1 Corpus, Scripts, and Findspots
When Sumerian texts reached Anatolia during the Late Bronze Age, Sumerian had been a dead language for over half a millennium. The Hittite capital Hattuša has yielded one of the largest corpora of Sumerian texts from the western periphery. Sumerian texts found at Hattuša include wisdom compositions, hymns, and literary letters, but incantations represent by far the largest group.
The Sumerian literary and magical texts were found in two main areas of the city: the citadel of Büyükkale and the lower city. Most of the tablets unearthed in Büyükkale came from Building A, a palace situated in the southeast corner of the citadel that housed a large library with a small archive.1 Some Sumerian texts were found in the area of Building D, the largest palace of the citadel, located on the northwestern slope. This building did not house a library, but an archive of sealed clay bullae was found in the magazine area. Because Sumerian texts were not stored in this building those discovered at Building D probably came from elsewhere as most of the fragments were discovered over the ruins of the palace in post-Hittite levels. A single fragment was found in the area of Building K, on the southeastern slope of the citadel, which housed a small library containing a selection of literary texts. Other fragments were discovered in the area of Building C and on the west side of Büyükkale.
Sumerian texts found in the lower city stem from either the Temple I or the so-called Haus am Hang (House on the Slope). Temple I was the main temple of the city, located northwest of the citadel, and housed a large library and an archive.2 The Haus am Hang, southeast of Temple 1 was a multifunctional building that included a scribal school and a library. These two buildings were part of a single religious and administrative district as some of the tablets copied in the Haus am Hang were later stored in Temple I.3 The Sumerian literary and magical texts found at Hattuša can be summarized in Table 1.
Table 1
CTH |
Composition |
Manuscripts |
Findspot |
Script |
Language |
OB |
First millennium |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Literary texts |
|||||||
314 |
The Hymn to Iškur-Adad |
KUB 4.6 (+) KUB 4.8 |
? |
NS |
S||PhS||A||H |
– |
– |
314 |
KBo 12.72 |
HaH |
NS |
(S)||(PhS)||A||H |
|||
314 |
KUB 4.4 |
? |
NS |
(S)||(PhS)||A||H |
|||
314 |
KUB 4.5 + KBo 12.73 |
HaH |
NS |
(S)||PhS||H |
|||
315 |
The Message of Lu-diĝira to his Mother |
KUB 4.2 |
? |
NS |
(S)||PhS||(A)||(H) |
+ |
– |
315 |
KUB 4.97 |
? |
NS |
(S)||(PhS)||A||H |
|||
315 |
RS 25.421 |
Ugarit: Lamaštu Archive |
NS |
S||PhS||A||H |
|||
807 |
Edubba E |
KUB 57.126 |
? |
NS |
S||PhS||(A)||(H?) |
+ |
– |
807 |
The Letter of Lugal-ibila to Lugal-nesaĝ |
KUB 4.394 |
? |
NS |
S||(A) |
– |
+ |
801.3 |
Nergal D |
KUB 4.7 |
? |
NS |
S||(A) |
+ |
+ |
819 |
Hymn to Nergal (?) |
KUB 4.41 |
? |
NS |
S–A(?) |
? |
? |
795 |
Dumuzi text (Dumuzi-Inana R?) |
KUB 37.41 |
Bk. A |
(?) |
S–A |
+ |
– |
801 |
Hymn or incantation (?)5 |
HT 13 (+) KUB 4.26B (+) KUB 37.112 |
? |
NS |
S |
? |
? |
819 |
Unidentified text |
KBo 19.98 |
T. I |
MS |
S–A |
? |
? |
Magical Texts |
|||||||
800.1 |
Incantations against witchcraft |
KUB 30.1 |
Bk. A |
LOB/MB |
S |
+ |
– |
800.4 |
KUB 37.109 |
Bk. A |
LOB/MB |
S |
? |
? |
|
800.2 |
KUB 30.2 |
Bk. A |
LOB/MB |
S |
? |
? |
|
800.4 |
KUB 30.3 |
Bk. A |
LOB/MB |
S |
? |
? |
|
800.3 |
KUB 30.4 |
Bk. A |
LOB/MB |
S |
? |
? |
|
800 |
KBo 36.13 |
Bk. K |
LOB/MB |
S |
? |
? |
|
800 |
KBo 36.15 |
Bk. M |
LOB/MB |
S |
? |
? |
|
800 |
KBo 36.16 |
Bk. D |
LOB/MB |
S |
? |
? |
|
800.4 |
KUB 37.108 + KUB 37.110 |
Bk. A |
LOB/MB |
S |
? |
? |
|
800 |
KBo 40.103 |
Bk. A |
LOB/MB |
S |
? |
? |
|
812 |
KBo 36.19 |
Bk. M |
LOB/MB |
S |
? |
? |
|
801 |
Unidentified incantation |
KBo 36.21 |
Bk. D |
LOB/MB(?) |
S |
? |
? |
805.16 |
Collection of Incantations against Udug-hul a) Marduk-Ea Incantation nam-erim₂-bur₂-ru-da (= Muššuʾu VI) b) Marduk-Ea Incantation c) Udug-hul Incantation d) Udug-hul V/e |
KBo 36.11 (KUB 37.100a + 103 + 106 l. col. + 144) + KUB 37.100a rev. + KUB 37.106 r. col. + ABoT 2.255 |
Bk. A |
Ass-Mit |
S||A |
a) + b)? c)? d) + |
a) + b)? c)? d) + |
805.2 |
Udug-hul VII/a |
KUB 37.143 |
Bk. C |
Ass-Mit |
S||(A) |
+ |
+ |
805.2 |
Udug-hul incantation |
KUB 37.101 |
Bk. D |
Ass-Mit |
S||A |
||
805.2 |
Udug-hul incantation ~ Udug-hul III/VI, Bīt rimki III |
KUB 37.102 |
Bk. D |
Ass-Mit |
S||A |
– |
+ |
812 |
Udug-hul VI/d, g |
KUB 4.16 |
? |
Ass-Mit |
(S)||A |
+ |
+ |
794 |
Collection of Incantations a) Marduk-Ea incantation7 b) Kiutu incantation (Bīt rimki II) |
KBo 7.1 + KUB 37.115 (+) KBo 7.2 |
Bk. D |
Ass-Mit |
S–A |
a) – b) – |
a) – b) – |
819 |
Unknown incantation8 |
KUB 37.127 |
Bk. A |
Ass-Mit |
S:–A |
? |
? |
806.3 |
Unknown incantation |
KUB 37.95 |
Bk. A |
Ass-Mit |
S (A?) |
? |
? |
793 |
Incantation to Utu |
KUB 4.11 |
? |
NS |
S–A |
+ |
+ |
806.2 |
Udug-hul II/b9 |
KUB 4.24 |
? |
NS |
S |
(+) |
+ |
801.4 |
Udug-hul incantation (~ Udug-hul IV) |
KUB 37.111 |
Bk. D |
NS |
S–A |
~ + |
~ + |
806.1 |
Collection of incantations10 |
KBo 1.18 |
? |
NS |
S |
– |
– |
819 |
Collection of unidentified incantations11 |
KUB 4.23 |
? |
MS/NS |
S–A |
? |
? |
813 |
Prophylactic incantation |
KUB 34.3 |
Bk. A |
NS |
S:A |
– |
– |
813 |
Marduk-Ea incantation |
KUB 34.4 |
Bk. A |
NS |
S:A |
? |
? |
806 |
Incantation |
KBo 36.20 |
HaH |
NS |
S |
? |
? |
806.4 |
Incantation |
ABoT 1.43 |
? |
NS |
S (||A?) |
? |
? |
801 |
Incantation |
KBo 36.17 |
T. I |
NS |
S–A |
? |
? |
819 |
Unidentified Text |
KUB 4.10 |
? |
NS(?) |
S||A(?) |
? |
? |
819 |
Incantation |
KBo 36.24 |
? (Lower City) |
NS(?)12 |
S (||A?) |
? |
? |
813 |
Collection of unidentified incantations |
KBo 13.3713 |
HaH |
(?) |
S A |
? |
? |
813 |
Collection of incantations a) Unknown incantation b) Saĝ-geg VI14 |
KBo 14.51 |
Bk. |
(?) |
S |
a)? b) – |
a)? b) + |
813 |
Collection of incantations |
KUB 37.92 |
Bk. A |
(?) |
S |
? |
? |
819 |
Incantation |
KBo 36.14 |
Bk. D |
(?) |
S |
? |
? |
819 |
Unidentified text |
KBo 36.18 |
Bk. A |
(?) |
S:–A |
? |
? |
|| = parallel column format; – = interlinear format. : = Sumerian and Akkadian separated by Glossenkeile.
The Sumerian literary and magical texts from the Hittite capital were written in three scripts: Babylonian, Assyro-Mittanian,15 and Hittite. In addition, a few tablets were written in non-Hittite scripts that cannot be identified.16 This is a clear indication that foreign scribes were involved, although it is not always possible to determine whether tablets in non-Hittite scripts were imported or written by foreign scribes in the Hittite capital. The three scripts are associated with different text types and findspots. All of the Babylonian script tablets were found in Büyükkale, in particular in Building A, and only include incantations. The Assyro-Mittanian tablets were also found in Büyükkale and present the same repertoire as the Babylonian script tablets. The findspots of many Hittite script tablets remain unknown, but those of known provenance mainly came from the lower city. One tablet in Hittite script (RS 25.421), containing the literary text The Message of Lu-diĝira to his Mother, was found in the Lamaštu archive in Ugarit but was either imported from Hattuša or written by a Hittite scribe in place. Most of the Hittite script tablets were written in New Script; they include literary compositions in addition to medical-magical texts.
