AO 4162 - RIM 1.9.9.5 - FAOS 5 1 - CDLI 222618
Dec 14, 2014 8:02:49 GMT -5
Post by us4-he2-gal2 on Dec 14, 2014 8:02:49 GMT -5
The Fall of Lagash
CDLI: P222618
Museum number: [AO 4162]
Translation: Obtained
*************UNDER CONSTRUCTION**
According to the relevant DCSL entry, the composition sometimes known as "The Fall of Lagash" was examined in varying detail by the following scholars:
Steible 1982 : 333-337
Content: edition
Römer 1984 : 313-315
Content: translation
Cooper 1986 : 78-79
Content: translation
Powell 1996
Content: commentary
Bauer 1998 : 489-492
Content: commentary
Wilcke 2004 : 215-216
Content: commentary
In addition, it was treated on page 277 of Frayne's RIME Pre-Sarongic volume, where on can find an even more extensive bibliography for this text. For an overall list of Pre-Sargonic literature (i.e. not Royal inscriptions) I refer to the DCSL website where they list literature of various sorts. Since the text is sometimes treated like a royal inscription, but they do not list the royal inscriptions at the DCSL, the question may be asked: Why do they list this text at DCSL then?
The answer may be that while the text is in fact a royal inscription of the king Urukagina of Lagash, it does not simply commemorate the kings building inscriptions or achievements, rather it records the attack on the city of Lagash by the rival king of Umma, Lugalzagesi (the same king who would fall to Sargon at the dawn of the Sargonic period). Therefore, while it could be taken as a royal inscription is bears considerable historical relevance and has been termed a "Royal Lament" by the DCSL project.
In the below section, and over the course of a few days, I will provide the translation given in the RIME volume section by section - however, because I am also learning to read these sort of texts in Sumerian class right now, I will attempt to offer some comments and observations about the translation and also compare with the edition of the text given by Steible.
Analyzing a Pre-Sargonic text/
So I have analyzed the first column of the text and posted it below with the idea that visitors to enenuru who are interested in Sumerian but have not had the chance to learn or study the language (the methods are somewhat obscure of course), might see some techniques which a student uses. It should be pointed out that these are the habits of just one student and the study of Sumerology is unfortunately quite lacking in standardization. One enenuru member, Darkl2030, who currently studies here in Jena with me, has quite a different approach to everything than I do and so I welcome his competitive objections (or possible corrections) to any of the below analysis.
Because of how much space this takes up, I've decided to only post a sample of my study of this text, that is column 1. However the complete translation will follow below. As a beginning student of Sumerian I take considerable time contemplating every line and every syllable, checking a list of possible grammatical functions. As seen below, the cuneiform is first transliterated - in a column beside this I give my transcription (an interpretation of how the language would have been spoken if not for textual limitations) plus notes on the grammar - in a third column an English translation is given.
I have gained further assistance in working with this text and with its interpretation from the Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Royal Inscriptions:
oracc.museum.upenn.edu/etcsri/corpus
One can search Urukagina in the corpus, and the text in question is Urukagina 5. The work on this site is primarily that of Zolyomi, a Hungarian Sumerologist and grammatician whose ideas I am currently considering. By putting your mouse over a Sumerian word you can see Zolyomi's analysis of the grammar relating to that word - it is given in a sort of complex coding system (unfortunately) which is explained in another section of the website.
URUKAGINA 5, col. i:
CDLI: P222618
Museum number: [AO 4162]
Translation: Obtained
*************UNDER CONSTRUCTION**
According to the relevant DCSL entry, the composition sometimes known as "The Fall of Lagash" was examined in varying detail by the following scholars:
Steible 1982 : 333-337
Content: edition
Römer 1984 : 313-315
Content: translation
Cooper 1986 : 78-79
Content: translation
Powell 1996
Content: commentary
Bauer 1998 : 489-492
Content: commentary
Wilcke 2004 : 215-216
Content: commentary
In addition, it was treated on page 277 of Frayne's RIME Pre-Sarongic volume, where on can find an even more extensive bibliography for this text. For an overall list of Pre-Sargonic literature (i.e. not Royal inscriptions) I refer to the DCSL website where they list literature of various sorts. Since the text is sometimes treated like a royal inscription, but they do not list the royal inscriptions at the DCSL, the question may be asked: Why do they list this text at DCSL then?
The answer may be that while the text is in fact a royal inscription of the king Urukagina of Lagash, it does not simply commemorate the kings building inscriptions or achievements, rather it records the attack on the city of Lagash by the rival king of Umma, Lugalzagesi (the same king who would fall to Sargon at the dawn of the Sargonic period). Therefore, while it could be taken as a royal inscription is bears considerable historical relevance and has been termed a "Royal Lament" by the DCSL project.
In the below section, and over the course of a few days, I will provide the translation given in the RIME volume section by section - however, because I am also learning to read these sort of texts in Sumerian class right now, I will attempt to offer some comments and observations about the translation and also compare with the edition of the text given by Steible.
Analyzing a Pre-Sargonic text/
So I have analyzed the first column of the text and posted it below with the idea that visitors to enenuru who are interested in Sumerian but have not had the chance to learn or study the language (the methods are somewhat obscure of course), might see some techniques which a student uses. It should be pointed out that these are the habits of just one student and the study of Sumerology is unfortunately quite lacking in standardization. One enenuru member, Darkl2030, who currently studies here in Jena with me, has quite a different approach to everything than I do and so I welcome his competitive objections (or possible corrections) to any of the below analysis.
Because of how much space this takes up, I've decided to only post a sample of my study of this text, that is column 1. However the complete translation will follow below. As a beginning student of Sumerian I take considerable time contemplating every line and every syllable, checking a list of possible grammatical functions. As seen below, the cuneiform is first transliterated - in a column beside this I give my transcription (an interpretation of how the language would have been spoken if not for textual limitations) plus notes on the grammar - in a third column an English translation is given.
I have gained further assistance in working with this text and with its interpretation from the Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Royal Inscriptions:
oracc.museum.upenn.edu/etcsri/corpus
One can search Urukagina in the corpus, and the text in question is Urukagina 5. The work on this site is primarily that of Zolyomi, a Hungarian Sumerologist and grammatician whose ideas I am currently considering. By putting your mouse over a Sumerian word you can see Zolyomi's analysis of the grammar relating to that word - it is given in a sort of complex coding system (unfortunately) which is explained in another section of the website.
URUKAGINA 5, col. i: