Printer Friendly

Das Ritual der Astu (CTH 490): Rekonstruktion und Tradition eines hurritisch-hethitischen Rituals aus Bogazkoy [Hattusa.].

Das Ritual der Astu (CTH 490): Rekonstruktion und Tradition eines hurritisch-hethitischen Rituals aus BogazkoylHattusa. By SUSANNE GORKE. Culture and History of the Ancient Near East, vol. 40. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Pp. xvii + 365. $179.

Susanne Gorke's treatment of the ritual of Astu (CTH 490) is the first text edition of a Hurro-Hittite text attempted since Erich Neu's 1996 work on the Hurro-Hittite Bilingual (Das hurritische Epos der Freilassung I, StBoT 32 [Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz]). Several versions of this multi-tablet ritual are known (see the various apparatuses on pp. 9-31). The majority of the tablets have been published in transcription in Corpus der hurritische Sprachdenkmaler 1/5 by Haas and Wegner, but the author was able to include six further fragments in her edition.

Working with the Hurrian material from Bogazkoy is difficult, given the issues with the grammar and lexicon of this language that still remain. That being said, the advances in our ability to read Hurrian since the last decade of the twentieth century have allowed for a work such as the one under review to be attempted. The author has done a commendable job at trying to decipher the numerous Hurrian recitations within the Astu ritual. As she has noted, however, of the Hurrian passages in the ritual, most cannot currently be completely translated (p. 293).

The book is divided into five sections. The author begins with a brief introduction to the ritual of Astu, including a useful overview of past studies. The second part of the text makes up the majority of the book and contains the text apparatuses ( [section] 2.1) and the transcriptions translation, and commentary on the four preserved tablets of the ritual and the various fragments that cannot yet be placed ( [section] 2.2). She also includes in this section a reconstruction of the ritual ( [section] 2.3), a comparison of its structure with other rituals ( [section] 2.3.2), and an examination of important ritual material ( [section] 2.3.3) and cult personnel ( [section] 2.3.4).

In her commentaries, while issues of Hittite grammar are discussed when needed, the author focuses primarily upon the Hurrian recitations. Her treatment of the Hurrian in the commentary includes a narrow transcription, an analytic bound transcription displaying morpheme boundaries that includes parenthetical notes on grammatical forms, a discussion of important/difficult words, and a translation when possible.

The third part of the book discusses various aspects of the ritual of Astu, including its geographical locations ( [section] 3.1), important characteristics ( [section] 3.2), the gods of the ritual ( [section] 3.3). and an overview of the Hurrian recitations ( [section]3.4). After a short resume ( [section] 4), the author provides a glossary of the various languages found in the ritual ( [section] 5.2), several indices ( [section] 5.3), and a bibliography ( [section] 5.1). For the Hurrian glossary the author provides a base form with, when possible, its German translation. The bound transcription with morpheme boundaries, without parsing, is given for each occurrence rather than the transliteration. Seeing how much more work needs to be done with Hurrian in general, the preference for bound transcription over transliteration is somewhat problematic. The forms given in the index represent the author's current analysis and as corrections are inevitably made over time, the presentation of the Hurrian material in the index will become obsolete.

I will focus the remainder of this review on the author's analysis of the Hurrian. Given the poor state of our knowledge of the Hurrian lexicon, especially concerning religious terminology, it is often difficult to provide clear translations of the material. That said, the author does an admirable job of attempting to edit the Hurrian recitations of the Agtu ritual.

The author consistently interprets intransitives in =a=b as third singular, based on the general consensus that =b is a third person agreement marker. This morpheme is found with all persons and numbers and therefore I strongly believe that this interpretation must be abandoned (see Campbell, "The Old Hurrian Verb," SMEA 49 [2007]: 76-80). A few typographic errors can be found, but these are very minimal. Of some note: p. 87, last 1.: "Essiv" should read "Ergativ," and the "Absolutiv [section] ekki.ni=0=n(na)" does not match with Gorke's parsing of the form earlier on the one.

P. 81 (Text 3.A.1 obv. ii 7): The author's analysis of e-ra-du-wa as a nominal with an epenthetic =u= between root and the dative =va with concurrent elision of the root vowel-e is not without its difficulties. She presents evidence for nominal forms with an expressed -u- after the root in note 219, but the only example that supports her analysis of eraduva is ke-el-du-u-i (< keldi) in ChS I/l 41 iii 6. The other examples, such as as-du-e-ne-es (I/5 23 iii 16), tu-ru-u-e-ni-es (I/5 19 iv 10), etc., are to be kept distinct from the eraduva, even should it prove to be erad(e)=u=va as she proposes. In these forms, the roots themselves appears to be aatue and turue, respectively. Each one is followed by the singular relator =ne= and the ergative case ending =Z.

A possible alternative is to analyze eraduva as a verbal rather than a nominal form. Endings in =uva are not unknown in the Human corpus (e.g., kuruwa [Mitt. iv 42]; ag=o1=uwa and taz=ol=uwa [KBo 32.14 i 45]). In a recent publication I have argued that these forms correspond to dative-shift, in which the logical patient is demoted to the essive and the recipient or beneficiary of the action is raised to the absolutive (see Campbell, "Agent, Subject, Patient, and Beneficiary: Grammatical Roles in Hurrian," in Grammatical Case in the Languages of the Middle East and Europe, ed. M. Fruyt et al. [Chicago: The Oriental Institute, 20111, 35-41). In 1. 8, the verbal form sa-ku-um (sag=o=m) should be translated as a perfective.

P. 82 (Text 3.A.1 obv. ii 9-10): The ergative and absolutive forms puski=Z soni are the only two forms in 1. 10 and represent the end of the paragraph. A verb that allows for an agent and a patient is therefore required. It is difficult to determine the exact number of signs missing between the -t[e? and -us of 1. 9, although the author indicates only two: sa-a-sa-ap-t[e * * ]..?us?. There is a considerable amount of empty space between the possible -us and the preceding sign, perhaps indicating the sign was purposefully adjusted to the end of the line. Given that we have an ergative and absolutive in 1. 10, the verb must allow for transitive constructions. It appears to me that the only two possibilities for the sign traces at the end of 1. 9 are a -?da? (for future =ed=a; "the p. will x the hand") or the -rug' read by the author. This latter sign would give us a verb ending in =u! or =oz and and can only be analyzed as a patient-focusing optative (Campbell, "Split Ergativity in Hurrian," ZA 98 [2008]: 281-91). This would allow for a translation of this passage as "May the hand be x'ed by the puski." Modal forms in =oz: of transitive verbs take the agent in the ergative and patient in the absolutive: [(nessi=m)] en(i)=n(a)=az=us=sa(<nna) nog=ind=o=(e)z "May [the nessi] be nog 'ed by the gods!" (ChS I/3 obv. 26); ("You shall not purify the passi's which the mighty female deities, the gods, the nai's, will purify!") [section] en(i)=n(a)=az=uz talav=o=Zi=n(a)=az=uz ast=o=hhi=n(a)=az=uz ... seg=a1=ind=o=(e)z itk=ind=o=(e)z en(i)=n(a)=az=uz "May (the paggi) be made pure and purified by the mighty female gods [two other ergative forms]" (ChS I/1 6 ii 8-11); agar(i)=re(<ne)=z kel=o=(e) tea "May he be completely (tea) healed by the incense!" (ChS I/4 1 iii 33-34); sovali=z kel=o=(e)z tea "May he be completely healed by the wine!" (ChS I/4 7 ii 18").

R 86 (Text 3.A.1 rev. iii 4): Whether or not ha-az-zi-is is to be related to Mount Hazzi is uncertain. The author references the ha-az-zi-ni-bi of the Ummaya Ritual (ChS I/5 46 iv 21'), saying that it is attested here in connection with mountains. This requires some qualification. ChS I/5 46 iv 14'-25' form a set of patterns containing sets of semantically related nominals (e.g., "earth" and "heaven" (iv 15'); "waters" and "mountains" (iv 16')). hazzi=ne=ve occurs in conjunction with manmade locations such as halzi 'fortress' (iv 17') and ardi 'city' (iv 21'), not with natural features such as mountains. lam preparing an article on this section of the Ummaya Ritual and a fuller description will be given there.

Pp. 89-90 (Text 3.A.1 rev. iii 15): The author interprets ma-ra-al-le-en as a first person voluntative (jussive) with the absolutive enclitic =t(ta) on e-ra-ta-at as its expressed first person agent. First person jussives with expressed agents take a freestanding pronoun in the ergative case. Note the following example: iza(=z)=m(ma) sini=m ton=i1=(i)=le en(i)=n(a)=az=uz tad=on=id=en ate "Furthermore, may It. you?! May the gods love me!" (ChS I/1 41 iii 55-56). This supports Neu's restoration of ka-ti-il-le i-s[a-as] (StBoT 32: 30, 38) in KBo 32.11 i 4. The spelling with -lile-en speaks against it, but I wonder if the verb could not be taken as an antipassive mar=all=i=n, with =n as connective and not the third singular enclitic pronoun. This would allow the first person =tta to function as its subject/ agent and erad(e)=a as its demoted patient in the essive. This fits the context of 3.B.1 ii 25-26: (Hitt.: "[She kills the bird]") [section] erad(e)=a=d mar=all=i=n(connective) "I kill(ed) the bird!" and 3.B.1 iii 4'-7': (Hitt: "[after]wards the A[ZU-priest] s[wings the bird] over (the client). The AZU-priest says in Hurrian":) e[rad(e)=a=d] mar=a11=i "I kill(ed) the bird!" better than the jussive/voluntative "Let me kill the bird!" does.

