Sumerian Literature Research Articles

On the Earliest Sumerian Literary Tradition

The unexpected discovery in 1963 and 1965 at Tell Abu $alaVlkh of a large number of archaic Sumerian literary tablets was announced by R. D. Biggs approximately 10 years ago.l These findings came as a great surprise to all experts on Sumerian literature, since the prevailing opinion had been that only exceptionally had literary compositions been recorded in the Early Dynastic period. Although the majority of the Sumerian literary corpus has been handed down in copies from the early Old Babylonian period, it has generally been recognized that at least some of the known compositions go back in time at least to the Ur III period, which has been thought to be the most creative period in Sumerian literature. In 1951, A. Falkenstein came to the conclusion that the majority of the known literary compositions could not have assumed their final shape before the Neo-Sumerian period, i.e., around 2100 B.C.2 Yet he was fully aware that the longest and most important existing creations of the period, the cylinder inscriptions of Gudea, cannot be regarded as the beginning of a literary tradition, but (lo in fact presuppose a long literary activity, which, however, must have been a non-written one.3 He also noted that one of the few pre-Ur ]:II literary compositions known at that time, the so-called Barton Cylinder (Barton MBI 1), which he dated to the Akkad dynasty, showed a number of characteristics that recur in all later compositions, such as the grouping in parallel lines and repetitions of entire sections.4 While this in itself is

Paradoxical Proverbs and Satire in Sumerian Literature

Previous articleNext article No AccessParadoxical Proverbs and Satire in Sumerian LiteratureBendt AlsterBendt Alster Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Journal of Cuneiform Studies Volume 27, Number 4October 1975 A journal of ASOR Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.2307/1359323 Views: 12Total views on this site Citations: 1Citations are reported from Crossref Copyright 1975 American Schools of Oriental ResearchPDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article: Gary Beckman Proverbs and Proverbial Allusions in Hittite, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 45, no.11 (Oct 2015): 19–30.https://doi.org/10.1086/373154

Observations on Grammatical Variation in Sumerian Literary Texts

Standing in the way of a grammatical investigation of Sumerian based on the literary texts from the OB period is the problem of the myriads of variants involving grammatical elements, particularly -nand -b-, in pre-verb-stem position. This article attempts to determine whether there are any patterns or regularities involved in these variants, and whether criteria can be evolved for evaluating attested variants. To this end a measure of the relative stability of grammatical elements in the OB Sumerian texts is developed (I), a general picture is given of variation in the sample corpus (II), and a number of factors possibly influencing variation are discussed (III). The existence of a relatively stable, grammatically informed tradition is concluded.

Collations to CT XLII

In 1968, I spent the months of May and June collating CT XLII, a volume consisting almost entirely of Sumerian literary tablets copied by H. H. Figulla.l On the whole, I found the copies outstanding for accuracy and trustworthiness, and that, in spite of the fact that the copyist is not a specialist in the field of Sumerian literature. There are, to be sure, as the following collations indicate, a considerable number of miscopies; but these are nearly always in the case of tablets where the writing is poorly preserved, or where the signs are so compactly written, that they are extremely difficult to read in many instances it would have been impossible for me to make the corrections, had I not had the benefit of duplicating material unavailable to the copyist. It is not out of place to repeat here a statement in my review of the volume in JCS XVIII: 35, that Figulla has made available to the scholarly world a highly significant group of Sumerian tablets which have been lving in the cupboards of the museum, unknown, unidentified, and unutilized, a feat which will earn him the deep gratitude of cuneiformists everywhere. No. 1. There is no ruled line dividing the tablet into columns either on the obverse or the reverse, and there should not be any in the copy. In obv. 1, the sign following hW u -1 u h hw a z u is poorly preserved, but it is probably A not u.2 In obv. 8, the fourth sign from the end is L U L. In rev. 19, the sign following M E (about the middle of the line) is probably E N (not NU). In rev. 45, between N U and T I L is probably A L (not A S and R I). The line at the very bottom of plate 3 was accidentally omitted by the scribe who therefore drew a ruled

On the Antiquity of Sumerian Literature

IN SETTING UP a chronological scheme for Sumerian literature, Falkenstein 1 distinguished two major periods of creativity which we may describe as neo-Sumerian (ca. 2115-1815 B. C.) 2 and as late or post-Sumerian (ca. 1500-1100 B.C.) respectively. The assumed floruit of postSumerian creativity can be supported by a number of arguments. It was contemporary with a very flourishing period of Akkadian literary activity; it is attested by nearly contemporary copies as well as by later copies which continue almost to the beginning of the Christian Era; 4 it coincides with a posited revival of Sumerian learning after the sack of Babylon and the end of the Babylonian Dark Ages. 5 But the presumed date of neo-Sumerian creativity precedes both the assumed date of the first major period of Akkadian literary output and the attested date of nearly all copies of neo-Sumerian literature hitherto published,6 for both of these categories can be dated approximately to the period

Death and Nether World According to the Sumerian Literary Texts

From the point of view of Sumerian cultural behaviour, the royal tombs excavated at Ur with such care and skill by Sir Leonard Woolley, were of epoch-making significance; they indicate with reasonable certainty that customarily the early rulers of Sumer were accompanied to the grave not only by some of their most precious personal possessions, but by a considerable human retinue as well. Needless to say, immediately upon this rather startling discovery the cuneiformists, and particularly the Sumerologists, began searching the documents for inscriptional verification of one sort or another, but without success. Moreover, in the past two decades, quite a number of Sumerian myths, epic tales, hymns, lamentations, and “historiographic” documents have become available, and it seemed not unreasonable to hope that one or another of these might shed light on the Sumerian burial customs relating to the royal tombs. But this hope, too, failed to materialise to any significant extent, which is not too surprising in view of the fact that the royal tombs date from about 2500 B.C., while the majority of our available literary documents were probably first composed about 2000 B.C. However, a number of the Sumerian literary works are concerned in one way or another with death and the Nether World, and the invitation to participate in the Woolley Festschrift offered an opportune moment to sift, collect, analyse and present the Sumerian ideas about death and “immortality,” in honour of the archaeologist who has done so much to make the long dead Sumerians “immortal.”

SUMERIAN LITERARY TEXTS FROM NIPPUR IN THE MUSEUM OF THE ANCIENT ORIENT AT ISTANBUL. By S. N. Kramer Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research, Vol. XXIII (1943–4). New Haven, 1944.

SUMERIAN LITERARY TEXTS FROM NIPPUR IN THE MUSEUM OF THE ANCIENT ORIENT AT ISTANBUL. By S. N. Kramer Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research, Vol. XXIII (1943–4). New Haven, 1944. - Volume 19 Issue 75

Gilgames and Engidu, Mesopotamian Genii of Fecundity

Two OF THE MOST INTERESTING FIGURES in ancient mythology are the heroes of the Babylonian national epic, Gilgames and Engidu. In this paper they will be studied in as objective a way as possible, avoiding the knotty problems connected with the evolution of the epic. Even on the latter, however, some light may be thrown. A thousand and one tempting ideas come to mind, but our materials are still too scanty for the composition of a successful history of Mesopotamian literature and religion, as shown by the recent attempt of the brilliant philosopher of Leipzig, Hermann Schneider.' Thanks to the discovery of the temple library of Nippur, Sumerian literature is swelling so rapidly that few theories can be regarded as established beyond recall. On the other hand, our knowledge is now sufficiently definite to permit lucrative exploitation of comparative mythology and civilization; indeed, since many of these problems may be treated on the molecular, if not the atomic principle (cf. JBL 37. 112), their solution is an indispensable prerequisite to the future history of Babylonian thought. My general attitude towards the methods and theories of comparative mythology is succinctly given JBL 37. 111-113. The name Gilgames is usually written dGIg-GIN (TU)-MA, read Gi-il-ga-mes (s), the raxyapog of Aelian, De natura anim., 12, 21 (Pinches, Babylonian and Oriental Record, vol. 4, p. 264). CT2 12. 50. K 4359, obv. 17, offers the equation GI9-GIN-MAS-