Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
|
lexical_texts_in_the_scribal_centres_of_mesopotamia [2016/04/22 10:01] wagensonner created |
lexical_texts_in_the_scribal_centres_of_mesopotamia [2016/04/22 12:00] (current) wagensonner [Lexical texts in the scribal centres of Mesopotamia] |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| It is noteworthy that the tablet format of the Early Dynastic versions still follows archaic customs. Large square, multi-column tablets are frequent, while the reverse is often left blank or contains a colophon, providing insights into the respective scribal milieu. As their archaic " | It is noteworthy that the tablet format of the Early Dynastic versions still follows archaic customs. Large square, multi-column tablets are frequent, while the reverse is often left blank or contains a colophon, providing insights into the respective scribal milieu. As their archaic " | ||
| - | The lexical corpus at the afore-mentioned sites can roughly be divided into two groups: (1) versions of word lists known already from earlier (archaic) sources; (2) new compilations of lists, sometimes semi-dependent on established lexical texts. The Early Dynastic versions of the first group form the basis for the reconstruction of the archaic lists. This is due to their good state of preservation. A case in point is the Fara version of a list nowadays called //Animals// A ([[***|SF 81]]). The predecessor of this list dating to the end of the 4th millennium only preserves a small part of the later text and its reconstruction was merely possible using the almost identical tradition of this list in the 3rd millennium. | + | The lexical corpus at the afore-mentioned sites can roughly be divided into two groups: (1) versions of word lists known already from earlier (archaic) sources; (2) new compilations of lists, sometimes semi-dependent on established lexical texts. The Early Dynastic versions of the first group form the basis for the reconstruction of the archaic lists. This is due to their good state of preservation. A case in point is the Fara version of a list nowadays called //Animals// A ([[http:// |
| There is no indication in the pertinent sources, which would allow a reconstruction of the transmission of the Uruk lists. Although chronological models constantly reshape the relative dates for the first half of the 3rd millennium, there is certainly a considerable gap between the " | There is no indication in the pertinent sources, which would allow a reconstruction of the transmission of the Uruk lists. Although chronological models constantly reshape the relative dates for the first half of the 3rd millennium, there is certainly a considerable gap between the " | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | The compositions were generally transmitted in full editions; extracts are rare and appear so far only to be attested for the " | ||
| + | |||
| + | Most of the Early Dynastic versions of archaic word lists came down to us in more than one copy in the afore-mentioned scribal centres. But there are also a couple of exceptions. The list //Pots and Garments//, which was well attested in Uruk, is only preserved through one manuscript each in Fara and Tell Abu Salabikh, the latter being quite fragmentary. Nevertheless, | ||
