title: From the workshop of the Mesopotamian scribe : literary and scholarly texts from the old Babylonian period / by Jacob Klein and Yitschak Sefati. Description: University Park, Pennsylvania : The Pennsylvania State University Press, [2020] | Series: Publications of the Bar-Ilan University Institute of Assyriology | Includes bibliographical references and index. Summary: “English translations covering a variety of cuneiform tablets from the Old Babylonian period, belonging to the collection of the late Shlomo Moussaieff”Provided by publisher. Identifiers: LCCN 2019053791 | ISBN 9781575067315 (hardback) Subjects: LCSH: Sumerian language-Texts. | Akkadian language-Texts. Classification: LCC PJ4055.K55 2020 | DDC 899/.95-dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019053791

Copyright © 2020 The Pennsylvania State University All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America Published by The Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, PA 16802-1003 Eisenbrauns is an imprint of The Pennsylvania State University Press. The Pennsylvania State University Press is a member of the Association of University Presses. It is the policy of The Pennsylvania State University Press to use acid- free paper. Publications on uncoated stock satisfy the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Material, ansi z39.48–1992.

MOBC-Frontal Page v Thursday, January 9, 2020 10:53 AM

Table of Contents Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii General Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 I. GilgameÍ and the Bull of Heaven. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Outline of the Plot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Political-Historical Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Description of the Moussaieff Tablet (ShM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Composite Text and Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Commentary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Score . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 The Mussaieff Tablet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Transliteration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Copy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Photographs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69 Word Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 II. An Old Babylonian Bilingual Lexical Text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Transliteration and Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Commentary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 Sequence of Basic Sign Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 Comparative Synopsis of KA, IGI, and KU in the Syllabaries ShM, Proto-Ea, and Ea . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 Comparative Synopsis of Syllabaries — Number of Lexical Entries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

—v—

MOBC-Frontal Page vi Thursday, January 9, 2020 10:53 AM

vi

Contents Syllabary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 Sumerian-Akkadian Word Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 Akkadian-Sumerian Word Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 Photographs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .184

III. Lenticular School Tablets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .199 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199 Collection A (nos. 1–10) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203 Collection B (nos. 46–69) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214 Word Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .244 Bibliography and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247 General Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .255

MOBC-Frontal Page vii Thursday, January 9, 2020 10:53 AM

Preface The texts published in this volume belong to the cuneiform tablet collection of the late Shlomo Moussaieff and his spouse, Aliza Moussaieff. Part of the study of the texts was carried out within The Shlomo Moussaieff Program for the Study of Cuneiform Tablets, which was established at Bar-Ilan University with the generous support of Mr. Moussaieff from June 2005 until October 2008. The study was completed these last years within the Samuel Noah Kramer Institute of Assyriology. We are grateful to Mr. and Mrs. Moussaieff for making these tablets available to us for publication and for the support that they lent to their study. We have received generous help from colleagues who provided us with important source material, useful bibliographical references, and aid in solving difficult lexical and exegetical problems. Thanks are due to all these scholars: Kathleen Abraham, Antoine Cavigneaux, Miguel Civil, Mark Cohen, Uri Gabbay, Andrew George, Etana Glushko, Alexandra Kleinerman, Manfred Krebernik, Yuval Levavi, Jeremiah Peterson, Nili Samet, Piotr Steinkeller, Marten Stol, Niek Veldhuis, Konrad Volk, and Aage Westenholz. Their specific contributions to our study are indicated in the relevant footnotes. Jacob Klein and Yitschak Sefati Bar-Ilan University Institute of Assyriology 2019

— vii —

MOBC-Frontal Page viii Thursday, January 9, 2020 10:53 AM

MOBC-Frontal Page i Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:38 PM

FROM THE WORKSHOP OF THE MESOPOTAMIAN SCRIBE LITERARY AND SCHOLARLY TEXTS FROM THE OLD BABYLONIAN PERIOD

MOBC-Frontal Page ii Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:38 PM

In Memory of Shlomo Moussaieff (1925-2015)

MOBC-Frontal Page iii Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:38 PM

Publications of the Bar-Ilan University Institute of Assyriology

From the Workshop of the Mesopotamian Scribe Literary and Scholarly Texts from the Old Babylonian Period Jacob Klein and Yitschak Sefati

EISENBRAUNS

| University Park, Pennsylvania

MOBC-Frontal Page iv Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:38 PM

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOGING-IN-PUBLICATION DATA

Names: Klein, Jacob, 1934- author. | Sefati, Yitschak, author. Title: From the workshop of the Mesopotamian scribe : literary and scholarly texts from the old Babylonian period / by Jacob Klein and Yitschak Sefati. Description: University Park, Pennsylvania : The Pennsylvania State University Press, [2020] | Series: Publications of the Bar-Ilan University Institute of Assyriology | Includes bibliographical references and index. Summary: “English translations covering a variety of cuneiform tablets from the Old Babylonian period, belonging to the collection of the late Shlomo Moussaieff”Provided by publisher. Identifiers: LCCN 2019053791 | ISBN 9781575067315 (hardback) Subjects: LCSH: Sumerian language-Texts. | Akkadian language-Texts. Classification: LCC PJ4055.K55 2020 | DDC 899/.95-dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019053791

ISBN 978-1-57506-731-5 Copyright 2019. All rights reserved. This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that copying permitted in Sections 107 and 108 of the U.S. Copyright Law and except by reviewers for the public press) without written permission from the authors.

MOBC-Frontal Page v Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:38 PM

Table of Contents Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii General Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 I. GilgameÍ and the Bull of Heaven. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Outline of the Plot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Political-Historical Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Description of the Moussaieff Tablet (ShM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Composite Text and Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Commentary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Score . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 The Moussaieff Tablet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Transliteration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Copy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Photographs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69 Word Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 II. An Old Babylonian Bilingual Lexical Text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Transliteration and Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Commentary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 Sequence of Basic Sign Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 Comparative Synopsis of KA, IGI, and KU in the Syllabaries ShM, Proto-Ea, and Ea . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 Comparative Synopsis of Syllabaries — Number of Lexical Entries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

—v—

MOBC-Frontal Page vi Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:38 PM

vi

Contents Syllabary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 Sumerian-Akkadian Word Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 Akkadian-Sumerian Word Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 Photographs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .184

III. Lenticular School Tablets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .199 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199 Collection A (nos. 1–10) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203 Collection B (nos. 46–69) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214 Word Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .244 Bibliography and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247 General Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .255

MOBC-Frontal Page vii Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:38 PM

Preface The texts published in this volume belong to the cuneiform tablet collection of the late Shlomo Moussaieff and his spouse, Aliza Moussaieff. Part of the study of the texts was carried out within The Shlomo Moussaieff Program for the Study of Cuneiform Tablets, which was established at Bar-Ilan University with the generous support of Mr. Moussaieff from June 2005 until October 2008. The study was completed these last years within the Samuel Noah Kramer Institute of Assyriology. We are grateful to Mr. and Mrs. Moussaieff for making these tablets available to us for publication and for the support that they lent to their study. We have received generous help from colleagues who provided us with important source material, useful bibliographical references, and aid in solving difficult lexical and exegetical problems. Thanks are due to all these scholars: Kathleen Abraham, Antoine Cavigneaux, Miguel Civil, Mark Cohen, Uri Gabbay, Andrew George, Etana Glushko, Alexandra Kleinerman, Manfred Krebernik, Yuval Levavi, Jeremiah Peterson, Nili Samet, Piotr Steinkeller, Marten Stol, Niek Veldhuis, Konrad Volk, and Aage Westenholz. Their specific contributions to our study are indicated in the relevant footnotes. Jacob Klein and Yitschak Sefati Bar-Ilan University Institute of Assyriology 2019

— vii —

MOBC-Frontal Page viii Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:38 PM

MOBC-Intro Page 1 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:53 PM

General Introduction The texts studied in this volume belong to the various stages of Old Babylonian scribal education: Two collections of lenticular tablets belonging to the elementary level of scribal training;1 a copy of an extract from the Sumerian GilgameÍ epic “GilgameÍ and the Bull of Heaven” belonging to the highest level of scribal training; and a hitherto unpublished bilingual Old Babylonian lexical list of unknown provenance.2 The lexical list must have been composed and written by a senior master (um-mi-a é-dub-ba-a) of one of the important scribal schools as an advanced textbook for his students.3 Since, to 1. The 10 lenticulars of Collection A were loaned to Klein by the collector for study in two groups: Nos. 1–3 in September 2001, and Nos. 4–10 in November 2001. The 23 lenticulars of Collection B (Nos. 46–53 and 55–69) were part of a collection of 341 OB and MB tablets of various genres, which were loaned by the collector to the Bar-Ilan University Institute of Assyriology in 2005–2006 to be studied at The Shlomo Moussaieff Program for the Study of Cuneiform Tablets. These lenticulars were catalogued by Kathleen Abraham, the Director of the Program, and passed to the present authors for publication. The lenticulars were baked June 10–17, 2007 by Yuval Levavi, under the direction of Aage Westenholz from Copenhagen. 2. The last two tablets (i.e., the GilgameÍ epic and the lexical list) were identified and catalogued by W. G. Lambert for the collector, and loaned to Klein for study by the collector on April 9, 2002. 3. It is a syllabary of the type of Proto-Ea (with two columns, i.e., 1-2) and Proto-Aa (with three columns, i.e., 1-2-4), belonging to a separate lexical tradition of its own. This textbook, just like the Ea and Aa syllabaries, was probably intended for students who already mastered the basics of the cuneiform script, i.e., exercises of the type tu-ta-ti and Syllable Alphabet A, and now had to learn the pronunciation and meaning of the Sumerian logograms (cf. P. Michalowski’s review of MSL 14 [JNES 42, 1983], pp. 151– 52). The great importance of this lexical composition was already recognized by Lambert, who ended his description with the following words: “This seems to be the largest

—1—

MOBC-Intro Page 2 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:53 PM

2

From the Workshop of the Mesopotamian Scribe

the best of our knowledge, all the tablets were purchased by the collector from antique dealers, their provenance is unfortunately unknown.4 It should be pointed out that apart from the tablets published in this volume, thirteen more tablets from the Moussaieff collection were published in the last 15 years or so by Klein (some in cooperation with his colleagues from Bar-Ilan University) in various periodicals and Festschriften.5 Additional cuneiform tablets from the same collection were published by Kathleen Abraham and other scholars who cooperated with her on the decipherment of the texts from the Shlomo Moussaieff Program for the Study of Cuneiform Tablets.6

bilingual lexical tablet with glosses surviving from the Old Babylonian Period, and is of the greatest importance for further study of the two ancient languages of this civilization.” 4. We have no information as to the dates and the circumstances under which these tablets were acquired. 5. For these publications see the following studies: (1) P. Artzi, J. Klein and D. Elgavish, “The Letter of the King of Beiruth to the King of Ugarit: A Different Interpretation,” Robert Deutsch (ed.), Shlomo: Studies in Epigraphy, Iconography, History and Archaeology in Honor of Shlomo Moussaieff (Archaeological Center Publication) 2003, Tel Aviv, pp. 23– 35. (2) J. Klein, “Six New Archaic Tablets from Uruk,” ZA 94/2 (2004), 161–74. (3) J. Klein, “An ‘Old Akkadian’ Sale Document From an Unknown Provenance,” in A. K. Guinan, Maria de J. Ellis, A. J. Ferrara, S. M. Freedman, M. T. Rutz, L. Sassmannshausen, S. Tinney and M. W. Waters (eds.), If a Man Builds a Joyful House: Assyriological Studies in Honor of Erle Verdun Leichty (Cuneiform Monographs 31), Brill NV, Leiden 2006, pp. 223–35. (4) J. Klein, “Four Early Mesopotamian ‘Building’ Inscriptions from the Moussaieff Collection,” in M. Cogan and D. Kahn (eds.), Treasures on Camels' Humps: Historical and Literary Studies from the Ancient Near East Presented to Israel Eph‘al, The Hebrew University Magnes Press, Jerusalem 2008, pp. 153–82. (5) K. Abraham and J. Klein, “A New Sargon II Cylinder Fragment from an Unknown Provenance,” ZA 97 (2007), 252–61. 6. For these publications see the following studies: (1) K. Abraham, “West Semitic and Judean Brides in Cuneiform Sources from the Sixth Century B.C.E. New Evidence from a Marriage Contract from ©l-Yahudu,” AfO 51 (2005–2006), 198–219. (2) K. Abraham, “A New Sargon II Cylinder Fragment from an Unknown Provenance,” ZA 97 (2007), 252–61 (co-author, J. Klein). (3) K. Abraham, “An Inheritance Division Among Judeans in Babylonia from the Early Persian Period,” in: M. Lubetski (ed.), New Seals and Inscriptions. Hebrew, Idumean and Cuneiform (Hebrew Bible Monographs 8). Sheffield, 2007, pp. 206–11. (4) K. Abraham, “New Evidence for Warad-Sîn’s Mu-Malgium-Basig Year Name.” RA 102 (2008), 27–38. (5) K. Abraham, “A Unique Bilingual and Biliteral Artifact from the Time of Nebuchadnezzar II in the Moussaieff Private Collection.”

MOBC-Intro Page 3 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:53 PM

General Introduction

3

The subject of the first chapter is a new tablet containing fifty lines from the beginning of the Sumerian epic “GilgameÍ and the Bull of Heaven.” Although it opens with line 1, and all its fifty lines are consecutively preserved, it seems to have omitted ten to twelve lines, probably by homoioteleuton. Nevertheless, this is the most complete duplicate of a standard version of the poem, enabling us to determine the content and correct structure of the first and most crucial episode, namely the encounter between GilgameÍ and Inana. For an optimal study of this tablet, we offer a comprehensive edition of the first 50+ lines of the epic. The subject of the second chapter is a unique Old Babylonian bilingual lexical text, inscribed on a six-column tablet of unknown provenance. This tablet, which originally contained 332 entries of which 314 are preserved, similar to Proto-Aa provides three sub-columns in each line: a pronunciation gloss, a Sumerian logogram, and an Akkadian translation. Our list follows the structure of the Ea and Aa syllabaries by offering a list of simple, basic, logograms (i.e., signs), each followed by its complex derived forms. However, a unique feature of this list is that the author arranged the signs in his vocabulary on the basis of graphic concatenation: each sign contains one of the graphic components of the preceding sign. On the basis of this associative, binding principle the entire list of signs falls into only three different groups, each beginning with a simple basic sign (KA, IGI, and PAP), followed by its graphic derivatives. This list also yields a great number of hitherto unknown, synonymous Akkadian translations to the Sumerian logograms. The third chapter contains editions of two groups of lenticular school tablets of unknown provenance. Typologically, most of the lenticulars in both Chapter Eight in: M. Lubetski (ed.), New Inscriptions and Seals Relating to the Biblical World (SBL Series), 2012, pp. 111–28. (6) K. Abraham, “Bricks and Brick Stamps in the Moussaieff Private Collection.” Chapter Nine in: M. Lubetski (ed.), New Inscriptions and Seals Relating to the Biblical World (SBL Series), 2012, pp. 129–36. (7) K. Abraham and Uri Gabbay, “Expenditures by the gu-za-lá official at MaÍkan-Íapir at the time of Rim-Sîn of Larsa,” in: T. Boiy et alii (eds.), The Ancient Near East, a Life!: Festschrift Karel Van Lerberghe (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 220), Leuven: Peeters, 2012, pp. 1–36. (8) K. Abraham and U. Gabbay, “KaÍtiliaÍu and the Sumundar Canal: A New Middle Babylonian Royal Inscription,” ZA 103 (2013), 183–95. For the publication of four additional tablets from the Moussaieff collection, whose study was conducted under the auspices of the Shlomo Moussaieff Program for the Study of Cuneiform Tablets, see Y. Levavi, “Four Middle-Babylonian Legal Documents Concerning Prison,” RA 111 (2017), 87–108.

MOBC-Intro Page 4 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:53 PM

4

From the Workshop of the Mesopotamian Scribe

groups (64 percent) are of the C-5 type, namely, only the obverse is inscribed with the student’s (or the teacher’s) copy. The rest of the lentils are mostly of the types C-2 (teacher’s copy on the obverse, student’s copy on the reverse). Thus from the typological point of view, our collections conform to that of the Tell-Harmal collection, published by Al-Fouadi 1979, and differs from the Nippur collection, published by Falkowitz 1983–1984, wherein the overwhelming majority of the lentils is of the C-1 type (i.e., both the teacher’s and the student’s copy are written on the obverse, one below the other). From the thematic point of view, all lenticulars of Collection A (with one exception) contain personal names. The lentils of Collection B, on the other hand, are basically derived from lexical sources, containing a large variety of lexical entries, and only 2o percent of this collection contains personal names. From this point of view too, our collections resemble the Tell-Harmal collection, which contains mainly personal names and lexical extracts, contrary to the Nippur corpus, which contains no less than 100 lentils (out of 332) derived from literary sources. Accordingly, the lentils in our collections most probably hail from some unknown peripheral scribal centers. We are aware that our edition of the texts included in this monograph, and especially of the GilgameÍ tablet and the large lexical text, is neither perfect nor final. Our hope is that eventually these cuneiform tablets will find their proper home in a respectable museum of antiquities and will be available for further study by expert Sumerologists and Assyriologists.

MOBC-1 Page 5 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:40 PM

I. GilgameÍ and the Bull of Heaven 1–50 INTRODUCTION This tablet from the collection of the late Shlomo Moussaieff is, to the best of our knowledge, the only extant duplicate of the epic “GilgameÍ and the Bull of Heaven.” It is unbroken and contains fifty consecutive lines of the epic, albeit the scribe omitted about ten to twelve lines of the original composition.1 Nevertheless, this tablet enables us to determine that its text follows in general that of the Nippur versions of the epic, as against the deviant versions from Me-Turan. While editing our tablet, it became evident that a reliable evaluation of its contribution to the understanding of the beginning of the epic necessitated a revised edition of the parallel portion of the reconstructed text. Outline of the Plot The first attempt to reconstruct the beginning of this epic is to be credited to Antoine Cavigneaux and Farouk Al-Rawi.2 The editors offered two distinct reconstructions of the text on the basis of the two major versions that were then available to them: eighteen fragmentary pieces from Nippur, supplemented by a duplicate of unknown provenance from the Royal Museum of Berlin;3 and the more complete but less reliable version from Me-Turan.4 1. See edition below, ll. 11a–11l. These lines were omitted probably by homoioteleuton. Note, however, that according to Andrew George’s recent reconstruction of the beginning of the epic (communicated to us in a letter), many more lines were omitted from the original version by our scribe (see more below). 2. Cavigneaux-Al-Rawi 1993 (see especially ibid. pp. 101–6; 121–23). 3. See Cavigneaux-Al-Rawi 1993, pp. 100–4; 111–14. 4. See Cavigneaux-Al-Rawi 1993 ibid., pp. 104–6. The sigla used in this study for reference to the sources follows Cavigneaux-Al-Rawi 1993, supplemented by a few sigla for new duplicates that were not available to the first editors of the epic. —5—

MOBC-1 Page 6 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:40 PM

6

From the Workshop of the Mesopotamian Scribe

Andrew George, in his translation of all known GilgameÍ epics, offered a new translation of the beginning of our epic.5 George’s new interpretation greatly improved our understanding of the beginning of the epic, although, due to the highly fragmentary state of the Nippur duplicates, the plot of this section is still not entirely clear. George’s translation is based on a composite edition, in which he merges the two major versions, producing the following outline of the plot:6 After a short hymnal prologue (ll. 1–8), Ninsun instructs GilgameÍ to bathe in the river, cut his hair in the ªipar, and be seated there on a foremost throne and to do some rowing with the oars in the reed bed (9–18). The above passage is then repeated as a narrative, with GilgameÍ carrying out his mother’s instructions word by word (19–27). Afterwards, GilgameÍ seems to enter the Great Court and be engaged in some form of (military/ athletic) contest (28–29). Inana observes him from the “palace of Abzu” (30–32), tries to detain him from fulfilling his secular functions (i.e. exercising judgment), and proposes marriage to him (33–38). GilgameÍ goes to his mother and repeats to her Inana’s words (39–50). Ninsun advises GilgameÍ to reject Inana’s proposal, lest she will render him politically (or physically) impotent (51–54). GilgameÍ asks Inana to release him; he offers to bring her abundant cattle and precious stones from the mountains (55–58).7 Inana’s angry answer is introduced (59–60), but her actual words are lost in the lacuna which follows. This scenario is obtained by merging the Nippur versions with the Me-Turan version. However, if we, like the first editors of the epic, separate the two major versions from each other, we discover that according to the fragmentary Nippur versions GilgameÍ rejects Inana’s proposal outright, before going to his mother to tell her Inana’s address and to consult her. This scenario now seems

5. George 1999, pp. 169–71. 6. See his summary on pp. 167–68. Note that George’s line numbering of the relevant passage differs slightly from the numbering of the lines in our reconstruction below. 7. Actually, in George’s reconstruction, GilgameÍ’s short (four-line) address to Inana abruptly follows his mother’s advice, without any introduction by the poet. We would expect the poet to mention another meeting between Inana and GilgameÍ and an introduction to his address.

MOBC-1 Page 7 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:40 PM

GilgameÍ and the Bull of Heaven

7

to be confirmed by the new duplicate from the Moussaieff collection, published here the first time.8 Our version contains the uninterrupted dialogue between Inana and GilgameÍ. After observing the military or athletic contest from which GilgameÍ emerged victorious, Inana falls in love with him. Accordingly, she proposes a marriage that would entail some restrictions on his freedom to exercise his duties as a king. GilgameÍ politely rejects her proposal, offering her instead copious provisions of cattle and precious stones from the mountains. The goddess then responds angrily, rejecting his counterproposal. In this version, only thereafter does GilgameÍ report Inana’s words to his mother. The outline of the plot according to this new duplicate supplemented by the Nippur versions is as follows: 1–7 8–11f

Hymnal prologue. Ninsun instructs GilgameÍ to bathe in the river (9), to go down to the garden, to shear the sheep (or cut his own hair) in the ªipar (10– 11); and while sitting on the front seat-plank of a boat to do some rowing with the oars in the reed bed (11a–11f).9 11g–17 GilgameÍ heeds his mother’s instructions (11g): he goes down to the garden of Inana’s temple (11h–11k), he shears the sheep (or cut his own hair) in the ªipar (11l); and while sitting on the front seat-plank of a boat he does some rowing with the oars in the reed bed (12– 17).10 18–19 GilgameÍ seems to gather his warriors into the Great Court and prevails over them in some form of military or athletic contest. 20–28 Inana observes him from the “palace of Abzu” (20–22). She proposes marriage, which will involve exercising his secular duties as a king and a judge (only) in her temple (23–28).

8. This source will be henceforth referred to as ShM. For an extracted score of seven lines (ll. 27–33) demonstrating this sequence, see below pp. 17–18. 9. The end of the mother’s instructions (ll. 11a–11f) and the beginning of their execution (ll. 11g–11l) are omitted in the Moussaieff tablet. They were supplemented here by the Me-Turan and the Ur III Nippur version Na. The major part of the omitted passage is provided by text Na (11a–11e; 11h–11l); Ma adds to this passage only 4 lines (11f–11g; 11h–11i). 10. For the restored lines (11h–11l) see the preceding note.

MOBC-1 Page 8 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:40 PM

8

From the Workshop of the Mesopotamian Scribe 29–33

GilgameÍ rejects Inana’s proposal: He asks her to release him, offering her instead gifts of cattle, sheep, and precious stones from the mountains. 34–40+ Inana angrily rejects GilgameÍ’s offer. 41–49 Illegible lines (probably the end of Inana’s answer, and the beginning of GilgameÍ’s report to his mother of the dialogue between Inana and him.) 50 “Wild bull, be my man, I will not release you!” – she said to me.11 In the last line of the Moussaieff Tablet (l. 50), which is fortunately legible, obviously GilgameÍ quotes to his mother the very beginning of Inana’s proposal to him (i.e. l. 23). The preserved portion of the dialogue between Inana and GilgameÍ, provided by the Moussaieff tablet and the Nippur versions, and reconstructed with the help of all the available duplicates of the epic, is as follows (ll. 23– 40):12 Inana proposes marriage (ll. 23–28): “My wild bull, may you be our man, I will not release you, Lord GilgameÍ, my wild bull, may you be our man, I will not release you, You will exercise judgment in the Eana, I will not release you, You will render verdict in my holy gip⁄ru, I will not release you, You will exercise judgment in the Eana, the beloved (house) of An, I will not release you! GilgameÍ, may you be its lord, may I be its lady!” GilgameÍ rejects Inana’s proposal, offering instead gifts (ll. 29–33): “The (marriage) gifts, Inana, will not be brought into your gip⁄ru! Ninegala – you must not cover my valorous ‘arm’ with cloth! O lady Inana, you must not block my path! Let me bring the bulls of the mountains, let me fill your stalls, Let me bring the sheep of the mountains, let me fill your sheepfolds! Let me fill your house with silver, carnelian, lapis-lazuli (and all kinds of) flashing stones!”

11. The Sumerian source of this line reads: ‚amŸ-™u10 lú-‚mu-un-dè-enŸ Íu nu-ri-bar-re / ‚ma?-an-dug4?Ÿ. 12. Translation is based on the Composite Text below.

MOBC-1 Page 9 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:40 PM

GilgameÍ and the Bull of Heaven

9

Inana rejects GilgameÍ’s offer (ll. 34–40): The queen spoke, she gasped. [Inana spoke], she gasped: “GilgameÍ, who told you that I do not have bulls from the mountains?! GilgameÍ, who told you that I do not have sheep from the mountains?! GilgameÍ, who told you that I do not have silver, carnelian, lapis-lazuli (and all kinds of) flashing stones!? The bulls of the mountain that you (would) bring to me, The sheep of the mountain that you (would) bring to me, The silver, carnelian, lapis-lazuli and (and all kind of) flashing stones that you (would) bring to me, ...” If our reconstruction of this episode is correct, the Me-Turan version sharply deviates from those of Moussaieff and the Nippur versions as to the encounter between Inana and GilgameÍ. According to the Me-Turan version, GilgameÍ does not offer any answer to Inana’s proposal; instead he reports it to his mother, who advises him to reject it. According to the other versions, however, he immediately rejects Inana’s proposal on his own initiative, making a counter proposal that the goddess refuses to accept. In this respect, the plot in these versions partially corresponds to the narrative in Tablet VI of the Standard Version of the Akkadian GilgameÍ epic, in which the mother of the hero is not given any role in the Bull of Heaven episode. In that source, we are told only that IÍtar proposed marriage to GilgameÍ and that he rejected her proposal without consulting anyone.13 However, unlike the GilgameÍ of the Akkadian epic, who boldly insults the goddess by reminding her of the fates suffered by her many former lovers, the hero of the Sumerian epic was mortally frightened by her proposal, foreseeing the danger in rejecting it outright. Therefore, to save his life, he offers her instead copious gifts to appease her.14 A close thematic parallel to lines 31–33 of our epic, where GilgameÍ offers Inana livestock, silver, and precious stones, is found in the myth of Inana and Gudam 35–38. According to this myth, Gudam created havoc on the streets of

13. Epic of GilgameÍ VI 6–78 (cf. George, 2003, pp. 619–23; see also the MB Emar2 fragment [ibid. pp. 333–37]). 14. Our above reconstruction of the plot in the beginning of the epic according to the Moussaieff tablet seems to be supported by three duplicates from Nippur: Ne, Nf, and Ns (see pp. 17–18 below).

MOBC-1 Page 10 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:40 PM

10

From the Workshop of the Mesopotamian Scribe

Uruk and was struck down by a fisherman of Inana. Thereupon, he began to grieve, begging for his life. He offered the goddess mountain bulls and sheep as atonement for his offense.15 However, an even closer and more detailed literary parallel to the beginning of our epic occurs in The Marriage of Martu. Lines 67–75 describe the bachelor Martu engaged in wrestling and athletic contests (™eÍpu2 lirum-e) at the main court (kisal-maÓ) of Ninab’s city-gate during a festival attended by the god NumuÍda, his wife, and his daughter. After the young and heroic man emerges victorious, NumuÍda’s daughter, Nin™arkidu—similar to Inana in our epic—falls in love with him and insists on marrying him despite the warnings of a girlfriend (see ibid. ll. 126–142). Thereupon, NumuÍda, just like GilgameÍ here, offers Martu silver and precious stones as a reward for his heroic victory over his opponents, instead of giving him his daughter in marriage. And similar to Inana here, Martu rejects the offer, insisting on marrying the girl (ll. 76– 83).16 Political-Historical Background The major and most dramatic episode in the beginning of the epic is the dialogue between Inana and GilgameÍ, in which the goddess proposes marriage and GilgameÍ rejects her proposal. We know from other epics and myths about the ancient rulers of Uruk, that all three predecessors of GilgameÍ to the throne of Uruk—Enmerkar, Lugalbanda and Dumuzi17—were considered, in one way or another, the human husbands or lovers of Inana, totally dependent on her favors.18 Enmerkar competed with the Lord of Aratta over

15. For a discussion of this parallel see commentary to ll. 31–32 and 38–40 below. 16. For a discussion of this parallel see commentary to ll. 18–19, 29–40+ and 35–37 below. Another literary source in which we find the motif of rejecting material awards, such as precious stones, cattle, and sheep, and asking instead awards of more lasting value, which may pass to one’s descendants, is the popular tale Enlil and Namzitara (see further commentary on ll. 29–40+ below). 17. For the First Uruk Dynasty in the King List see Jacobsen, 1939, pp. 85–93; J.-J. Glassner, 2004, p. 120. For the epics about Enmerkar and Lugalbanda see Wilcke 1969; idem, 2012; Vanstiphout, 2004; Mittermayer, 2009; Römer, 1980; Katz, 1993; idem, 2017, pp. 201–10. 18. For a detailed discussion of the First Dynasty of Uruk in the Sumerian King List, and especially the successors of Enmerkar, see Heimpel 1992, pp. 9–11; Steinkeller 1999, pp. 104–11; Steinkeller 2003, pp. 284–86; and recently Steinkeller 2017, pp. 82–104. We are aware of the universal consensus among students of Mesopotamian history as to the

MOBC-1 Page 11 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:40 PM

GilgameÍ and the Bull of Heaven

11

Inana’s favors and, when she abandoned him, he had to give up his kingship, which was assumed by Lugalbanda, her new beloved male figure.19 The unfortunate successor to Lugalbanda, Dumuzi, presumably also a husband and lover of Inana, was apparently abandoned by the goddess early in his reign, and killed or captured by Enmebaragesi, king of KiÍ, as an archaic duplicate of the King List reports in an historical note.20 If we assume that all these epic-mythic and pseudo-historical traditions contain a kernel of historical truth, the question arises as to why, according to our epic, does GilgameÍ reject Inana’s proposal of marriage?21 The key to understand GilgameÍ’s exceptional behavior, in our opinion, is to be found in the beginning of his reply to Inana, in ll. 29–30: ní™-ba dinana ™i6-pàr-zu-Íè nam-ba-ni-ib-ku4-ku4 dnin-é-gal-la á nam-ur-sa™-™á-™u túg nam-bi-dul-e 10 “The (marriage) gifts, Inana, will not be brought into your gip⁄ru! Ninegala – you must not cover my valorous ‘arm’ with cloth!” If we accept the hypothesis as to the early political and religious systems in Sumer, we have to posit that in all the prehistorical Sumerian city-states the ruler bore the title en and was dependent on the priestly establishment of the temple. Accordingly, this ruler was appointed, as well as removed from office, by the religious authorities. In Uruk, and at least in some other Sumerian citylow value of the Sumerian King List for the reconstruction of the history of the First Dynasty of Uruk. See recently the extremely skeptical thoughts expressed in this connection by P. Steinkeller in Essay 3 of his recent publication, entitled “Mythical Realities of Early Babylonian History” (Steinkeller 2017, pp. 167–97). Therefore, the following hypothetical reconstruction of the ‘history’ of the First Dynasty of Uruk is presented here with utmost reservation. 19. Although Lugalbanda is considered in Ur III and even earlier Sumerian literary sources to have been the husband of Ninsun (see Wilcke 1969, 51–53; idem, RlA 7 [1987–90] 130–32, sub “Lugalbanda” No. 4.1.4–4.3), at the end of his epic Inana speaks to him intimately as she would address her husband AmauÍumgalana and her son fiara, turning to him with the affectionate, erotic, tone “my Lugalbanda!” (Lugalbanda and the Anzu Bird 350–54). 20. See J. Klein, 1991, 123–29; idem, 2008, pp.77–91; idem, 2010, pp. 1121–34. 21. For former answers offered to this question, especially in relation to the rejection episode in the Standard Babylonian GilgameÍ epic, see especially Abusch 1986. See further KaraÓashi’s recent discussion of relevant Mesopotamian and Classical parallels (KaraÓashi 2006; see especially ibid. pp. 100–1).

MOBC-1 Page 12 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:40 PM

12

From the Workshop of the Mesopotamian Scribe

states, this involved marriage with the chief goddess via the sacred marriage rite and living in a sacred shrine called Âipar.22 If we have correctly understood lines 29–30, GilgameÍ decides to depart from this traditional political system and to become independent of the authority of the priestly organization of the temple.23 As previously noted, all rulers of Uruk, prior to GilgameÍ, carried the priestly title en, their official and only title. This is still reflected in the epic literature concerning Enmerkar and GilgameÍ composed in the Ur III period. A survey of the epithets given to these two ancient rulers in epic literature reveals that they are referred to by the title en (or en kul-aba4ki-a/unugki-ga) much more frequently than by the (anachronistic) title lugal.24 Furthermore, it becomes clear that whereas en is used by the poets for these two rulers as their official religious-political title, lugal is applied to them usually in their capacity as master and political-military leader of their subjects.25

22. See Heimpel 1992; Steinkeller 1999, pp. 112–16. For the theological, ritual background of the sacred marriage rite see Steinkeller, ibid. pp. 129–36. For a recent summary of the scholarly literature on the sacred marriage rite see Brisch 2006, pp. 168–70. 23. The hypothesis developed below as a possible answer to this question generally agrees with that of P. Steinkeller, who expresses very similar ideas in his article “The Reluctant en of Inana—or the Persona of GilgameÍ in the Perspective of Babylonian Political Philosophy,” to be published in a forthcoming issue of JANEH, and which he kindly shared with us prior to its publication. For a different explanation of the problem under discussion see Wilcke 1975, pp. 57–59. Wilcke interpreted our composition as an antiAkkadian Inana myth. In his opinion, we have here a conflict between Inana (of Agade) with a Sumerian ruler who refuses to subject himself to her. According to his interpretation of lines 25ff., Inana prevents him from exercising judgment in the Eana and the ªipar. However, according to our interpretation of these lines, she does not prevent this activity. Marrying the goddess will involve only restricting his judicial and political activity under her authority in the temple. 24. A full documentation of this statistical survey will be given in our forthcoming article “The Beginning of the Epic ‘GilgameÍ and the Bull of Heaven’ and Its Possible Historical-Political Background.” That the official title of GilgameÍ was en (kul-aba4ki) was already observed by Böhl, “GilgameÍ” in RlA 3 (1957–71), p. 358. 25. A survey of the epics with regard to Enmerkar and GilgameÍ indicates that the title lugal is used in these compositions almost exclusively with a personal possessive suffix relating the servant (i.e., the messenger) to his master (i.e., the ruler). Accordingly, the compound lugal-™u10/zu/a-ni is to be translated: “my/your/his master/lord” (rather than “my/ your/his king”). See already Katz 1993, pp. 28–30; Steinkeller 1999, p. 112.

MOBC-1 Page 13 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:40 PM

GilgameÍ and the Bull of Heaven

13

Note that the ruler of KiÍ most probably bore the title lugal “king,” as documented in the single royal inscription of Enmebaragesi: ME-bara2-si lugal [k]iÍ.26 ‘This is corroborated by the epic of GilgameÍ and Aga, wherein Aga is consistently referred to as ag-ga lugal kiÍki,27 whereas GilgameÍ is always designated by the narrator as dgilgameÍ en kul-aba4ki-a-ke4 “GilgameÍ, lord of Kulaba.”28 GilgameÍ is referred to in this epic as lugal by Aga and by the royal guard BirÓurtura to indicate a servant–master relationship.29 It has long been observed that some ED III rulers who claimed sovereignty over other city-states adopted the title lugal KiÍ(ki) “King of KiÍ.”30 This probably signified that the early Uruk rulers were considered high priests, functioning under the authority of the religious establishment. That the marriage with Inana meant restriction of the political ruler’s independence, of his acceptance of the temple’s authority over him, is indicated by Inana’s proposal, in which she says to GilgameÍ “I will not release you” (ll. 23–27) and instructs him that once he becomes her man, he will exercise judgment (only) in the Âipar, located in her Eana temple (ll. 25–27). Therefore, GilgameÍ’s “rebellion” against Inana is the first recorded attempt of a ruler of Uruk to be rid of the title en in favor of the title lugal in order to free himself of the temple’s authority.31 26. See Frayne 2008, 1, pp. 56–57, nos. 1 and 2. As a matter of fact, the later addition of the component en to the name of this ruler may be an anachronism of the Ur III poets. In that case, en in this name is to be interpreted as a priestly-political title and not as an integral part of the PN. 27. Lines 81; 99. 28. Lines 15; 40; 51; 100; 113. 29. Lines 56; 69–71. Accordingly, the dialogue between Aga and the royal guard in ll. 69– 70 is to be translated: “Is that man your master (lugal)? That man is not my master (lugal)!” The soldiers’ address to GilgameÍ in l. 35 of this epic is to be translated accordingly: sa™ mu-e-sì za-e lugal ur-sa™(-bi)-me-en “they (i.e., Uruk and the Eana) are entrusted to you, you are their master and warrior.” The political meaning of this statement is that GilgameÍ should detach himself from the authority of Inana and the temple, and acquire eventually the status of his opponent Aga, becoming an independent king. 30. See Hallo 1957, pp. 25–28; Falkenstein 1974, p.10; Steinkeller, 1999, p. 113, n. 33; Frayne 2008, 49–76. In addition to a number of rulers from unknown dynasties, we find this title borne by the following rulers: Eanatum, Enmetena from LagaÍ; AnAgr.; AnHaf.; An.KiÍ; Me-silim; Mesannepada of Ur. 31. See already Heimpel 1992, pp. 11–13; 14. For a somewhat similar hypothesis developed by P. Steinkeller, see note 23 above.

MOBC-1 Page 14 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:40 PM

14

From the Workshop of the Mesopotamian Scribe

GilgameÍ was successful in this endeavor, as we learn from our composition and the epic of GilgameÍ and Aga. In the latter, GilgameÍ is elected king by the assembly of warriors, under the threat of an invasion of Aga, and after freeing Uruk from the hegemony of KiÍ.32 In fact, in a royal hymn fiulgi of Ur praises GilgameÍ for having brought over kingship from KiÍ to Uruk: nam-lugal kiÍ? ki-ta? unug? ki-Íè àm-mi-de6 “You brought over the kingship from KiÍ to Uruk.”33 Whether this reform of GilgameÍ’s continued after his reign, as well as the parameters of political power exercised by succeeding rulers of Uruk, cannot be determined with absolute certainty.34 However, in subsequent generations the title en in most Sumerian city-states lost its political connotation, being relegated to a purely priestly title.35 In ED III city-states the ruler was usually designated by the title ensi(k); and when he claimed sovereignty over other cities, he called himself lugal or lugal kiÍki.36 However, beginning in the Ur III period, all absolute rulers now bore the title lugal (Akk. Íarrum), and exercised their political authority from the “palace” (é-gal), which was clearly separate from the religious establishment, the temple (é). The title ensi(k) was now relegated to designating only local rulers of cities under the authority of the king. Henceforth, contrary to the status of the ED III Uruk rulers, the temple and its priesthood were subject to the authority of the king, who provided financial support to ensure divine and priestly support of his rule. A most interesting development in the relationship between the Sumerian king and Inana can be observed from the Ur III period on. On a mythological religious level, the king becomes an incarnation of Dumuzi, Inana’s first husband. As such, he unites with the goddess in the sacred marriage rite, ensuring abundance and prosperity throughout his domain. Consequently, the 32. For the politico-historical significance of this epic as to the development of Sumerian hereditary kingship, see already Jacobsen 1957, pp. 112–18; see further Römer 1980, pp. 1–6; Katz 1987, pp. 106–7; idem, 1993, pp. 11–18. 33. fiulgi O Seg. A, 60; see Klein, 1976. p. 278; 288. 34. That GilgameÍ’s reform has some degree of success may be indicated by the fact that, according to the Sumerian King List, his son Ur-Nungal and his grandson Udul-kalama reigned after him (SKL 116–21 = iii 21–25). 35. See Steinkeller 1999, pp. 116–29. 36. It should be noted that, according to Steinkeller, in ED LagaÍ and other Sumerian citystates, ensi(k) is the equivalent of lugal as to its political status (Steinkeller, ibid., pp. 112– 16).

MOBC-1 Page 15 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:40 PM

GilgameÍ and the Bull of Heaven

15

Sumerian ruler claims now to carry both titles: lugal “king” and en “high priest.” Accordingly, from fiulgi on, most Sumerian monarchs boast in their inscriptions and royal hymns that they were granted by the gods both “kingship and en-ship” (nam-lugal and nam-en).37 Thus, e.g., in fiulgi D 387 Enlil blesses fiulgi saying: nam-en nam-lugal-la ud sud-da nam-Íè gú-mu-rí-íb-tarar “Let me decree for you long lasting en-ship and kingship as (your) fate!” and in Urninurta E 40 An blesses the king: dlama sag9-ga nam-en nam-lugal-la zid-dè-eÍ Óa-ra-súgge-eÍ “May the good protective deities of the en-ship and the kingship stand faithfully at your side!”38 Consequently, notwithstanding the unfortunate fate of Dumuzi and the historical background of the epic “GilgameÍ and the Bull of Heaven,” all later Sumerian kings boast of being Inana’s lover and husband in the sacred marriage rite. The most interesting outcome of this theological development is manifested in the royal hymns of fiulgi, in which the king describes himself as the “brother and peer” (ÍeÍ gu5-li)39 of GilgameÍ on the one hand, and as the fervent lover and husband of Inana on the other.40 Description of the Moussaieff Tablet (ShM) ShM is a one-column tablet (im-gíd-da), measuring 12Œ6 cm.41 The obverse is fully inscribed, containing 29 lines; the reverse is also almost fully inscribed, containing 21 lines, with a strip of 2 cm left empty at its bottom.42 The obverse is in relatively good condition and thus reasonably legible; the reverse, however, is greatly eroded, with lines 41–49 practically illegible. The ductus is Old Babylonian, written by a quite experienced scribe.43 37. This notion is already anachronistically attributed to Sargon of Akkad by an Ur III author (see The Curse of Agade 4–6). 38. See further IÍmedagan A+V seg A, 100–111; °ammurabi B 5–6. 39. See fiulgi C Seg. A 106; fiulgi D 292; fiulgi O Seg. A 50 passim. 40. See, e.g., fiulgi A 15; 82; fiulgi X 13ff. Interestingly by virtue of his mythical marital relationship to Inana, fiulgi becomes also the “brother and peer” of her brother Utu (see fiulgi A 79; fiulgi B 40 passim). 41. The tablet consists of a join of two pieces, but it is complete, with some lines at the break severely damaged. 42. Including a double line that marks the end of the text. 43. For a transliteration, a hand copy (made by Jacob Klein and transformed into a digital copy by Yuval Levavi), and a photograph of the tablet see pp. 64ff. below. It should be noted, however, that the writing is very uneven, with broad and clear signs on the beginning of the lines, and very small and dense signs toward their end. The copy and

MOBC-1 Page 16 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:40 PM

16

From the Workshop of the Mesopotamian Scribe

A comparative survey of the readings of the two major versions (Nb and Ma) and the ShM tablet in the hymnal prologue (ll. 1–7) shows beyond doubt that ShM is a relatively standard version, generally close to the Nippur versions, as against the peripheral, inferior Ma version (see comment to ll. 1–7 below). This is also confirmed by the following comparative chart of the variant readings of the three major extant versions of the epic (ShM, the Nippur versions, and Ma) in those lines wherein all three versions are represented: Line ShM Nippur Versions (composite text) Ma 8 ama-ugu-ni ama-ugu-ni ama-ugu-ne-ra lugal-™u10 Á KAL SA°AR 9 lugal-™u10 ™iÍ ™iÍ ? 10 kiri6-zu-‚ÍèŸ e11 kiri6 zabalam-[Íè ] / ‚ku4-ku4Ÿ ™iÍkiri6 ™iÍza-ba-al-Íè? ku4?-bí 11h (omit) kisal da™al-‚aŸ? (Na) kisal da™al-la ? d ™i Í d 11i (omit) ªIfi.B[≤L-g]a-[mes ] bulu[™]3 bìl-ga-mes ? ™iÍ ‚gur10Ÿ bu[lu™]3? x [ ] 12 ní-te-a-ni ní-‚teŸ?-[ ] (omit) ™iÍù dub-sa™-™á-kam dúr 13a (omit) KAL sa™-™á-ke4 dúr bi-in-™ar (NA) bi-™ar ? ™iÍ ™iÍ 14 nun ™isal mu-un ™isal-a nun gi-sal-la (GIfi.‚BIŸ.IZ) 19 kisal-maÓ-a kisal-maÓ-a kisal-maÓ-e 22 ‚éŸ-gal abzu-ta é-gal abzu-ta é [abz]u-ta 23 ‚amŸ-™[u]10 am-™u10 lú-me-en-dè-en am-™[u10 lu]-™u10 ‚lú-mu-dè-enŸ im-m[a-ni-ta?] 24 ‚am-™u10 lúŸ- am-™u10 mu-lu-me-[en-dè-en] i[m-ma-ni-ta?] mu-un-‚dèŸ-en 25 é-an-na-‚kaŸ? é-an-na-ka é-an-na-™u10 26 ™i6-par4 kug-™á ™i6-par4 kug-™á ™i6-pàr gú-™u10 27 é-an-na an-né ‚éŸ-an-n[a ] é-an-na an-na

the transliteration is based mainly on a collation of an old transliteration of the tablet after it had been baked (in May 2008). Since then the tablet has suffered further deterioration (especially on its upper right corner) and a considerable number of signs clearly visible in the copy are damaged or missing altogether.

MOBC-1 Page 17 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:40 PM

17

GilgameÍ and the Bull of Heaven 28 dbìl-ga-mes [db]ìl-ga-[mes za]-e ‚za-eŸ 29 nam-ba- [nam-b]a?-ni-ib-ku4-ku4-un in-ku4-k[u]4

dbìl-ga-mes

za-[e

]

(omit)

The above comparative chart shows clearly that in the 17 lines wherein all three versions are represented, ShM deviates from the Nippur versions only in two instances, whereas it has a reading different from the Me-Turan version in no less than ten instances. Finally, as we pointed out above, the Moussaieff tablet follows the Nippur versions not only in its minor textual variants, but also in the sequence of the plot in a critical juncture of the story, namely in the encounter between Inana and GilgameÍ, when Inana proposes marriage. Although the Nippur versions are very fragmentary, making it difficult to determine the sequence of events, there are at least three Nippur duplicates (Ne, Nf, and Ns), as well as one other manuscript of unknown provenance (A), in which Inana’s proposal is followed by GilgameÍ’s refusal without any interruption, as the following score of ll. 27– 33 clearly shows:44 27 ShM 27 Ai7 Ne 11' Nf 5' Ns 1'

é-an-na ‚an-né kiŸ á™ di ì-ku5-dè-en Íu nu-bar-re é-an-na an-né ki á™ di ku5-dè Íu nu-ri-bar-re [ ] [ d]i ku5-ru-dè / [ ]-bar-re ? ? [ ] ‚á™ di Ÿ [ ] 28 ShM 28 dbìl-ga-mes ‚za-e ù?Ÿ-mu-un-bi-me-en me-‚e Óé-mu-xŸ dbìl-ga-mes za-e ù-NE Óé-me-en za-e GA Óé-e? Ai8 Ne 12' [dªIfi-b]íl-ga-[ ]/xx[ ] Nf 6' [ -u]n-bi dè-mèn / [ ] dè-mèn Ns 2' [ za]-e lugal [ ] ? ? d ? 29 ShM 29 n[i™ -b]a inana ™[i]6-par4(KISAL)-‚zu -ÍèŸ nam-ba-inku4-k[u]4 Ai9 ní™-ba dinana ™i6-par4-zu-Íè nam-ba-ni-ku4-ku4 Na l.e. i 1–2 [ ™i6-p]ar4-ra / [ ]-ku4-ku4 44. In the following extract we omitted the readings of Ur and other duplicates that belong to the report of GilgameÍ to his mother.

MOBC-1 Page 18 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:40 PM

18

From the Workshop of the Mesopotamian Scribe

nam-b]a?-ni-ib-ku4-ku4-un d]ina[na ] ? ? z]u -Íè nam-b[a ] 30 ShM 30 dnin-é-gal-la á! ‚namŸ-ur-sa™-™á-ka-ni? ‚túgŸ x x x A i 10 dnin-é-gal á nam-ur-sa™-™á-ke4-éÍ túg nam-bi-‚dul-eŸ Na l.e. ii 3–4 [x x x n]am-ur-saÂ- /Âá-Âu10 / ‚túg?Ÿnam-ì-dul-e Nf 8' [ ] Ns 5' [ ] nam-ur-sa™-[ ] d ? 30a A i 11 inana nin e-sír-™u10 za-e nam-ba-in-kud Nf 7' Ne 13' Ns 3'

[ [ [

gud kur-ra ga-àm-tum4? tùr-zu? ga-àm-‚miŸ?-íb-si gud kur-ra ga-an-dug4 tùr-zu ga-bí-sú [ -à]m-mi-ib-si [ D]U? tùr-zu g[a? ] ? 32 ShM 32 udu kur-ra ga-àm-‚tum4 Ÿ amaÍ-zu ga-‚àmŸ-m[i-í]b-‚siŸ A i 13 udu kur-ra ga-an-dug4 amaÍ-zu ga-bí-sú Nf 9' [ -à]m-mi-ib-si Ns 7' [ D]U? amaÍ-zu [ ] 33 ShM 33 kug na4 ZA.‚GULŸ na4‚za-gìn-na kuÍ?lu?-úb?Ÿ-Íir!-me-eÍ / é-‚zu ga-àm-mi-ni!-ib-siŸ A i 14 kug na4gug na4? i-sur-sur-me-eÍ ga-an-dug4-e : ga-‚bí-súŸ kuÍ?lu?]-úb-Íir-me-eÍ / [x x] ga-àm-mi-ib-si Nf 10' [ n]a4za-gìn tur su-[ Ns 8' [ ] 31 ShM 31 A i 12 Nf 8' Ns 6'

Furthermore, a hypothetical reconstruction of the Ur III Nippur duplicate Na, which concludes with the first two lines of GilgameÍ’s negative reply to Inana, does not have room for the episode in which GilgameÍ consults his mother prior to his refusal of Inana’s proposal.45 Therefore, we hypothesize that this duplicate may be a sort of forerunner to all the other OB fragmentary Nippur duplicates currently available.46

45. For the reconstruction of the content of Na, see note 131 below. 46. The authors communicated the above reconstruction of the GilgameÍ-Inana encounter to Andrew George for comments and criticism. George expressed his disagreement with the authors’ hypothesis. In his opinion, the various manuscripts of the epic all lack the

MOBC-1 Page 19 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:40 PM

GilgameÍ and the Bull of Heaven

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63.

19

COMPOSITE TEXT AND TRANSLATION Íul mè-ka Íul mè-ka47 en-du48-ni ga-an-dug449 en dbìl-ga-mes Íul mè-ka en-du-ni ga-an-dug4 en na4su11-ku1050 Íul mè-ka en-du-ni ga-an-dug4 ní™-erim2 ku5-ku551 bad-bad52 Íul mè-ka en-du-ni ga-an-dug4 ™eÍpu253 lirum-ma ‚ÍulŸ mè-ka en-du-ni ga-an-dug4 en á kalag-kalag-ga Íul mè-ka en-du-ni ga-an-[dug4]54 á-úr sa6-sa6 Íul mè-ka en-du-ni ga-an-dug455 lugal-ra56 en-‚naŸ?57 ama-ugu-ni58 gù mu-un-na-‚déŸ?59 lugal-™u10 i7-‚daŸ e11-ì60 saÓar Íu-Íè x NAGA-a61 en-™u10 ™iÍkiri6-zu62 e11-ì63 kí™ zu-ba-ni-ib64

full text, each having telescoped this episode or that. He also communicated to us his new (temporary) reconstruction of the first 90 lines or so of the epic, based on the assumption that GilgameÍ went to see his mother twice: once before telling Inana to step aside and again afterwards. He also believes that the Nippur fragment No agrees with the Me-Turan version in having GilgameÍ visit his mother before his refusal of Inana’s proposal. We will have to wait for the publication of George’s revised reconstruction and translation of the epic before evaluating the correctness of his hypothesis. ShM and Nb -ka; Ma -kam (this variant reading applies to ll. 1–7; see commentary below). ShM en-du; Ma in-du (this variant reading applies to ll. 1–7; see commentary below). Ma -dug4; ShM -du (this variant reading applies to ll. 1–7; see commentary below). ShM and Nb na4su11-ku10; Ma su-ku10-ku10. ShM ku5-ku5; Ma: du7-du7. ShM has bad-bad; omitted in Ma. So Nb (™eÍpu2 = fiU.BULUG3); ShM has BULUG3; Ma has a corrupted reading: UL-nirma. Nc 1' has a different reading: [dbìl]-ga-mes x [ ]. ShM -du; Nc –d[u]; Ma omits line. This line is written in Ma after line 3. So ShM; Ma has lugal-e. So ShM; Ma has en-e. So ShM (followed by a slightly erased NI or IR) and Nc; Ma has ama-ugu-ne-ra. Lines 8–9 written in Ma in one line. So Nc; ShM omits -ì. Ma has a different version; see commentary below. So ShM and Nc; Ma and Nb has ™iÍkiri6 ™iÍza-ba-al-Íè? So Nc; ShM omits -ì.

MOBC-1 Page 20 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:40 PM

20

11 11a 11b 11c 11d 11e 11f 11g 11h 11i 11j 11k 11l 12 13 13a 13b 14 14a 15 16 17 18

64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74.

From the Workshop of the Mesopotamian Scribe en ™i6-par4(KISAL)-ra65 ku4-ni-ib udu(KU)! nir?-ra kí™ zu-‚ba-ni-ib?Ÿ66 ™iÍù dub-‚sa™Ÿ-™á-kam dúr? bi-in-‚™arŸ sug-ga ™ál-la-a-bi lugal-™u10 sug-ga ™ál-la-a-bi ™iÍ™isal-a gú gur-bí mu-un ™iÍ™isal gi lum-‚lumŸ-ma-a-gin7 a-a Óu-mu-ri-íb-Íúm ní™ dirig-bi sila4 àm gan U6-gin7 MA a-a Óu-mu-ri-íb-Íúm ní™-erim2-bi za-e fiEN-gin7 x [x x x] x-Íú ama ugu-ne-ra ‚DI? naŸ mu-un-[x]-na-SUM kisal da™al-la67 é dinana-ka dbìl-ga-mes ™iÍbulu[™] ?-‚gur Ÿ?/ Íu-[ni]? Óu-mu-ni-in-[ti]? 3 10 ‚lugalŸ-[™]u10 ™iÍkiri6 zabalam-[Íè]? k[u4]-ku4 kí™-™á-zu-d[è]? a ™i6-pàr-ra-kam u6-du nin? x / si-‚kiŸ A SU nì-si23 RU? ba? UR ‚NEŸ? mu?/BÚR? NE ní-te-a-ni sug-ga e11?-da68 lugal-™u10 sug-ga e11-gim69 ™iÍù dub-sa™-™á-kam dúr bi-in-™ar sug-ga-a mu-ni-in-lá lugal-™u10 sug-ga mu-ni-in-lá / ™iÍ™isal-a gú! ní™-gur nun70 ™iÍ™isal71-la gi lum-lum-ma-gin772 a-a mu-Íi-ib-Íú73 ní™ dirig-[bi sila4 àm gan] U6-gin7 / [MA a-a mu-na-ab]-‚ÍúmŸ74 ama? x abzu? [x] x x [m]u-‚unŸ-Íú-Íú x x x x‚é?-gal?Ÿ x x x x mu-un-Íú-Íú m]u-un-bal ‚é?Ÿ x x [ sa™ gul-gul-e-n[e]? kisal-‚ÍèŸ? ‚ba?Ÿ-ni-x-x

Ma has a different version: ku4?-bí kí™-a zu-bí see commentary below. Ma has -ta instead of -ra. Ma has a different version: udu nir-ra-àm siki àm-zé SAR.SAR. So Ma; Na da™al-‚aŸ?. So ShM. Na has a different version: ™iÍù dub-‚sa™Ÿ-™á-kam dúr? bi-in-‚™arŸ. So ShM. Na 13' has: lugal-™u10 sug-ga mu-ni-in-lá / ™iÍ™isal-a gú nì-gur. So ShM and Ma; Na has mu-un. So ShM and Na; Ma has gi-sal-la. So Ma (gi-lum-lum-ma-gim); Na has gi-lum-lum-ma-a-gim. So Ma (mu-Íi-ib-Íú); ShM: mu-un-Íú-Íú; Na: m[u-na]-‚abŸ-Íúm. So Na 15'; ShM 15: ama? x e? x [x] x x [m]u-‚unŸ-Íú-Íú, which may correspond to the second half of this line.

MOBC-1 Page 21 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:40 PM

GilgameÍ and the Bull of Heaven 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95.

21

kisal-maÓ-a75 mè76 nu-me-a lú im-mi-in-d[ab]5?-dab5? u4-bi-a é-lá-e é-lá-e77 igi mu-un-‚Íi?Ÿ-bar-re78 kug dInana-ke4 é-lá-e igi mu-un-Íi-bar-‚reŸ é-gal abzu-ta é-lá-e79 igi mu-un-‚ÍiŸ-bar-re am-™u10 mu-lu-me-en-dè-en80 Íu nu-ri-bar-re-en en d‚bìlŸ-ga-mes am-™u10 lú-me-en-dè-en81 Íu nu-ri-bar-re-en82 é-an-na-‚kamŸ83 di ì-ku5-dè-en84 Íu nu-ri-bar-re ™i6-par4(KISAL) kug-™á85 ka-aÍ ì-bar-re\86 Íu nu-ri-bar-re é-an-na é an-né87 ki á™a di ì-ku5-dè-en88 Íu nu-ri-bar-re89 dbìl-ga-mes za-e ù90-mu-un-bi dè-mèn / ‚me-eŸ ga-Ía-an-bi dè-mèn ní™-ba dinana ™i6-par4(KISAL)-zu-Íè91 nam-ba-ni-ib-ku4-ku492 dnin-é-gal-la á93 nam-ur-sa™-™á-™u 94 túg nam-bi-dul-e95 10

ShM: kisal maÓ-a; Ma kisal maÓ-e. ShM: mè; Ma: mè-a. Ma, Nd and Ng: é-lá-e é-lá-e; ShM: é-lá-é-lá-e. Verbal form reconstructed from: ShM igi {nu} mu-‚un?-Íi?Ÿ-bar-re; Ng: igi mu-un-[x]. Nd and Ng: é-lá-e; ShM: é-lá. So Nd and Ng mu-lu-me-en-dè-en; A and ShM lú-mu-(un-)dè-en. lú/mu-lu-me-endè-en is probably corrupt for a lú/mu-lu-me dè-me-en “may you be our man.” Reconstructed from Ng: mu-lu-meŸ-; MS: lú-me-en-dè-en?; and ShM: ‚lúŸ-mu-un-‚dèŸ-en. The verbal form in ll. 23–24 has been restored on the basis of Ne 8', which reads: nuri-bar-re-en; ShM and A read nu-ri-bar-re. So A: é-a[n-n]a-‚kamŸ; ShM and Ng and Nh: é-an-na-ka; Ma: é-an-na-™u10. ShM and Ng: di ì-ku5-dè; A and SM: di ku5-dè. ShM, A, Ng, Nh and MS 4': kug-™á; Ma: gú-™u10. ShM, Ng and MS: ì-bar-re; A: bar-re. So MS 5' é-an-né; ShM, A: an-né; Ng: an-e ; Ma: an-na. ShM, and MS: ì-ku5-dè-en ; Nf [d]i ku5-ru-dè. A nu-ri-bar-re; ShM: nu-bar-re. ù- restored on the basis of UET 6, 616:3' za-e ù-mu-un-b[i...]; ShM seems to read u5!?(for ù-). So ShM and A; Na [™i6-p]ar4-ra. ShM: nam-ba-in-ku4-ku4; A: nam-ba-ni-ku4-ku4; Nf: [nam-b]a?-ni?-ib-ku4-ku4-un. So A á; ShM and MS ‚áŸ! (‚MA°Ÿ). So Na; A: nam-ur-sa™-™á-ke4-éÍ; ShM: ‚namŸ-ur-sa™-™á-ka-ni. Verbal form reconstructed from nam-ì-dul-e (Na) and nam-bi-‚dul-eŸ (A).

MOBC-1 Page 22 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:40 PM

22

From the Workshop of the Mesopotamian Scribe

30a 31 32 33 34 34a 35 36 37 38 39 40

96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114.

dinana

nin? e-sír-™u10 za-e nam-ba-in-kud gud kur-ra ga-àm-dé96 tùr-zu?97 ga-àm-mi-ib-si98 udu kur-ra ga-àm-dé99 amaÍ-zu100 ga-àm-mi-ib-si101 kug na4gug na4za-gìn-na102 ‚na4?Ÿ i-sur-sur-me-eÍ103 é-zu ga-àm-mi‚niŸ-ib-si104 in-nin-e gù ba-an-dé KA-ni ì-pa-an-pa-an105 [dinana-ke4 g]ù ba-an-dé KA-ni ba-an-pa-an106 gud kur-ra nu-tuku-gin7 dbìl-ga-mes za-ra /a-ba-àm ma-ra-an‚dug4Ÿ107 udu kur-ra nu-tuku-gin7 dbìl-ga-mes za-ra /a-ba-àm ma-ra-an-dug4108 kug na4gug na4za-gìn-‚naŸ [na4? i-sur-sur-me-eÍ]109/ nu-tukugin7 dbìl-ga-mes za-ra ‚a-ba?-àm?Ÿ110 i-ra-an-dug4111 gud ‚kur-raŸ ‚KE4?Ÿ-e dé-dé-a-zu112 x x x-kár? U? ‚udu kur?-raŸ ‚KE4Ÿ-e dé-dé-a-zu113 [ x] x-dib/KU? [kug na4ZA].GUL za-gìn-na ní™-TUR su8-bé-eÍ / KE4-e dé-dé-a-zu114

So PA; ShM: ga-àm?-tum4?; A: ga-an-dug4. ShM and A: tùr-zu?; PA tùr. Nf: [ga-à]m-mi-ib-si; ShM: ga-àm-[b]í?-íb-si; A: ga-bí-zu. So PA; ShM: ga-an-‚tum4?Ÿ; A: ga-an-dug4. ShM and A: amaÍ-zu; PA amaÍ. Nf: [ga-à]m-mi-ib-si; A: ga-bí-zu; ShM: ga-‚àmŸ-m[i-í]b?-‚siŸ. PA: kug na4gug za-gìn-na; ShM: kug na4gug na4‚za-gìn-naŸ; A omits na4‚za-gìnŸ. A na4? (copy: ì?-™ar) i-sur-sur-me-eÍ; ShM: kuÍ?lu?-úb-Íir!-me-eÍ; PA: ní™-TUR su8-béeÍ. ShM: é-‚zu? ga-àm-mi-ni!-ib?-siŸ; Nf: ga-àm-mi-ib-si. So A: KA-ni ba-an-pa-an; ShM: K[A]? ì-pa-an-pa-‚anŸ?. So A; ShM omits this line. ShM and A: i-ra-an-dug4; Nf: e ra a-ba-e-an-dug4. ShM: i-ra-an-dug4; A: ma-an-dug4. Reconstructed from line 33 above; PA: ní™-TUR su8-bé-eÍ. So PA; ShM: a-ba!?. So verb in ShM; PA seems to omit the verb. So reconstructed text in ShM and PA. So reconstructed text in ShM and PA. So reading in PA; ShM partly illegible.

MOBC-1 Page 23 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:40 PM

GilgameÍ and the Bull of Heaven 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 11a 11b 11c 11d

23

‚nin?-zu? ama? xŸ[ x x x x x] ‚unug?ki?Ÿ-Íè? de6-a 115 lugal?-e!? x lú? [x x x] x NI? [x] ba?-[ni-i]n?-ku4116 x x x x x x x ‚lú? é? igi!? ba?-Íi?-ni!?-íl?Ÿ ‚d?nin?-sun!?Ÿ x x gù? mu-un-na-dé!?-a ama-‚™u10Ÿ!? x x ‚°AŸ? x x-‚àmŸ AN (d)-SIG7? x x x x x-la?-ni Ufi?-LU? [x] x [x] RI? x x [x] x [x] ‚x x x [x] x a?-ra?Ÿ [x x] ‚xŸ x [x] x x [x] ‚dug4?-ga?Ÿ x x x x ‚amŸ-™u10 lú-‚mu-un-dè-enŸ Íu nu-ri-bar-re / ‚ma?-an-dug4?Ÿ Hero of battle, hero of battle — let me sing his song!117 Lord GilgameÍ, hero of battle — let me sing his song! Lord with the black beard, hero of battle — let me sing his song! The one who cuts off (and) eradicates118 evil, hero of battle — let me sing his song! In wrestling and athletics, hero of battle — let me sing his song! Lord with powerful arms, hero of battle — let me sing his song! Fair of limb, hero of battle — let me sing his song! To the king, the lord — his mother who bore him calls to him: “My king, descend to the river, take dust in hand (and) bathe, My lord, go down to your garden, learn (its) work.119 Lord, enter the gip⁄ru, the well-bred sheep — learn (its) work.120 (Thereafter) be seated on the front seat-plank (of a boat); That which is in the marsh, my king, that which is in the marsh bend back with the oar. Prince, let the oars submerge in the water for you like a dense-growing reed-bed,

115. The end of the line is reconstructed on the basis of A. Cav-AR read here: ra? x túg-daa (see commentary). 116. So verb in ShM; A: ib-ta-ni-in-™ar. 117. Or “let me tell of his adventures!” (see commentary). 118. So ShM; Ma: the one who batters. 119. So ShM and Nc; Ma and Nb: “My lord, enter the juniper garden, learn (its) work.” 120. So ShM; Ma seams to read: “Lord, in the gip⁄ru shear the well-bred sheep (and) bathe it.”

MOBC-1 Page 24 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:40 PM

24

From the Workshop of the Mesopotamian Scribe

11e 11f 11g 11h 11i 11j 11k 11l 12 13 13a 13b 14 14a 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

let their blade submerge in the water for you, like a lamb of a bearingmother ...., [Let] their ‘wicked ones’ submerge [in the water for you] like….” He paid attention to his mother who bore him: In the wide courtyard of the house of Inana, GilgameÍ [took] a scythe in [his] hand, My king, entering the Juniper garden In order to learn its work. In the ªipar house, he sheared the wool of the lordly sheep. ........... going down by himself to the marsh, My king — as he went down to the marsh, He took a seat on the front seat-plank (of a boat); he leaned over the marsh. My king leaned over the marsh, he bent it back with the oar. The prince, let the oars submerge in the water for him(self) like a densegrowing reed-bed. [Their] blade submerged [in the water for him], [like a lamb of a bearingmother ....], …… Abzu ……. he submerged, ...... palace ........... he submerged. .................. he crossed / overturned, The smashers of heads ......... to the courtyard, In the chief courtyard, without a fight, he captured them.

28

At that time, she was looking at him through the spy hole, Holy Inana was looking at him through the spy hole, From the palace, Abzu, she was looking at him through the spy hole: “My wild bull, may you be our man,121 I will not release you, Lord GilgameÍ, my wild bull, may you be our man, I will not release you, You will exercise judgment in the Eana, I will not release you, You will render verdict in my holy gip⁄ru, I will not release you, You will exercise judgment in the Eana, the beloved (house) of An, I will not release you! GilgameÍ, may you be its lord, may I be its lady!”

29 30

“The (marriage) gifts, Inana, will not be brought into your gip⁄ru! Ninegala — you must not cover my valorous ‘arm’ with cloth!

121. See note to l. 23 in the transliteration above.

MOBC-1 Page 25 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:40 PM

GilgameÍ and the Bull of Heaven

25

30a 31 32 33

O lady Inana, you must not block my path! Let me bring the bulls of the mountains, let me fill your stalls! Let me bring the sheep of the mountains, let me fill your sheepfolds! Let me fill your house with silver, carnelian, lapis-lazuli (and all kinds of) flashing stones!”

34 34a 35 36 37

41

The queen spoke, she gasped. [Inana spoke], she gasped: “GilgameÍ, who told you that I do not have bulls from the mountains?! GilgameÍ, who told you that I do not have sheep from the mountains?! GilgameÍ, who told you that I do not have silver, carnelian, lapis-lazuli (and all kind of) flashing stones!? The bulls of the mountain that you (would) bring to me, The sheep of the mountain that you (would) bring to me, the silver, carnelian, lapis-lazuli and (and all kinds of) flashing stones that you (would) bring to me, Bring them to your lady, mother ......., to Uruk!”

42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

The king.............. he entered, ................ the man looked into/at the house. Ninsun.............. which she said/called to him. My mother .............. Divine ............ ........... ............. .............. My wild bull, be my man, I will not release you!” — she said to me.

38 39 40

MOBC-1 Page 26 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:40 PM

26

From the Workshop of the Mesopotamian Scribe COMMENTARY

1–7: These lines constitute a hymnal prologue to the epic, praising the hero with seven standard epithets. The following chart indicates the variant readings of the three major extant versions of the epic in these lines:122 ShM Íul mè-ka (1) en dbìl-ga-mes (2) en na4su11-ku10 (3) ní™-erim2 ku5-ku5 bad-bad (4) ™eÍpux(BULUG3) lirum-ma (5) en á kalag-kalag-ga (6) á-úr sa6-‚sa6Ÿ (7)

Nb Ma Íul mè-ka (1) Íul mè-kam (1) d en bìl-ga-[mes] (2) en dbìl-ga-mes (2) en na4su11-ku10 (5) en su-ku10-ku10 (3) (omits) ní™-erim2 du7-du7 (6) ™eÍpu2 lirum-‚maŸ (6) UL nir-ma (5) en ‚á kalagŸ-kalag-‚gaŸ(4) (omits) ‚á-úr sa6-sa6Ÿ(3) á-úr sa6-sa6 (4)

The above comparative chart shows that all three versions open with the general epithet Íul mè-ka, which is repeated in the refrain, expressing the main theme of the epic: the heroic and victorious fight with the bull. Likewise, all versions follow with the official title of the hero: (en) and his particular name (dbìl-ga-mes). Although all of the other epithets listed in the prologue are shared by the three sources, they do not appear in the same order, a fact which points to a loose oral tradition behind our epic. It should be noted that the only version that includes all seven epithets is ShM, whereas each of the other two versions omits one epithet (Nb omits no. 4; Ma omits no. 6). Finally, all the epithets shared by ShM and Nb have the same standard reading, whereas in four of the epithets shared by ShM and Ma (1, 3, 4, 5) the latter has a different (occasionally corrupted) reading. This clearly shows that ShM is a more standard version, generally close to the Nippur versions. Note also that our hymnal prologue shares at least three epithets with the 12–14-line lament prologue of the Death of GilgameÍ, which likewise contains a recurring refrain: en dbìl-ga-mes (Death of GilgameÍ, Ma 2), ní™-erim2 TURTUR-ra (Ma 6 ; cf. ibid. N2 obv 5'); á-úr sa6-‚sa6Ÿ(N2 obv 3'); and fiU.B[ULUG3] lirum-ma Í[u du7]-a (N2 obv 7') (cf. A. Cavigneaux and N.H.

122. The epithets are listed in the sequence attested in ShM, referring to the respective line in this version. For the readings of the epithets 1, 6 and 7, which were also preserved in text Nc, see the Score below.

MOBC-1 Page 27 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:40 PM

GilgameÍ and the Bull of Heaven

27

Al-Rawi, GilgameÍ et la mort: Textes de Tell Haddad VI, Groningen 2000, pp. 14; 25). We have restored the recurring verb at the end of these lines on the basis of the Me-Turan version as ga-an-dug4 contrary to ga-an-du of the Moussaieff text. Cavigneaux-Al-Rawi (=Cav-AR) also restore [ga-an-dug4] in the Nippur versions (Nb and Nc) (cf. pp. 103–4). For the incipit see also Catalogue N2 11 (Kramer, BASOR 88, 15) Íul mè-ka; U2 11 (Kramer, RA 55, 171) Íul mè-kam. Note that in lines 1–7 the ShM and the Nippur versions have -ka (for -kam of Ma); accordingly these versions seem to have anticipatory genitives (“Of the hero of battle, of the hero of battle – let me sing his song!/ Of GilgameÍ, the hero of battle – let me sing his song!” etc.). For poetic purposes we translate these lines as casus pendence. en-du (for èn-du = zam⁄ru) is irregular. The standard writing in OB (Nippur) literary texts and Lexical texts is èn-du. The phonetic writing en-du is attested only in a-ab-ba Óu-luÓ-Óa OB 8 (M. Cohen, Lamentations 380): en-du ma-nu-na (syllabic) “A song in the storehouse” (Cf. Kutscher, YNER 6, 81); and VS 10, 182:9 (Dumuzi lament) en-du-™u10 ér-ra mu-ni-in-ku4. For the Ur III writing en8(=fiA)-du see Hallo, JAOS 83, 174; JCS 20, 91 note 19. Hence, the present translation of en/in-du is uncertain. Perhaps en-du (Ma indu) is phonetic for in-dì/di or en-dì (=alaktu) “courses,” “activities,” “adventures,” in which case the refrain en-du-ni ga-an-dug4 should be translated “let me proclaim his achievements/adventures.” For the compound verb èn-du dug4 see Proto-Lu 602–604 (MSL 12, 54): èn-du-™ar-™ar, èn-du-dug4-dug4, ad-Ía4; Dumuzi-Inana H 4: ud zal ™i6-sá-aÍè èn-du dug4-ga-™u10-dè “As I was singing songs from morning till evening”; Cohen 1988, 330:f+229: èn-du dug4-dug4-da ama-ugu-na “The songs that are uttered by the mother who bore him.” See also IÍme-Dagan A + V Segment A 407: é di™ir gal-gal-e-ne-ka èn-du-™u10 Óu-mu-un-DI “he shall perform my hymns in the temples of the great gods.” 3: This line is written in Nb on the left edge. The writing na4su11 (for su11 = ziqnu) in ShM and Nb is unique. It may have derived from the common literary figure su6 na4za-gìn “lapis-lazuli beard,” which is commonly ascribed to gods, kings, or other respected personalities, having adorned their statues (see, e.g., Enki and the World Order 378; Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta 209; Urnamma F 45; fiulgi D 7 passim). Cf. Hh XVI 88 (MSL 10, 7) na4su6-zagìn = ziqnu “lapis lazuli beard (for a statue)” (see already OB Nippur Ura 4 Seg 1, 36), a unique lexical entry, which no doubt derived from the above term.

MOBC-1 Page 28 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:40 PM

28

From the Workshop of the Mesopotamian Scribe

Describing here GilgameÍ’s beard as being black is also unique. In GilgameÍ and Aga 74 he is described, conventionally, as adorned with a lapis-lazuli beard (sun4! na4za-gìn-na-ka-a-ni Óé-me-a). The black beard may be intended to stress the young age of the hero. 4: For ní™-erim2 ku5-ku5 (or tar-tar) in ShM, see SP 3, 190 si-sá un-tar-re ní™erim2 íb-íl-e “when righteousness is cut off, injustice is elevated.” BAD-BAD can be read bad-bad (= nesû, nussû) or til-til (=gam⁄ru, quttû). For bad-bad in the meaning “to remove, take away, drive away” see PSD B 36b. 5: Note the irregular (or erroneous) ™eÍpux(BULUG3) in ShM, as against the standard ™eÍpu2(fiU.BULUG3) in Nb. It is possible that ShM is to be read dim4 lirum-ma “expert in athletics,” assuming that dim4 = sanqu (cf. CAD S 148f. s.v.). Ma reads UL-nir-ma (for ™eÍpux lirum-ma), which is translated “Marry one” (George 1999) or “in his prime?” (ETCSL). More likely, this reading is a corrupted form of (B)UL(UG3) lir(um)-ma. For GilgameÍ and athletic contests, see J. Tigay, The Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic 184ff.; Klein, apud T. Abusch (ed.), Riches Hidden in Secret Places: Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Memory of Thorkild Jacobsen 2002, pp. 190ff.; M. Cohen, Festivals and Calendars of the Ancient Near East (2015) 419f. (month Abu). See further lines 18–19 below. 6: á kalag-kalag-ga (that of powerful hands/mighty strength) rather than usukalag-ga (the latter would be tautological). This line is not attested in Ma. For á kalag-ga applied to another royal figure, see fiulgi to Aradmu 11: á kalag-ga á nam-ur-sa™-á-™u10 kur-kur-ra Óé-en-Íub-Íub “Let my powerful arm, my heroic arm, fall upon all the lands.” Otherwise it is applied to warrior gods; see fiulgi G 19 sipad á kalag-ga-ke4 (Enlil); Ninurta’s Return to Nippur 8 (Ninurta). 7: For á-úr (=meÍr¤tu) qualified with sa6-sa6 (damq⁄tu), see Sjöberg, Nanna 173 et passim; PSD A/2, pp. 116–18. 8: Lines 8–9 constitute in Ma one single line (l. 7), reading: lugal-e en-e amaugu-ne-ra Á KAL SA°AR ta-a-ni-[x] i7-da NAGA-bí. The editors’ translation of this line (cf. p. 122:7) is obscure: “The king, the lord, having… for his mother, who bore him, wishing to drink?/bathe? in the river” (cf. their comment in p. 109). The only versions that seem to yield here a coherent reading are ShM and Nc. Taking en-‚naŸ? ama-ugu-ni in ShM as an anticipatory genitive, it may be translated literally as follows: “To the king, of the lord—his mother who bore him calls to him.” If reading dé at the end of line 8 in ShM is correct,

MOBC-1 Page 29 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:40 PM

GilgameÍ and the Bull of Heaven

29

then this line introduces an address by the mother to GilgameÍ, which begins in line 9 (so also ETCSL): “his mother who bore him spoke to the lord: My king… in the river….”; George (ibid.): “The king, the lord, the mother who bore him addressed [him]: …” The editors (Cav-AR) point out that the usage of the two epithets (lugal and en) for GilgameÍ is unique to this line: in the hymnic introduction (ll. 2– 3, 6) he is called en, whereas the epics about him, which were most probably composed in the Ur III period, frequently apply to him the epithet lugal alone. 9: For the possibility that NAGA in this line may be a graphic variant for fiU.NAGA = tu5 (to bathe), see comment by Cav-AR to this line; this interpretation is also accepted by George (1999). Accordingly, we may have at the end of the line in ShM an imperative tu22-a “bathe!” This corresponds to the imperative form NAGA-bí in Ma. Note also Nc, which according to George (1999) is to be restored: t[u5-bí-íb]. Note, however, that only late lexical texts equate tu5 with ram⁄ku (cf. CAD R 11 sub ram⁄ku lex. sect.); in good Sumerian “to bathe” is a–tu5 (=ram⁄ku)! According to ePSD tu5 is a “compound verb verbal element.” ePSD refers to the compound verb Íu– tu(5), but this is not documented. George translates this line as follows: “My king, go down to the river, [take] dust in hand, wash in the river.” This translation seems to be based on a conflation of the Me-turan version with the Nippur version Nc. The ShM text indicates that i7-da appeared only once in this line. As George (1999) already realized, the mother instructs Gilgamesh to bathe in the river. For an inverted parallel motif, see Enlil and Ninlil 13ff., where the mother of Ninlil warns her daughter not to bathe in the river. 10: This line, reconstructed from Ma, is translated by Cav-AR: “My lord, entering(?) the garden, (planted) the junipers, to fashion......”; George (1999) translates: “My lord, to enter the juniper grove is a task you know” (his translation is probably based on the parallel Na 9'–10'). However, the verbal forms in all available sources are in the imperative: zu-ba-ni-ib (ShM), zu-bí (Ma, Na). Accordingly the end of the line should be translated: “Learn (its) work,” with this line continuing the mother’s instructions to GilgameÍ. For the formulaic expression ™iÍkiri6 ku4 (Ma and Na) in a different context, see BM 88318 (CT 58, No. 13 [pls. 14–15]): 24–26 ba-ni-in-ku4-reen ba-ni-in-ku4-re-en / ÍeÍ-e ™iÍkiri6-na ba-ni-in-ku4-re-en / ddumu-zi ™iÍkiri -na ba-ni-in-ku -re-en (see S. N. Kramer, “BM 88318: The Ascension 6 4 of Dumuzi to Heaven,” Recueil de travaux de l'association des etudes du

MOBC-1 Page 30 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:40 PM

30

From the Workshop of the Mesopotamian Scribe

Proche-Orient II, Montreal 1984, pp. 5–9); GilgameÍ Enkidu and the Netherworld 35 (=78=122) ™iÍkiri6 gi-rin dinana-Íè im-ma-ni-in-ku4-ku4-re. The variant expression ™iÍkiri6 e11 is not attested elsewhere; but see perhaps ™iÍkiri è in the same usage in SP 5.88 (TMHNF 3:46) ur-gir -re nam zú-lum6 15 ma-ta ™iÍ‚kiri6Ÿ ù-ba-ni-íb-è-dè lugal ™iÍkiri6-ke4 íb-ta-an-sar-re “When the dog goes out into an orchard to get dates, the owner of the orchard chases him away.” The copy of the Jena tablet (P) yields a clear -è-dè; however, according to Gordon read here e11-dè (see JCS 12 [1958] 60). °endursa™a A Seg. C 9– 10 íd-da/a-Íà-ga e11-da-bi; UET VI/2 251 íd-da/ a-Íà-ga e11-dè-bi; For a similar usage in Akk. see CAD A/2 212f. sub ar⁄du A 1 3 (ana kirîm/eqlim ar⁄du). Cf. the similar Heb. usage Ngl/Mrkl dry 1 King 21:16; Songs 6:2, 11. zabalam (Na)/ ™iÍza-ba-al (Ma) (=sup⁄lu) – a variety of juniper, was a luxurious wood, imported from mountainous regions by wealthy kings (cf. IÍmedagan A+V 270). It is mentioned especially in epics and hymns connected with heroes from the third millennium. Gudea (CylA 15:30–31) imports beams/rafts of zabalum-wood from the zabalum-mountains (Óur-sa™ ™iÍza-balum-ma-ta); see further Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta 403 passim; Curse of Agade 134. Note that the ShM text agrees with Nc (the Nippur duplicate), as against the Ma source in two readings: in omitting ™iÍza-ba-al/zabalam; and in using the verb e11 (descend) instead of ku4 (enter) with relation to the garden. Note also that “to do work” is normally expressed by the compound verb kí™–ak (cf. e.g. SP Coll. 3.82; Tree and Reed 182; emeÍ–enten 277 passim). For the present late idiom, see, e.g., Hall, AOAT 25, 216:15: siskur ninda-ba-bi ìkí™-en “I perform all their sacrifices and offerings.” 11: Ma reads in this line: en ™i6-pàr-ta udu nir-ra-àm siki àm-zé SAR.SAR. This is translated by Cav-AR as follows: “(My) lord, (coming) from the gip⁄ru, he plucked the shaggy sheep; they grew” (similarly ETCSL); the above translation, however, ignores the fact that this line is part of Ninsun’s instructions, and hence the verb should be imperative. Alternatively, one could translate: “My lord, after having plucked the well-bred sheep in the gip⁄ru, bathe it.” For udu nirra cf. dùb/dúb–nir, Akk. rak⁄bu (to mount), rakk⁄bu (breeder). For àm-zé, see CAD sub baq⁄mu, lex. sect. For SAR.SAR cf. perhaps sa™-sar(-sar) = rummuku, ubbubu (CAD sub ram⁄ku, lex. sect.). Note that line 11 explicates the neutral expression “learn its work” of l. 10.

MOBC-1 Page 31 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:40 PM

GilgameÍ and the Bull of Heaven

31

George (1999) translates in this line “in the ªipar house like a lordly sheep be shorn of hair.” His translation is based mainly on Na 1', which he probably restored on the basis of the corresponding l. 11', which reads a ™i6-pàr-ra-kam u6-du-ù? x / si-‚kiŸ A SU nì-si23. Note that nì-si23 in Na seems to be a phonetic approximation of àm-zé in Ma. However, since this line is part of Ninsun’s instruction to GilgameÍ, the verb nì-si23 should be restored here in the imperative, i.e., si23-nì?. Apparently, George takes a in the Ur III version as an archaic pronunciation of é; and nin? as a phonetic approximation of nir. ETCSL, on the other hand, translates below (11l = Na 11') a ™i6-‚pàrŸ-[rakam] “the seed of the ªipar”; and u6-du nin? – “the sheep of the queen(?).” The simile “like a lordly sheep” seems to be based on Ma udu nir-ra-àm. Alternatively, one may read in Na u6-du-ù? (for u6-du nin?), a plene writing characteristic of Ur III orthography. Note that according to George’s translation of this line (1999), GilgameÍ’s mother instructs him to shear his own hair. His translation assumes that GilgameÍ having come back from his journey to the Cedar forest, with grown and disheveled hair, is instructed to have a haircut and bathe himself (cf. the Babylonian epic of GilgameÍ, Tablet VI 1–5). Our translation assumes that the mother instructs him to resume his domestic and royal duties in the ªipar. 11a–11l: According to our reconstruction of the composite text (following that of George 1999), the Ur III version preserved here 10 lines (ll. 11a–11e and 11h–11l), missing from all other duplicates. Two of these lines (ll. 11h–11i) seem to have parallels in Ma, preceded by two lines in Ma (11f–11g) having no parallels in Na. The first part of this extension (ll. 11a–11e) contains Ninsun’s instruction to her son GilgameÍ, in which she tells him to go down to the river and perform his duties in the ªipar. The second part of the same (ll. 11g–11l) reports of the tasks that GilgameÍ actually carried out, following his mother’s instruction. ShM and all other Nippur versions seem to have omitted this entire section (perhaps by homoioteleuton). 11a–11f (=13a–16): These lines refer to some obscure actions that GilgameÍ is ordered to perform in the watery marsh with his oars. Whatever the nature of these actions, they seem to have required a special skill and dexterity in rowing. This is indicated by line 11a (=13a), which seems to refer to the hero occupying the front seat in rowing the boat; and by ll. 14–14a (if they were correctly interpreted). For a seemingly relevant parallel to this characteristic of GilgameÍ, see Song of the Hoe 76–79 (translation generally follows George 2003, p. 107):

MOBC-1 Page 32 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:40 PM

32

From the Workshop of the Mesopotamian Scribe Íul idim an-na ÍeÍ-bàn-da dnergal-ka-kam ur-sa™ dbil4-ga-mes ™iÍal-e sa-par4-àm dumu dnin-sún-ka ™iÍ™isal-e dub-sa™-™á ™iÍal-e íd-da kindagal-àm The noble hero of heaven, the younger brother of Nergal, the warrior GilgameÍ is a hunting net at the mattock (lit. hoe). The son of Ninsun is pre-eminent at the oar. At the mattock he is the chief-barber of the river.

The last two lines of this passage (just like our text) seem to praise GilgameÍ as a foremost rower, who cleaves the water with his oars like a barber chopping the hair with his razor blade. Note, however, that the above parallel seems to refer to the dead GilgameÍ rowing across the waters of death (so ETCSL and George), whereas our epic refers to the living hero. 11a (=13a): This line, as well as lines 11b–11e, continue the instructions of the mother, and therefore the verbal forms should be translated in the imperative (so also George). Accordingly, George translates in our line: “Be seated on the foremost ……,” probably assuming that the “foremost” seat on which he is told to sit is found in the ªipar. However, since the following lines (11b–11e) refer to actions to be performed in the marsh with oars, we tentatively assume that ™iÍù refers to a part of a boat, probably to a crosswise plank, on which GilgameÍ is instructed to sit. For this term in connection with boats, see the lexical entry ™iÍù-má (Veldhuis 1997, 158:297; Salonen, Wasserfahrzeuge 90f.). For ™iÍù in Sum. literature see Nanna-Suen’s Journey 69 ™iÍù-bi tir éb-la-ta ddil-ím-babbar-ra mu-na-da-an-ri-a “when its planks were brought to Dilimbabbar from the forests of Ebla”; fiulgi R 16 ™iÍù ™iÍÓar-ra keÍe2-keÍe2-rá-zu-ù ki ™á-ar-™á-ra-bi “According to your planks, which are fastened into their fixed places with wooden rings…” 11b–11c (=13a–13b): In accordance with the context, we follow George’s translation of these lines in the imperative. We assume that “that which is in the marsh” refers to the anchored boat of GilgameÍ, which he has to push back with the oars in order to move away from the quay. George’s translation of gú gur “to bend back” (which we accept) is based on the reading of Ma i 11 (l. 13 below) [g]ú gúr (for gú gur in Na). In view of the reading of Ma, gur in the Ur III version seems to be phonetic for gúr (Akk. kan⁄nu, kap⁄pu, qad⁄du) “to bend” etc. In standard orthography, the only meaning of gú gur(-gur) in Sum.

MOBC-1 Page 33 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:40 PM

GilgameÍ and the Bull of Heaven

33

literature is “to gather,” “to heap up” (see references in Sjöberg, Der Mondgott Nanna-Suen 157; Winter and Summer 290; Nanna’s Journey to Nippur 265 passim). Therefore, an alternative translation of line 11c could be: “my king, into that which is in the marsh gather the oars.” 11d (=14): We translated these lines following George. mu-un in Na is probably a phonetic approximation of nun in the OB versions. It could hardly be a short form of ù-mu-un (the Emesal form of en) in this context. The only other occurrence of the expression gi lum-lum seems to be The fiumunda Grass 14 gi lum-lum-ma-ni izi ba-an-lá “His luxuriant reeds carry fire.” For likening the oars to (small) reeds see Enki’s Journey to Nippur 86–87: ™iÍgimuÍ-a-ni dniraÓ-a-ni ™iÍ™isal-a-ni gi tur-tur-a-ni “His punting pole is NiraÓ, his oars are the small reeds.” The verbal root Íúm in Na is most probably a phonetic writing for Íú of the OB versions, probably to be read Íux. 11e (=14a): George translates: “let its… dip in the water for you like …!” ETCSL: “That which exceeded, as if it was a reed? …, he covered with water.” ní™-diri in this context may refer to part of the oar, perhaps to the blade of the oar, which is an “extension” of it. Alternatively, ní™-dirig could refer to the sail of the boat, i.e., the thing (ní™) that causes the boat to sail (dirig). Otherwise there is no known word for “sail,” and from iconography we know that sometimes they used sails along with oars. The following obscure words ending with the equative gin7 seem to constitute a simile describing the blade of the oar. Since gazi “condiment” in this context (so Cav-AR) seems to be out of context, the reading sila4 seems to be preferable. àm-gan could be a phonetic writing for ama-gan (=ummu ⁄littu). The rest of the simile, however, is obscure. 11f: This line, furnished only by Ma i 13, seems to parallel the preceding line furnished by Na 6' (ní™-erim2 // ní™-dirig). Accordingly, we assume that this line is the end of the mother’s instructions. If our translation of ní™-dirig is correct, then ní™-erim2 “evil ones” does not fit the context. 11g: This line, also furnished only by Ma i 14, seems to introduce the paragraph that recounts GilgameÍ’s fulfillment of his mother’s instructions given in ll. 9–11e. The damaged text, following ama-ugu-ne-ra, seems to constitute a compound verb (‚DI?-naŸ mu-un-[x]-na-SUM or ‚DI? naŸ-mu-un[x]-na-SUM), conveying that GilgameÍ heeded his mother’s instructions, an unknown synonym to ™eÍtug2–sum or the like.

MOBC-1 Page 34 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:40 PM

34

From the Workshop of the Mesopotamian Scribe

11h: Note the writing da™al-a (for da™al-la) in Na, which is a commonly attested orthography in Third Millennium documents; see, e.g., DP 104: rev i 3 (dub da™al-a); ITT 2, 5722: rev 4 (im da™al-a-kam); GudStat C ii 17 (™eÍtu2 da™al-a-kam), passim. Note further that the expression kisal da™al-la seems to be attested elsewhere only in a royal inscription of Eanatum of LagaÍ, in the form kisal da™al-la-na (see Eanatum 10: iii 2 (Frayne 2008, p. 158). 11i: Note that ™iÍbulu™3 in Na seems to be a phonetic writing for ™iÍbulug; therefore reading in Ma ™iÍbu[lu™3]? (so Cav-AR) is uncertain. For ™iÍbuluggur10 see Hoe and Plow 37A [urud]bulug-gur10 ní™ kalag-ga “the scythe, the mighty instrument.” 11j–11k: For the reading and translation of these lines see l. 10 above. 11l: For this line see the comment to l. 11 above. 12–13: In these two lines, which are furnished only by ShM (and perhaps Nc 8'), we are told that GilgameÍ descended (from the ªipar) to the marsh. The poet repeats this event first as an independent statement and then in a temporal relative clause. Na, on the other hand, begins the marsh-motif only in the next line. 13a–13b: These two lines are furnished only by Na and Ma. Na, which is fairly complete and comprehensive, seems to tell us that GilgameÍ sat down in his boat, leaned over the marsh, and shoved the boat (from the shore) with the oars to set to sail. The two lines in Na are linked together by the repetition of the phrase sug-ga(-a) mu-ni-in-lá. For the first half of l. 13a, which is identical to 11a (=Na 2'), see comment above. For sug-ga-a mu-ni-in-lá in both lines, see Dumuzi-Inana I 29–30: PIna-ni ‚ùrŸ-ra lá-lá-a ùr-ra ‚muŸ-na-ab-lá-[lá] / dinana [bàd]-da lá-lá-a bàd-da mu-na-ab-lá-[lá] “His spouse, peering from the roof, keeps peering from the roof at him,˜ Inana peering from the wall, keeps peering from the wall at him” (so Attinger after Civil, AfO 46/47 [1999/2000] 264). GilgameÍ leans over the marsh with the intention to go down there. We assume that nì- in l. 13b (Na) is a phonetic writing for the conjugation prefix ì- (=i). For gú – gur, see comment to l. 11c above. Ma provides slightly different parallels to the phrases at the beginning and end of these lines in Na. However, sug-ga mu-ni-in-lá of Na replaces it with ZI-gin7 fiEN NE-na. In the present context, zi-gin7 could be phonetic for izigin7 “like fire/wave.” We cannot offer a translation of the obscure fiEN NE-na.

MOBC-1 Page 35 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:40 PM

GilgameÍ and the Bull of Heaven

35

14: For this line see comment to l. 11d above. For gi lum-lum-ma-gim of Ma and Na, ShM seems to read gi lam?-x-gim. lam seems to be a synonym (or alloform) of lum, meaning “to flourish, grow” (Akk. eͤbu etc.); see especially The Song of the Hoe 94; ™iÍal lum-lum-ma ™iÍal lam-lam-ma “The hoe makes everything prosper, the hoe makes everything flourish” (cf. also Ninisina B 22; fiulgi N 51); Dumuzi Inana E 1 ba-lam ba-lam-lam Ói-izsar-àm a ba-an-dug4 “He grows, he flourishes, he is a well-watered lettuce.” We restored the verbal form in Na on the basis of the hand copy in ISET I, pl. 149. ETCSL restores ‚ÓuŸ-[mu-na]-‚abŸ?-SUM; CDLI (P469688) restores Óu-mu-na-ab?-Íúm. These restorations seem to be based on Na 5' (Óu-mu-riíb-Íúm); however, these restorations are contrary to grammar and space considerations. ™isal “oar,” see CAD G 99f., sub giÍallu, and note the phonetic gi-sal-la in Ma 12. 14a: For this line see 11e above. 15–17: The verbs in lines 15–16 still seem to refer to acts of GilgameÍ in relation to the oars (in the marsh). However, if the reading é-gal in l. 16 is correct, this line could refer to GilgameÍ entering the palace. In that case what follows describes events that happened in the palace. The two signs preceding the uncertain abzu seem to read ama?-‚niŸ?. However the context remains obscure. 18–19: These two lines seem to describe an athletic or military contest in the chief courtyard (kisal-maÓ), in which GilgameÍ may have taken an active part (see l. 5 with comment above). In Sumerian myths and royal literature, the “grand courtyard” very often served as an arena for athletic contests, as the following examples indicate: In fiulgi C 130–145, fiulgi boasts of his being the champion of all Sumerian athletes in contests that took place in the kisal-maÓ. See esp. l. 133: kisal-maÓ-a ki mè-gim a-[ba b]a-ni-gi4 “In the grand courtyard, as well as in the battlefield, who can oppose me?” See also Curse of Agade 102–3: á-tuku kisal maÓ-Íè ku4-ku4-gin7 é-kur-Íè Íu keÍe2 ba-Íi-in-ak “Like a mighty-athlete who is about to enter the grand courtyard, he clasped his hands (in triumph [ready to fight]) towards the Ekur” (cf. J. Cooper, The Curse of Agade 245; for Íu keÍe2 ak see Attinger, ZA 95 [2005] 253). However, an even closer parallel of an athletic contest occurs in The Marriage of Martu. Lines 67–75 of this myth describe Martu emerging victorious in a wrestling and athletics contest (™eÍpu2 lirum-e) that took place in the main court (kisal-maÓ) of Ninab’s city-gate, during a festival attended

MOBC-1 Page 36 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:40 PM

36

From the Workshop of the Mesopotamian Scribe

by NumuÍda, his wife, and his daughter. The contest is described with the following words (cf. Klein 1997, p. 111): 67 68–69 70 71 72 73 74 75

e-ne-ra bar kug-ga ì-me-a-ke4-eÍ [k]á ì-na-abki-ka ™eÍpu2 lirum-e [dma]r-tu kisal maÓ-a dùb i-ni-in-[b]ad [ur-sa™ kal]ag-ga mu-na-ab-kin-kin-e [ur-sa™ kal]ag-ga mu-na-ab-zi-zi-i [dm]ar-tu kisal maÓ-a dùb i-ni-bad [ni™?]-gul-gul-e an!-ta bí-ra [ki]sal-maÓ mè-e ní™-lá-e bí-in-lá kisal-ni-na-abki ad6 im-‚ílŸ-íl-e For him (=NumuÍda), because he was holy, Martu rushed about in the main courtyard at the gate of Inab amidst wrestling and athletics. They kept looking for strong fighters for him. They kept offering him strong fighters. Martu rushed about in the main courtyard. He hammered them from above with pickaxes. (In) the main courtyard, in the battle, he girds himself with the swordbelt, (in) the main courtyard of Ninab he lifts the dead bodies.

Moreover, similarly to Inana in our epic, NumuÍda’s daughter, Nin™arkidu, fell in love with the victorious Martu, and insisted upon marrying him despite the warnings of her girlfriend (see ibid. ll. 126–42). For sa™ gul-gul in l. 18, see the DN dsa™-gul-gul (cf. RlA 11, p. 524 sub Sa™-gulgul). A semantic variant of this epithet, also applied to GilgameÍ, could be sa™-gúm-gúm, “The basher of heads” or the like (GilgameÍ and Aga 36; so recently Katz 1993, p. 41, reading sa™-lum-lum; see already Jacobsen, Harps 349, n. 8). According to the present tentative reading, sa™ gul-gul-e-ne is the subject of the sentence, referring to a collective group of warriors. If, however, we read sa™ gul-gul-e or sa™ gul-gul e-ne, the epithet could refer to GilgameÍ, who enters the courtyard to capture a group of unknown warriors mentioned perhaps in the preceding damaged lines. Note also the possibility of restoring line 73 of The Marriage of Martu (quoted above) as [sa™?]-gul-gul-e an!-ta bíra, translating: “The basher of [heads] hammered them from above.” For an-ta ra cf. fiulpae A 27 lugal ud an-ta ra-ra “A king, a storm beating down from above.”

MOBC-1 Page 37 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:40 PM

GilgameÍ and the Bull of Heaven

37

The exact circumstances of GilgameÍ’s fight in the courtyard are not apparent. The only clear fact is that he won the contest without substantial effort (mè nu-me-a). From the free reduplication of the verbal root dab5 one may conclude that he captured a great number of warriors. For dab5-dab5 expressing plurality see, e.g., IÍbierra to Ibbisin 9–10: a-da-al-la-bi mar-tu dùdù-a-bi Íà kalam-ma-Íè ba-an-kur9-re-en bàd? gal-gal dili-dili-bi im-mi-indab5-dab5 “Now I have let the Martu, all of them, penetrate inside the land, and one by one I have seized all the fortifications therein.” lú dab5-dab5 in line 19 seems to be a simplified writing for eri13(LU2Œ KÁR)-a dab5-dab5 or Ía™a(LU2ŒKÁR)-a dab5-dab5 in similar literary contexts, describing battle scenes. See especially fiu-Suen Hist. Inscr. A iii 22–23 (RIME 3/2 1.4.3 [p. 304]) en-en bara2-bara2-bi eri13(LU2ŒKÁR)-a mi-ni-in-dab5-dab5 “Their lords and throned ones he took as bound captives”; Puzur-fiulgi to Ibbi-Suen 35: mzi-in-nu-um ensi2 su-bir4ki (var. ‚kiÍŸki) Ía™a-a i-ni-in-dab5 (var. i-ni-in-ak) “He has imprisoned Zinnum, the governor of Subir (var. KiÍ).” For LU2ŒKÁR read as eri13 (Akk. Óan⁄qu), see Steinkeller, AuOr 9 (1991) 231; read as Íaga (Akk. Óablu ‘wronged,” ÍagÍu “slain,” see Attinger, ZA 91 [2001] 141, n. 34). 20–22: u4-bi-a marks the dramatic turning point in the plot. According to our reconstruction, these three lines constitute a particularizing stanza, with triple parallelism (for this literary device, see Th. Jacobsen, JNES 12 [1953] 162, n. 5). The poet seems to tell us that during the military contest in which GilgameÍ triumphed over his rival(s), or right after it, Inana was watching him from the Abzu, presumably “through a spy hole” (é-lá-e). Apparently, Inana is in a shrine, situated somewhere in the Eana, which is labeled here as Abzu, and therefore she has to peep through a small window or a hatch to see GilgameÍ, who stays in the courtyard. For sanctuaries called Abzu in temples of various gods, see George 1993, p. 65. See especially the prologue to fiulgi O, where a shrine in Ur is referred to as abzu ki-tuÍ kug Íul dsuen-na “Abzu, holy residence of youthful Suen” (Segment A 11). For é-lá with the presumable meaning ‘spy hole’, see the Acrographic List MS 3030 (CUSAS 12, p. 41), l. 94 (=Proto-Kagal, Section A ii 12 [MSL 13, p. 84]): é-lá = É nap-la-áÍ-ti. For naplaÍtu, in the probable meaning “spy hole,” “hatch,” see CAD N/1, p. 305f., sub naplastu; also the Ur III and OAkk PNs ki-tuÍ-é-lá (AUAN 73.05, 53 rev 1); ab-é-lá (ITT 2, 445 obv 4); see further (various commodities for) lú-é-lá ì-dab5 (Tavolette 160: obv 6); for the latter PN see Limet 1968, 454 (CDLI sub P131946 reads this PN as lú-líl-lá). In the

MOBC-1 Page 38 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:40 PM

38

From the Workshop of the Mesopotamian Scribe

following sources it could be a name of a building: Íà gud ur-dsuen é-lá-ta (MS 1908: obv iii 16; cf. CDLI P250589); and perhaps [x] ‚éŸ-lá-mu-ta (NATN 29: rev 8). For é-lá as a component of a DN, see n ninda gur é dé-lá-an-na (NVN 6, 301: rev i 21–22). However, since the meaning of “spy hole” for Akk. naplastu, otherwise translated as “blinkers,” is not attested in any textual context outside of lexical sources, the above interpretation is not absolutely assured. Therefore, one cannot exclude the translation “canopy” or the like, suggested by Cav-AR on the basis of the literal meaning of é-lá as “hanging house.” In that case, the present lines should be translated: “At that time, she was watching him at the ‘hanging house’” etc. 23–30: These lines, containing Inana’s address to GilgameÍ (ll. 23–28) and the beginning GilgameÍ’s reply (ll. 29–30), parallel the first 8 lines of the new Schøyen duplicate MS 2652-2 (i 1'–8'; CDLI P251677). Therefore, we incorporated them into the partiture, and utilized them for the reconstruction of this section. Note, however, that most probably, this section of the Schøyen duplicate does not contain Inana’s address proper, but GilgameÍ’s report of her address to his mother. This seems to be indicated by the first line of the passage (=l. 23), which reads [ ] Íu nu-ri-bar-re bí-in-dug4 “….. ‘I will not release you!’ – she said” (cf. l. 50 with comment below); and as expected it is immediately followed by Ninsun’s answer to her son (cf. MS 9'–10': ama-ni U gù ba?-an-dé ……/ dnin-sún-na-ke4 gù ba-an-dé?…...). This passage in the Schøyen duplicate, therefore parallels Ma i 31–39 proper, where also GilgameÍ’s addresses his mother, informing her of Inana’s proposal. 23–24: Lines 23–28 (=Ma 22–27) are restored by Cav-AR after Ma 34–39. Therefore, they read in these two lines (corresponding to Ma 34–35): am-m[u lu]-mu im-m[a-ni-ta? Íu nu-ri-bar-re] / en d‚bìlŸ-ga-mes i[m-ma-ni-ta Íu nuri-bar-re], translating: “my wild-bull, my man /lord GilgameÍ, I will not let you …!” We read these lines on the basis of all the other text witnesses, following George, who translates: “My wild bull, may you be our man, I shall not release you, Lord GilgameÍ, my wild bull, may you be our man, I shall not release you!” (George 2010, p. 108; see also George 1999, p. 170; George 2003, p. 472). If this translation is correct, these lines begin Inana’s proposal of marriage, while l. 28 ends the proposal (see comment to l. 28 below). Note that in all the Nippur texts (Nd-No) lú/mu-lu is followed by me-endè-en, which normally means “we are” (1st person plural independent pronoun); the corresponding lú mu-(un-)dè-en in ShM and A may be a

MOBC-1 Page 39 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:40 PM

GilgameÍ and the Bull of Heaven

39

corrupted variant of this pronoun. However, since the above reading makes no sense in this context, George assumes that lú/mu-lu-me-en-dè-en itself is corrupt for a hypothetical lú/mu-lu-me dè-me-en “may you be our man” (assuming that Inana speaks here in the 1st person plural, using the style of the Dumuzi-Inana love songs (see George 2003, ibid., n. 100). However, in that case, perhaps the ShM duplicate is to be preferred with the reading lú/mu-lu™u10 dè-en, assuming that it is a corrupt or defective writing for lú/mu-lu-™u10 dè-me-en “May you be my man!” Admittedly, the ES expression mu-lu-™u10 “my man” (i.e., my mate) seems to be attested only in one other text, belonging to the Dumuzi-Inana literature; see B. Alster, ASJ 18 (1996) 10f. ll. 21–22 (CDLI P264321) [kug dinana-ke4] nim-e mu-na-ni-ib-gi4-gi4 [za-e kimu-lu-™u10] ba-ab-pà-dè-en ní™-ba a-ra-ba-e “Inana said to the fly: ‘If you find the place of my man, I will give you a gift.’” (cf. also ibid. ll. 16–17; Inana’s Descent 392–93). See, however, the synonymous mu-lu ki-ig-ga á™™u10 “my beloved man” (Dumuzi-Inana D 8; fiu-Suen B 1 and 3) and mu-lu Íà-ab-™u10 “man (of) my heart” (Dumuzi-Inana A 52; Dumuzi-Inana T 42); cf. also the ED PN dnin-™ír-sú-lú-™u10 (Uruinimgina 13, 3) and the Ur III PN lú-™u10 (Limet 1968, p. 483). 24: The signs GA+MES in the writing of the name of GilgameÍ in ShM seem to be a ligature (the first two horizontals of the MES are invisible). Note that the scribe forgot the NU in the verbal form. We restored the verbal form in ll. 23–24 as nu-ri-bar-re-en on the basis of Ne 8', since we expect here a marû verbal root. ShM and A read nu-ri-bar-re; in all other Nippur duplicates the verbal form is damaged or broken. For the prefix -ri- in Íu nu-ri-bar-re, which corresponds to the locativeterminative -ni-, see G. Gragg, Sumerian Dimensional Infixes (AOATS 5), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1073:102. For the characterization of Inana as a harsh and dangerous goddess, from whose grasp no one can escape, see, e.g., Inana C 31: in-nin Óu-rí-inmuÍen lú Íu nu-bar-re “The mistress, an eagle that lets no one escape.” For the full 1st p. singular marû verbal form (with the morpheme –en) in the same context, see UET 6/2, 212:4 ‚tukumŸ-bi Íu mu-un-Íi-bar-re-en “If I release you…” 25–27: In these three lines there is a significant difference between the reading of ShM and Ng on the one hand, and A, Nh on the other. A and Nh read di ku5-dè and ka-aÍ bar-re (so also Nf, which inverts the lines, reading [ka-aÍbar-re] in line 25 and [d]i ku5-ru-dè in line 27), i.e., non-finite verbal forms expressing purpose clauses; accordingly, these lines should be translated: “I will

MOBC-1 Page 40 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:40 PM

40

From the Workshop of the Mesopotamian Scribe

not release you, to exercise judgment in the Eana/the holy gip⁄ru” (similarly George). However, this reading seems to be problematic: while proposing marriage to the king, Inana prevents him from exercising judgment, thus restricting his authority. Therefore, we prefer to follow ShM and Ng, which read in these lines di ì-ku5-dè(-en) and ka-aÍ ì-bar-re (finite verbal forms); accordingly, these lines should be translated: “You will exercise judgment in the Eana/gip⁄ru, I will not release you.” We may assume that formerly GilgameÍ exercised judgment in his own palace, as a sovereign ruler. Once he marries Inana, he will have to move to her temple and exercise his duties under her sovereignty. According to this reading, Inana promises GilgameÍ that his authority as a judge will be increased by exercising judgment in the temple; or else, she tells him that once he becomes her husband, his function as a king will be restricted to the Eana. In these three parallel lines Inana seems to tell GilgameÍ the privileges that he will earn (or conditions that will be imposed upon him) upon his becoming her husband (“man”): he will be privileged to exercise judicial and political power in her temple (or his judicial and political functions will be confined only to the Eana). For the juxtaposition of the two judicial terms di ku5(-d) and ka-aÍ bar attributed to GilgameÍ, always limited to his function as a judge in the netherworld, see Death of GilgameÍ (Me-Turan) Seg. F 38–41: ‚dŸbìl-ga-mes ‚gidimŸ-bi-ta ki-ta ug5-ga Íagina kur-ra Óé-ak-‚eŸ palil gidim Óé-nam di-da mu-un-kud-da ka-‚aÍ barŸ [ì]?-‚barŸ-re dug4-ga-a-ni(source: ZU) inim dnin-™iÍ-zid-‚daŸ ddumu-‚zid-da-gin Ÿ ba-e-dugud 7 Let GilgameÍ as a ghost, below among the dead, be the governor of the netherworld. Let him be pre-eminent among the ghosts, so that he will pass judgments and render verdicts, and what he says will be as weighty as the words of Nin™iÍzida and Dumuzi. See also Urnamma A 143–44: ÍeÍ ki á™-™á-ni dbil4-ga-mes-ra e-ne di kur-ra ì-kud-dè ka-aÍ kur-ra ì-‚barŸ-re

MOBC-1 Page 41 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:40 PM

GilgameÍ and the Bull of Heaven

41

So with GilgameÍ, his beloved brother, he (=Urnamma) will issue the judgments of the netherworld and render the decisions of the netherworld. For another reference to the issuing of judgments and the rendering of decisions in the netherworld attributed to Nanna on the days of his disappearance, see IÍmedagan M Version A 20 (for these two judicial terms see J. Klein, “Sum. ga-raÍ = Akk. purussû,” JCS 23 [1971], pp. 118–22). Note gú-mu (Ma) for kug-™u10 (cf. kug-™á in ShM et alii). 28: For me-e (Emesal of ™e26-e), see now Thomsen 1984, 68; CAD A/2 106 a, sub an⁄ku, lex. sect. The present correct reading of this line is based on MS, which is basically supported by all other Nippur duplicates and ShM. Our line constitutes the final, closing sentence of the marriage proposal, in which Inana seemingly promises GilgameÍ a status equal to hers. The other two major versions here yield corrupted, incomprehensible readings. Ma (reconstructed on the basis of i 39 below) must have read dªIfi.B≤L-ga-mes za-[e mè?-x IM MA NI TA ™e26-‚eŸ [KA GA? IM MA NI TA]. A reads here dbìl-ga-mes za-e ù-NE Óéme-en za-e GA Óé-e?. Note that while all other versions express a contrast or reciprocity between GilgameÍ and Inana (za-e/™e26-e), in A the two sentences refer only to GilgameÍ (za-e/za-e). For the obscure ù-NE in A, see the rarely attested Ur III PN ù-ne (HLC 374, pl. 141: rev i 2; ITT 2, 904: rev i 4; PDT 2, 959: obv i 21'); see further Inana G 2 (cf. K. Wagensonner, WZKM 100 [2010] pp. 222–23) ga-Ía-an er9-rai-ra mu-lú ù-‚neŸ! mu-lu ‚ù-neŸ “The mighty queen, the …. person, the …. person” (Inana refers to herself). 29ff.: Note that from this point on our reconstruction of the “Inana’s Proposal” episode radically differs from that of George. Whereas we assume that the Nippur and other versions differ from that of Me-Turan as to the sequence of the plot, George attributes to the Me-Turan version the full and original sequence and tries to harmonize the Nippur and other versions with the latter (see his translation in George 1999, p. 170; and his elaborate discussion in George 2010, pp. 108–11). George assumes that following Inana’s proposal, GilgameÍ immediately approaches his mother, Ninsun, repeating it to her. Accordingly, he inserts a passage of 14 lines from the version of MeTuran (Ma i 28–41) between lines 28 and 29 of the composite text. In his opinion, this passage was omitted in the Nippur versions, which presumably telescoped the story at this point (ibid. P.111). In these 14 lines, GilgameÍ repeats to his mother Inana’s proposal of marriage (Ma i 28–39), and the

MOBC-1 Page 42 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:40 PM

42

From the Workshop of the Mesopotamian Scribe

following introductory formula to Ninsun’s reply: ama ugu-ne-ra ur5-[gin7] mu-un-na-ab-bé-‚ak?Ÿ-[ka?] / ama ‚uguŸ-[ne dªIfi.B≤L-ga-mes-ra mu-na-niib-gi4-gi4] “After he had spoken like this to the mother who bore him, the mother who bore him replied to GilgameÍ” (Ma i 40–41). At this point the Me-Turan version breaks off and there is a lacuna of ca. 8 lines in the text. Therefore, George assumes that the text continues in the Nippur versions, with the mother’s actual answer to GilgameÍ, advising him to reject Inana’s proposal (ll. 29ff. of the composite reconstructed text). However, according to this reconstruction the mother’s answer is extremely short (ll. 29– 30 of our tablet), abruptly followed by GilgameÍ’s address to Inana, in which he rejects the goddess’ proposal (ll. 30a–33); and his address to the goddess lacks an expected introductory formula by the author, signaling that the dialogue between GilgameÍ and his mother shifts to a dialogue between him and Inana. For George’s translation of ll. 29–30 (on the basis of A i 9–10), to adjust them to his hypothesis, see comment to these lines below. However, contextually, it is difficult to assume that immediately after the mother’s short answer to GilgameÍ the latter begins to address Inana abruptly (in ll. 30aff.). It is rather reasonable to assume (following ETCSL) that in most available Nippur texts (including A) GilgameÍ’s address to Inana begins already in lines 29ff. (for our tentative translation of these two lines see below). As a matter of fact, if our reading ‚ma?-an-dug4?Ÿ at the end of l. 50 of the Moussaieff tablet is correct, GilgameÍ’s report to his mother about Inana’s proposal must have begun at some point in the severely damaged and illegible passage, following Inana’s angry answer to GilgameÍ’s counterproposal (i.e., between ll. 41–49 of our tablet). Consequently, line 50 of the Moussaieff tablet should correspond to Ma i 34, for in both of them GilgameÍ reports to his mother the first sentence of Inana’s proposal: “My wild bull, be my man, I will not release you!” In our opinion, only two other fragments of our myth may be identified as belonging to GilgameÍ report of Inana’s proposal to his mother. One of these (No) has already been observed by George himself (see George 2010, p. 109), due to the fact that it refers to the city-gate (abul) as the exact place of the confrontation between Inana and the hero, a detail that is not mentioned by the poet in the description of the confrontation (compare ™iÍig abula-ke4 in Ma 32 to [x x] abul [x] in No obv. 4'; note also uzu mentioned in Ma 31 and No obv. 2'). Another fragment belonging to GilgameÍ’s report to his mother is

MOBC-1 Page 43 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:40 PM

GilgameÍ and the Bull of Heaven

43

UET 6, 616:1'–4' (CDLI P346653), identified and brought to our attention by Jeremy Peterson, reading (with partial reconstruction): [...] x x x x [...] ma-an-‚dug4?Ÿ [...] ... [é-an-na an-né ki]-á™ di ì-kud-dè / [ma-a]-‚raŸ ma-an-‚dug4Ÿ [dbìl-ga-me]s? za-e ù-mu-un-b[i dè-me-en] / [me]-‚eŸ? ga-Ía-an-bi dème-e[n]? [...] nam-mu-ni-in-[...] in-na-‚dug4?Ÿ [...] .... The Nippur fragment Nf, on the other hand, contrary to George’s assumption (see George 2010, p. 110), cannot belong to the report of the proposal, because it ends with the angry reaction of the goddess to GilgameÍ’s counterproposal to provide her with cattle and precious stones; cf. [ ba]-an-‚paŸ?-pa (11') and [ ] x e ra a-ba-e-an-dug4 (12'). If then we are correct, the Me-Turan version sharply deviates from those of ShM and the Nippur versions as to the encounter between Inana and GilgameÍ. Whereas according to the former GilgameÍ does not offer any answer to Inana’s proposal, immediately reporting it to his mother, who advises him to reject it, according to the latter he rejects her proposal on his own, offering her a counterproposal, which she refuses to accept. In this respect, these versions partially correspond to the narrative in Tablet VI of the Standard Version of the Akkadian GilgameÍ epic, where the mother of the hero is not given any role in the Bull of Heaven episode. In that source, we are told only that IÍtar proposed marriage to GilgameÍ (VI 6–21) and that he rejected her proposal without consulting anyone (VI 22ff.; cf. George 2003, pp. 619ff.; see also the MB Emar2 fragment [ibid. 333–337]). 29–40+: In these lines, GilgameÍ, instead of accepting Inana’s marriage proposal, offers the goddess various gifts, which she then rejects. The motif of precious gifts in lieu of marriage and the subsequent rejection of these gifts, thereby insisting that the marriage take place, appears also in the Marriage of Martu. In that myth NumuÍda offers Martu, as a reward for his heroic victory over his opponents, silver and precious stones instead of giving him his daughter in marriage. However, Martu rejects his offer, insisting on marrying the girl (ll. 76–83): 76 dnu-[muÍ]-da dmar-tu Óúl-la-e 77 kug m[u-u]n-na-ba-e Íu nu-um-ma-gíd-i-dè 78 za ‚muŸ-[u]n-na-ba-e Íu nu-um-ma-gíd-i-dè 79 [2-kam ur5]-‚àmŸ um!-ak-e

MOBC-1 Page 44 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:40 PM

44

From the Workshop of the Mesopotamian Scribe 80 81 82 83

[3-kam] *‚ur5Ÿ-[àm] um!-ak-e [kug-zu me-da tùm] za-zu me-da tùm [™uruÍ?-me]-en dumu-zu ga-ba-[ab]-du12 [mar-tu?-me-en dumu-zu? g]a-ba-ab?-[du12] NumuÍda, rejoicing over Martu, Presents him silver—he accepts not, Presents him (precious) stones—he accepts not... Having done so [a second time], Having done so [a third time], (Says Martu:) “Your silver—whither does it lead? Your (precious) stones—whither do they lead? I, [the lad], would (rather) marry your daughter, [I, Martu], would (rather) [marry your daughter!”] …

Another literary source in which occurs the motif of rejecting material gifts in favor of a gift of more lasting value is Enlil and Namzitara.123 There, too, the god Enlil offers the hero precious stones and livestock, in this case as a reward for discovering his true identity (l. 19): kug Óé-tuku za Óé-tuku gud Óé-tuku udu Óé-tuku “You will have silver, you will have precious stones, you will have cattle, you will have sheep.” But Namzitara rejects these rewards saying (ll. 20–22): ud nam-lú-u18-lu al-ku-nu ní™-tuku-zu me-Íè e-tùm-ma den-líl-me-en nam-mu tar-ra “The day of mankind (i.e., death) is approaching, So where does your wealth lead? You are Enlil himself! Decree my fate!” Whereupon Enlil assigns him his fate, granting his heirs prebendship in his temple (ll. 25–27). 29–30: In view of the reading of the DN dnin-é-gal(-la), the divine names in both lines must be in the vocative. As pointed above, George (2010, p. 110) translates these two lines (on the basis of the reading of A) assuming that they constitute Ninsun’s answer to GilgameÍ as follows: 123. For this composition see Y. Cohen, “Enlil and Namzitarra” (RA 104 [2012] 87–97).

MOBC-1 Page 45 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:40 PM

GilgameÍ and the Bull of Heaven

45

‘You must not permit the gift (of) Inana to enter your chamber, Ninegalla must not cover with cloth a warrior’s might!’ We admit that grammatically the above translation is possible, though for “the gifts of Inana” we would expect in Sum. ní™-ba dinana-ka (double genitive). However, as we pointed out above, these two lines must be the very beginning of GilgameÍ’s own answer to Inana’s proposal in ll. 23–28; and they do not need an introductory formula, because it is part of the dialogue between the two major protagonists. Accordingly, we propose the following reading and translation of these two lines: ní™-ba dInana ™i6-par4-zu-Íè nam-ba-ni-ib-ku4-ku4 d nin-é-gal-la á nam-ur-sa™-™á-™u10 túg nam-ì-dul-e “The (marriage) gifts, Inana, will not be brought into your gip⁄ru! Ninegala – you must not cover my valorous ‘arm’ with cloth!” Our reading and translation of ll. 29–30 is highly tentative and not without grammatical difficulties (note especially the difficult reading ‚á!(MA°) namŸ-ursa™-™á-ka-ni “his/her valorous strength” in ShM). This is no doubt due to the disagreement and incompleteness of the various Nippur witnesses. However since, as it was demonstrated above, GilgameÍ’s report of Inana’s proposal to his mother is to be placed somewhere after l. 41 of the Moussaieff tablet, the present two lines must be attributed to GilgameÍ. In line 30 we opted for the form á nam-ur-sa™-™á-™u10 of text Na, translating it tentatively “my valorous strength,” in spite of the fact that the attribute á nam-ur-sa™-™á in Sumerian literature is almost exclusively related to deities. See especially Inana I Seg. A 10–11: murub2 mè-ka gub-ba-[™u10-ne] lipiÍ mè-a á nam-ur-sa™-™á me-e Íi-‚inŸ-[ga-™en-na] “When I (=Inana) stand in the thick of the battle, I am indeed also the very guts of battle, the heroic strength”; Angim 49: lugal-e á nam-ur-sa™-™á-ni-Íè Íu nam-mi-ni-in-gi4 “The king wreaked his vengeance in his valorous strength” (cf. Angim 15; 30ff.; 90; 154); see further Gudea CylA 6:21 (the Ankar weapon of Nin™irsu); Gudea CylB 14:3 (Ud-gu-dugduga); Urninurta C 4; Urnamma A 93 (Nergal); Nuska A D 6; Nergal B 12. Note, the deviant readings of the other version (ShM: ‚á! 124 namŸ-ur-sa™™á-ka-ni?; A: á nam-ur-sa™-™á-ke4-éÍ; MS: á nam-ur-sa™-™á). However, the

124. The sign looks like a truncated MA°.

MOBC-1 Page 46 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:40 PM

46

From the Workshop of the Mesopotamian Scribe

attribute á nam-ur-sa™-™á related to deified kings is attested also in the hymns of fiulgi (see fiulgi B 287; fiulgi D 4) and in a late OB hymn (Samsuiluna F A 6). 30a: Note that this line is attested only in text A, otherwise a rather corrupted version of the epic. According to the context, which requires a prohibitive statement, we would expect here a marû verbal form (*nam-ba/bí-kud-re6). For the unique expression “to cut off the path” (e-sír kud), see the following thematic, partly verbal, parallels: Man and his God 53–54 Óar-ra-an-[na] DI sumur?-bi x-kí™-kí™ kaskal-la DI? x-la-bi ™iÍ-gin7 mu-un-kud-e “He (=the evil man) sought the …… of the journey. He cut down the …… of the road like a tree”; fiulgi E 233–34 ™iri3 sùÓ-a Óar-ra-an gu-gin7 ku5-rá ma-da gu-ti-umkima giÍmu-bu-um-gin7 mu-gam “The (land of) the obstructed paths (and) the roads that are cut off like a thread, the land of the Gutians, I bent low like a mubu-um-tree”; Letter from fiarrum-b⁄ni to fiu-Sîn 6: bàd dù-ù-dè ™iri3-bi ku5ru-dè “to build the fortification, so as to cut off their (=the Martu’s) route”; fiulgi B 70: gù Íubtum5-ma ki ™iri3 kud-da-ba edin-ba Óu-mu-sig9-si-ig “In the desert where the paths peter out, I reduce the roar at the lair to silence.” See also CAD P 168 sub par⁄su 1f (“to cut off roads” etc.). 31–32: The verbal form ga-àm-dé (adopted in the composite transliteration of lines 31–32) may be an allograph of de6 (Peterson). See also the noun ní™-déa (Akk. biblu) “marriage gift” documented also in Sumerian literary texts (cf. Enlil & Sud A 67 passim; Elegy on the Death of Nawirtum 26; Dumuzi-Inana C1 A 21). The reading ga-àm-tum4? in ShM had been suggested by J. Peterson (but ga-àm-te! cannot be excluded). The reading of the verbs at the end of these lines as ga-àm-mi-ib-si is based on Nf 8–9 (-zu/su in A is probably corrupt for si). Note that ShM reads tùr-zu! and amaÍ-zu (“your stalls/sheepfolds”) respectively. For a close thematic parallel see Gudam Segment B 35–38 (lines are numbered according to B. Alster’s reconstruction):125 gud-dam-e ér im-ma-an-pàd!(RU) Íex(SIG7)-Íex(SIG7) ì-™á-™á

125. For editions of this myth, see Römer, 1991, pp. 363–78; B. Alster, “Gudam and the Bull of Heaven,” in J. G. Dercksen [ed.], Assyria and Beyond: Studies Presented to Morgen Trolle Larsen. Leiden: Netherlands Institute for the Near East 2004, pp. 21–46; see most recently Gadotti, 2006.

MOBC-1 Page 47 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:40 PM

GilgameÍ and the Bull of Heaven dinana

47

zi-™u10 Íúm-ma-ab gud kur-ra ga-mu-ra-ab-Íúm tùr-zu ga-mu-ra-ab-lu udu kur-ra ga-mu-ra-ab-Íúm amaÍ-zu ga-mu-ra-ab-lu Gudam began to weep, shedding tears: “Inana, spare my life! Let me give you bulls of the mountains, let me make your cow-pen full! Let me give you sheep of the mountains, let me make your sheepfold full!” In the light of this parallel, we may assume that GilgameÍ, just like Gudam, is overcome with fear at Inana’s proposal, and (contrary to the standard Babylonian epic) instead of rudely and boldly rejecting it, he offers the above gifts to appease her and save his life (for Inana’s answer to Gudam’s appeal see comment to ll. 35–40 below). GilgameÍ specifically offers Inana mountain bulls and mountain sheep, probably because these were known as exceptionally large and fat. See especially EWO 225: gud-zu gud gal Óé-em gud kur-[ra Óé-em] “May your bulls be great bulls, may they be bulls of the mountains!” (Enki’s blessing of MeluÓa); see further fiulgi B 342–43, where fiulgi seems to boast of killing on the plain “great powerful wild cows and indomitable bulls (sumun2 usu gal-gal gud á nu-gi4-a), cattle on their way to their mountain pastures.” For “mountain sheep” (or “upland sheep”), as opposed to “standard (lit. “Sumerian”) sheep” see Postgate, RlA 12, p. 116, sub “Schaf. A 4; the mountain sheep were known as having wool of high quality, only second to that of the “fat-tailed-sheep” (udu-gukkal) (see H. Waetzoldt, Textilindustrie 5; 66; idem, RlA 15, pp. 128f., sub “Wolle”); in Ur III administrative documents the term udu kur-ra is attested almost exclusively at Umma (see CDLI index). 33: We tentatively assume that ì?-™ar in A is a miscopy for na4; accordingly, na4! i-sur-sur-me-eÍ may mean “flashing stones.” Cf. Lugalbanda Epic I 287: ‚NA4 SURŸ Íu im-ma-an-ti x téÍ-bi Óé-em-ra-ra-a-‚taŸ? “He took hold of some flints and struck them together” (so Vanstiphout 2004, p. 286); Axe of Nergal 7: na4-bi an-ta-sur-ra-àm gaba-ri nu-tuku-àm “its (of the axe) stone part is of antasura, a stone which has no equal”; cf. na4-an-ta-Íur-ra (Hh XVI Nippur Forerunner 77 [MSL 10, 57]); For sur (Akk. ‰ar⁄ru) “to flash” see CAD 106 ‰ar⁄ru B; AHw 1084 sub ‰ar⁄rum I). Accordingly, ‚na4Ÿ? i-sur-sur-me-eÍ may mean: “(and with all kind of) flashing stones” or “(all of these) are flashing stones.”

MOBC-1 Page 48 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:40 PM

48

From the Workshop of the Mesopotamian Scribe

George informs us that Peterson suggested to him restoring in Nf 10' [kuÍlu]-úb-Íir-me-eÍ “leather pouches,” assuming that these are suitable containers for transporting “little things” (ní™-tur – PA 3), such as precious stones. Accordingly, George proposes to read the corresponding damaged phrase in ShM 33, as ‚kuÍlu-úbŸ-Íir-me-eÍ. We adopt the above reading with some reservations, since the assumed fiIR sign (here and in l. 37 below) looks like an incomplete °É. Therefore, our line (as well as l. 37) according to the ShM duplicate may be translated: “Let me fill your house with silver, carnelian, lapis-lazuli, (packed) in leather pouches” or the like. For kuÍlu-úb-Íir in similar context see Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta 124 (=196): kug-sig17 ù-tud-da-ba kuÍlu-úb-Íir a-ba-ni-in-ak “Let Aratta pack nuggets of gold in leather sacks”; Winter and Summer 93 na4du8-Íi-[a] kugsig17 kug-babbar kuÍlu-úb-‚ÍirŸ-e pàd-da “Quartz, gold, and silver found in leather pouches”; The Curse of Agade 137: kug-babbar-bi kuÍlu-úb-Íir-ra bíin-ak “He put its gold in containers and put its silver in leather bags.” The substantially different reading of PA: za-gìn-na ní™-TUR su8-bé-eÍ seems to be corrupted. su8-bé-eÍ could here be a phonetic writing for Íuba “Íuba Stone” (for various syllabic writings of this word see Temple Hymns p. 96, sub l. 216). ní™-TUR (or na ní™-TUR) could mean “small (stones)”; cf. Dumuzi-Inana C 17 za-gìn di4-di4 gú-™á im-mi-sig9 (var. za for za-gìn) “I have put little lapis-lazuli beads (var. little stones) round my neck”; see also the late lexical entry Hh XVI Ras Shamra Rec. 379 (MSL 10, 50) na4-ní™TUR.TUR = MIN (=NA4) ‰i-iÓ-ru-ti (=Hh XVI 456 (MSL 10, 16). Note that the verbal form ‚ga-àm-mi-ni-ib-siŸ in ShM seems to be written over an erasure of ‚ga-àm-mi-íb-si-siŸ. 34–34a: For the unique, somewhat obscure expression KA(-ni) pa-an, cf. the common expression (zi) pa-á™ (Akk. nap⁄Íu) “to breathe.” Cf. Lament for Sumer and Ur 69: nam-lú-ulu3 ní te-bi-a zi gig mu-un-pa-an-pa-an “The people, in their fear, breathed only with difficulty”; ibid. 393: lugal-bi é-gal níte-na-ka zi gig mu-un-pa-an-pa-an “Its king breathed heavily in his own palace” (cf. Lament for Uruk Seg. D 8). Apparently, Inana is most unhappy with GilgameÍ’s indirect rejection of her proposal, and answers him in a most inimical tone. Perhaps the best thematic parallel to this episode is Instructions of fiuruppak 232, where of an embittered woman it is said that “she pants where there is a quarrel” (ki du14-dè ™ál-la-Íè zi im-x-pa?-‚paŸ-[an]-e?). For a possibility that KA(-ni) in this expression is to be read kiri4(-ni) “with her nose,” see Sjöberg, Temple Hymns, p. 107, n. 61.

MOBC-1 Page 49 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:40 PM

GilgameÍ and the Bull of Heaven

49

35–40: These six lines, which constitute Inana’s answer to GilgameÍ, are extremely fragmentary in ShM and the Nippur duplicates. Luckily, they were preserved almost intact in PA, albeit in lines 38–40 this duplicate furnishes only the nominal component of the sentence (dé-dé-a-zu); the verbal predicate was probably given in this version in the following missing line. It turns out that Inana rejects GilgameÍ’s offer, by stating that she does not need them. 35–37: In these three lines Inana rejects GilgameÍ’s offer with three ridiculing questions. For a close thematic parallel, see again Inana’s answer to Gudam, who entreats her, begging for his life; see Gudam Seg. B 39–42 (according to Alster’s reconstruction): kug dinana-ke4 mu-na-ni-ib-gi4-gi4 gud kur-ra ™á-a[(-ra) Óa-ma-ab-Íúm? tùr-™u10 Óa-ma-ab-lu?] udu kur-ra ™á-a-[(-ra) Óa-ma-ab-Íúm? amaÍ-™u10 Óa-ma-ab-lu?] ‚™iÍŸtukul-Íè ma-‚raŸ-[…..] Holy Inana replied to him: “[You will give] the bulls of the mountains to me, [you will fill my stalls!] [You will give] the sheep of the mountains to me, [you will fill my pens!] (But) the weapon [will be…..] for you!” 126 According to Alster’s reconstruction and translation (contrary to her answer to GilgameÍ’s proposal), Inana accepts Gudam’s offer of bulls and sheep of the mountains, and spares his life. From the two last lines of the Gudam tale (ll. 43–44) Alster concludes that albeit Inana grants Gudam his life, she humiliates him: she confines him to a ditch in the field of Zabalam, and probably reduces him to a position of a donkey driver. The two last lines of the Gudam tale read, according to Alster, as follows: a-Íag4 zabalamki-a dúr ™ar bí-e-™ar-ra e dúr-bi-Íè nú-ba ama-zu anÍe Óa-ra-ab-Óu™-e barag127 al Óu-mu-ra-ab-bé In the ‘Field of Zabalam’, in the ditch—as the lowest place—lie there! Let your mother hire a donkey for you, let her demand a sack for you!” However, the possibility cannot be excluded that Inana, just as in our epic, rejects Gudam’s proposal, and the first two lines of her answer should be reconstructed differently from that of Alster. But even if Alster’s reconstruction of 126. The above translation is based on ETCSL, with Alster’s reconstruction of lines 40–42. 127. So Alster and Gadotti; ETCSL x (sign illegible).

MOBC-1 Page 50 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:40 PM

50

From the Workshop of the Mesopotamian Scribe

these lines is correct, Inana’s answer can be taken to be a sarcastic rhetorical question: “To me you will give bulls/sheep of mountains, you will fill my stalls?!” or the like. As a matter of fact, the phrase ™á-a-[ra] in myths and songs connected to Inana frequently occurs in rhetoric questions in which Inana expresses her exasperation and disappointment. See especially Inana and Enki Seg. H 21–22 a-a-™u10 ™á-a-ra ta-àm gù ba-[an]-kúr dug4-ga zid-da-ni ™á-a-ra ta-àm Íu i-[ni-ib]-bal “How could my father have changed what he said to me? How could he have altered his promise as far as I am concerned?” (cf. ibid. ll. 17–21); cf. also Dumuzi Enkimdu 64: ™á-a-ra engar-e a-na mu-un-dirig‚gaŸ-[àm] “In what is the farmer superior to me?” (cf. ibid. ll. 40; 42). Assuming that Inana rejects Gudam’s offer, we can better understand why she humiliates him. Moreover, there is a remote possibility that, in fact, Inana does not spare Gudam’s life, but destines him to be killed by (his own) weapon (l. 42); and that the imperative sentence e dúr-bi-Íè nú-ba “in the ditch—at its bottom—lie there!” is a metaphor for lying dead in a ditch. For the verb nú occasionally referring to lying on a death-bed or in a grave, see, e.g., LSU 110: lú-lul lú zid-da an-ta nú-ù-è “so that traitors would lie on top of loyal men”; Death of GilgameÍ 1ff.: am gal-e ba-nú Óur nu-mu-un-da-an-zi-zi “The great wild bull has lain down and is never to rise again” passim; 13 ™iÍ-nú nam-tarra-ka ba-nú Óur nu-mu-[e]-da-an-zi-[zi] “(GilgameÍ) lay down on his deathbed, and is never to rise again”; Edena Usa™ake e+149ff. (Cohen 1988 675f.) àm-nú-a-ba “where (DN = a dead god) lies”; SK 25 iv 54 (cf. Krecher, Kultlyrik 155) passim: [a-ra-li d]inana ama[-lul-la àm-nú-a-ri] “Arali, where Inana, the false mother, lies (dead).” The verbal form i-ra-an-dug4 in ShM seems to be a hapax in Sumerian literary texts; see, however, sá i-ra-an-dug4 = ik-Íu!-ud-ka in OBGT IX 124 (MSL 4, 108). See also the variant i-ri-in-dug4 in Enlil-bani A 177. See, however, the grammatically better and earlier form e-ra-an-dug4 in Inana and Enki Seg. H 15: [a-a-™u10 ta]-‚àmŸ e-ra-an-dug4 ta-àm e-ra-[an-taÓ] “What has my father said to you, what has he spoken?” (cf. ibid. ll. 49; 117;151; 186). Note further the repeated verbal form a-ra-gig “it hurts you” in Enki and NinÓursa™ 254 passim; and the verbal forms with the prefix chains a-ra-an- and a-ra-ni-inin Copper and Silver Seg. D 18–20. 38–40: In these three fragmentary lines, partially reconstructed on the basis of ShM and PA, Inana repeats the three types of gifts offered her by GilgameÍ, probably telling him that she does not need them. These lines seems to contain only the nominal part of a sentence (ending with dé-dé-a-zu), with the

MOBC-1 Page 51 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:40 PM

GilgameÍ and the Bull of Heaven

51

expected verbal predicate probably furnished in the line that followed, now missing in PA or hardly legible in ShM (see comment below). For similar thematic parallels to these three lines, see comment to ll. 29–40+ above. 41–49: These lines, preserved only in ShM, are so fragmentary that they defy a safe restoration and coherent translation. Most probably, these lines contained the end of Inana’s answer to GilgameÍ and his going to his mother to report to her of the dialogue between Inana and himself. In the beginning of his report, GilgameÍ probably told his mother where and when Inana had met him prior to her proposal. The beginning of Inana’s speech is obviously reported by GilgameÍ in l. 50 below. 41–42: These two lines, furnished only by ShM and A, are too fragmentary for a coherent translation. While in l. 41 the two versions seem to be parallel, in l. 42 they end with two different verbal roots (ku4 and ™ar respectively). The last five obscure signs in line 41 (=A obv. 23) were read by Cav-AR: -ra x túg-da-a. However, it is preferable to read these traces unug?ki?-Íè? de6?a. We therefore tentatively read the composite line: ‚nin?-zu? x ama? xŸ [x x] unug?ki?-Íè? de6?-a “to your lady, … mother…to Uruk bring them (i.e., the cattle and precious stones)!” (assuming that this line constitutes the end of Inana’s words). If our reconstruction of Inana’s address in which she rejects GilgameÍ’s offer of gifts (ll. 31–42) is correct, the goddess tells him that she does not need his gifts; rather he should bring them to his mother. A similar notion seems to be found in the parallel episode of the late Akkadian version of the GilgameÍ epic, where however this notion is expressed by GilgameÍ himself, in the beginning of his address to the goddess, rejecting her marriage proposal. GilgameÍ opens his address with the following words (Tablet VI 24–28): [What would I give you] if I were to take you in marriage? [Would I give you oil] for (your) body, and clothing? [Would I give you grain] for food and sustenance? [Would I feed you] bread fit for a god? [Would I pour you wine] fit for a king? For a somewhat similar reconstruction of this passage, see Kovacs 1985, pp. 51f.; for a different reconstruction see George 2003, pp. 619f. 43: Line illegible. End of line may read alternatively: ‚ba-x-gaz-eŸ. 46: Cf. disimud(SIG7.PAB.NUN).

MOBC-1 Page 52 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:40 PM

52

From the Workshop of the Mesopotamian Scribe

49: Alternative reading of end of line: ‚KA íl-la-àmŸ x. 50: If our reading and translation of the verb at the end of this line (‚ma?-an-

dug4?Ÿ “she said to me”; ‚mà?-an-dug4?Ÿ cannot be excluded) is correct, GilgameÍ speaks here to his mother, reporting to her Inana’s proposal to him right from the beginning (cf. l. 23 above). We could find only two duplicates of this epic that contain parts of GilgameÍ’s report to his mother of his dialogue with Inana. One of these is UET 6, 616.128 This text, which parallels ll. 26–30 of our edition, is as follows: [ ] x Íu [n]u-‚riŸ-bar-r[e] / [ m]a-an-‚dug4Ÿ ! di! ì-kud-d[è] / [ ] x ma-an-dug ? [ k]i á™ 4 [ ME]S za-e ù-mu-un-b[i- ] / [ ] ga-Ía-an-bi dè-me-è[n]? [ -pà]r?-ra nam-mu-ni-in-[ ] / in-na-‚dug4?Ÿ [ ]-‚sa™Ÿ-™á-‚niŸ [ ] “[ You will render verdict in my holy gip⁄ru,] I will not release you!” — she said to me. “You will exercise judgment [in the Eana], the beloved (house) [of An]” — she said to me. “[Gilga]meÍ, [may you be] its lord, may I be its lady!” “[The (marriage) gifts, Inana], will not be [brought] into your gip⁄ru!” — I said to her. The other source that seems to contain an even greater account of GilgameÍ’s report of this dialogue to his mother, and parallels ll. 31–40 of our edition, is PA (=EES 156; cf. CDLI P273859): 1 [gud] ‚kur-raŸ ga-àm-dé! tùr! 129 ga-àm-x 2 udu kur-ra ga-àm-dé amaÍ ga-àm-x 3 kug? na4gug za-gìn-na ní™-TUR su8-bé-eÍ ‚gaŸ /-àm-dé é-zu ga-àm-x 4 in-nin-e gù ‚pa-ᙟ da PA KA-n[i x]-pa?-á™ 5 gud kur-ra nu-tuku-gin7 dbìl-ga-mes za-ra / a-ba-àm ma-ra-an-‚dug4Ÿ

(= 31) (= 32) (= 33) (= 34) (= 35)

128. For a photograph see CDLI P346653; a transliteration of this text is given by J. Peterson in his unpublished work: The Literary Sumerian Of Old Babylonian Ur: UET 6/3 in Transliteration and Translation with Select Commentary. 129. Or –tùr-zu!.

MOBC-1 Page 53 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:40 PM

GilgameÍ and the Bull of Heaven

53

6 udu kur-ra nu-tuku-gin7 dbìl-ga-mes za-ra / (= 36) a-ba-àm ma-ra-an-dug4 (= 37a) 7 kug na4gug za-gìn-‚naŸ ní™-TUR su8-‚bé-eÍŸ (= 37b) 8 ‚nu?Ÿ-tuku-gin7 dbìl-ga-mes za-ra ‚a-ba?-àm?Ÿ x (= 38)? 9 [gud kur-r]a? ‚KE4?Ÿ-e dé-dé-a-zu (= 39)? 10 [udu kur-ra] ‚KE4Ÿ-e dé-dé-a-zu 11 [kug na4ZA].GUL za-gìn-na ní™-TUR su8-bé-eÍ / KE4-e dé-dé-a-zu (= 40) In view of these parallels, the section following Inana’s proposal (ll. 29–33) must constitute only GilgameÍ’s answer to Inana, in which he rejects her proposal, offering her instead copious gifts, which in turn are rejected by Inana (ll. 34–40). Due to the highly fragmentary state of ll. 41–49, we cannot determine with certainty where Inana’s answer to GilgameÍ ends and where GilgameÍ’s report to his mother begins. In any case, it is reasonable to assume that the present line in ShM 50 corresponds to Ma i 34 (=28g). Consequently, the greater part of GilgameÍ’s report to his mother (Ma i 35–40) and the introduction of his mother’s reply (Ma i 41–42) should be placed after the ShM tablet. For mà- as an Emesal verbal prefix (standing for eme-gi7 ma-) occurring with the verb, cf. fiulgi X 34 ki-nú-a mí mà-ni-dug4-ga-a-gin7 “when he treats me tenderly on the bed.” Dumuzi-Inana C1 Seg. A 12 [ì] sa™ ‚gaŸ sa™ mí ‚dè-mà-abŸ-bé (gloss: [li-ka]-an-ni-a-am) “Let him treat me to the best butter and the best milk!” The verbal for ma-an-dug4-, on the other hand, occurs at least 24 times in literature. Inana and Enki Seg. H 17 lugal-™u10 ™á-a-ra madug4 “My master has spoken to me” (passim 14 x); Gudea CylA 107 é-a-ni dùda ma-an-dug4 “He spoke to me about building his house.”

MOBC-1 Page 54 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:40 PM

54

From the Workshop of the Mesopotamian Scribe SCORE

Catalogue Number ShM Moussaieff Tablet Na Nb Nc Nd Ne Nf Ng Nh Ni Ns

Publication (see pp. 64–66)130

Correspondence obv. = 1–29; rev. = 30–50 ISET 1, pl. 149131 obv. = 11–14a; 29–30 ISET 2, pl. 1132 obv. 1–11133 134 George 2010, p. 103 6?–12? 135 ISET 1, pl. 86136 18?–25 137 unpublished 18–29 George 2010, p. 103138 23–35 ISET 1, pl. 141 18–27 George 2010, p. 103139 21–27

Ni 13230 Ni 9645 3 N-T 917, 387 Ni 4307 13 N 583+N588 3 N-T 902, 94 Ni 9843 3 N-T 906, 227 CBS 3923+N 3629+ N 3636 + N 3648 PBS 5, 27140 Ni 4100 ISET 1, p. 108142

32–42141 27–38

130. For a description of the Moussaieff tablet see pp. 64ff. below. 131. Ur III recension; transliteration by Cav-AR on p. 102; cf. ETCSL (as an appendix to the edition). Translated in ETCSL (ibid.) and by George 1999. The content of this truncated tablet, which originally may have contained ca. 42 lines, can be reconstructed as follows: Hymnic prologue (1*–7*); Ninsun instructs GilgameÍ (8*–18* = +1'–8'); GilgameÍ carries out the instructions (19*–28* = 9'–15+); GilgameÍ, winning a (military/ athletic) contest is observed by Inana (29*–33*); Inana’s proposal (34*–40*); GilgameÍ’s refusal (41*–42* = Lower Edge 1–2). 132. Transliteration by Cav-AR, p. 103. 133. Reverse uninscribed. 134. Transliteration by Cav-AR, p. 104. 135. Line 1' and 7' of this duplicate cannot be correlated with the text and are reconstructed below on the basis of the Moussaieff tablet; the rest of the lines seem to correspond to lines 7, 6, 8–10, 12 of the text. 136. Cf. Cav-AR 1993, pp. 111–13. 137. Transliterated by M. Civil (cf. Cav-AR, p. 101). 138. Photo CDLI P356165. 139. Photo CDLI P356286. 140. Copy of CBS 3923. 141. For a score of the Nippur duplicates (Nd, Ne, Nf, Nh, Ni) see Cav-AR pp. 112–14. 142. Identified and brought to our attention by J. Peterson.

MOBC-1 Page 55 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:40 PM

GilgameÍ and the Bull of Heaven

55

VAT 6281143 VAS 10, 196144 i = 21–37? H 144+H 192 A+nn RA 87, 127–128 (phot.) i = 1–4; 7–8; 10–12; 14; 18–28; 50 (MS MS 2652/2145 CDLI P251677 (photo) Obv 1'–8' = 23–30 PA PARS 12/1, 129 EES 156;146 CDLI P273859 (photo) 31–40 (Ur UET 6, 616147 CDLI P346653 (photo) 27–28 A Ma

1

2

3

4 5

ShM 1 Nb 1 Ma i 1 ShM 2 Nb 2 Ma i 2 ShM 3 Nb 5? Ma i 3 ShM 4 Ma i 6 ShM 5 Ma i 5 Nb 6 (Nc 1')

Íul mè-ka Íul mè-ka en-‚du-ni ga?-an?-duŸ Íul mè-ka Íul m[è] !(AK)-kam Íul mè!-kam in-du-ni ga-an-dug Íul mè 4 d 148 en bìl-ga-mes (x) Íul mè-ka en-du-ni ga-an-du ] en dbìl-ga-[mes en dbìl-ga-mes Íul ‚mè-kam in-du-ni ga-an-dug4Ÿ en na4su11-ku10 ‚ÍulŸ mè-ka en-du-ni ga-an-du en na4su11-ku10 [ ] ! en su-ku10-ku10 Íul mè -kam i[n-du]-ni ga-an-dug4 ní™-erim2 ku5-ku5 bad-bad Íul mè-ka en-du-ni ga-an-du ní™-erim2 du7-du7 Íul mè-kam in-du-ni ga-an-dug4 ™eÍpux(BULUG3) lirum-ma ‚ÍulŸ mè-ka en-du-ni ga-an-du UL nir-ma Íul mè-kam in-du-ni ga-an-dug4 ™eÍpu2 lirum-‚ma ÍulŸ[ ] dbìl]-ga-mes x [ 149 ]) ([

143. This modest extract from our epic corresponds to that part of the dialogue between GilgameÍ and Inana that enumerates the (marriage) gifts offered by the hero to the goddess and subsequently rejected by her. This and PA are the only sources known to us in which the first part of the goddess’ negative answer to the hero is fully preserved. 144. Cf. CDLI P343001 (transliteration by Cav-AR, on pp. 112–14). 145. This duplicate is kept in the Schøyen collection, Oslo, to be edited by Konrad Volk. Note that this duplicate belongs to GilgameÍ’s report to his mother (cf. comment to ll. 23–30) 146. This extract from the epic was brought to our attention by Jeremiah Peterson. For a photo of the same (which was made available to us by Uri Gabbay) see EES, p. 248. 147. Note that this duplicate belongs to GilgameÍ’s report to his mother (cf. comment to ll. 29ff.). 148. Perhaps an erasure of an E. 149. Seemingly, this line corresponds to line 2 above.

MOBC-1 Page 56 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:40 PM

56

6

7

8

9

10

11

From the Workshop of the Mesopotamian Scribe ShM 6 Nb 4 Nc 3' ShM 7 Ma i 4 Nb 3 Nc 2' ShM 8 Ma i 7a Nb 7 Nc 4' ShM 9 Ma i 7b Nb 8 Nc 5' ShM 10 Ma i 8 [Na a-b] Nb 9 Nc 6' ShM 11

Ma i 9 Na 1' Nb 11 Nc 7' 11a Na 2' 11b Na 3' 11c Na 4' 150. 151. 152. 153. 154.

en á kalag-kalag-ga Íul mè-ka en-du-ni ga-an-du en ‚á kalagŸ-kalag-‚gaŸ[ ] [x x x kal]ag-kalag-ga Íul mè-ka en-d[u] á-úr sa6-‚sa6Ÿ Íul mè-ka en-du-ni ga-an-du á-úr sa6-sa6 Íul mè-kam in-du-ni ga-an-dug4 ‚á-úr sa6-sa6Ÿ [ ] ] [ s]a6-sa6 Íul mè-k[a lugal-ra en-‚naŸ? ama-ugu-ni {‚niŸ?}150 gù mu-un-na-‚déŸ? lugal-e en-e ama-ugu-ne-ra ] lugal Íul? ‚amaŸ? x [ [x x] en-e ama-ugu-ni gù mu-n[a] lugal-™u10 i7-‚daŸ e11 saÓar Íu-Íè!? dab5! NAGA-a Á KAL SA°AR ta-a-ni-[x] i7-da NAGA-bí ] lugal-™u10 x x ‚lugalŸ!? [ [x x] i7-da e11-ì saÓar t[u5151-bí-íb?] en-[™]u10 ™iÍkiri6-zu-‚ÍèŸ e11 kí™ zu-ba-ni-ib en-™u10 ™iÍkiri6 ™iÍza-ba-al-Íè? ku4?-bí kí™-a zu-bí [lugal-™u10 ™iÍkiri6 zabalam-Íè? / ku4-ku4 kí™-™á zu-bí? 152 en-™u10 ™iÍkiri6 ™iÍza-b[a-lum? ] ™iÍŸkiri -zu e -ì k[í™ ] [x x] ‚ 6 11 ! en ™i6-par4(KISAL)-ra ku4-ni-ib udu(KU) nir?-ra kí™ zu-‚ba-niib?Ÿ en ™i6-pàr-ta udu nir-ra-àm siki àm-zé sar-sar a ™i6-‚pàrŸ-[ra-kam u6-du ù? x] / si-[ki A SU si23-nì?]153 ‚™i6?-par4?Ÿ [ ] ? enkara(ENŒKÁR)-ni154 [ ] [x x x x x t]ùn ™iÍù dub-‚sa™Ÿ-™á-kam dúr? bi-in-‚™arŸ sug-ga ™ál-la-a-bi lugal-™u10 sug-ga ™ál-la-a-bi / ™iÍ™isal-a gú gur-bí

Or a slightly erased IR. (collation by George 2010, p. 105). These lines are restored at the beginning of the Ur III duplicate on the basis of ll. 9–10. This line is restored on basis of l. 11' (=rev 3). See comment to this line above. The whole line could be a misreading for [pàr]-ra ku4-ì (cf. ShM dupl.).

fiU.N[AGA]

MOBC-1 Page 57 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:40 PM

GilgameÍ and the Bull of Heaven 11d Na 5' 11e 11f 11g 11h 11i

Na 6' Ma i 13 Ma i 14 Na 7' Ma i 15 Na 8'

Ma i 16 11j Na 9' 11k Na 10' 11l Na 11' 12 ShM 12 Nc 8' 13 ShM 13 13a Na 12' Ma i 10 13b Na 13' Ma i 11 14 ShM 14 Ma i 12 Na 14' 14a 15 16 17

Na 15' ShM 15 ShM 16 ShM 17

57

mu-un ™iÍ™isal gi lum-‚lumŸ-ma-a-gin7 / a-a Óu-mu-ri-íbÍúm ní™-dirig-bi sila4 ÀM GAN U6-gin7 / MA a-a Óu-mu-ri-íb-Íúm ní™-erim2-bi za-e fiEN-gin7 x [x x x] x-Íú ama ugu-ne-ra ‚DI? naŸ mu-un-[x]-na-SUM kisal da™al-‚aŸ? é dinana-ka kisal da™al-la [ ] dªIfi.B[≤L-g]a-[mes ™i]Íbulu[™] ?-‚gur Ÿ? / Íu-[ni]? Óu-mu-ni3 10 in-[ti]? dbìl-ga-mes ™iÍbu[lug] ? x [ ] 3 ™iÍ ? ‚lugalŸ-[™]u10 kiri6 zabalam-[Íè] k[u4]-ku4 kí™-™á-zu-n[e]? a ™i6-pàr-ra-kam u6-du-ù? x / si-‚kiŸ A SU nì-si23 RU? ba? UR ‚NEŸ?155 mu?/BÚR? NE ní-te-a-ni sug-ga ‚e11Ÿ?-da ] [ ] x ní-‚teŸ?-[ ? ? 156 lugal-‚™u10Ÿ {‚A.ENGUR -da Ÿ} ‚sugŸ-ga e11-gim ™iÍù dub-sa™-™á-kam dúr bi-in-™ar / sug-ga-a mu-ni-in-lá KAL sa™-™á-ke4 dúr bi-™ar ZI-gin7 fiEN? ‚NE?Ÿ-na lugal-™u10 sug-ga mu-ni-in-lá / ™iÍ™isal gú! nì-gur lugal-e ZI-gin7 fiEN NE-na gi-s[al-la g]ú gúr nun? ™iÍ™isal (GIfi.‚BIŸ.IZ) x PI? a DAR? gi lam?-x-gim? mu-unÍú-Íú nun gi-sal-la gi-lum-lum-ma-g[im x x] x mu-Íi-ib-Íú mu-un ™iÍ™isal-a / gi ‚lumŸ-[lum]-ma-a-gin7 / a-a m[u-na]‚abŸ-Íúm ní™ dirig-[bi sila4 GAN] U6-gin7 / [MA a-a mu-na-ab]-‚ÍúmŸ157 ama? x abzu? [x] x x [m]u-‚unŸ-Íú-Íú x x x x‚é?-gal?Ÿ x x x x mu-un-Íú-Íú ‚é?Ÿ x x [ m]u-un-bal

155. ‚NEŸ or ‚GIMŸ. 156. The complex ‚A.ENGUR?-da?Ÿ is clearly an erasure. 157. The reverse of the Ur III text (Na) breaks down at this point; it resumes on the left edge after an unknown number of lines.

MOBC-1 Page 58 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:40 PM

58

18

19

20

21

22

23

From the Workshop of the Mesopotamian Scribe ShM 18 Ma i 17 Nd 1' Ne 2' Ng 1' ShM 19 Ma i 18 Nb 10? Nd 2' Ne 3' Ng 2' ShM 20 Ma i 19 Nd 3' Ne 4' Nh 1' Ng 3' ShM 21 Ma i 20 Ai1 Nd 4' Ne 5' Nh 2' Ng 4' ShM 22 Ma i 21 Ai2 Nd 5' Ne 6' Nh 3' Ng 5' ShM 23 Ma i 22

sa™ gul-gul-e-‚ne? kisal?Ÿ-[x x] ‚ba?Ÿ-ni-x-x ] sa™!(KA) gul-gul-e-n[e] [ -e-n]e? kisal-‚ÍèŸ? [ ] [x x N]E ki[sal [ ]x[ ] kisal-maÓ-a mè nu-‚™ál?-la?Ÿ lú ‚imŸ-mi-in-d[ab]5?-dab5? kisal-maÓ-e mè!(KIN)-‚aŸ? [ ] kisal m[aÓ x x] x x [ ] [ ]-‚aŸ mè nu-me-a ‚lúŸ [ ] [kisal-ma]Ó-a mè [ ] ] [ n]u-me-a l[ú?] im-mi-i[nu4-bi-a é-lá é-lá-e igi {nu} mu-‚un-ÍiŸ-bar-re ] u4-bi-a ‚é-lá-eŸ? [ [ ] ‚éŸ-lá-e é-lá-‚eŸ [ ] [x (x)] é-lá é-[ ] [ ] é-lá-e [ -l]á-e é-lá-e igi mu-un-[ ] k]ù] ‚dŸinana-ke4 é-lá-e igi mu-un-Íi-bar-‚reŸ ] kug dinana-ke4 [ [ ] x x [x x x] igi ‚mu-unŸ-[ ] ] [ dinan]a-ke4 é-lá-e i[gi dinana-ke [ ] ‚kugŸ 4 ] [ ] dinana-ke4 é--‚eŸ [ dina]na-ke é-lá-e i[gi] ‚mu-unŸ-[ ] [ 4 ‚éŸ-gal abzu-ta é-lá igi mu-un-‚ÍiŸ-bar-re ] é [abz]u2-ta [ [ ] abzu2(DÉ)-ta? é-lá-e? igi mu-un-ba-[ ] ZU].AB-ta é-lá-e igi [ ] [ é-gal ‚abzuŸ-[ ] 158 ] [é]-gal abzu2 -ta é-[ Z]U.AB-ta é-lá-e igi [ ] [ ‚amŸ-™[u]10 ‚lú-mu-dè-enŸ Íu ‚nuŸ-ri-bar-re am m[u-lu]-™u10 im-m[a-ni-ta? Íu nu-ri-bar-re]

158. Copy by Cav-AR (p. 112) points to a defective DÉ.

MOBC-1 Page 59 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:40 PM

GilgameÍ and the Bull of Heaven

24

Ai3 (MS 1' Nd 6' Ne 7' Nf 1' Ng 6' Nh 4' ShM 24 Ma i 23 Ai4 (MS 2' Nd 7' Ne 8'

25

26

159. 160. 161. 162. 163.

Nf 2' Ng 7' Nh 5' ShM 25 Ma i 24 Ai5 (MS 3' Nd 8' Ne 9' Nf 3' Ng 8' Nh 6' ShM 26 Ma i 25

59

‚amŸ-™u10 lú-mu-un-dè-en? Íu nu-ri-bar-re [ Íu nu-r]i-bar-re bí-in-dug4) [x m]u-lu-me-en-dè-en Í[u ] am-™u10 [(x)-l]ú-me-en-dè-en / [ ]-bar-re-en [ me-e]n-‚dè-enŸ159 [x] mu-lu-me-en-dè-en Íu nu-[ ] ] [ ]-™u10 lú-me-en-dè-[ en d‚bìlŸ-ga-mes ‚am-™u10 lúŸ-mu-un-‚dèŸ-en Íu -ri-barre160 dbìl-ga-mes i[m-ma-ni-ta? Íu nu-ri-bar-re] en dbìl-ga-mes am-™u10 lú-mu-dè Íu nu-ri-bar-re (e[n dbìl-ga me]s ‚am-™u10 lú-me-en-dè-en? Íu nu-ri-barreŸ)161 ] [x d]bìl-ga-mes [ [ -d]è-en Íu nu-ri-bar-re-en / [ ]-re-en Íu nuri-bar-re-[x] [ Íu nu r]i-bar-re dbì]l-ga-mes am-™u mu-lu-me-[ ] [x 10 ] [e]n dbìl-ga-mes-‚é?Ÿ [ é-an-na-‚kaŸ? ‚di ìŸ-ku5-‚dèŸ-en Íu nu-ri-bar-re162 é-an-na-™u10 di-[ ] é-a[n-n]a-‚kamŸ di ku5-dè Íu nu-ri-bar-re é-‚an-na ka di ku5Ÿ-dè Íu nu-ri-bar-re) [ ]-dè Í[u ] é-an-[ ] [ Íu n]u-ri-bar-re ] [x x]-‚na-kaŸ di ì-‚ku5Ÿ-dè-[ ] é-an-na-ka di-k[u5™i6-par4(‚KISALŸ) kug-™á ka-aÍ ì-bar-re Íu nu-ri-bar-re163 ™i6-pàr gú-™u10 ka[Í ]

Nf seems to have omitted Íu nu-ri-bar-re in this line. So Klein’s copy; recent collation: Íu -ri-[bar-re]. So George 2003, p.472; photo somewhat unclear. So Klein’s copy; recent collation: Íu nu-ri-ba[r-re]. So Klein’s copy; recent collation: Íu nu-ri-bar-[re].

MOBC-1 Page 60 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:40 PM

60

27

28

From the Workshop of the Mesopotamian Scribe Ai6 (MS 4' Nf 4' Ng 9' Ne 10' Nh 7' ShM 27 Ma i 26 Ai7 (MS 5' (Ur 2' Ne 11' Nf 5' Ng 10' Nh 8' Ns 1' ShM 28 Ma i 27 Ai8 (MS 6' (Ur 3' Ne 12' Nf 6' Ns 2'

™i6-pàr kug-™á ka-aÍ bar-re Íu nu-ri-bar-re ™i6-pàr kug-™á ka-aÍ ì-bar-re Íu nu-ri-bar-re) [… d]i ku5-ru-dé / […]-bar-re 164 [ ku]g-™á ‚kaŸ!-aÍ ì-bar-r[e ] [ ] 165 ™i6-pàr kug-™á ka-aÍ [ ] é-an-na ‚an-né kiŸ á™ di ì-ku5-dè-en Íu nu-bar-re166 é-an-na an-na [ ] é-an-na an-né ki á™ di ku5-dè Íu nu-ri-bar-re é-an-na é an-n[é] ‚ki á™ di? ì-ku5-dèŸ-en Íu nu-ri-bar-re) [é-an-na an-né ki]-á™ di ì-kud-dè / [ma-a]-‚raŸ ma-an-‚dug4Ÿ) [ ] 167 [ d]i ku5-ru-dè / [ ]-bar-re ? ] [x x x x a]n-e ‚ki ᙟ d[i ‚éŸ-an-n[a x] ‚anŸ-‚xŸ[ ] ] [ ] ‚á™? di?Ÿ [ dbìl-ga-mes ‚za-e ù?Ÿ-mu-un-bi-me-en me-‚e Óé-mu-xŸ168 dbìl-ga-mes za-[e ] / ™á-‚eŸ [ ] dbìl-ga-mes za-e ù-NE Óé-me-en za-e GA169 Óé-e dbìl-ga-mes ‚za-eŸ [ù]-‚mu-unŸ-bi dè-mèn / [me-e] ga-Ía-anbi dè-mèn) [dbìl-ga-me]s? za-e ù-mu-un-b[i dè-me-en] / [me]-‚eŸ? ga-Íaan-bi dè-me-e[n]? [dbì]l-ga-[ ]/xx[ ]170 [ -u]n-bi dè-mèn / [ ] dè-mèn [ za]-e lugal [ ]

164. Nf seems to have omitted by homoioteleuton the main (variable) part of this line (™i6pàr kug-™á ka-aÍ bar-re), preserving only the repetitive verb of the indented line (Íu nuri-bar-re). 165. In Cav-AR’s apparatus (p. 113) Ne is blank (or broken). 166. So Klein’s copy; recent collation: Íu [nu-bar-re]. 167. In Cav-AR’s apparatus (p. 113) Ne is blank (or broken). 168. So Klein’s copy; upon collation of the original m[e-e Óé-mu-x] is now broken. 169. So George; Cav-AR gud?. 170. So Cav-AR’s apparatus (p. 113).

MOBC-1 Page 61 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:40 PM

GilgameÍ and the Bull of Heaven

61

ShM 29 n[i™?-b]a? dinana ™[i]6-par4(KISAL)-‚zu?-ÍèŸnam-ba-inku4-k[u]4171 Ai9 ní™-ba dinana ™i6-par4-zu-Íè nam-ba-ni-ku4-ku4 (MS 7' ní™-ba dinana ™i6-par4 x x nam-mu-ni-in-ku4-ku4 / ‚in-neŸ-x) ]-ku4-ku4172 Na l.e. i 1–2 [ ™i6-p]ar4-ra / [ Nf 7' [ nam-b]a?-ni-ib-ku4-ku4-un d]ina[na ] Ne 13' [ ?-Íè nam-b[a?]173 Ns 3' [ z]u 30 ShM 30 dnin-é-gal-la á!174 ‚namŸ-ur-sa™-™á-ka-ni? ‚túgŸ x x x175 dnin-é-gal á nam-ur-sa™-™á-ke -éÍ túg nam-bi-‚dul-eŸ 176 A i 10 4 (MS 8' dnin-é-gal-la ‚á nam-ur-sa™-™áŸ túg? nam-ba-x-dul-e) Na l.e. ii 3–4 [x x x n]am-ur-sa™- /™á-™u10 ‚túg?Ÿnam-ì-dul-e Ns 5' [ ] nam-ur-sa™-[ ] d ? 30a A i 11 inana nin e-sír-™u10 za-e nam-ba-in-kud 31 ShM 31 gud kur-ra ga-àm-tum4? tùr-zu? ga-àm-‚miŸ?-íb-si177 A i 12 gud kur-ra ga-an-dug4 tùr-zu178 ga-bí-sú Nf 8' [ -à]m-mi-ib-si D]U? tùr-zu g[a? ] Ns 6' [ ! tùr!-zu! 179 ga-àm-x PA 1 [gud ku]r-ra ga-àm-dé 32 ShM 32 udu kur-ra ga-àm-‚tum4?Ÿ amaÍ-zu ga-‚àmŸ-m[i-í]b-‚siŸ A i 13 udu kur-ra ga-an-dug4 amaÍ-zu180 ga-bí-sú Ni i 1' [ ]x Nf 9' [ -à]m-mi-ib-si D]U? amaÍ-zu [ ] Ns 7' [ 29

171. So Klein’s copy; recent collation: nam-ba-in-[ku4-ku4]. 172. Lines 29–30 are written in Na on the left edge in two columns. For the possibility that these lines do not correspond to the reconstructed text, see commentary above. 173. Ns inserts here an extra line reading: [ ] na-an-[ ]. 174. The sign looks like a truncated MA°. 175. So Klein’s copy; upon recent collation the last four signs (‚túgŸ x x x) are broken away. 176. So verb collated by George. 177. So Klein’s copy; upon recent collation the last two signs (-íb-si) are broken away. 178. Collation by George 2010, p.105. 179. Or –tùr-zu!. 180. Collation by George 2010, p.105.

MOBC-1 Page 62 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:40 PM

62

From the Workshop of the Mesopotamian Scribe

PA 2 udu kur-ra ga-àm-dé amaÍ ga-àm-x 33 ShM 33 kug na4 ZA.‚GULŸ na4‚za-gìn-na kuÍ?lu?-úb?Ÿ-Íir!-me-eÍ / é-‚zu ga-àm-mi-ni!-ib-siŸ A i 14 kug na4gug na4? 181 i-sur-sur-me-eÍ ga-an-dug4-e : ga-‚bísúŸ182 Ni i 2' […]-mi-ib-si kuÍ?lu?]-úb-Íir-me-eÍ / [x x] ga-àm-mi-ib-si Nf 10' [ n]a4za-gìn tur su-[ ] Ns 8' [ na4gug za-gìn-na ní™-TUR su -bé-eÍ ‚gaŸ /-àm-dé é-zu PA 3 kug 8 ga-àm-x 34 ShM 34 in-nin-e gù!(SAª) ba-‚an-déŸ? K[A]? ì-pa-an-pa-‚anŸ? A i 15 in-nin9-e gù ba-an-dé KA-ni ba-an-pa-an Ni i 3' [ ]-an-pa-an Nf 11' [ ]-an-‚paŸ ?183 pa (erasure) Ns 9' [ ] é ba-ni-[ ]184 PA 4 in-nin-e gù ‚pa-ᙟ-da PA KA-n[i? x]-pa?-á™ 34a A i 16 [dinana-ke4 g]ù ‚ba-an-dèŸ185 KA-ni ba-an-pa-an186 35 ShM 35 gud kur-ra nu-‚tuku-gin7 dbìl-ga-mesŸ [x] x-‚baŸ? i-ra-‚andug4Ÿ A i 17 [x x x x x dGIfi.G]A.NE-mes! za-ra! 187 ma? i-ra-an-dug4 Ni i 5' [ ]-ga-mes / [ ]-dug4 Nf 12' [ ] x e ra a-ba-e-an-dug4 Ns10' [gud kur-ra? ] x mu-e-ni-[ ] PA 5 gud kur-ra nu-tuku-gin7 dbìl-ga-mes za-ra /a-ba-àm ma-raan-‚dug4Ÿ 36 ShM 36 udu kur-ra nu-‚tuku dbìl-ga?-mes!? a?Ÿ-[x] i-ra-an-‚dug4Ÿ A i 18 [x x x x x dGIfi.G]A.NE-mes za-ra-ra ma-an-dug4 Copy has ì?-™ar. Collation by George (ibid.): ga-an-dug4-e : ga-‚bí-súŸ. The PA is erased In lines 34–38, containing the first part of Inana’s answer to GilgameÍ’s counterproposal, Ns seems to deviate substantially from the reconstructed text (see, however, l. 37). 185. Collation by George, ibid. 186. For this line in texts Ni and Nf see Cav-AR, p. 114. 187. Copy has E (for RA). 181. 182. 183. 184.

MOBC-1 Page 63 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:40 PM

GilgameÍ and the Bull of Heaven Ni i 6' Ns11' PA 6 37

ShM 37 A i 19 Ni i 7' Ns 12' PA 7–8

38

39

40

41

ShM 38 A i 20 Ns 13' PA 9 ShM 39 A i 21 PA 10 ShM 40 A i 22 PA 11

[ ]-ga-mes / [ ]-dug4 ? [udu kur-ra ] x mu-e-ni-[ ] udu kur-ra nu-tuku-gin7 dbìl-ga-mes za-ra /a-ba-àm ma-raan-dug4 kug ‚naŸ4gug [x x x] x x Íir!-me-eÍ / ‚nu!?-tuku? ‚d!?Ÿ[b]ìl?-games a-ba!? i-ra-an-dug4 [x x x x x x] x-gim nu-‚tukuŸ dbìl?-ga-‚mesŸ [ ]x ] [kug na4gug na4]za-gìn tur su-b[é? na4gug za-gìn-‚naŸ ní™-TUR su -‚bé-eÍŸ / ‚nu?Ÿ-tukukug 8 gin7 dbìl-ga-mes za-ra ‚a-ba?-àm?Ÿ x gud ‚kur-raŸ? x x [(x x) d]é!?-dé!?-zu [x x x x x x] x [x] x x ] [ ] x-Íè? DU [ [gud kur-r]a? ‚KE4?Ÿ-e dé-dé-a-zu udu ‚kur?-raŸ x [x x d]é!?-dé!?-zu? [x x x x x x Ó]a? [x] x [udu kur-ra] ‚KE4Ÿ-e dé-dé-a-zu ‚na4ŸZA.GUL ‚na4za?Ÿ-g[ìn? x x x x x d]é!?-‚dé!?-zu?Ÿ [x x x x x] Óa?-ra?-x-x-x-NE [kug na4ZA].GUL za-gìn-na ní™-TUR su8-bé-eÍ / KE4-e dé-déa-zu ‚nin?-zu? x ama? xŸ[ x x x x x] dé?-a [x x x x x] ‚unug?ki?Ÿ-Íè? de6-a 188 lugal?-e!? x x lú? [x x x] x NI? [x] ba-Í[i?-i]n?-ku4 [x x x x x –b]i? ib-ta-ni-in-™ar x x x x x x x ‚lú? é? igi!? ba?-Íi?-ni!?-íl?Ÿ ‚d?nin?-sun!?Ÿ x x gù? mu-un-na-dé!?-a ama-‚™u10Ÿ!? x x ‚°AŸ? x x-‚àmŸ AN (d)-SIG7? x x x x x-la?-ni Ufi?-LU? [x] x [x] RI? x x [x] x [x]

43 44 45 46 47

ShM 41 A i 23 ShM 42 A i 24 ShM 43 ShM 44 ShM 45 ShM 46 ShM 47

188.

Cav-AR read ra x túg da-a (see commentary).

42

63

MOBC-1 Page 64 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:40 PM

64

From the Workshop of the Mesopotamian Scribe

48

ShM 48 ‚x x x [x] x a?-ra?Ÿ [x x] ‚xŸ

49 50

ShM 49 x [x] x x [x] ‚dug4?-ga?Ÿ x x x x ShM 50 ‚amŸ-™u10 lú-‚mu-un-dè-enŸ Íu nu-ri-bar-re / ‚ma?-an-dug4?Ÿ Ma i 34 am-™u10 lu-™u10 IM MA NI [TA …] ‚ÍuŸ nu-mu-ni-bar-re

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

189. 190. 191. 192. 193. 194. 195. 196.

THE MOUSSAIEFF TABLET Íul mè-ka Íul mè-ka en-‚du-ni ga?-an?-duŸ en dbìl-ga-mes (x)189 Íul mè-ka en-du-ni ga-an-du en na4su11-ku10 ‚ÍulŸ mè-ka en-du-ni ga-an-du ní™-erim2 ku5-ku5 bad-bad Íul mè-ka en-du-ni ga-an-du ™eÍpux(BULUG3) lirum-ma ‚ÍulŸ mè-ka en-du-ni ga-an-du en á kalag-kalag-ga Íul mè-ka en-du-ni ga-an-du á-úr sa6-‚sa6Ÿ Íul mè-ka en-du-ni ga-an-du lugal-ra en-‚naŸ? ama-ugu-ni {‚niŸ?}190 gù mu-un-na-‚déŸ? lugal-™u10 i7-‚daŸ e11 saÓar Íu-Íè!? dab5! NAGA-a en-‚™u10Ÿ ™iÍkiri6-zu-‚ÍèŸ e11 kí™ zu-ba-ni-ib en ™i6-par4(KISAL)-ra ku4-ni-ib udu(KU)! nir?-ra kí™ zu-‚ba-ni-ib?Ÿ RU? ba? UR ‚NEŸ? 191 mu?/BÚR? NE ní-te-a-ni sug-ga ‚e11Ÿ?-da lugal-‚™u10Ÿ {‚A.ENGUR?-da?Ÿ}192 ‚sugŸ-ga e11-gim nun? ™iÍ™isal(GIfi.‚BIŸ.IZ) x PI? a DAR? gi lam?-x-gim? mu-un-Íú-Íú193 ama? 194 x abzu? x [x] x x [m]u-‚unŸ-Íú-Íú x x x x ‚é?-gal?Ÿ x x x x mu-un-Íú-Íú m]u-un-bal ‚é?Ÿ x x [ sa™ gul-gul-e-‚ne? kisal?Ÿ-[x x]195 ‚ba?Ÿ-ni-x-x kisal-maÓ-a mè ‚nu-me-a?Ÿ lú ‚imŸ-mi-in-d[ab]5?-dab5? u4-bi-a é-lá é-lá-e igi {nu} mu-‚un-ÍiŸ-bar-re196

The blurred sign seems to be an erasure of an E. Or a slightly erased ir. ‚NEŸ or ‚GIMŸ. The complex ‚A.ENGUR?-da?Ÿ is clearly an erasure. Composite text: nun ™isal-la gi lum-lum-ma-gin7 a-a mu-Íi-ib-Íú. Or sila4!?. Nd: kisal-‚ÍèŸ?. Composite text: u4-bi-a é-lá-e é-lá-e igi mu-un-‚Íi-barŸ-re.

MOBC-1 Page 65 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:40 PM

GilgameÍ and the Bull of Heaven

65

k[ù] ‚dŸinana-ke4 é-lá-e igi mu-un-Íi-bar-‚reŸ ‚éŸ-gal abzu-ta é-lá igi mu-un-‚ÍiŸ-bar-re ‚amŸ-™[u]10 ‚lú-mu-dè-enŸ Íu ‚nuŸ-ri-bar-re en d‚bìlŸ-ga-mes ‚am-™u10 lúŸ-mu-un-‚dèŸ-en Íu -ri-bar-re197 é-an-na-‚kaŸ? ‚di ìŸ-ku5-‚dèŸ-en Íu nu-ri-bar-re198 ™i6-par4(‚KISALŸ) kug-™á ka-aÍ ì-bar-re Íu nu-ri-bar-re199 é-an-na ‚an-né kiŸ á™ di ì-ku5-dè-en Íu nu-bar-re200 dbìl-ga-mes ‚za-e ù?Ÿ-mu-un-bi-me-en201 me-‚e Óé-mu-xŸ 202 n[i™?-b]a? dinana ™[i]6-par4(KISAL)-‚zu?-ÍèŸnam-ba-in-ku4-k[u]4203 dnin-é-gal-la á!204 ‚namŸ-ur-sa™-™á-ka-ni? ‚túgŸ x x x205 gud kur-ra ga-àm-tum4?206 tùr-zu? ga-àm-‚miŸ?-íb-si207 udu kur-ra ga-àm-‚tum4?Ÿ 208 amaÍŸ-zu ga-‚àmŸ-m[i-í]b-‚siŸ kug ‚na4ŸZA.‚GULŸ na4‚za-gìn-na? kuÍ? lu?-úb?Ÿ-Íir!-me-eÍ209 / é-zu ‚gaàm-mi-ni!-ib-siŸ 34 in-nin-e gù!(SAG) ba-‚an-déŸ? K[A]? ì-pa-an-pa-‚anŸ? 210 35 gud kur-ra nu-‚tuku-gin7 dbìl-ga-mesŸ [x] x-‚baŸ? i-ra-an-dug4Ÿ 36 udu kur-ra nu-‚tuku dbìl-ga?-mes!? a?Ÿ-[x] i-ra-an-‚dug4Ÿ

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

197. 198. 199. 200. 201. 202. 203. 204. 205.

206. 207. 208. 209. 210.

So Klein’s copy; recent collation: Íu -ri-[bar-re]. So Klein’s copy; recent collation: Íu nu-ri-ba[r-re]. Recent collation: Íu nu-ri-bar-[re]. So Klein’s copy; recent collation: Íu [nu-bar-re]. MS: ‚za-eŸ [ù]-‚mu-unŸ-bi dè-mèn. So Klein’s copy; upon collation of the original m[e-e Óé-mu-x] is now broken. MS: [me-e] ga-Ía-an-bi dè-mèn. So Klein’s copy; recent collation: nam-ba-in-[ku4-ku4]. The sign looks like a truncated MA°. So Klein’s copy; upon recent collation the last four signs (‚túgŸ x x x) are broken away. Lines 29–30 read in A: ní™-ba dinanna ™i6-pàr-zu-Íè nam-ba-ni-ku4-ku4 / dnin-é-gal á nam-ur-sa™-™á-ke4-éÍ nam-bi-dul-e. A: ga-an-dug4. So Klein’s copy; upon recent collation the last two signs (-íb-si) are broken away. A: ga-an-dug4. A: ì?-™ar i-sur-sur-me-eÍ (for ‚kuÍ? lu?-úb?Ÿ-Íir!-me-eÍ). A reads here two lines: in-nin-e gù ba-an-dé KA-ni ba-an-pa-an / [dinana-ke4 g]ù ‚baan-déŸ KA-ni ba-an-pa-an.

MOBC-1 Page 66 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:40 PM

66

From the Workshop of the Mesopotamian Scribe 37 kug ‚na4gug [x x x] x x Íir!-me-eÍ / ‚nu?-tuku? ‚d?Ÿ[b]ìl?-ga-mes a-ba!? i-ra-an-dug4 38 gud ‚kur-raŸ? x x [(x x) d]é!?-dé!?-zu? 39 udu ‚kur?-raŸ x [x x d]é!?-dé!?-zu? 40 ‚na4ŸZA.GUL ‚na4za?Ÿ-g[ìn? x x x x x d]é!?-‚dé!?-zu?Ÿ 41 ‚nin?-zu? x ama? xŸ[ x x x x x] x dé?-a211 42 lugal?-e!? x lú? [x x x] x NI? [x] ba?-[ni-i]n?-ku4 43 x x x x x x x ‚lú? é? igi!? ba?-Íi?-ni!?-íl?Ÿ 44 ‚d?nin?-sun!?Ÿ x x gù? mu-un-na-dé!?-a 45 ama-‚™u10Ÿ!? x x ‚°AŸ? x x-‚àmŸ 46 AN (d)-SIG7?212 x x x x x-la?-ni 47 Ufi?-LU? [x] x [x] RI? x x [x] x [x] 48 ‚x x x [x] x a?-ra?Ÿ [x x] ‚xŸ 49 x [x] x x [x] ‚dug4?-ga? x x x x 50 ‚amŸ-™u10 lú-‚mu-un-dè-enŸ Íu nu-ri-bar-re / ‚ma?-an-dug4?Ÿ

211. 212.

For the reading of text A in this line see commentary to ll. 40–41. Or MUL.SIG7?.

MOBC-1 Page 67 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:40 PM

GilgameÍ and the Bull of Heaven

Moussaieff Tablet Obverse (copy by. J. Klein)

67

MOBC-1 Page 68 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:40 PM

68

From the Workshop of the Mesopotamian Scribe

Moussaieff Tablet Reverse (copy by. J. Klein)

MOBC-1 Page 69 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:40 PM

GilgameÍ and the Bull of Heaven

Moussaieff Tablet Obverse

69

MOBC-1 Page 70 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:40 PM

70

From the Workshop of the Mesopotamian Scribe

Moussaieff Tablet Reverse

MOBC-1 Page 71 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:40 PM

GilgameÍ and the Bull of Heaven

Moussaieff Tablet Right Edge

71

MOBC-1 Page 72 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:40 PM

72

From the Workshop of the Mesopotamian Scribe WORD INDEX a 14 a-ba 35-37 (PA 5–8) á → á kalag-kalag-ga á kalag-kalag-ga 6 á nam-ur-sa™-™á 30 á-úr → á-úr sa6-sa6 á-úr sa6-sa6 7 abzu 15?, 22 am 23–24, 50 ama 41? ama-ugu 8 amaÍ 32 an (DN) 27 AN (d)-SIG7? 46? bad-bad 4 → ní™-erim2 bad-bad bal 17 dbìl-ga-mes 28, 35–37 > en dbìl-ga-mes 31–33, 40 (PA 1, 2, 3, 11) dé(=de6) dè-mèn (ES for ga-me-en) 28 25, 27 di – ku5 1–7 du (=du11) 35–37, 49?, 50? dug4 dul 30 e-sír 30a (A i 11) é 17?, 33, 43? é-an-na TN 25, 27 é-gal 16?, 22 é-lá 20–22 9–10, 12?, 13 e11 en 3, 6, 8, 10–11 → en dbìl-ga-mes dbìl-ga-mes 2, 24 en en-du (=in-du, èn-du) 1–7 na4su -ku 3 en 11 10 gi lum-lum-ma 14 gù – dé 8, 34, 44? gud kur-ra 31, 35, 38

MOBC-1 Page 73 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:40 PM

GilgameÍ and the Bull of Heaven na4gug

gul ™eÍpu2 lirum-ma ™iÍ™isal ™i6-par4 ™i6-pàr kug-™á íd igi – bar íl d inana in-nin ka ka-aÍ – bar kalag ki ki á™a kí™ kí™ – zu ™iÍkiri 6 kisal kisal-maÓ ku4 ku5 ku10 kud kug kuÍ lu-úb-Íir? lú lirum lugal lum-lum maÓ me-e (ES pronoun 1.sg for ™e26) mè mu-lu (ES for lú) NAGA-a nam-ur-sa™

33, 37, 40 → sa™ gul-gul 5 (Nb 6) 14 11, 26, 29 26 9 20–22 43? DN 29, 30a (A I 11) → kug dinana 34 34 26 6 → á kalag-kalag-ga 44? 27 10–11 10–11 10 18 19 11, 29, 42 4 → ní™-erim2 ku5-ku5 3 → en na4su11-ku10 30a (A i 11) 21, 33, 37, 40? 33, 37? 19, 23–24, 42–43?, 50 5 → ™eÍpu2 lirum-ma 8–9, 13 → gi lum-lum-ma 19→ kisal-maÓ 28 19 → Íul mè-ka 23 9 → á nam-ur-sa™-™á

73

MOBC-1 Page 74 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:40 PM

74

From the Workshop of the Mesopotamian Scribe ní-te ní™-ba ní™-erim2 bad-bad ní™-erim2 ku5-ku5 ní™-tur nin d nin-é-gal nir nu-me-a nun pa-an sa6-sa6 sa™ sa™ gul-gul saÓar na4su 11 si su8-bé-eÍ sug Íu Íu – bar Íú-Íú Íul Íul-mè-ka túg tuku tùr ù-mu-un (ES for en) u4-bi-a udu udu kur-ra Úfi-LU

za-e (personal pronoun 2.sg.) na4za-gìn zu

12 29 4 4 40 (PA 11) 30a (A i 11), 41? DN 30 11 19 14 34 → á-úr sa6-sa6 → sa™ gul-gul 18 9 3 → en na4su11-ku10 31–33 40 (PA 11) 12–13 9 23–27, 50 14–16 → Íul-mè-ka 1-7 30 35–37 31 28 20 11 32, 36, 39 47? 28, 30a (A i 11) 33, 37, 40 10–11 → kí™ – zu

MOBC-2 Page 75 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 1:34 PM

II. An Old Babylonian Bilingual Lexical Text INTRODUCTION Since the publication of MSL 1 by Benno Landsberger in 1937,1 and since the appearance of the first two volumes of the CAD in 1956,2 modern Akkadian lexicography has made tremendous progress. Present-day Assyriologists and students of Mesopotamian culture are provided with two comprehensive and highly reliable Akkadian dictionaries,3 as well as with critical editions of most of the works of the ancient Babylonian and Assyrian lexicographers.4 Without these basic tools, it would have been almost impossible to decipher and analyze any newly discovered lexical text, such as the one that is the subject of the present study.5 1. B. Landsberger, Die Serie ana ittiÍu (Materialen zum sumerischen Lexikon 1), Roma 1937. 2. The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, vol. 5 G and vol. 6 ° (Editorial Board: Ignace J. Gelb, Thorkild Jacobsen, Benno Landsberger, A. Leo Oppenheim). 3. CAD and AHw. 4. MSL 1–17; MSL SS 1. See further the preliminary edition of the lexical texts in the Schøyen collection by M. Civil (Civil 2010). 5. A preliminary version of this study had been read as a paper in the 51e RAI (Chicago, July 18, 2005). We dedicated that paper to all those Chicago savants who contributed to the publication of these two monumental lexical series – the MSL and the CAD— and especially to the wondrous quartet without whose dedication and perseverance this project would not have materialized, namely: The giants Benno Landsberger and Leo Oppenheim and their successors Miguel Civil and Erica Reiner. In the last 40 years or so, three major surveys of ancient lexicography and Mesopotamian lexical texts were published: Civil 1975, pp. 123–57; Cavigneaux 1980–83, pp. 609–41; Veldhuis, 1999, pp. 101–15. Further indispensable tools for the study of SumeroAkkadian lexicography are the four volumes of the Pennsylvania Sumerian Dictionary, edited by Åke Sjöberg (A1–3 and B), which has been continued and supplemented in — 75 —

MOBC-2 Page 76 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 1:34 PM

76

From the Workshop of the Mesopotamian Scribe

The text under discussion is inscribed on a large and heavy six-column tablet (with three columns on each side).6 Facing the fifth column of the reverse, six more lines were written on the upper edge.7 The entire tablet contained approximately 332 entries, of which 314 entries8 are in different states of preservation.9 The paleography is late Old Babylonian. Orthographically our text faithfully represents the classical Old Babylonian system of writing: all Akkadian

6.

7.

8.

9.

an electronic form by Steve Tinney and his team (under the titles ePSD and PSDsearch). We were fortunate to use all the above scholarly tools in our present study to our great benefit. We are grateful also to Miguel Civil, Niek Veldhuis, Marten Stol, and Antoine Cavigneaux, who kindly read a first draft of our transliteration and translation of the text, and made useful comments and corrections. Their major contributions to the decipherment of the text will be pointed out in the commentary to the relevant entries below. The tablet measures 17Œ19Œ2 cm. The tablet consists of a join of two pieces (the left piece comprising ca. one third of the tablet, and the right piece ca. two thirds of it), with a deep crack on the lower half of the join. In addition, there are breaks of various sizes on the upper left edge, the lower left edge, the lower right edge, and the lower left corner. Due to these breaks, 5 lines are entirely missing from the top of cols. i and ii (=obv. i and ii); ca. 3 lines are missing from the bottom of col. i (=obv. i); 2 lines are missing from the top of col. iv (=rev. i); 1 line is missing on the bottom of col. iv (=rev. i); and 4 lines are missing from the top of col. vi (=rev. iii). Only the ends of these six lines are preserved. The portion of the upper edge, facing col. iv, most probably was not inscribed. The end of col. vi is broken and, therefore, it cannot be determined whether this column was continued on the upper edge with additional entries or perhaps was inscribed with a colophon. The above traces left on the upper edge most probably constituted the continuation of col. vi (see below comment to the upper edge). These entries are equated to 48 simple basic logograms (i.e., ar, ari, ba13, [bad5-bad5], [bu7], dab5, dib, [du11], dug4, dul, [dúr], e, ég, eÍe2, gal, ™iÍtunu, Óu™, Óul, [igi], inim, isib, kir4, kiri6, ku, kúr, lal, [lilib] (=lib4-lib4), lu, me, mú, mu4, mu4-mu4, nám, nisi, pa4, pi, si12, suÓ5, Íè, [Íe10], Íe10-Íe10, ÍúÍ, ù, udu, ugur2, umuÍ, uÍx?(fiÈ), zì), and 54+ complex logograms (i.e., agrig, aÍki, dala2, eme, emmen(KAxTE), emmen(KAŒA+ME), garadin, gazzir, ™iÍkim, gu7, gug6, Óalib, Óalibza(IGI.KUR.ZA), Óezzir, ibra, igi-bar, igidu8, igi-kár, igi-lá, igi-nim, igi-sa™5, igi-sa™, igi-sig, igidâ (IGI.SA6.A), igiÍtu, ildu, imÓur4, imÓur2, KU?.NI, [la'u6], libir, meli2, mitta, munux(MU.KU), na™a2, namdu, [ni™in7], [numun2], pa5? (PAP.E), pàd, pal(IGI.DU), sipa, sub, sum4, Ía™ar, [Íili]g6, [Íub5], Íudu3, Íukur, taga? (KAŒ?), tukur2 (KAŒfiE), uku2, uri, zaraÓ (KAŒ?)). Thirty lines are mostly broken and contain illegible traces or single signs that do not yield a coherent context.

MOBC-2 Page 77 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 1:34 PM

An Old Babylonian Bilingual Lexical Text

77

words in the nominative or genitive cases keeping their mimation, with very few exceptions.10 For the writing of Akkadian lexemes the scribe uses only short syllabic signs (i.e., CV, VC or V signs), except for words in the nominative case ending with mimation, which are frequently written with long Cum signs.11 The pronunciation glosses are also, as a rule, written with short syllabic signs except for a few.12 Some of the short syllabic signs used by our scribe are typical of Old Babylonian or earlier practices.13 Each entry in our tablet consists of a simple or complex Sumerian logogram, with a pronunciation gloss on its left,14 and an Akkadian translation on its right. The obverse is written with smaller signs than the reverse. The first two columns are covered with scratches, which makes them difficult to read. The reading of the text as a whole is hampered by two additional facts: The complex logograms, especially on the obverse, are written in petite characters, and very often it is difficult to determine the petite sign written within another sign. This is especially true as to the complex KA signs, which occupy the entire first column and the greater part of the second column. Another more serious factor is the uneven state of preservation of the various entries: Of the 314 extant lines, 30 are severely damaged and practically illegible. In many other lines one or two of the three constituents are missing. Consequently, we were able to determine with a great measure of certainty about 250 entries.

10. Cf. ru?-u‰-‰ú?-nu (i 34'), ge-Íu-ú (ii 19), a-na-ku (iv 27), na-gu-ú (v 12). 11. The ratio of Cum signs to Cu-um signs in word finals is as follows (the number of occurrences of each sign is indicated in parenthesis): dum (1), gum (2), Óum? (1) / Óu-um (6), kum (8) / ku-um (2), lum (16) / lu-um (3), núm (2) / nu-um (11), qum (11) / qúum (6), rum (26) ru-um (6), ‰um (5) / ‰ú-um (2), Íum (9), and tum (49) / tu-um (2). For words in the genitive case, the scribe, as a rule, uses Ci-im signs, with the exception of the syllable -tim, which is written with TIM (4). See p. 158 below. 12. nam-du (i 17'), Ía-™ar (i 21'), igi-du (iii 22), igi-kár (iii 25), igi-nim (iii 26), igi-sig (iii 27), igi-sa™ (iii 28), igi-sa™5 (iii 30), ‚igi-iÍ?-tuŸ (iii 34), igi-bar! (iii 36), igi-lá! (iii 38), ™iÍtu-nu (iv 13), sar (v 22), kur (v 36), nam! (vi 44). Cf. also PAP.E (v 42), to be read pa5 or pa4-e. 13. I.e., bá, íb?, né, qá, sà (but cf. sa in i 40'), ‰ú, ˇù, ú, u11. Note the following rare exceptions in which Akkadian words are written with VCV or CVC signs: aga (v 16), ™eÍ (iv 13), Óal! and perhaps tuÍ (i 37'). 14. In fact, the pronunciation gloss is written only in the first line of a homogenous group of logograms, leaving empty space in the other lines of the relevant group.

MOBC-2 Page 78 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 1:34 PM

78

From the Workshop of the Mesopotamian Scribe

Our lexical text is a syllabary,15 typologically very similar but by no means identical to the Proto-Ea and Proto-Aa syllabaries.16 A survey of Proto-Ea indicates that so too this syllabary is constructed partly on the basis of the principle of paleography.17 However, this principle is applied in Proto-Ea only to a relatively small number of groups of similar signs. Cf., e.g., Proto-Ea 1ff. (MSL 14, 30ff.).18 On the one hand there seems to be no graphic similarity between the rather small A section (ll. 1–9) and the following large section, which begins with KU and ends with TÚG (ll. 10–70);19 on the other hand, there seems to be no graphic continuity between the above section and the one beginning with ME and ending with LÁL (ll. 71–80).20 Here there is a 15. For the description of syllabaries see Civil, MSL 14, p. 85; Cavigneaux 1980–83, p. 620, §11; Civil 2010, pp. 3ff.; Veldhuis 2014, pp. 178–82. With “syllabary” we mean a word list with basically two columns: the first column is a pronunciation gloss and the second column is a Sumerian logogram (in Civil’s numerical code: 1-2), such as Proto-Ea (cf. MSL 14, pp. 30ff.). This basic list is occasionally supplemented with a third column providing the Akk. translation of the Sumerian logogram (in Civil’s code: 1-2-4). 16. Cf. Miguel Civil’s masterful edition of these syllabaries in MSL 14, 83ff.; 118ff. See also Civil’s transliteration of a MB recension of Ea VII from the Schøyen collection that exhibits the same three-column entries. 17. By the term “paleography” we refer to a principle of organization of lexical entries based on the similarity of the signs: each sign is followed by a graphically similar sign (cf. also Civil, MSL 14, 116, sub No. 5). Within this principle of organization, there are frequently groups of signs arranged on the basis of acrography, i.e., a basic simple sign is followed by its complex derivatives, e.g., KA followed by a number of complex KA signs (e.g., KAŒME, KAŒªAR, KAŒA and so on). For the term “acrography,” and for further lexical lists based partly on this principle, see Civil, MSL 13, pp. 3–4. For the organization of the columns in the various lines in Ea, cf. Civil’s important introduction to MSL 14, pp. 4ff. For a general survey of the typology of Sumerian lexicographical lists cf. Civil 1975, pp. 125–26. 18. For a more comprehensive and systematic survey of the paleographic structure of ProtoEa see Edzard 1982. Edzard isolated no less then 57 sections in this 918 line long syllabary, trying to explain the logic behind the present order of the sign groups. In some cases where he could not find a graphic connection between the sign groups, he resorted to other criteria, such as vocal or thematic similarity. Some of the differences between his explanations and ours will be pointed out in the following footnotes. 19. For the graphic similarity and continuity between this rather large group signs see Edzard’s plausible explanation (ibid. p. 45). 20. Contrary to our above analysis, Edzard sees in Proto-Ea 1–80 one large section, which in his opinion is built in a bow-like fashion: it begins with simple signs, continues with complex signs, ending again with simple signs, the dominant form in all of the signs being verticals.

MOBC-2 Page 79 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 1:34 PM

An Old Babylonian Bilingual Lexical Text

79

sharp graphic break in the list and the following rather small section consists of simple signs with two slanted crossing (or meeting) each other (ll. 81–97), followed in turn by a small section based generally on horizontal wedges (ll. 98–145).21 See also the group that includes the KA section in Proto-Ea (ibid., pp. 43ff.). The group begins with SAª (ll. 292–302), followed by the graphically similar KA (ll. 303–34a).22 Here, the graphic similarity principle seems again to break down, because the KA section is followed by KAL.23 The majority of these sign-groups in Proto-Ea range from two to six similar signs.24 Sign-groups consisting of ten similar signs or more are extremely rare.25 It is interesting to note that in spite of the fundamental differences in paleographical structure between Proto-Ea and ShM, both syllabaries end with a LAGAB section.26 A similar structure can be observed in the context of the ME section in Izi E i 1ff. (MSL 13, 185ff.). Tablet E begins with the ME section, ending with me-te (l. 92). This is followed by the TE section (ll. 93–110). After a lacuna of

21. If we accept Edzard’s above division of the first 145 lines of Proto-Ea as having three sections, we may assume that the aim of the compiler of this syllabary was to alert his students to the fact that cuneiform writing is based on three main positions of wedges: vertical (ll. 1–80), slanted (81–97), and horizontal (98–145). 22. Note that Edzard (ibid. p. 48) assumes a basic graphic similarity between ABZU and SAª, and therefore he regards the group beginning with KU7 and ending with KA (ll. 283– 334a) as one section (No. 14; see ibid. p. 48). 23. Unless we attribute the sequence to the assonance between /ka/ and /kal/ (so Edzard, ibid.). 24. The following figures indicate the number of signs in the various sign-groups, and (in parenthesis) the total number of the respective sign-groups in Proto-Ea: 2(Œ10), 3(Œ11), 4(Œ6), 6(Œ6). 25. Except for the large section beginning with KU and ending with TÚG (ll. 10–70), in ProtoEa Edzard could find only one group of ten similar signs (ll. 71–97: ME – LÁL – PAP – SILA3 – fiITA – DÙ – KAK – IR – NI), one group of 11 similar signs (ll. 98–133: Afi – DIfi – BAD – IDIM – U – MAfi – BAR – fiÛ – °U – RI – BURU5), and one group of 15 similar signs (ll. 219–55: KISAL – É – Ú – SA – LU° – SUKKAL – DAG – KÁ – fiIDŒA [mezem] – KID – Ifi –°ÚL – GIDIM – UDUG –GUKKAL). 26. Note, however, that while Proto-Ea ends with a minor, mere three-line, LAGAB section, indicating the logogram for napÓarum “sum” (ll. 916–918: LAGAB, fiU.LAGAB, and fiU.LAGAB.LAGAB; cf. Edzard’s comment [ibid. p. 55]), it places its major LAGAB section quite at the beginning of the list (ll. 27–57), following the KU section (ll. 10–26). In the ShM syllabary, the major and only LAGAB section seems to close the list (cf. vi 55-UE 6).

MOBC-2 Page 80 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 1:34 PM

80

From the Workshop of the Mesopotamian Scribe

52 lines, the text resumes with the Afi/DILI section (ll. 165–237), followed by KUL/NUMUN (ll. 238–49a), the graphic sequence breaking down again.27 One can find parallels to single entries or groups of two or three entries in our syllabary in other syllabaries or even thematic lists, but the basic structure of our vocabulary is still similar to (Proto-)Ea/Aa and its forerunners. Our syllabary contains a list of simple, basic, logograms/signs, each followed by its complex derived forms. The order of the basic logograms/signs is as follows: KA, IGI, fiÚ (AR?, IGI+?), PI, SIG7, GAL, ME, LAL, ZI+ZI.LAGAB, URI, GARADIN, SAR, PAP, E, KU, LU, DIB, fiÈ, DUL, TÚG, LAGAB.

A casual look at the above list reveals that the author arranged the signs in his vocabulary on the basis of graphic concatenation: each sign contains one of the graphic components of the preceding sign. On the basis of this associative, binding principle, the entire list of signs falls into three groups.28 The first group is KA and its derivatives, i.e., compound forms (i 6'–ii 41'); the second group is IGI with its derivatives29 and the twelve signs that graphically concatenate from it (ii 42'–v 31); and the third group is PAP and the nine signs that graphically concatenate from it (v 32–vi 58+).30 The reason for this particular sequence of basic sign forms (KA– IGI–PAP) in our syllabary is not immediately apparent. Note, however, that ka “mouth” and igi “eyes” designate the two most important organs located on the human face, providing the two major faculties required for learning: speech and sight. That the third large group begins with PAP seems to be unexplainable.31 The group of signs that concatenates from IGI and its derivatives begins with fiÚ, which is identical to the first two wedges of IGI.32 This is followed 27. See further Civil, MSL 13, pp. 3–4; 179f. 28. The last 7 lines of the KA section (ii 35'–41') are heavily damaged and therefore we can only make a guess as to the complex KA sign, which served as the associative link between the KA section and the IGI section (which no doubt begins in ii 42'). We assume that the three entries preceding IGI = ‹num contained the logogram KAŒIGI, since this sign under the value Íilig7 is a graphic variant to Íilig(URUŒIGI), one of the Sumerian equivalents to petûm (cf. ii 40'). See comment to ii 39'–41' below. 29. I.e., ii 42'-iii 42. 30. For the following description of the graphic concatenation, which served our scribe to arrange the logograms in his syllabary, see below p. 142. 31. Note, however, that GARADIN, which precedes here closely the PAP section, is written with a double PAP (i.e. U?.PA.GAR+U?.PA.GAR). One can see in this fact a sort of concatenation. 32. The Íú section seems to correspond to ll. iii 43–iv 10. However, the last ten lines of this section are severely damaged and therefore it is difficult to identify the logograms in these lines (see comment to iv 5–7 below).

MOBC-2 Page 81 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 1:34 PM

An Old Babylonian Bilingual Lexical Text

81

by PI, which is basically fiÚ, supplemented by a slanted wedge on the left and a horizontal wedge on the right (iv 11–13). The SIG7 sign, which follows (iv 14–20), is nothing but an IGI-gunû. Take out the slanted wedge from the SIG7 and you get a perfect GAL (iv 21–23). Drop the three or four horizontals from the GAL and you get a perfect ME (iv 24–32). Raise the horizontal of the ME a bit and you get a perfect LAL (iv 33–v 12). The last two entries of the LAL section are: USAR2 (=LAL.SAR) and NIªIN7 (=LAL.LAGAB). The connecting link between these two logograms, and their following ZI+ZI.LAGAB33 is the final LAGAB sign.34 Since the following URI (v 16–20), in one of its forms, consists of two ªAR-gunû on top of each other, it recalls the form of ZI+ZI.LAGAB, in which the two ZI signs are written on top of each other. URI is followed by GARADIN (v 21), one of whose old forms consists of two fiE.ªAR-gunû signs on top of each other. The double fiE at the beginning of the GARADIN sign reminds our lexicographer of the SAR sign, which is nothing but a combination of fiE and LAGAB (v 22–31). Here we come to a dead end and a new beginning. The third group of our new vocabulary begins with the PAP sign (v 32– 41), from which all the rest of the signs derive by graphic concatenation. Thus, from PA5, which is a combination of PAP and E (v 42–45), the lexicographer shifts to E, by dropping the PAP (v 46–v 51). From E he shifts to KU (v 52–vi 14), by simply dropping the final broken vertical of the E. From KU he shifts to LU/DIB by adding to the KU a middle vertical (vi 15–27).35 Adding two or three horizontals to KU, he gets a fiÈ (vi 28–38). Adding a slanted wedge in front of the fiÈ he gets a DUL sign (vi 39–41). Finally dropping the above slanted wedge he gets a perfect TÚG.36 Our scribe seems to end his syllabary with the LAGAB sign, which he obtains by deleting the internal horizontals.37

33. Cf. v 11–15. 34. Cf. v 11–12 to v 13–15. 35. Admittedly the middle vertical in our original is hardly visible. Nor can we observe a difference in form between the LU and DIB signs (cf. Mittermayer 2006, nos. 416 and 419, according to which these two signs are slightly different in their form). 36. Lines vi 42–54. Since in OB paleography the difference between fiÈ and TÚG is minimal or nil (cf. Mittermayer 2006, Nos. 417 and 420), we can see ll. vi 28–vi 54 as an extended fiÈ section, interrupted with a three-line DUL section. 37. Lines vi 55–56. The last two lines of the text (57–58) are illegible.

MOBC-2 Page 82 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 1:34 PM

82

From the Workshop of the Mesopotamian Scribe

As we observed before, the basic typology of our text is that of (Proto-) Ea/Aa. However, while the canonical Ea, being a comprehensive syllabary, equates the Sumerian logograms only to their few basic Akkadian equivalents, our text, similarly to Proto-Aa and the canonical Aa, provides certain logograms, including the simplest ones, with many Akkadian synonymous translations. As to the specific order of the basic signs, the order of the Akkadian equivalences, and the internal order within each group of logograms, our text substantially differs from Ea and Aa and their forerunners, as well as from other parallel canonical vocabularies. This will be demonstrated below in a detailed discussion of the KA and the IGI sections. Our tablet also contains a number of unique complex logograms,38 seemingly hitherto unattested pronunciations of known logograms39 and hitherto unattested lexical equations.40 Finally, our scribe has a strong tendency to simplify Sumerian complex verbs (by dropping their nominal element)41 and Sumerian complex nouns.42 38. These are: emmen(KAŒTE), emmen(KAŒA+ME), Óalibza(IGI.KUR.ZA), igidâ(IGI.SA6.A), munux(MU.KU), taga?(KAŒ?), uÍx?(fiÈ), zaraÓ(KAŒ?). 39. These are: gazzir, Óezzir, ibra, namdu, pa5?(PAP.E). 40. Hitherto unattested lexical equations: dug4 = mag⁄rum (i 11'); emmen!(KAŒA+ME) = Óappum (i 26'); Óu™ = naÍûm (vi 38); igi = m⁄tum (ii 45'); igi-du8 = kullumum (iii 23); inim = awûm (i 14'); KAŒBAD = ÍiÓˇum (ii 30'), urÓuÍÍum (ii 31'), Íaqummatum (ii 34'); KAŒBAL = geÍû (ii 19'), giÍûtum (ii 20'), a’ûm (ii 21'); KAŒNE? = Íuqqûm (ii 16'), duqququm (ii 17'), Íutablakkutum (ii 18'); KAŒUD = ‰‹Óum (i 33'), ru‰‰unum (i 34'), aluzinnum (i 36'); KAŒ? = kar‰um (ii 35), watr⁄tum (ii 36), Óuttum (ii 37'), lemnum (ii 39'), petûm (ii 40'); KU = lalûm (vi 8); tukur2(KAŒfiE) = kas⁄sum (ii 27'), kus⁄sum (ii 28'), Óar⁄‰um (ii 29'); kúr = tapp⁄tum (v 40); lal = itappu‰um (iv 35), rak›bum (iv 37), nadûm (iv 42), maq⁄tum (iv 43), Íatûm (iv 47), maÓ⁄‰um (iv 49), n¤rabtum (iv 51), Íudlupum (iv 54); munux(MU!.KU) = utullum (vi 14); nám = igûm (vi 45); pa4 = sinniÍtum (v 35); sar = n¤rubum (v 25), kuÍÍudum (v 26), ‰ab‹tum (v 28); si12 = raˇbum (iv 17); Íilig6 = qarr⁄dum (i 43'), dannum (i 45'), qur⁄dum (i 46'); ÍúÍ = napsamum (iii 45); ù = u (iii 7), n¤beÓum (iii 8); udu = aw‹lum (vi 19); ugur2 = Íimt⁄n (iv 20); uku2 = Íaplum? (v 6), almattum (v 8), katûm (v 9), enÍum (v 10); uri = fiumerûm (v 17). Note further the following Akk. words in our tablet whose derivatives (but not themselves) are equated to Sum. logograms in the syllabaries: ad⁄rum, al⁄tum, barûm, em¤‰um, kar⁄bum, kubrum, kuttumum, litbuÍum, lu’’utum, naÍÍ⁄Óu, naw⁄rum, nisqum, pat⁄lum, rub⁄tum, surrurtum, surrurum, ‰um⁄m‹tum. 41. These are: dug4 for a–dug4 (i 11'–12'); lal for úr-lá (iv 50); lal for Íà-lá (iv 52); sar for Íu-sar (v 23). See further dug4 for dug4-ga = qib‹tum (i 10'). 42. These are: dib for i-dib (vi 27); dib for giÍig-dib (vi 26); dul for túg/gadaan-(ta-)dul (vi 40); dúr for ™iÍdúr-™ar (v 55); eÍe2 for éÍ-má-laÓ4 (vi 33); emmen(KAŒTE) for imminte ([KAŒME+TE]) (i 38'); GAL for GAL-gullu? (iv 23); igi-lá for igi-tum4-lá (iii 38); kir4 for

MOBC-2 Page 83 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 1:34 PM

An Old Babylonian Bilingual Lexical Text

83

Accordingly, our text most probably belongs to a peripheral Mesopotamian scribal center.43 Let us now subject two sections of our text to a closer scrutiny, namely the KA and the IGI sections; occasionally we will compare them with their parallels in Ea and its forerunners. Through this survey we hope to get a better insight into the aims of the author of this vocabulary and his way of thinking. Our text begins with a long KA section comprised of about 35 Sumerian values.44 For comparison, the KA section in Proto-Ea contains 33 values,45 out of which at least 16 overlap with our text.46 The KA section of Tablet III of the late canonical Ea, on the other hand, contains more than 55 Sumerian values47 of which at least 16 overlap with our text.48 Thus, with regard to the Sumerian values, our text has a KA section comparable to that of Proto-Ea, which is about two-thirds of the KA section of canonical Ea.49 The first eight lines in our text are either lost or hopelessly damaged, but in view of parallel KA sections in other syllabaries we may assume that our tablet must have begun with the two entries ka (=pûm) and zú (=Íinnum) or vise versa,50 similar to Proto-Ea and Sa and Sb.51 The exact number of entries (i.e., Sumerian-Akkadian lexical equations) originally in the KA section of Secondary Proto-Ea/Aa cannot be determined, but it must have contained at least 36 such entries.52 Of these we could find

43. 44. 45. 46.

47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52.

kir4-Óab (i 16'); kúr for sal-kúr or nam-kúr (v 39); lal for úlal (iv 41); lal for ™iÍlá (iv 46); ugur2 for ugur2-igi (iv 19). This had already been observed by Lambert, who was the first to identify the tablet as an Old Babylonian syllabary. Of these, 25 values are preserved. Cf. Proto-Ea 303–34 (MSL 14, 44–45). For the overlapping values see comment to i 6'–ii 41' below. Admittedly, these extremely low figures of correspondences may be due to the fragmentary state of the KA section in our text; if we could reconstruct this entire section, the figures would perhaps turn out to be somewhat higher. Ea III 61–133 (MSL 14, 306–9). Cf. comment to i 6'–ii 41' below. See p. 143. Less likely, our KA section could have begun with pi4 (cf. Sa 105–10 [MSL 3, 21–22]). Cf. comment to i 6'–ii 41' below. Cf. Secondary Proto-Ea/Aa, No. 16: obv. 1–24; rev. 1'–12' (MSL 14, 137–38); followed by a minimum 10-entry SAª section. This source, according to Civil belongs perhaps

MOBC-2 Page 84 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 1:34 PM

84

From the Workshop of the Mesopotamian Scribe

only seven entries that overlap with our text, but this is certainly due to the fragmentary state of the two sources. On the other hand, the KA section in the late canonical Ea contained originally 71 lexical entries.53 Thus, surprisingly, the number of lexical entries in the KA section of our syllabary exceeds that of canonical Ea by about 25 percent. Out of these at least 12 entries overlap with our text.54 However, some of the more complex syllabaries and thematic lexical texts contain even longer lists of compound nouns and verbs with KA and its derivatives. Thus, e.g., Kagal D contains a list of at least 130 entries with KA and its derivatives;55 and the Sag-Tablet contains a minimum of 134 such entries.56 In Diri we could not find a significant concentration of compound words with KA and its derivatives.57 The long KA section in our text is followed by a 54-entry IGI section. The sequence KA – IGI is unparalleled in any of the other Ea-type syllabaries and vocabularies; in fact, this sequence is attested only in the Sag-Tablet.58 As to the internal organization of the KA section in our text, we can make the following observations: the simple value du11/dug4 was provided with no less than seven Akkadian equivalents, including qabûm, qíb‹tum, mag⁄rum, and mak⁄rum (i 9'–12'); the value inim was provided with two equivalents: aw⁄tum and awûm (i 13'–14'); and kir4 with two equivalents: appum and b›Íum (i 15'– 16'). This is followed by single entries of the complex signs namdu (KAŒNUN), eme, gu7, and na™ (i 17'–20'). This in turn is followed by three translations of the logogram Ía™ar, namely bub›tum, em¤‰um and barûm (i 21'– 23'). The next complex KA sign is KAŒA+ME(=emmen), translated with the Akkadian nouns ‰›mum, ‰um⁄m‹tum and Óappum (i 24'–26'). Then the lexico-

53. 54.

55. 56.

57. 58.

to a secondary branch of Proto-Ea; however it could equally belong to a secondary branch of Proto-Aa. Cf. note 117 below. I.e., dug4 (=qabû), dag5 (=qabû), eme (=liÍ⁄nu), nundun (=Íaptu), su4 (=ziqnu), Íilig6 (=Íagap‹ru), Íudu3 (=ikribu), gu7 (=ak⁄lu), Íagar (=barûm/b›ru), na™ (=Íatû), immin2 (=‰›mu), immin(te) (=laplaptum). See Kagal D Sect. 3-Sect. 11 (MSL 13, 244–49). The KA section is preceded by a minimum 17-entry IM section, and followed by a minimum 90-entry SAª section. See SAG A ii 29–v 40 (MSL SS 1, 20–26). The list is preceded by a minimum 88-entry SAª section (connecting link: KIfiI4 – a sign resembling to both SAª and KA); and followed by a 67-entry IGI section. For small, sporadic, KA sections see Diri I 48–63 (MSL 15, 106ff.). See SAG A ii 29–v 40 (MSL SS 1, 20–26); cf. comment to i 6'–ii 41' below.

MOBC-2 Page 85 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 1:34 PM

An Old Babylonian Bilingual Lexical Text

85

grapher allows one entry to SU6 – ziqnum, which he pronounces /sum/ (i 27'). Thereafter, he continues with three translations of the logogram meli2 (KAŒLI), namely nemlûm, al⁄tum and lu’’utum (i 28'–30'). This is followed by Íudu3(KAŒfiU) translated as ikribum and kar⁄bum (i 31'–32'). From here to the end of the KA section the text becomes somewhat fragmentary and only partly legible. The logogram in ll. i 33'–36' seems to be KAŒUD, equated to two Akkadian (cultic or social) professional terms (namûtum and aluzinnum) and two related (verbal) nouns (‰‹Óum and ru‰‰unu). The remaining legible logograms in col. i are: emmen (KAŒTE), Akkadian laplaptum (i 38'); zaraÓx (KAŒ?), Akkadian naÍ⁄kum and nissatum (i 39'–40'); gug6 (KAŒKAK), Akkadian Íinnum and kakkum (i 41'–42)'; Íilig6 (KAŒfiID), Akkadian qarr⁄dum, Íagap‹rum, dannum and qur⁄dum (i 43'–46'). The first 15 lines or so of col. ii are partly missing (ll. 1'–5') or illegible (ll. 6'–15'). The first legible logogram in this column with an unknown reading is KAŒNE, equated to Akkadian Íuqqûm, duqququm, and Íutablakkutum (ii 16'–18'); followed by the logogram KAŒBAL, Akkadian geÍû, giÍûtum and a’ûm (ii 19'–21'); sub(=KAŒGA), Akkadian na‰⁄bu, naÍ⁄qum and en¤qum (ii 22'–26'); KAŒfiE, Akkadian kas⁄sum, kus⁄sum, Óar⁄‰um (ii 27'–29'); KAŒBAD, Akkadian ÍiÓˇum, urÓuÍÍum and Íaqummatum (ii 30'–34'). After four more lines with illegible logograms (equated to Akkadian kar‰um, watr⁄tum, and Óuttum), the KA section probably ended with the logogram KAŒIGI, equated to Akkadian lemnum, petûm and kaksikka (ii 39'–41').59 The above assumed KAŒIGI was probably the link to the following IGI section, which must have begun at col. ii, line 42', because the Akkadian column in this line contains the word ‹num, followed by p⁄num, z‹mum, m⁄tum, maÓar (ll. 42'–46'). Thereupon followed five lines with the logogram IGI.IGI, equated to sarrum, surrurum, surrurtum, patiam ‹nim and dabdûm (ii 47'– 51'). After two illegible lines, occurs the single entry: agrig (IGI.DUB) = abarakku (iii 1), followed by 41 complex logograms, all with IGI as the first component. These are: PÀD (iii 2–4); LIBIR (iii 5–8); SIG5 (iii 9–10); °UL (iii 11); IGI.KAK (iii 12–13); IGI.DIM (iii 14–16); IGI.A and IGI.KAfi (iii 17–18); IGI.KUR and IGI.KUR.ZA (iii 19–21); IGI.DU° (iii 22–24); IGI.KÁR (iii 25); IGI.NIM and IGI.SIG (iii 26–27); IGI.fiID (iii 28–29); IGI.SAª (iii 30–31); IGI.SA6.A (iii 32–33); IGI.DU (iii 34–35); IGI.BAR (iii 36–37); IGI.LÁ (iii 38– 40); IGI.NAGAR.BU and IGI.fiÈ.DU.ERIN2 (iii 41–42).60 59. Cf. comment to ii 39'–41' below. 60. Cf. the corresponding sequence in OB Diri Nippur 114–60 (MSL 15, 16–19): IGI.IGI (114–21), IGI.DU (121–26b), IGI.fiÈ.DU.ERIM (127–28), IGI.fiÈ (129), IGI.DUB (130–34),

MOBC-2 Page 86 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 1:34 PM

86

From the Workshop of the Mesopotamian Scribe

If we compare the 54-entry IGI section in our tablet to the 17 extant parallel entries in Ea V,61 we find only seven corresponding entries.62 The twelve-entry IGI section in Sb Voc. I,63 on the other hand, exhibits six full64 and three partial65 correspondences with our text. As one would expect, the corresponding IGI sections in Diri are longer and exhibit more correspondences with our syllabary. Thus, OB Diri Nippur has a 47-entry IGI section, with 11 correspondences with our text;66 and the canonical Diri II has a 105entry IGI section, with at least 19 correspondences.67 There are some peculiar and interesting items, as well as smaller groups of signs, in our unique syllabary, that warrant special comment. (a) Three times our scribe uses the term KA.KA.SI.GA in the Akkadian column in the following, hitherto unknown, spellings: ka-ak-si-ik-ka (ii 41'), ka-ak-si-ig (iv 12) and ka-ak-si-ka (vi 21), all indicating the pronunciation /kaksig(a)/.68 The second instance is very interesting, for it glosses the PI sign with the pronunciation gloss e, and defines it as ka-ak-siig, i.e., a meaningless syllabic value of the sign. Probably, the scribe meant to say that the PI sign can be used to write the syllables /we/ and /ew/, as well as /’e/ and /e’/.69

IGI.A (135), IGI.KAfi (136), IGI.KUR (137–41), IGI.KAK (142–45), IGI.DIM (146–49), GIfi.IGI.TUR.TUR (150–52), IGI.ERIN2 (153–55), IGI.É (156–59), IGI.NAGAR.BU (160). The IGI section is followed here by SIG7. ALAN.

61. This IGI section in Ea V originally contained about 25 entries. 62. Cf. Ea V 179–201'+ (MSL 14, 402). Preceded by a 48-entry NUN section and followed by EN and SAL sections of unknown length. 63. Cf. Sb Voc. I Rec. B 351–62 (MSL 3, 127). Preceded by a 22-entry SAL section; followed by GAfiAN (363–64), PI (365–66) and °AL (367). 64. Cf. ibid. ll. 351–54. 356. 361–62. 65. Cf. ibid. ll. 355, 358 and 360. 66. Cf. OB Diri Nippur 114–60 (MSL 15, 16–19). See especially ibid. ll. 144–49, which closely correspond to iii 12–16 of our text. 67. Cf. DIRI II 75–179 (MSL 15, 124–29). 68. For ka-ka-si-ga and variants (=t¤ltum), see MSL 9, 145f.; 14, 150; CAD T 332f.; AHw 1345b. 69. This use of PI was discussed by Erica Reiner in “The Phonological Interpretation of A Sub-System in the Akkadian Syllabary,” Studies Presented to A. Leo Oppenheim, Chicago 1964, pp. 167–80.

MOBC-2 Page 87 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 1:34 PM

An Old Babylonian Bilingual Lexical Text

87

(b) Other peculiar pronunciation glosses are: nam-du (i 17) for standard nundum (KAŒNUN). The value ib-ra (iii 14) is offered for standard ubri2 (IGI.DIM), Akkadian da’imu “spear;” and Ói-zi-ir (iii 15) for the standard Óenzer (IGI.DIM), Akkadian ‰uÓ⁄rum, probably to be read /Óizzir/ (with stressed /z/). (c) Our text has a new Sumerian loanword: i-gi-du-um (iii 24), given as an Akkadian equivalent to igi-du8, besides am⁄rum.70 In three other instances we find in the Akkadian column values that seem to represent sign names: geÍt[u-x] (iv 13), i-Íi-‚íbŸ? (iv 30) and ú-mu-Íu-um (vi 50).71 (d) Our lexicographer points out to the student that Sumerian /igi-sa™/ equals in Akkadian both nas⁄qu (verb) and nisqu (noun); and that this compound verb has two Sumerian writings: igi-sa™5 and igi-sa™ (cf. iii 28–31). To the best of our knowledge, the writing igi-sa™ is never attested in bilingual lexical texts. (e) URI with the pronunciation ú-ri is translated not only as Aggadum, but also as fiumerum (v 16–17); then with the pronunciation a-ri, it is rendered by nakrum, Amurrum and en-KUM (v 18–19). (f) Surprisingly, our scribe exhibits an unusually high-level capacity for grammatical analysis. He isolates the morpheme /e/ in the five grammatical functions: as an interjection (¤), demonstrative (annûm), independent pronoun (Íu⁄tim, atta), and as the marû root of a verb (qabûm) (v 46–50). (g) Finally, it is interesting to note the unusually high number of (mostly synonymous) Akkadian translations to certain Sumerian logograms in our text. The most notable logogram in this respect is lal, which is 70. Although this LW is well attested in OB administrative texts (cf. comment to iii 22–24), it appears here for the first time in a syllabary. 71. In Civil’s opinion these values represent sign names. The possibility cannot be excluded that they represent hitherto unknown Sum. loanwords (cf. comment to these three entries). As had been pointed out by Civil 1975, p. 124) and Cavigneaux 1980–1983, pp. 610ff.), syllabaries containing sign names are an innovation of the post-OB periods, although sporadically they can be found already in the OB period. In four-column bilingual syllabaries (such as, e.g., Chicago Syllabary [Hallock, AS 7, pp. 15ff.]; and the Ea and Aa syllabaries [MSL 14, 176ff. passim]), as well as in monolingual syllabaries (such as e.g., Syllabary A; cf. MSL 3, 15ff.), the sign name is listed in the third subcolumn, similarly to the three instances in our tablet. For a recent definitive study of cuneiform sign names see Gong 2000.

MOBC-2 Page 88 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 1:34 PM

88

From the Workshop of the Mesopotamian Scribe

equated to no less than 22 Akkadian words: daqqum, al⁄lum, itappu‰um, maˇûm, rak›bum, Óa‰⁄bum, Íaq⁄lum, Íuqallulum, aÍqul⁄lum, nadûm, maq⁄tum, ad⁄rum, kasûm, tuquttum, Íatûm, rak⁄sum, maÓ⁄‰m, uÓÓurum, n¤rabtum, litbuÍum,72 Íudlupum (iv 33–54). Seven of these equivalents73 are not attested in any other extant syllabary or bilingual text. For other, notable cases see the following logograms: sar – equated to the following 7 Akkadian words: Íaˇ⁄rum, pat⁄lum, las⁄mum, n¤rubum, kuÍÍudum, m›Íarum and ‰ab‹tum (v 22–28);74 kúr – equated to the following 6 Akkadian words: Íanûm, nakrum, nak⁄rum, nukurtum, tapp⁄tum and ‰ar⁄rum (v 36–41);75 and dib – equated to ‰ab⁄tum, kullum, et¤qum, bâ’um, dibbum and askuppatum (vi 22–27). The following logograms are equated to 5 Akkadian words: igi is equated to ‹num, p⁄num, z‹mum, m⁄tum, and maÓar (ii 41'–45'); SIG7, pronounced /si/ (i.e., si12), is equated to banûm (beautiful), damqum, warqum, raˇum and la banûm (cripple) (iv 14–18);76 e is equated to ¤, annûm, Íu⁄tim, atta, and qabûm (v 46–50).77 Many other logograms are equated to three or four Akkadian words.78 As noted above, the present decipherment and analysis of this unique lexical text is far from complete, and further research may change some of our temporary conclusions. But with all probability, our basic finding as to the affiliation of this syllabary will not be changed: namely, that our text belongs to a peripheral Mesopotamian scribal center, whose scholarly output was not transmitted beyond the Old Babylonian period and, therefore, it never achieved canonical status. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77.

Cf. iv 32 (equated to ba13); vi 43 (=mu4); vi 47–48 (TÚG); vi 54 (=mu4-mu4). I.e., itappu‰um, rak›bum, nadûm, maq⁄tum, Íatûm, n¤rabtum, Íudlupum. Of these, two equivalents (m›Íarum and ‰ab‹tum) are not attested elsewhere. Of these, at least one equivalent (tapp⁄tum) is not attested elsewhere. Of these only raˇbum is not attested elsewhere. This last group constitutes a very interesting case, for four of the Akk. equivalents are taken from the OB grammatical texts (see comment to these lines below; cf. also sub f above). For a further group of five Akk. words see the logogram sub (ii 22'–26'). See further ii 30'–34' (KAŒBAD? equated to 5 Akk. words). 78. The following logograms are each equated to four Akk. words: dug4 (i 9'–12'), Íilig6 (i 43'–46'), KAŒNE (ii 15'–18'), me (iv 24–27), LAL.DU with the pronunciation uku2, (v 7– 10); pa4 (v 32–35), PAP.E (v 42–45), Óu™ (vi 35–38). The following logograms are each equated to three Akk. words: du11 (i 6'–8'), Ía™ar (i 21'–23'), meli2 (i 28'–30'), KAŒBAL (ii 19'–21'). KAŒfiE (ii 27'–29'), lilib (ii 47'–49'), pàd (iii 2–4), igi-du8 (iii 22–24), igi-lá (iii 38–40), gal (iv 21–23), isib (iv 28–30), ari (v 18–20), lu (vi 15–17), dul (vi 39–41), nám (vi 44–46).

MOBC-2 Page 89 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 1:34 PM

89

An Old Babylonian Bilingual Lexical Text TRANSLITERATION AND TRANSLATION Col. i (ca. 5 lines missing from top) [ KA] i 6' ‚duŸ-[ú]? i 7' ‚KAŸ ? i 8' ‚KAŸ KA i 9' du-ug KA i 10' KA i 11' KA i 12' KA i 13' i-ni-im KA i 14' KA i 15' ki!-ir KA i 16' KAŒNUN i 17' nam-du KAŒME i 18' e-me KAŒªAR i 19' gú KAŒA i 20' na-™á KAŒªAR i 21' Ía-™ar KAŒªAR i 22' KAŒªAR i 23' ! KAŒ[A+ME] i 24' e-me-en KAŒA+ME i 25' KAŒA+ME i 26' KAŒSA i 27' su!-um KAŒLI i 28' me-li KAŒLI i 29' KAŒLI i 30' KAŒSU i 31' Íu-du KAŒSU i 32' KAŒUD? i 33' KU?-NI KAŒ‚UDŸ? i 34' KAŒ‚UDŸ? i 35' KAŒUD? i 36' ?-ga? KAŒ? i 37' ta

[qá-bu-um]? [ ] [ ] qá-b[u-um] qí-‚biŸ-[tum] ma-ga-[rum] ma-ka-[rum] a-wa-[tum] a-wu-‚umŸ? ap-pu-um bu-Íu!-um Ía-ap-tum li-Ía-nu-um a-ka-lu-um Ía-tu-ú-um bu-bu-tum e-me-‰ú-um ba-ru-ú-um ‰ú-mu-um ‰ú-ma-mi-tum Óa-ap?-pu-um zi-iq-nu-um né-em-lu-ú-um a-la-tum ‚luŸ-’u-tum ik-ri-bu-um ka-ra-bu-um ‚‰iŸ-Óu-um ru?-u‰-‰ú?-nu na!-mu?-tum a-lu-zi-nu-um Óal!-la-tuÍ? Ía! Íi-ni-im

i 38'

la-ap-la-ap-tum!

e-me-en

KAŒTE

to say

to say speech to irrigate to irrigate word to speak nose stench lip tongue to eat to drink hunger to starve to be hungry thirst thirst stinking (mouth) beard throat to swallow to swallow prayer to pray laughter roaring joke clown apprentice of the tooth parching thirst

MOBC-2 Page 90 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 1:34 PM

90

From the Workshop of the Mesopotamian Scribe

i 39' za-ra-‚aÓŸ! KAŒ? na-Ía-kum KAŒ? ni-is-sa-tu[m]! i 40' ? KAŒ‚KAKŸ Íi-in-nu-um i 41' gu-ug ? KAŒ[KAK] ka-ak-kum i 42' ‚KAŒSIDŸ? qá-ra-du-u[m]? i 43' [Íi-li-i]g? Ía-ga-pi-ru-u[m]? i 44' ‚KAŒSIDŸ? ? ‚da-anŸ-nu-u[m] i 45' ‚KAŒSIDŸ ? qú!?-ra?-du?-u[m] i 46' [K]AŒSID i 47' [ ] [x] x xx[ i 48' [ ] x [x] [ (ca. 3 lines missing from bottom of col. i) Col. ii (ca. 5 lines missing from top) ii 6' [ ] [ ] [ ] ‚x xŸ ii 7' [ ] [ ] [ ] -‚umŸ ii 8' [ ] [ ] [ -qu]m? ii 9' [ ] [ ] [ ]-um ii 10' [ ] [ ] [ ]-‚umŸ ii 11' [ ] [ ] [ ]-túm ii 12' [ ] [ ] [ ]-x-um ii 13' [ ] [ ] [ ]-‚úŸ-um [ ] [x-x]-ku?-um ii 14' x-Óu? ? KAŒ‚NEŸ ‚ÚŸ?-(x?-)ta-rum ii 15' ‚x-ruŸ KAŒNE? Íu-qú-ú-um ii 16' KAŒNE? du-qú-qú-um ii 17' ? KAŒNE Íu-ta-ab-la-ku-tum ii 18' KAŒBAL? ge-Íu-ú ii 19' x-x ? KAŒBAL gi-Íu-tum ii 20' KAŒBAL? a-ú-um ii 21' KAŒ‚GAŸ na-‰a-bu-um ii 22' sú-ub KAŒGA na-Íá!79-qum ii 23' KAŒGA? e-né-qum ii 24' KAŒGA DU?-x-Óu-um ii 25' KAŒGA e-né-qum ii 26' ‚sú-ubŸ ka-sà-‚súŸ?-um ii 27' tu?-ku-ur5 [K]AŒfiE

79. Original has ZA.

to bite wailing tooth canine tooth hero mighty strong hero ] ]

to raise to crush/very small cycle/turning over to belch belch to cough up to suck to kiss to suck ? to suck to chew, gnaw

MOBC-2 Page 91 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 1:34 PM

91

An Old Babylonian Bilingual Lexical Text ii 28' ii 29' ii 30' Íe-x ii 31' ii 32' ii 33' ii 34' ii 35' [ ] ii 36' ii 37' [ ] ii 38' ii 39' [ ] ii 40' ii 41' ii 42' [i-gi] ii 43' ii 44' ii 45' ii 46' ii 47' [li-li-ib] ii 48' ii 49' ii 50' [ba-ba-ad]? ii 51' ii 52' [™iÍ-ki-im]? ii 53' [ ] Col. iii iii 1 [ag-ri-ig]? iii 2 [pa-ad]? iii 3 iii 4 iii 5 [l]i-‚bi-Ÿir iii 6 iii 7 ù

[K]AŒfiE [K]AŒfiE

KAŒBAD? ‚KAŒ BAD?Ÿ ‚KAŒ BAD?Ÿ [KA]-‚BADŸ? [KA]Œ‚BADŸ? [K]A?Œ? [K]A?Œ? [K]A?Œ? [K]A?Œ? [K]A?Œ? [K]A?Œ? [K]A?Œ? [IGI] [IGI] [IGI] [IGI] [IGI] [IGI.IGI] [IGI.IGI] [IGI.IGI] [IGI.IGI] [IGI.IGI] [IGI.DUB]? [IGI.DUB]?

ku?-sà-su-um chewed bits Óa-ra-‰um cut down ‚Íi-iÓŸ?-ˇù-um attack ur!80-Óu-Íu-um wild animal qù-ur-du-um heroism ? na -x-qum ? Ía-qú-ma-‚tumŸ? gloom ‚kaŸ?-ar-‰um calumny [wa]?-at!-ra-tum exaggerations Óu-tum to smite na-PI!-x-tum ? le-em-nu-um evil pe-tu-ú?-um? to open ! ! ka-ak -si-ik-ka (syllabogram) i-nu-um eye pa-nu-um face zi-mu-um countenance ! ma -a-tum land ma!-Óa-‚arŸ before ‚sàŸ-ru-um false [s]ú-ru-ru-um to cheat [s]ú -ru-‚urŸ-tu-um fraudulent object [pa]-‚tiŸ!?-[am]? ‚iŸ-‚niŸ-im “open-eyed” [da]-‚abŸ?-‚dumŸ defeat ‚it?-tumŸ? sign [x] x [x x] x

[IGI].DUB [I]GI.RU ‚IGI.RUŸ IGI.RU IGI.fiÈ IGI.fiÈ IGI.fiÈ?

a-ba-‚raŸ?-[kum]? wa-tu-‚ùŸ?-[um] ta!-mu-ú-[um] za-ka?-r[u?-um] la-bi-‚ruŸ-u[m] pa-na-n[úm] ù-‚úŸ?

steward find to swear to declare old formerly and

80. The inside of the alleged UR sign is full of scratches, but its outline is quite clear.

MOBC-2 Page 92 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 1:34 PM

92

From the Workshop of the Mesopotamian Scribe

iii 8 iii 9 iii 10 iii 11 iii 12 iii 13 iii 14 iii 15 iii 16 iii 17 iii 18 iii 19

im-Óu-ur im-Óu-ur Óa-li-ib

iii 20

Óa-li-ib-za

iii 21

ga-zí-ir

iii 22 iii 23 iii 24 iii 25 iii 26 iii 27 iii 28 iii 29 iii 30 iii 31 iii 32 iii 33 iii 34 iii 35 iii 36 iii 37 iii 38 iii 39 iii 40 iii 41 iii 42

igi-du

sa6!-ga si21-ga Óu-ul da-lá! Íu-ku-ur ib-ra Ói-iz-ir

igi-kár igi-nim igi-sig igi-sa™! igi-sa™5 i-gi-da-a ‚igi-iÍ?-tuŸ pa-al igi-bar! igi-lá! il-du il-du

IGI.fiÈ? SIG5 SIG5 °UL IGI.KAK IGI.KAK IGI.DIM IGI.DIM IGI.DIM IGI.A IGI.KAfi IGI.KUR

ni-bi-‚ÓumŸ? belt da-am-qum good da-am-qum good le-em-nu-um bad ‰i-lu!-ú-um thorn ? Íu-ku-[rum] spear da-i-mu-um spear ‰ú-Óa-rum child la-ú-um baby Óu-ur-Óu-ma-me-e foam of water Óu-ur-Óu-ma-Íi-ka-‚ri?-imŸ foam of beer pa-ni er-‰e-tim front of the netherworld IGI.KUR.ZA bá-bi er-‰e-tim gate of the netherworld IGI.KUR.ZA bá-bi er-‰e-tim gate of the netherworld IGI.DU° a-ma-rum to see IGI.DU° ku?-lu?-mu-um to show IGI.DU° i-gi-du-ú-um personnel IGI.KÁR a-Íi-ir-tum offering IGI.NIM ma-tum e-li-tum upper land IGI.SIG ma-tum Ía-ap-li-tum lower land ? ? IGI.‚fiIDŸ ‚na -sà -qúŸ-um to choose IGI.fiID ni-is-‚qúŸ-um choice quality IGI.SAª na-sà-qú-u[m] to choose IGI.SAª ni-is-qú-u[m] choice quality IGI.SA6.A ta-ma-ar-tum sight IGI.SA6.A na-an-mu-rum to be seen ! ‚IGI.DUŸ a-‚li-ikŸ ma-aÓ-ra vanguard a-li-ik ma-aÓ-ra vanguard ‚IGI.DUŸ ! ‚IGIŸ.[BAR] [na]-ap-lu-sú-u[m] to look IGI.‚BARŸ! na-ap-la-aÍ-tu[m] blinkers ? ? IGI.L[Á] ‚imŸ -[rum] observation post IGI.[LÁ] ‚kaŸ? -ma?-[ ] IGI.‚LÁŸ na-ˇa-[lum] to see IGI.NAGAR.BU il-la-[at ka-al-bi-im] pack of dogs IGI.fiÈ.DU.ERIN2 pi-qí-it-[ti ‰a-bi-im] muster of the army

MOBC-2 Page 93 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 1:34 PM

93

An Old Babylonian Bilingual Lexical Text iii 43 Íu-Íú! fiÚ fiÚ iii 44 fiÚ iii 45 fiÚ iii 46 fiÚ iii 47 fiÚ iii 48 fiÚ?.AN? iii 49 bu?-ur? fiÚ?.AN? iii 50 fiÚ?.AN? iii 51 Col. iv iv 1 [ ] [ iv 2 [ ] [ ? KU [ ] [ iv 3 iv 4 xx x[ ! A [R]? iv 5 ar A [R]? iv 6 iv 7 ‚ARŸ? ! IGI?+? iv 8 in IGI?+? iv 9 IGI?+? iv 10 PI iv 11 pí PI iv 12 e PI iv 13 ™iÍ-tu-nu SIG7 iv 14 sí-e SIG7 iv 15 SIG7 iv 16 SIG7 iv 17 SIG7 iv 18 SIG7 iv 19 ú-gu-ur SIG7 iv 20 GAL iv 21 ga-al GAL iv 22 GAL iv 23 ME iv 24 me-e ME iv 25 ME iv 26 ME iv 27

to overturn

a-ba[-kum] a-ka-[ ] na-ap-[sa-mu-um]? ma-‚xŸ[] i-[ ] ik-[ ] ZA-[ ] Ía-[ ] pa-[ ] ] ] ] ]

[ [ [ [ [ [ [ x[ ] ? ki -x-[ ] BI-[ ] Óa-i-[ ] ka-ak-si-ig geÍ-t[u-nu?] ba-nu-‚úŸ?-[um] da-[a]m?-[qum]? wa-‚arŸ-qú-u[m] ra-aˇ-bu-u[m] la ba-nu-um Íu-u’-rum Íi-im-ta-an ra-bu-ú-um ma-du-um gu-lu!-um pa-ar-‰um qú-lum ni-núm a-na-ku

nosebag

] ] ] ] ] ] ]

(syllabogram) (sign name) beautiful fine green moist, fresh cripple eyebrow paint great many cup cultic office silence we I

MOBC-2 Page 94 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 1:34 PM

94

From the Workshop of the Mesopotamian Scribe

iv 28 i-sí-ib ME i-sí-pu-um ME el-l[um] iv 29 ME i-Íi-‚íbŸ? iv 30 ME na-al-ba-Íu!-[um]? iv 31 ba ME li-it-bu-[Íum]? iv 32 LAL da-‚qumŸ iv 33 la-al LAL a-la-lum iv 34 LAL i-ta-pu-‰ú?-um iv 35 LAL ma-ˇù-ú-um iv 36 LAL ra-ku-bu-um iv 37 LAL Óa-‰a-bu-um iv 38 LAL Ía-qá-lum iv 39 LAL Íu-qá-lu!-lum iv 40 LAL aÍ-qú-la-lum iv 41 LAL na-du-um iv 42 LAL ma-qá-tum iv 43 LAL a-da-rum iv 44 LAL ka-su-ú-um iv 45 LAL tu-qú-tum iv 46 LAL Ía-tu-ú-um iv 47 LAL ra-ka-su-um iv 48 LAL ma-Óa-‰[um]? iv 49 LAL ú-Óu-ru[m] iv 50 LAL né-ra!-ab-t[um] iv 51 LAL li-it?-bu-[Íum]? iv 52 LAL Íu-x-lu?/ú?-[x] iv 53 LAL Íu-ud-lu?-pu-u[m] iv 54 LAL x-x-[ ] iv 55 (one line is missing from the bottom of the column) Col. v v1 [la-ú]? [LAL].‚NIŸ? [ri-ib]-‚baŸ?-[tum] ? m[u]-‚uˇŸ-ˇù-um v2 [LAL].‚NIŸ v3 [ ] [ ] x-Íu?-x-um? v4 [ ] [ ] [ -‚lumŸ? v5 [ ] x [x] [x] x-‚umŸ [Ía]-ap-lu-um v6 [ ] [LAL?.?] LAL?.‚DUŸ la-ap-nu-um v7 [ú-k]u?

purification priest pure (sign name) fine cloak clothed small child to hang to beat repeatedly to be few small to be dark-green to weigh be suspended (medicinal plant) to throw to fall to be dark to bind battle to weave to tie to beat to delay entrance clothed sleepless

arrears scarce

lowly poor

MOBC-2 Page 95 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 1:34 PM

An Old Babylonian Bilingual Lexical Text v8 v9 v 10 v 11 v 12 v 13 v 14 v 15 v 16 v 17 v 18 v 19 v 20 v 21 v 22 v 23 v 24 v 25 v 26 v 27 v 28 v 29 v 30 v 31 v 32 v 33 v 34 v 35 v 36 v 37 v 38 v 39 v 40 v 41 v 42 v 43 v 44

‚LALŸ?-‚DUŸ ‚LALŸ?-‚DUŸ LAL?.‚DUŸ? LAL?.SAR [x]-x ? LAL?.LAGAB [ni-gi-in] ‚ZI+ZIŸ.LAGAB [aÍ-ki]? ‚ZI+ZIŸ.LAGAB [Íu-ub]? ? ‚ZI+ZIŸ.LAGAB [nu-mu-un] ‚URIŸ ‚ú-ri?Ÿ a-‚riŸ ga-ra-din sar

ki-ri mu [n]i-sí pa-a

kur

PAP.E

URI URI URI ‚URIŸ GARADIN SAR SAR SAR SAR SAR SAR SAR SAR SAR SAR PAP PAP PAP PAP PAP PAP PAP PAP PAP PAP PAP.E PAP.E PAP.E

al-ma-tum ka-tu-ú-um en-Íum Íi-it-tum na-gu-ú ur-ba-tum Íu!-up-pa-tum el-pe-tum aga?-du-um Íu-me-rum na-ak-rum ‚aŸ-mu-ru-um en-KUM ku-ru-lum Ía-ˇa-rum pa-ta-lum la-sà-mu-um né-ru-bu-um ku-Íu-du-um mu-Ía-rum ‰a-bi-tum! ki-ru-ú-um ba-nu-ú-um wa-ar-qum zi-ka-rum a-Óu-um a-Ía-ri-du-um sí-ni-iÍ-tum Ía-nu-ú-um na-ak-rum na-ka-rum nu-ku-úr-tum ta-pa-tum ‰a-ra-rum pa-al-gu!gum pa-ta-tum a-ru-tum

95

widow destitute weakling neighbor woman district rush reed thicket rush Akkadian Sumerian foreign Amorite ? shock to write to twist to run to flee to chase 12 square cubits gazelle garden to grow green male (older) brother leader woman strange enemy to be hostile hostility second wife to be hostile canal canals pipe

MOBC-2 Page 96 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 1:34 PM

96

From the Workshop of the Mesopotamian Scribe

v 45 PAP.E ra-ˇù-ú-um E e-e v 46 e E an-nu-ú-um v 47 E Íu-a-tim v 48 E at-ta v 49 E qá-bu-ú-um v 50 E i-ku-um v 51 eg KU ‰a-la-lum v 52 ku-ú KU ta-ra-kum v 53 ?-ab KU la-ú-um v 54 [d]a ku-su!-ú-um v 55 [du-ur] ‚KUŸ iÍ-du-um v 56 [K]U v 57 [ ] [ ] [x]-x-[x]-rum Col. vi (ca. 4 lines are missing from top of column) vi 5 [ ] [ ] x[ ] zu?-[ú] vi 6 [Íe(-e)] [KU] Íi-‚itŸ?-[tum] vi 7 ‚KUŸ la-lu?-ú-[um] vi 8 [ ] ‚KUŸ ‚KUŸ na!-wa-[rum] vi 9 [bu-ú]? ?‚uÓŸ? KU na-Ía-Óu-[um] vi 10 [su] KU ‰a-ra-‚tumŸ vi 11 KU.KU na-Ía-Óu-[um] vi 12 [Íe]-‚ÍeŸ? vi 13 vi 14 vi 15 vi 16 vi 17 vi 18 vi 19 vi 20 vi 21 vi 22 vi 23 vi 24 vi 25 vi 26

[mi-i]t?-ta? ‚muŸ-nu lu-ú ú-du si-pa re-ú di-ib

KU.AN MU!.KU LU LU LU LU LU PA.LU PA.LU DIB DIB DIB DIB DIB

mi-iˇ-ˇù-[u]m ú-tu-‚lumŸ du-Íu-’u!-um ri-te-u11(°U)-um re-im im-me-rum a-wi-lum re-u11(°U)-um ka-ak-si-ka ‰a-ba!-tum ku-ul-lum e-te!-qum ba-a-a-u11(°U)-um di!-ib?-bu-um

gutter no this to him you to speak ditch to sleep to beat to surround chair foundation

excrement excrement ? to shine to have diarrhea to break wind one prone to having diarrhea mace cowherd provide lavishly to let graze to let graze sheep man shepherd (syllabogram) to seize to hold to pass to pass board (of a door)

MOBC-2 Page 97 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 1:34 PM

97

An Old Babylonian Bilingual Lexical Text vi 27 vi 28 vi 29 vi 30 vi 31 vi 32 vi 33 vi 34 vi 35 vi 36 vi 37 vi 38 vi 39 vi 40 vi 41 vi 42 vi 43 vi 44 vi 45 vi 46 vi 47 vi 48 vi 49 vi 50 vi 51 vi 52 vi 53 vi 54 vi 55 vi 56 vi 57 vi 58

zi Íe e-Íi ú?-uÍ Óu-‚unŸ

‚du!-ulŸ mu! nam! x (x) ú-‚mu-uÍŸ? x-x mu-mu82 [x] x [ [

] ]

DIB fiÈ fiÈ fiÈ fiÈ fiÈ fiÈ fiÈ fiÈ fiÈ fiÈ fiÈ DUL DUL DUL TÚG TÚG ‚TÚGŸ ‚TÚGŸ ‚TÚGŸ ‚TÚGŸ ‚TÚGŸ ‚TÚGŸ ‚TÚGŸ ‚TÚG. TÚGŸ ‚TÚG. TÚGŸ ‚TÚG. TÚGŸ ‚TÚG. TÚGŸ LAGAB LAGAB

[ [

] ]

as-ku-pa-tum qé-mu-ú-um ZA-pa?/tap?-pu-um? i-na a-na eb-lum aÍ-lum ‚ˇeŸ-mu-ú-um na-Óu-um a-ga-‚rumŸ ag-rum na-Íu-ú-‚umŸ ka-ta-mu-‚umŸ ta-ak-ti-mu-‚umŸ ku-tu-mu-‚umŸ na-al-ba-‚ÍumŸ li-it-bu-‚ÍumŸ ru-bu-ú-‚umŸ i-gu[m]? ru-ba-t[u]m81 na-al-ba!-Íum ‚li-itŸ-bu-[Íu]m ˇe4-e-mu-[u]m ú-mu-Íu-um mu?-x-‚tumŸ x-x-du-um na-al-ba-[Í]um li-it-bu-[Í]um ku?-ub?-rum?83 x-bi du?-[x-u]m x-[x]-x[ ] xx[ ]

threshold flour in to rope rope reason to rest to hire hireling to elevate to cover a cover covered to be clothed? to clothe oneself prince prince queen mantle clothed reason (sign name) ? ? to be clothed? to clothe oneself thickness ? ? ?

81. The RU sign is exceptionally large and is aligned with the final TUM, while the middle BA sign is written below the line. 82. Or gu-gu? 83. Or ku?-ub?-[ru-u]m?.

MOBC-2 Page 98 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 1:34 PM

98

Upper Edge UE 1 [ UE 2 [ UE 3 [ UE 4 [ UE 5 [ UE 6 [

From the Workshop of the Mesopotamian Scribe ] ] ] ] ] ]

[ [ [ [ [

] ] ] ] ]

[x]-‚ir?-‰umŸ G]A? 84-kum [ [ ]-ak?-kum [ ]-tum [ ]-rum? [ ]-x

COMMENTARY

Col. i i 6'-ii 41': These lines, which contain the

KA section with its derivatives, originally had a total of ca. 35 Sumerian values (of which only 28 are preserved) and 92 lexical entries (i.e., Sumerian – Akkadian lexical equations). Compare this to the parallel section of Proto-Ea, which contains 34 Sumerian values (MSL 14, 44–45)85 and the parallel section in Ea III, which contains 58 Sumerian values and a total of 71 lexical equations (MSL 14, 306–8).86 For a single tablet that does not seem to be part of a series, this is an exceptionally large number of entries for one sign. Note the following parallel KA sections in other lexical texts: Proto-Ea 303–34 (MSL 14, 44–45)87 Secondary Proto-Ea/Aa No. 16: obv. 1–24; rev. 1'–12' (MSL 14, 137–38)88 Ea III 61–133 (MSL 14, 306–9)89 Aa III/2 Comm. obv. and rev. (MSL 14, 331) Kagal D Sect. 3-Sect. 11 (MSL 13, 244–49)90 SAG A ii 29-iv 40 (MSL SS 1, 20–24)91

Or [ B]I?-. See notes 45–46 above and 87 below. See note 89 below. 34 entries; preceded by a 14-entry SAª sect.; followed by a 10-entry KAL sect. 36 entries; followed by a minimum 9-entry SAª sect. 73 entries (including the broken lines); preceded by a 26-entry SAª sect.; followed by a 42-entry UD sect.; connecting entry: U.KA (133) 90. Minimum 130 entries, mostly compound verbs and nouns; preceded by a minimum 17entry IM sect.; followed by a minimum 90-entry SAª sect. 91. Minimum 134 entries; mostly compound nouns and verbs; preceded by a minimum 8884. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89.

MOBC-2 Page 99 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 1:34 PM

An Old Babylonian Bilingual Lexical Text

99

A vi (MSL SS 1, 26)92 B 114–352 (MSL SS 1, 31–35)93 Sa 105–10 (MSL 3, 21–22)94 Sb Voc. I Rec. B 253–74 (MSL 3, 117–20)95 i 6'–32': For this KA section, see especially Proto-Ea 303–34, which shares with our syllabary the following entries (i.e., Sumerian values): KA = ka, zú,96 kiri3, inim, dug497…KAŒªAR = gu7, KAŒA = na™a, KAŒªAR = Ía™ar; KAŒA(+ME) = enmen2… KAŒfiE = tukur(e)98… KAŒGA = sub (cf. ii 26'), KAŒSA = sum4… KAŒNUN = numdum, KAŒME = eme… KAŒLI = meli… KAŒfiU = Íùd. i 6': Note the sequence in the beginnings of the various syllabaries’ KA sections: Proto-Ea 303–309: ka, zú, kiri4, inim, gù, du11, pi4 Ea III 61–68: pi4 (= pû), ka (=pû), kiri4, mili(b) (= a-la-tu), inim, zú; (67– 68 broken); 69–73 du11(= qabû), dag5 (= qabû), e7 (= qabû), gù (= rigmu), ka (= KA.K[A.SI.GA]) Sa 105–10: ka, pi4, inim, du11, zú, kiri4 Sb Voc. I Rec. B 253–255: ka, kir4, zú SAª SAª

92. 93.

94. 95. 96. 97. 98.

entry SAª section (connecting link: KIfiI4 – a sign resembling both SAª and KA); followed by a 67-entry IGI section. Note the basic KA sign order in the above source: kirix(KAŒIM) = appu, inim(KA) = awatum, ka = pû, nundum(KAŒNUN) = Íaptum, sun4(KAŒSA) = ziqnu, na™(KAŒA) = [ ]; bún(KAŒIM) = [ ]; uÍ11(KAxBAD) = imtum; gù(KA) = rigmu; zú(KA) = Íinnu; eme(KAŒME) = liÍ⁄nu. Ca. 15 sundry entries (all of them compound verbs or nouns). Note the basic KA sequence in the above source: ka, na™, zú, eme. 239 entries; mostly compound verbs and nouns with KA and derivatives; preceded by a 110-entry SAª section; connecting link KÚfi. Note the basic KA sequence in the above source: kiri3 = appu; ka = pû; eme; inim = aw⁄tu; gù = rigmu; nundum = Íaptum; dug4-ga = qib‹tum; sun4(KAŒSA) = ziqnum; Íe25 (KAŒfiID) = ÍaÍû; KAxMI (=ganax); urgu2(KAŒNE) = libbatum; uÍ7(KAŒLI) = ru’tum; tu (KAŒIM) = Íu-lu-tum; 6 entries; preceded by 8-entry NE section; followed by 2-entry SAª section 22 entries; preceded by a 8-entry SAª section; connecting link KÚfi; followed by a 2entry NA section. Most probably these two values were lost in the first five missing lines of our syllabary (see commentary below). Also probably gù and pi4 (see below). Cf. below ii 27' KAŒfiE.

MOBC-2 Page 100 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 1:34 PM

100

From the Workshop of the Mesopotamian Scribe

Judging from the above data, and since in the following lines we could identify the values du11 (i 6'), dug4 (i 9') inim (i 13') and kir4 (i 15'), the KA section in our syllabary should have begun with the basic values: ka, zú, and perhaps also pi4 (in the broken lines i 1–5). For the two variant pronunciations of KA with the meaning qabûm, namely /du/ and /dug/ (cf. i 9' below), cf. EA III 69–70 du11 (= qabû), dag5 (= qabû). i 9': Cf. Aa III/2 133 (MSL 14, 330): [du-ú? = KA] = qa-bu-u; 141 [du-ug? = KA] = qa-bu-ú. i 10': This is an example of simplification of a Sumerian nominal verbal form (dug4-ga > dug4). All other extant syllabaries equate qib‹tu only with dug4-ga; cf. Diri Nippur Sect. 9:10 (MSL 15, 32). See also CAD Q 244a referring to Proto Diri 554 dug4-ga = qì-bi-tum (not attested in MSL 15). See also Sag B 332 (MSL SS 1 35); Nabnitu IV-IVa 64 (MSL 16, 79). i 11'–12': For the equation dug4 = mak⁄rum see Aa III/2, 138 (MSL 14, 330): [(du-ú? KA]) = me-ke-rum [Íá MIN (=mê)].99 As to the preceding mag⁄rum, it seems to be a variant pronunciation of mak⁄rum (the variant pronunciation meg¤rum is documented by the Akkadian dictionaries; cf. AHw 588 b; CAD M/1 125f.); see also the variants m¤kiru/m¤giru “irrigator” (cf. CAD M/2, 7a). The possibility cannot be excluded that mag⁄rum means here “to be agreeable”; cf. perhaps Secondary Proto-Ea No. 16: rev. 12' (MSL 14, 138) me-du KAŒME+DU = ma-ga-[rum]. The correct reading of these two Akkadian entries was suggested by M. Civil. i 15': Cf. Sb Voc. I Rec. B 253–55 (CAD A/2 184b) ka-a KA = pu-ú, qi-ir KA = ap-pu, zu-u KA = Íi[n]-nu. i 16': The Sumerian logogram seems to be a simplification of the compound kir4-Óab = b›Íum, “stench” (lit. “stinking nose”); cf. OB Nippur Ugumu 85 (MSL 9, 54) kir4-Óáb-™u10; Lu Excerpt II 128 (CT 19, 27a ii 20 and dupls.) kir4kir-Óa-abÓab = bu-’-Íá-a-nu (cf. J. V. Kinnier Wilson, RA 60 [1966], 55–51). The reading of the Akkadian entry was suggested by M. Civil. The alternative reading bu-‰ú-um is most doubtful since the assumed reading of KA as kir4 in the equation KA = b›‰um “hyena” is not attested in the syllabaries (cf. AHw 143a; contrary to CAD B 349a, sub b›‰u B lex. sect.).

99. I.e., the verbal component in the compound verb a–dug4.

MOBC-2 Page 101 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 1:34 PM

An Old Babylonian Bilingual Lexical Text

101

i 17': For namdu (= nundum, Íumdum) = Íaptum, see CAD fi/1 483, lex. sect. See Secondary Proto-Ea/Aa no. 16:16–17 (MSL 14, 137) e-me = KAŒME = liÍ[a-num], [nu]n-du-um KAŒNUN = Ía-a[p-tum]; Sb Voc. I Rec. B 257–260 [n]a-ag KAŒA = [Ía-tu-u], [g]a-ab KAŒA = […], [e-me] KAŒME = li-Ía-nu, nundu-um KAŒNUN = Íap[tum]. Cf. Hh XV 25–28 (MSL 9, 7): [uzu].eme = li-Íaa-nu, ma-’u, ma-’-tu, [uzu].nundun (KAŒNUN) = Íap-tum. i 19'–20': For lexical documentation of these entries see CAD A/1, 245f.; fi/ 2, 207. i 21'–23': For these lines cf. ErimÓuÍ II 283–86 (MSL 17, 42): [Íà]-™ar = bu-bu[t]u, [Íà]-™ar-™ar = gal-gal-l[a-t]u, [Íà]-™ar-tuku = um-[‰u], [Íà]-sù-ga = ne-eb[ri-tu]. i 21': The equation Ía™ar =bub›tum is unattested elsewhere. Otherwise, Sumerian Ía™ar is equated only to b›ru (Ea III 110 [MSL 14, 308]; cf. Proto-Ea 312 [MSL 14, 44]). i 22': For Ía™ar (em¤‰um), see CAD E 148, sub em¤‰u lex. sect. (no Sumerian equivalent); AHw 214 em¤‰u(m) I. But see AHw 1148 sub um‰u I, quoting from ErimÓuÍ II 285 (see above). See also OB Lu B vi 18 (MSL 12, 185) lú Íà-™ar tuku = em-[‰um]. i 23': The equation Ía™ar = barûm is unattested elsewhere; this Sumerian logogram is equated only with b›ru (see comment to i 21' above); for the equations berû = lú Íà-™ar an-tuku-a and berûtu = lú Íà-™ar-ra in bilinguals, see CAD B 207 and 213 s.v. i 24'–26': At first glance the pronunciation gloss seems to be e-me-éÍ. However, the logogram KAŒA+ME is not attested in the vocabularies with the pronunciation /emeÍ/. Therefore, we accept Veldhuis’s suggestion to read eme-en!. Or did our scribe write in the pronunciation gloss e-me-éÍ erroneously for e-me-en (=emmen)? Elsewhere, the only Sumerian equivalents to Akkadian ‰›mu “thirst” are enmen/emmen (=KAŒUD) and enmen2/emmen2 (=KAŒA) (cf. Ea III 112–13 [MSL 14, 308]; Sb Voc. I Rec. B 268 [MSL 3, 119]). See also ErimÓuÍ III 160 (MSL 17, 51) [ ] enmen = ‚‰úŸ-[um]-mu (followed by Í[à?]-™ar = ni-ib-ritu; cf. i 20–22 above); Cohen 1988, 561:62 (enmen-na = ina ‰u-mu). i 26': Cf. CAD ° 85 sub Óappu “bitter, stinking” (referring especially to the mouth). i 27': For the value sum4 cf. Proto-Ea 319 (MSL 14, 44) sú-um = KAŒSA.

MOBC-2 Page 102 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 1:34 PM

102

From the Workshop of the Mesopotamian Scribe

i 28'–30': For the reading of KAŒLI as meli2 see Proto-Ea 327 (MSL 14, 44); for

the Akkadian equivalent nemlû see Hh XV 31c (MSL 9, 7) uzu-me-liKAŒLI = né-em-lu-ú (see also Hg D 48 [MSL 9, 37]). For al⁄tum see CAD A/1 336 (log. KAŒfiID = giguru3). None of the two stems (G and D) of the verb la'⁄tu to “swallow” (a variant form of al⁄tum) is attested in lexical texts or bilinguals; for lu’’utum (hapax form) in a monolingual medical text, see CAD L 7, sub la'⁄tu, mng. b. i 31'–32': Note that the logogram Íùd (KAŒfiU) is equated in lexical texts only to the noun ikribu; the equation of this logogram to the verb kar⁄bu occurs only in 1st millennium bilingual literature (cf. CAD K 193a sub kar⁄bu lex. sect.). The correct Sumerian verb for praying Íùd–rá (or Íùd–Ía4) seems not to be attested in bilinguals. This root as a verb is attested only once in a broken context; cf. fiulgi O, Segment A 129: [ ] mu-un-Íùd-sùd. i 33'–36': This seems to be a group of cult professionals, but none of them is attested written with KAŒUD or with another complex KA sign! The pronunciation gloss in l. 33' (ku?/su?/zu?-ni) remains obscure. i 33': For the seemingly hapax noun ‰‹Óum (reading of the Akkadian word was suggested by Civil) cf. Ea IV 89 (MSL 14, 358), equated to Sumerian isiÍ. Although we could not find this Akkadian noun equated to KAŒUD, cf. perhaps Aa III/2 Comment. rev. 1–3 (MSL 14, 331) KAŒUD! = ‰a-a-Óu etc. i 34': For ru‰‰unu see CAD R 183b and AHw 959 sub ra‰⁄nu; CAD R 427 and AHw 996a sub ru‰‰unu. i 35': Reading of the Akkadian word is very uncertain. Present reading as na!mu?-tum has been suggested by Peterson (na!-mu?-x-tum cannot be excluded). For namûtum “joke, jest” see CAD N/1 255f. s.v.; AHw 730 s.v. Other possible, less probable, readings are: Íu?-gi?-tum or Íu-mu?-tum (Veldhuis). i 36': For the Akkadian entry cf. AHw 29f. and CAD A/1 392 sub aluzinnu. If the reading of the logogram as KAŒUD is correct, it recalls the logograms for this Akkadian word: alan-zu/alan-zú and alan-zu9(ALAN.KAŒUD); note, however, that the latter is attested only in Hittite texts (cf. Güterbock, JNES 48 [1989] 307–11). Could lú-KA.UD in ED Lu C 11 (MSL 12, 14) refer to the present Akkadian word? i 37': The reading Óal!-la-tuÍ? in the first half of this obscure Akkadian entry, suggested by Veldhuis, is doubtful, because it contains two unexpected CVC signs, and one would expect this alleged Sumerian LW to read *Óal-la-tuÍ-Íu-u.

MOBC-2 Page 103 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 1:34 PM

An Old Babylonian Bilingual Lexical Text

103

However, it may be supported by the equation Lu IV iii 248 (MSL 12, 136) Óal-la-tuÍ-a = MIN (=a-lu-zi-n[u]) (in a group of six Sumerian synonyms with the Akkadian head noun aluzinnu; cf. ibid. ll. 245–49). The tentative reading in the second half of the Akkadian Ía! Íi-ni-im (seemingly “said of teeth”), suggested by Civil, remains obscure; otherwise only verbs of cutting (such as Óam⁄Íu, ga‰⁄‰u, Óes¤ru) are related to the teeth in the vocabularies (cf. CAD fi 3, 48b sub Íinnu A, lex. sect.). Note also, that one would expect the determinative pronoun Ía to be written with Íá. See, however, the bilingual equation in PBS 1/1 11 iv 82 // iii 50 (cf. CAD ° 45a sub ÓallatuÍÍû; J. Goodnick-Westenholz, Fs. J. Klein, 2005, pp. 364–65) ér-Íèm nar pa-aÓ tuÍ-a ka NIªIN-ta è-dè-me-eÍ = sipittam nâr› Óal-la-tuÍ-a Ía p‹ [ ] upp[û] “the singers who are sitting in the cella are emitting out of wide-open mouths the erÍemma-lament” (Akkadian: “apprentice singers of ….. mouths are emitting the lament”). An alternative reading Óal!-la-‰ú! (for Óal!-la-tuÍ?), suggested by Cavigneaux, would require us to posit a hapax noun *Óall⁄‰u, derived from Óal⁄‰u “to press, to squeeze out,” which would not well fit the present context. i 38': The lexeme /emmen/ (written emmen or emmen2) is normally equated to Akkadian ‰›mu; cf. Ea III 112–13 (MSL 14, 308); this is followed by the entries e-me-e[n-gi] = [KAŒME+GI] = Íurp›[tum]) and im-mìn-te KAŒME+TE = lap-l[ap-tum]. (ibid. 114–15). The latter two equations are also attested, with slight variation, in Kagal D 8:5'–6' (MSL 13, 247): KAŒA+gi(4) = Íurp‹tum, [KAŒA+T]E = la-ap-la-ap-tum. See further Sag A iii 58¢ (MSL SS 1, 23) emmen2-ti = la-ap-la-ap-tum (= col. vi ¢ 1). i 39'–40': Since naÍ⁄qum is listed in ii 23' below, equated to the proper logogram sub, with all probability the Akkadian verb in l. 39' must be naÍ⁄kum “to bite.” Although no compound KA sign equated to this verb is known to us, cf. the regular logogram for this verb zú-kud (the present logogram might be KAŒTAR, but this cannot be verified). As for the pronunciation gloss za-ra‚aÓŸ! (the last sign is perhaps a poorly written A°, over an erasure of a °U), cf. Sumerian zú–ra(-aÓ), Akkadian ga‰⁄‰u “to gnash the teeth” (CAD G 52 sub ga‰⁄‰u A; AHw 457 sub ka‰⁄‰u(m) I), which belongs to the same semantic field as naÍ⁄ku. zaraÓ (=nissatum), according to Civil (2007, 23), may be a LW from Akkadian ‰ar⁄Óu. The Sumerian equivalent is almost exclusively written with SAª.PA.LAGAB (cf. Diri I 97 [MSL 15, 108] passim; OB Lu B v 55 [MSL 12, 185] passim; Nabnitu IX 32 [MSL 16, 118] passim). This logogram never seems to be written with a complex KA sign (reading of Akkadian entry by

MOBC-2 Page 104 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 1:34 PM

104

From the Workshop of the Mesopotamian Scribe

Civil). The possibility cannot be excluded that our scribe confused (or assumed a semantic connection) between zú-ra(Ó) (=ga‰⁄‰u) and /zaraÓ/ (=nissatum). i 41'–42': For restoring the damaged logogram as KAŒ‚KAKŸ, cf. Antagal D 167 (MSL 17, 206): KAgu-ugKAK = MIN ([kak-ku]) Íá UR.GIR15; cf. also Diri Ugarit I 69–71 (MSL 15, 69): ku-uk-ka KA.GAG = ka-ak-ku, ka-na-ku, Íi-in-nu (see further MSL SS 1, 23: iv 24; MSL 9, 78:99). i 43'–46': If our tentative reading of these lines is correct, we have here four words from the same semantic field: qarr⁄dum, Íagap‹ru, dannum and qur⁄dum. Although the only word equated to a complex KA sign is Íagap‹ru (see comment to i 44' below), some of these words occur in Akkadian synonym lists together; cf., e.g., Malku I 30 Íagap‹ru = MIN (=qarr⁄du) (HruÍka 2010, p. 32); Explicit Malku I 98–100 qardu, qarr⁄du, qur⁄du = qarr⁄du (HruÍka ibid., p.154); see also Izi K 301–2 (MSL 13, 222). Otherwise, Akkadian qarr⁄dum and qur⁄du are usually equated with Sumerian ur-sa™ and SAªŒUR (for the latter see MSL 14. 143: No. 21, 3'; MSL 17, 170:2), and kalag with dannum. i 44': For Íilig6 cf. Ea III 96 (MSL 14, 307) [Íi]-li-ig KAŒfiID = [Ía]-ga-[pu-ru]; another logogram for Íagap›ru is Íilig (=URUŒfiI); cf. CAD fi/1 65 s.v. Note that the last damaged sign could also be read -t[um] (instead of -u[m]).

Col. ii ii 15'–18': The pronunciation gloss in l. 15' is perhaps ku/Íu-ru?. The logogram in this group seems to be KAŒNE; however, in view of the equation with Íutablakkutum (l. 18'), KAŒBAL (suggested with reservation by Veldhuis) cannot be excluded. ii 15': If the broken sign between ú and ta is an erasure, the Akkadian entry could read ‚úŸ-ta-rum (cf. utt⁄rum “leftover”) or ‚úŸ-Ía-rum (=uÍarum, a variant of the noun iÍarum?). ii 16': Probably Íuqqû (D of Íaqû “to be high”). ii 17': Cf. CAD D 190 sub duqququ (adj.) “very small”; or CAD ibid. sub duqququ (v.) “to crush” (both derive from daqqu “small”). ii 18': For the Akkadian word in this line, which is an fit/fitn infinitive form of nabalkutu, cf. CAD fi/3 394 sub Íutablakkutu, Íutabalkuttu; AHw 1290 sub Íutabalku(t)tu, Íutablakku(t)tu (correct reading of this Akkadian entry was suggested by Civil, Veldhuis, and Stol).

MOBC-2 Page 105 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 1:34 PM

105

An Old Babylonian Bilingual Lexical Text

ii 19'–21': The reading of the logogram in this group as

has been suggested by Veldhuis. As to the pronunciation gloss, he would restore it as bu?-l[u-uÓ]; however, traces on the original may point only to the two signs bu-‚luŸ. Elsewhere, Sumerian buluÓ/buru(Ó) (=°AL) is equated only to the synonymous verb arû (cf. Proto-Ea 143 [MSL 14, 37]; Ea II 266 [ibid. 258]). ii 19'–20': For geÍûm (19') and giÍûtum (20') cf. CAD G 64 and 110; AHw 287 and 294. ii 21': The Akkadian entry can hardly refer to a’û “ferry-man” (cf. CAD A/2 523a), which would be out of context. It rather seems to be a variant of ÓaÓûm “to cough up” or the like (cf. CAD ° 30b; AHw 308b), as suggested by Civil; according to the dictionaries, this verb is not attested in syllabaries and has no Sumerian equivalent; Civil refers us to Secondary Proto-Aa 27, 6:29 it?/iÍ?-PI KAŒIGI/PI = a-ú-um (to be published in an electronic supplement to MSL). Cf. also the derivative ÓaÓÓu “spittle, cough,” whose Sumerian equivalent is uÓ (CAD H 28). Or else, read as ⁄’ûm, this word could be a variant of mâ’um “vomit” (cf. CAD M/1 437 sub mâ’u; AHw 637, sub mâ'um I); see especially Küchler, Medizin, pl. 14 i 1 (cited in CAD ibid.): Íumma am¤lu ... ina geÍîÍu marta imtanâ’ “if a man vomits gall every time he belches.” ii 22'–26': For this sub section (KAŒGA) see Aa III/2 Comment., rev. 11–13 (BM 40745; MSL 14, 331) zu-ub KAŒGA= na-[‰a-bu...], na-Íá-qu, e-‚ne-quŸ.... ii 22': Cf. also Sb Voc. I Rec. B 273 (MSL 3, 120); Ea III 118 (MSL 14, 308); CAD N/2 33a, sub na‰⁄bu A. ii 23': The ZA sign in this line is probably a mistake for GAR, induced by the same sign in the preceding line; hence the Akkadian word to be read is na-Íá!qum. This Akkadian word seems not to be attested in the syllabaries. In bilinguals it is equated both to ne/ní–su-ub and su-ub (cf. CAD N/2 57a, sub lex. sect.). For naÍ⁄qum juxtaposed with the verbs ga‰⁄‰um, na‰⁄bum and en¤qum, see Aa III/2 =17, rev. 9–13 (MSL 14, 331). Veldhuis suggests reading the Akkadian entry as na-sà-kum “to throw,” pointing out that the Sumerian equivalent of this word Íub has a closely similar sound to sub. ii 24': The standard Sumerian equivalent to this verb in lexical texts and bilinguals is ga–sub (KAŒGA); cf. CAD E 165f.; see also Hh XIII 343 (MSL 8/ 1, 49) ga–na™ = Íizba en¤qum. KAŒBAL

MOBC-2 Page 106 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 1:34 PM

106

From the Workshop of the Mesopotamian Scribe

ii 26': Apparently scribal error; the scribe repeated by mistake line 24 above. Could this indicate that he wrote out of memory? The damaged pronunciation gloss ‚su-ubŸ may be an incomplete erasure. ii 27': Akkadian kas⁄su is usually equated to Sumerian tukur2(=KAŒfiE); cf. CAD sub kas⁄su K 242; AHw 453 sub ka‰⁄‰u(m). ii 28': The initial idea to read the Akkadian entry as pá-sà-su!-um was abandoned in favor of ku?-sà-su-um (suggested by Veldhuis and Stol). For this hapax legomenon see CAD K 585 sub kus⁄sum (translated “chewed particle”); AHw 514 sub kus⁄s› (translated “Zahnfleisch?” and considered plural tantum or dual). Note that the verb kas⁄su and the derived noun kus⁄sum are attested together only once, in the incantation against the tooth-worm (CT 17, 50, No. 55547, l. 18–19 and dupls.: u Ía laÓÍim lu-uk-su-us ku-sa-se-e-Íu (cf. Foster, Before the Muses2, Bethesda, Md. 2005, 995). ii 29': Cf. CAD ° 92ff. sub Óar⁄‰u A (standard logograms: kud and tar). ii 30': The pronunciation gloss in this line is perhaps to be restored as Íe-e[g] (Civil reads gu-ug). Although KAŒBAD is normally read uÍ11 or uÓ4, one of the words in this group (Íaqummatu – ii 34') is written with the logograms Íeg5/ Íegx(KAŒfiE). For the present tentative reading of the Akkadian word see CAD fi/2 416 ÍiÓˇu A “strike, attack” etc. Other possible, less likely readings could be: *‚ÍiiÓŸ-tù-um “fear” (a hapax derivative from ÍaÓ⁄tum B?) or ‚wa!?-ár?Ÿ-du?-um. ii 31': For the seemingly hapax Sumerian loanword urÓuÍÍu, see Hh XIV 79–81 (MSL 8/2, 13): ur-ka-duÓ-a, ur-ka-tab-ba, ur-ÓuÍ = kàt-ti-lu “a wild animal” (cf. CAD K 307b sub kattillu). This equation (and perhaps all equations in lines ii 30'– 34') is perhaps based on the reading of the logogram as KAŒTIL, which recalls Akkadian kattillu. Otherwise KAŒBAD is usually read Ufi11 (=kiÍpu, ru’tu). ii 32': Formerly read gu-lu-tù-um (=gullutum) was abandoned in favor of GU-urdu-um, suggested by Stol, on the basis of both paleographic and orthographic considerations. However, the improved reading does not yield a clear-cut interpretation. Although Stol’s suggestion to read qù-ur-du-um, assuming an underlying qurdum “heroism,” adopted here with reservations, somehow suits the preceding immediate context, it is problematic, because our scribe writes /qu/ normally with qú. Assuming, on the other hand, an underlying gurdûm “large basket” (cf. CAD G 70 sub gigurdû; AHw 287b s.v.) is even more questionable, since this rare Sumerian loanword is always written with the Sumerian logogram GI.GUR.DA; in addition, we would expect here a lengthening of the /u/ vowel.

MOBC-2 Page 107 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 1:34 PM

An Old Babylonian Bilingual Lexical Text

107

ii 33': The second sign in the Akkadian column is illegible. According to the traces, it could have been a ‚RUŸ. However, a hypothetical na-ru-qum (=naruqqum “sack” etc.) would hardly fit the lexical context, unless we opt for the reading gu-ur-du-um in the previous line (see comment above). ii 34': Cf. CAD fi/2 33a sub Íaqummatu; AHw 1182a; for this word the only logogram documented is Íeg5 (KAŒTU), except for Nabnitu X 301 (MSL 16, 123), where the logogram KAŒfiE is considered by the editor to be a scribal error for KAŒTU. ii 35'–36': If our reading of line 36' is correct, these two entries belong to the same semantic field and the same complex KA logogram. The present logogram for this group may have been KAŒSIG or KAŒME+SIG or KAŒDIRI (see below). ii 35': The standard Sumerian equivalent for Akkadian kar‰u is eme-sig, occasionally also KA-sig (cf. CAD K 222 sub kar‰u; AHw 450 s.v.). No compound KA sign for this word is attested in the lexical texts. ii 36': The tentatively read ‚waŸ-at!-ra-tum may be interpreted as watr⁄tu, a plural form of watartum “exaggeration, lie”; cf. CAD A/2 485 sub atartu; AHw 1489 sub (w)atartum. See further OB Lu C5 11 (MSL 12, 195) lú inim diri dug4-dug4 = wa-‚atŸ-ru-ú “bragger” (AHw 1493 sub watrûm); Sag B 143 (MSL SS 1, 32) ka-diri-ga = at-rum. ii 37'–38': Reading of these lines is highly uncertain. The scribe did not draw straight lines and did not keep the signs within their limits (the two signs read as PI and x in l. 38' are written on the dividing line between 37' and 38'). ii 37': It is tentatively assumed that Óu-tum stands for Óuttûm (D of Óatûm) “to smite” (cf. CAD ° 151b sub Óatû A; AHw 336b sub Óatû(m) II. ii 38': The second and third signs in the Akkadian column are damaged, thus preventing any certain reading. One possibility is to read na-pi!-iÍ?-tum “woman carding wool” (cf. CAD N/1 304 sub n⁄piÍtu). Alternatively, one may read na-wi!-ra?tum “brightness”; cf. Sollberger 1965, 84 (Studies Landsberger 23): zalag-ga = el-lum = na-wi-ra-tum. No complex KA sign is attested for the above words. ii 39'–41': The standard Sumerian logogram for lemnum is °UL (=IGI.UR). However, since the simple IGI section must have begun in line ii 42' below, with the Akkadian equivalent ‹num, it is unlikely that the Sumerian logogram in this line was Óul. Perhaps the three entries in ll. 39'–41' were based on a hypothetical logogram KAŒIGI. Borger points out that KAŒIGI, under the value Íilig7, is a graphic variant for Íilig(URUŒIGI); cf. Sb Voc. II 266 (MSL 3, 146);

MOBC-2 Page 108 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 1:34 PM

108

From the Workshop of the Mesopotamian Scribe

Borger, AOAT 305, p. 58, No. 59. As a matter of fact, one of the four Akkadian equivalents of Íilig (URUŒIGI) is petûm (cf. Sec. Proto-Ea No. 7 ii 30–33 [MSL 14, 120]), which appears in the second line of the present group. Accordingly, it may be assumed that the author of our lexical text chose the logogram (KAŒIGI) as a segue to the following IGI sections. Another hypothetical logogram that could be restored here is KAŒ°UL. For ka qualified by the adjective Óul see Izi F 322 (MSL 13, 199) ka-Óul = MIN (=KA) lem-nu; Geller, UHF, p. 20: III 29; Inana C 47; Good Seed of a Dog 9. The reading ka-ak!-si-ik-ka! (l. 41') has been suggested by Civil, Veldhuis and Cavigneaux. For this grammatical term see also iv 12 and vi 21 below (discussed above in the introduction). ii 42'-iii 42: To the IGI section in our text, which contained ca. 54 entries, cf. the following parallel IGI sections in other vocabularies:100 Lexical Text No. Preceding Following of Entries Section Section 1 Sb Voc I 351–360 (MSL 3, 127) 10 SAL GAfiAN 2 Hh I 134–137 (MSL 5, 18) 4 SAª fiU 3 Ea V Assur MA 23'–29' (MSL 14, 404) 8+ NUN --4 Ea V 179–199 (MSL 14, 402) 20+ NUN SAL 5 Aa V/3 111–133 (MSL 14, 424) 23+ NUN SIG7 6 OB Diri Nippur 114–160 (MSL 15, 16–19) 47 °AR.°AR SIG7.ALAN 7 Diri Ugarit I 317–412 (MSL 15, 73–74) 95 LAGAB MI.MI 8 Diri Emar 2:1–14; 1'–22' (MSL 15, 85–86) 36+ — LAGAB.LAGAB 9 Diri II 75–179 (MSL 15, 124–129) 105 A°.A° — 10 Sag A iv 41–v 41 (MSL SS 1, 24–26) 65 eme KA No. 1: Begins with [i-gi] IGI = [i-nu] and followed by 9 complex IGI signs. No. 3 begins with [Í]i-i IGI = e-gu-ú (cf. CAD E 48 sub egû) followed by complex IGI signs. No. 4: Begins with 7 simple IGI signs, the first of which is Íi-i IGI = [e-guú], and the last three of them equated to Akkadian p⁄nu, maÓru and ‹nu; this is followed by 11+ complex IGI signs. 100. For a table indicating the values of igi in our lexical texts as compared to the parallel section in Proto-Ea and Ea see p. 145 below.

MOBC-2 Page 109 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 1:34 PM

An Old Babylonian Bilingual Lexical Text

109

No. 5 contains only simple IGI signs, with maÓru and ‹nu listed toward the end of the list. Nos. 6–10: Contain only complex IGI signs (see note 59 above). ii 42'–44': The closest parallel to these entries can be found in Sag A v 37–39 (MSL SS 1, 26): ‹nu, p⁄nu and z‹mu. See also Hh I 134–37 (MSL 5, 18), where the list begins with ‹nu and p⁄nu, followed by maÓru and Í‹bu. ii 45'–46': IGI seems to be equated to m⁄tum only in Nabnitu IV 55 (MSL 16, 79). Otherwise, this noun is normally equated to kur, ma-da, kalam etc.; in Idu and Nabnitu it is also equated to múÍ/mùÍ (CAD M/1 414b). For maÓar, equated frequently to igi, see CAD M/1 105 sub maÓru lex. sect. Elsewhere this construct state of maÓru occurs in the lexical texts always in phrases such as, e.g., ina maÓar DN (cf., e.g., Ai VI iii 23ff. [MSL 1, 83f.]). ii 47'–49': Cf. OB Diri Nippur 114 (MSL 15, 16) [li?]-‚li-ibŸ IGI.IGI = sà-a-ruum; Diri II 75 (MSL 15, 124) li-lib IGI.IGI = sar-[ru] (see also Diri I Ugarit 329 [MSL 15, 73]; Sollberger 1965 from Ugarit C 8–9 [Studies Landsberger 35]). ii 50': Cf. OB Diri Nippur 118–19 (MSL 15, 16) ba-ab-ba-ad IGI.IGI = pa-tia-am i-ni, PI-al-‰a i-ni; Diri I Ugarit 324 (MSL 15, 73) ba-bad IGI.IGI = pe-ta-a IGI.MEfi, bal-‰a IGI.MEfi. For petâ ‹ni as a possible euphemism for blind see CAD P 339a. For a recent discussion of the damqam ‹nim construction in OB literary texts, see N. Wasserman, Style and Form in Old Babylonian Literary Texts, Leiden: Brill 2003, pp. 45–55. ii 51': Cf. Diri I Ugarit 328 (MSL 15, 73) ba-bad IGI.IGI = da-ab-du-u. ii 52': Cf. OB Diri Nippur 130 (MSL 15, 16) IGI.DUB = it-tum; Diri II 100 (MSL 15, 124) giz-ki-im IGI.DUB = ittu. For the tentative restoration of the CVC sign ™iÍ in the pronunciation gloss [™iÍ-ki-im] cf. ™iÍ-tu-nu in iv 13. Note, however, that the pronunciation gloss could be alternatively read [iz-kiim]; cf. Izi A II 21' (MSL 13, 169) IGIi-iz-ki-imDUB = it-tum. Furthermore, the Sumerian loanword in Akkadian giskimmu may also be read iskimmu and iskimbu; cf. AHw 291, sub (g)iskimmu(m); CAD G 98, sub giskimmu discussion.

Col. iii iii 1: Cf. OB Diri Nippur 133 (MSL 15, 16) [x]-ri-ig

IGI.DUB = a-ba-ra-akkum; Diri II 108–109 (MSL 15, 124) ág-ri-ig IGI.DUB = ag-ri-iq-qu, a-ba-rak-ku. iii 2–4: The spelling wa-tu-‚ùŸ?-[um] in l. 2 is quite certain, although one would expect it written with -ú-. For the sequence of the conjugated verbal forms watûm – zak⁄rum – tamûm cf. Ai I iii 18–29 (MSL 1, 9) passim (the correct

MOBC-2 Page 110 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 1:34 PM

110

From the Workshop of the Mesopotamian Scribe

reading of the Akkadian entry in iii 3 was suggested by Civil). For isolated equations cf. Nabnitu IVa 286–87 (MSL 16, 87) pà, pà-da = zak⁄rum; ibid. IVa 312–13 (MSL ibid. 89) pà, pà-da = tamû. iii 5–6: For libir = lab‹rum cf. OB Diri Nippur 129 (MSL 15, 16) IGI.fiÈ = labi-rum, between the logograms IGI.DU and IGI.DUB. See, however, the late version Diri II 129–130 (MSL ibid. 126) li-bir IGI.LU = lab‹ru, lab⁄ru, preceded by the IGI.DIB section, one of whose Akkadian equivalents is u (see comment to iii 7–8 below). For IGI.LU = lab¤ru see also Sa Voc. Frag. N 27' (MSL 3, 66). For pan⁄num see CAD P 78f.; AHw 818a (no Sumerian logogram is attested). iii 7–8: The pronunciation gloss is almost certainly ù (= IGI.fiÈ or IGI.LU). Therefore, we read the logogram in these two lines tentatively as Ù, although it is somewhat obscure and looks like IGI.RU or IGI.K≤D. The Akkadian word in l. 7 seems to be the conjunction u “and” or u/› “or” (cf. CAD U/W 1 sub u; AHw 1397 sub u; 1398 sub ›), both of which are usually written with u or ù, and rarely with ú. Cf. especially Diri II 115 (MSL 15, 126) (ú IGI.DIB) = u (third entry in a 15-line IGI.DIB section, followed by a the IGI.LU section, two of whose equivalents are lab‹ru and lab⁄ru). Note, however, that in view of the present irregular writing ù-‚úŸ, the possibility cannot be excluded that we have here an alternative form of the interjection ›’a (see comment to the following line). Veldhuis suggests to restore in the Akkadian entry ù-‚luŸ?. However, Akkadian ›lu is not attested in any of the early or late syllabaries (cf. CAD U/W 88 s.v.; AHw 1411 sub ›l›). Traces at the end of l. 8 point to ‚LUMŸ, rather than ‚TUMŸ. Note that neither the restored n¤beÓum nor an alternative n‹bittum “belt” seems to fit the present context (unless we assume that a hypothetical nib‹tum, a hapax derivative from nabû B “wail”). iii 9–10: Apparently the scribe repeats the entry to indicate two variant pronunciations for the same sign (SIG5) and meaning (damqum): sag10 and sig5, if the reading of the pronunciation glosses as sa6!-ga (or sa™?!-ga) and si21-ga, respectively, is correct. For the former pronunciation cf. Sb Voc. I Rec. B 356 (MSL 3, 127) sa[g] IGI.ERIM2 = dam-[qu]. The value /sig/ for IGI.ERIM2 seems to be based solely on the restoration [si]-‚igŸ [IGI.ERIM2 = dam-qu] (Ea V 189 [MSL 14, 402]). See, however, Ea IV 314–15 (MSL 14, 367) [si]-ig KAL = damqu; [si]-‚gaŸ? KAL = MIN (=dam-qu) et passim; Ea I 224 (MSL 14, 188) si-ig SA6 = dam-qu. Note, that in view of l. 9 in our text, the pronunciation gloss in the second entry above (Ea IV 315) should probably to be restored ‚sa-gaŸ (cf. ibid. Civil’s note on l. 315 above).

MOBC-2 Page 111 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 1:34 PM

An Old Babylonian Bilingual Lexical Text

111

iii 11: See above ii 39'. Note that while the other vocabularies give the °UL

sign numerous Akkadian equivalents (cf. Diri II 132–143 [MSL 15, 126]; Sa Voc. Frag. AA 28'–37' [MSL 3, 82]), our scribe offers only the basic equivalent lemnum. iii 12–16: For the lexical sequence in these lines see especially the parallel section in OB Diri Nippur 144–49 (MSL 15, 18): Íukur = Íu-ku-ru-um (iii 13), Óa-al-wu-ú-um; ubri = da-Ói-mu-um (iii 14), Íu-ku-ru-um; Óenzir = ‰e-eÓ-ru-um, la-a-a-ú-um (iii 16), ‰ú-Óa-ru-um (iii 15), pe-Óu-ú See also Diri II 155–70 (MSL 15, 126): da-la IGI.KAK = ‰illû, dalû, gubru, quppû; Íu-kur IGI.KAK = Íukurru, da'imu; ub-ri IGI.KAK = Íukurru, da'imu; Óe-en-zèr IGI.DIM = Íerru, ‰eÓru, la’û, lakû, ..., ¤tiqu, aÍpaltu, kassib⁄n (see further Ea V 195'–199' [MSL 14, 402]). iii 12: For Sumerian dala2 = ‰illûm cf. CAD fl 193 sub ‰illû A; AHw 1101 sub ‰illû(m). The writing of /dala/ in the pronunciation gloss with lá (instead of la) is puzzling; see, however, igi-lá! in iii 38. Reading of the Akkadian entry was suggested by Veldhuis. iii 13: For Íukur = Íukurrum cf. comment to iii 12–16 above. iii 14–16: For the sequence of this three entries see the parallels OB Diri Nippur 144–49, Diri II 155–70 and Ea V 195'–99' quoted above. Note the peculiar value /ibra/ (versus the standard /ubri/) for IGI.DIM (Akkadian da’imu) in l. 14. Ói-iz-ir in l. 15 is perhaps a broken spelling for a hypothetical *Ói-zir, to be pronounced Óezzir < Óenzir; cf. the above mentioned parallels; see also Lu 189 (MSL 12, 109) Óé-en-zé-er = qú-da-du (cf. CAD Q 293 sub qud⁄du A; AHw 925 sub k/gud⁄du(m)). For l. 15 see further Antagal C 239 (MSL 17. 201) IGIÓe-en-zèrDIM = gu-da-du. Veldhuis’s proposal to read in the pronunciation gloss Ói-si-ir (for Ói-zi-ir) cannot be excluded. According to Civil (2007, 25, No. 112) this lexeme may be an Akkadian LW (could it derive from *‰iÓiru by metathesis?). iii 17–18: We have here two different Sumerian logograms with two slightly different meanings, but the same pronunciation: /imÓur/. For the sequence of these two entries cf. OB Diri Nippur 135–36 (MSL 15, 16) im-Óu-ur IGI.A Óuur-Óu-ma-at me-e; im-Óu-ur IGI.KAfi Óu-ur-Óu-ma-at Íi-k[a]-ri-im (see also Diri II 110–11 [MSL 15, 124]; Diri I Ugarit 347 [MSL 15, 74]). Note that in Diri Emar Section 2 13' (MSL 15, 86), the pronunciation gloss for IGI.A and IGI.KAfi

MOBC-2 Page 112 Tuesday, January 14, 2020 1:34 PM

112

From the Workshop of the Mesopotamian Scribe

is [i]m-Óu-ul (=imÓul). For the correct reading of these two logograms as imÓur (formerly read as a/uÓÓur), see also Borger, AOAT 305, p. 187f. sub No. 724. As to the underlying form of the Akkadian noun denoting “foam,” we may posit two alternative explanations: (a) The underlying form of the noun denoting “foam” is the only hitherto attested fem. ÓurÓummatu (cf. CAD ° 250 sub lex. sect.; AHw 359a); in that case, we will have to posit a lexical ligature *ÓurÓummammê < ÓurÓummat mê and *ÓurÓummaÍÍikari < ÓurÓummat Íikari (it is unlikely that the scribe omitted the syllable -at, due to an error or the lack of space). (b) We may have here a construct form of an underlying masc. noun *ÓurÓummu in which case, however, we expect here *ÓurÓummi. iii 19–21: For these lines see especially the most reliable parallel source OB Diri Nippur 137–41 (MSL 15, 16–18): Óa-li-ib IGI.KUR = ir-kal-la; ga-an-zéer IGI.KUR.ZA = da-ni-n[a], ka-ni-sur-ra, ba-ab er-‰[e-tim]; [Óa-li-ib] IGI.KUR = pa-ni er-‰e-tim. According to the above source (if our restoration in l. 141 is correct), IGI.KUR originally represented the Sumerian word Óalib = Akkadian pani er‰etim and IGI.KUR.ZA represented the Sumerian word ganzer = Akkadian b⁄b er‰etim. Diri II 145 and 150 agree basically with these equations, except that it writes Sumerian Óilib with the logogram IGI.BAD (instead of IGI.KUR). The additional value Óalib-za for IGI.KUR.ZA in our text seems to be an artificial innovation, combining the value Óalib (IGI.KUR) with the additional ZA. In Diri I Ugarit 393–400 (MSL 15, 74) the two logograms IGI.KUR.ZA are equated to other Akkadian terms for the netherworld (such as er‰etim, irkalla, dannina etc.), but the pronunciation glosses of the logograms are broken. Note that ga-zí-ir in the pronunciation gloss (read upon Veldhuis’ suggestion) stands for gazzir (