Printer Friendly

The old Akkadian royal inscriptions: notes on a new edition.

INTRODUCTION Scholars in the field of Assyriology have long desired a new edition of the royal inscriptions of the Old Akkadian kings. H. Hirsch's edition (Hirsch 1963), while valuable, was incomplete, for it gave the texts only of inscriptions known from later OB tablet copies; the original inscriptions were simply enumerated with their bibliography. Thus the publication of I. J. Gelb's and B. Kienast's Die altakkadischen Koniginschriften des dritten Jahrtausends v. Christ is a welcome addition to Assyriological literature; its appearance should mean that the scholar need no longer thumb through a myriad of different publications in order to pursue a comprehensive study of the royal inscriptions of the Old Akkadian period. The authors are to be commended for their thoroughness in the compilation of the volume, for its compact format, and for its detailed bibliographies. The scope of the monograph is broader than indicated by its title. The authors' comments on p. xiii make it clear that the term "altakkadisch" of the title is not a designation of the Old Akkadian historical period. While the corpus of the inscriptions of the Old Akkadian kings does make up the bulk of the volume, it is by no means restricted to these texts. Rather, the monograph is to serve as a source document for philological purposes, treating all the royal inscriptions of the third millennium recorded in the Akkadian language. This follows Gelb's definition of the chronology of the Old Akkadian language: from the earliest texts in Akkadian language of pre-Sargonic times down to the end of the Ur III period. Thus the authors edit in chapters I and II pre-Sargonic inscriptions in Akkadian from Mari and other sites. A further confusion arises with the authors' use of the term "Konigsinschriften." They have included in the early chapters several dedicatory inscriptions which, while they may have belonged to high officials, were certainly not royal. A restriction of the volume to actual royal inscriptions would have decreased the size of the corpus for study, but would have had the advantage of keeping within the subject material indicated by the monograph title. It is unclear why inscriptions in Sumerian of the Gutian-period rulers of the cities of Umma (Nin-ura, p. 296; Lugal-ana-tum, pp. 296-97) and Sarrakum (Sar-adi-qubbisin, pp. 297-99) are included. One drawback in the presentation of the material is the separation into separate chapters of the original inscriptions, seal inscriptions, and later tablet copies. Is it really preferable to edit a text such as Manistusu 1 in two separate places, one giving an edition of the original inscriptions, and a second the later tablet copies? As long as the details of the various exemplars are clearly set out, no problems should arise if the original and later copies were edited together. Further, it would make more sense to collect all the seal inscriptions and votive inscriptions mentioning members of the royal family together in one place rather than editing them in separate chapters. A few words are in order about the transliteration system used by the authors, especially as it concerns the Old Akkadian sibilants. Gelb (MAD 2, 35) proposed at least three different series of S's for the earliest stages of Old Akkadian. (His postulated fourth sibilant series brings up special problems and will not be discussed in the present study.) The three-tiered system is further divided into two main groups: a) [S.sub.1] and [S.sub.2]; and b) [S.sub.3]--as shown in the following chart. [TABULAR DATA OMITTED] It should be noted that the sign [SU.sub.4] does not fit neatly into this scheme, for it is used for the sibilants of both groups a) and b). For its rendering of /su/ note the PN: [su.sub.4]-mu-be-li; for the value /su/ one may compare the common writing for the demonstrative pronoun: [SU.sub.4]-a in OAkk. curse formulae with the form found in the Kutik-Insusinak inscriptions: su-a. The fact that the Kutik-Insusinak inscriptions date to the time period before the shift (in orthography) of s to s indicates that the su-a form is original. Another example of [SU.sub.4] representing /s/ derived from original /t/ is in: [pi.sub.5]-[si.sub.x] ([SU.sub.4])-it (cf. pu-su-ut of OIP 14, 48, col. ii, line 2'; root p t t?) or in tam-[si.sub.]([SU.sub.4])-il-su of Naram-Sin C 6 (root m t l). The authors decided to differentiate OAkk. [S.sub.2] from [S. sub.1] in their volume, by transliterating [S.sub.2] as s; this follows the earlier practice of Gelb. As can be seen from the chart, this decision causes no problems when we are dealing with CV signs, for the distinction between [S.sub.2] and [S.sub.3] is clearly marked in the syllabary. Difficulties arise, however, with the VC signs. For example, the AS sign in OAkk. can be used to write either /as/ or /as/; the IS sign /is/ or /is/; and the US sign /us/ or /us/. In these cases the scholar has two methods to determine the nature of the sibilant in question. One is to examine the inner Akkadian evidence for a different form from the same verbal root. If the Akkadian evidence proves inconclusive, one could turn to the comparative evidence of cognate forms in other, preferably contemporary, Semitic languages. In the case of IS-me, for example, the evidence of the Eblaic infinitive sa-ma-um clearly tells us that the sibilant in OAkk. should be rendered as s. While the authors are generally correct in their rendering of the s phoneme in this volume, some mistakes do occur, and these will be noted in our discussion. The proper distinction between these sibilants is not a trivial point, for in some cases the correct translation of a line can depend on it. For example, in Naram-Sin C 3, line 4, the writing with sa-BI-ir tells us that this participle cannot be a form of the verb seberu(m), as some scholars have argued, for the PS root of this verb is: t b r; this would dictate a writing with sa in OAkk. Rather the line is to be read sa-pi-ir and translated "commander." Another problem arises in the transliteration of signs containing Old Akk. s. Since the phoneme is not separate from s in post-OAkk. texts, the scholars who established the modern syllabary for Akkadian transliteration have not given a complete or systematic repertory of sign values for it. Generally, the value given to the s sign was the same that was indicated for the s sign; for example, sa = sa, si = si, su = su, etc. There are exceptions, however, [SU.sub.4] with reading /su/ has the value su; [SI.sub.11] with reading /si/ is read si, and AS with reading /as/ is as. We could argue that a better system would be one that consistently assigns the same values to the s signs as to the s signs. In such a system [SU.sub.4] with reading /su/ would be transliterated as [su.sub.4]; [SI.sub.11] with a reading /si/ as [si.sub.11], and AS with reading /as/ as as, etc. Such a change does not significantly add to the number of new sign values nor does it present any conflicting values. Indeed, it would simplify matters; to the reviewer's mind the interpretation of [su.sub.4] is more readily apparent than su. The proposed new s values will be used in the present review. Another interesting problem on which the corpus edited in this volume sheds important light is the date of the shift (at least in the orthography) of s to s. A comparison of the Mari and Ur III material is particularly informative on this question. In the following discussion we cite the Mari texts according to the sigla given in the volume under review and the Ur III inscriptions according to I. Karki's numbering (Karki 1986). [TABULAR DATA OMITTED] While the data base is admittedly not large, it clearly demonstrates that the shift in the orthography of s to s occurred sometime during the reign of Sulgi. In Sulgi inscription 4, for example, the s occurs, whereas in Sulgi 14 s is found. In Sulgi 14 the king's name is rendered without the prefixed divine determinative; since the DINGIR sign was adopted as early as year 21, as is evidenced by the writing of the name of that year, we can state with certainty that the shift in the orthography of s to s cannot postdate year 21. If we were to look for an event in Sulgi's reign that might have occasioned the change in the writing system, the deed commemorated in the name of year 21 itself is a likely candidate, for it records a putting in order of the accounts in the temples of the gods Enlil and Ninlil. CHAPTER I: PRE-SARGONIC INSCRIPTIONS FROM MARI The inscriptions edited in this section exhibit numerous philological difficulties; a detailed discussion is beyond the scope of the present review. Page 4. The sixth RN is Ikun-Isar (Archi 1985: 49). MP 5. Line 1: There is some uncertainty whether the name of the river god should be read in its Sumerian or Akkadian form. For the former possibility see CAD I, s.v.; for the latter, see the comments of W. Lambert (Lambert 1965: 11). Line 2: The writing se-bum indicates that in the early Mari dialect the Proto-Akkadian *ai dipthong was reduced to e as it was in Assyrian. Further evidence of this phenomenon is found in the PN me-sar (from original *maisar) found in pre-Sargonic archival texts from Mari (Charpin 1987: 98). MP 7. Ikun-Mari. Line 5: For an identification of the GN wa-ra-ne with the [u.sub.9]-ra-nu that occurs as entry 3 in the ED list of city names from Ebla and a tentative location near the Tigris, see the comments in the reviewer's forthcoming study, The Early Dynastic List of Geographical Names (to appear in the AOS monograph series), 3.2.7. MP 8. Ikun-Samagan: The reading of the DN dUTU in the ED texts from Mari and Ebla is unknown; the proposal, based on the supposed parallel to the RN i-ku-sa-ma-gan, to see the theophoric element in the RN of MP 18 as Samagan, i.e., the Hurrian sun god, is implausible. The evidence from Ebla is relevant to this question. According to one scholar (Steiglitz 1990: 80): "The evidence for the Hurrian deities at Ebla is, I believe, not convincing at all, and these so-called Hurrian names may be explained as either Sumerian or Semitic deities." A more likely interpretation, then, is to see two separate RNs in MP 8 and 9. In the RN I-ku-sa-ma-gan the theophoric element is likely the name of the god of domestic quadrupeds that has been discussed by various scholars (Lambert 1981a, 1986; Pomponio 1984). Of interest is the appearance in this inscription and in MP 17 of the title ENSI GAL den-lil "great ensi of the god Enlil." Its adoption would suggest a special relationship between the rulers Ikun-Samas and Isqi-Mari and the god Enlil. Now, we know that a dynasty of six Mari kings figures in the Sumerian King List and that many of the dynasties in the list were rulers who, at least for a brief time, controlled the city of Nippur. In the Mari section only the name of the first ruler: il-su, is complete; the remaining five RNs are only partially preserved in the available copies. Whether Ikun-Samas and Isqi-Mari were among them will be known only when the new fragment of the Sumerian King List from Tell Leilan (Vincente 1990) is published. MP 10. In line 8 of the translation "to the river god" is inadvertently omitted. MP 13. The PN is to be analyzed as min-mahirsu "what is his equal." Since the SAL sign does have a value min, a reading min-ma-hir-su is indicated. MP 14. Line 4: "chief chanter" (the element MAH is not rendered in the translation); the same holds true in MP 15. MP 21. Line 1: The reading of the PN is uncertain. According to Ea IV 237 (MSL 14, 364) the sign GAxAS has the Sum. value iku; whether a syllabic value can be derived from this is unclear. CHAPTER II: PRE-SARGONIC INSCRIPTIONS OF VARIED PROVENANCE VP 9. The object, according to Langdon, is a marble statuette. Line 4: If the PN is considered to be one word (as the transcription would suggest) and of Akkadian origin, then a problem arises, for no nominal form parusisum is known. Rather, the name is to be analyzed alu-ilum (MAD 3, 4). VP 12. Line 2: The PN should be analyzed as Pusa-rabi (the reason for double s in the transcription is unclear). VP 17. Line [Mathematical Expression Omitted]: The reviewer agrees with the authors' proposal to read the GN of line [Mathematical Expression Omitted] as [], taking the second BAR as a dittography, and to connect it with the [] of pre-Sargonic sources. This is in contrast to an earlier proposal (Sollberger 1983: 10) to read the GN as BAR.[] and to see it as an early writing for the city name Babylon. Further, an identification of this [] with ancient Borsippa is proposed in this reviewer's forthcoming monograph, The Early Dynastic List of Geographical Names, 2.2.4. The identification is supported by the fact that the tutelary deity of Borsippa was the god Tutu, a form of the god Marduk (An: Anum II 196 [ms. Litke]). The temple of the god Marduk is mentioned in line [Mathematical Expression Omitted] of VP 17; a Hammu-rapi inscription refers to this god's temple in Borsippa (Frayne 1990: 354-55). CHAPTER III: THE ORIGINAL INSCRIPTIONS OF THE KINGS OF AKKAD Part 2. The Seal Legends On pp. 39-48 the authors edit the various seal inscriptions of the Old Akkadian kings, their families and servants. Because of their generally short length, stereotypical formulae and frequent use of logograms, it is often difficult to tell whether the language of a particular seal inscription is Sumerian or Akkadian. This applies in particular to the line containing the designation "servant." Should we interpret the IR.ZU in the Old Akkadian seal inscriptions as Sumerian and translate "your servant," as the authors generally do, or rather understand the line as Akkadian and read IR-su "his servant." The writing GEME-sa "her maid-servant" found in S-12 argues for the latter interpretation, as does the fact that seal inscriptions coming from Ur (S-1, 2, 10, 11), a city where we would expect Sumerian influences to predominate, occasionally write the "servant" line in Sumerian: ir-da-ni. Hence a transliteration of IR.ZU as IR-su and translation "his servant" is probable in most cases for the Old Akkadian period seal inscriptions. It is unclear why the authors transliterate dumu-zu "your son" in S-7, but DUMU-su in S-9; the two seal legends are, in all likelihood, both to be read in Akkadian. There follow brief notes on individual seal inscriptions. S-6. Line 2: Read: ta-ri-bu. S-7. Bibliography: FS Moortgat 48 no. 13. Line 5: a-bi-i-sar. S-8. Bibliography: SAK 168f. no. 3a. The seal was said by Menant to be in "the museum in New York." Enquiries to the Metropolitan Museum of Art (letter to Dr. J. Aruz, Assistant Curator, Dept. of Ancient Near Eastern Art, June 25, 1990) reveal that it is not at present in that museum's collections. A seal inscription of another servant of Bin-kali-sarri (not cited by the authors), now in the British Museum, has been published (Collon 1982: 64-65, no. 116). S-9. The seal is now in the Institut Biblique in Fribourg (Collon, 1987: 123, no. 528). S-10. Line 7: Read from the copy: ir-[da]-[n]. S-12. The seal design shows Tuta-napsum seated on a throne with a pointed diadem on her head. It thus joins the famous plaque of Enheduana from Ur as a second Old Akkadian period depiction of an entu priestess. Her maid-servant, Aman-Estar, is shown in front of her playing some kind of musical instrument. For the term MUNUS.U.HUB of line 3, cf. MSL 12, 52, line 543: MUNUS.U.HUB (OB Proto-Lu). Perhaps there is a connection with the term NI.HUB-balag, apparently a designation of some kind of stringed instrument or its player, that appears in an ED lexical list (Wiggermann 1986: 236; Civil 1987: 137). S-13. Line 5: Read, from the copy: EN[SI] lag[[]]. S-15. Line 13: The sign after the na is uncertain; a reading [x] is called for. S-17. Line 3: Read: su-i-[li-su]. S-23. The heading 'Tutassarlibbis' suggest an understanding of this PN as Tutam-sar-libbi-s(u), with the double s a reflex of the assimilation of the ventive -m to the following -s. However, as pointed out by von Soden (GAG 106n), the ventive -m had dropped in forms of this verb already by OAkk. times; so a reading Tuta-sar-libbis is called for. The seal legend itself appears on a clay bulla excavated by Banks at Bismayah; it is now in Chicago, A. 1167. An improved reading of the seal inscriptions has now been published (Zettler 1977: 38, no. 5) (modified transliteration here): dsar-ka-li-LUGAL-ri / LUGAL / a-ka-[] / tu-ta-sar-li-bi-is / NIN / i-sar-be-li / SABRA / E-ti-sa / IR-sa. S-24. Line 9: Read, based on the parallel of inscription S-23: SABRA E-t[i?-sa] "majordomo [of her] es[tate]." A third example of a seal inscription of a majordomo of Tuta-sar-libbis (not cited by the authors) is that belonging to Iskun-Dagan from the Yale collections (Hallo and Buchanan 1981: 445, no. 429). In line 9 of the Yale exemplar read, based on the parallel of inscription S-23: SABRA [E]-ti-[sa] "majordomo of [her] / [est]ate." S-25. Line 5: The photo of the inscription clearly reveals [IR.sub.11]. S-27. The seal legend is found on a clay sealing excavated by Banks at Bismayah; the piece is now in Chicago, A. 917. The authors, following Edzard, read the PN of line 3 as Sibanum rather than the Kirbanum proposed by Gelb; however, collation of the inscription by R. Biggs reveals a clear kir sign. S-28. Line 6: The translation of "governor" (Statthalter) for GIR.NITA is unlikely; we would not expect to find such an official at Girsu, since we know the city was governed in OAkk. times by an ensi. A translation of the term as "general" is more likely; see the comments to D-29 below. S-30. There is no compelling evidence that the Lugal-gis of S-30, a seal inscription from Girsu, is the same person as the governor of Adab of S-29. On the other hand, inscription S-31 does probably refer to this Adab governor, since in it Lugal-gis appears as the lord of the seal owner. The prerogative of issuing servant seals in Old Akkadian times was apparently restricted to kings and city governors. Another seal inscription mentioning Lugal-gis as governor of Adab is found on a clay sealing excavated by Banks at Bismayah now in Chicago, A. 813. The sealing appears in a photo (Banks, 1912: 301, upper left corner; see also Yang 1986: 48-49). The fact that Lugal-gis appears in this last seal inscription without reference to an Old Akkadian overlord, coupled with the fact that a seal inscription of one of his servants (S-31) makes no mention of an Old Akkadian king, suggest that Lugal-gis may have been an independent ruler of Adab. The city may well have gained its independence late in the reign of Sar-kali-sarri. S-33. The seal inscription has been previously published (McG. Gibson 1978: 117, fig. 10 and A. Westenholz, 1987: 24, n. 18). The reading of the PN of line 3 is uncertain. For an alternative interpretation, see the comments of A. Westenholz in the previously cited work. S-39. The seal clearly dates to the Old Akkadian period, and so the reference to the king in line 2 should be to an Old Akkadian monarch. It is unfortunate that he is not named. According to Bohmer (Bohmer 1965: 191, no. 1686) the seal design dates to the period Akkadisch I (c), which he assigns to the latter part of the reign of Sargon and the reign of Rimus. If we assume that the seal was not re-used, then the unnamed king may have been one of these two early Sargonic monarchs. S-41. The inscription is not a seal inscription as indicated, but rather a text that was incised on a large tenon of a bitumenous substance. Section 3. Year Names D-3. The exact reading of the GN [] is uncertain. A correlation is to be made with the ar-[] that appears as the Ebla phonetic rendering of the logogram [] in the ED "List of Geographical Names" (Pettinato 1981: 232, line 73) and with the a-ra-[] of an Isbi-Erra hymn (van Dijk 1978: 193, line 24). D-8. Bibliography: Barton, PBS 9/1, no. 15. D-9. The year name records the defeat of the city Maridaban. In view of the absence of the divine determinative in the writing of the royal name, it must date to the early part of Naram-Sin's reign. Now, a recently published Naram-Sin inscription in Jena (Foster 1990) further describes events dating to this early time period. It mentions a campaign of the Akkad king in the area of Asimanum, a GN that Foster connects with the Simanum of Ur III sources. Simanum is generally located in the mountainous area north of modern Mardin. The GN Mardin, in turn, is generally connected with both the Maridaban of year name D-9 and the Mardaman of Ur III sources. D-12. The authors make no note of the additional three lines found in MAD 1 no. 220: na-bi-ul-mas / in tu-[] / ib-ri: "(and) Nabi-Ulmas made an inspection in Tutu." For the identity of this Nabi-Ulmas, see the notes to Naram-Sin A 3 below. D-13. A probable correlation of this year name is to be made with the royal inscription "Fragment C 5-6" edited by the authors on pp. 284-91, for in this inscription the GN Azuhinum appears as one of the defeated territories (p. 289, line 94). D-14. This year name deals with two deeds of Naram-Sin: (a) the reaching of the sources of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers and (b) the defeat of the city of SeNAMinda. While, thanks to this year name, Naram-Sin's trip to the river sources has been known for a long time, it is only recently that we have discovered that his son made a similar journey. The evidence comes from two royal inscriptions. One is known from a NB tablet copy now in the British Museum, edited as Sar-kali-sarri C 1 in the volume under review. The relevant lines, 48-54, were given in an improved reading in an article by the reviewer (Frayne 1984: 24): na-gab / IDIGNA.[I.sub.7] / NI-u-[x] / na-gab [BURANUN.[I.sub.7]] / ik-su-ud-ma "He reached the source of the Tigris, . . . (and) the source of the Euphrates." The second source is a Sar-kali-sarri inscription known from a NB tablet copy now in Jena (Oelsner 1989). In it Sar-kali-sarri tells us that he reached the sources of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers and dedicated some cult object to the god Enlil in Nippur as an apparent commemoration of the trip. The nature of the object in question is uncertain because it is unnamed in the tablet copy. Of note, however, is the phrase (lines 8-10) "cup-bearer of the god Enlil." As far as can be determined, this title is unique, as a royal epithet, to this text and it may give us a clue as to the nature of the object which bore the inscription. It was common practice for Mesopotamian kings to fashion large ritual copper vessels to bathe and to give drink to the gods. Most common of these were the KI.LUGAL.DU and [du.sub.8]-mah vessels, whose construction often figures in Isin-Larsa and Old Babylonian year names; R. Ellis has discussed the form and nature of these cult vessels (Ellis 1977). Another type of laver was the esda that is attested in a variety of different spellings: [sita.sub.x](REC 316), urudues-da, es-da, es-de (van Dijk 1960: 127-30; Heimpel 1981: 84, 105). The construction of esda vessels is occasionally mentioned in year names; one example from the reign of Isme-Dagan reads: mu dis-me-dda-gan [lugal-e] urudualam dninurta-[ra] [mu-na-dim-ma] e-su-me-[sa.sub.4] urudues-da-mah mu-na-gub-ba-a "The year

