Orientalische Religionen in der Antike

Ägypten, Israel, Alter Orient

Oriental Religions in Antiquity

Egypt, Israel, Ancient Near East

(ORA)

Herausgegeben von / Edited by

Angelika Berlejung (Leipzig)
Nils P. Heeßel (Marburg)
Joachim Friedrich Quack (Heidelberg)

Beirat / Advisory Board

Uri Gabbay (Jerusalem)
Michael Blömer (Aarhus)
Christopher Rollston (Washington, D.C.)
Rita Lucarelli (Berkeley)

40
New Perspectives on Aramaic Epigraphy
in Mesopotamia, Qumran, Egypt,
and Idumea

Proceedings of the Joint RIAB Minerva Center

and the Jeselsohn Epigraphic Center
of Jewish History Conference

Research on Israel and Aram in Biblical Times II

Edited by
Aren M. Maeir, Angelika Berlejung,
Esther Eshel, and Takayoshi M. Oshima

Mohr Siebeck
Aren M. Maeir is a full professor of archaeology at the Department of Land of Israel Studies and
Archaeology, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel.

Angelika Berlejung is a professor for Old Testament Studies at the University of Leipzig, Germany,
and professor extraordinaire for Ancient Near Eastern Studies at the University of Stellenbosch,
South Africa.

Esther Eshel is an associate professor of Bible and Epigraphy at the Department of Land of Israel
Studies and Archaeology and the Department of Bible, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel.

Takayoshi M. Oshima is a privatdozent at the Altorientalisches Institut, the Faculty of History, Art,
and Area Stuides, of the University of Leipzig, Germany.

ISBN 978-3-16-159894-4 / eISBN 978-3-16-159895-1

DOI 10.1628/978-3-16-159895-1
ISSN 1869-0513 / eISSN 2568-7492 (Orientalische Religionen in der Antike)
The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed
bibliographic data are available at http://dnb.dnb.de.

© 2021 Mohr Siebeck Tübingen, Germany. www.mohrsiebeck.com

This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright
law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations and
storage and processing in electronic systems.
The book was printed on non-aging paper by Gulde Druck in Tübingen, and bound by Buchbinderei
Spinner in Ottersweier.
Printed in Germany.
 Table of Contents

ANGELIKA BERLEJUNG and AREN MAEIR

Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1

I. New Perspectives on Aramaic Epigraphy

in Mesopotamia, Qumran, and Egypt ............................................................ 3

FREDERICK MARIO FALES

Aramaic Epigraphy from Assyria: New Data and Old Issues ...................................... 5
YUVAL LEVAVI
The Interaction Between Eanna and the Sealand in the Neo-Babylonian Period ....... 17
RAN ZADOK
On the Arameans and the Indigenous Population in Babylonia from the Period
of the Neo-Babylonian Empire down to the End of the Sasanian Period .................. 34
DANIEL MACHIELA
The Aramaic Qumran Literature in Its Socio-Historical Setting ............................... 70
TAWNY L. HOLM
Nanay(a) Among the Arameans: New Light from Papyrus Amherst 63..................... 92
BEZALEL PORTEN
Papyrus Amherst 63: Rumination ............................................................................ 117

II. Idumean Ostraca ............................................................................................ 137

ANDRÉ LEMAIRE
The Fourth-Century BCE Aramaic Ostraca from Idumea: Problems and Tentative
Solutions .................................................................................................................. 139
ANDREW D. GROSS
Alexander of the Idumean Ostraca: Alexander III or Alexander IV? ...................... 165
RAN ZADOK
On the Documentary Framework, Terminology, and Onomasticon of the Ostraca
from Idumea ............................................................................................................ 179
VI Table of Contents

Index of Quoted Ancient Texts ............................................................................... 315

Index of Personal Names ......................................................................................... 317

Index of Divine Names ............................................................................................ 332

Index of Geographical Names ................................................................................. 333

Subject Index ........................................................................................................... 336

Index of Ancient Terms ........................................................................................... 341

Index of Modern Scholars ....................................................................................... 344

 Introduction
Angelika Berlejung and Aren M. Maeir

The volume presented here is the second in the series, “Research on Israel and Aram in
Biblical Times” (RIAB), in which research, conferences, and other activities of the
“Minerva Center for the Relations between Israel and Aram in Biblical Times” (ara-
misrael.org) are published. As in all activities of the RIAB Center, an attempt is made
to focus on research and perspectives that provide insights on understanding the rela-
tions between the cultures of ancient Israel and Aram, and in particular, the question of
the interdependence and/or autonomy of these two important cultures. No less signifi-
cant are the ramifications of this for a broader view of the interactions and influences
between various cultures in the ancient Near East, above and beyond those of Israel
and Aram.
In each of our conferences and workshops, we try to highlight a particular aspect of
the topic. Since our historical research depends mainly on written sources, we orga-
nized two events in 2017 and 2018, which were dedicated to the special character of
epigraphic sources that bear witness to the Arameans or to the Aramaic language
and/or scripts. It is generally known that these sources are very diverse in terms of
their temporal and spatial location as well as their social setting. For this reason, our
first event, in Israel, was primarily concerned with taking this diversity into account
and exploring it. It quickly became clear that the Aramaic texts known from Idumaea
are so special and so extensive, that they required a separate workshop, which was
then held in Leipzig the following year. Thus, the current volume includes papers
presented at these two different events.
The first event was a joint conference of the “Minerva Center for the Relations be-
tween Israel and Aram in Biblical Times” and the “Jeselsohn Epigraphic Center for
Jewish History,” of Bar-Ilan University (then directed by E. Eshel), which was held at
Bar-Ilan University in Ramat Gan, and the Israel Institute of Advanced Studies at the
Hebrew University in Jerusalem, on March 1–3, 2017. Among the papers delivered at
this joint conference, six are published in the first section of this volume. The paper by
Frederick Mario Fales discusses the fascinating issue of Aramaic inscriptions from
Iron Age Assyria, most importantly including new, recently published material. The
second contribution, by Yuval Levavi, concentrates on the complex relationship, offi-
cial and personal, between officials of the Bīt-Yakīn tribes of the “Sealand” region of
southern Babylonia, and officials of the Temple of Eanna in Uruk. Ran Zadok’s paper
in this section (he has a second contribution in the second section of this volume) dis-
cusses and provides extensive name lists of the Aramean and indigenous populations,
shedding light on their ongoing relations from the time of the Neo-Babylonian Empire
in the late Iron Age until the end of the Sasanian Empire in late Antiquity. Daniel
2 Angelika Berlejung and Aren M. Maeir

Machiela discusses the socio-historical settings of the Aramaic literature from Qumran
and places these Aramaic texts within the context of the use of Aramaic in general in
the region, more specifically in Jewish communities during the “Second Temple Peri-
od.” The important Mesopotamian deity Nanāy(a) is discussed by Tawny L. Holm.
She attempts to define this goddess, who appears in Papyrus Amherst 63 from Egypt,
in an unusual linguistic as well as socio-historical context. The final paper in this sec-
tion, by Bezalel Porten, discusses various aspects of this enigmatic Papyrus Amherst
63, including the history of its research, and whether or not the deity Bethel was ven-
erated by the Jews of Elephantine.
The last three articles of the volume include papers delivered at the workshop in
Leipzig, organized by Bezalel Porten, on the hundreds of unprovenanced Aramaic
ostraca from Idumea (southern Judah), dating to the late Persian and early Hellenistic
periods. This workshop was held on May 14, 2018 at the Sächsische Akademie der
Wissenschaften zu Leipzig, right before the beginning of the Third Annual Conference
of the “Minerva Center for the Relations between Israel and Aram in Biblical Times”
that was also held in Leipzig. In the first paper, André Lemaire discusses various in-
troductory issues relating to these ostraca. Andrew D. Gross’ paper focuses on a very
special problem: identifying which King Alexander is mentioned in the ostraca,
whether Alexander III or Alexander IV. The final paper, by Ran Zadok, provides an
in-depth discussion of various terms and the onomastics of the Idumean ostraca.
All told, the papers in this volume are a first attempt to provide a survey on the epi-
graphical dimensions covered by the research and activities of the “Minerva Center for
the Relations between Israel and Aram in Biblical Times.”
Finally, we would like to thank our two co-editors for the contributions. Esther
Eshel and the “Jeselsohn Epigraphic Center for Jewish History” generously assisted in
the funding of the joint meeting in Ramat-Gan and Jerusalem in 2017, and for the
costs of editing the volume. Takayoshi Oshima expertly edited the complex papers in
this volume, turning it into the attractive book that it is. We would also like to thank
our respective assistants, who helped in the organization of the meetings, including
Amit Dagan, Shira Albaz, Maria Eunikhina, and Vanessa Workman for Ramat-
Gan/Jerusalem (2017), and Laura Gonnermann, Felix Hagemeyer, Thomas Hackl, and
Meike Müller for Leipzig (2018), and finally, thanks to Bezalel Porten for suggesting
and inviting the participants of the workshop on the Idumean Ostraca held in Leipzig.
We are aware that this volume barely touches upon even an outline of the many as-
pects of Aramaic epigraphy, and we plan to explore this topic further in the years to
come. It is the editors’ hope that the present volume offers a survey of the diversity of
the sources – and of the continuous tension – between the unity and diversity of the
manifestations of Aramaic language over time and space, and that it will inspire the
reader to conduct further research.
I. New Perspectives on Aramaic Epigraphy in Mesopotamia,
Qumran, and Egypt

The Joint Annual Conference of the Minerva Center

for the Relations between Israel and Aram in Biblical Times
and the Jeselsohn Epigraphic Center for Jewish History

Held on March 1–3, 2017

at the Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan,
and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem
 Aramaic Epigraphy from Assyria

New Data and Old Issues*

Frederick Mario Fales

I. Discoveries of Aramaic Texts on Neo-Assyrian Clay Tablets in Syria

and Elsewhere

Recent years have seen, in almost all of Syria and Iraq, the dramatic interruption of
activities centered on international cultural cooperation – among which archaeological
excavations stand at the fore – due to conditions of outright warfare or of hostile occu-
pation of the territory. This dire contingency has of course forced many researchers
customarily bound to a yearly routine of some months “in the field” to stick to their
university libraries. It has resulted, however, on the positive side, in the publication of
the tail-end of a set of Aramaic alphabetic texts written on clay tablets of the Neo-
Assyrian period, deriving from official excavations or from illicit digging activities,
which had first appeared on the research scene in the 1990s.
This newly attained state of the art thus provides the occasion for updating a set of
conclusions on “multilingualism and multiple media in the Neo-Assyrian period,”
which I published in 2007.1 On the other hand, as the title of this paper implies, the
addition of newer and more complete data has, once all is said and done, brought only
sporadic novelties to the basically flimsy methodological and factual fabric that forms
“Assyro-Aramaic” research – even though one should not discount the altogether felic-
itous fact that its few frequent participants now display a more sophisticated and real-
istic approach to this subject-matter.
Let us start by reviewing the evidence itself: I am obviously forced here to negotiate
very rapidly and deftly among the essentials. In the first place, as is well known, the
Neo-Assyrian period has left us some 6,000 documents on clay tablets of so-called
“everyday” character/scope, from legal texts to administrative lists to letters, etc.2
Secondly, this corpus, made out in the cuneiform script of Neo-Assyrian date/type,
also comprises some evidence of Aramaic epigraphy in alphabetic script (and specifi-
cally, in an ad hoc “argillary” alphabetic ductus, which constituted a transition from

* The preliminary version of this paper was sent to the 2017 RIAB meeting, where it was read to
the audience by a colleague. I am very glad to be contributing here to the publication of the proceed-
ings, with many thanks to Aren Maeir and Angelika Berlejung for their friendly support.
1
FALES 2007.
2
For a history of Assyria viewed essentially from the perspective of the “everyday” documents of
the NA period, see FALES 2001.
6 Frederick Mario Fales

monumental to cursive sign-shapes).3 These instances of Aramaic are attested on tab-

lets mainly of the seventh century BCE from both public and private archaeological
contexts, both in the heartland of Assyria and in the outlying provinces. Thirdly and
finally, this alphabetically-written evidence may be typologically subdivided between
(a) so-called “endorsements,” i.e., texts of 1–2 lines on the margins of cuneiform legal
deeds, summarizing their contents, and (b) longer monolingual Aramaic “dockets,” 4
most frequently of a triangular shape but also in other formats, also prevalently of
legal content. Only a bare minimum of tablets presents a bilingual Assyrian/Aramaic
text in the two writing systems.5
How many Aramaic texts on clay tablets of the Neo-Assyrian period are at present
available? The last three decades have shown this sub-corpus to be in a constant state
of growth. In 2007, I reckoned the total to amount to some 200 texts: in this, I had
already doubled my previous count (FALES 1986) of barely a hundred exemplars,
which comprised the oldest-known texts from Nineveh, plus a smattering of evidence
from the other Assyrian capitals (and most notably M. Lidzbarski’s texts from Assur),
and – from the western part of the Assyrian Empire – the Tell Halaf Aramaic docu-
ments published by WEIDNER et alii in 1940.6 The 2007 count added a further number
of limited but interesting archives in Aramaic script from the western areas of the
empire, which had come to light during salvage excavations on the Upper Syrian Eu-
phrates during the nineties, from Til Barsip/Tell Aḥmar (published by Bordreuil and
Briquel-Chatonnet in 1996–97),7 and Burmarina/Tell Shiukh Fawqani (discovered by
myself and published in 2005)8 – together with the ever-present quota of random tab-
lets deriving from the antiquities market, assembled for publication by A. Lemaire.9
Already in the first decade of this millennium, however, a part of the finds in alpha-
betic script from the Berlin excavations at Dūr-Katlimmu/Tell Šēḫ Ḥamad on the
Lower Ḫabur had been made available by W. Röllig – viz. the 61 “endorsements”
appended to the Neo-Assyrian tablets published by K. Radner in 2002.10 And by that
same time, through introductory articles by E. Lipiński, a certain cognizance had al-
ready been reached of the 24 monolingual Aramaic tablets of Neo-Assyrian date from
an unidentified site called Maʼlanâ or Mallanate in antiquity, presumably from the
Upper Ḫabur region, which – despite their illicit origin – had been acquired en bloc by
the Royal Museums of Brussels.
The last few years have thus merely brought these two activities of publication to
their completion. In 2010, Lipiński presented the complete edition of his 24 Brussels
documents, together with a rich commentary, as the concluding volume of his trilogy

3
See LIEBERMAN 1968.
4
It may be recalled that, in British English usage, “docket” is a very broad term for “a document
listing the contents of a consignment or package” thus having as its (modern technical) synonyms
“coupon,” “voucher,” “certificate,” “receipt,” “label,” “tag,” etc.
5
See already FALES 2000; RÖLLIG 2000.
6
See FALES 1986.
7
BORDREUIL/BRIQUEL-CHATONNET 1996–97.
8
See nos. 45–63 in FALES et al. 2005, II, 652–67.
9
LEMAIRE 2001.
10
See RÖLLIG apud RADNER 2002, 23–24 (list) and passim (transliterations).
 Aramaic Epigraphy from Assyria 7

of Studies in Aramaic Inscriptions and Onomastics,11 and in 2014, Röllig gave his
complete edition of 220 texts and fragments (also comprising some ostraca) in alpha-
betic script from Tell Šēḫ Ḥamad.12 Thus, the total of Aramaic texts on clay tablets of
Neo-Assyrian date amounts at present to almost 500 documents, which is certainly not
a negligible sum in itself (since it represents almost 10% of all the “everyday” docu-
mentation from this period), and one on which a more extended discussion than was
possible before may be based.

II. Theoretical Issues of Language Definition:

Post-Old Aramaic, (Pre-)imperial Aramaic, or Neither of the Two?

The first issue to be tackled is one of historical-linguistic classification. These “Assyr-

ian Aramaic” documents on clay tablets, prevalently of legal character, may be dated
by and large after the fall of the independent Aramaic states in the Levant in the late
eighth century BCE and reflect homogeneously the use of written Aramaic for every-
day business purposes within areas of subsequent Assyrian political dominance – es-
pecially since they are consistently found alongside contemporaneous and partially
related “deeds and documents” couched entirely in Neo-Assyrian cuneiform signs.13
They are thus, from the combined viewpoint of (a) the writing media employed, (b) the
inter-textual relationships to which they give rise, and (c) the overall historical-cultural
context of their production, to be viewed as distinct from the corpus of texts which
may be assigned to the historical-linguistic bracket of “Old Aramaic.” This is based on
how Old Aramaic is generally defined – even in its broadest acceptation, which in-
cludes ninth/eighth-century evidence from the entire area of the Jazirah under (partial
or initial) Assyrian rule, such as the Tell Halaf “altar,” the Tell Fekheriye bilingual
inscription, and the trilingual inscription from Raqqa.14 That said, however, the issue
of whether our “Assyrian Aramaic” evidence should be regarded as an offshoot of Old
Aramaic itself, or as a forerunner of an Imperial Aramaic bracket, or actually as nei-
ther of the two, still leaves scholars somehow divided.
As was clarified by Margarete Folmer, the view that the official language of the
Achaemenid period stemmed ultimately from a variety originating in NW Mesopota-
mia, around the Baliḫ and Ḫabur rivers was first suggested by Stephen Kaufman15.
Somewhat similarly, Jonas Greenfield observed that what he called “Mesopotamian
Aramaic” was at least one of the sources of later Imperial Aramaic.16 Counter to this
approach, both Lipiński (2000) and Röllig (2000) invoke the influence of Old Aramaic

11
LIPIŃSKI 2010; see the critical comments on this work by FALES 2013b.
12
RÖLLIG 2014.
13
This applies also to the texts from Mallanate, where a parallel Assyrian archive, also kept in
Brussels, has only very recently been made available: cf. fn. 30, below.
14
I refer to the most recent treatise on the matter, viz. the grammar and anthology by FALES/
GRASSI 2016.
15
FOLMER 1995, 6; KAUFMAN 1974, 9.
16
GREENFIELD 1978.
8 Frederick Mario Fales

on subsequent developments in “Assyrian Aramaic” texts, mainly due to the fixed

notion that “Imperial Aramaic” was not formed before the Achaemenid Empire, or at
least not prior to the Neo-/Late Babylonian period. On the other hand, a number of
phonological and orthographic developments in our corpus do, arguably, indicate ave-
nues that will later be developed in Imperial Aramaic.
If, however, we abandon the stiff grid of West Semitic historical-linguistic classifi-
cation and take an approach from the wider sphere of (historical) sociolinguistics, we
may attain a more flexible view of “Assyrian Aramaic,” bringing to the fore what its
actual function might have been: viz. the particular form of Aramaic that came to be
used as a sort of secondary or parallel vernacular within the late Assyrian Empire.17 In
other words, the available textual evidence in Aramaic script on clay tablets should
have been merely “the tip of the iceberg” of a relatively diffuse utilization of Aramaic
as a written vehicle for “everyday” purposes within the social and economic mecha-
nisms of the Assyrian Empire – with a corresponding, and possibly much more diffuse,
spoken utilization of the West Semitic language acting as a wider theoretical backdrop.
At the end of the day, then, the most adequate definition of “Assyrian Aramaic” might
be exactly what this specific variety appears to have been: not necessarily the manifes-
tation of a lingua franca – in the sense of a progressively spreading language among
different peoples within a vast and multilingual geographical context, as might have
been the case in the later Achaemenid Empire – but rather as a more “rough-and-ready”
practical jargon, i.e. as a secondary and familiar variety which was employed along-
side the Neo-Assyrian dialect for certain day-to-day, utilitarian communicational pur-
poses.
The questions that this theoretical position opens up in its turn are of three distinct
orders. Firstly, should we understand these documents in Aramaic on clay tablets to
have the same legal worth as their counterparts in cuneiform script? Despite some
reservations on the matter expressed on formal grounds by Röllig (incomplete datings
by eponyms, reduced legal formulary, etc.), I would say that the ever-growing quantity
of the Aramaic evidence – which, e.g., in the case of Dūr-Katlimmu now more or less
matches, between “endorsements” and “dockets,” that of the Neo-Assyrian texts from
the same site – speaks in favor of a positive opinion on the matter, such as I have long
held. I would also add that we have absolutely no knowledge of the possible existence
of a local or regional (not to say, imperial) “notary bureau” that might have provided
the ultimate judgment on what was a legitimate private transaction or not – and that it
is thus entirely possible that the mere fact of giving rise to a written outcome would
have made these transactions in Aramaic legitimate and binding enough for all parties
concerned in view of their immediate business aims.
Moreover, as already long known – but at present with the addition of new data –
we are informed of the fact that Assyrian officialdom was aware already in the late
eighth century of a double standard of writing techniques (in Akkadian cuneiform
signs and Aramaic alphabetic script) in economic and juridical matters within the em-
pire, and thus proceeded to issue bronze weights with bilingual (Assyrian and Arama-

17
On the concept of vernacular languages in the Late Assyrian Empire, cf. BEAULIEU 2006.
 Aramaic Epigraphy from Assyria 9

ic) inscriptions to certify the official weight-standards already in use. 18 This fact
should, in itself, constitute sufficient evidence that the possibility of registering trans-
actions both in Assyrian cuneiform signs and Aramaic alphabetic script seems to have
been recognized, albeit perhaps not altogether enthusiastically, by the Assyrian Crown
for its last century of existence or more.
In addition to this, a number of occurrences of a parallel presence of “scribes”
dubbed as Aramayyu or Aššurayyu as registrars and witnesses of the legal documents
in cuneiform script has long been singled out as pointing to the two scripts in com-
monly accepted use at the same time. And a further number of indirect attestations in
Neo-Assyrian correspondence also indicate cases of bi-graphemical registrations,
whether dictated by custom or even demanded outright by the Imperial authorities. To
be sure, it was the joint activity of these two linguistically distinct scribal figures that
gave rise to the few remaining exemplars of fully bilingual legal documents on the
tablets described above. This could equally have been behind a much larger number of
double versions on variety of media, of which only the exemplars made on clay have
come down to us. More on this below.

III. The Partial Nature of the Evidence

The second question is wider and more complex: How should this – by now significant
– evidence for Aramaic script on Neo-Assyrian clay tablets be viewed vis-à-vis the
theoretical diffusion of Aramaic, as well as of other languages, within the later phase
of the Assyrian Empire? This point was tackled in my study on “multilingualism and
multiple media” of 2007,19 and not much has changed from the point of view of philo-
logically-based breakthroughs, although some new insights of a historical nature may
now be brought forth.
In general, texts written on various media and in different languages/scripts, such as
may be presumed to have formed the full gamut of “everyday” documentation in the
Assyrian Empire, have come down to us only in very small measure, although their
existence, on indirect grounds, is beyond all doubt. Beside the commonly employed
clay “tablet” (ṭuppu, nibzu, etc.) and other durable media (stone, metal) for ceremonial
purposes – as well as the apparently widespread use of wax-covered writing boards in
wood or ivory (called lēʾu), which were used prevalently for cuneiform script – we are
aware of niāru,“papyrus” (even in “rolls”, kirku), and of magallatu, “parchment,” as
regularly employed media for other writing systems.20 In sum, a mere glance at the
lexical record is sufficient to demonstrate the fact that writing surfaces of different
physical characteristics were employed by the Assyrian administration.
Now, back to the question raised above, albeit in modified terms: To what extent
should we grieve over the complete loss of the more perishable media (wax, papyrus,

18
See essentially FALES 1995; IDEM 2016; ZACCAGNINI 1999; READE 2018.
19
FALES 2007.
20
For the particular use of the terms dnt and ʾgrt in the Dūr-Katlimmu texts, cf. FALES et al. 2005,
611–12.
10 Frederick Mario Fales

and parchment) among the flames of Nineveh, not only per se but also by contrast to
the survival of the fair-sized cuneiform corpus of 6,000 texts from the Assyrian Em-
pire? Should we consider, as some have done, that a complete layer of Neo-Assyrian
textuality was entrusted to these non-durable media and that its loss thus represents the
main explanation for some acute gaps in our chain of evidence? Or should we consider,
to the contrary, that the overall record, which has come down to us on clay hardened
by the very same flames, still reflects – in a surely very diminished form but adequate-
ly from the point of view of its inner proportions – the “pros” and “cons” of an Assyri-
an imperial administration which surely recorded events abundantly on a day-to-day
basis, but on the other hand would seem to have kept its recordings in “archival” stor-
age for only limited periods of time? This question must remain for the moment unan-
swered, but it hovers “in the air” over Neo-Assyrian studies, since even the most well-
excavated sites of recent times (such as Dūr-Katlimmu) show quite irregular distribu-
tional patterns from the chronological and prosopographical viewpoint in the preserved
tablets issuing from their different loci of documentary retrieval.
Now for other languages in use within the same Assyrian Empire. Were the Egyp-
tian (Muṣurayyu) scribes who are also sporadically mentioned in the Neo-Assyrian
cuneiform texts merely employed to write out legal documents for their brethren resid-
ing in Assyria, or did/could they also couch diplomatic letters or treaty-documents
meant to be read in Memphis or Sais? And, on this same line of thought: Through
which means was communication established with the communities residing to the east
of the Tigris? Were the city-lords of the Medes, who were among the recipients of the
well-known adê of Esarhaddon in 660 BCE (but who, in fact, never showed up for the
vast public ceremony at Kalhu), also expected to receive a copy, or at least a summary,
of the proceedings in their own language?21 Or had their scribes been enculturated in
the use of cuneiform, like the Urartians? Or, instead, was Aramaic expected to suffice
for these communities as well, as some scholars have deduced from the meager and
controversial evidence of the inscription from Bukan (while others do not agree)?22
Alas, it would be very welcome to have a picture of vast scope of the scriptoria at the
Assyrian court such as we have for Late Bronze Age Ugarit, but the best I can do for
the moment is to suggest that the female singers and musicians of many different ori-
gins in Esarhaddon’s harem could have performed according to their individual cultur-
al and linguistic traditions, and that is all.23

IV. The Question of Ethnicity:

Who Was a Self-defined “Aramean” in Seventh Century BCE Assyria?

The third question hinges on the nature of Assyro-Aramaic linguistic and cultural
contact that emerges from the above. We can agree, as stated above, on the fact that

21
See FALES 2012.
22
See IDEM 2003; contra LIVERANI 2008.
23
FALES 2013, 64–66.
 Aramaic Epigraphy from Assyria 11

the two writing traditions seem to have fully and openly coexisted, and could have
been employed for various types of documents of private or official nature: not only
legal deeds, but also administrative records, and possibly letters (although the Assur
ostracon has still, since the 1930s, stood in splendid isolation). As for the many depic-
tions on Assyrian bas-reliefs – or even in a wall-painting from Til Barsip – of the two
officials standing side by side, facing foreign booty or prisoners, one writing on a
tablet with a stylus, the other one using a brush on a sort of roll or scroll, it is still
uncertain whether the latter was an alphabetic scribe, as believed by many, or instead a
war-artist, as has been long and vigorously maintained by Julian Reade.24
This said, however, it may be observed that nothing, either in writing or in the As-
syrian figurative record (especially palatial bas-reliefs), points to the fact that the
Aššurayyu and Aramayyu scribes belonged to two different communities, from any
point of view. What do I mean by this? If I may briefly hark back to a recent work of
mine in the form of three articles on “Ethnicity in the Assyrian Empire,” three conclu-
sions leap to the fore:
1. When Assyrian kings repeatedly state in their official inscriptions that, having
vanquished this or that enemy polity, they made the people “into” or “as” Assyri-
ans, this is not empty ostentation: the political concept of incorporating all con-
quered peoples into māt Aššur, literally “the land of Aššur,” by having them relin-
quish their previous ethno-political ties, and making them adhere to a unitary na-
tional project, based on palāḫ šarrūtiya, “reverential fear of my kingship,” was be-
hind this phraseology, as an inscription by Sargon II makes it abundantly clear.25
2. It may be shown that the last major application of the ethno-political definition of
“Arameans” in Neo-Assyrian texts concerned the tribes on the lower Tigris and its
tributaries, who were progressively and systematically wiped out and/or deported
by successive Assyrian rulers between the late eighth and early seventh century.
After and beyond this, hardly any mention of “Arameans” survives within the geo-
graphical core of the Assyrian Empire, except for scribes (as seen above, relevant
to language/script) and for some items of material culture (relevant to tradition: e.g.,
mutqītu Aramītu, “Aramean sweets”).26
3. Thus, if the search for a visible and recognized “Aramean” ethnicity in the Assyri-
an Empire of the seventh century were based exclusively on the linguistic aspect of
a number of personal names – such as was common in previous decades and still
has not completely died out – this would be as methodologically unsound as Don-
ald Trump’s biased request for Barack Hussein Obama’s US birth certificate. Just
as Obama, bearing a Kenyan name, is an American – and would not have become

24
See READE 2012. In the light of this ongoing debate, the theoretical possibility that, e.g., the
enormous war-booty taken by Sargon II from the temple and palace of Muṣaṣir and recorded in the
100-some lines of this king’s Eighth Campaign account, could have been written out also on an Ara-
maic list – as might be resumed from the depiction of the two officials on the relevant bas-relief –,
cannot be upheld with certainty one way or another.
25
FALES 2015.
26
IDEM 2017.
12 Frederick Mario Fales

POTUS otherwise – these people were Assyrians tout court; whether of high or
low status, whether operating in the countryside or in the palace, they were under
the authority of the Assyrian state, even though they were allowed to keep tradi-
tional monikers (perhaps alongside Assyrian ones) with reference to their religious
beliefs of long standing.27

V. How Widespread Were “Arameophones”

in the Various Areas/Provinces?

In this light, how are we to reach a picture, however vague, of the degree of “Arame-
ophony” within the Assyrian population? The names themselves do, in point of fact,
indicate that Aramaic linguistic-cultural realities, or at least remnants thereof, perme-
ated the empire far and wide, especially in the north-western Jezirah of ancient Ara-
mean settlement, alongside a number of other similar components, from Phoenician to
Hebrew to Egyptian to Median, etc. Also, a number of Aramaic loanwords crop up at
random within the Neo-Assyrian letters; and although their overall number has been
recently cut down realistically, they nonetheless exist and appear to be rooted in the
Neo-Assyrian Sprachgut. Just to give a few examples: (1) it is plausible that the fre-
quent notation in Neo-Assyrian sale documents regarding real estate, whereby a spe-
cific piece of property is described as being GAB.DI one or more other plots – and
thus obviously “adjacent” to them – should refer back to Aramaic gb dy, “(by) the side
of”; (2) the alternative name (but possibly the surname) of the military base of Dur-
Katlimmu on the Hābūr was Magdālu, Aramaic for “observation point, fortress”; (3) in
one and the same text from Assur regarding the sale of a house, the sign-complex É-
TU5 proves to correspond to the syllabically written word tuanu, which refers back to
Aramaic twn, “inner room; room; chamber.” These cases, with a number of others,
give rise to the conjecture that, at the very least, and especially at the level of day-to-
day communication, a generalized form of mutual interference between Neo-Assyrian
and Aramaic may have been in widespread use.28
As is well known, the accepted formulation of the particular type of linguistic inter-
action between Assyrian and Aramaic on the part of Semitists and Assyriologists alike
is for the moment that of an Assyro-Aramaic symbiosis, which should be framed with-
in a scenario of intense and ever-increasing contact between the two linguistic-cultural
communities (albeit with, respectively, a “dominant” and a “secondary” member). But
this still tells us nothing of the man on the street in Nineveh or Harran, in his undoubt-
edly varying class and professional affiliations. And, we might even ask, if the pres-
ence of our small but not negligible mass of private business contracts in Aramaic
alphabetic script could, paradoxically – but perhaps only so at first sight – indicate
some sort of social or psychological extraneity of the contemporaneous cuneiform

27
FALES 2018.
28
CHERRY 2017.
 Aramaic Epigraphy from Assyria 13

texts in Neo-Assyrian script and language, perhaps even some covert reaction to their
juridical and political background status.
A quite different question may be raised, instead, for the higher-level social sectors
that were daily exposed to the official language of the empire (e.g., palace or provin-
cial personnel). Did the habitual Aramaic speakers of these “privileged” sectors limit
themselves to code-switching in view of specific social circumstances (such as many
immigrants of the recent past and present are used to doing as second nature, between
their original language and that of the country of destination), or had they already
begun to develop a form of mixed idiom – also in view of the relative contiguity be-
tween the two languages – which may be variously defined, both “pidgin” and “creole”
being inadequate? In a nutshell: Did “Assaramian,” a neologism which I coin on the
basis of the modern case of “Spanglish,” exist? Did the historical personification of
“the wise Ahiqar” – who could have recalled the court exorcist Adad-šumu-uṣur or
someone quite like him – speak it? Or did he, when “out of office,” cultivate with
some relish the niceties of Aramaic, much as the members of the ruling class of nine-
teenth-century Ottoman Istanbul enjoyed speaking French and Arabic among them-
selves, looking out to the Bosphorus? It is to be hoped that these questions may, to
some extent, be answered in the future.

VI. The Latest Published Collections of Aramaic Texts on Clay Tablets:

What Do They Show?

Moving toward my conclusions, I would like to cast a quick glance over the two newly
published collections of clay tablets with Aramaic texts of which I spoke at the begin-
ning of this paper. The Tell Šēḫ Ḥamad/Dūr-Katlimmu collection is extremely well
copied and photographed and has been investigated with the masterly competence that
we have come to associate with Wolfgang Röllig’s scholarly endeavors. To give a very
succinct judgment, despite Röllig’s great philological ability, he had to deal with doc-
uments on clay of quite poor quality, which tended to crack easily, or at minimum had
produced fissures on the surface, thus obscuring the sign-shapes; the same problem
occurred during my work at Tell Shiukh Fawqani, and thus may perhaps be related to
the very nature of “western” clay deposits, vis-à-vis the better preserved exemplars
from Nineveh and Assur. Further – interestingly enough – this physical shortcoming
seems to have particularly affected the triangular dockets that were built around knot-
ted string, thus leaving pockets of air, whereas the parallel cuneiform texts, which
were formed in a compact mass of clay, showed many fewer problems of this type.
To sum up: Röllig was able to read and understand fully what was legible, and/or to
supplement missing parts with standard or topical integrations, but some cases, rele-
vant to less well documented textual typologies (thus possibly leading to new results),
fatally seem to require further work. On the other hand, Dūr-Katlimmu has also yield-
ed interesting cases of brief inscriptions on jars, with measures of the contents, and a
few legible stamp seals, which increase our knowledge of the typology of the relevant
14 Frederick Mario Fales

iconography and inscriptions. (These are too often tied to materials deriving from the
antiquities market, as is well known). 29
Instead, the case of the texts from an unknown location (possibly on the Upper
Ḫabur) called Ma’lanâ or Mallanate, acquired in 1972 en bloc by the Brussels Muse-
ums is more complex, and not only because the archaeological context of the docu-
mentation is lacking and the parallel corpus in Neo-Assyrian has only very recently
been made fully available after a preliminary foray by the late Paul Garelli.30 The main
problem in the legibility of these Aramaic materials could have been tied once more to
the clay used for the texts: in slightly embarrassed tones, the master Semitist Edward
Lipiński was forced to admit (2010, 2) that a cleaning and baking process of the tablets,
undertaken at the British Museum in London early after their acquisition, yielded a
very negative outcome, and that he and his collaborators were thereafter forced to
copy the texts in a composite way, by blending the data of the tablets after baking and
those drawn from previous photographs and copies.
For this or for possibly other reasons, Lipiński’s edition carries just a single photo-
graph of the tablets he publishes, and we are thus otherwise forced to rely exclusively
on his hand-copies. Moreover, in a book written in a “late style” – as Edward Said
(2006) would have said – Lipiński seems to be able to do no better than to reject any
alternative hypothesis for reading and interpretation, even heaping some invective on
the suggestions of others, and to reproduce verbatim of his earlier versions, despite the
overall Unwahrscheinlichkeit of some of them.
At the very end, once again, the standard formats and typologies of the Ma’lanâ/
Mallanate texts yield clear interpretations, while deviant formulae or contents remain
obscure: for very different reasons than in Röllig’s publication, we know what we
already knew, but can make only very small steps forward towards what we did not
(and still do not) know. It must be admitted, on the other hand, that some of Lipiński’s
findings on these texts (2010, passim) bear out small innovations in legal terminology,
which could go back to a purely Aramaic juridical tradition, extraneous to Mesopota-
mian models, and this is surely a very interesting theme, which deserves further con-
sideration.31
To sum up: there is very much we still do not know regarding communication in the
Assyrian Empire on two major counts – writing practices on different media and writ-
ten/oral expression in different languages. One point is, however, to be underscored: It
will be quite difficult to solve the issue of archival recordings in varying
scripts/languages as concerns later “world” empires of the ancient Near East until the
Neo-Assyrian evidence in all its varieties has been made to yield its full historical
potential on this matter.

29
RÖLLIG 2014, 226–62.
30
GARELLI 1997; HOMÈS-FREDERICQ/GARELLI 2018.
31
See FALES 2013b.
 Aramaic Epigraphy from Assyria 15

Bibliography
BEAULIEU, P.-A. (2016): Official and Vernacular Languages: The Shifting Sands of Imperial and
Cultural Identities in First Millennium B.C. Mesopotamia, in: S.L. SANDERS (ed.), Margins of
Writing, Origins of Cultures, Chicago, IL, 187–216.
BORDREUIL, P./F. BRIQUEL-CHATONNET (1996–97): Aramaic Documents from Til Barsib, Abr-
Nahrain 34, 100–107.
CHERRY, Z. (2017): Aramaic Loanwords in Neo-Assyrian 900–600 B.C., Uppsala.
FALES, F.M. (1986): Aramaic Epigraphs on Clay Tablets of the Neo-Assyrian Period, Rome.
– (1995): The Assyrian Lion-Weights, in: K. VAN LERBERGHE/A. SCHORRS (eds.), Immigration and
Emigration Within the Ancient Near East: Festschrift E. Lipiński, Leuven, 33–55.
– (2000): The Use and Function of Aramaic Tablets, in: G. BUNNENS, Essays on Syria in the Iron
Age, Louvain/Paris/Sterling, VA, 89–123.
– (2001): L’impero assiro: Storia e amministrazione (IX–VII sec. a.C.), Rome/Bari.
– (2003): Evidence for West-East Contacts in the 8th Century BC: The Bukān Stele, in: G.B.
LANFRANCHI/M. ROAF/R. ROLLINGER (eds.), Continuity of Empire (?): Assyria, Media, Persia,
(History of the Ancient Near East/Monographs V), Padua, 131–48.
– (2007): Multilingualism on Multiple Media in the Neo-Assyrian Period: A Review of the Evi-
dence, SAAB 16, 95–122.
– (2012): After Ta‘yinat: The New Status of Esarhaddon’s adê for Assyrian Political History, RA
106, 133–58.
– (2013a): Ethnicity in the Assyrian Empire: A View from the Nisbe, (I): Foreigners and “Special”
Inner Communities, in: D.S. VANDERHOOFT/A. WINITZER (eds.), Literature as Politics, Politics
as Literature: Festschrift Peter Machinist, Winona Lake, IN, 47–75.
– (2013b): Review of Lipiński, Ma’lana, BiOr 70, 204–10.
– (2015): Ethnicity in the Neo-Assyrian Empire: A View from the Nisbe (II): “Assyrians,” in: M.G.
BIGA/J. CORDOBA et al. (eds.), Homenaje a Mario Liverani, ISIMU 11–12, 183–204.
– (2016): The Assyrian Lion-Weights: A Further Attempt, in: P. CORÒ et al. (eds.), Libiamo ne’ lieti
calici: Festschrift Lucio Milano, Münster, 483–503.
– (2017): Ethnicity in the Neo-Assyrian Empire: A View from the Nisbe (III): “Arameans” and
Related Tribalists, in: Y. HEFFRON/A. STONE/M. WORTHINGTON (eds.), At the Dawn of History:
Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honour of J.N. Postgate, Winona Lake, IN, 133–79.
– (2018): The Composition and Structure of the Neo-Assyrian Empire: Ethnicity, Language and
Identities, in: R. ROLLINGER (ed.), Conceptualizing Past, Present and Future, Münster, 443–94.
FALES, F.M./G.F. GRASSI (2016): L’aramaico antico, Udine.
FALES, F.M./K. RADNER/E. ATTARDO/C. PAPPI (2005): The Assyrian and Aramaic Texts from Tell
Shiukh Fawqani, in: L. BACHELOT/F.M. FALES (eds.), Tell Shiukh Fawqani 1994–1998, Vol. II,
(History of the Ancient Near East/Monographs VI), Padua, 595–694.
FOLMER, M. (1995): The Aramaic Language in the Achaemenid Period, Leuven.
GARELLI, P. (1997): Les archives inédites d’un centre provincial de l’empire assyrien, in: K.R.
VEENHOF (ed.), Cuneiform Archives and Libraries, Istanbul, 241–46.
HOMES-FREDERICQ, D./P. GARELLI (2018): Maʻallānāte, Archives d’un centre provincial de l’empire
assyrien, (Akkadica Suppl. XIII), Brussels.
GREENFIELD, J. (1978): The Dialects of Early Aramaic, JNES 37, 93–99.
KAUFMAN, S.A. (1974): The Akkadian Influences on Aramaic, Chicago, IL.
LEMAIRE, A. (2001): Nouvelles tablettes araméennes, Geneva.
LIEBERMAN, S.J. (1968): The Aramaic Argillary Script in the Seventh Century, BASOR 92, 25–31.
LIPIŃSKI, E. (2000): The Aramaeans: Their Ancient History, Culture, Religion, (Orientalia
Lovaniensia Analecta, 180), Leuven.
– (2010): Studies in Aramaic Inscriptions and Onomastics, Vol. III: Ma’lana, (Orientalia
Lovaniensia Analecta, 200), Leuven.
16 Frederick Mario Fales

LIVERANI, M. (2008): Shamshi-ilu, Ruler of Hatti and Guti, and the Sefire and Bukan Steles, in:
W. DAHMASH et al. (eds.), Scrittiti in onore di Biancamaria Scarica Amoretti, Rome, 751–62.
RADNER, K. (2002): Die neuassyrischen Texte aus Tall Šēḫ Ḥamad, (BATSH 6), Berlin.
READE, J.E. (2012): Visual Evidence for the Status and Activities of Assyrian Scribes, in: G.B.
LANFRANCHI et al. (eds.), Leggo! Festschrift Frederick Mario Fales, Wiesbaden, 699–717.
– (2018): Assyrian Weights and Money, SAAB 24, 125–94.
RÖLLIG, W. (2000): Aramäer und Assyrer: Die Schriftzeugnisse bis zum Ende des Assyrerreiches, in:
G. BUNNENS (ed.), Essays on Syria in the Iron Age, Louvain/Paris/Sterling, VA, 177–87.
– (2014): Die aramäischen Texte aus Tall Šēḫ Ḥamad/Dūr-Katlimmu/Magdalu, (BATSH 17), Wies-
baden.
SAID, E. (2006): On Late Style, London/New York.
ZACCAGNINI, C. (1999): The Assyrian Lion Weights from Nimrud and the ‘Mina of the Land,’ in:
Y. AVISHUR/R. DEUTSCH (eds.), Michael: Historical, Epigraphical and Biblical Studies in Honor
of Prof. Michael Heltzer, Tel Aviv-Jaffa, 259–65.
 The Interaction between Eanna and the Sealand
in the Neo-Babylonian Period*
Yuval Levavi

The southern Babylonian territory known as the Sealand (Māt-tâmti) has somewhat of
a bad reputation. It is often thought of as a traitorous land: the marshes that are the
birthplace of (successful) usurpers and (less successful) rebels. While this view is not
entirely unfounded, as numerous rulers from the Neo-Assyrian Sargonids to Saddam
Hussein would agree, it is a gross simplification.
The present contribution examines the interaction between the Sealand officials and
their Urukean colleagues at the Eanna temple during the Neo-Babylonian period (626–
539 BCE). Primarily, this will be based on the administrative letters from the archive
of Eanna, Ištar’s temple in Uruk, which provide us with a unique and unmediated
perspective on the personal and institutional interactions in southern Babylonia.

I. The Sealand1

Although its exact borders cannot be drawn, the Sealand stretched from its southern
point in the Gulf up north towards Uruk.2 In fact, during the second and early first

*
This paper is based on a presentation titled Personal Interaction between Neo-Babylonian Bu-
reaucrats in the South, given in the conference The Benefits of Office: Privilege and Loyalty in the
Ancient Mediterranean World held in Amsterdam (May 30, 2017). I would like to thank the Kristin
Kleber, who organised the conference. My talk in the annual RIAB conference in Bar Ilan (March
2017), Between Names and Titles in Neo-Babylonian Administrative Letters, forms a substantial part
of a paper that is to appear in Akkadica Supplementum; see LEVAVI forthcoming. I would thus like to
thank Aren Maeir for accepting this contribution for the present volume, as well as to Shana Zaia for
her useful notes and suggestions regarding this paper. All views and errors are naturally my own.
Abbreviations used in this paper follow A.L. OPPENHEIM et al. (eds.), The Assyrian Dictionary of the
Oriental Institut of the University of Chicago, Chicago/Glückstadt 1956–2010. In addition, SbB =
Spätbabylonische Briefe. Texts marked with SbB 2 numbers refer to editions in LEVAVI 2018. Filia-
tions are rendered as: personal name/father’s name//family name. In translation: [ ] = broken and/or
restored text; /…/ = skipping text that exists on the tablet (but is not relevant for discussion); ( ) =
author’s clarifications.
1
The studies of Brinkman (1968; 1984) and Frame (1992; 2013) cover the political history of the
Sealand. The works of Beaulieu (2002; 2013), Kleber (2008, 311–32), and Jursa (2010, 91–95) focus
more on socio-economic issues. The following survey is based on these studies.
2
Encompassing the Gulf area meant that the Sealand was a key overland trade route junction as
well as a seaport. This is indeed reflected in the long-distance trade commodities mentioned in the
Eanna archive, which entered via the Sealand (JURSA 2010, 102).
18 Yuval Levavi

millennium BCE, Uruk was considered part of the Sealand. This, as we will see below,
was no longer the case during the Neo-Babylonian period, although the mutual history
and certainly the geographic proximity played an important role all throughout the first
millennium. As for topography, while the wetlands did dominate the Sealand land-
scape, it was by no means just one big eerie swamp. The Eanna archive testifies to a
large-scale production of grain in the Sealand, which cannot be cultivated in marshes.3
Indeed, several walled settlements are depicted in the Balawat (ancient Imgur-Enlil)
gates of Shalmaneser III.4 Furthermore, the Eanna archive shows that the main urban
center in the Sealand was called Madagalšu, which probably served as the base for the
governor of the Sealand. Whether or not it was also the site of the main cultic center of
the province, the temple of Amurru, is unknown.5
During the Neo-Assyrian period, the Sealand was known as the territory of the
Chaldean tribe of Bīt-Yakīn. Thus, for example, when Tiglath-pileser sets the southern
border of his kingdom he speaks of the sea of Bīt-Yakīn, referring to the Persian Gulf.6
The constant clashes with the Assyrian kings, however, especially the Sargonids,
weakened this Chaldean tribe and the name Bīt-Yakīn is attested only twice during the
late Neo-Assyrian period (689–626 BCE).7 In fact, during the Neo-Babylonian period,
the name Bīt-Yakīn is completely unattested in cuneiform records.8 In the time-frame
which is at the focus of this paper, the term Sealand refers to a political/administrative
entity within Babylonia rather than to the home of a specific tribe or to the geograph-
ical area. Simply put, it was the southernmost province of Babylonia. The fact that the
name of Bīt-Yakīn falls out of use probably had more to do with political/ideological
and possibly cultural factors, than an actual demographic shift.9
While the historical association between Uruk and the Sealand goes back to the se-
cond millennium BCE, during the Neo-Babylonian period there may have been addi-

3
JURSA 2010, 91.
An interesting case regarding a field in the Sealand is found in (BIN 1, 34 = SbB 2, 52). The letter is
discussed below as it relates to several aspects of the Sealand-Eanna relations. Here, I would only
mention the end of the letter in which the deputy of the Sealand writes to his Eanna-based addressee,
“If you don’t know the saffron field, it’s called ḫurzu-ḫurzi.” This seems to refer to the local name of
the field, which may be derived from Aramaic ḥrzy, “prickly.” This may be a rare reference to the
local language spoken in the Sealand. For Chaldean onomastics and toponyms see ZADOK, 2013.
4
See FRAME 2013, 101f. fig. 2–4 with further literature.
5
The Amurru temple is probably the one to which the governor of the Sealand refers in his letter
to the temple administrator (šatammu) and temple scribe of Eanna; YOS 3, 154 (= SbB 2, 39). The
governor states that the addressees should take care of service of the Eanna (maṣṣarta ša Eanna lā
tašēlā), as well of service of the temple of his gods (maṣṣarta ša bīt ilīya uṣrā). Since the second
temple is clearly not the Eanna, the best candidate would be the Amurru temple in the Sealand.
6
TADMOR/YAMADA 2011, nos. 47: 3, 51: 3, 52: 3.
7
FRAME 1992, 40.
8
Note, however, that other Chaldean tribes such as Bīt-Awkāni, Bīt-Dakkūri, and Bīt-Silāni con-
tinue to be used throughout the Neo-Babylonian period; see BEAULIEU 2013.
9
To the best of my knowledge, there is no textual or archaeological data supporting a change in
the Sealand’s population. The archaeological data regarding the Sealand area is scarce. For a general
overview see BRINKMAN 1984 with further literature, and see WRIGHT 1981 for the southern Iraq
(Eridu and Ur) archaeological survey.
 The Interaction between Eanna and the Sealand 19

tional aspects that tied the Sealand not only to Uruk, but possibly to the royal family as
well. Paul-Alain Beaulieu suggests that Nabopolassar’s family itself originally came
from the Sealand, and that Uruk was its power base. 10 It has also been suggested that
Nabopolassar was in fact the governor of Uruk under the Assyrian rule, and that once
he took over the Babylonian throne he appointed his son (and future king) Nebuchad-
nezzar as temple administrator (šatammu) of Eanna.11
The following letter, which was sent by a state official to the temple administrator
and the temple scribe of Eanna, exemplifies two important aspects of the Sealand
through the eyes of a contemporary Babylonian – the problematic topography and the
Sealand/Uruk affiliation:
I am sending Bēl-nāʾid to the Sealand regarding the šibšu-tax. (Since) he does not know the land, let
my brothers send with him a man who knows the roads (and) give him provisions.
(BIN 1, 11 = SbB 2, 35)

First, we can see that the Sealand was indeed perceived as a precarious land for outsid-
ers; the (unknown) state official cannot rely on his man to safely make the journey on
his own. Second, it is also clear to the writer that the Urukean addresses would be able
to supply his man with a guide who did know his way around the Sealand.

II. The Corpus

The Eanna archive is almost the sole source for information regarding the Sealand,
Sealand officials, and the Sealand-Uruk/Eanna 12 interaction during the Neo-Baby-
lonian period.13 Since the focus of this paper lies in the epistolographic sources, we
must first identify the letters within the Eanna archive that were sent by Sealand offi-
cials.
We can start with the five letters of the governor of the Sealand (1–5 in Table 1),
who is the only Babylonian official (other than the king) identifying himself in his
letters by his title šakin (māt) tâmti. Other officials present themselves by their first
name.14 Yet our extensive familiarity with the prosopography in the Eanna archive
allows us to identify at least one more Sealand official with certainty, the deputy

10
BEAULIEU 2002, 114. See also IDEM 1997; IDEM 1998, 198–201 for further discussion.
11
JURSA 2007, 131; IDEM 2014, 124
12
Unless stated otherwise, all Urukean officials discussed below were affiliated with the Eanna
temple. Given that all of the texts in our corpus come from the temple archive, non-temple personnel
from Uruk are almost completely unrepresented.
13
Other sources include the Hofkalender of Nebuchadnezzar (see fn. 27) and a few texts from
Larsa and Ur (see §V.B below). Earlier in the first millennium BCE we find many references to the
Sealand is the State Archives of Assyria as well some valuable sources in the so-called Governor’s
archive from Nippur; see COLE 1996. For a recent comprehensive treatments of the Sealand during
the second millennium BCE see BOIVIN 2018.
14
Filiation is rarely mentioned in the letters in general, and never in the introduction. On the ten-
dency of Neo-Babylonian scribes to address each other and third party individuals, as well to identify
themselves, by the first name, see LEVAVI forthcoming.
20 Yuval Levavi

(šanû) of the Sealand Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti (on whom see §VI.B below). Ten of his letters
to various high-ranking Eanna officials are known today (6–15); he is the sole sender
in nine of these letters and co-wrote the tenth with a certain Ṣillâ (10).

Table 1: “Sealand Letters”

Text SbB 2 No. Writer(s) Addressee(s)

1. YOS 21, 136 36 governor of the Sealand Marduk-šuma-uṣur
2. YOS 3, 154 39 governor of the Sealand Nabû-nādin-šumi + Marduk-ēṭir
3. YOS 21, 138 42 governor of the Sealand Nabû-nādin-šumi
Ninurta-šarra-uṣur + Nabû-nādin-šumi +
4. YOS 21, 139 43 governor of the Sealand
Marduk-ēṭir
5. YOS 21, 137 48 governor of the Sealand Nabû-balāssu-iqbi
6. TCL 9, 116 37 Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti Nādin (=Nabû-nādin-šumi)
7. TCL 9, 112 44 Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti Nādin (=Nabû-nādin-šumi)
8. YOS 3, 57 45 Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti Nabû-nādin-šumi
9. YOS 3, 60 46 Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti Nādin (=Nabû-nādin-šumi)
10. YOS 3, 80 47 Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti + Ṣillâ Marduk-ēṭir
11. YOS 21, 76 51 Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti Nādin (=Nabû-nādin-šumi)
12. BIN 1, 34 52 Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti Nādin (=Nabû-nādin-šumi)
13. YOS 3, 23 53 Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti Nabû-aḫḫē-iddin
14. YOS 21, 78 54 Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti Temple administrator
15. YOS 21, 77 55 Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti Šamaš-zēra-iqīša
16. BIN 1, 61 38 Marduk-nāṣir Nabû-nādin-šumi
17. GC 2, 401 41 Aḫḫēa Marduk-ēṭir
18. TCL 9, 118 50 Ṣillâ Nādin (= Nabû-nādin-šumi)
Amurru-udammiq + Nabû-nādin-šumi +
19. YOS 3, 18815 40 Nabû-zāqip
Marduk-ēṭir
20. YOS 21, 5 49 Aplāya Nabû-aḫḫē-iddin
21. BIN 1, 90 110 Aplāya + Zēria Nabû-mušētiq-udê
22. YOS 21, 56 18916 Marduk-zēra-ibni Aḫḫēa

Apart from adding to the prosopography of Sealand (e.g. the said Ṣillâ), these fifteen
letters have certain distinguishable palaeographical features.17 We are thus able to
identify seven additional letters as Sealand letters (16–22 in Table 1 above). These
seven letters were sent neither by the governor nor by his deputy, but rather by mid-
high-ranking Sealand officials, whom otherwise could only be identified as not of the
Eanna household.18 It is addressed to the temple administrator of Eanna, and the writer,

15
The writer of the letter is clearly not a temple official. The specific identification of this tablet
as a “Sealand letter,” however, is based on paleography, which cannot serve as definitive evidence on
its own at this point.
16
The letter cannot be assigned to the Sealand dossier with certainty. However, both Aḫḫēa (the
addressee) and Marduk-nāṣir (line 8) are most probably Sealand men, and the mention of Borsippean
goldsmiths and stone-carvers, affirms the letter’s setting in a wider “pan-Babylonian” context.
17
LEVAVI 2018, 152–54.
18
An additional letter, NCBT 11, which is to be published by Paul-Alain Beaulieu, probably be-
longs here as well. As I was not able to see the tablet, it is not listed above.
 The Interaction between Eanna and the Sealand 21

who invokes Amurru and Nabû in the greeting formula, was probably an official in the
Amurru temple in the Sealand.19
Also of relevance for our discussion are various Eanna letters in which the Urukean
writers mention the Sealand and/or its officials as third parties. I have listed most of
the known references in Table 2, though it must be stressed that this list cannot be
considered exhaustive.

Table 2: Letters Related to the Sealand

Text SbB 2 No.

A messenger sent from the north (possibly Babylon) to the
BIN 1, 11 35 Sealand. The sender, a state official, asks that the Eanna assign
him with a guide for the journey south.
A mid-rank Eanna official writes to the temple from his work
BIN 1, 41 176 assignment (possibly in the Sealand) and mentions the gover-
nor of the Sealand, with whom he is working at the moment.
The writer, who may be the future king Nabonidus, writes
NBDMich. 67 159 about a debt of Uruk20 and discusses the involvement of the
deputy of the Sealand in the matter.
YOS 3, 165 94 The deputy of the Sealand is mentioned in a broken context.
The writer reports to the temple administrator regarding barley
YOS 3, 36 – for some Sealanders, and mentions Amurru-šarra-uṣur, a canal
inspector (gugallu) of the governor of the Sealand.21
The writer reports to the temple of his encounter with discon-
YOS 21, 27 177 tent gardeners, among them, he specifies, were Sealanders (as
well as members of the Aramean Piqūdu tribe).
The writer is being detained by Amurru-(mu)kīn-apli, a canal
YOS 21, 33 – inspector (gugallu) of the governor of the Sealand22 due to
corvée workers (urāšu) that are to be sent to him.
A land of the governor of the Sealand located in Bīt-Awkāni is
YOS 21, 177 130
mentioned in a broken context.

III. Urukeans and Sealanders

Despite the interweaved history and geographic proximity, the traditional Babylonian
urban elite of Uruk, viz. members of the Eanna household, clearly distinguished them-
selves from the Sealanders and their West-Semitic tribal roots. Note for example YOS
21, 27 (= SbB 2, 177), in which a certain Bēl-uballiṭ reports back to the temple admin-
istrator and the temple scribe about problems he is having when facing some discon-

19
JURSA 2010, 94.
20
Though the debt is said to be of (the city of) Uruk (kaspu mala ša ina muḫḫi Uruk), and not of
the Eanna temple, the latter would make better sense in the context.
21
This is Amurru-šarra-uṣur/Ḫašdāyu, who is not the father of Amurru-(mu)kīn-apli/Amurru-
šarra-uṣur (see fn. 22) but a relative of the latter. See JANKOVIĆ 2013, 59; 127–28; KLEBER 2008, 105.
22
This is Amurru-(mu)kīn-apli/Amurru-šarra-uṣur. See JANKOVIĆ 2007; IDEM 2013, 59; 127–28;
KLEBER 2008, 105.
22 Yuval Levavi

tent farmers. The writer, Bēl-uballiṭ, is an Eanna official who was sent by the temple
to supervise several groups working in the fields away from Uruk. In the background
of the letter was apparently the re-allotment of land from sharecroppers (errēšu) to
temple plowmen (ikkaru), a decision to which the sharecroppers understandably ob-
jected. Bēl-uballiṭ describes his run-in with this angry mob as follows:
The protesters (lúma-ḫi-ṣi)23 carried [sti]cks; there were Piqūdeans and Sealanders among them. I told
them, “Go to the temple administrator and the temple scribe,” but they did not accept it.
(YOS 21, 27 = SbB 2, 177)

The fact that in his account of his confrontation with the sharecroppers the Urukean
writer specifically identifies them as Piqūdeans and Sealanders may point to somewhat
of a bad reputation these tribesmen had in his Urukean eyes.24 Even if one rejects read-
ing a negative undertone in these words, both the writer and the addressees undoubted-
ly viewed them as others.
A rare glimpse into the Sealand perspective can be seen in one of the letters of
Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti, the deputy of the Sealand, to the temple administrator of Eanna. In
this letter the deputy of the Sealand replies to a request made by the Eanna temple to
make use of a certain plot of land.
If I were to distribute (the field) without reporting it, [the Sea]land (people) will say, “Did Nādin (i.e.
the addressee) distribute it as a (personal) favor, or did you distribute the taken (land)?” The
Urukeans, (on the other hand), will say, “Did Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti (i.e. the writer) [distrib]ute (it) as a
(personal) favor, or is it the [word] of the king?” (BIN 1, 34 = SbB 2, 52)

The vivid description of the Sealanders and the Urukeans’ imagined reaction to the
hypothetical distribution of a field to the other side reminds us of the kind of hostili-
ty/rivalry usually found between two closely-related but distinct groups. In fact, this
subtle hostility may indeed have been more folk-like in nature. As we shall see bellow,
the upper echelons of both Uruk and the Sealand were able to maintain positive and
fruitful interaction both on the personal as well as the professional level.

IV. Basic Administrative Structure and Hierarchy

IV.A. Sealand
Three main Sealand office holders attest in the Eanna archive: the governor of the
Sealand (šakin (māt) tâmti), the deputy (šanû), and the royal resident (qīpu). In the
letter corpus, however, only the governor and his deputy are attested and there is no
mentioning of the royal resident of the Sealand. As I have argued elsewhere,25 the

23
The translation of lúma-ḫi-ṣi as “protestors” is speculative. C.f. Jursa’s translation “woodcutters,”
JURSA 2010, 94 and “Holzfäller,” IDEM 2014, 81, though he notes that the translation is uncertain.
While both translations are certainly possible, I have argued elsewhere that the context seems to
favour “protestors,” LEVAVI 2018, 449.
24
JURSA 2010, 94, 101.
25
LEVAVI 2018, 156–58.
 The Interaction between Eanna and the Sealand 23

attestations of the deputy and royal resident of the Sealand in the Eanna archive refer
to the same official.26 Below I will, therefore, discuss only the governor and the deputy.
The governor of the Sealand was the highest non-palace official in the Neo-
Babylonian Empire.27 Other than the king, he is the only Babylonian official introduc-
ing himself in these letters by his title rather than his first name. This small but crucial
detail testifies to his superior status within Babylonia. Kristin Kleber has convincingly
shown that, in the Eanna archive, there are in fact there two titles which refer to the
governor of the Sealand; 1) šakin tâmti, “governor of the Sea(land),” and 2) šakin māti,
“governor of the (Sea)land.”28
In an epistolary context, the term šakin (māt) tâmti is used only by the governor of
the Sealand himself when introducing himself in his letters. All other attestations of
the office, when referred to by other officials, are of šakin māti. This clear-cut pattern
of differentiation between the two titles for the same office may point to the latter
being a colloquial term. When Eanna officials spoke of the governor,29 no further
specification was required, as it was clear that the governor of the Sealand is meant. A
similar phenomenon can be observed in references to the deputy of the Sealand.
Second in command to the governor stood the deputy (šanû, literally “second”) of
the Sealand. In the Eanna letters corpus, the local Urukean officials simply refer to
him as the deputy, never specifying that he is from the Sealand. Like in the case of the
governor of the Sealand, it was clear to the Urukean temple officials that the deputy
must refer to that of the Sealand. The letters show that the interaction of the deputy
and the Eanna were probably more intense than those of the governor, and we will see
below that these interactions had at times a personal aspect on top of a professional
one.

IV.B. Eanna
The Eanna temple was headed by the royal resident (qīpu), temple administrator
(šatammu), and temple scribe (ṭupšar bīti/ṭupšar ayakki).30 The royal resident was the
king’s representative in the temple. He was not a local Urukean, but was brought to the
temple by the state to supervise the obligation of the temple towards the crown. The
temple administrator and temple scribe, on the other hand, came from the local fami-
lies, the urban elite. The temple administrator was in charge of the overall daily opera-

26
For a possible solution to the one joint attestation of the two officials in Nbk 109, see LEVAVI
2018, 158.
27
This is illustrated by him being listed first among the magnates of the land who donated to the
building of Nebuchadnezzar’s palace in Babylon, Hofkalender vi*: 19´. See, recently, DA RIVA 2013,
213.
28
KLEBER 2008, 324–25.
Theoretically, lúgar kur could also be read lúšá-kìn (for šaknu); in the same way that the šanû (māt)
tâmti is often called simply šanû.
29
This refers to attestations of šakin māti. The title šakin ṭēmi is often translated as “governor” as
well, though in the context of the Eanna archive it refers to the governor (šakin ṭēmi) of Uruk.
30
For a discussion concerning these officials and their role and status in the Eanna temple, see
LEVAVI 2018, esp. 97–103.
24 Yuval Levavi

tion of the temple and the temple scribe can be broadly described in this period as his
second in command.

IV.C. Hierarchical Distance

While Uruk and Eanna were not considered part of the Sealand per se, it was clearly of
lower administrative status and the temple and its personnel were subordinate to the
Sealand.31 In the following letter, written by the royal resident of Eanna to a close
subordinate of his, we can see that even the highest official in the Eanna is somewhat
anxious regarding his obligation toward the governor of the Sealand:
Send me the oxen you said (you would); get them (here) so I could present it to the governor (of the
Sealand). My brother must not neglect [my] gift. (YOS 3, 179 = SbB 2, 164)

In another letter, the temple administrator is writing to two mid-rank Eanna officials:
I am delivering to you a message from the governor (of the Sealand), read (it and) keep (it). Do not
tarry (with) the silver I sent you (and) pay for the bows. (YOS 3, 170 = SbB 2, 86)

While, as the direct superior of the addressees, the temple administrator is not required
to explain his orders, the mere fact that he does is not surprising by itself.32 What is,
nonetheless, noticeable is the emphasis on the fact that the addressees should not only
carefully read the message but they must also keep it. Setting aside the interesting
archival aspect of what should or should not be kept, the context suggests that it is the
origin of the order, i.e. the governor of the Sealand, which makes the treatment of this
message so important to the temple administrator.

IV.D. Judicial Authority

The Sealand’s authority over Eanna naturally had a legal aspect. Thus, the governor of
the Sealand and other Sealand officials took part in judicial proceeding carried out in
Uruk.33 Moreover, the governor of the Sealand could at times preside cases alongside
the king. This is illustrated for example in a letter of the deputy of the Sealand to the
temple administrator of Eanna regarding a disputed land, of which the deputy writes:
You and I will litigate (ni-dab-bu-ub) before of the [king] and the governor (of the Sealand).
(BIN 1, 34 = SbB 2, 52)34

The deputy of the Sealand who sent this letter and the temple administrator of Eanna
who received it had an especially close personal relationship.35 That, in addition to the
way in which the deputy phrases his arguments throughout the letter, suggests that we
may not be looking at an official trial, but some kind of administrative mediation.

31
For previous literature see note 1.
32
It is not so uncommon even for high officials to address the context of their orders. On the hier-
archical interactions within the Eanna temple, see LEVAVI 2018, 120–40.
33
See KLEBER 2008, 329; BEAULIEU 2002, 113.
34
This letter was already quoted above and will further be discussed below (§V.B).
35
See §V.B below.
 The Interaction between Eanna and the Sealand 25

Whatever procedure is meant by the deputy, the judicial capacity of the governor of
the Sealand alongside the king in Babylon is clear.36

IV.E. Collaboration between Eanna and the Sealand

Much of the interaction between Eanna and the Sealand took place in the context of
the state-initiated building projects. Most of the references found in the letters are
generic in nature and the exact context eludes us. Thus, for example, a mid-rank
Sealand official writes to the temple administrator of Eanna regarding some temple
personnel:
The slaves (lamutānu), your servants (ardū-ka) who are here, they excavate … g[ive] them five iron
spades. Until the iron spades will be sent to the Sealand (however), they should carry on their work.
(TCL 9, 118 = SbB 2, 50)

The mentioning of excavations and iron spades suggest that the context of this letter is
the canal/irrigation system. This infrastructure demanded constant care and mainte-
nance, the responsibility for which was assigned by the state to local institutions. In
this case, we see that Eanna had such obligations in the Sealand itself. But the collabo-
ration between Eanna and the Sealand went beyond simply sending temple personnel
to the Sealand.37 Note for example the following letter sent by an Eanna official to the
royal resident, temple administrator, and temple scribe, his superiors:
Nanâ-iddin and the (temple’s) decurions were posted here at the disposal of the governor of the
Sealand. The (temple’s) overseer-of-serfs supplied Nanâ-iddin with workmen and entrusted him (over
them). /…/ Get that silver (for the workers) and send it. He, the governor of the Sealand, has given
the iron and bronze to the Lady-of-Uruk. (BIN 1, 41 = SbB 2, 176)

Here, we see that entire teams of the temple workforce are placed at the disposal of the
governor of Sealand. Note that unlike in TCL 9, 118 above, the workers’ tools and
materials are supplied by the Sealand, while the temple is responsible for their salaries.
A more complex illustration of this administrative system may be found in a letter
written by an Urukean official named Nabû-aḫa-iddin(/Nanâ-ēreš) to the temple ad-
ministrator. The deputy of the Sealand sent Nabû-aḫa-iddin along with two of his
Eanna colleagues, the chief priest (šangû) of the city of Eridu, and their assistants to
work on a building project (possibly the North Palace of Nebuchadnezzar in Babylon).

36
An in-depth study of the role of the king, and certainly of the governor of the Sealand, during
the Neo-Babylonian period is lacking. Interesting in this respect is SANDOWICZ 2018, in which she
examines the role of the governor of Babylon, (bēl) pī/āḫāt Babīli, in the early Persian period. As
noted by Sandowicz (2018, 35), one of the few visible administrative changes between the Neo-
Babylonian and the Persian periods is the disappearing of the office of the governor of the Sealand
and the establishment of the office of the governor of Babylon. Having said that, it must be stressed
that Sandowicz discussion regarding the governor of Babylon under the Persian regime cannot be
simply extrapolated onto the judicial role of the governor of the Sealand during the Neo-Babylonian
period.
37
The term lamutānu, translated here as slave(s), designated a person in a servile position
(KLEBER 2018, 453). It may be assumed that the said workers were not temple serfs (širku), as these
were usually identified as such (especially in this context), but their exact status remains unclear.
26 Yuval Levavi

Nabû-aḫa-iddin complains that the deputy’s orders concerning him and his compan-
ions were misread by the men working on the site, and thus they are not receiving their
salaries:
(Regarding) Aḫu-lūmur/Nabû-aḫa-ēreš, Nabû-aḫa-iddin/Nanâ-ēreš,38 Kudurru/Nabû-nāṣir, and Nabû-
ušallim the chief priest (šangû); the deputy (of the Sealand) wrote about us to Ša-Nabû-šū (as fol-
lows), “I’m sending you four commissioners (bēl piqitti) with their four assistants, forty minas of
silver, three reed-workers (and) five boats.” (Ša-Nabû-šū) read the message to (his fellow) freemen39
(as follows), “The chief priest of Eridu and the commissioners of the deputy /…/ and half a talent of
silver.” (And so he told them), “Don’t pay silver to the deputy’s (men).” /…/ He assigned us with
(only) one section of/for GIBI?, (which) is like suffocation. Send Iddin-Bēl with two minas of silver
(so) he’ll give (it to) us. Otherwise, we are (as good as) dead. The treasury official paid s[ilver] to all
the men, but he didn’t pay it to us; (saying), “I have (already) entrusted 1½ talent of silver to Nabû-
aḫa-iddin.” (BIN 1, 46 = SbB 2, 166)

Of the four commissioners sent by the deputy, the first three are known Eanna offi-
cials. Yet it is noticeable that they are not sent by the temple, but rather by the deputy
of the Sealand. The deputy also sends the chief-priest of Eridu with them, meaning
that the workforce combines at least these three southern institutions. Most important
in the present context is the way in which our three temple officials are addressed in
this letter. First, as noted, they were sent directly by the deputy of the Sealand rather
than by their own temple. Clearly, neither Nabû-aḫa-iddin (the sender) nor the temple
administrator (addressee) have any problem with this practice. Moreover, note that
when Ša-Nabû-šū reads the deputy’s message to his colleagues, he refers to the three
Eanna men as the deputy’s men. Again, there is no contention regarding this phrasing.
It is clear to both Nabû-aḫa-iddin and the temple administrator that, in this specific
context, these men are indeed under the Sealand’s authority.

V. Personal Aspects (Justifications and Explanations)

We have seen above that Eanna and the Sealand were closely tied together on both the
local and state levels. Mid- and high-ranking officials regularly interacted with each
other in Uruk, in the Sealand, and all over Babylonia (in the context of building pro-
jects). In all of these interactions the subordination of Eanna to the Sealand is relative-
ly clear. Unsurprisingly, however, given this constant contact, personal relationships
were formed along the years between certain officials at both ends. Examining phras-
ing and argumentation strategies in the letters allow us glimpses into some of these
relationships.40

38
Nabû-aḫa-iddin is the writer of this letter, and this is why he will next refer to “us” regarding
these four individuals.
39
“Freemen” refers here to the Akkadian mār banê, literally “man of good quality.” The mār
bane, however, is a notoriously difficult term to translate, for it bears both legal and social meanings
that cannot be incorporated in a single English term. For a recent treatment of first millennium mār
bane, see KLEBER 2018, 448–50.
40
For methodological aspects, analysis, and further examples of personal vs. formal argumenta-
tion in the letters, see LEVAVI 2018, 120–75.
 The Interaction between Eanna and the Sealand 27

The identification (and definition) of friendship in an administrative context, such

as the one we examine here, is extremely difficult.41 Still (2019, 131), following Beer
(2001), defines friendship as “a more or less informal social relationship, based on
choice, trust and voluntariness.” This can be quantified by measuring tie strength, viz.
looking at frequency, duration, multiplicity,42 and intensity of interaction.43 Given the
legal nature of his corpus (the private archives of Borsippean priests), Still focuses on
structural features rather than psycho-emotional aspects. The letters, however, are a
different source in this respect. The relatively small sample and oftentimes lack of
proper contextualization very much limit our ability to quantify crucial aspects.44 On
the other hand, unlike other archival sources, the letters allow us to address questions
of phrasing and argumentation. In other words, we may examine the way in which
writers frame their request/demand/report and perceive themselves vis-à-vis the ad-
dressee.

V.A. Examples from Letters of the Governor of the Sealand

Let us first look at two letters written by the governor of the Sealand in which we can
detect a personal undertone.45 In the first case, the governor asks the royal resident,
temple administrator, and temple scribe to send him quivers, wool, and garments for a
building project:
Quickly, 50 or 60 quivers should arrive (already) this year. Prepare … combed wool … and get them
to me. I have been looking after your duties for the (past) 15 years. (So) now, you take care of mine;
look after my duties regarding this building equipment. I wish of you neither silver nor gold; so do
not neglect [it]. I will notice (those) who will look after my [service]. (YOS 21, 139 = SbB 2, 43)

Some damaged lines at the beginning of the letter mention some stolen goods, and this
is probably the reason why the governor is in urgent need of this shipment. Acknowl-
edging that he is making a special request, the governor frames his argument in the
context of the long and fruitful relations he has with the three addressees (i.e. with the
temple), stressing that he has been looking after the duties/service (maṣṣartu) of the
addresses for 15 years.46 Although, as we have seen, the governor had clear authority
over the addressees, he refrains from giving a direct straightforward order. Instead, he
stresses the modesty of his request (“neither silver nor gold”), promising not to forget
their help in the future. While in another context, this latter note could also have been

41
The concept of friendship and the problem of capturing ties of intimacy in an administrative
context was recently dealt with by in STILL 2019; see especially the excellent methodological intro-
ductory in 130–34.
42
This aspect relates to diversity in form and context of the interpersonal ties.
43
STILL 2019, 133.
44
This mainly concerns intensity of interactions, yet, as we will see below in §VI.B, certain cases
do allow us to address multiplicity and duration.
45
Although, as noted, the governor identifies himself by title, the writer of both letters was proba-
bly Ea-dayyān. This is based on the office terms of his addressees. For Ea-dayyān, see BEAULIEU
2002.
46
On the meaning and use of maṣṣartu in Late-Babylonian epistolography, see LEVAVI 2018,
105–17.
28 Yuval Levavi

read as a threat, the overall phrasing of the governor’s letter makes it clear that this is
not the case.
The second case I mention here is less overt. The governor of the Sealand writes to
the temple administrator and the temple scribe about two Eanna officials and several
messengers who are working with him (probably in the Sealand):
Letter of the governor of the Sealand to Nabû-nādin-šumi and Marduk-ēṭir /…/ Up until now I have
personally withheld here Nanâ-ibni and Ardīya, along with all of the messengers. It is because they
have sworn an oath; they have been in my service. (YOS 3, 154 = SbB 2, 39)

Again, as the superior party in this interaction, the governor of the Sealand needs not
to explain himself to the addressees. Yet he stresses that it is he himself who is keeping
(anāku … akteli) their men from returning to the temple. Moreover, he explains that
the men swore an oath to be at his disposal, thus stressing their commitment to him,
and that the Sealand do not arbitrary hold Eanna personnel for no reason. The oath was
most probably given for this specific context and, once their work was done, the men
would return to their temple in Uruk.
Both examples represent routine interactions between the Sealand and Eanna. It is
important to bear in mind that the letters, by their very nature, present us with the
times things went slightly off plan; whether it is the tools that are required earlier than
expected, or temple officials who are delayed in returning from their work with the
governor. But the letters also reveal the point of view of their writers and the way they
perceived and framed the interaction. In the cases above, whether put forward in clear
words or hinted at by the phrasing and argumentation, we see that the governor of the
Sealand shares his needs and considerations with his addressees, interacting with tem-
ple officials as more than his simple subordinates.

V.B. Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti & Nabû-nādin-šumi

The interaction between the deputy of the Sealand Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti and the temple
administrator Nabû-nādin-šumi (aka Nādin) is as close as we get to friendship on the
inter-institutional level.47 Six of the ten letters of Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti known today (nos.
6–9, 11–13 in Table 1 above) were addressed to Nabû-nādin-šumi.48 This is the second
largest known exchange between two individuals in the Neo-Babylonian letter cor-

47
At the local level, i.e. within the same institute, we have better and more diverse documentation
concerning specific individuals. Furthermore, in epistolographic contexts, we also have the occasion-
al piggyback letters in which we find individuals sending their regards to their colleagues; see LEVA-
VI 2018, 132–34.
48
Unfortunately, we do not have any of Nabû-nādin-šumi reciprocal letters, as those would be
found in the Sealand archive and not in Eanna’s. Of the remaining four letters of Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti:
one is to Nabû-aḫḫē-iddin (no. 13), one to Šamaš-zēra-iqīša (no. 15), one to the temple administrator
by title (cannot be identified with certainty), and one letter is jointly written by Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti and
Ṣillâ to Marduk-ēṭir (no. 10).
 The Interaction between Eanna and the Sealand 29

pus.49 Let us first look at a letter concerning a sheep to be delivered from Eanna for the
royal ḫarû-offering:
The king will perform the ḫarû-offering from the 15th to the 16th day. Provide good-quality sacrificial
sheep. I myself (anāku) have (already) given (you) sheep there; as soon as I’m back, I will personally
(anāku) compensate you for the sacrificial sheep. (YOS 3, 60 = SbB 2, 46)

Like in the governor’s letters above, here too we find that the deputy, Nabû-ēṭir-
napšāti, mentions twice the fact that he will be the one taking care of the compensa-
tion.50 This over stressing of the personal responsibility taken by Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti is
redundant.
The personal aspect of their relationship is further illustrated by the following letter,
in which Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti discusses two issues. The first is an unknown problem
involving the governor of Uruk (šākin ṭēmi), the temple assembly (kiništu), and some
stolen goods, while the second issue is a reply to a previous conversation between the
two:
Do not neglect the written document concerning the assembly for which the governor has issued you
an order. Make an effort and see to it (yourself. You), personally, do not exempt anyone from it; no
stolen goods can be caught in your hands!
Regarding all that you have spoken (with) me, my brother (can) be pleased.
(YOS 3, 57 = SbB 2, 45)

It is unfortunate that we have no further information regarding the first-discussed

problem; seldom do we get a glimpse into such a multi-faced inter-institutional inter-
action. Regardless of the specific details, it is noticeable that Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti makes
a special effort to disassociate Nabû-nādin-šumi from the problem, and warns him not
overlook the order given by the governor of Uruk. Perhaps he fears that Nabû-nādin-
šumi will instinctively take his temple colleagues’ side and try to “cover for them”.
This is suggested by the fact that Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti stresses that Nabû-nādin-šumi
should personally (ramānu) take care of the problem, and furthermore that no stolen
goods should be found in Nabû-nādin-šumi’s possession.
The second issue seems to be an unrelated personal matter, most probably a private
business transaction between the two, which came up in a previous conversation.
Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti is now reassuring Nabû-nādin-šumi that things went/are going ac-
cording to what they have previously agreed upon. Given the succinct phrasing of the
deputy’s last remark, it may be argued that my interpretation of a private transaction is
(too) speculative. Other sources, however, further support the private context. Note for
example the following short note made in another letter of Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti to Nabû-
nādin-šumi:

49
We have seven letters exchanged between the temple administrator Nabû-aḫḫē-iddin (6) and his
close subordinate Nabû-bān-aḫi (1).
50
For the use of anāku as affirmative emphasizing agency, see e.g., a-na-ku a-kan-ni mim-ma ma-la-
˹a˺ ṣe-ba-tu lud-dak-ka, I’ll personally give you here whatever you need; ḫa-an-ṭiš šup-ram-ma a-na-ku
lu-še-bi-la-[áš]-šú write me quickly so I’ll deliver it to him myself (YOS 21, 147 = SbB 2, 1); as well as
YOS 3, 154 (= SbB 2, 39) mentioned above.
30 Yuval Levavi

Send (me) ten minas of your own silver (kaspu ša ramānika). I will deliver (back) to my brother
whatever he needs. (YOS 21, 76 = SbB 2, 51: 20–23)

Here it is clear that Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti is referring to Nabû-nādin-šumi’s own private

funds rather than those of the temple.51 Moreover, several legal texts testify to the fact
that high officials and wealthy entrepreneurs from different cities regularly carried out
business with each other. Thus, for example, the deputy of the Sealand had a business
venture (ḫarrānu) with a certain Itti-Šamaš-balāṭu,52 an entrepreneur from Larsa who
also had many connections with Uruk and the Eanna temple.53
I have already mentioned the disputed land about which Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti is writing
to Nabû-nādin-šumi in BIN 1, 34 (SbB 2, 52). The words that Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti puts in
the mouth of the Sealanders and Urukeans are as direct a statement as we could have
regarding the friendship between the deputy of the Sealand and the temple administra-
tor of Eanna, a friendship which was apparently rather common knowledge (at least in
certain circles):
Regarding the līmu-land about which my brother had written; I’m not authorized to distribute (it) –
(just) by a request of the people – without the king’s (word). If I were to distribute (it) without report-
ing it, [the Sea]land (people) would say, “Did Nādin distribute (it) due to (his personal) friendship
(bēl ṭābtūti), or did you distribute taken (land)?” The Urukeans, (on the other hand), will say, “Did
Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti [distrib]ute (it) due to (his personal) friendship, or is it the [word] of the king?” /…/
If it be the king’s will, they will give (it) to me, and if not, they [will give] (it) to you.
(BIN 1, 34 = SbB 2, 52)

Both Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti and Nabû-nādin-šumi are clearly aware that their respected
subordinates will immediately suspect that any agreement between them may be “con-
taminated” by their friendship. In order to avoid the appearance of corruption, the two
must turn to the king (and the governor of the Sealand) to conclude the matter.
Lastly, I would like to offer one additional aspect of this relationship. Note the fol-
lowing short letter:
There’s no wool in the temple; without wool (the) women are idle. /…/ Weigh two talents of wool
and give it to (my buyers). Inform me in a letter the day you give them the wool.
(TCL 9, 116 = SbB 2, 37)

51
At the beginning of the letter, incidentally, we find another example for the way Nabû-ēṭir-
napšāti ties his official interaction with Nabû-nādin-šumi with their close personal relationship:
“Don’t treat me as (you treat) Ibnāya. Don’t divert the red dye, (which is set) aside for me, for an
alternative (buyer) you (might) have” (YOS 21, 76 = SbB 2, 51: 4–10). The trade in red dye is surely
part of an official transaction between Eanna and the Sealand. Yet Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti “plays the
friendship card” in order to secure the deal.
52
E.g. NCBT 627, 37 Nbk, unpublished, see BEAULIEU 2000, 55; 57; 67.
53
See ibid., esp. 61–62. Another illustration for the inter-regional business network in southern
Babylonia can be seen in NCBT 593 (= IDEM 1992, 409–10, 29 Nbk). The tablet was apparently part
of the Eanna archive, although it concerns a house in Udannu, which belonged to the royal resident of
Larsa (and was rented to a certain individual from Udannu). The reason for the presence of the docu-
ment in Uruk is unclear, see ibid., 410.
 The Interaction between Eanna and the Sealand 31

The wool trade between Eanna and the Sealand is well known and documented.54 Our
interest lies in Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti’s remark regarding the idle women. While it does fit
the general context of the letter, it is in fact redundant. First, there is no need to ex-
plain to the temple administrator of Eanna that wool is needed in the Sealand. As not-
ed, the trade of wool is well documented and this is not an esoteric issue. More im-
portantly, the idleness of women cannot be regarded as the main problem with the
Sealand’s shortage of wool. Several other issues may arise from this situation, such as
an interruption in production and delivery of garments for temple personnel as well as
for cult statues. Surely the idleness of women was not the prime concern, and could
not be taken seriously as a main factor in the Sealand’s need for wool. In light of this,
and taking into consideration the known friendship of the Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti and Nabû-
nādin-šumi, it is perhaps better to read this note as a sarcastic misogynistic comment
regarding the nature of women made between two powerful men. Rather than referring
to a specific group of women then, Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti may be speaking of women in
general, in the (anachronistic) colloquial sense of “you know how women are/get.”
Naturally, this sarcastic reading is speculative in nature and depends greatly on the
close and personal interaction between Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti and Nabû-nādin-šumi for
which I argue above.

VI. Conclusion

The Sealand and Eanna were the two most important players in southern Babylonia
during the first millennium BCE. Yet the hierarchy was clear: the Eanna temple was
subordinate to the Sealand and the governor of the Sealand was highest ranking offi-
cial in these parts of the land. The two were bound not only by a joint history, going
back to the second millennium, but also by daily logistic and administrative coopera-
tion in numerous local and national projects.
The letters from the Eanna archive are an unmediated source for this collaboration,
the day-to-day interactions, and bureaucratic practices. Moreover, they let us tap into
the authors’ perspectives of themselves and of their colleagues. Temple officials clear-
ly accepted the authority of the Sealand and its governor over Eanna. These sources
further illustrate, however, the personal nature of some of the Sealand-Eanna interac-
tions. Close reading of the letters reveals how intense and long lasting collaborations
resulted at times in close personal relations as well as rivalries.
Having no archival sources from the Sealand itself, much remains unknown regard-
ing one of the most important areas of the Neo-Babylonian heartland. And so, like the
state’s tax collector who was sent south by the writer of BIN 1, 11 mentioned above,
we too are dependent on Eanna to guide us through the mystery of the Sealand.

54
For the Eanna wool trade see KLEBER 2010 and also YOS 21 76 (= SbB 2, 51) and YOS 21, 139
(= SbB 2, 43) wool transactions between Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti and Eanna.
32 Yuval Levavi

Bibliography
BEAULIEU, P.-A. (1992): Kissik, Dūru and Udannu, Or. 61, 400–24.
– (1997): The Fourth Year of Hostilities in the Land, BaM 28, 367−94.
– (1998): Baˀu-asītu and Kaššaya, Daughters of Nebuchadnezzar II, Or. 67, 173–201.
– (2000): A Finger in Every Pie: The Institutional Connections of a Family of Entrepreneurs in Neo-
Babylonian Larsa, in: A.C.V.M. BONGENAAR (ed.), Interdependency of Institutions and Private
Entrepreneurs: Proceedings of the Second MOS Symposium (Leiden 1998), (MOS Studies 2, PI-
HANS 87), Istanbul, 43–72.
– (2002): Ea-dayān, Governor of the Sealand, and Other Dignitaries of the Neo-Babylonian Empire,
JCS 54, 99–123.
– (2013): Arameans, Chaldeans, and Arabs in Cuneiform Sources from the Late Babylonian Period,
in: A. BERLEJUNG/M.P. STRECK (eds.), Arameans, Chaldeans, and Arabs in Babylonia and Pales-
tine in the First Millennium B.C., (Leipziger Altorientalische Studien 3), Wiesbaden, 31–55.
BEER, B. (2001): Friendship, Anthropology of, in: N.J. SMELSER/P.B. BALTES (eds.), International
Encyclopedia of Social & Behavioral Sciences, Oxford, 5805–808.
BOIVIN, O. (2018): The First Dynasty of the Sealand in Mesopotamia, (Studies in Ancient Near
Eastern Records, 20), Berlin/Boston, MA.
BRINKMAN, J.A. (1968): A Political History of Post-Kassite Babylonia, (AnOr 43), Rome.
– (1984): Prelude to Empire: Babylonian Society and Politics 747–626 B.C., (Occasional Publica-
tions of the Babylonian Fund 7), Philadelphia, PA.
– (1984): Settlement Surveys and Documentary Evidence: Regional Variation and Secular Trend in
Mesopotamian Demography, JNES 43, 169–80.
– (1993–97): Meerland (Sealand), RlA 8, 6–10.
COLE, S.W. (1006): Nippur in Late Assyrian Times C. 755–612 BC, (SAAS 4), Helsinki.
DA RIVA, R. (2013): Nebuchadnezzar II’s Prism (EK 7834): A New Edition, ZA 103, 196–229.
FRAME, G. (1992): Babylonia 689–627 B.C.: A Political History, (PIHANS 69), Leiden.
– (2013): The Political History and Historical Geography of the Aramean, Chaldean, and Arab
Tribes in Babylonia in the Neo-Assyrian Period, in: A. BERLEJUNG/M.P. STRECK (eds.), Arame-
ans, Chaldeans, and Arabs in Babylonia and Palestine in the First Millennium B.C., (Leipziger
Altorientalische Studien 3), Wiesbaden, 87–121.
JANKOVIĆ, B. (2007): Von gugallus, Überschwemmungen und Kronland, WZKM 97 (= Festschrift H.
Hunger), 219–42.
– (2013): Aspects of Urukean Agriculture in the First Millennium BC, (PhD Dissertation), Universi-
ty of Vienna.
JURSA, M. (2007): Die Söhne Kudurrus und die Herkunft der Neubabylonischen Dynastie, RA 101,
125–36.
– with contributions by J. HACKL et al. (2010): Aspects of the Economic History of Babylonia in the
First Millennium BC: Economic Geography, Economic Mentalities, Agriculture, the Use of Money
and the Problem of Economic Growth, (AOAT 377), Münster.
– (2014): Gewalt in neubabylonischen Texten, in: M. KREBERNIK/H. NEUMANN (eds.), Babylonien
und seine Nachbarn in neu- und spätbabylonischer Zeit: Wissenschaftliches Kolloquium aus Anlaß
des 75. Geburtstages von Prof. Dr. Joachim Oelsner, 2.–3. März 2007 in Jena, (AOAT 369),
Münster, 73–94.
– (2014): The Lost State Correspondence of the Babylonian Empire as Reflected in Contemporary
Administrative Letters, in: K. RADNER (ed.), State Correspondence in the Ancient World, Oxford,
94–111.
KLEBER, K. (2008): Tempel und Palast: Die Beziehungen zwischen dem König und dem Eanna-
Tempel im spätbabylonischen Uruk, (AOAT 358), Münster.
 The Interaction between Eanna and the Sealand 33

– (2010): Eanna’s Trade in Wool, in: M. JURSA (ed.), Aspects of the Economic History of Babylonia
in the First Millennium BC: Economic Geography, Economic Mentalities, Agriculture, the Use of
Money and the Problem of Economic Growth, (AOAT 377), Münster, 595–615.
– (2018): Dependent Labor and Status in the Neo-Babylonian and Achaemenid Periods, in: A.
Garcia-Ventura (ed.), What’s in a Name? Terminology Related to Work Force and Job Categories
in the Ancient Near East, (AOAT 440), Münster, 441–65.
LEVAVI, Y. (2018): Administrative Epistolography in the Formative Phase of the Neo-Babylonian
Empire, (dubsar 3, Spätbabylonische Briefe 2), Münster.
– (forthcoming): On the Use of Personal Names in Neo-Babylonian Epistolography, Akkadica
Supplementum, (Proceedings of the Babylonian Name and Name-Giving Conference in Leuven,
February 2016).
SANDOWICZ, M. (2018) Before Xerxes: The Role of the Governor of Babylonia in the Administration
of Justice under the First Achaemenids, in C. WAERZEGGERS/M. SEIRE (eds.), Xerxes and Baby-
lonia: The Cuneiform Evidence, (OLA 277), Leuven/Paris/Bristol, 35–62.
STILL, B. (2019): The Social World of Babylonian Priests, Leiden/Boston, MA.
TADMOR, H./Sh. YAMADA (2011): The Royal Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III (744–727 BC) and
Shalmaneser V (726–722 BC), Kings of Assyria, (The Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Pe-
riod I), Winona Lake, IN.
WRIGHT, H.T. (1981): The Southern Margins of Sumer: Archaeological Survey in the Area of Eridu
and Ur, Appendix, in: R. MCC. ADAMS (ed.), Heartland of Cities, Chicago, IL, 295–346.
ZADOK, R. (2013): The Onomastics of the Chaldean, Aramean, and Arabian Tribes, in: A. BER-
LEJUNG/M.P. STRECK (eds.), Arameans, Chaldeans, and Arabs in Babylonia and Palestine in the
First Millennium B.C., (Leipziger Altorientalische Studien 3), Wiesbaden, 261–336.
On the Arameans and the Indigenous Population in Babylonia
from the Period of the Neo-Babylonian Empire
down to the End of the Sasanian Period*
Ran Zadok

Preamble

The Arameans in Upper Mesopotamia had their own states for a short period, namely
from about the end of the tenth to the middle of the ninth century BCE. Later on the
Mesopotamian (“Eastern”) Arameans enjoyed a certain political influence only in
Babylonia (along with the dominant Chaldeans). Both the Arameans and the Chalde-
ans ceased to be political players after the Achaemenid conquest of Babylonia, which
terminated the rule of the native dynasties there.
Here I would like to concentrate on several issues pertaining to the indigenous pop-
ulation groups in Mesopotamia, especially Babylonia, which has become mainly Ara-
maic-speaking from about the mid-first millennium BCE onwards. I shall pursue my
enquiry as late as the early Sasanian period, which marks, according to a maximalistic
approach, the end of the cuneiform tradition and the ensuing demise of paganism (the
Zoroastrian religion of the Sasanids is polytheistic, but offers salvation).
There is little evidence for the existence of Chaldeo-Aramean territories after the
fall of the Neo-Babylonian Empire. The latest evidence for their existence is the so-
called Hofkalender from the early reign of Nebuchadnezzar II.1 Later on there are few
and rather implicit references to members of kinship groups which may be Aramean,

* Supported by the Israel Science Foundation (Grant No. 742/05). I should like to thank the Horn
Archaeological Museum (Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan) who allowed me to evalu-
ate data from HAM tablets, and the Trustees of the British Museum for permission to quote from
unpublished BM tablets, as well as Dr. Jane Siegel, curator of the Rare Books Room of the Butler
Library (Columbia University) for permission to quote Columbia 351. Abbreviations are as in A.L.
OPPENHEIM et al. (eds.), The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institut of the University of Chicago
(Chicago/Glückstadt 1956–2010), except PNA 2 and 3 = BAKER 2000–2001 and 2002–2010 respec-
tively. The months (in Roman figures) are the Babylonian. Abbreviated rulers’ names: AmM. =
Amīl-Marduk; Dar. = Darius; Nbk. = Nebuchadnezzar; Nbn. = Nabonidus; Npl. = Nabopolassar.
Other non-bibliographical abbreviations: adm. = administrative (document); Akkad. = Akkadian; br.
= brother; d. = daughter; f. = father; gs. = grandson; hus. = husband; JBA = Jewish Babylonian Ara-
maic; s. = son; w. = witness; wi. = wife; WSem. = West Semitic. The format of filiations presented
below is: given name/father//ancestor.
1
See JURSA 2010.
 On the Arameans and the Indigenous Population in Babylonia 35

namely Laetu and Šumatkanu2. The latter are recorded as late as the last quarter of the
fifth century BCE.3 Regarding the Chaldeans, who were the main political player in
Babylonia under the Sargonid and the Neo-Babylonian empires, their main territory,
Bīt-Yakīn, ceased to exist and has become the Sealand province and later
Mešān/Messene/Characene. Their two remaining territories are not mentioned after the
early Achaemenid period, although Bīt-Awkāni survived as Αὐχανῑτιϛ, a mere geo-
graphical-administrative unit.4 The Achaemenid conquest resulted in the end of Elam
as an independent state, which served as a retreat for the Chaldean anti-Assyrian rebels
in Babylonia during the Sargonid period.5 The only Semitic kinship groups that gained
political importance are the Arabian nomads on the fringe of the Syrian Desert, whose
frequent razziahs into the Babylonian heartland are recorded from the late Achaemenid
period onwards. The Arabians gradually became the dominant group in the western
frontier of Babylonia and on the long run they can be regarded as the forerunners of
the Lakhmid vassal kingdom of Hira.
The urbanites remained the most prestigious group in Babylonia during the long
sixth century BCE. This is a well-defined group, which finally crystalized in the pre-
ceding post-Kassite period, around 750 BCE at the latest. It is easily identifiable in the
sources for its members have three-tier Akkadian filiations, which is given name, pa-
ternal name, and surname of a distant ancestor of a clan (also in an abbreviated format,
viz. given name and surname). Each temple city had its own system of urban clans,
which formed its constituency. The members of the urban clans are the majority of
individuals in the numerous documentation groups or the mostly reconstructed so-
called archives from this period, archives that stem mostly from the main temple cities.
The urbanites consisted of long-established Babylonians who mingled and intermar-
ried with Kassites and other pre-first millennium invaders and infiltrators. Hence,
clans bear not only Babylonian, but also Kassite names. There is good reason to sus-
pect that the non-Semitic clan names are mainly Kassite (e.g., Gilūa, Šambā > Šabbā
and Tunā),6 but this cannot be proven in the majority of cases as they are not recorded
during the period of Kassite rule in Babylonia. Few clans bear gentilics such as
Aššūrāyu, “Assyrian”; Hattāyu “Hittite” (i.e. Syro-Anatolian); Lullubāyu, “Lullubian”;
Miṣirāyu, “Egyptian”; Nikkāyu (from Nikku); Sūhāyu, “Suhean”;7 and Arbāyu, “Ara-

2
YOS 6, 40, 12 (cf. ZADOK 1985b, 207 and IDEM 2017, 334 with n. 157; [SPAR and] JURSA 2014,
8 ad 4, 2).
3
BE 10, 115, 7f. (cf. ZADOK 1985b, 296 and BEAULIEU [and MAYER] 1997, 164 ad 266a).
4
PTOLEMY, Geography, 5, 20, 3 (cf. ZADOK 1985a, 58).
5
See BRINKMAN 1984, passim, especially 28–31.
6
Cf. WUNSCH 2014, 309, 310. Ašgandu and Gahal are perhaps Kassite surnames as well. Gilūa is
also recorded as a paternal name (Babylon, 11.VI.1 Nbn., IDEM 2000, 109–11: 85:
Šūzubu/Gilūa//Sîn-šadûnu).
7
See IDEM 2014, 298 (cf. 303–309, where also the internal Babylonian gentilics Bābilāyu and
Isināyu are registered). On the face of it, Hu-ʾ-A+A (in Ubāru/Ṭābīya//H., Dar. 461 = IDEM 2000, 144,
10) from Šuppatu, 20.X.17 Dar. I looks like a gentilic of Hume (/H(u)we/) “Cilicia,” but this is histor-
ically problematic, given the fact that Babylonian connections with Cilicia, and explicit Cilicians in
Babylonia are not recorded before the period of the Neo-Babylonian empire, long after the crystalli-
zation of the system of Babylonian urbanite surnames.
36 Ran Zadok

bian” (only in Uruk),8 or quasi-gentilics like Si/utīya, “Sutean,” and Išnukû (> Šinuk-
ku), “Eshnunite.” The cities were fundamentally pluralistic and served as a platform of
social and communication networks as well as a melting pot. However after circa 750
BCE, the shutters were pulled down with seclusion and endogamy becoming the norm
of the Babylonian urbanites. They stopped absorbing other Babylonians of the lower
class or of non-local elites (i.e. urbanites of other constituencies) and people of foreign
extraction.9 In traditional oriental societies, the bride-taking party is typically the supe-
rior one as is still the norm in contemporary Muslim society. They never gave their
own daughters in marriage to foreigners. The opposite practice was the norm in inter-
national relations, where the stronger party is the bride-giver in diplomatic marriages
in ancient western Asia.10
Initially, the urbanites were not only ethnically, but also socially heterogeneous.
The ancestral names were not only old-fashioned and archaic anthroponyms, but also
names of various offices, professions and occupations. These include several surnames
that are normally rated lower class and ultra-lower class, such as Ararru, “Miller”;
Išparu, “Weaver”; and Nappāhu “Smith.” The surname-bearing clans of a given temple
city are the epitome of class. Their core formed an elite consisting in the first place of
the priestly clans who constituted the clergy (clerus maior and minor with a wide array
of cultic specializations). Yet, scribes and bureaucrats were members of most urban
clans.11 Thanks to their determinant function as bearers of Babylonian culture, the
urbanites enjoyed the highest rating in the Babylonian socio-cultural universe. At the
beginning of the post-Kassite period they were also the power elite, as the central
government was weak and the ruling dynasties short-lived.12 However, after the Chal-
deans (followed by the Arameans) took over vast territories in the Babylonian coun-
tryside,13 the urbanites lost their political leading role. It seems that during their time
of political ascendancy, when they enjoyed a certain degree of political autonomy and
several cities had their own small militia-like armies, the military establishment pre-
sumably encouraged social mobility. Therefore, even members of low-rated occupa-
tions gained priestly roles and kept them for a long period. Thus, those in Borsippa
who held the temple enterer’s prebend during the long sixth century BCE were mem-
bers of the Nappāhu (“Smith”) clan. The implicit social interaction took place mainly

8
Ar-ba-A+A (YOS 6, 59, 4), Ár-ba-A+A (JOANNÈS 1982, 78, 12) from the beginning of Nebu-
chadnezzar II’s reign and that of Nabonidus (cf. WUNSCH 2014, 303).
9
Cf. ZADOK 2009, 15.
10
The ruler of the large Israelite kingdom gave Athaliah in marriage to the ruler of the petty king-
dom of Judah. This resembles the case of Šulgi, the king of the vast Ur III kingdom, who gave one of
his daughters in marriage to the ruler of the small polity of Pašime in the Mesopotamian-Susian
frontier (cf. STEINKELLER 1983, 241–42 with n. 16).
11
The cuneiform scribes belonged to urban clans with a minority bearing two-tier Akkadian filia-
tions. The only exception is a scribe of Elamite extraction (see ZADOK 1976, 62ff.).
12
Cf. BRINKMAN 1968, passim and 1977, 339, 12 (18 rulers belonging to several dynasties).
13
See LIPIŃSKI 2000, 412 who is of the opinion that the strong Assyrian reaction against the Ara-
means in the Jazira caused them to migrate to Babylonia. We happen to know by now that also the
Chaldeans were initially repelled by the Assyrians’ clients from the Habur region as early as the end
of the eleventh century BCE (see ZADOK 2017, 331–33).
 On the Arameans and the Indigenous Population in Babylonia 37

among the constituent elements of the urban elite. Interestingly enough, even paradox-
ically, the term kiništu (attested from the mid-eighth century BCE onwards) for the
temple assembly, the body representing the most traditional and exclusive layer of the
urban elite, namely the clergy, is not Akkadian (Babylonian), but originally Aramaic.
The Chaldeans and Arameans took control of most of the Babylonian countryside
from the eleventh century BCE onwards.14 This was followed by some Arabian infil-
tration into southern and western Babylonia. These three population groups are identi-
fiable by their West Semitic names. However, later on when they have become part of
the local scene, many Chaldeans as well as some Arameans adopted Babylonian names.
Therefore it is difficult to distinguish between them and the native Babylonians, who
resided in the countryside and it is also difficult to distinguish them from the people
who dwelt in the cities, but had no surnames in the written record.
This third group, the native people living mostly in the countryside and the suburbs,
is the least discernible one in the written records. Generally, they had two-tier filia-
tions, i.e. given and paternal names, both Babylonian (Akkadian), but no surnames.
Babylonian urbanites who were active in the countryside were almost exclusively the
scribes of deeds found in the few rural archives, and these documents were mostly
written for non-Babylonian parties. Very few of these Babylonian urbanites acted as
principals in the countryside and even they were often related to the scribes. Since
Chaldeans adopted Babylonian names with the passage of time, as we see most of
them have such anthroponyms from the Sargonid period onwards, it is impossible to
distinguish between them and the originally Babylonian rural population. And all the
more so, since the latecomers underwent acculturation, and eventually shared the basic
set of sociocultural norms valid for all Mesopotamians. This is not to deny the persis-
tence of cultural differentiation: there are hints that rural and suburban shrines exist-
ed,15 but the phenomenon is not covered by the urban-biased documentation. It may be
surmised that since the urban core lost its capability to bestow protection, the indige-
nous Babylonians who dwelt in the countryside joined vicinity groups that were often
linked to Chaldeo-Aramean kinship groups. However, indigenous Babylonians were
also amongst the nondescript urban masses who did not bear surnames, but were under
the jurisdiction of the temple cities. The three sectors, namely the urbanites, the rural
indigenous Babylonians, and eventually the Chaldeo-Arameans, shared crucial ele-
ments of identity such as creed and language, but did not have common geographical
origin and descent. In addition, the elite was not an agent of integration. Although the
city-dwellers subsisted mostly on agriculture, the elite was urban oriented. Despite the
loss of political power, the urban elite kept its leading role based on its placement in
the highest cultural rating, on its economic power as well as a retaining of certain
degree of autonomy and dominance of local-municipal affairs (decision-making by the

14
See ZADOK 2017, 332–33.
15
Cf. the shrine of Bēl-ālīya (d+EN-URU-ia) of Šarrabānu in Babylon (BAKER 2004, 127–28:48,
2f.). The divine name Bēl-ālīya means “the lord of my settlement” (deified), i.e. originally an appella-
tive (cf. BEAULIEU 2003, 334:7.7), a “dieu topique” of a town in the Chaldean territory of Bīt-Awkāni.
The Piqūdeans refer to “our gods” in contrast to “your (=the Urukeans’) gods” in DURAND 1982, 475
from the beginning of the sixth century BCE (see LEVAVI 2018, 451 ad 179).
38 Ran Zadok

governor and the council of city elders). This is not to deny that the central govern-
ment, be it native or foreign, refrained from meddling and manipulating in local affairs
whenever its interests required it. The ruling Chaldean dynasties and Aramean chief-
tains adopted the urban cults, participated in old-established religious festivals and
contributed to the urban temples, but they were never accepted into the clergy. How-
ever, in this regard they did not differ from most urbanites who did not belong to the
clerical class. Worshippers as “spectators” are not unknown in the phenomenology of
religions (for instance Catholicism). On the whole, the result was a convergent rather
than an integrated pattern. Each sector retained its distinct integrity. Parallel, but dif-
ferent sectors existed. It should be pointed out that the term mār-banî “freeperson,”
which is a strictly juridical term (in contradistinction to royal slave, temple oblate or
state dependent) was borne mostly, but not exclusively, by individuals with surnames.
Free citizens, especially in rural Babylonia, included individuals without surnames (or
even consisted mainly of such people). This is stated with due reservation, since it is
possible that the scribes sometimes omitted the surnames belonging to inhabitants of
small settlements. There are examples for it in the written records, and using an an-
thropological analogue, I am acquainted with such an oral practice among Palestinian
villagers.16 Moreover, we happen to know that members of Chaldean tribes, such as
Bīt-Awkāni, are defined as free citizens. Free citizens in rural Babylonia have quite
often two-tier filiations without surnames; omission of surnames is exceptional17: the
percentage of people with surnames among explicit free citizens from rural settlements
is low. This means that free citizens in Babylonia included also non-urbanite Babylo-
nians.
It is clear that foreigners were absorbed almost exclusively by other non-
Babylonians and people without surnames. A case in point is that of the members of
the hatru-organization of the Scythians in the Nippur region (second half of the fifth
century BCE), who all bear Semitic names (Akkadian, Aramaic and Arabian).18 One
may suspect that the inhabitants of Bannēšu, originally a settlement of Carians19 (pre-
sumably of the early wave of prisoners of war from the beginning of the sixth century
BCE),20 also assimilated with the non-urbanites in view of their West Semitic names
(notably Arabian A-ra-al-tu4/Ha-am-tu-ʾ or A-ha-mu-tu-ʾ),21 provided that these inhab-

16
E.g., Yūsuf (given name) ʿAbd il-qādir (paternal name) Maḥajni (clan) from Imm il-faḥm is re-
ferred to as Yūsuf ʿAbd il-qādir among his fellow villagers.
17
Exceptionally, a free citizen with a two-tier Akkadian filiation is recorded in an urban archive
(Nappāhu from Babylon, BAKER 2004, 248:191). Surname-bearing individuals with non-Akkadian
given or paternal names are very rare.
18
Cf. ZADOK 1977, 123–24.
19
For their archive see JURSA 2005, 113: 7.10.2.3. The latest document is DURAND 1982, 602
from Nippur, 13.XII.0 Dar. I.
20
They are distinguished in the NB/LB documentation from the later Caromemphitai; the latter are
defined as Kar-sa-A+A.
21
Ha-am-tu-ʾ/A-ha-mu-tu-ʾ can be Arabian in view of its ending, viz. -w, and Safaitic Ḥmt and re-
lated names (HARDING 1971, 199–200). A-ra-al-tu4, which was etymologized as Old Iranian (ZADOK
1984a, 71; TAVERNIER 2007, 109:4.2.79) is rather Arabian: it can be compared with Safaitic ʾršt (11x,
HARDING 1971, 37) with NB/LB št > lt.
 On the Arameans and the Indigenous Population in Babylonia 39

itants from the last quarter of the sixth century BCE are indeed the descendants of the
same Carians after whom the settlement was named. Both groups, like most of the
foreigners who were settled in rural Babylonia, adapted themselves to the local condi-
tions; for instance the inhabitants of Bannēšu cultivated palm groves.

I. The Long Sixth Century BCE

The representation of the three sectors of the Babylonian society in the long sixth cen-
tury (626–484 BCE) is not radically different from the preceding periods, namely the
post-Kassite and Sargonid, as it is basically urbanite-biased.
A sample of 4,657 individuals belonging to archives of urbanites from the long
sixth century BCE reveals that the individuals with surnames were the overwhelming
majority.22 This impressive sample, which is extremely selective and geographically
confined to the Babylonian Isthmus (actually only Babylon, Sippar, Kish, and Dilbat),
is just a very small segment of the abundant pertinent corpus.

I.A. Babylon
I.A.1. Nappāhu Archive
The sample consists of 1,035 individuals, the overwhelming majority bear surnames
(967 = 93.43 %, three-tier genealogies); two-tier (Akkad./Akkad.): 68 (= 6.57 % out of
which two oblates of Esaggila, two royal officials, one with a -šarra- name, an alpha-
betic scribe, and two Assyrians = 0.19 %; WSem.: 2 = 0.19 %).

22
Analysis of the material from the preceding period (747–626 BCE) reveals that 80 % of the 892
individuals from Babylon and almost 60 % of the 186 Dilbateans have surnames (versus 13 % and
37 % respectively with two-tier Akkadian filiations; based on NIELSEN 2011; the group with two-tier
filiations was not specifically discussed by him). Kish has 83.47–91.3 % surname-bearers in 747–626
BCE, but the sample is too small (46 individuals).
40 Ran Zadok

Nappāhu archive = 1035 Individuals

Assyrians
0.19% West Semites
0.19%
Babylonians
(two-tier)
6%

Surnames
94%

Here follows a detailed description of the individuals with two-tier filiations.

Of non-Babylonian extraction, viz. Assyrian paternal name (11th = penultimate
witness, BAKER 2004, 94:5) or Assyrian filiation (ibid., 192–93:118), Non-urbanite
extraction, viz. Aramaic name (200:128), West Semitic anthroponym (guarantor, ibid.,
252–53:197). All the people listed below had Akkadian filiations:
– People linked to the palatial sector are a royal official (BAKER 2004, 151–52:71), a
messenger of a ša-muhhi-bītāni official (ibid., 132:53) and an alphabetic scribe
(125:44). Individuals of low status were oblates of Esaggila (a party, ibid., 150–
51:69 and a penultimate = 3rd w., ibid., 299:261);
– Debtors (three: BAKER 2004, 229:171; 248–49:192; 277:232);
– Last w. (assuming that the witnesses lists are ranked, but this cannot be proven in
many cases; 12): 7th (BAKER 2004, 285–86:242), 6th (ibid., 196–97:123), 5th (ibid.,
287:244), 4th (ibid., 200:128; 209:142; 210:143; 278:274; and 252–53:197, like the
guarantor to the same transaction); 3rd (ibid., 110:25; and 295–96:257, like a
principal), 2nd (ibid., 111:27, also the debtor has a two-tier filiation; ibid., 190–
91:115, like both principals = lodgers);
– Penultimate w.: 5th (BAKER 2004, 230–31:174: [...]./Akkad.); 3rd (ibid., 216:152).
Both witnesses have a two-tier filiation (ibid., 208–209:141; 222:160). The only w.
has a two-tier filiation (ibid., 269–70:222).
– Lodgers (BAKER 2004, 181:102; and 178–79:99, where the 4th–5th witnesses out of
six have also two-tier filiations);
 On the Arameans and the Indigenous Population in Babylonia 41

– Neighbors: with landed property in the rural settlement of Iltuk (BAKER 2004, 132–
34:54); four house owners (ibid., 166–67:86; 167–68:87; 170:89);
– Other parties (different from the archive owners: BAKER 2004, 94:9; 151:70; 239–
40:183; 256–57:203; 268–69:220; 269–70:222; 276:231).
This survey, as well as the following ones (below, I.A.2–I.D.), has a restricted cover-
age, and the data, which are partially ambiguous, have a limited probative value. At
this juncture it should be pointed out that this attempt at a characterization of the so-
cio-economic profile of the individuals with two-tier filiations does not result in more
than tentative guidelines for distinguishing them from people with surnames.

I.A.2. Egibi Archive (Partial)

The sample consists of 1,130 individuals, out of which 1,052 bear surnames (93.1 %);
two-tier (Akkad./Akkad.): 78 (= 6.9 %, out of which one oblate of Esaggila, five with -
šarra-names, one with -mār-šarri-name, one Assyrian = 0.08 % and ten West Semitic
= 0.88 %).23
Egibi = 1130 Individuals

Babylonians West Semites

(two-tier) 0.88 %
7%

Surnames
93 %

23
Abi(AD)-ia-a-di-i-ni, “the divine father will judge”; A-da-la-a, “Ay has delivered”; Am-ma-a;
Ha-am-ba-qu; Nabû(d+AG)-A+A-lu-na-ta-nu, “Nabû has given support”; and Uk-ku-ba-ʾ, all have
mixed filiations (with Akkadian given or paternal names), except for the slave Ba-ar-qu-su and Zab-
di-ia, a eunuch of the crown prince Cambyses (refs. in WUNSCH 2000/2, 273–347, index, s.vv.; for
interpretation see ZADOK 1978, 56; 74; 84; 99; 107; 115; 151; 153; 235; 251; 427 ad 85, 430 ad 137–
38; for Qu-ub-ba-ar, see IDEM 1979, 19: 212 and for Uk-ku-ba-ʾ cf. NA Ú-ku-bi-ʾ, PNA 3, 1373a).
42 Ran Zadok

The individuals with two-tier filiations are (all Akkad./Akkad. unless otherwise indi-
cated):
– Of non-Babylonian extraction, viz. with an Assyrian paternal name (WUNSCH 2000/2,
140–41:115, 2nd = last w.);
– Non-urbanite extraction, viz. a West Semitic paternal name (WUNSCH 2000/2, 253–
54:219, 5th w.). Seven individuals have mixed filiations, viz. Akkad. (given
name)/WSem. (paternal name): ibid., 71–73:51; 194–95:160 (4th = last w.), 198–
99:165 (1st w.); 228–29:225 (gardener) and with inverted order (WSem./Akkad.),
ibid.,130:105 (3rd = last w.); ibid., 255–56:221 (7th–8th = penultimate and last
witnesses) and ibid., 263–64:231 (debtor).
Ten people were linked to the palatial sector (with -šarra- names, all with Akkadian
filiations):24
– WUNSCH 2000/2, 42–45:33 (a neighbor with -šarra- given name); ibid., 61–62:45
(four neighbors, one with -šarra- paternal name); ibid., 212–13:179 (3rd = last w.
with -šarra-given name); ibid., 231–32:195; 266–67:235 (two principals with -šarra-
paternal names);
– WUNSCH 2000/2, 264–65:232: the debtor and the 2nd = penultimate w.; the debtor’s
father is Nabû-mār-šarri-uṣur (date lost, perhaps linked to the crown prince
Belshazzar);
– Low status: an oblate of Esaggila (Nabû-uballiṭ/Ku-šá-A+A), with landed property
(ibid., 20–23:12).
All the people listed below had Akkadian filiations:
– Debtors (seven: WUNSCH 2000/2, 62–63:46; 205:172; 247:211, 249–50:213; 259–
61:226–27 [brothers]); ibid., 125–26:99–100 (= gardener according to ibid., 128–
30:103–104).
Last w. (21):
– 8th (WUNSCH 2000/2, 252–53:217); 7th (ibid., 251–52:216); 5th (ibid., 79–81:57); 4th
(ibid., 40–41:31; 228–29:192; 242:205; and 229–30:193, like the the debtor); 2nd–4th
(= last, ibid., 196–97:162; rural); 3rd (ibid., 144–45:119; 178:142; 178–80:144;
220:185; 233–34:198); 2nd (ibid., 104:80; 147:121; 180–81:145; 187:152; 191:157;
203:169).
– Penultimate and last: 5th–6th (WUNSCH 2000/2, 253:218);
– Penultimate and preceding: 3rd–6th (WUNSCH 2000/2, 227–28:191);

24
Exceptionally, there is only one occurrence of a surname-bearing individual (w.) with a -šarra-
(paternal) name (WUNSCH 2000/2, 240–41:184). The practice to (re-)name people of the palatial
sector with šarra-names is amply recorded in Assyrian. Such names become more common in Baby-
lonia from the Sargonid period onwards due to Assyrian influence.
 On the Arameans and the Indigenous Population in Babylonia 43

– Penultimate: 9th (237–38:201); 3rd (WUNSCH 2000/2, 241:204); 2nd = penultimate

(ibid., 191–92:158).
The only w. is with a two-tier filiation (WUNSCH 2000/2, 254–55:220; 202–
203:168). The 1st and 8th witnesses have two-tier filiations (ibid., 192–94:159, most of
the names of the other witnesses are lost; rural?);
– Neighbors (with landed property; ten):25 adjacent to that of the Aramean Šá-am-
DINGIRmeš (WUNSCH 2000/2, 10 Dar. I, 23–25:13); ibid., 209–10:176 (three); 20–
23:12 (two); 2–3:2; 145–47:120; 221:186; 248–49:212;
– Other neighbors are Lāgamāl-iddina/Uraš-iddina and his son Bēl-īpuš (apparently
originally from Dilbat, property on upper Nāru-eššu opposite the Illil gate of
Babylon); they are followed by another three neighbors (WUNSCH 2000/2, 23–25:13).
– Other parties (five: ibid., 1–2:1; 60–61:44; 114–16:90; 245–46:209; 253–54:219).
A sample of 455 individuals occurring in WUNSCH 2003 and IDEM 2000/2: Die
Häuser (unpubl., see IDEM 2014, 293) has:
– With surnames: ibid., 399 = 87.69 %;
– Presumably with surnames: 31= 6.81 %;
– Without surnames: 25 (including one scribe) = 5.49 %. Wunsch’s preliminary note
specifies neither individuals with non-Babylonian and -šarra-names, nor does it
indicate any offices or status groups.

I.B. Sippar
Marduk-rēmanni Archive26
The sample consists of 845 individuals whose overwhelming majority is with
surnames (three-tier genealogies: 471 = 55.73 %). There are much less two-tier gene-
alogies (no surnames, total: 374, Akkad./Akkad.: 312 = 36.92 %). Mixed filiations
(mostly with West Semites including a royal merchant, total: 61 = 7.21 %, of which
Assyrian 3, Judean 1, Iranian 1, people from Hindānu [with the theophorous element
Būru] 2, with -šarra-names 6).

25
Wunsch (2014, 293, n. 17) recommends to leave out the filiations of neighbors, as they were
prone to be abbreviated. However, there are only 15 = 1.32 % such filiations, which do not
significantly affect the outcome (they would push up the percentage of individuals with surnames to
94.42). Neighbors of Dilbatean extraction, with -šarra-names, or oblates are not included among
these 15.
26
For the extensive lists below, peruse the index of WAERZEGGERS 2014.
44 Ran Zadok

Marduk-rēmanni = 845 Individuals

West Semites
7% Judeans
Hindaneans <1 % Assyrians
(Būru + Adad) 1%
Iranians
<1 %
<1 %

Surnames
55.73 %
Babylonians
(two-tier)
37 %

This archive records many more people with two-tier filiations than the above-
mentioned archives from Babylonia. This is due to the more developed and
heterogeneous social network of the archive owner Marduk-rēmanni, his intense
connections and commercial activities outside his consistuency, unlike the Egibis
whose social circle was more restricted and homogenic. In addition, the Marduk-
rēmanni archive has no prebendary texts that are a sizable share of the Nappāhu
archive. Such texts record mostly members of priestly clans with surnames. Here
follow extensive lists of people with two-tier filiations in the Marduk-rēmanni
archive:27

27
Severely damaged names are not included.
 On the Arameans and the Indigenous Population in Babylonia 45

I.B.1. Akkad./Akkad
Adad-aha-iddina/Adad-nādin-zēri Bēlšunu/Nabû-nāṣir
Adad-nāʾid/Rēmūtu Bēl-uballiṭ/Bēl-iddina
Adad-šēzib/Ribāta Bēl-uballiṭ/Marduk-rēmanni
Agirīya/Nanâ-šuma-uṣrī Bēl-uballiṭ/Murānu
Ahu-iddin-[x]/Itti-Nabû-balāṭu Bēl-uballiṭ/Nabû-šuma-iddin
Ahūšunu/Itti-Nabû-balāṭu Bēl-zēri/Bunene-ibni
f
Akkadāyu/Šamaš-iddina Bulliṭiššu/Nādin-ahi (wi. of Bēl-bullissu)
Ana-Bēl-ēreš/Šuma-ukīn Bulluṭ/Iddin-Bēl? (Iddin-Nabû?)
Andahar/Kalbâ Bulluṭ/Nabû-aha-iddina
Aplâ/Sîn-ibni Bulluṭâ/Šamaš-zēra-ibni
Ardi-Bunene/Gimil-Šamaš Bulṭâ/Basīya
Ardi-Gula/Gimil-Šamaš Bulṭâ/Kalbi-Bābu
Ardi-Gula/Nergal-ibni Bunene-ibni/Pān-[DN-li]mmir
Ardi-Gula/Šuma-ukīn Bunene-zēra-ibni/Tabnēa
Ardīya/Bēl-iddina Dādīya/[x]-ahhē-iddin
Arrabu/Rikis-kalāma-Bēl Dummuqu/Bēlšunu
Balāṭu/Ea-zēra-iqīša Ea-iddina/Nabû-mušētiq-ūdê
Balāṭu/Nabû-tukulti-ēdi Erībâ/Bēlšunu
Balāṭu/Ribāta Erībâ/Dummuqu
Basīya/Haddâ Erībâ/Tattannu
Bēl-aba-uṣur/Nidintu Erība-Marduk/Nidinti-Marduk
Bēl-ab-ra-DÙ/Nabû-ramnīšu Eulmašāyu/Kalbâ
Bēl-aha-iddina/Basīya Gimil-Šamaš/Bēl-ēreš
Bēl-apla-iddina/Šūzubu Gimil-Šamaš/Šamaš-udammiq
Bēl-asûa/Bēl-ēṭir Gūzānu/Kiribtu
Bēl-bullissu/Šamaš-iqbi Gūzānu/Rēmūtu
Bēl-erība/Šuma-iddina Gūzu-ina-Bēl-aṣbat/Itti-Šamaš-balāṭu
Bēlet-ilūa/Tattannu Habaṣīru/Ana-Nabû-ēreš
Bēl-ēṭir/Nidintu Haddāyu/Bēl-iqīša
Bēl-ibni/Adad-aha-uṣur Harīṣānu/Anu-šeʾe
Bēl-iddina/Bēlšunu Hašdāyu/Iddin-Marduk
Bēl-iddina/Lūṣi-ana-nūri Hašdāyu/Nabû-bēl-ahhēšu
Bēl-iddina/Marduk Hašdāyu/Nabû-ittannu
Bēl-iddina/Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti Hašdāyu/Nabû-(mu)kīn-apli
Bēl-iddina/Nabû-nāṣir Hašdāyu/Nabû-silim
Bēl-iddina/Nabû-rēʾišunu Hašdāyu/Nergal-uballiṭ
Bēl-iddina/Nūrēa Iddinâ/Bīt-il-gūzu
Bēl-ikṣur/Nabû-balāssu-iqbi Iddinâ/Kī-Sîn
Bēl-iqīša/Bēl-rēmanni Iddinâ/Lā-abâši
Bēl-ittannu/Bēl-uballiṭ Iddinâ/Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti
Bēl-ittannu/Itti-Šamaš-balāṭu Iddinâ/Napištu
Bēl-ittannu/Nidintu Iddin-Bēl/Ahhē-erība?
Bēl-kāṣir/Bēl-bullissu Iddin-Bēl/Itti-Bēl-lummir
Bēl-kāṣir/Nabû-balāssu-iqbi Iddin-Bēl/Nabû-tabni-uṣur
Bēl-lummir/Imbi-Sîn Iddin-Bēl/Šuma-ukīn
Bēl-rēmanni/Aplâ Iddin-Nabû/Bēl-ēṭir
Bēl-rēmanni/Marduk-ēṭir Iddin-Nabû/Bunene-ibni
Bēl-ṣarbi-aha-iddina/Ardi-Nabû Iddin-Nabû/Kīnâ
Bēl-ṣarbi-iqīša/Nabû-zēra-[x] Iddin-Nabû/Mādu-ilī
46 Ran Zadok

Iddin-Nabû/Nabû-talīma-uṣur Nabû-ittannu/Ea-šuma-uṣur
Iddin-Nabû/Nādinu(?) Nabû-ittannu/Iddin-Bēl
Iddin-Nabû/Šamaš-erība Nabû-ittannu/Nabû-rēmanni
Iddin-Nabû/Šulâ Nabû-ittannu/Šadûnu
Iddin-Nabû/Šuma-iddina Nabû-kāṣir/Iprīya
Iddin-Nabû/Tattannu Nabû-kāṣir/Nabû-šuma-iškun
Iddin-Nabû/Zuzūʾa Nabû-kuṣuršu/Lā-abâši
Iddīya/Tattannu Nabû-lū-salim/Rēhētu
Ilu-ihbit-iddina/Nabû-aha-ereš Nabû-lū-šulum/Sūqāyu
Ilu-ihbit-iddina/Rēmūtu Nabû-nādin-ahi/Iddin-Marduk
Ina-ṣilli-Bēl/Niqūdu Nabû-nādin-ahi/Šamaš-ēṭir
Iqūpu/Nabû-napšātu Nabû-šuma-iškun/Iqīša
Itti-Bēl-lummir/Bēl-ēreš Nabû-šuma-iškun/Šamaš-kāṣir
Itti-Nabû-balāṭu/Nabû-erība Nabû-šuma-ukīn/Nabû-ēreš
Itti-Šamaš-balāṭu/Nergal-uballiṭ Nabû-tukulti-ēdi/Nabû-ušēzib
Kalbâ/Nabû-rēssu Nabû-uballiṭ/Ardi-Nabû
Kalbīya/Ardīya Nabû-uballiṭ/Nabû-nāṣir
Kidinnu/Mušēzib-Marduk Nabû-uṣuršu/Banītu-ēreš
Lā-abâši/Basīya Nabû-zēra-ēreš/Šamaš-iddina
Lā-abâši/Bēl-ahhē-erība Nabû?-[x]-ahi/Nabû-balāssu-iqbi
Lā-qīpu/Šamšāyu Nādin-ahi/Šamaš-ēṭir
Libluṭ/Bānīya Nādinu/Hašdāyu
Madānu-iqīša/Rēmūt-Bābu Nādinu/Itti-Nabû-balāṭu
Marduk/Nannūtu Naʾid-Bēl/Bēl-uballiṭ
Marduk-erība/Linūh-libbi-ilī Nergal-aba-uṣur/Iddinâ
Marduk-ēreš/Nabû-(mu)kīn-apli Nergal-ahhē-iddina/Nergal-ēṭir
Marduk-(mu)kīn-apli/Bēl-uballiṭ Nergal-dānu/Šamaš-uballiṭ
Mukkê/Bēl-uballiṭ Nergal-šuma-iddina/Nabû-(mu)kīn-apli
Munahhiš-Marduk/Sūqāyu Nergal-uballiṭ/Ṭābīya
Murānu/Zuzūʾa Nidinti-Bēl/Arrabu
Muraššû/Iqūpu Nidinti-Bēl/Bēl-īpuš
Mušēzib-Bēl/Amurru-šarrani Nidinti-Bēl/Marduk-ēṭir
Mušēzib-Bēl/Bēl-rēmanni Nidinti-Bēl/Nabû-aha-[x]
Mušēzib-Marduk/Bēl-uballiṭ Nidinti-Bēl/Nabû-zuqup-ēdi
Mušēzib-Marduk/Marduk-bēl-ilī Nidinti-Bēl/Šamaš-(mu)kīn-apli
Mušēzib-Nabû/[x]-zēra-ibni Nidintu/Bēl-ēṭir-napšāti
Nabû-aha-iqīša/Basūru Nidintu/Kalbâ
Nabû-ahhē-iddina/Līšir Nidintu/Nabû-šuma-iškun
Nabû-apla-iddina/Nabû-šuma-uṣur Nidintu/Nergal-uballiṭ
Nabû-bēl-napšāti/Bēl-iddina Nidintu/Rēmūtu
Nabû-bēlšunu/Itti-Nabû-gūzu Nidintu/Šamšāyu
Nabû-bullissu/Bunene-ibni Niqūdu/Bēl-ušallim
Nabû-bullissu/Hašdāyu Niqūdu/Kī-Sîn
Nabû-bullissu/Lā-abâši Niqūdu/Rēmūtu
Nabû-bullissu/Sîn-aha-iddina Nusku-iddina/Nusku-rēmanni
Nabû-dūra-ukīn/Libluṭ Rēmut-Bēl/Arrabu
Nabû-ēṭir/Aplâ Rēmut-Bēl/Bēl-uballiṭ
Nabû-ēṭir/Iddin-Nabû Rēmūtu/Bēl-iddina
Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti/Kalbâ Rēmūtu/Bēlšunu
Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti/Nabû-šuma-iškun Rēmūtu/Nabû-apla-iddina
Nabû-gāmil/Kalbâ Rēmūtu/Qībi-Bēl
 On the Arameans and the Indigenous Population in Babylonia 47

Ribāta/Nabû-balāssu-iqbi Šamaš-iddina/Taqīš
Ribāta/Paršû Šamaš-kāṣir/Gimil-Šamaš
Ribāta/Šumâ Šamaš-kāṣir/Lā-abâši
Saggillu/Kiribtu Šamaš-kāṣir/Nabû-bēlšunu
Sîn-aha-iddina/Ša-Nabû-šū Šamaš-kāṣir/Šēlebu
Sîn-apla-iddina/Ṭāb-šār-Nusku Šamaš-uballiṭ/Nidintu
Sūqāyu/Kiribtu Šamaš-upahhir/Šamaš-rēʾišunu
Sūqāyu/Ubāru Šamšāyu/Nabû-šuma-iddina
Sūqāyu/Zababa-napšāta-uṣur Ša-Nabû-šū/Nabû-rēmanni
Ṣarbatu-aha-iddina/Kalbâ Ša-Nabû-šū/Nabû-ēreš
Šamaš-aha-iddina/Zērūtu Šullumâ/Šamaš-iddina
Šamaš-aha-ittannu/Nidintu Šulum-Bābili/Iqbi-ilu
Šamaš-balāṭu/Bīt-il-gūzu Šuma-ukīn/Niqūdu
Šamaš-bēl-ilī/Šāpik-zēri Šuma-uṣur/Bēl-iddina
Šamaš-ēreš/Nabû-mušētiq-ūdê Talīmu/Nabû-ṣābit-qātē
Šamaš-erība/Iddin-Nabû Tattannu/Bēl-ahhē-iddina
Šamaš-ēṭir/Bēl-uballiṭ Tattannu/Marduk-ēṭir
Šamaš-ēṭir/Ibnâ Ṭābīya/Līšir
Šamaš-iddina/Bēlšunu Ṭābīya/Nabû-šuma-iškun
Šamaš-iddina/Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti Ubārīya/Nidintu
Šamaš-iddina/Nabû-šuma-iškun Ubāru/Bēl-iddina
Šamaš-iddina/Šamaš-ibni Zēr-Bābili/Mutēriṣu
Šamaš-iddina/Šamaš-rēʾišunu Zikrānu-aha-iddina/Silim-Bēl

I.B.2. Adad and Būru Combined (Presumably of Hindanean Extraction, Seeing that
Būru Was Worshipped in Hindānu)
Adad-aha-iddina/Būru-zēra-iddina
Adad-bēl-sihi(h)ti/Būru-šēzib (cf. Bēl-iddina/Būru-šēzib)
Būru-rapā (62, 87)/Adad-[x]

I.B.3. With šarru

Anu-šarra-uṣur/Zērīya
Bēl-ittannu/Marduk-šarra-uṣur
Mār-bīti-iddina/Bīt-il-šarra-uṣur
Nabû-ittannu/Ina-ṣilli-šarri
Nabû-ittannu/Nabû-kīn-šarrūssu
Nabû-ittannu/Šamaš-šarra-uṣur
Naʾid-Bēl/Amurru-šarra-uṣur

I.B.4. Non-Akkadian and Mixed Filiations

Mostly with West Semites including a royal merchant, total: 61 = 7.21 %, of which
Assyrian 3, Judean 1, Iranian 1, and 2 with -šarra-names.
48 Ran Zadok

I.B.5. WSem./WSem.28
Ahī-dān/Adad-natan (ZADOK 1978, 46, 84)
Ahu-līti (ibid., 54, 99)/Idī-il
Ahumâ/Barīkīya (ibid., 149, 154)
Ba-Ilteri-ahatta/Nusku-ayalu (ibid., 44, 99)
Barīk-il/Il-hāri (“God has awaken, roused himself”, ibid., 93, 341, 427 ad 95)
Daltanī (< Dalatanī, ibid., 90)/Abdi-Iššar
Edrâ (= Id-ra-a, ibid., 115, 246)/Am-dādī “the (divine) kinsman is my lover”
Nabû-zabadu (ibid., 74, 82)/Zabdīya (ibid., 115, 153, 235)

I.B.6. Akkad.-WSem.
Adad-ušēzib/Zabdīya
Bēlet-taddin/Ahu-immē (ZADOK 1978, 425 ad 58)
Bēl-ēṭir/Ahu-aqqa
Bēl-kāṣir/Sîn-idri (cf. NA Se-ʿ-id-ri)29
Gabbi-bēlumma/Nabû-zabadu
Iddin-Bēl/Zabdīya
Iddīya/Napsānu (ibid., 113, 262, 342)
Ištame-abūšu/Nusku-allā
Marduk-(mu)kīn-apli/Šēru-hanan (royal merchant, cf. Il-te-ri-ha-na-na, ibid., 42, 88, 291)
Mušēzib-Bēl/Zabdīya
Nabû-uballiṭ/Zabdīya
Nergal-iddina/Zabdīya
Nidintu/Hanṭašu (ibid., 260)
Nusku-iddina/Il-hāri
Šamaš-balāṭu/Bīt-il-gūzu
Šamšāyu/Edrâ
Tattannu/Himārīya (ibid., 130, 155)
Tattannu/Nabû-milkī (ibid., 74, 103)
Tattannu/Zabīnu (ibid., 128, 336)
Presumably Bēl-[x]/Ṭāb-gurru (“Good is the young one”)30

I.B.7. Akkad.-WSem. with šarru

Adad-šarra-uṣur/Ilteri-ahab (< -yahab “has given”, ZADOK 1978, 42, 83, 288)
Bīt-il-šarra-uṣur/Nabû-rapā (ibid., 74, 87)

I.B.8. WSem.-Akkad.
Abdīya (ZADOK 1978, 106, 112, 154, 246)/Bēl-aha-iddina
Adad-rapā (ibid., 87)/Adad-šarra-uṣur
Aqabbi-il (ibid., 32, 80, 184, 232)/Šamaš-aha-iddina
Aqabu (ibid., 117, 334)/Basīya

28
The references below are to ZADOK 1978, especially the index on 351–99, unless otherwise
indicated.
29
Cf. PNA 3, 1101a.
30
Originally “whelp” (figurative), cf. NA Ṭāb-nu-qu “Good is the suckling” (PNA 3, 1342), and
Middle Heb. Ṭwb yld rendering Gk. Εὔτοκος.
 On the Arameans and the Indigenous Population in Babylonia 49

Dādīya/[x]-ahhē-iddina
Hanūnu (ZADOK 1978, 129, 154, 187, 191, 250)/Ahhēšu
Yadī(h)-il (ibid., 32, 109)/Nādinu
Zabdīya/Bēl-ina-kāri-lummir
[x]-rapā/Zērīya
Kululu (atypical with a doubled syllable or Akkad. “turban”) 31/Bi?-še-ta-ia
Lullâ/Zabdīya
Nabû-lamā (“Nabû has accompanied,” cf. ibid., 88)/Ni?-[x]
Ṭābīya/Zabūnu (ibid., 128, 336)
[x]/Hutnīya; f[x]-a/Gabrī-[x] (cf. Gab-ri-ia, ibid., 113, 154)

I.B.9. Judean
Haddāya/Yahu-qām

I.B.10. Hybrid Phoenician-Akkadian/Atypical

Bahhil-nidintu/Bazuzu

I.B.11. Assyrian
Iššar-bēl-ilī/Iššar-lēʾi32
Iššar-rēmanni/Erība-Iššar
Bēl-kāṣir/Iššar-apla-iddina (mixed filiation)33

I.B.12. Hybrid Semitic-Egyptian

Abi-Esu/Balāṭu

I.B.13. Iranian
Iddin-Nabû/Ušeyāzu
Tīriyāma/Atta-[x-x]
Ahumē (Sem., 55, 170)/Ramîʾa (either to West Semitic R-W/Y-M “to be exalted”) or Old Iran34

I.B.14. Elamite?
Nidinti-Bēl/Ki-ri-PI-šú (< Kirwaš?)35

I.C. Kish/Hursag-kalamma
The archives of Gahal, Pahāru, Ēpeš-ilī, Rēʾi-alpē and Bēl-ana-mērehti36 mention 333
individuals (severely damaged names and partially broken filiations are not included).

31
See WAERZEGGERS 2014, 353 ad 175, 13. It is the same name as NA K[u]-lu-lu, which is inter-
preted as “veiled” by S. Parpola (PNA 2, 636a), but the NA form would be *kallulu.
32
Iššar is the Neo-Assyrian form of Ištar.
33
Cf. Abdi-Iššar, with a West Semitic predicative element.
34
See ZADOK 2009, 279:461.
35
Cf. IDEM 1984b, 20–21:104, in which case it would be a divine name used as an anthroponym.
36
See JURSA 2005,104–107.
50 Ran Zadok

Explicitly non-Kishite individuals, viz. Bēl-ibni from Upi (3.uruú-pi-ʾA+⌈A) and Iqīšâ
from Mankisu (OECT 10, 21,2f.; 95, 11) are not counted.

Table 1: Individuals from Kish

Category Archive Total

Gahal Pahāru Ēpeš-ilī and other
small archives
(Rēʾi-alpē and
Bēl-ana-mērehti)
Surnames 75 (49.01 %) 46 (46.46 %) 27 (33.33 %) 148 (44.44 %)
Two-tier
49 (32.02 %) 31 (31.31 %) 46 (56.79 %) 126 (37.83 %)
filiations
No filiation
1 (0.65 %) 5 (5.05 %) 2 (2.46 %) 8 (2.4 %)
(+ title)
Given name only 28 (18.3 %) 17 (17.17 %) 6 (7.4 %) 51 (15.31 %)
Akkad.-WSem. (1) (1) (2 = 0. 6 %)
WSem. (2) (2 = 0.6 %)
Assyrian (1) (1 = 0.3 %)
Iranian (1) (1 = 0.3 %)
Total 153 (45.94 %) 99 (29.72 %) 81 (24.32 %) 333

Generally the archive owners and their partners (who quite often acted as creditors) are
urbanite. It is noteworthy that the governor (šakin ṭēmi) of Kish, Zababa-napišta-uṣur,
who certainly belonged to the urban elite, has only a two-tier filiation.37 It can be sur-
mised that the scribe regarded the surname as superfluous since this prominent official
bore a distinctive title. A filiation is redundant when a given name is followed by a
title or a gentilic, like Bēl-ahhē-iddina Hi-in-da-na-A+A “the Hindanean” or a profes-
sion. Būr-ìl-A+A (OECT 10, 341, 3, Akkad.-WSem.), i.e. “Būr is my god”, may be a
Hindanean. Slaves had no filiations, but pledged persons, i.e. free people who became
slaves (mostly juniors) generally do have two-tier filiations. Given names only are
recorded in epistolary and administrative documents, but several females and a sizable
number of males in deeds have no filiations.
The following five individuals with two-tier filiations are of non-urbanite extrac-
tion:
The last witness (West Semitic) is preceded by three witnesses with three-tier Ak-
kadian filiations (OECT 10, 17). The debtor, Šamšāyu/Šu-pa-ʾ, is of West Semitic
extraction. Only the 1st witness has a surname, whereas the 2nd, 3rd and 4th = last wit-
ness have two-tier Akkadian filiations (OECT 10, 153).
Also in some other deeds only the 1st witness has a surname (OECT 10, 122, 143,
156, 158, 168 and poss. 170). Nabû-tukkulu/6De-ki-ri, member of a group of debtors,
(OECT 10, 29, 5f.) has an Aramaic paternal name (“remembered”). In several deeds
no individual has a surname (e.g., OECT 10, 49, 155). Nabû-bullissu/Da-ga-an-na-

37
Zababa-napištu (dZa-ba4-ba4-ZI)/11.d+AG-DÙ-SU, arbiter, Kish, -.-.9 Nbk. II (OECT 10, 48,
10f.); Zababa-napišta-uṣur (dZa-ba4-ba4-ZItì-PAP), arbiter, [Kish?], 17.XI.10[+x] Nbk. II (OECT 10,
50, 6f.).
 On the Arameans and the Indigenous Population in Babylonia 51

šarra-uṣur (with a two-tier Akkadian filiation) was apparently linked to the palatial
sector in view of his paternal name (with -šarra-, 150). He held a garden (bīt limītu)
on Harri Ha-ma-ri adjacent to the property of Da-pa-ap-si-in-˻du (non-Semitic). The
debtor Itti-Nabû-gūzu/Nabû-šarra-uṣur (OECT 10, 114) might also be connected with
the palatial sector in view of his paternal name. Other parties to transactions (different
from the owners of archives) have two-tier filiations in deeds (OECT 10, 118, 142,
157, 158).
The archives from Kish belong to Urbanites. Those of Gahal and Pahāru mention
more individuals with surnames (49.01 % and 46.46 %) than people with two-tier
filiations (32.02 % and 31.31 %). However, the latter group is a sizable minority.
Individuals with two-tier filiations are the majority (56.79 %) in the archive of Ēpeš-ilī
and other small archives that form a lesser segment of the general documentation from
Kish (24.32 %) compared with the two large archives (75.66 %). The high percentage
of two-tier filiations is due to the lack of prebendary texts in all the archives and the
intensive interaction with the countryside: the archive owners conducted transactions
in the rural area. The archive owner Nergal-aha-iddina/Nabû-ušallim was a partner in a
harrānu-transaction according to a deed from Bīt-Kudurru (of Bīt-Dakkūri) dated to
20.I.26 Dar. I (OECT 10, 151). The other two principals, Ha-ri-im-ma-ʾ/Hašdâ and
Ba-ga-sa-ru-ú bear non-Babylonian given names (the former is Aramaic [“sacred”]
with an Akkadian paternal name and the latter is Iranian). Three of the five witnesses
also bore non-Babylonian names, viz. dBa-ru-qu-il-l[u?]-ú (“Baruqu is his god”), Ú-
˹qu-ba-nu/Ìl-ma-a-˹du (both Aram.) 38 and Ab-di-dŠÁR˺ 39 /Nabû-rēmanni (Arameo-
Assyrian “Iššar’s servant” with a Babylonian paternal name).
Ap(i)ladu-zēra-ibni (IBILA-du-NUMUN-DÙ)/Kīnâ is recorded in a deed which was
issued in uruDa?-mu-nu, which was named after the homonymous Aramean tribe (5th
Dar. I, 137, 3, 5). His name (Akkad.) contains the theophorous element Apil-Adad,
referring to a deity whose cult was popular in Sūhu and Hindānu.40 Typically, the deed
from this originally tribal settlement has no individuals with surnames, except for the
scribe.
The place of issue of 95 (archive of Pahāru) is not preserved.41 The witnesses are
without surnames, except perhaps the first one, whose filiation is severely damaged.
The 2nd witness is Iqīšâ uruMan-ki-su˼-˹A˼+˻A˼?, i.e. from the town of Mankisu, which
was situated near the point where the Diyala flows into the Tigris. This toponym rarely
occurs after the Old Babylonian period.42
Both debtors and both witnesses have two-tier filiations (OECT 10, 96, Ālu-šá-mTE-
ia is mentioned in a damaged context). The second and = last witness has a two-tier

38
Ú-qu-ba-nu is a qutl-formation of ʿ-Q-B “to protect” (plus an adjectival -ān) with anaptyxis
(like the predicative element of the Akkadian name Nabû-ú-pu-ni-ia < -upnīya borne by another
witness in the same deed). Ìl-ma-a-du means “God is (my) refuge”.
39
The last sign was collated by the author. Von Soden’s suggestion (1986, 157), ZIB = telītu, is
odd. Three wedges are clearly visible; there is a crack running in the middle of the sign, so that the
number of wedges may be four, taking into account the shape of HI in line 4.
40
For a Hindanean see just above.
41
Cf. JOANNÈS 1988, 359.
42
For OB Mankisum see EDZARD 1987–90.
52 Ran Zadok

Akkadian filiation (the first one has a damaged filiation in a deed concerning a field in
an irrigated area, OECT 10, 129). The principals in a deed concerning a field in Āl-
Arad-ekalli, as well as the 2nd and 3rd = last witnesses, have two-tier Akkadian filia-
tions. Only the 1st witness has a surname (OECT 10, 168).

I.D. Dilbat43
There are three text groups. The Dābibī archive (2 Nbn.-0 Bēl-šimâni) consists of 30
tablets.44 The Ea-qarrād-ilī archive (Zērīya/Zākiru, 25 Nbk. II-1 AmM.)45 consists of
more than 30 tablets. Most of the 859 individuals (520 = 60.53 %) are recorded in the
numerous unaffiliated documents (mostly unpublished tablets from the British Muse-
um and the Horn Archaeological Museum including the Dailem collection of the for-
mer).

Table 2: Individuals from Dilbat

Category Archive Total

Dābibī Ea-qarrād-ilī other
Surnames 140 (84.33 %) 40 (23.12 %) 191 (36.73 %) 371 (43.18 %)
Two-tier
10 (6.02 %) 87 (50.28 %) 220 (42.3 %) 317 (36.9 %)
filiations
No filiation
3 (1.8 %) 6 (3.46 %) 11 (2.11 %) 20 (2.32 %)
(+ title)
Given name only 13 (7.83 %) 40 (23.12 %) 91 (17.5 %) 144 (16.76 %)
WSem. (5, one in mixed (2, both in mixed
filiation = filiations = (7 = 0.81 %)
2.89 %) 0.38 %)
Judean (1 = 0.19 %) (1= 0.11 %)
Egyptian (1, in mixed
filiation = (1= 0.11 %)
0.19 %)
Unexplained (2 = 1.15 %) (3 = 0.57 %) (5 = 0.58 %)
Total 166 (19.32 %) 173 (20.13 %) 520 (60.53 %) 859

The Dābibī archive is mainly about the Hallatu palm grove.46 Among the gardeners
were members of the Rab-bānê (“temple, prebendary gardeners”), viz. Uraš-bēl-
šamê/Kīnâ//R. and his brother Lā-abâši.47 Members of this clan appear as witnesses.
The measurer’s prebend (mandidūtu) in the Eimbianu temple of Dilbat was held by
Uraš-šuma-iškun/Uraš-iddina, a member of the Mandidu (< mādidu “measurer”) clan,
who shared it with his brother Zēra-ukīn. Uraš-šuma-iškun granted his share to his
daughter Ṭābatu, who was obliged to take care of him in his old age (VS 5, 21). Other
shares of this prebend were held by members of the Šangû Dilbat, Itinnu(?) and (Ea-)

43
Dilbat is modern Dulayhim [“Dailem”].
44
See JURSA 2005, 98–99:7.4.1 (cf. WAERZEGGERS 2003–2004, 157 with n. 35).
45
See JURSA 2005, 99–100.
46
See COCQUERILLAT 1973–74, 97–105.
47
Cf. IDEM 1973–74, 98; 103–104.
 On the Arameans and the Indigenous Population in Babylonia 53

Ēpeš-ilī clans. The latter clan was based in Babylon where several transactions took
place. Nabû-ittannu/Uraš-kāṣir//Dābibi also bought a share of the measurer’s prebend.
He was also involved in an exchange of a palm grove and sown field for a prebend in
the shrine of Bēlet-ekalli (VS 5, 108).
The baker’s prebend in Eimbianu was sold by [Uraš-ušallim]/Bēl-ibni//Rīšīya to Id-
din-Nabû/A-qa-bi-ia and his brother Kuṣurrâ. This is a rare case where a prebend was
sold out to non-urbanites, very probably of Aramean extraction (VS 5, 83, see just
below).
At least 166 individuals are mentioned in the Dābibī archive; 140 with surnames
versus just ten with two-tier filiations. The ten two-tier filiations are:
– A-ra-am-ma-A+A (“Aramean”)/Gūzānu (10th w., VS 5, 105).
– The brothers Iddin-Nabû and Kuṣurrâ, sons of A-qa-bi-ia, were of Aramaean
extraction in view of their paternal name.
– The co-lessee Nabû-ittannu/Šulum-šarri (VS 3, 152) was apparently linked to the
palatial sector in view of his paternal name.
– A female (Ṭābatu/Zēra-ukīn), purchased the measurer’s prebend (VS 5, 161); one
may suspect that her surname was omitted.
– There remain just four indivduals, viz. one neighbor (Bēl-uṣuršu/Nidintu, VS 3, 153;
5, 105), a co-debtor (Kuṣurrâ/Ardi-Bēl, VS 3, 156), as well as two witnesses, namely
Bēl-ēṭir/Basīya, 10th (= last) w. (VS 5, 108) and Libluṭ/Arad-Uraš, 3rd (penultimate) w.
(VS 3, 160).
Dābibī must have been a prominent clan in Dilbat in view of the fact that his
descendant Nabû-(aha)-ittannu married Amti-Bābu, descendant of the most prominent
Dilbatean clan, viz. Šangû Dilbat. The latter clan was the bride giver. Other bride giver
clans were Šangû Ea and Nannautu whose female descendants Kurunnu-tabban and
Ina-Esaggila-bēlet married members of the Ēpeš-ilī and Egibi clans respectively.
Bēl-ittannu, the chief temple administrator (sg. šatammu, lúšà-tam) of Eimbianu, is
recorded without filiation because the title serves as an identifier. The same applies to
Nabû-ittannu, scribe (both recorded at Dilbat, 26.III.26 Dar. I, KOHLER/PEISER 1891,
36f.: BM 77411, 6–7).
On the other hand, two later chief temple administrators of Eimbianu, viz.
Nidintu/Nabû-ušallim//Šangû Nanâ, (11.VI.35 Dar. I, VS 5, 108) and Nabû-apla-
iddina/Rēmūt-Bēl//Ea-ilu (1.VI.0 Bēl-šimanni, VS 6, 331), are recorded with their full
three-tier filiations. The neighbors Šamaš-ēreš and Šūzubu (VS 5, 108; 110) bear only
given names. They did not necessarily belong to the circle of the archive owner. All
the names are Akkadian, except for that of the above-mentioned A-ra-am-ma-A+A and
A-qa-bi-ia (both Aram.); both are components of mixed filiations (with an Akkadian
paternal name and Akkadian given names respectively).
Amti-Bābu/Šamaš-iddina//Šangû Dilbat, wife of Nabû-aha-ittannu, possessed a
palm grove and uncultivated land. Her property was adjacent to that of her husband,
who sometimes represented her in transactions (e.g., VS 6, 157) or managed her
property. Her father is presumably identical with Šamaš-iddina/Kabtīya//Šangû Dilbat,
54 Ran Zadok

who acted as principal in the exchange of a palm grove and sown field for a prebend in
the shrine of Bēlet-ekalli (VS 5, 108). Šullumu/Kabtīya//Šangû Dilbat was presumably
her paternal uncle. No less than 12 witnesses belong to her clan.
Members of the Maštuku and Šumu-libši clans were temple enterers (sg. ērib bīti)
of Eimbianu. A descendant of the former clan (Uraš-ahhē-iddina/Nabû-ušallim) was
the prebendary bakers’ inspector of that temple (VS 6, 331).

I.D.1. Alphabetic List48

Ahhē-iddina/Šulâ//Nūr-ilīšu (VS 3, 152), 5th w. (VS 5, 105)
Amti-Bābu/Šamaš-iddina//Šangû Dilbat, wi. of Nabû-aha-ittannu (VS 3, 152); owner of a palm grove,
creditor (VS 3, 153; 156; 158; 160; 165; 209); neighbor (VS 5, 110); buyer of a palm grove and
uncultivated land (VS 6, 157)
Aplâ/Nabû-balāssu-iqbi//Šangû Ninurta, 3rd w. (VS 3, 156, identical with the scribe of VS 3, 160?)
Aplâ/Ningirsu-balāssu-iqbi//Šangû Ninurta, scribe (VS 3, 160, without the paternal name), 4 th w.
(165); 9th w. (VS 5, 108)
Arad-Uraš/Bēl-zēri//Šigûʾa, 1st w. (VS 3, 165); 5th w. (VS 5, 21); 4th w. (VS 5, 108)
Arammāyu/Gūzānu, 10th w. (VS 5, 105)
Ardi-Nergal/Pirʾu, gs. of Ina-Eaggila-šadûnu//Ēpeš-ilī, co-seller of measurer’s prebend (VS 5, 74/75);
co-buyer of measurer’s prebend (VS 5, 161, without the gf.’s name); 10th w. (VS 5, 76: -[Nergal],
without the gf.’s name)
Ardīya/Bēl-uṣranni, 4th w. (VS 3, 153)
Bēl-ēreš/Ina-Esaggila-šadûnu//Ēpeš-ilī, 3rd co-seller of measurer’s prebend (VS 5, 74/75); seller of
measurer’s prebend (VS 5, 161); hus. of Kurunnam-tabban(?), seller of measurer’s prebend (VS 5,
76)
Bēl-ēreš/Taqīš-Gula//Šangû Dilbat, 3rd w. (VS 5, 21); 1st w. (VS 5, 83)
Bēl-erība/Nabû-šuma-iddina//Šigûʾa, debtor (VS 3, 209)
Bēl-ēṭir/Basīya, 10th w. (VS 5, 108)
Bēl-ibni/Rēmūtu//Babūtu, 2nd w. (VS 5, 104)
Bēl-iddina/Bēl-nipšara//Šarru-arazu, 4th w. (VS 5, 74/75)
Bēl-iddina/Bēl-uballiṭ//Itinnu, 2nd w. (VS 3, 158)
Bēl-iddina/Bēl-zēru-līšir//Ēpeš-ilī, scribe and 2nd co-deliverer (KOHLER/PEISER 1891, 36f.: BM
77411, 7 [without filiation], 22)
Bēl-ikṣur/Tabnēa//Salamu, 1st w. (VS 3, 160)
Bēl-iqīša/Nabû-(mu)kīn-apli//Ardi-Nergal, 8th w. (VS 5, 161)
Bēl-ittannu (d+EN-it-tan-nu), chief temple administrator, deliverer, Dilbat; 26.III.26 Dar. I
(KOHLER/PEISER 1891, 36f.: BM 77411, 6)
Bēl-ittannu/[…], 7th w. (VS 6, 157)
Bēl-kāṣir/Bēl-uballiṭ//Nappāhu, 3rd w. (VS 5, 104)
Bēl-kāṣir/Lā-abâši//[Rab]-bānê, 4th w. (VS 5, 110)
Bēl-nipšar[i]/[DN]-(mu)kīn-apli//Ēpeš-ilī, 1st w. (VS 3, 156)
Bēl-rēman[ni …], 4th w. (VS 6, 331)
Bēlšunu/Lā-abâši//[…], 8th w. (VS 6, 157)
Bēl-uballiṭ/Lūṣi-ana-nūri//[…], 3rd w. (VS 5, 76)
Bēl-uballiṭ/Nabû-šuma-iddina//Ilūta-bani, 4th w. (VS 5, 83)
[Bēl?]-uballiṭ/[Nabû-uš]allim//Maštuku, temple enterer of Eimbianu, 5th w. ( VS 6, 331)
Bēl-upahhir/Nabû-balāssu-iqbi//Šangû Dilbat, buyer of measurer’s prebend (VS 5, 74/75)

48
Names are transcribed, except for occurrences in unpublished or partially published documents
that are transliterated.
 On the Arameans and the Indigenous Population in Babylonia 55

Bēl-uṣuršu/Nidintu, neighbor (VS 3, 153: [Bēl?]-, VS 5, 105)

Bēl-ušallim/Nabû-ēṭir//Allānu, 7th w. (VS 5, 83)
Bēl-zēri/Uṣuršâ//Šigûʾa, scribe (VS 5, 21)
Bulṭâ (bul-ṭa-a)/Ibnâ (ib-na-a)//Saggilāyu (sag-gil-A+A), 3rd w. (KOHLER/PEISER 1891, 36f.: BM
77411, 19)
Bulṭâ/Širiktu//Sîn-udammiq, 5th w. (VS 5, 74/75)
Bulṭâ/[…], 3rd w. (VS 5, 110)
[DN]-ēṭir-napšāti/Nabû-ahhē-bulliṭ//Rēšūa, 4th w. (VS 5, 161)
[DN-šu]ma?-iddina/Šuma-ukīn//Itinnu? (the seller’s br.), 4th w. (VS 5, 41)
Erība-Marduk/Rēmūt-[…]//[…], 5th w. (VS 5, 76)
Hašdāyu/Šāpik-zēri//Šangû Dilbat, 3rd w. (VS 3, 153); 11th w. (VS 5, 105); 2nd w. (VS 5, 110:
Hašd[āyu])
Iddin-Nabû/A-qa-bi-ia, br. of Kuṣurrâ, buyer of baker’s prebend in Eimbianu (VS 5, 83)
Iddin-Nabû/Nabû-ahhē-bulliṭ//Irʾanni, 8th w. (VS 5, 105)
Iddin-Nabû/Nabû-šuma-uṣur//Ea-ibni, scribe (VS 3, 152; 153; 156; 158; 165: without the paternal
name; VS 5, 76; VS 5, 83; 107: [Iddin-Nabû]/Na[bû-šuma-uṣ]ur; 108; 110: Na[bû-šuma-uṣ]ur; VS
6, 157: [Nabû-šuma-uṣur]; VS 6, 331: Na[bû-šuma-uṣ]ur)
Iddin-Nabû/Nabû-šuma-uṣur//Itinnu, 5th w. (VS 5, 161)
Iddin-Nabû/Nergal-nāṣir//Nūr-ilīšu, gardener (VS 5, 104)
Iddin-Nabû/Pirʾu//Nanna[utu], 1st w. (VS 5, 76)
Iddin-Uraš/Kīnâ//Ea-qarrād-ilī, 4th w. (VS 6, 157)
Iddin-Uraš/Kīnâ//Sîn-ilu, 4th w. (VS 3, 160)
Ina-Eaggila-bēlet/Iddin-Nabû//Nannautu, wi. of Nabû-šuma-ukīn (VS 5, 104, without filiation); seller
(palm grove, VS 5, 105); co-seller of a palm grove and uncultivated land (VS 6, 157)
Iqīša-Uraš/Etellu//Ṭābihu, 2nd w. (VS 5, 76)
Iqūpu/Bēl-ittannu//Bēl-eṭēru, 6th w. (VS 6, 157)
Iqūpu/Lāgamāl-iddina//Šangû Dilbat, 4th w. (VS 3, 152)
Kalbi-Bābu/Rēmūtu//Šangû Dilbat, debtor (VS 3, 160; 165)
[Kiri]btu?/Zērīya//Itinnu, 2nd w. (VS 5, 41)
Kurunnu-tabban(for -tabni)/Bēl-iddina//Šangû-Ea, wi. of Bēl-ēreš (in her presence, VS 5, 76)
Kuṣurrâ/A-qa-bi-ia, br. of Iddin-Nabû, co-buyer of baker’s prebend in Eimbianu (VS 5, 83)
Kuṣurrâ/Ardi-Bēl, co-debtor (VS 3, 156)
[Lā-ab]âši/Ardi-Bēl//Maṣṣar-abulli, 3rd w. (VS 5, 161)
Lā-abâši/Kīnâ//Rab-bānê, co-debtor (dates, assessed rent, VS 3, 160); br. of Uraš-bēl-šamê, gardener
(VS 5, 110)
Lā-abâši/Kīnâ//Šangû Dilbat, 2nd w. (VS 6, 157)
Lā-abâši/Nidinti-Bēl//Ša-ṭābtīšu, debtor (VS 3, 153; 156; 158)
Lā-abâši/Šuma-uṣur//Saggilāyu, 7th w. (VS 5, 161)
[Lāgamāl?]-erība/Kīnâ//[ …], 2nd w. (VS 5, 107)
Lāgamāl-iddina/Šamaš-šuma-uṣur//Bēl-eṭēru, lease of measurer’s prebend (VS 5, 107); 4th w. (VS 5,
76: [Bēl]-); 5th w. (VS 5, 108); 1st w. (VS 5, 110: L[āgamāl-iddina?]); presumably = Lāgamāl-
iddina//Šamaš-uṣur//Bēl-eṭēru, 1st w. (VS 3, 153)
Libluṭ/Arad-Uraš, 3rd w. (VS 3, 160)
Marduk-iqīšanni/Bēl-ušallim//Ātamar-anūssu, scribe (VS 5, 74/75; VS 5, 161)
Marduk-rēmanni/Marduk-šuma-ibni//Basīya, 10th w. (VS 5, 83)
Marduk-šuma-ibni/[…]-Uraš//Ea-ēpeš-ilī, 9th w. (VS 6, 331)
Marduk-šuma-iddina/Erība-Marduk//Sîn-udammiq, 3rd w. (VS 5, 105)
Marduk-šuma-iddina/Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti//Babūtu, 9th w. (VS 5, 105)
Marduk-zēra-ibni/Šumâ//Rab-bānê, 9th w. (VS 5, 83)
Murānu/Ṣillâ//Munnabitu, 1st w. (VS 3, 152)
Murā[nu?]/[…]ri//Salamu, 9th w. (VS 5, 76)
56 Ran Zadok

Murašû/Bēl-iddina//Dābibi, scribe, principal (VS 6, 331); Murašû/Bēl-iddina, scribe of Eimbianu,

principal (exchange of a palm grove and sown field for a prebend in the shrine of Bēlet-ekalli, VS 5,
108); Murašû (mu-ra-šu-ú), scribe, 3rd co-deliverer (KOHLER/PEISER 1891, 36f.: BM 77411, 7);
Mušallim-Marduk (GI-dAMAR.UTU)/Nūrēa (nu-úr-e-a)//Šangû Nanâ (lúSANGA dna-na-a),
presumably debtor (ten minas of silver owed to the Eimbianu temple), Dilbat; 26.III.26 Dar. I
(KOHLER/PEISER 1891, 36f.: BM 77411, 1, without filiation: 9, without surname: 14)
Mušēzib-Marduk/Ezida-(mu)kīn-apli//Maṣṣar-abulli, 1st w. (VS 5, 161)
Nabû-aha-ittannu/Gūzānu//La-kip-ru (or šup)-ri,49 debtor (VS 3, 152)
Na[bû?-ah]hē?-iddina/Gula-zēra-ibni//Irʾanni, scribe (VS 5, 41)
Nabû-apla-iddina/Bēl-ušallim//Ātamar-anūssu, 1st w. (the scribe’s brother, VS 5, 74/75)
Nabû-apla-iddina/Rēmūt-Bēl//Ea-ilu, chief temple administrator of Eimbianu, 1st w. (VS 6, 331)
Nabû-balāssu-iqbi/Bēl-zēri//Šangû Dilbat, 1st w. (VS 5, 21)
Nabû-bullissu (d+AG-bul-liṭ-su)/Ardi-Nergal (ÌR-dU.GUR)//Asû (a-si-i), co-guarantor, Dilbat;
26.III.26 Dar. I (KOHLER/PEISER 1891, 36f.: BM 77411, 5, without filiation: 9, without surname:
15)
Nabû-bullissu/Marduk-zēra?-uṣur//Šigûʾa, neighbor (VS 5, 105)
Nabû-bullissu/Nidintu//Naggāru, 8th w. (VS 6, 331)
Nabû-bullissu/Rēmūtu//Ea-imbi, 5th w. (VS 5, 83)
Nabû-bullissu/Šamaš-ēṭir//Ēpeš-ilī, 5th w. (VS 3, 165)
Nabû-bullissu//Nurzānu, neighbor (VS 3, 153)
Nabû-bullissu, context damaged (VS 6, 331)
Nabû-iddina/Arad-Uraš//Šangû Dilbat, 4th w. (VS 5, 21)
Nabû-iddina/Iddinâ//Šangû parakki (VS 3, 152); scribe (VS 5, 105)
Nabû-ittannu/Ea-lēʾi//Sūhāyu, 4th w. (VS 5, 105)
Nabû-ittannu/Iddinâ//Šangû Adad, 4th w. (VS 5, 104)
Nabû-ittannu/Nādinu//Damqa, 6th w. (VS 5, 74/75)
Nabû-ittannu//Sîn-tabni-uṣur (anonymous sons, neighbors, VS 5, 108)
Nabû-ittannu/Šulum-šarri, co-lessee (VS 3, 152)
Nabû-ittannu/Uraš-kāṣir//Dābibi, hus. of Amti-Bābu, principal (concerning sissinnu, VS 3, 153,
without filiation); co-creditor (delivery in his measure, 158); buyer (VS 5, 105); buyer of a palm
grove and uncultivated land (on behalf of his wife, VS 6, 157); buyer of measurer’s prebend (VS 5,
76); = Nabû-aha-ittannu/Uraš-kāṣir//Dābibi, hus. of Amti-Bābu, owner of a palm grove and a sown
field (lessor, VS 5, 110); Nabû-aha-ittannu/Uraš-kāṣir//[Dābibi], principal (exchange of a palm
grove and sown field for a prebend in the shrine of Bēlet-ekalli, VS 5, 108); Nabû-aha-
ittannu/Uraš-kāṣir//Dābibi, lease of measurer’s prebend (VS 5, 107); Nabû-aha-ittannu (=Nabû-
ittannu)/Uraš-kāṣir//Dābibi, principal (VS 6, 331 50)
Nabû-ittannu (d+AG-it-tan-nu), scribe, 1st co-deliverer, Dilbat; 26.III.26 Dar. I (KOHLER/PEISER 1891,
36f.: BM 77411, 7);
Nabû-mušētiq-ūdê/Šuma-ukīn//Ea-qarrād-ilī, 3rd w. (VS 5, 83)
Nabû-rēʾûšunu/Bēl-upahhir//Bāʾiru, 3rd w. (VS 3, 152)
Nabû-rēmanni/Balāssu//Šangû Sîn, 1st w. (VS 5, 104); 2nd w. (VS 5, 105)
Nabû-šuma-ukīn/Ibnâ//Ibni-ilu, 7th w. (VS 5, 108)
Nabû-šuma-ukīn/Ibnâ//Šangû Dilbat, 6th w. (VS 5, 21)
Nabû-šuma-ukīn/Nabû-zēra-iqīša//Egibi, hus. of Ina-Esaggila-bēlet, lessor (palm grove, dowry of his
wife, VS 5, 104); co-seller (VS 5, 105); seller of a palm grove and uncultivated land (VS 6, 157)
Nabû-šuma-ukīn/Sūqāyu//Sîn-tabni-uṣur, principal (exchange of a palm grove and sown field for a
prebend in the shrine of Bēlet-ekalli, VS 5, 108)

49
Does this unique spelling render a corrupted form of the common surname Lā-kubburu? For an-
other attempt at an interpretation see cautiously COCQUERILLAT 1973–74, 104: “Lāqīp-šupri(?)”.
50
See JURSA 2005, 99 with n. 720.
 On the Arameans and the Indigenous Population in Babylonia 57

Nabû-uballiṭ/Šamaš-šuma-iddina//Ardi-Nergal, 2nd w. (VS 5, 74/75)

Nabû-uṣuršu (d+AG-ÙRU-šú)/Murānu (mu-ra-nu)//Bēl-iqīša (d+EN-BAšá), 5th w. (KOHLER/PEISER
1891, 36f.: BM 77411, 21);
Nabû-uṣuršu/Uraš-kāṣir//Šangû Ninurta, 2nd w. (VS 3, 165)
Nabû-ušallim//Šangû Nanâ, judge, 1st w. (VS 5, 105)
Nabû-zēra-ibni/Nabû-šuma-iddina//Šangû Adad, 5th w. (VS 6, 157)
Nidintu/Iddīya//Šangû Ištar-Bābili, 7th w. (VS 5, 105)
Nidintu/Lā-abâši//Ēpeš-ilī, neighbor (owner of arable land in Til-Bēlti, VS 3, 209)
Nidintu/Lā-abâši//Šangû Dilbat, 2nd w. (VS 3, 152)
Nidintu/Nabû-aha-ittannu//Hammāyu (ha-am-ma-A+A), scribe (VS 5, 104)
Nidintu/Nabû-iddina//Andahar, 3rd w. (VS 5, 107: [Nidintu?]); 2nd w. (VS 5, 108); 3rd w. (VS 6, 157);
ni-din-tú/d+AG-MU//an-da-har, 2nd w. (KOHLER/PEISER 1891, 36f.: BM 77411, 18)
Nidintu/Nabû-ušallim//Šangû Nanâ, chief temple administrator of Eimbianu, principal (exchange of a
palm grove and sown field for a prebend in the shrine of Bēlet-ekalli, VS 5, 108); = Nidintu
(presumably a temple functionary), recipient (VS 5, 104)
[Nidintu/[…]//Bēl-eṭēru, inspector (qīpu) of Eimbianu,1st w. (VS 5, 107); [Nidintu/Nabû-ušallim
//Šangû Nanâ?], inspector of Eimbianu, 2nd w. (VS 6, 331)
Nidintu, slave of Balāssu the mašennu-official, 5th w. (VS 5, 104)
Pirʾu/Ina-Esaggila-šadûnu//(Ea-)Ēpeš-ilī, buyer of measurer’s prebend (prob. br. of Bēl-ēreš/Ina-
Eaggila-šadûnu//Ēpeš-ilī (VS 5, 41); seller of measurer’s prebend (VS 5, 74/75)
Qīšti-Uraš/Nidintu//Rab-tarbaṣi, 2nd w. (VS 3, 156)
Qīšti-Uraš/Tabnēa//Ēṭeru, 6th w. (VS 5, 108)
Rēmūtu (re-mut)/d+EN-na//lúSANGA x, 1st w. (KOHLER/PEISER 1891, 36f.: BM 77411,17)
Rēmūtu/Nabû-uballiṭ//Rīšīya, 6th w. (VS 5, 105)
Rēmūtu/[…], 7th w. (VS 5, 76)
Sūqāyu/Bēl-zēri//Burāqu, 1st w. (VS 5, 108); su-qa-A+A/d+EN-NUMUN//bu-ra-qu, guarantor, Dilbat;
26.III.26 Dar. I (KOHLER/PEISER 1891, 36f.: BM 77411, 4, without filiation: [su-qa-A]+A, 9, with-
out surname: 15)
Šamaš-ēreš, neighbor (VS 5, 110)
Šamaš-iddina/Kabtīya//Šangû Dilbat, principal (exchange of a palm grove and sown field for a
prebend in the shrine of Bēlet-ekalli, VS 5, 108)
Ša-Nabû-idūšu (ša-d+AG-i-du-šú)/Bēl-šuma-iškun (d+EN-MU-GARun)//Saggilāyu (sag-gil-A-A), 4th
w. (KOHLER/PEISER 1891, 36f.: BM 77411, 20)
Šāpik-zēri/Gimillu//Ea-qarrād-ilī, 1st w. (VS 6, 157)
Ša-pī-Uraš/[…], 6th w. (VS 5, 76)
Šullumu/Kabtīya//Šangû Dilbat, neighbor: [….], 2nd w. (VS 3, 153, (without surname); 1st w., 158;
neighbor (without surname, VS 5, 105)
Šūzubu?, neighbor (VS 5, 108)
Ṭābatu/Uraš-šuma-iškun, gd. of Gimillu/Šuma-ukīn//Itinnu?, seller of measurer’s prebend (VS 5, 41)
Ṭābatu/Zēra-ukīn, buyer of measurer’s prebend (VS 5, 161)
Ubāru/Bēl-uballiṭ//Burāqu, 6th w. (VS 5, 161)
Ubāru/Šāpik-zēri//Šangû Dilbat, 3rd w. (VS 3, 158)
Ubāru/[…], br. of […], witness (VS 3, 209)
Uraš-aha-ittannu, neighbor (owner of arable land, VS 5, 110)
Uraš-ahhē-iddina/Nabû-ittannu//Šangû Dilbat, 8th w. (VS 5, 108)
Uraš-ahhē-iddina/Nabû-ušallim//Maštuku, bakers’ overseer (PA), 7th w. (VS 6, 331)
Uraš-bēl-šamê/Kīnâ//Rab-bānê, co-debtor (VS 3, 165); br. of Lā-abâši, co-gardener (VS 5, 110)
Uraš-erība/Pirʾu, gs. of Ina-Esaggila-šadûnu//Ēpeš-ilī, 2nd co-seller of measurer’s prebend (VS 5,
74/75)
Uraš-ēṭir/Kīnâ//Rab-bānê (the co-debtor’s br.), 2nd w. (VS 3, 160)
Uraš-iddina//Mandidu, had a share of the mandidūtu prebend in Eimbianu (VS 5, 21)
58 Ran Zadok

Uraš-kāṣir/Kīnâ//Basīya, 8th w. (VS 5, 83)

Uraš-šāpik-zēri/Bēlšunu//Rab-bānê, 6th w. (VS 5, 83)
Uraš-šāpik-zēri/Nabû-šuma-ukīn//Ea-qarrād-ilī, 2nd w. (VS 5, 83)
Uraš-šuma-iškun/Uraš-iddina//Mandidu (br. of Zēra-ukīn), granted his share of the prebend of the
measurer in Eimbianu to his daughter Ṭābatu, who took upon herself to take care of him (VS 5, 21)
Uraš-šuma-uṣur/Uraš-aha-iddina//Rīšīya, 2nd w. (VS 5, 21)
[Uraš-ušallim]/Bēl-ibni//Rīšīya, seller of baker’s prebend in Eimbianu (VS 5, 83)
Uraš-zēra-ibni/Uraš-iddina//Salamu, 3rd w. (VS 3, 165)
Uraš-[…]/[…]//Ea?-dan, 8th w. (VS 5, 76)
Zēra-ukīn/Uraš-iddina//Mandidu, br. of Uraš-šuma-iškun (VS 5, 21); partner of measurer’s prebend
(VS 5, 41)
Zērīya/Iqīša//Šigûʾa, 3rd w. (VS 5, 74/75)
Zērīya/Itti-Nabû-balāṭu//Ēribu (e-ri-bi), 3rd w. (VS 5, 108)
[…]-Bēl/Uraš-šuma-ukīn//Šangû Dilbat, 1st w. (VS 5, 41)
[…]-Marduk/Nabû-bēlšunu//Būṣu, 6th w. (VS 5, 41)
[…-Ma]rduk/Uraš-ana-bītīšu//Arad-Ea, 5th w. (VS 5, 41)
[…]-Uraš/Nabû-šuma-iškun//Šangû-Ea, 3rd w. (VS 5, 41)
[…]/Itti-Nabû-balāṭu//Šigûʾa, 5th w. (VS 5, 110)
[…]/Mār-bīti-iddina//Ilīya, 7th w. (VS 5, 107)
[…]/Marduk-erība//Babūtu, 2nd w. (VS 5, 161)
[…]/Marduk-šuma-uṣur//Šumu-libši, temple enterer of Eimbianu, 6th w. (VS 6, 331)
[…]/Mušēzi[b…], 1st w. (VS 3, 209)
[…]/[Šē]lebu//Ēpeš-ilī, 6th w. (VS 5, 107)
[…]/[…-u]kīn//Šangû Ninurta, 4th w. (VS 5, 107)
[…]/[…]-ušebši?//Maštuku, 5th w. (VS 5, 107)
[…]. 3rd w. (VS 6, 331)

The 40 individuals without filiations in the Ea-qarrād-ilī archive include pledged fe-
males (2) and another female, masters of slaves (2) and of messengers (1), and a
neighbor. The latter was not involved in the transaction and the slaves’ masters were
not directly involved. Besides, the mention of a master’s name is a sufficient identifier
for dependents. No less than 15 out of these 40 individuals are mentioned in adminis-
trative records.
The unaffiliated texts from Dilbat include 102 individuals without filiations, of
which 11 bear titles, including three scribes, three slaves, and two gardeners of the
Ebabbar temple of Sippar who cultivated palm groves in Dilbat. 51 They are also
recorded in an unpublished administrative document concerning dates, assessed rent
(60 mašīhu of Ahhēa and 52 of his brother Šamaš-ēreš, Dilbat, 14.VIII.15 Npl. = 610
BCE).52 The oil presser Nabû-ahhē-šullim//Balāṭu is also mentioned in the same doc-
ument (concerning one mašīhu of sesame). Of the remaining 91 individuals, two were
masters of messengers and two were masters of slaves. Two messengers have also no
filiation. No less than 34 individuals are mentioned in administrative records and two
in letters. One female is followed by her husband’s name, which serves as an identifier
(an additional female is mentioned without any identifier). At least seven individuals
are recorded in damaged context.

51
For both gardeners (Ahhēa and Šamaš-ēreš) see DA RIVA 2002, 122–26; 134–35.
52
Columbia, Butler Library, 351 (old number “46.5”), 9f., 11f. It is dated within the period of
their activity in Dilbat (20[+x?].VI.12-16.VIb.18 Npl.).
 On the Arameans and the Indigenous Population in Babylonia 59

The archives from Dilbat belong to Urbanites. Both have almost the same number
of individuals (altogether nearly 40 % of the documentation). The archive of Dābibī,
which is basically about priestly clans, has an overwhelming majority of individuals
with surnames, whereas over half of the people mentioned in the archive of Ea-qarrād
have two-tier filiations; less than a quarter have surnames. The unaffiliated text group,
which is necessarily heterogeneous, occupies a middle position, with 42.3 % individu-
als with two-tier filiations and 36.73 % with surnames. The Ea-qarrād archive and the
other texts originate from a different milieu and display some interaction with the
lower strata of the urban society as well as with the rural areas. Out of the 186 indi-
vduals who are recorded at Dilbat in the preceding period (747–626 BCE) almost 60%
bore surnames.
Only 12% out of the 258 lessees of property of the Eanna temple of Uruk (mostly
gardeners of palm groves, sixth–beginning of fifth century BCE) bore surnames. Most
of them (83.72%) had two-tier Akkadian filiations. No more than 3.1% bore West
Semitic (practically Aramaic) anthroponyms. The percentage of Assyrian and unex-
plained names is negligible (0.38 and 0.77 respectively).

II. The Late Achaemenid and Later Periods

The Babylonian revolts against Xerxes, which were led by Babylonian urbanites, re-
sulted in the loss of political and socio-economic dominance by the urbanite bourgeoi-
sie. From 484 BCE on we witness the ascendancy of novi homines, entrepreneurs who
belonged to the group without surnames.53 The phenomenon of upsurge of one sector
of society over another in terms of political and economic power generally occurs in
time of crisis or emergency. Here it happened under the aegis and encouragement of
the foreign government. Entrepreneurs are an elusive phenomenon. They were an
originally marginal group that to a very limited extent bridged the gap between the
elite and the masses. They included royal functionaries, other employees of the palatial
sector and alphabetic scribes on the one hand54 and oblates of temples on the other (cf.
below). They never developed into a budding middle class in the Orient. However, the
severe blow that the urban elite suffered did not put an end to its cultural hegemony.
Since they belonged to the same sociocultural universe, the entrepreneurs with all their
influence and wealth, did not rate themselves higher than the clergy in cultural terms.
Therefore there was an arrest in their development and influence at a particular point,
namely when it came to cultic-cultural matters. The core of the urban elite remained
irreplaceable.
However, this status of the urban elite has been constantly and progressively eroded,
by inevitable demographic processes. For the hinterland has become Arameo-Arabian.

53
See WAERZEGGERS 2003–2004, 161–63.
54
For instance, the royal merchant Ardīya/Nabû-aha-iddina has a two-tier filiation. He is preceded
by Ìl-ha-na-nu/Gabbi-ina-qātē-Šamaš (the buyer’s brother), perhaps also a royal merchant as cau-
tiously implied by WUNSCH 1993, 76 ad loc.
60 Ran Zadok

In this pre-industrial society, the cities were dependent on and were nurtured by the
massive rural hinterland.
Against considering the progressive dwindling of the Babylonian urban stratum in
the Parthian period and its degeneration into a “caste,”55 Oelsner thinks that they re-
mained demographically significant in light of the continued evidence of temple con-
struction which was basically financed by the urbanites. I beg to differ. The determi-
nant function of the core is the cultural, not necessarily the numerical majority. It
should be remembered that the prestigious urban cults continued to be venerated and
supported by most sectors of the Babylonian society (excluding the Jewish, Zoroastri-
an, and less significant religious minorities) although their participation in the cult has
always been rather passive. Latecomers belonging to kin-groups adopted the hegemon-
ic culture and cults. This is a long-term phenomenon: cf. the participation of the Puqu-
deans who resided in the Nippur countryside in a festival in the ancient temple city of
Nippur as early as the eighth century BCE 56 and the adoption of the sedentaries’ cults
by the Arab nomads in Hellenistic-Roman Syria.57 The traditional Babylonian temples
probably existed as late as the third century CE. The latest testimonies are from the
Babylon-Borsippa-Cutha triangle. The withdrawal and dwindling in that triangle oc-
curred only in the second–third centuries CE58 and were prompted by the replacement
of the tolerant Parthian rule with that of the Zoroastrian Sasanids. The end of cunei-
form writing was coeval with the demise of the pagan temples according to Geller.59
Aa. Westenholz60 points out that the cuneiform tradition ended with the latest cunei-
form documents, i.e. earlier (in the last quarter of the first century CE at the latest).61
The demise of the Nabû temple in Borsippa presumably does not predate the reign of
Shahpur I, where it is reported that the Christian martyr Muʿayn (a Babylonian of
Arabian extraction) while fleeing Shahpur’s persecutions passed near such a temple,
which stood on a hill near the Euphrates river. Theodore Bar Koni (end of the eighth –
beginning of the ninth century CE) states62 that the Chaldeans (= the Babylonian ur-
banites) worshipped a demon named Nergal (presumably in Cutha) until the time of
Yazdgerd, i.e. until the beginning of the fifth century CE if he meant Yazdgerd I (399–
420 CE, Yazdegerd II ruled in 438–457 CE and Yazdegerd III was the last Sasanian
king). Even if this note is reliable, it refers to a cult and not necessarily to an estab-
lished deity with a temple.
There is no ascertained reference to the Mesopotamian pagans in the inscription of
the chief Zoroastrian priest Kardīr from the second half of the third century CE. The
categories of non-Zoroastrians in his inscription are:

55
Cf. FALES 2011, 91.
56
COLE 1996, 9–13, cf. FALES 2011, 93.
57
See DUSSAUD 1955, 37.
58
See OELSNER 2007, 220–22.
59
GELLER 1997, 79–80.
60
WESTENHOLZ 2007, 294–309.
61
Cooper (2008) considers the possibility that traditional Babylonian cults were conducted in the
Aramaic vernacular during their last phase.
62
Book of Scholia (ed. HESPEL/DRAGUET 1982), 343.
 On the Arameans and the Indigenous Population in Babylonia 61

Jews (Yhwdy /Yahūd/)

Buddhists (Šmny /Š(r)amān/)
Hindus (Brmn /Brāmān/)
Naṣura (“Nazarenes,” either Mandeans or a certain creed of Christians)
Christians (Kristyān)
Muktīg (to Skt. mukti- “salvation”, perhaps gnostics, Jainas or Baptists, i.e. Mandeans?)
Manicheans (zandīg)63

This enumeration starts with the oldest creed, Judaism, and ends with the latest one,
Manichaism. Kardīr states that the non-Zoroastrians were struck, idols were destroyed
and “dens” of demons were obliterated. Some scholars allow for the possibility that
this statement does not necessarily imply violent acts, but just dispute with rival
creeds.64 However, it should not be forgotten that waves of religious persecutions
against Jews and Christians by the Sasanian authorities are recorded both in the Baby-
lonian Talmud and the Syriac acts of martyrs. On the other hand, the Sasanian state
accepted both Nestorians and Hellenic pagans who fled from Byzantium. What counts
is that the Muslim conquerors found thriving Judeo-Christian communities in Mesopo-
tamia and Iran as well as numerous Buddhists in eastern Iran. This is in sharp contrast
to the almost total disappearance of paganism from the territories conquered by the
Muslims from Christian Byzantium. It seems clear that the fact that the official Sasa-
nian religion, Zoroastrianism, was not missionary enabled long periods of accommo-
dation with the other religions.
A problem is the fate of the urbanite clergy in Babylonia after the end of the Parthi-
an rule: with whom did the remnants of this dwindling caste assimilate? In this context
it should be remembered that Zoroastrianism is not a missionary religion, Judaism
almost terminated its missionary initiative after 70 CE, and Christianity was not yet a
state religion in the neighboring Roman Empire. Manichaism with its aggressive mis-
sionarism is an option, but there is no proof that this new religion, which was especial-
ly targeted by the non-tolerant Zoroastrian priests, absorbed the Mesopotamian clergy.
There is evidence for the preservation of Mesopotamian heritage among the Mande-
ans,65 but this does not necessarily mean that they attracted the local pagans. The
Mandeans did not originate in the southern Levant, but are indigeneous to Babylonia.
In fact, the Mandeans served as transmitters of Babylonian (Akkadian) heritage, espe-
cially magic incantations to the other dialects of Babylonian Aramaic.66
The term ʾrmʾy, “pagan(s),”67 reveals a binary distinction, viz. Jews versus Gentiles.
It does not define a specific pagan religion, like that of the Babylonian urbanites. In-
digenous ethno-religious groups are enumerated in an incantation bowl, viz. ʾrmʾyn,
“Arameans,” (or “pagans, gentiles”); Yhwdʾyn, “Jews”; Šyʾʿyn (recte Ṭyʾʿyn “Ar-
abs”?)68; Prsʾyn, “Persians” (or “Zoroastrians”) before non-indigenous ones, namely:

63
See BACK 1968, 414–15 with earlier lit.; BAILEY 1980; SKJÆRVØ 2011, 611–12; IDEM 2013,
547.
64
See SKJÆRVØ 2011, 619–20.
65
See MÜLLER-KESSLER/KESSLER 1999.
66
See MÜLLER-KESSLER 2005b, 219–21 and passim (cf. IDEM 1999).
67
Cf., e.g. FORD/MORGENSTERN 2018, 241; 243 with n. 572.
68
Hardly “Shiites” as rendered by GORDON 1934, 329 ad loc.
62 Ran Zadok

Hyndwʾyn, “Indians”; Ywnʾyn, “Greeks”; and Kytyn, literally “Citians” but presumably
referring to “Romans.” A Mandean incantation bowl lists a series of unnamed demons
(dywyʾ) and angels (mlʾkyʾ) who are defined as Ḥwrʾyyʾ (demons, perhaps of the
marshes)69; ʾʾrmʾyyʾ (“Aramean” demons); Prsʾyyʾ (“Persian” angels); and Ḥwzʾyyʾ
(“Huzian, Elamite,” i.e. from Khuzistan, angels).70
The Aramaic language persisted in Babylonia, which was named Byt ʾrmyʾ = Aso-
ristān, “the land of the Arameans” (Ērag “lowland” the Middle Persian forerunner of
CA ʿIrāq71) during the Sasanian period. The Chaldeans have long merged with the
Arameans72 and the sedentary Arabians also adopted the Aramaic language and culture.
The inhabitants of Babylonia were mostly Aramaic-speaking, but very few individuals
living there during the Sasanian period are mentioned by name. The pertinent sample
is very restricted. It consists of just 30 individuals, mostly Aramaic.73 The number of
non-Jews from Babylonia who are recorded in the Babylonian Talmud is negligible.
This restricted statistical sample can be significantly enlarged by adding the names of
no less than 950 clients and adversaries in magical texts (leaving out traditional, nota-
bly biblical, anthroponyms as well as severely damaged names) with at least 15 multi-
generational (i.e. three generations or more) lineages. The filiations consist of given
names (males or females) and metronyms (several hundreds in addition to the circa
950 given names), thereby providing precious information on female anthroponymy.
Admittedly, the anthroponyms are not necessarily those of the real people, but aliases
and zodiacal. However, they cannot be ignored while trying to evaluate the impact of
the Iranian religion and culture on the popular religion of the Babylonians in the Sasa-
nian period.74 The magical (incantation) bowls are datable (roughly) to the fourth–
seventh centuries CE (Sasanian and early Islamic).75 The same type of magic spells is
written (in Eastern Aramaic dialects with or without quotations from the Hebrew Bi-
ble) on bowls in Jewish Aramaic, Syriac (early Manichean), and Mandaic scripts.
Moreover, there are cases where the same individuals are recorded on magic bowls
with different scripts, evidence of interconfessional connections; the magic formulae
were inter-denomminational.76 The script and language of a bowl do not necessarily
render the language spoken by the client, but that of the sorcerer. The latter may have
belonged to a different religion or ethnic group. Since the majority of the texts of the
incantation bowls are in Jewish Aramaic script, it follows that they were written by

69
See MCCULLOUGH 1967, 37 ad D, 8, where unlikely interpretations are also discussed.
70
The spelling conforms to the JBA Byt Ḥwzʾy rather than to Mand. Kwzystʾn, but Mand. k- can
render xw-.
71
KAUFMAN 1975 (see FORD 2011, 262, 268–69). The CA form is due to re-interpretation.
72
Noteworthy is (ʾnʾhyd lylytʾ) 162ʾd-ʾrymyn dKldʾyyʾ “Anahit-Lilith of ʾrymyn (< *’rym’yn “Ara-
means?) of Kaldayyē” (“Chaldeans”) in an incantation bowl (see MÜLLER-KESSLER 1999, 206,
161´f.).
73
See ZADOK 2000, 2249–51.
74
On this topic see the pioneering and magisterial treatment of SHAKED 1997.
75
See HEALY 2003, 389. For the latest bowls see HUNTER 1995, 61 (early Abbasid from Basra)
and GAWLIKOWSKI 1990 (eighth century CE from Bijān near ʿĀna). The Syriac (Manichean) bowls
are from c. 600 CE according to TEIXIDOR 1962, 51–62 and NAVEH 1982, 151.
76
See EPSTEIN 1922, 41ff.; SHAKED 2000, 62.
 On the Arameans and the Indigenous Population in Babylonia 63

Jews. However, most of the clients were not Jewish.77 This is analogous to the phe-
nomenon of the Jews in Medieval and modern Yemen who wrote Hebrew amulets for
the local Muslim majority. Most of the bowls are unprovenanced, but the spatial cov-
erage of the provenanced ones is wide; many originate from Nippur.78 The gentilic
Npry, “Nippurean” (found in Nippur) is recorded as an anthroponym.79 His mother
(Maduk/Māh-dux/) and brother (Hurmizduk/Hormizd-dux/) bore Iranian names. The
geographical distribution of the other provenanced bowls is:
– Babylon, Babylon or Borsippa:80 the material in the Berlin Vorderasiatisches Muse-
um, which was mostly acquired, is thought to come from Babylon and Borsippa
– Cutha: probably the British Museum 1980-4-15 collection81 and notably the archive
of ʿbdrḥmn (<ʿAbd-Raḥmān) s. of Myšwy /Mēšoy/ and that of Bšndʾy /Bašniday/ (or
/Bašniray/) d. of Šʾhpryd /Šāhafrīd/82
– Choche83
– North of al-Kadhimain: Brymʾ (Brʿmʾ), s. of ʾzdndwkt, Bršptʾ (Bršbtʾ) s. of ʾḥtbw
and Mṭryʾ s. of Qymtʾ84
– Lower Diyala: HARVIAINEN 1981
– Sippar and Uruk85
The Mandean lead rolls of the British Museum (family archive of Māh-ādur Gušnasp),
which are datable to the same period, were found near al-Qurna near the confluence of
the Euphrates and the Tigris in southern Iraq.86
Almost all the magical texts are written in Aramaic (cf. above) with very few ex-
ceptions in Pahlavi.87 However, only c. 10 % of the names of the clients and adver-

77
See NAVEH/SHAKED 1987, 18; Jewish are e.g., SEGAL 2000, 097M and 099M; onomastic evi-
dence: Yhwdh s. of Nny; Bršptʾ s. of ʾḥtʾbw (NAVEH/SHAKED 1987, 174–77:9, 2, 7, 9, 12, 14:
Yhw[…]; 180–81:10, 7, 10, 13: Bršbt’ s. of <ʾḥ>tʾbw (“son of Sabbath,” i.e. born on Sabbath, see
183 ad loc.); Bršbty (NAVEH/SHAKED 1993, 124–25:19, 2). Both Brykyhbyh (s. of 7Mrt), which
contains a phonetic rendering for -Yhwh (see GORDON 1934, 327 ad 326–27 and pl. 12:C, 6f., 7) and
ʾbrhm (s. of Ddbh and Šrqwy, br. of Hwnyq, Ysmyn, Kwpyty, Mhdwk, Pnwy and Šyly, Nippur (MONT-
GOMERY 1913, 12, 11; 16, 3, 13) are not necessarily Jewish, but may alternatively be Christian like
Btḥdšbh (d. of ʾḥtʾ as well as Grygwr and Mrbh sons of ʾḥtʾ (GORDON 1934, 321–22 and pl. 10: A, 4)
and perhaps Srgys (< Sergios) s. of Brndwk (NAVEH/SHAKED 1993, 130–31:22, 5, 8, 9).
78
E.g., MONTGOMERY 1913; FORD/MORGENSTERN 2018.
79
See MÜLLER-KESSLER 2005a, 197a, index, s.v.; cf. HUNTER 1995, 65, n. 21.
80
SEGAL 2000, 006A–014A and 071A–073A.
81
Presumably ibid., 015A–017A, 026A, 029A, 050A, 085–089M, 098M (see WALKER in SEGAL
2000, 35 and cf. MÜLLER-KESSLER 2005b, 21 with n. 2).
82
SEGAL 2000, 076M–084M (see MÜLLER-KESSLER 2001–2002, 130a).
83
FRANCO 1978–79.
84
MORIGGI 2014, 24.
85
SEGAL 2000, 003A and 064A respectively.
86
MÜLLER-KESSLER 2002, 183. For the provenance, see PETERMANN 1861, 447–65.
87
Cf. SHAKED 2000, 64–65, a bowl (Schøyen collection 2055/5) with a bilingual label (Aramaic-
Pahlavi).
64 Ran Zadok

saries are Semitic (overwhelmingly Aramaic with a very slight Arabian admixture88).
The majority are Iranian with various degrees of plausibility.89 On the other hand,
most of the toponyms mentioned in this corpus are Semitic, but very few can be local-
ized. Likewise, most of the toponyms in Old Syriac and Jewish Aramaic sources from
Babylonia are Aramaic. On the whole, toponyms are less susceptible to change than
anthroponyms. Many filiations are mixed (Irano-Semitic),90 but purely Semitic ones
are not rare.91 It may be surmised that the many clients were members of the elite of
Sasanian Babylonia that consisted of Persians and locals who were impacted by the
hegemonic Persian culture and religion. Aramaic lacked prestige: the Talmudic sage
Rav Joseph (3rd generation of the Amoraim, circa end of the third century CE) pre-
ferred (Middle) Persian on Aramaic in Babylonia (Bab. Talmud Sotah 49b: “In Baby-
lonia why use Aramaic? Either use the Holy Language or use the Persian Lan-
guage”).92 However, unlike the Babylonian elite, the naming practices of the Babylo-
nian Jews remain conservative. Almost all the non-Biblical names of the Jews of Sasa-
nian Babylonia (mostly sages mentioned in the Babylonian Talmud) are Aramaic.
Very few have atypical anthroponyms, while Iranian names are almost totally absent.
Both the speech and the names of the Iranians seem outlandish to the inhabitants of
Nehardea (Babylonian Talmud, Gittin 14b), a town which was inhabited mostly by
speakers of Babylonian Jewish Aramaic.
Unlike in Babylonia, Arabian names are much more common in upper Mesopota-
mia, where Arab dynasties ruled as vassals of Parthia or Rome over a basically Arama-
ic-speaking population and a section of the Jazira was named Byt ʿrbyʾ = Arvastān
“the Arab territory.” Arabian names are the second largest group in the onomasticon
from Hatra and several of them are adapted to the Aramaic milieu and end in -ʾ93 (the
Arabian names reach almost the same percentage as the Aramaic names94). The same
applies to the Habur region during late antiquity, namely that the percentage of the
Arabian names was the same as that of the Aramaic ones, compared with the limited
number of bearers of Arabian names in Dūr-Katlimmu and Gozan 800 years earlier,
but at Dura Europos, most of the names are Aramaic.95

88
Arabian are ʾdyb (MORIGGI 2014, 18: 1, 10–11, /Adīb/ “polite, honest”) and Ḥṭyb (ḥaṭīb “be-
trothed”, see SEGAL 2000, 95a ad 056A, 6).
89
See MÜLLER-KESSLER 2005b, 220.
90
See HUNTER 1999, 169–70.
91
E.g. (all explicable in Aramaic terms) ʾdy s. of Mrty and br. of Ḥyyn, ʾḥdbʾy s. of Šyltʾ gs. of
ʾymy and br. of Brkyš<m>šy and ʾḥtʾ ṭbwh d. of Gwrytʾ, sis. of ʾymy and ʾšrḥy (LEVENE 2013, 20–
29:VA.2484, 17; 95–105:SD 27, 9–11); Brgll s. of Dwdy, gs. of Mrtʾ and br. of Mhwy (MONTGOM-
ERY 1913, 15, 3, 8; 186 ad loc. compared OT Gll); and Gnybʾ s. of Dwdʾy (cf. IDEM1912, 435–36).
92
Is this lack of prestige the reason why the Res Gestae of Shahpur I is written in Middle Persian,
Parthian and Greek, but lack an Aramaic version? Aramaic, the language of most of the inhabitants of
the western part of the Sassanian Empire, as well as those of the adjacent Roman Levant, could have
served as a very effective means of royal propaganda.
93
BERTOLINO 2008, 10: table 1 lists 106 Arabian names versus 108 Aramaic ones.
94
See ZADOK 2000, 2245–46.
95
See IDEM 1987, 312; GRASSI 2012 and cf. GZELLA 2015.
 On the Arameans and the Indigenous Population in Babylonia 65

III. Concluding Statement

Apart from explicit and implicit Arameans (bearing gentilics or defined as such in
historical sources vs. people with Aramaic names), the rather ill-defined group of peo-
ple with two-tier filiations must have included a sizable – if not predominant – Arame-
an segment. The filiations are linguistically overwhelmingly Akkadian, the age-long
prestigious language of Babylonia. Only a small minority are mixed (Akkadian and
West Semitic, predominantly Aramaic). This leaves wide margins of uncertainty de-
spite of the intensive analysis presented above, which is very far from exhaustive giv-
en the huge corpus. The identification and delimitation of this group is also impeded
by scribal habits (abbreviated filiations) and textual constraints (especially in adminis-
trative and epistolary documents). We must reckon with a significant sector of crypto-
Arameans in Babylonia that is masked by the Neo-Babylonian/Late Babylonian docu-
mentation. It is beyond dispute that this group, which has a plurigenesis, occupied an
important place in the demography of the Arameans in Babylonia < Akkad, which
eventually became “the land of the Arameans.” Despite the competition of the hege-
monic Persian culture and the methodological difficulties presented above, it can be
stated that Aramaic did not lose its dominant position among the inhabitants of Baby-
lonia before the Abbasid period.

Bibliography
BACK, M. (1978): Die sassanidischen Staatsinschriften: Studien zur Orthographie und Phonologie
des Mittelpersischen der Inschriften zusammen mit einem etymologischen Index des mittelpersi-
schen Wortgutes und einem Textkorpus der behandelten Inschriften, (Acta Iranica 18: 3 série:
Textes et mémoires), Leiden/Teheran/Liège.
BAILEY, H.W. (1980): Iranian mktk-, Armenian mkrtem, Revue des Études armeniennes, NS 14, 7–
10.
BAKER, H.D. (2000–2001): The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, Vol. 2, Helsinki.
– (2002–2010): The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, Vol. 3, Helsinki.
BEAULIEU, P.-A. (2003): The Pantheon of Uruk During the Neo-Babylonian Period, (Cuneiform
Monographs 23), Leiden/Boston, MA.
BEAULIEU, P.-A./W.R. MAYER (1997): Akkadische Lexikographie: CAD Š2 and Š3, Or. 66, 157–80.
BERTOLINO, R. (2008): Manuel d’épigraphie hatréenne, Paris.
BRINKMAN, J.A. (1968): A Political History of Post-Kassite Babylonia, 1158–722 B.C., (AnOr 43),
Rome.
– (1977): Appendix: Mesopotamian Chronology of the Historical Period, in: A.L. OPPENHEIM,
Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead Civilization, (Revised edition Completed by E. Reiner),
Chicago/London, 335–48.
– (1984): Prelude to Empire: Babylonian Society and Politics, 747–626 B.C., (Occasional Publica-
tions of the Babylonian Fund 7), Philadelphia, PA.
BROWN, D. (2008): Increasingly Redundant: The Growing Obsolescence of the Cuneiform Script, in
Babylonia from 539 BC, in: J. BAINES/J. BENNET/S. HOUSTON (eds.), The Disappearance of Writ-
ing Systems: Perspectives on Literacy and Communication, London, 73‒101.
COCQUERILLAT, D. (1973–74): Recherches sur le verger du temple campagnard de l’Akītu (KIRI6
ḫallat), WO 7, 97–105.
66 Ran Zadok

COLE, S.W. (1996): Nippur in Late Assyrian Times c. 755–612 BC, (SAAS 4), Helsinki.
COOPER, J., 2008: Redundancy Reconsidered: Reflections on David Brown’s Thesis, in: J. BAINES/
J. BENNET/S. HOUSTON (eds.), The Disappearance of Writing Systems: Perspectives on Literacy
and Communication, London, 103‒108.
DA RIVA, R. (2002): Der Ebabbar-Tempel von Sippar in frühneubabylonischer Zeit (640–580 v.Chr.),
(AOAT 291), Münster.
DURAND, J.-M. (1982): Les documents cunéiformes de la IVe Section de l’École Pratique des Hautes
Études, Vol. 1, Catalogue et copies cunéiformes, (École Pratique des Hautes Études IVe Section,
Sciences historiques et philologiques, Hautes études orientales, Vol. 18), Geneva/Paris.
DUSSAUD, R. (1955): La pénétration des arabes en Syrie avant l’Islam, (Bibliothèque archéologique
et historique de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie de Beyrouth 59), Paris.
EDZARD, D.O. (1987–90): Mankisum. RlA 7, 339–40.
EPSTEIN, J.N. (1922): Glosses babylo-araméennes, Revue des Études Juives 74, 40–72.
FALES, F.M. (2011): Moving Around Babylon: On the Aramean and Chaldean Presence in Southern
Mesopotamia, in: E. CANCIK-KIRSCHBAUM/M. VAN ESS/J. MARZAHN (eds.), Babylon: Wissens-
kultur in Orient und Okzident, (Topoi: Berlin Studies of the Ancient World 1), Berlin, 91–112.
FORD, J.N. (2011): A New Parallel to the Jewish Babylonian Aramaic Magic Bowl IM 76106 (Nippur
11N 78), Aramaic Studies 9, 249–77.
FORD, J.N./M. Morgenstern (2018): Aramaic Incantation Bowls in Museum Collections, Vol. 1: The
Frau Professor Hilprecht Collection of Babylonian Antiquities, Jena, (Magical and Religious Lit-
erature of Late Antiquity 8), Leiden/Boston, MA.
FRANCO, F. (1978–79): Five Aramaic Incantation Bowls from Tell Baruda (Choche), Mesopota-
mia 13–14, 233–49.
GAWLIKOWSKI, M. (1990): Une coupe magique araméenne, Semitica 38, 137–43 and pls. 24–25.
GELLER, M. (1997): The Last Wedge, ZA 87, 43–95.
GORDON, C.H. (1934): Aramaic Magical Bowls in the Istanbul and Baghdad Museum, ArOr 6, 319–
34.
– (1941): Aramaic Incantation Bowls, Or. 10, 116–41; 272–84; 339–60.
GRASSI, G.F. (2012): Semitic Onomastics from Dura Europos: The Names in Greek Script and from
Latin Epigraphs, (History of the Ancient Near East, Monographs 12), Padua.
GZELLA, H. (2015): Review of GRASSI 2012, AfO 53, 457–63.
HARVIAINEN T. (1981): A Syriac Incantation Bowl in the Finnish National Museum, Helsinki: A
Specimen of Eastern Aramaic “Koiné”, StOr 51, 1–29.
HEALY, J.F. (2003): Review of SEGAL 2000, JSS 48, 389–90.
HUNTER, E.C.D. (1995): Combat and Conflict in Incantation Bowls: Studies on Two Aramaic Speci-
mens from Nippur, in: M.J. GELLER/J.C. GREENFIELD/M.P. WEITZMAN (eds.), Studia Aramaica,
(JSS Supplement 4), 61–75.
– (1999): Incantation Bowls from Babylon and Borsippa in the British Museum, ISIMU 2, 165–72.
JOANNÈS, F. (1982): Textes économiques de la Babylonie récente: Étude des textes de TBER, –
Cahier 6, Paris.
– (1988): Review of OECT 10, BiOr 45, 357–64.
JURSA, M. (2005): Neo-Babylonian Legal and Administrative Documents: Typology, Contents and
Archives, (Guides to the Mesopotamian Textual Record 1), Münster.
– (2010): Der neubabylonische Hof, in: B. JACOBS/R. ROLLINGER (eds.), Der Achämenidenhof:
Akten des 2. Internationalen Kolloquiums zum Thema „Vorderasien im Spannungsfeld klassischer
und altorientalischer Überlieferungen“, Landgut Castelen bei Basel, 23.–25. Mai 2007, Wiesba-
den, 67–106.
JUSTI, F. (1895): Iranisches Namenbuch, Marburg.
KAUFMAN, S.A. (1975): Appendix C: Alphabetic Texts, in: M. GIBSON (ed.), Excavations at Nippur:
Eleventh Season, (OIC 22), Chicago, IL, 151–52.
KOHLER, J./F.E. PEISER (1891): Aus dem babylonischen Rechtsleben II, Leipzig.
 On the Arameans and the Indigenous Population in Babylonia 67

LANKESTER HARDING, G. (1971): An Index and Concordance of Pre-Islamic Arabian Names and
Inscriptions, (Near and Middle East Series 8), Toronto/Buffalo.
LEVAVI, Y. (2018): Administrative Epistolography in the Formative Phase of the Neo-Babylonian
Empire, (Spätbabylonische Briefe 2. Dubsar 3), Münster.
LEVENE, D. (2013): Jewish Aramaic Curse Texts from Late-Antique Mesopotamia, (Magical and
Religious Literature of Late Antiquity 2), Leiden/Boston, MA.
LIPIŃSKI, E. (2000): The Aramaeans: Their Ancient History, Culture, Religion, (OLA 100), Leuven.
MCCULLOUGH, W.S. (1967): Jewish and Mandaean Incantation Bowls in The Royal Ontario Muse-
um, (Near Eastern and Middle Eastern Series 5), Toronto.
MONTGOMERY, J.A. (1912): A Magical Bowl-Text and the Original Script of the Manichaeans,
JAOS 32, 434–38.
– (1913): Aramaic Incantation Texts from Nippur, (PBS 3), Philadelphia, PA.
MORGENSTERN, M./J.N. FORD (2017): On Some Readings and Interpretations in the Aramaic Incan-
tation Bowls and Related Texts, BSOAS 80, 191–231.
MORIGGI, M. (2014): A Corpus of Syriac Incantation Bowls: Syriac Magical Texts from Late-Antique
Mesopotamia, (Magical and Religious Literature of Late Antiquity 3), Leiden/Bostonm, MA.
MÜLLER-KESSLER, CH. (1999): Interrelations Between Mandaic Lead Rolls and Incantation Bowls,
in: Tz. ABUSCH/K. VAN DER TOORN (eds.), Mesopotamian Magic: Textual, Historical, and Inter-
pretative Perspectives, (Ancient Magic and Divination 1), Groningen, 197–09.
– (2001–2002): Die Zauberschalensammlung des British Museum, AfO 48–49, 115–45.
– (2002): A Charm Against Demons of Time, in: C. WUNSCH (ed.), Mining the Archives: Festschrift
for Christopher Walker on the Occasion of His 60th Birthday, (Babylonische Archive 1), Dresden,
183–89.
– (2005a): Die Zauberschalentexte in der Hilprecht-Sammlung, Jena, und weitere Nippur-Texte
anderer Sammlungen, (Texte und Materialien der Hilprecht Collection 7), Wiesbaden.
– (2005b): Of Jesus, Darius, Marduk: Aramaic Magic Bowls in the Moussaieff Collection,
JAOS 125, 219–40.
MÜLLER-KESSLER, CH./H. KESSLER (1999): Spätbabylonische Gottheiten in spätantiken mandäischen
Texten, ZA 89, 65–87.
NAVEH, J. (1982): Early History of the Alphabet, Jerusalem/Leiden.
NAVEH, J./SH. SHAKED (1987) Amulets and Magic Bowls: Aramaic Incantations of Late Antiquity,
Jerusalem/Leiden.
– (1993): Magic Spells and Formulae: Aramaic Incantations of Late Antiquity, Jerusalem.
NIELSEN, J.P. (2011): Sons and Descendants: A Social History of Kin Groups and Family Names in
the Early Neo-Babylonian Period, 747–626 B.C., (Culture and History of the Ancient Near
East 43), Leiden.
OELSNER, J. (2007): 30 Thesen zum Thema Aramäisierung-Hellenisierung-Iranisierung Babyloniens,
in: R. ROLLINGER/J. WIESEHÖFER, J. (eds.), Getrennte Wege? Kommunikation, Raum und Wahr-
nehmung in der alten Welt, (Oikumene, Studien zur Antiken Weltgeschichte 2), Frankfurt, 218–27.
PETERMANN, J.H. (1861): Reisen im Orient 2, Leipzig.
POGNON, H. (1898): Inscriptions mandaïtes des coupes de Khoubir, Paris.
SEGAL, J.B. with a contribution by E.C.D. HUNTER (2000): Catalogue of the Aramaic and Mandaic
Incantation Bowls in the British Museum, London.
SHAKED, SH. (1997): Popular Religion in Sasanian Babylonia, Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and
Islam 21, 103–17.
– (1999): The Poetics of Spells: Language and Structure in Aramaic Incantations of Late Antiquity
1: The Divorce Formula and Its Ramifications, in: Tz. ABUSCH/K. VAN DER TOORN (eds.), Meso-
potamian Magic, (Ancient Magic and Divination 1), Groningen, 173–95.
– (2000): Manichaean Incantation Bowls in Syriac: Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 24, 58–
92.
68 Ran Zadok

SHAKED, SH./J.N.FORD/S. BHAYRO (2013): Aramaic Bowl Spells: Jewish Babylonian Aramaic
Bowls 1, (Magical and Religious Literature of Late Antiquity 1: Manuscripts in the Schøyen Col-
lection 20), Leiden/Boston, MA.
SKJÆRVØ, P.O. (2011): Kartīr, Encyclopaedia Iranica 15, 608–28.
– (2013): Avesta and Zoroastrianism Under the Achaemenids and Early Sasanians, in: D.T. POTTS
(ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran, Oxford, 547–65.
VON SODEN, W. (1986): Review of OECT 10, ZA 76, 154–58.
SPAR, I./M. JURSA (2014): The Ebabbar Temple Archive and Other Texts from the Fourth to the First
Millennium B.C., (CTMMA 4), Winona Lake, IN.
STEINKELLER, P. (1983): The Question of Marhaši: A Contribution to the Historical Geography of
Iran in the Third Millennium B.C., ZA 72, 237–65.
TAVERNIER, J. (2007): Iranica in the Achaemenid Period (ca. 550–330 B.C.), (OLA 158), Leuven.
TEIXIDOR, J. (1962): The Syriac Incantation Bowls in the Iraq Museum, Sumer 18, 51–62.
WAERZEGGERS, C. (2003–2004): The Babylonian Revolts Against Xerxes and the ‘End of the Ar-
chives’, AfO 50, 150–73.
– (2014): Marduk-rēmanni: Local Networks and Imperial Politics in Achaemenid Babylonia,
(OLA 233), Leuven/Paris/Walpole, MA.
WESTENHOLZ, A. (2007): The Graeco-Babyloniaca Once Again, ZA 97, 262–313.
WUNSCH, C. (1993): Die Urkunden des babylonischen Geschäftsmannes Iddin-Marduk: Zum Handel
mit Naturalien im 6. Jahrhundert v.Chr., I–II, (Cuneiform Monograph 3), Groningen.
– (2000): Das Egibi Archiv I–II, (Cuneiform Monograph 20), Groningen.
– (2003): Urkunden zum Ehe-, Vermögens- und Erbrecht aus verschiedenen neubabylonischen
Archiven, (Babylonische Archive 2), Dresden.
– (2014): Babylonische Familiennamen, in: K. KREBERNIK/H. NEUMANN (eds.), Babylonien und
seine Nachbarn: Wissenschaftliches Kolloquium aus Anlass des 75. Geburtstages von Joachim
Oelsner, Jena, 2. und 3. März 2007, (AOAT 369), Münster, 289–314.
ZADOK, R. (1976): On the Connections Between Iran and Babylonia in the 6th Century B.C., Iran 14,
61–78.
– (1977): Iranians and Individuals Bearing Iranian Names in Achaemenian Babylonia, Israel
Oriental Studies 7, 89–138.
– (1978): On West Semites in Babylonia During the Chaldean and Achaemenian Periods: An Ono-
mastic Study, Jerusalem.
– (1979): Sources for the History of the Jews in Babylonia During the Chaldean and Achaemenian
Periods with an Appendix on West Semitic Names in 1st-Millennium Mesopotamia, Jerusalem.
– (1984a): New Documents from the Chaldean and Achaemenian Periods, OLP 15, 65–75.
– (1984b): The Elamite Onomasticon, (Supplemento n. 40 agli Annali dell’Istituto Orientale di
Napoli 44), Naples.
– (1985a): Zur Geographie Babyloniens während des sargonidischen, chaldäischen,
achämenidischen und hellenistischen Zeitalters, WO 16, 19–79.
– (1985b): Geographical Names According to New- and Late-Babylonian Texts, (Répertoire géo-
graphique des textes cunéiformes 8), Wiesbaden.
– (1987): Zur Struktur der nachbiblischen jüdischen Personennamen semitischen Ursprungs, Trum-
ah (Jahrbuch der Hochschule für jüdische Studien, Heidelberg 1), 243–343.
– (2000): The Ethno-Linguistic Character of the Semitic-Speaking Population of Mesopotamia and
Adjacent Regions Between the 1st and 7th Centuries A.D.: A Preliminary Survey of the Onomastic
Evidence., in: S. GRAZIANI (ed.), Studi Sul Vicino Oriente antico dedicati alla memoria di Luigi
Cagni, (Istituto Universitario Orientale, Dipartimento di Studi Asiatici. Series Minor 61), Naples,
2237–70.
– (2009): Iranische Personennamen in der neu- und spätbabylonischen Nebenüberlieferung: Irani-
sches Personennamenbuch 7/1B, (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil-hist. Kl.
Sitzungsberichte (= SÖAW) 777), Vienna.
 On the Arameans and the Indigenous Population in Babylonia 69

– (2017): A Cylinder Inscription of Aššur-ketta-lēšir II, in: A. BARUCHI-UNNA/T. FORTI/S. AḤITUV

/I. EPHʿAL/J.H. TIGAY (eds.), “Now It Happened in Those Days”: Studies in Biblical, Assyrian,
and Other Ancient Near Eastern Historiography Presented to Mordechai Cogan on His 75th
Birthday, Vol. 1, Winona Lake, IN, 309–40.
 The Aramaic Qumran Literature
in Its Socio-Historical Setting*
Daniel Machiela

I. Use of Aramaic During the Persian and Hellenistic Periods

A rapidly growing body of epigraphic evidence is drawing scholarly attention to the

vibrancy and pervasiveness of the Aramaic language in the lives of Judeans and sur-
rounding ethnic groups during the Persian and Hellenistic periods, both within the
Land of Israel and well beyond it. We have long known of a relatively standardized
form of Aramaic being used for the official business of government administrators
across the Persian kingdom, as seen, for example, in the fifth-century BCE Arsham
correspondence from Egypt, or the recently published fourth-century BCE documents
from Bactria edited by Joseph Naveh and Shaul Shaked.1 To these we may add the late
fifth-century BCE correspondence of Judean leaders at Elephantine with Persian offi-
cials, such as Yedaniah’s request to Bagohi in Yehud and Delaiah in Samaria to help
rebuild Elephantine’s temple of Yaho. Staying within the Elephantine corpus, we also
find texts centered more internally on the affairs of the Judean community. There are
marriage and divorce contracts, the remarkable dispatch from Hananiah to Yedaniah
about keeping the Feast of Unleavened Bread in Elephantine, letters between Judeans
(who sometimes also identified themselves as Arameans) on a variety of topics, and a
list of those who made two-shekel contributions to Yaho’s temple on the island.2 Ar-
chaeological discoveries in the Land of Israel reveal further the varied uses of Aramaic
in daily life. There are, for example, the fourth-century BCE Wadi ed-Daliyeh papyri,
dealing largely with the ownership or sale of slaves, and the fourth-century BCE Ketef
Jericho papyrus published by Hanan Eshel and Haggai Misgav, listing names and
monetary contributions in a way that closely resembles the Elephantine two-shekel
list.3 Another major source of Aramaic from the Hellenistic period is the roughly two-
thousand ostraca from Idumean sites like Maresha and Makkedah (el-Qom), most of

*
Abbreviations in this essay follow the Society of Biblical Literature Handbook of Style (2nd ed.,
Atlanta, 2014).
1
There are a number of editions of the Arsham correspondence and other relevant Aramaic texts.
Most recently, see the major British project edited by C. Tuplin and J. Ma, which has produced four
online volumes (with D. Taylor and L. Allen), TUPLIN/MA 2013. These publications introduce and
comment upon the texts, in addition to providing Taylor’s new scholarly transcription and translation
of them. See also DRIVER 1957; GRELOT 1972; PORTEN/YARDENI 1986; LINDENBERGER 1994. The
Bactrian texts can be found in NAVEH/SHAKED 2012.
2
All of these texts can be found in the collections cited above, in note 1.
3
DUŠEK 2007; ESHEL/MISGAV 1988, 158–76.
 The Aramaic Qumran Literature 71

which appear to document business transactions associated with the agricultural sys-
tem of the Shephelah.4 Similar ostraca have been found in other regions of Israel –
most notably the caches in Arad and Beer-Sheba – attesting to the fact that document-
ing local business in Aramaic was widespread throughout the Land of Israel.5 There is
also good evidence to show that Aramaic was a major language of communication in
Babylonia from at least the Neo-Babylonian through Hellenistic periods.6
Moving into the third and second centuries BCE, the evidence continues, although
Greek begins to appear in some of the domains just mentioned, along with an increas-
ing use of Greek loanwords in Aramaic texts.7 We find the numerous Aramaic dedica-
tory inscriptions from the Samaritan temple to the God of Israel on Mt. Gerizim, in-
scribed during the reigns of Antiochus III and IV, the third-century BCE Jerusalem
ostracon published by Frank Moore Cross, and the early second-century BCE marriage
contract ostracon from Maresha, published by Esther Eshel and Amos Kloner.8 Finally,
I should draw special attention to the early second-century BCE scribal exercises on
two bowls from Hellenistic-era Maresha, co-published by Esther Eshel, Amos Kloner,
and Émile Puech, since the wisdom poems copied on each bowl add two important
examples of writing from outside the realms of legal and commercial transaction.9 Yet
another literary domain is represented by the fascinating divinatory texts written on
bowls and ostraca – numbering well over one hundred – recently published by Esther
Eshel and Ian Stern.10 Of course, the use of Aramaic did not stop with the advent of
the Hasmonean period, but this very cursory survey of some of our epigraphic sources
provides a sufficient starting point for this essay.
There are many lessons we can draw from the cumulative evidence of our Persian
and Hellenistic period Aramaic sources, though here I wish to highlight only two. First,
we can now see that, for Judeans and many other people groups throughout the Persian
and Hellenistic empires, the use of Aramaic operated at multiple levels of society,
including the skilled working classes. Bezalel Porten and Ada Yardeni observed that
the many Aramaic documents and ostraca discovered at Elephantine and throughout
Israel demonstrate that Aramaic was a language, not just of government administration

4
Most of the published material is found in the following collections: EPHʿAL/NAVEH 1996; POR-
TEN/YARDENI 2014; IDEM 2016; LEMAIRE 2002; IDEM 1996. See also Lemaire’s contribution in this
volume pp. 139–64.
5
For an overview of the published material from these (and other) sites, see GREENFIELD 2001,
232–46.
6
This is seen in various ways, such as in the Aramaic epigraphs on cuneiform administrative and
commercial tablets from the Murashu and al-Yahudu archives. For an overview of this material, with
up-to-date bibliography, see PEARCE 2016. More generally, see BEAULIEU 2006.
7
For one example of this shift, see GERATY 1975. The epigraphic evidence for the growing use of
Greek from the third-century BCE onward is extensive, ranging from graffiti on ostraca (found espe-
cially at Maresha; see KORZAKOVA 2010) to monumental public inscriptions such as the Hefzibah,
Heliodorus, and Yavne-Yam inscriptions. Especially noteworthy is the considerable number of Greek
funerary inscriptions.
8
DUŠEK 2012; CROSS 1981; ESHEL/KLONER 2007.
9
ESHEL/KLONER/PUECH 2007.
10
ESHEL/STERN 2017.
72 Daniel Machiela

and legislation, but also of daily communication among family members and “daily
economic activity, recorded by a whole bevy of skilled scribes.”11 Second, a number of
scholars have observed that the Aramaic evidence available to us attests to close con-
tact and frequent interaction between Judeans and their neighboring ethnic groups.
This included the placement of Judean cultic spaces in close proximity to those of
others. The most well-known example of this is the temple of Yaho in Elephantine,
situated across the road from a temple to Knuhm, but it now seems that there may have
been another temple of Yaho in Makkedah, judging by a fourth-century BCE ostracon
published by André Lemaire in 2002.12 There were also more domestic connections
between cultures, such as intermarriage. We may cite here the cases of Mivtahiah,
daughter of Mahseyah, and perhaps also Peteknuhm, father of Hoshea, in Elephan-
tine.13 These instances of apparent inter-ethnic marriage occurred within what John
Ray and Ian Stern have described as a Judean community with a high level of ethnic
boundary maintenance relative to surrounding groups in Late-Period Egypt.14 Stern
contrasts this situation with that in late Persian and early Hellenistic period Idumea
and Yehud, which, based on a revealing study of names in the fourth-century BCE
ostraca, he claims was marked by low ethnic tension, intense ethnic integration, and
low ethnic boundary maintenance.15 As Stern notes, this situation is affirmed from
another perspective by Ezra-Nehemiah (Ezra 9–10, Neh 13:23–31), in which the wide-
spread practice of intermarriage between Judeans and surrounding ethnic groups is
roundly condemned. For example, in Neh 13:23–24, Nehemiah complains that half of
the young Judean men were speaking ashdodit because they were marrying women
from Ashdod, Ammon, and Moab. 16 Interestingly, ostraca similar to those from
Idumea have been found at Nebi Yunis, near Ashdod, and at Ashdod itself.17 The latter
ostracon, published by Naveh, contains the Judean name Zevadyah (Zebadiah), provid-
ing a small fragment of archaeological context for the types of relationships com-
plained of in Nehemiah. These ostraca also hint that the mixed ethnic picture of
Idumea and Yehud extended to the coast, and presumably to many other places in
Palestine as well.
It is with this background in mind that I turn to the central topic of this essay: The
Aramaic writings discovered in the caves around Qumran. Supplementing the Aramaic
evidence just surveyed, the Qumran texts provide our largest source of Second Temple
period Jewish literature in Aramaic. In what follows, I will discuss some salient fea-
tures of the Aramaic Qumran texts, focused especially on the question of whether – or
to what extent – they constitute a distinctive, interrelated corpus of writings. I will
propose not only that a significant portion of the Aramaic texts from Qumran offer

11
PORTEN/YARDENI 1986, xix.
12
See the discussion in LEMAIRE 2004.
13
This topic is summarized by PORTEN 1996, 85. See also COWLEY 1923, xvii; 18; 41.
14
STERN 2007, here 234.
15
Ibid, 220–25. For onomasticon of ostraca from Idumea, see also Ran Zadok’s contribution in
this volume pp. 179–297.
16
On this passage in its broader socio-historical and linguistic context, see KOTTSIEPER 2007.
17
CROSS 1964; NAVEH 1971. For a list of some other ostraca of interest, with associated bibliog-
raphy, see KLINGBEIL 1997.
 The Aramaic Qumran Literature 73

some indication of a coordinated literary effort, but also that we may benefit from
holding this corpus up against the wider picture of Aramaic sources from the Persian
and Hellenistic periods.

II. The Aramaic Qumran Literature I: A Preliminary Overview

Although the Aramaic Scrolls have often been overshadowed by those written in He-
brew, we possess approximately 130 Aramaic manuscripts drawn from seven of the
eleven Qumran caves – nearly 15% of the overall Scrolls corpus – containing around
30 distinct literary compositions.18 The Aramaic portions of Daniel were already well-
known before the Qumran discoveries, while other works, such as the Book of Watch-
ers and Tobit (assuming that the book was composed in Aramaic), had already been
available, but only in later translations. Perhaps most exciting was the group of texts
that had been partially or completely lost over time, but re-emerged into our view only
with the Qumran finds. We now have, for example, the Book of Giants (1Q23–24,
2Q26, 4Q203, 4Q206, 4Q530–32, 4Q556, 6Q8), the Testament of Qahat (4Q542),
Visions of Amram (4Q543–49), Words of Michael (4Q529, 6Q23), Jews in the Persian
Court (4Q550), Four Kingdoms (4Q552–53), and the so-called pseudo-Daniel texts
(4Q243–45). The two best-preserved compositions in terms of length are the Genesis
Apocryphon (1Q20) and the Aramaic Job translation from Cave 11 (11Q10). If we
combine the booklets gathered under the heading of 1 (Ethiopic) Enoch, that work
exists in the greatest number of copies, at eleven or twelve. Next is the Book of Giants,
with roughly 10 copies, Daniel with 8 or 9, and the Aramaic Levi Document, Visions
of Amram, and New Jerusalem, each with 7.19 A number of the Aramaic texts exist in
only one, fragmentary copy, such as the Prayer of Nabonidus (4Q242), the Testament
of Qahat (4Q542), the so-called ‘Son of God’ text (4Q246), the Genesis Apocryphon
(1Q20), and the Testament of Judah (4Q538).
An initial glance at the overall picture of these scrolls reveals a remarkable affinity
across many of the available works regarding their use of literary genres, composition-
al characteristics, and specific themes, something noted occasionally over the years by
scholars such as Józef Milik, Elias Bickerman, Ben Zion Wacholder, Eibert Tigchelaar
and, especially, Devorah Dimant.20 The preponderance of these texts have historical
narrative frameworks focused on figures somehow related to Israel’s past during either
the period of the patriarchs and matriarchs, or the Babylonian-Persian exile, with the
result that scholars have often grouped them under the modern categories of rewritten
scripture or parabiblical literature. The Aramaic Qumran texts regularly exhibit a
mixed use of third-person and first-person narration – sometimes within a single text –

18
An overview of the literature can be found in DIMANT 2010. See also MACHIELA 2015.
19
The number of Daniel manuscripts depends upon whether one accepts as authentic the fragment
kept by Azusa Pacific University, a situation that also obtains for the Aramaic Schøyen fragments of
1 Enoch and Tobit. On the questions over these and other “post-2002” texts, see DAVIS 2017; DAVIS
et al. 2017.
20
MILIK 1978; BICKERMAN 1988, 51–68; WACHOLDER 1990; TIGCHELAAR 2010; DIMANT 2010.
74 Daniel Machiela

with the first-person perspective resulting in these texts often being characterized as
pseudepigraphic.21 A few of the most frequently recurring narrative frameworks are:
instructive farewell discourses (Abschiedsreden, or “testaments”) delivered to the
narrator’s children, harrowing tales set in the court of a foreign ruler (“court tales”),
and first-hand accounts of apocalyptic revelation, or what has more recently been
called revealed wisdom. We also find several sub-genres incorporated into larger com-
positions, the two most common being dream-visions and blocks of wisdom teaching
(or Torah-instruction).22 To draw together and illustrate these points, we may briefly
consider a few examples. The Book of Giants centers on the monstrous offspring re-
sulting from a union of fallen Watchers with human women and Enoch’s interaction
with them. Although what is preserved of the book has a third-person framework,
some parts of the story told from the giants’ first-person perspective, and other parts
may be told from the perspective of Enoch (though this remains uncertain).23 Within
the book’s broader, tragic narrative are embedded symbolic, apocalyptic dream-visions
related to the story’s plot, which link the work with themes of divine knowledge and
justice.24 There are also lively narrative exchanges between Enoch and the giants, and
among the giants themselves. Testament of Jacob (4Q537), which Puech suggested is a
testamentary work focused on the biblical patriarch Jacob, is a first-person narrative
account of events from the protagonist’s life, including at least one dream-vision re-
counting what was revealed to him from tablets (frags. 1–3), and evidently a wisdom
discourse delivered to his children (frag. 5).25 The Words of Michael presents a first-
person report of the angel Michael to some of his angelic counterparts, recounting
human events on earth after the flood along with how the Lord responded to these
events. Finally, Dan 4 recounts an episode from Nebuchadnezzar’s life, told partly
from the Babylonian king’s perspective, in which the king has a symbolic dream-
vision that is interpreted by Daniel. The result of this episode is that the king learns
about the authority of the Most High over even the most powerful of humans. These
examples give a good general sense of the sort of composition we have in the Aramaic
Qumran literature; they are often written – in whole or in part – from the first-person
perspective of a figure from Israel’s past, and incorporate a common set of didactic
themes and genres into a narrative setting. Many other texts following a similar liter-
ary pattern could be adduced, though, as we should expect, each bears its own, distinc-
tive character and themes.
There are a number of other, more specific indicators of the literary similarity be-
tween various Aramaic texts from Qumran, an example being their use of comparable
headings or incipits. The Words of Michael begins with the incipit ‫מלי כתבא די אמר‬

21
See BERNSTEIN 1999; TIGCHELAAR 2009; STUCKENBRUCK 2011.
22
For dream-visions, see PERRIN 2015. On wisdom teaching, see MACHIELA 2017.
23
For an up-to-date overview of the Book of Giants and related bibliography, see STUCKENBRUCK
2014, 36–57.
24
Use of the hyphenated, double noun “dream-vision” has become common in speaking of the vi-
sions found in this literature, though the two terms may seem somewhat redundant. The two words
are used in order to specify that the visions regularly take place while asleep (the texts often state this
explicitly), as opposed to the reception of waking or otherwise ambiguous visions.
25
For discussion, see PUECH 2001, 171–90.
 The Aramaic Qumran Literature 75

‫“ מיכאל למלאכיא‬The words of the written account which Michael told to the angels.” As
Andrew Perrin and others have noted, there are remarkably similar incipits in at least
six other Aramaic Qumran texts.26 Here I cite only one more, from the Visions of Am-
ram, which begins, [‫“ פרשגן כתב מלי עמרם בר] קהת בר לוי‬A copy of the written account of
the words of Amram, son of[ Qahat, son of Levi]” (4Q543 1.1; cf. 4Q5451i.1).
The generic coherence of these Aramaic texts, when viewed as a group and against
the wider backdrop of Jewish literature of the Second Temple period, is remarkable.
There are few Hebrew texts from the Qumran writings that match the profile just
sketched. We do have the Testament of Naphtali (4Q215) and a Hebrew Birth of Noah
text (1Q19), though in both cases scholars have entertained whether they were related
to, dependent upon, or translated from Aramaic compositions, in part because they feel
so much like what we might expect from the Aramaic corpus.27 The single Hebrew
manuscript of Tobit (4Q200) and the first chapter of Daniel are also considered by
many to be translations from Aramaic.28 However we judge these cases, they represent
a very small percentage of the preserved Hebrew literature from Qumran. Jubilees is,
in my opinion, a singular case, being a magnificent literary accomplishment that do-
mesticated a wide array of pre-existing Aramaic traditions into a Hebrew framework
centered on the Mosaic Torah.29 On the Aramaic side of the ledger, it must be admitted
up front that not all of the Aramaic Qumran texts fit the literary sketch just offered of
that corpus. The Aramaic translations of Job from Caves 11 (11Q10) and 4 (4Q157)
stand out as something quite distinctive, with the so-called Leviticus translation
(4Q156) being too fragmentary really to bear that description, as Joseph Fitzmyer
observed already in 1974.30 There are also two Aramaic lists of figures associated with
the biblical past (4Q339, 4Q559), a few fragmentary physiognomic, zodialogical, or
magical texts (4Q318, 4Q560, 4Q561), and a sapiential work that Dimant has com-
pared to the Hebrew Instruction texts (4Q569).31 Altogether, these exceptions com-
prise between 5 and 10% of the Qumran Aramaic manuscripts, and approximately
20% of the overall literary compositions from the caves, meaning that roughly 80% of
literary compositions and over 90% of manuscripts fit within the broad literary de-
scription put forth above.
Dimant and Tigchelaar have drawn attention to another trait common to many of
the Aramaic Scrolls: the way in which they invoke the ancestral Hebrew writings upon
which they depend, and with which they regularly interact.32 Never in the Aramaic
texts do we have earlier scriptures quoted explicitly with a formula like ‫ כאשר כתוב‬or
some form of the verb ‫אמ׳׳ר‬, as we find, for example, in many of the Hebrew sectarian

26
PERRIN 2013, 98–123.
27
For 4Q215, see the comments of STONE 1996, 34–36. Stone switched at the end of the article to
speaking of Second Temple period Naphtali tradition that may have circulated in “Hebrew or Arama-
ic,” and notes the special generic connection of 4Q215 with the Aramaic Qumran literature associated
with Levi, Amram, and Qahat. For a summary of the views on 1Q19, see ESHEL 2010a, 283–84.
28
On Tobit see MACHIELA 2018a. For Daniel 1, see ZIMMERMAN 1961; COLLINS 1993, 24.
29
See also WERMAN 2010; STUCKENBRUCK 2011, 321–23.
30
FITZMYER 1974, 510–11.
31
For further comments on all of these texts, see DIMANT 2010; IDEM 2007.
32
DIMANT 2007, 202; TIGCHELAAR 2010, A155–71.
76 Daniel Machiela

texts. Instead, earlier Hebrew scripture is used as a springboard. It is alluded to, rewrit-
ten, or creatively interpreted in fluid, imaginative ways. Again, I will provide a few
examples. Tobit, which I am convinced was composed in Aramaic, is full of allusions
to Genesis and other parts of the Hebrew Bible, as shown by a number of scholars
working on the book (Irene Nowell, Gary Anderson, Matthew Morgenstern, and Devo-
rah Dimant).33 A striking example of this dependence was observed by Tzvi Novick,
who noted that the three places where Tobit uses the phrase ‫“ ואזלין תריהון כחדא‬and the
two of them walked together” in order to recount Tobias and Azariah travelling to-
gether to and from Media, invokes the Aqedah from Gen 22, where the idiom ‫וילכו‬
‫ שניהם יחדו‬is used of Abraham and Isaac.34 A somewhat different, though related tech-
nique is at work in the Genesis Apocryphon, where the stories of Noah and Abram are
tied together by having both men complete similar actions, and receive similar instruc-
tions from the Lord, in a way that we do not find in Genesis. In another case, details
from the encounter between Abraham, Abimelech, and Sarah in Gen 20 are worked
back into the Apocryphon’s retelling of the comparable encounter between Abram,
Sarai, and the Pharaoh from Gen 12 (cf. 1Q20 19–20).35
In addition, many of these Aramaic works seem concerned to address difficult exe-
getical questions raised by biblical texts, doing so in subtle, sophisticated ways that are
built into the structure of their narratives. A good example of this is the Enochic litera-
ture considered as a whole, which seems to have grown from vague passages in Gen 5
and 6 into a robust tradition about Enoch during the early Second Temple period. The
fragmentary central columns of the Genesis Apocryphon recasts Gen 10 as a more
explicit account of Noah dividing the earth among his three sons, Shem, Ham, and
Japheth. As opposed to Genesis, in the Apocryphon Noah’s division of the earth is
clearly guided by the Most High God through Noah’s use of lots, with Shem and his
descendants receiving what would later become the Land of Israel. This ingenious
exegetical move sets up a plot line that develops over subsequent columns, in which
the later Canaanite settlement of the land is, in fact, illegitimate, since that land had
already been allotted to Shem. This results in Israel’s eventual conquest of the land in
Joshua and Judges actually being a re-conquest, a reclamation from the children of
Ham of what was divinely bestowed to Shem’s descendants in the days of Noah. 36 My
final example of this phenomenon comes from a cluster of texts that betrays a concern
with the origins of the priesthood and its culmination with the line of Aaron. 37 In Exo-
dus, unspecified priests are mentioned already in chapter 19 (see 19:22–24), well be-
fore Aaron and his sons are explicitly chosen for the priesthood in Exod 28–29. One
might infer from the latter passages that Exod 19 refers to the sons of Levi or to Aaron,

33
See, for example, ABRAHAMS 1893; NOWELL 2005; MORGENSTERN 1997, 137.
34
NOVICK 2007.
35
These aspects of the Genesis Apocryphon are most thoroughly discussed in FALK 2007, 64–68,
80–85. See also ESHEL 2011.
36
MACHIELA 2008.
37
The priestly dimension of the Aramaic Qumran texts, viewed as a corpus, is the topic of a dis-
sertation by Robert E. Jones currently in progress at McMaster University. The dissertation promises
to show the considerable extent to which priestly concerns figure into this literature, and the ways in
which these concerns are coordinated across the various compositions.
 The Aramaic Qumran Literature 77

but this is not stated clearly in the text. 38 As a result, a question remains about who the
priests were before the family of Aaron was explicitly singled out for that honor in
Exod 28–29. A number of Aramaic Qumran texts address this issue quite directly,
using dream-visions and cultic details to construct a clear chain of transmission tied to
the priesthood, stretching from Enoch to Aaron. The special status of Enoch in the
parts of 1 Enoch preserved at Qumran, the Book of Giants, and the Genesis Apoc-
ryphon support the beginning of this chain, firmly establishing Enoch as a direct con-
duit to heavenly knowledge and the divine plan for humanity.39 At various points in
the Enochic Astronomical Book, the Dream Visions, and the Birth of Noah story,
Methuselah, Lamech, and Noah are specified as the line of individuals chosen to re-
ceive Enoch’s teaching. The Genesis Apocryphon picks up from here, with Noah re-
ceiving the teaching of Enoch, and handing it down through Shem to Abram in written
form (see column 19). At the same time, both Noah and Abram continue to receive
new revelation through visions in order to reaffirm and expand upon their specially
chosen status. In addition, column 10 of the Apocryphon makes clear that the attrib-
utes of an Aaronic priest are transferred back onto Noah. In 1Q20 10.13 we read that
Noah atoned for the earth (‫)ועל כול ארעא כולהא כפרת‬40 – a detail not present in Genesis –
which is followed by a proper ‫ חטאת‬sacrifice, something shown by the blood being
poured at the base of the altar.41 Testimony to later parts of the chain of transmission
are found especially in a group of texts focused on Levi, Qahat, and Amram. The Ar-
amaic Levi Document includes detailed cultic instructions explicitly attached to the
priesthood, at least one dream-vision, and a concluding wisdom poem.42 Levi also
speaks, in the first-person voice, about the origins of his divinely-granted priesthood
and who is to inherit it. He received what he calls “the law of the priesthood” ( ‫דין‬
‫ ;כהונתא‬ALD 5:8) from Isaac, who had been taught by Abraham. Later, Levi learns
from a vision that his firstborn son, Gershom, was to be excluded from the priesthood;
that honor was to be given instead to Levi’s second son, Qahat (ALD 11:1–7). The
Testament of Qahat has similar statements about guarded teachings being transmitted
from Levi to Qahat, and then from Qahat to Amram, with Amram being commanded
someday to pass the teaching along to his own sons.43 The Visions of Amram, in turn,
points explicitly to Aaron as the chosen recipient of the priestly heritage, Amram tell-

38
This is the case, for example in the Mekhilta de Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai 19.22, in which Rabbi
states that “this is Nadav and Abihu.”
39
On the question of Enoch being portrayed as a priest in the Book of Watchers and subsequent
literature, see ANGEL 2010, 26–35.
40
Stadel (2008, 25) notes that the verb ‫ כפרת‬is a Hebraism in the Apocryphon, increasing the like-
lihood that the author is seeking to make an explicit connection with Hebrew ancestral texts describ-
ing the atonement rituals.
41
REEVES 1986; BERNSTEIN 2005, 57–59; FALK 2007, 69–71. On the portrayal of Noah as a priest
here and elsewhere see, e.g., PUECH 2001, 384; PETERS 2010.
42
I consider here both the Qumran and the Cairo Geniza evidence of the Aramaic Levi Document.
The text can be found either in GREENFIELD/STONE/ESHEL 2004 or DRAWNEL 2004. All references to
the Document are taken from the edition in GREENFIELD/STONE/ESHEL 2004, though the English
translations are my own based on the Aramaic (or Greek, where necessary).
43
See 4Q542 1i.10–13, 1ii.9–13.
78 Daniel Machiela

ing his children that, “I will explain to you the mystery of his [i.e. Aaron’s] service. He
is a holy priest [to the Most High God. For] all his descendants will be ho[l]y to him
for all the generations of e[ternity.] Seventh of the men of [his] favor [he will be]
called… he will be chosen as a priest forever” (4Q545 4.16–19).44 Aaron is the sev-
enth descendant from Abraham, thereby establishing a direct connection between Aa-
ron in Visions of Amram and Abraham’s portrayal as a priestly figure in Aramaic Levi,
the Testament of Qahat, and the Genesis Apocryphon. When we back up and view
these Aramaic Qumran texts together, we discover a coordinated effort across multiple
compositions to build a case for the legitimacy and divine election of the Aaronic
priesthood and its associated wisdom teachings, stretching back to Enoch.
Much more could be said about how the Aramaic Qumran literature interacts with,
and reuses, earlier Hebrew scriptures. Here I will mention only one other way in which
we see this phenomenon at work, in this case from the perspective of language use. In
the published form of his German master’s thesis, supplemented with an article in the
journal Meghillot, Christian Stadel studied the phenomenon of Hebraisms in the Ara-
maic Qumran texts.45 Hebraisms are quite regularly seen across many of these Arama-
ic texts, but Stadel offered the interesting additional observation that they are mainly
isolated lexical borrowings from Biblical Hebrew, and only very rarely evidence of a
more colloquial, contemporaneous Hebrew. The fact that the Aramaic Qumran scrolls
tend to draw on Hebrew in a similar way (i.e. through isolated lexical borrowing) of-
fers an additional support for the notion that many of these texts form an interrelated
corpus. Stadel’s work also supports the idea that these texts were concerned with earli-
er concepts and topics dealt with in antecedent Hebrew scriptures, concepts and topics
that, at times, could best be conveyed through employing a Hebrew word.

III. The Aramaic Qumran Literature II: Some Shared Themes and Idioms

I move now from some of the generic traits of the Qumran Aramaic texts to a discus-
sion of a few more specific thematic issues shared across various clusters of Aramaic
texts. One of the broadest themes in the Aramaic corpus is proper marriage and the
rejection of exogamy, a topic discussed most recently and thoroughly by Eshel and
Dimant.46 This subject is addressed explicitly in several of our texts, and touched upon
more implicitly by others. For instance, in column 6 of the Genesis Apocryphon Noah
tells of how he married Emzera. Though the text is fragmentary here, Jub 4:33 fills in
the gap by specifying that Emzera was Noah’s first cousin, the daughter of his uncle.
Noah goes on to arrange for his sons and daughters also to marry their cousins, “ac-
cording to the custom of the eternal statute [that the Lo]rd of Eternity [gave] to hu-
manity” (‫)כדת חוק עלמא ]די יהב מ[רה עלמא לבני אנשא‬. Later, in column 12, it becomes
clear that marriage was a concern for Noah’s grandchildren as well. James VanderKam
correctly suggested that the description of the grandchildren’s births make clear that

44
The translation is my own, based on the Aramaic text in PUECH 2001, 342.
45
STADEL 2008; IDEM 2010, 393–407.
46
ESHEL 2010b; DIMANT 2017, 178–87.
 The Aramaic Qumran Literature 79

Ham’s and Japheth’s sons and daughters were destined to marry their first cousins,
while Shem’s children are to marry their siblings.47 Turning to another text, Tobit’s
account of his marriage bears a strikingly close correspondence to Noah’s in the Apoc-
ryphon. Tobit 1:9 is not preserved in the Qumran manuscripts, but a back-translation
of the long Greek version of that verse would render a statement that, at several points,
matches Noah’s notification (1Q20 6.6–7) word-for-word, and suggests either some
sort of literary dependence or a shared compositional setting.48 A central topic of the
rest of Tobit is the eventual marriage of Tobias and his near relative, Sarah. The dis-
guised angel Raphael stresses repeatedly the heritage of Sarah as Tobias’ close relative,
and Sarah’s father Reuel also highlights her kinship to Tobit. When Sarah is promised
to Tobias by Reuel, he states “Take (her) according to the law, and according to the
statute written in the book of Moses she is the wife for you” (7:12). This declaration
echoes Noah’s statement that his sons were married “according to the law of the eter-
nal statute,” the difference being, of course, that there was no book of Moses to which
Noah could refer.49 In fact, reading these two, similar passages in light of one another
reveals that the law of marriage eventually written by Moses was in keeping with an
eternal statute, practiced already by Noah, in much the same way that the priesthood of
Aaron was, in fact, based on a more ancient model. A virtually identical picture of
marriage emerges from the Aramaic Levi Document, in which the first item addressed
by Isaac in his priestly instruction to Levi is proper marriage. Isaac says, “First of all,
beware, my son, of every lewd behavior and impurity, and of every act of fornication.
And you, take for yourself a wife from my family so that you may not defile your seed
with fornicators, because you are a holy seed” (ALD 6:3–4). A comparison between
this passage in the Cairo Geniza manuscript (Bodleian b) and the long Greek text of
Tob 4:12 (= Codex Sinaiticus) exposes another parallel in the specific wording of
marital instruction. Levi later puts what he learned from Isaac into practice, stating
that, “I took a wife for myself from the family of Abraham my father, Melcha, a
daughter of Bathuel, son of Laban, brother of my mother” (ALD 11:1).50 In other
words, Melcha is Levi’s first cousin. Shortly afterwards, Levi gives notice that he
takes wives for his sons from the daughters of his brothers, exactly as Noah does in the
Genesis Apocryphon, and in fact using precisely the same wording (cf. ALD 12:1;
1Q20 6.7–9). The most important of Levi’s grandsons, Amram, marries his paternal
aunt, Yokheved, with Levi specifying that Amram and Yocheved were precisely the
same age, having been born on the same day. Finally, Levi delivers a poetic, wisdom
discourse to his children, in which he states that practicing the ways of wisdom in a
foreign land will result in his children not resembling a foreigner (‫;ולא דמא בה לנכרי‬
ALD 13:7–8), or one who is “mixed” (‫)כילא] י‬.51 The use of ‫כילאי‬, which Henryk

47
VANDERKAM 1994. See, however, the different opinion of KUGEL 1999, 224.
48
For further discussion, see MACHIELA/PERRIN 2014, 126.
49
As noted already by KISTER 2000.
50
This passage comes from the Greek Athos text of Aramaic Levi (see GREENFIELD/STONE/
ESHEL 2004, 94–95).
51
I follow here the orthography of the Qumran manuscript 4Q213, though the passage is also pre-
served in Cambridge e.
80 Daniel Machiela

Drawnel translates as “half-breed,” is interesting, since it draws on priestly terminolo-

gy referring to something of two mixed types (see Lev 19:19; Deut 22:9).52 The nega-
tive associations with ‫ כילאים‬in Leviticus and Deuteronomy is surely the intended allu-
sion here, but in the context of Aramaic Levi the word refers to those of mixed – and
therefore dubious – ethnic stock.53 This is precisely the association made, sometime
later, by whoever wrote 4QMMT (4Q396 frags. 1–2).54 Perhaps at this point it will not
be surprising that, when we turn to Qahat’s speech in the Testament of Qahat, we find
exactly the same combination as in the Aramaic Levi Document, “Do not give your
inheritance to foreigners (‫)נכראין‬, or your bequest to those of mixed heritage (‫)כילאין‬.”
As in Aramaic Levi, this appears to be a subtle way of reinforcing the prohibition
against intermarriage with foreigners. At some risk of belaboring my point, I turn
briefly to the Visions of Amram. That text opens with Amram giving an account of the
marriage and banquet that he oversaw between his brother, Uzziel, and daughter Miri-
am. This match creates a symmetry with Amram’s own marriage to Yocheved, record-
ed in the Aramaic Levi Document, as both he and Miriam were married to a sibling of
their father. As Amram’s story progresses, we learn that he was stranded in the land of
Canaan without Yocheved for forty-one years, as a result of border closures due to a
war between Canaan and Egypt. It is noteworthy that Amram makes very clear that,
despite this long time away from Yocheved, he did not give in to the temptation to
take another, foreign wife.55 Throughout Amram’s account, we can see that, as in the
Genesis Apocryphon, Tobit, and the Aramaic Levi Document, proper marriage and a
stringent rejection of exogamy are held forth as ideals of great importance. While most
of these texts are focused specifically on the priestly line, Tobit demonstrates that
similar ideals for proper marriage also applied to Israel more broadly, in this case a
Naphtalite. With whomever the Watchers in the Book of Watchers were originally
intended to be associated, whether the priesthood, Israel in general, or neither of these,
the negative example of the improper mixed unions between the heavenly watchers
and earthly women in that text may be set alongside the others just mentioned.56 This
focus on marriage and improper unions becomes especially clear in the Lord’s rebuk-
ing speech to Enoch in 1 En 15, which Enoch is commissioned to deliver back to the
lamenting Watchers.57
Having looked in some depth at the theme of marriage in a portion of the Aramaic
Qumran texts, I will gesture much more briefly toward some other shared elements,

52
DRAWNEL 2004, 338.
53
This point was made already by COOK 1993; CAQUOT 1995, 41. For a possible equation with
the term ‫“ בני נכר‬foreigners” in the Hebrew 4Q525 (“Beatitudes”), see BEN-DOV 2010, 398.
54
DRAWNEL 2004, 338.
55
See GOLDMAN 2013, 239–41.
56
For various views on the interpretation of this aspect of Book of Watchers, see SUTER 1979;
IDEM 2002; TIGCHELAAR 1996; IDEM 2002; COLLINS 2002; HIMMELFARB 2002; IDEM 2007.
57
The Testament of Qahat and Book of Watchers share a keen interest in the important connection
between marriage and the transmission of revealed knowledge. In the former, Qahat stresses that the
wisdom “inheritance”, handed on to him from the legitimate source of Enoch, must not be transmitted
to foreigners, or those who are mixed. A comparable concern with improper unions leading to the
divulgence of guarded knowledge can be discerned in the Book of Watchers.
 The Aramaic Qumran Literature 81

each of which merits fuller discussion. First, several texts pay close attention to the
proper burial of dead relatives as an important obligation for their protagonists. In
Tobit and the Visions of Amram, this issue is placed prominently in the plot of the
story, and in both texts the protagonist suffers considerably for fulfilling this pious
duty, Tobit by going blind and Amram by being forcibly separated from his wife
Yocheved for forty-one years.58 Jews in the Persian Court (4Q550) also contains a
statement about its Judean protagonist being promised an honorable burial, though the
context of the statement is somewhat broken, and the passage remains obscure.59 A
large collection of our Aramaic texts incorporate wisdom instruction focused on two,
opposing paths associated with wickedness and darkness, on the one hand, or right-
eousness and light, on the other. Often exhibiting close or verbatim agreements in
wording, these texts include the Epistle of Enoch, the Enochic Book of Dreams, the
Genesis Apocryphon, the Aramaic Levi Document, the Testament of Qahat, the Vi-
sions of Amram, the Testament of Jacob? (4Q537), the so-called ‘Son of God’ text (or
Aramaic Apocalypse; 4Q246), Dan 2, 4, and 5, and Tobit.60 A strong conceptual affili-
ation is also seen across several works in their technical use of the word raz to refer to
various facets of the divine plan, revealed only to the most upright, trustworthy of
humans. Raz used in this sense occurs in Daniel, Genesis Apocryphon, Book of
Watchers, Book of Giants, Birth of Noah, and Visions of Amram.61 A distinguishing
hierarchy of angelic and demonic beings is shared by a number of texts, seen especial-
ly in their use of the terms ‫“ עיר‬Watcher” and ‫“ קדיש‬Holy one” for divine beings of a
high order. The terms are used as parallel synonyms in Daniel (4:10, 14, 20), the Book
of Watchers (1:2, 12:2), the Epistle of Enoch (4Q212 1iii.21), the Book of Giants
(4Q206 1xxii.5), and the Genesis Apocryphon (6.13), with “Watchers” also appearing
in the Birth of Noah text (4Q534 1ii+2.15), and perhaps the Visions of Amram (4Q546
22.1).62 Malevolent beings are called either a “bad spirit” (‫ )רוח באישא‬or “demon” (‫)שד‬,
with both terms being used as synonyms in Tobit for Asmodeus (4Q197 4i.13). Also
appearing in the Genesis Apocryphon (20.16), pseudo-Daniel (4Q243 13.2, 4Q244
12.2), and the Visions of Amram (4Q547 3.1), these evil spirits are regularly associat-
ed with physical illness and leading humans astray from the paths of truth.63 A chrono-
logical system based on ‘weeks’ of years – later adopted in the Hebrew section of
Daniel (ch. 9) and the Book of Jubilees – is used in the Enochic Apocalypse of Weeks,
the Genesis Apocryphon (col. 6), the Aramaic Levi Document, and the New Jerusalem
text. Finally, I should mention the important topic of divine names and epithets. It is
remarkable that not once, in the entirety of the roughly 130 Aramaic manuscripts from
Qumran, do we find the Tetragrammaton or its alternate form Yaho (‫)יהו‬, known from

58
On this theme see GOLDMAN 2013, 241–45. I would take exception, however, to Goldman’s
statement (241) that Visions of Amram and Tobit have “strikingly divergent literary styles.” In the
broader context of Second Temple period Jewish literature, I find the styles to be strikingly similar,
and to serve as another clear point of contact between the two works.
59
4Q550 5+5a.6.
60
For a fuller appraisal of this theme, see MACHIELA 2017.
61
The fullest account of the term and its use is that of THOMAS 2009.
62
NICKELSBURG 2001, 140–41.
63
A useful overview of the relevant textual material is found in STUCKENBRUCK 2014, 78–102.
82 Daniel Machiela

the Elephantine and Wadi ed-Daliyeh documents, the Makkedah ostracon, and else-
where.64 Given the clear affiliations of the Aramaic Qumran scrolls with earlier bibli-
cal texts, and combined with other Second Temple period data, we should take the
absence of the Tetragrammaton as evidence of its conscious avoidance by the authors
of these works. When we turn to how God is named in the Aramaic Qumran texts, we
discover clear affinities in the preferred names and titles used. “Lord of Heaven” ( ‫מרה‬
‫)שמיא‬, or a closely related epithet, is used in Daniel (5:23), the Aramaic Levi Docu-
ment (5:8), Genesis Apocryphon (e.g., 7.7, 12.17), and Tobit (7:18). “Lord of eternity”
(‫ )מרה עלמא‬or a close equivalent is found in the Book of Watchers (4Q202 1iii.14),
Words of Michael (e.g., 4Q529 1.6, 1.12), Genesis Apocryphon (e.g., 0.18, 21.2), and
Tobit (13:13). The variants “God Most High” (‫ )אל עליון‬and “Most High” (‫עליון‬, ‫)עליא‬
are used in Daniel (e.g., 3:26, 5:21), the ‘Son of God’ text (4Q246 1ii.1), Four King-
doms (4Q552 3.10), Aramaic Levi Document (5:8, 8:6), Visions of Amram (4Q543
22.2), Genesis Apocryphon (e.g., 6.9, 12.17), Jews in the Persian Court (4Q550
7+7a.1), and Tobit (e.g., 1:13). The generic “God” (‫אל‬, ‫ )אלהא‬is, unsurprisingly, the
most frequent designation for God, occurring in approximately half of the Aramaic
compositions from Qumran. A uniting element of all these titles is that they stress the
universality of Israel’s God, who rules over all of heaven and earth, and is situated
above all other deities and human rulers. This is in keeping with the rhetorical charac-
ter of these texts more generally, a point to which I will turn shortly.

IV. A Few Broader Issues in Study of the Aramaic Qumran Literature

I could go on to survey an array of more specific Aramaic idioms and geographic de-
tails shared by various groupings of texts in the Qumran corpus that suggest a shared
compositional background, but I must draw this survey to a close. In doing so, I would
like to take a step back from the specific themes and details of the corpus discussed
above in order to address three broader issues. The first is the geographic and social
locations in which these texts were composed. Scholars working on the Aramaic texts
present at Qumran have noted that they incorporate what are sometimes deemed to be
“foreign,” or non-Jewish, elements. For example, Drawnel, Jonathan Ben-Dov, and
Loren Stuckenbruck have drawn attention to scientific knowledge and other details
derived from Mesopotamian culture and literature in the Enochic literature.65 Others,
such as Pierre Grelot, Cana Werman, Eshel, and Joseph Angel have noted the incorpo-
ration of Greek traditions and figures in some Jewish Aramaic literature from this
period.66 I have also argued for Egyptian names and places being incorporated into the
Genesis Apocryphon in a way that suggests some detailed knowledge of Egypt.67
Combined with a number of the Aramaic writings being set in an exilic situation, these
“foreign” elements have resulted in some scholars placing this or that composition in

64
On the possible exception of Tobit see MACHIELA 2013.
65
DRAWNEL 2006; IDEM 2012; BEN-DOV 2008, esp. 245–87; STUCKENBRUCK 2014, 36–57.
66
GRELOT 1979; WERMAN 2007; ESHEL 2007; ANGEL 2014.
67
MACHIELA 2010.
 The Aramaic Qumran Literature 83

the geographic location reflected by its literary setting. So, texts such as Tobit and the
Aramaic tales of Daniel are claimed by some to be products of the eastern Diaspora,
while others, like the Genesis Apocryphon and Visions of Amram, are instead thought
to have been composed in the Land of Israel. Yet, based on the abundant evidence of
an intensely internationalized situation at the most educated and mobile levels of Jew-
ish society throughout the Persian and Hellenistic periods, it is very difficult to make
such claims with any confidence. The Arsham and Zenon archives are enough to prove
that texts and traditions such as those reflected in the Aramaic Qumran scrolls could
travel freely among the Mesopotamian centers, Egypt, and Asia Minor, and surely
could have made their ways to Samaria, Jerusalem, or elsewhere in Israel through
varied channels of transmission. The moment we say that Tobit was written in the
eastern Diaspora and the Genesis Apocryphon in the Land of Israel, we are more in-
clined to assume, from the start, that they were written for different audiences, and
were concerned with different issues. I hope to have provided a few compelling rea-
sons for carefully examining such assumptions, leaving the way open to consider
whether some of the Aramaic Qumran texts may have a shared compositional setting,
despite the international knowledge displayed in them.
My second issue concerns the distinctiveness of individual compositions among the
Qumran Aramaic corpus, and is meant as a counterbalance to the suggestion of a
shared compositional setting. Alongside shared literary features of the sort emphasized
in this paper, it is critical to recognize and study the uniqueness of each text. I am
firmly convinced that viewing a large portion of the Aramaic Qumran texts as individ-
ual representatives of a distinctive, coordinated literary tradition will help us to dis-
cover things in each work that we may not have noticed otherwise, and will help fill
gaps in our knowledge of Hellenistic-period Judaism. However, the Aramaic tales of
Daniel and the New Jerusalem text are clearly very different works, as are the Words
of Michael and Jews in the Persian Court. All of these compositions are notoriously
difficult to date, largely because their literary techniques typically preclude explicit
references to events and figures contemporaneous with their original compositional
setting. Most of the manuscripts have been dated by paleographic and carbon dating
methods to the second and first centuries BCE, but it stands to reason that the literary
tradition for which I have been arguing in this paper developed earlier, over a period
of a century or longer. Early dates for some of our texts, such as the Astronomical
Book, the Book of Watchers, the court stories of Daniel, and the Prayer of Nabonidus
cluster around the late Persian or early Hellenistic periods, roughly the second half of
the fourth century BCE. The fourth- to third-century BCE radiocarbon date for the
leather of our lone copy of the Testament of Qahat (4Q542) bears mentioning here,
though Puech dates the script to the second century BCE.68 The latest datable details
from a text fitting the general literary profile outlined above may be the pseudo-Daniel
text 4Q245.69 John Collins and Peter Flint argued that Fragment 1, which includes a

68
PUECH 2001, 262; BONANI et al. 1992.
69
Another “pseudo-Daniel” scroll, 4Q243, includes the name Balakros (‫ ;בלכרוס‬21.2) alongside
what are likely other Aramaic transcriptions of Greek names. While Balakros does not situate the text
84 Daniel Machiela

list of high priests mentioning Qahat near its beginning, ended with the names Jona-
than and Simon, though Jonathan’s name is partially reconstructed.70 If correct, this
combination of names would most naturally refer to the succession of Hasmonean
brothers who claimed the office of high priest, with the result that this text dates to
around 140 BCE, or slightly later. I should also mention 4Q206 and 207, which pre-
serve fragments of the Enochic Animal Apocalypse. The end of the Apocalypse is not
preserved in the Qumran copies, but if the early Aramaic copies contained the same
ending as the later Ethiopic version, we could assume that it cryptically recorded early
Hasmonean-period events up to the 160s BCE, again placing an Aramaic composition
in the mid-second century BCE.71 There is, however, some suspicion that the verses
dealing with Judah the Maccabee were a later addition to the Apocalypse.72 While
scholars have occasionally suggested this or that Aramaic text as being a product of
the first century BCE (e.g., the Genesis Apocryphon), I have found no compelling
reason for such late dating, and other factors suggest earlier dates more in line with the
bulk of the Aramaic literature, from the fourth to second centuries BCE.73 To sum up,
it seems that the Aramaic writings preserved in the Qumran caves were composed
during the fourth to mid-second centuries BCE, and faded out over the course of the
Hasmonean period. My own opinion is that the gradual recession of the Aramaic liter-
ary tradition coincides with a return in some circles to writing national literature in
Hebrew during Hasmonean rule, a return represented by works like Jubilees, 1 Macca-
bees, the later chapters of Daniel, and 4Q464 (Lives of the Patriarchs). If the Aramaic
texts are the products of a literary guild active for well over a century, we should not
expect it to have remained static over that period. We might imagine, for instance, its
beginning with shorter tales like those of Daniel, and various parts of the Enochic
corpus, building at a later time to more complex, longer works integrating elements
from earlier stories, such as the Genesis Apocryphon and Tobit.
My third and final point concerns the intended audiences of the Aramaic literature,
along with the choice of Aramaic as the language of composition. Many individual
texts from the Aramaic corpus have been described as strongly didactic in nature. A
number have also been noted for their hortatory tone, encouraging various aspects of a
pious life in keeping with ancestral wisdom. These attributes mark nearly every text in
the Aramaic corpus, at least those preserved well enough for us to have an adequate
sense of their contents. The lively characters in these texts repeatedly provide strong
positive or negative examples of conduct in relation to worship and ancestral tradition.

precisely in time, the name was popular in the early Hellenistic period, and a date somewhere in the
range of the fourth to second centuries BCE seems most likely.
70
See BROOKE et al. 1996, 155–61.
71
I leave aside here the proposals of Rofé (1994) and Qimron (1994) that 4Q339 (List of False
Prophets) included the name “[Yohanan ben Sim]eon” at the end of the preserved list. If correct, this
would mean the list dates to the late second century BCE. However, the reconstruction is uncertain,
and no real weight can be placed on it. On this text, also see ESHEL 2008, 88–89; COHEN 2010, 93–
94; LANGE 2010.
72
As argued, for example, by NICKELSBURG 2001, 360–61, 396–401.
73
For an overview of dates suggested for the Genesis Apocryphon, see MACHIELA 2009, 17; 134–
42.
 The Aramaic Qumran Literature 85

The many places where a character delivers a wisdom discourse instill in hearers a
particular, and quite consistent worldview. The many apocalyptic dream-visions scat-
tered across the corpus allow listeners a glimpse into the mysteries of the Lord’s plan
for humanity, whether reinforcing the chosen status of Israel and its priesthood, or
assuring hearers that the Most High is in full control of human history, especially the
world’s powerful kingdoms. Drawnel has argued that certain of the Aramaic texts,
such as the Astronomical Book of Enoch and the Aramaic Levi Document, were writ-
ten by priests and for priests, as training manuals of a sort.74 To my mind, so many of
these texts are cast as entertaining, and occasionally humorous narratives, that they are
better seen as intended for a wider audience that extended well beyond priests alone.
One might even reasonably argue that stories like the court tales of Daniel, Tobit, and
the Genesis Apocryphon were written in such a way that those outside of Israel might
benefit from reading or hearing them. These texts regularly exhibit openness to inter-
action between Israelites or their ancestors and foreigners, something that both is com-
pletely unlike anything we find in the Hebrew sectarian literature from Qumran and
fits well with a pre-Hasmonean setting. I have previously suggested that it was a con-
scious choice of those responsible for the Aramaic texts to write stories set in the peri-
ods of the patriarchs and matriarchs, on the one hand, or of the Babylonian-Persian
exile, on the other, precisely because both of those historical scenarios provided the
authors with a context analogous to their own.75 Unlike the periods of the Judges and
the Israelite monarchies, the patriarchal and exilic periods allowed the authors to ex-
pand upon and explore situations in which Israelites experienced the pressure of living
in diaspora settings under foreign rule, of not having total control over their homeland
or political destiny. This was strongly evocative of the situation faced by those associ-
ated with Israel in the Persian and Hellenistic periods, not only if they lived outside of
Judea, but also if they lived inside the borders of that province. I consider the choice of
Aramaic as the language of composition for this literature to be tied closely to these
last few points, allowing those writing these texts to reach as wide an audience as
possible. In using Aramaic, the texts would be accessible and relevant to Judeans,
other Israelites, and perhaps even some interested outsiders, whether they lived in
southern Egypt, along the bank of the Tigris River, or on the Judean border with
Idumea.76

V. Conclusion: The Aramaic Qumran Literature in View of Its Wider

Cultural Setting

With this observation we come full circle to the wider backdrop of Aramaic sources
from the Persian to Hellenistic periods with which I began. Viewed against this back-
drop, a large portion of the Aramaic texts found at Qumran take on a new significance,

74
DRAWNEL 2006.
75
MACHIELA 2018b.
76
Similar points have been made by others, such as BICKERMAN 1988, 51; WACHOLDER 1990,
273; and WISE 1990, 84–86.
86 Daniel Machiela

since they so clearly address themselves to issues raised by Stern in his study of the
Idumean ostraca. Like Ezra-Nehemiah, those texts imply high levels of ethnic integra-
tion and low levels of ethnic boundary maintenance by Judeans. Over and over again,
texts from among the Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls seem aimed to address a situation like
this one. One could live among foreigners, and even serve them faithfully at the up-
permost levels of government. There could indeed be high levels of interaction with
those outside the people of Israel. However, one must certainly not tolerate low levels
of ethnic boundary maintenance. Divinely revealed, ancestral teachings about things
like cultic practice, calendrical computation, observation of festivals, burial of the
dead, the special status of the priesthood, and especially proper marriage were integral
to the created order, and were to be observed with absolute strictness. These teachings
came on impeccable authority, first revealed to upright figures of the past like Enoch,
then passed on and supplemented down a chain of righteous individuals, culminating
in the Aaronic priesthood. These wise teachings became the inheritance of all Israel,
still guarded and practiced by those in the exilic period like Daniel and Tobit. Through
their writings, it seems that the priestly group composing this literature tried to ensure
that their teachings would continue to be guarded and practiced by the remnants of
Israel living in places like Idumea,77 Antioch, and Leontopolis, both during the Hellen-
istic period and well beyond it. Although the situation of those living in the Land of
Israel took a dramatic turn with the success of the Hasmonean revolt, it is evident that
the efforts of our authors were repaid, with many of their teachings continuing to in-
fluence later streams of Judaism and, eventually, Christianity as well.

Bibliography
ABRAHAMS, I. (1893): Tobit and Genesis, JQR 5, 348–50.
ANGEL, J.L. (2010): Otherworldly and Eschatological Priesthood in the Dead Sea Scrolls, (STDJ 86),
Leiden.
– (2014): Reading the Book of Giants in Literary and Historical Context, DSD 21, 313–46.
BEAULIEU, P.-A. (2006): Official and Vernacular Languages: The Shifting Sands of Imperial and
Cultural Identities in First-Millennium B.C. Mesopotamia, in: S.L. SANDERS (ed.), Margins of
Writing, Origins of Cultures, Chicago, IL, 187–216.
BEN-DOV, J. (2008): Head of All Years: Astronomy and Calendars at Qumran in Their Ancient Con-
text, (STDJ 78), Leiden.
– (2010): Scientific Writing in Aramaic and Hebrew at Qumran: Translation and Concealment, in:
K. BERTHELOT/D.S. BEN EZRA (eds.), Aramaica Qumranica: Proceedings of the Conference on
the Aramaic Texts from Qumran in Aix-en-Provence 30 June–2 July 2008, (STDJ 94), Leiden,
379–402.
BERNSTEIN, M.J. (1999): Pseudepigraphy in the Qumran Scrolls: Categories and Functions, in: E.G.
CHAZON/M.E. STONE (eds.), Pseudepigraphic Perspectives: The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha
in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Proceedings of the International Symposium of the Orion Center
12–14 January 1997, (STDJ 31), Leiden, 1–26.
– (2005): From the Watchers to the Flood: Story and Exegesis in the Early Columns of the Genesis
Apocryphon, in: E.G CHAZON/D. DIMANT/R.A. CLEMENTS (eds.), Reworking the Bible: Apocry-

77
For onomastics of Idumea ostraca, see Zadok’s contribution in this volume pp. 179–297 below.
 The Aramaic Qumran Literature 87

phal and Related Traditions at Qumran: Proceedings of a Joint Symposium by the Orion Center
for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature and the Hebrew University Insti-
tute for Advanced Studies Research Group on Qumran, 15–17 January, 2002, (STDJ 58), Leiden,
39–64.
BICKERMAN, E.J. (1988): The Jews in the Greek Age, Cambridge, MA.
BONANI, G. et al. (1992), Radiocarbon Dating of Fourteen Dead Sea Scrolls, Radiocarbon 34, 843–
49.
BROOKE, G. et al. (1996), Qumran Cave 4.XVII, Parabiblical Texts, Part 3, DJD XXII, Oxford.
CAQUOT, A. (1995): Grandeur et pureté du sacerdoce: Remarques sur le Testament de Qahat (4Q542),
in: Z. ZEVIT/S. GITIN/M. SOKOLOFF (eds.), Solving Riddles and Untying Knots: Biblical, Epi-
graphic, and Semitic Studies in Honor of Jonas C. Greenfield, Winona Lake, IN, 39–44.
COHEN, S.J.D. (2010): The Significance of Yavneh and Other Essays in Jewish Hellenism,
(TSAJ 136), Tübingen.
COLLINS, J.J. (1993): Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, (Hermeneia), Minneapolis, MN.
– (2002): Theology and Identity in the Early Enoch Literature, Henoch 24, 57–62.
COOK, E.M. (1993): Remarks on Testament of Kohath from Qumran Cave 4, JJS 44, 205–19.
COWLEY, A. (1923): Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C., Oxford.
CROSS, F.M. (1964): An Ostracon from Nebi Yunis, IEJ 14, 185–86.
– (1981): An Aramaic Ostracon of the Third Century B.C.E. from Excavations in Jerusalem, Eretz-
Israel 15, 67–69.
DAVIS, K. (2017): Caves of Dispute: Patterns of Correspondence and Suspicion in the Post-2002
‘Dead Sea Scroll’ Fragments, DSD 24, 229–70.
DAVIS, K. et al. (2017): Nine Dubious ‘Dead Sea Scrolls’ Fragments from the Twenty-First Century,
DSD 24, 1–40.
DIMANT, D. (2007): Qumran Aramaic Texts and the Qumran Community, in: A. HILHORST/
É. PUECH/E. TIGCHELAAR (eds.), Flores Florentino: The Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Early Jew-
ish Studies in Honour of Florentino García Martínez, (JSJSup 122), Leiden, 197–205.
– (2010): Themes and Genres in the Aramaic Texts from Qumran, in: K. BERTHELOT/D.S. BEN
EZRA (eds.), Aramaica Qumranica: Proceedings of the Conference on the Aramaic Texts from
Qumran in Aix-en-Provence 30 June–2 July 2008, (STDJ 94), Leiden, 15–45.
– (2017): From Enoch to Tobit: Collected Studies in Ancient Jewish Literature, (FAT 114), Tübin-
gen.
DRAWNEL, H. (2004): An Aramaic Wisdom Text from Qumran: A New Interpretation of the Aramaic
Levi Document, (JSJSup 86), Leiden.
– (2006): Priestly Education in the Aramaic Levi Document (Visions of Levi) and Aramaic Astro-
nomical Book, RevQ 22, 547–74.
– (2012): Knowledge Transmission in the Context of the Watchers’ Sexual Sin with Women in 1
Enoch 6–11, The Biblical Annals 2, 123–51.
DRIVER, G.R. (1957): Aramaic Documents of the Fifth Century B.C., Oxford.
DUŠEK, J. (2007): Les manuscrits araméens du Wadi Daliyeh et la Samarie vers 450–332 av. J.-C.,
(CHANE 30), Leiden.
– (2012): Aramaic and Hebrew Inscriptions from Mt. Gerizim and Samaria between Antiochus III
and Antiochus IV Epiphanes, (CHANE 54), Leiden.
ESHEL, E. (2007): The Imago Mundi of the Genesis Apocryphon, in: L. LIDONNICI/A. LIEBER (eds.),
Heavenly Tablets: Interpretation, Identity and Tradition in Ancient Judaism (Betsy Halpern-
Amaru Festschrift), (JSJSup 119), Leiden, 111–31.
– (2008): The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hasmonean State, Grand Rapids/Jerusalem.
– (2010a): The Genesis Apocryphon and Other Related Aramaic Texts from Qumran: The Birth of
Noah, in: K. BERTHELOT/D.S. BEN EZRA (eds.), Aramaica Qumranica: Proceedings of the Con-
ference on the Aramaic Texts from Qumran in Aix-en-Provence 30 June–2 July 2008, (STDJ 94),
Leiden, 278–97.
88 Daniel Machiela

– (2010b): The Proper Marriage According to the Genesis Apocryphon and Related Texts, Meghillot
8–9, 29–51 [Hebrew].
– (2011): The Genesis Apocryphon: A Chain of Traditions, in: A.D. ROITMAN/L.H. SCHIFFMAN/
S. TZOREF (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls and Contemporary Culture: Proceedings of the Interna-
tional Conference Held at the Israel Museum, Jerusalem (July 6–8, 2008), (STDJ 93), Leiden,
181–93
ESHEL, E./A. KLONER (1996): An Aramaic Ostracon of an Edomite Marriage Contract from Maresha,
Dated 176 B.C.E., IEJ 46, 1–22.
ESHEL, E./A. KLONER/É. PUECH (2007): Aramaic Scribal Exercises of the Hellenistic Period from
Maresha: Bowls A and B, BASOR 345, 39–62.
ESHEL, E./I. STERN (2017): Divination Texts of Maresha – Archeology and Texts, Archaeology and
Text 1, 7–25.
ESHEL, H./H. MISGAV (1988): A Fourth Century B.C.E. Document from Ketef Yeriho, IEJ 38, 158–
76.
EPHʿAL, I./J. NAVEH (2007): Aramaic Ostraca of the Fourth Century BC from Idumea, Jerusalem.
FALK, D.K. (2007): The Parabiblical Texts: Strategies for Extending the Scriptures Among the Dead
Sea Scrolls, (CDSS 8; LSTS 63), London.
FITZMYER, J.A. (1974): Some Observations on the Targum of Job from Qumran Cave 11, CBQ 36,
503–24.
GERATY, L.T. (1975): The Khirbet el-Kôm Bilingual Ostracon, BASOR 220, 55–61.
GOLDMAN, L. (2013): The Burial of the Fathers in the Visions of Amram from Qumran, in: D. DI-
MANT/R. KRATZ (eds.), Rewriting and Interpreting the Hebrew Bible: The Biblical Patriarchs in
Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Berlin, 231–49.
GREENFIELD, J.C. (2001): Hebrew and Aramaic in the Persian Period, in: S.M. PAUL/M.E. STONE/
A. PINNICK (eds.), ʿAl Kanfei Yonah: Collected Studies of Jonas Greenfield on Philology, Vol. 1,
Leiden/Jerusalem, 232–46.
GREENFIELD, J.C./M.E. STONE/E. ESHEL (2004): The Aramaic Levi Document: Edition, Translation,
Commentary, (SVTP 19), Leiden.
GRELOT, P. (1972): Documents araméens d’Égypt, Paris.
– (1979): L’orchestre de Daniel III 5, 7, 10, 15, VT 29, 23–38.
HIMMELFARB, M. (2002): The Book of the Watchers and the Priests of Jerusalem, Henoch 24, 131–
35.
– (2007): Temple and Priests in the Book of the Watchers, the Animal Apocalypse and the Apoca-
lypse of Weeks, in: G. BOCCACCINI/J.J. COLLINS (eds.), The Early Enoch Literature, (JSJSup
121), Leiden, 219–36.
KISTER, M. (2000): According to the Law of Moses and the Jews: The History of a Religious-Legal
Formula, in: D. BOYARIN et al. (eds.), Atara L’Haim: Studies in the Talmud and Medieval Rabbin-
ic Literature in Honor of Professor Haim Zalman Dimitrovsky, Jerusalem, 202–208 [Hebrew].
KLINGBEIL, G.A. (1997): A Semantic Analysis of Aramaic Ostraca of Syria-Palestine During the
Persian Period, Andrews University Seminary Studies 35, 33–46.
KORZAKOVA, H.B. (2010): Greek Ostraca and Graffiti, in: A. KLONER/E. ESHEL/H.B. KORZAKOVA/
G. FINKIELSZTEJN (eds.), Maresha Excavations Final Report III: Epigraphic Finds from the
1989–2000 Seasons, (IAAR 45), Jerusalem, 89–146.
KOTTSIEPER, I. (2007): And They Did Not Care to Speak Yehudit: On Linguistic Change in Judah
During the Late Persian Era, in: O. LIPSCHITS/G.N. KNOPPERS/R. ALBERTZ (eds.), Judah and the
Judaeans in the Fourth Century B.C.E., Winona Lake, IN, 95–124.
KUGEL, J.L. (1999): Traditions of the Bible: A Guide to the Bible as It Was at the Start of the Com-
mon Era, Cambridge, MA.
LANGE, A. (2010): The False Prophets Who Arose Against Our God, in: K. BERTHELOT/D.S.
BEN EZRA (eds.), Aramaica Qumranica: Proceedings of the Conference on the Aramaic Texts
from Qumran in Aix-en-Provence 30 June–2 July 2008, (STDJ 94), Leiden, 205–24.
 The Aramaic Qumran Literature 89

LEMAIRE, A. (1996): Nouvelles inscriptions araméennes d’Idumée au Musée d’Israël, (Suppléments

à Transeuphraténe 3), Paris.
– (2002): Nouvelles inscriptions araméennes d’Idumée: Collections Moussaïeff, Jeselsohn, Welch et
Divers, (Suppléments à Transeuphraténe 9), Paris.
– (2004): Nouveau temple de Yahô (IVe s. av. J.-C.), in: M. AUGUSTIN/H.M. NIEMANN (eds.),
“Basel und Bibel”: Collected Communications to the XVIIth Congress of the International Organi-
zation for the Study of the Old Testament, Basel 2001, (BEATAJ 51), Frankfurt, 265–73.
LINDENBERGER, J. M. (1994): Ancient Aramaic and Hebrew Letters, (SBLWAW 4), Atlanta, GA.
MACHIELA, D.A. (2008): Each to His Own Inheritance: Geography as an Evaluative Tool in the
Genesis Apocryphon, DSD 15, 50–66.
– (2009): The Dead Sea Genesis Apocryphon: A New Text and Translation with Introduction and
Special Treatment of Columns 13–17, (STDJ 79), Leiden.
– (2010): Some Egyptian Elements in the Genesis Apocryphon: Evidence of a Ptolemaic Social
Location?, Aramaic Studies 8, 47–69.
– (2013): Lord or God? Tobit and the Tetragrammaton, CBQ 75, 463–72.
– (2015): The Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls: Coherence and Context of the Qumran Library, in:
S. WHITE CRAWFORD/C. WASSEN (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran and the Concept of a
Library, (STDJ 116), Leiden, 243–58.
– (2017): “Wisdom Motifs” in the Compositional Strategy of the Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20) and
Other Aramaic Texts from Qumran, in: B.Y. GOLDSTEIN/M. SEGAL/G.J. BROOKE (eds.), HĀ-’ÎSH
MŌSHE: Studies in Scriptural Interpretation in the Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Moshe J. Bern-
stein, (STDJ 122), Leiden, 223–47.
– (2018a): The Hebrew of Tobit in 4Q200: A Contextual Reassessment, in: J. JOOSTEN/
D. MACHIELA/J.-S. REY (eds.), The Reconfiguration of Hebrew in the Hellenistic Period: Pro-
ceedings of the Seventh International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben
Sira at Strasbourg University, July 2014, (STDJ 124), Leiden, 102–20.
– (2018b): Situating the Aramaic Texts from Qumran: Reconsidering Their Language and Socio-
Historical Settings, in: S. WHITE CRAWFORD/C. WASSEN (eds.), Apocalyptic Thinking in Early
Judaism: Engaging with John Collins’ The Apocalyptic Imagination, (JSJSup 182), Leiden, 88–
109.
MACHIELA, D.A./A.B. PERRIN (2014): Tobit and the Genesis Apocryphon: Toward a Family Portrait,
JBL 133, 111–32.
MILIK, J.T. (1978): Écrits préesséniens de Qumrân: d’Hénoch à Amram, in: M. DELCOR (ed.), Qu-
mrân: Sa piété, sa théologie et son milieu, Paris/Leuven, 91–106.
MORGENSTERN, M. (1997): Language and Literature in the Second Temple Period, JJS 48, 130–45.
NAVEH, J. (1971): An Aramaic Ostracon from Ashdod, in: M. DOTHAN (ed.), Ashdod II–III: The
Second and Third Seasons of Excavations 1963, 1965 (‘Atiqot, English Series, 9–10), Jerusalem,
200–201.
NAVEH, J./S. SHAKED (2012): Aramaic Documents from Ancient Bactria (Fourth Century BCE) from
the Khalili Collections, London.
NICKELSBURG, G.W.E. (2001): 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1–36;
81–108, (Hermeneia), Minneapolis, MN.
NOVICK, T. (2007): Biblicized Narrative: On Tobit and Genesis 22, JBL 126, 755–64.
NOWELL, I. (2005): The Book of Tobit: An Ancestral Story, in: J. CORLEY/V. SKEMP (eds.), Intertex-
tual Studies in Ben Sira and Tobit: Essays in Honor of Alexander A. Di Lella, O.F.M., (CBQMS
38), Washington DC, 3–13.
PEARCE, L.E. (2016): Cuneiform Sources for Judeans in Babylonia in the Neo-Babylonian and
Achaemenid Periods: An Overview, Religion Compass 10, 230–43.
PERRIN, A.B. (2013): Capturing the Voices of Pseudepigraphic Personae: On the Form and Function
of Incipits in the Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls, DSD 20, 98–123.
90 Daniel Machiela

– (2015): The Dynamics of Dream-Vision Revelation in the Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls, (JAJSup 19),
Göttingen.
PETERS, D.M. (2010): The Recombination and Evolution of Noah Traditions as Found in the Genesis
Apocryphon and Jubilees: The DNA of Fraternal Twins, in: D.K. FALK et al. (eds.), Qumran Cave
1 Revisited: Texts from Cave 1 Sixty Years after Their Discovery: Proceedings of the Sixth Meet-
ing of the IOQS in Ljubljana, (STDJ 91), Leiden, 223–32.
PORTEN, B., with J.J. FARBER et al. (1996): The Elephantine Papyri in English: Three Millennia of
Cross-Cultural Continuity and Change, Leiden.
PORTEN, B./A. YARDENI (1986): Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt, Vol. 1, Letters,
Jerusalem.
– (2014): Textbook of Aramaic Ostraca from Idumea, Vol. 1: Dossiers 1–10, 401 Commodity Chits,
Winona Lake, IN.
– (2016): Textbook of Aramaic Ostraca from Idumea, Vol. 2: Dossiers 11–50, 263 Commodity Chits,
Winona Lake, IN.
PUECH, É. (2001): Qumrân Grotte 4.XXII: Textes Araméens, première partie, 4Q529–549, DJD
XXXI, Oxford.
QIMRON, E. (1994): On the List of False Prophets from Qumran, Tarbiz 63, 273–75.
REEVES, J.C. (1986): What Does Noah Offer in 1QapGen X, 15?, RevQ 12, 415–19.
ROFÉ, A. (1994): A ‘List of False Prophets’ from Qumran: Two Riddles and Their Solution, Haaretz
April 13, 1994, [Hebrew].
STADEL, C. (2008): Hebraismen in den aramäischen Texten vom Toten Meer, (Schriften der Hoch-
schule für Jüdische Studien 11), Heidelberg.
– (2010): Hebrew Influences on the Language of the Aramaic Qumran Scrolls, Meghillot 8–9, 393–
407 [Hebrew].
STERN, I. (2007): The Population of Persian-period Idumea According to the Ostraca: A Study of
Ethnic Boundaries and Ethnogenesis, in: Y. LEVIN (ed.), A Time of Change: Judah and Its Neigh-
bors During the Persian and Early Hellenistic Periods, (LSTS 65), London, 205–38.
STONE, M.E. (1996): The Genealogy of Bilhah, DSD 3, 20–36.
STUCKENBRUCK, L. (2011): Pseudepigraphy and First Person Discourse in the Dead Sea Documents:
From the Aramaic Texts to the Writings of the Yahad, in: A.D. ROITMAN et al. (eds.), The Dead
Sea Scrolls and Contemporary Culture: Proceedings of the International Conference Held at the
Israel Museum, Jerusalem (July 6–8, 2008), (STDJ 93), Leiden, 295–326.
– (2014): The Myth of the Rebellious Angels: Studies in Second Temple Judaism, (WUNT 335),
Tübingen.
SUTER, D. (1979): Fallen Angel, Fallen Priest: The Problem of Family Purity in 1 Enoch 6–16, HU-
CA 50, 111–35.
– (2002): Revisiting “Fallen Angel, Fallen Priest,” in: G. BOCCACCINI (ed.), The Origins of Enochic
Judaism: Proceedings of the First Enoch Seminar University of Michigan, Sesto Fiorentino, Italy
June 19–23, 2001, Torino, 137–42.
THOMAS, S.I. (2009): The “Mysteries” of Qumran: Mystery, Secrecy, and Esotericism in the Dead
Sea Scrolls, (EJL 25), Atlanta, GA.
TIGCHELAAR, E. (1996): Prophets of Old & The Day of the End: Zechariah, the Book of Watchers &
Apocalyptic, Leiden.
– (2002): Some Remarks on the Book of the Watchers, the Priests, Enoch and Genesis, and 4Q208,
in: G. BOCCACCINI (ed.), The Origins of Enochic Judaism: Proceedings of the First Enoch Semi-
nar University of Michigan, Sesto Fiorentino, Italy June 19–23, 2001, Torino, 143–45.
– (2009): Forms of Pseudepigraphy in the Dead Sea Scrolls, in: J. FREY et al (eds.), Pseudepigra-
phie und Verfasserfiktion in frühchristlichen Briefen, (WUNT 246), Tübingen, 85–101.
– (2010): Aramaic Texts from Qumran and the Authoritativeness of Hebrew Scriptures: Preliminary
Observations, in: M. POPOVIĆ (ed.), Authoritative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism, (JSJSup 141),
Leiden, 155–71.
 The Aramaic Qumran Literature 91

TUPLIN, C./J. MA (2013): The Arshama Letters from the Bodleian Library, 2013
(https://arshama.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/publications/ [accessed May 10, 2018]).
VANDERKAM, J.C. (1994): The Granddaughters and Grandsons of Noah, RevQ 16, 456–61.
WACHOLDER, B.Z. (1990): The Ancient Judaeo-Aramaic Literature (500–164 BCE): A Classification
of Pre-Qumranic Texts, in: L.H. SCHIFFMAN (ed.), Archaeology and History in the Dead Sea
Scrolls: The New York University Conference in Memory of Yigael Yadin, (JSPSup 8;
JSOT/ASOR Monographs 2), Sheffield, 257–81.
WERMAN, C. (2007): The Book of Jubilees in Hellenistic Context, in: L. LIDONNICI/A. LIEBER (eds.),
Heavenly Tablets: Interpretation, Identity and Tradition in Ancient Judaism, (Betsy Halpern-
Amaru Festschrift), (JSJSup 119), Leiden, 133–58.
– (2010): The Book of Jubilees and Its Aramaic Sources, Meghillot 8–9, 135–74.
WISE, M.O. (1990): A Critical Study of the Temple Scroll from Cave 11, (SAOC 49), Chicago, IL.
ZIMMERMAN, F. (1961): Hebrew Translation in Daniel, JQR 51, 198–208.
 Nanay(a) among the Arameans
New Light from Papyrus Amherst 63*

Tawny L. Holm

Nanaya is a latecomer … she appears from nowhere to become the greatest Mesopotamian goddess of
all times – greater than the Sumerian Ninhursaga, the highest lady of the Sumerian pantheon, more
enduring than even the Semitic goddess par excellence, Ištar, who was worshipped from one end of
the Near East to the other … Despite this fame, she remains a lady of mystery.
Joan Goodnick Westenholz 1
It is obvious that the history of Nanay and that of the Arameans exhibit parallels. Nanay gains power
when the Arameans constitute a significant segment of Babylonian population. Later, her cult spreads
together with Aramean culture.
Wolfgang Heimpel2

I. Nanay(a)’s Prominence on Papyrus Amherst 633

The unprovenanced Papyrus Amherst 634 was purchased on the antiquities market in
the 1890s by Lord Amherst of Hackney along with other papyri in Greek and Demotic
said to have been found in the same jar at Thebes.5 The fact that the language of the

*
In the transliterations used throughout this contribution, ʔaleph and ʕayin will be treated as full
phonemic segments and rendered as ʔ and ʕ, respectively, rather than as small superscript characters.
Until recently, the latter has been the predominant convention, but it seems somehow to detract from
the phonological status of these two segments. Moreover, abbreviations for bibliographical references
in Biblical Studies follow the Society of Biblical Literature Handbook of Style (2nd ed., Atlanta, 2014),
and those in Assyriology follow the system of The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the
University of Chicago (Chicago, 1956–2011). Figures 1 and 3 are from Wikimedia Commons.
1
GOODNICK WESTENHOLZ 1997, 57.
2
HEIMPEL 1982, 17. Based on its -ay suffix, Heimpel thought the name indicated she might even
have been Aramean all along. That ending is common in Semitic nisbe and hypocoristic constructions,
however, and other explanations must be sought. Joan Goodnick Westenholz (1997, 58), for instance,
suggested a derivation from Elamite nan(a), “day.”
3
In Aramaic texts in Aramaic script, the name is spelled nny, nnʔ, and nnʔy; cf. Sumerian dna-na-
a; Akkadian dna-na-a-a, phonetically represented by scholars variously as Nanâ, Nanāy, Nanāya, and
Nanaya; and Greek Nanaia, Nana, Nania, etc. On Papyrus Amherst 63, the Demotic spelling indicates
the pronunciation Nanay or Nanā (see below).
4
For Papyrus Amherst 63, see also B. Porten’s contribution in this volume pp. 117–36.
5
There are reasons to be suspicious of the sellers’ claim that all the manuscripts came from that
jar; see PESTMAN 1993, 12–13. On the possibility that Papyrus Amherst 63 was produced at Elephan-
tine, see HOLM 2017: 3. For the view that some of the Amherst collection came from the Memphis
 Nanay(a) among the Arameans 93

papyrus was Aramaic, but written in Demotic Egyptian script, was not fully recog-
nized until the 1940s.6 Even then, because of its difficulty, the papyrus did not receive
sustained attention until the 1980s, with the pioneering work of two teams of scholars:
Sven P. Vleeming and Jan-Wim Wesselius in the Netherlands, and Richard C. Steiner
and Charles F. Nims in the United States.7 No full edition of the papyrus, however,
was produced until very recently. In 2017, Steiner posted a preliminary edition online
based on his work with Nims (who had passed away in 1988), consisting of a Demotic
transliteration, Aramaic normalization, English translation, and some notes.8 In 2018,
Karel van der Toorn published an edition with Demotic transliteration, English transla-
tion, and abundant notes, but without an Aramaic normalization. My own edition will
soon appear in the SBL series, Writings from the Ancient World, and includes a pale-
ographically-informed transliteration, a full Aramaic normalization, and an English
translation with some notes. I am also producing a critical edition with a detailed pale-
ographic, linguistic, and literary commentary, to be published by Walter de Gruyter.9
Still, many passages remain open to radically different readings due to the complicated
relation between the Aramaic-Demotic interface and the underlying Aramaic.
The papyrus seems to date to approximately the fourth century BCE and appears to
be the product of a culturally-diverse Aramaic-speaking community in Egypt,10 per-
haps similar to the communities at Aswan best known from the fifth-century BCE
Aramaic documents in Aramaic script. It has twenty-three columns containing a varie-
ty of literary compositions, only some of which are marked by internal punctuation or
divisions. A general list of contents is as follows:
Recto:
i–iv: Mar and Marah (Nabû and Nanay) Cycle with Repeated Refrains
v: El’s Fruit of the New Year
vi: Lament to Mar on the Destruction of the Land; Psalm to Bethel
vii: Individual Lament to Mar
viii: Hymn to All the Gods and a Procession of Sacrifices
ix: Addresses to Mar/Bethel, with Selection of a Priestess
x–xi: Mar and Marah Cycle with Repeated Refrain
xii: 1–11a City Lament
xii 11–xiii 17: Israelite Cycle: Three Psalms Featuring Yhw/Adonai

region, see QUACK 2017, fn. 12, with reference to MARTIN 2013, 41–62. For more on the papyrus’
modern story from its purchase to the present, see STEINER 2017.
6
See BOWMAN 1944.
7
VLEEMING/WESSELIUS 1982; 1983–84; and 1985–90; NIMS/STEINER 1983; STEINER/NIMS 1984;
1985; and 2017. The two teams were each composed of a Demoticist and an Aramaicist.
8
A complete yet tentative translation of the papyrus (without the text or many notes) is STEINER
1997 (=COS 1.99).
9
An advance on that critical edition can be found in my treatment of col. xvii, in HOLM 2017.
10
While Steiner and Nims (1984, 261) first proposed a second century BCE date, Steiner (1997,
310) suggested that it was written in the beginning of the third century BCE by a scribe trained at the
end of the fourth. Recent estimates by Demoticists tend to agree on a date in the fourth century BCE.
For instance, K.-Th. Zauzich (2015, 15) has dated the papyrus to the early fourth century; and Günter
Vittmann (2017, 262) to the second half of the same.
94 Tawny L. Holm

xiv: Lament for Nanay’s Statue

xv: Praise of Nanay; scribal colophon
Verso:
xvi: Blessings and Prayers to Multiple Deities, incl. Nabû’s Divine Banquet
and a Psalm to Ashim-Bethel
xvii: “Sacred Marriage” of Nanay with Baʕal/Bʕel-Shamayn
xviii–xxiii: “Revolt of Babylon” narrative
The first 17 columns seem to be cultic in nature, and contain a collection of poems,
hymns, blessings, and prayers, representing a unique amalgam of religious motifs,
deities, and literary traditions from mostly Mesopotamia and Syria-Palestine. There
are hymns to Mesopotamian and Syrian-Aramean deities, and three psalms featuring
Yahō/ū (the local form of the biblical Yahweh). The final six columns contain a lively
narrative about the historical seventh-century revolt of Shamash-shum-ukin of Baby-
lonia against his brother, Assurbanipal of Assyria, ending in the death of the former in
a palace fire.11 While the papyrus may or may not be the text of a New Year’s liturgy
as Richard Steiner has suggested,12 particular themes do give the religious composi-
tions in cols. i–xvii a unity, especially the themes of loss and renewal that culminate in
the sacred marriage text in col. xvii, the last hymnic column.
The main divine pair on the papyrus are Mar (Mār), “Lord,” and Marah (Mārāh),
“Lady,”13 who are sometimes also described as “from Rash/Arash,” an as-yet unidenti-
fied place name that has so far been connected to varied locations, from the land of
Raši/Araši north of Elam to sites in the Levant or Syria.14 The title Mar seems to be an
epithet that is used for multiple male deities on the papyrus: at least Nabû, Bethel,
Yahō/Adonai, and Baʕal-Shamayn. The identity of Marah, however, is almost certain-
ly the goddess Nanay, since that deity is explicitly called Marah (in cols. iv and xiv),

11
Cf. the Sardanapal(l)os legend in Ctesias’ Persika (ca. 400 BCE), as cited in the first-century
BCE Diodorus Siculus (Bibliotheca 2.23–28) and other ancient authors.
12
STEINER 1991; IDEM 1997, 310.
13
The name “Mar” is represented by the Demotic sign group for mr (Demotic “to bind”), and the
name “Marah” is spelled with the sign group for the Demotic fs noun mr(.t) = mre (“harbor,
riverbank”). That the Aramaic pronunciation of the latter is mārā or the like is hinted by the spelling
of the word without the Demotic fs marker -t (cf. also the Coptic form of this word: mrō). The Ara-
maic rendering mrty (see, for example, VLEEMING/WESSELIUS 1985, 19–20) is not appropriate, since
the final sign in the group does not represent -ty, but a Demotic aleph (I thank Richard Jasnow for his
observations on this).
14
Steiner and Nims suggested that “Rash” on the papyrus was the country Raši/Araši, best known
especially from Neo-Assyrian texts (STEINER/NIMS 1984, 106–107; STEINER 1991). For an identifi-
cation of Rash with Raʔs en-Naqoura in Lebanon, see VLEEMING/WESSELIUS 1985, 9; for Mt. Si-
yan/Mt. Hermon, see KOTTSIEPER 1997, 408–409; for Jebel Ansariya, see VAN DER TOORN 2018, 13–
18. Unlike other place names on the papyrus, Rash is given the Demotic seated-woman determinative,
not that for a foreign land. While in some passages Rash is presented as a land (e.g., col. xi), in others
it appears to be a cultic center of some sort (see HOLM in press).
 Nanay(a) among the Arameans 95

something not true for the other goddesses on the papyrus.15 Indeed, the name, ren-
dered usually as Nanay but sometimes as Nanā on the papyrus (reflecting the pronun-
ciation elsewhere in Aramaic texts), appears at least a dozen times, more than that of
any other deity except Yahō/Adonay (whose mentions are concentrated in the Yahō
psalms).16 Moreover, Nanay is explicitly coupled with Nabû (her traditional Mesopo-
tamian spouse) in cols. iii, viii 5–6, and xv; and with Baʕal/Bʕel-Šhamayn in the sa-
cred marriage text of col. xvii. She may also be allusively paired with male deities,
even when she is not explicitly named (e.g., with Bethel in col. ix, and Yahō in col.
xii; see below).
That Nanay emerges on this papyrus as a central figure should not be surprising, in
spite of the fact that she is otherwise so little known from other Aramaic texts from
Egypt.

II. The Cult of Nanay(a) in the Ancient Near East and Egypt

The elusive Nanaya was worshiped across the Near East from about 2000 BCE to
1000 CE, and seems to have been especially revered by Arameans in the first millen-
nia BCE and CE.17 Her precise origins are unknown, but she appeared abruptly as a
love goddess at Uruk in the Ur III period. She was always a southern or Babylonian
goddess, and besides Uruk, wherein her main cult center was her temple in the
Eanna/Ayakku district, she was also worshiped at other sites in the south, such as Nip-
pur, Ur, Isin, Larsa, Babylon, and Kish. She was often identified with Ishtar/Inanna
(the more famous goddess), and like Ishtar, had influence over love encounters and
was linked with the king and royal house, particularly via love songs and sacred mar-
riage texts (see col. xvii, discussed below). Her spouse was Muati in the second mil-
lennium, and Nabû of Borsippa in the first. She first appears with Nabû in a triad with
his other spouse Tašmētu on a kudurru of Merodoch-Baladan I (1173–1161 BCE).18
From the early second millennium BCE onward, her associated imagery included lions
and celestial luminosity.19 Her earliest confirmed representation in iconography is at

15
There are only a few other goddesses named on the papyrus: ʕAnat (viii 9); Bēltu from Esangila
(viii 4); Pidray from Raphiah (viii 3 and xvi 4); Asherah from the South/Negeb (viii 7); and Baʕalat
(xiv 12), although this last may simply be an epithet (“Mistress”) for Nanay.
16
On the papyrus, the spelling of the name is unfixed, but includes these Demotic spellings, which
seem to indicate a pronunciation of either Nanay or Nanā: n2ʔny• (iv 7); possibly ┌ ʔ2┐ ʔny• (v 10, if ʔ2
is a mistake for n2); nʔny• (viii 6); n2ʔnʔ• (x 11); n2ʔn(ʔ) (followed by a word beginning with ʔ2; xiv
5); n2ʔn• (xiv 9); nʔny (xiv 12); nny• (xv 2, 3, 8); nnʔ• (xvii 7); and nny2 (xvii 9).
17
For thorough studies of Nanaya, see GOODNICK WESTENHOLZ 1997 and 2014; STOL 1998–2001
and 1999; STRECK/WASSERMAN 2012. For a general approach, see also DREWNOWSKA-RYMARZ
2008. On Nanaya’s identification with Ishtar or other goddesses, see ASHER-GREVE/GOODNICK
WESTENHOLZ 2013, 104–31. See also HOLM 2017, 23–28.
18
On the syncretism of Nanaya and Tašmētu, see MATSUSHIMA 1980, 137.
19
For instance, she is portrayed as a star in a Sumerian hymn for Ishbi-Erra (Išbi-Erra C in ETCSL
2.5.1.3.), and in a Samsuiluna hymn her symbols include the moon and sun (STRECK/WASSERMAN
2012). For the view of Nanaya as a Venus deity, see HEIMPEL 1982, STEINKELLER 2013a and 2013b,
96 Tawny L. Holm

the top of a kudurru, a boundary stele used to record a land grant, from the late second
millennium BCE (see fig. 1).20 On the stele, Nanaya is seated on a throne shaped like a
temple but with lions-paw feet, and receives King Melišipak (1186–1172 BCE) and
his daughter Ḫunnubat -Nanaya, thereby overseeing a donation of land by the king to
the princess. At the top of the scene are the sun disk of Shamash, the crescent moon of
Sîn, and the Venus-star of Ishtar, representing the traditional symbols of the divine
guarantors.

Figure 1: The top of the Melišipak Kudurru at the Louvre (Sb 23), with seated Nanaya, Wikimedia
Commons.

Her cult had come north to Assyria as well by the end of the second millennium
BCE, and she seems to have had shrines at Arbela and in the Ešarra temple complex at
Assur by the first millennium.21 Moreover, the Neo-Assyrians frequently rebuilt or
renovated her main cultic center in the south, the Eḫilianna in the Eanna temenos of
Uruk, and Nanaya was “second only to Ištar in the local divine hierarchy” in the city at
that time.22 Three successive Assyrian kings of the seventh century BCE (Sennacherib,
Esarhaddon, and Assurbanipal) each claimed to have taken back her cult image from
Susa in Elam and returned it to Uruk. Assurbanipal even declared that the image he
retrieved was originally taken to Susa in the reign of the Elamite king Kutir-Nahhunte

and FALK 2015, 273–75. The latter argues that the crescent symbol frequently associated with Na-
naya represents the horns of Venus and not those of the moon.
20
MDP X 87ff.; see SEIDL 1989, pl. 11a and b.
21
See LIVINGSTONE 1989, 20, for the mention of Nanaya in Assurbanipal’s Hymn to Arbela; and
for the shrine at Assur, see GEORGE 1993, 143, no. 1015; and IDEM 1992, 185–91, esp. 188, text 21,
recto line. 23´.
22
BEAULIEU 2003, 187–213, esp. 187.
 Nanay(a) among the Arameans 97

I (1730–1700 BCE), a statement which, if true, would indicate Nanaya’s long presence
in Elam.23
Evidence for the cult of Nanaya in first-millennium Elam is found in an Akkadian
dialogue contract in the archive of “Šamû the treasurer” from Susa, dating to the time
of one of the three Artaxerxes.24 The contract is between Man(nu)-kī-Nanāya, son of
Ḫūru, and a certain Kinūnāya, son of Pēṭiʔu, both of whom were servants of Šamû.
One if not two of the witnesses are described as priests of Nanaya, using a possibly
Aramaic word for “priest,” kumar(u). 25 The witnesses are Bandakku, a lùkumari
Nanāya, and Harnuninapirru, a lùkum[ar(u)] to a deity whose name is unpreserved, but
who might also be Nanaya given the same distinctive word used for “priest.”26
There is no evidence that Nanaya was worshiped by Arameans before their migra-
tion across the Jezirah into Mesopotamia proper (Assyria and Babylonia), starting at
the end of the second millennium BCE or the beginning of the first.27 “Nanaya/Nanā”
and “Nabû” are common elements in West Semitic – mostly Aramaic – theophoric
names in Akkadian texts from Mesopotamia and northern Syria in the first millenni-
um.28 Moreover, with regard to Aramean tribes in Babylonia, where their heaviest
population was along the Tigris, the available evidence shows that the theophoric
element “Nanā” was especially prominent among the Akkadian names of the Puqu-
du.29 This tribe lived in southern and eastern Babylonia but its earliest mention is in
texts from Nippur.

23
POTTS 2001, 28–30.
24
JOHANNES 1990, 173–74; ZADOK 1992, 145–46. I’d like to thank Renee Kovacs for bringing
this text and some references to my attention.
25
The form kumar(u) here may be an Aramaic loanword – the common k(w)mr, “(pagan) priest,”
since its Akkadian cognate, kumru, supposedly does not appear after the Middle Assyrian period,
except once as the feminine kumirtu (a designation for the priestess of the goddess Delebat among the
Arabs; CAD K 533–35). A West Semitic borrowing ka/umaru, however, is already found in Akkadian
texts from Emar in the second millennium BCE (PENTIUC 1999, 91–93).
26
Several names in this contract and in the Šamû archive as a whole are Egyptian, probably attest-
ing to a sizable Egyptian community in Susa in the Achaemenid period, some of whom obviously
worshiped Nanaya. For example, Ḫurû is “Horus,” and Harnuninapirru may be Egyptian Ḥr-n-nfr(?);
see ZADOK 1992, 145–46. Evidence for Egyptians in Babylonia dates as early as 676 BCE, and evi-
dence for them in Assyria appears around 692/1 BCE (IDEM, 139; IDEM 2005, 95–96; HACKL/JURSA
2015, 157).
27
On the settlement of Aramean tribes of the Jezirah in Assyria and Babylonia, see YOUNGER
2016, 655–740. On forced migrations of Arameans by Assyrians to Assyria at different times, see
FRAME 2013, 87–121, esp. 90–97.
28
ZADOK 1977, 121. For the Nanā-element in West Semitic names in Babylonia during the Neo-
Babylonian and Achaemenid periods, see ibid., 75–76. On the presumption that most West Semitic
names in Akkadian texts are Aramaic, see IDEM 2013, 273, with the caveat that Aramaic names do
not always indicate Aramean ethnicity. For the Persian-era names with a nn/nny-element in Aramaic
texts, see MARAQTEN 1988, 187, 227. It is interesting to note that “Nanā/Nanaya” is an element in 52
names born by 106 women out of all of the 555 names born by 1221 women (regardless of ethnicity)
in Akkadian texts from first-millennium Babylonia (COUSIN/WATAI 2016).
29
ZADOK 1977, 182; YOUNGER 2016, 688–92. Although the Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser III
(745–727 BCE) claims to have conquered Arameans all over Babylonia, other texts mentioning
specific Aramean tribes indicate the majority lived along the Tigris (BEAULIEU 2018, 172).
98 Tawny L. Holm

In the Parthian era, there is evidence that Nanay(a) was worshiped at Hatra, Assur,
Palmyra, Dura-Europos, Susa, Elymais, and probably Babylon. Texts and iconography
from Hatra and probably Assur demonstrate that she was worshiped in those Aramean
centers as part of a divine Triad, consisting of Nanay as the moon-goddess Mārtan,
“Our Lady,” alongside Māran, “Our Lord,” and Barmārēn, “Son of Our Lords.”30 The
identity of Māran is almost certainly Shamash, while the identity of Barmārēn is un-
known.31 Fig. 2 below contains a drawing of the artwork and inscription on a pithos
from Assur, which depicts a seated Mārtan/Nanay next to Barmārēn.32 There, the god-
dess is wearing a robe adorned with crescent moons and a crown that has been vari-
ously interpreted, but is perhaps a crescent and a sun. Above her head is a bird that
seems to be a dove, and an Aramaic inscription with the words, “Image of Nanay,
Queen (or: the King!), our Lady, the daughter of Bēl, lord of the gods” (ṣlmʔ dy nny
mlkʔ mrtn brt bl mrlhʔ).

Figure 2: Drawing of Assur pithos with seated Māran in center and Bārmārēn on a throne to her right
(ANDRAE/LENZEN 1933, Abb. 46).

This evidence for the cult of Nanay(a) in eastern Syria and Assyria in the Parthian
period may make that region a cultural hinge for the fourth-century compositions on
Papyrus Amherst 63. These areas exhibited many Babylonian traditions, including the
worship of Nanay(a) and Nabû, as well as Bēl and Shamash.33 Not only was Nanay

30
For parallels to the use of Māran, Mārtan, and Barmārēn at Hatra and Assur, see TUBACH 1986,
276–86. Edifice A at Hatra may be a temple to the Triad; see AGGOULA 1998, 57–58.
31
He is described as the son of Shamash in H107, H280, etc.; see BEYER 1998, 80–81, who sug-
gests that Barmārēn was Dionysius, and DRIJVERS 1980, 47, who suggests that he was Nabû. Note
that Nabû is described as the “scribe of Marān” in H389, 390, and 404.
32
ANDRAE/LENZEN 1933, Abb. 46.
33
See DIRVEN 2014. Note that van der Toorn (2018, 37–39) thinks Palmyra is the specific location
at which many of the papyrus’ compositions were compiled or even composed, although his reading
of certain terms leading to this interpretation (e.g., “fortress of palms” and “perennial source” in col.
xiv) is highly problematic. See HOLM [in press].
 Nanay(a) among the Arameans 99

worshiped with an epithet using a form of mrh, “Lady,” but personal names with nny
and mrt seem to have been popular at Hatra, Palmyra, and elsewhere.34 Moreover,
there was a Shamash temple at Hatra named “Sagil” after Marduk’s Babylonian tem-
ple complex “Esa(n)gila” (cf. the “Esangila” of Papyrus Amherst 63 viii 5), and there
is evidence for the celebration of New
Year (Akītu) festivals from Assur to
Palmyra as well.35
At Palmyra, Dura-Europos, Susa, and
Elymais, Nanay was identified with Ar-
temis and depicted with bow and arrows,
and was usually paired with Nabû as
Apollo. 36 At Palmyra, she was both
paired with Nabû and considered part of a
divine Triad alongside the goddess Herta
and the god Resheph. 37 In coins from
Susa, Nanay is portrayed as a sun or
moon goddess, with rays surrounding her
head.38 In addition, a small Parthian-era
ivory statuette of a nude goddess with a
crescent on her head found near Babylon
may be a representation of Nanay (fig. 3).
The cult of Nanay(a) reached further
eastward beyond Aramean regions as
well, even while it continued in the Near
East. Her worship in Bactria is demon-
strated by both Kushan coins and the
Rabatak inscription, in which the Kushan
emperor Kanishka (ca. 150–190 CE)
claims that he received his kingship from
Nanaya and “all the gods.”39 On Kushan
coins, her title is “King Nana,” and she
Figure 3: Statue of goddess with crescent, wears a crescent on her head and is often
possibly Nanaya, from Hillah, near Babylon. seated side-saddle on a lion.40 She is fre-
Louvre AO 20127, Wikimedia Commons. quently shown blessing the king. In the

34
See MARCATO 2018, 164–66; and at Palmyra, see STARK 1971, 97, 99, et passim.
35
The Hatran inscription H107 describes the sgyl hyklʔ rbʔ, “Sagil, the great temple,” as being
constructed by “Barmārēn for Shamash his father”; see AGGOULA 1998, 33–77; KUBIAK 2016, 330–
31. On the Akītu temple and festival at Assur, Palmyra, and elsewhere in Parthian times, see DIRVEN
2014, 14ff.
36
GOODNICK WESTENHOLZ 1997, 79–80.
37
TEIXIDOR 1979, 111–14.
38
GOODNICK WESTENHOLZ 2014, 186–87.
39
On Kushan coins, see LOESCHNER 2012, 6–11 and AMBOS 2003, among others. On the inscrip-
tion of Kanishka at Rabatak, see SIMS-WILLIAMS/CRIB 1995/96, and SIMS-WILLIAMS 2008.
40
GOODNICK WESTENHOLZ 2014, 189–90; and CARTER 2010, 144ff.
100 Tawny L. Holm

seventh and eighth centuries CE her cult reached Sogdiana and Transoxiana, wherein a
four-armed Nanaya is often portrayed holding the sun on the right and the moon on the
left.41 Martha Carter has even proposed that Nanaya was the “Great goddess of the
West” to the Chinese, an obscure folkloric figure before China opened trade routes to
especially Iran’s Arsacid Empire in the first century BCE.42 Back in the Near East, she
appears as both a goddess and a demon in Late Antique Mesopotamian incantation
bowls, and is mentioned by Christian authors from the same period. For example,
Jacob of Sarug (521 CE) describes her as an Assyrian goddess, and in the Syriac Acts
of Mar Muʕain, King Shapur II commands that saint from the diocese of Nisibis to
make sacrifices to Zeus, Nanay, Bel, and Nabû.43 Her last mention in the region is by
Bar Bahlul, a Christian scholar from Baghdad, who defines her as Venus in his Syriac-
Arabic lexicon in 1000 CE.44
In the west, Nanaya’s popularity extended as far as Egypt and Athens.45 The earliest
evidence for Nanay(a)’s cult in Egypt is in an Aramaic contract from about 515 BCE,
but only in the form of a personal name of a witness (nny; TAD B1.1). Indeed, before
Papyrus Amherst 63 came to light, Nanay(a) was only known amongst Egyptian Ara-
means through personal names.46 Yet, in Egyptian religion of the Hellenistic and Ro-
man periods, she was identified with Isis, as various inscriptions and poems demon-
strate; e.g., Isidorus’ second or first century BCE “Hymn 1 to Isis,” inscribed on the
temple of Isis at Medinet-Madi in the Fayum, reads: “The Syrians call You: Astarte,
Artemis, Nanaia” (line 18).47 In addition, there were at least a few Egyptian temples
dedicated to Isis-Nanaia or Isis Sononais in the village of Nabla in the Fayum, and in
Alexandria there was a major temple called the Nanaîon (ἡ τοῦ Ναναίου βιβλιοθήκη),
a repository for official documents. Moreover, Nanaya’s alter ego Isis was important
at Aswan, as is attested by the two temples of Isis there (a large one on the island of
Philae and a small one at Syene) during the Hellenistic period. Thus, it seems one
solution to Nanaya’s seeming near-invisibility among Egyptian Arameans is that we
have looked past her all along; she is probably the deity behind the epithet Banit (bnt),
the goddess who had a temple at Aswan mentioned in Aramaic letters (TAD A2.2:1, 12
and A2.4:1; and see TAD A2.3:7), and whose name is a theophoric element in several
personal names; e.g., Makkibanit (TAD B1.1:17 etc.); Banitsar (TAD A2.2:5, 2.6:3, 8);

41
AZARPAY 1976, 536–42.
42
CARTER 2006, 126.
43
SALVESEN 1998, 155.
44
BAR BAHLULE 1901 (ed. DUVAL), 1253.
45
A short inscription on a small basis of Hymettian marble found in Piraeus (near Athens) reads:
“Axios and Kleio made an offering to Artemis-Nana in fulfillment of a vow” (CIA II, 3, 1613 = III, 1,
131).
46
Other personal names from Egypt with nny- include: “Nanaiḥem” (nnyḥm) in two Hermopolis
letters (BK 2:4=TAD A2.2 and BK 4:1, 15=TAD A2.1), dating to the late sixth or early fifth century
BCE, and “Nanaišuri” (nnyšwry, TAD B4.7:1), from the second half fifth century BCE.
47
For a survey of the Egyptian evidence in Greek, see HOLM 2017, 24–25. See now also NAGEL
2019, 564–65 and 600. One may also compare the syncretistic claims of Isis to those of Nanaya in the
Sumero-Akkadian Hymn of Nanâ, in which Nanaya identifies herself as Inanna/Ishtar and other great
goddesses, but ends with “still I am Nanâ” (REINER 1974, 224; see now OSHIMA 2020).
 Nanay(a) among the Arameans 101

etc. The name Banit means either “Beautiful One” (Akk. banītu; CAD B, 81) or “Crea-
tress” (Akk. bānītu; CAD B, 94).48 Moreover, some scholars of Egyptian Aramean
religion had already paired Banit with Nabû, Nanaya’s Mesopotamian spouse, who
also had a temple at Aswan.49
For evidence of the goddess Banit in the Levant, note the “image of Banit” (skt bnt)
brought to Samaria by deportees from southern Mesopotamia in 2 Kings 17:30–31,50
and an inscription from Tarsus recently identified by Lemaire containing a personal
name Ṣilbanit, “Under-the-Protection-of-Banit,” dating to ca. 700 BCE.51

III. New Light on Nanay(a)’s Ancient Themes

On Papyrus Amherst 63, Nanay is explicitly connected with both Mesopotamia and
Syria in various titles that include place names: “Nanay from Ayakku” – her tradition-
al cult center in Uruk (viii 6); “Marah from (As)syria” (viii 2); “Cow of Babylon” (prt
bbl; xiv 19); “Marah/Queen of Rash” (iv 9–10; xiv 2); and possibly “Queen of all
Aram” (xiv 3).52 Moreover, as is demonstrated below, the liturgical columns i–xvii
begin and end with Nanay, and she is mentioned or alluded to at strategic points in the
middle: in the “Blessings of all the Gods” prayer (viii 6), possibly in the Bethel/Mar
hymns in cols. ix–x, and perhaps in the Israelite psalm in col. xii. Not only does the
prominent positioning of Nanay, a goddess worshiped across the Near East by Arame-
ans, help forge a unity for the diverse community that produced the papyrus, but her
appearances illustrate a continuity of themes in the cult of Nanay(a): e.g., her connec-
tion to kings and the royal house, her cosmic radiance, cow and dove imagery, and her
role in love and sacred marriage texts.

III.A. Nanay and the King

Repeated refrains in cols. i–iv present Marah/Nanay as the mother or wet nurse to a
child, probably a human king. That Marah, “Lady,” is Nanay, and Mar, “Lord,” is
Nabû in this section is made clear in col. iii 1, 11–12 and iv 7.
Col. ii 14b–18a (cf. i 17b–20; iii 3a–6, 14b–17; iv 3b–6a)53
ʔ2tmmʔ┌ r2┐ ʔ• rʔ• 15) bʔr2ʔ• ʔ(t)dm┌ r┐ l- 15) brʔ

48
The term banītu, “beautiful,” is applied to Nanaya in, for example, BA 5 628 iv 14 (SAA 3, no.
4, “Nanaya Hymn of Sargon II”). The epithet bānītu, “creatress,” is a generic term for many goddess-
es, but was especially applied to Ishtar, with whom Nanaya was often identified (PARPOLA 1997,
xviii; ALLEN 2015, 156).
49
On identifications of Banit by previous scholars, see HOLM 2017, 24–26.
50
As Lipiński (1973, 202–204) suggested, sukkôt bĕnôt (the MT’s vocalization) is better emended
and interpreted as the “image of Banit” (reading a common noun skn/sknt, “stele, image,” plus the
name banit rather than bĕnôt).
51
LEMAIRE 2014, 321.
52
See VAN DER TOORN 2018, 177.
53
Restorations are based on the repeated refrains.
102 Tawny L. Holm

┌
w┐ [ʔšʔm]ʔʕʔny┌ •┐ ┌
w┐ [šm]ʕ-ny (OR: ┌ w┐ [šm]ʕny)
rʔm• ʔ2ʔnʔ• rm(h) ʔn(h)
16)
r2ʔ•by┌ tʔ┐ [k]┌ ʔ┐ [•] 16)
rby┌ t┐ [k]
[t2ʔ]┌ t2┐ y• ʔ2ʔnʔkʔtʔ• [d]┌ d┐ y ʔ(y)nqt
lḫ 17) mr2 ʕrr┌ ʔ┐ [kʔ•] lḫ 17) mrh ʕll[k]
[t3ʔ2ʔtʔ]┌ r2┐ ʔ• [tʔd]┌ r┐ (h)
t2ʔḫyrʔ• ḫyr┌ •┐ 18) ʔ• tḫyl(h) ḫyl- 18) (h)
Let me exto┌ l┐ (OR: Exto┌ l┐ )54 15) the son,55
┌
and┐ [lis]ten! (OR: ┌ and┐ [lis]ten to me!)
Exalted am I.
16) ┌ ┐
I raised [you];
I nursed my [be]┌ lov┐ ed; (OR: you sucked my [br]┌ ea┐ st;)56
the sap57 of 17) Marah nourished [you].
(Chorus:) “[May she magni]┌ fy┐ him,
may she endow him with his power!”

Since no named god on the papyrus is explicitly called the “son of Nanay/Marah,” it
seems more likely that the son suckled by the goddess is the unnamed human king
mentioned in iii 9; iv 15; vii 1; xiv 18; and xvi 1. In these passages, Nanay supports or
legitimizes the king and his rule: for instance, after being herself enthroned among the
gods as “Queen of Rash,” Nanay/Marah is explicitly asked to “bring up our king” in iv
15; and in xiv 18–19, Nanay as the “Cow of Babylon” is requested to place sentinels
over the king’s throne. Furthermore, in xvi 1 Nanay’s spouse Nabû announces a young
man’s “kingship,” and invites him to be seated on his throne (cf. iii 9). This royal en-
thronement may take place in the month of Epiph, the Egyptian equivalent of Tishri
(see the mention of “Epiph” in ix 13 and possibly xvi 2), and may indicate a New
Year’s celebration in the seventh month of the liturgical calendar. In Mesopotamia and
elsewhere in the ancient Near East, the New Year was a time for renewal and rejuve-

54
The verb is taken here as the Pael Imperfect 1cs or the Ithpael Imperative ms of *dmr (Proto-
Semitic *dmr). It means “to do wondrous things” or “to declare mighty” in the Pael, and “to admire,
be amazed at,” in Ithpael (DNWSI 254; LS2 311). If Ithpael, the /t/ of the ʔt-prefix may have assimi-
lated to the /d/ of the root.
55
The simplest understanding of the word lbrʔ is that it represents the lamed-prefix (marking the
direct object), plus brʔ, “the son.” Steiner (STEINER/NIMS 2017, 5) now reads the Aramaic as
[ʔ](t)ṭmr lbr, and translates: “Hide yourself outside.” For rʔ•bʔr2ʔ•, van der Toorn (2018, 96) reads
lbārā, “the Pure One” > “Radiant One,” from the root *brr.
56
The verb, which appears in the refrains of cols. i–iv, occurs in unbroken context first in ii 16,
where its Demotic spelling is: ʔ2ʔnʔkʔtʔ•, leading one to analyze it as possibly ʔ(y)n(y)qt, an Aphel
Perfect 1cs of ynq, “to give suck.” However, its next three appearances (iii 5, iii 16, and iv 5) are
without any initial aleph which would suggest at least the possibility that the verb is a Peal Perfect
2ms of ynq, “to suck.” ddy, the object, is either “my breast,” or possibly “my beloved”; cf. DA dd,
“love” or “lover” (DNSWI 241); the common dwd, “friend” (DNSWI 242); and dd “paternal uncle” in
OfA and QA (DNSWI 241; DQA 51).
57
For lḫ, cf. the BH adjective lḥ, “still moist, still fresh,” used of a rod, grapes, or wood, or the
noun *lḥ, “vital force, freshness.”
 Nanay(a) among the Arameans 103

nation of kingship and the land, and was celebrated in both the first and seventh
months of the year, Fall and Spring (see below).
Nanay(a)’s traditional connections to the royal house and the legitimation of king-
ship are documented from ancient Mesopotamian texts to the Rabatak inscription (see
above). Her function as a nurse to a king in Papyrus Amherst 63 cols. i–iv recalls this
same role fulfilled by a number of goddesses across the Near East, but especially by
Ishtar in Mesopotamia and Isis in Egypt, both of whom were closely identified with
Nanaya, as noted above.58 Texts and iconography utilizing the imagery of Isis nursing
Horus, the god of divine kingship manifested in the living pharaoh, are ubiquitous
throughout Egypt across periods, with a rise in popularity of the Isis-lactans image in
statues from about 700 BCE onward.59 As for the Mesopotamian Ishtar, she is the
mother and wet nurse to kings in especially Neo-Assyrian texts.60 For instance, in SAA
9, no. 1.6, 15´–18´ (an oracle to Esarhaddon), Ishtar of Arbela identifies herself as
Esarhaddon’s “great midwife” and “excellent wet nurse,” and in SAA 3, no. 13, r. 6–8
(Dialogue Between Assurbanipal and Nabû), the Queen of Nineveh (Ishtar of Nine-
veh) is the goddess who suckles the young prince Assurbanipal as he sits in her lap. In
SAA 9, no. 7 (Prophecies for the Crown Prince Assurbanipal), the goddess Mullissu
(identified with Ishtar of Nineveh) is Assurbanipal’s mother and the Lady of Arbela
(i.e., Ishtar) is his wet nurse (r. 6), and in SAA 3, no. 3 (Assurbanipal’s Hymn to the
Ishtars of Nineveh and Arbela), the Lady of Nineveh, i.e., Mullissu, the birth mother
of Assurbanipal (r. 14: um-mu a-li-ti-ia, “the mother who bore me”), while the Lady of
Arbela is called his creatress (r. 16: ⌈ba!⌉-[ni]-⌈ti⌉-ia).61 As for Nanaya herself, she was
a “lady nursemaid” for a king of Uruk during the nineteenth century BCE.62

58
For other divine wetnurses in texts, note Asherah and Anat in KTU2 1.15 ii 26–27, who suckle
the son of Kirta, king of Ḫa/uburu. For Ancient Near Eastern iconography with goddesses suckling
children at their breast, see the images in WINTER 1983, nos. 390, 403–11. Of special interest is the
scene on no. 409, an ivory relief from Ugarit dating to about 1380 BCE, which utilizes Egyptian
imagery to depict a probably local Ugaritic goddess. On the relief, a standing winged goddess with
cowhorns and a sun? disk on her headdress suckles a standing child at each breast. One should also
note the unique “shrine plaque” from Elephantine, which depicts an unidentified nude goddess
(whose head is missing due to breakage) and female child standing between two pillars (see now
CORNELL 2018, esp. 115ff.). The plaque may date to the period of Aramaean habitation at Elephan-
tine, and seems to be more Levantine than Egyptian in detail.
59
For the development of the Isis-lactans theme in iconography, see TRAN TAM TINH/LABREC-
QUE 1973.
60
On Ishtar and the king from the Sargonid period onward, see PONGRATZ-LEISTEN 2015, 334–41.
61
For the text, see LIVINGSTONE 1989, 13. The role of the Mesopotamian Ishtars as mothers or
nurses is also found in SAA 3, no. 39 (the Mystical Compendium), wherein Ishtar of Arbela is the
mother of the great god Bēl (line 22) and Ishtar of Nineveh is his wet nurse (line 19). On the Ishtar
goddesses of Neo-Assyria, and the identification of Ishtar of Nineveh with Mullissu, see ALLAN 2015,
141–99.
62
GOODNICK WESTENHOLZ 1997, 66–67.
104 Tawny L. Holm

III.B. Radiant Nanay and the Moon

Nanay may also be implicit in the first of three “Israelite” psalms on the papyrus fea-
turing Yahō (the local rendering of biblical Yahweh). Since Israelite Psalm 1 in xii 11–
19 has long been one of the best-understood compositions on the papyrus, given that it
is a henotheistic version of Hebrew Psalm 22, only the pertinent section is provided
here.63 In ll. 12b–14a, the poet asks:
hʔyʔ kšʔt• bʔšʔm┌ yn┐d 13) sʔhr2ʔ• hy qšt bšm┌ yn┐ 13) zhr(y?) / shr
šʔrʔḥʔ• t3syʔr2ʔk• mnn kʔr• ʔ2ʔr2ʔš┌ ʔ┐w šlḥ(y?) ṣyrk(y?) mn-(ʔ)gr ʔrš
wʔmn t3spʔnʔ^•^ 14) ʔḥr2w2 yʔs┌ ʔ┐ ʔʕtʔnʔ• wmn-ṣpn 14) yhw ysʕdn
“O Bow in Heaven, shine forth (Or: Crescent Moon);
send your envoy(s) from the temple of Arash,
and from Zaphon may Yahō aid us.”

The qšṭ bšmyn, “Bow in Heaven,” is likely to be the epithet of a deity, since the en-
tity is asked to send envoy(s) from a cultic center, the temple of Arash/Rash, in lines
that are parallel to the one requesting Yahō’s aid from Zaphon. The feminine noun qšṭ,
“bow,” works well grammatically as an epithet for a goddess. Since Nanay is “Marah
from Rash/Arash,” on the papyrus, and since her symbol is the crescent moon, it seems
an allusion to her is likely here. 64 While the psalmist does not make her Yahō’s
paredra, one should note that the authors of the papyrus are not shy of making implicit
associations between Yahō (who in normative Judean religion has no consort) and a
goddess; note the pairing of the “Throne-of-Yahō” with Asherah in one couplet of the
“Hymn to All the Gods” in viii 6–7. Elsewhere in Aramaic texts from Egypt, Yahō is
associated with the goddess Anat in the compound name of a deity Anat-Yahō (TAD
B7.3:3). The comparable name Anat-Bethel in TAD C3.15:126–28, has sometimes led
to the assumption that Yahō and Bethel were identified with each other by Aramaic-
speaking Judeans or Samarians in Egypt, and some interpretations of the henotheistic
Israelite Psalm 1 on the papyrus, which mentions both Bethel and Baʕal-Shamayn at
the end, suggest that its author may do so as well.65

III.C. The Statue of Radiant Nanay, the Cow, the Dove

Col. xiv comprises a lament for Nanay’s statue, which has fallen to the floor. In the
interest of space, only the central portions of this column are given below.
Col. xiv
r3ḥmt rm p2ʔrpʔkʔ• mʔn ynʔb• rḥm(h) rm-pr{p}k(y) mn ybn(y)
mn2 yb 5) ny┌ •┐ r3ḥmt mʔgt2ʔrʔ• ʕr yʔtʔy• mn yb- 5) ny rḥm(h) mgdl ʕl yd(h)
n2ʔn ʔ2ʔrḫ• kw2tr p2ʔsʔrʔkʔ• t3bʔny• nn(ʔ) ʔrḫ kwtl pslk tbny

63
The psalm was the first section of the papyrus to be edited in the 1980s (NIMS/STEINER 1983
and VLEEMING/WESSELIUS 1982).
64
Van der Toorn (2018: 165) interprets this psalm as a celebration of the new moon, but his trans-
lation of line 12b (“Be a bow in heaven, Crescent!”) does not seem likely since the consonant w (for
the Aramaic Imperative ms hwy, “Be!” in his interpretation) is not represented in the Demotic text.
65
See, for instance, VAN DER TOORN 2018, 166–69; 172–75.
 Nanay(a) among the Arameans 105

6)
tʔ┌ k┐ ʔ• ʔrt2y šʔbtʔ• sʔhtʔtʔky• 6)
t(t)┌ q┐ <n>(y) ʔlty šbṭ/t shdtky
sšp snw4ʔryʔ• qʔr2nʔ b• 7) kʔwykʔ• s(m)š snwryʔ qrn b- 7) kwyk(y)
kʔwykʔ• prʔt ʔrʔ• ʕr bʔbʔ• n2nʔšʔ• kwyk(y) prt-ʔl ʕl bb (ʔ?)nšʔ
nš yʔwʔnʔ• 8) ʔ2ʔntʔrʔkʔ• (ʔ?)nš ywnʔ 8) ʔnṭr-(l)k(y)
ʕr trtʔ rʔkʔ• ʕl dltʔ lk(y)
p2ʔsʔbʕ mn2 tyyʔkʔ• pʔsbʔ mn-dyyk(y)
ʔ2ʔrwʔ• ry ʔ2ʔḫy• 9) mn ʔbnw2nʔtʔkʔ• ʔrw(y) ly ʔḫ<t>y 9) mn bnwntk(y)
bʔymʔ• t2ysʔrʔkw2 bʔmr yʔtʔ• bymʔ dyslqw bmr ydʔ
ʕr qʔpy• n2ʔn• 10) t2┌ ʔ┐ r┌ ʔ┐ k w2ʔ2ʔhk• ʕl g/kpy nn(ʔ) 10) drk wʔhk
šʔk ytʔ• ʕr r3ḥmtmʔ• <m>šk yd(h) ʕl rḥmt{m}ʔ
ʕr ʕyʔ2ʔrʔ• ʕl ʕyʔr/l(h)
mnkr t3šʔmʔʕt• rnʔ• 11) ┌ wʔ┐ ʔrpʔt• mgr d(ʔ)šmʕt ln 11) ┌ wʔ┐ lpt
mʔkr t2rʔk• mnnšʔmʔʕt• mgr drk mnšmʕt(ʔ)
t3šʔmʔʕʔt• ʔrp2ʔtʔ d(ʔ)šmʕt ʔlpt
ʔt• mn3kr t2r2ʔkʔ• ʔt(h) mgr drk
12) 12)
mn3kr ywʔnʔ• mgr ywnʔ
mn3krʔ• qnsy• mgr gnzy
rʔ•nʔny sʔb• lnny (ʔ)sʔb
nʔbʔr• bʕrt nbl (l)bʕlt
nʔtʔk ršʔn• ntq lšn
13) 13)
ḥt nʔsʔky• (n)ḥ(y)t nsk(k)y
ʕt rkty ʔ2ʔnʔt3ʔ šqʔb• ʕl (dr)kty ʔnty škb
Beloved/Maiden,66 who will build67 the height of your sanctuary?
Who will build 5) Beloved/Maiden, a tower beside it?
Nanā, Cow,68 the niche69 of your statue may you build;
6)
may you con┌ str┐ <uct>,70 my goddess, the pedestal/abode of your testimony.
The sun/Shamash of blinding light71 shines in 7) your windows,
your windows, Divine Cow, over the gate of the standard/people.72

66
Or translate “Merciful One.” This is a divine epithet from the root rh. m, “to love, be compas-
sionate”; cf. the Ug. fs noun rḥm, “womb,” used as a metonymic epithet, “Damsel,” for Anatu (DU-
LAT 725–24; see also VAN DER TOORN 2018, 179–80). It also appears in lines 5, 10, and 16 of this
column and in xvii 12.
67
The n and b of this verb are transposed in the Demotic.
68
For Aramaic ʔrḫ, “cow,” cf. Ug. arḫ, “cow, heifer” (DULAT 98); Ammonite ʔrḫ (DNSWI 107);
Akk. arḫu (CAD A/2, 263; AHw 67); Arb. ʔirḫ “bull calf”; Ethiopic (Tigrigna) ʔarḥi “a cow that has
not yet calved” (DRS 32–33).
69
k(w)tl is usually translated as “wall,” but note the meaning, “side” (DQA 120), or “side of a
stone object” (CAL s.v. kwtl), as in kwtly md┌bḥʔ┐, “the sides of the altar,” in 4Q214b fg. 2–7 i:8. See
also Akk. kutallu, with the meaning “rear part (of objects, buildings),” CAD K, 603–607. Steiner and
Nims (2017, 51) take this word as kwt(ʔ), “the niche”; kwh is common Aramaic for “window,” but is
sometimes used to refer to other openings, even shelves.
70
STEINER/NIMS 2017 read tʔ┌ krt┐ • for Aramaic tkrt(y), “may you ┌ carve┐ ” (51), but the end of
this word is probably a damaged aleph and not rt. Van der Toorn’s reading of a Demotic m in place
of k is incorrect (for Imperative tm, which he translates as “fully restore”).
71
Cf. BH sanwērîm in Genesis 19:11. For comments on this word, see STEINER 1995b, 200. Note
that the Demotic sign group used to indicate Aramaic smš, “sun,” is sšp; in Demotic the noun sšp
means “daybreak, light” (Chicago Demotic Dictionary S 13.1, 450).
72
For the suggestion that this is “emblem,” “image,” or the like, see VAN DER TOORN 2018, 181.
The word n(y)š appears in Hatran and Syriac (DNWSI 760; LS2 916). Cf. also the terms smʔ, “emblem,
106 Tawny L. Holm

The standard of the Dove (OR: The people, Dove,) 8) I will watch for you,
over the door73 for you.
Moreover, I will be sated from your plenty;
I will quench myself, my siste<r>, 9) from your features.74
On the day that they raise the hand against Mar/Mar<ah>,
upon the wings/hands of Nanā 10) one has trampled and tread.75
He has <str>etched out his hand against the Beloved/Maiden,
against one who watches/nourishes.
He has thrown down the one who proclaimed to us 11) ┌ and┐ taught.
He threw down, he trampled the proclaimer,
who proclaimed (and) taught.
He came, he threw down, he trampled,
12)
he threw down the Dove,
he threw down my Treasure.
Nanay he defiled;
he abused Baʕalat;76
he pulled out (her) tongue.
13)
Fallen77 is your metal cast,
upon my floor78 you are lying.

The lament highlights the destruction of a statue and calls for the building or re-
building of a sanctuary for Nanay.79 Moreover, Nanay is described using cow and dove

standard” also in Hatran, and smy, “emblem, standard” in Palmyrene and Hatran (DNWSI 790, 792),
as well as the semeion mentioned in Lucian’s De dea Syria (DIRVEN 2005; and see comments in
DIRVEN 1999, 92). Note an inscription at Hatra dated to 133 CE recording a donation for the lsmyʔ dy
mrtn, “the sign of our lady” (H338, BEYER 1998, 91), among other inscriptions in which the deities
Mār, Mārtan, and Bārmārēn are mentioned alongside smyʔ, “standards.” For a possible shrine at Hatra
dedicated to smy as a deity, see AGGOULA 1998, 59–60. Steiner and Nims (2017, 52) take the word as
(ʔ)nš and translate the phrase as “gate of the people.”
73
Steiner (STEINER/NIMS 2017, 52) reads the Demotic ʕr (Aramaic ʕl, “upon, over”) as a tiny m
and a tiny d before rt (Aramaic mṭrt) and translates the beginning of ln. 8 as “I shall guard for you,
(on) guard duty at the door for you.”
74
Aramaic bnwntky “your features” is perhaps a loan from Akkadian. Van der Toorn (2018, 177)
suggests bunnannû, a plurale tantum word whose main meanings are “general region of the face
(especially the eyes and nose),” or “outer appearance, figure, likeness.” For bunnannû, see CAD B,
317–19. However, perhaps the fs noun binûtu, “make-up, form, figure,” or “creation, creature, prod-
uct” is a better suggestion. For binûtu, see CAD B, 243. But both bunnannû and binûtu (from *banû)
are used especially to describe divine beings and their images.
75
Cf. Samaritan Aramaic ʔhk, a Peal Perfect of *hwk, “to go, walk,” TAL 2000, 202.
76
The l at the end of nbl is doing double duty for the l-, “for,” at the beginning of lbʕlt.
77
The n at the end of lšn is doing double duty for the n at the beginning of nḥt (nḥ[y]t). Steiner
(STEINER/NIMS 2017, 53) suggests that the first word is ḥt, “shattered” from the root ḥtt as in BH.
78
Note that the scribe confused the usual writing of ʕr (Aramaic ʕl, “upon”) with the next word
drkty, “my floor.” ʕr is written with a small walking-legs determinative that looks a little like Demot-
ic t; the scribe transposed r and that determinative, apparently confused by the beginning tr of the
word to follow.
79
The breakage and repair of Nanay’s statue in col. xiv is reminiscent of one of the Neo-Assyrian
incidents involving her statue mentioned above. After recovering a statue of Nanaya from Susa,
Esarhaddon had it taken to Assyria for repairs before returning it to its home in Uruk (SAA 10, no.
349, ll. 12–18; see also POTTS 2001, 28–31).
 Nanay(a) among the Arameans 107

imagery, seems to have radiant features and a sign or emblem, and is a deity who pro-
claims or teaches.
Nanay(a)’s connection to the sun and moon or luminosity lasted throughout her his-
tory, and she was long associated with various emblems. For instance, Nanay’s radi-
ance is described alongside an auspicious (astrological) sign in the Old Babylonian
Hymn to Nanaya written during the reign of Samsuiluna (ca. 1749–1712 BCE). The
hymn begins:
1 To the goddess, sun of her people (iltam šamaš nišēša),
2 To Nanāya pray, proclaim(?) [her] position,
3 She who is like the moon to look on
4 (and) her wondrous features full of brilliance...
…
12 Her path is a good sign (ittum) forever.80

Later in the hymn, Nanaya’s divine father Anum exclaims: “The people look upon
you(!), upon your light as (at) the sun’s!” (verso line 24). Moreover, in verso line 29,
Nanaya is asked to “Shine!” and near the end of the text, the poet explains Nanaya’s
relationship to Samsuiluna: “An everlasting life, a long (life), Nanāya [re]peatedly
granted him largely. [T]o Samsuiluna, her beloved, she bestowed the sun as light”
(verso lines 49–52).81 The luminosity in the OB hymn and on Papyrus Amherst 63
comports well with her later imagery, from the Parthian-era association of her with the
moon in the Divine Triad at Hatra and Assur, to the depictions of her with lunar cres-
cents on her head in Kushan coins and the moon and sun in her hands on Chorasmian
bowls.
In the context of Papyrus Amherst 63 as a whole, the radiance of Nanay in col. xiv
must also be compared with that of the male deity called “Mar” at the end of col. viii
and in col. ix. In viii 20, the “going out” (mnpq) of Mar is described as “brilliant”
(bhyrt[ʔ]), and in the poems about selecting a young woman to serve as a priestess in
col. ix, Mar is said to have manifestations or splendors (mypʕtʔ from *ypʕ, “to shine”;
ix 11); to be “like the sun,” and to “rise like the moon,” possessing a house in heaven
among the stars (ix 11b–12); and to have rays that bring light (ix 17–19). Since Bethel
is explicitly named at least twice in col. ix, he may be the deity behind the epithet
“Mar” here, and this may be his imagery, even though light does not seem to be one of
Bethel’s typical associations.82 On the other hand, col. ix does not represent a single
composition, and the use of “Mar” within it may not always refer to Bethel. (Indeed,

80
Translation from STRECK/WASSERMAN 2012, 189–90. For the text, see VON SODEN 1938, 26–
44, and for translation and re-edition, see STRECK/WASSERMAN 2012. Cf. also the signs of Nanaya’s
father, Anu: ṣaddu, “sign” (CAD S, 56–57).
81
Cf. also the Hymn to Nanay for Ishbi-Erra, which describes Nanay as “emerging brilliantly like
the daylight,” and “as bright as the stars” (Išbi-Erra C in ETCSL 2.5.1.3; partial translation also in
GOODNICK WESTENHOLZ 2014, 171–72).
82
But note the personal name, “Bethel is my light”: bytlnr in sixth-century Babylonian brick im-
pressions (SASS/MARZAHN 2010, 98–102, 166) and bytlnwry in Egypt (TAD C3.15:6 and C4.3:20; cf.
d
E2.DINGIR.ZALAG2 = Akkadian bīt-il-nūrī = Aramaic bytʔlnwry; ZADOK 1977, 60–61 and IDEM
2015: 127).
108 Tawny L. Holm

Bel is named in line 21.) Moreover, the section with the most concentrated light im-
agery in this column, ix 11–13a, includes the bringing down of a marriage bed in the
month of Epiph (=Tishri). This language recalls not only the sacred marriage text in
col. xvii on the papyrus, wherein Nanay unites with Baʕal-shamayn, but also descrip-
tions of Nabû in the Nabû and Nanaya marriage celebration described in a Seleucid
ritual calendar from Babylon (SBH 8 ii 12–32). In it, Nabû, clothed in a divine gar-
ment at sunrise, is said to shine like the moon, and proceed “radiantly” from the Ezida
temple in Borsippa to the Ehuršaba in Babylon to wed Nanaya. Upon his arrival, he
creates “brightness like daylight,” and the two lovers then “lie night after night on the
nuptial bed in sweet sleep.”83 The scribe of col. ix is obviously using the language of
sacred marriage, but no explicit female deity is named. Instead, the young girl selected
to serve as a priestess in col. ix is probably a “stand-in” for the goddess.84 Whether
Mar is Bethel or Baʕal-Shamayn in this context, the divine consort represented by the
priestess may not be named in order to leave her identity open.85 If so, this may be a
case of associating a deity who is usually not Nanay’s spouse with that goddess
through imagery, just as seems to have been done in col. xii with Yahō. The imagery
here is the depiction of a male deity shining like Nabû, the traditional Mesopotamian
spouse of the luminous Nanay, in a sacred marriage ritual.
Among the epithets for Nanay in col. xiv are “Cow” and “Dove.” That Nanay is
called “Cow” here and elsewhere on the papyrus (ʔrḫ in xiv 5 and xvii 16; and prh in
xiv 7, 14, 19) may be due to her frequent identification with either or both Inan-
na/Ishtar and Isis, both of whom were depicted as cow deities.86 Nanaya herself is
described as a “lowing cow” in a Sumerian lament for a destroyed city.87 Moreover,
there are also many depictions of Isis wearing a headdress of cowhorns on two sides of
a moon disk in her Ptolemaic-era temple at Philae, only a few miles from Elephantine
at Aswan.88
The imagery of a dove does not seem to be part of Nanay(a)’s early Mesopotamian
associations, but a dove does appear above the image of Nanay/Mārtan on the Parthi-
an-era Assur pithos just discussed (fig. 2). Doves seem to be especially connected to
goddesses in Syria-Palestine, from depictions on terra cotta cult stands and model
shrines beginning in twelfth-century BCE Beth Shean, to dove pillar figurines in Judah
of the late seventh century BCE.89 A unique scarab from Lachish even depicts a dove

83
COHEN 2015, 409.
84
See the discussion of sacred marriage texts and rituals below.
85
Bethel’s usual consort in the Ancient Near East was Anat, but she is not paired with him on the
papyrus.
86
See PARPOLA 1997, c for comments on the cow imagery shared by Mesopotamian Inanna/Ishtar
and Egyptian Isis. Innana is described as a “cow” in Sumerian laments and the great hymn of Iddin-
Dagan (in the latter, she is a rīmtu, “wild cow”; see RÖMER 1965, 137; REISMAN 1973, 186, l. 20; and
CAD R 359). The same goddess lows “like a cow” in a few laments where she is also called
Nanâ/Nanaya (COHEN 1988, 533–35, ln. 1 and 650–67, esp. 662–63).
87
COHEN 1988, 650–67.
88
BRESCIANI 1978: 42, 54, 86, 88, 98, et passim.
89
LEMON 2010, 34–36; KEEL/UEHLINGER 1992, esp. 31–33.
 Nanay(a) among the Arameans 109

below a (moon?) disk and a crescent, although any association with a specific deity is
uncertain, since the scarab bears no inscription.90
In this connection, one wonders if a notoriously incomprehensible section of the
biblical Psalm 68 contains a hitherto-unrecognized reference to Nanay(a) as Banit in
her guise as a messenger or proclaimer and as a dove. The Hebrew psalm seems to be
a northern victory song with Canaanite themes that emphasizes Yahweh as a weather
god.91 Scholars have long suspected that verses 12–14 preserve traces of goddess im-
agery in their mention of three feminine entities alongside Adonai.92 These include:
female messengers (hambaśśĕrôt) in some relation to Adonai and the king’s army (vs.
12); a woman at home (nĕwat bayit) who divides the plunder after the battle (vs. 13);
and an ornate dove (fs yônāh) with silver and gold wings (vs. 14). While there is no
space here in which to give this curious passage and its history of interpretation the
full treatment it deserves, a suggestion that follows from this study is that the original
form of the MT’s phrase nĕwat bayit, literally “female inhabitant of (the) house,” was
nā(ʔ)wat banit, “beautiful one, Banit.”93 In fact, in the pre-Masoretic history of the
Hebrew text the word nwt may once have been a scribal gloss on the title “Banit,” the
Mesopotamian epithet that means either “Beautiful One” (cf. Akk. banītu) or “Crea-
tress” (Akk. bānītu). It is this epithet that in Egypt was affixed to Nanay’s temple at
Aswan, and which is probably behind the mention of the “image of Banit” (skt bnt)
brought from Babylon to Samaria by Assyrian deportees in 2 Kings 17:30–31.94 Inter-
estingly enough, the Talmud preserves a tradition that the Samarians worshiped an
image of a dove on Mt. Gerizim (bHullim 6a–b).95
In this understanding of Ps 68:12–14, Adonai is accompanied in a northern battle by
a goddess, as has long been suspected, and she can be identified. A female Divine
Messenger (emending the MT’s plural mĕbaśśĕrôt to the singular mĕbaśśĕrat in vs.
12), depicted as the beautiful Banit and an ornate Dove, serves as a liaison between
Adonai and the king’s army and divides the spoil after the battle. If this emendation
makes sense, then Psalm 68:12–14 is another lost mention of the goddess Ban-
it/Nanaya in the Hebrew Bible, along the lines of 2 Kings 17:30–31 discussed above.

III.D. Nanay the Lover

Cols. i–xvii, the liturgical portion of Papyrus Amherst 63, end with a sacred marriage
text in col. xvii featuring Nanay’s union with a western deity, probably Baʕal-
Shamayn. As noted above, the association of the Mesopotamian Nanay(a) with love

90
KEEL/UEHLINGER 1992, 323–24 (fig. no. 319).
91
Kraus (1993, 47) connected this psalm to the northern battle of Mt. Tabor in the Deborah story
in Ju 4–5.
92
For an overview of this passage and its interpretation, see especially KEEL 1977, 11–36, and
more recently, WALKER 2016. For a new treatment developing the suggestion here, see HOLM forth-
coming.
93
For the interpretation of nwt as n(ʔ)wt, “beauty (of),” see already KEEL 1977, 36. In my view,
nā(w)at would be an fs absolute noun and not a construct.
94
LIPIŃSKI 1973, 202–204.
95
I thank Tal Ilan for this reference.
110 Tawny L. Holm

and her presence in love and sacred marriage texts was longstanding. While there is no
consensus on the purpose of the divine love poems or sacred marriage texts in the
ancient Near East, they seem to have been concerned with the “imagining and reen-
actment of a gendered relationship between the human and divine worlds.” 96 One
thinks here of compositions such as the Old Babylonian sacred marriage text describ-
ing a union between Nanaya and King Rīm-Sîn of Larsa, and the love dialogue be-
tween Nanaya and the god Muati (VAT 17347), in which King Abieshuh of Babylon
(ca. 1711–1684 BCE) is blessed. Moreover, a Seleucid ritual calendar from Babylon
(the aforementioned SBH 8 ii 12–32), describes the marriage of Nabû and Nanaya set
in the second month of the year, Ayarru. The last mention of Nanaya’s sacred marriage
is in 1 Macc 1:13–17, which describes the death of Antiochus IV in Kislev/Kislīmu
164 BCE in Nanaya’s temple in Persia, where he is killed by priests using the pretext
of a sacred marriage ceremony. However, the only solid evidence for an actual cele-
bration of some sort of sacred marriage rites is from Hellenistic Babylon (in the first
month, Nisan) and Uruk (in the seventh month, Tašrītu/Tishri), in connection with the
biannual New Year Akītu festivals.97 In Uruk, the divine participants seem to have
been Anu and Antu, but the rites may have taken place in the Ehilianna temple of Na-
naya.98 In such a ritual, human proxies (e.g., the king and a high priestess; cf. Papyrus
Amherst 63 col. ix, in which a bed is brought down during Epiph/Tishri) might have
played the roles of deities and enacted a divine union, but the sexual intercourse may
also have been symbolic, in that such ritual texts may have merely been recited rather
than performed.99 The “sacred marriage” would have had multiple functions, among
them: to achieve or re-establish the legitimacy of the king, renew the fertility of the
land and the royal family, and perhaps other possibilities.
The sacred marriage text on Papyrus Amherst 63 col. xvii begins with a prologue
(or separate composition) in lines 1–6 concerning the immigration of Judeans and
Samarians into a new land, the only place on the papyrus where Judah, Samaria, and
Jerusalem are specifically mentioned. The text of the sacred marriage itself, which has
been fully edited elsewhere, contains the following lines near the end (14–17):100
14) 14)
ymʔk• ybʔ^r^k• ymk yblk(y)
ʕr r2┌ b┐ ytʔ• ḥrb┌ y┐ trd ʕl rbydʔ ḥr(m)-byt(ʔ)l
ʕr rr3kmn• ʔr• ʕl r{r}qmn ʔl
bšmwhy• 15) yʔbr2q• mr mn ršʔw bšmwhy 15) ybrk mr mn-ršʔ
mr b2r3q⊃ •^q^ʔ┌ t┐ m• bytrd t3ʔt• t2ʔ2ʔʕrm• mr brk(h) q┌ d┐ m byt(ʔ)l dʕd-dy-ʕlm
16) 16)
sp ʔ2ʔḫʔ•t2 mr2 b2r3yk ʔnt• hw2y• | ʔḫt(y) mrh bryk(h) ʔnt(y) hwy101

96
NISSINEN/URO 2008, 3.
97
For a Hellenistic ritual text from Babylon highlighting Nabû and Nanaya in the New Year’s fes-
tival of Nisan, see DA RIVA 2018.
98
HOLM 2017, 27.
99
LAPINKIVI 2008, 27–28.
100
See HOLM 2017; but also STEINER/NIMS 2017, 63–68; VAN DER TOORN 2018, 203–14.
101
This line begins with the abbreviated form of the sp section divider, probably indicating a re-
frain or a small break within a larger composition as it does in Papyrus Amherst 63 ii 18, iii 6, iv 6,
and ix 16.
 Nanay(a) among the Arameans 111

ʔr2ḫ2 mrʔtn• b2r3yk ʔnt• hw┌ y┐ • ʔrḫ mrʔtn bryk(h) ʔnt(y) hw┌ y┐
17) 17)
hʔt• b2r3k• kty2y ʔr• hd brk(h) kdy ʔl
b2r3yk ʔnty• ┌ b┐ ʕšmynd bryk ʔnt(h) bʕ(l)-šmyn
14)
(Chorus:) Ḥer(em)-Bethel will lower,
will bear you onto the bedspread;
El,102 onto embroidered sheets.
In his heavens, 15) may Mar from Rash bless,
Mar, a blessing, before Bethel everlasting.
16)
(Lover:) “My sister, Marah, blessed be you;
Cow, our Lady, blessed be you.”
17)
(Goddess:) “Had, a blessing worthy of El;
blessed are you, Baʕal of Heaven/Baʕal-Shamayn.”

In my interpretation, the gods Ḥerem-Bethel and El are the male wedding attendants
to the goddess who bring her into the bedchamber, and it is the storm-god Hadad, aka
Baʕal-Shamayn/Lord of Heaven, who is her lover, as indicated by the mutual blessings
between Marah/Nanay and Had/Baʕal-Shamayn in ll. 16–17.103 The blessings are then
followed by a command in lines 18–19 to rebuild a land (possibly Ellipi in the Zagros
Mountains) and an unnamed city of ruins. The concluding lines of col. xvii thus in-
volve the common ancient Near Eastern tropes of lament with the hope of renewal,
and reinforce the typical themes of rejuvenation generally found in sacred marriage
texts. Since there is no other document in Ancient Near Eastern texts that pairs Nanay
and Baʕal-Shamayn as a couple, the papyrus can thus be thought to “marry,” i.e., bring
together, East and West in its religious orientation. A papyrus that begins with the
Mesopotamian pair Nanay and Nabû ends its liturgy with the union of Nanay and a
western deity.

IV. Conclusions
Nanay(a) and the Marriage of East and West on the Papyrus

Nanaya was an important but elusive Mesopotamian goddess, often overshadowed by

the famous goddess Ishtar, with whom she was frequently identified. Amongst Arame-
ans and their descendants, Nanay/Nanā was worshiped north to south from Babylonia
to Assyria, and west to east from Egypt to Persia and beyond. She was a love goddess

102
Van der Toorn (2018: 206) takes ʔr• to be ʔl(y), “my god,” referring to Herem-Bethel, whom
he sees as the spouse of Nanay in this composition; however, this is quite likely simply the proper
name “El,” since the Demotic spelling for Aramaic ʔlh, “god,” elsewhere on the papyrus frequently
utilizes the hn sign (= Aramaic /hn/, or /h/ + vowel, or /h/ + /r/; cf.ʔrhnʔw , ʔlhʔ, “god,” and ʔrhnʔ•,
ʔlh(y), “my god,” in vii 8).
103
In Mesopotamian tradition, the wedding attendants served not the groom but the bride (MALUL
1989, contra CAD S, 416). Such attendants, individually called susapinnu in Akkadian (cf. Aramaic
šwšbyn “groomsman, best-man”), were always male, except in the case where Inanna/Ishtar herself
claims to be one. In some Sumerian love songs, the bride Inanna is attended by up to four or more
male paranymphs (MALUL 1989, 245–46; 256–57).
112 Tawny L. Holm

with a special connection to the king and the legitimation of the royal house, and was
especially depicted with divine luminosity through celestial associations, particularly
the sun and moon. In Egypt, Nanaya was identified with Isis and worshiped as Isis-
Sononais, and was also the deity worshiped by Arameans under the epithet “Banit,”
with a temple at mainland Aswan.
The fourth-century BCE papyrus not only helps fill many gaps in our knowledge of
the Arameans between the fifth century BCE and the Parthian period, but it adds to our
understanding of the cult of Nanaya as well. While other deities of importance appear
on Papyrus Amherst 63, the main, liturgical portion in cols. i–xvii begins and ends
with Nanay, and strategically mentions her in the middle sections. In cols. i–iv, she is
espoused to her traditional Mesopotamian spouse Nabû and nurses a son – the un-
named human king of the papyrus, and by the end of col. xvii, she is married to Baʕal-
Shamayn, a Levantine deity. In the middle, not only are cols. xiv and xv solely dedi-
cated to aspects of her cult, but she is perhaps implicitly connected to deities to whom
she was never considered a spouse in the religious landscape of the ancient Near East.
In col. ix, Bethel or another deity with the epithet Mar shines brightly in the month of
Epiph with language that is reminiscent of Nabû in his role alongside Nanaya in Mes-
opotamian sacred marriage texts. Moreover, the “Bow of Heaven” or “Crescent Moon”
that sends envoys from Rash/Arash in col. xii may be an allusive reference to Nanay in
a henotheistic poem in praise of Yahō/Adonai.
While we are still far from completely understanding Papyrus Amherst 63’s pur-
pose, origins, or Egyptian context, the papyrus seems to aim at marrying East and
West in highlighting Nanay. By making as its main deity the goddess worshiped across
the ancient Near East by Arameans and identified in Egypt with Isis, the papyrus
unites a community or communities who considered themselves to be a mix of groups
that came from elsewhere. Moreover, the nostalgia for lost lands, cities, and cult cen-
ters displayed throughout (e.g., the city lament in col. xii; the dream of a lost child-
hood in Rash in col. xi; the lament for a statue in col. xiv; the arrival of emigrés from
Samaria and Judah in col. xvii; etc.), is joined with themes of rejuvenation and renewal
especially in the prominence of Nanay.

Bibliography
AGGOULA, B. (1998): L’Esagil de Shamash ou le grand temple de Hatra, Transeuphratène 14, 33–77,
pls. I–VII.
ALLEN, S.L. (2015): The Splintered Divine: A Study of Ištar, Baal, and Yahweh Divine Names and
Divine Multiplicity in the Ancient Near East, (Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Records 5), Berlin.
AMBOS, C. (2003): Nanaja – Eine ikonographische Studie zur Darstellung einer altorientalischen
Göttin in hellenistisch-parthischer Zeit, ZA 93, 238–43.
ANDRAE, W./H. LENZEN (1933): Die Partherstadt Assur, (WVDOG 57), Leipzig.
ASHER-GREVE, J. M./J. GOODNICK WESTENHOLZ (2013): Goddesses in Context: On Divine Powers,
Roles, Relationships and Gender in Mesopotamian Textual and Visual Sources, (OBO 259), Fri-
bourg/Göttingen.
AZARPAY, G. (1976): Nanâ, the Sumero-Akkadian goddess of Transoxiana, JAOS 96, 536–42.
BAR BAHLULE, H. (1901): Lexicon Syriacum, ed. R. DUVAL, 2 vols, Paris.
 Nanay(a) among the Arameans 113

BEAULIEU, P.-A. (2003): The Pantheon of Uruk during the Neo-Babylonian Period, (CM 23), Lei-
den/Boston, MA.
– (2018): A History of Babylon, 2200 BC–AD 75, (Blackwell History of the Ancient World), Hobo-
ken, NJ.
BEYER, K. (1998): Die aramäischen Inschriften aus Assur, Hatra und dem übrigen Ostmesopotamien
(datiert 44 v. Chr. bis 238 n. Chr.), Göttingen.
BOWMAN, R. (1944): An Aramaic Religious Text in Demotic Script, JNES 3, 219–31.
BRESCIANI, E. (1978): Il tempio tolemaico di Isi ad Assuan, in: E. BRESCIANI/S. PERNIGOTTI (eds.),
Assuan, Pisa, 13–152.
CARTER, M.L. (2006): China and the Mysterious Occident: The Queen Mother of the West and Nanā,
Rivista degli studi orientali 79, 97–129.
– (2010): Nanā with Crescent in Kuṣāṇa Numismatic Imagery, in: E. FRANCO/M. ZIN (eds.), From
Turfan to Ajanta: Festschrift for Dieter Schlingloff on the Occasion of his Eightieth Birthday, New
Delhi, 141–50.
COHEN, M.E. (1988): The Canonical Lamentations of Ancient Mesopotamia, Potomac, MD.
– (2015): Festivals and Calendars of the Ancient Near East, Bethesda, MD.
CORNELL, C. (2018): The Forgotten Female Figurines of Elephantine, JANER 18, 111–32.
COUSIN L./Y. WATAI (2016): Onomastics of Women in Babylonia in the First Millennium BC, Orient
51, 3–27.
DIRVEN, L. (2005): SHMHION, SMYʔ, SIGNUM: A Note on the Romanization of the Semitic Cultic
Standard, Parthica 7, 119– 36.
– (2014): Religious Continuity and Change in Parthian Mesopotamia: A Note on the Survival of
Babylonian Traditions, JANEH 1/2, 201–29.
DREWNOWSKA-RYMARZ, O. (2008): Mesopotamian Goddess Nanāja, Warsaw.
DRIJVERS, H.J.W. (1980): Cults and Beliefs at Edessa, (Études préliminaires aux religions orientales
dans l’Empire romain 82), Leiden.
FALK, H. (2015): Kushan Rule Granted by Nana: The Background of a Heavenly Legitimation, in:
H. FALK (ed.), Kushan Histories: Literary Sources and Selected Papers from a Symposium at Ber-
lin, December 5 to 7, 2013, (Monographien indischen Archäologie, Kunst und Philologie 23),
Bremen, 265–99.
FRAME, G. (2013): The Political History and Historical Geography of the Aramean, Chaldean, and
Arab Tribes in Babylonia in the Neo-Assyrian Period, in: A. BERLEJUNG/M.P. STRECK (eds.), Ar-
ameans, Chaldeans, and Arabs in Babylonia and Palestine in the First Millennium B.C., (Leip-
ziger Altorientalistische Studien 3), Wiesbaden, 87–121.
GEORGE, A.R. (1992): Babylonian Topographical Texts, (OLA 40), Leuven.
– (1993): House Most High: The Temples of Ancient Mesopotamia, (MC 5), Winona Lake, IN.
GOODNICK WESTENHOLZ, J. (1997): Nanaya, Lady of Mystery, in: I. J. FINKEL/M. J. GELLER (eds.),
Sumerian Gods and Their Representations, (CM 7), Leiden, 57–80.
– (2014): Trading the Symbols of the Goddess Nanaya, in: P. WICK/V. RABENS (eds.), Religions and
Trade: Religious Formation, Transformation and Cross-Cultural Exchange Between East and
West, (DHR 5), Leiden, 167–98.
HACKL, J./M. JURSA (2015): Egyptians in Babylonia in the Neo-Babylonian and Achaemenid Periods,
in: J. STÖKL/C. WAERZEGGERS (eds.), Exile and Return: The Babylonian Context, (BZAW 478),
Berlin, 157–80.
HEIMPEL, W. (1982): A Catalog of Near Eastern Venus Deities, Syro-Mesopotamian Studies 4/3, 9–
22.
HOLM, T.L. (2017): Nanaya and Her Lover: An Aramaic Sacred Marriage Text from Egypt, JNES 76,
1–37.
– (in press): Aramaic Literary Texts, (WAW), Atlanta, GA.
– (forthcoming): The Lost Goddess in Psalm 68.
114 Tawny L. Holm

JOHANNES, F. (1990): Textes babyloniens de Suse d’époque Achemenide, in: F. VALLAT (ed.), Con-
tribution à l’histoire de l'Iran: Mélanges offerts à Jean Perrot, Paris, 173–80.
AL-JUBOURI, B.A. (2010): Nouvelles inscriptions araméennes du temple de Nannay à Hatra, JSS 55,
37–52.
KEEL, O. (1977): Vögel als Boten: Studien zu Ps 68, 12–14, Gen 8, 6–12, Koh 10,20 und dem Aus-
senden von Botenvögeln in Ägypten, mit einem Beitrag von Urs Winter zu Ps 56, 1 und zur Ikono-
graphie der Göttin mit der Taube, (OBO 14), Göttingen.
KEEL, O./CH. UEHLINGER (trans. T.H. TRAPP.) (1998): Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God in
Ancient Israel, Minneapolis, MN.
KRAUS, H.-J. (trans. H.C. OSWALD) (1993): Psalms 60–150: A Continental Commentary, Minneap-
olis, MN.
KUBIAK, A., The Gods without Names? Palmyra, Hatra, Edessa, ARAM 28 (2016), 327–38.
LAPINKIVI, P. (2008): The Sumerian Sacred Marriage and Its Aftermath in Later Sources, in:
M. NISSINEN/R. URO (eds.), Sacred Marriages: The Divine-Human Sexual Metaphor from Sumer
to Early Christianity, Winona Lake, IN, 7–41.
LEMAIRE, A. (2014): Arameans Outside of Syria: Anatolia, in H. NIEHR (ed.), The Aramaeans in
Ancient Syria, (HdO 106), Leiden, 319–29.
LEMON, J.M. (2010): Yahweh’s Winged Form in the Psalms: Exploring Congruent Iconography and
Texts, (OBO 242), Fribourg/Göttingen.
LIPIŃSKI, E. (1973): SKN et SGN dans le sémitique occidental du nord, UF 5, 197–207.
LIVINGSTONE, A. (1989): Court Poetry and Literary Miscellanea, (SAA 3), Helsinki.
LOESCHNER, H. (2012): The Stūpa of the Kushan Emperor Kanishka the Great, with Comments on
the Azes Era and Kushan Chronology, Sino-Platonic Papers 227, 6–11.
MALUL, M. (1989): Susapinnu: The Mesopotamian Paranymph and His Role, JESHO 32/3, 241–78.
MARAQTEN, M. (1988): Die semitischen Personennamen in den alt- und reichsaramäischen Inschrif-
ten aus Vorderasien, (TSO 5), Hildesheim.
MARCATO, E. (2018): Personal Names in the Aramaic Inscriptions of Hatra, (Antichistica/Studi
orientali 17/7), Venice.
MARTIN, C.J. (2013): Memphite Palaeography: Some Observations on Texts from the Ptolemaic
Period, in: S.P. VLEEMING (ed.), Aspects of Demotic Orthography: Acts of an International Collo-
quium Held in Trier, 8 November 2010, Leuven, 41–62.
MATSUSHIMA, E. (1980): Problèmes des Déesses Tašmētum et Nanaia, Orientalia 16, 133–48.
NAGEL, S. (2019): Isis im römischen Reich, (Philippika 109), Wiesbaden.
NIMS, C.F./R.C. STEINER (1983): A Paganized Version of Psalm 20:2–6 from the Aramaic Text in
Demotic Script, JAOS 103, 261–74.
NISSINEN, M./R. URO (eds.) (2008): Sacred Marriages: The Divine-Human Sexual Metaphor from
Sumer to Early Christianity, Winona Lake, IN.
OSHIMA, T.M. (2020): The Bilingual Syncretistic Hymn to Nanāya: “One-God(dess)”-theism in
Mesopotamia? in: U. GABBAY/J.J. PÉRENNÈS (eds.), Des Polythéismes aux monothéismes: Mé-
langes d’Assyriologie offerts à Marcel Sigrist, (Études Bibliques 82), Leuven, 335–98.
PARPOLA, S. (1997): Assyrian Prophecies, (SAA 9), Helsinki.
PENTIUC, E.J. (1999): West Semitic Terms in Akkadian Texts from Emar, JNES 58, 81–96.
PESTMAN, P.W. (1993): The Archive of the Theban Choachytes: A Survey of the Demotic and Greek
Papyri Contained in the Archive, (SD 2), Leuven.
PONGRATZ-LEISTEN, B. (2015): Religion and Ideology in Assyria, (Studies in Ancient Near Eastern
Records 6), Berlin.
POTTS, D., (2001): Nana in Bactria, Silk Road Art and Archaeology 7, 27–35.
QUACK, J. F. (2017): Eine weise Stimme der Autorität (Papyrus Amherst Eg. XLIII.1 rt.) mit Anhän-
gen über Abrechnungen (Papyrus Amherst Eg. XLIII.1 vs. und XLIII.2), in: R. JASNOW/G. WID-
MER (eds.), Illuminating Osiris Egyptological Studies in Honor of Mark Smith, (Material and Vis-
ual Culture of Ancient Egypt 2), Atlanta, GA, 303–18, pls. 19–22.
 Nanay(a) among the Arameans 115

REINER, E., (1974): A Sumero-Akkadian Hymn of Nanâ, JNES 33, 221–36.

REISMAN, D. (1973): Iddin-Dagan’s Sacred Marriage Hymn, JCS 25, 185–202.
DA RIVA, R. (2018): Two Temple Rituals from Babylon, JCS 70, 189–227.
RÖMER, W.H.P. (1965): Sumerische Königshymnen der Isin-Zeit, Leiden.
SALVESEN, A. (1998): The Legacy of Babylon and Nineveh in Aramaic Sources, in: S. DALLEY (ed.),
Legacy of Mesopotamia, Oxford, 139–61.
SASS, B./J. MARZAHN (2010): Aramaic and Figural Stamp Impressions on Bricks of the Sixth Centu-
ry B.C. from Babylon, (Ausgrabungen in Babylon 10; WVDOG 127), Wiesbaden.
SEIDL, U. (1989): Die babylonischen Kudurru-Reliefs, (OBO 87), Freiburg.
SIMS-WILLIAMS, N. (2008): The Bactrian Inscription of Rabatak: A New Reading, Bulletin of the
Asia Institute 18, 53–68.
SIMS-WILLIAMS, N./J. CRIB (1995/96): A New Bactrian Inscription of Kanishka the Great, Silk Road
Art and Archaeology 4, 75–142.
VON SODEN, W. (1938): Altbabylonische Dialektdichtungen, ZA 44, 26–44.
STARK, J.K. (1971): Personal Names in Palmyrene Inscriptions, Oxford.
STEINER, R.C. (1991): The Aramaic Text in Demotic Script: The Liturgy of a New Year’s Festival
Imported from Bethel to Syene by Exiles from Rash, JAOS 111, 362–63.
– (1995): Papyrus Amherst 63: A New Source for the Language, Literature, Religion, and History of
the Aramaeans, in M.J. GELLER (ed.), Studia Aramaica, Oxford, 204–207.
– (1997): The Aramaic Text in Demotic Script, in: W.W. HALLO/K.L. YOUNGER (eds.), The Context
of Scripture, Vol. 1, Leiden, 309–327.
– (2017): Lord Amherst’s Demotic Papyri and Lady Amherst’s Mummy (retrieved from:
https://yeshiva.academia.edu/RichardSteiner).
STEINER, R.C./C.F. NIMS (1984): You Can’t Offer Your Sacrifice and Eat It Too: A Polemical Poem
from the Aramaic Text in Demotic Script, JNES 43, 87–115.
– (1985): Ashurbanipal and Shamash-shum-ukin: A Tale of Two Brothers from the Aramaic Text in
Demotic Script, Part 1, RB 92, 60–81.
– (2017): The Aramaic Text in Demotic Script: Text, Translation, and Notes (retrieved from
https://yeshiva.academia.edu/RichardSteiner).
STEINKELLER, P. (2013a): How Did Šulgi and Īšbi-Erra Ascend to Heaven?, in: D.S. VANDERHOOFT/
A. WINITZER (eds.), Literature as Politics, Politics as Literature: Essays on the Ancient Near East
in Honor of Peter Machinist, Winona Lake, IN, 459–78.
– (2013b): More on the Nature and History of the Goddess Nanaya, N.A.B.U. 2013/4, no. 265, 107–
10.
STOL, M. (1998–2001): Nanaja, RlA 9, 146–51.
– (1999): Nanea/Nanai/a, in: K. VAN DER TOORN et al. (eds.), Dictionary of Demons and Deities in
the Bible, 2nd ed., Leiden, 612–14.
STRECK, M.P./N. WASSERMAN (2012): More Light on Nanaya, ZA 102, 183–201.
TAL, A. (2000): A Dictionary of Samaritan Aramaic, (HdOS 50), Leiden.
TEIXIDOR, J. (1979): The Pantheon of Palmyra, Leiden.
VAN DER TOORN, K. (2018): Papyrus Amherst 63, (AOAT 448), Münster.
TRAN, V.T.T./Y. LABRECQUE (1973): Isis lactans: Corpus des monuments gréco-romains d’Isis
allaitant Harpocrate, Leiden.
TUBACH, J. (1986): Im Schatten des Sonnengottes: Der Sonnenkult in Edessa, Ḥarrān und Ḥaṭrā am
Vorabend der christlichen Mission, Wiesbaden.
VITTMAN, G. (2017): Arameans in Egypt, in: A. BERLEJUNG et al. (eds.), Wandering Arameans:
Arameans Outside Syria, Textual and Archaeological Perspectives, (Leipziger Altorientalistische
Studien 5), Wiesbaden, 229–79.
VLEEMING, S.P./J.W. WESSELIUS (1982): An Aramaic Hymn from the Fourth Century B.C., BiOr 39,
501–509.
– (1983–84): Betel the Saviour, JEOL 28, 110–40.
116 Tawny L. Holm

– (1985–90): Studies in Papyrus Amherst 63: Essays on the Aramaic Texts in Aramaic/Demotic
Papyrus Amherst 63, 2 vols., Amsterdam.
WALKER, M.J. (2016): The Wings of the Dove are Covered with Silver: The (Absent) Presence of the
Goddess in Psalm 68, UF 47, 301–41.
WINTER, U. (1983): Frau und Göttin: Exegetische und ikonographische Studien zum weiblichen
Gottesbild im Alten Israel und in dessen Umwelt, (OBO 53), Freiburg/Göttingen.
YOUNGER, K.L. (2016): A Political History of the Arameans: From their Origins to the End of Their
Polities, (ABS 13), Atlanta, GA.
ZADOK, R. (1977): On West Semites in Babylonia During the Chaldean and Achaemenian Periods:
An Onomastic Study, Jerusalem.
– (1992): Egyptians in Babylonia and Elam During the 1st Millennium B.C., Lingua Aegyptia 2,
139–46.
– (2005): On Anatolians, Greeks and Egyptians in ‘Chaldean’ and Achaemenid Babylonia, Tel Aviv
32, 76–106.
– (2013): The Onomastics of the Chaldean, Aramean, and Arabian Tribes in Babylonia During the
First Millennium, in: A. BERLEJUNG/M.P. STRECK (eds.), Arameans, Chaldeans, and Arabs in
Babylonia and Palestine in the First Millennium B.C., (Leipziger Altorientalistische Studien 3),
Wiesbaden, 261–336.
– (2015): West Semitic Groups in the Nippur Region Between c. 750 and 330 B.C.E., in: J. STÖKL/
C. WAERZEGGERS (eds.), Exile and Return: The Babylonian Context, (BZAW 478), Berlin et al.,
94–156.
ZAUZICH, K.-TH. (2015): Hieroglyphen mit Geheimnis: Neue Erkenntnisse zur Entstehung unseres
Alphabets, Darmstadt.
 Papyrus Amherst 63
Ruminations*

Bezalel Porten

The enigmatic Papyrus Amherst 63 still holds secrets for us today, 77 years after a
portion of it was first deciphered and over 120 years after its discovery. In this article,
I will record the convoluted history of its research to ensure that these memories are
retained for future papyrologists and Aramaicists who have yet to unravel what re-
mains obscure. In recording its history, we will also encounter a number of the crucial
questions raised by this text – some already answered, some conjectured, and some
still hidden. Among these, we will speak of (1) the text’s unusual authorship (sections
I and II below); (2) its treatment of Psalm 20 and the question of the presence of YHW
(section III below); (3) other biblical parallels in the text (section IV below); and (4)
insights into the origins of the Arameans and whether or not the deity Bethel was ven-
erated by the Jews of Elephantine (section V below). It is hoped that this article will
help others build on the foundations of scholarship laid already concerning Papyrus
Amherst 63. In telling the story, I will include my personal experiences and memories
with the text’s first scholar, Raymond A. Bowman.

I. The Code is Broken: First Publication (1944)1

A 2,000 year old papyrus in New York was gathering dust. The Pierpont Morgan Li-
brary’s Amherst collection held a mysterious demotic papyrus unintelligible to demot-
icists. Papyrus Amherst 63 had been discovered at the end of the nineteenth century,
one of nineteen papyri “found together in an earthen jar near Thebes,” several of
which bear dates ranging from 139 to 112 BCE.2 It is “350–60 cm long and 30 cm
high, with 22 or 23 columns of varying width covering all of the recto and sixty per-
cent of the verso. The number of lines per column (not counting two short columns)
ranges from 17 to 24. All in all, there are about 290 well-preserved lines and about 132

*
This article is adapted from a power point presentation delivered on March 1, 2017. I wish to
thank Elisha Silberklang for his assistance in preparation of the presentation and the article, and
special thanks goes to Matt Kletzing for stylistic revision. Abbreviations in this essay follow the
Society of Biblical Literature Handbook of Style (2nd ed., Atlanta, 2014).
1
BOWMAN 1944, 227–28. The substance of this article formed the presidential paper read before
the Mid-West branch of the American Oriental Society at Evanston, Illinois, on April 6, 1943.
2
NEWBERRY 1899, 55; PESTMAN 1933, 13.
118 Bezalel Porten

poorly preserved ones, a total of 422 preserved lines.”3 No one could make sense of a
single one of these 422 lines for nearly half a century.
On April 6, 1943, that changed. Delivering the presidential address at the meeting
of the Mid-West branch of the American Oriental Society at Evanston, Illinois, Ray-
mond A. Bowman announced a new discovery. He had found the key to unlocking the
text’s mystery. Demoticists had struggled to read it, because it is, in fact, an Aramaic
text, albeit written in demotic script. This crucial insight became the title4 of his 1944
article that contained the substance of his remarks from the presidential address, pub-
lished in the then newly-founded Journal of Near Eastern Studies.5
In that article, Bowman published his decipherment of a small part of the text – on-
ly four lines – based on a transliteration and other materials supplied by C.F. Nims. He
spoke of completing the task “some years hence perhaps.” Forty years thence, howev-
er, nothing more of this extraordinary papyrus had yet been published, a fact be-
moaned by the leading Egyptologist K.A. Kitchen in 1965.6 Nevertheless, Bowman’s
contribution laid the foundation for scholarship on Papyrus Amherst 63. He was the
first to transcribe a section of the demotic text in modern Hebrew characters and trans-
late it into English:
Baʿal of the north will bless you. ‫ מיו צ ֹאפאנא‬2 ‫יברכאכא * בעל‬
Padr[y] of ʾar.aḫ, This One will bless you. ‫אח * דא תבראכאכא‬.‫פאדר]י[ מן אל‬
9
Bel of Babylon will bless you. ‫ מן באבאל‬2 ‫יבראכאכא*בל‬
Belit of Shangal, This One will bless you. ‫ת מן שנגאל דא תאבאראכאכא‬2 ‫בל‬
Nabû of Borsippa will bless you. ‫ מן באר*סאף‬13 ‫יאברכאכא נבוי‬
Nanâ of Aiaku (i.e., Eanna), This One will bless you. ‫נארי * טאני * יאכא * דא תאבאראכאכא‬

Six gods and six blessings: what was this text for? Why did its authors seemingly
conspire to obfuscate its reading? Bowman had an ingenious answer to this unusual
authorship. He thought that it might be a cult ritual. If indeed cultic, as he states,
“there would have been great security in the text in ancient times” since it was dictated
in Aramaic but written by an Egyptian scribe “who made use of demotic groups and
determinatives in the same way that the Persian scribes used Aramaic words in the
Pahlavi writing.”7 In other words, as Bowman wrote, ancient Egyptians trying to read
it as a normal text in demotic would be just as perplexed as modern demoticists. Thus,
in four lines, Bowman not only cracked the code but also put forward a plausible solu-
tion to the text’s first question – why did the scribe write it in demotic?

3
NIMS/STEINER 1983, 262. Nims and Steiner commented that “these figures are based on excel-
lent nineteenth-century photographs in our possession. The papyrus itself, only recently remounted in
glass, has suffered losses since 1921, when Herbert Thompson made the hand-copy and translitera-
tion which he later sent to Aimé-Giron.”
4
It was first captioned “An Aramaic Cryptogram” but later entitled “An Aramaic Religious Text
in Demotic Script.”
5
BOWMAN 1944. At the time, Bowman could not have been aware that precisely the same conclu-
sion had been reached in 1932 by Noel Aimé-Giron in a letter to Herbert Thompson. In this letter,
Aimé-Giron in part deciphered the same passage that Bowman treated in his article.
6
KITCHEN 1965, 54.
7
BOWMAN 1944, 227–28.
 Papyrus Amherst 63 119

II. The Foundation is Laid: Second Publication (1984)

It took 40 years before any more of this text would come to light and lay a foundation
for future scholarship. Writing in 1944, Bowman felt that the papyrus was “an ancient
literary text of greatest value religiously, linguistically, and historically.”8 The text is
certainly all of that, so why is it that he did not complete the task, let alone continue it?
The answer to this lies in Bowman’s own history. He had joined the Oriental Insti-
tute of the University of Chicago nine years before in 1935. Two years before that, in
1933, Ernst Herzfeld had uncovered thousands of clay tablets at Persepolis, among
which were some 500 in Aramaic, which came to be known as the Persepolis Fortifica-
tion Aramaic Tablets (PFAT). Then in 1934, Herzfeld was succeeded by Erich F.
Schmidt of the Oriental Institute, and in the years 1936–38, Schmidt excavated a batch
of mortars and pestles there, of which 203 were inscribed in Aramaic, also.
Despite the secrets still contained in Papyrus Amherst 63, when Bowman became
Associate Professor in 1947, he began to study the Persepolis vessels unearthed by
Schmidt according to the excavators’ photographs and George Cameron ’s notes and
was assigned their publication. Reading and interpretation turned out to be a daunting
task, and only part of the material was available for collation in Iran, undertaken in
1963 and 1966, the latter while attending the Congress of Iranologists. Finally, in 1968,
the year he retired, he sent to press The Aramaic Ritual Texts from Persepolis, and the
book appeared in 1970.9
This is where my own story begins to intertwine with Bowman’s. Working on my
doctorate for Salo Baron at Columbia University, I came to Chicago to teach at the
then-called College of Jewish Studies, now Spertus, in 1958. I availed myself of the
wonderful Oriental Institute Library and audited an Aramaic course with Bowman.10
Later, in the 1970s, I spent the last part of every August coming to the Oriental Insti-
tute to work with the demoticist George Hughes on the translation of the Elephantine
demotic papyri for a book I was planning, to be called The Elephantine Papyri in Eng-
lish: Three Millennia of Cross-Cultural Continuity and Change.11 This is how, in 1979,
I learned from Bowman that he was handing in a 1,000-page manuscript on the Per-
sepolis Tablets and would finally have time to return to the Amherst Papyrus. Unfor-
tunately, he died in October that year.12

8
Ibid.
9
BOWMAN 1970.
10
Of interest to me, he had published earlier, in 1954, a commentary on the Books of Ezra and
Nehemiah in The Interpreter’s Bible series.
11
PORTEN 1996 and 2011.
12
Summers were spent with the family at Camp Ramah in Conover, Wisconsin. By that time, Ray
Bowman and his wife had left Hyde Park, Chicago, and settled in the town of Harvard, north of
Chicago. The road to Chicago from Conover led through Harvard and, in 1979, we spent the night in
a motel in Harvard, and I visited Bowman at his house. We reminisced at length and he told me he
was diagnosed with cancer but refused to undergo chemotherapy.
120 Bezalel Porten

Fortunately, Bowman left his material on Papyrus Amherst 63 behind, which C.F.
Nims inherited.13 As Nims began to work on it while in retirement, Richard Steiner
came along at just the right time. The joint effort of Steiner and Nims located the poem
in column VII 1–7 of the papyrus and demonstrated that the original translation by
Bowman was essentially accurate.14 They also succeeded in adding a first line and
expanding Bowman’s initial reading to ten gods and ten blessings:
Your blessings
may they bless you.
Bless you may Mar from Rash; Marah from Shur/Ashur, she should bless you.
Bless you may Baal from Zephon; Pidrai from Raphia, she should bless you.
Bless you may Bel from Babylon; Belit from Esangila, she should bless you.
Bless you may Nabu from Borsippa Nanai from Ayakku, she should bless you.
May the Throne of Horus and Osiris from the Negeb bless you.

The passage contains beautiful poetic and literary content. Using parallelism, two pairs
of Canaanite or Syrian deities are followed by two pairs of Babylonian deities, with
the male followed by the female. “While the verbal predicate is in the beginning of the
first column,” as Segert noted in 1986, “the corresponding form of the same verb ap-
pears at the end of the second colon.”15 For Segert, this structure reflects polytheistic
syncretism, revealing something of the culture out of which the text came. Text and
context go hand in hand.
Thus, it took forty years for scholars to begin using Bowman’s original insights to
unravel more mysteries of the text. In the next wave of scholarship on Papyrus Am-
herst 63, however, many of the papyrus’ secrets – and conundrums – would be re-
vealed. These questions could not be settled by papyrological insights alone and would
require simultaneous contextual understanding.

III. The Story Takes Twists and Turns: Egyptian or Israelite Deity?

The first controversy erupted over the identity of a deity. While the poem re-published
and expanded above revealed Bowman’s own accuracy, actually, it was not the first
text to have been published by Nims and Steiner from the papyrus. The year before, in
1983, they brought to light “A Paganized Version of Psalm 20:2–6” and presented

13
Not knowing what it contained, Jonas Greenfield and I had wanted to work on Papyrus Amherst.
When I came to work with George Hughes in the late summer of 1979, he showed me a packet on the
floor which contained Bowman’s material on it. “Nims had first dibs on it,” he said, “but he was
away in Hawaii.” He could not imagine that, being in retirement, Nims would want to undertake
scholarly work.
14
STEINER/NIMS 1984. Thirteen years later, it was retranslated by Steiner and captioned “The
Blessings of the Gods.”
15
SEGERT 1986.
 Papyrus Amherst 63 121

three parallel columns of text: (1) the transliteration of the demotic script; (2) a Semit-
ic interpretation; and (3) Psalm 20.16
This caught the attention of Semitic scholars everywhere, which helped Papyrus
Amherst gain scholarly traction. In one such case, Moshe Weinfeld of the Hebrew
University undertook a full discussion in 1985, reproducing the three parallel columns
but putting columns II and III in Hebrew.17 In the 1980s, growing interest in Papyrus
Amherst 63 occurred simultaneously on both sides of the Atlantic (see below). As it
attracted more scholarly research, it brought controversy.
More minds do not always think alike. With the papyrus gaining momentum, one of
the sticking points in the reconstruction of Nims and Steiner was the prominent pres-
ence of the Egyptian god Horus (Ḥr) in this pagan hymn. Weinfeld accepted this inter-
pretation, but the Egyptologist Karl-Theo Zauzich maintained that the Egyptian name
was not to be read Ḥr but YHW, the name of the Hebrew God. In a brief piece written
in the same year (1985) as Weinfeld ’s re-publication, Zauzich argued:
Der Name ist in dem Papyrus etwa so geschrieben. Aus diesen drei Beobachtungen ergibt sich
die Möglichkeit, 3-ḥr-w als Transkription eines aramäischen JHW ‫ יהו‬zu erklären. Dieses Wort ist
aber nichts anderes als die Form des Gottesnamens Jahve, wie sie in den aramäischen Papyri aus
Ägypten regelmäßig erscheint (s. B. PORTEN, Archives from Elephantine, 105f.). Der Gott des Pap.
Amherst 63 ist also keineswegs Horus noch auch irgendeine sonst unbekannte Gottheit, sondern
genau der, welcher nach dem ganzen Kontext zu erwarten war: Jahve.18

In other words, the deity is not Ḥr but YHW, which appears frequently in the Elephan-
tine papyri (e.g. TAD A4.7:6). At the same time as the American pair published, a
Dutch pair of researchers Sven P. Vleeming and Jan W. Wesselius undertook their
own interpretation of the text, again in 1985.19
In the same year as Weinfeld and Zauzich, they, too, like Zauzich, doubted the read-
ing Ḥr but notably chose the reading YHW only by default:
Could it be a corruption of that or of another sign, which our scribe did not understand while he
adopted the spelling for this name? It seems hardly likely, and we must conclude this article with the
statement that the reading of this name still eludes us, even if we agree with Zauzich that it probably
is the name of the God of Israel, probably in the form Yaho – but merely on the basis of the general
context in the papyrus.20

Thus the first controversy erupted over Papyrus Amherst 63 – to which god does this
hymn mostly refer? If Horus, then Psalm 20 may have been changed to reflect a milieu
antagonistic to the original, but if YHW, its appropriation could reflect a more syncre-
tistic, amiable environment.
In fact, this opens a debate about who is the lender and who is the borrower, and
therefore where the original hymn comes from. Is our passage a pagan adaption of a

16
NIMS/STEINER 1983.
17
WEINFELD 1985.
18
ZAUZICH 1985.
19
See Vleeming’s hand-copy on p. 131, which appeared on the papyrus in the middle of column
XI/XII as seen on the photograph.
20
VLEEMING/WESSELIUS 1985, 4.
122 Bezalel Porten

prayer based on Psalm 20, as Nims and Steiner conjectured?21 Or perhaps the other
way around, could the Hebrew have borrowed from the Aramaic? Or do both this text
and the Biblical one go back to an original Canaanite hymn, as Vleeming and Wes-
selius assert,22 followed by Weinfeld?23
Scholars continued to disagree over subsequent decades. Translation of the com-
plete text was undertaken by Steiner and published in 1997.24 In 2001, despite the
disclaimers by Zauzich, Vleeming and Wesselius, in an 800-page book on Israelite
religion, Ziony Zevit adhered to the original Nims/Steiner and Weinfeld deity designa-
tion of Horus. In parallel columns, he presents the Aramaic text with his translation in
one column and the parallel verses from Psalm 20 opposite it:
The Aramaic Text Psalm 20
1./2. yʿnn ḥr / ʾdny bmṣwryn 2a. yʿnk YHWH bywm ṣ rh
May Horus/the master answer us in our straits May YHWH answer you on the day of trouble
4. šlḥ ṣ yrk mn (ʾ)kr ʿrš 3a. yšlḥ ʿzrk mqdš
Send your messenger from the temple of Arash He will send you help from the sanctuary
5. wmn ṣpn ḥr ysʿdn 3b. wmn ṣywn ysʿdk
And from Safon may Horus sustain us And from Zion he will sustain you
6./7. yntn ʾln ḥr / mr kblbn 5a. ytn lk klbbk
May Horus/the lord grant to us as is in our heart May he grant you as is in your heart
8. kl yʿ ṣt yhmlʾ ḥr 5b. kl ʿ ṣtk ymlʾ
All counsels may Horus fulfill All your counsels he will fulfill
9. lʾ yḥ sr ʾdny kl mšʾl lbn 6b. ymlʾ YHWH kl mšʾlwtyk
May the master not diminish any request of our May YHWH fill all your requests
heart
10. ʾl bq št ʾl bḥnt 8a. ʾlh brkb wʾlh bswsym
Some by the bow, some by the spear Some by the chariot and some by horses
11. ʾr ʾn ḥn mr ʾlhn ḥr 8b. wʾnḥnw bšm YHWH ʾlhynw nzkyr
Behold! (As for) us, the lord our god is Horus But we will mention the name of YHWH our god
10b. hmlk yʿnnw bym qrʾ nw
13. yʿnn mhr ʾl byt ʾl The king will answer us on the day of our crying
May the numen of Bethel answer us anon 10a. Yhwh hwšyʿh
14. bʿl šmn mr ybrk YHWH save
May Padrone-of-the-Heavens, the lord, bless

This presentation is accompanied by a detailed commentary, wherein he states, “I

hypothesize that Horus was worshipped because of the prominence of his name as a
theophoric element among Levites and Judahites as well as on the basis of his common
representation on scarabs manufactured by and for Judahites…”25 But what happens to
this hypothesis if the deity was not at all Horus but rather YHW? It remains a pity that
this book, so wonderfully informative and full of illustrations of Israelite cults, fails to
do full justice to this Aramaic hymn.

21
NIMS/STEINER 1983, 69.
22
VLEEMING/WESSELIUS 1982, 509; WEINFELD 1985, 139.
23
WEINFELD 1985, 139.
24
STEINER 1997.
25
ZEVIT 2001, 669–78.
 Papyrus Amherst 63 123

Today, the score is still not settled. In the last decade, in researching the interaction
between Egyptian and Aramaic literature, Joachim Quack makes a strong case for both
readings Horus and YHW being excluded.26 Similarly, from personal letters with Gün-
ter Vittmann, professor of Egyptology (like Zauzich at Würzburg), in 2017,27 he is
likewise of the opinion that the deity’s name cannot be altogether settled either for
Horus or YHW because: (1) the reading YHW does not hold for all 16 passages of
Horus in the papyrus; (2) the spelling begins clearly with an alef and is not good for
either name; (3) the demotic spelling points to a pronunciation for the word in question
of a Hó (alef plus the preposition Hr, meaning “upon”), which has a different spelling
and pronunciation as Horus (Hôr) and likewise would yield an awkward rendering of
yahû; and (4) alternatively, the spelling could be from h(rw), meaning “day” and pro-
nounced hóu.28 Following this logic, Horus is ruled out, and YHW is unlikely.
Despite the reservations of Quack and Vittmann, Karel Van der Toorn recently went
along with Zauzich, and Vleeming and Wesselius, opting for the deity being YHW.
Thus in 2017, he offered a new translation on which ours is based.29 We have framed it
as six couplets and one triad:
May Yaho answer us in our anxiety, May Adonay answer us in our anxiety.
Crescent, be a bow in heaven! Send your messengers from all of Rash!
And from Zaphon may Yaho sustain us.
May Yaho give to us our heart’s desire,
May Mar give to us our heart’s desire.
Every plan may Yaho fulfill, may Yaho fulfill! Let Adonay not withhold any wish of our heart.
Some by the bow, some by the spear, But as for us – Mar is our God, Yaho!
Our Bull shall be with us. May Bethel answer us tomorrow.
May Baal Shemayin Mar bless you. For your mercies I bless you.
End.

While Yaho and Adonay appear to be parallel, Bethel and Baal Shemayin are distinct,
with Mar (lord), applied to both Yaho and Baal Shemayin. We have favored the read-
ing YHW, noting all of the complexities and unanswered problems in doing so.
What then do we make of this hymn? It will take future papyrologists to come up
with a final verdict. The first conundrum remains unsettled.

IV. Parallels Abound: An Innocent is Led to Slaughter like a Lamb

Aside from the questions posed by the text, Papyrus Amherst 63 also provides a
wealth of otherwise unattested textual data. Like the previous hymn, another one – this

26
QUACK 2011, 391–92.
27
Fluent also in Aramaic, he is my maven for all things interlocking Aramaic and Egyptian.
28
Personal correspondence received on January 24, 2017. The last alternative in point number four
was also suggested by Vleeming and Wesselius.
29
VAN DER TOORN 2017, 635–36; see also IDEM 2018, 165–66.
124 Bezalel Porten

time in column VI – shows Biblical parallels. It is especially fierce, with parallels in

the Prophets and Writings.30
This first part of the hymn, lines 1–12, consists of two stanzas containing three
verses, each with recurring words. In the first (A) the prominent word is Mar, in the
second (B) the prominent word is evil, and in the third (C) the prominent word is Lord.
Thus the order is A-B-C :: A-B-C. The translation is based upon that of Steiner,31
while the interpretation is along the lines presented by Vleeming and Wesselius.32
Here is what it says:
A. Mar, good god,
my god, what should I do/have you done? let me know … my god.
B. No evil is in my hands, my god, no duplicity/slander in my mouth.
(But) you have made me a lamb in their flocks, a ram in their folds.
They constantly spy on me (saying)
“Let us kill him that we may become fat and corpulent
Let us eat his flesh and become fat
Let us drink his blood and become inebriated.”
C. Lord, god of Rash, Mar,
make my body… in their mouths, bitters under their tongue.
A. Mar, good god,
my god, what should I do/have you done? let me know … my god.
B. No evil is in my hands, our god no duplicity/slander in my mouth.
(But) you have made me a date in their mouths sweets under their tongues.
C. Lord, god of Rash, Mar
Make my body venom in their mouths, poison under their tongues.

In this this first part, an innocent is led to slaughter like a lamb, much like quite a few
Biblical parallels. For example, a common motif suffuses four passages in Psalms,
Isaiah, Job, and Jeremiah:
1. Ps 44: 12, 23
You let them devour us like sheep … we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered
‫שׁבְנוּ כְּצ ֹאן ִט ְבחָה‬
ַ ‫ נֶ ְח‬... ‫תִּ תְּ נֵנוּ כְּצ ֹאן ַמ ֲאכָל‬
2. Isa 53: 7, 9
Like a sheep being led to slaughter … though he had done no injustice and had spoken no falsehood
‫שׂה וְֹלא ִמ ְר ָמה ְבּפִיו‬ ָ ‫ עַל ֹלא ָח ָמס ָע‬... ‫שּׂה ַל ֶטּבַח יוּבָל‬ ֶ ‫ַכּ‬
3. Job 16: 11, 17
God hands me over to an evil man … for no injustice on my part
‫ עַל ֹלא ָח ָמס ְבּ ַכפָּי‬... ‫ ֶאל ֲעוִיל‬,‫ִירנִי ֵאל‬ ֵ ‫י ַ ְסגּ‬
4. Jer 11: 19
For I was like a docile lamb led to the slaughter
‫ַו ֲאנִי ְכּ ֶכבֶשׂ ַאלּוּף יוּבַל ִלטְבוֹח‬

30
See the photograph and hand copy of column VI on pp. 134–35 below.
31
STEINER 1997, 313.
32
VLEEMING/WESSELIUS 1983–84.
 Papyrus Amherst 63 125

This very same motif underlies lines 1–12 of our hymn in the Amherst Papyrus. In all
these texts, it states in sum: though he is innocent, the injured party has been led to
slaughter like a lamb; moreover, God Himself is responsible. To take it one step far-
ther, there are also two other important near exact Biblical parallels between this hymn
and passages found in Ezekiel and the Psalms:
1. Ezek 39:17–19 (“eat flesh … drink blood”)

‫ וּשְׁ תִ יתֶ ם דָּ ם‬,‫שׂ ְבעָה‬

ָ ‫ ַו ֲא ַכלְתֶּ ם ֵחלֶב ְל‬... ‫ָאָרץ תִּ שְׁ תּוּ‬
ֶ ‫שׂי ֵאי ה‬
ִ ְ‫ ְודַ ם נ‬,‫ִבּוֹרים תּ ֹאכֵלוּ‬
ִ ‫ בְּשַׂ ר גּ‬... ‫ וּשְׁ תִ יתֶ ם דָּ ם‬,‫וַאֲ ַכלְתֶּ ם בָּשָׂ ר‬
‫שׁכָּרוֹן‬ ִ ‫ְל‬

2. Ps 10:7 (“in their mouths … under their tongues”)

‫ ָעמָל וָאָוֶן‬,‫ ִפּיהוּ ָמלֵא וּ ִמרְמוֹת וָתְֹך; ַתּחַת לְשׁוֹנוֹ‬,‫אָלָה‬

Furthermore, the parallel does not end there. For in lines 12–18 of this hymn, the Am-
herst Papyrus continues with a reassuring reply, which also has other Biblical parallels.
The reply to our text’s poem says:
Mar speaks up and says to me,
“[Be] strong, my servant, fear not I will save your ……
To Marah, if you will … To Mar from your shrine and Rash
[I shall destroy in] your days [your] en[emy]; and during your years will be smitten [your]
advers[ary
[Your foes] I shall destroy in front of you; your foot on their necks [you will place].
[I shall suppo]rt your right (hand); I shall crown you with prosperity.
your house upon you your cup

From this reply, we can draw out another three also near exact Biblical verbal parallels
from the four books of Daniel, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Joshua:
1. Dan 2:8 etc. (“speaks up and says”)
‫ וְאָ ַמר‬,‫ָענֵה ַמ ְלכָּא‬

2. Isa 41:9–10; 44:2; Jer 46:27–28 (“my servant, fear not”)

‫ירא ַעבְדִּ י יַעֲקב‬
ָ ִ‫ירא; כּ ֹה אָ ַמר י ְהוָה אַל תּ‬
ָ ִ‫ אַל תּ‬... ‫וָא ֹ ַמר לְָך ַעבְדִּ י ַאתָּ ה‬
‫ נְאֻם יְהוָה‬,‫ אַתָּה אַל תִּירָא ַע ְבדִּי יַעֲק ֹב‬... ‫וְאַתָּה אַל תִּירָא ַע ְבדִּי יַעֲק ֹב‬

3. Josh 10:24 (“foot on their necks”)

‫ְארי ַה ְמּ ָלכִים‬
ֵ ‫שׂימוּ ֶאת ַר ְגלֵיכֶם עַל ַצוּ‬
ִ ‫ ִק ְרבוּ‬,‫שׁי ַה ִמּ ְל ָח ָמה ֶה ָהלְכוּא ִאתּוֹ‬
ֵ ְ‫שׂ ָר ֵאל וַיּ ֹא ֶמר ֶאל ְקצִינֵי אַנ‬
ְ ִ ‫שׁ ַע ֶאל כָּל ִאישׁ י‬ ֻ ‫ַויּ ִ ְק ָרא י ְהוֹ‬
‫ְאריהֶם‬ ֵ ‫שׂימוּ ֶאת ַר ְגלֵיהֶם עַל ַצוּ‬ ִ ָ ‫ ַויּ‬,‫ָה ֵאלֶּה; ַויּ ִ ְק ְרבוּ‬

Thus, from one hymn in Papyrus Amherst 63, we have five exact verbal parallels and a
motif that pervades four books of the Prophets and Writings. Clearly, this text came
from the same milieu as the Biblical witness, and the relationship between them testi-
fies to the complex intersubjective influences of one upon the other. Not only do we
need the Biblical parallels to better understand the papyrus, but also by delving into
the papyrus, we can gain new appreciation of the Biblical texts themselves.
126 Bezalel Porten

V. The Text Brings Answers and Questions

Judeans, Arameans, and Bethel

In this final section, we want to draw attention to insights about the origins of the Ju-
deans and Arameans at Elephantine and one key question whether or not the deity
Bethel was venerated by the Jews of Elephantine. One of the most surprising pieces in
this very long papyrus is essentially not a hymn but an historical notation. The nota-
tion allows us to confirm that the Jews of Elephantine came from Judah while the
Arameans of Syene may be among the Samarians who came from Samaria. In section
XVI (XVII) 1–6, as translated by Karel van der Toorn, we read:
They [were brought in] toward the evening watch.
Crushed men during the morning watch.
With my own eyes I saw
A troop of men coming up.
The Samarians made their way
To the Lord of Kings.
– From where are you, young man?
From where are the people of your dialect?
– I come from Judah,
My brothers have been brought from Samaria.
And now a man is bringing my sister from Jerusalem.

This passage from Papyrus Amherst 63 provides important evidence about the history
of Judeans and Samarians, particularly soldiers that came from their lands. A number
of other sources support this claim. First, the Samarian soldiers mentioned here may
have had their origin in the deportees whom the Assyrian king settled in Samaria,
particularly in Bethel. Their arrival in the province is told in detail in 2 Kgs 17. Of
particular interest is the fact that these new settlers “worshipped YHWH while serving
their own gods according to the practices of the nations from which they had been
deported” (v. 33). Thus, for example, the men of Hamath worshipped Ashima (v. 30).
Second, as we read in the Aramaic papyri from Elephantine, in their efforts to gain
support for the reconstruction of their temple, the Jews of Elephantine on 25 Novem-
ber 407 BCE turned both to Bagavahya Governor of Judah and Delaiah and Shelemiah
sons of Sanballat Governor of Samaria (TAD A4.7). Shortly after that petition, some
120 Elephantine Jews raised a sum of 31 karsh, 8 shekels which was divided up as
follows: for YHW, 12 karsh, 6 shekels; for Eshembethel, 7 karsh; for Anathbethel, 12
karsh (TAD C15). It is believed that Eshem(bethel) may in fact reflect the Ashima
brought from Hamath, referred to above from 2 Kgs 17:30.
Third, in their proclamations and condemnations, the prophets Amos and Jeremiah
insinuated that Bethel was worshipped by the northern Israelites. For Amos (5:4–5),
Bethel appears alongside Gilgal and Beer-Sheba, but as a deity and not a place name:
‫ כִּי ַה ִגּ ְלגָּל גָֹּלה‬:‫שׁבַע ֹלא תַ עֲב ֹרוּ‬
ֶ ‫ וּ ְב ֵאר‬,‫ ְו ַה ִגּ ְלגָּל ֹלא תָ ב ֹאוּ‬,‫ בֵּית ֵאל‬,‫ ה וְאַל תִּ דְ ְרשׁוּ‬.‫ ִוחְיוּ‬,‫ דִּ ְרשׁוּנִי‬:‫שׂ ָר ֵאל‬
ְ ִ ‫ ְלבֵית י‬,‫ד כִּי כ ֹה אָ ַמר י ְהוָה‬
.‫ וּבֵית ֵאל י ִ ְהי ֶה לְאָוֶן‬,‫יִגְלֶה‬
Thus said the Lord to the house of Israel: Seek me and you will live. Do not seek Bethel, nor go to
Gilgal, nor cross over to Beer-sheba; for Gilgal shall go into exile, and Bethel shall become a delu-
sion.
 Papyrus Amherst 63 127

Similarly, in his rebuke of Moab, Jeremiah (48:13) unexpectedly compares the pagan
deity Chemosh to what he takes as an Israelite deity, namely Bethel:
‫ ִמבֵּית ֵאל ִמ ְב ֶטחָם‬,‫שׂ ָר ֵאל‬
ְ ִ ‫שׁר בּ ֹשׁוּ בֵּית י‬
ֶ ‫ ַכּ ֲא‬,‫ ִמכְּמוֹשׁ‬,‫וּב ֹשׁ מוֹאָב‬
And Moab shall be ashamed of Chemosh, as the house of Israel was ashamed of Beth-el their confi-
dence.

Thus, the historical annotation in Papyrus Amherst coheres nicely with the evidence in
2 Kings, the Elephantine Papyri, and the prophets Amos and Jeremiah. Not only does
this help us understand that the Jews of Elephantine came from Judah and the Arame-
ans of Syene came from Samaria, but also, it ties into their cultic practices in worship-
ping Bethel. So who was this deity Bethel?33 Was this truly an Israelite god?
We can answer this question with a study of onomastics.34 In ancient traditions, we
can often learn a lot about people and their culture from the gods they commemorate
in their names. The deity Bethel – which we find for the first time around 676 BCE in
the treaty between Esarhaddon and Baal I of Tyre in the Assyrian spelling (Ba-a-a-ti-
DINGER) – appears over 70 times in personal names spanning a 160 year-period (from
Nebuchadnezzar in Babylonia to Darius II in Egypt):35
– 34 times in names in Akkadian texts from Babylon, Larsa, Erech, Ḥama (Ḥamath?),
Nippur, al-Yāhūdu, Bīt-Naʾinnašu, Bīt-Šinqamā, and more
– 31 times in names in Aramaic texts, the earliest in 571/520 BCE on ostraca from
Sefire, in a docket during Nebuchadnezzar, and on a fifth-century seal
– 1 name in the Bible (Zech. 7:2)
All in all, the deity Bethel gave rise to dozens of names, especially in Aramaic.36 Even
more, 150 years after its first appearance, we find a compelling salutation in an Ara-
maic letter: “Greetings [ ‫ ]שלם‬to the Temple of Bethel and the Temple of the Queen of
Heaven.”37
Of course, the deity Bethel does appear among the Jewish community of Elephan-
tine. For example, we have the personal name Bethelnathan son of Yehonathan (TAD
B6.4:10). We also find the deity Anathbethel alongside the Jewish deity YHW (TAD
C3.15:126, 128). However, on the basis of such varied and mixed evidence, we cannot
say that Bethel was a deity of the Jews. It is safer to assume that syncretistic elements
entered into some Jewish communities based on pagan deities. There is simply not
enough data to conclude that the Jews of Elephantine actually worshipped this deity.
Papyrus Amherst 63 helps us understand where the Jews of Elephantine came from but
not who they venerated.

33
ZADOK 2020.
34
PORTEN 2014, 223–24.
35
The first is Betheldani (‫( )ביתאלדלני‬CIS 2/1 54) and the last is [Beth]elnuri (‫( )ביתאלנורי‬TAD
C3.15:6), and both are in Aramaic script.
36
For the predicate elements of the names tabulated, both Aramaic and Akkadian, see my article
PORTEN 2014, 223–24.
37
TAD A2:1
128 Bezalel Porten

In sum, while nearly 80 years of scholarship on the Amherst Papyrus have revealed
much, there are many questions left for current and future generations to explore. We
hope this telling, and our own memories of the eminent scholar Raymond A. Bowman,
will preserve the history of research on this text. Although certain contributions of the
papyrus are clear – such as its unusual authorship, its wealth of parallels to biblical
sources, and its insights into the origins of the Arameans – other aspects remain open
questions – such as the question of the presence of YHWH and the veneration of Beth-
el. One thing, however, remains indisputable: that were it not for Bowman’s genius,
Papyrus Amherst 63 might still be gathering dust on the shelves of the Pierpont Mor-
gan Library today. We owe him our thanks.

Bibliography
BOWMAN, R.A. (1944): An Aramaic Religious Text in Demotic Script, JNES 3, 219–31.
– (1970): Aramaic Ritual Texts from Persepolis, (OIP 91), Chicago, IL.
KITCHEN, K.A. (1965): The Aramaic of Daniel, in: D.J. WISEMAN et al. (eds.), Notes on Some Prob-
lems in the Book of Daniel, London, 31–79.
NEWBERRY, P.E. (1899): The Amherst Papyri: Being an Account of the Egyptian Papyri in the Col-
lection of Lord Amherst of Hakney, London.
NIMS, C.F./R.C. STEINER (1983): A Paganized Version of Psalm 20:2–6 from the Aramaic Text in
Demotic Script, JAOS 103, 261–74.
PESTMAN, P.W. (1993): The Archive of the Theban Choachytes (2nd Century B.C.): A Survey of the
Demotic and Greek Papyri Contained in the Archive, Leuven.
PORTEN, B. (2014): A Comprehensive Table of Bethel Names in Ancient Inscriptions, in: Y. LEVIN/
B. KOTLERMAN (eds.), “And Inscribe the Name of Aaron”: Studies in Bible, Epigraphy, Literacy
and History Presented to Aaron Demsky, MAARAV 21.1–2 (2014), 223–34.
PORTEN, B. with J.K. FARBER et al. (1996): The Elephantine Papyri in English: Three Millennia of
Cross-Cultural Continuity and Change, (Documenta et Monumenta Orientis Antiqui: Studies in
Near Eastern Archaeology and Civilisation 22), Leiden/New York/Köln.
PORTEN, B./A. YARDENI (1986–99): Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt, 4 vols.,
Jerusalem.
– (2011): The Elephantine Papyri in English: Three Millennia of Cross-Cultural Continuity and
Change, Second Revised Edition, (Documenta et Monumenta Orientis Antiqui: Studies in Near
Eastern Archaeology and Civilisation 22), Atlanta.
QUACK, J.F. (2011): The Interaction of Egyptian and Aramaic Literature, in: O. LIPSCHITS/G.N.
KNOPPERS/M. OEMING (eds.), Judah and the Judeans in the Achaemenid Period: Negotiating
Identity in an International Context, Winona Lake, IN, 375–402.
SEGERT, S. (1986): Preliminary Notes on the Structure of the Aramaic Poems in the Papyrus Amherst
63, UF 18, 271–300.
STEINER, R.C. (1997): The Aramaic Text in Demotic Script, in: W.W. HALLO/K.L. YOUNGER (eds.),
The Context of Scripture, Vol. 1: Canonical Compositions from the Biblical World, Leiden, 309–
27.
STEINER, R.C./C.F. NIMS (1984): You Can’t Offer Your Sacrifice and Eat It Too: A Polemical Poem
from the Aramaic Text in Demotic Script, JNES 43, 89–114.
VAN DER TOORN, K. (2017): Celebrating the New Year with the Israelites: Three Extrabiblical Psalms
from Papyrus Amherst 63, JBL 136, 633–49.
– (2018): Papyrus Amherst 63, (AOAT 448), Münster.
 Papyrus Amherst 63 129

VLEEMING, S.P./J.W. WESSELIUS (1982): An Aramaic Hymn from the Fourth Century B. C. Bibliote-
ca Orientalis 39, 501–509.
– (1983–84): Betel the Savior, JEOL 28, 110–41.
– (1985): Studies in Papyrus Amherst 63: Essays on the Aramaic Texts in Aramaic/Demotic Papyrus
Amherst 63, Amsterdam.
WEINFELD, M. (1985): The Pagan Version of Psalm 20:2–8 – Vicissitudes of a Psalmodic Creation in
Israel and its Neighbors, Eretz Israel 18, 130–40, 70* [In Hebrew].
ZADOK, R. (2020): Bethel – an Originally North Syrian Deity, N.A.B.U. 2020, 62–69.
ZAUZICH, K.-TH. (1985): Der Gott des aramäisch-demotischen Papyrus Amherst 63, Göttinger
Miszellen 85, 89–90.
ZEVIT, Z. (2001): The Religions of Ancient Israel: A Synthesis of Parallactic Approaches, New York.
130 Bezalel Porten

Figure 1a: A Close Up Photograph of Column 11 of Papyrus Amherst 63 in the Pierpont Morgan
Museum.
 Papyrus Amherst 63, Appendix: Photographs and Hand-copies 131

Figure 1b: Hand-copy by S. Vleeming, VLEEMING/WESSELIUS 1985, 103 (below).

 132

column 4a column 3 column 2 column 1

Bezalel Porten

Figure 2: Columns 1–4a of Papyrus Amherst 63 in the Perpont Morgan Museum.

 column 6 column 5 column 4b
Papyrus Amherst 63, Appendix: Photographs and Hand-copies

Figure 3: Columns 4b–6 of Papyrus Amherst 63 in the Perpont Morgan Museum.

133
134 Bezalel Porten

Figure 4a: A Close Up Potograph of Column 6 of Papyrus Amherst 63 in the Pierpont

Morgan Museum.
Papyrus Amherst 63, Appendix: Photographs and Hand-copies 135

Figure 4b: Hand-copy from VLEEMING/WESSELIUS 1983–84, 137.

 II. Idumean Ostraca

The Workshop of the Minerva Center

for the Relations Between Israel and Aram in Biblical Times

Held on May 14, 2018 at the Sächsische Akademie der Wissenschaften

zu Leipzig
 The Fourth-Century BCE Aramaic Ostraca from Idumea
Problems and Tentative Solutions*

André Lemaire

The discovery of approximately 2,400 Aramaic ostraca from fourth-century BCE

Idumea during the last sixty years presents a notable set of challenges for scholars
working in West Semitic epigraphy, in Aramaic, and in the ancient history of the
Southern Levant. The first scientific task is clearly to publish them all, along with a
possible, probable, or certain reading. Joseph Naveh, Israel Ephʿal, myself and others
have already published about a thousand of them, to which must be added some 350
new ostraca (plus 212 republished ones) of the Jeselsohn collection in the excellent
volume YARDENI 2016. Now, Bezalel Porten and Ada Yardeni are publishing or re-
publishing all of these ostraca in the Textbook of Aramaic Ostraca from Idumea (TAO).
The first volume was published in 2014, the second in 2016, the third in 2018, and the
fourth in 2020. Unfortunately, Ada Yardeni passed away on June 29, 2018 and her
absence is heavily felt. May her memory be for a blessing.
It is probably too early to propose a final synthesis of the interpretation of these os-
traca that presupposes the knowledge of all the known documents, and it is clear that
any tentative interpretation in the context of the end of the Achaemenid Empire and
beginning of the Hellenistic period can only be preliminary. We may still, however,
try to point out some of the problems and their tentative solutions.

I. The Problem of Script and Language

For any West Semitic epigrapher, this part of the southern Levant is famous for the
Hebrew ostraca of Lachish, Arad and Horvat ʿUzza, dating around 600 BCE. The
situation is completely different for the fourth century BCE ostraca: the inscriptions
are now clearly in the Aramaic script and language. Was there an Aramean invasion?

*
Abbreviations according to the Society of Biblical Literature Handbook of Style (2nd ed., Atlanta,
2014). Special abbreviations used in this article:
ISAP: Institute for the Study of Aramaic Papyri.
TAD A–D: PORTEN/YARDENI, Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt, 4 vols., Jerusa-
lem, 1986–99.
TAO: PORTEN/YARDENI, Textbook of Aramaic Ostraca from Idumea, Vol. I, Winona Lake, IN, 2014;
Vol. 2, Winona Lake, IN, 2016; Vol. 3, University Park, PA, 2018; Vol. 4, University Park, PA,
2020.
140 André Lemaire

Though the ostraca reveal that part of the fourth-century BCE personal names were
Aramaic, they clearly were not the majority, and surprisingly, Edomite names with the
theonym “Qos,” and Arabic names, especially with the ending -w, are apparently at
least as numerous.1 Without entering now into a detailed discussion of these personal
names, they probably manifest the complicated history of the country between about
600 and the first half of the fourth century BCE.
As I have tried to show in detail elsewhere,2 this part of the country was first con-
quered by Edom: the Negev in 597 BCE, and Southern Shephelah and the Southern
Mountain of Judah in 587 and/or 582. It was probably included by Nabonidus in the
Babylonian Empire, along with central Arabia, and then became part of the Arabian
kingdom of Kedar, when Cyrus took over Babylon at the end of 539 BCE. Already by
this time Aramaic could be used officially, as demonstrated by a few inscriptions: an
incense altar from Lachish in Aramaic script but apparently in North-Arabic language
(first half of the fifth century BCE)3; the Tell el-Maskhuta silver bowls, especially the
one inscribed in Aramaic script and language – qynw br gšm mlk qdr, “Qaynu son of
Geshem, king of Kedar,”4 (second half of the fifth century or around 400 BCE); as
well as the earliest Aramaic Teima inscriptions (about 400 BCE).5
However, there is no mention of any king of Kedar in the Aramaic ostraca. When
the Aramaic ostraca are dated, it is only in reference to Artaxerxes (II, III, or IV) dur-
ing the Persian period. This apparently means that, when these ostraca were written,
this part of the country was no longer part of the kingdom of Kedar, but instead a kind
of province directly administered by the Achaemenid Empire.
Actually, the latest reference to the activity of a “king of the Arabs” in the southern
Levant after 400 BCE seems to be Diodorus Siculus XV: 2, 46 in connection with the
control of Tyre by Evagoras, which means that the “king of the Arabs” took an anti-
Persian position around 387/6 BCE.7 After that date, the “king of the Arabs/king of
Kedar” apparently disappears from the documentation. One may conjecture that, after
the revolt of Kedar during which its king allied with Hakor of Egypt and Evagoras of
Salamis at the beginning of the fourth century BCE, the King of kings transformed this
region close to the border with independent Egypt into a province directly adminis-
tered by a governor.

1
For onomastics of the Idumea ostraca, see Ran Zadok’s study in this volume pp. 179–297 below.
2
LEMAIRE 2010, 240 with bibliography. For another view, sometimes outdated, see LEVIN 2007;
IDEM 2015.
3
LEMAIRE 1974. For another, less likely, interpretation with later bibliography, see LIPIŃSKI 2018,
221–30.
4
GIBSON 1975, 123; TAD 4, D15.4.
5
GIBSON 1975, 148–51; LEMAIRE 1995, 67–68; EICHMANN et al., 2006, 169–74; PUECH 2013;
ROCHE 2013; IDEM 2014; STEIN 2014.
6
The actual text is: “And not a few soldiers were sent him [i.e. Evagoras] by the king of the bar-
barians.” Yet commentators agree that “the king of the barbarians” must be corrected into “the king
of the Arabs” (barbarôn >Arabôn): OLDFATHER 1963, 322–23; VIAL 1977, 6, n. 1; CARREZ-
MARATRAY, 2005, 57–58.
7
Diodorus Siculus XIII: 46, 5: “… information that the king of the Arabians and the king of the
Egyptians had design upon Phoenicia.”
 Aramaic Ostraca From Idumea 141

Tavernier summarizes the well-known linguistic situation at the time: “Aramaic was
not the official language of the Empire, since other languages were also used next in it.
Yet it was the only nation-wide official language used to transmit satrapal orders”8 and
could be used anywhere in the administration of the empire. Though Aramaic was not
unknown in this part of the country when it was still part of the kingdom of Kedar,9
there is a serious possibility that the use of the Aramaic script and language in these
ostraca was connected with Achaemenid administration.
The majority of the ca. 2,400 Aramaic ostraca from Idumea are unprovenanced. But
those texts found during official excavations have been discussed and interpreted sepa-
rately. We shall start our study with them.

II. Interpretation of the Ostraca Found During Official Excavations10

Besides an almost illegible and difficult-to-date ostracon found in Lachish by the Brit-
ish Expedition,11 several tens of Aramaic ostraca have been found in Arad12; Beershe-
ba13; and Maresha,14 as well as others in Khirbet el-Qom15; Tell Jemmeh (fourth/third
century) 16 ; Tell el-Farʿah (South); Tel Ira 17 ; Tel Haror 18 ; Tell es-Sera/Tel esh-
Shariʿa19; Naḥal Yattir20; Tell Malḥata21; and Ḥorvat Rogem.22 Their provisory total is
more than 200. As usual, the reading of these ostraca is very often difficult and uncer-
tain, and their date is generally only palaeographic – that is, very approximate. This
last problem is specially the case for the Tell Jemmeh and Maresha ostraca, when it is
practically impossible to distinguish the Persian period from the early Hellenistic peri-
od. Furthermore, the publication of these Aramaic ostraca presents two limits: Their
reading is often uncertain, some of the earlier readings need to be corrected, and some
of the Arad and Beersheba ostraca were only published with a picture, with no reading

8
TAVERNIER 2017, 387.
9
See above.
10
Two Aramaic ostraca published by NAVEH 1985 are in fact unprovenanced: the one said from
“the Region of Yatta (?)” (no. 7) and the one said from “the Region of Raphia (?).” Both of them
could well come from the area of Khirbet el-Qom, especially the one from “Yatta” that can be com-
pared to LEMAIRE 2002, no. 22 (see already ibid., 21–22).
11
TUFNELL 1953, 145, 146, pl. 49, 2 and 68; KLINGBEIL 1995.
12
NAVEH 1981; HERZOG/SAPPO 1995, 129.
13
NAVEH 1973; IDEM 1979.
14
ESHEL 2007a; IDEM 2007b; IDEM 2010.
15
GERATY 1972, 26–30 and 58–59: ostraca nos 7 and 8 are apparently from the Persian period.
See esp. 58: “ostraca numbers 7 and 8 (line 5) are from the formal hand of the later half of the fourth
century, their closest parallels being the script of the Wadi ed-Daliyeh papyri.”
16
NAVEH 1992.
17
IDEM 1972; IDEM 1985; IDEM 1999.
18
OREN et al. 1991, 18.
19
IDEM 1972; IDEM 1973, 402.
20
GOVRIN 1988–89; VAINSTUB/FABIAN 2015.
21
YARDENI 2015.
22
COHEN 1986.
142 André Lemaire

provided whatsoever. Lastly, a few of them (for instance, from Arad and Beersheba)
remain unpublished. Hopefully, the situation will be better with the publication of the
fourth volume of TAO and Yardeni’s readings.23
How may we understand these Aramaic ostraca? Most have been published by Jo-
seph Naveh, who tried to interpret them in the context of Achaemenid Empire. Naveh
observes:
[Among 45 deciphered Arad ostraca] thirty-seven of them have similar contents. They usually include
a personal name, the number of horses or donkeys, and an amount of grain. Afterwards comes the
text: Yadduaʿ on the 5th (or the 6th, 7th, 8th) … this same Yadduaʿ may have been the local commander,
or at least the manager of the storehouses … Inscription no. 7 mentions a unit of horsemen numbering
ten people; no. 12 apparently denotes a unit of donkey drivers. The units of ten and the larger military
divisions (called dgl) show military organization. … Aside from the granary, Arad also had a straw
shed … ʿAnani is either the owner or the manager of this shed.24

Furthermore, for Naveh, “most of the Aramaic ostraca from Tel Arad are instructions
to supply goods to persons who were horsemen or donkey-drivers, although the imper-
ative HB is missing.”25 Actually, Arad ostracon no. 5 (as well as an unpublished one),
Beersheba no. 50 and Tell el-Farʿah nos. 3–5 begin with the verb hb, “give,” and were
probably kept as justifications of expenses from the storehouses.
The situation seems generally somewhat different in Beersheba where, according to
Naveh,
The dockets mentioning exact dates, specific amounts of wheat and barley and names of persons who
presumably supplied these provisions, seem to indicate that these are descriptions of goods brought to
Beersheba and stored there … The ostraca seem to indicate that in the Persian period (as previously
and subsequently) Beersheba was the administrative centre of the Negev … the corn was apparently
brought from the farms and estates scattered throughout the vast fields of the Negev; the proper
names mentioned in these dockets were those of the landowners.26

He further observes,
The dockets mentioning exact dates, specific amounts of barley or wheat and names of persons who
supplied these provisions (Ostraca 1–12, 27–32) seem to be descriptions of produce brought to Beer-
sheba as tax payments.27

As for the list of names, they “seem to be of an administrative nature. Both the
dockets and the names lists may indicate that Beersheba was an administrative centre
in the Persian period.”28
Naveh proposed again the administrative interpretation for the Aramaic ostraca
from Tell Jemmeh:

23
A few new readings are already mentioned in YARDENI 2016. See also VAINSTUB/FABIAN 2015,
205*.
24
NAVEH 1981, 175.
25
IDEM 1985, 116–17.
26
IDEM 1973a, 82.
27
IDEM 1979, 193.
28
Ibid., 194.
 Aramaic Ostraca From Idumea 143

These four ostraca indicate that the West Granary was used for storing grain. As its diameter is more
than 6 m, it was probably a public granary owned by the government … The barley and wheat were
presumably brought to the government granary as tax payments from the neighbouring farms or
estates.29

The Tell Jemmeh granaries were recently presented as typical Achaemenid granaries
by Wouter Henkelman.30 One may note that the ostraca found in the west granary
mention quantities of barley and wheat, while the ostraca from the east granary men-
tion wine (ḥmr). Furthermore, while ostracon no. 9, found outside the west granary,
mentions šqdn, “almonds,” ostracon no. 8 may have been a writing exercise.31 As in
Arad (inscription 43) and Beersheba (inscription 54), a few inscriptions on jars may
indicate the content of the jar or its owner and/or its origin and/or a date.
A few ostraca probably get their full meaning in the context of the Achaemenid ad-
ministration. Naveh proposed reading the first line of Arad ostracon 37: gnzbr, “treas-
urer.”32 Though this reading is uncertain, it could be compared to a possible corrected
reading of Tel ʿIra ostracon 8:33
1 nnʾ gnzbrʾ Nanâ the treasurer:
2 rmʿy š I Ramʿay 1 she(qel)
3 wʾl r II Wael 2 q(uarters)

This Tel ʿIra ostracon is also interesting because it seems to connect the “treasurer”
with some kind of silver tax, the amount of which is half a shekel or a didrachm
(Ramʿay may have to pay for two persons). Such a payment of half a sheqel per person
can be compared to Exodus 38:28 for Judah:
A beqaʿ a head, that is half a shekel by the sacred standard, for every man from twenty years old and
upwards, who had been registered.

The existence of such a capitation/poll-tax in Idumea seems to be confirmed by Arad

ostracon 41 with the probable corrected reading:
Obverse:
1 zy nšʾ ksp (Those) who brought silver
2 blbnyʾ In Libnayâ:
3 … …
4 ʾ.t….ʾl r II ……..el 2 q(uarters)
5 qwsʾl ... r II Qôsel ….. 2 q(uarters)
6 ʿwty ksp r II ʿUtai silver 2 q(uarters)
7 qdmʾl ksp r II Qadmiel silver 2 q(uarters)
8 ḥmw r II Ḥammu 2 (quarters)
9 nqmʾ r I[I?] Naqmâ 1(+1?) q(uarters)

29
NAVEH 1992, 50.
30
HENKELMAN 2017, 86–92.
31
NAVEH 1992, 49–52; see also perhaps Beersheba ostraca 52, 53.
32
IDEM 1981, 166.
33
LEMAIRE 2015, 104.
144 André Lemaire

Reverse:
1 zy nšʾ ksp (Those) who brought silver
2 blbnyʾ in Libnayâ.

Thus, the several hundreds of Aramaic ostraca from Idumea found in official exca-
vations present different kinds of texts probably connected with the Achaemenid ad-
ministration, more specifically with storehouses and taxes in kind and in silver under
the responsibility of treasurers. Some of them are dated by day, month, and year of
reign. Unfortunately there is no mention of any king or eponym, and they can only be
palaeographically dated to the fourth century BCE. With Naveh (1979),34 we may note
that their onomastics confirm the previous indication of Avi-Yonah: “South of Judah
was the province of Idumaea inhabited by Edomite Arabs who moved there after the
fall of Jerusalem.”35

III. The Unprovenanced Aramaic Ostraca from Idumaea

III.A. Origin
The first unprovenanced Aramaic ostracon from Idumaea was apparently purchased in
Raphia and published in Hebrew by Naveh in 1973.36 It was also re-published in 1985
with another unprovenanced Aramaic ostracon said to come from the region of Yatta
“10 km south of Hebron.”37 Later on, especially after 1990, fourth-century BCE Ara-
maic ostraca appeared by tens on the antiquities market and in private collections.
Today, their number is about 2,000, and they are included in the four volumes of TAO.
Even though they have no archaeological context of any kind, what can we say about
their origin, mainly their local provenance?
Though not to be too much trusted, several indications from the antiquities market
indicated a part of the country west or south of Hebron, more precisely the area of
Khirbet el-Qom. Actually, salvage excavations directed by J.S. Holladay, J.F. Strange,
and L.T. Geraty in Khirbet el-Qom in 1971 were organized because there had already
been some illicit excavations at this site, which were then followed by a first salvage
excavation by William G. Dever in October–November 1967.38 Apparently, the illegal
excavations continued there after these two salvage excavations, and the date of ap-
pearance of the first Aramaic ostracon on the market in the early 1970s39 nicely fits
this localization. It is important here to emphasize that, after the well-argued proposi-
tion by D.A. Dorsey,40 most of the scholars identify Khirbet el-Qom with biblical
Maqqedah. In this context, one may also note that these Aramaic ostraca appeared on

34
See also EPHʿAL/NAVEH 1996, 9.
35
AVI-YONAH 1966, 25–26.
36
NAVEH 1973b.
37
IDEM 1985, 117–19.
38
DEVER 1969–70, 139–204.
39
See above.
40
DORSEY 1980, 185–93.
 Aramaic Ostraca From Idumea 145

the market at the same time and partly mixed with about 500 BCE Hebrew ostraca that
are apparently connected with Maqqedah as shown by an ostracon from the Mous-
saieff collection41 and other unpublished ostraca.
Now, although first read by Ephʿal and Naveh as mnqrh, “cistern,”42 it is clear to-
day that the place name “Maqqedah,” written mnqdh/ʾ or mqdh,43 appears many times
(about 75) in these ostraca, partially connected with a “storehouse” (msknh: about 22
times).44 According to Yardeni,
[Maqqedah] was the centre of economic activity attested in the major group of texts in the corpus of
Idumean ostraca, recording the deliveries of food and workers … The identification of Maqqedah
with Khirbet Beit Makdum and the nearby Khirbet el-Kom is based on the information given by
Eusebius concerning its location ‘about 8 miles east of Eleuthropolis,’ which is about 11 km from
Beit Gubrin to Beit Makdum via Idnah.45

If, as well argued by Dorsey, the identification of Maqqedah with Khirbet el-Qom is
right, this is a very strong argument for an origin of most of the unprovenanced Ara-
maic ostraca from the illicit excavations at Khirbet el-Qom or around this site.
A few other place names are also mentioned in these ostraca: some of them – some-
times uncertain place names – do not seem to be mentioned elsewhere and are difficult
to locate: bqʿtʾ (“the valley”); glyltʾ, gt (“farm”); mḥwzʾ (“the market”?); ʿʈrtʾ (“the
crown”); rmtʾ (the height); and šwšm (uncertain meaning). Five other possible place
names deserve to be discussed:
1. According to Yardeni (2016, 724), glgwl mentioned in three ostraca (among them
ibid., 107, 4) “may possibly be identified with the ruins of Kafr Jul (topographical
location 14540936), about 10.5 km south of Khirbet el-Kom.” Yet glgl is men-
tioned several times as a personal name and, from its context in ostracon YARDENI
2016, 107 (= LEMAIRE 2002, 283), kpr glgwl seems to be better understood as “the
tomb of Gilgul.”46 Furthermore Kafr Jul does not seem to have archaeological pot-
tery anterior to the Byzantine period.47 Thus this location seems problematic.
2. It seems that gt is mentioned once, preceded by the preposition b-.48 One could
think of the Philistine city of Gath, well known now with the new excavations at
Tell es-Safi. However, such a location seems too far away from Maqqedah. Fur-
thermore, there were many localities called “gt” since the word means “farm,
winepress.” Thus this location seems problematic.
3. According to Yardeni (2016, 725), ʿzh could appear in YARDENI 2016, 171, “possi-
bly referring to the city of Gaza,” but in her commentary, she specifies that it is

41
DEUTSCH/HELTZER 1995, 81–83, with corrections in LEMAIRE 1997, 456–58; IDEM, 1999a, col.
173; IDEM, 2006a, 234; AḤITUV 2008, 180–81.
42
EPHʿAL/NAVEH 1996, 15.
43
LEMAIRE 1996, 20, 139–40; LOZACHMEUR/LEMAIRE 1996, 131–32.
44
PORTEN/YARDENI 2007.
45
YARDENI 2016, 725,
46
LEMAIRE 2002, 285, 149–55; IDEM 2015, 118–19.
47
KOCHAVI 1972, 74: no. 212.
48
PORTEN/YARDENI 2017, 65–66.
146 André Lemaire

less likely than the interpretation as a personal name.49 Actually the reading lʿzh is
uncertain (one could also read lțw/d/rh). Furthermore ʿzh is not preceded by the
preposition b- and the location of the Philistine city of Gaza seems far away from
Maqqedah. This identification is therefore unlikely.
4. ʾdnh appears twice as a place name (since it is preceded by the preposition b-) in a
scribal exercise (LEMAIRE 2002, 365). I proposed to identify this place name as the
ancient name of the village of Idnāʾ/Idnah (1477–1075), located 3 km North-North-
East from Khirbet el-Qom. The tell was occupied from Iron Age II till the Middle
Ages.50 This identification seems very probable.
5. It seems that mršh appears in an enigmatic ostracon (LEMAIRE 1996, 111). It is
probably the place name Maresha/Tell Sandahanna, well known from the Bible and
where several tens of Aramaic ostraca have been discovered.51
If most of the unprovenanced Aramaic ostraca indeed come from
Maqqedah/Khirbet el-Qom or close to this site – such as, for instance, Idnāʾ – it is not
necessarily the case for all of them, since official excavations found such ostraca in
several other places in Idumea. Actually, Yardeni observes that:
One group of ostraca, dating from the year 344 BCE, comes from Maresha, as indicated by an ostra-
con which was found there in the excavations and which has two parallels in this group written on the
same day, probably by the same scribe.52

She further states that

A group of about 9 texts record the supplying of barley flour and about 20 texts record the supplying
of wheat flour in the spring and summer of 344 BCE, i.e., Adar year 14 to Elul, year 15 (of Artaxerx-
es III), with one exception (ISAP 101, dated to Marḥeshwan, year 14) … The provenance of this
group is Maresha as indicated by a text found in the excavations of Maresha (No 6=ISAP 2314)
which has two parallels written on the same day probably by the same scribe (ISAP 1629 and 1896).53

Noteworthy is also the fact that the corrected reading has qmḥ ḥnṭn, “wheat flour,”
instead of the abbreviation qḥ.54 One could object that Maresha is only 9 km north-
west of Khirbet el-Qom and that such a scribal tradition might have been dependant on
an administrative directive. We will have to await the publication of all the unprove-
nanced ostraca, as well as all those from Maresha, to adopt this interpretation. Yet the
possibility that some of the ostraca appearing on the market may come from Maresha
is all the more likely, now that it is known that there was illicit digging there, as shown
by the discovery of the famous Greek stele mentioning Heliodoros.55

49
YARDENI 2016, 191.
50
KOCHAVI 1972, 56–57.
51
See above.
52
YARDENI 2016, xxi.
53
Ibid., 650.
54
For this group, see already PORTEN/YARDENI 2009, 151* and 166*–67*.
55
COTTON/WÖRRLE 2007, 192; GERA 2009, 126–28.
 Aramaic Ostraca From Idumea 147

Thus, even though most of the unprovenanced ostraca probably come from Khirbet
el-Qom/Maqqedah, several of them could come from other places in Idumea, especial-
ly Maresha.

III.B. Dating the Ostraca

As said before, the ostraca found during official excavations may be dated by years but,
so far, do not mention any king or eponym, and their archaeological context does not
help much for a precise dating since they are generally found in pits that were eventu-
ally used as granaries. The ceramic of this period is difficult to date and can only give
an approximate period, i.e. the Persian and Early Hellenistic periods. The palaeograph-
ical dating of the inscriptions can only also be approximate, about the fourth century
BCE. Thus, according to Naveh,56 the years indicated in a few Beersheba ostraca
probably refer to the reign of Artaxerxes III. On the other hand, he observes:
The Aramaic ostraca of Arad (aside from Nos. 44–45) belong to the fourth century B.C.E.; apparently
to the middle of that century. Lacking other data, this assumption is based on palaeographic criteria
only. At any rate, these ostraca are contemporary to the Aramaic ostraca found at Beer-Sheba.57

The unprovenanced ostraca generally seem to be palaeographically dated to the

same period, i.e. the fourth century BCE. However, some of them are precisely dated
by their text, indicating day, month, year, and king or eponym. Thus, three ostraca
mention “the king Artaxerxes” (spelled ʾrtḥšsš), ten ostraca mention “the king Alex-
ander” (spelled ʾlksndr), six ostraca mention “the king Philip” (spelled plps), fifteen
ostraca mention “Antigonus” (spelled ʾntgns, ʾtgns, ʾtgn or ʾrtgns), and one mentions
“the king Ptolemy” (spelled tlmys).58 As is well known, several kings were called Ar-
taxerxes, but, as already well observed by Ephʿal and Naveh59 and also myself,60 a
number of regnal years over 21 can only indicate those of king Artaxerxes II, who
reigned for 46 years (404–359/8 BCE), and it seems that the first dated ostraca are
from the end of Artaxerxes II’s reign.61 The ostraca dated by years 1 or 2 of Artaxerx-
es could refer either to Artaxerxes III (359/8–338/7 BCE) or to Arses/Artaxerxes IV62
(338/7–336/5), while those by years 3 to 21 clearly refer to Artaxerxes III.
We have again a problem of homonymy with the royal name Alexander: it could re-
fer to Alexander III (“the Great”), who ruled in Palestine in 332–323 BCE, or his son,
Alexander IV, who nominally reigned between 317 and 306/5 BCE.63 Furthermore, the
rule of Antigonus actually began directly with year three, in 316 BCE: though not
called a king, his years correspond to the regnal years of Alexander IV plus one This

56
NAVEH 1973a, 79, n. 3; IDEM 1979, 182.
57
IDEM 1981, 153.
58
AḤITUV/YARDENI 2004, 19: no 13 = ISAP 710.
59
EPHʿAL/NAVEH 1996, 16–17.
60
LEMAIRE 1996, 12–13.
61
For more precise dating, see below.
62
The fact that Arses was called “Artaxerxes” is now well recognized after the discussions about
the date of the trlingual Xanthios stele; see, for instance, BRIANT 1996, 18, 709.
63
For the identity of “Alexander” in the Idumea ostraca, see Andrew Gross’ contribution in this
volume pp. 165–78 below.
148 André Lemaire

homonymy and the parallel rules of Alexander IV and Antigonus may be confusing,
and two different interpretations have been proposed:
1. Naveh and Ephʿal observe that
Alexander the Great ascended the throne in Macedonia in 336 and his reign lasted 14 years.
However his reign over Palestine and Egypt, starting in 332, was shorter. The Babylonian docu-
ments reckon his regnal years according to the Macedonian system – i.e. they start with his 7th
regnal year … If the same practice was customary in Palestine,64 then the ostraca dated according
to Alexander’s regnal years – the surviving years in them are 1–5 – should be attributed to his son
Alexander IV.65

Ephʿal and Naveh did not mention the problem of the parallel years of Antigonus,66
since they did not identify his name in three ostraca they published, i.e. EPHʿAL/
NAVEH 1996, 56, 2; 108, 2; 128, 2. (The reading of the name Antigonus was only
proposed later by Ran Zadok.)67 The general dating referring to Alexander IV and
not to Alexander III was taken again by Ephʿal,68 Aḥituv and Yardeni,69 and Porten
and Yardeni.70 However, with such an interpretation, one may wonder, why are
there no dated ostracon between years 336 and 321, the reigns of Darius III and Al-
exander the Great? That seems strange.71 More seriously, this interpretation sup-
poses that scribes used to alternate dating by Alexander IV and Antigonus, alterna-
tion obvious in TAO I, xxxviii–xxxix, Table 5. Yardeni details it as follows:
The reign of Alexander IV was interrupted in his second year by Antigonus … and was resumed
in his fifth year and he was then replaced again by Antigonus. ISAP 1535 bears a full date formu-
la – 6 Sivan, year 2 of Alexander, corresponding to 20 June 315 BCE, i.e., a month before Antig-
onus came to rule in this region (7 Tammuz year 3 of Antigonus [July 20, 315 BCE]; ISAP 1546).
However the very next day, on 8 Tammuz, year 2 of Alexander (YARDENI 2016, 80 [July 21, 315
BCE]) some scribes were still dating according to Alexander.72

Such alternation and confusion within a single local scribal tradition seems prob-
lematic, especially the last mentioned by Yardeni.
2. Now, there is another possible and more natural interpretation, which I already
presented in 199673 and was adopted by Edward Anson (2005) and Oren Tal (2016,
xii). The years of Alexander’s reign would have been counted from his rule in Pal-
estine, that is from 332 BCE. Actually, scribes probably started to date according

64
Italics are mine.
65
NAVEH/EPHʿAL 1996, 17, fn 8.
66
For the importance of Antigonus and the rarity of datation according to Alexander IV in South-
ern Mesopotamia, see JOANNÈS 2006, 104–108.
67
ZADOK 1997, 51: § 54.
68
EPHʿAL 1997, 291.
69
AḤITUV/YARDENI 2004, 8.
70
PORTEN/YARDENI 2008a.
71
TAO I, xi: “Strangely, there are no dated texts from the time of Darius III (335–331) or Alexan-
der the Great (330–323)”.
72
YARDENI 2016, 661.
73
LEMAIRE 1996, 42–45; IDEM 2002, 200–201; IDEM 2006b, 418, fn. 98.
 Aramaic Ostraca From Idumea 149

to Alexander the Great from his rule over the region, and I quoted a good parallel
with the dating according to Alexander in Sidon74. In fact, Parker and Dubberstein
already recognized this phenomenon:
Cuneiform evidence for the period of Alexander is confused, since two systems of dating were
used. One system reckoned year 1 of Alexander as beginning April 3, 330; the other counted
from his Macedonian accession, with year 1 as 336.75

Unfortunately, in the following table, 76 Parker and Dubberstein have only shown
the Macedonian usage, and the local system seems to be forgotten by a few com-
mentators.77 Yet, as a kind of paradox, this local system was lately adopted by Jo-
seph Naveh and Shaul Shaked in their magnificent editio princeps of Aramaic
manuscripts from Bactria, where they assumed that “year 1” was a date “according
to the regnal year of Alexander the Great by the Babylonian reckoning,78 it would
correspond to 330/329 BCE.”79
These remarks on the dated Aramaic ostraca with year of an eponym help us to date
the other ostraca only dated by a year, without eponym. Thus it seems clear that years
over 21 should refer to the reign of Artaxerxes II and years between 11 and 21 should
refer to Artaxerxes III. For the other ones, there are at least two possibilities of epo-
nym, and the attribution can only be likely, comparing them to well dated ostraca with
similar formulae, palaeography, or identical signature.80
What are the earliest and latest dated ostraca? To be sure, we have to use ostraca,
the date of which is practically certain and the answer still provisory. It is clear that we
have many ostraca dated from the end of Artaxerxes II’s reign with the years 43 (about
15), 44 (about 7), 45 (about 7) and 46 (about 28).81 One published ostracon (YARDENI
2016, 162) was read šnt 42 at the beginning of line 4, but according to Yardeni herself,
“the reading of the year number is uncertain.” Besides this one, she mentions another,
unfortunately still unpublished. Furthermore, a published ostracon (YARDENI 2016,
330) probably reads šnt 41 but, as well observed by Yardeni,82 the stroke for the unit
seems to be broken, and other units could well be in the small lacuna at the end of line

74
BASLEZ/BRIQUEL-CHATONNET 1991, 235–39.
75
PARKER/DUBBERSTEIN 1956, 19.
76
Ibid., 36.
77
This probably explains why Tom Boiy (2006, 48) does not even mention the first system.
78
Cf. PARKER/DUBBERSTEIN 1956, 19.
79
NAVEH/SHAKED 2012, 189. See also ibid., 206:
15 Sivan of the year 7 of Alexander corresponds to 8 June 324 BCE according to the Babylonian
reckoning associated with the accession of Alexander. The alternative reckoning for the reign of
Alexander, which starts with his Macedonian accession in 336 BCE, would give as date 15 June 330,
when Alexander has not yet conquered Bactria: this can hardly be relevant here.
80
Cf. the nuanced essays by Porten and Yardeni (TAO I, xxv), even though their dating according
to Alexander IV is problematic.
81
See lately YARDENI 2016, 656.
82
YARDENI 2016, 341, 656.
150 André Lemaire

1. Yardeni (2016, 656) also mentions two ostraca (ISAP 806 and 842) where “year 40
(of Artaxerxes II) seems to appear.”83
She further notes that:
These ostraca seem to be the earliest dated ones in the corpus of Idumean ostraca, except for a single
fragment which bears only the year number 33 (ISAP 205).84

This last possible earliest-dated ostracon is still unpublished, and it is impossible to be

sure that its date is certain, with such ostraca so difficult to decipher and often frag-
mentary. In short, we can say for sure that we have ostraca from year 40 of Artaxexes
II, i.e. from 365 BCE,85 but unpublished ostraca could be earlier: 372/371 or even
373/372.
As for the latest-dated ostracon, if we put aside the dating by Alexander that could
more probably be Alexander III, TAO I, xxxix mentions two ostraca (A111.1;
A300.1.47) dated “year 6 of Antigonus,” but only one of them contains the indication
of the day and month: “18 iv 6 = July 27, 312.” Only a fragment of this ostracon with-
out the date was first published but the reading of A111.1 is reasonably sure.86 Fur-
thermore, among the published ostraca, we have several dated “year 5 of Antigonus,”
and a date “year 6 of Antigonus” looks a priori very likely.
The main problem with identifying the latest ostracon comes from a fragmentary
ostracon that mentions “Ptolemy the king” (tlmys mlkʾ) without any indication of the
year of reign. This ostracon (A97.2) was published by Aḥituv and Yardeni.87 Its inter-
pretation is problematic. As well noted by Aḥituv and Yardeni,88 according to the
historiographical tradition, “it was only in 306 that Ptolemy claimed kingship follow-
ing his rival, Antigonus Monophtalmos,” and this ostracon is apparently not anterior to
the conquest of the country by Ptolemy in 302,89 which would leave a hiatus of at least
ten years without any dated ostracon. One may ask: is it really impossible that Ptolemy
could be called king in Idumea before 306, during the short periods when he was in
control of Southern Palestine, especially in 319–315 or 312 BCE?90 One wonders
whether one could not follow Lipiński’s interpretation:
The single ostracon dated from the time of Ptolemy I, without indication of the year, must refer to
Ptolemy’s intervention in Palestine, before his retreat in 312 B.C.91

Actually it could correspond to the role of Ptolemy after the battle of Gaza (autumn
312).92 By this time, Ptolemy had probably been recognized as pharaoh by the Egyp-
tians93 and as mentioned by Diodorus (XIX: 105, 4) for 311:

83
ISAP 806 = A9.1 = A168.1 and ISAP 842 = A107.1.
84
One may note that the date was given as “32” in AḤITUV/YARDENI 2004, 8.
85
See already TAO 3, 210.
86
LEMAIRE 2002, 238 = EPHʿAL/NAVEH 1996, 154.
87
AḤITUV/YARDENI 2004, 19–20: no. 13.
88
Ibid., 9.
89
Diodorus Siculus XX: 113, 1–2; SARTRE 2001, 107.
90
Diodorus Siculus XVIII: 43, 1–2; XIX: 57, 1–2; 80–86; SARTRE 2001, 102–103, 105; LEMAIRE
2015, 111.
91
LIPIŃSKI 2016, 118.
 Aramaic Ostraca From Idumea 151

[E]ach of those who had rule over nations or cities entertained hopes of royal power and held the
territory that had been placed under his authority as if it were a kingdom won by the spear.

Furthermore the two personal names mentioned in this ostracon, whby and ḥnzrw,
appear in EPHʿAL/NAVEH 1996, 56: 2 (=YARDENI 2016, 399) dated “year 3 of Antigo-
nus” (August 8, 314); LEMAIRE 1996, 38: 3 (!); ibid., 39: 3 (!); probably in LEMAIRE
2002, 87 dated “year 2 of Alexander”; and probably in ibid., 91,3–4 dated “year 5 of
Philip the king” (August 23, 319). Yet such an interpretation remains conjectural, and
we may only conclude that the latest clear date attested in these ostraca is apparently
July 27, 312; yet an ostracon mentioning Ptolemy could be dated as late as 302 or even
later.94
Though the dating of these ostraca remains approximate, could they be connected
with historical events in Idumea?95 The earliest ostraca (between 373/2 and 365 BCE)
are clearly dated during the second part of Artaxerxes II’s reign, i.e. when Egypt was
again independent. The earliest date could be connected with the Persian campaign
against Egypt in 373,96 under the direction of Pharnabazus and Iphicrates after a long
preparation.97 This invasion failed, and according to Diodorus (XV: 90, 2; 92), in
362/361, the new pharaoh Tachos planned to attack Persia in Syria. Unfortunately we
do not know much about this campaign or the Persian reaction.98
If the ostracon mentioning “Ptolemy the king” dates from 312 BCE, it would be
connected with the campaign of Ptolemy against Demetrius in 312 and the famous
battle of Gaza, implying that Ptolemy took control of Southern Palestine for a while.99
Yet this Ptolemaic control was short, since Ptolemy soon withdrew before the army of
Antigonus100 and let him organize a famous campaign from Idumea against the Naba-
taeans.101 If the ostracon mentioning King Ptolemy is later, it might be connected with
the final conquest of Palestine by Ptolemy in 302/1 BCE102 and the beginning of the
Ptolemaic period for a century.
Other dates might be meaningful. Thus, for instance, one may note that years 14
and 15 (of Artaxexes III) are well attested (some 21 texts for year 14); they correspond

92
The precise chronology of this period is much discussed: see, for example, WHEALEY 1998,
257–81; BOIY 2006.
93
WILL 1966, 75.
94
One might wonder whether this ostracon comes from Khirbet el-Qom or from Maresha. Both
places seem to present ostraca from the Early Hellenistic period and the names rather seem to connect
this ostracon with the main group (Khirbet el-Qom). For third-century ostraca from Khirbet el-Qom,
see GERATY 1972, 59 (ostraca 1–5).
95
For a résumé of the political history of the country, see TAL 2016, x–xxii.
96
VAN DER SOEK 1998, 251–52.
97
Diodorus Siculus XV: 41–43; SALMON 1985, 162; BRIANT 1996, 672–73.
98
BRIANT 1996, 683–84.
99
Diodorus XIX: 91, 1.
100
Diodorus XIX: 93, 6.
101
Diodorus XIX: 94, 1; 95, 2.
102
Diodorus XX: 113, 1–2; SARTRE 2001, 107.
152 André Lemaire

to 345/344 and 344/343 BCE and might be connected with the invasion of Egypt in
343.103

III.C. General Interpretation: Private Trade or Administration?

As said above, most of the ostraca found in official excavations were published by
Joseph Naveh and interpreted by him as connected with the Persian administration of
storehouses either as income (taxes) or as expenses, and it seems possible to add new
epigraphic arguments for this interpretation (supra). Yet, in 1996, in the introduction
to their editio princeps, Ephʿal and Naveh wrote:
Our ostraca do not contain any administrative or professional titles, and indicate nothing about state
or regional administration.104

Thus must we interpret these unprovenanced ostraca in the context of private trade or
in the context or regional administration?
Porten and Yardeni state:
We may contrast the terminology found in the Persian-period Elephantine papyri, where the imperial
presence is keenly felt. The storehouse or treasury, or whatever we call it, is designated ʾwṣr mlkʾ,
‘treasury of the king’ … or byt mlkʾ, ‘house of the king’ … while the large-size weight and capacity
denominations are the Persian karsh and ardab respectively. Tribute collected throughout the Persian
Empire would be denominated in standard Persian measures not in local measures. The contrast to
our ostraca could not be starker. There is no glimpse of a royal storehouse and the measure of capaci-
ty is not the Persian ardab but the native kor. It is clear that our chits are not reporting tax collec-
tion.105

Apparently, no positive interpretation followed this negative affirmation, since they

concluded:
The still unanswered question is what purpose these, and the hundreds more, commodity chits
served.106

Yet, a few years later, in 2009, Porten and Yardeni recognized:

Clearly, a well-honed bureaucratic system was at work here, the same to be found in the Aramaic
ostraca from Arad.107

Yardeni seems still more nuanced later and states:

Perhaps these ostraca were part of the royal accountancy, first the Persian and then the Hellenistic
authorities that rules the area.108

In 2016, Yardeni emphasized the role of bldlny “who gave the instruction, and may
have been an official of the Persian authorities.” She noted: “This may support the
assumption that these ostraca were part of the royal accountancy (first the Persian and

103
LEMAIRE 1999c, 74.
104
EPHʿAL/NAVEH 1996, 15.
105
PORTEN/YARDENI 2007a, 143. See also ibid., 154: “the deliveries were not tax payment.”
106
Ibid., 154.
107
PORTEN/YARDENI 2009, 149*.
108
YARDENI 2014, 41.
 Aramaic Ostraca From Idumea 153

then the Hellenistic).”109 Furthermore, about the “worker texts,” she proposed: “the
workers may have been supplied as labour tax.” With the publication and improved
reading of most of the ostraca, an evolution from a negative to a positive position for
the general interpretation of the Aramaic ostraca as connected with regional admin-
istration and tax collection seems clear enough.
Actually, from our first editio princeps in 1996110 and later on, in various studies,111
we already proposed the general interpretation of these ostraca as directly connected
with the Persian and then Hellenistic administration of the province of Idumea. What
are the main arguments in favour of Persian/Hellenistic administration?
1. The number of ostraca – more than 2,000 – is already an indication that it may not
be connected to a private archive.
2. As already recognized by Porten and Yardeni:
The relative paucity of letters – only 23 (G1.1.–5.1), compared to the 57 ostraca from Elephan-
tine112 a century earlier (TAD D7.1–57) – indicates that the find-spot of the Idumean ostraca
probably did not include private dwellings.113

3. The importance of the “storehouse of Maqqedah” in these ostraca seems to indicate

that, at least an important group of ostraca is apparently connected with the ac-
countancy of a local storehouse like the ones in Arad, Beersheba, and Tell el-
Jemmeh ostraca. Furthermore, this storehouse is called “the storehouse of
Makkedah,” not “the storehouse of PN.” That appellation could indicate its official
character.
4. Maqqedah seems to have been already an administrative center at the end of the
First Temple period. This is shown by Hebrew ostraca from around
Maqqedah/Khirbet el-Qom appearing on the antiquities market at the same time
and with the Aramaic ostraca.114 Most of them are still unpublished, but as noted
above, among the published ones, one mentions explicitly “Maqqedah.”
5. Among the published Aramaic ostraca, several words seem characteristic of an
official administration.
– ʾškr, “tax, tribute.” According to Yardeni herself:
[ʾškr seems] a key word explaining the payment of goods recorded in the texts of the corpus …
This word appears in about 4 or 5 texts in the corpus of the Idumean ostraca.115

Unfortunately this word was translated “product” in TAO II, 48: A14.3 while
Naveh and Ephʿal rightly translated it “tribute”116 and this translation fits much bet-

109
YARDENI 2016, XXIV.
110
LEMAIRE 1996, 141–42, 151–52.
111
Mainly LEMAIRE 2002, 224–30; IDEM 1999; IDEM 2004a; IDEM 2006c, 414–15; IDEM 2007a,
60–61; IDEM 2015, 111–17; IDEM 2017, 469–88.
112
This number does not take into account LOZACHMEUR 2006.
113
TAO I, xxi.
114
LEMAIRE 2006a.
115
YARDENI 2016, 623.
154 André Lemaire

ter the corresponding Hebrew117 and Akkadian118 word. It explicitly indicates the
use of the mentioned product. Actually, Yardeni rightly translated it again “trib-
ute.”119
– gbʾ/y, “(tax-)collector,” is apparently mentioned three times in the published os-
traca: EPHʿAL/NAVEH 1996, 187:2; 199:6(?); AḤITUV/YARDENI 2004, 116:2.
– mʿšr, “tithe,” is mentioned in a fragmentary ostracon: YARDENI 2016, 390.
– rbʿ, “quarter,” appears twice in EPHʿAL/NAVEH 1996, 189 and perhaps once in
LEMAIRE 2002, 129 in unclear context. Though this is uncertain, one may note that
this Aramaic word is probably used for a land-tax in Palmyrene inscriptions.120
– Two jar inscriptions (YARDENI 2016, 410 and 563) contain the word pqyd, “offi-
cial.”
– ptph, “the ration,” appears in EPHʿAL/NAVEH 1996, 201, 5´.
Now, if Porten and Yardeni (TAO II, xviii) could say that the rejection of an admin-
istrative interpretation of the ostraca did not throw light on their meaning,121 is the
interpretation in the context of Persian and Hellenistic administration throwing light
on their meaning and purpose?

III.D. Tentative Interpretation of the Various Categories of Aramaic Ostraca

TAO I, xx proposed to distinguish “ten categories” of Aramaic ostraca (1–9 below), we
may adopt this provisory classification, adding only one new category: the scribal
exercises, and putting aside for our purpose the last two categories “J. uncertain” and
“K. no text.”

III.D.1. Commodity Chits (1,162 Ostraca)

This category is the most numerous, and we only want to make here a few preliminary
remarks.
It is apparently in this main group that we have the mention of the “storehouse” and
of the “storehouse of Maqqedah.” This storehouse is generally preceded by the prepo-
sition l- but there are five cases, all probably of “year 18” (Sivan and Tammuz, maybe
by the same scribe?), when there is no preposition but instead the use of the verb hnʿl,
“brought in, imported,” and there are three cases where mskntʾ, “the storehouse,” is
preceded by mn ʿbwr, “from the grain.”122 The ostraca with hnʿl probably represent
entries to the storehouse, and the ostraca with storehouse preceded by a l- could also

116
EPHʿAL/NAVEH 1996, 98 and 168.
117
See CLINES 1993, 414: “payment, tribute.”
118
CAD I/J, 244, s.v. iškaru A, 4: “work assigned to be performed, (a kind of) tax (NA).”
119
YARDENI 2016, 242.
120
HOFTIJZER/JONGELING 1995, 1055; HILLERS/CUSSINI 1996, 386, 409–10.
121
“Though we have a good views of the trees, the meaning of the forest still eludes us.”
122
LEMAIRE 2002, 99; YARDENI 2016, 10; 255.
 Aramaic Ostraca From Idumea 155

be entries, while those with mn ʿbwr are, rather, withdrawals from the storehouse. The
use of hnʿl for entries to the storehouse is probably parallel to the use of the verbs
h/ʾyty (×31), “he brought,” hmṭʾ, “he brought, delivered” 123 ; hnḥt, “he brought
down”124; pqd, “deposited,” in other ostraca. Thus it seems that most of the “commodi-
ty chits” are entries to the storehouse, probably of Maqqedah, even if a few ones prob-
ably represent expenses from this same storehouse. They generally represent, therefore,
accountancy – entries and withdrawals – to and from this storehouse. Moreover, the
entries could well represent the amount of a land-tax in kind to supply the royal store-
house.
Like in the Hebrew Samaria ostraca, the problem with these chits is to determine
the meaning of the lamed. As in Hebrew, the Aramaic lamed has many nuances: In the
context of accountancy, it mainly indicates possession or attribution and can be trans-
lated “belonging to, to the account of”; while the direction/destination as a movement
is rather expressed by the preposition ʾl or ʿl. Thus, when a personal name is followed
by lbny/lbyt + PN, it apparently means that the person belongs to a group: “the sons of
PN” or “the house of PN.” This could also be expressed by a parallel expression mn
bny/byt + PN (for instance A1.1). At the same time, the name preceded by ʿl yd may be
only an intermediary that brought the product.
How to understand the phrase “PN l-PN”? This may mean “PN to the account of/in
the name of PN.” This interpretation seems to be confirmed by YARDENI 2016, 433
where PN l-PN (line 1) is parallel to PN l-h (line 3), probably indicating “PN for him-
self.”
As for the dates, some of the date formulae only consist of the day number, which
may indicate that “the records, which possibly were later copied on papyrus scrolls125
for the royal accountancy, were written daily and calculated at the end of each
month,”126 as was probably the practice with the Hebrew Arad ostraca.127

III.D.2. Payment Orders

About ten ostraca contain the imperative: hb, “give,” generally followed by l+PN (for
instance LEMAIRE 2002, 69, and YARDENI 2016, 54: 3). They could have been orders
that were kept after their execution to justify the withdrawals from the storehouse until
they were copied on a scroll after the end of the month. Actually, the Arad Hebrew
ostraca 1–15 and 17–18 were probably already used the same way.

III.D.3. Accounts
With the publication of the fourth volume of TAO we shall precisely know which os-
traca Porten and Yardeni include in this group; yet we may guess that a few ostraca
presenting a list of fields “followed by a quantity of grain and the mention of the name

123
EPHʿAL/NAVEH 1996, 26: 1.
124
LEMAIRE 2002, 288.
125
They could also be leather scrolls.
126
YARDENI 2016, 470.
127
LEMAIRE 1977, 230–31.
156 André Lemaire

of the owner”128 could be placed in this group. EPHʿAL/NAVEH 1996, 185–193, 195;
LEMAIRE 2002, 258 and perhaps 260 and 267 could be partial registers of fields with
their amount of land-tax either already paid or to be paid.
The title of at least two ostraca is explicitly dkrwn, “memorandum,”129 and one
notes that at the end of the best preserved one there is the addition/total (kll130) of all
the quantities mentioned before. This total also appears on several ostraca of this
group (EPHʿAL/NAVEH 1996, 188 = YARDENI 2016, 88; LEMAIRE 2002, 215, 298).
A strange enough ostracon (YARDENI 2016, 38) seem to present a “silver” account
with two amounts, one of “two M(aʿah)/obolus” and one of “r II,” 2 q(uarters), i.e. two
drachms or half a sheqel.
Another ostracon (EPHʿAL/NAVEH 1996, 184 = LEMAIRE 2002, 255) presents a list
of names followed also by “r II.” This can be compared to Arad ostracon 41 obverse
and reverse (above) and is probably a list of persons who paid (or have to pay) a poll-
tax of half a shekel or a didrachm (cf. Exodus 23:28 and above). In this context, one
may note that H. Gitler, O. Tal and P. van Alfen proposed to identify a group of crude
Athenian style coins as Idumean coins.131 Thus these silver, dome-shaped coins “might
well have been the silver money mentioned in several of the Edomite ostraca.” If that
is the case, the quarter of shekel (r) would have been about 3.85 grams.
Thus at least some of these accounts make sense as connected with the collection of
taxes (land-tax, poll-tax).

III.D.4. Workers Texts

This group is well specified by the use of the word pʿl, “worker,” often in plural. The
“workers” are very often connected with the mention of a clan (byt or bny + PN)132 and
are especially numerous between 25 Marcheshwan and 23 Kislev (about 31). Accord-
ing to B. Porten and A. Yardeni,
[I]t is clear that the clan was the primary dispatcher because in one case the name listing is “sons of
Qoṣi, Dikri” (ISAP 465 [no. 23]), and not the other way around, and in another one we have “sons of
Baalrim [PN]” (ISAP 1639).133

It seems to me that such names of “laborer(s)” make sense in the context of a labor tax,
a corvée, a well-known practice in the ancient Near East. Actually it is probably allud-
ed to in contemporary fourth-century Aramaic manuscripts (A2, A4, A5) from ancient
Bactria.134 The fact that the corvée was especially used during one month at the end of
autumn, i.e. during a quiet period from the point of view of agriculture, seems to make
sense.

128
LEMAIRE 2015, 114.
129
IDEM 2002, 267 and IDEM 2006c, 420–23, to be completed by PORTEN/YARDENI 2008b.
130
This word seems to appear at the last line of YARDENI 2016, 134 but it is “very badly preserved,
and its reading is uncertain” (Ibid., 151).
131
GITLER/TAL/VAN ALFEN 2007, 47.
132
PORTEN/YARDENI 2007b, 101.
133
PORTEN/YARDENI 2006, 474,
134
NABEH/SHAKED 2012, 80–85; 96–106.
 Aramaic Ostraca From Idumea 157

III.D.5. Names Lists

Several tens of ostraca present short or long list of names. This is a well-known cate-
gory in North-West Semitic epigraphy and generally interpreted in the context of civil
or military administration, even though it is generally difficult to specify the use of
each list. The names may be presented in one column135 or two columns.136 They are
generally not dated, which makes their precise interpretation still more difficult.
Sometimes there may be some indication that they are a group of men under the au-
thority (byd) of another one, as in YARDENI 2016, 380, where we have a group of 5
men byd qwslkn. Yardeni (2016, 391) proposed interpreting this ostracon as a “name
list, possibly of workers ‘in the hand of Qwslkn.’ ” That is a good possibility, but it
could also be a group of five soldiers under the order of a kind of caporal, as it is prob-
ably the case in a few Hebrew ostraca from the Negev. More generally, these lists of
names could also be tied to a kind of census preceding the practice of the corvée or of
the poll tax. Without other indications the interpretation of such lists137 remains very
conjectural.

III.D.6. Jar Inscriptions

This group is also well known in North-West Semitic epigraphy. If these ostraca are,
at least partially, connected with the administration of a storehouse, it is not surprising
to find about 88 jar inscriptions. The inscription is generally very short, indicating the
name of the owner of the jar, often preceded by a lamed, and eventually accompanied
by his patronym or title (see pqyd supra). Other indications are very rare: thus the
indication of the year (LEMAIRE 1996, 163, maybe for wine?)138 or of a quantity of
grain (LEMAIRE 2002, 359 if it is really a jar inscription).
A fragmentary jar inscription reads: ?]lmlk ks[p?, possibly to be translated: “Be-
longing to the king: sil[ver.” The presence of silver in a jar could be interpreted ac-
cording to Herodotus III, 96, 2:
The tribute is stored by the king in this fashion: he melts it down and pours it into earthen vessels:
when the vessel is full he breaks the earthenware away, and when he needs money coins as much as
will serve his purpose.139

III.D.7. Letters
The ostraca of this group do not seem numerous: about 23 ostraca, according to TAO I,
xx. Some of them are fragmentary (LEMAIRE 1996, 96; 97; 143; YARDENI 2016, 50–
51 140; 132; 313) or/and with an uncertain interpretation (LEMAIRE 1996, 98; 99; IDEM

135
For instance EPHʿAL/NAVEH 1996, 181; 182; LEMAIRE 1996, 77; IDEM 2002, 154–56; 158.
136
For instance EPHʿAL/NAVEH 1996, 175; 178; LEMAIRE 1996, 72–76; YARDENI 2016, 40; 45;
147.
137
For two lists of names that are probably scribal exercises, see LEMAIRE 2002, 365 and
YARDENI 2016, 408 infra.
138
See the parallel of Lachish Hebrew inscription 20: LEMAIRE 2004b, 2112–13.
139
IDEM 2015, 115.
140
= EPHʿAL/NAVEH 1996, 196–98.
158 André Lemaire

2002, 284; YARDENI 2016, 83141; 196). Actually, a few complete ostraca in this group
(EPHʿAL/NAVEH 1996, 199; YARDENI 2016, 84) do not seem to be real messages, since
they have no address at the beginning and seem to tell a story. Furthermore, one may
note the frequency of the conjunction hn, “if,” in this group (EPHʿAL/NAVEH 1996,
199; LEMAIRE 1996, 143; YARDENI 2016, 50–51; 83; 84; 313). This is a little strange.
Could they not, rather, be scribal exercises (see below)?

III.D.8. Land Descriptions

This group is important: about 100 ostraca with a characteristic vocabulary (ḥlq, krm,
zyt, kpt, ʾšl, ʾrq, rpyd, rqq, plg, ḥlt, ḥybl …), sometimes difficult to specify and trans-
late (EPHʿAL/NAVEH 1996, 13; LEMAIRE 2002, 133–56). One of the best exemplars
was published by Aḥituv (1999): it is a list of fields with their situation, their bounda-
ries (indication of the neighbouring fields) and the names of their owners. Such lists of
fields seem to be notes taken for a cadastral survey, and such a cadastral survey is
necessary before fixing the amount of a land-tax. Actually, such a cadastral survey is
known in Babylonia142 and was probably established when this region became a Per-
sian province. Such a land registry should include all the fields, even the ones that are
not required to pay land-tax, as may have been the case with temples, tombs, and
marshes. It might be the explanation for the already much discussed list of land parcels
in LEMAIRE 2002, 283 = YARDENI 2016, 107 since it mentions at least a temple of
ʿUzza and a temple of Yaho.143
These lists of land parcels bear no date but, even if a land registry needs to be regu-
larly revised, it is likely that most of these lists of land parcels are to be dated in the
first years after the creation of the province of Idumea.

III.D.9. Scribal Exercises

This category was not listed in TAO I, xx, yet Porten and Yardeni (ibid., xlvii–xlix, fig.
21–28) presented the pictures of 8 “scribal exercises” and commented on ibid., xviii:
What Lemaire recognized as a scribal exercise in his second volume (LEMAIRE 2002, 367 = M22 [fig.
28 below]) is clearly illustrative of a group of 20 such texts, eight of which are reproduced here …
The exercises themselves consist of strokes and circles … Identical pieces have been found among
the fifth-century B.C.E. Aramaic ostraca excavated at Elephantine.

Actually, I already noticed this type of scribal exercise in LEMAIRE 1996, 159–60 and
IDEM 2002, 367–77. Yet these are very elementary scribal exercises, designed to teach
the student how to hold the calamus and to make straight and round strokes. There are
also other more advanced scribal exercises, as shown by ostracon LEMAIRE 2002, 365,
where we have an abecedary at the top and two others at the bottom, with two lists of
names in between: those “who guaranteed silver” and “those who drank wine in Id-

141
YARDENI 2016, 86: “The text is too fragmentary to enable a sound interpretation.”
142
STOLPER 1976, 192–96; BAKER 2004, 60–61; JURSA 2011, 443.
143
LEMAIRE 2002, 283, 149–56; IDEM 2001, 1152–58; IDEM 2004c; IDEM 2004d; BECKING 2008,
49–54; LEMAIRE, 2015, 118; YARDENI 2016, 114–15.
 Aramaic Ostraca From Idumea 159

nah.”144 Abecedaries and lists of names are well known scribal exercises. The palaeog-
raphy of this ostracon is formal, and one could be tempted to date it into the fifth cen-
tury BCE. Yet its script could well be archaizing and thus the work of a (presumably
old) teacher. It can be compared with EPHʿAL/NAVEH 1996, 200 = YARDENI 2016, 408,
“a fragmentary list of names,” also with a short introduction including zy. Yardeni
(2016, 418) proposed with hesitation to date it “5th cent. (?) BCE” and noted that
Some of the names appear in a similar text (ISAP 1979= EPHʿAL/NAVEH 1996, 201), written by the
same hand, which is better preserved and is a list of people instructed to give the provisions of certain
servants.

Actually, these three ostraca (LEMAIRE 2002, 365, EPHʿAL/NAVEH 1996, 200 and 201)
might well be models of a teacher for scribe apprentices.
The presence of scribal exercises among these ostraca seems to reveal that there
was some kind of instruction for writing Aramaic taking place at Khirbet el-Qom. This
is not surprising: the Persian administration of the new province of Idumea needed to
have local Aramaic scribes, and there was probably a kind of Aramaic school in
Maqqedah, as there was in Elephantine (LEMAIRE 2014/2017).

IV. Concluding Remark

The Aramaic ostraca present much other information, as well as social, economic and
cultural problems,145 but without entering into details here, they can apparently make
sense in the context of the local administration of the Persian, and then Hellenistic,
province of Idumea.

V. Postscript

B. Porten/A. Yardeni, Textbook of Aramaic Ostraca from Idumea, Vol. 4, was pub-
lished on February 20, 2020, during the correction of the last proofs, too late to take its
content into account.

144
There is no Arabic name in these two lists. Idnāʾ is now a village about 3 km North-North-East
of Khirbet el-Qom/Makkedah and may be mentioned here because its wine was good.
145
See, for instance: ZADOK 1998; LEMAIRE 1999b; IDEM 2000; ZADOK 2000; LEMAIRE 2001;
EPHʿAL 2003; PORTEN/YARDENI 2003; IDEM 2004; LEMAIRE 2004a; NOTARIUS 2004; PORTEN 2005;
HELTZER 2006; LEMAIRE 2006c; PORTEN/YARDENI 2006; NOTARIUS 2006; KLONER/STERN 2007;
LEMAIRE 2007; STERN 2007; PORTEN/YARDENI 2007b; ISRAEL 2009; TSUKIMOTO/YAMAGASHI
2011; LANGLOIS 2012; LEMAIRE 2012; IDEM 2015, 98–122; PORTEN 2015; LANDGUT/LIPSCHITS
2017; LEMAIRE 2017; PORTEN/YARDENI 2017.
160 André Lemaire

Bibliography
AḤITUV, S. (1999): An Edomite Ostracon, in: Y. AVISHUR/R. DEUTSCH (eds.), Michael: Historical,
Epigraphical and Biblical Studies in Honor of Prof. Michael Heltzer, Tel Aviv-Jaffa, 33–38.
– (2008): Echoes from the Past: Hebrew and Cognate Inscriptions from the Biblical Period, Jerusa-
lem.
AḤITUV S./A. YARDENI (2004): Seventeen Aramaic Texts on Ostraca from Idumea, Maarav 11, 7–23.
ANSON, E. (2005): Idumaean Ostraca and Early Hellenistic Chronology, JAOS 125, 263–66.
AVI-YONAH, M. (1966): The Holy Land from the Persian to the Arab Conquests, Ann Arbor, MI.
BAKER, H.D. (2004): The Archive of the Nappaḫu Family, (AfO Beiheft 30), Vienna.
BASLEZ, M.F./F. BRIQUEL-CHATONNET (1991): Un exemple d’intégration phénicienne au monde
grec: Les Sidoniens au Pirée à la fin du IVe siècle, in: Atti del II Congresso Internazionale di Studi
Fenici e Punici, Roma, 9–14 novembre 1987, I, Rome, 229–40.
BECKING, B. (2008): Temples Across the Border and the Communal Boundaries within Yahwistic
Yehud, Transeuphratène 35, 38–54.
BOIY, T. (2006): Aspects chronologiques de la période de transition (350–300), in: P. BRIANT/
F. JOANNES (eds.), La transition entre l’empire achéménide et les royaumes hellénistiques, (Persi-
ka 9), Paris, 64–100.
BRIANT, P. (1996): Histoire de l’empire perse: De Cyrus à Alexandre, Paris.
CARREZ-MARATRAY, J.-Y. (2005): Psammétique le tyran: Pouvoir, usurpation et alliances en Médi-
terranée orientale au IVe siècle av. J.-C., Transeuphratène 30, 37–63.
COHEN, R. (1986): Ḥorvat Rogem, Excavations and Surveys in Israel 5, 91–92.
CLINES, D.J.A. (1993): The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew I, Sheffield.
COTTON, H./M. WÖRRLE (2007): Seleukos IV to Heliodoros: A New Dossier of Royal Correspond-
ence from Israel, ZPE 159, 191–205.
DEUTSCH, R./M. HELTZER (1995): New Epigraphic Evidence from the Biblical World, Tel Aviv-Jaffa.
DEVER, W.G. (1969–70): Iron Age Epigraphic Material from the Area of Khirbet el-Kôm, HUCA 40–
41, 139–204.
DORSEY, D.A. (1980): The Location of Biblical Makkedah, TA 7, 185–93.
EICHMANN, R. et al. (2006): Archaeology and Epigraphy at Tayma (Saudi Arabia), Arabian Archae-
ology and Epigraphy 17, 163–76.
EPHʿAL, I. (1997): Review of LEMAIRE 1996, IEJ 47, 290–93.
– (2003): The Origins of Idumaea, Qad 36/126, 77–79.
EPHʿAL, I./J. NAVEH (1996): Aramaic Ostraca of the Fourth Century BC from Idumaea, Jerusalem.
ESHEL, E. (2007a): Two Aramaic Ostraca from Mareshah, in: Y. LEVIN (ed.), A Time of Change:
Judah and Its Neighbours in the Persian and Early Hellenistic Periods, (LSTS 65), London/New
York, 171–78.
– (2007b): The Onomasticon of Mareshah in the Persian and Hellenistic Periods, in: O. LIPSHITS/
G.N. KNOPPERS/R. ALBERTZ (eds.), Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century BCE, Winona
Lake, IN, 145–56.
– (2010): Inscriptions in Hebrew, Aramaic and Phoenician Script, in: A. KLONER/E. ESHEL/
H.B. KORZAKOVA/G. FINKIELSZTEIN (eds.), Maresha Excavations Final Report III: Epigraphic
Finds from the 1989–2000 Seasons, (IAA Reports 45), Jerusalem, 35–88.
GERA, D. (2009): Olympiodoros, Heliodoros and the Temples of Koilē Syria and Phoinikē, ZPE 167,
125–55.
GERATY, L.T. (1972): Third Century B.C. Ostraca from Khirbet el-Kom, (Ph.D, thesis, Harvard
University), Cambridge, MA.
GIBSON, J.C.L. (1975): Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions II: Aramaic Inscriptions, Oxford.
GITLER, H./O. TAL/P. VAN ALFEN (2007): Silver Dome-Shaped Coins from Persian Period Southern
Palestine, INR 2, 47–62.
GOVRIN, Y. (1988–89): Naḥal Yattir Site, 1987, ESI 7–8, 142.
 Aramaic Ostraca From Idumea 161

HELTZER, M. (2006): The Galgūla Family in South Judah and the Local Sanctuaries, AoF 33, 164–67.
HENKELMAN, W.F.M. (2017): Imperial Signature and Imperial Paradigm: Achaemenid Administra-
tive Structure and System Across and Beyond the Iranian Plateau, in: B. JAOBS/W.F.M. HENKEL-
MAN/M.W. STOLPER (eds.), Die Verwaltung im Achämenidenreich/Administration in the Achae-
menid Empire, (Classica et Orientalia 17), Wiesbaden, 45–256.
HERZOG, Z./D. SAPPO (1995): Tel Sheva, ESI 14, 129–30.
HILLERS, D.R./E. CUSSINI (1996): Palmyrene Aramaic Texts, Baltimore, MD/London.
HOFTIJZER, J./K. JONGELING (1995): Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions II, Leiden.
ISRAEL, F. (2009): Miscellanea Idumea III: L’onomastica in Qos: gli ostraca dell’Idumea e un ag-
giornamento della lista, in: P. NEGRI SCAFA/S. VIAGGIO (eds.), Dallo Stirone al Tigri, dal Tevere
all’Eufrate: Studi in onore di Claudio Saporetti, Rome, 157–231.
JOANNES, F. (2006): La Babylonie méridionale, in: P. BRIANT/F. JOANNES (eds.), La transition entre
l’empire achéménide et les royaumes hellénistiques, (Persika 9), Paris, 101–35.
JURSA, M. (2011): Taxation and Service Obligations in Babylonia from Nebuchadnezzar to Darius
and the Evidence for Darius’ Tax-Reform, in: R. ROLLINGER et al. (eds.), Herodot und das Persi-
sche Weltreich/Herodotus and the Persian Empire, (Classica et Orientalia 3), Wiesbaden, 431–48.
KLINGBEIL, G.A. (1995): The Aramaic Ostracon from Lachish: A New Reading and Interpretation,
AUSS 33, 77–84.
KLONER, A./I. STERN (2007): Idumea in the Late Persian Period (Fourth Century BCE), in: O. LIP-
SHITS/G.N. KNOPPERS/R. ALBERTZ (eds.), Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century BCE,
Winona Lake, IN, 139–44.
KOCHAVI, M. (ed.) (1972): Judaea, Samaria and the Golan, Jerusalem.
LANDGUT, D./O. LIPSCHITS (2017): Dry Climate During the Early Persian Period and Its Impact on
the Establishment of Idumea, Transeuphratène 49, 135–62.
LANGLOIS, M. (2012): Un nouvel ostracon mentionnant la ville biblique de Maqqédah, Sem 54, 51–
63.
LEMAIRE, A. (1974): Un nouveau roi arabe de Qédar dans l’inscription de l’autel à encens de Lakish,
RB 80, 63–72.
– (1977): Inscriptions hébraïques I: Les ostraca, (LAPO 9), Paris.
– (1995): Les inscriptions araméennes anciennes de Teima, in: H. LOZACHMEUR (ed.), Présence
arabe dans le Croissant fertile avant l’Hégire, Paris, 59–72.
– (1996): Nouvelles inscriptions araméennes d’Idumée au Musée d’Israël, (Supplément à Tran-
seuphratène 3), Paris.
– (1997): Nouvelles données épigraphiques sur l’époque royale israélite, REJ 156, 456–58.
– (1999a): Review of DEUTSCH/HELTZER 1995, BO 56, 1999, cols. 172–77.
– (1999b): Der Beitrag idumäischer Ostraka zur Geschichte Palästinas im Übergang von der persi-
schen zur hellenistischen Zeit, ZDPV 115, 12–23.
– (1999c): Quatre nouveaux ostraca araméens d’Idumée, Transeuphratène 18, 71–74
– (2000): L’économie de l’Idumée d’après les nouveaux ostraca araméens, Transeuphratène 19,
131–43.
– (2001): Les religions du Sud de la Palestine au IVe siècle av. J.-C. d’après les ostraca araméens
d’Idumée, CRAI 2001, 1141–58.
– (2002): Nouvelles inscriptions araméennes d’Idumée, Tome II, (Supplément à Transeuphratène 9),
Paris.
– (2004a): Taxes et impôts dans le sud de la Palestine (IVe s. av. J.-C.), Transeuphratène 28, 133–42.
– (2004b): Hebrew Inscriptions. Section A: Ostraca and Incised Inscriptions, in: D. USSISHKIN (ed.),
The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973–94) IV, Tel Aviv, 2099–2132.
– (2004c): Nouveau temple de Yaho (IVe s. av. J.-C.), in: M. AUGUSTIN/H.M. NIEMANN (eds.),
‘Basel und Bibel’: Collected Communications to the XVIIIth Congress of the IOSOT, Basel 2001,
Frankfurt am Main, 265–73.
162 André Lemaire

– (2004d): Another Temple to the Israelite God: Aramaic Hoard Documents Life in Fourth Century
BC, BAR 30/4, 38–44, 60
– (2006a): Khirbet el-Qôm and Hebrew and Aramaic Epigraphy, in: S. GITIN/J.E. WRIGHT/J.P.
DESSEL (eds.), Confronting the Past: Archaeological and Historical Essays on Ancient Israel in
Honor of William G. Dever, Winona Lake, IN, 231–38.
– (2006b): La Transeuphratène en transition, in: P. BRIANT/F. JOANNÈS (eds.), La transition entre
l’empire achéménide et les royaumes hellénistiques, (Persika 9), Paris, 405–41.
– (2006c): New Aramaic Ostraca from Idumea and Their Historical Interpretation, in: O. LIPSCHITS/
M. OEMING (eds.), Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period, Winona Lake, IN, 414–56.
– (2007): Administration in Fourth-Century BCE Judah in Light of Epigraphy and Numismatics, in:
O. LIPSHITS/G.N. KNOPPERS/R. ALBERTZ (eds.), Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century
BCE, Winona Lake, IN, 53–74,
– (2010): Edom and the Edomites, in: A. LEMAIRE/B. HALPERN (eds.), The Books of Kings: Sources,
Composition, Historiography and Reception, (VTSup 129), Leiden/Boston, MA, 225–43.
– (2012): Trois nouveaux ostraca araméens d’Idumée, Sem 54, 65–70.
– (2014/2017): Aramaic Literacy and School in Elephantine, Maarav 21, 295–307.
– (2015): Levantine Epigraphy and History in the Achaemenid Period (539–332 BCE), (The
Schweich Lectures of the British Academy 2013), London/Oxford.
– (2017): The Idumaean Ostraca as Evidence of Local Imperial Administration, in: B. JAOBS/W.F.M.
HENKELMAN/M.W. STOLPER (eds.), Die Verwaltung im Achämenidenreich/Administration in the
Achaemenid Empire, (Classica et Orientalia 17), Wiesbaden, 469–88.
LEVIN, Y. (2007): The Southern Frontier of Jehud and the Creation of Idumea, in: Y. LEVIN (ed.), A
Time of Change: Judah and Its Neighbors in the Persian and Early Hellenistic Period, (LSTS 65),
London, 239–52.
– (2015): The Formation of Idumean Identity, Aram 27, 187–202.
LIPIŃSKI, E. (2016): Studies in Aramaic Inscriptions and Onomastics IV, (OLA 250), Leuven.
– (2018): Toponymes et gentilices bibliques face à l’histoire, (OLA 267), Leuven.
LOZACHMEUR, H. (2006): La collection Clermont-Ganneau: Ostraca, épigraphes sur jarre, étiquettes
sur bois, (Mémoires de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 35), Paris.
LOZACHMEUR. H./A. LEMAIRE (1996): Nouveaux ostraca araméens d’Idumée, (Collection Sh. Mous-
saieff), Sem 46, 123–32.
NAVEH, J. (1972): Two Aramaic Ostraca, in: B. UFFENHEIMER (ed.), Bible and Jewish History:
Studies in Bible and Jewish History Dedicated to the Memory of Jacob Liver, Tel Aviv, 184–89.
– (1973a): The Aramaic Ostraca, in: Y. AHARONI (ed.), Beer-Sheba I: Excavations at Tel Beer-
Sheba I, 1969–1971, Tel Aviv, 1973, 79–82.
– (1973b): PḤLṢ in a Recently Found Aramaic Ostracon, Leš 37, 270–74.
– (1979): The Aramaic Ostraca from Tel Beer Sheba (Seasons 1971–1976), TA 6, 182–98.
– (1981): The Aramaic Ostraca, in: Y. AHARONI, Arad Inscriptions, Jerusalem, 153–76.
– (1985): Published and Unpublished Aramaic Ostraca, Atiqot 17, 114–21.
– (1992): Aramaic Ostraca and Jar Inscriptions from Tell Jemmeh, Atiqot 21, 49–53.
– (1999): Aramaic Ostraca, in: I. BEIT-ARIEH (ed.), Tel ʿIra: A Stronghold in the Biblical Negev,
(Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series 15), Tel Aviv, 412–13.
NAVEH, J./S. SHAKED (2012): Aramaic Documents from Ancient Bactria From the Khalili Collec-
tions, London.
NOTARIUS, T. (2004): Šbrʾ/t: A New Agricultural Term in Imperial Aramaic, Orientalia et Classica
(Moscow) 3, 369–74.
– (2006): ʾaq(n) “wood” in the Aramaic Ostraca from Idumea: A Note on the Reflex of Proto-
Semitic /*ṣ/ in Imperial Aramaic, AS 4, 101–109.
OLDFATHER, C.H. (1963): Diodorus of Sicily VI: Books XIV–XV, 19, Cambridge, MA.
OREN, E.D. (1972): Tel Seraʿ (Tel esh-Shariʿa), IEJ 22, 167–68.
– (1973): Tel Seraʿ (Tel esh-Shariʿa), RB 80, 401–405.
 Aramaic Ostraca From Idumea 163

OREN, E./Y. YEKUTIELI/P. NAHSHONI/R. FEINSTEIN (1991): Tel Haror – After Six Seasons, Qad-
moniot 24, 2–19.
PARKER, R.A./W.H. DUBBERSTEIN (1956): Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C.–A.D. 75, (Brown Uni-
versities 19), Providence, RI.
PORTEN, B. (2005): Theophorous Names in Idumean Ostraca, in: M. MOR et al. (eds.), For Uriel:
Studies in the History of Israel in Antiquity Presented to Professor Uriel Rappaport, Jerusalem,
105*–30*.
– (2015): The Idumean Marketplace: Who Trades What and When in the Commodity Chits, in:
M. LUBETSKI/E. LUBETSKI (eds.), Recording New Epigraphic Evidence: Essays in Honor of Rob-
ert Deutsch, Jerusalem, 123–75.
PORTEN, B./A. YARDENI (1986–99): Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt, 4 vols.,
Jerusalem.
– (2003): In Preparation of a Corpus of Aramaic Ostraca from the Land of Israel: The House of
Yehokal, in: R. DEUTSCH (ed.), Shlomo: Studies in Epigraphy, Iconography, History and Archae-
ology in Honor of Shlomo Moussaieff, Tel Aviv-Jaffa, 207–23.
– (2004): On Problems of Identity and Chronology in the Idumean Ostraca, in: M. HELTZER/
M. MALUL (eds.), Teshûrôt LaAvishur: Studies in the Bible and the Ancient Near East in Hebrew
and Semitic Languages, Tel Aviv-Jaffa, 161*–83*.
– (2006): Social, Economic, and Onomastic Issues in the Aramaic Ostraca of the Fourth Century
B.C.E., in: O. LIPSCHITS/M. OEMING (eds.), Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period,
Winona Lake, IN, 457–88.
– (2007a): Makkedah and the Storehouse in the Idumean Ostraca, in: Y. LEVIN (ed.), A Time of
Change: Judah and Its Neighbors in the Persian and Early Hellenistic Period, (LSTS 65), London,
125–70.
– (2007b): The House of Baalrim in the Idumean Ostraca, in: M. LUBETSKI (ed.), New Seals and
Inscriptions, Hebrew, Idumean and Cuneiform, (Hebrew Bible Monographs 8), Sheffield, 99–147.
– (2008a): The Chronology of the Idumean Ostraca in the Decade or So After the Death of Alexan-
der the Great and Its Relevance for Historical Events, in: M. COGAN/D. KAHN (eds), Treasures on
Camels’ Humps: Historical and Literary Studies from the Ancient Near East Presented to Israel
Ephʿal, Jerusalem, 237–49.
– (2008b): Two Become One: A Unique Memorandum of Obligation, in: C. COHEN/V.A. HU-
ROWITZ/ B.J. SCHWARTZ/J. TIGAY (eds.), Birkat Shalom: Studies in the Bible, Ancient Near East-
ern Literature and Postbilbical Judaism Presented to Shalom M. Paul, Vol. 2, Winona Lake, IN,
733–51.
– (2009): Dating by Grouping in the Idumean Ostraca: Six Commodity Dossiers Dating to the Tran-
sition Years from Artaxerxes II to Artaxerxes III, in: H. GEVA/A. PARIS (eds.), Ephraim Stern
Volume, (ErIs 29), Jerusalem, 144*–83*.
– (2014): Textbook of Aramaic Ostraca from Idumea, Vol. I, Winona Lake, IN.
– (2016): Textbook of Aramaic Ostraca from Idumea, Vol. 2, Winona Lake, IN.
– (2017): An Additional Nine Idumean Ostraca, IEJ 67, 61–75.
– (2018): Textbook of Aramaic Ostraca from Idumea, Vol. 3, University Park, PA.
– (2020): Textbook of Aramaic Ostraca from Idumea, Vol. 4, University Park, PA.
PUECH, É. (2013): Une stèle funéraire araméenne de Tayma, LASBF 63, 339–42.
ROCHE, M.-J. (2013): Une stèle funéraire de Tayma, Transeuphratène 43, 39–48.
– (2014): Note sur une stèle funéraire féminine de Tayma, in: A. LEMAIRE (ed.), Phéniciens
d’Orient et d’Occident, Mélanges Josette Elayi, (Cahiers de l’Institut du Proche-Orient Ancien du
Collège de France 2), Paris, 199–203.
SALMON, P. (1985): Les relations entre la Perse et l’Égypte du VIe au IVe siècle av. J.-C., in:
E. LIPIŃSKI (ed.), The Land of Israel: Cross-Roads of Civilizations, Leuven, 147–68
SARTRE, M. 2001, D’Alexandre à Zénobie: Histoire du Levant antique: IVe siècle avant J.-C.–
IIIe siècle après J.-C., Paris.
164 André Lemaire

STEIN, P. (2014): Eine aramäischer Kudurru aus Tayma?, in: M. KREBERNIK/H. NEUMANN (eds.),
Babylonien und seine Nachbarn in vor- und spätbabylonischen Zeit: Wissenschaftliches Kolloqui-
um aus Anlass des 75. Geburtstag von Joachim Oelsner 2. und 3. März 2007, (AOAT 369), Müns-
ter, 219–45.
STERN, I. (2007): The Population of Persian Period Idumea According to the Ostraca: A Study of
Ethnic Boundaries and Ethnogenesis, in: Y. LEVIN (ed.), A Time of Change: Judah and Its Neigh-
bors in the Persian and Early Hellenistic Period, (LSTS 65), London, 205–38
STOLPER, M.W. (1976): The Genealogy of the Murašu Family, JCS 28, 189–200.
TAL, O. (2016): Idumea (Edom) in the Fourth Century BCE: Historical and Archaeological Introduc-
tion, in: A. YARDENI, The Jeselsohn Collection of Aramaic Ostraca from Idumea, Jerusalem, ix–
xix.
TAVERNIER, J. (2017): The Use of Languages on the Various Levels of Administration in the Achae-
menid Empire, in: B. JAOBS/W.F.M. HENKELMAN/M.W. STOLPER (eds.), Die Verwaltung im
Achämenidenreich/Administration in the Achaemenid Empire, (Classica et Orientalia 17), Wies-
baden, 337–412.
TSUKIMOTO, A./T. YAMAGASHI (2011): Idumean Ostraca in Japan, AJBI 37, 81–112.
TUFNELL, O. (1953): Lachish III, London.
VAINSTUB, D./P. FABIAN (2015): An Idumean Ostracon from Ḥorvat Naḥal Yattir, IEJ 65, 205–13.
VAN DER SPEK, R.J. (1998): The Chronology of the Wars of Artaxerxes II in the Babylonian Astro-
nomical Diairies, in: M. BROSIUS/A. KUHRT (eds.), Studies in Persian History: Essays in Memory
of David M. Lewis, (Achaemenid History 11), Leiden, 239–56.
VIAL, F. (ed.), (1977): Diodore de Sicile: Bibliothèque historique Livre XV, Paris.
WHEALEY, F.V. (1998): The Chronology of the Third Diadoch War, 315–311 B.C., Phoenix 52, 257–
281.
WILL, E. (1966): Histoire politique du monde hellénistique I, Nancy.
YARDENI, A. (2014): 2,000 Ancient Aramaic Business Scribbles, BAR 40/5, 40–42.
– (2015): An Aramaic Ostracon, in: I. BEIT-ARIEH/L. FREUD (eds.), Tel Malḥata: A Central City in
the Biblical Negev, Vol. II, Tel Aviv/Winona Lake, IN, 505–506.
– (2016): The Jeselsohn Collection of Aramaic Ostraca from Idumea, Jerusalem.
ZADOK, R. (1997): Antigonos Monophthalmos in Documents from Idumaea, N.A.B.U. 1997, 51: § 54.
– (1998): A Prosopography of Samaria and Edom/Idumea, UF 30, 781–828.
– (2000): On the Prosopography and Onomastics of Syria-Palestine and Adjacent Regions, UF 32,
599–674.
 Alexander of the Idumean Ostraca
Alexander III or Alexander IV?*

Andrew D. Gross

In the last few decades, a large corpus of Aramaic ostraca from fourth century BCE
Idumea has been slowly emerging as a fresh source of data on the crucial transition
period from Persian rule to the Hellenistic era. Even so, these inscribed ostraca, which
number almost two thousand, have mostly come to light through the antiquities market
and therefore without any archaeological context.1 As the vast majority of these ostra-
ca are undated, establishing their chronology has been a challenging task. The present
essay will consider one difficult question within this task. A vanishingly small number
of these ostraca are dated to the reign of Alexander the king (‫)אלכסנדר מלכא‬, and schol-
ars still disagree as to whether this Alexander is to be identified with Alexander the
Great (aka Alexander III) or his son Alexander IV.

I. Historical Background

To better define the overall context, it is useful to briefly outline some of the main
historical developments that occurred in the wake of Alexander the Great’s death in
323 BCE.2 Because Alexander III left no clear successor, the resulting power struggles
during the next dozen or so years erupted into the series of conflicts known as the
Wars of the Diadochi. Two possible successors were Alexander’s feeble-minded half-
brother Arrhidaeus and the as-yet-unborn Alexander IV, neither of whom was fit to
rule. The various factions among Alexander’s military leadership eventually put
Arrhidaeus on the throne – under the name Philip III – to reign as a figurehead, while
the general Perdiccas served as regent over the empire. Perdiccas would be assassinat-
ed only a few years later, and after a quick succession of other regents, Philip III
Arrhidaeus met a similar fate soon after that in 317 BCE. At the time of Philip III’s

*
I wish to express my deepest gratitude to the RIAB Minerva Center for graciously including me
in their third annual conference in Leipzig and in particular to Prof. Bezalel Porten for inviting me.
The experience was made especially meaningful by the hospitality of the Bruer, Cazes, and Gruszka
families. I also want to thank both Prof. Porten and Prof. André Lemaire for their helpful feedback.
All mistakes contained herein are my own.
1
For general background on these ostraca, see LEMAIRE 2015, 101–22 and his contribution in this
volume pp. 139–64. For editions of the ostraca, see PORTEN/YARDENI 2014, 2016, 2018.
2
For a concise discussion of this topic, see WHEATLEY 2009. See also Lemaire’s contribution, pp.
147–49.
166 Andrew D. Gross

death, Alexander IV was still a young child, and he would never rule in any meaning-
ful manner as he was still quite young when he also was eventually assassinated in 309
BCE. One important figure who emerged during these power struggles was the general
Antigonus I Monophthalmus (the One-Eyed). He was quite a formidable antagonist to
the factions aligned with Alexander IV and would take control over much of Asia
Minor, Syria, and northern Mesopotamia.
This corpus of Idumean ostraca stems from a broader time period, one that covers
roughly the latter two-thirds of the fourth century BCE. Within this corpus, as noted
above, only a small number of the ostraca bear dates, and even these mostly give only
the month and/or day. Among those that do give a regnal year, most do not specify the
king. Among the few dozen ostraca that do, the following kings are named: Artaxerxes,
Philip, Alexander, Antigonus, and Ptolemy. Of these, the total number of ostraca that
are explicitly dated to a regnal year of King Alexander is nine.3
Chart 1: List of Idumean Ostraca Dated to the Reign of Alexander

TAO ISAP Date Julian Date Alex III Julian Date Alex IV
A33.7 1535 ‫ אלכסנדר מלכא‬2 ‫ לסיון שנת‬6 ‫ב‬ 16 Jun 331 20 Jun 315
A101.3 1038 ‫ אלכסנדר מלכא‬2 ‫ לסיון שנת‬23 ‫ב‬ 6 Jul 331 10 Jul 315
A11.9 1254 ‫ אלכסנדר מלכא‬2 ‫ לתמוז שנת‬8 ‫ב‬ 18 Jul 331 21 Jul 315
A229.1 1039 ‫ ]אלכס[נדר מלכא‬2 ‫[ שנת‬ 331/30 315/44
A29.6 2412 ‫ אלכס}נ{דר‬3 ‫ לניסן שנת‬6 ‫ב‬ 8 Apr 330 10 Apr 314
A139.25 2491 ‫ אלכסנדר מלכא‬5 ‫ לסיון שנת‬25 ‫ב‬ 2 Jul 328 5 Jul 312
A280.76 1903 ‫ לכסלו ש]נת ?[ אלכסנדר מלכא‬5 ‫ב‬ 6 Dec 328 10 Dec 3127
A80.2 2470 ‫ אלכסנדר מלכא‬5 ‫ לשבט שנת‬20 ‫ב‬ 19 Feb 327 22 Feb 311
A3.39 1338 ‫ אלכסנדר מלכא‬5 ‫ לשבט שנת‬20 ‫ב‬ 19 Feb 327 22 Feb 311

Chart 1 lists all nine ostraca along with (1) the document numbers assigned by the
editors of the Textbook of Aramaic Ostraca from Idumea (TAO),8 (2) the acquisition
numbers assigned by the Institute for the Study of Aramaic Papyri (ISAP), (3) the
dates recorded thereon, and (4) their Julian calendar equivalents for both Alexander III
(the Great) and Alexander IV.9 The dates recorded in these ostraca use Babylonian
month names, and converting them to Julian calendar dates is not a simple task. For

3
ISAP 1252 (A101.2) mentions a toponym that also is attested in ISAP 1535 (A33.7), 1038
(A101.3), and 1039 (A229.1), and partly on this basis, Porten and Yardeni (2018, 194) date this
ostracon to the summer of Alexander Year 2. For further discussion of this toponym, see POR-
TEN/YARDENI 2016, 84–85.
4
Porten and Yardeni (2018, 393) suggest reconstructing the month as Sivan.
5
For this registration number, see PORTEN/YARDENI 2018, 287. Table 5 of IDEM 2014 registers it
A141.2.
6
Porten and Yardeni had previously registered this ostracon as A300.1.49.
7
Porten and Yardeni (2018, 427) suggest reconstructing the year as 5. The italics indicate the
highly tentative nature of this suggestion.
8
= PORTEN/YARDENI 2014; IDEM 2016; IDEM 2018.
9
The editio princeps for most of these ostraca can be found in publications such as
EPHʿAL/NAVEH 1996 and LEMAIRE 1996, 2002. Nonetheless, the TAO and ISAP numbers are the
most convenient way to refer to these texts, and the TAO editions include comprehensive information
of previous publications.
 Alexander of the Idumean Ostraca 167

reasons that will be discussed below, it is assumed that Alexander III’s regnal years
begin with his conquest of the Levant in 332 BCE.

