DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.11365#0045
THE CUNEIFORM TABLETS.
35
Two more fragments (Nos. 2 and 3 PL. XXXI)
belong to letters from Rib-Hadad the governor of
northern Phoenicia, the seat of whose government was
at Gebal. Mention is made in them of the city of
Tsumuri, the Zemar of Gen. x. 18, the Simyra of
classical geography, now Sumra. Zemar was the
most important of the inland fortresses which were
under Rib-Hadad's charge, and the loss of it in the
closing years of the reign of Khu-n-Aten was one of
the signs of the overthrow of the Egyptian empire in
Asia. Mention is further made of " Ebed-Asirte (or
Ebed-Asherah) [thy] servant," who subsequently be-
came a bitter enemy of Rib-Hadad, and a rebel
against the authority of the Pharaoh. He and his
sons overran the land of the Amorites, and it was to
them that the fall of Zemar was due.
In fragment No. 2 (line 3) Rib-Hadad calls him-
self—as elsewhere in his letters—" the appointed " or
" legitimate servant " of the Egyptian king (arad kiti).
He also speaks of " the city of Tisa . . .," otherwise
unknown, which he describes as in the "district of
Zemar." In fragment 3 (line 4) reference is made
to " the country of the Amorites," which is called by
its Sumerian name of Martu, and the Pharaoh receives
his usual titles of " the king, the sun-god, my lord."
The last line of the fragment contains the words :
" the house of the king my lord."
Fragment No. 4 begins with the words: " the
country of the king," and a city is mentioned which
is described as " a garrison." But beyond this fact,
and the further fact that the writer speaks of his
" chariots," the broken character of the text does not
allow us to obtain any information from it.
80. In fragment No. 5 we have a specimen of one
of the dictionaries to which I have already alluded.
What is left of it makes us regret that there is not
more. From the colophon on the reverse we gather
that the dictionary was compiled under the direction
of the Egyptian king, what remains of the first line
reading \_ki\ pi sar mat Mitsri "by order of the
king of Egypt." Of the rest of the colophon I can
translate only the 4th and 6th lines ; " foods and 7
fruits (?) of the countries " ; " from the clerks."
The obverse, however, is more intelligible. In the
first column are the Semitic equivalents of an ideo-
graph, the Sumerian pronunciation of which is given
in the second column. The arrangement of the dic-
tionary thus differs from that of the dictionaries which
were compiled in Babylonia and Assyria, where the
ideographs are placed in the second column and the
Semitic equivalents in the third. The reason of such
a different arrangement is clear. In Babylonia the
standard literature and literary language of the
country were Sumerian ; it was consequently the Su-
merian words which had to be explained and trans-
lated into Semitic. Hence they occupied the first
place in the lexical works. In Egypt, on the other
hand, the Semitic Babylonian was the standard
language, a knowledge of Sumerian being of little
importance except in so far as it enabled the scribe
to understand the ideographs of the cuneiform script.
In the dictionaries of Tel el-Amarna, therefore, Se-
mitic Babylonian has the place of honour, while the
Sumerian words are relegated to the second column.
That the words belong to the Sumerian language
we know from the fact that the Babylonian da-du
" a darling " is given in the fragment as the equivalent
of ki-im or kim, and one of the Assyrian lexical
tablets (W. A. I. v. 16. 34.) informs us that kim was
the Sumerian word for dddu. So, too, muru " a
youngling" is the rendering of tur-tur, and tur-tur
signified " little" in the prae-Semitic language of
Chaldaea.
But the dictionary contains philological information
with which we were not previously acquainted. We
learn from it that dadu was not only the equivalent
of the Sumerian kim, but also of a word til. To what
language til may have belonged we do not know. It
may have belonged to Sumerian, but if so it is a new
addition to our stock of Sumerian words. Milkutu
" a kingdom " and \e\bisu " a performer " are further
given as translations of tur-tur. This, too, is new,
and it is possible that the translations may throw
light on the name of the king of Goyyim who was
the ally of Chedor-laomer in his war in Palestine
(Gen. xiv. 1). His name is written Thorgal in the
Septuagint, and since gal in Sumerian and khali in
Kassite signified " great" it may be that in Thorgal
we have to see a Tur-gal or " great prince."
The second ideograph in the fragment is repre-
sented in the Sumerian column by the word aga.
This, in fact, as we already knew, is its Sumerian
value. But what the Semitic words may be by
which aga is rendered, I have no idea. Only their
terminations remain, and these terminations do not
suit any of the known Semitic equivalents of aga.
This may also be the case as regards the Semitic
equivalents of the ideograph which follows if they are
to be read da-sum-mu and \da-\sa-mu. But since the
ideograph is rendered by the Semitic simtu " destiny "
in the Assyrian texts, it is possible that we should
make sum-mu and sa-mu independent words, samu
* 2
35
Two more fragments (Nos. 2 and 3 PL. XXXI)
belong to letters from Rib-Hadad the governor of
northern Phoenicia, the seat of whose government was
at Gebal. Mention is made in them of the city of
Tsumuri, the Zemar of Gen. x. 18, the Simyra of
classical geography, now Sumra. Zemar was the
most important of the inland fortresses which were
under Rib-Hadad's charge, and the loss of it in the
closing years of the reign of Khu-n-Aten was one of
the signs of the overthrow of the Egyptian empire in
Asia. Mention is further made of " Ebed-Asirte (or
Ebed-Asherah) [thy] servant," who subsequently be-
came a bitter enemy of Rib-Hadad, and a rebel
against the authority of the Pharaoh. He and his
sons overran the land of the Amorites, and it was to
them that the fall of Zemar was due.
In fragment No. 2 (line 3) Rib-Hadad calls him-
self—as elsewhere in his letters—" the appointed " or
" legitimate servant " of the Egyptian king (arad kiti).
He also speaks of " the city of Tisa . . .," otherwise
unknown, which he describes as in the "district of
Zemar." In fragment 3 (line 4) reference is made
to " the country of the Amorites," which is called by
its Sumerian name of Martu, and the Pharaoh receives
his usual titles of " the king, the sun-god, my lord."
The last line of the fragment contains the words :
" the house of the king my lord."
Fragment No. 4 begins with the words: " the
country of the king," and a city is mentioned which
is described as " a garrison." But beyond this fact,
and the further fact that the writer speaks of his
" chariots," the broken character of the text does not
allow us to obtain any information from it.
80. In fragment No. 5 we have a specimen of one
of the dictionaries to which I have already alluded.
What is left of it makes us regret that there is not
more. From the colophon on the reverse we gather
that the dictionary was compiled under the direction
of the Egyptian king, what remains of the first line
reading \_ki\ pi sar mat Mitsri "by order of the
king of Egypt." Of the rest of the colophon I can
translate only the 4th and 6th lines ; " foods and 7
fruits (?) of the countries " ; " from the clerks."
The obverse, however, is more intelligible. In the
first column are the Semitic equivalents of an ideo-
graph, the Sumerian pronunciation of which is given
in the second column. The arrangement of the dic-
tionary thus differs from that of the dictionaries which
were compiled in Babylonia and Assyria, where the
ideographs are placed in the second column and the
Semitic equivalents in the third. The reason of such
a different arrangement is clear. In Babylonia the
standard literature and literary language of the
country were Sumerian ; it was consequently the Su-
merian words which had to be explained and trans-
lated into Semitic. Hence they occupied the first
place in the lexical works. In Egypt, on the other
hand, the Semitic Babylonian was the standard
language, a knowledge of Sumerian being of little
importance except in so far as it enabled the scribe
to understand the ideographs of the cuneiform script.
In the dictionaries of Tel el-Amarna, therefore, Se-
mitic Babylonian has the place of honour, while the
Sumerian words are relegated to the second column.
That the words belong to the Sumerian language
we know from the fact that the Babylonian da-du
" a darling " is given in the fragment as the equivalent
of ki-im or kim, and one of the Assyrian lexical
tablets (W. A. I. v. 16. 34.) informs us that kim was
the Sumerian word for dddu. So, too, muru " a
youngling" is the rendering of tur-tur, and tur-tur
signified " little" in the prae-Semitic language of
Chaldaea.
But the dictionary contains philological information
with which we were not previously acquainted. We
learn from it that dadu was not only the equivalent
of the Sumerian kim, but also of a word til. To what
language til may have belonged we do not know. It
may have belonged to Sumerian, but if so it is a new
addition to our stock of Sumerian words. Milkutu
" a kingdom " and \e\bisu " a performer " are further
given as translations of tur-tur. This, too, is new,
and it is possible that the translations may throw
light on the name of the king of Goyyim who was
the ally of Chedor-laomer in his war in Palestine
(Gen. xiv. 1). His name is written Thorgal in the
Septuagint, and since gal in Sumerian and khali in
Kassite signified " great" it may be that in Thorgal
we have to see a Tur-gal or " great prince."
The second ideograph in the fragment is repre-
sented in the Sumerian column by the word aga.
This, in fact, as we already knew, is its Sumerian
value. But what the Semitic words may be by
which aga is rendered, I have no idea. Only their
terminations remain, and these terminations do not
suit any of the known Semitic equivalents of aga.
This may also be the case as regards the Semitic
equivalents of the ideograph which follows if they are
to be read da-sum-mu and \da-\sa-mu. But since the
ideograph is rendered by the Semitic simtu " destiny "
in the Assyrian texts, it is possible that we should
make sum-mu and sa-mu independent words, samu
* 2