Isme-Dagan, the king, [fashioned] a copper statue [for] the god Ninurta and set up a lofty esda vessel in the Esumesa temple" (Sigrist and Cohen 1976: 410-11). The construction of an esda vessel may also figure in a Sar-kali-sarri year name known from one fragmentarily preserved examplar (D-33 in the volume under review). The following restoration is proposed: i[n] 1 MU [sar]-ka-li-[LUG]AL-ri [X].ZU.GAL [ES].DE.A KU.GI [GIS.ER]EN E den-lil [ib]-tu-qu "The year Sar-kali-sarri, the great ..., (fashioned) a golden [es]dea vessel (and) [c]ut down [ce]dar [timber] (for) the temple of the god Enlil." Here we take the restored form [ES].DE.A as an earlier spelling corresponding to Sumerian es-da. That such an object would be an appropriate commemoration of a trip to the sources of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers is indicated by a passage from Gudea (Cylinder B, col. XVII lines 9-11): es-da-bi da-ba gub-ba-bi [i.sub.7]idigna [i.sub.7]buranun-bi-da he-gal tum-tum-am "its esda that stands beside it is the Tigris and Euphrates rivers bringing abundance." A golden esda, like that of the Sar-kali-sarri year name, figures in the literary composition "Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta" (Cohen 1973: 77-78, lines 315-16): lugal-e es-da ku-GI-ga-[ke.sub.4] en-me-er-kar-dumu-dutu-[ke.sub.4] [du.sub.10] mu-un-bad-bad-du "the king--since the esda vessles were of gold--he, Enmerkar, the son of Utu, set them wide apart." The second part of the year name, if restored correctly (the end of the broken sign at the beginning of line 5 resembles the end of an EREN sign in OAkk. script), would have recorded the cutting down of cedar timber for the construction of the Enlil temple in Nippur; the latter deed is well known from other royal inscriptions of Sar-kali-sarri. The restoration of the verb at the end as a form of bataqu(m) is supported by a similar occurrence in a passage in Sar-kali-sarri C 1 noted above (lines 55-59): GIS.[EREN] in [a-ma-nim] sa BA KI is / E dINANNA / ib-tu-qu "He cut down cedar timber in the Amanus (mountains) as a ... of the temple of the goddess Estar." A second occurrence of the verb is found in a year name of Naram-Sin (Westenholz 1987: 203, no. 1, lines 7-8): [GIS].EREN / ib-tu-qam "he cut down cedar [timber]"). Now, the juxtaposition in inscription C 1 of Sar-kali-sarri of the mention of the trip to the rivers' sources and the cutting down of the cedar timber is paralleled by the occurrence together in Sar-kali-sarri year name D 14 (if our restoration be correct) of the fashioning of the libation vessel and the felling of cedars. As a tentative hypothesis, then, we suggest that Sar-kali-sarri fashioned a golden esda vessel in order to celebrate his trip to the sources of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers and recorded the deed in both a year name and royal inscription. D-19. As argued by the reviewer (Frayne: 1991), year name D-19 is likely connected with events involving the coronation of Naram-Sin in Nippur; unfortunately, the nature of the KU.AN.NA object is not known. D-20. A probable variant of this year name is the one listed by the authors as D-60. It apparently recorded the designation or installation of Tuta-napsum as entu priestess of the god Enlil. D-29. The year name deals with the installation of Puzur-Estar for the specific task of constructing the Enlil temple. A translation of GIR.NITA in this year name as "general" is preferable to that of "governor," for we should take into consideration Goetze's finding that during Ur III times those cities governed by sakkanakkus were in a separate administrative category from those headed by ensis; the same was likely true for Old Akkadian times. Nippur was apparently governed by an ensi in Old Akkadian times (Westenholz 1987: 199, sub ensi). The Puzur-Estar of the year name may be the same individual who appears as the addressee of a letter of Old Akkadian date (Thureau-Dangin 1926: 25) which may be an early example of a literary letter (Michalowski 1976: 16-17). He may also be the same person who appears as the SABRA E "majordomo" in a seal impression in the Yale collection that was noted in our discussion of S-23, above. Apparently the SABRA E was one of the highest officials in the Sargonic administration (Michalowski 1981: 173), so that we would not be surprised to find a letter in the literary corpus of Iskun-Dagan, SABRA E at Adab(?), to the general Puzur-Estar at Nippur. Present evidence, however, does not allow for a definitive identification. D-31. Since the year name is in Sumerian, the restoration in line 1 should read: mu u[s]; the form us-[si.sub.11], on the other hand, is found in the Akkadian year names D-15 and D-27. A further duplicate to D-31 is found on CBS 6182+ (Westenholz 1987: no. 96). In view of the existence of year name D-15, an Akkadian formula that deals with Naram-Sin's laying of the foundations of the Enlil temple, the possibility cannot be excluded that Sumerian year name D-31, in which no royal name appears, could also be attributed to this king. D-33. See the notes to D-14 above. D-35. The tablet bearing this year name has now been published (Westenholz 1987: no. 100). The restoration of line 3 is problematic; the authors of the volume under review read [hur]-sag-ga, without translation. Westenholz restored: [2]-sag-ga and translated "for the first time." Another interpretation (Foster 1980: 39) gives: [men?] sag-ga "[the crown] upon (his) head." Whatever the correct reading, Foster is certainly rigth that this year name commemorated a trip Sar-kali-sarri made to Nippur on the occasion of his coronation; in the cited article he has given numerous references from the archival texts to this royal visit to Nippur. D-41. If restored correctly, this provides the only example of a year name from the Gasur archive; it suggests a date of the archive to the time of Sar-kali-sarri. D-43. The reviewer has argued (Frayne 1991) that this year name is to be connected with an attack made by Naram-Sin against the city of Uruk. The evidence for the campaign comes from the mention of booty of Uruk in an archival text of probable Naram-Sin date (Foster 1982c: 15). D-44. This year name gives the earliest attestation of Mount Hasimur which is otherwise attested in MB sources (Nashef 1982: 122). The mountain is thought to be located in the general area where the Diyala river breaks through the Jebel Hamrin. A further reflection of a military campaign of an Old Akkadian king, probably Naram-Sin, in the area of the Jebel Hamrin is found in the Sumerian literary composition "Inanna and Mount Ebih." D-46. The reviewer (Frayne 1991) has argued that this year name may be connected with Naram-Sin's strengthening of the wall of the city Agade; this defensive move was apparently taken to safeguard the city from imminent attack by the forces of Iphur-Kis. D-47. The normal Auslaut of the verb [dab.sub.5] is ba, not a, so that a reading [dab.sub.5]-a is unlikely. We propose to read instead ba-tus-a "sat down" and see here a reference to the enthronement of an Akkadian king. D-48. For a proposed location of the neighboring cities of Asnak and URUxUD on the Tigris river in the general vicinity of modern Kut al-Imarah, see 2.2.9 in the reviewer's forthcoming study, The Early Dynastic List of Geographical Names. Although the Naram-Sin inscription dealing with the "Great Revolt" published by R. Kutscher does mention a battle taking place between the cities of Asnak and URUXUD, this event is not to be connected with year name D-48, for A. Westenholz has convincingly argued that the tablet bearing this year name dates to early Sargonic times. D-49. No royal name appears in this year name; according to Foster, a dating to "classic" Sargonic (post-Manistusu) times can be determined by the script of the tablet. A more precise attribution to the reign of Naram-Sin is likely, for a royal inscription of Nabonidus recounts the finding of a foundation inscription of Naram-Sin at Agade in which the Akkadian king recounts his construction of the E-ulmas temple (Ellis 1968: 182 no. 34). D-57. P. Steinkeller has shown that the GN of this year name is to be read as Sarrakum (Steinkeller, 1986: 35 and note 39). D-60. See the notes to D-29 above. D-65. This supposed year name is based on a misreading of the tablet; no mu is, in fact, found there. The tablet belongs to a group of texts labelled the "Onion Archive" (Gelb 1965: 60; A. Westenholz, 1987: 87-92). Many of the "Onion Archive" tablets contain clauses that allude to activities of the king and royal family. While some of these are introduced by the temporal [u.sub.4], others, such as the one that appears in D-65, have no introductory market. Inscriptions Sargon 1. Side A. col. ii, 1. [Mathematical Expression Omitted]: [li-su]-[ha]. Sargon 2. Collation of lien 10 from a photo of the mace head kindly provided by A. Sjoberg yields a spelling of the GN with SES.AB rather than the SES.UNU of Gadd's copy; the writing SES.AB is consistently found in OAkk. texts. Sargon A 1. Here the authors edit the one extant inscription of Enheduana, known from an original round calcite disk and a later tablet copy, both from Ur. The relief side of the disk depicts Enheduana standing in front of what appears to be some kind of altar; her male attendant pours out a libation over it. In all likelihood, the bara bansur of this inscription refers to this same object. Noteworthy is the round shape of the altar depicted on the disk. It may be that the round calcite disk itself once served as a top for an altar. A votive plaque of ED date from Ur (Winter 1987: 195 and fig. 2) shows a similar object; the top of the altar is depicted there as a separate stone(?) slab resting on a pedestal base. Now a round marble disk comparable to the Enheduana monument, albeit of larger dimensions, with an inscription of Uruna-badbi, an Old Akkadian period sangu priest of Nippur, was excavated by Haynes at Nippur (PBS 15, no. 81). The excavator thought the piece might be an ancient table top, for he writes (as quoted in Westenholz, 1987: 55-56): "The fact that it has one rough inscribed surface and one polished and unbroken surface naturally suggests the theory that this object may have served one of the early monarchs for a table, its rough and inscribed surface being placed on a low pedestal of brick and clay." According to a recently published study sign list of the Uruk archaic texts (M. Green and H. Nissen, 1987: 180, no. 49), the form of the bansur sign in the Uruk level III and IV tablets was a hexagonal shape. Many of these hexagonal signs, in turn, can be shown to derive from an earlier circular design, and it is not unlikely that the object donated by the bansur sign was a round object. According to this understanding, we translate line 12 of the Enheduana inscription: "pedestal (bara) (with) a table (top) (bansur) of the god An." The reviewer cannot concur with the recent assertion (Winter 1987: 92 note 16) that the OB tablet copy may serve only as model for the form of the inscription; while the absolute identity of disk and tablet inscription cannot be proven because of a few missing signs, it is highly likely that they are the same text. Rimus 1. Line 9, and passim: According to a recent study (Steinkeller 1982: 237-38, note 1) the GN should be read: pa-ra-ah-[]. Rimus 4. Bibliography: RISA 128f. No. 5. Collation of the published photo of this mace head fragment shows nothing remaining in the line before the LUGAL sign. A restoration of the RN as Rimus, then, is by no means certain. Rimus 5. See also Potts 1989: 149, table 1, inscription C. Rimus 6. See also Potts 1989: 149-50, table 1, inscription D. Rimus 7. Col. ii mentions the various regular offerings established for the table of the god Samas. Among the most common provisions that were normally granted were bread and beef (Frayne 1990: 192, col. iv, lines 11-8 [Sin-iqisam 1]; 229 Frgm. 18, line [Mathematical Expression Omitted]-[Mathematical Expression Omitted] [Warad-Sin 15]; 235 col. v, lines 1-4 [Warad-Sin 17]; R. Kutscher, 1989, 87, lines 13-26 [Su-Sin]). So, lines [Mathematical Expression Omitted]-[Mathematical Expression Omitted] of col. ii of Rimus 7 read: [. . .] NINDA / [X K]AS GU.NIGIN and translate: "so much bread, so much beer, in total. . . ." Manistusu 1. Text E is CBS 19925. Line 27: The reading I[D. . .] is excluded by collation of the tablet photo of ex. 1 of Manistusu C 1. Read rather: i[d . . . ]and restore i[d-ke-as-su-nu-ma] based on the parallel provided by Naram-Sin C 1, lines 252-55 edited on p. 233 of the volume under review: is-tum-ma / ti-a-am-tim / sa-pil-tim / id-ke-as-su-nu-ma. Line 43: ib-ni. No -ma is found. Manistusu 2. This six-line text, found with varying divine dedications, was treated by the authors, following Hirsch, as a separate inscription. However, its occurrence on a stele fragment, BM 56631, along with the "Standard Inscription" of Manistusu argues that the text should be considered simply as a dedicatory label for the monument as a whole and not as a separate inscription. The same holds true for Manistusu C 2. Naram-Sin 1. Line 8: The value [te.sub.9] given for the TI sign in is-TI-ni-is is problematic, for no value [te.sub.9] is attested for the Old Akkadian syllabary (von Soden and Rollig 1976: 9 no. 46). The original form of the numeral "one" on Akkadian has been posited as *istai-num (Lewy 1949: 110-23), with a simple -n, rather than -an afformative. Normally this would have become istinum in Babylonian dialect, istenum in Assyrian. The OB form istenum, then, represents a particular development. The OAkk. form of this word, as indicated by Gelb (MAD 3, 80-81) should be read: is-ti-ni-is. Lines 21-23 dealing with the strengthening of Akkad's foundations, as noted above in our comments to D-46, may be connected with a previously unplaced year name dealing with the construction of the wall of Agade. In line 38, and passim in the volume under review, read dEN.KI, for the writing is an apparent logogram (cf. the comments of J. and A. Westenholz 1977: 204): "Accordingly, we should probably read the signs dEN.KI and dINANNA with their Akkadian equivalents in Akkadian context." Naram-Sin 2. The attribution of the Old Akkadian stone pieces of this inscription