II. Titulature

Can the titulature used in these ostraca help us distinguish which King Alexander is
being referred to? This is possible in the contemporaneous Babylonian cuneiform
evidence, which has several indicators that allow one to distinguish between the two
Alexanders, but it is not clear that any of them would be applicable to the Idumean
context.10 First, there are patronymics. If the text refers to “Alexander, son of Alexan-
der” or “Alexander, son of ditto,” then clearly Alexander IV is meant. The name Alex-
ander, however, was not always written with a patronymic. Second, there was a stand-
ard cuneiform orthography for the name Alexander (a-lek-sa-an-dar), and as far as can
be determined, Alexander IV was written only with this standard spelling. Where vari-
ant spellings are attested (e.g., a-lek-sa-an-dar-ri-is), these likely refer to Alexander
III. Finally, the scribes sometimes refer to Alexander III by the Achaemenid royal title
LUGAL KUR.KUR, “king of the lands,” while consistently using the simpler title LUGAL
“king” for Alexander IV. This latter title is also used sometimes for Alexander III, and
so the titulature alone is diagnostic only for the texts that have the longer title. The
inscriptions on the Idumean ostraca, however, are much terser than the Babylonian
cuneiform documents and not disposed to extra verbiage. Would we expect the scribes
to have somehow differentiated Alexander IV from his father, the great emperor? Or
would the terse nature of the Idumean materials have precluded any such distinction?
We can do little more than speculate here.

III. Babylonian Regnal Years: Alexander III

For more useful analogues in the Babylonian cuneiform evidence, let us turn to the
regnal years by which these documents are dated. In the ostraca, the regnal years are
mostly clustered around Years 2 and 5, and most of the discussion related to the issue
at hand concerns whether any Babylonian documents were dated to these early regnal
years for either Alexander III or Alexander IV.
Most of the Babylonian cuneiform evidence reckons Alexander III Year 1 as the
year when he ascended to the throne of Macedon (336 BCE) and not when he dis-
placed Darius III, his Persian predecessor, as king of Babylon (330 BCE).11 This is
borne out by the fact that all of the Babylonian legal and administrative documents
from his reign that have been recovered are dated to Alexander III Years 7–13, with

10
For more details, see BOIY 2007, 22–27.
11
There is one fragmentary document (BM 87241) that dates to Alexander III’s accession year,
and it appears to date to the year he assumed the Babylonian throne. For an edition and discussion of
this text, see BOIY 2002.
168 Andrew D. Gross

none dated to his first six regnal years.12 This distribution does not appear to result
from the accidents of archaeological discovery. Rather, we can conclude that when
Alexander conquered Babylon and assumed its kingship in 330 BCE, Babylonian
scribes backdated his first six regnal years and began officially dating documents to
Alexander III Year 7. Outside of these legal and administrative documents, there is
also evidence for a less common system that reckons Alexander III Year 1 from 330
BCE. This system can be found in two Babylonian astronomical texts known as the
Saros Canon13 and the Solar Saros.14 Rather than computing his regnal years as Alex-
ander III Years 7–13, these texts simply number them as 1–7.
If we assume that the Idumean scribes used the more common Babylonian system
for reckoning Alexander III’s regnal years in their legal and administrative documents,
that would seem to preclude dating our ostraca to the reign of Alexander III.15 In his
second year on the throne of Macedon, Alexander the Great was still years away from
conquering Egypt and the Levant. We could perhaps account for the ostraca dated to
Alexander Year 5, since he had conquered the Levant in 332 BCE, a couple years
before conquering Babylon (330 BCE). Even if that were the case and the Idumean
scribes had started dating documents in Alexander III Year 5, that would not explain
the ostraca dated to Alexander Years 2–3.

IV. Did Idumea Have Its Own Dating System?

According to A. Lemaire, the system used in Idumea for reckoning Alexander III’s
regnal years was in fact independent of the Babylonian one. Lemaire has consistently
asserted that our ostraca come from the reign of Alexander III and not Alexander IV,
and he argues that the Idumean scribes reckoned Alexander III Year 1 to be the year
when he conquered the Levant (332 BCE). In support of his view, he adduces two
examples from the eastern Mediterranean where Alexander III’s regnal years were
reckoned by a system independent of the one used in Babylonia. The first comes from
Egypt, where Alexander III’s regnal years began when he assumed the title of Pharaoh
in 332 BCE.16 As Lemaire notes, the Egyptian system parallels the one he proposes in
Idumea only with regard to regnal years. The Idumean dating formulas still follow the
Babylonian calendar for month names and other details and not the Egyptian one. The
second example comes from the Phoenician city of Sidon, where it has been argued
that the Sidonians began a new era of year reckoning with Alexander III’s conquest of
the Levant.17 A key piece of evidence for this argument is KAI 60, an eight-line bi-

12
See the chart in IDEM 2007, 24.
13
BM 34597. For an edition of this text, see AABOE et al. 1991, 12–22.
14
BM 36754. For an edition of this text, see ibid., 24–31.
15
This is the conclusion of Ephʿal and Naveh (1996, 17 n. 8). In his 2012 edition of Aramaic doc-
umentary material from Bactria, however, Naveh assumes that the texts dated to Alexander follow the
less common system, see NAVEH/SHAKED 2012, 189, 193.
16
LEMAIRE 1996, 44.
17
The general argument is laid out in BASLEZ/BRIQUEL-CHATONNET 1991, 235–39.
 Alexander of the Idumean Ostraca 169

lingual Phoenician-Greek inscription from Piraeus whose first line refers to “year 14
of the people of Sidon” (‫ לעם צדן‬14 ‫)שת‬. Numismatic evidence from Sidon also seems
compatible with such a system.18
Setting aside the question as to whether the era referred to in the Sidonian inscrip-
tion began with Alexander the Great,19 the Sidonian example does not form a perfect
analogy with the Idumean dating system. Instead of a computation of regnal years, the
Sidonian system appears to be more of a proclamation of independence that uses Al-
exander III’s conquest of the region as a benchmark. While the Idumean evidence
explicitly recognizes Macedonian sovereignty by naming the Persian and Macedonian
kings in their date formulas, the Sidonian inscription does not even name the Sidonian
ruler. Lemaire may ultimately be correct that different regions reckoned Alexander
III’s regnal years in different ways, but the Sidonian analogy has its limitations.

V. Babylonian Regnal Years: Alexander IV

Having seen the difficulties in aligning the Babylonian and Idumean evidence with
Alexander III’s regnal years, let us now turn to Alexander IV. For many years, schol-
ars believed that the Babylonian reckoning of Alexander IV’s regnal years presented
the same problems that we saw with those of Alexander III in that the Babylonian
materials only seemed to acknowledge Alexander IV Years 6–11, and not Years 1–5.
This is borne out in two works of Babylonian historiography, the Uruk King List
and the Hellenistic Royal Chronicle. The former work covers the mid-seventh century
to the mid-third century BCE, listing every Babylonian king and the number of years
he reigned.20 Lines 3–6 of the tablet’s verso list the following kings (and the number of
years they reigned) in succession: Alexander III (7),21 Philip (6), Antigonus (6), and
Seleucus (31). The text thus notably elides Alexander IV’s reign entirely. The second
historiographical work, the Hellenistic Royal Chronicle, is much more fragmentary
and thereby presents more problems of interpretation.22 The extant portion of the text
begins in the reign of Philip III Arrhidaeus and continues through that of Antiochus IV.
The first five lines mention in succession: Alexander, Philip brother of Alexander,
Antigonus the general, and Alexander son of Alexander. Little information about the
length of their reigns survives, with the exception of a cryptic reference to “six years”
next to Alexander IV’s name. Besides noting that Antiochus was a general, the text

18
BASLEZ/BRIQUEL-CHATONNET 1991, 236–37. See also the discussion in NEWELL 1916, 7–38
and BOIY 2006, 67–69.
19
Other dates that have been suggested for this era include the beginning of the Ptolemaic period
in the first quarter of the 3rd century BCE and the end of the Seleucid period in the last quarter of the
2nd century BCE. For further discussion, see BASLEZ/BRIQUEL-CHATONNET 1991, 236–39.
20
IM 65066. For the editio princeps of the text, see VAN DIJK/MAYER 1980 no. 88. For a more re-
cent edition by J. Lendering, see https://www.livius.org/sources/content/uruk-king-list/.
21
It is assumed this refers to Alexander III because he comes after Darius and before Philip.
22
BM 35603. The text, first published in SACHS/WISEMAN 1954, is sometimes referred to as the
Babylonian King List of the Hellenistic Period. For a convenient edition of the text, see GLASSNER
2004, 134–35.
170 Andrew D. Gross

also says that during his rule, “there was no king in the country.”23 Finally, lines 6–7
note that Seleucus I ruled for twenty-five years, which is six years less than in the
Uruk King List. Even with the difficulties of interpretation here, the general consensus
is that the “six years” mentioned in the Hellenistic Royal Chronicle are Alexander
Years 6–11, with Alexander IV Years 1–5 having been back-dated to the years of
Antigonus’ rule.24 In the Uruk King List, Alexander IV Years 6–11 have been reck-
oned as part of Seleucus’ regnal years.
The two astronomical texts mentioned above, the Saros Canon and the Solar Saros,
mirror what we see in the two historiographical texts. Without going into all the details,
we can simply say the Saros Canon goes directly from Antigonus to Seleucus and, like
the Uruk King List, omits Alexander IV altogether. The Solar Saros text only begins
referring to Alexander IV’s regnal years with Year 6, similar to the Hellenistic Royal
Chronicle.
The picture becomes more complicated when we consider the dating formulas on
cuneiform administrative and legal tablets. Congruent with the evidence described
above, we have plenty that are dated to Alexander IV Years 6–11, but almost none
from Years 1–5. The first outlier appeared in 1968, when D.A. Kennedy published CT
49, 13, a fragmentary ration tablet from the Esagila temple in Babylon.25 The text
mentions Alexander in its first line and concludes with a date formula referring to his
second year (MU.2.KÁM). Commentators attempted to explain away this seemingly
anomalous text by either rereading the year as a sloppily written Year 11 26 or a scribal
error for Year 12 27 or by suggesting that the reference to Alexander was not connected
to the date of the text.28 In 1997, however, M. Jursa published 1982.A.1853, another
ration list from the Esagila archive that confirmed the date on CT 49, 13.29 Jursa’s text
dates to Alexander IV Year 9 and includes some of the same personnel mentioned in
CT 49, 13. In both texts, each ration allotment notes how many children the recipient
has, and when one compares the overlapping personnel in each text, one finds that
these recipients consistently have more children in Jursa’s text than they had in CT 49,
13. Therefore, CT 49, 13 must be the earlier of the two documents and should not be
redated to Alexander IV Year 11 or 12.30
In addition to CT 49, 13, there are possibly two other texts that date to Alexander
IV Year 1. For the first, BM 78948, a ration text from Sippar, there had been some
initial questions about the reading of the date formula. No date was noted in its entry
in the British Museum catalogue,31 and A. Lemaire suggested in 1996 that it needed

23
Obv 3´: LUGAL ina KUR NU TUK.
24
E. Grzybek (1992, 191–92) alternatively interprets the “six years” as referring to the length of
Antigonus’ reign, but this seems less likely (see BOIY 2000, 116 n. 10).
25
BM 16925. KENNEDY 1968, Plate 3.
26
OELSNER 1974, 131 n. 8.
27
IDEM 1971, 162.
28
VAN DER SPEK 1992, 246.
29
JURSA 1997, 130–33 no. 51. This tablet comes from the collection of the Birmingham Museum
and Art Gallery.
30
For further discussion, see BOIY 1998.
31
LEICHTY et al. 1988, 177.
 Alexander of the Idumean Ostraca 171

collation.32 Since then, however, at least two separate collations have confirmed the
date.33 For the second tablet, CT 49, 27, the line breaks away in the middle of the date
formula, and so we cannot be completely certain about its date.34
Finally, one other text, AION Sup. 77, 87, appears to be dated to Alexander IV
Year 4.35 The relevant lines are somewhat damaged, but there is enough preserved to
see that the scribe used a double-dating formula. That is, he cited the regnal year ac-
cording to two different systems, noting that they were equivalent. In this case, the text
says that “Year 4” of an unmentioned king is equivalent to “[Year …]” (here the text
is damaged) of Antigonus the General. The text’s editor, M.W. Stolper, argues that
Year 4 belongs to Alexander IV and that this would have been equivalent to Antigonus
Year 5.36
To recap, the cuneiform historiographic and astronomical texts had led scholars to
believe that when Alexander IV’s sovereignty over Babylon was initially recognized,
the Babylonian scribes began dating documents to Alexander IV Year 6 and had back-
dated his five regnal years. The evidence from the legal and administrative documents
seemed to support this, but more recent publications have shown us that there is clear
evidence to the contrary.37

VI. The Problem of Overlapping Regnal Years

Linking the Alexander ostraca to the reign of Alexander IV creates an issue with over-
lapping regnal years. When one lays out all the data on an absolute timeline (see Chart
2), the regnal years cited in the date formulas shift back and forth between Alexander
and Antigonus on multiple occasions. In the face of a fluid and dynamic political situa-
tion, was scribal practice also reacting in an equally dynamic manner? In other words,
how quickly did scribes begin altering their date formulas once their region fell under
the control of a different hegemon?
Let us first lay out all the available data. Porten and Yardeni identify forty-three os-
traca that can be dated according to the regnal years of Macedonian rulers. Of these,
only thirty-one explicitly mention or preserve the name of the Macedonian ruler (Phil-
ip, Alexander, Antigonus, and in one case, Ptolemy). For the others, they have estab-
lished the date by epigraphic and/or prosopographic analysis. Of these thirty-one,
seven do not preserve (or only partially preserve) the regnal year.38 Porten and Yardeni
have reconstructed the regnal year in these seven cases, mostly by matching them
epigraphically to dated ostraca written by the same scribe. I have included them in

32
LEMAIRE 1996, 43 n. 150.
33
See JURSA 1997, 133 n. 22 and ASSAR 2003, 185 n. 12.
34
BM 16927. ASSAR 2003, 185 n. 12.
35
BM 109974. For an edition of this text, see STOLPER 1993, 88–89.
36
STOLPER 1993, 88–89. See also the discussion in BOIY 2000, 120.
37
On the possible motives of the scribes, see STOLPER 1993, 89.
38
ISAP 1003 (A213.1), 468 (A290.1.13), 1919 (A114.2), 227 (A300.1.48), 1658 (A5.20), 1059
(A2.46), 1903 (A300.1.47).
172 Andrew D. Gross

Chart 2 as their inclusion or exclusion does not materially affect the present analysis.
Excluding the one ostracon dated to Ptolemy, this chart lists the remaining thirty ostra-
ca dating to the reigns of Philip, Alexander, and Antigonus.

Chart 2: Chronology of Idumean Ostraca Mentioning Macedonian Rulers According to PORTEN/

YARDENI 2014

TAO ISAP PORTEN/YARDENI 2014 Julian Date

A213.1 1003 Phil 3.iv.2/339 3 Jul 322 / 21 Jul 321
A20.9 1635 Phil 20.ix.3 3 Jan 320
A5.18 1889 Phil 2.xii.3 14 Mar 320
A150.1 2476 Phil 17.xii.3 29 Mar 320
A245.1 1255 Phil 27.v.5 23 Aug 319
A47.3 1890 Phil 12.ix.7 11 Dec 317
A33.7 1535 Alex IV 6.iii.2 20 Jun 315
A101.3 1038 Alex IV 26.iii.2 10 Jul 315
A33.8 1546 Artig40 7.iv.3 20 Jul 315
A11.9 1254 Alex IV 8.iv.2 21 Jul 315
A229.1 1039 Alex IV [ ].[ ].2 315/4
A13.14 1855 Antig 25.iv.3 7 Aug 315
A290.1.1341 468 Antig 25.iv.[3]42 7 Aug [315]
A50.3 1278 Antig ?.iv.3 Jul/Aug 315
A31.10 1539 Antig 7.v.3 19 Aug 315
A114.2 1919 Antig 19.«5».[3] 31 Aug 315
A3.38 1464 Antig [ ].[ ].3 43 315/4
A2.43 212 Antig 28.v.3 9 Sep 315
A300.1.48 227 Antig 20.[ ].[3] 315/314
A29.6 2412 Alex IV 6.i.3 10 Apr 314
A63.6 1900 Antig 18.iv.5 9 Jul 313
A5.20 1658 Antig 21.iv.4[+1]44 12 Jul 313
A2.45 2510 Antig 2.viii.5 18 Nov 313
A2.46 1059 Antig 2.viii.[5] 18 Nov 313
A139.2 2491 Alex IV 25.iii.5 5 Jul 312
A111.1 1439+639 Antig 18.iv.6 27 Jul 312
A300.1.47 772 Antig [ ].[ ].6 312
A280.7 1903 Alex IV 5.ix.[5] 10 Dec 312
A80.2 2470 Alex IV 20.xi.5 22 Feb 311
A3.39 1338 Alex IV 20.xi.5 22 Feb 311

39
For the number of years, only one stroke is visible, but according to PORTEN/YARDENI 2018,
380, there were originally at least one or two more strokes.
40
The actual spelling on the ostracon is ‫ארתגנס‬.
41
Porten and Yardeni had previously registered this ostracon as A262.1.
42
Porten and Yardeni (2018, 444) reconstruct the year based on epigraphic and prosopographic
analysis.
43
Porten and Yardeni (2014, 172) reconstruct the month as either Tammuz or Ab based on epi-
graphic and prosopographic analysis.
44
On the reconstruction of the year, see ibid., 246.
 Alexander of the Idumean Ostraca 173

What was the more likely scenario: that scribes continued through inertia to recognize
a king’s sovereignty well after the political realities had shifted; or that scribes assidu-
ously updated their date formulas to reflect the political realities on the ground? As
evidence of the former, we can look to a potential analogue in the cuneiform evidence.
After Philip III, Alexander IV’s uncle and predecessor, was assassinated in the winter
of 317/6 BCE, Babylonian scribes continued dating documents by his regnal years for
almost up to a full year.45 For those favoring the latter scenario, the most striking jux-
taposition we see here is ISAP 1546 (A33.8) and 1254 (A11.9) – assuming that this is
Alexander IV – in which we would have two documents composed on consecutive
days (20 Jul 315 and 21 Jul 315, respectively) that were dated to two separate rulers
(Antigonus and Alexander IV, respectively). The two situations here are slightly dif-
ferent. After Philip had died, it was uncertain who would be his successor, whereas
with Antigonus and Alexander IV, it was merely a question of who had the advantage
during a period of the Wars of the Diadochi when sovereignty over Palestine switched
hands on multiple occasions.
Let us consider this latter struggle in more detail. Our only narrative source here is
the work of the first-century BCE Greek historian Diodorus Siculus. Drawing upon
Diodorus’ accounts and the dates from the ostraca laid out in Chart 2, Porten and
Yardeni offer a scenario in which the ostraca provide a window to the shifting fortunes
of Antigonus, Alexander IV, and the various forces allied with them. It should be not-
ed from the outset that the exact dates and chronology of these conflicts has been a
difficult matter of scholarly dispute for quite some time.46 In the course of laying out
their historical scenario, Porten and Yardeni observe that their proposal could poten-
tially resolve some of these disputes.47 In sum, the scenario revolves around two major
conflicts. In the first, Antigonus expanded his territory beyond Mesopotamia into Syria
and eventually pushed south to capture Joppa and Gaza.48 This campaign would ac-
count for the shift in summer 315 BCE from Alexander IV Year 2 (e.g., ISAP 1535
[A33.7], 1038 [A101.3], 1254 [A11.9]) to Antigonus Year 3 (e.g., ISAP 1546 [A33.8],
1855 [A13.14], 1539 [A31.10]). The second conflict occurred a few years later at the
Battle of Gaza, where Ptolemy, Alexander IV’s satrap in Egypt, routed the forces un-
der the command of Demetrius, Antigonus’ son, and drove them north.49 Porten and
Yardeni suggest that this battle had occurred in spring 312 BCE, which would account
for the shift back to Alexander IV sometime during his fifth regnal year (cf. ISAP
2491 [A139.2], 1338 [A3.39]). Demetrius would later carry out a counterattack that
resulted in the capture of Ptolemy’s general Cilles. According to Diodorus, when An-
tigonus himself reinforced his son’s forces, Ptolemy deemed it more prudent to aban-
don his territorial gains in the Levant and retreat back to Egypt.50 On this last devel-

45
STOLPER 1993, 80. BOIY 2000, 118.
46
For more discussion, see WHEATLEY 1998; BOSWORTH 2002, 225–29; BOIY 2007, 111–29.
47
Some of these observations had been raised earlier in WHEATLEY 2003, 274 and BOIY 2006,
73–74.
48
Diodorus XIX:57–59.
49
Diodorus XIX:80–86.
50
Diodorus XIX:93.
174 Andrew D. Gross

opment, the evidence from the ostraca is less clear. At the time that Porten and
Yardeni had published their scenario, they had tentatively dated some ostraca to An-
tigonus Years 7–8, which would have shown sovereignty returning to Antigonus in
summer 311 BCE, but they have since changed their dating of these ostraca signifi-
cantly.51
Assuming that the Idumean scribes assiduously followed these changes in sover-
eignty and incorporated them in their date formulas, Porten and Yardeni present a
historical reconstruction with much to commend it. That being said, there are some
difficulties in the data they present. The first difficulty lies with ISAP 2412 [A29.6],
which Porten and Yardeni themselves readily admit “requires special attention.” 52 This
ostracon dates to 6 Nisan of Alexander Year 3, which for Alexander IV would be 10
Apr 314 BCE. Diodorus gives no mention or even hint that the forces allied with Al-
exander IV had regained control of Palestine during this time. Porten and Yardeni
propose a scenario to account for this, but they concede that it is ultimately rather
speculative. Another difficulty arises from the fact that between 2008, when they pub-
lished their historical scenario, and 2014, Porten and Yardeni revised their readings
and reconstructions for some of the ostraca. ISAP 639 is a damaged ostracon that pre-
serves the day and month (18 Tammuz) of its date formula but only part of the year. In
reconstructing the year, Porten and Yardeni had originally suggested multiple possibil-
ities: Antigonus Year 3 (31 Jul 315), Antigonus Year 4 (22 Jul 314), or Antigonus
Year 5 (9 Jul 313), all of which would have been during the period when the Levant
was firmly under Antigonus’ control. By 2014, however, Porten and Yardeni had dis-
covered that ISAP 639 joined to ISAP 1439, which thereby allowed them to restore its
date formula with certainty: Antigonus Year 6 (27 July 312 BCE).53 This problematiz-
es their dating of the Battle of Gaza to spring 312. That dating had been partly based
on ISAP 2491 (A139.2; 5 Jul 312) as well as ISAP 2470 (A80.2) and 1338 (A3.39; 22
Feb 311), all of which are dated to Alexander Year 5. Because they attest a return to
Alexander’s sovereignty, they reason that the victory over Demetrius must have oc-
curred before these ostraca were inscribed. The new dating for ISAP 639+1439
(A111.1), however, indicates that Antigonus’ sovereignty was still recognized in
summer 312 BCE after ISAP 2491 (A139.2) was written. Redating the Battle of Gaza
to fall 312 would do little to clarify the data.
Finally, we should also take note of E. Anson’s proposal regarding the dating of
Antigonus’ regnal years. Just as Lemaire argues that Alexander III’s regnal years were
computed differently in Idumea from how they were computed in Babylonia, Anson
suggests that the same was true with Antigonus. Rather than dating Antigonus Year 1
to his arrival in Babylon (317/6 BCE), Anson argues that his Year 1, according to the
computation reflected in the ostraca, was reckoned to be when he established sover-
eignty over the Levant, which Anson dates to 314 BCE. He thereby redates Antigonus

51
ISAP 114 (A2.13) and 1225 (A2.14) were redated about forty years earlier (PORTEN/YARDENI
2014, 92–93). For ISAP 1654 (A99.1), they had offered two alternative dates, Philip Year 8 and
Antigonus Year 8, but have since opted for the former.
52
IDEM 2008, 245.
53
For their edition of this ostracon, see IDEM 2018, 219.
 Alexander of the Idumean Ostraca 175

Year 3 and Year 5 to 312/1 BCE and 310/9 BCE, respectively.54 This proposal is not
meant to deal with the issue of overlapping regnal years, because Anson agrees with
Lemaire that the King Alexander referred to in the ostraca is Alexander III. Boiy finds
Anson’s proposal “unlikely,” arguing that the data work better – for both Alexander
and Antigonus – if we assume that the same computation of regnal years was used in
both Mesopotamia and the Levant.55

VII. Prosopographical Connection?

Besides the dates, the next best source of information is prospographical analysis.
Drawing upon the names attested in the ostraca, the case for linking Alexander IV to
the ostraca seems to have some support in what Porten and Yardeni refer to as the
Haggagu Dossier.56 They link these eight ostraca together because they each mention
the payments of one Haggagu son of Baalsamak.57 Not all of these ostraca have their
dates preserved or even had dates originally. Two mention the names of Macedonian
kings in their respective date formulas and are listed in Chart 2 above (ISAP 1535
[A33.7] and 1546 [A33.8]). For the other ostraca in this dossier, the editors establish
their Julian dates through epigraphic analysis and other contextual clues.

Chart 3: The Haggagu Dossier

TAO ISAP Payer Date Formula Julian Date

A33.1 2582 ]‫חגגו‬ unpreserved 362/361 BCE
A33.2 103 ‫חגגו‬ 5.iii.9 16 Dec 356
A33.3 1544 ‫חגגו בר בעלסמך‬ undated 355-354?
A33.4 1541 ‫חגגו‬ 19.iv (no year)
A33.5 1555 ‫חגגו‬ undated 316?
A33.6 1530 ‫חגו בר בעלסמך‬ 6.iv.8 (Philip III) 30 Jun 316
A33.7 1535 ‫חגגו בר בעלסמך‬ 6.iii.2 Alexander 20 Jun 315
A33.8 1546 ‫חגגו‬ 7.iv.3 Antigonus 20 Jul 315

According to Porten and Yardeni’s epigraphic analysis, the same scribe wrote ISAP
1530 (A33.6) and 1535 (A33.7), leading them to date ISAP 1530 (A33.6) to Philip
Year 8.58 Assuming that ISAP 1530 (A33.6), 1535 (A33.7), and 1546 (A33.8) all refer
to the same person, it could link the Alexander named in ISAP 1535 (A33.7) to Alex-
ander IV. Three ostraca in this dossier, however, are dated by Porten and Yardeni to a
period roughly forty years before the others. Porten and Yardeni suggest that the Hag-

54
ANSON 2005, 265–66.
55
BOIY 2007, 91.
56
Porten and Yardeni group the ostraca into “personal dossiers”, in which they collect all the ma-
terial that bears the same personal name, and “commodity dossiers”, in which they collect all the
documents pertaining to a particular agricultural product, by-product, or container (see POR-
TEN/YARDENI 2016, xiii for further discussion).
57
For editions of these ostraca, see PORTEN/YARDENI 2016, 217–25.
58
Ibid., 223–24. They also attribute ISAP 2497 (A15.18) to the same scribe (2016, 67).
176 Andrew D. Gross

gagu (son of Baalsamak) mentioned in these older ostraca could be the grandfather of
the Haggagu in the later ostraca, but they also do not rule out the possibility that the
same Haggagu had been active over several decades.59 There are several suggestive
parallels between these texts and others (such as a figure named Ani son of Baalsamak
mentioned in another ostracon60) that could assist us in establishing an absolute date
for these texts, but these parallels ultimately remain somewhat speculative. While the
activities of this Haggagu may provide a good argument for linking ISAP 1535
(A33.7) to Alexander IV, we cannot rule out the possibility that Haggagu son of
Baalsamak was active during the time of Alexander III.

VIII. Conclusions

The present dispute does not allow for easy answers. In identifying the ostraca’s Alex-
ander with Alexander the Great, Lemaire is required to propose that Mesopotamia and
the Levant, while using the same calendar, had separate computations for reckoning
Alexander III’s regnal years. Porten and Yardeni opt for the younger Alexander and
carefully reconstruct a historical narrative that marshals paleography, prosopography,
and historical analysis. Occam’s razor, however, may be too much for this reconstruc-
tion, as one could solve many of its problems by simply opting for the elder Alexander.
In my opinion, the most compelling argument is as follows: since the Idumean corpus
includes explicit mentions of Alexander’s Persian predecessor(s) Artaxerxes61 and his
successors Phillip III and Antigonus, how likely would it be that no text in this corpus
referred to Alexander the Great, who did, after all, rule the area for almost a decade?62
As noted above, both the Uruk King List and the Saros Canon were part of a scribal
tradition that seemingly tried to write Alexander IV out of history. With the Idumean
ostraca, we of course are dealing more with the fates and fortunes of historical preser-
vation than conscious efforts to erase someone from the historical record. Even so, it
seems unlikely that the great conqueror Alexander III would be vanquished by either
of them.

Bibliography
AABOE, A. et al. (1991): Saros Cycle Dates and Related Babylonian Astronomical Texts, (Transac-
tions of the American Philosophical Society 81/6), Philadelphia, PA.
ANSON, E. (2005): Idumaean Ostraca and Early Hellenistic Chronology, Journal of the American
Oriental Society 125, 263–66.
ASSAR, G.R.F. (2003): Parthian Calendars at Babylon and Seleucia on the Tigris, Iran 41, 171–91.

59
See their discussion on 2016, 220.
60
ISAP 1553 (A37.7). For more discussion of these parallels, see PORTEN/YARDENI 2016, 249–50.
61
E.g., ISAP 1813 (A7.26).
62
Both ANSON 2005, 264 and LEMAIRE 2015, 110 raise this point. Porten and Yardeni remark on
it (2008, 248; 2014, xix), but clearly do not find it compelling.
 Alexander of the Idumean Ostraca 177

BASLEZ, M.-F./F. BRIQUEL CHATONNET (1991): Un exemple d’intégration phénicienne au monde

grec : les Sidoniens au Pirée à la fin du IVe siècle, in: E. ACQUARO (ed.), Atti del II Congresso In-
ternazionale di Studi Fenici e Punici (Roma, 9–14 Novembre 1987), (Collezione di studi fenici 30),
Rome, 1:229–40.
BOIY, T. (1998): Dating in Early Hellenistic Babylonia: Evidence on the Basis of CT 49 13,
1982.A.1853 and HSM 1893.5.6, Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires 1998/4, 131–32.
– (2000): Dating Methods During the Early Hellenistic Period, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 52,
115–21.
– (2002): The “Accession Year” in the Late Achaemenid and Early Hellenistic Period, in: C.
WUNSCH (ed.), Mining the Archives: Festschrift for Christopher Walker on the Occasion of His
60th Birthday, (Babylonische Archive 1), Dresden, 25–33.
– (2006): Aspects chronologiques de la période de transition (350–300), in: P. BRIANT/F. JOANNÈS
(eds), La Transition entre l’empire achéménide et les royaumes hellénistique (v. 350–300), (Persi-
ka 9) Paris, 37–100.
– (2007): Between High and Low: A Chronology of the Early Hellenistic Period, (Oikumene: Stu-
dien zur antiken Weltgeschichte 5), Frankfurt am Main.
BOSWORTH, A.B. (2002): The Legacy of Alexander: Politics, Warfare, and Propaganda Under the
Successors, Oxford.
VAN DIJK, J.J.A./W.R. MAYER (1980): Texte aus dem Rēš-Heiligtum in Uruk-Warka, (Baghdader
Mitteilungen Beiheft 2), Berlin.
EPHʿAL, I./J. NAVEH (1996): Aramaic Ostraca of the Fourth Century BC from Idumaea, Jerusalem.
GLASSNER, J.-J. (2004): Mesopotamian Chronicles, (Writings from the Ancient World 19), Atlanta,
GA.
GRZYBEK, E. (1992): Zu einer babylonischen Königsliste aus der hellenistischen Zeit (Keilschrifttafel
BM 35603), Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 41, 190–204.
JOANNÈS, F. (1979–80): Les Successeurs d’Alexandre le Grand en Babylonie, Anatolica 7, 99–115.
JURSA, M. (1997): Neu- und spätbabylonische Texte aus den Sammlungen der Birmingham Museums
and Art Gallery, Iraq 59, 97–174.
KENNEDY, D.A. (1968): Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum, Part XLIX:
Late-Babylonian Economic Texts, London.
LEICHTY, E./J.J. FINKELSTEIN/C.B.F. WALKER (1988): Catalogue of the Babylonian Tablets in the
British Museum VIII: Tablets from Sippar 3, London.
LEMAIRE, A. (1996): Nouvelles inscriptions araméennes d’Idumée au Musée d’Israel, (Supplément à
Transeuphratène 3), Paris.
– (2002): Nouvelles inscriptions araméennes d’Idumée / 2. Collections Moussaieff, Jeselsohn, Welch
et divers, (Supplément à Transeuphratène 9), Paris.
– (2006): New Aramaic Ostraca from Idumea and Their Historical Interpretation, in: O. LIP-
SCHITZ/M. OEMING (eds.), Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period, Winona Lake, IN, 413–
56.
– (2015): Levantine Epigraphy and History in the Achaemenid Period (539–332 BCE), (The
Schweich Lectures of the British Academy 2013), Oxford.
NAVEH, J./S. SHAKED (2012): Aramaic Documents from Ancient Bactria (Fourth Century BCE) from
the Khalili Collections, London.
NEWELL, E.T. (1916): The Dated Alexander Coinage of Sidon and Ake, (YOSR 2), New Haven, CT.
OELSNER, J. (1971): Review of KENNEDY 1968, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie, 61, 159–70
– (1974): Keilschriftliche Beiträge zur politischen Geschichte Babyloniens in den ersten Jahrzehnten
der griechischen Herrschaft (331–305 v. u. Z.), Altorientalische Forschungen 1, 129–51.
PORTEN, B./A. YARDENI (2006): Social, Economic and Onomastic Issues in the Aramaic Ostraca of
the Fourth Century B.C.E., in: O. LIPSCHITZ/M. OEMING (eds.), Judah and the Judeans in the Per-
sian Period, Winona Lake, IN, 457–88.
178 Andrew D. Gross

– (2008): The Chronology of the Idumean Ostraca in the Decade or So After the Death of Alexander
the Great and Its Relevance for Historical Events, in: M. COGAN/D. KAHN, (eds.), Treasures on
Camels’ Humps: Historical and Literary Studies from the Ancient Near East Presented to Israel
Ephʿal, Jerusalem, 237–48.
– (2014): Textbook of Aramaic Ostraca from Idumea, Vol. 1: Dossiers 1–10: 401 Commodity Chits,
Winona Lake, IN.
– (2016): Textbook of Aramaic Ostraca from Idumea, Vol. 2: Dossiers 11–50: 263 Commodity Chits,
Winona Lake, IN.
– (2018): Textbook of Aramaic Ostraca from Idumea, Vol. 3: Dossiers 51–300.6: 488 Commodity
Chits, Winona Lake, IN.
SACHS, A./D.J. WISEMAN (1954): A Babylonian King List of the Hellenistic Period, Iraq 16, 202–11.
VAN DER SPEK, R.J. (1992): Nippur, Sippar, and Larsa in the Hellenistic Period, in: M. DEJONG-ELLIS
(ed.), Nippur at the Centennial: Papers Read at the 35e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale,
Philadelphia 1988, (Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund 14), Philadelphia,
PA, 235–60.
STOLPER, M.W. (1993): Late Achaemenid, Early Macedonian and Early Seleucid Records of Deposit
and Related Texts, (Annali dell’Istituto Orientale di Napoli Supplemento 77), Naples.
WHEATLEY, P.V. (1998): The Chronology of the Third Diadoch War, 315–311 B.C., Phoenix 52,
257–81.
– (2003): The Year 22 Tetradrachms of Sidon and the Date of the Battle of Gaza, Zeitschrift für
Papyrologie und Epigraphik 144, 268–76.
– (2009): The Diadochi, or Successors to Alexander, in: W. HECKEL/L.A. TRITLE (eds.), Alexander
the Great: A New History, Oxford, 52–68.
 On the Documentary Framework, Terminology,
and Onomasticon of the Ostraca from Idumea*
Ran Zadok

Preamble

This is an interim analytic report of the documentation concerning Idumea. The 1,786
unprovenanced ostraca, which are inscribed, and the material from controlled excava-
tions mostly from Mareshah would bring the number to approximately 2,000 (so far).1
This paper is about the unprovenanced ostraca. Since their time-span is not very long,
namely from the of end of the Achaemenid period to the Ptolemaic period (the dated
ostraca cover over 60 years, viz. between 365 and sometime after 302 BCE2; material
from the beginning of the Seleucid period is confined to that which was unearthed in

* Abbreviations (mostly of editions of cuneiform texts) are as in the A.L. OPPENHEIM et al. (eds.),
The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, Chicago/Glückstadt,
1956–2010, (=CAD) unless otherwise indicated. AAC = Arabian names in Aramaic and cuneiform
texts; AC = Amorite and Canaanite comparanda; AGL= Arabian names in Greek and Latin texts; AI
= Archaeology Institute; Am. = Amorite; Aram. = Aramaic; CA = Classical Arabic; Camb. = Camby-
ses; CPA = Christian Palestinian Aramaic; Dad. = Dadanitic; dim. = diminutive; Eth. = Ethiopian;
GC = genitive compound; Gch = ostraca in the possession of Gil Chaya; GD = ostraca in the posses-
sion of Gil Davidovitz; Had. = Hadramitic; Has. = Hasaitic; Hism. = Hismaic; HW = ostraca in the
possession of Haim Weissman; IA = Institute of Archaeology; IAA = Israel Antiquities Authority;
impf. = imperfect; ISAP = Institute for the Study of Aramaic Papyri; JPA = Jewish Palestinian Ara-
maic; JTS, JTX = ostraca in the possession of the Jewish Theological Seminary; Lih. = Lihyanic; M =
ostraca in the possession of Mousaieff; MHeb. = Middle Hebrew; Min.= Minaic; Nab. = Nabatean;
Nbk. = Nebuchadnezzar; Nbn. = Nabonidus; NQ = Texts from Najrān and Qaryat al-Fāw (they stem
from speakers of North-Arabian but with South-Arabian linguistic interference); NS = nominal sen-
tence; OG = ostraca in the possession of Oded Golan; OSyr. = Old Syriac; OT = Old Testament; P =
predicate; Pal. = Palestinian; Palm. = Palmyrene; pf. = perfect; PNA = RADNER, R. (ed.), The Proso-
pography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, Vol. 1, Helsinki 1998–99; BAKER, H.D. (ed.), IDEM, Vol. 2,
2000–2001; and Vol. 3, 2002–11; Qat. = Qatabanic; Rabb. = Rabbinic (MHeb. and varieties of Jewish
Aram.); RD = ostraca in the possession of Robert Deutsch; S = subject; Sab. = Sabaic; Saf. = Safaitic;
sh = shekel(s); SM = ostraca in the possession of Shlomo Mousaieff; Taym. = Taymanitic; Tham. =
Thamudic; VS = verbal sentence; WSem. = West Semitic; YR = ostraca in the possession of Yigal
Ronen; ↑↓ = see above and below resp.; ~ = identical form; ° = letter of uncertain reading. Due to the
limited space the references to the ostraca are kept at a minimum. The months in Roman numerals are
the Babylonian. I should like to thank the Trustees of the British Museum for permission to publish
the BM tablets below and Prof. B. Porten for his constant encouragement.
1
See PORTEN/YARDENI 2014, xvi–xx. For the material unearthed in Mareshah see provisionally
ESHEL 2010.
2
See LEMAIRE 2015, 101–11. See Also Lemaire’s contribution in the present volume pp. 139–64.
180 Ran Zadok

Mareshah), they offer a relatively compact coverage of a segment of Lower Idumea

which was basically around Makkedah. This corpus is quite significant as it is the
largest one from pre-modern Palestine. However, due to the fact that it entirely con-
sists of numerous administrative records and few letter orders (mostly damaged and
laconic) which have minimal context, a definitive prosopography is an impossible
task.3 Functionally, most individuals fall into three general categories, namely pay-
ers/deliverers, payees/recipients, and agents (intermediaries). As is demonstrated by
Notarius (2018), most of them have no filiations; at best they can be linked, but not
necessarily related to clans. Those who belonged to clans appear as PN1 br surname, in
which case br is not a physical son, but a descendant.
The sub-satrapy of Idumea emerged sometime after 400 BCE (possibly between
387 and 365). Its creation was triggered by the Achaemenid loss of Egypt in that year.4
Following their practice in other regions, the Achaemenid rulers used existing tradi-
tional structures in order to exploit and tax the kin-based population of Idumea.5 Con-
trary to (sub-)satrapies with urban centres, where the temples served the taxation pur-
poses of the Achaemenids (including the Jerusalem temple 6), there is no evidence that
taxation was channelled through the only existing temple which is recorded in Idumea
(that of Uzza). This temple (byt ʿzʾ) is mentioned in a cadastral record (YARDENI 2016,
JA 107 = ISAP 1283), where microtoponyms referring to nine locales are enumerated:
(a) 1The mound which is7 below (b) the temple of Uzza 2and (below) the ruin (or pre-
cinct, ḥyb°lʾ) of (c) the Yhw temple; (d) 3(the plot of) Z° b° d° n° b° w°; (e) The tere-
binth’s terrace (rpydʾ); (f) 4(the area) outside (the plot of) M°š°k°w°; (g) the tomb
(kpr) of Glgwl; (h) 5the marsh which is near the tomb (presumably g); and (i) 6the
tomb of Ynqm.
Since the mound, which is an elevated locale, was situated below the temples, it is
clear that they – as expected – were located at a high point. If – and only if – ḥyb°lʾ
denotes “ruin,” it may be surmised that it refers to a pre-exilic, if not a pre-Josian Ju-
dean temple and that the Idumean newcomers built their temple of Uzza on the same
sacred precinct next to the ruined Judean temple sometime during the Babylonian or
Achaemenid rule. Lemaire (2004, 137) is of the opinion that these locales were ex-
empted from taxes. Becking (2008) assumes that it refers to an active Yhw temple,
like other such temples which existed outside Jerusalem. Following Lemaire’s cau-
tious remark (2002, 223; cf. IDEM 2015, 118–19), Becking is of the opinion that this
temple was located in Makkedah. This is plausible also in view of the fact that Yhw
and his cult are mentioned and expected in pre-exilic Hebrew inscriptions from Hirbit

3
See PORTEN/YARDENI 2014, xxi. The preliminary attempt at a prosopography and ethnic charac-
terization of STERN 2007 is partial and based on an inaccurate ethno-linguistic typology.
4
See LEMAIRE 2015, 101 (cf. already DE GEUS 1979–80, passim, esp. 62–63).
5
For a Sabean analogy see NOTARIUS 2018, 43.
6
See SCHAPPER 1995.
7
For this segmentation as well as that of (f) see LIPIŃSKI 2016, 119, but his reading and interpre-
tation of lines 3, 5–6 are unacceptable.
 On the Documentary Framework 181

il-kōm (very probably Makkedah8). A precondition for the existence of an active Yhw
temple in Idumea was its location outside the jurisdiction of the Jews’ high priest, i.e.
outside the sub-satrapy of Yhwd. Becking (2008, 52) draws attention to the fact that a
temple of Qaws is not recorded in the numerous ostraca from Idumea.9 It should be
remembered that the worship of Uzza was spread across tribal borders, whereas Qaws
was worshipped mainly, if not exclusively, by the Edomites/Idumeans. Since Qaws
was their tribal god, he must have been connected with sites of the Idumean traditional
ancestral cult, notably Mamre (where an altar with the name of Qaws incised in Greek
was found) and possibly Adoraim,10 the capital of Upper Idumea. His temple (an open-
air one is not excluded) should be sought in Upper Idumea, which is not covered by
the abundant documentation from Mareshah and Makkedah in Lower Idumea.
The numerous anthroponyms from late-Achaemenid and early Hellenistic Lower
Idumea are contained in administrative records, which are firmly embedded in what
can be dubbed the early Aramaic bookkeeping tradition. This tradition encapsulates
the practices that the Aramean scribes inherited and adopted from the successive three
empires, namely the Neo-Assyrian (especially its latest, Sargonid stage), Neo-
Babylonian, and Achaemenid. This can be demonstrated by the adoption of Akkadian
terminology and formats by the Aramean scribes who were either directly employed
by the successive imperial administrations or were active in extra-palatial sectors un-
der the rule of these empires. The same applies to legal documents (deeds), of which
there is so far only one example related to this corpus, viz. the marriage contract from
Mareshah whose framework is firmly embedded in the Akkadian, specifically Babylo-
nian, tradition like the deeds of the papyri from Wadi Dālyi.11 The marriage contract is
not devoid of Demotic influence as it was drafted shortly after the end of the Ptolemaic
rule in the region.12

I. Preliminary Notes on the Types, Terminology, and Contents

I.A. On Certain Terms

The storehouse, notably of Makkedah, is called msknt13 /maskant/, a loanword origi-
nating from Akkadian maškattu, more specifically from Neo-Assyrian in view of the

8
See, e.g., LEMAIRE 1977b.
9
Lemaire (2001, 1158; 2002, 223) cautiously suggests that the terrace of the terebinth (the sacred
tree par excellence) hints at a high place of Qaws.
10
On the altar see the preliminary note of Magen (1991, 55; cf. LEMAIRE 2002, 222–23). Mamre
with Terebinthos (the sacred tree, MHeb. byt *ʾlnym) is the focus of the traditions concerning the
Israelite ancestors, like nearby Hebron which was originally the centre of the Kenizzites who were
related both to the Edomites and the Judeans. A late tradition about the death and burial of Esau, the
Edomites’ ancestor, in Adoraim is preserved in the Book of Jubilees (see KUGEL 2012, 176 with n.
313).
11
Cf. LEMAIRE 2015, 79.
12
See ESHEL 2010, 72–76 ad 66.
13
See YARDENI 2016, 641–42.
182 Ran Zadok

sibilant.14 By the way, maškattu with the meaning “storehouse” is recorded only in
Babylonian – since MB where it occurs once and is more common in NB/LB15 – but
never in Neo-Assyrian. Likewise, bābu with the meaning “entry, installment” is rec-
orded only in Neo- and Late Babylonian (e.g., šanû bābu, “second item, allotment”16).
It stands to reason msknh belongs to an earlier level of Akkadian loanwords in Arama-
ic than qšt, “bow-land,”17 which does not predate the Achaemenid period. Aram. mqṣr
/maqṣar/ is the same as Neo-Babylonian makṣaru (with Akkadian dissimilation of
emphatics) “a bundle of straw.”18
Some verbless chits have the sequence PN, commodity, date, ltrʿn (/tarrāʿīn/, “to
the gatekeepers,” presumably of the storehouse19). This may become clearer in view of
the frequent occurrence of bāb kalakki, “the gate of the storehouse,” as the place of
delivery.20 It may be surmised that the gatekeepers here are those of the storehouse. As
such, they may be considered royal officials. Evidence for palatial property is vague
and implicit. A horse ranch is followed by PN (rkšt Q°w°s°k°h°l°; ~ Gr°pʾ; ~ Ḥnzrw:
PORTEN/YARDENI 2014, 431: A9.34; IDEM 2016, A47.3; IDEM 2018, A245.1).21 The
same applies to prds, “royal garden,” (~ Qwsʾ, ISAP 1964). Were they royal officials?
The scribe (sprʾ) Šby is mentioned in a letter order.22 Other scribes are mentioned
without indicating their title, viz. Qwsytʿ ktb (“wrote”) and Zbdʾdh ~ (POR-
TEN/YARDENI 2014, 379, 398). Their mention may explain the lack of a sealing sign,
but PORTEN/YARDENI 2016, A 17.8 has Ntynʾ ktb followed by the sign.
The groups of workers (pʿln) are aptly compared by Lemaire (2015, 116) with the
corvée workmen (urāšu) in Babylonia. It can be surmised that they were employed in
state projects like construction of fortifications and roads in and around Idumea,23
which constituted a borderland as well as in the royal garden and horse ranch. The
heads of groups of workers are at least once associated with a clan.24 Their function
might have resembled that of the raʾīs or sarkāl, “head of the work,” (in Levantine and
Iraqi Arabic respectively), i.e. foreman of a work gang who supplies the workforce.25
These foremen supplied workmen belonging to their own clans; again, the Achaeme-
nids and their successors relied on existing local structures and organizations and ex-
ploited them.

14
See LEMAIRE 2002, 209. The pl. (ʿry) msknwt is extant in the OT (see EPHʿAL/NAVEH 1996, 15),
namely in source J and the Deuteronomistic History (> Chronicles).
15
Cf. CAD M/1, 375–76, s.v. maškattu 2.
16
Cf. HACKL in JURSA 2010, 636.
17
See LEMAIRE 2002, 207 with earlier literature; e.g., lq°š°t G°d°w°l°, “for the bow-land of G.,”
(cf., YARDENI 2016, 147 ad JA 130, who still considers the less likely denotation “forest”).
18
CAD M/1, 139–40, s.v. makṣaru, 3.
19
See LEMAIRE 1996, 142.
20
Cf. CAD K: 63b, s.v. kalakku A, 2, b, 2´, all the examples are NB and early LB.
21
On raksu see FALES 2013.
22
See YARDENI 2016, 645a.
23
Cf. TAL 2016, xii–xiii.
24
Cf. YARDENI 2016, 649 ad ISAP 201.
25
Cf. ZADOK 2014, 114–15.
 On the Documentary Framework 183

The transactions are often conducted with the clan as a collective party, but landed
property was held not only by groups (e.g., D/Rbynyʾ just below), but also by individ-
uals. This is amply exemplified by collocations such as ʾrq/ʾšl/byt/gnt/ḥlq/ḥlt/krm/ṭwr/
zyt(y) PN (“land/lot/house/plot/dell/plantation/field/olive plantation of PN”).26
Aram. zrʿ is the equivalent of Akkadian zēru, “acerage, arable land.”27 The combi-
nation byt zrʿ with the same meaning has the same relationship to zrʿ as that of zyt to
byt zytʾ, “olive plantation,” in later Palestinian Jewish Aramaic.28 Furthermore, zrʿ (>
zʿr, i.e. with metathesis) with the meaning “field” is also extant in the Standard Liter-
ary Babylonian Aramaic collocation (bʿyryh wʿybwryh) wzʿyryh, “his cattle, his corn
and his field (not ‘his seed’),” which parallels the Old Syriac collocation (ʿbwrh) ḥqlh
(wbyrh), “his grain, his field and his cattle.”29 Middle (Mishnaic) Hebrew śdh ʿyln,
“planted field, plantation, orchard,” is contrasted with śdh lbn, “sown field,”30 lit.
“white field,” which is aptly compared with the Aramic terms ḥwr(t)ʾ and ḥwrt (cf.
mḥwrnʾ, ISAP 701; ḥwrʾ in ISAP 1967 may alternatively be an anthroponym) by
Ephʿal and Naveh (1996, 13) as well as by Yardeni (2016, 631a). Śdh lbn is the equiv-
alent of Middle Hebrew ʿpr lbn “cropland” (cf. YADIN et al. 2002, 50 ad 12). Unlike
orchards, sown fields were left fallow on a regular cycle. Therefore, a comparison with
modern Palestinian Arabic il-bayyāḍa [bayyāḍi], “the white (untilled) ground,” would
not be out of place here. This semantic field has a purely typological analogy: Aram.
ḥwr, “white, pale,” corresponds to English “fallow” which is a synonym of “pale.”
The expression ʾšl mlgʾ (ISAP 746) may denote “the lot (< aroura) of the shelter,
refuge” (cf. CA maljaʾ). A derivation from MHeb. mlwg (< Akkad. mulūgu), “dowry,”
is unlikely as it is not recorded in Aramaic.31
The term ḥlt (also the 1st component of microtoponyms32) survives as modern Pales-
tinian Arabic ḫalli < ḫallat, “low ground, dell,”33 an ideal place for cultivation. It is
frequently followed by PN (presumably the owner or cultivator) and once by
D/Rbynyʾ,34 apparently referring to a group.
Regarding rpyd(ʾ),35 Heb. (Jud.) rpd of byt hrpd° is rendered as “plain” by Lemaire
(1977a, 111–12). The latter (LEMAIRE 2002 ad 283 = ISAP 1283) suggested to render

26
E.g., ʾrq Hm°h, [ʾ]šly (pl.) Nhrw, ḥlt Qwsryʿ, krm ʿny, ṭwr ʿmy (YARDENI 2016, 419); byt ʿzgd
(ibid., 262); gnt Dnby (ISAP 1105); ḥlq Dbš (ibid., 627a: ISAP 707); and zyt Pṣgw (ISAP 1282); and
zyty Smwk (EPHʿAL/NAVEH 1996, 186, 1). The various terms referring to types and configurations of
landed property are discussed in LEMAIRE 2002, 205–208.
27
CAD Z, 92–93, s.v. zēru 2
28
For byt, “place, area,” cf., e.g., Bab. Aram. GN By dwrʾ (OPPENHEIMER 1983, 67–68, CA
Bādūrāyā is originally a gentilic of a homonymous settlement) and SB bīt-dūrāni (pl.). For possible
occurrences of byt zrʿ in damaged passages written in (epigraphic) Judean Middle Hebrew see MOR
2015, 216.
29
MÜLLER-KESSLER 2005, 231.
30
See FELIKS 1990, 38, 119, 121.
31
Cf. KAUFMAN 1974, 73.
32
See LEMAIRE 2002, 140.
33
See ZADOK 1995–97, 131: 2.1.1.9.1.
34
YARDENI 2016, 94–95.
35
See ibid., 652.
184 Ran Zadok

Aram. rpydʾ (zy bṭnʾ) as “terrace (of the terebinth).”36 Elsewhere rpyd(ʾ) is preceded
by zyt (“olive grove of the terrace”) or followed by a PN, by a professional group
(msgryʾ) or by appellatives, viz. ḥwrtʾ (see above) and ʾwrwtʾ (cf. OSyr. ~ “stalls for
cattle”). Lipiński (2016, 120) compared rpydʾ with Sab. rfd, “supporting wall, buttress
of a house,” (semantically related to its denotation “help, assistance”), pl. ʾrfd; the
latter was rendered by Müller (1899, 4:2, 5) as “terraces.” The other meaning of the
Sabaic word, viz. “subsidiary canal”37 cannot be applied to rpyd(ʾ), which is described
in one source from Idumea (ISAP 1537) as situated “on its hilltop,” i.e. on the highest
point of the plot (rpydʾ ʿl rʾšh). OT Rpydym (modern ar-Rafīd?38) looks linguistically
related, cf. BHeb. rpydh, “support?,” which can belong to the same semantic field as
“terrace” (< “supporting wall”), the more so since Rpydym refers to a place located in
a region where an ancient North-Arabian dialect (later Nabatean) was spoken.
The derivation of kph/kpt(ʾ) from Greek κήπος, which is tentatively suggested by
Ephʿal and Naveh (1994, 84 ad 185), is unlikely in view of the feminine ending. Le-
maire (2002, 207) cautiously connects it with Aram. kyp, “rock,” and suggests a ren-
dering “stony ground, rockery.” On the face of it, this may be corroborated by the
occurrence of the hapax legoumena kpy (PN).39 However, kyp (pl. kypyn) is masculine
which leaves the -t unexplained (-t/ø-doublettes are generally motivated by the femi-
nine character of a term). An identification with Aram. kptʾ, “vaulted room, niche,”
does not seem to fit the spatial context, which is agricultural according to Yardeni
(2016, 636–37). However, plots of land may be named after edifices also in rural areas.
In addition, there is evidence for the use of Pal. Jewish Aram. kyp<t>ʾ in a wider fig-
urative sense,40 a usage which may perhaps be applied to topographical configurations.
In view of the Arabian milieu and the spelling kph/kpt (over 10 occurrences) without a
variant *kyph/t, it may alternatively be a forerunner of Palestinian Arabic kaffa (kaffi)
< CA kaffah (< kaffat), “hollow full of water,” which is recorded later in Judea and
Samaria.41 Šwrt, “row, strip,” (+PN, ISAP 663) survives in the Arabic vernacular of
the Hebron region, where it denotes a rectangular plot of land according to Halayqa
(2016, 83:1.6.1). This accords well with the narrow plots of land (usually, but not
exclusively, rectangular) which are described as šwrwt (pl.) in the Tosefta and the
Yerushalmi.42

36
BHeb. ʾlh (based on ʾl) which was considered a sacred tree, cf. bṭnʾ zy lbyt ʾlhyʾ (“the terebinth
of the temple,” ISAP 1370). The sacred site of Mamre in Upper Idumea was also named after this tree
(see above).
37
BEESTON et al. 1982, 115, inspired by CA rāfid, “tributary stream”; cf. ar-rāfidān – the Tigris
and the Euphrates.
38
See NOTH 1940, 26–27, n. 1.
39
Cf. YARDENI 2016, 636–37; the hapax legoumenon kp°n can be ignored in view of the doubtful
reading and the unsuitable context.
40
Cf. SOKOLOFF 1990, 256, s.v.
41
For an alternative interpretation of kpt (Arab. kuffa, “edge”) see LIPIŃSKI 2016, 127.
42
Cf. FELIKS 1990, 124–25.
 On the Documentary Framework 185

Aram. rʾš is written by itself except in two chits which have qmḥ rʾš.43 Ephʿal and
Naveh (1996, 11), who were not yet aware of the combination qmḥ rʾš, compared rʾš44
with OSyr. rwšʾ. The latter is the Peshitta’s translation of BHeb. rpwt, in itself an iso-
lated noun (pl.), which is understood as “barley groats.” This rendering of the Idumean
product is doubted by Porten and Yardeni (2014, 14–15 ad A 1.4).45 They cautiously
do not define the type of flour, because prima facie rʾš is open to contradictory inter-
pretations, viz. “flour of the first grinding” (i.e. coarse) or “of the finest quality.” In
addition, there is a consensus that crushed grain is dqyr/rqyd while “fine flour” is nšyp
in the Idumean record. At this juncture one may ask what is the term for “coarse flour.”
Therefore, Aram. rʾš can be compared with Yemenite Arabic rūs (with the expected
correspondence of Aram. š: Arab. s), which denotes “bran; bread made of crushed
grain or coarse bran.”46 It is described as the wheat flour which is obtained after the
sifting of the white flour (naqī, lit. “pure”). This means that it was considered a flour
of lower quality. Therefore rūs is used by Ṣanʿānī Jews for baking bread during week-
days, whereas the naqī is used for baking Sabbath bread.47 This is compatible with the
definition of rūs as “rough bread made of bran” in Ṣanʿānī Arabic.48
The enigmatic grgr (pl. grgrn) is homonymous with a commodity which is later
paired with dbl[h], “dried fig(s).”49 Other Aramaic homonyms are “cinus, little grain,”
or “olive drupe.”50 Porten and Yardeni (2018, xxviii–xxix) point out that grgrn are
mentioned together with wooden objects and assume that they possibly refer to
“poles.”51 More concrete is the suggestion of Yardeni (2016, 626b) to identify it with
OSyr. grgrʾ, “threshing instrument,” (to G-R-R, “to pull, drag”). The latter survives as
jarjar, lit. “dragger,” in modern Syrian Arabic (north of Aleppo to the Turkish border),
an isolex of mōraj, nōraj,52 and similar words in Syrian Kurdish and Kildāni. AL-
ḤROUB 2015, 51:45 has a photograph of lōḥ dirās (lōḥ id-drās, in Jerusalem
161 cm × 72 cm) “threshing board.”53 The CA toponym Jarjarāya, referring to a set-
tlement on the lower Nahrawān between Baghdad and Wāsiṭ,54 is apparently based on
Aram. grgr.

43
PORTEN/YARDENI 2016, 34: A 13.1; 276: A 41.1, both almost certainly were written by the
same scribe; cf. ibid., xxv–xxviii.
44
The hapax rwš is based on a wrong reading according to PORTEN/YARDENI 2014, 14.
45
See also YARDENI 2016, 651.
46
BRAUER 1934, 100, 346. He is quoted by PIAMENTA 1990, 192, s.v. rūs. However, the rendering
“semolina” which is listed by the latter, should be modified. It inaccurately presents KAFIH 1963, 206.
The latter actually describes rūs as what is obtained by sifting the discarded segment (nypwy hpswlt)
which remains after the removal of the white flour.
47
See KAFIH 2002, 274.
48
DEBOO 1989, 215.
49
See NAVEH/YADIN in YADIN 1989, 47 ad 537, 541–42.
50
See EPHʿAL/NAVEH 1996, 12–13; LEMAIRE 2002, 204; MHeb. also “berry.”
51
The cautious suggestion of Naveh (apud PORTEN/YARDENI 2018, xxix) to relate grgr to Aram.
gyr, “arrow,” is unlikely: the pl. of gyr is gyryn (Jewish Pal. Aram.) or grryn (Chr. Pal. Aram.).
52
See GEVA-KLEINBERGER 2018, 126–28; for the latter forms see DALMAN 1933, 78–97.
53
Cf. FELIKS 1990, 228.
54
Cf. POGNON 1892, 14, 17 with n. 2.
186 Ran Zadok

I.B. On Some Types of Documents

Like the comparable Neo/Late-Babylonian administrative records, 55 most of the
Idumean chits are laconic and their syntax is predominantly verbless. For instance,
b°y°d, “in the hand of PN”; l-PN, “to PN”; or PN1 lyd PN2, “to the hand of PN”; PN1
byd PN2 commodity.56 Therefore, it is difficult to know the direction of the commodi-
ties’ movements. However, Porten and Yardeni (2014, 248–51: fig. 48–52) summa-
rized the information recorded in the chits pertaining to five clans and demonstrated
that most of the movements of commodities (primarily grain) took place in months
III–V (Sivan–Ab), i.e. during the grain harvest. This strongly suggests that most of the
chits are about deliveries to the storehouse rather than re-distribution by the granaries
to individuals.
Exceptionally, chits use verbs,57 e.g., hnʿl, “brought in,” h. PN commodity; h. PN1
to PN2; h. PN1 ʿl yd PN2, (=agent), (e.g., PORTEN/YARDENI 2014, 12–13, 244); hʿl
(IDEM 2016, A 35.3). Cf. the nominal form mn°ʿl, ”bringing in” (IDEM 2018, 170);
hmṭʾ, “delivered”: h. PN (IDEM 2014, 310: A7.21); hyty: zy h. PN1 mn clan ʿl yd PN2
(=agent); hyty (“brought”) PN lmsknt M.; also ʾyty (IDEM 2018, A 90.4); hn°ḥ°t,
“brought down, carried” (cf. IDEM 2018, 611: A300.5.16, 1); ynśʾ: l-PN1 z°ynśʾ
(“which he will carry”) mn PN2 (IDEM 2014, 275: A6.21); yhb, “gave”: y. PN1 lPN2
(Tetragrammatic) (silver) price of wine (IDEM 2014, 327:A7.38); q°r°b° PN, “present-
ed” (IDEM 2014, 89: A2.10); p°qd, “deposited” (IDEM 2018, 79, A67.5); yḥyṭ, perhaps
“set up upon” (IDEM 2014, 369–70: A8.17); lmz°bn°, “to be bought (by an agent)”
(IDEM 2014, 68: A1.51).
It can be surmised that the deliveries were the rule and therefore they are mostly
unmarked, whereas because the re-distribution by the storehouse is the exception, it is
marked by mn, “from.” In addition, deliveries from the grain of the storehouse in
months V, VI, and X, long after the harvest of grain, hint at a re-distribution. At least
the documents where the citizens of Makkedah (bʿly Mnqdh) are recorded, are not
about taxation, seeing that these citizens were not royal functionaries and keeping in
mind the phenomenon of urbanite creditors-lenders vs. rural debtors-borrowers which
is the norm and a longue durée phenomenon in the Levant, where whole villages were
pledged to urban efendis.58 Porten and Yardeni (2007, 142–43) argue that the use of
indigenous measures such as kor, seah and qab, and not the official Persian ones ardab
and karsh, exclude the possibility that the deliveries are royal taxes. However, this is
not a decisive counter-argument in view of the Achaemenids’ practice to channel
much of the taxation through the local traditional structures.
Admittedly, the Idumean chits do not perfectly resemble the Babylonian ones, but it
should be remembered that the scribes of the administrative records – unlike those of
the legal deeds with their fixed and rigid formularies – had a wide room for manouvre
in composing their informal texts. Most chits record a single transaction, but few,

55
Cf. ZADOK 2009, 23–25.
56
PORTEN/YARDENI 2014, 133: A3.1; cf. IDEM 2018, A65.4: PN1 lyd PN2 ʿl yd PN3.
57
See LEMAIRE 2002, 202–203.
58
An analogy is the conduct of the Judean ḥrym, “nobles,” according to Nehemiah 5: 1–11.
 On the Documentary Framework 187

notably the unique memorandum record two. Compendia (presumably on a periodical

basis) were in all probability recorded on perishable materials.
The hapax mʾṭr /maʾṭar/, “quittance,” is an Aramaic verbal noun (infinitive of the
qal stem) which ultimately goes back to Akkad. eṭēru, “to pay,” according to Porten
and Yardeni (2016, 88 ad A17.14, 2).
Another hapax, namely n°s°ḥ° /nisḥ/ (~ Ṣḥ°rw; cf. ʿbwr 3Ṣ°ḥ°r°w° in the same dos-
sier, viz. that of ʿlqws, A14.3, 2f.) goes back to Akkad. nishu, “a type of expense,
payment (in barley or in silver),”59 rather than “removal, uprooted” as cautiously sug-
gested by Porten and Yardeni (2016, 49–50 ad A14.4, 3).
A unique document, PORTEN/YARDENI 2008, starts with the definition, viz. Aram.
dkrn /dikrān/, ”memorandum,” (the equivalent of Akkad. tahsistu). In the same man-
ner, the Sabaic equivalent dkr which derives from the same root, is always the 1st word
of the document (written on a wooden stick).60
1. ldkrn śʿrn zy Whby (creditor) ʿl PN1–11 (debtors, one debt is by two individuals,
viz. Qwsdkr and Bʿlʿyr; a homonymous debtor, Qwsʿny descendant of Gwr, is men-
tioned together with his ancestral name as a distinguishing identifier); quantities. Since
PN1 recurs, his 2nd transaction is marked as Aram. bb ʾḥrn /ʾaḥarān/ = Akkad. šanû
bābu, “2nd installment”; bb < Akkad. bābu (KÁ) in Aramaic documents from the
Achaemenid and early Hellenistic periods is discussed by Porten and Yardeni (2007,
132).61 Chits have simply bb for the 2nd entry.62
Here is a presentation of several Neo- and Late-Babylonian memoranda (CAD T,
53–54, s.v. tahsistu, d).63

I.B.a. BM 29266
Brown, horizontally oriented, 35×28×12 mm (24.2.09); no place; unassignable (ad-
ministrative), 22.I.23 Nbk. II = 582 BCE:
1 3 GUR ŠE.BAR šup-pu-ul-tú
2 šá ZÚ.LUM.MA ina IGI m TIN-su
3 (deliberate erasure)
4 e-lat 23 GUR 2 PI ŠE.BAR
5 tah-sis-tú la ma-še-e
rev.
6 itiBAR U4.22.KAM
7 MU.23.KAM d+AG-NIG.DU-PAP
8 LUGAL TIN.TIRki

Translation:
Three kors of barley, in exchange of dates, which are placed at the disposal of Balāssu, except for
23;2 kors of barley. Memorandum, so as not to forget; date.

59
CAD N/2, 267b–69a, s.v. nishu, 4–6.
60
E.g., MARAQTEN 2014, 42 (with a scribe), 44, 53, 57 (see 280–81).
61
See YARDENI 2016, 624b.
62
See PORTEN/YARDENI 2014, 38–39, cf., e.g., IDEM 2016, A 13.11; 16.15.
63
Cf. HACKL in JURSA 2010, 635–39.
188 Ran Zadok

Remark:
1 The term šup-pu-ul-tú is a variant of šupêltu; a variant šu-pu-ul-tu4 (šupûltu) occurs
in Nbk. 72, 1 and BE 8, 21, 4 (from 8 and 39 Nbk. II = 596/5 and 566/5 BCE), but this
is the only occurrence of this word with a geminated p. This may be purely ortho-
graphic, not phonematic, in view of the derivation from šupêlu.

I.B.b. BM 29118
Brown, horizontally oriented, 41×34×17 mm; no place and date, unassignable; inven-
tory of bronze utensils:
1 5 ŠEN.DIL.KÚM.MAmeš
2 2 UD.KA.BAR nam-su-úmeš
3 2 kal-la-nu
4 6 GU.ZImeš ha-an-na(?)-tu
5 3 mu-ka-ri-šimeš KIMIN
6 4 GU.ZImeš ba/ma-ak-ka-a-tu
7 1+en la-ha-nu
lo.e.
8 1+en a-šu-hu
9 1+en BI-HIR/šìr-ti
10 1+en mu-ka-ri-ši GAL-ú
(long space)
rev.
11 PAP 26 ú-de-e UD.KA.BAR
12 ina IGI m du-um-mu-qu
13 tah-hi-it-ti la ma-še-e

Translation:
Five cooking vessels; two washbowls; two bowls; six goblets …; three metal bowls
(for oil and incense) …; four goblets …; one bottle; one ašuhu; one kašširti/bihirti/
biširti; one big metal bowl (for oil and incense); total: 26 bronze utensils placed at the
disposal of Dummuqu; memorandum, so as not to forget.
Remarks:
1 ŠEN.DIL.KÚM.MAmeš (= sg. mušahhinu): CAD M/2, 253–54, s.v. mušahhinu translate
only one occurrence (YOS 3, 191, 25, 29, 32: “kettle”), leaving the other occurrences
untranslated. AHw, 680b: “Heizbecken, -öffchen”; GAG “Wärmoffen”; SALONEN 1966,
173n renders “Kohlenbecken” – D active participle of šahānu, “to become warm.”
2 nam-su-úmeš, “washbowls”: usually UD.KA.BAR follows the utensil, but exceptions
are not rare, see CAD N/1, 245, s.v. namsû and cf., e.g., 1+en UD.KA.BAR mu-šah-hi-
nu (cf. also 1+en URUDU mu-šah-hi-nu, CAD M/2, 254b).
3 kal-la-nu is pl. of kallu “bowl.”
4/6 GÚ.ZImeš – pl. of kāsu, “cup, goblet,” (both masc. and fem., see SALONEN 1966,
114–20; ROTH 1989–90, 25): ha-an-na?-tu and ba/ma-ak-ka-a-tu are fem. pl. adjec-
tives of *hannu and *b/makku respectively; both are listed neither in the dictionaries
 On the Documentary Framework 189

nor in SALONEN 1966. On the face of it, *hannu is distinguished from rabû, ”big,” (10,
the antonym of qallu, “small,” see CAD Q, 64b, s.v. qallu 3, c in fine).
5/10 mukarrišu (NA mukarrisu), “a metal bowl (for oil and incense)”: see CAD M/2,
183, ROTH 1989–90, 26; cf. SALONEN 1966, 343–44; D active participle of karāsu “to
tie, fasten,” (OB and SB lex.),” hence NB/LB š is exceptional (borrowed from NA?).
7 la-ha-nu: this is the only occurrence in NB/LB; only here is it made of bronze (>
OSyr. lqnʾ, see SALONEN 1966, 225–28; cf. CAD L, 39–40, s.v. lahannu.
8–9 a-šu-hu, bihirti/biširti/kašširti: both words are hapax legoumena. They are not
listed in the Akkadian dictionaries. Is the former a late form of ašušhi, a bronze utensil
(MB Nuzi)? The latter, whichever way one reads it, ends in the feminine marker -t-,
but is preceded by 1+en (masc.) instead of the expected fem. 1+et.
13 tahhiltu: ~ tahsistu, cf. AHw., 1302b.
Several additional hapax legoumena are worth mentioning:
dug
dalû (BM 95093, 4; 10, BM 96377, 6) hitherto only wooden or metal d., “bucket,”
are recorded. Cf. CAD D, 67, s.v. dālu/dalû, AHw, 155a: dalû (he aptly compares Heb.
dly).
[1+e]n gišsik-ku-ú (BM 26473, 6), cf. dugsikkû (< Sum. dugSIG5.GA = ŠU-kum, which may
alternatively be rendered as sikku, šakku/šakkû, lex. only, CAD S, 256a, “a vessel”;
AHw, 1012a, s.v. sakku II. SALONEN 1966, 143: 16, “turban-like bowl,” following
BOTTÉRO, ARM 7:313 ad 239, 15´, who pointed out the lexical equation šakkiu =
kubšu “turban.”
[1+en?] duge-gub-bu TUR (BM 95093, 1): cf. CAD E, 49–51, s.v. egubbû A, “basin for
holy water,” the phonetic spellings e-gub-bu-ú, a-gub-bu-u and with aphaeresis gub-
bu-ú.
2 dugkal-li-ti (BM 96377, 8) – there is only kallu, pl. kallānu, NA kallātu (CAD K, 83).
The following memoranda are witnessed, i.e. they are legal documents. In the same
manner, a Sabaic memorandum (MARAQTEN 2014, 44) is witnessed by two men.

I.B.c. BM 21998
Light brown, horizontally oriented (flat edges), 48×37×19 mm; copy; no place, unas-
signable, 18.V.22 Nbk. II = 583 BCE:
1 8 GUR SE.BAR md+AG-e-du-ú-ṣur
2 lúSAG ù m MU-MU EN pit-qit-tu4
3 [A-šú šá?] ˻m ˼dAMAR.UTU-PAP a-na UGU mdA.E-ga-mil
4 [A-šú šá? md+A]G˼-MU-MU nu-uh-tim-mu
5 [ina ŠUII m ]d+AG-˻ŠEŠme-MU mah-ru-ʾ
remainder effaced (end of obv.). Room for c. 2 lines.

rev.
1 [ina] GUB?-zu šá md+A[G?-SU]Mn[a]-M[U? only the initial horizontal is preserved)]
2 [A-šú šá? m ˻×˼(?)-ba-ni A˼˺ [m ×]-iá
190 Ran Zadok

3 [m x-S]ES ˻A-šú šá˼ mdAMAR.UTU-PAP

4 ˹m ˺d+AG-˹MU A-šú šá m tab-né-e-a
5 tah-sis-tu4 la ma-še-e
6 itiIZI U4.18.KAM
u.e.
7 MU.22.˻KAM md+AG˼-NÍG.DU-PAP
8 LUGAL TIN.[TIRki]

Translation:
Eight kors of barley Nabû-ēda-uṣur, courtier, and Šuma-iddina, the bēl-piqitti official,
[son of?] Marduk-nāṣir, received from Nabû-ahhē-iddina on behalf of Mār-bīti-gāmil,
the baker, [son of?] Nabû-šuma-iddina.
In the presence of:
Na[bû]?-nādin-šu[mi]? [son of] ×-bani, descendant of [×]-ia; [×-a]hi (or -u]ṣur) son of
Marduk-nāṣir (and) Nabû-iddina son of Tabnēa; memorandum, so as not to forget; date.

Remarks:
4 nu-uh-tim-mu: cf. the same spelling (with dropping of -a-) in UNGER 1931, 284, iii,
36 (also from Nbk. II’s time).
Rev. 3: The 2nd witness is perhaps the brother of the bēl-piqitti official.

I.B.d. BM 2664364
Brown, horizontally oriented, 54×41×19 mm; Babylon, archive of Ilīya A (Borsippan),
15.VIII.5 Cyrus = 534 BCE:
Litigation before free citizens (all bearing surnames) functioning as witnesses. Nabû-
ušallim son of Balāṭu descendant of Ilīya said in their presence to Marduk-šuma-ibni
son of Šulâ descendant of Ilīya, what his (Marduk-šuma-ibni’s) brother had told about
his own slave, Lu-x˼-[(×)]. The latter and Marduk-šuma-ibni apparently turned to
Gubaru, the governor of Babylonia and Transeuphratene who resided in Babylon, but
the subject of the litigation is unknown as the passage is damaged. Nabû-ušallim son
of Balāṭu, grandson of Ṣillâ, descendant of Ilīya (husband of Tuqpītu daughter of
Nabû-(mu)kīn-apli descendant of Ilšu-abūšu) is a paternal uncle of the archive owner
Marduk-šuma-ibni and his older brother Nabû-bēlšunu. He is recorded between 12
Nbn. and 2. Camb. (544/3–528/7 BCE, see WAERZEGGERS 2010, 95 with n. 421; 191,
375–79, 735). The names of the witnesses are mostly preserved:
Iṣṣur son of Kalbâ descendant of Ibnā[yu];
Murānu son of Lā-abâši descendant of Bēl-×[××];
Nabû-mušētiq-ūdê son of Marduk-šuma-iddina descendant of [×]-×-šú; (perhaps
[DINGIR-šú]-AD-šú);
Šaddinnu son of Nabû-bēl-šumāti descendant of Ardūtu;
Nabû-(mu)kīn-apli son of Nabû-nādin-ahi descendant of Gahal;

64
Photo by N.TALLIS in CURTIS/TALLIS 2005, 196:306.
 On the Documentary Framework 191

date; memorandum; Lā-abâši son of Nabû-bān(i)-zēri descendant of Rēmūtu? (another

witness whose name was added after the scribe finished writing the deed). The last
witness (of the original list, before the insertion of Lā-abâši) is very probably the
scribe. He is recorded as such between 6.III.5 Nbn.= 551 and 16.IX.7 Camb. = 523
BCE (he wrote five deeds, all issued in Borsippa):
a. Nabû-(mu)kīn-apli (d+AG-GIN-A) son of Nabû-nādin-ahi (d+AG-na-din-ŠEŠ) descend-
ant of Gahal (18ga!-hal), Ea-ilūta-bani archive, 6.III.5 Nbn. (JOANNÈS 1989, 113, 323–
24: BRM 1, 58: 17f.).
b. d+AG-GIN-EDURU son of 20[d+AG]-na-din-ŠEŠ descendant of ga-hal, Ea-ilūta-bani
archive, -.XIIb.6 Nbn. (JOANNÈS 1989, 142, 194–95: TuM 2/3, 115: 19f.).
c. d+AG-GIN-EDURU son of 12.d+AG-na-din-ŠEŠ descendant of ga-hal, Ea-ilūta-bani (Ilu-
bani) archive, 29.III.8 Nbn. (BM 94885: 11f.).
d. d+ AG-GIN-EDURU son of d+AG-na-[din-ŠEŠ] descendant of 17
ga-hal, Basīya archive
(satellite of Bēliyau archive), -.X.0 Camb. (BM 96224: 14f.).
e. d+AG-GIN?-EDURU son of d+AG-na-din-ŠEŠ? descendant of 15ga-hal, Bēliyau archive,
16.IX.7 Camb. (BM 29248: 14f.). None of the preceding four witnesses is recorded
elsewhere. The same applies to Lā-abâši.
1 lúDUMU DÙmeš šá i-na pa-ni-šú-nu
2 md+AG-GI A-šú šá m ba-lá-ṭi A m DINGIR-iá
3 a-na mdAMAR.UTU-MU-DU A-šú šá m šu-la-a
4 A m DINGIR-iá iq-bu-ú md+AG-EN-šú-nu
5 SES-ka A-šú šá m šu-la-a A m DINGIR-iá
6 iq-ta-ba-a um-ma m lu-×˼-[(×)]
7 lúqal-la-a it-ti-ka [(××)]
lo.e.
8 a-na a-šar m gu-ba-ri˼˺ [(××)]
rev.
9 i-šap-pa-ru-ka a-bu -uk˼˺ [(××)]
10 m iṣ-ṣur A-šú šá m kal-ba-a A m ib-na-[a+a]
11 m mu-ra-nu A-šú šá m la-a-ba-ši A m EN-x˼[(××)]
12 md+AG-DIB-UD.DA A-šú šá mdAMAR.UTU-MU-MU A m ˼ [×]-˻˹×˺-šú
13 m šad-din-nu A-šú šá md+AG-EN-MUmeš A m IR-ú-tu
14 ˻˹md+AG-GIN-A A-šú šá md+AG-na-din-ŠEŠ A m GAG-hal
15 TIN.TIRki itiAPIN U4.15. KAM MU.5.KAM
16 ku-ra-áš LUGAL TIN.TIRki u KUR.KUR
U.E. (indented, almost centred)
17 tah-sis-tú
Le.E.
18 m la-a-ba-š[i] A-šú šá
19 md+AG-DÙ-NUMUN A m re-˹mut˺?

I.B.e. BM 28929
Brown, horizontally oriented, 69×47×26 mm; prob. Borsippa, archive of Iddin-
Papsukkal, 14 (or 24).XII.12 Nabopolassar = 613 BCE has a list of witnesses in whose
192 Ran Zadok

presence Nabû-lēʾi son of Nabû-nāṣir descendant of Iddin-Papsukkal, as proxy of Šulâ

son of Bibēa descendant of Iddin-Papsukkal, and Amurru-šarrani son of Bēl-ēṭir de-
scendant of Ea-ibni established the border on (the land of) Iddin-Nabû and gave (land)
to Nabû-ahhē-iddina.
Pirʾu son of Ibâ descendant of Naggāru; Šuma-iddina descendant of Ninurta-ušallim;
Bēl-iqbi descendant of Indi(-)akru; Nabû-šuma-ukīn descendant of Ea-ibni; Marduk
descendant of Ea-ibni; Marduk descendant of Aškāpu; Marduk-šarrani descendant of
Mudammiq-Adad; Mār-bīti-šuma-ibni descendant of Sīyatu; Nabû-šuma-ibni
son/descendant of Nabû-ilīya; Nabû-zēra-[x] descendant of Ibnāyu; (and) Nabû-bun-
šūtur descendant of Ibnāyu; date; memorandum, so as not to forget.

1 lúmu-kin-né-e šá ina pa-ni-šú-nu

2 md+AG-DA A-šú šá md+AG-PAP A m ˹SUM-d˼p[ap-su]kkal
(presumably deliberately erased, but traces visible)
3 ina na-áš-par-ti šá m šu-la-˹a˼ ˻A-šú šá m ˻bi-[b]é-e-a
4 A m SUM-dpap-sukkal ù mdAMAR.UTU-LUGAL-a-ni
5 A-šú šá md+EN-SUR A mdé-<a>-DU (cf. line 13) il-te-qí-šu-nim-ma
6 a-na UGU-ka šá m SUMna-d+AG
7 mi-ṣir iš-ku-nu-ma a-na md+AG-PAPme-MU
8 id-di-nu
9 i-na GUBzu šá m pir-ʾ A-šú šá m i-ba-a
10 (deeply indented). A lúNAGAR (inserted in smaller script)
lo.e.
11 m MU-MU A mdMAŠ-ú-šal-lim
rev.
12 md+EN-iq-bi A m in-di-ak-ru
13 md+AG-MU-ú-kin A md˻é-a-DÙ
14 m mar-duk A md˺ [é]-a-ib-ni
15 m mar-duk A l[ú]AŠGAB
16 mdAMAR.UTU-LUGAL-˻a-ni˺ ˻A˺ m MU-SIG5iq-dIŠKUR
17 mdA.É-MU-DÙ A m si-ia-a-tú
18 md+AG-MU-DÙ [A mdA]G-DINGIR-iá
19 md+AG-NUMU[N-× A m ]ib-na-a+a
u.e.
20 md+AG-bu-[un-šu-]tur A KIMIN
21 itiSE U4.10[+10?]+˻4˺!.KAM MU.12.KAM
22 md+AG-A-PAP LUGAL KÁ.DINGIR.RAki
23 [tah]-sis-ti la ma-še-e

A short letter of a private archive consists mostly of a memorandum, which is actually

an ina ušuzzi-deed (see HACKL et al. 2014, 195 ad 81) like BM 28929. The letter order
BM 29328 is defined as a memorandum. A memorandum written on leather (˹kuš˺tah-
˹sis˺-[tu4]), probably in Aramaic, is mentioned in a letter from the Zababa temple ar-
chive (see ibid., 301 ad 194, rev. 4).
 On the Documentary Framework 193

I.B.f. BM 29560
Brown, horizontally oriented, 37×33×18 mm; no place, unassignable (administrative),
9.XI.25 no RN (Nbk. II or Darius I = 579 or 496 BCE):
1 (×)×-sa? qé-me gam-ra
2 šá itiAB ina IGI md+EN-ana-mi-reš(SAG)-tu4?
3 3 (PI) 2 BAN šá-nu-ú KA šá itiZIZ? (squeezed)
4 4 ˻GUR × (squeezed, Sumerogram for qēmu?) gam-ra
u.e.
5 PAP 5 ˻G[U]R 2 (PI) 3 BÁN
rev.
6 qé-me gam-ra
7 ina IGI md+EN-ana-mi-SAG-tu4?
8 itiZIZ U4.9.KAM
9 MU.˻20˺+ 5.KAM

Flour placed at the disposal of Bēl-ana-merešti in two installments:

(a) … flour, entire (tax) of month X, 3;2 kors;
(b) 2nd installment of month XI; 4 kor ..
Total: 5;2.3 kors; date.

I.B.g. BM 29593
Light brown-beige, horizontally oriented, 35×27×16 mm; no place, unassignable (ad-
ministrative), 29.IV:
1 1 ME 50 SIG4hi.a
2 šá ul-tu EDIN mi-ra-šu-tú
iti
3 ŠU U4 .28(damaged).KAM
4 2 ME 50 SIG4hi.a 2-nu-ú KÁ
iti
5 ŠU U4 .29.KAM

Translation:
(a)150 bricks which are from the steppe of Mirašūtu, 28.IV;
(b) 250 bricks, second installment, 29.IV.
“Installment” (all the occurrences are listed in CAD B, 26, s.v. bābu, A, 6) is recorded
in NB/LB. The only OB occurrence is not strictly analogous, viz. 0.5 sh silver in ba-bi-
šu (CT 6, 21a, 14, a list of expenditures):
Nbn. 821, 12, 15 from the commercial quarter of Sippar, 28.XII.14 Nbn., has seven
separate transactions (see JURSA 2010, 525 with n. 2860):
Line 4: 10 ni-sip of oil: Ša-Nabû-šá-lim.
Line 15: 2-ú KÁ: 5 ni-sip from 3.I.<15>.
šá-nu-ú KÁ (Dar. 438, 9)
VS 6, 297 (Ṭābīya) has ina bābi … and II-ú KÁ (4).
194 Ran Zadok

VS 6, 303, 7 has fReʾindu: 0.5 sh of silver for Iddinâ son of Iqīša-Bēl, messenger of
the province governor (28.IV) and II-ú KÁ: 5 sh of silver for the same (date lost).
VS 6, 307, 10: one mina and 46 sh of silver from the silver of the qīpu is placed at
Ahhēma’s disposal; II-ú KÁ: 21 sh from the same.
Nbn. 422, 3ff. (Ebabbarra archive, III.10 Nbn.) has four entries, viz. 1+en KÁ, 4šá-nu-ú
5 6
KÁ, šal-šú KÁ, IV-ú KÁ, like Nbn. 1097, 4ff. (Ebabbarra archive, 25.VII, Nbn.): 1+en
5 6 7
KÁ, II-ú KÁ, III-šú KÁ, IV-ú KÁ (see SAN NICOLÒ 1933, 294 with n. 3).

II. Onomastic Classification and Analysis

So far about 560 different anthroponyms are recorded in the Idumean corpus. The lack
of vocalization and the paucity of material in vocalized scripts (practically NB/LB and
Greek: the Edomite/Idumean renderings in these scripts are registered below wherever
applicable; transcriptions in Latin and cognates in Classical Arabic play a secondary
role) are a serious obstacle for obtaining an unambiguous interpretation, except for
cases of plene spellings: generally, such spellings are more common for -ū- than for –
ī-, where fluctuation persists.65 It is easier to offer unambiguous renderings for com-
pound names than for simplex ones. The numerous comparanda which are presented
below (c. 700) contribute to disambiguation only in the minority of cases.

II.A. Compound Anthroponyms66

II.A.a. Classification (231 = 100%)
The 231 classifiable compound anthroponyms67 belong to 34 ad hoc categories. The
number of patterns is actually much lower (see just below), but since the corpus is in
an unvocalized Aramaic script, many names have alternative interpretations and only
exceptionally it is possible to disambiguate them. Except for few substitute names
(with ʾḥ “brother”), a calendar name (II.A.a.34) and Klḥzh they are theophorous.
II.A.a.1. VS pf. S+P (36 = 15.58%):
II.A.a.1.α. G stem:
II.A.a.1.α.a´. Regular verbs: ʾḥbrk°, ʿmbr[k], Bʿlb°r°k (see YARDENI 2016, 661a, 664b,
700), Hwbrk, Nbwbrk (Elephantine ~, PORTEN/YARDENI 1999, lxviii), Qwsbrk
(Kοσβαρακος, Idumean, ZADOK 1998b, 21*: 9.7, 79), “The (divine) broth-
er/kinsman/Baal/Yhw/Nabû/Qaws has blessed,” “Bʿl has supported,” (see LEMAIRE
1996, 106): Bʿlsmk (YARDENI 2016, 665a)68; Bʿlzbd (PORTEN/YARDENI 2018, 344),

65
See LEMAIRE 2002, 212–14.
66
Cf. IDEM 1996, 133–34; IDEM 2002, 213–21.
67
Cf. ZADOK 2000a, 816–19, 822 and the comprehensive analysis of Qaws-anthroponyms by IS-
RAEL 2009.
68
Cf. NA < Aram. Bēl-šá-ma-ka (ZADOK 1978, 70, 81).
 On the Documentary Framework 195

“Baal has granted”; Qwsšmʿ (PORTEN/YARDENI 2016, 316), Yhwšmʿ, “Qaws/Yhw has
heard”; Qwskrz (JTX 4 159257 = ISAP 4, to K-R-Z, “to make proclamation,” Aram.,
MHeb., not G, or to CA karaza, “to lean towards”); Yhwʿqb (IA 12437 = ISAP 849),
“Yhw has protected,” (cf. the Idumean’s name Kοσακαβοϛ, ZUCKER 1938:60).
II.A.a.1.α.b´. Verba primae ʾ: Qwsʾl[p], “Qaws has taught,” (see YARDENI 2016:705b).
II.A.a.1.α.c´. Verba primae n: Qwsnqm, “Qaws has vindicated”; Qwsntn (cf.
Kοσνατανος from Mareshah, ZADOK 1998b, 20*, 9.22); Ṣdqntn (IAA 2003-238 =
ISAP 2017), “Qaws/Ṣidq has given”; Qwsnṭr° (PORTEN/YARDENI 2018, 312); and
Qwsnṣr (LEMAIRE 1996, 125, Arab.), “Qaws has guarded.”
II.A.a.1.α.d´. Verba primae w/y: Qwsydʿ (LB Qu-su-ia-da-ʿ, Kοσιδη, ZADOK 1998b,
20*, 9.1, 2), “Qaws has known”; Qwsytʿ, “Qaws has delivered, saved,” (see LEMAIRE
1996, 70); ʾlwhb (OG ?10 = ISAP 1644), Qwsw°hb (PORTEN/YARDENI 2018, 402,
Arab.; Aram. Qwsyhb, dQu-su-ia-a-ha-bi; cf. Kοσιαβος from Mareshah, ZADOK 1998b,
20*: 9.5, 20), “El(/God)/Qaws has given”; Bbwsm (YARDENI 2016, 663a), “Bb (Baba)
is distinguished; has impressed an indelible character of a sacrament; surpassed, vied
in beauty” (Arab. wasama).69
II.A.a.1.α.e´. Verba mediae infirmae: Šmšdn, “Šmš has judged, executed judgement”
(provided that it does not render Akkad. Šamaš-iddina); Qwsqm, “Qaws has arisen”;
Ḥwqm (see PORTEN/YARDENI 2018, xxvi), ʾḥyqm, “(my) brother has arisen.”
II.A.a.1.α.f´. verba ultimae infirmae: Qwshdh, “Qaws has guided, directed, led,” (Arab.
hadā <hdy>, see YARDENI 2016, 706a); Yhwʿnh (PORTEN/YARDENI 2014, 327), “Yhw
has replied.”
II.A.a.1.α.g´. Verbs with identical 2nd and 3rd radicals: ʾlḥnn (LEMAIRE 1996, 92), Bʿl-,
Qwsḥnn, “El(/God)/Baal/Qaws has shown favour”; Q°w°s°ṭll, “Qaws has protected (<
has shade),” (see YARDENI 2016, 707a).
II.A.a.1.α.h´. Defective verbs: Qws’tʾ (AI 11323 = ISAP 460), “Qaws has come” (cf.
MÜLLER 2018, 28).
II.A.a.1.β. D stem: Qwsbyn (YARDENI 2016:705b), “Qaws has discerned, perceived,”
(B-W/Y-N, cf. NÖLDEKE 1883, 532–33).
II.A.a.1.γ. qātal (Arab. fāʿala) stem: Q°w°s°h°w°d° may (si vera lectio) derive from
Arab. hāda, “to be gentle, quiet,” perhaps not G but hāwada, “to make peace with, feel
sympathy towards”; Hūd is an Arabic anthroponym (hwd “splendour”, which is sug-
gested by PORTEN/YARDENI 2018, 401, is exclusively Heb.).
II.A.a.2. VS pf./imperative S+P (1 = 0.43%): Qwsdkr, “Qaws has remembered,” or
“Remember Qaws!” in view of NA < WSem. Am-du-ku-ru (with an Arabian patro-

69
Cf. Saf. Wsmʾl (HARDING 1971, 642, very common).
196 Ran Zadok

nym), cf. Min., Qat. and Had. ʿmḏkr (HARDING 1971, 436, cf. FALES 1993, 143), cf.
NA < WSem. Du-kur-ìl, “Remember the kinsman/El(/God)!”70
II.A.a.3. VS pf./impf./NS S+P (1 = 0.43%): ʾlymlk (Charlesworth 6 = ISAP 533), “My
god has reigned, ruled/El(/God) will reign, rule”/”My god is king.”
II.A.a.4. VS pf. (all G, regular verbs, i.e. qatal-) S+P/NS S+P (qa/itl, 9 = 3.89%): ʾlʿdr,
Bʿlʿdr, Qwsʿdr (cf. Kοσαδαρος, Idumean, ZADOK 1998b, 21*: 9.7, 8),
“El(/God)/Baal/Qaws has helped,” (Nab. ~, see LEMAIRE 1996, 28; cf. MÜLLER 2018,
28) or “El(/God)/Qaws is (my) help,” (see PORTEN/YARDENI 2014, 196, 419); ʾlmlk,
Bʿlmlk, Qwsmlk (YARDENI 2016, 661b, 710–11; cf. the Idumeans Eλµα[λα]χ[ος],
Kοσµαλαχος, ZADOK 1998b, 21*: 9.7, 11, 37), “El(/God)/my god/Baal/Qaws has
reigned, ruled,” or “El(/God)/my god/Baal/Qaws is king”; Bʿlplṭ, [Qw]spl°ṭ°,
“Baal/Qaws has delivered, rescued,” or “Qaws is (my) deliverance, escape,” (see POR-
TEN/YARDENI 2018, 49, 576); Qwsnhr (YARDENI 2016, 711a), “Qaws has shined,” or
“Q. is (my) light,” (N-H-R < N-W/Y-R).
II.A.a.5. VS pf. (all G, verba primae y) S+P/NS P+S (2 = 0.86%): ʾbytʿ (cf. Qat. ʾbyṯʿ,
NA A-bi-ia-ta/te-ʾ, RADNER PNA 1, 11b), “The (divine) father has delivered, saved,”
(-*yaṯaʿ with colouring of the final vowel due to /ʿ/) or “Yṯʿ is (my) father”; ʿmytʿ, “the
kinsman has delivered,” (cf. YARDENI 2016, 700b) or “Yṯʿ is (my) kinsman.” On the
face of it is more likely a VS in view of the fact that the theophorous element has the
nominative ending in NA Am-ia-te-ʾ-ú.71
II.A.a.6. VS pf. P+S (24 =10.38%):
II.A.a.6.α. Regular verbs:ʿ°q°b°yh, “Qaws/Yhw has protected”; ʿzrbʿl (HW = ISAP
562), “Baal has helped”; Brkl (AI 11747 = ISAP 268), “El(/God) has blessed”; Brzl
(LEMAIRE 2006, 447–49: 25, 7; Hatra ~),72 “El(/God) has appeared, showed up,” or
“has excelled, overcome, surpassed,” (Arab. baraza and baruza respectively);
Ḥšbyh/w, Šmʿyh.
II.A.a.6.β. Verba primae n: Ndbq°w°s° (PORTEN/YARDENI 2018, 86), “Qaws has
prompted, donated,” or “Q. is generous, showed generosity”; Ntnʾl (JTS 23+24
159276+77 = ISAP 23), Ntnbʿl (PORTEN/YARDENI 2014, 291; cf. with inverted order
the Idumean’s name Bααναθανης < *Bʿlntn; cf. Bεεναθαλου, see ZUCKER 1938, 59);
N°tnmr(ʾ)n°, -s°y°n, -ṣdq, “El(/God)/Baal/Marʾan/Ṣidq has given,” (cf. POR-
TEN/YARDENI 2014, 369; YARDENI 2016, 690). Nqmyh (IA 12428 = ISAP 1752),
“Yhw has taken vengeance,” is recorded only in the Idumean corpus. Yhw is indeed
characterized as a god of vengeance (cf., e.g., Psalms 94: 1). In addition, the predica-
tive element might have been inspired by the popularity of Arabian names deriving
from N-Q-M.
II.A.a.6.γ. Verba mediae infirmae: K°ny°h, “Yhw is firm, right.”

70
VILLARD, PNA 1, 103–104 and TALON, PNA 1, 387a.
71
See ZADOK, PNA 1, 104b (NS P+S).
72
ABBADI 1983, 88, who compares OSyr., Šmšbrz.
 On the Documentary Framework 197

II.A.a.6.δ. Verba ultimae infirmae: ʿn(h)ʾl, “El(/God) has replied, responded,” (see
YARDENI 2016, 701); Brʾl (PORTEN/YARDENI 2018, 568, alternatively Bdʾl), “El(/God)
has created,” or “has redeemed, ransomed”; Dlʾl, Pdʾl (LEMAIRE 2002, 101 = ISAP
1423), P°dyh°, “El(/God)/Yhw has drawn up” (> “rescued”, see ZADOK 2000a, 607;
YARDENI 2016, 669a, 703a); Ḥz°ʾl, Ḥzhʾl (PORTEN/YARDENI 2016, 67), “El(/God) has
seen”; P°lʾl, (PORTEN/YARDENI 2018, 312), Pl(ʾ)qws, “El(/God)/Qaws has distin-
guished, did wondrously,” (cf. YARDENI 2016, 704; P-L-ʿ/Y is also recorded in Arab.
and in an Aram. derivative); Qnʾl, “El(/God) has created,” (see YARDENI 2016, 715).
ʿdʾḥ (ʿrʾḥ does not make any sense, unless it is a defective spelling of ʿyd/rʾḥ), “The
(divine) brother has decorated.”
II.A.a.6.ε. Verbs with identical 2nd and 3rd radicals: Ḥnnyh/w.
II.A.a.7. VS pf./imperative S+P (+ obj. suff.; 2 = 0.86%): Bld°lny (YARDENI 2016,
664a), Qwsdlny (AI 11341 = ISAP 446), “Bēl/Qaws has drawn me up,” or “B./Q. draw
me up!”
II.A.a.8. VS pf. P+S or NS P+S (8 = 3.46%): ʿdrʾl, ʿdrbʿl, 73 ʿ°d°r°m°r°ʾn°,
ʿ°d°r°q°w°s°, “El(/God)/Baal/Mrʾn/Qaws has supported,” or “El(/God)/Baal is (my)
support,” (see YARDENI 2016, 694–95); Mlkyh, “Yhw has reigned,” or “Yhw is (my)
king”; Plṭyh (ISAP 522), Plṭʾl (cf. LEMAIRE 1996, 47: Nab. ~, Saf. Flṭ(ʾ)l, and Tham.
Flṭʾl, HARDING 1971, 471; cf. also MÜLLER 2018, 30), “Yhw/El(/God) has delivered,
rescued, brought into security,” or “Yhw/El(/God) is (my) deliverance, escape”; ʿdʾl
“El(/God) has decorated”; cf. Saf. and Sab. ~ (HARDING 1971, 409) or “God/El is my
ornament.”
II.A.a.9. VS pf. P+S or NS P+S or GC (1 = 0.43%): Šʿdʾl, (cf. Σαδδηλοϛ, Idumean,
ZADOK 1998b, 21*: 9.7, 31), “El(/God) has supported,” (see YARDENI 2016, 720), or
“El(/God) is (my) fortune, good luck,” or “El/God’s favour; support.” Tham. has Sʿdʾl-,
-lh, “luck of ʾl(h)” (see SHATNAWI 2002, 704).
II.A.a.10. VS pf. (qatal) P+S or GC (qatl-DN; 10 = 4.32%):
II.A.a.10.α. Regular verbs: Zbdʾdh (Zαβδαδηϛ, Idumean, ZUCKER 1938, 60), Zbdʾl (cf.
Zαββδηλος Idumean, ZUCKER 1938, 60), Zbdʾlh (YR 107 = ISAP 763), Zbd(ʾ)lhy,
Zbdbʿl, Z°bd°bʿly (PORTEN/YARDENI 2014, 123), Zbdmlk, Zbdmrn, and perhaps
Z°b°d°n°b°w°, “Ada/El(/God)/Ilāh(ī)/Baal(ī)/Mlk/Mrʾn/(?Nabû) has given, granted,”
or “The grant of Ada/El(/God)/Ilāh(ī)/Baal(ī)/Milk/Mrʾn/(?Nabû),” (basically Aram.,
cf. YARDENI 2016, 671–72; MÜLLER 2018, 36).
II.A.a.10.β. Verba primae w-: Whbʾl, “El(/God) has given,” or “Gift of El(/God)”
(Arab.).
II.A.a.10.γ. Verba mediae infirmae: Kḥʾl, “El/God has overpowered,” (CA kāḥa) or
“El/God’s strength, power,” (see YARDENI 2016, 684b, to Heb. kḥ); and perhaps ʾrʾl of
Bnʾrʾl (RD > HW = ISAP 950), “son of ʾrʾl,” whose predicative element may either

73
ʿzrbʿl and ʿzryqm in the same corpus are Phoenician and Hebrew (Judean) respectively. The
former occurs also in Elephantine (PORTEN/YARDENI 1999, lxix).
198 Ran Zadok

derive from ʾ-W/Y-R, “to be or become light,” or denote “lion (ʾr, related to ʾry) of
El/God” (cf. ZADOK 1988, 157).
II.A.a.11. VS pf. P+ obj. suff. -n(y) +S (4 = 1.73%):
II.A.a.11.α. Verba mediae infirmae: ʿtnqws (HW = ISAP 949), “Qaws has helped me,”
(cf. OT ʿtnyʾl, SIMA 2001, esp. 48, where he demonstrated that the pattern is extant in
Lyh., Tham., and other corpora).
II.A.a.11.β. Verba ultimae infirmae: ʿnnybʿl, ʿ°n°n°y°h, “Baal/Yhw has replied to
me,”74 and Sʿdnyqw°s°/Šʿdnyqws, (PORTEN/YARDENI 2018, 379 and YARDENI 2016,
720–21 resp.), “Qaws has supported me.”
II.A.a.12. VS impf. S+P (10 = 4.32%; for α.b´–e´ and β.a´ see YARDENI 2018, 707–
708):
II.A.a.12.α. G:
II.A.a.12.α.a´. Regular verbs: Qwsyb°r°k°, “Qaws will bless,” (cf. PORTEN/YARDENI
2018, 404); Nbwyṣdq, (LEMAIRE 1996, 75 = ISAP 1075), “Nabû is just, righteous,” (cf.
Nbwṣdq, i.e. DN + pf., from Elephantine, see ZADOK apud PORTEN/YARDENI 1993,
lxiii).
II.A.a.12.α.b´. Verba primae n: Qwsynqm, “Qaws will vindicate/avenge.”
II.A.a.12.α.c´. Verba primae y: Qwsy°y°pʿ°, “Qaws will shine forth.”
II.A.a.12.α.d´. Verba ultimae infirmae: Qwsyd°ly, “Qaws will draw up, save.”
II.A.a.12.α.e´. Defective verbs: Q°w°s°ytʾ, (YARDENI 2016, 708b), “Qaws will come”
(cf. OT ytʾ < yʾtʾ).
II.A.a.12.β. Causative:
II.A.a.12.β.a´. Verba mediae infirmae: ʾ°lyrb, “El(/God) will become great,” or
“El(/God) will conduct a legal case; suit,” (see LEMAIRE 1996, 50–51); Qwsytb, “Qaws
will return, restore,” and Qwsy°q°m, “Qaws will arise,” or “will raise up; erect, estab-
lish,” (see PORTEN/YARDENI 2014, 149).
II.A.a.12.β.b´. Defective verbs: ʾby°ty, (PORTEN/YARDENI 2018, 331), ʾḥyyty, (Rocke-
feller Shod 10? = ISAP 60), “The (divine) father/brother will bring.”
II.A.a.13. VS impf. P+S (7 = 3.03%, for a–b see YARDENI 2016, 681b, 683–84):
II.A.a.13.α. G:
II.A.a.13.α.a´. Regular verbs: Yʿdrʾl, Yšmʾl, “El(/God) will support/hear.”
II.A.a.13.α.b´. Verba ultimae infirmae: Ybnʾl, Yqnʾl, “El(/God) will build, create”;
Yrmyhw.

74
On the face of it ʿnny (with a different vocalization) can alternatively be an imperative, in which
case it would have the same meaning as Qwsʿnl, “Qaws has answered me,” or “Qaws, answer me!”
(see ZADOK 1998a, 820).
 On the Documentary Framework 199

II.A.a.13.α.c´. Defective verbs: Ytʾḥ, “a brother will come,” (substitute name, hardly
referring to the firstborn son); Yʾtʾb°w°, Ytʾb(w), “The (divine) father will come.”
II.A.a.13.β. Causative (passive): Ytyʾḥ, (YARDENI 2016, 684a), “A brother will be
brought,” (substitute name).
II.A.a.14. VS precative S+P (7 = 3.03%):
II.A.a.14.α. Regular verbs: Qwslʿ°q°b°, (PORTEN/YARDENI 2018, 408), “May Qaws
protect.”
II.A.a.14.β. Verba primae ʾ: Q°w°s°lʾ°lp°, “May Qaws teach,” (see PORTEN/YARDENI
2018, 407).
II.A.a.14.γ. Verba primae n: Qwslnṣr, “May Qaws guard.”
II.A.a.14.δ. Verba primae y: Qwslytʿ, “May Qaws deliver, save,” (see LEMAIRE 1996,
34).
II.A.a.14.ε. Verba mediae infirmae: Qwslkn, “May Qaws be firm,” (precative of K-
W/Y-N);75 Qwslʿt, “May Qaws help” (Arab.).
II.A.a.14.ζ. Verbs with identical 2nd and 3rd radicals: Qwslʿ°z°, “May Qaws be strong,
prevail,” (see YARDENI 2016, 710).
II.A.a.15. VS precative P+S (3 = 1.29%):
II.A.a.15.α. Regular verbs: Lʿdrʾl, “May El(/God) help.”76
II.A.a.15.β. Verba primae n: Lṣrʾl, “May El(/God) guard,” (with assimilation of -n-,
see YARDENI 2016, 685b).
II.A.a.15.γ. Verba ultimae infirmae: Lʿdʾl, “May El(/God) decorate.”
II.A.a.16. VS imperative S+P (2 = 0.86%):
II.A.a.16.α. Verba primae n: Qwsgʿ, (PORTEN/YARDENI 2014, 460), “Qaws strike!” (to
N-G-ʿ, Aram., Heb.; Arab. “to produce effect”).
II.A.a.16.β. Verba ultimae infirmae: Qwsʿny, “Qaws answer!”
II.A.a.17. VS imperative P+S (2 = 0.86%): Dʿʾl, “Know El(/God)!” (provided the
reading is not Rʿʾl); Š°z°bʾ °l, (PORTEN/ YARDENI 2016, 81), “El(/God) save!” (Aram.
< Akkad. –šēzib, adjusted).77
II.A.a.18. S+ active participle (6 = 2.59%):

75
NB S/Šam-ma-as-lu-ka-nu (VAT 16287, 22´) is followed by kurBa-az-zu (23) and may belong to
an Arabian dialect in view of the phonology of the theophorous element Šam-ma-as /Šamas/.
76
Cf. Sab. Lʿḏrʾl (TAIRAN 1992, 189–90, who fails to define the predicate as a precative form, see
ZADOK 2000a, 605).
77
The name recurs in Elephantine (PORTEN/YARDENI 1993, 3.13: 57sl., after 411 BC). Akkad.
šēzib is always the second component of the pertinent anthroponyms (all NA, the only apparent ex-
ception, viz. še-zib-[DN] is damaged, see LUUKKO, PNA 3, 1265a).
200 Ran Zadok

II.A.a.18.α. Regular verbs: Qwskhl, (see YARDENI 2016, 709), “Qaws is able, prevail-
ing, overcoming, overpowering,” (-kāhil, to K-H-L[< K-W/Y-L?] synonymous with
W/Y-K-L).
II.A.a.18.β. Verba mediae infirmae: Qwsrm, (cf. Kοσραµος, Idumean, ZADOK 1998b,
21*: 9.7, 3), “Qaws is elevated.” Bʿlrm is not defective for Bʿlrym, (EPHʿAL/NAVEH
1996, 83: 1), in view of the variant -rwm, “Baal is elevated,” and perhaps ʾḥmʾn, (RD
unpublished = ISAP 579), “the (divine) brother is supplying, feeding”? (M-W/Y-N).
Qwsryʿ, (YARDENI 2016, 714b), if it is not just a scribal error for Qwsrʿy (cf.
↓II.A.a.20), ends with a predicative component deriving from Arab. rāʿa, “to increase,
thrive, flourish,” active participle rāʾiʿ, (> <ryʿ>, cf. nyd for naʾid, dāʾim > dāyim
from dāma) also “surprising by beauty, courage; elegant (word).”
II.A.a.18.γ. Verba ultimae infirmae: Klḥzh, (PORTEN/YARDENI 2018, 368, OT ~), “He
(the god) is seeing all,” cf. LB < Aram. *Kull(u)-ḥazayt (kul-lu-ha-za-ʾ-it),78 “I have
seen all,”79 NA < Aram. *Kull-ḥazāt (kul-ha-za-a-te), “She (the goddess) has seen
all.”80
II.A.a.19. P (= active participle)+S (1 = 0.43%): Rmbʿl, (AI 11873 = ISAP 134), “Baal
is elevated.”
II.A.a.20. S+P = passive participle or NS S+ substantive + possessive suff. 1st sg. (3 =
1.29%): Bʿlrʿy, (OG 2 = ISAP 1626), Qwsrʿy, (YARDENI 2016, 714b), “Baal/Qaws is
desired, pleased,” or “Baal/Qaws is my shepherd”; cf. NB/LB Qu-ú-su-ra-ha-ʾ, “Qaws
has desired,” (PEARCE/WUNSCH 2014, 30, 3); [Qw]sʿw/zy, (YARDENI 2016, 713a),
“Qaws is desired,” or “Qaws is my strength,” (cf. ʿw/zy, ↓II.B.c.5.3).
II.A.a.21. NS S+P/P (active participle)+S (1 = 0.43%): ʾbrm, “the (divine) father is
elevated,” (see YARDENI 2016, 660b), or “Rm is (my) father.”
II.A.a.22. NS S+P (23 = 9.95%):
II.A.a.22.α. P = substantive: Qwsʾb, Qwsʾḥ, “Qaws is father/brother,” (see POR-
TEN/YARDENI 2018, 314, 399); Qwsʿynʾ, “Qaws is the source”; Q(w)syd, “Qaws is
love”; Qwsgd, “Qaws is (my) fortune,” (see LEMAIRE 1996, 47); Gdnr (JTX 4 159257
= ISAP 4), Qwsnr, “Gad/Qaws is (my) flame,” (defective for -nwr); Qwsṣr, (GD Un-
published +ISAP 569; cf. YARDENI 2016, 243), “Qaws is (my) rock,” (ṣwr, Aram. ṭwr,
Sab. ẓwr “rock, bedrock”). Here -ṣr might have rendered the Idumean equivalent of the
latter form.81 ʾlbʾr, (see LEMAIRE 1996, 34; PORTEN/YARDENI 2018, 336; for bʾr as a
divine epithet, cf. MASETTI-ROUAULT 1997, 22f.). ʾ°b°ʿ°m°, “The father is (my) kins-

78
DURAND 1981, 18, 4, 6, 13.
79
For the verbal form, cf., e.g., Bibl. Aram. ḥzyt. The name is the equivalent of Akkad. Gabbu-
āmur (HUNGER, PNA 1, 412–13).
80
BAKER, PNA 2, 636a.
81
For the Sabaic form see BEESTON et al. 1982, 173. CA ẓiʾr (pl. aẓwur, aẓwār, ẓuwūr), “column,”
is synonymous with Aram. ṭwr. (Old Aram. <ṣ> for Proto-Sem. /ẓ/, see SEGERT 1975, 89–90,
3.2.5.3.1; cf. 93:3.2.7.5.4 as well as in lwṣ).
 On the Documentary Framework 201

man,” (see YARDENI 2016, 660b); ʾšmw/yʾl, “Ishm/Ashima is god”82; Skrwʾl, “Śkr
(“reward”, epithet as a theophorous element) is (my) god”;83 Gd°ʾ°l (alternatively
Gd°w°l, YARDENI 2016, 666b ad JA 161), “Gad is (my) god,” (cf. MÜLLER 2018, 30);
Bʿlʿwt, (YARDENI 2016, 665a), Q(w)sʿwt (PORTEN/YARDENI 2014, 378), “Baal/Qaws
is help,” (Arab. ġawt); Bʿlgwr (YARDENI 2016, 664b), cf. NB/LB < Aram. Ṭāb
(DU10.GA)-gu-ur-ru (WAERZEGGERS 2014, 29, 4, 14); ʾlʿyd, Bʿlʿyd, Qwsʿyd,
“El(/God)/Baal/Qaws is (my) refuge, protection,” (alternatively with the reading DN-
ʿyr to b below84).
II.A.a.22.β. P = adjective (all exclusively Arab., except for Qwsʿz): Qwsʿz, “Qaws is
mighty”; Yhwʿz, “Yhw is mighty,” (PORTEN/YARDENI 2014, 255); ʾlʿyr, Bʿlʿyr,
Qwsʿyr, “El(/God)/Baal/Qaws is keen, enthusiastic, eager” (< “jealous,” cf. 24 below;
alternatively with the reading DN-ʿyd to a above); Qwsḥyr, “Qaws is good,” (Arabian,
see YARDENI 2016, 706b, synonymous with LB < Aram. dQu-su-ṭāb); ʾbʾnšw/y
(YARDENI 2016, 660a, ʾbʾnš, PORTEN/YARDENI 2016, A11.18; /ʾAb-anašu/, /ʾAb-
anaši/), “The (divine) father is trustworthy,” (cf. Saf., Tham., Min., Had., Sab. and Qat.
ʾbʾns1).85
II.A.a.23. NS S+P+ possessive pron. 1st sg. (very common in Aram.; 2 = 0.86%):
B[l]p°lṭy, “Bēl is my refuge,” (see YARDENI 2016, 664); Qwssdry, “Qaws is my order,
arrangement,” (implying that he is in harmony with me).86
II.A.a.24. NS S+P/ P+S (4 =1.73%):
II.A.a.24.α. P = substantive: ʿmʾl, (YARDENI 2016, 700a), “ʿAmm is (my) god,” or
“El(/God) is (my) kinsman (or paternal uncle),” (cf. OT ʿmyʾl, ZADOK 1988, 45, 54);
ʿmbʿly (forgery? exercise?), “the paternal uncle, kinsman is my lord.”
II.A.a.24.β. P = adjective: ʾlʿly, ʿlyʾl, “El(/God) is superior,” or “ʿly is (my) god.”87
II.A.a.25. NS P+S (24 = 10.38%):

82
See YARDENI 2016, 662–63. With the reading ʾšmwʾl the subject ends in -w, which is the nomi-
native ending like, e.g., in OT Šmwʾl and in *Māliku-ʾil (< Arab., reconstructed by MÜLLER 2018, 32).
This case ending is also extant in Skrwʾl and Ḥwqm (↑II.A.a.1), which confirms the Arabian milieu.
83
YARDENI 2016, 690b cautiously compares Nab. Śkrʾl, Śkrʾlhy pointing out the different sibi-
lants; ś > s in Official Aramaic.
84
Cf. Kο[σ]γηρος (Idumean, ZADOK 1998b, 21*: 9.7, 16) on the one hand and Snʿyd (PORTEN/
YARDENI 1999, lxix) on the other.
85
See HAYAJNEH 1998, 53 and SHATNAWI 2002, 641. The latter renders ʾbʾns (Saf., Tham.) as
“Ab ist Vertrauer” (NS) or “A. hat vertraut” (VS), but the nominative ending of the Idumean an-
throponym rules out a verbal sentence name. For Had. ʿmʾns1 (PIRENNE 1990, 52–53: 3), cf. CA
ʿAbd-ʿAmmīʾanas (kyriophoric “servant of ʿmʾns,” HAYAJNEH 1998, 53) and Sab. Ḫlʾnsl (MAR-
AQTEN 2014, 82, 8).
86
See ZADOK apud PORTEN/YARDENI 2018, 409. LIPIŃSKI 2016, 144 renders it “Qaws is my in-
tercessor” claiming that Ś-D-R denotes “to arrange to be forgiven, to intercede” without indicating
where such a meaning is recorded in a text.
87
ʿly is a theophorous element in Qatabanic (see HAYAJNEH 1998, 194–95).
202 Ran Zadok

II.A.a.25.α. Substantive + substantive: ʾbbʿl (YARDENI 2016, 660a), ʾbšlm (cf.

Aψελαµος from Mareshah, ZADOK 1998b, 20*: 9.5, 21), “Bʿl/Šlm is (my) father”;
ʾḥḥpy (EPHʿAL/NAVEH 1996, 201), “Apis (usually ḥp) is (my) brother,” (hybrid, Eg.-
Sem.); ʾḥšlm, “Šlm is (my) brother,” (see PORTEN/YARDENI 2018, 335); ʾlbʿl, “Baal is
the god”; Ḥnʾl (PORTEN/YARDENI 2014, 347), “El(/God) is (my) grace”; ʿmqws
(YARDENI 2016, 701a), ʿm°ṣdq (PORTEN/YARDENI 2018, 434), “Qaws/Ṣidq is (my)
kinsman”; Mr°ṣd°q°, “Ṣidq is lord,” (see YARDENI 2016, 687a); ʿzryqm, (LEMAIRE
2002, 365), “Qm is my support”; Mlkyʾl (LOZACHMEUR/LEMAIRE 1996, 137–40: 8 =
ISAP 1229, 2), “El(/God) is my king”; Ḥlyʾl, “El(/God) is (my) ornament,” (see
YARDENI 2016, 678b; Heb. ḥly, Arab. ḥalā, “to adorn”); Lbyʾl (Porten/Yardeni 2018,
370), “El(/God) is a lion,” (see PORTEN/YARDENI 2018, 369–70); Ṣr°b°ʿ°l, “Baal is
(my) rock,” (see PORTEN/YARDENI 2018, 159, 455).
II.A.a.25.β. Adjective + substantive: ʿlbʿl, -lhy, -qws, ʿlṣwr (see PORTEN/YARDENI
2014, 207, IDEM 2018, 387; Heb., but cf. Qwsṣr ↑II.A.a.22), “Baal/Ilāh(ī)/Qaws/Ṣūr is
elevated, exalted”; ʿzʾl (YARDENI 2016, 696b, cf. Aζηλος, Idumean, ZADOK 1998b,
21*: 9.7, 78), -bʿl, -gd, “El(/God)/Baal/Gd is mighty,” (for ʿzgd, see ZADOK 2000a,
629 and YARDENI 2016, 696b); ʿyrʾḥ, /Ġayr-aḫ/, “The (divine) brother is keen, enthu-
siastic, eager,” (< “jealous”, Ġ-W/Y-R, Arab.),88 cf. ancient Aram. Qyrḥ, NA He-ra-hi,
He-ri-PAP(meš) (FABRITIUS/JAS, PNA 2, 474a; see FALES 1980); Nʿmʾl (AI 11313 =
ISAP 451), “El(/God) is pleasant”; Ṭwbyh.
II.A.a.26. NS S+P (= substantive) or NS P (= adjective)+S (1 = 0.43%): Ḥyʾl, “Ḥy (<
epithet) is god,” or “El(/God) is alive.”
II.A.a.27. NS S+P (substantive)/P (active participle)+S (1 = 0.43%): Rmʾl, (11771 =
ISAP 209), “Rm is (my) god,” or “El/God is elevated.”
II.A.a.28. NS with preposition (1 = 0.43%): Bydʾl, (> Bdʾl, alternatively Brʾl), “in the
hand (‘client, devotee’) of El/God,” (see YARDENI 2016, 663b; cf. ZADOK 1978, 110;
TAIRAN 1992, 86–87).
II.A.a.29. NS P (= substantive)+S or GC (2 = 0.86%): Zydʾl, (cf. Zαιδηλος from
Mareshah, ZADOK 1998b, 20*: 9.5, 1), Zy°d°lh°y° denotes “El/God is growth, prosper-
ity,” (see PORTEN/YARDENI 2018, 351) or “El/God/my god’s growth, prosperity” (Ar-
ab.).89
II.A.a.30. NS P (= substantive + poss. pron. 1sg.)+S or GC (1 = 0.43%): Rʿymrn, “de-
sired, pleased by Mrʾn,” or (with YARDENI 2016, 717) “Mrʾn is my friend, shepherd.”

88
See LIDZBARSKI 1908, 332, 349–50; cf. PORTEN/YARDENI 2014, 10. The rendering of Saf.
Ġyrʾl as “Gottes Gnade/Wohltat” (HAZIM 1986, 99–100) or “Gott hat (etwas) zum besseren gewendet”
(ABABNEH 2005, 39), which follows LITTMANN 1943, 337, is unfounded.
89
Hayajneh (1998, 158) suggests as an alternative “Il hat Zuwachs gegeben” (/Zāda-ʾil/), but I do
not see how zyd renders zāda.
 On the Documentary Framework 203

II.A.a.31. Interrogative sentence names (2 = 0.86%): Mnkšmš (AI 11869 = ISAP 110),
“Who is like Šam(a)š?” and perhaps Kyʾ < Mykyh, “(who is) like Yhw?”90 (but see
↓II.A.a.f).
II.A.a.32. GC (P+S; 28 = 12.12%):
II.A.a.32.α. P = substantive: ʿbdʾdh, ʿbdʾl, -ʾsy/ʿbdy°s°, -ʾwr, (PORTEN/YARDENI 2018,
380), -ʾws(y)ry, -ʿzyz (LEMAIRE 1996, 75), -bʿl(y), ʿ°b°d°lbʿly, -(ʾ)lhy, -mlk, -mnwt[w]
(LEMAIRE 2002, 342), -mrn, -rm,91 -ṣdq, -šmš, ʿb(d)qws (cf. Aβδοκως, Aβδοκωσος,
Idumeans, ZUCKER 1938, 58), Tymʾl, “servant of DN/epithet”; Qynʾl (YARDENI 2016,
715a), “servant of El,” (cf. HAYAJNEH 1998, 216–17); B°y°t°bʿ°l, “Baal’s house,” (see
YARDENI 2016, 664a); Gwrbʿl, (LEMAIRE 1996, 131 = ISAP 1131), “Baal’s dwelling,”
or “cub of Baal”; Ḥgʾwr, (EPHʿAL/NAVEH 1996, 201), “feast of light,” (ʾwr, cf. OT
Ḥgyh) who appears among Judeans. Wdydʾl (LEMAIRE 2002, 351, diminutive), “God’s
darling,” cf. [W]dydʾl, (BEYER 1998, 104) and Oδιδηλος (Idumean, ZUCKER 1938, 61).
ʾḥmh (EPHʿAL/NAVEH 1996, 184), i.e. “his mother’s brother,” is a substitute name
(with the poss. pron. 3rd sg. m.).
II.A.a.32.β. P = passive participle: ʿ°w°y°d°ʾ°lh°y°, “refuge-seeker of ilāh,” (see
YARDENI 2016, 695b); Ytyʿʾl, Mtyʿʾl (IA 12451 = ISAP 858), “saved by El(/God),” cf.
Nab. ~, Aram., Lih., Min., and Had. Mtʿʾl,92 (see HAYAJNEH 1998, 82 ad Qat. ʾlmtʿ).
Z°b°y°d°ʾl, “given, granted by El(/God),” (see PORTEN/YARDENI 2018, 349); Wšyqʾl
(YARDENI 2016, 670b), “borne by El/God,” cf. Saf. Wsqʾl, NA Ia-ú-si-iq-ìl, cf. CA
wasaqa “to store, heap, load,” wasq, “load, burden.”
II.A.a.33. NS Preposition + numen + pers. pron. 3rd m. (1 = 0.43%): Bgnh (POR-
TEN/YARDENI 2014, 402), “by his gn,” (Saf. ~). The type b + noun + h is discussed by
MÜLLER 1998; ZADOK 2000a, 652–54 and SHATNAWI 2002, 655–56.
II.A.a.34. Non-theophorous compound (a calendar name; 1 = 0.43%): Ḥb°š°b°w° <
Ḥdbšbʾ, “(born) on Sunday,” (see YARDENI 2016, 675a, but why -w?).

II.A.b. Arranged by Percentage

Type No. Compound Anthroponyms Percentage
1 1 VS pf. S+P 15.58%
2 32 GC (P+S) 12.12%
3 6 VS pf. P+S 10.38%
4 25 NS P+S 10.38%
5 22 NS S+P 9.95%
6 12 VS impf. S+P 4.32%
7 10 VS pf. P+S or GC 4.32%
8 4 VS pf. S+P/NS S+P 3.89%

90
Cf. NB/LB Kī-Nabû < Mannu-kī-Nabû according to TALLQVIST 1905, 89a.
91
IA 12445 = ISAP 837. Cf. EA Abdi (ÌR)-i-ra-ma (HESS 1993, 15–16: 5; see ZADOK 1983, 236).
92
Mατιηλοϛ (WUTHNOW 1930, 74) is from the Ptolemaic period, when Gk. <τ> still rendered Sem.
/t/.
204 Ran Zadok

9 8 VS pf. P+S (or NS P+S?) 3.46%

10 13 VS impf. P+S 3.03%
11 14 VS precative S+P 3.03%
12 18 S+ active participle 2.59%
13 11 VS pf. P (+ obj. suff.) +S 1.73%
14 24 NS S+P/P+S 1.73%
15 15 VS precative P+S 1.29%
S+P = passive participle or NS S+ substantive +
16 20 1.29%
possessive suff. 1st sg.
17 5 VS pf. (all G, verba primae y) S+P/NS P+S 0.86%
18 7 VS pf./imperative S+P (+ obj. suff.) 0.86%
19 16 VS imperative S+P 0.86%
20 17 VS imperative P+S 0.86%
21 23 NS S+P+ possessive pron. 1st sg. 0.86%
22 29 NS P (= substantive)+S or GC 0.86%
23 31 Interrogative sentence names 0.86%
24 2 VS pf./imperative S+P 0.43%
25 3 VS pf./impf./NS S+P 0.43%
26 9 VS pf. P+S or NS P+S or GC 0.43%
27 19 P (= active participle)+S 0.43%
28 21 NS S+P/P (active participle)+S 0.43%
29 26 NS S+P (= substantive) or NS P (= adjective)+S 0.43%
30 28 NS with prep. 0.43%
31 27 NS S+P (substantive)/P (active participle)+S 0.43%
32 30 NS P (= substantive + poss. pron. 1sg.) +S or GC 0.43%
33 33 NS Preposition + numen + pers. pron. 3rd m. 0.43%
34 34 Non-theophorous compound (a calendar name) 0.43%

Basically, there are just five patterns of compound names (altogether 16–19 sub-
patterns):
A. VS
1. Pf. a. S+P; b. P+S (P+/- object suff. 1st sg.)
2. Impf. a. S+P; b. P+S
3. Imper. a. S+P; b. P+S
4. Prec. a. S+P; b. P+S
B. Sentence with a participle
1. Active a. S+P; b. P+S
2. Passive S + P
C. NS
1. a. S+P
1. b. P+S (P +/- possessive pron. 1st sg.)
2. Preposition +S (+/- pers. pron. 3rd m.)
D. Interrogative sentence
 On the Documentary Framework 205

E. GC.
The most common compounds are verbal sentence names with a perfect verb (qtl).
Such names with an imperfect verb (yqtl) lag far behind. The most frequent order is
subject + predicate. This resembles the situation in Aramaic, Phoenician and Ancient
South-Arabian, but differs from that of Hebrew, Amorite, Ugaritic and Ancient North-
Arabian. Interestingly enough, exclusively Arabian predicative elements quite often
follow the subject, which means that they were adopted to the Idumean sequence (e.g.
ʾlwhb /ʾil-wahab/; Qwsw°hb /Qaws-wahab/; and Qwshdh /Qaws-hadā/ vs. Brzl /Baraz-
ʾil/, and Whbʾl /Wahab-ʾil/, “El/God has appeared, granted”).

II.A.c. Distribution of the Idumean Compound Names (Arranged by Percentage; 65 =

100%)
Type Compound
Sum Percentage Names
No. Anthroponyms
Qwsʾl[p], Qwsʾtʾ, Qwsbrk, Qwsbyn,
Qwshdh, Qwshwd, Qwsḥnn, Qwskrz,
1 VS pf. S+P 19 29.23% Qwsnqm, Qwsnṣr, Qwsntn, Qwsnṭr,
Qwsqm, Qwsšmʿ, Q°w°s°ṭll, Qwsw°hb,
Qwsydʿ, Qwsyhb, Qwsytʿ
Qwsʾb, Qwsʾḥ, Qwsʿwt, Qwsʿynʾ,
22 NS S+P 11 16.92% Qwsgd, Qwsnr; Qwsṣr; Qwsyd.
P= adjective: Qwsʿz; Qwsḥyr, Qwsʿyr
Q°w°s°lʾ°lp°, Qwslʿ°q°b°, Qwslʿt,
14 VS precative S+P 7 10.76%
Qwslʿ°z°, Qwslkn, Qwslnṣr, Qwslytʿ
Qwsyb°r°k°, Qwsyd°ly, Qwsynqm,
12 VS impf. S+P 7 10.76% Qwsy°q°m, Q°w°s°ytʾ, Qwsytb,
Qwsy°y°pʿ°
VS pf. S+P/
4 4 6.15% Qwsʿdr, Qwsmlk, Qwsnhr, [Qw]splṭ
NS S+P
S+P = active
18 3 4.61% Qwskhl, Qwsrm, Qwsryʿ
participle
6 VS pf. P+S 2 3.12% Ndbq°w°s°, Pl(ʾ)qws
VS pf. P (+ obj.
11 2 3.12% ʿtnqws, S/Šʿdnyqws
suff.)+S
16 VS imperative 2 3.12% Qwsʿny and perhaps Qwsgʿ
S+P = passive
participle or NS S +
20 2 3.12% Qwsrʿy, [Qw]sʿw/zy
substantive + pos-
sessive suff. 1st sg.
P= substantive: ʿmqws; P= adjective:
25 NS P+S 2 3.07%
ʿlqws
VS pf. /imperative
2 1 1.53% Qwsdkr
S+P
206 Ran Zadok

VS pf. S+P (+ obj.

7 1 1.53% Qwsdlny
suff.)
VS pf. P+S/NS
8 1 1.53% ʿ°d°r°q°w°s°
P+S
NS S+P (+ poss.
23 1 1.53% ʿ°d°r°q°w°s°
suff. 1st sg.)
32 GC 1 1.53% ʿb(d)qws

II.A.d. Theophorous Elements (cf. LEMAIRE 2002, 220–21; 227 = 100%)

II.A.d.1. Alphabetic List
Word Sum Percentage Names
ʾbʾnš(w/y), ʾby°ty, Yʾtʾb°w°, Ytʾb(w),
1 ʾb 3 1.32%
II.A.a.12, 22
2 ʾb/ʿm 1 0.44% ʾ°b°ʿ°m°, II.A.a.22
3 ʾb/Rm 1 0.44% ʾbrm, II.A.a.21
4 ʾb/Šlm 1 0.44% ʾbšlm, II.A.a.25
5 ʾb/Ytʿ 1 0.44% ʾbytʿ, II.A.a.5
6 ʾdh 2 0.88% ʿbdʾdh, Zbdʾdh, II.A.a.32
ʾḥbrk°, ʾḥmʾn, ʿ(y)d/rʾḥ, II.A.a.1, 18, 25;
7 ʾḥ 4 1.76%
with aphaeresis Ḥwqm, II.A.a.1
8 ʾḥy 1 0.44% ʾḥyqm, II.A.a.1
9 ʾḥ/Šlm 1 0.44% ʾḥšlm, II.A.a.25
ʾlʿdr, ʾlʿyd/r, ʾlbʾr, ʾlḥnn, ʾlmlk, ʾlwhb,
ʾ°lyrb, ʿbdʾl, ʿdʾl, ʿdrʾl, ʿnʾ(h)l, ʿzʾl,
Bd/rʾl, Bnʾrʾl, Bydʾl, D/Rʿʾl, Dlʾl, Ḥlyʾl,
Ḥnʾl, Ḥyʾl, Ḥz°ʾl, Ḥzhʾl, Kḥʾl, Lʿdʾl,
Lʿdrʾl, Lbyʾl, Lṣrʾl, Mlkyʾl, Mtyʿʾl,
10 ʾl 51 22.46% Nʿmʾl, Ntnʾl, Pdʾl, P°lʾl, Plṭʾl, Qnʾl,
Qynʾl, Šʿdʾl, Šzbʾl, Tymʾl, Wdydʾl,
Whbʾl, Wšyqʾl, Yʿdrʾl, Ybnʾl, Yqnʾl,
Ytyʿʾl, Zbdʾl, Z°b°y°d°ʾl, Zydʾl, II.A.a.1,
4, 6, 8, 10–13, 15, 17, 22, 25–29, 32; -l:
Brkl, Brzl, Yšmʿl, II.A.a.6, 13
11 ʾl/ʾly/Mlk 1 0.44% ʾlymlk, II.A.a.3
12 ʾl/ʿly 2 0.88% ʾlʿly, ʿlyʾl, II.A.a.24
13 ʾl/ʿm 1 0.44% ʿmʾl, II.A.a.24
14 ʾl/Rm 1 0.44% Rmʾl, II.A.a.27
15 ʾlbʿly 1 0.44% ʿ°b°d°lbʿly, II.A.a.32
16 ʾlh 1 0.44% Zbdʾlh, II.A.a.32
ʿbdʾlhy, ʿllhy, ʿ°w°y°d°ʾ°lh°y°, Zbdʾlhy,
17 (ʾ)lhy 5 2.2%
Zy°d°lh°y°, II.A.a.25, 29, 32
18 ʾsy 1 0.44% ʿbdʾsy, ʿbdys, II.A.a.32
19 ʾšmw 1 0.44% ʾšmw/yʾl, II.A.a.22
 On the Documentary Framework 207

20 ʾwr 2 0.88% ʿbdʾwr,93 Ḥgʾwr, II.A.a.32

21 ʾwsyry 1 0.44% ʿbdʾwsyry, ʿbd(ʾ)wsry, II.A.a.32
22 ʿm/Ytʿ 1 0.44% ʿmytʿ, II.A.a.5
23 ʿzyz 1 0.44% ʿbdʿzyz, II.A.a.32
Bʿlʿdr, Bʿlʿwt, Bʿlʿyd/r, Bʿlb°r°k, Bʿlgwr,
Bʿlḥnn, Bʿlmlk, Bʿlplṭ, Bʿlrʿy,
Bʿlr(w/y)m, Bʿlsmk, Bʿlzbd, ʾbbʿl, ʾlbʿl,
24 Bʿl 25 11.01% ʿbdbʿl, ʿdrbʿl, ʿlbʿl, ʿnnybʿl, ʿzrbʿl,
B°y°t°bʿ°l, Gwrbʿl, Ntnbʿl, Rmbʿl,
Ṣr°b°ʿ°l, Zbdbʿl, II.A.a.1, 4, 6, 8, 11, 18,
19, 20, 22, 25, 32
25 Bʿly 3 1.32% ʿbdbʿly, ʿmbʿly, Z°bd°bʿly, II.A.a.24, 32
26 Bb 1 0.44% Bbwsm, II.A.a.1
27 Bl 2 0.88% Bld°lny, B[l]p°lṭy, II.A.a.7, 23
28 Gd 3 1.32% Gd°ʾ°l, Gdnr, ʿzgd, II.A.a.22, 25
29 Gn 1 0.44% Bgnh, II.A.a.33
30 Ḥp 1 0.44% ʾḥḥpy, II.A.a.25
31 Mlk 2 0.88% ʿbdmlk, Zbdmlk, II.A.a.32
32 Mnwt[w] 1 0.44% ʿbdmnwt[w], II.A.a.32
ʿbdmrn, ʿ°d°r°m°r°ʾn°, Ntnmr(ʾ)n,
33 Mr(ʾ)n 4 1.76%
Rʿymrn, Zbdmrn, II.A.a.6, 8, 30, 32
Nbwbrk, Nbwyṣdq, Z°b°d°n°b°w°,
34 Nbw 3 1.32%
II.A.a.1, 12, 32
35 Qm 1 0.44% ʿzryqm, II.A.a.25
36 Qws 65 28.63% ↑II.A.c
37 Rm 1 0.44% ʿbdrm, II.A.a.32
38 Skrw 1 0.44% Skrw/yʾl, II.A.a.22
39 Syn 1 0.44% Ntns°y°n, II.A.a.6
Ṣdqntn, Ntnṣdq, ʿbdṣdq, ʿm°ṣdq,
40 Ṣdq 5 2.2%
Mr°ṣd°q°, II.A.a.1, 6, 25, 32
41 Ṣwr 1 0.44% ʿlṣwr, II.A.a.25
42 Šmš 2 0.88% Mnkšmš, Šmšdn, II.A.a.1, 31
43 Yhw 21 9.25% ↓II.A.f

An additional theophorous element, Ssm (1) is contained in the hypocoristicon Ssmy

(↓II.C)

II.A.d.2. Classification
II.A.d.2.α. Kinship terms:
ʾb, ʾḥ(y), ʿm
II.A.d.2.β. Other common West Semitic:

93
Less likely a rendering of Ab-da-Amurru (dKUR.GAL, Spurlock Museum 1913.1604, 3, unpubl.).
208 Ran Zadok

ʾl(y), (ʾ)lh(y), Gd. Bʿl is not exclusively Phoenician (except in Bʿlyt°n°, YARDENI 2016,
665a and ʿzrbʿl due to their predicative elements), but was common in Idumea in view
of (ʾl)bʿly (+/- the Arabian definite article). ʾdh may be related to either Hd(d) or ʾd.
II.A.d.2.γ. Originally epithets (common West Sem.):
ʿly, Mlk, Rm, Ṣdq, Šlm
II.A.d.2.δ. Mesopotamian (adopted by Arameo-Arabians):
Bb (Baba > Bau), Bl, Nbw, Syn, Šmš
II.A.d.2.ε. Typically Aramean:
Mr(ʾ)n
II.A.d.2.ζ. Typically Arabian:
(ʾl)bʿly, ʿzyz, Gn, Mnwt[w], Ytʿ, ʾšmw, Skrw
II.A.d.2.η. Typically Idumean (< Arabian):
Qws
II.A.d.2.θ. Hebrew-Canaanite:
Yhw, ʾwr, Ṣwr, Qm (three < epithets)
II.A.d.2.ι. Phoenico-Cyprian?:
Ssm
II.A.d.2.κ. Egyptian:
ʾsy, ʾwsyry, Ḥpy

II.A.e. Arranged by Percentage

Name Percentage
Qws (no. 22) 28.63%
ʾl (no. 10) max. 24.66% if nos 11–14 are added
Bʿl (no. 24)+ Bʿly (no. 25) 12.77% (= 11.01%+1.32%)
ʾlbʿly (no. 15) 0.44%
Yhw (no. 43) 9.25%
(ʾ)lhy (no. 17) + (ʾ)lh (no. 16) 2.64% (= 2.2%+0.44%)
2.2% (= 1.76%+0.44%; max. 26.4%
ʾḥ (no. 7) + ʾḥy (no. 8)
if no. 9 is added).
Ṣdq (no. 40) 2.2%
Mr(ʾ)n (no. 33) 1.76%
1.32%, min., max.: 3.08% if nos 2–5
ʾb
are added.
Gd (no. 28); Nbw (no. 34) 1.32% each
ʾdh (no. 6); ʾl/ʿly (no. 12); ʾwr (no. 20); Bl (no. 27); Mlk (no.
0.88% each
31); Šmš (no. 42)
ʾb/ʿm (no. 2); ʾb/Rm (no. 3); ʾb/Šlm (no. 4); ʾb/Ytʿ (no. 5);
ʾḥ/Šlm (no. 9); ʾl/ʾly/Mlk (no. 11); ʾl/ʿm (no. 13); ʾl/Rm (no. 0.44% each
14); ʾsy (no. 18); ʾšmw (no. 19); ʾwsyry (no. 21); ʿm/Ytʿ (no.
 On the Documentary Framework 209

22); ʿzyz (no. 23); Bb (no. 26); Gn (no. 29); Ḥpy (no. 30);
Mnwt[w] (no. 32); Qm (no. 35); Rm (no.37); Skrw (no. 38);
Syn (no. 39); Ṣwr (no. 41)

II.A.f. Tetragrammatic Names (cf. YARDENI 2016, 722a)

The Tetragrammaton is written always Yhw in initial position, but it shows variation
while in final position:
Yhwʿnh, Yhwʿqb, Yhwʿz (clan) (↑II.A.a.1, 19), Yhšw/mʿ (LEMAIRE 2002, 365 = ISAP
1407) and with aphaeresis Hwbrk (IA 11871 = ISAP 109). The form -yhw is extant in
ʿbdyhw (PORTEN/YARDENI 2018, 593) and Yrmyhw (YARDENI 2016, 683b). The most
common spelling is -yh: ʿ°q°b°yh (alternatively Š°m°ʿ°yh, PORTEN/YARDENI 2018,
334); Ḥnnyh (LEMAIRE 2002, 365); K°ny°h (PORTEN/YARDENI 2018, 312); Mlkyh
(OG 12 = ISAP 1624); Nqmyh (↑II.A.a.5); ʿ°n°n°y°h; P°dyh°; Plṭyh; and Ṭwbyh
(YARDENI 2016, 681, 702–703). The latter may be homonymous with Ṭbyw whose
filiation is Tetragrammatic (son of Šmʿyh and grandson of Tbnh, EPHʿAL/NAVEH 1996,
201). Elsewhere Ṭbyw is not Tetragrammatic (↓II.B.b.4.2). The form -yw interchanges
with -yh in Ḥnnyw (EPHʿAL/NAVEH 1996, 200, i.e. in the same dossier as Ṭbyw and
Ḥšbyw). Ḥšbyh[(w)] (IA 11368 = ISAP 434) and Yrmy[h] (IA 12413 = ISAP 1745)
are damaged. A person called ʿ°q°b°yh/Š°m°ʿ°yh acted as agent of ʾḥy°w°. The latter
may alternatively be an Arabian diminutive (↓II.B.b.6.1). Kyʾ (IA 12450 = ISAP 863)
looks like a variant of Kyh from Elephantine. The latter is rendered “like Yh” (ZADOK
apud PORTEN/YARDENI 1993, lxia, s.v.), but -yʾ of Kyʾ would be a unique spelling for
Yh(w); besides, the name has only one stable consonant and is too short for an unam-
biguous affiliation.

II.A.g. Non-Theophorous Sentence Names

ʿdrny, “he helped me,” (cf. YARDENI 2016, 695); ʿnn°y (PORTEN/YARDENI 2018, 389–
90), “he answered me,” (see ZADOK 1988, 34); ʿtny (YARDENI 2016, 703a), “he helped
me,” (see SIMA 2001). The object suffix of ʿtnqws has a defective spelling (-n-, cf. -ny-
of ʿnnybʿl, II.A.a.11). ʿtnʾ (LEMAIRE 2002, 178 = ISAP 1347) is related to ʿtny (for the
dropping of -y, cf. ZADOK 1978, 291–92). Since it ends in -ʾ, it seems that a compound
suffix, viz. -Vn+ -ā, was inserted to the base deriving from Ġ-W/Y-T, “to help.” The
following names are perhaps compounds, but are unexplained: Pd/rtʿn (2 × YARDENI
2016, 248, JA 228, and ISAP 1900), Prtʿn probably means “flea” in light of OSyr.
pwrʿtnʾ; Bʿnt and B[ʿ]ny (PORTEN/YARDENI 2014, 91; 2018, 356) are perhaps genitive
compounds (cf. OT Bʿnh?, ZADOK 1988, 59 and Sab. Bʿn, MARAQTEN 2014, 28, 2).

II.A.h. Alphabetic List of Compound Anthroponyms

ʾbʾnš(w/y), ʾ°b°ʿ°m° (II.A.a.22) ʾby°ty (II.A.a.12)
ʾbbʿl (II.A.a.25) ʾḥbrk° (II.A.a.1)
ʾbrm (II.A.a.21) ʾḥḥpy (II.A.a.25)
ʾbšlm (II.A.a.25) ʾḥmʾn (II.A.a.18)
ʾbytʿ (II.A.a.5) ʾḥmh (II.A.a.32)
210 Ran Zadok

ʾḥšlm (II.A.a.25) Bbwsm (II.A.a.1)

ʾḥyqm (II.A.a.1) B°dʾ°l (II.A.a.28)
ʾḥyyty (II.A.a.12) Bgnh (II.A.a.33)
ʾlʿdr (II.A.a.4) Bld°lny (II.A.a.7)
ʾlʿly (II.A.a.24) B[l]p°lṭy (II.A.a.23)
ʾlʿyd/r, ʾlbʾr (II.A.a.22) Bnʾrʾl (II.A.a.10)
ʾlbʿl (II.A.a.25) Brʾl, Brkl, Brzl (II.A.a.6)
ʾlḥnn (II.A.a.1) Bydʾl (II.A.a.28)
ʾlmlk (II.A.a.4) Bytbʿl (II.A.a.32)
ʾlwhb (II.A.a.1) Dʿʾl (II.A.a.17)
ʾlymlk (II.A.a.3) Dlʾl (II.A.a.6)
°lyrb (II.A.a.12) Gdʾl, Gdnr (II.A.a.22)
ʾšmw/yʾl (II.A.a.22) Gwrbʿl (II.A.a.32)
ʿbdʾdh,ʿbdʾl, ʿbdʾlhy, ʿbdʾsy, ʿbdʾwr, Hwbrk (II.A.a.1)
ʿbdʾwsyry, ʿbd(ʾ)wsry, ʿbdʿzyz, ʿbdbʿl, Ḥbšbw (II.A.a.34)
ʿbdbʿly, ʿ°b°d°lbʿly, ʿbdlhy, ʿbdmlk, Ḥgʾwr (II.A.a.32)
ʿbdmnwt[w], ʿbdmrn, ʿb(d)qws, ʿbdrm, Ḥlyʾl, Ḥnʾl (II.A.a.25)
ʿbdṣdq, ʿbdšmš, ʿbdyhw,ʿbdy°s° (II.A.a.32) Ḥnnyh, Ḥnnyw, Ḥšbyh, Ḥšbyw (II.A.f)
ʿd/rʾḥ (II.A.a.6) Ḥwqm (II.A.a.1)
ʿdʾl, ʿdrʾl, ʿdrbʿl, ʿ°d°r°m°r°ʾn° (II.A.a.8) Ḥyʾl (II.A.a.26)
ʿdrny (II.A.g) Ḥz°ʾl, Ḥzhʾl (II.A.a.6)
ʿ°d°r°q°w°s° (II.A.a.8) Kḥʾl (II.A.a.10)
ʿlbʿl, ʿllhy,ʿlqws, ʿlṣwr (II.A.a.25) Klḥzh (II.A.a.16)
ʿlyʾl (II.A.a.24) K°ny°h (II.A.6)
ʿmʾl, ʿmbʿly (II.A.a.24) Kyʾ (II.A.a.31)
ʿmbr[k] (II.A.a.1) Lʿdʾl, Lʿdrʾl (II.A.a.15)
ʿmqws, ʿm°ṣdq (II.A.a.25) Lbyʾl (II.A.a.25)
ʿmytʿ (II.A.a.5) Lṣrʾl (II.A.a.15)
ʿnʾl, ʿnhʾl (II.A.a.6) Mlkyʾl (II.A.a.25)
ʿnn°y (II.A.g) Mlkyh (II.A.f)
ʿnnybʿl (II.A.a.11) Mnkšmš (II.A.a.31)
ʿnnyh (II.A.a.11) Mrṣdq (II.A.a.25)
ʿ°q°b°yh (II.A.f) Mtyʿʾl (II.A.a.32)
ʿtnqws (II.A.a.11) Nʿmʾl (II.A.a.25)
ʿtny (II.A.g) Nbwbrk (II.A.a.1)
ʿ°w°y°d°ʾ°lh°y° (II.A.a.32) Nbwyṣdq (II.A.a.12)
ʿyd/rʾḥ, ʿzʾl, ʿzbʿl, ʿzgd (II.A.a.25) Ndbq°w°s°, Nqmyh, Ntnʾl, Ntnbʿl, Ntnmr(ʾ)n,
ʿzrbʿl (II.A.a.8) Ntns°y°n, Ntnṣdq, Pdʾl (II.A.a.6)
ʿzryqm (II.A.a.25) Pd/rtʾn (II.A.g)
Bʿlʿdr (II.A.a.4) Pdyh (II.A.a.6)
Bʿlʿwt, Bʿlʿyd/r (II.A.a.22) P°lʾl, Plʾqws, Plqws (II.A.a.6)
Bʿlb°r°k (II.A.a.1) Plṭʾl (II.A.a.8)
Bʿlgwr (II.A.a.22) Plṭyh (II.A.f)
Bʿlḥnn (II.A.a.1) Qnʾl (II.A.a.6)
Bʿlmlk, Bʿlplṭ (II.A.a.4) Qsʿwt, Qwsʾb, Qwsʾḥ (II.A.a.22)
Bʿlrʿy (II.A.a.20) Qwsʾl[p], Qwsʾtʾ, Qwsʾyty (II.A.a.1)
Bʿlrm, Bʿlrwm, Bʿlrym (II.A.a.18) Qwsʿdr (II.A.a.4)
Bʿlsmk (II.A.a.1) Qwsʿny (II.A.a.16)
Bʿlyt°n° (II.A.d) Q(w)sʿwt (II.A.a.22)
Bʿlzbd (II.A.a.1) [Qw]sʿw/zy (II.A.a.20)
Bʿnt, B[ʿ]ny (II.A.g) Qwsʿyd/r, Qwsʿynʾ, Qwsʿz (II.A.a.22)
 On the Documentary Framework 211

Qwsbrk, Qwsbyn (II.A.a.1) Rʿʾl (II.A.a.17)

Qwsdkr (II.A.a.2) Rʿymrn (II.A.a.30)
Qwsdlny (II.A.a.7) Rmʾl (II.A.a.27)
Qwsgʿ (II.A.a.16) Rmbʿl (II.A.a.19)
Qwsgd (II.A.a.22) Sʿdnyqw°s° (II.A.a.11)
Qwshdh, Qwshwd, Qwsḥnn (II.A.a.1) Skrwʾl (II.A.a.22)
Qwsḥyr (II.A.a.22) Ṣdqntn (II.A.a.1)
Qwskhl (II.A.a.18) Ṣr°b°ʿ°l (II.A.a.25)
Qwskrz (II.A.a.1) Šʿdʾl (II.A.a.9)
Q°w°s°lʾ°lp°, Qwslʿ°q°b°, Qwslʿt, Qwslʿ°z°, Šʿdnyqws (II.A.a.11)
Qwslkn, Qwslnṣr, Qwslytʿ (II.A.a.14) Šmʿyh (II.A.f)
Qwsmlk, Qwsnhr (II.A.a.4) Šmšdn (II.A.a.1)
Qwsnqm (II.A.a.1) Š°z°bʾ°l (II.A.a.17)
Qwsnr (II.A.a.22) Tymʾl (II.A.a.32)
Qwsnṣr, Qwsntn, Qwsnṭr (II.A.a.1) Ṭwbyh (II.A.a.25)
[Qw]splṭ (II.A.a.4) Wdydʾl (II.A.a.32)
Qwsqm (II.A.a.1) Whbʾl (II.A.a.10)
Qwsrʿy (II.A.a.20) Wšyqʾl (II.A.a.32)
Qwsrm, Qwsryʿ, Qwsrym (II.A.a.18) Yʾtʾb°w°, Yʿdrʾl, Ybnʾl (II.A.a.11)
Qwssdry (II.A.a.23) Yhšw/mʿ (II.A.f)
Qwsṣr (II.A.a.22) Yhwʿnh, Yhwʿqb (II.A.a.1)
Qwsšmʿ, Q°w°s°ṭll, Qwsw°hb (II.A.a.1) Yhwʿz (II.A.a.22)
Qwsyb°r°k° (II.A.a.12) Yqnʾl (II.A.a.13)
Q(w)syd (II.A.a.22) Yrmy[h], Yrmyhw (II.A.f)
Qwsydʿ (II.A.a.1) Yšmʿl, Ytʾb, Ytʾbw, Ytʾḥ, Ytyʾḥ (II.A.a.13)
Qwsyd°ly (II.A.a.12) Ytyʿʾl (II.A.a.32)
Qwsyhb (II.A.a.1) Zbdʾdh, Zbdʾl, Zbdʾlh, Zbdʾlhy, Zbdbʿl,
Qwsynqm, Qwsy°q°m (II.A.a.12) Z°bd°bʿly, Zbdmlk, Zbdmrn, Z°b°d°n°b°w°
Q°w°s°ytʾ (II.A.a.12) (II.A.a.10)
Qwsytʿ (II.A.a.1) Z°b°y°d°ʾl (II.A.a.32)
Qwsytb, Qwsy°y°pʿ° (II.A.a.12) Zydʾl, Zy°d°lh°y° (II.A.a.29)
Qynʾl (II.A.a.32)

II. B. Simplex (Non-Compound) Anthroponyms

The majority of the names from Idumea are simplex (over 320).

II.B.a. Isolated Predicates of II.A.a

ʿyd/r (Yardeni 2016,697, to Bʿl/Qwsʿyd/r or the inverted pattern), cf. Tham. ʿyḏ, CA
ʿIyāḏ, “refuge, protection,” (see SHATNAWI 2002, 720) and Aιδιων (Idumean, ZUCKER
1938, 58) on the one hand and Ġyr (↓II.B.b.6.1) on the other. Brk (YARDENI 2016,
666b, to DN + brk or the inverted pattern, e.g., Qwsbrk and Brkl). Ḥnn (YARDENI
2016, 681a, to DN + ḥnn or the inverted pattern, e.g., Qwsḥnn, Ḥnnyh), cf. Saf. and
Hism., Tham. Ḥnn (see ZADOK 2000a, 627). However, both comparanda may alterna-
tively be defective spellings of qutayl or qatī/ūl-formations. Krz (LEMAIRE 2002, 138,
to Qwskrz), cf. Aram. ~ (Elephantine, PORTEN/YARDENI 1989, 4.4, 20), Saf. Krzm, CA
Kurz (HARDING 1971, 488). ʿny (YARDENI 2016, 701–702, to Qwsʿny), cf. Hism. ~
212 Ran Zadok

(see ZADOK 2000a, 625). Bʿl (LEMAIRE 1996, 145),94 Bʿly (YARDENI 2016, 664b, cf.
Akkad. bēlīya, “my lord,” in PNN), cf. Palm. Bʿlw/y, Nab. Bʿlw, Dad.-Lih., Saf., Hism.
and Qat. Bʿl (see ZADOK 2000a, 625 with refs.). Mlk (AHITUV A8/10 = ISAP 708, to
DN + mlk or the inverted pattern, e.g., Qwsmlk, Mlkyh), cf. Mαλιχος and Mιλιχος
(Idumeans, ZUCKER 1938, 61). The former renders Arab. malik, “king,” whereas the
latter looks like a qitīl < qatīl formation of M-L-K, “to rule.” ʿzr (LEMAIRE 2002, 270,
Heb. or Phoen., DN + ʿzr or the inverted pattern, e.g., ʿzrbʿl, Yhwʿzr). Other such pred-
icates are Šlm (↓II.B.b.5.2), Zrḥ (↓II.B.c.4.2.2.9), Wdd (↓II.B.c.4.2.2.4; cf. Wddʾl, ʿm,
HARDING 1971, 637), Gwr, Zbyd (↓II.B.b.2), Bryk (↓II.B.b.5.1), ʿdry (↓II.B.c.4.2.2.2),
and Lytʿ (↓II.B.c.8.1); cf. ↓II.B.c.8.3.

II.B.b. With Wawation

The endings -w and -y render the nominative and dative respectively (like in Nabatean
names), while -ʾ may be either the accusative or the hypocoristic suffix -ā, which is
very common in Aramaic (see DIEM 1973, 227–28). So far there is no prosopograph-
ical evidence for an interchange -w/y, -w/ʾ, or -y/ʾ in names of identical individuals
from Idumea.

II.B.b.1. Series -w/y/ʾ (-ø)

II.B.b.1.1. With -y-
Ḥzyrw/y/ʾ (Ḥzyr),95 is based on a qutayl-diminutive of Ḥ/Ḫ-Z-R, cf. CA ḥāzir, “divin-
er,” or ḫazar, “narrow-eyed,” as well as Saf. and Hism. Ḥ/Ḫzr (HARDING 1971, 187,
220).

II.B.b.1.2. Without -y-

ʿbdw/y/ʾ,96 cf. Nab. ~, ʿbdyw (NEGEV 1991, 46–47: 783, 798, 803, 804), NB/LB <
Arab. Ab-du-ʾ, Dad.-Lih., Taym.,Saf. and Hism., Tham., Min. ʿbd, Qat. and Sab. ʿbdm,
and CA ʿAbd, “slave, servant,” (see ZADOK 2000a, 613; SHATNAWI 2002, 717–18).
Ṣḥrw/y/ʾ (see YARDENI 2016, 705a: Ṣ°ḥ°rʾ, PORTEN/YARDENI 2016, 215), cf. Saf.,
Tham. Ṣḫr and CA Ṣaḫr “rock,” (see SHATNAWI 2002, 714). Šmrw/y/ʾ,97 cf. Nab.
Šmrw, Dad.-Lih., Saf. and Hism., NQ Šmr, Sab. and Qat. S2mr and related forms, and
the CA names listed in ZADOK 2000a, 624. Zbdw/y/ʾ98 is based on Z-B-D, “to grant,”
cf. Nab. ~, Dad.-Lih., Saf. and Tham. Zbd, CA Zabada; Zαβδα (Idumean, ZADOK
1998b, 21*: 9.7, 30), Zα/εβδος (see ZADOK 2000a, 618; SHATNAWI 2002, 699).

94
The name recurs in ISAP 663: gntʾ zy ~ “the garden of Bʿl.” The latter cannot be an appellative
(“rain-fed”) seeing that gardens were generally irrigated.
95
Ḥzyrw (ZADOK 2000a, 614); Ḥzyr(y/ʾ, see YARDENI 2016, 677a).
96
ʿbdw/y (YARDENI 2016, 692b),ʿbdʾ (PORTEN/YARDENI 2018, 293–94; cf. Aβδης, Idumean, see
ZUCKER 1938, 58).
97
In view of the wawation, the derivation from CA šamara (< Ś-M-R, cf. šimr, “agile, active, en-
ergetic; perspicacious”; šamir, “proud”) is to be preferred on the Hebrew etymology for which see
YARDENI 2016, 719b.
98
Zbdw/y (see YARDENI 2016, 671–72); Zbdʾ (LEMAIRE 2002, 215).
 On the Documentary Framework 213

II.B.b.2. -w/y (-ø)

Gwrw/y (Gwr), “cub, whelp,” (see YARDENI 2016, 667), cf. Palm. Gwrʾ, Gwry (-y is
not a possessive pron. 1st sg. as understood by STARK 1971, 81b, but a hypocoristic
suffix), Rabb. Gwryʾ, Gwry(w)n (Γουριων, Γωριων), Dura Guris (see ZADOK 1987,
278),99 NA < Aram. Gur-ra-a, Gur-ra-A+A, Gu-ri-ia, Gur-u-u-a (PNA 1, 432, see
ZADOK 1978, 143, where also NB/LB Gu-ra-nu is listed). The Idumean surname Gwr
interchanges with Gyr; this is analogous to the variation Bʿlr(w/y)m of another such
surname (see YARDENI 2016, 665–67). Zbydw/y (Zbyd)100 is a qutayl-diminutive of
Zbdw (↑II.B.b.1.2), cf. Aram. < Arab., Nab. Zbydw, NQ Zbyd, CA Zubayd (Zοβαιδου,
gen., see ZADOK 2000a, 610), plene: Zwbydw (Aram. < Arab., DESREUMAUX 1998,
465–66: 093).

II.B.b.3. -w/y101
II.B.b.3.1. With -w/y-
ʿwtw/y,102 cf. Nab. ~, Aουτιου (gen., WUTHNOW 1930, 25, 155–56), Saf., Tham., Min,
Qat, Ġwṯ, Sab. Ġwṯm, CA Ġawṯ (Γαυθ/τος, WUTHNOW 1930, 39–40, 155b), “help,
improvement,” (HARDING 1971, 459; STEIN 2010, 674), OT ʿwty: MT with -ay (cf.
Dura Authaeus, see ZADOK 1987, 294, 317), but LXX Γωθ(ε)ι, Oυθi is with -ī (see
ZADOK 1988, 32, n. 53; 142). ʿynw°/y (see YARDENI 2016, 698), cf. Qat. ʿynw
(HAYAJNEH 1998, 205–206), Aram. (Hatra) ʿyny, NA < Aram. A+A-né-e, Had. ʿynt
(clan name), CA ʿAynāʾ (fem.), Aινιου (gen., CANOVA 1954, 134–35; 141, see GATIER
1998, 414b ad 92), Eινα (WUTHNOW 1930, 45, 156b), LB < Aram. A+A-na-a (ZADOK
1978, 145), Min. and Sab. ʿyn, “eye, source,” (see SAID 1995, 147–48; HAYAJNEH
1998, 206). Zydw/y (YARDENI 2016, 673–74), derives from Z-W/Y-D, “to grow,
prosper,” cf. Nab. and Saf. Zydw, Min. Zyd, Dad.-Lih., Tham. and Had. Zd, Qat.
Zyd(m), CA Zayd (Zαιδος), Ziyād (Zειεδος), NB/LB (with -ay) Ze-da-A+A (see ZADOK
2000a, 609; SHATNAWI 2002, 702).

II.B.b.3.2. Without -w/y-

ʿmw/y, “kinsman,” (YARDENI 2018, 700b), cf. Nab. ʿmw, Dad.-Lih., Saf. and Hism.,
Tham. ʿm (see ZADOK 2000a, 611; SHATNAWI 2002, 726–27) and Aµµος, Aµµιας,
Aµµαιος (WUTHNOW 1930, 20, 158a, see GRASSI 2012, 139–41). ʾmtw/y consists of ʾ-
M-N + -t (see YARDENI 2016, 662a, cf. ad ʾmnt, ↓II.B.c.4.2.2.1). Dkrw/y denotes
“male, ram” (< *dikr), or derives from D-K-R, “to remember,” (see YARDENI 2016,

99
For Dura Γορας, Γοραιος, Γοριαια, where /ū/ is thought to be rendered by -ο-, according to
GRASSI 2012, 181–82, as well as for Γαυρος. Yon (2018) suggests an Iranian derivation for some of
these names. The unlikely suggestions of GRAY and KRAELING apud JOHNSON 1931, 142–43 ad D.
131 were rejected by ZADOK 1987, 278.
100
Zbyd(w, YARDENI 2016, 672–73), Zbydy (AI PI/03-236 = ISAP 2015).
101
However, -y can render not only -ī, but also -ay, cf. the Idumeans’ names Zαβδαιος, Zαββαιος
(ZADOK 1998b, 20*–21*: 9.5, 17; 9.7, 13) and Aδαιος (↓II.B.c.5.3).
102
ʿwtw (ZADOK 2000a, 611), ʿwty (YARDENI 2016, 696a).
214 Ran Zadok

668–69), cf. Nab. Dkrw, Palm. Dkry (see STARK 1971, 83b), Saf. Ḏkr (44×, HARDING
1971, 255), Lih., Sab., Min. ~, Qat. ~ (also Ḏkrm), Ug. ~, Aram. Zkr, CA Ḏakar, Ḏākir
(see AL-SAID 1995, 105–106; HAYAJNEH 1998, 140–41). Nhrw/y, “light,” (see
YARDENI 2016, 688a), cf. Saf., Tham. Nhr, CA Naha/ār (see ZADOK 2000a, 616;
SHATNAWI 2002, 747). Šʿdw/y (or Šʿrw/y),103 cf. Aram. < Arab. (Palm.) Šʿd(w/y/ʾ,
STARK 1971, 115), Aram. < Arab. (Hatra) Šʿdw, Nab. Šʿdy, Dad.-Lih., Saf.and Hism.,
Has., Tham. Šʿd, “luck, favour; support,” (see ZADOK 2000a, 619; SHATNAWI 2002,
703–704), Sab. and Qat. S1ʿd, Had. S1ʿdm, CA Saʿd, and Σαδδος (see HAYAJNEH 1998,
160; cf. GRASSI 2012, 251). Whbw/y (YARDENI 2016, 670), cf. Nab. Whbw, Whb, LB
< Arab. Ú-ma-ah-bu-ʾ, Aram. < Arab. (Palm.) Whbʾ, Dad.-Lih., Saf. and Hism., Tham.,
Min., Sab. Whb, Qat. Whb(m), CA Wahb, Wāhib (Oυαβω, dat.?, see ZADOK 2000a, 611;
SHATNAWI 2002, 754). Zmrw/y (YARDENI 2016, 674: Z°m°r°y), cf. Nab., Had. ~,
NB/LB < Arab. Za-am-mu-ru-ʾ, Saf. and Hism. Zmr, CA zamr, “nice looking,” dim.
Zumayr (see ZADOK 2000a, 618). Zmrw can alternatively be read Nmrw, “leopard,” cf.
Nab. ~, Dad.-Lih., Saf. and Hism., Tham., Min. Nmr, Had., Qat. Nmrm, Has., NQ
Nmyrt (dim.), CA Namir (Nαµερος), an-Nimr (see ZADOK 2000a, 616; SHATNAWI
2002, 747). Ḥgw/y (to Ḥ-G-G, “to make pilgrimage, celebrate a feast”); Ḥgw is
recorded only once; it is a defective spelling, as the same individual is named Ḥggw
(see LEMAIRE 2002, 209, PORTEN/YARDENI 2016, 223–24: A.33.6, 7; cf. ↓II.B.b.6.3).
Ḥgy occurs in no less than 21 texts (see YARDENI 2016, 675; cf. Aγγαιος, Idumean,
ZUCKER 1938, 58). Ḥgw is extant in Nabatean (NEGEV 1991, 27, 414), while Ḥgy has
comparanda in Thamudic, Safaitic and Hismaic as well as in North Minaic (see ZADOK
2000a, 626: 86; SHATNAWI 2002, 671; cf. Ḥg, 670). Yzdw (YARDENI 2016, 682b), cf.
Tham., Sab., Qat. Yzd (SHATNAWI 2002, 757). Yzdy/w (PORTEN/YARDENI 2018,
A300.6.5) is based on yazīd, “he will increase, prosper.” Yzdy may alternatively end in
-ay in view of Iαζειδαιος from Murabbaʿāt (BENOIT 1961, 95, 2);

II.B.b.4. w/ʾ
II.B.b.4.1. With -y-
Ḥṭyrw/Ḥṭy°r°ʾ° (YARDENI 2016, 677b) is a qutayl-diminutive of Ḥṭrw (↓II.B.b.6.3), cf.
Oτεραθη (differently WUTHNOW 1930, 90, 140b who connects it with CA Ḥuẓayra).
Ntynw/ʾ (YARDENI 2016, 689–90; cf. Nαθινας, Idumean, ZUCKER 1938, 61) is a
diminutive deriving from N-T-N, “to give.”

II.B.b.4.2. Without -y
Mlkw/Ml°kʾ (YARDENI 2016, 686–87), Mlk (cf. ↑II.B.a), “king”, cf. Nab. Ml/nkw,
Aram. < Arab. (Palm.) Mlkw/y/ʾ, Dad.-Lih., Saf. and Hism., Min., Tham. Mlk, and CA
Malik (Mαλιχος, see ZADOK 2000a, 610; SHATNAWI 2002, 744; cf. MÜLLER 2018, 32).
Ṣrṣrw/ʾ, “cricket,” (see PORTEN/YARDENI 2014, 184; YARDENI 2016, 705a), cf. Rabb.
Ṣrṣwr, Σαρσαρα (ZADOK 1987, 282–83) with an Akkadian cognate, viz. ṣarṣaru (SB,
appellative), Ṣāṣiru (NB), Ṣanṣuru (NA, CAD Ṣ, 115a, s.v. ṣarṣaru A). Is NA

103
Šʿ°dw (PORTEN/YARDENI 2014, 89); Šʿdy (see YARDENI 2016, 720b).
 On the Documentary Framework 215

Ṣanṣarūru a diminutive/deteriorative thereof? (With dissimilation, cf. SCHMIDT, PNA

3, 1168a where also less likely interpretations are considered). Ṭbyw/Ṭbyʾ, “gazelle,”
(see LEMAIRE 2002, 266; PORTEN/YARDENI 2014, 57), cf. Rabb. Ṭby and its female
equivalent (ZADOK 1987, 262), Nab. Ṣbyw, Saf.and Lih. Ẓby, Qat. Ẓbym and CA Ẓaby
(see HAYAJNEH 1998, 184–85 with refs.; cf. ZADOK 2000a, 624). In one occurrence
Ṭbyw may not belong here (prob. Tetragrammatic, ↑II.A.f). Šmʿw/Šmʿh is based on Š-
M-ʿ, “to hear,” (YARDENI 2016, 719a; see ZADOK 2000a, 617).

II.B.b.5. -w/ø
II.B.b.5.1. With –w/y-
ʿbydw is a qutayl-diminutive of ʿbdw (↑II.B.b.1.2); ʿbyd (YARDENI 2016, 693–94), cf.
Nab. ʿbydw, Aram. < Arab. ʿ(w)bydw, ʿbyd, Min., Qat., Sab. ʿbydm, CA ʿUbayd
(Oβαιδος, see Zadok 2000a, 613; Porten/Yardeni 1999, lxix). Brykw (HW = ISAP
562) derives from B-R-K, “to bless,” Bryk, “blessed,” or diminutive (YARDENI 2016,
666b). Ḥbw/yt(w), Ḥ°b°w°t° is apparently a qatVl-formation of Ḫ-B-T, (see YARDENI
2016, 674–75), cf. Saf. Ḫbt (3×), CA Ḫabīt, “humble, vile,” (see HARDING 1971, 213).

II.B.b.5.2. Without -w/y-

Plgw (and Plg if not an appellative, see YARDENI 2016, 703b; PORTEN/YARDENI 2018,
533), cf. Saf. Flg (8×), CA Fālij (HARDING 1971, 470), NB Pal-gu (Akkad.-WSem.,
see ZADOK 1978, 334). Qnyw, Qny (YARDENI 2016, 715b) derived from Q-N-Y, “to
acquire, procure,” cf. Saf. (1×) and Tham. (2×) Qny, CA Qāniya, (HARDING 1971,
490). Šlmw (cf. Nab. ~, see ZADOK 2000a, 617), Šlm (LEMAIRE 2002, 267) derived
from Š-L-M, “to be complete, sound, safe,” cf. Dad.-Lih. ~, Saf. and Hism., Tham. Slm
(see SHATNAWI 2002, 704–705), Min. and Qat. S1lm, CA Silm, Sala/ām, Sālim and
related forms (see HAYAJNEH 1998, 161–62), Σαλµα/ης, Σαλµου (gen.) and related
forms (WUTHNOW 1930, 102–103, 171a; cf. GRASSI 2012, 255–56). Nqd/rw, Nqd/r,104
may be based on either N-Q-D, CA naqada, “to rescue, save,” (cf. Munqid) or N-Q-R,
“to perforate, bore out (e.g. eyes; cf. also naqir, “angered”)”; cf. Nab. Nqydw,
(ʾl)Nqyrw, Saf. and Hism., NQ Nqd, Palm. ʾnqyr, OT Nqwdʾ (non-Israelite), CA
Nuqayd (Nοκιδος), Nuqar (see ZADOK 2000a, 616). N-Q-D has a suitable meaning
only in Northwest Semitic, “to point, mark,” whereas Arab. naqida denotes “to be
broken, rotten (tooth).” Š/Ṣḥrw (YARDENI 2016, 705a), Šḥr (PORTEN/YARDENI 2018,
416), cf. Nab. Šḥrw, Saf., Tham. Sḥr, Sab. (D-)Sḥr (STEIN 2010, 699), CA Saḥar,
“dawn,” (see SHATNAWI 2002, 702).

II.B.b.5.3. Possibly to this sub-section

G°d°y°w° is based on gdy, “kid,” in view of -y- (cf. Tham. Gdy, CA Jady, dim. Judayy,
SHATNAWI 2002, 664–65; Jadya, CASKEL 1966, 252a) rather than on gd, “fortune,” as
claimed in YARDENI 2016, 667a; cf. NA < WSem. Ga-di-ú, Gad-ia-a, and Γαδιας (see

104
Nqd/rw (YARDENI 2016, 689a); Nqd/r (IA 11895 = ISAP 102).
216 Ran Zadok

ZADOK 1978, 165 and correct AKERMAN, PNA 1, 417–18). Gdy belongs either here or
is based on gd (↓II.B.c.5.2.1).

II.B.b.6. -w
II.B.b.6.1. With -w/y-
ʾmynw° (PORTEN/YARDENI 2018, 586), cf. Nab. ~ (NEGEV 1991, 13:97), Aram. <
Arab. (Palm.) ʾmyn, Saf., Qat. ʾmn (see HAYAJNEH 1998, 87), CA Amīn (Aµαινος),
“faithful,” dim. Umayn (Oµαινος, WUTHNOW 1930, 88, 129a; see GRASSI 2012, 138–
39). ʿyd/rw (see YARDENI 2016, 697–98), cf. Nab. ~, Dad.-Lih., Saf. and Hism., Tham.
ʿyḏ, CA ʿIyāḏ, ʿĀʾiḏ105 on the one hand and Saf. and Hism. Ġyr, CA Ġiyāra (Γεαρου,
gen., see ZADOK 2000a, 609, 614) on the other. ʿdyd/rw (see YARDENI 2016, 694b), cf.
Saf. ʿdd (7×, HARDING 1971, 409), Oδεδος (to ʿ-D-D, “count, reckon,” alternatively to
Ḥ-D-D, see WUTHNOW 1930, 87) on the one hand and Nab. ʿdyrw (NEGEV 1991, 48:
842), Oδηρου (gen., WUTHNOW 1930, 87, 155a, to ʿ-D-R, “help; excuse, exculpate”)
on the other. A further alternative would be ʿrydw (cf. OSyr. < Arab. ʿrydʾ, see ZADOK
2000a, 2242), a qutayl-diminutive of ʿrd, “wild donkey.” The latter is extant in Saf.
and Tham. (HARDING 1971, 415) and in the OT (ZADOK 1988, 97). ʿwydw
(PORTEN/YARDENI 2018, 305), “refugee,” cf. Nab. ~ (CANTINEAU 1932, 128), Aram. <
Arab. (Palmyra and Hatra) ~, NB/LB A-mi-du-ʾ; and Aουειδος (Idumean, ZADOK
1998b, 21*: 9.7, 70; see SHATNAWI 2002, 729 and ZADOK 2000a, 614). Less likely
ʿwyrw, cf. NA A-u/ú-i-ra-a < Aram. ʿwyrʾ, “blind, one-eyed,” (RADNER/PARPOLA,
PNA 1, 238). ʿzyzw (see YARDENI 2016, 697a), “mighty; precious,” cf. Nab. and Aram.
< Arab. (OSyr., Palm.) ~, Saf. and Hism., Tham., Min., Has., NQ ʿzz, Had. ʿzzm, CA
ʿAzīz (Aζιζος, see ZADOK 2000a, 614). There is no onomastic evidence for a qutayl-
formation in this case. Dkyrw (see YARDENI 2016, 668b) is a diminutive of Dkrw
(↑II.B.b.3.2). Ḥbybw (PORTEN/YARDENI 2018, 353) is either a qatīl-formation, viz.
ḥabīb, “beloved,” or a diminutive thereof, cf. CA Ḥubayb (CASKEL 1966, 326–27),
Oβεβου (gen.), Oβεβαθη (WUTHNOW 1930, 86, 139a). Ḥlypw is a diminutive of Ḥlpw
(based on Ḫ-L-P, “to (ex)change, substitute,” see YARDENI 2016, 678b). The latter can
be compared with Nab. and Aram. < Arab. (Palm.) Ḥlpw, Dad.-Lih., Saf. and Hism.,
Tham Ḫlf, Sab. Ḫlfm and CA Ḫalaf (Aλαφος, see ZADOK 2000a, 611; SHATNAWI 2002,
683–84) and the former with Nab. Ḥlypw, CA Ḫulayf (Oλεφου, gen., NEGEV 1991, 29:
448; alternatively to ʿ-L-P, see LIDZBARSKI 1902, 327; IDEM 1908, 329: 51; 333: 163).
Lbyʾw is based on lbyʾ /lubayʾ/, “little lion,” (see YARDENI 2016, 685a). It may be
extant in the toponym Bdytʾ Lbʾy referring to a canal (bdytʾ) in Sasanid Babylonia
(with elision of the short unstressed -u-), provided it is a different place from Yaqut’s
Lawba (cf. OPPENHEIMER et al. 1983, 178). For Lbʾ, “lion,” cf., e.g., HAYAJNEH 1998,
224. Ngyʾw is a diminutive which is based on N-G-ʾ, CA najā, “to be saved,” (see
YARDENI 2016, 688), cf. Saf. Ngy (13×), CA Nājiy, “saved, rescued,” (Nαγιος,
WUTHNOW 1930, 80, 150b), and Saf. Ngyt (2×), CA Nājia (HARDING 1971, 582).
Rpyʾw may be a diminutive of *Rpʾw (↓II.B.b.6.3; cf. YARDENI 2016, 717b). Tham.

105
The Idumean’s name Aιδιων (ZADOK 1998b, 21*: 9.7, 69) may be based on the same form or
on a qayl-formation.
 On the Documentary Framework 217

Rfʾy (cf. Rfʾ) may denote “improvement” or “healing” (see SHATNAWI 2002, 696–97),
cf. Sab. Rfyʾ (STEIN 2010, 697). Ytyʿw (PORTEN/YARDENI 2016, 320) is a diminutive
of Ytʿw (↓II.B.b.6.3), cf. CA Yutayʿ (CASKEL 1966, 597b) and Iαθειαθου (gen., <
*Yutayʿ with the hypocoristic suffix -at, cf. DUNAND 1934, 55 ad 91; the 1st <α> is due
to the dropping of unstressed -u-). Ṣbyḥw (PORTEN/YARDENI 2016, 320), is diminutive
of ṣbḥ, CA ṣubḥ, “morning,” or the forerunner of CA ṣabīḥ, “pretty, handsome,” cf.
Aram. < Arab. Ṣwbyḥw, Min. Ṣbyḥ, Qat. Ṣbyḥm, CA Ṣubayḥ, Σοβαιος, Σοβεος (ZADOK
2000a, 612), Saf., Tham. Ṣbḥ (see SHATNAWI 2002, 713). Šʿydw (YARDENI 2016,
721a), cf. Nab., OSyr. (< Arab.) ~, Sab. S1ʿydm (MARAQTEN 2014, 67), CA Suʿayd,
Σοουαιδ (see ZADOK 2000a, 617). Šmyrw (PORTEN/YARDENI 2018, 128) is a
diminutive of Šmrw (↑II.B.b.1.2). Ḥnyzrw (YARDENI 2016, 680b) is a diminutive of
Ḥ(y°)nzrw (↓II.B.b.6.3). Ḥ°y°r°w° (PORTEN/YARDENI 2018, 357) is based (si vera
lectio) on Arab. ḫayr, “good,” cf. Nab. Ḥyrw/y, Aram < Arab. (Palm.) Ḥyry/ʾ (see
NEGEV 1991, 29: 437–38 with alternative derivations), Elephantine Ḥyr (ZADOK apud
PORTEN/YARDENI 1993, lx), Saf. Ḫyr, Qat. Ḫyrm, CA surname Ḫayr (Xαιρος, see
HAYAJNEH 1998, 132; WUTHNOW 1930, 119, 140b). Tymw (RD Unpublished = ISAP
579) “servant,” cf. Nab. Tymw/ʾ (NEGEV 1991, 88–89), Palm. Tymw/y/ʾ (STARK 1971,
117a), Saf., Sab., Min., NQ, Aram. Tym (Hatra, see AL-SAID 1995, 76–77), Tham. Tm
(SHATNAWI 2002, 659), CA Taym; for Greek transcriptions see GRASSI 2012, 202–204.
Bynw (YARDENI 2016, 664a), cf. Saf. and Hism., Tham., Sab., Had. Byn, Qat. Bynm,
CA Bayyān (from B-W/Y-N, “to discern, perceive,” see HAYAJNEH 1998, 102; ZADOK
2000a, 615; SHATNAWI 2002, 658). T°y°r°w° is based (if the reading is correct) on T-
W/Y-R (YARDENI 2016, 721b; PORTEN/YARDENI 2018, 327), CA tayyār, “proud,” cf.
Nab. Tyrw (NEGEV 1991, 89: 1227). Zydtw (PORTEN/YARDENI 2018, 352) consists of
zyd (see ↑II.B.b.3.1) and -Vt, cf. Min. Zydt, Lih. ~, Zydh, CA Ziyāda, “increase,
multiplication,” (see AL-SAID 1995, 115) and Zāʾida (CASKEL 1966, 604–605).
ʾḥy °w° (PORTEN/YARDENI 2018, 334) is – if not a Tetragrammatic name (↑II.A.f) – an
Arabian diminutive, cf. CA Uḫayy, “little brother,” which may be rendered by Tham.
ʾḫy (see SHATNAWI 2002, 644), cf. Oχαιος (WUTHNOW 1930, 93, 125a). ʿm°yw
(YARDENI 2016, 700b) is a qutayl-diminutive of ʿ-M-Y, “to be blind,” cf. Nab. ~, CA
ʿUmayy (see AL-SAID 1995, 144, who points out that Saf. and Hism., North Min., Sab.
ʿmy can alternatively be based on ʿm “paternal uncle”). ʿlyw (YARDENI 2016, 699b),
“high, exalted,” cf. Nab. ʿly(w), Aram. < Arab. (Palm.) [ʿ]lyw, Dad.-Lih., Saf. and
Hism., Tham. ʿly, Qat., Sab. ʿlym, Has. ʿlyh, NB/LB < Arab. A-li-ʾ-ú, CA ʿAlīy (cf.
Aλιος, Idumean, ZADOK 1998b, 21*: 9.7, 22; Aλειο/υς, see ZADOK 2000a, 614;
SHATNAWI 2002, 726) and ʿUlayy (dim., rare, CASKEL 1966, 567a). Ḥmyw (see
YARDENI 2016, 680a), “defender, guard,” cf. Aram. < Arab. (Palm.) Ḥmy/ʾ, Saf.,
Tham., Min., Qat., NQ Ḥmy, CA Ḥāmiy (see HAYAJNEH 1998, 124; SHATNAWI 2002,
678–79) and Ḥumayy (dim., CASKEL 1966, 332b).

II.B.b.6.2. With two identical middle consonants

Ḥggw (YARDENI 2016, 675), cf. Palm. ~, CA al-Ḥajjāj, “the pilgrim,” NB/LB < Arab.
Ha-gi-gu-ʾ, Lih., Saf. and Hism., Tham. and Min. Ḥgg (see ZADOK 2000a, 619: 53
[recte Ḥggw]; SHATNAWI 2002, 670).
218 Ran Zadok

II.B.b.6.3. Without -w/y

ʿmrw (see YARDENI 2016, 701a), cf. Nab. ʿmrw/ʾ, Aram. (Palm.) ~, ʿmr, Lih., Saf.,
Tham. ʿmr, Sab., Had., Qat. ʿmrm (to ʿmr, CA ʿumr, “life,” see HAYAJNEH 1998, 199),
CA ʿAm(i)r (see SHATNAWI 2002, 727), cf. Aµ(β)ρος (WUTHNOW 1930, 19–20, 158b);
a very common anthroponym. Bʿd/rw (PORTEN/YARDENI 2016, 65) is based on either
bʿd, “backing, support,” or bʿr, “livestock, camel,” cf. Saf. Bʿd (17×, HARDING 1971,
110), Baʿdān (CASKEL 1966, 218, a Himyarite clan and a Yemenite toponym), Aram.
Bʿdy (Elephantine, PORTEN/YARDENI 1999, lxv), OB < Am. Ba-ah-di-ia, Ba-ah-da-an
(STRECK 2000, 343, 351) on the one hand and Saf. Bʿr (35×), CA Baʿr, Aram. Bʿr (see
MARAQTEN 1988, 142) on the other. D/Rhnw (to D-H-N, “to anoint,” or R-H-N, “to
pledge,” see YARDENI 2016, 668), cf. Saf. Dhn (2×), Rhn (7×), CA Duhn (HARDING
1971, 245, 290), Ραενθου (gen., WUTHNOW 1930, 96, 166b). Gbrw (LEMAIRE 2006,
428–30: 6, 4) is based on G-B-R, “to be strong, superior,” cf. LB < Arab. Gab-ru-ú
(STOLPER 1985, 73, 10), Saf. Gbr and related names (HARDING 1971, 151–52), Aram.
(Palm.) Gbrʾ (STARK 1971, 81), Gbrt (MARAQTEN 1988, 148), Gabrion, Γαβρωνου
(gen., see ZADOK 1987, 297, 300), CA Jabr, Jābir (CASKEL 1966, 219–20). G°hmw is
based on G-H-M, cf. CA jahuma, “to have a stern look,” (see YARDENI 2016, 667), cf.
Saf. and Hism. Ghm(n), Sab. Ghmn (MARAQTEN 2014, 45, 2), CA Jahm, Jāhima,
Juhma (see ZADOK 2000a, 615; CASKEL 1966, 264) and Γοαιµαθος (WUTHNOW 1930,
41, 133b). Ḥ(y°)nzrw, “pig” (see YARDENI 2016, 680b), cf. Sab. Ḫnzrm (HARDING
1971, 229, CA Ḫinzīr (CASKEL 1966, 347a), OT Ḥzyr (ZADOK 1988, 112–13). Ḥ°šb°w
(PORTEN/YARDENI 2014, 369), derives from Ḥ-Š-B, “to think, account,” (CA ḥasaba
means also “to be noble-born”), cf. Nab. ~, Ḥwšbw (NEGEV 1991, 28: 425; 32: 495, cf.
MACDONALD 1999, 279 and CA Ḥawšab), Saf. Ḥšb (HARDING 1971, 190). Ḥṭmw
(YARDENI 2016, 677b) is based on ḫaṭm, “nose,” (Arab. qatl, Aram. qutl), cf. Ḥṭmt
(↓II.B.c.4.2.2.2). Ḥṭrw (YARDENI 2016, 677b), cf. Palm. Ḥṭry/ʾ (to CA ḫiṭr, “branch of
a tree,” see STARK 1971, 88a). Lḥmw (LEMAIRE 2002, 93) is based on either L-Ḥ-M,
“to coalesce,” or laḥim, “lion,” cf. Nab. ~, Saf. Lḥm (see NEGEV 1991, 37: 594). Lḥṭw
(ISAP 1629) is based on L-Ḥ-Ẓ, CA laḥaẓa, “to regard, view, watch,” (see YARDENI
2016, 685a). Mškw (YARDENI 2016, 687–88) derives from M-Š-K, “to take possession,”
cf. Nab., Aram. (Palm.) < Arab. ~, Dad.-Lih. Tham. Msk, Saf. and Hism. Mskt, Min.
Ms1k, Sab. Ms1k(t), Qat. Ms1k, Ms1kyt, CA Māsik, Mασχας, Mασα/εχος Masicates (see
WUTHNOW 1930, 150; STARK 1971, 97b; ZADOK 2000a, 615; SHATNAWI 2002, 740–
41). Nqmw (LOZACHMEUR/LEMAIRE 1996, 136–37: 7, 8´) is based on N-Q-M, “to
revenge,” but the vocalization is unknown, perhaps originally qitl in view of Am. Ni-
iq-ma-a-nu-um and Ni-iq-ma- (*niqm, see STRECK 2000, 154; cf. 401–402), cf. Saf.
and Hism. Nqm (37×, Harding 1971, 598). Nṣrw (PORTEN/YARDENI 2018, 373)
derives from N-Ṣ-R, cf. Nab. and Aram. (Hatra) Nṣrw, (Palm.) Nṣrʾ, Saf., Tham. Nṣr,
and CA Naṣr “victory, support” (see SHATNAWI 2002, 746). Pṣg°w (YARDENI 2016,
704b; cf. LEMAIRE 2002, 146) if the reading is correct, cf. Palm. Pṣgw (STARK 1971,
109a), Lih., Saf. and Tham. Fḍg (7×) which is related to CA faḍīj, “sweat,” (see
HARDING 1971, 468; SHATNAWI 2002, 732). R°ʿ°ṣ°w may derive from R-ʿ- Ṣ, “to
break,” (see YARDENI 2016, 717b), cf. (with LEMAIRE 2002, 86) Moabite Rʿṣ. Rʿw,
“wanted,” (Aram., see YARDENI 2016, 717a, poss. < *Rʿyw), cf. OT and Nab. ~ (see
 On the Documentary Framework 219

NEGEV 1991, 1080). Rpw (PORTEN/YARDENI 2018, 217) may be a contracted form of
*Rpʾw, which derives from R-P-ʾ, “to heal,” cf. Taym. Rfʾ, Saf. Rfʾ(t), Sab. and Qat.
Rfʾm, Had. Rfʾn and CA Yarfā (see ZADOK 2000a, 631). Smkw (PORTEN/YARDENI
2014, 363) derives from S-M-K, “to support,” (NW Sem.), or “to be high,” (Arab.), cf.
Dad.-Lih., Saf. and Hism. Smk, CA Simāk, Σαµακους (see ZADOK 2000a, 617; GRASSI
2012, 257). Šbrw (YARDENI 2016, 718a) is based on šbr, CA šabr, “gift, wealth,” cf.
Nab. Šbrh, Saf., Tham., Qat. S2br (see ZADOK 2000a, 617; SHATNAWI 2002, 708).
Šhd/rw (AI 11372 = ISAP 433) denotes either “witness, spectator,” cf. Saf. Šhd, CA
Šāhid (HARDING 1971, 360), or “new moon”, cf. Nab. Šhrw (NEGEV 1991, 62: 1112),
Saf., Lih. Šhr, Tham. Šhr(y) (SHATNAWI 2002, 712–13), Min. S2hr and Qat. S2hr(m)
(see HAYAJNEH 1998, 173). Šlyw (Rockefeller Shod 6? = ISAP 56) is based on Š-L-
W/Y, cf. Nab. ~, Šly (NEGEV 1991, 64: 1137–38), Selaeus (for an alternative
interpretation see ZADOK 1987, 268), NA < Aram. Sa-li-a-nu (with adjectival -ān),
“quiet,” (PNA 3, 1070b). Šmtw (YARDENI 2016, 719–20) denotes “one rejoicing at the
enemy’s affliction,” cf. Nab. ~, Aram. < Arab. Šmtʾ (from Tayma, see MÜLLER 1982,
26), Dad-Lih., Saf. and Hism., Tham. Šmt, Min., Had., Sab. S2mt, Qat. S2mtt, Has.
(fem.) S2mt, NB/LB Šá-ma-ta-ʾ, CA Šumayt, Σαµεθος (ZADOK 2000a, 618; SHATNAWI
2002, 712) and possibly Šmty from Elephantine (see ZADOK apud PORTEN/YARDENI
1993, lxvi with an alternative interpretation). Wʿlw (YARDENI 2016, 670b), “mountain
goat,” cf. Nab., Saf., Tham. Wʿl(t, see SHATNAWI 2002, 753), CA Waʿla, Waʿlīa,
Oυαλου, Oυαλε/ιου (see ZADOK 2000a, 609). Wdw derives from W-D-D, “to love,”
(see YARDENI 2016, 670a), cf. Nab. ~, Saf. and Tham. Wd (SHATNAWI 2002, 751–52).
Ytʿw (YARDENI 2016, 684b), cf. Nab. ~, Aram. < Arab. Ytʿ, NA < Arab. Ia-te-ʾ, Dad.-
Lih., North Min. Ytʿ, Sab., Qat. Ytʿm (see ZADOK 2000a, 612). Zḥrw (AI 11815 = ISAP
241), is based on zḥr, CA zuḥr(ān), “avaricious,” cf. Saf. Zḥr (5×), CA Zaḥr
(HARDING 1971, 295). Ḥlpw (↑II.B.b.6.1).

II.B.c. Without Wawation

II.B.c.1. qtwl
These names are probably caritative formations (qattūl) referring to compound names
with predicates deriving from the same root (see LEMAIRE 2002, 215–16; cf. ↑II.A.a).
So far there is no prosopographical evidence for this interchange among individuals
from Idumea.
ʿnwy (YARDENI 2016, 701b) may be a qattūl-caritative to a compound name with ʿ-
N-Y, “to reply,” like ʿn(h)ʾl.
ʿ°q°w°b° (alternative reading ʿ°q°r°b°, PORTEN/YARDENI 2018, 504), OT and
Elephantine ~ (see ZADOK 1988, 114), cf. Yhwʿqb. Bywn derives from B-W/Y-N, “to
be distinct, to discern,” (see YARDENI 2016, 663–64; cf. ZADOK 1998a, 805), cf.
Qwsbyn. For Ḥlw°p° (YARDENI 2016, 678 with an unlikely derivation), cf. Nab.
Ḥlf(ʾ)lhy (NEGEV 1991, 30: 451, 454), Saf. and Tham. Ḫlflh, CA Ḫalafallāh, “(My/the)
god has exchanged,” or “substitute of (my/the) god (i.e. “given by him),” (SHATNAWI
2002, 684). Dkwr (RD > HW = ISAP 949) is the Aramaic equivalent of Zkwr
(LEMAIRE 2002, 365, Heb.-Can., see ZADOK 1988, 114), cf. Qwsdkr. Dlwy (YARDENI
2016, 669, Elephantine ~, PORTEN/YARDENI 1993, lix), cf. Dlʾl. Nʿwm (YARDENI 2016,
220 Ran Zadok

688–89), cf. Nʿmʾl. It is related to Qat. Nʿwm, CA Naʿūm (Nαουµα, Nαοµ), Nab.
Nʿm(ʾ), and Aram. < Arab. (dim.) Nwʾymw (see ZADOK 2000a, 627). Nḥwm (see
YARDENI 2016, 688; OT ~, cf. LB Na-ah-hu-um, JOANNÈS/LEMAIRE 1999, 18, 23, 33:
8, 18, Judean, and OT Nḥmyh). Ntwn (YARDENI 2016, 689b, Elephantine ~), cf. DN +
ntn like Qwsntn or names with the inverted order like Ntnʾl. Qnwy (PORTEN/YARDENI
2014, 196), cf. Qnʾl. Smwk (PORTEN/YARDENI 2014, 314), cf. Bʿlsmk. Šlwm (OT and
Elephantine ~, see PORTEN/YARDENI 2014, 163), cf. ʾḥšlm. Škw°y (YARDENI 2016,
718b), cf. NA < Aram. Sa-ka-a-ìl, “God/El has looked out,” Sa-ke-e-mil-ki, “look out,
o Mlk!”, (to Ś-K-Y, BAGG/AMBOS, PNA 3, 1065b). Šmwʿ (YARDENI 2016, 719a, OT
and Elephantine ~, see ZADOK 1988, 114), cf. DN + šmʿ like Qwsšmʿ and names with
the inverted order like Šmʿyh. Ydwʿ (YARDENI 2016, 681b, OT ~), cf. Qwsyd ʿ. Ytwʿ (>
Ytw?, see YARDENI 2016, 684b), cf. Qwsyt ʿ. Zbwd (YARDENI 2016, 672b, OT ~), cf.
Bʿlzbd. G°d°w°l° looks like a caritative form of a compound name like Gdlyh, as is
probably the case of the homonymous Judean from Elephantine (see YARDENI 2016,
666–67). However, the predominantly Arabian milieu of Idumea suggests altenative
interpretations, seeing that both G-D-L (CA jadala, “to be strong”; jadl, “strong”) and
G-D-L (CA jadil, jadlān, “cheerful, gay”) produce Arabian names, cf. Saf. Gdl, Gdlt,
Tham. and Sab. Gdlt, CA Jadl, Jadīla (see SHATNAWI 2002, 664; Palm. Gdylt does not
necessarily belong here, see STARK 1971, 81b) on the one hand and Saf. Gdl, Gdly (5×
and 12×), CA Jādil (HARDING 1971, 156–57) on the other. Šmwr (LEMAIRE 2002,
255), cf. OT Šmryhw. For ʿzwr and Brwk (see YARDENI 2016, 666, 696–97, the former
also in Elephantine), cf. ʿzrbʿl and Brkl respectively. ʿzwr was Yhwkl’s son and is
mentioned among Judeans. Slwʾ (LEMAIRE 2002, 192 = ISAP 1296), cf. OT ~ (ZADOK
1988, 110, 114).

II.B.c.2. qtwl (presumably qatūl)

D/Rʿwy/ʾ derives from either D-ʿ-ʾ, “to summon; long after; help,” (CA daʿā) or R-ʿ-Y,
“to be content, pleased,” (Aram.); a further alternative, viz. “to pasture” proposed by
Yardeni (2016, 717a) is unlikely. Ḥbwl (LEMAIRE 2002, 268 = ISAP 1417), “crippled,”
cf. Palm. Ḥbwlʾ (< Arab., see STARK 1971, 87a). Pqw°s° may be – if not an error for
P<l>qws (see PORTEN/YARDENI 2018, 395) – a qVtVl-formation of P-Q-S, “to break,
crush,” cf. MHeb. and Pal. Jewish Aram. pqs, pyqsh, “bit in animal’s mouth,”
(SOKOLOFF 1990, 443a) as well as NA < Heb. Pu-qi-šú, poss. a qātil > qōtil active
participle “breaker, crusher” (ZADOK 2015, 170b). Unexplained: Brwsy (IA 12436 =
ISAP 855).

II.B.c.3. qtyl
ʿqy°bʾ (PORTEN/YARDENI 2018, 189, 391), “protected,” cf. Rabb. ~ (see ZADOK 1987,
267; GRASSI 2012, 134). Ḥnynʾ (YARDENI 2016, 681a), cf. Nab. Ḥnynw, Min., NQ
Ḥnyn, Qat. Ḥnynm, which render either a qatīl-formation like Aram. Ḥnynʾ, “gracious,
kind,” (see ZADOK 1967, 267) or a diminutive thereof like CA Ḥunayn (Oυναινος, see
ZADOK 2000a, 621). Nṭyrʾ, “preserved,” (YARDENI 2016, 688b). Ydyʿʾ (YARDENI 2016,
682a), “known, famous.” Ghynʾ (LEMAIRE 1996, 87 = ISAP 1087) is possibly a di-
minutive like CA Juhayna (CASKEL 1966, 264b; cf. Ghnt, ↓II.B.c.4.2.2.7).
 On the Documentary Framework 221

II.B.c.4. qVtl
II.B.c.4.1. With -w-
Ḥwlp (see YARDENI 2016, 675b) is a qutl-formation of Ḫ-L-P (↑II.B.b.6.1), cf. with -ī
Ὄλφιος (CANOVA 1954, 134: 140, after the shift /ḫ/ > /ḥ/ took place, not an Aramaism
for Ἄλφιος).

II.B.c.4.2. Without -w-

II.B.c.4.2.1. With stable consonants (including /ḫ/)
Gd/rpʾ/y (see YARDENI 2016, 667–68), cf. Nab. (ʾl)Grpw, Saf. and Hism., Tham. Grf,
Sab. Grfm, Γοραφος, Γορ(ε)πος (see ZADOK 2000a, 621); G-D-P has almost no com-
paranda, except for NB/LB < WSem. Ga-du-pu (ZADOK 1978, 128). Šmšy is a hy-
pocorsiticon of the Sun deity Šmš (see YARDENI 2016, 719b) in its Aramaic rather than
the Arabian form (Šms), cf. OT Šmšy, Σαµ(α)σαιος and Σαµσεος (WUTHNOW 1930,
104–105, 172b). Brqt (YR 92 = ISAP 794), which ends in -(V)t, derives from B-R-Q,
“to lighten, shine,” brq, “lightning,” cf. Saf. Brqt (7×), Qat. Brqm (HAYAJNEH 1998,
95), Palm. Brq and related names (STARK 1971, 64b, 79–80), OT Brq (ZADOK 1988,
96), Bορακοϛ (Idumean, see ZUCKER 1938, 59), Rabb. Brwqʾ (ZADOK 1987, 271), CA
Bāriq(um), Barrāqa (HARDING 1971, 102), Bαρκαιος (WUTHNOW 1930, 34, 132–33),
and Bαρκος, Bαρκεος from Dura (see GRASSI 2012, 164). Dbš (ISAP 707+1757), Dbšʾ,
“honey,” (qitl as in Jewish Pal. Aram. and Arab.) or Kbšʾ, “lamb,” (qatl, see YARDENI
2016, 668a), cf. Sab. Kbs1m (STEIN 2010, 684), CA Kabša, CASKEL 1966, 367b). Dbš
may alternatively have an exclusively Arabian etymology, cf. Sab. and Min. Dbs2, CA
Dabbāš, Dubāš (see AL-SAID 1995, 101). Dkrn (IA 1625; + -ān) is based on D-K-R
(↑II.B.b.3.2), cf. Saf. (3×), Sab. Dkrn (HARDING 1971, 255; STEIN 2010, 670). K°r°my
is based on K-R-M, CA karama, “to be generous,” (see YARDENI 2016, 685a), cf. Nab.
Krm(h/w) (NEGEV 1991, 36: 579–81), Saf. (ʾ)krm (1×+1×, HARDING 1971, 61, 499),
and CA Karīm. Plṭy is based on P-L-Ṭ, “to deliver, rescue, bring into security,” cf. OT
and Aram. (Elephantine) ~, Plṭw (PORTEN/YARDENI 1989, lii), Saf. and Hism., Tham.
Flṭ, Min. Flṭt (cf. Φαλεταθος, see ZADOK 2000a, 625 with refs.; SHATNAWI 2002, 732;
WUTHNOW 1930, 117, 161b). Rpd (LEMAIRE 1996, 111 = ISAP 1111) derives from R-
P-D, CA rafada, “to help; make a present,” Sab. “to help,” cf. Nab. Rpdw (NEGEV
1991, 61: 1083), Lih., Saf. Rfd (8×) and related names (HARDING 1971, 284), Tham. ~
(SHATNAWI 2002, 697), CA Rifd (“gift, share”), Rāfid, “donor,” Rafd, Rifda (CASKEL
1966, 483–84, 488). Šṭnʾ (see YARDENI 2016, 718b), cf. Σετνα (gen., WADDINGTON
1870, 2660); it has a pejorative meaning. Tbnʾ/h (YARDENI 2016, 721), cf. Saf. and
Hism. Tbn, Old Sab. Tbny and Qat. Tbnw (see ZADOK 2000a, 626 with refs.) which are
based on tbn, “straw.” However, byt tbnh in ISAP 2138 can be an appellative, the
equivalent of MHeb. byt htbn, “a construction for storing straw,” (cf. FELIKS 1990,
260). Ṭ°b°r°n° (PORTEN/YARDENI 2018, 362) is apparently based on CA ṭabara, ”to
leap; conceal oneself,” or ṭabar, “axe,” or ṭibr, “pillar.” However, none of these lex-
emes is onomastically productive; it ends with an adjectival -ān. Ḥlpn (YARDENI 2016,
678–79), cf. Saf. and Hism. Ḫlfn; Ḥlpt (the vocalization is based on the Greek render-
ings, viz. Xαλαφανης, Aλαφαν, Idumeans, ZUCKER 1938, 58, 61), (X)αλαφαν(ος, see
222 Ran Zadok

ZADOK 2000a, 622), and Ḥlptʾ (Xαλαφαθο[ς], Idumean, ZADOK 1998b, 21*: 9.7, 28).
Bdn (YARDENI 2016, 663b), “robust,” (OT ~, see MIZRAHI 2010), cf. Saf., Tham. ~,
CA Badan (alternatively “wild mountain goat,” see MÜLLER 2018, 28). Bοδαινος (<
Budayn, see DUNAND 1934, 91 ad 185) would mean “little Bdn”. Dnby (LEMAIRE
1996, 105 = ISAP 1105) consists of dnb < ḏnb, “tail,” (Aram., Arab.). One may as-
sume that it is based on Arab. qatal rather than on Aram. qutl in view of Dnbw (Aram.
< Arab., Elephantine, PORTEN/YARDENI 1993, 3, passim), cf. OB < Am. Zu-na-bu-um
(dim., see STRECK 2000, 211) and perhaps Saf. Ḏnb(n, 1+1×, HARDING 1971, 258).
Ndby (RD > HW = ISAP 950), cf. Aram. ~ from Elephantine (see ZADOK apud POR-
TEN/YARDENI 1993, lxii), LB Na-ad-bi-ia which is based on N-D-B, “to incite, impel;
grant,” (+-īya, ZADOK 1978, 183, 429 ad 112f.), OT Ndb (ZADOK 1988, 95), Saf. ~
(4×), and CA Nadab (HARDING 1971, 584). Ntny (see YARDENI 2016, 690a; + -ī) de-
rives from N-T-N, “to give,” cf. Aram. ~ from Elephantine and Palmyra ~ (POR-
TEN/YARDENI 1993, lxiii; STARK 1971, 101a; cf. ZADOK 2000a, 607), Nεθανις (see
ZADOK 1987, 265). Qmṣʾ (see PORTEN/YARDENI 2014, 453) cf. ~ (Kοµψος) “fist,
handful,” (qutl, ZADOK 1987, 264) on the one hand and NB/LB < WSem. Ka-ma-aṣ-
ṣa-ʾ (GCCI 2, 115,4. 7. 13)/Ka-ma-ṣa-ʾ (UMNH 1837, 10´, with dissimilation), “locust”
on the other. Saf. Qmṣ(t), CA Qammaṣ (HARDING 1971, 488, 1+3×) may have the
latter denotation in view of CA qamaṣ, “newly hatched locusts.” Šlmyt (LEMAIRE 2002,
265 = ISAP 1537), cf. OT ~ (ZADOK 1988, 107, 161) and ↓II.B.c.9. Mṭrn (YARDENI
2016, 686) consists of mṭr, “rain,” and -ān (see ZADOK 1998a, 810; IDEM 2000a,
626),106 cf. Saf. and Hism. ~ (HARDING 1971, 551), CA Maṭar (CASKEL 1966, 404),
Mατρ(αι)ου (WUTHNOW 1930, 74) is with dropping of a short unstressed -a-. P°ṣry, cf.
perhaps BHeb. P-Ṣ-R, “to push, press,” > “to urge.” P°ṣry recurs on an unprovenanced
Hebrew seal (2nd half of the 8th century BCE, see AUFRECHT/SHURY 1997, 65–68).
Bš°n is doubtful (see YARDENI 2016, 666b).

II.B.c.4.2.2. With one laryngeal, glottal stop, h or a semi-vowel

II.B.c.4.2.2.1. With ʾ-
ʾgrʾ (PORTE/YARDENI 2014, 389), “hireling,” cf. Saf. and Hism., Min. ʾgr, Sab. and
Qat. ʾgrm (see ZADOK 1987, 259; IDEM 2000a, 630); alternatively a defective spelling
of Aram. ʾgyrʾ (ZADOK 1987, 267). ʾm°nt is based on ʾ-M-N, “to be true, firm,” (see
YARDENI 2016, 662a). Since the n is not assimilated to the following -t (like in ʾmty, cf.
ZADOK 1988, 100, 102; IDEM 1998a, 813), it stands to reason that the suffix in this
case is -Vt, presumably -at, cf. Qat. and Sab. ʾmynt, CA Umayna (see HAYAJNEH 1998,
87 where ʾmn is also listed), Oµαιναθη(ς)/Oµεναθη (WUTHNOW 1930, 88, 129b) which
is the diminutive thereof. ʾmty is the same form with a compound suffix -t-ay, cf. OT ~
(see YARDENI 2016, 662a).

106
The <ṭ> excludes an Iranian derivation (pace LIPIŃSKI 2016, 124). His paternal name, Rʾw,
may be Egyptian (cf. BAKER/MATTILA, PNA 3, 1036).
 On the Documentary Framework 223

II.B.c.4.2.2.2. With ʿ-
ʿdrʾ (LEMAIRE 2002, 319 = ISAP 1522, see Zadok 2000a, 613) is with qatl > qitl due
to /ʿ/-. The same applies to ʿdry (YARDENI 2016, 695a, Elephantine ~, POR-
TEN/YARDENI 1993, lxiii) and ʿdrn. All are based on ʿdr, “help, support,” (cf. ↑II.A.a.7,
+ -ā/ī). ʿdrn – if it is not just a variant of ʿdrny (↑II.A.g, such forms with dropping of
the final vowel are recorded for this type of names, see ZADOK 1978, 85–86, 427 ad
85), then it can be compared with NA < Aram. Id-ra-nu, OB < Am. Ad-ra-nu-um (see
ZADOK 1978, 116, 158; STRECK 2000, 210, 248), NA Id-ru-nu/Id-ra-u-nu, Aram. ʿzrn
(see STRECK, PNA 1, 506–507); cf. MHeb. ʿzrwn (Eζρων, with -ān > -ōn, see ZADOK
1987, 259). ʿ°k°nh (si vera lectio) was compared by Yardeni (2016, 698b) with OT
ʿkn (cf. ZADOK 1988, 96) and MHeb. ʿknʾy, “snake.” Saf. and Sab. ʿkn are hapax
legoumena (HARDING 1971, 429); cf. perhaps Oχχανου (gen.) from Dura (see GRASSI
2012, 242–43 where an alternative interpretation is considered). ʿṣlʾ (TSUKIMO-
TO/YAMAYOSHI 2011, 90–91: 6, 3), which ends in -ā, is apparently based on ʿ-Ṣ-L. CA
ʿaṣil, “distorted, crooked,” seems to be unsuitable for an anthroponym, but Qat. ʿṣln
and NQ ʿṣyl can be explicable in positive terms (see HAYAJNEH 1998, 191); Aσηλ and
Oσαιελος may alternatively derive from ʿ-Š-L (WUTHNOW 1930, 26, 90, 129b, 160b).
The former may render CA ʿāṣil, “straightforward, righteous man,” and the latter may
be a diminutive thereof. A Northwest Semitic etymology is unlikely as Heb. ʿ-Ṣ-L, “to
be sluggish,” (cf. LEMAIRE 2002, 135) goes back to ʿ-Ẓ-L (> Aram. ʿ-Ṭ-L). ʿqbn (to ʿ-
Q-B, “protect,” see YARDENI 2016, 702a, + adjectival -ān) is a qutl-formation in view
of Oκβανης, Ocaban[es] from Dura (see ZADOK 1987, 263; GRASSI 2012, 240), cf.
Rabb. ~, Aram. (Elephantine and Hatra), Sab. ~, Samar. ʿqbwn. OB < Am. (Ha-)Aq-
ba-an and Hi-iq-ba-an/Iq-ba-nu-um are based on qatl and qitl respectively; both for-
mations are also extant in Amorite compound names (see STRECK 2000, 248: 2.172).
As shown just above, the vocalized forms of the pertinent CVCC-sequence from the
1st-millennia BCE and CE are of the qutl-formation. ʿqbtʾ derives from the same root
(see YARDENI 2016, 702b) plus -(V)t-ā, cf. Saf. ʿqbt (4×, HARDING 1971, 426), CA
ʿUqba (Oκοβα, WUTHNOW 1930, 87, 159b).ʿnͦ wʾ (PORTEN/YARDENI 2014, 92), cf.
ʿnwy (↑II.B.c.1). ʿtnʾ (↑II.A.g). Ḥṭmt (RD > HW = ISAP 947) consists of ḫaṭm, “nose,”
(cf. Ḥṭmw, ↑II.B.b.6.3) and -at, cf. Saf. Ḫṭmt (9×), CA Ḫaṭma (HARDING 1971, 224).

II.B.c.4.2.2.3. With ḥ-
Ḥnk°ʾ (alternatively Ḥnn°ʾ), which ends in -ā, is based on Ḥ-N-K, “to train up, dedi-
cate,” (see YARDENI 2016, 681a), cf. OT Ḥnwk (see ZADOK 1988, 107 with Amorite
and later West Semitic related anthroponyms), Sab. Ḥnkyn, Ḥnkytn (2× each), Saf.
Ḥnk (4×, see HARDING 1971, 206 who compares CA ḥanīk, “experienced”), Aναχος,
Aνε(ι)χος (WUTHNOW 1930, 22, 142a; cf. GRASSI 2012, 144). Ḥṣ°b°t (POR-
TEN/YARDENI 2018, 559), cf. Saf. Ḥḍbt (1×, CIS 4–5, 1984), Ḥṣb (1×, RYCKMANS
1941, 255, M 1), Ḫṣb (2×, CA Ḫaṣīb (see HARDING 1971, 190–91, 222, for CA
ḥaḍaba, NWSem. Ḥ-Ṣ-B, “to hew, cut,” see HAYAJNEH 1998, 271–72).
224 Ran Zadok

II.B.c.4.2.2.4. With w-
Wdd (PORTEN/YARDENI 2018, 24), cf. Saf. ~ (9×), Tham., Min. ~, Sab. Wddm (STEIN
2010, 700), CA Wadād, “love,” (HARDING 1971, 637), Wadīd, “lover,” Wadūd,
“friendly, affectionate,” (see AL-SAID 1995, 175; SHATNAWI 2002, 752), Saf. and Qat.
Wddt, “friendship,” (see HAYAJNEH 1998, 265). Wtgn (YARDENI 2016, 670b) is based
on W-Ṯ-G, CA waṯaja, “to become thick, corpulent,” (with an adjectival -ān), like
waṯīj, “thick, corpulent”; for the morphological variation, cf. CA ḍaʿīf and ḍaʿfān,
“weak.”

II.B.c.4.2.2.5. With -ʾ-

B(ʾ)rʾ (of krm ~) consists of biʾr, “well,” and -ā like OT Bʾrʾ (cf. OT B(ʾ)ry with -ī,
see YARDENI 2016, 666a and ZADOK 1988, 90, 155–56), provided it does not denote
“the well’s vineyard.” Š°ʾ°d/rt? (YARDENI 2016, 717b), cf. CA Sair (CASKEL 1966,
502b) and Sab. Sʾrn (STEIN 2010, 698)?

II.B.c.4.2.2.6. With -ʿ-

S°ʿ°d°y° (YARDENI 2016, 176; cf. Šʿ°dw, ↑II.B.b.3.2). Yʿpt (see YARDENI 2016, 683,
or with y-preformative?).

II.B.c.4.2.2.7. With -h-

Ghnt (PORTEN/YARDENI 2018, 217), cf. Saf. ~ (2×, to CA jahana, “to be near,” see
HARDING 1971, 170; cf. ↑II.B.c.3).

II.B.c.4.2.2.8. With -ʾ/y (final: here and below refers to the base)
Bny may render either Banî/Bunnî (see YARDENI 2016, 664b) or denote “builder,”107 cf.
Bανναιοϛ and Bαννιων (the latter an Idumean, see ZUCKER 1938, 59), cf. OT, Palm.,
Nab., Lih., Saf. and Tham. Bny (see SHATNAWI 2002, 658), Rabb. Bnʾh, Palm. Bnʾ,
Dura Bannaeus, Bab. Jewish Aram. bnʾh, Pal. Jewish Aram. bnʾy, bnyy, “builder,
creator,” (see ZADOK 1987, 272). Mny (IA 12396 = ISAP 1724) may derive from M-
N-Y, “to count, assign,” (Aram., Can.-Heb.), “to reward” (Arab.), cf. Nab., Saf. Mny
(HARDING 1971, 570; NEGEV 1991, 39: 656) and Rabb. ~ (Mανναιος, ZADOK 1987,
272). Mrʾ, M°r°y°ʾ°, “(the) master,” (Aram., see YARDENI 2016, 687a); both names
are extant in Palm. (STARK 1971, 96–97, s.vv.; Mrh may be the same as Mrʾ), cf. the
pertinent Aramaic names (also in Greek and Latin transcription) listed in ZADOK 1987,
260, s.v. *Mr(ʾ)y (cf. Mryʾ from Hatra, see GRASSI 2012, 221–25 for the names from
Dura). On the other hand, Nab. Mrʾy (with -y) may denote “man, servant,” (Arab., see
MACDONALD 1999, 280 ad 684; cf. the very common Safaitic and Tham. anthroponym
Mrʾ, HARDING 1971, 536 and SHATNAWI 2002, 738–39). For Slʾt/S°l°w°ʾ°t, see POR-
TEN/YARDENI 2018, 14, 378, that compare OT Sl(w)ʾ and the female’s name Slwʾ/h

107
This title is probably extant in bnʾʾ (LEMAIRE 2002, 271) which is of the qattāl-formation like
gbʾʾ, “tax collector,” (EPHʿAL/NAVEH 1996, 187, 2; cf. LEMAIRE 2002, 205).
 On the Documentary Framework 225

from Elephantine “substituted” (cf. ZADOK 1988, 64, 110, 114–15). The -t of Lb ʾt°,
“lioness,” is the feminine marker which is essential in names of animals rather than a
hypocoristic suffix (considered as an alternative by YARDENI 2016, 685a who was
aware that the name means “lioness”). The same name is very common in Safaitic (see
HARDING 1971, 508 who compares CA labʾa < labʾat) and is extant in Qatabanian
(with an Ugaritic cognate, see HAYAJNEH 1998, 224).

II.B.c.4.2.2.9. With -ḥ
Z°r°ḥ (LEMAIRE 2002, 209 = ISAP 1329), “dawning, shining,” cf. OT ~ (ZADOK 1988,
77), Aram. D°r°ḥ° (MARAQTEN 1988, 152), LB < Aram. Da-ar-ha-ʾ, Qat. Ḏrḥ(m), CA
Ḏarīḥ (see HAYAJNEH 1998, 139), Sab. Ḏrḥn, CA (Ḏū-)Ḏarḥān (to Ḏ-R-Ḥ, “to shine,”
see ZADOK 2000a, 664; TAIRAN 1992, 117–18), OSyr. Dnḥʾ (JARRY 1967, 155: 27).
Prḥh (ISAP 1083, +-ā), cf. Saf., Lih. and Min. Frḫ, CA Farḫ, “descendant,” (see ZA-
DOK 2000a, 632).

II.B.c.4.2.2.10. With -y
Smy (IA 11332 = ISAP 469), Aram. “blind” (e.g., OSyr. smyʾ), is open to alternative
interpretations.

II.B.c.4.2.2.11. With two identical consonants

Hll denotes either “praise” (see PORTEN/YARDENI 2014, 168; cf. ZADOK 1988, 115;
STRECK 2000, 240: 2.158) or “new moon” (CA hilāl), cf. Nab. Hll (see NEGEV 1991,
22: 303), Saf., Tham., Lih. ~, Qat. Hll(t) (see HAYAJNEH 1998, 258; GRASSI 2012, 209,
s.v. Iλιλ). ʿll (YARDENI 2016, 699b), may derive from ʿ-L-L, “to serve, defend,” (Sab.,
see HAYAJNEH 1998, 195), cf. Saf. and Hism., Tham., Min. ~, Nab. ʿlylt, Qat., Sab.
ʿlylm, CA ʿUlayl (dim., ZADOK 2000a, 613; Stein 2010, 664). Ḥnn°ʾ (to Ḥ-N-N, alter-
natively Ḥnk°ʾ, ↑II.B.c.4.2.2.2), cf. Dad.-Lih. Ḥnnh (see ZADOK 2000a, 627).

II.B.c.5. qVl
II.B.c.5.1. With -w/y-
Dyny (Rockefeller Shod 10? = ISAP 60) consists of dyn, “judgement,” and -ay, cf.
Palm. ~, Dura Dinaeus, Rabb. Dynʾy, Δ(ε)ιναιος, and NA < Aram. Di-na-ia (see ZA-
DOK 1987, 277). ʿyd/rn (YARDENI 2016, 698a), cf. Aιδη, Aιδιων (to ʿ-W/Y-D, “to re-
turn,” WUTHNOW 1930, 14–15, 156b), or ʿAyd(allāh, to ʿ-W/Y-D, like ʿIyāḏ, ↑II.B.a)
on the one hand and Ġiyāra on the other, cf. ʿyd/rw (↑II.B.b.6.1). Nry is probably a
defective spelling of Nwry (IA 11418 = ISAP 459), which is based on nwr, “light,”
rather than “my lamp” (Heb.) as claimed by Yardeni (2016, 689a), cf. Rabb. Nwry, NA
Nu-ri-i/ia, Nουρις, Nουραιος (see ZADOK 1987, 278), Saf. Nwr (2×, HARDING 1971,
603), CA Nūrī. Qwṣ, Q(w)ṣy, “thorn,” (see ZADOK 2000a, 606; PORTEN/YARDENI
2014, 128–32), cf. Kουσας (see ZADOK 2000a, 622). For Q(w)ṣy, cf. ↓II.B.c.9. Qwsʾ°,
226 Ran Zadok

(Qwsh°)/y108 are hypocoristica of Qaws, cf. Saf. Qwst (7×, HARDING 1971, 491).
Rwmʾ/h (with –ā) is based on R-W/Y-M, “to be elevated,” (see YARDENI 2016, 716b,
↑II.A.a), cf. Nab. Rwmʾ (NEGEV 1991, 60: 1062), Aram. (Elephantine) D/Rwmʾ (POR-
TEN/YARDENI 1989, xlviia), Ρουµας and related forms (Dura, see GRASSI 2012, 248–
49). Bwqy is probably not identical with OT Bqy (as cautiously suggested by YARDENI
2016, 663b) in view of -w-; perhaps it consists of bwq (cf. OT ʿzbwq) and -ī. D/Rws
(YARDENI 2016, 668b), cf. Lih. Dws, Qat. Dws1m (to D-W/Y-Š, “tread, thresh,” see
HAYAJNEH 1998, 136 with s1 = s as in Qws, see ZADOK 2000a, 655), NA Du-sa-a
(PNA 1, 392a) and CA Daws. Ḥwrn is homonymous with the toponym Ḥawrān,
“white,” (with an adjectival -ān) and is extant in Safaitic (MACDONALD apud POR-
TEN/YARDENI 2014, 264). Ḥwry is not an Egyptian hypocoristicon as cautiously sug-
gested by YARDENI 2016, 676 (Ḥwr is indeed Egyptian), but Arabian in view of Nab.
Ḥwrw; cf. Saf. and Hism., Tham. Ḥwr, CA Ḥawar, “intensity of the white and black in
the eye,” or Ḥuwār, “young camel,” (see ZADOK 2000a, 625; SHATNAWI 2002, 679).
Qynʾ[?] (LEMAIRE 1996, 34 = ISAP 1034) is based (si vera lectio) on Arab. qayn,
“slave,” cf. Nab. Qynʾ/w, Saf., Sab., NQ Qyn, Tham. Qn (see SHATNAWI 2002, 734)
and Kαινιων (Idumean, ZADOK 1998b, 21*: 9.7, 61). Zydn (AI 11806 = ISAP 211)
consists of zyd, “increase,” and adjectival -ān, i.e. “increasing, growing,” cf. Aram.
(from Tayma), Min. ~, CA Zaydān (see MARAQTEN 1988, 160; AL-SAID 1995, 116),
Tham. Zdn (SHATNAWI 2002, 701). Zytn (YARDENI 2016, 674b), cf. OT ~ (ZADOK
1988, 145–46, 159).

II.B.c.5.2. Without -w/y-

II.B.c.5.2.1. With stable consonants
ʿpy (PORTEN/YARDENI 2018, 242), cf. Heb. ~ , OT ʿwpy which is possibly based on
ʿwp, “fowl,” (see ZADOK 1988, 144, 157), Dad.-Lih., Saf., Min. ʿwf, Sab. and Had.
ʿwfm, CA ʿAwf (CASKEL 1966, 207), Aufaeus (Dura, with -ay, see ZADOK 1987, 294,
313; IDEM 1988, 144), Qat. ʿwyfm (dim., “little good omen, augurium,” see HAYAJNEH
1998, 204–205); note Aυφηλος (Idumean, ZADOK 1998b, 21*: 9.7, 21) < *ʿwfʾl, “A. is
god.” Dny (AHITUV A30/16 = ISAP 730) may consist of dn, “judging,” (to D-W/Y-N,
Heb., Aram., Arab., cf. OT ~, ZADOK 1988, 102) and -ī, cf. Saf. Dn (2×, HARDING
1971, 244). Gdy (IA 12445 = ISAP 837), cf. Gaddius (see ZADOK 1987, 280); alterna-
tively to ↑II.B.b.5.3. Šby (YARDENI 2016, 717–18), which ends in -ī or -ay, may be
based on Š-B-B, cf. Arab. šabb, “youth, young,” Aram. < Arab. Šb(w) and related
forms (see DESREUMAUX 1998, 461–62: 089), Saf. and Tham. Šb (HARDING 1971,
337; SHATNAWI 2002, 707–708, provided it is not a defective spelling of šayb, “white-
haired”), cf. Σαβoς (DUNAND 1934, 17: 7). Alternatively either a qātil or a qattāl-
formation of Š-B-Y, i.e. “captor,” (YARDENI 2016, 717–18; cf. ZADOK 1987, 273; IDEM
1988, 106). Gny (LEMAIRE 2015, 119–20; cf. Γενναιος, Idumean, ZUCKER 1938, 59) is
based on G-N-N, “to protect,” (see YARDENI 2016, 667b; + -ay), cf. Saf. Gn, Gnnt
which are comparable to CA Jinn (HARDING 1971, 168–69, common) and Γενναιου
(gen., WUTHNOW 1930, 40, 134a). Rabb. Gny (ZADOK 1987, 282), Amm. Gnʾ and

108
Qwsʾ° (PORTEN/YARDENI 2014, 377); Qwsh° (IDEM 2018, 45); Qwsy (Gch 95 = ISAP 895).
 On the Documentary Framework 227

Phoen. Gnn apparently derive from the same root; for a presumed Qatabanic parallel
see HAYAJNEH 1998, 115 s.v. Gnʾm. Spy is apparently based on sp, “threshold,” (Heb.-
Phoen., Aram., Akkad. sippu; cf. OT Sp(y), LXX Σεφ(ε), Σεφφι, Σαπφι referring to a
Philistine, see MCCARTER 1984, 448–49 ad 2S 21, 18), Aram. Spy = LB fSip-pa-a (BE
8, 116) and MB Sippūša, “Ihre Stützmauer,” (HÖLSCHER 1996, 193a). With the alter-
native reading Sny it has a pejorative denotation (“hated”, see PORTEN/YARDENI 2018,
378). Nty (LEMAIRE 2002, 156 = ISAP 1471) is apparently the same name as Rabb. ~,
Ntʾy, Nατθαιος, Dura Nathis, short form of Ntn (see ZADOK 1987, 308; GRASSI 2012,
271–72). Ḥly (TSUKIMOTO/YAMAYOSHI 2011, 90–91: 6, 5) may consist of ḫāl, “ma-
ternal uncle,” (Arab., productive in Arabian and Northwest Semitic onomastica) and -ī,
cf. Saf. and Tham. Ḫl (very common) and Ḫly (differently SHATNAWI 2002, 682–84)
and OB < Am. Ha-li-ia (STRECK 2000, 220).

II.B.c.5.2.2. Originally with one weak consonant

Ḥzy (to Ḥ-Z-Y, “to see,” see PORTEN/YARDENI 2018, 355; cf. Saf. ~, Ḥzym/t, see
HAYAJNEH 1998, 119) may denote “soothsayer” (CA ḥāzi, cf. HARDING 1971, 188).
Nšy° (YARDENI 2016, 689b) may derive from N-Ś-ʾ, “to lift, take, carry,” (Can.-Heb.,
Akkad.; Eth. “to take, catch up, hold up, lift up, elevate”), Sab. N-S2-ʾ, “to arise, take
action,” CA našaʾa, “to rise, be high.” This anthroponym (si vera lectio) may be a
contracted form of *Nšʾy, cf. Sab. Ns2ʾy, Aram. (Palm.) < Arab. Nšʾ, Saf. Nšʾt, Qat.
Ns2ʾm, Ns2ʾn (see HAYAJNEH 1998, 248–49, where Amorite names are quoted as well).

II.B.c.5.2.3. with one laryngeal, glottal stop, h or a semi-vowel

II.B.c.5.2.3.1. With ḥ-
Ḥny (+ -ī) is based on ḥn, “grace,” (YARDENI 2016, 680–81), cf. Aram. ~ (see MAR-
AQTEN 1988, 166), NA Ha-an-ni-i, NB/LB Hi-in-ni-ia (< WSem., see ZADOK 1978,
146). Ḥyn (see PORTEN/YARDENI 2014, 111) derives from Ḥ-W/Y-Y, “to live,” and an
adjectival -ān, i.e. “living, alive,” cf. Nab. ~ (NEGEV 1991, 29: 436a; cf. MACDONALD
1999, 277), Saf. ~ (23×, HARDING 1971, 211 with a wrong interpretation), Lih., Sab. ~
(STEIN 2010, 681; see HAYAJNEH 1988, 127, s.v. Ḥywn), CA Ḥayyān, Palm. Ḥyny
(STARK 1971, 88a), NA < WSem. Ha-ia-a-ni (ZADOK 1978, 158), Ug. Ḥyn, A[ει]ανηϛ
(Idumean, ZUCKER 1938, 58), Aιαν(ης, WUTHNOW 1930, 139b).

II.B.c.5.2.3.2. With w-
W°ny (PORTEN/YARDENI 2018, 348), cf. Saf. and Lih. ~ (10× and 2× resp.), Nab. Wnʾ,
Aram. < Arab. (Judean Desert) Wnh, and Saf. Wn (5×), which may be related to CA
wann, “weariness,” according to HARDING 1971, 650–51; cf. ZADOK 2000a, 619. An
Iranian derivation (*Vanya-) does not seem realistic in view of the rarity of Iranian
commoners’ names in Idumea.
228 Ran Zadok

II.B.c.5.3. With two or three weak consonants

Gʾyʾ (IA 12436 = ISAP 855) is based on G-ʾ-Y, “to be exalted,” (Aram., Heb.-Can.,
Eth.; + -ā), cf. Aram. Brgʾyh (“G.’s son”) and NA < WSem. Ga-ia-a, Ga-A+A, Ge-
˹ia˺-a (see ZADOK 1978, 291; cf. FABRITIUS, PNA 1, 419a). ʾbh (LEMAIRE 2002, 207 =
ISAP 1676), which ends in -ā, is based on ʾab, “father,” cf. Nab. ʾbʾ (NEGEV 1991, 6:
2), Aram. (Palm. and other corpora) ~ (see STARK 1971, 63a; ZADOK 1987, 275;
GRASSI 2012,109–10), Saf. ʾbʾ/h (HARDING 1971, 8, 16). ʾd/ry (YARDENI 2016, 661a)
is either the equivalent of Aδαιοϛ (Idumean, ZUCKER 1938, 58), Saf. ʾdy (4×), CA
(dim.) Udayy (HARDING 1971, 33) or Heb.-Can. ʾry, “lion,” (cf. ZADOK 1987, 259). ʾsy
is either Akkad. (> Aram. “physician,” see PORTEN/YARDENI 2018, 339) or based on
ʾs, “myrtle,” plus -ī, cf. OT ʾsʾ (ZADOK 1988, 136). Hm°h (YARDENI 2016, 669b), cf.
Saf. ʾhm (common, HARDING 1971, 82 who compares Arab. Ayham). R/ʿwy with the
reading Rwy derives from R-W/Y-Y, “to be saturated, to supply water,” (YARDENI 2016,
716b), cf. Min. Rwyn and CA Rawiyy (see ZADOK 2000a, 626 with refs.; for com-
paranda see IDEM 1988, 137). ʿwy (ʿzy) – may derive from either Ġ-W/Y-ʾ (CA ġawā),
“to desire,” or ʿ-Z-Z, “to be strong,” (see YARDENI 2016, 695b), cf. Nab. ʿwyw, Saf.
Ġw, and the CA surname Ġawīy (see HAYAJNEH 1998, 73–74, s.v. Qat. ʾġwym with
more comparanda). For ʿzy cf. Nab. ~ (NEGEV 1991, 50: 868), Saf. ʿz (5×, HARDING
1971, 417), Rabb. ʿzy (ZADOK 1987, 280; cf. also GRASSI 2012, 131 and NB/LB in an
Arabian milieu, Iz-zi-an-na, ZADOK 1978, 147). ʿ°k° (PORTEN/YARDENI 2018, 426), cf.
Saf. and Tham. ~, Nab. ʿkyw, Aram. (< Arab.) ʿky from Hatra and CA ʿAkk, “sultry,
warm,” (see LEMAIRE 1996, 31 ad 22, 2; SHATNAWI 2002, 724). ʿ°ḥ°t (POR-
TEN/YARDENI 2016, 27) is unexplained. ʾyh (LEMAIRE 2002, 299 = ISAP 1354), cf.
OT ~ (ZADOK 1988, 146, 155).

II.B.c.6. qatlūl
Ḥlpw°p (PORTEN/YARDENI 2018, 359) can be a qatlūl-diminutive/deteriorative (see
BROCKELMANN 1908, 366–67) based on Ḫ-L-P, i.e. “little substitute.”

II.B.c.7. qalq(w)l
Glgl, Glglʾ, Glgwl, “wheel” > “eyeball,” (see YARDENI 2016, 667b), or “skull,” cf.
Rabb. Glgwlʾ/h, Glglh, Γαλγουλα (see ZADOK 1987, 283; IDEM 1988, 152–53; IDEM
2000a, 601). Drdʿ, cf. OT ~ (see LEMAIRE 2006, 449 ad 448: 25, 5; cf. ZADOK 1988,
152–53).

II.B.c.8. With preformatives

II.B.c.8.1. lqtl
Lytʿ (PORTEN/YARDENI 2014, 379), “may he save,” (an isolated predicate).

II.B.c.8.2. m-
Mʾws is perhaps an antifrastic anthroponym (see YARDENI 2016, 686a). Mšlm (e.g. AI
11768) may be either a muquttal (> miquttal, Heb.-Can.) or muqattal (Aram.-Arab.), D
 On the Documentary Framework 229

passive participle “replaced,” (substitute name, cf. ZADOK 1988, 125). A further possi-
bility is a maqtal-formation in view of the isolated theophorous element (< epithet?) –
µασλαµος of Aβδοµασλαµος (Idumean, ZADOK 1998b, 21*: 9.7, 14). 109 Mrṣʿt
(YARDENI 2016, 687b, see ZADOK 1998a, 809). Mšyzbʾ (PORTEN/YARDENI 2016, 319)
< Akkad. Mušēzib plus Aram. -ā. M°n°wš is unexplained (see YARDENI 2016, 687b).

II.B.c.8.3. y- (mostly isolated predicates of II.A.a.10–11)

II.B.c.8.3.1. G impf. 3rd sg. m.
Ymlk (YARDENI 2016, 683a), cf. OT ~ and OB < Am. Ia-am-lik-èl (see ZADOK 1988,
130; STRECK 2000, 177), Palm. Ymlkw and Aµλιχος/Iamlichus from Dura (see GRASSI
2012, 139). Ynqm, “he will avenge,” (YARDENI 2016, 683a; cf. Qwsynqm), cf. OB <
Am. Ia-an-qí-ma-nu (STRECK 2000, 346). Y°šm°ʿ° (cf. Yšmʿl), “he will hear”; Y°z°r°ʿ
“he will sow,” (see YARDENI 2016, 683, the former with <z> for /d/), cf. OT Yzrʿʾl
(ZADOK 1988, 39), OB < Am. Ia-az-ra-hu-um (STRECK 2000,169). Yḥlp (PORTEN/
YARDENI 2018, 199), cf. Sab. ~ (HARDING 1971, 661). Cf. Yzdw (II.B.b.3.2).

II.B.c.8.3.2. Causative impf. 3rd sg. m.

Yq°ym (YARDENI 2016, 683b; cf. Qwsy°q°m), cf. Rabb. ~ (ZADOK 1987, 288). Yhwkl,
Ywkl (YARDENI 2016, 682a), Yhkl, Yʾkl (PORTEN/YARDENI 2014, 238, 243).

II.B.c.9. Gentilics
Bbly (AI 11843 = ISAP 154) “Babylonian.” Ddny (LEMAIRE 2002, 269), “Dedanite.”
The alternative reading Rdny may be based on Radanu in Babylonia or denote “Rhodi-
an” in view of OT Rwdnym, but both are remote possibilities. Is Brwsy (↑II.B.c.2) a
gentilic?. Šlmyt (↑II.B.c.4.2.1) may refer to a female from Šlm (a genuine GN or poetic
for Jerusalem). Q(w)ṣy (↑II.B.b.5.1) may be a gentilic of the Qwṣ clan.

II.B.c.10. Conspectus of nominal formations

II.B.c.10.1. qVtl
Ghnt (↑II.B.c.4.2.2.7), Ḥṣ°b°t (↑II.B.c.4.2.2.2), Ḥ°šb°w, Lḥṭw (↑II.B.b.6.3), Nqd(w)
(↑II.B.b.5.2), Šmrw/y/ʾ(↑II.B.b.1.2, or to qVtVl); Zmrw/y (↑II.B.b.3.2 or qatūl).

II.B.c.10.1.1. qatl
ʾgrʾ, ʾm°nt (↑II.B.c.4.2.2.1); Kbšʾ, Krmy, Ndby, Plṭy, Šmšy, Brqt (or qattāl), Gdpʾ/y (or
qatul), Grpʾ/y (↑II.B.c.4.2.1 or qutāl); Ḥṭmt, Sʿdy, ʿknh (↑II.B.c.4.2.2.2, alternatively
to qatal); Ḥṭmw, Nṣrw, Šbrw, Šhd/rw, Šlyw, Wʿlw, Zḥrw, Rʿṣw, Rpw, G°d°y°w°, ʿmrw,
Lḥmw (both alternatively to qatil); Bʿdw, Bʿrw (or qatal); D/Rhnw (alternatively qutl),
G°hmw (↑II.B.b.6.3, alternatively to qutl or qātil); Ytʿw (↑II.B.b.6.3, or qatil), ʿbdw/y/ʾ,
Ṣḥrw/y/ʾ, Zbdw/y/ʾ (↑II.B.b.1.2), Šʿdw/y (or Šʿ°d/rw, ↑II.B.b.3.2), Prḥh, Z°r°ḥ

109
Possibly extant in Saf. Mslmʾl. For an alternative interpretation, see MÜLLER 2018, 32.
230 Ran Zadok

(↑II.B.c.4.2.2.9), Whbw/y (↑II.B.b.3.2), Wtgn (↑II.B.c.4.2.2.4); Gbrw, Mškw

(↑II.B.b.6.3), Plg(w), Qny(w, ↑II.B.b.5.2), all the four alternatively to qātil;
Šmʿw/Šmʿh (↑II.B.b.4.2, alternatively qatal); qaty: Ṭbyw/Ṭbyʾ (↑II.B.b.4.2); ʿlyw
(↑II.B.b.6.1), ʿwy (↑II.B.c.5.3), both alternatively to qatīl; Smy (↑II.B.c.4.2.2.10), Gdy
(alternatively to qall); qatʾ: Lb’t°, Mrʾ, M°r°y°ʾ° (↑II.B.c.4.2.2.8).

II.B.c.10.1.2. qitl
Dbš(ʾ), Dkrn, Šṭnʾ, Tbnʾ/h, Rpd (↑II.B.c.4.2.1, alternatively qātil); Ḥṭrw, Nqmw
(↑II.B.b.6.3), B(ʾ)rʾ (↑II.B.c.4.2.2.2), Dkrw/y (or qātil), Nmrw (↑II.B.b.3.2, alternative-
ly to qatil); qitl (< qatl): ʿdrʾ, ʿdry, ʿdrn (↑II.B.c.4.2.2.2).

II.B.c.10.1.3. qutl
Ḥwlp (↑II.B.c.4.1), ʿqbn, ʿqbʾ (↑II.B.c.4.2.2.2); Qmṣʾ (alternatively qatal,
↑II.B.c.4.2.1); cf. ↑II.B.c.10.1.1.

II.B.c.10.2. qVtVl
II.B.c.10.2.1. qatal
Bdn, Dnby, Ndby, Mṭrn, Ḥlpn, Ḥlpt, Ḥlptʾ, Ntny, Ṭ°b°r°n° (↑II.B.c.4.2.1), Š/Ṣḥrw, Šḥr
(↑II.B.b.5.2), Ḥlpw (↑II.B.b.6.1), Nhrw/y, Smkw (↑II.B.b.6.3 or qitāl); cf.
(↑II.B.c.10.1.1, 3; ↓ II.B.c.10.2.2.

II.B.c.10.2.2. qatil
ʾmtw/y (↑II.B.b.3.2), Mlk(w/ʾ) (↑II.B.b.4.2), Šmtw (↑II.B.b.6.3 or qatal), Šʾrt?
(↑II.B.c.4.2.2.2).

II.B.c.10.2.3. qatul (↑II.B.c.10.1.1).

II.B.c.10.2.4. qutal
Nqr(w) (↑II.B.b.5.2).

II.B.c.10.3. qVt(V)l
ʿṣlʾ (↑II.B.c.4.2.2.2), P°ṣry (↑II.B.c.4.2.1), Šlmw (↑II.B.b.5.2); cf. ↑II.B.c.10.1.

II.B.c.10.4. qātil
Ḥmyw (↑II.B.b.6.1), Ḥzy (↑II.B.c.5.2.2); cf. ↑II.B.c.10.1.1, 2; ↓ II.B.c.10.13, 14.1.

II.B.c.10.5. qutayl (dim., ↑II.B.b.6.1 unless otherwise indicated, see the preliminary
list of LEMAIRE 2002, 215–16)
Pairs: ʿbyd(w) is a diminutive of ʿbd(w), Dkyrw (of Dkrw); Ḥlypw (of Ḥlpw);
Ḥṭyrw/Ḥṭy°r°ʾ ° (↑II.B.b.4.1, of Ḥṭrw), Rpyʾw (of *Rpʾw): Šʿydw (Šʿdw); Šmyrw (of
 On the Documentary Framework 231

Šmrw), Ytyʿw (of Ytʿw). Ghynʾ (↑II.B.c.3), Lbyʾw; qutayy: ʿm°yw and possibly ʾḥyw.
The formation of Ḥnyzrw is analogous to qutayl. Ṣbyḥw is of this formation as it has
no comparanda with qatīl. On the face of it, the following names may alternatively
belong to qatīl (↓II.B.c.10.6.2). The latter possibility is preferred only in case there is
no onomastic evidence for a qutayl formation:
ʾmynw, ʿdyd/rw, ʿrydw, ʿwydw, ʿwyrw, Ḥbybw, Ngyʾw; Bryk(w) (↑II.B.b.5.1),
Ḥzyr(w/y/ʾ) (↑II.B.b.1.1), Ntynw/ʾ (Ntyn, ↑II.B.b.4.1), and Zbyd(w/y) (↑II.B.b.2).

II.B.c.10.6. qVtV:l
Wdd (↑II.B.c.4.2.2.2).

II.B.c.10.6.1. qatāl
Bynw (↑II.B.b.6.1), Šlmyt (↑II.B.c.4.2.1), Ḥnk°ʾ (↑II.B.c.4.2.2.2 or qatīl).

II.B.c.10.6.2. qatīl (↑II.B.c.3)

ʿqy°bʾ, Nṭyrʾ, Ydyʿʾ, Ḥnynʾ (↑II.B.c.3, or qutayl), ʿzyzw, Ḥbw/yt(w) (↑II.B.b.5.1 or to
qatūl), Sny (↑II.B.c.5.2.1) and perhaps Pṣg°w (↑II.B.b.6.3); cf. ↑II.B.c.10.1.1, 5, 6.1.

II.B.c.10.6.3. qatūl (↑II.B.c.2)

Sl(w)ʾt (↑II.B.c.4.2.2.8); cf. ↑II.B.c.10.1.

II.B.c.10.6.4. qitāl
ʿyd/rw (↑II.B.b.6.1); Hll (↑II.B.c.4.2.2.11, alternatively qittil); cf. ↑II.B.c.10.2.1;
↓II.B.c.10.13.

II.B.c.10.6.5. qutāl (↑II.B.c.10.1.1)

II.B.c.10.7. qittil or qattāl110

Ḥggw (↑II.B.b.6.2).

II.B.c.10.8. qVt(t)V:l
II.B.c.10.8.1. qattāl
Bny, Mny (↑II.B.c.4.2.2.8), T°y°r°w° (↑II.B.b.6.1); cf. ↑II.B.c.10.1.1, ↓II.B.c.10.14.1.

II.B.c.10.8.2. qattūl
ʿnͦ wͦ ʾ (↑II.B.c.4.2.2.2); cf. ↑II.B.c.1, 2.

110
For qittil, ↑II.B.c.10.6.4
232 Ran Zadok

II.B.c.10.8.3. qittīl
Ḥ(y°)nzrw (↑II.B.b.6.3).

II.B.c.10.9. qalqal
Ṣrṣrw/ʾ (↑II.B.b.4.2).

II.B.c.10.10. qVl

II.B.c.10.10.1. qal
ʾsy (↑II.B.c.5.3).

II.B.c.10.10.2. qul (↓II.B.c.10.11.3).

II.B.c.10.11. qV:l

II.B.c.10.11.1. qāl
Ḥly (↑II.B.c.5.2.1).

II.B.c.10.11.2. qīl
Gyr (↑II.B.b.2).

II.B.c.10.11.3. qūl
Gwr(w/y) (↑II.B.b.2), N(w)ry, Rwmʾ/h, Qwṣ, Q(w)ṣy (the latter alternatively to qul)
and perhaps Bwqy (↑II.B.c.5.1, or to qull?).

II.B.c.10.12. qawl
Dws, Ḥwrn, Ḥwry, ʿpy (↑II.B.c.5.2.1); ʿwtw/y (↑II.B.b.3.1).

II.B.c.10.13. qayl
ʿynw°/y (↑II.B.b.3.1), ʿyd/rn, Dyny, Zydn, Zytn, Qynʾ[?] (↑II.B.c.5.1); Zydw/y
(II.B.b.3.1), Zydtw (both alternatively to qitāl), ʿyd/rw (with the reading d alternatively
to qātil), Ḥ°y°r°w°, Tymw (↑II.B.b.6.1); cf. ↓II.B.c.10.14.1.

II.B.c.10.14. qVll
II.B.c.10.14.1. qall
ʿmw/y (↑II.B.b.3.2), Wdw (↑II.B.b.6.3); W°ny (↑II.B.c.5.2.3.2), ʿ°k° (↑II.B.c.5.3); Gdy
Šby (alternatively to qayl, qātil, or qattāl) and perhaps Nty (↑II.B.c.5.2.1); cf.
↑II.B.c.10.1.1.
 On the Documentary Framework 233

II.B.c.10.14.2. qill
Gny, Spy (↑II.B.c.5.2.1).

II.B.c.10.14.3. qull (↑II.B.c.10.11.3).

II.B.c.11. Conspectus of Suffixed Anthroponyms (Excluding -w)

II.B.c.11.1. -ā
II.B.c.11.1.1. With -ʾ
ʿqy°bʾ, Ghynʾ, Ḥnynʾ, Nṭyrʾ, Ydyʿʾ, ʾgrʾ (↑II.B.c.4.2.2.1), ʿdrʾ, ʿṣlʾ (↑II.B.c.4.2.2.2),
B(ʾ)rʾ (↑II.B.c.4.2.2.5), Dbšʾ, Kbšʾ, Gd/rpʾ, Qmṣʾ, Šṭnʾ (↑II.B.c.4.2.1), ʾyh, Gʾyʾ
(↑II.B.c.5.3), Ḥnk°ʾ (↑II.B.c.4.2.2.3), Qynʾ[?] (↑II.B.c.5.1). Mrʾ, M°r°y°ʾ°, “(the) mas-
ter,” (↑II.B.c.4.2.2.8).

II.B.c.11.1.2. With -h (or -ʾ/h)

ʾbh, Hm°h (↑II.B.c.5.3), ʿknh (↑II.B.c.4.2.2.2), Prḥh (↑II.B.c.4.2.2.9), Qwsʾ°/h°,
Rwmʾ/h (↑II.B.c.5.1), Tbnʾ/h (↑II.B.c.4.2.1).

II.B.c.11.1.3. Alternatively an Accusative Marker

ʿbdʾ, Ṣ°ḥ°rʾ, Šmrʾ, Zbdʾ (↑II.B.b.1.2), Ḥzyrʾ (↑II.B.b.1.1), Ḥṭy°r°ʾ°, Mlkʾ, Ntynʾ, Ṣrṣrʾ,
Šmʿh, Ṭbyʾ (↑II.B.b.4.1).

II.B.c.11.2. -ī (< -īy)

II.B.c.11.2.1. Hypocoristic Suffix
ʾry, ʾsy (↑II.B.c.5.3), ʿdry (↑II.B.c.4.2.2.2), Bwqy, Qwsy (↑II.B.c.5.1), Dnby, Gd/rpy,
K°r°my, Ndby, Ntny, Plṭy, P°ṣry (↑II.B.c.4.2.1), Dny, Ḥly (↑II.B.c.5.2.1), Nšy°
(↑II.B.c.5.2.2), Ḥny (↑II.B.c.5.2.3.1), N(w)ry (↑II.B.c.5.1), W°ny (↑II.B.c.5.2.3.2).

II.B.c.11.2.2. Alternatively a Genitive Marker

Ḥzyry (↑II.B.b.1.1), ʿbdy, Ṣḥry, Šmry, Zbdy (↑II.B.b.1.2), Gwry, Zbydy (↑II.B.b.2),
ʿyny (↑II.B.b.3.1), ʿmy, Dkry, Nhry, Šʿdy (or Šʿry), Whby, Z°m°r°y (↑II.B.b.3.2), and
possibly Sʿdy (↑II.B.c.4.2.2.6). ʿwty, Zydy (↑II.B.b.3.1), Ḥgy and Yzdy (↑II.B.b.3.2)
may alternatively end in -ay.

II.B.c.11.3. -ay
ʾdy (↑II.B.c.5.3); Dyny (↑II.B.c.5.1); ʿpy, Gny, Nty, Spy (↑II.B.c.5.2.1); Šmšy
(↑II.B.c.4.2.1), and perhaps ʿzy (↑II.B.c.5.3) and Šby (↑II.B.c.5.2.1). Cf. ↑II.B.c.11.2.2
in fine.
234 Ran Zadok

II.B.c.11.4. -ān
II.B.c.11.4.1. Hypocoristic
Dkrn, Ḥlpn (↑II.B.c.4.2.1), ʿdrn, ʿqbn (↑II.B.c.4.2.2.2), ʿyd/rn, Zydn (↑II.B.c.5.1).

II.B.c.11.4.2. Adjectival
Ḥwrn, Zytn (↑II.B.c.5.1), Ḥyn (↑II.B.c.5.2.3.1), Wtgn (↑II.B.c.4.2.2.4), Mṭrn, and per-
haps Ṭ°b°r°n° (↑II.B.c.4.2.1).

II.B.c.11.5. -Vt (practically -at)

ʾmnt, Ḥṭmt (↑II.B.c.4.2.2.1), Brqt, Ḥlpt (↑II.B.c.4.2.1), Ghnt (↑II.B.c.4.2.2.7), Ḥṣ°b°t
(↑II.B.c.4.2.2.3), Sl(w)ʾt (↑II.B.c.4.2.2.8), Šʾrt? (↑II.B.c.4.2.2.5), Yʿpt (↑II.B.c.4.2.2.6),
ʿḥt (↑II.B.c.5.3).

II.B.c.11.6. -īt
Šlmyt (↑II.B.c.4.2.1).

II.B.c.11.7. -(V)t-ā
ʿqbtʾ (↑II.B.c.4.2.2.2), Ḥlptʾ (↑II.B.c.4.2.1).

II.B.c.11.8. -t-ay
ʾmty (↑II.B.c.4.2.2.1).

II.B.c.11.9. -Vn+ -ā
ʿtnʾ (↑II.A.g).

II.C. Non-Idumeans
Most of the Non-Idumean individuals in the Idumean documentation are Judeans and
Phoenicians. Very few Egyptians and others are also recorded. Purely Egyptian names
are, e.g. Pmn (explicitly Eg., LEMAIRE 1996, 105 = ISAP 1105), Pšḥwr (RD > HW =
ISAP 950) and Pṭs (see YARDENI 2016, 703b). Individuals bearing hybrid names with
Egyptian theophorous elements, viz. ʾḥḥpy,ʿbdʾsy, and ʿbdʾwsyry (↑II.A.a.25, 32), were
not necessarily Egyptian in view of the popularity of Egyptian deities (especially Isis,
Osiris and possibly Apis) in Philistia, Phoenicia and adjacent regions from the middle
of the 1st millennium BCE onwards. Two fragmentary ostraca, which were written by
the same scribe, record several Judeans with a group of four Egyptian servants (see
EPHʿAL/NAVEH 1996, 92 ad 200–201). For Psʾ (IA 12195 = ISAP 812), cf. ~ from
Elphantine (PORTEN/YARDENI 1993, lxiv).
Bʿlyt°n° (↑II.A.d) is exclusively Phoenician; such is probably Ssmy (YARDENI 2016
691a), cf. OT ~ (see ZADOK 1988, 66) and Σεσµαιος from Mareshah (ZADOK 1998b,
20*: 9.5, 4). Another Phoenician is ʿzrbʿl. The following five anthroponyms are either
 On the Documentary Framework 235

Judean or Phoenician: Mnḥm (see YARDENI 2016, 667a), Mnḥmh (Rockefeller Shod
6? = ISAP 56), Šmʿwn (Gch 82 = ISAP 882); ʿkbwr, “mouse,” (see PORTEN/YARDENI
2018, 393); Šbnʾ (YARDENI 2016, 718a), cf. OT ~ (ZADOK 1988, 44). It is reasonable
to assume that the bearers of the Tetragrammatic names (↑II.A.f) were Judeans rather
than Samarians. They outnumber the Phoenicians.
Two bearers of Tetragrammatic names are mentioned together with Zkwr and
ʿzryqm (Heb.) at ʾdnh (modern Idna) which is near Makkedah (see LEMAIRE 2002,
182–83 ad 365). The document mentions consumption of wine. No Judeans are men-
tioned in the few transactions concerning wine of the Idumean corpus (cf. POR-
TEN/YARDENI 2016, 306 ad A47.1).
The only Iranian commoner’s name in Idumea is Rmk (see ZADOK 1998b, 814;
“mule” in YARDENI 2016, 716b is presumably a borrowing from Old Iranian). Mgs
(LOZACHMEUR/LEMAIRE 1996, 138: 8, 6 = ISAP 1229) renders Greek Mέγας
(PAPE/BENSELER 1884, 879a, FRASER/MATTHEWS 1997, 201a, early PN and a nick-
name of various persons). It was also borrowed in Nabatean (erroneously interpreted
by NEGEV 191; cf. MACDONALD 1999, 280 ad 612).

III. Some Concluding Remarks

Based on the seminal studies of Ephʿal and Naveh as well as the massive and meticu-
lous oeuvre of Lemaire, Porten and Yardeni, the above analysis led to further clarifica-
tion of the Aramaic documentary background which is firmly embedded in the termi-
nology of the Babylonian accountancy. The ostraca are mainly about taxation which
was channeled through existing structures of the Idumean kin-based society, but it
cannot be ruled out that some material refers to transactions of individuals.
The c. 550 anthroponyms from unprovenanced Idumean ostraca fall into two large
categories. The majority are simplex (c. 300) whereas the compound names do not
exceed 240. A restricted number of simplex anthroponyms can be described as “isolat-
ed predicates,” but the opinion that simplex names generally originate from compound
ones cannot be prosopographically proven.
This interim report does not contain a detailed prosopography since the project of
re-edition of the corpus has not yet been completed. So far slightly over 1152 ostraca
are re-edited by Porten and Yardeni in 2014, 2016, and 2018. They are classified by
clans and recurrent principals, which by applying the Notarius correction (NOTARIUS
2018, passim; see above, I) would facilitate the compilation of a prosopography. This
task can be completed only after the publication of the 4th volume of Porten and
Yardeni (a sequel of Porten and Yardeni 2018 which will include eight categories
other than chits as classified in PORTEN/YARDENI 2014, xx, B–J [recte I]).
For the time being, suffice it to point out that most of the anthroponyms are expli-
cable in Arabian and Aramaic terms. The distribution of the Idumean compound
names with Qaws by categories resembles that of the general corpus of compound
anthroponyms from Idumea. There is an impressive number of exclusively Arabian
names among the compound anthroponyms. Such are, e.g., Tymʾl /Taym-ʾil/ and Qynʾl
236 Ran Zadok

/Qayn-ʾil/, “servant of El/God,” verbal sentence names deriving from W-H-B (and
other roots with W-) and N-Ṣ-R (vs. Aram. Y-H-B/N-T-N and N-Ṭ-R), but they are not
the majority. More sizable is the number of Arabian simplex anthroponyms. Such are
the names with wawation or variants of such names (87+43=130), as well as anthropo-
nyms of Arabian derivation or with exclusively Arabian comparanda. They are the
majority of the simplex names. The fact that anthroponyms with wawation are based
on forms deriving from roots which are recorded in Northwest Semitic as well is not
an argument against their Arabian character. What counts is not the lexical aspect, but
the morphological and phonological criteria. Regrettably, the latter criterion is often
masked by the inadequacy of the Aramaic and Greek alphabets to render typical Ara-
bian phonemes.
The comparanda are drawn in the first place from North-Arabian dialects spoken in
regions adjacent to Idumea or along the caravan routes of the Arabo-Syrian Desert
(Nabatean, Safaitic-Hismaic, Dadanitic-Lihyanic, Thamudic-Taymanitic, and Hasaitic)
to which is added material from remote regions, viz. South-Arabian, such as Minaic,
Sabaic, Qatabanic, and Hadramitic. Aramaic and other Northwest Semitic comparanda
are from the entire Fertile Crescent. However, in many cases it is impossible to distin-
guish between Arabian and Aramaic anthroponyms.
The lexicon of the Idumean non-compound names resembles to some extent that of
Nabatean and Safaitic,111 whose speakers dwelled in the former habitat of the Edom-
ites and near it on the fringe of the desert and beyond. Safaitic seems to have more
names resembling Aramaic ones than any other Arabian onomasticon. This can be
regarded an areal phenomenon. Also the Dadanitic-Lihyanic onomasticon has several
Aramaic names.112 On the whole, the Idumean onomasticon is a mixture of Northwest
Semitic, notably Aramaic, and Arabian.
The second-largest group are the Judean names (mostly Tetragrammatic). This is
not surprising given the fact that Idumea had a Judean past and was adjacent to Judea.
There is at least one Judeo-Idumean mixed filiation, viz. Qwsytb son of Ḥnnyh (LE-
MAIRE 2015, 119–20). The number of Phoenico-Philistine names lags far behind the
Judean ones. They contain popular Egyptian theonyms as theophorous elements. It can
be envisaged that the Judeans had a wide demographic base as their settlement was not
confined to the borders of the Yehud sub-satrapy, but eventually spread to southern
Samaria and tracts of the higher Shephelah.113 A compact zone of closely related lan-
guages might have resulted in areal pressure-intensive symbiosis between Judeans and
Idumeans. On the other hand, the Phoenicians were in all probability newcomers who
formed the Sidonian colony of Mareshah, and Tyrian itinearant tradesmen. The num-
ber of purely Egyptian anthroponyms is very low and that of Greek and Iranian names
is negligible.

111
Cf. KUTSCHER 1967–68, 111–12, n. 27 on the Edomite name Šwbk in the OT, a cognate of Nab.
Šbykw (NEGEV 1991, 62, 1095), Saf. Šbk(y, 1+1×), CA Šabk (HARDING 1971, 339; cf. MÜLLER 2018,
33).
112
See MÜLLER 2018, 28, 34
113
“Greater Yehud” (see LEMAIRE 2015, 96) is a phantom based on the anachronistic-utopian list
of Neh. 11: 25–35.
 On the Documentary Framework 237

Over thirty theophorous elements are contained in anthroponyms from Idumea. The
most common theophorous element is the Edomite/Idumean god Qaws who is con-
tained in more than a quarter (28.63 %) of the compound theophorous anthroponyms.
The other theophorous elements referring to specific deities lag far behind this tribal
god: ʾdh /Adā/ is recorded only in two names. Several theophorous elements seem to
refer not to specific deities in this late period, but may be epithets of Qaws, such are
bʿly /baʿlī/, “my lord”; mr(ʾ)n, “our lord”114; ʾil and ʾlh(y) /ilāhī/, “(my) god.” Fur-
thermore, there is good reason for thinking that ʿl/ʿly /ʿAliy/, ʾwr, Ṣidq and Ytʿ are
merely divine epithets. Gd /Gadd/, “fortune, Tyche,” must have occupied an important
niche in the popular religion almost everywhere in the Levant. The only goddesses
who appear as theophorous elements are Mnwt /Manōt < Manāt/ and the Mesopotami-
an Bābu. On the other hand, the goddess ʿzh /ʿUzzā/, whose temple stood somewhere
in Idumea, is absent from the abundant onomasticon. The absence of lunar deities, who
were popular among the Arabian nomads, is surprising (the only occurrence of Syn
turned out to be of a very doubtful reading). The Sun-god, Šam(a)š, is contained in
two names. The Egyptian deities Isis, Osiris and Apis are contained in hybrid (Sem.-
Eg.) anthroponym (once each). Ssm (/Sasm/) is recorded only once. There are three
occurrences of the Mesopotamian deity Nabû, who was very popular also among the
Arameans. In short, the cult of Qaws was dominant, but it did not amount to monolatry.

Bibliography
ABABNEH, M.I. (2005): Neue safaitische Inschriften und deren bildliche Darstellungen, (Studia
Semitica et Hamitosemitica Berolinensia 6), Aachen.
ABBADI, S. (1983): Die Personennamen der Inschriften aus Hatra, (Texte und Studien zur Orientalis-
tik 1), Hildesheim.
AHITUV, SH. (1999): An Edomite Ostracon, in: Y. AVISHUR/R. DEUTSCH (eds.), Michael: Historical,
Epigraphical and Biblical Studies in Honor of Prof. Michael Heltzer, Tel Aviv-Jaffa, 33–37.
AHITUV, SH./A. YARDENI (2004): Seventeen Aramaic Texts on Ostraca From Idumea, Maarav 11, 7–
23; 111–24.
AL-ḤROUB, I. (2015): Atlas of Palestinian Rural Heritage, Bethlehem.
AL-JALLAD, A. (2015): An Outline of the Grammar of the Safaitic Inscriptions, (Studies in Semitic
Languages and Linguistics 80), Leiden.
– (2017): Graeco-Arabica I: The Southern Levant, in A. AL-JALLAD (ed.), Arabic in Context: Cele-
brating 400 Years of Arabic at Leiden University, (Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics
89), Leiden.
AL-SAID, S.F. (1995): Die Personennamen in den minäischen Inschriften: Eine etymologische und
lexikalische Studie im Bereich der semitischen Sprachen, (Veröffentlichungen der Orientalischen
Kommission der Akkademie der Wissenschaften und Literatur 41), Wiesbaden.
AUFRECHT, W.E./W.D. SHURY (1997): Three Iron Age Seals: Moabite, Aramaic and Hebrew, IEJ 47,
57–68.
BECKING, B. (2008): Temples Across the Border and the Communal Borders within Yahwistic Yehud,
Transeuphratène 35, 39–54.

114
Gaza’s Marnas resembles Qaws, see BELAYCHE 2001, 241.
238 Ran Zadok

BEESTON, A.F.L./M.A. GHUL/W.W. MÜLLER/J. RYCKMANS (1982): A Sabaic Dictionary, (Publica-

tion of the University of Sanaa, YAR 880-04), Louvain-La-Neuve.
BELAYCHE, N. (2001): Judaea-Palaestina: The Pagan Cults in Roman Palestine (Second to Fourth
Century), (RRP 1), Tübingen.
BENOIT, P. (1961): Textes grecs et latins, Chapter III, in: J.T. MILIK/P. BENOIT/R. DE VAUX (eds.),
Les grottes de Murabbaʿât, (Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 2), Oxford, 207–80.
BEYER, K. (1998): Die aramäischen Inschriften aus Assur, Hatra und dem übrigen Ostmesopotamien,
Göttingen.
BRAND, Y. (1953): Ceramics in Talmudic Literature, Jerusalem [in Hebrew].
BRAUER, E. (1934): Ethnologie der jemenitischen Juden, Heidelberg.
BROCKELMANN, C. (1908): Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen 1,
Berlin.
CANTINEAU, J. (1932): Le Nabatéen 2, Paris.
CANOVA, R. (1954): Iscrizioni e monumenti protocristiani del paese do Moab, (Sussidi allo Studio
delle Antichità cristiane 4), Rome.
CASKEL, W. (1966): Ğamharat an-Nasab, das genealogische Werk des Hišām ibn Muḥammad al-
Kalbī, 2: Register, Leiden.
CURTIS, J.E./N. TALLIS (2005): Forgotten Empire: The World of Ancient Persia, London.
DALMAN, G.H. (1933): Arbeit und Sitte in Palästina, 3: Von der Ernte zum Mehl: Ernten, Dreschen,
Worfeln, Sieben, Verwahren, Mahlen, (Schriften des Deutschen-Palästina-Instituts, 6, Beiträge zur
Förderung christlicher Theologie, Reihe 2, 29), Gütersloh.
DEBOO, J. (1989): Jemenitisches Wörterbuch Arabisch-Deutsch-Englisch, Wiesbaden.
DE GEUS, C.H.J. (1979–80): Idumaea, JEOL 26, 53–74.
DESREUMAUX, A. (1998): Les inscriptions funéraires araméennes de Samra, in: J.-B. HUMBERT et al.
(eds.), Fouilles de Khirbet es-Samra en Jordanie 1, (Bibliothèque de l’Antiquité Tardive),
Turnhout, 435–510.
DIEM, W. (1973): Die nabatäischen Inschriften und die Frage der Kasusflexion im Altarabischen,
ZDMG 123, 227–37.
DUNAND, M. (1934): Le Musée de Soueïda: Inscriptions et monuments figurés, Paris.
DURAND, J.-M. (1981): Textes babyloniens d’époque récente, (Recherche sur les grandes civilisations
6), Paris.
EPHʿAL, I./J. NAVEH (1996): Aramaic Ostraca of the Fourth Century BC from Idumaea, Jerusalem.
ESHEL, E. (2010): Inscriptions in Hebrew, Aramaic and Phoenician Script, Chapter II, in: A. KLONER
et al. (eds.), Maresha Excavations: Final Report 3: Epigraphic Finds from the 1989–2000 Seasons,
Jerusalem, 35–88.
FALES, F.M. (1980): L’enigmatico qyrḥ, Annali della Facoltà di Lingue e Letterature Straniere di Ca’
Foscari 19/3, 7–14.
– (1993): West Semitic Names in the Šēḫ Ḥamad Texts, SAAB 7, 139–50.
– (2013): On Rkš, Rakkasu and Raksu, in: A.F. BOTTA (ed.), In the Shadow of Bezalel: Aramaic,
Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Bezalel Porten, (CHANE 60), Lei-
den/Boston, MA, 71–88.
FELIKS, Y. (1990): Agriculture in Eretz-Israel in the Period of the Bible and the Talmud: Basic
Farming Methods and Implements, Jerusalem.
FRASER, P.M./E. MATTHEWS (eds.) (1997): A Lexicon of Greek Personal Names III.A, Oxford.
GATIER, P.-L. (1998): Les inscriptions grecques et latines de Samra et de Rihab, in: J.-B. HUMBERT et
al. (eds.), Fouilles de Khirbet es-Samra en Jordanie 1, (Bibliothèque de l’Antiquité Tardive),
Turnhout, 359–431.
GEVA-KLEINBERGER, A. (2018): Archaeological Dialectology: Reconstructing the Etymological
Derivation of the Various Lexemes Denoting the Obsolete Farm Implement “Threshing-Board” in
Palestinian Dialects, ZDMG 168, 125–34.
 On the Documentary Framework 239

GRASSI, G.F. (2012): Semitic Onomastics from Dura Europos: The Names in Greek Script and from
Latin Epigraphs, (HANE Monographs 12), Padua.
HACKL, J./M. JURSA/M. SCHMIDL mit Beiträgen von K. WAGENSONNER (2014): Spätbabylonische
Privatbriefe: Spätbabylonische Briefe 1, (AOAT 414/1), Münster.
HALAYQA, I.K.H. (2016): The Terminology of the Field Designations in the Colloquial of the Hebron
Region, MLR 23, 75–92.
HARDING, G.L. (1971): An Index and Concordance of Pre-Islamic Arabian Names and Inscriptions,
(Near and Middle East Series 8), Toronto.
HAYAJNEH, H. (1998): Die Personennamen in den qatabānischen Inschriften, (Texte und Studien zur
Orientalistik 10), Hildesheim.
HAZIM, R. (1986): Die safaitischen theophoren Namen im Rahmen der gemeinsemitischen Namenge-
bung (Dissertation), Marburg.
HÖLSCHER, M. (1996): Die Personennamen der kassitenzeitlichen Texe aus Nippur, (IMGULA 1),
Münster.
HUMBERT, J.-B. et al. (eds.) (1998): Fouilles de Khirbet es-Samra en Jordanie 1, (Bibliothèque de
l’Antiquité Tardive), Turnhout.
ISRAEL, F. (2009): Miscellanea Idumea III: L’onomastica in Qos: gli ostraca dall’Idumea e un aggio-
ramento della lista, in: P. NEGRI et al. (eds.), Dalle Stirne al Tigri, dal Tevere all’Eufrate: Studi in
onore di Claudio Saporetti, Rome, 157–231.
JARRY, J. (1967): Inscriptions arabes, syriaques et grecques du massif du Bélus en Syrie du Nord,
Annales Islamologiques 7, 139–220.
JOANNÈS, F. (1989): Archives de Borsippa: La famille Ea-ilûta-bâbi: Étude d’un lot d’archives fami-
liales en Babylonie du VIIIe au Ve siècle av. J.-C., (École Pratique des Hautes Études – IVe Sec-
tion, II Hautes Études Orientales, 25), Geneva.
JOANNÈS, F./A. LEMAIRE (1999): Trois tablettes cunéiformes à l’onomastique ouest-sémitique, Tran-
seuphratène 17, 17–34.
JOHNSON, J. (1931): Inscriptions: Chap. III, in: P.V.C. BAUR/M.I. ROSTOVZEFF (eds.), The Excava-
tions at Dura-Europos Conducted by Yale University and the French Academy of Inscriptions and
Letters: Preliminary Report of the 2nd Season of Work, October 1928–April 1929, New Haven, CT,
114–71.
JURSA, M. with contributions by J. HACKL et al. (2010): Aspects of the Economic History of Babylo-
nia in the First Millennium BC: Economic Geography, Economic Mentalities, Agriculture, the Use
of Money and the Problem of Economic Growth: Veröffentlichungen zur Wirtschaftsgeschichte
Babyloniens im 1. Jahrtausend v.Chr., 4, (AOAT 377), Münster.
KAFIH, J. (1963, 2002): Jewish Life in Sana, 1st and 5th ed., Jerusalem [in Hebrew].
KAUFMAN, S.A. (1974): The Akkadian Influences on Aramaic, (AS 19), Chicago, IL.
KESSLER, K. (2000): Hellenistische Tempelverwaltungstexte: Eine Nachlese zu CT 49, in: J. MAR-
ZAHN/H. NEUMANN (eds), Assyriologica et Semitica: Festschrift für Joachim Oelsner anlässlich
seines 65. Geburtstages am 18. Februar 1977, (AOAT 252), Münster, 213–41.
KUGEL, J. (2012): A Walk Through Jubilees: Studies in the Book of Jubilees and the World of Its
Creation, (Supplements to the JSJ 156), Leiden.
KUTSCHER, E.Y. (1967/8): Geniza Fragments – Mekilta of Rabbi Yišmaʿel, Lešonenu 32, 101–16 [in
Hebrew].
LEMAIRE, A. (1977a): Inscriptions hébraïques 1: Les ostraca, Paris.
– (1977b): Les inscriptions de Khirbet el-Qôm et l’ashera de YHWH, RB 84, 595–608.
– (1996): Nouvelles inscriptions araméennes d’Idumée au Musée d’Israel, (Transeuphratène Sup-
plément 3), Paris.
– (2001): Les religions de la Palestine au IVe s. av. J.-C. d’après les ostraca araméens d’Idumée
(information), CRAIBL, 1141–58.
– (2002): Nouvelles inscriptions araméennes d’Idumée 2, (Transeuphratène Supplément 9), Paris.
– (2004): Taxes et impôts dans le sud de la Palestine (IVe s. av. J.-C.), Transeuphratène 28, 133–42.
240 Ran Zadok

– (2006): Aramaic Ostraca from Idumea and Their Historical Interpretation, in: O. LIPSCHITS/
M. OEMING (eds.): Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period, Winona Lake, IN, 413–56.
– (2015): Levantine Epigraphy and History in the Achaemenid Period (559–332 BCE), (The
Schweich Lectures of the British Academy 2013), Oxford.
LEVIN, Y. (ed.) (2007): A Time of Change: Judah and Its Neighbours in the Persian and Early Hel-
lenistic Periods, (Library of Second Temple Studies 65), London/New York.
LIDZBARSKI, M. (1902, 1908): Ephemeris für semitische Epigraphik 1, 2, Giessen.
LIPIŃSKI, E. (2016): Studies in Aramaic Inscriptions and Onomastics 4, (OLA 250), Leuven/Paris/
Bristol, CT.
LITTMANN, E. (1943): Safaitic Inscriptions, (Publications of the Princeton University Archaeological
Expedition to Syria in 1904–5 and 1909, Division IV), Leiden.
LOZACHMEUR, H./A. LEMAIRE (1996): Nouveaux ostraca araméens d’Idumée (Collection S. Mou-
saieff), Sem. 46, 123–52.
MCCARTER, P.K. JR. (1984): II Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes and Commen-
tary, Garden City, NY.
MACDONALD, M.M. (1999): Personal Names in the Nabatean Realm, a Review Article, JSS 44, 251–
89.
MAGEN, Y. (1991): Elonei Mamre – Herodian Cultic Site, Qadmoniyot 24, 46–55 [in Hebrew].
MARAQTEN, M. (1988): Die semitischen Personennamen in den alt- und reichsaramäischen Inschrif-
ten aus Vorderasien, (Texte und Studien zur Orientalistik 5), Hildesheim.
– (2014) Altsüdarabische Texte auf Holzstäbchen: Epigraphische und kulturhistorische Untersu-
chungen, (Beiruter Texte und Studien 103), Beirut.
MASETTI-ROUAULT, M.G. (1997): Adad ou Šamaš? Notes sur le culte local aux sources du Khabour,
xe–ixe siècles avant J.-C., Sémitica 47, 9–45.
MIZRAHI, N. (2010): A Body Refigured: The Meaning and History of Hebrew BDN, JAOS 130, 541–
49.
MOR, U. (2015): Judean Hebrew: The Language of the Hebrew Documents from Judea Between the
First and the Second Revolts, (The Academy of the Hebrew Language. Sources and Studies 14 – a
NS), Jerusalem [in Hebrew].
MÜLLER, D.H. (1899): Südarabische Alterthümer im Kunsthistorischen Hofmuseum, Vienna.
MÜLLER, W.W. (1982): Das Frühnordarabische, in: W. FISCHER (ed.), Sprachwissenschaft, (Grund-
riss der arabischen Philologie 1), Wiesbaden, 17–29.
– (1998): Zum biblischen Personennamen Bimhal (1Ch 7, 33), BN 91, 12–15.
– (2018): Anmerkungen zum safaitischen und althebräischen Onomastikon, in: L. NEHMÉ/A. AL-
JALLAD (eds.), To the Madbar and Back Again: Studies in the Languages, Archaeology, and Cul-
tures of Arabia Dedicated to Michael C.A. Macdonald, (Studies in Semitic Languages and Lin-
guistics 92), Leiden, 26–40.
MÜLLER-KESSLER, CH. (2005): Of Jesus, Darius, Marduk: Aramaic Magic Bowls in the Moussaieff
Collection, JAOS 125, 219–40.
NEGEV, A. (1991): Personal Names in the Nabatean Realm, (Qedem 32), Jerusalem.
NEHMÉ, L./A. AL-JALLAD (eds.) (2018): To the Madbar and Back Again: Studies in the Languages,
Archaeology, and Cultures of Arabia Dedicated to Michael C.A. Macdonald, (Studies in Semitic
Languages and Linguistics 92), Leiden.
NÖLDEKE, TH. (1883): Untersuchungen zur semitischen Grammatik, ZDMG 37, 525–40.
NOTARIUS, T. (2018): The Syntax of Clan Names in Aramaic Ostraca from Idumea, Maarav 22, 21–
43.
NOTH, M. (1940): Das Wallfahrtsweg zum Sinai (4. Mose 33), PJB 36, 5–28.
OPPENHEIMER, A./B. ISAAC/M. LECKER (1983): Babylonia Judaica in the Talmudic Period, (Beihefte
zum TAVO B/47), Wiesbaden.
PAPE, W./G. BENSELER (1884): Wörterbuch der griechischen Eigennamen 1–2, Braunschweig.
 On the Documentary Framework 241

PEARCE, L.E/C. WUNSCH (2014): Documents of Judean Exiles and West Semites in Babylonia in the
Collection of David Sofer, (CUSAS 28), Bethesda, MD.
PIAMENTA, M. (1990): Dictionary of Post-Classical Yemeni Arabic 1, Leiden.
PIRENNE, J. (1990): Les témoins écrits de la region de Shabwa et l’histoire, (BAH 134), Paris.
POGNON, H. (1892): Une incantation contre les génies malfaisants en mandaïte, Mémoires de la
Société de Linguistique de Paris 8, 193–234.
PORTEN, B./A. YARDENI (1989, 1993, 1999): Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt,
Newly Copied, Edited and Translated into Hebrew and English, Vol. 2: Contracts; Vol. 3: Litera-
ture, Accounts, Lists; Vol. 4: Ostraca and Assorted Inscriptions, Jerusalem.
– (2007): Makkedah and the Storehouse in the Idumean Ostraca, in: Y. LEVIN (ed.), A Time of
Change: Judah and Its Neighbours in the Persian and Early Hellenistic Periods, (Library of Se-
cond Temple Studies 65), London/New York, 125–70.
– with the assistance of M. KLETZING and E. HAN, (2014, 2016, 2018): Textbook of Aramaic Ostraca
from Idumea Vol. 1: Dossiers 1–10: 401 Commodity Chits; Vol. 2: Dossiers 11–50: 265 Commod-
ity Chits; Vol. 3: Dossiers 51–300.6: 488 Commodity Chits, Winona Lake, IN, and University
Park, PA.
ROTH, M.T. (1989–90): The Material Composition of the Neo-Babylonian Dowry. AfO 36–37, 1–55.
RYCKMANS, G. (1941): Inscriptions safaïtiques de Transjordanie, RB 50 (= Vivre et Penser 1), 255–
60.
SALONEN, A. (1966): Die Hausgeräte der alten Mesopotamier nach sumerisch-akkadischen Quellen
2: Gefässe: Eine lexikalische und kulturgeschichtliche Untersuchung, (Annales Academiae Scien-
tiarum Fennicae, series B, 144), Helsinki.
SAN NICOLÒ, M. (1933) Parerga Babylonica X–XI, ArOr 5, 284–302.
SCHAPPER, J. (1995): The Jerusalem Temple as an Instrument of the Achaemenid Fiscal Administra-
tion, VT 45, 528–49.
SEGERT, S. (1975): Altaramäische Grammatik mit Bibliographie, Chrestomatie und Glossar, Leipzig.
SHATNAWI, M. (2002): Die Personennamen in den thamudischen Inschriften: Eine lexikalisch-
grammatische Analyse im Rahmen der gemeinsemitischen Namengebung, UF 34, 619–784.
SIMA, A. (2001): Nochmals zur Deutung des hebräischen Namens ʿOtnīʾēl, Biblische Notizen 106,
47–51.
SOKOLOFF, M. (1990): A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period, Ramat
Gan.
STARK, J.K. (1971): Personal Names in Palmyrene Inscriptions, Oxford.
STEIN, P. (2010): Die altsüdarabischen Minuskelinschriften auf Holzstäbchen aus der Bayerischen
Staatsbibliothek in München 2: Verzeichnisse und Tafeln, Munich.
STERN, I. (2007): The Population of Persian-Period Idumea according to the Ostraca: A Study of
Ethnic Boundaries and Ethnogenesis, in: Y. LEVIN (ed.), A Time of Change: Judah and Its Neigh-
bours in the Persian and Early Hellenistic Periods, (Library of Second Temple Studies 65), Lon-
don/New York, 205–38.
STOLPER, M.W. (1985): Entrepreneurs and Empire: The Murašû Archive, the Murašû Firm and
Persian Rule in Babylonia, (PIHANS 54), Leiden.
STRECK, M.P. (2000): Das amurritische Onomastikon der altbabylonischen Zeit I: Die Amurriter, die
onomastische Forschung, Orthographie und Phonologie, Nominalmorphologie, (AOAT 271/1)
Münster.
TAL, O. (2016): Idumea (Edom) in the Fourth Century BCE: Historical and Archaeological Introduc-
tion, in: A. YARDENI, The Jesselsohn Collection of Aramaic Ostraca from Idumea, Jerusalem, ix–
xix.
TALLQVIST, K.L. (1905): Neubabylonisches Namenbuch zu den Geschäftsurkunden aud der Zeit des
Šamaššumukîn bis Xerxes, (ASSF 32/2), Helsinki.
TAIRAN, S.A. (1992): Die Personennamen in den altsabäischen Inschriften: Ein Beitrag zur altsüd-
arabischen Namengebung, (Texte und Studien zur Orientalistik 8), Hildesheim.
242 Ran Zadok

TSUKIMOTO, A./T. YAMAYOSHI (2011): Idumean Ostraca in Japan, Annual of the Japanese Biblical
Institute 37, 81–112.
UNGER, W. (1931): Babylon: Die heilige Stadt nach der Beschreibung der Babylonier, Berlin/Leipzig.
WADDINGTON, W.H. (1870): Inscriptions grecques et latines de la Syrie, Paris.
WAERZEGGERS, C. (2010): The Ezida Temple of Borsippa: Priesthood, Cult, Archives, (Achaemenid
History 15), Leiden.
– (2014): Marduk-rēmanni: Local Networks and Imperial Politics in Achaemenid Babylonia, (OLA
233), Leuven.
WUTHNOW, H. (1930): Die semitischen Menschennamen in griechischen Inschriften und Papyri des
Vorderen Orients, (Dissertation), Leipzig.
YADIN, Y. (1989): Masada 1: The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965: Final Reports, Jerusalem.
YADIN, Y./J.C. GREENFIELD/A. YARDENI/B.A. LEVINE (2002): The Documents from the Bar Kokhba
Period in the Cave of Letters: Hebrew, Aramaic and Nabatean-Aramaic Papyri, (Judean Desert
Studies 3), Jerusalem.
YARDENI, A. (2016): The Jesselsohn Collection of Aramaic Ostraca from Idumea, Jerusalem.
YARDENI, A/B. PORTEN (2008): Two Become One: A Unique Memorandum of Obligation, in: CH.
COHEN et al. (eds.), Birkat Shalom: Studies in the Bible, Ancient Near Eastern Literature, and
Postbiblical Judaism Presented to Shalom M. Paul on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday 2,
Winona Lake, IN, 733–51.
YON, J.-B. (2018): Goras, sanglier ou jeune lion (ou onagre)?, in: L. NEHMÉ/A. AL-JALLAD (eds.), To
the Madbar and Back Again: Studies in the Languages, Archaeology, and Cultures of Arabia Ded-
icated to Michael C.A. Macdonald, (Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics 92), Leiden,
298–308.
ZADOK, R. (1978): On West Semites in Babylonia During the Chaldean and Achaemenian Periods:
An Onomastic Study, 2nd ed., Tel Aviv.
– (1983): Review of Gelb, I.J. et al., Computer-Aided Analysis of Amorite, (AS 21), Chicago, 1980,
WdO 14, 235–40.
– (1987): Zur Struktur der nachbiblischen jüdischen Personennamen semitischen Ursprungs, Trum-
ah, (Jahrbuch der Hochschule für jüdische Studien, Heidelberg 1), 243–343.
– (1988): The Pre-Hellenistic Israelite Anthroponymy and Prosopography, (OLA 28), Leuven.
– (1995–97): A Preliminary Analysis of Ancient Survivals in Modern Palestinian Toponymy, Medi-
terranean Language Review 9, 93–171.
– (1996): Review of R.S. Hess, Amarna Personal Names, (American Schools of Oriental Research
Dissertation Series, no. 9), Winona Lake, IN, 1993, BSOAS 59, 130–31.
– (1998a): A Prosopography of Samaria and Edom/Idumea, UF 30, 781–828.
– (1998b): The Ethno-Linguistic Character of the Semitic-Speaking Population (Excluding Judeo-
Samaritans) of Lebanon, Palestine and Adjacent Regions in the Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine
Periods – A Preliminary and Tentative Survey of The Onomastic Evidence, Michmanim 12, 5*–
36*.
– (2000a): On the Prosopography and Onomastics of Syria-Palestine and Adjacent Regions, UF 32,
599–674.
– (2000b): The Ethno-Linguistic Character of the Semitic-Speaking Population of Mesopotamia and
Adjacent Regions Between the 1st and 7th Centuries A.D.: A Preliminary Survey of the Onomastic
Evidence, in: S. GRAZIANI (ed.), Studi Sul Vicino Oriente antico dedicati alla memoria di Luigi
Cagni, (Istituto Universitario Orientale, Dipartimento di Studi Asiatici. Series Minor, 61), Naples,
2237–70.
– (2009): Catalogue of Documents from Borsippa or Related to Borsippa in the British Museum 1,
(NISABA 21), Messina.
– (2014): Judeans in Babylonia – Updating the Dossier, in: U. GABBAY/SH. SECUNDA (eds.),
Encounters by the Rivers of Babylon: Scholarly Conversations Between Jews, Iranians and
Babylonians in Antiquity, (Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 160), Tübingen, 109–29.
 On the Documentary Framework 243

– (2015): Israelites and Judeans in the Neo-Assyrian Documentation (732–602 BCE): An Overview
of the Sources and a Socio-Historical Assessment, BASOR 374, 159–89.
ZUCKER, F. (1938): Doppelschrift spätptolemäischer Zeit aus der Garnison von Hermopolis Magna,
Abhandlungen der Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil-hist. Kl. 1937/6, Berlin.
 # 1 2 3 4 5 6
244

A (II.B.c.5.4) (II.B.c.5.3) (II.B.c.4.2.2.1) (II.B.b.6.1) (II.B.c.4.2.2.1) (II.B.b.6.1)

B name ʾbh ʾdy ʾgrʾ ʾḥy°w° ʾm°nt ʾmtw

C Nab. +

D Dad.- Lih.

E Taym.

F Saf.& Hism. + + +

G Tham. +

H Min. +

I Sab. + +
Ran Zadok

Appendix I

J Qat. + +

K Had.

L Has.

M NQ

N AC

O AAC +
Table: Simplex Anthroponyms with Comparanda

P AGL + + + +

Q CA + + +
 # 7 8 2a 9 10 11 12
A (II.B.b.3.2) (II.B.b.6.1) (II.B.c.5.3) (II.B.c.5.4) (II.B.b.1.2) (II.B.b.1.2)

B name ʾmty ʾmynw° ʾry ʾsy ʾyh ʿbdʾ ʿbdw

C Nab. + +

D Dad.- Lih. +

E Taym. +

F Saf.& Hism. + +

G Tham. +

H Min. +

I Sab. +

J Qat. + +

K Had.

L Has.

M NQ
On the Documentary Framework, Appendix I: Table

N AC + + + +

O AAC + +

P AGL +

Q CA \ +
245
 # 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
246

A (II.B.b.1.2) (II.B.b.5.1) (II.B.b.5.1) (II.B.c.4.2.2.2) (II.B.c.4.2.2.2) (II.B.c.4.2.2) (II.B.b.6.1)

B name ʿbdy ʿbyd ʿbydw ʿdrʾ ʿdrn ʿdry ʿdydw

C Nab. +

D Dad.- Lih.

E Taym.

F Saf.& Hism. +

G Tham.

H Min. +

I Sab. +
Ran Zadok

J Qat. +

K Had.

L Has.

M NQ

N AC +

O AAC + +

P AGL + +

Q CA +
 # 19a 20 21 22 23 24 25
A (II.B.c.5.3) (II.B.c.5.3) (II.C) (II.B.c.4.2.2.2) (II.B.c.4.2.2.11) (II.B.b.6.1)

B name ʿdyrw ʿ°ḥ°t ʿ°k° ʿkbwr ʿ°k°nh ʿll ʿlyw

C Nab. + + + +

D Dad.- Lih. +

E Taym.

F Saf.& Hism. + + + +

G Tham. + +

H Min. +

I Sab. + + +

J Qat. + +

K Had.

L Has. +

M NQ
On the Documentary Framework, Appendix I: Table

N AC + +

O AAC + +

P AGL + + +

Q CA + +
247
 # 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
248

A (II.B.b.3.2) (II.B.b.3.2) (II.B.b.3.2) (II.B.b.6.1) (II.B.c.4.2.2.2) (II.B.c.1) (II.B.a)

B name ʿmrw ʿmw ʿmy ʿmy°w ʿnwʾ ʿnwy ʿny

C Nab. + + +

D Dad.- Lih. + +

E Taym.

F Saf.& Hism. + + + +

G Tham. + + +

H Min. +

I Sab. + +
Ran Zadok

J Qat. +

K Had. +

L Has.

M NQ

N AC

O AAC +

P AGL + +

Q CA + +
 # 33 34 35 36 37 19b 38
A (II.B.c.5.1) (II.B.c.4.2.2.2) (II.B.c.4.2.2.2) (II.B.c.1) (II.B.c.3) (II.B.c.4.2.2.2)

B name ʿpy ʿqbn ʿqbtʾ ʿqwb ʿqy°bʾ ʿrydw ʿṣlʾ

C Nab.

D Dad.- Lih. +

E Taym.

F Saf.& Hism. + + +

G Tham. +

H Min. +

I Sab. + +

J Qat. +

K Had. +

L Has.

M NQ
On the Documentary Framework, Appendix I: Table

N AC + +

O AAC + +

P AGL + + + +

Q CA + +
249
 # 39 40 41 42 43 43a 44
250

A (II.B.c.) (II.B.b.3.1) (II.B.b.3.1) (II.B.c.5.3) (II.B.b.6.1) (II.B.a)

B name ʿtnʾ ʿwtw ʿwty ʿwy ʿwydw ʿwyrw ʿyd

C Nab. + +

D Dad.- Lih.

E Taym.

F Saf.& Hism. + +

G Tham. + +

H Min. +

I Sab. +
Ran Zadok

J Qat. +

K Had.

L Has.

M NQ +

N AC

O AAC + +

P AGL +

Q CA + +
 # 45 46 47 48 44a 45a 46a
A (II.B.c.5.1) (II.B.b.3.1) (II.B.b.3.1)

B name ʿydn ʿydw ʿynw° ʿyny ʿyr ʿyrn ʿyrw

C Nab.

D Dad.- Lih.

E Taym.

F Saf.& Hism. +

G Tham.

H Min. +

I Sab. +

J Qat. +

K Had.

L Has.

M NQ
On the Documentary Framework, Appendix I: Table

N AC

O AAC +

P AGL + +

Q CA + +
251
 # 49 50 42a 51 52 53 54
252

A (II.B.a) (II.B.c.1) (II.B.b.6.1) (II.B.c.4.2.2.5) (II.B.b.6.3) (II.B.a)

B name ʿzr ʿzwr ʿzy ʿzyzw Bʿr’ Bʿdw Bʿl

C Nab. + +

D Dad.- Lih.

E Taym.

F Saf.& Hism. + + +

G Tham. +

H Min. +

I Sab.
Ran Zadok

J Qat.

K Had. +

L Has. +

M NQ

N AC

O AAC + + +

P AGL + +

Q CA + +
 # 55 53a 56 57 58 59 60
A (II.B.a) (II.B.b.6.3) (II.B.c.9) (II.B.c.4.2.1) (II.B.c.4.2.2.8) (II.B.a) (II.B.c.4.2.1)

B name Bʿly Bʿrw Bbly Bdn Bny Brk Brqt

C Nab. + +

D Dad.- Lih. + +

E Taym.

F Saf.& Hism. + + +

G Tham. +

H Min.

I Sab.

J Qat. + +

K Had.

L Has.

M NQ
On the Documentary Framework, Appendix I: Table

N AC + +

O AAC + +

P AGL + + +

Q CA +
253
 # 61 62 63 64 65 66 67
254

A (II.B.c.1) (II.B.c.2) (II.B.b.5.1) (II.B.b.5.1) (II.B.c.4.2.1) (II.B.c.5.1) (II.B.b.6.1)

B name Brwk Brwsy Bryk Brykw Bš°n Bwqy Bynw

C Nab.

D Dad.- Lih.

E Taym.

F Saf.& Hism. +

G Tham. +

H Min.

I Sab. +
Ran Zadok

J Qat. +

K Had. +

L Has.

M NQ

N AC

O AAC

P AGL

Q CA +
 # 68 69 70 71 72 73 74
A (II.B.c.1) (II.B.c.2) (II.B.c.2) (II.B.c.4.2.1) (II.B.c.4.2.1) (II.B.c.9) (II.B.b.6.3)

B name Bywn Dʿwʾ Dʿwy Dbš Dbšʾ Ddny Dhnw

C Nab.

D Dad.- Lih.

E Taym.

F Saf.& Hism. +

G Tham.

H Min. +

I Sab. +

J Qat.

K Had.

L Has.

M NQ
On the Documentary Framework, Appendix I: Table

N AC

O AAC

P AGL +

Q CA + +
255
 # 75 76 77 78 79 80 81
256

A (II.B.c.4.2.1) (II.B.b.3.2) (II.B.b.3.2) (II.B.c.1) (II.B.b.6.1) (II.B.c.1) (II.B.c.4.2.1)

B name Dkrn Dkrw Dkry Dkwr Dkyrw Dlwy Dnby

C Nab. +

D Dad.- Lih. +

E Taym.

F Saf.& Hism. + + +

G Tham.

H Min. +

I Sab. + +
Ran Zadok

J Qat. +

K Had.

L Has.

M NQ

N AC

O AAC + +

P AGL

Q CA +
 # 82 83 84 85 86 87 88
A (II.B.c.5.2.1) (II.B.c.7) (II.B.c.5.1) (II.B.c.5.1) (II.B.c.5.4) (II.B.b.6.3) (II.B.c.4.2.1)

B name Dny Drdʾ Dws Dyny Gʾyʾ Gbrw Gdpʾ

C Nab.

D Dad.- Lih. +

E Taym.

F Saf.& Hism. + +

G Tham. +

H Min.

I Sab. +

J Qat. +

K Had.

L Has.

M NQ
On the Documentary Framework, Appendix I: Table

N AC +

O AAC + + + + +

P AGL + +

Q CA + + +
257
 # 89 90 91 92 93 94 95
258

A (II.B.c.4.2.1) (II.B.c.1) (II.B.b.5.3) (II.B.b.5.3) (II.B.b.6.3) (II.B.c.4.2.2.7) (II.B.c.3)

B name Gdpy G°d°w°l° Gdy G°d°y°w° G°hmw Ghnt Ghynʾ

C Nab.

D Dad.- Lih.

E Taym.

F Saf.& Hism. + +

G Tham. +

H Min.

I Sab. +
Ran Zadok

J Qat.

K Had.

L Has.

M NQ

N AC

O AAC +

P AGL + +

Q CA + + +
 # 96 97 98 99 88a 89a 100
A (II.B.c.7) (II.B.c.7) (II.B.c.7) (II.B.c.5.2.1) (II.B.b.2)

B name Glgl Glglʾ Glgwl Gny Grpʾ Grpy Gwr

C Nab.

D Dad.- Lih.

E Taym.

F Saf.& Hism. + +

G Tham. +

H Min.

I Sab. +

J Qat. +

K Had.

L Has.

M NQ
On the Documentary Framework, Appendix I: Table

N AC

O AAC + +

P AGL + + + +

Q CA
259
 # 101 102 100a 103 104 105 106
260

A (II.B.b.2) (II.B.b.2) (II.B.c.4.2.2.11) (II.B.c.4.2.2.3) (II.B.c.1) (II.B.b.5.1)

B name Gwrw Gwry Gyr Hll Hm°h Ḥbwl Ḥ°b°w°t°

C Nab. +

D Dad.- Lih. +

E Taym.

F Saf.& Hism. + +

G Tham. +

H Min.

I Sab.
Ran Zadok

J Qat. +

K Had.

L Has.

M NQ

N AC +

O AAC + + +

P AGL + +

Q CA + +
 # 107 108 107a 109 109a 110 111
A (II.B.b.5.1) (II.B.b.6.1) (II.B.b.3.2) (II.B.b.3.2) (II.B.c.4.2.1)

B name Ḥbwtw Ḥbybw Ḥbytw Ḥggw Ḥgw Ḥgy Ḥlpn

C Nab. +

D Dad.- Lih.

E Taym.

F Saf.& Hism. + + + +

G Tham. + +

H Min. + +

I Sab.

J Qat.

K Had.

L Has.

M NQ
On the Documentary Framework, Appendix I: Table

N AC

O AAC +

P AGL + +

Q CA + + +
261
 # 112 113 114 115 116 117 118
262

A (II.B.c.4.2.1) (II.B.c.4.2.1) (II.B.b) (II.B.c.6) (II.B.c.1) (II.B.c.5.2.1) (II.B.b.6.1)

B name Ḥlpt Ḥlptʾ Ḥlpw Ḥlpwp Ḥlw°p° Ḥly Ḥlypw

C Nab. + +

D Dad.- Lih. +

E Taym.

F Saf.& Hism. + +

G Tham. +

H Min.

I Sab. +
Ran Zadok

J Qat.

K Had.

L Has.

M NQ

N AC

O AAC +

P AGL + +

Q CA + +
 # 119 120 121 120a 122 123 124
A (II.B.b.6.1) (II.B.c.4.2.2.3) (II.B.a) (II.B.c.4.2.2.11) (II.B.c.) (II.B.c.3) (II.B.b.6.3)

B name Ḥmyw Ḥnk°ʾ Ḥnn Ḥnn°ʾ Ḥny Ḥnynʾ Ḥnzrw

C Nab.

D Dad.- Lih.

E Taym.

F Saf.& Hism. + +

G Tham. +

H Min. +

I Sab. +

J Qat. +

K Had.

L Has.

M NQ +
On the Documentary Framework, Appendix I: Table

N AC +

O AAC + +

P AGL +

Q CA +
263
 # 125 126 127 128 129 130 131
264

A (II.B.b.6.1) (II.B.c.4.2.2.3) (II.B.b.6.3) (II.B.c.4.2.2.3) (II.B.b.6.3) (II.B.b.6.3) (II.B.b.4.1)

B name Ḥnzyrw Ḥṣ°b°t Ḥ°šb°w Ḥṭmt Ḥṭmw Ḥṭrw Ḥṭy°r°ʾ °

C Nab. +

D Dad.- Lih.

E Taym.

F Saf.& Hism. + + +

G Tham.

H Min.

I Sab.
Ran Zadok

J Qat.

K Had.

L Has.

M NQ

N AC

O AAC +

P AGL

Q CA + + + +
 # 132 133 134 135 136 137 124a
A (II.B.b.4.1) (II.B.c.4.1) (II.B.c.5.1) (II.B.c.5.1) (II.B.c.5.1) (II.B.c) (II.B.b)

B name Ḥṭyrw Ḥwlp Ḥwr Ḥwrn Ḥwry Ḥyn Ḥy°nzrw

C Nab. +

D Dad.- Lih. +

E Taym.

F Saf.& Hism. + + +

G Tham. +

H Min.

I Sab. + +

J Qat.

K Had.

L Has.

M NQ
On the Documentary Framework, Appendix I: Table

N AC +

O AAC +

P AGL + +

Q CA + + + +
265
 # 138 139 140 141 142 143 72a
266

A (II.B.b.6.1) (II.B.c.5.2.2) (II.B.b.1.1) (II.B.b.1.1) (II.B.b.1.1) (II.B.b.1.1) (II.B.c.4.2.1)

B name Ḥyrw Ḥzy Ḥzyr Ḥzyrʾ Ḥzyrw Ḥzyry Kbšʾ

C Nab. +

D Dad.- Lih.

E Taym.

F Saf.& Hism. + +

G Tham.

H Min.

I Sab. +
Ran Zadok

J Qat. +

K Had.

L Has.

M NQ

N AC

O AAC +

P AGL +

Q CA + +
 # 144 145 146 147 148 149 150
A (II.B.c.4.2.1) (II.B.a) (II.B.c (II.B.b.6.1) (II.B.b.6.3) (II.B.b.6.3) (II.B.c.8)

B name K°r°my Krz Lbʾt° Lbyʾw Lḥmw Lḥṭw Lytʿ

C Nab. + +

D Dad.- Lih.

E Taym.

F Saf.& Hism. + + +

G Tham.

H Min.

I Sab.

J Qat.

K Had.

L Has.

M NQ
On the Documentary Framework, Appendix I: Table

N AC

O AAC +

P AGL

Q CA + +
267
 # 151 152 153 154 155 156 157
268

A (II.B.c.8.2) (II.B.a) (II.B.b.4.1) (II.B.b.4.1) (II.C) (II.C) (II.B.c.8.2)

B name Mʾws Mlk Ml°kʾ Mlkw Mnḥm Mnḥmh Mnwš

C Nab. +

D Dad.- Lih. +

E Taym.

F Saf.& Hism. +

G Tham. +

H Min. +

I Sab.
Ran Zadok

J Qat.

K Had.

L Has.

M NQ

N AC

O AAC +

P AGL +

Q CA +
 # 158 159 160 161 162 163
A (II.B.c.4.2.2.8) (II.B.c.4.2.2.8) (II.B.c.8.2) (II.B.c.4.2.2.8) (II.B.b.6.3) (II.B.c.8.2)

B name Mny Mrʾ Mrṣʿt M°r°y°ʾ° Mškw Mšlm

C Nab. +

D Dad.- Lih. +

E Taym.

F Saf.& Hism. + +

G Tham. + +

H Min. +

I Sab. +

J Qat. +

K Had.

L Has.

M NQ
On the Documentary Framework, Appendix I: Table

N AC

O AAC + + + +

P AGL +

Q CA + +
269
 # 164 165 166 167 168 169 170
270

A (II.B.c.8.2) (II.B.c.4.2.1) (II.B.c.1) (II.B.c.4.2.1) (II.B.b.6.1) (II.B.b.3.2) (II.B.b.3.2)

B name Mšyzbʾ Mṭrn Nʿwm Ndby Ngyʾw Nhrw Nhry

C Nab.

D Dad.- Lih.

E Taym.

F Saf.& Hism. + + +

G Tham.

H Min.

I Sab.
Ran Zadok

J Qat.

K Had.

L Has.

M NQ

N AC +

O AAC +

P AGL +

Q CA + + +
 # 171 172 173 174 175 173a 174a
A (II.B.c.1) (II.B.b.3.2) (II.B.b.5.2) (II.B.b.5.2) (II.B.b.6.3)

B name Nḥwm Nmrw Nqd Nqdw Nqmw Nqr Nqrw

C Nab. + + +

D Dad.- Lih. +

E Taym.

F Saf.& Hism. + + +

G Tham. +

H Min. +

I Sab.

J Qat. +

K Had. +

L Has. +

M NQ + +
On the Documentary Framework, Appendix I: Table

N AC

O AAC + +

P AGL + +

Q CA + +
271
 # 176 177 178 179 180 181 182
272

A (II.B.c.5.1) (II.B.b.6.3) (II.B.c.5.2.2) (II.B.c.4.2.1) (II.B.c.1) (II.B.c.5.2.1) (II.B.b.4.1)

B name Nry Nṣrw Nšy° Ntny Ntwn Nty Ntynʾ

C Nab. +

D Dad.- Lih.

E Taym.

F Saf.& Hism. + +

G Tham. +

H Min.

I Sab. +
Ran Zadok

J Qat. +

K Had.

L Has.

M NQ

N AC

O AAC + + + +

P AGL + +

Q CA +
 # 183 184 185 186 187 188 189
A (II.B.b.4.1) (II.B.c.3) (II.B.c.5.1) (II.B.b.5.2) (II.B.b.5.2) (II.B.c.4.2.1) (II.B.c.2)

Plgw
B name Ntynw Nṭyrʾ Nwry Plg Plṭy Pqw°s°

C Nab.

D Dad.- Lih.

E Taym.

F Saf.& Hism. + + +

G Tham. +

H Min. +

I Sab.

J Qat.

K Had.

L Has.

M NQ
On the Documentary Framework, Appendix I: Table

N AC + +

O AAC + + +

P AGL + +

Q CA + +
273
 # 190 191 192 193 194 195
274

A (II.B.c. 4.2.2.9) (II.B.b.6.3) (II.B.c) (II.B.c.4.2.1) (II.B.c.1) (II.B.b.5.2)

B name Prḥh Pṣgw P°ṣry Qmṣʾ Qnwy Qny

C Nab.

D Dad.- Lih. + +

E Taym.

F Saf.& Hism. + + +

G Tham. +

H Min. +

I Sab.
Ran Zadok

J Qat.

K Had.

L Has.

M NQ

N AC +

O AAC + +

P AGL +

Q CA + + +
 # 196 197 198 199 200 201 202
A (II.B.b.5.2) (II.B.c) (II.B.c.5.1) (II.B.c.5.1) (II.B.c.5.1) (II.B.c.5.1) (II.B.c.5.1)

B name Qnyw Qsy Qṣy Qwsʾ° Qwsh° Qwsy Qwṣ

C Nab.

D Dad.- Lih.

E Taym.

F Saf.& Hism. +

G Tham.

H Min.

I Sab.

J Qat.

K Had.

L Has.

M NQ
On the Documentary Framework, Appendix I: Table

N AC

O AAC

P AGL +

Q CA +
275
 # 203 204 205 206 207 208 209
276

A (II.B.c.5.1) (II.B.c.5.1) (II.B.b.6.3) (II.B.b.6.3) (II.B.c.2) (II.B.c.2) (II.B.c.4.2.1)

B name Qwṣy Qynʾ R°ʿ°ṣ°w Rʿw Rʿwʾ Rʿwy Rpd

C Nab. + + +

D Dad.- Lih. +

E Taym.

F Saf.& Hism. + + +

G Tham. + +

H Min.

I Sab. +
Ran Zadok

J Qat.

K Had.

L Has.

M NQ +

N AC +

O AAC + +

P AGL +

Q CA + +
 # 210 211 212 213 214 215 216
A (II.B.b.6.3) (II.B.b.6.1) (II.B.c.5.1) (II.B.c.5.3) (II.B.c.4.2.2.6) (II.B.c.4.2.2.8) (II.B.c.1)

B name Rpw Rpyʾw Rwmʾ/h Rwy S°ʿ°d°y° Slʾt Slwʾ

C Nab. + +

D Dad.- Lih. +

E Taym. +

F Saf.& Hism. + +

G Tham. + +

H Min. + +

I Sab. + + +

J Qat. + +

K Had. + +

L Has.

M NQ
On the Documentary Framework, Appendix I: Table

N AC + +

O AAC

P AGL

Q CA + + +
277
 # 217 218 219 220 221 221a
278

A (II.B.c.4.2.2.8) (II.B.b.6.3) (II.B.c.1) (II.B.c.4.2.2.10) (II.B.c.5.2.1)

B name Sl°w°ʾ°t Smkw Smwk Smy Sny Spy

C Nab.

D Dad.- Lih. +

E Taym.

F Saf.& Hism. +

G Tham.

H Min.

I Sab.
Ran Zadok

J Qat.

K Had.

L Has.

M NQ

N AC

O AAC +

P AGL + +

Q CA +
 # 222 223 224 225 226 227 228
A (II.C) (II.B.b.6.1) (II.B.b.1.2) (II.B.b.1.2) (II.B.b.1.2) (II.B.b.4.2) (II.B.b.4.2)

B name Ssmy Ṣbyḥw Ṣḥrʾ Ṣḥrw Ṣḥry Ṣrṣrʾ Ṣrṣrw

C Nab.

D Dad.- Lih.

E Taym.

F Saf.& Hism. + +

G Tham. +

H Min. +

I Sab. +

J Qat.

K Had.

L Has.

M NQ
On the Documentary Framework, Appendix I: Table

N AC +

O AAC + + +

P AGL + + +

Q CA + +
279
 # 229 230 231 230a 232 232a 233
280

A (II.B.c.4.2.2.5) (II.B.b.3.2) (II.B.b.3.2) (II.B.b.6.1) (II.C)

B name Š°ʾ°rt Šʿ°dw Šʿdy Šʿ°rw Šʿydw Šʿyrw Šbn’

C Nab. + +

D Dad.- Lih. +

E Taym.

F Saf.& Hism. +

G Tham. +

H Min.

I Sab. + + +
Ran Zadok

J Qat. +

K Had. +

L Has. +

M NQ

N AC +

O AAC + +

P AGL + +

Q CA + + +
 # 234 235 236 236a 237 238 239
A (II.B.b.6.3) (II.B.c.5.2.1) (II.B.b.6.3) (II.B.b.6.3) (II.B.b.5.2) (II.B.b.5.2) (II.B.c.1)

B name Šbrw Šby Šhdw Šhrw Šḥr Ṥḥrw Škw°y

C Nab. + + +

D Dad.- Lih. +

E Taym.

F Saf.& Hism. + + + + +

G Tham. + + + +

H Min. +

I Sab. +

J Qat. +

K Had.

L Has.

M NQ
On the Documentary Framework, Appendix I: Table

N AC

O AAC +

P AGL

Q CA + +
281
 # 240 241 242 243 244 245 246
282

A (II.B.b.5.2) (II.B.b.5.2) (II.B.c.4.2.1) (II.B.c.1) (II.B.b.6.3) (II.B.b.4.2) (II.B.b.4.2)

B name Šlm Šlmw Šlmyt Šlwm Šlyw Ṥmʿh Šmʿw

C Nab. +

D Dad.- Lih. +

E Taym.

F Saf.& Hism. +

G Tham. +

H Min. +

I Sab. +
Ran Zadok

J Qat. +

K Had.

L Has.

M NQ

N AC +

O AAC +

P AGL + +

Q CA +
 # 247 248 249 250 251 252 253
A (II.C) (II.B.b.1.2) (II.B.b.1.2) (II.B.b.1.2) (II.B.c.4.2.1) (II.B.b.6.3) (II.B.c.1)

B name Šmʿwn Šmrʾ Šmrw Šmry Šmšy Šmtw Šmwʿ

C Nab. +

D Dad.- Lih. +

E Taym.

F Saf.& Hism. +

G Tham. +

H Min. +

I Sab. +

J Qat. +

K Had. +

L Has. +

M NQ
On the Documentary Framework, Appendix I: Table

N AC + +

O AAC +

P AGL + + +

Q CA +
283
 # 254 255 256 257 258 259 260
284

A (II.B.c.1) (II.B.b.6.1) (II.B.c.4.2.1) (II.B.c.4.2.1) (II.B.b.6.1) (II.B.b.6.1) (II.B.c.4.2.1)

B name Šmwr Šmyrw Ṥṭnʾ Tbnʾ/h Tymw T°y°r°w° Ṭ°b°r°n°

C Nab. + +

D Dad.- Lih.

E Taym.

F Saf.& Hism. + +

G Tham. +

H Min. +

I Sab. + +
Ran Zadok

J Qat. +

K Had.

L Has.

M NQ +

N AC

O AAC +

P AGL + +

Q CA + +
 # 261 262 263 264 265 266 267
A (II.B.b.4.2) (II.B.b.4.2) (II.B.b.6.3) (II.B.c.4.2.2.4) (II.B.b.6.3) (II.B.b.3.2) (II.B.b.3.2)

B name Ṭbyʾ Ṭbyw Wʿlw Wdd Wdw Whbw Whby

C Nab. + + + +

D Dad.- Lih. +

E Taym.

F Saf.& Hism. + + + +

G Tham. + + + +

H Min. + +

I Sab. + +

J Qat. + +

K Had.

L Has.

M NQ
On the Documentary Framework, Appendix I: Table

N AC

O AAC + +

P AGL + +

Q CA + + +
285
 # 268 269 270 271 272 273
286

A (II.B.c.5.2.3.2) (II.B.c.4.2.2.4) (II.B.c.8.3.2) (II.B.c.4.2.2.6) (II.B.c.1) (II.B.c.3)

B name W°ny Wtgn Yʾkl Yʿpt Ydwʿ Ydyʿʾ

C Nab. +

D Dad.- Lih. +

E Taym.

F Saf.& Hism. +

G Tham.

H Min.

I Sab.
Ran Zadok

J Qat.

K Had.

L Has.

M NQ

N AC

O AAC +

P AGL

Q CA
 # 270a 274 275 276 277 278 279
A (II.B.c.8.3.1) (II.B.c.8.3.1) (II.B.c.8.3.1) (II.B.c.8.3.2) (II.B.c.8.3.1) (II.B.b.6.3)

B name Yh(w)kl Yḥlp Ymlk Ynqm Yq°ym Y°šm°ʿ° Ytʿw

C Nab. +

D Dad.- Lih. +

E Taym.

F Saf.& Hism.

G Tham.

H Min. +

I Sab. +

J Qat. +

K Had.

L Has.

M NQ
On the Documentary Framework, Appendix I: Table

N AC + + +

O AAC +

P AGL +

Q CA
287
 # 280 281 282 283 284 285 286
288

A (II.B.c.1) (II.B.c.1) (II.B.b.6.1) (II.B.b.3.2) (II.B.b.3.2) (II.B.c..8.3.1) (II.B.b.1.2)

B name Ytw Ytwʿ Ytyʿw Yzdw Yzdy Y°z°r°ʿ Zbdʾ

C Nab.

D Dad.- Lih.

E Taym.

F Saf.& Hism.

G Tham. +

H Min.

I Sab. +
Ran Zadok

J Qat. +

K Had.

L Has.

M NQ

N AC

O AAC

P AGL + +

Q CA + +
 # 287 288 289 290 291 292 293
A (II.B.b.1.2) (II.B.b.1.2) (II.B.c.1) (II.B.b.2) (II.B.b.2) (II.B.b.2) (II.B.b.6.3)

B name Zbdw Zbdy Zbwd Zbyd Zbydw Zbydy Zḥrw

C Nab. + +

D Dad.- Lih. +

E Taym.

F Saf.& Hism. +

G Tham. +

H Min.

I Sab.

J Qat.

K Had.

L Has.

M NQ +
On the Documentary Framework, Appendix I: Table

N AC

O AAC +

P AGL + +

Q CA + + +
289
 # 294 172a 295 296 297 298 299
290

A (II.B.c.1) (II.B.b.3.2) (II.B.c.4.2.2.9) (II.B.c.5.1) (II.B.b.6.1) (II.B.b.3.1)

B name Zkwr Zmrw Z°m°r°y Z°r°ḥ Zydn Zydtw Zydw

C Nab. + +

D Dad.- Lih. + +

E Taym.

F Saf.& Hism. + + +

G Tham. +

H Min. + +

I Sab. +
Ran Zadok

J Qat. + +

K Had. + +

L Has.

M NQ

N AC +

O AAC + + + +

P AGL +

Q CA + + + + +
 # 300 301 total Grand Total
A (II.B.b.3.1) (II.B.c.5.1)

B name Zydy Zytn

C Nab. 57

D Dad.- Lih. 30

E Taym. 2

F Saf.& Hism. 102

G Tham. 49

H Min. 31

I Sab. 44 650

J Qat. 37

K Had. 10

L Has. 4

M NQ 7
On the Documentary Framework, Appendix I: Table

N AC + 31

O AAC + 78

P AGL 76

Q CA 92
291
292 Ran Zadok

Appendix II
Indexes for R. Zadok, On the Documentary Framework, Ter-
minology, and Onomasticon of the Ostraca from Idumea

Due to the large quantity of data presented in this study, for the reader’s convenience,
the author compiled a separate set of indexes for this article. “0” refers to Preamble.

Index of Appellatives

Akkadian (NB/LB Unmarked) ʿm II.B.b.6.1

ašuhu I.B bʿd II.B.b.6.3
ašušhi (MB Nuzi) I.B bʿly Mnqdh I.B
bāb kalakki I.A bʿr II.B.b.6.3
bābu I.A; I.B bb I.B
*b/makku I.B bb ʾḥrn I.B
bīt-dūrāni (SB) I.A bnʾʾ II.B.c.4.2.2.8
egubbû I.B bnʾh (JBA) II.B.c.4.2.2.8
*hannu I.B bnʾy (JPA) II.B.c.4.2.2.8
dug
kal-li-ti I.B brq II.B.c.4.2.1
kallu I.B bṭnʾ zy lbyt ʾlhyʾ I.A
la-ha-nu I.B b°y°d I.B
makṣaru I.A byt I.A
maškattu I.A byt ʿzʾ 0
mukarrišu I.B byt tbnh II.B.c.4.2.1
mulūgu I.A byt zrʿ I.A
nishu I.B byt zytʾ I.A
dug
sikkû I.B dkrn I.B
giš
sik-ku-ú I.B dn II.B.c.5.2.1
ṣarṣaru II.B.b.4.2 dnb II.B.c.4.2.1
šanû bābu I.B dqyr I.A
šupûltu I.B dyn II.B.c.5.1
tahsistu I.B gbʾʾ II.B.c.4.2.2.8
zēru I.A gd II.B.b.5.3
grgr I.A
Aramaic (Official Aramaic from Idumea grgrn I.A
Unmarked) grryn (CPA) I.A
ʾab II.B.c.5.3 gyr (JPA) I.A
ʾs II.B.c.5.3 gyryn (JPA) I.A
ʾšl mlgʾ I.A hmṭʾ I.B
ʾwrwtʾ (OSyr.) I.A hnʿl I.B
ʾwrwtʾ I.A hn°ḥ°t I.B
ʾyty I.B hyty I.B
(ʿbwrh) ḥqlh (wbyrh) (OSyr.) ḥlt I.A
I.A ḥn II.B.c.5.2.3.1
ʿdr II.B.c.4.2.2.2 ḥwr I.A
 On the Documentary Framework, Appendix II: Indexes 293

ḥwrʾ I.A zrʿ I.A

ḥwr(t)ʾ I.A zyt I.A
ḥwrt I.A zyt(y) I.A
ḥwrtʾ I.A
ḥyblʾ 0 Hebrew-Canaanite (Biblical Hebrew Un-
kp°n I.A marked)
kph I.A ʾry (Heb.-Can.) II.B.c.5.3
kpr 0 ʿknʾy (MHeb.) II.B.c.4.2.2.2
kpt I.A ʿwp II.B.c.5.2.1
kptʾ I.A byt hrpd° (Judean epigraphy)
kpt(ʾ) I.A I.A
kpy I.A byt htbn (MHeb.) II.B.c.4.2.1
ktb I.A ḥrym I.B
kyp I.A kḥ II.A.a.10.γ
kyp<t>ʾ (JPA) I.A mlwg (MHeb.) I.A
kypyn I.A pyqsh (MHeb.) II.B.c.2
l-PN I.B rpwt I.A
lmz°bn° I.B rpydh I.A
lwṣ (Old Aram.) II.A.a.22.α sp (Heb., Phoen.) II.B.c.5.2.1
mʾṭr I.B šwrwt (MHeb.) I.A
mḥwrnʾ I.A śdh ʿyln (MHeb.) I.A
mn°ʿl I.B śdh lbn (MHeb.) I.A
mqṣr I.A ytʾ < yʾtʾ II.A.a.12.α.e´
msgryʾ I.A
msknh I.A Classical Arabic
msknt I.A aẓwār II.A.a.22.α
n°s°ḥ° I.B aẓwur II.A.a.22.α
nšyp I.A ʿaṣil II.B.c.4.2.2.2
pʿln I.A ʿāṣil II.B.c.4.2.2.2
PN1 br surname 0 ʿumr II.B.b.6.3
PN1 byd PN2 commodity I.B dāʾim II.A.a.18.β
PN1 lyd PN2 I.B ḍaʿfān II.B.c.4.2.2.4
p°qd I.B ḍaʿīf II.B.c.4.2.2.4
prds I.A faḍīj II.B.b.6.3
q°r°b° I.B ġawt II.A.a.22.α
qmḥ rʾš I.A hilāl II.B.c.4.2.2.11
qšt I.A ḥabīb II.B.b.6.1
rʾš I.A ḥanīk II.B.c.4.2.2.3
rkšt I.A ḥāzi II.B.c.5.2.2
rpyd(ʾ) I.A ḥāzir II.B.b.1.1
rpydʾ zy bṭnʾ I.A ḫaṭm II.B.b.6.3; II.B.c.4.2.2.2
rqyd I.A ḫayr II.B.b.6.1
smyʾ (OSyr.) II.B.c.4.2.2.10 ḫazar II.B.b.1.1
sprʾ I.A ḫiṭr II.B.b.6.3
šwrt I.A jadil II.B.c.1
trʿn I.A jadlān II.B.c.1
yhb I.B kaffah I.A
yḥyṭ I.B kaffat I.A
ynśʾ I.B kuffa I.A
zʿr (Standard Literary Babylonian Aramaic) labʾa < labʾat II.B.c.4.2.2.8
I.A laḥim II.B.b.6.3
294 Ran Zadok

maljaʾ I.A jarjar I.A

naqir II.B.b.5.2 kaffa I.A
qamaṣ II.B.c.4.2.1 kaffi I.A
qayn II.B.c.5.1 lōḥ dirās I.A
rāfid I.A lōḥ id-drās I.A
ar-rāfidān I.A mōraj I.A
ṣabīḥ II.B.b.6.1 naqī I.A
ṣubḥ II.B.b.6.1 nōraj I.A
šabb II.B.c.5.2.1 raʾīs I.A
šabr II.B.b.6.3 rūs I.A
ṭabar II.B.c.4.2.1 sarkāl I.A
tayyār II.B.b.6.1
ṭibr II.B.c.4.2.1 Sabaic
wann II.B.c.5.2.3.2 ʾrfd I.A
wasq II.A.a.32.β dkr I.B
waṯīj II.B.c.4.2.2.4 rfd I.A
zamr II.B.b.3.2 ẓwr II.A.a.22.α
zuḥr(ān) II.B.b.6.3
ẓiʾr II.A.a.22.α Greek
ẓuwūr II.A.a.22.α κήπος I.A

Colloquial Arabic Reconstructed Forms

il-bayyāḍa I.A *ḏikr II.B.b.3.2
bayyāḍi I.A *kyph/t I.A
dāyim II.A.a.18.β
ḫalli < ḫallat I.A
 On the Documentary Framework, Appendix II: Indexes 295

Index of Anthroponyms

Mostly comparanda. The compound anthroponyms from Idumea are alphabetically

listed in II.A.h and the simplex ones from there in the Appendix.

Cuneiform (NB/LB Unmarked.) Ia-am-lik-èl (OB) II.B.c.8.3.1

(Mostly Akkadian renderings of West Semitic Ia-an-qí-ma-nu (OB) II.B.c.8.3.1
anthroponyms, except for the very few tran- Ia-az-ra-hu-um (OB) II.B.c.8.3.1
scribed names which are genuine Akkadian.) Iq-ba-nu-um (OB) II.B.c.4.2.2.2
A+A-na-a II.B.b.3.1 Iz-zi-an-na II.B.c.5.3
A+A-né-e (NA) II.B.b.3.1 Ka-ma-aṣ-ṣa-ʾ/Ka-ma-ṣa-ʾ
Abdi (ÌR)-i-ra-ma (EA) II.B.c.4.2.1
II.A.a.32.α Kī-Nabû II.A.a.31
Ab-du-ʾ II.B.b.1.2 Kul-ha-za-a-te (NA) II.A.a.18.γ
A-bi-ia-ta/te-ʾ (NA) II.A.a.5 Kul-lu-ha-za-ʾ-it II.A.a.18.γ
Ad-ra-nu-um (OB ) II.B.c.4.2.2.2 Mannu-kī-Nabû II.A.a.31
A-li-ʾ-ú II.B.b.6.1 Mušēzib II.B.c.8.2
Am-du-ku-ru (NA) II.A.a.2 Na-ad-bi-ia II.B.c.4.2.1
Am-ia-te-ʾ-ú (NA) II.A.a.5 Na-ah-hu-um II.B.c.1
A-mi-du-ʾ II.B.b.6.1 Ni-iq-ma-(name component)
A-u/ú-i-ra-a (NA) II.B.b.6.1 II.B.b.6.3
Ba-ah-da-an (OB) II.B.b.6.3 Ni-iq-ma-a-nu-um (OB) II.B.b.6.3
Ba-ah-di-ia (OB) II.B.b.6.3 Nu-ri-i/ia (NA) II.B.c.5.1
Da-ar-ha-ʾ II.B.c.4.2.2.9 Pal-gu II.B.b.5.2
Di-na-ia (NA) II.B.c.5.1 Pu-qi-šú (NA) II.B.c.2
d
Du-kur-ìl (NA) II.A.a.2 Qu-su-ia-a-ha-bi II.A.a.1.α.d´
Du-sa-a (NA) II.B.c.5.1 Qu-su-ia-da-ʿ II.A.a.1.α.d´
d
Ga-A+A (NA) II.B.c.5.3 Qu-su-ṭāb II.A.a.22.β
Gab-ru-ú II.B.b.6.3 Qu-ú-su-ra-ha-ʾ II.A.a.20
Gad-ia-a (NA) II.B.b.5.3 Sa-ka-a-ìl (NA) II.B.c.1
Ga-di-ú (NA) II.B.b.5.3 Sa-ke-e-mil-ki II.B.c.1
Ga-du-pu II.B.c.4.2.1 Sa-li-a-nu (NA) II.B.b.6.3
Ga-ia-a (NA) II.B.c.5.3 S/Šam-ma-as-lu-ka-nu
Ge-˹ia˺-a (NA) II.B.c.5.3 II.A.a.14
f
Gu-ra-nu II.B.b.2 Sip-pa-a II.B.c.5.2.1
Gu-ri-ia (NA) II.B.b.2 Sippu II.B.c.5.2.1
Gur-ra-a (NA) II.B.b.2 Sippūša (MB) II.B.c.5.2.1
Gur-ra-A+A (NA) II.B.b.2 Ṣanṣarūru II.B.b.4.2
Gur-u-u-a (NA) II.B.b.2 Ṣanṣuru II.B.b.4.2
Ha-an-ni-i (NA) II.B.c.5.2.3.1 Ṣāṣiru II.B.b.4.2
(Ha-)Aq-ba-an (OB) Šamaš-iddina II.A.a.1.α.e´
II.B.c.4.2.2.2 Šá-ma-ta-ʾ II.B.b.6.3
Ha-gi-gu-ʾ II.B.b.6.2 Še-zib-[DN] (NA) II.A.a.17
Ha-ia-a-ni (NA) II.B.c.5.2.3.1 Ṭāb (DU10.GA)-gu-ur-ru
Ha-li-ia (OB) II.B.c.5.2.1 II.A.a.22.α
He-ra-hi (NA) II.A.a.25.β Ú-ma-ah-bu-ʾ II.B.b.3.2
He-ri-PAP(meš) II.A.a.25.β Za-am-mu-ru-ʾ II.B.b.3.2
Hi-in-ni-ia II.B.c.5.2.3.1 Ze-da-A+A II.B.b.3.1
Hi-iq-ba-an (OB) II.B.c.4.2.2.2 Zu-na-bu-um (OB) II.B.c.4.2.1
296 Ran Zadok

Aramaic Šmty II.B.b.6.3

(As indicated in this paper, many anthropo- Šmwʿ II.B.c.1
nyms which are recorded in the various Ara- Wdd II.B.c.4.2.2.4
maic dialects, especially Hatran, Nabatean and [W]dydʾl II.A.a.32.α
Palmyrene, are Arabian.) Wnh II.B.c.5.2.3.2
Ytʿ II.B.b.6.3
Official Aram., Samaritan, CPA and Zbydw II.B.b.2
Epigraphy from Palestine (Unless Otherwise Zkr II.B.b.3.2
Indicated) Zwbydw II.B.b.2
ʾbh II.B.c.5.3 Zydn (Tayma) II.B.c.5.1
ʾgyrʾ II.B.c.4.2.2.1
ʿbyd II.B.b.5.1 Aramaic (Hatran)
ʿdrn II.B.c.4.2.2.2 ʿky II.B.c.5.3
ʿdry II.B.c.4.2.2.2 ʿqbn II.B.c.4.2.2.2
ʿqbn II.B.c.4.2.2.2 ʿwydw II.B.b.6.1
ʿqbwn II.B.c.4.2.2.2 ʿyny II.B.b.3.1
ʿqwb II.B.c.1 Brzl II.A.a.6.α
ʿ(w)bydw II.B.b.5.1 Mryʾ II.B.c.4.2.2.8
ʿwyrʾ II.B.b.6.1 Nṣrw II.B.b.6.3
ʿzrn II.B.c.4.2.2.2 Šʿdw II.B.b.3.2
ʿzwr II.B.c.1 Tym II.B.b.6.1
Bʿdy II.B.b.6.3
Bʿr II.B.b.6.3 Aramaic (Nabatean)
Brgʾyh II.B.c.5.3 ʾbʾ II.B.c.5.3
Dlwy II.B.c.1 ʾmynw II.B.b.6.1
Dnbw II.B.c.4.2.1 ʿbdw II.B.b.1.2
D°r°ḥ° II.B.c.4.2.2.9 ʿbdyw II.B.b.1.2
D/Rwmʾ II.B.c.5.1 ʿbydw II.B.b.5.1
Gbrt II.B.b.6.3 ʿdyrw II.B.b.6.1
Gdwl II.B.c.1 ʿky II.B.c.5.3
Ḥny II.B.c.5.2.3.1 ʿlylt II.B.c.4.2.2.11
Ḥnynʾ II.B.c.3 ʿly(w) II.B.b.6.1
Ḥyr II.B.b.6.1 ʿmrw/ʾ II.B.b.6.3
Krz II.B.a ʿmw II.B.b.3.2
Mtʿʾl II.A.a.32.β ʿmyw II.B.b.6.1
Nbwṣdq II.A.a.12.α.a´ ʿwtw/y II.B.b.3.1
Ndby II.B.c.4.2.1 ʿwydw II.B.b.6.1
Ntn II.B.c.5.2.1 ʿwyw II.B.c.5.3
Ntny II.B.c.4.2.1 ʿyd/rw II.B.b.6.1
Ntwn II.B.c.1 ʿzy II.B.c.5.3
Nwʾymw II.B.c.1 ʿzyzw II.B.b.6.1
Plṭw II.B.c.4.2.1 Bʿlw II.B.a
Plṭy II.B.c.4.2.1 Bny II.B.c.4.2.2.8
Psʾ II.C Dkrw II.B.b.3.2
Qyrḥ (Old Aram.) II.A.a.25.β (ʾl)Grpw II.B.c.4.2.1
Slwʾ/h II.B.c.4.2.2.8 Hll II.B.c.4.2.2.11
Spy II.B.c.5.2.1 Ḥlf(ʾ)lhy II.B.c.1
Ṣwbyḥw II.B.b.6.1 Ḥlpw II.B.b.6.1
Šb(w) II.B.c.5.2.1 Ḥlypw II.B.b.6.1
Šlwm II.B.c.1 Ḥnynw II.B.c.3
Šmtʾ (Tayma) II.B.b.6.3 Ḥšbw II.B.b.6.3
 On the Documentary Framework, Appendix II: Indexes 297

Ḥwrw II.B.c.5.1 Šʿydw II.B.b.6.1

Ḥwšbw II.B.b.6.3 Šmšbrz II.A.a.6.α
Ḥyn II.B.c.5.2.3.1
Ḥyrw/y II.B.b.6.1 Aramaic (Palmyrene)
Krm(h/w) II.B.c.4.2.1 ʾbh II.B.c.5.3
Lḥmw II.B.b.6.3 ʾmyn II.B.b.6.1
Mny II.B.c.4.2.2.8 ʾnqyr II.B.b.5.2
Mrʾy II.B.c.4.2.2.8 [ʿ]lyw II.B.b.6.1
Mškw II.B.b.6.3 ʿmr II.B.b.6.3
Mtyʿʾl II.A.a.32.β ʿmrw II.B.b.6.3
Nʿm(ʾ) II.B.c.1 ʿwydw II.B.b.6.1
Nmrw II.B.b.3.2 ʿzyzw II.B.b.6.1
Nqydw II.B.b.5.2 Bʿlw/y II.B.a
(ʾl)Nqyrw II.B.b.5.2 Bnʾ II.B.c.4.2.2.8
Nṣrw II.B.b.6.3 Bny II.B.c.4.2.2.8
Plṭʾl II.A.a.8 Brq II.B.c.4.2.1
Qynʾ/w II.B.c.5.1 Dkry II.B.b.3.2
Rʿw II.B.b.6.3 Dyny II.B.c.5.1
Rpdw II.B.c.4.2.1 Gbrʾ II.B.b.6.3
Rwmʾ II.B.c.5.1 Gdylt II.B.c.1
Ṣbyw II.B.b.4.2 Gwrʾ II.B.b.2
Šʿdy II.B.b.3.2 Gwry II.B.b.2
Šʿydw II.B.b.6.1 Ḥbwlʾ II.B.c.2
Šbrh II.B.b.6.3 Ḥggw II.B.b.6.2
Šbykw III Ḥlpw II.B.b.6.1
Šhrw II.B.b.6.3 Ḥmy/ʾ II.B.b.6.1
Šḥrw II.B.b.5.2 Ḥṭry/ʾ II.B.b.6.3
Šlmw II.B.b.5.2 Ḥyny II.B.c.5.2.3.1
Šly II.B.b.6.3 Ḥyry/ʾ II.B.b.6.1
Šlyw II.B.b.6.3 Mrʾ II.B.c.4.2.2.8
Šmrw II.B.b.1.2 Mrh II.B.c.4.2.2.8
Šmtw II.B.b.6.3 Mškw II.B.b.6.3
Śkrʾl II.A.a.22.α Nṣrʾ II.B.b.6.3
Śkrʾlhy II.A.a.22.α Nšʾ II.B.c.5.2.2
Tymw/ʾ II.B.b.6.1 Ntny II.B.c.4.2.1
Tyrw II.B.b.6.1 Pṣgw II.B.b.6.3
Wʿl(t) II.B.b.6.3 Šʿd(w/y/ʾ) II.B.b.3.2
Wdw II.B.b.6.3 Tymw/y/ʾ II.B.b.6.1
Whb II.B.b.3.2 Whbʾ II.B.b.3.2
Whbw II.B.b.3.2 Ymlkw II.B.c.8.3.1
Wnʾ II.B.c.5.2.3.2
Ytʿw II.B.b.6.3 Hebrew-Canaanite (Biblical Hebrew Un-
Zbdw/y/ʾ II.B.b.1.2 marked) and Neighboring Dialects
Zbydw II.B.b.2 ʾmty II.B.c.4.2.2.1
Zmrw/y II.B.b.3.2 ʾsʾ II.B.c.5.3
Zydw II.B.b.3.1 ʾyh II.B.c.5.3
Old Syriac ʿkn II.B.c.4.2.2.2
ʿrydʾ II.B.b.6.1 ʿmyʾl II.A.a.24.α
ʿzyzw II.B.b.6.1 ʿpy II.B.c.5.2.1
Dnḥʾ II.B.c.4.2.2.9 ʿqwb II.B.c.1
Ḥdbšbʾ II.A.a.34 ʿrd II.B.b.6.1
298 Ran Zadok

ʿtnyʾl II.A.a.11.α Zrḥ II.B.c.4.2.2.9

ʿwpy II.B.c.5.2.1 Zytn II.B.c.5.1
ʿwty II.B.b.3.1
ʿzbwq II.B.c.5.1 Rabbinic (Middle Hebrew and Dialects of
Bʾrʾ II.B.c.4.2.2.5 Jewish Aramaic)
B(ʾ)ry II.B.c.4.2.2.5 ʿqbn II.B.c.4.2.2.2
Bʿnh? II.A.g ʿqybʾ II.B.c.3
Bdn II.B.c.4.2.1 ʿzrwn II.B.c.4.2.2.2
Bny II.B.c.4.2.2.8 ʿzy II.B.c.5.3
Bqy II.B.c.5.1 Bnʾh II.B.c.4.2.2.8
Brq II.B.c.4.2.1 Brwqʾ II.B.c.4.2.1
Dkr (Ugaritic) II.B.b.3.2 Dynʾy II.B.c.5.1
Dny II.B.c.5.2.1 Glglh II.B.c.7
Drdʿ II.B.c.7 Glgwlʾ/h II.B.c.7
Gdlyh II.B.c.1 Gny II.B.c.5.2.1
Gnʾ (Ammonite) II.B.c.5.2.1 Gwryʾ II.B.b.2
Gnn (Phoenician) II.B.c.5.2.1 Gwry(w)n II.B.b.2
Hll II.B.c.4.2.2.11 Mny II.B.c.4.2.2.8
Ḥgyh II.A.a.32.α Ntʾy II.B.c.5.2.1
Ḥnwk II.B.c.4.2.2.3 Nty II.B.c.5.2.1
Ḥyn (Ugaritic) II.B.c.5.2.3.1 Nwry II.B.c.5.1
Ḥzyr II.B.b.6.3 Pqs II.B.c.2
Klḥzh II.A.a.18.γ Qmṣʾ II.B.c.4.2.1
Mykyh II.A.a.31 Ṣrṣwr II.B.b.
Ndb II.B.c.4.2.1 Ṭby II.B.b.4.2
Nḥmyh II.B.c.1 Yqym II.B.c.8.3.2
Nḥwm II.B.c.1
Nqwdʾ II.B.b.5.2 Classical Arabic
Ntn II.B.c.5.2.1 Amīn II.B.b.6.1
Plṭy II.B.c.4.2.1 Ayham II.B.c.5.3
P°ṣry (Heb. epigraphy) ʿĀʾiḏ II.B.b.6.1
II.B.c.4.2.1 ʿAbd II.B.b.1.2
Qwsʿnl (Edomite) II.A.a.11.β ʿAbd-ʿAmmīʾanas II.A.a.22.β
Rʿṣ (Moabite) II.B.b.6.3 ʿAkk II.B.c.5.3
Rʿw II.B.b.6.3 ʿAlīy II.B.b.6.1
Sl(w)ʾ II.B.c.4.2.2.8 ʿAm(i)r II.B.b.6.3
Slwʾ II.B.c.1 ʿAwf II.B.c.5.2.1
Sp(y) II.B.c.5.2.1 ʿAyd(allāh) II.B.c.5.1
Ssmy II.C ʿAynāʾ (fem.) II.B.b.3.1
Šbnʾ II.C ʿAzīz II.B.b.6.1
Šlwm II.B.c.1 ʿIyāḏ II.B.a; II.B.c.5.1
Šmryhw II.B.c.1 II.B.b.6.1
Šmšy II.B.c.4.2.1 ʿUbayd II.B.b.5.1
Šmwʿ II.B.c.1 ʿUlayl II.B.c.4.2.2.11
Šmwʾl II.A.a.22.α ʿUlayy II.B.b.6.1
Šwbk III ʿUmayy II.B.b.6.1
Ydwʿ II.B.c.1 ʿUqba II.B.c.4.2.2.2
Ymlk II.B.c.8.3.1 Baʿdān II.B.b.6.3
Yzrʿʾl II.B.c.8.3.1 Baʿr II.B.b.6.3
Zbwd II.B.c.1 Badan II.B.c.4.2.1
Bāriq(um) II.B.c.4.2.1
 On the Documentary Framework, Appendix II: Indexes 299

Barrāqa II.B.c.4.2.1 Lawba II.B.b.6.1

Bayyān II.B.b.6.1 Malik II.B.a; II.B.b.4.2
Budayn II.B.c.4.2.1 Māsik II.B.b.6.3
Dabbāš II.B.c.4.2.1 Maṭar II.B.c.4.2.1
Daws II.B.c.5.1 Munqid II.B.b.5.2
Dubāš II.B.c.4.2.1 Naʿūm II.B.c.1
Duhn II.B.b.6.3 Nadab II.B.c.4.2.1
Ḏakar II.B.b.3.2 Naha/ār II.B.b.3.2
Ḏākir II.B.b.3.2 Nājia II.B.b.6.1
Ḏarīḥ II.B.c.4.2.2.9 Nājiy II.B.b.6.1
(Ḏū-)Ḏarḥān II.B.c.4.2.2.9 Namir II.B.b.3.2
Fālij II.B.b.5.2 Naṣr II.B.b.6.3
Farḫ II.B.c.4.2.2.9 an-Nimr II.B.b.3.2
Ġawīy II.B.c.5.3 Nuqar II.B.b.5.2
Ġawṯ II.B.b.3.1 Nuqayd II.B.b.5.2
Ġiyāra II.B.c.5.1; II.B.b.6.1 Nūrī II.B.c.5.1
Hūd II.A.a.1.γ Qammaṣ II.B.c.4.2.1
al-Ḫajjāj II.B.b.6.2 Qāniya II.B.b.5.2
Ḫāmiy II.B.b.6.1 Rafd II.B.c.4.2.1
Ḫawar II.B.c.5.1 Rāfid II.B.c.4.2.1
Ḫawšab II.B.b.6.3 Rawiyy II.B.c.5.3
Ḫayyān II.B.c.5.2.3.1 Rifd II.B.c.4.2.1
Ḫubayb II.B.b.6.1 Rifda II.B.c.4.2.1
Ḫumayy II.B.b.6.1 Saʿd II.B.b.3.2
Ḫunayn II.B.c.3 Saḥar II.B.b.5.2
Ḫuwār II.B.c.5.1 Sala/ām II.B.b.5.2
Ḫuẓayra II.B.b.4.1 Sālim II.B.b.5.2
Ḫabīt II.B.b.5.1 Silm II.B.b.5.2
Ḫalaf II.B.b.6.1 Simāk II.B.b.6.3
Ḫalafallāh II.B.c.1 Suʿayd II.B.b.6.1
Ḫaṣīb II.B.c.4.2.2.3 Ṣaḫr II.B.b.1.2
Ḫaṭma II.B.c.4.2.2.2 Ṣubayḥ II.B.b.6.1
Ḫayr II.B.b.6.1 Šabk III
Ḫinzīr II.B.b.6.3 Šāhid II.B.b.6.3
Ḫulayf II.B.b.6.1 Šayb II.B.c.5.2.1
Jābir II.B.b.6.3 Šumayt II.B.b.6.3
Jabr II.B.b.6.3 Taym II.B.b.6.1
Jadīla II.B.c.1 Udayy II.B.c.5.3
Jadl II.B.c.1 Uḫayy II.B.b.6.1
Jady II.B.b.5.3 Umayn II.B.b.6.1
Jadya II.B.b.5.3 Umayna II.B.c.4.2.2.1
Jādil II.B.c.1 Waʿla II.B.b.6.3
Jāhima II.B.b.6.3 Waʿlīa II.B.b.6.3
Jahm II.B.b.6.3 Wadād II.B.c.4.2.2.4
Jinn II.B.c.5.2.1 Wadīd II.B.c.4.2.2.4
Judayy II.B.b.5.3 Wadūd II.B.c.4.2.2.4
Juhayna II.B.c.3 Wahb II.B.b.3.2
Juhma II.B.b.6.3 Wāhib II.B.b.3.2
Kabša II.B.c.4.2.1 Yarfā II.B.b.6.3
Karīm II.B.c.4.2.1 Yazīd II.B.b.3.2
Kurz II.B.a Yutayʿ II.B.b.6.1
300 Ran Zadok

Zāʾida II.B.b.6.1 Hadramitic

Zabada II.B.b.1.2 ʾbʾns1 II.A.a.22.β
Zaḥr II.B.b.6.3 ʿmḏkr II.A.a.2
Zayd II.B.b.3.1 ʿmʾns1 II.A.a.22.β
Zaydān II.B.c.5.1 ʿmrm II.B.b.6.3
Ziyād II.B.b.3.1 ʿwfm II.B.c.5.2.1
Ziyāda II.B.b.6.1 ʿynt II.B.b.3.1
Zubayd II.B.b.2 ʿzzm II.B.b.6.1
Zumayr II.B.b.3.2 Byn II.B.b.6.1
Ẓaby II.B.b.4.2 Mtʿʾl II.A.a.32.β
Nmrm II.B.b.3.2
Ancient North and South Arabian Dialects Rfʾn II.B.b.6.3
Dadanitic-Lihyanitic (Unmarked) and Tay- S1ʿdm II.B.b.3.2
manitic S2mt II.B.b.6.3
ʿbd II.B.b.1.2 Zd II.B.b.3.1
(also Taymanitic) Zmrw/y II.B.b.3.2
ʿly II.B.b.6.1
ʿm II.B.b.3.2 Hasaitic
ʿmr II.B.b.6.3 ʿlyh II.B.b.6.1
ʿwf II.B.c.5.2.1 ʿzz II.B.b.6.1
ʿyḏ II.B.b.6.1 Nmyrt II.B.b.3.2
Bʿl II.B.a Šʿd II.B.b.3.2
Bny II.B.c.4.2.2.8 S2mt (fem.) II.B.b.6.3
Dkr II.B.b.3.2
Dws II.B.c.5.1 Hismaic
Fḍg II.B.b.6.3 ʾgr II.B.c.4.2.2.1
Frḫ II.B.c.4.2.2.9 ʿbd II.B.b.1.2
Hll II.B.c.4.2.2.11 ʿll II.B.c.4.2.2.11
Ḥgg II.B.b.6.2 ʿly II.B.b.6.1
Ḥnnh II.B.c.4.2.2.11 ʿm II.B.b.3.2
Ḥyn II.B.c.5.2.3.1 ʿmy II.B.b.6.1
Ḫlf II.B.b.6.1 ʿny II.B.a
Mlk II.B.b.4.2 ʿyḏ II.B.b.6.1
Msk II.B.b.6.3 ʿzz II.B.b.6.1
Mtʿʾl II.A.a.32.β Bʿl II.B.a
Nmr II.B.b.3.2 Byn II.B.b.6.1
Rfʾ II.B.b.6.3 (Taymanitic) Flṭ II.B.c.4.2.1
Rfd II.B.c.4.2.1 Ghm(n) II.B.b.6.3
Smk II.B.b.6.3 Grf II.B.c.4.2.1
Šʿd II.B.b.3.2 Ġyr II.B.b.6.1
Šhr II.B.b.6.3 Ḥgg II.B.b.6.2
Šlm II.B.b.5.2 Ḥgy II.B.b.3.2
Šmt II.B.b.6.3 Ḥnn II.B.a
Wddʾl II.B.a Ḥwr II.B.c.5.1
Whb II.B.b.3.2 Ḥ/Ḫzr II.B.b.1.1
Wny II.B.c.5.2.3.2 Ḫlf II.B.b.6.1
Ytʿ II.B.b.6.3 Ḫlfn II.B.c.4.2.1
Zd II.B.b.3.1 Mlk II.B.b.4.2
Zydh II.B.b.6.1 Mskt II.B.b.6.3
Zydt II.B.b.6.1 Mṭrn II.B.c.4.2.1
Ẓby II.B.b.4.2 Nmr II.B.b.3.2
 Index of Personal Names

The following sigla are used in order to indicate family relationship with other indivuals
in the index: // = clan name (ancestor name); br. = brother; ch. = child; f. = father; gs. =
grandson; h. = husband; w. = wife. For the reader’s convenience, we prepared a separate
set of indexes for R. Zadok, “On the Documentary Framework, Terminology, and Ono-
masticon of the Ostraca from Idumea.” See pp. 292–314 above.

ʾbrhm (ch. of Ddbh and Šrqwy) 63 Agirīya (ch. of Nanâ-šuma-uṣrī) 45

ʾdy (ch. of Mrty) 64 A-ḫa-mu-tu-ʾ (f. of A-ra-al-tu4) 38
ʾdyb 64 Aḫḫēʾa 20; 58
ʾḥtʾ 63 Aḫḫēa (br. of Šamaš-ēreš) 58
ʾḥtʾbw (f. of Bršptʾ) 63 Aḫḫē-erība? (f. of Iddin-Bēl) 45
ʾḥtʾ ṭbwh (ch. of Gwrytʾ) 64 Aḫḫē-iddina (ch. of Šulâ//Nūr-ilīšu) 54
ʾḥdbʾy (ch. of Šyltʾ) 65 Aḫḫēšu (f. of Ḫanūnu) 49
ʾḥtʾ (f. of Btḥdšbh, Grygwr, and Mrbh) 63 Aḫī-dān (ch. of Adad-natan) 48
ʾšrḥy (ch. of Gwrytʾ) 64 Ahiqar 13
ʾymy (ch. of Gwrytʾ) 64 Aḫu-aqqa (f. of Bēl-ēṭir) 48
ʿzndwkt (f. of Brymʾ) 63 Aḫu-iddin-[x] (ch. of Itti-Nabû-balāṭu) 45
Aaron 76–78 Aḫu-immē (f. of Bēlet-taddin) 48
Abdi-Iššar (f. of Daltanī) 48 Aḫu-līti (ch. of Idī-il) 48
ʿAbdi-Raḥmān (ch. of Mēšoy) 63 Aḫu-lūmur (ch. of Nabû-aḫa-ēreš) 26
Ab-di-dŠÁR˺ (ch. of Nabû-rēmanni) 51 Aḫumâ (ch. of Barīkīya) 48
Abdīya (ch. of Bēl-aḫa-iddina) 48 Aḫūšunu (ch. of Itti-Nabû-balāṭu) 45
Abihu 77 Akkadāyu (ch. of Šamaš-iddina) 45
Abi-ia-a-di-i-ni 41 Alexander 147; 149–50; 165–76
Abi-Esu (ch. of Balāṭu) 49 Alexander III (the Great) 147–49; 165–76
Abi-ešuḫ 110 Alexander IV 147–48; 165–76
Abimelech 76 Allānu (clan name) 55
Abraham/Abram (see also Amram) 76–79 Ālu-šá-mTE-ia 51
Adad-aḫa-iddina (ch. of Adad-nādin-zēri) 45 Am-dādī (f. of Edrâ) 48
Adad-aḫa-iddina (ch. of Būru-zēra-iddina) 47 Am-ma-a 41
Adad-aḫa-uṣur (f. of Bēl-ibni) 45 Amram (see also Abraham/Abram) 75; 77;
Adad-bēl-siḫi(ḫ)ti (ch. of Būru-šēzib) 47 79–81
Adad-nādin-zēri (f. of Adad-aḫa-iddina) 45 Amti-Bābu (ch. of Šamaš-iddina//Šangû
Adad-nāʾid (ch. of Rēmūtu) 45 Dilbat, w. of Nabû-(aḫa)-ittannu) 53; 54
Adad-natan (f. of Aḫī-dān) 48 Amurru-(mu)kīn-apli 21
Adad-rapā (Adad-šarra-uṣur) 48 Amurru-(mu)kīn-apli (f. of Amurru-šarra-uṣur)
Adad-šarra-uṣur (f. of Adad-rapā) 48 21
Adad-šarra-uṣur (ch. of Ilteri-aḫab) 48 Amurru-šarrani (f. of Mušēzib-Bēl) 46
Adad-šēzib (ch. of Ribāta) 45 Amurru-šarra-uṣur (ch. Amurru-(mu)kīn-apli)
Adad-šumu-uṣur 13 22
Adad-ušēzib (ch. of Zabdīya) 48 Amurru-šarra-uṣur (ch. of Ḫašdāyu) 21
Adad-[x] (f. of Būru-rapā) 47 Amurru-šarra-uṣur (f. of Naʾid-Bēl) 47
A-da-la-a 41 Amurru-udammiq 20
318 Index of Personal Names

Ana-Bēl-ēreš (ch. of Šuma-ukīn) 45 Arrabu (ch. of Rikis-kalāma-Bēl) 45

ʿAnai 142 Arrhidaeus, see Philip III
Ana-Nabû-ēreš (f. of Ḫabaṣīru) 45 Artaxerxes 97; 140; 147; 149; 166; 176
Andaḫar (clan name) 57 Artaxerxes II 140; 147; 149–50
Andaḫar (ch. of Kalbâ) 45 Artaxerxes III 140; 146–47; 149
Ani (ch. of Baalsamak) 176 Artaxerxes IV 140; 147
Antigonus I 147–50; 166; 169–76 Assurbanipal 94; 96; 103
Antiochus III 71 Ašgandu 35
Antiochus IV 71; 110; 168 Ātamar-anūssu (clan name) 55; 56
Anu-šarra-uṣur (ch. of Zērīya) 47 Athaliah 36
Anu-šeʾe (f. of Harīṣānu) 45 Atta-[x-x] (f. of Tīriyāma) 49
Apil-Adad 51 Azariah 76
Ap(i)ladu-zēra-ibni (ch. of Kīnâ) 51 Baal I 126
Aplâ (f. of Bēl-rēmanni) 45 Baalsamak (f. of Haggagu and Ani) 175–76
Aplâ (ch. of Nabû-balāssu-iqbi//Šangû Babūtu (clan name) 54; 55; 58
Ninurta) 54 Ba-ga-sa-ru-ú 51
Aplâ (f. of Nabû-ēṭir) 46 Bagavahya 125
Aplâ (ch. of Ningirsu-balāssu-iqbi//Šangû Baḫḫil-nidintu (ch. of Bazuzu) 49
Ninurta) 54 Ba-Ilteri-aḫatta (ch. of Nusku-ayalu) 48
Aplâ (ch. of Sîn-ibni) 45 Bāʾiru (clan name) 56
Aplāya 20 Balakros 83
Aqabbi-il (ch. of Šamaš-aḫa-iddina) 48 Balāssu (f. of Nabû-rēmanni//Šangû Sîn) 56
A-qa-bi-ia (f. of Iddin-Nabû and Kuṣurrâ) 55 Balāṭu (clan name) 58
Aqabu (ch. of Basīya) 48 Balāṭu (f. of Abi-Esu) 49
Arad-Uraš (ch. of Bēl-zēri//Šigûʾa) 54 Balāṭu (ch. of Ea-zēra-iqīša) 45
Arad-Uraš (f. of Libluṭ) 53; 55 Balāṭu (ch. of Nabû-tukulti-ēdi) 45
Arad-Uraš (f. of Nabû-iddina//Šangû Dilbat) Balāṭu (ch. of Ribāta) 45
56 Bandakku 97
A-ra-al-tu4 (ch. of Ḫa-am-tu-ʾ or Banītu-ēreš (f. of Nabû-uṣuršu) 46
A-ḫa-mu-tu-ʾ) 38 Banitsar 100
Arammāyu (A-ra-am-ma-A+A) (ch. of Bānīya (f. of Libluṭ) 46
Gūzānu) 53; 54 Barack Hussein Obama 12
Ararru (clan name) 36 Bar Bahlul 100
Ardi-Bēl (f. of Kuṣurrâ) 53; 55 Barīk-il (ch. of Il-ḫāri) 48
Ardi-Bēl (f. of [Lā-ab]âši//Maṣṣar-abulli) 55 Barīkīya (f. of Aḫumâ) 48
Ardi-Bunene (ch. of Gimil-Šamaš) 45 Ba-ar-qu-su 41
d
Ardi-Gula (ch. of Gimil-Šamaš) 45 Ba-ru-qu-il-l[u?]-ú 51
Ardi-Gula (ch. of Nergal-ibni) 45 Basīya (clan name) 55; 58
Ardi-Gula (ch. of Šuma-ukīn) 45 Basīya (f. of Aqabu) 48
Ardi-Nabû (f. of Bēl-ṣarbi-aḫa-iddina) 45 Basīya (f. of Bēl-aḫa-iddina) 45
Ardi-Nabû (f. of Nabû-uballiṭ) 46 Basīya (f . of Bēl-ēṭir) 53; 54
Ardi-Nergal (clan name) 54; 56; 57 Basīya (f. of Bulṭâ) 45
Ardi-Nergal (f. of Nabû-bullissu//Asû) 56 Basīya (ch. of Ḫaddâ) 45
Ardi-Nergal (ch. of Pirʾu, gs. of Ina-Eaggila- Basīya (f. of Lā-abâši) 46
šadûnu//Ēpeš-ilī) 54 Basūru (f. of Nabû-aḫa-iqīša) 46
Ardīya (ch. of Bēl-iddina) 45 Bašniday or Bašniray (ch. of Šāhafrīd) 63
Ardīya (ch. of Bēl-uṣranni) 54 Bathuel 79
Ardīya (f. of Kalbīya) 46 Bazuzu (f. of Baḫḫil-nidintu) 49
Ardīya (ch. of Nabû-aḫa-iddina) 59 Bēl-aba-uṣur (ch. of Nidintu) 45
Arrabu (f. of Nidinti-Bēl) 46 Bēl-ab-ra-DÙ (ch. of Nabû-ramnīšu) 45
Arrabu (f. of Rēmut-Bēl) 46 Bēl-aḫa-iddina (f. of Abdīya) 48
 On the Documentary Framework, Appendix II: Indexes 301

Nqd II.B.b.5.2 Nmyrt II.B.b.3.2

Nqm II.B.b.6.3 Nqd II.B.b.5.2
Slm II.B.b.5.2 Qyn II.B.c.5.1
Smk II.B.b.6.3 Šmr II.B.b.1.2
Šʿd II.B.b.3.2 Tym II.B.b.6.1
Šmr II.B.b.1.2 Zbyd II.B.b.2
Šmt II.B.b.6.3
Tbn II.B.c.4.2.1 Qatabanic
Whb II.B.b.3.2 ʾbʾns1 II.A.a.22.β
Zmr I I.B.b.3.2 ʾbyṯʿ II.A.a.5
ʾgrm II.B.c.4.2.2.1
Minaic ʾġwym II.B.c.5.3
ʾbʾns1 II.A.a.22.β ʾmn II.B.b.6.1; II.B.c.4.2.2.1
ʾgr II.B.c.4.2.2.1 ʾmynt II.B.c.4.2.2.1
ʿbd II.B.b.1.2 ʿbdm II.B.b.1.2
ʿbydm II.B.b.5.1 ʿbydm II.B.b.5.1
ʿll II.B.c.4.2.2.11 ʾlmtʿ II.A.a.32.β
ʿmḏkr II.A.a.2 ʿlylm II.B.c.4.2.2.11
ʿmy (North Min.) II.B.b.6.1 ʿlym II.B.b.6.1
ʿwf II.B.c.5.2.1 ʿmḏkr II.A.a.2
ʿyn II.B.b.3.1 ʿmrm II.B.b.6.3
ʿzz II.B.b.6.1 ʿṣln II.B.c.4.2.2.2
Dbs2 II.B.c.4.2.1 ʿwyfm II.B.c.5.2.1
Dkr II.B.b.3.2 ʿynw II.B.b.3.1
Flṭt II.B.c.4.2.1 Bʿl II.B.a
Frḫ II.B.c.4.2.2.9 Brqm II.B.c.4.2.1
Ġwṯ II.B.b.3.1 Bynm II.B.b.6.1
Ḥgg II.B.b.6.2 Dkr II.B.b.3.2
Ḥgy (North Min.) II.B.b.3.2 Dws1m II.B.c.5.1
Ḥmy II.B.b.6.1 Ḏkrm II.B.b.3.2
Ḥnyn II.B.c.3 Ḏrḥ(m ) II.B.c.4.2.2.9
Mlk II.B.b.4.2 Gnʾm II.B.c.5.2.1
Ms1k II.B.b.6.3 Ġwṯ II.B.b.3.1
Mtʿʾl II.A.a.32.β Hll(t) II.B.c.4.2.2.11
Nmr II.B.b.3.2 Ḥmy II.B.b.6.1
S1lm II.B.b.5.2 Ḥnynm II.B.c.3
S2hr II.B.b.6.3 Ḥywn II.B.c.5.2.3.1
S2mt II.B.b.6.3 Ḫyr II.B.b.6.1
Tym II.B.b.6.1 Lbʾ II.B.b.6.1
Wdd II.B.c.4.2.2.4 Ms1k II.B.b.6.3
Wddʾl II.B.a Ms1kyt II.B.b.6.3
Whb II.B.b.3.2 Nʿwm II.B.c.1
Ytʿ (North Min.) II.B.b.6.3 Nmrm II.B.b.3.2
Zyd II.B.b.3.1 Ns2ʾm II.B.c.5.2.2
Zydn II.B.c.5.1 Ns2ʾn II.B.c.5.2.2
Zydt II.B.b.6.1 Rfʾm II.B.b.6.3
NQ S1ʿd II.B.b.3.2
ʿṣyl II.B.c.4.2.2.2 S2br II.B.b.6.3
ʿzz II.B.b.6.1 S1lm II.B.b.5.2
Ḥmy II.B.b.6.1 S2hr(m) II.B.b.6.3
Ḥnyn II.B.c.3 S2mr II.B.b.1.2
302 Ran Zadok

S2mtt II.B.b.6.3 S2mr II.B.b.5.2

Ṣbyḥm II.B.b.6.1 Tbny (Old Sab.) II.B.c.4.2.1
Tbnw II.B.c.4.2.1 Tym II.B.b.6.1
Wddt II.B.c.4.2.2.4 Wddʾl II.B.a
Whb(m) II.B.b.3.2 Wddm II.B.c.4.2.2.4
Ytʿm II.B.b.6.3 Whb II.B.b.3.2
Yzd II.B.b.3.2 Yḥlf II.B.c.8.3.1
Zyd(m) II.B.b.3.1 Ytʿm II.B.b.6.3
Ẓbym II.B.b.4.2 Yzd II.B.b.3.2

Sabaic Safaitic
ʾbʾns1 II.A.a.22.β ʾbʾ/h II.B.c.5.3
ʾgrm II.B.c.4.2.2.1 ʾbʾns II.A.a.22.β
ʾmynt II.B.c.4.2.2.1 ʾdy II.B.c.5.3
ʿbdm II.B.b.1.2 ʾgr II.B.c.4.2.2.1
ʿbydm II.B.b.5.1 ʾhm II.B.c.5.3
ʿdʾl II.A.a.9 (ʾ)krm II.B.c.4.2.1
ʿkn II.B.c.4.2.2.2 ʾmn II.B.b.6.1
ʿlylm II.B.c.4.2.2.11 ʿbd II.B.b.1.2
ʿlym II.B.b.6.1 ʿdd II.B.b.6.1
ʿmrm II.B.b.6.3 ʿdʾl II.A.a.9
ʿmy II.B.b.6.1 ʿk II.B.c.5.3
ʿqbn II.B.c.4.2.2.2 ʿkn II.B.c.4.2.2.2
ʿwfm II.B.c.5.2.1 ʿll II.B.c.4.2.2.11
ʿyn II.B.b.3.1 ʿly II.B.b.6.1
Bʿn II.A.g ʿm II.B.b.3.2
Byn II.B.b.6.1 ʿmr II.B.b.6.3
Dbs2 II.B.c.4.2.1 ʿmy II.B.b.6.1
Dkrn II.B.c.4.2.1 ʿqbt II.B.c.4.2.2.2
Ḏrḥn II.B.c.4.2.2.9 ʿrd II.B.b.6.1
(D-)Sḥr II.B.b.5.2 ʿwf II.B.c.5.2.1
Gdlt II.B.b.6.3 ʿyḏ II.B.b.6.1
Ghmn II.B.b.6.3 ʿz II.B.c.5.3
Grfm II.B.c.4.2.1 ʿzz II.B.b.6.1
Ġwṯm II.B.b.3.1 Bʿd II.B.b.6.3
Ḥnkyn II.B.c.4.2.2.3 Bʿl II.B.a
Ḥnkytn II.B.c.4.2.2.3 Bʿr II.B.b.6.3
Ḥyn II.B.c.5.2.3.1 Bdn II.B.c.4.2.1
Ḫlʾns1 II.A.a.22.β Bny II.B.c.4.2.2.8
Ḫlfm II.B.b.6. Brqt II.B.c.4.2.1
Ḫnzrm II.B.b.6.3 Byn II.B.b.6.1
Kbs1m II.B.c.4.2.1 Dhn II.B.b.6.3
Lʿḏrʾl II.A.a.15.α Dn II.B.c.5.2.1
Ms1k(t) II.B.b.6.3 Ḏkr II.B.b.3.2
Ns2ʾy II.B.c.5.2.2 Dkrn II.B.c.4.2.1
Qyn II.B.c.5.1 Ḏnb(n) II.B.c.4.2.1
Rfʾm II.B.b.6.3 Fḍg II.B.b.6.3
Rfyʾ II.B.b.6.1 Flg II.B.b.5.2
Sʾrn II.B.c.4.2.2.5 Flṭ II.B.c.4.2.1
S1ʿd II.B.b.3.2 Flṭ(ʾ)l II.A.a.8
S1ʿydm II.B.b.6.1 Frḫ II.B.c.4.2.2.9
 On the Documentary Framework, Appendix II: Indexes 303

Gbr II.B.b.6.3 Nmr II.B.b.3.2

Gdl II.B.c.1 Nqd II.B.b.5.2
Gdlt II.B.c.1 Nqm II.B.b.6.3
Gdl II.B.c.1 Nṣr II.B.b.6.3
Gdly II.B.c.1 Nšʾt II.B.c.5.2.2
Ghm(n) II.B.b.6.3 Nwr II.B.c.5.1
Ghnt II.B.c.4.2.2.7 Qmṣ(t) II.B.c.4.2.1
Gn II.B.c.5.2.1 Qny II.B.b.5.2
Gnnt II.B.c.5.2.1 Qwst II.B.c.5.1
Grf II.B.c.4.2.1 Qyn II.B.c.5.1
Ġw II.B.c.5.3 Rfʾ(t) II.B.b.6.3
Ġwṯ II.B.b.3.1 Rfd II.B.c.4.2.1
Ġyr II.B.b.6.1 Rhn II.B.b.6.3
Ġyrʾl II.A.a.25.β Sḥr II.B.b.5.2
Hll II.B.c.4.2.2.11 Slm II.B.b.5.2
Ḥḍbt II.B.c.4.2.2.3 Smk II.B.b.6.3
Ḥgg II.B.b.6.2 Ṣbḥ II.B.b.6.1
Ḥgy II.B.b.3.2 Ṣḫr II.B.b.1.2
Ḥ/Ḫzr II.B.b.1.1 Šʿd II.B.b.3.2
Ḥmy II.B.b.6.1 Šb II.B.c.5.2.1
Ḥnk II.B.c.4.2.2.3 Šbk(y) III
Ḥnn II.B.a Šbr II.B.b.6.3
Ḥṣb II.B.c.4.2.2.3 Šhd II.B.b.6.3
Ḥšb II.B.b.6.3 Šhr II.B.b.6.3
Ḥwr II.B.c.5.1 Šmr II.B.b.1.2
Ḥwrn II.B.c.5.1 Šmt II.B.b.6.3
Ḥyn II.B.c.5.2.3.1 Tbn II.B.c.4.2.1
Ḥzy II.B.c.5.2.2 Tym II.B.b.6.1
Ḥzym/t II.B.c.5.2.2 Wʿl(t) II.B.b.6.3
Ḫbt II.B.b.5.1 Wd II.B.b.6.3
Ḫl II.B.c.5.2.1 Wdd II.B.c.4.2.2.4
Ḫlf II.B.b.6.1 Wddʾl II.B.a
Ḫlflh II.B.c.1 Wddt II.B.c.4.2.2.4
Ḫlfn II.B.c.4.2.1 Whb II.B.b.3.2
Ḫly II.B.c.5.2.1 Wn II.B.c.5.2.3.2
Ḫṣb II.B.c.4.2.2.3 Wny II.B.c.5.2.3.2
Ḫṭmt II.B.c.4.2.2.2 Wsmʾl II.A.a.1.α.d´
Ḫyr II.B.b.6.1 Wsqʾl II.A.a.32.β
Krzm II.B.a Zbd II.B.b.1.2
Lbʾ II.B.b.6.1 Zḥr II.B.b.6.3
Lḥm II.B.b.6.3 Zmr II.B.b.3.2
Mlk II.B.b.4.2 Zydw II.B.b.3.1
Mny II.B.c.4.2.2.8 Ẓby II.B.b.4.2
Mrʾ II.B.c.4.2.2.8
Mskt II.B.b.6.3 Thamudic
Mslmʾl II.B.c.8.2 ʾbʾns II.A.a.22.β
Mṭrn II.B.c.4.2.1 ʾḫy II.B.b.6.1
Ndb II.B.c.4.2.1 ʿbd II.B.b.1.2
Ngy II.B.b.6.1 ʿk II.B.c.5.3
Ngyt II.B.b.6.1 ʿll II.B.c.4.2.2.11
Nhr II.B.b.3.2 ʿly II.B.b.6.1
304 Ran Zadok

ʿm II.B.b.3.2 Wdd II.B.c.4.2.2.4

ʿmr II.B.b.6.3 Wddʾl II.B.a
ʿrd II.B.b.6.1 Wddʿm II.B.a
ʿyd II.B.a Whb II.B.b.3.2
ʿyḏ II.B.b.6.1 Yzd II.B.b.3.2
ʿzz II.B.b.6.1 Zd II.B.b.3.1
Bdn II.B.c.4.2.1 Zdn II.B.c.5.1
Bny II.B.c.4.2.2.8
Byn II.B.b.6.1 Greek
Fḍg II.B.b.6.3 (The only genuine Greek anthroponym from
Flṭ II.B.c.4.2.1 Idumea is Mέγας, II.C.)
Flṭʾl II.A.a.8 Idumeans
Gdlt II.B.c.1 Aβδοκως II.A.a.32.α
Gdy II.B.b.5.3 Aβδοκωσος II.A.a.32.α
Grf II.B.c.4.2.1 Aβδοµασλαµος II.B.c.8.2
Ġwṯ II.B.b.3.1 Aδαιος II.B.b.3; II.B.c.5.3
Hll II.B.c.4.2.2.11 A[ει]ανηϛ II.B.c.5.2.3.1
Ḥg II.B.b.3.2 Aζηλος II.A.a.25.β
Ḥgg II.B.b.6.2 Aιδιων II.B.a; II.B.b.6.1
Ḥgy II.B.b.3.2 Aλαφαν II.B.c.4.2.1
Ḥmy II.B.b.6.1 Aλιος II.B.b.6.1
Ḥnn II.B.a Aυφηλος II.B.c.5.2.1
Ḥwr II.B.c.5.1 Aψελαµος II.A.a.25.α
Ḫl II.B.c.5.2.1 Bααναθανης II.A.a.6.β
Ḫlf II.B.b.6.1 Bαννιων II.B.c.4.2.2.8
Ḫlflh II.B.c.1 Bορακοϛ II.B.c.4.2.1
Ḫly II.B.c.5.2.1 Γενναιος II.B.c.5.2.1
Mlk II.B.b.4.2 Zαββαιος II.B.b.3
Mrʾ II.B.c.4.2.2.8 Zαβδα II.B.b.1.2
Msk II.B.b.6.3 Zαβδαιος II.B.b.3
Nhr II.B.b.3.2 Zαιδηλος II.A.a.29
Nmr II.B.b.3.2 Kαινιων II.B.c.5.1
Nṣr II.B.b.6.3 Kοσαδαρος II.A.a.4
Qn II.B.c.5.1 Kοσακαβοϛ II.A.a.1.α.a´
Qny II.B.b.5.2 Kο[σ]γηρος II.A.a.22.α
Rfʾy II.B.b.6.1 Kοσιαβος II.A.a.1.α.d´
Rfd II.B.c.4.2.1 Kοσιδη II.A.a.1.α.d´
Sʿdʾl II.A.a.9 Kοσµαλαχος II.A.a.4
Sʿdlh II.A.a.9 Kοσνατανος II.A.a.1.α.b´
Sḥr II.B.b.5.2 Kοσραµος II.A.a.18.β
Slm II.B.b.5.2 Mαλιχος II.B.a
Ṣbḥ II.B.b.6.1 Mιλιχος II.B.a
Ṣḫr II.B.b.1.2 Oδιδηλος II.A.a.32.α
Šʿd II.B.b.3.2 Σεσµαιος II.C
Šb II.B.c.5.2.1 Xαλαφαθο[ς] II.B.c.4.2.1
Šbr II.B.b.6.3
Šhr(y) II.B.b.6.3 Xαλαφανης II.B.c.4.2.1
Šmt II.B.b.6.3 (X)αλαφαν(ος) II.B.c.4.2.1
Tm II.B.b.6.1
Wʿl(t) II.B.b.6.3
Wd II.B.b.6.3
 On the Documentary Framework, Appendix II: Indexes 305

Greek Iαθειαθου (gen.) II.B.b.6.1

(Renderings and modifications of other Semi- Iλιλ II.B.c.4.2.2.11
tic anthroponyms) Kοµψος II.B.c.4.2.1
Aζιζος II.B.b.6.1 Kουσας II.B.c.5.1
Aιαν(ης) II.B.c.5.2.3.1 Mαλιχος II.B.b.4.2
Aιδη II.B.c.5.1 Mανναιος II.B.c.4.2.2.8
Aιδιων II.B.c.5.1 Mασα/εχος II.B.b.6.3
Aινιου (gen.) II.B.b.3.1 Mασχας II.B.b.6.3
Aλαφος II.B.b.6.1 Mατιηλοϛ II.A.a.32.β
Aλειο/υς II.B.b.6.1 Mατρ(αι)ου II.B.c.4.2.1
Ἄλφιος II.B.c.4.1 Nαγιος II.B.b.6.1
Aµαινος II.B.b.6.1 Nαµερος II.B.b.3.2
Aµ(β)ρος II.B.b.6.3 Nαοµ II.B.c.1
Aµλιχος II.B.c.8.3.1 Nαουµα II.B.c.1
Aµµαιος II.B.b.3.2 Nατθαιος II.B.c.5.2.1
Aµµιας II.B.b.3.2 Nεθανις II.B.c.4.2.1
Aµµος II.B.b.3.2 Nοκιδος II.B.b.5.2
Aναχος II.B.c.4.2.2.3 Nουραιος II.B.c.5.1
Aνε(ι)χος II.B.c.4.2.2.3 Nουρις II.B.c.5.1
Aουειδος II.B.b.6.1 Oβαιδος II.B.b.5.1
Aουτιου (gen.) II.B.b.3.1. Oβεβαθη II.B.b.6.1
Aσηλ II.B.c.4.2.2.2 Oβεβου II.B.b.6.1
Bανναιοϛ II.B.c.4.2.2.8 Oδεδος II.B.b.6.1
Bαρκαιος II.B.c.4.2.1 Oδηρου II.B.b.6.1
Bαρκεος II.B.c.4.2.1 Oκβανης II.B.c.4.2.2.2
Bαρκος II.B.c.4.2.1 Oκοβα II.B.c.4.2.2.2
Bεεναθαλου (gen.) II.A.a.6.β Oλεφου (gen.) II.B.b.6.1
Bοδαινος II.B.c.4.2.1 Ὄλφιος II.B.c.4.1
Γαβρωνου (gen.) II.B.b.6.3 Oµαιναθη(ς) II.B.c.4.2.2.1
Γαδιας II.B.b.5.3 Oµαινος II.B.b.6.1
Γαλγουλα II.B.c.7 Oµεναθη II.B.c.4.2.2.1
Γαυθ/τος II.B.b.3.1 Oσαιελος II.B.c.4.2.2.2
Γεαρου (gen.) II.B.b.6.1 Oτεραθη II.B.b.4.1
Γενναιου (gen.) II.B.c.5.2.1 Oυαβω (dat.?) II.B.b.3.2
Γοαιµαθος II.B.b.6.3 Oυαλε/ιου (gen.) II.B.b.6.3
Γοραφος II.B.c.4.2.1 Oυαλου II.B.b.6.3
Γορ(ε)πος II.B.c.4.2.1 Oυθι II.B.b.3.1
Γουριων II.B.b.2 Oυναινος II.B.c.3
Γωθ(ε)ι II.B.b.3.1 Oχαιος II.B.b.6.1
Γωριων II.B.b.2 Oχχανου (gen.) II.B.c.4.2.2.2
Δ(ε)ιναιος II.B.c.5.1 Ραενθου (gen.) II.B.b.6.3
Eζρων II.B.c.4.2.2.2 Ρουµας II.B.c.5.1
Eινα II.B.b.3.1 Σαβoς II.B.c.5.2.1
Eλµαλα]χ[ος] II.A.a.4 Σαδδηλοϛ II.A.a.9
Zαββδηλος II.A.a.10.α Σαδδος II.B.b.3.2
Zαβδαδηϛ II.A.a.10.α Σαλµα/ης II.B.b.5.2
Zα/εβδος II.B.b.1.2 Σαλµου (gen.) II.B.b.5.2
Zαιδος II.B.b.3.1 Σαµακους II.B.b.6.3
Zειεδος II.B.b.3.1 Σαµ(α)σαιος II.B.c.4.2.1
Zοβαιδου (gen.) II.B.b.2 Σαµεθος II.B.b.6.3
Iαζειδαιος II.B.b.3.2 Σαµσεος II.B.c.4.2.1
306 Ran Zadok

Σαπφι II.B.c.5.2.1 Gaddius II.B.c.5.2.

Σαρσαρα II.B.b.4.2 Guris (Dura ) II.B.b.2
Σεφ(ε) II.B.c.5.2.1 Iamlichus (Dura) II.B.c.8.3.1
Σεφφι II.B.c.5.2.1 Masicates II.B.b.6.3
Σετνα II.B.c.4.2.1 Nathis (Dura) II.B.c.5.2.1
Σοβαιος II.B.b.6.1 Ocaban[es] II.B.c.4.2.2.2
Σοβεος II.B.b.6.1 Selaeus II.B.b.6.3
Σοουαιδ II.B.b.6.1
Φαλεταθος II.B.c.4.2.1 Reconstructed Names
Xαιρος II.B.b.6.1 *ʿwfʾl II.B.c.5.2.1
*Kull-ḥazāt II.A.a.18.γ
Latin *Kull(u)-ḥazayt II.A.a.18.γ
(Renderings and Modifications of Semitic *Māliku-ʾil (< Arab.) II.A.a.22.α
Anthroponyms) *Mr(ʾ)y II.B.c.4.2.2.8
Aufaeus (Dura) II.B.c.5.2.1 *Nšʾy II.B.c.5.2.2
Authaeus (Dura) II.B.b.3.1 *Rʿyw II.B.b.6.3
Bannaeus (Dura) II.B.c.4.2.2.8 *Vanya- II.B.c.5.2.3.2
Dinaeus (Dura) II.B.c.5.1 *Yutayʿ II.B.b.6.1
Gabrion II.B.b.6.3
 On the Documentary Framework, Appendix II: Indexes 307

Index of Divine names

Aramaic and Anglicized forms are unmarked. This is a unified list including compa-
randa, as most of them appear as theophorous elements of anthroponyms from Idumea
and are alphabetically arranged in II.A.d.1.

ʾdh III Isis II.C

ʾil III lh(y) III
(ʾl)bʿly II.A.d.2.ζ Mnwt[w] II.A.d.2.ζ
ʾsy II.A.d.2.κ Mr(ʾ)n II.A.d.2.ε; III
ʾšmw II.A.d.2.ζ Osiris II.C
ʾwsyry II.A.d.2.κ Qaws III
Apis II.C Qm II.A.d.2.θ
ʿly (Qat.) II.A.a.24.β Qws II.A.d.2.η
ʿm II.B.a Skrw II.A.d.2.ζ
ʿzh III Ssm II.A.d.2.ι; III
ʿzyz II.A.d.2.ζ Ṣwr II.A.d.2.θ
Bb II.A.a.1.α.d´ Šms II.B.c.4.2.1
bʾr (divine epithet) II.A.a.22.α Šmš II.B.c.4.2.1
bʿly III Yhw II.A.d.2.θ; II.A.f
Gn II.A.d.2.ζ Ytʿ II.A.d.2.ζ
Ḥpy II.A.d.2.κ
308 Ran Zadok

Index of Toponyms

Aramaic and Anglicized forms are unmarked.

ʾdnh II.C Idna (Palestinian Arab.)

ʾrq PN I.A II.C
ʾrq Hm°h I.A Jarjarāya (CA) I.A
ʾšl PN I.A krm ʿny I.A
[ʾ]šly Nhrw I.A krm PN I.A
Adoraim 0 Lower Idumea 0
Bādūrāyā (CA) I.A Makkedah 0
Bdytʾ Lbʾy II.B.b.6.1 Mareshah 0
By dwrʾ I.A Mamre 0
byt *ʾlnym (MHeb.) 0 Radanu (Akkad.) II.B.c.9
byt ʿzgd I.A ar-Rafīd (CA) I.A
Byt PN I.A Rpydym (OT) I.A
D/Rbynyʾ I.A Rwdnym (OT) II.B.c.9
gnt PN I.A Šlm II.B.c.9
gntʾ zy Bʿl II.B.a Terebinthos 0
gnt Dnby I.A The terebinth’s terrace 0
Greater Yhwd III ṭwr ʿmy I.A
Ḥawrān II.B.c.5.1 ṭwr PN I.A
ḥlq Dbš I.A Upper Idumea 0
ḥlq PN I.A zyt Pṣgw I.A
ḥlt PN I.A zyty Smwk I.A
ḥlt Qwsryʿ I.A
Ḫirbit il-kōm (Palestinian Arab.)
0
 On the Documentary Framework, Appendix II: Indexes 309

Index of Verbal Roots

ʾ-M-N II.B.b.3.2; II.B.c.4.2.2.1 K-H-L II.A.a.18.α
ʾ-W/Y-R II.A.a.10.γ K-R-M II.B.c.4.2.1
ʿ-D-D II.B.b.6.1 K-R-Z II.A.a.1.α.a´
ʿ-D-R II.B.b.6.1 K-W/Y-L II.A.a.18.α
ʿ-L-L II.B.c.4.2.2.11 K-W/Y-N II.A.a.14.ε
ʿ-L-P II.B.b.6.1 L-Ḥ-M II.B.b.6.3
ʿ-M-Y II.B.b.6.1 L-Ḥ-Ẓ II.B.b.6.3
ʿ-N-Y II.B.c.1 M-L-K II.B.a
ʿ-Q-B II.B.c.4.2.2.2 M-N-Y II.B.c.4.2.2.8
ʿ-Ṣ-L II.B.c.4.2.2.2 M-Š-K II.B.b.6.3
ʿ-Š-L II.B.c.4.2.2.2 M-W/Y-N II.A.a.18.β
ʿ-Ṭ-L II.B.c.4.2.2.2 N-D-B II.B.c.4.2.1
ʿ-W/Y-D II.B.c.5.1 N-G-ʿ II.A.a.16.α; II.B.b.6.1
ʿ-W/Y-D II.B.c.5.1 N-H-R II.A.a.4
ʿ-Ẓ-L II.B.c.4.2.2.2 N-Q-D II.B.b.5.2
ʿ-Z-Z II.B.c.5.3 N-Q-D II.B.b.5.2
B-R-K II.B.b.5.1 N-Q-M II.A.a.6.β; II.B.b.6.3
B-R-Q II.B.c.4.2.1 N-Q-R II.B.b.5.2
B-W/Y-N II.A.a.1.α.h´; II.B.c.1; N-S2-ʾ II.B.c.5.2.2
II.B.b.6.1 N-Ṣ-R II.B.b.6.3, III
D-ʿ-ʾ II.B.c.2 N-Ś-ʾ II.B.c.5.2.2
D-H-N II.B.b.6.3 N-T-N II.B.b.4.1; II.B.c.4.2.1;
D-W/Y-N II.B.c.5.2.1 III
D-W/Y-Š II.B.c.5.1 N-Ṭ-R III
D-K-R II.B.b.3.2; II.B.c.4.2.1 N-W/Y-R II.A.a.4
Ḏ-R-Ḥ II.B.c.4.2.2.9 P-L-ʿ/Y II.A.a.6.δ
G-ʾ-Y II.B.c.5.3 P-L-Ṭ II.B.c.4.2.1
G-B-R II.B.b.6.3 P-Q-S II.B.c.2
G-D-L II.B.c.1 P-Ṣ-R II.B.c.4.2.1
G-D-P II.B.c.4.2.1 Q-N-Y II.B.b.5.2
G-D-L II.B.c.1 R-ʿ- Ṣ II.B.b.6.3
G-H-M II.B.b.6.3 R-ʿ-Y II.B.c.2
G-N-N II.B.c.5.2.1 R-H-N II.B.b.6.3
G-R-R I.A R-P-ʾ II.B.b.6.3
Ġ-W/Y-ʾ II.B.c.5.3 R-P-D II.B.c.4.2.1
Ġ-W/Y-R II.A.a.25.β R-W/Y-M II.B.c.5.1
Ġ-W/Y-T II.A.g R-W/Y-Y II.B.c.5.3
Ḥ-D-D II.B.b.6.1 S-M-K II.B.b.6.3
Ḥ-G-G II.B.b.3.2 Š-B-B II.B.c.5.2.1
Ḥ-N-K II.B.c.4.2.2.3 Š-B-Y II.B.c.5.2.1
Ḥ-N-N II.B.c.4.2.2.11 Š-L-M II.B.b.5.2
Ḥ-Ṣ-B II.B.c.4.2.2.3 Š-L-W/Y II.B.b.6.3
Ḥ-Š-B II.B.b.6.3 Š-M-ʿ II.B.b.4.2
Ḥ-W/Y-Y II.B.c.5.2.3.1 Ś-D-R II.A.a.23
Ḥ/Ḫ-Z-R II.B.b.1.1 Ś-K-Y II.B.c.1
Ḥ-Z-Y II.B.c.5.2.2 T-W/Y-R II.B.b.6.1
Ḫ-B-T II.B.b.5.1 W-D-D II.B.b.6.3
Ḫ-L-P II.B.b.6.1; II.B.c.4.1; W-H-B III
II.B.c.6 W/Y-K-L II.A.a.18.α
310 Ran Zadok

W-Ṯ-G II.B.c.4.2.2.4 Z-B-D II.B.b.1.2

Y-H-B III Z-W/Y-D II.B.b.3.
 On the Documentary Framework, Appendix II: Indexes 311

Index of Classical Arabic Infinitives

baraza II.A.a.6.α karama II.B.c.4.2.1
baruza II.A.a.6.α karaza II.A.a.1.α.a´
daʿā II.B.c.2 laḥaẓa II.B.b.6.3
dāma II.A.a.18.β najā II.B.b.6.1
ġawā II.B.c.5.3 naqada II.B.b.5.2
hadā II.A.a.1.α.f´ naqida II.B.b.5.2
hāda II.A.a.1.γ našaʾa II.B.c.5.2.2
hāwada II.A.a.1.γ rāʿa II.A.a.18.β
ḥaḍaba II.B.c.4.2.2.3 rafada II.B.c.4.2.1
ḥalā II.A.a.25.α ṭabara II.B.c.4.2.1
ḥasaba II.B.b.6.3 wasama II.A.a.1.α.d´
jadala II.B.c.1 wasaqa II.A.a.32.β
jahana II.B.c.4.2.2.7 waṯaja II.B.c.4.2.2.4
jahuma II.B.b.6.3 zāda II.A.a.29
kāḥa II.A.a.10.γ
312 Ran Zadok

Index of Name Components

ʾr II.A.a.10.γ naʾid II.A.a.18.β
ʾrʾl II.A.a.10.γ *niqm II.B.b.6.3
ʾry II.A.a.10.γ nwr II.B.c.5.1
ʾwr II.A.d.2.θ; II.A.a.32.α nyd II.A.a.18.β
bēlīya II.B.a rāʾiʿ II.A.a.18.β
bwq II.B.c.5.1 ṣwr II.A.a.22.α
DN + ʿzr II.B.a -šēzib II.A.a.17
ḥly II.A.a.25.α śkr II.A.a.22.α
ḫāl II.B.c.5.2.1 ṭwr II.A.a.22.α
-kāhil II.A.a.18.α -*yaṯaʿ II.A.a.5
lbyʾ II.B.b.6.1 -µασλαµος II.B.c.8.2
 On the Documentary Framework, Appendix II: Indexes 313

Index of Grammatical Subjects

Orthography and Phonology -n- II.A.g
/ʿ/- II.A.a.5; II.B.c.4.2.2.2 -ny- II.A.g
-ān II.B.c.4.2.2.2 qal II.B.c.10.10.1
Aram. š: Arab. s I.A qāl II.B.c.10.11.1
assimilation of -n- II.A.a.15.β qall II.B.c.10.14.1
coloring of the final vowel due to /ʿ/ qalqal II.B.c.10.9
II.A.a.5 qalq(w)l II.B.c.7
CVCC-sequence II.B.c.4.2.2.2 qatal II.B.c.4.2.1; II.B.c.10.2.1
dropping of short unstressed -a II.B.c.4.2.1 qatāl II.B.c.10.6.1
dropping of the final vowel qātal II.A.a.1.γ
II.B.c.4.2.2.2 qatil II.B.c.10.2.2
dropping of unstressed -u- qātil II.B.c.5.2.1; II.B.c.10.4
II.B.b.6.1 qātil > qōtil II.B.c.2
elision of the short unstressed -u- qatīl II.B.c.10.6.2
II.B.b.6.1 qatl II.B.c.10.1.1
Gk. <τ> = Sem. /t/ II.A.a.32.β qatl > qitl II.B.c.4.2.2.2
/ḫ/ > /ḥ/ II.B.c.4.1 qatlūl-diminutive/deteriorative
interchange -w/y II.B.b II.B.c.6
Official Aramaic ś > s qattāl II.B.c.4.2.2.8;
II.A.a.22.α II.B.c.5.2.1; II.B.c.10.7;
Old Aram. <ṣ> < Proto-Sem. /ẓ/ II.B.c.10.8.1
II.A.a.22.α qattūl (caritative) II.B.c.1; II.B.c.10.8.2
-ōn II.B.c.4.2.2.2 qatul II.B.c.10.2.3
s1 = s II.B.c.5.1 qatūl II.B.c.10.6.3
-w- II.B.c.5.1 qatVl II.B.b.5.1
<z> = /d/ II.B.c.8.3.1 qawl II.B.c.10.12
qayl II.B.c.10.13
Morphology qīl II.B.c.10.11.2
-ʾ II.A.g; II.B.b qill II.B.c.10.14.2
-ʾ/h II.B.c.11.1.2 qitāl II.B.c.10.6.4
-ā II.B.b; II.B.c.11.1 qitīl < qatīl II.B.a
-ā/ī II.B.c.4.2.2.2 qitl II.B.c.10.1.2
adjectival -ān II.B.c.5.1; II.B.b.6.3 qittil II.B.c.10.7
-ān II.B.c.11.4 qittīl II.B.c.10.8.3
Aram. -ā II.B.c.8.2 qtwl II.B.c.2
-at II.B.b.6.1; II.B.c.11.5 qul II.B.c.10.10.2
-ay II.B.b.3; II.B.b.3.1; qūl II.B.c.10.11.3
II.B.c.5.2.1; II.B.c.11.3 qull II.B.c.10.14.3
fāʿala stem (CA) II.A.a.1.γ qutal II.B.c.10.2.4
feminine marker -t- I.B qutāl II.B.c.10.6.5
-h II.B.c.11.1.2 qutayl II.B.c.10.5
-ī II.B.b.3; II.B.b.3.1; qutl II.B.c.4.2.1;
II.B.b.4.1; II.B.c.11.2 II.B.c.4.2.2.2;
-īt II.B.c.11.6 II.B.c.10.1.3
-īy II.B.c.11.2 qVl II.B.c.10.10
-īya II.B.c.4.2.1 qV:l II.B.c.10.11
maqtal II.B.c.8.2 qVll II.B.c.10.14
miquttal II.B.c.8.2 qVtl II.B.c.10.1
muquttal II.B.c.8.2 qVt(t)V:l II.B.c.10.8
314 Ran Zadok

qVt(V)l II.B.c.10.3 -w II.B.b

qVtVl II.B.c.2; II.B.c.10.2 -w/ʾ II.B.b
qVtV:l II.B.c.10.6 -w/y- II.B.b.3.1
-t/ø-doublettes I.A Wawation II.B
-t-ay II.B.c.11.8 -y II.A.g; II.B.b; II.B.b.3
-Vn + -ā II.A.g; II.B.c.11.9 -y/ʾ II.B.b
-Vt II.B.b.6.1; II.B.c.11.5
-(V)t-ā II.B.c.11.7
 Index of Quoted Ancient Texts

Akkadian ALD 5:8 77

BIN 1, 11 19 ALD 6:3–4 79
BIN 1, 34 22; 24; 30 ALD 11:1 79
BIN 1, 41 25 ALD 13:7–8 79
BIN 1, 46 26 Arad ostracon 41 143
BM 21998 189–90 Assur pithos 98
BM 26643 190–91 Babylonian Sotah 49b 64
BM 28929 191–92 Babylonian Talmud Gittin 14b 64
BM 29266 187–88 Hatran inscription H107 99
BM 29560 193 Jub 4:33 78
BM 29593 193 KAI 60 168
CT 49, 13 170 Papyrus Amherst 63, VI, 1–12 124
Hymn to Nanaya of Samsuiluna 107 Papyrus Amherst 63, VI, 12–18 125
SbB 2, 1 29 Papyrus Amherst 63, XII, 1–14 122
SbB 2, 35 19 Papyrus Amherst 63, XII, 11–19 123
SbB 2, 37 30 Papyrus Amherst 63, XVI, 1–6 126
SbB 2, 43 27 TDA 4, D15.4 140
SbB 2, 50 25
SbB 2, 51 30 Hebrew
SbB 2, 52 22; 24; 30 Exod 38:28 143
SbB 2, 86 24 Josh 10:24 125
SbB 2, 164 24 2 Kgs 17:30–31 101; 109
SbB 2, 166 26 Ezra 9–10 72
SbB 2, 176 25 Neh 13:23–31 72
SbB 2, 177 22 Job 16:17 124
TCL 9, 116 30 Ps 10:7 125
TCL 8, 118 25 Ps 20:2–10 122
YOS 3, 170 24 Ps 44:12, 23 124
YOS 3, 179 24 Ps 68:12 109
YOS 21, 27 22 Ps 68:13 109
YOS 21, 76 30 Ps 68:14 109
YOS 21, 139 27 Isa 41:9–10 125
YOS 21, 147 29 Isa 53:7, 9 124
Jer 11:19 124
Aramaic Jer 46:27–28 125
1Q20 10.13 77 Jer 48:13 127
4Q543 1.1 75 Ezek 39:17–18 125
4Q545 4.16–19 77 Dan 2:8 125
316 Index of Ancient Texts

Amos 5:4–5 126 Classic Sources

Tobit 7:12 79 Diodorus Siculus XIII: 46, 5 140
Diodorus Siculus XIX: 105, 4 150
Herodotus III: 96, 2 157
 Index of Personal Names 319

Bēl-aḫa-iddina (ch. of Basīya) 45 Bēl-iddina (f. of Ubāru) 47

Bēl-aḫḫē-erība (f. of Lā-abâši) 46 Bēl-ikṣur (ch. of Nabû-balāssu-iqbi) 45
Bēl-aḫḫē-iddina 50 Bēl-ikṣur (ch. of Tabnēa//Salamu) 54
Bēl-aḫḫē-iddina (f. of Tattannu) 47 Bēl-ina-kāri-lummir (f. of Zabdīya) 49
Bēl-ana-mēreḫti 49–50 Bēl-īpuš (ch. of Lāgamāl-iddina) 43
Bēl-apla-iddina (ch. of Šūzubu) 45 Bēl-īpuš (f. of Nidinti-Bēl) 46
Bēl-asûa (ch. of Bēl-ēṭir) 45 Bēl-iqīša (clan name) 57
Bēl-bullissu (f. of Bēl-kāṣir) 45 Bēl-iqīša (ch. of Bēl-rēmanni) 45
Bēl-bullissu (h. of fBulliṭiššu) 45 Bēl-iqīša (f. of Ḫaddāyu) 45
Bēl-bullissu (ch. of Šamaš-iqbi) 45 Bēl-iqīša (ch. of Nabû-(mu)kīn-apli
Bēl-ēreš (f. of Gimil-Šamaš) 45 //Ardi-Nergal) 54
Bēl-ēreš (ch. of Ina-Esaggila-šadûnu//Ēpeš-ilī, Bēl-ittannu 53; 54
h. of Kurunnu-tabban?) 54 Bēl-ittannu (ch. of Bēl-uballiṭ) 45
Bēl-ēreš (f. of Itti-Bēl-lummir) 46 Bēl-ittannu (f. of Iqūpu//Bēl-eṭēru) 55
Bēl-ēreš (ch. of Taqīš-Gula//Šangû Dilbat) 54 Bēl-ittannu (ch. of Itti-Šamaš-balāṭu) 45
Bēl-erība (ch. of Nabû-šuma-iddina//Šigûʾa) Bēl-ittannu (ch. of Marduk-šarra-uṣur) 47
54 Bēl-ittannu (ch. of Nidintu) 45
Bēl-erība (ch. of Šuma-iddina) 45 Bēl-ittannu (ch. of […]) 54
Bēlet-ilūa (ch. of Tattannu) 45 Bēl-kāṣir (ch. of Bēl-bullissu) 45
Bēlet-taddin (ch. of Aḫu-immē) 48 Bēl-kāṣir (ch. of Bēl-uballiṭ//Nappāḫu) 54
Bēl-eṭēru (clan name) 55; 57 Bēl-kāṣir (ch. of Iššar-apla-iddina) 49
Bēl-ēṭir (ch. of Aḫu-aqqa) 48 Bēl-kāṣir (ch. of Lā-abâši//[Rab]-bānê) 54
Bēl-ēṭir (ch. of Basīya) 53; 54 Bēl-kāṣir (ch. of Nabû-balāssu-iqbi) 45
Bēl-ēṭir (f. of Bēl-asûa) 45 Bēl-kāṣir (ch. of Sîn-idri) 48
Bēl-ēṭir (f. of Iddin-Nabû) 45 Bēl-lummir (ch. of Imbi-Sîn) 45
Bēl-ēṭir (ch. of Nidintu) 45 Bēl-nāʾid 19
Bēl-ēṭir-napšāti (f. of Nidintu) 46 Bēl-nipšara (f. of Bēl-iddina//Šarru-arazu) 54
Bēl-ibni 50 Bēl-nipšar[i] (ch. of [DN]-(mu)kīn-apli
Bēl-ibni (ch. of Adad-aḫa-uṣur) 45 //Ēpeš-ilī) 54
Bēl-ibni (ch. of Rēmūtu//Babūtu) 54 Bēl-rēmanni (ch. of Aplâ) 45
Bēl-ibni (f. of Uraš-ušallim//Rīšīya) 58 Bēl-rēmanni (f. of Bēl-iqīša) 45
Bēl-iddina (f. of Ardīya) 45 Bēl-rēmanni (ch. of Marduk-ēṭir) 45
Bēl-iddina (ch. of Bēl-nipšara//Šarru-arazu) Bēl-rēmanni (f. of Mušēzib-Bēl) 46
54 Bēl-rēman[ni … ] 54
Bēl-iddina (ch. of Bēlšunu) 45 Bēl-ṣarbi-aḫa-iddina (ch. of Ardi-Nabû) 45
Bēl-iddina (f. of Bēl-uballiṭ) 45 Bēl-ṣarbi-iqīša (ch. of Nabû-zēra-[x]) 45
Bēl-iddina (ch. of Bēl-uballiṭ//Itinnu) 54 Bēl-šimâni 52
Bēl-iddina (ch. of Bēl-zēru-līšir//Ēpeš-ilī) 54 Bēl-šimanni 53
Bēl-iddina (ch. of Būru-šēzib) 47 Bēl-šuma-iškun (f. of Ša-Nabû-idūšu
Bēl-iddina (f. of Kurunnu-tabban//Šangû-Ea) //Saggilāyu) 57
55 Bēlšunu (f. of Bēl-iddina) 45
Bēl-iddina (ch. of Lūṣi-ana-nūri) 45 Bēlšunu (f. of Dummuqu) 45
Bēl-iddina (ch. of Marduk) 45 Bēlšunu (f. of Erībâ) 45
Bēl-iddina (f. of Murašû//Dābibi) 56 Bēlšunu (ch. of Lā-abâši//[…]) 54
Bēl-iddina (f. of Nabû-bēl-napšāti) 46 Bēlšunu (ch. of Nabû-nāṣir) 45
Bēl-iddina (ch. of Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti) 45 Bēlšunu (f. of Rēmūtu) 46
Bēl-iddina (ch. of Nabû-nāṣir) 45 Bēlšunu (f. of Šamaš-iddina) 47
Bēl-iddina (ch. of Nabû-rēʾišunu) 45 Bēlšunu (f. of Uraš-šāpik-zēri//Rab-bānê) 58
Bēl-iddina (ch. of Nūrēa) 45 Bēl-uballiṭ 21
Bēl-iddina (f. of Rēmūtu) 46 Bēl-uballiṭ (ch. of Bēl-iddina) 45
Bēl-iddina (f. of Šuma-uṣur) 47 Bēl-uballiṭ (f. of Bēl-iddina//Itinnu) 54
320 Index of Personal Names

Bēl-uballiṭ (f. of Bēl-ittannu) 45 Btḥdšbh (ch. of ʾḥtʾ) 63

f
Bēl-uballiṭ (f. of Bēl-kāṣir//Nappāḫu) 54 Bulliṭiššu (ch. of Nādin-aḫi; w. of Bēl-
Bēl-uballiṭ (ch. of Lūṣi-ana-nūri//[…]) 54 bullissu) 45
Bēl-uballiṭ (f. of Marduk-(mu)kīn-apli) 46 Bulluṭ (ch. of Iddin-Bēl?) 45
Bēl-uballiṭ (ch. of Marduk-rēmanni) 45 Bulluṭ (ch. of Nabû-aḫa-iddina) 45
Bēl-uballiṭ (f. of Mukkê) 46 Bulluṭâ (ch. of Šamaš-zēra-ibni) 45
Bēl-uballiṭ (ch. of Murānu) 45 Bulṭâ (ch. of Basīya) 45
Bēl-uballiṭ (f. of Mušēzib-Marduk) 46 Bulṭâ (ch. of Ibnâ//Saggilāyu) 55
Bēl-uballiṭ (ch. of Nabû-šuma-iddin) 45 Bulṭâ (ch. of Kalbi-Bābu) 45
Bēl-uballiṭ (ch. of Nabû-šuma-iddina Bulṭâ (ch. of Širiktu//Sîn-udammiq) 55
//Ilūta-bani) 54 Bulṭâ (ch. of […]) 55
[Bēl?]-uballiṭ (ch. of [Nabû-uš]allim Bunene-ibni (f. of Bēl-zēri) 45
//Maštuku) 54 Bunene-ibni (f. of Iddin-Nabû) 45
Bēl-uballiṭ (f. of Naʾid-Bēl) 46 Bunene-ibni (f. of Nabû-bullissu) 46
Bēl-uballiṭ (f. of Rēmut-Bēl) 48 Bunene-ibni (ch. of Pān-[DN-li]mmir) 45
Bēl-uballiṭ (f. of Šamaš-ēṭir) 47 Bunene-zēra-ibni (ch. of Tabnēa) 45
Bēl-uballiṭ (f. of Ubāru//Burāqu) 57 Burāqu (clan name) 57
Bēl-upaḫḫir (ch. of Nabû-balāssu-iqbi Būr-ìl-A+A 50
//Šangû Dilbat) 54 Būru-rapā (ch. of Adad-[x]) 47
Bēl-upaḫḫir (f. of Nabû-rēʾûšunu//Bāʾiru) 56 Būru-šēzib (f. of Adad-bēl-siḫi(ḫ)ti) 47
Bēl-uṣranni (f. of Ardīya) 54 Būru-šēzib (f. of Bēl-iddina) 47
Bēl-uṣuršu (ch. of Nidintu) 53; 54 Būru-zēra-iddina (f. of Adad-aḫa-iddina) 47
Bēl-ušallim (f. of Marduk-iqīšanni Būṣu (clan name) 58
//Ātamar-anūssu) 55 Bytlnr 107
Bēl-ušallim (f. of Nabû-apla-iddina Bytlnwry 107
//Ātamar-anūssu) 56 Cambyses 41
Bēl-ušallim (ch. of Nabû-ēṭir//Allānu) 55 Cilles 173
Bēl-ušallim (f. of Niqūdu) 46 Cyrus 140
Bēl-zēri (f. of Arad-Uraš//Šigûʾa) 54 Dābibī (clan name) 52; 56; 59
Bēl-zēri (ch. of Bunene-ibni) 45 Dādīya (ch. of [x]-aḫḫē-iddin) 45;49
Bēl-zēri (f. of Nabû-balāssu-iqbi Da-ga-an-na-šarra-uṣur (f. of Nabû-bullissu)
//Šangû Dilbat) 56 50
Bēl-zēri (f. of Sūqāyu//Burāqu) 57 Daltanī (ch. of Abdi-Iššar) 48
Bēl-zēri (ch. of Uṣuršâ//Šigûʾa) 55 Damqa (clan name) 56
Bēl-zēru-līšir (f. of Bēl-iddina//Ēpeš-ilī) 54 Daniel 86
Bēl-[x] (ch. of Ṭāb-gurru) 48 Da-pa-ap-si-in-˻du 51
Betheldalani 127 Darius I 193
Bethelnathan (ch. Yehonathan) 127 Darius II 127
Bethelnuri 127 Darius III 148; 167; 169
Bi?-še-ta-ia (f. of Kululu) 49 Ddbh 63
Bīt-il-gūzu (f. of Iddinâ) 45 De-ki-ri (f. of Nabû-tukkulu) 50
Bīt-il-gūzu (f. of Šamaš-balāṭu) 48 Delaiah (ch. of Sanballat) 126
Bīt-il-šarra-uṣur (f. of Mār-bīti-iddina) 47 Demetrius 174
Bīt-il-šarra-uṣur (ch. of Nabû-rapā) 48 Diodorus Siculus 173–74
Brgll (ch. of Dwdy) 64 Donald Trump 12
Brkyš<m>šy (ch. of Šyltʾ) 64 Dummuqu (ch. of Bēlšunu) 45
Brndwk (f. of Srgys) 63 Dummuqu (f. of Erībâ) 45
Bršbty 64 Dwdʾy (f. of Gnybʾ) 64
Bršptʾ or Bršbtʾ (ch. of ʾḥtʾbw) 63 Dwdy (ch. of Mrtʾ, f. of Brgll and Mhwy) 64
Brykyhbyh (ch. of Mrt) 63 Ea?-dan (clan name) 58
Brymʾ or Brʿmʾ (ch. of ʿzndwkt) 63 Ea-dayyān 27
 Index of Personal Names 321

(Ea)-Ēpeš-ilī (clan name) 49; 51; 53–57 Gūzānu (ch. of Kiribtu) 45

Ea-ibni (clan name) 55 Gūzānu (f. of Nabû-aḫa-ittannu//La-kip-ru-ri)
Ea-iddina (ch. of Nabû-mušētiq-ūdê) 45 56
Ea-ilu (clan name) 53; 56 Gūzānu (ch. of Rēmūtu) 45
Ea-imbi (clan name) 56 Gūzu-ina-Bēl-aṣbat (ch. of Itti-Šamaš-balāṭu)
Ea-lēʾi (f. of Nabû-ittannu//Sūḫāyu) 56 45
Ea-qarrād (clan name) 59 Gwrytʾ (f. of ʾḥtʾ ṭbwh, ʾymy, and ʾšrḥy) 64
Ea-qarrād-ilī (clan name) 52; 55–58 Haggagu (ch. of Baalsamak) 175–76
Ea-šuma-uṣur (f. of Nabû-ittannu) 46 Ham 76; 79
Ea-zēra-iqīša (f. of Balāṭu) 45 Harīṣānu (ch. of Anu-šeʾe) 45
Edrâ (ch. of Am-dādī) 48 Harnuninapirru 97
Edrâ (f. of Šamšāyu) 48 Hoshea (ch. of Peteknuhm) 72
Egibi (clan name) 41; 44; 53; 56 Hwnyq (ch. of Ddbh and Šrqwy) 63
Emzera 78 Ḥammu 143
d
+EN-na (f. of Rēmūtu//Šanga x) 57 Ḥṭyb 64
Enoch 73; 74; 76–78; 80; 86 Ḫabaṣīru (ch. of Ana-Nabû-ēreš) 45
Erībâ (ch. of Bēlšunu) 45 Ḫaddâ (f. of Basīya) 45
Erībâ (ch. of Dummuqu) 45 Ḫaddāya (ch. of Yaḫu-qām) 49
Erībâ (ch. of Tattannu) 45 Ḫaddāyu (ch. of Bēl-iqīša) 45
Erība-Iššar (f. of Iššar-rēmanni) 49 Ḫa-am-ba-qu 41
Erība-Marduk (f. of Marduk-šuma-iddina// Ḫammāyu (clan name) 57
Sîn-udammiq) 55 Ḫa-am-tu-ʾ (f. of A-ra-al-tu4) 38
Erība-Marduk (ch. of Nidinti-Marduk) 45 Ḫanṭašu (f. of Nidintu) 48
Ēribu (clan name) 58 Ḫanūnu (ch. of Aḫḫēšu) 49
Esarhaddon 96; 103; 126 Ḫa-ri-im-ma-ʾ (ch. of Ḫašdâ) 51
Etellu (f. of Iqīša-Uraš//Ṭābiḫu) 55 Ḫašdâ (f. of Ḫa-ri-im-ma-ʾ) 51
Ēṭeru (clan name) 57 Ḫašdāyu (f. of Amurru-šarra-uṣur) 21
Eulmašāyu (ch. of Kalbâ) 45 Ḫašdāyu (ch. of Iddin-Marduk) 45
Evagoras 140 Ḫašdāyu (ch. of Nabû-bēl-aḫḫēšu) 45
Ezida-(mu)kīn-apli (f. of Mušēzib-Marduk// Ḫašdāyu (f. of Nabû-bullissu) 46
Maṣṣar-abulli) 56 Ḫašdāyu (ch. of Nabû-ittannu) 45
Gabbi-bēlumma (ch. of Nabû-zabadu) 48 Ḫašdāyu (ch. of Nabû-(mu)kīn-apli) 45
Gabbi-ina-qātē-Šamaš (f. of Ìl-ha-na-nu) 59 Ḫašdāyu (ch. of Nabû-silim) 45
Gabrī-[x] (f. of f[x]-a) 49 Ḫašdāyu (f. of Nādinu) 46
Gaḫal 35 Ḫašdāyu (ch. of Nergal-uballiṭ) 45
Gershom 77 Ḫašdāyu (ch. of Šāpik-zēri//Šangû Dilbat) 55
Geshem (f., of Qaynu) 140 Ḫimārīya (f. of Tattannu) 48
Gilūa 35 Ḫunnubat-Nanaya 96
Gimillu (f. of Šāpik-zēri//Ea-qarrād-ilī) 57 Ḫūru (f. of Man(nu)-kī-Nanāya) 97
Gimillu (ch. of Šuma-ukīn//Itinnu) 57 Ḫutnīya (f. of [x]) 49
Gimil-Šamaš (f. of Ardi-Bunene) 45 Ibnâ (f. of Bulṭâ//Saggilāyu) 55
Gimil-Šamaš (f. of Ardi-Gula) 45 Ibnâ (f. of Nabû-šuma-ukīn//Ibni-ilu) 56
Gimil-Šamaš (ch. of Bēl-ēreš) 45 Ibnâ (f. of Nabû-šuma-ukīn//Šangû Dilbat) 56
Gimil-Šamaš (f. of Šamaš-kāṣir) 47 Ibnâ (f. of Šamaš-ēṭir) 47
Gimil-Šamaš (ch. of Šamaš-udammiq) 45 Ibnāya 30
Glgl/Glgwl 145 Ibni-ilu (clan name) 56
Gnybʾ (ch. of Dwdʾy) 64 Iddinâ (ch. of Bīt-il-gūzu) 45
Grygwr (ch. of ʾḥtʾ) 63 Iddinâ (ch. of Kī-Sîn) 45
Gula-zēra-ibni (f. of Na[bû?-aḫ]ḫē?-iddina// Iddinâ (ch. of Lā-abâši) 45
Irʾanni) 56 Iddinâ (ch. of Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti) 45
Gūzānu (f. of Arammāyu) 54 Iddinâ (f. of Nabû-iddina//Šangû parakki) 56
322 Index of Personal Names

Iddinâ (f. of Nabû-ittannu//Šangû Adad) 56 Ilūta-bani (clan name) 54

Iddinâ (ch. of Napištu) 45 Imbi-Sîn (f. of Bēl-lummir) 45
Iddinâ (f. of Nergal-aba-uṣur) 46 Ina-Eaggila-bēlet (ch. of Iddin-Nabû
Iddin-Bēl 26 //Nannautu, w. of Nabû-šuma-ukīn) 53; 55;
Iddin-Bēl (ch. of Aḫḫē-erība?) 45 56
Iddin-Bēl? (or Iddin-Nabû?) (f. of Bulluṭ) 45 Ina-Esaggila-šadûnu (f. of Bēl-ēreš//Ēpeš-ilī)
Iddin-Bēl (ch. of Itti-Bēl-lummir) 45 54
Iddin-Bēl (f. of Nabû-ittannu) 46 Ina-Eaggila-šadûnu (f. of Pirʾu//Ēpeš-ilī, gf. of
Iddin-Bēl (ch. of Nabû-tabni-uṣur) 45 Ardi-Nergal) 54
Iddin-Bēl (ch. of Šuma-ukīn) 45 Ina-ṣilli-Bēl (ch. of Niqūdu) 46
Iddin-Bēl (ch. of Zabdīya) 48 Ina-ṣilli-šarri (f. of Nabû-ittannu) 47
Iddin-Dagan 108 Iprīya (f. of Nabû-kāṣir) 46
Iddin-Marduk (f. of Ḫašdāyu) 45 Ipšaru (clan name) 36
Iddin-Marduk (f. of Nabû-nādin-aḫi) 46 Iqbi-ilu (f. of Šulum-Bābili) 47
Iddin-Nabû (ch. of A-qa-bi-ia) 55 Iqīšâ of Mankisu 50–51
Iddin-Nabû (ch. of Bēl-ēṭir) 45 Iqīša (f. of Nabû-šuma-iškun) 46
Iddin-Nabû (ch. of Bunene-ibni) 45 Iqīša (f. of Zērīya//Šigûʾa) 58
Iddin-Nabû (f. of Ina-Eaggila-bēlet//Nannautu) Iqīša-Uraš (ch. of Etellu//Ṭābiḫu) 55
55 Iqūpu (ch. of Bēl-ittannu//Bēl-eṭēru) 55
Iddin-Nabû (ch. of Kīnâ) 45 Iqūpu (ch. of Lāgamāl-iddina//Šangû Dilbat)
Iddin-Nabû (ch. of Mādu-ilī) 45 55
Iddin-Nabû (ch. of Nabû-aḫḫē-bulliṭ//Irʾanni) Iqūpu (f. of Muraššû) 46
55 Iqūpu (ch. of Nabû-napšātu) 46
Iddin-Nabû (f. of Nabû-ēṭir) 46 Irʾanni (clan name) 55; 56
Iddin-Nabû (ch. of Nabû-šuma-uṣur//Ea-ibni) Isaac 76–77; 79
55 Išparu (clan name) 36
Iddin-Nabû (ch. of Nabû-šuma-uṣur//Itinnu) Iššar-apla-iddina (f. of Bēl-kāṣir) 49
55 Iššar-bēl-ilī (ch. of Iššar-lēʾi) 49
Iddin-Nabû (ch. of Nabû-talīma-uṣur) 46 Iššar-lēʾi (f. of Iššar-bēl-ilī) 49
Iddin-Nabû (ch. of Nādinu[?]) 46 Iššar-rēmanni (ch. of Erība-Iššar) 49
Iddin-Nabû (ch. of Nergal-nāṣir//Nūr-ilīšu) 55 Ištame-abūšu (ch. of Nusku-allā) 48
Iddin-Nabû (ch. of Pirʾu//Nanna[utu]) 55 Itinnu 52
Iddin-Nabû (ch. of Šamaš-erība) 46 Itinnu (clan name) 52; 54; 55; 57
Iddin-Nabû (f. of Šamaš-erība) 47 Itti-Bēl-lummir (ch. of Bēl-ēreš) 46
Iddin-Nabû (ch. of Šulâ) 46 Itti-Bēl-lummir (f. of Iddin-Bēl) 45
Iddin-Nabû (ch. of Šuma-iddina) 46 Itti-Nabû-balāṭu (f. of Aḫu-iddin-[x]) 45
Iddin-Nabû (ch. of Tattannu) 46 Itti-Nabû-balāṭu (f. of Aḫūšunu) 45
Iddin-Nabû (ch. of Zuzūʾa) 46 Itti-Nabû-balāṭu (ch. of Nabû-erība) 46
Iddin-Uraš (ch. of Kīnâ//Ea-qarrād-ilī) 55 Itti-Nabû-balāṭu (f. of Nādinu) 46
Iddin-Uraš (ch. of Kīnâ//Sîn-ilu) 55 Itti-Nabû-balāṭu (//Šigûʾa) 58
Iddīya (ch. of Napsānu) 48 Itti-Nabû-balāṭu (f. of Zērīya//Ēribu) 58
Iddīya (f. of Nidintu//Šangû Ištar-Bābili) 57 Itti-Nabû-gūzu (f. of Nabû-bēlšunu) 46
Iddīya (ch. of Tattannu) 46 Itti-Nabû-gūzu (ch. of Nabû-šarra-uṣur) 51
Idī-il (f. of Aḫu-līti) 48 Itti-Šamaš-balāṭu (f. of Bēl-ittannu) 45
Ìl-ha-na-nu (ch. of Gabbi-ina-qātē-Šamaš) 59 Itti-Šamaš-balāṭu (f. of Gūzu-ina-Bēl-aṣbat)
Il-ḫāri (f. of Barīk-il) 48 45
Il-ḫāri (f. of Nusku-iddina) 48 Itti-Šamaš-balāṭu (ch. of Nergal-uballiṭ) 46
Ìl-ma-a-˹du (f. of Ú-˹qu-ba-nu) 51 Jacob 74
Ilteri-aḫab (f. of Adad-šarra-uṣur) 48 Jacob of Sarug 100
Ilu-iḫbit-iddina (ch. of Nabû-aḫa-ereš) 46 Japheth 76; 79
Ilu-iḫbit-iddina (ch. of Rēmūtu) 46 Jonathan 84
 Index of Personal Names 323

Joseph, Rav 64 Lā-abâši (f. of Bēlšunu//[…]) 54

Judah the Maccabee 84 Lā-abâši (f. of Iddinâ) 45
Kabtīya (f. of Šamaš -iddina and Šullumu Lā-abâša (ch. of Kīnâ//Rab-bānê, br. of Uraš-
//Šangû Dilbat) 53; 54 bēl-šamê) 55
Kalbâ (f . of Andaḫar) 45 Lā-abâši (ch. of Kīnâ//Šangû Dilbat) 55
Kalbâ (f. of Eulmašāyu) 45 Lā-abâši (f. of Nabû-bullissu) 46
Kalbâ (f. of Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti) 46 Lā-abâši (f. of Nabû-kuṣuršu) 46
Kalbâ (f. of Nabû-gāmil) 46 Lā-abâši (f. of Šamaš-kāṣir) 47
Kalbâ (ch. of Nabû-rēssu) 46 Lā-abâši (ch. of Nidinti-Bēl//Ša-ṭābtīšu) 55
Kalbâ (f. of Nidintu) 46 Lā-abâši (f. of Nidintu//Ēpeš-ilī) 57
Kalbâ (f. of Ṣarbatu-aḫa-iddina) 47 Lā-abâši (f. of Nidintu//Šangû Dilbat) 57
Kalbi-Bābu (f. of Bulṭâ) 45 Lā-abâši (ch. of Šuma-uṣur//Saggilāyu) 55
Kalbi-Bābu (ch. of Rēmūtu//Šangû Dilbat) 55 Laban 79
Kalbīya (ch. of Ardīya) 46 Laetu 35
Kanishka 99 [Lāgamāl?]-erība (ch. of Kīnâ//[ …]) 55
Kardīr 60; 61 Lāgamāl-iddina (ch. of Uraš-iddina, f. of Bēl-
Kidinnu (ch. of Mušēzib-Marduk) 46 īpuš) 43
Kīnâ (f. of Ap(i)ladu-zēra-ibni) 51 Lāgamāl-iddina (f. of Iqūpu//Šangû Dilbat) 55
Kīnâ (f. of Iddin-Nabû) 45 Lāgamāl-iddina (ch. of Šamaš-šuma-uṣur
Kīnâ (f. of Iddin-Uraš//Ea-qarrād-ilī) 55 //Bēl-eṭēru) 55
Kīnâ (f. of Iddin-Uraš//Sîn-ilu) 55 La-kip-ru(or šub)-ri (clan name) 56
Kīnâ (f. of Lā-abâša and Uraš-bēl-šamê//Rab- Lamech 77
bānê) 55 Lā-qīpu (ch. of Šamšāyu) 46
Kīnâ (f. of Lā-abâši//Šangû Dilbat) 55 Levi 75; 76; 77; 79
Kīnâ (f. of [Lāgamāl?]-erība//[ …]) 55 Libluṭ (ch. of Arad-Uraš) 53; 55
Kīnâ (f. of Uraš-bēl-šamê and Lā-abâša//Rab- Libluṭ (ch. of Bānīya) 46
bānê) 52; 57 Libluṭ (f. of Nabû-dūra-ukīn) 46
Kīnâ (f. of Uraš-ēṭir//Rab-bānê) 57 Linūḫ-libbi-ilī (f. of Marduk-erība) 46
Kīnâ (f. of Uraš-kāṣir//Basīya) 58 Līšir (f. of Nabû-aḫḫē-iddina) 46
Kinūnāya (ch. of Pēṭiʾu) 97 Līšir (f. of Ṭābīya) 47
Kiribtu (f. of Gūzānu) 45 Lullâ (ch. of Zabdīya) 49
Kiribtu (f. of Saggillu) 47 Lūṣi-ana-nūri (f. of Bēl-iddina) 45
Kiribtu (f. of Sūqāyu) 47 Lūṣi-ana-nūri (f. of Bēl-uballiṭ//[…]) 54
[Kiri]btu? (ch. of Zērīya//Itinnu) 55 Madānu-iqīša (ch. of Rēmūt-Bābu) 46
Ki-ri-PI-šú < Kirwaš? (f. of Nidinti-Bēl) 49 Mādu-ilī (f. of Iddin-Nabû) 45
Kirta 103 Māḫ-ādur Gušnasp 63
Kī-Sîn (f. of Iddinâ) 45 Mahseyah (f. of Mivtahiah) 72
Kī-Sîn (f. of Niqūdu) 46 Makkibanit 100
Kudurru (ch. of Nabû-nāṣir) 26 Mandidu (clan name) 52; 57; 58
Kululu (ch. of Bi?-še-ta-ia) 49 Man(nu)-kī-Nanāya (ch. of Ḫūru) 97
Kurunnu-tabban (ch. of Bēl-iddina//Šangû Ea, Mār-bīti-iddina (ch. of Bīt-il-šarra-uṣur) 47
w. of Bēl-ēreš?) 53; 54 Mār-bīti-iddina (//Ilīya) 58
Kuṣurrâ (ch. of A-qa-bi-ia) 55 Marduk (f. of Bēl-iddina) 45
Kuṣurrâ (ch. of Ardi-Bēl) 53; 55 Marduk (ch. of Nannūtu) 46
Ku-šá-A+A (f. of Nabû-uballiṭ) 42 Marduk-bēl-ilī (f. of Mušēzib-Marduk) 46
Kutir-Nahhunte I 96 Marduk-ēreš (ch. of Nabû-(mu)kīn-apli) 46
Kwpyty (Ddbh and Šrqwy) 63 Marduk-erība (//Babūtu) 58
[Lā-ab]âši (ch. of Ardi-Bēl//Maṣṣar-abulli) 55 Marduk-erība (ch. of Linūḫ-libbi-ilī) 46
Lā-abâši (ch. of Basīya) 46 Marduk-ēṭir 20; 28
Lā-abâši (ch. of Bēl-aḫḫē-erība) 46 Marduk-ēṭir (f. of Bēl-rēmanni) 45
Lā-abâši (f. of Bēl-kāṣir//[Rab]-bānê) 54 Marduk-ēṭir (f. of Nidinti-Bēl) 46
324 Index of Personal Names

Marduk-ēṭir (f. of Tattannu) 47 Murā[nu?] (ch. of […]ri//Salamu) 55

Marduk-iqīšanni (ch. of Bēl-ušallim//Ātamar- Muraššû (ch. of Iqūpu) 46
anūssu) 55 Murašû (ch. of Bēl-iddina//Dābibi) 56
Marduk-(mu)kīn-apli (ch. of Bēl-uballiṭ) 46 Mušallim-Marduk (ch. of Nūrēa//Šangû Nanâ)
Marduk-(mu)kīn-apli (ch. of Šēru-ḫanan) 48 56
Marduk-nāṣir 20 Mušēzib-Bēl (ch. of Amurru-šarrani) 46
Marduk-rēmanni (clan name) 44 Mušēzib-Bēl (ch. of Bēl-rēmanni) 46
Marduk-rēmanni (f. of Bēl-uballiṭ) 45 Mušēzib-Bēl (ch. of Zabdīya) 48
Marduk-rēmanni (ch. of Marduk-šuma-ibni Mušēzib-Marduk (ch. of Bēl-uballiṭ) 46
//Basīya) 55 Mušēzib-Marduk (ch. of Ezida-(mu)kīn-apli
Marduk-šarra-uṣur (f. of Bēl-ittannu) 47 //Maṣṣar-abulli) 56
Marduk-šuma-ibni (f. of Marduk-rēmanni Mušēzib-Marduk (f. of Kidinnu) 46
//Basīya) 55 Mušēzib-Marduk (ch. of Marduk-bēl-ilī) 46
Marduk-šuma-ibni (ch. of […]-Uraš//Ea-ēpeš- Mušēzib-Nabû (ch. of [x]-zēra-ibni) 46
ilī) 55 Mušēzi[b…] 58
Marduk-šuma-iddina (ch. of Erība-Marduk Mutēriṣu (f. of Zēr-Bābili) 47
//Sîn-udammiq) 55 Nabonidus 21; 140
Marduk-šuma-iddina (ch. of Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti Nabopolassar 19
//Babūtu) 55 Nabû-A+A-lu-na-ta-nu 41
Marduk-šuma-uṣur 20 Nabû-aḫa-ēreš (f. of Aḫu-lūmur) 26
Marduk-šuma-uṣur (//Šumu-libši) 58 Nabû-aḫa-ereš (f. of Ilu-iḫbit-iddina) 46
Marduk-zēra-ibni 20 Nabû-aḫa-iddina (f. of Ardīya) 59
Marduk-zēra-ibni (ch. of Šumâ//Rab-bānê) 55 Nabû-aḫa-iddina (f. of Bulluṭ) 45
Marduk-zēra?-uṣur (f. Nabû-bullissu//Šigûʾa) Nabû-aḫa-iddina (ch. of Nanâ-ēreš) 25–26
56 Nabû-aḫa-iqīša (ch. of Basūru) 46
Mareshah III 236 Nabû-(aḫa)-ittannu (h. of Amti-Bābu) 53; 54
Maṣṣar-abulli (clan name) 55; 56 Nabû-aḫa-ittannu (ch. of Gūzānu//La-kip-ru-ri)
Maštuku (clan name) 54; 57; 58 56
Melcha 79 Nabû-aḫa-ittannu (f. of Nidintu//Ḫammāyu)
Melišipak 96 57
Merodoch-Baladan I 95 Nabû-aḫa-[x] (f. of Nidinti-Bēl) 46
Mēšoy (f. of ʿAbdi-Raḥmān) 63 Nabû-aḫḫē-bulliṭ (f. of Iddin-Nabû//Irʾanni)
Methuselah 77 55
Mhdwk (ch. of Ddbh and Šrqwy) 63 Nabû-aḫḫē-bulliṭ (f. of […(DN)]-ēṭir-napšāti
Mhwy (ch. of Dwdy) 64 //Rēšūa) 55
Miriam 80 Nabû-aḫḫē-iddin 20; 28–29
Mivtahiah (ch. of Mahseyah) 72 Na[bû?-aḫ]ḫē?-iddina (ch. of Gula-zēra-ibni
Moses 79 //Irʾanni) 56
Mrbh (ch. of ʾḥtʾ) 63 Nabû-aḫḫē-iddina (ch. of Līšir) 46
Mrt (f. of Brykyhbyh) 63 Nabû-aḫḫē-iddina (ch. of Nanâ-ēreš) 25–26
Mrtʾ (f. of Dwdy) 64 Nabû-aḫḫē-šullim (//Balāṭu) 58
Mrty (f. of ʾdy and Ḥyyn) 64 Nabû-apla-iddina (ch. of Bēl-ušallim//Ātamar-
Mṭryʾ (ch. of Qymt) 63 anūssu) 56
Mucayn 60 Nabû-apla-iddina (ch. of Nabû-šuma-uṣur) 46
Mukkê (ch. of Bēl-uballiṭ) 46 Nabû-apla-iddina (f. of Rēmūtu) 46
Munnabitu (clan name) 55 Nabû-apla-iddina (ch. of Rēmūt-Bēl//Ea-ilu)
Munaḫḫiš-Marduk (ch. of Sūqāyu) 46 53; 56
Murānu (f. of Bēl-uballiṭ) 45 Nabû-balāssu-iqbi 20
Murānu (f. of Nabû-uṣuršu//Bēl-iqīša) 57 Nabû-balāssu-iqbi (f. of Aplâ//Šangû Ninurta)
Murānu (ch. of Ṣillâ//Munnabitu) 55 54
Murānu (ch. of Zuzūʾa) 46 Nabû-balāssu-iqbi (f. of Bēl-ikṣur) 45
 Index of Personal Names 325

Nabû-balāssu-iqbi (f. of Bēl-upaḫḫir//Šangû Nabû-ittannu (ch. of Iddinâ//Šangû Adad) 56

Dilbat) 54 Nabû-ittannu (ch. of Iddin-Bēl) 46
Nabû-balāssu-iqbi (ch. of Bēl-zēri//Šangû Nabû-ittannu (ch. of Ina-ṣilli-šarri) 47
Dilbat) 56 Nabû-ittannu (ch. of Nabû-kīn-šarrūssu) 47
Nabû-balāssu-iqbi (f. of Nabû?-[x]-aḫi) 46 Nabû-ittannu (ch. of Nabû-rēmanni) 46
Nabû-balāssu-iqbi (f. of Ribāta) 47 Nabû-ittannu (ch. of Nādinu//Damqa) 56
Nabû-bān-aḫi 29 Nabû-ittannu (//Sîn-tabni-uṣur) 56
Nabû-bēl-aḫḫēšu (f. of Ḫašdāyu) 45 Nabû-ittannu (ch. of Šadûnu) 46
Nabû-bēl-napšāti (ch. of Bēl-iddina) 46 Nabû-ittannu (ch. of Šamaš-šarra-uṣur) 47
Nabû-bēlšunu (ch. of Itti-Nabû-gūzu) 46 Nabû-ittannu (ch. of Šulum-šarri) 53; 56
Nabû-bēlšunu (f. of Šamaš-kāṣir) 47 Nabû-ittannu (ch. of Uraš-aḫḫē-iddina//Šangû
Nabû-bēlšunu (f. of […]-Marduk//Būṣu) 58 Dilbat) 57
Nabû-bullissu 56 Nabû-ittannu (ch. of Uraš-kāṣir//Dābibi) 52;
Nabû-bullissu (ch. of Ardi-Nergal//Asû) 56 56
Nabû-bullissu (ch. of Bunene-ibni) 46 Nabû-kāṣir (ch. of Iprīya) 46
Nabû-bullissu (ch. of Da-ga-an-na-šarra-uṣur) Nabû-kāṣir (ch. of Nabû-šuma-iškun) 46
50 Nabû-kīn-šarrūssu (f. of Nabû-ittannu) 47
Nabû-bullissu (ch. of Ḫašdāyu) 46 Nabû-kuṣuršu (ch. of Lā-abâši) 46
Nabû-bullissu (ch. of Lā-abâši) 46 Nabû-lamā (ch. of Ni?-[x]) 49
Nabû-bullissu (ch. of Marduk-zēra?-uṣur Nabû-lū-salim (ch. of Rēḫētu) 46
//Šigûʾa) 56 Nabû-lū-šulum (ch. of Sūqāyu) 46
Nabû-bullissu (ch. of Nidintu//Naggāru) 56 Nabû-mār-šarri-uṣur 42
Nabû-bullissu (//Nurzānu) 56 Nabû-milkī (f. of Tattannu) 48
Nabû-bullissu (ch. of Rēmūtu//Ea-imbi) 56 Nabû-(mu)kīn-apli (f. of Bēl-iqīša
Nabû-bullissu (ch. of Sîn-aḫa-iddina) 46 //Ardi-Nergal) 54
Nabû-bullissu (ch. of Šamaš-ēṭir//Ēpeš-ilī) 56 Nabû-(mu)kīn-apli (f. of Ḫašdāyu) 45
Nabû-dūra-ukīn (ch. of Libluṭ) 46 Nabû-(mu)kīn-apli (f. of Marduk-ēreš) 46
Nabû-ēreš (f. of Nabû-šuma-ukīn) 46 Nabû-(mu)kīn-apli (f. of Nergal-šuma-iddina)
Nabû-ēreš (f. of Ša-Nabû-šū) 47 46
Nabû-erība (f. of Itti-Nabû-balāṭu) 46 Nabû-mušētiq-udê 20
Nabû-ēṭir (ch. of Aplâ) 46 Nabû-mušētiq-ūdê (f. of Ea-iddina) 45
Nabû-ēṭir (f. of Bēl-ušallim//Allānu) 55 Nabû-mušētiq-ūdê (f. of Šamaš-ēreš) 47
Nabû-ēṭir (ch. of Iddin-Nabû) 46 Nabû-mušētiq-ūdê (ch. of Šuma-ukīn
Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti 19–21; 28–31 //Ea-qarrād-ilī) 56
Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti (f. of Bēl-iddina) 45 Nabû-nādin-aḫi (ch. of Iddin-Marduk) 46
Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti (f. of Iddinâ) 45 Nabû-nādin-aḫi (ch. of Šamaš-ēṭir) 46
Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti (ch. of Kalbâ) 46 Nabû-nādin-šumi (aka Nādin) 20; 22; 28–31
Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti (f. of Marduk-šuma-iddina Nabû-napšātu (f. of Iqūpu) 46
//Babūtu) 55 Nabû-nāṣir (f. of Bēl-iddina) 45
Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti (ch. of Nabû-šuma-iškun) Nabû-nāṣir (f. of Bēlšunu) 45
46 Nabû-nāṣir (f. of Kudurru) 26
Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti (f. of Šamaš-iddina) 47 Nabû-nāṣir (f. of Nabû-uballiṭ) 46
Nabû-gāmil (ch. of Kalbâ) 46 Nabû-ramnīšu (f. of Bēl-ab-ra-DÙ) 45
Nabû-iddina (ch. of Arad-Uraš//Šangû Dilbat) Nabû-rapā (f. of Bīt-il-šarra-uṣur) 48
56 Nabû-rēʾišunu (f. of Bēl-iddina) 45
Nabû-iddina (ch. of Iddinâ//Šangû parakki) 56 Nabû-rēmanni (f. of Ab-di-dŠÁR˺) 51
Nabû-iddina (f. of Nidintu//Andaḫar) 57 Nabû-rēmanni (ch. of Balāssu//Šangû Sîn) 56
Nabû-ittannu 53; 56 Nabû-rēmanni (f. of Nabû-ittannu) 46
Nabû-ittannu (ch. of Ea-lēʾi//Sūḫāyu) 56 Nabû-rēmanni (f. of Ša-Nabû-šū) 47
Nabû-ittannu (ch. of Ea-šuma-uṣur) 46 Nabû-rēssu (f. of Kalbâ) 46
Nabû-ittannu (f. of Ḫašdāyu) 45 Nabû-rēʾûšunu (ch. of Bēl-upaḫḫir//Bāʾiru) 56
326 Index of Personal Names

Nabû-silim (f. of Ḫašdāyu) 45 Nabû-ušallim (f. of Nergal-aḫa-iddina) 51

Nabû-ṣābit-qātē (f. of Talīmu) 47 Nabû-ušallim (f. of Nidintu//Šangû Nanâ) 53;
Nabû-šarra-uṣur (f. of Itti-Nabû-gūzu) 51 57
Nabû-šuma-iddina (f. of Bēl-erība//Šigûʾa) 54 Nabû-ušallim (//Šangû Nanâ) 57
Nabû-šuma-iddin (f. of Bēl-uballiṭ) 45 Nabû-ušallim (f. of Uraš-aḫḫē-iddina
Nabû-šuma-iddina (f. of Bēl-uballiṭ //Maštuku) 54; 57
//Ilūta-bani) 54 Nabû-ušēzib (f. of Nabû-tukulti-ēdi) 46
Nabû-šuma-iddina (f. of Nabû-zēra-ibni Nabû-zabadu (f. of Gabbi-bēlumma) 48
//Šangû Adad) 57 Nabû-zabadu (ch. of Zabdīya) 48
Nabû-šuma-iddina (f. of Šamšāyu) 47 Nabû-zāqip 20
Nabû-šuma-iškun (ch. of Iqīša) 46 Nabû-zēra-ēreš (ch. of Šamaš-iddina) 46
Nabû-šuma-iškun (f. of Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti) 46 Nabû-zēra-ibni (ch. of Nabû-šuma-iddina
Nabû-šuma-iškun (f. of Nabû-kāṣir) 46 //Šangû Adad) 57
Nabû-šuma-iškun (f. of Nidintu) 46 Nabû-zēra-iqīša (f. of Nabû-šuma-ukīn//Egibi)
Nabû-šuma-iškun (f. of Šamaš-iddina) 47 56
Nabû-šuma-iškun (ch. of Šamaš-kāṣir) 46 Nabû-zēra-[x] (f. of Bēl-ṣarbi-iqīša) 45
Nabû-šuma-iškun (f. of Ṭābīya) 47 Nabû-zuqup-ēdi (f. of Nidinti-Bēl) 46
Nabû-šuma-iškun (f. of […]-Uraš//Šangû-Ea) Nabû?-[x]-aḫi (ch. of Nabû-balāssu-iqbi) 46
58 Nadav 77
Nabû-šuma-ukīn (ch. of Ibnâ//Ibni-ilu) 56 Nādin, see Nabû-nādin-šumi (aka Nādin)
Nabû-šuma-ukīn (ch. of Ibnâ//Šangû Dilbant) Nādin-aḫi (f. of fBulliṭiššu) 45
56 Nādin-aḫi (ch. of Šamaš-ēṭir) 46
Nabû-šuma-ukīn (ch. of Nabû-ēreš) 46 Nādinu (ch. of Ḫašdāyu) 46
Nabû-šuma-ukīn (ch. of Nabû-zēra-iqīša Nādinu[?] (f. of Iddin-Nabû) 46
//Egibi, h. of Ina-Esaggila-bēlet) 56 Nādinu (ch. of Itti-Nabû-balāṭu) 46
Nabû-šuma-ukīn (ch. of Sūqāyu//Sîn-tabni- Nādinu (f. of Nabû-ittannu//Damqa) 56
uṣur) 56 Nādinu (f. of Yadī(ḫ)-il) 49
Nabû-šuma-uṣur (f. of Iddin-Nabû//Ea-ibni) Naggāru (clan name) 56
55 Naʾid-Bēl (ch. of Amurru-šarra-uṣur) 47
Nabû-šuma-uṣur (f. of Iddin-Nabû//Itinnu) 55 Naʾid-Bēl (ch. of Bēl-uballiṭ) 46
Nabû-šuma-uṣur (f. of Nabû-apla-iddina) 46 Nanâ 143
Nabû-tabni-uṣur (f. of Iddin-Bēl) 45 Nanâ-ēreš (f. of Nabû-aḫa-iddin) 25
Nabû-talīma-uṣur (f. of Iddin-Nabû) 46 Nanâ-iddin 25
Nabû-tukkulu (ch. of De-ki-ri) 50 Nanaiḥem 100
Nabû-tukulti-ēdi (f. of Balāṭu) 45 Nanaišuri 100
Nabû-tukulti-ēdi (ch. of Nabû-ušēzib) 46 Nanâ-šuma-uṣrī 45
Nabû-uballiṭ (ch. of Ardi-Nabû) 46 Nanna[utu] (clan name) 55
Nabû-uballiṭ (ch. of Ku-šá-A+A) 42 Nannūtu (f. of Marduk) 46
Nabû-uballiṭ (ch. of Nabû-nāṣir) 46 Napištu (f. of Iddinâ) 45
Nabû-uballiṭ (f. of Rēmūtu//Rīšīya) 57 Nappāḫu (clan name) 36; 38–40; 54
Nabû-uballiṭ (ch. of Šamaš-šuma-iddina Napsānu (f. of Iddīya) 48
//Ardi-Nergal) 57 Naqmâ 143
Nabû-uballiṭ (ch. of Zabdīya) 48 Nebuchadnezzar II 19; 25; 34; 74; 127
Nabû-ú-pu-ni-ia 51 Nergal-aba-uṣur (ch. of Iddinâ) 46
Nabû-uṣuršu (ch. of Banītu-ēreš) 46 Nergal-aḫa-iddina (ch. of Nabû-ušallim) 51
Nabû-uṣuršu (ch. of Murānu//Bēl-iqīša) 57 Nergal-aḫḫē-iddina (ch. of Nergal-ēṭir) 46
Nabû-uṣuršu (ch. of Uraš-kāṣir Nergal-dānu (ch. of Šamaš-uballiṭ) 46
//Šangû Ninurta) 57 Nergal-ēṭir (f. of Nergal-aḫḫē-iddina) 46
Nabû-ušallim 26 Nergal-ibni (f. of Ardi-Gula) 45
[Nabû-uš]allim (f. of [Bēl?]-uballiṭ//Maštuku) Nergal-iddina (ch. of Zabdīya) 48
54 Nergal-nāṣir (f. of Iddin-Nabû//Nūr-ilīšu) 55
 Index of Personal Names 327

Nergal-šuma-iddina (ch. of Nabû-(mu)kīn- Noah 76–79

apli) 46 Npry (ch. of Marduk [Māh-dux], br. of
Nergal-uballiṭ (f. of Ḫašdāyu) 45 Hurmizduk [Hormizd-dux]) 63
Nergal-uballiṭ (f. of Itti-Šamaš-balāṭu) 46 Nūrēa (f. of Bēl-iddina) 45
Nergal-uballiṭ (f. of Nidintu) 46 Nūrēa (f. of Mušallim-Marduk//Šangû Nanâ)
Nergal-uballiṭ (ch. of Ṭābīya) 46 56
Nidinti-Bēl (ch. of Arrabu) 46 Nūr-ilīšu (clan name) 54; 55
Nidinti-Bēl (ch. of Bēl-īpuš) 46 Nurzānu (clan name) 56
Nidinti-Bēl (ch. of Ki-ri-PI-šú) 49 Nusku-allā (f. of Ištame-abūšu) 48
Nidinti-Bēl (f. of Lā-abâši//Ša-ṭābtīšu) 55 Nusku-ayalu (f. of Ba-Ilteri-aḫatta) 48
Nidinti-Bēl (ch. of Marduk-ēṭir) 46 Nusku-iddina (ch. of Il-ḫāri) 48
Nidinti-Bēl (ch. of Nabû-aḫa-[x]) 46 Nusku-iddina (ch. of Nusku-rēmanni) 46
Nidinti-Bēl (ch. of Nabû-zuqup-ēdi) 46 Nusku-rēmanni (f. of Nusku-iddina) 46
Nidinti-Bēl (ch. of Šamaš-(mu)kīn-apli) 46 Pān-[DN-li]mmir (f. of Bunene-ibni) 45
Nidinti-Marduk (f. of Erība-Marduk) 45 Paḫāru 49
Nidintu 57 Paršû (f. of Ribāta) 47
Nidintu (f. of Bēl-aba-uṣur) 45 Perdiccas 165
Nidintu (f. of Bēl-ēṭir) 45 Peteknuhm (f. of Hoshea) 72
Nidintu (ch. of Bēl-ēṭir-napšāti) 46 Pēṭiʾu (f. of Kinūnāya) 97
Nidintu (f. of Bēl-ittannu) 45 Philip III Arrhidaeus 147; 150; 165–66; 169;
Nidintu (f. of Bēl-uṣuršu) 53; 54 171–75
Nidintu (ch. of Ḫanṭašu) 48 Pirʾu (f. of Iddin-Nabû//Nanna[utu]) 55
Nidintu (ch. of Iddīya//Šangû Ištar-Bābili) 57 Pirʾu (ch. of Ina-Eaggila-šadûnu//Ēpeš-ilī, f. of
Nidintu (ch. of Kalbâ) 46 Ardi-Nergal) 54; 57
Nidintu (ch. of Lā-abâši//Ēpeš-ilī) 57 Pirʾu (f. of Uraš-erība) 57
Nidintu (ch. of Lā-abâši//Šangû Dilbat) 57 Pnwy (ch. of Ddbh and Šrqwy) 63
Nidintu (ch. of Nabû-aḫa-ittannu//Ḫammāyu) Ptolemy 147; 150–51; 166; 171–73
57 Qadmiel 143
Nidintu (f. of Nabû-bullissu//Naggāru) 56 Qahat 75; 77; 80; 84
Nidintu (ch. of Nabû-iddina//Andaḫar) 57 Qaynu (ch. of Geshem) 140
Nidintu (ch. of Nabû-šuma-iškun) 46 Qībi-Bēl (f. of Rēmūtu) 46
Nidintu (ch. of Nabû-ušallim//Šangû Nanâ) Qīšti-Uraš (ch. of Nidintu//Rab-tarbaṣi) 57
53; 57 Qīšti-Uraš (ch. of Tabnēa//Ēṭeru) 57
Nidintu (ch. of Nergal-uballiṭ) 46 Qôsel 143
Nidintu (f. of Qīšti-Uraš//Rab-tarbaṣi) 57 Qu-ub-ba-ar 41
Nidintu (ch. of Rēmūtu) 46 Qwslkn 156
Nidintu (f. of Šamaš-aḫa-ittannu) 47 Qymt (f. of Mṭryʾ) 63
Nidintu (f. of Šamaš-uballiṭ) 47 Rab-bānê (clan name) 54; 55; 57; 58
Nidintu (ch. of Šamšāyu) 46 Rab-tarbaṣi (clan name) 57
Nidintu (f. of Ubārīya) 47 Ramʿay 143
Nidintu (ch. of […]//Bēl-eṭēru) 57 Rēḫētu (f. of Nabû-lū-salim) 46
Ningirsu-balāssu-iqbi (f. of Aplâ Rēʾi-alpē 49–50
//Šangû Ninurta) 54 Rēmūt-Bābu (f. of Madānu-iqīša) 46
Ninurta-šarra-uṣur 20 Rēmut-Bēl (ch. of Arrabu) 46
Niqūdu (ch. of Bēl-ušallim) 46 Rēmut-Bēl (ch. of Bēl-uballiṭ) 46
Niqūdu (f. of Ina-ṣilli-Bēl) 46 Rēmūt-Bēl (f. of Nabû-apla-iddina//Ea-ilu)
Niqūdu (ch. of Kī-Sîn) 46 53; 56
Niqūdu (ch. of Rēmūtu) 46 Rēmūtu (f. of Adad-nāʾid) 45
Niqūdu (f. of Šuma-ukīn) 47 Rēmūtu (f. of Bēl-ibni//Babūtu) 54
Ni?-[x] (f. of Nabû-lamā) 49 Rēmūtu (ch. of Bēl-iddina) 46
Nny (f. of Yhwdh) 63 Rēmūtu (ch. of Bēlšunu) 46
328 Index of Personal Names

Rēmūtu (ch. of d+EN-na//Šangû x) 57 Sūqāyu (f. of Munaḫḫiš-Marduk) 46

Rēmūtu (f. of Gūzānu) 45 Sūqāyu (f. of Nabû-lū-šulum) 46
Rēmūtu (f. of Ilu-iḫbit-iddina) 46 Sūqāyu (f. of Nabû-šuma-ukīn//Sîn-tabni-uṣur)
Rēmūtu (f. of Kalbi-Bābu//Šangû Dilbat) 55 56
Rēmūtu (ch. of Nabû-apla-iddina) 46 Sūqāyu (ch. of Ubāru) 47
Rēmūtu (f. of Nabû-bullissu//Ea-imbi) 56 Sūqāyu (ch. of Zababa-napšāta-uṣur) 47
Rēmūtu (ch. of Nabû-uballiṭ//Rīšīya) 57 Ṣarbatu-aḫa-iddina (ch. of Kalbâ) 47
Rēmūtu (f. of Nidintu) 46 Ṣilbanit 101
Rēmūtu (f. of Niqūdu) 46 Ṣillâ 20; 28
Rēmūtu (ch. of Qībi-Bēl) 46 Ṣillâ (f. of Murānu//Munnabitu) 55
Rēšūa (clan name) 55 Šadûnu (f. of Nabû-ittannu) 46
Reuel 79 Šāhafrīd (f. of Bašniday) 63
Ribāta (f. of Adad-šēzib) 45 Šamaš-aḫa-iddina (f. of Aqabbi-il) 48
Ribāta (f. of Balāṭu) 45 Šamaš-aḫa-iddina (ch. of Zērūtu) 47
Ribāta (ch. of Nabû-balāssu-iqbi) 47 Šamaš-aḫa-ittannu (ch. of Nidintu) 47
Ribāta (ch. of Paršû) 47 Šamaš-balāṭu (ch. of Bīt-il-gūzu) 48
Ribāta (ch. of Šumâ) 47 Šamaš-bēl-ilī (ch. of Šāpik-zēri) 47
Ribāta (ch. of […]) 57 Šamaš-ēreš 53; 57
Rikis-kalāma-Bēl (f. of Arrabu) 45 Šamaš-ēreš (br. of Aḫḫēa) 58
Rīm-Sîn I 110 Šamaš-ēreš (ch. of Nabû-mušētiq-ūdê) 47
Rīšīya (clan name) 53; 57–58 Šamaš-erība (f. of Iddin-Nabû) 46
Saddam Hussein 17 Šamaš-erība (ch. of Iddin-Nabû) 47
Saggilāyu (clan name) 55; 57 Šamaš-ēṭir (ch. of Bēl-uballiṭ) 47
Saggillu (ch. of Kiribtu) 47 Šamaš-ēṭir (ch. of Ibnâ) 47
Salamu (clan name) 54; 55; 58 Šamaš-ēṭir (f. of Nabû-nādin-aḫi) 46
Samsuiluna 95; 106–107 Šamaš-ēṭir (f. of Nabû-bullissu//Ēpeš-ilī) 56
Sanballat (f. of Delaiah Shelemiah) 126 Šamaš-ēṭir (f. of Nādin-aḫi) 46
Sarah/Sarai 76; 79 Šamaš-ibni (f. of Šamaš-iddina) 47
Sargon II 11 Šamaš-iddina (f. of Akkadāyu) 45
Seleucus I 169–70 Šamaš-iddina (ch. of Bēlšunu) 47
Sennacherib 96 Šamaš-iddina (ch. of Kabtīya//Šangû Dilbat, f.
Shalmaneser III 18 of Amti-Bābu) 53; 54; 57
Shaphur I 60; 64 Šamaš-iddina (ch. of Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti) 47
Shapur II 100 Šamaš-iddina (ch. of Nabû-šuma-iškun) 47
Shelemiah (ch. of Sanballat) 126 Šamaš-iddina (f. of Nabû-zēra-ēreš) 46
Shem 76; 77; 79 Šamaš-iddina (ch. of Šamaš-ibni) 47
Silim-Bēl (f. of Zikrānu-aḫa-iddina) 47 Šamaš-iddina (ch. of Šamaš-rēʾišunu) 47
Simon 84 Šamaš-iddina (f. of Šullumâ) 47
Sîn-aḫa-iddina (f. of Nabû-bullissu) 46 Šamaš-iddina (ch. of Taqīš) 47
Sîn-aḫa-iddina (ch. of Ša-Nabû-šū) 47 Šamaš-iqbi (f. of Bēl-bullissu) 45
Sîn-apla-iddina (ch. of Ṭāb-šār-Nusku) 47 Šamaš-kāṣir (ch. of Gimil-Šamaš) 47
Sîn-ibni (f. of Aplâ) 45 Šamaš-kāṣir (ch. of Lā-abâši) 47
Sîn-idri (f. of Bēl-kāṣir) 48 Šamaš-kāṣir (ch. of Nabû-bēlšunu) 47
Sîn-ilu (clan name) 55 Šamaš-kāṣir (f. of Nabû-šuma-iškun) 46
Sîn-šadûnu (clan name) 35 Šamaš-kāṣir (ch. of Šēlebu) 47
Sîn-tabni-uṣur (clan name) 56 Šamaš-(mu)kīn-apli (f. of Nidinti-Bēl) 46
Sîn-udammiq (clan name) 55 Šamaš-rēʾišunu (f. of Šamaš-iddina) 47
Srgys (ch. of Brndwk) 63 Šamaš-rēʾišunu (f. of Šamaš-upaḫḫir) 47
Sūḫāyu (clan name) 35; 56 Šamaš-šarra-uṣur (f. of Nabû-ittannu) 47
Sūqāyu (ch. of Bēl-zēri//Burāqu) 57 Šamaš-šuma-iddina (f. of Nabû-uballiṭ
Sūqāyu (ch. of Kiribtu) 47 //Ardi-Nergal) 57
 Index of Personal Names 329

Šamaš-šuma-ukīn 94 Šulgi 36
Šamaš-šuma-uṣur (f. of Lāgamāl-iddina Šumâ (f. of Marduk-zēra-ibni//Rab-bānê) 55
//Bēl-eṭēru) 55 Šumâ (f. of Ribāta) 47
Šamaš-uballiṭ (f. of Nergal-dānu) 46 Šuma-iddina (f. of Bēl-erība) 45
Šamaš-uballiṭ (ch. of Nidintu) 47 Šuma-iddina (f. of Iddin-Nabû) 46
Šamaš-udammiq (f. of Gimil-Šamaš) 45 Šumatkanu 35
Šamaš-upaḫḫir (ch. of Šamaš-rēʾišunu) 47 Šuma-ukīn (f. of Ana-Bēl-ēreš) 45
Šamaš-zēra-ibni (f. of Bulluṭâ) 45 Šuma-ukīn (f. of Ardi-Gula) 45
Šamaš-zēra-iqīša 20; 28 Šuma-ukīn (f. of Gimillu//Itinnu) 57
Šambā/Šabbā (clan name) 35 Šuma-ukīn (f. of Iddin-Bēl) 45
Šá-am-DINGIRmeš 43 Šuma-ukīn (f. of Nabû-mušētiq-ūdê
Šamšāyu (ch. of Edrâ) 48 //Ea-qarrād-ilī) 56
Šamšāyu (f. of Lā-qīpu) 46 Šuma-ukīn (ch. of Niqūdu) 47
Šamšāyu (ch. of Nabû-šuma-iddina) 47 Šuma-ukīn (f. of [DN-šu]ma?-iddina//Itinnu)
Šamšāyu (f. of Nidintu) 46 55
Šamšāyu (ch. of Šu-pa-ʾ) 50 Šuma-uṣur (ch. of Bēl-iddina) 47
Šamû 97 Šuma-uṣur (f. of Lā-abâši//Saggilāyu) 55
Ša-Nabû-idūšu (ch. of Bēl-šuma-iškun Šu-pa-ʾ (f. of Šamšāyu) 50
//Saggilāyu) 57 Šūzubu 53; 57
Ša-Nabû-šū 26 Šūzubu (f. of Bēl-apla-iddina) 45
Ša-Nabû-šū (ch. of Nabû-ēreš) 47 Šyltʾ(ch. of ʾymy, f. of ʾḥdbʾy and Brkyš<m>šy)
Ša-Nabû-šū (ch. of Nabû-rēmanni) 47 65
Ša-Nabû-šū (f. of Sîn-aḫa-iddina) 47 Šyly (ch. of Ddbh and Šrqwy) 63
Šangû Adad (clan name) 56–57 Tabnēa (f. of Bēl-ikṣur//Salamu) 54
Šangû Dilbat (clan name) 52–58 Tabnēa (f. of Bunene-zēra-ibni) 45
Šangû Ea (clan name) 53; 55; 58 Tabnēa (f. of Qīšti-Uraš//Ēṭeru) 57
Šangû Ištar-Bābili (clan name) 57 Tachos 151
Šangû Nanâ (clan name) 53; 56; 57 Talīmu (ch. of Nabû-ṣābit-qātē) 47
Šangû Ninurta (clan name) 54; 57–58 Taqīš (f. of Šamaš-iddina) 47
Šangû parakki (clan name) 56 Taqīš-Gula (f. of Bēl-ēreš//Šangû Dilbat) 54
Šangû Sîn (clan name) 56 Tattannu (ch. of Bēl-aḫḫē-iddina) 47
Šāpik-zēri (ch. of Gimillu//Ea-qarrād-ilī) 57 Tattannu (f. of Bēlet-ilūa) 45
Šāpik-zēri (f. of Ḫašdāyu//Šangû Dilbat) 55 Tattannu (f. of Erībâ) 45
Šāpik-zēri (f. of Šamaš-bēl-ilī) 47 Tattannu (ch. of Himārīya) 48
Šāpik-zēri (f. of Ubāru//Šangû Dilbat) 57 Tattannu (f. of Iddin-Nabû) 46
Ša-pī-Uraš (ch. of […]) 57 Tattannu (f. of Iddīya) 46
Šarru-arazu (clan name) 54 Tattannu (ch. of Marduk-ēṭir) 47
Ša-ṭābtīšu (clan name) 55 Tattannu (ch. of Nabû-milkī) 48
[Šē]lebu (//Ēpeš-ilī) 58 Tattannu (ch. of Zabīnu) 48
Šēlebu (f. of Šamaš-kāṣir) 47 Theodore Bar Koni 60
Šēru-ḫanan (f. of Marduk-(mu)kīn-apli) 48 Tiglath-pileser III 18
Širiktu (f. of Bulṭâ//Sîn-udammiq) 55 Tīriyāma (ch. of Atta-[x-x]) 49
Šigûʾa (clan name) 54–56; 58 Tobit/Tobias 76; 79–81; 86
Šrqwy 63 Tunā (clan name) 35
Šulâ (f. of Aḫḫē-iddina//Nūr-ilīšu) 54 Ṭābatu (ch. of Uraš-šuma-iškun) 52; 57
Šulâ (f. of Iddin-Nabû) 46 Ṭābatu (ch. of Zēra-ukīn) 53; 57
Šullumâ (ch. of Šamaš-iddina) 47 Ṭāb-gurru (f. of Bēl-[x]) 48
Šullumu (ch. of Kabtīya//Šangû Dilbat, uncle Ṭābiḫu (clan name) 55
of Amti-Bābu) 54; 57 Ṭābīya (ch. of Līšir) 47
Šulum-Bābili (ch. of Iqbi-ilu) 47 Ṭābīya (ch. of Nabû-šuma-iškun) 47
Šulum-šarri (f. of Nabû-ittannu) 53; 56 Ṭābīya (f. of Nergal-uballiṭ) 46
330 Index of Personal Names

Ṭābīya (ch. of Zabūnu) 49 Xerxes 59

Ṭāb-nu-qu 48 Yadduaʿ 142
Ṭāb-šār-Nusku (f. of Sîn-apla-iddina) 47 Yadī(ḫ)-il (ch. of Nādinu) 49
Ubārīya (ch. of Nidintu) 47 Yahu-qām (f. of Ḫaddāya) 49
Ubāru (ch. of Bēl-iddina) 47 Yazdgerd I 60
Ubāru (ch. of Bēl-uballiṭ//Burāqu) 57 Yazdgerd II 60
Ubāru (f. of Sūqāyu) 47 Yazdgerd III 60
Ubāru (ch. of Šāpik-zēri//Šangû Dilbat) 57 Yehonathan (f. of Bethelnathan) 126
Ubāru (ch. of […]) 57 Yhwdh (ch. of Nny) 63
Uk-ku-ba-ʾ 41 Yocheved 79–81
Ú-ku-bi-ʾ 41 Ysmyn (ch. of Ddbh and Šrqwy) 63
Ú-˹qu-ba-nu (ch. of Ìl-ma-a-˹du) 51 Yūsuf ʿAbd il-qādir (ch. of Maḥajni//Imm il
Uraš-aḫa-iddina (f. of Uraš-šuma-uṣur//Rīšīya) faḥm) 38
58 Zababa-napišta-uṣur 50
Uraš-aḫa-ittannu 57 Zababa-napšāta-uṣur (f. of Sūqāyu) 47
Uraš-aḫḫē-iddina (ch. of Nabû-ittannu//Šangû Zababa-napištu (ch. of d+AG-DÙ-SU) 50
Dilbat) 57 Za-ab-di-ia 41
Uraš-aḫḫē-iddina (ch. of Nabû-ušallim Zabdīya (f. of Adad-ušēzib) 48
//Maštuku) 54; 57 Zabdīya (ch. of Bēl-ina-kāri-lummir) 49
Uraš-ana-bītīšu (f. of […-Ma]rduk//Arad-Ea) Zabdīya (f. of Iddin-Bēl) 48
58 Zabdīya (f. of Lullâ) 49
Uraš-bēl-šamê (ch. of Kīnâ//Rab-bānê) 57 Zabdīya (f. of Mušēzib-Bēl) 48
Uraš-erība (ch. of Pirʾu) 57 Zabdīya (f. of Nabû-uballiṭ) 48
Uraš-ēṭir (ch. of Kīnâ//Rab-bānê) 57 Zabdīya (f. of Nabû-zabadu) 48
Uraš-iddina (f. of Lāgamāl-iddina) 43 Zabdīya (f. of Nergal-iddina) 48
Uraš-iddina (//Mandidu) 57 Zabīnu (f. of Tattannu) 48
Uraš-iddina (f. of Uraš-šuma-iškun and Zēra- Zabūnu (f. of Ṭābīya) 49
ukīn) 52 Zākiru (f. of Zērīya) 52
Uraš-iddina (f. of Uraš-zēra-ibni//Salamu) 58 Zēra-ukīn (ch. of Uraš-iddina) 52
Uraš-iddina (f. of Zēra-ukīn//Mandidu) 58 Zēra-ukīn (ch. of Uraš-iddina//Mandidu) 58
Uraš-kāṣir (ch. of Kīnâ//Basīya) 58 Zēr-Bābili (ch. of Mutēriṣu) 47
Uraš-kāṣir (f. of Nabû-ittannu//Dābibi) 52; 56 Zēriʾa 20
Uraš-kāṣir (f. of Nabû-uṣuršu//Šangû Ninurta) Zērīya (f. of Anu-šarra-uṣur) 47
57 Zērīya (ch. of Iqīša//Šigûʾa) 58
Uraš-šāpik-zēri (ch. of Bēlšunu//Rab-bānê) 58 Zērīya (ch. of Itti-Nabû-balāṭu//Ēribu) 58
Uraš-šāpik-zēri (ch. of Nabû-šuma-ukīn Zērīya (f. of [Kiri]btu?//Itinnu) 55
//Ea-qarrād-ilī) 58 Zērīya (ch. of Zākiru) 52
Uraš-šuma-iškun (ch. of Uraš-iddina, f. of Zērūtu (f. of Šamaš-aḫa-iddina) 47
Ṭābatu, br. of Zēra-ukīn//Mandidu) 52; 58 Zevadyah/Zebadiah 72
Uraš-šuma-ukīn (f. of […]-Bēl//Šangû Dilbat) Zikrānu-aḫa-iddina (ch. of Silim-Bēl) 47
58 Zuzūʾa (f. of Iddin-Nabû) 46
Uraš-šuma-uṣur (ch. of Uraš-aḫa-iddina Zuzūʾa (f. of Murānu) 46
f
//Rīšīya) 58 [x]-a (ch. of Gabrī-[x]) 49
Uraš-ušallim (ch. of Bēl-ibni//Rīšīya) 53; 58 [x]-ahhē-iddin (f. of Dādīya) 45; 49
Uraš-zēra-ibni (ch. of Uraš-iddina//Salamu) […]-Bēl (ch. of Uraš-šuma-ukīn
58 //Šangû Dilbat) 58
Uraš-[…] (ch. of […]//Ea?-dan) 58 […(DN)]-ēṭir-napšāti (ch. of Nabû-aḫḫē-bulliṭ
Uṣuršâ (f. of Bēl-zēri//Šigûʾa) 55 //Rēšūa) 55
ʿUtai 143 […]-Marduk (ch. of Nabû-bēlšunu//Būṣu) 58
Uzziel 80 […-Ma]rduk (ch. of Uraš-ana-bītīšu//Arad-Ea)
Wael 143 58
 Index of Personal Names 331

[…(DN)]-(mu)kīn-apli (f. of Bēl-nipšar[i] [x] (ch. of Ḫutnīya) 49

//Ēpeš-ilī) 54 […] (ch. of Itti-Nabû-balāṭu//Šigûʾa) 58
[…]ri (f. of Murā[nu?]//Salamu) 55 […] (ch. of Mār-bīti-iddina//Ilīya) 58
[…(DN)-šu]ma?-iddina (ch. of Šuma-ukīn […] (ch. of Marduk-erība//Babūtu) 58
//Itinnu) 55 [….] (ch. of Marduk-šuma-uṣur//Šumu-libši)
[…-u]kīn (f. of […]//Šangû Ninurta) 58 58
[…]-Uraš (f. of Marduk-šuma-ibni//Ea-ēpeš- […] (ch. of Mušēzi[b…]) 58
ilī) 55 […] (ch. of [Šē]lebu//Ēpeš-ilī) 58
[…]-Uraš (ch. of Nabû-šuma-iškun//Šangû-Ea) […] (ch. of […-u]kīn//Šangû Ninurta) 58
58 […] (ch. of […]-ušebši?//Maštuku) 58
[…]-ušebši? (//Maštuku) 58
[x]-zēra-ibni (f. of Mušēzib-Nabû) 46
 Index of Divine Names

Ada 197; 237 Ilāḫ 197; 202; 203

Adad 43–44; 47 Inana/Inanna, see Ištar
Adonai, see Yahweh Isis/Isis Sonanais 100; 103; 108; 112
Amurru 18; 20 Ištar (Ishtar/Iššar/Inanna) 17; 49; 51; 92; 95–96; 101;
Anahit-Lilith 62 103; 108; 111
Anat/ʿanat (ʕanat) 95; 103–105 Ištar of Abela 103
Anat-Bethel 104; 126–27 Ištar of Nineveh/Mulissu 103
Antu 110 Lord, see Yahweh
Anu 107; 110 Mār/Mar (see also Baal/Baʿal and Nabû) 93–94; 101–
Apollo 99 102; 107–108; 111; 120; 123–24
Artemis 99–100 Mārāh/Marah (see also Nanaya) 93–94; 100–102; 104;
Asherah 95; 103–104 106–108; 111–12; 120; 123–24
Ashima 125 Māran/Mr(ʾ)n 97–98; 196–97; 202; 237
Ashim-Bethel 94 Mārtan 97–98
Astarte 100 Michael 74
Baʿal/Baal (Baʕal) 94–95; 118; 120; 123; 194; 197; Milk 197
194–98; 200 –203 Most High, see Yahweh
Baʿalat/Baalat (Baʕalat) 95; 106 Muati (see also Nabû) 95; 110
Baal/Baʿal-Shamayn (Baʕal/Bʕel/-Shamayn) 94–95; Nabû 20; 93–95; 97–103; 108; 110–12; 118; 120; 194;
95; 104; 108–109; 111–12; 123 197–98; 237
Bābu 237 Nanaya/Nanay/Nanâ 92–112; 118; 120
Banit, see Nanaya Nergal 60
Barmārēn 98–99; 106 Osiris 119
Barqu 51 Pidray/Pidrai 95; 118; 120
Bēl 98; 100; 103; 108; 118; 120 Qos/Qaws 140; 194–202; 205; 226; 235; 237
Bēl-ālīya 37 Queen of Heaven 127
Bēlet-ekalli 54 Raphael 79
Bēlet/Bēlit (of Esagil) 118; 120 Resheph 99
Bethel 93; 95; 101; 104; 107–108; 111–12; 122–23; Šamaš/Shamash 96; 98–99; 105; 107
126–28 Tašmētu 95
Būru/Būr 43–44; 47 ʿUzza 157; 180–81; 237
Chemosh 127 Watcher 74; 80–81
El 111; 187; 195–99; 201–203; 205; 220; 236 Yahweh (Adonai, God, Lord, Most High, Yaho) 70;
Eshem-Bethel 126 71; 74; 76; 78; 81–82; 85; 94–95; 104; 108–109;
God of Israel (see also Yahweh) 71 112; 121–24; 128; 180; 194–198; 201; 207–209
Great goddess of the West (China) 100 Yaho/Yahu/YHW, see Yahweh
Hadad 111 Zeus 100
Horus 97; 102–103; 120–23
Ḥerem-Bethel 111
 Index of Geographical Names

Āl-Arad-ekalli 51 Borsippa 27; 36; 60; 63; 95; 108; 120

Alexandria 100 Bosphorus 13
Al-Kadhimain 63 Bukan 10
Al-Qurna 63 Burmarina 6
Al-Yāhūdu 127 Byt ʿrbyʾ 64
Ammon 72 Byzantium 61
ʿĀna 62 Cilicia 35
Antioch 86 Cutha 60
uru
Arabia 140 Da?-mu-nu 51
Arad 71; 141–43; 152–53 Dilbat 39; 43; 52–54; 56–59
Aram 101 Diyala 63
Arash, see Rash Dura-Euporos 64; 98–99
Araši, see Raši Dūr-Katlimmu 6–9; 12–13; 64
Arbela 96 Edom 140
Ashdod 72 Egypt 82–83; 85; 93; 95; 100; 103; 108; 127;
Asia Minor 83; 166 140; 147; 150–51; 168; 173
Assur (city) 6; 13; 96; 97–99; 107–108 Elam 94; 96
Assyria 6; 10–11; 97–98; 101; 103; 106; Elephantine 70; 71; 72; 82; 103; 119; 126–
111; 119 28; 152; 158
Aswan 93; 100–101; 108; 112 Eleuthropolis 145
Athens 100 Ellipi 111
Ayakku 95; 101; 117; 120 Elymais 98–99
Babylon 21; 25; 37; 39; 43; 63; 94–95; 98– Eridu 18; 25–26
99; 101–102; 108–10; 118; 120; 127; 140; Euphrates 6; 60
167; 169 Fayum 100
Babylonia (see also Mesopotamia) 17–18; Gat/Tell es-Safi 145
23; 26; 30; 31; 34–39; 42; 44; 61–62; 64– Gaza 145; 150–51; 173
65; 71; 94; 97; 111; 127; 157; 168; 174; Gerizim 71; 109
182; 190; 216; 229 Gilgal 125
Bactria 70; 99; 148–49; 156 Gozan 64
Baghdad 100 Habur 6–7; 12; 14; 36; 64
Balawat 18 Hamath 126–27
Balih 7 Harran 13
Bannēšu 38–39 Harri 51
Beersheba 71; 126; 141–42; 153 Hatra 98–99; 105–107
Beit Gurbin 145 Hebron 144
Beit Makdum 145 Heliodoros 146
Bethel 125 Hermon 94
Beth Shean 108 Hindānu 43; 51
Bijān 62 Hira 35
Bīt-Kudurru 51 Hursag-kala,ma 49
Bīt-Naʾinnašu 127 Ḥorvat Rogem 141
Bīt-Šinqamā 127 Idnah/Idnāʾ 145; 158
Bīt-Yakīn 18; 35
334 Index of Geographical Names

Idumea 70–72; 85–86; 139; 141; 143–44; Naḥal-Yattir 141

146; 150–52; 158–59; 165; 167–68; 174; Nāru-eššu 43
179–84; 208; 211–12; 219–20; 227; 235– Nebi Yunis 72
37 Negev 95; 120; 140; 156
Sub-satrapy of 180 Nehardea 64
Illil Gate (of Babylon) 43 Nikku 35
Iltuk 41 Nineveh 6; 9; 12–13
Imgur-Enlil 18 Nippur 19; 38; 60; 63; 95; 127
Iran/Persia 61; 110; 119 Palestine (see also Land of Israel) 72; 94;
Iraq 18 108; 147–48; 150–51; 173–74; 180
Isin 95 Palmyra 98–99
Istanbul 13 Partia 64
Jerusalem 83; 110; 126; 144 Pašime 36
Jezirah 7; 12; 36; 64; 97 Persepolis 119
Joppa 173 Persia, sse Iran
Judah/Judea 85; 108–110; 126; 140; 143 Persian Gulf 17–18
Kalhu 10 Philae 100; 108
Khirbet Beit Makdum 145 Qumran 72– 85
Khirbet el-Qom (biblical Maqqedah) 141; Raphiah 95; 120; 141; 144
144–46; 153 Raqqa 7
Kish 39; 49; 50–51; 95 Rash (Arash) 94; 101–102; 104; 111–12; 122; 124
Kushan 99; 107 Raši (Araši) 94
Lachish 139–41 Rome 64
Land of Israel (see also Palestine) 70; 71; Sais 10
76; 82–83; 85–86 Samaria 83; 109–110; 112
Larsa 19; 30; 95; 110; 126 Sea of Bīt Yakīn
Lebanon 94 Sealand 17–31; 35
Leontopolis 86 Shephelah 71; 140
Levant 7; 61; 64; 94; 101; 139–40; 168; Sidon 148; 168–69
173–75 Sippar 39; 63
Libnayâ 143 Sogdiana 100
Līmu-land Sūhu 51
Macedonia 147; 167–68 Susa 96–99; 106
Madagalšu 18 Syene 100
Magdālu 12 Syria 60; 94; 98; 101; 108; 151; 165; 172
Makkedah 72; 82 Syrian Desert 35
Maʾlanâ/Mallanate 6; 14 Šuppatu 35
Mallanate, see Maʾlanâ Tarsus 101
Mankisu 51 Tell el-Fraʿah 141–42
Maqqedah, see Khirbet el-Kom Tell es-Safi, see Gat
Maresha/Tell Sandahanna 71; 141; 146; Tell es-Sera/Tel esh-Shariʿa 141
179–81; 195; 202; 234 Tell Fekheriye 7
Media 10; 76 Tell Halaf 6–7
Medinet-Madi 100 Tel Haror 141
Memphis 10 Tel Ira 141; 143
Mesopotamia (see also Assyria; Babylonia) Tell Jemmeh 141–43; 153
7; 34; 61; 64; 83; 94; 97; 101–103; 148; Tell Malḥata 141
166; 173; 175 Tell Sandahanna, see Maresha
Mešān (Messene/Characene) 35 Tel Shiukh Fawqani 6; 13
Moab 72; 127 Tell-Šēh Ḥamad, see Dūr-Katlimmu
Nabla 100 Thebes 92; 117
 Index of Geographical Names 335

Tigris 11; 51; 85; 97 Wadi ed-Daliyeh 70; 82

Til Aḥmar 6 Western Asia 36
Til Barsip 6; 11 Yatta 141; 144
Transoxiana 100 Yehud 72
Tyre 140 Yemen 63
Udannu 30 Zagros 111
Ugarit 10 Zaphon 104; 120; 123
Upi 50 Zion 122
Ur 18–19; 95
Uruk 17–19; 21–22; 24; 26; 30; 59; 63; 95–
96; 101; 103; 106; 110
 Subject Index

Aaronic priesthood 78; 86 Old Aramaic 7

Ab (month name) 172; 186; 193 Aramaic Apocalypse 73; 81
Abbasid period 62; 65 Aramaic Levi Document 77–82; 85
Abschiedsreden, see farewell discourses Aramaic loanword 12; 97
Accountancy 152–55 Aramaic ostraca 7; 11; 70–72; 82; 86; 139–
Acerage 183 59; 165–76; 179; 181; 234–35
Achaemenid/Persian Empire 8; 34; 70; 71; Aramaic clay tablet 5–7; 8–9; 119
139–43; 151; 180 Arameo-Arabian 59; 208
Achaemenid/Persian period 7; 34–35; 59; Arameo-Assyrian 51
97; 141; 164; 178; 181–82; 187 Arameophony 12
Adê/Vassal treaty of Esarhaddon 10; 127 Armean 11; 21; 34; 36–37; 62; 65; 92; 95;
Agents (intermediaries) 180 100–101; 111; 126
Ahiqar texts 13 Eastern Aramean 34
Akītu, see New Year Arsacid Empire, see Partian Empire
Akkadian (language), see Babylonian Arsham correspondence/archive 70; 83
Akkadian terminology 181 Arvastān 64
Al-Yahudu archive 71; 127 Ashdodit 72
Amherst Collection, the Morgan Library 92; Asoristān 62
117; 128 Assaramian 13
Amoraim 64 Assur ostracon 11
Anaptyxis 51 Assyrian 11–12; 18; 36; 39–40; 43–44; 59;
Ancestor name, see surname 96–97; 126
Ancestral cult 181 Babylonian/Akkadian (language) 37; 61
Anthroponym 23; 37; 40; 49; 59; 62–64; Babylonian (people) 35–38; 40–41; 44; 62
181; 183; 194–95; 199; 201; 203; 205; 209; Babylonian astronomical texts 168; 170–71
211; 218; 223–24; 227–28; 233–37 Babylonian calendar 168
Antifrastic anthroponym 228 Babylonian Talmud 61–62
Antiquities market (see also unprovenanced Balawat Gate of Shalmaneser III 18
object) 144; 146; 153; 165 Baptist 61
Aqedah 76 Battle of Gaza 173–74
Arab 61; 97; 140 Bi-graphemical registration 9
Arabian 35; 37–38; 59–60; 62; 64; 140; 184; Birth of Noah 75; 77; 81
195–96; 199; 201; 205; 208; 217; 220–21; Bīt-Awkāni tribe 18; 19; 35; 37–38
226–28; 235–37 Bīt-Dakkūri tribe 18
Arable land 57; 183 Bīt-Silāni tribe 18
Aramaic 5–14; 59; 61–65; 70–86; 92–95; Book of Daniel 73; 74; 75; 81–85
97–98; 101–107; 110–11; 118–19; 139–42; Book of Exodus 76
153; 158; 181–83; 185; 187; 192; 194; 201; Book of Genesis 76
205; 212; 219; 221; 235–36 Book of Giants 73; 74; 77; 81
Assyrian Aramaic 5–14 Book of Job (Aramaic) 73; 75
Babylonian Aramaic 61; 183 Book of Joshua 76
Eastern Aramaic 62 Book of Jubilees 75; 81; 84
Imperial Aramaic 7–8 Book of Judges 76
Jewish Aramaic 62; 64; 82; 183 Book of Maccabees 84
 Subject Index 337

Book of Watchers 73; 77; 80; 82–83 Enochic Astronomical Book 77; 83; 85
Book of Tobit 73; 75; 76; 80–85 Enochic Book of Dreams 81
Bow 99; 104; 112; 122 Enochic literature 76–77; 81–82; 84
Bow-land 182 Entry 182
Bran 185 Epiph (month name) 102; 108; 110; 112
Buddhist 61 Epistle of Enoch 81
Cadastral record/survery 157; 180 Esag(g)il(a)/Esangil(a) temple (of Babylon)
Cairo Geniza 77; 79 39–42; 95; 99; 117; 120; 170
Calendar name 194; 203–204 Ešarra temple 96
Canaanite settlement 76 Euršaba, see Ehuršaba
Canal/irrigation system 25 Existing local structures 182
Carian 38–39 Exogamy 78; 80
Chaldean 18; 34–38; 60; 62 Extra-palatial 182
Chaldeo-Aramean 34; 37 Ezida temple (Nabû’s temple in Borsippa. See
Chief priest 25–26 also Nabû temple) 108
Christian 60–61; 63; 78; 86; 100 Farewell discourses 74
Christianity 61; 86 Female anthroponymy 62
Citian (=Roman) 62 Foreman of a work gang 182
Clan 35–38; 182–83; 235 Four Kingdoms 73; 82
Clan name, see surname Freeman/Freeperson 26; 38
Clergy (see also high priest) 36–38; 59; 61 Gatekeeper 182
Codex Sinaiticus 79 Genesis Apocryphon 73; 76–85
Collective party 183 Gentile 61
Commodity Chit 154–55 Given name 62
Corvée/labor tax 156 Governor of the Sealand 19–20; 22–25
Corvée workmen 182 Graffiti 71
Cow 101–102; 105–106; 108; 111 Granary 142–43; 146
Court tales 74 Greek 62; 64; 71; 77
Crescent 96; 98–99; 104; 107; 108; 112; 123 Greek funerary inscriptions 71
Dadanitic-Lihyanitic onomasticon 236 Greek loanword 71
Dell 183 Groups of workers 182
Demotic 92–95; 102; 105–106; 111; 118 Hadramitic 236
Demotic influence 181 Haggagu Dossier 175
Deputy 19; 22–23; 25–26 Hallatu palm grove 52–53
Diaspora 83 Hapax legoumena 184; 187; 189; 223
Divorce contract 70 Harrānu-transaction 30; 51
Dove 98; 101; 104; 106; 108–109 Ḫarû-offering 29
Dream-vision 74; 77 Hasaitic 236
Eanna temple 17–31; 59; 95–96; 117 Hasmonean 84; 85
Early Aramaic bookkeeping tradition 181 Hasmonean period 71; 84; 85
Edomite 140; 181; 194; 236–37 Hasmonean revolt 86
Edomite Arab 144 Hatru-organization 38
Egyptian 97; 118; 140; 150; 234 Hebrew 12; 73; 75; 77–78; 81; 84–85; 104;
Egyptian theophorous elements 234 109; 153–54; 183; 197; 205; 208; 212
Eḫilianna 96; 110 Hebrew amulet 63
Ehuršaba/Euršaba 108 Hebrew Instruction texts from Qumuran 75
Eimbianu temple 53; 54 Hebrew ostracon 139; 144; 153–56
Elamaite 62 Hefzibah inscription 71
Enoch 73; 76; 77 Hellenistic period 60; 70–73; 83–86; 100;
Enochic Animal Apocalypse 84 110; 139; 141; 146; 150; 152; 159; 165;
Enochic Apocalypse of Weeks 81 181
338 Subject Index

Hellenistic Royal Chronicle 170–71 Letter orders 180; 182; 192

Heliodorus inscription 71 Levi Document 73
High priest 25; 52 Leviticus translation 75
Hindus 61 Lingua franca 8
Hismaic 214; 236 List of False Prophets 84
Hittite (Syro-Anatolian) 35 Liturgial/ritual calendar 102; 108; 110
Hofkalender 19; 34 Local traditional structures 186
Hollow full of water 184 Long sixth century (626–484 BCE) 39
Holzfäller 22 Low ground 183
Horse ranch 182 Lullubian 35
Huzian 62 Lunar/Moon deities 98–99
Hybrid anthroponyms 49; 202; 234 Absence of 237
Idumean onomasticon 236 Magical texts 62–63; 75
Idumean ostraca 70; 72; 86; 139–59; 165–76; Mandean 61; 62; 63
181; 235 Manichean 61; 62
Illegal excavation (see also unprovenanced Manichaism 61
objects) 144 Marriage 36; 70–72; 78–80; 86; 181
Incantation/magic bowl 61–62 -mār-šarri-name 41
Indian 62 Marsh 17–18; 62; 157; 180
Installment 182; 187; 193 Martyr 60
Iranian 38; 43–44; 47; 49–51; 62–64; 213; Medes/Median 10; 12
222; 227; 235–36 Memorandum 155; 187–92
Irano-Semitic 64 Metal 9; 188–89
Israelite kingdom 36 Minaic 214; 236
Jainas 61 Monolatry 237
Jar inscription 156–57 Muslim 36; 61; 63
Jew/Jewish 60; 61; 63; 127–28 Nabataean 151; 184; 212; 214; 235–36
Jews in the Persian Court 73; 81–83 Nabû temple (in Borsippa. See also Ezida)
Jerusalem ostracon 71 60
Judaism 61; 86 Name list 156
Judean 43; 70; 71; 81; 85–86; 104; 110; 126; Naphtalite 80
181; 203; 220; 234–36 Nazarenes 61
Judean demographic base 236 Neo-Assyrian administration 8–10
Judeo-Christain 61 Neo-Assyrian dialect (of Akkadian) 8; 12–
Judeo-Idumean mixed filiation 236 14; 49; 103; 181–82
Julian calendar 166 Neo-Assyrian Empire 6; 8; 10–11; 14; 18–
Kassite 35 19; 35; 181
Kedar 140–41 Neo-Assyrian period 5–7; 9; 10; 17–18
Ketef Jericho papyrus 70 Neo-Assyrian Sprachgut 12
Khuzistan 62 Neo-Babylonian Empire 23; 34–35; 181
Kin-based population 180 Neo-Babylonian period 8; 17–18; 35
Kudurru 95–96 Nestorian 61
Kyriophoric 201 New Jerusalem 73; 81; 83
Labor tax, see corvée New Year (festival) 93–94; 99; 102; 110
Lady-of-Uruk 25 Nisan (month name) 110; 174
Lament to Mar 93 Non-urbanite 38; 40; 42; 50
Lament of Nanaya’s statue 94; 104; 106 Non-Zoroastrian 61
Land description 157 Notary bureau 8
Landed property 41–43; 183 Nude goddess 99; 103
Late Babylonian period 8 Oblate/Serf 25; 38–42; 59
Law of the priesthood 77 Occam’s razor 176
 Subject Index 339

Olive grove of the terrace 184 Rural debtors-borrowers 186

Olive plantation 183 Sabaic 184; 187; 189; 200; 236
Overseer 25; 57 Sacred marriage 108–12
Pagan 61 Safaitic 38; 214; 224–26; 236
Pahlavi 63; 118 Sagil (Temple of Šamaš) 99
Palestinian 38 Samaritan 126
Palm grove 52–53 Samaritan temple 71
Papyrus 9–10 Saros Canon 168; 170; 176
Papyrus Amherst 63; 92; 98; 100–12; 117–28 Sasanian 60–61
Papyrus Wadi Dālyi 181 Sasanian period 34; 60; 62; 64
Parchment 9–10 Scribal exercise 158
Parthia 64 Scythian 38
Parthian 60; 64 Sealander 21–22
Parthian period 60; 98; 112 Second Temple period 72–76; 81–82
Parthian/Arsacid Empire 60–61; 100 Serf (see Oblate)
Payment order 155 Servant 25; 51; 97; 158; 201; 203; 212; 217;
Persian 61; 64 224; 234; 236
Persian Empire/Kingdom, see Achaemenid Sharecropper 22
Empire Shiite 61
Pharaoh 76; 103; 150; 168 Sidonian colony 236
Phoenician 12; 168–79; 197; 205; 208; 234– Sivan (month name) 148–49; 154; 166; 186
36 Slave 25; 38; 41; 50; 57–58; 70; 190; 212;
Physiognomic texts 75 226
Piqūdu tribe/Piqūdean 21–22; 37 Solar Saros 168; 170
Plowman 22 ‘Son of God’ text 73; 81
Poll-tax 155 Sown field 183
Post-Kassite period 35–36; 39 Spanglish 13
Practical jargon 8 Spectator 38; 219
Prayer of Nabonidus 73; 83 Stalls for cattle 184
Prebend 36; 52–58 Stone-carver 20
Protester 22 Storehouse 142–43; 145; 151; 153–56; 186
Psalm 20 120–22 Strip 184
Psalm 22 104 Stylus 11
Psalm 68 93; 109 Substitute name 194; 199; 203; 229
Psalm to Ashim-Bethel 94 Suhean 35
Pseudo-Daniel 73; 81; 83 Supporting wall 184
Ptolemaic 108; 181; 203 Surname (ancestor name, clan name) 12; 34–
Puqudean 60 39; 59; 190
Qatabanic 201; 227; 236 Syriac 62; 64; 105; 183
Rabatak inscription 99; 103 Syriac Act of Martyrs 61
Re-distribution 186 Syriac Acts of Mar Muʿain 100
Res Gestae of Shaphur I 64 Syrian 100
Ritual (see also New Year and Sacred mar- Syro-Anatolian (see Hittite)
riage) 77; 110 -šarra- name 39; 41–43; 47; 51
Roman 62 Talmud 61–62; 64; 109
Roman Empire 61; 64 Tammuz (month name) 148; 154; 172; 174
Rough bread made of bran 185 Taxation 180; 186; 235
Royal functionary 59; 186 Taymanitic 236
Royal garden 182 Temples 60
Royal official 39; 40; 182 Temple administrator 18–31; 53–54; 56–57
Royal slave 38 Temple enterer 36; 54; 58
340 Subject Index

Temple oblate 25; 38–42; 59 Ur III period 95

Temple of Amurru 18; 20 Urartian 10
Temple of Bethel 127 Urban efendis 186
Temple of Knuhm 72 Urbanite 35–40; 42; 50–51; 59–61
Temple of Qos/Qaws 181 Urbanite creditors-lenders 186
Temple of Queen of Heaven 126 Uruk King List 169–70; 176
Temple of ʿUzza 157; 180; 237 Venus 95–96; 100
Temple of Yaho 71; 72; 157; 180 Verbless chits 182
Terrace of the terebinth 181 Vision of Amram 73; 75; 77–78; 80–83
Testament of Jacob 74; 81 Wadi ed-Daliyeh papyri 70; 141
Testament of Judah 73 Wars of the Diadochi 165; 173
Testament of Naphtali 75 Watchers 74; 80–81
Testament of Qahat 73; 77; 78; 80–81; 83 Wax tablet/writing board 9
Tetragrammatic names 186; 209; 215; 217; West Semitic 8; 21; 37–38; 40–42; 49–50; 59;
235–26 65; 97; 139; 156; 207; 215; 223; 227; 236
Tetragrammaton 81–82; 209 White field 183
Thamudic 214; 236; Wine 143; 157–158; 186; 235
Threshing board 185 Wisdom text 71; 74; 81
Throne of Yahō 104 Wool/wool trade 30–31
Tishri/Tašrītu (month name) 102; 108; 110 Words of Michael 73; 74; 83
Treasurer 143 Workers text 156
Tribute 153 Yavne-Yam inscription 71
Two-tier filiation/genealogy 38–39; 41–43 Zenon archive 83
Tyrian itinearant tradesmen 236 Zodialogical texts 75
Unprovenanced ostraca/papryrus/tablet/object Zoroastrian (worshipper) 60; 61
(see also antiquities market; illegal excava- Zoroastrianism/Zoroastrian religion 34; 60; 61
tion) 63; 92; 141–47; 151; 179; 222; 235
 Index of Ancient Terms

Akkadian lulubāyu 34
anāku 29 mādidu 52
aramayyu 9 magallatu 9
ararru 36 māḫiṣu 22
arbāyu 35 mandidūtu 52
ardu 25 mār banê/î 26; 38
aššūrāyu 9; 11; 35 maṣṣartu 18; 27
bābilāyu 35 mašīḫu 58
banītu 101; 109 māt Aššur 11
bānītu 101; 109 māt tâmti 17
banû 100; 106; 109 miṣirāyu 35
(bēl) pī/āḫāt Babīli 25 muṣaṣir 11
bēl piqitti 26 muṣurāyyu (see also miṣirāyu) 10
bēl ṭābtūti 30 mutqītu Aramītu 11
binûtu 106 nappāḫu 36
bīt limītu 51 niāru 9
bunnannû 106 nibzu 9
ērib bīti 54 nikkāyu 35
errēšu 22 palāḫ šarrūtiya 11
É.TU5 12 qīpu 22–23
GAB.DI 12 ramānu 29
gugallu 21 rīmtu 108
ḫarrānu 30; 51 si/utīya 36
ḫarû 29 sūḫāyu 35
ḫattāyu 35 susapinnu 111
ḫume (/ḫ(u)we/) 35 šakin (māt) tâmti 19; 22–23
ḫurzu-ḫurzi 18 šakin māti 23
ikkaru 22 šākin ṭēmi 23; 50
isināyu 35 ša muḫḫi bītāni 40
iškaru 153 šangû 25–26
išnukû 36 šanû 19; 22–23; 26
išparu 36 šarru 39; 41–42
iššar < ištar 49 šatammu 18–19; 23; 53
kallulu 49 šibšu 19
ka/umaru 97 širku 25
kelû 28 telītu 51
kiništu 37 tuanu 12
kirku 9 ṭuppu 9
k[u]-lu-lu 49 ṭupšar ayakki 23
lamutānu 25 ṭupšar bīti 23
lēʾu 9 urāšu 21
līmu 30
LUGAL 167 Arabic/Arabian
LUGAL KUR.KUR 167 ʾirḫ (ʔirḫ) 105
342 Index of Ancient Terms

ʾadīb 64 hnʿl 154

ḥaṭīb 64 hnḥt 154
h/ʾty 154
Aramaic hwy 104
ʾ2ʾnʾkʾtʾ· (ʔ2ʔnʔkʔtʔ•) 102 hyndwʾyn 62
ʾdnh 145 ḥlq 157
ʾgrt 9 ḥlt 157
ʾhk (ʔhk) 106 ḥmr 143
ʾl 154 ḥnzrw 150
ʾrḫ (ʔrḫ) 105; 108 ḥrzy 18
ʾrmʾy 61 ḥt 106
ʾrmʾyn 61 ḥwrʾyyʾ 62
ʾrq 157 ḥwzʾyyʾ 62
ʾškr 153 ḥybl 157
ʾšl 157 kldʾyyʾ 62
ʾwṣr mlkʾ 151 kll 155
ʿbwr 154 kpt 157
ʿl 154 krm 157
ʿl yd 154; 156 kumar(u) 97
ʿ-Q-B 51 kwh 105
ʿʈrtʾ 145 k(w)mr 97
ʿzh 145 kwt(ʾ) (kwt(ʔ)) 105
b- 145 k(w)tl 105
baadi kytyn 62
bhyrt[ʾ] (bhyrt[ʔ]) 107 l- 154
bldlny 152 lbrʾ (lbrʔ) 102
bnt 100–101 l-h 154
bnwntky 106 lḥ 102
bny/byt 154; 156 lḫ 102
bqʿtʾ 145 manqdh/ʾ 144
brʾ (brʔ) 102 mʿšr 153
byt ʾrmyʾ 62 mḥwzʾ 145
bytʾlnwry (bytʔlnwry) 107 mlʾky 62
byt mlkʾ 151 mn 154
-dalah mnpq 107
dd 102 mnqrh 144
ddy 102 mrh 99
dkrwn 155 mrt 99
dmr 102 mrty 94
dnt 9 mskhn 145
dwd 102 mskntʾ 154
dywyʾ 62 mypʿtʾ (mypʕtʔ) 107
gb dy 12 nny 92; 95; 97–100
gbʾ/y 153 pʿl 156
glgwl 145 plg 157
glyltʾ 145 pqd 154
gnzbr 143 pqyd 153
gt 145 prh 108
hb 155 prsʾyn 61
hmṭʾ 154 prsʾyyʾ 62
hn 157 ptph 153
 Index of Ancient Terms 343

qḥ 146 ‫ רוח באישא‬81

qmḥ ḥnṭn 146 ‫ שד‬81
r 155
raz 81 Egyptian
rʾ·dʾr2ʾ· (rʔ•bʔr2ʔ•) 102 Ḥr-n-nfr(?) 97
rbʿ 153 3-ḥr-w 120
rḥm 105
rpyd 157 Greek
rqq 157 Αὐχανῑτιϛ 35
ski bnt 101 Εὔτοκος 48
smʾ (smʔ) 105
smš 105 Hebrew
šnt 149 mĕbaśśĕrat 109
šqdn 143 n(ʾ)wt (n(ʔ)wt) 109
šwšbyn 111 nwt 109
šwšm 145 sanwērîm 105
šyʿʾyn 61 skt bnt 101; 109
tkrt(y) 105 ṭwb yld 48
twn 12 ‫ אמ׳׳ר‬75
ṭyʿʾyn 61 ‫ חטאת‬77
whby 150 ‫ כאשר כתוב‬75
yhwʾyn 61 ‫ כפרת‬77
-Yhwh 63
ynq 102 Kassite
ywnʾyn 62 gilūa 35
zy 158 šambā > šabbā 35
zyt 157 tunā 35

‫אל‬, ‫ אלהא‬82 Persian

‫ אל עליון‬82 ardab 151–52
‫ יהו‬81 ērag 62
‫ כילאי‬79–80 karsh 151–52
‫ מרה עלמא‬82
‫ מרה שמיא‬82 Sefaitic
‫ נכראין‬80 ʾršt 38
‫ עיר‬81 Ḥmt 38
‫עליון‬, ‫ עליא‬82
‫ קדיש‬81 Sanskrit
mukti- 61
 Index of Modern Scholars

Aḥituv, S. 148; 150; 157 Kaufman, S. 7

Aimé-Giron, A. 118 Kennedy, D. 170
Anderson, G. 76 Kitchen, K. 118
Angel, J. 82 Kleber, K. 23
Anson, E. 148; 174–75 Kloner, A. 71
Avi-Yonah, M. 144 Lemaire, A. 6; 72; 101; 159; 165; 168–70;
Beaulieu, P. 19 174–76
Beer, B. 27 Lipiński, E. 6–8; 14; 101; 150
Ben-Tov, J. 82 Milik, J. 73
Bickerman, E. 73 Misgav, H. 70
Boiy, T. 148; 174 Morgenstern, M. 76
Bordreuil, P. 6 Naveh, J. 70; 72; 139; 142–44; 147–48; 151;
Bowman, R. 117–20; 128 153
Briquel-Chatonnert, F. 6 Nims, C. 93; 105–106; 118; 120–22
Cameron, G. 119 Novick, T. 76
Carter, M. 100 Nowell, I. 76
Collins, J. 83 Oelsner, J. 59
Cross, F. 71 Parker, R. 148
Dever, W. 144 Perrin, A. 75
Dimant, D. 73; 75; 76; 78 Porten, B. 71; 139; 148–49; 152; 155; 158;
Dorsey D. 145 165–66; 171–76
Drawnel, H. 79–80; 82; 85 Puech, É. 71; 74; 83
Dubberstein, W. 148 Qimron, E. 84
Ephʿal, I. 139; 144; 147–48; 151; 153 Quack, J. 123
Eshel, E. 71 Radner, K. 6
Eshel, H. 70; 78; 82 Ray, J. 72
Fitzmyer, J. 75 Reade, J. 11
Flint, P. 83 Refé, A. 84
Folmer, M. 7 Röllig, W. 6–8; 13
Garelli, P. 14 Said, E. 14
Geller, M. 60 Sandowicz, M. 25
Geraty, L. 144 Schmidt, E. 119
Gitler, H. 155 Segert, S. 120
Goldman, L. 81 Shaked, S. 70; 148
Greenfield, J. 7; 120 Stadel, C. 78
Grelot, P. 82 Steiner, R. 93–94; 102; 105–106; 120–22;
Grzybeck, E. 170 124
Heimpel, W. 92 Stern, E. 71; 72; 86
Henkelman, W. 143 Still, B. 27
Herzfeld, E. 118 Stopler, M. 171
Holladay, J. 144 Strange, J. 144
Hughes, G. 120 Stuckenbruck, L. 82
Jones, R. 77 Tal, O. 148; 155
Jursa, M. 170 Thompson, H. 118
 Index of Modern Scholars 345

Tigchelaar, E. 73; 75 Werman, C. 82

Van Alfen, P. 155 Wesselius, J. 93; 121–24
VanderKam, J. 78 Westenholz, Aa. 60
Van der Toorn, K. 93; 98; 102; 104; 106; Westenholz, J. 92
123; 126 Yardeni, A. 71; 139; 142; 144–46; 148–49;
Vittmann, G. 123 152–53; 155; 158; 166; 171–76
Vleeming, S. 93; 121–24 Zauzich, K. 121–23
Wacholder, B. 73 Zevit. Z. 122
Weidner, E. 6
Weinfeld, M. 121–22
 List of Authors
Andrew D. Gross earned his Ph.D. in Hebrew and Judaic Studies at New York Universi-
ty. Since 2008, he has been Professor of Semitic and Egyptian Languages and Litera-
tures at the Catholic University of America. His main research areas are Ancient Near
Eastern Law, Aramaic Language, and Dead Sea Scrolls.

Frederick Mario Fales is Senior Professor of History of the Ancient Near East at the
University of Udine, where he has taught from 1994 to 2016, after previous tenured
posts in Venice, Padua, and Verona (1974–). He has been co-director of archaeologi-
cal excavations in Iraq and Syria (where he discovered an archive of Assyrian and
Aramaic tablets in 1995), and a member of survey expeditions in Turkey (Yozgat
province) and Iraqi Kurdistan (Jerwan).

Tawny Holm earned her Ph.D. in Hebrew Bible and Northwest Semitic Languages at
The Johns Hopkins University. She is now an Associate Professor of Classics and An-
cient Mediterranean Studies at Pennsylvania State University. Her main research areas
are Hebrew Bible and Aramaic Studies, including Aramaic language and Aramean
religion and culture.

André Lemaire received his Ph.D. in Oriental Studies at University Paris III. He is Emer-
itus Professor of Hebrew and Aramaic Philology and Epigraphy at the École Pratique
des Hautes Études (Paris-Sorbonne) and Correspondant of the Académie des Inscriptions
et Belles-Lettres (Paris). His main research areas are West-Semitic epigraphy, biblical
studies and the history of the Levant in the first millennium BCE.

Yuval Levavi received his Ph.D. in Assyriology in 2016 from the Institut für Oriental-
istik at Vienna University and is currently a post-doctoral fellow at the Material Cul-
ture of Babylonia project (Vienna-Paris) in Vienna. His research deals with questions
of philology, socio-economic aspects, and archival studies in first millennium Babylo-
nia.

Daniel Machiela earned his Ph.D. in 2007 at Notre Dame and currently is Associate
Professor of Early Judaism and Bible in the Department of Religious Studies at
McMaster University.

Bezalel Porten is Professor Emeritus at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He is the

author of many seminal studies of Aramaic texts including: Textbook of Aramaic Doc-
uments from Ancient Egypt Newly Copied, Edited and Translated into Hebrew and
English, Vols. I–IV, Department of the History of the Jewish People: Jerusalem 1986–
90 [with A. Yardeni]; The Elephantine Papyri in English: Three Millennia of Cross-
Cultural Continuity and Change, Brill: Leiden, 1996; Aramaic Documents from Egypt:
A Key-Word-in-Context Concordance, Eisenbrauns: Winona Lake, IN, 2002 [with A.J.
Lund]; A Grammar of Egyptian Aramaic, 2nd revised edition, Brill: Leiden, 1998; 2nd
edition, 2003 [with T. Muraoka]; Textbook of Aramaic Ostraca from Idumea, Vols. I–
348 List of Authors

1V, Eisenbrauns: Winona Lake, IN, and Pennsylvania University Press: University
Park, PA, 2014–20 [with A. Yardeni].

Ran Zadok received his Ph.D. in Assyriology and Iranian Studies from The Hebrew
University of Jerusalem in 1975. Since October 1, 2012, he has been Professor Emeri-
tus of Mesopotamian, Iranian, and Judaic Studies, at Institute of Archaeology, Tel
Aviv University.