| Archaea |
08-12-2009 03:31 PM |
Translation issues in ancient texts
A brief explanation of how names of ancient texts become complex. For example, cuneiform represents the Hittite or Akkadian or other languages, so the language must be identified and then the origin of the name holder, to arrive at a proper name.
Quote:
Since the Sumerian language has only been widely known and studied by scholars for approximately a century, changes in the accepted reading of Sumerian names have occurred from time to time. Thus the name of a king of Ur, read Ur-Bau at one time, was later read as Ur-Engur, and is now read as Ur-Nammu or Ur-Namma; for Lugal-zaggisi, a king of Uruk, some scholars continued to read Ungal-zaggisi; and so forth. Also, with some names of the older period, there was often uncertainty whether their bearers were Sumerians or Semites. If the former, then their names could be assumed to be read as Sumerian, while, if they were Semites, the signs for writing their names were probably to be read according to their Semitic equivalents, though occasionally Semites might be encountered bearing genuine Sumerian names. There was also doubt whether the signs composing a Semite's name represented a phonetic reading or an ideographic compound. Thus, e.g. when inscriptions of a Semitic ruler of Kish, whose name was written Uru-mu-ush, were first deciphered, that name was first taken to be ideographic because uru mu-ush could be read as "he founded a city" in Sumerian, and scholars accordingly "retranslated" it back to the "original" Semitic as Alu-usharshid. It was later recognized that the URU sign can also be read as rà and that the name is that of the Akkadian king Rimush.
|
Scholars certainly have their work cut out for them, yet many did this in the nineteenth century without the aid of computers and easy cross referencing. Quite amazing if you ask me. |
