Printer Friendly

The onomastic evidence for Bronze-Age West Semitic.


The history of the West Semitic family begins in earnest in the late second millennium, more or less around the start of the Syro-Palestinian archeological period known as the Iron Age. (1) It is around 1200 B.C.E. that the Canaanite branch of the family (most importantly, Hebrew and Phoenician) begins to be documented in the epigraphic record, and not long thereafter are dated the earliest Aramaic and Old South Arabian texts; the Arabic and Ethiopic branches follow during the first millennium C.E. In all these cases, except Old South Arabian, archeologically recovered texts show some degree of correlation with traditions preserved in manuscript form. Prior to 1200 B.C.E. West Semitic presents a different picture: all the sources are archeologically recovered, and none of them shows a straightforward relation to literary traditions. The linguistic evaluation of the remains of Bronze-Age West Semitic (BAWS) is thus an area of intensive research and contentious discussion. Off in a quiet corner by themselves sit several heaps of onomastic evidence: they are assumed to belong somewhere and in some way. The evaluation of them as evidence for Bronze-Age West Semitic is not wildly controversial, but neither is it settled.

The primary sources from which these several heaps are drawn are the publications, some of them over a century old, of texts excavated or extracted from Old and Middle Babylonian sites in Western Asia and of synchronous texts from Egypt. The pride of place here must go to the series Archives royales de Mari, a set produced over the span of half a century (so far) by French and Francophone scholars. The heaps themselves are variously gathered up in major publications. The most imposing is Assyriological Studies 21, surely the largest single volume regularly used by any West Semitist, one of I. J. Gelb's several late masterworks. Situated close to AS 21 are Buccellati's dissertation on Ur III Amorites, Huffmon's dissertation on Mari Amorite, Zadok's contribution to the Hallo festschrift, and Streck's Habilitation, along with various other studies of so-called Amorite material. (2) Although the term Amorite is generally reserved for names from the Old Babylonian and earlier periods (roughly, the first half of the second millennium), there is no distinct break between such names and names from the Late Bronze Age (roughly, the second half of the second millennium). Other gatherings of BAWS names are Grondahl's dissertation on the names from Ugarit, Hess's dissertation on the Amarna names, Sivan's dissertation on Late-Bronze West Semitic vocabulary, Pruzsinszky's dissertation on Emar names, and various other works. (3) The heaps betray devoted labor and careful attention, and yet the evaluation of the material in them remains incomplete.

In order to pursue this evaluation it will be useful to review the entire range of materials relevant to Bronze-Age West Semitic. The bulk of the evidence is Late Bronze or Middle Babylonian, although there is ample material from the Old Babylonian period and some from the Ur III period (late third millennium). (4) The largest single body of evidence comes from the Late Bronze site of Ugarit. (5) The evidence comprises texts written in the Ugaritic alphabetic script, as well as texts written in Mesopotamian cuneiform, primarily in a form of Middle Babylonian, and some texts written in other writing systems. (6) The alphabetic texts are of various sorts, including poetic texts and ritual texts that include poetic material, as well as letters and administrative documents. It is the working assumption of students of Ugaritic that the corpus of alphabetic material represents more or less a single language, although there are disparities across the corpus.

The study of Ugaritic alphabetic texts is aided by some cuneiform material, and the pattern of the cuneiform contribution to Ugaritic study is one that is repeated over and over for Bronze-Age West Semitic. In cuneiform texts from Mari, Amarna, Ugarit, Emar, and other Bronze Age sites, we find isolated data relevant to local West Semitic languages. (7) The data include (a) loan words into Akkadian, some perhaps of long standing and some nonce loans, made for a particular occasion and leaving no enduring trade in the language; (b) glosses and other recognizably alien material provided in the Akkadian for the sake of intelligibility; and (c) substrate influences on morphology and syntax. The distinction between (a) and (b) is not always easily made. (8) The loans and some of the glosses are recorded as words of Akkadian by the Akkadian dictionaries, and in the case of the Amarna material many of them are also recorded in Hoftijzer and Jongeling's dictionary of Northwest Semitic. Texts in Egyptian and Hieroglyphic Luwian yield a very modest crop of similar material. (9)

These data are linguistically isolated on the West Semitic side, but not, it is important to note, on the side of Akkadian or Egyptian. They usually have a linguistic context provided by the language material they occur in. Sometimes that linguistic context is straightforward, as when a West Semitic gloss is provided after an Akkadian word in the Amarna texts. Generally the Akkadian word is known and the gloss suggests that the West Semitic-speaking scribe used this West Semitic word in his own language to correspond to the Akkadian word. In the area of morphology and syntax the linguistic context is harder to grasp. Morphological deviations and adaptations can reveal different degrees of distance from an Akkadian target: sometimes a purely West Semitic form is used, while in other cases a form that is not quite Akkadian but not really West Semitic is used. It is in the morphology that the West Semitic scribes' imperfect grasp of Akkadian shows up most plainly. In the syntax, the verb-final word order of Akkadian is often replaced by verb-initial or V2 West Semitic orders. Similarly, an Akkadian dependent clause usually precedes the clause it depends on, while in these texts a dependent clause may follow its main clause. The most elegant form of linguistic context for this West Semitic material is perhaps that furnished by the lexical texts from Ugarit, where words of Ugaritic are lined up with words of Sumerian, Akkadian, and Hurrian in a quadrilingual format. (10) Despite the enormous bulk of the Old and Middle Babylonian corpora in question, the data they provide remain largely isolated on the West Semitic side. Despite all the information furnished by these texts, there is no continuous text in West Semitic.

Another facet of the isolation is geographical. The various texts derive from different sites and in many cases the texts were not found where they were written. Texts written at Mari and found at Mari can be presumed to belong together, but texts written at Terqa or Aleppo and found at Mari need to be kept separate from Mari texts proper and from each other. In the case of the Amarna material subcorpora have regularly been studied in terms of their city of origin, but the principle is valid for all relevant texts, even though it often cannot be carried through, since many of the texts cannot be assigned a city of origin. (11)

There are, moreover, difficulties in the interpretation of the writing systems: cuneiform and hieroglyphics, both Egyptian and Luwian (Hittite), were not designed or ever fully adapted to record West Semitic languages, so at every juncture there are uncertainties in interpreting the ways the elements of the writing systems are being used. The questions of interpretation are both global and local, i.e., we must consider not only what a particular writing reveals but also how systematic the patterns behind the writing are. (12)

Thus far we have two major bodies of Bronze-Age West Semitic: the Ugaritic alphabetic texts and the isolated language material found in cuneiform and Egyptian texts. There is a third body of Bronze-Age West Semitic, the onomastic evidence. It is scattered across an enormous number of texts, most of them documentary, i.e., legal, economic, and administrative texts. The major areas from which these texts derive, going roughly south to north and east to west, are listed below:

(1) 1. Mesopotamia proper, including Ur, Uruk, Larsa, Isin, and Babylon; AS 21

2. the Diyala region, including Esnunna (Tell Asmar); AS 21 (13)

3. Assyria; AS 21

4. Mari; the volumes of ARM, especially ARM XVI/1, APN, AS 21

5. Emar; SCCNH 13 (14)

6. the Syro-Palestinian cities of the Egyptian Empire under the Eighteenth Dynasty; names in Hess, Amarna Personal Names

7. Ugarit; names in Grondahl, Die Personnenamen der Texte aus Ugarit (15)

The Egyptian names from both the Middle and New Kingdom sources tend to refer to Syria-Palestine. (16) It is conventional to refer to the earlier names, those in groups 1-4 (and the corresponding Egyptian names, those in the Middle Kingdom execration texts), as Amorite. Some scholars also apply that term to later Bronze-Age material. (17) For the later names, most refer simply to Emar, Amarna, Ugarit(ian), etc. names. The materials from groups 1-4 are largely Old Babylonian, the others Middle Babylonian. There are smaller sites that yield relevant names. Southern Syro-Palestinian sites have themselves yielded only a small number of names. (18)

Various features of names and name-giving are crucial to the study of Semitic onomastica. (19) These include ancient awareness of names ([section]2), linguistic transparency ([section]3), and name-giving semantics ([section]4). These topics are all well known, but a closer look at them will reveal some important features of the BAWS onomastic material. (20) After reviewing them, I will discuss the question of what languages are behind the names ([section]5).


Ancient awareness of the character of Semitic names and name-giving manifests itself in various ways. The best known is the literary use of names in the Hebrew Bible, the weaving into narratives of names and their meanings or other relevant linguistic considerations. For a long time, biblical scholars tended to assume that they knew better than the biblical authors how both story-telling and the onomasticon work, so that passages using names in ways that do not reflect a scientific etymology were looked down on as inferior. But not every pun has to be "perfect" in order to "work," and recent scholarship has moved away from such posturing. (21)

A second source for ancient Semitic awareness of naming patterns is furnished by various name-lists arranged on formal grounds. A small body of Neo-Assyrian name-lists reveals that some scribes were interested in the shape of names and how they were put together; there are no labels for the lists, and thus no formal genre of a name-list. The Neo-Assyrian name-lists reflect the Mesopotamian mania for Listenwissenschaft, but they are a late by-product of it rather than being part of the scholarly canon. (22) The only other ancient Semitic name-list known to me is a Jewish list from the Roman period that occurs in various exemplars. This mnemonic abecedary of names, most of them Yahwistic ('Uriah, Beniyah, Gemaryah, etc.), may be called the Naveh list after its discoverer. The exemplars include two fragmentary ostraca from Masada (first century C.E.) and a second-century C.E. ostracon. The list also occurs in an abridged form, as part of the miscellany in 4Q341 or 4QExercitium calami (i.e., writing exercise). (23) Neither the Neo-Assyrian texts nor the Roman-period Jewish list make much of a contribution to our grasp of ancient Semitic onomastica, but they do indicate an awareness of naming patterns similar to the consciousness behind biblical narratives. (24)


Closely related to the matter of onomastic awareness is linguistic transparency, the best-known feature of all Semitic names. (25) Unlike most personal names in the European realm, Semitic names are linguistically transparent, i.e., their meaning is evident, since they are formed from ordinary words of the language. Such is the usual account, and it has sometimes made the study of onomastica a folksy endeavor. (26) In the English-speaking world, after all, almost all personal names are linguistically opaque: John is no more or less intrinsically meaningful than Hamlet or Polonius. The English-speaking world has a body of transparent names left over from the Reformation's abhorrence of the medieval cult of the saints, chiefly consisting of the female virtue names (e.g., Charity, Hope, Joy), and more recent waves of puritanism have provided other such names. The transparency of Semitic names provides an apparently exciting contrast. Indeed, an ancient Semite might bear various names that mean the same thing in several different Semitic languages. Such cases are rare, but Sennacherib's wife and Esarhaddon's mother was one such: she was Naqi'a in her native Aramaic and Zakutu in her adopted Akkadian; both names mean 'purity.' (27) Similarly, it is not difficult to imagine that a person living in a cosmopolitan north Syrian city would bear both a "transparent" Semitic name and a comparable Hurrian name. Indeed, it is mildly surprising that the only alleged case also involves a woman, in this case one "known from the business life of Emar [who] bore both a Hurrian and an Akkadian name of the same meaning." (28) In three linked transactions this woman appears as Tatasse (Hurrian 'beloved'), a creditor, then as Raindu (Akkadian 'beloved'), a debtor, and finally again as Tatasse, a consignee. (29) A comparable cross-cultural equivalence from the Hellenistic-Roman period, taking advantage of the relatively smaller group of transparent Greek names, is well known. The Greek word dorkas 'gazelle' is attested as a name in Hellenistic inscriptions; a woman by that name in Acts 9:36, 40 was called in her (presumably native) Aramaic Tabitha, i.e., [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], also attested as a name. (30)

Because of the transparency of many Semitic names, e.g., BHeb [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] is entered in older European dictionaries of Biblical Hebrew as straightforwardly meaning 'Yhwh hath been gracious.' More recent dictionaries, the Madrid dictionary designed and chiefly written by Luis Alonso-Schokel and the Sheffield dictionary conceived and in part written by David J. A. Clines, do not include personal names in the same way. Madrid omits names altogether, Sheffield notes the elements of the name at the end of its entry on the name but provides no explicit gloss. (31)

This usual account of Semitic naming practices has a great deal of support, but it requires qualification. Not all Semitic names are transparent. (32) As far as we can judge, insofar as we understand most of Biblical Hebrew, we understand many of the names in the Hebrew Bible and the users of the language did so, too. There are, however, some names that are not at all transparent. Foreign names, for example, would have been unintelligible to speakers of the language. These are not so much a problem for the study of onomastics as is another small body of names that seem Semitic or even Hebrew and for which an etymology can be proposed, but that are not transparent. There is a slope from transparent names inclining downward toward names that can be etymologized, ending with truly opaque names. Speakers of the language would have had little trouble knowing where their knowledge stopped along that slope; the same cannot be said of Semitists, who sometimes treat a name for which they can propose an etymology as being on a par with, e.g., [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]. Some of the names in question are among the best known of all biblical names; dawid and rut may have etymologies, but they do not exhibit the sort of transparency basic to much of the biblical onomasticon.

Transparency and its limits are relevant to the study of Bronze-Age West Semitic because we often have no other sources for the language a given name "represents." If we assume that the languages associated with these names behave as do other West Semitic languages, we might expect there to be a plurality of transparent names and a small body of opaque names, but in fact we have few clues to determining transparency and opacity except in terms of comparative materials. The topic of onomastic awareness is, as noted, intertwined with the matter of transparency, and older generations of critical biblical scholars simply equated them. The equation was misguided: Literary word play can involve roots or words similar (but not identical) to the elements that make up a name.

Bronze-Age West Semitic presents abundant examples of another key to transparency. The bulk of the Bronze Age onomastica are recorded in cuneiform, a mixed writing system that allows for both logo- and syllabographic writing. When a name element is written logographically, we can be fairly sure that the element (not necessarily the entire name) was linguistically transparent.

The qualification is necessary because there are rare cases in which Akkadian-using scribes employed logographic writing for Akkadian in a false or misleading way. The scribes who wrote the hundreds of thousands of extant documents were bread-and-butter bureaucrats, not inclined to fancy uses of the writing system. Thus homophones are not ordinarily treated interchangeably in the writing of names. In Neo-Assyrian names, for example, the common name elements amat 'female slave of' and amat 'word of' were homophonous; the first of them could be written syllabically or logographically, MI.GEM[E.sub.2] (2), while the second is apparently only written syllabically. In cases in which it is clear that the element is 'word of,' i.e., in names with a verb, amat is written only syllabically (3). (33)

(2) Amat-Bel, 'slave of Bel,' NAss


(3a) Amat-Bel-ukin, 'the word of Bel has established,' NAss


(3b) Amat-Bel-usur, 'obey the word of Bel,' NAss


One of the rare exceptions to the rule of plain uses of the writing system is furnished by the writings PAB.MES and PAB.ME. These should be read ahhe 'brothers' but seem sometimes to stand for ahi 'my brother' (a common Neo-Assyrian form for standard ahija) or even ahu 'brother.' (34) Thus the use of logograms is generally reliable in the cuneiform writing of names.

In West Semitic names logographic writings also seem to be reliable. If a name is found in a context where a West Semitic name might be expected, notably with a West Semitic divine name, the IR sign is read (by modern scholars) as West Semitic 'abdu 'slave' rather than Akkadian (w)ardum. It is no surprise that a variety of name elements are written logographically. Thus the cuneiform writing system can serve as a guide to native-speaker perception of transparency in names. This argument has a limit: if a name is written entirely in logographs, then it becomes hard to be sure it is West Semitic at all. (35)

Before we look at some West Semitic names, it will be useful to recall that Akkadian names, which serve in some sense as a model for the recording of West Semitic names, are written in different ways at various periods. Roughly speaking, the use of logographic writing for Akkadian names increases over time. Most third-millennium and Old Babylonian Akkadian names are written syllabically. Since Sumerian names were also in use at that time, a name written entirely in Sumerograms can be indeterminate, i.e., read as either Sumerian or Akkadian. (36) Broadly speaking, however, it is the case that syllabic writing is more common in the early period. In the first millennium, logographic writing is more common for Akkadian names. (37)

Despite the increased use of logograms, the system of writing names was never entirely streamlined, and even common name elements are written with a variety of logograms. Consider the well-attested name of king Ashurbanipal, Assur-bani-apli, 'Assur is the creator of the heir.' The divine name is written AN.SAR and as-sur and (rarely) as. The participle is written syllabically (with or without indication of the long vowel) or with the DU sign. The object, aplu/i, is written A, AxA, A-u, DUMU.US, ap-lu. (38) That this diversity is not a function of scribes wanting to please a "literate" monarch is shown by common names borne by ordinary people. Ten Neo-Assyrian individuals, none of them famous, bore the name Assur-balassu-iqbi, 'Assur has promised his life.' The middle element of the name is never written syllabically, but it is written in six different logographic formats. (39) Other multiple logographic usages are well known in Neo-Assyrian, e.g., for ahu 'brother' both PAB and SES: for nadanu 'to give' SUM, AS, and MU. (40)

The increased use of logographic writing for Akkadian names (from roughly 2000 to 300 B.C.E.) colors the patterns of writing West Semitic names, so that, again speaking roughly, syllabic writings are more common for names from the first half of the second millennium. For example, at Esnunna and Mari 'abdu 'slave of' names are written syllabically:

(4a1) ab-da-el 'slave of 'Ilu,' AS 22 11:13, 23, 28; 12:4, 8

(4a2) ab-da-il 'slave of 'Ilu,' AS 22 10:11

(4b1) ha-ab-du-e-ra-ah 'slave of Yarah,' APN, 189

(4b2) ab-di-ra-ah 'slave of Yarah,' AS 22 40:3 (41)

(4c) ha-ab-du-ba-ah-la 'slave of Ba'lu,' APN 189

(4d) ha-ab-du-ba-ah-la-ti 'slave of Ba'latu,' APN 189

Logographic writings are more widely used later on, in the Late Bronze Age, and thus the representation of names as transparent to the scribe can be seen more clearly in LB names.

In examining the usage of logographic writings for BAWS names, it may be useful to look at a corpus for which there are agreed-on prosopographic controls, i.e., one in which we are able not only to recognize the names but in which we sometimes know who the name-bearers were. The Amarna corpus fits this profile. Logograms here are used for divine names and for nouns and adjectives, but rarely, if at all, for verbs. About half of the seventy or so West Semitic names in the corpus show logographic writings; for this discussion I follow the treatments of Hess and Moran. (42) The names fall into three categories, those with the theophoric or other honored element written logographically (about 12 cases), those with the non-honored element so written (about 7 cases), and those with both elements so written (about 11 cases). The most interesting names are those which have variant spellings referring to the same individual, about half the total. (43)

We may begin with the names in which the theophoric or honored element is written both logo- and syllabographically in variants:

(5a) 'Abi/i-Milki 'Milku is (the/my) father,' (44) Hess no. 8, 6 spellings, 2 not considered here; EA 146-55

([.sup.I])a-bi-mil-ki, 5 occs.: ([.sup.I])a-bi-LUGAL, 4 occs.

(5b) 'Ili-rapi' 'Ilu is a healer,' Hess no. 86, 3 spellings

i-li-ra-[pi-ih], EA 128; [.sup.I]DINGIR-ra-pi-ih, EA 140; DINGIR-ra[-pi-ih], EA 139

(5c) Rabi-'Ilu ''Ilu is great,' Hess no. 137, 2 spellings (2 individuals)

ra-bi-DINGIR, EA 333; [.sup.I]GAL-DINGIR, EA 170

(5d) Mut-Ba'lu 'Man of Ba'lu,' Hess no. 118, 2 spellings, EA 255-56

mu-ut-ba-ah-l[um], once; mu-ut-[.sup.d]ISKUR(-me), twice

(5e) Rib-Haddi (see below for sense), Hess no. 140, 8 spellings, EA 68-96, etc.

[.sup.I]ri-ib-ad-da, 4 occs.; [.sup.I]ri-ib-ad-di, 11 occs.; [.sup.I]ri-ib-[.sup.d]ISKUR, 51 occs.

(5f) Ba'luya 'Ba'lu [hypocoristicon],' Hess no. 41, 2 spellings

[.sup.I]ba-a-lu-ia, EA 165; [.sup.Id]ISKUR-lu-ia, EA 170

There are also names with the honored element written only logographically (6a-b-c, 8a-b-c). The divine names for which there are clear Akkadian equivalents tend to be written logographically, 'Ilu (5b, 5c, 6) and probably 'Attarti (7).

(6a) Beti-'Ilu 'House of 'Ilu,' Hess no. 49, 1 spelling

[.sup.I]be-ti-DINGIR, EA 161, 170

(6b) Tabi-'Ilu ''Ilu has returned,' Hess no. 146, 1 spelling

[.sup.I]sa-bi-DINGIR, EA 62

(6c) Yabni-'Ilu ''Ilu has created,' Hess no. 76, 1 spelling

[.sup.I]ia-ab-ni-DINGIR, EA 328

(6d) BAWS 'Ilu-milku or Akk. (?, see below) 'Ilu-sarru ''Ilu is king,' Hess no. 85, 1 spelling [.sup.I]DINGIR-LUGAL, EA 151 (45)

(7) 'Abdi-'Attarti 'Slave of 'Attarti,' Hess no. 2, 3 spellings, EA 63-65

[.sup.I]ab-di-as-ta-<AR>-ti, EA 63; [.sup.I]ab-[d]i-[.sup.d]INNIN, EA 65; [.sup.I]IR-[.sup.d]INNIN, EA 64 (46)

The West Semitic reading of [.sup.d]ISKUR, Ba'lu or Haddula (5d, 5e, 5f, 8) remains uncertain and may have varied depending on locale. (47) Because of the variant writings, the readings of the three examples in (5) are certain, as is that of (8a), since the name-bearer is the well-known king of Ugarit.

(8a) Niqma-Haddu 'Dominion of Haddu,' Hess no. 122, 1 spelling, EA 49


(8b) Pu-Ba'la/Haddu 'Word of the Lord/Haddu,' Hess no. 133, 1 spelling, EA 314-16

[.sup.I]pu-[.sup.d]ISKUR (48)

(8c) Samu-Ba'lu/Haddu 'Name of the Lord/Haddu,' Hess no. 148, 1 spelling, EA 225


(8d) 'Amur-Ba'lu/Haddu 'Speak, Lord/Haddu,' (49) Hess no. 24, 1 spelling, EA 170


(8e) Yapa'-Ba'lu/Haddu 'The Lord/Haddu has shone forth,' Hess no. 83, 3 spellings, EA 83, 114, 116-17, etc. (50)

[.sup.I]ia-pa-[.sup.d]ISKUR, 19 occs.; [.sup.I]ia-pa-ah-[.sup.d]ISKUR, once; [.sup.I]ia-ap-pa-ah-[.sup.d]ISKUR, once

(8f) Ba'lu-mahar 'Ba'lu is a warrior,' Hess no. 43, 4 spellings, EA 245, 249-50, 257-59 (51)

[.sup.Id]ISKUR-me-her, twice; [.sup.Id]ISKUR-me-he-er, twice; [.sup.Id]ISKUR-UR.SAG, EA 249-50

(8g) Tipti-i-Ba'lu/Haddu 'Ba'lu/Haddu is (the/my) judgment,' Hess no. 152, 3 spellings, EA 330-33

[.sup.I]si-ip-ti/t[i.sub.4]-[.sup.d]ISKUR, 3 occs.; [.sup.I]DI.KUD-[.sup.d]ISKUR, twice

The sense of names with milku 'king' or the divine name Milku is unclear, and the writings vary between logographic and syllabic (5e, 9). (52)

(9) BAWS 'Abdi-Milki 'Slave of Milku/the king,' Akk. Arad-sarri, Hess no. 4, 2 spellings, 1 not considered, cf. Hess, Amarna, 14 (53)

[.sup.I]IR-LUGAL, EA 203

Names that have the honored element written logographically make up the largest group of names with logographic elements.

We turn now to the predicate or other elements of the name. There are no names in which the honored element is written syllabically while variants give the rest of the name in both logographic and syllabic forms. There are names with the honored element written syllabically and the rest of the name written only logographically, again mostly single attestations. The most common logograms are IR (10) and DUMU (11).

(10a) 'Abdi-'Atirta/'Atrati 'Slave of 'Atirta/'Atrati,' Hess no. 1, many spellings in EA 71-84, 101-10, etc.

"singular" DN, 7 spellings: [.sup.I]IR-a-si-ir-ta, 57 occs.

"plural" DN, 8 spellings: [.sup.I]IR-as-ra-ti, 5 occs.

(10b) 'Abdi-Ri(')sa 'Slave of Ri(')sa,' Hess no. 6, 1 spelling, EA 363 (54)


(10c) 'Abdi-Rama 'Slave of Rama/the Exalted One,' (55) Hess no. 5, 1 spelling, EA 123


(10d) 'Abdi-Tirti 'Slave of Tirti,' Hess no. 7, 1 spelling, EA 228 (56)


(11a) Bin-'Azzi-mi 'Son of the Strong One,' (57) Hess no. 52, 1 spelling, EA 120


(11b) Bin-'Ana 'Son of 'Ana,' Hess no. 51, 1 spelling, EA 170


If we combine the variant and single attestations with regard to the non-honored elements, we can summarize the use of logograms for nouns and adjectives. All 'abdu names are written logographically (10) with one exception (7); 'slave of' names constitute the clearest case in which Akkadian and West Semitic name formations coincide semantically. Other non-honored elements are more often written syllabically, although we have DUMU binu (11) and GAL, usually taken as Akk rabu but perhaps Akk.WSem KBR. (58)

(12) Rabu/Kabar-Sidqi 'Great is Sidqi,' Hess no. 138, 1 spelling, EA 170


The cases of UR.SAG maharu (8f) and DI.KUD tiptu (8g, 13) are more difficult. Let us consider the latter.

(13) BAWS? Ba'lu/Haddu-tipti/I, Akk.? (see below) Adad-dinu? 'The Lord/H. is judgment, Adad is judgment,' Hess no. 45, 2 spellings, I not considered, cf. Hess, Amarna, 53 (59)

[.sup.Id]ISKUR-DI.KUD, EA 292-93, 295

If only the logogram DI.KUD, most commonly used in Akkadian for dayyanu, were extant in the Amarna onomasticon, we might be inclined to take it in a West Semitic context as tapitu 'judge,' but the syllabic spelling si-ip-ti/t[i.sub.4] found elsewhere (in 8g) rules that out. (60) Only in the second half of the second millennium is DI.KUD used for forms of Akkadian dianu/danu 'to judge' (15) and derivatives other than dayyanu, notably din DN 'judgment of DN.' (61)

(14a) din(u)-Marduk, 'judgment of Marduk'

di-nu-AMAR.SUEN (62)

(14b) din(u)-sa-rabi 'decision of the great one'

di-in-sa-GAL, DI.KUD-sa-GAL (63)

(15a) din-Marduk 'judgment of Marduk' or dayyanu-Marduk 'Marduk is a judge'


(15b) din-ili 'judgment of my god' or dayyanu-ilu 'the god is judge'


This suggests that the BAWS element DI.KUD = tipt- (8g, 13) is a noun, 'judgment.' (66)

There are Amarna names written entirely and only in logograms, mostly single attestations (6d, 9, 13, 16). (67)

(16a) BAWS 'Abdi-Ba'lu/Haddu or Akk. Arad-Adad 'Slave of the Lord/Haddu/Adad,' Hess no. 3, 1 spelling, EA 119-20 (68)


(16b) BAWS Ya(n)tin-Ba'lu/Haddu or Akk. Iddin-Adad 'The Lord/Haddu/Adad has given,' Hess no. 178, 1 spelling, EA 123 (69)


(16c) 'Abdi- or Arad-NIN.URTA 'Slave of NIN.URTA,' Hess no. 190, 1 spelling, EA 84 [.sup.I]IR-NIN.URTA

(16d) Ba'lat or Belet-UR.MAH.MES 'Lady of the Lion(s),' Hess no. 192, 1 spelling, EA 273 [.sup.mi]NIN-UR.MAH.MES (70)

(16e) 'Abdi- or Arad-URAS 'Slave of URAS,' Hess no. 191, 1 spelling, EA 273-74 [.sup.I]IR-[.sup.d]URAS

These names on linguistic grounds can be taken as either Akkadian or West Semitic. Amarna scholars have tended to follow the rule of thumb that a name that can be read as West Semitic should be (6d, 9, 13, 16a-b) and a name with a logogram otherwise unknown in West Semitic names should be taken as Akkadian or indeterminate (16c-e). The procedure is not to be faulted, but it should be noted that it reflects a historical (cultural and religious) judgment, not a linguistic one. (71)

The historical judgment can be supported philologically in some cases. One Akkadian form linguistically possible for (13), Adad-idin, is of a name form that does not occur, since verbal sentence names with dianu/danu regularly have an object, and so this possibility can be ruled out. (72) Similarly, although names of the form din-DN 'judgment of DN' are known (14a), no names of the form DN-dinu 'DN is judgment' occur and so the other Akkadian suggestion can be eliminated. The Akkadian proposed above for (6d), 'Ilu-sarru, seems like a good Akkadian name, but the only analogues noted by Stamm and the Akkadian dictionaries are Old Akkadian.

(17a) sarrum-ili 'my god is king,' CAD S/II 86a, cf. AHw 1190a

(17b) beli-sar 'my lord is king,' Stamm 223

This does not rule out a similar Middle Babylonian name, but given that 'ilu/i-milku names are common in West Semitic, such a reading is more likely.

In summary, we can say that the variations (5, 7, 8f, 8g) indicate that logographic writing, reflecting the transparency of some names and name elements, was a facet of scribal practice, although it was not absolutely valued or used wherever possible. Ordinary goals of scribal practice--clarity, simplicity, economy--also played a role in determining how a name was written.


Related to the question of a given name's transparency is the matter of how it means. (73) Again the topic seems readily comprehensible: a speaker of Biblical Hebrew called his or her child [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 'Yhwh has given' in order to make a creedal affirmation about Yhwh's giving. (74) The creedal affirmation family of explanations is also used in Assyriology: One assumes that an Old Babylonian speaker called his or her child Sin-iddinam 'Sin has given (me) (a child)' for similar reasons of affirmation. There are certain avenues that can be explored working from this basis. (75) Some names seem to be purely creedal, and some seem to be closer to prayers and personal affirmations. Related to this second group is the body of names that reflect the name-giving situation, a group that is larger in Akkadian than in West Semitic. (76) Some valuable work has been done along these lines and further study can be encouraged.

At the same time, it must be admitted that the territory becomes pretty dark pretty quickly. A convenient example is the Amarna name Rib-Haddi. The first element is probably from a middle-weak root. Hebrew offers rib 'to quarrel, bring a lawsuit' and the noun rib 'law-suit,' and Akkadian offers riabu 'to replace, substitute.' The two roots seem to share a juridical sense, which may also appear in Arabic raba (yaribu) 'to distrust, make suspect.' Von Soden takes all three as cognate to one another. (77) Whether or not they are cognate, the Hebrew and Akkadian would carry their different senses over into the onomasticon. Gelb lists both senses as relevant, but most are not so agnostic. (78) Some scholars, e.g., Hess, follow the Akkadian sense; Hess says that the name "may be rendered 'compensation of (H)addu' or 'Compensate, O (H)addu!'" (79) This could be justified, although Hess does not say so, by the extensive use of this root in Akkadian names: This verb is a key to Stamm's notion of the Ersatzname, a name given to indicate that a later child replaces an earlier child who has died (or other recently deceased family member). The most famous riabu name is Sin-ahhe-eriba 'Sin has replaced the brothers.' Other scholars, e.g., Moran, prefer a gloss related to the Hebrew verb and so gloss Rib-Haddi as an imperative request, 'Plead, O Haddu.' (80) A variety of speech acts are found in names (18), some of them performed by the deity (18a?, 18b, 18d).

(18a) 'amur-Ba'li/Haddi, 'commanded of Ba'lu/Haddu,' (81) Amarna, Hess no. 24, EA 170


(18b) yibassir, 'he spoke good news,' Mari, AS 21 289; APN 177


(18c) halilum, 'praise,' Mari (82)

a-li-lu-um, Mari, AS 21 247

ha-li-lum, Mari and elsewhere, AS 21 247

ha-li-lu-um, Mari, AS 21 247

(18d) qara'-sumiya, 'he called my name,' Mari, AS 21 341 (83)


(18e) sa'ilatum (fem.), 'requested, borrowed,' AS 21 348


This range of names suggests that a speech act such as 'plead' might be at home in the onomasticon. Perhaps framing the contrasting proposals in this way may clear the path for further study, as it seems unlikely that both are correct.

The structures of naming practices are not well understood, and even in cases where the elements of a situation are clear, it is hard to know how to articulate them. For example, it can be assumed that some people changed their names or had their names changed for them at various points in their lives. The use of Zedekiah as the throne name of the seventh-century Judean king Mattaniah is a case in point (2 Kgs. 24:17). (84) There is a non-Semitic example from northern Syria: the nobleman of Carchemish known as (Hurr.) Sarri-Kusuh ([.sup.I]LUGAL-[.sup.d]30) at Emar was known elsewhere as (Anatolian) Pijassili; he was a son of Suppililiuma and the father of Sahurunuwa, king of Carchemish. (85) How extensive were such changes, what prompted them, and what controlled them? Here the study of prosopography may offer some assistance to the study of onomastics. For example, Rivkah Harris finds that half-a-dozen naditu women of Samas in Sippar bore the Akkadian name Amat-Samas 'slave of Samas.' (86) It is not hard to suppose that their names reflected their calling in life, but it is not, as far as I know, clear whether they were born to their status as naditus or changed their name when they took on the status. Since two of these women were daughters of kings of the First Dynasty of Babylon, they are not obscure figures.

In addition to formal name changes, there is the problem of nicknames, extra names perhaps acquired casually, perhaps in later life. The use by a single person of two different names, one a shortening of the other (Kurzform), remained a largely unexplored possibility until Avigad identified the name on the bulla lybrk'l/bn nrywh/hspr as the "proper" name of the man known from the Book of Jeremiah as Baruch. (87) Consider this case: 'Aziru, son of 'Abdi-Asirta of Amurru, writes in one letter, "Baaluya and [I] are [yo]ur [servants]." (88) When Aziru is in Egypt he gets letters from home, one of them headed, "Message of Baaluya and message of Bet-ili"; this letter has a postscript to members of 'Aziru's entourage, headed, "Message of Amur-Ba'la." (89) It has been suggested that Baaluya is the nickname of Amur-Ba'la. (90) There are further examples from Emar, with prosopographic confirmation. One such case involves the father of two brothers (Akk.) Ibni-Dagan 'Dagan has created' and (WSem) Zu-Eia 'the one of Ea.' The brothers jointly witness documents where their father's name is given as (Akk.) Ahi-malik 'my brother is a counsellor' (A-hi-ma-lik). The first brother is a seller in another document, where the father's name is given as Ahi-ma (a-hi-ma). (91) A more spectacular though less sure case involves the name of a witness and his father. In one document the father of the witness is (Akk.) Dagan-malik 'Dagan is a counsellor' ([.sup.d]Da-gan-ma-lik) and the witness is (WSem) la'nu-Dagan 'Dagan has answered (my prayers)' (ia-ah-nu-[.sup.d]da-gan). In another text, the father is Dagan-ma ([.sup.d]Da-gan-ma) and the son is la'nunu (ia-ah-nu-nu). It appears, Pruzsinszky argues, that both names are abbreviated in the second text. (92) In another case, the father of (WSem) Zu'-Asdi appears in two documents as (WSem) Milki-Ea-sarri 'Ea the king is my king' (mil-ki-[.sup.d]E.A-LUGAL) but in another with the shortened name Milki-Ea 'Ea is my king' (mil-ki-[.sup.d]E.A). (93)

The term "honored position" may be used in place of the more common "theophoric element." It is often assumed that whatever being is mentioned in a name is divine, and this is open to question. It is not true in the Akkadian onomasticon and may not be true for West Semitic names. (94) The Akkadian onomasticon is clearer in this respect, since Akkadian names sometimes show two honored positions, both subject and object. The honored positions are used for both gods and humans, and the view that apparent humans in the so-called "theophoric" positions were therefore divinized is doubtful. (95) The 'king' in Akkadian names is sometimes divine (19), sometimes human (20), and sometimes indeterminate (21).

(19a) Sin ([.sup.d]EN.ZU)-sar-i-li 'Sin is king of the gods,' OBab, CAD S/II 104a

(19b) Sin-sar-matim 'Sin is king of the land,' OBab, CAD S/II 104b, cf. Stamm, 226-29, AHw 1190a

(20a) Assur-mutakkil-sarri (MAN), 'Assur is the one who encourages the king,' NAss, CAD S/II 87a, Radner et al., 199

(21a) sarrum-ili 'the king is my god' (so CAD), OAkk, CAD S/II 86a (96)

(21b) beli-sar 'my lord is king,' OAkk, Stamm, 223

(21c) sarru-lu-dari 'may the king be eternal,' MAss, Stamm, 316

(21d) sarru-na'id 'the king is (to be) praised,' NAss, Stamm, 317

(21e) sarru-nuri 'the king is my light,' NAss, Stamm, 317

(21f) sarru-tab 'the king is good,' OAkk, AHw 1190a

(21g) sarru-damiq 'the king is good,' OAkk, CAD S/II 80b, AHw 1190a

(21h) tab-sar-sarri (MAN) 'sweet is the breath of the king,' NAss, CAD S/II 90b

The same may be true of the family members mentioned in both Akkadian and West Semitic names. (97) Some of the West Semitic family members belong with names of social organizations, exhibiting a revered but not necessarily divine status. The 'ancestor' or 'paternal uncle' in the name 'ammu-rapi' ha-am-mu-ra-pi 'Ammu is a healer' is at least similar and related to the '(large social organization)' in the name dimri-lim 'Lim is my defense' (zi-im-ri-li-im). (98) Others designated by family terms are likely to be actual family members, perhaps recently deceased, whose memory is being kept alive in a name. (99)

The honored position is most often theophoric. Distinguishing divine names and epithets can, however, be problematic. (100) For example, the authors and editors of the biblical narratives regard names with ba'al as honoring the deity Baal. (101) Some scholars believe in fact that this understanding is a distortion reflecting Judean polemic against the Northern kingdom, and that the honored element in such names is an epithet 'lord,' in fact honoring Yhwh. (102)

A final semantic problem area may be mentioned: to what extent were taboo elements used in names? (103) I use the term "taboo" faute de mieux and mean simply bad, undesirable, unpleasant items or predicates. This is an area in which the Akkadian and West Semitic onomastica diverge. Akkadian names use taboo elements qualified by a negative adverb (22). (104) Taboo predicates can refer to the deity (22a-b; he or she could but will not default on a promise) (105) or the name-bearer (22c-e; he or she may but should not forget a god or loved one).

(22a) iqbi-ul-ini 'He spoke and did not default,' MBab, CAD E 176a

(22b) taqbu-ul-teni 'She spoke and did not default,' fem., MBab, CAD E 176a

(22c) aha-la-amassi 'Let me not forget the brother,' NAss, CAD M/I 400a

(22d) ayy-amsi-ili 'May I not forget my god,' OAss, CAD M/I 400

(22e) e-tamsi-ilam 'May you not forget the god,' OBab, CAD M/I 400

The only West Semitic names with a negative adverb are those formed with balti (23a), similar to Akkadian names with balu (23b).

(23a) BAWS mannu-balti-'ilu 'who is without 'Ilu?,' APN 103


(23b) Akk mannum-balu-Samas 'who is without Samas?' ARM XVI/1 149


Otherwise the taboo class of names seems to be missing from the West Semitic onomasticon. (106)

This may, however, not be the case: West Semitic names may allow for the greatest taboo of all, by using the verb mwt 'to die.' References to death do occur in the Akkadian onomasticon, but only in a limited way, i.e., in conjunction with the verb 'to live': only names of the type Assur-mitu-uballit 'Assur has revived the dying one' refer to death. (107) These have no West Semitic analogs (i.e., DN + verb of reviving + 'dead person') and thus it is usually thought that the mitu element cannot be used to buttress arguments about mwt in West Semitic names. In the case of alphabetic mt and cuneiform mut- elements, there is a readily available alternative to 'death' vocabulary: the element mutu 'man' or perhaps better 'warrior, hero,' (108) cognate to the rare BHeb term [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 'men, people' (109) and found in the obscure biblical names [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (Gen. 4:18, etc.) and [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (Gen. 5:21, etc.). (110)

(24) muti-ma-Haddu 'warrior(?), indeed, of Hadu,' Zadok, "Amorite Material," 326a


The name 'is-Dagan 'man of Dagan' is common at Emar. (111)

It seems that death will be put off but not denied, since some BAWS names that show the element yamut do not lend themselves to this explanation. (112)

(25a) yamut-Lim 'Lim died,' Mari, AS 21 320


(25b) 'Ili-yamut 'my god died,' Mari, AS 21 320


(25c) yamutum 'he died [hypocoristicon],' Ur III, AS 21 321 (113)


Some onomasticians (among them Gelb, Grondahl, Knudsen, Pruzsinszky, and Zadok) enter the verb 'to die' in their onomastica lexica, (114) while others (most notably Huffmon) are dubious about such names. (115) A logographic writing from Emar clarifies that the first group is correct: mutu 'to die,' written BA.U[G.sub.7], was used in Emar names, both West Semitic (26a) and Akkadian (26b). (116) Pruzsinszky takes all the ambiguously written cases (26c) as Akkadian, but with no basis, prosopographic or otherwise. (117)

(26a) BAWS yamut-hamadi 'my beloved (child) has died' (118)

(26b) Akk. imut-hamadi 'same,' SCCNH 13, 214, Catalog 486-88 (119)

[.sup.I]i-mu-ut-ha-ma-di/di (4 occs.)

(26c) ambiguously written, SCCNH 13, 214, cf. 204

BA.U[G.sub.7]-ha-ma-di/di (13 occs.) (120)

Remarkably enough, both forms occur in shortened form.

(26d) BAWS yamut-ha, SCCNH 13, 210, Catalog 419

[.sup.I]ia-mu-ut-ha (once)

(26e) Akk imut-ha, SCCNH 13, 214, cf. 215 n. 613, Catalog 486

i-mu-ut-ha (four occs., at least two referring to the same person)

The Emar usage makes it likely that other BAWS onomastica used the root as well and that at least some of the names with simple mt or mut also refer to 'death.' (121) The interaction of taboo and negative elements is worth further study.

In sum, the limitations on what a name can be said to mean are limitations on the linguistic intelligibility of BAWS names. The comparative aspect of onomastic study is to the fore, and there are further avenues to be explored in connection with the Akkadian material. Transparency and the name-giving situation are, as noted, interconnected. They conspire to make it difficult to say how we must operate with the onomastic evidence in looking at and for Bronze-Age West Semitic. Each feature can be assumed to change over time, and it is appropriate to point out that the span of time involved in the study of Bronze-Age West Semitic is considerable, ranging from the Ur III and early Old Babylonian periods down to the fall of Ugarit around 1200 and Emar slightly later, a period of over eight hundred years. Studies of the material have generally displayed caution in separating the major groups of names, the Old Babylonian material and the material from the Amarna Age and later, but the separations seem to be a reflex of method rather than a useful tool. Aside from occasional comments about the word order of the names, (122) few time-bound differentiae have been noted. Given the changes that the later languages underwent in comparable periods of time, the apparent near-uniformity of the onomastic material should arouse suspicion. It is true that linguistic change proceeds at different rates in different ages, but it does happen continually. The fact that we are hard pressed to discern its progress in the BAWS onomastic material requires comment.


The study of the BAWS names has often proceeded on the assumption that the names are to be treated as of an order identical or similar to the isolated language material discussed earlier, the glosses and borrowings found in Mari, Amarna, and Ugaritian Akkadian and in similar smaller corpora. This approach is perhaps most explicit in Sivan's dissertation, although even there he accords primacy to the isolated language material over names. (123) If such an approach were acceptable, the isolated data for Ugaritic found in cuneiform sources from Ugarit would be of a piece with the onomastic data from the city. The two recent Ugaritic grammars have not proceeded on that basis: Sivan (having reconsidered the issue since his dissertation) and Tropper use as their basis of study the alphabetic texts and the isolated linguistic data from the cuneiform texts, without reference to the onomastic data. (124) But the approach in question has not been discarded or overthrown in the broader study of Bronze-Age West Semitic. The "maximalist" view takes its extreme form in the hypothesis of an Amorite language, i.e., the view that a language, otherwise unknown or almost unknown, is constituted by (or can be reconstituted from) the onomastic data from Mesopotamian, Assyrian, and Syrian sites that are associated with the historical and cultural phenomena of the Amorites. This approach is associated with I. J. Gelb and his student Giorgio Buccellati; it has been carried forward by Herbert B. Huffmon, Ebbe Egede Knudsen, Ran Zadok, and most recently Michael P. Streck. (125) Wolfram von Soden and more recently John Huehnergard have argued that this approach is misleading, that in fact the onomastic evidence is evidence of Bronze-Age West Semitic but not of a particular language (or language variety or dialect cluster). (126) There may be various patterns and subpatterns discernible in the large mass of material, but they do not add up to a single language or to a set of dialects of a single language. (127) There are ancient references to an Amorite language, but the references do not permit us to infer that we would recognize it if we saw it. (128)

The von Soden-Huehnergard argument can be understood in terms of the feature of isolation mentioned earlier. The West Semitic words in, say, an Emar text, that is, a text that was excavated at that Syrian site or that gives every evidence of having been stolen from it, are words used by a scribe seeking to write Middle Babylonian and falling back on his own speech in case of necessity. There is a linguistic context to the usage. A name has no such linguistic context, or, perhaps better, it is difficult to presume such a context. (129) The many names in Bronze Age texts that seem to be West Semitic almost surely are West Semitic; they represent different features of different forms of Bronze-Age West Semitic, but they do not add up to a delimitable set of forms of West Semitic. (130) There is no justification for adding together the information from various names to build up a grammar of a language shared among the names. Consider, most simply, the case of Proto-Semitic initial w. Most BAWS names almost certainly derive from languages that have undergone the Northwest Semitic shift of initial w to initial y, but there is no way to determine if any given name that does not contain an initial w belongs to a Northwest Semitic dialect; any particular 'abdu + DN name, say, could belong to an initial w-preserving dialect. (131)

Thus the BAWS names constitute a resource for the history of West Semitic but of a limited sort. Since there is no Amorite language and the names from Ugarit, Emar, and other sites are not necessarily part of the languages spoken at those sites, the names have only a limited role to play in writing the history of West Semitic. (132) They can provide evidence of isolated morphological features and isolated instances of individual lexemes, but they cannot provide a basis for gathering such information into a larger pattern.

An example may be useful here. It is generally agreed that Biblical Hebrew had three roots in zmr. Only two of these were recognized in the later tradition: zmr I 'to sing' (with Ugaritic evidence for both etymological z and d) and zmr II 'to prune' (with etymological z). The third root is so rare that it was lost sight of in the tradition, zmr III 'to protect' or the like (with etymological d). The evidence for this root is widespread: there are Arabic forms as well as Sabaean dmr 'to protect, defend.' In Ugaritic there are references in the Ba'lu epic to dm dmr, generally rendered 'the blood of warriors,' and there may be another noun form 'protection,' perhaps dimru. The catalog of the duties of the ideal son in the Kirta poem may contain an occurrence of the verb dmr 'to protect,' although others prefer to see here the verb 'to sing.' (133) In the HALOT entry for *zmr 'to protect,' the source of BHeb zimra 'strength' (so HALOT), we find listed, in addition to the evidence just cited, an Amorite root zmr 'to protect'; the root is listed on the basis of various personal names, best known of them Zimri-Lim (dimri-li'm) 'Lim is my defense.' (134) At Emar we find the names Zimri-Dagan 'Dagan is my protection' ([.sup.I]LI-[.sup.d]KUR, 4 occs.; zi-im-ri-[.sup.d]KUR, 11 occs.; zi-im-ri-[.sup.d]da-gan, twice), a shortened form of the same, Zimri-Da (LI-da, twice), Zimri-Ba'lu (LI-EN, 12 occs.; zi-im-ri-EN, once), and Zimri (zi-im-ri, 3 occs.). One of the LI-EN documents has a Hieroglyphic Luwian seal confirming the reading: zi-im-ra/ri-pa-lu. (135) The contribution of the onomastic evidence is to provide support for the existence of West Semitic zmr 'to protect' in the second millennium; the BAWS names fit into a pattern established by Arabic and Old South Arabian and marginally also supported by Ugaritic. Contending that BAWS dmr is part of an "Amorite" or "Emar" language is not crucial to the argument about Biblical Hebrew.

The onomastic data show another kind of isolation that needs to be highlighted. The usual account of these data suggests that they fit in with the other linguistic information from the regions or sites in question. In fact, the isolated linguistic data overlap only slightly with the onomastic data. The names are largely distinct from the features of their native languages that the scribes called on in writing Akkadian.

The Mari texts present an ample loan vocabulary from the West Semitic languages used in the Middle Euphrates Valley, (136) and there are a few instances where the same words turn up in the names. The best-attested example is the noun ga'um or gayum, a word for a social organization cognate to BHeb goy used in Mari Akkadian and found in some names. (137)

(27) ba'lu-gayum 'lord of the clan(?),' 'the clan is lord(?),' APN 180


The noun nawum 'encampment' is found in one name. (138)

(28) tanuh-nawum 'stability/repose of the encampment' (fem.), APN 237


The term limum, a term for a large social organization cognate to BHeb [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 'people' as well as Akkadian limu 'thousand,' has long been known in names (examples in 29) and recently turned up in several Mari Akkadian contexts. (139)

(29a) dimri-lim 'the tribe is my protection,' APN 226


(29b) yakbar-lim 'the tribe is numerous,' Zadok, "Amorite Material," 325


The instances of overlap outside the Mari material are less frequent. The D-stem of the verb nabu 'to call' occurs in various Mari names and in an Emar Akkadian context; its meaning is unclear in both settings. (140)

The final argument against recognizing Amorite as a language and using similar data from other sites in parallel fashion is that the data do not cohere. Even working with various limited subsets of Amorite names there are still enormous disparities in the material. Scholars have predictably been led to speak of Amorite dialect clusters, but the logical problem of combining various features or lexemes into orderly groups has kept such discussions at an abstract level. The two linguistic phenomena von Soden cited as damning of the effort to reconstruct an Amorite language were (1) the diversity of the determinative-relative pronouns, du and su, and (2) the problem of the G prefixing verbs in ia- versus those in i-. (141)

(1) In fact, the first of these is not a severe problem, since while du names are attested (30), notably at Emar (30c), (142) the few examples of su names are difficult. (143)

(30a) du-Ba'li 'the one of Ba'lu,' Mari, Zadok, "Amorite Material," 322b


(30b) du-Hatni 'the one of the In-Law,' Mari, APN, 205-6, ARM XVI/1 244

zu-ha-at-ni/nim, zu-u-ha-at-nim

(30c) du-Ba'lu 'the one of Ba'lu' (144 occs.), Emar, SCCNH 13, 185-87

zu-ba-ah-la (40 occs.), zu-ba-a'-la/li (3 occs.), zu-ba-la (95 occs.), zu-ba-li (3 occs.), zu-[.sup.d]ISKUR (once), zu-pa-la-as (once), zu-u-ba-la-as (once)

(30d) du-'Attarti 'the one of Attarti' (114 occs.), (144) Emar

zu-[.sup.d]as-tar-ti (113 occs., only one with DINGIR); zu-wa-as-tar-ti (once)

(2) Students of Amorite have dealt with the i- versus ia- problem by speaking of Akkadianizing writings, an approach that may create more problems than it solves. (145) There are mixed names, to be sure; consider the set in (31). (146)

(31a) BAWS yasma-Haddu 'Haddu heard,' APN 250


(31b) Akk. isme-Dagan 'Dagan heard,' ARM XVI/1 130


(31c) BAWS?/Akk.? isme-Ba'lu 'Ba'lu heard,' ARM XVI/1 131

is-me-eh-ba-al, is-ma ah-ba-al

Of these names, the yasmah name (31a) is West Semitic, and the isme name (31b) is, despite the West Semitic theophoric element, Akkadian; the ismah name (31c) is mixed in that it shows a West Semitic consonant lost in ordinary Akkadian (h) with an Akkadian onset for the verb form--it is not at home in either language group. (147)

There are comparable problems, of which I will mention only a few. (148)

(3) A group of prefixing verb forms that are apparently D-stem forms show both yi- and ya- (33). G forms of the verbs, where available, are also cited.

(33a1) yabanni-'Ilu 'Ilu fortified(?),' ARM XVI/1 213

ia-ba-an-ni-DINGIR, ia-ab-ba-an-ni-DINGIR

(33a2) yabni-Haddu 'Haddu built,' ARM XVI/1 214


(33b1) yanabbi'-'Ilu 'Ilu named,' ARM XVI/1 220, AS 21 331

ia-na-ab-bi-DINGIR, ia-na-bi-DINGIR, ia-na-bi-el

(33b2) yabbi-Haddu 'Haddu named,' ARM XVI/1 213


(33b3) yabbi-'II-'Abi ''II-'Abi named,' Zadok, "Amorite Material," 327a (149)


(33c) yabassi-Dagan 'Dagan brought about,' Mari, AS 21 289 (150)


(33d) yibassir 'he announced [hypocoristicon],' Mari, AS 21 289


This diversity in part led Gelb to contend that these were not D forms at all but examples of a long prefixing G form of the iparras/yeqattel type. (151) Since this form is otherwise not known in West Semitic, scholars have rejected this explanation. (152)

(4) The G stem vowel occasionally varies (34) for a given root.

(34a) yabhar-Haddu 'Haddu has chosen,' ARM XVI/1 213, cf. APN 175


(34b) yabhur-Lim 'Lim has chosen,' ARM XVI/1 214


Since the individual in (34a) is identified as a Hanean and the one in (34b) as a man of Idimaraz, it is hard to imagine them speaking different dialects.

(5) The behavior of underlying n+C clusters is irregular; in most Amorite names the usual West Semitic assimilation to CC does not take place, but in some names it does (35). (153)

(35a1) yabbi-Haddu 'Haddu named,' AS 21 331, ARM XVI/1 213, APN 236


(35a2) yanbi-'Ilum ''Ilum named,' Ur III, AS 21 331


(35b) yansib/yassib-Haddu 'Haddu has stationed,' ARM XVI/1 221 (154)

ia-an-si-ib-[.sup.d]ISKUR, ia-si-ib-[.sup.d]IS[KUR]

(35c) yantin/yattin-Dagan 'Dagan gave,' ARM XVI/1 222 (155)

ia-an-ti-in-[.sup.d]da-gan, ia-ti-in-[.sup.d]da-gan

(35d1) yahhi-'ilu ''Ilu guided,' Zadok, "Amorite Material," 327a


(35d2) yanhinum 'he guided [hypocoristicon],' Zadok, "Amorite Material," 327a


This variation is generally regarded as a matter of different dialects of Amorite. The writing of nC and CC forms of the same name for the same individual (36) shows that there may also be problems with the way the writing system is used or understood.

(36) yansib/yassib-Dagan, ARM 27 68

ia-as-si-ib-[.sup.d]da-gan, line 17

(ia-an-si-ib-[.sup.d]da-gan, line 5, 8, cf: ARM 3 57:11; 27 79:9

The variation also shows up in names with i- rather than ia- onset:

(37) inbi'/ibbi'-Addu 'Haddu has called'

i-bi-[.sup.d]ISKUR, ib-bi-[.sup.d]ISKUR, ARM XVI/1 112

in'-bi-[.sup.d]ISKUR, ARM XVI/1 126 (156)

When the West Semitic verb nahalu is used in Mari Akkadian, it does not show the assimilation expected in Akkadian morphology, (157) and the majority of the "Amorite" names from I-n roots also have nC clusters, but some show the assimilation to CC.

(6) The opposite process, of geminate reduction by nasalization, is attested elsewhere in Bronze Age material, notably in the divine name Haddu. (158)

(39a) haddaya 'Haddu [hypocoristicon],' Amarna, Hess no. 10

a-da-ia, ad-da-ia, an-da-a-ia

(39b) tuba-Haddu 'Return, O Haddu,' Amarna, Hess no. 154 (159)


(39c) niqma-Haddu 'dominion of Haddu,' Ugarit, PNU 168

niq-ma-[.sup.d]ISKUR, ni-iq-ma-an-du

This argument against the existence of a distinct Amorite language makes untenable reconstructions of the history of West Semitic that project into the Bronze Age categories familiar from the Iron Age. A fallacy of limited alternatives leads to the supposition that Bronze Age material must either line up with the Canaanite or Aramaic languages. (160) An enduring theme of such reconstructions sees Amorite as a progenitor of Aramaic; there may be links between Aramaic and some pools of data within the BAWS onomastic material, but the special features of Aramaic are not found. (161)

The argument that there is no Amorite language does not have much impact on the Amorite problem as a whole: it was and remains a historical and cultural set of questions, related to a remarkably diverse set of developments in the Near East in the second millennium, many of them of great importance. (162) The Akkadian term Amurrum means simply 'western.' (163) As an example of the flexibility of the term Amorite, consider Hess's observation, "Most of the personal names through Genesis 1-11 ... have attestations among the proper names of the Amorite world as found attested in the early second millennium B.C." (164) Since the comparisons in question involve comparing single biblical names or elements and "Amorite" analogs, the fact that there is no "Amorite" language as such does not much affect Hess's claim. (165)

One Amorite link that has attracted much attention is the reference in a Mari letter to the battle between the storm god (of Aleppo) and the sea (Temtum); this is the earliest example of a mythologeme, to use J.-M. Durand's term, that persisted for two thousand years into the New Testament Book of Revelation. There is no question that the letter from Mari reflects Amorite myth and cult; at the risk of belaboring the obvious, let me note that the letter is written in Akkadian. It is preserved at some remove from what we may suppose was its original language setting, although that does not render it any less culturally or historically significant. (166) The idea of legal institutions shared between ancient Israel and the Amorites, crucially the talion, continues to be discussed. (167)


Can the Bronze Age names be used in historical Semitic linguistics? In the narrowest sense, hardly at all, except perhaps to raise questions and supply notes about the lexicon and morphology of Ugaritic and the later languages. In a broader sense, questions of how names mean and can be used in literature can be formulated with this data in ways that would be answered differently for later data. The use of names is a subfield of sociolinguistics that could profit from further comparative work, as much as other areas of ancient Semitics recently have.




APN: Herbert B. Huffmon, Amorite Personal Names in the Mari Texts (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1965).

ARM XVI/1: Maurice Birot, "Noms Propres," in Birot et al., Repertoire analytique (2e volume) (Paris: Geuthner, 1979), 43-249.

AS 21: I. J. Gelb et al., Computer-Aided Analysis of Amorite. Assyriological Studies 21 (Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1980).

AS 22: Robert M. Whiting, Old Babylonian Letters from Tell Asmar (Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1987).

DLU: G. del Olmo Lete and J. Sanmartin, Diccionario de la lengua ugaritica (Barcelona: Editorial Ausa, 2000); A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language (Leiden: Brill, 2003).

DNSWI: J. Hoftijzer, K. Jongeling et al., Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions (Leiden: Brill, 1995).

EA: J. A. Knudtzon et al., Die El-Amarna-Tafeln (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1907-15).

Edzard, R/A 9: D. O. Edzard et al., "Name, Namengebung (Onomastik)," Reallexikon der Assyriologie (Berlin: de Gruyter) 9 (1998), 94-134; only the Sumerian (94-103) and Akkadian (103-16) sections, both by Edzard himself, are cited here.

Izre'el, IOS 18: Shlomo Izre'el, "A New Dictionary of Northwest Semitic and the Amarna Glosses" [Review of Hoftijzer-Jongeling 1995], IOS 18 (1998): 421-29.

SCCNH 13: Regine Pruzsinszky, Die Personennamen der Texte aus Emar (Bethesda, Md.: CDL Press, 2003).

Stamm: J. J. Stamm, Die akkadische Namengebung (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1939).

Since SCCNH 13 is new, I should note the following: citations are from the book and not from the catalog (on CD) unless clearly marked (the two have separate pagination); in general I assume the correctness of Pruzsinszky's restorations, do not indicate damaged signs, and, in citing multiply attested names, omit the DIS sign. She lists as one entry a name written twice (or more) in exactly the same way in the same document; my counts of occurrences are actually counts of the lines of her catalog and so slightly underestimate the numbers.

1. This paper was originally presented at a conference on Hebrew in its Northwest Semitic context, held at the Hebrew University's Institute for Advanced Study, Jerusalem, in June 2002; I am grateful to Steven E. Fassberg and Avi Hurvitz, the organizers, for inviting me and to the conferees for their comments. For further assistance I am grateful to David Bosworth (Baltimore), E. L. Greenstein (Tel Aviv), Herbert Huffman (Madison), John Huehnergard (Cambridge, Mass.), Cynthia Miller (Madison), Karel van der Toorn (Amsterdam), and the JAOS reviewers. I hope to return elsewhere to the arguments about the syntax of West Semitic names initially proposed in O'Connor, Hebrew Verse Structure (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1980; rpt. 1997), 159-63, and treated further in "The Ammonite Onomasticon: Syntactic and Morphological Consideration," in Studies in Near Eastern Culture and History in Memory of Ernest T. Abdel-Massih, ed. J. A. Bellamy (Ann Arbor: Center for Near Eastern and North African Studies, Univ. of Michigan, 1990), 153-68.

2. See AS 21; APN; Giorgio Buccellati, The Amorites of the Ur III Period (Naples: Istituto Orientale di Napoli, 1966); Ran Zadok, "On the Amorite Material from Mesopotamia," in The Tablet and the Scroll: Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William W. Hallo, ed. M. E. Cohen et al. (Bethesda, Md.: CDL Press, 1993), 315-33; Michael P. Streck, Das amurritische Onomastikon der altbabylonischen Zeit, I. Die Amurriter; die onomastische Forschung; Orthographie und Phonologie; Morphologie (Munster: Ugarit Verlag, 2000). Note also the Amorite appendix in J. J. M. Roberts, The Earliest Semitic Pantheon: A Study of Semitic Deities Attested in Mesopotamia before Ur III (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1972), 165-66. For the history of early work on Amorite, see Buccellati, Amorites, 4-8.

3. See Frauke Grondahl, Die Personennamen der Texte aus Ugarit (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1967); Richard S. Hess, Amarna Personal Names (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1993); Daniel Sivan, Grammatical Analysis and Glossary of the Northwest Semitic Vocables in Akkadian Texts of the 15th-13th c. B.C. from Canaan and Syria (Kevelaer: Verlag Butzon und Bercker, 1984); Pruzsinszky, SCCNH 13. Pruzsinszky includes, wherever relevant, names from the recently excavated sites in the Middle Euphrates Valley, Ekalte (Tell Munbaqa), published by W. Mayer, and Azu (Tell Hadidi), to be published by Robert M. Whiting.

4. The Ebla onomasticon is not treated here, as Eblaite is increasingly seen as an East Semitic language. On the onomasticon, see Manfred Krebernik, Die Personennamen der Ebla-Texte: Eine Zwischenbilanz (Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag, 1988), and Alfonso Archi, ed., Eblaite Personal Names and Semitic Name-Giving: Papers of a Symposium Held in Rome, July 15-17, 1985 (Rome: Missione archeologica italiana in Siria, 1998). On the language, see Krebernik, "The Linguistic Classification of Eblaite; Methods, Problems, and Results," in The Study of the Ancient Near East in the Twenty-First Century: The William Foxwell Albright Centennial Conference, ed. J. S. Cooper and G. M. Schwartz (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1996), 233-49; John Huehnergard, "New Directions in the Study of Semitic Languages," The Study of the Ancient Near East in the Twenty-First Century, 251-72, at 259.

5. The major grammars are Daniel Sivan, A Grammar of the Ugaritic Language (Leiden: Brill, 1997), and Josef Tropper, Ugaritische Grammatik (Munster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2000). On the former, see A. Gianto, "Review of Sivan 1997," Orientalia 67 (1998): 539-42, and E. L. Greenstein, "On a New Grammar of Ugaritic," IOS 18 (1998): 397-420; on the latter see Sivan, "The Status of Ugaritic among the Northwest Semitic Languages in the Wake of New Research," UF 32 (2000): 531-41, and L. Kogan, "Remarks on J. Tropper's Ugaritische Grammatik: A Review Article," UF 32 (2000): 717-32. The relation of Ugaritic to the Iron-Age languages is controversial; Tropper argues that it is Canaanite, while Sivan and, for somewhat different reasons, John Huehnergard, "The Semitic Languages," in Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, ed. J. M. Sasson et al. (New York: Scribner's, 1995), 2122, and J. F. Healey and P. C. Craigie, "Ugaritic," ABD 4.227, argue that it is not Canaanite and is in fact an independent branch of Northwest Semitic. (The former model would yield the traditional two-branch model of Northwest Semitic, while the latter would yield a four-branch model: Hebrew, Aramaic, Ugaritic, and Deir Alla. Stammbaume are, as is increasingly acknowledged, merely a heuristic tool.)

6. The alphabet of Ugarit, although it is the earliest well attested form of the alphabet, shows modifications away from the alphabetic type, specifically in the use of various syllabographs, the aleph signs. It may be that the so-called last letter of the alphabet, s, is also a syllabograph, as suggested by S. Segert, "The Last Sign of the Ugaritic Alphabet," UF 15 (1993): 201-8. On both points, see O'Connor, "Epigraphic Semitic Writing," in The World's Writing Systems, ed. P. T. Daniels and W. Bright (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1996), 92. For an alternative proposal, that s represents an affricate introduced into the writing system after s had been deaffricated, see J. Tropper, "Das letzte Zeichen des ugaritischen Alphabets," UF 27 (1995): 505-28, esp. 513, summarized in Tropper, Grammatik, 40-50. Tropper's further suggestion that s was added to the alphabet to make up the number of letters to thirty revives an old suggestion of C. H. Gordon, "The Accidental Invention of the Phonemic Alphabet," JNES 29 (1970): 193-97.

7. See the summary statement in Huehnergard, "New Directions in the Study of Semitic Languages," 268-69. There has been no comprehensive study of Mari Akkadian since Andre Finet, L'accadien des lettres de Mari (Brussels: Palais des academies, 1956); see briefly Wolfgang Heimpel, Letters to the King of Mari: A New Translation, with Introduction, Notes, and Commentary (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2003), 23-25. Not all features of Mari Akkadian that distinguish it from contemporary Old Babylonian of the heartland are to the attributed to West Semitic influence; for example, the shift of ia to e found at Mari is a precursor of the change in late Old and Middle Babylonian. The situation for West Semitic influence on Akkadian in the later period is quite different; scholarly activity has been abundant. For a survey of individual words, see Daniel Sivan, Grammatical Analysis, covering Amarna, Alalah IV, Ugarit, and Taanach; cf. Huehnergard's review, "Northwest Semitic Vocabulary in Akkadian Texts," JAOS 107 (1987): 713-25.

On Emar Akkadian, see Huehnergard, "Meskene (Imar*/Emar). A. Philologisch," Reallexikon der Assyriologie (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1993), 8.83; Jun Ikeda, "The Akkadian Language of Emar: Texts Related to a Diviner's Family," IOS 18 (1998): 33-61. According to Ikeda there are about 1000 excavated Emar texts and about two hundred not from the excavations, "Scribes at Emar," in Priests and Officials in the Ancient Near East: Papers of the Second Colloquium on the Ancient Near East--The City and its Life ... March 22-24, 1996, ed. K. Watanabe (Heidelberg: Winter, 1999), 163-85. Pruzsinszky reports that "2000 cuneiform tablets and fragments were unearthed" in the original dig, conducted by J. Margueron, and that there are "300 to 500 Emar tablets" from the black market, SCCNH 13, xiii. Digging has resumed at Emar under U. Finkbeiner (Tubingen), and the epigrapher, B. Faist (Berlin) granted Pruzsinszky permission to publish the names from the three(!) newly discovered tablets (SCCNH 13, xi), with the siglum EA (SCCNH 13, xxvi).

On Ugarit Akkadian, see Huehnergard, Ugaritic Vocabulary in Syllabic Transcription (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987); Huehnergard, The Akkadian of Ugarit (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989); W. H. van Soldt, Studies in the Akkadian of Ugarit: Dating and Grammar (Kevelaer: Verlag Butzon und Bercker, 1991); van Soldt, "The Akkadian of Ugarit: Lexicographical Aspects," in The Lexicography of the Ancient Near Eastern Languages = Studi epigrafici e linguistici 12 (1995): 205-15.

On the question of whether there is West Semitic influence on the syntax of Alalah Akkadian, see I. Marquez Rowe, "Notes on the Hurro-Akkadian of Alalah in the Mid-Second Millennium B.C.E.," IOS 18 (1998): 70-73, 77, who argues that the primary influence was rather Hurrian.

For Amarna Akkadian, the literature is superabundant; on the language of the letters in general, the seminal essays of William L. Moran, including his 1950 dissertation on the Byblos letters, are now available in Amarna Studies: Collected Writings, ed. J. Huehnergard and Sh. Izre'el (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2003). See also Anson F. Rainey, Canaanite in the Amarna Tablets: A Linguistic Analysis of the Mixed Dialect Used by Scribes from Canaan (Leiden: Brill, 1996); Huehnergard, "A Grammar of Amarna Canaanite," BASOR 310 (1998): 59-77, a review of Rainey's work; on Byblos, in addition to Moran's work, A. Gianto, Word Order Variation in the Akkadian of Byblos (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1990); for Amurru, see Sh. Izre'el, Amurru Akkadian: A Linguistic Study (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991); for the Suwardata letters (from southern Palestine?), see S. Smith, "The Inflectional Morphology of the Yvqtvl-Verb in the Suwardata Amarna Letters (EA 278-284, 366)," IOS 18 (1998): 125-70, who cites further references on Amarna material, 125. For an orientation to the letters in general, see, in addition to various pieces in Moran's collected essays, Sh. Izre'el, "The Amarna Letters from Canaan," in Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, 2411-19. On the education of scribes at Western sites, see W. H. van Soldt, "Babylonian Lexical, Religious and Literary Texts and Scribal Education at Ugarit and Its Implications for the Alphabetic Literary Texts," in Ugarit: Ein ostmediterranes Kulturzentrum; Ergebnisse and Perspektiven der Forschung, I: Ugarit und seine altorientalischen Umwelt, ed. M. Dietrich and O. Loretz (Munster: Ugarit Verlag, 1995), 171-212; Sh. Izre'el. The Amarna Scholarly Tablets (Groningen: Styx Publications, 1997); P. Artzi, "Studies in the Library of the Amarna Archive," in Bar-Ilan Studies in Assyriology Dedicated to Pinhas Artzi, ed. J. Klein and A. Skaist (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan Univ. Press, 1990), 139-56; A. Demsky, "The Education of Canaanite Scribes in the Mesopotamian Cuneiform Tradition," Bar-Ilan Studies, 157-70.

8. See further Sh. Izre'el, "The Amarna Glosses: Who Wrote What for Whom? Some Sociolinguistic Considerations," IOS 15 (1995): 101-22, as well as Izre'el, IOS 18. Some glosses involve ordinary words in the respective languages, e.g., Akk 'yoke' is glossed BAWS hu-ul-lu (cognate to BHeb 'ol 'yoke,' 'ullo 'his yoke'; EA 296:38; DNWSI 843; Izre'el, IOS 18, 427). In other cases both words are moderately unusual, e.g., Akk hu-ha-ri 'bird trap' (CAD H 224b-25) is glossed BAWS ki-lu-bi (cognate to BHeb [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 'basket, bird cage,' so HALOT; EA 74:56, etc.; DNWSI 510; Izre'el, IOS 18, 425). Sometimes one BAWS word is used to "gloss" another, e.g., ia-pu (noted as WSem by CAD I/J 325a; cognate to Ug yp; BHeb yapeh 'beautiful') is glossed (i.e., followed by a Glossenkeil and) ha-mu-du 'desirable' (cognate to Ug hmd, BHeb hmd 'to desire, covet,' G pass, part.; EA 138:26; DNSWI 380; Izre'el, IOS 18, 424). In some cases the use of logograms prevents us from being sure of what the scribe read, e.g., Akk. i-na SU-ti-su, presumably for ina qatisu 'from his hand,' is glossed ba-di-u (cf. BHeb [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 'in/from his hand'; EA 245:35; DNWSI 433; Izre'el, IOS 18, 425). Technical terms written in logograms present even more problems. DNWSI includes only BAWS items that are introduced by the Glossenkeil. There are other, clearly relevant terms, "extrasystemic" to Middle Babylonian, in Izre'el's term, and Izre'el includes these in IOS 18, e.g., na-ma-lu 'ant' (EA 252:16; cognate to BHeb [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]; Izre'el, IOS 18, 426).

9. The Hieroglyphic Hittite data are found on seals from Emar and used by Pruzsinszky, SCCNH 13, throughout. For the Egyptian material, see notes 12 and 16 below.

10. Treated most fully in Huehnergard, Ugaritic Vocabulary.

11. For fuller statements, see Huehnergard, The Akkadian of Ugarit, 7-8; Izre'el, Amurru Akkadian, 9-12; Marquez Rowe, "Hurro-Akkadian of Alalah," 64.

12. Cf., e.g., Huehnergard, "Northwest Semitic Vocabulary," 716-17, with some details on the value of the PI sign. The problems posed by Egyptian writing are considerable and the material is controversial; it can be fairly said that cuneiform is, for a variety of reasons, a more revealing source.

13. See also R. M. Whiting, Old Babylonian Letters from Tell Asmar, AS 22.

14. The primary group of excavated texts is published by Daniel Arnaud, Recherches au pays d'Astata: Emar VI: Textes de la bibliotheque: Transcriptions et traductions. 4 vols. (Paris: Editions Recherches sur les Civilisations, 1985-87); Pruzsinszky, SCCNH, provides details for the various groups of other texts, SCCNH 13, xxv-lvii.

15. See, in addition to Grondahl, the later publications from Ugarit, notably P. Bordreuil et al., Une bibliotheque au sud de la ville: Les textes de la 34e campagne (1973) (Paris: Editions Recherches sur les Civilisations, 1991) and the ample references in DLU.

16. The Egyptian material generally parallels the cuneiform, and I will not deal with it extensively. The Middle Kingdom execration texts are shattered artefacts inscribed with the names of particular "vile Asiatics," rulers of settlements in Egypt's area of interest; the bowls were published by Kurt Sethe, Die Achtung feindlicher Fursten, Volker und Dinge auf altagyptischen Tongefasscherben der Mittleren Reiches nach den Originalen im Berliner Museum herausgegeben und erklart (Abhandlungen der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil.-hist. Kl. 5, Berlin, 1926), and the statuettes by Georges Posener, Princes et pays d'Asie et de Nubie: Textes hieratiques sur des figurines d'envoutement du Moyen Empire (Brussels: Fondation egypologique Reine Elisabeth, 1940); Cinq figurines d'envoutement (Cairo: Institut francais d'archeologie oriental du Caire, 1978). Most of the relevant onomastic material is reviewed in APN and AS 21; a convenient, brief catalog of clearly Semitic names is given by James E. Hoch (see below), 492-95, who offers commentary on the Middle Kingdom emergence of "group writing." The much more abundant New Kingdom (NK) material for West Semitic is Hoch's main subject in Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts of the New Kingdom and the Third Intermediate Period (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1994), summarizing and extending much earlier work. For positive reviews, see Thomas P. Schneider, Or 65 (1996): 174-77, and Gary Rendsburg, JAOS 116 (1996): 508-11; the praise of Anson F. Rainey is more qualified, "Egyptian Evidence for Semitic Linguistics," IOS 18 (1998): 431-53. Hoch deals only with some names (for the reasons, 4, 6; for some exceptions, 356, 372). It should be noted that the NK records include much valuable toponymic evidence. A full survey of NK personal names, with abundant parallels and a study of "group writing," is given by Thomas Schneider, Asiatische Personennamen aus agyptischen Quellen des Neuen Reiches (Fribourg: Universitatsverlag, 1992).

17. E.g., Ran Zadok takes Ugaritic as the westernmost Amorite dialect, "Amorite Material," 315, basically because it was not, in his view, Canaanite; it is, however, difficult to insist that Ugaritic need be tied more closely either to "Amorite" material or Canaanite; see below.

18. The major sources are inventoried in Wayne Horowitz, Takayoshi Oshima, and Seth Sanders; "A Bibliographical List of Cuneiform Inscriptions from Canaan, Palestine/Philistia, and the Land of Israel," JAOS 122 (2002): 753-66. At a stretch, one might add, in Lebanon, Kamid el-Loz in the Biqa' Valley, for which see John Huehnergard, "A Byblos Letter, Probably from Kamid el-Loz," ZA 86 (1996): 97-113 and references. The most important source for Bronze Age names is Tell Ta'annach (Jezreel Valley); see Friedrich [i.e., Bedrich] Hrozny, "Die Keilschrift-Texte aus Ta'annek [Texts 1-4]," in Ernst Sellin, Tell Ta'annek, vol. 1, Denkschriften der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, phil.-hist. Kl. 50.4 (Vienna, 1904), 113-22; Hrozny, "Die neugefunden Keilschrifttexte von Ta'annek [TT 5-12]," in Sellin, Tell Ta'annek, vol. 2, Denkschriften der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, phil.-hist. Kl. 52.3 (Vienna, 1905), 36-41; Albert E. Glock, "A New Ta'annek Tablet," BASOR 204 (1971): 17-30. Despite the early study by A. Gustav, "Die Personennamen in den Tontafeln von Tell Ta'annek: Eine Studie zur Ethnographie Nordpalastinas zur El-Amarna-Zeit," ZDPV 50 (1927): 1-18; 51 (1928): 169-218, these names are often neglected; they are, however, put to good use in Sivan, Grammatical Analysis, and Scott C. Layton, Archaic Features of Canaanite Personal Names in the Hebrew Bible (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990). Also noteworthy are the two tablets from Tell Balatah (Shechem), originally published by Franz M. Th. Bohl, "Die bei den Ausgrabungen vom Sichem gefundenen Keilschrifttafeln," ZPDV 49 (1926): 321-27, and re-edited by W. F. Albright, "A Teacher to a Man of Schechem About 1400 B.C.," BASOR 86 (1942): 28-31. For further references, see Horowitz et al.

19. The overemphasis on an etymological approach to names is not limited to Semitics; see the essays in K. B. Harder, Names and Their Varieties: A Collection of Essays on Onomastics (Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1986), some of which also serve as reminders of the difficulties of etymological work in other areas.

20. For briefer treatments of some of these issues, see G. Buccellati, "Eblaite and Amorite Names," in Namenforschung I: An International Handbook of Onomastics, ed. E. Eicher et al. (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1995), 856-60; J. Barr, "The Symbolism of Names in the Old Testament," Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 52 (1969-70): 11-29. The normalizations and translations of names given here are intended to be heuristic.

21. The crucial papers are Yair Zakovitch, "A Study of Precise and Partial Derivations in Biblical Etymology," JSOT 15 (1980): 31-50; "Explicit and Implicit Name-Derivations," Hebrew Annual Review 4 (1980): 167-81. See also Aaron Demsky, "Names and No-Names in the Book of Ruth," in These Are the Names: Studies in Jewish Onomastics, ed. A. Demsky et al. (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan Univ. Press, 1997), 27-37; Moshe Garsiel, Biblical Names: A Literary Study of Midrashic Derivations and Puns (Ramat-Gat: Bar-Ilan Univ. Press, 1986); Richard S. Hess, Studies in the Personal Names of Genesis I-II (Kevalaer: Verlag Butzon & Bercker, 1993); "Issues in the Study of Personal Names in the Hebrew Bible," Currents in Research: Biblical Studies 6 (1998): 175-78. Implicit wordplay, i.e., wordplay in a narrative where the literary significance of a character's name is not signaled in any way (e.g., Abel's name, hebel, 'breath, vanity, nothingness,' in Gen. 4:2), is discussed by E. L. Greenstein, "Wordplay, Hebrew," ABD 6.968-7, and Hess, Genesis, 113-15; it is relevant to the examples of Ugaritic paronomasia proposed by Greenstein, "Kirta," Ugaritic Narrative Poetry, ed. S. B. Parker (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), 10, 44 n. 65.

22. Most of the examples are in C. H. W. Johns, Assyrian Deeds and Documents Regarding the Transfer of Property (Cambridge: Deighton Bell, 1901), vol. II, appendices; cf. vol. III, preface; a further example is added by F. M. Fales, "A List of Assyrian and West Semitic Women's Names," Iraq 41 (1979): 55-73; cf. Fales, "West Semitic Names in the Assyrian Empire: Diffusion and Social Relevance," Studi epigrafici e linguistici 8 (1991): 99-117. The early second-millennium name-lists, presumably school texts at base, seem not to have engendered a canonical category; see Edzard, R/A 9, 100-101; the OBab examples involve Sumerian names, 112; Edzard does not discuss the NAss examples.

23. See J. Naveh, "Miscellanea Onomastica Hebraica," Semitica 39 (1990): 59-62; E. Eshel, "Personal Names in the Qumran Sect," in These Are the Names: Studies in Jewish Onomastics, 42-43; A. Demsky, "Abecedaries," in The Context of Scripture, vol. I: Canonical Compositions from the Biblical World, ed. W. W. Hallo et al. (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 364. For Masada nos. 608-9, see Naveh in Y. Yadin, J. Naveh, and Y. Meshorer, Masada I: The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963-1965, Final Reports: The Aramaic and Hebrew Ostraca and Jar Inscriptions and the Coins of Masada (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1989), 61-62. For the ostracon, see E. Puech, "Abecedaire et liste alphabetique de noms hebreux du debut du He s. A.D.," RB 87 (1980): 118-26. For the 4Q text, see J. Naveh, "A Medical Document or a Writing Exercise? The So-Called 4Q Therapeia," IEJ 36 (1986): 52-55.

24. There are few, if any remnants of a Bronze Age native-speaker analysis of the onomasticon. As noted above, Greenstein has proposed a couple of examples in "Kirta"; for further discussion, see O'Connor, "The Human Characters' Names in the Ugaritic Poems: Onomastic Eccentricity in Bronze-Age West Semitic," in Hebrew in its Northwest Semitic Context, ed. S. E. Fassberg and A. Hurvitz (forthcoming).

25. The Hurrian onomasticon in general works like the Semitic, as Pruzsinszky notes in her recent book, concluding that "direct influence cannot, however, be demonstrated," SCCNH 13, 222-23, with references. The R/A entries by the lamented D. O. Edzard presuppose a relationship between Sumerian and Akkadian onomastica without proposing how it might be conceived.

