Sumerian Names

doi:10.1017/9781009291071.019

Chapter 17 - Sumerian Names

from Part II - Non-Babylonian Names

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 January 2024

Uri Gabbay

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

This chapter presents and discusses the Sumerian names in the Neo- and Late Babylonian onomasticon. Since Sumerian was not a spoken language for at least 1,500 years by this period, this is a very small corpus, comprising of a few family names (and not names of individuals). The family names are mostly associated with scholars and cultic practitioners who in turn associated themselves with the Sumerian language through their ritual recitations, or through their scholarly study. The chapter presents the Akkadian rendering of these Sumerian names when known, and also discusses the relationship between the Sumerian family names and the different cities in which they are attested.

Keywords

Sumerian Ur-Nanna Asarluḫi-mansum Nanna-utu Lú-dumu-nun-na Egibatila Ab-sum-mu A-ba-Ninnu-da-ri

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: Personal Names in Cuneiform Texts from Babylonia (c. 750–100 BCE)
An Introduction
, pp. 273 - 282

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009291071.019 [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 17 Sumerian Names

Introduction

Sumerian, which most scholars treat as an isolated language, is the first identifiable language written in cuneiform.Footnote ¹ By the end of the third millennium BCE it was no longer used as a vernacular language, but it continued to be used for the next two millennia, until the end of cuneiform culture, as a scholarly, literary, and religious language. This does not imply that the ‘real’, ‘living’ Sumerian tongue of the third millennium BCE perished and was replaced by an ‘artificial’, ‘dead’ language. Sumerian remained ‘alive’ and ‘real’ for another 2,000 years, perhaps not as a mother tongue but certainly as a language with a crucial and defining importance for the Mesopotamian scholarly and religious milieu. Many (perhaps even most) of the verbal religious performances in Mesopotamia in the second and first millennia BCE were conducted in Sumerian, whether they were based on the kalûtu corpus of Sumerian lamentations that constituted the regular temple cult or on the many Sumerian incantations included in the āšipūtu corpus which consisted of the purification and therapeutic rituals for temples and individuals. These corpora were not only performed but also studied. The scribal curriculum of the second and first millennia BCE began with lexical lists consisting of Sumerian or Sumero–Akkadian correspondences, and Sumerian remained an important part of scribal education and scholarly lore during advanced study.Footnote ²

Therefore, although the number of Sumerian personal and family names recorded in Babylonia in the first millennium BCE is tiny, their existence points to the cultural importance Sumerian held for the bearers of these names, especially if they were priests or scholars. Sumerian in the first millennium BCE was not only a language that scholars and priests knew from their training and liturgical repertoire, but also a source of identity for its users.

Sumerian Onomastic Material in Babylonian Sources

Although Akkadian names in Babylonia during the first millennium BCE extensively use logograms that originate in the Sumerian language, actual Sumerian names in this period are practically non-existent. In fact, only one Sumerian personal name is attested in first-millennium BCE Babylonia: the ceremonial name of the daughter of Nabonidus, whom he dedicated as a priestess in Ur.Footnote ³ Otherwise, there are a few Sumerian family names in first-millennium BCE Babylonia.

Personal Names

Priests in the first millennium BCE, although sometimes writing their names in an orthography reflecting a pseudo-Sumerian origin, were usually given Akkadian (Babylonian) names (unlike Old Babylonian priests, who often had Sumerian names such as Ur-Utu). There is one exception to this: according to several inscriptions of Nabonidus, he installed his daughter as en-priestess of the god Nanna in Ur and gave her the ceremonial name en-níĝ-al-di-^dnanna (En-nigaldi-Nanna), ‘En-priestess, the request of Nanna’ (Reference SchaudigSchaudig 2001, 708). This case (which has no historical anchor besides the passages in the royal inscriptions) is exceptional, just as the whole cultic act described in the passage is exceptional, and thus this use of a Sumerian name similar to those given to priestesses in the third millennium BCE should be understood in the context of the antiquarian values promoted by Nabonidus himself.

Family Names

A few Sumerian family names are attested in the first millennium BCE, usually associated with scholars and priests.Footnote ⁴ These include:

(1) Ur-(Divine name)

Two family names are formed on the pattern Ur-(Divine name), meaning ‘The one of (Divine name)’, which is attested already in personal names of the third and second millennia BCE: Ur-Nanna ‘The one of Nanna’ and Ur-Nintinuga ‘The one of Nintinuga’. The name Ur-Nintinuga was interpreted in antiquity as ‘The one (= man) of Gula’ (Amīl-Gula) (VR 44 ii 9; Reference LambertLambert 1957, 12). The family name Ur-Nanna is already attested in archival texts from Babylon dating to the thirteenth and twelfth centuries BCE.Footnote ⁵ Since there is no evidence of Akkadian renderings of these names, it is assumed that these names were indeed Sumerian.Footnote ⁶

(2) (Diving name)-ma-an-sum

A few family names, mostly from Babylon and Borsippa, are formed on the pattern (Divine name, or: temple name)-ma-an-SUM,Footnote ⁷ meaning ‘(Divine name, or: temple name) gave me (this son)’, which is attested already in personal names of the third and second millennia BCE: ^Iurudu(^dùru-dù)-mansum, Esagil-mansum, and Asarluḫi-mansum. The first name was interpreted in antiquity as ‘Nusku gave me’ (Nusku-iddin) (VR 44 ii 16; Reference LambertLambert 1957, 12). Since syllabic spellings of the first two names are attested, the names indeed seem to have been originally Sumerian and rendered in Sumerian form (although they may have been reinterpreted as near-homonymic Akkadian names; Reference Wunsch, Krebernik and NeumannWunsch 2014, 297).

(3) (Divine name)-ù-tu

A few family names, mostly from Babylon and Sippar, are formed on the pattern (Divine name)-ù-tu, in which the element ù-tu may be interpreted as the Sumerian verb meaning ‘to give birth, create’: Baba-utu ‘Baba created’, Zababa-utu ‘Zababa created’, and Nanna-utu (Nannûtu) ‘Sîn created’ (Reference Wunsch, Krebernik and NeumannWunsch 2014, 301). The name ^Idnanna-ù-tu was interpreted in antiquity as Akkadian Sîn-ibni ‘Sîn created’ in VR 44 ii 13 (Reference LambertLambert 1957, 12). It is not clear, however, whether ‘ù-tu’ is indeed the Sumerian verb ù-tu ‘create’, or whether this is a reinterpretation of the suffix -ūtu (or -iaūtu) that is found with other names (e.g., Zērūtu; see Reference Wunsch, Krebernik and NeumannWunsch 2014, 301), especially since there are also syllabic renderings of the name Nanna-utu (Reference TallqvistTallqvist 1902, 159; Reference BakerBaker 2004, 356).

(4) Lú-dumu-nun-na

The Lú-dumu-nun-na (Lu-dumununna) family, whose name literally means ‘The one (= man) of the princely son’, is attested in colophons from Achaemenid Nippur and in Late Babylonian archival texts from Ur.Footnote ⁸ The family name Lú-dumu-nun-na is already attested in a late Old Babylonian text dealing with a legal case in the area of Nippur and Dūr-Abiešuḫ, known from three unprovenanced tablets (Reference GeorgeGeorge 2010 no. 17). Although the ‘Princely Son’ probably refers to Sîn,Footnote ⁹ there is no indication that Lú-dumu-nun-na was a writing for an Akkadian name such as Amīl-Sîn (so Reference Wunsch, Krebernik and NeumannWunsch 2014, 290), and it is likely that the name was pronounced in Sumerian (Lu-dumununna; Reference CharpinCharpin 2019).

(5) (E₍₄₎)-gi_(3/7)-ba-ti-la (E-gi-bi)

The name of the ^I(e₍₄₎)-gi_(3/7)-ba-ti-la (E-gi-bi) family from Babylon was interpreted in antiquity as ‘Sîn, you granted, may he live’ (Sîn-taqīša-libluṭ) in VR 44 iii 53 (Reference LambertLambert 1957, 13). It should be noted that e₄-gi₇ (A-KU) is not a regular name or epithet in Sumerian, and the interpretation of the element ba as taqīša, ‘you granted’, although lexically anchored, looks like a fanciful rendering. Such an interpretation of the name Egibatila would seem to be in line with learned pseudo-Sumerian writings of Akkadian names, especially since the Akkadian interpretation of the name agrees with Akkadian name patterns (Reference Wunsch, Krebernik and NeumannWunsch 2014, 297). Nevertheless, the name Egibatila may be a genuine Sumerian name, albeit of late, scholarly origin, that is based on an Akkadian pattern. It is also possible that, despite the Akkadian interpretation, the sign ba is to be understood as part of the verbal chain (ba-ti-la), perhaps with the meaning ‘Sîn gave life’ (cf. Reference TallqvistTallqvist 1902, 57). In any case, the shortened form Egibi indicates that the name was indeed pronounced in Sumerian. Still, one cannot exclude the possibility of a name Egibi, of uncertain origin,Footnote ¹⁰ that was reinterpreted as a short form of a supposedly Sumerian Egibatila.

(6) Ab-sum-mu

The interpretation of the name Ab-sum-mu (Absummu), a family name attested in Nippur, is uncertain, although the writing sum-mu seems to indicate a Sumerian name containing the verb ‘to give’. The element ‘ab’ could mean ‘father’ in some Sumerian contexts, or it may be a Sumerian verbal prefix; alternatively, the sign AB could be read as ‘èš’, with the meaning ‘shrine’. None of these interpretations of the name are certain. In any case, there is no indication that this is a Sumerian orthography that masks an Akkadian name.

(7) A-ba-^(d)ninnu-da-ri

^Ia-ba-^(d)ninnu-da-ri, perhaps to be rendered Aba-Enlil-da-ri, is interpreted as ‘Who (else) is a protector like Enlil?’ (Mannu-kīma-Enlil-ḫātin) in VR 44 iii 42 (Reference LambertLambert 1957, 13), where da-ri stands for ḫatānu ‘to protect’ (an attested but rare lexical equation), and kīma ‘like’ is not reflected in the Sumerian name. However, contrary to the interpretation given in VR 44, the original meaning of the name may have been ‘Who leads (ri) with (-da) Enlil?’ (i.e., ‘Who leads but Enlil?’; cf. Reference Oshima, Berlejung, Maeir and SchüleOshima 2017, 149, n. 44). In addition, while Ninnu surely refers to Enlil, it is not clear whether it was pronounced as Ninnu or as Enlil. The name is known from a colophon from Nineveh, referring to the ‘house’ of this family, as well as from archival texts from Late Babylonian Nippur (Reference Oshima, Berlejung, Maeir and SchüleOshima 2017, 152). There is no indication, nor reason to assume, that the writing stands for an Akkadian name, especially since one text writes the last element as -r[a] rather than -ri (colophon of K 2757:7´; collated).

Although, as seen earlier, there are some problems with the interpretation of some of the Sumerian family names, it is important to realise that almost all of these names belonged to families of a high social status whose members usually included priests or scholars. Besides the high social prestige that a Sumerian name conveys, it is important to remember that the religious and scholarly training and repertoire of many of the bearers of these names included much Sumerian, and a name in that language thus attests to their identity as the transmitters of the millennia-long Sumerian religious, literary, scholarly, and cultural tradition.

Indeed, according to the ancient Mesopotamian tradition, some of these family names can be traced back to individuals who were considered great priests and scholars (or ancestors of great scholars), adding to the prestige and cultural identity of their bearers.Footnote ¹¹ Ur-Nanna, referred to as an exorcist and as a scholar of Babylon, was regarded as the composer of the ‘Series of the Poplar’.Footnote ¹² A son or descendant of Lú-dumu-nun-na, referred to as a scholar of Nippur, was regarded as the composer of the ‘Series of the Fox’ (Reference LambertLambert 1962, 66, K 9717+ vi 12; Reference JiménezJiménez 2017, 46, 112). A son or descendant of [… -m]ansum (perhaps Asarluḫi-mansum or Esagil-mansum), referred to as a haruspex and scholar of Babylon, was regarded as the composer of one or more Sumerian texts (Reference LambertLambert 1962, 66, K 9717+ vii 6–7). Asarluḫi-mansum was regarded as the master scholar at the time of Ḫammurapi, and an ancestor of the well-known scholar Esagil-kīn-apli, who in turn was regarded as the master scholar of the Babylonian king Adad-aplu-iddin in the eleventh century BCE.Footnote ¹³ According to a text from Seleucid Uruk, Aba-Ninnu-da-ri (or: Aba-Enlil-da-ri) was considered the master scholar of Esarhaddon, and was identified with ˀAḥīqar, the composer of an Aramaic proverb collection (Reference Oshima, Berlejung, Maeir and SchüleOshima 2017).Footnote ¹⁴ Finally, Ur-Nintinuga, an āšipu from Babylon, is featured in the Babylonian composition Ludlul (Tablet III 40–6), where he appears in the dream of the protagonist, holding a writing board that identifies him as a scholar (Reference OshimaOshima 2014, 285–6; Reference Sandowicz, Waerzeggers and SeireSandowicz 2018, 57).

The association of a family with a given scholarly ancestor may be correlated with the family’s geographical location. The Ur-Nanna family is known from the thirteenth and twelfth centuries BCE from Babylon, and Ur-Nanna, as noted earlier, was considered a scholar of Babylon. The Asarluḫi-mansum family is attested especially in Babylon, and as noted, Asarluḫi-mansum himself was considered the scholar of Ḫammurapi, king of Babylon. The Lú-dumu-nun-na family is known especially from colophons from Nippur, and Lú-dumu-nun-na, as seen earlier, was considered a scholar of this city. Two other families are also located in Nippur: Ab-sum-mu and Aba-Ninnu(or: Enlil)-da-ri, although they are not associated with a venerable ancestor. It is probably not a coincidence that three out of the limited number of families bearing Sumerian names are closely associated with Nippur. Scholars from this city, especially those belonging to the Lú-dumu-nun-na and Ab-sum-mu families, occasionally designated themselves as ‘Sumerians’ (šumerû), alluding to the long Sumerian tradition associated with Nippur.Footnote ¹⁵

Lastly, some temporal questions may be raised, although they are difficult to answer. Are any of the family names typical of certain periods, and could this information aid in reconstructing the historical origin of those families? For example, family name patterns such as Ur-(Divine name), Lú-(Divine name or epithet) (as in Lú-^(d)dumu-nun-na), and (Divine name)-ma-an-sum can be found already in the third and early second millennia BCE. However, this does not mean that first-millennium BCE families, whose names share these patterns, should be viewed as members of lineages going back to the third or early second millennium BCE, as such names could have been given later as well.Footnote ¹⁶ Indeed, the Ur-(Divine name) pattern is known also from the Middle Babylonian period (Reference HölscherHölscher 1996, 229–30). On the other hand, a name such as E₄-gi₇-ba-ti-la, which seems like a late scholarly invention, may reflect the relatively late emergence of this family as nouveaux riches in Babylonia (Reference AbrahamAbraham 2004, 9), though not much can be said more specifically about the date when the name was given to or chosen by the family. In the cases of Lú-dumu-nun-na and Ur-Nanna, however, attestations from the mid- and late second millennium BCE suggest relatively early dates for the emergence of these families (Reference Wunsch, Krebernik and NeumannWunsch 2014, 291–2). Lastly, Aba-Ninnu(or: Enlil)-da-ri was considered a contemporary of Esarhaddon, as seen earlier, which would imply a very late date for the emergence of this family. However, this tradition is late and ideological in nature (Reference LenziLenzi 2008), and thus it cannot serve as a basis for speculations regarding the history of this family.

Footnotes

¹ I would like to thank Prof. Ran Zadok for discussing with me some of the materials in this chapter, and for reading and commenting on an earlier version.

² For the second millennium BCE, see, recently, Reference CrisostomoCrisostomo (2019) (Old Babylonian period) and Reference BartelmusBartelmus (2016) (Middle Babylonian period). For the curriculum of the first millennium BCE, see Reference GescheGesche (2001).

³ Excluded are Sumerian personal names that are found in literary and scholarly texts composed or transmitted in the first millennium BCE but not otherwise attested as actual personal names or family names in Babylonia in the first millennium BCE. These include various names in VR 44 (Reference LambertLambert 1957; some of these names, however, are known as family names in the first millennium BCE, see section on ‘Family Names’), some of which also appear in other literary texts. For example, ^Ilàl-úr-alim-ma (interpreted in antiquity as Ṭāb-utul-Enlil ‘Enlil’s lap is sweet’), listed in VR 44 ii 17 (Reference LambertLambert 1957, 12) appears in the dream of the protagonist of the composition Ludlul (III 25–6, see Reference OshimaOshima 2014, 279; note that ^Ilàl-úr-alim-ma is attested as a personal name in Kassite Nippur, see Reference HölscherHölscher 1996, 130). Other examples are the fanciful Sumerian names in the humoristic scribal composition ‘Ninurta-pāqidat’s Dog Bite’ (Reference GeorgeGeorge 1993). Also excluded from the discussion are the Sumerian names ^Ika-áš-du₁₁-ga (perhaps ‘The decision is instructed’; see Reference JursaJursa 2001–2, 83) and ^Ilugal-šìr-ra (‘Lord of the song/lament’), known from a list from Sippar of divine or mythological cultic functionaries, which clearly do not relate to actual contemporary persons (Reference JursaJursa 2001–2, 77–9, BM 54725+ i 10´, iii 6´, 19´).

⁴ Not included in the list are the following family names which may seem Sumerian but are probably not: ^Isag-di-di/ti (cf. Reference Zadok, Lipschits and BlenkinsoppZadok 2003, 482, Footnote n. 8), ^IARAD-^d(é-)gir₄-kù (probably a writing for Arad-Nergal, cf. Reference LambertLambert 1957, 6, n. 23a), ^Iga-ḫúl-^dtu-tu (probably the same name as Gaḫal, and not likely to be of Sumerian origin, contra Reference Wunsch, Krebernik and NeumannWunsch 2014, 297, 305, n. 48), and ^Iaš-gan-du₇ (probably of non-Sumerian origin, contra Reference Sandowicz, Waerzeggers and SeireSandowicz 2018, 58, n. 77). Also excluded are family names ending with -akku (e.g., Iššakku, Kassidakku) which are based on Sumerian loanwords in Akkadian.

⁵ Reference NielsenNielsen 2011, 175; Reference Wunsch, Krebernik and NeumannWunsch 2014, 290–1; Reference JiménezJiménez 2017, 213.

⁶ Reference Sandowicz, Waerzeggers and SeireSandowicz 2018, 57–8; Reference Wunsch, Krebernik and NeumannWunsch 2014, 296. Note the syllabic spelling of the divine name Nanna in Ur-Nanna in one text, indicating that it was rendered in Sumerian and not as Akkadian Sîn, see Reference Wunsch, Krebernik and NeumannWunsch (2014, 310, n. 77).

⁷ The sign SUM is usually rendered ‘sum’ or ‘šúm’, but there are syllabic writings that may indicate ‘sì’; see Reference Wunsch, Krebernik and NeumannWunsch (2014, 297 with nos. 29, 31).

⁸ Reference GeorgeGeorge 2010, 135; Reference Wunsch, Krebernik and NeumannWunsch 2014, 290, Footnote n. 8; Reference GabbayGabbay 2014, 258.

⁹ Compare An-Anu III 15: ^ddumu-nun-na = MIN (= ^dSîn) (Reference LitkeLitke 1998, 118).

¹⁰ It is in any case not West Semitic; see Reference TallqvistTallqvist (1902, 57) with previous literature; Reference WunschWunsch 2000, 1–2, Footnote n. 3; Reference AbrahamAbraham 2004, 9, Footnote n. 13.

¹¹ This is also true, of course, for the bearers of some Akkadian family names, such as Sîn-leqe-unninnī, who was regarded as the composer of the Epic of Gilgamesh (Reference LambertLambert 1962, K 9717+ 66, vi 10).

¹² Reference LambertLambert 1962, K 9717+ 66, vi 14; Reference JiménezJiménez 2017, 112, 212–13. Note that a colophon of a Late Babylonian tablet states that the text on it is based on a copy of Ur-Nanna, ‘scholar of Babylon’, indicating the great authority of the text and the scholar (Reference JiménezJiménez 2017, 212–13 with n. 571).

¹³ Reference Finkel, Leichty, deJ. Ellis and GerardiFinkel 1988; Reference Heeßel, Maul and HeeßelHeeßel 2010; Reference Frahm, Van Buylaere, Luukko, Schwemer and Mertens-WagschalFrahm 2018.

¹⁴ Note that a colophon of a tablet from Nineveh probably states that the text on it is based on a copy from the ‘house of Aba-Ninnu-da-ra’, indicating the great authority of the text and the scholar (K 2757; see Reference Oshima, Berlejung, Maeir and SchüleOshima 2017, 152; for the ‘houses’ of families, see Reference NielsenNielsen 2011, 1).

¹⁵ Reference OelsnerOelsner 1982; Reference GeorgeGeorge 1991, 162; Reference Gabbay, Jiménez, Proust and SteeleGabbay and Jiménez 2019, 77.

¹⁶ In this context, note the deliberate archaism found in Nippur colophons, where the title (not the personal name) ‘the one of Gula’ is written UR ^(d)ME.ME, alluding to such a personal name (and perhaps even alluding to an ancient ancestor); see Reference Gabbay, Jiménez, Proust and SteeleGabbay and Jiménez (2019, 71, n. 73).

References

For general surveys and histories of Sumerian and Sumerian literature, see Piotr Michalowski (2004) and Gonzalo Rubio (2009). On late Sumerian of the first millennium BCE, see Thorkild Jacobsen (1991) and Mark Geller (2010). Short discussions on Sumerian family names in the first millennium BCE appear as part of the general discussion of family names in Cornelia Wunsch (2014) and Małgorzata Sandowicz (2018, 57–8, appendix). For a discussion on Sumerian and pseudo-Sumerian family names that are attributed to a supposed scholarly ancestor, see Wilfred G. Lambert (1957). For discussions on fanciful writings of pseudo-Sumerian names, see Andrew R. George (1993) and Uri Gabbay and Enrique Jiménez (2019).

Abraham, K. 2004. Business and Politics under the Persian Empire: The Financial Dealings of Marduk-nāṣir-apli of the House of Egibi (521–487 BCE). Bethesda: CDL.Google Scholar

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

Bartelmus, A. 2016. Fragmente einer grossen Sprache: Sumerisch im Kontext der Schreiberausbildung des Kassitenzeitlichen Babylonien, Untersuchungen zur Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 12/1–2. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

Charpin, D. 2019. ‘En marge d’EcritUr, 6: CUSAS 10 17 et l’onomastique théophore de Dumununna’, Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires 2019/45.Google Scholar

Crisostomo, C. J. 2019. Translation as Scholarship: Language, Writing, and Bilingual Education in Ancient Babylonia, Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Records 22. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRef Google Scholar

Finkel, I. L. 1988. ‘Adad-apla-iddina, Esagil-kīn-apli, and the Series SA.GIG’ in Leichty, E., deJ. Ellis, M., and Gerardi, P. (eds.), A Scientific Humanist: Studies in Memory of Abraham Sachs, Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund 9. Philadelphia: Samuel Noah Kramer Fund, The University Museum, pp. 143–59.Google Scholar

Frahm, E. 2018. ‘The exorcist’s manual: structure, language, Sitz im Leben’ in Van Buylaere, G., Luukko, M., Schwemer, D., and Mertens-Wagschal, A. (eds.), Sources of Evil: Studies in Mesopotamian Exorcistic Lore, Ancient Magic and Divination 5. Leiden: Brill, pp. 9–47Google Scholar

Gabbay, U. 2014. Pacifying the Hearts of the Gods: Emesal Prayers of the First Millennium BC, Heidelberger Emesal-Studien 1. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar

Gabbay, U. and Jiménez, E. 2019. ‘Cultural imports and local products in the commentaries from Uruk: The case of the Gimil-Sîn family’ in Proust, C. and Steele, J. (eds.), Scholars and Scholarship in Late Babylonian Uruk, Why the Sciences of the Ancient World Matter 2. Cham: Springer, pp. 53–88.CrossRef Google Scholar

Geller, M. 2010. ‘Late Babylonian Lugal-e’ in Baker, H. D., Robson, E., Zólyomi, G. (eds.), Your Praise is Sweet: A Memorial Volume for Jeremy Black from Students, Colleagues and Friends. London: British Institute for the Study of Iraq, pp. 93–100.Google Scholar

George, A. R. 1991. ‘Babylonian Texts from the folios of Sidney Smith. Part Two: Prognostic and Diagnostic Omens, Tablet I’, Revue d’Assyriologie 85, 137–67.Google Scholar

George, A. R. 1993. ‘Ninurta-pāqidāt’s dog bite, and notes on other comic tales’, Iraq 55, 63–75.CrossRef Google Scholar

George, A. R. 2010. Babylonian Literary Texts in the Schøyen Collection, Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 10. Bethesda: CDL.Google Scholar

Gesche, P. D. 2001. Schulunterricht in Babylonien im ersten Jahrtausend v. Chr., Alter Orient und Altes Testament 275. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.Google Scholar

Heeßel, N. P. 2010. ‘Neues von Esagil-kīn-apli: die ältere Version der physiognomischen Omenserie alamdimmû’ in Maul, S. M. and Heeßel, N. P. (eds.), Assur-Forschungen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, pp. 139–87.Google Scholar

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

Jacobsen, T. 1991. ‘Abstruse Sumerian’ in Cogan, M. and Eph‘al, I. (eds.), Ah, Assyria … : Studies in Assyrian History and Ancient Near Eastern Historiography Presented to Hayim Tadmor. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, pp. 279–91.Google Scholar

Jiménez, E. 2017. The Babylonian Disputation Poems, Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 87. Leiden: Brill.CrossRef Google Scholar

Jursa, M. 2001–2. ‘Göttliche Gärtner? Eine bemekenswerte Liste’, Archiv für Orientforschung 48–9, 76–89.Google Scholar

Lambert, W. G. 1957. ‘Ancestors, authors, and canonicity’, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 11, 1–14, 112.CrossRef Google Scholar

Lambert, W. G. 1962. ‘A catalogue of texts and authors’, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 16, 59–77.CrossRef Google Scholar

Lenzi, A. 2008. ‘The Uruk list of kings and sages and late Mesopotamian scholarship’, Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions 19, 137–69.Google Scholar

Litke, R. L. 1998. A Reconstruction of the Assyro-Babylonian God-Lists. AN : da-nu-um and AN : Anu šá amēli, Texts from the Babylonian Collection 3. New Haven: Yale Babylonian Collection.Google Scholar

Michalowski, P. 2004. ‘Sumerian’ in Woodard, R. D. (ed.), The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World’s Ancient Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 19–59.Google Scholar

Nielsen, J. P. 2011. Sons and Descendants: A Social History of Kin Groups and Family Names in the Early Neo-Babylonian Period, 747–626 BC, Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 43. Leiden/Boston: Brill.CrossRef Google Scholar

Oelsner, J. 1982. ‘Spätachämenidische Texte aus Nippur’, Revue d’Assyriologie 76, 94–5.Google Scholar

Oshima, T. 2014. Babylonian Poems of Pious Sufferers: Ludlul Bēl Nēmeqi and the Babylonian Theodicy, Orientalische Religionen in der Antike 14. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar

Oshima, T. 2017. ‘How “Mesopotamian” was Ahiqar the Wise? A search for Ahiqar in cuneiform texts’ in Berlejung, A., Maeir, A. M., and Schüle, A. (eds.), Wandering Aramaeans: Aramaeans Outside Syria. Textual and Archaeological Perspectives, Leipziger Altorientalische Studien 5. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, pp. 141–67.Google Scholar

Rubio, G. 2009. ‘Sumerian Literature’ in Ehrlich, C. S. (ed.), From an Antique Land. An Introduction to Ancient Near Eastern Literature, Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, pp. 11–75.Google Scholar

Sandowicz, M. 2018. ‘Before Xerxes: the role of the governor of Babylonia in the administration of justice under the first Achaemenids’ in Waerzeggers, C. and Seire, M. (eds.), Xerxes and Babylonia: The Cuneiform Evidence, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 277. Leuven: Peeters, pp. 35–62.CrossRef Google Scholar

Schaudig, H. 2001. Die Inschriften Nabonids von Babylon und Kyros’ des Grossen, Alter Orient und Altes Testament 256. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.Google Scholar

Tallqvist, K. L. 1902. Neubabylonisches Namenbuch zu den Geschäftsurkunden aus der Zeit des Šamaššumukîn bis Xerxes, Acta Societatis Scientiarum Fennicae 32/2. Helsinki: Societas Litteraria Fennica.Google Scholar

Wunsch, C. 2000. Das Egibi-Archiv: Die Felder und Garten, Vol. 1, Cuneiform Monographs 20a. Groningen: Styx.CrossRef Google Scholar

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

Zadok, R. 2003. ‘The representation of foreigners in Neo- and Late Babylonian legal documents (eighth through second centuries BCE)’ in Lipschits, O. and Blenkinsopp, J. (eds.), Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, pp. 471–589.CrossRef Google Scholar