to Naram-Sin is questionable. While it is true that many of the deeds recounted in this inscription were performed by Naram-Sin, the royal title preserved in the Nineveh fragment, [L]UGA[L] / [a-k]a-[], was one that was used only at the beginning of his reign (Frayne 1991). The building of the Enlil temple, on the other hand, took place during the latter period of his rule, for the work lay unfinished on the king's death. By that time the title "king of Agade" had been dropped from the standard royal titulary. An attribution of the original stone pieces to Sar-kali-sarri, in accordance with the evidence of the NB tablet copy, is called for. A third duplicate of this inscription, a later tablet copy, has been found in the Berlin Museum and will be published by H. Neumann. Line 10: Collation of the tablet photo shows one, or possibly two, indistinct signs at the beginning of the line; assuming a faithful copy of an OAkk. original we would expect i-nu rather than i-nu. Line 15: The NB copy is not clear at all at this point; since this line does not appear in the Berlin exemplar, its existence may be based on a misreading of the NB copy. Line 38: in [NAM].NIR "by the authority (of the god Enlil)." Line 39: The tablet copy is particularly indistinct at this point. A posited reading lem-nu-ti is highly unlikely, since the corresponding OAkk. form of this adjective was probably *lam-nu-tim; the as-yet-unattested form is deduced from the fem. la-mu-ut-tam [is less than]*lamuntam. The one supposed exception, lemuttam, listed by Gelb (MAD 3, 162), is from the Anubanini inscription, which the reviewer (Frayne 1990: 704) and others have argued is to be dated to the early Isin period. Line 42: [su.sub.4]-nu-ti (collated from the tablet photo); a form da-nu-ti (without mimation) would not be expected for OAkk. Lines 48ff.: As noted in our discussion of D-14 above, a second inscription alluding to Sar-kali-sarri's reaching the sources of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers has been published (Oelsner (1989). Naramsin 3. Line 12: [[is.sub.11]-a]r-ru. Line 38: Although Gelb suggested (MAD 3, 73) that writings E.SI and E.[SI.sub.11] might be logograms for "esium stone" there is no reason why we could not see in this passage a phonetic writing e-[si.sub.11]-im, as the authors indicate. Line 54: An alternative restoration is [dINANNA a-ka-d][] "Estar of Agade." Line 57: u and SE.NUMUN-su are written in separate lines. Naram-Sin 4. Line 14: As argued by the reviewer (Frayne 1991) the sa-du-i found in several OAkk. inscriptions is a noun displaying the gentilic ending -i, to be translated "highlander." Because the term is apparently applied in Naram-Sin C 1, lines 36-37, to the Amorites, a proposed translation "easterner" (Steinkeller 1980) is excluded. A translation "highlanders" in connection with the Amorites would recall their homeland in the highlands of the Jebel Bisri. Line 31: Since the text and its accompanying relief clearly deal with a military victory, a restoration of this and the previous line as: [KI.GAL / is-pu]-uk "he heaped up a burial mound (over them)" following Naram-Sin 5, lines 3:03-3:04, is a distinct possibility. Naram-Sin 6 and 7. The authors edit here two fragments of carnelian foundation tablets; since they both allude to the "Great Revolt" an attribution to Naram-Sin is likely. An overlap of a few lines in the texts and their identical stone composition suggests they are duplicates; a conflated edition will appear in the forthcoming RIM volume. According to the reviewer's text reconstruction, what appears in Naram-Sin 6 as the obverse of the tablet is, in fact, the reverse. Of interest are lines 1-4 of col. vi of the reconstructed text: [MA.[GUR.sub.8]] MA.[GUR.sub.8] / [a-ka-d][] [[]-l]i-su / u-ki-i[n-nu] "They (or he [subj.]) made fast the ship[s] of [Akad]e, his [ci]ty." These lines probably refer to defensive moves undertaken by Naram-Sin prior to his engaging the enemy forces of Iphur-Kis. Naram-Sin 12. See also Potts 1989: 152, table 2, inscription F 1. Naram-Sin 13. A further duplicate is CBS 14951+14952 (Potts 1989: 156, fig. 10). Exemplar B listed by the authors, a piece from Susa now in the Louvre, is probably not a duplicate of this inscription, for in it the RN appears with the prefixed divine determinative; in contrast, in all other exemplars of the Magan booty inscription, as far as can be determined, no DINGIR sign appears. The author's edition is thus in error in line 1; no prefixed divine determinative should appear. A second divergent feature of the Susa piece is that line 5, according to a collation of the original by A. Leicknam-Salvini (noted in Potts 1989: 132, note 37a), is probably an in sign; it differs from the BUR sign of Naram-Sin 13. While the Susa piece was undoubtedly an inscribed piece of booty, it is not known form which particular campaign it came. As further noted by Potts, the traces in the Philadelphia exemplar in line 5 do not support Braun-Holzinger's interesting hypothesis that what appears to be a BUR sign in the exemplar published by Norris (1 R 3 no. VII) was a miscopied in sign. Inscription 13, then, is a simple label, not a votive inscription; no dedicatory verb should be restored in line 8. Naram-Sin 17. Further duplicates of this text from the Hilprecht expedition that are now housed in Istanbul are: ES 8922-8925. Naram-Sin 19. A third exemplar of this inscription, purchased from Banks, is in the Kalamazoo Public Library, no. 32.1198 (information courtesy M. Stolper). Naram-Sin A 1. Exemplars B and C may well refer to the same piece, since the Eames collection was housed in the New York Public Library. Line 12: [is.sub.11]-ar-ru. Naram-Sin A 3. The Nabi-Ulmas, governor of Tutu, who is named in this inscription also appears in D-12. Naram-Sin A 4. In the note the authors refer to a PN which they transcribe as Saki(n)-beli; they thus connect the first element of the PN with the verb saka-nu(m). However, the stative form of this verb would have been written sa-ki-(in) in Old Akkadian. Rather, we should see the first element of the PN as the determinative pronoun, as Gelb (MAD 3, 254) proposes. Naram-Sin A 5. A comparison of the writings me-e-ku-bi with ME-ku-bi noted by Gelb (MAD 3, 167) raises the possibility that the element ME in the PN ME-ulmas may not be a logogram. Naram-Sin A 6. As noted by the reviewer (Frayne 1991) the assertion that Naram-Sin C 18 is a duplicate of Naram-Sin A 6 is erroneous; an examination of the published photo of the Brockmon piece excludes that possibility. Line 5: Read in both cases: tu-ta-na-a[p (not: ap)-sum]. Line 6: A tentative reading based on a collation of the published tablet photo is: [MUNUS.EN.NUNUZ.X]. This is probably a priestly name comparable to EN.NUNUZ.ZI.dNANNA, the entu priestess of Nanna, or EN.NUNUZ.ZI.dUTU, the entu priestess of Utu. Perhaps a comparable title was used for the entu priestess of Enlil at Nippur. Line 7 reads: AN.EN.LIL.KI (A. Westenholz, personal communication, collated from an unpublished tablet photo). Naram-Sin B 2. The interpretation of the DN in line 2 as Erra is only a guess, based on a Steinkeller's identification of a possible OB parallel. Naram-Sin B 3. While there is little doubt the beginning of this inscription did contain the name and titles of Naram-Sin, its precise restoration is uncertain. Naram-Sin B 8. The bowl inscription has now been published (Sweet 1981: 79-80, no. 32; Goodnik Westenholz 1987: no. 17). Naram-Sin B 9. It is not certain that this text is in Sumerian; it could be read in Akkadian (Yang 1989: 107). Apparently there are traces of the end of a IR sign at the beginning of line 4 (Yang 1986: 52, no. 3). In line 5, the last sign should be read bu. Naram-Sin B 10. A comparison of a published photo (Parrot 1955: pl. XVI, no. 2) and a very small hand copy (Parrot 1974: 90, no. 3250) yields an improved reading: dna-ra-am-dEN.ZU / LUGAL / ki-ib-ra-tim / ar-ba-im sum-sa-ni / [EN]-na-at / dUTU / in UD.KIB.[] / DUMU.MUNUS-su "Naram-Sin, king of the four quarters: Sumsani, entu preistess of the god Samas in Sippar, his daughter." A comparison of the PN of line 5 with the OAkk. PN ME-su-ni of the inscription edited as Varia 18 in the volume under review indicates that sa-ni is the dual feminine suffix; it is, as far as the reviewer can determine, the first attestation of the form (for the dual suffix pronouns, see R. Whiting 1972). Sar-kali-sarri 2. Line 7: An alternative reading is bu-u-la-ti (Westenholz 1987: 58); the evidence for a value [ba.sub.11] in OAkk. is weak. This would give a form comparable to OA bu(u)latum; so also in Sar-kali-sarri 5, line 4. Sar-kali-sarri 6. Text C is ES 1263. Rather than seeing this brick as a duplicate of Sar-kali-sarri 6, a more likely possibility takes it to be a partially preserved duplicate of Sar-kali-sarri 4. Sar-kali-sarri B 3. With regards to the reading of the PN in line 4, see the comments to Naram-Sin A 4 above. Elul-dan 1. Bibliography: S. J. Lewy, AfO 10 (1935-36): 281. Dudu 1. Text A is CBS 10119. Su-DUR.UL 1. In view of the later writings (Borger 1970) the OAkk. form can be normalized, with a fair degree of certainty, as tur-ul. Unattributed Fragments of Old Akkadian Kings Fragment 3. Although Hilprecht indicated that this fragment came "presumably from the neighbourhood of Babylon," the mention of the god Samas in col. i, line suggests a Sippar provenance; many pieces with low CBS numbers came from that site. Col. ii can be restored on the basis of the parallel provided by Sargon C 12, lines 24-29, as follows: [DN] / u-k[al-lim] / m[a-na-ma] / p[a-ni-su] / [u-la] / [u-ba-al]. Lines 18-21 of Sargon C 12 also parallel col. i, lines 3-6; the two parallels argue that Fragment 3 likely belonged to Sargon. [Mathematical Expression Omitted] Fragment 4. In light of the existence of Date D-12, there can be little doubt that this inscription belongs to Naram-Sin. Bibliography: Tell ed-Der 3 (1980), pl. 26, no. 40. As indicated by the curvature of the mace head, the object must have been quite large, about 20 cm. in diameter; so we have only a small portion of the original inscription. In line restore [i]-nu. The defeat of Baba, then, would have been related in a temporal clause: "When (Naram-Sin) defeated Baba, ensi of Simurrum, . . . (he dedicated this mace head)." [Mathematical Expression Omitted] Fragment 10. The PN a-ku-ku-NI of line 1 may be Elamite (Zadok 1984: 61: a-ku-ki and a-ku-ku-ni). This Akuki is presumably the same figure who appears in three Mari liver omens (Goetke 1947: 263-64; Nougayrol 1950: 113). CHAPTER IV: COPIES OF THE INSCRIPTIONS OF THE OLD AKKADIAN KINGS Sargon C 1. Line 33 of the Sumerian (collated from photo) reads: [a]g-ge-[]; in a similar fashion we should restore the broken lines 3 and 84 of the Sumerian version. Line 13 (Akkadian version) occurs in two lines on exemplar A (line division indicated but not enumerated). Lines 49-50 (Sumerian version) occur in one line on exemplar A, the only preserved text. Line 59 (Akkadian version) is not rendered as a logogram as indicated; rather we find ub-[], an apparent phonetic rendering of the city name. Sargon C 2. The authors consider the text contained on column 14 of the obverse of CBS 13972 (text Am) and the corresponding columns of Ni 3200 (text Bm) as duplicates of Sargon C 2. However, while it is true that the middle and end sections of the text of Sargon C 2 do agree with what is preserved on texts Am and Bm, the fact that so little of their beginning section is preserved makes their assignment as duplicates of the inscription an uncertain proposition. If they were, in fact, duplicates of Sargon C 2, they would provide, as far as the reviewer can determine, the first example of a bilingual royal inscription copied twice on the same Sammeltafel. We suggest, as an alternative, that texts Am and Bm belong to a separate inscription that, while agreeing in large measure with Sargon C 2, had a different beginning section. By this understanding, the text preserved on the bottom section of col. 13 of exemplar A is not a separate inscription from Am (it is listed as Sargon C 9 in the volume under review); rather it is the beginning of the text that continues on the top of col. 14. Line 23 (Sumerian): sud mu-n[a-d][e.sub.6]. Line 25 (Sumerian): Read IGI.NIM; the complex is a Diri Compound (CAD E, 111b, sub elu B, lexical section). Line 26 (Sumerian): Read ia-ar-mu-[]. Line 42 (Akkadian): The form u-um-sum provides an example of the rare adverbial ending sum [is less than] is-um (von Soden, GAG 67g). Inscription C 2 of Sargon has concluding captions that name various enemy leaders of the south defeated by the Akkadian king--those of the cites Uruk, Ur, Umma and Lagas. It is hard to understand why these names were included in an inscription that deals with a campaign up the Euphrates river. In Beischrift (b) the third line is a PN: lu-dnanna and the following line, which should be included in the same caption, reads: LUGAL SES.[[]]. The new reading is important because it tells us that the ruler of Ur bore the title LUGAL, like his ally Lugal-zagesi of Uruk. Sargon C 3. Line 1: Read il-a-[ba.sub.4] here and passim in this volume. In a brief discussion of this DN on p. 169, the authors argue for the conventional spelling da-[ba.sub.4] despite clear evidence pointing to a reading il-a-[ba.sub.4] (Roberts 1972: 184ff.; Lambert 1981b). The statement "... der Gott in der nachsargonischen Zeit offenbar keine Rolle mehr spielt" ignores the important role Ilaba played with Dagan as patron deities of the Hana dynasty; the expressions: naram dilaba or warad dilaba are standard epithets of the Hana kings (Frayne 1990: 730-33). Furthermore, the DN commonly occurs as a theophoric elements in PNs of the OB period from Mari (Birot et al., 1979: 263) and Me-Turran (Muhammad 1985). These three areas--Hana, Mari and the Diyala basin--as evidenced by the PNs found in archival texts, had sizeable Amorite populations in OB times. Sargon C 4. Line 104: [a]-sa-ri-su; s appears in OAkk. because the Proto-Semitic root is t r. Line 108: u-sa-hi-su-ni. Sargon C 5. Line 22 is actually written in two lines: a-na / den-lil; similarly line 26. Sargon C 6. Line 34: li-is-[bir.sub.5] (PS root: t b r). Sargon C 7. Beischrift (k): He-[]. Sargon C 9. As noted above, this inscription is probably the beginning of a text that was similar to Sargon C 2. Line 20: The traces on the published photo seem to be the rendering of the "ear" element at the beginning of a KIS sign. We would thus propose to see the authors' line 20 as the third line of the inscription and restore the beginning of the inscription to read: [sar-um-GI] / [LUGAL] / K[IS] as in Sargon C 2. Sargon C 10. Lines 12-13 are found in one line on the tablet. Sargon C 12. Line 12 based on the parallel provided by Unidentified, Fragment 3, col. i, [Mathematical Expression Omitted], should be a S form of the verb izzuzu(m). We read (with reserve) from the tablet photo: u-sa-z[i?-x]. Rimus C 1. Line 10: ad ma-di-is. Line 54: The last sign is actually LUxES. In general CBS 13972 (exemplar A) writes LUxES while Ni 3200 (exemplar B) writes LUxKAR. For the various equations of Sum. LUxKAR, LUxES and LUxES+LAL, see MSL 12, 172, lines 495-99 and MSL 14, 461-62. Although the dangers of the uncritical use of Schriftarchaeologie have been sounded (Biggs 1969), it may be of some use to gain an understanding of the various Sum. logograms used to represent the term "captive." The reviewer suggests that the sign KAR found in the compound LUxKAR may be a representation of the neck stock that was used to restrain prisoners of war; one pictorial example is the piece IM 59205 (Amiet 1976: 27). We may note in this connection the lexical equation: kar = ka-ra-su "to bind" (AHw, 447). The logogram LUxES, on the other hand, may have originally designated a captive bound with a rope. Beischrift (f): The first line reads from the tablet photo: en-[. . .]. This PN is likely to be restored as en-[na-num]. An Umma governor by this name appears in archival texts of early Sargonic date (Foster 1982a: 154-55, no. a; Frayne 1989: 7). A seal of a servant of Ennanum is in the E. Borowski Collection (E. Williams-Forte 1981: 84 no. 39; Noveck 1987: no. 27). Rimus C 2. Line 7: On the basis of line 22 restore the GN as [[LA.SIR.BUR]], not Umma. After line 31, the numeral 5,985 that is preserved on ex. B was inadvertently omitted from the edition. Lines 28 and 31: Note the use of the dual suffix pronouns, for which, see Whiting 1972. Rimus C 3. Lines 5, 8 and 16: ka-zal-[] in ex. B. only line 8 of ex. A is totally preserved; there ka-zal-[] is preserved. The form in ex. A need not be considered a late writing, as Gelb (MAD 2, 50) argues, for a writing with ka is found in ED times (Pettinato 1981: 235 no. 149); the city name apparently appears as entry 149 in the Ebla exemplar of the "Early Dynastic List of Geographical Names." Note further the writing: ka-zal-[] in Naram-Sin C 1, line 160. Rimus C 4. The authors give the text according to the line divisions of ex. A, even when this is not preserved (lines 3-8). In this case line 6 should be split in two, since ex. A normally writes the conjunction u in a separate line. Line 11: Ex. A : LUxES; ex. B is too broken to determine the exact reading. Line 18: u. Rimus C 5. Line 12: ex. A has LUxES; ex. B is broken. Lines 14ff.: Read from ex. B: u / [en]-x / ENSI [] SU.[DU.sub.8].A; a reference to Ennanum of Umma is likely. Rimus C 6. Line 17: ip-hu-ru-ni-im-ma. Line 22: Ex. A : LUxES; ex. B is too broken to determine the exact reading. Line 84: Ex. A: LUxES; ex. B is not preserved at this point. Rimus C 8. Line 22: In neither of the two preserved exemplars, B and D, is nu found at the end of the line; thus read al-su. Rimus C 9. In line 27 (Sumerian version) both preserved exemplars have suhus-sa-ni. Rimus C 10. The inscription has been edited in a volume honoring A. Sjoberg (Oelsner 1989: 403-4). Lines 19-20 appear as one line in Oelsner's edition. Line 24: Restore [qab-l]i-tim. Line 28: A ki determinative follows nim in Oelsner's edition. Line 44: A ki determinative follows KIS in Oelsner's edition, a probable modern error, since this writing would be unique for the entire OAkk. corpus. Line 53: Oelsner reads: [lu k]i-[ni-is-ma] at the end of the corresponding line (31) of his edition. Colophon line 2: Oelsner reads: [DU.sub.8].SI, which is undoubtedly correct. Manistusu C 1. See the notes to Manistusu 1 above. Manistusu C 2. See the notes to Manistusu 2 above. Manistusu C 3. A further duplicate of this text is col. iii of N 6266 (Michalowski 1980: 243). N 6266 has sum for MU in line 7. Naram-Sin C 1. Line 4: The authors, following R. Kutscher, the editor of ex. B, translate "junge Mann" corresponding to GURUS i-li, a reading first proposed by P. Michalowski based on the parallel etel D[INGIR.MES] of the Boissier text of the OB version of the "Great Revolt." However, the evidence of a parallel passage in inscription C 3 of Sargon (Beischrift [a], lines 1-3) that reads: [il]-a-[ba.sub.4] / KALA.G[A] / i-li argues for a translation here: "the mighty one of the gods." Lines 14-15: The author's translation "angenommen" for i-[si.sub.11]-u presumably takes it as a form of nasu(m); Kutscher, on the other hand, took it to be a form of seu(m) and understood sarrussuma to be the direct object. The OB author of the "Great Revolt" text interpreted the passage differently, for he rendered what in all likelihood is the corresponding section in the Boissier text as: a-na sa[r]-[ru]-tim is-su-ma "they elevated (Iphur-Kis) to kingship." In line 14 the sum (ZUM) ending is not the pronominal suffix -su and a reading [su.sub.14] is excluded; rather, it is the rare adverbial suffix sum [is less than] is-um (von Soden, GAG, 67g). In force it is equivalent to ana + noun; thus sar-[ru.sub.x]-sum should be translated "to kingship." Consequently the subjects of the verbs in lines 3' and 8' are likely the citizens of Kis and Uruk, respectively, and not their kings, as Kutscher and the authors of the volume under review have indicated. With the understanding of a plural indefinite subject in lines 15 and 20, the need to restore a temporal i-nu in line 11 disappears. Line 29 and 160: Note the writing of the GN Kazallu with an initial ka sign; cf. the comments to Rimus C 3 above. Lines 36-37: For the translation "Amorite highlanders" see the comments to Naram-Sin 4 above. Line 75: A tentative suggestion is to read: i-ta-[kir.sub.9], a perfect form of na-karu(m). Line 76: According to I. Gelb (MAD 2, 105), the DI sign has only the syllabic value sa in OAkk. texts; so a transliteration sa-bi-a is preferable. Line 97: Collation of the tablet photo yields [Puzur.sub.4]-dASAR. Line 125: For the city [] see the comments to VP 17 above. Line 132: The text has LUxES. Line 142: dnin-kar (reading from A. Westenholz). Line 214: in qer-bi-su. Line 217: qe-re-eb. Line 255: id-ke-as-su-nu-ma (from A. Westenholz). Line 259: The reading of the first sign in the GN as [X.sub.28] (following RGTC 1) is unnecessarily precise; the sign form in exemplar A is simply a variant for as as it is found in other OAkk. texts (Michalowski 1986: 6, col. [Mathematical Expression Omitted], line. 26: gal?-[]; see the photo following p. 8); thus read here simply as-na-[]. Line 265: As noted, comparative evidence argues for an infinitive samaum for this verb in OAkk.; thus read is-ma-[su.sub.4]-ma. Line 315: restore mluga[l-ni-zu] and see here a reference to the Nippur ruler who has left us one sole brick inscription (PBS 15, no. 82). Lines 347ff.: The authors argue that the reverse of ex. A, while duplicating the end of inscription C 2B of Naram-Sin, is not an actual copy of that text, but rather the end of Naram-Sin C 1. The full text of Naram-Sin C 2, not available to the authors, has now been published (Foster 1990). In the tablet copy bearing this inscription two texts are recorded: one--cols. i to viii, line 15--deals with the revolt of the king of ABx[] and the other--col. vii, lines 16f.--gives an account of the king's Magan campaign. We propose that the
COPYRIGHT 1992 American Oriental Society
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 1992 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Frayne, Douglas R.
Publication:The Journal of the American Oriental Society
Date:Oct 1, 1992
Previous Article:Alfred Hillebrandt reconsidered.
Next Article:Reading the Quran with Richard Bell.

Terms of use | Copyright © 2017 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters