First-Person Singular Preterite

First-person singular preterite forms are rare in Neo-Babylonian names. These elements are mostly spelled syllabically or the reading of the logogram is self-evidentFootnote ¹² because of extra elements (such as the preposition ana (muḫḫi) ‘to’ or the interrogative pronoun mīnu ‘what?’) or because the verb refers to a human action (e.g., šasû ‘to invoke’, ṣullû ‘to pray’). Names that use this verbal element generally express a lament or a statement of devotion by one of the parents. The following list contains all attested names of this type, of which the verbal element is written with a logogram:

1. - Mīnu-ēpuš-ilī ‘What did I do, my god?’ (ēpuš written DÙ)

2. - Ana-muḫḫi-DN-āmur ‘I looked towards DN’ (āmur written IGI)

3. - (Ana-DN-)(obj.)-ēreš ‘(From DN) I requested (obj.)’ (ēreš written KAM/APIN-eš)

4. - Ina-qibīt-DN-azziz ‘By order of DN I stood (?)’ (azziz written GUB(za/zu))

5. - DN-uṣalli ‘I prayed to DN’ (uṣalli written SISKUR_x)

Present Tense

Rarely, names contain a verb in the present tense instead of the more common preterite. Such names are usually spelled syllabically, in which case their interpretation is unproblematic, or the reading of the logogram is self-evident because of extra elements, rare verbs, or on semantic grounds.Footnote ¹³ Names in this category generally express a question, a character trait of the deity, or a statement of devotion. The following list includes all attestations of this name type, of which the verbal element is written with a logogram:

1. - DN-kittu-irâm ‘DN loves the truth’ (irâm written ÁG)

2. - Ša-Marduk-ul-inni ‘What is of Marduk does not change’ (tenni/inni written BAL)

3. - Ileˀˀi-(obj.)-DN / DN-obj.-ileˀˀi ‘DN is able (to …)’ (ileˀˀi written DA/Á.GÁL)

4. - Lâbâši(-DN) ‘I will not be put to shame (, DN)’ (lâbâši written NU.TÉŠ)

5. - Irâš-ana-Akītu/Esagil ‘(S)He rejoices over Akītu/Esagil’ (irâš written SÙ)

6. - DN-qajalu-išemme ‘DN hears the attending’ (išemme written ŠE.GA)

7. - Nabû-maqtu-idekke ‘Nabû raises the fallen’ (idekke written ZI)

8. - Abī-ul-(t)īde ‘I do/(S)He does not know my/the father’ ((t)īde written ZU)

Long Names With or Without a Theophoric Reference

Most names consist of one, two, or three elements (see Table 6.3) and the rules set out later in the chapter pertain to these common names. Three-element names without a theophoric reference (DN) and four-element names often contain a preposition, an interrogative pronoun, or another unique element that makes these names easily recognisable. There are no set rules for interpreting the verbal element of such names; only common sense or familiarity with the Babylonian name repertoire will help determine the correct reading. Some examples include:

1. - Lūṣi-ana-nūr-Marduk ‘May he come out to the light (of?) Marduk’ (Lūṣi written È)

2. - Nergal-ina-tēšî-eṭir ‘Nergal, save from confusion’ (eṭir written SUR/KAR)

3. - Zēr-kitti-līšir ‘May the true heir prosper’ (līšir written GIŠ/SI.SÁ)

4. - Nabû-ina-kāri-lūmur ‘May I see Nabû in the harbour’ (lūmur written IGI)

5. - Nabû-itti-ēdi-alik ‘Nabû walk(s?) with the lonely!’ (alik written DU)

Inverted Names

There are a few names that deviate from the standard Akkadian word order (subject-object-verb). A rare name type follows the word order object/subject-verb-DN. It is found in only four names so far: Zēru-līšir-Nusku ‘Nusku, may the heir be in good condition!’ (subj.-prec.-DN, hapax, līšir written SI.SÁ), Atta-tale’’i-Bēl ‘You are capable, Bēl’ (subj.-pres.-DN, hapax, syll.), Lētka-idi-Zarpanītu ‘Zarpanītu, give your attention!’ (obj.-imp.-DN, hapax, idi written ŠUB), and Aḫu/Aḫḫē-iddin-Marduk ‘Marduk granted (a) brother(s)’ (obj.-pret.-DN, iddin written MU/SUM.NA). The most interesting category of inverted names follows the word order DN-verb-object. The verbal element in such names takes the form of an imperative: Sîn-rīmanni-aḫu (hapax, when not a scribal error; ‘Sîn, grant me a brother!’), Nabû-zuqup-kīnu ‘Nabû, support the true (heir)!’ (zuqup written GUB), Nabû-uṣur-napištī ‘Nabû protect my life!’ (uṣur written PAB/URÙ), and Nabû-šukun-rēmu ‘Nabû, place compassion!’ (šukun written GAR). The name Nabû-uṣur-napištī might hint at the reason for the inversion. This phrase was part of a well-known mirror-like expression DN, uṣur napištī, balāṭa qīša ‘DN, protect my life, health grant (me)!’ popular on seals in first millennium BCE Babylonia.Footnote ¹⁴ Poetic use is also attested for the sequence zuqup-objectFootnote ¹⁵ and šukun-object,Footnote ¹⁶ which might explain the inversion in the names DN-zuqup-kīnu and DN-šukun-rēmu. In short, deviation from the normal word order in Neo-Babylonian names was a rare phenomenon and one that may have had its origin in the wish of the name-giver for poetic euphony.

One-Element Names Consisting of Only a Verbal Element (v.)

Nearly all one-element names are spelled syllabically or with a phonetic complement that makes their reading self-evident. The only signs that may represent a one-element name without a phonetic complement are substantives, including infinitives. Only four names are presently known that are written with only a logogram: ^IGI (Šullumu ‘Well-being’), ^IKAR (Šūzubu ‘To save’), ^IŠU (Gimillu ‘Favour’), ^ITIN (Balāṭu ‘Life’). These logograms cannot represent verbal adjectives because none of these verbs appear in this form in either the name format verb.adj.-DN or DN-verb.adj. In other words, *Šullum-DN, *Šūzubu-DN, *Gamil-DN, and *Baliṭ/Balṭu-DN are not found in the repertoire of Neo-Babylonian names.Footnote ¹⁷

Two-Element Names Consisting of a Verb Preceded by a Deity’s Name (DN-v.)

When the logogram represents a ‘birth’ verb, it should be rendered in the preterite 3.sg. as the deity is the subject of the verb. ‘Birth’ verbs are verbs that describe the god causing the birth of the newborn child – for example, to create, give, return, replace, etc.Footnote ¹⁸ Sometimes the ancient scribe indicated the correct reading by adding a phonetic complement to the verbal logogram (e.g., DN-iqīša ‘DN gave’, written DN-BA-šá),Footnote ¹⁹ but often no such markers were used. The following list contains all attested names of this type, of which the verbal element is written only with a logogram:

1. - DN-ibni ‘DN created’ (written DN-DÙ)

2. - DN-iqbi ‘DN commanded’ (written DN-E or DN-DUG₄)

3. - DN-utīr ‘DN returned’ (written DN-GUR)

4. - DN-iddin ‘DN gave’ (written DN-MU or DN-SUM.NA)

5. - DN-ukīn ‘DN established’ (written DN-GIN or DN-GI.NA)

6. - DN-erība ‘DN replaced’ (written DN-SU)

There are four more signs that may represent ‘birth’ verbs in Neo-Babylonian names, but only when they are used without an object: DN-GI (DN-ušallim ‘DN brought to gestation’),Footnote ²⁰ DN-KAR (DN-ušēzib ‘DN let leave to posterity’),Footnote ²¹ DN-SIG₍₁₎₅ (DN-udammiq ‘DN showed favour (to the parents?)’), and DN-TIN (DN-uballiṭ ‘DN kept alive and in good health’).

In all other names – that is, when the logogram represents a verb that is not a ‘birth’ verb – it should be rendered in the precative (‘May DN … !’ or ‘DN, may … !’) or as a participle (‘DN is the one who … ’):

1. - DN-līšir ‘DN, may (the child) prosper’ (written GIŠ or SI.SÁ)

2. - DN-lūmur ‘May I see DN’ (written IGI)

3. - DN-lēˀû ‘DN is the one who is capable’ (written Á.GÁL or DA)

4. - DN-kāṣir ‘DN is the one who strengthens’ (written KÁD or KÀD)

5. - DN-tāriṣ ‘DN is the one who stretches over (to protect)’ (written LAL)

6. - DN-ēṭir ‘DN is the one who saves’ (written SUR)

7. - DN-gāmil ‘DN is the one who spares, is merciful’ (written ŠU)

8. - DN-nāṣir ‘DN is the one who protects’ (written ÙRU or PAB)

Two-Element Names Consisting of a Verb Followed by a Deity’s Name (v.-DN)

When the logogram represents a ‘birth’ verb in the D/Š-stem, it should be rendered as a participle.Footnote ²² The following list contains all attestations of this name type, of which the verbal element is written with a logogram:

1. - Mudammiq-DN ‘The one who treats kindly is DN’ (written SIG₍₁₎₅)

2. - Mukīn-DN ‘The one who establishes is DN’ (written GIN or GI.NA)Footnote ²³

3. - Mušallim-DN ‘The one who keeps well is DN’ (written GI)

4. - Mušebši-DN ‘The one who brings into being is DN’ (wr. GÁL(-ši)/TUK(-ši)/TIL)

5. - Mušēzib-DN ‘The one who saves is DN’ (written KAR)

When the logogram represents a ‘birth’ verb in the G-stem, it should be rendered in the preterite 3.sg.: Iqīša-DN, Ibni-DN, Iqbi-DN, Iddin-DN, and Erība-DN. In these names, the verbal element is spelled and translated in the same way as names of the type DN-iqīša discussed earlier.

In the remaining names of this type the verbal logograms should be rendered as a noun: Nisḫur-DN ‘Benevolent attention of DN’ (NIGÍN), Gimil-DN ‘Favour of DN’ (ŠU), and Nūr-DN ‘Light of DN’ (ZALÁG). These readings are based on instances where ancient scribes used both a syllabic and a logographic spelling for the same individual’s name.

Two-Element Names Without DN Written with Two Logograms

Here we can observe how Neo-Babylonian scribes helped their readers make sense of onomastic logograms in other ways than by using phonetic complements. Whenever a name consists of two verbal forms (v.-v.), the first element (always a preterite or perfect 2.sg.) was spelled syllabically: for example, ^Ita-at-tan-ÙRU (Tattannu-uṣur ‘You have given (the child), now protect (it)!’) and ^Itaq-bi-SI.SÁ (Taqbi-līšir ‘You commanded (the child’s birth), may it prosper!’). This practice indirectly helps the reader make sense of names with two logograms. When the first logogram can only represent a verb (a participle), the second logogram must be an object; vice versa, when the second logogram can only be an object, it follows that the first one must be a verb (a participle), because had the name consisted of two verbal elements, the first had been spelled syllabically. In a similar vein, when both logograms could be verbs (e.g., MU-GIN), the second logogram has to be the verb and the first one the object, in accordance with the normal word order of Akkadian sentences (subject-object-verb).

The transcription of the name then depends on whether or not the verb is a possible ‘birth’ verb: if it is, the verbal form needs to be rendered in the preterite 3.sg.; if it is not, it needs to be rendered in the imperative or precative. Note that the common name spelled MU-PAB/ŠEŠ is an exception: this name should be read Nādin-aḫi ‘The one who gives a brother’ (participle-object) rather than *Šumu-uṣur, even though the theophoric name spelled DN-MU-PAB/ÙRU is to be read DN-šumu-uṣur ‘DN protect the name!’.

Three-Element Names Written DN-Logogram-Logogram

The rules for reading such names are similar to those for two-element names of the type logogram-logogram discussed in the previous section. When the first logogram can only represent a verb, the name should be read DN-participle-object. The same applies if the second logogram can only represent an object. In all other cases the name is of the type DN-object-verb. If the verb is a possible ‘birth’ verb, the verbal logogram should be rendered in the preterite 3.sg. If it is another type of verb, it should be rendered as an imperative or a precative (-līšir, -lūmur, or -libši). The following list contains all attestations of the latter name type, of which the verbal element is written with a logogram:

1. - (DN-)qātēšu-ṣabat ‘(DN,) Seize his hands!’ (written DAB)

2. - (DN-)aḫḫē-šullim ‘(DN,) Keep the brothers well/in good health!’ (written GI)

3. - (DN-)mātu-tuqqin ‘(DN,) Put the country in order!’ (written LAL)

4. - (DN-)aḫu-bulliṭ ‘(DN,) Keep the brother alive and in good health!’ (written TIN)

5. - (DN-)kudurru-uṣur ‘(DN,) Protect the heir!’ (written URÙ/PAP)

Ambiguous Spellings

Sometimes scribes did not follow the rules for writing verbal Sumerograms in names. Upon closer inspection such apparent exceptions can often be explained from the context. For instance, the name spelled DN-GI should normally be read DN-ušallim (see Introduction to this chapter), but when the syllabically written name DN-mu-šal-lim had already been used in a previous line, the scribe could use DN-GI as a (lazy) repeat later on (BaAr 3, BM 46544:4, r. 18).

Other ambiguous spellings are found in the limited group of family names – for example, ^Id30-SIG₅ is to be read Sîn-damqu not Sîn-udammiq – or in texts with limited readership. For instance, in letters we may not know how to read the name ^IBA-DN (OIP 114 35:1; Iqīša-DN, normally spelled BA-šá-DN, or Qīšti-DN, normally spelled NÍG.BA-DN), but for the senders and addressees it was obvious who was meant; neither did the scribe need to be careful or unambiguous for legal reasons. The same applies to lists of personnel produced for internal administrative purposes: these individuals were well-known in the institutions that employed them. For the same reason, the name of Borsippa’s chief temple administrator Nabû-nādin-šumi could be spelled in shorthand (Nabû-MU-MU; TCL 12 9:26 and TMH 2/3 12:23) instead of the ‘correct’ spelling Nabû-SUM.NA-MU or Nabû-na-din-MU. Nabû-MU-MU is normally to be read Nabû-šumu-iddin, but this individual was so well-known in the city that confusion was unlikely.

Permissible Names

Finally, we should recall that ancient readers were intimately familiar with the repertoire of names. This knowledge helped them make sense of ambiguous spellings. As an example, we can take the sign DU. This logogram could represent at least three different verbs: it could be read DU for the verb alāku ‘to go’, GIN for the verb kânu ‘to be true, permanent’, and GUB for the verb i/uzuzzu ‘to stand’. All three verbal forms are found in Neo-Babylonian names, sometimes even in the same name format. Nevertheless, the ancient scribe and reader will have had no problem recognising the spelling DN-GIN-A as DN-mukīn-apli ‘DN is the one who firmly establishes the son’, and DN-DU-IGI as DN-ālik-pāni ‘DN is the one who walks in front’ and not *DN-kīnu/kittu-lūmur, ‘May I see the true (heir)/truth!’ nor *DN-mukīn-pāni ‘DN is the one who establishes the front’. Although theoretically possible, these last names did not exist. Similarly, they will have identified DN-GIN-ÙRU/PAB as DN-kīnu-uṣur ‘DN, protect the true/legitimate (heir)’ because the name *DN-mukīn-ahi ‘DN is the one who firmly establishes the brother’ was not part of the Neo-Babylonian name repertoire.