Scribd
Upload
149 views21 pages

Selz

Chapter by Gebhard J. Selz from Signs – Sounds – Semantics. Nature and Transformation of Writing Systems in the Ancient Near East (WOO-13), edited by Gösta Gabriel, Karenleigh A Overmann, and Annick Payne (2021).

Uploaded by

Mary Stuart
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
149 views21 pages

Selz

Chapter by Gebhard J. Selz from Signs – Sounds – Semantics. Nature and Transformation of Writing Systems in the Ancient Near East (WOO-13), edited by Gösta Gabriel, Karenleigh A Overmann, and Annick Payne (2021).

Uploaded by

Mary Stuart
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 21
THE PUZZLING LOGOGRAM: WRITING AND REASONING IN EARLY MESOPOTAMIA Gebhard J. SEL (Oriental Institute, Vienna University) lu» ava nucmu-un-da-ak-da-ams eme-kaSy-ka8s me-da her-en-tums “Someone who cannot make ‘a-a!—from where will he get running speech?” (Sumeran Proverbs: collection 2+ 6 Segment A: 81) 1. On the primacy of the semantic (indexical) function of cuneiform ‘The widely accepted typology of waiting systems designates the historically dominant type of the cuneiform scripts as “logo-syllabic,” especially the Sumerian \writing. Within this typology, the logogram,” is perceived as referring to one (or sometimes more) word(s). However, as is well known, many “logograms” represented by simple or complex (compounded) signs—sometimes also by sign combinations—have a variety of different readings nnd therefore strictly speaking trespass on the limits of a simple “logographic” system. In contrast perhaps to the earlier Chinese systems’, itis very likely that in Mesopotamia, the earlier (Uruk IV-Uruk II1) signs are hesitatingly and rarely phonetized”. De-phonetization is claimed to bea later development in the Chinese seript’, but for Mesopotamia, the ‘opposite is more likely. Consequently, the term “logogram” is suspicious, simply because it is so strongly connected with the logocentric perception of writing "Thanks again to Craig CRosseN for editing this paper prior wo his premature death in December 2020, | was fortunate to have such a competent reader; this article is dedicated tohis memory. “The most useful work for the Following considerations was HANDEL 2019, 9 which ‘my attention was drawn in discussions with Orly GOLDWASSER. Especially HaNbet’'s “Introduction” (pp. 1~27), and here his remarks on “Definition of Wrating and Typology of Writing Systems” (pp. 4-9), warrant terminological precision. According to HANDEL, slottography and phonetization are essential and indeed the hallmark of any writing “A Tully functional writing system must be able to represent all elements of spoken Janguage, including such things as grammat eal particles that are not amenable to pictorial representation” (HANDEL. 2019: 38). His entire chapter 8 (“Beyond the Sinographosphere: Sumerian and Akkadian,” pp. 281-308) is acomparison of the cuneiform and the Chinese that cuneiform: was developed by Sumerian speakers), expressed by Coren 1996: 35, 41 » Seo HANDEL 2019: 42; “A logogram that is fully dephoneticized would become an ‘deogram, ic. @ representation of meaning that is no longer connected to specific linguistic” [emphasis added]. But ep. also HaNDét. 2016, 28 ousnz systems, ignoring their polyvalency and polysemy. Therefore, the term semasiogram—or even the ill-famed word ideogram—seems preferable. 2. Sign modifications and their pictographic background Cuneiform signs were developed (or invented, to use GLASSNER’s terminology) to a great degree in the second half of the 4* millennium. Thanks to the research of KRISPIIN, GLASSNER, and ENGLUND, the (playtul) systematics applied by them are rather well understood today (see Fig. 2.1). oe ieee A cau sneen Cn eo ft won GE Ole ee Go. Oy testicies ee ee (3) ow oe @ female woe Fig 2.1. Suggested systematics of sign formation; the sign formes fo “smal eatle” (based on ENGLUND 1998: 43). ‘Within this emerging system, homophony and polysemy played a major role. In the evolution of early cuneiform writing the role of paronomasia or rebus writings, based on (partial) homophony of words’, is considered crucial for any identification of the language behind tke earliest seripts. A spocial case here are compounded signs or sequences of signs judged to consist of semantic element + phonetic elements. Such phonophores ere, however, difficult and problematic to * KRisPLN 1991-1992; ENGLUND 1998, ete GLASSNER 1999, 2000; also SEtzZ 2013: 53-55. As in KA = zap “tooth” Akk. Simm and zuh “to steal.” Note that some rebus writings ‘occasionally seem to be based on phonetic similarity, not on identity ThE PUZZLRG LoGOGRAM » identify’. The graphs themselves, even when used as phonetic representation of “abstract” unbound grammatical morphemes, were never fully de-semantisized’, As far as we are able to know, Sumerian is especially rich in such homophones*, and is even typologically comparable :o sinographically represented languages that are isolating and agglutinating?. 3. Homophones and paronomasia (rebus-writings) Glottographic writing slowly emerges in ancient Mesopotamia with the principle of rebus-writing based on homophony—oceasionally, even only on simple phonetic similarty—thus changing and partially supplementing a system originally based on pictographic representations and semasiography (and numerical notations). My first of two examples here is the sign BAX ® with the reading /ba/ denotating!! 1. ba [ALLOT] wr. ba “to divide into shares, share, halve: to allot” Akk. ai zazu 2, ba [HALF] wr, ba; bas; bar; “bax(MAS); # ‘miu; Sala8a 3. ba [ANIMAL] wr. bas bacba; bal “a marine ercature?” 4, ba [TOOL] wr. ba; ba “a cutting tool; tool for preparing fax”; “a cutting tool” Akk. suppinu 2a» “half; thirty” Ak. bat; * Compare the assessment of ENGLUND 2009: 8-10. Eig the morpho fn! wed ava 38S veal dave infix rtd tho mann ‘which was derived from the pictogram >> (>, originally probably representing a location with a monolith, In Sumerian, ll morphograns originate a logograms by defiiton * This based onthe fact thatthe vst majo of the greater aumbor of tryllabic iw-woeale Sumerien words like Poul, ski ‘Keted/ were in all ikthood derived from: monoslabic word ike "blu, "sk, ‘ikesd/ The modem lewealizaton of sh CIC2V(C3) of (CIKC2V(C3) words a5 Certainly the result ofthe inability of native Semi speakers to pronounce the (nial) consonant luster *Cp Has 2019, °° The ponibe iconic refieat ofthis sign wera: tule or tntise? Cp. ZATU 10, accorng to which the ifrenton of BA Fom II inthe rch texts not posible TA ounber of problems ae involved with this example, such asthe differentiation between /ba/, ‘be’, and /ma/ or whether in ba'™ and “ba, "ba or “ba, the classifier is tmprenounced or belongs tothe orignal noun formation, The lst three words could be semantically derived from no. I- in olhr werd tis questionable. whether these Glassflers—formerly termed “determinative” had the sole function of dsambigusting the polyvalency of the graphs (“ideograms”) to establish a clear one-to-one relationship batten graphs and he rpresented words 30 G.I suz 5, ba [VESSEL] wr. ba “type of vessel” 6, ba [GARMENT] wr, ba; bars; "ba; "*bars “a garment” Ak, nalbasu Much simpler is the case of sar’ $$] _], iconically a land plot with growing plants It has the meanings: 1 sar (CULTIVATED) PLOT] wr sa: sasrnak: sar: sarcha: sar-sar “a unit of area (plot); a unit of volume; garden” AkK. mifiaru 2. sar[RUN] wr. sa; sa-re; sar, sar-sar, “Sars “to chase away; to make run; to run, Ihasten” Ak, hard; lasdimte sar [SHARPEN] wr. sar, sar-sar “to sharpen” sar [SHAVE] wr, sakar-sakar; sar; “-"sakar “to shave” ‘sar [SMOKE] wr. sar; sar-sar “to stroke” Akk. Surrti ssar [WRITE] wr. sa; sar, sar-sar; sar “to write” Ak. Sa/aru ‘What we see in these examples is the de-semantization of a pictogram or a semasiogram leading to the ercation ofa syllabogram, thus enabling the script to express language, The sign SAR is a logogram in the strictest sense only when it corresponds to the Sumerian word for /sar/ (CULTIVATED) PLOT] ‘The glottographic foundations of the rebus principle are undisputed and will rot be further discussed here. However, to the best of my knowledge as far as ‘Sumerian is concerned, it has 60 far not yet received the necessary comprehensive treatment and the wanted chronological evaluation, 4. Semantic sign systematic: SAG and KA and related matter In contrast, pictograms and semasiograms may map to the reality and ‘encompass related concepts. Complex forms can express complex meanings. For this polysemy (Fig, 2.2), we refer first to the sign KA: the sign KA [MOUTH] (and related cuncoyrams) were derived from the basic sign SAG [HEAD], the depiction ofa human's head’, We see that the iconicity of these signs relates in a straightforward manner to their (elementary) meaning. In fact, we see combinations of mostly meaningful elements for expressing ideas derivable from their combination. The combination of glyphs to indicate derived or new “ideas” is paralleled by the dominant Please note that, regrettably, the chart presente connecting lines are misplaced! ° Hawpet 2019: 288-292 aitempted a systematic analysis of these signs within in his terminological frame :L2 2017: 197 is not quite correet; ThE PUZZLRG LoGOGRAM 31 Principle of Sumerian noun-compounding, in which such compounds often acquire a new lexical meaning". ty anvemame Sato hd Cg MY e QB [| ig ge Sa = J Fig 2.2. The ieonicity of the HEAD and MOUTH signs. ‘The basie form of KA refers iconically to a human’s MOUTH (which evolves by marking the mouth area in the sign for HEAD) and is used as an ideogram for the following words: «dug [SPEAK] wr. dug; “to speak, talk, say; to order; to do, perform; to egutiats” Akh. atwi, dadatbu; epee; qubit # ¢ [SPEAK] wr. ¢; na-ber-a; ben; nz; da-me; na-bes; er “perfect plural and imperfect stem of dug [to speak” Akk, atwit; dababu; gabit © e [TRUST] wr. e> “trust” Ak. tka © gu [VOICE] wr. gus “voice, ery, noise” Akk. rigme © inim [WORD] wt. inim; e-ne-egs “word; matter (of affairs)” AKK. amar kag [MOUTH] wr. ka “mouth” Akk, pi + kan [GATE] wr. kane; KA “gate, door” Akk. babur ir [HYENAI wr. kits “hyena” Akk. bist ‘© kiri [NOSE] wr. kiris “nose” Akk, aypu + su [FIBERS] wr suri; sus “date-palm fibers” Akk. sit The precise form of such compounding, specifically the qualifc debated; see the critical assessment of ENGLUND 2009: 7-8 with fi press), oun sequence, is still 18; further Sez. (in 322 G.I suz ‘© sumur [ANGRY] we. sumur; sumur,(KA) “(to be) angry, furious” Akk. e221; Samra * wga [TREASURE] wr. u-ga; uz-grSes, wug(KA); w-ga-ta; uzug, w7s-g9; us-ga-ne; us-ga; uz-ga-ne; uzaig,(|AN.ZAG); usags(|U.SAl); sausagy( USA); sausags(|U.SA))ki “cella, shrine: gocds, treasure; treasury” Akk. sag; sukku # 2i[SHARE] wr. 8eSup; 20 “plow share; blade ofthe hoe; point (ofa battering ram)” Akke Sinn * aa[TOOTH] wr. zap “tooth” Akk. sinme © zuh [STEAL] wr. zu “to steal” Akk, Sardigus Of these readings (in bold face) of the sign KA, some ate clealy derived by homonymy: kirs “hyena” or sui; “date-pali fibers.” and also zuh “to steal.” Others are based on polysemic principles, most probably based on concepts related to MOUTH". Since FALKENSTEIN’s (1936: 26) assessment of the Uruk period signs forms, ithas been repeatedly pointed out that .n proto-cuneiform, the iconicity of signs soon disappeared, partly because the instrument and writing material (reed and clay) ate not conducive to curvilinear designs", This is obvious compared to the evolution of the Egyptian hieroglyphic script and is said to parallel the Chinese ‘writing system, FALKENSTEIN distinguished between signs that have a clear complete iconic referent, signs which relate to the referent in an abbreviated manner, and “abstract symbolic signs” (“abstrakte Symbolzeichen”)—that is, signs that show no traceable iconic reference"”, Accordingly, we may describe the inventory of (proio-)cuneiform signs as follows: They utilize (a) depictions, a (stylizing) depiction of the referent; (b) a metonymic or syncedochic use of icons; and finally, (¢) conventionalized “abstractive” signs without traceable iconic background. Only the last type are fully abstractive, though their number, however, may be smaller than is often claimed. Recent research has shown that the metonymic-synecdochie principles were highly operative in the earliest stages of the script. As examples we refer here to ENGLUND's identification of the (iconic) SLEDGE = “field hand” or HOE = “adult slave” < “tiller”"*, Moreover, ' sumur(= KA) froma graphic variation ofthe sgn sumur= SAG. gun ep. above Fig. 22 Fora recent account ofthe pictographic origin of some signs andthe loss of curvilinear lines, see Wo0Ds 2010: 36-37 Die erste Gruppe waren dann die dentlich bikdhaften Zeichen, die 7weite diejenigen Zaichen, die ihr Vorb in stark abgektrzter Form wiedergeben, diesen beiden Gruppen stinde die dvitte der abstrakten Symbolzeichen gegentber.” ° ENGLUND 2009: 8-9 fia, 19, ENGLUND 2009: 27 further proposed (and discussed in detail) the following terminology of archaie slaves _general ferms: KURs male; SAL female; SAG head, human; SAGXMA noosed head: ERIMa yoked one; PAP, SU,? adults: AL of working age (“hoe?™). ThE PUZZLRG LoGOGRAM 33 it is likely that some seemingly “abstract signs” like the headings of the Uruk lexical lists ArLu A and ArOfficials, NAMESDA and UKKIN,, which somehow relate to the socio-political organization of the Unuk period, received their meaning by a complicated metonymicsyneedochie process from the depictions of two vessels, Its interesting to compare this with the iconicity of SANGA2, as reconstructed by RUBIO 2013; sce below with fn, 25, And even the sign UDU @D Aru 75)" may be linked to MAS —}— (ZATU 355) iconically referring to the distinct (voluminous) shape of the former, though both always are mentioned as examples of abstract and purely arbitrary signs. Such suggestions ofien seem speculative; but the much younger descriptive names of complex cuneograms show that such reasoning was common in ancient scholarly tradition?! ‘The Sumerian word /mai/ designates not only “(male) goat” but also means “interest” (Fig, 2.3), It may well be that both meanings are not only related by paronomasia but also by semantic evo.ution: in Uruk III we find, according to ‘ZATU, the compounded signs maS+gam; *?7* as well as manila, later also maSo- nita, “male goat” Akk. dassu. ‘The simple sign mas is attested already in Uruk IV documents. It is assumed that the second element of ma’, or magnita refers iconically to “testicles” (see Fig. 2.1). It may well be that interest and goats are linked to two different homophonous ‘Sumerian words; that is, that the syllabic value /maS/ was derived by the rebus principle. Nevertheless, one might also consider a semantical relationship because the irrigation tax"! ma’-GANA., presumably to be read (even in Uruk periods?) as /magaSaga/**, was (originally) paid with goats, Later, in the Ur III period via the rebus [oUns: EN TUR four years old and older up 1 AL?; KUR, TUR boy, younger than EEN, TUR?; KUR, SA boy, vey young?; SAL TUR gil, younger than EN, TUR; SAL Sas ail, very young?; Sy TUR= KURVSAL children: 3NS7™Us (TUR) three-year-old (or: child in third yeat); 2NS7*U (TUR) two- enroll or child in secon yar) INSP, (TTR) cee or el in fre ye See Jounson 2015, 2016, 2019; D' ANNAet al. 2016 and compare SELZ (in press b). ATU StS rhe Unk V paid thse forme: @ BBA) YB 2 See Gone 1993, 2000. = W-20809,8 + W 20800.9 has N14) 20801) [..], EN MAS GANAs AL X [J and W 21735, has 1 [0] 20N 14) MAS GANAS UDU. KALAMs [.] See alo Schayen Colleton, ‘MS2507; MSVO 1, 8: MSVO I, 110; CUSAS31, 25, CUSAS31, 32; CUSAS31, 74; CUSAS 31, 132; CUSAS 31, 165. And see the animal account W 240046 © muiganay = “seitlement; threshing floor” AKK. masta. The Akkadian word is attested fm OAKK times onwards: [was unable to tse the Sumerian loan mas-ganes prior to Url 21 For the mataSas-ga-tax see STEINKELLER 1981 and slightly diferent SE17. 1989a: 322 323, 394-395, 2 Compare the following Old Akkadian writings fiom Adab: TCBI 1, 197 has 78) 1/2(di8) kurbabbar gins / mS aSay-GANA2)-ga and similarly Zi 1986: 0646, 0684, 4 G.I suz principle, mas + GANAz was read as mraSkana/ = “threshing floor”; “settlement,” which isa loan of Akk, maskamu (to Semitic *skn). A semantic relationship between “irrigation tax” and “threshing floor” is purely speculative, but the latter may be retonymic or synecdochie for “settlement.” em [ieee Viste 37 ays mA A sateen (60 ee. ig 23 sma, masta, an mas“GANA is Uruk I ZA 11 356 ae 357) 5. Complex and combined signs ‘Complex and combined signs were already used in the Uruk Periods. We distinguish between complex or compounded) signs in which several diserete signs are fused into one, and combined sign in which two (or more) signs are combined, sometimes connceted in ligature. The first type is very common in the carlist texts, its analysis, however, is offen problematic. This type is best attested in Unuk by the so-called frame signs ("Rahmenzeichen”) in which many different other signs are embedded. My only, but historically consequential example here is the sign NINDA2*SE HE, iconically SEED FUNNEL + BARLEY, attested in Unuk IV and III (ZATU 510). Phoneticaly it represents later the Sumerian verb sal “to make equivalent, to correspond”; the semanties ofthis complex sign with the reading sao is narrowed then to the specific meanings “to pay for, buy; to be paid for, sll” Akk, Sim. When this compound sign is used as @ noun, its reading is sam: or Sam: Akk. simu “price™®, Interestingly, the compound NINDA2*SE thas no other readings in Sumerian texts; therefore, ‘sa! or /sam! is also a likely reading for the Unik periods, indicatinga Sumerian reading. Recently frame signs were thoroughly discussed by WAGENSONNER (2016; 594-619)", CUSAS 20, 27; TCBI |, 212 and TCBI 1,213, which proves the reading ofthe (aigation) tax as /masaiaga of which simple /maw is en abbreviation On the reading and meaning see SutiNkeLLta 1989: 153-162 and also Sis 1998: 272- 274, 44-456, the later also for its relevance for the history of economics. 2 WaceNsoNNeR 2016 disusses the following signs \; AB; DUG; EZEN; GA2a; ZATU 737; ZATU 75%, ZATU 762aand ZATU 7620. With the derived compounded sign, delist ThE PUZZLRG LoGOGRAM 35 Such complex compounded signs were later occasionally dissolved into combined signs". GANUN, the older form of which was GA>NUN f=, was later written as GA:+NUN PAT. The compound complex sian AxIGI KH (post OB!) is usually written AGI TE and can be read ers “tears; to weep.” Also, PAs has the older form ExPAP, but was later written PAP.E. DUR, originally perhaps ZATU 126(2), then GU>xKAK. becomes later GU;+KAK. GESXTIN (ZATU 202) fuses into a single sign 54> and therefore could receive an additional classifier (or phonetic indicator) HI#L>, Similarly, the sign SAGAN (ZATU 506) & and GP #3 FFA was originally a sign combination (probably misunderstood by GREEN~NISSEN as “t ligature DUG+KU;") that evolved into the sign (#3 depicting COVER+POTSTAND, to which a little later DUG was added as an additonal classifier: SAREE, 5.1. Case study 1: /azlag/ and different forms of sign combinations How varied and complicated (in a chronological perspective) the use of ideographic (logographic) writing can be is easily seen from the following ways (o express the word /azlag/ = aslaku, which is usually and perhaps incorrectly translated as the profession “fuller.” All the writings shown in Fig. 2.4 are attested. I tentatively suggest the following interpretations of these forms: [1]-{5] are headless constructions, common in many professional titles and which compare to [6}-[11] where the head is expressed (and perhaps pronourced): “the one ... .” TUG in [2] and [7] means GARMENT; the writing is most likely an abbreviation of [1] and [6], where TUG: and UP have the meaning [GARMENT] and [SUNSHINE]. In [4] and [9], GIS. TUG: KAR.DU is [WOODEN STICK]+[GARMENT}+{QUAY]+ [GO/STAND], which seems to mean “the one who standing (at) the quay (with) the wooden stick (for) garments” > “the one who mils/fulls'tumbles the garment”, The forms attested in [3], [5], [8], and [10] have GIS.TUG: PI = sgcStugs, which has the standard meanings “car”; “reason.” Of course, this makes no §s, according to the sign descriptions in ZATU: A (ZATU 2-5), AB (ZATU 7-11), DUG (ZATU 89-124), EZEM (ZATU 44, 151-157), GAs (ZATU 168-183); GAN (ZATU IST 194); LAGAB (ZATU 22, 76, 127, 200, 251, 309-322, 370, 430, 488, 616(2); MAHI) (ZATU 242-351); NINDA2 (ZATU 39, 402-411, $10), and ZATU 737 (ZATU 185, 738 748), ln ater tation the numberof comparable signs i significantly smaller. ® Soe SELZ 2017: 302 fa. 8 © See Rumio 2013. I understand the sign ZATU 506, following Runio's collection of graphs, as [[CLOTH] COVER {TAR} °° Such writings are sometimes called “etymographic.” 36 G.I suz sense here; instead, we have to interpret il as a phonetic rendering for 4i8+ugs: thus, the word sgeStue/ here was not part of the Sumerian professional title, om Bg ata a a aziag: 2 HiEle-qmea a2leg, om HEL ates o2eg 1 Heaton co) es azlag m Bele azlag: w Denied azlag 1 peeled aztag. uo HEIST ™ azlag oy RR ' a2lag on Nwaziagcrua: PTE Ana) Fig. 24. Diachronically attested forms of writing /azlagl, (Table derived from ePSD2.) ‘The meaning “fuller” for the professional title azlag/ is also questionable for several reasons: First, the etymology of /azlag/ is most likely *a-zalag “(the one who) cleans with water,” and therefore, a translation “launderes” or “cleanser” seems better. Second, the regular word for “fuller,” in the sense of “felter,” is (lus-)tuge dus. Third, Early Dynastic Lu E 1, 33 has azlag after tugs-due: the professions are therefore distinguished. Fourth, attestations in literary texts likewise require an interpretation as “Icunderer”: ep. in “The Sumunda Grass” 1. 54 ga-Sa-an-an-na-ra "yarlag tug:-ga-ni dany-dans-na “The launderer who made ner garments clean (asks) her, Inana But things are even more complicated: ED administrative documents attest not only a tugs-dus “felter, fuller” but also an azlags “cleanser” and, almost parallel, a gaby-dans, which in the sixth royal year of Uru-KA-gina, was superseded by a profession tugs-dans as of yet, the difference between /azlag/ and /eabdan’ or ‘tugdan’ has not been determined. 5.2. Case study 2: The encyclopedic approach in the DIRI lists Very common and especially interesting in our context, are the so-called “DIRI compounds,” combined signs of two or more discrete cuncograms in which the reading of the individual signs has no connection to the reading of the combined signs (occasionally, just a phonetic indicator is added)". Nevertheless, ® Compare SELz, 1998: 88-91 and also p. 154 ® Prrr2nen 2014 (also Prrr2Nen forthcoming) has shown that the majority of the DIRT compounds she studies follow, when “read” atthe graphemic-"logoaraphie” level (that is, ThE PUZZLRG LoGOGRAM 31 in many eases, the combined semanties of these signs deseribe the meaning of the “new” reading in an encyclopedic manner Especially in the DIRI List, the urderlying reasoning is obvious. I restrict myself here to just one example from Old Babylonian Diri “Oxford” (MSL 15: 40): see Fig. 2.5. 027 ‘pian KAxGAN-+-SA—— pucts-ru-um AG 028 ra-ga-mium —_AGY 029 hidir-tum AG 0300 Mummuun = KAMLIKAXET —risigamium 8 03 Seip-tum A 032 warsipuctum! A 033 ra-mi-m{u-um) 034 [djadeag = UD.UD ‘eP-tum A 034 eb-bucum A 036 nna-am-rucim AB 036a ubebuetiebu B 0366 luctus B 0360 me-wucre-um —B 037 hu-hu-ud upp el-lum AB 038 eb-bucum ABH 039 nna-am-rum ‘ABH 040 ha?-ha?-ad?”— UD.UD el-lum ABH oan eb-bucom ABH 042 na-am-rucum ABB, 043 ueukeku MLML ik-lestum 1B, Fig 2.5. Example ofthe encyclopedic arrangement of entries in DIRL The meaning of Un tanslated Akkadian words shows the cueyelopedie semantics involved: 027: protection; concealment; scere: to shout; to suit / gloom, misery; 030: seream, yelling / incantation / incantation priest / bellowing, roaring; 034: pure ‘shining / purified, purify / ditto. shine, beaming, etc. / radiant, shining; 040 pure ‘shining / radiant, shining; 043 darkness, gloom. sian by sign), the Akkadian syntax. This is consistent with the likely date of compilation in the early Old Babylonian period. For the presumed scholarly reasoning behind this, ep. Seiz.2017, © Tn fact, many lexical lists besides DIRI display such eneyelopedie tendencies in the arrangement ofthe individual entries. Consequently, in the mulilingual lists, many of the equations do not function in a dictionary manner A=B (a fact so often neglected by modem scholarship), but elaborate thematically on a Sumerian (or Akkadian) word. CRISOSTOMO (2019: 6) observed: “For translation, meaning entails much more than simply semantic equivalence, In some instances, translation sonveys ideas, in others, translation promotes shared experience or resemblance.” 38 G.I suz 5.3, Case study 3: The sign PA and PA compounds, readings and meanings For the sign PA, iconically perhaps a wooden stick or twig ZATU 425 valle tt par ttt TE ang PALE "6 the amested readings are gidrilu = hay “scepter”, hendur"* (only in the DN ‘hendur-sag-8a> or“hendur-safa) ~ 2; pa= ‘agappu, aru; kappu; “wing; branch, frond”; sags = mahasu “to beat, strike” and finally, ugula = (wJaklu “overseer”, that is an early Akkadian loan in Sumerian”. Note further that PA may be used as en allographie writing for: LU, LUs, and ‘NIM. In the cryptographic UD.GAL.NUN orthography, itis used as an allogram for ME" PA.AFET? hutpu, hutpa: = fnpu; probably “arowhead™'; perhaps a loan from sem. "hip; [STICK +{phon, complement(?)|; see also PA. KAK, PAALERADF originally probably ugula-mab; “supreme overseer”; it also has the reading Sabra (from sem. Spr), re-entering Akkadian as Sabrdi “a temple administrator”: OB Diri “Oxford: 281; OB Diri Nippur: 363; OB Diti Sippar: 7:12, Two lexical equations suggest a (later?) “babilisie” analysis of PA.AL [QVERSFFR]+[HOF]: OR Diri “Owford”: 281: PA.AL. éxatherns 62 A Asin and OB-Diri Sippar: 07:12, &-ab-ra PA.AL Sa-absriett,Sa A SA: “administrator! supervisor of the field-work).” When correct, the reading Sabra FEIT * The depiction may be related to PAs, PAP (ZATU 427). “Scepter” and “twig, branch; stick” are, of course, semantically (and also iconically) related, but the reading of PA here is not always beyond doubt > The meanmg of hendur or /hancur 1s net entirely clear. As DZARD 19 /2-/>: 524 has pointed out, its rendering as “sta” or the ke is based on sign etymology: ep. also SEtz 1995:142. The word henbur or henburs = habburw, he-bueruuin, which designates a "of “sprout,” is perhaps a verbal forn from /but/ or *buru(d)?; ep. also henzer ‘Mock” "This seems related tothe Sumerian werd /zv/ “to erase; destroy” and ‘might be connected to the nominal use of the so-called “frozen verbal forms” like the Suinerian word for the etherworld /ganzed “I will erase / dest him” = “hell” ©” Derived metonymicaly from pa “stick, stafl"—that i, the ation performed with i. 2 There are numerous types of usu attexed in the 34 millennium sources: references, including those fiom Semitie speaking Early Dynastic Ebl, are collected in PoM@ONIO 1987. Ics questionable that an interpretation o° PA = ugula js attested in Uruk lexical txts; sce GREEN - NISSEN 1987 to ZATU 425 and ENGLUND 1998: 70. PA, “supervisor?” and also PAP. “overseer?” Superior of offices are most commonly called ‘gal [PROFESSION]-ok, asin gal-zadimak) “chief jeweler,” and gal-ugs(-ak) “superior ( the people” = “(military commander.” Zan 2009: 126-127. * This rare and questionable reading is based (only?) on a variant in Ninurta’s 577; zabar bu-ut-pa (Var. PA.GAG (N2) and 2A.A (P.) didi-re-e-ne-ka (var ke) the arrowheads of the gods or “bronze for the arowheads of the gods” plots 1 ‘Browe, ThE PUZZLRG LoGOGRAM 39 [OVERSEER|+[HOUSE] may indicate a semantic extension of this administrative office. ‘The office can also include the supervision of animal husbandry, as indicated by OB Dini Nippur 362;, PA. Sa-ab-rt 6a al-pi 363, PA.AL, Sa-ab-ri §a UDU.HLA 364, PA-TURs 1-1) GUD.HLA 365. PA.AMAS ut! GUD-HLA. PALE: SEH originally probably ugula-ex(ak) “overseer of the household”; alzo hao the reading Sabra, “majordome” (see above). OB Diri “Onford” 282 has PA. Ex Sa-pis-ructs Sa bi-ti; OB Diti Sippar 07:13 Sasab-ra PALE Sa-ab-ru-tis Sa Ex; but compare OB Diri Nippur 362. PA.E: Sa-ab-ri Sa al-pi and see below. PA.AN BER titudn / garza. Rath terms ane (early) Semitic: lnamwars in Sumerian (*beta, parsu: the first re-entered Akkadian in the form pelludit: (OB Diri Nippur 360). PA.AN = upsast also had the sense of “machinations; witcheries.” Note that BEEPS also has the reading garzay; note OB Dit Sippar 0720 gi. PA.LUGAL pacar-sz Sa Sarr in zontrast to Diri “Oxford”: 289, [PAAN] acar-sum a i-lim. (PA.LUGAL has no reading /biluda/!) The terms refer to divine / royal ordinances and rites. A.PA.BLGISAL-PAD.DIRI [#314 TT ¥ has the reading addir (or addirs with a and diri as possible phonetic complements ofthe compound sign’), The Sumerian word /addir/ “hire, wage” (Ak. igr) represents the compound a>- diri “wage for rafting,” This interpretation is certain (the alleged writing BI.GIS is definitely alate graphic analysis of the sign LAK $89): LAK $89 has the reading Jaisal/ = giSallu “rudder, oa, and a kindof steering handle (for ploughs)” PAD or Kurs has the meaning “provisions” or similar. The etymographic analysis is therefore clear: PA [STICK]+GISAL/BLGIS [OAR]+PAD [PROVISIONS) (e*diri[phon. compl) and thus meaning “wages for transportation.” PA.DAG.KISIMs«LU.MAS, FE IEXGEX jis read uduly. “herdsman,” originally “a kind of shepherd”; OB Dir. Nippur: 365 and OB Dit “Oxford”: 284, The word went as a loan into Akkadian as wu “chief herdsman.” 08 Dis Nippur 365, PA.DAG.KISIM@XLU.MAS) io-ly UDUHLA OB Diri “Oxford”: 283 PA.DAG.KISIMs*ABy u1:-1u-lum Sa i-a-ti. OB Diri “Oxford”: 284. PA.DAG.KISIMs*LU.MAS: t2-fu-lum Sa se-e-ni IDAG.KISIMs*LU.MAS: has the reading uduls and also amas “sheepfold,” which semantically developed from *ez-mas “house (of) goats, sina livestock, Kleinvich 8s") The basic data and the general interpretation were extensively discussed (with reference to earlier literature) in St1z 1995, esp. 197-200. 40 G.I suz Related are the etymographic writings: PA.TURs: wz; GUD.HLA in OB Diri Nippur: 364 and uz-du-ul PA. TUR w2-tu-1/-lu Sa li-a-tim in OB Diri Sippar: 07-16), Note that udu’ can be written AB: TUS >f], which also has the reading unus or unud “cowherd™®. PAGAN BERS: might be rendered as “#ssagar, indicating that one of the cuneograms functions simply as mater lectionis (ep. the reading above!) The wailing seems to be motivated by the need for disambiguation, PA.GISGAL BECH, to be read /ilulw, designates a “peddler, peripatetic” (Akk, sahhir), Here GISGAL with the reading ulus functions peshaps both as mater Iectionis and as semantic indicator. Writings like nam-ha ta, of nam- ulus “humanity” (AK, awit) suggest that Mulu/ may be derived from *lus-lus “humans,” or perhaps from or *lus-u(z) “roaming people.” However, I cannot provide a grammatically convincing analysis for /ilulu/: unless one supposes, with HEnMPEL, that the term originally designated a kind of “overseer.” the etymography ofthis writing escapes me. PAB SEPT has the reading aby, a Sumerian word with four rather distinctive meanings: 1. For the verb abl, ePSD2 gives 14 different meanings, the most common being “to cut, 1 fell (ate; to dig, to hollow out; to draw, design; to gather, to collet; “to incise “to trim, to peel of.” 2 Sb with the Akk equivalent gablu means “hips or middle part (of the body).” 3. Iealso can refer to a'“clay sealing, sealed bulla,” in AKK. spas 4. Also attested is dugsab = Sappu “a vessel, prob. bowl.” Presently, any interpretation of this compound sign and the etymology ofthe Sumerian word(s) remains highly speculative. | would just like to note that eb or ib, sometimes writen ibs designates something like an “oval structure" (ofa building). I contend that this /b should not be separated from ub or ib; ib-bi meaning “corner, recess” (Akk, fubgu), fib’, again written ibs, 7, also iconiclly refers to gab “hips, middle.” As a ver, it means “(to be) angry: to curse” (Akk-agdgu; araru). I propose that the etymographic analysis of PA.IB is [OVERSEER|*[BUILDING (PART) with unknown relation to the reading ‘Rabi. This suggestion seems to be corroborated by the ED Officials list. 62 which has GAL PA IB or ga:Sab. PA.KAK BEY> hutpu/a in Akk. huspu “arrowhead” —The etymographic analysis is PA [STICK]+KAK [PEG / TIP, that is, “bead of a stick ~ tip of an © Forte interpretation and vending of AB:TUSIKU, see BaveR 2004: 2-3 “The writings are diseussed in ATTINGER 1993; 660-G6L with fn. 1921-1923. “5 On ths interpretation, sce the somewhat skeptical discussion in HEIMPEL 2009: 67-68 And also a greater numer of Akkadian comespondences: bari Sa uzu; esp, hardrus hava sor; Samu; nak; sa ThE PUZZLRG LoGOGRAM al PA.KAS, FE] maskim “commissioner, deputy” (NOT a profession”) kk, rabisu; OB Diri Nippur: 368; CB Diri Sippar: 7:21. Note the semantic difference between etymographic PA KAS, [OVERSEERI+/RUNNER| and the Akkadian “Lurking; lying in wait” PA.LUGAL see above PA.AN. PA.DUN; B5LF hursag, has in OB Diti Nippur: 373-373a the Akkadian rendering gallabu “barber.” For DUNs one might refer to tum “lip; chin” (Akk. Sapni; stg) or geStuny; tuns “bag: stomach; a container” (Akkc. sakally)™ Beeause /bursag/, writen hur-saf and rarely PA.DUNs, is usualy the Sumerian ‘word for “mountains or foothills,” a relation of the former to kinda) (URI) = gallabu “barber” might be considered, esp. because URI, originally (Jar, isthe well-known logogram for Agade and the Akkadians (intruding from the mountains), The assumption here is that URI refers to atypical Akkadian hairdo or beard style (a is well attested in iconographic representations) PA.NUN = lugal, “king, lord™® is an UD.GAL.NUN orthography for the standard orthographical lugal, It has both phonetic (PA = lus) and semantic implications: NUN = gal. The combined writing could also be interpreted as Dir for LEADER#PRINCE, thus referring ta primus inter pares pa SEPP isin or i8in “culm, grain stalk” as & loan in Akk. iSt, OB Dirt Sippar: S1 col. ii 25'. Other writings are s-si-na, ¢-si-na, isin, (SE.IGLTUR), isim> and isims, Most likely the logogram PA here conveys its original meaning of “wig, frond, branch.” NNote that the word is clearly connected to the name of the grain goddess “ezinams (SE-TIR) oF Yezinams (TIR), the deified “barley stalk.” PA-TESIFEGY YT, read ensi(-k), designates a ruler (and farmer) and went as foan into Ak. 185724. Most likely the ttle /ensik’ was derived from “en-Se- ak’!, meaning something like “lord (responsible) for the barley (culvation/distribution).” The etymographie analysis is, however, far from certain: [OVERSEER]}+(PERIMETER()}"+{phon. compl.) © Gp, the latest treatment ofthis erm by Herre, 2009: $8 * Sce PrirzNer 2014: $9 with fan 159-160 andl ref to Ura IV 31618. DUN: SUI MIN (ta-kal-t) gal-la-bi and the omen BRM 4 13:57 Summa tri na DUN" SUL 1 am grateful to Gosta GABRIEL. for refering me to this writing. In the eryptographie UID GAT. NTIN ovthography, the oscillation between semantic, phonetic, and indeteetahle ‘writings is typical; itis often difficult to ‘which relation is “original.” With UD.GAL.NUN = “en-ll, the semantic motivation is obvious, ° See ZAND 2009: 74, 107, 233. 8 Soe STEINKELLER 2017: 108, 1 fail to understand BAUER’s (1987: 5) suggestion that TE could be understood as phonetic complement, GANA® fags temen(na) (RTC 416: ri2 et passin) isa designation fora field within the perimeter ofa settlement. A similar notion might have motivated the inclusion of TE here. a G.I suz PA.TUG: SE EI is the regular transcription of the name of the vizier and fire god Nuska™. In the earliest tents, the writing is to be interpreted as PANAM2, or PA.US, (UMUS). The etymographic analysis. is therefore [OVERSEER|+[INSTRUCTION] and may refer to Nuska’s role as vizier (of Enlil). The god’s name seems to be a Senitic loan; the name’s meaning, however, isnot yet established PA.USAN / SEESG mu(n)sud/ (sometimes transhterated as mus-subs) designates a profession well attested already in the Fara-texts. The Akk. rendering is r2'd “shepherd.” Neither writing nor reading have so far received a plausible explanation‘ PA.UZU FES>C85 tuds oF /duda! “io hit, to beat,” in Akk. nati? OB Dirt “Oxford”: 287, OB Diri Sippar: 7:14. The etymographic semantics are quite elear [STAFF/STICK}+{BODY]. 5.4. Case studies 4: Linguistically mixed semantic-phonetic adaptation of signs In 1988 and 1990, STEINKELLER has ingeniously demonstrated that in Ur IIL sources LU|SU(A)KI designates the region Simaski. Some of the examples discussed so far illustrated that their interpretation depends on the bilingual ‘Sumero-Akkadian context, For such interferences, STEINKELLER’s solution was a good example of this because his interpretation is based on an Akkadian reading of the logograms: LU: has to be read wits its Akkadian equivalent sin its genitive case si, and SU receives its phonetic valies from SU= Akkadian maskum. Hence, LUsSU® is an Akkadian rebus-writing, to be understood as a phonographic writing Si-maskim designating the toponym Simaski. (Note that this must be distinguished from the ED Sumerian designation of social rank, lus-su-a (SEIZ 1989b), which might be interpreted as “people of kin” > “kinsmen” referring to members of the upper echelon of the Lega’ state Next /athus/ isthe usual reading of the complex sign x72] GA2xMUNUS ~ [CONTAINER}IWOMAN]. which semantically clearly designates the (motherly) womb,” in Akkadian rému(m): rimum). The Akkadian word, % See SrRECK 2001. 81 See Marin etal. 2001: 65. Compare BAUER 1989-1990: 84, % On the terminology for the upper social classes in Laga’, see SeLz: 2014: 264. A third elite group there was “als lussu-a bezeichnet, ein Terminus, der Ublicherweise mit Bekannten’ baw. ‘vertraute Leute’ wiedergegeben wird. Da sich unter den so bezeichaeten Personen cine Anzahl von Blutsverwanden, etwa die Mutter und die Schwester der Stadtlurstin baw. Kinder des Stadtftrstenpaares, nachvweisen lassen, steht ai enwiigen ob su nicht mit SUISA baw. .. [sua] SU = niiiiu/m) “(natdliche und ingeheiratete) Familie” verbunden werden dart ThE PUZZLRG LoGOGRAM B however, also means “pity; compassion”; both meanings are generally connected to the Semitic root. In contrast, the etymology of Sumerian farhus/ < *ers-hus ‘means “red / bitter tears” > “pity; compassion” and docs not fit the sign semantics. Because it is unlikely that from the beginning in Sumerian as well as in Akkadian both different semantic concepts were intertwined, the reading of GA2xMUNUS (motherly) womb" as /arhus can only be from language contact, or even isa later, misunderstanding, based on the meaning of the SEMITIC root *rhm. 6. Conclusions Tthas been demonstrated above that the much-used term “logogram’” is not only linked to the origins of cuneiform wrting but also betrays a logocentric bias doubitully appropris forthe earliest stages of writing. It has been shown that the so-called logograms are often grounded in semanties™ and that their use contains semantic and even encyclopedic knowlege transmitted through the various stages of writing, For signs only loosely, ifat all, connected to language, the term logogram seems rather vague, even incorrect: semasiogram or ideogram scem much better. Semasiographic writing is perfectly apt for expressing concepts: for however, it wants precision. This want incites, I suggest, writing in the narrower sense—aka “true” writing, that is, glottography—which may include Jogograms when designating a definite one-to-one relation between graphs and words. No doubt, this was certainly ¢ major step in the evolution of human cognition’’, as DEHALNE 2009 so impressively demonstrated. The evidence collected here, however, shows that there is often no definite border between Jogogram and semasiogram, and in a number of complex or combined signs, we detect a mixture of semantic and phonetic principles. Whether and when Sumerian developed into a “fully functional writing system,” a true writing system in the eyes of the “logocenirics” remains unanswerable. The semantic relation of cuneiform signs may also help to explain their persistence as “logograms” over the millennia, 7 This isnot to contradict HANDEL’s statement (2019: 281) “that semantic and phonetic adaptation are commonalities in all of the seript adaptation”: [only argue that the evolution of writing goes from pictogram wa semasioatam to logosram. SS HANDEL 2019: 309 states: “Fully-formed writing also called “true writing’ —that is to ‘ay, Writing capable of representing the fullrange of utterances within a language, and not Just isolated words—is built upon this foundation of word-signs through techniques of ‘raphic extension that provide the writing sytem with the flexibility to represent linguistic Units (Gegments, syllables, function words, affixes) that are not easily amenable to iconic representation but are essential to linguistic expression.” A comparison of the early development,” he claims, “shows that the mechanisms of extension are both simple and universal, and must therefore be intuitively obvious to human beings once the erucial breakthrough of associating signs with wonds has been achieved.” Cores 1996: 53-55 cometly note that literacy in cuneiform was never to be reduced to the mastery ofa syllabary and some orthographic rules.” He focused on the coutrol of “4 G.isuz even after the semantic aspect had little or no bearing anymore. This applies to Sumerograms, Akkadograms, Eblaitograms, and Hittitograms, used in chiefly syllabic texts of differing languages, in which they mostly appear as logograms in the proper sense. ‘The study of cuneiform seripts when neglecting the notion of semasiography or ideography loses much information relevant to Mesopotamian culture. As we have seen, it is more than probable that Mesopotamian writin started with semasiographie principles because the adaptation to a specific language was slow and fully glottographie writing appeared only relatively late. Instead, analogous interpretation including paronomasia focused on semantics based on “logograms”®. For Mesopotamian scholars glyphs were primarily signs which could be interpreted and understood by a variety of hermeneutical procedures. References ArtinceR, P. 1993: Eléments de linguistique sumérienme: La construction de du/eldi “dire.” OBO, Sonderband, Fribourg. BAUER, J. 1987: Ortsnamen in den frithen Texten aus Ur. WO, 18. 5-6 —. 1989-1990: Altsumerische Wirtschafisurkunden in Leningrad. 4/0, 36-37. 76-91 —.2004: KU lls Berufsbezeichnung. InH. Waetzoldt (ed.), Von Sumer nach Ebla und zurick: Festschrifi-Giovanni Pettinato zum 27. September 1999 gewidmet von Freunden, Kollegen und Schilem. Heidelberg, 1-4. Carsostomo, C.J. 2019: Translation as Scholarship: Language, Writing, and Bilingual Education in Ancient Babylonia, Studies in Ancient Near Easter Records 22. Boston, Coorek, JS. 1996: Sumerian and Akkadian, In P-T. DANIELS The World's Writing Systems. New York, 37-57 D’ANNA, M.B. et al, 2016: Food and Urbanization: Material and Textual Perspectives on Alimentary Practive in Early Mesopotamia, Introduction. Origini: Rivisia de Preistoria e Protostoria della Civilta Antiche, 37. 8-14. DEHIAENE, S. 2009: Reading in the Brain: The New Science of How We Read. New York: EpzARD, D.O. 1972-75: Hendursana. lA 4. Berlin, 324-325. ENGLUND, RK. 1998: Texts from the Late Uruk Period, In J. BAUER etal. (eds), Mesopotamien. Spaturuk-Zeit und Frihdynastische Zeit. OBO 16011 Fribourg, 15-233 W. BRIGHT (cds), knowledge transmission; however, the hermeneutical implications should not be underestimated: ep, inter alia SELZ (in press a) © Perhaps the term “logogram” should chen be reserved for a specific use in the lowtographie system or in a writing systemin the narrow sense, ThE PUZZLRG LoGOGRAM 45 —. 2009: The Smell of the Cage. CDLJ, 2009/4. hutps:Hiedlisucla.edw/pubs!

You might also like