Alexa Sabine Bartelmus – författare

The present work attempts to close a gap in our knowledge of the history of Sumerian between the extensive and well-understood corpus of texts from the late 3rd to early 2nd millennia B.C.E. and the sparsely-attested Sumerian of the 1st millennium BCE. Consulting new textual materials from the Vorderasiatisches Museum of Berlin, this investigation devotes special attention to key linguistic features of Sumerian in this epoch, the contexts and ideological significance of its use, and scribal education in Kassite Babylonia generally. Although it may seem to handle disparate themes at first glance, these topics are in fact linked since scribal education provided the key source for knowledge of Sumerian in a time when there were no longer native Sumerian speakers. The analysis and the comparison with previous and subsequent epochs provided here allow lines of development and regional trends to come into clearer view, but they also show the inherent difficulty in describing Kassite Sumerian as a language and in assessing its quality.

The present work attempts to close a gap in our knowledge of the history of Sumerian between the extensive and well-understood corpus of texts from the late 3rd to early 2nd millennia B.C.E. and the sparsely-attested Sumerian of the 1st millennium BCE. Consulting new textual materials from the Vorderasiatisches Museum of Berlin, this investigation devotes special attention to key linguistic features of Sumerian in this epoch, the contexts and ideological significance of its use, and scribal education in Kassite Babylonia generally. Although it may seem to handle disparate themes at first glance, these topics are in fact linked since scribal education provided the key source for knowledge of Sumerian in a time when there were no longer native Sumerian speakers. The analysis and the comparison with previous and subsequent epochs provided here allow lines of development and regional trends to come into clearer view, but they also show the inherent difficulty in describing Kassite Sumerian as a language and in assessing its quality.

The present work attempts to close a gap in our knowledge of the history of Sumerian between the extensive and well-understood corpus of texts from the late 3rd to early 2nd millennia B.C.E. and the sparsely-attested Sumerian of the 1st millennium BCE. Consulting new textual materials from the Vorderasiatisches Museum of Berlin, this investigation devotes special attention to key linguistic features of Sumerian in this epoch, the contexts and ideological significance of its use, and scribal education in Kassite Babylonia generally. Although it may seem to handle disparate themes at first glance, these topics are in fact linked since scribal education provided the key source for knowledge of Sumerian in a time when there were no longer native Sumerian speakers. The analysis and the comparison with previous and subsequent epochs provided here allow lines of development and regional trends to come into clearer view, but they also show the inherent difficulty in describing Kassite Sumerian as a language and in assessing its quality.

The present work attempts to close a gap in our knowledge of the history of Sumerian between the extensive and well-understood corpus of texts from the late 3rd to early 2nd millennia B.C.E. and the sparsely-attested Sumerian of the 1st millennium BCE. Consulting new textual materials from the Vorderasiatisches Museum of Berlin, this investigation devotes special attention to key linguistic features of Sumerian in this epoch, the contexts and ideological significance of its use, and scribal education in Kassite Babylonia generally. Although it may seem to handle disparate themes at first glance, these topics are in fact linked since scribal education provided the key source for knowledge of Sumerian in a time when there were no longer native Sumerian speakers. The analysis and the comparison with previous and subsequent epochs provided here allow lines of development and regional trends to come into clearer view, but they also show the inherent difficulty in describing Kassite Sumerian as a language and in assessing its quality.

Das vorliegende Buch stellt einen Versuch dar, die Lücke in der Geschichte des Sumerischen zu schließen, die bislang zwischen den umfangreichen, gut untersuchten Textcorpora des späten dritten und frühen zweiten Jahrtausends v. Chr. und den relativ wenigen Vorkommen von Sumerisch im ersten Jahrtausend v. Chr. bestand.Untersucht werden zum einen – unter Heranziehung neuen Textmaterials aus dem Vorderasiatischen Museum Berlin – die Schreiberausbildung im kassitenzeitlichen Babylonien allgemein, zum anderen sprachliche Besonderheiten, Verwendungskontexte und ideologische Bedeutung des Sumerischen in jener Epoche. Obwohl es sich auf den ersten Blick um unterschiedliche Themen zu handeln scheint, besteht eine Verbindung zwischen ihnen, stellt doch die Schreiberausbildung die wichtigste Quelle dar, die den Verfassern sumerischer Texte in einer Zeit, in der es keine sumerischen Muttersprachler mehr gab, für ihre Kenntnis jener Sprache zur Verfügung stand.Die Analyse und der Vergleich mit den vorhergehenden und nachfolgenden Epochen erlauben es, Entwicklungslinien und regionale Tendenzen nachzuvollziehen; sie zeigen aber auch, dass es nicht einfach ist, kassitenzeitliches Sumerisch als Sprache zu beschreiben oder gar seine „Qualität“ zu bewerten.