Residual, Unaffiliated, and Unexplained Names

doi:10.1017/9781009291071.020

Chapter 18 - Residual, Unaffiliated, and Unexplained Names

from Part II - Non-Babylonian Names

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 January 2024

Ran Zadok

Edited by

Caroline Waerzeggers and

Melanie M. Groß

Show author details

Caroline Waerzeggers: Affiliation:
Rijksuniversiteit Leiden, The Netherlands
Melanie M. Groß: Affiliation:
Rijksuniversiteit Leiden, The Netherlands

Book contents

Summary

Residual languages, which are represented in the onomasticon of first-millennium BCE Babylonia, are Kassite and Urartian. In addition, it is likely that also other dialects from the central Zagros and the Armenian plateau left traces in the pertinent Neo- and Late Babylonian corpus, but concrete examples cannot be detected. The Kassite onomastic material consists mainly of surnames which were inherited from the late-Kassite and early post-Kassite periods in Babylonia, as well as of several prestigious royal names. Only two Urartian anthroponyms are recorded in first-millennium BCE Babylonia. There is a small number of atypical anthroponyms, mostly consisting of reduplicated syllables (frequently two or three) with or without suffixes. The number of unaffiliated names is restricted. Several gentilics are used as given names. The total percentage of all these unrelated categories in the abundant Neo- and Late Babylonian onomastic corpus is very low, almost negligible.

Keywords

Kassite names Urartian names Zagros mountains inherited surnames gentilics

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: Personal Names in Cuneiform Texts from Babylonia (c. 750–100 BCE)
An Introduction
, pp. 283 - 292

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009291071.020 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2024
Creative Commons: This content is Open Access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/cclicenses/

Chapter 18 Residual, Unaffiliated, and Unexplained Names

Introduction

Residual languages, which were productive in the onomasticon of first-millennium Babylonia, are in the first place Kassite and Urartian.Footnote ¹ Other such languages cannot be identified by name, but it is likely that other dialects, which originated in the central Zagros and the Armenian plateau respectively, also left traces in the pertinent corpus. On the other hand, Elamite, which is an unaffiliated language (like Kassite), cannot be defined as a residual language as it has a rich and variegated corpus lasting for about 2,000 years (see Chapter 16). The Neo-Babylonian anthroponyms from the early first millennium BCE and the period of the Neo-Babylonian Empire originated in the Semitic-speaking core, namely Mesopotamia, the Levant including Egypt, and the Syro-Arabian desert as well as in the neighbouring plateaus of Iran and Anatolia. The pertinent geographical horizon became much wider in the ensuing periods of the Achaemenid, Seleucid, and Parthian Empires and includes also central Asia and the regions east of the Iranian plateau, as far as the Indus, as well as Greece. Nevertheless, the percentage of non-Mesopotamian names in the much smaller Neo-Assyrian corpus is much higher than in the abundant Neo- and Late Babylonian corpus. This is due to two factors. First, the Neo-Assyrian royal inscriptions have a wide geographical scope and enumerate many anthroponyms and toponyms. Second, much of the Neo-Assyrian documentation stems from palatial archives, where lower social strata and deportees are amply represented, whereas most of the Babylonian documentation from the long sixth century BCE belongs to archives of the Babylonian urban elite, with negligible representation of other social strata. In late-Achaemenid and Hellenistic-Parthian Babylonia, the percentage of foreigners is only slightly higher than in the preceding period.

The special relationship between Babylonia and Assyria is a longue durée phenomenon. First, Babylonia and adjacent regions were under a long Assyrian conquest, albeit with various degrees of control. Then, the conquest of most of the eastern Jazirah, including a section of Assyria proper, by Babylonia followed the demise of the Neo-Assyrian Empire. These circumstances compel us to compare the onomasticon of the Neo-Babylonian sources with that of the Neo-Assyrian corpus, which is partially contemporary. This comparative task is greatly facilitated by the completion of the Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire (1–3, Helsinki 1998–2011, henceforth: PNA). On the other hand, the excerption and evaluation of the abundant Neo- and Late Babylonian onomastic material is far from complete and thus far devoid of a comparable and updated instrumentarium.

Kassite Names and Related Material

Kassite is an extreme case of a residual language because it is not recorded in any texts. What remains are only a restricted number of names (anthroponyms, theonyms, and toponyms) and very few appellatives. Therefore, the reconstruction of Kassite anthroponymy (practically a list of name elements) is fraught with difficulties and necessarily contains doubtful material. Much of the discussion that follows is inevitably exploratory; an effort will be made to clarify the context that encourages the assignment of anthroponyms to the Kassite language.

The Kassites, whose dynasty exercised the longest rule over Babylonia, in the latter half of the second millennium BCE, became an inseparable part of the Babylonian elite (unlike the Gutians, whose ephemeral rule and partial control of Babylonia perpetuated them as the emblematic ‘other’). Hence, the Kassite names in post-Kassite and later Babylonia are, in the first place, family names referring to clans of the elite of the Babylonian temple cities. Commonly attested family names of Kassite origin are Mar/štuk(āta), Tunâ (Reference ZadokZadok 1979, 170), Šabbâ/Šambâ, Gaḫal (cf. Gaḫal-Marduk (in next paragraph)), as well as, perhaps, Ašgandu/Šugandu.Footnote ² The following family names are rarely attested: Šagerīya (^Išá^!-ga-e-ri-ia, UET 4 24:8´, provided that the ZA- of the copy is an error for ŠÁ),Footnote ³ presumably Gibindu (^Igi-bi-in-du, BM 27746:33´, from Borsippa) and Šatarindi (^Išá-ta-ri-in-di, FLP 1556:14, in Reference DillardDillard 1975, 253, from Sippar),Footnote ⁴ and perhaps Ḫullunu (^Iḫul-lu-nu, CTMMA 3 90:20, from Babylon) and Zannētu (^Iza-an-né-e-tú, VS 4 63:10, from Babylon).

Several family names are hybrid, namely Akkado–Kassite, such as Gaḫal-Marduk (^Iga-ḫúl-^dTU.TU, PNA 1/II, 419), Nazi-Enlil (^Ina-zi-^d50, Reference NielsenNielsen 2015, 282), and Nazūa (^Ina-zu-a, BE 8/1 112:6). The latter is based on Kassite nazi ‘shadow, protection’ followed by the hypocoristic suffix -ūa, similar to Middle Babylonian Nazūtum (^Ina-zu-ú-tum) with -ūt (Reference BalkanBalkan 1954, 74; cf. UET 7 67 r. 5). The same suffix is attached to kil- in the personal name Gilūa.Footnote ⁵

On the whole, the Kassite family names form no more than 3.33 per cent of the 300 family names referring to the system of Babylonian urbanite clans. These 300 family names were coined during the early first millennium BCE and many of them are archaic (see Chapter 3).Footnote ⁶ Two early Neo-Babylonian family names, which are not attested later, are (if they are not paternal names) Pilamdi (^Ipi-lam-di, NMA 3 i 6, iii 6; see Reference PaulusPaulus 2014, 639–40)Footnote ⁷ and Kandar-Šamaš (^Ikan-dar-šam-ši, MZŠ I 2 r. 6; see Reference PaulusPaulus 2014, 674).Footnote ⁸ The former is presumably Kassite and the latter is hybrid, as its predicative (initial) element seems to be Kassite while its theophoric element is Akkadian.

Most of the pertinent given names, namely Iddin-Šīḫu (^ISUM-ši-ḫu), Kadašman-Enlil (^Ika-dás-man-^d50), and Naˀdi-Šīḫu (^Ina-di-ši-ḫu), are also hybrid (Akkado–Kassite).Footnote ⁹ Such may also be Nazīya (^Ina-zi-ia, Reference TallqvistTallqvist 1905, 160), in view of its hypocoristic suffix which is very common in Akkadian and West Semitic. A hybrid filiation is early Neo-Babylonian Kaššȗ-šumu-iddin (^Ikaš-šú-ú-MU-SUM.NA), son or descendant (DUMU) of Nazi-Marduk (^Ina-zi-^dAMAR.UTU, NMA 1 i 18, vi:1; see Reference PaulusPaulus 2014, 624, 629).

Purely Kassite names are only Kurigalzu and Nazi-Maruttaš (Reference NielsenNielsen 2015, 184; Reference BrinkmanBrinkman 1998, 191b), which were originally royal names and therefore survived in the first millennium BCE, like the royal name Ḫammurapi,Footnote ¹⁰ probably as prestigious anthroponyms. The Kassite character of Kiligug (^Iki-il-li-gu-ug, Nbk. 26:3; cf. NA ^Iki-li-gu-gu, PNA 2/I, 616) cannot be ascertained.Footnote ¹¹ The same applies to ^fInzayītāy > ^fInza’ītâ (^fin-za-ˀ-id-da or [^fin-za-(ˀ)-i]t-ta-a), rendered ˀnzyty in Aramaic (BE 8/1 53:7, l.e.). Apparently this female name ends in a cluster of feminine hypocoristic suffixes (-ay-īt-ay). It seems that it is based on Kassite inz-, which is extant in NA ^Iin-zi-i (see, cautiously, PNA 2/I, 559; cf. Reference BalkanBalkan 1954, 153), ^fin-zi-a-a (with a different interpretation, PNA 2/I, 559), and ^fen-zu-u (provided the reading is not Bēl-lēˀi, PNA 1/II, 397). Similarly, early Neo-Babylonian Pakaštu (^Ipa-kaš-tu, BRM 1 17:12), which has a late Old Babylonian forerunner (^Iba-ka-aš-ti; cf. Zadok 1999–2000, 355a), might be Kassite.Footnote ¹²

The bearers of Kassite anthroponyms and family names were an integral part of the Babylonian urban elite. The hybrid names are the product of interference onomastics which is devoid of any ethnic significance, while the purely Kassite names are merely inherited fossils. It is noteworthy that the name of Nebuchadnezzar II’s daughter, ^fKaššāya, is based on the designation ‘Kassite’, another example of this prestigious class of names. The number of Kassite given names dwindles sharply after the end of the post-Kassite period.

The rare family name Lullubāya (^Ilul-lu-ba-a-a, recorded only in Babylon) and Nikkāya (e.g., ^Inik-ka-a-a, attested in Babylon, Borsippa, and perhaps in Kish; see Reference Wunsch, Krebernik and NeumannWunsch 2014, 306–7) are gentilics of regions in the Zagros and its piedmont respectively.

Urartian Names

Urartians are recorded in Babylonia during the early period of the Neo-Babylonian Empire and in the late-Achaemenid periodFootnote ¹³ – that is, with a considerable temporal gap. One individual is homonymous with the much earlier Urartian king Menua (c. 810–785/780 BCE; cf. Reference SalviniSalvini 1993–7). Minua (^Imi-nu-ú-a, BE 8/1 101:12) acts as the first out of four witnesses in a deed dated to the first year of Bardia (c. 522 BCE). Unlike the other witnesses, Minua is recorded without a paternal name. Naraggu (^Ina-rag-gu, BE 8/1 87:4, 527 BCE) may be compared with Neo-Assyrian ^Ina-ra-ge-e, an Urartian name (not Elamite, as cautiously suggested in PNA 2/II, 930).

Atypical Names

Atypical names are dubbed ‘noms apatrides’ by Emmanuel Reference LarocheLaroche (1966, 239–46). They may belong to any dialect. In many cases their analysis is not beyond the descriptive-taxonomic level. Such names are Nenê and Nenēa (^Iné-né-e, ^Ine-né-e-a, PNA 2/II, 940; both variants are (also) borne by people from Babylonia, the latter with a hypocoristic suffix).

The following names have a reduplicated second syllable:Footnote ¹⁴ Bazizi (^Iba-zi-zi, Reference Wunsch, Krebernik and NeumannPearce and Wunsch 2014, 44b), Bazuzu (^Iba-zu-zu, Reference TallqvistTallqvist 1905, 23–4), Kiruru (^IKI-ru-ru, Cyr. 360:25),Footnote ¹⁵ and ^fBusasa (^fbu-sa-sa, Cyr. 135:9). The name Qazizi (^Iqa-zi-zi, CUSAS 28 44:18) was borne by a Judean. Ḫubaba (^Iḫu-ba-ba, CUSAS 28 2:13), also borne by a Judean, may alternatively render the equivalent of OT Ḥwbb. Igigi (^Ii-gi-gi, CTMMA 3 6:4) may be Elamite, and Kulūlu (^Iku-lu-lu) can be either Akkadian ‘Headdress’ (of deities and kings) or Elamite (see Reference WaerzeggersWaerzeggers 2014 no. 175 r. 13).

In early and later Neo-Babylonian texts the female name ^fSinūnu ‘Swallow fish’ (^fsi-nu-nu, CTMMA 3 52:6; see Reference NielsenNielsen 2015, 335) occurs. Neo-Assyrian ^Isu-nu-nu, which refers to a male person (PNA 3/I, 1159), looks like the same form with vowel harmony.

Gigīya (^Igi-gi-ia), ^fGigītu (^fgi-gi-i-tu₄), and ^fGugûa (^fgu-gu-ú-a; see Reference TallqvistTallqvist 1905, 63–4) consist of a reduplicated syllable and a hypocoristic suffix (cf. Neo-Assyrian Kusisî, spelled ^Iku-si-si-i, PNA 2/I, 643). The same applies to ^fGāgāya (^fga-ga-a; Reference TallqvistTallqvist 1905, 62), Zazāya (^Iza-za-a, CTMMA 4 6:5; cf. Neo-Assyrian ^Iza-za-a-a [etc.], PNA 3/II, 1439), Zizīya (^Izi-zi-ia, CTMMA 4 51:4), and Zuzū (^Izu-zu-ú, TEBR 6 57:3). They (except for the first name) may derive from Z–W/Y–Z like Zūzâ (^Izu-za-a, IMT 53:16) and Zūzānu (^Izu-za-nu, BE 8/1 110:15 and Reference JursaJursa 1995, 220), in which case their base would be with a long vowel.

Atypical family names are Šalala (^Išá-la-la or ^Išá-a-la-la) and Sagdidi (^Isag-di-di, with dissimilation ^Isag-di-ti, Reference Wunsch, Krebernik and NeumannWunsch 2014, 308–9). The former may alternatively be Akkadian (Ša-alāli; see Reference BakerBaker 2004, 284 ad no. 240:16). The fact that this family name is sometimes preceded by the determinative LÚ is not a decisive argument against the first alternative (as an atypical anthroponym) in view of the fact that LÚ interchanges with the ‘Personenkeil’ in Neo- and Late Babylonian family names. Besides, the common spelling of the family name is with -la, not -li. ^Isag-di-di, with the reading šak-, may refer to Elam. šak- ‘son’ (see Reference ZadokZadok 1984, 38:211, 45:251), in which case it would be the only Neo- or Late Babylonian family name of Elamite origin.Footnote ¹⁶

Early Neo-Babylonian Baḫiriru or Maḫiriru (^Iba/ma-ḫi-ri-ru, BRM 1 17:7; Reference NielsenNielsen 2015, 195) may end in a reduplicated syllable if the Babylonian scribe adjusted its final vowel to that of the Akkadian nominative. If this practice was applied to early Neo-Babylonian Ḫuḫuḫi (^Iḫu-ḫu-ḫi, Reference NielsenNielsen 2015, 139), then it consists of three identical syllables (*ḫu-ḫu-ḫu).

A rare type is exemplified by Neo-Assyrian Mesimesi (^Ime-si-me-si), which consists of two reduplicated syllables. The name has nothing to do with Arabic mišmiš (> modern Israeli Hebrew ‘apricot’), as claimed by Simo Parpola (PNA 2/II, 749), seeing that the latter consists of a single reduplicated syllable. The name can perhaps be compared to the Jewish Babylonian–Aramaic paternal name mšmš.Footnote ¹⁷

The sequence CV₁-CV₂- (+ hypocoristic suffix) is extant in the following names: Neo-Babylonian Nūnāya (^Inun-na-a, Reference NielsenNielsen 2015, 301) could be based on nūnu ‘fish’ (cf. Neo-Assyrian ^Inu-nu-a, PNA 2/II, 967). ^fŠūšāya (^fšu-šá-a-a-ˀ, BRM 1 5:8; see Reference NielsenNielsen 2015, 380) is perhaps based on šūšu ‘licorice’ as a nickname for a sweet child. Tūtia (^Itu-ti-ia, Reference TallqvistTallqvist 1905, 212) may be based on tūtu ‘mulberry’ (cf. Neo-Assyrian ^Itu-ta-ia, etc., PNA 3/II, 1337). The sequence tV-tV- is also extant in Neo-Assyrian ^Iti-ti-i, ^fte-ta-a-a, and ^fti-ta-a-a (PNA 3/II, 1323, 1327). Regarding Nanni, Nannia, and Nannûtu (Reference WaerzeggersWaerzeggers 2014, 393a), the last one is based on the divine name Nanna (cf. Reference NielsenNielsen 2015, 279), while the two preceding ones probably do not derive from Luwian nani ‘brother’ (for these names and ^Ina-na-te; cf. PNA 2/II, 925).

Šiu (^Iši-i-ú, PNA 3/II, 1268, borne by a Babylonian) is based on a single consonant like Neo-Assyrian Buwa (^IBU-u-a, PNA 1/II, 357), Ṣū’a (^Iṣu-(u)-a PNA 3/I, 1177), Nia (^Ini-ia, PNA 2/II, 959), Agāya (^Ia-ga-a-a, PNA 1/I, 55), Innû (^Ii-nu-ú, PNA 2/I, 544), and (with a hypocoristic suffix which ends with -t) ^fKēautu (^fke-e-a-u-tú, PNA 2/I, 609–10; cf. ^Ike-e-a-a, PNA 2/I, 609). Other short names (all with gemmination of the second consonant and a hypocoristic suffix) are Luttûa (^Ilu-ut-tu-ú-a, OIP 122 2:27), Gaggū (^Iga-ag-gu-ú, EE 77:4; cf. Neo-Assyrian ^Ikak-ku-u; PNA 2/I, 595), Zabāya (^Iza-ab-ba-a, PBS 2/1 188:10), and Pappāya (^Ipap-pa-a-a, a family name; see Reference Wunsch, Krebernik and NeumannWunsch 2014, 307).

Unaffiliated Names

Unaffiliated anthroponyms are mostly unexplained. Unlike the atypical names which can be classified by certain morphological patterns (notably reduplicated syllables), this category has no common denominator even on the purely formal level. Such early Neo-Babylonian names are Ḫušazakmu (^Iḫu-šá-za-AK-mu, Reference NielsenNielsen 2015, 140) which refers to a fugitive, Layyanmua (^Ila-a-a-AN-mu-a, BRM 1 6:7), Indēšu (^Iin-de-e-šú, BRM 1 29:11), Paratirˀ (^Ipára-tir-ˀ, BRM 1 34:8; see Reference NielsenNielsen 2015, 308), ^fRibarmeš (^fri-bar(-)meš, BRM 1 7:2), and Tukubenu (^Itu-ku-be-nu, Reference NielsenNielsen 2015, 386). Aqqunnušu (^Iaq-qu-un-nu-šú) is recorded in an unpublished text (BM 30297 = Bertin 2542:13). ^fManantāya (^fma-na-an-ta-a), daughter of ^fBēlessunu (Nbn. 75:15, 20), with the reading of the initial sign as ma-, looks like a rendering of Old Iranian *Vanantā- ‘victorious’,Footnote ¹⁸ but, unlike Elamite, Neo- and Late Babylonian /m/ does not render Old Iranian /v/ in initial position, only VmV would do.

Other unaffiliated anthroponyms from the long sixth century BCE are, for instance, Ḫaraḫak (^Iḫa-ra-ḫa-AK, Reference Wunsch, Krebernik and NeumannPearce and Wunsch 2014, 54a), Kilaladia (^I˹ki˺-la-la-di-iá, Reference Wunsch, Krebernik and NeumannPearce and Wunsch 2014, 62b), Sinnašu (^Isi-in-šú/˹si?-in-na-šu˺, Reference Wunsch, Krebernik and NeumannPearce and Wunsch 2014, 80a), and Rappari (^Irap-pa-ri), son of Gultam (^Igu-ul-ta-mu, BE 8/1 65:2; 73:2; 84:2). Pê-Bīt-Kuššu (^Ipe-(e-)É-ku-uš-šú), son of Ṣaḫarturu (PBS 2/1 198:16, apparently with Bīt-Kuššu as theophoric element, in which case the name would denote ‘By the command of Bīt-Kuššu’; cf. ^Ipe-e-(É)-ku-ú-šú in TMH 2/3 188:6–7, l.e.), Basišuanaki (^Iba-si-šú-a-na-ki, BE 9 31:2, l.e. 27), B/Puk/qtâ (^Ib/puk/q-ta-a) or Muk/qtâ (^Imuk/q-ta-a, BE 9 66:8), and Ratla’iturû (^Irat^?-la-ˀ-i-tu-ru-ú, PBS 2/1 226:3, 4, 10, 11: […]-ˀ) are recorded in the Murašû archive (late fifth century BCE).

Several peculiar names are recorded in the small onomastic dossier from the Babylonian harbour town of Dūr-Yakīn (early Neo-Babylonian) which had intense commercial links to Elam and eastern Arabia, if not beyond that; they may be explicable in West Semitic terms like the majority of the local onomasticon (cf. Reference Zadok, Berlejung and StreckZadok 2013, 267–8). Fortunately, the list of unexplained anthroponyms is not too long.

Gentilics As Personal Names

Gentilics used as anthroponyms in first-millennium Babylonia are Quttāya ‘Gutian’ (^Iqu-ut-ta-a-a; not ‘Cuthean’, as understood by Reference Wunsch, Krebernik and NeumannPearce and Wunsch 2014, 77b–78a), Ukkāya ‘(Man) from Ukku’ (^Iuk-ka-a-a, Dar. 434:17; Ukku was located south of the Armenian plateau), Šarrukkāya ‘Man from Dūr-Šarrukki’ (^ILUGAL-uk-ka-a-a, Reference NielsenNielsen 2015, 366; this is a gentilicium a posteriori),Footnote ¹⁹ Kešāya ‘Man from Keš’ (^Ike-šá-a-a, PBS 2/1 43:5), Gub/māya ‘Man from Gubbu(?)’ (^Igu-ba/ma-a-a, Reference NielsenNielsen 2015, 134), Lik/qimmāya (^Ili-qí-im-ma-a-a, Reference NielsenNielsen 2015, 191; perhaps based on West Semitic N-Q-M with dissimilation of liquids/nasals), ^fKudāyaˀitu (^fku-DA-a-a-i-tu, Reference NielsenNielsen 2015, 178), and perhaps B/Madabarrāya (^Ima-da-bar-ra-a-a, Reference Wunsch, Krebernik and NeumannPearce and Wunsch 2014, 42a). The type is extant in Neo-Assyrian Karmesāya (^Ikar-me-sa-a-[a], PNA 2/I 607, from Kirmese?), Nimarkāya (^Ini-mar-ka-a-a, PNA 2/II, 963), and Šamandāya (^Išá-man/niš-da-a-a, PNA 3/II, 1188).

Footnotes

¹ All the names discussed herein are Neo- or Late Babylonian unless stated otherwise.

² The equation of this name with Amīl-Papsukkal (Reference PowellPowell 1972) may be secondary and homiletic.

³ This is suggested with all due reservation in view of the occurrence of šagar (followed by a resembling suffix) in the MB Kassite onomasticon (Reference BalkanBalkan 1954, 78, 179; Reference HölscherHölscher 1996, 200a, s.v. Šagarē’a; see Reference ZadokZadok 1979, 170).

⁴ Both names end in -nd- like Kilandi (Kilamdi), Kunindi, Pilandi (Pilamdi), and Šindi (cf. Šimdi as well as Širinta, Taramdi, and Ziqanta; in Reference BalkanBalkan 1954, 63, 65, 76, 81–2, 84, 160–2, 172, 183), as well as, perhaps, Ašgandu.

⁵ Reference WunschWunsch 2000, 295, with references. For kil- in Kassite names from Babylonia, see Reference BalkanBalkan (1954, 160–1). There are hardly any Neo- and Late Babylonian clans whose names are beyond doubt Hurrian; hence, kil- is to be kept apart from the homonymous Hurrian element in Nuzi and outside Babylonia (see Reference RichterRichter 2016, 435 with n. 408).

⁶ For forerunners of these Neo-Babylonian family names, see Reference Brinkman, Guinan, deJ. Ellis and FerraraBrinkman (2006) (mostly on family names denoting professions).

⁷ Zēria DUMU ^Ipi-lam-di, referring to either the father or the ancestor (i.e., family).

⁸ Bānia son/descendant (DUMU) of Kandar-Šamaš, scribe, from Sippar. For the initial component cf. perhaps kandaš-, gandaš, and gandi (Reference BalkanBalkan 1954, 53, 127–9, 157). Another non-Akkadian family name (or paternal name), which occurs in the same document, is Nana-šuḫi (^Ina-na-šu-ḫi, MZŠ I 2:10); for the initial component cf. nan-a (Reference BalkanBalkan 1954, 169).

⁹ Reference NielsenNielsen 2015, 147, 170, 273; Nielsen reads ^ISUM-ši-pak and ^Ina-di-ši-pak.

¹⁰ See Reference ZadokZadok (1978, 56) with references. Mut-Dagan (^Imu-ut-^dda-gan, BE 8/1 157:12) ‘Man of Dagan’ might be an Amorite vestige. The pattern Mut-DN is common in Amorite (see Reference StreckStreck 2000, 163, 299–300), but has no other occurrences in the abundant onomastic documentation from first millennium BCE Mesopotamia. In view of the occurrence of the given name mu-ti-e-kur^ki in MB (Reference HölscherHölscher 1996, 144b, s.v. Muti-Ekur), it may be surmised that this family name, like other non-Akkadian family names from the first millennium BCE, is an ancient survival: several such family names are recorded as given names in MB.

¹¹ It apparently consists of kil- (cf. earlier in chapter) and -gug. The latter reminds one of Elamite kuk, in which case it would be a hybrid Kassite-Elamite compound name, but such names are very rare.

¹² Cf. perhaps pak- and -Všt- (as in ^Iši-ri-iš-ti, Reference BalkanBalkan 1954, 76, 82, 172, 181).

¹³ See Reference ZadokZadok (1979, 169; Reference Zadok2018, 113–14). Add ^lú<ú>-ra-áš-ṭa-a-a (recipient of a ration, probably of oil; Babylon 28122 r. 30, in Reference WeidnerWeidner 1939, pl. II; cf. Bloch Reference Zadok2018, 229 with Footnote n. 13 who recognises it as a gentilic, but does not attempt to identify it). The same text has several omissions of signs; e.g., ^kuria-<man>-na-a-a (r. 21) and ^lúia-<ú>-da-a-a (r. 28).

¹⁴ Cf. the list in Reference ZadokZadok 1981, 60–1 with n. 199. The type, which is based on a reduplicated syllable, might have undergone dissimilation of sibilants if Neo-Assyrian ^Isi-zi-i (PNA 3/I, 1152) originates from ^Izi-zi-i.

¹⁵ Cf. Neo-Assyrian ^IKAR-ru-ru, in PNA 2/I, 607, with a CVC-sign which is indifferent to vowel quality.

¹⁶ ^Isa-ak/ik-ti-ti in Royal Achaemenid Elamite documents from Persepolis (ElW 1052, s.v.) probably does not belong here in view of the different sibilant.

¹⁷ See Reference Shaked, Ford and BhayroShaked, Ford, and Bhayro (2013, 62, 4): ‘Maššamaš’, without comment about their vocalisation.

¹⁸ Cf. *Vananta- (masc., Reference TavernierTavernier 2007, 336–7, 4.2.1790).

¹⁹ Cf. the Middle Babylonian female name ^fDūr-Šarru-kīnˀītu (^f.˹uru˺BÀD.LUGAL.GI.NA-a-a-i-ti, MNA I, i 14; see Reference PaulusPaulus 2014, 534).

References

Baker, H. D. (ed.) 2000. The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, 2/I: Ḫ–K. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project.Google Scholar

Baker, H. D. (ed.) 2001. The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, 2/II: L–N. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project.Google Scholar

Baker, H. D. (ed.) 2002. The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, 3/I: P–Ṣ. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project.Google Scholar

Baker, H. D. 2004. The Archive of the Nappāḫu Family, Archiv für Orientforschung Beiheft 30. Vienna: Institut für Orientalistik der Universität Wien.Google Scholar

Baker, H. D. (ed.) 2011. The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, 3/II: Š–Z. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project.Google Scholar

Balkan, K. 1954. Kassitenstudien I. Die Sprache der Kassiten, American Oriental Series 37. New Haven: American Oriental Society.Google Scholar

Brinkman, J. A. 1998. ‘Nazi-Maruttaš’, Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 9, 190–1.Google Scholar

Brinkman, J. A. 2006. ‘The use of occupation names as patronyms in the Kassite period: a forerunner of Neo-Babylonian ancestral names?’ in Guinan, A. K., deJ. Ellis, M., Ferrara, A. J., et al. (eds.), If a Man Builds a Joyful House: Assyriological Studies in Honor of Erle Verdun Leichty, Cuneiform Monographs 31. Leiden: Brill, pp. 23–43.CrossRef Google Scholar

Dillard, R. B. 1975. Neo-Babylonian Texts from the John Frederick Lewis Collection of the Free Library of Philadelphia. PhD dissertation: Dropsie University, Philadelphia.Google Scholar

Hinz, W. and Koch, H. 1987. Elamisches Wörterbuch, Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran, Ergänzungsband 17. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer.Google Scholar

Hölscher, M. 1996. Die Personennamen der kassitenzeitlichen Texte aus Nippur, Imgula 1. Münster: Rhema.Google Scholar

Jursa, M. 1995. Die Landwirtschaft in Sippar in neubabylonischer Zeit, Archiv für Orientforschung Beiheft 25. Vienna: Institut für Orientalistik der Universität Wien.Google Scholar

Laroche, E. 1966. Les Noms des Hittites, Études linguistiques 4. Paris: C. Klincksieck.Google Scholar

Nielsen, J. P. 2015. Personal Names in Early Neo-Babylonian Legal and Administrative Tablets, 747-626 BCE, NISABA 29. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.Google Scholar

Paulus, S. 2014. Die babylonischen Kudurru-Inschriften von der kassitischen bis zur frühneubabylonischen Zeit untersucht unter besonderer Berücksichtigung gesellschafts- und rechtshistorischer Fragestellungen, Alter Orient und Altes Testament 51. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.Google Scholar

Pearce, L. E. and Wunsch, C. 2014. Documents of Judean Exiles and West Semites in Babylonia in the Collection of David Sofer, Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 28. Bethesda: CDL Press.Google Scholar

Powell, M. A. 1972. ‘Der neubabylonische Familienname ašgandu und die Urkundengruppe Nbn 314, TCL XIII 122, Nbn 668’, Archiv Orientální 40, 124–9.Google Scholar

Radner, K. (ed.) 1998. The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, 1/I: A. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project.Google Scholar

Radner, K. (ed.) 1999. The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, 1/II: B–G. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project.Google Scholar

Richter, T. 2016. Vorarbeiten zu einem hurritischen Namenbuch. Erster Teil: Personennamen altbabylonischer Überlieferung vom Mittleren Euphrat und aus dem nördlichen Mesopotamien. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar

Salvini, M. 1993–7. ‘Menua’, Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 8, 63–4.Google Scholar

Shaked, S., Ford, J. N., and Bhayro, S. (with contributions from M. Morgenstern and N. Vilozny) 2013. Aramaic Bowl Spells: Jewish Babylonian Aramaic Bowls, 1. Leiden/Boston: Brill.CrossRef Google Scholar

Streck, M. P. 2000. Das amurritische Onomastikon der altbabylonischen Zeit. 1: Die Amurriter, die onomastische Forschung, Orthographie und Phonologie, Nominalphonologie, Alter Orient und Altes Testament 271/1. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.Google Scholar

Tallqvist, K. L. 1905. Neubabylonisches Namenbuch zu den Geschäftsurkunden aus der Zeit des Šamaššumukîn bis Xerxes, Acta Societatis Scientiarum Fennicae 32/2. Helsinki: Societas Litteraria Fennica.Google Scholar

Tavernier, J. 2007. Iranica in the Achaemenid Period (ca. 550–330 BC). Lexicon of Old Iranian Proper Names and Loanwords, Attested in Non-Iranian Texts, Orientalis Lovaniensia Analecta 158. Leuven: Peeters.Google Scholar

Waerzeggers, C. 2014. Marduk-rēmanni: Local Networks and Imperial Politics in Achaemenid Babylonia, Orientalis Lovaniensia Analecta 233. Leuven: Peeters.Google Scholar

Weidner, E. F. 1939. ‘Jojachin, König von Juda, in babylonischen Keilschrifttexten’ in Mélanges Syriens offerts à M. René Dussaud, secrétaire perpétuel de l’Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres, par ses amis et ses élèves II, Bibliothèque archéologique et historique 30. Paris: Geuthner, 923–35, pls I–V.Google Scholar

Wunsch, C. 2000. Das Egibi-Archiv: Die Felder und Garten, 2 Vols, Cuneiform Monographs 20a and 20b. Groningen: Styx.CrossRef Google Scholar

Wunsch, C. 2014. ‘Babylonische Familiennamen’ in Krebernik, M. and Neumann, H. (eds.), Babylonien und seine Nachbarn in neu- und spätbabylonischer Zeit. Wissenschaftliches Kolloquium anlässlich des 75. Geburtstages von Prof. Dr. Joachim Oelsner, 2.-3. März 2007 in Jena, Alter Orient und Altes Testament 369. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, pp. 289–314.Google Scholar

Zadok, R. 1978. On West Semites in Babylonia during the Chaldean and Achaemenian Periods: An Onomastic Study. Tel Aviv: Wanaarta.Google Scholar

Zadok, R. 1979. ‘On some foreign population groups in first-millennium Babylonia’, Tel Aviv 6, 164–81.CrossRef Google Scholar

Zadok, R. 1981. ‘Arabians in Mesopotamia during the Late-Assyrian, Chaldean, Achaemenian and Hellenistic periods’, Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 131, 42–84.Google Scholar

Zadok, R. 1984. The Elamite Onomasticon, Supplemento n. 40 agli Annali dell’Istituto Orientale di Napoli 44. Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale.Google Scholar

Zadok, R. 1999–2000. ‘Review of M. Salvini 1996. The Habiru prism of King Tunip-Teshup of Tikunani’, Archiv für Orientforschung 46–7, 351–8.Google Scholar

Zadok, R. 2013. ‘The onomastics of the Chaldean, Aramean and Arabian tribes in Babylonia during the first millennium’ in Berlejung, A. and Streck, M. P. (eds.), Arameans, Chaldeans, and Arabs in Babylonian and Palestine in the First Millennium BC, Leipziger Altorientalische Studien 3. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, pp. 261–336.Google Scholar

Zadok, R. 2018. ‘People from countries west and north of Babylonia in Babylon during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II’, Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel 7, 112–29.CrossRef Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.2 AAA

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

The HTML of this chapter complies with version 2.2 of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), offering more comprehensive accessibility measures for a broad range of users and attains the highest (AAA) level of WCAG compliance, optimising the user experience by meeting the most extensive accessibility guidelines.

Content Navigation

Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.

Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.

Reading Order & Textual Equivalents

Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.

Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.

Full alternative textual descriptions
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.

Visualised data also available as non-graphical data
You can access graphs or charts in a text or tabular format, so you are not excluded if you cannot process visual displays.

Visual Accessibility

Use of high contrast between text and background colour
You benefit from high‐contrast text, which improves legibility if you have low vision or if you are reading in less‐than‐ideal lighting conditions.