New Perspectives in the Study of Third Millennium Akkadian

14 Pages·2003·0.48 MB·English

Cuneiform Digital Library Journal 2003:4
<http://cdli.ucla.edu/pubs/cdlj/2003/cdlj2003_004.html>
© Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative
ISSN 1540-8779
Version: 26 August 2003
New Perspectives in the Study of Third Millennium Akkadian*
Markus Hilgert
Friedrich Schiller University, Jena
§1. Introduction syriological research would appear to thrive particularly
§1.1 Assyriologists fi nd themselves in a rather envi- well on the evidence distilled from cuneiform texts.
able position. Their research can draw on an immense One such extraordinarily promising fi eld of study that
wealth of written sources that mirror almost the entire immediately comes to mind in this context is the com-
cultural heritage of Ancient Mesopotamia from the 4th parative history of the Akkadian language, so far the
millennium B.C. to the 1st century A.D. The formal, oldest semitic language known from written records.
geographical, and chronological diversity of these After all, we are able to trace the history and diachronic
sources is enhanced by a strong diversity of contents: linguistic development of Akkadian over a period of
the enormous pool of available pertinent data affords roughly 2,700 years, with signifi cant gaps in the textual
more or less satisfying answers to questions stretch- tradition occurring rather infrequently.
ing from arithmetic in the Assyro-Babylonian scribal
education to zoology as refl ected in cattle management §1.3 Another aspect of considerable importance is the
records from the 3rd Dynasty of Ur. very number of Akkadian cuneiform texts accessible to
date. Granted that at present it is still extremely diffi cult
§1.2 While the sheer quantity of the written remains to produce an even remotely accurate estimate, we can
from Ancient Mesopotamia as well as their multifac- safely assume that this number is in the six-digit range
eted topical range provide a unique textual basis for a at the very least.1
wide variety of scholarly endeavors, some areas of As-
§1.4 At fi rst glance, the phenomenological2 parameters
just outlined appear to render Akkadian particularly
* The present article is a revised English version of the
author’s “Zur Stellung des Ur III-Akkadischen in- suitable for almost any kind of comparative or historical
nerhalb der akkadischen Sprachgeschichte,“ in: J.-W. analysis, especially the rules governing linguistic change
Meyer and W. Sommerfeld, eds., 2000 v. Chr. - Poli- and continuity one might expect to fi nd uniquely
tische, wirtschaftliche und gesellschaftliche Entwicklung
refl ected in close to three millennia of documented
im Zeichen einer Jahrtausendwende (=Colloquien der
language history. Hence, given this enormous poten-
Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft, vol. 3; Saarbrücken 2003
tial, it might be all the more surprising to realize that
[in press]). It is derived from a paper read in March
2003 at the University of Chicago, the University of the comparative history of Akkadian has never been
California at Berkeley, and the University of California counted among the central focal points of Assyriologi-
at Los Angeles. Upon the request of R. K. Englund, the
annotated and slightly modifi ed manuscript is made
available in this format to reach the wider readership of
1 For the size of the Akkadian cuneiform text corpus
a networked community.
known to date, see most recently C. Peust, “Über ägyp-
The abbreviations used here follow the standard of the
tische Lexikographie,” Lingua Aegyptia 7 (2000) 254.
Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative. Additional abbre-
viations are: 2 Throughout this article, the term “phenomenological”
IMGULA 3/1 W. Sommerfeld, Die Texte der Ak- refers to phenomenology not in its specifi c defi nition
kad-Zeit, 1. Das Dijala-Gebiet: Tutub as a philosophical methodology, but in its more general
(=IMGULA 3/1; Münster 1999). sense, i.e., pertaining to the description and classifi ca-
IMGULA 5 M. Hilgert, Akkadisch in der Ur III- tion of phenomena as they appear, without inquiring
Zeit (=IMGULA 5; Münster 2002). into their explanation or cause.
Cuneiform Digital Library Journal 2003:4 page 1 of 14
cal research. This observation remains valid up to the §1.6 Bearing in mind these considerations, we will
present day, even if we concede that alongside the ever- direct our attention to a truly programmatic paper that
increasing number of published Akkadian cuneiform John Huehnergard presented at The William Foxwell
texts the large majority of the known regional dialects, Albright Centennial Conference slightly more than a
linguistic periods, and language levels of Akkadian have decade ago. Entitled “New Directions in the Study of
become the subject of intense scholarly scrutiny over Semitic Languages,” this contribution concisely sum-
the past decades.3 marizes the past achievements and remaining desiderata
in the scholarly treatment of several important Semitic
§1.5 However, if one were to arrive at a “Comprehen- languages including Akkadian. With reference to Akka-
sive History of the Akkadian Language”–at present an dian, Huehnergard deliberately points to the conspicu-
admittedly ambitious, if not unattainable goal–it would ous discrepancy between the abundance of currently
certainly not suffi ce to create an annotated list of these available Akkadian cuneiform texts on the one hand,
linguistic phenomena, possibly arranged by chronologi- and the relatively modest corpus of comparative studies
cal and geographical criteria. In fact, it could be argued focusing on individual Akkadian dialects and linguistic
that the foremost objective of such a language history development levels on the other. In addition, he delivers
should be to analyze and defi ne their synchronic and a poignant plea for an innovative historical grammar of
diachronic relationships, to inquire into the complex in- what is conventionally termed “Old Akkadian,” i.e., all
terplay between cuneiform orthography and the spoken written manifestations of Akkadian in cuneiform texts
language,4 and to describe the pertinent trends of lin- from the entire 3rd millennium B.C., including–in de-
guistic evolution as visible in the factual transformation scending chronological order–Pre-Sargonic, Sargonic,
of Akkadian through time. In particular, those scholars and Ur III Akkadian.
who work in related or neighboring academic fi elds and
who strive to expand their linguistic horizon into the §1.7 At this point, it may be instructive to look more
realm of the oldest Semitic language known to date, closely at those passages of Huehnergard’s argumenta-
i.e., non-Assyriologists handling primary cuneiform tion that convey a rough impression of the contempo-
sources with considerable unease, would undoubtedly rary, overall state of research regarding 3rd millennium
welcome a methodologically sound, well structured, Akkadian at the beginning of the last decade:
and adequately referenced “Comprehensive History of
the Akkadian Language,” as postulated here. There is enough new material available that a new
grammar of Old Akkadian should be written to
replace the ground-breaking study published by I. J.
3 For selected references to the pertinent secondary litera- Gelb thirty years ago [i.e., MAD 22] … Akkadian,
ture, see IMGULA 5, p. 5, n. 2. despite the pan-dialectal coverage offered by von
4 Individual aspects of this “interplay” are analyzed Soden’s Grundriss der akkadischen Grammatik,
successfully in the context of studies addressing the has been the subject of relatively little comparative
orthography and (historical) phonology of the Ak- or historical discussion. Here too, however, things
kadian language; see, e.g., IMGULA 3/1, pp. 18-22;
may be changing. Recently, Simo Parpola published
W. Sommerfeld, “Bemerkungen zur Dialektgliederung
a very stimulating and insightful study entitled sim-
Altakkadisch, Assyrisch und Babylonisch,” in G. J.
ply “Proto-Assyrian.” The relatively recent appear-
Selz, ed., Festschrift für Burkhart Kienast (=AOAT 274;
Münster 2003) pp. 569-586 (Sargonic Akkadian); ance of additional Old Akkadian texts and of early
IMGULA 5, pp. 65-79 (Ur III Akkadian); W. Som- Old Babylonian texts, with some features different
merfeld apud W. von Soden, GAG3, pp.(cid:0) 35-36, §30* from those found in texts of Hammurapi’s domain,
(Old Babylonian); W. Mayer, Tall Mun(cid:0)b qa-Ekalte II. should prompt additional future research into com-
Die Texte (=Ausgrabungen in Tall Munb qa-Ekalte, vol.
parative and historical Akkadian grammar.5
2 [=WVDOG 102]; Saarbrücken 2001) pp. 36-37 (local
dialect, ca. second half of the 2nd millennium B.C.);
K. Deller, “Zweisilbige Lautwerte des Typs KVKV im
Neuassyrischen,” OrNS 31 (1962) 7-26; idem, “Studien Westenholz, “The Phoneme /o/ in Akkadian,” ZA 81
zur neuassyrischen Orthographie,” OrNS 31 (1962) (1991) 10-19.
186-196 (neo-Assyrian); M. P. Streck, “Keilschrift
5 J. Huehnergard, “New Directions in the Study of Se-
und Alphabet,” in D. Borchers, F. Kammerzell and S.
mitic Languages,” in J. S. Cooper and G. M. Schwartz,
Weninger, eds., Hieroglyphen, Alphabete, Schriftreformen
eds., The Study of the Ancient Near East in the Twenty-
(=Lingua Aegyptia – Studia Monographica 3; Göttingen
First Century: The William Foxwell Albright Centennial
2001) pp. 77-97 (neo- and Late Babylonian); see also A.
page 2 of 14 Cuneiform Digital Library Journal 2003:4
§1.8 These rather extensive prefatory remarks may §2 Methodological and Practical Considerations
serve as a preliminary groundwork for the discussion of §2.1 As mentioned before, the comparative history
new perspectives in the study of 3rd millennium Akka- of Akkadian and its two principal dialects, Babylonian
dian as presented here. Bearing in mind the preceding and Assyrian, is not among the most extensively studied
thoughts can help us understand why studies on the research topics in present-day Assyriology. A reasonable
comparative history of Akkadian in general, as well as claim could be made that the primary reasons for this
the ongoing grammatical and historical analysis of 3rd regrettable circumstance are of a rather fundamental
millennium Akkadian in particular, may have such a and complex nature and have virtually nothing to do
remarkable impact on the conventional ideas about the with assumed intrinsic shortcomings of this particular
diachronic linguistic development and dialect diversity academic fi eld or its representatives. Naturally, it would
of this language. reach beyond the scope of this paper to refl ect on all of
these reasons and discuss them in detail. Suffi ce it to say
§1.9 An initial, practical point of reference here is the that the problems arising from a theoretical periodiza-
rather astounding realization that, since the not-so-dis- tion of Akkadian as an extinct language are in essence
tant days of Huehnergard’s postulating a new grammar methodological and practical ones.
of “Old Akkadian,” our understanding of the linguis-
tic properties and internal segmentation of pre-Old §2.2 Reviewing the methodological problems fi rst, we
Babylonian Akkadian has advanced immensely and at a have to realize that as a matter of principle such a theo-
rather rapid pace. Even the traditional and widely used retical periodization is always, and by its very nature,
designation “Old Akkadian” itself, as a crudely simpli- a simplistic construct devised to detect and accentuate
fying collective term for 3rd millennium Akkadian in its crude linguistic development patterns. The spoken lan-
entirety, has turned out to be utterly inadequate. Except guage, however, does not lend itself to any kind of strict
in descriptions of past Assyriological research on this and thus static notional segmentation into distinct
topic, the conventional classifi cation, “Old Akkadian,” evolutionary units, as the rationale of its existence and
is therefore avoided in the present article. development is constant and pervasive change, even if
that change is ever so minute.
§1.10 Before we can turn to a linguistic characteriza-
tion of Ur III Akkadian as a key element in defi ning §2.3 Having said this, it follows necessarily that spoken
individual diachronic development patterns of 3rd mil- language can never be viewed and treated as a mono-
lennium Akkadian as a whole, we must fi rst consider lithic system. At any given point in time, and within
some of the methodological and practical problems the same socio-cultural realm, language is not merely
that are always present where the comparative history comprised of the contemporary standard and literary
of Akkadian is concerned. In a second step, we will language. Rather, as a matter of ubiquitous linguistic
visit several “historical landmarks” of twentieth century stratifi cation, it is the conglomerate sum of all diatopic,
research on both the pre-Old Babylonian Akkadian diaphasic, and diastratic varieties of speech6 including
textual tradition as well as on early Old Babylonian several sub-codes, such as synchronic sociolects, special
language varieties. Once we have discussed what Ur and technical languages, as well as vernacular.
III Akkadian actually is and to what degree it is related
to the predominant semitic language of the preceding §2.4 For any scholar probing into the comparative
Sargonic period, we will be in an excellent position to history of an extinct language solely on the basis of
design an updated, factually sound, and fairly intricate its written remains, it is an extremely diffi cult, if not
model of the early history of the Akkadian language impossible task to decide where and to what degree
ranging from the end of the pre-Sargonic Akkadian
tradition to the primary manifestations of Akkadian in
6 For these socio-linguistic categories classifying the syn-
the early 2nd millennium B.C., i.e., Old Babylonian and chronic variations of an (historical) language and cor-
Old Assyrian. While answering many heretofore exist- relating with the extra-linguistic dimensions of place,
ing questions, this innovative model raises compelling social situation, and social class, respectively, see, e.g., E.
Coseriu, Einführung in die Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft
new ones.
(Tübingen 1988) pp. 280-286; G. Berruto, “Varietät,”
in U. Ammon, N. Dittmar and K. J. Mattheier, eds.,
Sociolinguistics/Soziolinguistik (=Handbücher zur Sprach-
Conference (Winona Lake, Indiana, 1996) 256, 262- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 3.1; Berlin, New York
263. 1987) pp. 266-267.
Cuneiform Digital Library Journal 2003:4 page 3 of 14
any of these varieties of speech or elements thereof may since many editions of cuneiform texts are outdated,
have found their way into the contemporary textual insuffi ciently commented upon, illustrated, or indexed.
tradition. This latter observation applies in particular to Thus, they generally fall short of those desirable stan-
the Assyriologist who is fortunate enough to work not dards that signifi cantly facilitate any further research.
only with literary, historiographic, or scholarly sources
composed in Akkadian, but also with documents of §2.7 It appears that these practical obstacles might
everyday use, such as letters, legal and administrative have had a particularly heavy impact on our perception
records, as well as personal business memoranda.7 It and interpretation of 3rd millennium Akkadian. This
stands to reason that in this text corpus characterized impression is primarily caused by a comparison with the
by documents of everyday use one must expect to en- current state of research on orthography, grammar, and
counter more frequent colloquial deviations from the lexicon of the linguistic periods and regional variants
contemporary standard or literary language with regard of Akkadian attested during the 2nd and 1st millennia.
to lexicon, morphology, and syntax. For these periods, the quantity and high quality of the
available sources, as well as the effects of a sophisticated
§2.5 Given the fundamental methodological predica- and rather well-adapted cuneiform writing system, have
ments just outlined, one is easily tempted to resign to brought about a comparatively secure level of insight
agnostic silence when individual linguistic periods or and understanding among Assyriologists. At the same
the comparative history of an extinct language such as time, however, many of the linguistic properties of 3rd
Akkadian are concerned. Yet, knowledge may advance millennium Akkadian, along with their historical clas-
through erroneous hypotheses as a basis for further sifi cation, remain largely in the dark.
scholarly debate just as much as it does through sud-
denly uncovered truth. In this respect, the hypothetical §2.8 Returning to the reasons for this signifi cant gap
assumption of linguistic periods and levels as distinct in our knowledge, we can be even more specifi c now
evolutionary units of a language is simply a theoretical and assert that they are not solely methodological and
aid designed to facilitate the analysis, description, classi- practical ones. Rather, they are also found in some of
fi cation, and comparison of supposedly coherent sets of the phenomenological peculiarities characterizing the
linguistic features. Thus, when we discuss “pre-Sargon- entire corpus of 3rd millennium cuneiform texts.
ic,” “Sargonic,” and “Ur III Akkadian” in the following,
it is understood that these terms primarily denote rather §2.9 A fi rst aspect relevant in this context is that of
abstract, notional entities of linguistic classifi cation. source accessibility. For, with the possible exception of
the Sargonic period, cuneiform texts written entirely in
§2.6 As suggested above, the main impediments to a Akkadian are comparatively rare among the 3rd mil-
“Comprehensive History of the Akkadian Language” lennium sources. As a consequence, investigations
are not merely methodological by nature. Rather, there into the linguistic properties of pre-Old Babylonian
are also considerable practical diffi culties arising from Akkadian are often forced to thrive almost exclusively
the peculiarities of the diachronic Akkadian textual on rather disparate and widely scattered forms of data,
tradition in spite of its overall richness in form and such as proper nouns, loanwords, or short Akkadian
contents. These diffi culties represent a dilemma specifi c phrases embedded in Sumerian context.8 Locating and
to the fi eld of Assyriology. For it is still true that the cu- evaluating this linguistic source material is an extremely
neiform sources available to date are not abundant for time-consuming and diffi cult task. In particular, the
all linguistic periods and regional variants of Akkadian. essentially rich evidence provided by thousands of Se-
This circumstance is aggravated by strongly varying de- mitic personal names may only be considered reliable
grees of direct access to the linguistically relevant data,
8 In addition to I. J. Gelb, MAD 22 and 3, a character-
ization and documentation of pre-Sargonic Akkadian
7 Many examples of such more or less informal personal evidence may be found in A. Westenholz, “Personal
memoranda, frequently written in the fi rst person, are Names in Ebla and in Pre-Sargonic Babylonia,” ARES
found within the Old Assyrian text corpus; see, e.g., A. 1 (1988) 99-117; M. Krebernik, “Die Texte aus Færa
M. Ulshöfer, Die altassyrischen Privaturkunden (=FAOS und Tell Abº ΩalæbπÌ,” OBO 160/1, pp. 261-270. For
Beihefte 4; Stuttgart, 1995) pp. 26, 28-30, 245-268, the textual tradition of the Sargonic period, see, e.g., A.
324-392. For a possible Akkadian business memoran- Westenholz, “The Old Akkadian Period: History and
dum from the Ur III period, see IMGULA 5, p. 23, no. Culture,” OBO 160/3, pp. 18-28, 74-78; IMGULA
11. 3/1, pp. 2-3, 5.
page 4 of 14 Cuneiform Digital Library Journal 2003:4
and meaningful for an historical classifi cation after ex- §2.12 Summarizing these phenomenological character-
tensive prosopographic, orthographic, and grammatical istics of the pre-Old Babylonian Akkadian tradition on
analyzes have taken place.9 a more abstract level, we may conclude that specifi cally
in its outward appearance as a language inadequately
§2.10 A second important phenomenological feature expressed by the contemporary cuneiform orthography,
of the 3rd millennium text corpus derives from the 3rd millennium Akkadian, above all, looks distinctly
properties of the prevalent orthographic conventions different from the two main varieties of the early 2nd
attested therein. As already mentioned, Akkadian texts millennium, i.e., Old Babylonian and Old Assyrian. In
are by comparison few in number, while Sumerian addition, it is crucial to note that these phenomenologi-
documents abound. With the dominance of written cal differences are quite obvious, even upon a cursory
Sumerian during the 3rd millennium, the orthographic perusal of the pertinent cuneiform texts.12
conventions as well as the syllabary employed to express
this language in writing played a correspondingly sig-
nifi cant role. Presumably invented with a view to the §3 Past Research
graphic representation of Sumerian–still a contentious §3.1 I believe that in order to grasp the character and
issue in our fi eld–,10 this writing system was subse- meaning of twentieth century research on what we are
quently implemented to inscribe Akkadian texts, at fi rst accustomed to call “Old Akkadian” it is of some im-
apparently without any major adaptive modifi cations. portance to bear in mind these essentially simple facts.
However, the respective phoneme inventories of both It seems that the very invention and subsequent use
languages differ considerably. As a consequence, the of the linguistic collective term “Old Akkadian” was
Sumerian writing system often led to an inadequate largely inspired by the apparent typological similarity
representation of Akkadian forms in cuneiform texts. A perceived in certain patterns of graphic representation
typical and well-known example for this partial, struc- as well as in the “unusual,” comparatively non-uniform,
tural incompatibility is the writing system’s widespread and seemingly “archaic” syllabary of Akkadian expres-
indifference toward the phonemic features, voiceless, sions and cuneiform texts from the pre-Sargonic, Sar-
voiced, and “emphatic” that are found with several con- gonic, and Ur III periods. A brief review of the earliest
sonantal phonemes in Akkadian sharing the same locus treatise on 3rd millennium Akkadian may support this
of articulation.11 Thus, a single syllabogram such as the hypothesis.13
sign da can be employed to express all three alveolar
plosives attested in Akkadian followed by the vowel /a/, §3.2 In a pioneering 1916 study entitled Materialien
i.e., the syllables /da/, /ta/, and /†a/. zur altakkadischen Sprache (bis zum Ende der Ur-Dy-
nastie), A. Ungnad restricted himself to a single concise
§2.11 While orthographic innovations and reforms in statement about the historical relationship between
the 2nd and 1st millennia were apparently aimed at over- “Old Akkadian” on the one hand, and Old Babylonian
coming this and several other inadequacies of the cunei- on the other (translation by the author):
form writing system in representing spoken Akkadian,
it was never entirely purged of them. In the seemingly [In Old Akkadian,] the use of individual cu-
“odd” orthography of 3rd millennium Akkadian, whose neiform signs for the representation of Akkadian
graphic representations exhibit only marginal adapta-
tions to the phoneme inventory of a Semitic language,
12 In addition to the syllabogram inventory used for the
these defi ciencies are immediately recognizable.
graphic representation of Akkadian and the marked
indifference toward the phonemic features voiceless,
voiced, and “emphatic” (see §2.10, above), the mostly
9 For a discussion of the diffi culties involved in analyzing
implicit representation of consonantal length may be
the semitic onomastic evidence from the Ur III period,
addressed as another rather obvious characteristic of 3rd
see IMGULA 5, pp. 89-91, 95.
millennium Akkadian orthography (see, e.g., GAG3, 11,
10 See, e.g., most recently M. Krebernik, “Zur Struktur §7d). Even in cuneiform texts from the Ur III period,
und Geschichte des älteren sumerischen Onomas- only a comparatively small number of Akkadian forms
tikons,” in M. P. Streck and S. Weninger, eds., Altorien- show an explicit expression of consonantal length; see
talische und semitische Onomastik (=AOAT 296; Münster IMGULA 5, pp. 313-315.
2002) pp. 1-2, n. 1.
13 For a more detailed description of past Assyriological
11 See, e.g., GAG3, p. 23, §19a; M. P. Streck, Lingua Ae- research on 3rd millennium Akkadian sources and the
gyptia – Studia Monographica 3, 88. early history of Akkadian, see IMGULA 5, pp. 5-15.
Cuneiform Digital Library Journal 2003:4 page 5 of 14
sounds is not nearly as strictly limited as it is dur- §3.6 Gelb was nonetheless aware of the fact that Ur III
ing the time of the Hammurapi dynasty, or even in Akkadian, being the latest manifestation of the pre-Old
later periods.14 Babylonian tradition, somehow defi ed his attempts at a
proper linguistic and historical classifi cation:
§3.3 The methodological precedent set here, i.e., view-
ing the earliest developmental levels of Akkadian as a The linguistic materials are not adequate to enable
largely homogenous linguistic entity and distinctly sep- us to give a short sketch of the Ur III Akkadian
arating this assumed entity from the Akkadian varieties comparable to that given above of the Sargonic.17
of the 2nd and 1st millennia, based almost exclusively on
divergent orthographic conventions, refl ects a percep- §3.7 In addition, he was forced to admit that the per-
tion of 3rd millennium Akkadian that has prevailed in tinent Ur III evidence he had accumulated was far from
Assyriology for decades.15 Curiously, it appears to be exhaustive, insofar as the corpus of published sources
accompanied frequently by the tacit assumption that from this period had considerably increased in size and
identical or similar patterns of graphic representation are already comprised more than 10,000 individual cunei-
a reliable indicator of linguistic identity and that “Old form texts:
Akkadian” essentially retained the same linguistic fea-
tures over a period of roughly 700 years. Due to the immense number of the Ur III sources, it
would have been impossible for me to collect the Ur
§3.4 The publication of I. J. Gelb’s Old Akkadian Writ- III personal names as completely as I did the Pre-
ing and Grammar and Glossary of Old Akkadian in the Sargonic and Sargonic names . . . Thus the ono-
1950’s marked the beginning of a new era in the study mastic material is quoted fully for the Pre-Sargonic
of 3rd millennium Akkadian. Both contributions fo- and Sargonic Periods but is quoted in selection in
cused on the presentation, organization, and grammati- the Ur III Period when it was thought that the ad-
cal analysis of the available evidence that had become ditional examples add nothing of importance to our
rather plentiful in the preceding four decades. In his knowledge of Akkadian in the Ur III Period.18
“Defi nition of Old Akkadian,” Gelb characterized “Old
Akkadian” cuneiform texts as §3.8 Despite these limitations, Gelb was able to take
note of several orthographic and linguistic features spe-
… the written remains of the Akkadian language cifi c to Ur III Akkadian, primarily those that appeared
from the oldest periods of Mesopotamian history to constitute a deviation from the Sargonic Akkadian
down to the end of the 3rd Dynasty of Ur.16 standard. He thus listed “a few points of general inter-
est”19 that refl ected largely isolated observations regard-
§3.5 Here, too, “Old Akkadian” served as a convenient ing the paleography, syllabary, morphology, and lexicon
collective term for the entire 3rd millennium Akkadian of Akkadian sources from the Ur III period.
tradition, including pre-Sargonic, Sargonic, and Ur III
Akkadian. However, both in MAD 2 and MAD 3, Gelb §3.9 Some of Gelb’s observations could have had a
made a fi rst effort to distinguish between these three remarkable impact on both the historical and dialectal
presumed linguistic periods of Akkadian, and marked classifi cation of Ur III Akkadian, and the contemporary
the respective forms accordingly. Still, the grammati- perception of 3rd millennium Akkadian as a whole;
cal and linguistic picture drawn of “Old Akkadian” in however, they were not cast in a systematic form and
MAD 2 appears to have primarily targeted the docu- thus commanded only marginal interest at the time.
mentation and description of linguistic features com-
mon to all known varieties of 3rd millennium Akkadian. §3.10 More than two decades passed before the schol-
Diachronic, diatopic, and diastratic differences played a arly debate concerning the earliest linguistic periods of
comparatively minor role. Akkadian received a stimulating, and ultimately deci-
sive impulse. In an attempt to defi ne the relative histori-
cal and dialectal position of the early Old Babylonian
14 A. Ungnad, Materialien zur altakkadischen Sprache
(bis zum Ende der Ur-Dynastie) (=MVAG 20/2 [1915];
Leipzig 1916) 4. 17 MAD 22, p. 18.
15 See IMGULA 5, pp. 7, 12. 18 MAD 3, p. viii.
16 I. J. Gelb, MAD 22, p. 1. 19 MAD 22, pp. 18-19; see IMGULA 5, pp. 8-10.
page 6 of 14 Cuneiform Digital Library Journal 2003:4
l(cid:0)anguage attested in cuneiform texts from the so-called guage of the letters is a descendant or continuation
akkanakkum-period, A. Westenholz reviewed the tradi- of Ur III Akkadian is the fact that documents in
tional Assyriological concept that held 3rd millennium Akkadian from the Ur III period are also very rare
Akkadian to be a largely homogenous linguistic entity. and it is diffi cult to defi ne Ur III Akkadian with
As a result, he submitted the following, rather uncon- precision. The general obscurity of the linguistic
ventional hypothesis: situation in Mesopotamia at this time complicates
the problem of defi ning the language of the letters
There is rather much evidence to suggest that the … I propose that the language of the earlier let-
usual grouping of the Akkadian of these [namely, ters from Tell Asmar, as well as contemporary texts
Ur III] texts with Sargonic Old Akkadian is faulty. from elsewhere in Babylonia, be termed “archaic
The differences between Sargonic Old Akkadian Old Babylonian,” bearing in mind that it may
and Ur III Akkadian are so numerous and so basic eventually prove to be indistinguishable from Ur
that it seems justifi ed to consider them as separate III Akkadian … The fact that there are a number
dialects … Moreover, all these differences make of well-attested changes between Old Akkadian of
their appearance with suspicious suddenness after the Sargonic period and Ur III Akkadian suggests
the downfall of the Sargonic Empire. The conclu- that the largest discontinuity comes at the end of
sion is, of course, that Ur III Akkadian is nothing the Sargonic Period, and that Ur III Akkadian is
else than archaic Old Babylonian, while Sargonic already the beginning of the Old Babylonian lin-
Old Akkadian is a different dialect which, at least guistic tradition.21
in some areas, was used only as an offi cial written
language.20 §3.12 While Whiting’s remarks underscore the impor-
tance of defi ning the historical relationship between Ur
§3.11 A. Westenholz did not remain the only scholar III and Old Babylonian Akkadian, they also illustrate
to recognize that a proper, well-founded linguistic clas- the necessity to defi ne the linguistic characteristics of
sifi cation of Ur III Akkadian, and its differentiation the Semitic standard language attested in cuneiform
from the Akkadian of the preceding Sargonic period sources from the Sargonic period. For it goes without
that necessarily derives from this classifi cation, had as- saying that questions concerning linguistic continuity
sumed a pivotal role not only in debunking the phan- and discontinuity, as well as dialect diversity in the late
tom called “Old Akkadian,” but also in tracing the di- 3rd and early 2nd millennium B.C., should preferably be
rect ancestry of Old Babylonian, in particular that of its addressed on the basis of a detailed picture of all known
early, pre-Hammurapi varieties. In 1987, R. M. Whit- forms of speech prevalent during this period.
ing was confronted with the problem of describing and
classifying the Semitic language of a group of early Old §3.13 In this respect, recent contributions by W.
Babylonian letters excavated at Tall Asmar, ancient EÒ- Sommerfeld focusing on the orthography and gram-
nunna. Written on clay tablets during the 20th century mar of Sargonic Akkadian have altered, and advanced
B.C., these cuneiform texts refl ect a developmental stage the modern perception of the Akkadian dialect that
of Akkadian that Whiting decided to name “archaic served as the offi cial means of written communica-
Old Babylonian,” specifi cally in order to distinguish tion throughout the Sargonic empire. Summarizing
this particular variety from other early Old Babylonian Sommerfeld’s fi ndings, it will suffi ce to concentrate
manifestations of Akkadian. Considering the position on the concise description of two characteristic aspects
“archaic Old Babylonian” might occupy within the that may be considered crucial for the historical clas-
early history of Akkadian, Whiting reasoned: sifi cation of Sargonic Akkadian on the one hand, and
pre-Sargonic, Ur III, Old Babylonian, and Old Assyrian
Apart from a few features which will be discussed Akkadian, on the other.
below, the language of the Tell Asmar letters seems
to be descended from Ur III Akkadian and ances- §3.14 First, almost the entire Akkadian textual tradi-
tral to early Old Babylonian. One of the problems tion of the Sargonic period is marked by an orthographic
involved in trying to determine whether the lan- system certain areas of which are rather strictly regulat-
ed. This system features individual pairs and sometimes
even triples of syllabograms that are traditionally trans-
20 A. Westenholz, “Some Notes on the Orthography and
Grammar of the Recently Published Texts from Mari,”
BiOr 35 (1978) 163, n. 24. 21 R. M. Whiting, AS 22, pp. 16-18.
Cuneiform Digital Library Journal 2003:4 page 7 of 14
literated as homonymic phoneme sequences. However, language is abandoned and the regional colloquial
within Sargonic Akkadian orthography, they seem to languages emerge as the linguistic basis for all writ-
represent graphic oppositions expressing phonological ten communication. These colloquial languages
or morphological differentiations on the level of the are the precursors of the later dialects Assyrian and
spoken language. Typical examples of such pairs of syl- Babylonian.23
labograms include i and i , bi and bi , ki and ki , ku
3 2 2
and ku , li and li , ma and ma . To all appearances, the
8 2 2
differentiations expressed by the two constituents of a §4 Ur III Akkadian
syllabogram pair range from the distinction of vowel §4.1 Our preceding review of recent Assyriological
quality to the representation of varying syllable struc- research on both the early Old Babylonian variet-
tures, such as C(onsonant)V(owel) and CVC.22 ies of Akkadian as well as on Sargonic Akkadian has
demonstrated that in order to understand the evolu-
§3.15 Second, the linguistic features of Sargonic tionary patterns characterizing the transition from the
Akkadian exclude this early stage of Akkadian as the Akkadian language tradition of the 3rd millennium to
common ancestor of both Old Babylonian and Old the dominant manifestations of Akkadian in the 2nd
Assyrian, as is widely believed. While Sargonic Akka- millennium, i.e., Old Babylonian and Old Assyrian,
dian does share individual distinctive features with Old the linguistic and historical classifi cation of Ur III Ak-
Babylonian and Old Assyrian, it also possesses several kadian is of pivotal signifi cance. This is the case not
equally prominent characteristics that are not attested only because Ur III Akkadian represents a practical
in either dialect. Correspondingly, some features typical chronological link between Sargonic Akkadian on the
of the Assyrian dialect are not, or only exceptionally, one hand and Old Babylonian and Old Assyrian on the
found in Sargonic Akkadian, e.g., the so-called Assyrian other, but also because until very recently it was a mat-
vowel harmony, the paradigms PaRRuS and ÒaPRuS of ter of pure speculation what linguistic properties Ur III
the D and ∑ Stem forms without conjugation prefi xes, Akkadian did indeed possess. Was it an archaic form
and the so-called “strong” infl ection of the D Stem of of Babylonian, a direct precursor of Old Assyrian, or
II-“weak” verbs. neither? Does the pertinent linguistic evidence found in
Ur III cuneiform texts render a distinct, largely homog-
§3.16 In his article entitled “Bemerkungen zur Dialek- enous picture or rather an inconsistent one?
tgliederung Altakkadisch, Assyrisch und Babylonisch,”
W. Sommerfeld therefore draws the following remark- §4.2 In a study entitled Akkadisch in der Ur III Zeit,24
able conclusion (translation by the author): I addressed these complex questions and attempted to
defi ne the relative position of Ur III Akkadian within
The [Akkadian] dialect predominantly document- the early history of the Akkadian language. The fea-
ed during the Sargonic period is presumably the sibility of such an investigation, well over forty years
native tongue of the Akkade rulers and their elites, after I. J. Gelb pronounced the available sources “not
which was consistently introduced as the offi cial adequate” for a linguistic analysis, primarily hinges on
language of administration. Originally the dialect two factors:
of a peripheral region, it was signifi cantly different
from other dialects simultaneously prevalent in the §4.2.1 Since the middle of the 20th century A.D.,
Akkadian language area. In all likelihood, these the number of published cuneiform sources from the
dialects were more widely used as colloquial lan- 3rd Dynasty of Ur has more than quadrupled to form
guages, but appear in the contemporary cuneiform an imposing corpus currently comprising more than
texts to a very limited extent only. With the col- 60,000 individual texts.25 In the context of an inquiry
lapse of the Sargonic empire, this offi cial standard into the grammatical features of the Akkadian linguistic
material surviving from this period, it is particularly
22 This aspect of the Sargonic orthographic system, with
examples of pertinent syllabogram pairs and triples, 23 AOAT 274, pp. 585-586.
is discussed by W. Sommerfeld in IMGULA 3/1, pp.
24 Published as IMGULA 5.
18-22, 26-28, and in “Bemerkungen zur Dialektgliede-
rung Altakkadisch, Assyrisch und Babylonisch,” AOAT 25 The central database of the CDLI currently numbers
274, pp. 572-576. For the widespread abandonment of over 57,500 published and unpublished Ur III texts,
these orthographic conventions in the Ur III period, see not including the ca. 1400 Ur III tablets from Garshana
IMGULA 5, pp. 120-133. to be published by D. I. Owen and R. Mayr. Owen
page 8 of 14 Cuneiform Digital Library Journal 2003:4
important to note that the present corpus includes a the corpus of contemporary texts written partially or
considerable number of previously unknown admin- entirely in syllabic Akkadian is extremely small. At pres-
istrative documents from sites in central and northern ent, this corpus is made up of slightly more than one
Babylonia, such as Tall as-Sulaima in the Diyala region, hundred individual cuneiform sources, including legal
Tall IÒan Mazyad, and Tall al-Wilaya. The clandestinely and administrative documents, letters, commemorative
excavated business records from the so-called archives and votive inscriptions, as well as a few incantations.28
of SI.A-a and Tºram-ilπ doubtlessly stem from the Given both the quantitative and the qualitative restric-
same geographical region.26 In general, this specifi c text tions this strictly circumscribed source material poses
group is characterized by a comparatively high ratio of for any reconstructive approach to early Akkadian, the
Akkadian proper names and loanwords. Moreover, one linguistic evidence provided by proper names, that is,
may encounter mostly concise Akkadian phrases inter- primarily personal, topographical, and divine names,
spersed in the Sumerian standard formulae of legal and assumes crucial signifi cance. Since a fairly large number
administrative documents. However, even more signifi - of these proper names possess a complex syntactical
cant is the circumstance that the considerable increase structure, they yield substantial lexical and grammatical
in the number of central and northern Babylonian information.29 Typologically similar evidence derives
sources has been associated with a quantitative surge from Akkadian loanwords in Sumerian context, such as
of Ur III cuneiform texts written entirely in syllabic terms for objects of day-to-day use, crafted goods, of-
Akkadian.27 Thus, contemporary research on Ur III fi cial functions, cultic celebrations, and administrative
Akkadian may be carried out on the basis of linguistic categories.30
evidence the quantity and quality of which have gained
tremendously since the seminal contributions made by §4.4 The topical focus of this paper precludes an
Ignace J. Gelb. This currently available evidence affords otherwise necessary discussion of the methodological
surprisingly promising perspectives for the gradual re- issues that invariably arise in the attempt to reconstruct
construction of the Akkadian lexicon and grammar in any language on the basis of evidence substantially
the Ur III period. onomastic by nature. However, in light of a potential
corrective represented by contextual language elements
§4.2.2 As described earlier, Assyriological studies pub- found in the contemporary Akkadian cuneiform texts
lished over the last two decades have effectively clarifi ed and with due awareness of a generally high adaptability
the linguistic characteristics and historical categoriza- of Akkadian proper nouns with regard to linguistic31
tion of the Akkadian language during the periods im- and socio-cultural32 changes, the methodological path
mediately preceding and following the Ur III period. In taken here has been chosen deliberately and appears to
view of these past scholarly achievements, attempting a be reasonably justifi ed.
relative positioning of Ur III Akkadian within the early
history of Akkadian is more realistic today than ever
before.
28 See IMGULA 5, pp. 20-49.
§4.3 It was mentioned above that, in principle, lin- 29 For a concise typology of Akkadian proper names in the
guistic evidence for an analysis of 3rd millennium Ur III period, see IMGULA 5, pp. 51-65.
Akkadian is not as readily accessible as the Akkadian 30 See the examples and discussion in IMGULA 5, pp. 80-
tradition of later periods. This limitation characterizes 85.
specifi cally the disparate Akkadian sources of the Ur 31 For the extent and signifi cance of innovative linguistic
III period. The vast majority of Ur III cuneiform texts features in Akkadian personal names from the 3rd,
are Sumerian legal and administrative documents, the 2nd, and 1st millennia, see M. P. Streck, “Sprachliche
Innovationen und Archaismen in den akkadischen Per-
compositional structure of which generally adheres to
sonennamen,” in M. P. Streck and S. Weninger, eds.,
rather rigid formulaic conventions. By comparison,
Altorientalische und semitische Onomastik (=AOAT 296;
Münster 2002) pp. 109-122.
informs me that these texts include many Akkadian 32 For evident refl ections of socio-cultural innovations
language elements. in the contemporary Akkadian onomasticon, see M.
Hilgert, “Herrscherideal und Namengebung: Zum ak-
26 See IMGULA 5, p. 18.
kadischen Wortschatz kyriophorer Eigennamen in der
27 See the pertinent entries in the catalog of Akkadian Ur III-Zeit,” in N. Nebes, ed., Neue Beiträge zur Semiti-
cuneiform texts from the Ur III period provided in stik (=Jenaer Beiträge zum Vorderen Orient 5; Wiesbaden
IMGULA 5, pp. 20-49. 2002) pp. 39-76.
Cuneiform Digital Library Journal 2003:4 page 9 of 14
§4.5 A detailed lexical and grammatical analysis of all use during the Ur III period. Even syllabograms such as
of the sources currently available for a dialectal and his- DI,38 KA,39 and ∑E40 that may be considered standard
torical classifi cation of Ur III Akkadian reveals a system- constituents of the entire Old Babylonian syllabary oc-
atic pattern of orthographic and linguistic features that casionally occur in the graphic representation of Ur III
is both distinct and consistent. Given the extraordinary Akkadian language elements. At the same time, the Ur
multitude, the degree of diffi culty, and the disparity of III syllabary comprises a large number of CV, VC, and
the pertinent evidence, this result is rather surprising. CVC syllabograms that are not attested in the Akkadian
When compared to those varieties of Akkadian that are cuneiform texts from the preceding Sargonic period,
suffi ciently researched, equally distinct in their linguis- e.g., the signs TUR,41 ∑ID with the readings lak and
tic characteristics, and chronologically positioned im- qir ,42 as well as the signs KAL,43 TA,44 and UR 45 with
9 2
mediately before and after the Ur III period–namely, their respective values kal, ta and ur .46
2
Sargonic Akkadian and “archaic Old Babylonian” as
attested in the letters from Tall Asmar–Ur III Akkadian §4.6.3 A signifi cant portion of the distinct ortho-
may be assigned a specifi c, fi xed place within the early graphic conventions characterizing the better part of
history of Akkadian.33 Accordingly, traditional theories the Sargonic Akkadian textual tradition is abandoned
about the linguistic properties and evolution of 3rd mil- completely in the Ur III period. This observation ap-
lennium Akkadian as a whole, and its relationship to the plies in particular to the graphic representation of the
early 2nd millennium dialect varieties Old Babylonian Akkadian sibilants. Regarding the orthography of Ur
and Old Assyrian have to be modifi ed considerably.34 III Akkadian, universal and rigidly followed writing
conventions cannot be detected. In fact, the seemingly
§4.6 The historical position of Ur III Akkadian is arbitrary interchangeability of presumably homopho-
conveniently defi ned through the following important nic syllabograms and syllabogram sequences may be
characteristics: addressed as the one overriding characteristic of the
Akkadian orthography in the Ur III period.47 However,
§4.6.1 The Akkadian syllabary of the Ur III period strongly varying frequencies of individual, interchange-
differs substantially from that of the preceding Sargonic able spellings prompt the assumption of preferred or
period as well as from the syllabogram inventory of the quasi “regular” graphic representations of Ur III Ak-
early Old Babylonian letters from Tall Asmar.35 This kadian.48
difference is noticeable specifi cally in the proportion-
ally frequent occurrence of CVC syllabograms em- §4.6.4 The mimation of nouns occurs consistently
ployed to express Akkadian language elements in the throughout all Ur III cuneiform texts written partially
Ur III period. Moreover, the Ur III Akkadian syllabary or entirely in syllabic Akkadian. However, the graphic
includes a surprisingly high number of syllabograms representation of the mimation may be lacking with
and sound values hitherto exclusively known from Akkadian proper nouns–i.e., personal, divine, geo-
graphic representations of Sumerian forms, such as the graphical, and month names–, individual elements of
sign gab with its proposed new reading †u , the com-
5
pound GIR ×KAR with the values gir and qir , and
3 2 16 8
the sign GU expressing the syllable /qu/ (proposed new 38 See IMGULA 5, p. 118, no. 266.
4
reading: qu ).36
7 39 See IMGULA 5, p. 112, no. 015.
§4.6.2 With the exception of the signs IA and QA,37 40 See IMGULA 5, p. 671a, s.v. ∑E.
the Akkadian syllabary of the early Old Babylonian let- 41 See IMGULA 5, p. 104, no. 107.
ters from Tall Asmar is already, albeit not exclusively, in
42 See IMGULA 5, p. 106, no. 167.
43 See IMGULA 5, pp. 106-107, no. 173.
33 For the methodological justifi cation of this comparison, 44 See IMGULA 5, p. 114, no. 102.
see IMGULA 5, pp. 97-98.
45 See IMGULA 5, p. 115, no. 131.
34 See IMGULA 5, pp. 97-168.
46 For a comprehensive list of these syllabograms, see
35 See IMGULA 5, pp. 98-119. IMGULA 5, pp. 103-119.
36 See IMGULA 5, pp. 101-102. 47 See IMGULA 5, pp. 120-133.
37 Compare R. M. Whiting, AS 22, pp. 123-126, nos. 36 48 See, with examples, IMGULA 5, pp. 98-99, 330, n.
(QA) and 104 (IA). 56.
page 10 of 14 Cuneiform Digital Library Journal 2003:4