8/11/2019 197 NO

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/197-no 1/3

http://www.jstor.org

Review: [untitled]Author(s): Cyrus H. GordonReviewed work(s): 'Working with No Data': Semitic and Egyptian Studies Presented to ThomasO. Lambdin by David M. Golomb ; Susan T. HollisSource: Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 53,No. 1, (1990), pp. 124-125Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of School of Oriental and African StudiesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/618976

Accessed: 01/07/2008 02:56

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the

scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that

promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

8/11/2019 197 NO

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/197-no 2/3

1 24

REVIEWS

24

REVIEWS

is

catalogued

under

GEME sa

sakintu.

The

sakintu

s

said to be

from

Kalzi,

with cross-

reference o

no.

410,

ascribed o the

sakintu

of

Kalzi

because he

witness

ist (all

that

survives

of the tablet) is similarto that of no. 409, a

sakintu

of

Kalzi

document

dated

679 B.C

No. 324,

dated

654 B.C.,

has no

witnesses

n

commonwithnos.

409-10.

Two of

the

witnesses

do

occur n

no.408,

also a sakintu

ext,

andthe

two

documents

are

cross-referencedn

the

notes.The

author

believes

he texts

probably

refer to

the same

sakintu.

No.408 does

not

however,

specify the

sakintu's

origin (the

relevant

artof the

tablet s

broken) nd

there s

no

reason

to

assumeshe

comes

from

Kalzi.

Indeed

in

Chart IIb

no.408 is

ascribedto

the

sakintuof

Assur

(no reason

given)and

in

Chart

III no. 324

is

suddenly

givenan

Assur

origin.Clearly here s someconfusionhere.

Kwasman

reads the

logogram

MI.ERIM

E.GAL

assakintu.

The

evidence o

support

his

could

be

interpreted

ifferently.

Ahu-dalliwas

sakintu

of

Nineveh in 686

B.C.

and 683

B.C.

(nos. 13, 14).

In

687 B.C.

she is

described

as

MI.ERIM

E.GAL

(no.12).

This

alone is

not

enough

to

equate the

two

terms

and the

MI.ERIME.GAL

of

no. 15

cannot

automati-

cally be

assumed o be

Ahu-dalli.Nor

can the

unnamed akintu

of no.

16.

MI.ERIM

t.GAL

couldbea

group

erm ike

LU.SAGandLU

tR

E.GAL,

which may or

may not

includethe

sakintu

(following

a

suggestion

of S.

Dalley

cf.CTN III p.27f.). The reference o NWL

no.3:

1s11

(MI.ERIM

E.GAL.MES

sa

MURU

URU/KIMIN

sat.GAL

masarti)

ited

by

Kwasman

o

supporthis

suggestions

more

in

keepingwiththe

atter

hypothesis, sthe

term

is

plural and

otherwiseonly

one sakintu

is

attested or

each

place.

NWL no.

4: 1S17

dis-

tinguishes

between

M1.ERIM

t.GAL.MES

and

Mt.ERIM

.GAL.MEs

kurarpadayate. It

is

unlikely

here

were

everal

akintusrom

Arpad.

Kwasman

lsoreads

MI.GARas

sakintu, s

is

clearlycorrect

n no.

17: 14'

and no.

411 7

where

he

logogram s

written

with a

phonetic

complement.

Healso

citesADD

950,

which ists

13 MI.GAR.MEgfrom 12 differentplaces

including he

ekal

masarti

nd theinner

city

of

Nineveh. As the

swakintu

as

an

important

palaceofficial

and

severalof

the places

n

the

text

probably

did

not have

palaces, the

logogram

here

may

perhaps be

read

MI.NINDA,

referring

o a

femalebaker,

onthe

analogy

LU.GAR/LU.NINDA (cf.

Postgate

Anatolian

Studies,30,

1980,68).

Parpolahas

commentedon the

reading

MI.GAR.KUR-tu

for

saklntuLAS,

I, p. 300, n.

548).

Kwasman's

readingMI

ERIMl.KUR-tu

does

not seem

justified.

In Chart IIb Kwasman dentifies he lady

Indib1

no. 112) as

a

lakhinatu

probably

read

lahhinnutun

Assyrian

f. ND

2309:6 and

ABL

1372:15) and

refers o ND

2309

and Sm.

461

Ahatabu

is the

lahhinnutu

f

ND 2309

and

Sm.461

(ADD 491)

concerns he

rab

alaniof

the

lahAinnutu.he

tablethasthe

same

dateand

two

of the

same

witnesses s

no. 112,

but this

is

not

sufficient

o

identify

Indib1as the

lahhin-

nutu,

particularlys

there

wereseveral

adiesof

that

profession cf.

the plural

writingsCT

53

721:

rev.2' and

ADD

827+914:

rev.1).

The

author s

perhapsn

general ather

ver-zealous

is

catalogued

under

GEME sa

sakintu.

The

sakintu

s

said to be

from

Kalzi,

with cross-

reference o

no.

410,

ascribed o the

sakintu

of

Kalzi

because he

witness

ist (all

that

survives

of the tablet) is similarto that of no. 409, a

sakintu

of

Kalzi

document

dated

679 B.C

No. 324,

dated

654 B.C.,

has no

witnesses

n

commonwithnos.

409-10.

Two of

the

witnesses

do

occur n

no.408,

also a sakintu

ext,

andthe

two

documents

are

cross-referencedn

the

notes.The

author

believes

he texts

probably

refer to

the same

sakintu.

No.408 does

not

however,

specify the

sakintu's

origin (the

relevant

artof the

tablet s

broken) nd

there s

no

reason

to

assumeshe

comes

from

Kalzi.

Indeed

in

Chart IIb

no.408 is

ascribedto

the

sakintuof

Assur

(no reason

given)and

in

Chart

III no. 324

is

suddenly

givenan

Assur

origin.Clearly here s someconfusionhere.

Kwasman

reads the

logogram

MI.ERIM

E.GAL

assakintu.

The

evidence o

support

his

could

be

interpreted

ifferently.

Ahu-dalliwas

sakintu

of

Nineveh in 686

B.C.

and 683

B.C.

(nos. 13, 14).

In

687 B.C.

she is

described

as

MI.ERIM

E.GAL

(no.12).

This

alone is

not

enough

to

equate the

two

terms

and the

MI.ERIME.GAL

of

no. 15

cannot

automati-

cally be

assumed o be

Ahu-dalli.Nor

can the

unnamed akintu

of no.

16.

MI.ERIM

t.GAL

couldbea

group

erm ike

LU.SAGandLU

tR

E.GAL,

which may or

may not

includethe

sakintu

(following

a

suggestion

of S.

Dalley

cf.CTN III p.27f.). The reference o NWL

no.3:

1s11

(MI.ERIM

E.GAL.MES

sa

MURU

URU/KIMIN

sat.GAL

masarti)

ited

by

Kwasman

o

supporthis

suggestions

more

in

keepingwiththe

atter

hypothesis, sthe

term

is

plural and

otherwiseonly

one sakintu

is

attested or

each

place.

NWL no.

4: 1S17

dis-

tinguishes

between

M1.ERIM

t.GAL.MES

and

Mt.ERIM

.GAL.MEs

kurarpadayate. It

is

unlikely

here

were

everal

akintusrom

Arpad.

Kwasman

lsoreads

MI.GARas

sakintu, s

is

clearlycorrect

n no.

17: 14'

and no.

411 7

where

he

logogram s

written

with a

phonetic

complement.

Healso

citesADD

950,

which ists

13 MI.GAR.MEgfrom 12 differentplaces

including he

ekal

masarti

nd theinner

city

of

Nineveh. As the

swakintu

as

an

important

palaceofficial

and

severalof

the places

n

the

text

probably

did

not have

palaces, the

logogram

here

may

perhaps be

read

MI.NINDA,

referring

o a

femalebaker,

onthe

analogy

LU.GAR/LU.NINDA (cf.

Postgate

Anatolian

Studies,30,

1980,68).

Parpolahas

commentedon the

reading

MI.GAR.KUR-tu

for

saklntuLAS,

I, p. 300, n.

548).

Kwasman's

readingMI

ERIMl.KUR-tu

does

not seem

justified.

In Chart IIb Kwasman dentifies he lady

Indib1

no. 112) as

a

lakhinatu

probably

read

lahhinnutun

Assyrian

f. ND

2309:6 and

ABL

1372:15) and

refers o ND

2309

and Sm.

461

Ahatabu

is the

lahhinnutu

f

ND 2309

and

Sm.461

(ADD 491)

concerns he

rab

alaniof

the

lahAinnutu.he

tablethasthe

same

dateand

two

of the

same

witnesses s

no. 112,

but this

is

not

sufficient

o

identify

Indib1as the

lahhin-

nutu,

particularlys

there

wereseveral

adiesof

that

profession cf.

the plural

writingsCT

53

721:

rev.2' and

ADD

827+914:

rev.1).

The

author s

perhapsn

general ather

ver-zealous

in

attributing texts

to

particular

archive

holders

on

the

basis (or so

it appears)

of

certain

com-

mon

witnesses.

There

are many

cases of

the

same witnesses

in texts

from

different

archives

as well as instances of texts belonging to the

same

archive holder

with

different

witness

lists.

Chart IV,

which

indicates

the

provenience

of

the

documents,

may be

misleading.

Clearly the

author has

used

different

criteria

when

determining the

geographical

setting of

the

texts,

sometimes

obvious,

sometimes

not.

More

details would

have been

useful,

particularly as

the

author

himself points

out that

the

chart is

not

intended to be

complete or

indicate the

exact

provenience

of the

archives.

Space

unfortunately

does

not permit

further

comment

on

individual texts.

The

comments

made are

in no

way

intended to

detract

from the

value of a carefully compiled publication, on

which the

author is to

be

congratulated and

which should

prove

useful

for

Assyriologists

and

historians

alike.

SUE

ROLLIN

DAVID

M.

GOLOMBed.)

[with]

SUSAN

T.

HOLLIS:

Workingwith

no data':

Semitic

and

Egyptian

studies

pre-

sented to

Thomas

0.

Lambdin.

ii

264

pp.

Winona

Lake,

Indiana

Eisenbrauns, 987.$28 50.

Professor Thomas

0.

Lambdin is

the author

of

three

Introductions:1)to

Biblical

fiIebrew,2)

to

Classical

Ethiopic nd

(3) to

Sahidic

Coptic

twelve

articles

and eight

reviews

(as

listed on

pp.262-3). His

major impact

has

been as a

teacher of

Semitic and

Egyptian

languages at

Harvard

University where

he has

trained

a host

of

disciples.

The wide

perspective he

has

applied

to

linguistics

was

inspired by

his

mentor at

Johns

Hopkins

University:

William F.

Albright.

But I

detect

another

more

down-to-earth

influence,

that of

the late

Frank

Blake, who

taught for

generations at

Johns

Hopkins. He

was one of Albright's teachers and remained on

for

decades as a

colleague

of

Albright in

what

amounted to

an

adjunct

capacity.

Blake was

strictly a

descriptive

linguist whose

work and

teaching

were

characterized by

method

and

clarity.

The

titles of the

articles

contributed by

Lambdin's

students

and friends

reflect the range

of his

linguistic

interests.

(Limitations of

space

oblige me

to restrict

my

critical

comments.)

Moshe

Bar-Asher,

'

The different

traditions

of

Mishnaic

Hebrew'

(pp. 1-38): on

pp. 27-28

the

author

explains

Mishnaic

lbtb '

whither ' on

the analogy of Biblical 1Rand ;73X Eblaite has

provided

another

approach: the

wide-spread

reduction

of

-ay- to -a-,

fully

treated by

Gary

Rendsburg, in

Vol. II of

the

Publicationsf the

[N. Y. U.]

Centeror Ebla

Research,

990.

Walter

R. Bodine

writes on '

Linguistics and

philology

in the

study of

Ancient

Near

Eastern

languages'

(pp.

39-54).

Richard J.

Clifford's ' Mot

invites Baal

to a

feast'

(pp.

55-64), brings

up a

general

matter of

applicability

that

transcends this

article

and this

author. It

applies

to

the whole

'Albright

in

attributing texts

to

particular

archive

holders

on

the

basis (or so

it appears)

of

certain

com-

mon

witnesses.

There

are many

cases of

the

same witnesses

in texts

from

different

archives

as well as instances of texts belonging to the

same

archive holder

with

different

witness

lists.

Chart IV,

which

indicates

the

provenience

of

the

documents,

may be

misleading.

Clearly the

author has

used

different

criteria

when

determining the

geographical

setting of

the

texts,

sometimes

obvious,

sometimes

not.

More

details would

have been

useful,

particularly as

the

author

himself points

out that

the

chart is

not

intended to be

complete or

indicate the

exact

provenience

of the

archives.

Space

unfortunately

does

not permit

further

comment

on

individual texts.

The

comments

made are

in no

way

intended to

detract

from the

value of a carefully compiled publication, on

which the

author is to

be

congratulated and

which should

prove

useful

for

Assyriologists

and

historians

alike.

SUE

ROLLIN

DAVID

M.

GOLOMBed.)

[with]

SUSAN

T.

HOLLIS:

Workingwith

no data':

Semitic

and

Egyptian

studies

pre-

sented to

Thomas

0.

Lambdin.

ii

264

pp.

Winona

Lake,

Indiana

Eisenbrauns, 987.$28 50.

Professor Thomas

0.

Lambdin is

the author

of

three

Introductions:1)to

Biblical

fiIebrew,2)

to

Classical

Ethiopic nd

(3) to

Sahidic

Coptic

twelve

articles

and eight

reviews

(as

listed on

pp.262-3). His

major impact

has

been as a

teacher of

Semitic and

Egyptian

languages at

Harvard

University where

he has

trained

a host

of

disciples.

The wide

perspective he

has

applied

to

linguistics

was

inspired by

his

mentor at

Johns

Hopkins

University:

William F.

Albright.

But I

detect

another

more

down-to-earth

influence,

that of

the late

Frank

Blake, who

taught for

generations at

Johns

Hopkins. He

was one of Albright's teachers and remained on

for

decades as a

colleague

of

Albright in

what

amounted to

an

adjunct

capacity.

Blake was

strictly a

descriptive

linguist whose

work and

teaching

were

characterized by

method

and

clarity.

The

titles of the

articles

contributed by

Lambdin's

students

and friends

reflect the range

of his

linguistic

interests.

(Limitations of

space

oblige me

to restrict

my

critical

comments.)

Moshe

Bar-Asher,

'

The different

traditions

of

Mishnaic

Hebrew'

(pp. 1-38): on

pp. 27-28

the

author

explains

Mishnaic

lbtb '

whither ' on

the analogy of Biblical 1Rand ;73X Eblaite has

provided

another

approach: the

wide-spread

reduction

of

-ay- to -a-,

fully

treated by

Gary

Rendsburg, in

Vol. II of

the

Publicationsf the

[N. Y. U.]

Centeror Ebla

Research,

990.

Walter

R. Bodine

writes on '

Linguistics and

philology

in the

study of

Ancient

Near

Eastern

languages'

(pp.

39-54).

Richard J.

Clifford's ' Mot

invites Baal

to a

feast'

(pp.

55-64), brings

up a

general

matter of

applicability

that

transcends this

article

and this

author. It

applies

to

the whole

'Albright

8/11/2019 197 NO

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/197-no 3/3

REVIEWS 1 25EVIEWS 1 25

school' and numerous other writers on

Ugaritic.Unlessone is dealing echnicallywith

Ugaritic inguistics,t is usuallyunwise o norm-

alize instead of transliteratingUgaritic. It

almost nvariably etraysa lack of expertise n

the ins and outs of Semitic inguistics. n line 1,

thmbn is normalized ahumu iniand correctly

translated messageof the son ' (cf. also 1. 23).

Now the word 'son' in sandhi is -bn-. The

authorcorrectly as the precedingwordending

in the nom. -u and the gen. for ' son ' ending n

-i. Accordingly,we are to normalize u-bni,

and not u-bini. n Hebrew zE bnl my son'

with a followingvowel -z has no vowel in the

stem. But as an independent ccentedword |

' son ' has to have a vowel in Hebrew.Arabic

handles t differently;t does not tolerate word

beginningwith two consonants, o prosthetic -

is prefixed:bnu/i/a. n line2, hwt word canno

longerbe normalized awatu; he w is doubled

so that we are to normalize hawwatu

(cf. Hebrew 1 1;1l. nin;lwhichalwaysmeans

' word(s) as pointedout by MeirLubetsky.) n

line 9, sb't ' 7' cannotbe normalized ib'tu; he

cluster of three consonants (-b't-) is not

tolerated, ib'atu would be acceptable. n line

19, sb't rasm cannot be normalized sub'ati

ra'slma sevenheads sib'atira'aslmawouldbe

acceptable.The plurai tem of ' head is ra'as-,

not ra's. In line 21 'ispa' is impossible in

Ugaritic,where a' shifts o -e'. A11 hilologians

cannot be held responsible or such linguistic

minutiaeand no one is askingphilologians o

put their necks so needlesslyon the chopping

block. TranslatingHebrewnhs brh fp. 62) as

' fleeing erpent has for a longtimebeenunten-

able.Therearedifferentwords hatfall together

as brh in Hebrew.Thus nahast oreahwould

mean (if it occurred) a fleeing serpent ; but

nahasbarlahmeans evil serpent/dragon. Brh

' evil occurs n Arabic,Hebrew,and Ugaritic.

God's victoryover the nahasVarlah tandsfor

the victoryof the forcesof good overthe forces

of evil (see Is. 27:1).

Frank Cross's ' The oldest Phoenician

inscription rom Sardinia'(pp. 65-74), has an

inviting title but disappointingly ll that the

authorcan see in it iS:

(1) ]'n p'lt

(2) ]lt htt

His observations on the letter forms are

detailed,but he shows no interest n any quest

for meaning.

StevenE. Fassbergwriteson ' SupralinearC

and n in Palestinianpointed manuscripts f

Hebrewand Aramaic rom the Cairo Geniza'

(pp. 75-103).

David M. Golomb, ' The Targumic ender-

ings of the verb lehistahawot: Targumic

translation onvention (pp. 105-18),dealswith

the nature of the Targumimcollectively;he

maintains hey are for scholars n the language

of scholarship, nd not for the ignorantmasses.

BaruchHalpern, n ' Dialect distribution n

Canaan and the Deir Alla inscriptions'

(pp. 119-39), stressesthe linguisticcantoniza-

tion of Canaan.AndrasHamori ' Malahatal-

qasS, 1414) demonstrates is masteryof the

formand contentof Arabic ove poetry.Daniel

J. Harrington ontributes The Apocalypseof

school' and numerous other writers on

Ugaritic.Unlessone is dealing echnicallywith

Ugaritic inguistics,t is usuallyunwise o norm-

alize instead of transliteratingUgaritic. It

almost nvariably etraysa lack of expertise n

the ins and outs of Semitic inguistics. n line 1,

thmbn is normalized ahumu iniand correctly

translated messageof the son ' (cf. also 1. 23).

Now the word 'son' in sandhi is -bn-. The

authorcorrectly as the precedingwordending

in the nom. -u and the gen. for ' son ' ending n

-i. Accordingly,we are to normalize u-bni,

and not u-bini. n Hebrew zE bnl my son'

with a followingvowel -z has no vowel in the

stem. But as an independent ccentedword |

' son ' has to have a vowel in Hebrew.Arabic

handles t differently;t does not tolerate word

beginningwith two consonants, o prosthetic -

is prefixed:bnu/i/a. n line2, hwt word canno

longerbe normalized awatu; he w is doubled

so that we are to normalize hawwatu

(cf. Hebrew 1 1;1l. nin;lwhichalwaysmeans

' word(s) as pointedout by MeirLubetsky.) n

line 9, sb't ' 7' cannotbe normalized ib'tu; he

cluster of three consonants (-b't-) is not

tolerated, ib'atu would be acceptable. n line

19, sb't rasm cannot be normalized sub'ati

ra'slma sevenheads sib'atira'aslmawouldbe

acceptable.The plurai tem of ' head is ra'as-,

not ra's. In line 21 'ispa' is impossible in

Ugaritic,where a' shifts o -e'. A11 hilologians

cannot be held responsible or such linguistic

minutiaeand no one is askingphilologians o

put their necks so needlesslyon the chopping

block. TranslatingHebrewnhs brh fp. 62) as

' fleeing erpent has for a longtimebeenunten-

able.Therearedifferentwords hatfall together

as brh in Hebrew.Thus nahast oreahwould

mean (if it occurred) a fleeing serpent ; but

nahasbarlahmeans evil serpent/dragon. Brh

' evil occurs n Arabic,Hebrew,and Ugaritic.

God's victoryover the nahasVarlah tandsfor

the victoryof the forcesof good overthe forces

of evil (see Is. 27:1).

Frank Cross's ' The oldest Phoenician

inscription rom Sardinia'(pp. 65-74), has an

inviting title but disappointingly ll that the

authorcan see in it iS:

(1) ]'n p'lt

(2) ]lt htt

His observations on the letter forms are

detailed,but he shows no interest n any quest

for meaning.

StevenE. Fassbergwriteson ' SupralinearC

and n in Palestinianpointed manuscripts f

Hebrewand Aramaic rom the Cairo Geniza'

(pp. 75-103).

David M. Golomb, ' The Targumic ender-

ings of the verb lehistahawot: Targumic

translation onvention (pp. 105-18),dealswith

the nature of the Targumimcollectively;he

maintains hey are for scholars n the language

of scholarship, nd not for the ignorantmasses.

BaruchHalpern, n ' Dialect distribution n

Canaan and the Deir Alla inscriptions'

(pp. 119-39), stressesthe linguisticcantoniza-

tion of Canaan.AndrasHamori ' Malahatal-

qasS, 1414) demonstrates is masteryof the

formand contentof Arabic ove poetry.Daniel

J. Harrington ontributes The Apocalypseof

Hannah:TargumJonathanof 1 Samuel2: 1-

10 , pp. 147-52.CarltonT. Hodge,on pp. 153-

63, adds to his contributions o Afro-Asiatic

linguistics n his ' The divergence f the Egyp-

tian suffixconjugation'.SusanT. Hollis writes

on ' The Cartonnage Case of Pa-di-mut:

HarvardSemiticMuseum2230' (pp. 166-79).

JohnHuehnergard'sThreenoteson Akkadian

morphology' pp. 181-93)covers 1) m. plurals

in -a', (2) bound orms n -e, and(3) thepreterite

of verbs I- w. Ephraim saac writes on ' The

oldestEthiopicmanuscriptK-9)of the Book of

Enoch and recentstudiesof the Aramaic rag-

ments of Qumran Cave 4' (pp. 195-207).

WilliamL. Moran's Join the 'Apiruor become

one?' (pp.209-12) is of special nterestbecause

it comesto gripswith Egyptianismsn Amarna

Akkadian.

H. Lee Perkins's A problemof gemination

in the Ethiopic verbal system' (pp.213-28)

oddly enough omits any reference to the

gemination n Akk. G present parras which

has to be comparedwith Ge'ez G imperfect

yeqattel.

Lamia R. Shehadeh offers ' Some obser-

vations on the Sibilants n the Second Millen-

niumB.C. ' (pp. 22946): a knottyproblem hat

happens to be plaguing the reviewerwho is

trying to inject more 'law and order' into

our understanding f the sibilants in third-

millenniumEblaite.

JamesC. VanderKamwriteson ' The textual

base for the Ethiopic ranslation f 1 Enoch'

(pp.247-62).

This Festschrift, n the occasionof the retire-

ment of ProfessorLambdin, eflects he nature

and scope of his careermost fittingly.

CYRUS H. GORDON

FATMA ILDIZ nd TOHRUGOMI:Die

Puzris-Dagan-Texte der Istanbuler

Archaologischen Museen. Teil n,

Nr. 726-1379. (Freiburger Altorien-

talische Studien, Bd. 16.) 280 pp.

Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag

GmbH, 1988. DM 48

The book under review s a welcome con-

tribution o the steadilygrowingcorpusof Ur

III texts.For too long the sheernumber f these

textsdelayed heir cholarly ublication.Never-

theless, ince he only way of dealing ntelligibly

with the texts s through he indentificationf a

relatively mall seriesconcernedwith the same

matter (same field, work-team, household

etc.),evena single extcan be usefulas a missing

link.

The presentwork consists of two parts: 1)

collations of 59 texts published by H. de

Genouillacn his La trouvaille eDrehem Paris

1911) pp. 17-20),and(2) transliterationsf 595

new texts(pp.

21-214).

here s a chronological

index (pp.g-12),a classification f non-animal

texts according o their subject p. 13), indexes

of personal (pp.

217-45),

divine (pp.

247-so),

and geographical ames pp.251-6), glossary

(pp.2s7-77), nd copiesof brokenand uniden-

tified signs (pp.278-80).Many of the trans-

literationsare supplemented y a short com-

mentary, ncludingbibliographicaleferences.

Hannah:TargumJonathanof 1 Samuel2: 1-

10 , pp. 147-52.CarltonT. Hodge,on pp. 153-

63, adds to his contributions o Afro-Asiatic

linguistics n his ' The divergence f the Egyp-

tian suffixconjugation'.SusanT. Hollis writes

on ' The Cartonnage Case of Pa-di-mut:

HarvardSemiticMuseum2230' (pp. 166-79).

JohnHuehnergard'sThreenoteson Akkadian

morphology' pp. 181-93)covers 1) m. plurals

in -a', (2) bound orms n -e, and(3) thepreterite

of verbs I- w. Ephraim saac writes on ' The

oldestEthiopicmanuscriptK-9)of the Book of

Enoch and recentstudiesof the Aramaic rag-

ments of Qumran Cave 4' (pp. 195-207).

WilliamL. Moran's Join the 'Apiruor become

one?' (pp.209-12) is of special nterestbecause

it comesto gripswith Egyptianismsn Amarna

Akkadian.

H. Lee Perkins's A problemof gemination

in the Ethiopic verbal system' (pp.213-28)

oddly enough omits any reference to the

gemination n Akk. G present parras which

has to be comparedwith Ge'ez G imperfect

yeqattel.

Lamia R. Shehadeh offers ' Some obser-

vations on the Sibilants n the Second Millen-

niumB.C. ' (pp. 22946): a knottyproblem hat

happens to be plaguing the reviewerwho is

trying to inject more 'law and order' into

our understanding f the sibilants in third-

millenniumEblaite.

JamesC. VanderKamwriteson ' The textual

base for the Ethiopic ranslation f 1 Enoch'

(pp.247-62).

This Festschrift, n the occasionof the retire-

ment of ProfessorLambdin, eflects he nature

and scope of his careermost fittingly.

CYRUS H. GORDON

FATMA ILDIZ nd TOHRUGOMI:Die

Puzris-Dagan-Texte der Istanbuler

Archaologischen Museen. Teil n,

Nr. 726-1379. (Freiburger Altorien-

talische Studien, Bd. 16.) 280 pp.

Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag

GmbH, 1988. DM 48

The book under review s a welcome con-

tribution o the steadilygrowingcorpusof Ur

III texts.For too long the sheernumber f these

textsdelayed heir cholarly ublication.Never-

theless, ince he only way of dealing ntelligibly

with the texts s through he indentificationf a

relatively mall seriesconcernedwith the same

matter (same field, work-team, household

etc.),evena single extcan be usefulas a missing

link.

The presentwork consists of two parts: 1)

collations of 59 texts published by H. de

Genouillacn his La trouvaille eDrehem Paris

1911) pp. 17-20),and(2) transliterationsf 595

new texts(pp.

21-214).

here s a chronological

index (pp.g-12),a classification f non-animal

texts according o their subject p. 13), indexes

of personal (pp.

217-45),

divine (pp.

247-so),

and geographical ames pp.251-6), glossary

(pp.2s7-77), nd copiesof brokenand uniden-

tified signs (pp.278-80).Many of the trans-

literationsare supplemented y a short com-

mentary, ncludingbibliographicaleferences.