Cuneiform Digital Library Preprints
<http://cdli.ucla.edu/?q=cuneiform-digital-library-preprints>
Hosted by the Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative (<http://cdli.ucla.edu>) Editor: Bertrand Lafont (CNRS, Nanterre)
Number 12
Title: Sargonic Names in the Diyala Region and Beyond
Author: Paolo Gentili
Posted to web: 6 February 2018 (date of compilation: 2008)
§0. Introduction1
§0.1. In this study we should approach two main research questions. First, it is intended to provide a general frame- work for the Old Akkadian onomasticon. Secondly, it is necessary to inquire about a number of specifi c issues, as, for example, the geographical scope of the Diyāla re- gion. What exactly is meant by the region of the “Diyāla river”? From the point of view of this study the Diyāla region can be perceived in a wider scope. Starting from modern Baghdad at the convergence of the Tigris river, the Diyāla region extended towards the East, and North- East, to Sulaimanija, along the ancient Durul (the present Diyāla) river. Strictly speaking, that is not part of Meso- potamia anymore, if considered in its literal meaning
“between the rivers”; nonetheless, in terms of its cultural scope it fully belonged to it. Among the cities known from the Old Akkadian period are Tell Harmal (ancient Šaduppûm), Ishchali (Nērebtum), Khafajah (Tutub), Tell Dhiba’i (Zaralulu), Tell Asmar (Ešnunna), and Tell Es- Sib/Haddad (Mê-Turān). To these cities one should add another site, Tell Suleimah,2 whose ruins lie not far from Tell Asmar (no more than 50 km north-east), but which belongs to a diff erent geographical region, the Himrin.3 Nevertheless, judging from the database of names the lat- ter showed clear affi nity to the settlements of the Diyala region. Th is addition may provide a structural compari- son of the two areas in question and allow for a northeast- ern perspective that is still in need of more clarifi cation in
1 Th e data for this study derives from the author’s Old Ak- kadian Onomatology Database.
2 Th ere is no agreement on the ancient name of Tell Sulei- mah (Awal, Batir or GA.BA/Dūrum?). For a discussion see a forthcoming study by the author. In the meantime note, in particular, Visicato 1999; Rasheed 1981a and Rasheed 1981b.
3 See Gentili 2002: 145, note 39, with previous literature.
terms of personal names and chronology.4
§0.2. All the above-mentioned cities have been, to a greater or lesser extent, involved in the shaping of Meso- potamian history. Some (especially Tell Asmar/Ešnunna) gained important roles in the socio-political framework of the region. Th e Old Akkadian Onomatology Database is based on the texts found in these cities during archaeo- logical work, or on texts that can be assigned to them, but lack any provenience.
§0.3. A further issue entails the chronology of the Diyāla region. Th e Old Akkadian period as defi ned by the us- age of Old Akkadian writing, can widely be defi ned as running from the earliest period of Mesopotamian his- tory down to the end of the Ur III dynasty; in the middle chronology that would encompass the second half of the third millennium to the very beginning of the second.
However, from both a linguistic and an epigraphic point of view, it should be divided into three distinct periods:
Pre-Sargonic (until Lugalzagesi), classical Sargonic (in- cluding the beginnings of the Akkadian Dynasty under Sargon), and fi nally the Ur III period.5
§0.4. Since many of the texts quoted in this study are unprovenanced, they cannot easily be exploited in terms of geography or chronology. In such cases these texts are attributed based on epigraphic and linguistic criteria;
further studies will enrich our understanding of Old Ak- kadian epigraphy and linguistics. A majority of the texts,
4 From an archaeological point of view, a link between these two areas has been proposed by McGuire Gibson;
see Gibson 1981 and further studies quoted below.
5 I follow here Gelb 1952: 1. For a general dating of the pe- riod to 2300-2150 B.C. see Foster 1982: 299; see further Hilgert 2003: 1ff . and note McMahon 2006: 4 for a more general defi nition of the period.
Sargonic Names in the Diyala Region and Beyond
Paolo Gentili
page 2
however, may be assigned with some confi dence to the classical Sargonic stage of the Old Akkadian period.6 Th erefore, all the texts under consideration here will be referred to as ‘Sargonic’.
§1.1. Historical data
In terms of historical facts, very little is known about the Diyala region during the Sargonic period. We owe that fact to the preponderance of administrative records. In order to proceed with an investigation of the socio-his- torical documentation the fi rst step will be to determine the provenience of the documents. Th is is easily done when stratigraphic information is available, less so with texts acquired on the antiquities market.
§1.2. Khafajah
We have stratigraphic information about the subsequent text fi nds from Khafajah:
_ Two royal inscriptions of Rîmuš either on a vase or fragments.7 Th ey were found not far from the Sîn temple and date to the (early?)8 Akkadian levels of the Oval Temple.9 Th e texts mention the conquest and the booty of Elam and Parāšum.10
_ Fragment of an inscription of the same king found on a calcite vase fragment.11 Its fi nd spot belongs to the same level as the other Rîmuš inscriptions.12
_ A seal mentioning king Šarkališarri possibly on a mace-head that belong to an unknown offi cial.13 _ An inscription of an unknown king14 from a vase
found in the Akkadian levels of the Oval Temple.15 Th e inscription presumably mentions the city Akkad.
6 Th e database off ers the fi eld “Notes,” which on the one hand informs about date and provenance of a given text and provide bibliographical information on the other. In the case of Tell Suleimah it should be noted that the tex- tual record originates from level IV, which reaches deep into the Old Akkadian layer. For a superfi cial dating of the economic texts see Gelb 1952: 7, note 4.
7 Kh II 94 and Kh I 381, edited as E2.1.2.15 in Frayne 1997, with bibliography (but corrected to Kh I 381).
8 As discussed below, “early” does seem inappropriate based on the modifi cations done to Gibson’s chronological table.
9 K 45-2 (top layer) and K 45, Oval III.
10 For the chronological attribution of the fi nds see Frank- fort 1934: 68.
11 Kh II 104 = Frayne 1997: E2.1.2.20, ex.4 (bibliography).
12 J 45-2, Oval III.
13 A 7162, unpublished.
14 Kh II 162 = Frayne 1997: E2.0.0.1008 (bibliography).
15 K 45, Oval III.
_ A bowl inscription of the Akkadian king Narām-Sîn found in the Akkadian levels of the Oval Temple.17 Th e text just mentions the king’s name.
§1.3. Tell Asmar
Th e ancient city of Ešnunna yielded the following text fi nds:
_ A doubtful date formula of king Šarkališarri (MAD I 305).18
_ A seal impression of an unknown offi cial dating to the last Akkadian ruler Šū-Durul.19
_ A text from the antiquities market mentioning a ruler of Ešnunna that can be attributed to the Akkadian dynasty. Th orkild Jacobsen20 read the ruler’s name
‘Enbiq-Îaniš, išakku of Ešnunna’21 (in contrast to Lutz22).
_ A school text23 with a copy of a legend that was attrib- uted to the Akkadian king Narām-Sîn by by Gelb and Kienast.24 Th e text mentions IpÌur-Kiš and his rise to kingship, the king of Ur Lugal-ane, as well as a speci- fi ed ‘Urukean.’25
§1.4. Tell Suleimah
Th e administrative texts of Tell Suleimah mention an ENSI2 without providing a clear chronological framework:26
16 Kh II 79 = Frayne 1997: E2.1.4.40 (bibliography).
17 K 45, Oval III.
18 A 7844 = Gelb 1961: 204, 2b; Th is text is not included in the present list, because the reading off ered by Gelb is not complete. Another date formula of this king is attestation in a document from Tell Agrab: MAD 1 268.
19 As 31:627 (TA 701) = Frayne 1997: E2.1.11.2002 (bib- liography). See Gibson 1982: 533: House IVa, Akkadian level.
20 Jacobsen 1934: 2, 2° and note 3 and Lutz 1928: note 83 rev.iii 42-46 (quoted in Gelb 1961: 10 d).
21 En-bí-iq-d3a-ni-iš4. For the correct spelling of Ešnunna in this inscription see also Jacobsen 1934: 1.
22 EN NE.GÁL d3a-ni-gè.
23 TA 1931,729 (from house XIX Sect. H/J of Stratum IVb): Frayne 1997: E2.1.4.7, with bibliography.
24 Gelb and Kienast 1990: 272-3, Narāmsîn C 15.
25 For a fi rst chronological framework see Frankfort 1934:
2ff . (included in Gibson’s article).
26 Evidence may be found on a local level for the Old Baby- lonian period, for which relations are attested to cities quoted in the lists from Tell Suleimah and other local sites, as Mê-Turān (see my work about Tell Suleimah mentioned in note 1). McMahon 2006, 3, note 3 states:
“…excavations at ….. Tell Sleima ….. have produced mate- page 3
_ Belili is mentioned in the total of an account of fi eld quantities as ENSI2 of an unknown locality; the text is referring to the village/city of Ababi.27
_ I-ŠE3-GU-UB ENSI2 of Ibrat and Išub-Anum ENSI2 of Šabue are mentioned in a list of personal names to- gether with the name of the village/city of Urig.28 Th e qualifi cation ENSI2 is clearly used to denote a local administrator.29 Th e three individuals cannot be linked to other persons in the database.30
§1.5. Unknown provenance
_ Although Ignace Gelb gave as generic provenience
‘Diyāla district’, an inscription of king Elulu can be considered unprovenanced.31
_ A couple of date-formulas of Narām-Sîn that record the year when the Akkadian king battled Simurrum and captured Baba, ensi of Simurrum, and Dubul, ensi of Arame, as well as the “year when the king dug the canals Nakabtum and UD.KIB.NUN, defeated the country of Šunaminda and killed Ur-Nintu.”32 Th ey probably come from Tell Asmar and Khafajah.
_ A date-formula of the same king quotes the “year of Simurrum.”33 It probably refers to another year name than mentioned above. It occurs in a text dealing with rial of Akkadian date, but their placement within that pe- riod suff ered from the lack of a full independent southern (Mesopotamian) sequence for comparison ….”
27 Rasheed 1981, n.36.
28 Rasheed 1981, n.3.
29 As Rasheed 1981b, 56 states even for texts dated to the Akkadian period “we cannot give them an exact date within the Akkadian period.” Th e extremely uncertainty of their exact chronological collocation inside this period as well as the affi nity of the personal names attested there compared to the evidence in the Diyāla region, just allow for including them into a wider chronological framework, but not more. However, they ‘at least’ belong to the same period as, for instance, the texts published in MAD 1.
30 Visicato 2000, 222ff ., mostly based on the sign ŠU.NIGIN, assigns to the texts from this site a date be- tween the Umma A and B periods, notably between the reigns of Rîmuš and Narām-Sîn: “Probably … to the be- ginning of the reign of Narām-Sîn … prior his administra- tive reform.” Th is opinion supports and, in part, confi rms what we said in the previous note.
31 For an interpretation of the name Lilul-dan = Elul-dan = Elulu see Gelb 1961, p.204, 1 (Levy 1935-1936, 281); see also Sollberger and Kupper 1971, p.113 IIA6.
32 Gelb 1952, nn. 217, 220, 231 and 236 (= Kh.34,22;
A22021; A22025, A22030+A22032, IM 31227 and a quotation from the same group of texts but given only by Sommerfeld 1999: IM 31224.
33 Cohen 1976, 227ff . (= NBC 10920).
some workers and offi cials from an uncertain place in the Diyala area.
§2.1. Historical perspectives
§2.1.1. Even if personal names collected in the database correspond to those of known contemporaneous offi cials such as, for example, Ša-ki-bêlī,34 Kirbānum,35 and Lipit- ili,36 who have been identifi ed as offi cials in the reign of Šarkališarri,37 it is by no means certain that they are iden- tical. Furthermore, since we are dealing with administra- tive texts, they are of little use for historical investigations.
Consequently, ‘historical’ information unrelated to local history is not helpful for a reconstruction of the situation in the Diyala region or in the adjacent region of Tell Sulei- mah; It merely testifi es the presence of Akkadian king(s) in the area. Just an unprovenanced text, supposedly from Tell Asmar, attests to a local king named Enbiq-Îaniš.
Additionally, documents from Tell Suleimah yielded ref- erences to an ENSI2.
§2.1.2. Nevertheless, some years ago38 McGuire Gibson attempted a new, positivistic, evaluation of the archaeo- logical documentation for the Akkadian period in the Diyala region.39 Th e author rejected the so-called Proto- imperial period that previously has been confused with early Akkadian levels.40 At least for the Diyala sites, his approach thus reduces the chronological extent of the Early Dynastic IIIb period and limits it to a rather short phase.41
§2.1.3. It further leads to a fi rmer attestation of settle- ments in the Akkadian period, which may be compared to the situation at other places (e.g., Inanna temple at Nippur).
§2.1.4. Let us link Gibson’s results to our short summary of historical data from the Diyāla region. Our most im- portant clues about the chronology originate from the
34 IM 31228 or NBC 10920.
35 TA 1931, 1-1A-6A and 10A; A7822-7875-7888.
36 Rasheed 1981, n.8.
37 MAD 2, p.203, 3-8. It is purely coincidental that the afore-mentioned offi cials date to the same Akkadian king.
38 Gibson 1982, 531ff .
39 About the problem of the Early Dynastic-Akkadian tran- sition see also Gibson and McMahon 1995 and 1997.
40 Gibson 1982, 531 and 538.
41 See also Gibson 1995, 3.
page 4
page 5
in Tell Asmar.43 Gibson’s table contains a small time gap between Khafajah Oval III and Tell Asmar House IVb.
For the former an Early Akkadian date is given, for the latter a Late Akkadian. Whereas the levels Houses IVb, in particular, have been dated by Gibson based on inter- nal documentation,44 the material from level Oval III in Khafajah, that originally has been dated based on a close comparison to the remains of Houses I,45 was criticised by Gibson himself,46 who puts its dating closer to the Early Akkadian period.
§2.1.5. On the basis of the relative homogeneity of the material at hand and concurring with Gibson’s view that level IVb is certainly contemporary with Narām-Sîn,47 we may modify his table. Th us levels IVb and Oval III are now closer to each other; the latter is now either closer to the Late Akkadian level or it may be interpreted as a tran- sitional level. Th e table proposed by Gibson48 can hence be modifi ed (see table 1).
§2.1.6. In the continuity of level Oval III we might sug- gest the following subdivision, which, as shall be dis- cussed, has no stratigraphic support: IIIa is a clear Early Akkadian phase, substantiated by fi nds dating to the reign of Rîmuš; IIIb contains a Narām-Sîn inscription in locus K 45.
42 See the royal inscriptions by Rîmuš and Narām-Sîn.
43 Narām-Sîn school text (IVb) and Šū-Durul seal (IVa). For the stratum IVb, Gibson 1982, p.533, note 16, records even several clay sealings belonging to UŒium, probably an offi cial of the reign of Narām-Sîn and nine Sargonic texts, a personal communication, this last one, from (and dated by) Gelb. Between the eight Sargonic texts (not historical) quoted by Gibson as coming from this level, we can indicate the one mentioning Tudanapšum, a prob- able daughter of Narām-Sîn.
44 Even if the Šu-Durul seal is said to come from a dump and not exactly in this level. Could it come from IVb level, that is, from a level closer to Narām-Sîn period?
45 Gibson 1982, 536.
46 Gibson 1982, 536 states: “… I suggest that the commend- able caution of the excavator might have led him to as- sume that any post-Early Dynastic material found in these buildings must have been intrusive, rather than a sign of a later date or at least of continuing occupation ….”
47 Gibson 1982, 533.
48 Even considered as intrusions by Gibson, these ‘histori- cal’ fi nds deserve a better consideration for the dating of the level: “… Stone objects, inscribed with the names of Rimush and Naram Sin, although thought to have been intrusions, may in fact date the level and contemporary Houses I” (Gibson 1982, 536).
Oval Houses Northern Palace
Akk.
Late
III(b) IVa
IVb Main level, N. Pal., Cont. Hses.
Early III(a) Va
Vb
Earlier N. Pal., Cont.
Hses.
Table 1: A new setting49
§2.2. A new setting?
§2.2.1. Taking the previous assumptions into account,50 - we should also add the school text that can be dated to the reign of Narām-Sîn - levels IVa and IVb in Tell Asmar should be separated more radically. Following Gibson’s evaluation the former should be dated later to the Late Akkadian period. Th at leaves the latter to a little earlier stage of the same period. In order to put levels Oval III and Houses IVb side by side, it should be considered that level Oval III, K-J 45 contains three inscriptions by Rîmuš, which can be seen as a plausible link to an ear- lier stage of the Akkadian period. In other words, the Narām-Sîn inscription anchors level Oval III to the Late Akkadian period. We must strongly remind that the at- testation of Rîmuš just stands fi rmly on the early phase of the Akkadian period. In our opinion, level Oval III, K-J 45 at Khafajah, where the Narām-Sîn inscription has been unearthed, can be reasonably interpreted as being a transition level between the Akkadian and Late Akka-
Oval Temple Houses
Akk.
(Late) Oval III(b), K 45:
Inscr. Narām-Sîn
IVa: Šū-Durul offi cial (seal)
IVb: Narām-Sîn (?) school text
Akk.
(Early)
Oval III(a), K 45:
Inscr. Unkn. King 2 inscr.
Rîmuš
Oval III(a), J 45:
Inscr. Rîmuš
Va Vb
Table 2: Inscriptions and levels
dian periods. Table 2 gives the situation more accurately in including the stratigraphic information of the fi nds.
49 See Gibson 1982, 537 for the legend.
50 See, in particular, footnote 48, where these fi nds are not simply considered ‘intrusions’.
page 6 is substantiated by the inscriptions of Narām-Sîn and
Rîmuš. Given the dates assigned to the texts by the vari- ous authors51 the fi nds from Khafajah would date to the reign of Narām-Sîn and those from Tell Asmar52 to the time between Narām-Sîn and Šarkališarri, but with some probability for the former one. From an archaeological point of view the “shallow and badly eroded”53 situa- tion as found by Gibson for levels Oval III and Houses I at Khafajah advise some caution about the stratigraphic situation for the fi nds of locus K 45 at Khafajah.54 Th is uncertainty, expressed by the same authors, hampers any historical reconstruction. However, these diffi culties can be limited twofold: Firstly, taking the stratigraphic dis- tribution for granted, notwithstanding its general am- bivalence, our hypothesis may be criticised, but could be taken into consideration. Secondly, if the location proved to be incorrect, it must be questioned, where the inscrip- tions come from? If they originate from the Sîn temple, we would like to know their stratigraphic location. If they indeed precede a Late Akkadian level, our hypothesis of a closer relation between levels Oval III and Houses IVb seems to be strengthened, because upon inspection of the excavation reports, there is no sign of any intrusions of levels Oval III, K-J 45 among earlier levels. On the con- trary, if intrusions do exist, it seems more likely that they derive from later levels.55 All these considerations are a work in progress.
§3.1. Th e personal names
§3.1.1. From a general point of view the names collected in the database are to a great extent, Akkadian56 and thus of a Semitic origin.57 Th eir formation can be compared to
51 See Text Table in the Database.
52 For the dating of the texts from Tell Suleimah to the time between the reigns of Rîmuš and Narām-Sîn see Visicato 2000.
53 Gibson 1982, 536.
54 It should be noted that the two rather damaged fragments attributed to Rîmuš originate from a ‘layer of potsherds and fl at baked bricks’ (Frankfort 1934b, 74), which is lo- cated not inside the Oval temple, but ‘not far from the Sîn temple’ (Frayne 1997, p.65, 15). Th orkild Jacobsen, however, states that these fragments “…were found in sec- ondary context. Th ey may therefore well have come from refuse discarded from the near-by Sin temple.”
55 Th e Rîmuš fragment Kh II 94 comes from the ‘top’ of the layer.
56 With Gelb 1957, viii: “...Th e term ‘Akkadian’ embraces probably more than the term implies ...”.
57 For instance: AÌātum, AÌu-†âb, Bêlπ-abum, Ilπ-aÌπ etc. In Tell Asmar even three possible Amorite names - these are Amurum, Iblanitum and Šamanum - are attested, which
guage of the texts is mostly Akkadian. Th ere is, of course, a certain number of Sumerian names, but they do not ex- ceed the usual share as found in this period; they are, in general, consistent with the stratum of other areas close by.59 However, we attempt to adapt Benjamin Foster’s point of view in this study,60 because our considerations are based on a diff erent system of counting: In contrast to Foster61 we reckon any occurrence of any single name typology as ‘one case’. For instance, we count the occur- rence of names like Dada or Zuzu only once, even if these names are attested more frequently than others. Th e main reason for this choice is the fact that certain names occur frequently and others less so. Th is happened with no clear indication in many cases, except for the inequality of the documentation. We are conscious, however, that these occurrences must be recorded and should be considered a result of the practical usage of names. As a consequence, it could lead to disparity when favouring a given name or a given ethnicity, in particular, over another.62 In fact, there is no certainty whether the frequency of a given name in our documentation derived from its more extensive usage
will be more common in the ensuing Ur III period (see Buccellati 1966): Th e fi rst one (four attestations) might be either an hypocoristic form or, following Buccellati, a tribal name; the second one probably referring to a woman may derive from a male form Iblanum (‘the man from Ibla’) and is attested once as owner (probably chief-clan or, as wom- an, linked to a chief clan owner) of Tutu in a sale of fi elds.
Th e mention of a woman from Ibla in this region in this period is quite indicative! Th e third name is an hypocoris- tic form of the word for ‘name’ (here in the sense ‘poster- ity’). It appears once in a legal document probably from Tell Asmar, as witness and owner (chief-clan) of Bilzum. If indeed Amorite, their presence in the documentation of this period and in this region might favour a slight pre-dating of this ethnic group in central Mesopotamia.
58 Like Mari, to some extent also Ebla or Kish.
59 See, for instance, Umma or Girsu.
60 Foster 1982, 297ff . In this study Foster’s system is used for an analysis of the ethnic background of the names, count- ing the names on the basis of the following percentages:
Sumerian, Akkadian, Reduplicated (that is AA or ABB) and Unassigned.
61 Ivi, p. 303.
62 For the problem of ethnicity in this period and its impli- cations, see Foster 1982, 297-98, notes 1-6. Th e term eth- nicity is used here in the sense of belonging to a specifi c tradition regarding its social, political and economic char- acteristics. With Foster it can be assumed, though with doubts, that this may be refl ected, to some extent, in the distribution of names (see notes below).
page 7
like to propose, nonetheless, the possibility that a more frequent usage of a given name is to be considered to re- fl ect the actual situation, as approached by Foster’s study.
Th erefore, we off er two diff erent shares: List A, below, just include name types. Th at leads to a slight variation compared to the shares64 given by Foster for the same pe- riod in this region (his results are given in brackets):65 List A
Akkadian 72.2 % (79 %) Sumerian 11.5 % (5 %) Reduplicated 5.5 % (12 %) Unassigned 10.5 % (4 %)
§3.1.2. Th e scheme given above needs some clarifi ca- tion. Th e share of both Akkadian and Sumerian personal names include all references toclear as well as less clear in- stances of either Akkadian (Semitic) or Sumerian names.
Of course, this does not exclude the possibility that vari- ous names could have had another origin.66 Th e third cat- egory contains personal names, whose linguistic origin is problematic.67 It should be noted, however, that some of those names could be assigned to one or another cat- egory.68 Th e last category represents the share of personal names in the database that, in our opinion and upon careful consideration, could have not been assigned to
63 Possible repetitions of a given name in a text are taken as one attestation and hence do not aff ect the outcome of this study.
64 Th e numbers given here aim at approximating the real numbers as close as possible.
65 It should be noted that Foster did not include data from Tell Suleimah, which is considered in these numbers.
66 See, for instance, restored names. Incomplete names, which in their majority appear to belong to Semitic ones, are excluded here.
67 Following Foster: AA or ABB. Th is is the so-called ‘Ba- na-na’ language (see Rasheed 1981b, 56 quoting Gelb:
Mumu, Zuzu, Igigi, A2u2u, Dagaga, Ilulu, Ilala, Imkuku, Balulu, Irrara etc.), which is only attested in personal names and represents an unknown Diyāla language that still needs to be identifi ed. Th e attested forms, whether or not they represent a ‘real language’, may just belong to a branch of the local Akkadian dialect. It is worth noting that whereas such forms are very rare in Iraq’s south, they are relatively common in the central area in the Akkadian period. Due to the lack of a more thorough analysis of at- testations in other Akkadian archives, it is currently not possible to draw their development from the area of the Himrin towards the Diyāla, as stated by Rasheed.
68 In our opinion, Sumerian names appear to predominate.
decrease of the Akkadian share and a substantial increase in the Sumerian one, compared to Foster’s evaluation is remarkable. Th e diff erences to his statistics are justifi ed by the fact that we assigned personal names to the Sume- rian category that have been ascribed to the third catego- ry by Foster.70 Furthermore, we classifi ed various names as unassigned, which Foster included among Akkadian names.71 In any case the situation is still representative on a regional level.
§3.1.3. List B contains all quotations of any single name in our documentation and thus is quite similar to Foster’s approach:
List B
Akkadian 76.3 % (79 %)
Sumerian 8.4 % (5 %)
Reduplicated 9.0 % (12 %) Unassigned 6.1 % (4 %)
§3.1.4. As we can see, the diff usion of the names infl uenc- es in a perceptible manner our list. Th e slight diff erences between these results and Foster’s approach are due to the same reasons explained above but here the comparison is much more substantial. Th e diff erences between our two lists are peculiar: decreasing of Sumerian and Unassigned names72 and increasing of Semitics and Reduplicated.
Probably, the better diff usion73 of some typical Semitic typologies (all the ones with Ilum-, for instance), plays a decisive role in this list.
§3.2. Onomatologic conclusions
§3.2.1. In pursuing this line of investigation, we may come to some conclusions based on a close-up examina- tion of the data at hand. It is, however, noteworthy to point out that our documentation suff ers from a series of limitations, which shall be summarised here: Firstly, we have to cope with the incompleteness of the data, which is essentially due to the fi nding conditions. Secondly, the
69 Th is category extends Foster’s classifi cation.
70 In fact, the two categories change with the same proportion.
71 Since Foster does not give any list of names for the Diyāla region assigned to his categories. It is not possible to be more sure about this, because Foster doesn’t give any spe- cifi c list of names subdivided by category, for the. Any- way, these two categories, Akkadian and Unassigned, change in the same way than the two quoted before.
72 But with a percentage always greater than the one off ered by Foster.
73 Even if we suppose, for a certain part of them, an acciden- tal cause.
as well as the tentative interpretation of many names; we tried to reduce this ambiguity by reckoning such names as Unassigned. Last but not least, the rather varying sizes of archives put some limitations to our analyses as well.
Nonetheless, it is worth to extrapolate the relevant infor- mation from our documentation and present preliminary results from two sites in the Diyāla region and one that lies beyond:74
Table A
Site Akk. Sum. Redupl.
Typological Diyāla
72.2 11.5 5.5
Tell Asmar 75.2 8.4 3.1
Khafajah 69.1 13.2 6.1
Tell Suleimah 64.6 16.0 4.9
Table B
Site Akk. Sum. Redupl.
General Diyāla
76.3 8.4 9.0
Tell Asmar 72.5 5.9 6.6
Khafajah 70.9 9.1 8.3
Tell Suleimah 69.6 10.6 10.4
§3.2.2. At fi rst glance,75 the following trends can be observed:76
§3.2.3. Table A
At Tell Asmar we encounter an increase of Akkadian names, but a parallel decrease in the Sumerian share. In contrast to that, at Khafajah and at Tell Suleimah, in particular, the situation is reversed with a progressive de- crease in the Akkadian share and a strong increase of the Sumerian part. In considering the three main sites in rela- tion to each other we have a progressive decrease of the
74 We choose these sites for their better geographical and chronological individuation of the data.
75 We want to make clear that what we are detecting here, as before, and that we call ‘increasing’ or ‘decreasing’ is, in fact, a fi xed situation, extrapolated from given documents settled in an established period of time, with absolutely no relations to an ‘evolution’, in a chronological sense, of the same data. If an evolution exists is only in a geographi- cal perspective, emerged from a confrontation with other, parallel, chronologically speaking, data. Is this geographi- cal evolution, or collocation, that we are trying to detect here.
76 Taking the fi rst, colored, line as main term of our con- frontation.
rian share. At least at Tell Asmar and Khafajah names that have been assigned to the Reduplicated category, increase similarly to the Sumerian share.
if the data referred to Tell Asmar and Khafajah, in rela- tions to the Diyāla, could be understood as due to the mere variation of internal occurrences,77 the percentage we achieve for Tell Suleimah is, in our opinion, clearly depending even from other elements (a more peripheral position of the site, that is a less, in chronological mean- ing, Semitic distribution?), that, in any case, is still to be investigated: its data are closer to the Khafajah numbers, even if with a lesser degree;
from a general point of view, it looks like the parallel variation between Sumerians and Reduplicated, could be understood as an internal affi nity among these two ty- pologies. In few words, perhaps the Reduplicated names could be referred more to the Sumerian component of the population that to the Semitic one, confi rming, but with all the reserves of the case, what we said before. In this sense, the little diff erent data of Tell Suleimah can be seen as a ‘peripheral’ situation.78
§ 3.2.4. Table B
From Tell Asmar to Tell Suleimah we encounter a pro- gressive decrease in Akkadian names and similar increase of Sumerian names.
the distance between the Diyāla situation and the spe- cifi c ones refl ects the same situation exposed above, with a substantial homogeneity in the decreasing of the Ak- kadian component (even if it is still eff ective and more evident for Tell Suleimah and, in this case, active even for Tell Asmar) and the same substantial increasing of the Su- merian and Reduplicated names;79
the parallelism we found, in Table A, between the per- centages of Sumerian and Reduplicated onomatologic components, for Tell Asmar and Khafajah, is still evident, but now it is all the same manifest even for Tell Suleimah, although in a diff erent way: here we register a strong par- allelism among these two components, when, in Table A, there was a light decreasing in the percentage of the Re-
77 For Tell Asmar we can suppose even a diff erent distribu- tion of the population, in terms of people merging, due to the more important administrative, economic and politi- cal status of this city.
78 Th at is, a semitization in progress?
79 Perhaps we can detect a more sensible quantifi cation of this changes, in terms of numbers.
page 8
page 9
ful in the same sense than before, in Table A,82 where the data were, in our opinion, more pregnant, taking in mind the supposed link between Sumerian and Reduplicated typologies.83
What can be added to this data? If we interpret the situ- ation at Khafajah (Table A) as being infl uenced by an internal discrepancy in the documentation, the increase of Akkadian names at Tell Asmar might be indicative for its major political role.Th e typological examination could thus be useful, which leads to a strong ‘Semitic’
share in the population of Tell Asmar. Th e same could be said about the Table B data, but in this case we must to extend the internal discrepancy interpretation even to Tell Asmar (like the previous case but in totally diff erent terms, the General examination could infl uence heavily the understanding of the situation). Th is problem (diff er- ent approaching/diff erent explanation) is totally outbal- anced in the case of Tell Suleimah: in each Table, strong increasing of Sumerian component84 and strong decreas- ing of the Akkadian one.
It looks like it was in act, in this region, a kind of still ac- tive separation or marginalization of the region, respect to the main Diyāla one, where the ethnic changes there in act, would be, here, still to come. In few words, the Su- merian original stratum of the population is still strong and visible here, where the Semitic one is not yet, com- pletely, emerged. Of course, even if we used words like
‘strong’ or ‘marginalization’, we are anyway talking about little indications, fractional numbers, but the situation these marks uncovered, in the frame developed from our lists, seems to have a substantial signifi cance.85 Only a fi -
80 Compared both to the main Diyāla percentage that to the internal site-links. ***
81 Or mutual stability, bearing in mind that all attestations are taken into consideration.
82 In front of a stronger increasing of the Sumerian compo- nent, at least in Table B.
83 Th at is: increasing of Sumerian AND increasing of Re- duplicated when we are talking about ‘total’ occurrences;
increasing of Sumerian AND decreasing of Reduplicated when we work with the typologies. Th e link between these two suppositions is the presumed belonging of the biggest part of the Reduplicated to the Sumerian catego- ry.
84 Seemingly supported by the Reduplicated component.
85 As mentioned before, the extent of the coincidence be- tween ethnicity and onomatology in this period is uncer- tain (see Foster 1982, 304). Th is study aims at evaluating the diff erences between one region and another, bearing
Reduplicated names at Tell Suleimah, be referred to the real presence of the Banana language?
§3.2.3. Relationships
Th e list given in the onomatology database refers to a
‘name’ and not to a specifi c individual. We do not know, for example, whether the individual Bibi attested as fa- ther of a certain Ennana in IM 31226 is the same quoted as father of a Watarum in A 22038. Patronyms, therefore, In terms of onomatology, the references to close paternal relationships in our database are many and various, but, of course, it is not always possible to understand the real extension of the same.86 Of course our list refers only to a ‘name’ not to a ‘person’, so, for instance, we don’t know if the person quoted as Bibi in IM 31226 as father of En- nana is the same that is quoted as father of Watarum in A 22038; this situation is clearly possible even in the case of two references in the same text (as Belulu, for example, in A 22026), but the only sure parental relationship involv- ing more than two people (father and son) that is possible to highlight from the texts is a cross reference between father, son and brother, relating to Šamaš-bītum, father of two brothers, Ilak-nu’’id and Ilum-bānî, from the same text (NBC 10920) and to Rabî-ilum, father of two brothers Kuruba and Tinina, also from a single text (FM 229227). Deeper forms of relationship are sure only for the case of Gaga-aŒûm, son of Ibibi, son of Ù, probably from Tell Asmar. Th e other references, even if it is always
in mind that people might in fact originated from rather diff erent places. Here, we have only in mind to evaluate the diff erences between one region and another, in terms of onomatology, but we are at the same time aware of the fact that we know very little about the real origins of the peoples we are talking about and, especially, of what they thought about their own origins. In the case of Tell Sulei- mah, we don’t want to advance the idea of an ‘original’ Su- merian stratum, in the population of the region, and a ‘fol- lowing’, in terms of time, Semitic one. We want only make reference to a Sumerian onomatologic stratum, probably antecedent to a Semitic one, at least because we assist to a progressive changing in the structure of the names. Th at the coincidence between the name and the person could be a fact in this region in this period and could be taken as a clue in favour of the belonging to any extensive eth- nic population (or, ad absurdum, to any race!) it is not yet demonstrated and, in our opinion, is very far from it. What it is suffi ciently acceptable, here, is that the very small part of the population of what we have a pale hint in our texts, probably identifi ed itself with a tradition that before was Sumerian and slowly became Semitic.
86 For the paternal relationship expressed through DUMU we follow here the Gelb’s notion; see Gelb 1955: 324.
the quotation is found, at least, in the same text and from the same city, are not sure.
§4.1. Th e database
We off er here (see the appendix) a synthetic list of names (with family background and texts). However, this should be considered just a short summary of our database. In the Old Akkadian Onomatology Database,87 the relevant information is found in the following sub-categories:
Dictionary (of the roots) Sargonic bibliography Sargonic onomatology Sargonic texts
Th e main mask, Sargonic Onomatology, is structured in this way:
Reference: Th is fi eld provides a quick reference to the re- spective publication;
Name: In order to facilitate the search in the database, Akkadian names are lemmatised. Th is happens when a specifi c spelling is already attested elsewhere in our docu- mentation. we found here some problems, even for the diffi culty to understand exactly to what Akkadian form the Sumerian sign of a specifi c name was referred, even because we found some diff erent forms for the same name. For instance, the word DINGIR: when it has been possible to fi nd, in our documentation, a correspond- ing Akkadian form of the name in question (ì-lí-ba-ni/
DINGIR-ba-ni), we adopted it for our list but, when it was not possible (DINGIR-A.ZU), we preferred to leave the translation in a standard form (DINGIR=ilum). Th is system has been adopted with the aim to rest the more close possible to the original Sumerian word used for the name.88
Although this study focuses on completely preserved names, in some cases just partly preserved names are quoted, either when the understood constituent is long enough or it refers to another complete name in the database. We recorded a total of 3201 occurrences of names for 1161 diff erent typologies of names (consider- ing only the complete names): in many cases we modifi ed slightly the reading of the names with the aim to bring
87 In respect to language and structure of the personal names we may refer to Gelb XXX.
88 For the problem of complementarities in the use of ilum/
il£ see Di Vito 1993: 243ff .
we recorded Antum even when the reading was AN-tim, because we had already attested this reading from other archives); in other cases, we left the original reading (that is, the one we found in the archive of reference, to be at- tributed to the fi rst Author) without modifying it, whit the aim to leave the more possible unchanged the same original reading. In other words, we tried a normaliza- tion only when the operation was not against the original interpretation of the name. A note: this fi eld is referred to any single occurrence of any single name, so it is very frequent that the same given name, with more than one occurrence, occupies a contiguous series of Name fi elds;
Reading: Th is fi eld contains the transliterated name as given in the source;
Typology: Here a typology of the text is given.
Father: where a paternal relationship is given, assuming the well attested paternal relationship expressed with DUMU (A DUMU B) as the standard for the period;
Relations: where a general, not essentially familiar, rela- tionship is given, fundamentally the mention of brothers or sisters and the ownership to a clan, expressed with šu/
ši (A šu/ši B);
Professions: where we tried to connect the name to the profession sometimes listed in the text;
Provenance: not referred to the text but to the person(s) listed in the same, when given by the text;
Site: where the text has been found or where it is said to be (site or region);
Text: depending on the possibilities off ered by the doc- umentation, we listed here the museum number or the excavation number or the publication (author/year of pub.), with particular reference to our List of text;
Notes: any kind of reference to a given name that has been possible to fi nd in the text;
Update: some specifi c notes referred to the text or to the archive of publication.
Side by side to this main list, the List of texts (updated up to 2006) contains the subsequent fi elds: Museum Num- ber; Excavation Number89; Origin of the text (when pos- sible); Reference (to the specifi c publications, where the text is mentioned or studied, referring to the Bibliogra- phy); a Key (where a consideration about the text studied is given) and a Notes fi eld.
At the end, a short Utilities section, where we recorded the reading of the Key fi eld in the List of texts, the one of the Origin fi eld in the same list, a short list of biblio-
89 For these two fi elds is valid what we said about the repeti- tion of the main data for the fi eld Name.
page 10
BIBLIOGRAPHY Buccellati, Giorgio
1966 Th e Amorites in the Ur III period. Naples: Istituto Orientale di Napoli.
Cohen, Mark E.
1976 “A New Naram-Sin Date Formula.” JCS 28, 227-232.
Di Vito, Robert A.
1993 Studies in Th ird Millennium Sumerian and Akkadian Personal Names. SP 16. Rome: Gregorian &
Biblical Press.
Foster, Benjamin R.
1982 “Ethnicity and Onomastics in Sargonic Mesopotamia.” Or 51, 297-354.
Frankfort, Henri
1934a Iraq Excavations of the Oriental Institute 1932/33. OIC 17, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
1934b Tell Asmar, Khafaje and Korsabad. Second Preliminary Report of the Iraq Expedition. OIC 16. Chi- cago: University of Chicago Press.
Frayne, Douglas R.
1997 Th e Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Th e Early Periods 3/2: Ur III Period (2112-2004). Toronto:
University of Toronto Press.
Gelb, Ignace J.
1952 Sargonic Texts fr om the Diyāla Region. MAD 1. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
1955 Old Akkadian Inscriptions in Chicago Natural History Museum. OAIC 30. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
1957 Glossary of Old Akkadian. MAD 3. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
1961 Old Akkadian Writing and Grammar. MAD 2. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gelb, Ignace J. and Burkhart Kienast
1990 Die altakkadischen Königsinschrift en des Dritten Jahrtausends v. Chr., FAOS 7, Stuttgart: F. Steiner.
Gentili, P.
2002 “La Regione dello Himrin.” In Saporetti, Claudio, ed., La Rivale di Babilonia. Rome: Newton &
Compton Editori, pp. xxx-xxx.
forthcoming “Tell Suleimah e dintorni.”
Gibson, McGuire
1981 Uch-Tepe I: Tell Razuk, Tell Ahmed al-Mughir, Tell Ajamat. Chicago: Th e Oriental Institute.
1982 “A re-evalution of the Akkad Period in the Diyala Region on the Basis of Recent Excavations at Nippur and in the Hamrin.” AJA 86, 531-538.
for the Museum initials.
page 11
1995 “Investigation of the Early Dynastic-Akkadian Transition: Report of the 18th and 19th Seasons of Excavation in Area WF, Nippur.” Iraq 57, 1-39
1997 “Th e Early Dynastic-Akkadian Transition, Part 2: Th e Author’s Response.” Iraq 59, 9-14.
Hilgert, Markus
2003 “New Perspectives in the Study of Th ird Millennium Akkadian.” CDLJ 2003/4.
Jacobsen, Th orkild
1934 Philological Notes on Ešnunna and its Inscriptions. AS 6. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
1940 “Inscriptions.” In: Delougaz, Pinhas, Th e Temple Oval at Khafājah. OIP 53. Chicago: Th e Universi- ty of Chicago Press,
Levy, Selim J.
1935-1936 AOF 10 (1935-1936) 281?.
Lutz, Henry F.
1928 Sumerian Temple Records of the Late Ur Dynasty. UCP 9/2. Berkeley: University of California Press.
McMahon, Augusta
2006 Nippur V: Th e Early Dynastic to Akkadian Transition. Th e Area WF Soundings at Nippur. OIP 129.
Chicago: Oriental Institute Publications.
Rasheed, Fawzi
1981a Th e Ancient Inscriptions in Himrin Area. Baghdad: Ministry of Culture and Information, the State Organization of Antiquitiesand Heritage.
1981b “Akkadian Texts from Tell Sleima.” Sumer 40, 55-56.
Sollberger, Edmond & Kupper, Jean -Robert
1971 Inscriptions royales sumeriennes et akkadiennes. LAPO 3. Paris: Editions du Cerf.
Sommerfeld, Walter
1999 Die Texte der Akkade-Zeit 1. Das Dijala-Gebiet: Tutub. Münster: Rhema.
Visicato, Giuseppe
1999 “Th e Sargonic Archive of Tell el-Suleimah.” JCS 51, 17-30.
2000 Th e Power and the Wrtiing: Th e Early Scribes of Mesopotamia. Bethesda: CDL Press.
page 12
Sargonic Names in the Diyala region and beyond Appendix:
Paolo Gentili
Name Father Profession Relations Reference
›Abiga (a3-bi2-ga) munus.sagi MAD 1, 073 x+iix+3
›Akallum (E2.GAL) Father of Dæbaba MAD 4, 003 3
›Amºkum (›a3-mu-¿kum•) ¿lugal• [a-ka3]-deki MAD 1, 002 vx+1
›Arπš (›a3-ri2-iš) MAD 1, 017 2
›Azaritum (›a3-za-ri2-tum) MAD 1, 096 x+iix+5
A-UDx! (a2-UDx!) guruš sag.giš apin.na AIHA 4, 45 4
A.ZA-udat (A.ZA-u3-DA-at) guruš sag.giš apin.na AIHA 4, 06 i9
AÌætπ-Kuku ([a]-Ìa-ti-ku-ku) dumu.nita sag.giš apin.na JCS 28, 227 rii1
AÌætum (a-Ìa-tu-¿um•) dumu.mi2 AIHA 4, 01 v11
AÌætum (a-Ìa-tum) dumu.mi2 AIHA 4, 01 vii2
AÌætum (a-Ìa-tum) dumu.nita sag.giš apin.na AIHA 4, 01 vii8
AÌætum (a-Ìa-tum) dumu.nita AIHA 4, 07 ii12
AÌætum (a-Ìa-tum) dumu.nita AIHA 4, 07 ii5
AÌætum (a-Ìa-tum) dumu.nita AIHA 4, 08 14
AÌætum (a-Ìa-tum) dumu.nita MAD 1, 003 i3
AÌætum (a-Ìa-tum) dumu.nita MAD 1, 003 iii8
AÌætum (a-Ìa-tum) dumu.mi2 MAD 1, 053 x+iix+1
AÌætum (a-Ìa-tum) dumu.nita MAD 1, 163 +
165 i29
AÌætum (a-Ìa-tum) dumu.nita.ga Tutub 16 13
A̺sira (a-Ìu-si-ra) dumu.nita MAD 1, 163 +
165 iv32
A̺šuni (a-Ìu-¿su4•-ni) geme2.libir Tutub 04 iii1
A̺šuni (a-Ìu-su4-ni) guruš (e2-pu3-su-gi) Tutub 04 iv7
A̺šuni ([a-Ìu]-¿su4-ni•) geme2.libir 0 1
A̺šunu (a-Ìu-su-nu) MAD 1, 158 +
328 x+1
A̺šunu (a-Ìu-su-nu) geme2 (e2-šu-ri2-im-kum) MAD 1, 163 +
165 iii31
A̺šunu (a-Ìu-su4-[nu]) Ra›u guruš MAD 1, 163 +
165 ix?9
A̺šunu (a-Ìu-su4-nu) MAD 1, 302 4
A̺šunu (a-Ìu-su4-nu) MAD 1, 303 r.11
A̺šunu (PAP-šu-[ni/u]) Father of Mûda›um FLP 0061 ii2'
AÌi-†âb (a-Ìi-¿DU10•) (guruš) dumu.nita(.me?)
sag.giš apin.na OrNS 51, 355 1 r.iii6
AÌi-ilum (a-Ìi-DINGIR) mušen.du3 (be.lu.bar.e) 0 2
AÌu-†âb ([a?]-¿Ìu?•-DU10) guruš sag.giš apin.na AnOr 07, 372 r.iii2
AÌu-†âb (a-[Ìu]-DU10) nu.kirix (be.lu.bar.e) Tutub 05 i4'
AÌu-†âb (a-Ìu-DU10) guruš sag.giš apin.na Tutub 18 r.28
AÌu-†âb (a-Ìu-DU10) guruš sag.giš apin.na Tutub 19 i11
AÌu-†âb (a-Ìu-DU10) guruš sag.giš apin.na Tutub 24 8
FATHER RELATIONS PROFESSION PROVENANCE
šu Mar¥t (mar-ru-ut.KI)?
GEMÉ.LIBIR in GU4.A.KI DUMU.NITA in Ú.DA.KI
GEMÉ.EREŠ.KI (?) in GU4.A.KI š¥ Rašubatim in Arag.KI
Brother of Adagal in Šinig.KI Qabium
DUMU.NITA SAG.GIŠ APIN.NA in Ú.DA.KI
AÌu-†âb (a-Ìu-DU10) guruš sag.giš apin.na Tutub 60 6
AÌu-damiq (a-Ìu-¿SIG5•) geme2.libir Tutub 02 i10
AÌu-ilum (a-Ìu-DINGIR) geme2.ereški (?) AIHA 4, 07 iii7
AÌu-ilum (a-Ìu-DINGIR) geme2.ereški (?) MAD 1, 319 r.24
AÌu-libûrra (a-Ìu-li-bur-ra) geme2.ereški (?) OAIC 28 4
AÌu-mubi ([a]-¿Ìu•-mu-bi2) geme2.libir MAD 1, 003 vx+5
AÌu-mubi (a-Ìu-mu-bi2) geme2.libir MAD 1, 100 x+12
AÌu-mubi ([a]-Ìu-¿mu•-[bi2]) geme2.libir Tutub 08 1
AÌuÌi (a-Ìu-Ìi) geme2.libir Tutub 04 iix+6
AÌuÌu ([a]-¿Ìu•-Ìu) guruš sag.giš apin.na AIHA 4, 01 iii16
AÌuÌu (a-Ìu-Ìu) guruš sag.giš apin.na AIHA 4, 03 i10
AÌuÌu (a-Ìu-Ìu) geme2.libir AIHA 4, 18 2
AÌuÌu (a-Ìu-Ìu) geme2.libir OIP 104, 044 x+4
AÌuÌu (a-Ìu-Ìu) la2 geme2 (e2-šu-an-tum) MAD 1, 132 x+ix+8
AÌuÌu (a-Ìu-Ìu) guruš sag.giš apin.na MAD 1, 163 +
165 ix?32
AÌuÌu (a-Ìu-Ìu) guruš sag.giš apin.na MAD 1, 311 r.x+3
AÌuÌu (a!-Ìu-Ìu) guruš sag.giš apin.na MAD 1, 326 r.iii7
AÌuÌu ([a]-Ìu-Ìu) (guruš) dumu.nita(.me?)
sag.giš apin.na FLP 0066 i4
AB.NE (AB.NE) la2 geme2 (e2-šu-an-tum) AIHA 4, 01 v4
AB+AŠ2 (AB+AŠ2) MAD 1, 102 2
AB+AŠ2 (AB+AŠ2) MAD 1, 273 2
AB+AŠ2 (AB+AŠ2) MAD 1, 284 2
AB+AŠ2 (AB+AŠ2) MAD 1, 293 1
AB+AŠ2 (AB+AŠ2) dub.sar. MAD 1, 295 5
AB+AŠ2 (AB+AŠ2) geme2 (e2-šu-an-tum) MAD 1, 330 7
AB+AŠ2 (AB+AŠ2) geme2 (e2-šu-an-tum) Tutub 11 iv9
AB+AŠ2 (AB+AŠ2) geme2 (e2-šu-an-tum) Tutub 30 r.16
AB+AŠ2 (AB+AŠ2) geme2 (e2-šu-an-tum) Tutub 55 r.15
Abπ-[…] (a-bi2-[…]) geme2 (e2-šu-an-tum) JCS 28, 227 r.i6
Abπ-[…] (a-bi2-[x x]) geme2 (e2-šu-an-tum) Tutub 03 r.iii4'
Abπ-[…] (a•-¿bi2•-[x-x]) geme2 (e2-šu-an-tum) Tutub 36 r.20
Abπ-†âb (a-bi2-DU10) Father of Ae MAD 1, 097 x+vx+2
Abπ-bîti (a-bi2-E2) Zira Tutub 36 r.15
Abπ-ili (a-bi2-i3-li2) Puzur-Eštar MAD 1, 077 x+3
Abπ-lazar (a-bi2-la-za-ar) Father of Imkuku Tutub 32 7
Abπ-meni (a?-bi2-me-ni) Enbu-ilum MAD 1, 007 +
010 x+ix+1
Abπ-quræd ([a]-bi2-UR.SAG) Pû-ilπ Tutub 07 9
Abπ-quræd ([a]-bi2-UR.SAG) Father of Baluzum Tutub 14 3
Abπ-quræd (a-bi2-UR.SAG) Puzurrum Tutub 18 r.21
Abπ-quræd ([a]-bi2-UR.SAG) Father of Šº-Eštar Tutub 24 4
Abπ-quræd (¿a•-bi2-UR.SAG) Father of Ilili Tutub 61 2
Abπ-Tišpak (a-bi2-dTIŠPAK) sag kullum MAD 1, 163 +
165 ii42
Abπ-Tišpak (a-bi2-dTIŠPAK) Owner (chief-clan)
of Bubu, as SAG
MAD 4, 003 2
Abπ-zaki (a-bi2-za-[ki?]) Šisi›u MAD 1, 053 r.x+ix+8
Abπ-zēru-Bašin
(¿a•-bi2-NUMUN.BA-si-in) Father of Dannum Tutub 32 6
Aba (a-ba) Zuza MAD 4, 004 r.11
Abba (ab-¿ba•) Father (mother?) of
Rigmum Tutub 40 2
Abba (ab-ba) šº Kališdan Tutub 41 2
Abi (a-bi) Owner (chief-clan)
of Umdidi Tutub 19 iii6
Abibi (a-bi2-bi2) šº Dakum AIHA 4, 07 ii13
Abibi (a-bi2-bi2) Owner (chief-clan)
of Ata-ilum MAD 1, 002 iii10
Abibi (a-bi2-bi2) Irrara MAD 1, 005 +
117 + 133 x+iiix+3
Abibi (a-bi2-bi2) Brother of Alura MAD 1, 047 x+iix+1
Abibi (a-bi2-bi2) Ennanum MAD 1, 297 2
Abibi (a-bi2-bi2) Father of Imi-ilum MAD 1, 320 r.12
Abibi (a-bi2-bi2) Father of Pû-ilπ OAIC 02 r.8
Abibi (a-bi2-bi2) Brother of Nani OAIC 13 3
Abibi (a-bi2-bi2) aslag OAIC 30 7
Abira (a-bi2-ra) šº Idâ-BE MAD 1, 163 +
165 ix?26
Abišâtu (¿a•?-bi2-[sa?-tu?]) Owner (chief-clan)
of Aruru Tutub 36 r.20
Abišâtu (¿a•?-bi2-sa-[tu?]) Tutub 39 x+3
Abišu (a-bi2-su) MAD 1, 163 +
165 ii41
Abišu (a-bi2-su) Dæda šitim MAD 4, 008 r.5
Abitum (a-bi2-tum) Father of Puzurrum MAD 1, 163 +
165 iii34
Ablu[…] (ab-lu[…]) Tutub 04 iix+4
Abubu (a-bu-bu) Zuzum AIHA 4, 01 vi9
Abubu (a-bu-bu) Father of Urzu AIHA 4, 07 i4
Abubu (a-bu-bu) AIHA 4, 08 4
Abubu (a-bu-bu) AIHA 4, 14 8
Abubu (a-bu-bu) šºt NU.GAL AIHA 4, 46 6
Abulum (a-bu-lum) šºt NIN.dEN.LIL2.LE AIHA 4, 04 ii6
Abulum (a-bu-lum) Owner (chief-clan)
of Išime OIP 104, 044 x+iix+3
Abulum (a-bu-lum) Tutub 18 12
Abum (a-bi-<im?>) šºt ŠAPRA.E2 Tutub 19 iii6
Abuna (a-bu-na) MAD 1, 271 5
Abusu (a2-bu-ZU) Tutub 28 r.8
Adad-šâtu (<d>IM-sa-tu) MAD 1, 163 +
165 iv30
Adada (a-da-da) Tutub 03 r.iv2'
Adagal ([a]-¿da•-gal) AIHA 4, 09 14
Adagal (a-da-¿gal•) Umdidi šº Išimešum MAD 1, 041 x+ii13
Adagal (a-da-gal) Owner (chief-clan)
of IpÌurum MAD 1, 057 r.x+13
Adagal (a-da-gal) MAD 1, 163 +
165 v10
Adagal (a-ta2-kal) MAD 1, 319 4
Adagal (a-ta2-kal2) Owner (chief-clan)
of Imdum Tutub 62 4
Adam›u (a-dam-[u]) Owner (chief-clan)
of IÌzuzum MAD 1, 046 +
101 x+9
Adam›u (a-dam-u) šºt Išub-Anum
ENSI2 Sabue.KI
MAD 1, 139 x+6
Adam›u (a-dam-u) ensi2 sabueki Owner (chief-clan)
of Atuna OAIC 05 lo.e.10
Adam›u (a-dam-u) Father of Imdum OAIC 08 1
Adam›u (a]-dam-u) Durlab Ir3 Dakum Tutub 11 iii3
Adani (a-da-ni) MAD 1, 163 +
165 ix?33
Adda (ad-¿da•) MAD 1, 269 r.15
Adda (ad-da) Tutub 17 11
Addanapir (ad-da-na-pir6) šºt Mabalu-Dagan Tutub 37 3
Admar (¿ad•-mar) Father of IÌzuzum MAD 1, 336 r.15
Admar (ad-mar) Owner (chief-clan)
of Bêlπ-kîn OAIC 39 r.6
Admar (ad-mar) šº Mumu MAD 1, 329a 5
Admar (ad-mar) ši GIŠ.GIGIR, owner
(chief-clan) of PuÌurseli
MAD 1, 329a r.x+3
Aduna (a2-du2-na) AIHA 4, 03 ii2
Ae (a-e) šº MamaÌu AIHA 4, 02 i5
Agaga (a-ga-ga) ši Ibzitum; Owner
(chief-clan) of Ilπ- dan
MAD 1, 163 +
165 ii39
Agaga (a-ga-ga) Owner (chief-clan)
of MamaÌu OAIC 33 ii26
Agidda (a-gid2-[da?]) šº I.ŠE3.GU.UB
(ENSI2 Ibrat.KI) HMA 9-02706 2
Agigi (a-gi-gi) ensi2 ibratki Owner (chief-clan)
of Ilπ-dan AIHA 4, 11 2
Agigi (a-gi-gi) Servant of Wadri MAD 1, 087 +
118 x+ix+2
Agigi (a?-gi-gi) OAIC 20 8
Ajæbe (a-a-be) OIP 104, 042 x+iiix+2
Aklum (ak-¿lum•) DUMU.TU.A šºt
Inšia Tutub 37 19
Akšak(k)im (UÎ2.KI-im) Owner (chief-clan)
of AliÌi Tutub 19 ii16
Al-ilπ (al-i3-l[i2]) šºt Šarru-Ìuršænum AIHA 4, 01 iii15
Al-ilπ (al-i3-li2) Owner (chief-clan)
of Ilπ-rabî OAIC 08 2
Al-ilπ (al-i3-li2) Tutub 50 4
Alala (a-la-la) abxAŠ2.uru MAD 1, 185 6
Alali (a-la-li) as œabtum (?) JCS 26, 006 4
Alali (a-la-li) Magaga Tutub 38 r.iii15
Ali-†âb (a-li2-DU10) Father or Ilπ-dan AIHA 4, 41 7
Ali-aÌu (a-li-a-Ìu) MAD 1, 007 +
010 x+iix+4
Ali-aÌu (a-li-a-Ìu) sipa MAD 1, 087 +
118 x+ir.x+6
Ali-aÌu (a-li-a-Ìu) šº Rašubatim MAD 1, 137 x+2
Ali-aÌu (a-li-a-Ìu) Owner (chief-clan)
of Ωillulu MC 4, 51 ii6'
Ali-aÌu (a-li-a-Ìu) engar Tutub 17 r.19
Ali-aÌu (a-li-a-Ìu) Tutub 18 r.40
Ali-aÌum (a-li-a-Ìu-um) šº Îamazitim FLP 0061 i9
Ali-badim (URU-ba-dim) Owner (chief-clan)
of Lamusa HMA 9-02622 iii34
Ali-bêlπ (a-li-be-li2) šº Abulum MAD 1, 081 x+2
Ali-ennπ (a-li-en-ni) Owner (chief-clan)
of Šammum MAD 1, 163 +
165 v7
Ali-kaspºši
(a-li-KUG.BABBAR.SI) Bêlπ-annû MAD 1, 163 +
165 ii19
Ali-lπbºr (a-li-li-bur2) Father of Šu›i MAD 1, 163 +
165 iii14
Ali-Šamši (URU-dUTU.KI) Dabšiga MC 4, 52 8
Ali-turuÌ (a-li-t]u-ru-uÌ) Father of Šamruzum MAD 1, 053 x+ix+1
Ali-turuÌ (a-li-tu-ru-uÌ) Burgul MAD 1, 163 +
165 i6
