98
II. Inscribed seals from archaic Ur
(Paoletti 2012, 154). For NAGAR, see above, # 5 ad I 2. “Vegetation”? “Fertility”? “Carpenter”? NAGAR = ZATU No. 382 p. 251, other reading BULUG4 = MSVO 1 p. 127. In UET II : 408, Eric Burrows cites this seal and reads nagar. BALA is supposed to be “term of office” (Klein 1991, 125 fn. 10). An unpublished text from Jemdet Nasr has BALA.NAGAR in an account of unclear contents (MSVO 1 No. 234). In Instructions of Šuruppak bal, bala = “to turn around”, “to change”, the motion of a revolving spindle whorl (Alster 1974, 89–90). In Fara-age texts, bala+personal name = “term of office of PN” (Steinkeller 1989, 111, § 2.17.2). In ED Lagaš, BALA = “Pfründe, Pacht”, literally “Übertragenes” (Selz 1995, 226 fn. 1091). NUN (= AGARGARA, ERIDU) = see above, # 1. “Noble”, “Noble (= Enki)”? = “The city of Eridu”? KID = see above, # 61.”Matting”? May GA2 × AN be interpreted as ESIR2 or as defective writing for I7? In such a case ESIR2 = “bitumen”(?) (Alberti-Pomponio 1986, 57). Esir2 (= LAK 173) is also interpreted as “sandals” (Gelb-Steinkeller-Whiting 1991, 296). GA2 = “un type d’enclos”, “… où se tiennent souvent des bovins et des ovins” (= “Stall, Gehege” = Attinger-Krebernik 2005, 73 sub # 254’). GA2 = “outbuilding, shed, barn” (Andersson 2012, 136 fn. 763). TAK4: = ZATU No. 548 p. 293, MSVO 1 p. 151. Steinkeller 1995, 709 sub No. 548: save for vertical orientation, the sign is identical with ZATU 532 = ŠU. Ibid. sub No. 532: the occurrences of ZATU 532 and ZATU 548 in Metal 24–25 and 42–43 (ATU 3 pp. 136–137) are consistently interpreted as ŠU in the corresponding ED mss. (MEE 3 pp.79-80 lines 24–25 and 42–43). In ED times the distinction between ŠU and TAK4 thus does not appear to have been meaningful any more. Yet, Niek Veldhuis (1995, 436) observes that these are two different signs, confused in lexical lists, in which rotation (TAK4 = ŠU rotated 90o) distinguishes different functions of the same sign. Civil 1990: “to send” = an errand boy? TAK4 = “zurückhalten” (Selz 1993, 220–221). In Instructions of Šuruppak, TAK4 (here TAG4) means something like “to touch” (Alster 1974, 44–45 ad line 203). The TAK4.ALAN ceremony (Charvát 1997, 29, 61–63, 65, 69, 90) is attested to in Šuruppak texts, in ED LU2, at Ebla (with a reading la-a-núm) and at Nippur. The Šuruppak texts mention a structure called é-TAK4.ALAN. It may refer to a statue in a votive inscription (ABW 2 p. 342) (Pomponio 1987, 474). TAK4. ALAN is likely to denote a statue and possibly also a sculptor (Gelb-Steinkeller-Whiting 1991, 69). In Abu Salabikh, TAK4.ALAN = lanx; UD-lanx could mean an-lanx = “scolpire il divino” = “to carve a deity” (Mander 1986, 52). In ED Lagaš, a number of statues and one stele received regular offerings on festive occasions in the É-šag4 shrine, of a square ground-plan with square side 3.715 metres long (Rosengarten 1960, 162). The ceremony may be depicted on a cylinder seal found in the Jemdet-Nasr level at Ur (Legrain 1951, 11, No. 30 on Pl. 2 and possibly also on the seal UE III: 385).
Ukázka elektronické knihy, UID: KOS232094
II. Inscribed seals from archaic Ur
99
In ED-IIIb inscriptions, SAHAR.DU6.TAG4 may mean “burial tell”, with translation of TAG4 as “leave behind” (Richardson 2007, 193–194; Suriano 2012, 218 fn. 36, in general 218–219). Is there any connection with burial ceremonies? ŠA3 = see above, # 4. “A field category”? IŠ = KUŠ7 = ŠUŠ3, = see above, # 14. “Equerry”? “Herdsman”? “The city of Susa”? “City League”, delivery of products for a ceremony? ***
93. UE III : 431
U 14 896 A
UM 31-16-604
SIS 4
See Matthews 1993, 114 = Scott 2005, 62, and http://www.cdli.ucla.edu /search/search_results.php?order=ObjectType&SealID=S006300 [accessed March 5, 2014]. Another example of the same seal: U 18 398, Pit W, SIS 4-5. Catalogue: “SIS 4”. Obverse: a cuneiform inscription. The cylinder was rolled eight times, first directed into the cardinal points and then again but turned by 45o. In between the individual rollings the sealing was countermarked by a rosette seal. Three of its impressions display a diameter 22.15 mm. The length of the impression should thus amount to 69 mm; this could be done with the same seal butt (the rollings are incomplete). Reverse: a peg protrudes from an uneven surface. Only the diameter, 15.55 mm, can be measured. Very crude and blurred impressions of a cord, of which only the CT = 3.7 mm can be measured. The inscription occurs also on my ## 94, 95 and 96. Inscription: reading according to UE III : No. 431, starting in the upper left corner and ending in the lower right corner: Upper column: (1’) BAD3, = ZATU No. 44 p. 179. The sign inscribed in the middle seems to be AŠ, not AN. It may thus refer to a site named Durum, as the AŠ = RUM phonetic complement might indicate (Steinkeller 1995, 698 s. No. 44). The sign
Ukázka elektronické knihy, UID: KOS232094
100
II. Inscribed seals from archaic Ur
is probably identical with UET II : 301 and 302, and with LAK Nos. 618 and 619. In ED Lagaš, BAD3+divine name means “god XY is my protection” (“meine Mauer”, Selz 1995, 23 fn. 41). According to Carroué 1981, BAD3+AN may have been read UB in Pre-Sargonic Lagaš. The goddess Geštinanna was venerated at a site called sag-ub. In addition to that, BAD3+ AN + KI may be Dēr, but essentially any fortified city (Westenholz 1997, 42–43 fn. 20). David Owen (1995) argues that BAD3 is in Syria. Michalowski 1993, 124, Mander 1980, 189 (UB, UBki), and De Graef 2007, 85, all consider this toponym unclear. On the six Mesopotamian BAD3 see now Frayne 2008a. BAD3 as two sites named Der, a lowlandand one a highland one: Michalowski 2013, 303. BAD3 in connection with the Muriq-Tidnim defence line Lafont 2010, 77–81. See above, # 22. (2’) BALA.NAGAR: BALA = ZATU No. 46 p. 179 = LAK 19 and 20. The formula nu-bala-bala = nakārum = “to change”, “to violate”, comes up as early as the Fara-age texts (Gelb-Steinkeller-Whiting 1991, 246). For NAGAR see above, # 5 and # 92. “Vegetation”? “Fertility”? “Carpenter”? An alternative explanation wil involve the reading bala-bulug4, “contribution of the border regions”? (3’) UŠUMGAL = ZATU No. 607 p. 308, perhaps with components GAL + GAL + BUR2 instead of the usual GAL + BUR2. Attested to only in the Uruk III period. The ušumgal, of both male and female sex, assumed the form of a lion with back paws of an eagle and with wings, though they did not fly. These poison-spitting creatures, also connected to Nannar, were extirpators of evil and exuded fertility (Westenholz 1987, 42); Sumerian imagination portrayed them as strong, roaring (grondant) killers, with jaws wide open (gueule béante), but without independent authority (Attinger 2012, 370 # L.23). Is this a personal name? (4’) ŠE + NAM2 = ZATU No. 513 p. 283, name of a dignitary and a toponym (see Green 1980, 8–10). Present in the Archaic LU2 A Profession List (Monaco 2007, 8 fn. 49). At Ebla, this was read “su-šum”. The last hitherto documented instances have turned up in Jemdet Nasr-period texts (MSVO 1 p. 145). Was this a “feeder” (Englund 1995b, 29 fn. 26)? (5’) ŠE3 + SUHUR + KI = an exceedingly difficult sign group. ŠE3, EŠ2, GI7 = ZATU No. 516 p. 284 (also “Seil”, Meyer-Laurin 2011, 47). The SUHUR sign (= ZATU No. 491 p. 278) is implied by the ED tribute form suhur-še3. The GAL SUHUR functionary forms part of Archaic LU2 A Profession List (Monaco 2007, 8 fn. 49). Sign ZATU No. 298 p. 232, KIŠIK, is hardly likely, as the tree name giš u2 eš3-kišik shows. Neither is sign IDIGNA = ZATU No. 261 p. 223 probable. Other two possibilities extremely difficult to assess are ZATU No. 633 p. 313 (in tree names) and ZATU No. 667 p. 319 (U4 + HI?), of which the readings are unknown. I believe that the most probable reading is that indicated above (a tribute in fish?). The A SUHUR channel of Lagaš was dug by Urnanše: André-Salvini 2012.
Ukázka elektronické knihy, UID: KOS232094