Eski Mezopotamya’da Filolojinin İlk Adımları: Çiviyazılı Sözcük Listeleri

Abstract

Bir metin türü olarak sözcük listelerinin, çiviyazısının tarih sahnesine çıktığı en erken dönemden başlayarak, bu yazı sisteminin tamamen ortadan kalktığı tarihe kadar Eski Yakındoğu’da çiviyazısının ulaştığı hemen her merkezde belgelendiği görülmektedir. Basit bir öğrenme aracı olduğunu düşünmek bu metin türünün bu derece yaygın olmasını açıklar gibi görünmekle birlikte, sözcük listelerinin 3 binyılı aşkın tarihinin özel olarak incelenmesi durumunda bu metinlerin katip eğitiminde kullanılmak üzere üretilmiş araçlardan fazlası olduğu anlaşılmaktadır. Sözcük listelerinin katip eğitimi için önemli araçlar olduğu açıktır. Ancak çiviyazısı kültürüne ait metin türlerinin içinde sözcük listelerin kendi evrimsel süreci incelendiğinde, bu metinlerin gündelik ihtiyaçlardan bağımsız şekilde gelişmiş entelektüel çalışmalar olduğu anlaşılmaktadır. Modern filoloji disiplinleriyle doğrudan kıyaslanacak nitelikte olmamakla birlikte Eski Yakındoğu’daki sözcük listesi çalışmaları, insanlığın ortak entelektüel evrimi içinde modern filoloji çalışmalarını ortaya çıkaran motivasyonların tarihteki en erken örneğini sergiliyor olması açısından önemlidir. Bu çalışmada çiviyazısı geleneğinde sözcük listelerinin oluşum ve gelişim süreci, katip çevrelerinde bu metinleri ortaya çıkaran motivasyonlar ve bu listelerin eğitim dışındaki işlevleri bağlamında ele alınacaktır.

Keywords

• sözcük listeleri
• katipler
• katip eğitimi
• çiviyazısı

The First Steps of Philology in Ancient Mesopotamia: Cuneiform Lexical Lists

Abstract

Lexical lists, as a textual genre, have been extensively documented in various centers of the ancient Near East where cuneiform writing was prevalent, spanning from the earliest periods of its emergence to the complete disappearance of this writing system. The widespread presence of lexical lists in almost every center where cuneiform was employed indicates their significance as a textual genre. While initially perceived as simple learning tools, a comprehensive examination of their over 3 millennia-long history reveals that lexical lists transcend their perceived basic functions. Although not directly comparable to modern philological disciplines, the study of lexical lists in the ancient Near East holds importance in the context of humanity's shared intellectual evolution, as it exemplifies one of the earliest motivations that led to the development of modern philology. This paper aims to explore the genesis and evolution of word lists in the cuneiform tradition, the motivations driving their production within scribal circles, and their multifaceted functions beyond the realm of education.

Keywords

• lexical lists
• scribes
• scribal education
• cuneiform

References

1. Archi, A. (1986). The archives of Ebla. Veenhof, K. R. (Ed.), Cuneiform Archives and Libraries (s. 72-86). NINO.
2. Archi, A. (1992). Transmission of the Mesopotamian lexical and literary texts from Ebla. P. Fronzaroli (Ed.), Literature and Literary Language at Ebla (s. 1-39). Dipartimento di linguistica, Università di Firenze
3. Archi, A. (2006). Eblaite in its geographical and historical context. Deutscher, G. (Ed.), The Akkadian Language in Its Semitic Context (s. 96–109) Peeters Publishers.
4. Bartelmus, A. (2016). Fragmente einer großen Sprache. De Gruyter.
5. Beckman, G. (1983). Mesopotamians and Mesopotamian learning at Ḫattuša. Journal of Cuneiform Studies. 35 (1), 97-114.
6. Biggs, R. (1974). Inscriptions from Tell Abū Ṣalābīkh. University of Chicago Press.
7. Boddy, K. (2021). The Composition and Tradition of Erimḫuš. Brill.
8. Cavigneaux, A. (1985). The series Erim-ḫuš = anantu. Cavigneaux, A. vd. (Ed.), The Series Erim-ḫuš = anantu and An-ta- gál = šaqû (s. 3-93). Pontificium Institutum Biblicum.

9. Civil, M. (1969). The Series lú = ša and Related Texts. Institute per l'Oriente.
10. Civil, M. (1971). Izi = išātu, Ká-gal = abullu and Níg-ga = makkūru. Institute per l'Oriente.
11. Civil, M. (1976). Lexicography. Sumerological Studies in Honor of Thorkild Jacobsen on His Seventieth Birthday June 7, 1974 (s. 123-157). University of Chicago Press.
12. Civil, M. (1979). Ea–A=nâqu, Aa–A=nâqu, with their Forerunners and Related Texts. Institute per l'Oriente.
13. Civil, M. (1986). The Sag-Tablet: Lexical texts in the Ashmolean Museum, Middle Babylonian grammatical texts, miscellaneous texts. Institute per l'Oriente.
14. Civil, M. (1995). Ancient Mesopotamian lexicography. Sasson, J. (Ed.), Civilizations of the Ancient Near East (s. 2305-2314). Charles Scribner's Sons Publishing.
15. Civil, M. (2004). The Series DIRI = (w)atru. Institute per l'Oriente.
16. Civil, M. (2010). The Lexical Texts in the Schøyen Collection. Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology. CDL Press.
17. Cohen, Y. (2010). The 'Second Glosses' in the lexical lists from Emar: west Semitic or Akkadian?. Proceedings of the 53e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale. Language in the Ancient Near East (s. 813–839). Eisenbrauns.
18. Conti, G. (1990). Il sillabario della quarta fonte della lista lessicale bilingue eblaita. Universita di Firenze.
19. Cooper, J. (1973). Sumerian and Akkadian in Sumer and Akkad. Orientalia NS. 42, 239-46.
20. Cooper, J. (1993). Bilingual Babel: cuneiform texts in two or more languages from ancient Mesopotamia and beyond. Visible Language. 27 (1), 69-96.
21. Englund, R. (1998). Texts from the Late Uruk Period. Bauer, J. (Ed.), Mesopotamien Späturuk Zeit und Frühdynastische Zeit (s. 15-217).
22. Englund, R., & Nissen, H. (1993). Archaische Texte aus Uruk: vol. 3: Die lexikalischen Listen der Archaischen Texte aus Uruk. Gebr. Mann Verlag.
23. Frahm, E. (2011). Babylonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries: Origins of Interpretation. Ugarit Verlag.
24. Finkel, I. L., & Civil, M. (1982). The Series SIG7.ALAN = Nabnītu. Institute per l'Oriente.
25. Gantzert, M. (2008). The Emar Lexical Texts. Uitgeverij Boekenplan.
26. Gelb, I. (1977). Thoughts about Ibla: A Preliminary Evaluation. Undena Publications.
27. Gelb, I. (1981). Ebla and Kish Civilization. La lingua di Ebla. Atti del Convegno Internazionale (Napoli, 21–23 aprile 1980), 9-73.
28. Gordon, C. (1997). Amorite and Eblaite. Huehnergard, J. & Pat-El, N. (Ed.), The Semitic Languages (s. 100-113). Routledge.
29. Güterbock, H. G. & Civil, M. (1985). The Series Erim-ḫuš in Boghazköy. In The Series Erim-ḫuš = anantu and An-ta-gál = šaqû (s. 95-128). Institute per l'Oriente.
30. Greco, A. (2014). Considerations on some digressions in the Early Dynastic lexical lists. Orientalia NS. 83 (4), 341-379.
31. Hallo, W. (2010). The concept cf canonicity in cuneiform and Biblical literature: A comparative appraisal. Frahm, E. vd. (Ed.), The World’s Oldest Literature: Studies in Sumerian Belles-Lettres (s. 699-716). Brill.
32. Hallock, R. & Landsberger, B. (1956). Old Babylonian Grammatical Texts. Materials of Sumerian Lexicon IV (s. 45-128). Institute per l'Oriente.
33. Horowitz, W., Oshima, T. & Sanders, S. (2002). A bibliographical list of cuneiform inscriptions from Canaan, Palestine/Philistia, and the land of Israel, Journal of the American Oriental Society. 122 (4), 753-66.
34. Huehnergard, J.; van Soldt W. (1999). A cuneiform lexical text from ashkelon with a Canaanite column”, Israel Exploration Journal. 49, 184-92.
35. Huehnergard, J. (1989). The Akkadian of Ugarit. Brill.
36. Izre’el, S. (1997). The Amarna Scholarly Tablets. Brill.
37. Kennedy, D. A. (1986). MBGT II (Ugarit). Civil M. vd. (Ed.), The Sag-Tablet, Lexical Texts in the Ashmolean Museum, Middle Babylonian Grammatical Texts, Miscellaneous Texts (s. 72-94). Pontificium Institutum Biblicum.
38. Krebernik, M. (1996). The linguistic classification of Eblaite: Methods, problems, and results. Copper, J. vd. (Ed.), The Study of the Ancient Near East in the 21st Century: The William Foxwell Albright Centennial Conference (s. 233-249). Eisenbrauns.
39. Landsberger, B., & Hallock, R. T. (1955). Sa Vocabulary. Materials for the Sumerian Lexicon III. Institute per l'Oriente.
40. Landsberger, B., & Kilmer, A. D. (1962). ḪAR-ra = ḫubullu, tablets XIV to XVIII. The Fauna of Ancient Mesopotamia. Institute per l'Oriente.
41. Landsberger, B. (1957). The Series ḪAR-ra = ḫubullu Tablets I - IV. Institute per l'Oriente.
42. Landsberger, B. (1958). The Series ḪAR-ra = ḫubullu Tablets V - VII. Institute per l'Oriente.
