The Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur 9781575068831

Citation preview

The Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

General Editor Jerrold S. Cooper, Johns Hopkins University Editorial Board

Walter Farber, University of Chicago Piotr Michalowski, University of Michigan Simo Parpola, University of Helsinki Karen Radner, University College, London

Jack Sasson, Vanderbilt University Piotr Steinkeller, Harvard University Marten Stol, Free University of Amsterdam Irene Winter, Harvard University

 1. The Lamentation over the Destruction of Sumer and Ur, by Piotr Michalowski  2. Schlaf, Kindchen, Schlaf! Mesopotamische Baby-Beschwörungen und -Rituale, by Walter Farber  3. Adoption in Old Babylonian Nippur and the Archive of Mannum-mešu-liṣṣur, by Elizabeth C. Stone and David I. Owen  4. Third-Millennium Legal and Administrative Texts in the Iraq Museum, Baghdad, by Piotr Steinkeller and J. N. Postgate  5. House Most High: The Temples of Ancient Mesopotamia, by A. R. George  6. Textes culinaires Mésopotamiens / Mesopotamian Culinary Texts, by Jean Bottéro  7. Legends of the Kings of Akkade: The Texts, by Joan Goodnick Westenholz  8. Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography, by Wayne Horowitz  9. The Writing on the Wall: Studies in the Architectural Context of Late Assyrian Palace Reliefs, by John M. Russell 10.  Adapa and the South Wind: Language Has the Power of Life and Death, by Shlomo Izre’el 11.  Time at Emar: The Cultic Calendar and the Rituals from the Diviner’s Archive, by Daniel E. Fleming 12.  Letters to the King of Mari: A New Translation, with Historical Introduction, Notes, and Commentary, by Wolfgang Heimpel 13.  Babylonian Oracle Questions, by W. G. Lambert 14.  Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia , by Gianni Marchesi and Nicolò Marchetti 15.  The Correspondence of the Kings of Ur: An Epistolary History of an Ancient Mesopotamian Kingdom, by Piotr Michalowski 16.  Babylonian Creation Myths, by W. G. Lambert 17.  Lamaštu: An Edition of the Canonical Series of Lamaštu Incantations and Rituals and Related Texts from the Second and First Millennia b.c., by Walter Farber 18.  The Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur, by Nili Samet 19.  The babilili-Ritual from Hattusa (CTH 718), by Gary M. Beckman

The Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

Nili Samet

Winona Lake, Indiana E isenbrauns 2014

© Copyright 2014 Eisenbrauns All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. www.eisenbrauns.com

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Lamentation over the destruction of Ur (2014) The lamentation over the destruction of Ur / Nili Samet [editor, translator and commentary].    pages cm Text in transcribed Sumerian with English translation and commentary. Includes bibliographical references and indexes. ISBN 978-1-57506-292-1 (hardback : alk. paper) 1.  Sumerian language—Texts.  2.  Elegiac poetry, Sumerian.  I.  Samet, Nili, translator, editor. II.  Lamentation over the destruction of Ur. English  III.  Lamentation over the destruction of Ur. Sumerian.  IV. Title. PJ4065.L3 2014 899′.95—dc23 2014000697

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984. ♾™

to Jacob Klein with gratitude

Contents Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.1.  Sumerian Laments over Cities and Temples . . . . . . 1 1.2.  Sumerian City Laments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2.1.  Dating and Historical Background . . . . . . . 5 1.2.2.  The Cultic Setting of the City Laments . . . . 9 1.2.3.  The City Laments as a Genre . . . . . . . . . 12 1.3.  The Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur . . . . 13 1.3.1. Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 1.3.2.  Structure, Style, and Meaning . . . . . . . . . 14 2. Revised Edition of the Ur Lament . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 2.1.  Previous Editions and Translations . . . . . . . . . . 32 2.2.  The Present Edition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 2.3.  List of Manuscripts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 2.3.1.  Indexes of Previous Works . . . . . . . . . . . 37 2.4.  Descriptions of Manuscripts . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 2.4.1.  Manuscripts from Nippur . . . . . . . . . . . 38 2.4.2.  Manuscripts from Ur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 2.4.3.  Manuscripts from Kiš . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 2.4.4.  A Manuscript from Sippar . . . . . . . . . . . 51 2.4.5.  Manuscripts of Unknown Provenance  . . . 51 3. Transliteration and Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 4. Commentary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 5. Score . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234 Indexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244 Index of Words, Particles, and Idioms Discussed . . . . . 244 Index of Divine Names in the Ur Lament . . . . . . . . 246 Index of Geographical and Topographical Names . . . . 246 Index of Sumerian Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247 Plates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254 vii

Preface The aim of this book is to present a revised edition of the Sumerian Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur, along with a new introduction to the literary genre of Sumerian City Laments in general and to the Ur Lament in particular. The book has its origins in a dissertation written under the supervision of Jacob Klein and Shmuel Vargon at Bar-Ilan University during the years 2005–2008. The edition included in the dissertation was based mainly on photographs of the relevant duplicates. Since then, I have had the opportunity to collate the vast majority of duplicates from their sources, thereby identifying new joins and numerous improved readings. In addition, I composed a new introduction and updated the commentary. This work was conducted while I was at the University Museum in Philadelphia as a post-doctoral fellow during the years 2009–2011. This book would not have been possible without the support and help of many persons and institutions. First and foremost, I am extremely indebted to my mentor and supervisor, Jacob Klein. I cannot thank him enough for his thorough and instructive guidance and for the many long hours he dedicated to my work. It is with deep gratitude and respect that this book is dedicated to him. I am thankful to my teachers and friends in the Kramer Institute for Assyriology, especially to Kathleen Abraham, formerly head of the institute, and to Yitzchak Sefati, who kindly transliterated for me many tablets and fragments. I am also grateful to my colleagues in the Department of Bible at Bar-Ilan University, Shmuel Vargon, Ed Greenstein, and Elie Assis, for their intensive support and useful advice; and to my colleagues from the Department of Ancient Near Eastern Civilizations at the Hebrew University, Wayne Horowitz and Uri Gabbay, who shared with me their experience and knowledge. It is a pleasure to express my gratitude to friends and colleges in the Babylonian Section of the University Museum in Philadelphia: Erle Leichty, Steve Tinney, Grant Frame, Ilona Zsolnay, Philip Jones, and Jamie Novotny. I thank them for their friendship and encouragement. I owe a special debt of gratitude to Herman Vanstiphout for generously providing me with his manuscript of the LU score; to William Hallo, who allowed me to use his unpublished copies of two LU tablets from Yale; to Jeremiah Peterson, formerly of the University Museum, who provided me with dozens of photographs of tablets and informed me of joins identified by him; and to Selim Adali from Bilkent University, who kindly photographed the Istanbul tablets for me. Special thanks go also to Jerry Cooper, the editor of this series, and to Piotr Michalowski, who read drafts of this book thoroughly and suggested many valuable corrections and improvements. I wish to offer here my gratitude to the President’s Fund for Excellent Ph.D. Students for a generous dissertation fellowship in the years 2006–2009, which also provided me an additional postix

x

Preface

doctoral grant in 2010; to the Samuel Noah Kramer Institute of Assyriology, the Beit-Shalom foundation, and the Jewish Memorial Foundation for their special grants in the years 2007, 2011, and 2012, respectively; and to the Israel Science Foundation for the Bikura Post Doctoral Scholarship in the years 2010–2011. In addition, I would like to thank scholars who have kindly given me access to tablets in their collections and provided me with photographs of tablets: Béatrice André-Salvini, Musée du Louvre, Paris Jean-Luc Chappaz, Musées d’art et d’histoire, Geneva Jon Taylor, The British Museum, London John D. M. Green, Jacob L. Dahl, and Stephanie Dalley, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford 1 Benjamin R. Foster and Ulla Kasten, Yale Babylonian Collection, New Haven Nathan Wasserman, Aaron Shaffer’s Photograph Collection, Hebrew University, Jerusalem Manfred Krebernik, Institut für Kulturen und Sprachen des Vorderen Orients, Jena Jonathan Tenney, Oriental Institute, University of Chicago, Chicago Joachim Marzahn, Museum of the Ancient Near East, Berlin Last, but not least, I would like to thank my beloved family. Shlomi, Golan, Eyal, Ofir, and Roni: thank you for your endless love and support. 1.  Photographs of tablets and fragments in the Ashmolean Museum are reproduced courtesy of the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford.

Abbreviations For bibliographical abbreviations in general, see PSD (= Å.W. Sjöberg, ed., The Sumerian Dictionary of the University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania, vol. A/3 [Philadelphia: Babylonian Section of the University Museum, 1998] ix–xlii), HKL (= R. Borger, Handbuch der Keilschrift­literatur, vols. 1–2 [Berlin: de Gruyter, 1967–75]), and CAD (= A. L. Oppenheim et al., eds., The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago [21 vols. (A–Z); Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1956–2011]). Note the the following special abbreviations: CA CLAM ETCSL LE LN LSUr LU LW

Curse of Agade (see Cooper 1983) The Canonical Lamentations of Ancient Mesopotamia (see Cohen 1988) Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature (etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk) Eridu lament (see Green 1978) Nippur lament (see Tinney 1986) Lamentation over the Destruction of Sumer and Ur (see Michalowski 1989) Ur lament Uruk lament (see Green 1984)

All other Sumerian literary works are referred to according to their titles and line numbers in ETCSL. Former editions and translations of the Ur lament are referred to by the author’s name alone, as follows: Falkenstein Jacobsen Klein

Kramer Römer Shifra-Klein

A. Falkenstein and W. von Soden, eds., Sumerische und akkadische Hymnen und Gebete ([Stuttgart: Artemis, 1953] 192–213) T. Jacobsen, The Harps That Once . . . : Sumerian Poetry in Translation ([New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1987] 447–74). J. Klein, “Lamentation over the Destruction of Sumer and Ur,” in The Context of Scripture, vol. 1: Canonical Compositions from the Biblical World ([3 vols.; ed. W. W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger Jr.; Leiden: Brill, 1997–2003] 535–39) S. N. Kramer, Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur (Assyriological Studies 12; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1940) W. H. P. Römer, Die Klage über die Zerstörung von Ur (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 309; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2004) S. Shifra and J. Klein, In Those Distant Days: Anthology of Mesopotamian Literature ([Tel Aviv: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1996] 425–43 [Hebrew])

xi

Chapter 1

Introduction 1.1.  Sumerian Laments over Cities and Temples The lament is a well-known genre in world literature. Laments of various types are part of the cultural legacy and literary corpus of many societies, from ancient to modern times. Sumerian literature is no exception. Many literary works are focused on lamentations or use a lament-like style. 1 However, the lamentation literature in Mesopotamia includes a significant body of laments belonging to a unique and almost unparalleled genre, the genre of lamentations over the destruction of cities and temples. This genre has no known ancient parallel outside the ancient Near East; more specifically, it is almost exclusively attested in Sumerian and biblical literature. 2 The rareness of the genre of laments over cities and temples in world literature could be explained by the historical circumstances that gave rise to these laments. They emerged out of the destruction of old, defeated political regimes, which were often replaced by rival regimes. Normally, one would not expect poetry bewailing the old world to thrive under the rule of the new authority; it was only under special circumstances that these texts could be composed and could survive for many generations as part of a literary canon. The uniqueness of the biblical case seems obvious: the destruction of Jerusalem and the exile of its inhabitants were not followed by the extinction of the Israelite culture and religion. As we shall see below, the Sumerian laments involved exceptional circumstances of their own. In some cases, unique historical-political conditions enabled their composition after the fall of the kingdom to which they were dedicated; in other cases, the laments were apolitical in nature, serving merely as cultic texts that were not ascribed to any specific time or place. The corpus of Sumerian lamentations over cities and temples consists of two subgroups, one that is referred to by scholars as City Laments, and the other often labeled Cultic Laments. 3 Each of the City Laments bewails the destruction of an important city in Sumer, often alluding to specific geographical and historical details such as names of shrines and other buildings of the city, the name 1.  A few examples are Man and His God; The Death of Gilgameš; elegies such as the Elegy on the Death of Nannaya; and the Dumuzi literature. For general surveys of Sumerian lamentation literature of different types, see Krecher 1980; Edzard 2004: 515–20. 2.  On this genre in the Bible, see recently Dobbs-Allsopp 1993, with additional bibliography. 3.  For general introductions to the Cultic Laments, compare Cohen 1988: 11–44; Black 1991; and Gabbay 2007: 2–178, with additional bibliography. On the City Laments, see below.

1

2

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

of the king, and the identity of the enemy. These laments, at least on the surface, describe a specific historical event and therefore are occasionally referred to as historical laments. The Cultic Laments, on the other hand, bewail the destruction in general terms, using formulaic phrases of nonhistorical nature. In addition, the Cultic Laments were labeled by the ancient scribes with generic subscripts, such as balaĝ, er2-šem3-ma, and so on, while the ancient classification of the City Laments, if it existed, is unknown. The Cultic Laments have a repetitive character, using long stereotypical litanies; these litanies typically include lists of ruined cities and shrines and names or epithets of deities who abandoned them, appearing in a fixed order. The City Laments, on the other hand, are characterized by literary diversity and richness. The two groups also differ with regard to dialect: the Cultic Laments are written in the Emesal dialect, probably as a result of their belonging to the repertoire of the lamentation priest, gala, who was associated with this dialect. In the case of the City Laments, the parts written in Emesal are usually parts that quote the direct speech of a lamenting goddess; the rest of each lament generally uses the main dialect. 4 Last, while the City Laments ceased to be copied and transmitted by the scribes after the sixteenth century b.c.e., and perhaps even earlier, 5 the Cultic Laments continued to be copied and were used in the cult until the Seleucid era. All the aforementioned differences between City Laments and Cultic Laments can be explained by the apparently different cultic background of the two groups. While the Cultic Laments played an important role in Mesopotamian cultic practice, the City Laments, as far as we know, were not included in the regular cultic text inventory. Consequently, they did not enjoy the longevity that characterized the Cultic Laments, the common cultic use of which as a fixed part of religious practice assured their continuous transmission. 6 The different natures of the two groups, one more historically specific and the other lacking historicity, as well as the use of standard Sumerian versus the use of the Emesal dialect, typical of the gala priest, are also reflective of the different functions of these two groups of laments. The same is true of the repetitive, rhythmic nature of the Cultic Lament, which makes them suitable for recitation, in contrast to the free, rich style of the City Laments. Formerly, the common opinion regarding the relation between these two types of laments was that the City Laments preceded the Cultic Laments, having emerged as a consequence of a major historical disaster. The Cultic Laments, according to this hypothesis, developed from the City Laments by generalizing the specific historical details of the latter, adapting them to different places and circumstances. 7 Recent research, however, has revealed that Cultic Laments were regularly performed as early as the third millennium b.c.e., before the fall of the Ur III Empire, which is the main subject of the City Laments. This indicates that the relation between the two lament types was the 4.  See Green 1975: 288–89. In the case of LU, the first two kirugus are exceptional. See §1.3.2.1. See also the comments on ll. 253, 255. Note also that the Ur manuscripts of LU are much less consistent in their use of Emesal. 5.  All manuscripts of the five currently known City Laments date to the Old Babylonian period. In cases in which the manuscripts were examined more closely, they usually turn out to be dated to the twentieth through eighteenth centuries b.c.e. Exceptions include LU manuscripts from Kiš, dating from the reign of Rim-Sin II of Larsa in the mideighteenth century; and the LU manuscript from Sippar, dating from the days of Ammiṣaduqa (ca. 1646–1626). 6.  The question of the disappearance of the City Laments from the literary tradition is connected to the general problem of the ceased transmission of most of the Sumerian literature by the end of the OB period. On this issue, see, e.g., Landsberger 1960; Hallo 1976. 7.  See, e.g.: Cohen 1988: 33–39; Vanstiphout 1986: 7–9; Dobbs-Allsopp 1993: 11–15; 2000: 627–28.

Introduction

3

opposite: the City Laments probably represent a literary development of the earlier Cultic Laments, by adapting them to a specific historical circumstances. 8

1.2.  Sumerian City Laments The City Laments describe the destruction of central cities of Sumer during the fall of the third dynasty of Ur in 2004 b.c.e. 9 Each of these laments, which are characterized by literary diversity and moving descriptions, is dedicated to the devastation of an important city of the kingdom. The City Laments share many features, including content, idioms, literary structure, literary motifs, and ideas. City Laments are divided into kirugus (= ‘songs/stanzas’), each accompanied by a ĝišgiĝal (= ‘antiphon’). 10 The main theme of the laments is the destruction of the city to which the lament is devoted, but the laments also refer to the destruction of other cities. The destruction is presented as terrible and utter, affecting the city’s inhabitants, buildings, infrastructures, and agricultural life. The city loses its wealth, honor, and fertility. All social institutions collapse: priests abandon their offices; shepherds burn their pens; men neglect their wives and sons. Vivid descriptions are devoted to horrifying sights of bloodbath, piles of corpses, cut-down limbs, and dead, helpless victims abandoned by their loved ones. 11 The climax of the process of devastation is the destruction of the temple with its accessories, the cessation of the cultic practice, and the exile of the temple’s divine inhabitants. On the theological level, the City Laments describe the devastation as the decision of the great gods, executed by two primary agents of destruction: the storm in the cosmic realm and the enemy in the human realm. 12 As a consequence of the great gods’ sentence, which is presented as irrevocable, the patron deities are forced to abandon the city prior to the destruction. 13 This abandonment is often accompanied by the lamenting of the city’s patron god and/or goddess about the bitter fate of his or her city and shrine. The physical destruction is conceptualized in the City Laments as an expression of the destruction of the mythological infrastructure of the city’s existence. Thus, what are actually being destroyed are the city’s ‘plans’ (ĝišhur), ‘rituals’ (ĝarza), and ‘rational judgment’ (umuš, ĝalga, or dim). Above all, 8.  See Black 1991: 30–31; Cooper 2006: 39–47; Gabbay 2007: 20–21. Note that, in addition to the Cultic Laments, other Sumerian literary works were considered forerunners of the City Laments. The most prominent “prior text” in this regard is the Curse of Akkad (= CA), which was probably composed during the Ur III period (ca. 2100–2000 b.c.). See Cooper, CA 8; Michalowski, LSUr 8–10; Tinney, LN 35–36. 9.  See below, §1.2.1. 10.  Compare with comments on lines 36 and 39. 11.  For the motif of abandoning wives and children in the City Laments, compare the comment on l. 235 below, and see the discussion of the sixth kirugu of LU (§1.3.2.5.). 12.  For the expression of this concept in LU, see the literary analysis of kirugus 5 (§1.3.2.4.) and 9–10 (§1.3.2.8.) below. 13.  In some rare cases, however, the patron gods are described as voluntarily choosing to abandon their cities; but even in these cases, the responsibility for the action of destruction is cast on the great gods. See LE seg. C ll. 9–25 (note that, contrary to Green’s translation, this passage most likely describes the rejection of cities by their patron gods rather than their destruction by them; for the understanding of zag–tag in this passage as ‘push away’, see Karahashi 2000: 175–76). The case of LU ll. 374–77 might be viewed as another example; but compare our literary discussion of the eighth kirugu, below, §1.3.2.7. For a possible realistic background of the theme of the abandoning patron gods, see Edzard 1957: 56–57.

4

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

the city loses its me, the divine essence that is the basis of its cultural, social, and religious institutions and enables its existence. 14 An additional important feature is an optimistic epilogue, referring to the restoration of the temple and the return of the deity to his holy abode. In most of the City Laments, the epilogue also includes a description of a ritual performed in the restored shrine, involving the recitation of a prayer and an offering of a lament. This ritual, which might shed light on the cultic setting of the City Laments, will be discussed below. To date, five City Laments are known: The Lament over Ur (LU), The Lament over Sumer and Ur (LSUr), The Lament over Uruk (LW), The Lament over Eridu (LE), and The Lament over Nippur (LN). 15 At least three of these laments—LU, LSUr, and LN—are mentioned by their incipit lines in the so-called literary catalogs from the Old Babylonian period. Significantly, they have been grouped together by the ancient scribe who composed these lists. 16 The other two laments, LW and LE, seem to be mentioned in these catalogs as well, in the proximity of the other three; however, since their beginnings are lost, they cannot be identified with certainty according to their incipit lines. 17 The Lament over Sumer and Ur has been reconstructed almost entirely. 18 It contains 5 kirugus, and the major portion of it deals with the dreadful destruction caused by a storm in the major cities of Sumer, with a detailed description of the devastation wrought in each city. The description of the demolition of Ur, the capital, is the most detailed, presented as the climax of the tragedy. The last kirugu contains an incantation-like plea for the restoration of the cities of Sumer. On the theological level, LSUr pays considerable attention to the decision by the great gods to destroy Ur, to the subsequent mass abandonment by patron gods, and to their return to the devastated cities after the favorable pronouncements of the great gods at the end of the lament. In addition, this is the only lament in which explicit justification for the destruction is suggested: the appointed duration of Ur’s reign, determined in advance by the great gods, had expired. 19

14.  See comments on ll. 69–70, 231–32, and 342–43 below. 15.  A fragmentary composition known as The Ekimar Lament (SLTN 103) might be added to this group, though the character of this text cannot be determined for certain on the basis of current evidence. See: Edzard 1957: 51; Michalowski, LSUr, p. 5. For another possible attestation of the existence of a sixth, currently unknown, City Lament, refer to the discussion about City Laments in ancient catalogs below. 16.  See discussion below, §1.2.3. 17.  See the following catalogs (all cited from ETCSL): The OB catalog from Nibru (N2) mentions LU, LN, and LSUr (ll. 32–34), followed by three incipits of apparent City Laments: uru me zi-da ‘the city of truthful rites’; u4 ḫuš ki-en-gi-ra ‘the raging storm . . . (in) Sumer’; u4 ḫuš an-ur2-ra ‘the raging storm . . . at the horizon’ (ll. 35–37). Judging from their content and from their location in the catalog, these incipits seem to refer to LW, LE, and perhaps also to a sixth, currently unknown City Lament. The OB catalog in the Louvre mentions three City Laments: LU, LN (ll. 26–28), and the apparent lament beginning with uru me zi-da ‘the city of truthful rites’ (l. 28). The OB catalog from Urim (U2) mentions LU, LSUr, and the apparent lament beginning with u4 ḫuš ki-en-gi-ra ‘the raging storm . . . (in) Sumer’ (ll. 44– 46). For a broader discussion, see Tinney, LN, pp. 22–23; and see below, §1.2.3. For further information about these two catalogs in general, see Delnero 2010a. 18.  Michalowski 1989. Note that several additional manuscripts of the text were discovered since Michalowski’s edition. See the full list of manuscripts in ETCSL’s edition of the text. 19.  See below, §1.3.2.3.

Introduction

5

The Lament over Uruk originally contained 12 kirugus, only 6 of which are preserved. 20 In addition to the well-known motifs of divine abandonment, destructive storms, and human enemies, this lament also refers to agents of destruction in mythological terms: they are depicted as terrifying monsters created by the great gods in order to destroy the human race, including the people of Uruk. LW also describes in detail the fall of the king and the desolation of Uruk in particular and Sumer in general. The last kirugu describes King Išme-Dagan’s presentation of the lament to Inana, the goddess of Uruk, as part of a sacrificial ritual. The Eridu lament is only partly preserved. 21 A unique feature of this lament is that it traces in detail the progress of the destructive force that attacked Eridu, from the gate to the innermost chamber of the temple. In addition, the lament describes at length the grieving and lamenting of the divine couple of Eridu, Enki and Damgalnuna, and refers to the divine abandonment of other cities as well. The final kirugu celebrates the return of Enki to the restored temple. The Nippur lament is somewhat exceptional, since only the first half is dedicated to the destruction, using typical descriptions of devastation; while its second, longer part contains an extensive description of the return of the god to its temple, restored by King Išme Dagan. This second part is written in the style of a royal hymn. The lament was edited by S. Tinney. 22 The content of the Ur lament will be discussed in detail below. 1.2.1.  Dating and Historical Background Any discussion of the historical aspects of the City Laments should address two different issues: the problem of their historical background—that is, when the events described in them occurred; and the question of the date of their authorship—that is, when, for what purpose, and by whom were they composed? While these two issues are somewhat related to each other, it is methodologically necessary to distinguish between them and to discuss each separately. Shortly after the Lament over Ur was first introduced to the scholarly community by Kramer, 23 Jacobsen identified the terrible destruction portrayed in it with the fall of the famous kingdom of the Third Dynasty of Ur in 2004 b.c.e. 24 His hypothesis was confirmed when the very similar Lament over Sumer and Ur was deciphered, with two references to Ibbi-Sin, the last king of the Ur III kingdom, as the defeated king of the destroyed city. 25 These explicit references in LSUr, together with the mention of enemies who destroyed Ur—Elam and Šimaški—both in LU and LSUr, 26 clearly point to the traumatic event of the destruction of the Ur III kingdom as the background of LU and LSUr. The 20.  See Green 1984. For additional manuscripts of the text that were discovered after Green’s edition, see the full list of manuscripts in ETCSL. 21.  See Green 1978. For an up-to-date list of manuscripts of the text, see the ETCSL’s list of manuscripts; and see now the new fragment published by Peterson (2009). The preserved parts of this highly damaged fragment clearly point to an LE manuscript; the possible reference to hur-saĝ-kalam-ma in the fragment, even if we assume that this is indeed the correct reading of the signs (see ibid.), should not cast doubt on the identification of this fragment as a manuscript of the Eridu lament. 22.  See Tinney 1995. 23.  Kramer 1940. 24.  Jacobsen 1941. 25.  LSUr 35; 105. 26.  LU 244; LSUr 33 passim.

6

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

other three laments—over Uruk, Eridu, and Nippur—do not include such explicit data about the historical events described in them. Regarding the question of the date of authorship, however, the situation is somewhat the opposite: while LU, LSUr, and LE do not reveal any details about the time of their composition, 27 LN and LW make a specific reference to King Išme-Dagan (1953–1935 b.c.e.), the fourth and most important king of the Isin Dynasty, who ruled Sumer some 60 years after the destruction. In these two laments, Išme-Dagan figures as the performer of the lament, who presents it to the god as part of a sacrificial ritual. 28 In LN, he is further presented as Enlil’s chosen savior of Nippur. This partial evidence cannot fully solve any of the problems at stake: neither the historical background of LE, LW, and LN nor the date of authorship for LU and LSUr can be determined for certain. However, a tentative historical framework for the chronology of the City Laments can be suggested on the basis of available data. The laments for Ur and for Sumer and Ur appear to be relatively early. The many affinities and parallels in both structure and phraseology between these two laments, which cannot be found in the other three, seem to speak for the proximity of the dates of their composition. 29 That this date is probably earlier than the composition of the other laments is indicated by several of their shared characteristics. First, LU and LSUr allude to specific historical details, such as the names of the destroying foes, Elam and Šimaški; 30 the defeated king of Ur, Ibbi-Sin; and the city where he was led into captivity, Anšan. 31 These references may reflect a fresher memory of the actual events. Second, LU and LSUr are focused on destruction rather than restoration. In LU, kirugus 1–8 deal with the destruction, kirugus 9–10 contain a plea for the departure of the storm, and only the 11th, the last kirugu refers to the restoration of the destroyed city. In LSUr, kirugus 1–3 and most of kirugu 4 are dedicated to the theme of destruction; the restoration is treated at the end of kirugu 4 and in kirugu 5. This structure of LU and LSUr is in accordance with the common literary pattern of Cultic Laments, which typically include a “heart pacification unit,” with an appeal for the divine return at the very end. 32 Another characteristic that could be considered as establishing the relative historicity of LU and LSUr is the central role played by the capital Ur in these laments, which, from a historical point of view is more natural than focusing on other cities, as in the three other laments. Who, then, was responsible for the composition of these two laments, and for what purposes were they written? 27.  But note that, in the case of LE, this absence might just as easily be a result of its current fragmentary state of preservation. 28.  See LW seg. H 9–27; LN 276, 308–14. For more details about this ritual, see below, §1.2.2. 29.  For these parallels, see the numerous references in the commentary below. 30.  LU 244; LSUr 33 passim. For the Elamite involvement in the fall of the Ur III kingdom, see Edzard 1957: 48–49. Two additional enemies mentioned in LSUr are Gutium (LSUr 230, 489) and Tidnum (LSUr 256, 488). Unlike the mention of Elam and Šimaški, the reference to Gutium is ahistorical in nature and should be understood as a literary motif (contra Hallo 1971: 715; see further discussion of the Gutium below). Regarding Tidnum, there is no historical evidence for the involvement of this Amorite tribe in the destruction of the Ur III kingdom. It should be noted, however, that Tidnum is mentioned in Ur III texts as a threat against which a wall was built. See Buccelati 1966: 243–44; Wossnik 2009: 132. 31.  LSUr ll. 36, 490, 491. For evidence supporting this tradition regarding Ibbi-Sin’s exile, see Michalowski, LSUr p. 34; and p. 74 comment on l. 35. 32.  See Gabbay 2007: 15–18.

Introduction

7

As mentioned above, 33 the genre of City Laments suffers from an inherent problem: if the political regime it mourns has already perished, who would be interested in composing laments over its destruction and in ensuring the transmission of these laments? An interesting answer to this question was suggested by Michalowski, who studied the historiography and legitimation of the Isin Dynasty, the successor to the Ur III kingdom. 34 Michalowski pointed to the appropriation of the Ur III legacy by the Isin Dynasty, which based its legitimation on its claim to continuity with its predecessor state. The composition of laments dedicated to the destruction of this old kingdom, including an appeal for its restoration, may be part of the royal enterprise aimed at presenting Isin as the legitimate successor of the old and glorious kingdom. In view of the above considerations, one may assume that LU and LSUr were composed during the time of one of the first kings of the Isin Dynasty, perhaps in the days of its founder, Išbi-Erra (2017–1985), 35 not many years after the destruction itself. One should keep in mind, however, that the possible motive of royal legitimation lurking in the background of LU and LSUr is implicit. The Isin king who was seemingly responsible for the composition of these laments did not take full political and propagandistic advantage of them, and the framework of the lament as a literary-religious, not political genre is strictly adhered to, in keeping with the old tradition of Cultic Laments. The implicit motives become explicit in LW and LN. We have seen that these two laments were composed at least 50 years after the destruction, under the aegis of King Išme-Dagan. The remoteness in time between the event and its reflection in the laments naturally weakens their historicity. Indeed, LW and LN lack the specific historical details that appear in LU and LSUr. The names of the enemies who destroyed Sumer in LW and LN are ahistorical in nature, and they function as a literary cliché. They include the legendary and archaic Gutium, Tidnum, and Subir, 36 none of whom was a historical foe of the Ur III kingdom. Additionally, while LU and LSUr pay more attention to the destruction, LN is interested mainly in the theme of restoration, which occupies half of the lament. As to LW, the second half (except for the last(?) kirugu, which describes the restoration) is missing. It is therefore impossible to determine the original ratio between the portion that dealt with the destruction and the portion that described the restoration in this lament. It is noteworthy, however, that even in its current fragmentary condition, the preserved part of the restoration ceremony in LW is longer and more detailed than the parallel sections in the other laments, with the exception of LN.

33.  See §1.1 above. 34.  Michalowski, LSUr 5–7; see further idem 1983. 35.  See Michalowski, LSUr 6–7. Other scholars suggested a broader range of possibilities. Jacobsen concluded that “it must have been written no more than seventy or eighty years after the destruction” (Jacobsen 1942: 221). 36.  Gutium: LW seg. E 54, 63. The literary tradition of using the Gutians as a symbol for frightening, barbarian outlaw mountaineers began in the Ur III period and continued into the first millennium. See Hallo 1971; Cooper, CA pp. 30–33. In the present context, the portrayal of Gutium in the Curse of Agade, a predecessor of the City Laments, is of special interest. See CA 154–57, where the Gutium, destroyers of Sargonic Akkad, are described as “not classed among people, not reckoned as part of the Land, Gutium, people who know no inhibitions, with human instinct, canine intelligence, and monkey’s features.” Tidnbum: LN 231. On the Tidnum, see above. Subir: LW seg. E ll. 65, 97, 111; seg. F 5.

8

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

Not only do LW and LN pay a great deal of attention to the restorations, they also stress the central role of Išme-Dagan in this process. This tendency is especially prominent in LN. As shown by Tinney, the Nippur lament is, above all, a sociopolitical work intended to portray Išme-Dagan as Enlil’s chosen savior of Nippur. 37 It is thus not surprising that the second half of LN is, in fact, not a lament but a royal hymn praising Išme-Dagan. Therefore, it is probably not a coincidence that no historical destruction of Uruk or Nippur from the days of Išme-Dagan is known to us. The few scholarly attempts to correlate LN and LW with real historical events are not only doubtful but, more importantly, unnecessary: 38 the gap of at least 50 years between the composition of the laments and the event that they vaguely commemorate—most likely the destruction of Ur in 2004 b.c.e.—is in accordance with the superficiality of their historical dimension. It seems preferable to posit that they were building on the already-known model of LU and LSUr, adapting the classic City Lament style into a political framework of royal legitimation. The above discussion does not include the Lament over Eridu. Its current fragmentary state of preservation makes it difficult to suggest anything about its date of composition. As preserved, LE has seven incomplete kirugus and a few fragmentary lines from the beginning of the eighth kirugu. Kirugus 1–6 describe the destruction, and kirugu 7 refers to restoration. In its current condition, our overall impression is that LE is more similar to LU and LSUr than to LN and LW: it does not mention Išme-Dagan, and it primarily elaborates on the theme of destruction, with limited attention devoted to restoration. 39 However, the complete lament might have included all these components in the missing kirugu(s) at the end. As to the enemies appearing in LE, the preserved parts of the lament mention both the apparently anachronistic Subir and the historical Šimaški and Elam, 40 but these references still do not provide a firm enough basis for dating. The dating of LE must therefore await future discovery of additional manuscripts. 41 Discussing the historical aspects of the City Laments should not mislead us into considering them historical documents. One should keep in mind that all City Laments, notwithstanding the fact that the degree of their historicity may vary, are basically literary compositions and should be treated as such. Questions regarding literary, cultic, and ideological aspects of the laments seem to be more relevant to this genre than historical questions. 42

37.  See Tinney, LN 26–46; 54–62; 83–84. 38.  Several suggestions for later historical events that might have provided the background for LW and LN have been proposed. Edzard (1957: 90–93) first ascribed the destruction to Ilušuma from Aššur, who claimed to establish an andurārum in several cities, including Nippur. This theory was shown to be problematic from several aspects (see, e.g., van Dijk 1965; and note especially the detailed discussion of the term andurārum and its meaning in Ilušuma’s inscriptions in Larsen 1976: 63–80). Edzard later abandoned this hypothesis, proposing instead that the attack on Nippur came from Larsa (Edzard 1980b), but he did not suggest supportive evidence. Scholarly attempts to point to archaeological evidence for the destruction of Nippur in the relevant period were questioned as well. See discussion in Tinney, LN p. 7; and see further Green 1975: 317–19. 39.  An additional similarity in LE, LU, and LSUr is the description of the ritual at the end of these laments. See below, §1.2.2. 40.  LE seg. A 21, 87. 41.  For an attempt to date LE despite its incomplete state of preservation, see Green 1975: 319. 42.  Tinney has forcibly made this point regarding LN specifically; see LN pp.7–8.

Introduction

9

Thus, for instance, scholars have debated the implications of the inclusion of Isin among the destroyed cities in LU based on identifying the event commemorated by the lament. 43 Whereas Falkenstein argued that the reference to Isin excludes the event of the fall of the Ur III kingdom, 44 Green attempted to show that Isin also “felt the duress of the Amorite unrest” involved in the 2004 b.c.e. destruction of Ur. 45 It seems preferable, however, to posit that the inclusion of Isin had more to do with the ideological tendencies of the scribes who apparently composed LU in the court of a king from the Isin Dynasty than with historical reality. This approach may find support in the concluding lines of the eighth kirugu of LU. In most manuscripts, this kirugu concludes with an appeal for the restoration of three major cities: Ur, Nippur, and Isin. 46 The raising of Isin to the status of one of the three major cities of Sumer, alongside Ur and Nippur, is undoubtedly ideological in nature. This example demonstrates the inherent problem in attempting to use specific details from the poetic descriptions of the laments as a basis for reconstructing history. 47 Any historical conclusions drawn from the laments must be accepted with the utmost reservation. 48 As for the transmission of the City Laments, all manuscripts of the five currently known City Laments date to the Old Babylonian period. Colophons appearing on LU manuscripts from Kiš point to the reign of Rim-Sin II of Larsa in the mid-eighteenth century. A colophon on the LU Sippar manuscript indicates that it should be dated to the days of Ammiṣaduqa (ca. 1646–1626). LU Nippurite manuscripts seem to be earlier. 49 In the case of the Sumer and Ur lament, Michalowski’s impression is that the majority of the tablets were written during the reigns of Rim-Sin and Samsu-Iluna—that is, no later than the mid-eighteenth century. 50 A thorough paleographic study of the manuscripts of the five city laments, which might shed new light on questions of dating and transmission, is still to be conducted. 1.2.2.  The Cultic Setting of the City Laments As far as the Cultic Laments are concerned, their cultic setting is indicated, explicitly or implicitly, in various sources. The identity of the performers, the types of musical accompaniment, the places and the different occasions in which the Cultic Laments were performed, and many other fea-

43.  See LU 9–10, 59–60. Isin is also included in the list of cities abandoned by their patron deities in LSUr 136–37. 44.  See Falkenstein 1949. 45.  See Green 1975: 320. 46.  See ll. 383, 383a and 384a in the score, with comment. The latter lines do not appear in the composite text since they are omitted in P, which serves as a basis for the reconstructed text. However, the majority of Nippur manuscripts represent a tradition of including Nippur and Isin alongside Ur in the appeal for restoration (note that the same is not true for the addition of Babylon, and perhaps also Uruk, to the list, which is an esoteric tradition reflected only in one Kiš text [= K3]; see ll. 384b and 384c). 47.  For other scholarly treatments of the laments as historical sources, see Edzard 1957: 50–58. See further Green’s methodological discussion of this issue (Green 1975: 320–25), and note the innovative hypothesis suggested by Vanstiphout (1974 and 1980), who concluded from the descriptions of death in the laments that they were based on a fatal plague (on Vanstiphout’s assumption, see further the comment on ll. 259–60 below). 48.  For a possible exception, see discussion of the function of the Lagaš area in the first kirugu (§1.3.2.1.). 49.  This appreciation is based on paleographic criteria. However, the paleographic differences between the tablets from Nippur and the peripheral tablets may also derive from their geographical distribution. 50.  LSUr p. 16.

10

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

tures can be reconstructed with a high degree of certainty. 51 For the City Laments, however, we have no such evidence. 52 As mentioned above, this difference between the two types of laments results from the fact that the City Laments were probably not used in the cult on a regular basis. However, a possible hint about the use of the City Laments in the cult is found in the laments themselves. All City Laments except for the Lament over Sumer and Ur conclude with the description of a ritual, during which a “humble man” performs a lament (er2) and recites a prayer (siskur, a-ra-zu) to the city god in order to “pacify his [the god’s] heart” (that is, to “soothe the god’s anger”) and thereby enable the restoration of the city and temple. In light of the centrality of the lament to this ceremony, Green suggested that the lament referred to in these epilogues is the very city lament to which each belongs. Thus, the ritual appearing at the end of the City Laments furnishes the cultic setting for these very laments. 53 If this assumption is correct, we can reconstruct the ceremony during which the city laments were recited on the basis of their own content. Moreover, a close examination of the evidence supplied by the concluding passages of the various laments may enable us to trace the development of this ritual, which is depicted somewhat differently in each of the laments. Below is an attempt to sketch this development. The Lament over Ur dedicates its 11th kirugu to the description of the ritual in question. The ritual consists of a recitation of the lament by the “humble man,” 54 who is also designated a “man of prayer.” 55 His acts are followed or accompanied by a gesture of homage (kiri3 šu–tag) performed by the “black headed people.” Then the “man,” intermediated by his personal god, utters a supplication (a-ra-zu) to the god, who in turn forgives the sins of the “man” and the people and looks favorably on them. Two references to the theme of restoration seem to imply that the entire ceremony takes place in the restored temple. Some of the main characteristics of this ritual are similar to those known to us from self-evident details in the Cultic Laments about their performance. The reference to the lament by the term er2, the use of the phrase a-ra-zu–e ‘to utter a supplication’, the mention of the ‘pacification of the god’s heart’ (ša3–huĝ), the presentation of the god with a gift (kadra), and the reference to the performer as a lu2 siskur2-ra ‘man of prayer’ are all known to us from the self-descriptions of performances appearing in Cultic Laments and related Emesal prayers. 56 The latter parallel is of particular importance, since it may also shed light on the identity of the “man of prayer” who performs the lament. The 51.  See Gabbay 2007: 45–153. 52.  Note that the cultic setting of the Ur lament suggested by Jacobsen (1941; 1987: 447–48) is based on an erroneous identification of this lament as a balaĝ; see below, §1.3. 53.  See Green 1975: 311ff.; Green 1978: 156–57; Tinney, LN 23–24. Consider, however, the cautious remark by Tinney (ibid.), who mentions the possibility that these laments and prayers may have been Balaĝs. 54.  See comment on l. 419 below. 55.  For the translation ‘man of prayer’, see comment on l. 426. A full comparative study of this term is still to be conducted. 56.  See Gabbay 2007: 138–40. Interestingly, while the self-evident aspects of the performance of the City Laments are similar to the self-evident data regarding performances that appear in Cultic Laments, one does not find such striking parallels in the later descriptions of the performance of Cultic Laments as occurring in various first-millennium sources (see Gabbay 2007: 45–153). This fact may indicate that the references to performances in the Cultic Laments themselves reflect a more original cultic practice, which may have been somewhat different from the cultic conventions reflected in first-millennium texts.

Introduction

11

evidence supplied by both Cultic Laments and Old Babylonian administrative texts suggests that he was a lamentation priest. 57 A similar picture emerges from the preserved parts of the Lament over Eridu. The seventh kirugu of this lament concludes with a reference to a “humble man” who sings a lament before the god, thus soothing his heart, and then recites a prayer, thus making the god look favorably on him. Here too, the context may imply that the ritual is performed in the restored temple, since the preceding passage includes a plea for restoration and divine return. Nevertheless, the missing last kirugu(s) of this lament may have included additional details, and therefore no decisive conclusion as to the nature of the ritual can be suggested as yet. The laments over Uruk and Nippur, on the other hand, portray a fairly different picture of the ritual under discussion. First, in these two laments, King Išme-Dagan is the main protagonist of the entire ritual. He performs the ceremony himself, making luxuriant offerings and setting a festive banquet. As opposed to LU, where the reverential gesture kiri3 šu-tag/ĝal2 is made by the “people,” in LN and LW, it is performed by Išme-Dagan himself. In LN, he also takes the office of the “humble man,” who recites the lament and prayer. 58 In addition, the ceremony in LW and LN is much richer than in LU, involving not only the recitation of the lament and prayer but also offerings, feast, and music (the latter only in LW). The general impression is that, while LU and perhaps also LE portray a cultic ritual, most likely performed by a lamentation priest, LW and LN place this ritual in the framework of a royal festival focused on the king. Accordingly, the high point of the ceremony as depicted in LW and LN is not only the restoration of the city but, more importantly, the blessing of the king with eternal dominion, success, and abundance. The Lament over Sumer and Ur is, as mentioned above, an exception: it concludes with a plea for restoration that does not involve any ritual. 59 These different descriptions of the cultic setting in the various City Laments fit well into their chronological framework, as suggested above. We have proposed that LU and LSUr are relatively early, presenting a more traditional pattern of the genre, whereas the later LW and LN demonstrate a strong, explicit political agenda on behalf of Išme-Dagan and his region. Accordingly, the early (perhaps earliest) LSUr seems to follow the more traditional manner of concluding laments—that is, a “heart pacification unit” with a plea for restoration, without reference to a specific cultic setting. 60 LU and seemingly also LE describe a modest cultic ritual preformed by a lamentation priest, consisting of the recitation of the lament accompanied by additional prayer(s). In the later LW and LN, the ritual is expanded and modified to become an extravagant royal feast. 57.  See Gabbay 2007: 140; Michalowski 2006: 57 n. 17. Note that not all scholars agree with the identification of the performer of the lament as a lamentation priest. Green and Tinney suggested that the “man” is the king, on the basis of the descriptions of the ritual in LN (see below; see Green 1975: 311–12; Green 1978: 156–57; and Tinney, LN 23–24). 58.  This may also be the case in LW, but there the identification between the “humble man” and the king is not explicit; the “man” can still be understood as a figure other than the king. 59.  We interpret LSUr 475–77a as describing Enlil’s promise for the future as part of his blessing for Nanna (contra Michalowski, who understood this passage as describing events taking place in the present). While these lines do not use verbs with the modal prefix ḫe2- (as opposed to the previous series of verbs), their consistent imperfective form seems to point, in this case, to the future tense. This interpretation is in keeping with the following kirugu in LSUr (ll. 483–519), in which the storm did not leave the city yet. See also the ĝišgiĝal in ll. 479–81. For the possible cultic background of LSUr, see further Michalowski, LSUr p. 108. 60.  See Gabbay 2007: 15–18.

12

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

What exactly was celebrated during these ceremonies? The common reference to the theme of restoration may indicate that the ceremony took place on the occasion of the restoration of the temple or during the reinstallation of the god’s statue in his shrine, at least in the case of the seemingly earlier LSUr and LU. 61 The recitation of a lament over the ruined temple during the celebration of its restoration may seem paradoxical on the surface. An interesting explanation for this paradox was suggested by Gabbay. In his extensive discussion of the numerous occasions in which Cultic Laments were recited, he defines a large group of “rites of passage or initiation” that are liminal in nature, thus being potentially disastrous. 62 The performance of a lament during these dangerous times is aimed at calming the furious gods and thus preventing a potential disaster. A classic example of this sort of liminal occasion is the restoration of a temple or statue, which requires the performance of a lament to ensure the safety of the process. 63 Due to the noncultic nature of the City Laments in general and the lack of explicit data regarding their cultic use, we may posit that the ceremony under discussion was not held on a regular basis; it seems to have been a unique occasion, during which the relevant City Lament was recited. Following the laments’ use in these rituals, however, their role probably changed, and they became pure literary works that owed their preservation from this point on to the Sumerian scribal schools rather than to cultic practice. 64 1.2.3.  The City Laments as a Genre Thus far, we have intuitively referred to the City Laments as a genre, due to the many features that they share. These common characteristics seem to justify the classification of the City Laments as a “critical genre”—that is, a genre recognized and defined by modern scholars; but do they also indicate that the City Laments form an “ethnic genre”? That is, were they classified as a special form by the ancients? 65 Unfortunately, unlike many of the Cultic Laments, the City Laments do not bear subscripts indicating their ancient classification. 66 Green, who attempted to trace a Sumerian term for the lamentation genre, concluded that “it remains possible that there was no specific term for the genre of lamentations over destroyed cities.” 67 Scholars therefore had to look for indirect evidence of this possible ethnic genre. 61.  Green 1975: 311–12. 62.  Gabbay 2007: 148–51. 63.  Gabbay 2007: 149–50. Note however that “rites of passage or initiation” include other liminal events as well, such as rituals for manufacturing or repairing a statue, processions and apotropaic rites. See Gabbay 2007: 104 n. 385. 64.  For a similar hypothesis regarding the cultic function of some Sumerian royal hymns, see Klein 1981: 25, with additional bibliography. 65.  The terms critical genre and ethnic genre were coined by genre theorists and introduced into the discussion of the City Laments genre by Tinney (LN 11, 25). 66.  Note, however, that the usefulness of subscripts for modern scholars interested in generic classification has been questioned. See, e.g., Vanstiphout 1986: 4. 67.  Green 1975: 283. It is noteworthy, however, that in the apparent descriptions of performances appearing in the epilogues of the laments the text recited before the god is referred to as er2. Although this term usually serves as a general designation for different types of laments, it is not impossible that it was also used as a specific generic term classifying the City Laments; but this is uncertain.

Introduction

13

A model for understanding the City Laments as a genre was proposed by Vanstiphout, 68 who analyzed the City Laments in light of evolutionary genre theory. According to Vanstiphout, the Lament over Sumer and Ur represents the primary phase of the genre’s life, in which the main features of the genre assemble until a formal type emerges. The formal type itself is represented by the Ur lament, which in turn gives rise to the Uruk and Eridu laments, representing the classic phase with their fully developed format. The Nippur lament is evidence of the third stage, which is characterized by a new use of the formal feature of the type—in this case, the hymnic style of its second half. The final death of the City Laments genre at the end of the third stage gives rise to the Cultic Laments. 69 While some details in Vanstiphout’s model fit the historical considerations discussed above, his theory that the City Laments preceded the Cultic Laments is no longer accepted, and many scholars find the reliance on an evolutionary genre theory methodologically insufficient. 70 The best starting point for any discussion of the City Laments as an ethnic genre is the explicit data provided by the texts. This sort of approach is suggested by Tinney, who discusses this issue at length. 71 Tinney points out the advantages of understanding the City Laments as a critical genre, whereby their common features are emphasized and their intertextuality is exposed. As to the question whether the City Laments constituted an ethnic genre, he points cautiously to two features that may indicate that they were originally classified as belonging to a distinctive group. The first feature is the apparently similar, or even identical cultic setting of most City Laments, as reflected in their concluding kirugus. 72 A second feature that might serve as an indication for a generic relation among the City Laments is their listing together in Old Babylonian catalogs. As mentioned above, 73 three catalogs from the Old Babylonian period group the City Laments together. In a recent article, 74 Delnero has shown that these so-called literary catalogs were actually inventory lists indicating the contents of archival storage containers. The grouping of literary works with similar content in these lists is explained by him as “an effective mnemonic device for remembering groups of entries, facilitating tablet retrieval.” 75 Be that as it may, these documents clearly refer to City Laments as belonging to the same thematic group. Although this is not a generic classification in the modern meaning of the term, the act of arranging the City Laments together in archival lists reflects the ancient perception that they had enough in common to be stored together.

1.3.  The Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur The Ur lament is considered a classical exemplar of the City Laments. As elucidated by Vanstiphout, 76 the themes and ideas typical of the City Laments, such as divine abandonment, the 68.  See Vanstiphout 1986. 69.  Vanstiphout 1986: 7–9. 70.  See Tinney, LN 25; Cooper 2006: 41. For a recent examination of the City Lament genre in light of an alternative genre theory, see Dobbs-Allsopp 2000. 71.  See Tinney, LN 11–25. 72.  See above, §1.2.2. 73.  See §1.2. 74.  Delnero 2010a. 75.  Delnero 2010a: 49. 76.  See Vanstiphout 1986.

14

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

lament of the city goddess, the destructive storm, and the plea for restoration appear in LU in their full, shaped form. In addition, LU is the only lament that can be fully reconstructed, on the basis of no less than 92 manuscripts. 77 These features of the lament enable us to reconstruct the sequence of events and themes in the 11 kirugus of the lament to a considerable degree of certainty.

1.3.1.  Content The lament begins with a long litany depicting the abandonment of cities and shrines, metaphorically presented as “cattle pens” and “sheepfolds,” by their patron deities (kirugu 1). This is followed by a second litany describing the bitter wails that the abandonment caused in the capital, Ur, and in the other abandoned cities (kirugu 2). At this stage, Ningal, the patron goddess of Ur, appears on the stage and utters a lament before her husband, Nanna, the patron god of Ur. In her lament, occupying two kirugus, she describes the destructive “storm-day” on which her city was attacked and her futile efforts to rescue it. Ningal’s lament reaches its touching climax in a vivid scene in which she depicts her twofold appearance in the frightful assembly of the great gods, pleading to save her city, and the twofold rejection of her plea (kirugus 3–4). Having lost any chance for changing its bitter fate, Ur is now violently attacked by the powerful storm and is utterly destroyed (kirugu 5). When the storm is over, the dreadful sight of an utterly devastated city submerged in a terrible bloodbath is exposed (kirugu 6). Ningal, who flew from her city during the destruction, is now lamenting again before Nanna, this time standing outside the city. In her lament, she bewails her city, which ceased to exist, her desolated house, and herself, who had been exiled and humiliated (kirugu 7). At this point, the mood begins to change, becoming relaxed, although the general framework is still that of a lament: Ningal is beseeched to return to her devastated city (kirugu 8); a wish is expressed that the storm be removed forever (kirugus 9–10); and Nanna is asked to accept the lament’s wish willingly in his restored city (kirugu 11). As we have seen from the above summary of content, each of the 11 kirugus of the lament is to some extent a closed literary unit within itself, dealing with a particular theme. Therefore, we will examine below the literary aspects of each of the kirugus in detail and point out its place and function in the overall design of the composition. 1.3.2.  Structure, Style, and Meaning 1.3.2.1.  Kirugu 1 The first kirugu contains a litany describing the abandonment of various cities and shrines in Sumer by their patron deities. These cities and shrines are metaphorically referred to by the Sumerian terms tur3 ‘cattle-pen’ and amaš ‘sheepfold’, both serving as common metaphors for temples in lamentation literature. 78 The refrain of the litany, muš3 mi-ni-in-ga amaš-a-na lil2-e, proclaims that 77.  The number of manuscripts available for the reconstruction of the other City Laments is considerably less. According to ETCSL, for LN we have 67 manuscripts; for LSUr—59 manuscripts; for LW—23 manuscripts; and for LE—only 11 manuscripts. 78.  See, for example, the temple names e2 tur3-amaš-a and e2 tur3-kalam-ma (George 1993: 151). For these two terms in parallelism in lamentation context, see, for example: e2 tur3 amaš-gin7 lu-lu-a-ĝu10 / [e-z]e2-gin7 amaš-gin7 lu-lua-ĝu10  (= bītu ša kīma tarbaṣu u supūru duššû/ [kī]ma ṣēni ina supūru duššu) ‘My house which had been abundant like the cattle-pen and the sheepfold, my house which had been abundant like the sheep, like the sheepfold’ (CLAM 708:64–65).

Introduction

15

the cities and sanctuaries were abandoned ‘to the wind (= lil2)’. 79 This wind is probably identical with the destroying storm (u4, im), functioning as one of the central agents of destruction in Sumerian lamentation literature in general, and in LU in particular. 80 The litany consists of a series of couplets, each dedicated to a different deity and his abandoned shrine or city. The couplets usually follow the same structure: First Line: Divine Epithet + Refrain (“his sheepfold [was delivered] to the wind”). Second Line: Divine Name + Temple/City Name 81 + Refrain (“his sheepfold [was delivered] to the   wind”). 82

The order of gods, cities, and shrines is as follows: 83  1−2:  3−4:   5−6:   7−8:   9−10: 11−12: 13−14: 15−16: 17−18: (19:

Enlil – his temple (Nippur) 84 Enlil – Nippur Ninlil – Kiur (Nippur) Ninmah – Keš Ninisina – Egalmah (Isin) Inanna – Uruk Nanna – Ekišnuĝal, Ur Ningal – Agrunkug, Ur Enki – Eridu Ninašte – Larak) 85

See further ibid. 74:1; 52:55–56. In most connections, there is ambiguity about the meaning of the two terms: they could be interpreted both symbolically as metaphors for the temple and realistically as actual cattle pens and sheepfolds. 79.  For other possible interpretations of the refrain, see the comment on l. 1. 80.  See especially kirugus 5 and 9–10; and see the comment on l. 1. On the role of the storm here as well as in the other lamentations, see the literary discussion of kirugu 5 (1.3.2.4.). 81.  The alternation between names of cities and those of shrines does not show a fixed pattern. 82.  Exceptions appear in the following cases: 1. When a couplet is dedicated to a god or goddess who has family relations with the deity of the former couplet, the epithet in the first line is always a designation of this relation, followed by the name of the deity (see ll. 5−6, 15−16, 24−25) 2. In the first couplet dedicated to Ur (13−14), the principal name of the god and the name of the city appear already in the first line (13), while the second line mentions the other name of the god and the name of the temple. This could be due to the double name of this god (Nana-Suen), or due to the significance of Ur in the lament. Alternatively, one may translate in l. 13 “Nanna of Ur has abandoned it” (see similar structure in l. 28); in such case the line is in keeping with the standard structure. 3. The couplet dedicated to Umma (20−21) refers to both of its deities—Šara, and his wife Usahara, indicating their shrines respectively. Hence, the poet had to omit their epithets (this couplet deviates from the pattern in the second part of the kirugu, which otherwise mentions only female goddesses). 4. The couplet dedicated to Baba (22−23) is probably also exceptional, but since l. 23 begins with an ambiguous term (see commentary), it is impossible to identify the structure of this couplet with certainty.

83.  When the name of the city is not mentioned in the lament, it is given here in parentheses. 84.  Enlil is not mentioned in the first couplet explicitly; rather, he is referred to by the metaphor am ‘wild bull’. Since this metaphor is not unique to Enlil and is otherwise applied to various deities, one could alternatively regard am in the first couplet as a general title referring to all the deities who had to abandon their temple, anticipating the repetitive formula of the kirugu: DN TN muš3 mi-ni-in-ga amaš-a-na lil2-e (for the use of am as a metaphor for various deities in the Sumerian literature, see, e.g., Enki and the World Order 2; Ninurta’s Exploits 36 et passim; Pabilsag’s Journey to Nippur 1 et passim; and see l. 17 in the current kirugu). 85.  This line was probably not included in the original litany, because it appears in only one manuscript. See discussion below.

16

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur 20−21: 22−23: 24−25: 26−27: 28−29: 30−31: 32−33: 34−35:

Šara – Emah, Usahara – Umma Baba – Urukug (Ĝirsu) Ababa – Maguena Lamma – Etarsirsir (Ĝirsu) 86 Ĝatumdug – Lagaš Nanše – Sirara, Nina Dumuziabzu – Kinirsha Ninmarki 87 – Guaba

It should be noted that, basically, we are dealing here with a list of goddesses abandoning their cities. Only to the two major cities of the Ur III state, Nippur and Ur, does the poet dedicate an expanded, six- or four-line unit, mentioning the patron god along with his spouse. 88 Line 19, dedicated to Larak, is probably a secondary addition: it appears in one manuscript only, and contrary to the general structure, it consists of a single-line unit instead of a couplet. The addition possibly has to do with a Larsa-oriented ideology. 89 The list clearly falls into two parts. Lines 3−18 mention six central cities of Sumer: Nippur, Keš, Isin, Uruk, Ur, and Eridu. Lines 20–35 enumerate towns and cities from the region of Ĝirsu-Lagaš (along with Umma). This division was noticed by the scribe who inserted Larak in l. 19; he identified this point as a seam between two sections of the litany, suitable for his insertion. The sequence of the cities is governed by two rules: first, Nippur is placed at the head of the litany, due to its religious supremacy. Second, the first list (of central Sumerian cities) and the second list (of cities in the Ĝirsu-Lagaš province) are both probably arranged in geographical order from north to south. 90 The use of these criteria may be understood as following the tradition of Cultic Laments, the litanies of which sometimes reflect similar tendencies. 91 But while this analogy to Cultic Laments explains the broader literary context of this arrangement, its relation to the immediate context— namely, its function in the opening kirugu of a lamentation dedicated to the destruction of Ur—is difficult to understand. The litany of the first kirugu gives almost no hint about the central role played by Ur in the lament as a whole. Ur does not open the list of ruined cities, nor does it follow Nippur, the first city in the list. Rather, it appears at the end of the first part of the list, in accordance with its place in the geographical order. The only feature that still indicates the special significance of Ur is the fact that it is allotted an extended four-line unit. To this peculiarity of the first kirugu, one may add other features that set it apart from the rest of the lament. The formulaic style of the litany, with its fixed formula and refrain, is different from the free literary style characterizing the other kirugus. 86.  The identity of this deity is uncertain. See the comment on these lines. 87.  For the name of the deity, see the comment on ll. 34–35. 88.  Another exception is the couplet dedicated to Eridu (ll. 17−18), where the god Enki is mentioned alone, with the goddess omitted. But note that in the duplicate from Sippar (S) Damgalnuna does appear along with Enki. 89.  See the description of manuscript P (§2.4.4. below). 90.  Our explanation of the sequence as based on geographical criteria is suggested here with reservation, since the locations of Keš and some smaller towns in the area of Lagaš are uncertain (for Keš, see Edzard 1980c). Wilcke (1972: 43) suggested alternatively that the cities are arranged here according to their importance. 91.  The most striking example of the use of these sequence criteria in Cultic Laments is the very common series consisting of Nippur, Sippar, Babylon, and Borsippa (see, e.g., CLAM 70; 138–39; 167; 181; 268 et passim). This series begins with Nippur, followed by three cities arranged in geographical order from north to south.

Introduction

17

Moreover, unlike the rest of the lament, which is generally written in the main dialect (excluding parts that quote a lamenting goddess), the first kirugu consistently uses the Emesal dialect. 92 All the above traits of the first kirugu recall the Cultic Laments. It is difficult to determine whether the first kirugu was originally part of a Cultic Lament that was secondarily attached to the Ur lament, 93 or an integral part of the Ur lament that was composed in the style of the Cultic Laments. The latter possibility may find support in the fact that here the litany shares some characteristics with the next kirugu as well as with the list of deities who are abandoning their cities in the second kirugu LSUr. 94 1.3.2.2.  Kirugu 2 After the description of the abandonment of the cities and temples by their deities in the first kirugu, the second kirugu depicts the bitter lament that erupted over the abandoned cities and temples. This kirugu, like the first one, shares some similarities with the Cultic Lament tradition: it is written in the Emesal dialect, it is designed as a formulaic litany that includes a list of ruined cities and shrines, and it uses a refrain. However, the formula and the refrain are not absolutely fixed but have four variants: 95 1.  O [city/city-name/temple-name] the wailing is bitter, the wailing raised by you! 2.  Your wailing is bitter, O city, the wailing raised by you! 3.  His destroyed [city/city-name]—its wailing is bitter! 4.  Your wailing is bitter! Your lady/Nanna, the mourner, how long will she/he be grieving?

The structure of the kirugu could be sketched as follows: 1.  ll. 40−47: A direct address to Ur containing the statement that a bitter wailing is intoned over it and asking rhetorically how long its mourning goddess and god will grieve over it. 96 2.  ll. 48−62: A litany describing the wailing intoned over various cities and temples of Sumer. 97 92.  See comment on l. 39. Note that the latter two elements are also characteristic of the second kirugu; see analysis of this kirugu below. 93.  So Vanstiphout 1974: 366 n. 19. Note that, at any rate, the time of the composition of the first kirugu could not have been much later than the date of the other kirugus: the omission of Larsa from the litany indicates that it predates Larsa’s golden age (Edzard 1957: 57). 94.  Similar to the litany here, the list of abandoning deities in LSUr dedicates special attention to cities in the Ĝirsu-Lagaš area, including the mention of canals leading from this area toward Ur. The same is true for the litany of the second kirugu of LU, in which Lagaš gains attention similar to that given to Ur and Nippur. The reason for the centrality of the Ĝirsu-Lagaš area in both laments can only be speculated. It is unlikely that this focus on Lagaš had to do with any theological or ideological tendencies of the author. To the contrary, the importance of this province significantly declined during the years that followed the fall of the Ur III kingdom (Sallaberger 1999: 174–77). The possibility should therefore not be excluded that the stress on the devastation of the Ĝirsu-Lagaš province reflects a memory of the historical destruction, which might have been especially prominent in this area and that the enumeration of cities along the major canals leading from Lagaš to Ur in LSUr follows the Elamite progress from Lagaš toward Ur (see Wilcke 1969c; 1972: 43; Michalowski, LSUr pp. 13–14). Perhaps the severe damage to this area was due to the location of the Ĝirsu-Lagaš province on the eastern frontier, or it may have been due to the grave economic and ecological problems it suffered prior to the destruction (Sallaberger 1999), which weakened its ability to resist the invasion. 95.  See comment on l. 40. 96.  This introductory paragraph uses all four variations of the refrain. 97.  This litany uses the first variation of the refrain: “[city name/temple name]—the wailing is bitter, your wailing is set up!.”

18

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur 3.  ll. 63−72: A direct address to Ur describing Ur’s loss of its possessions, both on the realistic level—the loss of the land (kalam)—and on the mythological level—the loss of its rites and essence of existence (ĝarza, me). 98

The first and last sections, which address Ur and describe its wailing and grieving, form a frame for the kirugu. This frame indicates that, unlike the first kirugu, this kirugu focuses on Ur as its central subject. The middle, main section contains a litany bewailing the ruined cities and temples of Sumer. The sequence of the cities and temples in most manuscripts is as follows: Ur (with Ekišnuĝal and Agrunkug), Nippur (with Kiur, Ekur, Ĝaĝišsua, and Ubšukkina), Ĝirsu-Lagaš (with Urukug, Etarsirsir, and Maguena), 99 Isin (with Egalmah), Uruk, and Eridu. 100 The placement of Ur as the first item in the list is again intended to reveal that Ur is the central theme of the lament. The rest of the cities are probably arranged in order of importance. 101 The connection between the litany of ruined cities in the middle section and the first and last sections is clarified in the third section. Lines 66−68 read: “O city, though yet your walls rise high, your land has perished from you! O my city, like (from) an innocent ewe your lamb has been cut off from you! O Ur, like (from) an innocent goat your kid has perished from you!” In these lines, Ur, the capital city that lost its land—namely, the cities and temples mentioned in ll. 48–62—is likened to a ewe that has lost her lamb, or a goat that has lost her kid. The middle part of the kirugu is therefore but an elaboration on the theme of the losses of Ur, mother and possessor of all other cities; the litany referring to other Sumerian cities is used here to emphasize the central role of Ur as their capital city. Thus, while the Cultic Lament–like style and poetic devices of this kirugu are similar to those used in the former kirugu, its concentration on Ur is in keeping with the tone of the lament as a whole. In this sense, the second kirugu seems to serve as a sort of bridge between the first kirugu, with its broad, all-Sumerian focus, and the other kirugus, which concentrate properly on Ur. 1.3.2.3.  Kirugus 3–4 The third and fourth kirugus form a single unit devoted to the lament of Ningal uttered before the god, probably Nanna. 102 98.  This paragraph uses variation 4 of the refrain, functioning here as the inclusio of this section. On the loss of the me and ĝarza, see comment on ll. 69–70. 99.  Note that in this group of temples the name of the city itself is absent. 100.  This sequence appears in manuscripts P, L, U2, and G1 and probably also in N11, N16, N18, and N19. Note that there are slight differences among manuscripts in this group: U2 omits ll. 54 and 56, i.e., Ĝaĝišsua and Urukug; and G1 omits l. 52, i.e., Nippur (although it still includes all the temples and sanctuaries of Nippur). These omissions seem insignificant in the context of the overall structure of the list. However, two radically different city sequences appear in two other manuscripts: N17 has a sequence beginning with Nippur (with Kiur, Ekur, Ĝaĝišsua, and Ubšukkina), Isin (with Egalmah), and Uruk; unfortunately, the rest of the litany in this manuscript is broken. N1 begins with Nippur (with Ekur, Kiur, Ĝaĝišsua, and Ubšukkina), followed by Ur (with Ekišnuĝal only), and then a mixture of temple and city names with no apparent logical sequence: Maguena, Uruk, Urukug, Eridu, Isin, Etarsirsir, and Agrunkug. This latter sequence was probably also followed by N20, in which, however, only the last four lines were preserved. These two different sequences put Nippur at the head of the list, thus presenting a different agenda concerning the importance of Ur in this kirugu. 101.  On the extra significance ascribed to Lagaš here and in the first kirugu, see the analysis of the first kirugu above. 102.  The identification of the addressee of the lament as Nanna is based on the following considerations: (1) Nanna is mentioned at the beginning of the kirugu (“together with Nanna . . . Ur burns in wailing,” l. 78). The following sentences, describing Ningal’s approaching “to him” are likely referring back to Nanna. (2) The great gods are referred to

Introduction

19

The lament is preceded by a short exposition furnished by the poet and written in the main dialect (ll. 77–87). This exposition contains (1) a three-line opening, in which the poet introduces the two mourning protagonists, Ningal and Nanna, with whom Ur “burns in wailing” (ll. 77–79); and (2) a description of the setting and performance of the lament: Ningal approaches Nanna while weeping and laments before him, accompanying herself with the Balaĝ and Alĝar instruments. 103 Her tone is soft, and she is lamenting all alone with no company except for her addressee, Nanna. The lament itself, which occupies the rest of kirugu 3 and kirugu 4 (ll. 88–169), is stylistically and thematically distinct from the exposition. It is uttered in the first person by Ningal (while the exposition refers to her in the third person); it is written in the Emesal dialect (while the exposition is written in the main dialect); 104 and it has several peculiar poetic devices, the most outstanding of which is a unique sort of repetition. While in the exposition we find the common type of poetic repetition, in which an entire line or sentence is repeated with a slight change of one or two components (e.g., ll. 82–83: “For the sake of my lady’s house she approached him, bitterly she weeps/ For the sake of her devastated city she approached him, bitterly she weeps”), the lament of Ningal is characterized by a unique kind of repetition—a rhythmic, twofold appearance of phrases inside the sentences, emulating highly emotional weeping. Note the following examples: The storm that came to be, the storm that came to be—its sorrow hangs heavy on me. (ll. 90–91) In my bedchamber at night, in my bedchamber at night, there is no silence for me. (l. 100) And before time, the quiet of my bedchamber, the quiet of my bedchamber, was also not allowed to    me. (l. 101) Despair, wails and bitterness, wails and bitterness, have been brought into it. (ll. 120–21) As a tent, a dismantled harvest shed, as a dismantled harvest shed, it has been exposed to rain. (ll. 128–29).

An additional noteworthy poetic device used in Ningal’s lament is alliteration. See ma-al-ma-al-la . . . ma-la2-la2 (ll. 88, 91) and buru14-bu-ra (ll. 128, 129). Ningal’s lament consists of four main parts: 1.  ll. 88–101: the destructive “storm-day” and the sorrow, distress, and sleeplessness that it caused Ningal. 2.  ll. 102–12: Ningal’s vain efforts to save Ur portrayed in three brief pictures. 3.  ll. 113–33: the decision of the great gods to change the destiny of Ningal and Ur, prior to the disaster, focusing on the contrast between the former magnificent state of the temple and its present poor state.

in Ningal’s lament in third-person plural (e.g., “they granted to me” in l. 127; “they had commanded the utter destruction of Ur,” in l. 140; etc.), not in second person. 103. The Alĝar was probably an accessory of the Balaĝ. On the identification of these musical instruments, see comment on l. 87. 104.  The only exception is l. 138, at the beginning of the fourth kirugu, which uses the main dialect and refers to Ningal in the third person: nin-da uru2-ni ba-an-da-gul-la-ba ‘when in the presence of the lady her city had been destroyed’. Klein, in his note to this line, explains this puzzling exception as a “case of enallage: i.e. Ningal refers to herself exceptionally in the third person, as from a distance.” Alternatively, the exception could be ascribed to a copier who did not recognize the unity of kirugus 3 and 4 and tried to create an artificial opening for Ningal’s lament in the fourth kirugu, perhaps by changing an original first-person Emesal version into a third-person main dialect version.

20

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur 4.  ll. 137–69 (= kirugu 4): Ningal’s two petitions to the great gods to revoke their decision of destruction and the failure of these attempts.

The subject of the first part of Ningal’s lament (ll. 88–101) is the destructive u4(-d), which is a common lamentation motif. 105 For the Sumerians, this term could have meant ‘day’ or ‘storm’, depending on context. However, as we show in the commentary below, 106 in lamentation literature these two meanings function as two aspects of the same entity. That is, the ‘day’ on which Ur’s fate changed and the ‘storm’ that destroyed it are mythologically identical. Therefore, I am here rendering this key word ‘storm-day’. The storm-day appears suddenly; it causes great sorrow; it is violent and awesome; and it changes the former “good days” of Ur—that is, its formerly favorable destiny (l. 95). 107 The storm-day is paired here with the (storm)-night, both violent and irresistible forces that changed Ur’s fate (ll. 92–94 and 96–98). The second part of the lament (ll. 102–12) contains three images depicting Ningal’s vain attempts to rescue her city from destruction. These attempts are merely theoretical, described by modal verbs that stress their foretold futility (“even if I fluttered my wings”; “even if I could fly to my city”; etc.). The first two images use similes from the animal kingdom: first Ningal is likened to a cow searching for her lost calf (ll. 102–4), and then she is likened to a bird flying to her city (105–9). The third image depicts Ningal as screaming and crying to the storm to leave her city (ll. 110–12). The grammatical and literary structure of all three images is the same: (1) the image opens with a subordinate, causal clause that ends with ke4-eš (= ‘because’), referring to the distress of the city as the motive for Ningal’s action (ll. 102, 105, 110); (2) then Ningal’s rescue efforts are told, using verbal forms with the modal prefix ḫe2 (ll. 103, 106, 108 111); (3) the effort ends in total failure (ll. 104, 108–9, 112). This second part of the lament is naturally connected to the first part: the foretold inability of Ningal to save the city, regardless of the enormous efforts she will have made, expresses the decisiveness and finality of the decision to bring the storm-day upon Ur. The third part of the lament (ll. 113–33) develops the topic of the untimely, absolute change to Ur’s fate, concentrating chiefly on the destiny of the temple, Ekišnuĝal, and Ningal’s sanctuary, Agrunkug. This part refers, for the first time, to the great gods who made the decision to destroy the temple. However, Ningal does not yet refer to them explicitly but only hints at them by means of plural verbs: 109 “they did not grant a reign of distant days” (l. 114); “wrath and terror they multiplied” (l. 117); “wails and bitterness they brought into it” (l. 121); “its perishing . . . they granted to me” (l. 127). The decision of the great gods to change the destiny of the shrine is described by means of a series of contrasts between the happy past and the miserable present: soothed spirits and festivals versus wrath and terror (ll. 116–17); a good faithful house versus a neglected place, on which no eye looks, filled with despair, wailing, and bitterness (ll. 118–21); a strong house built by the king versus a ruined house likened to a broken fence (122–23); 110 a faithful house of royalty versus a house of tears (ll. 124–26); building versus perishing (l. 126); and so on. The contrasts are intended to emphasize 105.  See above, 1.2; and see also Green 1975: 301–4. 106.  See comment to ll. 88–91. 107.  See further l. 175. 108.  In the second image, this part is extended by an additional sentence containing a modal verb (l. 107). 109.  For an alternative interpretation of these verbal forms, see comment on ll. 114–15. 110.  See comment on l. 122.

Introduction

21

not only the extent and intensity of the destruction but also its suddenness and unexpectedness— “the day that came to be” changed Ur’s fate all at once. The same idea is expressed by the similes appearing in the last lines of this part (ll. 128–33), likening Ur to “a tent, a dismantled harvest shed,” and “a shepherd’s sheepfold”; these similes as well as the garden fence simile in l. 123 express the unbearable easiness of the destruction of the strong, magnificent temple by the sudden storm. The stressing of the sudden, irresistible destruction has a theological dimension. The implicit mention of the great gods in ll. 114, 117, and 127 is aimed at providing an explanation for the destruction. The most significant part of this explanation seems to be expressed in l. 114: “They did not grant (to me) a long-lasting reign.” This line reflects the common Sumerian belief that the end of a reign comes when its appointed duration expires. The existence of this appointed time of duration is a cosmic law that cannot be changed or resisted. This concept is fully presented in the fourth kirugu of LSUr, in Enlil’s speech: 111 The judgment uttered by the assembly cannot be turned back, the word spoken by An and Enlil knows no overturning. Ur was indeed given kingship; but it was not given an eternal reign. . . . who has ever seen a reign of kingship that would take precedence (for ever)? The reign of its kingship has been long indeed, but had to exhaust itself. (LSUr 364–69)

Although not fully developed, a similar notion seems to be expressed here in Ningal’s complaint: bala-ba u4 sud-ra2 na-ma-ni-in-ĝar-re-eš-am3 ‘they did not grant (to me) a reign of distant days’. Note that the term u4 sud-ra2 is the opposite of u4 tur, which appears three times in Ningal’s lament as part of the phrase u4 tur-bi-še3 ‘before time’ (ll. 95, 101, 118). 112 The above contrasting phrases express the same idea: the days appointed to Ur were too short (tur); the great gods did not assign it long (sud) days. 113 The fourth and last part of Ningal’s lament appears in kirugu 4 (= ll. 137–69). Here, Ningal elaborates on the theme of the involvement of the great gods in the destruction, this time referring to them explicitly. The kirugu consists of two parallel scenes in which Ningal appeals to the great gods in an attempt to save her city, but her appeal is rejected: ll. 137–51, 152–67. In both scenes, the great gods decree the destruction of the city and the death of its people, and Ningal tries to change their decree by crying and supplication; and in both scenes, An and Enlil refuse to change their decision. The second scene is intensified by a number of thematic and stylistic means: it opens with a powerful notation describing the place, “when in the assembly, solemn place” (l. 152), which is aimed at dramatizing the scene; It depicts impressive physical gestures performed by Ningal: “I bent my thighs, I stretched out my arms” (l. 154); and its description of the final verdict of the gods is more detailed and developed than in the first scene (ll. 160–69). 114 111.  As shown by Michalowski (1983), this view is also the high point of the Sumerian King List. 112.  See comment on l. 95. 113.  It is noteworthy that Ningal’s argument here is not entirely identical with Enlil’s explanation of the destruction in LSUr: while in LSUr Enlil asserts that Ur had gained long kingship, here Ningal claims that the kingship was taken from her too early. This difference is probably due to the different rhetorical purposes of the two speakers: Enlil’s speech in LSUr is aimed at justifying the destruction and persuading Nanna to leave Ur; Ningal’s lament is aimed at fighting for her city. 114.  See ll. 150–51, which conclude the first scene. Note that in the Ur manuscripts this difference is less significant, due to the addition of ll. 151a–c, which parallel ll. 162–64 (see score, and comment on ll. 162–64).

22

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

It is noteworthy that the decision of the great gods to devastate Ur and the appearance of the storm-day are not described as cause and effect but as two simultaneous events; the verdict of the great gods and the implementation of this verdict occur simultaneously (ll. 137–42). 115 The irreversible nature of the great gods’ decision finds expression in the magical power ascribed to their words. The phraseology used to describe the divine verdict has to do with words and speaking: the great gods commanded (e) and ordered (a2–aĝ2) the destruction (ll. 140–42, 162–63); their verdict is designated a ‘word’ (e-ne-eĝ2), or ‘whatever comes from his (= Enlil’s) mouth’ (ka-ta e3-ani); and this ‘word’ cannot be changed (ll. 150, 153, 160, 168, 169). Ningal concludes her lament with a two-line statement of resignation and despair (ll. 171–72) in which she acknowledges that her attempts to save the city were bound to be futile: “An—his word is never to be changed, Enlil—whatever comes from his mouth is never to be altered.” In sum, the main theme of Ningal’s lament is the irreversible day that changed the fate of the city, shrine, and goddess. This day, appointed by the unchangeable word of the great gods, also appeared as a destructive storm that abruptly and dramatically destroyed the city and shrine. Since the appearance of this storm-day was unavoidable, the lament is less concerned with the fact that it came and more interested in expressing amazement at the suddenness and prematurity of its appearance. 1.3.2.4.  Kirugu 5 After describing the irrevocable decree of the assembly to devastate Ur in the preceding kirugus, the fifth kirugu is devoted to the destruction itself, focusing on the main agent of destruction: the storm. Using the main dialect, 116 the kirugu describes the arrival of the raging storm, its baneful effects, and the abnormal climatic phenomena that it generated. The kirugu begins with the image of Enlil’s summoning of the u4 and other related devastating forces. As in the preceding kirugus, the u4 is concurrently a destructive day that is contrasted with the former good days (ll. 174–75) and a destructive storm that annihilates the land (see, e.g., l. 178). 117 After removing the good days from the land, Enlil calls the evil day that also appears as an enormous storm. The storm is qualified by various epithets, such as u4 gal ‘great storm’ (l. 182), u4 mir-mir ‘raging storm’ (l. 188), u4 gig ‘bitter storm’ (l. 197); and it is accompanied by various assisting forces. Two minor deities are associated with the emergence of the storm: Kingaluda, “the keeper of the storm” (l. 177), and Gibil, the fire god (l. 180). 118 The appearance of Gibil hints at the key role played by the fire in the anomalous climatic phenomena that unfold during the storm and are subsequently depicted. Following the description of Enlil’s summoning of the storm and other agents of destruction (ll. 173–81), the other, greater part of the kirugu is dedicated to portraying the evil storm that hit the land. In the beginning, a natural, violent storm appears that howls and roars (ll. 182–83) and is compared with an unrestrained torrent (l. 184). But as the narrative continues, the storm assumes the form of a dreadful, supernatural phenomenon that disrupts the laws of nature. The storm is accompanied by a blazing fire and a fiery glow (ll. 187–88). This glow, however, is not associated with light; on the contrary, the day’s bright sunlight is replaced by a dimmed, star-like light (ll. 190–92). 115.  For an alternative view, see comment to l. 137. 116.  But see the exceptional form na-aĝ2 in some of the manuscripts in l. 197. 117.  See discussion of kirugus 3–4 (1.3.2.3.), and see comment on ll. 174–75. 118.  For Kingaluda, see comment to l. 177; for Gibil, see Frankena 1971.

23

Introduction Table 1.  Idioms Typical of Lamentation and Devastation Texts LU

The Idiom

Parallels

mur–ša4 ‘to roar’ a maḫ e3-a-gin7 ‘as an overflowing flood’  a saĝ gaz–ak ‘to smash heads’ UR–gu7 ‘to consume indiscriminately’ b ki-en-gi4 ĝiš-bur2-ra-a i3-bal-e ‘Sumer writhes as in snare’ šu–ur4 ‘to sweep’

183 184 185 185; 196 195

LSUr 108 LW seg. E 65; 97; LSUr 405 LSUr 94; 406 LW seg. A 25; LSUr 2, 113; LE seg. B 9 LW seg. E 55

198

u4 kalam til-til-e uru2-a me bi2-ib2-ĝar ‘The land-annihilating storm silenced the city’

200

LSUr 107; LE seg. A 19; flood story seg. D 2 passim3 LSUr 59

a. For this simile, see the discussion below. b. Cf. also l. 243 below. For the exact meaning of this phrase, which is especially characteristic of the City Lament phraseology, cf. comment to l. 185. c. Cf. further comment to l. 198.

The nature of the night is changed as well: instead of its typical coolness, a scorching south wind sets in, carrying silt from burning potsherds and scorching dust (ll. 192–93). Subsequently, the brutal effects of the dreadful storm on the people, the city, and the land are sketched: it dashes the heads of the people against the walls (l. 196), rips their flesh (l. 202), destroys and silences the city (198–99), causes the earth to quake (l. 198), and so on. The description of the raging storm and its destructive results is especially intense. This is indicated by a high concentration of idioms typical of lamentation literature and literary texts that describe devastation. See the examples in table 1 above. The eight concluding lines devoted to the storm (ll. 197–204) depict its devastating effect on the land, the city, and the people and form an interesting structural unit, the main indicator of which is the keyword u4, which appears at the beginning of each line. This unit is introduced by a long sentence referring to the mercilessness of the storm (197: “The bitter storm by tears cannot be influenced—the people moan”); it continues with five short sentences that have a similar structure, each specifying one of its devastating acts (ll. 198–202); and concludes with a long sentence, spread over two lines, that breaks the rhythm and thus constitutes the climax (ll. 203–4): The storm ordered by Enlil in hate, the storm gnawing away the land, covered Ur like a garment, was spread over it like a linen cloth.

This long climactic sentence forms an inclusio with the first sentence of the kirugu (173: “Enlil called the storm-day—the people moan”) by repeating the motif of Enlil’s summoning of the storm. The integrity of this kirugu, which is wholly devoted to the theme of the devastating storm, seems to be broken by l. 185, which deviates from the main theme by referring to the weapon of the human enemy: “the weapons in the city smash heads, consuming indiscriminately.” That this line is an integral and original part of the kirugu is evident from the fact that it is not omitted in any of

24

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

the manuscripts. Its integrity may also be deduced by its close parallelism with l. 196: “in the land it (= the storm) dashes heads against the walls, consuming indiscriminately.” This parallelism between the human enemy in l. 185 and the storm in l. 196 hints at an association, perhaps even an identity between these two agents of destruction. The idea is that the devastation of Ur occurs in two spheres concurrently: in the mythological-cosmic sphere, a violent enormous storm attacks the city; and in the human sphere, the murderous enemy kills the people. 119 The same idea seems to be reflected in the simile chosen to describe the storm’s assault in l. 184: a maḫ e3-a-gin7 ‘like a mighty torrent’. This simile usually describes an attack or a victory in battle. 120 In the City Laments, it serves as a metaphor for the invasion of the enemy into Sumer. 121 Accordingly, the use of this simile here in connection with the storm points to an association between the storm and the human enemy. Another recurring element that imparts uniformity to our kirugu is the refrain: uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 ‘the people moan’. The refrain appears randomly in almost half the lines of the kirugu, including the first line and the ĝišgiĝal. 122 1.3.2.5.  Kirugu 6 The former kirugu described the devastating attack of the raging storm on Ur and its population. Kirugu 6 depicts the aftermath, the dead silence after the storm: it freezes the moment in its picture of the devastatation and bloodbath. The catastrophe is revealed gradually with the description progressing from outside the city toward its interior. 123 At first, we are faced with the numerous dead people littering the outskirts of the city (l. 211); next, the breaches in the city’s walls are revealed, and then the corpses piled at its gates (ll. 212–13). As we enter the city, the extent of the catastrophe begins to emerge: in the boulevards, streets, and squares, corpses and severed heads are heaped up (ll. 214–16); blood fills the ditches and corpses rot in the sun (ll. 217–18); bleeding bodies and limbs of slaughtered people are scattered about (ll. 219–24). After the description of the slaughtered people, victims of other agents of destruction—the storm, the famine, and the fire—are portrayed: weak and strong, old men and women, babies abandoned by their mothers and nurses (ll. 226–30). The abandonment of helpless persons and separation of children from their parents or wives from their husbands are taken as signs of the loss of the land’s “good sense” and “counsel”—that is, the breakdown of the most basic social systems (ll. 231–35). Another major theme developed in these lines is that there is no recourse: anyone trying to escape a weapon was paralyzed by the storm (ll. 225–26); the people outside the houses were slaughtered or perished in famine, while the old ones inside the houses were consumed by fire (ll. 227–28). A similar idea appears in LSUr 399–401: “Inside Ur there is death, outside it there is death. Inside it we are to be finished off by famine. Outside it we are to be finished off by Elamite weapons.” 124 119.  On the identity between flood and weapons in Mesopotamian literature, see Westenholz 1996: 196–200. 120.  See, e.g., Ninurta’s return to Nibru 119; Inana and Ebih 178; Lugalbanda in the Mountain Cave seg. A 469. 121.  See LW 65, 97; LSUr 405, with Michalowski’s comment (LSUr p. 100). 122.  See ll. 173–76,178–79, 181–82, 186–87, 193–95, 197, 206. Note that this same refrain recurs even more randomly in the next kirugu in almost one-fourth of its lines (see ll. 209–10, 212, 225–26, 231–34, 245–46). 123.  For a similar picture of progress from the city gate into the innermost sanctum, see kirugus 2–4 of LE. 124.  For biblical parallels of this idea, see, for example, Deut 32:25 and Amos 5:19.

Introduction

25

After this elaborate portrayal of calamity throughout the city, the narrative arrives at the center of the city, the temple and palace complexes. The description begins with the flight of the frightened goddess Ningal (ll. 237–38), the destruction of whose house will be depicted at the end of this section (ll. 242–45). Then the defilement and burning of the storehouses in the temple complex are described (ll. 239–41), followed by the destruction of the Ekišnuĝal by the enemies at the climax of this dreadful account. 125 The kirugu concludes with the cry of Ningal to Nanna as she bewails the city and temple’s devastation (ll. 247–50). In keeping with the general principle regarding the use of Emesal in LU, here also the majority of the kirugu is written in the main dialect, while the cry of the goddess in ll. 247–50 appears in the Emesal dialect. 126 1.3.2.6.  Kirugu 7 The seventh kirugu contains three laments by Ningal, who stands outside the city after escaping during the catastrophe. 127 Each lament is preceded by an introductory passage, as follows: First lament    ll. 254–56:    ll. 257–98:

Introduction Lament

Second lament    ll. 299–301: Introduction    ll. 302–10 : Lament Third lament    ll. 311–14:    ll. 315–27:

Introduction Lament

The introductory sections are written in the main dialect, while the laments of the goddess are written in Emesal. All three introductory passages refer to Ningal in the third person, describing her location and mourning gestures while she utters the laments. In the first introduction (ll. 254–56), she is described as standing outside her city, wailing bitterly; in the second introduction (ll. 299–301), she is plucking out her hair, beating her chest, and her eyes are welling with tears; in the third introduction (ll. 311–14), she approaches Nanna, 128 weeping bitterly. The three laments, which share similar content, are of different lengths. In the first lament, which is the longest (ll. 257–98), Ningal tells of An and Enlil’s decision to curse the city (ll. 257–58); then she briefly describes the destruction of Ur and its population by using merisms: from the people coming from the north to the people coming from the south—everyone was burned (ll. 259–60); from 125.  Line 246, which concludes this section, is a more-general statement, summing up the destruction of the entire city (“the city they [= the enemies] made into ruins—the people moan”). The reference to the city was probably required by the ubiquitous parallelism between e2 // uru in the laments. 126.  The reason for the use of Emesal dialect in l. 252 is not clear. 127.  See ll. 237–38, and see discussion below. 128.  The identity of the addressee as Nanna is explicitly stated in l. 293: “Nanna, the shrine Ur has been destroyed, its people smitten.”

26

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

the outer city to the inner city—everything was destroyed (ll. 261–64). In the main part of the lament, Ningal bewails the destruction from a subjective point of view: she speaks about the destroyed city as her own lost property (“my city . . . my houses . . . my oxen . . . my sheep . . . my fields . . . my irrigated orchards”), and its people as her own children (“my daughters . . . my young men”). First she describes the cutting off of all animal and plant life in the city: there are no more sheep in the folds, water in the rivers, grain in the fields, or plants on the plains; all the relevant functionaries— shepherds, tax-collectors, and farmers—have gone away (ll. 265–74). Next, she complains about the plunder of her treasures by enemies, who are scornfully referred to as “they who know not precious metals/gems” (ll. 275–82). 129 Finally, she depicts the exiled and lost people of Ur (ll. 283–85). All these losses lead to the sad conclusion that the city has ceased to exist. Ningal, who has lost her house, is no longer its lady. A foreign city and house are now founded on its ruins (ll. 286–96). The lament concludes with an additional reference to the exiled people of Ur (ll. 297–98). 130 The exclamation “Alas, my city! Alas, my house!” recurs as a refrain throughout this lament. 131 The second, much shorter lament (ll. 302–10) continues the same viewpoint by elaborating on the theme of the exiled goddess. Ningal again mentions her lost house and people, comparing them to an uprooted cattle pen and scattered cows, respectively, and describes herself as an exiled woman, ousted from her own residence, forced to live as a slave in the millhouse and in “debtor’s prison.” 132 The third (and also relatively short) lament (ll. 315–27) is devoted mainly to the devastated Ekišnuĝal, which is the most severe loss to the goddess. Ningal bewails its destruction and declares that she will lie down in its debris “alongside you”—that is, alongside the defeated Nanna—never to rise again (ll. 315–20). Next, while continuing to lament the temple’s destruction, Ningal offers an interesting explanation for it: the city’s building was “false”; it was “built but not well established.” After a rhetorical question (“What for? ”—l. 325), the more common reason for the destruction, which we know from the third and fourth kirugus, is recalled: “It could not escape the force of the storm ordered by Enlil in hate” (l. 326). A comparison of kirugus 3–4 with kirugu 7 reveals common structural and thematic features: both units include a lament by Ningal uttered to Nanna that bewails the destruction of the city. Furthermore, the introductory section preceding the lament in kirugus 3–4 contains a passage that is almost identical to the third introductory section of kirugu 7: Unto him, for the sake of her city she approached, bitterly she weeps. For the sake of my lady’s house she approached him, bitterly she weeps.

In that place, for the sake of her city she approached him, bitterly she weeps. For the sake of my lady’s house she approached him, bitterly she weeps.

129.  For this peculiar ethnic stereotype, pointing out the barbarian nature of the enemies, see comment on ll. 280– 81. In l. 282, the plundered possessions are referred to using the simile of flying birds. See comment on this line. 130.  Note that, according to one manuscript (P), the last couplet of the lament refers to the destroyed city, in keeping with the general theme of the concluding passage of this lament. See comment on ll. 297–98. 131.  See ll. 261–62, 263–64, 282, 298; see also l. 283. Note that this refrain is also echoed in l. 300 and in the ĝišgiĝal of this kirugu (l. 329). 132.  In this summary of the second lament, I am not including lines 302–3, which appear only in P. See comment on these lines.

Introduction For the sake of her devastated city she approached him, bitterly she weeps. For the sake of her devastated house she approached him, their bitter wailing she sets before him. (Third kirugu, ll. 82–85)

27

For the sake of her devastated house she approached him, bitterly she weeps. For the sake of her devastated city she approached him, bitterly she weeps. (Seventh kirugu, ll. 311–13)

In addition, the introductory sections of both the third and seventh kirugus describe gestures of mourning performed by the goddess: playing the lyre and singing a dirge in the third kirugu (ll. 86– 87); wailing, plucking out hair and beating the chest in the seventh kirugu (ll. 255–56, 299–301). However, despite these general similarities, the contents of Ningal’s laments in these two units differ, bearing quite different messages: The lament of the goddess in kirugus 3–4 focuses on the destructive storm-day decreed for the city and elaborates on the motif of its irresistible and irreversible nature, in spite of intense efforts by Ningal. The lament of the seventh kirugu, on the other hand, seems to supply a post-facto view of the events, bewailing the abandoned and devastated city after the destruction. Thus, the relationship between kirugus 3–4 and kirugu 7 is similar to the relationship between kirugu 5 and kirugu 6: Kirugu 5 describes the appearance of the storm-day, while kirugu 6 describes the total destruction afterward. Similarly, the lament in kirugus 3–4 concentrates on the attempts of Ningal to rescue her city before and during the destruction, while the lament in kirugu 7 bewails the utterly devastated and abandoned city after the storm departed. This difference between the laments in kirugus 3–4 and 7 corresponds to the location of the goddess while uttering each of the laments. In kirugu 4, Ningal declares, “On that day I did not forsake my city, I did not neglect my land” (ll. 143–44), which may be a hint that she was present inside the city; kirugu 7, on the other hand, opens with the note “Mother Ningal kept away from her city like an enemy,” indicating that she has already abandoned it. The abandonment itself is mentioned between them, in the sixth kirugu: “Their lady, like a frightened bird, escaped her city. Ningal, like a frightened bird, escaped her city” (ll. 237–38). An additional remark regarding the theological role of Nanna in both kirugus 3–4 and 7 is required. The fact that Nanna is the addressee of the laments in these kirugus does not point to his being involved in the decision to devastate Ur; nor does it indicate that he is authorized to decide to restore it of his own accord. On the contrary, Nanna is portrayed in these kirugus as a victim of this decision, which was taken by the great gods, just as Ningal was a victim; they both lay together, defeated, in the debris of Ur. The uttering of the lament before him, with all the customary mourning gestures involved should therefore be understood as a mourning ritual during which the female lamenter is performing the lament on behalf of the mourner. 133 1.3.2.7.  Kirugu 8 After the description of the devastated Ur and the resultant lament of Ningal, presented in the sixth and seventh kirugus, respectively, the eighth kirugu contains an appeal to Ningal, aimed at 133.  Compare, for example, the appeal of the sufferer in Man and His God to his female relatives to lament for him to the personal god: “Let my mother who bore me not cease lamenting for me before you. Let my sister, truly a sweetvoiced balaĝ singer, narrate tearfully to you the deeds by which I was overpowered. Let my wife voice my suffering . . . . . . to you” (Man and His God 64–67).

28

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

convincing her to return to her city. The appeal to the goddess in second person supplies a new point of view, since until now she was either referred to in third person or as speaking, in first person. The appeal, written in the main dialect, consists of two main parts: the first, much longer part (ll. 331–68) refers to the present separation of Ningal from her devastated city and the subsequent losses she suffers, especially in the ritual realm. The second, shorter part (ll. 369–84) contains a plea to the goddess to return to her city. The first part begins with two rhetorical questions addressed to the goddess: “How did your heart turn over? ” and “You, how will you live? ” (ll. 331–32). My tentative translation of the first rhetorical question (see commentary, ad loc.) is based on the assumption that, according to the poet, Ningal’s “turning over her heart”—that is, changing her mind about the city—was one of the reasons for its devastation. 134 The second question seems to indicate that Ningal is the first to be hurt by her abandonment of the city, because she cannot live without it. These two rhetorical questions, typical of City Laments, represent a dialectical tactic aimed at convincing the goddess to return to her city. Green refers to this motif as “a combination of scolding and soothing tactics.” 135 On the one hand, the goddess is implicitly blamed for the destruction because of leaving. On the other hand, she is urged to return with the argument that she will not be able to survive outside her city. This dialectical pair of rhetorical questions recurs throughout the first part of the kirugu as a refrain, with the first question slightly varied: “You, how will you live? ” / “Now, how will you thrive? ” (ll. 331–38, 346–49). The main theme of the first part of the kirugu is the various losses suffered by Ningal as a consequence of the destruction. These losses are described in a series of verbal forms with the negative prefixes nu- and ba-ra-: Ningal is no longer the lady of the city and is no longer dwelling in her house (ll. 339–41); the regular lamentation ritual is no longer preformed for her in her shrine (ll. 342– 44); 136 the various priests (gudu, en, uzga, išib, lumaḫ, and aua) 137 no longer fulfill their duties on her behalf (ll. 347–56); the people of Ur no longer celebrate her feasts (ll. 357–58); her merry music has turned into wailing (ll. 359–60); 138 the cattle are no longer fertile (ll. 361–62); and various professionals, who were responsible for supplying the temple with food, their activity symbolizing prosperity (ghee-carriers, milk-carriers, fishermen, and fowlers), 139 no longer perform their duties (ll. 363–66). The first part of the kirugu ends with a couplet describing the weeds that sprout in the dry watercourses and desolate roads (ll. 367–68). The goal of this long list of discontinued rituals and institutions is to stress the heavy price of the abandonment of the city from Ningal’s point of view. Accordingly, the second part of the appeal (ll. 369–84) contains a direct request to Ningal to return to her city. The initial tone is beseeching and pathetic: Ur is compared to a lost child in the street weeping for her as for its mother (ll. 369– 70), and the temple is likened to a helpless man crying to her for help (ll. 371–72). Then the appeal for compassion changes to an accusation: Ningal is compared to an enemy (ll. 374–75) and blamed 134.  For the question to what extent the poet holds Ningal responsible for the destruction, see discussion below. 135.  See Green 1975: 396. 136.  See comment to ll. 342–43. 137.  For the latter obscure term, see comment to l. 355. 138.  Note that in ll. 359–60 the verbs are (uniquely) not negative but indicative. 139.  For the milk- and ghee-carriers as symbolizing prosperity and for their part as temple personnel, see comment to ll. 363–64.

Introduction

29

for overthrowing her city, although she basically loves it and toils for it (ll. 376–77). Then the tone softens again, and Ningal is invited to return to her house, like an animal to its pen or a child to his nursery (ll. 378–80). 140 Thus, the dialectical “scolding and soothing” tactic is used in the second part of the kirugu as well. The plea is concluded with the wish for An and Enlil to change Ningal’s destiny, restore her city, and allow her to return to it (ll. 381–84). The plaintive accusation of Ningal in lines 374–77 may seem surprising in light of kirugus 3, 4, and 7 above, in which the great gods order the destruction, while Ningal is a victim of their sentence. Indeed, in keeping with the viewpoint of the former kirugus, lines 381–84 in our kirugu refer to An and Enlil as the only gods who can authorize Ningal to return to her city: “May An, king of the gods, say about you: ‘Enough!’ May Enlil, king of all the lands, decree your destiny (favorably)!” However, a closer look at the appeal reveals that Ningal is not an entirely passive, helpless character in this story: she was expected to do everything in her power to annul the great gods’ decision, but she did not live up to this expectation. This is indicated by lines 376–77, where we read: “Although you are a lady loving her city, you have rejected your city; although you are (a lady) toiling for her land, you have rejected your city.” Ningal is not accused here of voluntarily abandoning the city but of not “toiling” hard enough to prevent its destruction. Of course, in light of the former kirugus (especially kirugus 3–4), this accusation should be considered mere rhetoric. A second action that Ningal is expected to take is expressed in lines 383–84: “May he (= An) restore your city for you. Exercise its ladyship! May he (= Enlil) restore Ur for you. Exercise its ladyship!” Although An and Enlil are in charge of the decision to let Ningal return to her ladyship, Ningal is encouraged to exercise this right. 1.3.2.8.  Kirugus 9–10 Kirugus 9 and 10 constitute a single unit. This follows from the syntactical structure of the segment consisting of ll. 389–407. This segment is a series of extraposed parts (ll. 389–406), all related to l. 407, which is the main independent clause containing the predicate. The unity of these kirugus is further stressed by the fact that l. 399 was understood as the ĝišgiĝal of the ninth kirugu only in manuscript P, while all other manuscripts apparently considered it to be the first line of the tenth kirugu. 141 The unit under discussion contains an incantation-like request for the disappearance of the storm. It begins with the cry “Woe, storm after storm destroyed the land together” (l. 388). This is followed, as mentioned above, by a long series of extraposed parts, consisting of the head noun u4 ‘storm” + adjective/relative clause qualifying it (ll. 389–406). The evil and roaring storm (ll. 389–90), which was ordered by Enlil in hate (l. 406) 142 and “has no shame” (i.e., compassion [l. 398]), is described, in these extraposed parts, as destroying the land (ll. 389–92), defiling the holy rituals (393–94), taking “all that is good” from Sumer (l. 395), subduing the people (l. 396), 143 and attacking mothers, fathers, wives, children, sisters, brothers, neighbors, and confidants indiscriminately (ll. 400–404). The incantation-like request about this storm is finally expressed in l. 407, which furnishes the predicate: 140.  Interestingly, Ningal is likened here to a child, while in lines 369–70 she fulfills the role of a mother vis-à-vis Ur, which is likened to a child. 141.  Thus, according to all manuscripts (except for P), Kirugu 9 does not have a ĝišgiĝal at all (see comment to l. 399, and see especially the reference to the separating line in N72, which clearly indicates that l. 398 belongs to the tenth kirugu). 142.  See also l. 203 above. 143.  For the metaphor “the storm-day which binds the arms of the black-headed,” see comment to l. 396.

30

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

“O father Nanna, may that storm-day never be set in your city again.” This very long sentence is followed by a series of incantations against the storm, expressing the wish that it will be destroyed (ll. 409–11) and fall into oblivion (ll. 412–14) forever (l. 416). 144 In our discussion of the fifth kirugu, we have drawn attention to occasional associations between the storm and the enemy by ascribing features typical of human enemies to the destructive storm. A similar concept can be detected here. In line 396, the storm is described as a power ‘that binds the arms of the black-headed’ (saĝ ĝi6-ga a2 bi2-ib-la2-a-ri). Elsewhere, the idiom a2–la2 ‘to bind the arms’ is usually applied to human beings who capture their enemies. 145 Similarly, in l. 398 the storm is accused of having ‘no shame’ (igi-ba teš2 nu-ĝal2-la-ri), an expression that usually characterizes brutal and barbaric people. 146 Another example appears in ll. 393–94, where the storm is described as laying defiled hands on the holy rituals. 1.3.2.9.  Kirugu 11 The eleventh, and last kirugu of the lament contains an appeal to Nanna. The appeal concentrates on a ritual performed in the presence of the god, asking him to accept it willingly and to look favorably on his people, his land, and the performer of the ritual. The nature of the ritual described in this kirugu as well as the identity of the performer of the ritual were discussed in detail above. 147 As shown, the ritual was probably the occasion when the Ur lament was performed, and the performer of the ritual was most likely a lamentation priest. The kirugu begins with a “historical” remark regarding the antiquity of the ritual, during which “the humble men who lay hold of your feet have brought to you their lamentations over the silenced house” (ll. 418–20). Those priests of former generations, who regularly performed the same ritual from “distant days” (l. 418), served as a model for the current supplicant, who will be depicted subsequently. The appeal then refers to the “people” who perform a gesture of homage (kiri3 šu–tag), and “set up a wail” to the god, perhaps as part of the ritual (ll. 421–22). The wish that the city will “be resplendent before you,” never being destroyed again (ll. 423–24), hints that the ritual under discussion may be, as mentioned above, 148 a restoration ceremony. The subsequent lines are devoted to the priest presenting the lament, who is the main protagonist of the ritual. He is designated ‘the man’ (lu2-ulu3) or ‘man of prayer’ (lu2 siskur2-ra-ke4) and is described as standing in prayer, uttering supplication, and then bowing down. “The man” has a personal god mediating between him and Nanna by presenting his greeting gift (kadra) to the god (l. 425). 149 A wish is expressed that the god absolve the sin of “the man” (l. 428–29) so that his heart (i.e., anger) will be pacified toward him (l. 430) 150 and he will look at him favorably (l. 431) and consequently be gracious to the people of Sumer, consider144.  Note that, in addition to the general incantation-like style of this passage, line 412 has a close parallel in an incantation (see commentary). For a broader discussion of this passage, see Samet 2010. 145.  See comment to l. 396. 146.  For examples, see comment to l. 398. 147.  See §1.2.2. 148.  See ibid. 149.  According to two mss., the personal god may also be responsible for uttering the supplication; see comment on l. 430. 150.  Lines 429–30 recall the first-millennium er2-ša3-huĝ-ĝa2 prayers, as well as the concluding “heart pacification” units of the late er2-šem3-ma prayers (see recently Klein 2006: 139; Gabbay 2007: 8 passim).

Introduction

31

ing them pure and good (ll. 432–34). 151 The ritual is concluded with the priest’s bow (434), followed by the wish, “O Nanna, in your restored city may you be praised!” (l. 435). 151.  These lines concerning the people are somewhat obscure. Others interpret them as a request from Nanna to absolve the sins of the people and purify their hearts.

Chapter 2

Revised Edition of the Ur Lament 2.1.  Previous Editions and Translations The Ur lament was the first Sumerian City Lament to be fully reconstructed and translated. The editio princeps of the lament was published by Kramer ca. 70 years ago. 1 On the basis of 22 manuscripts, he succeeded in reconstructing the text, translating it, and identifying it as a lamentation. In his introduction, Kramer reviews the content of the lament briefly and discusses the variants of the different manuscripts. A brief, selective philological commentary accompanies the edition. This groundbreaking work is still the basis for any discussion of the lament. Two important reviews of Kramer’s edition appeared after its publication by Jacobsen and Falkenstein. 2 Jacobsen’s critique laid the foundation for understanding the background of the lament from various aspects. He was the first to point to the exact historical setting of the lament—the fall of the Ur III dynasty—a proposal that was verified later, with the decipherment of LSUr and the accumulation of additional data on the fall of this kingdom. 3 His hypotheses about the cultic setting of the lament, on the other hand, were based on his erroneous identification of the lament as a balaĝ and are therefore outdated. 4 However, his conclusion that the lament was performed during the restoration of the ruined temple in Ur is still accepted today, though with some reservations. 5 On the question of dating, Jacobsen theorized that the lament was composed sometime during the restoration process of the temple of Ur—that is, in the period between the destruction (ca. 2004 b.c.e.) and the days of Lipit-Ištar (ca. 1934–1924 b.c.e.), Išme-Dagan’s son. To these penetrating observations, Jacobsen added philological notes. The review by Falkenstein added additional important philological comments to the text. Regarding the historical background, Falkenstein argued against the identification of the event described in the lament as the fall of the Ur III kingdom, but his alternative suggestion has been rendered unlikely by new historical evidence. 6 1.  See Kramer 1940. 2.  See Jacobsen 1941; Falkenstein 1949. 3.  See §1.2.1. 4.  Jacobsen restated his above hypothesis in the introduction to his translation of the lament (see Jacobsen 1987: 447–48). 5.  See §1.2.2. 6.  See Green 1975: 316–17. An additional, outdated work that should by mentioned was by Witzel (1945–46), who assigned the lament to the genre of the Dumuzi laments and translated it accordingly.

32

Revised Edition of the Ur Lament

33

A list of new textual variants of the lament, based on 39 manuscripts, was published in 1970 by Sauren. 7 A new edition of the Ur lament was recently published by Römer, 8 including a concise introduction, score, German translation, and commentary. As he notes in the foreword, this edition is partial, not definitive: it is based on 45 tablets and fragments, all published in the form of hand copies. Unpublished manuscripts were not used, and hand copies were not collated from the originals. Römer’s philological commentary is extensive and rich in bibliography. Last, we should note the composite text and translation of the lament in ETCSL, first published in 1998, and updated in 2005, which suggests some new readings and translations. In addition to these editions, several translations of LU are available. In 1953, Falkenstein published a German translation based on Kramer’s edition. 9 Kramer himself published a revised English translation in 1950, 10 and a French translation was published by Rosengarten. 11 In his anthology of Sumerian literature (1987), Jacobsen presented a very innovative translation 12 with a short but important introduction, suggesting a new interpretation of the sequence of events in the lament and pointing out its emotional impact on the ancient listeners. Last, two recent translations by Klein should be mentioned: a highly poetic Hebrew translation published together with Shifra 13 and a partial English translation; 14 both appear with a short introduction.

2.2.  The Present Edition The edition of the Ur lament presented in this work is based on 92 manuscripts, which are all the currently known manuscripts. Most of the manuscripts were transliterated from the originals, and some were transliterated from photographs. 15 This edition consists of a composite text with English translation, a philological commentary, and a full score. Since P is the only complete manuscript, the line numbering follows this manuscript, as in Kramer’s and Römer’s editions. However, unlike in Kramer’s edition, the reconstructed text in the current edition is not based primarily on P, being instead a composite text, based in general on the manuscripts from Nippur. 16 The letters of the sigla represent the provenance of the texts (N for Nippur, U for Ur, and K for Kiš), or, when the provenance is unknown, its present location (G for Geneva, L for Liège, P for 7.  See Sauren 1970. 8.  See Römer 2004. 9.  See Falkenstein 1953: 192–213. 10.  See Kramer 1950. 11.  See Rosengarten 1971. 12.  See Jacobsen 1987: 447–74. 13.  See Shifra-Klein 1996: 425–43. 14.  See Klein 1997. 15.  The majority of manuscripts (i.e., those kept in Philadelphia, Yale, London, Oxford, Paris, and Geneva) were transliterated from their originals. The manuscripts from Istanbul, Berlin, and Jena were transliterated from photographs (considering, in the latter case, Wilcke’s [1976] collations). The manuscript from Liège, for which I could not obtain photographs, was transliterated from its hand copy. 16.  For a discussion of the methodology of editing Sumerian texts and the relevant problems, such as priority of manuscripts and the concept of composite texts, see Michalowski, LSUr pp. 21–25.

34

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

Paris, and Y for Yale). In the score, the manuscripts from Nippur appear first, then the Ur manuscripts, the Kiš manuscripts, and last, the manuscripts of unknown provenance, in alphabetical order. Collations are marked by asterisks preceding the collated sign. Signs that appear in the copy but are no longer extant on the manuscript are transliterated, assuming that the tablet was damaged after the copy was made.

2.3.  List of Manuscripts Sigla G1

G2 K1 K2 K3

L N1

N2 N3 N4

N5 N6

Museum Numbers and Publications MAH 15861

Line Numbers

Col. i 1–2, 4–56 Col. ii 57–100 Col. iii 104–47 Col. iv 156–200 MAH 16015 Obv. 79–105 Rev. 111–37 Ash 1932,415 (OECT 5 12) Obv. 272–80 Lower Edge 281–83 Rev. 284–93 Ash 1932,526o (OECT 5 Obv. 339–43 14) Lower Edge 344 Rev. 345–58 Ash 1932,522 (OECT Obv. 375–97a 5 15). + Ash 1932,526j Lower Edge 397b– (OECT 5 13) 98 Rev. 400–436 PUL 550 (RA 63 5ff.) Obv. 1−40 Rev. 41−77 Ni 2780 (SLTN 94 = AS 12 Col. i 1−37 pl. 1f.) Col. ii 47−72 Col. iii 90−1 Col. iv 153−18 Col. v 198−224 Col. vi 231−254 HS 1487 (TMH NF 4 24) Obv. 1−24 Rev. 25−40 3N−T680 = IM 58615 Obv. 1−10 Rev. 32−40 3N−T458 = IM 58492 Obv. 1–6 Rev. 29–35 Upper Edge 36–38 Left Edge 39–40 UM 29−16−774 Obv. 1−10 + UM 29−16−778 Rev. uninscribed N 3752 Obv. 2–9 Rev. 65–74

Sigla N7 N8 N9 N10 N11

N12 N13 N14

N15 N16 N17

Museum Numbers and Publications UM 29−13−240

Line Numbers

Col. i 2–22 Col. ii 65–70 N 3267 Obv. 2−13 Rev. 25−37 Ni 2518 (SRT 45) Col. i 10−28 Col. ii′ 433−436 3N−T918,420 Obv. 11–13 Rev. 14–16 CBS 7080 (PBS 10/4 11). Col. i 16–32 +CBS 14110 (STVC 17). Col. ii 66–96 + N 3076 Col. iii 97–149 +N 2757 Col. iv 150–97 Col. v 198–248 Col. vi 255–84 Col. vii 297–322 Col. viii 323–60 Col. ix 361–91 Col. x 406–31 Ni 1162 (SLTN 97) Obv. 16–23 Rev. destroyed 3N−T918,414 21–28 (Other side destroyed) CBS 7975 (STVC 21). Col. i 23−33 +CBS 14234 (PBS 13 20). Col. ii 70−85 + UM 29−16−246 Col. iii 104−48 Col. iv 158−206 3N−T901,46 Obv. 25–26 Rev. 180−182 N 3536 Obv. 25−38 Lower Edge 39 Rev. 41−50 Ni 3166 (SLTN 96 = AS 12 Col. i 36–61 pl. 4) Col ii′ uncertain Col. iii′ 400–410 Left Edge 434–35

35

Revised Edition of the Ur Lament Sigla

Museum Numbers and Publications

N18

Ni 4424 (ISET 1 p. 153)

N19

N20

CBS 3878 (STVC 22). + CBS 3901 + CBS 3927 + CBS 3916 + CBS 11078 + CBS 19827 (+)CBS 6889 (STVC 19). + CBS 6905 (STVC 20). + CBS 8023 +N 6378 +N 7927 +N 6843 +N 7269 Ni 9599 (ISET 1 p. 173)

N21

UM 29−16−397

N22

3N−T921ii = A 33551

N23

3N−T357 = IM 58443

N24

CBS 12512

N25

3N–T 902,88

N26

N27

CBS 13593 + CBS 13605 + CBS 13624 + CBS 13638 N 893

N28

3N−T546 = IM 58544

N29

Ni 9822 (ISET 1 p. 197)

N30

CBS 13402c (STVC 18)

N31

CBS 6795

Line Numbers

Sigla

Museum Numbers and Publications

43–51 (Other side destroyed) Col. ii 60–67 Col. iii 108–33, 146–60 Col. iv 161–84; 193–207 Col. v 209–29 Col. vi 254–56; 275–94 Col. vii 295–300, 311–30 Col. viii 331–38, 349–64 Col. ix 398−403 Obv. destroyed Rev. 62–67 Obv. 77−103 Rev. 112−36, 139 Obv. 77−81 Rev. 131−35 Upper Edge 136−37 Obv. 77–91 Rev. 101–22 Upper Edge 123–25 Obv. 78–89 Rev. destroyed Obv. 78–86 Rev. destroyed Obv. 82−107 Rev. 119−37

N32

3N–T 906,241 (SLFN 12)

N33

3N−T416 = IM 58468

N34 N35

3N−T519 = IM 58532 +3N−T906,233 +3N−T553 = IM 58548 N 6552

N36

Ni 4296

N37

Ni 4116 (TAD 8/2 pl. 6)

N38

3N−T904,151

N39 N40

N 3182 + N 3283 + N 3301 N 2205

N41

Ni 9623 (ISET 1 p. 176)

N42

3N−T492 = IM 58517

N43

CBS 15091

N44

Ni 4474 (ISET 1 p. 165)

N45

Ni 4459 (ISET 1 p. 139)

Obv. 84−92 Rev. 99−106 Obv. 91–95 Rev. 96–101 Obv. 92–100 Rev. 107–17 Col. i 95–102 Col ii 152–59 104–11 (Other side destroyed)

N46

CBS 8079 (STVC 23)

N47

HS 1553 (TMH NF 4 23)

N48

CBS 4584 (PBS 10/2 10)

N49

Ni 4566

Line Numbers Obv. destroyed Rev. 104–9 Obv. 137–48 Rev. 170–73 Obv. 138–56 Rev. 157–73 Obv. 141−45 Rev. 164−68 Left Edge 173 Obv. 146–57 Rev. 158–69 168−74 (Other side destroyed) 172–78 (Other side destroyed) Obv. 173−87 Rev. 206−8 Obv. 173−75 Rev. 205−8 Obv. 173–80 Rev. destroyed Obv. 185–97 Rev. 198–208 Obv. 187–93 Rev. 194–200 Obv. 189–96 Rev. 197–98 Obv. 192–94 Rev. 217–18 Col i uncertain Col. ii 194−207 Col. iii 238−49 Col. iv 269−77 Col. v 304−10 Obv. 208−19 Rev. 237–51 Upper Edge 252−54 Obv. 208−216 Rev. 252–54 Obv. 208−19 Rev. 220−30

36 Sigla N50 N51 N52 N53

N54 N55

N56 N57 N58 N59 N60 N61 N62 N63 N64

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur Museum Numbers and Publications CBS 2191 + UM 29−16−789

Line Numbers

Obv. 214−35 Rev. 236−43, 247−54 VAT 4595 (VAS 10 171) Obv. 219–31 Lower Edge 232−33 Rev. 234−48 CBS 13911 (STVC 24) Obv. 254−74 Rev. 283−98 HS 1426 (TMH NF 4 18) Col. i 255−98 + HS 1427 (TMH NF 4 19) Col. ii 301−45 + HS 1575 (TMH NF 4 20) Col. iii 346−84a + HS 1452 (TMH NF 4 21) Col. iv 395−426 + HS 1579 (TMH NF 4 22) + HS 2504 (WK=KSLT 58) CBS 11555 Col. i 256−70 Col. ii 306−15 Col. iv 420−33 CBS 2204 Col. i 260–96 + CBS 2270 Col. ii 297–334 + CBS 2302 Col. iii 335–67 + CBS 19751 (MBI 6) Col. iv 368–97 + N 3144 N 4253 Obv. 271−77a Rev. 278−88 Ni 2401 (SLTN 95 = AS 12 Obv. 298–312 pl. 3) Rev. 329–31 N 6270 Obv. 298−314 + Ni 4496 (ISET 1 p. 158) Rev. 320−31 N 1331 Col. i 314−20 Col. ii 351−56 CBS 15135 Obv. 331−46 + N 3715 Rev. 376−88 +N 3758 3N−T901,41 Obv. 331–35 Rev. 366–71 Upper Edge 370–71 Ni 9969 (ISET 1 p. 200) Obv. 331–34 Rev. destroyed CBS 8336 Obv. 333−56 + N 6651 Rev. 357−80 Ni 4024 (SLTN 98 = AS 12 Obv.a 338, 342 pl. 4) Rev. 357–59

Sigla

Museum Numbers and Publications

N65

Ni 4383

N66

N 2529

N67

N 1810

N68

N 3609

N69

CBS 15179  c

N70

N71

CBS 10227 (STVC 33) +N 2569 +N 3194 +N 3195 Ni 4074 (TAD 8/2 pl. 35)

N72

HS 1510 (TMH NF 4 25)

N73 N74

Ni 4429 (ISET 1 p. 153) +UM 29−16−153 SLTN 99 = AS 12 pl. 4  d

N75

Ni 2510 (SRT 32)

N76

Ni 9586 (ISET 1 p. 205)

P

AO 6446 (TCL 16 40 = TRS 2 40)

S

BM 79966

U1

UET 6 135 = U 8840

U2

UET 6 136 = U 16900J

Line Numbers Col. i 347 Col. ii 370–84 Col. iii 412–26 Obv. 351−55 Rev. 356−62 Obv. 359−65 Rev. blank Col. i 362−65 Col. ii uncertain  b Obv. 370−86 Rev. 394−97 Col. i 376–80, 383−84a Col. ii 407−36 Col. i 384−88 Col. ii 428−34 Obv. 388−418 Rev. 419−37 Obv. 407−15 Rev. 416−26 Obv. destroyed Rev. 411–22 Obv. destroyed Rev. 430−36 Obv. destroyed Rev. 435−36 Col. i 1−89 Col. ii 90−175 Col. iii 176−257 Col. iv 258−341 Col. v 342−426 Col. vi 427−36 Col i 2–20 Col. ii′ 418–36 Col. i 1−28 Col. ii 67−82 Col. iii 164−76 Obv. 1−65 Rev. 66−122

a.  The obverse is destroyed; ll. 338 and 342 are reconstructed according to the ends of the lines, which appear on the reverse. For the line sequence of this duplicate, see the note on l. 388 in the score. b.  Cf. the description of this tablet. c.  Note that the join of this fragment to HS 1427+ in ETCSL’s list of manuscripts is erroneous. d.  The original tablet is currently lost. The museum number Ni 2911 provided by Kramer is erroneous.

37

Revised Edition of the Ur Lament Sigla

Museum Numbers and Publications

U3

UET 6 137 = U 16900K

U4

U 16900N (+) UET 6/3, 509 (=*290)

U5

UET 6 138 = U 16900L

Line Numbers Obv. 122−73 Rev. 174−232 Obv. 135−66 Lower Edge 167−70 Rev. 171−208 Obv. 208−46 Rev. 247−81

Museum Numbers and Publications

Sigla U6

UET 6 139 = U 16900M

Y1

YBC 7159

Y2

YBC 4661

Line Numbers Obv. 351−90 Lower Edge 391−95 Rev. 396−436 Obv. 137−68 Rev. 180−208 Obv. 208−39 Rev. 240–54

2.3.1.  Indexes of Previous Works Kramer 1940 Kramer’s Sigla Current Sigla A P Aa N1 B N9 C N11 D N14 Da N17 E N19 F N14

Kramer’s Sigla Current Sigla G N30 F N14 I N19 J N19 K N46 L N48 La N51

Kramer’s Sigla Current Sigla M N52 N N55 Na N57 Nb N64 Nc N74 O N70 P N75

Römer 2004 Römer’s Sigla

Current Sigla

Römer’s Sigla

Current Sigla

Römer’s Sigla

Current Sigla

A Aa B C D Da E F G F I J K L La

P N1 N9 N11 N14 N17 N19 N14 N30 N14 N19 N19 N46 N48 N51

M N Na Nb Nc O P Q R S T U V W X

N52 N55 N57 N64 N74 N70 N75 N12 N53 N73 N44 N76 N20 N29 N62

Y Z AA BB CC DD EE FF GG HH II JJ KK LL

U1 U2 U3 U5 U6 U4 N32 N47 N2 N72 G1 G2 L N37

38

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

Attinger 1993 Attinger’s Sigla

Current Sigla

Attinger’s Sigla

Current Sigla

Attinger’s Sigla

Current Sigla

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S

P N11 N19 U2 L N2 N1 U1 G1 N9 N10 N12 N13 N14 N5 N17 N20 N25 G2

T U V W W1 X Y Z A′ B′ C′ D′ E′ F′ G′ H′ I′ J′

N29 N30 N32 U3 U4 N34 N38 N39 N15 N44 N45 N46 U5 N47 N48 N52 N53 N55

K′ N′ P′ Q′ R′ S′ T′ V′ W′ X′ Y′ Z′ A′′ B′′ C′′ D′′ E′′ F′′

K1 N57 N58 N61 N62 K2 N64 U6 K3 N37 K3 N72 N70 N73 N74 N75 N76 N18

2.4.  Descriptions of Manuscripts 2.4.1.  Manuscripts from Nippur The great majority of the manuscripts of the lament originate from Nippur. Judging from paleography, these tablets were probably written during the nineteenth century. 17 The most common type of Nippur tablet is the imgidda (one-column tablet), which is usually inscribed on both sides. 18 The rest of the tablets are larger, multicolumn tablets. 19 Both the imgiddas and the multicolumn tablets from Nippur have typical features. The imgiddas usually contain a complete kirugu with a catch-line or, rarely, two or three kirugus on one imgidda. 20 Exceptions occur in the imgiddas of kirugus 7 and 8: since these kirugus are very long, the relevant imgiddas contain only parts of them. In the case of kirugu 7, the dividing point is always line 298—that is, imgiddas may contain ll. 254–98 or ll. 298–331. 21 Line 298 is the last line of the first lament of Ningal in the seventh kirugu; 22 therefore, this division conforms to the practice of placing one complete literary unit on an imgidda. The case of imgiddas that 17.  See the discussion about the ceasing of transmission of the City Laments in §1.1 above. 18.  In recent scholarship, this type is usually referred to as “type III” (following Civil’s typology). See, e.g., Veldhuis 1997; Delnero 2010b. 19.  Multicolumn tablets are referred to as “type I.” 20.  For two kirugus on an imgidda, see N5. For three kirugus on an imgidda, see N72. 21. For imgiddas ending with l. 298, see N52 and N56. For imgiddas beginning with the same line, see N58. 22.  See literary analysis of the seventh kirugu (1.3.2.6.), and see descriptions of manuscripts N52, N56, N57, and N58.

Revised Edition of the Ur Lament

39

contain the eighth kirugu is exceptional: the division point varies, and the resultant excerpt is not a natural literary unit. 23 The scribal convention of including a single kirugu on an imgidda may have implications for the study of the Sumerian school curriculum, from which these imgiddas probably originated. 24 The Nippur multicolumn tablets appear in several types: ten-column tablets, five on each side, containing the entire lament; and six- or four-column tablets with three or two columns on each side, respectively, usually containing the first or last half of a lament (kirugus 1–5, 1–6, 7–11 or 7–9). N1: A 6-column tablet (15.9 × 16.5 cm) originally containing kirugus 1−6 and a catch-line (= ll. 1−254), with ca. 30–45 lines in each column. Columns i−ii on the obverse and v−vi on the reverse are relatively well preserved, 25 while cols. iii−iv are fragmentary, with the lower half of col. iii and the upper half of col. iv missing. In several places, the line sequence deviates from the other manuscripts. Lines 48−62 appear as follows: 53, 51, 54, 55, 48, 49, 58, 61, 56, 62, 59, 57, 50 (ll. 52 and 60 were omitted); ll. 102−5 appear as follows: 105, 103, 102 (l. 104 was omitted); l. 180 comes before l. 179; l. 213 comes before l. 212; and ll. 221−23 appear in inverted order: 223, 222, 221. In addition, ll. 19, 178, and 181−83 were omitted, and ll. 101a and 210a were added. There are two colophons: ⸢d⸣ nisaba2 (on the upper edge); and [mu-šid-b]i 3 šu-ši 40/ [. . .] ⸢x⸣-ra-na ‘[its line number is] 220’ 26 (on the left edge). The line numbers of the fifth and sixth columns (36 and 28, respectively) are marked on the edge below these columns. 27 N2: An imgidda (11.5 × 7 cm) containing the first kirugu with a catch-line (= ll. 1–40). The tablet is well preserved, with only the upper right corner broken. The scribe did not distinguish between the signs NINA and UNUG. 28

23.  See descriptions of N61, N62, N63, and N67. As opposed to the seventh kirugu, which is the longest kirugu of the lament and is always divided among imgiddas, the eighth kirugu sometimes appears all on one imgidda. Note that three exceptions also appear in the case of the third kirugu; see N23, N27, and N28. 24.  As shown by Delnero (2010b), the literary works studied by pupils in earlier stages of the curriculum (that is, the ten basic compositions known collectively as the Decad) were not divided based on thematic considerations when they were copied onto the imgiddas. Instead, each composition was divided into four quarters, and the resulting arbitrary extracts were copied onto imgiddas. The fact that the Nippur LU manuscripts do not follow this convention could be due to several different factors. It may have been that the LU, unlike the compositions included in the Decad, fell into kirugus (but see the Keš Temple Hymn, which falls into short “houses”). Other possible causes could be the difference in lengths (LU is approximately 3.5 times longer than the average Decad composition) or the later phase of scribal education in which the LU was probably learned. The issue requires further study. 25.  With the exception of a lacuna of ca. 10−15 lines at the ends of cols. 1−2 and at the beginnings of cols. 5−6. 26.  Even if we do not include the rubrics and the omitted lines in the total sum, the total 220 seems too low. Perhaps the number 40, which is not entirely clear in the copy, is actually 50. Unfortunately, I could not collate the Istanbul tablets from their source, and therefore the colophon remains uncertain. 27.  These numbers of lines indicate that both cols. v and vi probably had one line omitted, on the basis of the following considerations: originally, col. v should have contained 37 lines (= ll. 187–224, plus l. 210a and minus the rubrics in ll. 205 and 207, which are usually not considered in the total sum), and the number 36 on the edge points to an omitted line, perhaps l. 190 or l. 191, which are elsewhere omitted. Similarly, col. vi should have contained 29 lines (= ll. 225–54 plus l. 252a and minus ll. 251 and 253, which contain rubrics), and the number 28 indicated on the edge seems to point to the omission of one line. 28.  See ll. 30–31 in the score.

40

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

N3: A small fragment (ca. 0.5 × 0.5 cm, based on cast) of the left side of the upper half of an imgidda. Originally, the tablet contained the first kirugu with a catch-line (= ll. 1–40) . N4: A fragment (ca. 6 × 7 cm, based on cast) from the upper part of an imgidda that contained the first kirugu with a catch-line (= ll. 1–40). Text continued onto the upper and left edges. The fragment may join N10. 29 N5: A fragment (5.7 × 6.6 cm) of the upper part of an imgidda that probably contained the first kirugu with a catch-line (= ll. 1–40), with its obverse fully inscribed and its reverse partially inscribed. 30 N6: A fragment (5.1 × 4.8 cm) of an imgidda that contained kirugus 1–2, probably with a catchline (= ll. 1–77). The fragment contains the middle portion of the upper quarter of the tablet. Judging from its scope, paleography, and handwriting, the tablet seems to join N16, but since the two fragments do not join physically, the apparent join is not evident. N7: A fragment (5 × 7.3 cm) from the upper left side of the obverse of a multicolumn tablet (reverse is destroyed). The fragment contains 20 lines from the beginning of the first column, and 6 lines from the beginning of the second column. The complete tablet apparently included ca. 60 lines per column. 31 This length of column, in addition to its relative narrowness, seems to point to an originally large tablet that probably had 10 columns and contained the entire lament. N8: An imgidda (4.8 × 6.5 cm) that contained the first kirugu (= ll. 1–39), probably with a catchline. 32 The tablet is broken on three sides, and the lower one-third is missing. N9: A small fragment (3.8 × 8.5 cm) from the upper left side of a multicolumn tablet that contained the entire lament (= ll. 1–436). The fragment contains beginnings of lines from the first column of the tablet on the obverse and the last (probably 10th) column of the tablet on the reverse. N10: A small fragment (3.8 × 4.7 cm) from the lower part of an imgidda that probably contained the first kirugu or part of it. The fragment may join N4. 33 N11: A 10-column tablet (17.5 × 19.5 cm) that contained the entire lament (= ll. 1–436). The left part of the upper one-third of the tablet is missing, in addition to many lacunas. Lines 19, 74, 377, and probably also 423–24 were omitted. 34 Lines 137–39 appear in inverted order (139, 29.  If the fragment joins N10, the original tablet included the first kirugu with a catch-line (= ll.1–40), with ll. 1–13 on the obverse, ll. 14–35 on the reverse, ll. 36–38 on the upper edge, and ll. 39–40 perhaps on the left edge. The gap between the number of lines on the obverse (13 lines) and the number of lines on the reverse (22 lines) is due to indented lines on the obverse. 30.  The exact number of lines on each side cannot be determined. Judging from other typical Nippur imgiddas, which usually contain ca. 20–30 lines on each side, and considering the 10-line length of the blank part on the reverse, the distribution of lines on the complete tablet could have ranged from 25 on the obverse and 15 on the reverse to 30 on the obverse and 10 on the reverse. 31.  The original number of lines in each column is calculated according to the gap between adjacent lines in two adjacent columns. For instance, l. 65 is adjacent to l. 7, l. 66 is adjacent to l. 8, and so forth (this system of calculation is valid here since it is not likely that the lines in these columns had indented parts; the lines of kirugus 1–2 are short, and the refrain of the first kirugu was omitted in this manuscript). 32.  We assume that one or two lines were written on the upper edge. 33.  See description of N4 above. 34.  Line 179 was erroneously omitted and then partially written between the lines. See score.

Revised Edition of the Ur Lament

N12: N13: N14:

N15:

N16:

N17:

41

138, 137), as well as lines 221–23 (223, 222, 221). Lines 425–30 appear as follows: 429, 426, 427, 425, 428, 430. A fragment (3.3 × 6 cm) of the obverse of a tablet of unknown type, containing 7 lines from the first kirugu. The reverse of the fragment is destroyed. A fragment (3.8 × 4.6 cm) of a tablet of unknown scope, containing 8 lines from the first kirugu. 35 A 4-column tablet (21 × 11 cm) with ca. 55 lines per column that contained kirugus 1–5 with a catch-line (= ll. 1–208). 36 The great part of the obverse is broken, with only one-fifth of columns i and ii preserved on its lower part. Most of the reverse is preserved, excluding its left side, one-fifth of its upper part, and the lower right corner. Line 74 and perhaps also ll. 181–83 37 were omitted. Lines 118–19 are written on one line, as well as ll. 120–21 and ll. 128–29. The order of lines 102–5 is: 104, 105, 103, 102. Line 180 appears before line 177. The scribe of the tablet tends (often, but not always) to avoid doubling the last consonant when adding a suffix. See, for example, ir2-e (77); edin-e (111); e2 er2-e (125); im šeg3-e (129); sug-e (133); gul-gulu3-ba (140–41). 38 A small fragment (2.1 × 4.4 cm) from the lower left side of a multicolumn tablet that probably contained the first five kirugus (= ll. 1–207). The fragment contains the last two lines of the first column on the obverse and the first three lines of the last column on the reverse. A colophon on the lower edge that reads the number 25 marks the number of lines in the first column. 39 A fragment (5 × 5.5 cm) of an imgidda that probably contained the first and second kirugus with a catch-line (= ll. 1–77). The fragment seems to be the middle portion of the original tablet. Text continued onto the lower edge. 40 Line 41 probably appeared after l. 45. The fragment may join N6. 41 A small fragment (4.9 × 9.2 cm) of the left side of a multicolumn tablet that contained the entire lament. The fragment contains 17 lines of the first column; 11 lines of the last column; unidentifiable traces of the beginnings of three lines in the preceding column; and the last four lines of the tablet inscribed on the left edge. Even from this relatively small preserved fragment, one may deduce that this manuscript followed a somewhat different tradition for the sequence of lines, omissions, and additions: the order of the temples addressed in ll. 51–62 is as follows: ll. 53, 51, 55, 54, 59, 60, 61 (the end is broken); l. 402 precedes l. 401; lines 44–45 were omitted; and two unique lines, 434a and 434b, appear only in this manuscript.

35.  If the original tablet was an imgidda, this fragment may join N4 and N10 (note, for example, the typical MUŠ3), but this is uncertain. 36.  Alternatively, the traces of the apparent catch-line, which appears on the lower edge, may belong to a colophon, but this is less likely. See comment on l. 206 of this manuscript in the score. 37.  See note to l. 180 of this manuscript in the score. 38.  For this kind of spelling, see Delnero 2010b: 67. 39.  The first column ends with line 26. Since line 19 was most likely omitted (see comment on this line), the column included 25 lines. 40.  Note that the scribing sequence of reverse – lower edge – obverse is atypical of the Nippur tablets. See a similar exception in N51, and see description of the Ur tablets below. 41.  See description of N6 above.

42

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

N18: A small fragment (3 × 4 cm) containing traces of nine lines from the second kirugu. The type and scope of the complete tablet are unknown. N19: A multicolumn tablet that contained the entire lament. Originally, the tablet held 10 columns with 35–55 lines per column, excluding the last column, which was only partially inscribed. The tablet consists of two parts that are not joined physically (8.2 × 8.3 cm; 14 × 12 cm), containing most of cols. iii–viii and little bits of cols. ii and ix. Line 179 appears after l. 181; line 212 appears after l. 213; lines 221, 222, and 223 appear in inverted order: 223, 222, and 221; lines 285–92 appear in the following order: 285, 288, 291, 290, 298, and 292 (286 and 287 probably appeared as 302 and 303; see score). Lines 182–83 were omitted. 42 In lines 168–70, the end of each line is marked with DIŠ. N20: A fragment (2.7 × 4.9 cm) of one side of a tablet (the other side has been destroyed) that contains nine lines of the second kirugu. If the original tablet was an imgidda containing kirugus 1–2 and a catch-line (= 1–77), 43 then this fragment belongs to the middle of the reverse. However, the original could have been a multicolumn tablet. Judging from the first four preserved lines, the tablet seems to have arranged ll. 47−62 in an unconventional order, as in N1. 44 N21: An imgidda (13.1 × 5.7 cm) that contained the third kirugu with a catch-line (= ll. 77–136 + l. 139). 45 The right and lower left sides are broken. The tablet contains l. 101a, which appears only here and in N1, and it probably omits lines 92–93. 46 The scribe tends to combine two of the original lines into one line. 47 N22: A small fragment from the upper left side of an imgidda that contained the third kirugu with a catch-line (= ll. 77−137). Text continues onto the upper edge. N23: An imgidda (ca. 6.5 ×9 cm, based on cast) that contained a section from the third kirugu (= ll. 77–125). 48 The lower quarter of the tablet is broken, and parts of the left side are missing. The text continues onto the upper edge. Lines 118–19 were probably inscribed as one line. Lines 120–21 were probably omitted. 49 N24: A fragment (3.6 × 5.5 cm) containing 12 lines from the third kirugu on the obverse. The reverse has been destroyed. The type and scope of the complete tablet cannot be determined.

42.  See note on l. 182 of this manuscript in the score. 43.  No known manuscript contains the second kirugu alone; it is the scribes’ convention to inscribe the first two kirugus together on a single imgidda. 44.  The tablet begins with the following lines: 62, 59, 57, 50. Compared with N1, this is probably the end of the following sequence: 53, 51, 54, 55, 48, 49, 58, 61, 56, 62, 59, 57, 50 (ll. 52 and 60 are probably omitted). 45.  The fact that the catch-line here is 139 and not 137 points to a textual tradition similar to that of N11, in which the order of the first lines of the fourth kirugu is 139, 138, 137, 140. 46.  See comment on l. 92 in score. 47.  See ll. 90–91, 118–19, 120–21, 126–27, and 128–29. In the first case (90–91), the new combined line was too long to be inscribed as a single line, so the scribe added an indented part, but the indentation does not divide the line at the expected point (i.e., between lines 90 and 91). 48.  The ending of the tablet at an arbitrary point in the middle of the third kirugu is unusual, but it does appear in manuscript N28 and probably also N27. See below. 49.  The original tablet is kept in the Iraq Museum, and the current transliteration is based on the cast kept in Pennsylvania. Note that the cast suffers from several problems, especially that the cast was not well made: lines that should appear on the obverse appear on the reverse and vice versa.

Revised Edition of the Ur Lament

43

N25: A fragment (3.4 × 4.5 cm) containing nine lines from the third kirugu on one side. The other side has been destroyed. The type and scope of the complete tablet cannot be determined. N26: An imgidda (6.6 × 12 cm) that contained the third kirugu and a catch-line (= ll. 76–137). One-sixth of the upper part and one-third of the lower part are missing. Three pairs of lines are inscribed on one line instead of two: ll. 120–21, 126–27, and 128–29. N27: A small fragment (3.3 × 6.4 cm) of the lower left side of an imgidda that probably contained part of the third kirugu. 50 Line 100 is divided into two lines. N28: A fragment (ca. 3.5 × 6.5 cm, based on cast) from the lower quarter of an imgidda that probably contained part of the third kirugu. 51 N29: A fragment (3.9 × 5.1 cm) from the middle part of the lower third of an imgidda that probably contained the third kirugu with a catch-line (= ll. 77–137). N30: A small fragment (3.9 × 4.3 cm) of a multicolumn tablet, containing parts of two consecutive columns on one side. The other side has been destroyed. A Winkelhaken at the beginning of line 152 is probably part of a series of Winkelhakens marking each tenth line on the complete tablet. The scribe tended to indent the second parts of lines, perhaps due to the narrowness of the columns. 52 N31: A fragment (4.7 × 5.1 cm) containing eight lines (= ll. 104–11) on one side of the tablet. The other side has been destroyed. The type and scope of the original, complete tablet cannot be determined, although the relatively large script may point to an imgidda. N32: A small fragment (2.4 × 2.7 cm) containing six lines from the third kirugu (= ll. 104–9) on one side, with the other side destroyed. The type and scope of the tablet cannot be determined, but the small script seems to point to a multicolumn tablet. N33: A fragment (ca. 6.5 × 7.5 cm, based on cast) of an imgidda that contained the fourth kirugu with a catch-line (= ll. 137–73). The fragment consists of the upper half of the original tablet. N34: An imgidda (ca. 8 × 11 cm, based on cast) that contained the fourth kirugu with a catch-line (= ll. 137–73). The tablet consists of three fragments (one of them a long-distance join), forming an almost complete tablet, excluding the first line of the obverse (=l. 137) . N35: A small fragment (2.4 × 3.3 cm) of the upper left side of an imgidda. Originally, the tablet contained the fourth kirugu and a catch-line (= ll. 137–73), with its upper edge inscribed. 53 The fragment preserves the beginnings of five lines of the obverse (= ll. 141–45), 5 lines of the reverse (= ll. 164–68), and a catch-line (=l. 173) written on the left edge.

50.  The gap between obverse and reverse is 6 lines, probably 3 on each side; hence, the obverse originally ended with l. 95. Assuming that it began with the first line of the third kirugu (= l. 77), it contained 18 lines (= ll. 77–95). The reverse, which naturally included a similar number of lines, ended at the middle of the third kirugu (l. 114?). For the unique ending of Nippur tablets at an arbitrary point of the third kirugu, see N23 and N28. 51.  The obverse ends with l. 95. Assuming that it began with the beginning of the kirugu (=l. 77), it contained 19 lines on the obverse (= ll. 77–95). The reverse, which probably contained a similar number of lines, ended somewhere in the middle of the third kirugu. See N23 and N27. 52.  See, for example, the indented parts of ll. 156 and 158. 53.  Since the catch-line is inscribed on the left edge, we assume that the upper edge was inscribed with the line(s) preceding it (for different scribal conventions regarding the use of tablet edges, see discussion of the manuscripts from Ur below).

44

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

N36: An imgidda (6.9 × 7.2 cm) that probably contained the fourth kirugu with a catch-line. The upper one-third is missing. N37: A small fragment (2.6 × 5.4 cm) of a multicolumn tablet that contained the last five lines of the fourth kirugu and the first two lines of the fifth kirugu on one side. The other side is now destroyed. N38: A small fragment (3.9 × 4.7) of a multicolumn tablet that may have contained the entire lament. The fragment has ll. 172–78 on one side. The other side is destroyed. N39: A fragment (6.3 × 7.1 cm) of an imgidda that contained the fifth kirugu with a catch-line (= ll.173–208). The fragment comprises three smaller fragments that have been joined and preserve the upper half of the original tablet. Lines 181 and 183 have been omitted, and l. 179 appears after l. 182. A unique feature of this tablet is its tendency to abbreviate the refrain, uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 (see ll. 174, 175, 176, and 178). A gloss appears at the end of line 182 (see score). N40: A small fragment (3.4 × 3.8 cm) of the upper right corner of an imgidda that contained the fifth kirugu with a catch-line (= ll. 173–208). The fragment preserves the right half of the first three lines and the last four lines of the tablet. A double line separates the fifth kirugu and the catch-line. N41: A fragment (2.9 × 4.4 cm) of the upper half of what was apparently an imgidda that contained the fifth kirugu with a catch-line (= ll. 173–208). 54 The reverse is destroyed. Line 179 probably appeared after l. 180. 55 N42: A fragment (ca. 6.5 × 6.5 cm, based on cast) of the lower half of an imgidda that contained the fifth kirugu with a catch-line (= ll. 173–208). A double rule follows the catch-line (= l. 208). Line 191 has been omitted, and l. 201 comes before l. 202. N43: A fragment (4.5 × 5.8 cm) of an imgidda that probably contained the fifth kirugu and a catchline (= ll. 173–208). Two-thirds of the tablet is missing at the top. N44: A fragment (3.4 × 5 cm) of the left part of the lower third of an imgidda that probably contained the fifth kirugu plus a catch-line (= ll. 173–208). The reverse was partially inscribed. 56 N45: A small fragment (1.7 × 4.6 cm) of a multicolumn tablet, preserving five lines from the fifth and sixth kirugus (= ll. 192–94, 217–18) . N46: A fragment (7 × 7.5 cm) of the right side of a multicolumn tablet, which seems to have contained the entire lament. 57 The fragment provides parts of five consecutive columns, three on

54.  The straight upper edge of the fragment indicates that l. 173 is the first line of one of the sides. Since this opens the fifth kirugu, I conjecture that we are dealing with an imgidda containing this kirugu. It is still possible, however, that the fragment belonged to a multicolumn tablet of unknown scope. 55.  The relevant part of the fragment is currently broken. An alternative sequence of lines appears in N1, N19, and N39. Note, however, that an omission of l. 179 is also possible (see N14). 56.  The last line of the obverse is 196; assuming that it originally began with the beginning of the kirugu, the obverse contained 24 lines (= ll. 173–69). The first line of the reverse is 197; assuming that it originally ended with the catch-line on 208, it contained only 12 lines (= ll. 197–208). 57.  Since the fragment includes parts of kirugus 5–6 (and maybe also 4) on the obverse and kirugu 7 on the reverse, it is likely that this is a fragment from the right side of a 10-column tablet, with kirugus 1–4 missing on the obverse and kirugus 8–11 missing on the reverse. This reconstruction is tentative, however, given the current state of preservation.

Revised Edition of the Ur Lament

N47: N48: N50:

N49: N51:

N52: N53: N54:

45

the obverse and two on the reverse, containing parts of kirugus 5–7. On col. i, only traces of the ends of three lines (which cannot be identified) were preserved. The fragment may join N59. 58 A fragment (6.7 × 7.3 cm) of an imgidda that contained the sixth kirugu with a catch-line (= ll. 208–54). The lower half of the tablet is missing. The text continues onto the upper edge. The order of lines 212–13 is inverted. A fragment (6.3 × 4.7 cm) of the lower part of an imgidda originally containing the sixth kirugu and a catch-line (= ll. 208–54). The fragment may join N51. A fragmentary imgidda (6 × 9.5 cm) originally containing the sixth kirugu and a catch-line (= ll. 208–54). Seven lines have been broken at the top of the obverse (= ll. 207–13), and three lines (= ll. 244–46) are missing in the middle of the reverse. Line 216 was omitted. Lines 221, 222, and 223 appear in inverted order: 223, 222, 221. An extremely damaged imgidda (6.2 × 10.5 cm) containing the first half of the sixth kirugu (= ll. 208–30). 59 The right edge is missing. Lines 216 and 226 were omitted, and l. 210a was added. Lines 213 and 212 have been interchanged. The same is true of ll. 221 and 223. A fragment (5.3 × 7 cm) of an imgidda that probably contained the sixth kirugu and a catchline (= ll. 208–54). The upper part of the tablet is missing. The text continues onto the lower edge. 60 The order of ll. 221–23 is inverted (223, 222, 221). The unique line 233a seems to appear only in this manuscript. 61 The fragment may join N48. An imgidda (5.7 × 9.9 cm) containing the first part of the seventh kirugu—that is, the first lament of Ningal (= ll. 254–98). 62 The upper right corner and the lower part are broken. Lines 259–60 were omitted. A fragmentary, four-column tablet (14.2 × 20.7 cm), originally containing kirugus 7−11 (= ll. 254−436). Lines 339−41 appear after line 344. Lines 330 and 374 were omitted. A fragment (6.5 × 8 cm) of a four-column tablet that originally contained the second half of the lament (kirugus 7–11) 63 or several kirugus from the second half (perhaps kirugus 7–9), 64 with ca. 30–40 lines per column. 65 The fragment includes parts of cols. i and ii on the obverse 66 and col. iv on the reverse. Line 430 precedes line 429.

58.  This possible join was pointed out to me by Y. Sefati. It may be supported by the numerous indented lines in both fragments, due to the narrow columns. However, since the two fragments share only one column, and they do not join physically, we cannot consider them one manuscript until more evidence is available. 59.  The tablet’s scope is exceptional. See the general description of the Nippur tablets above. 60.  Note that the use of the lower edge is exceptional in Nippur tablets. A similar instance appears in N16. See further the discussion of the scribal use of edges in the description of the Ur manuscripts below. 61.  But note that this line may also have resulted from a scribal error. See note on this line in the score. 62.  See discussion of the Nippur manuscripts above. 63.  See N53. 64.  See N55. 65.  This estimate of the original scope is based on the fact that ll. 306–15 are preserved on the obverse. In ten-column tablets containing the entire lament, the obverse usually ends around ll. 225–55. In two-column tablets containing the last half of the lament (e.g., kirugus 7–11; see N53) or several kirugus from the last half of the lament (e.g., kirugus 7–9; see N55), the obverse usually ends around ll. 335–45. Note also that the calculation of ca. 30–40 lines per column (based on the gap between adjacent lines) fits a four-column tablet rather than a lengthier, ten-column tablet. 66.  It is difficult to determine exactly where this fragment was located on the original, complete tablet. If we posit that the obverse ended around ll. 335–45 (see previous note), then the fragment belongs to the upper half of the tablet, but this conjecture is tentative.

46

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

N55: A four-column tablet (11.4 × 24 cm) originally containing kirugus 7–9 (ll. 254–399). The left and upper parts of the tablet are broken. The writing contains many errors. 67 The scribe tends to split lines and indent their second part more than attested in any other manuscript. Lines 266–68 appear in inverted order: 268, 267, 266. Lines 290, 291 and 366 were omitted. N56: A fragment (4.5 × 5.2 cm) of an imgidda that contained a portion of the seventh kirugu, probably ll. 254–98. 68 The fragment seems to constitute the middle portion of the lower third of the tablet. N57: An imgidda (6.6 × 8.9 cm) that originally contained the second part of the seventh kirugu (= ll. 298–331). 69 The lower half of the tablet is broken. N58: Two long-distance joined fragments from an imgidda 70 that contained the second half of the seventh kirugu with a catch-line (= ll. 298–331). 71 The left and lower parts of the tablet are broken. Due to the insufficient width of the tablet, the scribe tended either to inscribe the last sign below the line or to continue the lines of the obverse onto a blank section of the reverse. N59: A fragment (5.5 × 7 cm) from the reverse of a multicolumn tablet that has preserved parts of two consecutive columns on one side. The other side has been destroyed. The preserved columns contain parts of kirugus 7–8. The fragment seems to join N46. N60: A fragment (6.3 × 8 cm) of the upper half of an imgidda originally containing the eighth kirugu with a catch-line (= ll. 331–88). Lines 342–44 appear before ll. 339–41; lines 377a and 379a are included. The tablet may indirectly join N66. 72 N61: The upper quarter (3.4 × 5.8 cm) of an imgidda. Originally, the tablet included an arbitrary unit from the eighth kirugu (= ll. 331–71), 73 with ca. 20 lines on each side. The text continues onto the upper edge. N62: A fragment (2.1 × 5.2 cm) probably belonging to the upper part of the obverse of an imgidda that contained the eighth kirugu with a catch-line (= ll. 331–88), or a part of the eighth kirugu. 74 The reverse has been destroyed. N63: An imgidda (5.9 × 12.3 cm) originally containing the eighth kirugu with a catch-line (= ll. 331– 88). The right edge and the upper part of the tablet are broken. N64: A small fragment (2.8 × 4.3 cm) from the reverse of the middle part of an imgidda that probably contained part of the eighth kirugu. 75 Two lines of the destroyed obverse have been recon67.  See, e.g., ll. 269, 271, 275, 283, 285, 314, 375. See additionally the many inaccurately inscribed signs marked by exclamation marks in the transliteration, and the splitting of line 369 in the middle of the verb (mu-e-/ [ ]-še8-še8). 68.  See the discussion of Nippur manuscripts above. Assuming that the tablet began with the first line of the seventh kirugu, the obverse contained 26 lines (= ll. 254–77a). The reverse probably contained 21 lines (= ll. 278–98) and was partially inscribed. 69.  See discussion of the Nippur scribal conventions above. 70.  The join was identified by Prof. H. Vanstiphout. I am thankful to him for kindly providing me with his manuscript of the Ur lament score. Joining point is l. 306. 71.  See discussion of the Nippur scribal conventions above. 72.  See description of N66 below. 73.  See discussion of the Nippur scribal conventions above. 74.  See discussion of the Nippur scribal conventions above. 75.  Based on a lacuna of 14 lines (= ll. 343–56) between obverse and reverse, and assuming that the tablet began at the beginning of the eighth kirugu (= l. 331), the tablet should have included ca. 20 lines (= ll. 331–50) on the obverse.

Revised Edition of the Ur Lament

47

structed based on the ends, which appear on the reverse (probably due to the narrowness of the tablet). Line 338 probably precedes l. 342. 76 N65: A fragment (7.7 × 10.5 cm) of the reverse of a multicolumn tablet that probably contained the entire lament. 77 Lines 374 and 417 were omitted. N66: The lower right corner of an imgidda that probably contained the eighth kirugu with a catchline (ll. 331–88). The fragment (3.4 × 4 cm) seems to be a good join with N60, but since the two fragments do not join physically, this cannot be determined for certain. N67: The upper left corner of an imgidda (2.6 × 4.3 cm). The entire tablet probably contained a part of the eighth kirugu (= ll. 359–88), with its obverse fully inscribed and its reverse partially inscribed. N68: Upper left side fragment (3.1 × 4.2 cm) of the reverse of a multicolumn tablet. The fragment contains the upper part of the last two columns of the tablet, with the last column showing traces of three lines, all ending with the sign RI. These lines could have been any sequence of three lines out of lines 400–406. The number of lines in each column may have ranged from 27 to 37. N69: A fragment (2.8 × 8.1 cm) of the lower right part of what was apparently an imgidda. 78 The fragment contains the last 18 lines of kirugus 8–9. It is not possible to determine the scope of the original, complete tablet. Lines 374 and 379 were omitted. Line 383a was added. N70: Left side of the reverse of a multicolumn tablet that probably contained the entire lament. The fragment (5 × 14.6 cm) includes most of the partially inscribed last column (with a double rule marking the end of the lament) and traces of the beginnings of the lines in the preceding column. Lines 423 and 430 were omitted. Lines 425 and 429 were interchanged. N71: A fragment (4.5 × 5.6 cm) of the reverse of a multicolumn tablet. Line 429 was omitted. Lines 384a and 430a were added. N72: An imgidda (6.9 × 12.5 cm) containing the ninth, tenth, and eleventh kirugus (= ll. 388–436), separated from each other by a double rule. The tablet is relatively well preserved, retaining all its corners except the lower right, which is broken. Line 406 was omitted, and the order of lines 429 and 430 is inverted. A colophon in the last line of the tablet (on the reverse) reads: GIL en3-du-uri2ki-ma ‘The end(?) 79 of Ur’s poem’. N73: An imgidda that probably contained the tenth and the eleventh kirugus (= ll. 400–436). 80 The tablet consists of two joined long-distance fragments constituting the great part of its lower half. Line 410 was omitted (UM 29-16-153: 3.8 × 4.8 cm; Ni 4429: 4.1 × 4.3 cm). The reverse could not have been much longer, and therefore it probably ended before the end of the kirugu, perhaps on l. 371, like N61 (in this case, the reverse contained 21 lines). 76.  See the note on l. 338 in the score. 77.  As noted above, multicolumn tablets from Nippur contained either the entire lament or the first or last half. In this case, the distribution of lines on the reverse seems to point to the first type. If this were a half-lament tablet, ll. 365–75 would appear on the obverse, but here they appear on the reverse. 78.  It is unlikely that the original was a multicolumn tablet since, in that case, ll. 370−86 would appear on the reverse. 79.  The reading and meaning of the sign GIL in this colophon is uncertain. Wilcke (1976a: 59 n. 1) suggested reading GIL as al-til or considering it a scribal error for al-til.  80.  The possibility that the complete tablet contained kirugus 9, 10, and 11 (= ll. 388–436) cannot be excluded. In that case, the reverse was only partially inscribed.

48

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

N74: A fragment from the reverse of a tablet of an unknown type. It contains the end of kirugu 10 and beginning of kirugu 11. 81 N75: A fragment (6.3 × 7.9 cm) of the lower part of the reverse of an imgidda (the obverse is destroyed), which probably contained kirugus 9−11 or kirugus 10−11. 82 The fragment contains l. 430a. N76: A fragment (3.8 × 4.3 cm) of the reverse of a tablet. The fragment contains the last two lines of the lament and a partially preserved colophon. The colophon reads: [. . .]-EN-bi-im za3-[. . .]. 83 2.4.2.  Manuscripts from Ur The Ur manuscripts share typical features. First, unlike the Nippur manuscripts, they all contain an arbitrary unit, not taking into account the kirugus or any other natural division of the lament. Second, in imgiddas from Ur, the scribe tends to use the lower edge as an extension of the obverse. In other words, the sides of the tablet were usually inscribed in this sequence: obverse – lower edge – reverse; as opposed to the Nippur tablets, on which the sequence was: obverse – reverse; and then if needed: upper edge – lower edge, or upper edge – left edge. 84 Third, none of these manuscripts splits a line in two and indents the second part. 85 Obviously, they share the same paleography. 86 Additional features typical of the Ur tradition of the lament, such as omissions and additions of lines, different line sequences, and unique variants are explained in the description of each tablet below. Two of the Ur manuscripts contain consecutive line numbers: U2 contains ll. 1–122, and U3 ll. 122–32. It is tempting to see these two tablets as the beginning of a series; however, the colophon of U3 calls it the “seventh imgidda,” indicating that, even if it succeeded U2, this series probably began with other literary material. U1: A fragment (9.5 × 11 cm) from the upper left side of a four-column tablet, containing ca. 60 lines per column, 87 except for column iv, which was apparently only partially inscribed. 88 The tablet probably contained at least the first five kirugus (ll. 1–208); 89 however, if the entire missing portion of column iv was inscribed, the tablet may have included ll. 1–221. Line 6 was omitted.

81.  Measurements are not available; see note on this tablet in the list of manuscripts. 82. Since kirugus 10 and 11 are very short, none of them appears alone on a single imgidda. An imgidda may contain either kirugus 9−11 (in longer imgiddas) or kirugus 10−11 (in shorter imgiddas). 83.  Wilcke (1975: 259) suggested correcting and completing the colophon as follows: [k]i!-šu2!-bi-im za3 [til-la-bi]. However, the first sign is clearly not KI. 84. U2 and U3 are exceptions: their lower edges are uninscribed. Among the Nippur tablets, N16 and N51 are exceptions (see above). 85.  Indented lines appear in the Ur manuscripts only if they contain rubrics or, vary rarely, when they contain a refrain. 86.  See especially the unique ḪA in most Ur manuscripts (excluding U5, which usually has the more-common ḪA). 87.  The original number of lines in each column is calculated according to the gap between each two adjacent lines in two adjacent columns. For instance, line 67 appears beside line 7, and line 81 is inscribed opposite line 21. 88.  Only the lower uninscribed half of this column is preserved. 89.  If this reconstruction is correct, the fourth column was half inscribed.

Revised Edition of the Ur Lament

49

U2: An imgidda (8.2 × 13 cm) that contained the first two kirugus and the major part of the third kirugu (= ll. 1–122). 90 The tablet is joined from several fragments, with its upper left and upper right parts broken. Several traits seem to reflect the Ur textual tradition: the different order of ll. 47–62; the partially different version of ll. 38, 46, 63, 70, 79, 85, 91, 96, 104, and 108; 91 and the unusual spelling of toponyms in ll. 8, 28, and 31. 92 The writing contains some errors, the most salient of which is the consistent omission of the sign GA from the verbal chain of the refrain in ll. 8–35. U3: An imgidda (8 × 18.5 cm) containing lines 122–32, with two colophons on the upper and lower edges. The tablet is a join of numerous small fragments and has many flaws and lacunas. Although it was not explicitly stated, 93 Gadd’s copy of this tablet was a composite, based on U3 and U4. 94 My transliteration follows the much more fragmentary original. The tablet includes lines 135a, 138a, 151a, 151b, 151c, and 170a—all of which appear only in the Ur manuscripts. The following lines provide variants that are unique to Ur: 133, 160, 164, 168, 95 179, 185, 190, 202, 203, 216, 220, and 225. In addition, line 221 was omitted, line 201 appears after line 202, and line 222 appears after line 223. The upper-edge colophon reads: im-gid2-da! 7-k[am] / 109. One hundred nine is the number of lines (excluding the rubrics and the last line, which contains one sign only). The numbering of this tablet as the “seventh tablet” probably indicates that it was part of series that began with (an)other literary text(s); see above in the introduction to the Ur manuscripts. The two-line colophon on the lower edge, which may have contained the date, is too damaged to be read. U4: An imgidda (7 × 12 cm) that contained the ĝišgiĝal of the third kirugu, the fourth kirugu, and the first line of the fifth kirugu (= ll. 135–208). The right part of the upper half is missing, excluding a small fragment of the upper right corner, which indirectly joins the tablet, with only its reverse preserved. The text continues onto the lower edge. The tablet includes lines 135a, 138a, 151a, 151b, 151c, and 170a, all of which appear only in the Ur manuscripts. The following lines preserve variants that are unique to Ur: 160, 164, 168, 96 179, 185, and 190. An additional feature typical of the Ur version is the inverted order of ll. 201 and 202 (see U3). U5: An imgidda containing the sixth kirugu and 28 lines of the seventh kirugu (= ll. 208–81). The tablet is joined from two pieces, and it is almost entirely complete, having only three narrow 90.  The tablet ends in the middle of a sentence. This is unusual even for the Ur manuscripts, which usually end arbitrarily; it seems to support the theory that U3 is a continuation of U2. See above. 91.  This list does not include lines with very slight changes. 92.  See commentary on these lines. It is difficult to determine whether the omission of lines 54, 57, 61, and 89 in this manuscript reflect an Ur tradition as well.  93.  Gadd and Kramer’s description of the tablet content in the introduction of UET 6 (nos. 135–39) gives the impression that no. 137 reflects manuscript U3, while U4 is only quoted for variants in the apparatus below the copy. 94.  The current tablet (= U3) serves as a basis for the copy, while U4 is used for completing broken places and omissions (for complements of broken places, see, e.g., ll. 143–50; 163–68. For complements of omissions, see ll. 168, 170, and 176). In one case, U1 may also sbe represented in the composite copy: l. 166 in the copy reads me-e uru-ĝa2, while U3 reads me-e uru-ĝu10, and U4 reads me-e uru-ĝ[u10]. A possible source for the composite copy’s version is U1, which reads me-e uru-ĝa2. Nevertheless, the copy may also be based on an incorrect reading of the broken sign in U4. I therefore did not use asterisks to mark deviations from Gadd’s copy in the transliteration of this tablet (the same is true for U5). 95.  But note the reading of U1 in this line, which is in agreement with the Nippur version. 96.  But note the reading of U1 in this line.

50

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

lacunas along the lines where the parts are joined. The text continues onto the lower edge. In keeping with the Ur tradition of the lament, line 221 was omitted and line 222 follows line 223. Line 248 was omitted and then written on the right edge. 97 The following lines present variants unique to Ur: 216, 225, 239, 240, and 245. A colophon appearing on the upper edge reads: itikin-dinanna u4–14-kam ‘Elul 14th’ (7.4 × 12.2 cm). U6: An imgidda containing the last 37 lines of the tenth kirugu, and the eleventh kirugu (= ll. 351– 436). The upper right corner is broken. Lines 363, 364, 371, 376, 378, 408, and 413 were omitted. The text continues onto the lower edge. The following lines contain unique variants, probably representing the Ur version of the lament: 362, 369, 373, 386, 404, 407, and 432. Some illegible traces on the upper edge may have been part of a colophon (7.3 × 12.3 cm). 2.4.3.  Manuscripts from Kiš Only three known manuscripts originate from Kiš, all of which are incomplete imgiddas. The following description should therefore be read with due reservations. Like the Ur manuscripts, the Kiš manuscripts contain arbitrary units of text, and they also use the lower edge as an extension of the obverse and the upper edge as an extension of the reverse. Their preferred order of inscribing the lines was: obverse – lower edge – reverse (– upper edge, when needed). Regarding the date of these manuscripts, the paleography seems somewhat later than in the case of the tablets from Nippur and Ur—more similar to the Yale tablets, which are dated to the mid-eighteenth century (see below). 98 Two of the three manuscripts include interpretive glosses; for details on these glosses and on special variants of the Kiš tradition, see the descriptions below. K1: A fragment (6 × 7 cm) of the lower part of an imgidda that contains ll. 272–93, with the text continuing onto the lower edge. Since the Kiš manuscripts do not contain complete kirugus, it is difficult to estimate the scope of the original tablet; if we assume that its length was similar to that of K3 (probably 58 lines; see below), then K1 could have begun at the beginning of the seventh kirugu (= l. 254) and ended around the middle of this kirugu (ca. ll. 310–15). Several interpretive glosses appear below lines 274, 276, 277, 283, and 289. 99 K2: The lower left side of an imgidda (5 × 6.8 cm) containing 20 lines from the first half of the eighth kirugu (= ll. 339–58). Since the Kiš manuscripts do not contain complete kirugus, it is difficult to estimate the scope of the complete tablet; if we assume that the length of K2 was similar to that of K3 (probably 58 lines; see below), then K2 began approximately with the last lines of the seventh kirugu, and ended around the end of the eighth kirugu. An interpretive gloss appears below l. 351. 100 Line 349 was omitted. The lower edge is inscribed. K3: An imgidda (6.5 × 14.5 cm) that contained the end of kirugu 10, and kirugu 11 (probably ll. 369–436). 101 The tablet consists of joins from several fragments, which together constitute the central part of the upper half and the almost-complete lower half; the lower and upper 97.  Behind and to the right of line 248 on the right edge, there is another line reading mu-un?-x-x. 98.  Note, however, that these differences may also be the result of separate peripheral scribal traditions; dating these tablets on the basis of paleographic considerations requires additional study. 99.  See score of the relevant lines. 100.  See note on this line in the score. 101.  The upper part of the obverse is damaged but not missing; judging by its length, the damaged part included ca. 5–6 lines (ll. 369–74).

Revised Edition of the Ur Lament

51

edges are inscribed. The tablet includes lines 384b, 384c, 397a, and 397b, which probably represent a Kiš tradition. 102 The same is true of the unique variant on l. 427. 2.4.4.  A Manuscript from Sippar S: A small fragment (6.2 × 10 cm) of the upper left side of a multicolumn tablet that contained the entire lament (= ll. 1–436). The fragment contains the beginnings of the lines in the first column of the tablet on the obverse, and the last column of the tablet on the reverse. Three additional lines (6a, 6b, and 18a) add the names of Ninurta and Damgalnuna to the litany of abandoning deities. Two colophons are preserved on the fragment: al-til/ [m]u-⸢šid-bi-im x 380 x⸣ [. . .] ‘it is finished/ its line-number is’ (on the reverse); and ŠU SIG-da-a DU[B.SAR TUR]/ iti ŠE.KIN.KU5 [. . .]/ ⸢MU am-mi-ṣa⸣-[du-ga . . .] ‘The hand of Ipiq-Aya, a [young] sc[ribe], [day X of] Addaru, [year Y of] Ammiṣaduqa’ (on the upper edge). The latter colophon indicates that S is the latest of the currently known LU manuscripts and dates to the days of Ammiṣaduqa (ca. 1646–1626). 103 2.4.5.  Manuscripts of Unknown Provenance G1: A four-column tablet (13 × 20 cm) that probably contained kirugus 1–5 (= ll. 1–207), with ca. 50 lines per column. 104 The tablet comprises joins from many fragments, two of them glued erroneously: the fragment containing ll. 1–2 currently appears on the right edge with its lines vertical, and the fragment containing the ends of ll. 74–77 currently appears at the end of ll. 81–89 in the third column. Every tenth line is marked by a Winkelhaken. Lines 42–47, 52, and 118–19 were omitted; lines 120–21 are inscribed on one line; and l. 180 appears before l. 178. G2: An imgidda (7 × 12 cm) that contained the third kirugu with a catch-line (= ll. 77–137). 105 The tablet has two lines missing at the top, and a lacuna of five lines between the obverse and reverse. The tablet has Winkelhakens on the left edge marking each tenth line, of which only two are preserved (in ll. 95 and 133). 106 The provenance of the tablet is unknown, but the fact 102.  See also the comment on ll. 383–84. 103.  For additional discussion about this tablet, see Löhrent 2011. 104.  Contrary to the classification by Sauren (1970), there is no significant affinity between the Geneva tablets (= G1 and G2) and the Ur manuscripts. G1 follows the Nippur version in 13 cases (= ll. 28, 38, 63, 79, 85, 91, 96, 98, 127, 164, 168, 179, 185), and the Ur version in only 1 significant case (l. 78; other cases, which involved differences between the versions that were too slight or a version that was not unique to Ur, were not taken into account); and in one case it has a variant of its own that is similar to the other Geneva text (= ll. 133). In addition, the typical omissions, additions, and alternate line orders that appear in the Ur tablets do not appear here (i.e., ll. 54, 57, 61, and 89 are not omitted; ll. 135a, 138a, 151a, 151b, 151c, 170a, and 210a are not added; and the order of ll. 47–62 is not inverted). 105.  This reconstruction is based on the Winkelhakens on the left edge that mark each tenth line, indicating that the tablet began with l. 77 (see next note). Two additional considerations support this assumption: (1) the proportions of the tablet indicate that only a handful of lines are missing on the upper and lower parts; (2) the relatively spacy lines at the end of the preserved reverse may indicate that it was not fully inscribed. 106.  Very slight traces of a Winkelhaken seem to appear next to l. 113. The complete tablet probably had Winkelhakens next to the following lines: 85b (10th line; l. 85 is inscribed on two lines); 95 (20th line); 103 (30th line; lines 100 and 101 have indented parts that add two lines to the calculation); 113 (40th line); 123 (50th line); 133 (60th line). Note that the numbering of the lines is consecutive (and not separate in each column).

52

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

that it probably contained a complete kirugu with a catch-line and, to some extent, its textual tradition 107 may point to a Nippur origin. Line 85 is inscribed on two lines. L: An imgidda containing the first two kirugus (without a catch-line). 108 The tablet is well preserved. A colophon in the last line reads: [ ] mu-⸢bi⸣-im ‘total lines [. . .]’. P: A six-column tablet (13.5 × 23.5 cm) containing the entire lament (= ll. 1–436), perhaps originating from Larsa. The tablet is almost completely preserved but has a few broken places, mostly on the reverse. Each tenth line on the obverse (but not on the reverse) is marked with a Winkelhaken. 109 Six glosses appear inside or below lines 19, 29, 23, 32, 33, and 56. 110 The tablet includes three colophons: one, on the upper edge, reads: dnisaba/ dha-ia3; the second, at the end of the inscribed part of the last column, proceeded by a double rule, reads: 9-bi-im// šid-bi 435 mu-bi-im/ šu-Apil-dŠakkan/ ⸢x x⸣ ‘Its ninth// Its count: 435 lines/ the hand of Apil-Šakkan/ [. . .]’; and the third, at the lower part of the last column, reads: itidu6-ku3 u4-*18-kam ‘tašrītu 18th’. 111 Note the addition of l. 19 (dedicated to Larak) to the list of abandoned cities. Y1: An imgidda (7 × 12.5 cm) that contained the fourth and fifth kirugus with a catch-line (= ll. 137–208), and a colophon on the upper edge. The lower part of the tablet is missing. An extra line (167a), which is not found in any other manuscript, appears between lines 167 and 168. Every tenth line is marked with a Winkelhaken on the left edge. 112 The colophon reads: 73 mu-bi-im/ u4 ⸢18?⸣-kam mu lu2 kur2 lu2 ḫul ĝal2 ‘Its lines are 73. Day 18(?), year (in which RimSîn had no) enemy, (nor) opponent’ (= Rim-Sîn II 3). 113 The same year-name appears in the colophon of Y2, which is dated to the 6th day of the 11th month of that year and includes the succeeding kirugu (= kirugu 6). It is likely that the two tablets were written by the same scribe and that they were part of a multiple-tablet recension. 114 Y2: An imgidda (7.3 × 14.2 cm) containing the sixth kirugu with a catch-line (= ll. 208–54), and a colophon. The five lines of the colophon extend from the middle of the reverse to its end, with a large space between each line. The colophon reads: 44 mu-bi-im/ im-gid2-da Ilšu-ibnīšu/ itiziz2a u4 6-kam/ mu d!ri-im-dSîn lugal/ *lu2 kur2 lu2 ḫul *ĝal2 ‘Its lines are 44. 115 The imgidda tablet of Ilšu-ibnīšu/ šabaṭu 6th/ Year (in which) Rim-Sîn the king/ (had no) enemy (or) opponent’. For the possibility that this tablet and Y1 are part of a multiple-tablet recension, see above, in the description of Y1. 107.  See especially ll. 104, 119, and 127, which follow the Nippur tradition. 108.  The absence of a catch-line may point to an origin other than Nippur. 109.  Excluding l. 30, in which the scribe forgot to add the Winkelhaken. 110.  See score of the relevant lines. 111.  An additional line of the colophon was erased by the scribe. 112.  Excluding the last line of the tablet, which is unmarked. 113.  That is, ca. 1739 b.c.e. according to the middle chronology. For Rim-Sin II, see Pientka-Hinz 2007: 371. 114.  The colophon of Y1 mentions only the day (18th) and the year, not the month. If Y2, which was inscribed on the 6th day of the 11th month, is the direct continuation of Y1, we may conclude that Y1 was inscribed on the 18th day of the 10th month. 115.  Note that the number 44 seems to exclude not only the rubrics (ll. 251 and 253) but probably also the catch-line.

Chapter 3

Transliteration and Translation

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27

tur3-ra-na muš3 mi-ni-in-ga amaš-a-na lil2-e am-e tur3-ra-na muš3 mi-ni-in-ga amaš-a-na lil2-e u3-mu-un kur-kur-ra-ke4 muš3 mi-ni-in-ga amaš-a-na lil2-e d mu-ul-lil2-le eš3-e nibruki-a muš3 mi-ni-in-ga amaš-a-na lil2-e dam-a-ni dnin-lil2-le muš3 mi-ni-in-ga amaš-a-na lil2-e d nin-lil2-le e2-bi ki-ur3-ra muš3 mi-ni-in-ga amaš-a-na lil2-e nin keš3ki-ke4 muš3 mi-ni-in-ga amaš-a-na lil2-e ga-ša-an-maḫ-e e2-bi keš3ki-a muš3 mi-ni-in-ga amaš-a-na lil2-le mu-lu i3-si-inki-na-ke4 muš3 mi-ni-in-ga amaš-a-na lil2-e ga-ša-an-i3-si-inki-na-ke4 eš3 e2-gal-maḫ-a muš3 mi-ni-in-ga ⸢amaš⸣-a-na lil2-e nin ki-unugki-ga-ke4 muš3 mi-ni-in-ga ⸢amaš⸣-a-na lil2-e ga-ša-an-na e2-bi unugki-ga muš3 mi-ni-in-ga amaš-a-na lil2-e d nanna uri2ki-ma muš3 mi-ni-in-ga amaš-a-na lil2-e d suen-e e2-kiš-nu-ĝal2-la muš3 mi-ni-in-ga amaš-a-na lil2-e dam-a-ni ga-ša-an-gal-e muš3 mi-ni-in-ga amaš-a-na lil2-e ga-ša-an-gal-e agrun-ku3-ga-na muš3 mi-ni-in-ga amaš-a-na lil2-e am uru2-ze2-baki-ke4 muš3 mi-ni-in-ga amaš-a-na lil2-e d am-an-ki-ke4 e2-bi uru2-ze2-baki-ke4 muš3 mi-ni-in-ga amaš-a-na lil2-e ga-ša-an-x1-⸢aš?!-te?⸣ e2-ba la-ra-akki-a muš3 mi-ni-in-ga amaš-a-na lil2-e d šara e2-maḫ-a muš3 mi-ni-in-ga amaš-a-na lil2-e d u4-saḫar-ra e2-bi ummaki-a muš3 mi-ni-in-ga amaš-a-na lil2-e d ba-ba6 uru2-ku3-ga muš3 mi-ni-in-ga amaš-a-na lil2-e e4-du11-ga ama5-na muš3 mi-ni-in-ga amaš-a-na lil2-e ama-ni dab-ba-ba6 muš3 mi-ni-in-ga amaš-a-na lil2-e d ab-ba-ba6 ma-gu2-en-na-ka muš3 mi-ni-in-ga amaš-a-na lil2-e d lamma e2-e-ke4 muš3 mi-ni-in-ga amaš-a-na lil2-e d lamma-e e2-tar-sir2-sir2-ra muš3 mi-ni-in-ga amaš-a-na lil2-e 1.  Sign illegible.

54

Transliteration and Translation

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27

He has abandoned his cattle-pen, his sheepfold—to the wind . . . The wild bull has abandoned his cattle pen, his sheepfold—to the wind . . . The lord of all lands has abandoned it, his sheepfold—to the wind . . . Enlil has abandoned the shrine in Nippur, his sheepfold—to the wind . . . His spouse, Ninlil, has abandoned it, her sheepfold—to the wind . . . Ninlil has abandoned the house Kiur, her sheepfold—to the wind . . . The queen of Keš has abandoned it, her sheepfold—to the wind . . . Ninmah has abandoned the house in Keš, her sheepfold—to the wind . . . She of Isin has abandoned it, her sheepfold—to the wind . . . Ninisina has abandoned the shrine Egalmah, her sheepfold—to the wind . . . The queen of Uruk land has abandoned it, her sheepfold—to the wind . . . Inanna has abandoned the house in Uruk, her sheepfold—to the wind . . . Nanna has abandoned Ur, his sheepfold—to the wind . . . Suen has abandoned Ekišnuĝal, his sheepfold—to the wind . . . His spouse, Ningal, has abandoned it, her sheepfold—to the wind . . . Ningal has abandoned her Agrunkug, her sheepfold—to the wind . . . The wild bull of Eridu has abandoned it, his sheepfold—to the wind . . . Enki has abandoned the house in Eridu, his sheepfold—to the wind . . . Ninašte has abandoned the house in Larak, her sheepfold—to the wind . . . Šara has abandoned Emah, his sheepfold—to the wind . . . Usahara has abandoned the house in Umma, her sheepfold—to the wind . . . Baba has abandoned Urukug, her sheepfold—to the wind . . . She has abandoned the Eduga, her chamber, her sheepfold—to the wind . . . Her mother, Ababa, has abandoned it, her sheepfold—to the wind . . . Ababa has abandoned Maguena, her sheepfold—to the wind . . . The lamma of the temple has abandoned it, her sheepfold—to the wind . . . The lamma of the Etarsirsir has abandoned it, her sheepfold—to the wind . . .

55

56

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

 28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38

um-ma lagaški-ke4 muš3 mi-ni-in-ga amaš-a-na lil2-e d ma-ze2-ze2-be2 e2-bi lagaški-a muš3 mi-ni-in-ga amaš-a-na lil2-e mu-lu ninaki-ke4 muš3 mi-ni-in-ga amaš-a-na lil2-e ga-ša-an gu-la e2-bi sirara3ki-a muš3 mi-ni-in-ga amaš-a-na lil2-e mu-lu ki-nir-ša3-baki-ke4 muš3 mi-ni-in-ga amaš-a-na lil2-e d dumu-zi-abzu e2-bi ki-nir-ša3-baki-ke4 muš3 mi-ni-in-ga amaš-a-na lil2-e mu-lu gu2-ab-baki-ke4 muš3 mi-ni-in-ga amaš-a-na lil2-e ga-ša-an-MAR.KI-ke4 eš3 gu2-ab-ba-ke4 muš3 mi-ni-in-ga amaš-a-na lil2-e ki-ru-gu2 1-a-kam amaš-a-na lil2-e ba-ni-in-ĝar i-si-iš-bi mu-un-kuš2-u3 ab2 gu3-zu e2-tur3-ra nu-ĝal2 tur3 nun-e nu-ul

 39

ĝiš-gi4-ĝal2-bi-im

 40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  61  62  63  64  65  66

uru2 a-še-er gig-ga a-še-er-zu ĝar-ra a-še-er-zu gig-ga uru2 a-še-er-zu ĝar-ra uru2 zi gul-la-na a-še-er-bi gig-ga uri2ki gul-la-na a-še-er-bi gig-ga a-še-er-zu gig-ga uru2 a-še-er-zu ĝar-ra uri2ki gul-la-na a-še-er-bi gig-ga a-še-er-zu gig-ga ga-ša-an-zu mu-lu er2-re en3-še3 mu-un-kuš2-u3 a-še-er-zu gig-ga dnanna mu-lu er2-re en3-še3 mu-un-kuš2-u3 še-eb uri2ki-ma a-še-er gig-ga a-še-er-zu ĝar-ra e2-kiš-nu-ĝal2 a-še-er gig-ga a-še-er-zu ĝar-ra eš3 agrun-ku3 a-še-er gig-ga a-še-er-zu ĝar-ra ki-ur3 ki-gal a-še-er gig-ga a-še-er-zu ĝar-ra eš3 nibruki uru2 a-še-er gig-ga a-še-er-zu ĝar-ra še-eb e2-kur-ra a-še-er gig-ga a-še-er-zu ĝar-ra ĝa2-ĝiš-šu2-a a-še-er gig-ga a-še-er-zu ĝar-ra ub-šu-ukkin-na a-še-er gig-ga a-še-er-zu ĝar-ra še-eb uru2-ku3-ga a-še-er gig-ga a-še-er-zu ĝar-ra e2-tar-sir2-sir2 a-še-er gig-ga a-še-er-zu ĝar-ra ma-gu2-en-na a-še-er gig-ga a-še-er-zu ĝar-ra še-eb i3-si-inki-na a-še-er gig-ga a-še-er-zu ĝar-ra eš3 e2-gal-maḫ a-še-er gig-ga a-še-er-zu ĝar-ra še-eb ki-unugki-ga a-še-er gig-ga a-še-er-zu ĝar-ra še-eb uru2-ze2-baki a-še-er gig-ga a-še-er-zu ĝar-ra a-še-er-zu gig-ga ga-ša-an-zu mu-lu er2-re en3-še3 mu-un-kuš2-u3 a-še-er-zu gig-ga dnanna mu-lu er2-re en3-še3 mu-un-kuš2-u3 uru2 mu-zu i3-ma-al za-e mu-da-gul-en uru2 bad3-zu i3-il2 ka-na-aĝ2-zu ba-e-da-til

Transliteration and Translation  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39

The mother of Lagaš has abandoned it, her sheepfold—to the wind . . . Ĝatumdug has abandoned the house in Lagaš, her sheepfold—to the wind . . . She of Nina has abandoned it, her sheepfold—to the wind . . . The great lady has abandoned the house in Sirara, her sheepfold—to the wind . . . She of Kinirša has abandoned it, her sheepfold—to the wind . . . Dumuziabzu has abandoned the house in Kinirša, her sheepfold—to the wind . . . She of Guaba has abandoned it, her sheepfold—to the wind . . . Ninmarki has abandoned the shrine in Guaba, her sheepfold—to the wind . . . (The first kirugu) His sheepfold was delivered to the wind, he is grievously groaning. O cow, your lowing no longer sounds in the cattle pen, the cattle pen no longer brings joy to the prince! (Its ĝišgiĝal.)

 40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  61  62  63  64  65  66

O city, the wailing is bitter, the wailing raised by you! Your wailing is bitter, city, the wailing raised by you! His faithful, destroyed city—the wailing for it is bitter! His destroyed Ur—the wailing for it is bitter! Your wailing is bitter, city, the wailing raised by you! His destroyed Ur—the wailing for it is bitter! Your wailing is bitter! Your lady, the mourner, how long will she be grieving? Your wailing is bitter! Nanna, the mourner, how long will he be grieving? O brickwork of Ur, the wailing is bitter, the wailing raised by you! O Ekišnuĝal, the wailing is bitter, the wailing raised by you! O shrine, Agrunkug, the wailing is bitter, the wailing raised by you! O Kiur, great place, the wailing is bitter, the wailing raised by you! O shrine, Nippur, O city (of Nippur), the wailing is bitter, the wailing raised by you! O brickwork of Ekur, the wailing is bitter, the wailing raised by you! O Ĝaĝiššua, the wailing is bitter, the wailing raised by you! O Ubšukkina, the wailing is bitter, the wailing raised by you! O brickwork of Urukug, the wailing is bitter, the wailing raised by you! O Etarsirsir, the wailing is bitter, the wailing raised by you! O Maguena, the wailing is bitter, the wailing raised by you! O brickwork of Isin, the wailing is bitter, the wailing raised by you! O shrine, Egalmah, the wailing is bitter, the wailing raised by you! O brickwork of Uruk land, the wailing is bitter, the wailing raised by you! O brickwork of Eridu, the wailing is bitter, the wailing raised by you! Your wailing is bitter! Your lady, the mourner, how long will she be grieving? Your wailing is bitter! Nanna, the mourner, how long will he be grieving? O city, though your name yet is, you are destroyed! O city, though your walls rise high, your land has perished from you!

57

58

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

 67  68  69  70  71  72  73  74  75  76

uru2-ĝu10 u8 zi-gin7 sila4-zu ba-e-da-ku5 uri2ki uz3 zi-gin7 maš2-zu ba-e-da-til uru2 ĝarza-zu im-me-de3-kur2-ra me-zu me kur2-ra šu bal ba-ni-ib-ak a-še-er-zu gig-ga ga-ša-an-zu mu-lu er2-re en3-še3 mu-un-kuš2-u3 a-še-er-zu gig-ga dnanna mu-lu er2-re en3-še3 mu-un-kuš2-u3 ki-ru-gu2 2-kam-ma uru2 zi gul-la-na a-še-er-bi gig-ga uri2ki gul-la-na a-še-er-bi gig-ga-am3 ĝiš-gi4-ĝal2-bi-im

 77  78  79  80  81  82  83  84  85

nin lu2 e2 ḫul-a-ta uru-ni er2-re ba-an-di-ni-ib-ĝar d nanna lu2 kalam ba-an-da-til-la uri2ki-e a-nir-ra bar ba-an-da-ab-tab munus zi nin uru-ni-še3 kuš2-u3-de3 d nin-gal kalam-ma-ni-še3 u3 nu-ku-ku-de3 e-ne-ra nam uru-na mu-na-te er2 gig i3-še8-še8 nin-ĝa2 nam e2-a-na mu-na-te er2 gig i3-še8-še8 nam uru2 ḫul-a-na mu-na-te er2 gig i3-še8-še8 nam e2 ḫul-a-na mu-na-te a-nir gig-ga-bi im-da-ra-da-ĝa2-ĝa2

 86  87  88  89  90  91  92  93  94  95  96  97  98  99 100

munus-e ad-a-ni balaĝ er2-ra ki al-ĝar-ra-ba i-lu e2 si-ga tur-tur-bi ni2-te-na mi-ni-ib-be2 u4 ma-al-ma-al-la i-si-iš-bi ma-la2-la2 u4-da na-aĝ2-bi-še3 kuš2-kuš2-a-ĝu10-de3 lu2 nu-nuz-ĝen u4 ma-al-ma-al-la u4 ma-al-ma-al-la i-si-iš-bi ma-la2-la2 u4-da u4 gig-ga ma-ra ma-al-ma-al-la me-e u4-bi-še3 zaraḫ ḫe2-em-ši-ak u4-da a2-bi-še3 ba-ra-ba-ra-e3-en u4-tur-bi-še3 bala-ĝu10 u4 sa6-ga bala-ĝu10 u4 sa6-ga i-bi2 ba-ra-bi2-du8-a ĝi6-še3 a-še-er gig ma-ra ma-ma-al-la me-e ĝi6-bi-še3 zaraḫ ḫe2-em-ši-ak ĝi6 a2-bi-še3 ba-ra-ba-ra-e3-en u4 uru2-gin7 gul-lu-ba ni2-bi ḫa-ma-la2-la2 na-aĝ2-bi-še3 ki-na2 ĝi6-u3-na-ĝa2 ki-na2 ĝi6-u3-na-ĝa2 lib ba-ra-ma-ma-al

101

u4-tur-bi-še3 ki-na2-ĝa2 mu-uš-la2-a-bi ki-na2-[ĝ]a2 mu-uš-la2-bi nu-ši-in-ga-ma-ni-ib-tum2

Transliteration and Translation

59

 67  68  69  70  71  72  73  74  75  76

O my city, as (from) an innocent ewe, your lamb has been cut off from you! O Ur, as (from) an innocent goat, your kid has perished from you! O city, your rituals have been alienated from you, Your rites have been changed into alien rites! Your wailing is bitter! Your lady, the mourner, how long will she be grieving? Your wailing is bitter! Nanna, the mourner, how long will he be grieving? (The second kirugu) His faithful, destroyed city—the wailing for it is bitter! His destroyed Ur—the wailing for it is bitter! (Its ĝišgiĝal.)

 77  78  79  80  81  82  83  84  85

Because of the lady of the devastated house, her city was given over to tears, Together with Nanna, whose land has perished from him, Ur burns in wailing. The faithful woman, the lady, in order to grieve for her city, Ningal, in order not to rest on account of her land, Unto him, for the sake of her city she approached, bitterly she weeps. For the sake of my lady’s house she approached him, bitterly she weeps. For the sake of her devastated city she approached him, bitterly she weeps. For the sake of her devastated house she approached him, their2 bitter wailing she sets before him. The woman, her voice accompanied by the lyre of mourning with its alĝar, Softly intones a dirge for the silent house, all alone: “The storm that came to be—its sorrow hangs heavy on me. Grieving concerning the doom of the storm, As for me, the woman, the storm that came to be, The storm that came to be—its sorrow hangs heavy on me. In the “storm-day,” the bitter “storm-day” that came to be for me, Even if I moaned at that “storm-day,” The violence of the “storm-day” I could not escape! Before time, I could not see a good day for my reign, a good day for my reign. At the “(storm-)night”—when the bitter wails came to be for me— Even if I moaned at that “(storm-)night,” The violence of the “(storm-)night” I could not escape. The awesomeness of that storm, destructive as a flood, hangs heavy on me! Because of it, in my bedchamber at night, in my bedchamber at night, there is no silence for me, And before time, the quiet of my bedchamber, the quiet of my bedchamber, was also not allowed to me.3

 86  87  88  89  90  91  92  93  94  95  96  97  98  99 100 101

2.  That is, wailing of the city and the house. 3.  Literally, “was not brought to me.”

60

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136

ka-na-aĝ2-ĝa2 aĝ2-gig-ga ba-ĝal2-la-ke4-eš ab2 amar-ra-gin7-nam ki šu ḫe2-em-mi-ib-ak ka-na-aĝ2-ĝu10 ni2 šu-a ba-ra-mu-da-ab-gi4 uru-ĝa2 du-lum gig ba-ĝal2-la-ke4-eš mušen an-na-gin7 a2 dub2 ḫe2-em-ši-ak me-e uru2-ĝu10-še3 ḫe2-em-ši-dal-dal-en uru2-ĝu10 ki-ĝal2-ba ḫe2-en-ga-mu-de3-gul uri2ki ki-na2-bi-a ḫe2-en-ga-mu-de3-til šu u4-da an-ta ba-ĝal2-la-ke4-eš gu3 ḫu-mu-dub2 edin-na u4 gi4-a me-e ḫe2-em-ma-du11 u4-da gaba-bi ba-ra-mu-da-zi nu-nuz-ĝen agrun-ku3 e2 na-aĝ2-ga-ša-an-na-ĝu10 bala-ba u4 sud-ra2 na-ma-ni-in-ĝar-re-eš-am3 er2 a-še-er-ra ki ḫa-ma-ab-us2-am3 e2 ki ur5 sa6-ge saĝ-ĝi6-ga i3-me-a-ke4-eš ezen-bi-ta ib2-ba su-mu-ug-ga ḫe2-en-ga-mu-da-tab-tab-eš u4-tur-bi-še3 e2-ĝu10 ki sa6-ga e2 zi ḫul-a-ĝu10 i-bi2 ba-ra-bi2-du8-am3 ur5-ug7-a a-še-er aĝ2-gig-ga a-še-er aĝ2-gig-ga ḫu-mu-ni-in-tum2-tum2-mu e2 lu2 zi-de3 ba-ab-ĝar-ra-ĝu10 gi-sig ĝiškiri6-gin7 bar-ba ḫe2-bi2-in-dub2 e2-kiš-nu-ĝal2 e2 nam-lugal-la-ĝu10 e2 zi e2 er2-ra ba-an-di-ni-ib-ĝar-ra-ĝu10 lul-e-eš du3-u3-ba zi-de3-eš gul-lu-ba ḫa-la ba-bi-a ḫa-ma-ni-in-ĝar-re-eš-am3 za-lam-ĝar e2 ki-buru14 bu-ra-gin7 e2 ki-buru14 bu-ra-gin7 šeĝ14-ĝa2 ḫa-ba-ĝar uri2ki ama5 ni3-diri-ĝu10 lil2 uru2 si-ga mu-un-bu-bu-bu amaš lu2-sipa-da-gin7 ḫa-ba-bu-bu ni3-gur11 uru2 ĝal2-ĝal2-la-ĝu10 sug-ge ḫu-mu-da-ab-gu7 ki-ru-gu2 3-kam-ma uri2ki er2-re ba-an-di-ni-ib-ĝar ĝiš-gi4-ĝal2-bi-im

137 138 139 140

u4-ba u4-ne-en ba-si3-si3-ga-ba nin-da uru2-ni ba-an-da-gul-la-ba u4-ba u4-ne-en ba-dim2-dim2-ma-ba uru2-ĝu10 gul-gul-lu-ba im-me-ne-eš-a-ba

Transliteration and Translation 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136

Even if—because there was bitterness in my land— I trudged the earth like a cow after its calf, Nowise could I bring my land back to myself. Even if—because there was bitter distress in my city— I fluttered my wings like a bird of heaven, Even if I could fly to my city, Also then would my city have been destroyed on its site, Also then would Ur have perished where it lay. Even if—because the hand of the storm appeared from above— I screamed; even if I called to it, “O storm, return to the desert,” The storm would not depart.4 To me, the woman in Agrunkug, my house of queenship, They did not grant a reign of distant days; Weeping and wailing were established for me. And for the house that used to be the black-headed people’s place to soothe the spirit, Instead of its festivals—wrath and terror they multiplied. Before time, upon my house, the good place, My faithful devastated house—upon which no eye had been cast, Despair, wailings, and bitterness, Wailings and bitterness, they brought into it. My house founded by a faithful man, Like a garden fence was shoved over on its side. The Ekišnuĝal, my house of royalty, My faithful house that became a house of tears; Its building, falsely, its perishing, truly, They granted to me as its allotted share. As a tent, a dismantled harvest shed, As a dismantled harvest shed, it has been exposed to the rain-storm. Ur, my all-surpassing chamber— The wind that had been set in the city has uprooted it, Like a shepherd’s sheepfold, it was uprooted; The swamp has swallowed all my possessions accumulated in the city!” (The third kirugu) Ur has been given over to tears. (Its ĝišgiĝal.)

137 138 139 140

On that “storm-day,” when this very storm was created, When in the presence of the lady, her city had been destroyed, On that “storm-day,” when this very storm was created, When they had commanded the utter destruction of my city, 4.  Literally, “did not raise its breast.”

61

62

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172

uri2ki gul-gul-lu-ba im-me-ne-eš-a-ba uĝ3-bi ug5-ge-de3 a2 mu-un-aĝ2-eš-a-ba u4-ba me-e uru2-ĝu10-še3 ĝa2-la ba-ra-ba-ra-dag ka-na-aĝ2-ĝu10-ta ni2-šub me-e ba-ra-ba-da-ak an-ra a i-bi2-ĝa2 me-e ḫe2-em-ma-na-de2 d mu-ul-lil2-ra ni2-ĝu10 ša3-ne-ša4 ḫe2-em-ma-ak uru2-ĝu10 nam-ma-gul-lu ḫe2-em-me-ne-du11 uri2ki nam-ma-gul-lu ḫe2-em-me-ne-du11 uĝ3-bi nam-ma-til-e ḫe2-em-me-ne-du11 an-e e-ne-eĝ2-bi ba-ra-mu-un-gur d mu-ul-lil2-le i3-ša6 ḫe2-am3-bi ša3-ĝu10 ba-ra-bi2-in-še17 2-kam-ma-še3 pu-uḫ2-ru-um ki saĝ ki a-ba-da-ĝal2-la d a-nun-na e-ne-eĝ3 zu2 keš2-da-bi ba-an-da-dur2-ru-ne-eš-a ur2 ḫe2-em-ma-su3-su3 a2 ḫe2-em-ma-la2-la2 an-ra a i-bi2-ĝa2 me-e ḫe2-em-ma-na-de2 d mu-ul-lil2-ra ni2-ĝu10 ša3-ne-ša4 ḫe2-em-ma-ak uru2-ĝu10 nam-ma-gul-lu ḫe2-em-me-ne-du11 uri2ki nam-ma-gul-lu ḫe2-em-me-ne-du11 uĝ3-bi nam-ma-til-e ḫe2-em-me-ne-du11 an-e e-ne-eĝ2-bi ba-ra-mu-un-gur d mu-ul-lil2-le i3-ša6 ḫe2-am3-bi ša3-ĝu10 ba-ra-bi2-in-še17 uru2-ĝu10 gul-gul-lu-ba a2-bi ḫe2-em-ma-an-aĝ2-eš uri2ki gul-gul-lu-ba a2-bi ḫe2-em-ma-an-aĝ2-eš uĝ3-bi ug5-ge-de3 na-aĝ2-bi ḫa-ba-an-tar-re-eš me-e ni3-du11-ĝu10 mu-ne-šum2-ma-gin7 me-e uru2-ĝa2-da ḫe2-en-ga-mu-da-la2-e-eš uri2ki-ĝu10 ma-da ḫe2-en-ga-mu-da-la2-e-eš an-ne2 du11-ga-ni ur5 nu-kur2-ru-dam d mu-ul-lil2-le ka-ta e3-a-ni šu nu-bal-e-de3 ki-ru-gu2 4-kam-ma uru2-ni ba-an-da-gul-la me-ni ba-an-da-kur2-ra ĝiš-gi4-ĝal2-bi-im

173 174 175 176 177 178

d

en-lil2-le u4-de3 gu3 ba-an-de2 uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 u4 ḫe2-ĝal2-la kalam-da ba-da-an-kar uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 u4 du10 ki-en-gi-da ba-da-an-kar uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 u4 ḫul-ĝal2-e a2 ba-da-an-aĝ2 uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 kin-gal-u4-da u4-da gub-ba šu-ni im-ma-an-šum2 u4 kalam til-til-e gu3 ba-an-de2 uĝ3-e še am3-ša4

Transliteration and Translation 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172

When they had commanded the utter destruction of Ur, When they had ordered that its people be killed, On that day, I did not forsake my city, I did not neglect my land; I shed my tears before An, I myself made supplication before Enlil. “Let not my city be destroyed!” I said to them. “Let not Ur be destroyed!” I said to them, “Let not its people perish!” I said to them. But An would not change that word, Enlil would not soothe my heart with that “It is good; so be it.” 5 A second time, when there was an assembly in the solemn place, When the Anunna were seated for pronouncing a verdict, I bent my thighs, I stretched out my arms. I shed my tears before An, I myself made supplication before Enlil. “Let not my city be destroyed!” I said to them, “Let not Ur be destroyed!” I said to them, “Let not its people perish!” I said to them. But An would not change that word, Enlil would not soothe my heart with that “It is good; so be it.” The utter destruction of my city they ordered, The utter destruction of Ur they ordered, That its people be killed they decreed its destiny. Although I had given them my speech, Me they lumped with my city, My Ur they lumped with me as well. An—his word is never to be changed, Enlil—his pronouncement is never to be altered.” (The fourth kirugu) O, Her city that has been destroyed! O, her rites that have been changed! (Its ĝišgiĝal.)

173 174 175 176 177 178

Enlil called the “storm-day”—the people moan. Days of abundance he took away from the land—the people moan. Good days he took away from Sumer—the people moan. The evil “storm-day” he ordered—the people moan. To Kingaluda, the keeper of the storm, he entrusted (Sumer). To the “storm-day” that annihilates the land he called—the people moan. 5.  That is, Enlil refused to say “It is good; so be it.”

63

64

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207

im-ḫul-im-ḫul-e gu3 ba-an-de2 uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 d en-lil2-le dgibil6 a2-taḫ-a-na mu-un-na-ni-in-ku4-re u4 gal an-na-ke4 gu3 ba-an-de2 uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 u4 gal-e an-ta gu3 im-me uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 u4 kalam til-til-e ki-a mur im-ša4 im ḫul-e a-maḫ e3-a-gin7 a2-bi nu-ĝa2-ĝa2 ĝiš tukul uru2-ke4 saĝ-gaz i3-ak-e UR-bi i3-gu7-e an-na ur2-ba KAxŠE mu-un-niĝin uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 u4-da igi-ba izi mu-un-bar7-bar7 uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 u4 mir-mir-da izi-ĝi6-edin-na bar ba-da-an-tab an-bar7 bar-šeĝ3 il2-il2-la-ba izi im-ma-an-bar7-bar7 an-bar7-gan2 u4 zalag e3-a-ba u4 HI-da ba-da-an-tab kalam-ma u4 zalag-ga la-ba-an-e3 mul usan-gin7 ba-zal ĝi6 giri17-zal a2 še17 ĝar-ra-ba tum9u18-lu ba-da-an-tab šika bar7-bar7-da saḫar im-da-tab-tab uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 saĝ ĝi6-ga im im-ma-an-dal uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 ki-en-gi4 ĝiš-bur2-ra-am3 i3-bal-e uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 kalam-e saĝ eĝar du3 i3-ak-e UR-bi i3-gu7-e u4 gig er2-re nam nu-tar-re uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 u4 šu ur3-ur3-re kalam i3-ur4-ur4-re u4 a-ma-ru-gin7 uru2 i3-gul-gul-e u4 kalam til-til-e uru2-a me bi2-ib2-ĝar u4 ni3 u2-gu de2-de2 ḫul-ĝal2-e ba-e-DU u4 izi-gin7 bar7-a uĝ3-e su bi2-ib-dar u4 ḫul-gig du11-ga den-lil2-la2 u4 kalam-ta be4-be4 uri2ki-ma tug2-gin7 ba-e-dul gada-gin7 ba-e-bur2 ki-ru-gu2–5 kam-ma u4 ug-am3 al-du7-du7 uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 ĝiš-gi4-ĝal2-bi-im

208 209 210 211 212 213 214

u4-ba u4 uru2-da ba-da-an-ĝar uru2-bi du6-du6-da a-a dnanna uru-bi du6-du6-da ba-da-an-ĝar uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 u4-ba u4 kalam-ta ba-da-an-ĝar uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 uĝ3-bi šika ku5-da nu-me-a bar-ba ba-e-si bad3-ba gu2-ĝiri3 im-ma-ĝar-ĝar uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 abul maḫ ĝiri3 ĝal2-la-ba ad6 im-mi-in-ĝar-ĝar sila daĝal ezem-ma du3-a-ba saĝ numun-e-eš ba-ab-ĝar

Transliteration and Translation 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207

To all evil winds he called—the people moan. Enlil makes Gibil his aid, To the great storm of heaven he called—the people moan. The great storm howls above—the people moan. The land-annihilating storm roared below. The evil wind, like a mighty torrent, cannot be restrained. The weapons in the city 6 smash heads, consuming indiscriminately. At the base of heaven, it 7 whirled, roaring—the people moan. In front of the storm, a fire blazes—the people moan. With the raging storm, a fiery glow burns. At noon, when the fog usually dissipates, the fire blazes. At midday, when a bright sun usually rises, the somber “storm-day” scorched. In the land, the bright sun did not rise; like a twilight star it dawned. In the delightful night, the time when coolness sets in—the south wind scorched, By burning potsherds, the dust became scorching—the people moan. Over the black-headed people, the wind swept—the people moan. Sumer writhes as in a snare—the people moan. In the land, it (= the storm) dashes heads against the walls, consuming indiscriminately. The bitter storm by tears cannot be influenced 8—the people moan. The sweeping storm makes the land quake, The storm, like a flood, is completely destroying the city. The land-annihilating storm silenced the city. The all-exterminating storm came wickedly toward it.9 The storm, blazing like fire, ripped the flesh of the people. The storm ordered by Enlil in hate, the storm gnawing away the land Covered Ur like a garment, was spread over it like a linen cloth. (The fifth kirugu) The storm, a very lion, was attacking—the people moan. (Its ĝišgiĝal.)

208 209 210 211 212 213 214

On that day, the storm was removed from the city; that city into ruins, O Father Nanna, that city into ruins was made—the people moan, On that day, the storm was removed from the land—the people moan, Its people—though not potsherds—littered its sides. In its walls, breaches were made—the people moan, In its lofty city gates, which were accustomed to promenades, corpses were piled. In its boulevards, which were built in grandeur, heads were sown like seeds. 6.  Literally, “the weapons of the city.” 7.  “It” probably refers to the storm. 8.  Literally, “the bitter storm—by tears (its) fate is not determined.” 9.  Toward it = toward the city.

65

66

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235

e-sir2-e-sir2 ĝiri3 ĝal2-la-ba ad6 im-ma-an-ĝar-ĝar ki e-ne-di kalam-ma ĝal2-la-ba uĝ3 zar-re-eš bi2-in-du8 u3-mun kalam-ma urudu nagga-gin7 sur3-sur3 ba-ĝar-ĝar ad6-bi uzui3-udu u4-de3 ĝal2-la-gin7 ni2-bi-a mu-un-zal-le-eš lu2 uruduḫa-zi-in-e im-til-la-bi saĝ tug2 la-ba-ab-dul maš-da3 ĝiš-bur2-ra dab5-ba-gin7 ka saḫar-ra bi2-in-us2 lu2 ĝišgid2-da mu-un-ra-bi ni3-la2 ba-ra-bi2-in-la2-e-eš i-gi4-in-zu ki ḫa-ri-iš-tum ama-ba-ka uš2-bi-a mu-un-še21-eš lu2 ĝišmitum-e im-til-la-bi ŠU.NE ba-ra-bi2-in-la2-eš lu2 kurun naĝ-a nu-me-eš-a gu2 za3-ga bi2-in-la2-e-eš ĝiš tukul-e gub-ba ĝištukul-e in-gaz uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 lu2 kar-ra-bi u4 im-ma-du-bu-ul uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 uri2ki-ma si-ga kalag-ga-bi ša3-ĝar-ra im-til um-ma ab-ba e2-ta nu-e3 izi mu-ni-in-si3-si3-ke-eš di4-di4-la2 ur2 ama-ba-ka nu2-a ku6-gin7 a ba-an-tum2 emeda2 lirum kala-ga-bi lirum ba-an-da-du8 dim2-ma kalam-ma u2-gu im-ma-an-de2 uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 ĝalga kalam-ma sug-ge4 ba-ab-gu7 uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 ama dumu-ni igi-ni ba-ra-e3 uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 ad-da dumu-ni-ta ba-da-an-gur uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 uru-a dam ba-šub dumu ba-šub ni3-gur11 ba-bir-bir

236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249

saĝ-ĝi6 ki-saĝ-ĝal2-la-ba im-me-de3-re7-eš nin-bi mušen ni2 te-a-gin7 uru2-ni ba-ra-e3 d nin-gal mušen ni2 te-a-gin7 uru2-ni ba-ra-e3 ni3-gur11 kalam-ma ĝar-ĝar-ra-ba šu pe-el-la2 ba-ab-du11 ama5 kalam-ma šar2-šar2-ra-ba izi im-ma-an-bar7-bar7 a-niĝin2-ba dgibil6 lu2 sikil-la kiĝ2 mu-na-an-du3-du3 ḫur-saĝ sukud-ra2 šu nu-te-ĝe26-e e2-kiš-nu-ĝal2-la e2 zi-ba uruduḫa-zi-in gal-gal-e UR-bi i3-gu7-e šimaškiki elam lu2 ḫa-lam-ma ba3-gin2 ba-an-ak-ak-eš e2 zi ĝišal-e mi-ni-ib-bal-e-ne uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 uru du6-du6-dam mu-un-ĝa2-ĝa2-ne uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 nin-bi a uru2-ĝu10 im-me a e2-ĝu10 im-me d nin-gal-e a uru2-ĝu10 im-me a e2-ĝu10 im-me lu2 nu-nus-ĝen u3 uru2 mu-da-gul u3 e2 mu-da-gul

250 251 252

nanna eš3 uri2ki mu-da-gul mu-lu-bi ba-tu11-be2-eš ki-ru-gu2 6-kam-ma tur3-ra-na amaš-a-na nu-nus-e gu3 gig-ga mu-ni-ib-be2 d

Transliteration and Translation 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252

In all its streets that were accustomed to promenades, corpses were piled. In the places where the dances of the land had taken place, people were stacked in heaps. The land’s blood filled the ditches like copper and tin. Its corpses, like sheep fat left in the sun, of themselves melted away. Its men who were slain with the axe—(their) heads were not covered with cloth. Like a gazelle caught up in a trap, (their) mouths bit the dust. Its men whom the spear had struck down were not bound with bandages. As if in the place where their mothers gave birth to them, they lay in their blood. Its men who were brought to an end by the battle mace were not bandaged. Its men—though not drunk with beer—drooped neck over shoulder. He who stood up to the weapon, by the weapon was crushed—the people moan, He who ran away from it was stirred by the storm—the people moan. The weak and the strong of Ur, both perished in famine, Old women and old men who could not leave the house were consumed by fire. Little ones lying in their mother’s bosom, like fish were carried off by the waters; Their nursemaids with strong embrace—(their) embrace was pried open. The land’s good sense vanished—the people moan, The land’s counsel was swallowed by a swamp—the people moan. The mother looked away from her daughter—the people moan, The father turned away from his son—the people moan. In the city, the wife was abandoned, the child was abandoned, possessions were scattered about. The black-headed people were driven off from their strongholds. Their lady, like a frightened bird, escaped her city. Ningal, like a frightened bird, escaped her city. All their possessions that had been accumulated in the land were defiled. In the storehouses that abound in the land, fires were lit. At its ponds, Gibil, the purifier, did his work. The lofty, inaccessible mountain, the Ekišnuĝal— Its faithful house was entirely devoured by large axes. The people of Šimaški and Elam, the wreckers, counted its worth a mere half-shekel. The faithful house they have been tearing down with pickaxes—the people moan. The city they made into ruins—the people moan. Its lady cries: “Alas, my city!”, cries: “Alas, my house!” Ningal cries: “Alas, my city!”, cries: “Alas, my house!” “As for me, the woman, woe, the city has been destroyed, woe, the house has been destroyed, O Nanna, the shrine of Ur has been destroyed; its people have been smitten”. (The sixth kirugu) In her cattle pen, in her sheepfold, the woman cries out bitterly:

67

68

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

252a uru2 u4-de3 am3-gul-e 253 ĝiš-gi4-ĝal2-bi-im 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273

ama dnin-gal uru-ni lu2 erim2-gin7 bar-ta ba-da-gub lu2 nu-nus-e er2 e2 ḫul-a-na gig-ga-bi im-me egi2-re eš3 uri2ki ḫul-a-na gig-ga-bi im-me an-ne2 uru2-ĝu10 na-aĝ2 ḫa-ba-da-ku5 uru2-ĝu10 ḫu-mu-da-gul d mu-ul-lil2-le e2-ĝu10 aš2 ḫe2-bi2-in-bal ĝišal-e ḫa-ba-ra sig-ta di-ĝa2 izi ḫa-ba-ni-in-šub a uru2-ĝu10 ḫu-mu-da-gul d mu-ul-lil2-e i-bi2 nim-ta di-ĝa2 u3-bu-bu-ul ḫa-ba-ni-in-šub uru2 bar-ra uru2 bar ḫu-mu-da-an-gul a uru2-ĝu10 ga-am3-du11 uru2 ša3-ba uru2 ša3-ab ḫu-mu-da-an-gul a e2-ĝu10 ga-am3-du11 e2 uru2 bar-ra-ĝu10 ḫa-ba-gul-gul a uru2-ĝu10 ga-am3-du11 e2 uru2 ša3-ba-ĝu10 ḫa-ba-gul-gul a e2-ĝu10 ga-am3-du11 uru2-ĝu10 u8 zi-gin7 ba-ra-ma-lu sipa zi-bi ba-ra-ĝen uri2ki u8 zi-gin7 ba-ra-ma-lu gab2-bar-bi ba-ra-ĝen gu4-ĝu10 tur3-bi-a ba-ra-mu-un-gub mu-nu10-bi ba-ra-ĝen e-ze2-ĝu10 amaš-bi-a ba-ra-mu-un-šub na-gada-bi ba-ra-ĝen i7 uru2-ĝa2-ke4 saḫar ḫa-ba-niĝin e2 ka5-⸢a⸣ ḫa-ba-an-du3 ša3-ba a zal-le ba-ra-mu-un-tum2 mu-un-ku5-bi ba-ra-ĝen gana2 uru2-ĝa2-ke4 še ba-ra-ĝal2 mu-un-gar3-bi ba-ra-ĝen gana2-ĝu10 gana2 ĝišal-e ri-a-gin7 mul-gana2 pe-el ḫa-ba-mu2 pu2-ĝiškiri6 lal3 ĝeštin diri-ĝu10 ĝiškiši17 kur-ra ḫa-ba-an-mu2

274 275 276

eden giri17-zal-bi i3-du3-a-ĝu10 gir4-gin7 ḫa-ba-HAR.HAR mu-un-gur11-ĝu10 buru4mušen dugud zi-ga-gin7 dal-dal-bi ḫa-ba-ni-zi mu-un-gur11-ĝu10 gaam3-du11 mu-un-gur11-ĝu10 sig-ta di-ĝa2 sig-še3 ḫa-ba-ab-ir mu-un-gur11-ĝu10 ga-am3-du11

277

mu-un-gur11-ĝu10 i-bi2 nim-ta di-ĝa2 i-bi2 nim-še3 ḫa-ba-ab-ir mu-un-gur11-ĝu10 ga-am3-du11

278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287

ku3 na4za-gin3-ĝu10 ḫu-mu-da-an-bir-bir-re mu-un-gur11-ĝu10 ga-am3-du11 gi16-sa-ĝu10 sug-ge4 ḫu-mu-un-da-ab-gu7 mu-un-gur11-ĝu10 ga-am3-du11 ku3-ĝu10 lu2 ku3 nu-zu-ne šu-bi ḫa-ba-da-ab-si za-ĝu10 lu2 za nu-zu-ne gu2-bi ḫa-ba-da-ab-si buru5mušen mušen-ĝu10 ḫu-mu-da-dal-dal a uru2-ĝu10 ga-am3-du11 gi4-in du5-mu-ĝu10 ma2-e ḫa-ba-ab-laḫ5-e-eš a mu-lu-ĝu10 ga-am3-du11 me-le-e-a gi4-in-ĝu10 uru2 kur2-ra šu-še-er kur2 ḫa-ba-an-dab5 šul-ĝu10 eden ki nu-zu-na tug2 mu-un-dur7 ḫa-ba-an-ak me-le-e-a uru2-ĝu10 nu-me-a me-e ga-ša-an-bi nu-ĝen d nanna eš3 uri2ki nu-me-a me-e mu-lu-bi nu-ĝen

Transliteration and Translation

69

252a “The city has been destroyed by the storm.” 253 (Its ĝišgiĝal.) 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287

Mother Ningal kept away from her city like an enemy. The woman bitterly utters the wailing for her devastated house, The princess bitterly cries over her devastated shrine, Ur: “An has cursed my city—my city has been destroyed. Enlil has damned my house—it has been smitten by pickaxes. On my ones coming from the south, he hurled fire; Alas, my city has been destroyed. On my ones coming from the north, Enlil hurled flame. In the outer city, he has destroyed the outer city—“Alas, my city!” I shall cry. In the inner city, he has destroyed the inner city—“Alas, my house!” I shall cry. My houses of the outer city were all destroyed—“Alas, my city!” I shall cry. My houses of the inner city were all destroyed—“Alas, my house!” I shall cry. My city no longer multiplies for me like a trusty ewe, its trusty shepherd is gone. Ur no longer multiplies for me like a faithful ewe, its shepherd boy is gone. My oxen no longer stand in their cattle pen, their ox herd is gone. My sheep no longer crouch in their sheepfold, their herdsman is gone. In the rivers of my city, dust has gathered, foxholes are made therein. In its midst, no flowing water is carried, its tax-collector is gone. In the fields of my city, there is no grain, their farmer is gone. My fields, like fields wrought by a hoe, have grown idle weeds; My irrigated orchards that abounded with syrup and wine have grown mountain thornbushes. My plain that was magnificently planted is burned like a kiln. My possessions, like a flock of crows rising up, have risen in flight; “My possessions!” I shall cry. My possessions—he who came against me from the south has carried them to the south; “My possessions!” I shall cry. My possessions—he who came against me from the north has carried them to the north; “My possessions!” I shall cry. My precious metals and lapis lazuli have been scattered about; “My possessions!” I shall cry. My treasures the swamp has swallowed; “My possessions!” I shall cry. My precious metals—they who know not precious metals have filled their hands with it. My gems—they who know not gems hung them around their neck. My birds and fowl have flown away; “Alas, my city!” I shall cry. My daughters and sons have been carried off in ships; “Alas, my men!” I shall cry. Woe is me! My daughters, in a strange city, took an unfamiliar path. My young men, in a desert they know not, wear filthy garments. Woe is me! My city that ceased to exist, I am no longer its lady, Nanna, the shrine of Ur that ceased to exist, I am no longer its mistress,

70

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307

ar2-mur-ra e2-ĝu10 ḫa-ba-du3-a uru2-ĝu10 ḫa-ba-gul-la nu-nus zi-ĝen e2-ĝu10-ta uru2 kur2 ḫa-ba-ra-du3-du3-am3 ar2-mur-ra uru2-ĝu10 ḫa-ba-du3-a e2-ĝu10 ḫa-ba-gul-la ga-ša-an-gal-ĝen uru2-ĝu10-ta e2 kur2 ḫa-ba-ra-du3-du3-am3 me-le-e-a uru2 mu-da-gul u3 e2 mu-da-gul d nanna eš3 uri2ki mu-da-gul mu-lu-bi ba-tu11-be2-eš ⸢me⸣-le-e-a me-a tuš-u3-de3-en me-a gub-bu-de3-en me-le-e-a uru2-ĝu10-ta e2 kur2 ma-ra-an-du3-u3-ne ga-ša-an-gal-ĝen e2-ĝu10-ta uru2 kur2 ma-ra-ĝa2-ĝa2-ne ki-bi-ta eden-ta bad-ra2-bi a mu-lu-ĝu10 ga-am3-du11 uru2-ĝu10 uri2ki-ta bad-ra2-a-bi a uru2-ĝu10 ga-am3-du11 ⸢lu2⸣ siki-ni u2numun2-bur-gin7 šu mu-ni-dub2-dub2 gaba-ni ub3 ku3-ga-am3 i3-sag3-ge a uru2-ĝu10 im-me igi-ni er2-ra mi-ni-ib-zi-zi-i-zi er2 gig i3-še8-še8 me-l[e-e-a uru2-ĝu10-ta] uru2 kur2 ba-ra-⸢du3-u3-ne⸣ ga-[š]a-⸢an⸣-[gal]-⸢ĝen?⸣ [e2]-⸢ĝu10-ta⸣ e2 kur2 ba-ra-ma-ma-⸢ne⸣ me-le-e-a e2tur3 bu-ra-⸢ĝu10⸣ ab2 sag2 du11-ga-ĝu10 ga-ša-an-gal-ĝen na-gada pe-el-la2-gin7 ĝištukul ganam4-ma bi2-šub me-le-e-a uru2-ta e3-a-ĝen ni2 nu-dub2-bu-ĝen ga-ša-an-gal-ĝen e2-ta e3-a-ĝen ki-tuš nu-pa3-da-ĝen

308 309 310

i-gi4-in-zu gir5 uru2 kur2-ra saĝ-gin7 tuš-a-ĝen e2 ara5-ra aĝ2-gig-ga saĝ a-ba-a ma-ab-us2-e e2 ur5-ra mu-lu tuš-bi tuš-a ka e-ne-eĝ3 nu-diri-ĝen

311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325

ki-ba nam uru2-na mu-na-te er2 gig i3-še8-še8 nin-ĝa2 nam e2-a-na mu-na-te er2 gig i3-še8-še8 nam e2 ḫul-a-na mu-na-te er2 gig i3-še8-še8 nam uru2 ḫul-a-na mu-na-te er2 gig i3-še8-še8 me-le-e-a na-aĝ2 uru2-ĝu10 ga-am3-du11 na-aĝ2 uru2-ĝu10 gig-ga-am3 nin-ĝen e2 gul-la-ĝu10 ga-am3-du11 na-aĝ2 e2-ĝu10 gig-ga-am3 še-eb uri2ki-ma a du11-ga-ĝu10 a bi2-gi4-a-ĝu10 e2 zi-ĝu10 uru du6-du6-dam ba-mar-re-na-ĝu10 bur2-ra e2 zi gul-la-za-ka ba-e-de3-nu2-u3-nam gu4 šub-ba-gin7 in-ĝar-zu-ta ba-ra-mu-da-zi-ge-en me-le-e-a du3-a-bi lul-la gul-la-bi gig-ga nu-nus-ĝen eš3 uri2ki nidba-bi im-ma-an-kur2-ra-ĝu10 agrun ku3 e2 gibil-gibil-la-ĝu10 la-la-bi nu-gi4-a-ĝu10 uru-ĝu10 i3-du3-a la-ba-mar-ra-ĝu10 ta-a-aš ḫul-a-ĝu10 ba-gul in-ga-ba-ši-ḫul-a-ĝu10 ta-a-aš ḫul-a-ĝu10

Transliteration and Translation 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325

71

Upon the ruins into which my house has been made, upon my city that has been destroyed, I, the faithful woman, in place of my house, a strange city has been built. Upon the ruins into which my city has been made, upon my house that has been destroyed, I, Ningal, in place of my city, a strange house has been built. Woe is me! The city has been destroyed, and the house has been destroyed. Nanna, the shrine of Ur has been destroyed, its people smitten. Woe is me! Where shall I sit, where shall I stand? Woe is me! In place of my city, a strange house is being built. I, Ningal, in place of my house, a strange city is being set up. At their being removed from their place, from the plain, “Alas, my men!” I shall cry. At their being removed from my city, Ur, “Alas, my city!” I shall cry.” The woman plucks out her hair as if it were Alfa grass. Her chest, the holy drum, she beats; “Alas, my city!” she cries. Her eyes well with tears, bitterly she weeps: “Woe i[s me! In place of my city,] a strange city is being built. I, Nin[gal], in place of my [house,] a strange house is being set up. Woe is me! My uprooted cattle pen! My scattered cows! I, Ningal, like an unworthy herdsman, the weapon has fallen on (my) ewes. Woe is me! I am one who has gone forth from the city, I am one who can find no rest. I, Ningal—I am one who has gone forth from the house, I am one who can find no dwelling place. I am one who, as if a stranger, sits like a slave in a foreign city. In the despicable millhouse, who would help me? I am one who, sitting in a debtors’ prison among its inmates, can make no extravagant claims!” In that place, for the sake of her city, she approached him, bitterly she weeps. For the sake of my lady’s house, she approached him, bitterly she weeps. For the sake of her devastated house, she approached him, bitterly she weeps. For the sake of her devastated city, she approached him, bitterly she weeps: “Woe is me! The fate (of) my city!” I shall cry. “Bitter is the fate (of) my city!” I, the lady, “My destroyed house!” I shall cry. “Bitter is the fate (of) my house!” O, my flooded brickwork of Ur that has been washed away! O, my faithful house, O, my city, which you have made into ruins! In the . . . of your destroyed faithful house, I shall lie down alongside you. Like a fallen ox, from your wall I shall never rise up! Woe is me! False is its building, bitter is its destruction. I, the woman, my shrine of Ur, whose food offerings have been altered, My Agrunkug, my all-new-house, whose allure is no longer satisfying, My city, which was built but not (well) established, my one—what for?—devastated, My one both destroyed and devastated, my one—what for?—devastated,

72

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

326 327 328 329 330

a-da-lam u4 ḫul gig du11-ga a2-bi la-ba-ra-e3 uri2ki-ma e2 dsuen-na-ĝu10 gul-la-bi gig-ga ki-ru-gu2 7-kam-ma a uru2-ĝu10 a e2-ĝu10 ĝiš-gi4-ĝal2-bi-im

331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340

nin ša3-zu a-gin7 du3-am3 za-e a-gin7 i3-til3-le-en d nin-gal ša3-zu a-gin7 du3-am3 za-e a-gin7 i3-til3-le-en munus zi lu2 uru ba-e-da-gul-la i3-ne-še3-gin7 ⸢i3⸣-e-am3-mu2 d nin-gal lu2 kalam ba-e-da-til-la ša3-zu a-gin7 du3-[am3] u4 uru2-zu im-ma-gul-la-ba i3-ne-še3-gin7 i3-e-am3-mu2 u4 e2-zu im-ma-gul-la-ba ša3-zu a-gin7 du3-[am3] uru-zu uru kur2-ra ba-ab-ĝar i3-ne-še3-gin7 i3-e-am3-mu2 e2-zu e2 er2-ra ba-an-di-ni-ib-ĝar ša3-zu a-gin7 du3-am3 uru du6-du6-da ba-ĝar-ra-za mušen-bi nu-ĝen e2 zi ĝišal-e ba-ab-ĝar-ra-za tuš-bi-še3 la-ba-tuš-en

341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356

uĝ3 ki-lul-la ba-ab-laḫ5-a-za nin-bi-še3 la-ba-ku4-re-en er2-zu er2 kur2-ra ba-ab-ĝar ka-na-aĝ2-zu nu-še8-še8 er2-ša3-ne-ša4 nu-du12-a kur kur2 im-ma-tuš ka-na-aĝ2-zu ni3-du11 si-a-gin7 ka šu ba-ni-ib-dab5 uru-zu du6-du6-da im-ma-an-ĝar i3-ne-še3-gin7 i3-e-am3-mu2 e2-zu ša3-su3-ga im-ma-du3 ša3-zu a-gin7 du3-am3 gudu4-bi ḫi-li-a ba-ra-mu-un-du ša3-zu a-⸢gin7⸣ du3-am3 uri2ki eš3 lil2-e im-ma-an-ĝar i3-ne-še3-gin7 i3-e-am3-mu2 en-bi ĝi6-par3-ra ba-ra-mu-un-til3 i3-ne-še3-e-gin7 i3-e-am3-mu2 uz-ga lu2 šu-luḫ-e ki aĝ2-e šu-luḫ nu-mu-ra-an-ĝa2-ĝa2 a-a dnanna išib-zu šitax10 ku3-ga šu nu-mu-ra-ni-in-du7 lu2-maḫ-zu gi-gun4-na ku3-zu ša3-gada la-ba-an-la2 en zi ša3 ḫi-li-a pa3-da-zu e2-kiš-nu-ĝal2-la eš3-ta ĝi6-par3-še3 ḫul2-la-na nu-mu-ni-in-dib-dib-be2 a-u3-a e2 ezem-ma-zu ezem nu-mu-ni-in-du10-ge-eš šem3 kuša2-la2 ni3 ša3 ḫul2-le-da tigi2-a nu-mu-ra-an-du12-uš

357 358

uĝ3 saĝ ĝi6-ga ezem-zu-še3 a la-ba-an-tu5-tu5-ne gu-gin7 mu-dur7-ra zi ḫa-ba-ni-in-kud ulutim2-bi ḫa-ba-an-kur2

10. SILA3 (cf. score and comment to the line).

Transliteration and Translation

73

326 327 328 329 330

Now, it could not escape the force of the storm ordered in hate. O my house of Sîn in Ur, bitter was its destruction!” (The seventh kirugu). Alas, my city! Alas, my house! (Its ĝišgiĝal.)

331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340

O lady, how did your heart change? You, how will you live? O Ningal, how did your heart change? You, how will you live? O faithful woman whose city has been destroyed,11 now how will you thrive? O Ningal, whose land has perished,12 how did your heart change? After your city has been destroyed, now how will you thrive? After your house has been destroyed, how did your heart change? Your city has become an alien city, now how will you thrive? Your house has become a house of tears, how did your heart change? Your city that has been made into ruins—you are no longer its bird. Your faithful house that has been given over to pickaxes—you no longer dwell (in it) as its resident. Your people who have been led off to slaughter—you are no longer their lady.13 Your laments have become alien laments, your land no longer weeps; Performing no lamentation prayers, it 14 dwells in foreign countries. Your land, as if “overfilled” with words, is mouth-gagged. Your city was made into ruins, now how will you thrive? Your house has been laid bare, how did your heart change? Its gudu-priest is no longer walking in (his) wig; how did your heart change? Ur, the shrine, has been delivered to the wind, now how will you thrive? Its en-priestess no longer lives in the ĝipar, now how will you thrive? The uzga-priest, who cherishes lustrations, is no longer making lustrations for you. Father Nanna, your išib-priest no longer holds the ešda-vessel for you. Your lumah-priest, in your holy giguna-shrine, is no longer clad in linen. Your faithful en-priestess, voluptuously chosen, in the Ekišnuĝal, From the shrine to the ĝipar is no longer joyfully proceeding. The aua-priests, in your house of festivals, are no longer celebrating festivals.15 They are no longer playing for you the šem and ala drums that gladden the heart, nor the tigi. The black-headed people are no longer bathing for your festivals, Like a thread their lives were cut off in the dirt, their features have changed.

341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358

11.  Literally, “the person, that the city has been destroyed with you.” 12.  Literally, “the person, that the land has perished with you.” 13.  Literally, “you will not become their lady.” 14.  It = the ‘Land’, referring here to the exiled population of Ur. 15.  Literally, “are no longer sweetening festivals.”

74

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387

en3-du-zu er2-ra ba-e-da-an-ku4 en3 tukum-še3 SAR tigi2-zu a-nir-ra ba-da-an-ku4 en3-tukum-še3 SAR gu4-zu tur3-bi-a ba-ra-mu-un-gub i3-bi nu-mu-ra-ak-e e-ze2-zu amaš-bi-a ba-ra-mu-un-dur2-ru ga-bi nu-mu-ra-ak-e i3 gur3-ru-zu tur3-ta nu-mu-ra-tumu2 en3 tukum-še3 SAR ga gur3-ru-zu amaš-ta nu-mu-ra-tumu2 en3 tukum-še3 SAR šu-ku6 ku6 gur3-ru-zu ḫul-ĝal2-e ba-an-dab5 en3 tukum-še3 SAR mušen-du3 mušen gur3-ru-zu gir2-gir2-e im-de6 i7 ĝišma2-gur8-ra ba-ab-du7-za ša3-ba temesar ba-an-mu2 ḫar-ra-an ĝišgigir-ra ba-ab-ĝar-ra-za ĝiškiši17 kur-ra ba-an-mu2 nin-ĝu10 uru-zu ama-bi-gin7-nam er2 mu-e-ši-še8-še8 uri2ki dumu sila ḫa-lam-ma-gin7 ki mu-e-ši-kiĝ2-kiĝ2 e2-zu lu2 ni3 u2-gu de2-a-gin7 šu mu-e-ši-ša-an-ša sig4 e2 zi-da-zu lu2-ulu3-gin7 me-am3-zu im-me nin-ĝu10 e2-ta e3-a ḫe2-me-en uru-ta ba-ra-e3-me-en en3-še3-am3 uru2-zu nu-erim2-gin7 bar-ta ba-e-da-gub ama dnin-gal uru-zu nu-erim2-gin7 gaba-za ba-e-da-sa2 nin uru-ni ki aĝ2 ḫe2-me-en-na uru-zu-ta mu-e-tag kalam-ma-ni-še3 kuš2-u3 ḫe2-me-en-na za-e mu-e-tag ama dnin-gal gu4-gin7 tur3-zu-še3 udu-gin7 amaš-zu-še3 gu4-gin7 tur3 u4-bi-ta-zu-še3 udu-gin7 amaš-zu-še3 dumu ban3-da-gin7 ama5-zu-še3 nin-ĝu10 e2-zu-še3 an lugal diĝir-re-e-ne-ke4 muš2-am3-zu ḫe2-em-me d en-lil2 lugal kur-kur-ra-ke4 nam-zu ḫe2-eb-tar-re uru2-zu ki-bi ḫa-ra-ab-gi4-gi4 nam-nin-bi ak-a uri2ki ki-bi ḫa-ra-ab-gi4-gi4 nam-nin-bi ak-a ki-ru-gu2 8-kam-ma me-ĝu10 mu-da-an-kur2-ra ĝiš-gi4-ĝal2-bi-im

388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398

e u4-de3 u4-de3 kalam UR-a i-ni-ib2-ri u4 gal an-na-ke4 u4 gu3 dub2-dub2-be2 u4 gig kalam-ma ba-e-zal-la-ri u4 uru2 gul-gul-e u4 e2 gul-gul-e u4 tur3 gul-gul-e u4 amaš tab-tab-e ĝarza ku3-ga šu bi2-ib-la2-a-ri ĝalga ni3-arattaki šu pe-el-la2 im-mi-ib-du11-ga-ri u4 kalam-ma ni3 du10 im-mi-ib-ku5-da-ri u4 saĝ ĝi6-ga a2 bi2-ib-la2-a-ri ki-ru-gu2 9-kam-ma u4-ri u4 igi-ba teš2 nu-ĝal2-la-ri

Transliteration and Translation 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387

Your songs have been turned into laments before you, how long . . . ? Your tigi music has been turned into wailing, how long . . . ? Your ox is no longer standing in its cattle pen, it is no longer producing ghee for you. Your sheep is no longer crouching in its sheepfold, it is no longer producing milk for you. Your ghee-carrier is no longer carrying it to you from the cattle pen, how long . . . ? Your milk-carrier is no longer carrying it to you from the sheepfold, how long . . . ? Your fisherman (once) carrying fishes, an evildoer captured, how long . . . ? Your fowler (once) carrying birds, the lightning carried off. In the midst of your watercourses, (once) suitable for magur-ships, teme-plants grow. On your roads that had been constructed for wagons, mountain thornbushes grow. My lady, your city is weeping for you as for its mother, Ur, like a child lost in the street, is searching for you. Your house, like a man who has lost everything, stretches out its hands to you. The brickwork of your faithful house, like a human being, cries: “Where is she? ” My lady, you are one who has left the house, you are one who has left the city, How long will you keep away from your city like an enemy? Mother Ningal, you confront your city like an enemy! Although you are a lady loving her city, you have rejected your city, Although you are (a lady) toiling for her land, you have rejected your city, Mother Ningal, (return) like an ox to your cattle pen, like a sheep to your sheepfold! Like an ox to your cattle pen of former days, like a sheep to your sheepfold! Like a young child to your room, my lady, to your house! May An, king of the gods, say about you: “Enough!” May Enlil, king of all the lands, decree your destiny (favorably)! May he restore your city for you; exercise its ladyship! May he restore Ur for you; exercise its ladyship! (The eighth kirugu) My rites have been alienated from me. (Its ĝišgiĝal.)

388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398

Woe, storm after storm destroyed the land together. The great storm of heaven, the ever-roaring storm, The bitter storm that passed in the land, The storm that destroys cities, the storm that destroys houses, The storm that destroys cattle pens, the storm that devastates sheepfolds, That lays hands on the holy rituals, That lays defiled hands on the weighty counsel, The “storm-day” that cuts off all that is good from the land, The “storm-day” that binds the arms of the black-headed. (The ninth kirugu) That “storm-day,” the storm in whose face there is no shame!

75

76

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

399

ĝiš-gi4-ĝal2-bi-im

400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417

u4 ama nu-zu-ri u4 a-a nu-zu-ri u4 dam nu-zu-ri u4 dumu nu-zu-ri u4 nin9 nu-zu-ri u4 šeš nu-zu-ri u4 usar nu-zu-ri u4 ma-la nu-zu-ri u4 dam im-šub-ba u4 dumu im-šub-ba-ri u4-de3 u4 kalam-ma u2-gu bi2-ib-de2-a-ri u4 ḫul gig du11-ga im-mi-in-zal-la-ri a-a dnanna u4-bi uru2-zu-ta ur5 nam-ba-ĝa2-ĝa2 uĝ3 saĝ ĝi6-ga-zu igi-bi nam-bi2-ib-du8 u4-bi im an-ta šeĝ3-ĝa2-gin7 ki-bi-še3 nam-ba-gur-ru ni3-zi-ĝal2 an ki saĝ ĝi6 im-ma-tu10-ba-ri u4-ba du3-a-bi ḫe2-em-ma-gul-lu abul ĝi6 u3-na-gin7 ĝišig ḫe2-bi2-keš2-da u4-bi šudum-ma na-an-ni-ĝa2-ĝa2 ni3-ka9-bi e2 den-lil2-la2-ta ĝiškak-ta ḫe2-em-ta-si-ig ki-ru-gu2 10-kam-ma u4 ul u4 kur2-ra u4-da eĝir-bi-še3 ĝiš-gi4-ĝal2-bi-im

418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436

u4 ul kalam ki ĝar-ra-ta d nanna lu2 su16-na ĝiri3-zu mu-un-dab5-ba er2 e2 si-ga-bi mu-ra-an-de6 igi-zu-še3 du12-a-bi saĝ ĝi6 ba-ra-šub-bu-uš-a-bi kiri3 šu ḫa-ra-ab-tag-ge-ne uru du6-du6-da ba-ĝar-ra-za i-si-iš ḫu-mu-ra-an-ĝa2-ĝa2 d nanna uru ki-bi gi4-a-za pa e3 ḫa-ra-ab-ak-e mul-an ku3-gin7 nam-mu-ḫa-lam-e igi-zu-še3 ḫe2-bi2-ib-dib2-be2 diĝir lu2-ulu3-ke4 kadra mu-ra-an-de6 lu2 siskur2-ra-ke4 a-ra-zu mu-ra-ab-be2 d nanna arḫuš su3 kalam-ma-me-en en daš-im2-babbar2 ša3-zu im-mi-ib-du11-ga-ri d nanna lu2-ulu3-bi nam-tag-ga-ni u3-mu-e-du8 ⸢lu2⸣ a-ra-zu im-me-a-bi-ir ša3 ḫa-ba-na-ḫuĝ-e lu2 siskur2-ra mu-un-gub-ba-bi-ir igi-zi u3-mu-un-ši-bar d nanna igi du8-a bar-ra-zu ša3 šu niĝin2 su3-ga-am3 lu2-ulu3-bi u4 ḫul du3-a-bi ḫe2-em-ma-ši-zalag-ge ša3 kalam-ma ĝal2-la-še3 ḫe2-em-ma-ši-gam-e d nanna uru ki-bi gi4-a-za me-teš2 ḫe2-i-i ki-ru-gu2 11-kam-ma

Transliteration and Translation

77

399

(Its ĝišgiĝal.)

400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417

The “storm-day” that knows no mother, the “storm-day” that knows no father, The “storm-day” that knows no wife, the “storm-day” that knows no child, The “storm-day” that knows no sister, the “storm-day” that knows no brother, The “storm-day” that knows no neighbor, the “storm-day” that knows no confidant, The “storm-day” that throws down a wife, the “storm-day” that throws down a child, That “storm-day,” the storm that caused the land to perish, The “storm-day” ordered in hate, which passed— O Father Nanna, may that “storm-day” never be set in your city again, May your black-headed people see it no more, May that “storm-day,” like rain pouring down from heaven, never recur! That which smote all living beings of heaven and earth, the black-headed— May that “storm-day” be entirely destroyed, Like the city-gate at night, may the door be closed on it! May that “storm-day” not be placed in the reckoning, May its number be taken down from the peg in Enlil’s temple! (The tenth kirugu) Unto distant days, other days, to the end of the days! (Its ĝišgiĝal.)

418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436

From distant days, when the land was founded, O Nanna, the humble men who laid hold of your feet, Have brought to you their lamentations over the silenced house, their chanting before you. May the black-headed people who have been cast away from you pay homage to you. In your city that has been made into ruins, may a wailing be set up to you, O Nanna, may your restored city be resplendent before you. Like the bright stars, may it never be destroyed, may it walk before you. The (personal) god of a man brings you a greeting gift, The man of prayer utters a supplication to you, O Nanna, you who have mercy on the land, O Lord Ašimbabbar, at the prompting of your heart, O Nanna, after you have absolved that man’s sin, May your heart relent toward that man who utters supplications. After you look favorably upon that man standing in prayer, O Nanna, you whose penetrating gaze searches the bowels, May those people, those who suffered the evil-bearing storm,16 appear pure before you. For the sake of those dwelling in the midst of the land, may he bow down to you. O Nanna, in your restored city may you be praised! (The eleventh kirugu)

16.  Literally, perhaps: “those of the evil-bearing storm.”

Chapter 4

Commentary 1:

muš3–ga, Emesal for muš3–tum2 (Schechter 1990: 233, 335) basically means ‘to cease’, ‘to stop’ (e.g., LSUr 159:311; LE 135:6; Winter and Summer 151, 209). However, when taking an indirect object marked by the locative case, this compound verb has the nuance ‘to cease (being/doing something) in . . .’—that is, ‘to abandon’. See, for example: ma2 ma2-gur8-ra kar-za-gin3-na muš3 im-ma-ab-de6 (LSUr 322) ‘Boats and ships abandoned the shining quay’ (literally: ‘ceased [docking] at the shining quay’); and similarly Sargon and Ur-Zababa 7; Lipit-Eštar A 52. Accordingly, tur3-ra-na muš3 mi-ni-in-ga means, literally, ‘He ceased (being present) in his cattle pen’—that is, he abandoned his cattle pen. This understanding of muš3–tum2 (as opposed to the translation ‘he ceased working’; see Römer) is in keeping with the abandonment motif, typical of the Sumerian lamentations in general and the Ur lament in particular—a motif of major theological significance (see Green 1975: 304–5). As recognized already by Kramer (1970: 72), the elliptical phrase amaš-a-na lil2-e probably requires the logical predicate ba-ni-in-ĝar, which appears only in the ĝišgiĝal of this kirugu: amaš-a-na lil2-e ba-ni-in-ĝar (l. 37). 1 This interpretation is also supported by l. 347, which reads: uri2ki eš3 lil2-e im-ma-an-ĝar. 2 The omission of the verbal form in ll. 1−35 is not due to a lack of space (as interpreted by Kramer), 3 nor does it represent the well-known scribal habit of writing the refrain in full in the first line of the litany and then omitting a great part of it in the following lines. 4 Rather, we seem to have here a rarely used poetic device: the poet suspends the expected verb to cause tension that gradually increases by the ongoing litany of ruined cities. The climax of the kirugu is reached by the ĝišgiĝal which, at last, provides the missing verb. 5

1.  The predicate seems also to appear in the gloss to l. 32 in text P (see score). In this commentary section, references to authors without a date can be found cited fully in the list of abbreviations in the front matter of this volume. 2.  For a different interpretation of the refrain, see Jacobsen, who argues that both indirect locative objects (tur3ra-na and amaš-a-na) are related to the verb muš3 mi-ni-in-ga, translating the line accordingly: ‘He abandoned his cattle pen, his sheepfold to the winds’. 3.  Many manuscripts leave a blank space before the refrain (amaš-a-na lil2-e) or place the refrain in an indented line. This clearly indicates that the expected verbal form at the end of the line is not omitted because of the lack of space. 4.  This is because, in the present case, the full refrain (including the verbal form ba-ni-in-ĝar) first appears only at the end of the ĝišgiĝal (l. 37) in all manuscripts. See also comment to l. 2 below. 5.  It should be noted that, according to the present translation of the refrain amaš-a-na lil2-le (ba-ni-in-ĝar), the locative suffix in amaš-a-na is not justified. Kramer suggested that here, -na is a variant of -ni (Kramer 1940: 72 n. 698);

78

Commentary

79

The lamentation literature often uses phrases such as lil2-e . . . ĝar, lil2-e . . . sig3, lil2-e . . . du3, lil2-e . . . ku4, and so on to depict desolation (see, for example, LSUr 345, 347; LN 2, 6, 11; CLAM 101:157 et passim; Volk 1989: 141:48 et passim. For the use of expressions such as these outside the laments, see, for example, Dumuzi’s Dream 40; Inana and Bilulu 88 et passim). Recent translators often concluded that lil2 in these contexts means ‘phantom, ghost’, with lil2-e . . . ĝar/sig3/du3, etc., meaning ‘became haunted’ or the like (see the translations by Michalowski, Tinney, Cohen and Volk, respectively, for the above examples). This view follows Oppenheim (CAD Z 60b), who believed that Sumerian lil2 and Akkadian zaqīqu never refer to a wind. However, Oppenheim’s opinion has recently been refuted by Edzard (2003), who has shown that lil2 can have the meaning ‘wind’ in many contexts (see further AHw 1530; Jacobsen 1989; Attinger 1993: 709). 6 In addition to Edzard’s considerations, note that sometimes lil2 is used parallel with other terms that denote wind or storm. See, for example, ll. 129–31 below: e2 ki-buru14 bu-ra-gin7 šeĝ14-ĝa2 ha-ba-ĝar . . . lil2 uru2 si-ga mu-un-bu-bu-bu ‘Like a dismantled harvest shed, it has been exposed to the rainstorm . . . the wind that had been set in the city has uprooted it’; IddinDagan C ll. 14 and 16: sumun2 zi kur-bi za-e ša-mu-u8-tab-en im lil2-e bi2-tum3 ‘Vigorous wild bull, you flatten those mountains, delivering them to storms and winds’. Ninurta’s Exploits 276: mir mir-ra lil2 UR im-gaz-za-ta ‘after the storms and the winds have indiscriminately beaten’. In keeping with the storm motif typical of the lamentation literature, I opted for the translation ‘wind’. Note that a third possible translation, based on the connotation ‘nothingness’ for lil2, might be ‘he reduced it to nothing’. 2:

Many manuscripts (N1, N2, N3, N5, N7, N8, and inconsistently also G1 and L) omit the entire refrain, or parts of it, from this line on. This is a scribal convention attested in copies of many cultic laments: the scribes usually write the refrain in the first line (or the first two lines) in full and then omit it (or a great part of it) in the subsequent lines of the stanza, to be completed by the reader based on the first line.

6:

The meaning of the suffix -bi in e2-bi ki-ur3-ra, and in similar compounds below (e2-bi keš3ki-a, e2-bi unugki-ga, etc., ll. 8, 12, 18, 20, 28, 30, 32) is obscure. Kramer and Jacobsen understood it as a plural-possessive suffix, ‘their house Kiur’, but this translation is suitable only for the couplet 5–6, where a divine couple is referred to; similar compounds in this kirugu refer to a single diety (see e2-bi keš3ki-a, e2-bi unugki-ga, e2-bi uru2-ze2-baki-ke4, etc.). I prefer to understand the -bi as a demonstrative, literally meaning ‘that house, Kiur’. However, in order to prevent awkwardness, I translate ‘the house’. Note the addition of Ninurta to the list of deities in S.

7−8:

Two manuscripts have orthographic variants for keš3 in these lines: N3 has KI.EN2, and U2 has EN2.KI.ŠAR×GAD (in l. 8). The irregular orthography of the Nippur manuscript is exceptional. The tendency to inscribe this toponym unconventionally is otherwise typical

Jacobsen translated l. 37: ‘In his sheepfold he has had the wind settle’. See similarly Tinney, LN p. 127. 6.  Note that, in many Semitic languages, one term is used to mean ‘phantom’, ‘spirit’, and ‘wind’. See, for example, Hebrew ‫ רוח‬and Aramaic ‫( רוחא‬see Köhler 1994: 1197ff., 1979ff.).

80

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur of Ur scribes (e.g., Sjöberg 1969: 22:90 and 99; see additional comments to ll. 28, 31 below). For the absence of the determinative diĝir before ga-ša-an-maḫ-e in most manuscripts (as well as in ll. 10, 12, 15, 16, 31, and 35 below), see Schretter 1990: 174ff., sub gašan.

11:

For ki-unug as ‘Uruk’s district’, see Yoshikawa 1985; Michalowski, LSUr 88:172.

13:

Note the variant eš3 uri2ki-ma ‘the shrine Ur’ in manuscripts N9, U1 and G1; see ll. 250 and 256 below.

16:

For Agrunkug, Ningal’s sanctuary at Ur, see Charpin 1986: 212; Michalowski, LSUr pp. 105−6.

18:

Note that, based on the regular syntax of the repetitive formula in this kirugu, a locative is expected after the toponym (i.e., uru2-ze2-baki-ka instead of uru2-ze2-baki-ke4; see comment to l. 1 above). The additional line in S referring to the abandoning of Damgalnuna, Enki’s spouse (l. 18a), is probably secondary. It is inserted here for purposes of structural harmonization (see §1.3.2.1).

19:

Although it is a secondary addition (see §1.3.2.1 above), this line appears in the composite text, since it mainly follows P. For the insertion of this line in ms P, see §1.3.2.1.

21:

For u4-sahar-ra as the wife of Šara, see Sjöberg 1975a: 318 n. 2. Usahara appears also in cultic laments, followed by the epithet du5-mu mu-gig-ga ‘child of the ištaritu-woman’ (e.g., CLAM 237:303, 306:177, 361:237, 285:221).

22:

For the reading of the divine name dBa-ba6, see recently Rubio 2010. For Urukug, the sacred quarter of Ĝirsu that contained a Temple of Baba, see Opificius 1971.

23:

The interpretation of the difficult compound A-KA-ga as a shrine name and the tentative reading e4-du11-ga ‘House of Speaking’ (thus Sauren 1970: 46) may find support in a parallel from the cultic lament Immal-Gudede. Among other cities in the district of UmmaLagaš (CLAM 613:146–614:191), this lament mentions e2-du11-ga, referred to as Lamma’s shrine (CLAM 614:178; for the connection between Lamma and Baba, see comment on ll. 26–27). Note, however, that it is difficult to find a precedent for the use of e4 as part of a temple name (but see the late example in Cohen 1981: 74:12). Jacobsen took a du11-ga as an adjectival phrase meaning ‘submerged in water’ and translated the sentence as follows: ‘Was abandoning her flooded home’. a du11-ga is not uncommon in descriptions of destruction in the lamentation literature (e.g., CLAM 228:104−9; 328:193−200; 710:108−13; Cohen 1981: 111:21–22), but the appearance of the adjectival phrase a du11-ga before the noun qualified by it (ama5-na) is somewhat awkward. U1 has dA-KA-ga, perhaps understanding A-KA-ga as a divine surname of Baba, who seems to be the subject of this couplet. 7

7.  See the single line dedicated to Nin-ašte (l. 19).

Commentary

81

24:

For the (tentative) reading dab-ba-ba6 for dab-ba-U2, see An-Anum II 268: dAb-ba (with var. dAb-U2); 8 and further Selz 1995: 17 n. 4. Most manuscripts consider dab-ba-ba6 to be Baba’s mother (ama-ni), while N1 considers dab-ba-ba6 to be Baba’s descendant (dumu-a-ni). A son of Baba named dab-ba-ba6 is known from first-millennium lament tradition (CLAM 237:293, with Akkadian translation that refers to Ababa as a male god; 284:211, 360:227, 486:117; Cohen 1981: 91:35, 139:3; Kramer 1985: 124:197–225). 9 Reference to two different deities named dab-(ba)-ba6 is also found in An-Anum V 54 and 60: while l. 54 seems to refer to a male Ababa, 10 l. 60 refers to a female Ababa, identified as Baba’s mother. The present context seems to call for a female Ababa, since from l. 20 to the end of the kirugu, only goddesses are listed. See further Falkenstein 1966: 64–65. The reading dba-ba6 in N14 and N2 is most likely an error resulting from the similarity between dba-ba6 and dab-ba-ba6.

25:

Maguena, the name of the shrine of Ababa in Lagaš or Ĝirsu, also appears in l. 58 below; occasionally it appears as well in late cultic laments, dedicated to Baba, in lists of sanctuaries located in the cities of Ĝirsu, Lagaš, Nina, Sirara, and Guaba (see CLAM 611:94, 613:160; Cohen 1981: 108:7).

26–27: It is difficult to determine what deity is referred to by the epithets “the lamma of the temple” and “the lamma of the Etarsirsir.” Sjöberg (1974) and Foxvog et al. (1983: 449–50) have shown that the Lagaš tradition considered Lamma to be an independent deity with her own temple and priesthood, not merely a protective spirit. Lamma probably served in Lagaš as the vizier of Baba, appearing sometimes as dlamma without any further qualification and sometimes as dlamma ša6-ga, dlamma dba-ba6, or dlamma tar-sir2-sir2-ra. 11 However, in two third-millennium royal inscriptions, the DN (or epithet) dlamma tar-sir2-sir2-ra seems to refer to Baba’s mother. See Nammaḫani 6 ii 1–3 (Edzard 1997: 199): ama tu-dani dlamma-tar-sir2-sir2-ra kisal dba-ba6-ka ku4-ku4-da-ni ‘When her (i.e., Baba’s) birthing mother, the “Guardian Genius of Tarsirsir” ’; 12 note also the reconstructed Šulgi 2102:1–3 (Frayne 1997: 203): [dlamma-tar-s]ir2-[si]r2-ra [ama d]ba-ba6 [nin-a]-ni ‘to the [“Guardian Genius of Tarsir]sir,” the [mother] of Baba’. Thus the possibility cannot be excluded that 8.  But see Litke’s (1998) comment to V 54 on p. 154. 9.  Note that, unlike in earlier texts, the first-millennium cultic laments always refer to Baba’s son, Ababa, using the orthography daba-ba6 (= dAB-ba6), whereas an apparently female Ababa (spelled as dab-ba-ba6) appears in the lament Immal-Gudede (CLAM 619:249) among other lamenting goddesses. The orthographic difference between the god dababa6 and the goddess dab-ba-ba6 in these laments seems to be a scribal convention aimed at distinguishing between them. 10.  The sign ŠU appearing next to the name of the deity in l. 54 is perhaps to be understood as marking a new entry that is not directly related to the previous entries (see Litke’s [1998] remarks on p. 13). If this understanding is correct (see Litke’s comment on l. 60, however), Ababa here is probably a god, whose wife, Gula, is presented next. For Ababa as a male deity, see also Enki and Ninhursaĝ 256 and 273. 11.  In Old Sumerian Lagaš, however, the relationship between Lamma and Baba was probably different. Selz (1995: 158–60) has shown that in the Old Sumerian Lagaš tradition, Lamma is usually a designation for Baba; the specific epithets attached to Lamma, such as Lamma-Tarsirsir, Lamma-sa6-ga, etc., in Selz’s opinion refer to specific statues of Baba. 12.  But note that, based on Edzard’s translation, ama tu-da-ni refers to Nin-kagina of the preceding line rather than to dlamma-tar-sir2-sir2-ra of the following line.

82

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur the poet devoted two couplets to Ababa, the mother of Baba—one using her proper name and another using her epithet. I argue that e2-a-ke4 > e2-e-ke4 by vowel harmony. See the variants [ama] e2-ak-e, ama e2-a-ke4 and ama e2-e-ke4 in CLAM 282:186 (an OB version). See further SP 12 B 6, 12 B 7; Enlil and Sud version B 15. For the reading of G (dlamma-e e2-e-ke4), see perhaps Yoshikawa 1992. If we presuppose that the variant d⸢lamma⸣ e2 ku3-ke4 (so N1 and P) is an error for d ⸢lamma⸣ e2 e-ke4, then it reflects the process of copying from another tablet rather than from memory or dictation.

28:

For the reading of P, see comment to ll. 26–27 above. The alternation umma/lamma may be another example of a memory-based error (see comment on l. 105 below). U2 has an irregular orthography for Lagaš here and probably also in l. 29 below. For the tendency of Ur manuscripts to use irregular orthographies of toponyms, see also the writings of Keš in l. 8 above and the writing of Sirara in l. 31 below.

29:

For ma-ze2-ze2-be2 as the Emesal form of Ĝatumdug, see Schretter 1990: 210. For the reading ki-lagaški-a in N8, N11, N14, N16, and G1, see the comment on ki-unugki in l. 11 above. Note the interesting variant of P: eš3 m[a]-ze2-⸢ze2⸣-eb e2-ba lagaški-a muš3 mi-ni-in-ga ‘She has abandoned Ĝatumdug’s Temple, the house in Lagaš’. According to this version, the abandoning deity here is not Ĝatumdug but the goddess referred to in the previous couplet (whose identity is not clear; see comment on ll. 26–27).

30−31: The epithet “She of Nina” most likely refers here to Nanše, who was the patron deity of this city. Accordingly, I interpret ga-ša-an gu-la as Nanše’s divine epithet rather than the name of an unknown goddess (see Kramer and Römer). Note, however, the occurrence of a goddess named Ningula in An-Anum IV 41 (see further Oppenheim 1948: 101 III 7). For Nina, a city in the district of Ĝirsu-Lagaš, see Heimpel 1981: 98–99; Edzard 2000 (the reading nina for the city written AB×ḪAki follows Edzard, contra Heimpel). sirara3 (UD.MA2.AB×ḪA.TAG) usually refers to the temple-(quarter) of Nina but is sometimes used as the name of the city. Here it must designate the temple-(quarter), since the city is mentioned in the preceding line. See the parallel in LSUr 180–81, where Nina is designated the “city” of Nanše (uru-ni) and Sirara—as ‘her beloved dwelling’ (ki-tuš ki aĝ2ĝa2-ni). See further Falkenstein 1966: 17–19; George 1993: §992. Note the irregular writing of Sirara in U2, G1, and P. For exceptional orthographies of toponyms, see comments to ll. 8 and 28 above. 32−33: Kinirša was the cult center of the goddess Dumzi-abzu in the environs of Lagaš. The GN is usually written ki-nir-šaki (Edzard 1980a; Sjöberg 1969: 109:300). Hence, the Emesal form ki-nir-ša3-baki seems to reflect a folk etymology (Edzard 1980a). The variant ki-nir-ša-baki, which appears in four Nippur manuscripts, may be a phonetic orthography representing the same etymology. For a variant writing of this GN, see LSUr 178, texts B and EE. For the goddess Dumuzi-Abzu, see Sjöberg 1969: 109−10; Jacobsen 1970: 23. Note the appearance of this deity as a male god in Sefati 1990: 53:30.

Commentary

83

34−35: As shown by Attinger (1995), the element KI in the DN Nin-MAR.KI is probably not a determinative, and MAR is consequently not a toponym; the reading of Nin-MAR.KI remains uncertain (see further Selz 1995: 256–57; Sallaberger 2001). Whereas the different reading in N8 and U2 (e2-bi instead of eš3) is poetically acceptable, the omission of the shrine name in N3 is hard to justify, since it interrupts the regular structure of the couplets in this kirugu (see §1.3.2.1 above). 36:

Although the meaning of kirugu as a technical term that indicates a song or a defined section of a song is quite well established on the basis of context and bilingual evidence (see CAD Š/2 335a, sub šēru B), the etymology of this term is still uncertain. For a comprehensive summary, see Green 1975: 284. See further Wilcke 1976: 260; Hartmann 1960: 232−38; Ludwig 1990: 30. The insertion of -a before -kam in N4, N11, L, and P is unique to the number 1. In the other kirugus, the numbers are not followed by -a, with the rubric being ki-ru-gu2 2-kam, ki-ru-gu2 3-kam, and so on. The same phenomenon occurs in rubrics of other compositions using kirugus (e.g., LSUr 112 as opposed to ll. 357, 478, and 519; Iddin-Dagan A 17; Ur-Ninurta A 16; Abī-ešuh A 11). 13 The addition of -a after the number 1 is apparently a scribal convention rather than a phonological phenomenon, since this is not the only numeral ending with a consonant (see Edzard 2006: §10.2).

37:

The verb kuš2, as a rule, takes animate subjects (see ll. 46, 47, 63, 64, 71, 72, 80, and 377 below; LN 212; LSUr 370; Inana’s Descent 218−21, 237, 239; Ninurta’s Exploits 3, 114, 306; Gilgameš and the Nether World 244; Lugalbanda and the Anzu Bird 168, 226, 234; CA 54). I therefore argue that the subject of the verb mu-un-kuš2-u3 is the god, not the lament (see Falkenstein and Römer). 14 Consequently, I consider i-si-iš-bi to be an adverb rather than a noun with a possessive suffix. See the especially instructive parallel in Inana and Bilulu 27 (=28): [ddumu]-⸢zi⸣ ka ku3 igi sa6-sa6 i-si-iš-bi mu-un-kuš2-u3 ‘She (= Inana) groans grievously, “O [Dumu]zi of the fair-spoken mouth, of the ever kind eyes’’.’

38:

The metaphor of the cow lowing in its stall is used to symbolize abundance and joy in IšmeDagan J 1–2: ab2 gu3 dug3-ga amar gu3 sud-ra in-nin9-e tur3-e ĝen-na-e ‘To the cow of the sweet voice, to the calf of the gentle voice, lady, go to the stall’ (see Klein 1998). Here the same metaphor is used in the opposite context, where the desolation of the temple, which is likened to a cattle pen, is manifested by the ceased lowing of the cow. There is ambiguity in the reading and meaning of the verb DU7. Jacobsen and Römer read it du7, translating ‘the cattle pen is not fitting for the prince’. However, in light of the motif of the joy felt by the goddess at the sound of the cattle in the pen in the parallel mentioned above, I prefer to read ul and translate ‘the cattle pen no more brings joy to the prince’. A third possible reading is ĝal2 tur3 nun-e nu-du7 ‘it (the cow) no longer butts

13.  For 1-a-kam in a different context, see, for example, Šulgi B 148, text QQ+PP (the other four manuscripts yield 1-kam or 1-am3). 14.  Kramer translates ‘he makes grievous its wail’, taking the god as the subject of the verb but understanding it as a transitive (or causative) verb, and taking i-si-iš as a direct object. Jacobsen interprets the verb as referring to the storm, translating ‘dolefully it (= the wind) is groaning’.

84

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur the noble stole’. 15 Note, however, that the verb du7 ‘to gore’ appears in literature only with regard to male animals (esp. gud) and in connection with masculine activities, such as fighting.

39:

For ĝišgiĝal, a technical (and probably liturgical) term that designates a brief passage of one or a few lines that appear after a song section, see Green 1975: 285–86; Hartmann 1960: 239−40. The first kirugu is written in the Emesal dialect: in addition to the Emesal verb muš3− ga, which recurs in each line, we also find Emesal forms in ll. 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, and 35 (see at length Kramer 72 n. 694). 16

40:

a-nir−ĝar usually denotes a spontaneous and free lamenting rather than an official performance of a fixed lament (see the examples in PSD A/1 128−29, sub a-nir−ĝar); I therefore opt for ‘raise wailing’ rather than ‘lament’. The phrase uru2 a-še-er gig-ga a-še-er-zu ĝar-ra functions as a refrain in this kirugu, although, as opposed to the refrain of the first kirugu, it is not uniform but appears in the following variant forms: City/Temple Name + a-še-er gig-ga a-še-er-zu ĝar-ra (ll. 40, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62) a-še-er-zu gig-ga uru2 a-še-er-zu ĝar-ra (ll. 41, 44) City (Name) + gul-la-na + a-še-er-bi gig-ga (ll. 42, 43, 45, 74, 75) 17 a-še-er-zu gig-ga ga-ša-an-zu (dnanna) mu-lu er2-re en3-še3 mu-un-kuš2-u3 (ll. 46, 47, 63, 64, 71, 72)

Variant 1 of the refrain could be understood as consisting of either one sentence, with gigga functioning as an attribute of a-še-er (see, for example, Kramer: ‘O city, a bitter lament set up as thy lament’); or two sentences, with gig-ga functioning as the predicate of the first sentence: ‘the wail is bitter’. The latter interpretation is supported by the other forms of the refrain (2–4), which contain the phrase a-še-er-zu/bi gig-ga ‘your wail is bitter’; and by the variant reading a-še-er gig-ga-am3, furnished by several manuscripts. 42−43, 45:  I understand the -a at the end of gul-a-na in these lines to be an anticipatory genitive (‘of his faithful, destroyed city—its wail is bitter’). Alternatively, the -a could be a locative; See ETCSL: ‘In his righteous destroyed city its lament is bitter’. Note that in manuscripts N11, L, and perhaps also N18, which omit the -bi after a-še-er in l. 43, the -a can be understood only as a locative. The expanded version of N11 in l. 43, which adds a-še-er-zu ĝar-ra, may have resulted from a fusing of l. 43 with the second half of l. 44; note that l. 44 is omitted in this manu15.  I am thankful to P. Michalowski (private communication) for suggesting this reading. 16.  Note that there are many exceptions; see the primary-dialect forms nin-lil2 (ll. 5, 6), nin (ll. 7, 11), dumu (l. 33; but also see the variant du5-mu in several manuscripts), and ĝar (l. 37). The appearance of primary-dialect forms in an Emesal-written passage is a common phenomenon; in fact, this is the normal state of an Emesal text (see Schretter 1990: 97ff., and additional bibliography there). 17.  These sentences have an anticipatory genitive construction. See comment on ll. 42–43 below.

Commentary

85

script. For the reading of N16 in the beginning of l. 45 ([u]ri2⸢ki⸣ uru2), see l. 52 (eš3 nibru⸢ki⸣ uru2). 46−47: Some translators have concluded from the parallelism between ll. 46 and 47 that ga-šaan-zu in l. 46 is an epithet for Nanna in l. 47, translating it ‘your lord’ (Kramer; ETCSL); but since Ningal plays a central role in this lament, it is likely that the poet mentions her before her spouse. Note also the variant ga-ša-an-gal-zu ‘your Ningal’ in U2. For similar parallelism between a goddess and her spouse, see ll. 20−21 above. The final -e of mu-lu er2-re is probably a genitive that became -e(k) by vocal harmony. This is supported by the reading mu-lu er2-ra in manuscripts U2 (consistently appearing in ll. 46, 47, 63, 64, and 72) and N17 (l. 47). Elsewhere, this compound appears as mu-lu er2ra-ke4 (e.g., CLAM 132:180; 164:229). For kuš2, see comment to l. 37, above. The rhetorical question en3-še3 ‘how long?’ addressed to the deity and frequently combined with the verb kuš2 is characteristic of lamentation literature. See LN 143, 179, 181, 195; LSUr 398; CLAM 66:1–14; 130:122; 155:25−29; 163:209; 191:73−74; 196:77−83; 226:70; 230:159ff.; 385:28ff.; 405:36; 414:29; 457:1; 461:68; 481:13ff.; Cohen 1981: 122:19; Gabbay 2007: 17. 48–62: For the differences between the manuscripts regarding the sequence of cities listed in this passage, see §1.3.2.2 above. 60:

Since the preceding line was dedicated to Isin, the Egalmaḫ mentioned here should be identified as the well-known Egalmaḫ of Ninisina in Isin (George 1993: §318; see l. 10 above).

63−64: See comments to ll. 46−47 above. 65−69: The dimensional infix -(e)-da- recurs here as follows: mu-da-gul-en (65), ba-e-da-til (66), ba-e-da-ku5 (67), ba-e-da-til (68), im-me-de3-kur2-ra (69; for the shift e-da > e-de3, see Gragg 1973: 43). Note that -da- and -e-da- should be interpreted differently. -da- in l. 65 is probably a comitative, with the adverbial meaning of ‘completely, altogether’ typical of verbs of destruction (Gragg 1973: 52; 34−35; see further ll. 108, 171, 249, 257, 259, and 261 below). 18 The infix -e-da- in ll. 66, 67 and 68 should be understood as a second-person singular ablative, referring to the city (‘from you’; For the shift ta > da, see Gragg 1973: 47ff.). 66:

For the phrase kalam . . . til in other laments, see LE seg. C 17; LN 129; CLAM 639:25. The reading of G1, i3-ma-⸢al⸣ (for i3-il2), is erroneously repeated from l. 65.

67:

The erroneous variant reading of U2, which is uru2-ĝu10 uz3 zi-gin7 sila4-zu ba-e-da-til, was caused by the following line or by the assonance between u8 zi and uz3 zi.

18.  Note, however, that Gregg himself, when referring to LU ll. 65–68, interpreted them differently: while the infixes in ll. 65, 66, and 68 are used as examples for the function of comitative as an adverbial modifier, the infix in l. 67 is considered by him to be an ablative. This interpretation does not take into account the second-person pronominal infix -e- in -e-da-.

86

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

69−70: My translation assumes that im-me-de3-kur2-ra ends with a shortened -am3 (see ms L; see also the ĝišgiĝal of the eighth kirugu below: me-ĝu10 mu-da-an-kur2-ra ‘my rites have been alienated from me’ (l. 386). Jacobsen prefers to consider the final -a as a nominalizing suffix, translating: ‘City, for your ritual functions, which were shifted from you, and your sacred offices, an enemy’s sacred office have been substituted’; but this translation breaks the structural and thematic parallelism between the two lines. The translation of l. 70 is based on Civil (1976: 79), who shows that when šu-bal−ak, appears “with two objects, the second with the locative postposition . . . the meaning is ‘to change Object1 into Object2.’” Grammatically, the locative probably marks the logical direct object (see Edzard 2006: §12.15.1.2). The topos of changing the rituals (ĝarza) of the city into alien rituals or the change of its bala (rule), dim2 (thought, good sense), me (rites), or umuš (good counsel) is typical of lamentation literature. Alienating the ĝarza and me of a city symbolizes the decision of the gods to abandon the formerly favorite city and to favor an alien city instead. See: me ki-en-gi-ra šu bal ak-de3 ‘to overturn the rites of Sumer ( . . . An, Enlil, Enki, and Ninmaḫ decided its fate)’ (LSUr 3 . . . 55); dim2-ma-bi šu bal a-ba-a bi2-in-ak umuš-bi a-⸢ba⸣-[a bi2in]-⸢kur2⸣ ‘Who changed Uruk’s good sense? Wh[o al]tered its good counsel?’ (LW 22); and see further Cohen 1981: 70:21; CLAM 126:62. 71:

Note the expanded version of U2 mu-lu er2 i-lu ‘she of tears and lament’. For ga-šan-gal-zu in the same manuscript, see comment to ll. 46−47 above.

74−75: See comment to ll. 42−43 above. The second kirugu, like the first one, is written in Emesal (see Kramer 76). 77:

For the translation of nin as ‘lady’ and not as ‘lord’ (contra Kramer and ETCSL), see comment to ll. 46−47 above. The postposition -ta should be understood as a variant of the comitative with causal meaning (Jagersma 2010: §7.11, 27.6.5; contra the common translation ‘together with the lady’). Since lu2 is not followed by a finite verb, it is not likely to function as a relative pronoun (‘whose house had been devastated’, which most translators have). We regard lu2 as ‘she of ’, see mu-lu er2-re ‘she of tears’ in ll. 46, 47, 63, 64, 71, and 72 above. Note, however, that our translation of this line breaks the symmetry between l. 77, which is dedicated to Ningal, and ll. 78−79, which refer to Nanna.

78:

Note that the two Ur manuscripts and G1 read dnin-gal for dnanna, rendering the goddess the single subject of ll. 77–79.

83:

Note that the reading nin-ĝa2 (see N25, U2, G1, and G2) replaces the reading nin-ra of previous editions. 19 The version nin-ra (N11) may reflect a memory-based error, perhaps under the influence of e-ne-ra in the previous line (see comment on l. 105 below).

19.  The defective reading nin-ra . . . mu-na-te in l. 83. has resulted in forced translations. Whereas the context clearly points to Ningal as the one who approaches the god (mu-na-te) and laments before him, the apparent -ra attatched to nin allegedly points to Ningal as the addresee of the lament. Translators have suggested that the personified city of Ur approaches Ningal and weeps before her (see Falkenstein; Jacobsen considered the personified doom of the city to be the

Commentary

87

85:

For the ablative -da-ra-da-, see Gragg 1973: 97−98; Civil 1973: 27. For the possible nuance of the verb ĝar with the ablative, see Gragg 1973: 33. In this case, it my indicate, figuratively, the placing of the lament by Ningal in front of the god. U2 has pe-el for ḫul; for these two terms as synonyms in the phraseology of laments, see Michalowski, LSUr 73.

86:

My tentative translation posits that ki should be understood as itti ‘with’ (CAD 302bff.). For the al-ĝar, here probably an accessory of the balaĝ instrument, see Veldhuis 1997b. 20 Sjöberg translated ‘the lady, having composed her song (to the accompaniment of) her lyre of laments’ (PSD B 77a; so also ETCSL). Jacobsen regarded ad-a-ni as the personal name of Ningal’s balaĝ, and ki–ĝar as a verb, translating ‘having placed her Ninda’a, the harp of the mourning’ (the reading ninda’a for ad-a-ni was probably based on a corrected reading of U2). For the identification of the balaĝ instrument as a lyre (at least in the second millennium), see Gabbay 2007: 57−64, with additional bibliography.

87:

To support the rendering of tur-tur-bi as an adverb meaning ‘quietly, softly’, Römer refers to the opposite expression, ad gal du11-du11 ‘singing with a loud voice’ (Asarluhi A 13; Temple Hymns 298; Sjöberg 1969: 109).

88−91: The syntax of these lines is difficult. Line 89 ends with the so-called “conjugated participle” kuš2-kuš2-a-ĝu10-de3 ‘while I am grieving’, and therefore it cannot be regarded as an independent sentence (contra Jacobsen). Neither can the sentence end at l. 90, which, according to most manuscripts, does not contain a finite verb or a copula. Hence, I consider ll. 89−91 to contain one sentence. Note that this delimitation of the sentence fits the tendency of this kirugu to repeat phrases twice in one sentence (in this case, u4 ma-al-maal-la; see §1.3.2.3 above). Kramer followed P, which apparently has a finite verb in l. 90 (ma-[la2-la2]), 21 translating ll. 89−90 as follows: ‘Raging about because of the storm, me, the ‘lady’, the storm ever breaking forth—its wail has filled me full’. The translation ‘raging about’ reflects the reading sur2/sumur for DUL3. I opt, however, for the reading kuš2, in keeping with the common use of this verb to describe mourning in LU. Special attention should be paid to the term u4(-d). In this kirugu, as well as in many other lamentations, it occurs with the meanings ‘day’ and ‘storm’, alternately, sometimes appearing with both meanings in one sentence. It seems that any attempt to adhere consistently to one of the two meanings in all contexts would be futile. For instance, the contrast between u4 (ll. 92–95) and ĝi6 (ll. 96–98; see §1.3.2.3 above) or the contrast between the present u4 gig (l. 92) and the former u4 sa6-ga (l. 95) requires translating u4 as ‘day’; while the cry to the u4 to return to the desert (l. 111) suggests that u4 means ‘storm’. On the other hand, drawing an absolute dichotomy between the two meanings in the present context seems to be wrong, since the basic function and features of u4 are the same here, whether it means ‘day’ or ‘storm’. In both meanings, u4 is a destructive entity (l. 99) causing sorrow subject of the verb mu-na-te) or that Ningal approaches the god, referred to here as nin (Kramer). When I reedited the lament, it turned out that nin-ra appears only in N11, whereas four other manuscripts have nin-ĝa2 instead. 20.  I am thankful to P. Michalowski for suggesting the present translation (private communication). 21.  The reconstruction of the verb ma-[la2-la2] is based on l. 91.

88

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur (l. 88) and is described as bitter (l. 92); in both meanings, it is half-personified, having a violent arm or hand (ll. 94, 110) or a forceful, pressing-down breast (l. 112; see also ll. 88, 91, 99). The general impression is that u4 is a cosmic and mythological concept, having several facets, two of which are ‘day’ and ‘storm’. Accordingly, it appears that the best rendering of this concept is the English expression ‘storm-day’ whenever the context requires ‘day’. Consequently, ĝi6 is rendered ‘(storm)-night’ here, when it parallels u4 (see also the literary discussion, §1.3.2.3 above). Some manuscripts have ma-ma-al-la (for ma-al-ma-al-la) in ll. 88, 90, and 91. Kramer has correctly noted that, while ma-al-ma-al-la is a reduplicated participle, ma-ma-al-la is a subordinated finite verb to be translated ‘(the storm) that came to be for me’. lu2 in lu2 nu-nuz-ĝen (l. 90) is probably a relative pronoun, though its exact meaning in its context is not clear.

92–93: The translation of zarah–ak as ‘to lament’ (rather than ‘to fear, tremble’, etc., proposed by most translators) is based on the equation zarah = nissatu, CAD N/2 274a. For unilingual evidence, see, for example, Lugal-Nesaĝe to a King Radiant as the Sun, ver. A 16–17, ver. B 4–5, where zarah is paralleled by the exclamation of sorrow u8-a-e; Man and His God 79–80, 127–28, where zarah is paralleled with a-nir; and Inana C 197, where the context clearly indicates ‘lamentation, wailing’ (see further PSD A/3 109a). 94:

Jacobsen renders a2 ‘appointed time’ (see PSD A/2 29 sub a2 C). It seems more suitable in the context to render ‘violence’—literally, ‘arm, power, force’ (see PSD A/2 10ff. sub a2 A). For a2 ‘power’ in a similar usage, see the year-name Ibbi-Sin YN 17, where the violence of the Amorites is referred to using the expression a2 im-ulu3 ‘the “arm” of the south wind’ (PSD A/2 6b). See also l. 326, below. In literary contexts, when ba-ra-e3 takes an indirect object in the terminative case, it usually means ‘go out to(ward)’ (see, for example, Inana and Enki 3; Inana and Gudam 21; Dumuzi’s Dream 3; Dumuzi-Inana B1 22). Here (and in l. 96), however, the indirect object of the verbal form ba-ra-ba-ra-e3-en is the “violence of the storm,” and therefore, the verb should be translated: ‘I could not escape it’. This tentative translation is supported by parallels in which the arm (a2), eye (igi) or hand (šu) of the storm (or the god) occur with the verb e3. See: a-ma-ru . . . u4 gal-gin7 ki-a ur5 mi-ni-ib-ša4 a-ba-a ba-ra-e3 ‘The flood . . . roared like a great storm over the earth, who could escape it?’ (LSUr 107–8); i-bi2 i[l2-la-ĝ]u10 a-ba-a ba-ra-e3 a2 bad-ra2-a-ĝu10 a-ba-a ba-ra-šub-bu ‘who can escape my raised glance, who can evade my open arms?’ (CLAM 647:13–14; similarly 212:116–17, 460:62– 63); a2 zi-da-zu lu2 erim2-ma nu-⸢e3⸣ a2 gab2-bu-zu ḫul ma-al nu-e3-a ‘the enemy cannot escape your right hand, the evil-doer cannot escape your left hand’ (CLAM 729:16–17). See additionally Išbi-Erra B, seg. B 7; Enlil A 28; Nungal A 26, 39, 61. See additional comment to ll. 237–38.

95:

For u4-tur-bi-še (see also ll. 101, 118), which I translate freely ‘before time’ (literally, ‘for/at its few days’), see Römer’s detailed comment to this line. Apparently, it refers to the short duration of Ningal’s reign (bala), as opposed to the expression u4 sud-ra2 ‘distant days’ mentioned in l. 114 below. For the theological background of the term bala, denoting ‘turn of

Commentary

89

office’, ‘reign’, which expresses the belief in the cosmic rule over kingdom rotations, see the literary discussion (§1.3.2.3 above). The suffix -a in the negative-affirmative verbal form ba-ra-bi2-du8-a is perhaps a shortened -am3 (see N30; see also ba-ra-bi2-du8 in N1). Note that G2 does not double the phrase bala-ĝu10 u4-sa6-ga. 96:

Note the different reading of N28: ‘when the bitter wailings hang heavy on me’ (ma-la2la2). For the difficult reading of U2, see Römer’s comment on this line.

96–98: See comments on ll. 92–94 above. 99:

Most manuscripts read ni2-bi; hence, I translate ‘its (i.e., the storm’s) awesomeness’ (see Kramer). Römer based his translation on the variant readings ni2-ba (so N1) and ni2-bi-a (so U2), translating ‘by itself ’ (and relating it to the action of the storm).

100:

The reading and meaning of LUL is not clear. I tentatively follow ETCSL, reading lib and translating ‘silence’ (see also Kramer and Falkenstein), although lib seems to denote a deathly or ominous silence rather than a peaceful silence (see CAD Š/2 33a, sub šaqummatu; Enki and Ninmaḫ 79, 125; Išme-Dagan A 26, et passim). Jacobsen reads lul, translating ‘(dream) fancies’ (see further Jacobsen 1970: 331 n. 24). ki-na2 often designates the sleeping chamber of a deity inside the temple (see, for example, Enlil and Sud 146–55; Gudea A–B 1198; Ninisina A 88; see also Röllig 1993: 327b).

101:

For u4-tur-bi-še3, see comment on l. 95. For ĝiš-la2, Akk. qūltu ‘dead of night, silence’, see CAD Q 302a; Heimpel 1981: 117. In monolingual sources, the term tends to appear in the form ĝiš-la2-bi (e.g., Edubba C 67–68; Nanše A 176; Ur-Namma A 44). Jacobsen translates ‘oblivion’ (1970: 331 n. 24). Note that, in N11, ki-na2-ĝa2 mu-uš-la2-a-bi is not doubled, and the possessive suffix -ĝa2 is replaced by the verbal form ĝa2-ĝa2. The extra line, 101a, that appears in manuscripts N1 and N21 is identical with l. 144 below (see translation and comment on the above line).

102–12: These lines contain three parallel complex sentences describing the futility of all the possible attempts of Ningal to rescue Ur (ll. 102–4; 105–9; 110–12). As shown by Civil (2000: 32), when two clauses of a conditional sentence contain verbs with ḫe2- (or with its negative parallel, bara-), the clause is counterfactual. Accordingly, I translate these sentences as referring to hypothetical actions by Ningal rather than to her actual deeds. Note that the subjunctive ḫe2- may appear with perfective forms or with imperfective forms (ll. 103, 106, 111, and l. 107, respectively). See Michalowski 2006: 41–42. For gaba–zi, see Michalowski 2011: 308–9. 103:

The translation of the ambiguous phrase ki šu ḫe2-em-mi-ib-ak ‘I trudged the earth’ is based on the context (see Kramer). In reference to a cow, šu probably denotes ‘paws’ or ‘(fore) legs’ (Heimpel 1968: 188; Gilgameš and Huwawa A 34, 59; Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta 264; Gudea A–B 666). Römer contends that the phrase ki šu ak denotes stirring or digging up the earth with the forelegs. Jacobsen equates šu–ak with Akk. azāru, translating this phrase ‘I have lent hand to it on the ground’; he sees in ll. 103–4 as an image of a cow try-

90

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur ing to help its calf when it is sinking in the mire (Jacobsen 1970: 332; see also comment to the next line). The metaphor of a cow separated from or searching for its lost calf is common in Sumerian literature. This metaphor usually describes goddesses who lost their city or people as the result of a calamity. See LN 68; Nintur A 28; 32; PS 5.34. Note especially the Eršema ab2 amar-še3, the central theme of which is the mother searching for her lost son, likened (among other things) to a cow looking for her calf: ‘[The cow for the calf!] The cow for the calf! The cow for the inquired-about [calf!] The cow—its calf has disappeared’ (Kramer 1982: 142:1–3).

104:

Note the erroneous GIG (for gi4) in N23; this is most likely a memory-based error (see Delnero 2006: 606ff.; 2010b).

106:

The infix -ši- in the verbal chain probably carries the nuance of flapping the wings toward the city (see Gragg 1973: 24).

108–9: For the adverbial function of the infix -de3- in the verbs gul and til, see comment on l. 69 above. For the variant ki ĝar-ba (U2), probably a memory-based lapse, see comment on l. 104 above. 110:

Jacobsen translates: ‘Because the storm’s hand was raised against it’ (see his comment in Jacobsen 1970: 332 n. 24). Römer refers to the following thematic parallel: u4 ĝišgana2-ur3 an-ta e3-de3 uru ĝišal-e ba-ab-ra-ah ‘The storm was a harrow coming from above, the city was struck (as) by a hoe’ (LSUr 80β).

112:

The infix -da- is probably an ablative (Gragg 1973: 35, 50); note the ablative infix -ra- in N11. For gaba–zi ‘to rise up’, ‘depart’ (literally, ‘raise the breast’), see Sjöberg 1973b: 39. Note especially the following parallel: u4 gig-ga u4 gaba-zu zi-ga-ab u4 e2-za gi4-bi (LSUr 483) ‘O bitter storm, retreat O storm, storm return to your home!’ (see also Sjöberg 1973b: ll. 484–85).

113–14: Since the nominal compound agrun-ku3 e2 na-aĝ2-ga-ša-an-na-ĝu10 is not marked by a postposition, I assume that it is a casus pendens in relation to the following bala-ba, to be literally translated: ‘Agrunkug, my seat of queenship—in its term of office (distant days were not granted to me)’. My rendering ‘in Agrunkug . . .’ is a free translation. Kramer (followed by Römer) interpreted the third-person plural verbal forms (here and in ll. 117, 127 below), as reflecting an impersonal subject, translating: ‘Long days had been not granted me’ and so on. My translation assumes that Ningal is hinting here to the great gods, to which she will appeal in kirugu 4. Thus, these lines express the theological idea that the duration of every reign in Mesopotamia is determined by the great gods, especially by An and Enlil (see §1.3.2.3.). 116:

Note Jacobsen’s translation, ‘O house, because you were the dark-headed people’s place to cheer the spirit’, which is based on the verbal form i3-me(-en)-na-ke4-eš in N19, G1, and P.

Commentary 117:

91

Since the infix -n-ga in this kirugu usually connects sentences rather than components within sentences (see ll. 101, 108, 109), I interpret it here as connecting our sentence (ll. 116–17) to the parallel sentence in ll. 113–15 (contra Edzard [2006: 125], who translated: ‘they gave in return to you both wrath and disaster’). For the third-person plural form of the verb, see comment on l. 114. I interpret the verb tab to mean ‘to multiply’ (literally: ‘to double’). Jacobsen translated: ‘they will verily also burn with you’.

118–21: The present translation of these lines construes them as a compound sentence consisting of a relative clause (ll. 118–19) that is subordinate to an independent clause (ll. 120–21). This interpretation is supported by the appearance of the epistemic prefix hu- in the main clause (l. 121; see Civil 2000: 32–35). The devastated house is characterized in l. 119 as a sacred temple, ‘upon which no eye had been cast’—that is, no one was permitted to look at its dark inner sanctum. For this widespread motif in lament literature (usually expressed using the verb igi–bar), see LSUr 151; 442; CLAM 50:24, 97:21 (= 349:18); SK 25 vi 36 (Krecher 1966: 59; see comment by Krecher on pp. 193–94). 118:

For u4-tur-bi-še, see comment on l. 95.

120:

For the reading and meaning of the abstract noun ur5-ug7-a ‘despair’ or the like, see Tinney 1995: 138, with additional bibliography. Note that this noun, which is typical of lament literature, is a nominal form of the compound verb ur5–ug7 (see, for example, ur5 mu-ug7 in Man and His God 33).

122:

As shown by Sjöberg (1969: 111), the epithet lu2 zi, especially when connected with a temple (e2), often designates the king who (re)built the temple. See, for example, den-lil2le e2 zi gul-gul-lu-de3 lu2 zi tur-re-de3 dumu lu2 zi-da-ke4 dumu saĝ-e ḫul dim2-me-de3 ‘Enlil, to destroy the faithful household, to demote the faithful man, to cast an evil eye on the son of the faithful man, on the first-born . . .’ (LSUr 73–74).

123:

Some translate gi-sig ‘hut’ (for example, Kramer) and others, ‘fence’ (e.g., Jacobsen). While the Akkadian equivalent kikkišu bears these two meanings (see CAD K 352b; but differently, AHw 475a), the unilingual evidence seems to point to ‘fence’, at least in the phrase gi-sig ĝiškiri6. See, for example, LSUr 329–30: e2 tur3 daĝal-la dnanna-ka dub-ba-an-bi basi-il gi-sig ĝiškiri6-ka šu ba-e-[la2]-la2 gu2-ĝiri3 ba-an-ĝar-ĝar ‘The reed fence of the wellstocked cattle-pen of Nanna was torn out, the garden’s fence was violated and breached’. Here the parallelism gi-sig ĝiškiri6 // dub-ba-an and also the verb gu2-ĝiri3–ĝar ‘to breach’ point to ‘fence’ rather than ‘hut’ (see also Michalowski, LSUr p. 97).

125:

My transliteration follows N11 and P. The variants er2-re and er2-e are best rendered by Kramer: ‘the righteous house, my house which has been given over to tears’ (see similarly ll. 77, 135). The comitative infix -di- apparently has an adverbial nuance, perhaps expressing the idea of totality (see comments on ll. 65–69, 209). Jacobsen understands the infix as an ablative, translating: ‘transformed from me into a house of mourning’.

92

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

126–27: The present tentative translation is based on manuscript P, which reads du3-u3-bi ‘its building’ and gul-lu-bi ‘its perishing’, both of which are direct objects of the transitive verb ĝar. However, all other manuscripts read du3-u3-ba and gul-lu-ba. Römer tried to solve this problem by suggesting that du3-u3-ba and gul-lu-ba are anticipatory genitives, translating ll. 124–27 approximately as follows: ‘(To my faithful house . . . ) they verily granted the allotted share of its being built falsely, its being truly destroyed’. For the grammatical subject of the third-person plural verbal form in l. 127, see comment to l. 114 above. 128–29: My translation regards e2 ki-buru14 as a genitive compound qualified by bu-ra ‘dis­mantled’. Sjöberg separates e2 from ki-buru14: ‘like a shelter on the denuded harvest ground’ (PSD B 218). A survey of references to bu(-r) in the literature seems to justify both translations; this verb is applied to the uprooting of plants and trees, as well as cities and buildings (see PSD B 162–65, sub bu). Note, however, the phrase e2tur3 bu-ra-ĝen ‘I am the one whose cow pen has been uprooted’ in l. 304 below, which apparently indicates that, here, bu-ra qualifies e2 ki-buru14. 129:

For the reading of IM.A.AN as šeĝ14 ‘rain’ (rather than im šeĝ3 ‘wind and rain’), see Sjöberg 1969: 117; Borger 2004: §641. As noted by Römer, ‘wind and rain’ appear as im-šeĝ14; see Marriage of Martu 133: za-lam-ĝar ti im šeĝ14 ‘a tent-dweller, (buffered) by wind and rain’.

130:

Römer interpreted ama5 as ‘storehouse’, in light of the variant esaĝ2 in U3. However, as shown by Michalowski (LSUr, pp. 77–78, comment to l. 60), ama5 in OB unilingual texts designates the private quarters of women (and children); the alternative meaning ‘storehouse’ is restricted in these texts to the expression ama5 kalam-ma (see l. 240 below; and see further Krecher 1966: 110–11, 135). Therefore, it seems preferable here to posit two different traditions: one uses the woman’s bedchamber as a metaphor for Ur, and the other (U3) uses the storehouse for the same. My reading and translation of ni3-diri follows Kramer. Others read ni3 si-a ‘filled with things’ (Jacobsen, Römer, and Michalowski in LSUr, pp. 76).

131:

Note that the reading lil2 replaces the erroneous reading e2 in former editions. While the translation ‘the lil demon that had been set in the city has uprooted it’ is also possible, it does not account for the parallelism between šeĝ14 (l. 129 above) and lil2, both described as uprooting the shepherd’s tent. For lil2 as ‘wind’, see comment on l. 1. For the triplication of the root, see Attinger 1993: 190; and see also l. 301 below.

133:

For the figurative expression sug-e gu7, which is common in descriptions of destruction (in LU, also ll. 232, 279; and in the Ur version, also ll. 211, 239), see Tinney, LN pp. 153–54. Note the highly unstable textual tradition in this line: G1 and G2 have ni3-gur11 uru2 saĝ si3-ga-ĝu10 ‘my possessions well-guarded in the city’ (see parallel in LN 63). U3 has sug-ge4 hu-mu-un-ab-si ‘the swamp was filled with (my possessions)’, and an Emesal verbal form (uru2-ma-⸢al?-ma-al⸣-la). N11 and N19 read šu-pe-el-la2 ba-ab-du11 ‘a defiling hand was placed’ (see l. 239 below).

135:

See comment on l. 77 above.

Commentary

93

Note the line added to the ĝišgiĝal in the Ur tradition (135a): uru2-ni ba-an-da-gul-la [me]-ni ba-an-da-kur2-ra; this line is identical to l. 171 below. 137:

The reading ba-si3-si3-ga-ba replaces the erroneous reading ba-sig3-sig3-ga-ba in previous editions. 22 The translation ‘to create’ for si3(-g) is based on the parallelism with ba-dim2dim2-ma-ba in l. 139. For si3(-g) in this meaning, see Enki and World Order 446 and perhaps also Dumuzi’s Dream 176–77 et passim. For similar parallelism between si3 and dim2, see CA 171: u4 uruki ba-dim2-dim2-ma-ba ba-si3-si3-ga-ba ‘when cities were built and founded’. Jacobsen’s translation of these two verbs as ‘was conceived’ and ‘was contrived’, respectively, is based on a similar understanding. Note however that, whereas our translation assumes that Ningal’s petition is simultaneous with the arrival of the storm, Jacobsen’s translation suggests that it preceded the storm’s appearance, using verbs of planning rather than creating. See also the literary discussion in §1.3.2.3 above. For u4-ne(-en), see, for example, Gudea Stat. B 9:7; for the demonstrative pronoun -neen, see Thomsen 1984: 80, §134.

138:

For the unusual reference to Ningal in the third person, see §1.3.2.3 above. Note the additional line 138a in the manuscripts from Ur. Lines 138–38a in these manuscripts should be translated as follows: ‘when in the presence of the lady her city had been destroyed, her city had been destroyed, and her rites had been changed’ (see comment on l. 171).

140–42: Note that the manuscripts from Ur have the same verbal form in ll. 140–42: im-ma-anaĝ2-eš-a-ba. The verb aĝ2 here is probably a shortened form of a2–aĝ2. For “simplified” compound verbs of this sort, which are typical of OB and later Sumerian, see Attinger 1993: 389 n. 1032. The same phenomenon is attested in the Ur texts in l. 162. 145:

The Nippur manuscripts and Y1 have the alternative reading, ḫe2-em-ma-na-du11, using du11 as an auxiliary verb.

147–49: Note the consistent use of -me2(= MI)- in Y1. 150:

Some translators understood e-ne-eĝ2-bi as referring to the petition of Ningal in ll. 147–49, translating accordingly: ‘An turned not to this word’ (e.g., Falkenstein and Jacobsen). Due to the agentive case, which suggests a transitive sentence, I interpret e-ne-eĝ2-bi as referring to the decision of the great gods to devastate Ur. This interpretation is supported by U3 (see also U4 at l. 160 below), which substitutes gi4 (‘to return/retract’) for gur.

151:

Note the use of the verbal root huĝ ‘to pacify’ in P for the more figurative še17 ‘to cool’ in the other manuscripts. The shortened form ḫe2-a-bi (for ḫe2-am3-bi) of the Ur manuscripts is widely attested in the OB period. See, for example, Iddin-Dagan 2:40 (RIME 4 24); Abisare 1:16, 28 (RIME 4 124); Sîn-Iddinam 14:37 (RIME 4 176); Return of Ninurta 169–71; Urnamma B 6; et passim.

22.  The error occurred in Kramer’s edition, where he transliterated ba-sig3-sig3-ga-ba and was followed by most editions and translations (Kramer: ‘had been overcome’; Falkenstein, Klein and ETCSL: ‘pounded’ and similarly).

94

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur The three lines 151a–c that were added in the Ur manuscripts are parallel to ll. 162– 64, below (see translation and comments on ll. 162–64; see also the literary discussion, §1.3.2.3 above).

152:

The obscure phrase ki saĝ ki appears once more as a description of the divine assembly: puuh-rum ki saĝ ki diĝir-re-ne-ke4 ‘the assembly, the ki saĝ ki of the gods’ (Death of Gilgameš Seg. F, 7, 101). In other instances, ki saĝ ki qualifies unearthly, remote places with fearful associations. See, for example: a-ra-li ki saĝ ki kalam-ma-še3 ur-dnamma . . . ba-da-DU ‘to Arali, ki saĝ ki of the land, Ur-Namma . . . was brought’ (Ur-Namma A 62); hur-ru-um kurra ki saĝ ki-ka nam-ba-an-tur5-tur5-de3 ‘In the mountain cave, the ki saĝ ki 23 of the earth, let me be ill no longer!’ (Lugalbanda in the Mountain Cave seg. A 154). The translation ‘a solemn place’ is based on the above contexts, though the etymology is unclear (similarly Cavigneaux and Al-Rawi 2000: 39, comment on ll. 49//40). For alternative interpretations, see: Jacobsen (‘where yet water was put on the foreheads’), 24 Falkenstein (‘als [die Ratsversammlung der Götter] das Haupt zu Boden senkte’), ETCSL (‘the pre-eminent place’, apparently equating saĝ-ki with pūtu ‘forehead’), and George 1999: 202 (‘the place of [the gods’] ceremonial’, equating saĝ-ki with sakkû; see CAD S 78b, sub sakkû A). The verbal prefix a- should be understood as an assimilated prospective (assuming *u3ba > a-ba). See Jagersma 2010: 532.

153:

For the function of the comitative infix in the verbal chain, see Gragg 1973: 59. For the phrase inim zu2-keš2-da, literally, ‘to gather/bind words’, which I render freely here, ‘to pronounce a verdict’, see Ninurta C 53: inim zu2-keš2-da nibruki-me-en ‘I am he who pronounces the verdicts of Nippur’ (literally: ‘I am the word binder/gatherer of Nippur’).

154:

The exact nature of the supplication (or mourning) gestures described here is uncertain. ur2 in ur2–su3 may refer to ‘lap’ (Akk. sūnu, CAD S 386b–387a) or ‘thigh’ (Akk. pēmu, CAD P 321b); the meaning of su3 in this compound term is unclear. My tentative translation ‘to bend (the thighs)’ is based on context (see Falkenstein). Other translations of ur2–su3 are ‘clasping legs’ (Jacobsen) and ‘prostrating’ (ETCSL). Note that su3, taking a2 as an object, occasionally denotes ‘to stretch out the arms’ (e.g., Ninurta’s Exploits 350; Nanna E 6; Nungal A 96; see also Karahashi 2000: 77). It is therefore possible that in the present context su3 and la2 are synonyms, describing self-prostration with stretched limbs. a2–la2 (based on N11 and N19) is commonly understood as ‘stretching out the arms’, on the basis of the equation of la2 with Akk. ṭarāṣu (Jacobsen translates uniquely: ‘laid hold of arms’). The reading kiĝ2 (for a2) in the Ur manuscripts (and perhaps also in two other manuscripts; see score) is difficult to explain. 25

23.  Note that ETCSL (following Wilcke 1969a: 79) emends this to ki sumur! ki and translates: ‘the most dreadful spot on earth’. 24.  Jacobsen believes that this act is a “part of the preliminary oath-taking ceremony.” Note, however, his earlier, different translation (Jacobsen 1970: 168). 25.  The possibility cannot be excluded that the graphic similarity between A2 and KIN caused this erroneous textual tradition. Alternatively, perhaps a hypothetical original hub2 (which appears in the context of a wailing gesture; see CAD H 239, sub huppu C) could be misread as KIN. For kiĝ2 with the verb la2 in seemingly different contexts, see Enki and Ninmaḫ 132; Hoe and Plow 53.

Commentary

95

155–61: See comments on ll. 145–51. 162:

For the omission of a2 in the Ur texts, see comment on ll. 140–42 above.

162–64: Note that, according to the Ur manuscripts, which add the morpheme cluster -a-ba to the verbal forms, the sentences in these three lines are subordinate to the main sentence in ll. 166–67 below: “when they ordered,” etc. 165:

Most scholars translate ‘Although I had given them my food’ (Jacobsen, Klein, Römer). However, none of the manuscripts has ni3-gu7. Furthermore, in such a case, we would expect the suffix -bi ‘their (food)’ rather than -ĝu10. I read instead ni3-du11 ‘speech’ (usually referring to the gods’ speech), understand the reference to be to Ningal’s preceding appeal. For ni3-du11, see, for example, CA 99; Ninurta and the Turtle 20; Šulgi G 1; Iddin-Dagan B 35; Išme-Dagan A seg. A 182; Rīm-Sîn A 1. The postposition -gin7 seems to appear here in a specialized, secondary meaning: ‘instead of ’, ‘corresponding to’. A similar, secondary meaning is documented for its Akk. equivalent kīma (see CAD K 369a, meaning 4′). See the following bilingual example from Dialogue 5:184 (cited in CAD K 367b): in in-gin7 in-dub2-dub2-bu-de3-en = pištam kīma pištim aqbīšim ‘I returned insult for insult to her’. Alternatively, this could be a shortened form of the temporal formula u4 . . . gin7.

166–67: The idea that the fate of a city is firmly bound to the fate of its patron god or king and vice versa is also expressed in Lugalbanda and Anzu Bird 311–14 (= 377–80): u4-da uru-ni ki haba-an-aĝ2 ĝa2-a-ra ḫul ha-ba-an-gig iri ĝa2-da a-na-aš am3-da-la2-e u4-da uru-ni ḫul ha-baan-gig ĝa2-a-ra ki ha-ba-an-aĝ2 ĝe26-e uru-da a-na-aš am3-da-la2-e-en ‘If she (= Inana) loves her city and hates me, why does she lump (literally: bind) the city with me? If she hates the city and yet loves me, why does she lump me with the city?’ For the unusual appearance of the connective indicator -en-ga- in both of the connected sentences, see Edzard 2006: 125, §12.12.2.5. The twofold appearance of the connective indicator is perhaps aiming to stress the reciprocal relationship between them: ‘just as . . . , so also . . .’. The additional line 167a in Y1, which is probably identical to l. 167, may be either a poetical repetition or a scribal error. 168–69: Assuming that the verbal forms in these lines are non-finite, the ergative at the end of anne2 and dmu-lil2-le is grammatically problematic. Römer considers the -e to be a genitive postposition, assuming an anticipatory genitive construction, and translating: ‘The word of An. . . . The pronouncement of Enlil . . .’. Note that U1 (in l. 168) and U3 (in l. 169) read an-na and dmu-ul-lil2-la2, respectively, thereby yielding an anticipatory genitive. ETCSL assumes that the divine names are in the ergative case, and the verbs are finite and transitive, translating: ‘An is not one to change his command, and Enlil does not alter what he has uttered’. My translation presupposes a casus pendens in both lines. Note the reading ka-ga e3-a-ni (for ka-ta e3-a-ni) in N11. For the full form of this noun as /kag/, written normally ka-ga14 when appearing with a locative postposition, see Cooper 1978: 118; Römer 2001: 75.

96 171:

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur I understand the infix -da- in both verbal forms to have an adverbial function. See comment on ll. 65–69 (for the verb gul); and see CA 99; LSUr 324 (for the verb kur2). 26 I regard the suffix -a in both verbal forms as a subordinating particle and, consequently, the resulting sentence as being elliptic. Other translators regard the final -a as short for the enclitic -am3 (see Kramer’s comment on this line), translating the line as an independent sentence.

174–75: As shown above (comment on ll. 88–91), the separation between two different meanings of u4—‘day’ and ‘storm’—is misleading, because they constitute two facets of the same mythological entity. The u4 ḫul-ĝal2 mentioned in l. 176 is actually an evil day, manifesting itself as a storm, and the opposite, u4-du10, mentioned in l. 175, is a good day. Note that both the ablative postposition and the ablative verbal infix appear as -da (except for N40 and P, which have -ta in l. 174). 176:

For u4 ḫul-ĝal2, see, for example, Ninurta C 71; Gilgameš, Enkidu, and the Nether World 10. For the presumed idiomatic function of the comitative infix with the verb a2–aĝ2, see Gragg 1973: 65.

177:

Kingaluda also appears in An-Anum and is labeled an ilu lemnu ‘evil god’ (Litke 1998: 209). He is also equated in a lexical text with Akk. muttellû ‘the roving one’ (CAD M/2 331a; AHw 690a). The name probably means ‘the supervisor of the storm(s)’. For the etymology, orthography, and meaning of kingal, a term for an official, see Sjöberg 1969: 96–97. Note that kin-gal-u4-da u4-da gub-ba is the nomen rectum of an anticipatory genitive construction.

178:

The reading uĝ3 (for kalam) is equally possible.

179:

For the Ur version, see l. 181 below. For im-ḫul, see CAD I/J 116, sub imḫullu; AHw 376b, sub imḫullu; Cavigneaux 1995: 188–91.

180:

The idiomatic expression X(∅) Y-a . . . ku4 ‘to change X into Y’ (literally: ‘to bring X into Y’) also appears in l. 359 below. See also: nita2 munus-a munus nita2-a-bi ku4-ku4 ‘to turn a man into a woman and a woman into a man’ (Išme-Dagan K 21); e2-bi e2 ḫul-a hu-muun-di-ni-in-ku4 ‘he has turned that temple into a destroyed temple’ (Inana B 89); uru2-bi uru2 šub-ba im-ma-ni-in-ku4-ra-am3 ‘that city he turned into a neglected city’ (LN 99). For additional bibliography, see Römer 2001: 73.

182:

Despite the syntactical similarity between ll. 181 and 182, Enlil is not the subject of l. 182, since gu3–du11 (unlike gu3–de2) denotes ‘to bellow, roar, speak loudly’, etc. See the following examples of this verb with u4: u4-gin7 kur-ra gu3 mu-[ni]-ib-be2 ‘thunders over the mountains like a storm’ (Utu B 28); u4 gu3 di den-lil2-la2 ‘the roaring storm of Enlil’ (Gudea

26.  Some translators preferred to assign to the infix a literal meaning. Jacobsen understood both infixes as ablatives, translating: ‘Her city is ravaged from her, her sacred office shifted on from her’; Römer understood both infixes as comitatives: ‘Ihre Stadt ist in ihrer Gegenwart(?) zerstört, ihre me’s sind in ihrer Gegewart(?) geändert worden’; and ETCSL understood the first infix as a comitative and the second as a dative: ‘Her city has been destroyed in her presence, her powers have been alienated from her’.

Commentary

97

A–B 637); u4 gu3-ba gu3 di ‘rumbling, roaring storms’ (Gudea A–B 683); u4-de3 gu3 ḫe2eb-be2 ‘the storm speaks’ (Hoe and Plow 179). 183:

For mur–ša3, see CAD R 116, sub ramāmu; 126a sub ramīmu; Al-Fouadi 1969: 116–17. The reading of the nominal component as mur is based on the lexical evidence in MSL 14 420:262ff.; see also Klein 1981: 196:63 n. 4 (ms OO). Note that, here, P adds the refrain uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 (see literary discussion, §1.3.2.4).

184:

For the common simile a-maḫ e3-a-gin7, see the literary discussion, §1.3.2.4.

185:

Note the slightly different version of the Ur manuscripts, reading uru2ki-a ĝištukul-e saĝ-gaz i3-ak-e ‘in the city, the weapons smash heads’. As shown by Green (1975: 362–63; 1978: 153–55; 1984: 278), the verb UR(-bi) gu7 describes actions of weapons, pack animals, or storms, with the meaning ‘to strike head on; to clash together; to brawl; to press together; to fight in a pack’ (see also Cavigneaux 2000: 50–51). My translation is based on the equation UR-bi = mithāriš, an adverbial expression denoting collectivity and reciprocality (Klein 1981: 213). The reading and etymology of the component UR is uncertain. Arguments in favor of ur, as well as in favor of teš2 have been adduced (see Green sources in this paragraph; Michalowski, LSUr 70).

186:

The sign KA׊E is paleographically and semantically obscure. Four manuscripts clearly have KA׊E, but two others perhaps have KA×KAR2. Since the OB scribes were not always careful in writing the internal component of complex signs (see, for example, the complex KA section in Mittermayer 2006: nos. 310–29), the problem cannot be solved on paleographic grounds. I tentatively see here a simplified variant of KA×LI (see variants in Mittermayer 2006: no. 325), which with the value šeg11 frequently appears as the nominal part of the compound verb šeg11–gi4-gi4, Akk. šagāmu ‘to roar’ (see also Römer). šeg11! muni-in-du11 in U3 may be translated ‘roared’, and šeg11! mu-un-niĝin in the other manuscripts means ‘whirled roaring’. For šeg11–gi4-gi4 in reference to a storm, see, for example, u4 an-nagin7 šeg12 gi4-be2-e uĝ3 ha-ba-da-ab-hu-hu-luh-eš2 ‘May the people be terrified at its roaring, as at a storm in the heavens’ (Šulgi C seg. B 9); an-še3 u4-dam šeg11 al-gi4-gi4 ‘toward heaven he roars like a storm’ (Song of Hoe 62); u4-gin7 šeg11/12 gi4-gi4 ‘roars like a storm’ (Bur-Suen A 4; Gudea A–B 452, 1243; Šulgi X 114); uru-a u4 huš-e šeg11 mi-⸢ni⸣-[ib-gi4-gi4] . . . eridukiga u4 huš-e šeg11 mi-ni-ib-gi4-⸢gi4⸣ ‘in the city, the furious storm re[sounded] . . . in Eridu, the furious storm resounded’ (LE 8–9). Other renderings suggested for the complex sign are ‘encircle’ (on the basis of KA׊E–du11 = lamû, Attinger 1993: 572), ‘chew’ (on the basis of KA׊E = kasāsu, Attinger 1993: 572), 27 and ‘gloom’ (reading kana6, ETCSL).

187:

Note that the Ur manuscripts as well as G1 and Y1 use casus pendens (u4-de3) instead of the anticipatory genitive (u4-da).

27.  Note, however, that KA׊E with the value tukur2 usually appears as a verbal root in finite verbal forms, not as a nominal component of compound verbs (see, for example, Lugalbanda in the Mountain Cave 303; 315; Copper and Silver 79; SP 1.101, 2.31, 5.84).

98

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

188:

My tentative translation is based on the equation izi-ĝi6-edin-na = anqullu in a bilingual source (CAD A/2 143bff.). For an alternative interpretation of this phrase, see Michalowski, LSUr p. 79. For the reading of N11 and Y1 (‘in the bright day the fiery glow burns’), see LSUr 80. The variant reading mir-mir-e-da (for mir-mir-da) in P may possibly be interpreted as a future infinitive ‘to make the storm rage—the fiery glow burns’, or the like. For the variant reading of the Ur versions bar–tag (for bar–tab), see: mu-zu-še3 bar bi2-(in)-tag-tag ‘because of you my body is inflamed’ (Sjöberg 1973a: 110:42).

189:

The climatic phenomenon designated by bar-šeĝ3 is not entirely clear. I follow Sjöberg (PSD B 129a), who understands it as ‘fog’, basing his interpretation on the reading imbar-šeĝ3 in G1, and equating im-bar with Akk. imbaru. 28 For the combination of il2 with an-bar7 in a broken context, see UM 29–13–419A rev. ii 7′–8′ (cited in PSD B 129a). The parallelism of this line with the next line indicates that the dissipating fog is not connected with the destructive storm but is part of a daily climatic phenomenon, after which the supernatural, consuming, blazing fire unexpectedly appeared. Römer suggests reading the sign NE in N11 as the verbal prefix bi2-, positing the finite verb bi2-il2-il2-la (see, for example, bi2-il2 in Gudea A–B 657).

190:

an-bar7-gana2 is a variant of an-bar7 ‘mid-day’ (Sjöberg 1969: 86; Römer 2001: 137). The reading u4 zalag rather than u4 babbar in most manuscripts is consistent with the next line, which contains the same phrase in its negative form, with most manuscripts reading u4 zalag-ga la-ba-e-e3. Note also the following parallels that support this reading: u4 zalag-ga u4 ḪI-da-gin7 x-DU-⸢x⸣ ‘the bright day turns for me into a somber day’ (Man and His God 70); u4-zalag-ga u4-ḪI-da-gin7 im-ma-an-ak ‘the bright day is made like a somber day for me’ (Hallo 1968: 83:24). According to Hallo (1968: 85 n. 106), the variant reading u4 mud-e in U3 indicates that u4 ḪI-da is to be read u4 mudx-da, with ḪI being a simplified form of MUD (= ḪU+ḪI). An alternative etymology of u4 ḪI-da could be ‘mixed day’, based on hi = balālu (CAD B 39bff.). In this understanding, ḪI describes the climatically abnormal nature of the day, which is characterized here by a scorching fire on the one hand and by dimmed sunlight on the other hand (see literary discussion, §1.3.2.4.). Jacobsen apparently read u4 du10-da, translating the line as follows: ‘Dawn and the rise of the bright sun he (probably Gibil) locked up with the good winds’ (see similarly ETCSL; and slightly differently Falkenstein). The Ur manuscripts have a different reading here: an-bar7-gan2 u4-zalag e3-a u4-mud-e ba-da-an-ku4 ‘at midday, the bright rising day became a somber day’; Römer translates our line on the basis of these manuscripts as follows: ‘als das helle Tagelicht aufgegangen war, wurde es zu einem finsteren Tage(?)’.

191:

The reading usanx for AN.DUR in N43 and U3 follows Kramer; see also Behrens 1998: 69. Note the variant usanx an-na-gin7 in U3: ‘like the twilight of heaven’ (instead of ‘like a twilight star’).

28.  The rejection of this etymology in CAD I/J 108b is outdated.

Commentary

99

193:

The motif of burnt potsherds and dust that are swept up by the storm or raining down on the earth is common in descriptions of destruction. See: šika bar7-bar7-ra ba-šeĝ3-ĝa2-ba ‘when it rained burning potsherds’ (Šumunda Grass 3, 36); mar-uru5 zi-ga sahar ḫul bi2-ibzi im-ḫul zi-ga šika im-bar-re ‘She raised a towering flood with evil dust. She stirred up an evil raging wind with potsherds’ (Inana and Ebih 136–37); ni2 me-lem4-e sahar i3-ur4-ru šika im-e-eš i3-šeĝ3 ‘its terrifying splendor sends the dust into clouds, it causes a downpour of potsherds’ (Ninurta’s Exploits 274); u4 ku10-ku10-ga šika bar7-bar7-ra sa-še3 ba-ab-ak (var. baab-DU) ‘the dark storm and the burning potsherds scorched’ (LSUr 79; see LSUr ll. 77–80, which closely parallel the present kirugu). For -da (postposition) and -da- (infix) as instrumental ablative, see comment on l. 77.

194:

Y1 and G1 have the prefix am3-ma- for im-ma-. For the alternation between these two infixes, see Thomsen 1987: 169; Woods 2008: 20.

195:

A close parallel to this line appears in LW seg. E 55: ki-«d»en-gi ĝiš-bur2-ra i3-bal-⸢la⸣. The exact meaning of bal in this context is uncertain. It probably describes an action that the animal caught in the snare does or undergoes. Since the concept of being caught in a trap is usually expressed with the verb dab5 (e.g., l. 220 below; Utu B 8; Death of Gilgameš seg. A 19; Lugalbanda in the Mountain Cave 78), I tentatively conclude that bal in this connection has a different meaning. The translation ‘writhes’ follows Jacobsen. Other translations of bal are ‘handed over’ (PSD B 51a) and ‘fall’ (Falkenstein, taking ĝiš-bur2 as the subject of the sentence, despite the suffix).

196:

The obscure expression saĝ eĝar du3 ak is attested in Ninurta’s Exploits 91. The bilingual version of the above line reads: ugnim-be2 ki du-ba nu-zu eĝar du7 i3-[ak-ne] = ni-šu-šu a-šar il-la-ka ul i-da-a i-ga-ar-tu u2-naq-qa-pa ‘the people/troops there did not know where they were going, they bumped into the walls’ (van Dijk 1983: 1.63:91). du3 is understood here as a phonetic writing for du7, Akk. nakāpu (with the shift kk > qq); This interpretation is supported by the parallelism between our line and l. 185, which indicates that saĝ-gaz ak and saĝ eĝar du3 ak are synonymous: l. 196: l. 185:

saĝ eĝar-du3 i3-ak-e UR-bi i3-gu7-e saĝ-gaz i3-ak-e UR-bi i3-gu7-e

See similarly Ninurta’s Exploits 100: saĝ-bi e2-ĝar8-e kaš4 bi2-ib-kar-re ‘they dashed their heads against the walls’. Other translations suggested for this line are: ‘die Menschen (= saĝ) im Lande bauen (Schutz)mauren’ (Falkenstein); ‘they were making the people crouch down at the wall’ (Jacobsen, probably reading uĝ3-e for kalam-e); ‘it attacked(?) the land’ (ETCSL). For UR-bi–gu7, see comment on l. 185 above. Note the variant reading i3-ak-ne in N43; in light of Ninurta’s Exploits 91 (cited above), the reading of this manuscript should perhaps be rendered as follows: ‘The people (reading uĝ3-e for kalam-e) in the land dash (their) heads against the walls’. 197:

Note the Emesal form na-aĝ2 in at least five manuscripts, including two from Nippur; this is quite unusual for a kirugu that is otherwise consistent in using the main dialect (see comment on l. 210 below).

100

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

198:

Due to the phonetic similarity between ur3 and ur4, manuscripts are inconsistent regarding the distribution of these roots between the two verbal forms. Most manuscripts level the text, reading the same verbal root in the two parts of the line. I opt for the reading of N46, which seems to be aware of the difference between the two verbs (šu ur3-ur3-re in the compound verb and i3-ur4-ur4-re in the simple verb). 29 The compound verb šu–ur3 often takes the storm/flood as its agent; see the following examples: kala-bi u4 kalam-ma šu ur3-ur3 ‘their power is a storm sweeping the land away’ (Ibbi-Suen B seg. C 10); a-ma-ru . . . šu im-ur3-ur3-e ‘the . . . flood was sweeping away (everything)’ (LSUr 107). Note that occasionally the simple verb ur3 (with the variant ur4) appears in the same context (e.g., LE Segment A 19; Šumunda Grass 9).

200:

See the parallel in LSUr 59: den-lil2-le u4 gig-ga mu-un-zal uru-a me bi2-ib-ĝar ‘Enlil blew an evil storm, it silenced the city’ (see also literary discussion, §1.3.2.4.).

201:

Instead of the reduplicated participle u2-gu de2-de2, three peripheral manuscripts (the Ur manuscripts and P) have a subordinate marû form: u2-gu de2-de3. This variant is probably the basis for Jacobsen’s translation ‘the storm that will make anything vanish’. 30 The reading u2-gu de2-de2 finds support in the parallelism of our line and ll. 198 and 200; all three lines begin with u4, followed by a reduplicated participle and an ergative suffix -e: l. 198: l. 200: l. 201:

u4 šu ur4-ur4-re u4 kalam til-til-e u4 ni3 u2-gu-de2-de2

For ḫul-ĝal2, see comment on l. 176. My translation tentatively concludes that ḫul-ĝal2 is an adverb; see the reading of N46: ⸢ḫul⸣-ĝal2-eš. A parallel to this line, with ḫul-ĝal2 functioning as a noun, appears in Ur-Namma A 6: ⸢uri5ki⸣-ma ḫul-ĝal2 im-ši-DU ‘Evil came upon Ur’. 202:

For su–dar, see, for example, Iddin-Dagan D 4; Ninurta’s Exploits 63, 177. Jacobsen, reading SU as kuš, translated ‘the storm . . . cracked the skin of the people’. Note the variant reading bar bi2-ib2-tab2 ‘scorched the body (of the people)’ in U3. The variant su bi2-ib2-ĝar in N46 may reflect a memory-based error; see comment on l. 105.

203:

Sjöberg (PSD B 6bff.) read BA as ba and translated ‘to reduce’, classifying this verb as a sub-meaning of ba D ‘to allot’. Lexical evidence, however, seems to indicate that this verb, equated with Akk. našāru ‘to cut off, reduce’, etc., should be read be4 (CAD N/2 60b sub našāru). The verb appears in descriptions of war or combat and tends to take an indirect object in ablative case, or to be construed with an ablative infix (see PSD B 6bff.). The ablative probably gives the verb the nuance ‘to cut off from’, i.e., ‘to diminish’.

29.  Jacobsen apparently read the verbal root in both verbs as ur4, equating it first with eṣēdu ‘to reap’ and then with hamāmu ‘to gather’: ‘the reaping storm was gathering in the country’. 30.  In Römer’s opinion, u2-gu de2-de3 in the Ur version is a scribal error that resulted from oral dictation.

Commentary

101

204:

For the litrary motif tug2-(gin7) . . . dul gada-gin7 . . . bur2, see Black 1998: 150–51. See also Green 1975: 350; Hallo 1982: 107.

208:

There is no need to regard ĝar as a variant for kar (see Kramer, on the basis of the variant alternation in l. 210), since ĝar when appearing with an ablative often denotes ‘to set aside’. See the following examples: a-ah du11-ga ĝiri2-ta ĝar-am3 ‘the sorcerers’ spittle is removed from the roads’ (Gudea Cyl. A–B 901; see also 199); erin2-bi ĝišdusu-ta ḫe2-em-taan-zig3 ugnim-bi ĝištukul-ta ḫe2-em-ta-ĝa2-ar ‘I have exempted its laborers from (carrying earth in) baskets; I have freed its troops from (fighting with) weapons’ (Išme-Dagan A+V 185–86; see also Ninurta’s Exploits 472; Winter and Summer 34; Ur-Namma A, Susa ver. seg. D 12 passim). The fact that the postposition -da and consequently also the infix -da- here indicate ablative case is suggested by the parallelism of this line with l. 210 below; three manuscripts present a postposition -ta after the noun in this line. For the shift ta > da both in the postposition and in the infix of the verbal chain, see comment on ll. 174–75 above. Falkenstein translated u4 as ‘Licht’, understanding the entire kirugu as a continuation of the fifth kirugu’s description of the meteorological phenomena created by the attack of the storm. I opt for the translation ‘storm’, which is more natural for u4 in this context, conjecturing that this kirugu draws a static picture of the bloodbath that was exposed after the storm was gone (see comment on l. 210a; and literary discussion, §1.3.2.5.). The elliptical sentence ‘that city into ruins’ (with -da in du6-du6-da reflecting a locative) is completed in the next line: ‘That city into ruins, O Father Nanna, that city into ruins was made’. 31

209:

The demonstrative -bi here, versus the ablative -da/-ta in ll. 208 and 210, indicates that the meaning of ĝar in this line is different from its meaning in ll. 208 and 210: 208: uru2-da ba-da-an-ĝar ‘(the storm) was removed from the city’ 209: uru2-bi . . . ba-da-an-ĝar ‘that city was made into (ruins)’ 210: kalam-ta ba-da-an-ĝar ‘(the storm) was removed from the land’

The exceptional variant in N48, a-a dnanna uru-ni, should probably be understood as an anticipatory genitive: ‘Father Nana’s city (was made into ruins)’. 210:

Note the Emesal reading ka-na-aĝ2 in the Ur manuscripts. Unlike the manuscripts from Nippur, these manuscripts are not strict in distinguishing between the main dialect and the Emesal (see also l. 211). Note the unique reading of N1, which is almost identical to that of l. 208.

210a:

This additional line in N1, N19, N47 and N49 is identical to l. 175 above. Since it is out of place here, one may conclude that it was inadvertently copied from the preceding kirugu.

211:

See a thematic parallel in LSUr 385: ĝišti zu2-ke4 muru9 šeĝ3-ĝa2-gin7 bar-ba mi-ni-in-si ‘barbed arrows covered its (= the city’s) outer side like a raining cloud’. 32

31.  Jacobsen understood differently, regarding du6-du6-da here and in l. 209 as short for du6-du6-da-am3—that is, a nominal sentence with a copula, meaning ‘it was ruins’ (see the variant reading du6-du6-dam in N1 and Y1). 32.  Note that, while in the LSUr parallel the locative marking bar-ba is cross-referenced by -ni-, in our line it is reflected by the directive -e-; see the verbal chains ba-e-dul and ba-e-bur2 in l. 204 above

102

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur The Ur manuscripts have here a peculiar reading, presenting a fairly odd picture: kana-aĝ2-e šika ku5-da nu-me-a sug-ge4 bi2-in-gu7 uĝ3 še am3-ša4 ‘the swamp has swallowed the land, although it is not a potsherd—the people moan’. The likening of the dead people of a destroyed city to potsherds probably reflects the Mesopotamian reality of the sight of a ruined city covered with numerous potsherds. See Enmerkar and En-suhgir-ana 133–34: uru-ĝu10 dul6 ḫe2-a ĝe26-e šika-bi ḫe2-me-en en unugkiga en kul-aba4ki-ra gu2 ba-ra-na-an-ĝa2-ĝa2 ‘if my city becomes a ruin mound, then I will be a potsherd of it, but I will never submit to the lord of Unug, the lord of Kulaba’. The simile in this line appears in the form of a negated metaphor—that is, the people are compared to potsherds by declaring that they are not potsherds. This special way of expressing a simile is not uncommon in Sumerian poetry. In addition to l. 224 below, compare the following examples: e2-e kur ĝišerin ku5 nu-me-a urudha-zi-in gal-gal ba-ši-in-de2-de2 ‘Though the temple was not a mountain where cedars are felled, he had large axes cast to be used against it’ (CA 112); ša3 sag3-e dam-bi nu-me-en-na gu2-da in-da-la2 . . . zarah-e dumu tur-bi nu-me-en-na ur2 mu-ub-tal2-tal2 ‘Anguish embraced me though I am not its wife . . . grief spread its lap for me though I am not its small child’ (Man and His God 78–79; see also ll. 36, 126); nin-ĝu10 lu2-kur nu-me-a ku[r?-r]e? ba-ab-ĝen ‘My lady, though not the enemy, went to the enemy land’ (LSUr 278); 5-kam-ma ur-bar-ra nu-me-a sila4 gig2-ga i3-šub ‘The fifth (deity), although not a wolf, falls upon a black lamb’ (Hendursaĝa A seg. A 82). The latter example is especially instructive, because it is part of a series of parallel clauses (ll. 78–84), all of which contain similes marked by -gin7 or -am3. For additional examples, see LW seg. D 24; Enki and the World Order 439; Inana’s Descent 291–92; Enmerkar and En-suhgir-ana 99.

212:

The motif of breaching the city walls is typical of lamentation literature. See: za3-e3-ba gu2-ĝ[iri3] mi-ni-in-[ĝar-re-eš] ‘in its wall towers brea[ches] were ma[de]’ (LW seg. E 90); gi-sig ĝiškiri6-ka šu ba-e-[la2]-la2 gu2-ĝiri3 ba-an-ĝar-ĝar ‘the garden’s fence was violated and breached’ (LSUr 330; for gi-sig, see comment on l. 123). 33

213:

For the present translation of ĝiri3 ĝal2-la-ba, see the following parallels: gu2 tab 2-a-bi ĝiri3 nu-ĝal2 u2 gid2-da ba-am3-mu2 ‘no foot trod its two banks, long grass grew there’ (LSUr 328); i-lu kur ĝiri3 nu-ĝal2-la-ba gal-gal-bi m[i-ni-ib2-be2] ‘she loudly u[ttered] a lament in those untraveled mountains’ (LSUr 272); the same line appears in Ninurta’s Exploits 371, where ĝiri3 nu-ĝal2-la-bi is translated [a-ša]r? še-e-pa la i[š?-ša-ak-na] (van Dijk 1983: 1.98).

214:

Most translators have preferred ‘on its boulevards where feasts were celebrated’, but du3 is unlikely to function as an auxiliary verb. For the phrase ezem-ma–du3/ ezem-gin7–du3 ‘to build festively’, see Sjöberg 1973b: 42; Flückiger-Hawker 1999: 223; and also Šulgi X 91; Gudea Cyl. A–B 1284; Enmerkar and En-suhgir-ana 6 et passim. The phrase saĝ numun-e-eš ĝar appears elsewhere in descriptions of destruction and violence. See: KA ba-dub saĝ numun-e-eš ba-ab-ĝar ‘noses were piled up, heads were sown like seeds’ (CA 189); 34 dinana saĝ sahar-re-eš ḫe2-mu-e-dub saĝ numun-e-eš ḫe2-mu-e-ĝar

33.  See further LE seg. A 31 (see Green 1978: 146, comment to l. 2:2). 34.  See also earlier version seg. F 2.

Commentary

103

‘Inana, you heap up human heads like piles of dust, you sow heads like seed’ (Enki and the World Order 445; see further Krecher 1966: 61:10*, 206). On this motif in general, see Samet 2012. 215:

See comment to l. 213 above.

216:

KI.E.NE.DI is usually read in lexical texts as ešemen and equated with mēlultu ‘play, dance’ and keppû ‘skipping rope’ (CAD M/2 15b; K 312). However, variant spellings of the logogram in literary texts (ki-a-ne-di, ki-an-ni-da, ki-e-in-en-ti) point to the reading ki-e-nedi with the meaning ‘play, dance’ and ‘dancing place’ (Edzard and Wilcke 1976: 146:39; Geller 1985: 130–31; Attinger 1993: 471 n. 1292). When it has this meaning and reading, e-ne-di is probably a nominal form of the verb a/e-ne–du11, Akk. mēlulû ‘to play, to dance’ (CAD M/2 16a). 35 The expressions zar-re-eš–du8 ‘to pile up like sheaves’ and zar-re-eš–sal ‘to spread like sheaves’ are typical of lamentation literature (see Volk 1989: 239; Civil 1994: 91; Samet 2012). In our case, the first idiom appears in most manuscripts, while the second appears in the Ur manuscripts.

217:

Klein (1981: 104) discusses the topos of blood flowing in ditches and the alternation between sur and sur3 attested in the copies of our line. Note the variant reading sur3-sur3 ba-ni-in-de6-eš (N1), which is rendered by ETCSL ‘they made (the blood . . .) flow down’. Römer sees it as a dictation error for ba-ni-in-de2-eš. For the verb de2 in a similar context see, for example, Šu-ilišu A 52: dnergal u3-mun-bi šeĝx(IM.A.AN)-gin7 sur3-sur3-ra i-ni-in-de2 ‘Nergal, you pour their blood into the wadis like rain’. For the use of -ke4 instead of -gin7 in the Ur manuscripts see, for example, Heimpel 1968: 24.

218:

For i3-udu ‘sheep fat’, see CAD L 202b, sub lipû; Englund 1995: 398–99 n. 45. 36 For the verb zal in a similar context, see Sjöberg 1973a: 129:123. The reading ĝal2-la-ba (for ĝal2la-gin7) in the Ur texts is probably an error caused by ĝal2-la-ba in ll. 213, 215, and 216 above.

219:

Judging from the similarity between this line and ll. 221, 223, the cloth mentioned here is not a helmet (contra Kramer and PSD A/3 74b) but a type of bandage for wounded heads, or perhaps a shroud for cut-off heads.

220:

A verbatim parallel to our line is found in Lugalbanda in the Mountain Cave seg. A 78, and a very similar description appears in Death of Gilgameš 19, where the mortally ill Gilgameš is likewise compared to a gazelle caught in a trap. As noted by Römer, the verb us2 here is probably a shortened form of ki–us2 ‘touch the ground; set on the ground’. See the following parallels using the full form ki–us2: saĝ sahar‑ra ki ba-ni-ib-u2-us2 ‘their (= the palm trees’) tops lay in the dust’ (LSUr 415);

35.  Attinger suggests that ešemen and enedi were two different terms that partially merged, with ešemen originally being limited to the phrase ešemen-dinanna. 36.  Englund (1995) doubts the reading of NI.LU as libx, suggested by Civil 1987: 30.

104

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur e2 ukur3-ra sahar ki us2-sa-a-ba ‘homes of the poor who crouch in the dust’ (Grain and Sheep 59). Note the rare variant maš-nita ‘gazelle buck’ in three peripheral manuscripts (U3, U5, P); for this noun, see Heimpel 1968: 239–40; CAD D 120b, sub daššu A. The variation between maš-da3 and maš-nita is also attested in the different versions of the Death of Gilgameš (Cavigneaux and Al-Rawi 2000: 14:19 to 26:17).

221:

For tug2ni3-la2 ‘bandage’, see CAD Ṣ 196b, sub ṣimdu A, and see the following unilingual examples: simx(GIG)-simx(GIG)-ma . . . ku3 dnin-i3-si-in-na tug2!ni3-la2 še17-de3 ki-bi-še3 bi2-ib2-g[i4!-g]i4! ‘holy Ninisina cures . . . sores by cold bandages’ (Letter from the Scribe Nanna-Manšum to Ninisina 5–6); a-[zu]-e igi-bi nu-mu-un-du8-e tug2!ni3-la2 nu-mu-š[e4-de3] ‘The phy[sici]an cannot look upon it, cannot [soothe] it with a bandage’ (Letter of Siniddinam to Ninisina 26; see Hallo 1976: 223). Note that Shifra and Klein understood tug2ni3la2 as ‘sword-belt’, translating ‘will never again gird on their weapons’. For tug2ni3-la2 in this meaning see, for example, Iddin-Dagan A 55; Marriage of Martu 74; and see further Römer 1965: 161. In ll. 220–24 of the composite text, I follow the line sequence of P, in accordance with our basic concept. Note, however, that in ll. 221 and 223, only P and Y2 retain a consistent line sequence; in all other manuscripts, these two lines interchange.

222:

Veldhuis (2002: 74–76) showed that the verbs na2 and še21 (= ḪU.NA2), both meaning ‘to lie down’, are in complementary distribution, with na2 used for animate beings and še21 for inanimate objects. Although this distinction was generally lost in the OB period, it is noteworthy that the verb še21 refers here to corpses, while in l. 229 below, na2 is used for living human beings (contra former suggestions to correct ḪU.NA2 to na2 here; see Civil 1961: 168; PSD A/3 194b). P has ki ha-ri-iš-tum ⸢ama⸣-bi-gin7. For the addition of -gin7 after i-gi4-in-zu, see Wilcke 1968: 236.

223:

ŠU.NE combined with an auxiliary verb (du11 or ak) is attested elsewhere in the context of healing wounds. See: ĝiri3 pad-ra2-ni ŠU.NE nu-⸢ub-be2⸣-[eš] ‘[they] cannot heal his bones’ (Gilgameš, Enkidu, and the Nether World, First Ur Version 2); 37 simx(GIG)-simx(GIG)-ma ŠU.NE mu-na-ak-e ‘he places a bandage on the wounds’ (Ninisina A 21). In the last example, reading ŠU.NE as šu-kum2 has been suggested, with the following translation: ‘he puts a warm hand on the wounds’ (Römer 2001: 116:21). However, the verb la2 indicates that ŠU.NE refers to the object with which the wounds were bandaged. N11 reads: tug2 gibil ba-ra-bi2-in-la2-eš ‘they were not bandaged with new cloth’; the Ur manuscripts read: tug2ni3-la2 ba-ra-bi2-in-la2 ‘were not bound with bandages’; the latter variant reading is identical to the second part of l. 221, which is omitted in the Ur manuscripts.

224:

For the negated metaphor in this line, see comment on l. 211. For the phrase gu2 za3-ga la2 in a similar context, see saĝ gi6-[g]a-na gu2 za3-[g]a? bi2ib2-la2-a-ta ‘when (Enlil) among his black-headed causes necks to droop over shoulders’

37.  Note that the auxiliary verb du11 also appears here in manuscript Y1.

Commentary

105

(CLAM 377:25; see Kutscher 1975: 93). Jacobsen translates here differently: ‘(its men) let the necks droop on each other’s shoulder’, probably seeing in gu2 za3-ga la2 an extended form of gu2-da la2 ‘to embrace each other’. 226:

The verb du-bu-ul is ambiguous. My tentative translation is based on cases where du-bu-ul seems to be onomatopoeia for the sound of rattling or jingling associated with churning, stirring, or pouring liquids (Iddin-Dagan A 156, and perhaps also the two obscure proverbs SP 1.196; CT 58, 30.5). 38 Römer, building on the lexical equation du-bu-ul = hamû (Erimhuš V 103 [MSL 17, 71], cited by AHw 319a, sub hamû II), translated ‘were paralyzed’. Note, however, that in CAD H 72b, the same equation is cited sub hamû C, with the remark ‘meaning unknown’. 39 Other scholars, on the basis of the context, translated ‘prostrated’ (Kramer), ‘thwarted’ (Jacobsen), or ‘overwhelmed’ (Klein and ETCSL). The additional maš-da3 kar-ra-bi in U3 should perhaps be translated ‘like a stampeding gazelle’; see the following parallel from LSUr 187: lu2 kar-ra-bi maš kar-ra-gin7 ur im-me-da ‘its refugees, like stampeding goats, were chased by dogs’.

227:

The interpretation of -bi in kalag-ga-bi as a demonstrative (within an anticipatory genitive construction) is in keeping with the convention in this kirugu of referring to slain people and devastated buildings as ‘its (= the city’s) walls/ gates/people’, etc. (l. 211ff.). Others understood the -bi as a conjunction (‘in Ur weak and strong both perished in famine’; see Klein, and similarly Jacobsen and Römer). Note that three peripheral manuscripts (U3, U5, and Y2) attach a directive instead of a locative to ša3-ĝar. For a similar merism, see LW seg. E 70: tur maḫ-bi mu-un-til-le-eš ‘they finished off young and old alike’.

228:

The translation ‘were consumed’ is based on the context. The exact meaning of si3 here is uncertain. Perhaps this is si3= šakānu (CAD Š/1 118), or si3 with the meaning ‘to demolish, destroy’, which is common in the city laments, usually in parallelism with gul (although with this meaning, it usually refers to inanimate beings). See, for example, LW seg. D 4; LW seg. E 30, 92; LSUr 462.

229:

P and the Ur manuscripts have ne-a for ne7-a. This is probably an error rather than a phonetic writing, since it is not attested in ll. 100, 101, and 109 of the Ur mss below (contra Römer; for the pronunciation of NA2 as /ne/, see MSL 14 486:27; Römer 2001: 219 l. 92). This line is closely parallel to Sîn-Iddinam to Utu 17: di4-di4-la2 ur2? ama-be2-ne-ta u4 ḫul ba-an-da-ka[r] ‘an evil storm took away the little ones from the laps of their mothers’.

230:

Note the haplography in N11: ⸢šu *kala⸣-ga-bi. The reading ba-an-du8-du8 (for ba-an-da-du8) in U5 may be a memory-based error. See comments on ll. 105 and 108–9.

38.  du-bu-ul also appears as part of two technical terms: (1) sa-du-bu-ul, Akk. šikinnu ‘a fishing net’ (see CAD Š/2 429b, sub šikinnu B; AHw 1233b, sub šikinnu[m] II; 1356a, sub tibûm); (2) ša3 du-bu-la (Šulgi B 162), perhaps meaning ‘sound box’ (see also Black 2003: 48). 39.  The possibility should not be excluded that hamû in this equation is a variant of habû ‘to draw water or wine’; see CAD H 19a, sub habû A.

106

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

231–32: The motif of loss of the ‘good sense’ and ‘counsel’ of the land is a common cliché in the lamentation literature, used to describe social disorder in the wake of destruction. See ll. 69–70, where the similar loss of ‘rituals’ and ‘rites’ is described, using the verbs kur2 and šu-bal–ak. See further: unugki-ga dim2-ma-bi ba-an-suh3 ‘Uruk’s mind became confused’ (Gilgameš and Aga 50); a-ga-de3ki dim2-ma-bi ba-ra-e3 ‘Agade’s good sense left it’ (CA 147). Note the variant of N11: ⸢u2⸣-gu im-ta-[a]n-de2 ‘vanished from it’. For sug-ge4–gu7, see comment on l. 133 above. The apparently erroneous variant erim3-ma kalam-ma ‘the storehouses of the land’ in  40 U5, instead of ĝalga kalam-ma in the other manuscripts, was probably due to confusion between ĜA2xĜAR and URU×ĜAR (see already Krecher 1970: 203). 233:

I consider ll. 233 and 234 to have syntactical parallelism, with an exceptional use of an invisible ablative after the animate noun dumu: 233: 234:

ama dumu-ni(-ta) igi-ni ba-ra-e3 ad-da dumu-ni-ta ba-da-an-gur

Alternative translations consider igi-ni to be in the ablative case: ‘The mother left (from) before the daughter’s eyes’ (Jacobsen); ‘The mother absconded before her child’s eyes’ (ETCSL). Note line 233a in N51; it may be either an erroneous repetition of the preceding line or a new parallel to it. 234:

Two close parallels point to the priority of the reading gur ‘to turn away’ (with P and U5) over kur2 ‘to be estranged’ (with N1, N50, and Y2): [ad-da dam-a-ni]-ta ba-da-gur dam-ĝu10 nu im-me [ama dumu-ni]-ta ba-da-gur dumu-ĝu10 nu im-me ‘[The father] turned away from [his wife] saying, “This is not my wife!” [The mother] turned away from [her child] saying, “This is not my child!’’’ (LSUr 95–96); dumu ama-ni ba-da-an-gur-re-eš-am3 gu2 mu-un-ĝar-re-eš-am3 ‘they have gathered back together the children whom they turned away from their mothers’ (LN 208; see note to l. 236). In the above two parallels, no manuscript has kur2.

235:

The topos of the abandoned women and children is typical of lamentation literature. In LU, it also appears in ll. 229–30 (see also the lost child simile in l. 370 below). In other laments see, for example, LN 42; CLAM 541:31–32. Note also the similar motif of the mother abandoning her child: ‘a faithful bearing mother [abandon]ed her child’ (CLAM 128:88′; 129:99); ‘the ewe has abandoned (her) lamb, the goat has abandoned her kid . . . the faithful bearing mother has abandoned her child, the wife of the warrior has abandoned her little child’ (CLAM 155:31–34; see also 543:79–87).

236:

For the tentative translation ‘strongholds’, see the late equation ki-saĝ-ĝal2-la = ašar samāti, ašar dimāti (see discussion by Tinney regarding the close parallel LN 208–10, p. 165). Alternatively, saĝ could be understood here as ‘slave’, and ki-saĝ-ĝal2-la as ‘slave quarters’

40.  Note also erim3 in U3.

Commentary

107

(see, for example, Jacobsen: ‘the dark-headed people were driven off from them into slave quarters’). 237–38: The verb e3, which has been translated ‘left’ (Jacobsen) and ‘departed from’ (Kramer), seems to bear the more specific nuance ‘to escape’ when referring to birds. See, for example: gu la2-a-na mušen nu-e3 ‘him, from whose bird net no bird escapes’ (Enki and the World Order 281); mušen-du3 ku3-zu-gin7 igi-te-en sa la2-a-ni mušen nu-e3 ‘as if she were a wise fowler, no bird escapes the mesh of her suspended net’ (Inana C 66); mušen an-na . . . nu-e3 ‘the birds of the sky . . . cannot escape’ (Death of Gilgameš seg. G 12). The distinction between ‘left’ and ‘escaped’ is of theological significance, since it has to do with the question to what extent Ningal’s abandonment was volitional (see literary discussion of this kirugu, §1.3.2.5 above). For the frightened bird simile, see Heimpel 1968: 380ff.; Kramer 1969: 7. For the reading of P, see the parallel in LE seg. A 14: nin-bi mušen dal-a-gin7 uru-ni ba-ra-e3 ‘its lady, like a flying bird, escaped her city’. 239:

For šu pe-el-la2 du11 ‘to defile; humiliate’, see Krecher 1966: 185; Michalowski, LSUr 73; Black 1985: 45; and Attinger 1993: 710. I translate ‘their possessions’, referring to the immediate subjects in l. 236 (= the blackheaded people). The alternative rendering, ‘its (=Ur’s) possessions’, is also suitable in light of the common use of -bi in this kirugu in reference to Ur (ll. 211–16, 218–19, 221, 223–24). Note the problematic reading of U5: ni3-gur11 k[alam- ] ⸢x⸣-ma la-la-ĝu10 sug-ge4 humu-da-ab-gu7! ‘their possessions . . . [and] my splendor was swallowed by the swamp’. For sug-ge4 hu-mu-da-ab-gu7, see comment on l. 133 above. la-la may parallel šar2-šar2 in the following line.

240:

For ama5 kalam-ma, see Michalowski, LSUr 76–78. For the use of the auxiliary verb du11 (instead of bar7) in P, see Attinger 1993: 567. For izi–ra ‘to set fire’ in Y2, see, for example, Dumuzi’s Dream 59, 251, 253; Inanna C 36.

241:

The reading a-niĝin2 (rather than niĝin5) is supported by the erroneous variant in U5 a2niĝin2, another example of a memory-based error (see comments on ll. 105, 108–9). A striking parallel to this line appears in Inana and Ebih 47 (= 106): a-niĝin2-ba dgibil6 lu2 sikil-la kiĝ2 ga-ba-an-du3-du3 (so l. 47)/ ga-ba-an-du12-du12 (so l. 106) ‘I shall make Gibil, the purifier, do his work at its ponds’ (for another parallel between LU and Inana and Ebih, see comment on next line). The variation du3/du12 appears here as well (see N1, N46, and Y2). The picture of Gibil setting fire to ponds apparently refers to the reeds surrounding them; see Letter from Aba-Indasa to Šulgi about His Neglect 22 (read: ĝiš-gi izi ib2-gu7 a-niĝin2 i3-tuku-tuku). For the designation of Gibil as lu2 sikil-la ‘the purifier’, see also Hendursaĝa A seg. A 92, and the quotation from Inana and Ebih above. The purificatory function of this god was extensively discussed by Michalowski 1993: 156–57. The dative -na- in the verb is difficult. Perhaps it refers to Enlil, for whom the work is done, according to l. 180 above. Note that the same infix, referring to Enlil, appears there as well.

108

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

242–43: The expression šu nu-te-ĝe26 (the reading ĝe26 is supported by -ĝe26-e in P, U5, and N11 and by some of the parallels below) qualifies a remote and inaccessible or sacred entity. It is especially typical of Išme-Dagan’s Hymns, in which it describes gods, shrines, and divine abstract objects such as divine power and divine words. For the present metaphor, see the following parallels: hur-saĝ sukud-ra2 šu nu-te-ĝe26-me-en ‘you are a lofty mountain that no one can reach’ (referring to Nippur, Išme-Dagan W seg. A 35); hur-saĝ arattaki šu nu-te-ĝe26 ni2-bi ga-ba-ni-ib2-sud ‘I shall spread that terror through the inaccessible mountain range Aratta’ (Inanna and Ebih 48=107). 41 The final -a of e2-kiš-nu-ĝal2-la probably marks an anticipatory genitive; my translation is free. The variant en e2-kiš-nu-ĝal2-la-ke4 ‘the lord of Ekišnuĝal’ in U5 seems to refer to Nanna. Although, a priori, a god can be characterized by the metaphor “inaccessible mountain,” this reading hardly fits the present context. For UR-bi i3-gu7-e in l. 243, see comment on l. 185 above. Assuming that “its faithful house” is the subject of an intransitive verb, the apparent locative -a in e2 zi-ba (as well as the directive -e in the variant e2 zi-de3) is inexplicable. Jacobsen translated: ‘into the lofty, untouchable mountain, Ekišnugal’s good house, big copper axes chewed’. 244:

For the reading of LU2.SU as šimaški, see Steinkeller 1988. For a historical review of the Šimaškians, see Potts 1994: 30–34. For the adjective ha-lam-ma, see Michalowski, LSUr p. 93. A close parallel to our line is LE seg. A 86–87: urudušen ku3 lu2 igi nu-⸢bar⸣-[re]-da ⸢šimaški⸣ki elamki lu2 ha-la[m-ma igi i-ni]-in-bar ‘the Šimaškians and Elamites, the wreckers, looked at the holy kettles that no one may look at’. Note the variant kin (for gin2) in U5, apparently a memory-based error (see comments on ll. 105, 108–9).

245–46: In accordance with my understanding of the entire kirugu as depicting a frozen picture of the city after its destruction (see §1.3.2.5.), I interpret the imperfect verbs here as expressing imperfective actions in the past (see alternatively Kramer and Klein). Note the unconventional reading of U5: e2 zi-de3 uru ĝišal-e ba-ab-ra-a-gin7. 247–48: For the formulaic phrase a uru2-ĝu10 im-me a e2-ĝu10 im-me, which recurs in the city laments in a number of variations, see Tinney, LN p. 139. For the difficult variant reading a uru2-ĝu10 im-me-e-a-aš a e2-ĝu10 im-me-e-a-aš (N11, P), see Jacobsen: ‘until its mistress/Ningal was crying: “Alas, my city!” until she was crying: “Alas, my house!” ’. 249:

The function of lu2 in lu2 nu-nus is unclear; see comment to ll. 88–91 above. The variant reading lu2 nu-nus-e (for lu2 nu-nus-ĝen; so N1, N47, and U5), is seemingly a scribal error, induced by the ergative -e of dnin-gal-e in the preceding line, or (less likely)—by nu-nus-e in l. 252 below.

41.  Note the close parallelism between the couplet in Inana-Ebih 47–48 (= 106–7) and ll. 242–42 here.

Commentary

109

I interpret the double u3 in this line as an exclamation, paralleling the exclamation a in ll. 247 and 248. Kramer regarded this u3 as a conjunction, translating our line: ‘As for me, the woman, both my city has been destroyed and my house has been destroyed’. The fact that occasionally the conjunction u3 may introduce each one of two connected sentences was pointed out already by Poebel (1923: 152 §411). 250:

The peripheral manuscripts U5, P, and Y have uĝ3(-bi) ba-(an-)da-bir-bir ‘its people have been scattered’ (see Tinney, LN p. 166).

252:

The phrase gu3 gig–du11 (with the verb always appearing in the imperfective form e) is typical of lamentation literature. See, e.g, CA 169, 218; CLAM 78:72–73; Enmerkar and Ensuhgir-ana seg. A 203. Note especially the following two examples, which appear in ĝišgiĝal sections of city laments: a-a den-ki i-lu ni2-te-na gu3 gig im-me ‘father Enki bitterly utters a lament for himself ’ (LE seg. B 3); me gal ša3-bi ba-ra-an-e3-a-aš gu3 gig-ga im-me ‘because he has removed the great rituals from within it, it cries out bitterly’ (LN 77). Curiously, although the goddess is not speaking here but is spoken of by the poet, the line uses the Emesal dialect (but see the main dialect in P).

254:

The phrase bar-ta–gub ‘to stand aside, to keep away’ is common in descriptions of the abandonment of cities and temples by their gods in the city laments. See LSUr 133; LE seg. A 11; LE seg. A 12; LE seg. B 6; LW seg. D 25. See further Volk 1995: 156. For the alternation of lu2 erim2/nu erim2 in the different versions (also attested in ll. 374–75 below), see Volk 1995: 156.

255:

For gig-ga(-bi)–du11 in the city laments, see Michalowski, LSUr p. 82. See also the discussion of gu3 gig–du11 in the comment on l. 252 above. P reads ⸢gal-gal⸣-bi mi-ni-⸢ib2?-be2⸣ ‘utters loudly’. U5 has na-aĝ2 uru ḫul-a-na ‘for the sake of her devastated house’ (see l. 84 above). The variant er2-⸢re ḫul⸣-a-na in N52 seems to reflect a memory-based error (see comment on ll. 105, 108–9). Similarly to l. 252 above, the use of the Emesal dialect is unexpected here (but see P).

256:

Note the different reading in U5: dnin-gal-e na-aĝ2 e2 ḫul-a-na gig-ga-bi im-me ‘Ningal bitterly cries on account of (or: over the fate of) her devastated house’.

257:

For nam–ku5, see Edzard 1975: 75; for this verb in lamentation literature, see Green 1978: 144–45.

258:

Sjöberg understood the -e of ĝišal-e as an ergative rather than a directive: ‘the hoe has demolished (the temple)’ (PSD A/3 139a). Jacobsen translated: ‘(Enlil) made pickaxes strike into it’, perhaps on the basis of the variant ĝišal (without the suffix -e). 42 The verbs nam–ku5 and aš2–bal also appear in parallelism in LSUr 25–26: den-ki-ke4 id id d 2idigna 2buranun-na aš2 bi2-in-bal-a-ba utu har-ra-an kaskal-e nam ba-an-ku5-da-a-ba ‘after Enki had damned the Tigris and Euphrates, after Utu had cursed the roads and highways’ (transliteration follows ETCSL).

42.  Several grammatical theories suggest that the causee in causative sentences is marked by the suffix -e but only in cases where the sentence is transitive. If we assume that the house is an implicit object of the verb here, Jacobsen’s translation fits the variant ĝišal-e.

110

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

259–60: A very similar formula appears in ll. 276–77 below, but while in ll. 276–77 sig-ta di-ĝa2 and nim-ta di-ĝa2 refer to the enemies, here these expressions refer to the inhabitants of Ur. A close parallel to our line is found in CLAM 717:256–57, where a goddess is lamenting as follows: sig-ta du sig-ta mu-gi4-gi4 hub-gaz ⟨kur-ra-ĝu10⟩ ša2 šap-liš il-la-ku šap-liš i-duk-ka-an-[ni] nim-ta du nim-ta mu-gi4-gi4 hub-⟨gaz kur-ra-ĝu10⟩ ‘He who goes south kills me in the south—my murderer [from the mountains!] He who goes north kills me in the north—my mur[derer from the mountains!’] 43

The term u3-bu-bu-ul denotes both pustules (CAD B 300a, sub bubu’tu) and flames (CAD N/1 25–26, sub nablu A). The parallel with izi points to the latter meaning (contra Vanstiphout 1974: 361, who opts for the first meaning, concluding that a plague is described here). For additional instances of the juxtaposition of u3-bu-bu-ul and izi, see, for example, Šulgi E 219; Volk 1989: 141:51–52. Note the variant readings of the verb in l. 260: ⸢ha⸣-[b]a-ni-in-si3 ‘he put (flames)’ (N11), and ha-ba-ni-tag ‘he set (flames)’. For the latter, see also the comment on l. 377. 261–64: For the adverbial nuance of the infix -da- in the verb, see comment on ll. 65–69 above. The merismic pair uru-bar/uru-ša3 is common in images of devastation in the lamentation literature. See, for example, LSUr 345; CA 36, 170. Together with sig-ta di-ĝa2 and i-bi2-nim-ta di-ĝa2 (a merism comprising all of the fighting forces), we have here a cluster of merisms. Note the variant verbal form ga-an-du11 in N11 (for ga-am3-du11 in the other manuscripts). This variant consistently appears here in N11 and in ll. 275–79. 265–66: For the reading u8 rather than ganam4, see comment on l. 67 above. The various uses of lu(-g) ‘to pasture’, ‘to multiply’ were documented by Heimpel 1968: 218ff.; see also Tinney, LN p. 176, comment on l. 257. Jacobsen’s unique translation of the verb as ‘has been driven out’ is probably based on the reading ba-ra-ma-dib and on the interpretation of the -ra- as ablative. The erroneous reading ba-ra-me-en (for ba-ra-ĝen) in N54 (ll. 265–68 and 270) indicates that DU in the other manuscripts is to be read ĝen. The error probably arose as the result of confusion between the verbal root ĝen and the Emesal form of the first-person singular copula -men3, both of which are written with the same sign and have a similar (or identical) sound. 44 An interesting parallel to ll. 265–68 is found in Enmerkar and En-suhgir-ana 207–10, where the cessation of all domestic activity in the cattle pen and sheepfolds of Ereš follow43. My translation is based on the interlinear Akk. translation (see similarly Black 1985: 39:349–50). Cohen (CLAM, p. 724) translates: ‘(Now) when someone walks below, below he is killed. My murderer from the mountains! (Now) when someone walks above, above he is killed. My murderer from the mountains!’ 44. See Proto Ea 499 (MSL 14, 51): mi-en = DU (= ĝin/ĝen); Schretter 1990: 189. According to Krecher, ĝen in Emesal is to be read men3 (Krecher 1966: 187, comment on l. IV 10).

Commentary

111

ing a calamity that fell on them is described as follows: unu3-de3 ešgiri2 šu-na bi2-in-tak4 igi-ni i3-sag3-ge/ sipa-de3 šibir za3-ga-na bi2-in-la2 er2 gig i3-še8-še8/ gab2-bar tur amaš tur3-še3 la-ba-x ĝiri3 kur2 ba-ra-an-dab5/ ga-il2-bi ad gal-eš2 nu-mu-e11 sila kur2 ba-ra-an-dab5 ‘The cowherd dropped his staff from his hand, his face twitched (with fear). The shepherd hung the crook at his side and wept bitterly. The young shepherd boy did not enter the sheepfold and the cattle pen but took another way; the milk carrier did not sing loudly but took another road’. 267:

The reading of ba-ra-mu-un-gub is supported by the following parallel: gu4-bi tur3-bi-a nugub-bu-de3 ‘that the cattle should not stand in the pen’ (LSUr 7). Note also that the verb gub ‘stand’ is an appropriate contrasting parallel to dur2-ru-un ‘dwell, sit’ in l. 268. For the reading of the variant mu-lu in P as mu-nu12, see Schretter 1990: 231.

