How to Classify Pigs: Old Babylonian and Middle Babylonian Lexical Texts (original) (raw)

Abstract

AI

This paper examines the classification of pigs in Old Babylonian and Middle Babylonian lexical texts. It highlights the distinction made between domestic and wild animals in ancient Mesopotamian lexical tradition, particularly focusing on the unique challenges posed by the classification of pigs due to the absence of separate terminology for wild and domestic variants. The study explores various versions of the thematic lexical lists, illustrating how cultural and linguistic principles influenced animal categorization, ultimately revealing insights into ancient Sumerian language and practices.

Key takeaways

AI

1. Sumerian lexicon classification reflects cultural and linguistic principles, not biological taxonomy.
2. The Old Babylonian ur 5-ra text contains 507 lines detailing domestic and wild animals.
3. Pigs are listed ambiguously between turtles and ants, illustrating classification challenges.
4. Different cities had varying versions of lexical lists, affecting structure and content.
5. Unique reproductive terminology for pigs appears in a Kassite exercise, indicating their complex classification.

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

FAQs

AI

What evidence shows how pigs were classified in ancient Mesopotamia?add

The research reveals that Sumerians did not separate domestic pigs from wild boars, grouping all terminology in one section among wild animals, as shown in the Nippur version of the ur 5-ra list.

How did the placement of pigs differ across various lexical texts?add

In the Yale version, pigs were classified between domestic and wild animals, indicating ambiguity, while the Nippur version kept them strictly with wild animals.

What methodologies were used to study ancient Mesopotamian classifications of animals?add

The study employs textual analysis of lexical lists from various periods, including a comparative review of standardized and non-standardized versions of lists from Nippur and other cities.

What unusual features were identified in the references to pigs in the lexical texts?add

The textual evidence shows a unique application of reproductive terminology to pigs, uncommon in the classification of wild animals, suggesting they had slightly domesticated attributes.

Why were different versions of lexical lists significant in classifying animals?add

Different city versions allowed continuous development and variation in classifications, with cases revealing insights into cultural perceptions and practices regarding domesticated versus wild species.