Considerations on the Proto-Euphratic Language (PE). Erlend Gehlken

excavations; presumably documents from Uruk and Jemdet Nasr, possibly from Umma and other places], CUSAS 21 [origin of the texts uncertain; no. 129: Zabalam?] and CUSAS 31 [texts from Umma (?) and further texts of uncertain origin] as well as in MSVO 1 [Jemdet Nasr], 3 [probably all texts originate from Uruk] and 4 [texts mainly from Urum, Larsa, Uruk]. All texts (published and unpublished, including the volume MSVO 3) are accessible online via the CDLI. As already mentioned in the preface, there is disagreement as to the language in which the texts mentioned are written. The tablets of the chronologically subsequent text corpus, the archaic texts from Ur (ED I–II), are definitely written in Sumerian. There is a gap of about 100–200 years between the Uruk texts and the Ur texts, depending on the source used. The Ur texts were published by Burrows in UET 2 (Burrows 1935). Occasional text finds from other cities, including Uruk, also date from this era (see Englund 1998, note 123).

      4. PE in (mainly) older publications

      The “fight for the recognition of the PE” was preceded by a comparable fight for the recognition of Sumerian (in this case successful). A further three quarters of a century after deciphering the cuneiform script, the Orientalist Joseph Halévy declared that Sumerian was not a natural language, but a kind of cryptograph for rendering Akkadian¹³. Even the well-known Orientalist Friedrich Delitzsch, who was after all then to publish a “Sumerian Glossary” and a Sumerian grammar in 1914, initially adopted this view.

      When Sumerian was “established” as a language, texts that were clearly older than the known Sumerian texts were first discovered in Susa (Iran): These Proto-Elamite tablets are written in a script of their own, which is (at least in appearance) remotely related to cuneiform script. In terms of time, they belong to the Uruk III writing phase. Proto-Elamite has not yet been completely deciphered. Currently, J. Dahl at Oxford University is devoting considerable effort to understanding these documents. The first tablets were published by Jean-Vincent Scheil in 1900¹⁴. In Mesopotamia, Uruk III texts were first brought to light in Jemdet Nasr in 1925¹⁵. The signs are partly reminiscent of hieroglyphics, but are the direct predecessors of the later cuneiform script. Englund refers to them as ‘proto-cuneiform (script)’ (ATU 5, note 4)¹⁶. The first publication was by Langdon (~ 1928). In Uruk, a larger lot of archaic clay tablets was first salvaged in the 1929/30 campaign¹⁷. The publication was not long in coming (Falkenstein 1936). That publication is considered a masterpiece, even though some of the views expressed there now have to be put into perspective as a result of newly gained knowledge. Falkenstein took the view that the texts were written in Sumerian. His main argument was that the supposed name Enlil-ti (“[the god] Enlil keep [her, him] alive”), written EN-É-TI, established Sumerian as language, since only in the Sumerian language are the words for “arrow” (the sign TI is the representation of a bow and arrow) and “to live” homonymous (a1/p37f.)¹⁸. The texts quoted by Falkenstein belong to the writing phase Uruk III; they are from Jemdet Nasr and Urum. Meanwhile a text from Uruk is also known (W 17729,ee). Falkenstein thinks it is therefore reasonable to consider the few older texts of the writing phase Uruk IV as Sumerian texts as well, but he does not categorically rule out another language (a1/p40f.). Krebernik wants the name EN-É-TI to be understood as “Der En (Priesterfürst) ist einer, der das ,Haus‘ (É, gemeint ist wohl eine zentrale Institution, etwa der Tempelhaushalt) am Leben erhält (TÌL)” – “The En (priestly lord) is one who keeps the ‘house’ (É, meaning probably a central institution, such as the temple household) alive (TÌL)”¹⁹. Englund takes the view that EN-É-TI is not a personal name (Englund 1998, 74–76). A text like MS 2500 might speak against this view; in that list sheep and goats are assigned to persons, including EN-É-TI. The reading of the name remains unknown. In theory it could be a Sumerian name that appears in a PE list. Since the texts of the Uruk period are incomprehensible (i.e. cannot be read in Sumerian) unless they are simple lists of animals or objects, a single expression (“Enlil-ti”; Falkenstein’s main argument) is not sufficient to identify a language (in English, the three “signs” B–A–D mean “bad, evil”, in German “bath and bathroom”; for the three signs EN–UNUG–ḪI → V–1, note 4). It should be emphasised in advance that the Sumerian pantheon does not yet exist in the Uruk period texts (as far as concretely demonstrable, sacrifices are made only for the later Sumerian goddess Inanna, who is equated with Venus: there are feasts for Venus as morning and evening star [text a7/21671; → V–1–a and ~e]). The cuneiform sign for Inanna is a drawing of the so-called ring-post (Schilfringbündel; a5/p57: ‘reed bundle’), which is reminiscent of the reed doorposts of the reed houses known from many illustrations²⁰; possibly Inanna was worshipped in a similar way to Hestia/Vesta. The sign EN is discussed in detail in → V–1. It does not mean “city ruler” in the texts of the Uruk period.

      Landsberger pointed out that mainly many place names and occupational names made a ‘non-Sumerian’ impression (Landsberger 1944). He coined the name ‘Proto-Euphratic’ (PE) for this language, but assumed that it was never written (in other words: according to Landsberger, writing was probably created [“invented”] by the Sumerians). The ‘Proto-Tigridians’, who were different from the Proto-Euphratians, were (according to Landsberger) resident in northern Babylonia. The situation in Greece is comparable: many toponyms are of non-Greek origin (Wendt 1961, 134). Rubio then drew a symbolic final stroke to the discussion (Rubio 1999). He concludes “Thus, there is no monolithic substratum that would have left, in a sort of primeval age, its vestiges in the Sumerian lexicon. All one can detect is a complex and fuzzy web of borrowings ...” (~, p. 11). He concedes that the toponyms are non-Sumerian (~, p. 6). When examining the names of professions, in some cases no interpretation is given²¹, reference is made to other authors (passim) or it is stated that the word could well be Sumerian: “simug (DÉ) ‘smith.’ The structure of this word (CiCuC) is not unknown in Sumerian (for instance, lirum, zikum)” (~, p. 4). The latter criterion could just as well be used to prove that most names of professions are PE. Later, cautious resistance arose again against Rubio’s view (cf. the foreword [Englund]; see also Lecompte 2013, 14f.: “The divergence between Uruk and Ur cultures (and probably languages) is made evident by many examples: ...”).

      Languages can disappear without a trace, think of (meanwhile “revived”) Cornish (1777). The Kassites had long provided the kings in Babylonia, but they adapted to Babylonian culture. Apart from the royal names and a few words, nothing is known of their language. Often it takes a lot of luck to find out that a language was actually written. In the Sumerian texts of the Fara period (around 2600 BC) there are some Semitic names, but texts written in Semitic (i.e. Babylonian) are difficult to prove (according to the CDLI only 14 tablets). The situation is different with PE. It is easier to dismiss the texts as still incomprehensible “archaic” Sumerian texts than to prove that some passages or expressions cannot be Sumerian at all and therefore have to be PE. PE might have died out after the Uruk III period – Englund also believes this to be possible (Englund 1998, 65) – but we still have written evidence of that language (in the opinion of the author of this book) in the form of the archaic cuneiform texts of that period.

‘Technical’ Remarks

      1. Dating

      Dates according to Brinkman 1964 for historical time, according to the entries in the CDLI for the periods of the earliest written documents.

      It should be noted that in works dealing with the early periods of Mesopotamia, dates do not necessarily coincide (one often finds variation ranges of ± 100 years, in extreme cases even greater ones).

      Rough dating of the writing phases (all dates BC)²²:

(Uruk V	3500–3350)
Uruk IV	3350–3200
Uruk III/Jemdet Nasr	3200–3000
ED I–II	2900–2700	(Early Dynastic I–II, archaic Ur)
ED IIIa	2600–2500	(Fara)
ED IIIb (OS)	2500–2340	(period before the first Akkadian Empire of Sargon of Akkad)
OAkk.	2340–2140	(Old Akkadian)
NS	2140–2020	(Neo-Sumerian; Third Dynasty of Ur, Ur III period)
OB	1950–1530	(Old Babylonian)
MB	1530–1000	(Middle Скачать книгу В начало < 1 2 3 4 5 > В конец