P. 119 (Text 3.C.I obv. i 15): The author's analysis of zu-a-li as an imperative zul=i strikes me as possible. If this holds then she is correct in taking the absolutive havorni 'heaven' as the second person agent. She correctly analyzes the next two forms, GISsikkala and sipohha(=tta), as essive forms (with =tta as first person enclitic pronoun). Her translation "Binde, Himmel, mich als trockenes? gikka [correct to Sikkala]-Holz" (my italics of "als") seems unlikely. It is difficult to imagine how and why the "me" would be bound like wood. Another possibility would be to take this as an example of dative-shift (see Campbell, "Agent, Patient, and Beneficiary," 35-41), where the wood would be the logical patient which has been demoted to the essive. The absolutive =tta 'me' would then represent the promotion or raising of the beneficiary of the action to the patient position (as in English "Mary baked me a cake"). This would give us a translation "0 you heaven, bind (for/to) me the sikkala sikkala-wood."

Pp. 119-20 (Text 3.C.1 obv. 116): The author's treatment of en-na ar-ha-an-ti-en is problematic. If we take the latter as the third person essive arg=and=i=en with en(i)=na as the plural absolu-tive patient, as she does, then we must assume some new third person agent, despite the fact that the previous two verbs, zul=i (i 15) and ha=i(=d) (i 16), are likely imperatives, i.e., second person. Perhaps better would be to analyze ar-ha-an-ti-en as a nominal form ar,g=and=i=n with =n as the same instrumental/dimensional case as found on de=ni "from the earth" earlier in the line. Nominals with the derivational morpheme =and= are known (e.g., ag=and=i (occupation); nurandige (a plant); simandige 'cypress?'). This provides a translation: "0 gods, take me from the earth, from the argandi!"

Pp. 120-21 (Text 3.C.1 obv 116-17): The author is correct in her observations that the "Bindevokal-u-" causes difficulties in her analysis of a-am-pa-as-bu-un. A possible solution would be to take this as two words, an essive amb(i)=a and the adjective/adverb? dit(=)u=n (connective?) "(up) high." The atm fits the context of this recitation, which involves binding by heaven (i 15) and being taken away from the earth (i 16), which have been discussed above, and it would likely be an adverb of place in this clause. The amba is, as the author states, built off of the root amb- 'to burn' and we may perhaps have here a nominal *ambi 'burning; burnt thing', in place of the more common ambasse. This gives us a translation: "Upon high the x gave this? evil like a burnt (offering)."

P. 136 (Text 4.A.I rev. iv 6): We find two dative plural forms in a row: har(i).ra(<na)=az=a nangi=n(a)=az=a. The author translates these forms as two different kinds of datives: "auf den Wegen [harraza] zu den nangi-Waffen [nanginaza]." Although nangi- has been translated as a kind of weapon (see citations at p. 136 n. 400), I wonder if these two forms cannot be used appositionally here. We find the pair si(e)=ae agar(i)=r(e)=ai (ChS I/2 40 i 13) referencing the preceding Hittite phrase: ZAG-it-ma-az ki- is-si-it (11) GAL A da-a-i GISERIN-ia-as-sa-an an-da-ma "he takes a cup of water with his right hand, and cedar is within" (ibid. i 10-11; ed. Haas and Wegner, StBoT 52,108); see also ChS I/2 1 ii 30-31: si(e)=ai agar(i)=r(e)=a[i. In both cases we have both 'water' (fie) and 'incense' (agri = cedar in this context) in the instrumental =ai case. They are not to be understood as two separate items (i.e., "through the water (and) through the incense") but rather as a compound -through the water-incense (= incense-infused water)." Note ChS I/1 3 rev. 11: .ysi(e)=ai agri=v(e)=ai "through the water of the incense," which makes the relationship between the two more explicit through the genitive + Suffixaufnahme construction (see Haas, Materia Magica et Medica Hethitica [Berlin: de Gruyter, 20031, 151-52).

P. 137 (Text 4.A. I rev. iv 7 Texts B/C): The author's interpretation of the difficult DINGIR.MES-ni-ia-sa as containing a singular relator =ne= followed by the third person possessive =i= goes against our understanding of these morphemes. The use of relators and infixed possessive markers appears to be mutually exclusive in Hurrian (see Giorgieri, "Schizzo grammatical della lingua hurrica," PdP 55 [20001: 215; Wegner, Hurritisch: Eine Einfuhrung. 2: Aufiage [Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2007], 64). Furthermore, the presence of the plural ME would require the use of the plural relator =no= rather than the singular =ne=. The form ti-ir-ha-ah-e-na is likely from a root tirgi followed by derivational =a=ge=, bringing about elision of the root vowel The broken spelling -ah-e- is remarkable, although I am unsure what it might represent.

Susanne Gorke has put together a very good volume on the ritual of Astu. Her focus on the Hurrian language recitations is commendable. Although I do not always agree with her analysis of various forms, her control over Hurrian grammar and lexicon is clear. I firmly believe that works like this are essential to creating the dialogue that is necessary for the progress of our understanding of Hurrian. GOrke's treatment of the various texts and her discussions of many aspects of the ritual will prove very useful to scholars working on Hurro-Hittite religion.
COPYRIGHT 2014 American Oriental Society
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2014 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

 
Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Campbell, Dennis R. M.
Publication:The Journal of the American Oriental Society
Article Type:Book review
Date:Apr 1, 2014
Words:2663
Previous Article:Homer's Odyssey and the Near East.
Next Article:The Scourge of God: The Umman-manda and Its Significance in the First Millennium.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2018 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters