BIBLIOTHECA ORIENTALIS LVIII N° 5-6, september-december 2001
SALLABERGER, W. — "Wenn Du mein Bruder bist, ..." Interaktion und Textgestaltung in altbabylonischen Alltragsbriefen. (Cuneiform Monographs 16). Styx Publications, Groningen, 1999. (24 cm, XIII, 288). ISBN 905693-029-X; ISSN 0929-0052. Hfl. 175,-. Old Babylonian letters stemming from the main sites of central Babylonia, particularly those published in the Leiden series Altbabylonische Briefe, are one of the most studied text-groups in Assyriology. These roughly 2,500 published letters (as counted by the author, p. 6 n. 9, not including the Mari letters) still serve as our prime source for knowledge of the Old Babylonian world — its geography, prosopography, familial and social stratification, economical and judicial institutions, legal procedures, religious practices etc. — and yet, surprisingly, though thoroughly exploited, there are very few commentaries to these letters themselves.1) Furthermore, a description of this corpus as a whole, more precisely as an epistolary corpus, was until recently greatly lacking. This gap is now filled to a large extent with W. Sallaberger's new study. A fundamental observation the author makes concerns the language of the letters. Contrary to a common notion according to which Old Babylonian letters are regarded as some kind of ancient tape-recorder, Sallaberger does not consider the letters to reflect Old Babylonian oral speech. Rather than a "spoken language" (Gesprochene Sprache), Sallaberger calls the language of the letters a "written language" (Schriftsprache, or Alltags- oder Umgangssprache) used in daily-life texts (alltagliche Gebrauchstexf) (pp. 10-12). This vernacular served as a written vehicle of communication, transmitting different sorts of verbal interactions between correspondents. Differenty put, the epistolary parlance attested in the letters is a result of a modulation of face-to-face, spoken utterances into a standardized written form, and it certainly does not record the actual utterances as spoken. References in the letters themselves to alternations between the written and the oral modes of communications are ample, proving the coexistence of these two modes of expression (p. 17ff.). A corollary of the above is that, notwithstanding some minor orthographic differenes and lexical uses (the clearest one is the term for "leter": unnedukkum in the South vs. tuppum in the North), Old Babylonian letters — aside from Mari letters — appear to be a homogenous corpus, in which no dialectical borderlines can be detected (p. 5). The existence of a standardized scribal or chancellery parlance may also explain the conformity of expression so typical of many of the letters from Central Babylonia, in comparison with other, less rigidly formulated epistolary corpora, such as the letters from Mari. In this context the question of model leters and letters written by student-scribes arises immediately and is aptly discussed (pp. 149ff.). The methods used in the study are those of text-analysis, pragmatics, and speech act theory (pp. 6ff.). These analytical tools, which have proved useful for philological needs and nowadays are found at the heart of the linguistic consensus, are the best choice and avoid more speculative, and less effective linguistic theories (p. 7).
') See especially R. Frankena, Kommentar zu den altbabylonischen Briefen aus Lagaba und anderen Orten, Leiden, 1978, and B. Kienast, Die altbabylonischen Briefe und Urkunden aus Kisurra (= FAOS 2/I-II), Wiesbaden," 1978.
638
The analysis commences with the structure of the Old Babylonian letter, starting with a quantitative examination of the different greetings, self-preentation formulae and appellatives attested at the head of the letters (pp. 21-92). Once all the possible appellations found in the letters (ahum, ahum, mdrum, belum, wardum, awilum, sdpirum, rd'imum, ibrum, karibum, and emiqum) are taken into account, this almost indispensable part of the Old Babylonian letter is shown to mirror the hierarchical network of senders and addressees (see esp. the chart on p. 69). Another outcome of this analysis is that it shows a different set of opening formulae in the older, pre-Hammurabian strata of the corpus, thus offering an indicator for the relative chronology of the letters (p. 37). The standard greeting formulae with their respective divine names and typical wishes are also listed, and semantically and pragmatically discussed (pp. 75-92). The following part of the discussions tackles the different formal steps taken by the writer in order to establish smooth and efficient contact with the addressee (pp. 92-127). In this section the main building blocks of the epistolary dialogue are examined: self-introductory phrases: (e.g. salmaku. mimma Id tanakkud — cf. p. 98); expressions of concern, which the writer shares with his addressee (e.g. mddis azziq, or nakddku — cf. p. 101); common excuses for an involuntary interruption of the contact (e.g. marsdkuma adi inanna ul aspurakki — cf. p. 108); expressions of satisfaction (e.g. mddis ahdu — cf. p. 114); blessings and the mention of various gods as part of the sender's gratitude to the addressee (eg. Amurru liballitka, or sa tepusanni ilka Adad lidammiq — cf. pp. 120f.). Specimens of the typical ways of organizing the dialogue in the letters are furnished throughout the discussion (note especially the analysis of the unusual letter from Lagaba, AbB 3, 22, on pp. 122f.). Ironical expressions attested in the letters, virtually all in the form of rhetorical questions (e.g. damiq epesum annum), are listed in a separate excursus (pp. 118f.). Having analyzed the phatic dimensions of establishing the contact between the communicating parties, the author moves to examine the main different functions of the letters, as seen from the perspective of text-analysis and illocutionary acts typology. One particular type of letters is analyzed in depth, namely the letter of request (Bittbrief), an analysis that raises the interesting issue of politeness, i.e., polite (pp. 155ff.) vs. not-so-polite, or even impolite ways to approach an addressee (pp. 175ff.). A historical development in well-mannered approaches to different addressees is detected, the main changes of which is the introduction of the third person in later stages of the Old Babylonian period, replacing the second person, typical of the earlier Old Babylonian letters. The routine expression denoting an assertive request, apputum, usually translated "it is urgent", is analyzed and semantically discussed (pp. 159ff.). Sallaberger offers an etymology for this word connecting it with abubum, "flood", similar to the parallel Sumerian expression a-ma-ru-kam (p. 163). Other conventional themes in letters of request are reviewed: "no one but you..." (e.g. ulldnu abija kdta ana mannim asappar — cf. p. 183); "I did not ask you this before..." (e.g. matima ana belija kdta ul aspuram — cf. p. 184); "if you are truly my brother..." (e.g. summa ina kittim ahi attd — cf. p. 187); "if you truly love me..." (e.g. summa ina kindtim tarammanni — cf. p. 190); "by doing this I will see your brother-like attitude..." (e.g. ina annitim athufka lumur — p. 195) and more.
639
BOEKBESPREKINGEN —- ASSYRIOLOGIE
The last section of the study is dedicated to argumentation, that is to the rhetorical strategies employed by the writers in order to justify their own decisions and actions, and to persuade the addressees to act or respond in a particular manner which fits their own needs (pp. 312-259). Sallaberger has made great efforts to elucidate the rational thinking embedded in the everyday discourse recorded in the letters, basing himself on concepts originating in classical rhetoric and further developed by modern argumentation and communication theories. An English summary (pp. 261-264), bibliography (pp. 265-275), and indices (pp. 277-288) seal this excellent monograph. W. Sallaberger's study offers a thorough description of the Old Babylonian epistolary corpus as a whole, as well as many penetrating insights into some of its cardinal aspects. The author was successful in empoying linguistic analytical tools in the Assyriological arena, mainly because, when confronted with the inevitable dilemma between theoretical consistency and sane philological common sense, he opted for the latter. Thus, "Wenn Du mein Bruder hist..." clearly marks a new stage in the analysis of Old Babylonian epistolary texts, and will serve as a pivotal work for further research in this field. Nathan WASSERMAN
Jerusalem, August 2001 *
* *
ROBSON, Eleanor. — Mesopotamian Mathematics, 21001600 BC. Technical Constants in Bureaucracy and Education. (Oxford Editions of Cuneiform Texts, Vol. XIV). Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1999. (31 cm, XVI, 334). ISBN 0-19-815246-9. £ 60.00. Die hier vorzustellende Arbeit, die aus der 1995 in Oxford eingereichten Dissertation der Vfn. hervorgegangen 1st, hat zu Recht das Format einer allgemeinen Untersuchung der mesopotamischen Mathematik zur aB Zeit angenommen. Daruber hinaus erschlieBt sie auch neues Material. Ihr umfassender Charakter folgt jedoch vor allem aus der schlichten Erklarung, die beiden Hauptziele seien »to make a detailed, technical study of a small group of texts conventionally known as 'coefficient lists'; and to use the results of that study to explore the Sitz im Leben of mathematics in third and second millennium Mesopotamia.* (Preface, S. V) Mit diesem Anliegen reiht die Vfn. ihre Arbeit in die von ihr nach J. H0yrup (History of Science 34 [1996] 1-32) festgestellte, gegenwartige dritte Phase in der ErschlieBung der mesopotamischen Mathematik ein, fur die eine allseitige Beachtung der Bedingungen und der Bedingtheit der iiberlieferten Zeugnisse maBgebend ist. In dem Sinne ist auch nicht zufallig als Titel fur die unlangst erschienenen Beitrage des letzten einer Reihe von Workshops zur Keilschriftmathematik »Changing Views on Ancient Near Eastern Mathematics* (J. H0yrup/P. Damerow [Hrsg.], Berlin 2001 [BBVO 19]) gewahlt worden. Wahrend den Hauptteil und die Leitlinie der vorliegenden Untersuchung acht aB Exemplare (A, C, D, E, F, G, H, M) sogenannter Koeffizientenlisten bilden (Kap. 2 - Kap. 8, S. 16-138), fiihrt deren mathematische und philologische Interpretation in alle Bereiche der Mathematik der Mesopotamier, auch wenn es bei nicht wenigen Koeffizienten aus unterschiedlichen Griinden noch nicht moglich ist, einen Sach-
640
bezug herzustellen und ihre numerische GroBe zu erklaren.1) Interessant ist immerhin der Befund, daB in der aB Mathematik etwa 220 Koeffizienten bezeugt sind, von denen 187 in den betreffenden Listen und 61 in Problemtexten und Diagrammen auftreten. Nur 22 (10%) kommen lediglich in den Problemtexten, nicht aber in den Listen vor (S. 185). Diese stellen ohnehin als Textgattung offenbar eine aB Neuerung dar (vgl. Tabelle 10.5, S. 183), nachdem bereits zur Ur IIIZeit alle sonstigen Typen mathematischer Texte vorhanden oder wenigstens vorgebildet waren und die Anwendung von Koeffizienten keinem Zweifel unterliegt. Die von zahlreichen Abbildungen und Tabellen (List of Figures, S. VIII-X; List of Tables, S. Xlf.) unterstiitzte Darstellung ist in elf Kapitel unterteilt, denen sich sechs »Appendices« (S. 193-289), ein Literaturverzeichnis (References, S. 290-306) und drei »Indices« anschlieBen. In letzteren sind alle zitierten Texte genannt und charakterisiert (S. 307-324), die Koeffizienten nach ihren numerischen Werten geordnet und lokalisiert (S. 325-332) und die besprochenen akkadischen und sumerischen Worter aufgefiihrt (S. 333f.). Nachdem sie im 1. Kapitel (1. Introduction, S. 1-15) vor allem die inzwischen mehr als einhundertjahrige Forschungsgeschichte der Keilschriftmathematik skizziert hat, schliisselt die Vfn. im 2. Kap. (Coefficients and Coefficient Lists, S. 16-33) die oben genannten acht aB Listen jede fur sich nach den darin auftretenden Anwendungsgebieten der Koeffizienten auf und wertet sie schlieBlich insgesamt statistisch aus. Erganzend sind vier spatere, d.h. eine wohl kassitenzeitliche sowie spatbabylonische Koeffizientenlisten einbezogen. Aus der sachlichen Zuordnung der Koeffizienten ergibt sich auch die thematische Abfolge in den weiteren Kapiteln der Untersuchung: 3. Geometrical Coefficients (S. 34-56), 4. Bricks and Brickworks (S. 57-73), 5. Making Bricks, Carrying Building Materials, Combining Coefficients (S. 7492), 6. Earthworks and Waterworks; Other Work-Loads (S. 93-110) und 7. Storage and Metrology (S. 111-124). In Kap. 8 (Other Coefficients, S. 125-137) sind diejenigen Koeffizienten zusammengefaBt, die den bisherigen Themen nicht zugeordnet werden konnen (auf Metalle beziigliche und astronomische Koeffizienten) oder wegen einer unzureichenden Uberlieferungssituation nicht zu interpretieren sind. Im Kap. 9 (Mathematics in Ur III and OB Administration) unternimmt es die Vfn., an Hand der die aB Texte an Zahl iibertreffenden Urkunden der Ur III-Zeit die Verankerung der mathematischen Methoden und insbesondere die Anwendung der Koeffizienten in der taglichen Praxis zu zeigen und damit auch die Kontinuitat der mathematischen Kenntnisse im tibergang von der Ur III- zur aB Zeit zu belegen. War man schon bisher davon ausgegangen, daB die numerischen Werte der Koeffizienten, wie sie sich in den aB Listen fur den Schulgebrauch finden, tatsachlich von den Feldmessern, Buchhaltern und anderen rechnenden Praktikern angewendet wurden bzw. aus dieser Anwendung heraus in die Ausbildung Eingang gefunden hatten, so wird diese Verbindung hier durch die Einbeziehung weiteren Materials untersetzt. Es be') Neben den zahlreichen Ubersetzungen von IGl.GUB/igigubhum »Koeffizient« in der bisherigen Literatur unter § 1.2.2 (S. 5) gibt die Vfn. S. 185 in Kap. 11 (»Conclusions«, S. 184-192 ihre Definition »... is an numerical constant considered intrinsic to a particular type of problem and independent of the parameters chosen in setting individual problems of that type.«
Comments
Report "Review of W. Sallaberger, \"Wenn Du mein Bruder bist, ...\". Interaktion und Textgestaltung in altbabylonischen Alltagsbriefen, 2001. "