Karl Seibert
ACABS 292
Professor Emberling
10 December 2002
Sumerian and Akkadian Literature, an Ethnic
Comparison
In the study of ancient Mesopotamia, it is difficult to know anything without speculation. The many sources of our historical knowledge often contradict each other, and few anthropologists and archaeologists ever agree with each other. Every facet of ancient society can be debated from many different perspectives. One such argument is the classification of ethnicity in the times of Sumer and Akkad. The debate over whether Sumerians and Akkadians were separate ethnic groupings has gone on for over a century and no definitive conclusion has been reached. It is difficult, as I have already said, to show definitive evidence due to the lack of complete archaeological research, but we do have access to many written works of the time. While not every piece of written literary text is available, I will use what we do have to show that there is a difference in written tradition between the Sumerians and the Akkadians. Ben Foster, in his great work, Before the Muses, states quite clearly that “the interdependence of Sumerian and Akkadian was recognized and esteemed by the Mesopotamians themselves.” (1993: 44). The reader must keep in mind that much of the writings on ancient Mesopotamia is product of speculation and assumption. I will do my best to report unbiased the evidence I gather. I do not believe that this difference in written tradition can constitute definitive reason to assume that the two groups were of different ethnicity, but I do believe that it is a large factor in this debate. I will discuss common theme occurrences and literary style comparing what literature is available from the two groups of ancient Mesopotamians. Specifically, I will compare Sumerian and Akkadian proverbs, epics, and love songs.
Before delving into the actual texts it may be helpful to discuss the two languages of Sumer and Akkad. Keeping in mind that there were no physical differences between Akkadians and Sumerians, we realize that language may be a key to separate ethnic identity. Akkadian in origin is a Semitic language while Sumerian has not been linked to any other language (Alster: 1997: 1; Reade 1997: 223). Foster discusses how Semitic languages “exhibit a distinctive morphology . . . characterized by a rich inventory of verbal and nominal patterns, which may imply classes of meaning, such as recurring action.” (1993: 1). The strange (to English speakers) meaning pattern makes for a very difficult translation involving substantial rewording and expanded length (Foster 1993: 3,). In Akkadian, during its Classical period of literature (Old Babylonian period), was split into several dialects. The Hymnic-Epic dialect is used for literature and contains “a special idiom, using grammar, vocabulary, and even spelling removed from common usage.” (Foster, 3, 1993). Foster speaks of the Sumerians as a different, non-Semitic, people who invented cuneiform tablet writing for their own language, Sumerian. Bendt Alster says that the “symbiosis of the two languages became a decisive factor for Mesopotamian literacy.” (1997: xvi). Jacobsen, in The Harps That Once . . ., speaks of a large body of texts translating Sumerian into Akkadian that has been very helpful to scholars because many Sumerian poems (especially laments) had very precise translations in Akkadian. Alster discusses the similar proverb found in the Sumerian epic of Gilgamesh, “The three-ply rope will not be cut.” In the Akkadian Legend of Etana the same proverb is echoed and also we find it in the Book of Ecclesiastes. (1997: xviii). This similarity stems from the fact that it is merely a translation of Sumerian proverb carried down the history of literature.
Alster discusses Sumerian proverbs in his 1997 collection. The form of these proverbs is very specific; they are all traditional sayings, are complete sentences with fixed syntax, and must have one of the following: “simple syntax; rarely more than a few sentences combined; vocabulary and imagery taken from the social environment in which the majority of the population lives; the way of expression is categorical and generalizing with clear and unmodified appositions; the ideas expressed are generalizing with frequent use of metaphors; apparent straightforward verbal statements are applicable to subtle logical manipulation in relation to context defined situations.” (1997: xiii). These proverbs are most helpful because they all relate to normal speech among the Sumerians. They tell us much about the culture at the time. The social setting of the proverbs is one of “agriculture and animal husbandry.” (Alster 1997: xxiii). The proverbs show the various jobs of the society: “shepherds, gardeners, household managers, foremen and hired workers, male and female slaves, fishermen, fowlers, merchants, boatmen, weavers, potters, manicurists, temple personnel, singers, the poor, beggars, and, of course, scribes themselves.” (Alster 1997: xxiii). Agriculture is often spoken of in Akkadian literature also, however. In the many Akkadian incantations we see verses relating to work in the field appear quite often. In an incantation against joint pain we see the analogy “It enters as livestock enters, it leaves as livestock leaves.” In one against scorpions we hear the phrase “shoot the inundated field, . . . of the orchard.” A very poignant incantation against a noxious herb, we here that this herb “seized the heart of ox in paddock, / It seized the heart of sheep in fold.” Another incantation is written exclusively against disease in sheep and goats (Foster 1993:122, 129, 133, 134). These common occupations seem very obvious because of the technology available at the time. Since the thematic elements of the incantations and proverbs are similar, a look at the Akkadian translations of Sumerian proverbs may help to sight societal and possibly ethnic differences.
A Sumerian proverb concerning pride goes like this: “An elephant spoke to himself and said, ‘Among the wild creatures of Sakan, there is no one comparable to me.’ The altirigu bird answered him. ‘And yet, I, in my own proportion, I am equal to you,’ it said.” We can see the great depth in this proverb and the beauty and elegance of its phrasing. The value of modesty was obviously quite praised among the Sumerians. The capability of a small animal is equal to that of a big animal in a proportional sense. This proverb, according to Alster, is supposed to have seemed very humorous to the Sumerians, which we can easily see. “The contrast between a lofty speculative issue and a lowly pedestrian situation through which it is expressed creates a humorous effect.” (Alster 1997: 400). The Akkadian translation of the same proverb is “An elephant spoke to himself and said, ‘Among the wild creatures of Sakan, there is no one who can defecate like me.’ The sipidiqar-bird answered, ‘And yet, I, in my own proportion, I can defecate like you.” (Alster 1997: 121, 400). The quite observable difference is the course humor present in the Akkadian version. The moral and theme is all but missing from the Akkadian version, which leads one to believe that perhaps Akkadian proverbs were designed more for entertainment purposes than the common usage in Sumerian society.
Another slightly contrasting translation is of a Sumerian proverb concerning slaves. The Sumerian, “I, slave girl, I have no authority over my lady. My husband, [let me pluck]” is countered (only somewhat) with the Akkadian “I, a slave girl, have no authority over my lady. Let me go! My husband, let me pluck!” (Alster 1997: 247). At first it may seem as if there is no difference between these to variations of the same basic proverb, although under deeper inspection we see that there are. The only noticeable differences in the Akkadian translation are the removal of the second “I” (I, a slave girl, [I] have no authority . . .) and the addition of the phrase “Let me go!” after the first sentence. The removal of the second “I” is a subtle one, but does have meaning. At first it may seem intuitive that the subtraction of the personal pronoun would take from the slave girl dignity and relativity; however, we see the addition of “Let me go!” in the Akkadian translation. Since “Let me go!” gives the slave reader a sense of sympathy with her, it would be deleterious to extract the personal “I” if truly the intent was to provide the reader with more compassion for the slave girl. However, although the more sympathetic “I” may not be so compassionate after all. The second “I”, I believe, is simply a product of the repetition found in many Sumerian texts. It merely emphasizes the slave girl as the main agent in the proverb. However, in the Akkadian translation, we see the added phrase “Let me go!” which seems to alter the entire perspective on the proverb. Also an interesting note is that the Akkadian text uses the unusual –ma, which emphasizes the first person. This even clearer emphasis on the slave girl shows a shocking affinity to such a common person. Perhaps the Akkadian culture (ethnicity?) could have had a different perspective on the commoner. If this is true it would qualify a large difference in the traits of the society implying a possible ethnic separation. I will look into this topic later.
A source of great information on literary style is found in the epics of Sumer. These epics contain a number of themes and were fostered by “the growing political influence of the institution of kingship and state formation that created the mental environment in which epic poetry could grow.” (Alster ?: 2323). Some of the common themes, according to Alster, of these epics were the half-divine hero, chivalrous contests and impossible tasks, the cunning hero, the generous hero, and wisdom is better than force (Alster ?: 2325). All these themes emphasize that the king (or lead character of the epic) is an incredible human being and demigod. However, we see another theme present in most epics: the small nobody is chosen by the gods for some special trait he possesses and is made a glorious king. This theme is especially prevalent in the Lugalbanda epics. In Lugalbanda and Enmerkar, Lugalbanda cleverly flatters an Anzu bird and is granted the ability to run extremely fast. When Enmerkar needs a courier to carry a message from the god Inanna that will win the siege the Sumerians have on Aratta, Lugalbanda, relying on his newly found talent, courageously volunteers and successfully delivers the message and thus the war is won. Lugalbanda, in several other epics, always begins as the weakling little brother yet overcomes many obstacles using his great wit and cunning to attain a position of heroism. The themes Alster lists all seem to follow from the fact that these poems were written by the government scribes to glorify the king, but this strange, inspiring occurrence of the little man conquering the big man is quite interesting. Perhaps the Sumerian culture had a particular fixation with the regular commoner becoming a powerful hero. The belief that in every man there was a great potential seems to be present. As we look back to the first proverb discussed (the small animal has proportionally equal capability to the great elephant), we see the same theme. The abandonment of this message in the Akkadian translation (vulgar defecation humor is the replacement) shows that perhaps in Akkad the king was the only one who held any amount of importance and the people were expected to merely go about their daily business. The Sargon Legend also seems to attest to this, but I will discuss that later. If this difference in societal structure is true, it would lead for a differing attitude among the whole of the people. This differing attitude could foster a separation of peoples which would almost certainly lead to a sense of ethnicity. The feeling of allegiance the Akkadians felt towards their king and the feeling of community and potential the Sumerians felt among each other would make a large intangible barrier between the geographic areas in the minds of each person.
The poetry of Akkad and Sumer differed in the way it was written and performed. Sumerian poetry, according to Alster, was commonly used for performance. Therefore simple, straightforward syntax without complex digressions is used so the listener can follow easily with the story (Alster 1995: 2319). Foster, however, when discussing Akkadian poetry, merely says that there are good reasons to believe that some works were sung or performed (1993: 13). Further reasoning for the performance of Sumerian poetry is given in the harsh transitions from episode to episode. These abrupt changes make for a difficult reading for today’s scholar, but it is “highly likely” (Alster 1995: 2319) that these sudden changes were to exploit the tension between predictability and surprise during a live performance. I have already stated that the Sumerian proverbs were derived from expressions normally used in daily speech, so the performance of that group’s poetry is not in the least surprising. Similarities are also found between Sumerian and Akkadian poetry. The literary devices of parallelism and repetition are found in both types of work (Alster 1995: 2319; Foster 1993: 14, 15). However, this apparent similarity is countered with evidence that Sumerian authors “did not normally strive to vary their descriptions.” (Alster 1995: 2319) and that Akkadian authors started trying creative techniques and individual style. This creativity was “marked by experimentation with language. This included use of rare, dialectal, and scholarly words, elaborate and intricate metaphors, refinements of parallelism, and academic Sumerian loanwords.” (Foster 1993: 21). This is a significant difference. The Akkadian authors were using wit and originality for humor and satire (Foster 1993: 22), but the only liberties the Sumerian authors took were “coining poetic expressions that alluded in a recognizable manner to familiar phrases.” (Alster 1995: 2319). An example of this Sumerian creativity is seen in the personification of the sun setting, “Utu (the sun god) went with his head raised to the lap of his mother” (Alster 1995: 2319). Another difference in the authors of Mesopotamia is the credit they take. In Sumer, almost all poetry was anonymous; the scribes were merely doing their jobs (Jacobsen 1987: xi). Foster speaks of Akkadian authorship with considerable knowledge. For most works, the author is unknown (“This does not mean that they lacked authors but that the authors’ name has been lost”). Some Akkadian compositions “show enough individuality in terms of language, art, content, and unity of purpose to suggest that they were primarily the work of one author . . . some of these same texts contain passages that imply or insist that this is the case and give the reader to understand that the circumstances of authorship are crucial to evaluation the text in question.” (Foster 1993: 19). Foster also gives several textual sources of evidence for authorship, texts which refer “either to the divine approval of the text or the skill used to compose it.” (Foster 1993: 19). This fact is contrary to Sumerian poetry twofold: first, Sumerian authors are unknown and make no attempt to change that; second, style was assumed to be unchanging and universal (to Sumerians).
“The strictly literary Sumerian works can be defined generally as works of praise.” (Jacobsen 1987: xiii). Sumerian literature could praise something enjoyed such as a temple, a deity, or a king. It could be a narrative epic or myth; it could take descriptive form as a myth. Also Sumerian literature could praise something gone; “a destroyed temple, ad god who has died, or a dead human relative.” (Jacobsen 1987: xiii). No matter the form, Sumerian literature seems to all fall under the category of praise. Akkadian literature, according to Foster, makes up five categories, celebratory, didactic, narrative, effective, and expressive (1993: 37). Some works may fall into more than one category, but we see that these five categories differ greatly from the single category of praise in Sumerian literature. Celebratory Akkadian works are the type of works Sumerian praise literature embodies. An interesting note is that Sumerian laments (praise for cherished objects lost) are much more common than Akkadian ones, in fact, Akkadian laments are often based on Sumerian prototypes (Foster 1993: 40). Didactic texts seek to “convey a lesson or significant experience in order to admonish the reader and give him an opportunity to benefit from what he reads.” (Foster 1993: 41). These texts deal with the question of divine justice, living a practical life, and can take the form of proverbs. These proverbs often stem from the Sumerian tradition (discussed above) in Akkadian translation. Native Akkadian proverbs are rare because they were not studied in schools like the Sumerian proverbs. The only such native Akkadian proverbs are found in letters. Narrative literature is simply stories about gods or people. Since the use of repetition and parallelism is so prevalent, these narratives can be very lengthy. Effective Akkadian literature brings about a consequence. This type is not like petition because it uses a magical language which, in its own power, causes a desired result. Expressive literature elicits a reaction to a story and conveys a mood or theme (Foster 1993: 37-44). The diversity of the Akkadian categories is a stark difference between the literatures of both groups.
The central attention the Sumerian epic poetry gets cannot go unnoticed in the debate over whether or not Akkadian and Sumerian literature differs enough from each other to suggest a separate ethnic identity. I will look at two poems, one Sumerian, one Akkadian, to cite certain thematic and structural differences. The Sumerian epic Gilgamesh and Aka and the Akkadian Sargon, King of Battle are useful in comparison of literary technique. I have chosen these two texts because of their similarity in length and characters. A short summary of each poem will be quite helpful so I will begin by discussing the Sumerian Gilgamesh and Aka.
The story begins with Aka, the King of Kish (a legendary title meaning immense power) sending a message to Gilgamesh. The message is not described, but angers Gilgamesh to the point of consulting with a council of elders on an issue of revolt against Aka. The elders advise not to rebel, but Gilgamesh did not heed their warning. He gathered up many young men who agreed to rebel. Gilgamesh is hailed as the king of independent Uruk. At this point in the story, the element of praise becomes clear. Preparations for war are made and now it is time to fight. In a short time, all Aka’s troops were lined up around Uruk in a siege. Gilgamesh asks for a volunteer to fight and Lusag, master of Girish-hurdur, courageously stepped forward. Lusag stands on the wall surrounding Uruk and Aka and his troops attack. They fail to break through. Gilgamesh captures Aka, but because Aka had done great things for Uruk and for Gilgamesh in the past, Gilgamesh let him go free. The poem ends with the phrase, “Gilgamesh, lord of Kullab, / Praising you is sweet!” (actual text see Jacobsen 1987: 346-355).
Sargon, King of Battle follows Sargon as he mounts a military campaign. He prays to Ishtar that he will conquer all in his path. He decides to go to Mardaman. Speeches warning him of the difficulties involved in such a campaign are given and Sargon addresses his soldiers to encourage them before their coming battle. A commander then addresses the soldiers, advising them as to how to act and what great consequences to expect after such a valiant effort. The Akkadians annihilate the enemy city of Hassum (“these men like stars were spread over the field.”). Sargon then leads the Akkadians to Simurrum. The enemy there flees and Sargon obliterates the city. Sargon then summarizes all his victories and dares any other king to try to accomplish what he has (actual text Foster 1993: 100-105).
Striking contrasts are evident in these two poems. We easily notice the praise involved in the Sumerian poem, which, of course, is expected. The Sargon legend is also very praiseworthy of Sargon, but in a very consequentialist way. What I mean by this is that in the Akkadian story, the emphasis is most certainly on what Sargon accomplished, not a strong character or cunning. The story ends with Sargon glorifying and bragging about himself! The sharp difference of heroic characteristics is blatant in Gilgamesh and Aka; Gilgamesh is praised for his mercy and compassion. Instead of killing Aka when Gilgamesh has the chance, he releases him in recognition of an earlier act of kindness. After reading the Sargon legend, any reader would naturally assume that Sargon would have killed Aka without thinking. This difference in reverence demonstrates a large difference in societies. Fundamentally, Akkadians are encouraged to fight hard and win big no matter what, while Sumerians are encouraged to use their wisdom over the strength of their opponent yet be merciful and modest if a victory occurs. The ending of each poem is very significant to the understanding of the background perspective. The end of the Sumerian poem is “Gilgamesh, lord of Kullab, / Praising you is sweet!” (Jacobsen 1987: 355), while the Akkadian poem ends in Sargon declaring his excellence over any king who tries to match his great accomplishments, “So there, any king who would rival me, / Let him go where I have gone!” (Foster 1993:104). In the Sumerian epic, it is the people giving Gilgamesh his praise and glory, but in the Akkadian epic, Sargon is the one praising and glorifying himself. Jacobsen says, on the topic of Gilgamesh’s modesty, “He has proved himself and yet avoided falling prey to mean disloyalty and even meaner ingratitude.” (1987: 346). Sargon’s victorious speech is clearly quite different in substance. Whether or not these reflect societal values is, of course, debatable, but it seems quite evident that the emphasis on modesty differs greatly from Sumer to Akkad. A very interesting note on possible ethnic separation is that in Sargon, King of Battle, the word “Akkadian” is used often in prideful contexts. One such usage is seen in a commander’s speech, “Tomorrow I will lead the battle of the Akkadians!” (Foster 1993: 103). The term is used also in at least two more places within the text. Another stylistic difference between the texts is the large amount of lengthy quotations used in the Akkadian poetry versus the lack of such in the Sumerian epic. Four of the seven episodes in the Sargon legend are entirely one person speaking: the second episode is spoken by an anonymous person, as is the third, the fourth is spoken by a commander to the soldiers, and finally he seventh is spoken directly by Sargon. The Gilgamesh epic does contain several quotations, but most of the text is a third person narrative. Naturally, this is merely a structural difference, but my point is that it is a difference, albeit a minor one. If the Sumerians and Akkadians were the same ethnicity perhaps such a difference would not exist.
One final comparison I will make is between two love songs. In both societies the love song was common for a king to have written about himself and a special lady. In both texts, descriptions become interestingly descriptive, notably more so in the Sumerian song. The Akkadian Love Lyrics of Rim-Sin is a group of lyrics celebrating the annual spring time rite when the king of Larsa, Rim-Sin, has intercourse with a priestess to “ensure the fertility of the realm.” (Foster 1993: 98; actual text: Foster 1993: 98, 99). The Sumerian love song I have chosen is the Love Song to Shu-Suen, which depicts a special lady begging Shu-Suen to “do your sweet thing to me” (Jacobsen 1987: 89[lines 24, 30; actual text: Jacobsen 1987: 88, 89). Initially, these texts seem very similar in style and in nature; however there are several differences to discuss. First, the Sumerian text is clearly praiseful in constitution. It is a direct address from a woman to Shu-Suen and her seductive calls to him are quite repetitious. This repetition is seen in the fact that “sweet” is used thirteen times total by this woman. Also key phrases, such as “sleep, man, in our house till morning.” This woman’s speech is short and to the point; it delves into the issue of sexual intercourse in the third stanza, while the Akkadian song, while it does allude to intercourse in the third stanza, dabbles in other points for more than half of the entire text. A major difference between the two songs is that the Akkadian text is a dialogue and also partly “the chaffing song of the attendants outside the nuptial chamber” (Foster 1993: 98), and the Sumerian text is one woman speaking to Shu-Suen. This in itself modifies the purpose and reason behind a love song. In Sumerian culture, the love song displays love for a king (or deity), in other words, is a praiseful song. In Akkadian literature, perhaps a love song is more about general love and love for one’s own people (we see references in the ninth line to the “fine people” (Foster 1993: 98) in the city). If this is true, it would constitute a major difference in a seemingly important genre of literature. Another difference in the texts is the graphic nature of the Sumerian description of intercourse. The woman speaker tells Shu-Suen to “pound and pound it in there for me!” and to “squeeze it in there . . .” (Jacobsen 1987: 89). The analogy of intercourse to sweet, sweet honey is prevalent (as seen by the number of times “sweet” is used”) in the text. The Akkadian text, in its most graphic portion, says “My love is poured out for you, Take as much as you desire in generous measure.” (Foster 1993: 99). Even in a seemingly similar genre of literature between the Sumerians and Akkadians, we see these contextual and stylistic differences which could have been fostered by a different ethnic identity in the groups.
As we can see, it is very difficult to determine whether or not Sumerians and Akkadians thought of themselves as distinct groups with their own sets of values and traits. However, I believe that the stylistic and contextual differences between Sumerian and Akkadian literature leads one to believe that there is a significant drift between the values and shared beliefs of the two groups. The ethnic element of literature is often a subtle one, but I believe that the differences in Sumerian and Akkadian texts constitute a large enough reason to believe that, along with other evidence, their relationship was one of ethnic clash. My comparison of three major literary types, the proverb, the epic, and the love song has warranted considerable evidence in favor of a belief in a separated ethnic identity between the Sumerians and Akkadians.
References