[Mouth Washing Ritual Catalog of variants R. Hobson 2012] Orthographic Variants Phonetic compliments P1 A1 i 21 ŠID-nu-ma G i 7 ]-nu-ma H 3 ŠID-ma

Transcription

1 Orthographic Variants Phonetic compliments P1 A1 i 21 ŠID-nu-ma G i 7 ]-nu-ma H 3 ŠID-ma P2 I iii 15 ŠID-ma P 7 ŠID- ma Q 5 ŠID-n[u Syllabic or logographic spelling P3 D 8 a-n[a E 3 ana Different spelling of logograms or syllables P5 A1 i 27 túl-lal-šú G 13 túl-lal- šú I i 7 túl-lal-šu T 16 túl-lal-šú P6 A1 ii 17 MU-ar P4 A1 i 29 [ ] ak I i 9 GIN-ak T 19 tal-lak M 8 N 5 MU-ár MU-ár P7 A1 ii 27 BABBAR.MEŠ I ii 11 BABBAR.BABBAR Determinatives P8 A1 i 12 DUG.A.GÚB.BA F 10 A.GÚB.BA P9 A1 i 21 DUG.A.GÚB.BA H 3 A.GÚB.BA P10 A1 ii 18 UDU.SISKUR 2 M 8 UDU. SISKUR 2 N 6 UDU.NITA 2.S[ISKUR 2 ] O 4 UDU.SISKUR 2 Page 1

2 P8 The orthography of egubbû, holy water vessel, frequently varies. Manuscript A has the determinative DUG here, but the same noun is written without the determinative in column i, line 27. Orthographic (linguistic) Variants P11 B 6 su-u -u[r C 4 su-ur-ta S 10 su-u -ur-ta P12 A1 i 28 ki-a-am I i 8 ki-a-am T 18 ka-a-am P13 A1 i 29 u 4 -me I i 9 u 4 -mi T 19 [ ]-mi P14 I iii 14 an-ki-bi-da-ke 4 P 6 an-ki-bi-da-kám P15 A1 iii 20 na-an-gub-bé-en U 6 na-an-gub-bé Page 2

3 P11 The medial weak radical is represented in the orthography of manuscripts B and S by a glottal stop (!), while this phoneme is entirely lacking in the orthography of manuscript C. The convention of writing the glottal stop without specifically representing it in the orthography is also well known. 1 It remains, then, a distinct possibility that in reality no difference in pronunciation existed between the sources even though their respective orthographies are at variance. P12 - The adverb kīam, thus, commonly appears in various forms. See CAD K for examples. P13 See the note to G207. P14 - See the note to V32 for the variation between the signs KE 4 and KAM. The same grammatical observations apply here, even though the sign KÁM is involved rather than KAM. In fact there is very little graphical difference between the signs KAM and KÁM. P15 - The lack of terminating -n in the orthography of manuscript U may be read as a difference in the Sumerian subject post-position, where manuscript A has the 2ms subject na-an-gub-bé-en, by him you shall not tarry, against the 3mpl form in U na-an-gubbé, by him they shall not tarry. A more likely resolution is to read the shorter form in U as dropping /n/ for phonetic reasons.in any case, one cannot assume that Neo-Assyrian scribes were intimately familiar with classical Sumerian grammar, especially considering that the short form appears in a Late Babylonian school text. Stylistic Variants (Type 1) 1 J. Huehnergard, A Grammar of Akkadian (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2005), 210. Page 3

4 P16 B 6 GI.URI 3.ME S 9 GI.URI 3.GAL P17 A1 I 24 u H 5 u I i 4 omits P18 A2 i 5 MIN gal-a I i 13 [ z]u dè gal-a K 1 MIN gal- a P19 A1 ii 19 ŠUTUG.MEŠ I ii 2 ŠUTUG P20 A1 iii 25 šá U 9 omits Page 4

5 P16 The noun urigallu, reed bundle, is written with the plural marker ME in manuscript B. The composite logogram gi URI 3.GAL in S may be read as the plural urigallā. 2 P17 The omission is not noted by Walker and Dick, and the photograph doesn t allow a certain reading. 3 An inspection of the tablet reveals that manuscript I lists the names Ea and Asalluḫi without a separating conjunction. P18 Manuscript E seems to have contained the full incipit: è-a-zu-dè è-a-zu-dè gal-a, As you go out, as you go out, great..., abbreviated in the other sources with the use of Wiederholungszeichen: è-a-zu-dè MIN gal-a, As you go out, ditto, great... P19 The noun šutukku, reed hut, lacks the plural marker MEŠ in manuscript I, though this is very difficult to see from the photograph. An inspection of the tablet reveals the sign ŠUTUG is clearly preserved, followed by a break of two or three signs, then coming out of the break one sees the remains of the sign A. This would support the reading of Walker and Dickin which the plural marker is missing. 4 Indeed, there seems to be insufficient room to restore all of the text ŠUTUG.MEŠ ana d é-a as the parallel sources have it. Context would seem to demand that this form is read as a defective plural, seeing as the text continues to describe the erection of three thrones to the deities Ea, Šamaš and Asalluḫi, in the midst of the reed-huts. If the text of manuscript I did indicate a single reed-hut here, then the following instructions would make no obvious sense. P20 The line in manuscript A reads: [arkišu] ša [ilāni] rabûti tapaṭṭar, afterwards you dismantle the offering arrangements of the great gods. 5 The lack of the relative particle in manuscript U does not alter the meaning of the text. Stylistic Variants (Type 2) P21 B 1 KA DINGIR LUḪ-ú S 6 KA LUḪ-ú P22 C 10 i-ta -at DINGIR BI D 3 i -ta-at É DINGIR BI P23 P24 A1 i omits I i 8 omits T 17 [ ] ní-bi-ta è-a 3-šú ŠID-nu A1 iii 23 omits U 7 SAR 2 On the translation reed bundle see C. B. F. Walker and M. B. Dick, The Induction of the Cult Image in Mesopotamia: The Mesopotamian Mīs Pî Ritual: Transliteration, Translation, and Commentary (1; Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2001), 53 n See Walker and Dick, Transliteration, Translation, and Commentary, Walker and Dick, Transliteration, Translation, and Commentary, The translation is form Walker and Dick, Transliteration, Translation, and Commentary, 67. Page 5

6 P21 Manuscript B reads: enūma pī ili temessû, when you wash the mouth of a god. Manuscript S therefore has an abbreviated yet coherent text: enūma pī temessû, when you wash the mouth. P22 The phrase in manuscript C reads: itât bīt ili šuāti, beside the house (temple) of that god; against manuscript D: itât ili šuāti, beside that god. P23 The line in manuscript T reads: én an-na ní-bi-ta è-a šalāšīšu tamannu, The incantation In heaven by your own power you emerge you recite three times. 6 The incantation mentioned here does not appear on any of the other ritual tablets in the series. The manuscripts G and H, although seeming to lack this incantation incipit as well, are broken and must ultimately be ignored. The reference to this incantation in T, a Late Babylonian school text, is therefore somewhat enigmatic, and quite clearly we require further evidence before an explanation of this anomaly can be attempted. P24 Elsewhere the sign SAR has the meaning šabāṭu, to strike, to sweep (in a ritual context), and there is no reason to read the sign differently here. The line in manuscript U reads: EGIR-šú SAR šá DINGIR.MEŠ DUMU.MEŠ um-ma-ni DUḪ-ár, arkišu tašabbiṭ ša ilāni mārē ummâni tapaṭṭar, after it you sweep (or strike), you dismantle the gods of the craftsmen. This is reminiscent of STT 73 67, ÙR SAR A.MEŠ KÙ.MEŠ SUD, uri tašabbiṭ mê ellūti tasallaḫ, you sweep the roof, you sprinkle pure water. Although the syntax here is similar, the verb tašabbit in U still lacks a clear object, and so the phrasing remains awkward. Clearly, the phrase without the verb in manuscript A is preferred. As has been noted, manuscript U is a Late Babylonian school text and so may not be considered a very reliable representative of the ritual text. Huehnergard, J. A Grammar of Akkadian. 2nd ed. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, Walker, C. B. F. and M. B. Dick. The Induction of the Cult Image in Mesopotamia: The Mesopotamian Mīs Pî Ritual: Transliteration, Translation, and Commentary, SAALT 1. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, The translation follows Walker and Dick, Transliteration, Translation, and Commentary, 57. Page 6