Chapter 18 - Residual, Unaffiliated, and Unexplained Names

Summary

Residual languages, which are represented in the onomasticon of first-millennium BCE Babylonia, are Kassite and Urartian. In addition, it is likely that also other dialects from the central Zagros and the Armenian plateau left traces in the pertinent Neo- and Late Babylonian corpus, but concrete examples cannot be detected. The Kassite onomastic material consists mainly of surnames which were inherited from the late-Kassite and early post-Kassite periods in Babylonia, as well as of several prestigious royal names. Only two Urartian anthroponyms are recorded in first-millennium BCE Babylonia. There is a small number of atypical anthroponyms, mostly consisting of reduplicated syllables (frequently two or three) with or without suffixes. The number of unaffiliated names is restricted. Several gentilics are used as given names. The total percentage of all these unrelated categories in the abundant Neo- and Late Babylonian onomastic corpus is very low, almost negligible.

Introduction

Residual languages, which were productive in the onomasticon of first-millennium Babylonia, are in the first place Kassite and Urartian.¹ Other such languages cannot be identified by name, but it is likely that other dialects, which originated in the central Zagros and the Armenian plateau respectively, also left traces in the pertinent corpus. On the other hand, Elamite, which is an unaffiliated language (like Kassite), cannot be defined as a residual language as it has a rich and variegated corpus lasting for about 2,000 years (see Chapter 16). The Neo-Babylonian anthroponyms from the early first millennium BCE and the period of the Neo-Babylonian Empire originated in the Semitic-speaking core, namely Mesopotamia, the Levant including Egypt, and the Syro-Arabian desert as well as in the neighbouring plateaus of Iran and Anatolia. The pertinent geographical horizon became much wider in the ensuing periods of the Achaemenid, Seleucid, and Parthian Empires and includes also central Asia and the regions east of the Iranian plateau, as far as the Indus, as well as Greece. Nevertheless, the percentage of non-Mesopotamian names in the much smaller Neo-Assyrian corpus is much higher than in the abundant Neo- and Late Babylonian corpus. This is due to two factors. First, the Neo-Assyrian royal inscriptions have a wide geographical scope and enumerate many anthroponyms and toponyms. Second, much of the Neo-Assyrian documentation stems from palatial archives, where lower social strata and deportees are amply represented, whereas most of the Babylonian documentation from the long sixth century BCE belongs to archives of the Babylonian urban elite, with negligible representation of other social strata. In late-Achaemenid and Hellenistic-Parthian Babylonia, the percentage of foreigners is only slightly higher than in the preceding period.

The special relationship between Babylonia and Assyria is a longue durée phenomenon. First, Babylonia and adjacent regions were under a long Assyrian conquest, albeit with various degrees of control. Then, the conquest of most of the eastern Jazirah, including a section of Assyria proper, by Babylonia followed the demise of the Neo-Assyrian Empire. These circumstances compel us to compare the onomasticon of the Neo-Babylonian sources with that of the Neo-Assyrian corpus, which is partially contemporary. This comparative task is greatly facilitated by the completion of the Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire (1–3, Helsinki 1998–2011, henceforth: PNA). On the other hand, the excerption and evaluation of the abundant Neo- and Late Babylonian onomastic material is far from complete and thus far devoid of a comparable and updated instrumentarium.

Kassite Names and Related Material

Kassite is an extreme case of a residual language because it is not recorded in any texts. What remains are only a restricted number of names (anthroponyms, theonyms, and toponyms) and very few appellatives. Therefore, the reconstruction of Kassite anthroponymy (practically a list of name elements) is fraught with difficulties and necessarily contains doubtful material. Much of the discussion that follows is inevitably exploratory; an effort will be made to clarify the context that encourages the assignment of anthroponyms to the Kassite language.

The Kassites, whose dynasty exercised the longest rule over Babylonia, in the latter half of the second millennium BCE, became an inseparable part of the Babylonian elite (unlike the Gutians, whose ephemeral rule and partial control of Babylonia perpetuated them as the emblematic ‘other’). Hence, the Kassite names in post-Kassite and later Babylonia are, in the first place, family names referring to clans of the elite of the Babylonian temple cities. Commonly attested family names of Kassite origin are Mar/štuk(āta), Tunâ (Zadok 1979, 170), Šabbâ/Šambâ, Gaḫal (cf. Gaḫal-Marduk (in next paragraph)), as well as, perhaps, Ašgandu/Šugandu.² The following family names are rarely attested: Šagerīya (^Išá^!-ga-e-ri-ia, UET 4 24:8´, provided that the ZA- of the copy is an error for ŠÁ),³ presumably Gibindu (^Igi-bi-in-du, BM 27746:33´, from Borsippa) and Šatarindi (^Išá-ta-ri-in-di, FLP 1556:14, in Dillard 1975, 253, from Sippar),⁴ and perhaps Ḫullunu (^Iḫul-lu-nu, CTMMA 3 90:20, from Babylon) and Zannētu (^Iza-an-né-e-tú, VS 4 63:10, from Babylon).

Several family names are hybrid, namely Akkado–Kassite, such as Gaḫal-Marduk (^Iga-ḫúl-^dTU.TU, PNA 1/II, 419), Nazi-Enlil (^Ina-zi-^d50, Nielsen 2015, 282), and Nazūa (^Ina-zu-a, BE 8/1 112:6). The latter is based on Kassite nazi ‘shadow, protection’ followed by the hypocoristic suffix -ūa, similar to Middle Babylonian Nazūtum (^Ina-zu-ú-tum) with -ūt (Balkan 1954, 74; cf. UET 7 67 r. 5). The same suffix is attached to kil- in the personal name Gilūa.⁵

On the whole, the Kassite family names form no more than 3.33 per cent of the 300 family names referring to the system of Babylonian urbanite clans. These 300 family names were coined during the early first millennium BCE and many of them are archaic (see Chapter 3).⁶ Two early Neo-Babylonian family names, which are not attested later, are (if they are not paternal names) Pilamdi (^Ipi-lam-di, NMA 3 i 6, iii 6; see Paulus 2014, 639–40)⁷ and Kandar-Šamaš (^Ikan-dar-šam-ši, MZŠ I 2 r. 6; see Paulus 2014, 674).⁸ The former is presumably Kassite and the latter is hybrid, as its predicative (initial) element seems to be Kassite while its theophoric element is Akkadian.

Most of the pertinent given names, namely Iddin-Šīḫu (^ISUM-ši-ḫu), Kadašman-Enlil (^Ika-dás-man-^d50), and Naˀdi-Šīḫu (^Ina-di-ši-ḫu), are also hybrid (Akkado–Kassite).⁹ Such may also be Nazīya (^Ina-zi-ia, Tallqvist 1905, 160), in view of its hypocoristic suffix which is very common in Akkadian and West Semitic. A hybrid filiation is early Neo-Babylonian Kaššȗ-šumu-iddin (^Ikaš-šú-ú-MU-SUM.NA), son or descendant (DUMU) of Nazi-Marduk (^Ina-zi-^dAMAR.UTU, NMA 1 i 18, vi:1; see Paulus 2014, 624, 629).

Purely Kassite names are only Kurigalzu and Nazi-Maruttaš (Nielsen 2015, 184; Brinkman 1998, 191b), which were originally royal names and therefore survived in the first millennium BCE, like the royal name Ḫammurapi,¹⁰ probably as prestigious anthroponyms. The Kassite character of Kiligug (^Iki-il-li-gu-ug, Nbk. 26:3; cf. NA ^Iki-li-gu-gu, PNA 2/I, 616) cannot be ascertained.¹¹ The same applies to ^fInzayītāy > ^fInza’ītâ (^fin-za-ˀ-id-da or [^fin-za-(ˀ)-i]t-ta-a), rendered ˀnzyty in Aramaic (BE 8/1 53:7, l.e.). Apparently this female name ends in a cluster of feminine hypocoristic suffixes (-ay-īt-ay). It seems that it is based on Kassite inz-, which is extant in NA ^Iin-zi-i (see, cautiously, PNA 2/I, 559; cf. Balkan 1954, 153), ^fin-zi-a-a (with a different interpretation, PNA 2/I, 559), and ^fen-zu-u (provided the reading is not Bēl-lēˀi, PNA 1/II, 397). Similarly, early Neo-Babylonian Pakaštu (^Ipa-kaš-tu, BRM 1 17:12), which has a late Old Babylonian forerunner (^Iba-ka-aš-ti; cf. Zadok 1999–2000, 355a), might be Kassite.¹²

The bearers of Kassite anthroponyms and family names were an integral part of the Babylonian urban elite. The hybrid names are the product of interference onomastics which is devoid of any ethnic significance, while the purely Kassite names are merely inherited fossils. It is noteworthy that the name of Nebuchadnezzar II’s daughter, ^fKaššāya, is based on the designation ‘Kassite’, another example of this prestigious class of names. The number of Kassite given names dwindles sharply after the end of the post-Kassite period.

The rare family name Lullubāya (^Ilul-lu-ba-a-a, recorded only in Babylon) and Nikkāya (e.g., ^Inik-ka-a-a, attested in Babylon, Borsippa, and perhaps in Kish; see Wunsch 2014, 306–7) are gentilics of regions in the Zagros and its piedmont respectively.

Urartian Names

Urartians are recorded in Babylonia during the early period of the Neo-Babylonian Empire and in the late-Achaemenid period¹³ – that is, with a considerable temporal gap. One individual is homonymous with the much earlier Urartian king Menua (c. 810–785/780 BCE; cf. Salvini 1993–7). Minua (^Imi-nu-ú-a, BE 8/1 101:12) acts as the first out of four witnesses in a deed dated to the first year of Bardia (c. 522 BCE). Unlike the other witnesses, Minua is recorded without a paternal name. Naraggu (^Ina-rag-gu, BE 8/1 87:4, 527 BCE) may be compared with Neo-Assyrian ^Ina-ra-ge-e, an Urartian name (not Elamite, as cautiously suggested in PNA 2/II, 930).

Atypical Names

Atypical names are dubbed ‘noms apatrides’ by Emmanuel Laroche (1966, 239–46). They may belong to any dialect. In many cases their analysis is not beyond the descriptive-taxonomic level. Such names are Nenê and Nenēa (^Iné-né-e, ^Ine-né-e-a, PNA 2/II, 940; both variants are (also) borne by people from Babylonia, the latter with a hypocoristic suffix).

The following names have a reduplicated second syllable:¹⁴ Bazizi (^Iba-zi-zi, Pearce and Wunsch 2014, 44b), Bazuzu (^Iba-zu-zu, Tallqvist 1905, 23–4), Kiruru (^IKI-ru-ru, Cyr. 360:25),¹⁵ and ^fBusasa (^fbu-sa-sa, Cyr. 135:9). The name Qazizi (^Iqa-zi-zi, CUSAS 28 44:18) was borne by a Judean. Ḫubaba (^Iḫu-ba-ba, CUSAS 28 2:13), also borne by a Judean, may alternatively render the equivalent of OT Ḥwbb. Igigi (^Ii-gi-gi, CTMMA 3 6:4) may be Elamite, and Kulūlu (^Iku-lu-lu) can be either Akkadian ‘Headdress’ (of deities and kings) or Elamite (see Waerzeggers 2014 no. 175 r. 13).

In early and later Neo-Babylonian texts the female name ^fSinūnu ‘Swallow fish’ (^fsi-nu-nu, CTMMA 3 52:6; see Nielsen 2015, 335) occurs. Neo-Assyrian ^Isu-nu-nu, which refers to a male person (PNA 3/I, 1159), looks like the same form with vowel harmony.

Gigīya (^Igi-gi-ia), ^fGigītu (^fgi-gi-i-tu₄), and ^fGugûa (^fgu-gu-ú-a; see Tallqvist 1905, 63–4) consist of a reduplicated syllable and a hypocoristic suffix (cf. Neo-Assyrian Kusisî, spelled ^Iku-si-si-i, PNA 2/I, 643). The same applies to ^fGāgāya (^fga-ga-a; Tallqvist 1905, 62), Zazāya (^Iza-za-a, CTMMA 4 6:5; cf. Neo-Assyrian ^Iza-za-a-a [etc.], PNA 3/II, 1439), Zizīya (^Izi-zi-ia, CTMMA 4 51:4), and Zuzū (^Izu-zu-ú, TEBR 6 57:3). They (except for the first name) may derive from Z–W/Y–Z like Zūzâ (^Izu-za-a, IMT 53:16) and Zūzānu (^Izu-za-nu, BE 8/1 110:15 and Jursa 1995, 220), in which case their base would be with a long vowel.

Atypical family names are Šalala (^Išá-la-la or ^Išá-a-la-la) and Sagdidi (^Isag-di-di, with dissimilation ^Isag-di-ti, Wunsch 2014, 308–9). The former may alternatively be Akkadian (Ša-alāli; see Baker 2004, 284 ad no. 240:16). The fact that this family name is sometimes preceded by the determinative LÚ is not a decisive argument against the first alternative (as an atypical anthroponym) in view of the fact that LÚ interchanges with the ‘Personenkeil’ in Neo- and Late Babylonian family names. Besides, the common spelling of the family name is with -la, not -li. ^Isag-di-di, with the reading šak-, may refer to Elam. šak- ‘son’ (see Zadok 1984, 38:211, 45:251), in which case it would be the only Neo- or Late Babylonian family name of Elamite origin.¹⁶

Early Neo-Babylonian Baḫiriru or Maḫiriru (^Iba/ma-ḫi-ri-ru, BRM 1 17:7; Nielsen 2015, 195) may end in a reduplicated syllable if the Babylonian scribe adjusted its final vowel to that of the Akkadian nominative. If this practice was applied to early Neo-Babylonian Ḫuḫuḫi (^Iḫu-ḫu-ḫi, Nielsen 2015, 139), then it consists of three identical syllables (*ḫu-ḫu-ḫu).

A rare type is exemplified by Neo-Assyrian Mesimesi (^Ime-si-me-si), which consists of two reduplicated syllables. The name has nothing to do with Arabic mišmiš (> modern Israeli Hebrew ‘apricot’), as claimed by Simo Parpola (PNA 2/II, 749), seeing that the latter consists of a single reduplicated syllable. The name can perhaps be compared to the Jewish Babylonian–Aramaic paternal name mšmš.¹⁷

The sequence CV₁-CV₂- (+ hypocoristic suffix) is extant in the following names: Neo-Babylonian Nūnāya (^Inun-na-a, Nielsen 2015, 301) could be based on nūnu ‘fish’ (cf. Neo-Assyrian ^Inu-nu-a, PNA 2/II, 967). ^fŠūšāya (^fšu-šá-a-a-ˀ, BRM 1 5:8; see Nielsen 2015, 380) is perhaps based on šūšu ‘licorice’ as a nickname for a sweet child. Tūtia (^Itu-ti-ia, Tallqvist 1905, 212) may be based on tūtu ‘mulberry’ (cf. Neo-Assyrian ^Itu-ta-ia, etc., PNA 3/II, 1337). The sequence tV-tV- is also extant in Neo-Assyrian ^Iti-ti-i, ^fte-ta-a-a, and ^fti-ta-a-a (PNA 3/II, 1323, 1327). Regarding Nanni, Nannia, and Nannûtu (Waerzeggers 2014, 393a), the last one is based on the divine name Nanna (cf. Nielsen 2015, 279), while the two preceding ones probably do not derive from Luwian nani ‘brother’ (for these names and ^Ina-na-te; cf. PNA 2/II, 925).

Šiu (^Iši-i-ú, PNA 3/II, 1268, borne by a Babylonian) is based on a single consonant like Neo-Assyrian Buwa (^IBU-u-a, PNA 1/II, 357), Ṣū’a (^Iṣu-(u)-a PNA 3/I, 1177), Nia (^Ini-ia, PNA 2/II, 959), Agāya (^Ia-ga-a-a, PNA 1/I, 55), Innû (^Ii-nu-ú, PNA 2/I, 544), and (with a hypocoristic suffix which ends with -t) ^fKēautu (^fke-e-a-u-tú, PNA 2/I, 609–10; cf. ^Ike-e-a-a, PNA 2/I, 609). Other short names (all with gemmination of the second consonant and a hypocoristic suffix) are Luttûa (^Ilu-ut-tu-ú-a, OIP 122 2:27), Gaggū (^Iga-ag-gu-ú, EE 77:4; cf. Neo-Assyrian ^Ikak-ku-u; PNA 2/I, 595), Zabāya (^Iza-ab-ba-a, PBS 2/1 188:10), and Pappāya (^Ipap-pa-a-a, a family name; see Wunsch 2014, 307).

Unaffiliated Names

Unaffiliated anthroponyms are mostly unexplained. Unlike the atypical names which can be classified by certain morphological patterns (notably reduplicated syllables), this category has no common denominator even on the purely formal level. Such early Neo-Babylonian names are Ḫušazakmu (^Iḫu-šá-za-AK-mu, Nielsen 2015, 140) which refers to a fugitive, Layyanmua (^Ila-a-a-AN-mu-a, BRM 1 6:7), Indēšu (^Iin-de-e-šú, BRM 1 29:11), Paratirˀ (^Ipára-tir-ˀ, BRM 1 34:8; see Nielsen 2015, 308), ^fRibarmeš (^fri-bar(-)meš, BRM 1 7:2), and Tukubenu (^Itu-ku-be-nu, Nielsen 2015, 386). Aqqunnušu (^Iaq-qu-un-nu-šú) is recorded in an unpublished text (BM 30297 = Bertin 2542:13). ^fManantāya (^fma-na-an-ta-a), daughter of ^fBēlessunu (Nbn. 75:15, 20), with the reading of the initial sign as ma-, looks like a rendering of Old Iranian *Vanantā- ‘victorious’,¹⁸ but, unlike Elamite, Neo- and Late Babylonian /m/ does not render Old Iranian /v/ in initial position, only VmV would do.

Other unaffiliated anthroponyms from the long sixth century BCE are, for instance, Ḫaraḫak (^Iḫa-ra-ḫa-AK, Pearce and Wunsch 2014, 54a), Kilaladia (^I˹ki˺-la-la-di-iá, Pearce and Wunsch 2014, 62b), Sinnašu (^Isi-in-šú/˹si?-in-na-šu˺, Pearce and Wunsch 2014, 80a), and Rappari (^Irap-pa-ri), son of Gultam (^Igu-ul-ta-mu, BE 8/1 65:2; 73:2; 84:2). Pê-Bīt-Kuššu (^Ipe-(e-)É-ku-uš-šú), son of Ṣaḫarturu (PBS 2/1 198:16, apparently with Bīt-Kuššu as theophoric element, in which case the name would denote ‘By the command of Bīt-Kuššu’; cf. ^Ipe-e-(É)-ku-ú-šú in TMH 2/3 188:6–7, l.e.), Basišuanaki (^Iba-si-šú-a-na-ki, BE 9 31:2, l.e. 27), B/Puk/qtâ (^Ib/puk/q-ta-a) or Muk/qtâ (^Imuk/q-ta-a, BE 9 66:8), and Ratla’iturû (^Irat^?-la-ˀ-i-tu-ru-ú, PBS 2/1 226:3, 4, 10, 11: […]-ˀ) are recorded in the Murašû archive (late fifth century BCE).

Several peculiar names are recorded in the small onomastic dossier from the Babylonian harbour town of Dūr-Yakīn (early Neo-Babylonian) which had intense commercial links to Elam and eastern Arabia, if not beyond that; they may be explicable in West Semitic terms like the majority of the local onomasticon (cf. Zadok 2013, 267–8). Fortunately, the list of unexplained anthroponyms is not too long.

Gentilics As Personal Names

Gentilics used as anthroponyms in first-millennium Babylonia are Quttāya ‘Gutian’ (^Iqu-ut-ta-a-a; not ‘Cuthean’, as understood by Pearce and Wunsch 2014, 77b–78a), Ukkāya ‘(Man) from Ukku’ (^Iuk-ka-a-a, Dar. 434:17; Ukku was located south of the Armenian plateau), Šarrukkāya ‘Man from Dūr-Šarrukki’ (^ILUGAL-uk-ka-a-a, Nielsen 2015, 366; this is a gentilicium a posteriori),¹⁹ Kešāya ‘Man from Keš’ (^Ike-šá-a-a, PBS 2/1 43:5), Gub/māya ‘Man from Gubbu(?)’ (^Igu-ba/ma-a-a, Nielsen 2015, 134), Lik/qimmāya (^Ili-qí-im-ma-a-a, Nielsen 2015, 191; perhaps based on West Semitic N-Q-M with dissimilation of liquids/nasals), ^fKudāyaˀitu (^fku-DA-a-a-i-tu, Nielsen 2015, 178), and perhaps B/Madabarrāya (^Ima-da-bar-ra-a-a, Pearce and Wunsch 2014, 42a). The type is extant in Neo-Assyrian Karmesāya (^Ikar-me-sa-a-[a], PNA 2/I 607, from Kirmese?), Nimarkāya (^Ini-mar-ka-a-a, PNA 2/II, 963), and Šamandāya (^Išá-man/niš-da-a-a, PNA 3/II, 1188).