On reading archival texts: M. Jursa's comments to OIP 122 and the limits of criticism.

• Author: Weisberg, David B.

In his landmark essay, "Assyriology Why and How?" (1) A. Leo Oppenheim referred to two distinct categories of cuneiform documents: the tablets that were part of the "stream of tradition," consisting of the corpus of literary texts, and the "mass of texts of all descriptions ... [which] were used to record the day-to-day activities of the Babylonians and Assyrians." (2) Referring to the latter, Oppenheim asked: "What information do these texts contain? How and to what degree can this information be utilized for the understanding of Mesopotamian life and customs?" (3)

In our time, publishing "clay tablets in their archival arrangement" has emerged as of "vital importance." (4) Individual scholars as well as others working in major projects have come forward to engage in this line of investigation and to attempt to answer the above questions. In the spirit of the advancement of our knowledge of clay tablet collections and various aspects of their archival arrangement, I wish to address the contents of an article published by a scholar who has had a major role in, and impact upon, this field.

In his comments to my OIP 122 (5) that appeared recently in this journal, (6) Michael Jursa commented upon readings and interpretations of fifty-five of the 173 texts that appeared therein. (7) He did not include any copies of signs under discussion. (8) Jursa's comments were gathered during a brief trip that he made to Chicago. (9)

Some of these comments are valuable and add to our understanding of these newly published tablets. On the other hand, many of Jursa's comments can be challenged, while others exceed the limits of legitimate criticism. This article is intended to be a corrective both to the questionable readings of cuneiform signs and the methodological flaws in Jursa's article. By my count, thirty-five to forty percent of Jursa's comments are faulty. This material will provide a cautionary voice to scholars who might open their copy of OIP 122 and uncritically enter Jursa's comments without checking.

Below is a list of corrections to texts read by Jursa. These readings have been obtained by rechecking OIP 122, by consulting my unpublished notes (where I weighed and discarded certain options), and by collations obtained during a trip to the Oriental Institute from June 18-26,2008.

Jursa suggests that I failed to provide the most "definitive" treatment. (10) However, clearly, no book is written to be the "definitive work." It is a goal to be worked for but not something that actually can be achieved. No sooner does something come out, then scholars review it and corrections are offered. If Jursa was implying that OIP 122 failed to give the most up-to-date references--he might have been thinking of works published after 1998, including many of his own--then a word of explanation will clear this up. Although the manuscript of OIP 122 was submitted to the Oriental Institute editor in August 1998, due to a backlog in the Publications Office the book could not be published until 2003. (11) Thus, a snapshot of the field up to 1997-98 is reliably reflected in the book and its bibliography.

Jursa leaves the reader of his article with the impression that important texts lack apposite interpretations. Thus, for example, he states that a full treatment of text no. 36 will be published elsewhere, but provides nary a comment on my elucidation.

On the surface, many of Jursa's comments on particular signs appear to be justified, but when examined in closer detail are simply incorrect. These readings have a slapdash quality. What is more, Jursa does not present legitimate differences of opinion as to correct cuneiform readings, especially of difficult signs, but gives his readings as if only they might be correct. (See my discussion on the reading of pirquti [others: sirquti] in...