Introduction
How did names acquire social meaning in Babylonia? To begin, we may recall a short presentation by Sophie Démare-Lafont about the name as an element of identification in ancient Mesopotamia (Reference Démare-Lafont, Depauw and CoussementDémare-Lafont 2014). She underlined the following points concerning the definition of the name. First, a standard name consists of two or three elements, linked together in a sentence. Most names are theophoric and follow two models: either the deity is called upon for protection (e.g., Nabû-šumu-uṣur ‘O Nabû, protect my name/fame’) or the name-bearer is identified as a servant of the god (e.g., Arad-Bēl ‘Servant of Bēl’). Second, sometimes we find ‘Banana names’, constructed from the reduplication of the same syllable (e.g., Dada, Zuzu). This happens mostly in Sumerian (Reference FosterFoster 1981) but also sometimes in Akkadian. Such names lack a lexical meaning. Third, foundlings are named after the specific circumstances of their discovery (e.g., Ša-pî-kalbi ‘Out of the mouth of a dog’). And fourth, double names are attested in Neo-Babylonian times for some individuals (e.g., a man named Marduk-nāṣir-apli ‘Marduk is the protector of the heir’ was also known as Širku ‘Gift’).
In the words of Karen Radner, ‘Akkadian and Sumerian personal names generally have a precise meaning’ (Reference RadnerRadner 2005, 26). The referent included in a name contributes to the social identity of the bearer. For example, some names put the person under the explicit protection of a deity, a temple, or a city (e.g., Nabû-aplu-uṣur ‘O Nabû, protect the heir!’). Other names set him or her in relation with family members (e.g., Aḫūšunu ‘Their brother’) or with an animal (e.g., Kalbāya ‘My dog’). There is also what J. J. Stamm called ‘Begrüßungsnamen’: positive reminders of the circumstances at birth and the family’s reaction to the newborn child (Reference StammStamm 1939). Thus, it is plausible that names formed with the verb balāṭu in the D stem and having the meaning ‘to heal, to bring to life’ – an action attributed to a deity – recalled a difficult birth. By contrast, a name like Mīnu-ēpuš-ilī ‘What fault did I commit, O my god?’ conveyed a negative reaction of the family – a reaction that remained attached to the person for their entire life (Reference StammStamm 1939, 164–5). In all these examples, the name and its referent revealed something about the social identity of the bearer. Only a minority of Babylonian names were ‘Banana names’ – that is, names constructed from the reduplication of the same syllable. Such names had no connection to the linguistic context in which they developed and operated outside the lexicon.
The Name as a Means of Identification
In Babylonia, at least since the second millennium BCE, whenever it was necessary to produce a legal identity – for instance, in legal contracts or administrative texts – people mentioned their name and the name of their father, or, alternatively, their name and their function or occupation. The mother’s name was rarely used for such purposes. If she was mentioned at all, this was because she was physically present at the transaction. However, there exists one exception to this rule. In the Neo-Babylonian period, oblates (širku) of the Ištar temple in Uruk, born to unmarried mothers, were identified as ‘PN1, the son of fPN2, the released woman (zakītu)’.Footnote 1
An innovation of the first centuries of the first millennium BCE was to identify persons with three, instead of two, onomastic elements: the person’s name, their father’s name, and a family name. This phenomenon did not affect the whole population but remained limited to the urban notability or ‘bourgeoisie’. However, as this group is responsible for most archives surviving from Babylonia, the phenomenon is particularly well documented. It is often put forward as a special characteristic of Neo-Babylonian onomastic practice (see Chapter 4 in this volume).
Hence, a person can be identified with up to three onomastic elements in cuneiform texts from the first millennium BCE. The first element is a personal name. This name can be quoted in full or in an abbreviated form, often a hypocorism. For instance, the name Nabû-šumu-iddin ‘Nabû gave a name’ can be shortened to Iddināya (based on the component -iddin ‘he gave’) or to Šumāya (based on the component -šumu ‘name’). The rules for deriving a hypocorism from the full name are not yet fully understood (see Chapter 2). The second element is the father’s name. This name refers to the nuclear family and lends legitimacy to a person through direct filiation or adoption. A person who was adopted in adulthood usually retained the name of his first (biological) father, especially when being adopted for financial reasons. Thus, Iddin-Nabû, son of Nabû-bān-zēri, descendant of Nappāḫu, kept the name of his father Nabû-bān-zēri even after he was adopted by his paternal uncle Gimillu (Reference BakerBaker 2004). The third element is the family name. The system is fairly similar to the one in use in modern Western Europe. Chapter 4 is devoted to the topic of family names.
Papponymy and Mammonymy
The practice of naming children after members of previous generations of the family is well attested in Babylonia. Mammonymy was rare and mostly confined to Late Babylonian documentation (Reference Wunsch, del Olmo Lete, Feliu and Millet-AlbàWunsch 2006; Reference Langin-Hooper and PearceLangin-Hooper and Pearce 2014). More common was papponymy, as underlined by Michael Reference JursaJursa (2007, 133): ‘Another tradition of some of these upper class families is papponymy: names are often reused by the grandchild generation onwards … The Murašû archive (Reference StolperStolper 1985, 18–19) and the Tattannu archive (Reference Jursa and StolperJursa and Stolper 2007, 249) offer very clear evidence.’ The best-known case at present is that of King Nebuchadnezzar II, whom Michael Jursa links through papponymy to a governor of Uruk during the reign of Assurbanipal, (Nabû)-kudurru-(uṣur), who would have been his grandfather (Reference JursaJursa 2007). Papponymy thus seems to have developed especially during the fifth and fourth centuries, but was practised in certain social circles already in the seventh century. It is especially well documented among scholars (e.g., Reference Ossendrijver, Cancik-Kirschbaum, van Ess and MarzahnOssendrijver 2011).
If papponymy was mainly practised among families of the elite, in families of a lower social stratum names referencing the father, the grandfather, or an uncle were popular, such as Abi-abi ‘Grandfather’, Aḫi-abia ‘Brother of my father’, and Abunu ‘our father’ (Reference StammStamm 1939, 302–3).
Orthography
In many writing systems personal names are accompanied by identifying marks to distinguish them from the rest of the words in a text. In the cuneiform script used during the Neo-Babylonian period, we find two such ideographic markers: a vertical wedge for men and the sign MUNUS for women.Footnote 2 In Assyriological parlance, the vertical wedge is known as the ‘Personenkeil’. Transliterations usually render the masculine marker as I or m and the feminine marker as f or mí, placed in superscript before the personal name. In this volume, we also mark normalised versions of female names with a superscript f; in this way, they can be easily distinguished from normalised male names, which we leave unmarked.
The name itself was often written in a non-phonetic way by using a specific set of logograms.Footnote 3 This system served three functions. First, it allowed readers to quickly differentiate a personal name from other parts of the text, which were usually written by means of phonetic signs. Second, the system allowed scribes to avoid wasting space and to optimise the layout of the text by using long or short spellings depending on available space. For instance, the name of the chief deity Marduk could be written using the short spelling dŠÚ or the long spelling dAMAR.UTU. Such long and short options were available for many of the common elements of personal names. For instance, the element Mušēzib- could be rendered KAR and mu-še-zib and -erība could be written SU and eri4-ba. Hence, acquiring knowledge of logograms specific to the repertoire of names and their variants was part of scribal training. The student practised this skill by copying out lists of names on school tablets. In certain contract types, the notion of ‘page layout’ was important. For instance, in property deeds the scribe was supposed to fit the chain consisting of the personal name, the father’s name, and the family name on a single line. The availability of long and short spelling options was helpful to attain a neat line division. Third, the practice of writing personal names logographically offered the possibility to give the name a particular value in view of the polysemic nature of logograms. A good illustration of this practice is found in the myth of creation, Enūma eliš, which ends with a commentary on the fifty names of the god Marduk. The name ‘is’ the person: it must present itself in a particular way.
Another orthographic practice relating to Neo-Babylonian onomastics is the use of rare values of common signs in order to lend a name antiquity. This is found in royal names (see section on ‘Royal Names’), but also in ancestor names. For example, the family name Sîn-taqīša-libluṭ (‘O Sîn, the one you gave, may he live!’) was written dA.KU-BA-TI.LA and read dE4.GI7-BA-TI.LA, which then was reduced by acrophony to dE.GI.BA and Egibi.
A distinction must be made between the use of archaising spellings and the use of real ancient names. A Sumerian name – an ancient language of culture by the Neo-Babylonian period – allowed the bearer to inscribe himself in a prestigious tradition and to reinforce his social status (see Chapter 17). It is not always clear whether an archaising spelling represents a Sumerian name. For instance, the name spelled IBÀD.MAH-dAMAR.UTU could be understood as a real Sumerian name, even though it has an Akkadian equivalent: Tukulti-Marduk.Footnote 4 Another example is the name spelled IdÙRU.DÙ-MA.AN.SUM,Footnote 5 of which the Akkadian equivalent would be Nusku-iddin. Here, the scribe added a note drawing attention to the fact that the name-bearer wrote his own name (ll. 19–20): IdURU.DÙ-MA.AN.SUM A šá Ita-qiš-dME.ME ina ŠUII-šú MU-šú IN.SAR ‘Nusku-iddin son of Taqīš-Gula wrote his own name himself’. As a name, IdURU.DÙ-MA.AN.SUM is found in other archival contexts (e.g., Cyr. 173; VR 67 1 r. 16) but in those instances it is clearly used as an ancestor’s name.Footnote 6
Such archaising spellings were also used by scribes who wanted to show that they were scholars, even when writing practical texts. A case in point is Nabû-zēru-līšir, a scribe who travelled to Agade in order to copy ancient royal inscriptions for King Nabonidus. He had been a scholar at the court of Neriglissar and went on to work for Nabonidus. Nabû-zēru-līšir used archaic signs and spellings not only when copying ancient inscriptions of, among others, Kings Kurigalzu and Šar-kali-šarrī, but also when writing administrative documents. Curiously, in a sale contract of agricultural land (Nbn. 116), he gives both his paternal (Nabûnnāya) and maternal (Šamaš-abāri) ancestry.
Family and Social Status
Claiming a (prestigious) ancestor generally put an individual in the social group of the so-called mār banê. The most accurate French equivalent of this term would be ‘notable’; CAD M1 256 s.v. mār banî 1.a translates it as ‘free person, noble man’. As CAD also notes, during the first millennium BCE the adjective banû (and its superlative babbanû or its intensive form bunnu) replaced the older adjective damqum, which was used in the Old Babylonian period in the term mār damqi. In fact, during the second millennium BCE, the term awīlum damqum or mār awīlim damqim had the meaning ‘of good family, well-to-do’ in texts from Mari, Bogazköy, Alalah, and El Amarna, but not in Babylonia. On the other hand, in the Neo-Assyrian documentation mār damqi refers to a category of soldiers and no longer has anything to do with social hierarchy. The Neo-Babylonian expression mār banê has also recently been studied by Kristin Reference Kleber and Garcia-VenturaKleber (2018, 448–50), who insists that this term primarily refers to a person who does not have servile status, regardless of his or her actual social ranking.
Neo-Babylonian society was very diverse, however. As some private archives of Neo-Babylonian urban notables show, the use of family names was restricted to wealthy (but not necessarily the wealthiest) individuals. Men such as Iddin-Nabû from the Nappāḫu family in Babylon, the descendants of the Gallābu family in Ur, and those of the Ea-ilūtu-bāni family in Borsippa did own real estate, but on a modest scale. Their financial assets cannot be considered extensive either. In other words, the use of a family name was not in itself a sufficient mark of belonging to the highest political and economic elites of the country. We have to look towards the socio-economic group of the entrepreneurs in order to find the wealthiest individuals. The two best-known examples from the Neo-Babylonian period are the Egibi family of Babylon in the sixth and early fifth centuries (Reference WunschWunsch 2000) and the Murašû family of fifth-century Nippur, who made their fortune in the management of military tenures in the service of the Persian crown (Reference StolperStolper 1985). In the latter case, it is difficult to determine whether the name Murašû had the status of ‘family name’ as the name had been borne as a personal name by the first-attested head of the family, under Darius I (Reference CardasciaCardascia 1951; Reference StolperStolper 1985).
Some families took over chief political and religious functions and thus created veritable dynasties of ruling elites. For instance, the Ša-nāšišu family held positions as governors and temple administrators (šangû, šatammu, and šākin ṭēmi) in the cities of Babylon, Sippar, and Borsippa (Reference JursaJursa 2007, 76–7; Reference WaerzeggersWaerzeggers 2014). During the Hellenistic period, the scholars of Uruk functioned as a true socio-professional group who claimed membership of a prestigious clan, like the family of the descendants of Sîn-leqe-unninnī.
As shown by the case of the Ša-nāšišus, some family groups in first millennium BCE Babylonia gained a situation of control over the great institutions (especially the temples) and formed a kind of oligarchy or local ruling class, a phenomenon that has many parallels in history. However, these networks did not form a permanent or undisputed elite over a long period of time: after the Babylonian revolts against Xerxes in 484 BCE, many families of central Babylonia were excluded from high office (Reference KesslerKessler 2004; Waerzeggers 2003–4). Moreover, as producers of wealth, entrepreneurs did not require a firmly established family group: in Uruk, the rent farmer Šumu-ukīn of the Basia family was an outsider to the local urban elite when he rose to prominence in the beginning of the reign of Nabonidus.
Gods in Personal Names
Inhabitants of the great religious cities (māḫāzu) often bore names referring to their city’s deity (almost always masculine, except in Uruk and Isin), his female consort, and, to varying degrees, his divine vizier. A theophoric name can thus serve as an indication of a person’s geographical origin (see Table 1.1).
Table 1.1 Deities of major Babylonian cities favoured in personal names
| City | Deity favoured in personal names |
|---|---|
| Babylon | Marduk (or Bēl), Bēltia, Ištar-of-Babylon |
| Borsippa | Nabû, Tašmētu, Nanāya, Mār-bīti |
| Isin | Gula (or Bābu) |
| Kish | Zababa |
| Kutha | Nergal |
| Larsa | Šamaš, Aya, Bunene |
| Nippur | Enlil, Ninlil, Ninurta, Kusu |
| Sippar | Šamaš, Aya, Bunene |
| Ur | Sîn, Ningal, Nusku, and the ‘chtonic group’ (Ninazu, Ningišzidda, Niraḫ, Umunazu) |
| Udannu | Nergal (IGI.DU) |
| Uruk | Anu, Ištar (or Innin), Nanāya, Urdimmu |
Another system of reference derived from the ‘national’, rather than the local, pantheon. This system was centred around two gods whose power extended over the whole of Babylonia: Marduk (also named Bēl) and his son Nabû. In the Neo-Babylonian period, Nabû had the same status of ‘intercessor god’ near the supreme deity (i.e., Marduk) that Sîn had enjoyed during the Old Babylonian period vis-à-vis Enlil. There was also a ‘Beiform’ of Marduk, the god Madānu (dDI.KU5), who was Marduk’s official ‘throne bearer’ (GU.ZA-LÁ). Madānu accounted for Marduk’s power as a god of justice, a sphere that he shared with the sun god, Šamaš. A similar ‘national’ appeal was enjoyed by Ištar – venerated in, among other places, Uruk, Babylon, Sippar, and Agade – and by Nanāya, who was worshipped in Uruk and Borsippa.
In view of the national pantheon, a personal name composed of, for instance, the element Nabû is less informative about a person’s origins than a name referring to the god Zababa, who was strongly connected to the local pantheon of the city of Kish. We see that names consisting of a city’s deity could be used as a means to reaffirm local identities against the royal centralism exercised by Babylon and its Marduk-based theology. As Karlheinz Kessler has shown, the resurgence of the god Anu in personal names at Uruk during the second part of the Achaemenid period was a way to reject the influence of Babylon (Reference KesslerKessler 2004). The people of Uruk foregrounded their city’s male divinity Anu instead of Marduk, perhaps because Ištar had become a ‘national’ goddess, no longer exclusively connected with Uruk.
In the same theophoric perspective, we have to pay attention to personal names referring to the great temples, especially those of Borsippa (Ezida) and Babylon (Esagil), but also of Sippar (Ebabbar) and Uruk (Eanna).Footnote 7 The ideological reference is the same as for the god names, as the affiliation to a temple was indicative of a person’s local identity (see Table 1.2).
Table 1.2 Personal names referring to temples
| Temple name | Examples of personal names |
|---|---|
Esagil (Babylon) | Ina-Esagil-šumu-ibni, Ina-Esagil-zēri, fBanât-ina-Esagil, Esagil-amassu, Esagil-šadûnu |
| Eturkalamma (Babylon) | fIna-Eturkalamma-alsišu |
| Ezida (Borsippa) | Ezida-šumu-ibni, Ṭāb-šār-Ezida |
| Eimbianu (Dilbat) | fIna-Eimbianu-alsišu |
| Eigikalamma (Marad) | fIna-Eigikalamma-lūmuršu |
| Egalmaḫ (Nippur) | Arad-Egalmaḫ |
| Eanna (Uruk) | Eanna-iddin, Eanna-līpī-uṣur, Eanna-nādin-šumi, Ina-ṣilli-Eanna, Itti-Eanna-būdia |
| Ebabbar (Sippar) | Ebabbar-šadûnu |
The same is true for some personal names using city names, such as Zēr-Bābili and Ṭāb-Uruk, and maybe also, when the relation is not to a temple or a city but to sacred paraphernalia, for the rare family name Ina-ṣilli-sammi ‘In the shade of the lyre’ (Iina-GISSU-gišZÀ.MÍ).
Royal Names
During the Neo-Assyrian period, some kind of taboo rested on the royal name (Reference LivingstoneLivingstone 2009, 154). Giving a child a name already borne by the sovereign or a member of his family was considered an offence against the king because it could signal a conspiracy. In 521 BCE, when unrest broke out in the Persian Empire after Cambyses’ sudden death, two individuals tried to ascend the throne in Babylon and lead a rebellion against Darius I. Both rebels took a royal name charged with symbolism: Nebuchadnezzar (the Babylonian form of the name is Nabû-kudurru-uṣur).Footnote 8 The first of these rebels also claimed to be the son of Nabonidus, the last king of the Neo-Babylonian dynasty. This shows that at this time it was still considered a mark of legitimacy to bear the name Nebuchadnezzar. However, a generation later, in 484 BCE, two new Babylonian usurpers rebelled against the Persian Empire, but neither of these men chose a name relating to the Neo-Babylonian dynasty; rather, they operated under their own personal names, Bēl-šimânni and Šamaš-erība.
Of the kings of the Neo-Babylonian dynasty, Nebuchadnezzar II (605–562 BCE) bore a particularly ‘royal’ name, as it clearly referred to Nebuchadnezzar I who had ruled between 1125 and 1104 BCE. However, in view of the fact that Nebuchadnezzar II already bore this name when he still was chief administrator (šatammu) of the temple of Ištar in Uruk (Reference JursaJursa 2007), it is uncertain how we should interpret the ideological significance of this name. When we consider the other Neo-Babylonian kingsFootnote 9 – his father Nabû-aplu-uṣur (626–605), his son Amīl-Marduk (562–560), his son-in-law Nergal-šarru-uṣur (560–556), Lâbâši-Marduk (556), Nabû-naˀid (556–539), and, finally, Bēl-šarru-uṣur (co-regent with Nabonidus) – they all seem to have borne common names.Footnote 10
Also in Babylonia, the names of kings were avoided by the general population. Available lists of Neo-Babylonian personal names show that kings had few homonyms in society despite the common nature of their names. In the words of Heather Baker:
In Babylonia also this restriction on the use of royal names can be observed. … [A] number of individuals named Nabû-naˀid are attested in Babylonian documents of the late seventh and earlier sixth centuries BC, but there is a notable lack of such individuals born after the accession of the king of that name. Even the latest attested person, the father of a man known in a tablet dated 522 BC was most likely born and named before Nabonidus’ accession in 555 BC.
Scribes often chose rare logogrammatic values to spell the names of Babylonian kings. For instance, in the case of Nabonidus the usual spelling (I)dAG-na-aˀ-id is often replaced with the more scholarly version (I)dAG-NÍ.TUK or (I)dAG-I. This system may have begun already in the seventh century BCE, as the name of Šamaš-šumu-ukīn (668–648 BCE) was written using a rare spelling for Šamaš ((I)dGIS-NU11-MU-GI.NA).
‘Historical’ Names
The kings of the Ur III period and even of the Empire of Akkad (later third millennium BCE) were part of Babylonian collective memory, as can be seen, for example, in the divinatory practice of linking certain configurations of the liver to ‘historical’ events taking place in those distant times (Reference GlassnerGlassner 2019). We also find evidence of persons being named after these ancient kings, presumably as a mark of prestige. One notes, for instance, the popularity of names such as Šarru-kīn ‘Sargon’ (Nbk. 106:2; Nbk. 365:1; Cyr. 297:1); Kurigalzu, a Kassite king (YOS 21 169:19’) and Narām-Sîn (TMH 2/3 9:41–2). It is unclear why these kings were remembered and not others. In order to answer this question, we need a better understanding of the transmission of cultural memory in Babylonia. Finally, we can note a name more mythological than historical: Aṣûšu-namir (Ia-ṣu-šú-na-mir), known from the myth of Ištar’s descent, is mentioned as the name of a person in the legal text YOS 7 118, from the Eanna archive of Uruk.
Slave Names
Introduction
The names of slaves follow the same general rules of formation as the proper names of free persons (Reference WataiWatai 2012; Reference HacklHackl 2013; and Chapter 3), but some names were typical for slaves. For instance, names such as ‘I grasped the feet of (a deity)’ are only attested for slaves (e.g., Šēpē(t)-Bēl-aṣbat, fŠēpē(t)-Ninlil-aṣbat, fŠēpētāya; see Reference TallqvistTallqvist 1905, 202). The main categories of slave names are discussed in the next section.
Slaves were probably given a new name when they entered a new household (Reference RadnerRadner 2005, 31). This phenomenon is visible especially when slaves are of foreign origin: by receiving an Akkadian name, they were given a new identity. This identity put them, before all, at the service of their owner. The relationship to the master could be made explicit in the name itself, as seen in the following examples (Reference StammStamm 1939):
| fBānītu-bēlu-uṣrī | ‘Bānītu, protect my master!’ |
| Gabbi-(ilāni)-bēlu-uṣur | ‘All gods, protect my master!’ |
| Ina-qātē-bēli-lumḫur | ‘May I receive (life) from the hands of my master’ |
| Madānu-bēlu-uṣur | ‘Madānu protect my master!’ |
| fNanāya-bēlu-uṣrī | ‘Nanāya protect my master!’ |
| fNanāya-kilīlu-uṣrī | ‘Nanāya protect the tiara (the mistress)’ |
As observed by Heather Baker, the element Marduk is so rare in slave names that a ‘deliberate avoidance’ seems to be at play (Reference Baker and WunschBaker 2002, 8). However, while slave names with Marduk are very rare (Atkal-ana-Marduk in Cyr. 64 and 315 being an exception), the elements Bēl and Bēltia are regularly included in slave names. Perhaps such names did not refer to the gods Marduk and Zarpanītu, but rather to the slave’s legal owners (bēlu ‘master’; bēltu ‘mistress’). Even when the scribe put the cuneiform sign DINGIR before the logogram EN, we cannot be sure whether this orthography reflects the actual meaning of the name. Ša-Bēl-bāni ‘All what pertains to Bēl is beautiful’ is an example of such an ambiguous slave name (Dar. 275).
Slave names rarely include references to family members (e.g., ‘son’, ‘heir’, ‘brother’, and ‘sister’). A name such as Nabû-dūr-ēdi ‘Nabû is the defence of the individual’, typical for slaves, seems to highlight the plight of single people. In the absence of family solidarity, to which a slave could not aspire given his status, prayer-names seem to deliver the slave’s fate into the hands of the gods and, as we have seen, perhaps also his master or mistress.
Main Categories of Slave Names
Slave names often express a prayer or a request for assistance, directed to a deity. The implicit effect of such names is that of a perpetual prayer uttered by the slave for himself or herself and maybe also for the benefit of his or her master or mistress. Some examples are:
Another category of slave names consists of expressions of trust in the deity and in his or her benevolence, for example:
| fAna-muḫḫi-Nanāya-taklāku | ‘I trust in Nanāya’ |
| fAna-muḫḫīšu-taklāku | ‘I trust in him (the god)’ |
| Bēl-išdīa-ukīn | ‘Bēl granted the continuation (of the family)’ |
| Gūzu-ina-Bēl-aṣbat | ‘I took my joy with Bēl’ |
| Ina-qātē-Nabû-bulṭu | ‘Health is in the hands of Nabû’ |
| Ina-ṣilli-Bīt-Akītu | ‘Under the protection of Bīt-Akītu’ |
| fItti-Eturkalamma-būnūˀa | ‘My face is turned towards Eturkalamma’ |
| fMannu-akî-ištaria | ‘Who is like my goddess?’ |
| Nabû-gabbi-ileˀˀi | ‘Nabû knows everything’ |
| Nabû-lū-salim | ‘May Nabû be well disposed (toward me)’ |
| Nabû-rēmuˀa | ‘Nabû (has) mercy on me’ |
| Nergal-rēṣûa | ‘Nergal is my helper’ |
| Ultu-pāni-Bēl-lū-šulum | ‘Greetings from Bēl’ |
Slaves also often bore names referring to flora and fauna, as can be seen in these examples:
| fBaltammu | ‘Balsam’ |
| fBazītu | ‘Monkey’ |
| Gadû, fGadāya | ‘Kid’ |
| fḪilbunītu | ‘Galbanum’ |
| fInbāya | ‘Fruit’ |
| fIsḫunnatu | ‘Bunch of grapes’ |
| fKallabuttu | ‘Locust’ |
| fMurašītu | ‘Wild cat’ |
| fSinūnu | ‘Swallow’ |
| fSuluppāya | ‘Date’ |
| Šaḫû | ‘Pig’ (Footnote 11) |
| fŠeleppūtu | ‘Turtle’ |
| fŠikkû | ‘Mongoose’ |
| fŠilangītu | ‘Fish’ |
Finally, there are some programmatic names, directly related to the slave’s activities:
| fAna-pî-maḫrat | ‘She is ready for the command’ |
| Ina-nemēli-kitti-ibašši | ‘True profit is there’ |
In some cases, the foreign origin of slaves, even of those bearing Babylonian names, was indicated. For instance, in the large inheritance document of the Egibi family, one of the slaves was listed as fNanāya-silim uruga-an-da-ru-i-tu4 ‘from Gandar’ (Dar. 379:44). Another example is fNanāya-ittia miṣrītu ‘from Egypt’ (Camb. 334 and duplicates). In the case of Tabalāya the slave’s name refers to Cilicia (Reference StreckStreck 2001, 114). Some slaves, finally, were simply called Ubāru ‘foreigner’. For instance, in Dar. 492 we encounter a slave described as follows: ‘Ubāru, the tattooed(?) slave whose right hand is inscribed with the name of Mušēzib-Marduk’.
Names of Foundlings and Orphans
Not everyone in Babylonia had a peaceful destiny and birth was not always considered a happy event. Perhaps a name like fLā-magirtu (‘Not welcome’) illustrates this experience.Footnote 12 The names of orphans and foundlings also reflect the dramatic conditions of their birth. The name Abī-ul-īde ‘I do not know my father’ is interpreted as typical for fatherless children (Reference StammStamm 1939, 321). Abī-lūmur ‘I want to see my father’ expresses a similar situation (Reference StreckStreck 2001, 114). And we may consider as abandoned children those persons who had been found in the streets (sūqu, sulû) or who had been rescued from stray animals (Reference WunschWunsch 2003a),Footnote 13 as reflected in such names as:
| Ḫāriṣānu | ‘The one from the ditch (of the city)’ (Reference StreckStreck 2001, 114) |
| Sūqāya / fSūqaˀītu | ‘The one from the street’ |
| Sulāya | ‘The one from the street’ |
| Ša-pî-kalbi | ‘Out of the mouth of a dog’Footnote 14 |
Non-Babylonian Names
What did it mean to bear a foreign name in a society which attributed such value and significance to the personal name? Babylon’s status as the capital city of a multi-ethnic empire attracted many individuals of allo-ethnic origin. Some of these persons migrated voluntarily to Babylonia, for instance, in order to perform a function in the service of power. Ḫanūnu ‘Hannon’, the chief royal merchant at the court of Nebuchadnezzar II, is a case in point. Others were brought to Babylonia as prisoners of war, deportees, or booty. This is the case with the Egyptian prisoners taken during the great battles between Nebuchadnezzar II and the Egyptians in Carchemish and Hamath. The king presented many of these prisoners as gifts to the temples of Babylonia. Several lists of personnel have been preserved where we can find phonetic renderings of their Egyptian names in cuneiform (Reference Bongenaar and HaringBongenaar and Haring 1994). These persons were not meant to increase the temple’s workforce, probably did not speak Akkadian, and disappeared a few years later, presumably due to natural death.
Another community of forced immigrants is that of the deportees from the kingdom of Judah who were taken captive by the Babylonian army in 597 and especially in 587 BCE. Some recently published archives relate to this community (Reference Pearce and WunschPearce and Wunsch 2014). Without anticipating the chapter on Yahwistic names (see Chapter 9), we note that many instances are known of children born to the deportees who, even though sometimes bearing an Akkadian name, still retained their Judean identity within the familial group. In fact, in the majority of cases, name-giving practices preserved a strong ethnic, cultural, and social identity within the Judean community.
Most foreigners were registered with their original name, transcribed more or less approximately into cuneiform script, without any depreciative mark. This practice continued when Babylonia was no longer the centre of political power. For instance, after the conquest by Alexander the Great, one notices a significant increase of Greek names recorded in cuneiform tablets (Reference MonerieMonerie 2014 and Chapter 14). Nevertheless, Babylonian scribes did sometimes emphasise the social status of foreigners in two different ways. Occasionally, they added an ethnic label to the personal name – for instance, Partammu ‘the Persian’ (Dar. 379:3) or Aḫšeti ‘the Imbukean’ (Reference AbrahamAbraham 2004 no. 46:16). Such labels allowed the scribe to characterise an individual whose name had no clear meaning for him. Another way of marking a foreign person’s status was by adding a title situating the individual, like Gubāru ‘Governor of Babylon and Across-the-River’. It should be noted that West Semitic names were not marked as such. Babylonian society was virtually bilingual (Aramaic–Akkadian) and West Semitic names were very common in the onomastic repertoire (see Chapter 8). The difficulties encountered by scribes when dealing with foreign names are illustrated by the multiple spellings for the name of the king Xerxes which had no understandable referent for Babylonian scribes (Reference TavernierTavernier 2007, 66–7).
Conclusions
In Babylonia, a person’s name could express different aspects of his or her social identity. A common name type conveyed a relationship between the person and a deity, who was thanked or implored. Nabû-iddin ‘Nabû gave’, Bēl-rēmanni ‘Bēl have mercy on me’, Šamaš-iqīša ‘Šamaš awarded’, and Nabû-alsi-ul-abāš ‘I cried out to Nabû and will not come to shame’ are examples of such names. Other names expressed a special relationship between the person and a family member; for instance, Aḫūšunu ‘Their brother’ and fUmmī-ṭābat ‘Mother is good’. A physical characteristic of the name-bearer, often of women, could be referred to, or a particular circumstance at birth. Kubburu ‘Fat’ is an example of the former name type, and Nabû-mītu-uballiṭ ‘Nabû resurrected the stillborn (child)’ and Ēdu-ēṭir ‘Save the only (son)’ are examples of the latter type.
This personal identity was coupled with a second identity, conveyed by the father’s name. That name inserted the person into a nuclear family that provided him or her with a means of existence, assistance, and, possibly, renown. He or she was thus legitimised as a civilian with the status of a free person. Slaves and oblates were given a personal name but not a father’s name. Instead, they were referred to by their master’s name.
Finally, urban notables added a third name: an ancestor’s name (or family name) which lent the individual a social position and allowed them to look for functions, activities, and matrimonial as well as professional alliances.
Babylonian male names make up the majority of the name material in the Babylonian cuneiform sources dating to the first millennium BCE. This chapter discusses typical elements of male names and also how these elements are formed and combined. The second part of the chapter is dedicated to abbreviated forms of these names as well as to the phenomenon of some individuals having more than one legitimate name.
Typology of Male Names
Introduction
Babylonian male names are usually marked with a single vertical wedge, the so-called ‘Personenkeil’ (see Chapter 1). Exceptions to this rule are the names of the Neo-Babylonian kings, which are frequently spelled without a personal marker. Female names are clearly distinguished from male ones by the female marker MUNUS. Other than that, male and female names differ only slightly with regard to grammatical features, semantics, and structure (Chapter 3).
Besides male names, family names can also be introduced by the ‘Personenkeil’ or, in rare cases, even by MUNUS. Several male and a few female names are known to serve as family names concurrently.Footnote 1 While these family names hark back to ancestral names, there are also family names which derive from occupational titles or places of origin. In these cases, the ‘Personenkeil’ can be replaced by or combined with the determinative LÚ, which is otherwise not used as a personal but as a professional marker in this period (see Chapter 4).
The longest personal names express complete sentences, consisting of two to four or, in rare cases, even more words.Footnote 2 On the other hand, names can also consist of single and compound terms. In modern translations of Babylonian texts, personal names are capitalised and hyphens are used to connect the constitutive elements of the name. Personal markers and determinatives are usually not displayed, but in this volume we mark female names by placing f in superscript before the name. In the course of this chapter it will also be indicated whether a name is attested only as a male name or also as a family name.
The literal meaning of personal names varies greatly. Apart from names heavy with religious meaning, profane statements, questions, and vocabulary from daily life are also used to denote individuals. Nonsense names, on the other hand, are hardly attested. Possible pet names with reduplicated syllables (so-called ‘Banana names’) are not common in this period. Exceptions might, for instance, be the male names Bazuzu (common) and Igigi (rare), whose literal meaning still escapes us. Compared to older periods, there are also very few names in the Babylonian onomasticon of the first millennium which cannot yet be associated with a specific language; such names are discussed by Ran Zadok in this volume (see Chapter 18).
The overwhelming majority of personal names relates directly to the name-bearers and their environment. Tangible topics such as the newborn child, its family, and the circumstances of its birth are connected with the grand scheme of things: the value of life, its creation, and, of course, the divine influence on it. Thus, the onomasticon contains a great number of recurring terms related to religion, progeny, family, and social life. Some of the most common terms will be introduced in this chapter.
Although names remain untranslated in modern text editions, knowledge about their meaning is fundamental for creating correct transliterations and transcriptions, especially when ambiguous logographic spellings are involved (see Chapter 6). Moreover, the interpretation of names also enables us to understand their social significance, as names can convey information that goes far beyond a gender dichotomy. Many names contain relevant hints about the social status and origin of their bearers (see Chapter 1).
Interpretations of names given in the course of this chapter are based on Reference TallqvistKnut L. Tallqvist (1905), Reference StammJohann J. Stamm (1939), Reference NielsenJohn P. Nielsen (2015), and Reference ThissenCornell Thissen (2017), who collected and analysed a large amount of material from the Babylonian onomasticon. For supplementary information and further attestations, the online database Prosobab has been used (Reference Waerzeggers and GroßWaerzeggers and Groß et al. 2019).