268:

Note the variant -dur2-ru-un (for -šub) in N53, U5, and P. dur2-ru-un may be translated ‘dwell’ in this context; note, however, that it is also equated with Akk. rabāṣu ‘to crouch, be recumbent’. See Volk 1989: 146:86, 190; CAD R 10b, sub rabāṣu. The pleonastic prefix la-ba-ra- in N52 and N53 is probably due to a misunderstanding of the negative-affirmative modal prefix ba-ra-; the scribes erroneously took it to be a combination of the conjugational prefix ba- and the ablative -ra-. This error could have been influenced by verbal chains such as la-ba-ra-e3 (see, for example, l. 326 below; and the Ur version of l. 191 above).

269:

For e2 ka5-a ‘foxhole’ occurring with the verb du3 ‘to build’, see SP I 57:2.62. Note the erratic phonetic writing of du (for du3) in P. Alternatively, DU in P may be read tum2 in light of the variant reading ⸢ha⸣-ba-ab-tum3 (U5). Both readings may have been influenced by ba-ra-mu-un-tum2 in the next line.

272:

The meaning of ri in this context is ambiguous. A parallel appears in LSUr 346: uri5ki uruki ĝiš al-e ri-a-gin7 du6-du6-da ba-šid. Although the context undoubtedly points to a destructive action, it is not certain whether the simile ĝišal-e ri-a-gin7, both here and in LSUr 346, describes the negative act of tearing out (see CAD N/2 1b, sub nasāhu) or the neutral act of tilling, used here as a metaphor for razing the city. For the latter option, see: a-gar3-bi ĝišal-e ri-e-de3 ‘(to see) that the hoes till the meadow’ (Sargon and Ur-Zababa seg. A 4). Jacobsen translated ‘like fields withdrawn from the hoe’, perhaps based on the equation of ri with Akk. nesû (CAD N/2 186). For mul-gana2 pe-el ‘idle weeds’, see Falkenstein 1949: 323. Jacobsen’s translation ‘new weeds’ is based on the variant mul-gana2-BIL2 (N11, N55, and P).

273:

For identification of the thorny plant kiši16/kiši17, see Molina et al 2004: 9; de Maaijer and Jagersma 2003–4: 351; Veldhuis 2004: 230 no. 51. For pu2-ĝiškiri6 ‘irrigated orchard’ (contra the common translation ‘orchards and gardens’), see Römer 1965: 171; Powell 1995: 105; Al-Rawi and Black 2000: 39. The motif of the irrigated orchards filled or flowing with syrup and wine (lal3 ĝeštin) is common in descriptions of abundance in Sumerian literature (see Nanna-Suen’s Journey to Nibru 338; LSUr 505; Hendursaĝa A seg. B 42, 45; Nanna K seg. B 9; Winter and Summer

112

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur 138; Dumuzi-Inana D1 57; Ninurta F 30; Išme-Dagan B 47). This motif is used negatively in contexts of destruction. See, for example: pu2-ĝiškiri6 lal3 ĝeštin nu-um-de6 ‘the irrigated orchards yielded no syrup or wine’ (CA 174); see further Šulgi D 342; Volk 1995: 189. The reading pu2-ĝiškiri6 lal3 ĝeštin du8-a-ba in U5 should probably be translated ‘in those irrigated orchards that flourished with syrup and wine’. For du8 = ṭahādu, see CAD Ṭ 42b.

274:

For giri17-zal-bi i3-du3-a, see comment on ezem-ma du3-a-ba (l. 214). Here the adverbial component is marked with -bi. 45 Note the following thematic parallels: eden u2-šim-gin7 du3-a ‘plain planted with greenery’ (Enki and the World Order 361); uru nam-ḫe2 giri17-zal ša-ra-da-du3-a ‘the city built for you in abundance and joy’ (LSUr 461). U5 has the variant reading: eden giri17-zal-bi diri-ba ‘in that plain, abundant with its splendor’. For ḪAR ‘to burn (in a kiln)/bake (in an oven)’, see the terms sig4 al-ḪAR-ra ‘burned bricks’ (Sîn-iddinam 14:36; MSL 6, 148:69 passim); and ninda ḪAR-ra ‘baked bread’ (MSL 11, 112:71; Sjöberg 1960: 158, 210, passim). See also the striking parallel in LSUr 130: pu2ĝiš kiri6-bi gir4-gin7 ba-ḪAR-ḪAR ‘its irrigated orchards are burned like a kiln’.

275:

For buru4, see Veldhuis 2004: 226–28. For the simile in our line, see comment on l. 282 below. The variant dal-dal-da/-de3 ha-ba-ab-ir (N11 and N55) should perhaps be translated ‘they were carried away in flight’, assuming that ir is the Emesal form of tum2. P has a difficult variant: lu2 mu-un-gur11-ĝu10. Kramer translated it: ‘O, my men and possessions’. For the verbal form ga-an-du11 in N11, see comment on ll. 261–64 above.

276–77: For the Emesal form ir ‘to carry, to take, to plunder’, see Schretter 1990: 196–97. N19 has mu-un-gar3-ĝu10 (for mu-un-gur11-ĝu10); for these two assonant Emesal nouns, see Schretter 1990: 228. P and U5 have the main dialect form ha-ba-an/ab-de6 (for Emesal ha-ba-an/ab-ir). Kramer read the DU as ir10, arguing that it is a variant spelling of Emesal ir, but there is no precedent for such a variant reading (Schretter 1990: 196–97). Note that, in l. 277, the above two manuscripts use the main dialect form igi for Emesal i2-bi. For the merismic antonyms sig-ta di-ĝa2/ nim-ta di-ĝa2, see ll. 259–60 with comment. Note further the parallel in LSUr 254–55: sig-še3 elamki-ma ba-ši-in-gub-bu gaz-de3 i3-TILe/ nim-še3 ha-al-ma lu2-kur2-ra-ke4 šu-ni [ ]-⸢x-ĝar⸣ ‘to the south, the Elamites stepped in, to slaughter . . . ; to the north, the vandals, the enemy . . .’. 279:

For the cliché sug-ge4 gu7, see the comment on l. 133 above. The comitative -da- here and in l. 278 may express the collectivity of the subject (Gragg 1973: 61). 46

280–81: Ethnic stereotypes referring to the barbarian nature of enemies in Sumerian literature were discussed by Cooper, who maintains that barbaric features are as a rule ascribed only to the 45.  Note N46 which omits -bi, and K, which has -ba for -bi. 46.  Note, however, that Gragg himself cited l. 278 (1973: 59), classifying it as “comitative with verbs of motion.”

Commentary

113

Gutians and Amorites (CA pp. 30–33). If this is correct, then ll. 280–81 in our lament should be taken to refer to the Amorites rather than to the Elamites or Šimaškians. Note the use of the Emesal form mu-lu in N11; and na4za-gin3 ‘lapis lazuli’ (for za ‘gems’) in U5. 282:

The context indicates that the flying birds here serve as a metaphor for lost possessions, as in l. 275 above. For other occurrences of buru5mušen with this meaning, see, for example: buru5mušen-gin7 a2-[bur2-bi sar-sar-r]a ba-e-re7-eš ‘(the holy treasures stored in the treasury) went like birds ru[nning away from their hiding pla]ces’ (LE seg. A 92); ni3-gur11 buru5mušen dal-dal ki-tuš nu-pa3-de3-dam ‘Possessions are flying birds that never find a place to settle’ (SP 1.18); ni3-gur11-bi buru5?mušen [x] dal?-a-gin7 ‘Their possessions . . . like birds flying away’ (Elegy on the Death of Nannaya 84). 47 For an extensive discussion of the imagery of birds in Sumerian poetry, see Black 1996: esp. pp. 39–41; see further Veldhuis 2004: 226–28.

283:

For gi4-in, the Emesal equivalent of geme2 ‘slave girl’, see Schretter 1990: 187. Since this noun is paired here with du5-mu and below (in ll. 284–85) with šul, it should be translated ‘maiden, young woman’. For another instance of geme2 with this meaning, see, for example, Nanše A 28–29. Note the Akkadian gloss in K1: ma-ar a-ma-ti-i-a, which seems to be an inverted translation of Sumerian gi4-in du5-mu-ĝu10.

284:

I tentatively equate šu-še-er with harrānu ‘road’ (CAD H 107a) and nasīkātu ‘far-away lands’ (N/2 26a; see also Römer). The verb dab5 with ĝiri3/sila kur2 ‘an unfamiliar way/path’ as an object is a well-known literary phrase in the context of destruction and exile. See LSUr 98, 116, 124, 134, 156, 160, et passim and especially the following close parallel: ab2 u2munzere eden ki nu-zu-bi ĝiri3 kur2 ba-ra-an-dab5-be2-eš ‘the munzer-fed cows took an unfamiliar path in a desert that they did not know’ (LSUr 332). Kramer alternatively understood šuše-er as the Emesal form of šu-nir ‘emblem’, translating ‘my daughters verily in a strange city carry a strange banner’, but this alleged Emesal form is nowhere else attested.

285:

For tug2 mu-(un)-dur7 = ṣubat aršu ‘dirty garment, mourning garment’, see CAD A/2 309b, sub aršu; AHw 1471b sub waršu. The alternative reading tug2 mu-un-sir2, preferred by some scholars (PSD A/3 74–75, sub ak 4.3; Civil, MSL 12 158:18 passim) cannot be excluded. The variant tug2 mu-gig in K1 seems to be a hapax synonym of mu-(un)-dur7. ⸢tug2⸣-mu(un)-GI4 in N56 and P may be a phonetic writing for tug2-mu-gig. P uses the verbal root la2. For this verb with the meaning ‘to wear’, see, for example, Rīm-Sîn B 18. Perhaps la2 here has the nuance ‘they are fettered (in mourning garments)’. For eden ki nu-zu as the symbol of a place where one is bound to get lost, see: ĝišilargin7 eden ki nu-zu-ĝa2 nam-ba-e-de3-šub-bu-de3-en ‘do not make me fall like a throw-stick somewhere in the desert unknown to me’ (Lugalbanda in the Mountain Cave seg. A 167); see also LSUr 332.

286–87: Since I follow the line sequence of P, I present this couplet here. Note that in all other manuscripts these lines appear as ll. 302–3. 47.  For a biblical parallel, see Proverbs 23:5; and see Alster, SP p. 343, for additional ancient Near Eastern parallels.

114

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur me-a in N55 (l. 286) is probably a partially erroneous repetition of nu-me-a.

288–91: For ar2-(mur-ra), probably ‘ruin’, ‘desolate-mound’, see Krecher 1966: 160; Attinger 1993: 439 n. 1195. According to the lexical equation ar2-mu (var. ar-mu) = kar-mu (Malku I 243; CAD K 218a, sub karmu; A/2 293, sub armu B), this word is a hapax Sum. loanword in Akkadian (contra AHw 69b, sub armu I 3). For du3 in ha-ba-du3-a (ll. 288 and 290), which has the nuance ‘to be made into’, ‘to become’, see CAD E 413b–414a, sub ewû. See also: uru saĝ-ku3-ĝal2 kur-kur-ra re ha-lam ĝar-gin7 ba-du3 ‘the proud city of all the lands became a lost one’ (LW seg. D 13; see further LE seg. A 24; LSUr 222; Volk 1989: 111, comment on l. 39). The syntax of the two parallel couplets 288–89 and 290–91 is ambiguous. I assume a locative (denoting ‘upon’ or the like) + a nominalizing suffix at the end of ha-ba-du3-a and ha-ba-gul-la. Others have understood all sentences as independent clauses (so Falkenstein: ‘zur Ruine ist mein Haus gemacht, meine Stadt ist zerstört, mir, der guten Frau, ist meinen Stadt zur fremden Stadt geworden’, etc.) or considered all sentences to be subordinate to the nominal sentences nu-nus/ga-ša-an-gal zi-ĝen, (so ETCSL: ‘I am the good woman whose house has been made into ruins, whose city has been destroyed, in place of whose city a strange city has been built’, etc.). 292–93: See l. 249. For the adverbial function of the infix -da-, see comment on ll. 65–69. 294:

For the assumed sandhi writing of (i-)tuš-u3-de3-en and (i-)gub-bu-de3-en, see Attinger 1993: 195 n. 282. The above verbal forms were reconstructed on the basis of P, in which the expected first-person pronominal suffix -en is explicit.

295–96: It is difficult to express the dative ma- in the translation; it was probably intended to stress Ningal’s being affected by the event described here. The third-person plural imperfective verbal forms ma-ra-an-du3-u3-ne and ma-ra-ĝa2ĝa2-ne probably denote an impersonal subject. Compare the parallel verb ha-ba-ra-du3-du3am3 in the same context in ll. 289, 291 above. For the Emesal form ba-ra-ma-ma-⸢ne⸣ in P, see Schretter 1990: 207. 297–98: The variant reading of P could be translated: ‘Upon its removal from its site, from the plain, “Alas for my city,” I will say; upon its removal from my city, Ur, “Alas for my house,” I will say’ (see Jacobsen and Kramer). 299–300:  For the identification of u2numun2-bur2 with the Alfa grass, see CAD E 109, sub elpetu; M/2 2a, sub meburku; Römer 1965: 188–89; Attinger 1998: 177 n. 49. Jacobsen preferred the translation ‘rushes’ (see also Civil 1987: 49). The lamenting gesture mentioned in l. 300 is common in cultic laments. See especially the following Eršema parallel: gaba-ni kušub ku3-ga al-gul-e er2 gig i3-š[e8-še8] ⸢siki⸣-ni u2numun sar-ra i3-dub2-e er2 gig i3-⸢še8⸣-[še8] ‘she beats (literally: destroys) her chest, the holy drum, bitterly she wee[ps]; she pulls out her hair (like) reeds, bitterly she wee[ps]’ (Cohen 1981: 64:34–35). See also CLAM 77:42; 408:g+114. In the latter case, gaba-ni kušub [ku3-ga i3-sig3-ge] is glossed with i-rat-su ki-ma up-[pi . . .]. The equation of kušub with uppu supports my reading of ub3 ku3-ga rather than šem3 ku3-ga (for ub3/šem3, in general, see Sjöberg et

Commentary

115

al. 1969: 75; Borger 2004: 677). Note further that the Akk. translation i-rat-su ki-ma up-[pi . . .] indicates that the “drum” in this formulaic expression is a simile (contra ETCSL: ‘she beats the holy ub drum at her chest’). For the comparison of the goddess’s chest to the ub3 drum, see Gabbay 2007: 98–100. 301:

When the verb zi takes water or liquid as its subject, it often denotes ‘to rise, to flow, to swell’. See, for example, Ninkasi A 26, 28; Šulgi R 61; Šulgi P seg. B 18; Enki and the World Order 290; Enki’s Journey to Nibru 54, 85. 48 See especially the parallel in LN 181: še-eb en3-še3 er2-ra a-še-er-ra ib-bi2 mi-ni-ib-zi-zi-zi ‘the brickwork, how long will its eyes well with tears and wailing?’. For a different interpretation of zi see Tinney’s translation of the above parallel: ‘the brickwork, how long will it strain (its) eyes upwards in tears and lamentation?’; and similarly Römer here: ‘Sie wendet darauf die Augen aufwärts’. For the triplication of the root, see comment on l. 131. For the partial “plene writing” mi-ni-ib-zi-zi-i-zi, compare Lugalbanda in the Mountain Cave seg. A 32, 182, 239.

302–3: These two lines appear in P only; restoration follows ll. 295–96. 304:

See ll. 128–29 with comment. My composite text of this line is based on N57. Most manuscripts read: e2tur3 bu-ra-ĝen ab2 sag2 du11-ga-ĝen. These are probably two elliptical sentences, with an implied lu2 at the beginning of each: ‘I am one whose cattle pen has been uprooted, I am one whose cows have been scattered!’ Alternatively, these may be genitive constructions without a nomen regens, literally: ‘of uprooted cattle pen—I am’, etc. (note the hybrid variant of N58). For scattering herds as a metaphor for scattering people in lamentation literature, see Tinney, LN 136–37. For the determinative e2 before tur, compare, for example, LSUr 329; Dumuzi-Inana B1 11; Nanna D 17, F 16; Temple Hymns 163; Hoe and Plow 121. Kramer took e2 to be an independent word: ‘I am the one whose house is a stable torn down’.

305:

For ganam4-ma, see comment on l. 67 above. The reading na-gada pe-el-⸢*la2⸣-ĝen in N55 is either a semantic variant to be rendered ‘I am an unworthy herdsman’ or an error for -gin7.

306:

Note the reading ni2 nu-dub2-bu-de3 (N46, N55, and N57) ‘I shall find no rest’. For ni2–dub2, Akk. pašāḫu, šupšuḫu ‘to rest, relax’, see Volk 1989: 252–53.

307:

The verbal form nu-pa3-da-ĝen, incorporated into the composite text, follows P. Other manuscripts have [nu]-pa3-de3-de3 ‘He shall find no dwelling place’ (N46); [nu]-pa3-de3dam (N55); and nu-pa3-de3-ĝen (N11)—all of which contain the future suffix -ed.

308:

For gir5, Akk. ubāru ‘stranger’, see CAD U/W 10a; Krecher 1966: 218; Black 1985: 60–62. The reading gir5 is supported by gir7 in N57. Note the variant uru(2) lu2/6/7-ka (for uru2 kur2-ra) ‘in a city of masters/ freemen’, or the like, with lu2 used as the opposite of saĝ (see N46, N53, N57, N58).

48.  The noun i-zi ‘wave’ may be a frozen finite verbal form derived from zi in this meaning.

116

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur The variant reading saĝ ⸢il2⸣ (for saĝ-gin7; see N55 and P) ‘(I am one who is sitting) with lifted head’ seems out of context here. Kramer suggests that this is the image of a bagger (p. 54 n. 446a), and Jacobsen understands it as a plea for help (p. 388 n. 4). However, the gesture of the “lifted head” usually symbolizes pride and power (e.g., Išme-Dagan W seg. A 36; Temple Hymns 66; Hymn for Šu-Suen 16; Ur-Namma D Ur version 11–12; Enlil and Sud version A seg. A 145, 169; Rīm-Sîn F 1). Note that the sign il2 is damaged, and its reading is doubtful.

309:

For e2 ara5 ‘millhouse’, see Milano 1995 (esp. p. 395). The variant e2 ḪAR-ra in N53, which I read as e2 ur5-ra ‘debtors’ prison’ (see next line), may alternatively be read as e2 ara3-ra ‘millhouse’. For the abstract noun aĝ2 gig-ga, see ll. 102, 120–21 above. I interpret it here as an apposition to e2 ara5-ra, (literally: ‘in the millhouse, the abominable/ bitter thing’); for a similar usage, see Dumuzi and Ĝeštinana 41. For saĝ us2 ‘to pay attention, to support, to help’ (Akk. šaqû ša rēši), see CAD R 277b, sub rēšu; CAD Š/2 19b, sub šaqû A; Ninurta’s Exploits 271, 548. Note also the common epithet saĝ us2 ‘supporter of ’ followed by a temple/city name and referring to kings in royal hymns (Ur-Namma D, Version from Unknown Provenance 37; Rīm-Sîn G 30; Išbi-Erra C 24; Išme-Dagan K 36; Lipit-Eštar B 42; Samsu-iluna F seg. A 10). A close parallel to our line appears in LSUr 275–76 in a very similar context, where the lamenting goddess bewails her slavery in a foreign land, asking: saĝ a-ba-a ba-ab-us2-e ‘Who will help (me?)’. See further Michalowski, LSUr p. 94, comment on ll. 271–76.

310:

For e2 ur5-ra ‘debtors’ prison’, see CAD H 218b, sub ‘hubullu A in bīt hubulli’; Krecher 1966: 219 (note, however, Civil 1993: 75 n. 10). For inim diri ‘arrogant word(s)’ (Akk. awatu watartu), see MSL SS 1, 21. See also the similar phrase ka diri (CAD A/2 499b, sub atru; CAD P 453a, sub pû). For examples from Sumerian literature, see, for example, Instructions of Šuruppag 138, 255; Ninurta’s Exploits 407; SP 4.62. ka e-ne-eĝ3 nu-diri seems to mean, literally: ‘(of) a mouth that does not make words excessive’ or the like.

311–14: See ll. 82–85 with commentary. Note that, according to N19 and N55, which read nin-ĝu10 in l. 312 (for nin-ĝa2), the line could be translated: ‘My lady approached him for the sake of her house, bitterly she weeps’. 317:

For the topos of flooded city/temple in the lamentation literature, see comment on l. 23 above; Kutscher 1975: 138ff.; Jacobsen 1970: 329; Attinger 1993: 477ff.

318:

In ll. 318–20, the second-person voice refers to Nanna, whom Ningal addresses directly here. However, ba-mar-re-na could also be understood as intransitive passive, ‘which has been made (into ruins)’ (Kramer).

Commentary

117

Note the reading ba-mar-ra-ĝu10 ‘which has been made into ruins’ in N55. For the variant reading of P, see Römer: ‘in meinen guten Hause, (o,) dasjenige von mir, das du wie die Stadt zu Ruinen gemacht bist’. The spelling du6-du6-ra in P seems to indicate that the final consonant of /dud/ is /dr/. For other instances of du-du6-ra, see LW seg. E 68; LSUr 40; Abi-sare 4 (RIME 4) 5–7. For a recent discussion of this consonant, see Edzard 2003b: 18–19. 319:

The ambiguous term bur2-ra appears in three late balaĝ laments 49 in the form bur2-ra-ah, as part of the fixed cliché bur2-ra-ah-bi su-din-mušen dal-la-gin7 du6-da al-gir5-gir5-re ‘its bur2-ra-ah had disappeared in the ruin mound like a flying bat’. To judge from these occurrences, bur2-ra seems to be an architectural term that refers to part of a temple (Krecher 1966: 56:47; CLAM 224:18; PSD B 198–99). Others have suggested the context-based translations ‘debris’ (Kramer and ETCSL) or ‘breach’ (Jacobsen).

320:

The translation ‘from your wall’ assumes that in-ĝar is a phonetic writing for e2-ĝar8; see Krecher 1978: 36–37. For additional examples of the fallen ox motif, see Heimpel 1968: 166ff.

321:

See l. 126 with comment. P reads: du3-a-zu lul-la gul-la-zu gig-ga-am3 ‘false is your building, bitter is your destruction’ (similarly N11). The second person in these sentences indicates that according to P and N11 the addressee in ll. 319–21 is not Nanna but the city or the temple.

322:

Note the different reading in P: nu-nus-ĝen uri2ki eš3 ⸢x⸣ nidba!-bi im-ma-an-ku5-da-ĝu10 ‘I, the woman—my Ur, a . . . shrine whose food offerings have been cut off ’. ku5(-d/r) could be a semantic variant (see its Akk. equivalent parāsu ‘to cut off deliveries, income’; see also l. 395 below; LN 64; CA 124; CLAM 228:110; 328:201; 712:161), but it is more likely a phonetic scribal error for kur2. As noted by Römer, an LSUr parallel indicates that kur2 is expected here: uri5ki eš3 nidba gal-gal-la nidba-bi kur2-ru-de3 ‘to change the food offerings of Ur, the shrine of magnificent food offerings’ (LSUr 31; see also LSUr 102, 435). 50

323:

For the idiomatic expression la-la-bi nu-gi4 (Akk. lalâ šebû), see Sjöberg 1960: 174; Kutscher 1975: 143; CLAM 229:125, 257:66; CAD L 49, sub lalû A; Š/2 251–52, sub šebû. Whereas in contexts of praises this expression refers to charms that can never sate, in laments it tends to carry a negative meaning—that is, the charms are gone and cannot sate any longer. See: dam-a-ni ur2-ra-na a-la (another version: la-la-bi) nu-mu-un-gi4-a-ni ‘that he no longer brought pleasure to his wife on his lap’ (Flückiger-Hawker 1999: 127:151, 162:121′); [uruki-ĝu10] la-la-bi lu2 nu-un-gi4-a-ĝu10 gig-ga-bi im-me ‘“[Oh my city], whose allure can no longer satisfy me”—bitterly she was crying’ (LSUr 158); uru2 munus-zu nu-⸢til⸣-[la a]⸢la⸣-zu nu-gi4-a-ĝu10 ‘you, my city whose woman does not dwell there, whose charms do not

49.  But note that in two out of these three presumable occurrences the phrase is only partially preserved. See CLAM 76:25; 101:149. 50.  But note that in l. 102 ibid, one of the manuscripts has du11 (for the expected kur2), while the other manuscripts are broken at this point. See Michalowski LSUr p. 128.

118

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur satisfy her’ (LE seg. B 11; see also LE seg. B l. 12); [l]a-la-a-ni en-na bi2-ib2-gi4-gi4 ‘how long until its charms will be satisfying again?’ (LW Segment E 7).

324:

ta-aš is the Emesal equivalent of a-na-aš ‘why, what for?’ (Schretter 1990: 260). Exclamations containing this interrogative are typical of lamentation literature. See, for example, ‘Why have you turned away from my city?’ (LSUr 341); ‘Why did its hand seize Unug?’ (LW seg. A 19). See also LSUr 240–42; LN 34, 39–40, 81, 92; CLAM 99:90–98; Krecher 1980: 5. ĝar is probably a shortened form of ki–ĝar ‘to found, establish’. See the following parallels, in which ki–ĝar or ĝar is juxtaposed with du3: uru nu-du3 a2-dam ki li-bi2-ib-ĝar tur3 nu-du3 amaš nu-ĝar-ĝar ‘no city would be built, no settlement would be founded, no cattle pen would be built, no sheepfold would be founded’ (Enlil A 110); uru a2-dam ki-a bi2-inĝar-ĝar e2 kalam-ma mu-un-du3 ‘he founded cities and settlements, he built the houses of the land’ (Winter and Summer 65); uru du3-a a2-dam ĝar-ra-na ‘on his built cities, on his established settlements’ (Gudea A–B 369); uru du3-a-da ki-tuš ĝar-ra-da ‘to build cities, to found dwelling places’ (Gudea A–B 1100).

326:

For a2 as ‘power, force’, see l. 94 above with comment. Other scholars have interpreted it in a concrete sense, for example: ‘the wings (of the storm)’ (Jacobsen); or ‘dem “Arme” (des . . . Sturmwindes)’ (Römer). For the phrase u4 ḫul gig du11-ga, see l. 203 above.

327:

For the reading of P, gul-la-zu gig-ga ‘bitter is your destruction’, see l. 321 with comment; and literary discussion, §1.3.2.6.

331–32: The phrase ša3-zu a-gin7 du3-mu(-un)/ du3-am3, which serves as the refrain of this kirugu (see also ll. 334, 336, 338, 346), is unclear. My transliteration follows N11, which reads ša3-zu a-gin7 du3-am3. The translation may find support in the following bilingual parallel: ša3-ba-ni AM-ra i3-du3 = ŠA3-ba-ša2 a-⸢x x⸣ e-mi ki-am/ ša3 gašan an-na-ka i3-du3 a-gin7 aba-ra in-ga-an-⸢zu⸣ = ŠA3-bi d⸢iš⸣-tar ⸢x x e-mu-u2⸣ man-nu i-di ‘Her heart . . . changed, who knows how the heart of the lady of heaven changed?’ (Volk 1989: 82:39–40). For du3 with the meaning ‘to become, turn into’, see comment on ll. 288–91 above. Others have followed the reading ša3-zu a-gin7 du3-mu-un, which is attested in all mss except N11, and have translated ‘make thy heart like water’ (Kramer); or ‘confide in me as in a friend’ (Jacobsen, probably reading ša3 zu-a-gin7 du3-mu-un). 333:

i3-ne-še3-gin7 is probably a sandhi writing of i3-ne-eš2 a-gin7. The full form appears, for example, in N11, ll. 345, 335, 337, and N19 has the intermediate form i3-ne-še3-e-gin7 in l. 349 (Kramer). For the verb mu2 in reference to gods or human beings, see the following parallels: [dšud su]en-ĝu10 an-da mu2-a ‘my [Šusi]n who has grown as high as the heavens’ (Šu-Suen F 39); nun da-ri2 mu2-mu2 ‘prince forever thriving’ (Išme-Dagan X 11); [(x) lu]gal-ĝu10 ĝišmeš3-gin7 kisal-la bi2-in-mu2-mu2 ‘my king will sprout forth in the courtyard like a mes-tree’ (DumuziInanna F 14, and similarly F 16; Ur-Namma I seg. B 3); nam-til3-la?-zu gu-gin7 ḫe2-mu2-mu2 še-gin7 ḫe2-mu2-mu2 ‘may your life flourish like herbs, may it flourish like grain’ (Šulgi D 395). An alternative reading for this verb could be i3-e-am3-sar, with the translation ‘How

Commentary

119

have you been chased away?’ (for sar with this meaning, see comment on l. 359), but the infix -am3- seems to point to the reading -mu2. For the peculiar orthography -am3-mu2, see ba-am3-mu2 in LSUr 328, 361, 361a; Nisaba B 8, 9. The infix -e-da- in the verbal forms in this and the following line is probably a comitative (‘with you’, i.e., during your term of office); Jacobsen took it as an ablative (‘from you’). 339–41: Most mss have anticipatory genitives here, except P, which has casus pendens in all three lines (ba-an/ab-ĝar-ra-zu in ll. 339–40 and ⸢la⸣-ab-lah5-a-zu in l. 341). My translation uses casus pendens for poetic reasons. 339:

The likening of a goddess to a bird hovering over her city or flying away from it is typical of LU (see ll. 105–6, 236–37 above; see further LE seg. A 14). There is therefore no need to translate mušen as ‘mistress’ (see Kramer, who understood mušen to be a rare variant of gašan).

340:

In accordance with the preceding and following lines, I read the final /a/ of ba-ab-ĝarra-za as an anticipatory genitive (contra most translators, who see the /a/ as a locative; for example, Sjöberg: ‘in [your house] which was given over [to the hoe]’, PSD A/3 139a). For ĝar with the meaning ‘to give over’, ‘to set to’, see l. 77 above; LSUr 180; Nanše A 166–67. Note the following version peculiarities: P has e2-zu ‘in your house’ (for e2-zi ‘in the faithful house’); N11 has ba-[ -ĝ]a2-ra-za (for ba-ĝar-ra-za).

341:

For X-še3 . . . ku4 with the meaning ‘to become X’, see, e.g., Inana’s Decent 171; Man and His God 29; SP 5.97. For the similar construction X(∅) Y-a . . . ku4 ‘to change X into Y’, see comment on l. 180. Jacobsen attributes a literal meaning to ku4 here: ‘you cannot enter it (= ‘the faithful house’ mentioned in the preceding line) as queen of your nation, which was led off to slaughter’.

342–43: The complaint about the changing of the laments into alien laments (er2 kur2-ra) should be understood in light of similar complaints in LU about the alienating of rituals (ĝarza— see l. 69), rites (me—see ll. 70, 138a, 171, 386), and food offerings (nidba—see l. 322), all referring to the cessation of different aspects of the regular cult. As shown by Gabbay (2007: 150–51 and 319ff.), complaints regarding the lack of laments in the temple are often part of the stereotypical descriptions of the destruction in cultic laments. This paradox is due to the central function of laments in the regular cult, which is interrupted when the temple is attacked. For the verb du12 in connection with performing laments, see, for example, ll. 356 and 422 below; LE seg. C 50; LN 126; Ur-Namma A 194. Most translators read the verb as tuku, translating l. 343: ‘without tears of supplication/lamentation prayers, it inhabits foreign lands’. Note that in P, which reads nu-e-*du12-*a (second person), the subject must be the goddess who is addressed in this kirugu rather than the personified land. 344:

This line seems to continue the description of the personified land that is prevented from lamenting over her city, but its exact meaning is ambiguous. ni3-KA cannot be read ni3‑gu7

120

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur ‘food’ (contra Römer: ‘Dein Land Sumer presst wie einer, der übermässig gegessen hat, die Hand an den Mund’), since all manuscripts have KA, not KA×GAR. I read ni3-du11 ‘speech, word’ (see comment to l. 165). Alternatively, one could read: ninda ka si-a-gin7 ‘as (one whose) mouth is filled up with bread’. The reading -si-a- (rather than -diri-) is supported by the variant ni3-du11 si-gin7 (P). For the compound verb šu–dab5 ‘to fetter, bind’, see Sefati 1990: 275 n. 10.

346:

For ša3-su3-ga ‘emptiness, nakedness’ and figuratively also ‘waste’, see CAD M/2 21b, sub mērênu; Sjöberg et al. 1969: 70 n. 30; Sjöberg 1973b: 41. For ša3-su3-ga du3 ‘to become empty, naked’, in lamentation literature, see, e.g.: [i7]-bi a nu-un-tum2-e ša3-su3-ga-bi badu3, na-ar-šu2 me-e ul ub-bal me-e-ra-nu-uš it-ta-an-di ‘its river no longer carries water, it has become waste (so Sum.; Akk.: ‘in emptiness it was abandoned’) (CLAM 638:6; see also LN 12, with Tinney’s comment on p. 133).

347:

In accordance with my usual convention, I follow the line sequence of P (see literary discussion, §1.3.2.7 above); all other manuscripts place l. 348 before l. 347. For the gudu priest (Akk. pašīšu ‘the anointed’), see Renger 1969: 143–72. The ḫi-li of this priest is often mentioned in lamentations; for the interpretation of ḫi-li as a wig, see Renger 1969: 161–62. Kramer’s translation ‘its pašišu verily walks not in radiance’ cannot be excluded, since ḫi-li is not ascribed to the gudu outside the laments.

348:

For the phrase lil2-e ĝar, see comment on l. 1. The slightly different reading of K2: uri2ki eš3 lil2-la2 im-ma-a[n-ĝar] ‘Ur has become a shrine of winds’, is paralleled by LSUr 347: du6-ur2 ki ni2 dub2-bu den-lil2-la2 eš3 lil2-la2 baab-ĝar 51 ‘Du-ur, Enlil’s resting-place, has become a shrine of winds’.

349:

For the phonetic variant til (N55), see comment on ll. 331–32. For the en-priestess, a highorder woman, usually of royal blood, who served as the human wife of the god, see Renger 1969: 118; Weadock 1975: 101–3. Note the strong connection between the en-priestess of Ur and Ningal (Weadock 1975: 103). For the ĝipar, shrine of the en-priestess associated with the sacred marriage rite, see Harris 1971. For the Ĝipar of Ur, see Weadock 1975; George 1993: 92, §378 (see also 1993: 93, §385).

350:

As shown by Michalowski (LSUr pp. 104–5, comment on l. 447), the term uzga does not refer to a locus in the temple (see, for example, ETCSL) but to an unknown type of priest who, with others, was engaged in purification rites. The present context supports his interpretation, because uzga appears here with other priests who can no longer serve in the temple: the en (ll. 349, 353), the išib (l. 351), the lumaḫ (l. 352), and perhaps also the aua (l. 355). The term šu-luḫ ‘hand washing’ is also used to designate ‘purification rites’ in general (Lambert 1975).

351:

For the išib priest, see Renger 1969: 122–26.

51.  The reading du6-ur follows ETCLS.

Commentary

121

As shown by van Dijk (1960: 127–30), the cultic vessel šitax (SILA3), also written syllabically eš2-da (so U6) and eš-da (so K2), is frequently associated with the išib priest (see further Renger 1969: 125; Sallaberger 1996: 100, sub dugeš-da). ETCSL translates ‘supplication’ (see van Dijk 1960: 127), but /šita/ in the latter meaning is written with ŠITA or ŠITA2. Since the šita/ešda vessel often occurs with the verb šu–du8 ‘to hold’ (e.g., Ninĝišzida A 10; Nanše A 48), I understand šu–du7 here as the phonetic writing for šu–du8. See the variant ĝidru šu–du7 ‘to hold a scepter’ (e.g., Nuska A seg. A 18), which replaces the more common ĝidru šu–du8 (e.g., Enki and Ninhursaĝa 167; Inana’s Descent 291; Sjöberg et al. 1969: 97 n. 53). See also the parallel in LSUr 445: engiz ensi kišib3-ĝal2-bi eš-da šu li-bi2-indu7-uš ‘The temple cook, the dream interpreter, and the seal keeper did not hold the šita/ ešda-vessel’. Jacobsen took šu–du7 literally, with the meaning ‘to perfect’: ‘O father Nanna, your purification priest no longer perfects pure cups for you’. 352:

On the lumaḫ priest, see Renger 1969: 126–29. For ša3-gada–la2 ‘linen-clad’, see CAD G 8a, sub gadalallû; Falkenstein 1959: 99. For the gi-gun4-na, a ‘Hochtempel’ that was built on terraces and often situated in a grove of trees, see CAD G 67–70, sub gigunû, with discussion on pp. 69–70. As noted by Römer, to date, no giguna dedicated to Nanna in Ur is known to us; see the various gigunas listed in George 1993: 92. Note that the locative suffix expected after gi-gun4-na ku3-zu appears only in N11 (see also the corrupted complex gi-gun4!-[na]-za ku3 in N53).

353–54: Since the gipar was located inside the precinct of the Ekišnuĝal (Weadock 1975: 105ff.; Charpin 1986: 192ff.), I consider e2-kiš-nu-ĝal2-la to be a locative (‘in the Ekišnuĝal’). For the variant form e2-kiš-nu-ĝal2-la-am3 (N19), see Jacobsen: ‘your goodly high priestess, the very Ekišnuĝal one’. 52 Note the Ur reading nu-mu-ni-in-ku4-k[u4] ‘will no longer enter’ and the unusual phonetic writing eš (for eš3) in the Nippur manuscripts. For dib in a similar context, see Krecher 1966: 93–94. 355:

I tentatively follow Sjöberg, who defined a-u3-a as ‘a cult person, probably a musician’ (PSD A/1 199a; for the possible derivation of this term from the exclamation a-u3-a, see PSD A/1 199a, sub a-u3-a A). Kramer’s suggestion that a-u3-a is a toponym cannot be supported (SBH 9:55 and 10:56, which Kramer refers to, actually have the GN A-pak, not a-u3-a; see CLAM 507:107). The locative expected at the end of e2 ezem-ma-zu appears only in N11 and P. Note the variant kisal ezem-ma-zu ‘in your festive courtyard’ in N53 and U6.

356:

For the šem drum, see Gabbay 2007: 70 (for the determinative kuš attached to šem3 in N19, see Gabbay 2007: 70 n. 159). For the ala, see Hartmann 1960: 79–82; PSD A/2 80– 82. These two instruments often form a pair, which may explain the adjectival phrase ni3 ša3 ḫul2-le-da that separates them from the tigi. On the tigi instrument, see Gabbay 2007: 58 n. 76.

52.  Falkenstein considered e2-kiš-nu-ĝal2-la(-am3) to be in apposition to eš3 in the next line, translating: ‘dein guter en-Priester . . . geht nicht aus dem Ekischnugal, dem Heiligtum, voll Freude zur Wohnstätte der Priesterinnen’ (similarly Römer).

122

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur The locatives in tigi-a and in šem3 kuša2-la2 ni3-ša3-ḫul2-le-da are unexpected, because du12 usually takes an accusative. A similar rare usage appears in LW seg. H 18. Three manuscripts (N11, N66, and U6) have a singular verb in l. 355: nu-mu-ni-ib2-du10-ge.

357:

Note the variant reading la-ba-tu5-tu5-a (U6; similarly P), which subordinates this line to the next line: ‘the black-headed people, who are no longer bathing for your festivals’.

358:

For the expression ulutim2–kur2 (or ulutim2–bal) ‘to change the appearance’ in the context of suffering and destruction, see, for example, LE seg. A 39–40; Nungal A 54.

359–60: The comitative -e-da- probably conveys the idea ‘in your presence’. Gragg’s suggestion (1973: 60) to ascribe an adverbial meaning to this infix is problematic in light of the second-person indicator -e- (see comment on ll. 65–69). The refrain en3 tukum-še3 SAR is enigmatic. It is attested once more in a lamentation context: a-a ugu-ĝu10 en3-tukum-še3 ni3-kas7-ĝu10 igi erim2 mu-e-du8 en3-tukum-še3 SAR ‘O father who begot me, how long will the enemy eye be cast upon my account, how long . . . ?’ (LSUr 451). A tentative translation is ‘how long chasing?’—that is ‘how long (will you be) chased away?’ or ‘how long will you run?’ (for sar in this sense in lamentation literature, see: kur-kur-re uruki lu2-bi nu-til-la i-im-sar-sar-re-ne ‘the foreigners in the city even chased away its dead’, LSUr 86). ETCSL reads en3 tukum-še3 mu2 and translates (based on context): ‘how long will this last?’ For a close parallel to l. 359, see Ur-Namma A 187: tigi a-⸢da⸣-ab gi-SU3 za-am-zaam-ĝu10 ⸢er2⸣-ra mu-da-an-ku4 ‘my tigi, adab, flute, and zamzam songs were turned into laments for me’. The phonetic writing ku5 (for ku4) in N66 may be an error that was introduced because of the parallel TAR sign in line 358. 361–62: For the reading gub in ba-ra-mu-un-gub, see ll. 267–68 with comment. ETCSL reads ba-ra-mu-un-de6 ‘your bull is not brought into its pen’. i3 ‘ghee’ is probably an abbreviated form of i3-nun. See Stol 1994: 194ff. (esp. p. 197). The verbal form nu-mu-ra-šu-gid2-e ‘is no longer milked for you’ (see N11 on l. 362) includes the nominal element šu of the compound verb šu–gid2. For the infiltration of the nominal element into the verbal chain, see Edzard 2006: 147. The translation ‘milked’ follows Stol 1993–97: 191. Note the following variants: U6 replaces the second sentence in both lines with the refrain en3 tukum-bi-še3 SAR-e; in l. 362, N11 and U6 have the main dialect form udu (for e-ze2); N53 and N67 have e-ze2-ĝu10 for e-ze2-zu. 363–64: The ‘milk carrier’ (ga gur3, Akk. nāš šizbe) and the ‘ghee carrier’ (i3 gur3) are counted among the temple personnel in literary texts. The regular performance of their work symbolizes prosperity and peace, while its cessation is a symbol of calamity. See: e2 ama-zu-še3 i3 gur3ru-me-en e2 dnin-gal-še3 ga gur3-ru-me-en ‘I brought ghee to your mother’s house; I brought milk to Ningal’s house’ (Inana’s Descent 371–72); u5 gur3-ru-ĝu10 u5 nu-un-g[ur3-ru x] ga gur3-ru-ĝu10 ga nu-un-g[ur3-ru] ‘my ghee carrier will not ca[rry] the ghee, my milk carrier will not ca[rry] the milk’ (Dumuzi-Inana R ver. B 9–10; see also version C 4–5). See espe-

Commentary

123

cially Nanše A 77–79, which parallel ll. 363–65 here: i3 gur3-ru ḫe2-em e2-e i3 ba-an-dib-ba/ ga gur3-ru ḫe2-em e2-e ga ba-an-dib-ba/ ku6-da kaš4 lu2 a2 u4-da-ka ḫe2-a ‘let there be a ghee carrier who delivers ghee to the house, let there be a milk carrier who delivers milk to the house, and let there be a fish courier, a day-worker’. Interestingly, in administrative texts we find only the ‘milk carrier’, mostly in connection with the temple (see Heimpel 1981: 109; Stol 1993–97: 192). This may indicate that i3 gur3 is a poetic synonym with ga gur3 that was created for the purpose of literary parallelism. 365–66: Based on the amount of evidence for the reading ŠU.ḪA as šu-ku6 (see Englund 1990: 230ff.; esp. p. 234 n. 777.), I prefer the reading šu-kux for (the younger form) ŠU.GIR, which appears in most manuscripts. 367–68: For this couplet, see CA 264–65: gu2 ĝišma2 gid2-da i7-da-zu u2 gid2-da ḫe2-em-mu2/ har-raan ĝišgigir-ra ba-ĝar-ra-zu u2 a-nir ḫe2-em-mu2 ‘may the grass grow long on your canal-bank tow-paths, may the grass of mourning grow on your highways laid for wagons’ (see also CA 273–74). The topos of the abandoned canals and roads in the city laments is discussed by Green 1975: 297–98. Civil (1987: 48) identifies the temesar plant as “a plant of the genus Salsola growing on saline soils and used from Iran to the Iberian peninsula as a source of alkaline ashes.” For the kiši17 plant, see comment on l. 273 above. 370:

As shown by Michalowski (LSUr, pp. 71–72) and Römer (2001: 130), the two verbs kiĝ2 and ki–kiĝ2 seem to bear the same meaning, at least according to the unilingual sources (contra Kramer and ETCSL, who translate ki mu-e-ši-kiĝ2-kiĝ2: ‘seeks a place before you’). Veldhuis (2004: 139) pointed out the distinction between ki–kiĝ2 with a terminativemarked object, meaning ‘to look for’ (as is the case here), and a dative-marked object, meaning ‘to look after’.

371:

The tentative translation ‘to stretch out the hand’ for šu–ša-an-ša(-ša) is based on the context (Kramer; see further Kienast 1957: 45 n. 6). The translation ‘to overpower’ (Sjöberg 1974–75: 168:26; 173) does not fit here.

372:

The genitive nominal phrase ‘The brickwork of your faithful house’ (ergative), according to standard Sumerian grammar, would be: sig4 e2 zi-da-za-ke4. Since this reading is not found in any manuscript, I opt for the reading of N11 and N65, sig4 e2 zi-da-zu. Kramer interpreted the above phrase as an internal genitive, translating: ‘Thy brickwork of the righteous house’. The other manuscripts have different readings, none of which is grammatically satisfactory (see score). me-a(m3)-zu can hardly mean ‘where are you?’ since the interrogative me-a ‘where’ takes an enclitic copula rather than a possessive particle (the expected form would be mea[m3]-me-en; see CAD A/1 338b, sub ali). 53 I suggest that me-am3-zu means, literally, ‘your “where is she?’’ ’. See the Akk. interrogative ališunu ‘Where-are-they?’ (CAD A/1 338b).

53.  Note, however, that me-a with the first- or second-person enclitic copula in literary sources does not seem to exist.

124

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur The variant reading ḫe2-me-am3-bi im-me-e in U6 should probably be translated: ‘(the brickwork of your faithful house) cries its “let it be!’’ ’ (see l. 151)

373:

The composite text follows P, which has the best text (grammatically), assuming that bara-e3-me-en stands for *ba-ra-e3-a-me-en. ba-ra-me-en in N11 could be due to either contraction of the triphthong /a-e-a/ or merely scribal error. U6 reads: nin-ĝu10 e2-ta e3-me-en uru-ta e3-me-en, perhaps: ‘my lady, you, who left your house, you, who left your city’.

374:

bar-ta . . . gub ‘to stand aside, to stay away’ commonly expresses abandonment in lamentation literature. See l. 254 above with comment. The locative of uru(2)-za in N11 and P does not necessarily mean that the goddess is still in the city (contra Kramer and Jacobsen), since bar-ta . . . gub may sometimes take a locative; see Letter from Sîn-iddinam to the God Utu 20. The -e- in ba-e-da-gub (N11) is out of place here. Perhaps it is a second-person singular infix erroneously inserted before the comitative -da-, which the scribe considered to be part of the verbal base (see note to l. 431 below). The verbal forms of the other manuscripts, ba-gub-be2 (U6) and ba-gub-be2-⸢me⸣-en (P), seem to be even more corrupt.

375:

For the infix -e- in ba-e-da-sa2, see comment on ba-e-da-gub (l. 374 above). The meaning of gaba DI is uncertain. The variant ba-e-de3-sa (N11) suggests the reading sa2, while the variant [b]a-da-si (N55) points to the reading si8. Since si8 is a variant of sa2 ‘to rival, fight’ (CAD Š/1 366b, sub šanānu), I prefer the more common reading sa2, assuming that gaba-sa2 is a synonym for of gaba–ri ‘to confront’. The same phrase seems also to appear, in a broken context, in LW seg. E 115: [ ]-zu sa2 mi-ri-ib-du11 [ ] ⸢x⸣ gaba ḫul-bi sa2-ĝa2. Line 375 may be interpreted as a question, ‘(How long) will you confront your city like an enemy?’ if we assume that en3-še3-am3 at the beginning of l. 374 also relates to l. 375.

376–77: The motif of the patron deity loving his/her city is widespread in Sumerian literature (e.g., Ninurta’s return to Nibru 180–82; Rulers of Lagaš 155; Nanna I 12; Luma A 55; Nergal C 58; Enmerkar and En-suhgir-ana seg. A 253). Note especially the following parallel in the lamentation context: dnu-muš-da-ke4 uru ki-tuš ki aĝ2-ĝa2-ni ĝiri3 kur2 ba-ra-an-dab5 ‘Numušda took an unfamiliar path away from the city, his beloved dwelling’ (LSUr 124). I understand (with Römer) the verb mu-e-tag (variants: mu-un-tag, ba-tag-ge) to be a shortened form of za3 mu-e-tag. For za3–tag ‘to push away, reject’, see Sjöberg 1970: 87–90; Karahashi 2000: 175–76; CAD S 70, sub sakāpu. For za3–tag as a common verb in lamentations, expressing the idea of abandonment and rejection, see LSUr 24; LN 91; LW seg. B 4; LE seg. C 5, 7, 10, 13, 16, 22, 24, 54. The full form of this compound verb seems to occur here in U6 (l. 377): za3 E NE ba-tag-ge, and in N11 (l. 376): za3 E NE ba-e-ne2-tag (the e-ne is enigmatic; Römer suggests that it is a short form of the possessive suffix -a-ne-ne, referring to the people of Ur, and ETCSL suggests the composite text za-e izi-ba mu-un-tag ‘you set it [= the land] on fire’). 378–79: For the “prädikative Satzteil” without an enclitic copula, see Falkenstein 1949–50: 2.5 n. 2.

Commentary

125

In U6, the couplet in ll. 378–79 is contracted into one line: gu4-gin7 tur3-zu-še3 udu-gin7 amaš-zu-še3. Two other manuscripts have an expanded version of the couplet under discussion: in K3 it appears as a triplet, with l. 379a added; and in N60 it is a quartet, with ll. 377a and 379a added. 54 Note also that K3, in l. 379, probably inserted the vocative nin-ĝu10 ‘my lady’ between the two parts of the line, as in l. 380. 380:

For the term ama5, which denotes the private quarters of women and young children, see comment on l. 130 above. The ‘room’ mentioned here should be understood as the nursery of the young child. Sjöberg translated ‘like a young daughter’, matching the gender of the metaphor to the gender of the represented entity (see PSD B 84a). Note the variant reading ki-sikil ‘young woman’ in P (for nin-ĝu10).

381:

For the compassionate exclamation muš2-am3, see CAD A/1 213–14, sub aḫulap; LN 58, 80; Inana C 258.

383–84: In many manuscripts, this couplet is expanded with additional lines containing the same formula: [city name] ki-bi ha-ra-ab-gi4-gi4 nam-nin-bi ak-a, with names of other Sumerian cities. Five manuscripts have a line dedicated to the restoration of Nippur (see l. 383a in score); seven manuscripts have a line dedicated to Isin (l. 384a); and a manuscript from Kiš has two more lines, one dedicated to an unknown city (l. 384b), and the other to Babylon (l. 384c). 386:

The variant reading in U6 may be reconstructed as follows: [me-zu] ⸢mu⸣-da-kur2-ra ⸢me?zu?⸣ ki-bi ha-ra-ab-gi4-gi4 ‘[Your rites] had been changed, let your rites be restored to you’. Römer suggests the reconstruction [me-ĝu10], assuming that in the first part of the line Ningal is speaking, and in the second part she is answered by a chorus.

388:

For the exclamation e, see, for example, Inana and Šu-kale-tuda 242, 243; Ninurta’s Exploits 265; Nanna I 17; Nanna M 7; Nanna N 17; Nanna O seg. A 24, 28; Ninurta G 165. ⸢e2⸣ in U6 is probably a dictation- or memory-based scribal error (see comments on ll. 104 and 108–9). For UR with the meaning ‘(al)together’, see comment on UR–gu7 in l. 185 above. For the elusive and pregnant verb ri, see comment on l. 272 above. For my translation ‘destroyed’, see CAD R 69–70, sub raḫāṣu A (occurring as the equivalent of both ri and ra, the latter furnished here by N11 and N55). Note especially the use of Akkadian raḫāṣu to describe the destructive actions of storms (CAD R 70). Other translations suggested for ri are ‘flooded’ (Kramer), ‘swept’ (Jacobsen), and ‘treffen’ (Falkenstein).

389:

For gu3–dub2, see CAD N/1 105b, sub nagāgu; Klein 1981: 158, comment on ll. 113–15; Šulgi A 66.

390:

The particle -ri that is affixed to most of the nominalized verbal forms in kirugus 9–10 (ll. 390, 393–96, 398, 400–406, 410) 55 was discussed by Krecher (1965: 12–29), who defined this affix (which should not be confused with the demonstrative, or “deictic” particle

54.  Line 377a in N60 is too broken to decide whether it was identical with l. 378 or not. However, the ratio between l. 379 and l. 379a in this manuscript seems to indicate that l. 377a was also slightly different from l. 378 in this manuscript. 55.  Note the wordplay with the verbal base -ri that appears at the end of l. 388.

126

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur ri; see Edzard 2006: 51) as an “isolierende Postposition,” aimed at stressing the meaning of the verb. His vague definition was criticized by Green (1975: 354), who suggested that -ri is a variant of the ablative -ta with a temporal meaning. Jacobsen understood -ri similarly, rendering kirugus 9–10 as a series of temporal subordinate clauses introduced by the conjunction ‘after’: ‘After storm upon storm swept the country . . . after the city-ravaging storm . . . had laid hands on the holy rites’. However, the above interpretation of -ri faces difficulties when it comes to ll. 400–404, which contain non-finite verbal forms. 56 Shifra and Klein interpret this affix as a demonstrative, translating ll. 390ff.: ‘That bitter storm which passed in the land’. I prefer to leave the enigmatic -ri untranslated. For the verb zal as having u4 ‘storm’ as its subject, see LSUr 59, 486–90. Those who attribute the simple meaning ‘storm’ to the word u4 here translate zal accordingly, with ‘sweep over’ (see Falkenstein and ETCSL) or ‘blow’ (see Michalowski in LSUr 59, 486– 90). Since I believe that ‘day’ and ‘storm’ are two facets of the entity designated by u4 (see comment on ll. 88–91 above), I interpret zal here as ‘to pass’.

391–92: This couplet has a parallel in LSUr 5–6: uru2 gul-gul-lu-de3 e2 gul-gul-lu-de3 tur3 gul-gul-lude3 amaš tab-tab-e-de3 ‘to destroy the city, to destroy the house, to destroy the cattle pen, to devastate the sheepfold’. Some scholars translate tab in this context as ‘to burn’, equating it with Akk. ṣarāpu (CAD Ṣ 102). However, as noted by Michalowski (LSUr, p. 71), in light of the parallelism with gul, it should be equated here with Akk. sapānu (CAD S 158) ‘to devastate, to level’. For additional references to tab with this meaning, see LW seg. D 15; Ur-Namma A 206. Another close parallel to l. 392 is found in the balaĝ lament Immal-Gudede: [u4] tur3 gul-e u4 amaš bu-[re] ‘[storm] which destroys the cattle-pen, storm which upro[ots] the sheepfold’ (CLAM 607:24; see also 608:31). For additional parallels between the above balaĝ and kirugus 9–10 of our lament, see comment on ll. 400–403 below. 393–94: For šu–la2 in this context, see šu–la2 = lupputu (CAD L 83a), and šu–la2-la2 = luʾû (CAD L 258b). For unilingual examples, see CA 213; LSUr 18. 57 396:

Sjöberg gave a2–la2 ‘to bind the arms’ in this line the classification “meaning uncertain” (PSD A/2 84a), probably because he thought that the act of binding peoples’ arms did not fit a storm. However, as I have shown in the literary analysis (§1.3.2.8 above), the attribution of human actions to the storm here is poetically logical in view of the conceptual association between the storm and the enemy.

398:

The phrase teš2–ĝal2, similar to teš2–tuku, means literally ‘to have shame’. For teš2 ‘shame’, see CAD B 352a, sub buštu; AHw 143b, sub būštu(m). The epithet teš2 nu-ĝal2-la/nu-tuku ‘shameless’ usually describes brutal, barbaric people (e.g., Enlil and Sud version A seg. S 16; Diatribe B seg. A 6; Instructions of Šuruppag 116). Note especially the following instances with igi: igi-ni teš2 la-ba-an-tuku ‘his face is shameless’ (UET 6/2 289 4, in Alster 1997:

56.  Jacobsen solves this problem by arguing that the nominal sentences in these lines are elliptical, with the missing finite nominalized verbal form appearing in l. 405: ‘after the storm knowing no mother, after the storm knowing no father . . . (400–405) now, today, after the storm has vanished from the country’ (405). This translation is somewhat forced. 57.  See Michalowski’s comment on LSUr 18, which suggests a slightly different understanding.

Commentary

127

314); igi teš2 nu(-un)-ĝal2-la (= ša ina pānišu bultu lā ibaššû) ‘his face is shameless’ (Ninurta’s Exploits 30). The attribution of this characteristic to the storm(-day) here seems to be connected to its indiscriminate, arbitrary attack on innocent people, described in the beginning of the tenth kirugu (ll. 400–404); in addition, it may hint at the association between the storm and the human enemy. See literary discussion, §1.3.2.8 above. 399:

The rubric ‘its ĝišgiĝal’ is omitted in all manuscripts except P. This omission may indicate that l. 398 was considered the first line of the tenth kirugu rather than the ĝišgiĝal of the ninth kirugu. This is in accordance with its content, which is suitable for introducing the storm’s description in the following passage (i.e., ll. 400–404); see literary discussion, §1.3.2.8 above. Note that this hypothesis is borne out by N72, which has a double rule above l. 398 (but see comment on l. 417 below).

400–403:  These lines are precisely parallel to their counterparts in the Balaĝ Immal-Gudede (see CLAM 607:16–19); the last line, which parallels l. 403 in our lament, has the following Akkadian translation: u4-ma ša2 ši-it-ta la i-du-u2 u4-ma ša2 ru-tu2 MIN. For this formulaic topos, see also the interesting lexical segment in Kagal G 166–68 (MSL 13 257): u4 usar n[u-zu] = [u4-mu ša še-i-tam la i-du-u2], u4 ma-la nu-[zu] = [u2-mu ša ru-u2-tam la i-du-u2], u4 dam-kar-re = [u4-mu . . .]. For usar ‘female neighbor’ (Akk. šeʾ ītu), see CAD Š/2 363a, sub šēʾu; Wilcke 1969b: 86–89 n. 90. For ma-la ‘a woman friend’, see CAD R 434, sub ruttu; Wilcke 1969b: 94 n. 99. 404:

Like ll. 400–403, this line also has a parallel in Immal-Gudede (although it is not identical): [u4] du5-mu tur-re du10-ub-ba ba-šub = u4-ma ša2 še-er-ra ina bir-ki na-du-u2 ‘a storm which hurls the little child from the lap’ (CLAM 607:20). My translation here is based on this parallel. Others translate: ‘the storm which caused the wife to be abandoned, which caused the child to be abandoned’ (e.g., Klein, ETCSL).

405:

Some translators understood the second u4 in this line as ‘light’, translating: ‘the storm (u4-de3) which caused the light (u4) to perish in the land’ (e.g., Falkenstein and ETCSL). This translation is less likely, since it is in contradiction to the meaning of the recurring u4 throughout kirugus 9–10. Therefore, in analogy to l. 398 above, where the ‘storm’ (u4) is repeated at the beginning for emphasis, I read our line as also repeating this key word, to mark the end of the storm’s description and signal the beginning of the appeal to Nanna (ll. 407ff.). Note the splitting of the line in the middle of the verb in N17. A similar scribal error appears in N55, l. 369.

406:

For the phrase u4 ḫul gig du11-ga ‘ordered in hate’, and for the variant u4 ḫul gig du11-ga en-lil2-la2(-ta) ‘the storm ordered by Enlil in hate’ (U6, N17), see ll. 203 and 326 above. For the translation of the verb zal, see comment on l. 390 above. d

407:

My translation assumes that the ablative in uru-zu-ta is out of place here. This may be supported by the variant uru-zu-še3 in U6, where the ablative is substituted for a terminative suffix, and by the verbal form nam-ba-ĝa2-ĝa2, which does not contain an ablative infix (in contrast to ll. 208–10, where the removal of the storm from the city is expressed by the verb ba-da-an-ĝar, with an ablative infix).

128

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

408:

Note the reading of P and N17, igi-zu nam-bi2-ib2-du8, perhaps ‘may you not look (adversely) on your black-headed people’. Jacobsen translated, clearly on the basis of this variant, ‘may it not pile up your dark-headed nation before your eyes’.

409:

The present tentative reconstruction of this line is based on U6 and P, which together yield a sensible composite text. I understand the reconstructed compound verb ki-bi-še3 gur as a unique variant of the idiomatic ki-bi-še3 gi4 ‘to recur’ (literally: ‘to return to its place’). The idea is that, just as a rain falling from heaven never returns to its source, so also may the storm never come back to Ur, or else, may it disappear altogether (see also Jacobsen and Nielsen 1992; Samet 2010). If this interpretation is correct, ki-tuš-bi gur (literally, ‘to return to its dwelling’), which appears in manuscripts N72 and N73, conveys the same idea.

410:

Tinney has shown that, while (ni3-)zi-ĝal2 designates animals, zi-ĝal2 refers to human beings (LN 167–68). In accordance with this rule, it is possible to translate here: ‘all living beings of heaven and earth and the black-headed’ (note, however, that Tinney himself considered LU 410 to be an exception to this rule). Note that the two verbal variants tu10(-b) (N72, K3) and dub2 (N11 and P) are phonetically and semantically similar (for dub2, Akk. napāṣu ‘to smash’, see Sjöberg et al 1969: 103; for tu10, Akk. kamāru ‘to annihilate, defeat’, see Kutscher 1975: 118; Krecher 1966: 106–7; see also CAD H 151b for tu10 = ḫatû ‘to smite’). The variant da-ab in U6 may represent a different reading of dub2 (Römer surmises that it points to the reading dŏb).

411:

For du3-a-bi ‘(in) its entirety’ (CAD K 65a, sub kalama; 87b, sub kalu) in connection with storm winds, see Flood Story, Seg. D 1: im-ḫul-im-ḫul im-si-si-ig du3-a-bi teš2-bi i3-sug2ge-eš ‘the destructive winds and gales—all of them arose’.

412:

See the similar image in the following parallel from an incantation: ka-ni abul gi6-da keš2-da ‘his mouth is a city gate which is closed at night’ (Schwemer and Abusch 2007: 25).

414:

For si-ig with the meaning ‘to remove, tear/bring down’, see CAD Š/1 92–93, sub šaḫāṭu B; Cooper, CA 244 (comment on ll. 89–90); Zgoll 1977: 335. Note especially the following parallel, where si-ig refers to the removal of an item from the peg on which it was hung: ĝiš an-za-am ku3-ĝu10 ĝiškak-ta la2-a ĝiškak-ta ba-ra-an-si-ig ‘my holy drinking cup was torn down from the peg where it was hung’ (Dumuzi’s Dream 33, 56, 257). However, the possibility cannot be excluded that si-ig here is a variant of sig10 ‘to place’, with the ablative -ta carrying the nuance ‘to take down, remove’, similar to the use of the ablative with the verb ĝar (see comment on l. 208 above). P reads: ĝiškak-ta ḫe2-em-ta-la2. In this context, la2 ‘to hang’ is the antonym of si-ig ‘to tear down’ (as clearly indicated by the above example from Dumuzi’s Dream). P’s variant reading was the basis for the ETCSL translation (following Kramer): ‘may its record be hung from a nail outside the house of Enlil’.

417:

As at the end of the ninth kirugu (l. 398–99), here also the rubric ĝišgiĝal-bi-im is missing in all manuscripts except P. Furthermore, similar to l. 398 above, N72 disconnects l. 416 from the preceding lines with a double rule. But unlike l. 398, which is perfectly suitable to introduce the next kirugu, line 416 (‘unto distant days, other days, to the end of the days!)

Commentary

129

seems to be a natural conclusion to the tenth kirugu, as a logical and syntactical complement to the curses expressed in ll. 411–14. Line 418 (‘From distant days when the land was founded’), on the other hand, is a natural opening for the eleventh kirugu. 418:

See LSUr 367: u4 ul kalam ki ĝar-ra-ta za3 uĝ3 lu-a-še3 ‘from distant days when the land was founded, until people multiplied’. It was probably the above parallel that prompted Falkenstein to read uĝ3 (for kalam) here and to translate: ‘seit die Menshcen auf die Erde gesetzt sind’.

419: lu2 su16-na ‘a humble man’ (CAD A/2 455b, sub ašru A) is a designation for the person presenting the prayer (that is, reciting the lament) before the god in the city laments (see §1.2.2 above). See lu2-ulu3 lu2 su16-na er2 e2 zi dam-za mu-ra-an-de6 ‘a person, a humble man, brings you a lament over your wife’s faithful house’ (LE seg. C 50); [l]u2 su16-na ĝiri3-zu mu-un-dab5-ba ‘a humble [m]an who has grasped your feet (brought a lament to you)’ (LW seg. H 22; contra Jacobsen and ETCSL, which translate ‘the humble people’). See also the comments on ll. 420–21 below. The act of ‘laying hold of (the god’s) feet’ (this literal translation fits the phrase ĝiri3– dab5 here better than the figurative translation ‘to take the road’ of Kramer and Falkenstein) is ascribed to the “man” who also presents the prayer in LW seg. H 22, cited above. In LN 310, ĝiri3–si3 replaces ĝiri3–dab5: su16-na šita-ba ki la2-a-ne2-eš2 ĝiri3-ba si3-ga-ne2-eš2 ‘because the humble one prostrated himself in supplication, because he served there’ (for ĝiri3–si3 ‘to serve’, see Tinney, LN 310.). Römer refers to ĝiri3–dab5 ‘to lay hold of (the god’s) feet’ in Sumerian personal names of the type ĝiri3-ne2-ba/i3-dab5 (see Bauer 1972: 524; Limet 1968: 423). 420:

For si-ga ‘to fall silent, to become still’, see CAD Š/3 332a, sub šuqammumu. The phrase e2 si-ga ‘the house that has become silent’ is common in lamentation literature; see the examples in the lexical section of CAD Š/3; and also LSUr 315; LN 85; Enmerkar and Ensuhgirana seg. A 198; Dumuzi’s Dream 53. I consider igi-zu-še3 du12-a-bi, which lacks a verb, to be elliptical, with the verb mura-an-de6 to be understood as repeated: ‘(have brought) their chanting before you’. Others have added a new verb: ‘their chanting (allowed) before you’ (Jacobsen); ‘their chanting (intoned) before you’ (Klein). Kramer understood it as a nominal sentence: ‘before thee is their cry!’

421:

-bi in ba-ra-šub-bu-uš-a-bi is difficult. Römer reads a “pronominal conjugation,” although the verb is finite: ‘nachdem sie verworfen worden waren’. I prefer to regard -bi as a demonstrative: ‘those (black-headed who . . . )’. 58 The variants ba-ra-šub-bu-uš-a-za (P) and [ba-ra]-šub-bu-uš-a-ba (N70) are difficult due to the final -a vowel. One translation might be ‘may they (= the priests) pay homage to you for the sake of your/ those black headed people’; see a similar construction in Šulgi B 242. For kiri3 šu–tag (a variant of the more common kiri3 šu–ĝal2) ‘to pay homage’, see CAD L 10–11, sub labānu B; Gruber 1975.

58.  I did not give expression to the demonstrative in order not to interrupt the fluency of the translation (see comment on l. 6 above).

130

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

422:

The variant ba-an-ĝar-ra-ba in U6 can be translated: ‘in their (city) which has been made (into ruins)’, with ‘their’ referring to the black-headed people mentioned in the preceding line.

424:

The simile mul-an-gin7 usually appears in connection with eternality and infiniteness; see, for example, Šulgi E 246; Rīm-Sîn E 68; Šulgi C seg. A 19; Šulgi B 364. For igi-zu/ni-še3–dib ‘to walk before you/him’ (said of the god, and sometimes also of the king), see, for example, Man and His God 109; Inana C 212, 215; Iddin-Dagan A 33; Bau A 34; Ur-Namma E 27. For dib2 with the same meaning, see comment on l. 354 above.

426:

The translation of lu2 siskur2-ra as ‘man of prayer’ rather than ‘man of offering’ is based on parallels in the concluding passages of other City Laments, where siskur2 often designates a prayer that was recited along with the lament itself during a ritual. See especially LE seg. C 52, where the siskur2 is uttered (du11; it is still possible though less likely that siskur2 refers to a sacrificial offering, with du11 being used as an auxiliary verb).

427–35: This concluding passage of the Ur lament shares a number of formulaic expressions with a variety of Emesal prayers, such as the Eršahuĝas and Šuilas, and with the “heart-pacification units” of first-millennium Balaĝ and Eršema laments, which are usually found at the end of these compositions (see recently Gabbay 2007: 6ff.). Another composition with which this passage shares some common clichés is Man and His God. 427:

For arhuš su3 ‘merciful, compassionate’, see CAD R 257b, sub rēmēnû; Rīm-Sîn I 17:13 (RIME 4 296) passim; Man and His God 99. For the synonym ša3-la2 su3, which appears in K3, see CAD R 257.

428:

Since -ri stands in variation with -ta (so U6) here, I interpret it as an irregular ablative bearing an instrumental meaning. ETCSL, probably understanding -ri as a demonstrative, considers the phrase to refer to the supplicant, translating: ‘as concerns him who speaks your heart’s desire’. Attinger (1993: 260) regarded the -ri as a temporal ablative (see comment on l. 389): ‘après que ton coeur en a parlé’.

429:

A close thematic parallel to the couplet 429–30 appears in the concluding lines of the sufferer’s prayer in Man and His God 142–43 [nam-tag-ĝu10] ḫe2-mu-e-du8/ [ša3-z]u? ha-mahuĝ-e ‘May you forgive [my sins]! May your [heart] relent toward me!’ Note the addition of the dative postposition in N54: lu2-ulu3-bi-ir ‘for that man (you have absolved his sin)’.

430:

N75 and S supply the variant: diĝir a-ra-zu im-me-a-bi-ir ‘(May your heart relent) towards that god who utters supplications’. Attinger (2011) considers this version to be evidence that, in Sumerian theology, responsibility for the failures of a worshiper is assigned to his personal god. Note, however, that the variant diĝir (for lu2) makes little sense in the context, since it is clear from l. 426 above that the ‘man of prayer’ (lu2-siskur) is the person uttering the supplications, not his personal god. The function of the latter in the ceremony is seemingly restricted to the presentation of the kadra. Note the additional l. 430a, which appears in N11, N71, and N75: diĝir lu2-ba-ke4 kadra! mu-ra-an-de6 ‘the (personal) god of that man brings you a greeting gift’ (see l. 425).

Commentary

131

431:

I consider the /a/ of siskur2-ra as a locative suffix (see also Tinney, LN, p. 24). This interpretation disregards the variant lu2 siskur2-ra-ke4 (so N71, N75, U6), which would suggest that lu2 siskur2-ra is a genitive compound. However, the above variant seems to be a corrupted reading, because an ergative or locative-terminative postposition is not expected in the middle of the nominal chain. I interpret the suffix -bi in mu-un-gub-ba-bi-ir as a demonstrative. Some translators consider it a possessive suffix that refers either to the people of Ur (‘the supplicant who stands here for them’—see Jacobsen) or to the city (‘the “man of supplication” who stands here for it’—see Klein). The variant verbal form u3-mu-e-ši-bar in P, N54, and N75 seems to be a scribal error. Presumably, the frequently used sequence -ši-bar in verbal chains of the verb igi–bar may have been viewed by some scribes as part of the verbal base, and as a result they placed the second-person singular pronominal infix before it (see similar comment on the form ba-eda-gub in l. 374 above).

433:

The phrase u4 ḫul du3-a has the following parallels in lament literature: u4 ḫul du3-a uru-ta ba-ra-ĝen ‘the evil-bearing storm went out from the city’ (LE seg. A 19); saĝ-ki-bi u4 ḫul du3-am3 ki an-na dul-lu-dam ‘Its forehead shall be an evil-bearing storm that enshrouds heaven and earth’ (LW Segment E 16). ḫul du3-a in this phrase is an adjective qualifying the head noun u4 (to be distinguished from ḫul-du ‘evil’, which is a participle with the status of a noun; see, for example, Inana-Ebih 46; Šulgi E 232; Šu-ilišu A 60). u4 ḫul du3-a-bi in the present context is most likely a genitive without a regens ‘those of the evil-bearing storm’, translated freely: ‘those who suffered the evil-bearing storm’. ETCSL translates: ‘(those) who suffered that evil storm’, but a meaning of this sort would probably require a mes an-ne3 pad3-da construction (such as u4 ḫul-le2 du3-a-bi). Two manuscripts (N75 and K3) have ša3 ḫul du3-a-ba ‘the heart of those evil-doers’ or the like. For a possible parallel to this phrase, see Man and His God 111: u4 ib2-ba ša3 ḫul du3-a zu inim ḫi-li-a ḫe2-ni-NE (meaning obscure). Most translators have followed this variant, translating, ‘May their hearts, who suffered (so much) evil, appear pure to you!’ (Jacobsen); or ‘May the hearts of its people that committed evil, be purified before you!’ (Klein). Note that N54 has ku3 for zalag.

434:

Note ll. 434a and 434b, added in N17 after l. 434 (see score). While 434a is incomprehensible, 434b reads: [ ]-e ⸢ḫe2-ĝal2⸣ ka[lam]-⸢ma⸣ [ḫu?]-mu-un-⸢ĝa2⸣-ĝa2-ne means ‘ . . . . . .  . . [may] (they) establish abundance in the la[nd]’; contrast this to l. 174 above: u4 ḫe2-ĝal2-la kalam-da ba-da-an-kar ‘days of abundance he took away from the land’.

435:

For a similar hymnic epilogue, see Gudea Cyl. A–B 811–12: e2-ninnu ki-bi gi4-a-ba dninĝir2-su za3-mi2 ‘for the restoration of the Eninnu praise be to Ninĝirsu!’ Another extended parallel to this line appears in the concluding lines of the Nippur lament: uĝ3 saĝ gig2ga u8-gin7 lu-a uĝ3 saĝ sig10-ga-ba/ nam-maḫ kur gal dnu-nam-nir-ra enkar an ki-ke4/ duri2-še3 me-teš2 am3-i-i-ne a-ra2 ni2-ĝal2-la-ni-im ‘among the black-headed people flocking like sheep, among their well-tended people, they will praise forever the majesty of the

132

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur Great Mountain Nunamnir, enkar weapon of the universe! It is his awe-inspiring way!’ (LN 320–22). N17 and P seem to have the indicative form of the verb mu(-e)-i-i (instead of ḫe2-i-i) ‘the city which has been returned to its place exalts you’ (see Kramer and Jacobsen).

Chapter 5

Score  1 N1 i 1 [tu]r3-⸢ra⸣-na muš3 mi-in-ga/ amaš-a-na lil2-e N2 1 tur3-ra-na      muš3 mi-ni-in-ga-⸢am3⸣ a[maš- ] N3 obv 1 ⸢tur3⸣-ra-na    ⸢muš3⸣ mi-n[i- ] N4 obv 1 [tu]r3-ra-na   muš3 mi-ni-in-ga-am3/ amaš-a-na lil2-e N5 1 tur3-ra-na     muš3 m[i-i]n-⸢ga⸣ a[maš- ] U1 i 1 tur3-a-na     muš3 mi-ni-in-ga am[aš]-⸢a⸣-na [ ] U2 1 [ ]     muš3 mi-ni-in-⸢ga⸣ [ ] G1 i 1 [ ]-e 1 L 1 [ ]-e P i 1 tur3-ra-⸢na⸣ muš3 mi-ni-in-ga amaš-a-na lil2-e  2 N1 i 2 [a]m-e tur3-ra-na N2 2 am-e tur3-ra-n[a] N3 obv 2 ⸢am-e⸣ tur3-ra-na ⸢muš3⸣ ] [ ] N4 obv 2 am-e tur3-ra-na muš3 mi-ni-in-ga-⸢am3⸣/ amaš-a-na lil2 2-e N5 2 am-e tur3-ra-na ⸢muš3⸣ [m]i-in-ga ⸢amaš-a-na⸣ lil2-[ ] N6 obv 1 [ -⸢na muš3⸣ mi-ni-in-ga a[maš- ] N7 i 1 [ tu]r3-[ ] N8 obv 1 [ tu]r3-⸢ra-na muš3 mi-in-ga? amaš? x x x⸣ U1 i 2 am-e tur3-a-na muš3 mi-ni-in-ga amaš-⸢a⸣-*n[a ] U2 2 [ ] muš3 mi-ni-in-ga-a[m3 ] G1 i 2 [ ]-⸢e⸣ 3 L 2 [ -l]il2-e P i 2 [ ]-*e tur3-[ -n]a muš3 mi-ni-in-ga amaš-a-na lil2! 4-e S i 1 [ ]-e ⸢tur3⸣-r[a- ]  3 N1 i 3 u3-mu-un kur-kur-ra-ke4 N2 3 u3-mu-un! kur-kur-ra-k[e4] N3 obv 3 u3-mu-un kur-kur-r[a- ]/ amaš-[ ] N4 obv 3 u3-mu-un-kur-kur-ra-ke4 muš3 mi-ni⸣-in-ga-a[m3]/ amaš-[n]a? 5-[ ]-e N5 3 u3-mu-un kur-kur-ra-k[e4] muš3 [m]i-⸢in-ga!⸣ N6 obv 3 [ ]-kur-ra-ke4 muš3 mi-ni-in-[ ] N7 i 2 [ -m]u-un kur-[ ] N8 obv 2 [ ]-⸢un kur⸣-kur-ra-ke4 U1 i 3 u3-mu-un kur-kur-ra-ke4 muš3 mi-ni-⸢in-*ga⸣[ ] U2 3 [ ] muš3 mi-ni-in-ga-a[m3 ] G1 (broken) L 3 [ -m]u-u[n! ]-⸢ga⸣ P i 3 ⸢*u3⸣-[m]u-un *ku[r- -k]e4 muš3 mi-ni-in-ga amaš-a-na lil2-e S i 2 ⸢u3⸣-mu-un kur-kur-r[a-k]e4 m[uš3 ] 1.  The sign E appears on a very small fragment, currently glued to the tablet at the wrong place, on the right edge. 2.  An erased LI appears after the KID. 3.  The sign ⸢E⸣ appears on the above fragment (cf. n. 1 above). 4. lil2 seems to be overwritten (contra copy). 5.  Sign extremely damaged; ⸢A⸣ should not be excluded.

133

134

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

 4 N1 i 4 dmu-ul-lil2-le ⸢eš3-e⸣ nibruki-a N2 4 dmu-ul-lil2-⸢le⸣ eš3-e nibruki-a N3 obv 4 dmu-ul-lil2-e eš3 ⸢x⸣ [ ]/ amaš-a-n[a ] N4 obv 4 ⸢dmu-u[l- ] ⸢nibru⸣ki/ [ ]-⸢ga⸣ amaš-na lil2 6-⸢e⸣ N5 4 dmu-ul-lil2-le eš3-e nibruki-⸢a muš3⸣ mi-in-⸢ga⸣ N6 obv 3 [ -li]l2-le eš3-a nibruki-a muš3 m[i- ]/ amaš-a-na lil2-[ ] N7 i 3 [m]u-ul-lil2-le eš3-⸢e⸣ [ ] N8 obv 3 [ -u]l-lil2-le eš3 nibruki-a U1 i 4 dmu-ul-lil2-le eš3-⸢e⸣ nibruki muš3 mi-ni-⸢in-ga amaš a-na lil2-le⸣ k i U2 4 [ ] muš3 mi-ni-in-ga-a[m3 ] G1 4 [x]-⸢mu⸣-[ ] L 4 -l]il2-le [ ]⸢ki-a⸣ P i 4 dm[u- ] *nib[ru]ki-a muš3 mi-ni-in-ga amaš-a-na lil2-e S i 3 ⸢d⸣mu-ul-lil2-⸢e⸣ [ ⸣ki-⸢a⸣ [ ]  5 N1 i 5 dam-a-⸢ni⸣ dnin-lil2-⸢le⸣ N2 5 dam-a-ni dnin-lil2-le N3 obv 5 dam-a-ni dnin-lil2-le [ ]/ amaš-a-n[a ] N4 obv 5 [ -l]e muš3 mu-ni-in-ga-am3/ [ ]-na lil2 7-e N5 5 dam-a-ni dnin-lil2-le muš3 mi-in-ga N6 obv 4 [ ] ⸢d⸣nin-li[l2-l]e [ m]i-ni-in-ga [ ] N7 i 4 [da]m-a-ni dnin-lil2-l[e] N8 obv 4 [ ]-ni dnin-lil2-le U1 i 5 dam-a-ni dnin-lil2-le muš3 mi-ni-in-ga amaš-a-na lil2-le U2 5 [ ] muš3 mi-ni-in-ga-a[m3 ] G1 5 [d]am-a-ni d⸢nin-lil2-le⸣  [ ] L 5 [ ] ⸢d⸣[     ]-le P i 5 ⸢dam?!⸣-a-ni ⸢d⸣[    ] muš3 mi-ni-in-ga amaš-a-na lil2-e S i 4 [da]m-a-ni d⸢nin⸣-lil2-e m[uš3 ]  6 N1 i 6 dnin-lil2-le e2-bi ki-[x]-ra N2 6 dnin-lil2-⸢le⸣*e2-bi ki-ur3-ra N3 obv 6 dnin-lil2-le e2-bi ki-u[r3- ]/ amaš-a-n[a ] N4 obv 6 [ ]-⸢ur3⸣-ra/ [ ] N5 6 dnin-lil2-le e2-bi ki-ur3-ra muš3 mi-⸢in⸣-ga N6 obv 5 [ ] e2-bi ki-u[r3-r]a muš3 mi-n[i- ] N7 i 5 [ n]in-lil2-le e2-bi ki-ur3-⸢ra⸣ N8 obv 5 [ ]-lil2-le e2-bi ki-⸢ur3⸣-ra U1 (omits line) U2 6 [ ]-ur3-ra muš3 mi-ni-in-ga-*a[m ] G1 6 ⸢d⸣nin-lil2-le e2-bi ki-ur3-[ ] L 6 [ -li]l2-le e2-bi ⸢ki-ur3⸣-ra P i 6 [ ]-⸢nin-lil2⸣-le e2-[ ] ki-[ -*r]a muš3 mi-ni-in-ga amaš-a-na lil2-e S i 5 ⸢dnin⸣-lil2-e e2-bi ki-ur3-ra m[uš3 ]  6a S i

6 [u3-m]u-un ⸢kalam⸣-ma-ke4 m[uš mi-ni-in-ga]

 6b S i

7 [dn]in-urt[a] ⸢e2⸣-bi e2-šu-me-ša4 [muš mi-ni-in-ga]

6.  An erased LI appears after the KID. 7.  The KID sign is preceded by an additional partly erased KID.

Score

135

 7 N1 i   7 nin ⸢keš3⸣ki-ke4 N2   7 nin keš3⸢ki⸣-ke4 N3 obv   7 nin kešx 8ki-ke4 muš3 mi-ni-i[n- ] N5   7 nin keš3ki-a-ke4 muš3 mi-in-ga N6 obv  6 [ ][k]i-ke4 muš3 ⸢mi⸣-ni-in-ga am[aš ] N7 i   6 [ni]n keš3ki-a-ke4 N8 obv  6 [ ]ki-a-ke4 U1 i   6 nin keš3ki-a-ke4 muš3 mi-ni-in-ga amaš-a-na lil2-le U2   7 [ ] muš3 mi-ni-in-[ ] G1 i   7 [ni]n keš3ki-ke4 [ m]i-⸢ni⸣-[ ] L   7 [ ke]š3ki-a-ke2 ⸢muš3⸣ mi-ni-in-[g]a P i  7 ⸢*nin *keš3 9⸣ki-ke4 ⸢muš3⸣ mi-ni-in-ga amaš-a-na lil2-e S i   8 [n]in ke[š3 ]-⸢a-ke4⸣ x [ ]  8 N1 i   8 ga-⸢ša⸣-an ⸢maḫ⸣-e e2-bi ⸢keš3ki⸣-ke4 N2  8 ga-ša-an-maḫ-e e2-bi keš3ki-ke4 N3 obv  8 ga-ša-an-maḫ-e e2-bi k[ešx 10 ]/ amaš-a-n[a ] N5   8 ga-ša-an-maḫ-⸢e⸣ [ ] x [ ]ki-a muš3 mi-in-ga N6 obv  7 [ m]aḫ-e e2-bi ⸢keš3 11⸣ki-a muš3 m[i- ] N7 i   7 [ ]-ša-an-maḫ-e e2-bi keš3! 12ki-a-ke4 N8 obv  7 [ ]-an-maḫ-e e2-bi keš3-a-ke4 U1 i  7 ga-ša-an-maḫ-e e2-bi keš3ki-a muš3 mi-ni-in-ga amaš-a-na lil2-le U2   8 [ ]-bi EN2.KI.ŠAR2xGAD 13 muš3 mi-ni-⸢in⸣-⟨ga⟩-⸢am3⸣ [ ] G1 i  8 dga-ša-an-maḫ-e e2-⸢bi⸣ keš3ki muš3 mi-ni-⸢in-ga⸣ L   8 [ -š]a-an-maḫ-⸢e⸣ e2-bi ⸢keš3⸣-[ ] P i  8 ga-ša-an-[m]aḫ-*e e2-*bi *keš3ki-a m[uš3 ]-in-ga amaš-a-na lil2-e 14 S i  9 dga-ša-a[n- ]-⸢e⸣ e2-bi keš3ki-a-ke4 m[uš3 ]  9 N1 i  9 ⸢mu-lu i3-si-inki⸣-na-⸢ke4⸣ N2  9 *mu-⸢*lu i3⸣-si-inki-na-ke4 N3 obv  9 mu-lu i3-si-inki-na-k[e4 ]/ am[aš- ] N5  9 mu-lu i3-[ ] muš3 mi-⸢in-ga⸣ N6 obv  8 [ ]-ke4 muš3 mi-⸢ni-in⸣-[ ] N7 i   8 [m]u-lu i3-si-inki-na-ke4 N8 obv  8 [ ] ⸢i3⸣-si-inki-na-ke4 U1 i  8 mu-lu i3-si-inki-na-ke4 muš3 mi-ni-in-ga amaš-a-na lil2-le U2   9 [ ] muš3 mi-n[i]-in-⟨ga⟩-am3 amaš-[ ] G1 i   9 mu-lu i3-si-inki-na-ke4 15 muš3 mi-ni-in-ga L   9 ⸢mu⸣-lu ⸢i3⸣-si-inki-ke4 [ ] P i  9 mu-lu i3-si-inki-na-ke4 muš3 ⸢*mi-*ni-in⸣-ga amaš-a-na lil2-e S i 10 ⸢mu-lu⸣ i3-si-in-naki-ke4 [ ] 8. KI.EN2. 9. *EN2.⸢*ŠAR2×GAD⸣. 10. K[I.EN2] (for KIŠ3). 11. ŠU2.AN.⸢ḪAR⸣. 12. ŠU2.AN!.ŠAR2×GAD (the AN is extremely narrow and overlaps ŠAR2×GAD). 13.  Irregular writing for kiš3ki. 14.  The signs -in-ga amaš-a-na follow the copy. On the tablet in its current state they are broken. The same is true for the first three signs of this line. 15.  After the KID sign there are traces (or erasure) of an additional (probably erroneously inscribed) KID. The sign does not seem to be E2 (contra Sauren 1970).

136

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

10 N1 i 10 ⸢ga-ša-an-i3-si-inki-na-ke4⸣ [e]š3 ⸢e2⸣-[g]al-⸢maḫ⸣-a N2 10 ⸢ga⸣-ša-*an-i3-si-inki-na-ke4 eš3  e2-gal-⸢*maḫ⸣-a N3 obv 10 ga-⸢ša-an-i3⸣-[ ]/ [ ] N5 10 ga-⸢ša⸣-[ x ⸢muš3?⸣ [ ] N7 i  9 ga-ša-an-i3-si-in-na-ke4 eš3 e2-gal-maḫ N8 obv   9 [ -š]a-an-i3-si-inki-na-ke4 eš3 e2-gal-⸢maḫ⸣ N9 i  1 dg[a- ] U1 i  9 dga-ša-an-i3-si-inki-na-⸢ke4⸣ eš3 e2-gal-maḫ-a/ muš3 mi-ni-in-ga ⸢amaš⸣-a-na lil2-le U2 10 [ -k]e4 e2-bi eš3 e2-gal-maḫ ⸢muš3⸣ mi-ni-in-⟨ga⟩-am3 *a[maš- ] G1 i 10 [g]a-ša-an-i3-si-in-na eš3 e2-gal-maḫ muš3 mi-ni-in-ga L 10 ⸢dga⸣-ša-an-i3-si-inki-na-ke4 eš3 e2-⸢gal-maḫ⸣-a P i 10 ⸢ga⸣-š[a]-an-i3-si-inki-na-*ke4 eš3 e2-gal-maḫ-a muš3 mi-ni-in-ga a[maš]-⸢a⸣-na lil2-e S i 11 dga-ša-an-i3-si-in-naki eš3 e2-gal-maḫ-a [ ] 11 N1 i 11 ⸢nin ki⸣-unugki-ga-ke4 N2 11 *n[in] ki-*unugki-*ga-ke4 N7 i 10 nin ki-unugki-ga-ke4 N8 obv 10 [ un]ug⸢ki⸣-ga-ke4 N9 i  2 nin unugki [ ] N10   1 [ ]/ ⸢amaš-a⸣-[ ] U1 i 10 nin ki-*unugki-ga-ke4 muš3 mi-ni-in-ga ⸢amaš⸣-a-na lil2-le U2 11 [ ] ⸢*muš3⸣ *mi-ni-in-⟨ga⟩-am3 [ ] G1 i 11 nin ki-unugki-ga-ke4 muš3 mi-ni-in-ga L 11 nin ki-⸢unug⸣ki-ga-⸢ke4⸣ P i 11 ⸢nin⸣ ki-unugki-ga-ke4 muš3 mi-ni-in-ga *a[maš]-a-na lil2-e S i 12 ⸢nin ki⸣-unugki-ga-ke4 [ ] 12 N1 i 12 ga-ša-an-an-na e2-bi ⸢unugki⸣-ke4 N2 12 ga-[š]a-an-na e2-*bi ki-unug⸢ki⸣-ga-ke4 N7 i 11 ga-ša-an-na e2-bi ki-unugki-ga-ke4 N8 obv 11 [ -n]a e2-bi ⸢unugki-ga-ke4⸣ N9 i  3 dga-ša-an-[ ] N10   2 [g]a-ša-an-na-ke4 e2-b[i ]/ muš3 mi-ni-im-ga a[maš- ] U1 i 11 dga-ša-an-an-na-ke4 e2-bi ki-*unugki-ga-ke4/ muš3 mi-ni-[i]n-ga amaš-a-na lil2-le U2 12 [ ] ⸢*e2 ⸣-*b[i] unugki-ga ⸢muš3⸣ mi-ni-in-⟨ga⟩-am3 [ ] G1 i 12 [g]a-ša-an-an-na e2-bi ki-unugki-ga muš3 mi-ni-in-ga L 12 ⸢d⸣[x]-ša-an-an-na e2-bi ⸢ki-unugki⸣-ga P i 12 ga-ša-an-na e2-bi *unugki-ga-a muš3 mi-ni-in-ga amaš-a-na [l]il2-e S i 13 dga-ša-an-[a]n-⸢na⸣ e2-bi ki-unugki-ga-k[e4 ] 13 N1 i 13 ⸢dnanna⸣ ur[i2]⸢ki⸣-ma N2 13 d*nanna ⸢uri2⸣-[ ]-ma N7 i 12 dnanna uri2ki-ma! 16 N8 obv 12 [ ] ⸢uri⸣ki-m[a?] N9 i  4 dnanna e[š3- ] N10   3 dnanna-a uri2ki-ma m[uš3 ] / amaš-⸢a⸣-[ ] U1 i 12 dnanna eš3 ⸢uri5⸣ ki-ma muš3 mi-ni-in-ga amaš-a-na lil2-le U2 13 [ u]ri5k[i]-ma ⸢muš3⸣ mi-ni-in-⟨ga⟩-am3 [ ] G1 i 13 dnanna eš3 uri5ki-ma muš3 mi-ni-in-ga L 13 [ nan]na uri5ki-ma P i 13 [*na]nna 17 uri2ki-ma muš3 mi-ni-in-ga amaš-a-na [li]l2-e S i 14 dnanna [u]ri2ki-ma [ ] 16.  MA is overwritten. 17. [ŠE]Š.*KI.

Score

137

14 N1 i 14 dsuen-e e2-⸢kiš-nu-ĝal2-la⸣ N2 14 d*suen-e *e2-*k[iš]-⸢*nu-ĝal2⸣-la N7 i 13 dsuen-e e2-kiš-nu-ĝal2-bi 18 N9 i  5 dsuen-e ⸢*e2⸣-[ ] N10   4 [ ]-e e2-kiš-nu-ĝ[al2-l]a ⸢muš3 mi-ni⸣-in-[ ]/ 19 amaš-a-na lil2-⸢e⸣ U1 i 13 dsuen-e e2-kiš-nu-ĝal2 muš3 mi-ni-in-ga ⸢amaš⸣-a-na lil2-le U2 14 [ ] e2-⸢*kiš-*nu-*ĝal2⸣-*la-na muš3 mi-ni-in-⟨ga⟩-am3 [ ] G1 i 14 dsuen-e e2-kiš-nu-ĝal2-ta muš3 mi-ni-in-ga L 14 [ su]en-⸢e⸣ e2-kiš-nu-ĝal2-la P i 14 [   -ki]š-nu-ĝal2 muš3 mi-ni-in-ga ⸢amaš-a-*na⸣ lil2-e S i 15 ⸢dsuen-e e2⸣-kiš-nu-ĝal2 [ ] 15 N1 i 15 ⸢dam⸣-a-ni ga-ša-an-⸢gal⸣-e N2 15 dam-a-ni ga-š[a-x]-gal-e N7 i 14 dam-a-ni ga-ša-an-gal-⸢e⸣ N9 i  6 dam-a-ni d*g[a- ] N10   5 [ -n]a? ga-ša-an-gal-e 20 muš3 m[i- ]/[ama]š-⸢a⸣-na-lil2 21-[ ] U1 i 14 dam-a-ni dga-ša-an-gal-e muš3 mi-ni-in-ga amaš-a-na   lil2-le U2 15 ⸢dam-a⸣-[x] ga-ša-⸢an⸣-[*ga]l-e muš3 ⸢mi⸣-ni-in-⟨ga⟩-am3 G1 i 15 dam-a-ni ga-ša-an-gal-e muš3 mi-ni-in-ga L 15 [da]m!-⸢a?⸣-ni d⸢ga⸣-ša-⸢an⸣-gal-e P i 15 [ ]-⸢ša⸣-an-[x]-e muš3 [x]-ni-i[n- -n]a lil2-e S i 16 ⸢dam-a⸣-ni ⸢dga-ša⸣-an-gal-e [ ] 16 N1 i 16 ga-ša-an-gal-e ⸢agrun⸣-ku3-ga-na N2 16 ga-ša-an-gal-e ⸢agrun⸣-k[u3]-ga-na N7 i 15 ga-ša-an-gal-e agrun-ku3-g[a- ] N9 i  7 dga-ša-an-gal-[ ] N10   6 [ ag]run-ku3-ga-[ ]/ [ ]-⸢na?⸣ [ ] N11 i   1 [ -*a]n-gal-e agr[un- ] N12   1 [ ]/ [ ]-⸢in-ga⸣ a[maš- ] U1 i 15 dga-ša-an-gal-e agrun-ku3-ga muš3 mi-ni-in-ga amaš-a-na lil2-le U2 16 dga-ša-an-e e2-⸢bi⸣ agrun-ku3-ga muš3 mi-*ni-in-⟨ga⟩-am3 ⸢amaš⸣-[ ]-⸢lil2⸣-la2 G1 i 16 ga-ša-an-gal-e agrun-ku3-ga-na muš3 mi-ni-in-ga L 16 ⸢dga-ša-an⸣-gal-e agrun-ku3-ga-na P i 16 ⸢ga⸣-[ -ga]l-e *agrun-⸢ku3-ga⸣-na muš3 *mi-ni-⸢*in-*ga⸣-[ ]-na lil2-e S i 17 ⸢d⸣ga-ša-an-[ ]-e agrun ku3-ga-⸢na⸣ [ ] 17 N1 i 17 ⸢am⸣ uru2-⸢ze2-baki⸣-ke4 N2 17 am uru2-ze2-⸢ba⸣ki-ke4 N7 i 16 am uru2-ze2-ebki-ba-[ ] N9 i   8 am *uru2-ze2-eb-ba*k[i?][ ] N11 i   2 [ -z]e2-ebki-ba-ke4 m[uš3 mi]-⸢ni-in⸣-ga N12   2 [ -k]e4 muš2 mi-ni-in-⸢ga⸣ a[maš ] U1 i 16 dam uru-ze2-baki-ke4 muš3 mi-ni-in-ga amaš-a-na lil2-le U2 17 am uru-⸢ze2⸣ki-ba-ke4 muš3 mi-ni-in-⟨ga⟩-am3 ⸢amaš⸣-a-ni lil2-la2 G1 i 17 am uru2-ze2-baki-ke4 muš3 mi-ni-in-ga L 17 ⸢am uru⸣-[z]e2-baki-ke4 P i 17 am uru2-ze2-⸢*eb⸣ki-ke4 muš3 mi-ni-in-ga amaš-a-na lil2-e S i 18 ⸢am uru2-ze2⸣-baki-ke4 [ ] 18.  T[A] can not be totally excluded. 19.  The (seemingly partly erased) signs muš3 mi-ni- appear at the beginning of the indented part. The scribe seems to have erroneously starting the indented part with the beginning of the refrain. Note additionally that NA is overwritten. 20.  The E is followed by a partly erased sign. 21.  The KID is preceded by an additional erased KID.

138

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

18 N1 i 18 ⸢d⸣am-an-ki-ke4 e2-bi uru2-⸢ze2-baki⸣-ke4 N2 18 dam-an-ki-ke4! 22 e2-[b]i uru2-⸢ze2⸣-ba-ke4 N7 i 17 dam-an-ki-ke4 e2-bi ur[u2- ] N9 i  9 dam-an-ki e2-bi u[ru2- ] N11 i   3 [ ] e2-bi uru2-ze2-ebki-ba muš3 N12   3 [ ] ⸢e2?⸣ uru2-ze2-ba-ke4 mu[š2 ]/ [ ]-⸢a⸣-na ⸢lil2-e⸣ U1 i 17 dam-an-ki-ke4 uru-ze2-⸢ba⸣-ke4 muš3 mi-ni-in-ga amaš-a-na lil2-le U2 18 d⸢am⸣-an-ki e2 *uru2-ze2ki-ba-ke4 muš3 mi-ni-[ ]-⸢*am3⸣ amaš-a-ni lil2-la2 G1 i 18 dam-an-ki-ke4 uru2-ze2-baki-na muš3 mi-ni-i[n]-⸢ga⸣ L 18 ⸢dam-an-ki⸣-k[e4 (x x)] ⸢uru-ze2⸣-baki-ke4 P i 18 dam-an-ki ⸢*e2?-*ba? *uru2?⸣-*ze2-ebki-ke4 muš3 mi-ni-in-ga amaš-a-na lil2-e S i 19 ⸢dam⸣-an-ki [(x)]-bi! uru2-ze2-baki-k[e4 ] 18a S i

20 ⸢dam-a-ni⸣ ddam-⸢gal-nun-na⸣ [

]

19 N1 i (omits line) N2 (omits line) N7 i (omits line) N9 i (omits line) N11 (omits line) N12 (omits line) U1 (omits line) U2 (omits line) G1 (omits line) L (omits line) P i 19 ga-ša-an-x 23-⸢aš?!-te?⸣ e2-ba la-ra-akki-a muš3 mi-ni-in-ga amaš-a-na lil2-e S (omits line) 20 N1 i 19 ⸢dšara⸣ e2-maḫ-a N2 19 dšara e2-*maḫ-*a N7 i 18 dšara e2-m[aḫ- ] N9 i 10 dšara e2-maḫ-a m[uš2 ] N11 i   4 [ ] ⸢e2⸣-maḫ-a-⸢na⸣ muš3 mi-ni-in-ga N12   4 [ ] muš2 mi-ni-⸢in-ga⸣ [    ] U1 i 18 dšara e2-maḫ-a muš3 mi-ni-in-ga amaš-a-na lil2-le U2 19 dšara e2-maḫ-a muš3 [ -n]i-i[n- ]-⸢a-ni⸣-lil2-la2 G1 i 19 dšara e2-maḫ-a muš3 mi-ni-in-ga L 19 ⸢dšara e2-maḫ⸣-a ⸢muš3⸣ [ ]-⸢ni⸣-in-⸢ga⸣ P i 20 dšara e2-maḫ-a muš3 mi-ni-in-ga amaš-a-na lil2-e S i 21 d⸢šara e2⸣-[ ] 21 N1 i 20 ⸢du4-saḫar⸣-ra e2-bi umma⸢ki⸣-a N2 20 du4-⸢saḫar-ra⸣ e2-bi umma*ki-a N5 rev   8 [ ] ⸢umma⸣[k]i-[ ]/ [ama]š-a-⸢na lil2⸣-[ ] N7 i 19 du4-saḫar-ra e2-⸢bi⸣ [ ] N9 i 11 du4-saḫar-ra e2-bi u[mma- ] N11 i   5 [ -r]a e2-bi ⸢umma⸣ki-⸢a⸣ muš3 N12   5 [ -b]i ⸢ummaki-a⸣ m[uš2 ]/ [ ]-⸢a⸣-na lil2-[ ] U1 i 19 ⸢d⸣u4-saḫar-ra e2-bi ummaki-a muš3 mi-ni-in-ga amaš-a-na lil2-le U2 20 du4-saḫar-ra e2-bi ummaki ⸢muš3⸣ [m]i-ni-in-⟨ga⟩-*a[m3 -li]l2-la2 G1 i 20 du4-saḫar-ra e2-bi ummaki muš3 mi-ni-in-ga L 20 [ ]-⸢u4⸣-saḫar-ra ⸢e2⸣-bi umma⸢ki⸣-a P i 21 du4-*saḫar-ra e2-bi ummaki-a muš3 mi-ni-in-ga amaš-a-na lil2-e 22.  The KE4 is written over an erasure of GA or BI. 23.  Sign illegible. A small EN appearing below and to the right of AN is probably part of a gloss.

Score 22 N1 i 21 d⸢ba⸣-ba6 uru2-⸢ku3⸣-ga N2 21 *dba-ba6 uru2-ku3-ga N5 rev  9 [ -g]a? muš3 ⸢mi 24⸣-n[i- ] N7 i 20 ⸢dba-ba6?⸣ [ ] N9 i 12 dba-ba6 uru2-ku3-ga muš2 m[i- ] N11 i   6 [ ]-ku3-ga muš3 mi-[x]-in-ga N12   6 [ ] mi-ni-in-ga [ ] U1 i 20 dba-ba6 uru-ku3-ga muš3 mi-ni-in-ga amaš-a-na lil2-le U2 21 dba-ba6 uru-ku3-ga [m]uš3 mi-ni-in-⟨ga⟩-a[m3 ] G1 i 21 dba-ba6 uru2-ku3-ga-ke2 muš3 mi-ni-in-ga L 21 [ ]-ba-b[a6] ⸢uruki?⸣ ZA ⸢ku3?⸣-ga P i 22 dba-ba6 uru2-ku3-ga muš3 mi-ni-in-ga amaš-a-na lil2-e 23 N1 i 22 ⸢*e4-du12-ga⸣ [ ] N2 22 e4-du12-ga ⸢ama5⸣-na N5 rev 10 [ ] muš3 mi-⸢ni⸣-[x]-g[a ] N9 i 13 [ -d]u11-ga ama5-na muš2 mi-⸢ni⸣-[ ] N11 i   7 [ am]a5-na muš3 mi-[n]i-in-ga N12   7 [ ] mi-ni-[ ] N14 i   1 [ -*n]a ⸢*muš3⸣ [ ] U1 i 21 da du11 ama5-na muš3 mi-ni-in-ga amaš-a-⸢na⸣ l[il2-  ] U2 22 e4-du11-ga ama5-n[a] muš3 mi-ni-in-⟨ga⟩-a[m3 ] G1 i 22 e4-du11-ga ama5-na muš3 mi-ni-in-ga L 22 [ d]u11-ga ⸢ama5-na muš3!⸣ mi-ni!-⸢in⸣-ga P i 23 ⸢*e4-*du11⸣-ga ama5-na 25 muš3 mi-ni-in-ga amaš-a-na lil2-e 24 N1 i 23 dumu-a-ni dab-ba-ba6 d N2 23 ama-ni ba-ba6 N5 rev 11 [ -b]a6 muš3 mi-ni-i[n- ] N9 i 14 [ ]-ni dab-ba-ba6 [ ] N11 i   8 -b]a-ba6 muš3 m[i-n]i-in-ga N12   8 [ ] ⸢x⸣[ ] N14 i   2 [ ] dba-ba6 muš3 [ ] U1 i 22 ama-ni dab-ba-b[a6] muš3 mi-ni-⸢in-ga⸣ *a[maš- ] U2 23 ama-ni dab-ba-ba6 muš3 mi-ni-in-⟨ga⟩-am3 [ ] G1 i 23 ama-ni dab-ba-ba6 muš3 mi-ni-in-ga L 23 [ ]-⸢ni dab!⸣-ba-ba6 P i 24 [am]a-ni dab-ba-ba6 muš3 mi-ni-in-ga amaš-a-na lil2-e 25 N1 i 24 dab-ba-ba6 ma-gu2-en-na-ke2 N2 24 dab-ba-⸢ba6⸣ *ma-*gu2-*en-n[a] N8 rev  1 [ ] ⸢ma-gu2-en⸣-[ ] N9 i 15 [ -b]a-ba6 ma-gu2-en-na-ke4 N11 i   9 [ -g]u2-e[n-x-*k]a muš3 mi-ni-in-ga N13   6 [ ]-en-na muš3 m[i- ] N14 i   3 [ ]-⸢gu2⸣-en-na-kam muš3 ⸢*mi-ni ⸣-*i[n- ] N15 obv   1 [ ]-⸢na-ke4⸣ [ ] N16 obv   1 [ ]-⸢ab-ba⸣-[ ]-⸢en⸣-n[a- ] U1 i 23 dab-ba-ba6 ma-gu2-[ ] m[uš3 ] U2 24 dab-ba-ba6 ma-gu2-en-na muš3 mi-ni-in-⟨ga⟩-am3 *a[maš-     ] G1 i 24 dab-ba-ba6 ma-gu2-en-na-ke4 muš3 mi-ni-in-ga L 24 [ ]-⸢ba-ba6⸣ ma!-gu2-[e]n-na-ke4 P i 25 ⸢*d⸣[*a]b-⸢*ba-*ba6 ma⸣-gu2-en-na-ka muš3 mi-ni-in-ga amaš-a-na lil2-e 24.  MI seems to be overwritten. 25.  An unclear gloss, probably reading x KAM ZU, appears after ama5-na.

139

140

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

26 N1 i 25 dlamma e2 ku3-ke4 N2 25 dlamma ⸢e2-e⸣-[ ] N8 rev   2 [ ] e2-e-ke4 N9 i 16 [ ] ⸢e2⸣-e-ke4 muš2 mi-ni-in-[ ] N11 i 10 [ -k]e4 ⸢muš3⸣ mi-ni-in-ga N13   7 [ ] mi-ni-in-[ ] N14 i   4 [ ] ⸢*mi⸣-ni-in-ga am[aš- ] N15 obv   2 [ m]i-ni-in-[ ] amaš-[ ] N16 obv   2 [l]amma e2-⸢e?⸣ 26-ke4 [ ] U1 i 24 dlamma e2-⸢e⸣-[ ] U2 25 dlamma e2 x [ ] muš3 mi-ni-in-⟨ga⟩-⸢am3⸣ amaš-[ ] G1 i 25 dlamma-e e2-e-ke4 muš3 mi-ni-in-ga L 25 [lamm]a e2-⸢e?!⸣-ke4 P i 26 d⸢lamma⸣ e2 ku3-ke4 muš3 mi-ni-in-ga amaš-a-na lil2-e 27 N1 i 26 dlamma-e e2-ta[r]-sir2-sir2 N2 26 dlamma-ra e2-tar-*sir2-*s[ir2] N8 rev   3 [ ] x e2-tar-sir2-sir2 N9 i 17 [ ]-⸢*e⸣ e2-⸢tar-sir2-sir2⸣ [ ] N11 i 11 [ ]-⸢sir2⸣-sir2-ra muš3    mi-ni-in-ga N13   8 [ m]uš3 mi-ni-[ N14 i   5 [ ]-sir2-⸢ra⸣ muš3    mi-ni-in-ga [ N16 obv   3 [ l]amma-ra    e2-tar-sir2-sir2-[ ] U1 i 25 dlamma-⸢re⸣ [ d U2 26 lamma-re     e2-tar-sir2-sir2-ra muš3 mi-ni-in-⟨ga⟩-am3 amaš-a-n[i G1 i 26 dlamma-e        e2-tar-sir2-sir2 muš3 mi-ni-in-ga L 26 []-⸢lamma⸣-e ⸢e2⸣-tar-⸢sir2⸣-[ ]-ra! P i 27 d⸢lamma⸣-e   e2-tar-sir2-sir2-*ra muš3 mi-ni-in-ga amaš-a-na lil2-e

] ] ] ]

27 um-ma lagaški-ke4 28 N1 i N2 27 um-ma lagaški-ke4 N8 rev  4 [ la]gaški-ke4 27 N9 i 18 [ ] ⸢*lagaš?⸣-[ ] N11 i 12 [ laga]š ki-a-ke4 muš3 mi-ni-in-ga N13   9 [ mu]š3 ⸢mi⸣-ni-[ ] N14 i   6 [ ]-*a-ke4 muš3 mi-ni-in-ga [ ]-⸢*ni *lil2-*e⸣ N16 obv   4 [u]m-ma lagaški-ke4 m[uš3 ] U1 i 26 ⸢um⸣-[ ] U2 27 um-ma lagašxki 28-ke4 muš3 mi-ni-in-⟨ga⟩-am3 amaš-a-ni ⸢lil2-la2⸣ G1 i 27 um-ma-lagaški-ke4 muš3 mi-ni-in-ga L 27 [u]m-⸢ma-lagaš?!ki-ke4⸣ P i 28 d⸢*lamma⸣ *lagaški-ke4 muš3 mi-ni-in-ga amaš-a-na lil2-e

26. ⸢ku3⸣ is equally possible. 27.  The sign UN, upside down, appears at the end of the line; it does not seem to be the end of any long line of the obverse. 28.  ŠIR.BUR.LA.AŠ.BUR.KI (for lagaški).

Score

141

29 N1 i 28 dma-ze2-ze2-be2 e2-bi ⸢lagaš⸣ki-ke4 N2 28 dma-ze2-ze2-be2 e2-bi lagaš-ke4 N4 rev   1 [ -m]a ⸢lagaški-ke4⸣/ muš3 mi-ni-in-ga 29 N8 rev  5 [ ]-ze2-ze2-be2 e2-bi ki-la-ga-⸢ša?⸣-[ ] N11 i 13 [ -e]b e2-bi ki-lagaški-a N14 i   7 [ ]-⸢be2⸣ e2-bi ki-laga[š]ki-a/ [ ]-ni-in-ga amaš-*a-na lil2-e N16 obv   5 ⸢d⸣ma-ze2-ze2-be2 e2-bi ki-lagaški-[ ] U2 28 dma-ze2-ze2 e2-bi lag[ašx] ki 30-ke4   muš3 mi-ni-in-⟨ga⟩-am3 amaš-a-ni   lil2-la2 G1 i 28 dma-ze2-ze2-e e2-bi ki-lagaš!ki 31 muš3 mi-ni-in-ga L 28 ⸢d⸣ma-ze2-ze2-eb-e e2-bi ⸢lagaški?!-ke4?⸣ P i 29 *eš3 m[a]-ze2-⸢*ze2⸣-eb e2-ba lagaški-a muš3 mi-ni-in-ga amaš-a-na   lil2-e 32 30 N1 i 29 mu-lu ninaki-ke4 N2 29 mu-lu ninaki 33-ke4 N4 rev 17 [ ]-⸢nina⸣ki-ke4 34 muš3 mi-in-ga 35 N8 rev  6 [ ]ki 36-ke4 N11 i 14 [ nin]aki-ke4 muš3 mi-ni-in-ga N14 i   8 [ -*g]a amaš-a-na lil2-e N16 obv   6 mu-lu ninaki-ke4 m[uš3 ] U2 29 mu-lu ninaki-[ ] muš3 mi-ni-in-⟨ga⟩-am3 amaš-a-ni lil2-la2 G1 i 29 mu-lu ninaki-⸢ke4⸣ muš3 mi-ni-in-ga L 29 ⸢mu-lu⸣ nina⸢ki⸣-a-ke4 P i 30 AN ⸢x⸣ ninaki-ke4 muš3 mi-ni-in-ga amaš-a-na lil2-e 30 ga-ša-an gu-la e2-bi ⸢sirara3⸣ki 31 N1 i N2 30 ga-ša-an gu-la 37-a e2-bi sirara3ki 38 N4 rev 18 ga-ša-an gu-la e2-bi sirara3ki-a/ muš3 mi-ni-in-ga 39 amaš-a-na! 40 lil2-e N8 rev   7 [ g]u-⸢la e2⸣-bi sirara3ki N11 i 15 [ ] gu-la e2-bi ⸢sirara3⸣ki-a N14 i   9 [ sira]ra3ki-a/ [ -n]a lil2-e N16 obv   7 ga-ša-an gu-la e2-bi sirara3 [ ] U2 30 dga-⸢ša⸣-an gu-la e2-b[i] sirarax 41-a muš3 mi-ni-in-⟨ga⟩-am3 amaš-a-ni lil2-la2 G1 i 30 ⸢ga⸣-ša-an gu-la ⸢e2⸣-bi UD.MA2.AB×BAR.TAG 42 muš3 mi-ni-in-ga L 30 dga-⸢ša⸣-an gu-l[a] e2-bi sirar[a3][k]i? P i 31 mu-⸢lu⸣ gu-la e2-ba UD.*MA2.ZI2ki 43 muš3 mi-ni-in-ga amaš-a-na lil2-e 29.  An erased AM3 appears after the GA. 30.  ŠIR.BUR.[X X X].KI. This is probably the same irregular writing of Lagaš appearing in the preceding line. 31. ŠIR.BUR.LA!.KI. 32.  A gloss below the line reads EN NE? x (note that the gloss does not appear in the copy). 33.  Note that in this tablet the sign NINA is identical with the sign UNUG (cf. also the spelling of sirara3 in the next line). 34.  The KID seems to be overwritten. 35.  The GA is followed by an erased AM3. 36.  The KI is followed by one or two erased signs. 37.  The LA is written over erasure of two illegible signs. 38. Sirara3ki is written: UD.MA2.UNUG.TAG.KI. 39.  The GA is followed by an erased AM3. 40.  NA is overwritten. 41. UD.MA2.AB.TAG.MA2. 42.  Irregular writing for sirara3. 43.  Irregular writing for sirara3ki.

142

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

32 N1 i 31 mu-lu ki-nir-ša-⸢ba⸣ki-ke4 N2 31 mu-lu ki-nir-ša-ba-ke4 N3 rev  1 [ ]/ ⸢muš3⸣ m[i- ] N4 rev 19 mu-lu ki-nir-ša-baki muš3 mi-ni-⸢in⸣-ga amaš-a-na lil2-e! 44 N8 rev  8 [ -ni]r-šaki-⸢ba⸣-ke4 N11 i 16 [ -ni]r-šaki-ba-ke4 muš3 mi-ni-in-ga N14 i 10 [ ama]š-*a-na!-lil2! 45-e N16 obv   8 [m]u-lu ki-nir-ša3-ba-ke4 m[uš3 ] U2 31 mu-lu ki-nir-ša4ki-[k]e4 muš3 mi-ni-in-⟨ga⟩-am3 amaš-a-ni lil2-la2 G1 i 31 mu-lu ki-nir-ša3-baki-ke4 muš3 mi-ni-in-ga L 31 ⸢mu⸣-lu ⸢ki-nir-ša3-baki-a⸣-k[e4] P i 32 ga-š[a-an] ki-nir-ša3-baki-ke4 46 muš3 mi-ni-in-ga amaš-a-na lil2-e 33 N1 i 32 ddumu-zi-abzu e2-bi ki-nir-ša-baki-ke4 N2 32 ddumu-zi-abzu ki-⸢nir⸣-ša-ba-ke4 N3 rev   2 [ -abz]u e2-bi ⸢ki⸣-n[ir- ]/ muš3 mi-ni-i[n- ] N4 rev 20 ddumu-zi-abzu e2-bi ki-nir-š[a]  47-ba-ke4 muš3 mi-ni-⸢in-ga⸣ N8 rev  9 [ -abz]u? e2-bi ki-nir-šaki-ba-⸢ke4⸣ N11 i 17 [ ] ⸢e2⸣-bi ki-n[ir-*š]a⸢ki⸣ muš3 N14 i 11 [ ]-⸢e⸣ N16 obv   9 ⸢d⸣du5-⟨mu⟩-zi-abzu e2-bi ki-nir-ša3-ba-k[e4 ] U2 32 ddumu-zi-abzu ⸢e2⸣-bi ki-nir-ša4ki-ke4 muš3 mi-ni-in-⟨ga⟩-am3 amaš-a-ni lil2-la2 G1 i 32 ddu5-mu-zi-abzu e2-bi ki-nir-ša3-baki muš3 mi-ni-in-ga 48 L 32 [ ]-⸢du5?-mu-zi-[a]bzu-⸢ke4?!⸣ e2-bi ki-⸢nir-ša3!⸣-ba[k]i?-⸢a?⸣-ke4 P i 33 m[u-lu -z]i 49-abzu e2-ba ki-nir-ša3-ba-ke4 muš3 mi-ni-in-ga amaš-a-na lil2-e 34 N1 i 33 mu-⸢lu⸣ gu2-ab-baki-ke4 N2 33 mu-lu gu2-ab-baki-ke4 N3 rev   3 [m]u-⸢lu⸣ gu2-ab-ba-ke4 ⸢muš3⸣ m[i- ] N4 rev 21 mu-lu gu2-ab-ba-ke4 muš3 mi-ni-⸢in⸣-ga N8 rev 10 [ -a]b-baki-ke4 N11 i 18 [ ] x [ -n]i-in-ga N16 obv 10 [ g]u2-[a]b-ba-ke4 mu[š3 ] U2 33 mu-lu gu2-⸢ab⸣-baki muš3 mi-ni-in-⟨ga⟩-am3 amaš-a-ni lil2-la2 G1 i 33 mu-lu gu2-ab-ba-ke4 muš3 mi-ni-in-ga L 33 ⸢mu⸣-lu ⸢gu2-ab-baki-ke4⸣ P i 34 mu-lu gu2-ab-ba-ke4 muš3 mi-ni-in-ga amaš-a-na lil2-e

44.  E is overwritten. 45.  The scribe squeezed the signs NA and KID into a ligature. 46.  A small gloss reading ba-ni-e-ĝar, is inscribed under the KID sign. The gloss is probably intended to be read at the end of the line (cf. commentary on muš−ga in l. 1). 47.  The ŠA is followed by an erased KI. 48.  Due to lack of space, The GA is inscribed below and to the right of the line. 49.  A small gloss is inscribed under the [Z]I, reading ⸢BA?⸣ ŠA3 x (Kramer’s reading ba-ni!-in!-ĝar! is based on the erroneous representation of this gloss in the copy).

Score 35 N1 i 34 ga-ša-an-MAR.KI-ke4 eš3 gu2-ab-baki-ke4/ muš3 mi-in-ga amaš-a-[n]a-lil2-e N2 34–35 ga-*ša-an-*MAR.KI-ke4 eš3 gu2-ab-baki-ke4/ muš3 mi-in-ga-am3 amaš-a-na lil2-e N3 rev  4 ga-ša-an-MAR.KI-ke4 muš3 m[i- ] N4 rev 22 ga-ša-an-MAR.KI-ke4 eš3 gu2-ab-ba-ke4 ⸢muš3⸣ mi-ni-in-ga N8 rev 11 [ -MA]R.KI e2-bi gu2-ab-ba-ke4 muš3 ⸢mi⸣-in-ga/ amaš-a-na lil2-e N11 i 19 [ ].⸢KI⸣-ke4 ⸢*eš3⸣ [x]-ab-baki-na/ [ ]-in-ga amaš-a-⸢*na lil2⸣-e N16 obv 11 [ ] eš3 gu2-ab-baki-ke4 muš mi-ni-in-g[a ] U2 34 dga-ša-an-MA[R.K]I 50 e2-bi gu2-ab-baki muš3 mi-ni-in-⟨ga⟩-am3 amaš-a-ni lil2-la2 G1 i 34 dga-ša-an-MAR.KI eš3 gu2-ab-ba-ke4 muš3 mi-ni-in-ga L 34 dga-⸢ša⸣-an-MAR.KI-ke4! eš3 ⸢gu2⸣-ab-bak[i]-[ ] P i 35 ga-ša-an-*MAR.KI-ke4 eš3 gu2-ab-ba-ke4 muš3 mi-ni-in-ga amaš-a-na lil2-e 36 N1 i 35 ki-ru-gu2 1-⸢kam⸣-[ ] N2 36 ki-ru-gu2 1-kam-ma N3 rev  5 ki-ru-g[u2 ] N4 u.e.  1 ki-ru-gu2 1-a-kam N8 rev 12 []-⸢ru⸣-gu2 1-kam-ma N11 i 20 [ ]-ru-gu2 1-*a-*kam N16 obv 12 [ ]-ru-⸢gu2⸣ 1-kam-ma-a[m3] N17 i   1 k[i]-⸢ru⸣-g[u2 ] U2 35 ki-ru-gu2 1-kam-ma G1 i 35 ki-ru-gu2 1-kam-ma-am3 L 35 ⸢ki-ru-gu2⸣ 1-a-[ ] P i 36 ki-ru-gu2 1-a-kam 36 ⸢amaš-a-na⸣-[ ]/ [ ] 37 N1 i N2 37–38a ⸢amaš⸣-a-na lil2-e ba-ni-ĝar i-si-iš-bi/ mu-⸢un⸣-kuš2-u3 N3 rev   6 amaš-a-na lil2-e ba-n[i- ]/ i-si-iš-bi m[u- ] N4 u.e.   2 amaš-a-na lil2-e ba-ni-ib-[ĝ]ar/ i-si-iš-bi mu-un-kuš2-u3 N8 rev 13 [ ] x [ ]xxx N11 i 21 [ ] ⸢*ba-ni-in⸣-ĝar i-si-iš-bi mu-un? x x N16 obv 13 [ ]-⸢ĝar i-si-iš⸣-bi mu-[ ] N17 i   2 [am]aš-⸢a-na⸣ l[il2-l]e [ ] U2 36 amaš-a-ni ⸢lil2⸣-[ ]-in-ĝar i-si-iš-bi mu-un-kuš2-u3 G1 i 36 amaš-a-na lil2-e ba-ni-in-ĝar i-si-iš-bi ⸢mu⸣-ḫul-lu L 36 amaš-a-⸢na lil2-e ba-ni-ib2⸣-ĝar i-s[i- ]/ ⸢mu-un⸣-[    ] P i 37 amaš-a-na lil2-e ba-ni-in-ĝar i-si-iš-bi mu-un-[ku]š2-u3 38 N2 38b–39 ab2 gu3-zu e2-tur3-ra nu-ĝal2/ tur3 nun-e nu-du7 N3 rev  7 a[b2] gu3-zu e2-tur3-r[a ] N4 u.e.  3 ab2 gu3-zu e2-tur3-ra nu-mu-un-ĝal2/ tur3 nun nu-du7 N11 i 22 [ ]-⸢tur3-ra⸣ nu-ĝal2 tur3 nun-e nu-du7 N16 obv 14 [ ]-ra nu-mu-u[n- ] N17 i   3 ab2 gu3-zu   tur3-ra nu-ĝal2 [ ] U2 37 ab2 g[u3- ] ⸢e2?  51⸣-tur3-ra nu-ma-al tur3 nun nu-e-du7 G1 i 37 ab2 gu3-zu e2-tur3-ra nu-ĝal2 tur3 nun nu-du7-e L 37 ab2 gu3-zu ⸢e2-tur3⸣-ra nu-⸢mu⸣-u[n- ] P i 38 ab2 gu3-zu e2-tur3 nu-ĝal2-la-am3 tur3 nun nu-n[i]-du7

50. -MA[Rki-k]e4 should not be excluded. 51.  The slight traces might point to [z]u, while the distance of this sign from GU3 calls for e2.

143

144

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

39 N2 40 ĝiš-gi4! 52-ĝal2-bi-im N3 rev  8 ĝiš-gi4-ĝa[l2- ] N4 left e.  1 [ ]-⸢gi4⸣-ĝal2-b[i- ] N11 i 23 [ ]-gi4-ĝal-bi-im N16 lower e. [ ]-bi-[ ] N17 i   4 ĝiš-⟨gi4⟩-ĝal2-[ ] U2 38 ĝiš-gi4-ĝal2-bi-⸢im⸣ G1 i 38 ĝiš-gi4-ĝal2-bi-im L 38 ĝiš-⸢gi4⸣-ĝal2-bi-[ ] P i 39 ĝiš-gi4-ĝal2-bi-im 41 uru a-še-er ⸢gig⸣-ga a-še-er-zu ⸢ĝar-ra⸣ 40 N2 N3 rev  9 uru2 a-še-er gig-g[a ] N4 left e.  2 [u]ru2 a-še-er g[ig- ] N11 i 24 [ -*e]r-⸢*gig⸣-ga a-še-er-zu ĝar-ra N17 i   5 uru2 a-še-zu gig-ga [ ] U2 39 ur[u2 ] gig-ga a-še-er-zu ĝar-ra G1 i 39 uru2 a-še-er gig-ga-am3 a-še-er-zu ĝar-ra L 39 uru a-š[e]-er gig-ga-am3 a-še-⸢er-zu ĝar-ra⸣-a[m3?] P i 40 uru2 a-še-er gig-ga a-še-er-zu ĝar-ra 41 N11 i 25 [ -z]u gig-ga-am3 uru2 a-še-er ĝar-ra N16 rev   3 [ ]-⸢zu⸣ gig-ga-am3 uru2 a-še-er-z[u ] N17 i   6 a-še-zu gig-ga-[ ] U2 40 a-[ g]ig-ga uru2 a-še-er-zu ĝar-ra G1 i 40 a-še-er-zu gig-ga-am3 uru2 a-še-er-zu ĝar-ra L 40 [ ]-⸢er-zu⸣ gig-ga-⸢am3 uru⸣ a-⸢še-er⸣-z[u] ⸢ĝar-ra⸣-am3 P i 41 a-še-er-zu gig-ga uru2 a-še-er-zu ĝar-ra * 42 N11 i 26 [ gu]l-la-na a-še-er-bi gig-ga-am3 N16 (broken) N17 i   7 uru2 zi gul-an-na [ ] U2 41 uru2 zi gul-⸢la⸣-na a-še-er-bi gig-ga-am3 G1 (omits line) L 41 [u]ru zi gul-la-na a!-še-⸢er-bi⸣ gig-⸢ga⸣-am3 P i 42 uru2 zi gul-la-na a-še-e[r]-bi gig-ga

43 N11 i 27 [ -*l]a-*na a-še-er gig-ga a-še-er-zu ĝar-ra N16 (broken) N17 i   8 uri2-zi gul-an-na ⸢a-še⸣-[ ] N18   1 [ -e]r gi[g- ] U2 42 uri5ki gu[l-l]a-na a-še-er-bi gig-ga-am3 L 42 uri5ki gul-⸢la⸣-na a-še-⸢er gig⸣-[ ]-⸢am3⸣ 53 G1 (omits line) P i 43 uri2ki gul-la-na a-še-er-bi gig-ga

52.  Original has GI (for GI4). 53.  According to the copy, the lines here are extremely dense and partly intermingled. Thus the second half of this line (beginning with a-še-er) is raised above first half, while the second half of the next line, beginning in the middle of the sign AM3 (i.e. beginning with the AN) is aligned with the first half of this line.

Score 44 N11 (omits line) N16 rev   1 [ ]-⸢er⸣-zu [ ur]u2 ⸢a⸣-še-er [ ] N17 (omits line) N18   2 [ ]-ga-am3 a-*š[e- ] U2 (omits line) G1 (omits line) L 43 ⸢a⸣-še-⸢er⸣-z[u] ⸢gig-ga⸣-am3 ⸢uru a⸣-še-er ĝar-ra-am3 54 P i 44 a-še-er-zu gig-ga uru2 a-še-er-zu ĝar-ra 28 [ -n]a a-še-er gig-ga 45 N11 i N16 rev   2 [u]ri2⸢ki⸣ uru2 a-še-er-z[u ] N17 (omits line) N18   3 [ -e]r-bi gig-[ ] U2 (omits line) G1 (omits line) L 44 uri5ki ⸢gul⸣-la-na a-še-er!-bi gig-⸢ga-am3⸣ P i 45 uri2ki gul-la-na a-še-er-bi gig-ga 46 N11 i 29 N16 rev   4 N17 i   9 N18   4 U2 43 G1 L 45 P i 46

[ -*g]a-am3 ga-ša-⸢an⸣-zu mu-⸢lu er2-*re⸣ [ gi]g-ga ga-ša-an-zu mu-lu! 55 er2-re e[n3- ] ⸢a⸣-še-zu gig-ga ga-ša-an-zu mu-lu e[r2- ]/ mu-un-k[uš2-  ] [ -š]a-an-zu mu-lu [ ] a-še-er-zu gig-ga-am3 ga-ša-an-gal-zu mu-lu er2-ra en3-še3 mu-⸢un⸣-kuš2-u3 (omits line) a-še-er-⸢zu gig⸣-ga-am3 ga-ša-an-⸢zu⸣ mu-lu er2-⸢re en3-še3 mu-un-kuš2-u3⸣ ⸢a⸣-še-er-zu gig-ga ga-ša-an-zu mu-lu er2-re en3-še3 mu-un-kuš2-u3

47 N1 ii   1 a-še-er-⸢zu⸣ gi[g]-ga-⸢am3 dnanna⸣ mu-[ ]/ en3-še3 mu-un-kuš2-⸢u3⸣ N11 i 30 [ -*u]n-⸢*kuš2-u3⸣ N16 rev   5 [ n]anna mu-lu er2-re en3-še3 ⸢mu⸣-un-⸢kuš2⸣-[ ] d N17 i 10 a-še-zu gig-ga-a nanna  mu-lu er2-r[a]/ en-še3     mu-un-k[uš2- ] N18   5 [ nann]a mu-lu *er2-r[e? ] U2 44 a-še-er-zu gig-ga-am3 dnanna  mu-lu er2-ra en3-še3 mu-un-kuš2-u3 G1 (omits line) L 46 a-še-er-⸢zu⸣ gig-ga-am3 d⸢nanna⸣ mu-lu er2-re en3-⸢še3 mu-un⸣-[    ] d P i 47 ⸢a⸣-še-er-zu gig-ga nanna mu-lu er2-re en3-še3 mu-un-kuš2-u3

54.  Cf. note to the previous line. 55.  LU is overwritten.

145

146 48 N1 ii   6 N11 i 31 N16 rev   6 N17 N18   6 N20 U2 51 G1 i 41 L 47 P i 48

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur še-⸢eb uri2⸣-[ -š]e-er gig-ga-am3/ a-še-⸢er-zu⸣ ĝar-ra [     -r]a? [ ] a-še-e[r- ] (probably broken) 56 [ gi]g-ga-am3 a-[ ] (probably broken) 57 še-eb uri5ki-ma a-še-er gig-ga-am3 a-še-er-zu ĝar-ra še-eb uri2ki-ma a-še-er gig-ga a-še-er-zu ĝar-⸢ra⸣ še-eb ⸢uri5⸣ki-ma a-še-er gig-ga-am3 a-še-er!-zu ĝar-ra-am3 še-eb uri2ki-ma a-še-er gig-ga a-še-er-zu ĝar-ra

49 N1 ii  7 e2-kiš-nu-ĝal2 a-š[e- ] gig-ga-am3 a-še-er-zu ĝar-ra N11 i 32 [ -r]a? N16 rev   7 [ ] a-š[e- ] N17 (probably broken) 58 N18   7 [ ]-⸢am3⸣ a-še-er-z[u ] N20 (probably broken) U2 52 e2-kiš-nu-ĝal2 a-še-er gig-ga-am3 a-še-er-zu ĝar-ra G1 i 42 e2-kiš-nu-ĝal2 a-še-er gig-ga a-še-er-zu ĝar-[x] L 48 ⸢e2⸣-kiš-⸢nu-ĝal2⸣ a-še-⸢er⸣ gig-ga-am3 P i 49 e2-kiš-⸢*nu-*ĝal2⸣ a-še-er gig-ga a-še-er-zu ĝar-ra 50 N1 ii 14 [ ]-⸢ku3 a-še⸣-er gig-ga-am3 a-še-er-z[u ] N16 rev   8 [ ] a-š[e- ] N17 (probably broken) N18   8 [ -*a]m3? a-še-[ ] N20   4 [ ] agrun-ku3 a-še-[ ] U2 53 eš3 agrun-ku3-ga a-še-er gig-ga-am3 a-še-er-zu ĝar-ra G1 i 43 eš3 agrun-ku3 a-še-er gig-⸢ga a-še⸣-er-⸢zu⸣ [ ] L 49 eš3! ⸢agrun⸣-ku3 a-še-⸢er gig⸣-ga-am3 P i 50 eš3 agrun-⸢ku3⸣ a-še-er gig-ga a-še-er-zu ĝar-ra 51 N1 ii  3 ⸢ki-ur3⸣ ki-gal a-še-er gig-ga-am3 a-še-er-zu ⸢ĝar⸣-ra N17 i 12 ki-ur3 ki-gal a-še-z[u ] N18   9 [ ] ⸢*a-*še⸣-[ ] N20 (probably broken) U2 46 ki-ur3 ki-gal-la a-še-er gig-ga-am3 a-še-er-zu ĝar-ra G1 i 44 ⸢ki⸣-ur3 ki-gal a-še-er gig-⸢ga a-še⸣-[ ] L 50 ki-ur3 ki-gal a-še-er gig-ga-am3 P i 51 ki-ur3 ki-gal a-še-er gig-ga a-še-er-zu ĝar-ra

56.  The line does not appear in its place according to the regular sequence, but since the order of the temples addressed in ll. 51ff. is altogether different in this manuscript, and since the tablet is broken after l. 61, it is highly probable that ll. 48, 49, 50, 52, 57, 58, and 62 had appeared in the broken part. Alternatively, some of these lines might have beem omitted in the complete tablet. Cf. Literary Observations. See also Kramer 23, n. 41a. 57.  The sequence of ll. 48−62 in this manuscript was probably identical with the sequence of these lines in N1. Unfortunately, only the last four lines are preserved here (in the following order: 62, 59, 57, 50). Judging from the sequence of lines in N1, we assume that in the original complete tablet, the preceding line-sequence was as follows: 53, 51, 54, 55, 48, 49, 58, 61, 56; and that lines 52 and 60 were omitted. 58.  Cf. note to l. 48 above.

Score

147

52 N1 (omits line) N17 (probably broken) 59 N20 (probably omits line) 60 U2 48 eš3 nibruki uru2 a-še-er gig-ga-am3 a-še-er-zu ĝar-ra G1 (omits line) L 51 eš3 nibruki uru2 a-še-⸢er⸣ gig-ga-am3 P i 52 eš3 nibru⸢ki⸣ uru2 a-še-er gig-ga a-še-er-zu ĝar-ra 53 N1 ii   2 N17 i 11 N20 U2 45 G1 i 45 L 52 P i 53

⸢še-eb⸣ e2-kur-ra a-⸢še-er⸣ gig-ga-[ ]/ a-še-er-zu ĝar-ra še-eb e2-kur-ra a-⸢še⸣-zu [ ] (probably broken) še-eb e2-kur-ra a-še-er gig-ga-am3 a-še-er-zu ĝar-ra [ ] ⸢e2⸣-kur-ra a-še-er gig-[ ] še-eb e2-kur-ra ⸢a-še-er gig⸣-ga-am3 še-eb e2-kur-ra a-še-er gig-ga a-še-er-zu ĝar-ra

54 N1 ii  4 ⸢ĝa2-ĝiš-šu2?-a⸣ []-še-er-zu ĝar-ra N17 i 14 ĝa2-ĝiš-šu2-a a-⸢še⸣-*z[u ] N20 (probably broken) U2 (omits line) G1 i 46 [ ]-⸢a?⸣ a-še-er-gig-⸢ga⸣ [ ] L 53 ĝa2-ĝiš-šu2-a a-⸢še-er gig⸣-ga-am3 P i 54 ĝa2-ĝiš-šu2-a a-še-er gig-ga a-še-er-zu ĝar-ra -a]m3 a-še-er-zu ĝar-ra 55 N1 ii   5 ⸢ub-šu-ukkin⸣-[n]a [ N17 i 13 ub-šu-ukkin-na a-še-z[u ] N20 (probably broken) U2 47 ⸢ub⸣-šu-*ukkin-⸢na⸣ a-še-er gig-ga-am3 a-še-er-zu ĝar-ra G1 i 47 [ ] a-še-er gig-⸢ga a⸣-[ ] L 54 ub-šu-⸢ukkin⸣-na a-še-⸢er gig⸣-ga-am3 P i 55 ub-šu-ukkin-na a-še-er gig-ga a-še-er-zu ĝar-ra 56 N1 ii 10 N17 N20 U2 55 G1 i 48 L 55 P i 56

še-eb uru2-ku3-ga a-še-er gig-ga-am3/ a-še-er-zu ĝar-ra (probably broken) (probably broken) še-eb uru2-ku3-ga a-še-er gig-ga-am3 a-še-er-zu ĝar-ra [ ]-⸢ga⸣ a-še-er gig-⸢ga a-še⸣-e[r- ] še-eb ⸢uru-ku3⸣-gaki a-⸢še-er⸣ gig-ga-am3 še-eb uru2-ku3-ga 61 a-še-er gig-ga a-še-er-zu ĝar-ra

57 N1 ii 13 e2-tar-sir2-s[ir2 ] a-še-er-zu ĝar-ra N17 (probably broken) 62 N20   3 [ -ta]r-sir2-sir2 a-še-[ ] U2 (omits line) G1 ii  1 e2-tar-sir2-si[r2 63 ]-er [ ] L 56 ⸢e2-tar-sir2-sir2⸣ a-[x]-⸢er⸣ gig-ga-am3 P i 57 e2-tar-sir2-sir2-ra a-še-er gig-ga a-še-er-zu ĝar-ra 59.  Cf. note to l. 48 above. 60.  Cf. note to l. 48 above. 61.  Following GA there are Illegible traces of a gloss. 62.  Cf. note to l. 48 above. 63.  The signs e2-tar-sir2-si[r2] appear on a very small fragment, currently glued to the tablet at the wrong place, on the right edge (cf. description of the text).

148

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

58 N1 ii  8 ma-gu2-en-na a-š[e- ] gig-ga-a[m3] a-⸢še⸣-er-zu ĝar-ra N17 (probably broken) N20 (probably broken) U2 56 ma-gu2-en-na a-še-er gig-ga-am3 a-še-er-zu ĝar-ra G1 ii  2 ⸢ma⸣-g[u2 64]-[ ]-⸢gig⸣-[ ] L 57 ma-⸢gu2!⸣-[e]n-na a-⸢še-er-gig⸣-ga-am3 P i 58 ma-gu2-en-na a-še-er gig-ga a-še-er-zu ĝar-ra 59 N1 ii 12 še-eb i3-⸢si-inki-na⸣ a-še-er gig-ga-am3/ a-še-er-⸢zu⸣ ĝar-ra N17 i 15 še-eb i3-si-in-na ⸢a⸣-[ ] N20   2 [ -e]b i3-si-inki-na a-še-e[r ] U2 49 še-eb i3-si-[x]-naki a-še-er gig-ga-am3 a-še-er-zu ĝar-ra G1 ii  3 [ gi]g-ga ⸢a⸣-[ ] L 58 še-⸢eb i3-si⸣-inki-na a-⸢še-er gig⸣-ga-am3 P i 59 še-eb i3-si-inki-na a-še-er gig-ga a-še-er-zu ĝar-ra 60 N1 (omits line) N17 i 16 eš3 e2-maḫ a-[ ] N19 ii   1 [ gi]g-ga N20 (probably omits line) U2 50 eš3 e2-gal-maḫ a-še-er gig-ga-am3 a-še-er-zu ĝar-ra G1 ii  4 [ -ga]l?-⸢maḫ⸣ [ gi]g-ga a-še-er-⸢zu⸣[ ] L 59 [e]š3 ⸢e2-gal⸣-[m]aḫ-a a-še-⸢er⸣ gig-ga-am3 P i 60 eš3 e2-gal-maḫ a-še-er gig-ga a-še-er-zu ĝar-ra 61 N1 ii   9 ⸢še-eb⸣ ki-unu[g -*k]e4 a-še-⸢er⸣ gig-ga-am3/ a-še-er-zu ĝar-ra N17 i 17 ⸢še-eb⸣ *k[i?- ][k]i-[ ] N19 ii   2 [ ] gig-ga N20 (probably broken) U2 (omits line) G1 ii  5 [ -unu]g⸢ki⸣ a-[ gi]g-⸢ga⸣ a-⸢še 65⸣-er-zu ĝar-r[a] L 60 [x]-⸢eb ki⸣-unugki-ga a-še-er gig-⸢ga-am3⸣ P i 61 še-eb ki-unugki-ga a-še-er gig-ga a-še-er-zu ĝar-ra 62 N1 ii 11 še-eb uru2-ze2-⸢ba⸣ a-še-er gig-ga-am3/ a-še-er-zu ĝar-ra N17 (probably broken) 66 N19 ii   2 [ ] gig-ga N20  1 []-⸢eb?! uru2!⸣-ze2-⸢ebki-ba a-še⸣-e[r ] U2 54 še-eb uru2-ze2ki-ba-ke4 a-še-er gig-ga-am3 a-še-er-zu ĝar-ra G1 ii   6 ⸢še-eb uru2⸣-ze2-baki a-š[e-x gi]g-⸢ga⸣ ⸢a⸣-[x] 67-er-zu ⸢ĝar⸣-ra L 61 [ ]-⸢uru⸣-ze2-ba a-še-⸢er gig⸣-ga-am3 P i 62 še-eb uru2-ze2-[b]aki-a a-še-er gig-ga a-še-er-zu ĝar-ra

64.  The signs ⸢ma⸣-g[u2]- appear on a very small fragment, currently glued to the tablet at the wrong place, on the right edge. Cf. description. 65.  The sing ŠE is erroneously partly erased. 66.  Cf. note to l. 48 above. 67.  The signs A and ŠE are (erroneously) erased by the scribe.

Score 63 N1 ii 15 N19 ii   4 N20   5 U2 57 G1 ii   7 L 62 P i 63

[x]-še-er-zu gig-ga-am3 ga-š[a]-an-zu mu-lu e[r2- ]/ en3-⸢še3⸣ mu-un-kuš2-⸢u3⸣ [ ]-zu/ [ ]-⸢kuš2⸣-u3 [ -e]r-zu gig-ga ga-ša-an-[ ]/ [m]u-lu er2-re en3-še m[u- ] a-še-er-zu gig-ga-am3 ga-ša-an-gal-zu mu-lu er2-ra en3-še3 mu-un-kuš2-u3 a-še-er-zu gig-ga ga-⸢ša-an⸣-zu mu-lu er2-re en3-še3 mu-u[n- ] a-⸢še-er-zu⸣ g[ig-g]a-am3 ⸢ga-ša-an-zu mu-lu⸣ er2-⸢re⸣ en3-še3 ⸢mu-un-kuš2⸣-u3 a-še-er-zu gi[g-x] ⸢ga⸣-ša-an-zu mu-lu er2-re en3-še3 mu-un-kuš2-u3

64 N1 ii 16 a-še-er-zu gig-ga-am3 dnanna mu-lu er2-r[e]/ en3-⸢še3⸣ mu-un-kuš2-u3 N19 ii  5 [ -l]u-er2-re/ [ -ku]š2-u3 d N20   6 [ ]-⸢zu⸣ gig-ga nanna ⸢mu⸣-l[u ]/ [ ]-še3 mu-un-k[uš2- ] U2 58 a-še-er-zu gig-ga-am3 dnanna mu-lu er2-ra en3-še3 mu-un-kuš2-u3 d G1 ii   8 a-še-er-zu gig-⸢ga ⸣nanna mu-lu er2-re en3-še3 mu-un-⸢kuš2-u3?⸣ L 63 ⸢a-še-er⸣-zu g[ig-x]-am3 dnanna mu-lu er2-re en3-še3 ⸢mu-un-kuš2-u3⸣ P i 64 a-še-er-z[u ] ⸢d⸣nanna mu-lu er2-re en3-še3 mu-un-kuš2-u3 65 N1 ii 17 uru2 mu-⸢zu⸣ i3-ĝal2 za-e ba-e-da-gul-e N6 rev  1 [ -ĝ]al2 ⸢za-e⸣ [ ] N7 ii  1 ⸢uru2⸣ m[u- ] N19 ii  6 [ -*g]ul-e N20   7 [ ]-ĝal2 za-e mu-⸢da⸣-g[ul- ] U2 59 uru2 mu-zu i3-ma-al za-e ba-e-da-gul-e G1 ii   9 uru mu-zu i3-ĝ[al2] ⸢za⸣-e mu-da-gul-e L 64 ⸢uru⸣ [x-z]u ⸢i3?!⸣-ma-al za-e mu-da-gul-en P i 65 uru2 mu-zu [ -a]l za-e mu-da-gul-en 66 N1 ii 18 uru2 bad3-zu i3-il2 [ka]lam-zu ba-e-⸢da⸣-til N6 rev  2 [ -i]l2 ka-na-aĝ2-zu b[a- ] N7 ii  2 uru2 ba[d3- ] * N11 ii   1 ⸢*uru2 *bad3?-*zu⸣ [ k]a-⸢*na-aĝ2⸣-zu [ ] N19 ii  7 [ ]-⸢*e⸣-da-til N20   8 [ ] ⸢ka⸣-na-⸢aĝ2-zu⸣ [ ] U1 ii  1 u[ru2- ] U2 60 uru2 bad3-zu niĝin2-na?-ka kalam-zu ba-e-da-til G1 ii 10 uru bad3-zu i3-ma-⸢al kalam⸣-zu ba-e-da-til L 65 u[ru ba]d3-zu i3-i[l2] ka-na-aĝ2!-⸢zu⸣ ba-e-da-til P i 66 uru2 bad3-⸢zu⸣[ ] ka-na-aĝ2-zu ba-da-til 67 N1 ii 19 uru2-ĝu10 u8 zi-gin7 sila4-zu ⸢ba-e⸣-da-ku5 N6 rev 3 [ ]-gin7 sila4-zu ba-e-d[a- ] N7 ii  3 uru2-ĝu10 u8 [ ] N11 ii   2 uru2-ĝu10 u8 zi-gin7 sila4-zu ba-[ ] N19 ii  8 [ -d]a-ku5 N20   9 [ sil]a4-⸢zu? ba!⸣-e-[ ] U1 ii  2 uru2-[ ] U2 61 uru2-ĝu10 uz3 zi-gin7 sila4-zu ba-e-da-til G1 ii 11 uru2-ĝu10 u8 zi-gin7 sila4-zu ba-e-da-ku5 L 66 [ur]u? ⸢ u8⸣ zi-gin7 sila4-zu ba-e-da-ku5 P i 67 uru2-ĝu10 ⸢u8? zi⸣-gin7 sila4-zu ba-e-da-ku5

149

150

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

68 N1 ii 20 uri2ki uz3 zi-gin7 maš2-zu ba-⸢da⸣-til N6 rev  4 [ -z]i-gin7 maš2-zu ⸢ba⸣-[ ] N7 ii  4 uri2-[ ] N11 ii   3 uri2ki uz3 ⸢zi⸣-gin7 maš2-zu ba-e-⸢*da⸣-*t[il] U1 ii  3 ur[i5 ] U2 62 uriki-ma uz3 zi-⸢gin7⸣ maš2-zu ba-e-da-til G1 ii 12 uri2ki uz3 zi-gin7! maš2-zu ⸢ba-e⸣-da-til L 67 [ ]⸢ki uz3⸣ zi-gin7 maš2-zu ba-e-da-ku5? P i 68 uri2-[ ] *zi-*gin7 maš2-zu ba-e-da-til 69 N1 ii 21 ⸢uru2⸣ ĝarza-zu im-me-de3-kur2-ra N6 rev   5 [ -z]u im-me-[ ] N7 ii  5 uru2 ĝar[za- ] N11 ii   4 uru2 ĝarza-zu im-me-de3-kur2-ra-[(x)] U1 ii  4 uru2 ĝar[za- ] U2 63 uru2ki ĝarza-⸢zu⸣ im-mu-e-de3-kur2-ra G1 ii 13 uru ĝarza-zu im-me-de3-kur2-ra L 68 [ ] ⸢ĝarza-zu⸣ im-me-de3-kur2-ra-am3 P i 69 u[ru2 ] im-me-de3-kur2-ra 70 N1 ii 22 me-zu me-kur2-ra šu bal ba-ni-ib-ak N6 rev   6 [ -r]a šu bal ba-[ ] N7 ii  6 m[e- ] N11 ii   5 me-zu me-kur2-ra šu bal ba-ni-ib2-a[k] N14 ii   1 [ ] ⸢šu?⸣ [ ] 68 U1 ii   5 me-zu me-[ ] U2 64 me-zu me-kur2-ra šu bal ba-ni-ib-bal G1 ii 14 me-zu me-kur2-ra šu bal ba-ni-ib-ak L 69 me-[z]u me-kur2-⸢ra?⸣ šu bal ba-ni-ib-ak 69 P i 70 [ -*r]a šu bal ba-ni-ib2-ak 71 N1 ii 23 a-še-er-zu gig-ga-am3 ga-ša-an-zu mu-lu er2-re/ en3-še3 mu-un-kuš2-u3 N6 rev  7 [ -g]a-am3! ga-[ ]/ ⸢en3⸣-[ ] N11 ii   6 a-še-er-zu gig-ga-am3 ga-ša-an-zu mu-*lu er3-[x]/ en3-še3 ⸢mu-un⸣-kuš2-⸢u3⸣ N14 ii   2 [ ] g[ig- ]/ 70 [ ]-zu mu-lu ⸢*er2⸣-*r[e m]u-un-kuš2-u3 U1 ii   6 a-še-er gig-g[a- ] U2 65 a-še-er-zu gig-ga-am ga-ša-an-gal-zu mu-lu er2 i-lu en3-še3 mu-un-kuš2-u3 G1 ii 15 a-⸢še⸣-er gig-ga ⸢ga-ša-an-zu mu⸣-[ ]-⸢re⸣ e[n3- ] L 70 a-⸢še-er-zu gig⸣-ga-am3 ga-ša-an-zu mu-⸢lu⸣ er2-⸢re⸣ e[n3]-še3 ⸢mu-un!-kuš2!⸣-[x] P i 71 [ gi]g-ga ga-ša-an-zu mu 71-lu er2-re en3-še3 mu-un-kuš2-u3

68.  Note that unlike in the copy, it is l. 71,and not l. 70, which has an indented part. 69.  In the copy, -ak is followed by several additional signs (perhaps mu!-un!-⸢kuš2!?⸣). This could be a miscopy from the following line. 70.  Cf. note to previous line. 71.  MU is overwritten.

Score

151

72 N1 ii 24 a-še-er-zu gig-ga-am3 nanna 72 ⸢mu⸣-[x] ⸢er2-re⸣/ en3-⸢še3⸣ m[u- ] N2 (broken) N11 ii   7 a-še-er-zu gig-ga-a[m3 x-n]anna mu-lu er2-r[e]/ en3-še3 [*m]u-un-kuš2-⸢u3⸣ N14 ii   3 [ ] ⸢gig⸣-ga-am3/ [ ] mu-lu er2-e en-še3 mu-un-kuš2-u3 73 U1 ii  7 a-še-er gig-ga-a[m3 ] U2 66 a-še-er-zu gig-ga-am dnanna mu-lu er2-ra en3-še3 mu-un-kuš2-u3 G1 ii 16 a-še-er-zu gig-ga [x-nann]a mu-lu er2-r[e] en3-še3 mu-un-kuš2-⸢u3?⸣ L 71 a-še-er-zu gig-ga-am3 dnanna mu-lu er2-re en3-še3 ⸢mu-un!⸣-kuš2-⸢u3!⸣ d P i 72 [ -*g]a nanna mu-lu er2-re en3-še3 mu-un-kuš2-u3 73 N6 rev   8 [ ]-⸢gu2⸣    2-[ ] N11 ii   8 ki-ru-gu2 ⸢2⸣-kam-ma-⸢am3⸣ N14 ii   4 [ ] 2-kam-ma-am3 U1 ii  8 ki-[ ] U2 67 ki-ru-gu2 2-kam-ma G1 ii 17 ⸢ki-ru⸣-g[u2] ⸢2⸣-kam-⟨ma⟩-am3 L 72 ki-ru-gu2 2-kam-ma-am3 P i 73 [k]i-ru-gu2 2-kam-ma -g]ul-l[a- ] 74 N6 rev  9 [ N11 (omits line) N14 (omits line) U1 ii  9 uru2-zi-gul-⸢la⸣-n[a ] U2 68 uru2-zi-gul-la-na a-še-er-bi gig-ga-am3 G1 ii 18 ⸢uru2-zi-gul⸣-la-na ⸢a⸣-še-er-bi gig-[ ]-⸢am3⸣ 74 L 73 [ur]u-zi-gul-la-na a-še-⸢er⸣-bi gig-ga-am3 P i 74 [ -*l]a-na a-še-er-bi gig-ga 75 N11 ii   9 uri2ki gul-la-⸢na⸣ a-še-er-bi gig-ga-⸢am3⸣ N14 ii   5 uri2k[i] [g]ul-la-na a-še-er-bi *gig-*ga-am3 U1 ii 10 uri5⸢ki gul⸣-l[a- ] U2 69 uri5ki gul-la-na a-še-er-bi gig-ga-am3 G1 ii 19 ⸢uri2ki gul⸣-[l]a-[ ]-⸢še-er-bi⸣ gig-g[a-a]m3 75 L 74 [u]ri5⸢ki⸣ gul-la-na a-še-⸢er⸣-bi gig-ga-am3! P i 75 [ ]-na a-še-er-bi gig-ga 76 N11 ii 10 ĝiš-gi4-ĝal2-bi-im N14 ii   6 ĝiš-gi4-ĝal2 ki-ru-gu2-da-kam U1 ii 11 ĝiš-[ ] U2 70 ĝiš-gi4-ĝal2-bi-im G1 ii 20 ĝiš-g[i4- ]-im L 75 [ ]-gi4-⸢ĝal2⸣-bi-im P i 76 ĝiš-gi4-ĝal2-bi-im

72.  The omission of the determinative is probably a haplography, under the influence of the previous AN. 73.  Unlike in the copy, [ ] mu-lu er2-e en-še3 mu-un-kuš2-u3 is the indented part of l. 72, not an independent line. 74.  The sign ⸢AM3⸣ appears on a fragment glued on the wrong place. 75.  The sign A[M3] appears on a fragment glued at the wrong place.

152

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

77 N11 ii11–12 76 nin lu2 e2 ḫul-a-ta/ uru-ni er2-re ba-an-di-ni-ib-ĝar N14 ii   7–8 nin lu2 e2 [ḫ]ul-a-ta/ uruki-ni er2-e [ ]-di-ni-ib2-ĝar N21 obv   1 [ ] ⸢lu2⸣ [ ]/ [ ] er2-re [ ] N22 obv   1 [ ]-a-[ ]/ [ -r]e ba-an-di-ni-ib-[ ] N23 obv   2 [ ] e2 ḫul-a-ta/ [ ] er2-e ba-an-di-ni-ib-ĝar U1 ii 12 nin lu2 ⸢e2 ḫul-a⸣-ta u[ru- ] U2 71 nin-bi uru ḫul-a-ta uru-ni er2-ra  ba-an-di-⸢ni⸣-ib-ĝar G1 ii 21 nin e2 l[u2] ḫ[ul- ]-⸢re⸣  ba-an-[ ]-⸢ib⸣-ĝar 77 L 76 [ ] ⸢e2⸣ ḫul-a-ta uru!-ni er2-re  ba-an-di-ni-ib2-ĝar P i 77 [ -*t]a uru2-na er2-re ba-an-di-ni-*ib-ĝar 78 N11 ii 13 dnanna lu2 kalam ba-an-da-til-e N14 ii   9 dnanna lu2 kalam ⸢ba-an⸣-da-til-la N21 obv   2 [na]nna lu2 kala[m ] N22 obv   2 [ l]u2 kalam ba-an-da-til-[ ] N23 obv   3 [ ] ⸢lu2⸣ kalam ba-an-da-til-la N24   1 [ kala]m ⸢ba-e-da⸣-til-l[a] N25   1 [nann]a lu2 k[alam ] U1 ii 13 dnin-⸢gal⸣ lu2 ka-n[a-aĝ2 ] U2 72 dnin-gal lu2 kalam-ma ba-⸢e⸣-da-⸢til⸣-e G1 ii 22 d⸢nin-gal⸣ [ -d]a-til-la P i 78 [ ] lu2 kalam ba-an-da-til-e 79 N11 ii 14 uriki-[ ]-nir-ra b[ar] ba-da-an-tab N14 ii 10 uri5ki-e ⸢a⸣-nir-ra bar ba-an-da-ab-tab N21 obv   3 [ur]i2ki a-nir-ra ⸢ba⸣-[ ] N22 obv   3 [ ] a-nir-ra ba-ra ba-[ ] N23 obv   4 [ ][k]i-⸢e a⸣-nir-ra ba-ra ba-an-da-ab-tab N24   2 [ ] ba-ra ba-⸢da?-ab?⸣-[ ] N25   2 [ur]i2⸢ki⸣-e a-ni[r- ] U1 ii 14 uri5ki a-še-[ ] U2 73 uri5ki-ma a-še-er gig bar-ba ba-e-da-[ta]g? 78 G1 ii 23 uri2ki 79-[ -d]a-an-tab G2 obv  1 ⸢uri2ki-e a-nir-ra⸣ bar ⸢ba-da-tab⸣ P i 79 [ ] a-nir bar ba-da-an-tab

76.  The second part of l. 77 is inscribed in this manuscript in a separate line, without indentation. Since the same phenomenon occurs in N14, we regard it as a different tradition rather than as a scribal error and number the lines in this manuscript accordingly. Note that the next parallel line is inscribed in two lines in all manuscripts (78−79). 77.  The signs -⸢ib⸣-ĝar appear on a very small fragment, currently glued to the tablet at the wrong place, on the right edge. Cf. description of this tablet. 78.  Alternatively, the sign might have been [TA]B2 (cf. the reading of U3 in l. 202 below). 79. ⸢URI5⸣ki is possible as well.

Score

153

80 N11 ii 15 munus-zi    n[in ur]u2-ni-še3 [ku]š2-u3-da N14 ii 11 munus-z[i] nin uruki-ni-še3 kuš2-u3-de3 N21 obv   4 [ ] nin uru-ni-še3 kuš2-⸢u3-de3⸣-[(x)] N22 obv   4 [ ]⸢x ni⸣-še3 kuš2-⸢u3⸣-[ ] N23 obv   5 [ ]⸢uruki-ni⸣-še3 kuš2-u3-de3 N24   3 [ ]-⸢ni⸣-še3 ⸢kuš2⸣-u3-[ ] N25   3 munus-zi   nin uru-n[i- ] U1 ii 15 munus-zi   nin uru-[ ] U2 74 munus-zi   nin uru-ni-še3 kuš2-u3-de3 G1 ii 24 ⸢munus⸣-zi nin ⸢uru⸣k[i]-[ ] G2 obv   2 munus-zi   nin uru-ni-še3 kuš2-u3-de3 P i 80 [ ]-ni-še3 kuš2-u3-de3 81 N11 ii 16 ⸢d⸣[x x] k[alam- ] ⸢*u3⸣ nu-ku-ku-⸢da⸣ N14 ii 12 [ kal]am-ma-ni-še3 u3   nu-ku-ku-de3 N21 obv   5 [ni]n-gal kalam-ma-ni-še3    u3 ⸢nu⸣-um-ku-[x] N22 obv   5 [ -m]a-⸢ni-še3 u3⸣ [ ] N23 obv   6 [ ] ⸢kalam?⸣-ni-še3 u3 nu-ku-ku-de3 N24   4 [ -š]e3    u3 nu-⸢ku-ku⸣-[ ] N25   4 ⸢d⸣nin-gal kalam-m[a- ] U1 ii 16 d⸢nin-gal⸣ [ ] U2 75 dnin-gal kalam-ma-ni-še3   u3 nu-ku-ku-u3-de3 G1 ii 25 dni[n]-⸢gal⸣ [ ] ⸢u3⸣ n[u]-⸢ku⸣-[ ] G2 obv  3 dnin-gal kalam-ma-ni-še3   u3 nu-ku-ku-dam P i 81 [ ]-⸢ma⸣-ni-še3   u3 nu-ku-ku-da 82 N11 ii 17 e-[x]-⸢ra⸣ nam ⸢uru2⸣-n[a -n]a-⸢te⸣/ er2 gig [ ]-še8-še8 N14 ii 13 [ ] ⸢*nam *uru⸣-na mu-na-te er2 g[ig -š]e8-še8 N21 obv   6 [ ]-ra nam uru-na mu-na-te er2 gig i3-⸢še8-še8⸣ N23 obv   7 80 [ n]am uruki-na mu-na-te er2 gig še8-še8 N24   5 [ ] ⸢mu⸣-na-te er2 ⸢gig⸣ [ ] N25   5 ⸢e⸣-ne-ra nam ur[u- ] N26 obv   1 [ ] ⸢gig i3⸣-š[e8- ] U1 ii 17 ⸢e⸣-[ ] U2 76 e-ne-ra nam uruki-na mu-un-te er2 gig mu-še8-še8 G1 ii 26 e-ne-[ -n]a mu-na-te e[r2 ] G2 obv   4 e-ne-ra nam uru-na mu-na-te er2 gig i3-še8-še8 P i 82 [ ] uru2-na mu-un-na-te er2 gig i3-še8-še8 83 N11 ii 18 nin-ra nam e2-a-na mu-un-⸢*na⸣-*t[e e]r2 gig i3-še8-še8 N14 ii 14 [ -n]a-te er2 ⸢gig *i3⸣-še8-še8 N21 obv   7 [ ] nam e2-na mu-na-te er2 gig i3-⸢še8-še8⸣ N23 obv   8 [ -ḫu]l-a-na mu-na-te er2 gig še8-še8 N24   6 [ ]-na-te er2 gig ⸢i3-še8⸣-[ ] N25   6 [ni]n-ĝa2 nam e2-a-n[a ] N26 obv   2 [ ] gig i3-š[e8- ] U2 77 nin-ĝa2 nam e2-na mu-u[n-t]e er2 gig mu-še8-še8 G1 ii 27 nin-ĝa2 [ ] mu-na-te er2 g[ig ] G2 obv  5 nin-ĝa2 nam e2-a-na mu-na-te er2 gig i3-še8-še8 P i 83 [ ] ⸢e2⸣-ḫul-a-na mu-un-na-te er2 gig i3-⸢še8⸣-še8 80.  Note that due to the inferior quality of the cast, the ends of ll. 82–89 appear twice on the cast: on the obverse and on the reverse (cf. description of the text).

154

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

84 N11 ii 19 N14 ii 15 N21 obv   8 N23 obv   9 N24   7 N25   7 N26 obv   3 N27 obv   1 U2 78 G1 ii 28 G2 obv   6 P i 84

⸢nam uru-ḫul-a⸣-[x m]u-un-[n]a-te [ gi]g i3-še8-še8 [ ] uru-na mu-na-te er2 gig i3-⸢še8⸣-še8 [ ]-a-na mu-na-te er2 gig i3-še8-še8 [ -n]a-te er2 ⸢gig i3-še8⸣-[ ] [   ] e2 ḫul-⸢a⸣-n[a ] [ -g]ig i3-še8-š[e8] [ ]x[ ] nam uru   ḫul-a-na mu-u[n-t]e er2 gig mu-še8-še8 nam uru2 ḫ[ul- ] mu-na-te er2 g[ig ] nam uru2 ḫul-a-na    mu-na-te er2 gig i3-še8-še8 [ ḫu]l-a-na mu-un-⟨na⟩-te er2 gig i3-⸢še8⸣-še8

85 N11 ii 20 N14 ii 16 N21 obv 9 N23 obv 10 N24   8 N25   8 N26 obv   4 N27 obv   2 U2 79 G1 ii 29 G2 obv 7–8 P i 85

[ ] mu-un-n[a- ]/ a-n[ir -b]i im-da-ra-da-⸢ĝa2⸣-ĝ[a2] [ ]-⸢da-ĝa2?- ĝa2⸣ [ u]ru-na mu-na-te a-nir gig-⸢ga⸣-bi/ [-d]a-ra-da-ĝa2-ĝa2 [ ]-⸢a⸣-na mu-na-te a-nir gig-ga-bi/ im-da-ra-ab-ĝa2-ĝa2 [ ]-⸢na-te⸣ a-⸢nir-gig-ga⸣-bi i[m- ] [ ] uru2 ḫul-a-na m[u- ]/ ⸢a-nir gig⸣-g[a- ] [ -g]a-bi im-da-r[a- ] [ -n]a m[u- ] [n]am e2 pe-el-na mu-⸢un⸣-te er2 gig mu-⸢še8-še8⸣ nam e2 ḫ[ul- -n]a mu-na-ta a-nir ⸢gig⸣-[ ] nam e2 ḫul-a-na mu-na-te/ a-nir gig-ga-bi in-da-ra-da-ĝa2-ĝa2 [ ḫ]ul-a-na mu-un-na-te a-nir gig-ga-bi im-da-ra-da-ĝa2-ĝa2 81

86 N11 ii 21 N21 obv 10 N23 obv 11 N24   9 N25   9 N26 obv   5 N27 obv   3 U2 80 G1 ii 30 G2 obv   8 P i 86

munus-e a[d- bala]ĝ er2-ra ki-a al-ĝar-ra-bi [ a]d-a-ni balaĝ a-nir-ra ki al-⸢ĝar⸣-ra-ba [ ]-⸢a⸣-ni balaĝ er2-ra ki al-ĝar-ra-ba [ e]r2-ra ⸢ki al-ĝar-ra⸣-b[i] [ ]-e a[d- ] [ ] ⸢er2-ra⸣ [ a]l-ĝar-ra-bi [ ] ⸢balaĝ⸣ [ ] [ ]-e ad-da-a balaĝ er2-ra ⸢ki⸣ al-ĝar-ra-ba munus-e a[d- bala]ĝ? ⸢er2-ra? ki?⸣ [ ] [ x ]-e ad-a-ni balaĝ er2-ra ki al-ĝar-ra-ab?! [ a]d-a-ni balaĝ er2-ra ki al 82-ĝar-ra-a-ba

87 N11 ii 22 i-lu *e2 [x *g]a tur-tur-bi ni2-te-na mi-ni-ib-be2 N21 obv 11 [ s]i-ga tur-tur-bi ni2-te-na mi-ni-ib-be2 N23 obv 12 [ -g]a tur-tur-bi ni2-te-na mi-ni-ib-be2 N24 10 [ -b]i ni2-te-na mi-ni-⸢ib⸣-[ ] N26 obv   6 [ -g]a [t]ur-⸢tur⸣-bi [ ]-na im-mi-ni-ib-⸢be2⸣ N27 obv   4 [ ] tur-tur-b[i ] U2 81 [ *u]ru si-ga tur-tur-bi ni2-te-na mi-ni-ib-be2 G1 ii 31 i-lu e2 s[i?- ] G2 obv   9 [x-l]u e2 si-ga tur-tur-bi ni2-te-a-ni mi-ni-in-be2 P i 87 [ ] ⸢e2⸣ si-ga tur-tur-bi ni2-te-na mi-ni-ib-be2

81. ĝa2-ĝa2 are inscribed below the line. 82.  Note that AL is usually similar to AB in this text.

Score

155

88 N11 ii 23 u4-da ma-al-ma-al-la i-si-iš-bi ma-la2-la2 N21 obv 12 [ -a]l-ma-al-la i-si-iš-bi ⸢ma⸣-la2-la2 N23 obv 13 [ -a]l-⸢ma⸣-[ ] ⸢i⸣-si-iš-bi ma-la2-la2 N24 11 [ ]-⸢si-iš⸣-bi ⸢ma-la2-la2⸣ N26 obv   7 [ ] x ⸢ma-al⸣-la ⸢i-si⸣-iš-bi ma-la2-l[a2] N27 obv   5 [ ]-ma-a[l- ] U2 82 -m]a-al-ma! 83-al-la i-si-iš-bi ma-la2 G1 ii 32 u4 ma-ma-a[l- ] G2 obv 10 [u4 84 m]a-a ma-ma-al-la-am3 i-si-iš-bi-da la2-la2 P i 88 [ -d]a? ma-⸢*al⸣-al-la i-si-iš-bi ma-la2-la2 89 N11 ii 24 u4-da na-aĝ2-⸢na⸣-[a]ĝ2? 85 kuš2-kuš2-a-ĝu-de3 N21 obv 13 [ ]-bi na-aĝ2-bi-še3 kuš2-kuš2-a-ĝu10-⸢de3⸣ N23 obv 14 [ ]-⸢a⸣- ĝu10-de3 N24 12 [ ] x [ ] N26 obv   8 [ ]-bi-⸢še3⸣ kuš2-kuš2-a-⸢ĝu10-de3⸣ N27 obv   6 [ ] x [ ] U2 (omits line) G1 ii 33 u4-da na-⸢aĝ2⸣-[ ] G2 obv 11 [x-d]a na-aĝ2-bi-še3 ⸢kuš2⸣-kuš2-a-ĝu10-de3 P i 89 [ ] na-aĝ2-bi-še3 kuš2-kuš2-a-ĝu10-de3 90 N1 iii   1 [ ]-⸢x ma x⸣-[ ] N11 ii 25a lu2 nu-nuz-ĝen u4-da ma-⸢al-ma⸣-al-la N21 obv 14a [ ]-ba ma-al-ma-al-la N23 obv 15 [ -m]a-al-l[a] N26 obv   9a [ ] ⸢ma⸣-ma-⸢al⸣-ma-al-la N27 obv   7 ⸢lu2 nu-nuz⸣-[ĝe]n [ ] U2 83 l[u2] ⸢*nu-*nuz-ĝen⸣ u4 ma-al-ma-al-la G1 ii 34 lu2 ⸢nu-nuz-e⸣ [ ] G2 obv 12 [ ]-⸢nuz⸣-ĝen u4 ma-a ⸢ma⸣-ma-al-la P ii  1 lu2 nu-nuz-ĝen u4 ma-ma-al-la i-si-iš-⸢bi⸣ ma-[la2-la2] ] 91 N1 iii   2 [ ] ma-[ N11 ii  25b 86 u4-da ma-al-⸢ma-al-la⸣ i-si-iš-bi ma-la2-la2 N21 obv 14b u4-ba ma-al-ma-al-la/ i-si-iš-bi ⸢ma⸣-[ ]-la2 N23 obv 16 [ -m]a-la2-la2 N26 obv   9b u4 ma-ma-al-la-la/ ⸢i⸣-si-iš-bi ma-⸢la2⸣-la2 N27 obv   8 u4 ma-ma-al-[ ] N28 obv   1 u4 ma-ma! 87-⸢al-la i⸣-[ ] U2 84 u4 ma-al-ma-a[l- ]-bi mu-un-kuš2-u3 G1 ii 35 u4 ma-ma-⸢al⸣-[ ] G2 obv 13 ⸢u4 ma-ma-al⸣-la-am3 i-si-iš-bi-da 88 la2-la2! 89 P ii  2 u4 ma-ma-al-la i-si-iš-bi ma-[ ] 83.  Original has DA. 84.  Restored on the basis of this manuscript’s reading in l. 90. 85.  In its current state of preservation, the sign can not be identified; the restoration [a]ĝ2 follows copy. 86.  The line is indented and therefore regarded as part of line 25. 87.  The MA seems to be written over another sign. 88.  The DA seems to be written over another sign. 89.  Original: A (note that the scribe of this manuscript inscribes the LA2 with two horizontals, which reduces the difference between A and LA2).

156

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

92 N1 iii   3 [ -g]a ⸢ma-ra⸣ [ ] N11 ii 26 u4-da *u4 gig-⸢*ga⸣ *m[a- -a]l-ma-al-la N21 (probably omits line) 90 N26 obv 10 [ ] gig-ga ma-⸢ra⸣ ma-[x x]-al-l[a?] N27 obv   9 u4-⸢da u4⸣ [ ] N28 obv   2 u4-da u4 gig-ga ma-r[a ] N29 obv   1 [ ]-⸢ga⸣ [ ]-⸢al⸣-*l[a?] U2 85 u4-da u4 gig-ga 91 ma-⸢ra⸣ ma-al-ma-al-⸢la-a-na⸣ G1 ii 36 u4-da ⸢u4⸣ [ ] G2 obv 14 [ ] ⸢gig-ga⸣ ma-ra ma-ma-al-la-am3 P ii  3 u4-*da u4 gig-ga ma-ra ma!-ma-*a[l- ] 93 N1 iii  4 me-[ -b]i-⸢še3⸣ zaraḫ ḫ[e2- ] N11 ii 27 ⸢me-e u4⸣-bi-še3 ⸢zaraḫ 92⸣ [x]-⸢em⸣-ši-ak N21 (probably omits line) 93 N26 obv 11 [ -b]i-še3 zaraḫ ḫe2-em-ši-a[k] N28 obv   3 me-e u4-bi-še3 zaraḫ ⸢ḫe⸣-[ ] N29 obv   2 [ z]araḫ ⸢ḫe2-em⸣-ši-*a[k] U2 86 me!-e u4-bi-še3 [z]araḫ ḫe2-em-ši-[a]k G1 ii 37 me-e ĝi6-[ ] G2 obv 15 [x]-⸢e u4-bi-še3 zaraḫ ḫe2-em-ši-ak⸣ P ii   4 me-e u4-bi-še3 zaraḫ ḫe2-en-ši-a[k-a]n 94 94 N1 iii  5 ⸢u4⸣-[ ] ⸢a2⸣-bi-še3 ba-ra-⸢ba⸣-[ ] N11 ii 28 u4-da a2-bi-še3 ba-ra-ba-ra-⸢*e3 95⸣-en N21 obv 15 96 [ ] ⸢bi?-še3? ba⸣-[ ] N26 obv 12 [ ] ⸢a2⸣-bi-še3 ba-[r]a-ba-ra-e3-⸢en⸣ N28 obv   4 u4-da a2-bi ba-ra-ba-ra-e3-e[n] N29 obv   3 [ b]a-ra-ba-ra-e3-⸢*en⸣ U2 87 u4-da a2-bi-še3 [b]a-ra-ba-ra-an-e3-[ ] G1 ii 38 ⸢u4⸣ a2-bi-[ ] G2 obv 16 ⸢u4⸣-da a2-bi-še3 ba-ra-ba-ra-e3-en P ii  5 u4-da a2-bi-še3 ba-ra-ba-ra-⸢*e3 97⸣-[*e]n -b]i2 ba-ra-bi2-du8 95 N1 iii  6 u4-[ ]-še3   bala-ĝu10 ⸢u4    sa6⸣-ga ba[la- ]/ [ N11 ii 29 u4-tur-bi-še3   bala-ĝu10 *u4    sa6-ga bala-ĝu10 ⸢*u4⸣ [s]a6-[x]/ i-bi2 ba-ra-bi2-in-d[u8-x] N21 obv 16 [ -ĝ]u10 ⟨u4⟩ sa6-ga b[ala- ]/ [ ]-bi2-du8-[ ] N26 obv 13 [ -š]e3   bala-ĝu10 u4    sa6-ga ⸢bala-ĝu10⸣ u4 sa6-ga i-bi2 ⸢ba⸣-r[a- ] N28 obv   5 u4 ⸢tur3-bi-še3⸣ bala-⸢ĝu10⸣ u4 sa6-ga bal[a- ]/ i-bi2 ba-ra-⸢bi2-du8-a⸣ N29 obv   4 [ ] u4   ⸢sa6⸣-ga i-*bi2 [ ] N30 i   1 [ ]/ [ ]-⸢du8-am3⸣ U2 88 u4-tur-bi-še3   bala-ĝa2 u4 sa6-ga ba[la]-ĝa2 u4 sa6-ga igi ba-ra-[ -d]u8-a G1 ii 39 u4 tur-bi-⸢še3⸣ [ ] G2 obv 17 u4 tur-bi-še3   bala-ĝu10 u4 sa6-ga i-bi2 ba-ra-bi2-in-du8-a P ii  6 u4-tur-bi-še3   bala-ĝa2 u4 sa6-ga bala-ĝa2 u4-sa6-ga   i-bi2 *b[a-x-b]i2-du8-a 90.  Between ll. 91 and 95, there is only one poorly preserved line in this manuscript. We tentatively identify the preserved line as 94, considering ll. 92–93 as omitted. 91.  gig-ga is followed by an erroneous extra GA. 92. SAĜ.⸢*PA.*LAGAB⸣. 93.  Cf. note on l. 92 above. 94.  The reading [A]N is not certain since only the end of the sign is preserved. It follows the similar formula in line 97 below. Cf. also Kramer. 95. ⸢*UD⸣.DU. 96.  Cf. note on l. 92 above. 97. UD.*D[U]

Score

157

96 N1 iii   7 [ ] a-še-er gig ma-ra ma-m[a- ] N11 ii 30 ⸢ĝi6⸣ a-še-er gig ma!-a-ra ma-⸢ma⸣-a[l- ] N21 obv 17 [ -e]r gig ma-ra ma-ma-a[l- ] N26 obv 14 [     ]-er gig ma-⸢ra ma-ma⸣-al-l[a] N28 rev   1 ĝi6-še3 KI? ⸢a⸣-še-er gig   ma-ra ma-la2-la2 N29 obv   5 [ gi]g ma-a-ra ma-m[a 98- ] N30 i   2 [ ] ma-ra ma-ma-al-la U2 89 ĝi6-da ĝi6 a2-bi-še3 ma-ra ma-⸢al⸣-ma-al-[l]a G1 ii 40 ĝi6-⸢še3⸣ a-še-er    g[ig ] ⸢x⸣ [ ] G2 obv 18 ĝi6-še3      a-še-er    gig ma-ra ma-ma-al-la-am3 P ii  7 ĝi6-še3   ⸢a-še-er⸣ gig ma-ra ⸢ma-ma⸣-[x-l]a 97 N1 iii   8 [ ] ĝi6-bi-še3 zaraḫ ḫe2-e[m- ] N11 iii   1 [ ] zaraḫ ḫe2-em-ši-ak N21 obv 18 [ ]-⸢še3⸣ zaraḫ ḫe2-em-ši-a[k] N26 obv 15 [ ]-⸢bi⸣-še3 zaraḫ [ ]-⸢ak⸣ N28 rev   2 me ĝi6-bi-še3 zaraḫ ḫe2-em-ši-ak N29 obv   6 [ ] ⸢zaraḫ⸣ ḫe2-em-š[i- ] N30 i   3 [ ] zaraḫ ḫe2-em-ši-ak U2 90 me ĝi6-bi-še3 zaraḫ ḫe2-em-ši-⸢ak⸣ G1 ii 41 me-e ĝi6-bi-še3 [ ] G2 obv 19 [x]-⸢e⸣ ĝi6-bi-še3 zaraḫ ḫe2-em-ši-ak P ii  8 me-e 99 [ za]raḫ 100 ḫ[e2-e]n-⸢ši⸣-[x]-an 98 N1 iii   9 [ ] ⸢a2⸣-bi ba-ra-ba-ra-⸢e3⸣-[ ] N11 iii   2 ⸢ĝi6 a2⸣-[ -r]a-ba-ra 101-e3-[x] N21 obv 19 [ b]a-ra-ba-ra-e3-[ ] N26 obv 16 [ ] ⸢a2⸣ ba-⸢ra⸣-ba-r[a- ] N28 rev   3 ĝi6 a2-bi ba-ra-ba-ra-e3-en N29 obv   7 [ ] ba-ra ⸢ba⸣-ra-⸢e3⸣-[ ] N30 i   5 [ -š]e3 ba-ra-ba-ra-e3 U2 91 ĝi6-da a2-bi-še3 ba-ra-⸢ba⸣-ra-an-e3-e G1 ii 42 ⸢ĝi6 a2⸣-bi-še3 [ ] G2 obv 20 [ĝ]i6 ⸢a2⸣-bi-še3 ba-ra-ba-ra-e3-en P ii  9 ĝi6 a2-[ ] ba-ra-ba-ra-e3-e[n] ] 99 N1 iii 10 [ ] uru2-gin7 gul-lu-ba ni2-ba [ N11 iii   3 ⸢u4⸣ uru-gin7 g[ul- ] ni2-bi ḫa-*ma-la2-la2 N21 obv 20 [ ] gul-l[u]-ba ni2-bi ḫa-ma-la2-[ ] N26 obv 17 [ gu]l-⸢lu⸣-ba ni2-bi [ ] N27 rev   1 ⸢u4 uru2⸣-[ ] N28 rev   4 u4 uru2-gin7 gul-lu-ba ni2-bi ḫa-ma-la2-la2 N29 obv   8 [ ]-lu-ba ⸢ni2⸣-bi ḫa-m[a- ] N30 i   6 [ g]ul-lu-ba ni2-bi ḫa-ma-la2-la2 U2 92 u4 uru2-gin7 gul-lu-da ni2-bi-a ḫa-ma-la2-[x] G1 ii 43 ⸢u4 uru2⸣-gin7 ⸢gul-gul-lu-ba ni2⸣-[ ] G2 obv 21 [ -gi]n7? ⸢gul?⸣-lu-ba ni2-bi ḫa-ma-ab-la2-la2 P ii 10 u4 uru2-g[in7 -*b]a ni2-bi ḫa-ma-la2-la2

98.  [A]L cannot be excluded. 99.  The fragment that is currently glued after the signs me-e is out of place (note that it is also placed with its upside down). 100. [*SA]Ĝ.*PA.LAGAB. 101.  RA is followed by an erasured sign (perhaps E3).

158

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

100 N1 iii 11 []-⸢aĝ2⸣-bi-še3 ki-na2 ĝi6-u3-ĝa2 ⸢ki-na2⸣ ĝ[i6- ]/ ⸢lib⸣ ba-ra-ma-an-mar?! N11 iii   4 na-aĝ2-bi-[x x n]a2 ĝi6-u3-na-ĝ[a2]/ ki-na2 ⸢ĝi6⸣-u3-na-ĝa2 lib ba-ra-⸢ma-x⸣ N21 obv 21 [ ]-še3 ki-na2 ĝi6-u3-⸢na⸣-[ ]/ [ ]-u3-na-ĝa2 lib ⸢ba⸣-[ ] N26 obv 18 [ -š]e3 ki-na2 ĝi6-u3-na-⸢ĝa2 ki⸣- [ ] N27 rev   2–3 na-aĝ2-b[i- ]/ ki-na2 ⸢ĝi6⸣-[ ] N28 rev   5 na-aĝ2-bi-še3 ki-na2 ĝi6-u3-[ ]/ [k]i-⸢na2⸣ ĝi6-⸢u3⸣-na-ĝa2 li[b ] N29 obv   9 [ ] ki-⸢na2⸣ ĝi6-⸢u3⸣-[ ]/ [ -n]a-⸢ĝa2 lib⸣ [ ] * N30 i   7 [ -š]e3 ki-na2 ĝi6-u3 102-na-ĝa2/ [ ĝ]i6-u3-na-ĝa2 lib ba-ra-ma-mar U2   93–94 na-aĝ2-bi-še3 ki-na2 [ĝ]i6-u3-na-ĝ[a2]/ ki-na2 ĝi6-u3-na-ĝu10 lib ba-ra-mu-⸢ĝal2⸣ G1 ii 44 ⸢na-aĝ2-bi⸣-[] ki-n[a2 ]/ [x]-⸢na2? ĝi6? u3⸣-na lib b[a- ] G2 obv 22 [ ]-⸢še3⸣ ki-na2 ĝi6-u3-na-ĝa2/ [ ]-⸢u3⸣-na-ĝa2 lib ba-ra-ma-ma-al P ii 11 ⸢na⸣-[ ]-⸢u3⸣-na-ĝa2 ki-na2 *ĝi6-*u3-na-ĝa2 lib ba-ra-ma-⸢x⸣ 101 N1 iii 12 [ -t]ur-bi-še3 ki-na2 ĝiš-la2-a-ba ki-⸢na2⸣-ĝu10 ĝiš-la2-⸢a⸣-[ ]/ nu-ši-in-ga-mu-ni-ib-tum2 N11 iii   5 [ -t]ur-bi-še3 ki-⸢na2⸣-ĝa2 mu-uš-la2-a-bi ki-na2 ĝa2-⸢ĝa2⸣/ nu-⸢uš⸣-in-ga-ma-ni-ib-tum2 N21 obv 22 [ k]i-na2-ĝu10 ĝiš! 103-la2-[ ]/ [ ]-la2-a-ba nu-ši-i[n- ] N23 rev   1 [ m]u?-⸢uš?-la2?-a?⸣-[ ]/ [ ]xx N26 obv 19 [ -š]e3 ki-na2-ĝa2 mu-uš-la2-a-⸢ba ki⸣-n[a2 ]-⸢uš⸣-l[a2- ] N27 rev   4 ⸢u4⸣-tur-bi-še3 k[i- ] N28 rev   6 [ ] x x [ ]/ [ ] N30 i   8 [ -n]a2-ĝu10 ĝiš-la2-⸢a?-ba?⸣ 104 ki-na2 mu-uš-la2-ba/ [ -*g]a-⸢mu-*ni⸣-*in-tum2 U2   95–96 na-aĝ2-bi-še3 ki-na2 [ĝ]iš-la2-a-bi/ ki-na2 ĝiš-la2-a-bi nu-uš-in-ga-⸢ma⸣-ni-ib-tum2 G1 ii 45 (broken) G2 obv 23 [ ] ⸢ki⸣-na2-⸢ĝa2 ĝiš⸣-la2-bi/ [ -ĝ]a2 ⸢ĝiš⸣-la2-bi nu-uš-in-ga-ma-ni-ib-tum2 P ii 12 u4-t[ur]-b[i- ] ⸢x la2-ba⸣ nu-⸢uš⸣-in-[ ] 101a N1 iii 13 [k]a-na-aĝ2-ĝu10-ta ni2-šub me-e ba-ra-ba-da-ak N21 obv 23 [ ]-ta ni2-šub me ba-[ ] 102 N1 iii 16 ka-na-aĝ2-ĝu10 [x]-gig-ga ⸢ba-ĝal2⸣-[ ] N11 iii   9 [ a]ĝ2-gig-ga ba-ĝal2-la-⸢ke4-eš⸣ N14 iii   4 ka-na-aĝ2-[ĝ]u10 ⸢aĝ2-gig-ga ba-ĝal2-la-a?⸣-e[š] N21 obv 24 [ -gi]g-⸢ga ba-ĝal2?⸣-la-[ ] N23 rev   2 [ -gi]g-ga ba-ĝal2-la-ke4-eš N26 obv 20 [ -a]ĝ2-ĝu10 aĝ2-gig-ga ba-ĝ[al2]-la-ke4-e[š] N27 rev   5 [k]a-na-aĝ2-ĝa2 [ ] N30 i   9 [ -l]a-⸢ke4⸣ U2 97 ka-na-aĝ2-ĝu10 aĝ2-gig-ga ma-ĝal2-la-ke4-eš G1 iii  1 (broken) G2 obv 24 [ ] aĝ2-gig-ga ba-ma-al-la-ke4-eš P ii 13 ka-na-aĝ2-ĝa2 ⸢aĝ2-gig-ga⸣ ba-ma-al-la-ke4-eš

102.  After u3 an erased sign is visible. 103.  Original: MA. 104.  An overwriting might be involved here.

Score 103 N1 iii 15 [ ] amar gin7-na[m k]i šu ḫe2-mi-ib-ak * N11 iii   8 [ gi]n7-nam ki šu ḫe2-em-mi-⸢ak?!⸣ N14 iii   3 ⸢ab2⸣ am[ar- ] N21 obv 25 [ ]-⸢nam⸣ [ ] N23 rev   3 [ ] šu ḫe2-em-mi-ba-⸢ak?⸣ N26 obv 21 [ ] ⸢amar-ra⸣-gin7-⸢nam⸣ ki šu ḫe2-⸢em⸣-mi-ib-ak N27 rev   6 [ ] amar gin7-nam [ ] N30 i   9 [ -l]a-⸢ke4⸣ U2 98 ab2-amar-bi gin7-nam ki ZU ḫe2-⸢em⸣-mi-ib-ak G1 iii  2 (broken) G2 obv 25 [ -gi]n7-nam ki šu ḫe2-em-⸢mi⸣-ib-ak P ii 14 ab2 amar-ra gin7-nam ki šu ḫe2-em-ma-ak-an 104 N1 (omits line) N11 iii   6 [k]a-na-aĝ2-ĝ[u10 n]i2 šu-a ba-ra-mu-da-gi4 N14 iii   1 k[a- ] N23 rev   4 [ ]-šu-a ba-ra-mu-da-ab-⸢gig⸣ N26 obv 22 k[a-]-⸢aĝ2⸣-ĝu10 ⸢ni2 šu⸣-a ba-r[a-m]u-da-ab-g[i4] N27 rev   7 [ ]-⸢na⸣-aĝ2-ĝa2 [ ] N31   1 [ ] x g[i] 105 N32   1 [ -*ĝ]u10 ⸢ni2⸣ šu-a ba-*r[a- ] U2 99 ka-na-aĝ2-ĝu10 ni2-še3-am3 ba-[r]a-mu-da-an-di-e G1 iii  3 (broken) G2 obv 26 [ n]i2 šu-a ba-ra-mu-⸢da⸣-ab-gi P ii 15 ka-na-aĝ2-ĝu10 ni2 šu-a ba-ra-mu-da-ab-gi 105 N1 iii 14 [ ]-ĝa2 du-lum gig ba-ĝal2-la-⸢ke4⸣-eš N11 iii   7 [ ] gig ba-ĝal-la-ke4-e[š] N14 iii   2 uru2-ĝu10 [ ] N23 rev   5 [ gi]g ba-ĝal2-la-ke4-eš N26 obv 23 uru2-ĝu10 du-⸢lum gig ba-ĝal2⸣-la-ke4-eš N27 rev   8 [ ]-lum [ ] N31   2 [ ]-⸢ĝal2-la-ke4⸣-[ ] N32   2 [ -lu]m gig ba-ĝal2-la-k[e4- ] U2 100 uru2ki-ĝu10 du-lum gig ba-ĝa[l2- ]-⸢ke4⸣-[(x)] G1 iii   4 [ ] ⸢ba-ĝal2⸣-[ ] G2 obv 27 [ ] ⸢gig ba-ma⸣-al-⸢la-ke4-eš⸣ P ii 16 uru2-ĝa2 ⸢du⸣-lum gig ba-ma-al-la-ke4-eš ] ⸢an-na⸣-gin7 [x-du]b2 ḫe2-ši-[ ] 106 N1 iii 17 [ N11 iii 10 [ -*gi]n7 a2-⸢dub2⸣ ḫe2-em-ši-ak N14 iii   5 mušen 106 an-na-[gi]n7 a2-dub2 ḫe2-em-ši-ak N23 rev   6 [ ] a2-dub2 ḫe2-em-ši-ak N26 obv 24 mušen ⸢an⸣-[ ] ⸢a2⸣-[du]b2 ⸢ḫe2-em⸣-ši-ak N27 rev   9 [ ] x x [ ] N31   3 [ ]-⸢a2?-dub2⸣ ḫe2-em-ši-ak 107 N32   3 [ -gi]n7 a2-dub2 ḫe2-ši-*a[k ] U2 101 mušen an-na-gin7 a2-dub2 [ ] G1 iii  5 [ -du]b2 ⸢ḫe2-em⸣-š[i- ] P ii 17 mušen an-na-gin7 a2-dub2 ḫe2-en-ši-ak-an 105. GI4 cannot be excluded. 106.  MUŠEN is overwritten. 107.  AK is overwritten.

159

160

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

107 N1 iii 18 [ ḫ]e2-em-š[i- ] N11 iii 11 [ -*š]e3 ḫe2-em-ši-dal-dal-en N14 iii   6 me-e uru2-ĝu10-[š]e3 ḫe2-em-ši-dal-dal-en N23 rev   7 [ ḫ]e2-em-ši-dal-dal-e-en N26 obv 25 [ ]-dal-⸢dal⸣-e[n] N29 rev   1 [ ḫ]e2?-⸢*em⸣-[ ]-⸢dal-*dal⸣-[ ] N31   4 [ ] ḫe2-em-⸢ši⸣-dal-dal-e[n] 108 N32   4 [ ] ḫe2-em-ši-dal-dal-[ ] U2 102 me uru2-ĝa2-[ ] G1 iii  6 [ ḫ]e2-⸢en-ši-dal⸣-[ ] P ii 18 me-e uru2-ĝu10-še3 ḫe2-en-ši-dal-dal-en -*ĝa]l2-ba ḫe2-en-ga-mu-da-gul 108 N11 iii 12 [ N14 iii   7 uru2-ĝu10 ki-ĝal2-[b]a ḫe2-en-ga-mu-de3-gul N19 iii  1 [ -ĝa]l2-⸢ba ḫe2⸣-en-⸢ga⸣-m[u- ] N23 rev   8 [ -ĝa]l2-ba ḫe2-en-ga-mu-de3-gul N29 rev   2 [ ]-⸢en-ga⸣-mu-de3-*gul N31   5 [ -b]a ḫe2-en-ga-m[u- ] * N32   5 [ ĝa]l2-ba ḫe2-en-ga-[ ] U2 103 ⸢uru2 ki⸣ ĝar-ba ḫe2-en-ga-[ ] G1 iii  7 [ ḫ]e2-[e]n-ga-⸢mu⸣-[ ] P ii 19 uru2-ĝu10 ki-ma-al-ba ḫe2-en-ga-mu-⸢da⸣-gul -n]a2-bi-a ḫe2-en-ga-mu-da-til 109 N11 iii 13 [ N14 iii   8 uri2ki ki-⸢na2⸣-bi-a ḫe2-en-ga-mu-de3-til N19 iii   2 [ ] ki-na2-bi-a ḫe2-en-g[a- ] N23 rev   9 [ -n]a2-bi-a ḫe2-en-ga-mu-de3-til N29 rev   3 [ ]-⸢bi⸣-a ḫe2-en-ga-mu-⸢x⸣-[ ] N31   6 [ -b]i-⸢a⸣ ḫe2-en-ga-m[u- ] N32   6 [ -*n]a2-[ ] U2 104 u[ri5]⸢ki-ma⸣ ki-na2-bi-a ḫe-⸢en⸣-[ ] G1 iii  8 u[ri2 ]-bi-a ḫe2-en-ga-⸢mu⸣-[ ] P ii 20 uri2ki ki-na2-bi-a ḫe2-en-ga-mu-da-til-e ]-ta ba-ĝal2-la-ke4-eš 110 N11 iii 14 [ N14 iii   9 šu-u4-da an-⸢ta⸣ ba-ĝal2-la-ke4-eš N19 iii   3 [ -d]a an-ta ba-ĝal2-la-[ ] N23 rev 10 [ -t]a ba-ĝal2-la-ke4-eš N29 rev   4 [ ] ⸢ba-ĝal2-la⸣-ke4-e[š] N31   7 [ ]-⸢ta⸣ ba-ĝa[l2- ] U2 105 [ ] an-t[a] ba-ĝ[al2?- ] ⸢x⸣ [ ] G1 iii  9 ⸢šu-u4⸣-[d]a? ⸢an⸣-[t]a ba-ĝal2-l[a- ] P ii 21 šu-u4-da an-ta ba-ma-al-la-ke4-eš

108.  An erased line appears below this line.

Score 111 N1 iii 22 [ ]/ [ ]-em-ma-[   ] N11 iii 15 [ -d]ub2 edin-na u4 gi4-a me-e ḫe2-em-⸢ma⸣-du11 N14 iii 10 gu3 ḫu-mu-dub2 edin-e u4 gi4-a me-e ḫe2-em-ma-du11 N19 iii  4 ⸢gu3⸣ ḫu-mu-dub2 edin-na u4 gi4-a me-e ḫ[e2- ] N23 rev 11 [ -m]u-dub2 edin-na u4 g[i4]-⸢a⸣ me ḫe2-em-ma 109 N29 rev   5 [ ]-⸢na?⸣ u4 gi4-a ⸢*me⸣-e ḫe2-em-[ ] N31   8 [ -du]b2? e[din?- ] U2 106 [ -m]u?-⸢dub2⸣ edin-na u4 [ ]-⸢*e ḫe2-em-ma-na?-du11?⸣ G1 iii 10 gu3 ⸢ḫu⸣-[m]u-un-⸢dub2⸣ [edi]n-na u4 gi-⸢a me⸣-[ ] G2 rev   1 [ ḫ]u-⸢mu⸣-[ ] ⸢edin⸣-na ⸢u4⸣ g[i4- ]-⸢em-ma-na-du11⸣ P ii 22 gu3 ḫu-mu-dub2 edin-na *u4 gi4-a me-e ḫe2-em-ma-na-di ] 112 N1 iii 23 [ ] gaba-bi ba-r[a- N11 iii 16 [ ] gaba-bi ba-ra-ba-ra-zi N14 iii 11 u4-da gaba-bi ba-ra-mu-da-zi N19 iii  5 u4-da gaba-bi ba-ra-mu-da-ab-[ ] N21 rev   1 [ b]a-⸢ra⸣-b[a- ] N23 rev 12 [ gab]a-zi [ ] N29 rev   6 [ ]-⸢bi ba-ra⸣-mu-d[a- ] U2 107 [ -r]a-mu-⸢da-ab⸣-[x] G1 iii 11 u4-da gaba-⸢bi⸣ ba-ra-[ -d]a-ab-⸢zi⸣ G2 rev   2 [x]-⸢da gaba⸣-[b]i ba-ra-mu-da-ab-z[i] P ii 23 u4-da gaba-bi ba-ra-mu-da-zi ] 113 N1 iii 24 [x]-nus-ĝen agr[un- N11 iii 17 [ ]-ĝen agrun-ku3 e2-na-aĝ2-ga-ša-an-na-ĝu10 N14 iii 12 munus-e agrun-ku3 e2-na-aĝ2-dg[a-š]a-an-na-ĝu10 N19 iii   6 nu-nus-ĝen agrun-ku3-⸢ga 110⸣ e2-na-aĝ2-g[a- ] N21 rev   2 [ agr]un-ku3 ⸢e2⸣-[ ] N23 rev 13 (broken) N29 rev   7 [ -k]u3 e2-na-aĝ2-ga-ša-[ ] U2 108 [ -g]a e2-na-a[ĝ2- ]-an-na-[ ] G1 iii 12 nu-nus-zi 111 agr[un- ]⸢x 112⸣-na-a[ĝ2- ] G2 rev   3 [x-n]us-ĝen agrun-ku3 e2-na-aĝ2-⸢ga⸣-ša-an-na-ĝu10 P ii 24 nu-nus-ĝen agrun-ku3 e2-na-aĝ2-ga-ša-an-na-ĝu10 114 N1 iii 25 bala-ba u4 s[ud2- ] N11 iii 18 [ ] u4-sud-ra2 na-⸢ma⸣-ni-in-ĝar-re-eš-am3 N14 iii 13 bala-ba *u4 sud-⸢ra2⸣ na-ma-ni-in-ĝar-re-eš-a N19 iii   7 bala-ba u4-sud-ra2 ⸢na-ma-ni⸣-i[n- ] N21 rev   3 [ -r]a2 ⸢na 113⸣-m[a- ] N23 rev 14 (broken) N29 rev   8 [ ] na-ma-ni-in-[ ] U2 109 [ ]-re-eš-a[m3] G1 iii 13 bala-ba u4! sud-ra2! 114 na-ma-ni-[x]-⸢ĝar-re?⸣-[ ] G2 rev   4 bala-ba u4 ⸢sud-ra2⸣ na-ma-ni-in-ĝar-re-eš-am3 P ii 25 bala-ba u4 sud-ra2 na-ma-ni-in-ĝar-re-eš-am3 109.  The absence of KA is perhaps due to cast inaccuracies. 110.  The GA is written over erasure. 111.  After -zi an erasure (of perhaps another ZI) is visible. 112.  Traces do not point to ⸢E2⸣; perhaps to ⸢E⸣. 113.  An overwriting might be involved. 114.  An erasure of a sign between -ra2 and na- caused damage to both signs.

161

162

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

115 N1 iii 26 [e]r2 a-š[e- ] N11 iii 19 [ ]-še-ra ki ḫa-ma-an-us2-eš N14 iii 14 er2 a-⸢še⸣-er-⸢ ra⸣ ki ḫa-ma-ab-us2-am3 N19 iii  8 er2 a-še-er-ra ki ⸢ḫa-ma-ab-us2⸣-a[m3] N21 rev   4 [ -r]a? ⸢ki ḫa⸣-m[a- ] N23 rev 15 [ -š]e-er-[ ] N29 rev   9 [ -r]a? ⸢ki⸣ ḫa-⸢ma⸣-*a[b- ] U2 110 [ ]-ab-⸢us2-e⸣ G1 iii 14 er2-re a-še-⸢re⸣ 115 ki ⸢ḫa⸣-ma-ab-u[s2]-⸢e?⸣ G2 rev  5 [e]r2-re a-š[e]-⸢er⸣-re ⸢ki⸣ ḫa-ma-ab-us2 P ii 26 er2 a-še-er-ra ki ḫa-ma-ab-us2-e ] 116 N1 iii 27 ⸢e2⸣ ki-[ N11 iii 20 [ -u]r5 sa6-ge saĝ-ĝi6-ga i3-me-a-ke4-eš N14 iii 15 e2 ki ur5 sa6-g[e] saĝ-gi6-ga i3-me-a-ke4-eš N19 iii  9 e2 ki ur5 sa6-ge uĝ3-saĝ-ĝi6-ga i3-me-na-ke4-eš N21 rev   5 [ ] saĝ-ĝi6-ga ⸢i3⸣-[ ] N23 rev 16 [ ] ur5 sa6-[ ] N29 rev 10 [ ] ⸢saĝ⸣-ĝi6⸢ga⸣ i3-[ ] U2 111 [ -a]k-ke4-e[š] G1 iii 15 e2 ki ⸢ur5⸣ sa6-ge saĝ-ĝi6-⸢ga⸣ i3-⸢me⸣-en-na-ke4-⸢eš⸣ G2 rev  6 ⸢e2⸣ ki ur5 ⸢sa6-ge⸣ saĝ-ĝi6-ga i3-me-a-ke4-eš P ii 27 e2 ki ur5 sa6-ge saĝ-gig-ga i3-me-na-ke4-eš 117 N11 iii 21 [eze]m-bi-še3 ib2-ba su-mu-ug-ga ḫe2-en-ga-mu-da-tab-tab-eš N14 iii 16 ezen-bi-ta ib2-b[a s]u-mu-ug-ga ḫe2-en-ga-ma-da-an-tab-tab-be2-eš N19 iii 10 i3-ze-eĝ3-bi-ta ib2-ba su-mu-ug-ga/ ḫe2-en-ga-mu-e-da-tab-tab-e-eš N21 rev   6 [ -b]i-ta ib2-ba su-[ ] N23 rev 17 x 116-bi-ta [ ] N29 rev 11 [ ] ⸢*ib2?⸣-*ba ⸢su⸣-[ ] U2 112 [ -g]a ba-e-da-⸢tab?⸣-[ ] G1 iii 16 ezen-bi-ta ib2-ba su-mu-⸢ug⸣-ga ḫe2-en-⸢ga⸣-m[u- ] G2 rev   7 [ez]en-bi-⸢ta ib2⸣-ba su-mu-ug-ga ḫe2-en-ga-mu-da-tab-tab-e-eš P ii 28 ezen-bi-ta ib2-ba su-mu-ug-ga ḫe2-en-ga-mu-tab-tab-be2 118 N11 iii 22a [ ] e2-ĝu10 ki sa6-ga e2-zi N14 iii 17a u4 tur-bi-še3 e2-ĝu10 k[i s]a6-ga N19 iii 11a u4-tur-bi e2-ĝu10 ki sa6-ga N21 rev   7a [ ] ⸢ki⸣ sa6-ga N23 rev 12a [ -b]i-še3 e2-ĝu10 ki sa6-ga N26 rev   1a (broken) 117 U2   113a 118 [ ]xA G1 (omits line) G2 rev  8 ⸢u4⸣-tur3-bi-še3 e2-ĝu10 ki sa6-ga P ii 29 u4-tur-bi-še3 e2-ĝu10 ki sa6-ga 115.  -⸢re⸣ is followed by a partly erased E. 116.  Traces do not point to EZEN or AĜ2. 117.  This line probably appeared at the currently broken beginning of the first line of the obverse; the end of the same line, which is partly preserved, contained l. 119 (cf. below). 118.  Remnants do not fit the expected signs. The line might have contained a unique Ur version. Cf. note on line 118.

Score

163

119 N11 iii 22b ḫul2-a-ĝu10 i-bi2 ba-ra-bi2-in-*du8-*a 119 N14 iii 17b e2 zi ḫul-a-ĝu10 igi ba-ra-bi2-ib-du8-am3 N19 iii 11b e2 zi ḫul-a-na/ i-bi2 ba-ra-bi2-du8-a N21 rev   7b e2 zi ḫ[ul- ] N23 rev 12b (broken) N26 rev   1b [ ] ⸢ḫul⸣-a-bi ⸢i-bi2 ba-ra⸣-b[i2- ] U2   113b 120 e2 ḫ[ul ] G1 (omits line) G2 rev  9 e2 zi ḫul-a-ĝu10 i-bi2 ba-ra-bi2-in-du8-am3 P ii 30 e2 zi ḫul-a-ĝu10 i-bi2 ba-ra-bi2-du8-am3 120 N11 iii 23a [ -*e]r ⸢aĝ2⸣-gig-ga N14 iii 18a ur5-ug7-a a-še-er aĝ2-*g[ig- ] N19 iii 12a ur5-ug7-a a-še-er aĝ2-gig-ga N21 rev   8a [ ]-gig-ga N23 (omits line) N26 rev   2a [u]r5-ug7-a a-še-e[r ] U2   114a [ ] G1 iii 17a ur5-ug7-⸢a⸣ a-še-er aĝ2-gig-ga G2 rev 10 ur5-ug7-a a-še-er aĝ2-gig-ga P ii 31 ur5-ug7-a a-še-er aĝ2-gig-ga 121 N11 iii 23b a-še-er aĝ2-⸢gig⸣-ga/ [ -*m]u-ni-in-tum2-tum2-mu-uš N14 iii 18b ⸢a-še⸣-er [a]ĝ2-⸢gig⸣-ga/ [ ]-mu N19 iii 12b a-še-er aĝ2-gig-ga/ ḫu-mu-ni-in-tum2-tum2-mu N21 rev   8b a-še-er a[ĝ2- ] N23 (omits line) N26 rev  2b [ ] aĝ2-gig-⸢ge ḫu⸣-mu-ni-in-tum2-tu[m2- ] U2   114b [ ] ḫu-mu-[ ] G1 iii 17b a-še-er aĝ2-gig-⸢ga⸣ [ ] G2 rev 11 a-še-er aĝ2-gig-ga ḫu-mu-ni-in-tum2-tum2-mu P ii 32 a-še-er aĝ2-gig-ga mu-ni-tum2-tum2-mu-uš 122 N11 iii 24 ⸢e2⸣ [ -d]e3 -[*b]a-⸢an?⸣ 121-mar-ra-ĝu10 N14 iii 19 e2 lu2 zi-de3 ⸢ba⸣-ab-⸢ĝar-ra⸣-ĝu10 N19 iii 13 e2 lu2 zi-de3 ba-mar-ra-ĝu10 N21 rev   9 [ ]-mar-ra-[ ] N23 rev 13 [ z]i-de3 [ ] N26 rev   3 e2 lu2 z[i]-d[e3] [ -a]n-⸢mar?⸣ 122-[ ]-ĝu10 U2 115 [ -a]n-ĝar-ra-[ ] U3  1 e2 lu2 ⸢zi⸣-de3 ⸢ba⸣-an-ĝar-ra-[ ] G1 iii 18 e2 lu2 zi-de3 ba-ab-ĝar-⸢ra-ĝu10⸣ G2 rev 12 e2 lu2 zi-de3 ba-an-mar-ra-ĝu10 P ii 33 e2 lu2 zi-de3 ba-ab-ĝar-ra-ĝu10

119.  The signs -du8-a are inscribed below and to the right of the line. 120.  Reconstruction uncertain; the proximity of the signs to the end of the line, which leaves a relatively narrow place for the next expected signs, and the incompatibility of the previous signs (supposing they belong to the end of line 118), may point to an entirely different (Ur) version, which has no known parallel. 121.  Sign almost completely broken; it is not GAR (contra copy). 122.  ⸢GAR⸣ can not be excluded.

164

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

123 N11 iii 25 gi-⸢sig⸣-[ *kir]i6-[ ] ⸢*bar-*ba⸣ ḫe2-bi2-in-dub2 N14 iii 20 gi-sig ĝiškiri6-gin7 bar-ba ḫa-ma-dub2 N19 iii 14 gi-sig ĝiškiri6-gin7 bar-ba ḫe2-em-mi-ib-dub2 N21 rev 10 [ ba]r-b[a] ḫe2-bi2-[ ] N23 u.e.  1 [  ] ĝiškiri6-⸢gin7⸣ [ ] N26 rev   4 gi-si[g] [ĝi]škiri6-⸢gin7⸣ b[ar?- ] x x x dub2 U3  2 gi-sig ĝiš⸢kiri6-gin7⸣ bar-ba ḫu-mu-un-d[ub2] G1 iii 19 gi-sig ĝiškiri6-ke4 bar-ba ḫe2-⸢mu⸣-un-⸢dub2⸣ G2 rev 13 [g]i-sig ĝiškiri6-gin7 bar-ba ḫe2-bi2-in-dub2 P ii 34 gi-sig ĝiškiri6-gin7 bar-ba ḫ[e2]-bi2-in-dub2 124 N11 iii 26 e2-kiš-⸢*nu⸣-ĝal2 e2 nam-lugal-la-ĝu10 N14 iii 21 e2-kiš-nu-ĝal2 e2 nam-lugal-la-ĝu10 N19 iii 15 ⸢e2⸣-kiš-nu-ĝal2 e2 nam-lugal-la-ĝu10 N21 rev 11 [ ] ⸢e2⸣ nam-⸢lugal⸣-la-[ ] N23 u.e.   2 [ -n]u-ĝal2 [ ] N26 rev   5 e2-[ ]-⸢nu⸣-ĝal2 [ ] x ĝu10 U3  3 e2-kiš-nu-ĝal2 e2 nam-lugal-la-ĝ[a2] G1 iii 20 e2-kiš-nu-ĝal2 e nam-lugal-la-⸢ĝu10⸣ G2 rev 14 [x x]-⸢nu⸣-ĝal2 e2 ⸢nam-lugal-la-ĝu10⸣ P ii 35 e2-kiš-nu-ĝal2 e2 nam-lugal-la-ĝu10 125 N11 iii 27 e2 zi ⸢*e2⸣ er2-ra ba-an-di-ni-ib-ĝar-ra-ĝu10 N14 iii 22 e2 zi e2 er2-e mu-di-ni-ib2-ĝar-ra-ĝu10 N19 iii 16 ⸢e2⸣ zi e2 er2-re ba-an-di-ni-ib-ĝar-ra-ĝu10 N21 rev 12 [ -r]e ba-a[n- ] N23 u.e.   3 [ ] e2 ḫul-la [ ] N26 rev   6 ⸢e2⸣ [z]i ⸢e2 er2⸣-re b[a- -ĝa]r-ra-ĝu10  U3  4 e2 ⸢zi⸣ e2 er2-⸢re⸣ ba-an-di-ni-ib-ĝar-re-[x] G1 iii 21 e2 zi e2 er2-re ba-an-di-⸢ni-⸣-ib-⸢ĝar-ra?⸣-[ ] G2 rev 15 ⸢e2⸣ zi e2 123 er2-re mu-un-di-ni-ib-mar-⸢ra-ĝu10⸣ P ii 36 e2 zi e2 er2-ra ba-an-di-ni-⸢*ib⸣-ĝar-ra-ĝu10 126 N11 iii 28a lul-e-⸢eš⸣ du3-u3-ba zi-de3-eš gul-lu-ba! 124 N14 iii 23 lul-e-eš du3-u3-ba zi-⸢de3⸣-eš gul-lu-ba N19 iii 17 [lu]l-e-eš du3-u3-ba zi-de3-eš gul-lu-ba N21 rev 13a [ ]-⸢u3⸣-ba zi-de3-e[š ] N26 rev   7a l[ul- ]-⸢u3-ba⸣ zi-de3-⸢eš⸣ g[ul- ] U3   5a l[ul-x]-eš du3-a-ba [z]i-de3-eš gul-a-ba G1 iii 22 lul-⸢e⸣-eš du3-ba zi-de-eš gul-lu-ba G2 rev 16 [lu]l-e-eš du3-ba zi-de3-eš gul-lu-⸢ba⸣ P ii 37 lul-eš du3-u3-bi zi-de3-eš gul-lu-bi

123.  An erasure of a sign (perhaps A) is visible between e2 and er2-. 124.  Original: ĜIŠ.

Score 127 N11 iii 28b 125 ḫa-⸢la⸣ ba-bi-a ḫa-ma-ni-in-ĝar-re-eš-am3 N14 iii 24 ḫa-la ba-ab-bi-a ḫa-ma-ni-⸢*in-*ĝar-re⸣-eš N19 iii 17b 126 ḫa-la ba-bi-a ḫa-ma-ni-in-ĝar-re-eš-a N21 rev 13b [ -b]i-⸢a⸣ ḫa-m[a- ] N26 rev   7b [ -l]a ba-⸢bi⸣-a ḫa-ma-ni-ĝar-r[e- ] U3   5b ḫa-la ⸢ba-bi⸣ na-m[a- ]-⸢ĝar⸣-[(x)] G1 iii 23 ḫa-la ba-bi-a ḫa-ma-ni-in-ĝar-re-eš-a[m3]  127 G2 rev 17 [ḫ]a-la ba-bi-a ḫa-ma-ni-in-ĝar-re-eš-am3 P ii 38 ḫa-la ba-bi-a ḫa-ma-ni-in-ĝar-re-eš-am3 128 N11 iii 29a *za-⸢*lam⸣-[ ] ⸢ki⸣-*buru14 bu-ra-gin7 N14 iii 25a za-lam-ĝar e2 ki-buru14 bu-ra-gin7 N19 iii 18a [x-la]m-ĝar e2 ki-buru14 bu-ra-gin7 N21 rev 14a [ -bur]u14 ⸢bu⸣-ra-gin7 N26 rev   8a za-l[am- ]-⸢buru14 bu-ra⸣-gin7 U3   6a za-lam-ĝar e2 ki-buru14 bu-ra-gin7 G1 iii 24 za-lam-ĝar e2 ki-buru14 bu-ra-gin7 G2 rev 18 [z]a-lam-ĝar e2 ki-buru14 bu-ra-gin7 P ii 39 za-lam-ĝar e2 ki-buru14 bu-ra-gin7 129 N11 iii 29b e2 ki-*buru14 bu-ra gin7/ [š]eĝ14-e ḫa-ba-ĝar N14 iii 25b e2 ki-⸢buru14 *bu⸣-*ra-*gin7/ šeg14-e ḫa-ma-*ĝal2 N19 iii 18b e2 ki-buru14    bu-ra-gin7/ šeg14-ĝa2 ḫa-ba-an-ĝar N21 rev 14b ⸢e2-ki⸣-b[uru14     -r]a-gin7 š[eĝ14- ] N26 rev   8b e2 ki-b[uru14 -g]in7 ⸢šeg14⸣ ḫa-ba-ĝar U3   6b e2 ki-buru14      bu-ra-gin7 ⸢šeg14⸣ ḫa-ba-[ ] G1 iii 25 e2 ki-buru14      bu-ra-gin7 šeg14-ĝa2 ḫa-ba-ĝar G2 rev 19 ⸢e2⸣ ki-buru14 bu-ra-gin7 šeg14-ĝa2 ḫa-ba-ma-al P ii 40 e2 ki-buru14      bu-ra-gin7 šeg14-a ḫa-ba-an-ĝar 130 N11 iii 30 ⸢uri2⸣*ki ama5 ni3-diri-ĝa2 N14 iii 26 uri5ki ama5 ni3-diri-ĝu0 N19 iii 19 [u]ri2ki ama5 ni3-diri-ĝu10 N21 rev 15 [ am]a5 ni3-diri-ĝu10 N26 rev   9 uri2ki ama5 ⸢ni3⸣-d[iri]-⸢ĝu10⸣ U3  7 uri5ki-ma esaĝ2 ni3-diri! 128-ĝu10 G1 iii 26 uri2ki ama5 ni3-diri-⸢ĝu10⸣ G2 rev 20 [u]ri2ki ama5 ni3-diri-ĝa2 P ii 41 uri2ki ama5 ni3-diri-ĝu10 131 N11 iii 31 lil2 ur[u s]i-ga mu-un-bu-bu-*bu N14 iii 27 lil2 uru si-ga mu-un-bu-bu-bu N19 iii 20 [ ] ⸢si⸣-ga mu-un-bu-bu-bu N21 rev 16 [ -g]a mu-un-bu-bu-⸢bu⸣ N22 rev   1 [ ]-⸢bu⸣-[ ] N26 rev 10 lil2 uru2 ⸢si-ga⸣ mu-⸢un⸣-bu-[x]-⸢bu⸣ U3  8 lil2 ⸢uru si⸣-ga ḫu-mu-un-bu-bu-bu G1 iii 27 lil2 uru2 si-ga mu-un-bu-bu-⸢bu⸣ G2 rev 21 lil2 uru2 si-ga mu-un-bu-bu-bu P ii 42 lil2 *uru2 si-ga mu-un-bu-bu-ra-ĝu10 125.  This line appears as the indented second part of line 126 (contra copy). 126.  This line appears as the indented second part of line 126. 127.  ⸢A⸣.[AN]; the possibility that A was not followed by AN cannot be excluded (cf. N19). 128.  Tablet has SI (with the A omitted).

165

166

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

132 N11 iii 32 amaš [l]u2-sipa-da-gin7 ḫa-ma-bu-bu N14 iii 28 amaš lu2-sipa-da-gin7 ḫa-ba-bu-bu N19 iii 21 [ ]-⸢sipa⸣-da-gin7 ḫa-ma-bu-bu N21 rev 17 [ ]-sipa-da-⸢gin7 ḫa-ba⸣-bu-bu N22 rev   2 [ -b]a-bu-[ ] N26 rev 11 amaš l[u2- -gi]n7? ⸢ḫa⸣-b[a- ]-⸢bu⸣-b[u] U3   9 amaš lu2-sipa-d[a-gi]n7 ḫa-ba-an-bu-bu G1 iii 28 amaš lu2-sipa-da-⸢gin7⸣ ḫa-ba-an-bu-⸢bu⸣ G2 rev 22 amaš lu2-sipa-da-gin7 ḫa-ba-bu-bu P ii 43 amaš lu2-sipa-da-gin7 *ḫa-ba-an-bu-bu šu pe-el-la2 ⸢ba⸣-ab-du11 133 N11 iii 33 ni3-gur11 ur[u (x)*ĝa]l2-*la-*bi-*še3 N14 iii 29 ni3-gur11 ur[u2 ĝa]l2-ĝal2-la-ĝu10 sug-e ḫu-mu-*da-ab-g[u7] N19 iii 22 [ -g]a-⸢ba⸣ šu pe-⸢el⸣-la2 ba-ab-du11 N21 rev 18 [ uri2][k]i-ma ĝal2-ĝal2-⸢la⸣-[ ] sug-ge4 ḫu-mu-da-DU N22 rev   3 [ ] ⸢ḫu⸣-mu-d[a- ] N26 rev 12 ni3-gur11 uru2 x [ s]ug-⸢ge ḫu⸣-m[u- ]-⸢gu7⸣ U3 10 ni3-gur11 uru2 ma-⸢ma⸣-a[l]-ma-⸢al⸣-la sug-ge4 ḫu-mu-un-ab-si G1 iii 29 ni3-gur11 uru2 saĝ si3-ga-[ĝ]u10 sug!-e ḫu-mu-⸢da⸣-[ ] G2 rev 23 ni3-gur11 uru2 saĝ si3-ga-ĝu10 sug-ge ḫu-mu-da-ab-⸢gu7? 129⸣ P ii 44 ni3-gur11 uru2 ĝal2-ĝal2-la-ĝu10 sug-ge ḫu-mu-da-ab-*gu7 134 N11 iii 34 ki-ru-gu2 3-kam-ma-am3 N14 iii 30 ki-*r[u-g]u2 3-kam-ma-am3 N21 rev 19 [ -g]u2 3-kam-ma N22 rev   4 [ -g]u2 3-⸢kam⸣-[ ] N26 rev 13 [ ]-⸢am3⸣ U3 11 [ -r]u-⸢gu2⸣ 3-kam-ma G1 iii 30 ki-ru-gu2 3-kam-ma-am3 G2 rev 24 ki-ru-gu2 3-kam-ma-am3 P ii 45 ki-ru-gu2 3-kam-ma 135 N11 iii 35 [ k]i er2-re ba-an-di-ni-ib-ĝar N14 iii 31 ⸢uri5ki er2-re ba⸣-an-di-ni-ib2-ĝar N21 rev 20 [ k]i 130-a er2-re ba-an-di-ni-ib-ĝar N22 rev   5 [ ]-⸢an⸣-di-ni-⸢ib⸣-[ ] N26 rev 14 (broken) U3 12 uri5ki-ma er2-ra ba-an-di-ni-ib-ĝar U4   1 [ -m]a er2-re b[a- ] G1 iii 31 uri2ki er2-re ba-an-di-⸢ni⸣-[i]b?-ĝar G2 rev 25 ⸢uri2ki er2⸣-ra ba-an-di-ni-ib-ĝar P ii 46 uri2ki er2-re ba-an-di-ni-ib-ĝar 135a U3 13 uru2-ni ba-an-da-gul-⸢la⸣ [x-n]i ba-an-da-kur2-ra U4   2 [ ] ⸢ba⸣-[a]n-da-gul-la me-ni ba-[ ]

129.  The inner part of the KA is damaged; du11 can not be excluded. 130.  The KI is followed by a partly erased sign.

Score 136 N11 iii 36 ĝiš-gi4 131-ĝal2-bi-im N14 iii 32 ĝiš-gi4-ĝal2 ki-[ ] N21 rev 21 [ ]-gi4-ĝal2-bi ki-ru-gu2-da-ka N22 u.e.   1 [ ] ki-ru-gu2-da-⸢kam⸣ N26 rev 15 [ -ĝa]l2-[ ]-im U3 14 ĝiš-⸢gi4⸣-ĝa[l2-x]-im U4  3 ĝiš-gi4-ĝal2-bi-[ ] G1 iii 32 ĝiš-gi4-ĝal2-bi-[i]m G2 rev 26 [ -g]i4-ĝal2-bi-im P ii 47 ĝiš-gi4-ĝal2-bi-im 137 N11 iii 39 u4-ba u4-⸢ne⸣-[x] ba-si3-si3-ga-ba N14 iii 33 u4-ba u4-ne-en ba-si3-s[i3- ] N22 u.e.   2 [ ]-si3-si3-⸢ga⸣-[ ] N26 rev 16 [ ] ⸢u4⸣-ne-⸢en⸣ b[a]-si3-[ ]-ga-ba N33 obv   1 u4-ba u4-ne-en ba-si3-si3-⸢ga⸣-[ ] U3 15 u4-ba u4-ne-en ba-⸢si3⸣-[x-g]a-a-b[a] U4  4 ⸢u4⸣-ba u4-n[e]-en ba-si3-si3-g[a- ] G1 iii 33 u4-ba u4-ne-en ba-si-⸢si⸣-[ ]-⸢ba⸣ G2 rev 27 [ b]a-⸢si3-si3-ga-ba?⸣ P ii 48 u4-*ba u4-ne-en ba-si3-si3-ga-ba Y1 obv  1 ⸢u4-ba⸣ u4-ne-en ba-⸢si3⸣-si3-ga-ba 138 N11 iii 38 N14 iii 34 N33 obv   2 N34   1 U3 16 U4   5 G1 iii 34 P ii 49 Y1 obv   2

nin-da ⸢uru-*ni⸣ ba-an-da-gul-e nin-da uru⸢ki⸣-ni ba-an-da-g[ul- ] nin-da uru-ni ba-an-⸢da-gul⸣-[ ] [ ] x [ ] nin-da uru2ki-ni ba-⸢an-da⸣-gul nin-da uru2[k]i-ni ba-an-d[a- ] nin-da uru2-ni ba-[(x)-d]a-gul-[(x)] ⸢x 132⸣ nin-da uru2-ni ba-an-da-gul-la-ba nin-da uru2-ni [ ]-*a[n]-[ ]-⸢gul⸣-la

138a U3 17 uru2ki-ni ba-an-da-gul me-ni ba-an-da-kur2-ra U4  6 uru2ki-ni ba-an-da-gul me-ni ⸢ba⸣-[ ] 139 N11 iii 37 u4-ba ⸢u4-*ne⸣-en ba-dim2-dim2-ma-ba N14 iii 35 u4-ba u4-ne-en ba-dim2-dim2-m[a- ] N21 rev 22 [ -n]e-en ba-dim2-dim2-ma-ba N33 obv   3 u4-ba u4-ne-⸢en⸣ ba-dim2-[ ] N34   2 [ -n]e-⸢en?!⸣ ba-dim2-dim2-[ ] U3 18 u4-ba u4-ne ba-dim2-dim2-a-ba U4  7 u4-ba u4-ne-en ba-dim2-d[im2- ] G1 iii 35 u4-⸢ba? u4?⸣-[ ]-⸢ma-ba 133⸣ P ii 50 u4-ba u4-ne-en ba-dim2-dim2-ma-ba Y1 obv  3 u4-ba u4-ne-en [ ] ⸢x⸣ [ -m]a-ba

131.  Transliteration follows the more complete copy. The tablet currently has [x-g]i4-ĝal2-bi-im. 132.  Only the very end of the sign is preserved. It might have been E, LA or BA. 133.  The small fragment glued to the tablet at the end of this line does not belong here; cf. Description.

167

168

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

140 N11 iii 40 uru2-ĝu10 ⸢gul⸣-gul-⸢lu-*ba⸣ im-me-ne-eš-a-ba N14 iii 36 uru2-ĝu10 gul-gul-u3-ba im-mi-in-e[š- ] N33 obv   4 uru2-ĝu10 gul-gul-ba 134 im-me-n[e- ] N34   3 [ ] gul-gul-lu-ba im-me-n[e- ] U3 19 uru2-ĝu10 gul-gul-da [i]m-ma-an-aĝ2-eš-a-ba U4  8 uru2-ĝu10 gul-gul-da im-m[a- ] P ii 51 uru2-ĝu10 gul-gul-⸢*lu-ba⸣ im-mi-in-ne-eš-a-ba Y1 obv  4 uru2-ĝu10 gul-gul-lu-ba im-m[i-  ]-⸢ne-eš⸣-a-ba 141 N11 iii 41 uri2ki gul-gul-*l[u-b]i im 135-me-ne-eš-a-ba N14 iii 37 uri5ki gul-gul-u3-ba im-mi-in-eš-a-⸢ba⸣ N33 obv   5 uri2ki gul-⸢gul-ba im-me⸣-[ ] N34   4 [u]ri2ki gul-gul-lu-ba im-me-ne-[ ] N35 obv   1 u[ri2- ] U3 20 uri5ki gul-gul-da [i]m-ma-an-aĝ2-eš-a-ba U4  9 uri5ki gul-gul-da im-m[a- ] P ii 52 uri2ki gul-gul-⸢lu⸣-ba im-mi-in-ne-eš-a-ba Y1 obv  5 uri2ki gul-gul-lu-ba im-[ -n]e-eš-a-ba 142 N11 iii 42 uĝ3-bi ug5-ge-de3 ⸢*a2⸣ mu-un-*aĝ2-eš-a-ba N14 iii 38 uĝ3-bi ug5-ge-de3 a2 mu-un-aĝ2-eš-a-b[a] N33 obv   6 [u]ĝ3-bi ug5-ge-de3 a2 m[u- ] N34   5 uĝ3-bi ug5-ge-de3 a2 mu-un-a[ĝ2- ] N35 obv   2 uĝ3-⸢bi⸣ [ ] U3 21 uĝ3-⸢bi ug5-ge-de3⸣ [i]m-ma-an-aĝ2-eš-a-ba U4 10 uĝ3-bi ug5-ge-de3 im-m[a- ] P ii 53 uĝ3-bi ug5-ge-da a2 mu-un-aĝ2-eš-a-ba Y1 obv  6 uĝ3-bi ug5-ge-de3 a2 [ -u]n?-⸢aĝ2⸣-eš-a-ba 143 N11 iii 43 u4-ba ⸢*me-e⸣ uru2-ĝu10-še3 ĝa2-*l[a *b]a-⸢ra⸣-ba-ra-dag N14 iii 39 u4-ba me-e uru-ĝu10 ĝa2-la ⸢ba-ra⸣-ba-ra-dag N33 obv   7 ⸢u4⸣-ba me uru2-ĝu10-⸢še3 ĝa2-la ba⸣-[ ] N34   6 u4-ba me uru2-ĝu10-še3 ĝa2-la ba-ra-ba-r[a- ] N35 obv   3 u4-⸢ba me⸣-[ ] U3 22 ⸢u4⸣-[ ur]u2?-[ ] ⸢ĝa2-la ba-ra-ba-dag-ge⸣ U4 11 u4-ba me-e uru-ĝa2 ĝa2-l[a ] P ii 54 u4-ba me-e uru2-ĝu10-še3 ĝa2-la ba-ra-ba-ra-dag Y1 obv  7 u4-ba me-e uru2-ĝu10-še3 ĝa2-la ba-ra-ba-ra-dag 144 N11 iii 44 ka-⸢*na⸣-[x]-⸢*ĝu10 x x⸣-[ -d]a-ak N14 iii 40 ka-na-aĝ2-ĝu10-ta ⸢ni2-šub me⸣ [ ] N33 obv   8 [k]a-na-aĝ2-ĝu10-ta ni2-šub [ ] N34   7 ka-na-aĝ2-ĝu10-ta ni2-šub me ba-ra-ba-[ ] N35 obv   4 ⸢ka⸣-[ ] U3 23 [ ] ⸢ni2-šub⸣-bi ba-⸢ra-ba-ra-ab⸣-ak U4 12 ka-na-aĝ2-ĝa2 ni2-šub-bi ba-r[a- ] P ii 55 ka-na-aĝ2-ĝu10-ta ni2-šub me-e ba-ra-ba-da-ak-en Y1 obv  8 ka-na-aĝ2-ĝu10-ta ni2-šub me-e ba-ra-ba-da-ak-a

134.  BA is followed by a partly erased sign, probably IM. 135.  IM is partly overwritten.

Score 145 N11 iii 45 an-⸢*ra *a *i⸣-[ ]-em-ma-na-du11 N14 iii 41 an-ra a i-bi2-ĝa2 me-e ⸢ḫe2⸣-[ ] N33 obv   9 [ -r]a a i-bi2-ĝa2 me-e [ ] N34   8 an-⸢ra⸣ a i-bi2-ĝa2 me-e ḫe2-me-em-na-[ ] N35 obv   5 ⸢an⸣-[ ] U3 24 [ ]-ĝa2 me-e ḫe2-[x]-⸢ma-na⸣-de2 U4 13 an-ra i-bi2-ĝa2 me-⸢e⸣ [ ] P ii 56 an-ra a i-bi2-ĝa2 me-e ḫe2-em-ma-na-de2 Y1 obv   9 an-ra a i-bi2-ĝa2 me-e ḫe2-em-ma-na-du11 146 N11 iii 46 ⸢*d⸣*m[u- ]-ša4 ḫe2-em-ma-na-ak N14 iii 42 dmu-ul-lil2-⸢ra ni2-ĝu10⸣ [x n]e-š[a4 ] N19 iii 35 [ -š]a3-⸢ne⸣-ša3? 136 ḫe2-em-ma-ak N33 obv 10 [ ]-⸢ul-lil2-ra⸣ ni2-ĝu10 š[a3- ] N34   9 ⸢dmu-ul⸣-lil2-ra ni2-ĝu10 ša3-ne-ša4 ⸢ḫe2⸣-e[m- ] N36   1 [ -u]l-⸢lil2-ra⸣ n[i2- ] U3 25 [ ]-⸢la2 ni2⸣-ĝu10 ša3-ne-ša4 ḫe2-e[m]-⸢ma⸣-[(x)]-in-ni-ak U4 14 dmu-ul-lil2-la2 ni2-ĝu10 ša3-⸢ne-ša4⸣ ḫ[e2-em-ma-ni-in-ne2] 137 G1 iii 40 [ ] ⸢ša3⸣ ḫe2-em-ma-an-⸢ak⸣ P ii 57 dmu-ul-lil2-ra ni2-ĝu10 ša3-ne-ša4 ḫe2-em-ma-ak Y1 obv 10 dmu-ul-lil2-ra ni2-ĝu10 ša3-ne-ša4 ḫe2-em-ma-na-ak -*e]m-me-ne-du11 147 N11 iii 47 [ N14 iii 43 ⸢uru-ĝu10 nam-ma-gul-u3⸣ [ ] N19 iii 36 [ ]-lu ḫe2-em-me-ne-du11 N33 obv 11 [ na]m-ma-gul-lu ⸢ḫe2-em⸣-[ ] N34 10 [ ]-⸢ĝu10⸣ nam-ma-gul-lu ḫe2-em-me-ne-du11 N36   2 [ ]-⸢ĝu10⸣ nam-ma-gu[l ] U3 26 ur[u-ĝ]u10 nam-⸢ma⸣-gul [ ]-m[i-i]n-ne-du11 U4 15 uru-ĝu10 nam-ma-gul [ ] G1 iii 41 [ ḫ]e2?-⸢em?⸣-[ ] P ii 58 uru2-ĝu10 nam-ma-gul-lu ḫe2-me-ne-du11 Y1 obv 11 uru2-ĝu10 nam-ma-gul-lu ḫe2-em-me2-ne-du11 148 N11 iii 48 [ ]-em-me-ne-du11 N14 iii 44 [u]ri2ki nam-ma-⸢gul-u3⸣ [ ]  N19 iii 37 [ -g]ul-lu ḫe2-em-me-ne-du11 N33 obv 12 [ na]m-⸢ma⸣-[ ] N34 11 [u]ri5ki nam-gul-lu ḫe2-em-me-ne-du11 N36   3 uri2ki nam-ma-g[ul- ]-⸢em-me⸣-n[e- ] U3 27 ⸢uri5ki⸣ [n]am-⸢ma⸣-gul [ -m]i-i[n]-ne-du11 U4 16 uri5ki nam-ma-gul [ ] P ii 59 uri2ki nam-ma-gul-lu ḫe2-me-ne-du11 Y1 obv 12 uri5ki nam-ma-gul-lu ḫe2-em-me2-ne-du11

136.  If correctly read, ŠA3 is probably overwritten. 137.  Cf. l. 156 below.

169

170

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

149 N11 iii 49 [ ]-⸢*me⸣-ne-du11 N19 iii 38 [ -l]e ḫe2-em-me-ne-du11 N34 12 uĝ3-bi nam-ma-til3-le ḫe2-em-me-ne-du11 N36   4 uĝ3-bi nam-ma-til-l[e ]-em-me-ne-⸢du11⸣ U3 28 uĝ3-bi [x-t]il-a ḫ[e2- ]-⸢mi-in-ne⸣-du11 U4 17 uĝ-bi nam-til-a [ ] P ii 60 uĝ3-bi nam-ma-til-e ḫe2-me-ne-du11 Y1 obv 13 uĝ3-bi nam-ma-til-e ḫe2-em-me2-ne-du11 150 N11 iv   1 an-ne2 e-ne-eĝ3-bi ba-ra-mu-un-gur N19 iii 39 [ -e]ĝ3-bi ba-ra-mu-un-gur N34 13 an-e e-ne-eĝ3-bi ba-ra-mu-un-gur N36   5 an-ne2 e-ne-eĝ3-[ ]-ra-mu-un-gur U3 29 an-ne2 ⸢e-ne⸣-[ ] b[a?- ] x ⸢da?-ab⸣-gi4 U4 18 an-ne2 e-ne-eĝ3-bi [ ] P ii 61 an-e e-ne-eĝ2-bi ba-ra-mu-da-gur Y1 obv 14 an-ne2 e-ne-eĝ3-bi ba-ra-mu-un-gur 151 N11 iv   2 ⸢d⸣mu-ul-lil2-e i3-sa6 ḫe2-am3-bi/ ša3-ĝu10    ba-ra-bi2-in-še17 N19 iii 40 [ ] ⸢i3⸣-sa6 ḫe2-am3-bi/ [ b]a-ra-ni-in- še17 N34 14 ⸢dmu⸣-ul-lil2-le i3-sa6 ḫe2-am3-bi/ ša3-ĝu10     ba-ra-ni-še17 N36 6 dmu-ul-lil2-e? i3-sa6 [ḫ]e2-am3-bi ša3-ĝu10 ba-ra-ni-[ ] U3 30 dmu-⸢ul⸣-lil2-la2 ⸢i3⸣-[s]a6-ga ḫe2-⸢a-bi⸣ [ ] ⸢ba-ra⸣-ab- še17 U4 19 dmu-ul-lil2-la2 i3-sa6-ga ḫe2-a-b[i ] P ii 62 dmu-ul-lil2-le i3-sa6 ḫe2-am3-ba ša3-ĝu10 ba-ra-mu-un-ḫuĝ Y1 obv 15 dmu-ul-lil2-le i3-sa6 ḫe2-am3-bi ša3-ĝu10 ba-ra-ni!-in- še17 151a U3 U4

31 uru2-ĝu10 gul-gul-⸢de3⸣ ḫe2-⸢em-ma-an⸣-a[ĝ2]-eš-a-ba 20 uru-ĝu10 gul-gul-de3 [ ]

151b U3 U4

32 uri5ki gul-⸢gul-de3 ḫe2⸣-em-⸢ma-an⸣-a[ĝ2-x]-⸢a⸣-ba 21 uri5ki gul-gul-de3 [ ]

151c U3 U4

33 uĝ3-bi ug5-ge-⸢de3⸣ ḫe2-em-ma-an-[x]-eš-a-ba 22 uĝ3-bi ⸢ug5⸣-[g]e-de3 [ ]

152 N11 iv   3 [ ]-še3 pu-uḫ2-rum ki saĝ ki ba-da-ab-ĝal2-la N19 iii 41 [ -u]ḫ2-ru-um ki saĝ ki/ [ ]-ab-ĝal2 138-le-na N30 ii   1 (broken) 139 N34 15 [ -m]a-⸢še3⸣ pu-uḫ2-ru ki saĝ ki/ ⸢a⸣-ba-da-ab-ĝal2-la 140 N36   7 2-kam-ma-še3 pu-uḫ2-ru-um ki saĝ ki/ a-ba-da-ab-ĝal2-le-na U3 34 2-kam-ma-⸢še3⸣ pu-uḫ2-ru-um ki saĝ ki a-ba-da-an-ĝa[l2-l]e-eš U4 23 2-kam-⸢ma⸣-[ -u]ḫ2-ru-um ki saĝ ki ⸢a⸣-[b]a-d[a]-[ ]-⸢le⸣-[e]š P ii 63 2-kam-ma-še3 pu-uḫ2-ru-um ki saĝ ki a-ba-da-ĝal2-la Y1 obv 16 2-kam-ma-še3 pu-uḫ2-ru-um ki saĝ ki a-ba-da-ĝal2-la

138.  Sign overwritten. 139.  A Winkelhaken, probably part of series of Winkelhackens marking every tenth line in this tablet, appears at the beginning of the broken line. 140.  For the word division in this manuscript cf. commentary.

Score 153 N1 iv  1 d⸢a⸣-[ ]/ [ ] N11 iv   4 [ ]-⸢nun⸣-na e-ne-eĝ3 zu2 *keš2-da-bi/ ba! 141-da-an-dur2-ru-ne-eš-a N19 iii 42 [ ke]š2-da ba-da-an-dur2-ru-ne-eš N30 ii   2 d[ ]/ [ ] N34 16 [ ] ⸢e⸣-ne-eĝ3 zu2 keš2-da-bi/ [ ]-⸢da-an-dur2-ru-ne⸣-eš-am3 N36   8 da-nun-na e-ne-e[ĝ3] zu2 keš2-da-bi/ ba-da-an-dur2-ru-⸢ne⸣-eš-am3 U3 35 da-nun-na-ke4-e-ne e-ne-⸢eĝ3⸣ zu2 keš2-da-bi ba-an-[x]-ru-ne-eš U4 24 ⸢d⸣a-nun-⸢na-ke4-e⸣-ne e-ne-e[ĝ3 ]  keš2-⸢da ba⸣-an-da-dur2-ru-⸢ne⸣-eš P ii 64 da-nun-na e-ne-eĝ3 zu2 keš2-da-bi ba-an-da-dur2-ru-ne-eš-am3 Y1 obv 17 da-nun-na e-ne-eĝ3 zu2 keš2-da-bi ba-da-dur2-ru-ne-eš-a 154 N1 iv  2 ur2 ḫ[e2- ] N11 iv  5 ur2 ḫe2-em-ma-su3-su3 *a2 ḫe2-em-ma-la2-la2 N19 iii 43 [ ] a2 ḫe2-em-ma-la2-la2 N30 ii   3 ur2 [ ] N34 17 [ -e]m-ma-su3 kiĝ2 ḫe2-⸢em-ma-la2-la2⸣ N36   9 ur2 ḫe2-em-ma-s[u3-s]u3 ⸢a2⸣ ḫe2-em-ma-la2-la2 U3 36 ur2 ḫe2-⸢em⸣-ma-⸢su3⸣-su3 kiĝ2 ḫe2-em-ma-la2-la2 U4 25 ur2 ḫe2-em-ma-su3-su3 kiĝ2 ḫe2-em-⸢ma⸣-la2-la2 P ii 65 ur2 ḫe2-em-ma-su3-su3 *kiĝ2 142 ḫe2-em-ma-la2-la2 Y1 obv 18 ur2 ḫe2-em-ma-su3-su3 kiĝ2? ḫe2-em-ma-la2-la2 155 N1 iv   3 an-ra [ ] N11 iv   6 an-ra a i-bi2-ĝa2 me-e ḫe2-em-ma-na-du11 N19 iii 44 [ ] ⸢me-e⸣ ḫe2-em-ma-na-du11 N30 ii   4 an-[ ] N34 18 [ ] ⸢i⸣-bi2-ĝa2 me-e ḫe2-em-na-an-du11 N36 10 an-ra a i-bi2-ĝa2 m[e]-⸢e⸣ ḫe2-em-ma-na-du11 U3 37 an-ra i-⸢bi2⸣-ĝa2 me-e ḫe2-em-ma-⸢na⸣-de2 U4 26 an-ra i-bi2-ĝa2 me-e ḫe2-em-ma-na-de2 P ii 66 an-ra a i-bi2-ĝa2 me-e ḫe2-em-ma-na-de2 Y1 obv 19 an-ra a i-bi2-ĝa2 me ḫe2-em-ma-⸢na⸣-du11 156 N1 iv  4 dm[u- ]/ ḫ[e2- ] N11 iv   7 dmu-ul-lil2-ra ni2-ĝu10 *ša3-ne-*ša4 ḫe2-em-ma-ak N19 iii 45 [ -ĝ]u10 ⸢ša3-ne-ša4⸣ ḫ[e2- ] N30 ii   5 dm[u- ]/ [ ] N34 19 [ -u]l-lil2-ra ni2-ĝu10 ša3-ne-ša4 ḫe2-em-ma-a[k] N36 11 dmu-ul-lil2-ra ni2-ĝ[u10] ša3-ne-ša4/ ḫe2-em-⸢ma⸣-na-ak U3 38 dmu-ul-lil2-la2 ⸢ni2⸣-ĝu10 ša3-ne-ša4 ḫe2-em-em-ma-n[i]-in-⸢ak⸣ U4 27 dm[u-u]l-lil2-la2 ni2-ĝu10 ša3-ne-ša4 ḫe2-em-ma-ni-in-ne2 G1 iv  1 dmu-ul-lil2-ra n[i2- ] P ii 67 dmu-ul-lil2-ra ni2-ĝu10 ša3-ne-ša4 ḫe2-em-ma-ak Y1 obv 20 dmu-ul-lil2-ra ni2-ĝu10 ša3-ne-ša4 ḫe2-em-ma-na-ak

141.  Original: GIŠ (contra copy). 142.  For the sign KIĜ2 in this manuscript cf., e.g., l. 241, which shows a very similar variant.

171

172

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

157 N1 iv  5 uru2-⸢ĝu10⸣ [ ] N11 iv   8 uru2-ĝu10 nam-ma-gul-lu ḫe2-em-me-ne-du11 N19 iii 46 [ ]-⸢ma⸣-gul-lu ḫe2-em-me-ne-⸢du11⸣ N30 ii   6 uru2-ĝ[u10 ] N34 20 [ ] nam-ma-⸢gul⸣-lu ḫe2-em-me-ne-du11 N36 12 uru2-ĝu10 nam-ma-gul-⸢lu⸣ ḫe2-em-me-ne-du11 U3 39 uru2ki-ĝu10! 143 ⸢nam⸣-ma-gul ḫe2-em-mi-in-ne-du11 U4 28 uruki-[ĝ]u10 nam-ma-gul ḫe2-em-mi-in-ne-du11 G1 iv  2 uru2-ĝu10 nam-ma-gul-l[u ] P ii 68 uru2-ĝu10 nam-ma-gul-lu ḫe2-me-ne-du11 Y1 obv 21 uru2-ĝu10 nam-ma-gul-lu ḫe2-em-me2-ne-du11 158 N1 iv  6 ⸢uri2⸣ [ ] N11 iv   9 uri2ki nam-ma-gul-lu ḫe2-em-me-ne-du11 N14 iv   1 [ -d]u11 N19 iii 47 [ ]-*ma-gul-lu ḫe2 144-em-me-ne-du11 N30 ii   7 ur[i2 ]/ [ ] N34 21 [ur]i5ki nam-ma-gul-lu ḫe2-em-me-ne-du11 N36 13 [ ] ⸢nam⸣-ma-g[ul]-⸢lu ḫe2⸣-em-me-ne-du11 U3 40 uri5ki nam-ma-gul ḫe2-em-mi-in-ne-du11 U4 29 uri5[k]i nam-ma-gul ḫe2-em-mi-in-ne-du11 G1 iv  3 uri5ki nam-ma-g[ul- ] P ii 69 uri2ki nam-ma-gul-lu ḫe2-me-ne-du11 Y1 obv 22 uri2ki nam-ma-gul-lu ḫe2-em-me2-ne-du11 159 N1 iv  7 uĝ3-bi [ ] N11 iv 10 uĝ3-bi nam-ma-*til-e ḫe2-em-me-ne-du11 N14 iv   2 [ -d]u11 N19 iii 48 [ *na]m-ma-til-le ḫe2-em-me-ne-⸢du11⸣ N30 ii   8 u[ĝ3- ] N34 22 [ ] nam-til-le ḫe2-em-me-ne-⸢du11⸣ N36 14 [ ] ⸢nam⸣-[ -l]e ḫe2-em-me-ne-du11 U3 41 uĝ3-bi nam-til-a ḫe2-em-mi-in-ne-du11 U4 30 uĝ3-bi nam-til-a ḫe2-em-mi-in-ne-du11 G1 (omits line) P ii 70 uĝ3-bi nam-ma-til-e ḫe2-me-ne-du11 Y1 obv 23 uĝ3-bi nam-ma-til-e ḫe2-em-me2-ne-⸢du11⸣ ] 160 N1 iv  8 an-⸢ne2⸣ e-n[e- N11 iv 11 an-ne2 e-ne-eĝ3-bi ba-ra-mu-un-gur N14 iv   3 [ -u]n-gur N19 iii 49 [ ]-eĝ3-bi *ba-ra-mu-un-[x] N34 23 [ -n]e-eĝ3-bi ba-ra-mu-un-gu[r] N36 15 [ -e]ĝ3-bi ba-ra-mu-un-gur U3 42 an-e e-ne-⸢eĝ3⸣-bi ba-ra-ba-ra-ab-gi4 U4 31 an-e e-ne-eĝ3-bi ba-ra-ba-ra-ab-gi4 G1 iv  4 an-ne2 e-ne-eĝ2-⸢bi⸣ [ ] P ii 71 an-e e-ne-eĝ2-bi ba-ra-mu-da-gur Y1 obv 24 an-ne2 e-ne-eĝ3-bi ba-ra-mu-u[n-g]ur 143.  Original: AŠ (probably an incomplete MU). 144. ḫe2- is preceded by a partly erased sign.

Score

173

161 N1 iv  9 dmu-ul-[ ] N11 iv 12 dmu-ul-lil2-e i3-sa6 ḫe2-am3-bi/ ša3-ĝu10 ba-ra-bi2-in-še17 * N14 iv   4 [ ḫ]e2-am3-bi/ [ -i]n- še17 N19 iv   1 [ ]-⸢e⸣ i3-sa6 ḫe2-a[m3- ] N34 24 [m]u-⸢ul-lil2⸣-[ ḫ]e2-⸢am3⸣-[ ]/ ša3-[ ]-ra-ni-in-š[e17] N36 16 ⸢dmu-ul⸣-lil2-e i3-sa6 ḫe2-am3-bi ša3-ĝu10/ ba-ra-mu-un-še17 U3 43 dmu-ul-lil2-la2 i3-sa6-ga ḫe2-a-bi ša3-ĝu10 ba-ra-ab-še17-de3 U4 32 dmu-ul-lil2-la2 i3-sa6 145 ḫe2-a-bi ša3-ĝu10 146 ba-ra-ab-še17-de3 G1 iv  5 dmu-ul-lil2-le i3-s[a6   ]-⸢ḫuĝ⸣/ i3-⸢sa6?⸣-[ -ḫu]ĝ? 147 P ii 72 dmu-ul-lil2-le i3-sa6 ḫe2-am3-ba ša3-ĝu10 ba-ra-mu-un-ḫuĝ Y1 obv 25 dmu-ul-lil2-le i3-sa6 ḫe2-am3-bi ša3-ĝu10 ba-⸢ra⸣-*n[i] -⸢in⸣- še17 162 N1 iv 10 uru2-ĝu10 gul-[ ] N11 iv 13 uru2-ĝu10 gul-gul-lu-ba *a2-bi ḫe2-em-ma-an-⸢aĝ2⸣-eš 148 N14 iv   5 [ ]-⸢*em-*ma⸣-[a]ĝ2-eš N19 iv   2 [ -g]ul-lu-ba a2-bi ⸢ḫe2⸣-e[m- ] N34 25 ⸢uru2⸣-ĝu10 gul-⸢gul⸣-[ ] ⸢a2⸣-bi ḫe2-em-m[a- ] N36 17 uru2-ĝu10 gul-gul-ba a2-bi ḫe2-em-ma-aĝ2-eš-a U3 44 uru2-ĝu10 ⸢gul⸣-gul-de3 ḫe2-em-ma-an-aĝ2-eš-a-ba U4 33 ⸢uru⸣ki-ĝu10 gul-gul-de3 ḫe2-em-ma-aĝ2-eš-a-ba G1 iv  6 uru2-ĝu10 gul-gul-lu-ba ⸢a2⸣-b[i ]-aĝ2-eš P ii 73 uru2-ĝu10 gul-gul-lu-ba a2-bi ḫe2-em-ma-an-aĝ2-eš Y1 obv 26 uru2-ĝu10 gul-gul-lu-ba 149 a2-bi ḫe2-em-ma-an-ne-eš ] 163 N1 iv 11 uri2ki gul-⸢gul⸣-[ N11 iv 14 uri2ki gul-gul-lu-ba *a2-bi ḫe2-em-ma-an-⸢aĝ2⸣-eš 150 N14 iv   6 [ -a]ĝ2-eš N19 iv   3 [ ]-gul-lu-ba ⸢a2⸣-bi ḫe2-em-a[ĝ2 (x)]-eš N34 26 uri2ki 151 [ ] N36 18 uri2ki gul-gul-ba a2-bi ḫe2-em-ma-aĝ2-eš-a U3 45 [u]ri5k[i] [g]ul-gul-de3 ḫe2-em-ma-an-aĝ2-eš-a-ba U4 34 uri5ki gul-gul-de3 ḫe2-em-ma-aĝ2-eš-a-ba G1 iv  7 uri5ki gul-gul-lu-ba a2-⸢bi ḫe2⸣-em-ma-an-⸢aĝ2-eš⸣ P ii 74 uri2ki gul-gul-*lu-ba a2-bi ḫe2-em-ma-an-aĝ2-eš Y1 obv 27 uri5ki gul-gul-lu-ba a2-bi ḫe2-em-ma-an-ne-eš

145.  The scribe added the sign GA, then deleted it. 146.  MU is overwritten. 147.  Traces are extremely faded; the reading of the indented part is based on the assumption that the phrase i-sa6 ḫe2-am3-bi ša3-ĝu10 ba-ra-mu-un-huĝ was repeated twice in this manuscript. 148.  Reading of the last four signs follow the copy; on the tablet they are now broken. 149.  The BA is overwritten. 150.  Reading of the last two signs follow the copy; on the tablet they are now broken. 151.  The scribe seems to have been omitting this line, then inserting it between lines 162 and 164.

174

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

164 N1 iv 12 ⸢uĝ3⸣-bi ug5-ge-d[e3] n[a- ] N11 iv 15 uĝ3-bi ug5-ge-de3 *na-aĝ2-bi ḫa-ba-an-tar-re-eš N14 iv   7 [ -r]e-eš N19 iv   4 [ ]-ge-de3 na-aĝ2-b[i]-⸢še3⸣/ [ ]-ba-[a]n-tar-re-eš N34 27 uĝ3-bi u[g5- ]-⸢ag2⸣-bi ḫa-ba-an-⸢tar-re⸣ N35 rev  1 u[ĝ3- ] N36 19 uĝ3-bi u[g5]-ge-de3 na-aĝ2-⸢bi⸣ x x x x-eš-a U1 iii  1 uĝ3-bi ug5-⸢ge⸣-d[e3 ] U3 46 [x]-⸢bi⸣ ug5-ge-de3 ḫe2-em-ma-an-aĝ2-eš-a-ba U4 35 uĝ3-bi ug5-ge-de3 ḫe2-em-ma-aĝ2-eš-a-ba G1 iv  8 uĝ3-bi ug5-ge-⸢de3⸣ nam-bi ⸢ḫa⸣-ba-an-tar-re-⸢eš⸣ P ii 75 uĝ3-bi ug5-ge-da na-aĝ2-ba ḫa-ba-an-tar-re-eš Y1 obv 28 uĝ3-bi ug5-ge-de3 nam-bi ḫa-ba-an-tar-re-eš ] 165 N1 iv 13 me-[ ] ⸢ni3-du11⸣-ĝu10 me-en-[ N11 iv 16 me-e ni3-du11-ĝu10 mu-ne-šum2-ma-gin7 N14 iv   8 [ -gi]n7 N19 iv   5 [ -d]u11-ĝu10 me-en-ne-en-šum2-ma-⸢gin7⸣ N34 28 me-e ni3-du11-[ m]u-⸢ne⸣-en-šum2-ma-gin7 N35 rev   2 me-e [ ] N36 20 me-e ni3-d[u11-ĝ]u10 me-en-ne-en-šum2-ma-⸢gin7-na? 152⸣ U1 iii   2 me-e ni3-du11-ĝu10 mu-⸢un⸣-n[e?- ] U3 47 [ -d]u11-ĝu10 ⸢ba-e-da⸣-šum2-ma-gin7 U4 36 me-e ni3-du11-ĝu10 mu-e-ne-šum2-ma-gin7 G1 iv   9 me-e ni3-du11-ĝu10 mu-ne-šum2-ma-gin7 P ii 76 me-e ni3-du11-ĝu10 mu-ne-šum2-ma-gin7 Y1 obv 29 [*m]e-⸢e⸣ ni3-du11-ĝu10 mu-ne-šum2-ma-*gin7 166 N1 iv 14 me-[ -t]a? 153 ḫe2-e[n- ] N11 iv 17 me-e uru2-ĝu10-da ḫe2-en-ga-mu-un-da-la2-eš N14 iv   9 [ ]-⸢e⸣-en N19 iv   6 [ ] x 154 ḫe2-en-ga-mu-da-la2-⸢e-eš⸣ N34 29 me-e uru-ĝ[u10] ḫe2-en-ga-mu-da-ab-la2-[ ] N35 rev   3 me-e [ ] N36 21 me-e ur[u2- ]-ta ḫe2-[e]n-ga-mu-da-l[a2- ] U1 iii   3 me-e uru2-ĝa2-da ḫe2-en-ga-⸢a⸣-[ ] U3 48 [ ]-ĝu10-da ḫe2-en-ga-ba-e-da-ab-la2-e U4 37 me-e uru-ĝ[u10-d]a ḫe2-en-ga-ba-e-da-ab-la2-e G1 iv 10 ⸢me-e⸣ uru2-ĝu10-ta ḫe2-en-ga-mu-⸢da⸣ 155-la2-e-eš P ii 77 me-e uru2-ĝu10-ta ḫe2-en-ga-mu-da-la2-e-eš Y1 obv 30 [x]-⸢e uru2⸣-ĝu10-ta ḫe2-en-ga-mu-da-la2-e-eš

152.  Perhaps ⸢A⸣. 153.  [D]A is also possible. 154.  Only the end of the sign preserved; DA and TA are equally possible. 155.  The DA was partly erased by a stroke of the stylus.

Score 167 N1 iv 15 u[ri2 ] ḫe2-[ ]-⸢mu⸣-da-[ ] N11 iv 18 uri2ki-ĝu10 ma-da ḫe2-en-ga-mu-da-la2-e-[e]š N14 iv 10 [ ]-en N19 iv   7 [ -d]a ḫe2-en-ga-mu-da-*la2-e-eš N34 30 uri2ki-⸢ĝu10 ma⸣-da ḫe2-en-ga-mu-da-ab-la2-eš N35 rev   4 uri2k[i]-[ ] N36 22 u[ri2]-ĝu10 ma-da ḫe2-en-ga-mu-da-[ ] U1 iii  4 uri5ki-ĝu10 ma-da ḫe2-⸢en⸣-[ ] U3 49 ⸢uri5ki⸣ ĝa2-da ḫe2-en-ga-ba-e-da-ab-la2-e U4 38 uri5ki ĝa2-da ḫe2-en-ga-ba-e-da-ab-la2-e G1 iv 11 ⸢uri5⸣ki-ĝu10 ma-da ḫe2-en-ga-mu-da-⸢la2-e⸣ 156-eš P ii 78 uri2ki-ĝu10 ma-da ḫe2-en-ga-mu-da-la2-e-eš Y1 obv 31 [ ] ⸢ma-da⸣ ḫe2-en-ga-mu-da-la2-e-eš 167a Y1 obv 32 [

] ⸢ḫe2⸣-en-ga-mu-da-la2-e-⸢eš⸣

] nu-kur2-ru-[ ] 168 N1 iv 16 an-[ N11 iv 19 an-ne2 du11-ga-ni ur5 nu-kur2-ru-dam N14 iv 11 [ -d]am N19 iv   8 a[n- -g]a-ni ur5 nu-kur2-ru-da 157 N34 31 an-ne2 du11-g[a]-ni ur5 nu-kur2 158-⸢ru⸣-da N35 rev   5 ⸢an-ne2⸣-[ ] N36 23 an-[ ]-ga-ni ur5 nu-kur2-⸢ru⸣-[ ] N37   1 [ ] ⸢x⸣ [ ] U1 iii   5 an-na du11-ga-a-ni ur5 ⸢nu-kur2⸣-[ ] U3 50 an-ne2 e-⸢ne⸣-eĝ3-bi ur5 nu-⟨kur2⟩-⸢ru⸣-da U4 39 an-ne2 e-ne-eĝ2-bi ur5 nu-kur2-ru-da G1 iv 12 ⸢an-ne2⸣ du11-ga-ni ur5 nu-kur2-ru-⸢dam⸣ P ii 79 an-ne2 du11-ga-ni ur5 nu-kur2-ru-dam Y1 obv 33 [ ] ⸢nu-kur2⸣-[ ] 169 N1 iv 17 d[ k]a-ta e3-a-ni ⸢šu nu-bal⸣-e-⸢x⸣ N11 iv 20 dmu-ul-lil2-e ka-ga e3-a-ni ⸢šu nu⸣-bal-e-dam N14 iv 12 [ ]-⸢a⸣-ni ⸢šu⸣ 159 n[u-*ba]l-e-dam N19 iv   9 dm[u-x-l]il2-e ka-ta e3-a-⸢ni⸣/ [ ] nu-bal-e-de3 160 N34 32 ⸢d⸣mu-u[l-li]l2-le ka-ta e3-⸢a? 161-ni⸣ šu nu-bal-e-da N36 24 ⸢d⸣[ -li]l2-le ka-ta e3-⸢a⸣-[ ] N37   2 [ ]-⸢ni šu⸣ nu-bal-e-d[e3] U1 iii  6 den-lil2-le ka-ta e3-[ ] U3 51 dmu 162-ul-lil2-la2 ⸢ka⸣-ta e3-a-ni šu [ -b]al-e-de3 U4 40 dmu-ul-lil2-la2-e ka-ta e3-a-ni šu nu-bal-e-de3 G1 iv 13 ⸢dmu⸣-ul-lil2-le ka-ta e3-a-ni šu nu-bal-⸢e⸣-de3 P ii 80 dmu-ul-lil2-le ka-*ta e3-a-ni šu nu! 163-bal-e-de3 156.  These two signs were partly erased by a stroke of the stylus. 157.  Lines 168–70 in this tablet are concluded with a DIŠ sign (not appearing in the copy). 158. KUR2 is written over an erased RU. 159.  The signs -⸢a⸣-ni ⸢šu⸣ are currently broken. Their transliteration follows copy. 160.  Cf. note on l. 168 above. 161.  If correctly read, the A is written over the beginning of the NI. 162.  MU is written over EN. 163.  The scribe forgot to inscribe the horizontal wedge.

175

176

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

170 N1 iv 18 [ ]-⸢gu2⸣ 4-kam-ma-am3 N11 iv 21 ki-ru-gu2 4-kam-ma-am3 N14 iv 13 [ -*a]m3 N19 iv 10 k[i-x-g]u2 4-kam-ma-am3 164 N33 rev   1 []-⸢ru-gu2⸣ [ ] N34 33 ki-ru-gu2 4-kam-ma-am3 N37   3 [ ]-⸢ma⸣-am3 U1 iii  7 ki-ru-gu2 [ ] U3 52 ki-⸢ru⸣-⟨gu2⟩ 4-kam-ma U4 41 ki-ru-gu2 4-kam-ma G1 iv 14 ki-ru-gu2 4-kam-ma-am3 P ii 81 ki-ru-gu2 4-kam-ma 170a U1 iii U3 U4

8a nin-da uru2-ni ba-an-da-g[ul- ] 53 nin-da uru2ki-ni ba-an-da-gul-la2 42 nin-da uruki-ni ba-an-da-gul-la2

171 N1 iv 19 ur[u2-   ]-an-da-gul-la me-ni ba-an-da-kur2-ra N11 iv 22 uru2-ni  ba-da-gul-am3 me-ni ba-da-kur2-am3 N14 iv 14 [ ] ⸢ba⸣-da-kur2-ra N19 iv 11 uru-ni    ba-a[n- -gu]l-⸢la⸣    me-ni ba-an-da-kur2-ra N33 rev   2 [ ]-an-da-gul-[ ] N34 34 uruki-ni ba-an-da-gul-la      ⸢me⸣-ni ba-da-kur2-ra N37   4 [ -a]n-da-kur2-ra U1 iii 8b [ ]/ me-ni [ ] U3 54 uru2ki-ni ba-an-da-⸢gul⸣-la me-ni ba-an-da-kur2-ru U4 43 uruki-ni    ba-an-da-gul-la me-ni ba-an-ta-kur2-ra G1 iv 15 ⸢uru2⸣-ni ba-da-gul-la me-ne ba-da-kur2-ra P ii 82 uru2-ni     ba-an-da-gul-la me-ni ba-an-kur2-ra 172 N1 iv 20 ĝi[š-g]i4-ĝal2-bi-im N11 iv 23 ĝiš-gi4-ĝal2-bi-im N14 iv 15 [ ]-da-kam N19 iv 12 ĝiš-gi4-ĝal2 [x x g]u2?-⸢da⸣-kam N33 rev   3 [ ]-ĝal2-b[i- ] N34 35 ĝiš-gi4-ĝal2 ki-ru-gu2-da-⸢kam⸣ N37   5 [ -d]a-ka N38   1 [ -ĝa]l2-[ ] U1 iii  8 ⸢ĝiš⸣-gi4-ĝ[al2- ] U3 55 ĝiš-gi4-ĝal2-bi-im U4 44 ĝiš-gi4-ĝal2-bi-im G1 iv 16 ĝiš-gi4-ĝal2-bi-im P ii 83 ĝiš-gi4-ĝal2-bi-im

164.  Cf. note on l. 168 above.

Score

177

173 N1 iv 21 de[n- ]-le u4-de3 ba-an-de2 uĝ3-e še [ -š]a4 N11 iv 24 den-lil2-le u4-de3 gu3 ba-an-de2/ uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 N14 iv 16 [ ]-⸢am3⸣-ša4 N19 iv 13 den-lil2-le ⸢u4⸣-[ ]-⸢an-de2⸣/ uĝ3-[ a]m3-ša4 N33 rev   4 [ -l]il2-le u4-d[e3 ]/ uĝ3-e ⸢še⸣ [ ] N34 36 den-lil2-le u4-de3 gu3 ba-an-de2 ⸢uĝ3⸣-[ ] N35 Left E. [e]n-lil2-le u4-d[e3 ]/ [ ] N37   6 [ ]-⸢an?⸣-de2 165/ [ ]-š[a4] N38   2 [ -l]e ⸢u4-de3⸣ [ ] N39 obv   1 den-lil2-⸢le⸣ u4-⸢de3 gu3⸣ [ -d]e2 u[ĝ3- ] N41   1 [ ]⸢u4⸣-de3 g[u3 ] N40 obv   1 [ ]-de3 gu3 ba-⸢an-de2⸣/ [ ]-⸢e⸣ še am3-ša4 U1 iii  9 ⸢d⸣en-lil2-le u4-d[e3 ] U3 56 d⸢en⸣-lil2-le u4-de3 gu3 ba-an-de2 uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 U4 45 den-lil2-le u4-de3 gu3 ba-an-de2 uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 G1 iv 17 den-lil2-le u4-de3 gu3 ba-an-de2 uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 P ii 84 den-lil2-le u4-de3 gu3 ba-an-de2 uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 174 N1 iv 22 u4 ḫ[e2-ĝa]l2 kalam-da ba-an-da-kar uĝ3-e [ ] N11 iv 25 u4 ḫe2-ĝal2-la kalam-da ba-da-an-kar/ uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 N14 iv 17 [ ] ⸢am3⸣-ša4 N19 iv 14 u4 ḫe2-ĝal2-la k[alam- -d]a-an-kar/ uĝ3-e [ a]m3-ša4 N37   7 [ ]-*a[n- ]/ [ ] N38   3 [ ]-ĝal2-la kalam-[ ]/ uĝ3-[ ] N39 obv   2 u4 ḫe2-ĝal2-la kalam-⸢ma 166 ba-da⸣-an-kar ⸢uĝ3⸣-e še 167 N40 obv   2 [ ]-ta ba-da-an-kar/ [ š]e am3-ša4 N41   2 [ ]-⸢*ta ba⸣-da-[ ] U1 iii 10 u4 ḫe2-ĝal2-⸢la⸣ [ ] U3 57 u4 ḫe2-ĝal2-⸢la⸣ kalam-e ba-da-an-kar uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 U4 46 u4 ḫe2-ĝal2-la kalam-e ba-da-an-kar uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 G1 iv 18 u4 ḫe2-ĝal2-la kalam-da ba-da-an-kar uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 P ii 85 u4 ḫe2-ĝal2-la kalam-*ta ba-da-an-⸢kar⸣ uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 175 N1 iv 23 u4 du10 [x]-en-gi-da ba-da-an-kar uĝ3-e [ ] N11 iv 26 u4 du10 ki-en-gi-da ba-da-an-kar uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 N14 iv 18 [ ]-ša4 N19 iv 15 u4 du10 ki-en-gi-[ ]-⸢e⸣ še am3-ša4 N38   4 [ d]u10-ki-⸢en-gi⸣-da ba-[ ] N39 obv   3 u4 du10 ki-en-gi-da ba-[d]a-an-kar uĝ3 168 N40 obv   3 [ ]-⸢da-an⸣-[k]ar/ [ ] N41   3 [ -e]n-gi-⸢da⸣ ba-da-[ ] U1 iii 11 u4 du10 ki-en-[ ] U3 58 ⸢u4⸣ du10 ki-en-g[i-r]a ba-da-an-kar uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 U4 47 u4 du10 ki-en-gi-ra ba-da-an-kar uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 G1 iv 19 u4 du10 ki-en-gi-da ba-da-an-kar uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 P ii 86 u4 du10 ki-en-gi-ra ba-da-an-kar uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 165. DE2 seems to be overwritten. 166.  The MA was partly erased by the scribe. It is uncertain whether an alternative sign appeared in the broken space after the MA. 167.  Nothing appears after the ŠE. Cf. description of this tablet. 168.  Cf. note on l. 174.

178

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

176 N1 iv 24 u4 ḫu[l-ĝa]l2-e a2 ba-da-an-aĝ2 uĝ2-⸢e⸣ [ ] N11 iv 27 u4 ḫul-ĝal2-e *a2 ba-da-an-aĝ2 uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 N14 iv 19 [ a]m3-ša4 N19 iv 16 u4 ḫul-ĝa[l2- ]-an-aĝ2/ uĝ3-[ ]-ša4 N38   5 ⸢u4 ḫul⸣-ĝal2-⸢da⸣ a2 ba-d[a- ]/ uĝ3-⸢e⸣ [ ] N39 obv   4 ⸢u4 ḫul-ĝal2⸣-e a2 ba-[d]a-an-aĝ2 uĝ3 169 N41   4 [ -ĝa]l2-e a2 ba-da-[ ] U1 iii 12 ⸢u4 ḫul-ĝal2⸣ [ ] U3 59 ⸢u4⸣ ḫul-⟨ĝal2⟩ a2 ba-d[a-a]ĝ2 uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 U4 48 u4 ḫul-ĝal2 a2 ba-da-aĝ2 uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 G1 iv 20 ⸢u4⸣ ḫul-ĝal2-da ⸢a2⸣ ba-da-an-aĝ2 uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 P iii  1 ⸢*u4⸣ ḫul-ĝal2-da a2 ba-e-da-a[ĝ2 ] 177 N1 iv 25 kin-ga[l]-⸢u4⸣-da ⟨u4-da⟩ gub-ba šu-ni im-ma-[ ] N11 iv 28 kin-gal-u4-da u4-da gub-ba šu-na im-ma-an-šum2 N14 iv 20 [ ]-⸢an⸣-šum2 N19 iv 17 kin-⟨gal⟩-u4-da [ ] im-ma-an-šum2 N38   6 kin-gal-u4-da u4-da g[ub- ]/ ⸢im⸣-[ ] N39 obv   5 kin-gal-⸢u4⸣-[d]a u4-da gub-⸢ba⸣ šu-ni im-ma-an-šum2 170 * N41   5 [ ]-u4-da gub-ba šu-ni i[m- ] U3 60 kin-gal-u4-da u4-da g[ub]-⸢ba⸣-ni šu-ni im-ma-an-šum2-mu-uš U4 49 kin-gal-u4-da u4-da gub-ba-ni šu-ni ⸢im⸣-ma-an-šum2-mu-uš G1 iv 21 ⸢kin⸣-gal-u4-da u4-⸢da⸣ gub-ba šu-ni im-ma-an-šum2 P iii  2 *kin-gal-u4-da u4-da gub-ba šu-ni i[m- ] 178 N1 (omits line) N11 iv 29 u4 kalam til-til-e gu3 ba-an-de2 uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 N14 iv  22 171 [ -a]m3-ša4 N19 iv 18 u4 kalam til-t[il- u]ĝ3-e še am3-ša4 N38   7 ⸢u4⸣ kalam til-til-[ ] N39 obv   6 u4 kalam ti[l- ] gu3 ⸢ba⸣-an-de2 uĝ3 172 N41   6 [ -*ti]l-e gu3 ba-an-d[e2 ] U3 61 u4 kalam til-til-e gu3 ba-an-de2 uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 U4 50 u4 kalam til-til gu3 ba-an-de2 uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 G1 iv 23 u4 kalam til-til-e gu3 ⸢ba-an⸣-de2 uĝ3! 173-e še am3-ša4 P iii  3 u4 kalam til-til-e gu3 ba-an-de2 *uĝ3-⸢e⸣ [ ]

it).

169.  Cf. note on l. 147. 170.  An erased UN appears after the SUM (i.e., the scribe erroneously added a refrain to this line, then reconsidered 171.  Cf. note on l. 180. 172.  Cf. note on l. 147. 173.  The signs UN and E form a ligature; cf. l. 181 below.

Score

179

179 N1 iv 27 im-ḫul-⸢im⸣-ḫul-e gu3 ba-an-de2 u[ĝ3- ] * N11 im-*ḫul *im-*ḫul 174 N14 iv 23 175  [ ] še am3-ša4 N19 iv 21 im-ḫul-*i[m- g]u3 ba-an-d[e2]/ u[ĝ3- ] N39 obv   9 im-ḫul-[ ]-de2 uĝ3 N41 (broken) 176 U3 62 u4 gal-⸢e⸣ an-na-ke4 ⸢gu3⸣ [b]a-an-de2 uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 U4 51 u4 gal-e an-na-ke4 gu3 ba-an-de2 uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 G1 iv 24 im-ḫul-im-ḫul-e ⸢gu3 ba-an⸣-de2 uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 P iii   4 im-ḫul-im-ḫul-e gu3 ba-an-de2 uĝ3-e ⸢še⸣ a[m3-  ] 180 N1 iv 26 den-l[il-l]e dgibil6 a2-taḫ-[ ]/ [š]a-mu-na-ni-ib2-k[u4- ] N11 iv 30 den-lil2-le dgibil6 a2-taḫ-a-*na mu-na-ni-in-ku4-⸢re⸣ N14 iv  21 177 [ -*n]a/ [ -r]a?-⸢am3?⸣ N15 rev   1 [ ]-⸢le⸣ dgibil6 a2-t[aḫ- ]/ [m]u-na-ni-in-ku4-r[a] N19 iv 19 den-lil2-le [ ] ⸢a2⸣-taḫ-a-ni/ m[u- ]-ku4-re N39 obv   7 den-lil2-l[e gibi]l6 ⸢a2⸣-taḫ-a-ni mu-un-na-ni-ku4-re-en N41   7 [ -l]e ⸢dgibil6⸣ [ ] U3 63 ⸢den-lil2-le dgibil6⸣ a2-taḫ-⸢a-ni⸣-a mu-un-na-ni-in-k[u4]-re U4 52 den-lil2-le dgibil6 a2-taḫ-a-ni-a mu-un-na-ni-in-ku4-re G1 iv 22 den-lil2-le d⸢gibil6 a2⸣-taḫ-a-ni-še3 mu-na-ku4-re P iii  5 dmu-ul-lil2-le dgibil6 *a2-taḫ-a-na mu-na-ni-in-ku4-⸢*ra 178⸣ Y1 rev   1 [ ] ⸢a2-*taḫ⸣-[ ] 181 N1 (omits line) N11 iv 31 u4 gal-an-na-ke4 gu3 ba-an-de2 uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 N14 iv 23 (omits line?) 179 N15 rev   2 [ ]-na-ke4 gu3 ba-an-[ ]/ uĝ3-⸢e še⸣ [ ] N19 iv 20 u4 gal an-n[a- ]-⸢e⸣ še am3-ša4 N39 (omits line) U3 64 [ ] gu3 ba-an-⸢de2⸣ uĝ3-e še am3-ša4! U4 53 u4 gal an-na-ke4 gu3 ba-an-de2 uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 G1 iv 25 u4 gal an-na-ke4 ⸢gu3 ba-an-de2⸣ uĝ3! 180-e še am3-ša4 P iii  6 u4 gal an-na-ke4 gu3 ba-an-de2 uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 Y1 rev  2 ⸢*u4⸣ gal an-[ ] ⸢gu3⸣ ba-an-de2 u[ĝ3]-⸢e⸣ [ ]

174.  The scribe omitted this line erroneously, then added its first four signs in a very small script between ll. 178 and 180. Note that these signs were not copied correctly in the copy. 175.  Cf. note on l. 180. 176.  Line 179 does not appear on the fragment. It probably appeared in the broken part after l. 180 (cf. the line sequence in N1, N19, and N39). 177.  This manuscript seems to follow a tradition similar to that of N1 regarding the line sequence; hoever, while N1 has 177, 180, 179, 184 (with ll. 178, 181, 182 and 183 omitted), N14 has the lines 177, 180, and then traces of two lines before 184. We arbitrarily assume that these two line were 178 and 179, with ll. 181, 182, and 183 omitted. 178.  A small Winkelhaken seems to indicate that the -ra was written over -ru. 179.  Cf. note on l. 180. 180.  Cf. note to line 178 in this manuscript.

180

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

182 N1 (omits line) N11 iv 32 u4 gal-e an-ta gu3 im-me uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 N14 (omits line?) 181 N15 rev   3 [ ]-⸢ta?⸣ [ ] N19 (omits line) 182 N39 obv   8 u4 gal-⸢e⸣ [ ] ⸢im⸣-me [u]ĝ3 183 U3 65 [ ] gu3 im-me ⸢uĝ3⸣-e še am3-ša4 U4 54 u4 gal an-ta gu3 im-me uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 G1 iv 26 u4 gal-e an-ta gu3 im-me uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 P iii  7 u4 gal-e an-ta gu3 im-me uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 Y1 rev  3 u4 gal-e an-[t]a gu3 im-me uĝ3-e [ ] 183 N1 (omits line) N11 iv 33 u4 kalam til-til-e *ki-a?! ⸢*mur im?!⸣-*ša4-[x]  184 N14 (omits line?)  185 N19 (omits line?) 186 N39 (omits line) U3 66 ⸢u4⸣[ ]-⸢e⸣ ki-a mur mi-ni-⸢ib2⸣-ša4 U4 55 u4 kalam til-til-e ki-a mur ⸢mi⸣-ni-ib2-ša4 G1 iv 27 u4 kalam til-til-e ki-a mur im-ša4 P iii   8 [ kal]am til-til-e ki-a mur im-ša4 uĝ3-⸢e⸣ še am3-ša4 Y1 rev  4 u4 kalam til-til-⸢e⸣ ki-⸢a⸣ mu[r] im-⸢*ša4⸣ 184 N1 iv 28 im-ḫul-[ ] ⸢a⸣-KU-maḫ e3-a-[ ]/ ⸢a2⸣-bi nu-ĝa2-[ ] N11 iv 34 im-ḫul-e a-maḫ e3-a-gin7 ⸢a2⸣ 187-[ ] N14 iv 24 [ n]u-ĝa2-ĝa2 N19 iv 22 im-ḫul-*i[m- ] N39 obv 10 im-ḫul-[ ] U3 67 im-ḫul a-maḫ e3-a-gin7 a2-bi nu-ĝa2-ĝa2 U4 56 ⸢im-ḫul a-maḫ⸣ [ ]-⸢gin7⸣ a2-bi nu-ĝa2-ĝa2 G1 iv 28 ⸢im⸣-ḫul a-maḫ ⟨e3⟩-a-gin7 a2-bi ⸢nu⸣-ĝa2-ĝa2 P iii  9 [ -ḫ]ul-e *a-⸢KU⸣-maḫ e3-a-gin7 a2-bi nu-ĝa2-ĝa2 Y1 rev  5 im-ḫul-e a-maḫ ⸢e3⸣-a-gin7 ⸢a2-bi⸣ nu-ĝa2-ĝa2

181.  Cf. note on l. 180. 182.  Alternatively, this line of the composite text may have been furnished by the original tablet after l. 184 (now lost in the broken part of the tablet). This is however less likely, since the changes in the line sequence do not go beyond l. 184 in any of the extant manuscripts. 183.  For the shortening of the refrain cf. note on l. 147. The sign GU2 appears at the end of the line, perhaps serving as a gloss indicating the correct reading of gu3 (currently broken). 184.  The signs of this line are written over partly erased signs. 185.  Cf. note on l. 180. 186.  Cf. note to l. 182 above. 187. A2 follows copy. On the original it is no longer visible.

Score

181

185 N1 iv 29 ĝištu[kul -k]e4 saĝ-gaz i3-⸢ak⸣-e u[r- ] N11 iv 35 ĝištukul uru2-ke4 saĝ-gaz i3-ak-⸢e?!⸣ 188 [ ] N14 iv 26 [ -b]i i3-gu7-e N39 obv 11 ĝištukul ur[u2- ] N42   1 [ ] ⸢saĝ-gaz⸣ [ ] U3 68 uru2ki-a ĝištukul-e saĝ-gaz i3-ak-⸢e⸣ UR-bi i3-gu7-e U4 57 uruki-a ĝištukul-e [ ] ⸢i3⸣-ak-e UR-bi i3-gu7-e G1 iv 29 ĝištukul uru2-ke4 saĝ-gaz i3-ak-e UR-bi i3-gu7-e P iii 10 [ ]-⸢ke4⸣ saĝ-gaz i3-ak-e UR-bi i3-gu7-e Y1 rev  6 ĝiš⸢tukul⸣-uru2-ke4 saĝ-gaz i3-ak-e *ur-bi i3-*gu7-e u]r2-ba ⸢KA׊E 189⸣ mu-un-[ ]/ [u]ĝ3-e š[e] am3-[ ] 186 N1 iv 30 [ N11 iv 36 an-na ur2-ba KA׊E 190 mu-un-niĝin u[ĝ3- ] N14 iv 27 [ ]-⸢e⸣ še am3-ša4 N39 obv 12 an-na u[r2- ] N42   2 [ ur]u2-ba KA׊E mu-u[n- ] U3 69 an-na ur2-ba KA׊E mu-ni-in-du11 uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 U4 58 an-na ur2-ba KA׊E [ ] X DU uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 G1 iv 30 an-na ur2-ba KA׊E 191 mu-un-niĝin! 192 uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 P iii 11 ⸢an-na ur2⸣-ba ⸢KA׊E 193⸣ *mu-un-niĝin uĝ3-e še ⸢*am3-ša4⸣ Y1 rev   7 an-na ur2-ba KA׊E mu-un-niĝin uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 187 N11 iv 37 u4-da igi-ba izi mu-un-bar7-bar7 *u[ĝ3- ] N14 iv 28 [ ]-*e še am3-ša4 N39 obv 13 u4-da i[gi- ] N42   3 [ -d]a ⸢igi⸣-ba izi im-ma-an-[ ] N43   1 [ m]u-u[n]-b[ar7- ] U3 70 u4-de3 igi-bi izi mu-un-bar7-bar7-re uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 U4 59 u4-de3 igi-bi izi ⸢mu⸣-[ -ba]r7-⸢re⸣ [u]ĝ3-e še am3-ša4 G1 iv 31 u4-de3 igi-ba izi mu-un-bar7-bar7-[(x)] ⸢uĝ3-e⸣ še am3-ša4 P iii 12 u4-da igi-ba izi mu-un-bar7-*bar7 uĝ3-e še a[m3- ] Y1 rev  8 u4-de3 igi-ba izi mu-un-⸢bar7⸣-bar7 uĝ3-e ⸢še⸣ am3-ša4 188 N11 iv 38 u4 babbar-re izi-ĝi6-edin-na bar b[a- ] N14 iv 29 [ ]-da-tab-tab N42   4 u4 ĝir2-ĝir2-da izi-ĝi6-edin-na ⸢bar⸣ [ ] N43   2 [ -d]a izi-ĝi6-edin-⸢na⸣ [ ] U3 71 u4 mir-mir-re izi-ĝi6-edin-na-gin7 bar-ba ḫu-mu-un x U4 60 u4 mir-mir-re izi-[ ]-⸢mu⸣-un?!-be2 194 G1 iv 32 u4 mir-mir-da izi-ĝi6-edin-⸢na⸣ [ ] P iii 13 u4 mir-mir-e-da izi-ĝi6-edin-*na bar ba-da-a[n- ] Y1 rev  9 u4 babbar-re izi-ĝi6-edin-na bar ba-⸢da⸣-an-tab 188.  The signs i3-ak-⸢e?!⸣ follow copy. On the original they are no longer visible. 189.  Sign eroded; KA×KAR2 is also possible. 190.  The inner ŠE is represnted by a very slight single wedge. 191.  The expected small ŠE sign is embedded in the left part (not the right part) of the KA (note that the regular KA in this manuscript has as a rule only one Winkelhaken in its left side). 192. LAGAB!.LAGAB 193.  KA×BAD is also possible. 194.  TAG should not be excluded (cf., e.g., the TAG in U2 l. 31, in sirara3).

182

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

189 N11 iv 39 an-bar7 bar-šeĝ3 NE il2-il2-⸢la?⸣ 195-[ ] N14 iv 30 [ iz]i im-ma-bar7-bar7 N42  5 an-bar7 bar 196-šeĝ3 il2-il2-la-e izi ⸢im⸣-[ ] N43   3 [ še]ĝ3 il2-il2-la-ba izi m[u- ] N44   1 an-bar7 *bar-⸢*šeĝ3 il2⸣-i[l2- ] U3 72 an-bar7 šeg14 il2-il2-i izi mu-un-bar7-bar7-re U4 61 an-bar7 šeg14 i[l2- -ba]r7-re G1 iv 33 an-bar7 im-bar-šeĝ3 il2-i[l2- ] P iii 14 an-bar7 bar-šeĝ3 il2-il2-la-*gin7 izi im-ma-an-⸢bar7⸣-[ ] Y1 rev 10 an-bar7 bar-šeĝ3 il2-il2-la-ba ⸢izi⸣ mu-un-bar7-bar7 190 N11 iv 40 an-bar7-gan2 u4 zalag e3-[ ] N14 iv 31 [ -d]a-[x] N42   6 ⸢an-bar7-gan2 u4 zalag⸣ e3-gin7 u4 ḪI-da ba-a[n- ] N43   4 [ ] u4 zalag e3-a-ba u4 ḪI-⸢da ba⸣-[ ] N44   2 an-bar7-gan2 u4 zalag e3-[ ] U3 73 an-⸢bar7⸣-gan2 u4 zalag e3-a u4 mud-e ba-da-an-ku4 U4 62 an-bar7-gan2 u4 babbar2 ⸢e3⸣-[ ]-⸢an⸣-ku4 G1 iv 34 an-bar-gan2 u4 babbar-ra ⸢e3-a⸣-[ ] P iii 15 an-bar7-gan2 u4 zalag-ga e3-a-bi u4 ḪI-⸢da! 197⸣ ba-da-an-tab Y1 rev 11 an-bar7-⸢gan2⸣ u4 babbar-ra e3-a u4 ḪI-⸢da ba⸣-da-tab 191 N11 iv 41 kalam-ma u4 zalag-ga *l[a- ] N14 iv 32 (broken) N42 (omits line) N43   5 kalam-ma u4 zalag-ga la-ba-e-e3 usanx 198-gin7 b[a?- ] N44   3 kalam-ma u4 zalag-ga l[a- ] U3 74 kalam-ma u4 zalag la-ba-ra-⸢e3⸣ usanx 199 an-na-gin7 ba-zal U4 63 kalam-ma u2 zalag la-ba-⸢ra⸣-[ ] G1 iv 35 kalam-ma ⸢u4⸣ zalag-ga ⸢la⸣-b[a?- ] P iii 16 kalam-ma u4 zalag-ga la-ba-an-⸢e3⸣ *mul usan-gin7 ba-zal Y1 rev 12 kalam-⸢*ma⸣ u4 zalag-⸢ga⸣ la-ba-*e-e3 an-usan-še3 ba-zal 192 N11 iv 42 ĝi6 giri17-⸢*zal⸣ [ ] N14 iv 33 [ ]-⸢da⸣-tab N42  7 ĝi6 giri17-zal a2 še17 ⸢ĝar-ra⸣-ba u18 200-lu [ ] N43   6 ĝi6 giri17-zal a2 še17 ĝar-ra-ba u18-lu ba-da-an-⸢tab⸣ N44   4 ĝi6 giri17-zal ⸢a2⸣ š[e17 ] N45   1 [ ] ⸢a2 še17⸣ ĝar-ra-ba/ [ ]-lu ba-da-an-tab U3 75 ĝi6-giri17-⸢zal a⸣ še17-de3 [ĝ]ar-ra tum9u18-lu ⸢ba⸣-ab-dab U4 64 ĝi6 giri17-zal a še17-de3 x [ ] G1 iv 36 ⸢ĝi6⸣ giri17-zal ⸢a2⸣ š[e17 ] P iii 17 ĝi6 giri17-zal a2 še17 ĝar-ra-ba ⸢*tum9⸣u18-lu ba-da-an-tab Y1 rev 13 ĝi6 giri17-zal ⸢a2⸣ še17 ĝar-ra-ba tum9⸢u18-lu ⸣ ba-da-an-tab 195.  The signs il2-⸢la?⸣ follow copy. On the original they are not legible anymore. 196.  BAR is written over a partly erased sign. 197.  Original seems to have A2. 198. AN.DUR. 199. AN.DUR. 200.  ĜIŠĜAL is overwritten.

Score 193 N11 iv 43 N14 iv 34 N19 iv 23 N42   8 N43   7 N44   5 N45   2 U3 76 U4 65 G1 iv 37 P iii 18 Y1 rev 14

šika bar7-bar7-dam saḫar im-da-*tab-tab/ uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 [ ]-⸢da⸣-tab-tab šika bar7-b[ar7- ] šika bar-bar-re-da saḫar im-⸢ma-da⸣-[ ] šika bar7-bar7-da saḫar im-da-tab-tab uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 šika *bar7-bar7-re-*da [ ] [ ]-da saḫar im-da-tab-[ ] šika bar-bar-ra saḫar im-⸢da⸣-tab-tab uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 šika bar-bar-ra saḫar im-d[a- ] šika bar7-bar7-⸢da⸣ [ ] šika bar7-bar7-da saḫar im-da-tab-tab uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 šika ⸢bar7-bar7⸣-da saḫar im-da-tab-tab

194 N11 iv 44 N14 iv 35 N19 iv 24 N42   9 N43   8 N44   6 N45   3 N46 ii   1 U3 77 U4 66 G1 iv 38 P iii 19 Y1 rev 15

saĝ ĝi6-e im im-[m]a-an-dal uĝ3-e   še am3-ša4 [ ] uĝ3-e   še am3-ša4 saĝ ĝi6-⸢ga⸣ 201 i[m- ] saĝ ĝi6-ga im im-ma-an-dal uĝ3-e   š[e ] saĝ ĝi6-ge im im-ma-an-dal ⸢uĝ3-e⸣ [ ] ⸢saĝ⸣ ĝi6-ga im im-[ ] [ ] *i[m ] [ ] u[ĝ3-   š]e [a]m3-ša4 saĝ ĝi6-ga im im-m[a]-da-dal uĝ3-e   še am3-ša4 saĝ ĝi6-ga im im-[ ] saĝ ĝi6-ga im a[m3- ] saĝ ĝi6-ga im im-ma-an-dal uĝ3-e   še ⸢am3⸣-[ ] saĝ ĝi6-ga im am3-ma-dal uĝ3-e   še am3-ša4

195 N11 iv 45 ki-en-gi ĝiš-b[ur2 (x) a]m3 i3-bal-e uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 202 N14 iv 36 [ -ba]l-e uĝ3-e še am3!-ša4 N19 iv 25 ki-en-gi4 ĝiš-⸢bur2 203⸣-[ ] N42 10 ki-en-gi4 ĝiš-bur2-ra-a i3-bal-e u[ĝ3 ] N43   9 ki-en-gi ĝiš-bur2-ra-a i3-bal-e uĝ3-⸢e⸣ [ ] N44   7 [ ]-⸢gi⸣-en ĝiš-bur2-[ ] N46 ii   2 [ -bu]r2-ra i3-bal-e/ [ ]-e še am3-ša4 U3 78 ki-en-gi ĝiš-bur2-gin7 ⸢i3⸣-bal-e uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 U4 67 ki-en-gi ĝiš-bur2-gin7 i3-[ ] G1 iv 39 [k]i-en-gi ĝiš-b[ur2?- ] P iii 20 ki-en-gi4 ĝiš-bur2-⸢gin7⸣ i3-bal-*e uĝ3-e še am3-š[a4] Y1 rev 16 ki-⸢en⸣-gi ⸢ĝiš-bur?⸣-am3 i3-bal-e uĝ3-e še am3-ša4

201.  The GA was erroneously partly erased by a stroke of the scribe’s reed pen. 202.  The signs še am3-ša4 follow copy. On the original they are no longer visible. 203. BUR2 was erroneously partly erased by a stroke of the scribe’s reed pen.

183

184

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

196 N11 iv 46 kalam-e saĝ e[ĝar x] ⸢i3?⸣-a[k?- ]/ U[R 204- ] N14 iv 37 [ U]R-bi i3-gu7-e N19 iv 26 kalam-e saĝ eĝar du3 [ ]/ UR-bi 205 i3-[ ] N42 11 kalam-e saĝ eĝar du3 i3-ak-⸢e⸣ [ ] N43 10 kalam-e saĝ eĝar du3 i3-ak-ne uĝ3-e še ⸢am3-ša4⸣ N44   8 [ ] ⸢saĝ⸣ eĝar *d[u3 ] N46 ii   3 [ s]aĝ gar8 du3 i3-ak-e UR-bi i3-gu7-e U3 79 ⸢kalam⸣-e saĝ eĝar i3-ak-⸢e⸣ UR-bi i3-gu7-e U4 68 kalam-e saĝ-eĝar-du3 i3-[ ] G1 iv 40 [k]alam-⸢e⸣ saĝ eĝ[ar- ] P iii 21 kalam-e saĝ eĝar-du3 i3-ak-e UR-bi i3-gu7-e Y1 rev 17 kalam-e saĝ eĝar-du3 i3-ak-e UR-bi i3-gu7-e ] 197 N11 iv 47 ⸢u4 gig⸣ [ N14 iv 38 [ ]-tar-re N19 iv 27 u4 gig er2-re na-aĝ2 ⸢nu⸣-[ ]/ uĝ3-e še am3-š[a4] N42 12 u4 gig er2-ra nam nu-tar-[ ]/ uĝ3-e še a[m3- ] N43 11 u4 gig er2-e nam nu-tar-re uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 N44   9 [ e]r2-re [ ] N46 ii   4 [ ]-gig er2-re na-aĝ2 nu-tar-re/ uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 U3 80 u4 gig-ga er2-re na-aĝ2-bi ⸢nu⸣-tar-re uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 U4 69 u4 gig-ga er2-re na-⸢aĝ2⸣-b[i ] G1 iv 41 u4 gig er2-re [ ] P iii 22 u4 gig er2-re nam nu-tar-re Y1 rev 18 ⸢u4⸣ gig er2-⸢re⸣ na-aĝ2 nu-tar-ra 198 N1 v  1 ⸢u4 šu ur3-ur3⸣-r[e ] N11 v   1 u4 šu [ ] N14 iv 39 [ -u]r3-ur3-re N19 iv 28 u4 šu ur3-ur3-re kalam-e ur3-ur3-r[e] N42 13 u4 šu ur4-ur4-re-e kalam-e ⸢i3⸣ 206-[ ] N43 12 u4 šu ur3-ur3-re kalam i3-ur3-ur3-re/ uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 N44 10 [ ] ⸢x⸣ [ ] N46 ii   5 u4 šu ur3-ur3-re kalam i3-ur4-ur4-re U3 81 ⸢u4⸣ šu ur4-ur4-⸢re⸣ kalam i3-ur4-ur4-re U4 70 u4 šu ur4-ur4-re [ ] G1 iv 42 u4 šu ur4-ur4-re [ ] P iii 23 u4 šu ur4-ur4-re *kalam i3-ur4-ur4-re Y1 rev 19 u4 šu ur4-ur4-re kalam i3-ur3-ur3-re

204.  U[R] follows copy. On the original it is no longer visible. 205.  An erased NI appears after the BI. The scribe probably erased it after reconsidering the location of the sign due to the space remaining. 206. U[R3] or U[R4] cannot be excluded.

Score

185

199 N1 v  2 u4 a-ma-ru-gin7 u[ru2 ] N11 v   2 u4 a-*m[a- ] N14 iv 40 [ -gu]l-gul-e N19 iv 29 u4 a-ma-ru-gin7 uru2 i3-gul-gul-l[a?] N42 14 u4 a-ma-ru-ke4 uru2 i3-gul-[ ] N43 13 ⸢u4⸣ a-ma-ru-ke4 uru2 i3-gul-gul-e ⸢uĝ3-e⸣ [   ] N46 ii   6 u4 a-ma-⸢ru⸣-gin7 uru2 i3-gul-gul-e U3 82 ⸢u4 a-ma-ru-gin7⸣ uru2 i3-gul-gul-la U4 71 u4 a-ma-ru-gin7 [ ] G1 iv 43 ⸢u4⸣ a-ma-⸢ru-gin7⸣ [ ] P iii 24 u4 a-ma-ru-gin7 uru2 i3-gul-gul-e Y1 rev 20 u4 a-ma-⸢ru⸣-gin7 ⸢uru2 i3⸣-gul-gul-e uru2-a me ⸢bi2⸣-i[b2- ] 200 N1 v  3 u4 kalam til-til-la N11 v   3 u4 kalam [ ] N14 iv 41 [ -ĝa]r uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 N19 iv 30 u4 kalam til-til-e uru-a me bi2-ib-[ ] N42 15 u4 kalam til-til-e ⸢uru2⸣-a me bi2-ib2-[ ] N43 14 [ ] ⸢til-til-e⸣ [ ] ⸢me bi2-ib⸣-[ ] N46 ii   7 u4 kalam til-⸢til⸣-la-ba uru2-a me bi2-⸢ib2⸣-ĝar U3 83 ⸢u4⸣ kalam til-til 207 uru2-a me bi2-ib2-ĝar U4 72 u4 kalam til-til [ ] P iii 25 u4 kalam til-til-e uru2-a ba-an-ĝar Y1 rev 21 u4 kalam til-til-e ⸢uru2⸣-a me bi2-in-ĝar 201 N1 v  4 u4 ni3 ⸢u2⸣-gu de2-de2 ḫul-⸢ĝal2⸣-[ ] N11 v   4 u4 ni3 ⸢u2⸣-*g[u ] N14 iv 42 [ -ĝa]l2-e ba-e-DU N19 iv 31 ⸢u4⸣ ni3 u2-gu de2-de2 ḫul-ĝal2-e ba-⸢e⸣-[ ] N42 17 u4 ni3 u2-gu de2-de2-e ḫul-⸢ĝal2-e⸣ [ ] N46 ii   8 u4 ni3 u2-gu de2-de2-eš ⸢ḫul⸣-*ĝal2-*eš ba-DU U3 85 u4 ni3 u2-gu de2-d[e3] ḫul-ĝal2-e bi2-DU U4 74 u4 [x] ⸢u2⸣-[g]u de2-de3 ḫul-ĝa[l2]-⸢e⸣ b[i2?- ] P iii 26 u4 ni3 u2-gu ⸢*de2-*de3⸣ ḫul-ĝal2-e ba-DU Y1 rev 22 u4 ni3 u2-gu ⸢de2-de2⸣ ḫul-⸢ĝal2⸣-e ba-e-DU 202 N1 v  5 u4 izi-⸢gin7⸣ bar7-a uĝ3-e su bi2-[ ] N11 v   5 u4 izi-gin7 *b[ar7- ] N14 iv 43 [ ] bi2-ib-dar! 208 N19 iv 32 [ iz]i-⸢gin7⸣ bar7-a uĝ3-e su bi2-ib-[ ] N42 16 u4 izi-gin7 bar7-am3 uĝ3-e su b[i2- ] N46 ii   9 ⸢u4⸣ izi-gin7 bar7-a uĝ3-e su bi2-ib2-ĝar U3 84 u4 izi-gin7 bar7-[ ] uĝ3-e bar bi2-ib2-tab2 U4 73 u4 izi-gin7 ⸢bar7⸣-a [ ] P iii 27 u4 izi-gin7 bar7-a uĝ3-e su bi2-ib2-*dar Y1 rev 23 u4 izi-gin7 ⸢bar7⸣-a ⸢*uĝ3-e su bi2⸣-ib2-*dar

207.  Following til-til there is an erasure of the beginning of a LA sign. 208.  The sign is more similar to AK, but note that AK in this manuscript is written differently than the currnet sign (cf. l. 106).

186

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

203 N1 v  6 u4 ḫul-gig du11-ga den-lil2-l[a2]/ ⸢u4⸣ kalam-ta be4-be4 N11 v   6 u4 ḫul-gig du11-⸢*ga⸣ den-lil2-⸢la2⸣ [ -*t]a ⸢*be4⸣-[ ] N14 iv 44 [ ] ⸢u4⸣ kalam-ta ⸢be4⸣-be4 N19 iv 33 [ -gi]g ⸢du11⸣-ga den-lil2-la2 kalam-ta be4-b[e4] N42 18 u4 ⸢ḫul-gig du11-ga den-lil2⸣-[ ] ⸢u4⸣ [ ] N46 ii 10 [ ḫ]ul-gig du11-⸢ga⸣ den-lil2-la2/ ⸢u4⸣ kalam-ta ⸢be4⸣-be4 U3 86 u4 ḫul-gig du11-ga den-lil2-la2-⸢ta⸣ u4 kalam-ta ba-DI-e U4 75 ⸢u4⸣ [ ] du11-ga den-lil2-la2 [ ] P iii 28 u4 ḫul-gig du11-ga den-lil2-la2 u4 kalam-*ta ⸢*be4⸣-be4 Y1 rev 24 u4 ḫul-gig du11-⸢ga⸣ de[n-x-l]e u4 kalam-ta be4-be4 204 N1 v  7 ⸢uri2⸣ki-ma tug2-gin7 mu-un-⸢dul⸣ gada-gin7 mu-un-⸢bur2⸣ N11 v   7 uri2ki-ma tug2-gin7 ba-e-dul 209 ⸢gada-gin7 ba⸣-e-bur2 N14 iv 45 [ ] ⸢gada⸣-gin7 ba-⸢e⸣-[ ] N19 iv 34 ⸢uri2ki-ma tug2-gin7 im⸣-dul gada-gin7 ba-e-b[ur2] N42 19 [ur]i2ki-ma tug2-gin7 ba-e-dul ⸢gada⸣-[ ] N46 ii 11 [ ]⸢*ki-*ma⸣ tug2-⸢gin7⸣ mu-un-⸢dul⸣ gada-gin7 ⸢ba⸣-e-bur2 U3 87 uri5⸢ki⸣-ma tug2-gin7 im-dul gada-[gi]n7 im-bur2 U4 76 [ -g]in7 im-dul gada-gi[n7 ] P iii 29 uri2ki-ma tug2-gin7 *ba-e-*dul *gada-gin7 *ba-e-bur2 Y1 rev 25 uri5ki-ma tug2-gin7 ⸢ba-*e⸣-dul gada-gin7 ba-e-bur2 205 N1 v  8 ki-ru-gu2 5-kam-ma-am3 N11 v   8 ki-ru-gu2 5-kam-ma-am3 N14 iv 46 [ -m]a-a[m3] N19 iv 35 ki-ru-gu2 5-kam-ma-⸢am3⸣ N40 rev   1 [ ]-⸢ma⸣-am3 N42 20 ki-ru-gu2 5-kam-[ ] N46 ii 12 [ ]⸢*5⸣-kam-ma-am3 U3 88 ki-ru-gu2 5-⸢kam⸣-ma U4 77 [ ]-⸢ru⸣-gu2 5-⸢kam⸣-[ ] P iii 30 ki-ru-gu2 5-kam-ma Y1 rev 26 ki-ru-gu2 5-kam-ma-am3 206 N1 v  9 u4 ug-am3 al-du7-du7 uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 N11 v   9 u4 ug-am3 al-⸢du7-ru⸣ 210 uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 N14 iv 47 [ ] ⸢am3?-ša4?⸣ 211 N19 iv 36 u4 ug-am3 al-du7-ru uĝ3-e! 212 še am3-ša4 N39 rev   1 ⸢u4⸣ [ ] N40 rev   2 [ u]ĝ3-e še am3-ša4 N42 21 u4 ug-am3 al-du7-du7 uĝ3-e ⸢še⸣ [ ] N46 ii 13 [ ] ⸢uĝ3⸣-e še am3-ša4 U3 89 u4-⸢ug⸣-a al-⸢du7-ru⸣ uĝ3-e 213 ⸢še⸣ am3-ša4 U4 78 [ -r]u [ ]-⸢e⸣ še am3-š[a4] P iii 31 u4 ug-a al-du7-du7 uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 Y1 rev 27 u4 ug-am3 ⸢al-du7-ru⸣ *uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 209.  There is no GUL before the DUL (contra copy). 210.  While the remnants as drawn in the copy may reflect UL as well, collation of the original points clearly to RU. 211.  The possibility should not be excluded that these traces, appearing on the lower edge, are part of a colophon rather than part of a catch-line. Howere, their location right behind the last line of this column seem to point to the second possibility. 212.  Following -e! the scribe wrote an extra E (perhaps to replace the first, poorly written, E). 213.  E is written over an erased ŠE.

Score 207 N1 v 10 ĝiš-gi4-ĝal2-bi-im N11 v 10 ĝiš-gi4-ĝal2-bi-im N19 iv 37 ĝiš-gi4-ĝal2 ki-ru-gu2-da-kam N39 rev   2 ĝiš-[ ] N40 rev   3 [ ]-da-kam N42 22 ĝiš-gi-⸢ĝal2⸣ ki-ru-gu2-da-[ ] N46 ii 14 [ -d]a-⸢kam⸣ U3 90 ĝiš-gi4-ĝal2-bi-im U4 79 [ ]-ĝal2-bi-[x] P iii 32 ĝiš-gi4-ĝal2-bi-im Y1 rev 28 ĝiš-[g]i4-ĝal2-bi-im du6-du6-dam 208 N1 v 11 u4-ba u4 uru2-da ba-an-da-ĝar uru-bi N11 v 11 u4-ba u4 uru-da ba-da-an-ĝar ⸢uru2-bi du6-du6-*dam⸣ N39 rev   3 u4-[ ] N40 rev   4 [ -ĝ]ar uru-bi du6-du[6-x] N42 23 u4-ba u4 uru-[d]a ba-da-⸢an-ĝar uru2⸣-[ ] * N47 obv   1 u4-ba u4 uru b[a- ] N48 obv   1 u4-ba u4 uru-da ba-da-an-ĝar uru-b[i ] N49   1 [ ] ⸢u4? uru-da ba-da-an⸣-[ ]/ [ -b]i du6-du6-[ ] U3 91 u4-ba!  214 u4 uru2 ⸢ba⸣-da-[a]n-ĝar uru2-bi du6-du6-da U4 80 [ -d]a-[ -b]i du6-du6-da U5  1 u4-ba u4 uru ba-da-an-ĝar uru-bi du6-du6-da P iii 33 u4-ba u4 uru2-⸢da?! 215⸣ ba 216-da-⸢ĝar 217⸣ uru2-bi ⸢du6-du6⸣-da Y1 rev 29 ⸢u4⸣-ba u4 ⸢uru⸣-da ba-da-an-ĝar uru-bi du6-du6-dam Y2  1 u4-ba u4 uru-da ba-da-ĝar uru-bi [ ] 209 N1 v 12 a-a dnanna uru-bi du6-du6-da ba-da-an-ĝar/ uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 N11 v 12 a-a dnanna uru-*bi du6-du6-da ba-⸢*da-*an⸣-*ĝar uĝ3-e ⸢še⸣ a[m3-x] N19 v   1 ⸢a-a d⸣[ ]/ uĝ3-⸢e⸣ [ ] N47 obv   2 ⸢a-a⸣ dnanna uru-bi *du6-[ ]/ [ ]-⸢*e⸣ š[e ] N48 obv   2 a-a dnanna uru-ni 218 du6-du6-da ba-da-an-[x]/ uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 N49   2 ⸢a-a dnanna⸣ uru-⸢bi du6⸣-d[u6-]/ ⸢ba-da-an⸣-[ ] ⸢uĝ3-e še⸣ a[m3- ] U3 92 a-a dnanna uru2-⸢bi du6⸣-du6-da ba-da-an-ĝar uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 U5  2 a-a dnanna ⸢uru⸣-bi du6-du6-da ba-da-an-ĝar uĝ3 še am3-ša4 P iii 34 a-a dnanna uru2-bi du6-du6-da ba-da-ĝar uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 Y2  2 a-a dnanna uru-bi du6-du6-da ba-da-*ĝ[ar ] 210 N1 v 13 u4-ba u4 uru-da ba-⸢an-da⸣-ĝar uru-bi du6-du6-dam N11 v 13 u4-ba u4 kalam-ta ba-da-an-⸢kar⸣ uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 N19 v   2 u4-ba u4 kalam-[ ] N47 obv   3 u4-ba u4 ⸢*kalam x⸣ ba-da-⸢ĝar⸣ [*u]ĝ3-⸢*e⸣ še [ ] N48 obv   3 u4-ba u4 kalam-da ba-da-an-kar ⸢uĝ⸣-e še am3-[š]a4 N49   3 [ -b]a u4 ⸢kalam⸣-ta ba-⸢da-an-ĝar⸣/ uĝ3-e še am3-[ ] U3 93 ⸢u4⸣ ka-na-aĝ2 ba-da-⸢an⸣-kar uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 U5  3 u4 ka-na-aĝ2 ba-da-an-kar uĝ3 še am3-ša4 P iii 35 u4-ba! u4 kalam-ta ⸢*ba⸣-da-ĝar uĝ3-e še *am3-ša4 Y2  3 u4-ba u4 kalam-da ba-da-ĝar uĝ3-e š[e] *a[m3- ] 214.  Original has U4. 215.  Sign unclear. It could be either overwritten, or an eroded TA. 216.  Sign overwritten. 217.  GAR seems to be followed by a partly erased sign. 218.  The NI is written over a BI.

187

188 210a N1 v 14 N19 v   3 N47 obv   4 N49   4

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur u4-du10 ki-en-gi-da ba-da-an-kar uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 u4-du10 ki-en-g[i- ] u4-du10 ki-en-gi-da ⸢ba⸣-d[a]-⸢an-kar⸣ [ ] u4-du10 ki-en-gi-da ba-da-[ ]/ uĝ3-⸢e še am3⸣-[ ]

šika ku5-da nu-me-a bar-ba ba-e-si 211 N1 v 15 uĝ3-bi N11 v 14 uĝ3-bi [ ]-da nu-me-a bar-ba ba-[ ] 219 N19 v   4 ⸢uĝ3⸣-bi šika [ ] N47 obv   5 uĝ3-bi šika ku5-ra2 nu-me-a bar-ba! 220 ba-e-⸢*si⸣ N48 obv   4 uĝ3-bi šika ku5-da nu-me-a bar-ba ba-e-si N49   5 uĝ3-bi ši[ka ]-⸢da nu-me-a bar⸣[ ] U3 94 ka-na-aĝ2-e šika ku5-⸢da⸣ nu-me-a sug-ge4 bi2-in-gu7 uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 U5  4 ka-na-aĝ2-e šika ku5-da nu-me-a sug-ge4 bi2-in-gu7 uĝ3 še am3-ša4 P iii 36 uĝ3-bi 221 šika ku5-da nu-me-a *bar-⸢ba⸣ ba-e-si Y2  4 uĝ3-bi šika ku5-da nu-me-a bar-ba ba-⸢e⸣-[ ] 212 N1 v 17 ⸢bad3⸣-[x] ⸢gu2-ĝiri3⸣ [(x)]-mi-ni-in-ĝar-ĝar/ ⸢uĝ3-e⸣ [š]e am3-ša4 N11 v 15 bad3-ba 222 [g]u2-ĝiri3 im-⸢*ma-*ĝar-*ĝar *uĝ3?- *e?⸣ [ ] N19 v   6 bad3-be2 g[u2- ] N47 obv   7 [b]ad3-bi gu2-ĝiri3 im-ma-an-ĝar-ĝar uĝ3-e še ⸢*am3-*ša4⸣ N48 obv   5 bad3-ba gu2-*ĝiri3 im-ma-an-ĝar-ĝar uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 N49   7 bad3-bi gu2-ĝ[iri3] ⸢im⸣-m[a- ]/ uĝ3-e še [ ] U3 95 bad3-be2 gu2-ĝiri3 im-m[i]-in-ĝar uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 U5  5 bad3-be2 gu2-ĝiri3 im-mi-in-ĝar uĝ3 še am3-ša4 P iii 37 bad3-ba gu2-ĝiri3 im-ma-ĝar-⸢ĝar⸣ uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 Y2  5 bad3-ba gu2-ĝiri3! im-ma-ĝar-ĝar uĝ3-e še am3-[ ] 213 N1 v 16 ⸢abul⸣ maḫ ⸢ĝiri3⸣ ĝal2-la-ba ad6 im-mi-in-ĝar-ĝar N11 v 16 abul 223 maḫ ĝiri3 ĝal2-la-⸢*ba x x x x⸣ [ ] N19 v   5 abul ma[ḫ ] N47 obv   6 abul-maḫ ĝiri3-ĝal2-la-ba ⸢ad6⸣ im-ma-*ĝar-*ĝ[ar] N48 obv   6 ⸢abul maḫ⸣ ĝiri3 ĝal2-la-ba ad6-a im-ma-an-BAD N49   6 abul maḫ [ ]/ ad6 i[m?]-ma-a[n?- ] U3 96 ⸢abul⸣ maḫ-ba ĝiri3 ĝal2-la-ba ad6 im-mi-in-ĝar-ĝar-re U5   6 abul maḫ-ba ĝiri3 ĝal2-la-ba ad6 im-mi-in-ĝar-ĝar-re P iii 38 *abul maḫ ĝiri3 ĝal2-la-ba ad6-a im-ma! 224-an-BAD Y2   6 abul-la-ba ĝiri3-ĝal2-la-ba ad6-a im-ma-a[n- ]

219.  Transliteration of this line follows copy. On the original in its current condition it is extremely damaged. 220.  Original has DI (for BA). 221.  BI is followed by an erasure, perhaps of E. 222.  Transliteration of the first two signs follows copy. On the original in its current condition they are broken. 223.  Transliteration of ABUL follows the copy; it has been lost in a lacuna. 224.  Original has BA.

Score 214 N1 v 18 N11 v 17 N19 v   7 N47 obv   8 N48 obv   7 N50   1 N49   8 U3 97 U5   7 P iii 39 Y2   7

189

sila daĝal ezem-ma du3-a-⸢ba⸣ [ ]-⸢e? ba⸣-ab-ĝar sila?! 225 daĝal ezem-gin7 du3-a-ba ⸢saĝ numun⸣-e ba-ab-ĝar 226 sila daĝal eze[m- ] ⸢*sila daĝal⸣ ezem-⸢ma⸣ du3-a-⸢*ba⸣ saĝ numun-e-eš ⸢*ba⸣-ab! 227-ĝar * [ ez]em-⸢ma⸣ du3-a-ba saĝ numun-e ba-ab-ĝar [ ] ⸢ezem⸣-m[a ] sila daĝal ezem-ma [ ]/ saĝ numun-e-e[š] ⸢ba⸣-[ ] sila daĝal ezem-gin7 du3-a-ba saĝ numun-e-eš ba-⸢ab⸣-ĝar sila daĝal ezem-gin7 du3-a-ba saĝ numun-e-eš ba-ab-ĝar sila daĝal ezem-ma du3-a-ba saĝ numun-⸢e⸣-eš ba-ab-ĝar sila daĝal ezem-gin7 du3-a-ba saĝ numun-e-eš ba-ab-ĝar

215 N1 v 19 e-sir2-e-sir2 ⸢ĝiri3⸣ ĝal2-la-ba ⸢ad6⸣ i[m- ]-ĝar N11 v 18 ⸢e-sir2⸣-e-sir2 ĝiri3 ĝal2-la-ba ad6 *i[m- ]-an-ĝar 228-[(x)] N19 v   8 e-sir2-e-sir2 [ ] N47 obv   9 [ ]-⸢e⸣-sir2 ĝiri3 ĝal2-la ad6 im-mi-ĝar-*ĝar N48 obv   8 [ -ĝa]l2-⸢la⸣-ba ad6 im-ma-an-ĝar-ĝar N49   9 e-sir2-e-sir2 [ ] ⸢ĝal2-la⸣-[ ]/ ad6 im-⸢ma-an?-ĝar?⸣-[ ] N50   2 [ ]-e-sir2 g[iri3 ] U3 98 ⸢e⸣-sir2-e-sir2-ra ĝiri3 ⸢ĝal2⸣-la 229-ba ad6 im-mi-in-ĝar-ĝar-re U5  8 e-sir2-e-sir2-ra ĝiri3 ĝal2-la-ba ad6 im-mi-in-ĝar-ĝar-re P iii 40 e-sir2-e-sir2 ĝiri3 ĝal2-la-ba ad6 im-ma-an-ĝar-ĝar Y2  9 e-sir2-e-sir2 ĝiri3 ĝal2-la-ba ad6 ⸢im⸣-ma-ĝar-ĝar 216 N1 v 20 N11 v 19 N19 N47 obv 10 N48 obv   9 N49 N50 U3 99 U5   9 P iii 41 Y2   8

ki e-ne-di kalam-ma ĝal2-la-ba/ uĝ3 zar-re-eš2 ba-an-du8 ⸢ki⸣ e-ne-di kalam-ma ĝal2-la-ba uĝ3 zar? 230-[r]e-e[š (x)]-du (omits line) [ ]-di kalam-m[a ĝa]l2-la-ba *uĝ3 ⸢zar?- re⸣-*eš *bi2-*du8 [ u]ĝ3 zar-eš2 ⸢*ba-*an-du8⸣ (omits line) (omits line) ki e-ne-di ezem ĝal2-la-ba uĝ3 zar! 231-re mu-un-sal ki e-ne-di ezem ĝal2 uĝ3 zar! 232-re-eš mu-un-sal ki e-ne-di ⸢kalam⸣-ma ĝal2-la-ba uĝ3 zar-re-eš bi2-in-du8 ki e-ne-di kalam-ma ĝal2-la-ba uĝ3 zar-re-eš ba-an-du8

225.  Probably a miscopied SILA (the sign is now missing due to a lacuna). 226.  Transliteration of the last five signs follows copy. On the original in its current condition they are severely damaged. 227.  AB is overwritten. 228.  Transliteration of the last two signs follows copy. On the original in its current condition they are broken. 229.  The scribe erroneously doubled the LA sign. 230.  Probably a miscopied ZAR (the sign is now missing due to a lacuna; the same is true for the rest of the line which is reconstructed according to copy). 231. LAGAB×MIN. 232.  The inner sign is unclear (DIŠ?)

190

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

217 N1 v 21 u3-⸢mun⸣ kalam-ma-ke4 urudu nagga-gin7/ sur3-sur3 ba-ni-in-DU-eš N11 v 20 ⸢u3⸣-mun kalam-ma ⸢urudu?!⸣ na[gga?] ⸢x⸣ [*s]ur3-⸢*sur *ba?-*ĝar?⸣-[x] N19 v   9 u3-mu-un-[ ]/ sur3-[ ] N45 rev   1 [ ] ⸢kalam?-ma⸣ ururdu [ ] N47 obv 11 [ ]-ma *urudu nagg[a- ] -⸢in⸣-*DA-*e[š] N49 10 u3-mun kalam-ma ⸢urudu nagga?⸣-[ ]/ sur3-sur3 ba-ni-in-D[U?- ] N50   3 [ -m]un kalam-ma ku3 [ ] U3 100 u3-mun ⸢kalam⸣-ma urudu-⸢gin7⸣ nagga-ke4 sur-sur ba-ĝar-ĝar U5 10 u3-mun kalam-ma urudu2! nagga-ke4 sur-sur ba-ĝar-ĝar P iii 42 u3-mun kalam-ma urudu2 nagga-gin7 sur3-sur ba-ĝar-ĝar Y2 10 u3-⸢mun⸣ kalam-ma ⸢x⸣ ku3 nagga-gi[n7 ]-sur3 ba-an-ĝar-ĝar 218 N1 v 22 ad6-bi uzui3-udu u4-de3 ĝal2-la-gin7/ ni2-bi-a mu-un-zal-le N11 v 21 ad6-bi i3-udu u4-da ⸢ĝal2 x x x x⸣ [ ] N19 v 10 ⸢ad6-bi⸣ u[zu?][ ] N45 rev   2 [ ] ⸢u4⸣-e ĝal2-l[a]-x [ ] N47 obv 12 [ ] [*uz]ui3-u[du ] N49 11 ⸢ad6-bi⸣ i3-udu ⸢u4-de3 ĝal2-la⸣-[ ]/ ni2-bi-a mu-un-zal-le⸣-e[š] N50   4 [ ] [uz]ui3-udu u4-de3 ĝa[l2- -u]n-zal-le-eš U3 101 ad6-⸢ba?⸣ u[zu?][ ] ⸢u4⸣-de3 ⸢ĝal2-la⸣-ba ni2-bi mu-un-zal-⸢le⸣-eš U5 11 ad6-ba i3-udu u4-de3 ĝal2-la-ba ni2-bi mu-un-zal-le-eš P iii 43 ad6-bi uzui3-udu ⸢u4⸣-da ĝal2-la-gin7 ni2-bi-a ba-an-zal-le-eš Y2 11 ad6-bi [ -u]du u4-de3 ĝal2-la-gin7 n[i2]-bi-a mu-un-zal-[ ] 219 N1 v 23 ⸢lu2⸣ uruduḫa-zi-in-e im-til-la-ba/ tug2 ugu la-ba-ab-dul N11 v 22 lu2 *uruduḫa-zi-in-e im-til-la-bi/ saĝ tug2 la-ba-ab-dul-eš N19 v 11 *l[u2 ]/ *s[aĝ? ] N49 12 lu2 uruduḫa-zi-in-e im-til-la-bi saĝ tug2 la-⸢ba-ab-dul⸣-e[š?] 233 N50   5 [ ] ⸢ḫa⸣-zi-in-e ⸢im⸣-t[il- l]a-ba-an-dul N51   1 [ -z]i-in-e im-til-[ ] U3 102 ⸢lu2⸣ urudu⸢ḫa⸣-zi-in-e in-til-la-gin7 saĝ tug2 la-[b]a-an-ak-e U5 12 lu2 uruduḫa-zi-in-e i-im-til-la-gin7 saĝ tug2 la-ba-⸢an-ak⸣-[x] P iii 44 lu2 uruduḫa-zi2-⸢in⸣-e in-til-la-bi saĝ tug2 la-*ba-ab-dul Y2 12 lu2 urudu*ḫ[a-x-i]n-e im-til-la-ba saĝ ⸢tug2⸣ la-ba-a[b- ] 220 N1 v 24 maš-da3 ĝiš-bur2-ra ⸢dab5⸣-ba-gin7 ka ⸢saḫar⸣-ra bi2-⸢in⸣-us2 N11 v 23 maš-da3 ĝiš-bur2-ra dab5-ba-gin7 ka saḫar-ra bi2-in-⸢us2⸣ N19 v 12 maš-da3 [ ] N49 13 [x]-da3 [ -bu]r2-⸢ra dab5-ba-gin7⸣/ ka ⸢saḫar-ra⸣ b[i2- ] N50   6 [ ] ⸢ĝiš-bur2⸣-ra dab5-ba-gin7 ⸢ka⸣ [ -i]n-us2 N51   2 [ g]iš-bur2-ra dab-*ba-gin7 k[a ] U3 103 m[aš-ni]ta ĝiš-bur2 dab5-ba-gin7 ka saḫar-ra bi2-in-us2 U5 13 maš-nita ĝiš-bur2 dab-ba-gin7 ka saḫar-ra bi2-i[n]-⸢us2⸣ P iii 45 maš-nita ĝiš-bur2-ra dab5-ba-gin7 ka saḫar-ra bi2-in-⸢us2⸣ Y2 13 maš-da3 ĝiš-[ -r]a dab5-ba-gin7 ka saḫar-ra ba-ab-us2

233.  Perhaps ⸢E⸣?

Score 221 N1 v 27 ⸢lu2 ĝiš⸣-g[id2- ] mu-⸢ĝar⸣-ra-bi/ [ b]a-ra-bi2-in-la2-e-eš N11 v 26 lu2 ĝiš-gid2-da mu-un-ra-bi ni3-la2 ba-ra-bi2-in-ak-eš N19 v 15 [ -*gi]d2-da mu-ra-bi ni3-la2 ba-ra-bi2-in-⟨la2⟩ 234-eš N51   5 [ ĝi]š-gid2-da mu-ra-bi ni3-la2 [ ] N49 16 lu2 ĝiš-⸢gid2-da mu⸣-u[n- ]/⸢ni3-la2 ba-ra-bi2⸣-[ ] N50   9 [ -d]a ⸢mu⸣-[ ]-eš U3 (omits line) U5 (omits line) P iii 46 lu2 ĝiš-gid2-da mu-un-ra-bi-a tug2ni3-la2 ba-⸢ra⸣-bi2-in-la2-e-eš Y2 14 lu2 ĝiš-gid2-⸢*da mu⸣-un-ra-bi tug2ni3-la2 ba-ra-bi2-in-la2-e-eš 222 N1 v 26 i-gi4-in-[ k]i ḫa-ri-⸢iš⸣-ta ama-ba-ka/ u[š2- m]u-še21-eš N11 v 25 i-gi4-in-zu ki ḫa-ri-iš-tum ama-ba-ka/ uš2-bi-a mu-un-še21-eš N19 v 14 i-[x]-in-zu ki ḫa-re-eš-ta ama-ba-ka/ [u]š2-bi-a mu-un-še21-eš N49 15 ⸢i-gi4⸣-zu ⸢ki⸣-[ i]š-⸢tum⸣ am[a?- ]/ uš2-bi-a mu-[u]n-š[e21- ] N50   8 [ -i]n-zu    ⸢ki ḫa?-ri?-iš-ta⸣ [a]ma-ba-[ ] mu-un-še21-eš N51   4 [ ]-in-zu ki ḫa-re-eš-ta [ ] U3 105 ⸢e-gi4⸣-in-zu ki ḫa-⸢ri⸣-iš-tum ama-ba na2-a uš2-ba mu-un-še21-še21 U5 15 e-gi4-in-zu ki ḫa-ri-iš-tum ⸢ama⸣-[ u]š2-ba mu-un-še21-še21 P iii 47 i-gi4-⸢in⸣-zu ki ḫa-ri-iš-tum ⸢ama⸣-bi-gin7 uš2-⸢bi⸣-a ⸢mu⸣-un-⸢še21⸣ Y2 15 i-gi4-in-zu ki ⸢ḫa⸣-ri-iš-tum   ama-⸢ba⸣-ka   uš2-bi-a mu-un-še21-eš 223 N1 v 25 ⸢lu2⸣ ĝišmitum-e im-til-la-gin7/ ŠU.[N]E ba-ra-bi2-in-la2-eš N11 v 24 lu2   ĝišmitum-e im-til-la-*gin7 tug2 gibil ba-ra-bi2-in-la2-eš N19 v 13 lu2 [ ]⸢mitum⸣-e ⸢im⸣-til-la-ba ŠU-N[E ]-ra-bi2-in-la2-eš N49 14 ⸢lu2   ĝišmitum-e in-til-la-bi⸣/ ŠU.NE ⸢ba-ra-bi2⸣-[ ] N50   7 [ ]-⸢e⸣ [x]-⸢til⸣-la-ba ŠU.NE ba-r[a- -l]a2-eš N51   3 [ ]-mitum-e im-til-*la-ba ⸢x⸣-[ ] U3 104 ⸢lu2 ĝiš⸣mitum-e i-im-⸢til⸣-la-gin7 tug2ni3-la2 ba-ra-bi2-in-la2 U5 14 lu2   ĝišmitum-e i-im-til-la-gin7 tug2ni3-la2 [ ]-bi2-in-la2 P iii 48 lu2     mi-tum-e in-til-la-bi ŠU.NE ba-ra-bi2-in-la2-e-eš Y2 16 lu2 ĝišmitum-e im-til-⸢la⸣-bi ŠU.NE ba-[r]a-bi2-in-du11-uš ] nu-me-eš-a/ [ ] ⸢za3⸣-g[a ]-⸢x la2⸣-e-eš 224 N1 v 28 [ N11 v 27 lu2 kaš *naĝ-ĝa2 nu-me-eš-am3 gu2 za3-ga bi2-in-ĝal2-eš N19 v 16 l[u2 x]-naĝ-naĝ-a nu-me-eš-a/ [ ] za3-ga bi2-in-la2-⸢e⸣-eš N49 17 lu2 ⸢ĝeštin? naĝ-ĝa2 nu-me⸣-eš-⸢a⸣ [ ] N50 10 [ ] ⸢naĝ?⸣ [ ]-e[š? ]-⸢e⸣-eš N51   6 [ kur]un naĝ-a nu-me-eš-a gu2 z[a3- ] U3 106 [x] ⸢ĝeštin⸣ naĝ nu-me-e[š] gu2 za3-ga bi2-ib2-la2-eš U5 16 lu2 ĝeštin naĝ nu-me-eš gu2 za3-ga bi2-ib2-la2-eš P iii 49 lu2 ⸢ĝeštin⸣ naĝ *nu-me-eš ⸢gu2 za3⸣-ga bi2-in-la2-e-eš Y2 17 lu2 *ĝeštin naĝ-a nu-me-eš-a ⸢gu2⸣ za3-ga bi2-⸢in⸣-la2-e-eš 225 N11 v 28 ĝištukul-e gub-ba ĝištukul-e in-gaz uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 N19 v 17 [ ] gub-ba ĝištukul-e in-gaz uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 N49 18 ĝištukul-e ⸢gub-ba⸣ ĝištukul-⸢e⸣ [ ]/ uĝ3-e še am3-[ ] N50 11 [ gu]b-ba ĝištuku[l ] N51   7 [ ]-⸢e⸣ gub!-gub-ba ĝištukul-e! i[n- ] U3 107 ⸢ĝiš⸣tukul-e ⸢gub⸣-ba ĝištukul-e bi2-in-gaz U5 17 ĝištukul-e gub-ba ĝištukul-e bi2-in-⸢gaz⸣ P iii 50 ĝištukul-e gub-gub ĝištukul-⸢*e⸣ [ -g]az uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 Y2 18 ĝištukul-a gub-ba ĝištukul-e im-gaz uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 234.  Very slight traces of a partly inscribed LA2 might appear between IN and EŠ.

191

192

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

226 N11 v 29 lu2 kar-ra-bi u4 im-ma-du-bu-ul uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 N19 v 18 [ ]-ra-bi u4 im-ma-du-bu-ul/ [u]ĝ3-e še am3-ša4 N49 (omits line) N50 12 [ -r]a-bi u4 im-m[a- ] N51   8 [ -r]a-bi u4 im-*ma-du-[ ] U3 108 [ ]-bi maš-da3 kar-ra-bi u4 im-ma-DU ⸢uĝ3-e še am3⸣-ša4 U5 18 lu2 kar-ra-bi u4 im-ma-an-DU uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 P iii 51 lu2 kar-ra! 235-bi u4 ⸢*im⸣-[ ]-an-du-bu-ul uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 Y2 19 lu2 kar-ra-bi u4 im-ma-du-bu-⸢ul⸣ uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 * 227 N11 v 30 uri2ki-ma si-ga kala-ga-bi ⸢ša3-*ĝar⸣-ra im-*til N19 v 19 [ k]i-ma si-ga kala-ga-bi ša3-ĝar-ra im-til N49 19 ⸢uri2ki-ma⸣ s[i?]-⸢ga?⸣ kalag-[ ]/ ša3-ĝar-ra i[m- ] N50 13 [ ]⸢ki⸣-⸢ma si-ga⸣ kala-⸢ga-bi⸣[  ]-⸢ĝar-ra?⸣ [ ] N51   9 [ ]-ma si-ga kala-ga-bi [ ] U3 109 [ur]i5⸢ki-ma⸣ si! 236-ga kala-ga-bi ša3-ĝar-re ba-⸢til⸣ U5 19 uri5ki-ma si-ga kala-ga-bi ša3-ĝar-re ba 237-til P iii 52 uri2ki-ma ⸢*si⸣-ga kala-ga-⸢bi⸣ ša3-ĝar-ra im-til Y2 20 uri2ki-ma si-ga kala-ga-bi ša3-[ĝa]r-re im-til

228 N11 v 31 um-ma ab-ba e2-ta nu-e3 izi mu-ni-in-si3-si3-⸢ke-eš⸣ N19 v 20 [ a]d-da e2-ta nu-e3/ [ ] mu-ni-in-⸢si3-si3⸣-ke-eš N49 20 ⸢um-ma ad-da e2⸣-[ ] N50 14 [ a]d-⸢da⸣ e2-ta nu-e3 ⸢izi⸣ m[u]-ni-in-s[i3- ] N51 10 [ ]-da e2-ta nu-e11 izi m[u- ] U3 110 ⸢um-ma ab-ba e2⸣-ta nu-e3 izi mu-ni-in-si3-⸢si3⸣-[ ] U5 20 um-ma ⸢ab⸣-ba e2-ta nu-e3 izi mu-ni-in-si3-ke-eš P iii 53 um-ma! ab-ba ⸢e2-ta⸣ [x]-e3-a izi [*m]u-*ni-⸢in⸣-si3-si3-ke-eš Y2 21 um-ma ab-ba e2-ta nu-e3-e izi ⸢mu-ni⸣-in-si3-si3-⸢ke⸣-eš 229 N11 v 32 di4-di4-la2 ur2 ama-ba-ka nu2-a ku6-gin7 a ba-an-tum2 N19 v 21 [ -u]r2 ⸢ama⸣-[ ] N49 21 ⸢di4-di4⸣-la2 ur2 ama-[ ]/ ku6-gin7 a ⸢ba?⸣-an-[ ] N50 15 [ ]-⸢ama⸣-ba-ka nu2-a ku6-gin7 a ba-an-tum2 N51 11 [ ]-a ur2 ama5-ba-ka nu2-a ku6-g[in7 ] U3 111 ⸢di4-di4-la2 ur2 ama-bi ne-a⸣ ku6-de3 a ba-ab-[ ] U5 21 di4-d[i4]-⸢la2⸣ ur2 ama-bi ne-a ku6-de3 a ba-ab-tum2 P iii 54 di4-di4-la2 ur2 ama-⸢bi⸣-ka ne-a ⸢ku6-gin7⸣ a ba-an-tum2-mu-uš Y2 22 di4-di4-la2 ur2 ama-ba-ka nu2-a ku6-⸢gin7⸣ a ⸢ba-ab-tum3⸣ * kala⸣-ga-bi *lirum ba-an-⸢da⸣-du8 230 N11 v 33 emeda2 ⸢šu N49 22 [eme]da2 ⸢lirum kala-ga-bi⸣ [ ] N50 16 [ lir]um kala-ga-bi lirum ba-an-da-du8 N51 12 [ ] lirum kala-⸢ga-bi lirum⸣ [b]a-[ ] U3 112 ⸢emeda2 lirum kala⸣-ga-⸢bi⸣ lirum ba-⸢an-du8⸣ U5 22 emeda2 lirum kala-ga lirum ba-an-du8-du8 P iii 55 *emeda2 lirum kala-ga-bi lirum ba-da-an-du8 Y2 23 [ li]rum kalag-ga-bi lirum ba-da-du8

235.  The scribe probably began to inscribe an additional KAR, then partly changed it into RA (contra copy). 236.  SI is overwritten. 237.  Following ba- an erasure of one or two signs is visible.

Score

193

231 N1 vi   1 [ ]/ [ ] ⸢še⸣ [    ] N11 v 34 dim2-ma kalam-ma ⸢u2⸣-gu  im-ta-[a]n-de2/ uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 N50 17 [ ]-⸢gu im⸣-ma-⸢an-de2⸣ uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 N51 13 [ ] kalam-ma u2-gu    i[m- ] U3 113 dim2-⸢ma u2⸣-g[u b]a-an-⸢de2⸣ [u]ĝ3-⸢e⸣ še-a[m3- ] U5 23 dim2-ma kalam-ma u2-gu ba-an-de2 uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 P iii 56 dim2-ma kalam-ma *u2-gu   im-ma-an-de2 uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 Y2 24 [ ] ⸢u3⸣-[g]u im-ma-an-e-⸢de2⸣ uĝ3-e še am3-*ša4 232 N1 vi   2 ⸢ĝalga⸣ kalam-ma sug-ge4 ba-a[b- ]/ uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 N11 v 35 ĝalga kalam-ma *sug-ge4 ba-ab-⸢gu7⸣ uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 N50 18 [ ]-⸢ge4 ba-ab-gu7 uĝ3-e⸣ še am3-ša4 N51 14 [ ] kalam-ma sug-ge4 ba-a[b- ] U3 114 erim3 238 U5 24 erim3-ma kalam-ma u2-gu ba-an-de2 uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 P iii 57 ĝalga kalam-ma sug-⸢ge *ba⸣-ab-⸢*gu7⸣ uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 Y2 25 [ ]-⸢ma⸣[ ] [b]a-ab-gu7 uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 233 N1 vi   3 ⸢ama dumu⸣-ni igi-ni ba-ra-e3/ uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 N11 v 36 ama dumu-ni igi-ni ba-ra-e3 uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 N50 19 [ ]-ni ba-⸢ra-e3⸣ [u]ĝ3-⸢e⸣ še am3-ša4 N51 15 [ -n]i igi-ni ba-ra-⸢e3⸣ [ ] U5 25 ama dumu-ni-ir uru2-ni ba-⸢ra⸣-e3 uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 P iii 58 ama dumu-na igi-n[a] ⸢ba-ra-e3⸣ uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 Y2 26 ⸢*ama⸣ dumu-ni ⸢igi-ni⸣ [ -r]a-⸢e3⸣ uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 233a N51 239 16 [ 234 N1 vi   4 N11 v 37 N50 20 N51 17 U5 26 P iii 59 Y2 27

] igi-ni ba-ra-⸢e3⸣[ ]

ad-da dumu-ni-ta ba-da-*kur2 uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 ad-da *dumu-ni-da ba-da-an-[ ] uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 [ -t]a ba-da-kur2 ⸢uĝ3⸣-e še am3-ša4 [ ]-ta ba-da-an-⸢x⸣ [ ] ad-da dumu-ni-ir im ba!-da-an-gur 240 uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 ad-da dumu-ni-ta ba-da-an-gur uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 ad-da dumu-ni-ta ba-*a[n- ] uĝ3-⸢e⸣ še am3-ša4

235 N1 vi   5 uru-⸢a⸣ dam ba-šub dumu ba-⸢šub ni3-gur11 ba⸣-bir-bir-re N11 v 38 uru2-a dam ba-⸢šub *dumu *ba⸣-[ ] ⸢*ni3⸣-gur11 ba-bir-bir N50 21 [ ] dumu ba-šub ni3-gur11 ⸢ba⸣-[b]ir-bir-re-eš N51 18 [ -š]ub dumu 241 ba-š[ub ] U5 27 uruki-a dam ba-šub dumu ba-šub ni3-⸢gur11⸣ ba-bir-bir-re P iii 60 uru2-a ⸢dam⸣ ba-šub dumu ba-šub ni3-gur11 ba-bir-bir Y2 28 uru-a dam ba-šub dumu ba-šub ni3-gur11 ba-bir-bir

238.  Due to lack of space at the end of the tablet, the scribe wrote only the first sign of this line on the Upper Edge. It is possible that this is the beginning of a catch line. 239.  We assume that this is an additional line occurring only in N51. Note however that it is equally possible that we are dealing with a dittography of the previous line. 240.  The signs -ni-ir and ba!- are written over erasure. 241.  Following dumu an erasure is visible on the original.

194

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

236 N1 vi  6 saĝ-ĝi6 ki-saĝ-ĝal2-la-ba/ im-me-de3-re7-eš N11 v 39 saĝ-ĝi6 ki-saĝ-ĝal2-l[a ]-me-de3-re7-eš N50 22 [ ]-⸢ba    im-me-de3⸣-re7re-eš N51 19 [ k]i-saĝ-ĝal2-la-ba i[m- ] U5 28 saĝ-ĝi6-ga ki-saĝ-ĝal2-la-na    im-me-de3-re7re!-eš P iii 61 saĝ-ĝi6 ⸢*ki⸣-saĝ-ĝal2-la-gin7 im-me-*de3-⸢re7⸣-eš-a Y2 29 ⸢saĝ-ĝi6⸣ ki-saĝ-ki-ĝal2-la-⸢ba⸣ im-me-de3-re7-eš 237 N1 vi   7 nin-bi ⸢mušen⸣ ni2 te-a-gin7/ uru2-ni ba-ra-⸢e3⸣ N11 v 40 nin-bi ⸢mušen ni2 x x x⸣ [ ]-ni-a ba-ra-e3 N47 rev   1 [ ]-⸢ni ba-ra⸣-[ ] N50 23 [ ur]u-ni ba-ra-e3 N51 20 [ n]i2 te-a! 242-gin7 uru2-ni b[a- ] U5 29 nin-bi mušen ni2 te-a-gin7 uruki-ni ba-ra-e3 P iii 62 nin-bi mušen dal-la-gin7 243 ⸢*uru2⸣-na ba-*ra-⸢e3⸣ Y2 30 *n[in- *muše]n ni2 te-a-gin7 ⸢uru-na⸣ ba-ra-e3 238 N1 vi  8 dn[in- ] mušen ni2 te-a-gin7/ ⸢uru2⸣-ni ba-ra-e3 N11 v 41 dni[n- ] ⸢*te⸣-a-gin7 ⸢uru2⸣-ni-a ba-ra-e3 244 N46 iii   1 dn[in- ]/ u[ru2- ] N47 rev   2 [ ] ⸢te-a⸣-gin7   uru2-ni ba-r[a-] N50 24 [ ur]u-ni ba-ra-e3 N51 21 [ ] ⸢mušen⸣ ni2 te-a-gin7 uru2-⸢ni⸣ [ ] U5 30 dnin-gal ⸢mušen ni2 te-a⸣-gin7 uruki-ni ba-re-e3 P iii 63 *dnin-gal-e mušen dal ⸢x x⸣ *uru2-na ba-ra-e3 Y2 31 [ ]-⸢e⸣ mušen ni2 te-a-gin7 uru-ni ba-ra-e3 239 N1 vi   9 ⸢x⸣ kalam-ma ĝar-ĝar-ra-ba/ šu pe-el-la2 ba-ab-du11 N11 v 42 [ ]-⸢*ma⸣ ĝar-ĝar-ra-b[a] ⸢šu⸣ [ ] ba-ab-du11 N46 iii   2 ni3-gur11 kalam-ma ĝar-⸢ĝar-ra-ba⸣ *š[u ] N47 rev   3 [ -m]a ĝar-ĝar-ra-ba ⸢šu⸣ pe-el-la2 ba-a[b- ] N50 25 [ š]u ⸢pe-el⸣-la2 ba-ab-du11 N51 22 [ ĝa]r-ĝar-ra-ba šu pe-[ ] U5 31 ni3-gur11 k[alam- ] ⸢x⸣ MA la-la-ĝu10 sug-ge4 ḫu-mu-da-ab-gu7! 245 P iii 64 ni3-gur11 kalam-ma ⸢*ĝar⸣-ĝar-⸢ra⸣-ba šu pe-⸢el⸣-la2 ba-ab-du11 Y2 32 [ ka]lam-ma ĝar-ĝar-ra-ba šu pe-el-[l]a2 ⸢ba-ab-du11⸣

242.  The A is written over another sign. 243.  GIM seems to be followed by an erasure. 244.  Note that the small fragment containing the signs ⸢te⸣-a-gin7⸢ uru2⸣ is currently glued to the tablet at a slightly higher point, so that these signs seem to belong to the previous line. 245.  Original has KA.

Score

195

240 N1 vi 10 ⸢ama5⸣ kalam-ma šar2-šar2-ra-⸢ba⸣/ ⸢izi im⸣-ma-an-bar7-bar7 * N11 v 43 [ kala]m-ma šar2-šar2-ra-ba izi?! 246 im-ma 247-[(x)-b]ar7-bar7 N46 iii   3 ama5 kalam-ma šar2-šar2-r[a- ]/ izi im-ma-an-*b[ar7- ] * N47 rev   4 [ kala]m-*ma šar2-šar2-⸢ra⸣-ba izi im-ma?!-ab?!-bar7-bar7 N50 26 [ ]-ma-an! 248-bar7-bar7 N51 23 [ -m]a šar2-šar2-ra-ba izi [ ] U5 32 uru2 ma-[ ] x ab-TUK.TUK-a 249 im-im-ma-ab 250-DU.DU P iii 65 ⸢*ama5 251 *kalam⸣-ma šar2-šar2-ra-ba izi im-ma-ab-du11-du11 Y2 33 [ -r]a-ba izi im-ma-ab-⸢ra⸣ 241 N1 vi 11 a-⸢niĝin2-ba⸣ d⸢gibil6 lu2⸣-sikil-⸢la⸣/ [ ]-⸢na⸣-an-du12-du12-⸢ke⸣ N11 v 44 [ ] dgibi[l6] 252 lu2 sikil-la kiĝ2 x 253 [m]u-un-du3-du3 N46 iii   4 a-niĝin2-ba dgibil6 lu2 si[kil- ]/ kiĝ2 mu-na-an-*d[u12 x] N47 rev   5 ⸢a⸣-*niĝin2-ba dgibil6 lu2 sikil-la *kiĝ2-*bi 254 mu-⸢na⸣-an-⸢*du3⸣ 255 N50 27 [ ki]ĝ2 mu-na-an-du3 256-du3 N51 24 [x-niĝi]n2-⸢ba d⸣gibil6 lu2 sikil-la k[iĝ2 ] U5 33 a2-niĝin2-⸢na d⸣[gibi]l6 lu2 sikil-ke4 kiĝ2-ĝa2 al-du3-du3 P iii 66 ⸢a-niĝin2⸣-ba dgibil6 lu2 sikil-la *kiĝ2 am3-mi-in-du3-du3 Y2 34 [ ] lu2 sikil-la kiĝ2 mu-na-du12-du12 242 N1 vi 12 ⸢ḫur-saĝ⸣-[ ]-⸢te-ĝe26⸣ e2-⸢kiš⸣-nu-ĝal2-la N11 v 45 [ š]u ⸢nu⸣-te-ĝe26!-⸢e! e2⸣-k[iš 257-x-ĝ]al2-la N46 iii   5 ḫur-saĝ sukud-ra2 šu nu-[ ]/ e2-kiš-nu-[ ] N47 rev   6 ḫur-saĝ sukud-ra2 šu nu-te-ĝe26 e2-⸢kiš⸣-⟨nu⟩-⸢ĝal2? GA?⸣ [ ] N50 28 [ ]-⸢kiš⸣-nu-ĝal2-la N51 25 [ ]-saĝ sukud-ra2 šu nu-te-ĝe26-⸢e e2⸣-[ ] U5 34 ḫur-saĝ s[ukud- ] nu-te-ĝe26-e en e2-kiš-nu-ĝal2-la-ke4 P iii 67 ḫur!-saĝ sukud-ra2 šu nu-te-ĝe26-e e2-kiš-nu-ĝal2-la Y2 35 [ ] šu nu-te-ĝe26-de3 e2-kiš-nu-ĝal2-la

246.  Copy has KA; Original has a broken unclear sign. 247.  Transliteration of the sings im-ma follows copy. On the original in its current state they are invisible. 248.  AN is written over a partly erased AB. 249.  Note that this scribe tends sometimes to inscribe the A exceptionally. Cf. l. 245 below. 250.  AB is written over a partly erased AN. 251.  The sign inside the ĜA2 is not clear. 252.  Transliteration of the signs dgibi[l6] follow copy. Currently they are lost in the lacuna. 253.  Traces may point to GA2 (contra copy), but the sign is too damaged to determine. 254.  Alternatively: kiĝ2-ga. If this is the correct reading, then we are dealing here with a rare vulgarism. 255.  The sign KAK has been collated by Wilcke. 256. DU3 is overwritten. 257.  The signs ĝe26!-⸢e! e2⸣-k[iš] do not appear on the original in its current state of preservation. The copy shows UN for ĝe26!-⸢e!⸣; this is probably a miscopy rather than a scribal error, but since the signs are currently broken, we marked them with an exclamation mark.

196

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

243 N1 vi 13 e2-zi-⸢de3 uruduḫa-zi-in gal-gal-e?⸣/ UR-bi i3-gu7-e N11 v 46 ⸢*e2⸣ zi-ba uruduḫa-zi-i[n ]-⸢*i3-*gu7-e⸣ N46 iii   6 e2 zi-ba uruduḫa-z[i- ]/ UR-bi ⸢i3⸣-[ ] N47 rev   7 e2 zi-ba uruduḫa-zi-in gal-gal-e UR-bi [ ] N50 29 [ -b]i ⸢i3⸣-gu7-e N51 26 [ z]i-ba *urudu*ḫa-zi-in gal-gal-[ ] U5 35 e2 zi-⸢de3 urudu⸣ḫa-zi-in gal-gal-e UR-bi i3-gu7-e P iii 68 e2 zi-de3 uruduḫa-zi2-in gal-gal-e UR-bi i3-gu7! 258-e Y2 36 ⸢e2⸣ zi-⸢da⸣ [urud]uḫa-zi-in ⸢gal⸣-gal-e UR-bi i3-gu7-e lu2 ⸢ḫa-lam 259-ma⸣/ ba3-gin2 ba-an-ak-e-eš 244 N1 vi 14 šimaškiki elam N11 v 47 šimaškiki elam⸢ki lu2 *ḫa-lam 260⸣-[ ] / ba3-gin2 ba-an-*a[k- ] N46 iii   7 šimaškiki elam*k[i] [ ] N47 rev   8 šimaškiki elam*ki lu2 ḫa-lam-ma ba3-*gi[n7 ] N50 (line broken) N51 27 [šimaš]kiki *elam*ki lu2 ḫa-lam-ma ba3-[ ] U5 36 šimaškiki elamki lu2 ḫa-lam-ma ba3-kin ba-da-ak-⸢ak⸣ P iii 69 šimaškiki 261 elamki lu2 ḫa-lam-ma ba3-gin2! ba-an-ak-ak-eš Y2 37 šimaškiki lu2 ḫa-lam-ma-bi ba3-gin2 ba-an-ak-ak-eš 245 N1 vi 15 e2 zi ĝiš⸢al⸣-a mi-⸢ib⸣-bal-e-ne N11 v 48 e2 zi ĝišal-a ⸢mi-ni⸣-ib-b[al]-⸢*e⸣-ne N46 iii   8 ⸢e2⸣ zi ĝiš[ ] N47 rev   9 ⸢e2 zi ĝišal mi⸣-ni-ib-bal-e-n[e] N50 (line broken) N51 28 [ z]i ĝišal-a mi-ni-ib-b[al- ] U5 37 e2 zi-de3 uru ĝišal-e ba-ab-ra-a-gin7 uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 P iii 70 e2 zi ĝišal-e mi-ni-ib2-bal-e-ne ⸢*uĝ3⸣-e še am3-ša4 Y2 38 e2 zi ĝiš⸢al-e *mi⸣-ni-ib-bal-e-⸢ne⸣ [u]ĝ3-e še am3-ša4 246 N1 vi 16 uru    ⸢du6⸣-du6-dam mu-un-ĝa2-ĝa2-ne N11 v 49 uru   du6-du6-da ⸢mu⸣-un-ĝa2-ĝa2-ne N46 iii  9 uru   du6-du6-d[am ] N47 rev 10 ur[u2 d]u6-du6-dam [x]-⸢un-ĝa2⸣-ĝa2-ne N50 (line broken) N51 29 [        ]-*dam mu-un-ĝa2-[ ] U5 38 uru   du6-du6-da mu-un-ĝa2-ĝa2-e-ne uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 P iii 71 uru2   du6-du6-dam mu-un-ĝa2-ĝa2-ne uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 Y2 39 ⸢uru  du6⸣-du6-da mu-un-ĝa2-ĝa2-ne uĝ3-e še am3-ša4 247 N1 vi N11 v N46 iii N47 rev N50 N51 U5 P iii Y2

17 50 10 11 33 30 39 72 40

nin-bi a uru2-ĝu10   ⸢im⸣-me a e2-ĝu10 im-me nin-bi a uru2-ĝu10 262 im-me-a-*aš a e2-ĝu10 ⸢im⸣-me-a-*aš nin-bi a ⸢uru2⸣-[ ] nin-bi *a uru2-ĝu10 i[m- ] ⸢e2-ĝu10⸣*i[m- ] [ ] ⸢im-me⸣ [ ] [      ] ⸢uru2⸣-ĝu10 im-me-e ⸢*a⸣ [ ] nin-bi a uru-ĝu10 im-me a e2-ĝu10 im-me nin-bi a uru2-ĝu10 im-me-e-a-aš a e2-ĝu10 im-me-e-a-aš [ -b]i a    uru2-ĝu10 im-me a e2-ĝu10 im-me

258.  Original: KA. 259.  The sign LAM is followed by an erasure. 260.  Transliteration of LAM follows copy; On the original it is currently broken. 261. LU2.*SUki. 262.  Contra to the copy, -ĝu10 is not followed by an UN.

