§1. The epigraphic finds of the 2001 excavation season
at Tell Brak included a fragment of a large tablet containing an Early
Dynastic scribal exercise. The preserved portion of the tablet contains
lines 115-122 of ED Lu A, otherwise known as the “Standard Professions
List.” The complete tablet must have contained a copy of the full
one hundred and twenty-nine-line composition. This piece, TB
12381 (locus TCJ-1674), is published as no. 3 in the preliminary
report that will appear in the journal Iraq. The present study
is an expanded version of that report. Since this is the earliest school
text from Nagar, it warrants expanded treatment. The author wishes to
thank Joan and David Oates, as well as Geoffrey Emberling and Helen
McDonald for entrusting these tablets to me for publication. This edition
is based on photographs provided to me by Emberling.
§2. Miguel Civil (1969: 4), in his introduction to the edition
of the composition, noted that this list “has a curious history
of wide diffusion, longevity and textual stability.” The text
is attested already in Uruk IV (Englund and Nissen 1993), and as such
is one of the earliest documents of cuneiform education. The list was
still copied in Old Babylonian times; it has been found on tablets of
various periods from the Mesopotamian cities of Uruk, Ur, Shuruppak,
Nippur, Lagash, Adab, Abu Salabikh, Kisurra, and perhaps Sippar, in
Iranian Susa, as well as in Syria at Ebla, and now at Tell Brak. A new
list based on ED Lu A, consisting of selected signs and signs extracted
from composite signs, and provided with Semiticized sign readings, was
compiled at some northern site, but is thus far attested only on two
tablets from Ebla (Arcari 1983; Archi 1987, hereafter SLE). Civil and
Rubio (1999: 265) aptly refer to this text as “a sort of card
index that enabled the scribes to read ED Lu A.” As a result one
can be fairly certain that ED Lu A was one of the basic, and most widely
distributed scholastic texts in third millennium Syro-Mesopotamia. It
continued to be disseminated for centuries, and although it was no longer
part of the standard school repertoire, one or more texts that may be
student copies from Nippur document its occasional instructional use.
Civil’s edition has been supplemented by the study of Elena Arcari
(1982) and more recently by the still unpublished work of Jon Taylor;
photographs of all the Fara sources can now be found on the CDLI web
site (<http://cdli.ucla.edu/digitlib.html>)
and photos of the Ebla sources are available in MEE 3/A. Additional
printed photos of one of the Ebla sources and of one Fara tablet have
been published in Talon and van Lerberghe (1998: 216; 221).
§3. As is to be expected, there are no surprises and the
new source only duplicates well attested entries. As is the case with
so many entries in this ancient list, which was already anachronistic
in ED III times, very few of the words in the section preserved on the
Brak text can be identified from other cuneiform sources. It is difficult
to generalize from an eight-line fragment, but the variants seem to
cluster with Ebla and with the Yale tablet said to be from Nippur and
the Old Babylonian exemplars from Ur, suggesting that it is later than
the Fara and Abu Salabikh tablets and perhaps roughly contemporary with
the Ebla archives.
§4. This is the first Early Dynastic IIIa lexical text from
Syria found outside of Ebla. There is an Old Akkadian period exercise
with ED Lu E from Urkesh that shows clearly how the school tradition
had been imported anew from Mesopotamia as it is written in a beautiful
Sargonic hand.[1]
|
1' (=115) |
[GAL]: ˹SANGA˺:[GANA2] |
|
2' (=116) |
[GAL]: ˹PA:DUN3˺ |
|
3' (=117) |
[GAL]. ˹TI˺ |
|
4' (=118) |
˹GAL:PA:SA6˺ |
|
5' (=119) |
GAL: ˹LUHŠU(LAK442)˺ |
|
6' (=120) |
˹GAL:HUB2˺ |
|
7' (=121) |
[GAL]: ˹MUŠ/MUŠ˺:KAK[2] |
|
8' (=122) |
[GAL.TAK4.]˹ALAN˺? |
Figure 1: The Brak tablet TB 12381 (click on image
to enlarge)
§5. Although this is but a fragment with less than 10% of
the composition, it is instructive to compare it to other manuscripts
of the list. This section only incorporates available sources and does
not include some unpublished materials that have been identified but
have not yet been made public.
§6.
ED Lu A Sources for lines 115-122 |
|
AbS1 |
= OIP 99, 1
(3 & 4) vii 13-iv 3 |
|
Fara1 |
= VAT
9130 (SF 75) obv. v 10-18 |
|
Fara2 |
= VAT
12652 (SF 33) rev. i 12'-15' |
|
Fara3 |
= VAT
12675 (SF 35) obv. v' 9'-10' |
|
Ebla1 |
= TM.75.G.1312
(MEE 3 1, photo MEE 3/A pl. i) r. v 1-8 |
|
Ebla2 |
= TM.G.1398
(MEE 3 2 + 5, photo MEE 3/A pl. ii) o. vii 1-8 |
|
Brak1 |
= TB
12381 |
Later Sources |
|
Nip1 |
= CBS
7845 (SLT 113) i 1'-6' |
|
Unkn1 |
= YOS 1 12
col. “i” 6-13 |
|
Unkn2 |
= Cohen JCS 55 (2003) vii 1'-2' |
OB Sources |
|
Kisurra1 |
= FAOS 2/1, pl. 92 (F20
Š 71) |
|
Ur1 |
= UET 7 86
ii' 6'-12' |
|
Ur2 |
= U
30497 (Civil, OrAnt 22 [1983] 1 n. 2) ii 1-7 |
The related entries from the Ebla Sign List line 48-52 are labeled
as SLE.
§7. The Yale prism YOS 1, 12,
was said to be from Nippur according to the dealer who sold it, but
that is highly unlikely, even though that claim was taken for granted
in MSL 12. It is not clear to me if this is an ED exemplar, or
another example of a later archaizing copy. Benjamin Foster, who was
kind enough to examine the prism for me, suggests that it is later than
ED, perhaps even Ur III in date. Another prism containing Lu A that
may be Ur III or OB but with older looking signs will be published shortly
by Mark Cohen in JCS 55; only the ends of two of our lines are
preserved on that exemplar. The Nippur tablet SLT 113
is another fragment of a prism and, according to Steve Tinney, might
be OB.[3]
In view of the uncertainties concerning their dating, I have listed
these two as “later sources.” It is obvious that a full
reinvestigation of the dating of the various manuscripts of Lu A and
the fascinating matter of archaizing copies, most of them on prisms,
lies outside the scope of the present short note. The paleographic details
of such texts are of great interest and require further study; for a
list of known OB copies of Ed Lu A and other ED lexical lists, see Veldhuis
1997/8: 123.
§8. Textual Matrix of Lines 115-122 of ED Lu A
|
("+"=preserved, "."=damaged,
"o"=missing) |
115. |
|
GAL: |
GANA2: |
SANGA |
|
AbS1 |
+ |
+ |
+ |
|
Fara1 |
+ |
+ |
+ |
|
Fara2 |
. |
o |
o |
|
Fara3 |
. |
. |
+ |
|
Unkn1 |
+ |
SANGA |
GANA2 |
|
Ebla1 |
+ |
+ |
+ |
|
Ebla2 |
+ |
+ |
+ |
|
Brak1 |
o |
SANGA |
[GANA2] |
|
Kisurra1 |
+ |
SANGA |
GANA2 |
|
Ur1 |
|
[GAL.SANGA …]an-da-ga-naGANA2 |
|
Ur2 |
|
[GAL.SANGA … an]-˹da˺-ga-na˹GANA2˺ |
|
SLE |
|
GANA2 = ga-na-um |
116. |
|
GAL: |
PA: |
DUN3 |
|
AbS1 |
+ |
+ |
+ |
|
Fara1 |
+ |
+ |
+ |
|
Fara2 |
. |
o |
o |
|
Fara3 |
. |
˹DUN3˺: |
PA |
|
Unkn1 |
+ |
+ |
o |
|
Ebla1 |
+ |
+ |
+ |
|
Ebla2 |
+ |
+ |
+ |
|
Brak1 |
o |
. |
. |
|
Ur1 |
|
[GAL:PA]˹hu˺-ur-sa-ag2-galDUN3 |
|
Ur2 |
|
[GAL]:˹PAhu˺-ur-sag-galDUN3 |
|
SLE |
|
DUN3 = lu-ma-’a3-šu-um |
117. |
|
GAL. |
TI |
|
AbS1 |
+ |
+ |
|
Fara1 |
+ |
+ |
|
Fara2 |
. |
o |
|
Unkn1 |
. |
+ |
|
Ebla1 |
+ |
+ |
|
Ebla2 |
+ |
+ |
|
Brak1 |
o |
. |
|
Nip2 |
. |
o |
|
Brak1 |
o |
. |
|
Ur1 |
|
[GAL…]˹ti˺-di-im-galDIM |
|
Ur2 |
|
[GAL…]˹ti˺-ti-im-galDIM |
118. |
|
GAL: |
PA: |
SA6 |
|
AbS1 |
+ |
SA6 |
PA |
|
Fara1 |
+ |
SA6 |
PA |
|
Fara2 |
. |
o |
o |
|
Unkn1 |
+ |
+ |
+ |
|
Ebla1 |
+ |
+ |
+ |
|
Ebla2 |
+ |
+ |
+ |
|
Nip 1 |
. |
o |
o |
|
Brak1 |
. |
. |
. |
|
Ur1 |
|
[GAL:PA]x-˹ti˺-di-˹im-gal˺SA6
|
|
Ur2 |
|
[GAL]:PA[x]-ti-di-im-galSA6 |
119. |
|
GAL: |
LUHŠU(LAK442) |
|
AbS1 |
+ |
+ |
|
|
Fara1 |
+ |
+ |
|
|
Unkn1 |
+ |
+ |
|
|
Ebla1 |
+ |
+ |
|
|
Ebla2 |
+ |
+ |
|
|
Nip 1 |
+ |
o |
|
|
Brak1 |
o |
. |
|
|
Ur1 |
|
[GAL…lu-uš]-˹hu˺-um!-ni-irLUHŠU |
|
Ur2 |
|
[GAL lu]-uš-hu-um-ni-irLUHŠU |
|
SLE |
|
LUHŠU = la-ha-šu-um |
120. |
GAL: |
HUB2 |
|
AbS1 |
+ |
+ |
|
|
Fara1 |
+ |
+ |
|
|
Unkn1 |
+ |
. |
|
|
Ebla1 |
+ |
+ |
|
|
Ebla2 |
+ |
+ |
|
|
Brak1 |
. |
. |
|
|
Nip 1 |
+ |
o |
|
|
Ur1 |
o |
+ |
|
|
Ur2 |
o |
[ ]-x+ |
|
121. |
GAL: |
MUŠ/MUŠ: |
KAK |
|
AbS1 |
+ |
MUŠ/KAK/MUŠ |
|
|
Fara1 |
+ |
MUŠ/KAK/MUŠ |
|
Unkn1 |
+ |
MUŠ/˹KAK˺/MUŠ |
|
Unkn2 |
o |
˹MUŠ×MUŠ˺: |
˹KAK˺ |
|
Ebla1 |
+ |
˹MUŠ/MUŠ˺: |
KAK |
|
Ebla2 |
+ |
MUŠ/KAK/MUŠ |
|
Brak1 |
o |
MUŠ/MUŠ: |
KAK |
|
Nip 1 |
+ |
|
o |
|
Ur2 |
o |
x-kuMUŠ×MUŠ |
>Unkn1 after 122 (reading based on collation by B. Foster); Ur1 has
only the end of the final sign of 122 making it look as if it also had
122 before 121.
122. |
GAL: |
TAK4. |
ALAN |
|
AbS1 |
+ |
+ |
+ |
|
Fara1 |
+ |
+ |
+ |
|
Unkn1 |
+ |
ALAN×GANA2-tenû |
|
Unkn2 |
o |
o |
+ |
|
Ebla1 |
+ |
+ |
+ |
|
Ebla2 |
+ |
+ |
+ |
|
Brak1 |
o |
o |
. |
|
Nip 1 |
+ |
+ |
o |
|
Ur1 |
o |
o |
. |
|
SLE (see commentary) |
Philological Notes
§9. It is difficult to generalize on the basis of this kind
of distribution of variants, but the general tendency seems to be for
more agreement between Brak and Ebla than between Brak and the ED Mesopotamian
sources. There is also a large degree of agreement between Brak and
the OB Ur pieces and the YOS 1 text (see figure 2).
|
Fara |
AbS |
Ebla |
Unknown |
Brak |
OB Ur |
115 |
- |
- |
- |
+ |
+ |
+ |
116 |
+/- |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
117 |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
- |
118 |
- |
- |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
119 |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
120 |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
121 |
- |
- |
+/- |
- |
+ |
? |
122 |
+ |
+ |
+ |
- |
+ |
+ |
Figure 2. Comparison of sources by provenience
§10. l. 117: For an OB reference, see, perhaps, gal-ti =
gal-di = ti-iz-qa2-ru-um/ra-ah-bu-um, MSL
14, 134 ii 18-19, a unique Ea type text from Sippar. The confusions
that ED Lu A posed for scribes are obvious from the OB versions from
Ur that have DIM instead of TI.
§11. l. 119: On the various forms of this and related signs
and on the reading luhšu/a see G. Selz, RA 83 (1989) 7-12,
with earlier literature.
§12. l. 121: The only other occurrence of this term known
to me is in ED Word List E (SF 59,
MEE 3, 50
+ unpublished duplicates) 45 (written MUŠ/KAK/MUŠ in both
ED sources).
§13. l. 122: Of all the words in this passage, TAK4.ALAN,
albeit without the fronted GAL, is the best attested outside of ED Lu
A. The component sign generally transliterated TAK4 requires
further study; for the present see Veldhuis 1995: 436-437. As he notes,
this is essentially a ŠU sign that has been rotated by 90°.
One could argue that this anticipates, in a sense, the later technique
of creating signs by slanting them at an angle, what was referred to
by Mesopotamian scribes as tenû. We may have an earlier example
of the philological convention for this type of practice, perhaps an
ad hoc one, in one of the two copies of the ED Lu A-derived SLE text.
In one manuscript line 51 repeats the Lu entry TAK4.ALAN,
while the following line provides only the first component TAK4.
A duplicate (TM.75.G.1907+12690;
both from Archi 1987 95) provides sign names with a twist:
|
TAK4 |
šu-wu-um, followed by “AŠ
(obliq.),” that is by an angled wedge. |
|
TAK4.ALAN |
la-’a3-num2 |
It seems more than likely that the first entry is to be understood
as “TAK4 is an angled šuwum, i.e. ŠU-sign.”
The second one simply provides a name for the ALAN sign and is not a
translation of the whole entry.[4]
§14. The professional name TAK4.ALAN is already
attested in the archaic texts from Uruk, in a lexical list (W 20266,4,
ATU 3, pl. 21), as well as in administrative accounts (W
24224, BagM 22 [1991] 156; W
20274,16 ATU 2, 22, etc.). It occurs again in ED Lu
C 50 (Taylor
2003), and ED Lu E 20 (MSL 12, 17). It was still used in
administrative texts from Fara, Ebla, ED II Girsu, and Old Akkadian
Nippur; see Bauer (1972: 344 “Bildhauer”) as well as Pomponio
and Visicato (1994: 474), but to my knowledge it is not known from any
later documents. Outside of Girsu it may be attested in a votive inscription
edited by Steible (1982: 342),
which most probably originated in Adab. The text is inscribed on a broken
ED period statue of a man and reads:
|
1. |
d[nin]-˹šubur?˺ |
|
2. |
[…] |
|
3. |
x x … |
|
4. |
ME.DUR2.KISAL x x |
|
5. |
TAK4!.ALAN-ni |
|
6. |
nam-ti-la-ni-da |
|
7. |
he2-na-da-kux(DU) |
§15. Steible translated the text: “[(Für) Ninšubu]r(?)
[….] (=PN) … seine Statue möge für sein Leben für
ihn/sie dastehen” and his interpretation is accepted by Pomponio
and Visicato (1994: 374). I would suggest that rather than render line
5 as “his statue” we interpret this as the profession of the
person represented by the sculpture, whose name is undoubtedly contained
in line 4. Without collation I would not venture much further, but will
only note that KISAL is probably to be interpreted as giparx
(Steinkeller 1999: 109) and that the broken signs at the end may include
si.
§16. The later history of this word in lexical texts is
somewhat murky. The entries in OB Proto-Lu 675 (MSL 12, 57) and
in a related list (MSL 12, 67 iii 7') may have been simply carried
over from ED professional name list tradition. The same tradition is
reflected in OB Diri, which offers an Akkadian translation for the first
time : TAK4.ALAN = gu-ur-gu-ru-um (OB Nippur Diri
VI B 164).
§17. In later times this sign combination became (URUDU).SIG7.TAK4.ALAN
as in ze2-er-mu-ku = URUDU.SIG7.TAK4.ALAN
= MIN in Diri VI E 86 and [lu2]-˹tibira˺ = SIG7.TAK4.ALANsi-ir-MUŠ?-lam!
= gur-gur-ru in “Hh XXV” B iv 8' (MSL 12,
229), a “late secondary compilation of rather low quality”
(MSL 12, 230). For other late lexical and literary references
see CAD G, pp. 138-139. The Akkadian has been interpreted as
gurgurru (qurqurru), “craftsman working in wood
and metal” (CAD).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Arcari, E. |
|
1982 |
La lista di professioni “Early Dynastic LU A”,
Supplemento 32 ad AION 42. |
|
1983 |
“Sillabario di Ebla e ED LU A: rapporti intercorrenti tra le due
liste,” OrAnt 22, pp. 167-178. |
Archi, A. |
|
1987 |
“The ‘Sign-list’ from Ebla,” in C. H. Gordon, et al, eds., Eblaitica:
Essays on the Ebla Archives and Eblaite Language, vol. I. Winona
Lake: Eisenbrauns, pp. 91-113. |
Bauer, J. |
|
1972 |
Altsumerische Wirschaftstexte aus Lagasch. Studia Pohl
9. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. |
Biggs, R. D. |
|
1981 |
“Ebla and Abu Salabikh: The Linguistic and Literary Aspects,”
pp. 121-133 in L. Cagni ed., La lingua di Ebla, Napoli. |
Buccellati, G. |
|
2003 |
“A Lu E School Tablet from the Service Quarter of the Royal Palace
AP at Urkesh,” JCS 55 (in press). |
Buccellati, G. and M. Kelly-Buccellati |
|
1997 |
“Urkesh. The First Hurrian Capital,” Biblical Archaeologist
60, pp. 77-96. |
Civil, M. and G. Rubio |
|
1999 |
“An Ebla Incantation Against Insomnia and the Semitization of
Sumerian: Notes on ARET 5 8b and 9,” OrNS 68, pp.
254-266. |
Civil, M., et al. |
|
1969 |
The Series lú = ša and Related Texts. MSL
XII, Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. |
Englund, R. K. and H. J. Nissen |
|
1993 |
Die lexikalischen Listen der Archaischen Texte aus Uruk. ATU
3. Berlin: Gebr. Mann. |
Pomponio, F. and G. Visicato |
|
1997 |
Early Dynastic Administrative Tablets of Šuruppak.
Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale di Napoli. |
Steible, H. |
|
1982 |
Die altsumerischen Bau- und Weihinschriften, fasc. II.
Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner. |
Steinkeller, P. |
|
1999 |
“On Rulers, Priests and Sacred Marriage: Tracing the Evolution
of Early Sumerian Kingship,” in K. Watanabe, ed., Priests and
Officials in the Ancient Near East: Papers of the Second Colloquium
on the Ancient Near East - The City and Its Life Held at the Middle
Eastern Culture Center in Japan (Mitaka, Tokyo), March 22-24, 1996.
Heidelberg: C. Winter, pp. 103-138. |
Talon, P. and K. van Lerberghe |
|
1998 |
En Syrie: Aux origines de l’écriture. Leuven: Brepols. |
Taylor, J. |
|
2003 |
“Collations to ED Lu C and D,” CDLB 2003/3 (<http://cdli.ucla.edu/pubs/cdlb/2003/cdlb2003_003.html). |
Veldhuis, N. |
|
1995 |
Review of R. Englund and H. Nissen, Die lexikalischen Listen
der Archaischen Texte aus Uruk, in BiOr 52, pp. 433-440. |
|
1997/8 |
“The Sur9-Priest, the Instrument gišAl-gar-sur9,
and the Forms and Uses of a Rare Sign,” AfO 44/45, pp. 115-128. |
|