Early Lexical Lists Revisited - univie.ac.athomepage.univie.ac.at/klaus.wagensonner/Publications/CRRAI53... · Early Lexical Lists Revisited Structures and Classiﬁcation as a Mnemonic

Early Lexical Lists Revisited Structures and Classification as a Mnemonic Device*

Klaus Wagensonner University of Vienna

§ 1. Introduction

Besides the extraordinary rich data obtained from the “lexical” remains of the ancient Near East, the so-called lexical lists (henceforth LL)—preferably bi- or poly-lingual ones1—are the foundation of our modern-day dictionaries of Akkadian, and, to a certain degree, mirror and enlighten the cultural foundations and peculiarities of Mesopotamia by classifying and labeling the environment.2 Despite the high status this text genre has, it should be considered with respect and sometimes also scepticism. The latter holds true when we are dealing in particular with late lists, which were the end-product of a long canonization process and therefore produced a high number of misleading or, from our modern perspective, dubious entries.3 But to say it in

* The study presented here is partly continued in a lecture held at the 54e

Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale in Würzburg on July 23rd, 2008. There, the author tried to compare the lexical lists with contemporaneous mundane texts. This issue is briefly introduced in the conclusive remarks of this paper.

1 It is disputable if we can consider the earliest mono-lingual lists as outputs of “lexicography” or regard them exclusively as “word-lists.” In Egyptology such word-lists were interpreted as “onomastica.” The discussion of this and other topics regarding classification and categorization is ongoing within the framework of the COST Action A-31 “Stability and Change of Classification Systems in a Cross-Cultural Perspective.”

2 Dietz Otto Edzard questions if these lists can be considered as “Kunstwerke,” works of art (2007). Although this approach regards later lexical lists, it also holds partly true for the lists under discussion; cf. infra §§ 3f.

3 For instance cf. the mātu-section of Nabnītu (SIG7.ALAN iv 52ff. = MSL 16, 79): KUR ma-a-tu4 KI MIN MA.DA MIN KALAM MIN KI.IN.GI MIN GU2 MIN KA.NAG MIN EME.SAL GI MIN (MUŠ3 MIN) IGI ma-a-tu4 MA MIN (MUŠ2 MIN)

Just the entries in bold print are “genuine”; the others are partly derived from those. Numerous instances can also be gathered from late bilingual texts like the canonized Udug-¶ul-incantations.

286 Languages of the Ancient Near East Miguel Civil’s words, “the Sumerologist may fail to realize how lucky he is to have at his disposal an enormous wealth of ancient lexical material” (1982: 123).

In this article it is the author’s intention to concentrate on the early monolingual evidences. Therefore I limit myself to the lexical data from Uruk IV and III and—where it is necessary in purpose of reconstruc-tion—its ensuing tradition in ED I and IIIa/b.

Although this time span seems long, the lexical tradition remains highly steady. This homogeneity of structure and sequence during those periods is strongly connected to the scribal education and therefore has a profound mnemonic character. The sequence of entries in a LL seems to work primarily with graphic issues linked in many cases to the sign shape.4 At first glance, this serialization could be interpreted as a kind of mnemonic help for apprentice scribes to become easily acquainted with the information contained in the lists and achieve the ability to manipu-late early (cuneiform) writing. Although it is hitherto hardly provable, these arrangements seem to share some characteristics with the contem-poraneous administrative documents. It is obvious from the evidence that these characteristics intrude into the economic records more than previ-ously thought. Together with determinatives or classifiers to be discussed in § 5 they are an useful tool for a more elaborate recording of data, either lexical or administrative. § 2. Corpus

Although an amount of approximately 700 tablets and fragments dealing with lexical information seems to weigh little in contrast to the huge corpus of about 5000 administrative documents found in the debris of Uruk, the information provided by that genre of textual inheritance makes it clear that the early writers were aware of the capabilities inherent in a script which was invented only a few centuries before the first secured attestations of LL in the Uruk IV and III-periods. In spite of sparsely found lists dating to the former period, the main progress of canonization was conducted—as far as we can date the texts—in the Uruk III-period. During that time, the differences between manuscripts

4 This principle was briefly quoted by Claus Wilcke: “Die ‘Listen’ waren in his-torischer Zeit hierarchisch nach Rang oder Größe des Bezeichneten, nach Asso-nanz oder Reinformen der Bezeichnungen, nach graphischer Identität oder Ähn-lichkeit, wie auch aufgrund semantischer Nähe geordnet und nach unterschiedli-chen Merkmalen aufgefächert” (2005:439).

K. Wagensonner, Early Lexical Lists Revisited… 287 of the same list decrease considerably,5 which leads to the assumption that there must have been a central institution partly or fully responsible for the scribal education.6 § 3. Arrangement in theory

A thorough investigation of the lists reveals the features of serialization and shows that the entries are arranged, not arbitrary. To keep this study within reasonable limits I will only point to some representative examples demonstrating the high level of knowledge organization which underlies the lists’ content.7 As far as our modern interpretation is true, all Uruke-an LL are “thematic” according to their content. This means that each list covers one or—in a few cases—several semantic fields. To a certain de-gree, this is also acknowledged for the Sumerian Word List C (former Trib-ute) providing a kind of practical and usable guide for the LL and simulta-neously helping the apprentice scribe to convert the “theoretical” lexical entries to a more mundane usage as found in economic records.8 It is only this list which shows such a strong connection between the early lexicographic outputs on the one hand and the administrative documents on the other.9

An intriguing question is the arrangement of entries by means of hier-archy. In this paper I do not intend to neglect a hierarchical arrange-ment in the lists entirely. But, on basis of our still insufficient knowledge of the political, religious, and social stratification in Uruk at the end of

5 The LL Swine (former Dog) must be excluded from this process because both manuscripts dealing with designations of pigs do not share the same sequence (cf. Cavigneaux 2006:20ff.; Veldhuis 2006:186, n. 8). This list was obviously not dealt with in the lexical tradition of the 3rd millennium. The same holds true for other word-lists which were generally referred to as “vocabularies.”

6 Cf. inter alia Krispijn 1991–1992:13ff. and a forthcoming article by Hans J. Nissen. Jonathan Taylor studied the perception of the early lexical lists in the OB period following the different tablet types used in the scribal education. In his conclusive remarks he states that the “scribes were interested in the text [Stand-ard Professions List and the other Archaic/Early Dynastic compositions] itself and display a good level of understanding of it, but they were interested also in the formatting of the text” (2008:208).

7 Cf. infra § 4 with a separate discussion of each of the main lexical lists found in Uruk.

8 This was persuasively demonstrated by Niek Veldhuis in his thorough analy-sis and interpretation of Sumerian Word List C (2006:193ff.).

9 We have also other archaic LL attesting natural numbers; cf. Archaic Food (/Grain).

288 Languages of the Ancient Near East the 4th millennium it is almost impossible to make any conclusive re-marks on this topic according to the lists. Anyway, some features should be discussed here cursorily:

It is the well-known professions-list Lu2 A which forms the main exam-ple for a proper discussion of hierarchy in this early stage of lexicogra-phy. Starting with the title NAMEŠDA,10 it is noteworthy, anyway, that the constituent NAM2 ( )

11 is only attested in the first entries of that list. But this alone is no implication for any hierarchical structure. Nevertheless, the Urukean lexical corpus provides us with a second list containing pro-fessions and/or titles called Officials.12 There, some of the entries men-tioned in the first section of Lu2 A are listed again.

13 Nonetheless, a rather important indication for a hierarchy is the fact that professions preceded by GALa (e. g. GALa UMUN2) are listed prior to those preceded by SANGAa (e. g. SANGAa UMUN2). This observation is based on different groups of en-tries sharing the same sign or sign-sequence. The following table gives an inventory of those arrangements. Although many titles have not been in-terpreted satisfactorily up to now,14 it is obvious that GALa—if there is any hierarchy intended—was an important function, perhaps of higher rank than SANGAa:

Match Sequence Entries Lu2 A

SUKKAL GALa SUKKAL, GADAa SUKKAL 18–19 GAa GALa GAa, SIG2b GAa 20–21 ŠABa GALa ŠABa, BUa ŠABa(, NAM2 ŠABa) 25–26(+26a) (KU3a) (GALa KU3a, IDIGNA KU3a) (28a–28b)

10 It would go far beyond the scope of this paper to deal with this title appro-

priately, but cf. for a thorough discussion Lambert 1981:94ff. and Selz 1998:300f. 11 The signs are based on the CDLI-project (URL: http://cdli.ucla.edu/tools/

cdlifiles/archsignfiles_jpg.zip, accessed on October 19th, 2008). 12 A score transliteration of this list is found in Englund–Nissen 1993:86ff. and

in the DCCLT-project (accessed on October 19th, 2008). For a thorough investi-gation of the list’s structure the Fāra-text SF 59 as well as MEE 3, 50 from Ebla are indispensable.

13 Despite its prominence in administrative records, the title EN is not men-tioned in the professions list. Nonetheless, there are some entries incorporating this title/sign: Lu2 13 (ENa IBa), 63 (ENGIZ), 64 (ENDIB), 67 (ENKUM), 92 (ENa+NUNa UTULa). In Archaic Officials the situation is different: There, the sign is quoted in entries 14 (ENa+NUNa), 15 (ÚI ENa E2a NUNa), 16 (ENa I NUNa), 17 (ENa AMAR), 18 (ŠU2+ENa AN), 20 (ENa NUNa URI), 21 (ENa AN RU), 22 (ENa SAG) [, 31 (MENa ŠA3a AN)]. Interesting is Officials 18 (ŠU2+ENa AN) where ENa might be a phonetic comple-ment for the reading EN2(ŠU2.AN).

14 Cf. several interpretations in Bauer et al. 1998 passim; Selz 1998:294ff.

K. Wagensonner, Early Lexical Lists Revisited… 289 Match Sequence Entries Lu2 A UMUN2 GALa UMUN2, ERIN UMUN2, SANGAa UMUN2 29–31 UMUN2 KU3a GALa UMUN2 KU3a, ABa UMUN2 KU3a 32–33 IMa GALa IMa, IMa TUR 35–36 ZATU737+DI GALa ZATU737+DI, SANGAa ZATU737+DI 40–41 SANGAa GALa SANGAa, DUBa SANGAa 47–48 SAG SAG SUG5, UB SAG 49–50 MEa KAR2a MEa, GALGAa MEa 54–5515 LAGARa LAGARa IBa, LAGARa GAR 56–57 NIMGIR GALa NIMGIR, SIG7 NIMGIR 65–66 GALa SUÚUR, SANGAa SUÚUR, APINa SUÚUR 71–73 EZENb GALa EZENb, MUŠ3a EZENb, DU EZENb 79–81 ZAGa GALa ZAGa, NESAG2a ZAGa, BARA3 ZAGa, DILMUN ZAGa 82–85 DU6b GALa DU6b, KURa DU6b, KISALb1 DU6b, KUb2 BA DU6b,

TARa DU6b 86–90

UTULa GALa UTULa, ENa+NUNa UTULa, TARa UTULa 91–93 GURUŠDAa GALa GURUŠDAa, SANGAa GURUŠDAa 96–97 UDUa AB2 [ ] UDUa AB2, GALa UDUa AB2 110–11216

Whether this evidence implies a hierarchic arrangement is not provable. But such similarities shown in the table above are conspicuous and possibly reveal a kind of hierarchy or at least taxonomy beneath the surface of the list and therefore give rise to that conclusion.17 Anyway, the sequence GALa → SANGAa is the best documented in the professions list. Many other titles are only attested once in that list and so they do not clarify the results.

Another LL which should be mentioned at this place is Archaic Ani-mals. This list is strictly organized in three major parts which are taxon-omically related: The taxa are (1) Animals 1–26 consisting of entries with the sign AB2 ‘cow,’ (2) Animals 27–52 characterized by GU4 ‘ox,’ and finally (3) Animals 53–76+ mentioning different kinds of ‘calves’ (AMAR).18

15 Note that the ED successor OIP 99, 1 iii 18 reads NUN GA2+GAR ME. The Fā-

ra-text SF 33 even has in iv 4 GA2+GAR ME NUN ME. 16 In OIP 99, 1 (reconstruction) we read SANGA AB2 UDU, LAGAR AB2 UDU, GAL

LAGAR.gunû PA AB2 UDU (cf. the DCCLT-project). 17 Presumably only one broken instance—namely Lu2 110f. ([ ] UDUa AB2, GALa

UDUa AB2)—testifies a title higher than GALa; cf. supra note 16. Margaret Green supposes that “the Sumerian bureaucracy of the early archaic period already had a departmentalized, hierarchical structure. This seems likely from the large num-ber and variety of official titles which occur in the archaic administrative texts and which, by Uruk IV, were already collected in lexical lists” (1981:348).

18 Although the end of the list is broken, the last legible entry possibly men-tions AM ‘wild ram,’ a sign which is graphically connected to AMAR. This fourth section is well attested in the ED manuscripts.

290 Languages of the Ancient Near East

At least in these two lists we cannot exclude hierarchy or taxonomy at all, but it presumably penetrates only the main structure of those lists. In looking at them in greater detail, there are other tools of arrangement recognizable.

Due to the less-advanced schematization of signs during the Uruk IV and III-periods, the textual remains found in Uruk represent an appropriate basis for a thorough analysis of such techniques19. I will briefly discuss at the end of this paper that these methods are not only restricted to the lexical corpus but can be determined in a high amount of administrative documents as well. A thorough analysis and research in this field is still pending. As introduction, the graphic patterns observable in the LL should be discussed briefly. Considering the graphic shape of signs, sequences can be categorized as follows:

1. a group of entries shares one sign, 2. a group of entries shares a sign-sequence (consisting of two or more signs),

3. a group of entries shares a specific sign-combination (composed of two juxtaposed signs or by means of a frame-sign),

4. a group of entries shares the shape of a sign, 5. a group of entries shares a frame-sign, 6. a group of entries shares a sign-part, 7. a group of entries shares a sign-modification (gunû, tenû, and so on).

The chart below (fig. 1; all the figures are placed after the text) shall demonstrate these patterns by means of representative examples taken from the lexical corpus of the archaic layers of Uruk. All these patterns are well attested within the corpus of archaic (and Early Dynastic) LL.

Although this study deals with comparisons based on graphic shapes, phonetic relations—unfortunately rather speculative—should not be omitted here entirely:

– In the professions-list Lu2 A entries 14–18 except for entry 15 contain the sign GALa. It is very presumable that entry 15 (NUN ME) was in-corporated in this sequence in virtue of the reading ABGAL.20

19 Unfortunately the preservation of several lists often depends on the amount

of manuscripts found. So, whereas major parts of the (archaic) professions-list Lu2 A can be reconstructed satisfactorily, other lists like Plants are only partly accessi-ble. Of great concern are the ED successors from Ur (ED I), Fāra and Abū Ôalā-bīkh (ED IIIa), and Ebla (ED IIIb); cf. the chart in Bauer et al. 1998:88f.

20 Cf. already Krebernik 2002:64; 2007:42f.

K. Wagensonner, Early Lexical Lists Revisited… 291

– A second example is found in Archaic Vessels 23 (DUGb+KASKAL) and 24 (DUGb.gunû = KAŠb). Here too, a phonetic similarity is very likely because of the attested reading <kas/š> of the sign KASKAL.

– In the same list we find entries 93f. (GI6 TUG2a(.gunû)) and 95f. (GI TUG2a(.gunû)) where GI6 and GI might be related.

21

Before we look in greater detail at the structures attested in the LL, some more or less frozen or stereotypical sequences should not be neglected:22

– The sequence found in Archaic Wood 19 (GIŠ MA) and 20 (GIŠ ÚAŠÚUR) is well attested in the administrative corpus.23 Entry 18 (GIŠ DIN) can also be joined to this sequence.24

– In the same list we find a sequence consisting of the entries 13 (GIŠ LAMa), 14 (GIŠ LAM+KURa), and 15 (GIŠ KURa), which is more or less paralleled in Archaic Vessels 41 (DUGb+LAM+KURa), 42 (DUGb+LAMa), and 43 (DUGb+ KURa).

– Further note entries Lu2 A 10 (NAM2 PAa RADa [ ]), 11 (ABa MEa [ ]), and 12 (GALa BAD+DIŠa [ ]) in comparison to Cities 9 (UR2 KU6a RADa), 10 (ŠIMa RADa), and 11 (AMAb MEa). In all these examples the sign ME is graphically recognizable.25

– In the professions list Lu2 A we also find entries 22 (GALa KISALb1) and 23 (GALa NIMa), which correlates to Officials 5 (KISALb1) and 6 (NIMb2). Wheth-er this example should be omitted because of the similar contexts re-mains unsure.26

– Last but not least the sequence AB2—GU4—AMAR—AM should be quoted here. As mentioned above in the discussion of hierarchic or taxonomic arrangements, these four categories represent the main sections of Ar-

21 Cf. infra § 4.11. Unfortunately it is by no means provable, if the combina-

tion of vessels (DUG) and garments (TUG2) is caused by the similar phonetic repre-sentation, though both sections are separated by entries classified either with PU2 or GA’ARa1. Last but not least note Fish 27 (GIRa), 28 (KIN GIRa), and—probably phonetically connected—29 (GIR2a KU6a).

22 The following collection of examples is of course not exhaustive. 23 For instance cf. IM 74343 (CDLI-database, No. P004234; accessed on Octo-

ber 19th, 2008) dating to the Uruk IV-period where the sequence MA, ÚAŠÚUR, and MA+MA is attested.

24 Cf. IM 74276,1 (CDLI-database, No. P004169; accessed on October 19th, 2008) dating to the Uruk III-period where we find the whole sequence: ŠU2 DUGb+DIN, MA, and ÚAŠÚUR.

25 Cf. Swine 6 (MEa GARA2a+SILA3a ŠUBUR) and 7 (RAD.gunû ŠUBUR). The prox-imity of ME and RAD is also well attested in administrative documents; cf. the pa-per to be published in the proceedings of the 54e Rencontre Assyriologique Inter-nationale (in preparation).

26 Cf. also Lu2 A 88 (KISALb1 DU6b) and 89 (KUb2 BA DU6b) where KUb2 can inter-preted as graphically related to NIMa.


chaic Animals. The same sequence is found in two short sections of the LL (ED) Grain(/Food): (1) in entries 57–60 (su-la2 ab2/gu4/amar/am) and (2) 80–83 (adkinx(ŠEŠ2) ab2/gu4/amar/am).

27 § 4. Arrangement in practice28

Whereas in the previous chapter the different possibilities of arrange-ment have been introduced, it is now time to look closer at the texts themselves and observe the different processes of structuring. The fol-lowing preliminary observations are neither intended to be exhaustive nor do I insist on their validity, because a certain degree of speculation is unavoidable in “interpreting” the contents. The lexical corpus known from Uruk does not cover all areas of political, religious, or daily life. Eye-catching is the fact that especially areas are treated, which are signifi-cant for economy. As a result, already at the time of the lists’ emergence, their purpose was mainly connected to a mundane usage. The following figure tries to assign the thirteen known lists from Uruk III to superordi-nate fields29 (fig. 2).30 § 4.1. Cities (and Geography)31

Particularly the LL Cities was hitherto much discussed concerning its con-tent. The lack of any secured god list32 in the archaic layers led to the hy-pothesis that its arrangement of city or topographic designations may have been caused by mythological or cultic hierarchy due to the fact that

27 Cf. the DCCLT-project (accessed on October 19th, 2008). The archaic pred-

ecessor is unfortunately too fragmentary. 28 Where necessary the archaic sign is set in brackets directly after the trans-

literation. 29 Other attested lists like “vocabularies” are omitted here. 30 The term “cosmology” is perhaps inappropriate for both of its representa-

tives. A diachronic overview is found in Bauer et al. 1998:98f. Score translitera-tions are published in Englund–Nissen 1993:69ff. and within the framework of the DCCLT-project (accessed on October 19th, 2008).

31 Cf. for a score transliteration of the LL Cities Englund–Nissen 1993:145ff. The badly damaged manuscripts of the LL Geography are edited on pp. 150f. Any-way, following Bauer et al. 1998:88f., the evidence from Fāra and Abū Ôalābīkh provides us with successors of this list. Cf. for the latter the edition in Biggs 1974: 71ff.

32 The Uruk III fragment W 20713,1 quoted in Bauer et al. 1998:88 is too small to give any conclusive remarks concerning LL containing divine names. Nonetheless, it is noteworthy that some of the god lists known from ED Fāra are added to the topographic list (cf. SF 23).