Score

197

248 N1 vi 18 dnin-gal-e a uru2-ĝu10 im-me/ a e2-⸢ĝu10⸣ im-me N11 v 51 ⸢d⸣[ -g]al-e a uru2-ĝu10 im-me-a-aš a e2-ĝu10 im-me-a-aš N46 iii 11 dnin-gal-[ ]/ a e2-[ ] N47 rev 12 dnin-gal-e ⸢a uru2⸣-[ ] ⸢e2⸣-ĝa2 i[m- ] N50 34 [ ] im-me a ⸢e2?⸣-[ ] N51 31 [ ur]u2-⸢ĝu10 im⸣-[ ] U5 r. edge 263 dnin-gal a uru2-ĝu10 im-me a e2-ĝu10 ⸢im⸣-me P iii 73 dnin-gal-e a uru2-ĝu10 im-me-e-a-aš a e2-ĝu10 im-me-e-a-aš Y2 41 dnin-gal-e a uru2-ĝu10 im-me a e2-ĝu10 im-me 249 N1 vi N46 iii N47 rev N50 U5 P iii Y2

19 lu2 ⸢nu⸣-nus-e u3 uru2-ĝu10 mu-da-gul/ u3 e2-ĝu10 mu-da-gul 12 lu2 nu-nus-[ ] 13 l[u2 x]-nus-⸢e⸣ 264 ⸢x⸣ [x-d]a-gul 35 [ -d]a-gul ⸢u4⸣[ m]u-da-gu[l] 40 lu2 nu-nus-e u4 uru ba-da-gul u4 e2 265 ba-da-gul 74 lu2 nu-nus-ĝen *u3 uru2! mu-da-gul u3 e2 mu-da-gul 42 lu2 nu-nus-ĝen u3 uru2 ba-da-gul u3 e2 ba-da-gul

250 N1 vi 20 dnanna eš3 uri2ki  mu-da-gul/ mu-⸢lu⸣-bi ba-⸢tu11?! 266 ⸣-be2-eš N47 rev 14 []-nanna e[š3] ⸢uri2ki-ma⸣  mu-⸢da⸣-gul [ ] N50 36 [ ][k]i mu-d[a-x m]u-lu-bi ba-tu11-be2-eš U5 41 ⸢d⸣[ e]š3 uri5ki-ma ba-da-gul-la uĝ3 ba-da-bir-bir 267-re P iii 75 dnanna eš3 uri2ki ba-da-gul uĝ3-*bi ba-bir-bir Y2 43 dnanna eš3 uri2ki ba-da-gul uĝ3 ba-an-da-bir-bir 251 N1 vi N47 rev N50 U5 P iii Y2

21 ⸢ki⸣-ru-gu2 6-kam-ma-am3 15 ki-r[u]-gu2 6-kam-m[a (x)] 37 [ -g]u2 ⸢6⸣-[x-m]a-am3 42 ki-ru-gu2 6-kam-ma 76 ki-ru-⸢gu2⸣ 6-kam-ma 44 ki-ru-gu2 6-kam-ma-am3

252 N1 vi 22 ⸢tur3⸣-ra-na amaš-a-na     nu-nus-e/ [g]u3  gig mu-⸢ni⸣-ib-be2 N47 u.e. 1–2a tur3-ra-na ⸢amaš?!-a-na⸣ nu-nus-e gu3   gig-[ ]/[m]u-[n]i-ib-be2 N48 rev   1a x [ -*i]b2-*b[e2] N50 38 [ ] ⸢nu⸣-nus-⸢e⸣ [ ]-ga mu-ni-ib-be2 U5 43a tur3-a-na    amaš-a-na nu-nus-e gu3   gig-ga mu-ni-ib2-be2 P iii 77 tur3-ra-na amaš-a-⸢na⸣    munus-e gu3   gig-ga mi-ni-ib2-be2 Y2 45a tur3-ra-na amaš-a-na nu-nus-e gu3   gig-ga mi-ni-ib-be2 252a N1 vi N47  u.e. N48 rev U5 P iii Y2

23 [ -d]e3 an-gul-e 2b ⸢uru2⸣ u4-de3 a[m3!-   ] 1b uru2 u4-⸢de3⸣ am3-gul-e 43b uru u4-de3 am3-gul-e 78 uru2 u4-da! am3-gul-e 45b uru2 268 u4-de3 am3-gul-e

263.  The scribe omitted the line and then inscribed it on the edge. Note that the first sign (AN) is erroneously doubled. 264.  The ⸢E⸣ is followed by the signs AŠ3 and KAM, erroneously copied by the scribe from line 251 below. 265. e2 is followed by a partly erased U4. 266.  The poorly written ḪUB2 (=tu11) may be a miscopy. 267.  The second BIR seems to be written over a partly erased RI. 268. uru2 is preceded by an erasure.

198

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

253 N1 vi 24 [ -g]i4-ĝal2-bi-im N47 u.e.   3 ĝiš-gi4-⸢*ĝal2⸣-[   ] N48 rev   2 ĝiš-gi4-ĝal2 ki-ru-gu2-da-kam N50 39 [ ] ki-ru-gu2-da-kam U5 44 ĝiš-gi4-ĝal2-bi-im P iii 79 ĝiš-gi4-ĝal2-bi-im Y2 46 ĝiš-gi4-*ĝal2-[b]i-im ]-⸢gal⸣ uru-ni lu2 erim2-gin7/ [ -t]a ba-da-gub 254 N1 vi 25 [ N19 vi   1 ama-[ ] N47 u.e.   4 ama ⸢d⸣[ -n]i [ ] N48 rev   3 ama dnin-gal uruki-ni nu erim2-⸢*gin7⸣/ bar-ta ba-da-gub N50 40 [ -t]a ba-da-gub N52 obv   1 ⸢ama⸣ dnin-gal uru2-⸢ni⸣ [l]u2 erim2-[ ] U5 45 ama dnin-gal uruki-ni lu2 erim2-gin7 bar-ta ba-ra-gub P iii 80 ⸢ama dnin⸣-*gal uru2-na nu erim2-gin7 bar-ta *ba-da-gub Y2 47 ama dnin-gal uru-ni ⸢*nu⸣ erim2!-⸢gin7 bar⸣-ta ba-da-gub 255 N11 vi   1 [ ] ⸢ḫul⸣-a-[ -b]i im-me N19 vi   2 lu2 [ ]/ [ ] N52 obv   2 lu2 nu-nus-e er2-⸢re⸣ ḫul-a-na gig-⸢ga⸣-[x] ⸢im-me⸣ N53 i   1 [ ]-⸢e er2 e2⸣ ḫ[ul- ] U5 46 lu2 nu-nus-e na-aĝ2 uru ḫul-a-na gig-ga-bi im-me P iii 81 lu2 munus-e er2 e2 ḫul-a-na ⸢*gal-gal⸣-bi mi-*ni-⸢ib2?-be2⸣ ur]i2ki *ḫ[ul- ]-na/ [ ]-bi mi-ni-ib-be2 256 N11 vi   2 [ N19 vi   3 *e[gi2- ] N52 obv   3 egi2-re eš3 uri2ki ḫul-a-na gal-gal-bi im-me N53 i   2 [ ] eš3 uri2ki ḫ[ul- ] N54 i   1 [ ] ⸢gig-ga⸣-b[i ] U5 47 dnin-gal-e na-aĝ2 e2 ḫul-a-na gig-ga-bi im-me P iii 82 egi2-⸢*re⸣ eš3 uri2ki ḫul-a-na gig-[ ] 257 N11 vi   3 [ ]-aĝ2 ḫa-ba-da-an-ku5/[ -ĝ]u10 ⸢ḫu⸣-mu-da-⸢*gul⸣ N52 obv   4 an-⸢e⸣ uru2-⸢ĝu10⸣ n[a]-⸢aĝ2⸣ ḫa-ba-da-ku5 uru2-ĝu10 ḫu-mu-da-gul N53 i   3 [ ] uru2-ĝu10 nam ḫa-ba-da-*k[u5 -*d]a-⸢*gul⸣ N54 i   2 [ ]-⸢ĝu10⸣ ḫu-mu-da-a[n- ] U5 48 an-ne2 uru na-aĝ2 ḫa-ba-de3-ku5 uruki-ĝu10 ḫu-mu-da-gul P iii 83 an-⸢*ne2⸣ uru2-ĝu10 na-aĝ2 ḫa-ba-da-[ ] 258 N11 vi   4 d[x]-⸢ul⸣-lil2-e e2-ĝu10 *aš2? 269 ḫe2-bi2-in-bal/ ĝišal-e ḫa-ba!-ra N52 obv 5–6 ⸢d⸣[ ]-le e2-ĝu10 aš2 ḫe2-bi2-ib-bal/ [ a]l-e ḫa-ba-ra N53 i   4 [x-m]u-ul-lil2-e e2-ĝu10 a[š2 *ḫ]e2-*b[i2- -*b]al ĝiša[l] ḫa-*ba-ra N54 i   3 [ -b]i2-in-bal ĝišal-e ḫa-⸢ba⸣-r[a] U5 49 den-lil2-le e2-ĝu10 aš2 270 ḫe2-bi2-ib2-bal-e ĝišal ḫa-ba-IŠ 271-ra P iv  1 dmu-ul-lil2-⸢le⸣ e2-*ĝu10 ⸢*aš2 *ḫe2⸣-*bi2-in-bal ĝišal-[ ]

269.  Collation is not certain since the sign is currently covered with glue. 270.  Unlike in the copy, the signs aš2 and šu on the tablet are not identical; Cf. the ŠU sign in l. 280 below, in which the lower horizontal wedge is longer than the other horizontals. 271.  Sign overwritten.

Score 259 N11 vi   5 sig-⸢*še3 di-ĝa2⸣ izi ḫa-ba-ni-in-šub/ a uru2-ĝu10 ḫu-mu-da-gul N52 (omits line) N53 i   5 [ ] di-ĝa2 izi ḫa-ba-ni-⸢in⸣-šub a uru2-*ĝ[u10 ḫ]u-mu-da-an-gul N54 i   4 [ ]-⸢ĝu10 ḫu⸣-mu-da-an-gul U5 50 sig-ta DU-ĝa2 izi ba-ni-šub uru2ki-ĝu10 ḫu-mu-da-gul P iv  2 *sig-ta *di-ĝa2! izi ḫa-*ba-⸢*ni⸣-*šub ⸢*a⸣ *uru2-ĝu10 ḫu-⸢ *mu⸣-*d[a- ] 260 N11 vi   6 dmu-ul-lil2-e i-bi2 nim-ta di-ĝa2/ u3-bu-⸢bu-ul? ḫa⸣ 272-[b]a-ni-in-si3 N52 (omits line) N53 i   6 [ ]-ul-lil2-e i-bi2 nim-ta di-ĝa2 ⸢u3⸣-[*b]u-bu-ul ḫa-ba-ni-šub N54 i   5 [ -m]a u3-bu-bu-ul ḫa-ba-šub N55 i   1 [ -t]a d[i- ]/ [ ]-ni-in-*š[ub] U5 51 ⸢d⸣en-lil2-le igi nim-⸢ma⸣-ni u3-bu-bu-ul ḫa-ba-ni-tag P iv  3 dmu-ul-lil2-le i-bi2 *nim-ta di-ĝa2 ⸢*u3⸣-bu-bu-ul/ ḫa-ba-ni-in-šub 261 N11 vi   7 uru2 bar-ra uru2 bar *ḫ[u- ] ⸢a⸣ uru2-ĝu10 ga-an-du11 N52 obv   7 [ ] bar mu-da-an-gul a uru2-ĝu10 ga-am3-du11 N53 i   7 [ -r]a ⸢uru2 *bar *ḫu⸣-mu-da-an-gul a uru2-[ĝ]u10 ga-am3-⸢du11⸣ N54 i   6 [ ur]u2-ĝu10 ga-am3-du11 N55 i   2 [ ]-gul a uru2-ĝu10 ga-a-du11 U5 52 [ ] bar-ra uru bar ḫu-mu-da-gul a uru-ĝu10 ga-am3-du11 P iv  4 uru2 bar-ra uru2 bar ḫu-mu-da-an-gul 273 a uru2-ĝu10 ga-am3-du11 262 N11 vi   8 uru2 ša3-ba uru2 ša3-ab ḫ[u- 274 ] a e2-ĝu10 ga-an-du11 N52 obv   8 [ ] uru2 ša3 ⸢ḫu⸣-mu-da-an-⸢gul a e2⸣-ĝu10 ga-am3-du11 N53 i   8 [ ] ša3-ba ḫu-mu-da-an-gul a e2-[ĝ]u10 ga-am3-du11 N54 i   7 [ ur]u2-ĝu10 ga-am3-du11 N55 i   3 [ -m]u-*da-gul a e2-ĝu10 ga-a-du11 U5 53 [u]ru2 ša3-ba uru2 ša3-ab ḫu-mu-da-gul a 275 uru-ĝu10 ga-am3-du11 P iv  5 uru2 ša3-ba uru2 ša3-ab ḫu-mu-da-an-gul a e2-ĝu10 ga-am3-du11 263 N11 vi   9 e2 uru2 bar-ra-ĝu10 ḫa-ma-[ ] ⸢*ga-*an⸣-du11 N52 obv   9 [ ]-⸢ĝa2⸣ ḫa-ba-gul-gul a ⸢uru2⸣-ĝu10 ga-am3-du11 N53 i   9 [ ] ⸢*bar⸣-ra-ĝa2! 276 ḫa-ba-gul-gul a uru2-⸢ĝu10⸣ ga-am3-du11 N54 i   8 [ ]-⸢ĝu10⸣ ga-am3-du11 N55 i   4 [ -g]ul a uru2-ĝu10 ga-am3-du11 U5 54 e2 uru2 bar-ra-ĝu10 ba-gul-gul-e a uru2-ĝu10 ga-am3-du11 P iv  6 e2 uru2 bar-ra-ĝu10 ḫa-ba-gul-gul a uru2-ĝu10 ga-am3-du11 264 N11 vi 10 e2 uru2 ša3-ba-ĝu10 ḫa-ma-⸢gul-gul⸣ a ⸢e2⸣-[ ]-an-du11 277 N52 obv 10 [ ] *š[a3]-ba ⸢*ḫa ⸣-*ba-gul-gul a e2-ĝu10 ga-am3-d[u11] N53 i 10 [ ] ša3-*ba-ĝa2 ḫa-ba-gul-gul a e2-ĝu10 ga-am3-du11 N54 i   9 [ -ĝ]u10 ⸢ga-am3⸣-du11 N55 i   5 [ ]-ba-gul-gul/ [ g]a-am3-du11 U5 55 [ ur]u2 ša3-ba-ĝu10 ba-gul-gul-e a uru2-ĝu10 ga-am3-du11 P iv  7 e2 uru2 ša3-ba-ĝu10 ḫa-ba-gul-gul a e2-ĝu10 ga-am3-du11 272.  Transliteration of the signs i-bi2 and -ul? ḫa- follow copy; on the original they are presently broken. 273.  -gul is followed by an erasure. 274.  h[u-] is currently broken. Its transliteration follows copy. 275.  The A is preceeded by an additional erased A. 276.  Original has ĜA2×BAD (for ĝa2). 277.  Transliteration of the signs ⸢gul⸣ a ⸢e2⸣-[ ]-an-du11 follows copy; on the original they are currently broken.

199

200

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

265 N11 vi 11 uru2-ĝu10 u8 zi-gin7    ba-ra-⸢ma⸣-lu s[ipa ]-⸢ra?-ĝen?⸣ 278 N52 obv 11 [x-ĝ]u10 udu ⸢zi⸣-gin7 ba-ra-ma-lu sipa [ ]-*ra-ĝen N53 i 11 [ ] u8 zi-gin7   ba-ra-ma-*lu sipa    zi-bi ba-ra-ĝen N54 i 10 [ ] ⸢ba-ra-me-en⸣ N55 i   6 [ ]-⸢*ma-*lu!⸣ *sipa *zi-bi ba-ĝen U5 56 u[ru2]-ĝu10 ud5 zi-gin7 ba-ra-ma-lu  sipa      zi-bi ba-ra-ĝen P iv  8 uru2-ĝu10 ⸢u8⸣ zi-⸢gin7⸣ ba-ra-al-lu   sipa      zi-bi ba-ra-ĝen 266 N11 vi 12 uri2ki u8 zi-gin7 ba-ra-*ma-lu [ ] ⸢ba-ra-ĝen⸣ N52 obv 12 [u]ri2ki ⸢*ud5⸣ zi-gin7 ba-ra-ma-lu g[a- ]- ⸢ra⸣-ĝen N53 i 12 [ ]ki *ud5 zi-gin7 ba-ra-ma-*lu ⸢*gab2⸣-bar-bi ba-ra-ĝen N54 i 11 [ b]a-⸢ra-me-en⸣ N55 i   9 [ ]-⸢ra?⸣-[ ]/ [ ]-ba-[ -ĝe]n U5 57 uri5ki ud5 zi-gin7 ba-ra-ma-lu gab2-bar-bi ba-ra-ĝen P iv  9 uri2ki *u8 ⸢zi⸣-gin7 ba-ra-al-⸢lu⸣ ga-ba-ra-⸢bi⸣ ba-ra-ĝen 267 N11 vi 13 gu4-ĝu10 tur3-bi-a ba-ra-mu-un-⸢gub⸣ *m[u- ]-*bi ba-ra-ĝen N52 obv 13–14 [g]u4-ĝu10 ⸢tur3⸣-bi-a ba-ra-mu-u[n- ]/ mu-*nu10-bi ba-ra-[x] N53 i 13 [ ] *tur3-bi-a ⸢ba-ra⸣-mu-un-*gub mu-nu10-bi ba-ra-ĝen N54 i 12 [ -r]a-me-en N55 i   8 [ ]-un-⸢*gub⸣ m[u- ] ba-ĝen U5 58 gu4-ĝu10 tur3-bi-a ba-ra-an-gub mu-⸢nu10⸣-bi ba-ra-ĝen P iv 10 ⸢gu4⸣-*ĝu10 tur3-*bi-a\ ba-ra-an-⸢gub⸣ mu-⸢nu12⸣-bi ba-ra-ĝen 268 N11 vi 14 e-ze2-ĝu10 *amaš-*bi-a ba-ra-mu-un-šub/ na-gada-bi *ba-ra-[ĝ]en N52 obv 15 e-ze2-ĝu10 amaš-bi-a la-ba-ra-šub ⸢x⸣ [n]a-gada-bi ba-ra-ĝen N53 i 14 [ -ĝ]u10 amaš-bi-⸢a⸣ la-ba-ra-*dur2-*ru-un na-*gada-bi ba-ra-ĝen N54 i 13 [ b]a-ra-me-en N55 i   7 [ ]-ra-ma-*lu *na-*gada-*bi ⸢*ba⸣-ĝen U5 59 e-ze2-⸢ĝu10 amaš-bi-a ba-ra-an⸣-dur2-ru-u[n ]-bi ba-ra-ĝen P iv 11 ⸢e⸣-*ze2-⸢*ĝu10⸣ amaš-bi-a ba-[ ]-⸢dur2⸣-ru-⸢un?!⸣ *na-gada! -bi ba-ra-ĝen 269 N11 vi 15 *i7 uru2-ĝa2-ke4 saḫar ḫa-ba-niĝin *e2 [ ] ḫa-ba-an-du3 N46 iv   1 ⸢i7⸣ [ ]/ [ ] N52 obv 16 i7 uru2-*ĝa2-kam *saḫar ḫa-ba-niĝin e2 ka5-⸢a ḫa⸣-ba-an-du3 N53 i 15 [ ]-ĝa2-ka-ka saḫar ḫa-ba-niĝin e2 ka5-⸢a ḫa-ba-an⸣-du3 N54 i 14 [ -a]n-du3 * N55 i 10 [ saḫa]r ḫa-ba-niĝ[in ]-*ab-du3! 279 U5 60 i7 uru2⸢ki⸣-ke4 saḫar ḫa-ba-ab-niĝin ⸢e2⸣ [ ]-⸢a? ḫa⸣-ba-ab-tum3 P iv 12 i7 ⸢uru2⸣-*ĝa2-ke4 ⸢*saḫar⸣ *ḫ[a- ] ⸢*e2⸣ *ka5-*a ḫa-ba-an-DU 270 N11 vi 16 ša3-ba a zal-le ba-ra-mu-un-⸢tum2⸣/ mu-un-ku5-bi ba-ra-⸢ĝen?⸣ N46 iv   2 ša3-ba a z[al- ]/ mu-u[n- ] N52 obv 17 ša3-ba a zal-le ba-ra-mu-un-tum2 mu-un-ku5-bi ba-ra-ĝen N53 i 16 [ ] zal-le ba-*ra-mu-un-tum2 mu-un-ku5-b[i ] N54 i 15 [ ]-⸢me-en⸣ N55 i 11 [ -r]a-mu-un-tum3 *m[u- ]-⸢*ku5⸣-bi *ba-ĝen U5 61 ša3-ba a! zal-le ba-ra-mu-un-tum2 ⸢mu⸣-[ ]-⸢ra-ĝen⸣ P iv 13 ša3-ba a ⸢*zal⸣-le ba-[ ]-un-ku5-bi ba-ra-ĝen 278.  Transliteration of the signs lu s[ipa] and ⸢ra?-ĝen?⸣ follows copy; on the original they are currently broken. 279.  Original has NI.

Score

201

271 N11 vi 17 gana2 uru2-ĝa2-ke4 *še ba-ra-ma-al mu-un-g[ar3]-bi ba-ra-ĝen N46 iv   3 gana2 ⸢uru2-ĝa2⸣-[ ]/ mu-u[n- ] N52 obv 18 ⸢gana2⸣ uru2-ĝa2-ke4 še ba-ra-ĝal2 mu-un-gar3-bi ba-⸢*ra⸣-[ĝ]en N53 i 17 [ ]-ĝa2-ka še ba-ra-ĝal2 mu-un-gar3-bi *b[a- ] N55 i 12 [ ]-*ma-al mu-un!-⟨gar3⟩-bi ba-ra-ĝen N56   1 [ ]-ra-ĝal2 mu-⸢un-gar3⸣-[ ] U5 62 gana2 uru2-ĝa2-ke4 še ba-ra-mu-un-ĝal2 mu-gar3-⸢bi ba⸣-[r]a-ĝen P iv 14 gana2 uru2-ĝa2-ke4 še ba-⸢ra⸣-[ m]u-un-⸢*gar3⸣-bi ba-ra-ĝen 272 N11 vi 18 gana2-ĝu10 gana2 ĝišal-e ri-a-gin7/ mul-gana2-pel2 ḫa-ba-mu2 N46 iv   4 gana2-ĝu10 gana2 ĝiša[l- ]/ mul-gana2-p[e- ] N52 obv 19 gana2-ĝu10 gana2 ĝišal-e ri-gin7 mul-gana2-pe-el ḫe2-b[i2?- ] N53 i 18 [ ] gana2 gišal-e ri-a-⸢*gin7⸣ *mul-gana2-pe-el *ḫ[e2- ] N55 i 13 [ ]-⸢e⸣ ri-a-gin7 mul-⸢gana2⸣ pel2 ḫa-ba-mu2 N56   2 [ ]-⸢e⸣ ri-a-gin7 mul-gana2-pe-e[l ] U5 63 gana2-ĝu10 gana2 ĝišal ri-a-gin7 mul-gana2 mulsar ḫa-ba-[(x)]-mu2 K1   1 [ ] ⸢mul⸣-[ ] P iv 15 gana2-ĝu10 gana2 ĝiš*al-e ri-*a-⸢gin7⸣ mul-gana2-pel2 ḫa-ba-an-mu2 273 N11 vi 19 pu2-ĝiškiri6 lal3 ĝeštin diri-ĝu10 ⸢*ĝiškiši17 kur-*ra⸣ [ ] N46 iv 5 280 *pu2-ĝiškiri6 ⸢*lal3⸣ ĝeš[tin ]/ ĝiškiši17 kur-r[a ] N52 obv 20 pu2-ĝiškiri6 l[al3] ⸢*ĝestin diri⸣-ĝu10 ĝiškiši16 kur-r[a ] N53 i 19 ⸢pu2-ĝiš⸣kiri6 lal3 ĝišĝeštin *diri-ĝu10 ĝiš⸢kiši16⸣ kur-ra ḫ[e2- ] N55 i 14 [ ĝesti]n diri-ĝu10 *ĝiškiši17 kur-ra *ḫa-ba-mu2 N56   3 [ ] diri-ĝu10 ĝiškiši16 kur ḫe2-[ ] ĝiš U5 64 pu2- kiri6 lal3 ĝeštin du8-a-ba ĝiškiši17 kur-ra ḫa-ba-mu2 K1  2 [ ] ⸢ĝestin diri-ĝu10 ĝiškiši17⸣ kur-ra [ ] * *ĝiš* P iv 16 pu2- kiri6 lal3 *ĝestin *diri-ĝu10 ĝiškiši17 kur-ra ḫa-ba-an-mu2 274 N11 vi 20 ⸢eden⸣ giri17-zal-bi du3-a-ĝu10 ⸢gir4⸣-gin7 [ ] N46 iv   6 eden giri17-zal i3-du3-a-ĝ[u10 ] N52 obv 21 eden ⸢giri17⸣-[ ] ⸢*du3⸣-a-ĝu10 gir4-⸢gin7⸣ ḫa-ba-[ ] N53 i 20 eden giri17-zal-bi i3-du3-a-ĝu10 gir4 281 ḫa-b[a- ] N55 i 15 [ -b]i i3-du3-a-ĝu10 *gir4-⸢*gin7⸣ *ḫa-ba-ḪAR.ḪAR N56   4 [ -d]u3-a-ĝu10 gir4-gin7 ḫa-ba-ḪAR.ḪAR U5 65 eden giri17-zal-bi diri-ba gir4-gin7 ba-ḪAR.ḪAR K1   3 [ ]-ba i3-du3-a-ĝu10 gir4 282-gin7 ḫa-b[a- ] P iv 17 ⸢*eden⸣ giri17-zal-bi ⸢i3⸣-du3-a-ĝu10 *gir4-⸢gin7⸣ ḫa-ba-ḪAR.ḪAR

280.  Note that in the copy the indented part of this line is erroneously drawn as a separate line. 281.  As noted by Wilcke, between the signs KA and ḪA there is an erroneously glued chip-fragment, covering the place where traces of GIN7 are expected. 282.  Below and to the left of gir4 there is a phonetic gloss, reading: ⸢gi⸣-ir.

202

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

275 N11 vi 21 mu-⸢*un⸣-gur11-ĝu10 buru4mušen-*dugud zi-ga-[x] / ⸢dal-dal⸣-da ḫa-ba-ab-⸢ir⸣ mu-un-⸢gur11? 283⸣-ĝu10 ga-an-[x] N19 vi 21 [ ]/ ⸢*dal-*dal⸣-[ ] N46 iv 7–8  ⸢mu⸣-gur11-ĝu10 buru4mušen-[ ]/ [d]al-dal-e-bi ḫa-ba-[ ]/ [*m]u-un-gur11-ĝu10 ga-am3-[ ] N53 i 21 mu-un-gur11-ĝu10 *buru4-dugud zi-ga-gin7 dal-⸢*dal⸣-*b[i]  284/ mu-un-gur11-ĝu10 ga-[    ] N55 i 16 [ -ĝ]u10 buru4mušen! 285-dugud zi-ga-gin7/ [ ]-⸢de3⸣ ḫa-ba-*ab-*ir mu-un-⸢*gur11!⸣-*ĝ[u10] ⸢ga-!am3!⸣-du11 N56      5–6 [ bur]u4mušen-dugud zi-ga-gin7 dal-dal-bi ḫa-[ ] / [ g]a-am3-du11 U5 66 mu-un-gur11-ĝu10 buru4mušen-dugud zi-ga-gin dal-dal-bi ḫa-ba-ab-[ ]/ mu-un-gur11-ĝu10 ga-am3-du11 K1   4 [ -gu]r11-ĝu10       buru4mušen-dugud zi-ga-gin7 dal-dal-⸢bi ḫa⸣-b[a- ]/ mu-un-gur11-ĝu10 ga-am3-d[u11] P iv 18 ⸢mu-un⸣-gur11-ĝu10 ⸢buru4⸣-dugud*mušen zi-ga-gin7 dal-dal-bi ḫa-ba-ni-zi/ lu2 mu-un-gur11-ĝu10 ga-am3-du11 276 N11 vi 22 mu-un-gur11-⸢ĝu10⸣ [x]-še3 *di-ĝa2 sig-š[e3  ḫ]a-ba-ab-ir/ mu-un-gur11-ĝu10 ⸢ga⸣-an-du11 N19 vi 22 mu-un-gar3-ĝu10 ⸢*sig-ta⸣ [x]-⸢*ĝa2*sig-*še3⸣ [ ]/ mu-un-gar3-ĝu10      ga-am3-du11 N46 iv 9–10  [ -u]n-gur11-ĝu10 sig-ta  d[i- ]/ [ ]-*še3   ḫa-ba-ab-[ ]/ [ -u]n-gur11-ĝu10 ga-[ ] N53 i 22 mu-un-gur11-ĝu10 sig-ta   di-ĝa2 sig-še3 ḫ[a- ]/ mu-un-gur11-ĝu10 ⸢ga⸣-[x]-⸢du11⸣ N55 i 17 [ ]-*ta ⸢*di-ĝa *sig-*še3 *ḫa-*ba⸣-*a[b- ]/ [ ] ga-*a[m3]-du11 N56    7–8 [      -t]a di-ĝa2 sig-še3 ḫa-ba-bi-ir 286/ [ ] ga-am3-du11 U5 67 mu-un-gur-ĝu10 sig-ta  di-ĝa2 sig-še3 ḫa-ba-ab-⸢de6⸣ mu-un-gur11-ĝu10   ga-am3-du11 K1  5 [x-u]n-gur11-ĝu10 sig-ta 287 di-ĝa2 sig-še3 ḫa-ba-an-ir mu-un-gu[r11- ] P iv 19 mu-*un-*gur11-ĝu10 sig-*ta ĝen-ne2  *sig-še ḫa-ba-an-de6 lu2 mu-un-gur11-ĝu10   ga-am3-du11 277 N11 vi 23 mu-un-gur11-[   ] ⸢i⸣-*b[i2-*ni]m-še3 di-ĝa2 i-bi2 nim-še3 ḫa-[ ]/ mu-un-gur11-ĝu10 ga-an-du11 N19 vi 23 mu-un-gar3-ĝu10 i-bi2 [ni]m-⸢ta⸣ di-ĝa2 i-bi2 nim-*še3/ ḫa-ba-ab-ir [m]u-un-gar3-ĝu10 ga-am3-du11 N46 iv 11 [     ]-gur11-ĝu10 ⸢i⸣-[ ] N53 i 23 mu-un-gur11-ĝu10 i-bi2 nim-ta ⸢di⸣-ĝa2 i-bi2 nim-še3 ḫa-ba-ab-ir! /mu-un-gur11-ĝu10 ga-am3-du11 N55 i 18 [ -n]im 288-ta i-bi2 nim-še3/ [ ]-gur11-ĝu10 ga-*am3-du11 N56   9–10 [ -b]i2-nim-ta di i-bi2 sig-še3 ⸢ḫa-ba-bi⸣-[ ]/ [ ] ⸢ga⸣-am3-[ ] U5 68 mu-un-gur11-ĝu10 igi nim-ta   di-ĝa2 igi nim-še3 ḫa-ba-[a]b-de6 mu-un-gur11-ĝu10  ga-am3-du11 K1  6 ⸢mu⸣-un-gur11-ĝu10 i-bi2 nim-ta 289 di-ĝa2 i-bi2 nim-še3 ⸢ḫa⸣-[ ]/ mu-un-gur11-ĝu10 ga-am3-[ ] P iv 20 mu-⸢un⸣-gur11-ĝu10 igi *nim-ta ĝen-ne2 igi *nim-*še3 ḫa-ba-⸢*an-*de6⸣ lu2 mu-un-gur11-ĝu10 ga-am3-du11 278 N11 vi 24 *ku3 na4za-gin3-ĝu10 ḫu-mu-da-bir-[ ]/ mu-un-gur11-ĝu10 ga-an-du11 N19 vi 24 ⸢ku3⸣ 290 na4za-gin3-ĝu10 ḫu-mu-da-an-bir-bir-re/ mu-un-gar3-ĝu10    ga-am3-du11 N53 i 24 ⸢ku3⸣ na4za-gin3-ĝu10   *ḫu-[x]-da-⸢bir-bir-re⸣ mu-un-gur11-ĝu10 ga-am3-du11 * N55 i 19 [ ]-⸢mu⸣-da-an-bir-bir-re/ [ g]a-⸢*am3-du11⸣ N56 11 [ ]-bir-re mu-un-gur11-ĝ[u10 ] U5 69 ku3 na4za-gin3-ĝu10 291 ba-e-bir-bir-re mu-⸢un⸣-gur11-ĝu10 ga-am3-du11 K1  7 ku3 na4!za-gin3-ĝu10 ḫu-mu-da-bir-bir-re mu-un-gur11-ĝ[u10 ] P iv 21 ku3 *za-*gin3-*ĝu10 *ḫu-mu-da-an-bir-bir lu2 mu-un-gur11-ĝu10 ga-am3-du11

283.  Sign currently broken; the traces on the copy might have been miscopied. 284.  An erroneously glued chip-fragment covers the upper part of the broken signs -dal-bi (cf. note to previous line). 285.  Original has RI. 286.  Traces indicate that the IR was initially erroneously inscribed in a wrong location (i.e., not at the very end of the line), then erased and inscribed again at the right place. 287.  Below the signs sig-ta there is a gloss reading ab-bi. 288.  An additional unidetified sign appears between NIM and TA. An overwriting may be involved. 289.  Below the signs nim-ta there is an interpretive Akkadian gloss: e-li-mu (for this equation cf. CAD E 111b). 290. ku3 is not followed by ZA (contra copy). 291. -ĝu10 is followed by a TA sign, probably erroneously copied from the previous line.

Score

203

279 N11 vi 25 gi16-sa-ĝu10 *sug-ge4 ḫu-mu-da-ab-gu7! 292/ mu-un-gur11-ĝu10 ga-an-*d[u11] N19 vi 25 gi16-sa-ĝu10 sug-ge4 ḫ[u-m]u-da-ab-gu7/ mu-un-gar3-ĝu10 ga-am3-du11 N53 i 25 ⸢gi16⸣-*s[a]-⸢ĝu10⸣ *s[ug-x *ḫ]u-⸢*mu⸣-da-ab-⸢gu7⸣ mu-[x-gu]r11-ĝu10 ga-am3-du11 N55 i 20 [ ]-⸢*da-*ab-gu7⸣/ [ -d]u11 N56 12 [ -m]u-da-ab-[ ]/ [ a]m3-[ ] U5 70 gi16-sa-ĝu10 sug-ge4 ḫu-mu-un-da-gu7 mu-un-gur11-ĝu10 ga-am3-du11 K1  8 gi16-sa-ĝu10 sug-ge4 ḫu-mu-da-ab-gu7 mu-un-gur11-[ ] * P iv 22 gi16-sa-*ĝu10 *sug-*ge ḫu-mu-da-*ab-gu7 lu2 mu-un-⸢gur11⸣-ĝu10 ga-am3-du11 280 N11 vi 26 ku3-ĝu10 lu2 ku3 nu-zu-u3-ne šu-bi *ḫ[a 293- ] N19 vi 26 ku3-ĝu10 mu-lu *ku3 nu-zu-u3-ne šu-⸢bi-a ḫa-ba⸣-da-⸢ab⸣-si N53 i 26 [ ]-⸢ne⸣ šu-bi ḫa-⸢ba-da⸣-ab-si N55 i 21 [ ]-⸢si⸣ N56 13 [ -n]e šu-bi ḫa-ba-a[b- ] U5 71 ku3-ĝu10 lu2 ku3 nu-zu 294-ne2 šu-bi ba-ni-in-si mu-un-gu7 K1  9 ku3-ĝu10 lu2 ku3 nu-zu-ne šu-bi ḫa-ba-da-*a[b-x] P iv 23 ku3-ĝu10 lu2 ku3 nu-zu-ne *šu-bi ḫa-ba-da-ab-si 281 N11 vi 27 za-ĝu10 lu2 za nu-zu-u3-ne g[u2- ] N19 vi 27 za-ĝu10 mu-lu za nu-z[u]-u3-ne gu2-⸢bi⸣ ḫa-ba-da-ab-si N53 i 27 [ ] ⸢*za⸣[ ]-ne gu2-bi ḫa-ba-da-ab-si N55 i 22 295 [ -a]b-⸢si⸣ N56 14 [ -z]u-ne gu2-bi ḫa-ba-da-ab-si U5 72 na4za-gin3-ĝu10 lu2 na4za-gin3 nu-zu-ne gu2-bi ḫa-ma-da-ab-si K1 10 za-ĝu10 lu2 za nu-zu-ne gu2-bi ḫa-ba-da-[ ] * P iv 24 za-ĝu10 lu2 za nu-zu-ne *gu2-bi ḫa-ba-da-ab-si 282 N11 vi 28 buru5mušen-mušen-ĝu10 ḫu-mu-⸢da⸣-d[al- ] N19 vi 28 buru5mušen-mušen-ĝu10 *ḫu-mu-dal-dal/ a uru2-ĝu10 ga-am3-du11 N53 i 28 [ ḫ]u-dal-dal a mu-lu-ĝu10 ga-am3-du11 N55 i 23 [ ]-⸢du11⸣ N56 15 [ ] a mu-lu-ĝu10 ga-am3-du11 K1 11 buru5mušen-ĝu10 ḫu-mu-da-dal-dal a uru2-ĝu10 [ ] P iv 25 ⸢*buru5⸣-[x]-mušen-ĝu10 ḫu-mu-⸢*da⸣-dal-dal a uru2-ĝu10 ga-am3-du11 283 N11 vi 29 gi4-in du5-mu-*ĝu10 [ ]/ a uru-ĝu10 [ ] N19 vi 29 gi4-in du5-mu-ĝu10 ma2-⸢e⸣ ḫa-ba-ab-laḫ5-e-eš/ a uru2-ĝu10 ⸢ga⸣-am3-du11 N52 rev  1 ⸢gi4-in⸣ [ ]/ a mu-lu-ĝu10 296 ⸢ga⸣-a[m3- ] N53 i 29–30  [ ]-e ḫa-ba-ab-laḫ5-e-eš/ ⸢*a⸣ [ -l]u-ĝu10 ga-am3-du11 N55 i 24 [ ]-⸢*ba-ab-laḫ5⸣-e-eš/ [ -a]m3?-du11 297 N56 16 [ ]-⸢e⸣ ḫa-ba-ab-laḫ5-eš a mu-lu-⸢ĝu10⸣ [ ]-du11 K1 12 gi4-in du5-mu-ĝu10 e2-e ⸢ḫa-ba⸣-a[b- ] 298/ a mu-lu-ĝu10 ga-[ ] P iv 26 [ -i]n *du5-*mu-ĝu10 ⸢*saḫar⸣-*e ḫa-ba-ab-laḫ5-e-eš a mu-lu-ĝu10 ga-am3-du11 292.  Copy has DU. In its current state of preservation, it is not possible to determine whether the sign containd GAR. 293.  Traces may point to A as well. 294.  The signs -nu-zu are written over erasure. 295.  This line is erroneously omitted from the copy. 296.  MU is followed by a partly erased sign, perhaps A. 297.  The KA is followed by and additional erroneous KA. 298.  An Akkadian gloss below the signs ĝu10 e2-e ⸢ha⸣ reads: ma-ar a-ma-ti-i-a. Cf. commentary.

204 284 N11 vi 30 N19 vi 30 N52 rev   2 N53 i 31 N55 i 25 N56 17 K1 13 P iv 27

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur me-le-e-a    g[i4- ]/ šu-⸢še⸣-[ ] me-⸢le-e-a gi4⸣-i[n- ]/ šu-še-er k[ur2 ] me-le-e-a    gi4-in-ĝu10 e2 kur2-ra ⸢šu⸣-[ ]/ ḫa-ba-an-[  ] [ ] ⸢*gi4⸣-in-ĝu10 uru2 kur2-ra šu-še-er kur2 ḫa-ba-dab5 [ ] ⸢*uru2⸣ *kur2-ra/ [ -b]a-an-dab5 [ ur]u2   kur2-ra-še3 šu-⸢še⸣-[ ] 299 me-le-e-a   gi4-in-ĝu10    uru2 kur2-še3 š[u- ] [ ] ⸢gi4-in-ĝu10⸣ uru2 kur-ra šu-še-er kur2 ḫa-ba-an-dab5

285 N19 vi 31 šul-ĝu10 ⸢eden ki nu-zu?-na?⸣/ tug2-mu-u[n- ḫ]a-ba-ak N52 rev   3 šul-ĝu10 ⸢eden⸣ ki *nu-zu-na tug2 mu-un-dur7 ḫa-ba-an-⸢ak⸣ N53 i 32 [ ] nu-zu-na! 300 tug2 mu-un-dur7 ḫa-ba-⸢an-ak⸣ * N55 i 26 [ tu]g2 mu-un-⟨dur7⟩/ [ ]-ak N56 18 [ ]-un-GI4 [ ] K1 14 šul-ĝu10 eden ki nu-zu-na tug2 mu-gig ḫa-b[a- ] * P iv 28 [ n]u-zu-⸢x 301⸣ *tug2 mu-GI4 ḫa-ba-la2-e-eš nu-me-a me-e ⸢*ga-ša-*an-*bi⸣ nu-ĝen 286 302 N11 vii   6 me-le-e-a uru2-ĝu10 N53 ii   2 me-le-e-a uru2-ĝu10 *nu-*me-⸢a ⸣ [ ] N55 ii   6 [ ] ⸢*a⸣ uru2-ĝa2 nu-me-a me-a ⸢ga⸣-ša-an-⸢*bi!⸣ *nu-ĝen N57 obv   5 me-le-⸢e⸣-a ⸢uru2⸣-ĝu10 ⸢nu⸣-me-a me-e ga-ša-an-bi nu-ĝen N58 obv   5 [ ]-⸢a⸣ me-e ga-ša-an-bi nu-ĝen P iv 29 [ u]ru2 nu-me-a me-e ga-ša-an-bi nu-ĝen 287 303 N11 vii   7 dnanna eš3 uri2ki nu-me-a/ me-e mu-lu-bi nu-ĝen N53 ii   3 dnanna ⸢eš3⸣ uri2ki-ĝa2 *nu-*me-⸢*a⸣ [ ] N55 ii   7 d[ ] uri5ki nu-me-a me-a mu-lu-⸢bi⸣ nu-ĝen N57 obv   6 dnan[na] eš3 ⸢uri2⸣ki nu-me-a me mu-lu-bi nu-ĝen N58 obv   6 [ ]-me-a me mu-lu-bi nu-ĝen P iv 30 [ ] uri2[k]i nu-me-a me-e lu2-bi nu-ĝen 288 N19 vi 32 N52 rev   4 N53 i 33 N55 i 27 N56 19 K1 15 P iv 31

ar2-mur-ra e2-ĝu10 ḫa-[ ]-⸢a⸣ uru2-ĝu10 ḫa-ba-gul-g[ul (x)] ar2-mur-ra e2-ĝu10 ḫa-ba-du3-a uru2-ĝu10 ḫa-ba-gul-la [ ḫ]a-ba-du3-a uru-ĝu10 ḫa-ba-⸢gul-la⸣ [ m]u-⸢un? 304-gul-gul?!⸣ [ ur]u2-⸢ĝu10 ḫa⸣-[ ] [x]-⸢mur-ra e2-ĝu10 ḫa-ba-du3-a uru2-ĝu10⸣ [ ] [ ] ⸢ḫa⸣-ba-[ ] uru2-ĝu10 ḫa-ba-gul-la

289 N19 vi 35 N52 rev   5 N53 i 34 N55 i 28 K1 16 P iv 32

nu-nus zi-ĝen e2-ĝ[u10-t]a uru2 kur2 ḫa-ba-ra-du3-du3 ⸢A⸣ nu-nus zi-*ĝen uru2-ĝu10-ta uru2 kur2 ḫa-ba-ra-du3-du3-*a[m3] [ ] ⸢ḫa⸣-ba-ra-du3-du3-am3 [ ] uru ⸢*kur2⸣/ [ d]u3-⸢a?⸣ 305 ⸢nu⸣-nus zi 306-ĝen e2-ĝu10-ta ⸢e2 kur2 ba-ra⸣-[ ] [ ] ⸢*uru2⸣ kur2 ḫa-ba-⸢ra⸣-du3-du3-a

299.  This line has an indented part, from which only a blank space in the middle part has been preserved. This indented part probably included a typical exclamation, such as, e.g.: a mu-lu-ĝu10 ga-am3-du11. 300.  NA is overwritten. 301.  Sign unclear. Perhaps it is KI. 302.  All manuscripts except for P have this line later, in place of l. 302. Cf. score of this line below. 303.  All manuscripts except for P have this line later, in place of l. 303. Cf. score of this line below. 304.  ⸢DA⸣ can not be excluded. 305.  The indented part of this line is erroneously omitted in Barton’s copy. 306.  A small one-sign gloss is written under ZI (perhaps EŠ2?).

Score 290 N19 vi 34 N52 rev   6 N53 i 35 N55 K1 17 P iv 33

⸢ar2⸣-mur-ra uru2-ĝu10 ḫ[a- -d]u3-a e2-ĝu10    ḫa-ba-gul-⸢gul⸣ ar2-mur-ra uru2-ĝu10 ḫa-ba-du3-a e2-ĝu10    ḫa-ba-gul-la [ b]a-⸢gul⸣-gul-la (probably omits line) [x-mu]r-ra uru2-ĝu10 ḫa-ba-du3-a ⸢e2-ĝu10 ḫa⸣-b[a- ] [ ]-mur-[ ] uru2-ĝu10 ḫa-ba-gul-la

291 N19 vi 33 dga-ša-an-gal-ĝen uru2-ĝu10-[x-t]a e2 kur2 ḫa-ba-ra-du3-du3 A [(x)] N52 rev   7 ga-ša-an-gal-ĝen uru2-ĝu10-ta e2 kur2 ḫa-ba-ra-an-du3-du3-am3 N53 i 36 [ ]-⸢*an⸣-[ ] N55 (probably omits line) K1 18 [ -a]n-gal-ĝen uru2-ĝu10-ta e2 kur2 ⸢ba-ra⸣-ba-[ ] P iv 34 ga-ša-an-gal-*ĝ[en ] e2 kur2 ḫa-ba-ra-du3-du3-a 292 N19 vi 36 ⸢me-le-e-a⸣ uru2 mu-da-g[ul]/ ⸢u3 e2⸣ [(x)] mu-da-g[ul] N52 rev   8 me-le-e-a uru2 mu-da-gul u3 e2-ĝu10 mu-da-gul N53 i 37 [ -*ĝ]u10 ⸢*mu⸣-*d[a]-*gul N55 i 29 [ -d]a-*gul/ [ ]-da-*gul K1 19 [ ]-⸢e⸣-a uru2 307 ba-an-da-gul u3 ⸢e2⸣ ba-a[n- ] P iv 35 me-le-e-a *u[ru2 ]-⸢gul⸣ u3 e2 mu-da-gul 293 N19 vi 37 [ ]ki mu-da-gul/ [ -d]a-suḫ3-s[uḫ3?] N52 rev   9 dnanna eš3 uri2ki mu-da-gul mu-lu-bi ba-*tu11-be2-eš N53 i 38 [ ]-⸢bi⸣ ba-⸢tu11⸣-*be2-eš N55 i 30 [ m]u-da-*gul/ [ ]-ri K1 20 [ -d]a-⸢gul⸣ mu-lu-bi b[a- ] P iv 36 dnanna eš3 [ *m]u-da-an-gul mu-lu-bi ba-⸢an? *tu11-be2⸣-[(x)] 294 N19 vi N52 rev N53 i N55 i P iv

38 10 39 31 37

[ ]-⸢de3? me?-a?⸣ g[ub?- ] * ⸢me⸣-le-e-a me-a tuš-u3-*de3 me-a gub-bu-de3 * [ gu]b-bu-⸢de3⸣ [ ]-⸢u3⸣-de3/ [ ]-de3 ⸢me-le⸣-e-a [ -*d]e3-en me-a gub-bu-de3-en

295 N19 vii   1 N52 rev 11 N53 i 40 N55 i 32 P iv 38

me-le-e-⟨a⟩ uru2-ĝu10-ta e2 kur2 ma-ra-an-du3-u3-ne ⸢*me-le⸣-e-a uru2-ĝu10-ta e2 kur2 ma-ra-an-du3-u3-ne [ ] ma-ra-du3-u3-ne [ ]-⸢u3-*ne⸣ ⸢me-le⸣-e-a uru2-ĝu10-[ ur]u2-kur2 ma-ra-du3-u3-⸢ne⸣

296 N19 vii   2 N52 rev 12 N53 i 41 N55 i 33 P iv 39

nu-nus-zi-ĝen e2-ĝu10-ta/ uru2 kur2 ma-ra-an-ĝa2-ĝa2-ne d ga-ša-⟨an⟩-gal-ĝen e2-ĝu10-ta uru2 kur2 ma-ra-ĝa2-ĝa2-ne * [ ur]u2 *kur2 ma-ra-ĝa2-ĝa2-ne [ ]-*ĝa2-*ne ⸢ga⸣-ša-an-gal-ĝen e2-[ ] ⸢uru2? 308 kur2⸣ ba-ra-ma-ma-⸢ne⸣

297 N11 vii   1 N19 vii   3 N52 rev 13 N53 i 42 N55 ii   1 P iv 40

[ ]/ [ ]-du11 ki-bi-ta eden-ta ⸢bad⸣-[r]a2-a-bi/ a mu-lu-⸢ĝu10 ga-am3-du11⸣ [k]i-bi-ta eden-ta bad-ra2-bi a 309 mu-lu-ĝu10 ga-am3-du11 [ ]-⸢ta⸣ bad-ra2-a-bi/ [ m]u-lu-ĝu10 ga-am3-du11 ki-bi-ta eden-ta bad-ra2-a-ni a mu-lu ga-am3-du11 ⸢ki-bi-ta eden⸣-[t]a bad-ra2-bi a uru2-ĝu10 ga-am3-du11

307.  An erroneous extra ⸢URU⸣ appears before the URU2. 308. ⸢E2⸣ is also possible. 309.  The A seems to be preceeded by another, partly erased, A.

205

206

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

298 N11 vii   2 [ ]-⸢ta⸣ *bad-ra2-bi/ [ ]-ĝu10 ga-an-du11 N19 vii   4 ⸢uru2-ĝu10 uri2⸣ki-ta bad-ra2-a-bi/ ⸢a⸣ e2-ĝu10 ga-am3-du11 N52 rev 14 u[ru2]-ĝu10 uri2ki-ta bad-ra2-a-bi a uru2-ĝu10 ga-am3-du11 N53 i 43 [ ]ki-ta bad-ra2-a-bi/ [m]u-lu-ĝu10 ga-am3-du11 N55 ii   2 [u]ru2-ĝu10 uri5ki-ta bad-ra2-a-ni/ ⸢a⸣ e2-ĝu10 ⸢ga-am3⸣-du11 N57 obv   1 [ur]u2-ĝu10 ur[i2]-ta bad-⸢ra2-a⸣-bi a ⸢uru-ĝu10⸣ [x-a]m3-du11 N58 obv   1 [ ba]d-ra2-a-bi a uru2-ĝu10 ga-⟨am3⟩-du11 310 P iv 41 [ -*t]a *bad-ra2-bi a e2-ĝu10 ga-am3-⸢du11⸣ 299 N11 vii   3 N19 vii   5 N55 ii   3 N57 obv   2 N58 obv   2 P iv 42

[ ]-ni u2numun2-bur2-gin7/ ⸢šu⸣ mu-ni-in-dub2-dub2 ⸢lu2⸣ nu-nuz-e siki-⸢ni⸣ u2⸢numun2-bur2⸣-g[in7]/ ⸢šu⸣m[u- ] [ n]u-nuz-e siki-[ ]-⸢bur2?-gin7?⸣/ [š]u ⸢mu⸣-n[i- ]-dub2 ⸢lu2⸣ [ ] ⸢siki-ni⸣ u2numun2-bur-gin7 šu mu-ni-d[ub2]-⸢dub2⸣ [ ]-gin7 šu mu-ni-dub2-dub2 [ ] ⸢*u2numun2-*bur-*gin7⸣ šu mu-ni-⸢dub2-dub2⸣

300 N11 vii   4 N19 vii   6 N55 ii   4 N57 obv   3 N58 obv   3 P iv 43

gaba-ni ub3 ku3-ga-am3 i3-sag3-ge/ a uru2-ĝu10 311 im-me ⸢gaba?⸣-[ ] [ ] ⸢a⸣ uru2-ĝu10 im-*me gaba-ni ⸢ub3 ku3⸣-ga i3-sag3-ge a uru2-ĝu10 ⸢ga⸣-am3-du11 [ ]-ge a uru2-ĝu10 im-me [ ] ⸢*i3-sag3-*ge⸣ a uru2-ĝu10 im-me

* 301 N11 vii   5 igi-ni er2-ra mi-ni-ib-zi-zi-i-zi/ er2 312 gig in-še8-še8 N53 ii   1 ⸢*i-*bi2⸣-*ni ⸢*er2⸣-*ra *m[i- ] N55 ii   5 [ ]-⸢ib⸣-zi-zi-zi/ ] ⸢*gig⸣ [x]-*še8-*še8 N57 obv   4 igi-ni er2-ra mi-ni-ib-zi-zi-i-zi er2 gig i3-še8-še8 N58 obv   4 [ ]-zi-zi-i-zi er2 gig i3-še8-še8 313 P iv 44 [ ]-*i-*zi-zi er2 gig i3-⸢še8⸣-še8

302 P iv 45 [me-le-e-a uru2-ĝu10-ta] uru2 kur2 ba-ra-⸢*du3-u3-ne⸣ (All other manuscripts ḫave l. 286 here; cf. score ibid) 303 P iv 46 ga-[ša-an-gal-ĝen e2-ĝu10] ⸢x⸣ e2 kur2 ba-ra-⸢*ĝa2-*ĝa2-x⸣ (All other manuscripts have l. 287 here; cf. score ibid) 304 N11 vii   8 me-le-e-a e2tur3 bu-ra-ĝen/ ab2 *sag2 *du11-ga-ĝen N46 v   1 [ -ĝ]a2/ [ ] ⸢*sag2 du11⸣-ga-ĝen N53 ii   4 me-le-e-⸢a⸣ e2tur3 bu-ra-ĝ[en ] N55 ii   8 me-l[e- ]-⸢*a⸣ e2tur3 bu-ra-ĝen ab2 sag2 du11-ga-ĝen e N57 obv   7 me-le-e-a 2tur3-⸢ra-ĝu10⸣ ab2 sag2 du11-ga-ĝu10 N58 obv   7 [ ]-bu-ra-ĝa2/ [ ]-du11-ga-ĝu10 P iv 47 me-l[e- ]-tur3 bu-ra-ĝen ab2 sag2 ḫe2-⸢du11-*ga?-ĝen⸣

310. uru2-ĝu is written on the right edge, and the signs ga-du11 overrun into the reverse. 311.  The signs ub3 ku3-ga and a uru2-ĝu10 are currently broken. Transliteration follows copy. 312.  The signs -ni er2-ra and er2 are currently broken. Transliteration follows copy. 313.  Note that the signs še8-še8 are inscribed on the reverse.

Score

207

305 N11 vii   9 ⸢d⸣ga-*ša-an-gal-ĝen *na-*gada *pe-*el-la-gin7/ ĝištukul ganam4-ma bi2-⸢šub⸣ N46 v   2 [ -š]a-an-gal-ĝen na-gada pe-el-la2-gin7/ *[ĝi]štukul ganam4-ma bi2-in-šub N53 ii   5 ga-ša-an-ga[l]-ĝen na-gada pe-el-[ ] N55 ii   9 d*g[a- ]-*gal!-*ĝen na-gada pe-el-⸢*la2⸣-ĝen/ [ ]-ĝanam4-*ma bi2-šub N57 obv   8 ga-ša-an-gal-ĝen na-gada pe-el-la2-gin7 ĝištukul ganam4-ma bi2-in-šub N58 obv   8 [ -e]l-la2-gin7 ĝištukul ganam4-ma bi2-in-šub P iv 48 [ ] 314-ĝen na-gada [ -*e]l-la2-gin7 ĝiš!tukul ganam4-ma bi2-šub 306 N11 vii 10 me-le-e-a uru2-ta e3-a-ĝen ⸢*ni2⸣ nu-*dub2-bu-ĝen N46 v   3 [ -l]e-e-a uru2-ta e3-ĝen/ [ ] nu-dub2-bu-de3 N53 ii   6 me-le-e-⸢*a⸣[ -*t]a ⸢e3-ĝen⸣[ ] N54 ii   1 me-[ ] N55 ii 10 me-l[e-x]-⸢a⸣ uru2-ta e3-a-ĝen ni2 nu-dub2-bu-de3 N57 obv   9 me-le-e-a uru2-ta e3-ĝen ni2 nu-dub2-bu-de3 N58 obv   9 [ ]-⸢ĝen ni2 nu-dub2⸣-b[u- ] P iv 49 me-*l[e- ] uru2-ta e3-a-ĝen ni2 nu-dub2-bu-ĝen 307 N11 vii 11 N46 v   4 N53 ii   7 N54 ii   2 N55 ii 11 N57 obv 10 N58 obv 10 P iv 50

d ga-ša-an-gal-ĝen e2-ta e3-a-ĝen/ *ki-tuš nu-pa3-de3-ĝen [ ]-⸢*an-*gal⸣-e e2-ta e3-de3/ [ ]-pa3-de3-de3 ⸢ga-ša-an-*gal⸣-[ -t]a e3-ĝen ki-⸢*tuš *nu⸣-[ ] ga-[ ] d g[a- ]-ĝen e2-ta e3-*a-ĝen/ [ ]-*pa3-de3-dam ga-ša-an-ĝen e2-ta e3-ĝen ki-tuš nu-pa3-⸢de3⸣ [ ]-ĝen ki-tuš nu-[ ] ga-[ ]-gal-ĝen ⸢e2⸣-ta e3-a-ĝen ki-tuš nu-pa3-da-ĝen

308 N11 vii 12 i-gi4-zu gir5 uru2 kur2-ra ⸢*saĝ-gin7⸣ tuš-a-ĝen N46 v   5 [ u]ru lu2-lu6-*ka/ [ ]-a-ĝen N53 ii   8 i-g[i4- ] *uru2 lu2-ka saĝ-gin7 tuš-a-*ĝen N54 ii   3 i-g[i4 ] N55 ii 12 i-gi4-[ -i]l2 tuš-a-ni N57 obv 11 i-gi4-in-⸢zu⸣ gir7 uru lu2-ka saĝ-gin7 tuš-a-ĝen N58 obv 11 [ l]u7-ka saĝ-gin7 tuš-a-ĝen P iv 51 ⸢i⸣-gi4-in-zu gir5 uru2 kur2-ra saĝ ⸢il2⸣ tuš-a-ĝen 309 N11 vii 13 e2 ara5-ra aĝ2 gig-ga saĝ a-ba-a m[a-a]b-*us2-e N46 v   6 [ ]-am3/ [ -u]s2-e N53 ii   9 e2 ur5-ra [ gi]g-ga-am3 saĝ a-ba-a ma-ab-us2-e N54 ii   4 e2 a[ra5- ] N55 ii 13 e2 ara5-⸢*ra⸣[ ]-⸢ga-am3⸣/ saĝ a-[ -a]b-⸢us2-e⸣ N57 obv 12 e2 ara5-ra aĝ2 gig-ga-am3 saĝ a-ba ma-ab-us2-e N58 obv 12 [ -a]m3 saĝ a-ba ma-a[b-u]s2-e P iv 52 e2 ara5-ra ⸢aĝ2⸣ gig-ga-a saĝ a-ba-a ma-ab-us2-e

314.  In the copy, this line begins with E2. This is probably an erroneous copy of GA, but since this part is currently broken, it cannot be determined.

208

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

310 N11 vii 14 e2 ur5-ra mu-lu tuš-bi tuš-tuš-a/ ka e-ne-eĝ3 nu-diri! 315-ĝen N46 v   7 [ ]-a/ [ -dir]i N53 ii 10 e2 ur5-ra ⸢*mu⸣-lu tuš-bi tuš-a ⸢ka⸣-[x] ⸢e⸣-ne-eĝ3 nu-si N54 ii   5 ⸢e2⸣[ ] N55 ii 14 e2 ur5-ra mu-[x]-⸢tuš-bi⸣ *tuš-a ka-bi [ ]-si N57 obv 13 e2 ur5-ra mu-lu tuš-⸢bi⸣ [ ] N58 obv 13 [ t]uš-a ka ⸢e!-ne!⸣-eĝ3 nu-diri P iv 53 e2 ur5-ra mu-lu ⸢tuš⸣-bi tuš-a ka ⸢e-ne?-eĝ3⸣ nu-diri-ĝu10 311 N11 vii 15 N19 vii 17 N53 ii 11 N54 ii   6 N55 ii 15 N57 obv 14 N58 obv 14 P iv 54

⸢*ki⸣-ba *nam uru2-na mu-un-na-te/ er2 gig i3-še8-še8 [ ]/ ⸢er2⸣-[ ] * ki-ba *nam uru2-na 316 mu-un-[ *e]r2 gig i3-*še8-še8 ⸢ki⸣-[ ] ki-ba nam uru-⸢*na⸣ mu-na-te er2 *gig [ ]-⸢*še8⸣ ki-ba ⸢nam⸣ [ ] [ ]-⸢un-na⸣-te er2 ⸢gig⸣ i3-še8-še8 ki-ba nam uru2-na mu-na-te er2 gig i3-še8-še8

312 N11 vii 16 ⸢nin⸣-ra nam e2-a-na mu-un-na-te N19 vii 18 nin-ĝu10 nam ⸢uru2-na⸣ [ ]-n[a- ] N53 ii 12 n[in]-⸢ga2⸣ nam e2-na 317 mu-un-na-te er2 gig i3-*še8-š[e8] N54 ii   7 nin-ĝ[a2 ] N55 ii 16 nin-ĝu10 nam ⸢*e2⸣-a-⸢*na mu⸣-na-te N57 obv 15 ni[n- ] N58 obv 15 [ -u]n-⸢na-te⸣ er2 gig ⸢i3-še8⸣-še8 P iv 55 nin-ĝa2 nam e2 ḫul-a-na mu-na-te er2 gig i3-še8-še8 313 N11 vii 18 N19 vii 19 N53 ii 13 N54 ii   8 N55 ii 17 N58 obv 16 P iv 56

nam e2 ḫul-a-na mu-un-na-te/ er2 gig i3-še8-še8 nam e2 ḫul-a-na ⸢mu⸣-na-te nam e2 ḫul-na 318 mu-un-na-te er2 gig i3-*še8-š[e8] nam ⸢e2⸣ [ ] nam e2 ḫul-a-na   mu-⸢*na⸣-te [ ]-⸢te⸣ er2 ⸢gig⸣ i3-še8-še8 nam e2 ḫul-a-na   mu-na-te er2 gig i3-še8-še8

314 N11 vii 17 N19 vii 20 N53 ii 14 N54 ii   9 N55 ii 18 N58 obv 17 N59 i   1 P iv 57

nam uru2 ḫul-a-na mu-un-na-te nam uru2 ḫul-a-na mu-na-te/ er2 gig   i3-še8-še8 nam uru ḫul-a-na 319 mu-un-na-te er2 gig   i3-*še8-š[e8] nam ur[u2 ] nam uru ḫul-⟨a⟩-na mu-na-te e[r2] gig    i3-še8-š[e8] [ g]ig i3-še8-še8 [ ]/ e[r2- ] nam uru2 ḫul-a-na mu-na-te er2-gig i3-še8-še8

315. SI.A! (the A is written over a partly erased sign). 316.  NA (here as well as in ll. 312, 313 and 314 below) is followed by an erasure, perhaps of U3. 317.  Cf. note to line 311 above. 318.  Cf. note to l. 311 above. 319.  Cf. note to l. 311 above.

Score 315 N11 vii 19 N19 vii 21 N53 ii 15 N54 ii 10 N55 ii 19 N59 i   2 P iv 58

me-le-e-a na-aĝ2 uru2-ĝu10 ga-an-du11/ na-aĝ2      uru2-ĝu10    gig-ga-am3 me-le-e-a na-aĝ2 uru2-⸢ĝu10⸣ [g]a-am3-du11/ na-aĝ2    ⸢uru2⸣-ĝu10 gig-ga me-le-e-a na-aĝ2 uru2-ĝu10 ⸢ga-am3⸣-[x *n]a-aĝ2 ⸢uru2-*ĝu10⸣[ ] me-l[e- ] me-le-e-a na-aĝ2 uru2-ĝu10 ⸢ga⸣-am3-⸢du11!⸣/ na-aĝ2 uru-ĝu10 gig-ga me-le-⸢e⸣-[ ]/ na-a[ĝ2- ] me-le-e-a me-e uru2-ĝu10 ga-am3-du11 na-aĝ2 uru2-ĝu10 gig-ga-am3

316 N11 vii 20 N19 vii 22 N53 ii 16 N55 ii 20 N59 i   3 P iv 59

nin-ĝen e2 gul-la-ĝa2 ga-an-du11/ na-aĝ2 e2-ĝu10 gig-ga-am3 nin-ĝen e2 gul-la-ĝu10 ga-am3-du11/ na-aĝ2 ⸢e2⸣-ĝu10 gig-ga nin-ĝen e2 gul-la-ĝu10 ga-a[m3]-⸢du11⸣ [ ] nin-ĝen e2 gul-la-ĝu10 ga-am3-du11/ na-aĝ2 e2-ĝu10 gig-ga nin-ĝen ⸢e2⸣ [ ]/ na-a[ĝ2 ] nin-ĝen e2 gul-la-ĝa2 ga-am3-du11 na-aĝ2 e2-ĝu10 gig-ga-am3

209

317 N11 vii 21 še-eb-uri2ki-ma a du11-ga-ĝu10/ a bi2-gi4-a-ĝu10 N19 vii 23 še-eb-uri2ki-ma a du11-ga-ĝu10/ a bi2-gi4-a-ĝu10 N53 ii 17 [*si]g4-⸢uri2⸣ki-ma a du11-⸢*ga⸣-[ ] N55 ii 21 še-eb-uri5ki a du11-ga-ĝu10 a bi2-gi4-a-ĝu10 N59 i   4 sig4-ur[i2 ]/ a [ ] P iv 60 *še-*eb-uri2ki-ma a du11-⸢ga⸣-*ĝu10 a *bi2-gi4-ĝu10 318 N11 vii 22 N19 vii 24 N53 ii 18 N55 ii 22 N59 i   5 P iv 61

e2 zi-ĝu10 uru2-ĝu10 du6-du6-da ba-mar-re-en-na-ĝu10 e2 zi-ĝu10 uru du6-du6-dam ba-mar-re-na-ĝu10 [ -ĝ]u10 ⸢uru du6-du6⸣-*d[a? ] e2 zi-ĝu10 ⸢uru⸣ du6-du6-dam ba-mar-ra-ĝu10 e2 z[i- ] e zi-ĝa2 uru2-gin7 du6-du6-ra ba-ĝar-re-na-ĝu10

319 N11 vii 23 ⸢bur2⸣-ra ⸢e2⸣ zi ⸢gul⸣-la-za-ka/ ba-e?! 320-de3-nu2-u3-ĝu10 N19 vii 25 bur2-ra e2 zi gul-la-za-ka/ ba-e-de3-nu2-u3-nam N53 ii 19 [ ]-⸢*ra⸣ e2 zi gul-[ ] N55 ii 23 bur2-ra e2 zi gul-la-za/ ba-e-de3-nu2-u3-nam N59 i   6 ⸢bur2⸣-[ ] P iv 62 bur2-ra e2 zi gul-la-za-ka ba-e-*de3-nu2-un-nam 320 N11 vii 24 ⸢gu4 šub-ba⸣-g[in7 -t]a 321 ba-ra-mu-e-da-zi-ga N19 vii 26 gu4 šub-ba-⸢gin7⸣ 322 in-gar-zu-ta/ ⸢ba-ra-mu-da-zi-ge⸣ N53 ii 20 [g]u4 šub-ba-gin7 in-ga[r- ] N55 ii 24 gu4 šub-ba-gin7 in-gar-zu-ta ba-ra-mu-da-zi-ge N58 rev   1 [ -r]a?-⸢ab-zi-ge⸣-[ ] N59 i   7 gu4 [ ]/ [ ] P iv 63 gu4 ⸢šub⸣-ba-gin7! in-gar-*zu-*ta ba-ra-mu-da-⸢zi-ge⸣-en

320.  The sign is currently broken. The SI in the copy is probably a miscopy. Note that the following -de3- is presently broken as well. 321.  Transliteration of [T]A follows copy. On the original it is lost in the lacuna. 322.  Traces of the erased signs in-ĝar appear before the in-ĝar. The scribe probably reconsidered the space left until the end of the line.

210

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

321 N11 vii 25 N19 vii 27 N53 ii 21 N55 ii 25 N58 rev   2 P iv 64

me-le-e-a ⸢du3-a⸣-[ -l]a-am3 gul-la-zu gig-ga-am3 me-le-⸢e⸣-[x] du3-a-bi lul-la-am3 gul-la-bi gig-ga me-le-e-a du3-a-*b[i ] * me-⸢*le⸣-e-⟨a⟩ du3-a-bi! 323 lul-la-a gul-[ ] gig-ga [ gu]l-la-bi gig-ga * me-le-e-a du3-a-*zu lul-la gul-la-zu gig-ga-am3

322 N11 vii 26 [ ]ki nidba-bi/ [ ]-kur2-ra-am3 N19 vii 28 dnanna eš3 uri2ki nidba-bi/ [i]m-ma-kur2-ra-ĝu10 N53 ii 22 nu-nus-ĝen eš3 uri2ki ni[dba- ] N55 ii 26 nu-⸢*nus⸣-ĝen eš3 uri5ki nidba-bi im-ma-kur2-*ra-*ĝu10 N58 rev   3 [ ni]dba-bi/ [ ]⸢x⸣-ĝu10 P iv 65 *nu-nus-ĝen uri2ki eš3 ⸢x⸣ nidba! 324-bi im-ma-an-ku5-da-ĝu10 323 N11 viii   1 N19 vii 29 N53 ii 23 N55 ii 27 N58 rev   4 P iv 66

⸢agrun ku3⸣ e2 gibil-gibil a-la-bi nu-g[i4- ] ⸢agrun⸣ [ gib]il-gibil-la-ĝu10 la-la-bi nu-gi4-⸢a⸣-[ĝ]u10 agrun ku3 e gibil-*gibil-l[a?- ] agrun ku3 e2 *gibil-*gibil-la-ĝu10 la-la-bi nu-gi4-a-ĝu10 [ -b]i nu-gi4-a-ĝu10 agrun ku3 e2 gibil-gibil la-la-⸢ba?⸣ lu2 nu-ub-gi4-a-ĝu10

324 N11 viii   2 ⸢e2 i3-du3⸣-[ -b]a-mar-ra-ĝu10 ta-aš ḫu[l- ] N19 vii 30 ur[u2-ĝ]u10 du3-⸢a⸣ la-b[a- -n]a-ĝu10 ta-a-aš ḫul-a-ĝu10 N53 ii 24 uru i3-du3-a ⸢la⸣-ba-mar-*r[a- ] N55 ii 28 uru-ĝu10 ⸢du3⸣-a la-ba-⸢*mar⸣-[x]-ĝu10 ta-a-aš ḫul-a-ĝu10 N58 rev   5 [ ḫ]ul-a-ĝu10 P iv 67 uru2 i3-du3-a la-ba-ĝar-ra-ĝu10 ta-a-aš ḫul-a-ĝu10 325 N11 viii   3 ba-gul in-ga-ba-⸢ši-ḫul-a-ĝu10 ta⸣-[ ] N19 vii 31 [b]a-gul in-ga-⸢ḫul⸣-[ḫ]ul-la-ĝu10 ta-a-aš ḫul-a-⸢ĝu10⸣ N53 ii 25 ba-gul in-ga-ba-ši-gu[l- ] N55 ii 29 *ba-gul ⸢in⸣-ga-⸢ba!⸣-[x]-ḫul-la-ĝu10/ ta-a-aš ⸢ḫul⸣-a-ĝu10 N58 rev   6 [ t]a-a-*aš 325 ḫul-a-ĝu10 P iv 68 ⸢ba⸣-*e-*ḫul in-ga-*ba-ši-⸢ḫul⸣-a-ĝu10 ta-a-aš ḫul-a-ĝu10 326 N11 viii   4 N19 vii 32 N53 ii 26 N55 ii 30 N58 rev   7 P iv 69

a-da-al u4 ḫul gig du11-ga [ ] ⸢a-da⸣-lam u4 ḫul gig ⸢du11-ga⸣-ĝu10 a2-bi la-ba-ra-⸢e3⸣ a-da-lam u4 ḫul gig *du11-*g[a- ] a-da-al-lam u4 ḫul ⸢gig *du11⸣-ga-ĝu10/ a2-bi la-ba-⸢*ra⸣-e3 [ -ĝ]u10 a2-bi la-[b]a-ra-e3 a-da-al u4 ḫul gig du11-ga a2-ba la-ba-re-DU

327 N11 viii   5 uri2ki-ma e2 dsuen-na-ĝu10 g[ul- ] N19 vii 33 uri2ki-ma e2 dsuen-n[a-ĝ]u10 gul-la-bi gig-ga N53 ii 27 uri2ki-ma e2 dsuen-n[a- ] N55 ii 31 uri5ki-ma e2 dsuen-na-ĝu10/ gul-la-bi gig-ga-am3 N58 rev   8 [ gu]l-la-bi gi[g- ] P iv 70 uri2ki-ma e2 [d]suen-na-ka gul-la-zu gig-ga

323.  BI is overwritten. 324. PAD!.AN.MUŠ3. 325.  Sign overwritten.

Score 328 N11 viii   6 ki-ru-gu2 7-⸢*kam⸣-[ ] N19 vii 34 ki-ru-gu2 ⸢7-kam⸣-ma-a[m3] N53 ii 28 ki-ru-⸢*gu2⸣ [ ] N55 ii 32 ki-ru-⸢gu2 *7⸣-*kam-ma-am3 N58 rev   9 [ ]-am3 P iv 71 ki-ru-gu2 7-kam-ma 329 N11 viii   7 a uru2-ĝu10 a [ ] N19 vii 35 [ ur]u2-⸢ĝu10 a⸣ [ ] N53 ii 29 a uru2-ĝu10 a ⸢x x⸣ N55 ii 33 a ⸢uru2⸣-ĝu10 a e2-ĝu10 N57 rev   1 a uru2-ĝu10 [ ] N58 rev 10 [ ]-⸢ĝu10⸣ P iv 72 a e2-ĝu10 a e2-ĝu10 330 N11 viii   8 ĝiš-gi4-ĝal2-bi-[ ] N19 vii 36 [ -ĝa]l2 ki-ru-⸢gu2⸣-[ ] N53 (omits line) N55 ii 34 ĝiš-⸢gi4⸣-ĝal2 ki-ru-gu2-da-kam N57 rev   2 ĝiš-gi4-⸢ĝal2⸣-[ ] N58 rev 11 [ ]-ka P iv 73 ĝiš-gi4-ĝal2-bi-*im 331 N11 viii 9 N19 viii   1 N53 ii 30 N55 ii 35 N57 rev   3 N58 rev 12 N60 obv   1 N61 obv   1 N62   1 P iv 74

nin ša3-zu a-gin7     du3-am3 za-e a-gin7 [ ] [ ]-un za a-gin7 i3-til3-le-en nin ša3-zu a-gin7     du3-[*m]u-[ ] ⸢a⸣-gin7 ⸢i3⸣-[ ] ⸢*nin⸣ *ša3-*zu a-⸢gin7 *du3⸣-mu-un ⸢*za-*gin7⸣ i3-til3-le nin ša3-zu a-gin7  ⸢du3⸣-[ ] [ ]-til3-le-en nin ša3-zu a-gin7     du3-mu za-e-gin7 i3-til-e-en nin ša3-z[u ] [ š]a3-zu a-gin7     du3-mu za a-gin7 i3-[ ] nin ša3-*zu a-*gin7   du3-mu za-e a-gin7 i3-til3-en

332 N11 viii 10 dnin-gal [ ]-zu a-gin7 du3-am3 za-⸢e⸣ 326 [ ] N19 viii   2 [ ] a-gin7 du3-mu-un/ [ ] i3-til-le-en N53 ii 31 dnin-gal ⸢ša3 x⸣ [-g]in7 du3-mu za-e-⸢gin7⸣ [ ] N55 ii 36 dnin-ga[l] *ša3 a-gin7 ⸢*du3⸣-mu-un za-gin7 i3-til3-le N60 obv   2 dnin-gal ša3-zu a-gin7 du3-mu za-e-gin7 i3-til-e-e[n] N61 obv   2 dnin-gal š[a3- ] N62   2 [ni]n-gal ša3-zu a-gin7 du3-mu za a-gin7 [ ] P iv 75 dnin-*gal ša3-zu a-gin7! du3-mu za-e a-gin7 i3-til3-en 333 N11 viii 11 munus-zi ⸢lu2⸣ *uru ba-an-da-gul-la i3-n[e- ] N19 viii   3 [ ]-da-an-gul-la/ [ ]-⸢še3⸣-gin7 e-am3-mu2 N53 ii 32 munus-zi-ĝ[u10 b]a-e-*da-gul-la e-⸢ne⸣-[ ] N55 ii 37 ⸢*munus⸣-zi ⸢lu2 uru⸣ ba-da-gul-la 327/ i3-ne-še3-gin7 ⸢i3-*e⸣-am3-mu2 N60 obv   3 ⸢munus⸣-zi lu2 uruki ba-e-da-gul-la ⸢i3-ne?-še3?⸣-[ ] N61 obv   3 munus-zi lu2 ⸢uru⸣ ba-⸢e-da⸣-[ ] ⸢x x⸣ [ ] N62   3 [ -z]i lu2 uru ba-e-da! 328-gul-la i3-ne-[ ] N63   1 [ ] ⸢x⸣ [ -g]ul-la ⸢e⸣-[ ] P iv 76 *nu-nus-zi lu2 uru2 ba-an-da-gul-la i3-ne-še3-gin7 ⸢i3-*e⸣-[ ] 326.  Transliteration of the last sign follows copy. On the original it is currently broken. 327.  The LA was erased and written again at the end of the line. 328.  E and DA seem to form a ligature.

211

212

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

334 N11 viii 12 dnin-gal lu2 kalam ba-an-d[a- ]/ ša3-zu a-gin7 [ ] N19 viii   4 [ ]-⸢e⸣-da-til-la/ [ ]-⸢*mu-un⸣ N53 ii 33 dnin-gal [*kala]m-še3 ba-e-da-til-e ša3-zu ⸢*a⸣-[ ] N55 ii 38 dnin-gal *lu2 kalam ba-e-*da-til-la/ ša3-*zu a 329-gin7 *du3-mu-[ ] N60 obv   4 dnin-gal lu2 kalam ba-e-⸢da⸣-t[il- ] N61 obv   4 dnin-gal lu2 kalam ba-e-da-[ ]/ ⸢ša3⸣-zu a-g[in7 ] N62   4 [ -ga]l ⸢lu2 uru ba-da⸣-til-la ša3-⸢zu⸣-[ ] N63   2 [ ] ⸢lu2?⸣ [ ]-⸢e⸣-da-til-l[a ] P iv 77 ⸢d⸣nin-gal lu2 kalam ba-an-da-til-e ša3-zu a-gi[n7 ] 335 N11 viii 13 [ *ur]u2-zu im-ma-gul-la-ba i3-ne-eš2 ⸢a⸣-[ ] N19 viii   5 [ ] ⸢am3?-mu2?⸣ N53 ii 34 u4 uru2-[z]u im-ma-gul-la-ba e-ne-še3-gin7 e-m[u2] N55 iii   1 ⸢*u4 uru2-zu im-ma-gul⸣-la i3-ne-*eš2 i3-e-am3-[ ] N60 obv   5 [ ]-g[ul?- ] N61 obv   5 [ ]-⸢uru2-zu im-ma⸣-[ ] N63   3 [ i]m-⸢ma-gul⸣-[ ] ⸢e-ne-še3⸣-g[in7 ] P iv 78 u4 uru2-zu im-ma-gul-la-[ -m]u2 336 N11 viii 14 u4 e2-⸢zu⸣[ ] N19 viii   6 [ ] ⸢ša3-zu a-gin7⸣ du3-mu-un N53 ii 35 u4 e2-zu im-ma-gul-la-ba ša3-zu a-gin7 du3-m[u- ] N55 iii   2 *u4 e2-zu im-ma-gul-la *ša3-*zu a-gin7 du3-mu-un N60 obv   6 [ -g]ul-l[a- ] N63   4 [ i]m-ma-gul-l[a]-⸢ba⸣ ša3-zu ⸢a⸣-gi[n7 ] P iv 79 u4 e2-zu im-ma-gul-la-[ ]-⸢mu⸣-[ ] 337 N11 viii 15 uru2-zu ⸢*uru2⸣-[ ]/ i3-ne-eš2 ⸢a⸣-[ ]-am3-⸢-mu2⸣ N19 viii   7 [ ] ba-ab-ĝar/ [ ]-e-am3-⸢mu2⸣ N53 ii 36 *u[ru2]-zu uru2 kur2-ra ba-ab-ĝar e-ne-še3-gin7 e-am3-*m[u2 (x)] N55 iii   3 uru-zu uru kur2-ra ba-ab-ĝar i3-ne-eš2 i3-e-a-mu2 N60 obv   7 [ b]a-ab-ĝ[ar ] N63   5 [ ]-⸢zu uru2⸣ kur2-⸢ra ba-ab-ĝar e-ne⸣-še3-gin7 ⸢e⸣-[ ] P iv 80 uru2-zu uru2 kur2-re ba-ab-⸢ĝar⸣ [ ]-⸢gin7 e?⸣-NE-am3-*mu2-*a 338 N11 viii 16 e2-zu e2 er2-ra ba-an-di-ni-ib-⸢ĝar⸣ š[a3-z]u a-gin7 du3-am3 N19 viii   8 [ -d]i?-[x]-⸢ib?⸣-[x]/ [ ] N53 ii 37 [x]-zu er2-re ba-an-di-ni-ib-ĝar ša3-zu a-gin7 du3-[ ] N55 iii   4 e2-zu er2-re ba-an-ni-di-ib-ĝar/ *ša3-zu a-gin7 du3-mu-un N60 obv   8 [ -r]e? ⸢ba⸣-an-[ ] N63   6 ⸢e2-zu⸣ er2-re ba-an-⸢di-ni-ib-ĝar⸣ ša3-zu a-[ ] N64 obv  1 330 [ ]-mu P iv 81 e2-zu e2 er2-re ba-*an-di-ni-ib-ĝar ša3-zu a-gin7 du3-mu 339 N11 viii 17 uru du6-du6-da ba-ĝar-ra-zu mušen-bi [*n]u-ĝen N53 ii 41 uru du6-du6-da ba-⸢an⸣-ĝar-⸢ra x x⸣[ ] N55 iii   5 uru ⸢du6⸣-du6-dam ba-ĝar-ra-za/ mušen-bi nu-ĝen N60 obv 12 [ ] ⸢x x⸣ [ ] N63 10 uru2 du6-du6-da ba-⸢an-ĝar-ra-za mušen⸣-bi nu-ĝ[en] K2   1 [ur]u du6-du6-da ba-⸢da⸣-ĝa[r- ] P iv 82 uru2 du6-du6-da ba-an-ĝar-ra-zu mušên-bi nu-ĝen 329.  A is overwritten. 330.  Since only the last sign of this line is preserved, it is not possible to locate it with certainty. The line comes before l. 342, but it cannot be l. 341, which ends with -en. Therefore we correlate it with the line sequence tradition of N53, N60, and N63.

Score

213

340 N11 viii 18 e2 zi ĝišal-e ba-[ -ĝ]a2-ra-za/ *tuš-bi-še3 la-ba-t[uš]-e-en N53 ii 42 e2 zi ĝišal-⸢e⸣ [ ]/ tuš-bi-še3 la-b[a- ] N55 iii   6 e2 zi ĝiš⸢al-e!⸣ ba-ab-⸢ĝar-ra⸣-za/ ⸢*tuš-bi-*še3⸣ la-*ba-⸢*an-*tuš⸣-e-en N60 obv 13 [ ]-ĝar-ra-[ ] N63 11 e2 zi ĝišal-⸢e ba-ab⸣-⟨ĝar⟩-ra-za tuš⸣-bi-še3 [ ] K2  2 ⸢e2⸣ zi ĝišal-e ba-*a[b- ] P iv 83 e2-zu ĝišal-e ba-ab-ĝar-ra-zu tuš-bi-še3 la-ba-tuš-en 341 N11 viii 19 uĝ3 ki-lul-la ba-e-⸢laḫ5⸣-a-za/ nin-bi-še3 la-ba-k[u4]-re-en N53 ii 43 uĝ3 ki-⸢lul⸣-la ba-a[b- ]/ ⸢nin⸣-bi la-ba-[ ] N55 iii   7 ⸢*uĝ3 ki-*lul⸣-la ba-ab-⸢laḫ5⸣-za/ ⸢nin-bi-še3⸣ la-ba-an-ku4-re N60 obv 14 [ -l]aḫ5-a-[ ] N63 12 uĝ3 ⸢ki-lul-la ba⸣-ab-laḫ5-za ⸢nin⸣-bi l[a- ] K2  3 uĝ3 ki-lil-la ba-ab-la[ḫ5- ] P iv 84 ⸢uĝ3⸣ ki-⸢lul *la 331⸣-ab-laḫ5-a-zu nin-bi-še3 la-ba-ku4-re-en nu-še8-še8 342 N11 viii 20 er2-zu er2 kur2-ra ba-ab-ĝar k[alam-z]u N53 ii 38 ⸢er2⸣-zu er2 kur2-ra ba-ab-ĝar ka-na-aĝ2-[*z]u nu-š[e8-x] N55 iii   8 ⸢er2-*zu *er2 *kur2⸣-ra ba-ab-ĝar/ ⸢ka⸣-[x]-⸢aĝ2⸣-zu nu-še8-še8 N60 obv   9 [ -r]e ba-ab-ĝar k[a- ] N63   7 er2-⸢zu er2 kur2⸣-ra ba-⸢ab⸣-ĝar ⸢ka⸣-n[a]-⸢aĝ2-zu nu⸣-š[e8- ] N64 obv   2 [ -a]ĝ2-zu nu-še8-še8 K2  4 er2-zu er2 kur2-re ba-ab-ĝa[r ] P v  1 er2-*zu er2 kur2-*ra ⸢*ba⸣-ab-*ĝar *ka-*na-⸢aĝ2⸣-*zu ⸢*nu-še8-še8⸣ 343 N11 viii 21 er2-ša3-ne-ša4 nu-du12-am3 k[ur *i]m-ma-an-tuš N53 ii 39 e[r2]-ša3-ne-ša4 nu-du12-a[m3]/ *kur kur2 im-ma!  332-⸢an⸣-[tu]š 333 N55 iii   9 er2-ša3-ne-ša4 nu-du12-a   *kur *kur2 im-ma-an-tuš N60 obv 10 [ ] ⸢x⸣-ab-du12-a    kur! 334 kur2 [ ] N63   8 er2-ša3-ne-ša4 nu-⸢du12⸣-a kur kur2 im-ma-a[n-x] K2  5 er2-ša3-ne-ša4 nu-um-du12-⸢am3⸣ [ ] P v  2 er2-ša3-ne-ša4 nu-e-*du12-*a kur *kur2 *im-ma-tuš 344 N11 viii 22 kalam-zu ni3-du11 si-a-gin7 k[a š]u ba-ni-ib-dab5 N53 ii 40 ka-na-aĝ2-zu ni3-du11 si-a-[ ]/ ka šu ba-ni-ib-[ ] N55 iii 10 ka-na-⸢*aĝ2⸣-zu ni3-du11 si-a-gin7/ ka šu ba-ni-ib2-dab5 N60 obv 11 [ ] ⸢si?-a⸣-gin7 ⸢ka šu⸣ ba-[ ] N63   9 ka-na-aĝ2-zu ⸢ni3-du11 si-a-gin7⸣ ka šu b[a- ] K2   6 kalam-zu ni3-du11 si-a-gin7 k[a ] P v  3 ka-na 335-aĝ2-zu ni3-du11 si-gin7 ka šu ba-ni-ib-dab5

331.  The scribe separated LUL and LA, clearly regarding LA as a verbal prefix. 332.  MA is overwritten (cf. next note). 333.  The entire indented part is overwritten. Traces of erased signs appear under KUR, KUR2 and MA. Partly erased sing appears after KUR2. The sign AN was (probably erroneously) partly erased too. after MA is overwritten, and followed by an erased AN. 334.  The sign read as kur looks like a TAR. 335.  The NA is erroneously written twice.

214

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

345 N11 viii 23 uru-zu du6-du6-da ⸢*im⸣-ma-an-ĝar/ i3-ne-eš2 a-g[in7] e-am3-mu2 N53 ii 44 uruki ⸢du6⸣-da im-ma-an-ĝ[ar ] * N55 iii 11 uru-zu du6-⸢*du6⸣ im-ma-an-ĝar i3-ne-eš2! 336 i3-e-am3-mu2 N60 obv 15 [ -ĝ]ar e-⸢ne⸣-[ ] N63 13 uru du3-du3-dam im-ma-na-ĝar ⸢e-ne-še3⸣-[ ] K2   7 ⸢uru⸣-zu du6-du6-da ⸢im-ma-an⸣-[ ] P v  4 uru2-*zu *du6-*du6-⸢da⸣ i[m- ]-ĝar i3-*ne-še3-gin7 NE-am3-⸢NE!-un⸣ 346 N11 viii 24 e2-⸢zu⸣ ša3-su3-ga im-ma-[x]-du3 ša3-zu a-gin7 du3-am3 N53 iii   1 e2-zi š[a3- ]/ ša3-zu a-gin7-⸢du3⸣-[ ] N55 iii 12 ⸢e2-zu⸣ [x] ⸢su3⸣-ga ba-an-⸢du3 *ša3⸣-zu a-gin7 du3-mu-un N60 obv 16 [ ] ⸢x x x⸣ [ ] N63 14 e2-zi ša3-su3-ga ⸢im-ma-du3 ša3⸣-zu ⸢a⸣-[ ] K2  8 e2-zu ša3-su3-ga im-⸢ma-an⸣-[ ] P v  5 e2-zu ša3-su3-[ ] x ša3-zu a-gin7 du3-mu 347 N11 viii 26 gudu4-bi ḫi-li-⸢a⸣ [x]-ra-mu-un-du/ ša3-[ -gi]n7 du3-am3 N53 iii   3 gudu4-bi ḫi-li-a ba-ra-mu-un-du š[a3- ] N55 iii 14 gudu4-bi ⸢ḫi⸣-[ ]-ra-mu-un-du/ ša3-zu a-[x] du3-mu-un N63 16 ⸢gudu4-bi ḫi-li-a ba-ra-mu-un-du ša3⸣-[ ] N65 i   1 gudu4-[ ]/ ⸢ša3⸣-z[u? ] K2 10 [gud]u4-bi ḫi-li-a ba-ra-mu-[ ] P v  6 ⸢*gudu4⸣-*bi ⸢ḫi-*li⸣-[ ]-du *i3-⸢*ne-*še3-*gin7 *bi2-am3!-NE-un!⸣ 348 N11 viii 25 uri2ki eš3 lil2-e im-ma-an-⸢*ĝar⸣/ i3-ne-eš2 ⸢a⸣-[g]in7 e-am3-mu2 N53 iii   2 uri2ki eš3 lil2-e im-ma-an-ĝar [ ] N55 iii 13 uri5ki ⸢*eš3 *lil2-e⸣ im-ma-an-ĝar/ ⸢i3-ne⸣-[x]-gin7 i3-e-am3-mu2 N63 15 uri5ki eš3 lil2-e im-ma-ĝar ⸢e⸣-n[e- ] K2  9 uri2ki eš3 lil2-la2 im-ma-a[n- ] P v  7 uri2ki ⸢eš3⸣ *li[l2- -m]a-*an-*ĝar ša3-zu a-gin7 du3-*mu 349 N11 viii 27 en-bi [ ]-ra-mu-un-til3/ ⸢i3⸣-[ -g]in7 e-[a]m3-mu2 N19 viii 19 [x]-⸢bi ĝi6⸣-[x]-⸢*ta *ba?-*ra-*mu⸣-[ ]/ i3-ne-*še3-e-gin7 e-am3-mu2 N53 iii   4 en-bi ĝi6-par3-ta ba-ra-*m[u- ]/ e-ne-še3-gin7 ⸢e⸣-[ ] N55 iii 15 en-bi ĝi6-*par3-⸢ra⸣ *ba-ra-mu-un-til/ i3-ne-eš2 i3-e-am3-mu2 N63 17 ⸢en-bi gi6-par3⸣-ta ba-⸢ra-mu-un-x-[x] K2 (omits line) P v  8 *en-bi ĝi6-par3-ra b[a- ]-*til3 *i3-*ne!-eš2 *bi2-am3-NE-un 350 N11 viii 28 u[z- ] ki aĝ2-ĝa2/ [ ]-mu-ra-an-ĝa2-ĝa2 N19 viii 20 [u]z-ga lu2 šu-luḫ-e ki aĝ2-e/ šu-luḫ nu-mu-ra-an-ĝa2-ĝa2 N53 iii   5 ⸢uz⸣-ga lu2 šu-luḫ-e ki aĝ2-[ ] N55 iii 16 ⸢*uz⸣-ga lu2 *šu-luḫ-e ki aĝ2-e/ šu-luḫ nu-mu 337-ra-ĝa2-*ĝa2 N63 18 uz-⸢ga lu2⸣ šu-luḫ-e ⸢ki aĝ2-e šu⸣-luḫ nu-[ ] K2 11 [ ]-ga lu2 šu-luḫ-⸢e ki⸣ [ ] P v  9 ⸢uz3⸣-ga lu2 šu-⸢*luḫ⸣-[ ]-*e šu-*luḫ *nu-mu-*ra-an-ĝa2-ĝa2

336.  Original has KU (contra copy). 337.  MU is overwritten.

Score

215

351 N11 viii 29 a-[ ] ⸢dnanna⸣ [ -*z]u šitax 338 ku3-ga/ šu n[u- ]-an-*du7-*du7 N19 viii 21 [x]-a dnanna išib-zu šitax ku3-ga/ šu nu-mu-ra-ni-in-du7 N53 iii   6 a-a ⸢d⸣nanna išib-zu [ši]tax NI [ ]/ *šu nu-mu-ra-⸢ni⸣-in-[ ] N55 iii 17 a-a dnanna išib-zu šitax ku3-ga/ šu nu-ra-ni-in-du7 N59 ii   1 [ nann]a ⸢išib⸣-[z]u š[itax ]/ [ ]-mu-⸢ra⸣-ni-⸢in du7⸣-du7 339 N63 19 a-a dnanna išib-zu šitax ⸢ku3-ga⸣ šu mu-r[a- ] N66   1 [ ] ⸢šu⸣ [ ] U6  1 [x]-a dnanna išib-zu eš2-*d[a ] šu [ ] K2 12 [ ]-nanna išib-zu 340 eš-d[a ] P v 10 a-a dnanna *išib-[ ] ⸢*šu⸣ *nu-⸢*mu-*ra⸣-[ ] 352 N11 viii 30 [l]u2-maḫ-zu g[i- ]-⸢*na⸣ ku3-za/ ša3-gada ⸢*mu?⸣-*ni-in-la2 N19 viii 22 lu2-maḫ-zu gi-gun4-na ku3-zu/ ša3-gada 341 la-ba-an-la2 N53 iii   7 lu2-*maḫ-*zu gi-*gun4-[ ]-za ku3 ša3-gada la-*b[a- ] N55 iii 18 lu2-maḫ-zu gi-[ ]-⸢na⸣ ku3-zu/ *ša3-[ ] la-[x]-⸢an⸣-la2 N59 ii   2 [ -ma]ḫ-zu gi-gun4-na ku3-zu/ [ -gad]a ⸢la-ba⸣-an-la2 N63 20 lu2-maḫ-zu gi-⸢gun4-na ku3⸣-zu ša3-gada [ ] N66   2 [ ]-⸢zu ša3-gada ⸢la-ba?⸣-an-l[a2?] U6  2 [l]u2-maḫ-zu gi-gun4-na ku3-zu ša3-gada nu-mu-⸢ni⸣-i[b?- ] K2 13 ⸢lu2⸣-maḫ-zu g[i- ] P v 11 lu2-*maḫ-zu ⸢gi-gun4⸣-na ⸢ku3-*zu ša3⸣-[ ] 353 N11 viii 31 N19 viii 23 N53 iii   8 N55 iii 19 N59 ii   3 N63 21 N66   3 U6   3 K2 14 P v 12

[e]n zi ša3 ḫi-li-⸢a⸣ p[a3- ] ⸢e2⸣-kiš-nu-ĝal2-la en zi *ša3 ⸢ḫi⸣-li-a pa3-da-zu/ e2-kiš-nu-ĝal2-la-am3 en *zi ša3 ḫi-li-a pa3-d[a- ]/ e2-kiš-nu-ĝal2-[ ] en zi [ ] ⸢pa3⸣-da-na/ e2-[ ]-la [ z]i ša3 ḫi-li-a pa3-da-za/ e2-kiš-nu-ĝal2-la en zi ša3 ḫi-⸢li-a pa3-da-zu⸣ e2-ki[š- ] [ -d]a-zu e2-kiš-nu-ĝal2-la en zi ša3 ḫi-li pa3-da-zu e2-kiš-nu-ĝal2-la x en zi ša3 ḫi-l[i- ] en zi ša3 ḫi-⸢li⸣-a pa3-⸢da-zu⸣ [ ]

354 N11 viii 32 [x]-da ĝi6-par-še3 ḫul2-la-n[a? ]-ni-in-dib-dib-be2 N19 viii 24 [e]š-da ĝi6-par3-še3 ḫul2-la-na nu-mu-ni-in-⸢dib-dib⸣-be2 N53 iii   9 eš-da *ĝ[i6?]-⸢par3 ⸣-še3 ḫul2-la-ni nu-ni-in-[ ] N55 iii 20 ⸢*eš-da⸣ *ĝ[i6-   ]-še3 [ ]-la-⸢x⸣/ ⸢x x x x x⸣-[ ] N59 ii   4 [ ] ĝi6-par3-še3 ḫul2-la-ni/ [ -m]u-ni-in-dib-dib-be2 N63 22 eš-da ĝi6-par3-⸢še3 ḫul2-la-ni⸣ nu-m[u- ] N66   4 [ -n]a? nu-mu-ni-in-dib-dib-ba U6  4 eš3-ta ĝi6-par4-še3 ḫul2-la-a-ni nu-mu-ni-in-ku4-k[u4] K2 15 eš3-ta ĝi6-par-š[e3 ] P v 13 eš3-ta ⸢*ĝi6-*par3⸣-še3 ⸢*ḫul2-la⸣-n[i ]

338. SILA3. 339.  The last sign is inscribed below the line. 340.  A gloss below išib-zu reads: i-si-ib2; there is a possibility that there was a continuation to the gloss in the lacuna. 341.  GADA is followed by an erased sign.

216

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

355 N11 viii 33 [x]-⸢u3⸣-a e2 ezem-ma-za ezem n[u- ]-*ni ⸢x⸣ *du10-ge N19 viii 25 *a-u3-a e2 ezem-ma-zu ezem nu-mu-ni-in-du10-*ge-eš N53 iii 10 *a-⸢u3⸣-a kisal ezem-ma-zu ⸢ezem⸣ nu-mu-ni-i[b- ] N55 iii 21 ⸢*a⸣-[ ]/ [ ] N59 ii   5 [ ] ⸢e2⸣ ezem-ma-zu/ [ -m]u-ni-ib2-du10-ge-eš N63 23 a-u3-a ⸢e2 ezem-ma-zu⸣ ezem nu-[ ] N66   5 [ ]-mu-ni-in-du10-⸢ge⸣ [(x)] U6  5 a-u3-a kisal ezem-ma-zu ezem nu-mu-ni-ib2-du10-ge K2 16 a-⸢u3⸣-[ ] ⸢e2⸣-ezem-⸢ma-zu⸣ [ ] P v 14 a-u11 x e2-*ezem-ma-za [ ] 356 N11 viii 34 [ ] kuša2-la2 n[i3 ] ⸢ḫul2⸣-le-da/ tigi2-a nu-mu-ra-[ ]-du12 N19 viii 26 kuššem3 a2-la2-e ni3 ša3 ḫul2-le-da/ tigi2-a nu-mu-ra-an-du12-uš N53 iii 11 [ ]-⸢a2⸣-la2 ni3 ⸢ša3⸣ ḫul2-le-da tigi2-a [ ] N55 iii 22 ⸢*šem3 *k[uš?] [ ]/ ⸢x⸣ [ ] N59 ii   6 [ ] ⸢ni3⸣ ša3 ḫul2-le-da/ [ -n]i-in-du12-uš N63 24 šem3 kuš⸢a2-la2 ni3⸣ ša3 ḫul2-le-d[a ] N66   6 [ ] ⸢ḫul2⸣-la-da tigi2-a nu-m[u- ] U6  6 šem3 kuša2-la2-e ni3 ša3 ḫul2-le-a tigi2 nu-mu-ra-du12 K2 17 [ ]⸢a2-la2⸣ ni3 ša3 ⸢ḫul2⸣-l[e- ] P v 15 šem3 ⸢kuš⸣a2-la2 ⸢ni3⸣ *ša3 *ḫul2-le-⸢*a⸣ [ ] 357 N11 viii 35 [ s]aĝ ĝi6-ga ezem-zu-še3 a la-ba-[ ]-tu5-ne N19 viii 27 uĝ3 saĝ ĝi6-ga ezem-ma-zu a la-ba-an-tu5-tu5-ne N53 iii 12 [*sa]ĝ-ĝi6-*zu ezem-zu-še3 a la-ba-tu5-[ ] N55 iii 23 ⸢*uĝ3⸣ *s[aĝ eze]m?-⸢zu⸣-š[e3?] ⸢*a la-ba-tu5?⸣-*n[e] N63 25 uĝ3 saĝ gi6-ga ezem-z[u- ] N64 rev   1 [ -n]e? N66   7 [ eze]m-zu-še3 a la-⸢ba-tu5⸣-t[u5- ] U6   7 saĝ ĝi6 ga ezem-zu-še3 a la-ba-tu5-tu5-a K2 18 [ eze]m-zu-*ta ⸢a⸣ [ ] P v 16 *uĝ3 ⸢*saĝ *ĝi6⸣-ga *ezem-⸢zu!-še3⸣ a [ ]-⸢*a⸣ 358 N11 viii 36 [ -g]in7 mu-sir2-ra zi ba-ni-⸢in⸣-tar/ [ul]utim2-bi [ ]-⸢kur2⸣ N19 viii 28 gu-gin7 mu-sir2-ra zi ḫa-ba-ni-in-tar/ ulutim2-bi ḫa-ba-an-kur2 N53 iii 13 [ m]u-sir2-ra ⸢zi ḫa⸣-ba-ni-in-tar ulu[tim2- ] N55 iii 24 ⸢*gu⸣-*g[in7 ]-⸢*ra zi! 342⸣ [*ḫ]a-ba-⸢ni⸣-in-*tar/ ⸢ulutim2-bi! *ḫa⸣-ba-*kur2 N63 26 gu-gin7 mu-sir2-ra zi [ ] N64 rev   2 [ -ulu]tim2-bi i3-kur2 N66   8 [ z]i ḫa-ba-ni-tar ⸢ulutim2⸣-b[i ] U6  8 gu-gin7 SAĜ-sir2-ra zi ḫa-ba-ni-tar ulutim2-bi ba-kur2 K2 19 [ ] ⸢ḫa⸣-[ ] P v 17 ⸢gu-gin7 mu-*sir2-*ra⸣ zi ḫa-*ba-ni-⸢x x ulutim2⸣-bi ba-[ ]-⸢x⸣ 359 N11 viii 37 [ ] x [ ] x [ ] x ku4/ [ ] SAR N19 viii 29 en3-du-zu er2-ra     ba-e-da-an-ku4/ en3-tukum-še3 SAR N53 iii 14 [ e]r2-⸢ra⸣ ba-*e-⸢de3-ku4⸣ en3-tuk[um- ] N55 iii 25 en3-[ ] ⸢*er2-ra ba⸣-[ ]-*da-ku4/ [ ]-⸢tukum⸣-še3 SAR N63 27 en3-du-zu er2-ra ba-[ ] N64 rev   3 [ ] en3-tukum! SAR N66   9 [ ]-⸢da-an-ku5 en3-tukum-še3 SAR⸣ N67   1 en3-du-zu er2-[ ] U6  9 en3-du-zu er2-re ba-da-an-ku4 en3-tukum-bi-še3 SAR-e P v 18 *en3-du-*zu er2-ra *ba-⸢*da-*an-ku4 en3-*tukum-še3 *SAR⸣ 342.  Original seems to have ⸢NAM⸣.

Score

217

360 N11 viii 38 [ ] x ku4/ [ ] N19 viii 30 tigi2-zu a-⸢nir⸣-ra ba-e-da-an-ku4/ en3-tukum-še3 SAR N53 iii 15 ⸢tigi2⸣-[*z]u-[    -*r]a-⸢*ba⸣-[-d]e3-ku4 en3 tuk[um- ] N55 iii 26 *ti[gi2-  ]-*nir-ra *ba-e-da-ku4/ [ ]-tukum-še3 SAR N63 28 tigi2-zu a-nir-ra ba-⸢e⸣-[ ] N66 10 [ ]-⸢da⸣-[x]-ku5 en3 ⸢tukum-še3 SAR⸣ N67   2 tigi2-zu a-nir-[ ] U6 10 tigi2-zu a-nir-ra ba-da-an-ku4 en3 tukum-bi-še3 SAR-e P v 19 ⸢tigi2⸣-zu ⸢a⸣-nir-ra ba-[ ]-⸢*ku4 en3⸣-tuk[um]-⸢še3 *SAR⸣ 361 N11 ix   1 [ ]/ [ ] nu-mu-ra-ak-e N19 viii 31 [ ]-⸢a⸣ ba-ra-mu-un-gub/ [ ]-⸢*mu-ra⸣-ak-e N53 iii 16 gu4-⸢zu tur3⸣-bi-⸢a⸣ ba-ra-mu-un-*gub i3-bi [ ] N55 iii 27 g[u4- t]ur3-⸢bi⸣-a la-ba-gub/ [ ]-bi ⸢nu-mu-ra⸣-ak-e N63 29 gu4-zu tur3-bi-a ba-ra-m[u- ] N66 11 [ -g]ub i3-bi nu-⸢mu⸣-ra-[ ] N67   3 gu4-zu tur3-bi ba! 343-r[a- ] U6 11 gu4-zu tur3-a-na ba-ra-ba-da-an-gub en3 tukum-bi-še3 SAR-e P v 20 gu4-zu tur3-bi-a ba-[ ] *i3-bi nu-⸢mu⸣-r[a-*a]k 362 N11 ix   2 udu-zu amaš-bi-a ba-ra-mu-un-dur2-ru/ ga-bi nu-mu-ra-šu-gid2-e N19 viii 32 [ ]-ra-[ ]-⸢*ru⸣-un/ [ ] x 344 ⸢nu⸣-mu-ra-[ ] N53 iii 17 e-⸢ze2-ĝu10⸣ amaš-bi-a la-ba-⸢ra⸣-dur2-ru-un g[a- ] N55 iii 28 [ -*z]e2-⸢*zu *amaš-*bi-a la⸣-ba-dur2-⸢*ru⸣-*un/ [ ]-⸢*bi *nu-*mu-*ra⸣-ak-e N63 30 e-ze2-zu amaš-bi-a-še3?! b[a- ] N66 12 [ ]-⸢ru ga⸣-[ ] N67   4 e-ze2-ĝu10 amaš-b[i- ] N68 i   1 [ ]-⸢zu amaš⸣-b[i- ]/ [g]a-bi nu-m[u- ] U6 12 udu-zu amaš-bi-a ba-ra-ba-dur2-ru-un en3 tukum-bi-še3 SAR-e * P v 21 e-ze2-zu amaš-bi-a ⸢ba⸣-r[a-]-dur2-ru RI ga-bi ⸢nu-mu-ra-*ak⸣ 363 N11 ix   3 i3 gur3-ru-zu tur3-ta nu-mu-ra-tumu2/ en3 tukum-še3 SAR N19 viii 33 [ ] tur3-ta nu-mu-r[a- ]/ [ tu]kum-še3 [ ] N53 iii 18 i3 gur3-ru-zu ⸢tur3⸣-ta nu-mu-ra-tumu2 e[n3 ] N55 iii 29 [*gu]r3-⸢*ru-*zu *tur3-*ta *nu⸣-mu-ra-tumu2/ en3-⸢*tukum-*še3⸣ SAR N63 31 i3 gur3-ru-zu tur3-ta nu-mu-[ ] N67   5 i3 gur3-ru-zu t[ur3- ] N68 i   2 ⸢i3 gur3-ru⸣-zu tur3-ta nu-⸢mu⸣-[ ]/ en3-tukum-še3 [ ] U6 (omits line) P v 22 ⸢x⸣-gur3-*ru-zu ⸢*tur3⸣-ta nu-mu-⸢ra-tumu2 en3⸣-[ ] ⸢*SAR⸣ 364 N11 ix   4 N19 viii 34 N53 iii 19 N55 iii 30 345 N63 32 N67   6 N68 i   3 U6 P v 23

ga gur3-ru-zu amaš-ta nu-mu-ra-tumu2/ en3 tukum-še3 SAR [ a]maš-ta ⸢nu-mu⸣-r[a- ]/ [ ] ga gur3-ru-zu a[maš]-⸢ta⸣ nu-mu-⸢ra⸣-*tumu2 *e[n3 ] [ ]-⸢*gur3-*ru-*zu *amaš-ta *nu-*mu-*ra⸣-tumu2/ [*e]n3-⸢*tukum-*še3⸣ SAR ga gur3-ru-zu amaš-bi-a nu-⸢mu⸣-[ ] ⸢ga⸣ gur3-ru-z[u ] ga gur3-ru-zu amaš-ta nu-mu-r[a- ]/ en3-tukum-še3 [ ] (omits line) * g[a    ]-ru-*zu ⸢amaš⸣-ta nu-mu-[ SA]R

343.  BA seems to be written over a partially inscribed A. 344.  Traces do not point to BI. 345.  Note that contrary to the copy, ll. 364–365 and 367 are written at the bottom of col. iii, not on the lower edge.

218

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

365 N11 ix   5 šu-ku6 ku6 gur3-ru-zu ḫul-ĝal2-e ba-an-dab5/ en3 tukum-še3 SAR * N53 iii 20 [ -k]ux 346 ku6 gur3-r[u- ḫu]l-ĝa[l2- ] * N55 iii 31 [ gu]r3-⸢*ru-*zu *ḫul-*ĝal2-*e⸣ ba-DU/ [ ] ⸢tukum2-še3 SAR⸣ N63 33 šu-kux 347 ku6 gur3-ru-zu ḫul-ĝal2-e ba-a[n- ] N67   7 [ ] ⸢ku6⸣ [ ] N68 i   4 šu-kux 348 ku6 gur3-ru-zu⸣ [ ]/ en3-[ ] U6 13 šu-*kux 349 ku6 gur3-ru-zu ḫul-ĝal2-e ba-dab5 * P v 24 šu-⸢kux 350 ku6⸣⟨gur3⟩-*ru-zu ⸢*ḫul 351⸣-[ SA]R 366 N11 ix   6 mušen-du3 mušen gur3-ru-zu gir2-gir2-e im-de6 N53 iii 21 (broken) N55 (omits line) N61 rev   1 [ ]-⸢ru-zu⸣ [ ] N63 34 mušen-du3 mušen gur3-ru-zu gir2-g[ir2- ] U6 14 mušen-du3 mušen gur3-ru-zu gir2-gir2-e im-⸢de6⸣ P v 25 mušen-du3 mušen gur3-*ru-zu g[ir2- ] 367 N11 ix   7 i7 ĝišma2-gur8-ra ba-ab-du7-a-zu/ ša3-ba temesar ba-mu2 N53 iii 22 (broken) N55 iii 32 [ ]-gur8-ra ba-ab-du7-za ša3-ba ⸢teme?⸣sar/ ba-an-mu2 N61 rev   2 [ -gu]r8-re ba-ab-d[u7- ]/ ša3-ba teme ḫu-u[n?- ] N63 35 i7 ĝišma2-gur8-ra ba-ab-du7-a-zu š[a3- ] U6 15 i7 ma2-gur8-re ba-ab-du7-za ša3-ba u2-u2-sar ba-an-⸢mu2⸣ P v 26 *i7 ma2-gur8-re ba-ab-du7-a-za ša3-b[a ] 368 N11 ix   8 ⸢ḫar⸣-ra-an ⸢giš⸣[ ]-⸢ĝar⸣-ra-za ĝiš⸢kiši17 kur-e⸣ ba-mu2 N53 iii 23 (broken) N55 iv   1 [ -z]a ĝiš*kiši17 kur-ra⸣/ [ ]-da-an-mu2 N61 rev   3 [ ]-ra-an    ĝišgigir-ra ba-ab-ĝar-ra-[ ]/       kišix 352 kur-ra ḫa-ba-a[n- ] N63 36 ḫar-ra-an ĝišgigir-ra ba-ab-ĝar-ra-za [ ] U6 16 ḫar-ra-an ĝišgigir-ra ba-ab-du7-za ša3-ba ĝiškiši17 kur-ra ba-an-mu2 P v 27 ḫar-ra-an ĝišgigir-e    ba-ĝar-ra-za      ĝišk[iši17- ] 369 N11 ix   9 [ ]-⸢ši-*še8-*še8⸣ N53 iii 24 nin-*ĝ[u10 ] N55 iv   2 [ ]-nam er2 mu-e 353-/ [ ]-še8-še8 N61 rev   4 nin-ĝu10 ⸢uru2⸣-zu ama-bi-gin7-nam/ er2 mu-e-ši-še8-š[e8] N63 37 nin-ĝu10 uru2-zu ama-bi-gin7-nam e[r2 ] U6 17 uru2-zu e2-zu ama-bi-gin7 er2 mi-*in-še8-še8 P v 28 nin-ĝu10 uru2-zu ama-bi-gin7-nam er2 mu-⸢e⸣-[ ]

346. GIR. 347. GIR. 348. GIR. 349. GIR. 350. GIR. 351.  The copy adds here the signs ĝal2-e that are currently broken in the source. We did not transliterate them since it is not clear whether or not IG in the copy is an error for ⸢ḫul⸣. 352. U2.ĜIŠ.ĜIR2gunû. 353.  Cf. description of this tablet.

Score 370 N11 ix 10 uri2ki-[ ] ḫa-lam-ma-gin7/ ki mu-e-ši-kiĝ2-kiĝ2 N53 iii 25 u[ri2- ] N55 iv   3 [ ]-*lam-*ma-gin7/ [ ]-kiĝ2-kiĝ2 N61 u.e.   1 uri5ki-ma ⸢dumu⸣ sila ⸢ḫa⸣-l[am- ]/ ki [ ] N63 38 uri2-ma dumu sila ḫa-lam-ma-gin7 ki [ ] N69 obv   1 [ ]⸢x ši?⸣-ib-⸢kiĝ2⸣-ki[ĝ2] N65 ii   1 [ ]/ ⸢ki mu-e⸣-š[i- ] U6 18 uri5ki-ma dumu sila-a ⸢ḫa!-*lam-gin7⸣ ki mu-ši-kiĝ2-kiĝ2 P v 29 uri2ki dumu sila ḫa-lam-ma-gin7 ki mu-*e-*š[i-ki]ĝ2-⸢kiĝ2⸣ 371 N11 ix 11 *e2-*zu lu2 ni3 u2-⸢gu⸣ de2-a-gin7 šu mu-e-ši-ša-an-ša N53 iii 26 ⸢e2⸣-[ ] N55 iv   4 [ -*g]u de2-a-gin7/ [ -a]n-ša-ša N61 u.e.   2 e2-[] l[u2] ⸢ni3⸣ [ ]/ ⸢šu⸣ [ ] N63 39 e2-zu lu2 ni3 u2-gu de2-a-gin7 šu m[u- ] N69 obv   2 [ ] mu-e-ša-an-ša-ša N65 ii   2 e2-zu lu2 ni3 ⸢u2⸣-[ ]/ šu mu-e-ša-an-ša-[x] U6 (omits line) P v 30 e2-zu lu2 ni3 u2-gu de2-a-gin7 šu mu-e-ši-ša-an-š[a4] 372 N11 ix 12 sig4 e2 zi-da-zu lu2-ulu3-gin7 me-a-zu im-me N53 iii 27 s[ig4 ] N55 iv   5 [ -u]lu3-gin7 me-am3-*zu im-me N63 40 sig4 e2 zi-zu-ke4 lu2-ulu3-še3-gin7 [ ] N69 obv   3 [ -gi]n7 me 354-am3-zu im-me N65 ii   3 sig4 e2 zi-da-zu lu2-ul[u3- ]/ me-am3-zu im-[ ] U6 19 sig4 355 e2 zi-za lu2-ulu3-gin7 ḫe2-me-am3-bi im-me-e P v 31 sig4 e2 zi-da-ke4 lu2-ulu3-gin7 me-am3-zu i[m- ] 373 N11 ix 13 nin-ĝu10 e2-ta e3 ḫe2-me-en uru2-ta ba-ra-me-en N53 iii 28 nin-[ ] * N55 iv   6 [ ] ⸢*e3⸣ ḫe2-ĝen/ [ b]a-ra-*e3 N63 41 ⸢nin⸣-ĝu10 e2-ta e3 ḫe2-ĝen uru-t[a ] N69 obv   4 [ u]ru-ta e3 ba-ra-e3-me 356 N65 ii   4 nin-ĝu10 e2-ta e3 ḫe2-[ ]/ uru-ta ba-ra-[ ] U6 20 nin-ĝu10 e2-ta e3-me-en uru-ta e3-me-en P v 32 nin-ĝu10 e2-ta e3-a ḫe2-me-en uru2-ta ba-ra-e3-me-en 374 N11 ix 14 en3-še3-am3 uru-za lu2 erim2-gin7 bar-ta ba-e-da-gub N53 (omits line) N55 iv   7 [ ] erim2-gin7/ [ ]-da-gub N63 (omits line) N69 (omits line) N62’ (omits line) U6 21 en3-še3-am3 *uru2-zu lu2 erim2-gin7 bar-ta ba-gub-be2 P v 33 ⸢*en3⸣-še3-am3 uru2-za nu erim2-gin7 bar-ta ba-gub-be2-⸢me⸣-en

354.  ME is overwritten. 355. SIG4 is followed by a partly erased sign. 356.  The ME overlaps the end of the DU sign.

219

220

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

375 N11 ix 15 ama dnin-gal uru-zu lu2 erim2-gin7 gaba-za ba-e-de3-sa N53 iii 29 ama [ ] N55 iv   8 [ ] erim2-gin7! 357/ [ b]a-da-si N63 42 [am]a-dnin-gal uru-zu lu2 erim2-g[in7 ] N69 obv   5 [ er]im2-gin7 gaba-da ba-e-da-DU N65 ii   5 ama dnin-gal uru-zu lu2-er[im2- ]/ gaba-da ba-e-da-[ ] K3  1 [ ur]u2? 358-⸢zu⸣ [ ] U6 22 ama dnin-gal e2-zu ki erim2-gin7 gaba-na ba-e-da-sa2 P v 34 ⸢ama-d⸣nin-gal 359 uru2-za nu erim2-gin7 gaba-[x] ba-e-da-sa2 376 N11 ix 16 nin uru-ni ki aĝ2 ḫe2-me-en-na za3 *e-*ne ba-e-ni-tag N53 iii 30 nin ⸢uru⸣-[ ] ḫe2-[ ] N55 iv   9 [ ] ḫe2-me-en/ [ ] AN *mu-e-tag N60 rev   1 [ ]-⸢en?⸣ [ ] N63 43 [x-ur]u-⸢ni⸣ ki aĝ2 ḫe2-me-en-n[a ] N69 obv   6 [ ] za-e e-ne-ba mu-un-⸢tag⸣ N70 i   1 360 n[in? ] N65 ii   6 nin uruki-ni ki aĝ2 ḫe2-me-e[n- ]/ za-e e-ne-ba mu-e-t[ag] K3   2 [ k]i ⸢aĝ2⸣ ḫ[e2- ] U6 (omits line) P v 35 [ -k]i aĝ2 ḫe2-me-en-na uru2-zu ⸢x-ši-du8⸣ 361 377 N11 (omits line) N53 iii 32 kalam-ma-n[i?]-⸢še3 kuš2⸣-u3 ḫe2-me-⸢en-na za?-e?⸣-[ ] ⸢ba?-tag?!-ge?-x⸣ N55 iv 10 [ ḫ]e2-me 362-en-na/ [ ] AN mu-e-tag N60 rev   2 [ ]-u3 ḫe2-me-⸢en-na⸣-[ ] N63 44 [x]-ma-ni-še3 kuš2-u3 ḫ[e2- ] N69 obv   7 [ -n]a za-e e-ne-ba mu-un-⸢tag⸣ N70 i   2 k[alam ] N65 ii   7 kalam-ma-ni-še3 kuš2-u3 ḫe2-m[e- ]/ za-e e-ne-ba mu-e-[ ] K3  3 [*kala]m-ma-⸢ni-še3⸣ kuš2-a ḫ[e2- ] U6 23 kalam-ma-a-ni-še3 kuš2-u3 ḫe2-me-en-na za3 e-ne ba-tag-ge P v 36 [ ] ⸢x x x⸣-me-en uĝ3-zu [ ] ⸢x x⸣ 377a N60 rev   3 [

-g]in7 tur3-zu-še3 udu-gin7 a[maš-  ]

378 N11 ix 17 ama dnin-gal gu4-gin7  tur3-zu-še3 udu-gin7 amaš-zu-še3 N53 iii 33 ⸢d⸣nin-gal gu4-gin7  tur3-zu-še3 udu-gin7 amaš-zu-[ ] N55 iv 11 [ ]  tur3-zu-še3/ [ ]-zu-še3 N60 rev   4 [ ni]n-gal gu4-gin7 tur3-zu-še3 udu-gin7 a[maš- ] N63 45 [ ]-⸢d⸣nin-gal ⸢gu4-gin7 tur3-zu⸣-[ ] N69 obv   8 [ -z]u-⸢še3⸣ udu-gin7 amaš-zu-še3! N70 i   3 a[ma ] N65 ii   8 ama dnin-gal gu4-gin7 tur3-zu-[ ]/ udu-gin7 amaš-zu-š[e3] K3  4 [ ] d⸢nin⸣-gal gu4-gin7 t[ur3?- ] U6 (omits line) P v 37 ama-dnin-g[al ] ⸢x x x⸣ [ ] 357.  Original has DU (perhaps a result of confusion between ĝin and gin7). 358.  Traces could also indicate uru (or less likely e2). 359.  Between gal and uru2 an erasure of one or two signs is visible. 360.  The very slight beginnings of the some five lines preceding this line are illigible. 361.  The signs -ši-du8, if correctly copied, are currently missing from the original. 362.  An erroneous extra vertical wedge appears before ME.

Score 379 N11 ix 18 gu4-gin7    tur3 u4-bi-ta-zu-še3   udu-gin7 amaš-zu-še3 N53 iii 34 [   -gi]n7   tur3 u4-bi-ta-zu-še3   udu-gin7 amaš-zu-[  ] N55 iv 12 [ -t]a-zu-še3/ [ am]aš-zu-še3 N60 rev   5 [ tu]r3 u4-bi-da-zu-še3 udu-gin7 amaš-z[u- ] N63 46 [ ] ⸢tur3⸣ [ ] N69 (omits line) N70 i   4 g[u4 ] N65 ii   9 gu4-gin7 tur3 u4-bi-ta-zu-še3/ udu-gin7 amaš-zu-še3 K3  5 [ -g]in7 ⸢tur3 u4⸣-bi-⸢ta-zu-še3⸣ n[in- ] U6 24 gu4-gin7 tur3-zu-še3 udu-gin7 amaš-zu-še3 P v 38 gu4-gin7 tur3 ⸢x-bi⸣-t[a]-⸢še3⸣ [ ]-⸢gin7 amaš⸣-zu-[ ] 379a N60 rev   6 [ K3  6 [

ama]š-u4-bi-da-zu-še3 udu-gin7 ⸢amaš⸣-[  ] -g]in7 ⸢amaš-u4⸣-bi-ta-zu-⸢še3⸣ nin-[ ]

380 N11 ix 19 dumu ban3-da-gin7 ama5-zu-še3 nin-ĝu10 e2!-*zu! 363-še3 N53 iii 35 [ -d]a-gin7 ama5-zu-še3 nin-⸢ĝu10⸣ e2-zu-*š[e3] N55 iv 13 [ ]-zu-še3/ [ ] ⸢e2⸣-*z[u-š]e3 N60 rev   7 [ -z]u-še3 nin-ĝu10 e2-zu-š[e3] N63 47 [ ]-⸢da⸣-[ ] N69 obv   9 [ -ĝ]u10 ⸢e2⸣-zu-še3 N70 i   5 d[umu ] N65 ii 10 ⸢dumu⸣ ban3-da-gin7 ama5-zu-še3/ nin-ĝu10 e2-zu-še3 K3  7 [ ba]n3-da-⸢gin7 ama5-zu-še3⸣ nin-ĝ[u10 ] U6 25 dumu ban3-da-gin7 ama5-zu-še3 nin-ĝu10 e2-zu-še3 P v 39 dumu ban3-da-gin7 ama5-⸢zu-še3?⸣ ki-sikil e2-zu-še3 381 N11 ix 20 N53 iii 36 N55 iv 14 N60 rev   8 N69 obv 10 N70 N65 ii 11 K3   8 U6 26 P v 40

an lugal diĝir-re-e-ne-ke4 muš2-am3-zu ⸢ḫe2⸣-em-me [ ] ⸢diĝir⸣-re-e-ne-ke4 muš3-⸢am3⸣-zu ḫe2-em-[ ] [ ]-ne-⸢*ke4⸣/ [ -z]u [ ]-⸢*em⸣-[x] [ ]-⸢e-ne⸣-ke4 ⸢muš3⸣-am3-zu ḫe2-[ ] [ ] muš3-am3-zu ḫe2-em-me (line broken) an lugal diĝir-re-e-ne-ke4 muš2-am3-zu ḫe2-em-me [ lu]gal ⸢diĝir⸣-re-e-ne-ke4 muš3-am3-z[u ] an lugal diĝir-re!  364-e-ne muš2-am3-zu ḫe2-em-me an lugal diĝir-re-e-ne-ke4 muš3-am3-zu ḫe2-em-me

382 N11 ix 21 den-lil2 lugal kur-kur-ra-ke4/ nam-zu ḫe2-eb-tar-re N53 iii 37 [ ku]r-ra-ke4 ⸢nam⸣-zu ḫe2-tar-r[e] N55 iv 15 [ ] kur-kur-ra-⸢ke4⸣/ [*na]m-zu ḫe2-*eb-*tar-re N60 rev   9 [ ku]r-kur-ra-ke4 nam-zu ḫ[e2]-eb-[     ] N69 obv 11 [ n]am-zu ḫe2-eb-tar-re N70 (line broken) N65 ii 12 den-lil2 lugal kur-kur-ra-ke4 nam-zu ḫe2-eb-tar-re K3 (omits line) U6 27 den-lil2 lugal kur-kur-ra-ke4 nam-zu! ḫe2! 365-bi2-ib2-tar-re P v 41 den-lil2 lugal kur-kur-ra-ke4 nam-zu ḫe2-eb2-tar-re

363.  The scribe seems to have erroneously wrriten zu-e2 (for e2-zu), then erasing the E2. 364.  Original has ḪU (contra copy). 365.  Both -zu and ḫe2- exhibit irregular forms.

221

222

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

383 N11 ix 22 uru2-zu ki-bi ḫa-ra-ab-gi4-gi4 nam-nin-bi   ak-a N53 iii 38 [ ḫ]a-ra-⸢da⸣-gi4-gi4 nam-nin-bi [   ] N55 iv 16 [  ] ki-bi ḫa-ra 366-ab-*gi4-gi4 *nam-nin-*b[i] ⸢ak⸣ N60 rev 10 [ -r]a-ab-gi4-g[i4] nam-nin-[     ] U6 28 uruki-zu ki-bi-a ḫa-ra-ab-gi4-gi4 nam-nin-bi ak N69 obv 12 [ -g]i4-gi4 nam-nin-bi 367 ak-e N70 i   8 u[ru2- ] N65 ii 13 uru-zu    ki-bi ḫa-ra-ab-gi4-gi4/ nam-nin-bi ak K3   9 [ ]-zu ki-bi ḫa-ra-ab-gi4!-gi4! 368 n[am- ] P v 42 uru2ki-zu ki-bi-še3 ḫa-ra-ab-gi4-gi4 nam-nin-bi ak-a 383a N11 ix 23 nibruki ki-bi ḫa-ra-ab-gi4-gi4 nam-nin-bi ak-a N55 iv 17 [*nib]ruki ki-bi ḫa-ra-ab-gi4-gi4 nam-nin-bi ak N69 obv 13 [ -g]i4-gi4 nam-nin-bi 369 ak-e N70 i   2 n[ibru ] K3 10 [nib]ruki ki-bi ḫa-ra-a[b- ] 384 N11 ix 24 uri2ki ki-⸢bi *ḫa⸣-*r[a- -g]i4 nam-nin-bi-ak-a N53 iii 39 [ ]-⸢gi4⸣-gi4 nam-nin-b[i    ] N55 iv 18 [ur]i2ki ki-bi ḫa-ra-ab-gi4-gi4 nam-nin-bi ak N60 rev 11 [ ]-⸢ra⸣-ab-gi4-gi4 nam-nin-b[i    ] N69 obv 14 [ -g]i4-gi4 nam-nin-bi 370 ak-e N70 i   3 u[ri2 ]/ [    ] N65 ii 14 ⸢uri2⸣ki ki-bi ḫa-ra-⸢ab⸣-g[i4- ]/ ⸢nam-nin⸣-b[i-   ] N71 i   1 u[ri2   ] K3 11 [ ][k]i! ki-⸢bi⸣ ḫa-ra-a[b-    ] U6 29 ⸢uri5ki ki⸣-bi-a ḫa-ra-ab-gi4-gi4 nam-nin-bi ak P v 43 uri2ki ki-bi-še3 ḫa-ra-ab-gi4-gi4 nam-nin-bi ak-a 384a N11 ix 25 i3-si-in-[ ]-⸢ab-gi4⸣-gi4 nam-nin-bi-ak-a N53 iii  40 371 [ ]-⸢gi4-gi4⸣ [ ] N55 iv 19 [ -*s]i-inki ki-bi ḫa-ra-ab-gi4-gi4/ nam-nin-bi ak N69 obv 15 [ ]-gi4 nam-nin-bi 372 ak-e N70 i   4 i3-[ ] N71 i   2 i3-si-inki *k[i- ]/ na[m- ] K3 12 [ ]-⸢si-in⸣ki ki-bi ḫa-ra-a[b- ] 384b K3

13 [  U]NUG?⸢ki⸣ ki-bi ḫa-ra-a[b-gi4-gi4 nam-nin-bi ak-a]

384c K3

14 [ti]n-tirki

⸢ki⸣-bi ⸢ḫa-ra⸣-[ab-gi4-gi4 nam-nin-bi ak-a]

366.  The end of the ḪA seems to be written over the beginning of the RA. 367.  The sign BI is followed by an erasure. 368.  Original has -gi-gi; the scribe of this tablet does not differentiate between GI and GI4 (cf. l. 387). 369.  The sign BI is followed by an erasure. 370.  The sign BI is followed by an erasure. 371.  This line in N53 may alternatively correspond to l. 385 of the lament. We tentatively assume that it corresponds to l. 384a, since most other manuscripts also contain this line. 372.  The sign BI is followed by an erasure.

Score 385 N11 ix 26 ⸢ki⸣-ru-gu2 *8-kam-ma-am3 N55 iv 20 ki-ru-gu2 8-kam-ma-⸢am3⸣ N60 rev 12 [ ] 8-kam-ma-a[m3] N69 obv 16 [ -ka]m-ma N70 i   5 ⸢x⸣ [ ] N71 i   3 ki-ru-g[u2 ] K3 15 [ ]-⸢ru⸣-[ ] U6 30 [k]i-ru-gu2 8-kam-ma P v 44 ki-ru-gu2! 8-kam-ma 386 N11 ix 27 ] mu-da-kur2-ra-am3 N60 rev 13 [ ]-⸢da⸣-[ ] N55 iv 21 [ ] mu!-da-kur2-*ra N69 obv 17 [ -ku]r2-ra N71 i   4 me-ĝu10 [ ] K3 16 [ ] ⸢x⸣ [ ] U6 31 [ ] ⸢mu⸣-da-kur2-ra ⸢me?-zu?⸣ ki-bi ḫa-ra-ab-gi4-gi4 P v 45 me-ĝu10 mu-da-an-kur2-ra ]-ĝal2-bi-im 387 N11 ix 28 [ N55 iv 22 [ ]-ĝal2 ki-ru-gu2-da-kam N60 rev 14 ĝiš-gi4-ĝal2 [ ] N71 i   5 ĝiš-g[i4- ] K3 17 [ĝi]š-gi4! 373-ĝal2-⸢bi-im⸣ U6 32 [  ]-gi4-ĝal2-bi-im P v 46 ĝiš-gi4-ĝal2-bi-im ]-de3 kalam UR-a mi-ni-ib-ra 388 N11 ix 29 [ N55 iv 23 [ ] ⸢*u4⸣-de3 kalam UR-a i-ni-ib2-ra N60 rev 15 e u4-de3 u4-de3 k[alam- ] N71 i   6 ⸢e? ⸣ [ ] N72   1 [ -*d]e3 *u4-de3 kalam UR-a ⸢i⸣-[ ] K3 18 e ⸢u4?⸣-de3 e3-de3 kalam UR-a i-ni!-ib-⸢ri⸣ U6 33 ⸢e2⸣ u4-de3 u4-de3 kalam UR-a 374 i-ni-ib-ri P v 47 e u4-de3 u4-de3 kalam *UR-a mi-ni-ib2-ri 389 N11 ix 30 [ ] ⸢*u4⸣ gu3 dub2-dub2-be2 N55 iv 24 [ -k]e4 u4 gu3 dub2-dub2-be2 N72   2 [ ] u4 gu3 dub2-dub2-*b[e2] K3 19 u4 gal an-na-ke4 u4 gu3 dub2-dub2-ba U6 34 u4 gal an-na-ke4 u4 gu3 dub2-dub2-be2 P v 48 u4 gal an-na-ke4 u4 gu3 dub2-dub2-be2 390 N11 ix 31 [ -z]al-la-ri N55 iv 25 [ kala]m-*ma ⸢ba!⸣-e-zal-la-ri N72   3 [ ] ⸢kalam⸣-ma ba-e-zal-la-*r[i] K3 20 u4 gig kalam-ma ba-e-zal-la-ri U6 35 u4 ⸢gig-ga⸣ kalam-ma ba-e-zal-la-ri P v 49 u4 gig kalam-ma ba-zal-la-ri

373.  Original has GI (cf. note to l. 383 above). 374.  Contrary to the copy, the A is not followed by traces of a broken sign.

223

224

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

391 N11 ix 32 [ ] ⸢gul⸣-gul-e N55 iv 26 [ ]-⸢e⸣ u4 e2 gul-gul-e N72   4 [ ]-⸢gul⸣-gul-e u4 e2 gul-gul-⸢e⸣ K3 21 u4 uru2 gul-gul-e u4 e2 gul-gul-e U6 36 ⸢u4 *uru2⸣ gul-gul-e u4 e2 gul-gul-e P v 50 u4 uru2 gul-gul-e u4 e2 gul-gul-e ]-⸢e⸣ u4 amaš tab-tab-e 392 N55 iv 27 [ N72   5 [ *tu]r3 gul-gul-e u4 amaš tab-tab-e K3 22 u4 tur3 gul-gul-e u4 amaš tab-tab-e U6 37 ⸢u4 tur3⸣ gul-gul-e u4 amaš tab-tab-be2 P v 51 u4 tur3 gul-gul-e u4 amaš tab-tab-⸢*e⸣ -i]b-la2-a-ri 393 N55 iv 28 [ N72   6 [ĝar]za ku3-ga šu bi2-ib-la2-a-ri K3 23 ĝarza ku3-ga šu bi2-ib-la2-ri U6 38 [ĝar]za ⸢ku3⸣-ga šu bi2-la2-a-bi P v 52 ĝarza ku3-ga šu bi2-ib2-la2-a-⸢ri⸣ 394 N55 iv 29 [ ]ki-ka/ [ ]-*ib-du11-ga-ri N69 rev   1 [ -d]u11-ga-ri N72   7 [ĝalg]a ni3-arattaki-ka ⸢šu⸣ pe-el-la2 im-mi-ib-du11-ga-ri K3 24 [ĝalg]a ⸢ni3-aratta⸣ki-ka šu pe-el-la2 im-mi-i-du11-ga-ri U6 39 [ ar]atta-a-ka šu pe-el-la2 im-mi-in-du11-ga-*ri P v 53 ĝalga ni3-arattaki šu pe-el-la2 im-mi-in-⸢du11-*ga⸣-ri 395 N53 iv   1 [ ]-du10 im-mi-ib-ku5-a-ri N55 iv 30 [ ]-ku5-ra2-ri N69 rev   2 [ ]-ri N72   8 u4 kalam-ma ni3 du10 im-mi-ib-ku5-⸢da⸣-a-ri U6 40 ⸢u4 kalam⸣-ma ni3 du10-ge im-mi-in-[k]u5-ri K3 25 [ i]m-mi-ib-ku5-da-ri P v 54 u4 kalam-ma ni3 du10 im-mi-in-ku5-⸢da⸣-ri ] a2 bi2-ib-la2-a-ri 396 N53 iv   2 [ N55 iv 31 [ -l]a2-a-ri N69 rev   3 [ -r]i N72   9 u4 saĝ ĝi6-ga a2 bi2-ib-la2-a-ri U6 41 u4 saĝ ĝi6-ga a2 bi2-ib2-[l]a2-a-ri K3 26 [ ] ⸢a2 bi2⸣-ib-la2-a-ri P v 55 u4 saĝ ĝi6-ga a2 bi2-ib2-la2-a-ri 397 N53 iv   3 [ -g]u2 9-kam-ma-am3 N55 iv 32 -*m]a-am3 N69 rev   4 [ ]-⸢ma⸣ N72 10 ⸢ki⸣-ru-gu2 9-kam-ma-am3 375 K3 27 [ ]-kam-ma U6 42 ki-ru-gu2 9-kam-ma P v 56 ki-ru-gu2 9-kam-ma 375.  A double separating line is drawn after this line of text in this manuscript, indicating that the following line belongs to the next kirugu.

Score 397a K3

28 [ki-bi ḫa-ra]-gi4!-gi4! 376

397b K3

29 [       ] KAM? 377

398 N19 ix   1 [ -*r]i N53 iv   4 [ ] teš2 nu-ĝal2-la-ri N72 11 u4-ri ⸢u4 igi⸣-ba teš2 nu-ĝal2-la-ri K3 30 [ ]-⸢ĝal2⸣-la-ri U6 43 u4-ri u4 igi teš2 ⸢nu⸣-[*ĝa]l2-la-ri P v 57 u4 KI u4 igi-ba teš2 *nu-ĝal-la-ri (omits line) 399 N53 N72 (omits line) K3 (omits line) U6 (omits line) P v 58 ĝiš-gi4-ĝal2-bi-im ] 400 N17 iii′   1 ⸢u4 ama nu-zu⸣-r[i N19 ix   3 [ -r]i N53 iv   5 [ ] u4 a-a nu-zu-ri N72 12 u4 ama ⸢*nu-zu-ri⸣ u4 a-a [x-z]u-ri K3 31 [ n]u-⸢zu⸣-ri u4 a-a nu-zu-ri U6 44 u4 ama nu-zu-ri ⸢u4 a⸣-a nu-zu-ri P v 59 u4 ama nu-zu-ri u4 a-a nu-zu-ri 401 N17 iii′   3 u4 dam nu-zu-ri u4 dumu nu-zu-ri N19 ix   4 [ -r]i N53 iv   6 [ ] u4 *dumu ⸢nu-zu⸣-ri N72 13 u4 ⸢dam⸣ nu-[z]u-ri u4 ⸢dumu nu-zu⸣-[r]i K3 32 ⸢u4 dam⸣ nu-zu-ri u4 ⸢du5-mu⸣ [n]u-zu-ri U6 45 u4 dam nu-zu-ri u4 dumu nu-zu-ri P v 60 u4 dam nu-zu-ri u4 dumu nu-zu-⸢ri⸣ 402 N17 iii′   2 u4 nin9 nu-zu-ri [x]-⸢šeš⸣ [ ] N19 ix   5 [ -r]i N53 iv   7 [ ] ⸢*u4 šeš⸣ nu-zu-ri N72 14 u4 nin9 nu-zu-ri u4 šeš nu-z[u]-ri K3 (omits line) U6 46 u4 nin9 nu-zu-ri u4 šeš nu-zu-ri P v 61 u4 nin9 nu-zu-ri u4 šeš nu-zu-[ ] 403 N17 iii′   4 u4 ⸢usar⸣ nu-zu-ri u4 ma-la! nu-zu-ri N19 ix   6 [ -r]i N53 iv   8 [ -l]a nu-zu-ri N72 15 u4 usar nu-zu-ri u4 ma-la nu-zu-ri K3 33 u4 usar nu-zu-ri u4 ma-la nu-zu-ri U6 47 u4 usar nu-zu-ri u4 ma-la nu-zu-ri P v 62 u4 usar nu-zu-ri u4 ma-⸢la⸣ nu-zu-[ ]

376.  Original has gi-gi (cf. note to l. 383 above). 377.  The possibility cannot be excluded that this line was the indented part of line 397a.

225

226

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

404 N17 iii′   5 u4 ⸢dam⸣ [(x)]-⸢šub⸣-ba u4 dumu im-šub-ba-ri N53 iv   9 [ ]-⸢*šub⸣-*ba-ri N72 16 u4 dam im-šub-ba dumu ⸢im⸣-šub-ba-⸢ri⸣ K3 34 u4 dam im-šub-ba u4 du5-mu im-šub-ba-ri U6 48 u4 dam šub-ba u4 dumu šub-ba P v 63 u4 dam im-šub-ba dumu im-šub-ba-[ ] 405 N17 iii′   6 u4-[ ] kalam u2-gu bi2-ib2-/de2-a-ri N53 iv 10 [ -*d]e2-a-ri N72 17 ⸢u4⸣-de3 ⸢u4⸣ kalam-ma u2-⸢gu⸣ [b]i2-ib-de2-a-ri K3 35 u4-de3 u4 kalam-ma u2-gu bi2-ib-de2-a-ri U6 49 u4-ri u4 kalam-ma u2-gu bi2-in-de2-a-ke4 P v 64 u4-de3 u4 kalam-ma u2-gu bi2-⸢in?-de2?-a-ri⸣ ]-⸢ri⸣ 406 N11 x   1 [ N17 iii′   7 u4 ḫ[ul] gig du11-ga ⸢den⸣-l[il2- ]/ ⸢u4 kalam-ta be4-be4⸣ N53 iv 11 [ ]-ta N72 (omits line) K3 36 u4 ḫul du11-ga im-ma-zal-la-ri U6 50 u4 ḫul gig du11-ga den-lil2-la2-ta im-mi-in-zal-la-ri P v 65 u4 ḫul gig du11-ga im-mi-in-zal-la-⸢ri⸣ 407 N11 x   2 [ ]-ĝa2 N17 iii′   8 [ ]⸢ki⸣-zu 378-n[e?]-⸢ta⸣/ [  ] nam-ba-ĝa2-⸢ĝa2⸣ N53 iv 12 [ ]-ĝa2 N70 ii   1 [ ] ⸢uru-zu-ta ur5?⸣ [ ] N72 18 [x]-⸢*a d⸣nanna u4-bi ⸢uru2⸣-zu-ta ur5 nam-ba-an-ĝa2-ĝa2 N73   1 [ nann]a u4!-[b]i ⸢uru2⸣-zu-ta ur5 n[am- ] K3 37 a-a dnanna u4-ba ⸢uru⸣ki-zu-ta ur5 nam-ba-e-ĝa2-⸢ĝa2⸣ d U6 51 a-a nanna u4-bi uru-zu-še3 ur5 nam-ba-ĝa2-ĝa2 P v 66 a-a dnanna u4-bi uru2-zu-ta ur5 nam-*ba-ĝa2-⸢ĝa2⸣ ]-bi2-ib2-du8 408 N11 x   3 [ N17 iii′   9 [ ] igi-zu nam-b[i2-i]b2-d[u8] N53 iv 13 [ ]-⸢ib⸣-du8 N70 ii   2 [ sa]ĝ ⸢ĝi6⸣-ga igi-bi nam-[ ] N72 19 [u]ĝ3 saĝ ĝi6-ga-zu igi-bi ⸢nam⸣-bi2-ib-du8 N73   2 [ ĝ]i6-zu igi-bi nam-bi2-⸢ib-du8⸣ K3 38 uĝ3 saĝ ĝi6-ga-z[u] igi-bi nam-bi2-ib-du8 U6 (omits line) P v 67 uĝ3 saĝ ĝi6-zu igi-zu nam-bi2-ib2-du8 409 N11 x   4 [ še]ĝ3-⸢ĝa2⸣-gin7/ [-tu]š-ba 379 nam-ba-gur-ru N17 iii′ 10 [ ]-⸢ta⸣ šeg3! 380-gin7 [     ]/ [ ]-ba-g[ur- ] N53 iv 14 [ ]-⸢gur?⸣-[ ] N70 ii   3 [ ] im an-ta šeg3-ĝa2-⸢gin7 ki⸣-[ ] N72 20 u4-⸢ba⸣ *im an-ta šeĝ3-ĝa2-gin7 ki-tuš-bi nam-ba-e-gur-ru N73   3 [ ] an-ta šeĝ3-ĝa2-⸢gin7⸣ ki-tuš-bi nam-ba-⸢gur⸣-ru K3 (omits line) U6 52 u4-bi im an-ta šeĝ3-ĝa2-gin7 ki-bi-še3 nam-ba-gur P v 68 u4-bi im an-ta šeg3-ĝa2-gin7 ki-⸢tuš?-ba?⸣ nam-ba-⸢gur⸣-ru 378.  ZU is preceded by another (corrupt) ZU. 379.  The BA is written over a partly erased BI. 380.  Original has AN.

Score 410 N11 x   5 [ -ĝa]l2 an ki saĝ ĝi6 im-ma-dub2-ba-ri N17 iii′ 11 [ ] i[m- ] N53 iv 15 (broken) N70 ii   4 [ -z]i-ĝal2 an saĝ ⸢ĝi6 im-ma⸣-[ ] N72 21 ⸢*ni3-*zi⸣-ĝal2 an ki saĝ ĝi6 im-ma-*tu10-ba-ri N73 (omits line) K3 39 ni3-zi-ĝal2 an ⸢ki saĝ⸣ ĝi6 im-ma-tu10-ba-ri U6 53 ni3-zi-ĝal2 an ki saĝ ĝi6 im-im-mu-e-da-ab-ri P v 69 ni3-zi-ĝal2 an ki saĝ ĝi im-ma-an-*dub2-ba-ri 411 N11 x   6 [ -b]i ḫe2-em-ma-gul-lu N53 iv 16 [ ]-⸢gul⸣-[ ] N70 ii   5 [ ] ⸢du3-a⸣-bi ḫe2-⸢em-ma⸣-[ ]-g[ul- ] N72 22 u4-⸢ba⸣ *du3-a-bi ḫe2-em-ma-gul-lu N73   4 [ ]-⸢a⸣-ba ḫe2-em-ma-gul-lu N74   1 [ ]-⸢a-ba⸣ ḫ[e2- ] K3 40 u4-ba du3-a-[b]i ḫe2-em-ma-gul-e U6 54 u4-ba du3-a-ba ḫe2-em-ma-gul-e P v 70 u4-ba du3-a-bi ḫe2-em-ba-an-gul 412 N11 x   7 [ ]-na-gin7 ĝišig ḫe2-bi2-in-keš2-e * N53 iv 17 [ab]ul [ ḫ]e2-bi2-*i[n- ] N70 ii   6 [ ] u3-na-gin7 ig ḫe2-bi2-i[n- ] N65 iii   1 [ ]-gin7/ [ ]-keš2-da N72 23 abul ĝi6 u3-na-gin7 ĝišig ḫe2-bi2-keš2-ra2 N73   5 [ ] ⸢u3⸣-na-gin7 ĝišig ḫe2-bi2-keš2-d[a] N74   2 [ ] ĝi6 u3-na-gi[n7 ] K3 41 abul ĝi6 ⸢u3-na⸣-gin7 ig-bi ḫe2-keš2-da-am3 U6 55 abul ĝi6 u3-na-gin7 ig ḫe2-bi2-ib2-keš2-da P v 71 abul-ĝi6 u3-na-gin7 ĝišig ḫe2-bi2-in-keš2-da 413 N11 x   8 [ ]-⸢e⸣ na-an-ni-ĝa2-ĝa2 N53 iv 18 [ ]-⸢*ba⸣ [ -ĝ]a2-[ ] N70 ii   7 [ šudu]m-⸢ma na-an⸣-ni-ĝ[a2- ] N65 iii   2 [ -n]i-ĝa2-ĝa2 N72 24 u4-ba šudum-e na-an-ni-ĝa2-ĝa2 N73   6 [ šudu]m-⸢ma⸣ na-an-ni-ĝa2-ĝa2 N74   3 [ ] šudum-ma na-[ ] K3 42 ⸢u4⸣-[ ] nam-bi2-ĝa2-ĝa2 U6 (omits line) P v 72 u4-bi šudum-ma na-an-ni-ĝa2-ĝa2 414 N11 x   9 [ ] e2 den-lil2-la2-ta/ [ k]ak-ta ḫe2-em-ta-si-ig N53 iv 19 [ ] ⸢*e2⸣ -[ -t]a ⸢ḫe2-*em-ta⸣-si-ig 381 N70 ii   8 [ li]l2-la2-ta ĝiš[ ] N65 iii   3 [ -li]l2-la2-ta/ [ ]-ta-si-ig N72 25 ni3-[Š]ID-bi e2 den-lil2-la2-ta ĝiškak-ta ⸢ḫe2⸣-em-[t]a-si-ig N73   7 [ -b]i e2 ⸢den⸣-lil2-la2-ka ĝiškak-ta ḫe2-em-ta-si-ig N74   4 [ ]-bi e2 den-lil2-[ ]/ ĝiškak-ta ḫe2-[ ] K3 43 [ ]-⸢*ta⸣ kak-ta ḫe2-em-ta-si-ig U6 56 ni3-ŠID-bi e2 den-lil2-la2-ke4 ĝiškak-ta ḫe2-em-ta-si-ig P v 73 ni3-ŠID-bi e2 den-lil2-la2-ta ĝiškak-ta ḫe2-em-ta-la2 381.  The IG is written below the line due to lack of space.

227

228

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

415 N11 x 10 [k]i-ru-gu2 10-kam-ma-⸢am3⸣ N53 iv 20 [*k]i-⸢*ru-*gu2⸣-[ ]-*ma-am3 N70 ii   9 ki-ru-g[u2 ] N65 iii   4 [ ]-am3 N72 26 ⸢ki⸣-ru-gu2 10-kam-ma-am3 N73   8 ki-⸢ru⸣-gu2 10-kam-ma-am3 N74   5 ki-ru-gu2 10-[ ] U6 57 ki-ru-gu2 10-kam-ma K3 44 (line broken) P v 74 ki-⸢ru-gu2⸣ *10-kam-ma 416 N11 x 11 [ -ku]r2-ra ⸢*u4⸣-[*d]a ⸢*eĝir ⸣-[ ] N53 iv 21 [ ]-⸢*ra *u4-*da⸣ [ ]-bi-še3 N70 ii 10 [ -r]a u4-da e[ĝir- ] N65 iii   5 [ ]-bi-še3 N72 27 [ *u]l u4 kur2-ra u4-da eĝir-bi-še3 N73   9 [ ] ul-la u4 kur2-ra u4-⸢da⸣ eĝir-bi-še3 N74   6 [ u]l u4 kur2-ra u4-da eĝ[ir- ] U6 58 ul-la u4 kur2-ra u4-da eĝir-bi-še3 K3 45 (line broken) P v 75 u4 ul u4 kur2-ra u4-da eĝir-bi-*še3 417 N11 (omits line) N53 (omits line) N70 (omits line) N62’ (omits line) N72 (omits line) N73 (omits line) N74 (omits line) U6 (omits line) K3 46 (line broken) P v 76 ĝiš-gi4-ĝal2-bi-im ]-še3 418 N11 x 12 [ N53 iv 22 [ *u]l-⸢*kalam? *ki⸣ [ ]-še3 N70 ii 11 [ ] ba-ĝar-ra-⸢še3⸣ N65 iii   6 [ ]-⸢ta⸣ N72 28 [ ] ki ĝar-ra-ta N73 10 [ ] ul kalam ki ĝar-ra-še3 N74   7 [ ] ul kalam ki ĝar-ra-[ ] U6 59 u4 ul kalam ki ĝar-ra-a-ba K3 47 (line broken) P v 77 u4 ul kalam ki ĝar-ra-ta S ii′   1 [x] ⸢ul⸣ [ ] 419 N11 x 13 [ ĝi]ri3-zu mu-un-dab5-ba N53 iv 23 [ -*u]n-dab5-be2 N70 ii 12 [ -s]u16-na ĝiri3 mu-dab-be2 N62 (broken) N72 29 [ -z]u mu-un-dab5-be2 N73 11 [ ]-nanna lu2 su16-na ⸢ĝiri3⸣-zu mu-un-dab5-ba N74   8 [ n]anna lu2 su16-na ĝiri3-zu mu-u[n- ] K3 48 [ l]u2 su16-[ ] U6 60 dnanna lu2 su16-na ĝiri3-zu mu-un-dab5-ba P v 78 dnanna lu2 su16-na ĝiri3-zu mu-un-dab5-ba S ii′  2 ⸢dnanna⸣ [ ]

Score 420 N11 x 14 [ -b]a mu-ra-an-de6/ [ ]-še3 du12-a-bi N53 iv 24 [ -*d]u12-*a-bi N54 iv   1 [ ] ⸢e2⸣ [x x]-⸢bi⸣-[ ] N70 ii 13 [ ]-bi mu-ra-de6 / [ ] du12-a-bi N65 iii   7 [ ] ⸢x⸣ [x d]e6/ [ ]-⸢a⸣-bi N72 30 [ ]-an-de6 igi-zu ĝiš-tuku-a-bi N73 12 [ ] e2 si-ga-⸢bi⸣ mu-⸢ra⸣-an-de6 igi-zu-še3 du12-a-bi N74   9 [e]r2 e2 si-ga-bi mu-ra-⸢an⸣-[ ]/ igi-zu-še3 du12-⸢a⸣-[ ] K3 49 [ -g]a-bi m[u- ] U6 61 er2-ra e2 si-ga mu-ra-an-de6 igi-zu-še3 du12-a-bi P v 79 er2 e2 si-ga-bi ma!-ra-an-de6 igi-*zu-*še3 du12-a-bi S ii′  3 ⸢er2 e2 si⸣-[ ] 421 N11 x 15 [ ] ba-da-⸢šub-bu-uš⸣-a-bi/ [*kir]i3 *šu ḫa-⸢ra-ab⸣-tag-ge-ne N53 iv 25 [ ] ⸢x⸣-*tag-*ge-⸢*ne⸣ N54 iv   2 [ ĝ]i6 ba-⸢ra-šub⸣-bu-uš-[ ]/ kiri3 šu ḫa-ba-a[b- ] N70 ii 14 [ ]-šub-bu-uš-a-ba kiri3 šu ⸢ḫa-ba-tag-ge-ne⸣ N65 iii   8 [ -b]u-uš-a-bi/ [ -r]a-ab-tag-ge-ne N72 31 [sa]ĝ ĝi6 ⸢ba-ra-šub⸣-bu-⸢uš⸣-a-bi kiri3 šu ḫa-ra-ab-tag-ge-ne N73 13 [ ĝ]i6 ba-ra-šub-⸢bu⸣-uš-a-bi/ ⸢*kiri3⸣ šu ḫa-ra-ab-tag-ge-ne N74 10 [ ] ĝi6 ba-ra-šub-bu-uš-bi [ ]/-tag-[ ] K3 50 [ ]-ra-šub-[ ] U6 62 saĝ ĝi6 ba-ra-an-šub-šub-bu-uš-a kiri3 šu ḫa-ra-ab-tag-ge-ne P v 80 saĝ ĝi6 ba-ra-šub-*bu-uš-a-za kiri3 ḫa-ra-ab-tag-*ge-ne S ii′   4 [sa]ĝ ĝi6 ba-r[a- ] 422 N11 x 16 [ -d]a ba-ĝar-ra-za/ [     ] ⸢ḫu⸣-mu-ra-ĝa2-ĝa2 N53 iv 26 [ ]-⸢*da⸣ [ ]/ [ ]-ĝa2-ĝa2 N54 iv   3 [ ]⸢ki⸣ du6-du6-dam ba-an-ĝar-za i-si-iš ⸢ḫu⸣-m[u- ] N70 ii 15 [ -d]a ba-ĝar-ra-za i-si-iš ḫu-⸢mu-ra-ĝa2⸣-ĝa2 N65 iii   9 [ ]-ab-ĝar-ra-za/ [ ḫ]u-mu-ra-ĝa2-ĝa2 N72 32 uru du6-du6-dam ba-ab-ĝar-ra-za i-si-iš ḫu-mu-ra-an-ĝa2-ĝa2 N73 14 [ ]-ra-a-za i-si-iš ḫu-mu-⸢ra⸣-an-[  ]-⸢ĝa2⸣ N74 11 [ -d]a ⸢ba-an⸣-ĝar-ra-za i-⸢si⸣-[ ]/ [ ] K3 51 [ ] ba-ab-ĝar-[ ] U6 63 uru *du6-du6-dam ba-an-ĝar-ra-ba i-si-iš-bi ḫu-mu-ra-an-ĝa2-ĝa2 P v 81 uru2 du6-du6-da ba-ĝar-ra-za i-si!-iš ḫu-mu-ra-ĝa2-ĝa2 S ii′  5 ⸢uru2 du6-du6-dam⸣ b[a- ] 423 N11 (probably omits line) N53 iv 27 [ ]-⸢e3⸣ ḫa-ra-ab-ak N54 iv   4 [ ]-⸢nanna⸣ uruki ki-bi gi4-a-za pa e3 ḫ[a- ] N70 (omits line) N65 iii 10 [ -b]i gi4-a-za/ [ -r]a-ab-ak-e N72 33 dnanna uru ki-bi gi4-a-za pa e3 ḫa-ra-ab-ak-e N73 15 [ g]i4-a-za pa e3 ḫa-ra-⸢ab-ak-e⸣ k i K3 52 [ ] ki-b[i- ] U6 64 dnanna uru ki-bi-a gi4-a-za pa e3 ḫa-ra-ab-ak-e P v 82 dnanna uru2 ki-bi gi4-a-za pa e3 ḫa-ra-ab-ak-e S ii′  6 ⸢dnanna uru2 ki⸣-b[i ]

229

230

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

424 N11 (probably omits line) N53 iv 28 [ -*la]m-e igi-zu/ [ ]-be2 N54 iv   5 [m]ul-an-ku3-gin7 nam-mu-ḫa-⸢lam⸣-e ⸢igi⸣-zu-šê3 [ ] N70 ii 16 [ -gi]n7 nam-mu-ḫa-lam-e ḫe2-bi2-ib-dib2-be2 N65 iii 11 [ -m]u-⸢un-ḫa⸣-lam-e/ [ -i]b-dib-be2 N72 34 mul-an-ku3-gin7 nam-mu-un-ḫa-lam-e igi-zu-še3 ḫe2-bi2-ib-*dib-be2 N73 16 [ ]-mu-ḫa-lam-e igi-zu ⸢ba⸣? 382-d[ib?- ] K3 53 [ ]-⸢gin7⸣ nam-ba-ab-ḫ[e2- ] U6 65 mul-an ku3-gin7 nam-mu-ḫa-lam-e-de3 igi-zu-še3 ba-dib2-be2 P v 83 *mul-an ku3-gin7 nam-mu-un-*ḫa-lam-e *igi-zu-še3/ ḫe2-bi2-ib2-*dib-be2 S ii′   7 ⸢mul an ku3-gin7⸣ na[m- ] 425 N11 x 20 [ ]-in-de6-da N53 iv 29 [ -*r]a-⸢an⸣-de6 N54 iv 6 [diĝi]r ⸢lu2⸣-ulu3-ke4 kadra mu-⸢ra⸣-an-d[e6] N70 ii 21 diĝir lu2-ulu3-ke4 kadr[a ] N65 iii 12 [ ]-⸢ra-an-de6⸣ N72 35 diĝir lu2-u18-lu-ke4 kadra mu-ra-an-de6 N73 17 [ kad]ra [m]u-ra-an-⸢de6?⸣ K3 54 [ l]u2-lu! 383-ke4 kadra-[ ] U6 66 diĝir lu2-ulu3-ke4 kadra mu-ra-an-de6 P v 84 [ l]u2-ulu3-ke4 ⸢*kadra⸣ mu-*ra-*an-⸢de6⸣ S ii′  8 ⸢diĝir lu2-u18-lu⸣-k[e4 ] 426 N11 x 18 [ ]-zu mu-ra-ab-be2 N53 iv 30 [ -b]e2 N54 iv   7 [ ] siskur2-ra-ke4    a-ra-zu mu-ra-ab-be2 N70 ii 18 [ -k]e4 a-ra-zu mu-ra-be2 N65 iii 13 [ ]-zu/ [ ] N72 36 lu2 siskur2-ra-ke4 a-ra-zu mu-ra-ab-be2 N73 18 [ ] ⸢x x⸣ K3 55 [ ] siskur2-ra-ke2 a-ra-z[u ] U6 67 lu2 siskur2-ra-ke4 a-ra-zu mu-ra-ab-be2 P v 85 [ s]iskur2-ra-ke4 a-ra-⸢zu mu⸣-ra-ab-⸢be2⸣ S ii′  9 ⸢lu2⸣ siskur2   a-r[a- ] 427 N11 x 19 [ ]-ma-me-en N54 iv   8 [n]anna arḫuš su3 kalam-⸢ma⸣-me-e[n] N70 ii 19 [ ]-⸢kalam⸣-ma-⸢me-en⸣ K3 56 [na]nna ša3 la2 su3 kalam-ma-[ ] U6 68 dnanna arḫuš su3 kalam-ma-me-en * P vi  1 [ arḫu]š ⸢su3 *kalam⸣-ma-me-en S ii′ 10 ⸢dnanna arḫuš⸣ [ ]

382.  Or perhas ⸢ḫe2⸣? 383.  Original has BA.

Score 428 N11 x 21 [ ]-ga-⸢*ri⸣ N54 iv   9 daš-im2-babbarx 384 ša3-zu ⸢im-mi⸣-[i]b-⸢du11-ga⸣-[ ] N70 ii 20 en daš-im2-babbar-e u4 ⸢ša3⸣-z[u ] N71 ii   1 [ ] ⸢x⸣ [ ]/ [ -i]n-du11-g[a- ] N72 38 en daš-im2-babbar2 ša3-zu im-mi-ib-du11-ga-ri K3 57 ⸢en⸣ daš-dim2-babbar2 ša3-zu im-[ ] U6 69 en daš-im2-babbar2 ša3-zu mi-ni-ib2-du11-ga-ta P vi  2 [ š]a3-zu im-mi-in-du11-ga-⸢*ri⸣ S ii′ 11 ⸢en daš-im2-babbar2⸣ š[a3- ] 429 N11 x 17 [ ]-tag-ga-ni u3-mu-e-du8 N54 iv 11 [ ]-nanna lu2-ulu3-bi-ir ⸢nam⸣-tag-ga-ni u3-me-du8 N70 ii 17 [ -ul]u3-bi nam-tag-ga-ni u3-mu-du8 N71 (omits line) N72 40 [ ]-⸢nanna⸣ lu2-ulu3-bi nam-tag-ga-ni u3-mu-e-du8 K3 58 dnanna lu2-bi nam-tag-[ ] U6 70 dnanna lu2-ulu3-*ba nam-tag-bi u3-mu-e-du8 P vi  3 [ ]-bi nam-*tag-ga-ni u3-mu-e-du8 S ii′ 12 ⸢dnanna⸣ l[u2- -l]u-⸢ke4⸣ na[m- ] 430 N11 x 22 [ ]-e N54 iv 10 [ ] ⸢a⸣-ra-zu im-me-⸢e⸣-a-bi-[i]r ⸢ša3 ḫa-ba-na⸣-ḫuĝ-⸢e⸣ N70 (omits line) N71 ii   2 [ ]-⸢a⸣-bi-*i[r]/ [ ḫ]a-ba-na-ḫuĝ-⸢e⸣ N72 39 ⸢*lu2⸣ a-ra-zu im-me-a-bi ša3 ḫa-ba-na-ḫuĝ-e N75   1 ⸢diĝir a-ra?-zu im-me-a⸣-bi-ir ⸢ša3⸣ ḫa-ba-an-⸢*na-x x⸣ K3 (omits line) U6 71 ⸢lu2⸣ a-ra-zu im-me-a ša3 ḫa-ba-na-ḫuĝ-e P vi   4 [ ]-bi ša3 ḫa-ba-an-na-ḫuĝ-e S ii′ 13 ⸢diĝir a-ra-zu im⸣-me-a-b[i ] 430a N11  x 23 [ ]-an-de6 N71 ii   3 [ -u]lu3-ke4/ [ ] mu-ra-an-de6 N75   2 diĝir lu2-ba-ke4 kadra! 385 mu-ra-an-de6 431 N11 x 24 [ ]-ir [ ] N54 iv 12 [ ]-siškur2-ra m[u]-⸢gub-ba⸣-bi igi-zu u3-mu-e-ši-bar N70 ii 22 lu2 siskur2-ra mu-ra-gub-b[a- ] N71 ii   4 [ ]-ra-ke4 mu-un-gub-ba-bi-ir/ [ -z]i mu-un-ši-bar N72 41 lu2 siskur2-ra mu-un-gub-ba-bi-ir igi-zi mu-un-ši-in-bar N75   3 lu2 siskur2-ra-ke4 mu-gub-ba-bi-ir/ igi-zi u3-mu-e-ši-bar K3 59 lu2 siskur2-ra im-mi-ib-d[a- ] U6 72 lu2 siskur2-ra-ke4 mu-un-gub-ba igi-zi u3-mu-un-ši-in-bar P vi   5 [ -u]n-gub-ba-bi igi-zu u3-mu-e-ši-bar S ii′ 14 ⸢lu2 siškur2-ra mu⸣-un-gub-b[a ]

384.  UD.UD.UD; is this an irregular writing of babbar, or an erroneous repetition of the UD sign? 385.  Original has: GAR.ŠA3.GAR.

231

232

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

432 N54 iv 13 [na]nna igi-zu-a bar-ra-zu ša3 šu niĝin2 su3-ga-am3 N70 ii 23 dnanna igi du8-a ba-ra-z[u s]u3-ga-a[m3] N71 ii   5 [nan]na igi du8-a bar-ra-zu/ *ša3 šu su3!-ga N72 42 dnanna igi ⸢du8⸣-a ⸢bar-ra⸣-zu ša3 šu niĝin2 su3-ga N75   4 dnanna igi du8-a bar-ra-zu/ ša3 šu niĝin2 su3-ga-am3 K3 60 dnanna igi du8 bar-ra-zu ša3 šu [ ] U6 73 dnanna igi zi bar-ra-zu ša3 šu ⸢niĝin2⸣ su3-ga P vi  6 [ ] *bar-ra-zu ša3 šu niĝin2 su3-ga-am3 S ii′ 15 d⸢nanna igi⸣ bar-⸢ra-zu⸣ [ ] 433 N9 ii′  1 [ ]-*ulu3-bi [ ]/ ḫe2-[ ] N54 iv 14 [ ]-⸢ulu3?-bi? u4?⸣ [ ]-⸢a-gin7⸣ ḫe2-em-⸢ku3-ge⸣ N70 ii 24 [l]u2-ulu3-bi u4 ḫul du3-a-⸢bi⸣ [ḫ]e2-⸢em⸣-zalag-ge N71 ii   6 [ ] u4 ḫul du3-a-gin7/ [ ]-em-ma-ši-zalag-g[e] N72 43 lu2-ulu3-bi u4 ḫul *du3-⸢a⸣-*ba ⸢ḫe2⸣-em-ma-ši-zalag-ge N75   5 lu2-ulu3-bi ša3 ḫul du3-a-ba ḫe2-⸢em⸣-ma-an-ši-⸢*zalag⸣-[ ] K3 61 lu2-lu-bi ša3 ḫul du3-a-ba [ ] U6 74 lu2-ulu3-bi u4 ḫul du8-a-ke4 ḫe2-em-da-⸢ši?⸣-[x]-⸢e?⸣ * P vi  7 [ ḫ]ul du3-a-bi ḫe2-em-ma-ši-*zalag-ge S ii′ 16 ⸢lu2- u18-lu⸣-bi du3 u4 ḫul-la [ ] 434 N9 ii′  2 ša3 kalam-ma *ĝ[al2- ]/ ḫe2-em-[ ] N17 left edge 1 [ -l]a-zu ḫe2-em-ši-gam-e N70 ii 25 [ ] kalam-ma ĝal2-la-še3 ⸢ḫe2⸣-em-ma-gam-e N71 ii   7 [ ] ĝal2-l[a- ]/ [ -e]m-m[a?- ] N72 44 ša3 kalam-ma ĝal2-la-še3 ḫe2-em-⸢da-ši⸣-gam-e N75   6 ša3 ⸢kalam-ma⸣ ĝal2-la-za ḫe2-em-ma-an-ši-[ ] K3 62 ša3 kalam-ma 386 ĝal2-la-zu ḫe2-em-š[i- ] U6 75 ša3 kalam-ma-ke4 ĝal2-la-gin7 ḫe2-em-⸢da-ši⸣-[ ] P vi  8 [ -l]a-ke4 *ḫe2-em-ma-ši-gam-e S ii′ 17 ⸢ša3 kalam-ma ĝal2-la⸣-za ḫ[e2- ] 434a N17

left edge 2  [ ]-bi ḫe2-em-da bi2-in KU UB

434b N17

left edge 3  [ ]-e ⸢ḫe2-ĝal2⸣ ka[lam]-⸢ma x⸣-mu-un-⸢ĝa2⸣-ĝa2-ne

]/ me teš2 [ ] 435 N9 ii′  3 dnanna ⸢uru2⸣ [ N17 left edge [ ] ⸢x⸣ mu-i-i N70 ii 26 [ na]nna uru ki-bi gi4-⸢a⸣-zu me-teš2 ḫe2-i-i N72 45 dnanna uru    ki-bi gi4-a-za me-teš2 ḫe2-i-i N75   7 dnanna uru    ki-⸢bi⸣ [ ]/ me-te[š2 ] N76   1 [ ] ⸢gi4-a⸣-za ⸢me⸣-[ ] K3 (omits line) U6 76 d⸢nanna⸣ uru  ki-bi gi4-a-za m[e- ] P vi  9 [ -b]i *gi4-a-za me-*teš2 x mu-e-i-i S ii′ 18 ⸢dnanna uru2  ki-bi gi4⸣-a-za me-[ ]

386.  MA is erroneously written twice.

Score 436 N9 ii′  4 ki-ru-*g[u2 ] N70 ii 27 ki-ru-g[u2] 11-kam-ma N72 46 ki-ru-gu2 11-kam-ma-am3 N75   8 ki-⸢ru⸣-[ ] N76   2 ki-ru-gu2 11-[ ] K3 u.e. ki-ru-⸢gu2 11⸣-[ ] U6 77 ki-ru-gu2 11-[ ] P vi 10 ki-ru-gu2 11-kam-ma S ii′ 19 ⸢ki-ru-gu2⸣ 11-kam-[ma-am3]

233

Bibliography Al-Fouadi, A. H. 1969 Enki’s Journey to Nippur: The Journeys of the Gods. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Al-Rawi, F., and Black, J. 2000 A balbale of Ninurta, God of Fertility. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 90: 31–39. Alster, B. 1997 Proverbs of Ancient Sumer: The World’s Earliest Proverb Collections I–II. Bethesda, MD. Attinger, P. 2011 LU 430. Nouvelles assyriologiques brèves et utilitaires 4. 1993 Eléments de linguistique sumérienne: La construction de du11/e/di dire. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis. Sonderband. Göttingen. 1995 dnin-mar-ki-ga. Nouvelles assyriologiques brèves et utilitaires 9: 27ff. 1998 Inanna et Ebih. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 88: 164–95. Balke, T. E. 2002 Die Sumerischen Dimensionaladjektive nim und sig. Pp. 31–53 in Ex Mesopotamia et Syria lux: Festschrift für Manfried Dietrich zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, ed. M. Dietrich et al. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 281. Münster. Bauer, J. 1972 Altsumerische Wirtschaftstexte aus Lagasch. Studia Pohl 9. Rome. Behrens, H. 1998 Die Ninegalla-Hymne: Die Wohnungnahme Inannas in Nippur in altbabylonischer Zeit. Freiburger Altorientalische Studien 21. Stuttgart. Black, J. A. 1985 a-še-er gi6-ta, a Balaĝ of Inana. Acta Sumerologica (Japan). 7: 11–87. 1990 The Alleged ‘Extra’ Phonemes of Sumerian. Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 84: 107–18. 1991 Eme-sal Cult Songs and Prayers. Aula Orientalis 9: 23–36. 1996 The Imagery of Birds in Sumerian Poetry. Pp. 23–46 in Mesopotamian Poetic Language: Sumerian and Akkadian, ed. M. E. Vogelzang and H. J. L. Vanstiphout. Cuneiform Monographs 6. Groningen. 1998 Reading Sumerian Poetry. Ithaca, NY. 2003 Sumerian Noises: Ideophons in Context. Pp. 35–52 in Literatur, Politik und Recht in Mesopotamien: Festschrift für Claus Wilcke, ed. W. Sallaberger et al. Orientalia Biblica et Christiana 14. Wiesbaden. Borger, R. 2004 Mesopotamisches Zeichenlexikon. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 305. Münster. Buccelati, G. 1966 The Amorites of the Ur III Period. Naples. Castellino, G. 1972 Two Šulgi Hymns. Studi semitici 42. Rome. Cavigneaux, A., and Al-Rawi, F. 1995 Textes Magiques de Tell Haddad. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 85: 19–46.

234

Bibliography 2000

235

Gilgameš et la mort: Textes de Tell Haddad VI avec un appendice sur les textes funéraires sumériens. Cuneiform Monographs 19. Groningen. Cavigneaux, A., and Krebernik, M. 2000 Nin-gula. P. 376 in vol. 9 of Reallexikon der Asssyriologie, ed. E. Ebeling et al. Berlin. Charpin, D. 1986 Le clergé d’Ur au siècle d’Hammurabi (XIXe–XVIIIe siècles av. J.-C.). Hautes études orientales 22. Geneva. Chiera, E. 1929 Sumerian Lexical Texts from the Temple School of Nippur. Oriental Institute Publication 11. Chicago. Civil, M. 1961 The Home of the Fish. Iraq 23: 154–75. 1964 A Hymn to the Beer Goddess and a Drinking Song. Pp. 67–89 in Studies Presented to A. Leo Oppenheim: June 7, 1964 (From the Workshop of the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary). Chicago. 1973 The Sumerian Writing System: Some Problems. Orientalia n.s. 42: 21–34. 1976 Enlil, the Merchant: Notes to CT 15 10. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 28: 72–81. 1987a The Lexicon as a Source of Literary Inspiration. Pp. 37–55 in Language Literature and History: Philological and Historical Studies Presented to Erica Reiner, ed. F. Rochberg-Halton. New Haven, CT. 1987b Sumerian Riddles: A Corpus. Aula Orientalis 5: 17–35. 1993 On Mesopotamian Jails and Their Lady Warden. Pp. 72–78 in The Tablet and the Scroll: Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William W. Hallo, ed. M. E. Cohen et al. Bethesda, MD. 1994 The Farmer’s Instructions. Aula Orientalis Supplementa 5. Barcelona. 2000 Modal Prefixes. Acta Sumerologica (Japan). 22: 29–42. Cohen, M. E. 1981 Sumerian Hymnology: The Eršemma. Hebrew Union College Annual Supplement 2. Cincinnati, OH. 1988 The Canonical Lamentations of Ancient Mesopotamia. Potomac, MD. Cooper, J. S. 1978 The Return of Ninurta to Nippur: an-gim dím-ma. Analecta Orientalia 52. Rome. 1983 The Curse of Agade. Johns Hopkins Near Eastern Studies. Baltimore. 2006 Genre, Gender, and the Sumerian Lamentation. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 58: 39–47. Delnero, P. 2006 Variation in Sumerian Literary Compositions: A Case Study Based on the Decad. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. 2010a Sumerian Literary Catalogues and the Scribal Curriculum. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 100: 32–55. 2010b Sumerian Extract Tablets and Scribal Education. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 62: 53–69. Dijk, J. J. A. van 1960 Sumerische Götterlieder, vol. 1. Abhandlungen der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften: Philosophisch-historische Klasse 1. Heidelberg. 1965 Une insurrection generale au pays de Larša avant l’avenement de NūrAdad. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 19: 1–24. 1983 Lugal ud me-lám-bi Nir-gál: Le récit épique et didactique des Travaux de Ninurta, du Déluge et de la Nouvelle Création. 2 vols. Leiden. Dobbs-Allsopp, F. W. 1993 Weep, O Daughter of Zion: A Study of the City-Lament Genre in the Hebrew Bible. Biblica et Orientalis. Rome. 2000 Darwinism, Genre Theory, and City Laments. Journal of the American Oriental Society 120: 625–30. Ebeling, E. 1928 Baʾu. Pp. 432–33 in Reallexikon der Assyriologie 1.

236

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

Edzard, D. O. 1957 Die zweite Zwischenzeit Babyloniens. Wiesbaden. 1971 Guaba. P. 721 in vol. 3 of Reallexikon der Asssyriologie, ed. E. Ebeling et al. Berlin. 1976 Zum Sumerischen Eid. Pp. 63–98 in Sumerological Studies in Honor of Thorkild Jacobsen on His Seventieth Birthday, June 7, 1974, ed. S. J. Lieberman. Assyriological Studies 20. Chicago . 1980a Kinunir, Kinirša. Pp. 603–4 in vol. 5 of Reallexikon der Asssyriologie, ed. E. Ebeling et al. Berlin. 1980b Išme-Dagān. Pp. 194–95 in vol. 5 of Reallexikon der Asssyriologie, ed. E. Ebeling et al. Berlin. 1980c Keš. Pp. 571–73 in vol. 5 of Reallexikon der Asssyriologie, ed. E. Ebeling et al. Berlin. 1991 Irikagina (Urukagina). Pp. 77–80 in Velles Paraules: Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Miguel Civil on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, ed. P. Michalowski et al. Aula orientalis 9. Barcelona. 1997 Gudea and His Dynasty. Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia: Early Periods 3/1. Toronto. 2000 Nina. Pp. 322–24 in vol. 9 of Reallexikon der Asssyriologie, ed. E. Ebeling et al. Berlin. 2003a Enlil, Vater der Götter. Pp. 173–84 in Semitic and Assyriological Studies Presented to Pelio Fronzaroli by Pupils and Colleagues, ed. Paolo Marrassini. Wiesbaden. 2003b Sumerian Grammar. Handbook of Oriental Studies, Section 1: Near and Middle East 71. Leiden. 2004 Altbabylonische Literatur und Religion. Pp. 485–616 in Mesopotamien: Die Altbabylonische Zeit, ed. Charpin et al. Orbis biblicus et orientalis 160/4. Freiburg/Göttingen. Edzard, D. O., and Wilcke, C. 1976 Die Hendursanga-Hymne. Pp. 137–85 in Kramer Anniversary Volume: Cuneiform Studies in Honor of Samuel Noah Kramer, ed. B. L. Eichler et al. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 25. NeukirchenVluyn. Englund, R. K. 1988 Administrative Time Keeping in Ancient Mesopotamia. Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 31: 121–85. 1990 Organisation und Verwaltung der Ur III-Fischerei. Berliner Beiträge zum Vorderen Orient 10. Berlin. 1995 Regulating Diary Productivity in the Ur III Period. Orientalia 64: 377–429. Falkenstein, A. 1949 Review of S. N. Kramer, Lamentation over theDestruction of Ur. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 49: 320–24. 1949–50 Grammatik der Sprache Gudeas von Lagaš. 2 vols. Analecta Orientalia 28–29. Rome. 1953 Sumerische und akkadische Hymnen und Gebete. Stuttgart. 1959 Sumerische Götterlieder, vol. 2. Abhandlungen der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften: Philosophisch-historische Klasse 1. Heidelberg. 1966 Die Inschriften Gudeas von Lagaš. Analecta orientalia 30. Rome. 1967 Zum sumerischen Lexikon. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 58: 5–15. Flückiger-Hawker, E. 1999 Urnamma of Ur in Sumerian Literary Tradition. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 166. Fribourg. Foxvog, D.; Heimpel, W.; and Kilmer, A. D. 1983 Lamma/ Lamassu. Pp. 446–53 in vol. 5 of Reallexikon der Asssyriologie, ed. E. Ebeling et al. Berlin. Frankena, R. 1971 Girra und Gibil. Pp. 383–85 in vol. 3 of Reallexikon der Asssyriologie, ed. E. Ebeling et al. Berlin. Frayne, D. 1997 Ur III Period: 2112–2004 bc. Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia: Early Periods 3/2. Toronto. 2008 Presargonic Period: 2700–2350 bc. Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia: Early Periods 1. Toronto. Gabbay, U. 2007 The Sumero-Akkadian Prayer Eršema: A Philological and Religious Analysis. Dissertation, Hebrew University. Geller, M. J.

Bibliography 1985

237

Forerunners to Udug-Hul: Sumerian Exorcistic Incantations. Freiburger altorientalische Studien 12. Stuttgart. George, A. R. 1993 House Most High: The Temples of Ancient Mesopotamia. Mesopotamian Civilizations 5. Winona Lake, IN. 1999 The Epic of Gilgamesh: A New Translation. New York. 2003 The Epic of Gilgamesh: Introduction, Critical Edition and Cuneiform Texts. New York. Gomi, T. 1984 On the Critical Economic Situation at Ur Early in the Reign of Ibbisin. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 36: 211–42. Gragg, G. B. 1973 Sumerian Dimensional Infixes. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 5. Kevelaer. Green, M. W. 1975 Eridu in Sumerian Literature. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Chicago. 1978 The Eridu Lament. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 30: 127–67. 1984 The Uruk Lament. Journal of the American Oriental Society 104: 253–79. Grégoire, J. P. 1961 À propos d’un passage des Lamentations sur Ur (ll. 331–341). Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 55: 96–101. Gruber, M. 1975 Akkadian labān appi in the Light of Art and Literature. Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 7: 73–83. Hallo, W. W. 1968 Individual Prayer in Sumerian: The Continuity of a Tradition. Journal of the American Oriental Society 88: 71–89. 1967 Toward a History of Sumerian Literature. Pp. 181–203 in Sumerological Studies in Honor of Thorkild Jacobsen on His Seventieth Birthday, June 7, 1974, ed. S. J. Lieberman. Assyriological Studies 20. Chicago. 1971 Gutium. Pp. 708–20 in vol. 3 of Reallexikon der Asssyriologie, ed. E. Ebeling et al. Berlin. 1976 The Royal Correspondence of Larsa: A Sumerian Prototype for the Prayer of Hezekiah? Pp. 209–24 in Kramer Anniversary Volume: Cuneiform Studies in Honor of Samuel Noah Kramer, ed. B. L. Eichler et al. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 25. Neukirchen-Vluyn. 1982 The Royal Correspondence of Larsa, II: The Appeal to Utu. Pp. 93–109 in Zikir Šumim: Assyriological Studies Presented to F. R. Kraus on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, ed. G. van Driel et al. Nederlands instituut voor het Nabije Oosten: Studia Francisci Scholten memoriae dicata 5. Leiden. Harris, R. 1971 Gipar. Pp. 377–79 in vol. 3 of Reallexikon der Asssyriologie, ed. E. Ebeling et al. Berlin. Hartmann, H. 1960 Die Musik der sumerischen Kultur. Ph.D. Dissertation, Goethe-Universität, Frankfurt. Heimpel, W. 1968 Tierbilder in der sumerischen Literatur. Studia Pohl 2. Rome. 1981 The Nanše Hymn. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 33: 65–139. Jacobsen, T. 1941 Review of S. N. Kramer, Lamentation over the Destruction of Sumer and Ur. American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literature 58: 219–24. 1953 The Reign of Ibbī-Suen. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 7: 36–45. 1970 Toward the Image of Tammuz and Other Essays on Mesopotamian History and Culture. Harvard Semitic Studies 21. Cambridge.

238 1987 1989

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

The Harps That Once . . . : Sumerian Poetry in Translation. New Haven, CT. The lil2 of dEn-lil2. Pp. 267−76 in dumu-e2-dub-ba-a: Studies in Honor of Åke W. Sjöberg, ed. H. Behrens et al. Philadelphia. 1996 The Gates of Eninnu. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 48: 17–29. Jacobsen, T., and Nielsen, K. 1992 Cursing the Day. Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 6: 187–204. Jagersma, A. H. 2010 A Descriptive Grammar of Sumerian. Ph.D. Dissertation, Leiden University. Karahashi, F. 2000 Sumerian Compound Verbs with Body-Part Terms. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Chicago. Keinast, B. 1957 Verbalformen mit Reduplikation im Akkadischen. Orientalia 26: 44–50. Klein, J. 1971 Review of C. Wilcke, Das Lugalbandaepos. Journal of the American Oriental Society 91: 295–99. 1981 Three Šulgi Hymns: Sumerian Royal Hymns Glorifying King Šulgi of Ur. Bar-Ilan Studies in Near Eastern Languages and Culture. Ramat-Gan. 1997 Lamentation over the Destruction of Sumer and Ur. Pp. 535–39 in The Context of Scripture, vol. 1: Canonical Compositions from the Biblical World, ed. W. W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger, Jr. 3 vols. Leiden. 1998 The Sweet Chant of Churn: A Revised Edition of Ishme-Dagan J. Pp. 535–39 in Dubsar anta-men, Studien zur Altorientalistik: Festschrift für Willem H. Ph. Römer zur Vol­lendung seines 70. Lebensjahres, mit Beiträgen von Freunden, Schülern und Kollegen, ed. M. Dietrich et al. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 253. Münster. 2006 Man and His God: A Wisdom Poem or a Cultic Lament? Pp. 123–43 in Approaches to Sumerian Literature: Studies in Honor of Stip (H. L. J. Vanstiphout), ed. P. Michalowski et al. Cuneiform Monograph 35. Leiden. Köhler, L., et al. 1994 The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Leiden. Kramer, S. N. 1940 Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur. Assyriological Studies 12. Chicago. 1950 Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur. Pp. 455–63 in Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, ed. J. B. Pritchard. 1st ed. Princeton. 1969 Sumerian Similes: A Panoramic View of Some of Man’s Oldest Literary Images. Journal of the American Oriental Society 89: 1–10. 1982 An Ershemma to Ninhursaga. Eretz-Israel 16 (Orlinsky Volume): 141–46. 1985 A Diversified Balaĝ Composition. Pp. 115–35 in Miscellanea Babylonica: Mélanges offerts à Maurice Birot, ed. J. M. Durand et al. Paris. 1988 BN 96679: A New Inanna Iršemma. Pp. 243–50 in A Scientific Humanist: Studies in Memory of Abraham Sachs, ed. E. Leichty et al. Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund 9. Philadelphia. Krecher, J. 1965 Zur sumerischen Grammatik. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 57: 12–29. 1966 Sumerische Kultlyrik. Wiesbaden. 1970 Review of UET VI/II. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 60: 199–205. 1978 Das sumerische Phonem |ĝ|. Pp. 7–73 in Festschrift Lubor Matouš, vol. 2, ed. B. Hruška and G. Komoróczy. Assyriologia 5. Budapest. 1980 Klagelied. Pp. 1–6 in vol. 6 of Reallexikon der Asssyriologie, ed. E. Ebeling et al. Berlin.

Bibliography

239

1995 Die marû-Formen des sumerischen Verbums. Pp. 141–200 in Vom Alten Orient zum Alten Testament: Festschrift für Wolfram Freiherrn von Soden zum 85. Geburtstag am 19. Juni 1993, ed. O. Loretz et al. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 240. Neukirchen-Vluyn. Kutscher, R. 1975 Oh Angry Sea (a-ab-ba hu-luh-ha): The History of a Sumerian Congregational Lament. Yale Near Eastern Researches 6. New Haven, CT. Lambert, W. G. 1975 Handwaschung. Pp. 97–98 in vol. 4 of Reallexikon der Asssyriologie, ed. E. Ebeling et al. Berlin. 1992 The Reading of Uru-KA-gi-na Again. Aula Orientalis 10: 256–58. Landsberger, B. 1960 Scribal Concepts of Education. Pp. 94–101 in City Invincible: A Symposium on Urbanization and Cultural Development in the Ancient Near East, ed. C. H. Kraeling and R. M. Adams. Chicago. Larsen, M. T. 1976 The Old Assyrian City State and Its Colonies. Mesopotamia 4. Copenhagen. Lieberman, S. J. 1992 Nippur: City of Decisions. Pp. 127–36 in Nippur at the Centennial, ed. M. de J. Ellis. Philadelphia. Limet, H. 1968 L’anthroponymie Sumerienne dans les documents de la 3e dynastie d’Ur. Paris. Litke, R. L. 1998 A Reconstruction of the Assyro-Babylonian God-Lists. Potomac, MD. Löhrent, A. 2011 Ipiq-Aja und die Klage über Ur. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 63: 65–72. Ludwig, M. C. 1990 Untersuchungen zu den Hymnen des Išme-Dagan von Isin. Wiesbaden. Maaijer, R. de, and Jagersma, B. 2003–4 Review of Å.W. Sjöberg, PSD A III. Archiv für Orientforschung 50: 351–55. Maekawa, K. 1993 The Agriculture Texts of Ur III Lagash of the British Museum (IX). Acta Sumerologica (Japan) 15: 107–29. Marchesi, G. 2002 On the Divine Name dBA.Ú. Orientalia 71: 161–72. Michalowski, P. 1983 History as Character: Some Observations on the Sumerian King List. Journal of the American Oriental Society 103: 237–48. 1989 The Lamentation over the Destruction of Sumer and Ur. Mesopotamian Civilizations 1. Winona Lake, IN. 1993 The Torch and the Censer. Pp. 152–62 in The Tablet and the Scroll: Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William W. Hallo, ed. M. E. Cohen et al. Bethesda, MD. 2004 Sumerian. Pp. 19–59 in The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World’s Ancient Languages, ed. R. D. Wookland. Cambridge. 2006 Love or Death? Observations on the Role of the Gala in Ur III Ceremonial Life. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 58: 49–61. 2011 The Correspondence of the Kings of Ur: An Epistolary History of an Ancient Mesopotamian Kingdom. Mesopotamian Civilizations 15. Winona Lake, IN. Milano, L. 1995 Mühle A. Pp. 393–400 in vol. 8 of Reallexikon der Asssyriologie, ed. E. Ebeling et al. Berlin. Mittermayer, C.

240 2006

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

Altbabylonische Zeichenliste der sumerisch-literarischen Texte. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 218. Göttingen. Molina, M., and Such-gutiérrez, M. 2004 On Terms of Cutting Plants and Noses in Ancient Sumer. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 63: 1–16. Opificius, R. 1971 Girsu. Pp. 385–401 in vol. 3 of Reallexikon der Asssyriologie, ed. E. Ebeling et al. Berlin. Oppenheim, L. 1948 Catalogue of the Cuneiform Tablets of the Wilberforce Eames Babylonian Collection in the New York Public Library: Tablets of the Time of the Third Dynasty of Ur. American Oriental Series 32. New Haven, CT. Peterson, J. 2009 An Unplaced Fragment of a Sumerian City Lament. Nouvelles assyriologiques brèves et utilitaires 4: 93–95. Pientka-Hinz, R. 2007 Rīm-Sîn II. P. 371 in vol. 11 of Reallexikon der Asssyriologie, ed. E. Ebeling et al. Berlin. Potts, T. F. 1994 Mesopotamia and the East: An Archaeological and Historical Study of Foreign Relations, ca. 3400– 2000 bc. Oxford. Poebel, A. 1923 Grundzuge Der Sumerischen Grammatik. Rostock. Powell, M. A. 1995 Wine and the Vine in Ancient Mesopotamia. Pp. 97–122 in The Origins and Ancient History of Wine, ed. P. E. McGovern et al. Luxemburg. Renger, J. 1969 Untersuchungen zum Priestertum der altbabylonischen Zeit: 2. Teil. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 59: 104–230. Röllig, W., and Waetzoldt, H. 1993 Möbel A. I. Pp. 325–30 in vol. 8 of Reallexikon der Asssyriologie, ed. E. Ebeling et al. Berlin. Römer, W. H. 1965 Sumerische ‘Königshymnen’ der Isin-Zeit. Documenta et monumenta Orientis antique 13. Leiden. 1993a Beiträge zum Lexikon des Sumerischen (4): Termini für Schiffe und Schiffahrt, Schiffsteile und Schiffszubehör, vor allem in sumerischen ‘literarischen’ Texten. Pp. 343–95 in Mesopotamica – Ugaritica – Biblica: Festschrift für Kurt Bergerhof zur Vollendung seines 70. Lebensjahres am 7. Mai 1992, ed. M. Dietrich et al. Kevelaer. 1993b Beiträge zum Lexikon des Sumerischen (5). Archiv für Orientforschung 40: 24–38. 1999 Die Sumerologie: Einführung in die Forschung und Bibliographie in Auswahl. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 262. Münster. 2001 Hymnen und Klagelieder in sumerischer Sprache. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 276. Münster. 2004 Die Klage über die Zerstörung von Ur. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 309. Münster. Rosengarten Y. 1971 Trois Aspects de la Pensée Religieuse Sumérienne. Paris. Rubio, G. 2006 Shulgi and the Death of Sumerian. Pp. 167–79 in Studies in Sumerian Literature, ed. P. Michalowski and N. Veldhuis. Leiden. 2010 Reading Sumerian Names, I: Ensuhkešdanna and Baba. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 62: 29–44. Sallaberger, W. 1996 Der babylonische Töpfer und seine Gefässe. Mesopotamian History and Enviroment, series 2: Memories 3. Ghent.

Bibliography

241

2001 Nin-MAR.KI. Pp. 463–68 in vol. 9 of Reallexikon der Asssyriologie, ed. E. Ebeling et al. Berlin. Sallaberger, W., and Westenholz, Å. 1999 Mesopotamien: Akkade-Zeit und Ur III-Zeit. Orbis biblicus et orientalis 160/3. Freiburg. Salonen, A. 1973 Vögal und Vogelfang im Alten Mesopotamien. Annales Academiae Scienta­ rum Fennicae 180. Helsinki. Samet, N. 2010 Two Sumerian Parallels to Isaiah 55:10. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 122: 439–40. 2012 On the Agricultural Imagery in Biblical Descriptions of Catastrophes. Journal of Ancient Judaism 3: 2–13. Sauren, H. 1966 Topographie der Provinz Umma nach den Urkunden der Zeit der III. Dynastie von Ur. Heidelberg. 1970 Zwei Duplikate zur Urklage Musée d‘Art et d‘Histoire in Genf. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 29: 39–47. Schretter, M. K. 1990 Emesal-Studien: Sprach- und literaturgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur sogenannten Frauensprache des Sumerischen. Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Kulturwissenschaft: Sonderheft 69. Innsbruck. Schwemer, D., and Abusch, I. T. 2007 Abwehrzauber und Behexung: Studien zum Schadenzauberglauben im alten Mesopotamien—Unter Benutzung von Tzvi Abuschs kritischem Katalog und Sammlungen im Rahmen des Kooperationsprojektes Corpus of Mesopotamian Anti-witchcraft Rituals. Wiesbaden. Sefati, Y. 1990 An Oath of Chastity in a Sumerian Love Song (SRT 31)? Pp. 44–63 in Bar-Ilan Studies in Assyriology Dedicated to Pinhas Artzi, ed. J. Klein et al. Ramat-Gan. Selz, G. J. 1995 Untersuchungen zur Götterwelt des altsumerischen Stadtstaates von Lagaš. Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund 13. Philadelphia. Shifra, S., and Klein, J. 1996 In Those Distant Days: Anthology of Mesopotamian Literature. Tel Aviv. Sjöberg, Å. W. 1960 Der Mondgott Nanna-Suen in der sumerischen Überlieferung. Stockholm. 1962 girix(= KA)-zal. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 55: 1–10. 1970 Beiträge zum sumerischen Wörterbuch. Orientalia 39: 75–98. 1971a ‘He Is a Good Seed of a Dog’, and ‘Engardu, the Fool’. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 24: 107–18. 1971b Hymns in Honor of King Ibbīsuen of Ur. Orientalia Suecana 20: 140–78. 1973a Der Vater und sein missratener Sohn. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 25: 105–69. 1973b Nungal in the Ekur. Archiv für Orientforschung 24: 19–46. 1974 A Hymn to dlama-sa6-ga. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 26: 158–80. 1974–75 Miscellaneous Sumerian Texts I. Orientalia Suecana 23–24: 159–81. 1975a Three Hymns to the God Ningišzida. Studia Orientalia 46: 301–22. 1975b in-nin ša3-gur4-ra: A Hymn to the Goddess Inanna by the en-Priestess Enheduanna. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 65: 161–253. Sjöberg, Å. W.; Bergmann, E.; and Gragg, G. B. 1969 The Collection of the Sumerian Temple Hymns. Texts from Cuneiform Sources 3. New York. Steinkeller, P. 1981 More on the Ur III Royal Wives. Acta Sumerologica (Japan) 3: 77–92. 1988 On the Identity of the Toponym LÚ.SU(.A). Journal of the American Oriental Society 108: 197–202. Stol, M.

242 1994

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

Milch(produkte) A. Pp. 189–201 in vol. 8 of Reallexikon der Asssyriologie, ed. E. Ebeling et al. Berlin. Thomsen, M. L. 1984 The Sumerian Language: An Introduction to Its History and Grammatical Structure. Mesopotamia 10. Copenhagen. Tinney, S. 1995 The Nippur Lament: Royal Rhetoric and Divine Legitimation in the Reign of Išme-Dagan of Isin (1953– 1935 b.c.). Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund 16. Philadelphia. Vanstiphout, H. L. J. 1974 Was een Pestepidemie de Oorzaak van de Ondergang van het Nieuw-sumerische Rijk? Phoenix 20: 351–70. 1980 The Death of an Era: The Great Mortality in the Sumerian City Laments. Pp. 83–105 in Death in Mesopotamia: Papers Read at the XXVIe Rencontre assyriologique, ed. Bendt Alster. Copenhagen. 1986 Some Thoughts on Genre in Mesopotamian Literature. Pp. 1–11 in Keilschriftliche Literaturen: Ausgewählte Vorträge der XXXII. Rencontre assyriologique internationale, Münster, 8–12.7.1985. Berlin. 1996 Remarks on ‘Supervisor and Scribe’ (or Dialogue 4, or Edubba C). Nouvelles assyriologiques brèves et utilitaires 1: 1–2. Veldhuis, N. 1997 Elementary Education at Nippur: The Lists of Trees and Wooden Objects. Ph.D. Dissertation, Rijksuniversiteit. 1997b The Sur9-Priest, the Instrument gišal-gar-sur9, and the Forms and Uses of a Rare Sign. Archiv für Orientforschung 44–45: 115–28. 2002 Studies in Sumerian Vocabulary. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 54: 67–78. 2004 Religion, Literature, and Scholarship: The Sumerian Composition Nanše and the Birds, with a Catalogue of Sumerian Bird Names. Cuneiform Monograph 22. Leiden. Volk, K. 1989 Die Balag-Komposition úru àm-ma-ir-ra-bi: Rekonstruktion und Bearbeitung der Tafeln 18 (19′ff.), 19, 20 und 21 der späten, kanonischen Version. Freiburger altorientalische Studien 18. Stuttgart. 1995 Inanna und Šukaletuda: Zur historisch-politischen Deutung eines sumerischen Litaraturwerkes. Wiesbaden. Waetzoldt, H. 1972 Untersuchungen zur Neusumerischen Textilindustrie. Studi economici e tecnologici 1. Rome. Weadock, P. N. 1975 The Giparu at Ur. IRAQ 37: 101–28. Westenholz, J. Goodnick 1996 Symbolic Language in Akkadian Narrative Poetry: The Metaphorical Relationship between Poetical Images and the Real World. Pp. 183–200 in Mesopotamian Poetic Language: Sumerian and Akkadian, ed. E. Vogelzang et al. Groningen. Wilcke, C. 1968 Das Modale Adverb I-GI4-IN-ZU im Sumerischen. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 27: 229–42. 1969a Das Lugalbandaepos. Wiesbaden. 1969b ku-li. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 59: 65–99. 1969c Drei Phasen des Niedergangs des Reiches von Ur III. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 60 54–69. 1972 Der aktuelle Bezug der Sammlung der sumerischen Tempelhymnen und ein Fragment eines Klageliedes. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 62: 35–61. 1975 Formale Gesichtpunkte in der sumerischen Literartur. Pp. 205–316 in Sumerological Studies in Honor of Thorkild Jacobsen on His Seventieth Birthday, June 7, 1974, ed. S. J. Lieberman. Assyriological Studies 20. Chicago.

Bibliography 1976

243

Kollationen zu den sumerischen literarischen Texten aus Nippur in der Hilprecht-Sammlung Jena. Abhandlungen der Sachsischen Akademie der Wissen­shaften zu Leipzig: Philologisch-Historische Klasse 65. Berlin.

Witzel, M. 1945–46 Die Klage über Ur. Orientalia 14: 185–234; 15: 46–63. Woods, C. 2008 The Grammar of Perspective: The Sumerian Conjugation Prefixes as a System of Voice. Cuneiform Monograph 32. Leiden. Wossnik, A. 2009 Challenging Climate Change: Competition and Cooperation among Pastoralists and Agriculturalists in Northern Mesopotamia (c. 3000–1600 bc). Leiden. Yoshikawa, M. 1975 Some Philological Notes on J. Bauer, AWL. Orientalia 44: 449–52. 1985 Lagaš and Ki-Lagaš, Unug and Ki-Unug. Acta Sumerologica (Japan) 7: 157–64. 1992 The Sumerian Genitival Construction in Terms of ‘Status Constructus’. Acta Su­merologica (Japan) 14: 403–6. Zgoll, A. 1977 Der Rechtsfall der En-hedu-Ana im Lied nin-me-šara. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 246. Münster.

Indexes

Index of Words, Particles, and Idioms Discussed a du11-ga  80 a maḫ e3-a-gin7   23, 24, 97 a/e-ne–du11  103 a2   88, 118 a2–aĝ2   22, 93, 96 a2–la2   30, 94, 127 kuš a2-la2  122 ad-a-ni  87 aĝ2  93 aĝ2 gig-ga   116 al-ĝar   19, 87 am  15 ama5   92, 107, 380 amaš   14, 15, 78 an-bar7  98 an-bar7-gana2  98 a-nir  88 a-nir–ĝar  84 ar2(-mur-ra)  114 a-ra-li  94 a-ra-zu  10 a-ra-zu–e  10 arḫuš su3  130 aš2–bal  110 a-še-er–ĝar  84–85 a-u3-a   28, 121 ba  100 bal   23, 99 bala   21, 86, 89 balaĝ   19, 87 bar-šeĝ3  98 bar–tab  98 bar–tag  98 bar-ta–gub   109, 124 bar7  107 be4  100 bu(-r)  92 bur2-ra  117

buru4  112 buru5mušen  113 dab5   99, 113 dib2  130 diĝir   80, 131 dim2   3, 86 du3   79, 92, 102, 111, 114, 118 du6  117 DU7  83–84 du8  112 du11   93, 107, 117 du12  120 dub2  128 du-bu-ul  105 DUL3 (sur2/sumur)  87 dur2-ru-un  111 e  22 e2   25, 92 e2 ara5  116 e2-ĝar8  117 e2 ka5-a  111 e2 ki-buru14  92 e2 ur5-ra  116 e3   88, 107 eden ki nu-zu   114 en   28, 121 en e2-kiš-nu-ĝal-la-ke4  108 en3-še3  85 e-ne-eĝ2   22, 93 er2   10, 12, 119 erim3  106 esaĝ2  92 ešda  121 ešemen  103 ezem-ma–du3/ ezem-gin7– du3   102, 112 ga gur3  123 gaba–sa2  124

244

gaba–ri  124 gaba–zi   89, 90 gada-gin7. . .bur   101 gala  2 ganam4   110, 115 ga-ša-an   85, 119 ga-ša-an gu-la   82 geme2  113 gi4  93 gi4-in  113 gig  84 gig-ga(-bi)–du11  109 gi-gun4-na  121 -gin7  95 gir5  116 giri17-zal-bi du3  112 gi-sig   91, 102 gu2 za3-ga la2  105 gu2-ĝiri3–ĝar  91 gu3 gig–du11  109 gu3–de2  96 gu3–du11  96–97 gu3–dub2  126 gub  111 gudu   28, 120 gul  92 gur   93, 106 ĝalga   3, 106 ĝar   78, 79, 87, 92, 101, 118, 119, 120 ĝarza   3, 18, 86, 119 ĝeštin  112 ĝi6   87, 88 ĝidru  121 ĝipar  120 ĝiri3 ĝal2  102 ĝiri3 kur2  113 ĝiri3–dab5  129

245

Indexes ĝiri3–si3  129 ĝiš-bur2  23 ĝiš-gi4-ĝal2   3, 84 ĝiš-ḫur  3 ĝiš-la2  89 ḫa-lam-ma  108 ḪAR  112 ḫi-li  120 hub2  94 huĝ  93 ḫul  87 ḫul-ĝal2  100 i3  122 i3 gur   123 i3-nun  122 i3-udu  103 igi  88 igi–bar  91 igi-zu/ni-še3–dib  130 im  15 im-bar  98 im-bar-šeĝ3  98 im šeĝ14  92 im-ḫul  96 im-ulu3  88 inim diri   116 inim zu2-keš2-da  94 ir  112 i-si-iš  83 išib   28, 121 izi  110 izi–ra  107 ka  96 kadra   10, 30, 131 kalam   18, 23, 99 kalam. . .til   85 ka-na-aĝ2  101 ka-ta e3-a-ni  22 KAxŠE  97 keš3  79 ki  87 KI.E.NE.DI  103 ki-bi-še3 gur   128 ki–ĝar  118 ki saĝ ki   94 ki šu ak   89–90 kiĝ2   94, 123 ki–ĝar  87 ki–kiĝ2  123 ki-na2  89 kiri3 šu–ĝal2   11, 130 kiri3 šu–tag   10, 11, 30, 130

ki-ru-gu2   3, 83 ki-saĝ-ĝal2-la  107 kiši16/kiši17   112, 123 ki–us2  104 ku4   79, 96, 119 kur2   86, 106, 117, 119 kuš2   83, 85, 87 la2   114, 129 lal  112 la-la-bi nu-gi4  118 lib  89 lil2   14, 15, 78, 79, 92, 120 lu(-g)  110 lu2   86, 88, 109 lu2 erim2/ nu erim2  109 lu2 nu-nus   88, 109 lu2 sikil-la   108 lu2 siskur2-ra   10, 30, 130, 131 lu2 su16-na  129 lu2 zi   91 lu2-ulu3  30 lul  89 lu2-maḫ   28, 121 ma-al  88 ma-la  127 mar  117 maš-da3   104, 105 maš-nita  104 me   4, 18, 86, 119 mir  98 mu2  119 mul-gana2 pe-el   112 mur–ša3  97 mur–ša4  23 muš2-am3  125 muš3–ga   15, 78, 84 muš3–tum2  78 mušen  119 na2  104 na-aĝ2   22, 100 nam–ku5   109, 110 ni2  89 ni2–dub2  116 ni3 si-a   92 ni3-di11  120 ni3-diri  92 ni3-du11  95 ni3-gu7  120 tug 2ni3-la2  104 nidba  119 nim   110, 113 nin  86

2numun2-bur2  115 pe-el  87 pu2-ĝiškiri6  112 ri   111–112, 125–126 -ri   126, 130–131 sa-du-bu-ul  105 saĝ  107 saĝ eĝar du3 ak   99 saĝ ĝi6-ga  30 saĝ il2  116 saĝ numun-e-eš ĝar   103 saĝ-gaz–ak  23 saĝ–us2  116 saḫar  99 sar  119 si3   93, 105 si-ga  129 sig   110, 113 si-ig  128–129 sig3  79 sila kur2  113 siskur  10 sud  21 sug-ge4. . .gu7   92, 106, 107, 113 sur  103 sur3  103 su–dar  100 ša3 du-bu-la   105 ša3-gada–la2  121 ša3-ĝar  105 ša3–ḫuĝ  10 ša3-su3-ga  120 ša3-su3-ga du3  120 še17  93 še21  104 šeg11–gi4-gi4  97 šeĝ14  92 šem3   115, 121 še–ša4  24 šika  99 šitax  121 šu  88 šu–ak  90 šu-bal–ak   86, 106 šu–dab5  120 šu–du7  121 šu–du8  121 ŠU.GIR (šu-kux)  123 šu–gid2  122 šul  113 šu–la2  126 šu–luḫ  121

u

246 ŠU.NE  104 šu pe-el-la2 du11  107 šu–ša  123 šu-še-er  113 šu–ur  100 šu–ur4  23 ta-aš  118 tab   91, 126 temesar123 teš2–ĝal2   30, 127 teš2–tuku  127 tigi  122 til  23 tu10  128 tug2 mu(-un)-dur7  113 tug2 mu-un-sir   113 tug2-(gin7). . .dul   101 tuku  120 e 2tur   21, 115 tur3  14 tur-tur-bi  87 u3  109

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur u3-bu-bu-ul  110 u4   15, 20, 22, 23, 29, 87–88, 96, 101, 126, 127 u4 babbar   98 u4 gal   22 u4 gig   22, 87 u4 ḪI-da   98 u4 ḫul du3-a  131 u4 ḫul-ĝal2  96 u4 mir-mir   22 u4 sa6-ga  87 u4 sud-ra2   21, 89 u4 tur   21, 88–89 u4 zalag   98 u4-du10  96 u8  110 u8-a-e  88 ub3  115 uĝ3   24, 96, 99 ulutim2–bal  122 ulutim2–kur2  122 umuš   3, 86

UR–gu7   23, 97, 108, 125 ur2–su3  94 ur3  100 ur4  100 ur5–ug7  91 ur5-ug7-a  91 uru  25 uru-bar  110 uru-ša3  110 uru2  23 us2  104 usanx  98 usar  127 uzga   28, 121 za3–tag   3, 125 zal   103, 126 zaraḫ  88 zaraḫ–ak  88 zar-re-eš–du8  103 zi  115 zi-ĝal2  128

Index of Divine Names in the Ur Lament Each entry is followed by the relevant line number in LU. ab-ba-ba6   24, 25 am-an-ki (Enki)   18 an   145, 150, 155, 160, 168, 257, 381 d a-nun-na  53 d aš-im2-babbar2 (Nanna)   428 d ba-ba6  22 d dumu-zi-abzu  33 d en-lil2   173, 180, 203, 382, 414 d gibil6   180, 241 ga-ša-an-gal (Ningal)   15, 16, 291, 296, 303, 305, 307 d d

ga-ša-an-i3-si-inki (Ninisina)   10 ga-ša-an-maḫ (Ninmaḫ)   8 ga-ša-an-MAR.KI (Ninmarki?)  35 ga-ša-an-na (Inanna)   12 kin-gal-u4-da  177 d lamma   26, 27 d ma-ze2-ze2-be2 (Ĝatumdug)   29 d mu-ul-lil2 (Enlil)   4, 146, 151, 156, 161, 169, 258, 260

nanna   13, 47, 64, 72, 78, 209, 250, 287, 293, 351, 407, 419, 423, 427, 429, 432, 435 d ninašte(?)  19 d nin-gal   81, 238, 248, 254, 332, 334, 375, 378 d nin-lil2   5, 6 d suen   14, 327 d šara  20 d u4-saḫar-ra  21 d

Index of Geographical and Topographical Names Each entry is followed by the relevant line number in LU. agrun-ku3   16, 50, 113, 323 e2-gal-maḫ   10, 60 e2-kiš-nu-ĝal2   14, 49, 124, 242, 353 e2-kur  53 e2-maḫ  20

e2-tar-sir2-sir2   27, 57 e4-du11-ga  23 elam  244 i3-si-inki   9, 59 ki-en-gi/gi4   175, 195 ki-nir-ša3-baki   32, 33

ki-unugki   11, 61 ki-ur3   6, 51 lagaški   28, 29 la-ra-akki  19 ma-gu2-en-na   25, 58 nibruki   4, 52

247

Index of Sumerian Sources ninaki  30 sirara3ki  31 šimaškiki  244 ummaki  21 unugki  12

uri2ki   13, 43, 45, 48, 68, 75, 79, 109, 130, 135, 141, 148, 158, 163, 167, 204, 227, 250, 256, 266, 287, 293, 298, 317, 322, 327, 348, 370, 384

uru2-ku3   22, 56 uru2-ze2-baki   17, 18, 62

Index of Sumerian Sources Names and line numbering of Sumerian literary works follow ETCSL. Names and line numbering of royal inscriptions follow RIME. For abbreviations used in this index, cf. p. xi above and the Bibliography (pp. 234−43). Abī-ešuḫ A 11   83 Abisare 1:16 (RIME 4 124)   93 1:28 (RIME 4 124)   93 An-Anum II 268   81 IV 41   82 V 54   81 V 60   81 Asarluhi A 13   87 Bau A 34   130 Bur-Suen A 4   97 CA  3 36  110 54  83 89–90  128 99   95, 96 112  102 124  117 147  106 154–157  7 169    109 170  110 171  93 174  112 189  103 213  126 218  109 264–65  123 273–74  123 CLAM 50:24  91 52:5–56  15 66:1–14  85 74:1  15 76:25  117 77:42  115 78:72–73  109

CLAM (cont.) 97:21  91 99:90–98  118 101:149  117 101:157  79 126:62  86 128:88’  107 129:99  107 130:122  85 132:180  85 155:25–29  85 155:31–34  107 163:209  85 164:229  85 191:73–74  85 196:77–83  85 212:116–17  88 224:18  117 226:70  85 228:104–9  80 228:110  117 229:125  118 230:159ff.  85 237:293  81 237:303  80 257:66  118 282:186  82 284:211  81 285:221  80 306:177  80 328:193–200  80 328:201  117 349:18  91 360:227  81 361:237  80 377:25  105 385:28ff.  85 405:36  85

CLAM (cont.) 408:114  115 414:29  85 457:1  85 460:62–63  88 461:68  85 481:13ff.  85 486:117  81 507:107  122 541:31–32  106 543:79–87  107 607:16–19  127 607:20  127 607:24  126 608:31  126 611:94  81 613:146–614:191  80 613:160  81 614:178  80 619:249  81 638:6  120 639:25  85 647:13–14  88 708:64–65  14 710:108–13  80 712:161  117 717:256–57  110 729:16–17  88 Cohen 1981: 64:34–35  114 70:21  86 91:35  81 108:7  81 111:21–22  80 122:19  85 139:3  81 Copper and Silver 79   97 Death of Gilgameš   1

248 Death of Gilgameš (cont.) seg. A 19   99, 104 seg. F 7   94 seg. F 101   94 seg. G 12   107 Diatribe B seg. A 6   127 Dumuzi and Ĝeštinana 41   116 Dumuzi-Inana B1 11   115 B1 22   88 D1 57   112 F 14   119 F 16   119 R ver. B 9–10   123 R ver. C 4–5   123 Dumuzi’s Dream 3  88 33  129 40  79 53  129 56  129 59  107 176–77  93 251  107 253  107 257  129 Ea 499 (MSL 14, 51)   111 Edubba C 67–68   89 Elegy on the Death of Nannaya  1 84  113 Enki and Ninḫursaĝ 167  121 256  81 273  81 Enki and Ninmaḫ 79  89 125  89 132  94 Enki and the World Order 2  15 281  107 290  115 361  112 439  102 445  103 446  93 Enki’s Journey to Nibru 54  115 85  115 Enlil A 28  88 110  118

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur Enlil and Sud version A seg. A 146–55   89 version A seg. A 145   116 version A seg. A 169   116 version A seg. S 16   127 version B 15   82 Enmerkar and En-suḫgir-ana 6  102 99  102 seg. A 133–34   102 seg. A 198   129 seg. A 203   109 seg. A 253   124 Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta 264  89 En-suḫgir-ana 207–10   111 Flood Story seg. D 1   128 seg. D 2   23 Gilgameš and Aga 50   106 Gilgameš and Ḫuwawa A 34   89 A 59   89 Gilgameš, Enkidu, and the Nether World 10  96 First Ur Version 2   104 Grain and Sheep 59   104 Gudea Cyl. A–B 199  101 369  118 452  97 637  97 657  98 666  89 683  97 811–12  132 901  101 1100  118 1198  89 1243  97 1284  102 Gudea Stat. B 9:7   93 Ḫendursaĝa A seg. B 42   111 seg. B 45   111 seg. A 78–84   102 seg. A 82   102 seg. A 92   108 Hoe and Plow 53  94 121  115

Hoe and Plow (cont.) 179  97 Hymn for Šu-Suen 16   116 Ibbi-Suen B seg. C 10   100 Iddin-Dagan 2:40 (RIME 4 24)   93 A 17   83 A 33   130 A 55   104 A 156   105 B 35   95 C 14   79 C 16   79 D 4   100 Inana and Bilulu 27  83 28  83 88  79 Inana and Ebiḫ 46  131 47  107 47–48  108 106  107 106–7  108 136–37  99 178  24 Inana and Enki 3   88 Inana and Gudam 21   88 Inana and Šu-kale-tuda 242  125 243  125 Inana B 89   96 C 36   107 C 66   107 C 197   88 C 212   130 C 215   130 C 258   125 Inana’s Descent 171  119 218–12  83 237  83 239  83 291  121 291–92  102 371–72  123 Instructions of Šuruppag 116  127 138  116 255  116

249

Index of Sumerian Sources Išbi-Erra B, seg. B 7   88 C 24   116 Išme-Dagan A 26   89 A seg. A 182   95 A seg. A 185–86   101 B 47   112 J 1–2   83 K 21   96 K 36   116 W seg. A 35   108 W seg. A 36   116 X 11   119 Keš Temple Hymn   39 LE   4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 13, 14 seg. A 8–9   97 seg. A 11   109 seg. A 12   109 seg. A 14   107, 119 seg. A 19   23, 100, 131 seg. A 21   8 seg. A 24   114 seg. A 31   102 seg. A 39–40   122 seg. A 86–87   108 seg. A 87   8 seg. A 92   113 seg. B 3   109 seg. B 6   109 seg. B 9   23 seg. B 11   118 seg. B 12   118 seg. C 5   125 seg. C 7   125 seg. C 9–25   3 seg. C 10   125 seg. C 13   125 seg. C 16   125 seg. C 17   85 seg. C 22   125 seg. C 24   125 seg. C 50   120, 129 seg. C 54   125 Letter from Aba-Indasa to Šulgi about His Neglect 22   108 Letter from Sîn-iddinam to the God Utu 20   124 Letter from the Scribe NannaManšum to Ninisina 5–6  104

Letter of Sîn-iddinam to Ninisina 26  104 Lipit-Eštar A 52   78 B 42   116 LN   4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 13, 14 2  79 6  79 11  79 12  120 27  6 34  118 39–40  118 42  106 58  125 63  92 64  117 68  90 77  109 80  125 81  118 85  129 91  125 92  118 99  96 126  120 129  85 136–37  115 143  85 167–68  128 179  85 181   85, 115 195  85 208  106 208–10  107 212  83 231  7 257  110 308–14  6 310  129 320–22  132 LSUr   4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 32 5–6  126 5–7  7 6–7  7 7  111 3–55  86 18  126 24  125 25–26  110 31  117

LSUr (cont.) 33   5, 6 35  5 36  6 40  117 59   23, 100, 126 60  92 73–74  91 77–80  99 79  99 80   98, 90 86  122 94  23 95–96  106 98  113 102  117 105  5 107   23, 100 107–8  88 108  23 112  83 113  23 116  113 124   113, 124 130  112 133  109 134  113 136–137  9 151  91 156  113 158  118 160  113 172  80 178  82 180  119 180–81  82 187  105 222  114 230  6 240–42  118 254–55  113 256  6 272  102 275–76  116 278  102 311  78 315  120 322  78 324  96 328   102, 119 329  115 329–30  91

250 LSUr (cont.) 330  102 332   113, 114 341  118 345   79, 110 346  111 347   79, 120 357  83 361  119 364–69  21 367  129 370  83 385  102 398  85 399–401  24 405   23, 24 406  23 415  104 435  117 442  91 445  121 447  121 451  122 461  112 462  105 475–77  11 478  83 479–81  11 483  90 483–519  11 486–90  126 488  6 489  6 490  6 491  6 505  112 519  83 LU 1–35   15–16, 78 3  84 3–18  16 4  84 5  84 5–6  15 6  84 6a  51 6b  51 7  84 8  84 9  84 9–10  9 10   80, 84

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur LU (cont.) 11  84 12   79, 80, 84 13  15 13–14  15 15   80, 84 15–16  15 16   80, 84 17  84 17–18  16 18   79, 84 18a   51, 80 19   16, 52, 80, 84 20  79 20–21  15 20–35  16 22–23  15 24–25  15 26  20 28   15, 79 29  84 30   79, 84 31   80, 84 32   78, 79, 84 33  84 34  84 35   80, 84 37   78, 79, 84 40  84 40–47  17 41  84 44  84 46   83, 84 47   83, 84 48  84 48–62   17, 18 49  84 50  84 51  84 52  84 53  84 54  84 55  84 56  84 57  84 58   81, 84 59  84 59–60  9 60  84 61  84 62  84 63   83, 84

LU (cont.) 63–72  18 64   83, 84 66–68  18 69  119 69–70  106 70  119 71   83, 84 72   83, 84, 85 74  84 75  84 77   41, 91 77–79  19 77–87  19 80  83 82–83  19 82–85  26–27 86–87  27 88  19 88–101   19, 20 88–169  19 90–91  19 91  19 92–94  20 92–95  87 95   20, 21 96–98   20, 87 99  88 100  19 101   19, 21, 88, 91 102  20 102–4  20 102–12   19, 20 103  20 104  20 105  20 105–6  119 105–9  20 106  20 107  20 108   85, 91 108–9  20 109  91 110   20, 88 110–12  20 111   20, 41, 87 112   20, 88 113–15  91 113–33   19, 20 114   20, 21 116–17  20 117   20, 21, 90

251

Index of Sumerian Sources LU (cont.) 118   21, 88 118–21  20 120–21  19 121  20 122–23  20 123  21 124–26  20 125  41 127   19, 20, 21, 90 128–29  19 128–33  21 129  41 129–31  79 133  41 135  91 135a  93 137–42  22 137–51  21 137–69   20, 21 138  19 138a   93, 119 140  19 140–41  41 140–42  22 143–44  27 150  22 150–51  21 151  124 151a-c  21 152  21 152–67  21 153  22 154  21 160  22 160–169  21 162–63  22 162–64  21 166  49 168  22 169  22 171   85, 93, 119 171–72  22 173  23 173–76  24 173–81  22 174  132 174–75  22 175   20, 101 177  22 178  22 178–79  24

LU (cont.) 180  22 181–82  24 182  22 182–83  22 183  23 184   22, 23, 24 185   23, 24, 99 186–87  24 187–88  22 188  22 190–92  22 191  111 192–93  23 193–95  24 195  23 196   23, 24 197   22, 23, 24 197–204  23 198  23 198–202  23 198–99  23 200  23 202  23 203  29 203–4  23 206  24 208–10  128 209–10  24 211   24, 92 211–16  107 212  24 212–13  24 214–16  24 217–18  24 218–19  107 219–24  24 221  107 223–24  107 224  102 225–26  24 225–26  24 226–30  24 227–28  24 231–34  24 231–35  24 232  92 236–37  119 237–38   25, 27 239  92 239–41  25 240  92

LU (cont.) 242–45  25 243  23 244   5, 6 245–46  24 246  25 247–50  25 249  85 250  80 252  25 254–56   25, 27 256  80 257  85 257–58  25 257–98  25 259  85 259–60  25 261  85 261–62  26 261–64  25–26 263–64  26 265–74  26 275–79  110 275–82  26 276–77  110 279  92 282  26 283  26 283–85  26 286–96  26 293  25 297–98  26 298  26 299–301   25, 27 300  26 302–10   25, 26 302–3  26 304  92 311–13  26–27 311–14  25 315–20  26 315–27   25, 26 322  119 325  26 326   26, 111 329  26 331–32  28 331–38  28 331–68  28 334  118 336  118 338  118

252 LU (cont.) 339–41  28 342–44  28 346  118 346–49  28 347  78 347–56  28 356  120 357–58  28 359–60  28 361–62  28 363–66  28 367–68  28 369–70   28, 29 369–84  28 370  106 371–72  28 374–75  28 374–77   3, 29 376–77  29 377  83 378–80  29 381–84  29 383  9 383–84  29 383a  9 384a  9 384b  9 384c  9 386    86, 119 388  29 389–407  29 393–94  29 395  29 396  29 398   29, 30 399  29 400–404  29 406  29 407  29–30 409–11  30 412  30 412–14  30 416  30 418  30 418–20  30 421–22  30 422  120 423–24  30 425  30 428–29  30 429–30  30

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur LU (cont.) 430  30 431  30 432–34  31 434  31 435  31 Lugalbanda and the Anzu Bird 168  83 226  83 234  83 311–14  95 377–80  95 Lugalbanda in the Mountain Cave seg. A 32   115 seg. A 78   99,104 seg. A 154   94 seg. A 167   114 seg. A 182   115 seg. A 239   115 seg. A 303   97 seg. A 315   97 seg. A 469   24 Lugal-Nesaĝe to a King Radiant as the Sun ver. A 16–17   88 ver. B 4–5   88 Luma A 55   124 LW   4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 14 seg. A 19   118 seg. A 25   23 seg. B 4   125 seg. D 4   105 seg. D 13   114 seg. D 15   126 seg. D 24   102 seg. D 25   109 seg. E 7   118 seg. E 16   131 seg. E 30   105 seg. E 54   7 seg. E 55   23, 99 seg. E 63   7 seg. E 65   7, 23, 24 seg. E 68   117 seg. E 70   105 seg. E 90   102 seg. E 92   105 seg. E 97   7, 23,24 seg. E 111   7 seg. E 115   124 seg. F 5   7 seg. H 9–27   6

LW (cont.) seg. H 18   122 seg. H 22   129 Malku I 243   114 Man and his God   1 29  119 33  91 36  102 64–67  27 70  98 78–79  102 79–80  88 99  130 109  130 111  132 126  102 127–28  88 142–43  131 Marriage of Martu 74  104 133  92 MSL 6, 148:69   112 11, 112:71   112 12, 158:18   114 14, 420:262ff.   97 14, 486:27   106 Nammaḫani 6 ii 1–3   81 Nanna D 17   115 E 6   94 F 16   115 I 12   124 I 17   125 K seg. B 9   112 M 7   125 N 17   125 O seg. A 24   125 O seg. A 28   125 Nanna-Suen’s Journey to Nibru 338  112 Nanše A 28–29   113 A 48   121 A 77–79   123 A 166–67   119 A 176   89 Nergal C 58   124 Ninĝišzida A 10   121 Ninisina A 21   104 A 88   89

Index of Sumerian Sources Ninkasi A 26   115 A 28   115 Nintur A 28   90 A 32   90 Ninurta C 53   94 C 71   96 F 30   112 G 165   125 Ninurta and the Turtle 20   95 Ninurta’s Exploits 3  83 30  127 36  15 63  100 91  99 100  99 114  83 177  100 265  125 271  116 274  99 276  79 306  83 350  94 371  102 407  116 472  101 548  116 Ninurta’s return to Nibru 119  24 180–82  124 169–71  93 Nisaba B 8   119 B 9   119 Nungal A 26   88 A 39   88 A 54   122 A 61   88 A 96   94 A 484–85   90 Nuska A seg. A 18   121 OB catalog from Nibru 32–34  4 35–37  4 OB catalog from Urim 44–46   4

OB catalog in the Louvre 26–28  4 28  4 Pabilsag’s Journey to Nippur 1   15 Rīm-Sîn A 1   95 B 18   114 E 68   130 F 1   116 G 30   116 I 17:13 (RIME 4 296)   130 Rulers of Lagaš 155   124 Samsu-iluna F seg. A 10   116 Sargon and Ur-Zababa 7  78 seg. A 4   111 SBH 9:55  122 10:56  122 Sîn-iddinam 14:36  112 14:37  93 Sîn-Iddinam to Utu 17   106 Song of Hoe 62   97 SP 1.18  113 1.101  97 1.196  105 2.31  97 2.62  111 4.62  116 5.34  90 5.84  97 5.97  119 12 sec. B 6   82 12 sec. B 7   82 Sumerian King List   21 Šu-ilišu A 52   103 A 60   131 Šulgi 2102:1–3 (RIME 3 203)   81 B 148   83 B 162   105 B 242   130 B 364   130 C seg. A 19   130 C seg. B 9   97 D 342   112 D 395   119

253 Šulgi (cont.) E 219   110 E 232   131 E 246   130 G 1   95 P seg. B 18   115 R 61   115 X 91   102 X 114   97 Šumunda Grass 3  99 9  100 36  99 Šu-Suen F 39   119 Temple Hymns 66  116 163  115 298  87 Ur-Namma A 6   100 A 44   89 A 62   94 A 151   117 A 187   122 A 194   120 A 206   126 A, Susa ver. seg. D 12   101 B 6   93 D Ur version 11–12   116 D, Version from Unknown Provenance 37   116 E 27   130 I seg. B 3   119 Ur-Ninurta A 16   83 Uru Ammairrabi (Volk 1989) 82:39–40  118 141:48  79 141:51–52  110 146:86  111 Utu B 8   99 B 28   97 Winter and Summer 34  101 65  118 138  112 151  78 209  78

Plates Page

Sigla

248 248 248 248 249 249 249 249 250 250 250

K1 obv. K1 rev. K2 obv. K2 rev. N2 obv. N2 rev. N3 obv. (cast) N3 rev. (cast) N4 obv. (cast) N4 rev. (cast) N5 obv.

Museum Numbers and Publications Ash 1932,415 (OECT 5 12) Ash 1932,526o (OECT 5 14) HS 1487 (TMH NF 4 24) 3N-T680 = IM 58615 3N-T458 = IM 58492 UM 29-16-774+

250 N7

UM 29-13-240

250 N10 obv. 250 N10 rev. 251 N11 obv.

3N-T918,420 CBS 7080 (PBS 10/4 11)+

252 N11 rev.

253 N13

Line Numbers 272–283 284–293 339–344 345–358 1−24 25−40 1−10 32−40 1–6 29–35 1−10 (rev. uninscribed) Col. i: 2–22 Col. ii: 65–70 11–13 14–16 Col. i: 16–32 Col. ii: 66–96 Col. iii: 97–149 Col. iv: 150–197 Col. v: 198–248 Col. vi: 255–284 Col. vii: 297–322 Col. viii: 323–360 Col. ix: 361–391 Col. x: 406–431

3N-T918,414

21–28 (other side destroyed)

254

255

Plates Page

Sigla

253 N14 obv.

Museum Numbers and Publications CBS 7975 (STVC 21)+

254 N14 rev.

255 255 255 255

N15 obv. N15 rev. N16 obv. N16 Lower Edge

255 N16 rev. 256 N17 obv.1

3N-T 901,46 N 3536

Ni 3166 (SLTN 96 = AS 12 pl. 4)

256 N18

Ni 4424 (ISET 1 p. 153)

257 N19 obv.

CBS 3878 (STVC 22)+

258 N19 rev.

N21 obv. N21 rev. N22 obv. (cast) N22 rev. (cast) N22 upper edge (cast)

Col. i: 23−33 Col. ii: 70−85 Col. iii: 104−148 Col. iv: 158−206 Col. vi : 255–284 Col. vii : 297–322 Col. viii : 323–360 Col. ix : 361–391 Col. x :406–431

256 N17 rev.

259 259 259 259 259

Line Numbers

UM 29−16−397 3N−T921ii = A 33551

259 N24 obv.

CBS 12512

259 N25

3N-T 902,88

25–26 180−182 25−38 39 41−50 Col. i: 36–61 Left Edge: 434–435 Col ii’: uncertain Col. iii’: 400–410 43–51 (other side destroyed) Col. ii: 60–67 Col. iii: 108–133; 146–160 Col. iv: 161–184; 193–207 Col. v: 209–229 Col. vi: 254–256; 275–294 Col. vii: 295–300; 311–330 Col. viii: 331–338; 349–364 Col. ix: 398−403 77−103 112−136, 139 77−81 131−135 136−137 78–89 (reverse destroyed) 78–86 (other side destroyed)

1.  Photographs of tablets from Istanbul are presented by the permission of Selim F. Adalı who is working on the Istanbul manuscripts for publication.

256

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

Page

Sigla

260 260 261 261 261 261 261 261 262

N26 obv. N26 rev. N27 obv. N27 rev. N28 obv. (cast) N28 rev. (cast) N29 obv. N29 rev. N31

Museum Numbers and Publications CBS 13593+ N 893 3N−T546 = IM 58544 Ni 9822 (ISET 1 p. 197) CBS 6795

262 N32 rev.

3N-T 906,241(SLFN 12)

262 N33 obv. (cast) 262 N33 rev. (cast) 262 N34 obv. (cast)

3N-T416 = IM 58468 3N−T519 = IM 58532+

262 N34 rev. (cast) Ni 4296

263 N39 obv.

N 3182+

3N−T904,151

263 N39 rev. N 2205

264 N42 obv. (cast) 264 N42 rev. (cast) 265 N43 obv.

3N−T492 = IM 58517

Ni 9623 (ISET 1 p. 176)

CBS 15091 Ni 4459 (ISET 1 p. 139) CBS 8079 (STVC 23)

266 N46 rev. 267 N48 obv. 267 N48 rev.

146–157 158–169 172–178 (other side destroyed) 173−187 206−208

264 N40 obv. 264 N40 rev. 264 N41 obv.

N43 rev. N45 obv. N45 rev. N46 obv.

82−107 119−137 84−92 99−106 91–95 96–101 92–100 107–117 104–111 (other side destroyed) 104–109 (obv. destroyed) 137–148 170–173 138–156 157–173

263 N36 obv. 263 N36 rev. 264 N38

265 265 265 266

Line Numbers

CBS 4584 (PBS 10/2 10)

173−175 205−208 173–180 (reverse destroyed) 185–197 198–208 187–193 194–200 192–194 217–218 Col i: uncertain Col. ii: 194−207 Col. iii: 238−249 Col. iv: 269−277 Col. v: 304−310 208−216 252–254

257

Plates Page

Sigla

267 N50 267 N50 268 N55 obv.

Museum Numbers and Publications CBS 2191+ CBS 2204+

269 N55 rev. 270 N56 obv. 270 N56 rev. 270 N59

N 4253

270 270 270 271 271

3N−T901,41

N61 obv. N61 rev. N61 upper edge N63 obv. N63 rev.

N 1331

CBS 8336 2

271 N66 obv. 271 N66 rev. 271 N67

N 2529

271 N68

N 3609

272 N69 obv. 272 N69 rev. 272 N71

CBS 1579

272 N76 rev.

Ni 9586 (ISET 1 p. 205)

273 P obv.

AO 6446 (TCL 16 40 = TRS 2 40)

N 1810

Ni 4074 (TAD 8/2 pl. 35)

274 P rev.

275 275 276 276

Y1 obv. Y1 rev. Y2 obv. Y2 rev.

YBC 7159 YBC 4661

Line Numbers Obv: 214−235 236−243, 247−254 Col. i: 260–296 Col. ii: 297–334 Col. iii: 335–367 Col. iv: 368–397 271−277a 278−288 Col. i: 314−320 Col. ii: 351−356 331–335 366–371 370–371 333−356 357−380 351−355 356−362 Obv: 359−365 (rev.: blank) Col. i: 362−365 Col. ii: uncertain 370−386 394−397 Col. i: 384−388 Col. ii: 428−434 435−436 (obv. destroyed) Col. i: 1−89 Col. ii: 90−175 Col. iii: 176−257 Col. iv: 258−341 Col. v: 342−426 Col. vi: 427−436 137−168 180−208 208−239 240–254

2.  The fragment N6651, which joins this tablet, does not appear in the plates.

Plate 1

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

K1 rev.

K1 obv. and lower edge

K2 obv.

K2 rev.

258

259

Plates

N2 obv.

N2 rev.

N3 obv. (cast)

N3 rev. (cast)

Plate 2

Plate 3

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

N4 obv. (cast)

N4 rev. (cast)

N5 obv.

N10 obv. N7

N10 rev.

260

261

N11 obv.

Plates

Plate 4

Plate 5

N11 rev.

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

262

263

Plates

N13

N14 obv.

Plate 6

Plate 7

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

N14 rev.

264

265

Plates

N15 obv.

N15 rev.

N16 obv.

N16 rev.

N16 lower edge

Plate 8

Plate 9

N17 obv.

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

N17 rev.

N18

266

267

N19 obv.

Plates

Plate 10

Plate 11

N19 rev.

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

268

269

Plate 12

Plates

N22 obv.

N22 rev.

N21 obv.

N21 rev.

N24

N22 upper edge

N25

Plate 13

N26 obv.

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

N26 rev.

270

271

Plate 14

Plates

N28 obv.

N27 obv.

N29 obv.

N27 rev.

N28 rev.

N29 rev.

Plate 15

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

N31

N32

N33 obv.

N34 obv.

272

N33 rev.

N34 rev.

273

Plate 16

Plates

N36 obv.

N39 obv.

N36 rev.

N39 rev.

Plate 17

N38

274

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

N40 obv.

N40 rev.

N41

N42 obv.

N42 rev.

275

Plate 18

Plates

N43 obv.

N43 rev.

N45 obv.

N45 rev.

Plate 19

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

N46 obv.

N46 rev.

276

277

Plate 20

Plates

N48 obv.

N50 obv.

N48 rev.

N50 rev.

Plate 21

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

N55 obv.

278

279

Plate 22

Plates

N55 rev.

Plate 23

N56 obv.

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

N56 rev.

N59

N61 obv. N61 rev.

N61 upper edge

280

281

Plate 24

Plates

N63 obv.

N63 rev.

N66 obv. N67

N66 rev.

N68

Plate 25

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

N71

N69 obv.

N69 rev.

N76

282

283

Plate 26

Plates

P obv.

Plate 27

P rev.

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

284

285

Y1 obv.

Plates

Yi rev.

Plate 28

Plate 29

Y2 obv.

Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur

Y2 rev.

286