43. Landsberger, B. (1967). The Series ḪAR-ra = ḫubullu Tablets XV and Related Texts. Institute per l'Oriente.
44. Lipiński, E. (1997). Semitic Languages: Outline of a Comparative Grammar. Peeters Publishers.
45. Moran, W. L. (1992). The Amarna Letters. The John Hopkis University Press.
46. Nissen, H. J. (1986). The Archaic Texts from Uruk. World Archaeology. 17 (3), 317-334.
47. Nougayrol, J. (1968). Textes Sumero-Accadiens des archives et bibliotheques privees d'Ugarit. Ugaritica 5 (s. 1-446). Imprimerie Nationale.
48. Pagé-Perron, É., Dahl, J. L., Lafont, B., Renn, J., Englund, R. K., & Damerow, P. (2020-2023). Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative. https://cdli.ucla.edu.
49. Paoletti, P. (2015). The lexical texts from Ebla: Palaeography, sign identification and scribes in the Early Dynastic Period. Devecchi, E. vd. (Ed.), Current Research in Cuneiform Palaeography. Proceedings of the Workshop organised and the 60th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale Warsaw 2014 (s. 49-70). PeWe-Verlag.
50. Pardee, D. (2007). The Ugaritic alphabetic cuneiform writing system in the context of other alphabetic systems. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization. 60, 181-200.
51. Pedersen, O. (2005). Archive und Bibliotheken in Babylon. Die Tontafeln der Grabung Robert Koldeweys 1899-1917. Harrassowitz Verlag.
52. Peterson, J. (2007). A Middle Babylonian extract of An = Anum 1. Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires. 2007-66, 79-80.
53. Pettinato, G. (1975). Testi cuneiformi del 3. millennio in paleo-cananeo rinvenuti nella campagna 1974 a Tell Mardīkh = Ebla. Orientalia NS. 44, 361-374.
54. Pettinato, G. (1982). Testi lessicali bilingui della biblioteca L. 2769. Istituto universitario orientale.
55. Pitard, W. T. (1999). The alphabetic Ugaritic tablets. Watson, W. vd. (Ed.), Handbook of Ugaritic Studies (ss. 46-57). Leiden, Boston, Brill.
56. Rainey, A. F. (1970). El Amarna Tablets 359-379. Butzon und Bercker.
57. Rainey, A. F. (1975). Two cuneiform fragments from Tel Aphek. Tel Aviv. 2, 125-129.
58. Rainey, A. F. (1976). A tri-lingual cuneiform fragment from Tel Aphek. Tel Aviv. 3, 137-140.
59. Rainey, A. F. (2015). The El-Amarna Correspondence: A New Edition of the Cuneiform Letters from the Site of El-Amarna based on Collations of all Extant Tablets. Brill.
60. Reiner, E., & Civil, M. (1974). The Series ḪAR-ra = ḫubullu Tablets XX - XXIV. Institute per l'Oriente.
61. Scheucher, T. (2012). The transmissional and functional context of the lexical lists from Ḫattuša and from the contemporaneous traditions in Late-Bronze-Age Syria. [Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi]. Universtieit Leiden.
62. Schwemer, D. & Süel, A. (2021). The Akkadian and Sumerian Texts from Ortaköy-Šapinuwa. Harrasowitz Verlag.
63. Sommerfeld, W. (2021). Old Akkadian. Vita, J. P. (Ed), History of the Akkadian Language (s. 513-664). Brill.
64. Süel, A., & Soysal, O. (2003). A practical vocabulary from Ortaköy. Beckman, G. vd. (Ed.), Hittite Studies in Honor of Harry A. Hoffner Jr. on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday (s. 349-365). Eisenbrauns.
65. Taylor, J. (2007). Babylonian lists of words and signs. Leick G. (Ed.), The Babylonian World (s. 432-446). Routledge.
66. Thureau-Dangin, F. (1931) Vocabulaires de Ras-Sharma. Syria. 12, 225-66.
67. van de Mieroop, M. (2022). Antik Yunan’dan Önce Felsefe, Ketebe Yayınları.
68. van Soldt, W. H. (1993). The Ugaritic version of Harra-hubullu 20-21a: a new source. Mesopotamica, Ugaritica, Biblica: Festschrift für Kurt Bergerhof zur Vollendung seines 70. Lebensjahres am 7. Mai 1992 (s. 427-66). Neukirchener Verlag.
69. Veldhuis, N. (2000). Kassite exercises: literary and lexical extracts”, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 52, 67-94.
70. Veldhuis, N. (2014). History of the Cuneiform Lexical Tradition, Ugarit Verlag.
71. Wagensonner, K. (2010). Early lexical lists revisited: structures and classification as a mnemonic device. Kogan, E. L. vd. (Ed.) Proceedings of the 53e Recontre Assyriologique Internationale: Vol. 1: Language in the Ancient Near East (s. 285-310). Eisenbrauns.
72. Weeden, M. (2021). The scholar and the poet: Standart Babylonian Gilgameš VI vs. Iliad 5. Kelly, A. vd. (Ed.), Gods and Mortals in Early Greek and Near Eastern Mythology (s. 80-106). Cambridge University Press.
73. Woods, C. (2006). Bilingualism, scribal learning, and the death of Sumerian. Sanders, S. (Ed.), Margins of Writing, Origins of Cultures: New Approaches to Writing and Reading in the Ancient Near East. Papers from a Symposium held February 25-26, 2005 (s. 91-120). University of Chicago Press.