The Babylonian script tablets stand out because they contain nothing but Sumerian unilingual incantations written in phonetic orthography. Except for a few exceptions, these tablets are cataloged under CTH 800.17 The Assyro-Mittanian tablets only contain bilingual texts, mostly in parallel column format, but the interlinear format is also attested. In the Assyro-Mittanian tablets, phonetic writings occur only occasionally. Most of the Hittite script tablets contain bilingual texts in both the parallel column and interlinear formats; a few monolingual Sumerian texts are also attested. A distinction must be drawn between literary texts and incantations in Hittite script. With the exceptions of the Dumuzi Text (KUB 37.41), the unidentified text KBo 19.98, and possibly the fragment KUB 4.41, the literary texts were written in parallel column format. In addition to the Sumerian and Akkadian columns, most of these sources contain versions in phonetic Sumerian and Hittite. In contrast, unorthographic writings occasionally appear in the Hittite script incantations, but none of these texts contain a separate version in phonetic Sumerian or is written entirely in unorthographic Sumerian. Only HT 13(+) contains an unidentified Sumerian text entirely written in phonetic Sumerian.
2 The Purpose of Texts
Script, content, format, and findspot are indications of the function and purpose of the texts from the Hittite capital. Apart from a single exception, KUB 37.41, all of the tablets with recorded findspots in Büyükkale contain incantations and are almost exclusively written in non-Hittite scripts.18 In addition, despite their recovery in different buildings, all of the tablets found in Büyükkale were most likely stored originally in Building A.19 The tablets recovered in this building are mostly of foreign origin, date from early periods of Hittite history, and are of a scholarly nature.20 Therefore, the Sumerian texts from Büyükkale were part of a collection of tablets that were purposely collected and stored together for cultural reasons and served as a reference library. The fact that none of the Sumerian texts from Büyükkale have duplicates suggests that they did not serve an educational purpose, although possibly some tablets were copied in Building A. Most likely the Sumerian incantations in non-Hittite scripts reached the Hittite capital together with foreign specialists (āšipū) and were used in medico-magical rituals. Later they were stored in Building A (see below).
The texts from the lower city have different natures and purposes. Unfortunately, only a few tablets have been recorded as coming from the lower city. Apart from a single exception, KBo 13.37, all of the tablets containing Sumerian texts with recorded findspots in the lower city were written in Hittite script. Winckler’s early excavations (1906–1907 and 1911s–1912) included Temple I and the House am Hang, and the findspots were unrecorded or lost.21 Several Sumerian texts in Hittite script with Bo and VAT numbers that were found during these early excavations22 possibly can be associated with the lower city23 as suggested by the fragment KUB 4.5 (Bo 503) that joins KBo 12.73, which was found in the House am Hang. A scribal school or a scriptorium is known to have been located in the area of Temple I and the House am Hang.24 An educational purpose perfectly fits the format of the multicolumn tablets used for literary texts that include orthographic Sumerian, phonetic Sumerian, Akkadian, and Hittite versions. The addition of phonetic Sumerian and Hittite versions to Sumero-Akkadian bilingual texts can be understood in the context of scribal training for advanced students and scholars. Weeden convincingly suggested that the Hittite versions of these texts derived from the application of speculative hermeneutical principles that were so common in Mesopotamian learned scribal circles.25 The curricular setting of some literary texts (see below) and, most importantly, the attestation of several duplicates of the same text also point to a teaching environment.
As Table 1 shows, the Hittite capital yielded only a very small number of Sumerian literary texts. None of the preserved compositions belonged to the core of the Old Babylonian curriculum.26 Nevertheless, some texts likely had a curricular setting. Edubba texts, of which one exemplar is known from Hattuša (Edubba E), were part of the scribal training;27 the same function can be attributed to literary letters28 such as The Message of Lu-diĝira to his Mother.29 The Letter of Lugal-ibila to Lugal-nesaĝ may be added here, although it was certainly not used in the Old Babylonian curriculum because it is likely a post-Old Babylonian composition. It is based on the Letter of Inim-Inana to Lugal-ibila (Sumerian Epistolary Miscellany [SEpM] 22)30 that is attested on a prism, which is a tablet format used in schools.31 Other texts appear to be isolated or poorly known compositions but perhaps were similarly used in the scribal training. The addition of the phonetic Sumerian and Hittite versions suggests that even a composition such as the Hymn to Iškur-Adad, which is unknown outside the Hittite capital, was used with an educational purpose at Hattuša. This mirrors what we know from Emar and Ugarit, where texts little known from the Old Babylonian documentation became part of the local curriculum. We can conclude that the Sumerian literary texts from the Hittite capital were short compositions used in the intermediary phase of the curriculum.
All of the Sumerian literary texts are bilingual, which indicates that they were written in the post-Old Babylonian period. Only The Message of Lu-diĝira to his Mother, Edubba E, Nergal D, and perhaps the Dumuzi Text are known from Old Babylonian sources, and only Nergal D and the Letter of Lugal-ibila to Lugal-nesaĝ have first-millennium duplicates. Thus the Sumerian literary texts from Hattuša reflect an intermediate stage between the Old Babylonian models and the first-millennium recensions.
The largest group of Sumerian texts from the Hittite capital consists of incantations that were used in Mesopotamia in magical rituals performed by incantations priests, āšipū. Because the Hittites were likely unable to perform these rituals, the incantations were used by foreign experts who reached Hattuša and probably were responsible for the transmission of these texts. Most of the incantations are written in non-Hittite scripts and are of the Udug-hul type. Probably these experts traveled with their tablets, which later entered the collection of Building A. Given the fragmentary nature of the manuscripts, only a few tablets have earlier or later duplicates; a handful have both. Incantations from the Hittite capital differ from both the extant Old Babylonian and first-millennium duplicates. Some tablets contain incantations that entered the following canonical series: Udug-hul II, III, V, VI, VII, Saĝ-geg VI, Muššʾu VI, and Bīt rimki House II. Compared with first-millennium sources, the texts from Hattuša represent an older stage and the same can be found in comparison with Middle Assyrian sources. Although incantations served a very different purpose than literary texts, it cannot be excluded that some were used as learning tools in scribal schools. This might be suggested by the use of the prism format for KBo 1.18.32
3 The Reception of Sumerian Texts at Hattuša
The Sumerian texts did not arrive at the Hittite capital at a single time but rather in waves. A way to look at the textual tradition is through the study of phonetic or unorthographic writings. Phonetic orthography was an alternative way of writing Sumerian that is mostly found in Old Babylonian texts from northern Babylonia. The unilingual incantations written on Babylonian script tablets (CTH 800) are among the oldest of the Mesopotamian texts that were transmitted to Anatolia. As argued elsewhere,33 these incantations provide more than half of the phonetic writings attested in Sumerian texts from the Hittite capital and exhibit a high degree of similarity to the Old Babylonian unorthographic texts, in particular, the incantations from Meturan. Sumerian incantations written entirely in phonetic orthography are unattested at Nippur in both the contemporaneous Middle Babylonian documentation and that of the Old Babylonian period. The few texts drafted in phonetic orthography that are known from the Middle Babylonian period come from northern Babylonia.34
A common type of phonetic writing is the syllabification of logograms, i.e., logograms are spelled phonetically with no phonetic changes of the words (e.g., dumu > du-mu). However, unorthographic writing may produce phonetic alterations of various types that can be called ‘effective alterations.’ These may include the replacement of voiced consonants with corresponding voiceless consonants or vice versa, the substitution of vowels, the addition of vowels, and other changes.35 Although the unorthographic incantations in Babylonian script CTH 800 represent the primary source for syllabifications of logograms, they have fewer effective alterations than the Hittite script tablets.36 The Babylonian script tablets from Hattuša exhibit a conservative nature similar to the Old Babylonian unorthographic texts.37 On paleographic grounds, these tablets cannot be precisely assigned to any period as they do not exhibit specific Kassite traits.38 Given the certain antiquity of these tablets compared to the rest of the Sumerian material from Hattuša, one might speculate that they were brought as booty to the Hittite capital during Muršili I’s military raid in Babylonia.
The so-called Assyro-Mittanian texts are usually regarded as the product of northern Mesopotamian scribal circles39 and were possibly written in Mittanian-dominated Assyria.40 It is likely that these tablets were imported after Šuppiluliuma I’s conquest of Mittani in the mid-14th century. Arguably, the fact that virtually all Assyro-Mittanian tablets (containing both Akkadian and Sumerian texts) were found in Büyükkale speaks in favor of their importation. If they had been written locally by foreign scribes, they would probably have been more widespread within the city. A further hint at the northern Babylonian tradition of these incantations is the Šamaš prayer attested in the Kiutu incantation contained in KBo 7.1+: most known Šamaš prayers have been found in northern Babylonia.41 In the process of transmission of Sumerian literature, the Assyro-Mittanian incantations reflect a later stage than the unilingual Babylonian script incantations because they are bilingual and because many of them have duplicates in the first-millennium canonical series (cf. Table 1). Additionally, the very presence of a Kiutu incantation supports the later stage of the Assyro-Mittanian texts because this type of incantation is mostly documented in post-Old Babylonian sources.42
The tradition and reception of the incantations preserved on the Hittite script tablets are difficult to understand due to the fragmentary nature of the sources. Only three tablets have known duplicates from other periods (KUB 4.11, KUB 4.24, and KUB 37.111). KUB 4.11 contains a bilingual version of the Incantation to Utu that is known in Mesopotamia from monolingual manuscripts only. The Incantation to Utu is attested in Old Babylonian, Middle Babylonian, and first-millennium tablets, but because it was never standardized the sources show a high degree of variation. KUB 4.11 most likely reflects a Middle Babylonian recension composed by the Kassite scribes who also added the Akkadian translation. Because the compositions related to the Sun god originate in northern Babylonia, as discussed above for the Kiutu incantation, it is likely that the recension of Incantation to Utu that is preserved on KUB 4.11 reached the Hittite capital from the same area. This is supported by the fact that all of the known manuscripts of the Incantation to Utu likely come from Sippar.43 KUB 4.24 is a monolingual forerunner of Udug-hul Tablet II but has several variants compared with the first-millennium recension, representing an older stage in the process of standardization. Unfortunately no Old Babylonian manuscript is known so far. Finally, KUB 37.111 contains Udug-hul incantations that are not directly paralleled in either Old Babylonian or first-millennium sources but show some similarities to Udug-hul Tablet IV. KUB 37.111 reflects therefore a different textual tradition that did not become part of the canonical recension.44
More complex is the situation of the literary texts, which are only preserved on Hittite script tablets. As mentioned above, none of the texts found at Hattuša was part of the core of the Old Babylonian scribal curriculum. In addition, none of the compositions attested in the Hittite capital, and more generally in the western periphery (i.e., Emar and Ugarit), is duplicated in Middle Babylonian and Middle Assyrian sources known to date. A few texts—The Message of Lu-diĝira to his Mother, Edubba E, and the Letter of Lugal-ibila to Lugal-nesaĝ—can be attributed to the ‘mainstream of the Sumerian literary tradition,’ which is known predominantly from the Nippur documentation.45 In The Message of Lu-diĝira to his Mother, Nippur is the residence of Lu-diĝira’s mother, and at least one Old Babylonian manuscript stems from Nippur (Ni 2759). Nevertheless, this composition was well known outside Nippur, including in Sippar in the north.46 The Edubba texts are very common in Nippur. Edubba E consists of extracts from other texts, including Edubba A, which is one of the House F Fourteen.47 In addition, one of the Old Babylonian manuscripts (TLB 2, 7) that is possibly from Nippur contains both Edubba A and Edubba E. Finally, the model of the Letter of Lugal-ibila to Lugal-nesaĝ is the Letter of Inim-Inana to Lugal-ibila, which is virtually known only from Nippur sources and, like the entire SEpM, is a product of the Nippur scribal milieu.48 Perhaps one could add here the Dumuzi composition KUB 37.41 because the majority of the manuscripts of the Dumuzi-Inana hymns come from Nippur, but the source is very fragmentary.
The traditions of other compositions are far less clear. The Hymn to Iškur-Adad is an isolated text with no Old Babylonian duplicates. The hymn Nergal D (KUB 4.7) has duplicates in an Old Babylonian unilingual version from Sippar (CT 58, 46) and one Neo-Assyrian bilingual recension and is mentioned in the Catalogue of Texts and Authors.49 This appears to be a composition that did not belong to the ‘mainstream of the Sumerian tradition’ but cannot be assigned to a specific tradition. KUB 4.7 appears closer to the Neo-Assyrian version in its line order and bilingual format.
The fact that some of the compositions reflect the mainstream of the Sumerian literary tradition does not imply that the models transmitted to Anatolia came from Nippur. For instance, The Message of Lu-diĝira to his Mother was known in Sippar. The literary texts from the Hittite capital appear to belong to a repertoire that was widely used in the intermediary phase of the curriculum. Because the incantations seem to have originated in northern Babylonian centers, the literary texts probably followed the same path of transmission, regardless of the textual traditions that they manifest.
Although virtually all of the manuscripts of Sumerian literary texts are written in Hittite New Script, there are hints that at least some of the Sumerian compositions may have arrived in Hattuša at an earlier phase. KBo 19.98 is a six-sided prism written in Middle Script which contains the Cuthean Legend of Narām-Sîn and an unidentified Sumerian text in interlinear bilingual format. This tablet was likely written by Hanikkuili, the son of a Mesopotamian scribe working in the Hittite capital,50 and can be dated to the 15th century. Another probable older attestation of a Sumerian text is represented by the source KUB 4.4 of the Hymn to Iškur-Adad as it contains an older edition and is possibly a late copy of an older tablet.51 Further attestation is provided by the Hittite prayers to the Sun god that are preserved on manuscripts in Middle Script dating to the Early Empire or even an earlier period.52 As demonstrated by Metcalf,53 these Hittite prayers were based on Sumerian models and/or Akkadian intermediaries, which, given the antiquity of the preserved manuscripts, reached Anatolia before the 14th century. The recently published Akkadian prayer to the Sun god from Šapinuwa may be considered one of these intermediaries.54
To sum up, the Sumerian texts from the Hittite capital represent different stages and were transmitted at different moments. The oldest witnesses to Sumerian texts are represented by the unorthographic incantations in Babylonian script which reflect an Old Babylonian stage. The Assyro-Mittanian incantations represent a later stage of Sumerian literature as shown by the bilingual format and the presence of a Kiutu incantation that is mostly documented from the Middle Babylonian period onwards. The literary texts also represent a post-Old Babylonian stage.
Phonetic orthography is extensively used in Sumerian texts from Hattuša and, more generally, from the western periphery. As already mentioned above, phonetic writings from the Hittite capital are primarily found in two text types: Babylonian script incantations (CTH 800) and phonetic versions of literary texts in Hittite script. Only a few examples of phonetic writing are found among the Assyro-Mittanian texts. The purpose of phonetic orthography differed according to the text type. In incantations phonetic writings were produced by Babylonian scribes for texts that were meant to be performed by the āšipus. In contrast, the phonetic versions of Sumerian texts were added to the original bilingual texts and were produced by local scribes as part of their training. Because phonetic writing was typically used in scribal schools from northern Babylonia, of which the unilingual incantations are a product (see above), the knowledge and concept of phonetic orthography were probably acquired by Hittite scribes through the same path of transmission. This implies that Hittite scribes were educated in northern Babylonian orthographic conventions during their study of cuneiform script. As has been discussed previously,55 lexical lists were the primary sources of this knowledge. The lexical lists from the Hittite capital show the same types of alterations that are found in the literary texts.56
In his discussion of the phonetically written Sumerian laments, Delnero argued that phonetic writing was not an alternative orthography typical of northern Babylonia.57 He adduced the phonetically written sources from Girsu that date to the early second millennium—approximately two to three centuries before the Old Babylonian sources from northern Babylonia were written. However, the existence of phonetically written sources from the south does not contradict the fact that phonetic writings were mostly used in northern Babylonia during the Old Babylonian period. Although the sources from Girsu are the oldest examples of texts entirely written in phonetic orthography, phonetically writings are known from the Early Dynastic period.58 Therefore, if northern Babylonian scribes cannot claim to have invented phonetic orthography, they certainly adopted this convention to a larger extent.59 Most importantly, because the texts from Girsu cannot have influenced the scribal schools from the western periphery,60 the only place that could have served as a source of knowledge during the Late Old Babylonian period was northern Babylonia.
Delnero’s primary argument for rejecting the geographic nature of phonetic writings is their inconsistency. He argued that phonetic writings ‘were intended to aid in the pronunciation of Sumerian laments when these compositions were sung or recited in performance’61 and stressed that the inconsistencies in the texts were indicators of their performative nature.62 He was probably right to highlight the performative nature of certain writings (e.g., Sandhi writings).63 But it can be difficult to associate other types of writings with performance. Vowels are typically stressed in recitative or singing contexts, but at least in the Emesal texts, plene writings are rare.64 Most importantly, it is difficult to see the changes in consonant voicing (e.g., the replacement of a voiced consonant with a voiceless one), as performative notations, especially when writings are inconsistent.65 Indeed this could result in changes of words.66 The inconsistency of phonetic writings is an indication of a way of writing rather than a method to aid performance that is expected to be consistent to be useful, although it seems likely that certain types of writing such as Sandhi helped performance. One should not demarcate too rigidly the difference between an alternative spelling that was primarily (but not exclusively) used in certain areas (i.e., northern Babylonia) and the use of phonetic writing as an aid to performance. Both of these hypotheses agree with a limited acquaintance with the Sumerian tradition which was less at home in the north. In sum, Delnero’s three possible explanations for the compiling of phonetically written laments67 are not mutually exclusive but rather complementary.
Therefore, it will be maintained that the convention of writing Sumerian phonetically was transmitted to Anatolia from some northern Babylonian center where the practice was more developed and commonly used than elsewhere. Local scribes in Anatolia learned this convention and broadened its usage by exploiting the potential of the cuneiform writing system. This resulted in the production of the phonetic versions of Sumerian literary texts that had a larger number of effective alterations than the Babylonian script tablets.68 Thus the phonetic versions of Sumerian literary texts result from an incomplete knowledge of Sumerian and the extensive use of conventions that local scribes learned from the Babylonian tradition.
Košak 1995.
Pedersén 1998.
Torri 2008:780–781; Torri 2010:384. There seems to be a chronological difference between documents stored in Temple I, which were mostly from the period of Tutḫaliya IV, and those housed in the Haus am Hang that mainly date to the reign of Šuppiluliuma II (van den Hout 2008).
Two fragments found at Ugarit in the Bibliothèque du Lettré, RS 17.10 and RS 17.80, contain The Letter of Lugal-ibila to Lugal-nesaĝ in phonetic Sumerian and Akkadian respectively (Viano 2016:267–271).
KUB 4.26 fragment A contains an Akkadian šuilla to Adad (Schwemer 2001:671–674). According to Zomer (2018:324–325), HT 13 (+) KUB 4.26B (+) KUB 37.112 contains a Sumerian incantation prayer, but the text is so fragmentary that other genres are not excluded.
Zomer 2018:87 fn. 380 regarded KUB 37.107 as a ritual text and not an incantation, correcting Schwemer’s classification (2013:154).
According to Zomer (2018:207), this incantation is related to Šurpu or nam-erim₂-bur₂-ru-da.
According to Zomer (2018:159), this is a Hittite script tablet; she has also suggested (p. 221) that this fragment might belong to KUB 37.111.
The fragment contains other two Akkadian incantations; see Zomer 2018:336–337.
This tablet contains several other Akkadian incantations; see Zomer 2018:119.
Zomer (2018:100 fn. 410) believes this tablet does not contain incantations.
It was previously suggested that the script is Hittite based on the shape of the sign IL (Viano 2016:281). Zomer (2018:161) conversely has suggested an Assyro-Mittanian script.
According to Zomer 2018:157, the tablet script previously identified as generally Babylonian should be referred to more generically as being in an unknown script or non-Hittite. However her description of the incantation as solely Akkadian is incorrect in light of the clearly Sumerian forms in rev. 10′–12′, […] munus-sikil-la ḫe₂-te-na-[…] // […] x-še₃ ḫe₂-en-ta-d[u] // [… dAsa]r-lu₂-ḫi ḫe₂-ti-x […].
This incantation is also preserved on a tablet from Ugarit, RS 17.155 = AuOrS 23 21 (Arnaud 2007:77–88); this tablet is written in non-Hittite script (Zomer 2018:157). A possible Babylonian origin was suggested by the author of the present chapter, but the script is certainly different from those labeled LOB/MB in the table.
For the definition of Assyro-Mittanian, see Wilhelm 1992a and Schwemer 1998 and, for a critical assessment, Weeden 2012a and 2016.
Zomer (2018:157) suggests that these tablets might come from Syria.
For the sake of simplicity, the incantations in Babylonian script will be referred to as CTH 800.
Only three Hittite script tablets with recorded findspots are from Büyükkale: KUB 34.3, KUB 34.4, and KUB 37.111. Note, however, that KUB 37.111 might be a Hittite copy of an Assyro-Mittanian manuscript (see Viano 2016:278).
The tablets from Building A were scattered in various locations, in particular near Building D (Košak 1995:48, Pedersén 1998:50). The single Sumerian text from Building K, KBo 36.13, was found in Phrygian debris and thus probably was originally in another place, most likely Building A, because it belongs to the group of monolingual incantations in phonetic writing CTH 800. The fragment KUB 37.143 from Building C is possibly related to KUB 37.101 and 102 that were found in Building D. For the details, see Viano 2016:351.
Archi 2007:192–196, see also Lorenz and Rieken 2010.
Alaura 2004:140–141; Alaura 2006:117
KUB 4.5, KUB 4.6 (+) KUB 4.8, KUB 4.4, KUB 4.2, KUB 4.97, KUB 57.126, KUB 4.39, KUB 4.7, KUB 4.41, KUB 4.11, KUB 4.26(+), KBo 1.18, KUB 4.24, KUB 4.10.
Another area excavated by Winckler, Building E in Büyükkale should be excluded because no Sumerian text was found in this building.
Torri 2008; Torri 2010; Gordin 2010.
Weeden 2020a:512–14. See also Crisostomo 2019.
For the Old Babylonian curriculum see Tinney 1999, Tinney 2011, and Robson 2001; see also Veldhuis 1997.
Vanstiphout 1999:83.
Kleinerman 2011:75–94.
This composition is preserved on OB imgida tablets, and an extract tablet comes from Susa (Michalowski 2011:42).
Kleinerman 2011:181–182.
Note that this prism contains the Letter of Sîn-iddinam to Utu, which is known from an Emar source (Viano 2016:361–362).
For this text see Viano 2016:279 and Zomer 2019.
Viano 2015, Viano 2016:141–228, and Viano 2019.
See Incantation to Utu, Alster 1991 and Viano 2016:73–75.
For a complete list, see Viano 2016:225 fn. 1047.
Viano 2016:224–225; Viano 2019:118–119.
The resemblance of the Babylonian script incantations from Hattuša to the Old Babylonian incantations from Meturan is further suggested by a parallel passage in KUB 30.1 and a tablet from Meturan (H 97) (Viano 2016:232–233).
Viano 2016:234–235.
Schwemer 1998:50.
Cf. Weeden 2012a, who regarded the Assyro-Mittanian script as early Middle Assyrian.
Viano 2016:75–76.
For Kiutu prayers see Baragli 2022.
Viano 2016:73–75.
See also Zomer 2018:220–222.
For this concept, see Viano 2016:29–30.
Manuscript CBS 1554 likely comes from Sippar as it belongs to the Khabaza collection, which represents the first 2000 pieces of the CBS collection and includes pieces unearthed in Sippar (Civil 1979:93 and Tinney 2011:586).
These are the fourteen texts with the highest rate of duplication found in House F at Nippur; House F Fourteen had a curricular setting; see Robson 2001.
Kleinerman 2011:22–23, 84.
Lambert 1962:64: IV 3–4.
See Viano 2016:280–281, with a bibliography of the literature.
See Viano 2016:252.
Schwemer 2015.
Metcalf 2011. For the Sumerian text, see Cavigneaux 2009.
Schwemer and Süel 2021:17–31.
Viano 2019:121–127.
See, for instance, the replacement of the voiced consonant g with the voiceless k in Erim-ḫuš D (KBo 1.41), (a 5) gi : ki-i : ši-ip-ṭ[u₄], (a 6) gi-šu₂ : ki-i-šu : pu-ru-u[s-su₂-u₂], (a 7) gi-gi : ki-i-ki : ma-ḫa-a-[ru₁/₃]. See also the use of the Zv sign for saĝ in Urra I (KBo 26.5 + KBo 26.6), (C I, 19) [geš]⸢zag⸣-gu-la-nu₂ : saĝ-an-dul-nu₂, which is commonly attested in literary texts, -za-an-qa-ak-ke ~ -saĝ-ĝa₂-ke₄ (CTH 315—AuOrS 23 50 II, 33); za-aG-pa ~ saĝ-ba (KUB 37.111 rev. r. col. 14); zi-iG-pa ~ saĝ-ba (KUB 37.111 obv. r. col. 5, 7).
Delnero 2020:259–273.
Civil 1984; see also Viano 2016:141–142.
The extended use of phonetic writings in northern Babylonia should not be interpreted to imply that this alternative orthography was locally invented as argued by Delnero (2020:272): “an orthography that was developed in a specific time and place to record the correct pronunciation of the laments so that it would not be lost.”
Note also that orthography underwent a process of standardization towards a logographic system during the Old Babylonian period that is evident in the literary texts from Nippur (Rubio 2000:215–219).
Delnero 2020:278; see pp. 278–287 for the full discussion.
Delnero 2020:273: “the difficulty and inconsistency of the phonetic writings in these sources presupposes that the compilers and intended users of the sources already knew their content, and were not concerned with preserving the pronunciation of the laments for future generations, but instead to elucidate and call attention to how the laments were pronounced for more immediate and practical purposes.” See also p. 294: “the attention devoted to replicating the general sound of words and not their exact pronunciation is further underscored by the inconsistency with which the same words and morphemes are written phonetically, often even within a single source.”
Delnero 2020:293.
Delnero 2020:276.
Different spellings of the same consonant of the same word in the same text are clearly not indicative of regional or dialetical variants.
Note that in Cantus Firmus vowels are typically stressed but consonants are not changed. The author wishes to thank Mo. Christian Lavernier for pointing this out. One also may observe that the change of sound should not have been particularly problematic for an audience that likely had insufficient knowledge of the language to understand the content, but the same cannot be said for the performer.
The three possible explanations are that the texts were compiled by unskilled scribes, phonetic writings were an alternative orthography developed in northern Babylonia, and phonetic writings were intended to aid performance (Delnero 2020:246).
Viano 2016:224–228; Viano 2019:118–121.