Del Nero Za Catalogues

7/28/2019 Del Nero Za Catalogues

1/24

32 Paul Delnero

Sumerian Literary Catalogues and the Scribal Curriculum

by Paul Delnero Baltimore

In recent reconstructions of the Old Babylonian Sumerian scribal curriculum it has beenproposed that at the beginning of the second or advanced phase of scribal training pupilslearned a group of ten literary compositions called the Decad. These reconstructions are

based primarily on the assumption that two OB incipit lists, known as the Nippur andLouvre catalogues, list the content and sequence of the advanced curriculum. In this article

this assumption is re-evaluated, and it is argued that the Nippur and Louvre catalogues areinventories and not curricular lists.

1. Introduction

In many recent treatments of Sumerian literature, Sumerian literarycompositions have been studied from the perspective of their use as toolsfor training scribes. One aspect of this topic that has been examined in par-

ticularly extensive detail is the sequence in which they were learned. Inter-est in the order in which specific texts and exercises were copied beganwith the reconstruction of the sequence of exercises that were learned byapprentice scribes at the beginning of their training proposed by Veldhuis(1997). The next or advanced phase of the scribal curriculum was then ana-lyzed by Tinney (1999), who argued that the elementary exercises identifiedby Veldhuis were followed by four literary compositions he called the Tet-rad, and another group of ten literary texts he named the Decad.

Tinneys argument for the sequence of the advanced curriculum is

based largely on two Old Babylonian tablets containing lists of Sumerianliterary compositions classified by their incipits. The first of these lists,which is from Nippur and was originally identified and published byKramer (1942) (henceforth designated the Nippur Catalogue1), containsa list of the incipits of 62 literary compositions; the first ten entries in thislist correspond to the ten compositions in the Decad (Sulgi A [SA],Lipit-Estar A [LiA], The Song of the Hoe [Al], The Exaltation of

1 This tablet, which is part of the tablet collection at the University Museum in Philadel-phia , was published by Kramer with the number CBS 29.15.155, but is now numberedUM 29-15-155. For a complete list of all the compositions listed in this text that have

been identified see Black et al. (2004, 301304) and Vanstiphout (2003, 1921).

Zeitschr. f. Assyriologie Bd. 100, S. 3255 DOI 1515/ZA.2010.003 Walter de Gruyter 2010ISSN 0084-5299


2/24

Sumerian Literary Catalogues and the Scribal Curriculum 33

Inana [InB], Enlil in the E-kur [EnA], The Kes temple hymn [KH],Enkis journey to Nibru [ErH], Inana and Ebi [IEb], A hymn toNungal [Nu], and Gilgamesh and Huwawa, Version A [GH]).2 The first

four entries of the second list (henceforth designated the Louvre Cata-logue3) are broken, but the entries that follow the break duplicate entries510 of the Nippur Catalogue, making it probable that the first ten entriesof both lists are identical. On the basis of this correspondence, and sincesome of the texts in the Decad are found in sequence on a number ofcollective sources containing multiple compositions,4 Tinney (1999, 159)argued that these two lists are not arranged arbitrarily, but instead give, insequence, the next ten texts read in schools after (the Tetrad).

Tinneys argument, which has been adopted in nearly all of the studies

of the scribal education that have been conducted since, rests largely onthe assumption that the Nippur and Louvre catalogues are curricular lists.This assumption has been very influential in determining how the ad-vanced phase of the scribal curriculum was structured. In a further devel-opment of this theory, Robson (2001, 5557) identified an additionalgroup of fourteen literary compositions, which, like the Decad, are alsolisted toward the beginning of the Nippur and Louvre catalogues and areparticularly well represented in House F at Nippur. She concluded that

these fourteen texts (which she calls the House F Fourteen) might havebeen learned immediately after the Decad (limiting this conclusion, how-ever, to House F). Similarly, in a more recent study, Veldhuis (2004,6264) argued that the composition Nanse and the Birds, because of itsplacement toward the end of the Nippur and Louvre catalogues, belongedto the most advanced stage of the curriculum.

2 Since the appearance of Tinneys study, the Decad as a curricular grouping has been

cited and discussed in numerous publications. For a recent detailed treatment of this to-pic, which includes references to earlier studies and a more extensive bibliography ofeditions and discussions of each of the individual texts in the Decad see Delnero (2006,

22147).3 AO 5393 (TCL 15, 28). This tablet, which was originally published by Kramer (1942,

1719), has also been treated by Bernhardt/Kramer (195556, 393 n.3); Flckiger-Hawker (1996, 105106 n.119); and, more recently, by Vanstiphout (2003, 2224).

4 These sources include a tablet from Isin (IB 1511), which contains the last five compo-sitions in the Decad (KH, ErH, IEb, Nu, and GH); an unprovenienced prism on whichtexts 24 (LiA, Al, and InB) are preserved and which may have originally also havecontained texts 1 (SA) and 5 (EnA); and two collective tablets from Nippur (UM

29-16-198 and UM 29-16-219), which contain texts 12, SA and LiA (Tinney 1999, 169).For additional collective sources containing sequential grouping of texts from theDecad, as well as sources that have catch-lines connecting some of these texts see Del-nero (2006, 3034) and below.


3/24

34 Paul Delnero

Like Tinneys argument for the placement of the Decad, the recon-structions of the advanced curriculum, which have become the standardmodel for understanding scribal education in ancient Mesopotamia, are

also based on the underlying assumption that the Nippur and Louvre cata-logues are curricular. However, this assumption has generally been ac-cepted uncritically, without considering the validity of the arguments thathave been put forward in support of it. In this article the evidence for thecurricular nature of the Nippur and Louvre catalogues will be re-exam-ined. It will be argued that the fundamental premise underlying the recon-structions of the second phase of the curriculum is incorrect, and that theNippur and Louvre catalogues are not curricular lists, but inventories oftablets compiled for archival purposes.

2. The Nippur and Louvre Catalogues as Curricular Catalogues

The theory that the Nippur and Louvre catalogues are curricular cata-logues was first proposed by Civil (1975, 145 n.36) in a footnote in anarticle about Sumerian lexicography. His argument is based essentially onthe following points:

1) Similarities in the structure of the two lists: both the Nippur andLouvre catalogues have at least forty entries in common,5 and six group-ings of two or more entries, including the entries for the texts in the Decad,occur in identical sequence.6

2) The occurrence of some of the compositions at the beginnings ofthese lists on Type II exercise tablets: Civil claimed that the first three, andmaybe even the first five, compositions listed in the Nippur catalogues(i.e. the first three to five texts of the Decad), are among the only literary

compositions attested on Type II tablets. He also noted that the first threetexts (SA, LiA, and Al) are short approximately 100 lines and havea relatively simple structure, further suggesting that these compositionsmay have served a didactic purpose.

3) The existence of catch-lines connecting some of the individual textsin the Decad in sequence: Civil noted that one of the sources for EnA(UM 59-15-1) ends with the incipit for KH, connecting texts five and six of

5 Entries 517, 1939, 41, and 4853 of the Louvre catalogue all duplicate entries in theNippur catalogue.

6 Entries 510, 1113, 1617, 2021, 2223, and 2627 of the Louvre catalogue duplicateentries 510, 1719, 2526, 2728, 3839, and 3233 of the Nippur catalogue.


4/24


the Decad in the same sequence as the Nippur and Louvre catalogues listthese compositions. He also cites a collective tablet (UM 29-16-198)which contains the entire text of SA and concludes with the beginning of

LiA connecting these two texts in the same sequence they are listed in theNippur catalogue.7

4) The observation that these lists seem to include all, or almost all, ofthe best known Sumerian literary compositions: All but approximatelytwenty of the compositions listed in the Nippur and Louvre catalogueshave been identified and are preserved in one or more sources outsidethese lists. Moreover, the compositions listed in these texts represent col-lectively most of the Sumerian literary compositions that have been dis-covered to date, leading some to conclude that these catalogues contain a

nearly complete list of the entire corpus of Sumerian literature that wascopied by scribes during the Old Babylonian Period.8

As convincing as this argument has been found, the need to re-evaluatethe theory that the Nippur and Louvre catalogues are curricular becomesapparent when the observations upon which it is based are considered inmore detail. Upon closer analysis, many of the specific points cited in sup-port of this theory are more problematic than they might at first seem:

7 In addition to these sources, further groupings of texts in the Decad in the same se-quence in which they are listed in the Nippur and Louvre catalogues can now be added.These include the collective sources cited in n.4 as well as a collective source from Ur(UET 6/3, 567) containing InB and EnA (texts 4 and 5 in the Nippur catalogue), anda collective source from Nippur (CBS 15144 + N 3442) containing KH and ErH (texts 6und 7 in the Nippur and Louvre catalogues); additional texts with catch-lines connecting

the texts in the Decad in sequence include a source for Al (CBS 9856) which concludeswith the incipit for InB connecting texts 3 and 4 in the Nippur catalogue and asource for KH (CBS 2155A) which concludes with the incipit for ErH connecting texts5 and 6 in the Nippur and Louvre catalogues. These sources are also cited and discussed

by Delnero (2006, 3233).8 This interpretation is taken to its most logical extreme by Vanstiphout (2003, 1011),who sees in these texts evidence of the existence of a canon of Sumerian literary com-positions that had already formed as early as the Old Babylonian Period. In his view, theNippur and Louvre catalogues contain lists of particular Sumerian texts that were consi-dered to be canonical, and as such represent conscious attempts to establish or recordthe incipits of compositions deemed important enough to be considered canonical. Al-

though this idea has not found broad acceptance, the notion that the Nippur and Louvrecatalogues list the entire corpus of important Sumerian literary compositions is also im-

plicit in the designation of the compositions listed in the Nippur catalogue as the Nip-pur Core Corpus (Karahashi 2000, 198201).


5/24

36 Paul Delnero

1) In addition to the similarities between the structure and content ofthe two lists, there are also substantial differences:

Each of these sources has a number of entries the other does not con-

tain. The Nippur catalogue, which contains six fewer entries than theLouvre catalogue, lists seventeen entries that are not in the Louvre cata-logue. These include a number of compositions such as Gilgamesand Aga (entry 12), Isbi-Erra E (15), and E-dub-ba D (56) that are at-tested in numerous duplicates and seem to have been well known duringthe Old Babylonian Period.9 Similarly, the Louvre catalogue contains atleast twenty-three entries that are not listed in the Nippur catalogue, includ-ing several well known compositions such as The Exploits of Ninurta(entry 18), Inana C (40), The return of Ninurta to Nibru (43), Iddin-

Dagan A (44), A man and his god (45), and Isme-Dagan A (58).10 The sequence of compositions after the first ten is, in many instances,

not even superficially similar. With the exception of the six groups of en-tries cited above (n.5), all of the remaining entries in both lists are listed ina different sequence. Some of these differences like the reversing of theorder of Inanas descent to the nether world and Enki and the worldorder (entries 41 and 42 in the Nippur catalogue, and entries 33 and 32 inthe Louvre catalogue) are relatively minor. Many, however, are more

substantial. The composition Enmerkar and the lord of Aratta, which islisted together with the other three compositions in the Enmerkar cycle(Lugalbanda in the mountain cave, Lugalbanda and the Anzud bird,and Enmerkar and En-sugir-ana) in the Louvre catalogue, is listed tenentries apart from these three texts in the Nippur catalogue. Also, thecompositions Gilgames and the bull of heaven, Gilgamesh and Hu-wawa (Version B) and The home of the fish, which are listed toward thebeginning of the Nippur catalogue (as entries 11, 14, and 16), are listed to-ward the middle of the Louvre catalogue (as entries 37, 38, and 48).

9 The other entries that are found only in the Nippur catalogue are entries 13 (Inanaand Gudam), 43 (unidentified), 5055 (E-dub-ba A; E-dub-ba C; Dialogue 1;The farmers instructions; E-dub-ba B; and Dialogue 5), and 5762 (E-dub-baR; Dialogue 2; Dialogue 3; Diatribe B; Diatribe A; and Diatribe C).

10 The remaining seventeen entries are entries 36 (unidentified), 42 (unidentified), 4647(unidentified), 54 (Su-Suen I), 5557 (unidentified), 59 (Isme-Dagan W), 60 (uni-dentified), 6163 (Sulgi E; Sulgi O; and Sulgi C), and 6467 (unidentified). De-

pending on whether the last entry in the Louvre catalogue, which reads 14 n a - r u2-a ,

is a subtotal referring to the preceding fourteen compositions (Flckiger-Hawker, 1996),or a summarizing entry, it is also possible that this catalogue also lists an additional four-teen compositions, not listed by their incipits, that may have originally been written onmonuments (na - r u2-a).


6/24


The last sections of both lists are completely different. The Nippurcatalogue concludes with a list of thirteen dialogues, diatribes, and othercompositions relating to scribal life, none of which are listed in the Louvre

catalogue (n.9); whereas the Louvre catalogue ends with a list of fourteencompositions, some of which can be classified as royal hymns, that are notlisted in the Nippur catalogue (n.10).

2) While it is true that onecomposition in the Decad (LiA) is attestedon a Type II tablet (CBS 10988), Civil claims that the first three composi-tions in the Nippur catalogue, or even perhaps the first five (SA, LiA, Al,InB, and EnA), all occur on Type II tablets. However, this does not appearto be the case. In the sources listed for the texts in the Decad in Civils un-

published, but frequently cited catalogue of Sumerian literary composi-tions, the only other tablet listed for one of these ten compositions thatcould potentially be classified as a Type II tablet is one source for Al (CBS9856) which, on closer examination, proves to be a Type I tablet that waslater recycled and used to record an extract from Proto Aa.11 Since Veld-huis (1997, 6466) does not mention any further Type II sources for com-positions in the Decad in his discussion of Type II literary sources, and noadditional sources of this type have been cited outside of Civils footnote

about the Nippur and Louvre catalogues, if there are in fact Type II sourcesfor SA, or InB and EnA, there is no verification that such sources exist.Furthermore, LiA is not the only composition listed in this catalogue

for which there is a Type II source. By contrast, the compositionE-dub-ba A, which is listed toward the end of the Nippur catalogue astext 50 out of 62, is also attested on a tablet of this type (Veldhuis 1997,65). If the occurrence of a composition on a Type II tablet is to be used asevidence that these catalogues reflect the sequence in which certain textswere learned, then it is problematic that this text is not listed closer to the

beginning of the catalogue, grouped closer to the incipits for the composi-tions in the Decad.12

11 The reverse of this tablet is inscribed with columns three and four of Al, and the obverse,which must have originally contained columns one and two of this composition, is in-scribed with the lexical list Proto-Aa. Since the text on the reverse is oriented in the wrongdirection (when the tablet is turned over in the usual manner, rotating it in a ninety de-

gree axis from the reverse, the text on the obverse is oriented from right to left instead offrom top to bottom), this would seem to indicate that the extract of Proto-Aa was added

later, after removing columns one and two of Al to make space for this extract.12 While this is not the place for a critical discussion of Veldhuis theory about the corre-

lation between the obverses and reverses of Type II tablets and the sequence of Phase Iof the scribal curriculum, it is worth noting that a closer look at the compositions these


7/24

38 Paul Delnero

3) Catch-lines are generally used to connect either individual tablets ina series or individual sections of a single composition. In Old Babyloniancopies of lexical lists that contain more lines than can be written on a

single tablet, catch-lines connect tablets of a list to additional tablets con-taining continuations of the same list (Veldhuis 1997, 30). Moreover, withlists that form part of a series, like the six divisions of Proto-Ur5-ra, catch-lines are often used to connect a tablet with the end of a division to thenext division in the series (Veldhuis 1997, 49). The same holds true forexcerpts of multiplication and reciprocal tables, which may end with acatch-line corresponding to the first line of the next table in a series oftables (Robson 1999, 175 with n.27). Similarly, sources containing extractsof the composition KH, which is divided, by nature of its structure, into

separate sections of eight to ten houses, often contain catch-lines con-necting the section that has been copied to the next section, or house, inthe composition.13 As of yet, however, no concrete evidence that catch-lines were also used to connect texts belonging to a curricularsequencehas been identified. The catch-lines connecting some of the individualcompositions in the Decad show only that these texts were thought of as agroup with a standardized sequence, but do not reveal anything about thenature of this sequence. The significance of the collective sources contain-

ing groups of some of the texts in the Decad in the order in which they arelisted in the catalogues is equally ambiguous in this respect. Since it has

types of tablets contain reveal a much more complex picture of the sequence of the ele-mentary curriculum than typically appears in reconstructions. To cite only one of manyexamples, on the Type II source containing LiA and Proto-Aa, LiA is written on the re-

verse of the tablet , which would seem to imply, according to Veldhuis theory, that LiAwas learned before Proto-Aa a possibility that is at variance with the assumption thatliterary compositions were learned later in the curriculum than lexical lists. Additionally,

as Veldhuis also noted, there are numerous inconsistencies in the order in which metro-logical tables and advanced lists like Proto-Ea, Proto-Lu, and Proto-Diri, which wereallegedly learned toward the end of Phase I, occur on the obverses and reverses ofType II tablets, suggesting that the sequence of this stage of the curriculum was not fixed(Veldhuis 1997, 58). In fact, the stage of the curriculum that seems to conform the mostconsistently to the distribution of texts on the obverses and reverses of Type II is thestage when the six divisions of the thematic lexical series Proto-Ur5-ra were copied. It isequally possible, however, that the divisions of this list were consistently copied in se-quence because the sequence of these divisions as aserieswas fixed, and not necessarily

because this sequence reflects a fixed curricular order.13 Examples include AO 6717 (TCL 16, pl.117), with a catch-line connecting House 1 and

House 2; 3 N-T 776 and 3 N-T 390, with catch-lines connecting Houses 3 and 4; CBS8384 (MBI 11), with a catch-line connecting Houses 5 and 6; UM 29-15-114, with acatch-line connecting Houses 6 and 7; and UM 29-13-422 and 3 N-T 919, 449, withcatch-lines connecting Houses 7 and 8.


8/24


yet to be demonstrated that there is in fact a correlation between the co-occurrence of various literary texts on collective sources and their relativesequence in the scribal curriculum, it is not possible to determine, on the

basis of this evidence alone, whether the grouping of compositions inthese sources is in fact curricular. While it is certainly possible, and indeedlikely, that the compositions in the Decad were thought of as a distinctgroup in antiquity, neither the catch-lines nor the collective sources dem-onstrate conclusively that this grouping reflects a curricular sequence,leaving open the possibility of a different interpretation.

4) As Civil himself acknowledged, there are also a number of composi-tions that seem to have been popular (if the number of attested duplicates

is any indication of their popularity), that are not included in these lists.Most notable among these is the absence of texts like Ninurtas exploitsand Ninurtas return to Nibru in the Nippur catalogue, and the omissionin both catalogues of texts like Nanna-Suens journey to Nibru, Enliland Nam-zid-tara, and Sulgi D, all of which are attested in numerousduplicates, including multiple sources from Nippur. Conversely, the Nip-pur catalogue lists six compositions that have yet to be identified (entries23, 3537, 43, and 46), and the Louvre catalogue lists sixteen (entries 28,

35, 39, 4142, 4647, 5152, 5557, 60, and 6467). While some of theseentries may refer to known compositions whose beginnings are not pre-served14 and other possibly well known compositions have not been founddue to the accident of discovery, the presence of so many unidentifiedcompositions suggests that not all of the compositions listed in these twocatalogues were popular. More problematic for the theory that thesecatalogues are curricular lists, however, is the absence of the four textsin the Tetrad in both lists. Given their apparent status as intermediatelevel exercises, these compositions could reasonably be expected to be

listed along with other literary compositions that belonged to the scribalcurriculum, especially since the incipits of these texts appear in some ofthe other incipit lists from this period that list literary compositions (seebelow).

14 This is almost certainly true of the entry i r i me z i - d a (entry 35 in the Nippur ca-talogue, and entry 28 in the Louvre catalogue), which, because it is listed together withthree other city laments in both catalogues, is likely to be the incipit of The lament forEridug, whose beginning is not preserved.


9/24

40 Paul Delnero

In addition to the Nippur and Louvre catalogues, there are also arelatively large number of additional catalogues that are similar in bothform and structure, and in some cases also content, to these two texts, but

which do not appear to have had a curricular function. Civils theory wasput forward, in part, as a counterargument to another, quite different as-sessment of the function of these sources, which was proposed by vanDijk. Not commenting on the Nippur and Louvre catalogues specifically,but on all of the lists of incipits as a group, van Dijk (1972, 333 n.3) arguedthat many of these tablets are not catalogues, but rather a type of tag usedfor archival purposes:

Jai limpression que plusieurs de ces fameux catalogues ne sont que des textes pisan-

dub-ba, des tiquettes dposes dans les cruches qui contenaient ces compositions lit-traires.

In contrast to Civil, who argues that the Nippur and Louvre catalogueshad a distinct and separate function, van Dijks theory is based on theimplicit assumption that most, if not all, of the tablets containing lists of in-cipits served a similar purpose. Although it is not stated directly, vanDijks interpretation of the function of these sources can therefore also beunderstood to apply equally to the Nippur and Louvre catalogues, which

bear a formal resemblance to the other texts in this group.In support of his position that the Nippur and Louvre catalogues arecurricular lists, Civil (1975, 145 n.36) argued against van Dijks interpre-tation of these sources as archival documents on the grounds that not allOB incipit lists seem to have had the same function. In support of thisposition he claimed that there are two copies of the incipit list HS 1360,and cited the duplication of this list as a reason for rejecting the archivalinterpretation of the function of these two texts:

Van Dijk may be correct in considering some of the preserved catalogues (e. g., UETV, No. 86) as occasional inventories of tablets. However, when one can find duplicatesof a catalogue, even though it has the appearances of an inventory (e.g. TMHNF III,Nr. 55, now duplicated by Ni. 1905), some other interpretation seems to be in order. I

believe this is the case for the so-called Nippur and Louvre catalogues

However, the analogy upon which this argument is based can be calledinto question on a number of grounds. Besides the script and format ofHS 1360, which suggest that this source dates to the Ur III Period, and is

thus older than the other lists to which Civil is comparing it, convincingevidence that this text is not like the texts listed above has been cited byWilcke (1976, 42), who argued, on the basis of some of the internal fea-tures of this source that it is not a catalogue or inventory, but a list of in-


10/24


cantations that were to be read during a ritual. In a more recent treatmentof HS 1360, Richardson (2006, 7) concurs that this source is to be distin-guished from other incipit lists, and argues that it is instead a liturgical

text outlining a ritual procedure and not a catalogue.Another weakness of Civils interpretation of the Nippur and Louvrecatalogues is therefore that it does not convincingly demonstrate that thesetwo sources are not inventories, as has been argued for the other texts ofthis type. In the absence of more compelling proof that the Nippur andLouvre catalogues had a different function than the lists they formally re-semble, the nature of these texts should be reconsidered with respect tothese sources.

3. The Nippur and Louvre Catalogues and other Literary Catalogues

In addition to the Nippur and Louvre catalogues, seventeen texts thatare similar to these two lists can be identified:

1) U1: OB Catalogue from Ur.15



4) N3: OB Catalogue from Nippur.18

5) B1: OB Catalogue from Sippar(?).19


7) B2: OB Catalogue of ersemmas.21

8) B3: OB Catalogue of ersemmas.22

15 UET 5, 86: ETCSL no.0.2.03. See also Bernhardt/Kramer (195657, 394 n.4); Hallo(1966); and Charpin (1986, 453455).16 U.17900H (= UET 6/1, 123): ETCSL no.0.2.04. See Kramer (1961b); Hallo (1966,

9091); Krecher (19761980, 484); Charpin (1986, 455459); Vanstiphout (2003,2526); and Robson (2003).

17 UET 6/2, 196: ETCSL no.0.2.05. See Michalowski (1984, 8892); Hallo (1968, 88n.114); Kramer (1975, 157158).

18 HS 1504 (= TuM nf. 3, 54): ETCSL no.0.2.06. See Bernhardt/Kramer (195657,389390); and Wilcke (1976, 4142).

19 VAT 6481 (= VAS 10, 216): ETCSL no.0.2.07. See Bernhardt/Kramer (195657, 394n.5); Hallo (1963, 163); and Krecher (1966, 33).

20 CBS 14077 (= STVC 41) + N 3637 + Ni 9925 (= ISET 1, 145): ETCSL no.0.2.08. SeeHallo (1975, 7879).

21 BM 23771. See Kramer (1975, 141152).22 BM 23701. See Kramer (1975, 152157).


11/24

42 Paul Delnero

9) B4: OB Catalogue in Andrews University.23

10) Y2: OB Catalogue in Yale.24


12) B5: OB Balag-catalogue 1.26



15) Uk1: OB Catalogue from Uruk.29

16) S1: OB Catalogue from Sippar.30

17) I1: OB Catalogue of incantations.31

There are several indications that the sources listed form a distinctgroup of texts that share a common function. All of these lists are similar

in a number of significant respects. The most apparent similarity betweenthese lists is the types of compositions they record. Almost all of the en-tries in these sources refer to compositions that can be classified broadly asliterary texts. The types of literary compositions listed in these sources canbe subdivided into two groups. One group includes compositions, such ashymns in praise of deities, rulers, or temples, narrative texts, and dialoguesand debates, that are literary in a more general sense, and that becauseof their frequent occurrence on Type I and Type III tablets can be shown

to have been copied as part of the scribal curriculum. The other comprisescompositions that have been identified as liturgical texts. Unlike the textsbelonging to the former group, these compositions are only rarely attestedon scribal exercise tablets, and are typically written in the Emesal dialect ofSumerian. It is generally assumed that these texts, which include hymnsto various deities and rulers and the so-called Inana and Dumuzi lovesongs,32 were intended to be recited or sung in a cultic or religious setting.

23 AUAM 73.2402: ETCSL no.0.2.11. See Cohen (1976, 129133); and Vanstiphout (2003,2728).24 YBC 16317: ETCSL no.0.2.12. See Hallo (1982); Veldhuis (1997, 52); and Vanstiphout

(2003, 27).25 CBS 8086. See Michalowski (1980).26 BM 23612. See Kramer (1982, 206207; 212213).27 BM 23249. See Kramer (1982, 208209; 212213).28 BM 85564. See Kramer (1982, 207208; 212213).29 W 17259an (= AUWE 23, 112). See van Dijk (1989, 441446); and Cavigneaux (1996,

5759).30 See van Dijk (1989, 447448).31 JRL, Box 24, E5 and 25. See Wilcke (1973, 1415).32 For the label love songs and a more detailed discussion of this group of composi-

tions as a genre, as well as editions of selected texts belonging to this group, see Sefati(1998).


12/24


The use of these compositions for performance is illustrated by rubricsand subscripts that list the musical instruments, such as the balag, adabortigi instruments, which were to be used to accompany the recitation of

these texts; as well as by the term s i r 3-nam-gala song of the gala-priestship, which indicates that these texts were performed, in certain in-stances, by religious personnel known as galapriests.33

A distinction between liturgical texts and the other, broader category ofliterary compositions is also maintained in these lists. In general, thesetexts list compositions belonging to only one of the two groups, but onlyexceptionally compositions from both. Six of the seventeen sources listedabove (U1, U2, U3, B4, S1, and Y2) list primarily non-liturgical literarytexts, and nine of the remaining sources (N3, N4, N6, B1, B2, B3, B5, B6,

and B7) list liturgical texts. Among these lists, only two U3 and N6 may contain the incipits of texts of both types. U3, which lists the incipitsof one of the debate poems (The debate between Tree and Reed) and atleast two royal hymns, for example, might also list Dumuzi-Inana I, atext that is typically classified as a liturgical composition; whereas ac-cording to Michalowski (1980, 267) N6, which lists almost exclusively li-turgical compositions, may also list one of the sections of KH, a composi-tion that is typically classified as a non-liturgical text. In both of these lists

there is only one incipit that appears to be exceptional. Furthermore, inlight of the frequent occurrence of incipits that are shared by more thanone Sumerian composition, it is possible that these entries have been mis-identified.

In addition to listing only liturgical or non-liturgical literary composi-tions, these lists rarely contain incipits of texts that do not belong to eitherof these two groups. Uk1 lists letters that were purportedly written byvarious rulers who ruled during the Ur III, Isin-Larsa, and Old BabylonianPeriods, addressed to either deities or other rulers. However, these letters,

like many of the literary compositions listed in the other lists were also co-pied as scribal exercises, connecting them, in this respect, with the textslisted in these sources. Similarly I1, which lists incantations, can be con-nected with the content of the lists of liturgical texts since incantations, likeliturgical texts, were also presumably performed on more than one occa-sion, increasing the likelihood that both these types of texts would havebeen copied more than once. The only identifiable exceptions to the listingof literary compositions in these sources are the isolated occurrences of

33 Black et al. (2004, 245247). For a general discussion of liturgical texts and the rubricsand subscripts that occur in them see also Black (1991, 2336); Schretter (1990, 71103);Wilcke (1975, 252292); and Krecher (1966, 2836).


13/24

44 Paul Delnero

the titles of non-literary Akkadian compositions in U2 and U3; and thereferences to lexical lists that occur together with the incipits of literarytexts in sources U1 and Y2. In all other instances, however, the composi-

tions listed in these lists are literary, suggesting that these sources werecompiled primarily to record texts of this type.Another aspect of the Old Babylonian lists of incipits that is similar is

the manner in which the titles of the compositions they list are grouped.Almost all of these sources appear to have been arranged according toclear and recognizable ordering principles. In some instances, the exist-ence of such principles is indicated explicitly by the use of formal markersthat occur directly within these lists. Specific groups of incipits are pre-ceded or followed by separate entries, or rubrics, that mark and identify,

to varying extents, the presence, and sometimes also the nature, of distinctinternal groupings, particularly in sources listing liturgical compositions.Different types of rubrics include labels that describe the type or genre ofthe compositions listed (generic rubrics), or entries that give the totalnumber of incipits listed in the preceding lines (subtotals). Additionally,single or double lines are drawn between certain sets of titles, visibly sep-arating the entries between these lines into groups (dividing lines). Inother instances, groupings are not marked formally, but according to

thematic or graphic criteria. These include groupings of compositions thatare connected by a theme, such as a common subject or protagonist(thematic grouping); and entries that contain the same first sign or groupof signs (grouping by sign). Alternately, incipits that are grouped generi-cally or by sign are frequently combined with subtotals to indicate thenumber of entries of these types (summarizing entries).

Most of the sources listed above utilize one or more of these means togroup various sequences of incipits. The different types of classificationthat are attested in each of the Old Babylonian lists of incipits and the

number of instances in which they occur in each of these sources is sum-marized in the following table (see following page):

Generic Rubrics

Generic rubrics occur in five of the seventeen known lists of incipits, allof which list liturgical compositions.


14/24


Table 1: Types of Classification in Sumerian Incipit Lists

Subtotals

Three of the seventeen lists contain numbers that refer to the totalnumber of compositions listed in a given sequence of incipits. Thesenumbers occur either only at the end of the entire list (U2), or also within

the list itself after separate groups of entries (B2 and B3), and are writtentogether with additional terms or labels that specify the nature of thegrouping they qualify.

Dividing Lines

In four of the lists of incipits single or double lines are inscribed aftersome of the titles listed in these sources. Two of these lists (B4 and S1) listliterary compositions and the other two (N4 and B1) list liturgical texts. In

several instances, the sections of the lists between dividing lines appear tohave been grouped according to identifiable numerical principles. In N4,for example, double lines are present after entries three and thirteen in oneof the columns on the obverse and again after entries one and ten on the

GenericRubrics

Subtotals DividingLines

ThematicGrouping

Groupingby Sign(s)

Summ.Entries

U2 (Literary) + + + +

U3 (Literary)

B4 (Literary) + + + +

S1 (Literary) +

U1 (Lit. & Lex.)

Y2 (Lit. & Lex.) + +

Uk1 (Letters)

N3 (Liturgical)

N4 (Liturgical) + N6 (Liturgical)

B1 (Liturgical) + +

B2 (Liturgical) + + +

B3 (Liturgical) + + +

B5 (Liturgical) + +

B6 (Liturgical) + +

B7 (Liturgical) + +

I1 (Incantations)


15/24

46 Paul Delnero

reverse, suggesting that these lines were drawn after every tenth incipit inthe list,34 an interpretation that is confirmed by the presence of a Winkel-haken, the sign used to write the number 10, in the middle of the second

dividing on the obverse. Similarly, double lines are written after the lastten entries in B1 and after the first ten entries in S1.

Thematic Grouping

Three of the lists of incipits contain sequences of entries referring tocompositions that are related thematically. In U2, for example, entries912 list the incipits of Gilgames and Huwawa (Version A), Gilgamesand Huwawa (Version B), Gilgames and the bull of heaven, and Gil-

games and Aga, narrative compositions in which Gilgamesh is the centralprotagonist. Similarly, in B4 the first three entries list Inana C, Inanaand Ebi, and Inana B, all compositions in which the deity Inana fig-ures prominently.

Grouping by Sign(s)

Another common grouping device is listing entries on the basis of thefirst sign or group of signs of the incipit. Four of the seventeen lists contain

groups of entries with sequences of two or more incipits that begin withthe same sign or signs. One example is B4, in which six incipits with an in-itial u 4 are listed in sequence (entries 1924):

19: u 4 r i - a su r u p p a g k i The instructions of Suruppag20: u 4 r i - a n i g2- u l - e21: u 4 u l - l e2- a - t a u 4 ba -z a l - l a - ta Ur-Ninurta G22: u 4 u l u r 11 - e d u mu -n a n a mu -u n - d e 5- g a The

farmers instructions

23: u 4 u l - l e2- a - t a u 4 d i g i r - r e - e -n e ka l a m-ma mu-un -X - a -X

24: u 4 r i - a n am b a - t a r- r a - b a Enkis Journey to Nibru

Summarizing Entries

In nearly half of the lists of incipits (eight of seventeen) entries in whicha number of compositions of a particular type are summarized in a singleline (as opposed to being given separate entries) are attested. Examples in-

clude the entries 3 d u m u - e2- d u b - b a , and 11 l u g a l in U2 and the

34 See already Hallo (1975, 78).


16/24


entry 10 u 3- n e - e - d u 11 dsul-gi in B4. Summarizing entries are alsoattested in six sources listing liturgical compositions (B1, B2, B3, B5, B6,and B7).

The means by which sequences of incipits are grouped within eachlist and the fact that some combination of these grouping devices is usedin nearly all of the texts of this type are clear indications that the OldBabylonian lists of incipits constitute a unified group of texts with a com-mon function. This conclusion is further confirmed by the similarity ofthe content and the manner in which different types of compositions aredistributed across these sources. Moreover, when the sources listedabove are examined more closely, it becomes clear that the texts in thisgroup were neither curricular catalogues nor canonical lists, but inven-

tories that were kept to facilitate the storage and retrieval of specific tab-lets.

Several features of these lists strongly suggest that they were used as in-ventories:

1) Expressions in the lists that explicitly confirm this function.2) The size and shape of the tablets used to record these lists, as wellas the type of script they contain.

3) The implicit function of the grouping methods described above.

1) In U1, the function of this list is stated explicitly in the text itself,with the entries sa3 g ip i s a n m u r u b 4 sa-ap-lu-um located in the lower(reed) basket and sa3 g ip i s a n m u r u b 4 e-lu-um located in the upper(reed) basket, which occur after the eleventh and twenty-third incipits, re-spectively. These expressions identify the incipits that precede them di-rectly with the content of specific tablets containing the compositions thatbegin with these lines, giving the location of these tablets with respect todifferent storage containers. Similarly, in sources N6, B6, and probablyalso U1, many of the incipits that have been identified are not from thefirst line of a composition, but from different sections of various texts, sug-gesting that the titles listed refer to the initial lines of extract (or Type III)tablets that were stored together.35 An additional list that is clearly an in-ventory, as opposed to a catalogue of various compositions, is B2. Thissource can be identified as a text of this nature on the basis of the rubricsa3 1 d u b on a single tablet, which occurs numerous times through-

35 For example see Michalowski (1980, 268); Kramer (1982, 208); and Charpin (1986,454455).


17/24

48 Paul Delnero

out the list, and specifies concretely that the incipits preceding it belong tocompositions that were written together on one tablet, indicating that thislist is a record of collective tablets and the texts they contain.

2) A further indication that the texts belonging to this group are inven-tories is the size and shape of the tablets containing these lists. Many ofthese lists are recorded on tablets and cylinders that are significantlysmaller than tablets containing texts of other types. Among the sources forwhich the exact measurements could be obtained, none are larger than10cm in height and 5cm in width, and at least eight of the seventeen (U3,B4, N3, N6, B3, B5, B6, and B7) are 7cm or less. These measurements arecloser to those of Old Babylonian archival texts or administrative docu-

ments (from Nippur as well as most other sites), which are typically 3 to5cm in height and 2 to 4cm in width, than to those of tablets containingliterary compositions, which are typically between 10cm 7cm (the ap-proximate height and width of many Type III sources) and 20cm 13cm(the approximate height and width of many Type I sources). Furthermore,in addition to their size, some of these sources (especially B3, B5, B6, andB7) are shaped like tags that could easily have been hung from, or placedon top of, a basket of tablets. Their size, combined with the observation

that some of these lists (in particular U3, N6, and I1) are written in a cur-sive, short-hand script, identified by Michalowski (1984, 89) as a type ofdocumentary cursive that is substantially different than the ductus of lit-erary sources, is therefore also consistent with the archival nature of theselists.

3) The final source of evidence for the use of these sources as inven-tories is the practical significance of the ordering principles used to groupthe entries in these lists. There are several indications that these principles

were employed primarily for the purpose of recording individual tablets,and not for grouping compositions according to their content or function.The archival nature of these grouping devices is particularly evident in thecase of subtotals and summarizing entries, which were used to notate thetotal number of a specific group of entries, as opposed to the hypotheticalnumber of compositions that were thought to belong to a generically orthematically related group of texts. Similarly, it is also likely that genericrubrics, which occur together with subtotals in two of the five lists in

which they are attested (B2 and B3) and are preceded by subtotals in theother three (B5, B6, and B7), served as a means of indicating more spe-cifically the type of compositions recorded in these totals.

Grouping entries with the same sign or signs and by thematic similar-


18/24


ities could have served as an effective mnemonic device for rememberinggroups of entries, facilitating tablet retrieval.

The function of the last method of grouping dividing lines while less

certain, can also be interpreted from an archival perspective. In B4, asource in which dividing lines are drawn after intervals of groups of six totwelve incipits, for example, it could be argued, by analogy to U1, thatthese lines indicated the internal divisions of groups of tablets within aspecific storage container. The incipits in U1 imply that the containers inwhich tablets were stored could hold between ten and twelve tablets. Pro-ceeding from the assumption that the capacity of the basket described inU1 was typical, the divisions in B4 would correspond to the size of groupsof tablets that would have normally been stored together in a single basket,

with the difference in the number of tablets in each group resulting fromthe varying length and size of the sources containing the compositionslisted. Furthermore, while it is certainly possible that the dividing lines inthe remaining three sources (N4, B1, and S1) were simply drawn mechan-ically after every tenth entry, the length of the divisions in U1 and B4could also be cited as evidence that these lines were used instead to indi-cate that the tablets recorded in these lists were stored in containers ingroups of ten.

Although the precise usage of each of the types of classification attestedin these lists cannot be identified with certainty in every instance, whenconsidered in conjunction with the other features of these lists, such astheir size, shape, and ductus, and the nature of the rubrics and incipits theycontain, these methods of grouping support the conclusion that the liter-ary catalogues discussed in the preceding section are inventories. Nearlyall of the sources listed above (twelve of the seventeen) contain at least oneof these six grouping devices, and all of these sources, including those in

which none of these types of classification could be identified, possess atleast one, and in most cases, more than one feature argued to be charac-teristic of archival lists. The various means employed to group entries,along with the other indications that these sources are archival, thereforeleaves little doubt that the lists belonging to this group were recorded forreasons associated specifically with the storage and retrieval of tablets , andnot for didactic purposes.


19/24

50 Paul Delnero

4. The Nippur and Louvre Catalogues as Inventories

Having established that the literary catalogues discussed above are in-

ventories, this group of sources and the features they contain can then beused as a critical reference point for assessing the function of the Nippurand Louvre catalogues. One of the more problematic aspects of the theorythat these two sources were arranged didactically is that it neglects to dem-onstrate that these lists are not related to the other lists from this period.Given the distinctiveness of the sources discussed above, and the numberof basic formal similarities the Nippur and Louvre catalogues share withthis relatively large and unified group of lists, however, it seems unlikelythat these two texts are exceptional. Since the theory that the Nippur and

Louvre catalogues are curricular lists presupposes that these two texts arequalitatively different than the other lists, demonstrating that these twosources possess features characteristic of inventories substantially weakensthis theory.

When the Nippur and Louvre catalogues are compared with the otherlists of incipits, a number of parallels emerge. Both of these lists containnearly all of the features of the lists discussed above. The incipits in bothof these sources refer to compositions that can be classified as literary

texts, and the titles of literary compositions are not mixed together withthe incipits of liturgical compositions or texts from different textualgenres. Also, measuring approximately 6cm in height and 4cm in width,the Nippur catalogue is small and shaped like a basket tag, and the cursivescript in which this source is written can be classified as documentarycursive. The Louvre catalogue, by comparison, is a little larger than theNippur catalogue, but still less than 10cm in height and 6cm in width.

More significantly, the Nippur and Louvre catalogues utilize many ofthe same grouping devices that are found in the other lists. Both of these

lists contain sequences of incipits that are grouped thematically, as wellas entries that are grouped by their first sign or signs. Examples includeentries 3840 of the Nippur catalogue and entries 2225 of the Louvrecatalogue, which lists compositions from the Enmerkar cycle; and also en-tries 3638 of the Nippur catalogue and 5052 of the Louvre catalogue,which lists compositions that begin with the sign u 4. Similarly, dividinglines are used throughout the Nippur catalogue to separate groups of sixto twelve entries the same approximate number of entries that are sep-

arated by dividing lines in the other lists which have this method of group-ing. The Louvre catalogue, on the other hand, does not contain dividinglines, but instead a generic rubric with a subtotal the entry 14 n a -r u2- a , which appears to qualify the list of fourteen royal hymns that pre-


20/24


cede it with the designation as nar compositions36 another group-ing device that is frequently attested in the lists discussed in the precedingsection.

The number of similarities between the Nippur and Louvre cataloguesand the other lists strongly suggests that these two catalogues, like theother lists, are inventories and not curricular lists.

The theory that the Decad is primarily a curricular grouping presup-poses, to a large extent, that the initial sections of the Nippur and Louvrecatalogues, which give the incipits of the compositions in the Decad, werearranged didactically. In light of the numerous indications that these twolists are inventories, however, the assumption that the first ten incipits inthese sources reflect a curricular sequence must also be re-evaluated.

While the co-occurrence of the incipits of the texts in the Decad in boththe Nippur and the Louvre catalogues is clearly significant, when exam-ined in the context of the function of these two lists, it seems more likelythat the listing of the Decad was not motivated by pedagogical consider-ations, but instead by reasons more directly related to the archival natureof these sources.

Beside the inherent improbability that different sections of the samelists served different purposes, and that the first ten entries of these two

texts were arranged didactically, while the remainder of these lists wereintended as inventories, further evidence that the Decad was listed in se-quence for archival reasons can be found by comparing the manner inwhich the compositious in the Decad are listed in these lists with the wayin which they are listed in other lists. In addition to the Nippur and Louvrecatalogues, the titles of individual compositions from the Decad appear inS1, U1, U2, B4, and Y2. Even though the manner in which the incipits ofthese compositions are arranged corresponds partially, in several in-stances, to the sequence in which they are listed in the Nippur and Louvre

catalogue, the Decad is not listed in its entirety in the same order in any ofthese lists. These differences in sequence are illustrated in Table 2.

The correspondence between the listing of the compositions in the De-cad in S1 and the Nippur and Louvre catalogues is the closest, but is no-netheless not identical. In the other four lists, by contrast, the sequence inwhich the individual texts are listed differs substantially.

The listing of the compositions in the Decad in other lists in sequencesthat do not correspond to the sequence in which they are listed in the Nip-

pur and Louvre catalogues poses a problem for the theory that the Decad

36 For this interpretation see Flckiger-Hawker (1996, 105106).


21/24

52 Paul Delnero

Table 2: The Sequence of the Decad in other Sumerian Incipit Lists

Note: The numbers in this table indicate the line number in the list in which the composi-tion is listed. + indicates that the entry number of the composition is identical to theentry number in the Nippur and Louvre catalogues. indicates that the composition was

not included in the list.

reflects a curricular sequence in the latter two sources. If it is to be main-tained that the Decad was intended as a didactic grouping in the Nippurand Louvre catalogues, then to account for the differences in the mannerin which they are listed in other lists it would either have to be argued thatthese differences reflect regional variations in the sequence of the scribalcurriculum or that the lists in which the Decad is not written in sequencehad a different function. It has been shown, however, that all of the lists of

incipits, including the Nippur and Louvre catalogues, are inventories, andin the absence of additional evidence for local differences in the sequencesof the scribal curriculum, the former possibility is purely speculative.

If the Nippur and Louvre catalogues are inventories, it is plausible thatthe identity of the first ten incipits of these two sources is to be interpretedsimply as another instance of archival grouping. As shown above, it isclear from collective tablets and catch-lines that connect the compositionsof the Decad in sequence that the texts of the Decad were thought of as adistinct group in antiquity. While it is possible that the Decad was groupedtogether for curricular reasons, listing these texts together would presum-ably have served the same purpose as the other grouping devices used inthese lists. Knowing that these texts formed a group would have made iteasier to recall the position of these texts in both the lists and the basketsin which the copies of these texts were stored.

SA LiA Al InB EnA KH ErH IEb Nu GH

S1 + + 4 3 + + + + + 16

Y2 + + + + 12

U2 4 5 8 16 23 28 13 14 9

B4 7 8 9 3 10 24 2

U1 10 12


22/24


Conclusion

The evidence that the Nippur and Louvre catalogues are inventories

has significant implications for how the Decad is to be situated in thecontext of the scribal curriculum. While these two texts provide further in-dication that the compositions in the Decad were thought of as a group,these lists like the collective tablets and catch-lines connecting thesetexts do not reveal anything about the nature of this grouping. Since it isclear that the Decad was copied in a curricular setting, it is possible thatthe Nippur and Louvre catalogues were compiled to record tablets con-taining compositions, like the texts in the Decad, that were copied as scri-bal exercises. Because these two lists are not curricular lists, however,

these sources cannot be used to prove that the Decad was primarily a cur-ricular grouping. For the same reason, the Nippur and Louvre cataloguesalso do not provide any further evidence for the placement of the Decad inthe sequence of the scribal curriculum, or for reconstructing the sequenceof texts that were copied in the second phase of scribal education.

Bibliography

Bernhardt, I./S. N. Kramer (195657): Gtter-Hymnen und Kult-Gesnge der Sumererauf zwei Keilschrift-Katalogen in der Hilprecht-Sammlung, Wissenschaftliche Zeit-schrift der Friedrich-Schiller-Universitt Jena 6, 389395 + Tf. IIII.

Black, J. (1991): Sumerian Grammar in Babylonian Theory. Studia Pohl s.m. 12.Rome.

Black, J./G. Cunningham/E. Robson/G. Zlyomi (2004): The Literature of AncientSumer. Oxford.

Cavigneaux, A. (1996): Uruk: Altbabylonische Texte aus dem Planquadrat Pe XVI-4/5.AUWE 23. Mainz.

Charpin, D. (1986): Le clerg dUr au sicle dHammurabi (XIXeXVIIIe sicles av. J.-C.).Hautes tudes Orientales 22. Paris.

Chiera, E. (1916): Lists of Personal Names from the Temple School of Nippur: A Syllabaryof Personal Names. Publications of the Babylonian Section 11, 1. Philadelphia.

Civil, M. (1969): Old Babylonian Proto-Lu: Types of Sources, in: E. Reiner (ed.), MSL 12.Roma, 2728.

M. (1975): Lexicography, in: S. J. Lieberman (ed.), Sumerological Studies in Honor ofThorkild Jacobsen. Assyriological Studies 20. Chicago, 123157.

(1979): Materials for the Sumerian Lexicon 14. Roma. (1995): Ancient Mesopotamian Lexicography, in: J. Sasson (ed.), Civilizations of the

Ancient Near East . New York, 23052314.

Cohen, M. E. (1976): Literary Texts from the Andrews University Archaeological Museum,RA 70, 129144.

Delnero, P. (2006): Variation in Sumerian Literary Compositions: A Case Study Based onthe Decad. Dissertation. Philadelphia.


23/24

54 Paul Delnero

van Dijk, J. J. A. (1972): Une variante du thme de lEsclave de la Lune, Orientalia n. s. 41,339348.

(1989): Ein sptaltbabylonischer Katalog einer Sammlung sumerischer Briefe, Orientalian. s. 58, 441452.

Flckiger-Hawker, E. (1996): Der Louvre-Katalog TCL15 28 und sumerische na-ru2-a-Kompositionen, NABU 1996/ note 119.

Gesche, P. (2000): Schulunterricht in Babylonien im ersten Jahrtausend v. Chr. AOAT 275.Mnster.

Hallo, W. (1963): On the Antiquity of Sumerian Literature, JAOS 83, 167176. (1966): Review of C. J. Gadd/S. N. Kramer UET 6/1, JCS 20, 8993. (1968): Individual Prayer in Sumerian: The Continuity of a Tradition, JAOS 88, 7189. (1975): Another Sumerian Literary Catalogue?; Studia Orientalia 46, 7780. (1982): Notes from the Babylonian Collection, II: Old Babylonian HAR-ra, JCS 34,

8193.

Karahashi, F. (2000): Sumerian Compound Verbs with Body-part Terms. Dissertation.Chicago.Kramer, S. N. (1942): The Oldest Literary Catalogue: A Sumerian List of Literary Cata-

logues Compiled about 2000 B.C, BASOR 88, 1019. (1961a): Kataloge, in: I. Bernhardt, Sumerische literarische Texte aus Nippur.

TMHNF 3. Berlin, 1920. (1961b): New Literary Catalogue from Ur, RA 55, 169176. (1975): Two British Museum irsemma Catalogues, Studia Orientalia 46, 141166. (1982): Three Old Babylonian balag-Catalogues from the British Museum, in: Societies

and Languages of the Ancient Near East: Studies in Honor of I. M. Diakonoff. War-minster, 206213.

Krecher, J. (1966): Sumerische Kultlyrik. Berlin. (197680): Kataloge, literarische, RlA 5, 478485.Langdon, S. (1910): Deux fragments dhymnes Samas, Babyloniaca 3, 7678.Michalowski, P. (1980): A New Sumerian Catalogue from Nippur, Oriens Antiquus 19,

265268. (1984): Observations on a Sumerian Literary Catalogue from Nippur, JCS 36, 8992.Richardson, S. (2006): gir3-gen-na and Sulgis Library: Liver Omen Texts in the Third

Millennium BC (I), Cuneiform Digital Library Journal 2006/3, 19.Robson, E. (1999): Mesopotamian Mathematics, 21001600 BC: Technical Constants in

Bureaucracy and Education. OECT 14. Oxford.

(2001): The Tablet House: A Scribal School in Old Babylonian Nippur, RA 95,3966.

(2002): More than Metrology: Mathematical Education in an Old Babylonian ScribalSchool, in: A. Imhausen (ed.), Astronomy and Mathematics in the Ancient Near East.AOAT 297. Mnster, 325265.

(2003): Bird and Fish in the OB Sumerian literary catalogues, NABU 2003/note 68.Tanret, M. (2002): Per aspera ad astra. Lapprentissage du cuniforme Sippar-Amnanum

pendant la priode palobabylonienne tardive. Mesopotamian History and Environ-ment, Series III, Texts I, 2. Ghent.

Tinney, S. (1998): Texts, Tablets, and Teaching: Scribal Education in Nippur and Ur, Ex-

pedition 40, 4050. (1999): On the curricular setting of Sumerian Literature, Iraq 41, 159172.Vanstiphout, H. L. J. (1978): Lipit-Eshtars Praise in the Edubba, JCS 30, 3361. (1979): How did they Learn Sumerian?, JCS 31, 118126.


24/24


(1999): I can put anything in its right place. Generic and Typological Studies as Strat-egies for the Analysis and Evaluation of Mankinds Oldest Literature, in: B. Roest (ed.),Aspects of Genre and Type in Pre-modern Literary Cultures. COMERS/ICOG Com-munications 1. Groningen, 7999.

(2003): The Old Babylonian Literary Canon. Structure, Function, and Intention, in:G. J. Dorleijn (ed.), Cultural Repertoires: Structure, Function, and Dynamics. Leuven,128.

Veldhuis , N. (1997): Elementary Education at Nippur: The Lists of Trees and Wooden Ob-jects. Dissertation. Groningen.

(2004): Religion, Literature, and Scholarship. The Sumerian Composition Nanse andthe Birds. Cuneiform Monographs 22. Leiden.

Weitemeyer, M. (1956): Archive and Library Technique in Ancient Mesopotamia, Libri 6,217238.

(1990): Babylonian and Assyrian Catalogues, in: E. Keck (ed.), Living Waters. Scandi-

navian Orientalistic Studies presented to Professor Dr. Frede Lkkegaard. Copenhagen,379390.Wilcke, C. (1973): Sumerische literarische Texte in Manchester und Liverpool, AfO 24,

118. (1976): Kollationen zu den sumerischen literarischen Texten aus Nippur in der Hil-

precht-Sammlung Jena. Abhandlungen der schsischen Akademie der Wissenschaftenzu Leipzig Philologisch-historische Klasse 65, 4.

(1987): Die Inschriftenfunde der 7. und 8. Kampagnen (1983 und 1984), in: B. Hrouda(ed.), Isin-Isan Bahriyat 3. Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-Historische Klasse, Abhandlungen n. f. 94. Mnchen, 83-120.

Del Nero Za Catalogues

Documents

Transcript of Del Nero Za Catalogues