K. Wagensonner, Early Lexical Lists Revisited… 293 “many of the toponymns contain elements of divine names (…), or are co-terminous with divine names” (Bauer et al. 1998:92).33 Roger Matthews in his study of the so-called City seal investigated the links between representa-tives of that seal impression and the LL under discussion (1993:33ff.; Bauer et al. 1998:93f.). Recently Piotr Steinkeller doubted these relations, because “there is no reason why these two documents should necessarily show an identical sequence of toponymns, for their respective purposes were quite different. Whereas the city seal attested to a specific political sit-uation, limited to a particular time and place, the geographical list served as an exhaustive scholarly catalogue of all the major ‘Sumerian’ cities, ar-ranged hierarchically according to their size and importance” (2002:255). But, for this study, the patterns introduced supra in § 3 are of concern:34

– Graphically connected are entries 37 (AN NEa E2b), 38 (NINLIL), 39 (SAL GA2b+DUBa URI3a PAPa), 40 (E2b+AŠc), [41],

35 and finally 42 (NAa E2a), where a rectangular sign (inter alia E2) is included.

– Pattern 1 discussed above is attested in entries 58 (SUa E2a), 59 (GIR2a SUa), and 60 (ABZU). The last entry introduces the next group consisting of en-tries 61 (ABa TE) and 62 (BAR 1N57 ABa).

§ 4.2. Lu2 A (NAMEŠDA)

36

The professions and titles list has been much discussed concerning its structure and possible hierarchy, which presumably mirror the Urukean human stratification at the time of the list’s emergence. Considering the graphic patterns introduced supra § 3 this list is one of the most complex representatives of our corpus. Very likely this efficient method of arrang-ing the entries explains the list’s high popularity not only in the Uruk periods but also in the 3rd millennium. There is no place to deal with its structure appropriately, but I should pinpoint some specimens:

– Entries 40 (GALa ZATU737+DI), 41 (SANGAa ZATU737+DI), 42 (SANGAa ZATU737+U4), 43 (SANGAa ZATU737+SAL), and 44 (SANGAa ZATU737+ GAR) are joined together by virtue of the frame-sign ZATU737 ( ).

33 Cf. also Englund–Nissen 1993:35. 34 Although it is highly speculative and probably not provable, entries 29

(ERIM2(NEa+RU)) and 30 (SUSA(MUŠ3+ERIN)) seemingly joined together in virtue of the possible phonetic similarities between ERIM2 and ERIN. This may also explain the usage of the sign MUŠEN in the subsequent entry (TUR TUb MUŠEN); cf. the dis-cussion of other possible phonetic relations supra § 3.

35 Note that the Fāra-text SF 23 mentions E2.DUR; cf. also OIP 99, 21 (DUR E2). 36 For a score transliteration cf. Englund–Nissen 1993:69–86 or the DCCLT-

project.


– Pattern 6 discussed supra § 3 is used in entries 53 (NUNa BU3a [ ]) and 54 (KAR2a [ ] MEa) where the latter is traceable in the juxtaposed sign BU3a. MEa in the latter entry is also found in entry 55 (GALGAa MEa).

– The same pattern is found in entries 61 (GALa KAKa KAKa [ ]) and 62 (GALa ŠAGAN [ ]) where the shape of KAKa is recognizable in the latter entry.

37 – Probably we can find a relatively complex sequence also in entries 71–73, each containing the sign SUÚUR. The last entry (APINa SUÚUR) is connect-ed to 74 (MARa [ ] APINa). Here, a sign-part of MARa was possibly used referring to MEa ( ) in entries 75 (BUa NUNa MEa) and 76 (BUa SANGAa NUNa MEa).

– Finally note entries 102 (KAB GI ABa [ ]) and 103 (UNUGa [ ]).

Fig. 3 based on the reconstruction made by Englund–Nissen 1993:17, fig. 4, shows those interrelations. § 4.3. Officials38

The second list dealing more or less with human stratification is of great concern because it resembles some of the titles also attested in Lu2 A. Whereas the archaic manuscripts have many lacunae, the ED successors are the most reliable source for an appropriate reconstruction of the list’s content.39

– Note entries 14 (ENa+NUNa), 15 (ÚI ENa E2a NUNa), and 16 (ENa I NUNa). – Considering the ED Fāra-text SF 59 there is an interesting specimen in entries iii 7 (DA [ ]) and 8 (KAB [ ]).

Within the corpus of lexical texts from Uruk, four lists deal with dif-ferent species of domestic or wild animals (§§ 4.4–7). To a certain degree, some of these designations are referred to by the Sumerian Word List C (cf. infra § 4.13). § 4.4. Animals40

Although this LL is well documented in the Uruk III-period, the frag-ments do not cover the whole content as it is attested in the ED periods.41 As mentioned above this list contains three main sections: AB2 ‘cow,’ GU4

37 Similar cases are well attested in the LL Metal; cf. infra § 4.12. 38 A score transliteration of this archaic list is published in Englund–Nissen

1993:86–89 or in the DCCLT-project. 39 Here, the Fāra-text SF 59 as well as MEE 3, 50 from Ebla should be men-

tioned, both perfectly preserved representatives of that list. 40 Cf. the score transliteration in Englund–Nissen 1993:89–93. 41 Cf. e. g. the well preserved Fāra-text SF 81.

K. Wagensonner, Early Lexical Lists Revisited… 295 ‘ox,’ and AMAR ‘calf.’ In each section a stereotypical set of qualifications with only slight varieties is listed.42

– In the entries 6 (ŠU AB2) and 7 (ŠU BAR AB2) as well as in 8 (GI [AB2]) and 9 (GI BAR [AB2]) the sign BAR is each added to the latter entry.

– Noteworthy are the entries 15f. of the AB2-section in comparison to their counterparts in the GU4-section. Whereas in the entries 15 (SIG7 SIG2a2 AB2) and 16 (SIG7 SIG2a2 GI6 AB2) the sign SIG2a2 is used, the parallel in en-tries 41f. mentions DU8c.gunû instead.

§ 4.5. Birds43

In opposition to the LL Fish (cf. infra § 4.6) almost every entry of the list Birds is classified with the prototypical sign of a bird, MUŠEN. Due to the bad preservation of the archaic manuscripts information about the inner structure is only partly recognizable:

– The first entries of the list—1 (SI MUŠEN), 2 (GIŠ3b MUŠEN), and 3 (DU MUŠEN)—may have joined together by means of the original depiction of those lexemes as bodyparts.

§ 4.6. Fish44

The major part of the list’s entries—as far as it is preserved in the Uruk III-manuscripts—is classified with the sign KU6a. Anyway, the first section mentions other well-known sorts of fish like SUÚUR (entries 1–4), SUKUDa (entries 5–7), SUMAŠ (entry 9), LAK777 (entry 10), and UBIc (entries 12–13).

– In entries 20 (1N57 [ ] KU6a), 21 (1N2 [ ] KU6a), and 22 (DUR2 [ ] KU6a) the horizontal stroke is predominant.

– Entries 48 ([NAGAa] U2b MUŠEN [ ] KU6a) and 49 ([ ] NAMd [ ] KU6a) both contain a bird-shaped sign and hence were possibly joined together.45

– Presumably entries 52 (KAa [ ]+SARa KU6a) and 53 (LU2 [ ] KU6a) are an example for pattern 6 in this list.

– Entries Fish 94–97 form a group following pattern 5. In each line the frame-sign GA2a1 ( ) is used.

42 Such repetitions are not uncommon within the lexical corpus. The most prominent example is the repetitive section in Sumerian Word List C which was in-terpreted as one argument for the literary content of that text; cf. infra § 4.13.

43 Find the score transliteration in Englund–Nissen 1993:98–100. 44 Cf. the score transliteration in Englund–Nissen 1993:93–98 (resp. the DCCLT-

project). 45 These two entries are also attested in the well preserved Fāra-text VAT

12693 (SF 10) iii 13f.

296 Languages of the Ancient Near East § 4.7. Swine46

This list is only preserved through two tablets from Uruk. One well pre-served manuscript, namely W 12139 contains 58 designations of swine, which is also quoted in a colophon. Although the second fragment—W 20497—correlates with some of the entries of the former text, it seems, that both tablets were written ad hoc and did not enter the corpus of can-onized lists.47 § 4.8. Wood48

This LL is one of the few representatives of our corpus which uses the graphemic classifier GIŠ extensively; only three entries lack this sign.

– The entries 40 (GALa ŠA), 41 (ŠU ŠA), and 42 (GIŠ LI) are definitely joined to-gether based on the sign ŠA ( ) recognizable in the sign LI ( ) too.

– Entry 45 (INb ÚI GIŠ) is attested in three subsequent entries of that list. – Note also entries 48 (GUMb [ ]), 49 (GUM.nutillûb [ ]), and 50 (GUMb GIŠ). This example is interesting, because only the last entry quotes the graphemic classifier GIŠ explicitely, which might be also recognizable in the shape of the sign GUMb.

– Interesting are also entries 54 (NAM2 [ ] E2b) and 55 (GIŠ.tenû [ ] E2b). In comparison to the shape of the sign NAM2 the classifier GIŠ is slanted by 90° in the latter entry.

– Noteworthy is the short section of entries 74 (TAGb GIŠ), 75 (SI TAGb GIŠ), and 76 (GIŠ SI KAKa). Whereas the first two entries contain the sign TAGb, SI in the second entry is taken over to the last one.49

§ 4.9. Grain50

This list is also referred to as Food. Whereas the archaic reconstruction leaves many lacunae, we have some well preserved ED manuscripts like SF 15.

46 Cf. the score transliteration in Englund–Nissen 1993:100–103. 47 Cf. Veldhuis 2006:188. This suggestion receives its justification from the

fact that that list is absent in the ensuing tradition of the 3rd millennium. Cf. also the discussion in Cavigneaux 2006:20ff.

48 This list is edited in Englund–Nissen 1993:103–112. 49 Cf. also Wood 66 ([ ] KIa GIŠ), 67 (GIŠ APINb KIa), and 68 (UR4b GIŠ SIG) where

in the last two entries APINb ( ) and UR4b ( ) are graphically relatively similar. A further example is found in the ED geographical list found in Tell Abū Ôalābīkh: OIP 99, 96 iii′ 4′ (= 154: U3 GIŠ DUR2

ki), 5′ (U3 GIŠ DUR2 KUL.ABAki), and

6′ (GIŠ KUL.ABAki) (cf. the score transliteration in Biggs 1974:71ff.). 50 Cf. the score transliteration in Englund–Nissen 1993:142–145 or the DCCLT-

project.


– Entries 26 (GAR.gunûc [ ]), 27 (BUa SAG.nutillû [ ]), 28 (U4 SAG.nutillû), and finally 29 (GALa GAR [ ]) are possibly grouped together on basis of the outer shape of the sign GAR which is graphically traceable in the sign SAG.nutillû.51

– The sequence of entries 30 (GALa GUG2a), 31 (GUG2a), and 32 (GUG2a GUG2a) is obvious, but these lines are connected with the following entries 33 (ŠITAb3 LAGABa+ŠA) and 34 (LAGABa+ŠITAa1 LAGABa+ŠA)52 because of the sign LAGAB ( ) which is similar to the sign GUG2a ( ).

– In the entries Grain D8 (SILA3a+ŠU), D9 (SILA3a+ZATU629), and D10 (SILA3a+ZATU646b) the sign SILA3a ( ) is used as a kind of frame-sign.

§ 4.10. Plant53

The preservation of the archaic list of plants is unfortunately relatively bad.54

– Relevant is the section starting with entry 11 (ÚI IMa). According to the ED evidence the sign IMa/NI2 ( ) is quoted in each entry until 20. In the archaic fragments it is not found in every entry, but might be gra-phically related to the signs ÚI ( ; entry 11), U4 ( ; entry 13, 16f.), and SIG ( ; entry 15).55

§ 4.11. Vessels56

The LL Vessels (or more accurately Vessels and Garments) deserves a thor-ough study, because it is the best source for the sign DUGb in its usage as frame-sign.57

– Note entries 29 (DUGb+ZATU779 [ ]) and 30 (DUGb+ŠEa+NAM2 [ ]) as well as 44 (DUGb+GIŠ [ ]) and 45 (DUGb+ZATU781 [ ]).58 In the former case pattern 4 is used, in the latter pattern 6.

– An interesting sequence is found in the TUG2a(.gunû)-section in entries 91–98. As fig. 4 shall demonstrate, entries 91f. (containing U4) and 93f. (GI6) are connected semantically. Presumably the latter is phonetically related to entries 95f. (GI). Finally, since the sign NEa ( ) in entries

51 Cf. also ibid., entries 19 (U4 GAR), 20 (GAR.gunûb), and 21 (GAR). 52 It is questionable if the signs ŠITAa1 and ŠA are genuinely related; cf. also fig. 6c. 53 Cf. the score transliteration in Englund–Nissen 1993:120–122. 54 We have the well preserved ED IIIa text SF 58 which combines the lists

Plants and Birds. 55 A similar case is found in the badly damaged LL Geography in entries 1 (E2a

ÚI [ ] EZENb), 2 (BUa [ ] A), and 3 (NI2 [ ]). 56 Cf. the score transliteration in Englund–Nissen 1993:123–134 or on the

homepage of the DCCLT-project (accessed on October 19th, 2008). 57 Cf. infra § 5 for preliminary remarks on this topic. 58 A similar case is found in Wood 51 (BA ŠE3 [ ] U2b) and 52 (GIŠ URUDUa [ ]).


97f. might depict an ear, it can be connected to GI ( ) in the preceding entries.59

§ 4.12. Metal60

From our modern point of view this LL containing mainly objects made of metal demonstrates a high efficiency concerning its arrangement.61 Si-multaneously this list shares some peculiarities with the LL Vessels (and Garments), inasmuch a great amount of entries is repeated individually by adding the presumable qualifier AN.62

– The entries 1 (ŠENa ) and 2 (URI ) are graphically related on basis of their gunû-markings.63

– The most interesting group in this list is represented by entries 3 (MUD3a ), 4 (MUD3.gunû ), and 5 (MIRb ), where the neck of

the vessel in MUD 3a was compared to the final part of the sign MIRb. – A very similar situation is found in the entries Metal 6 (ZATU732 ) and 7 (ŠAKIRb ) where the shape of the former is retrievable in the GAR-sign inscribed in ŠAKIRb.

– The sequence of entries 9 (GIR2a ) and 10 (AN GIR2a) is connected to the succeeding entries (until 14) containing the sign DIMc ( ) which share some similarities in shape.

– Furthermore note entries 42f. ((AN) TAK4a MARb) and 44f. ((AN) BAR UŠa) where the signs MARb ( ) and UŠa ( ) are graphically related. The latter two entries are possibly connected to entries 46–50 by virtue of a comparison between the signs NU ( ) and the very similar BAR ( ).

– Last but not least note entries 54 (EDIN ), 55 (AN EDIN), 56 (ZATU777 ŠE3 [ ] UDUa), 57 (ZATU777 KU3a [ ]), and 58 (ZATU777 KIa [ ] A?). Here, possibly the horizontal strokes lead to this arrangement.

59 Entries 95f. and 97f. could also be phonetically related, if we consider the

reading GIBIL4 for the sign NE. Compare this instance with Archaic Cities 32 (GIBIL6 (GI NEa)) and Archaic Animals where U4 (entry 3//29) and GI6 (entry 4//30) are in proximity to NEa (entry 2//28) and GI (entry 8f.//60f.).

60 For a score transliteration cf. Englund–Nissen 1993:134–141 or the DCCLT-project.

61 Perhaps it comes with no surprise that one Uruk III-text—ATU 3, pl. 4, W 11986, a—contains Lu2 A as well as Metal. Cf. the discussion of the former supra § 4.2 (quoted in Veldhuis 2006:19316).

62 It is comparable to the extensive TUG2-section in Vessels where the sign TUG2 is marked in each repeated entry.

63 This sequence is also attested in economic records like MSVO 4, 21 quoted infra fig. 6a.


The following reconstruction (see fig. 5) shall demonstrate the high ef-ficiency of that list’s structure64. § 4.13. Sumerian Word List C (former Tribute)65

This list was persuasively interpreted by Niek Veldhuis as “an exercise that remains relatively close to the practice of archaic writing. Among the fre-quently attested lists (Lu A, Vessels, Word List C, Metal) it is no doubt the one with the most practical relevance. Far from being literature or secret lore, Word List C is an exercise in elementary administrative skills” (2006:195).

As in the other lists, here too we find the patterns obviously used to join the entries and establish an appropriate arrangement; some exam-ples are:

– In the entries 3–5 (// 31–33) the frame-sign LAGABa is used. – Entries 11 (1N1 GAb [ ] AMAR), 12 (1N14 SUÚUR [ ]), 13 (1N14 KAR2a [ ]), 14 (3N1 KAD4b [ ]), and presumably 15 (3N1 ZAx [ ]) are joined together by means of strokes characterising the signs.

The repetition of ll. 3–30 in its entirety was much discussed. Recently, Niek Veldhuis (2006:184f.) pointed out that the peculiarities of this list neither indicate an early literary work as it has been proposed in Bauer et al. 1998: 99ff., nor represent “secret lore” suggested by Joan Goodnick Westenholz (1998:459ff.).

After the repeated section a new set of entries starts with entry 59. I want to rivet to the following remarks:

– Entries 64 (GI), 65 (GI ZIa), and 66 (GI ZIa ŠE3) are definitely joined togeth-er based on the sign GI whose shape has some similarity to ZIa. Obviously entries 66 (GI ZIa ŠE3), 67 (ZATU718, E2a PIRIGb1), 68 (ENa ŠE3), and 69 (ENa ŠE3 ZIa) are equally grouped together by virtue of the sign ŠE3 which is contained in all entries except for one. In that entry, ŠE3 ( ) may be recognizable in the sign ZATU718 ( ).

§ 5. Classification in early lexical texts

An exhaustive study of the classification system(s) used in the archaic lexi-cal corpus exceeds the scope of this paper by far.66 Therefore, the follow-

64 Cf. Englund–Nissen 1993:32, fig. 14. 65 Cf. the score transliteration in Englund–Nissen 1993:112–120 and in the

DCCLT-project (accessed on October 19th, 2008). 66 Within the framework of the COST-project A-31 “Stability and Change of

Classification Systems in a Cross-Cultural Perspective” a study is currently ongo-

300 Languages of the Ancient Near East ing notes are intended to attract the reader’s attention to the paradigm of the so-called frame-signs which, orginally, seems to be strongly related to the other—separately written—classifiers or determinatives. These signs are per definitionem signs whose shape has the capability to include an-other sign or sign-group. This definition fits very well on signs depicting a kind of container. The best-known example of such a container is DUG ‘vessel,’ which is found extensively in the LL Vessels (and Garments). Mar-garet Green states that this sign “functions as a determinative but is writ-ten enclosing an inscribed sign” (1981:360). Jean-Jacques Glassner refers to these signs as “matrice” (2000:187ff. resp. Bahrani–Van de Mieroop 2003:143ff.). He quotes, “La matrice ne réfère pas nécessairement à un objet concret particulier ni ne définit un champ lexical précis” (2000: 188). Combinations with the afore-mentioned sign DUG were collected by Theo Krispijn (1991–1992:14f.). If we compare this evidence to the much later list of vessels in tablet X of Ur5-ra : ¶ubullu, we see that there the sign DUG is never used as frame-sign or matrix; it is written separately and precedes the lexeme.67 Furthermore, in the majority of examples availa-ble the inscribed signs can be interpreted as representations of real com-modities.

A second very important question is whether or not an inscribed sign is partly or fully representing the phonetic reading of the whole complex sign. This problem was discussed by Jean-Jacques Glassner as follows: “Parmi les signes dérivés figurent des morphophonogrammes, ces com-positions de plusieurs sous-graphies dont l’une a une fonction figurative et l’autre une valeur phonétique conçue pour indiquer la prononciation de la graphie” (2000:189 resp. Bahrani–Van de Mieroop 2003:144). But this definition is problematic because there are some dichotomous exam-ples like the combination of the box GA2 resp. PISAG3 and EN with the at-tested reading MEN ‘crown.’ In that case, the sign EN may be interpreta-ble either as phonetic indicator or as semantic indicator referring to the person associated with MEN ‘crown’ (Glassner 2000:189f. resp. Bahrani–Van de Mieroop 2003:145). Theo Krispijn in his study lists in the chapter “phonetic complements and glosses” (= “Materials 5”) further examples (1991–1992:17) in the Uruk III lexical texts.

Last but not least it is questionable whether or not those frame-signs can be distinguished from other—juxtaposed—complex signs. The lexi-

ing, whose aim is a comparative investigation of classifiers in Egyptian hieroglyphs and cuneiform writing (together with Niv Allon, Hebrew University, Jerusalem).

67 Cf. the edition in Civil 1996.

K. Wagensonner, Early Lexical Lists Revisited… 301 cal corpus of the Uruk IV and III periods contains several occurrences like Lu2 A 53, NUNa BU3a, where the latter is a combination of the signs SAG ‘head’ and KAR2,

68 or Fish 52, KAa+SARa KU6a, and so forth. In those cases another type of “clustering” was used. After Margaret Green such complex signs trace back to the sign clustering well documented in texts of the Uruk IV period (1981:361). What relevance the afore-mentioned frame-signs have on classification is not entirely clear. At least such signs depicting a kind of container could be comparable to other known classifi-ers like GIŠ, KU6 or MUŠEN. But whereas the frame-sign DUG became dis-carded after the Uruk period—later it is only attested in the direct suc-cessors of the Urukean lists—other signs like GA2 or LAGAB preserve more or less their “status” as frame-sign.69

The following chart gives an overview of the distribution of frame-signs in the pertaining corpus:70

Frame-sign Evidence DUGb Cities 16 (KAŠb A); Swine 6 (MEa GARA2a+SILA3a ŠUBUR);

Grain C1 (DUGb+?), C2 (DUGb+AB2), C3 (DUGb+TIa); Plant A2 (DUG+AŠb SUMa); Vessels 4 (DUG+AŠc), 21 (DUGb+ŠEa), 22 (DUGb+BALAa), 23 (DUGb+KASKAL), 24 (KAŠb), 25 (DUGb+ GEŠTUa), 26 (DUGb+?), 27 (DUGb+SAa+GI), 28 (DUGb+ NAGAa), 29 (DUGb+ZATU779), 30 (DUGb+ŠEa+NAM2), 31 (DUGb+TAK4a), 32 (DUGb+SAa), 33 (DUGb+SIG7), 34 (DUGb+ SIG2a1), 35 (DUGb+TIa), 36 (DUGb+MAŠ), 37 (DUGb+SI4a), 38 (DUGb+GAb), 39 (DUGb+GI6), 40 (DUGb+U2a), 41 (DUGb+ LAM+KURa), 42 (DUGb+LAMa), 43 (DUGb+KURa), 44 (DUGb+ GIŠ), 45 (DUGb+ZATU781), 46 (DUGb+BIR3c), 47 (DUGb+ KU6a), 48 (DUGb+ŠAÚ2a), 49 (DUGb+ANŠEb), 50 (DUGb+UÚ3a), 51 (DUGb+ÚI), 52 (DUGb+DIN), 53 (ŠU2 DUGb+DIN), 54 (DUGb+DIN), 59 (DUGb+SIG7 U4), 60 (DUGb+SIG7 GI), 61 (DUGb+SIG7 NIMa)

LAGAB Lu2 A 113 (GALa? MUNU3

?), Grain 30 (GALa GUG2a), 31 (GUG2a), 32 (GUG2a GUG2a), 33 (ŠITAb3 LAGABa+ŠA), 34 (LAGABa+ŠITAa1 LAGABa+ŠA); Vessels 62 (AGAR2); Metal 16 (ZATU786 AGAR2), 17 (AGAR2 DUB2 [ ]); Sumerian Word List C 3/31 (5N1 MUNU3), 4/32 (5N1 GAZI), 5/33 (5N1 ÚALUB)

68 Cf. supra § 4.2. 69 They are still present in the late sign names which were published by Yushu

Gong (2000). 70 In this table signs are included whose graphical shape seemingly involves a

frame-sign; e. g. MUNU3 with the outer shape of LAGAB. The incorporation of these signs is caused by their supposed relevance in the arrangement of entries within the lists discussed in §§ 2–4.

302 Languages of the Ancient Near East Frame-sign Evidence GA2a Cities 11 (AMAb MEa), 39 (SAL GA2b+DUBa URI3a PAPa); Lu2 A

24 (GALa SILA4b), 55 (GALGAa MEa); Officials 31 (MENa ŠA3a AN); Fish 94 (GA2a1+ÚI), 95 (GA2a1+SUÚUR), 96 (GA2a1+A), 97 (GA2a1+KU6a); Swine 19 (SILA4b ŠUBUR); Plant C3 (ZATU684 AMAb)

ZATU737 Cities 8 (GABURRA); Lu2 A 40 (GALa ZATU737+DI), 41 (SANGAa ZATU 737+DI), 42 (SANGAa ZATU737+U4), 43 (SANGAa ZATU737+SAL), 44 (SANGAa ZATU737+GAR)

ABa Cities 4 (UNUGa), 18 (NANŠEb), 44 (ABa.gunû), 73 (ABa+ ZATU659); Lu2 A 103 (UNUGa)

EZEN Cities 88 (BAD3a); Lu2 A 125 (GALa EZENb+6N57)

NINDA2 Grain 1 (NINDA2+1N1), 2 (NINDA2+2N1) ZATU759 Fish 93 (ZATU759+KU6a)

According to this statistical overview the most productive frame-sign was DUGb. Most of those lexically attested combinations of DUGb are absent in the administrative corpus.71 In my opinion, the apprentice scribe who learnt the script and the list’s content also became acquainted with the syntax of the script and therefore was able to manipulate the basic inventory of signs to a certain degree.72 By inscribing, combining, attaching, and marking he was able to add new meanings to the existing corpus of signs. Conclusions

The archaic texts—whether lexical or administrative—contain a remarka-ble amount of data. The inventors of the (cuneiform) writing system creat-ed an astonishing tool to transfer knowledge either on an intellectual lev-el or by recording economic procedures. In this paper I tried to show that these texts—at least the lexical evidences73—are organized and struc-

71 An analysis was done by Krispijn 1991–92:14, who compared the LL Vessels

(and Garments) with the contemporaneous administrative corpus. 72 This interpretation is acknowledged by a text published as MSVO 3, 81 and

discussed by Peter Damerow (2006:7). 73 It is doubtful if such principles also influenced the choice of signs in Sume-

rian literary texts. An interesting example is UET 6, 101, a hymn to Haya. In l. 11 we find the expression ki-sikil dnin-(…). There, KI and AN are semantically relat-ed, whereas SIKIL and NIN show some graphic similarities. In the same text, in l. 21, we find ki-galam-¶ur-kalam-ma, where on the one hand KI and ÚUR are graphically related and on the other hand GALAM and KALAM phonetically.

K. Wagensonner, Early Lexical Lists Revisited… 303 tured with high efficiency. Although many links and relations within sev-eral lists seem sometimes speculative and doubtful, it is obvious that scrib-al training demands a kind of tool helping apprentice scribes to learn en-tries and therefore designations for the environment’s components. That the professions list Lu2 A (NAMEŠDA) shows the most complex serialization may be influenced by the content of this list representing the contempo-raneous stratification of the Urukean society. Perhaps these features are partly responsible that the archaic lists were copied for such a long peri-od and remain popular until the beginning of the 2nd millennium74 and, what is even more important, the creation of the great lexical compendia like Ur5-ra.

These early word-lists presumably influenced the arrangement of commodities in contemporaneous economic records, too. As far as we know, the archaic texts lack any literary output.75 The lists’ main purpose was the education of scribes who were supposed to work in an adminis-trative milieu. As shown in §§ 2 and 4 the content of the LL leads to the assumption that administration was the main recipient. I will finish this paper by riveting cursorily on some examples of mundane texts which allow comparisons between lexical texts and economic records (fig. 6). The evidence discussed above should demonstrate that such arrange-ments in the lists are not incidental. If we set the Sitz im Leben of these texts in the school milieu, it is obvious from the evidence that the prin-ciples of arrangement evolved in the lists also penetrated the mundane texts.

Examples (a) and (b) (fig. 6) show that entries from the LL Metal were used in the same arrangement in administrative documents. The third instance makes it clear that the signs ŠITA and ŠA are related. This is proven by the LL Grain where entries 33 (ŠITAb3 LAGABa+ŠA) and 34 (LAGABa+ŠITAa1 LAGABa+ŠA) are attested.

74 Cf. Jonathan Taylor’s discussion of the early lists’ relevance in the scribal

education in the OB period (2008). 75 Cf. supra § 4.13.


Fig. 1

Fig. 2


Fig. 3


Fig. 4


Fig. 5


Fig. 6

K. Wagensonner, Early Lexical Lists Revisited… 309 References

Bahrani– Van de Mieroop 2003 Bauer et al. 1998 Biggs 1974 Cavigneaux 2006 Civil 1976 Civil 1996 Damerow 2006 Edzard 2007 Englund–Nissen 1993 Glassner 2000 Gong 2000 Green 1981 Krebernik 2002 Krebernik 2007 Krispijn 1991–1992 Lambert 1981 Matthews 1993

Bahrani, Z.; Van de Mieroop, M. The Invention of Cunei-form. Writing in Sumer (translation of J.-J. Glassner 2000). Baltimore–London. Bauer, J.; Englund, R. K.; Krebernik, M. Mesopotamien. Späturuk-Zeit und Frühdynastische Zeit. Annäherungen 1 (OBO 160/1). Fribourg–Göttingen. Biggs, R. D. Inscriptions from Tell Abū Ôalābīkh (OIP 99). Chicago–London. Cavigneaux, A. Les suidés: pictogrammes et listes lexi-cales. Lion, B.; Michel, C. (eds.). De la domestication au ta-bou: Le cas des suidés dans le Proche-Orient ancien (Travaux de la Maison René-Ginouvès I). Paris. Pp. 15–24. Civil, M. Lexicography. Lieberman, S. (ed.). Sumero-logical Studies in Honor of Thorkild Jacobsen on His Seventi-eth Birthday June 7, 1974 (AS 20). Chicago. Pp. 123–157. Civil, M. ÚAR-ra = ¶ubullu: Tablet X dug = karpatu. Sal-laberger, W. Der babylonische Töpfer und seine Gefässe (MHEM 3). Ghent. Pp. 129–163. Damerow, P. The Origins of Writing as a Problem of Historical Epistemology. CDLJ 2006/1:1–10. Edzard, D. O. Die altmesopotamischen lexikalischen Lis-ten—verkannte Kunstwerke? Wilcke, C. (ed.). Das geisti-ge Erfassen der Welt im Alten Orient. Sprache, Religion, Kul-tur und Gesellschaft. Wiesbaden. Pp. 17–26. Englund, R. K.; Nissen, H. J. Die lexikalischen Listen der archaischen Texte aus Uruk (ATU 3). Berlin. Glassner, J.-J. Écrire à Sumer. L’invention du cunéiforme. Paris. Gong, Y. Die Namen der Keilschriftzeichen (AOAT 268). Münster. Green, M. The Construction and Implementation of the Cuneiform Writing System. Visible Language 15/4:345–372. Krebernik, M. Von Zählsymbolen zur Keilschrift. Gre-ber, E.; Ehlich, K.; Müller, J.-D. (eds.). Materialität und Medialität von Schrift. Bielefeld. Pp. 51–71. Krebernik, M. Zur Entwicklung des Sprachbewusstseins im Alten Orient. Wilcke, C. (ed.). Das geistige Erfassen der Welt im Alten Orient. Sprache, Religion, Kultur und Gesell-schaft. Wiesbaden. Pp. 39–61. Krispijn, Th. J. H. The Early Mesopotamian Lexical Lists and the Dawn of Linguistics. JEOL 32:12–22. Lambert, W. G. Studies in UD.GAL.NUN. OrAnt 20:81–97. Matthews, R. J. Cities, Seals and Writing: Archaic Seal Im-pressions from Jemdet Nasr and Ur (MSVO 2). Berlin.

310 Languages of the Ancient Near East Nissen forthcoming Selz 1998 Taylor 2008 Steinkeller 2002 Veldhuis 1995 Veldhuis 2006 Westenholz 1998 Wilcke 2005

Nissen, H. J. Schule vor der Schrift. Selz, G. J. (ed.). An-cient Near Eastern Studies: The Empirical Dimension. Selz, G. J. Über Mesopotamische Herrschaftskonzepte. Zu den Ursprüngen mesopotamischer Herrcherideolo-gie im 3. Jahrtausend. Dietrich, M.; Loretz, O. (eds.). dubsar anta-men. Studien zur Altorientalistik. Festschrift für Willem H. Ph. Römer zur Vollendung seines 70. Lebensjahres mit Beiträgen von Freunden, Schülern und Kollegen (AOAT 253). Münster. Pp. 281–344. Taylor, J. Lexicographical Study of the Already Ancient in Antiquity. Biggs, R. D. et al. (eds.). Proceedings of the 51st Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale. Chicago. Pp. 201–208. Steinkeller, P. Archaic City Seals and the Question of Early Babylonian Unity. Abusch, T. (ed.). Riches Hidden in Secret Places. Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Memory of Thorkild Jacobsen. Winona Lake. Pp. 249–257. Veldhuis, N. Review of Englund–Nissen 1993. BiOr 52: 433–440. Veldhuis, N. How did They Learn Cuneiform? Tribute/ Word List C as an Elementary Exercise. Michalowski, P.; Veldhuis, N. (eds.). Approaches to Sumerian Literature in Honour of Stip (H. L. J. Vanstiphout). Leiden. Pp. 181–200. Westenholz, J. G. Thoughts on Esoteric Knowledge and Secret Lore. Prosecký, J. Intellectual Life in the Ancient Near East (CRRAI 43). Prague. Pp. 451–462. Wilcke, C. ED LÚ A und die Sprache(n) der Archaischen Texte. Van Soldt, W. H. (ed.). Ethnicity in Ancient Mesopotamia (CRRAI 48). Leiden. Pp. 430–445.

Documents

Early Lexical Lists Revisited - univie.ac.athomepage.univie.ac.at/klaus.wagensonner/Publications/CRRAI53... · Early Lexical Lists Revisited Structures and Classiﬁcation as a Mnemonic