26. For a related critique of the "magical and essentialist view of biblical naming" in conjunction with the use of names in narratives, see Herbert Marks, "Biblical Naming and Poetic Etymology," JBL 114 (1995): 21-42, quoted phrase at 23. His quest for yet another supposed marker of Israelite uniqueness over against other ancient Near Eastern literature is a minor distraction in Marks's otherwise illuminating treatment of the Noah, Moses, and Jacob name stories.

27. For references to earlier literature, see M. Van De Mieroop, "An Inscribed Bead of Queen Zakutu," in The Tablet and the Scroll, 259-61, who does not discuss the translatability of the names. The equivalence of the names of the Old Babylonian ruler variously called Akkadian Samsi-Adad and Amorite Samsi-Addu may be a matter of the writing system as much as translation; see Heimpel, Letters to the King of Mari, 21. Another example of name translation, this one involving a toponym, is treated by Hayim Tadmor, "Towards the Early History of qatalu," JQR 76 (1985): 51-54; he proposes to see in the second half of the name of the Habur River town Dur-Katlimmu a West Semitic phrase qatal limu 'he smote a thousand.' An Assyrianized form of the name (put in the first person) is also found: BAD-a-duk-l-lim, i.e., aduk lim 'the wall called "I [viz., the Assyrian monarch] smote a thousand."'

28. Pruzsinszky, SCCNH 13, 94 n. 255.

29. The transactions are E 23-25; E 23 has [.sup.[f]][Ta]-at-ta-se, wife of [.sup.I]A-la-zi-ia-i; E 24 has [.sup.f]Ra-in-du, wife of [.sup.I]A-la-za-a; and E 25 has [.sup.f]Ta-ta-sa (no husband's name). Pruzsinszky uses both Tatasse, 94, 253, and Tattasse, 240, in her text, and the latter in the catalog; she gives parallels for the Hurrian name, 240 n. 154. For another possible example of equivalent names, see 252 n. 273.

30. For references to both Greek and Aramaic names, see W. Bauer, F. W. Danker, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon on the New Testament. 3d ed. (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 2000), s.vv. The Biblical Hebrew cognate is sibya' (male, 1 Chron. 8:9), sibya (female, 2 Kgs. 12:2 = 2 Chron, 24:1).

31. See BDB; HALOT; L. Alonso Schokel et al., Diccionario Biblico Hebreo-Espanol (Madrid: Editorial Trotta, 1994); D. J. A. Clines, J. Elwolde, et al., Dictionary of Classical Hebrew (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993-). On these dictionaries, see M. O'Connor, "Semitic Lexicography: European Dictionaries of Biblical Hebrew in the Twentieth Century," in Semitic Linguistics: The State of the Art at the Turn of the Twenty-first Century, ed. Sh. Izre'el (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2002), 173-212.

32. See the discussion in Barr, "The Symbolism of Names in the Old Testament," esp. 11-12.

33. For these names, see K. Radner et al., The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, vol. 1, part I: A (Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, Helsinki University, 1998), 98-99. Virtually all the NAss examples here are drawn from the first part of this wonderful compendium.

34. For examples of PAB writings, see Radner et al., Prosopography, 35, 60-68, 89, 144-45, 159, 187, 200, 216-17. The royal (and thus well attested) name Assur-nadin-ahhe is usually written with PAB.MES/ME and once with only PAB; the example with only PAB is at 200, noted as a "scribal error." For examples with the "proper" form ahija, see 64. The Helsinki corpus, in almost all respects a model onomasticon, is not entirely consistent in the handling of these examples. On the difficulty of distinguishing ahu and ahhe names, see Stamm, 44-45.

35. Further argumentation would be based on geography and date. In Late Bronze Syria-Palestine, Sumerian names are rare: in the Old Babylonian Mesopotamian heartland, they are not at all rare. Special problems are presented by the Emar names, where Akkadian, West Semitic, and Hurrian readings of some logograms are possible. As Pruzsinszky shows, there is no simple resolution to the problems, although she struggles mightily and Hieroglyphic Luwian seals provide some help. In particular, the signs for the storm god's name are intractable: [.sup.d]ISKUR, [.sup.d]U, and [.sup.(d)]EN can all be read Akk. Adad, WSem (H)adda or (H)addu or Ba'lu, and Hurr. Tessub, SCCNH 13, 49-51; Hittite Tarhunta is much less likely. Thus she sometimes transcribes these signs jointly as GN, 51, cf. 31 n. 48, and sometimes offers a reading. As an example of the first procedure, consider Akk. GN-gamil 'the weather god is comforting', which is written both [.sup.d]ISKUR-ga-mil (10 occs.) and [.sup.d]U-ga-mil (6 occs.), 123. For a case with a reading, Akk. Ba'l-malik 'Ba'lu is a counsellor' shows three writings, EN-ma-lik (77 occs.), [.sup.d]ISKUR-ma-lik (77 occs.), and [.sup.d]U-ma-lik (23 occs.), 118. The normalization is supported for one or two cases by a Hieroglyphic Luwian seal. Remarkably, prosopographic evidence suggests that [.sup.d]NIN has a related reading, and Pruzsinszky proposes that both [.sup.d]ISKUR and [.sup.d]NIN can be read as Ba'la, 118 n. 490, 192 n. 424. In a single text the wife of (Akk.) Milki-Dagan ([.sup.I]Mil-ki-[.sup.d]KUR), 197 is given as [.sup.fd]ISKUR-ki-mi and [.sup.f]NIN-ki-mi, i.e., Ba'la-kimi 'Ba'la is my family.' (On the name element, cf. Akkadian kimtu, 192 n. 417.) Pruzsinszky also proposes the normalization Ba'la-milki 'Ba'la is my king(!)' for the names [.sup.fd]NIN-mil-ki (once), [.sup.fd]ISKUR-mil-ki (twice), and [.sup.fd]U-mil-ki (3 occs.), 193, arguing that if NIN can interchange with ISKUR both can interchange with U. She does not identify Ba'la as an epithet, 'the Lady' (as NIN might suggest) or a divine name, a female weather god. It is probably best to take NIN here as a marker of the feminine bearer of the name, to be understood as referring to the (male) weather god. (Thanks to G. Beckman for this suggestion.)

36. Here, consideration of name formation comes into play: Many Akkadian and Sumerian name types are identical or analogous, while there are some on each side that are distinctive. The most substantial difference is the "neutrality" of viewpoint associated with Sumerian names; see Robert A. Di Vito, Studies in Third Millennium Sumerian and Akkadian Personal Names: The Designation and Conception of the Personal God (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1993), 21-22, 82. Di Vito's appendices (I, IV, V.) make it possible to compare the two sets of name formations. Edzard emphasizes that Sumerian names refer to king and court much more than (early) Akkadian names, RIA 9, 106, and that one-element Akkadian names are more common than such Sumerian names, 107b.

37. Yet another factor is the extent of the available documentation: There simply are vastly more economic and administrative documents from the Old Babylonian period and the first millennium than from other periods, and the third quarter of the first millennium dwarfs all other periods. Note the handy chart in Marc Van De Mieroop, Cuneiform Texts and the Writing of History (London: Routledge, 1999), 12.

38. See Radner et al., Prosopography, 159.

39. They are TI-su, TI.LA, DIN-su, TIN, and TI. The last two look somewhat suspicious for -balassu- (rather than simply -balata-), but in the name of a single individual the middle element is written alternately TI-su and TI, and so the editors of Prosopography have grouped all the writings together, Radner et al., Prosopography, 156.

40. Since MU is also used for sumu 'name,' the name of Sennacherib's son Assur-nadin-sumi 'Assur is the giver of a name (viz., a child?)' can be written as-sur-MU-MU, among a total of nine different writings, Radner et al., Prosopography, 202.

41. The problem of sandhi in name writing is complex. Ordinarily the morphological break between name elements coincides with a break between signs. When it does not, as in (4b2), one can speak of sandhi; for an Akk. example, note OBab na-b[i.sub.4]-li-su 'Called [nabiu > nabu]-by-His-God' (CAD N/I 31b). Sandhi writing (including assimilation) is extremely common across the Emar onomasticon, and Pruzsinszky presents several approaches to the problem, SCCNH 13, 143-44, 219-20. There are numerous relevant remarks of hers that deserve to be reviewed more systematically; since there is no subject index to her book, I note them here: 124 n. 560; 125 n. 565; 134 n. 636-38; 135 n. 652; 138 n. 682; 182 n. 321; 188 n. 378; 217 n. 635. As in Ugaritic, 'ahu 'brother' shows variant forms in 'i- and perhaps 'u-, 220; the other proposed example of backwards vowel assimilation is doubtful, 185 n. 359, 220, and note 142 below. A related phenomenon is the truncation of both divine names and epithets (e.g., Da for Dagan) and of other predicates; this deserves further study, but Pruzsinszky is to be congratulated for highlighting the problem. (Her casual suggestion that it somehow reflects the influence of Hieroglyphic Luwian writing, 141 n. 714, can be ignored.)

The term sandhi is used otherwise by E. E. Knudsen; believing that writing a -CC name element [V.sub.1]C-C[V.sub.2], shows [V.sub.2] as a "dead" vowel, he takes the writing of (4a2) above as indicating /'abd-il/ and regards the a-vowel as "purely orthographic," example and quotation from Knudsen, "Amorite Grammar: A Comparative Statement," in Semitic Studies in Honor of Wolf Leslau on the Occasion of His 85th Birthday, November 14th, 1991, ed. A. S. Kaye (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1991), 866-85 at 869; cf. Knudsen, "An Analysis of Amorite: A Review Article," JCS 34 (1982): 1-18 at 7-8.

42. See Hess, Amarna Personal Names; W. L. Moran, The Amarna Letters (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1992), chiefly in the index.

43. Hess no. 194 is taken as Akkadian, with Moran, Amarna Letters, 309, contra Hess, Amarna, 177. Unusual spellings and likely scribal errors are omitted. Pruzsinszky, SCCNH 13, 157 n. 85, argues that Amarna ba-ya-di is related to WSem bi+yad- names (on Amarna ba-di-u, see note 8 above), rather than being Indo-Aryan, as Hess reluctantly suggests, 55, 226. Moran is uncertain about the name's origin.

44. For other sense possibilities, see Hess, Amarna, 18-19.

45. The syllabic spelling [.sup.I]i-li-mil-ki in EA 286 designates a different individual, Hess, Amarna, 87.

46. The identity of the individuals involved is not clear: Hess, Amarna, 10-11; Mari has the names IR-[.sup.d]INNIN and (ha-)ab-du-INNIN, Hess, Amarna, 11. Tropper's proposal to understand the omission of the r in EA 63 as perhaps an indicator of an (uvular) trill pronunciation of r in the word (i.e., r) seems dubious, "Review of Hess 1993," OLZ 91 (1996): 55.

47. For Emar, see note 35 above.

48. The same name, used of another individual, is written [.sup.I]pu(?)-ba(?)-ah(?)-la in EA 104, Hess, Amarna, 126-27.

49. For the sense 'I saw the Lord,' corresponding to Akk. 'amur names, see Moran, Amarna Letters, 380; for other possibilities, see Hess, Amarna, 33-34 and note 81 below. For more on 'mr in names, see Pruzsinszky, SCCNH 13, 155 n. 71, cf. p. 76. For more BAWS imperative names, see SCCNH 13, 177, 182, 217.

50. Hess takes the verb here as a suffixing form; Tropper, "Review of Hess 1993," 55, as a prefixing.

51. The EA 260 name [.sup.I]ba-lu-me-er may not belong with the others, contra Hess, Amarna, 51. Rainey normalizes the EA 249-50 examples (the logographic cases) as Ba'lu-meher, referring to the same individual as in EA 245, Rainey, "Egyptian Evidence," 442. Moran recognized three

individuals here, Ba'lu-mehir, Ba'lu-Mir (EA 260), and Ba'lu-UR.SAG, Amarna Letters, 381. For a qatal vocalization of maharu, in contrast to Hess's qitil, see Tropper, "Review of Hess 1993," 57; Rainey, "Egyptian Evidence," 441-42 (deriving -meher from -mahar). Like Hess, Huehnergard uses a qitil vocalization, mih(i)ru, for an Ugaritian name, Akkadian of Ugarit, 410. Hoch, Semitic Words, 147-49, argues that the vocalization suggested by the Egyptian material is mahira, comparable to BHeb mahir, a suggestion refuted at length and with care by Rainey, "Egyptian Evidence," 441-43 (but note Moran's normalization). The Emar data suggest that UR.SAG was read there as qarradu 'hero,' SCCNH 13, 119 n. 501.

52. For Ugaritic 'ilu as mlk, see W. Herrmann, "El," DDD, 523, cf. 484-85, 575-76.

53. For the individual in EA 123, see Moran, Amarna Letters, 379, cf. 202.

54. The honored element is otherwise unknown; for this sense, see Moran, Amarna Letters, 379; cf. Hess, Amarna, 16. The name could be Akkadian.

55. For other possible understandings, see Hess, Amarna, 15. On Ram(a) in Mesopotamian (usually Assyrian) names, see K. van der Toorn, "Ram," DDD, 687.

56. The same name is found at Ugarit; see Hess, Amarna, 17. The theophoric element is otherwise unknown; cf. J. F. Healey, "Firash," DDD, 871-72.

57. Hess understands the name otherwise, Amarna, 59, 'the son is strong'; as Moran hints, the second element could be 'asimu 'the strong one,' Amarna Letters, 381; so also Tropper, "Review of Hess 1993," 55.

58. The name of the Emar king Ba'lu-kabar (son of El/El-li son of Pil-su-[.sup.d]Da-gan and himself the father of, among others, Pil-su-[.sup.d]Da-gan) is written [.sup.d]ISKUR-GAL, [.sup.d]ISKUR-ka-bar, and [.sup.d]U-GAL, SCCNH 13, 119 n. 504, further on the element, see 53, 77 n. 56, 126 n. 577, 129, cf. 234. Pruzsinszky takes all the names as Akkadian, but the element is probably West Semitic. The root is found in Hebrew. Aramaic, and Arabic, and is used in Amorite names, notably ia-ak-bu-rim (AS 21, 304, Bauer) and ki-ib-ir-[.sup.d]Ab-ba (same, Mari, not in APN). If the root KBR is properly predicated of the gods, then the single-element name Kabbara (written kab-bar-ra once and ka-ba-ra twice) is not likely to mean 'Fat' (German 'Dicker,' 'Sehr Dicker'), SCCNH 13, 84 n. 148.

59. For references to previous literature, see Moran, Amarna Letters, 335. Moran argues that there is no syllabic writing for the name of the ruler of Gezer who wrote EA 292-94; he takes the name as BAWS adda-danu 'Hadda has judged,' Amarna Letters, 335, 379. Repeated recent collation, described by Hess, Amarna, 53, has not settled the reading of EA 294:3. In "Amarna Glosses," now in Amarna Studies, 282-84. Moran demonstrates that EA 294 belongs with EA 292-93, with Knudtzon, contra W. F. Albright and E. F. Campbell.

60. A dubious possibility for (13) would be a West Semitic equivalent of Madanum, divinized justice, which occurs in Akkadian names in various periods: (I) i-li-ma-da-nu-um, ili-Madanum, 'my god is Justice,' OBab Khafajah, CAD M/I 11a; (II) [.sup.d]DI.KUD-iddina, Madanum-iddina, 'Justice has given to me,' NBab, CAD M/I 11a.

61. The examples are from BE 14 - 15 = A. T. Clay, Documents from the Temple Archives of Nippur (Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Museum, 1906), and YOS 1 = Clay. Personal Names from the Cuneiform Inscriptions of the Cassite Period (New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1912). Other names with DYN elements other than dayyanu include (I) MBab idinanni-Samas 'Samas has judged me,' DI.KUD-ni-UTU, YOS 1, 84; (II) MBab idinanni-ilu 'the god has judged me,' i-di-na-an-ni-DINGIR, CAD D 101b-2a; (IIIa) MBab din(i)-ili-lumur 'may I see the verdict of the god,' di-in-DINGIR-lu-mur, BE 14, 42 (masc.), 55 (fem.); YOS 1, 69; CAD D 152; (IIIb) di-ni-DINGIR-lu-mur, BE 15, 47, CAD D 152; (IV) MAss in-na-[mar-di]-en-DINGIR, innamar-din-ili, 'the verdict of the god has appeared.' CAD D 152.

62. See BE 14, 42; YOS 1, 69.

63. Syllabic writing di-in: BE 15, 47; YOS 1, 69; CAD D 152a. Logographic writing DI.KUD; YOS 1, 69, CAD D 152a.

64. Marduk examples in BE 14, 42; YOS 1, 68. With other divine names as well, YOS 1, 69, CAD D 152a.

65. BE 15, 30. Clay notes both possibilities.

66. Moran's insistence that "there is not the slightest evidence that anyone named Ba'lu-sipti ever ruled in Gezer," Amarna Studies, 284, is based on his reading of the traces in EA 294, not confirmed by later collations. It must be admitted that DI.KUD could be a verb form.

67. Such writings are common at Emar; Pruzsinszky, SCCNH 13, provides abundant data, but little by way of summary; she catalogs the logograms, 48-56, and notes the usefulness of Hieroglyphic Luwian seals (where the writing is almost entirely syllabic) in resolving them. Much remains to be studied.

68. Hess includes EA 127 here, Amarna, 12; Moran reads otherwise, Amarna Letters, 208 n. 1.

69. Hess takes the name as West Semitic, since the bearer is a citizen of Byblos, Amarna, 165. Moran reads Yattin-Hadda, Amarna Letters, 202; so also Tropper, "Review of Hess 1993," 56. Mari has a similar pair of name formations: Akk. i-din-[.sup.d]ISKUR and BAWS ia-an-ti-in-[.sup.d]ISKUR, ia-at-ti-in-[.sup.d]ISKUR, ia-ti-in-[.sup.d]ISKUR; see Hess, Amarna, 165-66. See notes 154-58 below.

70. Moran leaves the name in logograms, Amarna Letters, 318.

71. Note Moran's astute remark on the role, in understanding the Amarna texts, of "a simple common-sense understanding of the situation in Canaan," in his 1950 dissertation, Amarna Studies, 99.

72. Examples in note 61 above.

73. For a general survey, see Edzard, RlA 9, 96, 106-7, 109. For discussion of other facets of name semantics, see O'Connor, "The Ammonite Onomasticon: Semantic Problems," Andrews University Seminary Studies 25 (1987): 51-64.

74. For the use of a transitive verb without a direct object, see O'Connor, Hebrew Verse Structure, 159-63.

75. See J. D. Fowler's study of "ideas concerning the deity" of the Hebrew Bible, Theophoric Personal Names in Ancient Hebrew (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988), 19, cf. 173-80.

76. See Edzard, RlA 9, 97-98.

77. See AHw ad loc.

78. See AS 21, 30.

79. See Hess, Amarna, 134. Pruzsinszky glosses comparable Emar West Semitic names with ersetzen, SCCNH 13, 171 n. 215, 176 n. 274, 210, 215, as she does similar Akkadian names, 94, 105, cf. 171, 239 n. 141. Cf. Fowler, Names in Ancient Hebrew, 185; Mark S. Smith, The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1991), 13.

80. Moran, Amarna Letters, 384.

81. Hess claims, perhaps following Gelb in AS 21, 14, that West Semitic "'mr ... can carry the meaning 'to see' as well as 'to speak, command,'" Amarna, 33. This seems doubtful. See note 49 above.

82. There are other names from this root. Huffmon takes the examples with initial h as cognate to Arabic xalil 'friend,' APN 195.

83. There are other names from qr'.

84. On such "double names" or "aliases," see Ran Zadok, The Pre-Hellenistic Israelite Anthroponymy and Prosopography (Leuven: Peeters, 1988), 12-13. In the ancient Near East regnal names are used only in Egypt; on their not being required in Mesopotamia, see Edzard, R/A 9, 98, 109.

85. SCCNH 13, 237 n. 122.

86. R. Harris, "Biographical Notes on the Naditu Women of Sippar," JCS 16 (1962): 1-12. See also SCCNH 13, 119 n. 503.

87. See N. Avigad, Hebrew Bullae from the Time of Jeremiah: Remnants of a Burnt Archive (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1986), 28-29. Hypocoristic name formations (Kurznamen, e.g., English Gene, so named at birth and always so known) are in theory distinct from hypocoristic variants (Kurzformen, e.g., English Eugene known as Gene). On the latter, see Martin Noth, Die israelitischen Personennamen im Rahmen der gemeinsemitischen Namengebung (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1928), 62; Zadok, Israelite Anthroponymy, 9-10. Zadok gives various examples from cuneiform sources, most older than the Avigad case. In fact it is often hard to tell a Kurzname from a Kurzform.

88. EA 165:9, Moran, Amarna Letters, 252.

89. EA 170:2, 38.

90. Most recently by Moran, Amarna Letters, 380; cf. the agnostic Hess, Amarna, 33.

91. See SCCNH 13, 115 n. 470; the documents are RE 28:55; SMEA 2:26; and RE 54:12. The Hieroglyphic Luwian seal inscription is difficult to read.

92. The texts are E 176:31 and AuOrSI 57:34; SCCNH 13, 121 n. 521.

93. The documents are E 146:29; RE 29:34; and E 159:30. For Zu'-Asdi, see 185. Pruzsinszky has many other examples without prosopographic confirmation, e.g., SCCNH 13, 59 n. 28, 123 n. 548, 202. Some cases are unclear, e.g., she contends that [.sup.Id]A.A-SI[G.sub.5] son of Zi-ik-ri-ia and [.sup.Id]E.A-SI[G.sub.5] son of Zi-ik-ri (in E 90A:4 and E 90B:4) are the same person, but the difference between the two forms of the name is difficult to specify, SCCNH 13, 49 n. 4.

94. Most onomasticians concede this, one way or another; note Di Vito's formulation: "These names [viz., names like 21a below] suggest that personal-god language ... was commonly employed for relationships which do not have the gods in view at all, but mortal beings, living and deceased," Third Millennium Sumerian and Akkadian Personal Names, 273, cf. 256-59. Zadok even more cautiously says, "A theophorous element can be either a divine name or an epithet with numinous connotation," Israelite Anthroponymy, 178. Strictly theophoric elements are not required in Sumerian names, Edzard, RlA 9, 96: "In names with lugal 'king, lord' and nin 'queen, lady' we have to decide on a case-by-case basis whether a deity or a member of the ruling couple is intended; with slave names lugal or nin could designate the 'owner' (male or female)."

95. This is not the place to discuss the cult or worship of the dead; I merely mean to indicate that onomastic evidence needs to be used with care in writing the history of religion. Karel van der Toorn argues that, in the study of Old Babylonian religion, "personal names are of limited value for the reconstruction of family religion," in Family Religion in Babylonia, Syria and Israel: Continuity and Change in the Forms of Religious Life (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 79, cf. 230, but he argues much more strongly for their relevance to the study of Israelite religion, in an article published the same year, "Ancestors and Anthroponyms: Kinship Terms as Theophoric Elements in Hebrew Names," ZAW 108 (1996): 1-11.

96. This and similar names are found in so-called pre-Sargonic and Sargonic texts. See Di Vito, Third Millennium Sumerian and Akkadian Personal Names, 212, cf. 273.

97. For summaries of the earlier discussion, including Martin Noth's work, see Stamm, 53-58, and SCCNH 13, 109-11.

98. For the spelling of Hammurapi, see, e.g., D. R. Frayne, Old Babylonian Period (2003-1595 B.C.) (Toronto: Univ. of Toronto Press, 1990), 335, etc. (First Dynasty of Babylon); APN, 197 (Mari); AS 22 54:3 (Esnunna); for Zimri-Lim, APN 188. On Lim, see further note 139 below.

99. See Hess, "Issues in the Study of Personal Names in the Hebrew Bible," 172.

100. See, e.g., J. H. Tigay, "Israelite Religion: The Onomastic and Epigraphic Evidence," in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, ed. P.D. Miller, Jr., et al. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 157-94; W. Herrmann, "Baal," DDD, 249-63; Herrmann, "El."

101. So, e.g., Herrmann, "Baal," 136; Fowler, Names in Ancient Hebrew, 54-63; van der Toorn, Family Religion in Babylonia, Syria and Israel, 240.

102. See Tigay, "Israelite Religion," 163. Mark S. Smith. The Early History of God, 14, is agnostic, noting that "the characteristics of Baal and Yahweh [during the time of early Israel] probably overlapped."

103. See the discussion in Barr, "The Symbolism of Names in the Old Testament," 22-28, which focuses on 1 Samuel 25 and the name nabal.

104. Akkadian names of the form RN-la-mahar 'RN cannot be equalled(?), withstood(?)' are rare and seem to be found exclusively in the third millennium; there are two examples in CAD M/I, 62b, both also in Di Vito, Third Millennium Sumerian and Akkadian Personal Names, 175; one of these is in AHw, 577b-78a. Both examples involve as honored elements the names of Ur III kings, in at least one case, that of the reigning king: [.sup.d]Sul-gi-la-ma-ha-ar (Drehem, no date) and [.sup.d]Su-[.sup.d]EN.ZU-la-ma-ha-ar (Drehem, dated Su-Sin Year 7).

105. The name [.sup.d]Papsukkal-sa-iqbu-ul-ini 'Papsukkal does not default on what he said' (my trans.) is found in a bilingual scholarly text, CAD E 174a. For similar geographical names with enu, see CAD E 175b. CAD correlates the personal names with two different legal senses of enu. First is the sense of revoking or altering a verdict or contract, which appears in religious texts in connection with the notion of the fixity of the divine word, e.g., sa amat qibitisu mamman la innu '(Marduk) whose word, once spoken, nobody can reverse' (so CAD; SB; CAD E 175a, cf. the N stem, 177a) and in such names as pi-Assur-la-inni 'Assur does not reverse a command' (my trans.; CAD E 175b). Second is the sense of defaulting on a contract (CAD E 175b), associated with names like the Papsukkal one above. I am not sure that the differentiation for the names is warranted.

106. The scatological associations of 'izebel 'Where is the prince?' (by paronomasia with domen in, e.g., 2 Kgs. 9:37) seem to be a modern fairy tale, pace Phyllis Trible, "Exegesis for Storytellers and Other Strangers," JBL 114 (1995): 3-19 at 4, 16-17.

107. On the name of Assurbanipal's older brother, Samas-mitu-uballit, see E. Weissert in Radner et al., Prosopography, 163.

108. See M. Dietrich and O. Loretz, "Mt 'Mot, Tod' und Mt 'Krieger, Held' im Ugaritischen," UF 22 (1990): 57-65. For mut names in BHeb, see Layton, Archaic Features, 66-74. For mut- names at Mari, see APN, 234-35; ARM XVI/1, 156-59 and below.

109. HALOT 653b.

110. On these names, see Hess, Genesis, 43-44, 70-71, 104. At least the first of these involves a relative pronoun. Relative pronouns are found in personal names, although only names with du are at all common (e.g., APN, 186; see further notes 141-42 below). Layton, Archaic Features, 74, proposes that Methushael is a corruption of Methushalach. Pruzsinszky's examples of sa names with the pronoun as the final element are singularly unconvincing; SCCNH 13, Akkadian: 132, 138 n. 684, WSem: 180.

111. The name is written is-[.sup.d]Da-gan (24 occs.) and is-[.sup.d]KUR (22 occs.), SCCNH 13, 184. The name written is-pu-ra-at-te and -ra-te may be, as Pruzsinszky has it, 'Man of the Euphrates,' SCCNH 13, 184, cf. 212, but there are few comparable names. These two(?) are the only is names at Emar.

112. On the tribal groups Mutebal (a clan of Yamina) and Yamutbal (a tribe, i.e., a group of the same social significance as Yamina), see Heimpel, Letters to the King of Mari, 15-18, who specifically rules out equating the names, 17 n. 47, pace Moshe Anbar.

113. See Buccellati, Amorites, 149, who understands the name differently.

114. R. Zadok, "Review of Gelb et al. 1980," WO 14 (1983): 238 and references, adding Knudsen, "Amorite Grammar," 879-80.

115. See APN, 229. The recent statement of Dietrich and Loretz is typical, "MT 'Mot,'" 63, 64. For others who support the sense 'death' as relevant to the onomasticon, see their 63 n. 45.

116. The UG sign in question is BE, which S. Dalley, in Dalley (and B. Teissier), "Tablets from the Vicinity of Emar and Elsewhere," Iraq 54 (1992): 83-111, and Pruzsinszky write as U[G.sub.6]. On the logogram, see SCCNH 13, 51.

117. And contrary to various other Emar scholars, e.g., Arnaud, Dalley (and Teissier), and Sigrist in editions of texts she cites. For other Emar mut- names, see SCCNH 13, 89 nn. 200-201.

118. Pruzsinszky glosses the name as "Hamadi starb" and refers to Hamadi as a divine name, based in part on discussion by Zadok; as she notes, the "name is always written without the god determinative," SCCNH 13, 214 n. 612. K. van der Toorn notes that the phrase hemdat-nasim 'beloved of women' (Dan. 11:37) has been identified with Tammuz-Adonis since H. Ewald (1868) and suggests that these Emar names refer to Tammuz. On Daniel, see further John J. Collins, Daniel (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 387. S. Ribichini, DDD, 7-10, rejects the identification of the Daniel epithet with Adonis. The only other second-millenium evidence for Tammuz is accepted by, e.g., Moran, Letters, 155 ("the possession of my Adonis") and severely questioned by B. Becking, "Blood," DDD, 175-76 (with reference to work by N. Na'aman and E. Lipinski).

119. The name occurs in the catalog but has been inadvertently omitted from the text.

120. Three of the thirteen occurrences refer to the same person, the father of (Akk.) Matkali-Dagan 'Dagan is a hero' ([.sup.I]NIR-[.sup.d]KUR), SCCNH 13, 127 n. 581; the reading of NIR is confirmed by a Hieroglyphic Luwian seal.

121. An Amarna occurrence of BA.U[G.sub.7] is also pertinent. Biridiya of Megiddo, under siege by Labayu of Shechem, writes to his overlord that the city is consumed ina BA.U[G.sub.7] ina matan ina dabri 'by death, by deadly blight, by pestilence," EA 244:31-33, with Izre'el, IOS 18, 424. BHeb mawet 'death' is used of plague (see HALOT), as is deber (HALOT has 'bubonic plague').

122. See, e.g., Tropper, "Review of Hess 1993," 55.

123. See Sivan, Grammatical Analysis, 5-6.

124. Tropper, Grammatik, 7, explicitly excludes names as having an uncertain relation to the language, as being sometimes archaic, and as being susceptible to phonetic alteration. Sivan is extremely restrained in his use of name evidence, confining his citations to a few problem areas, such as the erroneous use of word dividers, Grammar, 12, and unusual sound shifts, 23, 27, 28; he discusses direction heh on names, 179; he rarely uses cuneiform names for vocalization, e.g., 136.

125. See AS 21; Buccellati, "Akkadian and Amorite Phonology," in Phonologies of Asia and Africa, ed. A. S. Kaye and P. T. Daniels (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1997), 1.3-38; Buccellati, "Eblaite and Amorite Names": Buccellati, "Review of Anbar, Les tribus amurrites de Mari," AfO 42/43 (1995-1996): 233-34; Knudsen, "An Analysis of Amorite: A Review Article"; Knudsen, "Amorite Grammar: A Comparative Statement"; Streck, Das amurritische Onomastikon. This view is presupposed in Heimpel's Letters to the King of Mari, cf. his 14.

126. See W. von Soden, "Zur Einleitung der semitischen Sprachen," Wiener Zeitschrift fur die Kunde des Morgenlandes 56 (1960): 181-82, 184, 186-87. Huehnergard's initial discussion of the problem is found in his 1987 review of Sivan's 1984 book, "Northwest Semitic Vocabulary in Akkadian Texts." More recently, he formulated the objection thus: Bronze Age "cuneiform texts ... attest a large number of personal names," some of them labeled as Amorite: "Dialectal variation is discernible within the names themselves, and since the names span a wide geographical region and several centuries, it is unlikely that they constitute a single linguistic entity; rather, the so-called Amorite names probably reflect several languages," Huehnergard, "The Semitic Languages," in Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, 2122, cf. 2118. More strongly, "It is likely ... that [the Amorite] names represent not a single language, or even necessarily a continuum of closely related dialects, but rather a diverse set of languages," Huehnergard, "Languages: Introductory Survey," ABD, 4.159.

127. It may be worth noting that the onomasticon makes extremely modest contributions to the study of the Akkadian lexicon, e.g., the meaning of kudurru 'scion,' found only in names. Von Soden, AHw, suggests that this word (distinct from the homophonous 'boundary stone' lexeme) is an Elamite loan.

128. See, e.g., Heimpel, Letters to the King of Mari, 13 n. 30; Samuel Greengus, "Biblical and Mesopotamian Law: An Amorite Connection?," in Life and Culture in the Ancient Near East, ed. R. E. Averbeck, Mark W. Chavalas, and David B. Weisberg (Bethesda, Md.: CDL Press, 2003), 67.

129. Huehnergard notes that the names are "notoriously resistant to unambiguous linguistic analysis," "Northwest Semitic Vocabulary," 714, and that names have "no immediate semantic context."

130. Cf. Huehnergard, "Northwest Semitic Vocabulary," 714. I do not mean by referring to West Semitic rather than Northwest Semitic to hint that I would seek Arabic or proto-Arabic in the second millennium. Pruzsinszky's cautions in this area are apt, SCCNH 13, 42-47, although her exposition stumbles due to confusion about the role of Arabic in West Semitic. The views of Arnaud and Zadok, based on taking Arabic as South Semitic, cannot be directly compared to those based on the Hetzron model, which takes Arabic as Central Semitic. The Nebes-Voigt modification of the Hetzron view, taking Old South Arabian as also Central Semitic, is effectively a side issue here.

131. There may be some relic initial w- forms in Emar Akkadian. For wa-ra-sa 'heir,' see D. Arnaud, "Le vocabulaire de l'heritage dans les textes syriens du moyen-Euphrate a la fin de l'age du Bronze Recent," in The Lexicography of the Ancient Near Eastern Languages = Studi epigrafici e linguistici 12 (1995): 21-26 at 22-23; Ikeda, "The Akkadian Language of Emar: Texts Related to a Diviner's Family," 43. Huehnergard gives this word as warrasu, "Northwest Semitic Vocabulary," 725. Pruzsinszky includes, with little comment, SCCNH 13, 58, 199, 204, 221, *w-forms among the West Semitic elements found in Emar names, from w'y, 178 n. 294; 191 n. 407; 197 n. 462, and w(/y)p', 196 n. 451.

132. Edward Lipinski in his recent summa on comparative Semitics suggests grouping together Eblaite (his Paleosyrian), Amorite, and Ugaritic under the heading of North Semitic, in part to avoid prejudging the question of the second-millennium linguistic landscape; see E. Lipinski, Semitic Languages (Leuven: Peeters, 1997), 49. On the present issue, Lipinski effectively maintains the Gelb position, that the "Amorite" material makes up a language.

133. For Arabic damir, damir, see HALOT 274a. For the Sabean, see A. F. L. Beeston et al., Sabaic Dictionary (Leuven: Peeters, 1982). For Ug dm dmr, see CAT 1.3 II 14 and 31 with parallels. For Ug dmr 'protection,' see CAT 1.108:23 and parallels. For the Kirta catalog, see CAT 1.17 I 28 and parallels; for 'protecting' in that passage, see, e.g., DLU; for 'singing,' see, e.g., O'Connor, "Epigraphic Semitic Writing," 102-3, and Wright, Ritual in Narrative, 59-60. For related biblical names, see Fowler, Names in Ancient Hebrew, 186.

134. See ARM XVI/1 242-43 for references; Ur III has the name damirum 'protector' da-mi-ru-um, Buccellati, Amorites, 139. The Sargonic name i-za-mar-[.sup.d]SUH, izammar-Tispak, is difficult; Roberts explains it with the Amorite dmr, The Earliest Semitic Pantheon, 53, 116 n. 439, 165-66. All the occurrences of dimri in New Kingdom sources have the seated female determinative, indicating that this is used as a woman's name, Hoch, Semitic Words, 386-87; the six forms with the initial snake, di, are more certain than the one form with the initial goose, ti, and Rainey, "Egyptian Evidence," 436-37, 452, disputes that Egyptian t can represent WSem d, cf. Hoch, 43-44.

135. SCCNH 13, 178, 198; the seal reading is from H. Gonnet.

136. For brief surveys of such vocabulary, see R. M. Whiting, "Amorite Tribes and Nations of Second-Millennium Western Asia," in Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, 1238-40; G. Buccellati, "Amorites," in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, ed. E. M. Meyers (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1997), 1.108. Some examples are difficult, notably salamu 'friendly relations, peace' (CAD S 89; found at Mari, Shemshara, Boghazkoy, Ugarit; the single NBab case is uncertain) and the verb salamu 'to be reconciled; D, to bring about peace,' with many derivatives (CAD S 88). A list of nearly two hundred (200) words is provided by Streck, Das amurritische Onomastikon, 83-123.

137. On the noun, see Streck, Das amurritische Onomastikon, 89.

138. On the noun, see Streck, Das amurritische Onomastikon, 108; Heimpel, Letters to the King of Mari, 30.

139. See note 98 above; A. Malamat, "A Recently Discovered Word for 'Clan' in Mari and Its Hebrew Cognate," in Solving Riddles and Untying Knots: Biblical, Epigraphic, and Semitic Studies in Honor of Jonas C. Greenfield, ed. Z. Zevit et al. (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1995), 177-79; Streck, Das amurritische Onomastikon, 102-3; Heimpel, Letters to the King of Mari, 15. The term l'm is found elsewhere in Bronze-Age West Semitic, in EA 195:13, 205.6 (Moran, Amiarna Letters, 273 n. 2; DNWSI, 561; Izre'el, IOS 18, 425). It is usually associated with Anat's title ybmt lim (so DLU), but Joshua Fox, "The Ugaritic Divine Epithet Ybmt Limm and the Biblical 'emim," UF 30 (1998): 279-88, doubts its relevance.

140. See DINGIR.MES-ia (ilaniya) u me-te-ia [lu]-u tu-na-bi 'she may call upon my gods and my dead,' John Huehnergard, "Five Tablets from the Vicinity of Emar," RA 77 (1983): 11-43 at 15. E. E. Knudsen reluctantly associates the Mari names with prophetic speech, "An Analysis of Amorite," 10-11, and Huehnergard even more reluctantly ties the Emar occurrence to cultic speech, "Tablets," 15.

141. See von Soden, "Zur Einleitung der semitischen Sprachen," 187. On the two series of pronouns, in addition to note 110 above, see I. J. Gelb, "La lingua degli Amoriti," Atti della Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Rendiconti, Classe di Scienze morali, storiche, e filologische 8.13 (1958): 152-53; AS 21, glossary.

142. Pruzsinszky, SCCNH 13, 185-87. The ZU sign is used at Emar as a logogram for YD' 'to know,' but I have counted all the examples with initial ZU as the pronoun: Pruzsinszky catalogs them that way but expresses some caution, SCCNH 13, 166 n. 172, 180 n. 311, 186 n. 368. The length of the pronoun is shown only twice. Sandhi with glide secretion can be seen in du-w-Adda (zu-wa-da, once and the only example with Adda, so doubtful, SCCNH 13, 185 n. 361), du-w-Anna (zu-wa-na, 3 occs; the name zu-an-na has 21 occs.; the anna element, perhaps related to hanna 'gracious one,' 162, remains unidentified), and du-w-'Attarti (zu-wa-as-tar-ti, once). The name da-Ba'la (za-ba-a'-la) is a variant of Du-Ba'la, 185, and Pruzsinszky's reference to regressive vowel assimilation is not needed (185 n. 359, 220; cf. note 41 above); da is a tolerable variant on morphological grounds. Further, Pruzsinszky's taking du as the nomen regens in a construct chain (179-80) is perhaps an unnecessary stretch of terminology.

143. On names with s and congeners, see APN, 265-66; Zadok, "Amorite Material," 329b, and note 110 above.

144. Du-'Attarti son of Ba'lu-kabar ([.sup.d]ISKUR-GAL) served as a king of Emar (LUGAL URU E-[mar.sup.kl]) and appears in texts both as party to a palace document and, surprisingly, as a witness to various texts: four sales, two wills, and one adoption, SCCNH 13, 185 n. 366.

145. West Semitic names with Akkadian divine names can also be spoken of as Akkadianizing, but the two processes of Akkadianizing have nothing in common: one involves morphology and the other culture and religion. The term 'hybrid' is applied to West Semitic names with Akkadian divine names, but that may not be helpful either.

146. Yasmah-Haddu was the ruler of Mari under his father Samsi-Adad, and Isme-Dagan was Yasmah-Haddu's brother, who ruled at Ekallatum; see, e.g., Heimpel, Letters to the King of Mari, 21-22.

147. Occasionally mixed names seem to hint at a Comparative Semitic sensibility: ba'lu-bel '(The) lord is (the) lord,' Emar, written [.sup.d]ISKUR-EN or [.sup.d]ISKUR-1+EN (31 occs.) and [.sup.d]U-EN (24 occs.). Pruzsinszky, SCCNH 13, 118 n. 497, cf. 195 n. 450, takes all of these as Ba'l-beli 'Ba'lu is my lord,' but there is only one writing that shows the suffix, [.sup.d]ISKUR-1+EN-li, and this individual is different from the others mentioned.

148. I confine myself to morphological problems and leave out of discussion the problems of "Amorite" phonology, especially the sibilants, since it is entangled with both Akkadian dialectology and problems of cuneiform writing, and lexical problems. For recent discussion, see Knudsen, "An Analysis of Amorite," 4-7, and, more briefly, "Amorite Grammar," 874-75, cf. 883. All these morphological problems, and others, also arise in the Emar onomasticon.

149. Zadok proposes that the name could also be rendered "God has called/named the father"; direct objects are rare in West Semitic names if an explicit subject is present; see the syntactic discussions cited in note 1 above.

150. For the sense, cf. Akk. basu; Akkadian 'to cause to be' (viz., 'to grow') is usually an S form.

151. See Gelb, "La Lingua degli Amoriti," 159. For the iparras form in comparative perspective, see Huehnergard, "The Semitic Languages," in Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, 2130, 2132. With most scholars, Huehnergard contends that the form is unknown in Central Semitic (Arabic and Northwest Semitic). For the BAWS D forms, see Sivan, Grammatical Analysis, 177. For problems with the vocalism of West Semitic D forms in general, see H. Bauer and P. Leander, Historische Grammatik der hebraischen Sprache des Alten Testamentes (Halle: Max Niemeyer, 1922), 323-24; Richard C. Steiner, "Yuqattil, yaqattil, or yiqattil: D-Stem Prefix-vowels and a Constraint on Reduction in Hebrew and Aramaic," JAOS 100 (1980): 513-18; J. Huehnergard, "Historical Phonology and the Hebrew Piel," in Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew, ed. W. R. Bodine (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 209-29; and, on the suffixing form, Anson F. Rainey, "Egyptian Evidence," 438-40.

152. Notably Huffmon, APN 84-85; Knudsen, "An Analysis of Amorite," 9-11; "Amorite Grammar," 879-80. A related problem is the rarity of the D- (and other derived stems) in names: "Most West Semitic verbal sentence names illustrate the qal stem.... Very few Amorite, Phoenician-Punic and Hebrew sentence names contain verbs of the D stem," R. Zadok, "Syro-Mesopotamian Notes," in Ana sadi Labnani lu allik: Beitrage zur altorientalischen und mittelmeerischen Kulturen, ed. B. Pongratz-Leisten et al., (Kevelaer: Verlag Butzon und Bercker, 1997), 453. Cf. Sivan, Grammatical Analysis, 177.

153. See Gelb, "La lingua degli Amoriti," 162.

154. The same variations are found with Dagan and 'Ilu names.

155. The same variations are found with 'Ilu names.

156. M. Birot credits J. M. Sasson with noting that the i-bi- and in-bi- forms of the name refer to the same person.

157. For the prefixing forms (in-hi-il, in-hi-lu, in-hi-lu-ni-in-ni), see CAD N 126; Streck, Das amurritische Onomastikon, 106-7. On the relevant sense, 'to receive a part of a whole' (as opposed to wrt 'to take possession of in place of someone'), see D. Arnaud, "Le vocabulaire de l'heritage," 21.

158. Such reshaping of the name Haddu is found even in Sargonic Amorite names; see Roberts, The Earliest Semitic Pantheon, 13, 67 n. 23, 153.

159. With Moran, Amarna Letters, 586, against Hess, Amarna, 145.

160. The alternatives may themselves need to be reconsidered; see, e.g., S. A. Kaufman, "Semitics: Directions and Re-Directions," in The Study of the Ancient Near East in the Twenty-First Century, 278-79.

161. See Zadok, "On the Amorite Material from Mesopotamia," 315-17, who admits "there are very few Amorite lexical and morphological items which appear later as typically Aramaic," 317. The historical background of Zadok's suggestion is outlined in his "Elements of Aramean Pre-History," in Ah, Assyria ...; Studies ... Hayim Tadmor, ed. M. Cogan and I. Eph'al (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1991), 104-17, where pre-history refers to the period before Tiglath-pileser I's initial mention of the Arameans. Zadok's arguments about Amorite-Aramaic links are cited approvingly in Buccellati, "Akkadian and Amorite Phonology," 11. For recent anti-Aramaic views, see Knudsen, "Amorite Grammar," 883; Hoch, Semitic Words, 483-84, cf. 19. W. Heimpel's recent suggestion that OBab Sutean of the Middle Euphrates valley was an early form of Aramaic is hardly supportable, Letters to the King of Mari, 26-27; his list of Suteans named in Mari texts (appendix 2, 634-36) presents no departures from the general mix at Mari. To see a suffixed article in Ab-da-a would hardly support his argument; see T. O. Lambdin, "The Junctural Origin of the West Semitic Definite Article," in Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William Foxwell Albright, ed. H. H. Goedicke (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1971), 315-33, Pruzsinszky tends to reject various ethnic arguments (from Zadok, among others) in her discussion of Emar onomastics, e.g., SCCNH 13, 70 n. 3, 147 n. 9, cf. 129 n. 598, 234 n. 102. (Hurrian names at Emar are generally found in Hurrian families and so she takes them as ethnic markers, SCCNH 13, 222, 231 n. 77.) On the development of Aramaic generally, see John Huehnergard, "What is Aramaic?," Aram 7 (1995): 261-82.

162. For a general survey with bibliography, see Heimpel, Letters to the King of Mari, 14-19 ("We understand the Amorites as an ethnic entity that was composed of different tribal groups," 18); R. M. Whiting, "Amorite Tribes and Nations of Second-Millennium Western Asia," in Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, 1231-42; cf. Streck, Das amurritische Onomastikon. The leading scholar of both the historical and archeological facets of Amorite and Hana studies remains Giorgio Buccellati; see "The Kingdom and Period of Khana," BASOR 270 (1988): 43-61, with references to other recent papers and reports on his and Marilyn Kelly-Buccellati's work at Tell Mozan, ancient Urkesh. For the Late Bronze kingdom of Amurru, see the contribution of Itamar Singer in Izre'el, Amurru Akkadian. On the relation of Late Bronze Amurru and the Ugaritic geographical name yman, see M. Dietrich and O. Loretz, "Amurru, Yaman und die agaischen Inseln nach den ugaritischen Texten," IOS 18 (1998): 335-63.

163. Heimpel, Letters to the King of Mari, 19. Heimpel suggests "one use of the term 'Hana' comes close to our ethnic term 'Amorites,'" 19, cf. 34-36.

164. Hess, Genesis, 5.

165. Appropriate handling of cultural factors in the interpretation of names is exemplified in the work of R. Zadok, e.g., "On Some Foreign Population Groups in First-Millennium Mesopotamia," Tel Aviv 6 (1979): 164-81; "Arabians in Mesopotamia during the Late-Assyrian, Chaldean, Achaemenian and Hellenistic Periods, Chiefly According to the Cuneiform Sources," Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft 131 (1981): 42-84; "Assyrians in Chaldean and Achaemenian Babylonia," Assur 4.3 (1984); The Jews in Babylonia during the Chaldean and Achaemenian Periods According to the Babylonian Sources (Haifa: Univ. of Haifa, 1979). The uncertainties of second-millennium history make it impossible for Zadok's methods, so acutely developed for first-millennium material, to work for the earlier periods.

166. For the letter itself, see J.-M. Durand, "Le mythologeme du combat entre le dieu de l'orage et la mer en Mesopotamie," Mari: Annales des recherches interdisciplinaires 7 (1993): 41-61; for discussion of the related Ugaritic passage, see P. Bordreuil and D. Pardee, "Le combat de Ba'lu avec Yammu d'apres les textes ougaritiques [KTU 1.2 IV 4-30]," MARI 7 (1993): 63-70; Fleming, Time at Emar, 113-14; O. Loretz, "Genesis 1.2 als Fragment eines amurritisch-kanaanaischen Schopfungsmythos," in Veenhof Anniversary Volume, ed. W. H. van Soldt et al. (Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 2001), 287-300.

167. Most recently by Samuel Greengus, "Biblical and Mesopotamian Law: An Amorite Connection?," 63-81, following suggestions by Benjamin Mazar and W. G. Lambert (refs. 67 n. 14). The other legal institution discussed by Greengus, release of debt slaves, is less certain a link, as he shows. Other cultural features are cited, 66-67.
COPYRIGHT 2004 American Oriental Society
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2004 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

 Reader Opinion




Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:O'Connor, M.
Publication:The Journal of the American Oriental Society
Geographic Code:90ASI
Date:Jul 1, 2004
Previous Article:The language of Hariaudh's Priyapravas: notes toward an archaeology of Modern Standard Hindi.
Next Article:Evidence in Ottoman courts: oral and written documentation in early-modern courts of Islamic law.

Terms of use | Copyright © 2014 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters