42

Johannes Koch

von m = +0.85 bis m = 5.3523, die des Mondes bis m = -12.5 (Vollmondj>, die der Planeten von m = +2 (Mars in Erdferne) bis m = -4 (venusj->, Deshalb begegnen in den "Diaries" SAG GE6-Beobachtungen bald nach Sonnenuntergang, wie eben die von ADRTB I No. -284 Obv,' 11', und solche unmittelbar vor Beginn der wahren Nacht, z. B.

ADRTB I No. -291 A 'Obv.' 7' -8': (A 7') [ ... GE64] (A 8') [SAG GE6 s]in SIG xtn; IGI sa ALLA sa l!LU 1 Y2 KUS

(A 7') ,,[ ... Night of the 4th,] (A 8') [beginning of the night, the mo]on was 1 Yz cubits below OCancri".

OCancri gehort mit einer visuellen Helligkeit von m = +5.3526 zu den Stemen, die mit bloliem Auge gerade noch erkennbar sind-", die also, urn am Abendhimmel beobachtbar zu sein, den Ubergang der astronomischen Dammerung zur wahren Nacht voraussetzen.

Fazit: SAG GE6, "Beginn der Nacht", war Bezeichnung einer abendlichen Dammerungsphase, die in etwa dem entsprach, was heute als astronomische Dammerung bekannt ist. Und: SAG GE6 fiel in den ersten, in den "Diaries" USAN genannten Teil der von Sonnenunter- bis -aufgang dreigeteilten babylonischen Nacht. SAG GE6 war also Zeit" phase in USAN, nicht selbstandige Zeiteinheit vorher. SAG GE6 anderte somit an Lange und Dauer der Nachtwachen nichts. Dagegen hatten Sternbeobachtungen unter SAG GE6 und USAN nichts miteinander zu tun. SAG GE6"Notierungen waren immer Hinweis, daf die Beobachtung in der Dammerungsphase, USAN"Notierungen (gleiches gilt fur GE6-No" tierungen ohne Zeitangabe-"), daf die Beobachtung nach Beginn der wahren Nacht vorgenommen war.

23 Nach SAO = "Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory Star Catalog" (1966),jeweils

zu den von Hunger in ADRTB I 17-19 katalogisierten "Normalsternen". 24 ABC der Astronomie 224 b.

25 Ebd., jeweils zu den 5 klassischen Planeten. 26 SAO no. 97881.

27 ABC der Astronomie 121 b-122a.

28 So auch zu Mondbeobachtungen "in the first few days of the month", s. ADRTB I IS.

l I]\ __

The Last Wedge!

by M. J. Geller - London

The ability to read Sumerian and Akkadian - the latest and most widely used languages written in cuneiform script - was dependent upon t~e survival of scribal scho.ols within the temples. These scribal schools themselves survived as long as Babyloman temples remained in use in Babylonia, and as long as priests still learned the t~aditional scripts. The argument utilised is an extreme one, namely that as long as any priest co~ld read the ancient script, cuneiform was not yet technically a dead language. The question is when this was likely to have taken place. The Graeco-Babyloniaca tablets, re-edited here, as well as references to cuneiform in Classical sources are adduced to argue that cuneiform could have still been read in the third century AD.

The virtual effacement of Sumerian civilization is a surprising phenomenon in the light of the extensive literary and material legacy which archaeologists have recovered, and even Assyrians and Babylonians only left a superficial record behind in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Persian, or Arabic sources. It is reasonable to ask why such great com" plex societies did not survive. In fact, the inhabitants did survive, their cities and homes continued to be occupied, their history carried on in somewhat altered forms, and hence the boundary between one civilization and the next is often elusive, particularly when peoples continue to inhabit their traditional homeland.I

An absolute objective standard for distinguishing one epoch from another is apparent in the death of a script, and by extension, the

1 The title of this paper was the title of my inaugural lecture, given at University College, London on I December, 1994, in which the implications of the s~rvival of cuneiform script were first presented. The edition of the Graeco-Babyloniaca texts offered here grew out of a previous article on the Graeco-Babyloniaca tablet from the Harvard Semitic Museum, in ZA 73 (1983) 114-120.1 would like to thank Dr. I. Finkel who discovered all of the new pieces of Graeco-Babyloniaca in the Babylon Collection of the British Museum, which are published here with the permission of the Trustees of the British Museum. I would also like to thank Dr. W. Cockle and Prof. H. Maehler for their advice on Greek paleography, and Professors J. Oelsner and A. Westenholz for critical advice. Much of the work presented here was carried out at the Fondation Hardt (Geneva) and the Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study in the Humanities (Wassenaar).

2 See P. Brown, The World of Late Antiquity, from Marcus Aurelius to Muhammad (1978) 19 - 21, for a brief survey of the transitions from one epoch to the next.

Zeitschr. f. Assyriologie Bd. 87, S. 43-95 © Walter de Gruyter 1997

ISSN 0084-5299

44

M. J. Geller

extinction of a language. When a language becomes extinct, like an animal or plant species, it is irrecoverable in any living form. It can be deciphered, but without any living informants or continuous tradition as to its meaning. When the script of a language is no longer intelligible nor the language spoken, a remarkable event results - the death of a civilization, a clearly definable historical boundary which can almost not be determined by any other objective means.

There is an important distinction to be made, however, between a .dying but not yet dead language: the language may no longer be spoken, nor are new texts composed in it, but one can still read it. A moribund language may still be legible to some few scholars, students, or priests who can read the script, but only when the texts can no longer be read is the language really dead, a process which may take a long time. The function of scholarship has far-reaching implications in preventing the demise of a language and script.

The survival of cuneiform

Ancient cuneiform script is a suitable case study. It employed a working minimum of some 600 characters which developed considerably throughout its 3000 year history, an impressively long time for a script to be used. First attested in the middle of the second millennium BC at Ugarit, the alphabet took more than 1500 years to supplant cuneiform entirely.

One script can replace another when one language replaces another, as in the case of Arabic dominating Aramaic and Greek and other languages in the Near East (and Spain), in which lands Arabic script became used universally.' In an earlier epoch, the alphabet became widely used in Mesopotamia when Aramaic evolved as the vernacular and official language of the region; cuneiform gradually gave way to an alphabet, but not as an abstract choice of one script over another,"

Script and language can, however, operate independently, as exemplified by two unusual texts from Babylonia and Egypt in which Ara-

3 The opposite occurred in modern Turkish, in which Latin script was adopted for the contemporary language.

4 There are cases from Syria of Aramaic being written on clay tablets. consciously borrowing the writing medium of cuneiform, and even translating the legal terminology. Cf. J. Starcky, Une tablette arameene, Syria 37 (1960) 99-115. An unpublished Aramaic tablet from a private collection containing Neo-Assyrian legal formulae translated into Aramaic will be published by T. Kwasman. Further finds of archives of Aramaic tablets from the seventh cent. BC have been recently reported from Tell Ahmar in Northern Syria (Le Mende, 21-2-1996, p. 22).

T

I i

The Last Wedge

45

maic was being written in both cuneiform 5 and Demotic scripts.f It is worth noting that no cases have appeared of Akkadian or Sumerian being written in Aramaic characters, particularly in the light of the so-called Graeco-Babyloniaca texts which faithfully transliterate both Akkadian and Sumerian into Greek letters." On the other hand, one can only speculate as to why Akkadian or Sumerian should have been rendered into Greek script during a period when Akkadian still flourished, even though the scribe may have spoken Aramaic to his children or Greek to his tax official.

No one has as yet satisfactorily identified the process by which cuneiform finally ceded to the alphabet, when cuneiform tablets could no longer be read. Such a study should ideally incorporate a paleographic analysis of the existing corpus to determine when the latest tablets were likely to have been copied. Many of the Spartoli tablets in the Babylon Collection of the British Museum, for example, date from the Seleucid and Arsacid periods, judging by astronomical tablets which can be securely dated.f The scribe who actually wrote the latest known datable cuneiform tablet was actually composing the text of an astronomical almanac in Akkadian in 75 AD. The Berlin Museum, moreover, has a large collection of bilingual Emesal hymns reflecting nearly contemporary temple liturgy, in which the language is extremely conservative and archaic, but according to the colophons these texts were still being copied in the first century BC.9 The collection is extensive, and points to a great flourishing of scribal and literary activity in this late period, when

5 The so-called Uruk incantation, TCL 6,58, edited by C. H. Gordon, AfO 12 (1938) 105-117, and Or. 9 (1940) 29-38; B. Landsberger, AfO 12,247-257; A. DupontSommer, RA 39 (1942/44) 36-62.

6 Cf. the recent article of R. Steiner, Papyrus Amherst 63: a New Source for the Language, Literature, Religion, and History of the Arameans, in: (ed. M. J. Geller et al.) Studia Aramaica (1995; = JSS Supplement 4) 199-207.

7 The Graeco-Babyloniaca texts have been (re-jedited below.

8 J. Oelsner, Materialien zur babylonischen Gesellschaft und Kultur in hellenistischer Zeit (1986) 192. No specific paleographic studies of the cuneiform script oflate texts have been attempted. J. Black will soon be publishing a copy and text edition of an unusual tablet found in a Hellenistic context in Tell Fisna, the only late cuneiform tablet to be discovered in Northern Mesopotamia, although in unreadable cuneiform script, perhaps indicating an extremely late form of the script; the text will appear in Fs. H. Fujii, AI-Rafidan 17, forthcoming (courtesy J. A. Black).

9 Cf. Hunger, BAK no. 141 (163 BC), 144 (91 BC), 149 (154 BC), 174 (155 BC); for the dates, cf. Oelsner, Materialien (as fn. 8) 269ff. Although the texts themselves may have been copied, there is no doubt that the colophons were being composed by contemporary scribes, who could still master cuneiform script in the traditional manner.

46

M. J. Geller

one might least expect it, 10 and the same is true for contracts, astronomical diaries, chronicles, and incantations, which were still being composed and copied in the Seleucid and Arsacid periods. II Against a background of the use of Aramaic in Babylonia at the time, as well as a certain amount of Hellenization of the country under the Seleucids, the texts nevertheless show the tenacity of ancient Babylonian culture, as expressed in the continual use of cuneiform, especially in the temples.

It is therefore possible that Mesopotamian culture survived far longer than anyone has previously realised. Much depends, of course,

'in how one defines 'survival'. Our definition is: as long as one single priest in one temple in one city in Mesopotamia could still read cuneiform script, the language was still alive. This is an extreme position, of course, since one priest cannot preserve an entire civilization, but we are attempting to define here the absolute limits of 'survival'. E. Sollberger was not alone in assuming that the language had more-orless died out by the second or first century BC.12 The existence of a single dated astronomical almanac from 75 AD 13 is usually considered to be anomalous, rather than being a serious reflection on the survival of cuneiform. The matter of the dating of the Graeco-Babyloniaca corpus was raised again with the publication of the Harvard Semitic Museum Graeco-Babyloniaca tablet, since the Greek script was suggested to date not earlier than the first cent. AD, and likely to be later. 14 This raises the question as to whether cuneiform script was still legible in the second or even third century AD.

10 Oelsner (as fn. 8) 162-191, provides an extensive survey of Hellenistic literary texts, although without isolating the latest dated texts (according to their colophons) in this group.

11 1. L. Finkel recently studied a group of incantation tablets from the British Museum Babylon Collection of Utukku, Di'u, and related compositions, as well as Marduk's Address to the Demons, all reasonably well-copied tablets from the scribe, one Tanirtu-Bel, and all dating from Alexander the fourth. Cf. Finkel, Fs. M. Civil: AuiOr. 9 (1991) 91-104.

12 E. Sollberger, Iraq 24 (1962) 63, and Oelsner (as fn. 8) 240, and now E. E. Knudsen, On Akkadian Texts in Greek Orthography, in: Fs. F. Lekkegaard (1990) ISO, who dates the Graeco-Babyloniaca texts between the second cent. Be and first cent. AD, although without basing his conclusions on new paleographic studies. Knudsen showed Pinches' copies, published by Sollberger in Iraq 24, 64, to papyrologist L. Amundsen, who concluded that the Graeco-Babyloniaca texts dated to the "Roman Empire and preferably from its early period", demonstrating "no resemblance to Ptolemaic writing" (ibid., 149). These conclusions will be re-examined below.

IJ See A. Sachs, The latest datable cuneiform tablets, Fs. S. N. Kramer (= AOAT 25, 1976) 379-398.

14 ZA 73 (1983) 114, the dating of the Greek script was suggested by Papyrologists H.

Maehler and W. Cockle.

The Last Wedge

47

The dating of the Graeco-Babyloniaca tablets requires some assumptions. The first is that cuneiform script in late periods was used primarily by priests serving as scribes, usually operating out of temples. Second, the Mesopotamian temple liturgy would have been preserved in cuneiform script as it had been for millennia. Finally, as long as Babylonian (i. e. pagan) temples survived in Mesopotamia, then it is also likely that cuneiform script survived as well. 15

Graeco-Babyloniaca

All of the examples of the small group of 'Graeco-Babyloniaca' tablets (edited below) are unique because they were originally written in cuneiform on the obverse and Greek on the reverse.w The same text is repeated, written once in Sumerian or Akkadian, and on the reverse a transliteration is written in Greek letters. The Greek transliteration was intended to show how the cuneiform is to be read, probably read aloud. These Greek texts prove beyond any doubt that someone in Babylon in a very late period could still read Sumerian and Akkadian, although even Akkadian had been replaced by Aramaic as the spoken language of Mesopotamia.

Moreover, an interesting feature of the Graeco-Babyloniaca tablets is the system of transcribing cuneiform into Greek: the transcriptions betray a familiarity with precise pronunciation of Akkadian and Sumerian, according to the phonological rules which operated from the NB period. 17 It is also worth noting that a similar system of transliteration was used by Origen (185-254 AD) to transliterate Hebrew into Greek. Origen's Hexapla was a monumental six column work, incorporating a transliteration of the Hebrew Bible into Greek along with several competing translations. IS Comparisons between the Graeco-

15 As P. Brown, referring to the second cent. AD notes, "educated pagans still felt at home in their universe" (as fn. 2, 50), until the crises of the mid-third cent. AD, when "the lavish inscriptions in honour of the traditional gods come to a halt" (ibid., 67).

16 The tablets usually tum side-to-side (like a book) rather than end-over-end, as is usual with a cuneiform tablet, since the Greek is not a continuation of the cuneiform text but represents a repetition of the same text. Only one text edited below (BM 48863, text no. 6) is an exception to this rule. The usual format of cuneiform on one side and Greek on the other side is not true for the Ashmolean tablet, which was published by J. Black and S. Sherwin-White, and a decipherment offered by St. Maul (ZA 81 [1991] 87 -107; see text no. 17 below).

17 Cf., for example, the loss of case endings in Akkadian, which is reflected in the Graeco-Babyloniaca texts, as noted by Knudsen (as fn. 12) 161.

18 The parallels with Origen's Hexapla were pointed out by me in ZA 73 (1983) 117, and followed by Knudsen (as fn. 12) 151.

48

M. J. Geller

Babyloniaca tablets and Origen's system of transliteration are discussed below, indicating that the system used in Babylonia was closer to Origen's transliterations of Hebrew of the third cent. AD than that used in the Septuagint in the third cent. Be. These comparisons between Graeco-Babyloniaca and transliterations of Hebrew are even more intriguing if the possibility can be entertained that cuneiform may still have been readable in the third century, and hence adhering to similar conventions of transliteration used by Origen in Caesarea.l?

Who wrote these tablets, and why? either a Greek speaker learning cuneiform.s? or a Babylonian speaker learning Greek?21

It is clear that the Graeco-Babyloniaca tablets represent the usual samples of school curriculum texts copied by Babylonian schoolboys, such as a hymn to Samas, or incantations, or Sumerian-Akkadian glossaries. In this case, a Babylonian student experimenting with Greek script only writes a transliteration, but no translation, in contrast to the usual Mesopotamia school practice of translating from Sumerian into Akkadian, or writing Sumerian out phonetically as part of the process of learning Sumerian as a classical language.

In a private communication, Joachim Oelsner has suggested that the Graeco-Babyloniaca tablets represent a practice introduced into the scribal curriculum of transliterating into Greek letters, specifically because the practice of writing on leather was becoming increasingly common. Since alphabetic scripts were associated with writing on leather, Greek was the most suitable medium for transliteration, since it preserved both vowel and consonant sounds fairly satisfactorily, in contrast to Aramaic which lacked most vowels in its orthography. Oelsner's solution is supported by the following evidence. First, one colophon of Summa Izbu refers to being a copy from a parchment roll (magallatu) from Borsippa, although the tablet itself is not dated.P Second, by the second half of the second century BC the astronomical diaries consistently refer to letters and messages written on leather (kUSsepirtu) which

19 E. A. Speiser, JQR 33 (1926) 233-265. Speiser's examples are instructive, taken from Origen's Hexapla: t and t are carefully distinguished in such words as a~~ctl811 n':Ji1 (30.1) and a~~(!l<1"] /I nt:l1;Ji1 (32.10); 0" = S, s, and s: O"(o>XXu /I i1X) (31.21); ~aO"rop /I "1':::0 (31.22); &O"p1"] /I "ttitl; (1.1); 1( = q: &1(1(1"]0" /I rlipD (18.27); X = k:

XUIlI.lU /I i10:l (35.17).

20 According to Soil berger, they were "obviously school texts written by some Greek student, or students", Iraq 24, 63.

21 Babylonians knowing Greek was favoured by Black and Sherwin-White in Iraq 46 (1984) 139, and favoured by Knudsen (as fn. 12) ISO.

22 BM 41548, published Leichty, TCS 4,201, is written in a late script.

I

I

III

!II

I;

I'

til

;ii I:

The Last Wedge

49

were read out (sasu) in public.P The possibility presents itself that these documents were Akkadian messages and public announcements which were transliterated on parchment and read aloud. The fact that this practice became more popular at the end of the second century BC fits the pattern of the Graeco-Babyloniaca school tablets, which also begin to date from approximately the first century Be.

The use of Cuneiform attested in Classical sources

A connection between the Late Babylonian scribal schools and the Graeco-Babyloniaca corpus occurs in scribal exercises, in which the student's task was to copy a colophon.>' The colophon (text no. 15 below) refers to Bel-tpus, son of Ea-bani son of Belsunu, and mentions one Nabu-rimanni. According to Strabo XVI i 6, writing his Geography in 18 or 19 AD, Greek mathematicians knew of three Babylonian scholars by reputation, namely K10tlVW;, Ncjlouptcvoc, and LouoivoC;. Two Late Babylonian astronomical texts (one from 103 BC) mention the calculations (tersftu) of Kidinnu.P Strabo's Ktotlvac;, and the calculations of one Nabu-rimanni (Nabourianos) appear in the colophon of an astronomical text from 49 Be. 26 It is most likely that the name of this Babylonian savant, Nabfi-rimanni, known even to Strabo, is the same scholar referred to in the Graeco-Babyloniaca colophon. The scribe Bel-tpus could conceivably have been copying texts formerly redacted by Nabti-rimanni, or alternatively learned his trade at Naburimanni's scribal schooL 27

23 Cf. A. Sachs and H. Hunger, Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from BabyloniallI (1996) 94: 14' (145BC); 134: rev. 3', 5'-6' (141 BC), 194: 16-17, reading kU~.l'a-tar.MES (135 BC); 216: 23 (133 BC); 244: 12' (130 BC), reading .l'i-piS-tu sa LU' GAL; 278: 12' (125 BC); 264: 6'-7' (125 BC); 326: A 18' (119 BC); 312: C II' (119 BC); 430: 26 (94 BC); 436: 30' (91 BC); 454: 30' (88 BC)! The logogram [ku·SARwe.] can be restored on p. 230: 15' (133 BC).

24 The colophon itself served as the exercise to be copied, as a complete tablet rather than as an appendix of another text, as can be seen from text no. 15 below.

25 ACT p. 22 and 23; Hunger, no. 170 and 171; Hunger, RIA 5 (1976-80) 589.

26 ACT p. 23, see Hunger, BAK no. 179. Strabo's l:ouiiivo<; probably represents the LB personal Suma-iddina. O. Neugebauer, ACT 116, recognized that these Babylonian astronomers mentioned by name in colophons of astronomical tablets were known to the Greeks, but the appearance of Nabu-rimanni's name in a Graeco-Babyloniaca colophon further reinforces the proposition that Graeco-Babyloniaca tablets continued the school traditions into a later date.

27 I. L. Finkel, Gs. A. Sachs (1988) 143-159, in which a colophon ascribes several series of omens to an earlier famous redactor, Esagil-kin-apli, who also features in the Exorcist's Manual, KAR 44.

50

M. J. Geller

Another instance of cuneiform scholarship being referred to in a Greek source appears in a scholiast on Iamblichus, a Syrian writer who composed erotic tales in Greek in approximately 200 AD, which were preserved in the Library of Photius, Iamblichus, we are told, was conversant with Babylonian magic, but he was educated as a Greek. The scholiast adds that Iamblichus "was a native Syrian, and not a Greek-Syrian, who knew Syriac, but also had a tutor who taught him the Babylonian language, as well as (Babylonian) customs and history".28 The source in Photius goes on to add that Iamblichus later continued his career as a writer in Rome, residing there in the reign of Septimius Severus, circa 200 AD. So here we have an independent record of a Syrian who already speaks the glossa Syriaca, or the local dialect of Aramaic, and wishes to learn the glossa Babyloniaca, which is most likely to be Akkadian (rather than Aramaic or Syriac), and during the reign of Septimus Severus.P The scholiast adds this important detail: Iamblichus' teacher was a Babylonian who was taken prisoner by the Romans during Trajan's campaign there in 116 AD, and later sold into slavery in Syria. The teacher had obviously got on well as a pedagogue or scribe in Syria, since he had been well-educated. The scholiast is clear on this point: Iamblichus' teacher was skilled in "barbarian learning", having served as a royal scribe in Babylon, i. e. he most likely knew cuneiform, since "Barbarian learning" never refers to Greek culture. 30

28 I am indebted to W. Cockle for this translation of the Greek. Cockle's translation

. of the Scholion about Iamblichus in Photius Bibliotheca § 75 b, is as follows:

"This man Iamblichus was Syrian by origin on his father's and mother's side. He was a Syrian, not of the Greeks who settled in Syria [I. e. Seleucid settlers after Alexander the Great}, but one of the natives (ull'[OX86vcov). He knew the Syriac language (y;l..oocrcruv B~ oupnv) and lived according to the customs of the Syrians until a tutor taught him the Babylonian language (Bu~u;l..coviuv rs y;l..oocrcruv) and customs and history. One of these accounts is, he says, as follows and this he now relates: "The Babylonian was made prisoner of war at the time when Trajan attacked Babylon [1l5-116 AD} and was sold to a Syrian by those who sold off the booty. This man was wise in the wisdom of the Barbarians ('tOUtOV coeov tilv ~up~apcov, ooeluv) because he continued to be one of the king's scribes (tOOV ~UcrlA.ECO~ ypUJlJlUtECOV) in his native land." This man lamblichus knew Syriac as his native tongue (oupov -rilv ml'tplOV y;l..oocrcruv). In addition he learned Babylonian (~o.~u;l..coviuv) later and Greek with assiduity and practise so that he became a good rhetorician."

29 See F. Millar, The Roman Near East, 31 BC-AD 337 (1993) 491, who quotes this scholiast referring to Iamblichus. Millar, however, discounts the historicity of the scholiast, since the novel itself ascribed to Iamblichus is typically Greek rather than Babylonian, as the novel itself claims to be.

30 See A. Momigliano, Alien Wisdom (1975) 7 ff.

III

The Last Wedge

51

Both the emperors Trajan and Septimius Severus visited Babylonia.

When Trajan stayed in Babylon during his Parthian campaign of 115 AD, he found the city in ruins, and Septimius Severus reported in 199 AD that Babylon looked deserted; most historians consider these statements to be a confirmation of Babylon's early demise. 31

But such evidence from classical sources requires some re-thinking.

Although both Trajan and Severus viewed Babylon as a deserted ruin, it is conceivable that the very presence of the Roman legions may have persuaded the locals to abandon the city. Moreover, the mud-brick fabric of Babylon may have been a great disappointment to a Roman general, accustomed to the more durable and ornate architecture of Hellenistic cities, built in stone.F To an aristocratic Roman, Babylon may well have looked like a ruin, although a certain Dioskurides left a neatly engraved dedicatory Greek inscription on the amphitheatre at Babylon in the late second cent. AD,33 indicating that Babylon was not abandoned. 34

31 Cf. Diod. Sic. ii 9,9, that Babylon had been almost totally destroyed in his day. See also Joan Oates, Babylon (1986) 142-143. Oates assumes that Babylon had been abandoned by 75 AD, but based on the rather flimsy evidence of a Palmyrene merchant colony established at Babylon in 24 AD. The fact that this colony is reported to have relocated to another site fifty years later is taken by Oates to signal the end of the occupation of Babylon. This conclusion contradicts other evidence which she provides elsewhere (p. 161) that many terracotta figurines in Greek style from the site of the Esagil, as well as "a massive columned building and a nearby stoa" were found. See also p. 159, that the site of the Esagil was rebuilt in Parthian times .

32 Cf. Pausanias viii 33,3, claiming that in Babylon only the walls and Temple of Bel were left standing.

33 Koldewey, Das wieder erstehende Babylon, ed. B. Hrouda (1990) 290 f., and F. Wetzel, Babylon in der Spatzeit, (MDOG 79, 1942) 50-51. Wetzel also refers to a dedicatory inscription for one Democrates son of Byttakos, dated to c. 150 AD on paleographic grounds. Finally, Wetzel (p. 74) cites Quintus Curtius Rufus' History of Alexander, VI, 22, who, according to Wetzel, "kennt noch die verschiedenen Grade der babylonischen Priesterschaften, entsprechend der Einteilung in den keilschriftlichen Texten". Although this assessment of Rufus is exaggerated, Rufus' statement might be witness to a contemporary priestly procession (second cent. AD): Magi deinde suo more carmen canentes, post hos Chaldaei Babyloniorumque non vates modo, sed etiam artifices cum fidibus sui generis ibant, "Magi then came singing their own manner of chant, and after them the Chaldaeans, and not only the soothsayers (vates) of the Babylonians, but also the artisans (i, e. musicians) with their type oflyres".

34 Wetzel (as fn. 33) 33: "Man darf darum wohl annehmen, dass im 1. und vor allem im 2. Jahrhundert auf dem Hugel Amran eine parthische Wohnstadt gestanden hat, ... Es ist durchaus moglich, dass diese parthische Stadt in Babylon auch in sasanidischer Zeit fortgelebt, ja bis in die arabische Zeit hinein bestanden hat."

52

M. J. Geller

The crucial point is whether the temples in Babylon were still in use.35 The evidence of the Se1eucid period suggests that they may well have been.36 Not only were the older temples of the major cities of Babylon, Borsippa, Uruk, Kis, and Nippur still in use, but in Uruk two new enormous temple complexes were built in the Seleucid period, along traditional Iines.P? Although these new building programmes date from the third century BC, they indicate enormous investment in Babylonian religion during the Hellenistic period, when it might be

, thought that local religions were on the wane.t"

35 The question was already raised by F. Cumont, Die orientalischen Religionen im romischen Heidentum (1910) 1I I f., who asserts that the powerful Babylonian "Priesterkaste" insured the survival of Babylonian religion and cult throughout the Seleucid and Parthian periods, and even allowed for its spread up the Euphrates into Syria. Cumont based his conclusions on Strabo's references to disputes with the Chaldaeans of Borsippa and Uruk over creation and cosmology (XVI, 1, 6), and Lucian's reference to pilgrims from Babylon (de dea Syria, c. 10).

36 Cf. the brief but important survey of E. Klengel- Brandt, Some remarks on the Terracotta Figurines from Babylon, Sumer 41 (1985) 1I8- 120. Klengel-Brandt compares the approximately 2000 figurines from Babylon and Assur with interesting results. Figurines from both sites show continuity between earlier (OB) and later forms, since figurines are attested in both sites as late as the Parthian periods. The differences are important. Figurines from Assur in late periods resemble others from Syria, Palestine, and Asia Minor, while those from Babylon are sui generis but show greater continuity with figurines from earlier periods. Furthermore, Klengel-Brandt notes that the large number of figures from Babylon depicting musicians may reflect the fact that Babylon in the Parthian period was famous for processions and cultic festivals (ibid. 119). Another interesting factor is that the numbers of figurines from Babylon do not diminish after the fall of the Neo-Babylonian empire, although Assur's decline can be seen in the relative paucity of figurines until the Parthian period when Assur became an administrative centre and governor's residence, with a corresponding increase in the numbers ofterracottas. Rich terracotta remains were found in Babylon, in both Hellenistic Greek styles and Parthian styles (i. e. trousers and gowns), and on the whole, Babylon shows much greater Hellenistic influence in terracottas than Assur, where even late figurines were fashioned in more traditional modes. Klengel-Brandt suggests that the greater Hellenistic influence in Babylon was because of its proximity to Seleucia and Ctesiphon, but the pattern of greater Greek influence in Babylon may also be relevant to the fact that Graeco-Babyloniaca tablets are found only in Babylon, and in no other Mesopotamian sites.

37 L. Hannestad and D. Potts, in: (ed.) P. Bilde et al. Religion and Religious Practice in the Seleucid Kingdom (1990) 107. In Strabo's days (writing in 18-19 AD), Babylonian temples were clearly still active, and he refers specifically to the cult of Nabu at Borsippa (ibid. XVI i 7).

38 cr. Wetzel (as fn. 33) 29, quoting the inscription of Antiochus I, claiming to have rebuilt the Esagil and Ezida temples in 287 BC. It seems clear that the Seleucid kings extensively rebuilt Babylon.

,

The Last Wedge

53

Mesopotamian religious cults in Syria

Another Roman Emperor who is relevant to this discussion is Elagabalus. It is probably understating the case to suggest that this Syrian emperor was by imperial standards somewhat eccentric. Although actually named Varius Avitus Bassianus, he was widely known by the sobriquet Elagabalus, a Semitic term for "Mountain God" which became applied to the Sun god. Everything about the Emperor ElagabaIus was strange and foreign to the historians of the period, such as Cassius Dio and Herodian. As a priest of the sun-god, Elagabalus insisted on wearing Syrian dress, which earned him the nickname of "the Assyrian". 39 Even more shocking to the Roman historians was the fact that Elagabalus lived with (or married) a Vestal Virgin; Dio quotes the emperor as saying, "I did it in order that godlike children might spring from me, the high priest, and from her, the high priestess" (Dio, Roman History, 9, 3-4).40

There are reliable accounts of cult festivals celebrated by ElagabaIus, described by their Roman contemporaries as "celebrating the rite of Salambo with wailing and frenzy". 41 The word sa/ambo is a hapax in Latin, but probably refers to the salam Bol, the cult statue of the Syrian (or earlier Mesopotamian) god Bol (Bel), head of the pantheon. This latter has been interpreted by M. Frey as a reference to the famous Akltu or New Year festival, which originated in Mesopotamia but was also widely celebrated in Syria.42 The Babylonian New Year or Akrtu festival was celebrated in either Teshrit or Nisan, in both Mesopotamia and Syria. Temples had a special AkItu-temple as part

39 Dio xxx, 11, 2 (Loeb ix, p. 457); Millar (as fn. 29) 307.

40 From a Babylonian perspective, this behaviour would be considered slightly less eccentric, since a priest having sexual relations with a priestess was not unknown. Cf. CAD Nil, 198, CAD Sf3, 207 (although it is questionable whether one should translate "illicit" intercourse, as in CAD).

The parallel between Elagabalus's marriage to a Vestal Virgin and Babylonian sacred marriage rites has been suggested by M. Frey, Untersuchungen zur Religion und zur Politik des Kaisers Elagabal (1989) 47 ff., citing Herodias 5,5,2 and 5,6,3 in which Elagabalus ritually marries the statue of Ourania, the Heaven goddess, to a statue of his sun god, with the idea that people should celebrate the event as "a real marriage of the gods". Frey also cites the author Firmicus Maternus iv. 1, reporting on a 'sacred marriage' among Assyrians and some Africans. For other texts relevant to sacred marriage (at Palmyra), cf. M. Gawlikowsky, Syria 118 (1971) 407, and J. T. Milik, Dedicaces faites par des dieux ... (1972) 154-155. There is no evidence, however, of sacred marriage in Mesopotamia in the first millennium BC.

41 Scriptores Historiae Augustae II p. 119 = Elag. vii, 3. 42 Frey (as fn. 40) 47, citing Herodias 5, 6,6.

54

M.J. Geller

I

of the complex, to be used especially for the New Year ceremony. Although the AkItu festival is extremely ancient, well-attested already in the third millennium BC in Sumer, the best descriptions of the AkItu festival itself happen to come from some of the very latest tablets from Babylonia, from the Seleucid period.P The complicated rituals were carefully and painstakingly documented by the scribes, with scribal commentaries to explain the text. A mention of the AkItu festival being celebrated in Babylonia occurs in an Akkadian astronomical diary from 204 BC, and there is no reason to suggest that the festival ceased being celebrated until long afterwards.

One interesting item of evidence in favour of the celebration of the AkItu festival in Syria appears on a bas-relief from Palmyra which shows a combat scene among the gods, interpreted by scholars as the famous combat between the Babylon god Marduk (or BeUB61 in Palmyra) and the primordial goddess Tiamat. 44 This is the scene best known from the Babylonian Creation Epic, which was recited as part of the AkItu festival. The inscription on a statue pedestal found in the temple itself refers to the dedication of the temple on the 6th of Nisan, 32 AD, which would have been the traditional Akltu festival time. Finally, and perhaps most remarkable of all, is a Syriac text from Edessa, dating from 497/8 AD, written by the Christian Joshua the Stylite. He mentions with disapproval a pagan festival in Edessa celebrated in the month of May, during which myths were recited. For seven days, celebrants dressed in special linen garments, lit lamps and incense, held all-night vigils, and festivals included dancing and music, and obscene behaviour." All this is likely to be reminiscent of the AkItu festival, including the chanting, processions of the statues, and sacred marriage rites. The end of the fifth century AD seems late, of course, but it is by no means the latest available evidence which has been deduced for the continuity of the Akitu festival. Two early Islamic authorities, Ibn al-Nadlm and Al-Birnnt both wrote about the

43 F. Thureau- Dangin, Rituels accadiens (1921) 61 - 154.

44 M. Gawlikowsky, Les Dieux de Palmyre, ANRW 18.4, p.2614; cf. H. Seyrig, Syria 15 (1934) 165 -73, and plate xx; cf also Annales Archeologiques Arabes Syriennes (Damascus) 26 (1976) 83 ff. Cf. also Dura-Europos: the Seventh and Eighth Seasons, 324f., in which the Necropolis Temple (with a Palmyrene inscription) was deemed to reflect the architectural style of an akTtu temple outside the city walls, dedicated to BOI(Bel).

45 Cf, H. J. Drijvers, The Persistence of Pagan Cults and Practices in Christian Syria, in: (ed.) N. Garsoian, T. Mathews, and R. Thompson, East of Byzantium, Syria and Armenia in the Formative Period (1982) 39.

The Last Wedge

55

festival of Harran in Mesopotamia, an ancient city which for millennia had been associated with the cult of the Moon God, Sin. The list of festivals for the month of Nisan includes festivals for the moon god and Venus, who represents the Babylonian goddess Istar, The material is quite corrupt and the sources are impossible to reconstruct, but it seems clear that both lists hark back to a pagan Harran calendar, which has its roots in Babylonian culture." The conclusion that we can draw from this evidence must be qualified, but the celebration of a Babylonian AkItu festival in both Mesopotamia and Syria suggests that Mesopotamian temples may still have been in use. This is the relevant point for our investigation.

It is rather well-documented by now that cults and shrines of Mesopotamian gods proliferated in neighbouring Syria, to a surprising extent; paganism survived side-by-side even in a Christian city like Edessa until at least the sixth century AD.47 The cults of the Babylonian gods Bel and Beltija, as well as Nabu, Nergal, Samas, Tammuz, Nanar" and Adad are all represented. The cults of Bel and Nabu were particularly strong in Palmyra: the Temple of Bel was constructed in 32 AD, roughly contemporary with a Nabu temple which was also built in Palmyra in the first century AD.49 The cult of the moon god

46 Cf. T. Green, The City of the Moon God (1992) 145-159, and cf, Sinasi Gunduz, The Knowledge of Life (JSS Supplement 3,1994) 130f., in which he also emphasises the complete lack of Christian influences in Harran (as opposed to Edessa), even in the fourth cent. AD, and as late as 363 AD the Emperor Julian visited Harran and paid homage to Sin. Giindiiz further documents the continuation of pagan sacrificial cults in Harran temples, as attested in Arabic sources (ibid., 170), as well as the iconographic attestations of the cults of Sin, Sarna;;, Istar, and Ningal on third cent. AD Roman coins from Harran (ibid., 197). Furthermore, second cent. AD Syriac rock inscriptions from Sumatar near Harran consistently refer to the Sin, "lord of the gods" (mara/aM) (ibid. 198-200) as head ofthe pantheon. It is doubtful whether the late pagan cults of Harran could have preserved the use of cuneiform in their temples, although the possibility cannot be ruled out. Giindiiz (205-206) makes the plausible suggestion, for instance, that the temple of the moon god at Harran excavated by S. Lloyd and W. Brice may actually have been the bit akiti temple of Sin, located outside of the city proper, rather than the E-b.uU}ul of Harran, which could potentially have housed a cuneiform library.

47 G. W. Bowersock, Hellenism in Late Antiquity, (1990) 31 ff.

48 See now Joan Westenholz, Nanaya, Lady of Mystery, in: (ed.) I. L. Finkel and M. J.

Geller, Th. Jacobsen Memorial Vol. (1997) 57-84.

49 Cf. A. Feldtkeller, Synkretismus und Pluralismus am Beispiel von Palmyra, Zeitschrift fiir Religions- und Geistesgeschichte48 (1996) 20-38, in which Palmyra in the second cent. AD is described as representing cultic pluralism rather than syncretism, hence assuming the preservation of the Mesopotamian Bel at Palmyra.

56

M. J. Geller

Sin was still prominent in Parthian Harran, as it had been already for many centuries. 50 Hatra also demonstrates Babylonian influence in the cult, although the city only became prominent at the end of the second century AD.51 The presence of these cults is suggestive (but certainly not conclusive) evidence for the existence of temple cults in Babylonian existing at the same time.

We have a well-known group of important third century AD inscriptions from Assur, all in Aramaic. These dedicatory inscriptions give us some idea of the cults, since they are dedications to the local gods of Assur, including the chief god Assur himself, his spouse Serua, plus the gods also known from Syria in this period, such as Nannai, Nabu, and Nergal. 52 The suggestion has been made=' that since so many of these votive plaques were offered during the first half of Nisan, they reflect the continuation of the Akitu Festival (see above). The stone inscriptions are suggestive of the continuation of the cult; the archaeological information supports Andrae's idea that the Assur temple in Assur was still in use throughout the Parthian period, at least up until the Sassanian conquest.

i I

The Babylonian Talmud

There is some further evidence of priests in Babylonian temples being consulted by Babylonian Rabbis. The most noted example of such was the third century rabbi in the Talmud, Mar Samuel, who is remembered for his knowledge of the calendar and astronomy, as well as being a noted physician. 54 The Talmud specifically states that Mar

50 Cf. H. Drijvers, Aufstieg und Niedergang der Romischen Welt (ANRW) IU8 (I977) 858, and M. Gawlikowsky, ANRW II 18.4, 2645.

51 Drijvers, ANRW IU8, 835, which mentions the title of the priest of Hatra as an apkallu; cf. also J. Teixidor, Syria 43 (1966) 91-93. The main temple is also referred to as sgyl, which A. Millard relates to the Esagil temple in Babylon; cf. Millard, JSS 21 (1976) 174 ff.

52 B. Aggoula, Inscriptions et Graffites arameens d'Assour (1985).

53 The association between the predominance of inscriptions dated and the celebration of the Akltu festival was already noted by P. Jensen in his original discussion of the inscriptions, cf. Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 53 (1919) 1043.

54 Mar Samuel was referred to as il"OI-l:: ilI-l::J'n,' 71-1::1r.,[i (Bab. Talmud Baba Metziah 85 b), "Samuel the astronomer (and) physician", which corresponds to the similar overlap in Akkadian professional titles of experts who copy astronomical tablets, known both as astronomers (tupsar enama Anu Enlil) and masmassu (incantation) priests; cf. for example, Hunger, BAK, no. 103.

The Last Wedge

57

Samuel used to go to a Babylonian Bei Avidan,55 perhaps to consult with priests regarding questions of astronomy. In my view, the priest looked up the information on a tablet and translated it for Mar Samuel. The Talmud does not provide any information about the Babylonian scholar, whether he was a priest or a Magian. Nevertheless, Mar Samuel's academic rival was another Rabbi known as 'Rab', between whom many arguments are recorded in the Talmud; it was Rab who was reported to have said, "He who learns a single word from a Magian is worthy of death", possibly referring to Samuel's dialogues with Ablat.56

One would expect, of course, that some of this Mesopotamian culture would seep into the literature of surrounding peoples. Some parallels have been pointed out, such as the Mesopotamian genre of Dispute Poems which became well-known in Syriac literature. These parallels are general, and may not point to the continuation of Mesopotamian culture, except in a translated form, which is just the kind of evidence we wish to avoid. 57 Still, the question remains whether relics

SS Samuel used to consult with a colleague in the Bei Avidan (Bab. Talmud Shab 116 a), and twice a colleague named t9?:l1-l:: (>Ablat) is mentioned by name; one reference mentions that Samuel and Ablat used to drink wine together in the Bei Avidan (Ab. Zar. 30 a), while the second reference refers to a medical-astronomical incident, in which Ablat and Samuel discuss the medical effects of the sun, in respect to the summer sol~tice (Shab 129b). There are two aspects of this story which are significant. I) The name ~?:ll-l:: is an Akkadian name, possibly Ea-uballit (or less likely Anuuballit). The fact that Ablat is a Babylonian scholar with whom Samuel was both colleague and rival is clear from another passage in the same tractate, Shabo 156 a, in which Samuel and Ablat dispute whether astral magic applies to Jews, since Ablat tries to predict the death by snake-bite of a passing person. 2) The story is intended to indicate professional rivalry between the two experts, but is based upon a system of astral-magic which is typically Babylonian; see now E. Reiner, Astral Magic (1996). Samuel's refusal to reveal his information is reminiscent of Akkadian colophons which prohibit revealing esoteric information to the uninitiated, e. g. nisirti apkalli Iii mudti lii immar, "a secret of the sage, may the ignorant not see it" (cf. Hunger, BAK no. 303, and A. Livingstone, MMEW [19861 259 ff.). 3) The Bei Avidan in which some of the dialogues between Ablat and Mar Samuel took place has been discussed by S. Shaked, "A Persian house of study, a king's secretary: Irano-Aramaic notes", Z. Telegdi Memorial Volume (Acta Orientalia Hungarica 48 [1995] 171 ff.) as a Persian word for "temple", which provides the setting we would expect for a discussion between a Rabbi and a Babylonian priest or Magus (reference courtesy S. Shaked).

56 A. D. Nock, Essays on Religion and the Ancient World 1(1972) 325.

57 Cf. R. Murray, Aramaic and Syriac Dispute-poems and their connections, in (as fn, 6) 157 ff. and on the Mesopotamian background to the dispute-poems, see 158- 165. The problem here is that such poems are easily adapted to oral transmission and translation into another language over a long period of time, so that the similar-

58

M.l. Geller

• i

of Mesopotamian genres survived in a specific form into later literature, as a means of testing whether this literature was taken seriously; in other words, did it stand the test of time? A possible clue to late transmission of an Akkadian text into later literature might be found in one of the works of the Greek writer Lucian, who happened to be a Syrian living in the second century AD.

Lucian

One of the most famous and enduring of Mesopotamian myths tells of the journey of the hero Enkidu to the Netherworld, a quest on behalf of his companion Gilgames. Enkidu reports what he sees in the Netherworld, including unborn babies, people unburied and hence miserable, as well as those who are constantly remembered with the proper funerary offerings, and so forth. Another Sumerian text describes the journey of the Sumerian king Ur-Nammu to the Netherworld, but equally interesting is a later Akkadian description of the Netherworld transmitted by a crown prince of Assyria who visits the Netherworld in his dreams to hear about his future prospects as a ruler.

The theme of journeys to the Netherworld is not of course foreign to Classical literature; both Odysseus and Aeneas make such journeys and describe the fate of the dead in Hades, in some ways similar to what we find in Mesopotamia. Lucian has something much more tangible for us to consider. He writes about a man named "Menippos" who wishes to travel to the Netherworld, presumably to learn about the future. Lucian himself mayor may not have realized that his hero Menippos bears a standard Akkadian name, already attested centuries earlier in Babylonia: Mtna-epus, literally meaning, "What did I do"?58. In Lucian's story, Menippos goes to Babylon to get charms and rites from a Magus to open the gates of Hades. Menippos soon found

ities between Syriac dispute-poems and Sumero-Akkadian prototypes may not in themselves suggest the survival of cuneiform into a late period, but rather a long process of transmission. The opposite case could only be made if a series of Akkadian loanwords would be found in Syriac texts, which so far is not the case. This situation, however, does not apply to other types of texts, particularly the technical literature in which Akkadian technical terms have been noted; cf. M. J. Geller, Akkadian medicine in the Babylonian Talmud, in: (ed.) D. Cohn-Sherbok, A Traditional quest (1991) 102-112.

58 1. Stamm, Die akk. Namengebung (1939) 164; the doubled p of Menippos is probably due to analogy with PhiIippos. Cf. also the name Bel-lpus (~T)A. iooo) in the Graeco-Babyloniaca colophon-tablet, cf. AfO 5, 11 (see text no. 15 below).

j 1

I'

, .

I I',)

, ,

i I

......

The Last Wedge

59

Mithrobazarnes, a Magian with a good Persian name.t? who prescribed a complicated ritual for Menippos to get to the Netherworld and back again. First of all, he had Menippos bathe in the Euphrates for each of 29 days, beginning with the new moon. On each occasion the Magian invoked demons in a language which Menippos could not understand, which Lucian interpreted as foreign-sounding meaningless words, and then the Magian would spit in Menippos' face three times, after which they ate a simple vegetarian meal and slept outside. After these preparations came the final ritual: Menippos was bathed again, this time in the River Tigris, and he was purified from head to foot with torches and incantations. Menippos was dressed in a special costume consisting of a lion's skin, with a lyre and cap. After the purification, Menippos had to walk home backwards, and not look at anyone he met.s?

The importance of this passage is simply that Menippos is describing what appears to be an Akkadian purification ritual, known also from late Seleucid period texts. The process of bathing in the Tigris during the lunar month, and even being dressed in a lion's skin 61, with a musical instrument for ritual purposes'S, are all reminiscent of Akkadian ritual practice, which were normally accompanied by incantations and invocations to gods or demons. The other interesting details of the account, such as eating unusual foods of nuts and milk and sleeping out on the grass, not greeting anyone and walking home backwards, are also indicative of special rituals associated with the Netherworld. When the hero Enkidu is preparing to go down to the Netherworld, Gilgames warns him not to indulge in normal human behaviour. Enkidu is warned against wearing a clean garment or shoes, carrying a staff, being anointed, or kissing his wife or son. Furthermore, since the Netherworld was known in Mesopotamia as "the Place of No Return", this name may have inspired the Magian to instruct Menippos to return home walking backwards, as if not

59 P. Kingsley, Meetings with Magi: Iranian themes among the Greeks, from Xanthus of Lydia to Plato's Academy, JRAS, Series 3, 5,2 (1995) 201 f.

60 Lucian, trans. A. M. Harmon, Loeb IV (1961) 86-87.

61 Cf. R. Ellis, J. J. Memorial VoL (1977) 67-76 (and fig. 2 and 3), and F. Wiggermann, RIA 8/3-4 (1994) 242. During the Istar cult festival in Uruk the priests dressed as urmahhu, "lion centaurs"; cf. A. L. Oppenheim, JAOS 63 (1943) 32; W. Fauth, WO 12 (1981) 23 f., and in Hittite texts, L. Jakob-Rost, Or. 35 (1966) 417- 422.

62 Ellis (as fn. 61) 67, and 76 fig. I, featuring three dancing figures, two of whom are dressed in lion garb, and a third is holding a musical instrument.

I, I'

I

60

M. J. Geller

returning at all, and avoiding greeting anyone on the way. None of these details are to be found in either Homer or Virgil, but belong exclusively to the world of Mesopotamian ritual texts. 63

Chaldaeans and Magi

It would help to know how the Magi operated and from where they derived their authority and reputation. Tacitus= associated the term Magian with Chaldaeans, and A. D. Nock commented that Tacitus identified the Magi with Chaldaeans, that is to say, Babylonians rather than Persians.s> According to Nock's astute analysis, the Magi were described by Plutarch and in Patristic sources as using magical and apotropaic rituals to subdue demons=, and they could forecast the future.s? Nock makes one surprising comment about the Magi: there is "nothing to suggest that any of them were familiar with the Persian language".68 So who were they? The overwhelming impression from all of our sources is how little we know about these Magi.s? The third

63 These exact instructions are known from Akkadian incantations, such as the one most recently treated by N. Veldhuis in AS] II (1989) 253, a ritual instruction in an incantation for a woman having difficulties in childbirth: ana EGlR"ka NU IGI.BAR Kl UJ.NA.ME NU DUII.DUII.GA, "do not look behind you and do not speak with anyone" (BAM 248 iv 37). Cf. also J. Scurlock, Magical Means of Dealing with Ghosts in Ancient Mesopotamia (Ph.d University of Chicago, unpub., 1988), in which she cites purification practices performed after rituals to expel ghosts have been completed which she terms "dissociative actions" (p, 37). One such action includes the patient going straight home without looking behind him (p. 47f., referring to LKA 87 rev. 20). There is a somewhat similar reference in PGM IV 44: "Then jump into the river. Immerse yourself in the clothes you have on, walk backwards out of the water, arid after changing into fresh garments, depart without turning round" (translation H. Martin, apud H. D. Betz, The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation, (1986) 37. The context of the Papyri Graecae Magicae passage, an obscure initiation rite, is quite different from either Lucian or the Akkadian rituals noted here.

64 Annal. XII 22.

6S Nock, (as fn. 56) I, 324, where he cites Tacitus' comment that the Magi used sacred rites and necromancy. Cf. Kingsley (as fn. 59) 200, in which Magi were identified at Athens with Chaldaeans.

66 As fn. 56, 1312.

67 Ibid. II 699, although Nock considered Magi and Chaldaeans to be rivals. 68 Ibid. 1311.

69 Cf. Kingsley (as fn. 59) 173-209, in which Xanthus reports already for the sixth cent. BC that the Magi indulged in incest and promiscuity (as reported by Clement of Alexandria); see p. 179 ff. Kingsley sees the Magi, noted at Athens at the time of Plato's death, as akin to wandering minstrels who search for knowledge but also intend to disseminate their own religious ideas (ibid. 198).

The Last Wedge

61

century AD writer Diogenes Laertus claimed that the Persians had their Magi, the Babylonians and Assyrians had their Chaldaeans, and the Celts and Gauls had their Druids; the common element here is an interest in occult sciences, particularly magic and astrology, ascribed to Magi, Chaldaeans, and Druids.P Everything about the Magi is slightly ambiguous; their very name Magian or Magus can simply mean "magician", 71 a term that can apply to the famous second century wonder-worker Apollonius of Tyana, who contributes some important information about the Magi. Apollonius' testimony arises from a trip that he made to India, to consult the philosophers there, but en route he passed through Babylon, where he interviewed the Magi to learn about "the wisdom which is indigenous among you and is cultivated by the Magi, and of finding out whether they are such wise theologians as they are reported to be".72 This statement is crucial, since it recognises that the Magi inherited the ancient local wisdom of Babylonia, which provided the basis for their reputations as wise men, and maybe even by extrapolation as magicians.P Apollonius' testimony has one other contribution to make: he noted that the Parthian king in Babylonia was sacrificing in company with the Magi, since "religious rites are performed under their supervision". What is mysterious about this eye-witness report is that we have no evidence of Magian or even Persian temples in Babylonia, from which the king could have made his sacrifices.

The best evidence that we have from Classical sources is that contemporary writers in Greek and Latin confused the Chaldaeans and Magi, without being able to distinguish clearly between them.?" Both

70 D. Laertus, Prologue Book 1. According to Diog. Laert., the Chaldaeans apply themselves to astronomy and forecasting the future, while the Magi spent their time in worship of gods, in sacrifices and prayers.

71 Cf. Kingsley (as fn. 59) 20lf., who points out that already in Plato's time the appellation magus was avoided as a pejorative term, replaced by either "Chaldaean" or "astronomer" (astrologos).

72 PhiIostratus, Life of Apollonius of Tyana Book I, xxxiii (Loeb. edition) p. 91. Cf. also ibid., Book I xxvi, in which Apollonius reported that he found the Magi to be wise about everything, but unfortunately he revealed none of the details of his conversations with them. It is interesting to note that Apollonius was accompanied by an Assyrian from Nineveh named Damis, who was described as being poorly spoken since he had been educated among the barbarians; cf. ibid. Book I xix (Loeb I p. 53).

73 See Cumont, Religionen (see fn. 35) 172, in which he comments upon the mixture of Persian religion (especially Dualism) with Babylonian magical rites and rituals, and assumed that the Chaldaeans had a profound effect upon the Magi.

74 See Kingsley (as fn. 59) 200.

62

M.J. Geller

types of priests were known for their interests in astrology and magic. The emperor Julian refers to the Chaldaeans as "a sacred race, skilled in theurgy" (or magic)."? The third century writer Diogenes Laertus writes that the Chaldaeans 'apply themselves to astronomy and forecasting the future', while the Magi spend their time in worship of the gods, in sacrifices and prayers, but also practice divination and forecast the future.j" Ammianus Marcellinus also referred to the occult arts and divination among the Chaldaeans, to which Zoroaster added his own ideas which were kept by the Magi. 77

There is one inference which comes out of such evidence: the Magi and the Chaldaeans were one and the same, at least perhaps during the Parthian rule of Mesopotamia in the second and third centuries AD. It is the Magi who may have kept the temples in use and maintained the traditional forms of sacrifice - not in any special Magi temples, because they do not seem to exist in Babylonia." Moreover, they may have gained their reputation for esoteric wisdom and knowledge of magic and divination by carrying on the traditional learning of the Babylonian temples, i, e. directly from the tablets. It is the Magi! Chaldaeans who may still have been reading cuneiform, which lends support to our original hypothesis suggested above, that cuneiform script was in use so long as the temples were in use. But where were the indigenous Babylonians and their priests at this time?

The records from Babylonia itself are extremely sparse, but we have inscriptions and records from neighbouring Syria, which include references to many persons with Babylonian names known from such centres as Palmyra and Dura-Europus, Edessa, and elsewhere. Of

75 Julian, Orations IV 156 c (Loeb III p. 423). Strabo, XVI. i. 6, mentions two "tribes" (yevll) of Chaldaean astrologers called Orchenoi and Borsippenoi, i. e. from the cities Uruk and Borsippa. These were two cities which had well-known scribal schools, temples, and archives surviving into late periods. Strabo mentions three Chaldaean astronomers by name (see above p. 49), one of whom, Naburianos (Nabu-rimanni) occurs in one of the Graeco-Babyloniaca tablets (see below, text no. 15).

76 Diog. Laert. Prologue Book 1.

71 Ammian. Marc. xxiii 6: 25; 32; cf. also Quintus Curtius Rufus. As for late traditions regarding Chaldaean magic and divination, the assumption is that pagan wisdom was preserved in the so-called Chaldaean Oracles. For the oracles themselves, cf. Ruth Majercik, The Chaldaean Oracles (1989), which may contain references to practices harking back to Akkadian prototypes.

78 Cf. M. G. Morony, Iraq after the Muslim Conquest (1984) 283, that none of the major Magian fire temples existed in Iraq, but only a few are attested from later periods, from Irbil, Mada-in, and Sura. In contrast, the temple of Nabil at Borsippa, and perhaps the temple of Bel in Babylon remained until the third century AD, but by the fourth century the Nabfl cult was practised in secret; cf, ibid., 384 f.

The Last Wedge

63

course, Babylonian names do not prove that Babylonian culture still existed, since names can live on well after a civilization no longer exists. Only the absence of names would be significant: if no Babylonian names ever appeared, we might suspect that Babylonian culture was indeed defunct. 79

Several witnesses attest to the survival of cuneiform up to the third century AD. We have seen Iamblichus looking for a teacher, ElagabaIus violating Roman sensibilities by marrying a vestal virgin and celebrating the Babylonian-style new year festival in Rome; Menippos finding his way into the Netherworld and back, with the help of a Magian who knew his Akkadian ritual texts, and finally Apollonius of Tyana interviewing the Magians to find out how much they knew of local wisdom in Babylonia. Babylonian cults survive in both Assur and in cities of Syria, as do people bearing Babylonian names. We have found a small number of tablets, mostly from Babylon, with Greek writings? together with cuneiform, which indicate that death was a long time in coming.

But death it certainly was, by the fourth century. The Aramaic magic bowls found in many archaeological sites in Babylonia betray no signs of Babylonian personal names, but only Persian names born by Jews, Pagans, and perhaps Christians. The archaeological evidence shows little evidence of survival of Babylonian temples into the Sassanian period after the mid-third century. 81

Much of our archaeological data points to the destruction which occurred in 256 AD, during the Sassanian conquest of Babylonia. From the early Sassanian conquest onwards, the new rulers pursued a policy of religious intolerance and persecution.P This is partly re-

19 Of the Mesopotamian names found at Palmyra, one name, Belsuri, is also found at Assur (cf. Aggoula [as fn. 52163, no. 39). Another person at Palmyra, dating from the second century AD, was called rsry, rendered in Greek as Asoraiou (genitive), "the Assyrian", cf. D. R. Hillers and E. Cussini, Palmyrene Aramaic Texts (1996) 238, 430. Many Nabu-theophoric names have been found in Dura-Europus, cf. Fourth Season (1930-31) 83,95,166; Fifth Season (1931-32) 317, as well as other names with Nabil, Nanai and Bel, cf. Sixth Season (1932-33) 413, 510; Seventh and Eighth Seasons (1933-34,1934-35) 439, 445ff., and Nergai, cf. Third Season (1929-30) 63.

80 These tablets are edited below.

81 Cf. W. Andrae, Das wiedererstandene Assur (1938) 171. Sassanian levels palaces have been found at both Kish and Ctesiphon, and Sassanian levels at Uruk, but no specific evidence of temples.

82 G. Gnoli, The Idea of Iran (1989) 140. Cf. also Morony (as fn.78) 29 f., citing Ardashir's statement that kingship and religion depend upon each other for support. The Sassanian period also saw the introduction of the death penalty for apostasy from Magian religion, cf. ibid., 282.

64

M. J. Geller

fleeted in the fact that Mani, the so-called Apostle of Babylon, was forced out of Babylon during this period, and forced to flee from the Sassanian empire.P One of the main reasons for religious intolerance during this period was that the formulation of the Sassanian state was largely based upon a new religious ideology which did not allow for competing religious systems in the new Iran; this was in stark contrast to the previous Parthian regime which was characterised by syncretism and tolerance of local religions. We must not overstate the case: both Judaism and Christianity survived under Sassanian rule, as did paganism as well, judging by Christian Syriac writers.s+ Nevertheless, the survival of Babylonian temple cults within Mesopotamia may have been fragile at best, without much provocation needed to close their doors forever. It is not possible to be definite about this, but the evidence points in the same direction - that cuneiform culture did not long survive the advent of the Sassanian Empire, and was perhaps actively killed off by Mazdaean religion.

I' i

Of the tablets which survived into late periods in Mesopotamia, there is little evidence of the use of cuneiform for everyday transactions. These functions were most likely now carried out in Aramaic or Syriac, which can partly be demonstrated by legal documents that survive in those languages, and their similarities with earlier Akkadian documents.s> The tablets which survive into the first century BC and onwards tend to be directly related to the temple, such as the astronomical diaries written by the priests, as well as incantations and prayers. The interests were in a sort of ancient 'science', using that term loosely; the Roman perception of Babylonian priests interested in forecasting the future and in countering demons was somewhat accurate. This is the legacy which we should look for in later literature.

Orthography and phonology of Graeco-Babyloniaca texts

The phonology of the Akkadian and Sumerian as represented by the Greek transliterations has long been of interest to scholars since these texts were first published in PSBA 1902 by Pinches, and Sayee.

II

1,1,j

I! III

, I' ii

11:,II'i

II' I

if

II! ; J 1.1',1

11\1,:

ill!!I',!,1

IW' illjlil

'IiI!:

83 Gnoli (as fn. 82) 160 f.

84 The case for Sassanian oppression has in my view been oversimplified by L. Hannestad and D. Potts (as fn. 37) 107, but cf. also P. Brown (as fn. 2) 20.

85 Even in the area of law, the documents from Syria in both Greek and Syriac betray signs of Akkadian influence, as do the Aramaic contracts from Wadi Murabbasat,

The Last Wedge

65

A. Ungnad was interested in "auslautende Explosivlaute im Sumerischen", in OLZ 9 (1923) 424 f., and he set out the system of trans literation readily noticeable in these texts: aspirates and emphatic consonants are expressed by ~, y, 0, K, and 1:, while unemphatics appear as corresponding cp, x, 8. (The phonology has recently been described again by E. E. Knudsen [as fn. 12, 152], but his analysis is based upon partly faulty editions of the Graeco-Babyloniaca texts.) It is noteworthy that these consonants correspond to Hebrew and Aramaic nE)~'J:J consonants which can be both spirants and stops, but are distinguished from emphatic consonants t!l and p. The important element here is that the same system was in use for transliterating Akkadian and Sumerian into Greek letters as was used by Origen in the third cent. AD for transliterating Hebrew into Greek. The latter system has been carefully worked out by E. A. Speiser in Jewish Quarterly Review (JQR) 16 (1926) 343-382, and JQR 23 (1933) 233-265. Speiser pointed out that although originally Greek 8 was used to transcribe Semitic e, the Begadkefat letters served as both stops and spirants, and hence in the Septuagint and Origen's Hexapla, S was used exclusively to transcribe n, while 1: corresponded to t!l (Speiser, JQR 23, 252; see Pinches, PSBA 24, U5). Origen similarly used K to transcribe p, although the occasional use of X for p represented a graphic error because of the similarities of the letters K and X (ibid., 253).

There is no distinction made between stops and spirants in Akkadian and Sumerian labials, and hence cp normally corresponds to Akkadian and Sumerian Ip/. The only exception among the Graeco-Babyloniaca corpus is in text no. 5: 116, which preserves the sole use of n: gu-ub-ba (a-ra-gub-bu-u) [yon] apayo7to[u]. Two aspects of this exceptional usage are significant, namely that n corresponds to AkkadianSumerian fbI, and that no ~ is preserved in the Greek transcription. The phenomenon of Greek ~ being realized as 7t is known occasionally from Graeco-Roman Egypt, cf. F. T. Gignac, A Grammar of the Greek Papyri of the Roman and Byzantine Periods (1975) I, 83.

As for sibilants, Speiser (JQR 23, 241-250) noted that the voiced and unvoiced sibilants in Hebrew, namely r.D, f.!J, 0, and ~ were all transcribed in Origen by Greek o (Speiser, ibid., 250), which is the situation in the Graeco- Babyloniaca texts. Some variation existed in the transcription of Hebrew t, which was usually Greek S (e. g. sOUAaS! = 'rl'?1T), but exceptionally Greek o (llaacr~TrT1 = n:JJr.r) (Speiser, ibid. 250).

Vowel patterns are also worth comparing between Origen and the Graeco-Babyloniaca tablets. The variation between long and short lui

"I

il

II

I·

66

M. J. Geller

vowels appears in Graeco-Babyloniaca texts as well, as in text no. 12: 2- 3, sA.o09 and q>oA.o1;9 for eluti and puluhti. The use of Greek 0 for Latin short [u] is known CW. W. Allen, Vox Graeca, a guide to the pronunciation of classical Greek [1987] 61), is also reflected in the example given above, but by the second cent. AD Greek 0 was regularly replaced by 00, which may explain the orthography of the Graeco-Babyloniaca texts as well, which avoid the use of Greek 0 except in cases (noted below) of indicating intervocalic IrnJ> Iw/; the same usage of 0 for medial' was employed by Origen (lEcrUOOO = 1.111iD" Speiser, JQR 13, 259), while long 1 was transcribed as 00 ~Speiser, ibid., 258). Distinction, however, between long and short [a] IS not recorded in Origen's system, nor in Graeco-Babyloniaca, as in the example UA.UX = 'ij?il (Speiser, JQR 16, 382). A further distinction in u-vowels occurs in the use of ro for 5, which is known to Origen, e. g. prop = -'1:1 (Speiser, JQR 16, 382), and below (text no. 4: 294), Sum. bur-ra = prop and text no. 10: 10 below, propS = bum).

The distinction between 11 and £1 as [e] and [i] is known from Greek (Allen, Vox Graeca, 66 ff.), but also from Origen (oompeur = C1'1'teii and O~St = ',5', versus SKKl1cr = rvP5', Speiser, JQR 23, 260). The uses of 11 in various Sum. words noted below suggest long syllables which are not usually identifiable in the phonology, e. g. J.!11A.ro = [meluh] (text no. 3: 287), 1100P = [eduru] (text no. 7: 6), 0111..00 [dr/a] (text no. 5: 125-26), and crll = [se] (text no. 7: 5).

Also of interest is the use of a shewa in transcription, already pointed out by the present author in ZA 73 (1983) 118, in such cases as sap/is II crUq>UA.1cr (text no. 2: 4), ikleti II tX1A.st9 (text no. 10: 9), as well as text no. 3: 3, as-nu-u II conve, and perhaps even in Sum. muun-balll J.![o]voPUA. (text no. 1: 2 and 10)_ Use of st for T was known in Greek already from the fourth cent. BC (Allen, Vox Graeca, 66), and it is regularly attested in our texts. More unusual, however, is the ~s.e of 11 for T, which is only attested in Greek from c. 150 AD (Allen, ibid., 71), but occurs below in text no. 5: 125-26.

The loss of final vowels is well-documented for late Akkadian, but the phenomenon occasionally occurs in Origen's transcription of Hebrew as well, consistently dropping the final-a of second person masc. suffixes.

Geminated consonants are preserved in Greek transcription in Origen (Speiser, JQR 23, 260), which can occur in Graeco-Babyloniaca texts as well, below, text no. 10: 5, nap-pa-su II vuq>qJacr (= ZA 73, 114: 5).

The Last Wedge

67

There are certain distinctive differences between the system used by Origen and the scribes of the Graeco-Babyloniaca tablets. Most obvious is the fact that the laryngals 5' and n were not transcribed by Origen, although the associated vowels were reproduced; Origen's system contrasts with the earlier practice of transcribing r for .v (when it represents proto-Semitic g)86 and X for n (proto-Semitic ]:1) in the Septuagint.F as well as in Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion (Speiser, ibid., 233-241). Speiser, JQR 23, 237 f., cites a well-known reference in the Babylonian Talmud (Erubin 53) in which a Gallilean was not able to distinguish between the words for "wine" (11~n), "ass" (-'1~n), "wool" (1~5'), and "sheep" (1~~), and hence the fact that these laryngeals were no longer distinguished may have prevented Origen form transliterating them into Greek.

It is therefore significant that several Graeco-Babyloniaca texts use 1; for Ibf (see texts no. 1, 7, 10, 12, and 16), as opposed to others which do not transliterate Ibf (see text no. 3 and perhaps 4). The Greek letter used to transcribe Ibf is not, as Sollberger (as fn. 12, 65) suggested, a special letter partly represented by a reversed C, but rather a normal cursive Greek 1;. One reason why Graeco-Babyloniaca texts usually (but not always) transliterated Ibf as opposed to Origen's avoidance of any transliteration of Hebrew n (as well as ~, rt, and 5') might reflect differences between the consonants, since Hebrew IQi represents a conflation of several Semitic gutturals, and is thus distinct from Akkadian Ibf. Furthermore, the doubling of Akk. Ibf in s1;1;sp (text no. 1: 205) is a feature of Akkadian, which regularly doubles the b, as against Hebrew which never doubles the IQJ.

It is also characteristic of Graeco-Babyloniaca texts that intervocalic 1m! as well as initial 1m! is omitted in the Greek transcriptions (cf. ZA 73, 117f.), which is not a feature of Hebrew. An interesting contrast between the systems of transliterating Akkadian and Hebrew occur in transliterations of Akk. samas as ounno, as opposed to Origen's transcription tD~tD:l as xucrullcr CPs. 89: 37, cf. Speiser JQR 23, 263).

Nevertheless, it is clear that Origen's system of transliteration of Hebrew was not the same as that used in the Septuagint, since stops were spirantised in Origen's Hexapla, but not in the Septuagint

86 I am grateful to A. Westenholz for pointing this out (private communication).

87 Westenholz correctly points out that the distinction between proto-Semitic Q and b. were preserved in Septuagint transliterations from the third century Be but unknown to Origen five centuries later.

1

68

M.J. Geller

(Speiser, JQR 16, 380). Furthermore it seems likely that the GraecoBabyloniaca transliterations resemble Origen's system of the third cent. AD rather than the Septuagint system of the third cent. Be.

Transliterations

No.1. BM 34797 (Sp. II 290 + Sp. III 247).

Hh II 203-214 = MSL 5,66-67; E. Sollberger, Iraq 24 (1962) 64 (No. A2); copied PSBA 1902, 111-112, photo ibid., 110.

(203) [sagan]-l[i] [ ........... ] [ ........... ] [ .............. }
(204) [mja-na-la [manala] [J.laVuA] J.lUAUfA'ro
(205) mu-un-bal Ub-rz] [llovoWaA e~~ep
(206) mu-un-du [i-pu-uS] [llOV] 0 tooo
(207) fe i,_ki [e] Stx
(208) pas fp]al-gu [epu] epUAUY
(209) pa--Ilal' [a]-tap-pi epu AUf A' [aYS,aep
(210) fpas'-sig [a-tap-Pl] epu crEfk, uOf U lepef t 1
(211) pas-sita [ra-a-!u] cpa crfa'O pur
(212) [pas]-sita [me-tir-tu4] epu fcr\:aS J.lt.epS
(213) *[pas mu-un-bal a-tap-pa ib-rz] epu f ll'[O ]vo~aA a8aep f e'~Ep
(214) *[e-si-ga i-ku is-pu-ukJ [Scr]EK E1X{X} tcrep(OX) * These lines are not included on the obverse (cuneiform) side, but a ruling on the obverse follows line 10, just before the bottom of the tablet (see copy). It is interesting to see that the Greek on the reverse of the tablet transliterates more text than that copied in cuneiform on the obverse, perhaps suggesting dictation. The Akk. of 11. 11-12 on the tablet is restored here after MSL 5, 67: 213-214.

Line 204: J.lUAUAro: This variant to manalu appears in Lu IV 266, ma-lal-[ .. ], cf, CAD Mil, 207; MSL 12, 137 and 146.

Line 205: e~~ep: It seems obvious that the Akk. text upon which the Greek transliteration was based preserved an erroneous form *iboeri, rather than the pret. ibri (= s~ep) in 1. 213. Vowel harmony explains the e-prefix, and the loss of the final vowel results in the use of an anaptyctic vowel, as happens with epUAUY = palgu (1. 208). E. E. Knudsen (as fn. 12) 153, finds the doubling of ~~ as "unexpected and probably due to the short quality of the preceding vowel".

Line 206: upoo: The word occurs again in text no. 15, in the proper name from the colophon, i3l1A upoc = Bel-Ipus, The Greek transcription appears erroneous, since the iota and omicron vowels appear to

The Last Wedge

69

indicate two short syllables, perhaps indicating a pres.-fut. form "ippui,

Line 207: ElX: The first syllable is long, i. e. tku, also appearing as such below in text no. 5: 18: i-gi-pi-rig-gu /I EtYHp[tP\Y].

Line 210: u8ru'cpef\': The form looks like a plural, although no such distinction is noted in MSL 5, 67: 209-210.

Line 211: crru'S: The U vowel is difficult to explain for sita, particularly in the light of MSL 3, 147: 280 si-ta SiTA ra-a-tu. The damaged a is a more plausible reading than [e]t, since the remaining trace of the letter curves to the right, like an alpha, rather than the more upright shape of an iota. The second reading for sita in the following line, crEtO, suggests that the medial vowel of the Sum. word was read as [I].

Line 214: lcrcp(OX>: The c is written over an erasured O.

No.2. BM 35727 (Sp. III 246).

Hh II 228- 34 = MSL 5, 68; SoIIberger, Iraq 24, 65 (No. A3); photo PSBA 1902, 118 and 124.

Paleographic dating: first cent. Be.