Typical Elements of Male Names
Deities are particularly common elements of Babylonian, and generally of all Akkadian, names. In addition to the generic terms ilu ‘god’, ilī ‘gods’ (or ‘my god’), and ilānu ‘the gods’, spelled mostly with the logogram DINGIR plus possible endings,Footnote 3 names of specific divinities occur in large numbers. Starting with Nabû, the most popular god in the onomasticon of this period, Knut L. Tallqvist counted a total of 84 divine names attested in personal names (Reference Tallqvist1905). This included not only deities, but also divine titles, epithets, and unclear logographic spellings. The number of deities frequently used as theophoric name elements is in fact much smaller (Table 2.1).Footnote 4
Table 2.1 Divine names frequently used in Babylonian male names, along with their logographic spellings
| Adad | dIŠKUR d10 | Bānītu | (syll.) | Ea | dIDIM | Marduk | dAMAR.UTU dŠÚ | Ninlil | dNIN.LÍL |
| Amurru | dKUR.GAL dMAR.TU | Bēl | dEN | Enlil | d50 | Mār-bīti | dA.É dDUMU.É | Ninurta | dMAŠ |
| Anu | d60 | Bēltu | dGAŠAN dNIN | Gula | dME.ME | Nabû |
| Nusku | dPA.KU |
| Aya | (syll.) | Bunene | dḪAR | Ištar |
| Nanāya | (syll.) | Sîn | d30 |
| BābuFootnote 5 |
| Būru | dAMAR | Madānu | dDI.KUD | Nergal | dIGI.DU dU.GUR | Šamaš | dUTU |
Several groups of male names show a flexible use of theophoric elements. The common name type DN-iddin ‘(God x) has given’ is, for instance, attested with all kinds of different deities – for example, Anu-iddin, Bēl-iddin, Ea-iddin, Nabû-iddin, among others. The choice of a specific deity as theophoric name element depends on several factors (see also Chapter 1). Personal preferences, local customs, and historical trends, but also the social status of the name-bearer can play a role. Generally, men tend to include the principal god or goddess of their hometown in their names. There are also some who show a preference for deities associated with their professions, and still others who follow a theological pattern when naming their children, one by one in accordance with their birth order, after the hierarchical position of the gods in the pantheon (see Reference Baker and WunschBaker 2002).
Foreign gods can be mentioned in names that also include Babylonian elements and vice versa. More information on these hybrid names, reflecting the multi-cultural setting of this period, can be found elsewhere in this book (see Chapters 7, 8, and 12).
Apart from the deities themselves, their sanctuaries are also mentioned in personal names. Eanna, Ezida, Esagil, and other temples occur, as well as smaller places of worship, such as Bīt-Akītu and Bīt-Papsukkal. Secular toponyms and localities that link name-bearers to their home towns cover a similar range. Cities across the region of Akkad, from the capital of Babylon to provincial centres such as Sippar, Nippur, and Kish, are used as elements in personal names, alongside generic terms such as bītu ‘house’ (É) and ālu ‘city’ (URU).
Within the group of kinship terms that occur as elements in names, children play a larger role than adults. The mentioning of abu ‘(biological) father’ (AD)Footnote 6 and ummu ‘mother’ (AMA) is less common than that of aḫu ‘brother’ (ŠEŠ) and aḫātu ‘sister’ (mostly written syllabically), which can refer either to the newborn child itself or to its siblings. In any event, the mentioning of siblings indicates that the name-bearer was not the firstborn. It is possible that the term māru ‘son’ (DUMU) likewise expresses birth order, when a child bearing such a name was born after the one designated as aplu ‘son, heir’ (A, IBILA), kīnu ‘legitimate one’ (GIN), or kudurru ‘heir’ (NÍG.DU).Footnote 7
The terms šumu ‘name’ (MU) and zēru ‘seed’ (NUMUN) are typical for male names. As expressions for human continuity, they relate exclusively to sons who will hand down their father’s heritage, including his household and family name.Footnote 8 By contrast, references to the brief biological existence of human beings are contained in all kinds of names. Related concepts of life, health, and survival concern both male and female offspring. They are integrated in names through elements such as balāṭu ‘life’, ‘to live’ and bulluṭu ‘to keep alive’ or ‘to bring into being’ (TIN), šulmu ‘well-being’ (mostly written syllabically), and ṣillu ‘protection’ (GIŠ.MI).
Frequently recurring verbs in names are amāru ‘to see’ (IGI), aqāru ‘to be precious’ (KAL), banû ‘to create’ (DÙ), bašû ‘to exist’ (GÁL), erēšu ‘to wish for’ (APIN, KAM, KÁM), ešēru ‘to be/go well’ (GIŠ), eṭēru ‘to save’ (KAR, SUR), lēˀû ‘be able, powerful’ (Á.GÁL, DA), nadānu ‘to give’ (MU, SUM.NA), nâdu ‘to praise’ (I), kânu ‘to be(come) permanent, firm, true’ (GI.NA, GIN), naṣāru ‘to protect’ (ÙRU, PAB), paḫāru ‘to gather’ (BÁḪAR), qabû ‘to name, call’ (E), râmu ‘to love’ (ÁG), šalāmu ‘to be(come) healthy, intact’, and šullumu ‘to keep healthy, intact, safe’ (GI). Adjectives used as elements in names often derive from these verbs. Additionally, damqu ‘good’ (SIG5), dannu ‘strong’ (mostly written syllabically, sometimes KAL), and ṭābu ‘good, sweet’ (DÙG.GA) are frequently used adjectives.
Sentence Names
Personal names expressing complete sentences do not necessarily follow the common word order of the Late Babylonian language (subject–object–predicate). Often, the predicate stands at the beginning of the name. The phrase ‘Marduk has given (an heir)’ occurs, for instance, in two different names: Marduk-(aplu-)iddin and Iddin-Marduk (also a family name). Along with the example of Aplu-iddin ‘He has given an heir’, it becomes clear that elements were not only exchanged but also omitted in order to create short or alternative forms of names. The practice of shortening or modifying names will be discussed in greater detail in the section on ‘Shortened Names’.
Despite their variation in length and word order, Babylonian sentence names can be divided into a number of subcategories based on their contents and narrative structure.
a) Names like ‘Marduk has given (an heir)’ express favourable actions by revered entities towards the name-bearer and his social environment from the viewpoint of an anonymous narrator. The actors included in these names are usually deities, while the newborn child and its environment appear as the beneficiaries of the actions.Footnote 9 Less often masters (of slaves), the king (as superior of his officials), and cities as well as regions are mentioned as entities bestowing favour.Footnote 10
This group of names shows a huge diversity in structure. Names that obey the common word order usually consist of the subject in initial position followed either by an object and a conjugated verbal form or by a genitive construction consisting of a participle plus object. Compare, for instance, the parallel names Nabû-šumu-iddin ‘Nabû has given the name’ (also used as a family name) and Nabû-nādin-šumi ‘Nabû is the giver of the name’. Occasionally the subject is followed by two verbal forms indicating consecutive actions towards the newborn child: for example, Sîn-tabni-uṣur ‘O Sîn, you have created (the child), now protect (it)’ (also a family name).Footnote 11 Names in this category usually consist of three words, but more elements occur when compound nouns are involved or prepositions are added: for example, Nabû-zēr-kitti-līšir ‘O Nabû, may the seed of truth thrive’ and Nergal-ina-tēšî-eṭir ‘O Nergal, save from confusion’. In names using a reversed sentence order, the object is usually not retained; see, for instance, the male names Ibni-Ištar ‘Ištar has created’, Iddin-Bēl ‘Bēl has given’, and Erība-Enlil ‘Enlil has replaced for me’.
b) Conditions and qualities constitute the topic of another common group of sentence names, expressed by (verbal) adjectives. The subjects are usually deities, the king, the name-bearer, or relatives. Most of these names consist of two words, as in the male names Bēl-dannu ‘Bēl is strong’, Ištar-lēˀi ‘Ištar is capable’, and Aḫḫū-ṭābū ‘The brothers are good’. Three elements occur when compounds are employed or when positive injunctions are expressed, as in the rare male names Abi-ummi-aqar ‘The (maternal) grandfather is precious’ and Šarru-lū-dari ‘May the king be eternal’, or in the family name Arkât-ilāni-damqā ‘The future of the gods is good’. Four elements are exceptional: for example, the rare male name Abu-Enlil-dāri-libūr ‘O father, may Enlil stay firm forever’.
c) Apart from sentences pronounced by anonymous speakers, names can also express personal statements of the newborn child or a parent. Examples of such male names are Ana-Bēl-atkal ‘I trusted in Bēl’, Nanāya-uṣalli ‘I prayed to Nanāya’, and Abu-ul-īde ‘I do not know the (or my) father’ (also used as a family name).Footnote 12 Invocations of deities frequently precede such statements, as in the male names Bēl-ina-nakutti-alsika ‘O Bēl, I called out to you in distress’ and Bābu-alsiki-abluṭ ‘O Bābu, I called on you and I lived’. The name Lūṣi-ana-nūr-Marduk ‘May I go out into the light of Marduk’ (also used as a family name) is a popular example of a name with atypical word order.
A particularly common element of this type of names is the wish to see (lūmur ‘may I see’), mostly referring to a certain deity. Desired occasions and places can be named, as in the male names Nabû-ina-Esagil-lūmur ‘May I see Nabû in (the temple) Esagil’, Bēl-ina-kāri-lūmur ‘May I see Bēl at the mooring place’, Nabû-nūrka-lūmur ‘O Nabû, may I see your light’, and Pāni-Sîn-lūmur ‘May I see the face of Sîn’. Also, the wish for siblings or for one’s hometown can be expressed: for example, the male names Aḫḫē-lūmur ‘May I see (the) brothers’ and Ālu-lūmur ‘May I see the city’.
d) Equations between entities occur in names expressing declarative sentences as well as questions. In order to stress the estimation of a personal god, deities are matched with relatives of the name-bearer, authorities, and protective forces, or sometimes also with each other: for example, the male names Aḫu-kî-Sîn ‘The brother is like Sîn’, Adad-dayyānu ‘Adad is the judge’, Bēl-usātu ‘Bēl is (my) help’, Enlil-kidin ‘Enlil is protection’, and Sîn-kî-Nabû ‘Sîn is like Nabû’.Footnote 13 Comparisons between relatives and other phenomena are exceptional; see, for instance, the uncommon male name Aḫu-dūru ‘The brother is (like) a wall’. Compound nouns occur only scarcely: for example, the rare male name Aḫī-šadi-ili ‘My brother is (like) the mountain of the god’. As predicates are not employed, these names cannot always be distinguished from names based on nouns in genitive construction. When phrased as a question, they are usually recognisable by the initial interrogative particle mannu (or mamma) ‘who’: for example, the male names Mannu-kî-Nanāya ‘Who is like Nanāya?’, Mamma-kî-Ezida ‘Who is like Ezida?’, and Mamma-kî-šarri ‘Who is like the king?’.
e) Other questions expressed by male names are, for instance, Ammēni-ilī ‘Why, my god?’, Aya-aḫu ‘Where is the brother?’, Mannu-izkur ‘Who has proclaimed?’, and Mīnu-ēpuš-ilī ‘O my god, what have I done?’. Some are preceded by invocations of deities: for example, the male name Bēl-ammēni ‘O Bēl, why?’.
Not all sentence names can be assigned to one of the aforementioned groups. Some are completely exceptional, while others do not entirely match the structures and meanings of comparable names, such as the common male names Itti-DN-balāṭu ‘With DN there is life’, attested with various theophoric elements, and Ša-Nabû-šū ‘He is the one of Nabû’, also attested with the variant Ša-Bēl-šū ‘He is the one of Bēl’. The latter name constitutes a borderline case: by linking the name-bearer to the god Nabû or Bēl, respectively, this name’s meaning shows affinity with sentence names expressing equations between entities but its structure resembles that of names based on a genitive construction.
Compound Names (Genitive Constructions)
As the example of Ša-Nabû-šū ‘He is the one of Nabû’ illustrates, names based on genitive constructions do not have to be completely different from sentence names. Besides the fact that some can be interpreted as nominal sentences uttered by an anonymous speaker, parallels in meaning also occur. The relationship between deities and name-bearers or their environment is the most popular topic in both categories of names. Yet, the majority of compound names are characterised by a distinct vocabulary that indicates that we are not dealing with short forms of sentences, but with original names.
a) Some frequently attested compound names refer to the name-bearers as servants and subordinates of deities. This relationship can be expressed by the status terms amīlu ‘man’ and ardu ‘servant’ in male names and family names alike;Footnote 14 see Amīl-Nanāya ‘Man of Nanāya’, Arad-ili-rabî ‘Servant of the great god’, and Arad-Nergal ‘Servant of Nergal’ (also a family name). Alternatively, subordination is indicated metaphorically by terms like kalbu ‘dog’ and būru ‘calf’, such as in the male names Būr-Adad ‘Calf of Adad’ and Kalbi-Bābu ‘Dog of Bābu’. Occupational titles, temple designations, and geographic references are frequently employed in family names that express subordination, but hardly ever in male names of this type.Footnote 15
b) Compound names that refer to the birth of the name-bearer as a present of the gods can employ several synonymous terms for ‘gift’; see the male names Nidinti-Anu ‘Gift of Anu’, Qīšti-Marduk ‘Gift of Marduk’, Rēmūt-Bābu ‘Gift of Bābu’, and Širikti-Šamaš ‘Gift of Šamaš’.
c) Another group of common compound names express divine help and patronage; see, for instance, the male names Gimil-Gula ‘Favour of Gula’, Ina-ṣilli-Esagil ‘Under the protection of Esagil’, also attested with the variant Ina-ṣilli-šarri ‘Under the protection of the king’, and Kidin-Sîn ‘Protection of Sîn’ (also a family name). The contents and terminology of these names sometimes equal that of the aforementioned sentence names that express equations between deities and protective forces; compare, for instance, Bēl-eṭēri ‘Lord of saving’ (also a family name) and Bēl-eṭēri-Nabû ‘Lord of saving is Nabû’ (male name), or the male names Bēl-usātu ‘Bēl is (my) help’ and Nabû-bēl-usāti ‘Nabû is the lord of help’.
d) Widely known as a name for orphans and foundlings is Ša-pî-kalbi ‘From the mouth of a dog’ (see Chapter 1). Structurally similar names mention deities instead of the term kalbu ‘dog’, for example, Ša-pî-Bēl. In these cases, a metaphorical interpretation is also possible: ‘The one promised by Bēl’.Footnote 16
Single Words (Non-Compound Names)
The briefest names, consisting of only one word, show the biggest variety regarding contents. On the one hand, they can refer to concepts and ideas that also occur as elements of sentence names and compound names. These names might well be short versions of originally longer forms; see, for example, the male names Ēṭiru ‘Saviour’ (cf. Amurru-ēṭir ‘Amurru has saved’), Dābibī ‘My plea’ (cf. Iššar-dābibī-nēr ‘O Iššar, kill those who plot against me’), Gimillu ‘Favour’ (cf. Gimil-Nergal ‘Favour of Nergal’ or Nabû-mutīr-gimilli ‘Nabû is the one who returns kindness’), Balāssu ‘His life’ (cf. Enlil-balāssu-iqbi ‘Enlil pronounced his life’), Rībātu ‘Compensation’ (cf. Šamaš-erība ‘Šamaš has replaced for me’), and Talīmu ‘Favourite brother’ (cf. Nabû-talīmu-uṣur ‘O Nabû, protect the favourite brother’).Footnote 17 On the other hand, brief names can be based on a totally different vocabulary than those consisting of sentences or compounds. In addition to nouns denoting phenomena from the social and natural environment, isolated adjectives and verbs are also used as names.
a) Natural phenomena are represented when individuals are named after plants, stones, or other materials; see, for instance, the male names Burāšu ‘Juniper’ and Ḫuṣābu ‘Chip of wood’.
b) Also, a large group of animal names serve to denote individuals, both male and female (see Chapter 3 for female names). Curiously, wild beasts are more often referred to than domesticated ones, and highly symbolic animals, including lions, eagles, and the mythological Anzû bird, are completely lacking in the onomasticon. Instead we find, for instance, men called Barbaru ‘Wolf’, Arrab(t)u ‘(Female) dormouse’ (both forms are also used as family names), Ḫaḫḫuru ‘Raven’, Uqūpu ‘Monkey’, Šellebu ‘Fox’, Murašû ‘Wildcat’, and Kulbību ‘Ant’. Regarding domesticated animals, especially terms for offspring are used as male names; e.g., Kalūmu ‘Lamb’ and Mūrānu ‘Puppy’. Thus, it seems that animal terms serve mainly as pet names and nicknames, mimicking physical qualities and character traits of humans. Yet, despite their informal and at times humoristic connotation, hardly any of them are actually attested as the second name of an individual (Reference StammStamm 1939, § 4). The phenomenon of second names will be further discussed under ‘Nicknames and Double Names’.
c) The same holds for male names that refer directly to physical features and other personal characteristics, such as Dullupu ‘Sleepy’, Dummuqu ‘To be gracious’, Arrakūtu ‘Very tall’, Nummuru ‘Brilliant’, Tardennu ‘Second(ary)’, and Ašarēdu ‘The foremost one’ (also a family name). Despite their informal appearance, these names are not known as secondary names.
d) The geographical origin of men is reflected in names such as Bābilāya ‘Babylonian’, Balīḫû ‘Man from Balikh’ (cf. Bālīḫāya ‘The Balikhian’), or Miṣirāya ‘Man from Egypt’. These names are mainly used as family names, but occasionally they also denote male individuals.
e) The time of birth can play a role in name-giving. Some individuals are named after the month in which they were born, such as Ulūlāya ‘Man born in Ulūlu’, or after a festival taking place at the time, for example, Kinūnāya ‘Man born during the Kinūnu festival’.
(f) An individual’s social rank can be mirrored by names such as Batūlu ‘Young man’, Zikaru ‘Man’, Līdānu ‘Bastard’, and perhaps also Banūnu (West Semitic) ‘Little son’ (if not to be read in Akkadian: Bānûnu ‘Our creator’).
(g) Occupational titles constitute a particularly large group amongst the original one-word names. Most of them serve only as family names in the first millennium BCE, such as Asû ‘Physician’, Gallābu ‘Barber’, and Ṭābiḫu ‘Butcher’ (see Chapter 4). Only a few are used as male names; see, for instance, Dayyānu ‘Judge’ and Ḫazannu ‘Mayor’.
Variants of Male Names
Individuation by Filiation
Although personal names denote individuals, they are not unique themselves. This does not only apply to popular names. Even uncommon names lose their exceptional status when reused in memory of their original bearers. Within small communities, such as nuclear families and local work teams, the fundamental non-uniqueness of personal names can be ignored. The mentioning of simple names and even generic titles, such as ‘mom’ or ‘boss’, is usually sufficient to identify a specific member of an in-group. Otherwise, short forms and nicknames can be employed to differentiate between namesakes within a community. However, the larger a group, the more it needs unambiguous ways to identify a specific person in time and place. Especially in official contexts, for instance, when drawing up long-term contracts such as property deeds, societies need a way to ensure that witnesses, acting parties, and their descendants can be identified in the future.
Official documents from first millennium BCE Babylonia frequently use additional data when referring to individuals. Besides indications of origins like ‘the Borsippean’ (lúBAR.SIPki), status terms such as qallu ‘slave’ (of another individual) and occupational titles like ṭupšar bīti ‘college scribe’ were used. Freeborn people are usually designated as sons or daughters of their fathers. Occasionally, maternal names are given instead of paternal ones (see Chapter 1). In addition, the urban gentry also used family names taken from occupational titles of their members or from personal names of their (alleged) ancestors (see Chapter 4). In Seleucid times genealogies expand even more, as individuals are frequently mentioned by name, patronym, grandfather’s name, and family name.
Shortened Names
Shortening of names can take place for practical as well as affectionate reasons. In contrast to modern short names, Babylonian ones are not necessarily less official than their original full forms, as they are attested in all kinds of formal documents. Depending on the structure of the original name, there are different ways and degrees of shortening. The longer the original name, the more possibilities it offers for shortening. In addition to simple and multiple reductions, modifications also occur.
Names expressing complete sentences can be shortened by omitting one or more elements. Short forms created by such reductions still constitute complete and grammatically correct sentences that express the same basic meaning as the original full forms. Sometimes, however, the omission of elements led to ambiguous short forms in which the original sentence structures of the full names are not recognisable anymore. This is the case when, for instance, the male name Ana-Bēl-ēreš ‘He desired Bēl’ is shortened to the form Bēl-ēreš. This can be interpreted as either ‘He desired Bēl’ or ‘Bēl-desired’. Yet, most sentence names keep a grammatically clear structure, even when shortened by more than one element. The four-part male name Nergal-ina-tēšî-eṭir ‘Nergal, save from confusion!’ can be shortened in two steps: firstly, to Ina-tēšî-eṭir ‘Save from confusion!’ and, secondly, to Tēšî-eṭir ‘Save (from) confusion!’ All three forms – Nergal-ina-tēšî-eṭir, Ina-tēšî-eṭir, and Tēšî-eṭir – are known to be variants used to denote the same individuals.Footnote 18 These persons are to my knowledge never called Nergal-tēšî-eṭir ‘O Nergal, save (from) confusion!’, although this name exists in general and appears to be another shortened variant of the full form Nergal-ina-tēšî-eṭir. Similarly, it is most likely that structurally similar names such as Šamaš-ina-tēšî-eṭir ‘O Šamaš, save from confusion’ or Nabû-ina-tēšî-eṭir ‘O Nabû, save from confusion!’ generate the same short forms as Nergal-ina-tēšî-eṭir, but such cases are, to my knowledge, not attested. Since the principles of shortening names have not been studied in detail yet, only attested variants are discussed in this chapter. All examples of short forms and nicknames given in the further course of this chapter are based on identified individuals recorded in the online database Prosobab; text references can be found there.
As the example of the name Nergal-ina-tēšî-eṭir, with its variants Ina-tēšî-eṭir and Tēšî-eṭir, illustrates, theophoric elements and prepositions are often omitted to create short forms. Several male names are shortened in the same way (Table 2.2).
| Full form | Theophoric element omitted | Preposition omitted | Double reduction |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| |
|
| ||
|
| ||
|
| ||
|
| ||
|
| ||
|
| ||
|
| ||
|
|
Male names based on genitive constructions usually generate short forms by omitting the theophoric element (Table 2.3).
The particularly common type of sentence names that consist of three basic elements and that express favourable actions of revered deities can be shortened in two steps. First, the subject or the direct object of these names can be omitted. Then, further reduction is achieved by omitting either the direct object or the object of a genitive construction as seen in the examples of male names presented in Table 2.4.
Table 2.4 Shortening of Babylonian sentence names
| Full form | Subject omitted | Direct object omitted | Double reduction |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||
|
| ||
|
| ||
|
| ||
|
| ||
|
| ||
|
|
The direct object of a sentence name can also be replaced by a structurally different element such as a personal suffix. The full male name Nabû-šumu-uṣur ‘O Nabû, protect the name’ is shortened into Nabû-uṣuršu ‘O Nabû, protect him’. Names with comparable structures can probably be modified in the same way.
Other cases of modified names illustrate that elements, isolated by double reduction, can be replaced by grammatically different forms of these elements: verbs can be replaced by substantives and vice versa. Balāṭu ‘Life’, for instance, is not only a double reduced short form of the male name Itti-Nabû-balāṭu ‘With Nabû there is life’ but also a modified short form of the male name Šamaš-uballiṭ ‘Šamaš has kept alive’. Curiously, the structurally equal male name Itti-Marduk-balāṭu ‘With Marduk there is life’ generates the modified short form Libluṭ ‘May he live’. This illustrates that not all principles of modification are easily predictable.
A widespread phenomenon is the modification of short forms by annexing a meaningless syllable, also known as a hypocoristic ending. Although hypocoristic forms give the impression of pet names, they are used in official contexts just like other short forms. Several hypocoristic endings occur. It is not always possible to distinguish them from Akkadian plural markers, possessive pronouns, and other meaningful suffixes, as, for instance, in the male name Aḫ(ḫ)ūtu ‘Brotherhood’ or, hypocoristically, ‘Brother’. Especially popular in the Babylonian onomasticon is a group of hypocoristic endings that coincide with the forms of the possessive suffix of the first person singular, namely the hypocoristic endings -ia, spelled Ci-ia/ía, and -āya, spelled Ca-a, or infrequently also Ca-ia, followed by -ea or -ēa, spelled Ce-e-a or (C)VC-e-a. Additionally, hypocoristic endings of West Semitic origin, including -ā, -ān, and -ī, also occur frequently (see Chapter 8). Table 2.5 provides a selection of differently structured male names and their hypocoristic short forms.
Table 2.5 Hypocoristic short forms of Babylonian male names
| Full form | Short form |
|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nicknames and Double Names
In contrast to short names that always show at least some kind of similarity to their original full forms, nicknames and double names are completely different from the name that a person bears otherwise. Babylonian documents attest to this phenomenon frequently, sometimes directly by mentioning individuals with a ‘second (or: other) name’ (šumu šanû). More often, people use different personal names interchangeably without marking them as such. A son of Lūṣi-ana-nūr-Marduk (‘May I go out into the light of Marduk’) from the family Ilī-bāni (‘My god is the creator’) is, for instance, mostly referred to as Nādinu ‘Giver’, but in some documents he appears as Dādia ‘My favourite’ (Reference JoannèsJoannès 1989, 50–2). The frequency by which he is called Nādinu may indicate that this is his primary name. Still, the name Dādia, which is also attested as another name of a man called Nergal-ašarēdu (‘Nergal is the foremost’),Footnote 20 is obviously valid in official contexts too. Male double names frequently show shifts between comprehensive and short names, as Table 2.6 shows. Shifts between names with serious content and seemingly humoristic names are, by contrast, not particularly common; however, note the example of Nergal-ušēzib ‘Nergal has rescued’ whose second name is Puršû ‘Flea’.Footnote 21
Table 2.6 Double names borne by Babylonian men
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not only personal names but also family names can vary. Some individuals use two family names interchangeably – one that refers to a (prebendary) profession, the other taken from the name of an ancestor. In the case of Ingallēa (meaning uncertain) and Gallābu ‘Barber’ the acquisition or disposal of prebends may have caused different branches of the clan to use the name that reflects their actual tenure or lack of the barber’s office.Footnote 22 There is also a family that abandoned their professional family name Ṭābiḫu ‘Butcher’ for unknown reasons in favour of a new ancestral family name Eṭēru ‘To save’. According to a study by Cornelia Reference Wunsch and CsabaiWunsch (2014a), this shift took place gradually over the course of several decades. Within one generation, members of the family switched back and forth from one name to the other or used both names interchangeably. It is possible that they tried to differentiate themselves from other, non-prebendary butchers called Ṭābiḫ-kāri ‘Butcher at the quay or market’ by using either the specified name Ṭābiḫ-Marduk ‘Butcher of Marduk’ or the new one, Eṭēru ‘To save’. Also, some members of the clan Zērāya (hypocoristically based on zēru ‘seed’ or Zēr-Aya ‘Seed of Aya’) may have changed their family name to Ileˀˀi-Marduk ‘Marduk is powerful’.Footnote 23
A vast corpus of women’s names appears in the documentation from the Neo-Babylonian and Persian periods (626–330 BCE). This chapter establishes a typology of Babylonian female names and discusses the question of whether and how female personal names contributed to the construction of a female identity, in contrast to a male identity.
Typology of Female Names
Introduction
In cuneiform writing, female names are marked with the determinative MUNUS, as opposed to male names, which are marked with a single vertical wedge (see Chapter 1). Modern transliterations usually represent the female sign by placing f in superscript in front of the name. In this volume, we maintain this convention also in normalised versions of the names. In this way, normalised names can be easily recognised as male (unmarked) or female (preceded by f).
The structure of Akkadian female names is similar to the structure of male names; that is, they are composed of one or more elements (maximum four) and constitute either a sentence or a substantive. There is, however, a grammatical difference between male and female names. A verb, an adjective, or a noun forming part of a woman’s name is generally given a feminine form. For example, the name Iddin-Marduk ‘Marduk gave’ (i.e., Marduk gave the child who bears the name) is a male name, while the name fBānītu-taddin ‘Bānītu gave’, with the feminine form of the verb nadānu ‘to give’, is a female name. Here the form of the verb (or the adjective) does not correspond to the gender of the deity, but to the gender of the name-bearer.Footnote 1 Another example of the grammatical difference between male and female names is Aḫūšunu ‘Their brother’, which is a male name, while fAḫāssunu ‘Their sister’ is the equivalent borne by women.
An additional feature is that female theophoric names include the name of a goddess. There are only a few examples of female names containing the name of a male god.Footnote 2 By contrast, male names with a female theophoric element are well known, albeit not very numerous (see ‘Gendered Theophoric Elements’).
Finally, it should be noted that there are some names that were borne by both men and women. Examples of such names include: Silim-Bābu ‘Be friendly, O Bābu!’ (with the masculine form of the imperative of the verb salāmu), Šulum-Bābili ‘Well-being of Babylon’, Nidintu ‘Gift’, and Ša-pî-kalbi ‘Out of the mouth of a dog’, which refers to an abandoned child.
Classification of Sentence Names
Babylonian female names can be classified in two main types: names which constitute a sentence and names which constitute a substantive. In each type, further divisions are possible. Starting with sentence names, we discern roughly eight subcategories.
1) Attribute names express an attribute of the divinity, with a divine name accompanying a nominal form such as fNanāya-šarrat ‘Nanāya is the queen’, an adjective such as fNanāya-damqat ‘Nanāya is good’, or a stative verb such as fBābu-ēṭirat ‘Bābu saves’. fDN-šarrat, fDN-damqat, and fDN-ēṭirat are very common names, but many different verbs, nouns, and adjectives, such as ṭābu ‘good’ (fMammītu-ṭābat ‘Mammītu is good’), ilatu ‘goddess’ (fNinlil-ilat ‘Ninlil is goddess’), aqāru ‘to be precious’ (fAya-aqrat ‘Aya is precious’), ramû ‘to dwell’ (fAttar-ramât ‘Attar lives’), rêšu ‘to rejoice’ (fNanāya-rīšat ‘Nanāya rejoices’), dannu ‘strong’ (fBānītu-dannat ‘Bānītu is strong’), and kašāru ‘to compensate’ (fNanāya-kēširat ‘Nanāya compensates’), are also used. The names of goddesses are omitted in some cases, such as in the names fIna-Esagil-bēlet ‘She is the lady in Esagil’ and fIna-Esagil-ramât ‘She lives in Esagil’. Certain substantive names were regarded as an abbreviated form of attribute names; for example, the name fLēˀītu was likely an abbreviated form of fLēˀi-DN ‘DN is capable’ (see Reference HacklHackl 2013, 164–5).
2) Petition names generally contain a verb in the imperative and express a plea to a divinity from the speaker, such as fNanāya-šimînni ‘Listen to me, O Nanāya!’ and fAya-bulliṭanni ‘Keep me healthy, O Aya!’. The speaker in these names was probably the name-bearer or possibly her mother. In addition to šemû ‘to listen’ and bulluṭu ‘to make healthy’, petition names include diverse verbs such as salāmu ‘to be friendly’ (fBānītu-silim ‘Be friendly, O Bānītu!’), râmu ‘to love’ (fRīminni-Ištar ‘Love me, O Ištar!’), dânu ‘to judge’ (fNanāya-dīninni ‘Judge me, O Nanāya!’), naṣāru ‘to protect’ (fNanāya-kilīlu-uṣrī ‘Protect my wreath, O Nanāya!’), maḫāru ‘to receive’ (fBānītu-supê-muḫur ‘Receive my prayer, O Bānītu!’), eṭēru ‘to save’ (fBānītu-eṭrīnni ‘Save me, O Bānītu!’), and bâšu (fLā-tubāšinni ‘Don’t put me to shame!’).
3) Wish names contain either the precative or imperative of a verb and express a plea to a divinity for a third person, generally the child who bears the name, such as fLū-balṭat ‘May she be healthy!’, fNanāya-bullissu ‘Keep her healthy, O Nanāya!’, and fBēltia-uṣrīšu ‘Protect her, O Bēltia!’, but sometimes for someone else, such as in the slave name fNanāya-bēlu-uṣrī ‘Protect my master, O Nanāya!’. The verbs naṣāru ‘to protect’ and bulluṭu ‘to make healthy’ are used frequently. The verb is omitted in some names, such as fNanāya-ana-bītišu (or fAna-bītišu) ‘(Show it) to her family, O Nanāya!’ and fAna-makānišu ‘(Show it) to her dwelling place!’.
4) Trust names represent the name-bearer’s expression of trust or respect for a deity (‘Prospective trust’), such as fAna-muḫḫi-Nanāya-taklāku ‘I trust in Nanāya’, or the reward of trust (‘Retrospective trust’) such as fTašmētu-atkal ‘I trusted in Tašmētu’. Other examples of the former are fDN-ittia ‘DN is with me’, fDN-lūmur ‘I will see DN’, as well as the names meaning ‘DN is my … ’, such as fDN-šadû’a ‘DN is my mountain’. fItti-Nanāya-īnāya/-būnū’a ‘My eyes/face (are/is turned to) Nanāya’ and fGabbi-ina-qātē-Bānītu ‘All are in Bānītu’s hands’ are also included in this category. The latter category, the retrospective trust name, includes fIna-bāb-magāri-alsišu ‘At the gate of favour, I invoked her’, and fŠēpet(/Šēpessu)-DN-aṣbat ‘I took the feet of DN’, often abbreviated to fŠēpetaya.
5) Thanksgiving names generally contain the preterite of a verb whose subject is a deity. They express the thanksgiving from the viewpoint of the name-giver, such as fTašmētu-tabni ‘Tašmētu created (the child who bears the name)’ or fBānītu-ṣullê-tašme ‘Bānītu heard my prayer’.
6) Lament names include fĀtanaḫ-šimînni ‘I am tired, listen to me!’ and fAdi-māti-Ištar ‘How long, O Ištar?’. It may also be better to include fIna-dannāti-alsišu ‘In distress, I called her’ in this category, rather than in trust names. The speaker in these names is generally thought to have been the name-bearer, but it seems possible that the names expressed the feelings of the mother during or after giving birth. If so, it was presumably the mother who named the newborn girl.
7) Praise names are also found, such as fMannu-akî-Ištaria ‘Who is like my Ištar?’, but this type of name is rare.
8) All of the types listed here are theophoric names that refer to divinities, but a minority of sentence names do not refer to divinities. Examples include fAbu-ul-tīde ‘She does not know the father’ and fAḫātu-aqrat ‘The sister is precious’.
The same classification can be applied to male names (Chapter 2), but there are some differences in the choice and preference of words and name types between female and male names. For example, some verbs such as nadānu ‘to give’ and kânu ‘to be(come) firm’ are common in male names, whereas female names with these verbs are rare. The terms māru ‘son’ and aplu ‘son, heir’ feature in many male names, but mārtu ‘daughter’ was not generally used for female names. Thanksgiving names are thus frequently attested for men, but rarely for women.
Classification of Substantive Names
Substantive names, or designation names, are grammatically nominal and are usually composed of one or, occasionally, two elements.Footnote 3 The following subcategories can be discerned:
1) Theophoric names. While most of the sentence names are theophoric, the majority of designation names are not. The most popular type of theophoric designation name consists of amat- (or andi-) along with a divine name, such as fAmat-Nanāya ‘Servant of Nanāya’. Several names which do not include a divine name are considered to be theophoric names in which the divine element is omitted. For example, fṬābatu, which means ‘Good’, may be an abbreviated form of the attribute name fṬābatu-DN ‘(The goddess) DN is good’; for example, fṬābatu-Iššar ‘Iššar (Ištar) is good’. Similarly, fInbāya or fInbia, which consists of inbu ‘fruit’ with a hypocoristic suffix, may be a shortened form of fInbi-DN ‘Fruit of DN’.
2) Familial relationships. There are two types of names expressing familial relationships. The first includes names such as fAḫāssunu ‘Their sister’. Such names simply indicate the relationship of the newborn child with her siblings. The name fAḫāssunu means that the name-bearer had two or more elder brothers or sisters. The other type consists of names such as fAḫāt-abīšu ‘Aunt’ – literally, ‘Sister of his father’. According to Johann J. Reference StammStamm (1939, 301–5), babies with this type of name were possibly considered to be a replacement for, or the reincarnation of, a recently deceased family member.
3) Affectionate names. This type of name expresses the affection of the name-giver for the baby. Examples are fRēˀindu ‘Beloved one’, fNūptāya ‘Gift (of DN)’, fBuˀītu ‘Desired one’, and fBēlessunu ‘Their lady’. This category may include certain traits which the name-giver hoped for in the baby, such as fKāribtu ‘Prayerful one’ and fEmuqtu ‘Wise one’.
4) Words for animals, plants, and objects. We find personal names inspired by animals for both genders. In the Neo-Babylonian corpus, most animal names for women refer to small wild animals, while fewer pertain to domestic animals. In the latter category, we have names such as fImmertu ‘Ewe’ and fMūrānatu ‘(Female) puppy’.Footnote 4 It seems that the most popular animal names for women were fŠikkû (or fŠikkūtu) ‘Mongoose’, fBazītu, which may refer to a kind of monkey, and fḪabaṣirtu (or, exceptionally with the masculine form, fḪabaṣīru) ‘Mouse.’ It is interesting to note that fŠikkû and fBazītu were only chosen for women. Grammatically, the terms šikkû and bazītu are feminine, which explains why they could only be used for naming a girl. ‘Mouse’ was also used for naming men. Thus, small animals, in particular those which are non-domestic, are principally chosen for women. We also find ‘Monkey’ (fUqūpatu), ‘Dormouse’ (fArrabtu), and ‘Wildcat’ (fMurašītu) as female names. The masculine forms of these animal names were also used for men. The decision to name children after these small animals seems readily comprehensible, while it is more difficult to imagine why some babies were named ‘Turtle’ (fŠeleppūtu) or were named after insects such as the locust (fKallabuttu), the cricket (fṢāṣiru), and the caterpillar (fAkiltu; see Reference Cousin, Watai, Budin, Cifarelli, Garcia-Ventura and Millet-AlbàCousin and Watai 2018, 246).
Plant names, mainly those of fruits and aromatic plants, such as ‘Juniper’ (fBurāšu), ‘Bunch of grapes’ (fIsḫunnu, fIsḫunnatu), ‘Hemp’ (fQunnabatu), and ‘Pomegranate’ (fLurindu), were popular female names. Apart from Burāšu, these names were apparently not given to men.
Names based on accessories, such as fQudāšu and fInṣabtu, meaning ‘Ring’ and ‘Earring’, were frequently used for women of free status. We have found no evidence of their use for men.
5) Physical characteristics, origins, or conditions of birth of a baby, such as fMīṣātu ‘Small one’, fUbārtu ‘Foreigner’, and fSūqaˀītu ‘The one found on the street’, are also referred to in women’s names.
6) Negative names, such as fLā-magirtu ‘Disobedient’, appear occasionally. Reference StammJohann J. Stamm (1939, 205) described this name type as ‘tender censure’, but the actual circumstances of naming are usually unknown.
Hypocoristics, Abbreviated, and Double Names
Certain female names were often abbreviated. The most striking example is the name fIna-Esagil-ramât ‘She (a goddess) lives in Esagil’, which is frequently shortened to fEsagil-ramât with ellipsis of ina ‘in’. Another way of shortening personal names is found in the case of a woman called fAmat-Nanāya ‘Servant of Nanāya’, who appears as fAmtia in another text. The suffix -ia (/-ya), usually the possessive pronoun for the first person singular, is often difficult to distinguish from the hypocoristic suffix -ia. For instance, fAmtia does not mean ‘My female servant’; in such names, the -ia is a hypocoristic ending.
Archival studies reveal that some women bore two different names, both valid in legal texts. For example, a fKurunnam-tabni ‘Kurunnam created’ is also called fKuttāya (obscure meaning), a fBēlessunu ‘Their sister’ is also called fBissāya (obscure meaning), and an fAmat-Ninlil ‘Servant of Ninlil’ is alternatively called fGigītu (obscure meaning).Footnote 5 The practice of double naming is further discussed in Chapter 2.
Female Onomastics and the Construction of Social and Gender Identities
Social Status
A number of personal names were given to women of free status as well as slave women, as observed by Johannes Reference HacklHackl (2013). Nevertheless, we can discern preferences in the name selection of free women and slave women. Overall, sentence names tended to be given to slave women (Reference Cousin, Watai, Budin, Cifarelli, Garcia-Ventura and Millet-AlbàCousin and Watai 2018). Certain names, especially those with the element silim accompanying a divine name, such as fNanāya-silim ‘Be friendly, O Nanāya!’ and the name fNanāya-bēlu-uṣrī ‘O Nanāya, protect (my) master!’, seem to have been reserved for slave women. Animal names, too, were primarily chosen for slave women; in particular, almost all women called fŠikkû ‘Mongoose’ and fḪabaṣirtu ‘Mouse’ were slaves. By contrast, certain names seem to have been chosen for free women, such as the aforementioned name fIna-Esagil-ramât and the similar name fIna-Esagil-bēlet ‘She is the lady in Esagil’. Other names for free women – if not exclusively given to free women – are, for example, fBēlessunu ‘Their lady’, fBuˀītu ‘Desired one’, fKaššāya ‘Kassite’, fInṣabtu and fQudāšu ‘Ring’ or ‘Earring’, fṬābatu ‘Good’, fNūptāya ‘Gift (of DN)’, fAmat-DN ‘Servant of DN’, and fRē’indu ‘Beloved one’. The name fKaššāya ‘Kassite’ was used mostly by elite women, including Nebuchadnezzar II’s daughter, although it is occasionally borne by non-free women as well. Thus, all names could have been given to all women regardless of social status, although each status had its own popular names. It remains to be studied which social and cultural values are reflected in these name choices for free and unfree women.
Geographical Origins
Some female names reflect the geographical origin of their bearers.Footnote 6 In the documentation from Babylon, the naophoric element – an element deriving from a temple name – ‘Esagil’ is frequently attested in female names, such as in fIna-Esagil-ramât ‘She lives in Esagil’ and in fIna-Esagil-bēlet ‘She is the lady in Esagil’. The Esagil temple was the main sanctuary of the god Marduk, the chief god of the city of Babylon and the king of the gods in first millennium BCE Babylonia. Other temple designations were also used in female names, especially in the names borne by oblates, such as fIna-Eturkalamma-alsišu ‘In the Eturkalamma temple, I called (the god)’ and fIna-Eigikalamma-lūmuršu ‘In the Eigikalamma temple, I want to see (the god)’.Footnote 7
Theophoric elements also indicate the geographical origin of individuals (see also Chapter 1). We can take the example of three minor female deities: the goddesses Zarpanītu, Aya, and Mammītu. Women called fAmat-Zarpanītu ‘Servant of Zarpanītu’ come from Babylon, in light of the fact that Zarpanītu is the divine spouse of Marduk. Likewise, women, who bear names with the theophoric element Aya, such as fAya-aqrat ‘Aya is precious’ and fAya-bēlu-uṣrī ‘O Aya, protect my master’, often come from Sippar or Larsa, two cities which housed an Ebabbar temple dedicated to the sun god Šamaš, the husband of Aya. The same is the case with Mammītu, divine spouse of the infernal god Nergal. Women who bore a name with this theophoric element usually originated from the city of Cutha, near Babylon, where the goddess was worshipped. Moreover, names with a reference to a major deity, such as the healing goddess Bābu, the goddess Ninlil,Footnote 8 the wife of Enlil, and the love goddess Nanāya, were often borne by women from the major cities of Nippur, Borsippa, Uruk, or Babylon.
Some names are more explicit about a person’s origins. We find, for example, women called fBarsipītu (‘Woman from Borsippa’), fGandarāˀītu (‘Woman from Gandar’), fIsinnāˀītu (‘Woman from Isin’), and fSipparāˀītu (‘Woman from Sippar’).
Gendered Theophoric Elements
Whereas some personal names are neutral names applying to both sexes, many names contain gendered elements. This is especially the case with gendered theophoric elements. Like verbs and their conjugations, they help to define the names as female or male. It seems that in Babylonia a whole range of male divinities was restricted to male names, including Adad, Anu, Bēl, Ea, Enlil, Marduk, Nabû, Nergal, Ninurta, Sîn, Šamaš, and Uraš. The major and most powerful male divinities of first millennium BCE Babylonia were thus used to name men (Reference Cousin, Watai, Budin, Cifarelli, Garcia-Ventura and Millet-AlbàCousin and Watai 2018, 248–51).
In accordance with the fact that male theophoric elements were usually only used to compose masculine names, some female divinities predominantly occur in names borne by women. They were minor goddesses, often consorts of great gods, or goddesses related to fertility, two qualities particularly ascribed to women. To the already mentioned Aya, Mammītu, and Zarpanītu, we can add Kurunnam, the goddess of beer, and Ninlil, Enlil’s consort. Some examples are fKurunnam-tabni ‘Kurunnam created’, fItti-Ninlil-īnāya ‘My eyes are set on Ninlil’, and fAmat-Ninlil ‘Servant of Ninlil’.
However, some theophoric elements referring to goddesses are used for men and women in the Neo-Babylonian period. This observation applies to major goddesses such as Ištar,Footnote 9 Nanāya, and the goddesses of medicine, Gula and Bābu. Ištar (as well as her other aspects, Anunnītu and Bānītu) was a goddess of passionate love, but also a warrior deity, a quality which complies with the Mesopotamian idea of masculinity. Finally, among goddesses who feature in both masculine and feminine names (Anunnītu, Bānītu, Bābu, Bēltu, Gula, Ištar, Nanāya, Ningal, and Tašmētu), we find several consorts of major male deities of the Babylonian pantheon (Marduk or Bēl, Nabû, and Sîn).Footnote 10
If the study of some personal names allows preliminary conclusions about gender identity in Babylonia, a few other names seem rather atypical. At least two women bear a name with the theophoric element Marduk and two men bear a name with the theophoric element Zarpanītu; they are Arad-Zarpanītu ‘Servant of Zarpanītu’ and Arad-Erua ‘Servant of (the goddess) Erua’ (both witnesses in Nbk. 76 and 106), fMarduk-ēṭirat ‘Marduk saves’ (a land owner in Cyr. 331), and fMarduk-uballiṭ ‘Marduk has kept alive’ (a woman who receives rations from a temple in Reference JoannèsJoannès 1982 no. 104).
Physical Characteristics
If certain physical qualifications can be referred to in names for both sexes, others were crucial for creating gendered identities of men and women. Masculine names referring to physical features single out strength (e.g., the family name Dannēa), power (e.g., the family name Lēˀêa), and prosperity (e.g., Nuḫšānu). Regarding women, their names recall physical aspects of baby girls and probably also of female appearance. Examples include fḪibuṣu ‘Chubby’, fKubbutu ‘Plump’, and fṬuppuštu ‘Very plump’. Some female names refer to the beauty and the attractiveness of the woman, as is the case with the names based on fruits and jewels that were discussed earlier. On the other hand, we do not find names referring to ugliness, whereas such names are attested in the Old Babylonian documentation (second millennium BCE), as in the case of fMasiktum ‘Ugly’.
There is also another group of names dealing with physical characteristics and anatomies, namely those referring to disabilities. This phenomenon is well attested in the Old Babylonian period, where one finds male names such as Sukkuku (‘Deaf’) and Upputu or Ubbudu (‘Blind’Footnote 11). In the Neo-Babylonian period we can probably identify the name of a mute woman. A female slave bore the name fŠaḫḫurratu ‘Deathly hush’, which derives from the verb šuḫarruru ‘to be deathly still’ (Reference JoannèsJoannès 1989, 280–1).
Desired Characteristics
Three qualities reflected in personal names are shared by men and women: goodness, joy, and the value of the person. For the latter, we may refer to names formed with the verb (w)aqāru, with the masculine rendering Aqru and the feminine rendering fMaqartu ‘Precious’. The Egibi archive provides a lot of names of this type (Reference WunschWunsch 1993, Reference Wunsch2000a/b, and Reference AbrahamAbraham 2004). We can also quote the name fKabtāya ‘Honoured’, pointing to the importance of the person. Names referring to joy include Ḫaddāya ‘Joyful’ for men and fRīšat or fRīšāya ‘Joy’ for women. Goodness is expressed in names built with the verbs damāqu and ṭâbu, popular for both men and women. Names like Damqu, Damqāya, and Dummuqu were used for men. Being a grammatically neutral name, fDamqāya could also be applied to women. With the verb ṭâbu, the male name Ṭābia and the female names fṬābatu, as well as the superlative fṬubbutu ‘The very good one’, are built.
In addition, names related to personality traits could reflect the role and place of men and women in Babylonian society. Men were more likely associated with wisdom (e.g., Apkallu), loyalty and truth (e.g., Kīnāya ‘The faithful’), and mercy (e.g., Ḫan(n)an(u) ‘Merciful’).Footnote 12 Epithets devoted to women often contain laudations. They include affectionate names, but also names symbolising their place in society. According to these names, women were supposed to be sweet (fDuššuptu) and provide an anchorage for the family (fḪamatāya ‘Help’; fIndu ‘Support’).Footnote 13 Furthermore, women were ideally kind (fTaslimu ‘Friendly’), pure (fḪiptāya), and obedient (fḪanašu).Footnote 14 We also find the counterpart, fLā-magirtu ‘Disobedient’, as the name of a slave woman (Dar. 379). The very existence of this name suggests that such a personality trait was not desirable for a woman, a fortiori a slave woman.
A distinctive feature of Babylonian onomastics in the first millennium BCE is the use of family names at most cities by a segment of the population that can be described as the urban notable class. These family names are common and the conventions for their usage are well established in the abundant legal and administrative tablets that date from the so-called ‘long sixth century’: the period stretching from Nabopolassar’s first regnal year in 625 to Xerxes I’s suppression of the Babylonian revolts in 484 (Reference Jursa, Hackl, Janković and KleberJursa et al. 2010, 2–5). The use of family names emerged during the preceding eighth and seventh centuries, and the antecedents of some families and family names can be traced even further back in time to the early first millennium or even the latter part of the second millennium. Furthermore, some of these families persisted into the latter half of the first millennium BCE, as demonstrated by the continued presence of family names in Seleucid-era tablets.
Usage of family names at all times appears to have been restricted. Non-Babylonians never had family names, and only Babylonians of a certain social status were identified in texts with family names. Where the line of social demarcation lay is difficult to determine. Slaves and people of servile status, such as temple oblates, did not have family names, but neither did some men who had sufficient wealth to purchase land associated with the temple (Reference NielsenNielsen 2015b, 101), suggesting that an element of familial pedigree was involved. One could not simply adopt a family name. As a consequence, an understanding of the norms of family-name usage and an ability to identify them in Neo-Babylonian texts is essential for comprehending how individuals from the urban notable class functioned politically, economically, and socially.
After a discussion of the origins of family names in Babylonian society, we will present an overview of the types of family names that were in existence and then outline the different ways in which family names were recorded in texts, before concluding with some comments on the geographical distribution of family names throughout Babylonia.
Origins
Family names first became popular in the cities of Babylon, Borsippa, and Dilbat in the eighth and seventh centuries. They probably served as a means of projecting social cohesion and marking identity among urban notables at a time when the Babylonian state was weak and decentralised. For much of this period, Assyrians and Chaldeans occupied the Babylonian throne, and the urban notables would have had an interest in communicating their local identities to these non-Babylonians in order to ensure that their traditional prerogatives were respected. The practice may have become widespread in imitation of Aramean and Chaldean tribal groups, whose members were distinguished as sons of the eponymous ancestor for which their tribe was named.
Whatever caused the practice to gain popularity, it is evident that it had antecedents in the earliest centuries of the first millennium and even the latter second millennium. The family name Arad-Ea stands out as having belonged to a prominent family from Babylon whose members often held the office of governor (bēl pīḫati) in the royal administration beginning in the Kassite Dynasty (Reference LambertLambert 1957, 2). One member of the family could even trace an incomplete lineage back to the Kassite-era scribe Arad-Ea, from whom the family claimed descent. A Kassite-era cylinder seal from the late fourteenth century bearing the inscription of ‘Uballissu-Marduk, šatammu … of Kurigalzu, king of the world, son of Arad-Ea, the ummiān nikkassi’ is echoed in an inscription on a stele (kudurru) from the second quarter of the twelfth century in which a governor named Marduk-zākir-šumi was called ‘son of Nabû-nādin-aḫḫē, whose grandfather was Rēmanni-Marduk the liplippu of Uballissu-Marduk, descendant of Arad-Ea’ (Reference BrinkmanBrinkman 1993).
The term liplippu, which the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary defines as ‘offspring, descendant’, was not used in administrative texts but did appear in inscriptions, royal genealogies, and colophons on literary and scholarly texts, and typically expressed descent from a more distant ancestor. There are a few instances of genealogies similar to the example from the Arad-Ea family in which liplippu was used to indicate that possessors of family names could claim a genuine, or at least a multi-generational yet fictitious, descent from an ancestor who could be traced to the second or early first millennia. Colophons on tablets from the Epic of Gilgamesh identified members of the Sîn-leqe-unninnī family from Uruk – who often were kalû priests, just as descendants of Arad-Ea frequently held the title bēl pīḫati – as liplippu of Sîn-leqe-unninnī. Members of the Sîn-leqe-unninnī family either wishfully or legitimately claimed descent from a figure who was credited in later Babylonian tradition as having composed the epic and who may have been responsible for editorial undertakings in the second millennium that resulted in the version of Gilgamesh as it was known in the first millennium (Reference Beaulieu, Dietrich and LoretzBeaulieu 2000, 1–16; Reference GeorgeGeorge 2003, 28–33).
It is possible that these lines of descent included multiple ancestors whose names became family names. A stele (kudurru) written in the early ninth century at Borsippa concerns an ērib bīti priest named Nabû-aplu-iddin, son of (DUMU) Abunāya and liplippu of Aqar-Nabû (BBSt. 28). Aqar-Nabû was the family name of the chief administrator (šatammu) of the Ezida temple and ērib bīti priest of Nabû at Borsippa a century later, so it is certain that Nabû-aplu-iddin was an early member of this family. However, Nabû-aplu-iddin was petitioning the king for the restoration of his paternal estate (bīt abi), land that had belonged to his father, Abunāya. Abunāya is also attested as a family name in seventh-century texts, and this attachment to the ‘house of the father’ may have led to familial segmentation in which one branch of the Aqar-Nabû family became known as the Abunāya family (Reference NielsenNielsen 2011, 74–8).
Finally, there are the antecedents of the Šangû-Sippar family found in the Sun God Tablet from Sippar (BBSt. 36). In the waning years of the eleventh century, Ekur-šumu-ušarši, the šangû priest of Šamaš, petitioned the kings Simbar-Šīḫu (1025–1008 BCE) and Eulmaš-šākin-šumi for help maintaining the cult of Šamaš at Sippar following the destruction of the cult statue of Šamaš by Sutean raiders. More than a century later, during the second quarter of the ninth century, Nabû-nādin-šumi, who was the šangû priest of Šamaš at the time, discovered an image of Šamaš and petitioned the king for aid to remake the statue of Šamaš and fully reinstitute his cult at Sippar. Nabû-nādin-šumi had been able to recount Ekur-šumu-ušarši’s earlier efforts to the king and claimed to be a descendant of that earlier šangû priest. He did not call himself a liplippu of Ekur-šumu-ušarši, but instead described himself as ‘from the seed’ (ina zēri). In spite of the difference in terminology, the sentiment embodied in both terms is the same. Furthermore, even though šangû priest of Sippar was only used as a title in the text, it is very likely that a familial attitude towards the title was held by Nabû-nādin-šumi and that he was an early member of what would become the Šangû-Sippar family (Reference Bongenaar and BongenaarBongenaar 2000, 77–8).
Types
Family names can be grouped into two basic categories: ancestral names and occupational names. Ancestral names had fallen out of favour as given names in the first millennium and were practically never used as personal names by living persons. These family names referenced an eponymous ancestor from whom the family claimed descent. In most cases the historicity of this ancestor is unverifiable, but, as the discussion of liplippu demonstrated, there are a few cases where it is possible to identify the historical ancestor from whom the family took its name. As a result, we cannot discount the possibility that any ancestral family name actually referenced a formerly living person, though it is likely that many such family names were based on fictive descent. The overwhelming majority of ancestral family names were masculine names preceded by a so-called Personenkeil, the single vertical wedge that served as a determinative before a masculine personal name in the cuneiform writing system (see Chapter 1). Interestingly, there are a few examples of feminine personal names that were in use as family names (e.g., Arrabtu ‘(female) Dormouse’ or Maqartu ‘Precious’). These names were initially preceded by the sign MUNUS, the feminine determinative in texts. With the passage of time, however, scribes began to ‘masculinise’ these names by replacing MUNUS with the masculine personal name determinative (Reference Wunsch, del Olmo Lete, Feliu and Millet-AlbàWunsch 2006, 459–69).
Unlike ancestral family names, occupational family names are not marked by a personal name determinative in texts, but rather by the occupational determinative LÚ. Many of these names were derived from titles associated with the temples and represented the full extent of the priestly hierarchy. Names taken from both high-ranking temple-enterer priesthoods (e.g., Šangû-DN ‘Priest of DN’ or Kutimmu ‘Goldsmith’) and the lower-ranking purveying priesthoods (e.g., Ṭābiḫu ‘Butcher’, Rēˀi-alpi ‘Oxherd’, or Atkuppu ‘Reed-worker’) were used by families. While these families often had close associations with the temples, there are other occupational family names that may reflect association with the state or military apparatus (e.g., Lāsimu ‘Scout’ or Rēˀi-sisê ‘Horse herder’; Reference StillStill 2019, 82–3). And while it is not always the case that an individual with an occupational family name held that office or title, there are examples of families that had a strong association with or even monopolised the role: the Rēˀi-alpi family, for example, dominated the ox-herder prebends at Borsippa (Reference JursaJursa 2005, 93–4).
Usage
Family names were typically communicated in texts using the language of filiation and descent. They originally replaced the name of the referent’s father in a simple two-tier genealogy in which the individual (PN1) was called the ‘son of’ (DUMU or A) the family name (PN2). This practice has the benefit of allowing the reader of the tablet to differentiate between an individual who had an occupational family name and one who belonged to the occupation: the former would be called ‘son of’ the occupation (e.g., Bēl-ibni the son of the Potter [family]), while the occupational title simply followed the name of the latter (e.g., Bēl-ibni the potter).
The use of two-tier genealogies to express family names, however, poses some challenges for modern readers. The first challenge is the occasional appearance of individuals from Chaldean or Aramean tribes in legal and administrative tablets. Tribal affiliation could be expressed in two-tier genealogies, as a sale of a house located at Uruk in 673 BCE at the Chaldean city of Šapīya reveals. The first witness was Ea-zēru-iqīša, the chief of the Chaldean tribe of Bīt-Amukāni, who was identified as the ‘son’ of Amukānu (wr. Idé-a-NUMUN-BA-šá A Ia-muk-a-nu). However, the second witness, Naˀid-bēlanu, son of Aya-rimî, was probably a Chaldean as well; Naˀid-bēlanu had a Babylonian name, but his patronym, Aya-rimî, was West Semitic (Reference FrameFrame 2013 no. 4). The other witnesses had two-tier genealogies written in the same way as Ea-zēru-iqīša’s, but their patronyms refer to their father’s names and not to a family or tribal name, with the possible exception of the sixth witness, Nabû-zēru-ibni. His patronym, Nabûnnāya, was probably a family name (Reference NielsenNielsen 2015a, 256).
Nabû-zēru-ibni’s example brings us to the second challenge: it can be unclear whether a patronym in a two-tier genealogy is a family name or the father’s name, particularly if the family name is infrequently attested. It is doubtful that this was a problem in antiquity; the corpus of names in use as family names probably would have sounded quaint or old-fashioned to a Babylonian if one had been used as a personal name. The modern reader has to either develop familiarity with the corpus of personal names and family names or consult personal name lists. Nevertheless, the use of two-tier genealogies to express both family affiliation and paternity may still have led to some confusion. One solution to this problem was the appending of -šú šá to DUMU or A in genealogies, resulting in a writing of PN1 DUMU-šú šá/A-šú šá PN2. In the latter half of the first millennium the -šú was dropped but the šá was retained. This appended writing made it clear that the patronym was the father’s name and not a family name. The appearance of appended two-tier genealogies did not mean that the writings DUMU or A only preceded family names; there are examples of tablets in which these writings preceded the name of an individual’s father.Footnote 1 However, if the scribe used both appended and unappended two-tier genealogies in a witness list it could be an indication that the witnesses with unappended genealogies had family names while those with appended writings did not.
The other solution was the introduction of an additional tier to genealogies. In the seventh century, three-tier genealogies in which the father’s name was expressed with an appended writing in the second tier and the family name was recorded in the third tier with an unappended writing (i.e., PN1 DUMU-šú šá/A-šú šá PN2 DUMU/A PN3) became more common in texts. This practice had the benefit of preserving the name of the referent’s father as well as his family name. As a result, it becomes easier to identify brothers, uncles, and even cousins from the same family. A further elaboration of the three-tier genealogy occurred in the Seleucid period; in tablets from Uruk a fourth tier appears in many genealogies. It is unclear why this change occurred, but one possible explanation could be the strong preference for names featuring the god Anu as a theophoric element that had emerged, and the fact that most of the individuals appearing in the cuneiform texts from Seleucid Uruk came from the limited circle of endogamous families that dominated temple affairs (Reference Beaulieu, Waerzeggers and SeireBeaulieu 2018, 202–3). Specifying a man textually may have necessitated the addition of a fourth tier. Furthermore, women, when they do appear in texts, would also be identified by a variant of the three-tier genealogy. The patriarchal nature of Babylonian society meant that women were never affiliated directly with their family names as a ‘daughter of’ the family name. Instead, women were associated with their family on the basis of their relationship to a male family member. A woman was usually fPN1 ‘daughter of/wife of’ IPN2 DUMU/A PN3, meaning that marriage effectively aligned her with a new family name.
Geographic Distribution
Family names were not ubiquitous throughout Babylonia. Although family names can be found on tablets dated at every Babylonian city in the Neo-Babylonian period, their usage did not become conventional everywhere. Greater population size and density in urban areas may have made family names a useful means for differentiating individuals in texts, and economic and cultural networks between cities probably contributed to the spread of the practice. They were used earliest and with greatest frequency at cities in northern Babylonia, at Babylon and the nearby cities of Borsippa, Dilbat, and Kish. Further north, it is also possible to observe that family names became used more frequently at Sippar. Some of these families, most notably the Šangû-Šamaš or Šangû-Sippar family, had a long presence at Sippar that may have extended back to the eleventh century and the events commemorated in BBSt. 36. Still others, such as the Ša-nāšišu family (Reference BongenaarBongenaar 1997, 470–5; Reference Jursa, Hackl, Janković and KleberJursa et al. 2010, 71–2), had relocated to Sippar from Babylon. At Nippur, however, there seems to have been an almost conscientious rejection of the use of family names (Reference NielsenNielsen 2011, 163–5, 177–80). This was in spite of textual evidence indicating the presence of the same cultural sentiments and practices relating to revered scholars (Reference RubinRubin 2022) and prebendary functions (Reference Joannès and EllisJoannès 1992, 90; Reference BeaulieuBeaulieu 1995, 88–9) at Nippur that were the basis for ancestral and occupational family names elsewhere. Those few family names that are attested in documents dated at Nippur may have belonged to non-Nippureans. Family names were nearly as uncommon in tablets dated at Uruk and Ur in southern Babylonia as they were at Nippur, but there are indications that the practice was taking hold during the seventh century (Reference NielsenNielsen 2011, 217–20). Prosopographical analysis reveals that individuals who were identified in texts with family names appeared in other texts without such names. Furthermore, the names of other male kin to these individuals were also recorded without mention of their family name, with a few exceptions in which it was clear they shared the same family name. Family identity was present among some of the population even if there was no compulsion to record it in texts.
Not only was there an uneven geographic distribution of family-name usage throughout Babylonia, it is also evident that some family names originated at or were strongly associated with specific cities. For example, the Ea-ilūtu-bāni, Aqar-Nabû, and Iddin-Papsukkal families had ties to Borsippa; the Šangû-Dilbat and Salāmu families were from Dilbat; and the Ekur-zakir, Ḫunzû, and Sîn-leqe-unninnī were predominantly from Uruk (Reference Wunsch, Krebernik and NeumannWunsch 2014, 289–314). Furthermore, branches of these families spread to other cities after the relocation of members. The Ṣāḫit-ginê family at Sippar was descended from a man from Babylon named Dayyān-Marduk (Reference WaerzeggersWaerzeggers 2014, 29–30), and it may be possible to trace the Iddin-Papsukkal family at Ur and Uruk back to Borsippa, where the family appears to have had its origins (Reference NielsenNielsen 2009, 171–82). An awareness of the associations that some families had with certain cities and the movements of certain families over time can provide context for understanding the social networks present in a tablet. Furthermore, family names can provide useful clues when damage to an unprovenanced tablet results in the loss of the name of the city at which the tablet was dated.
As a distinct category of onomastics, the Beamtenname is defined by its containing of a reference to the name-bearer’s superior, normally the king (Reference EdzardEdzard 1998–2001, 109–10; Reference StreckStreck 2001). In the context of the onomastics of first millennium BCE Babylonia, this means, for all intents and purposes, names that contain the element šarru ‘king’. Names containing as an element a king’s entire name – such as the early Old Babylonian name Išbi-Erra-dannam-nādā – were no longer in use. This chapter will first investigate the typology of šarru-names. Then we will address the question, based on prosopography, how such typological ‘Beamtennamen’ are actually represented among the names of officials, and to which degree names of this type are indicative of a specific socio-economic and administrative collocation of the name-bearers.
Typology of Names Containing the Element šarru ‘King’
Semantically, a larger group of names expressing a wish or blessing for the king has to be distinguished from a much smaller group in which the king is essentially a stand-in for a theophoric element in that a wish is addressed to him. In the following discussion, references for names whose bearers were demonstrably royal officials will be flagged by adding the person’s title or function. The absence of such a flag, however, does not necessarily mean that the person in question did not have a background in the royal administration; it only means that relevant information is lacking.
Wishes and Blessings for the King
By far the most šarru-names have the pattern DN-šarru-uṣur ‘DN, guard the king’. Essentially the whole range of theophoric elements attested in the onomasticon appears in these names, from rare and mostly local deitiesFootnote 1 to the ‘great’ gods of the dominant Babylon theology. Of the latter gods, Nabû is the most frequently attested in šarru-names, with Bēl second. Temple names can take the place of the theophoric element;Footnote 2 infrequently, a variant with ina ‘in’ is found (Ina-Esagil-šarru-uṣur; BM 29311). Occasionally, the theophoric element reveals the non-Babylonian origin of the name-bearer. For instance, Yāḫû-šarru-uṣur was a Judean (CUSAS 28 2–4) and Milkūmu-šarru-uṣur probably an Ammonite (VS 3 53). Very rarely, a ‘house’ or ‘clan’ appears in the first place: the name of governor Bīt-Irˀanni-šarru-uṣur refers to the Irˀanni clan (Reference WunschWunsch 1993 no. 169).
Variants of the DN-šarru-uṣur type include:
Instead of an imperative, the verbal form can come in the preterite:
| DN-šarru-ibni | ‘DN has created the king’ (OECT 10 362) |
| DN-šarru-ukīn | ‘DN has established the king’ (GC 2 298) |
| DN-šarru-utēr | ‘DN has restored the king’ (BM 114616) |
| DN-balāṭ-šarri-iqbi | ‘DN ordained the king’s life’ (TCL 13 227; a mašennu official) |
Rare names expressing a wish or blessing for the king are:
| DN-rāˀim-šarri | ‘DN loves the king’ (TCL 9 103) |
| DN-šul(l)um-šarri | ‘DN, (establish) the well-being of the king’ (YOS 6 11) |
| DN-itti-šarri | ‘DN is with the king’ (CTMMA 3 38) |
| Itti-DN-šarru-lūmur | ‘Let me see the king with the help of DN’Footnote 3 |
Finally, Šarru-lū-dari ‘May the king endure’, attested as the name of a qīpu official (CTMMA 4 136), expresses a wish without explicitly addressing a divinity.
Instead of the king, ‘kingdom’ (šarrūtu) can appear in names – for instance, in DN-kīn-šarrūssu ‘DN, establish his kingdom’, DN-šarrūssu-ukīn ‘DN established his kingdom’, and Tīrik-šarrūssu ‘Let his kingdom be long-lasting’.Footnote 4
Apart from the king, the crown prince is the only other member of the royal family who appears in names: DN-mār-šarri-uṣur ‘DN, guard the crown prince’ (BM 103477; a vice governor of the Sealand).
This name type falls out of use at the end of the fourth or very early in the third century;Footnote 5 in fact, the later Hellenistic onomasticon does not contain any šarru-names at all;Footnote 6 see the following section.
Blessings from the King
The second category of names – more varied than the first, but with far fewer attestations – focuses on the king not as the recipient of divine blessings implicitly requested by the bearer of the name, but as a fount of blessings in his own right. Functionally, the king replaces a divinity in such names. This is most explicit in the name Šarru-ilūˀaFootnote 7 ‘The king is my god’ (YOS 3 159; a rab musaḫḫirī official), but the fact also evinces clearly from the following name pairs.Footnote 8
Also in this type of name, the crown prince makes an appearance: Mār-šarri-ilūˀa ‘The crown prince is my god’ (YOS 7 195). Finally, it should be noted that the only Babylonian family name that invokes the king, LUGAL-A.RA.ZU(-ú), may belong to this name type. Its exact reading and interpretation are uncertain (Reference 92Wunsch, Krebernik and NeumannWunsch 2014, 310), but A.RA.ZU should stand for taṣlītu ‘prayer’ or for a form of ṣullû ‘to pray’.
None of the names in this second group, which cast the king in a (quasi-)divine role, comes from a source that post-dates 484 BCE (i.e., the major break in the continuity of Late Babylonian history). The first group, which invokes divine support for the king, on the other hand, continues (though with less frequency) beyond 484 BCE until the beginning of the Hellenistic period. To some degree, these are proxy data for the development of Babylonian attitudes towards kingship. For the long sixth century, the continuing relevance of traditional sacralised kingship cannot be doubted. Thereafter, it was no longer common to consider the king on a par with the gods. The pertinent names are no longer attested, even among the numerous Babylonians who had close ties to the royal administration and who occasionally would still bear names invoking the gods’ protection for the king. In the Hellenistic period, even this latter name type disappeared, probably because of the disappearance (from our view, at least) of royal officials of Babylonian origin.Footnote 9
The Social Range of ‘Beamtennamen’
For establishing the intended message of a ‘Beamtenname’ (defined here as names invoking the king), it is easiest to start with the observation that the use of these names was restricted. Kings or members of the royal family did not bear them, unless they had been named before they or their family members gained the throne, as was the case with Nergal-šarru-uṣur (Neriglissar) and Bēl-šarru-uṣur (Belshazzar), son of Nabonidus. ‘Beamtennamen’ are also conspicuously absent among the Babylonian urban upper class – that is, the propertied landowners, be they priestly rentiers or more enterepreneurially oriented landowners.Footnote 10 Only a few individuals bearing a family name had a ‘Beamtenname’ as a given name or as a patronym.Footnote 11 This suggests that the message that a ‘Beamtenname’ sought to project was not part of the general outlook of this class of people.
The ‘bi-polar’ temple administrations are the sector of state administration in first millennium BCE Babylonia that we are best informed about (Reference Jursa, Archi and BramantiJursa 2015; Reference Jursa, de Boer and Dercksen2017). There, descendants of local priestly families worked side by side with representatives of the central government. The latter were typically designated as qīpu ‘(royal) commissioner’ or as ša rēš šarri bēl piqitti ‘courtier (and) supervisor’. While both groups were dependent on royal approval, they hailed from different backgrounds. For priests, their origin in certain families was normally a precondition for their access to office.Footnote 12 The family background of the royal officials, by contrast, is less clear: they were very rarely even given patronyms, let alone family names (Reference Jursa, Archi and BramantiJursa 2015). The crown, not their own family, was the principal point of reference that these individuals related to and from which they drew their legitimisation, as seen in their not infrequent conflicts with local priests (Reference Jursa and GordinJursa and Gordin 2018; Reference LevaviLevavi 2018). This allegiance to the crown is what ‘Beamtennamen’ were intended to signal.
However, it is by no means true that the majority of officials bore such names. Of the twelve royal commissioners in Sippar, only five had a ‘Beamtenname’;Footnote 13 in Uruk, only five of thirteen (Reference KleberKleber 2008, 30–2). Of the thirty courtiers listed in Bongenaar’s Sippar prosopography (Reference Bongenaar1997, 108–12), eight have a name including the element šarru; in Uruk, it is 30 per cent (Reference Jursa, Wiesehöfer, Rollinger and LanfranchiJursa 2011, 165, n. 34). Finally, and perhaps most significantly, among the twenty-one palace officials named in what is preserved of the pertinent part of Nebuchadnezzar’s ‘Hofkalender’, just one person had a ‘Beamtenname’ (Reference Da RivaDa Riva 2013). In light of this data, the question arises as to whether it was entirely optional for officials to bear such a name.
There is no direct evidence about the moment and circumstances when an official received a ‘Beamtenname’. If such a name was selected by a person’s parents, or by the name-bearer himself, this might be seen as an aspirational act – an indication of a hoped-for career or allegiance. If such a name was awarded at his actual appointment to office, it was very likely conferred upon him by the same authority that invested him with the office.
Ethnicity is likely one important factor here. From a social and ethno-linguistic point of view, the royal administration had a different setting than the city and temple administrations. In the bilingual environment of Babylonia in the sixth and later centuries, the crown was far more open to the use of Aramaic than the temple administrations or the Babylonian urban bourgeoisie. The Aramaic scribes (sēpiru) that appear in the documentation from the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II onwards were usually employed by the crown. In the Persian period, royal Aramaic scribes were made obligatory members of the board of temple administrators (Reference Jursa, Lanfranchi, Bonacossi, Pappi and PonchiaJursa 2012). An investigation of the largest distinct group of royal officials – the courtiers (ša rēši) and their fifth-century homologues, the chamberlains (ustarbaru) – shows that many of these men were of non-Babylonian origin. Some were Arameans or generally West Semites;Footnote 14 a significant number was of Egyptian extraction, especially after the Persian conquest (Reference Jursa, Archi and BramantiHackl and Jursa 2015); and yet others were of Elamite or Iranian origin, or they bore names that resist etymological explanation (Reference Jursa, Wiesehöfer, Rollinger and LanfranchiJursa 2011). Arguably, many of these courtiers were at least partly deracinated professionals of administration who owed what privileges they had to the king. Their identity rested in their name and title, as the naming customs in administrative and legal documents bear out: while an ordinary Babylonian needed to be named with his patronym and, if applicable, with his family name to be fully defined from a legal point of view, for a courtier his own name and his title were sufficient: there was no legal need for further details.
Courtiers of non-Babylonian extraction must have been under pressure to integrate also with respect to their name. Such a scenario probably lies behind the double name of ‘Maše-Emūn, son of Sa-x-tukku, the royal courtier, whose name is Iddin-Nabû’ (Reference BlochBloch 2018 no. 80, ca. 28 Dar I). While this man took an unmarked Babylonian name, it is highly likely that in many other cases a name was chosen that reflected the allegiances of the courtier, a ‘Beamtenname’. I would suggest that this is the raison d’être of many of these names not only for courtiers but also for royal officials in general. Sometimes, we get confirmation of this hypothesis in the form of non-Babylonian patronyms or non-Babylonian ethnic affiliations of bearers of ‘Beamtennamen’. Of a total of eighty-two bearers of ‘Beamtennamen’ for whom patronyms are known, twenty men had a demonstrably non-Babylonian background.Footnote 15 Some of these individuals are:
Nabû-šarru-uṣur, the Egyptian (UCP 9/1 29)
Sîn-šarru-uṣur, son of Pasia (probably an Egyptian patronym; Nbk. 382)
Zababa-šarru-uṣur, son of Il-ta-ma-mu, the Elamite (YOS 19 253)
Gabbi-ilī-šarru-uṣur, son of Iltehr-hanan (an Aramaic patronym; Cyr. 177)
Šarru-dūru, son of ˁEdrā (an Aramaic patronym; TCL 13 193)
Bayt-il-šarru-uṣur, son of Nabû-rapaˀ (an Aramaic patronym; BM 74520)
Nabû-šarrūssu-ukīn, son of Nabû-iltala (an Aramaic patronym; BM 27967+; BM 94541)
Šarru-lū-dari, son of Abu-nūr (an Aramaic patronym; JCS 24 106)
Šamaš-šarru-uṣur, son of Milki-rām (a Phoenician patronym; Reference JursaJursa 1998 no. 2)
Abī-râm, son of Sîn-šarru-uṣur (son with an Aramaic name; OECT 10 113)
Aḫu-lakun, son of Nergal-šarru-uṣur (son with an Aramaic name; BE 8/1 85)
The evidence is sufficient to argue that ‘Beamtennamen’ will very often have been a signal of achieved or intended integration and loyalty given by, or required from, (relative) outsiders. However, while such a signal was not required from everyone – not all officials bore ‘Beamtennamen’ – is it possible to say that whoever actually did bear such a name did have a close relationship to the crown?
It is not possible to give an entirely conclusive answer to this question: we simply do not have sufficiently clear prosopographical data to establish the institutional affiliation of every single bearer of a ‘Beamtenname’. Several points are clear, though. First, as stated earlier, the likelihood that a bearer of a ‘Beamtenname’ was a member of one of the well-established urban clans, and especially of a priestly clan, is very remote. Second, the more unusual šarru-names are strong signals for an affiliation with the royal administration. This is true, for instance, for the types DN-balāṭ-šarri-iqbi, DN-šarrūssu-ukīn, DN-šulum-šarri, and DN-mār-šarri-uṣur. All (or nearly all) bearers of such names can be shown to have been officials based on their titles or the context of their attestations.
In other cases, we may well lack information that would allow us to place bearers of ‘Beamtennamen’ in their proper context. To quote one example, a relatively large number of such names are found among the shepherds and chief shepherds working for the Eanna temple, such as the ‘chief of cattle’ (rab būli) Arad-Bēl, son of Šarru-ukīn (AnOr 8 67; etc.), and his brother Anu-šarru-uṣur, son of Šarru-ukīn, who also was a shepherd (YOS 7 140, 161). Two šarru-names in two generations must be indicative. Nothing in the attested activities of these men suggests a close relationship to the crown, but we know that shepherds were to some degree outsiders who had a contractual relationship with the temple, and they may well have been drawn from a segment of the Urukean population that depended on the king.
On the other hand, however, we regularly encounter šarru-names among temple ‘oblates’ (širku). Two examples from the Eanna temple are Anu-šarru-uṣur (TCL 13 170) and Eanna-šarru-uṣur (YOS 7 89). These individuals owed service obligations to the temple and did not have a close – or, indeed, any – relationship to the crown; in fact, we can probably exclude the existence of such a relationship. This is sufficient evidence to state that a ‘Beamtenname’ is not a fail-safe indication for identifying an official. The reason why humble oblates like those mentioned earlier might bear a ‘Beamtenname’ eulogising the king – a kind of name that is, after all, quite rare and thus ‘marked’ – cannot be established. The reason will have lain in their personal histories. One possible pathway is suggested by the following evidence: ‘Ea-šarru-bulliṭ, slave of Nabû-šarru-uṣur, the courtier’ (YOS 6 138) and ‘Šarru-mītu-uballiṭ, slave of the qīpu’ (PTS 3313). These slaves of two royal officials bear ‘Beamtennamen’. The message of the names – which were almost certainly given to them by their masters – reflects the values of the name-givers, the masters. It is thus conceivable that oblates with ‘Beamtennamen’ had a similar background to these two slaves: they might have been manumitted slaves of officials who had been gifted to the temple to serve it as širkus.
Conclusions
Names built around the element šarru ‘king’ either eulogise or bless the king, or they cast him in a quasi-divine role. The second type falls out of use after the end of the long sixth century, the first becomes obsolete in the early decades of the Hellenistic period. Overall, these names are rare and therefore ‘marked’. In most cases they will have indicated a close relationship to the king. When such names are borne by officials – as they often, but not universally, are – they may emphasise their allegiance to the crown with a view towards masking or cancelling an outsider’s identity. We also see such names used for slaves and temple dependents; in these cases it is likely that the names were chosen by someone with authority over these people who had a close relationship to the crown. Names of this type are very rare among the members of the prestigious urban clans, especially among priests, and their occasional occurrence in such circles must be considered an exception with probably specific reasons that remain unknown. In other words, while a ‘Beamtenname’ on its own is not sufficient evidence to identify an official, it is very good grounds to assume that the name-bearer is not a priest. Therefore, we can say that Amurru-šarru-uṣur, chief administrator (šatammu) of the Amurru temple Ekurgal (YBC 4038; Reference SackSack 1977, 43–4), is almost certainly an exception to the rule that the šatammu was usually chosen from the ranks of local priestly families.
Introduction
Many Neo-Babylonian names take the form of a sentence consisting of a subject (usually a deity), an object (usually the newborn child), and a verb.Footnote 1 Whenever the elements are spelled syllabically, there is usually no problem in reading and translating the name. In the first millennium BCE, however, it became increasingly common for scribes to spell the subject, object, and/or verb of personal names with logograms (Sumerograms). Sometimes a phonetic prefix or suffix was added to indicate pronunciation, but often such reading aids were not supplied.Footnote 2 In that case, verbal logograms are especially difficult to interpret for modern readers, as these signs can render a finite form (present, preterite, perfect), a non-finite form (participle, verbal adjective, infinitive), an injunctive form (precative, imperative), or even a verbal substantive. Two examples will suffice to illustrate the challenges that modern readers face when interpreting a logographically written Babylonian name.
The first example is the name spelled IdAG-A-MU. In this name, the verb spelled MU can hypothetically be interpreted as an imperative (*Nabû-aplu-idin ‘Nabû, give the son!’), a preterite (Nabû-aplu-iddin ‘Nabû gave the son’), a perfect (*Nabû-aplu-ittannu ‘Nabû has given the son’), or a present (*Nabû-aplu-inaddin ‘Nabû gives/will give the son’). However, such ambiguity did not exist in the minds of Babylonian readers, who knew that Nabû-aplu-iddin was the only permissible form of this name.
Another example is the name spelled IdIDIM-GI. This name is to be read Ea-ušallim despite the fact that the name Ea-mušallim also existed. The names Ea-ušallim and Ea-mušallim are obviously very similar, but they were not the same: an individual was either called Ea-mušallim or Ea-ušallim, but never both. In order to avoid confusion, scribes wrote the preterite form (ušallim) with the logogram GI while rendering the participle syllabically (IdIDIM-mu-šal-lim or mu-GI). In other words, IdIDIM-GI was never to be read Ea-mušallim.
The latter example shows that Neo-Babylonian scribes used a coherent system for writing verbal logograms in personal names. This system can be reconstructed by comparing the different spellings that the ancient scribes used to render the names of the same individuals. In this chapter I present the results of this reconstruction and propose a simple method to determine the correct reading of verbal logograms in Neo-Babylonian personal names.Footnote 3
Phonetic Reading Aids
Scribes could and did help the reader identify the correct rendering of logograms by adding phonetic suffixes and prefixes. The following tables collect all known Neo-Babylonian name elements that consist of a verbal Sumerogram and a phonetic prefix (Table 6.1) or suffix (Table 6.2). Entries where the transcription begins with a capital letter are one-element names.Footnote 4 Some entries can denote both a full name and an element of a larger name. For instance, BA-šá-a can appear in a compound name of the type DN-iqīša (‘DN granted’), but it can also stand on its own as the hypocoristic Iqīšaya.
Table 6.1 Name elements consisting of a verbal Sumerogram with a phonetic prefix
| Prefix | Transcription | Prefix | Transcription |
|---|---|---|---|
| bul-TIN-iṭ | bulliṭ | mu-(še)-DIB | mušētiq |
| e-KAR | eṭir, ēṭir | mu-GÁL-ši | Mušebši |
| i-BA-šá | iqīša | mu-GI | mušallim |
| i-DÙ | ibni | mu-GUR | mutīr |
| ik-KÁD | ikṣur | mu-SIG(1)5(-iq/qu) | mudammiq |
| iq-E | iqbi | mu-SILIM | mušallim |
| i-SU, ta-SU | Erībāya, tarībi | na-PAB | nāṣir |
| it-MU-nu | ittannu | nu-ZALÁG | nūr |
| ka-KÁD | kāṣir | šá-DUB | Šāpiku, Šāpik- |
| li-GIŠ | līšir, Līšir | tu-TIN-su | tuballissu |
| li-SI.SÁ | Līšir | ú-SIG(1)5-iq | udammiq |
| lu-IGI | lūmur | ú-TIN-su | uballissu |
| lu-È | lūṣi | ú-URÙ(-šú) | uṣur(šu) |
| Suffix | Transcription | Suffix | Transcription |
|---|---|---|---|
| ÁG-(ú)-a | Râmûa | MU-(na)-aFootnote 5 | Iddināya |
| APIN-eš/iš | ēreš | MU-na/ni/nu | ittannu |
| BA-šá(-a-(a)) | iqīša, Iqīšāya | MU-ú-nu/nu-nu | Iddinunu |
| DIB-iq | mušētiq | NÍG.SUM-tu4 | nidinti, Nidintu |
| DÙ-(na)-(a)-a | Ibnāya | NIGIN(2)-ir | upaḫḫir |
| DÙ-at/a-tú | banâtu | PAB-ir | nāṣir |
| DÙ-i | bani | SIG(1)5-(qí)-ia | Damqia |
| DÙ-eš/iš/uš-ilī | ēpeš-ilī (FN) | SIG(1)5-iqFootnote 6 | -udammiq, -dam(i)qu- |
| DÙ-ia | Bānia | SIG(1)5-qa/qá/qu | damqā/u (FN) |
| DÙ-na-a/ˀ | banā (W.Sem.) | SILIM-im | Mušallim(-DN), DN-ušallim, |
| DÙ-ni/nu | bāni/bānû | Obj.-šullim | |
| DÙ-nu-nu/nun | bānûnu | SILIM-lim | šullim |
| DÙ-ti/tú/tu4 | Bānītu (DN) | SILIM.(MU)-a | Šullumāya |
| DÙ-uš/šú | DN-īpuš, Mīnu-ēpuš, Obj.-epuš |
|
|
| DUB-ki/ku | Šāpiku | SI.SÁ-ri | Līšir |
| E-bi | iqbi | SUM-din | Nādinu (?) |
| GÁL/TIL/TUK-ši | -libšiFootnote 7, -ušabšiFootnote 8, Mušebši- | SUM-in | iddin |
| GAR-ni/nu | šaknu | SUM(.NA)-a | Iddināya |
| GAR-un | iškun | SUM(.NA)-na/ni/nu | ittannu |
| GI-a | Šullumāya | SUM(.NA)-ú-nu | Iddinunu |
| GIN-a/ia/iá | Kīnāya | SUM(.NA)-nu-nu | Iddinunu |
| GIN-in | Mukīn-, -ukīn | SUM-ti/tú/tu4 | nidinti, Nidintu |
| GIN-ú-a | kīnûa | SUM-tú-a(-a) | Nidintāya |
| GIŠ-ir | līšir | SUR-ir/ri/ru/rat | ēṭir(at) |
| GUB-za/zu | azziz ? | SÙ-ú-a | Rīšûa (FN) |
| GUR-ir | utīr | TIN-a | Balāṭāya |
| I-a | Nâdāya | TIN-iṭ | Obj.-bulliṭ, DN-uballiṭ |
| I-id | naˀid | TIN-(liṭ)-su/šú(-ú) | Balāssu, Uballissu- |
| KÁD-ri | Kāṣir | DN, DN/v.-bullissu | |
| KAM-eš | ēreš | TIN-ṭu | balāṭu, Balāṭu |
| KAM-tu4 | Erišti- | TIN-uṭ | abluṭ |
| KAR-a | Ēṭirāya | TUK-ši | see GÁL/TIL/TUK-ši |
| KAR-ir/ri/ru/rat | Ēṭir(at) | TUKUL-ti | tukulti |
| KAR-šú | šūzibšu | URÙ-ir | nāṣir |
| KAR-tu4 | fĒṭirtu | ZALÁG-(mir)-ir | unammir |
| KU4-(e-reb)-šú | Erēbšu | ZALÁG-e-a | Nūrea |
| LAL-iṣ | tāriṣ |
|
|
Verbal Logograms Without Reading Aids
In order to identify the correct reading of the verbal logogram when it is written without phonetic complements, the following two-step method can be used. The first step is to identify the format of the name in question. In Babylonian names, the verbal element appears in nine common constellations: as the name’s only element (v.), preceded or followed by a deity’s name (DN-v., v.-DN), together with another verb (v.-v.), followed or preceded by an object or subject (v.-obj., obj./subj.-v.), in combination with an object or subject and a deity’s name (DN-v.-obj., DN-obj./subj.-v.), or in combination with a deity’s name and another verb (DN-v.-v.).Footnote 9 These categories can be further divided based on grammatical features: the verbal form used (present tense, preterite, perfect, precative, imperative, participle, verbal adjective, substantive) or the person (first, second, or third-person singular).Footnote 10 Table 6.3 presents all common name formats, along with their subtypes and some examples, but without additional prepositions, adverbs, etc.Footnote 11 Note that a verbal Sumerogram can be used not only as a verb but also as an object. For instance, the sign GIN can denote an object (e.g., in the name DN-kīnu-uṣur ‘DN, protect the true (heir)!’) and a verb (e.g., in DN-šumu-ukīn ‘DN established the name (son)’).
Table 6.3 Common formats of Babylonian names with a verbal element
| Name format | Subtype | Examples |
|---|---|---|
|
v. | pres. 1/3.sg. | Upāq |
| pret./perf. 1.sg. | Ātanaḫ | |
| pret./perf. 2.sg. | Tattannu | |
| pret./perf. 3.sg. | Iddināya | |
| part. | Nādinu, Nāṣiru, Multēširu | |
| imp. | Uṣuršāya | |
| prec. | Līšir | |
| verb.adj. | Nadnāya | |
| subst. (incl. inf.) | Nidintu | |
| DN-v. | DN-pres. 1/3.sg. | DN-upāq |
| DN-pret./perf. 1.sg. | (Ana-)DN-ātanaḫ | |
| DN-pret./perf. 2.sg. | DN-tattannu | |
| DN-pret./perf. 3.sg. | DN-iddin, DN-ittannu | |
| DN-part | DN-nādin, DN-nāṣir | |
| DN-imp. | DN-uṣranni, DN-uṣuršu | |
| DN-prec. | DN-līšir | |
| DN-verb.adj. | DN-naˀid | |
| DN-subst. | (Itti-)DN-balāṭu/ssu | |
| v.-DN | pres. 1/3.sg.-DN | Upāq-(ana)-DN |
| pret./perf. 1.sg.-DN | Ātanaḫ-DN | |
| pret./perf. 3.sg.-DN | Iddin-DN, Ittannu-DN | |
| part.-DN | Mukīn-DN | |
| imp.-DN | Uṣuršu-DN | |
| prec.-DN | Lūṣi-ana-nūr-DN | |
| verb.adj.-DN | Nadin-DN, Naṣir-DN | |
| subst.-DN | Nidinti-DN | |
| v.-v. | pret./perf. 2.sg.-imp. | Tattannu-uṣur, Tattannu-bullissu |
| pret./perf. 2.sg.-prec | Taqbi-līšir | |
| v.-obj. | part.-obj. | Nādin-aḫi |
| obj./subj.-v. | obj.-pret./perf. 1/3.sg. | Aḫu-iddin |
| obj.-imp. | Aplu-uṣur | |
| obj./subj.-prec. | Aḫu-lūmur, Aḫu-līšir | |
| DN-v.-obj. | DN-part.-obj. | DN-nādin-aḫi, DN-nāṣir-aḫi |
| DN-obj./subj.-v. | DN-obj.-pres. 1/2/3.sg. | DN-šūzubu-ileˀˀi |
| DN-obj.-pret./perf. 1/3.sg. | DN-aḫu-iddin, DN-aḫu-ittannu | |
| DN-obj.-imp. | DN-šumu-uṣur | |
| DN-obj./subj.-prec. | DN-aḫḫē-lūmur, DN-šumu-līšir | |
| DN-v.-v. |
|
|
The rules for reading verbal logograms, set out later in the chapter, pertain to these nine common name formats. Before turning to this rule scheme, however, we need to consider a number of special or rare name types that cannot be fitted into this scheme.
First-Person Singular Preterite
First-person singular preterite forms are rare in Neo-Babylonian names. These elements are mostly spelled syllabically or the reading of the logogram is self-evidentFootnote 12 because of extra elements (such as the preposition ana (muḫḫi) ‘to’ or the interrogative pronoun mīnu ‘what?’) or because the verb refers to a human action (e.g., šasû ‘to invoke’, ṣullû ‘to pray’). Names that use this verbal element generally express a lament or a statement of devotion by one of the parents. The following list contains all attested names of this type, of which the verbal element is written with a logogram:
- Mīnu-ēpuš-ilī ‘What did I do, my god?’ (ēpuš written DÙ)
- Ana-muḫḫi-DN-āmur ‘I looked towards DN’ (āmur written IGI)
- (Ana-DN-)(obj.)-ēreš ‘(From DN) I requested (obj.)’ (ēreš written KAM/APIN-eš)
- Ina-qibīt-DN-azziz ‘By order of DN I stood (?)’ (azziz written GUB(za/zu))
- DN-uṣalli ‘I prayed to DN’ (uṣalli written SISKURx)
Present Tense
Rarely, names contain a verb in the present tense instead of the more common preterite. Such names are usually spelled syllabically, in which case their interpretation is unproblematic, or the reading of the logogram is self-evident because of extra elements, rare verbs, or on semantic grounds.Footnote 13 Names in this category generally express a question, a character trait of the deity, or a statement of devotion. The following list includes all attestations of this name type, of which the verbal element is written with a logogram:
- DN-kittu-irâm ‘DN loves the truth’ (irâm written ÁG)
- Ša-Marduk-ul-inni ‘What is of Marduk does not change’ (tenni/inni written BAL)
- Ileˀˀi-(obj.)-DN / DN-obj.-ileˀˀi ‘DN is able (to …)’ (ileˀˀi written DA/Á.GÁL)
- Lâbâši(-DN) ‘I will not be put to shame (, DN)’ (lâbâši written NU.TÉŠ)
- Irâš-ana-Akītu/Esagil ‘(S)He rejoices over Akītu/Esagil’ (irâš written SÙ)
- DN-qajalu-išemme ‘DN hears the attending’ (išemme written ŠE.GA)
- Nabû-maqtu-idekke ‘Nabû raises the fallen’ (idekke written ZI)
- Abī-ul-(t)īde ‘I do/(S)He does not know my/the father’ ((t)īde written ZU)
Long Names With or Without a Theophoric Reference
Most names consist of one, two, or three elements (see Table 6.3) and the rules set out later in the chapter pertain to these common names. Three-element names without a theophoric reference (DN) and four-element names often contain a preposition, an interrogative pronoun, or another unique element that makes these names easily recognisable. There are no set rules for interpreting the verbal element of such names; only common sense or familiarity with the Babylonian name repertoire will help determine the correct reading. Some examples include:
- Lūṣi-ana-nūr-Marduk ‘May he come out to the light (of?) Marduk’ (Lūṣi written È)
- Nergal-ina-tēšî-eṭir ‘Nergal, save from confusion’ (eṭir written SUR/KAR)
- Zēr-kitti-līšir ‘May the true heir prosper’ (līšir written GIŠ/SI.SÁ)
- Nabû-ina-kāri-lūmur ‘May I see Nabû in the harbour’ (lūmur written IGI)
- Nabû-itti-ēdi-alik ‘Nabû walk(s?) with the lonely!’ (alik written DU)
Inverted Names
There are a few names that deviate from the standard Akkadian word order (subject-object-verb). A rare name type follows the word order object/subject-verb-DN. It is found in only four names so far: Zēru-līšir-Nusku ‘Nusku, may the heir be in good condition!’ (subj.-prec.-DN, hapax, līšir written SI.SÁ), Atta-tale’’i-Bēl ‘You are capable, Bēl’ (subj.-pres.-DN, hapax, syll.), Lētka-idi-Zarpanītu ‘Zarpanītu, give your attention!’ (obj.-imp.-DN, hapax, idi written ŠUB), and Aḫu/Aḫḫē-iddin-Marduk ‘Marduk granted (a) brother(s)’ (obj.-pret.-DN, iddin written MU/SUM.NA). The most interesting category of inverted names follows the word order DN-verb-object. The verbal element in such names takes the form of an imperative: Sîn-rīmanni-aḫu (hapax, when not a scribal error; ‘Sîn, grant me a brother!’), Nabû-zuqup-kīnu ‘Nabû, support the true (heir)!’ (zuqup written GUB), Nabû-uṣur-napištī ‘Nabû protect my life!’ (uṣur written PAB/URÙ), and Nabû-šukun-rēmu ‘Nabû, place compassion!’ (šukun written GAR). The name Nabû-uṣur-napištī might hint at the reason for the inversion. This phrase was part of a well-known mirror-like expression DN, uṣur napištī, balāṭa qīša ‘DN, protect my life, health grant (me)!’ popular on seals in first millennium BCE Babylonia.Footnote 14 Poetic use is also attested for the sequence zuqup-objectFootnote 15 and šukun-object,Footnote 16 which might explain the inversion in the names DN-zuqup-kīnu and DN-šukun-rēmu. In short, deviation from the normal word order in Neo-Babylonian names was a rare phenomenon and one that may have had its origin in the wish of the name-giver for poetic euphony.
Rules for Reading Verbal Sumerograms in Neo-Babylonian Names
Having dealt with the special cases, we now turn to the rules for reading the verbal element of common names when the ancient scribe rendered it only logographically, without phonetic markers or unique elements. As we will see, these rules depend on the name format – that is, the number of elements in the name and their order, as presented in Table 6.3. It should be noted that these rules form a discrete orthographic system: a sign could only be used for one name within a particular name format. For instance, the spelling DN-PAB could not be used to render both DN-nāṣir (a participle of the verb naṣāru) and DN-uṣur (an imperative of the same verb). In personal names, perfects and verbal adjectives are never found spelled only logographically but always with at least one syllabic part.
One-Element Names Consisting of Only a Verbal Element (v.)
Nearly all one-element names are spelled syllabically or with a phonetic complement that makes their reading self-evident. The only signs that may represent a one-element name without a phonetic complement are substantives, including infinitives. Only four names are presently known that are written with only a logogram: IGI (Šullumu ‘Well-being’), IKAR (Šūzubu ‘To save’), IŠU (Gimillu ‘Favour’), ITIN (Balāṭu ‘Life’). These logograms cannot represent verbal adjectives because none of these verbs appear in this form in either the name format verb.adj.-DN or DN-verb.adj. In other words, *Šullum-DN, *Šūzubu-DN, *Gamil-DN, and *Baliṭ/Balṭu-DN are not found in the repertoire of Neo-Babylonian names.Footnote 17
Two-Element Names Consisting of a Verb Preceded by a Deity’s Name (DN-v.)
When the logogram represents a ‘birth’ verb, it should be rendered in the preterite 3.sg. as the deity is the subject of the verb. ‘Birth’ verbs are verbs that describe the god causing the birth of the newborn child – for example, to create, give, return, replace, etc.Footnote 18 Sometimes the ancient scribe indicated the correct reading by adding a phonetic complement to the verbal logogram (e.g., DN-iqīša ‘DN gave’, written DN-BA-šá),Footnote 19 but often no such markers were used. The following list contains all attested names of this type, of which the verbal element is written only with a logogram:
- DN-ibni ‘DN created’ (written DN-DÙ)
- DN-iqbi ‘DN commanded’ (written DN-E or DN-DUG4)
- DN-utīr ‘DN returned’ (written DN-GUR)
- DN-iddin ‘DN gave’ (written DN-MU or DN-SUM.NA)
- DN-ukīn ‘DN established’ (written DN-GIN or DN-GI.NA)
- DN-erība ‘DN replaced’ (written DN-SU)
There are four more signs that may represent ‘birth’ verbs in Neo-Babylonian names, but only when they are used without an object: DN-GI (DN-ušallim ‘DN brought to gestation’),Footnote 20 DN-KAR (DN-ušēzib ‘DN let leave to posterity’),Footnote 21 DN-SIG(1)5 (DN-udammiq ‘DN showed favour (to the parents?)’), and DN-TIN (DN-uballiṭ ‘DN kept alive and in good health’).
In all other names – that is, when the logogram represents a verb that is not a ‘birth’ verb – it should be rendered in the precative (‘May DN … !’ or ‘DN, may … !’) or as a participle (‘DN is the one who … ’):
- DN-līšir ‘DN, may (the child) prosper’ (written GIŠ or SI.SÁ)
- DN-lūmur ‘May I see DN’ (written IGI)
- DN-lēˀû ‘DN is the one who is capable’ (written Á.GÁL or DA)
- DN-kāṣir ‘DN is the one who strengthens’ (written KÁD or KÀD)
- DN-tāriṣ ‘DN is the one who stretches over (to protect)’ (written LAL)
- DN-ēṭir ‘DN is the one who saves’ (written SUR)
- DN-gāmil ‘DN is the one who spares, is merciful’ (written ŠU)
- DN-nāṣir ‘DN is the one who protects’ (written ÙRU or PAB)
Two-Element Names Consisting of a Verb Followed by a Deity’s Name (v.-DN)
When the logogram represents a ‘birth’ verb in the D/Š-stem, it should be rendered as a participle.Footnote 22 The following list contains all attestations of this name type, of which the verbal element is written with a logogram:
- Mudammiq-DN ‘The one who treats kindly is DN’ (written SIG(1)5)
- Mukīn-DN ‘The one who establishes is DN’ (written GIN or GI.NA)Footnote 23
- Mušallim-DN ‘The one who keeps well is DN’ (written GI)
- Mušebši-DN ‘The one who brings into being is DN’ (wr. GÁL(-ši)/TUK(-ši)/TIL)
- Mušēzib-DN ‘The one who saves is DN’ (written KAR)
When the logogram represents a ‘birth’ verb in the G-stem, it should be rendered in the preterite 3.sg.: Iqīša-DN, Ibni-DN, Iqbi-DN, Iddin-DN, and Erība-DN. In these names, the verbal element is spelled and translated in the same way as names of the type DN-iqīša discussed earlier.
In the remaining names of this type the verbal logograms should be rendered as a noun: Nisḫur-DN ‘Benevolent attention of DN’ (NIGÍN), Gimil-DN ‘Favour of DN’ (ŠU), and Nūr-DN ‘Light of DN’ (ZALÁG). These readings are based on instances where ancient scribes used both a syllabic and a logographic spelling for the same individual’s name.
Two-Element Names Without DN Written with Two Logograms
Here we can observe how Neo-Babylonian scribes helped their readers make sense of onomastic logograms in other ways than by using phonetic complements. Whenever a name consists of two verbal forms (v.-v.), the first element (always a preterite or perfect 2.sg.) was spelled syllabically: for example, Ita-at-tan-ÙRU (Tattannu-uṣur ‘You have given (the child), now protect (it)!’) and Itaq-bi-SI.SÁ (Taqbi-līšir ‘You commanded (the child’s birth), may it prosper!’). This practice indirectly helps the reader make sense of names with two logograms. When the first logogram can only represent a verb (a participle), the second logogram must be an object; vice versa, when the second logogram can only be an object, it follows that the first one must be a verb (a participle), because had the name consisted of two verbal elements, the first had been spelled syllabically. In a similar vein, when both logograms could be verbs (e.g., MU-GIN), the second logogram has to be the verb and the first one the object, in accordance with the normal word order of Akkadian sentences (subject-object-verb).
The transcription of the name then depends on whether or not the verb is a possible ‘birth’ verb: if it is, the verbal form needs to be rendered in the preterite 3.sg.; if it is not, it needs to be rendered in the imperative or precative. Note that the common name spelled MU-PAB/ŠEŠ is an exception: this name should be read Nādin-aḫi ‘The one who gives a brother’ (participle-object) rather than *Šumu-uṣur, even though the theophoric name spelled DN-MU-PAB/ÙRU is to be read DN-šumu-uṣur ‘DN protect the name!’.
Three-Element Names Written DN-Logogram-Logogram
The rules for reading such names are similar to those for two-element names of the type logogram-logogram discussed in the previous section. When the first logogram can only represent a verb, the name should be read DN-participle-object. The same applies if the second logogram can only represent an object. In all other cases the name is of the type DN-object-verb. If the verb is a possible ‘birth’ verb, the verbal logogram should be rendered in the preterite 3.sg. If it is another type of verb, it should be rendered as an imperative or a precative (-līšir, -lūmur, or -libši). The following list contains all attestations of the latter name type, of which the verbal element is written with a logogram:
- (DN-)qātēšu-ṣabat ‘(DN,) Seize his hands!’ (written DAB)
- (DN-)aḫḫē-šullim ‘(DN,) Keep the brothers well/in good health!’ (written GI)
- (DN-)mātu-tuqqin ‘(DN,) Put the country in order!’ (written LAL)
- (DN-)aḫu-bulliṭ ‘(DN,) Keep the brother alive and in good health!’ (written TIN)
- (DN-)kudurru-uṣur ‘(DN,) Protect the heir!’ (written URÙ/PAP)
Ambiguous Spellings
Sometimes scribes did not follow the rules for writing verbal Sumerograms in names. Upon closer inspection such apparent exceptions can often be explained from the context. For instance, the name spelled DN-GI should normally be read DN-ušallim (see Introduction to this chapter), but when the syllabically written name DN-mu-šal-lim had already been used in a previous line, the scribe could use DN-GI as a (lazy) repeat later on (BaAr 3, BM 46544:4, r. 18).
Other ambiguous spellings are found in the limited group of family names – for example, Id30-SIG5 is to be read Sîn-damqu not Sîn-udammiq – or in texts with limited readership. For instance, in letters we may not know how to read the name IBA-DN (OIP 114 35:1; Iqīša-DN, normally spelled BA-šá-DN, or Qīšti-DN, normally spelled NÍG.BA-DN), but for the senders and addressees it was obvious who was meant; neither did the scribe need to be careful or unambiguous for legal reasons. The same applies to lists of personnel produced for internal administrative purposes: these individuals were well-known in the institutions that employed them. For the same reason, the name of Borsippa’s chief temple administrator Nabû-nādin-šumi could be spelled in shorthand (Nabû-MU-MU; TCL 12 9:26 and TMH 2/3 12:23) instead of the ‘correct’ spelling Nabû-SUM.NA-MU or Nabû-na-din-MU. Nabû-MU-MU is normally to be read Nabû-šumu-iddin, but this individual was so well-known in the city that confusion was unlikely.
Permissible Names
Finally, we should recall that ancient readers were intimately familiar with the repertoire of names. This knowledge helped them make sense of ambiguous spellings. As an example, we can take the sign DU. This logogram could represent at least three different verbs: it could be read DU for the verb alāku ‘to go’, GIN for the verb kânu ‘to be true, permanent’, and GUB for the verb i/uzuzzu ‘to stand’. All three verbal forms are found in Neo-Babylonian names, sometimes even in the same name format. Nevertheless, the ancient scribe and reader will have had no problem recognising the spelling DN-GIN-A as DN-mukīn-apli ‘DN is the one who firmly establishes the son’, and DN-DU-IGI as DN-ālik-pāni ‘DN is the one who walks in front’ and not *DN-kīnu/kittu-lūmur, ‘May I see the true (heir)/truth!’ nor *DN-mukīn-pāni ‘DN is the one who establishes the front’. Although theoretically possible, these last names did not exist. Similarly, they will have identified DN-GIN-ÙRU/PAB as DN-kīnu-uṣur ‘DN, protect the true/legitimate (heir)’ because the name *DN-mukīn-ahi ‘DN is the one who firmly establishes the brother’ was not part of the Neo-Babylonian name repertoire.
Open access