Since the obverse of the tablet is destroyed, the cuneiform text of the obverse is reconstructed from duplicates:

MSL BM 35727 rev.
(228) an-ta = e-lis [avS] eAw
(229) ki-ta = sap-lis [xelS cryalcpaAw
(230-231) an-ta ki-ta [avS] xetS
e-lis u sap-lis [eAtcr oo] crUepUAtcr
(232) us = sid-du [ocr crt e\'o
(233) us = sa-da-du [ocr cra]Ofao'
(234) sag = PU-U-tu4 [cray epco]o Line 230: XElS: The transcription suggests an [Y] vowel in Sumerian ki, which might be reflected in the lexical tradition in Ea, which often (but not always) indicates open syllables as long. Cf, MSL 14, 359: 95-98, which gives normalizations of KI (for ersetu and mlitu) as ki-i, ku-u, gu-u, and ge-e (also Proto Ea 263a = ibid. 42).

Line 232: [cr]ElO: The medial [I] vowel may represent compensatory lengthening for the absence of the doubling of the consonant caused by the loss of the final vowel.

Line 234: [epro]o: The 0 here is problematic, but the restoration itself is theoretical, based upon MSL 5,68: 234, although AHw. 885 records

70

M. J. Geller

a single example of pu-u-tu (Iraq 6, 154: 77), which von Soden regards as "schlecht fur piitu", We might consider the equation ZAG = budu (cf. CAD B 304).

No.3. BM 34799 (Sp II 292 + 81-7-6, 142).

Hh III x + 284-89 = MSL 5, 117; Sollberger, Iraq 24, 66 (No. A4), with copy (Pinches) pl. XXv.

Paleographic dating: first cent. Be.

obv.: (traces of cuneiform signs)

4 rgis1[ 'V'

gIslmmar .....

5 rgis1[ 'V'

glslmmar .

6 rgiS1[gisimmar .

7 [gis ? ']V' [

ama gi simmar .....

rev.

1, r 1 r A 'I 1[ ] r 1 e

p a pic '" Bllv............ a 1 t sue

MSL 5 BM 34799

(284) gisgisimmar dilmun'" til-mu-nu-u ytcrtJ.lap o[t]I..torV 0\I..torv1[co]

(285) gisgisimmar dilmun= as-nu-u ytcrtJ.lap O[t]I..lOV aO'avrco1

(286) giSgisimmar ma-gan-na ma-ak-ka-nu-u ytcrtllap J.laya(v) llaxaVrCOl

(287) giSgisimmar me-lub,-bame-lub-bu-u ytcrt).lUp J.l11t..co J.l111..rC01

(288) giSgisimmar su-hus-tur su-fJuJ-Su [y]tO't).lap [O]rop1 0'000'

(289) gisgisimmar-tur-ra su-!Ju.S-.su [yt]O't).l[ap roop 0'000'1

Line 1': The line corresponds to a bilingual incantation: rabisu

lemnu [ J aj ttiq, although the final vowel in the Greek transcrip-

tion is unexpectedly long, ittq, which looks erroneous.

Line 284: o[tJI..tOV Ehl..tovco: One expects intervocalic [m] to be replaced by u or perhaps omitted altogether, but t is not expected here. The [m] of gisimmar is preserved since it represents a doubled consonant.

Line 285: couveo: The second syllable may be shewa; cf. ZA 73, 118. Line 287: J.l111..CO ).ll11..ro: The medial [15] vowel is difficult to explain here, although it is comparable with IT] in text no. 5: 125-26 below, ol11..[OU] II di-lu-u. Maul (as fn. 16) 10384 also draws attention to similar uses of 11 in Sum. words, although the 11 appears here for the Akk. form melubbfi as well. According to the normal rules of Greek phonology, 11 for [15] is expected, as attested until late periods by Latin transcriptions of Greek words, e. g. sepia for orpnn (cf. Allen, Vox Graeca,

The Last Wedge

71

66). The Greek transcription, therefore, suggests a lengthened first syllable,/melubl. This text shows the dropping of [l}] in the Greek transcription, as in the writing 0'000' = suhus,

No.4. BM 35726 (Sp. III 245 + 81-7-6, 141).

Sollberger, Iraq 24, 66 (A 5); PSBA 1902 p. 109 (copy and photo of rev.); text Hh III 290- 295 (MSL 5, 117 f.).

obv.

(290) [gisgisimmar TUR (291) gisgisimmar dUI3-[duI3 (292) giSgisimmar TUR

(293) [gi]sama 'gisimmar'

(294) [giS]giSimmar lipis bur-ra (295) [gisgi]simmar nu lipis hab

su-b ]u-u[ s-su] t]a-a-l[u] sa-kin-nu MIN

la-ab-bu

MIN

rev.

(290) [ytO']t).lap o[op] [0'000']

(291) ytO'tllap 000[0] r91al..

(292) ytO't).lap Sop O'alCt(v)

(293) a).la ytO't).lar p 1 onxt V

(294) ytO'tll!ap I..re1<peO' ~cop [ ...... ]

Lines 290-291: oop/Oooo: The Greek transcription suggests the reading dUn.duI3 for TUR.TUR, which is previously attested (see Sb II 303 = MSL 3, 148), and noted by Landsberger in MSL 5, 117 n. 291, citing variants du.du and dug.dug (in contrast to dia.dia.la, an alternative reading for TUR.TUR). Sollberger, Iraq 24: 67 failed to note the correct reading of oop in line 292, which indicates alternation between the single and reduplicated roots TUR and dUn·duD·

Line 291: ytO't).lap: The Greek transcription argues against the reading gisnimbar which is currently in vogue (cf. K. Volk, Inanna und Sukaletuda [1995] 160, based upon Proto-Ea 515b = MSL 14, 52).

Line 292: O'alCt(v): The a is written over an 0, and the 1 is written over an erasure.

Line 294: Brop: The orthography suggests a lengthened syllable in the Sumerian root, i. e. Iburl or Ibor/, similar to Origen's orthography ~rop = '1J (Speiser, JQR 16, 382), but the duplicate reading bur-ra (MSL 5, 117, 294) is a clue to the phonology of the Sum. word, which is likely to be two syllables, Ibu-ra/, and hence the first open syllable [bill is long. I..e<peO': This transliteration of lipis conforms to the familiar pattern of short s corresponding to Latin short Ii] (cf. Allen, Vox Graeca, 61).

72

M.J. Geller

No.5. BM 35458 (Sp. II 1048) + 77807 (84-2-11, 557) + 81-7-1
(unnum.) + unnumbered fragment (+) BM 35459 + unnum-
bered fragment; Goins I. L. Finkel).
Paleographic dating: first cent. BC.
Sollberger, Iraq 24, 71 (No. C2 and No. C3), copy (Pinches) pI
XXVI, published BM 35458 and BM 35459 separately, and was
not able to identify the text.
The obverse of the tablet is lost, but is reconstructed here from the
duplicates.
Text sa = MSL 3,22-23 and MSL 2, 55f.
MSL3,22 BM 35458 + (rev.)
(106) pi-i KA ka-a-gu rcpl[e1] rXl[avy]
(107) i-m-nn KA ka-a-gu ev xra1[vy]
(l08) du-u/ug KA ka-a-gu OOX xa[vy]
(109) zu-u KA ka-a-gu rt;;lou xafvl[YJ
(110) ki-ir KA ka-a-gu [x]ep Xavy
(111) sa-ag SAG sa-an-gu [oYalK cray
(112) su-ur SUR sag-ga-gu-nu-u [crop] crayovo[u]
(113) du-u DU a-ra-gub-bu-u [oo]u ap[a]y[o]fnl[ou]
(114) sa-a DU a-ra-gub-bu-u [cra] f apay l[ onoo]
(115) ra-a DU a-ra-gub-bu-u [pal apay[ onou]
(116) gu-ub-ba DU a-ra-gub-bu-u [yon] apayon[ou]
(117) su-ulh] SUl_IUS a-ra-gub gu-nu-u [co] apayonoful
(118) rkal-[as] KAS4 a-ra-gub sei-sig [Xacr] [ ............ ]
(119) [i] [ gi-it-tu-u [1] [Y11:ou]
(120) ria] IA i-gi-it-ta-a-a [tal [e1Yl'raJ
(121) su-u SU su-u [ ... ] cr[ ou]
(122) sa-a SA sa-a-gi: [on] crary]
(123) sa-a SA i-gi-pi-rig-gu [on] el.Yl.cp[l.Pl.Y]
(124) ub UIj ku-su-i: [ ... ] yo![crou]
(125) as DlL di-lu-u [co] o11A[ou]
(126) ru-u DlL di-lu-u [pOu] 011 [Aou] Line 109: Xav[y]: The KA-sign is nasalized here, while the SAG sign (1. 111, sa-an-gu) is cray, which is the opposite to what one expects. [Note, however, that in classical Greek spelling nasalized g would be written yy.]

Lines 114-116: apayono[u]: The use of unaspirated n is noted above, and the phenomenon of n for 13 is noted by Gignac, Grammar I (see p. 65) 83, in Greek papyri.

The Last Wedge

73

Line 125: o11A[OU]: The correspondence with di-lu-u may be significant, since according to Greek evidence, 11 was only pronounced as I in the second century AD; cf. Allen, Vox Graeca 74, 79.

No.6. BM 48863.

s- A (cf. MSL 3, 110)

Paleographic dating: first cent. AD, script is similar to Pap. Soc. Ital. 459 (72 AD). The tablet was identified by I. L. Finkel, and the restored lexical text was supplied by M. Civil.

obv.
I' 'bu'-njin LAGABXA bu-nin-nu sa me-e]
2' bu-un fLAGABXIMl [nap-pa-lzu]
3' u-du-un LAGABXIM r tel-n[u-ru]
4' [a]s-gaba LAGABXLUL as-ka-fpu]
5' [ba-r]a LAGAB x ME.EN sar-[ru]
6' [pa-tje-' si' LAGABXEN is-sa-a-[ku]
7' la [A.LAGABXIjA]L na-a-[ru]
8' MIN LAGA[ B! x A.IjAL] er itl_[tU]
9' i-sar A.r LAGAB x NUMUN1 r it1-tu-[u]
10/ 'nil-gi-in LAGAB.LAGAB nap-bar-[ru]
11' ku-u KU na-du-[u]
12' rtu-ill rKUl .}"u-ba-t[u]
13' [zi-i KU] rqe-el_[mu] [N. B. - the tablet turns over as a normal cuneiform tablet]

[ .. ] cp. [ ]

2' rcp1ap cra[p]

3' cpa91.cr [ ....... ] 4' cpov [ ... ]

5' e[l] yap

6' [t]'t ret91

7' tcr[ap] e9

8/ rv\y[tV v]acpa[p]

9/ XOJ r va 180u

10' [e]f OJ 1 o] 0 ]ur l3a 1?[9] 11' rt;;\ K[e]tr III

12' [ ... ] 9 [ ... ]

13' [ .. ]. ao.y.

14' [ ...... ] o. [ J

15' yoy 'x" [ ]

rev.

I'

(= obv. 5') (= obv, 6') (= obv. 2') (= obv. 7') (= obv. 8') (= obv. 9') (= obv, 10') (= obv, 11') (= obv. 12') (= obv. 13')

74

M. J. Geller

The lines of Greek on the reverse do not follow the order of the cuneiform lines, which is a pattern similar to that of text no. 11 below.

obv.

Line 3': u-du-un LAGABXIM rte1-n[u-ru]: The scribe may have confused the similar terms du-ru-un 1/ tinuru with u-du-un 1/ utiinu [M. Civil].

Line 3': <pu9HJ: The scribe has made an elementary mistake, reading the signs syllabically rather than according to their Diri value. M. Civil (private communication) proposes another solution to this line, reading LAGABXKIN kiS'-sa-a-[tu].

Line 6': [1]1: E18: Although the cuneiform of the obverse has MIN (= ia), the obvious reading here for 11: is Sum. id /I ittu.

I !

: 'I· Iii :

! I'

No.7. BM 34781 (Sp. II 273) + 35154 (join I. L. Finkel).

s- A (MSL 3, 96: 2, cf. MSL 14, 176); Sollberger, Iraq 24, 64 (No. AI), and 72 (No. C5); copies (pinches) PI. XXV and XXVI. Pinches' copy of the latter tablet appears the wrong way around in PI. XXVI.

obv. rev.

(2) [za-ah UA.A ba-l]a-q[u] [~]UA[UK]

(3) [a-gam AXBA]D a-ga-a[m-mu] uYUJl!

(4) [i-sis AXIG]I qiJib1-[tu4] cr1~[18]

(5) [se-du A X DU]L du-us-SIu-u] r cr111 30cr[ro]

(6) [e-du-ur] AXA ap-[lu] 1130p U[cpUA]

(7) [za-a Z]A ra1-me-[lu] [~]u U[UE/"(?)]

(8) [a-ad AD4 ku-u]m-[bu-lu] [ut1:1 XO[Jl~OA]

(9) [su-ur SUR za-na-nu] [crotp1 ~ru1[vuv]

(10) [su-ur SUR qa-ra-ru] [crop] ~u[pup]

(11) [su-ur SUR qa-fJa-tu4 [crop ~]u[~u8]

The text shows the usual indications of ~ for l]., as in texts no. 1 and 4 above, in contrast to texts 2 and 3, which have l]. unrepresented in the Greek.

Line 5: [cr]l1 30cr[ro]: One might consider haplography here, assuming the Greek as [cr]l1(o), although an alternative possibility is that the Sum. value attested here for AXDUL is actually Ise/, rather than file-duJ as attested only in Ea 112 as AXLAGAR-gunu (MSL 14, 176). Bilingual references, however, attest to both IMrl and Isil for dussu (CAD D 199, Ut. Lem.5: 136 = CT 16 14 iv 30, and tn. Lem. 12: 5 [sar]'), The Greek transliteration crll suggests a reading [se] as another example of a long open syllable. The reading proposed by Maul (as

The Last Wedge

75

fn, 16 10384), se.du = cr118 is unlikely to be correct, since it either assumes 11 here represents a short Ie] vowel, or a long Ie] within a closed syllable.

Line: 1130p: Note 11 here for [15]. Proto-Ea 3 has the readings du-ru = A and e = A (MSL 14, 30), so that the sign edurutx xx) presumably reflects a combination of these signs, although the Greek transliteration suggests the same pattern of an initial long open syllable [edur], as seen also in JlllAO) [meluh) (text no. 3: 287) and 011/..0U [dilu] (text no. 5: 125).

No.8. BM 77229 (83-6-20, 9).

Text = Sb 1-4 (MSL 3, 96, cf. MSL 14, 176). Paleographic dating: first cent. AD.

BM 77229 MSL
obv. rev.
1. re1_a [ ............... ] [ ...... V]rU1K e-a na-a-qu
2. [z]a-al]. [ ............... ] [ ..... ~U]/"UK za-ah ba-la-qu
3. a-gam [ ............... ] [ ......... ] uyu[Jl] a-gam a-gam-mu
4. [i]r tIC ........... ] [ ..... ]. ir di-im-tum No.9. BM 33778 (Rm IV 336).

Sollberger, Iraq 24, 72 (No. C4), copy (pinches) pI. XXVI, could not identify the text. Since the obverse of the tablet is lost, the cuneiform is reconstructed from duplicates.

Text: Ea IV 122-123, cf. 35a-36 (= MSL 14, 360, cf. ibid 356):

MSL BM 33778 rev.
(122) has-hu-ur MA-g. magu-nu-u fJaS-fJu-ru [ ]r 1 r 1
..... Jl U xcov ro
[ ...... ]
(123) du-ur-ba MA-g. MIN MIN v_,. d • [ ..... JlJUKo)V
sa nm-MA-g.
SUMma I· .......... ] The phonological rules of transliteration are followed, with K = g, although also suggesting reading *gunu. It is worth noting that the scribe corrected his own mistake in the second line, changing an original X to K. The reading KroVO) for gunCt contrasts with text no. 5: 112 above, which reads cruyovou for sag-gun Ct.

This fragment may belong to text no. 12 (Samas Hymn) as a second extract on the tablet.

76

M.l. Geller

No. to. HSM 1137.

The text and notes on this tablet from the Harvard Semitic Museum have been published by the present author in ZA 73 (1983) 114-121. The text gives the Akkadian only of an original bilingual incantation known as zi-pa incantations, published by R. Borger, AOAT 1 (1968) 10: 170-183.

Paleographic dating: not earlier than the first cent. AD (ZA 73, 114), and possibly second cent. or early third cent. AD.

The following corrections are addenda to the publication cited above:

Line 4: The word Ka~ap was incorrectly read in ZA 73, 114: 4 as Xa~ap, and again, ZA 73, 117, notes to line 4, one should read Ka~ap = qabri.

Line 9: lXlAEl8: The Greek form suggests a plural ikleti, as in Maqlu II 78: ik-le-e-ti tus-nam-mar, "you brighten up the darkness". Cf. ZA 73, 118, suggesting that the second syllable represents shewa.

i !

, ,

No. 11. BM 34816 (Sp. II 315 + 82-7-4, 139).

Sollberger, Iraq 24, 69 (No. B2). Copy (Pinches) plate XXVI. Paleographic dating: first cent. AD.

Bilingual incantation. The text is unidentified, but similar to Utukkii Lemniitu tablet IX. The format of the Greek transliteration does not follow that of the cuneiform on the obverse, but may represent transliteration into Greek from another Vorlage. Although the cuneiform text is organised in the usual interlinear format, the lines of Greek appear to have an unusual Akkadian-Sumerian interlinear format, which is unexpected. The alternative is that the Greek transliteration originally had a Sumerian-Akkadian-Sumerian format in each line, which is also common in school texts, but the spacing on the tablet seems to preclude this possibility.

1. [lil]Jlal ki-sikil ki-sikil-lil-la u-dla-kar-ra] [~i-lu-u li-lP tun Kl-SIKIL ar-da-t[u? Ii-li-ll

2. fdlnam-tar hul-gal a( -sag) gig tu-ur nu-[ du lO-ga dab-] fd'nam_f tar' lem-nu a-sak-ku marGIG la [(a-bu se-ru]

3. f e-a-se' nam-ba-kua-jkua-de]

ana Eli la f tel-r[u-ub-su]

4. sa uru nam-mu-ujn-giz-da]

[ina] ri-bi-ti la t[a-lam-mi-su]

5. fSa hurl-sag-ta sa nu-du., numun-kulr-ru-de]

[is-tu KUR la] 'ka-sad-di e?l [la- ]

,

The Last Wedge

77

1. [AlAa XlcrXlA] XlcrXl[A AlAa] [ooo]a [xap] AlAl[8 ap]foa 1[8 A1Al] 2. lw pt]fj318 [Aa 8]aAull[lcr] [au oip] vUIlOOY110U

3. [VUIl8]up AEIlV ucrux uoupc [AU] f 'tu~' csrp [vull8ap ~OAYUA ucruy yty 800p voudoj] 4. [ EUcre] VUllovxouxoo't

[eve ~l8 A]U 811PO<Pcr

5. [au ~opcruy8u ou VODOO(Y) V0J.l]OVxopo't

(= obv. 1)

(= obv.4)

(= obv. 2)

(= obv. 3)

(= obv.5)

Line 5: numun-kujr-ru-de]: The NUMUN-sign has been used phonetically in place of the Sum. prefix nu-mu-un, as noted by Sollberger, Iraq 24, 70, which reflects the phenomenon one might find in late scribal school texts, or possibly evidence of dictation. Sum. kur is probably phonetic here for Igur/, 'return'.

Line 1: XlcrXt[A] /I ki-siki1: The occurrence of two short syllables here contrasts with the writing ~et8 for ki-ta in text no. 2: 3 above suggesting a long open syllable [kr]. The orthography XlcrX1A, however, represents in this case a sequence of short closed syllables, as suggested already in Sollberger's transliteration kiskil, Iraq 24, 69 f.

Line 2: [tv pi] fj3'8 [AU 8]uAUJ.l[ta] I [on cop] VUJ.lOOY110U: the order of the Sum. and Akk. lines within this couplet has been reversed.

Line 3: [vuJ.l8]up AeJ.lV ucrux uoopc [Aa] f'tU~' cstp I [vuJ.l8up ~oAyaA acray yty 800p VODOOY]: the order of the Sum. and Akk. lines is reversed, as in the previous couplet, which is an unusual feature of this tablet. It might be the case that the confusion in the order of the lines was caused by copying from a Vorlage with Sum-Akk.-Sum. line format, rather than in interlinear Sum.-Akk. lines, or that scribe was copying from memory and confused the order of lines.

Line 4: vUllovxouXOO't: for nam-ba-kuz-Ikua-de]. The final 't suggests that Sum. ledel suffix might be read as IdeJ, as it occasionally appea~s in phonetic Sum. (cf. Th. Jacobsen, ZA 78 [1988] 195 f., and AS 16 [1965] 99). The difference between the quality of the two [ti] vowels in this Sum. form may reflect the elision of the root vowel in kU4 with the ledel suffix. However, the suffix element here contrasts with vUIlOOY110U of 1. 2, which shows -eda-suffix, and the [e] expressed by Greek 11 reflects the elision of the root vowel (gi4) with the ledel suffix.

78

M.J. Geller

No. 12. BM 33769 (Rm IV 327).

Paleographic dating: first cent. Be.

Sollberger, Iraq 24, 71 (No. Cl), copy (Pinches), PI. XXV.

Sollberger thought the text to be a list of garments or of flours, but it is an extract from the Samas Hymn; cf. BWL 136: 169-172:

1. su-ut i-ba-f>l-[u er-se-ti rapastl1

2. su-ut i-kab-ba-s[u sade e-lu-u-t~

3. dlitlJ-mu su-ut tdmti (A.AB.[BA) sa ma-lu-u pu-lulJ-ta]

4. [e-n1b AB.BAtam-ti sa [apsf i-ba->-u]

1. [crouO 1.13au epcreO] p[a]cpacrO

2. [crouO tKa~acr cra3TJ e]AouO

3. [Aa~al! crouO OauO lla]Aou <pOAO~O

4. [EPt~ OallO ou acp]m t~arul[oo](?)

5. [ ] x

This fragment may also be the same tablet as text no. 9 above (BM 33778).

Line 4: l~au[oo]: The diphthong is noted in Allen, Vox Graeca, 76, although the likelihood here is that I) represents intervocalic aleph.

No. 13. VAT 412.

Transcription and copy of the Greek text (by L. Messerschmidt) was published by A. H. Sayee in PSBA (1902), 124f., and T. Pinches, 118, and a photo is published in the Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts 56 (1941) 818. Sol1berger comments in Iraq 24, 71 (no. B3), that the text is 'rather obscure', suggesting reading 11. 3-4 as follows:

[nfS] sa bel massii

nfs sa belet mast[ak~

Sollberger's suggestion that the text is a hymn or incantation is thus far unsubstantiated. The tablet is likely to come from Babylon, as do the British Museum tablets. Paleographic dating: dated to the time of Tiberius (Sollberger, Iraq 24, 71).

obv.

l' [ ] fXl i-n[a ]

2' [ ] rxl x U fXl [ ]

3' [dNissaba KU(?)-t]U4 DUMU.MI da-nim 'x x Xl a-mal [ ... ]

4' [ ] f 1 fE' gis", , 1 dk' [ '] . . . . . . . . x -r u-u l''1A u-s u

5' [ ........ ] fX par-!fil(?) SU.rU;Ul.IjA[.MES]

6' [ ] fXl [ ....... ]

7' [ ]-daJru1 sa-a-m[ul

8' [ ].MES? 'x' [ ]

The Last Wedge

79

1. [ ] f.~ cral [ ]

2. [lm;falp acrOa pa~afOl [ ]

3. f~TJA al .. ] ~TJAl!acr Ooo[al! ]

4. vl.crcra~ EAEO l!acrO [ ....... ]

OU~fCOl [ ........ ]

5. vi] ecr]avYl.(A) ~av[av ]

6. [ t.lcrucop co] ]

7. [ ] ral [ ]

The tablet has a ruling on both obverse and reverse, indicating that it most likely contains two extracts from diverse sources, which is usual in school texts. The difficulty is, therefore, that the cuneiform and Greek texts probably do not confirm to each other, but could represent two successive texts, copied in cuneiform and transliterated in Greek letters, which do not overlap as they are now preserved. The obverse appears to contain two extracts, the second of which (ll. 6' -8'), judging by the lay-out, may be lexical.

The Greek text appears to mention the goddess Nissaba, which accords with the Akkadian reference to the marat Anim (1. 3), as well as with the reference to Kusu, Nissaba's consort. Furthermore the reference to the hand-cleansing ritual (sululJlJU) might suggest the type of ritual found in F. Thureau-Dangin, Rituels accadiens, but no duplicate has as yet been found.

rev.

Line 4. vl.crcra~ eAeO: Cf. Rit. ace, 14: 22 and 22: 5, "Ntssaba elleti, which differs from Sollberger's reading cited above.

Ol)~ro: these letters might have been carried over from the previous line, i. e. [X]/ou~co as a writing of dku-su.

Line 5. vi] ... ecr]avYl.(A) ~av[av]: Esagil zananu, "to provide for the Esagil". This theoretical restoration is based upon the assumption that the phonetic pronunciation of Isag! as sang would have been preserved. Cf. text no. 5 above, in which the KA sign (rendered in MSL 3, 21: 105-110 as ka-a-gui appears as xavy. [See note to no. 5: 109.]

Line 6. oixop co]: The u here probably corresponds to intervocalic aleph or 1m!, as noted in other texts (text no. 10: 6 and 7).

No. 14. BM 38461.

Paleographic dating: first or second cent. AD.

The text is only preserved with Greek letters, the cuneiform being lost, but the text is clearly a colophon, as in no. 13 below. The colophon has some important parallels with the LB colophons known

:! i

I,·, :

!II'

1,'1

,I

I,

80

M. J. Geller

from the Nabu-sa-hare Temple (cf, A. Cavigneaux, Textes scolaires du Temple de Nabu sa !jare [1981] 37 ff.).

I' [ ].[ ]

2' [ ] eapav

3' [ ]get

4' [ lcr'9 [cr]a avo. Napo[u]

5' [ ] rcr'aAa(f.l) ~dp'

6' [ nealet o~ovet'

7' [ 'wuP] A.tpr et' tOUP ostp

8' [ ] ou cr[ ]pet

9' [ [si

10' [ avo. KOVVro 1O']oet(?)

11' (traces)

Line 2': ea.pav: The name occurs in no; 15 below as a proper name. Line 4'; avo. Nujio]»]: It is tempting to restore afterwards [ou ~apet], thus conforming to the Nabu-sa-hare colophons, but it is equally likely (as in text no. 15 below, another colophon) that this is part of a personal name, presumably Nabu-rimanni.

Line 5'; craA.a(f.l) ~etp: salam zeri occurs often in the Nabu-sa-hare colophons; cf. Cavigneaux, op. cit. 39 et passim.

Line 6': o~ovel; although one expects uzne, this pattern of a vocal shewa occurs in other Graeco-Babylonia texts, as in no. 2: 4 above, sapli§ II craepaA.tcr.

Line 7': tOUP Atpet tOUP csip: tub libbe tub seri; it is difficult to identify the case ending at the end of libbu, but these st endings are consistent throughout this colophon. The expression occurs in the colophon published by D. Snell in RA 88 (1994) 60; 13, readings corrected by P. Gesche in N.A.B.U. 1995 (no. 3) 58.

Line 10'; [avo. KOVVro 1O']3et: a theoretical reconstruction based upon Nabn-sa-hare colophons, cf. Cavigneaux (op. cit.) passim, and Snell, RA 88, 60.

No. IS.

The reverse only (i. e. the Greek text) of this tablet from St. Petersburg was published in hand copy and photo by W. G. Schileico, Ein babylonischer Weihtext in griechischer Schrift, MO 5 (1928-29) lIB; the cuneiform text is presumed to be lost. It has not been collated. S1. Maul made the astute observation that the text is not a Weihtext, as Schileico thought, but is actually a colophon, somewhat similar to other LB colophons such as those in CT 42, 24 and SBH no. 56.; see

The Last Wedge

81

Maul, La fin de la tradition cuneiforme et les "Graeco-Babyloniaca", Cahiers du Centre G. Goltz, Revue d'Histoire ancienne (1995) 12f. The fact that the top edge of the tablet is preserved proves that the text itself is a colophon-tablet, which was copied as a school exercise, rather than a colophon copied from the reverse or end of another text; the colophon itself served as a school exercise. The tablet uses colons throughout corresponding to Babylonian Glossenkeil, which is unusual.

rev.

1. cra PllA «poe f.lap ou re'[a]pav cr[a] prTJ , [A]

2. oov : (t)epap3a step1O' : OrO'[A(?)] r.' aA.'lax? vapro'[u]

3. pwav: pn : met 0PPlX [paAJ a't[tcr] craA.a[f.l]

4. ro'~ov paepacre crral t,'et A.teporcr?'

5. [00tepcrap'ou:9: mf.l[9 ]0. mae

6. [ ,t3?0?epl [on tojropou : at Slre'[tK]

"Belonging to Bel-Ipus son of Ea-bani (son) of Belsunu: he was pleased(?); craftsman(?) [ .. ] .. of Nabfi-rimanni, to extend the days of [his] life and well-being, and may the wise one who [ ... ] .. performs the scribal arts ... [ ... ] ... [ ... ]; (as for) the tablet [which he] wrote - may it not break".

Line I: PllA upoo: The name occurs in a colophon of a late bilingual incantation text, dated to 183/2 BC (Hunger, Kolophone no. 421), which is ascribed to an 1M SAR.RA mdBel-fpus, 'inscribed tablet of B.'. A scribe by that name is also attested in OECT 10 no. 4. The name Bel-tpus is similar in structure to Mannu-ipus (Menippos), the hero of Lucian's account of the journey to the Netherworld, discussed above.

ea.pav: The name Ea-bani appears in text no. 14 above (also a colophon), and is also attested in a text from the 28th year of Darius (G. McEwan, OECT 10 no. 153).

Lines 1-2: PllA.croV: The personal name Belsunu is well attested in colophons (Hunger, Kolophone 148), and occurs in Y~S 6 p. 19, and in a Seleucid marriage contract from Kis (YOS 9 no. 73).

(t)epapoa: The suggested reading here is for ipparda (of napardui, "to be joyous", as a parallel to the similar expression used frequently in colophons, (ub libbi. The initial iota would have been forgotten after the Glossenkeil, which is itself difficult to explain here. The presence of the final -a case vowel might suggest a ventive ending. Although the term napardii is not attested in colophons, it is used in Examenstext B in the S stem to elucidate secrets (cf. CAD Nil 278), which is a comparable context for this type of school exercise tablet.

82

M. J. Geller

stoto : 6ro'[).(?)]: The suggested reading, for epis dulli "craftsman", as a term for the scribal craft is very provisional. The initial 0 could also be a as read by Schileico, since the two letters are often difficult to distinguish, but an 0 could also conform to the traces.

r.'a).?ux?: Schileico read ]xa).ax, but the first letter of the sequence is quite damaged. One might speculate with a reading ina allik(i), "in the way (i. e. method) of Nabu-rimanni", but the reading is far from certain.

Lines 2-3: vapouptuav: The name vapouptuav is no doubt the name Nabu-rimanni, which is a contemporary personal name since it is attested by Strabo, XVI i 6, who refers to a Chaldaean named Naburianos (already cited by Schileico, op. cit. 13), perhaps representing the name of a late scribal family known also in this colophon from Babylon (see p. 49 above).

vapopmav : P11 : Not "des Hirten Naburlwanni" as translated by Schileico (op. cit. 13), but rather two alternative readings of the name are indicated by the Glossenkeil (:), namely either vupoupmuv or vcPOUP11av. The orthography of vcfioopiouv reflects u for intervocalic [m], as in onucc (text no. 10: 6) and similar examples noted above. An alternative phonology is indicated by the reading 110UK for emuq in text no. 16: 4, giving 11 for rei] < lew], which is equally possible as a reading. The orthography vapopwav : P11 allows for primary and secondary readings which are frequently noted in school texts and commentaries.

Line 4: o~ov pu<paa9: for uznu rapastu "the wise one", which occurs regularly in colophons (Hunger, Kolophone 173).

Line 5: 60<pcrapou9: tupsarriui (as understood by Schileico), which also appears in a Nabu-sa-hare colophon (Cavigneaux (as in text no. 14) 40: 16). The Glossenkeil suggests that the scribe proposed an alternative reading for this word, namely sim[tu], possibly 'fate', or sim[tu] 'fitting'.

Line 6: 60<p [on icjropoo: Cf. Cavigneaux op. cit. 41: 5-6 and 42: 8, in which the expression tuppi istur(u) occurs.

at etr9'[tK] cf. etequ B "to break", CAD E 395.

,i

, ~: I

No. 16. BM 34798 (Sp II 291 + Sp. III 311).

Paleographic dating: first cent. AD.

Sollberger, Iraq 24, 67, photo PSBA (1902), 116, photo 117, republished by P. E. van der Meer, MO 13 (1939-41) 126.

Text: Tintir = Babylon, copied and edited by A. R. George, Babylonian Topographical Texts (1992) pl. 6. The following notes are based upon the edition of the text cited above:

I

'I.

Ii .•.•

..

(I

,I:"

,I,·,

I ,_,

The Last Wedge

83

Line 4: 110UK: Knudsen (as fn. 12) 157 takes emiiq as evidence for Aramaic influence in the phonology of late Akkadian, assuming that 11 is used here for short reI, but the 11 is likely to represent an rei] diphthong «[ew]) compensating for the loss of intervocalic [m].

Line 8: [6UtP'crEK: George is assuming (following Sollberger, op. cit. 69) that the Greek is a transliteration of dub-sag-ga'", which occurs in the Sum. half of this line (George, op. cit. 38: 8). The correspondence is complicated, however, by text NO.5: III above, which reads [crta'K cray, corresponding to MSL 3, 111, sa-ag SAG sa-an-gu; .according to the Greek transliteration, the SAG sign (given in the second column of the Greek as aay) corresponds to a logogram ocx, This contrasts with another reading in text Nr. 1: 8 above:

rpa5'-sig [a-tap-pi] <pu crErk' u9ra'<ps[1]

noting clearly that crSK is the equivalent of Sum. Isigl. P. van der Meer's suggestion in MO 13 (1939-41) 125, that crEK here corresponds to sig, was dismissed by Sollberger, op. cit. 69. We would suggest, however, that the Greek 6UPcrEK corresponds to an original *dubsig for mabru, similar to the use of Isig! in Izi F 313, ka-sig = mahrum (cf. MSL 13, 199), rather than to dub-sag-ga,

Line 9: IlUr~'ar P '[0]: George's reading of Ilapu't" also conforms to the traces, but the rules of transliteration require a e as final letter, corresponding to Akk. mah-ra-tu. Sollberger (op. cit. 68) read this word as Ilaxpap, which looks impossible, although the reading lla~ap9 for mahartu (mabrlitu) avoids the problem of the loss of the b in Greek transcription, one of the alternative ways of transliterating this sound.

Line 10: a PElcrU(9): In two cases in this text final liquid ). may have assimilated to the following consonant, 1. e. al-risat! > arrisati, and again in 1. 11, lil sa > assa, noting in the second instance that final vowel of ii/(u) was not preserved and probably not pronounced.

No. 17. Ash. Mus. 1937.993.

Paleographic dating: second cent. Be.

This tablet has been copied three times in recent years, and has been the subject of two separate articles. The first was by J. A. Black and S. M. Sherwin-White, A clay tablet with Greek letters in the Ashmolean Museum, and the "Graeco-Babyloniaca" texts, Iraq 46 (1984) l31-140. The article included both a photograph and hand copy of the tablet, and although the paleography of the tablet was discussed in detail, no attempt was made at decipherment.

84

M.l. Geller

The second article is by St. M. Maul, Neues zu den "Graeco-Babyloniaca", ZA 81 (1991) 87-107, which also included his own copy of the tablet. Maul's decipherment of this tablet is based upon reading it as a Sumerian-Akkadian bilingual incantation, which at first appears remarkably convincing. The decipherment, however, is not useful for the present article for two reasons:

1. Maul's decipherment is based upon a free association of Greek letters and their usage in transliterating Sumerian and Akkadian, with-

, out reference to the rather rigid rules of transliteration known from other Graeco-Babyloniaca tablets, as well as other sources cited above, such as Origen and the Septuagint. Hence, in Maul's system, X = lj, k or q, t = t and t, e = t and S, 0 = d or t, p = b, p, or m, cp = b or p, and st = e, e, i, and 1, and co = u, n, or u (Maul, op. cit. 107). The entire system is so different from any other Graeco-Babyloniaca transliteration discussed above that it has been disregarded for the purpose of this study. As Gignac has demonstrated in his grammar, a certain degree of interchange and variation between consonants and vowels occurs in Greek orthography, which can offer important clues to pronunciation of Greek, but these are exceptional and isolated cases which are not concentrated in a single manuscript or papyrus (cf. Gignac, Grammar (see above, p. 65) I, 57 ff.),

2. The Ashmolean tablet is not provenanced, and there is therefore no evidence that it comes from Babylonia. In contrast to other known Graeco-Babyloniaca texts, there is not a single trace of any cuneiform signs on the tablet. Although Maul's copy has indicated erased traces of cuneiform signs on the reverse, I have collated and re-copied the tablet in order to show that those traces which were read by Maul as cuneiform are, in fact, erased traces of alphabetic letters. Both the obverse and reverse of the tablet are inscribed in Greek, which is unprecedented in any of the Graeco-Babyloniaca corpus above. Furthermore, the Ashmolean tablet turns end-over-end, which is unusual for Graeco-Babyloniaca tablets, which usually turn side-to-side from obverse to reverse (with the sole exception of text no. 6 above).

One argument which could be marshalled in favour of identifying this tablet as Graeco-Babyloniaca is the absence of 11:, since this letter is almost always represented in Graeco-Babyloniaca texts by aspirated cp. However, the Greek letter 11: is often omitted in Greek papyri from Egypt (cf. Gignac, Grammar 164), as can be seen from the following example of a unique tablet inscribed in Greek, which may be comparable to the Ashmolean tablet. There is no cuneiform on the following

The Last Wedge

85

tablet (text no. 18), which is from a private collection, but the few words which can be deciphered appear to suggest an Egyptian provenance:

No. 18. (private collection).

In a private communication with a previous owner of this tablet,

C. A. Faraone suggests that the tablet, dating from c. 300 AD, bears general similarities with the Greek magical papyri. Of particular interest are the Egyptian gods Har-Khen(ty)-Ammon (II. 2-3) and HarKhen(ty)-Khnouphis of 1. 9:

1. uvueol.ClpuvutpUP

2. Xevu)l)lOUOU)lUCiUt

3. Ciefu'atUtUUPVUAUl

4. ~upoUlaCiUutet 5 . VUU)lIlOO~ap

6. oatUAeuuAelC

7. )lB V lCOVtaOU tn

8. CieollUlouyCOV

9. aupxevvoucpu

10. f p'eCillevxovoofCiUV'

This tablet demonstrates that Greek transliterations of languages inscribed in clay are not restricted to Graeco-Babyloniaca, and that a Graeco-Babyloniaca text can only be safely identified by the presence of cuneiform signs on the tablet, or by decipherable phrases indicating Akkadian or Sumerian. .

Palaeography

Much more work is still required on the palaeography of both the Greek and cuneiform scripts on these tablets. Some preliminary general observations can be offered here.

The majority of Graeco-Babyloniaca tablets from the British Museum's Spartoli collections appear similar in form, consisting of a rather large and slanted cuneiform script, and the Greek scripts appear to date from either the first cent. BC or AD, and the quality of the clay appears to be similar, and either reddish or grey in colour. Examples of this group are the lexical texts, nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7, all of which may date from the first cent. Be. The lexical fragment, no. 9, appears to have a Greek script similar to that of the Samas hymn, text no. 12, and could represent parts of the same exercise tablet consisting of both

86

M.l. Geller

literary and lexical extracts. Another example of this type of extract tablet is text no. 3, which contains the last line of an incantation (possibly bilingual) followed by a ruling and then a lexical extract, although the tablet does not join another bilingual incantation, text no. 11.

Text no. 5, another lexical tablet, is nearly complete, since both the top and bottom edges of the tablets are extant, but the various fragments have been joined from various collections, and both the script and light-coloured clay appear to differ from other lexical tablets cited above. Another lexical tablet, no. 6 (BM 48863), comes from a different group within the Babylon collection. The clay differs both in its quality and colour from other Graeco-Babyloniaca tablets, and the Greek script is rather faintly etched into the surface; moreover, the tablet exceptionally turns end-over-end rather than side-to-side and has been palaeographicaUy dated to the first cent. AD.

The Greek scripts of duplicate texts no. 7 and 8 differ significantly (e. g. the shape of the alpha), and text no. 8 appears to be a later script, probably to be dated in the first cent. AD.

The colophon tablet (text no. 14) shows a cursive Greek handwriting which suggests a first cent. AD script which is likely to be later than the other colophon tablet from St. Petersburg (text no. 15).

Finally, the Harvard Semitic Museum tablet (text no. 10) has been dated to at least the first cent. AD, but comparisons with other Greek scripts in this corpus indicate a very cursive handwriting which may well suggest dating this tablet to the second cent. AD, or even later.

The Last Wedge

87

No.1

BM 34797 rev.

No.2

BM 35727

Plate I

88

M. J. Geller

NO.3 BM 34799 obv.

·1

No.4 BM 35726 obv.

Plate II

The Last Wedge

89

No.5 (BM 35458 + obv. missing)

BM 35458 + 77807 + 84-2-11 +

(+) 35459 + unnumbered fragment

unnumbered fragment

rev.

(BM 35459 + unnumbered fragment)

,

\ 1 \

Plate III

90

M. 1. Geller

No.6

BM 48863 obv.

BM 48863 rev.

No.7 BM 34781 + 35154 obv.

Plate IV

The Last Wedge

91

No. 11 BM 34816 .. ~~±; # .,6;\\.

obv. ~ ..z.~ !~:.

".'0"'

Plate V

92

M. J. Geller

f (middle of the tablet)

Plate VI

(middle of the tablet)

The Last Wedge

93

No. 17

Ash. Mus. 1937.993

'2tffI ~ P f"l;~%~ "-[ Jp ~)' (;.:;~J~ 1 VA (f 4:i~<:"{)CG

',',:, ~ ~j:,~ c3 A \ L 16, <.{~ L »-: ;):';~';:. '.'

CZ~ci (1,}i~1 ~ ~! ty !~.;),1Wr~:if1AP lJt/y,::;l

%':-"' ":,' ~"'''')!'''''IA

(three lines of Greek script erased)

Plate VII

94

M. J. Geller

No. 12

BM 33769 obv.

Plate VIII

,- ,

i ~: ;

The Last Wedge

95

'" '"

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ! ~ ~ ~ N M

~!;;=;~!;~~OO~~~~~ ~::;~

...... ::;;_ •• ..,.., .... ;S; r-- ..,;S; .... ,.., 'Qfo<o;

~ ~ s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -e ~~

A ~ o: (/\.. A...b- t1.. A c-. 6-.J>- l>-J>- l>- A /:L 1>-- C>-- t\

BE~B,J1. 511 b ~11~15

r rl I r: J r r: J t: r [f1 1>1.'>- 4 &6- ¥~ b.b-b- i>-b.. d

E G?{ E- c G IE @ G G- e I:: c:.

z 2:L ZTZZ_

H VMJ(H..H. H :{~k r<ftK

eeQ-GB68 Bf> e () (j-0e

I) !L\(J tl (\) l\J~

K )C... rc It K-}C)L y.)1_ vi ~ Ie A A J'-A- A- j\ J'....A.A/'- r-: A ~ A (\

M ~ r« )\.LL J'1J.I\ M (I'- .M. M M M

N N-N rV N N,N' )\.l }J rJ tJ fJ.}(N(V

B '5 ::!- s z., 1-- \1

o D 0 0 /) 0 CJ 0 Q' U 6 () () o 0 0

II TC

P iy r rr- y f p P- f Y P

L C c: c' G C C' C-- c: C Cc--

T T r T T

Y YYi 'i~y r

cp q:J L\:l cP (f 9 ~) f.

X xx 'j X X. 0/ n (!l "vi LULU

r P V f C L C. c

'tT 1:'~Yr 1, 4' ~ !,p? cr RXXXX )(

w

alternative letter forms.
a -A- IA. CA-
~ ~ (A_a erG! ~
€t k
l( '-"
.J
l; b
V )\J
$ i
u 't: Table of Greek Scripts