Onomastics of Women in Babylonia in the First Millennium BC

Home , 8th century BC, Antu (goddess), Dilbat, Mullissu, Nanaya

ORIENT Volume 51, 2016

Laura COUSIN and Yoko WATAI

The Society for Near Eastern Studies in Japan (NIPPON ORIENTO GAKKAI) Onomastics of Women in Babylonia in the First Millennium BC Laura Cousin* and Yoko Watai**

This paper aims to survey the onomastics of Babylonian women in the Neo-Babylonian and Achaemenid periods (from the end of the 8th century BC to the end of the 4th century BC). After the introduction, we discuss Akkadian personal names on the basis of abundant Neo-Babylonian socio-economic texts. Our database shows that there were several popular categories of names for newborn girls. While most names could be given to women belonging to different social groups, we also observe the social homogeneity of those bearing certain names or categories of names. In the third section, we will discuss the recurrence of some particular theophoric elements, which allows us to assess the roles and statues of several goddesses, such as Ba’u, Mullissu, Ištar and Nanaya. Finally, the fourth section deals with non-Babylonian names: on the one hand, a sample of names that occur in the Āl- Yāḫūdu archives and showing cases of assimilation of Judean community to the Babylonian people, and on the other hand other foreign names, like Iranian names, borne by Babylonian individuals in the first millennium BC.

Keywords: Neo-Babylonian period, onomastics, female names, prosopography, Āl-Yāḫūdu

I. Introduction The study of Akkadian onomastics began in earnest with K. L. Tallqvist (1905), who listed the personal names available to him. Currently, two studies, J. J. Stamm (1939) and D. O. Edzard (1998), can be cited as important systematic studies of Akkadian personal names. For the first millennium BC, we can refer to H. D. Baker (2002), who argued that there were systematic naming patterns within the society and the family in the Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian periods, and also more recently to J. P. Nielsen (2015) for a study of names in the early Neo- Babylonian Period.1 Regarding female names, we have several studies concerning Mari (Millet- Albà 2000) and the Neo-Assyrian period according to J. Asher-Greve’s bibliography (2003). More recently, C. Wunsch (2006), who treated metronymic ancestral names, and J. Hackl (2013), who discussed the names and naming of female slaves, have published works related to the Neo- Babylonian period. Early studies attached great importance to the meaning and grammatical structure of personal names. Recently, the investigation of names and naming in their social context has been in demand in view of the abundance of information from archival studies (Baker 2002; Hackl 2013). Hackl, for example, criticized the classification in Stamm’s work (1939), which separated slave’s names from other names and grouped them into a different category. Discussing Neo- Babylonian female slave’s names, Hackl (op. cit, 136) argued that Akkadian names were not

* Ph. D. candidate, Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne ** Co-researcher at the Ancient Orient Museum, Tokyo Abbreviations used in the present study follow the Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative (CDLI; abbreviations are listed at http://cdli.ox.ac.uk/wiki/abbreviations_for_assyriology). 1 We could not refer to the book at the moment of writing this paper.

Vol. 51 (2016) 3 assigned to certain social groups by the meaning of the name, and that it is necessary to examine whether naming in social groups was based on other factors like convention, tradition, or euphony. This is very compelling; certainly, several names were given both to free women and to slave women, and their signification does not change according to the bearer’s social status. However, we find apparently different tendencies in the selection of names when the names are roughly divided by social group. Also, investigation of the influence that the significance of names has on name-giving continues to be of interest.2 How did the name-giver choose a name for his/her daughter or sister? Did the name reflect the name-giver’s affection, hope, or other sentiment regarding these infants? As this paper is an introduction to the onomastic research that we will develop in the future, we aim herein to survey the repertoire of female names of the Neo-Babylonian period and to see which types of names were preferred for girls belonging to various social groups.

II. Structure and Classification of Akkadian Female Names 1. Corpus Our corpus consists of the socio-economic texts, private or institutional, principally edited and studied in several archival studies,3 as well as some unpublished. At the present, 555 names of about 1,221 women are at our disposal.4 This number is of course far from the totality of Neo- Babylonian women’s names, since the compilation of our database is still in progress. On average, only two or three persons have the same name in our database, but we find certain popular names that were given to a number of women, and other names that were given to only one person. Within the 555 names, 484 names are Akkadian, 1 is Sumerian (En-nigaldi- nanna, princess of King Nabonidus), and 70 are in other languages: West Semitic, Iranian, Egyptian, or unknown languages. We will mainly treat the Akkadian names in this section. Concerning the social status of the name bearers, we have fifteen persons of high status who were either royal women (queens and princesses),5 other women of the court,6 or priestesses

2 Baker states that “The question of whether or not a name had any significance to the name-giver and name-bearer, or whether its use was so conventional that it had become devoid of meaning, is important in onomastic studies. . . . However, as has long been implicit in studies of the Akkadian onomasticon, the very popularity of names referring to the position of the name-bearer within the family implies that their use was not random. The fact that it is possible to detect patterns in naming, and the deliberate selection of names in certain cases, confirms that we are not dealing with mere fossils” (2002, 12). 3 For example, Abraham 2004; Baker 2004; Joannès 1989; Jursa 1999 and 2003; Roth 1991b and 2000; Waerzeggers 1999; Wunsch 1993, 1995, 2000, and 2005a; and those published in other studies, such as Hackel 2013; Roth 1989a, 1989b, and 1991a; and Wunsch 1997, 2003, and 2005b; see also Achemenet (http://www.achemenet.com/fr/tree/?/ sources-textuelles/textes-par-langues-et-ecritures/babylonien). 4 Some errors in these figures are to be expected; when two (or more) texts refer to two persons with a certain name without providing their familial information, it is difficult to determine whether they are the same person or different persons with the same name. More investigation is needed concerning the identification of name bearers. 5 Gigītu, daughter of Neriglissar; Ba’u-asītu, Kaššaya, and Innin-ēṭirat, daughters of Nebuchadnezzar II; Adad-guppi, mother of Nabonidus; En-nigaldi-nanna, daughter of Nabonidus; Qudāšu, probably the queen of Cambyses (see Cyr 177, 4); Amisiri (Amestris), queen of Xerxes I and mother of Artaxerxes I; Ittaḫšaḫ, daughter of Xerxes I; and Purušatu (Parysatis), queen of Darius II. 6 Ana-makannīšu, messenger of Qudāšu (mí.dumu.šipri ša Qudāšu) (Cyr 177, 17); Artim, wet-nurse of Ittaḫšaḫ, daughter of Xerxes I (BM 72764 = Evetts 1892, appendix 2; 5); and Madumitu, who appears in the Murašû archives (for example, BE 9, 39: 2) as a landowner of fields.

4 ORIENT Onomastics of Women in Babylonia in the First Millennium BC

(sāgittu of the Eanna);7 506 other women who had the status of free woman;8 496 slaves; 121 women of miscellaneous status (oblates, private or institutional tenant farmers, or family members of temple personnel); and others whose social situation cannot be identified.

2. Structures of Akkadian Personal Names Akkadian personal names, both those of men and of women, are composed of one or more elements (up to four). In general, women’s names have the same structure as those of men, although some different trends in the types and elements chosen may be found between the former and the latter. The only grammatical difference is that female names, if they include a verb or an adjective, use its feminine form. Edzard (1998, 108) cites the example of Iddin-Gula (“Gula gave [a child]”) as a man’s name and Taddin-Gula as a woman’s name.9 Scholars have classified Akkadian personal names in various ways. Tallqvist (1905) makes two main categories and some subcategories:

A. Composite Names I. Theophoric Names: 1. with two elements; 2. with three elements; 3. with four and more elements II. Profane Names: 1. with two elements; 2. with three or four elements B. Uncompounded Names I. Primary Single Word Name II. Secondary Single Word Names (= Hypocoristic Names)

J. J. Stamm (1939), classifies Akkadian personal names according to their meaning into eight categories:

I. Concrete Sentence Names Group A (names that are from the name-giver’s viewpoint): Greeting, Thanksgiving, and Wish Group B (names that are from the name bearer’s viewpoint): Laments, Petitions, Thanksgiving Type I (Abstract Thanks), Thanksgiving Type II (Concrete Thanks), Prospective Trust, Prospective Thanksgiving, and Other II. Generalizations: Type-Sîn-abī, Attribute Names, Type Rabât-awāt-Sîn, and Other III. Designations: Affectionate Names (I. Familial relation, II. Pure Affectionate Names), Nominal Counterparts to Sentence Names, and Other Relations to the Deity IV. Sentence-less Ellipses

7 Bānat-ina-Esagil (Scheil 1915, 5–11 [the first text]: 7, 8, 10, 12, 17) and Aḫata (Scheil 1915, 5–11 [the first text]: 3, 4, 6, 15), sāgittu-priestesses of Eanna. 8 Most of the free women appear as brides in marriage contracts or as creditors, debtors, landowners, buyers, or sellers in loan, rental, or purchase contracts. However, the social status of women belonging to this category is not homogeneous. It includes members of the rich and prestigious Egibi family on the one hand, and wet-nurses, foundlings, and adopted children on the other. Because it is difficult and complicated to distinguish all the social groups, in this paper we will distinguish only free women, slaves, and others (oblates, tenant farmers, workers, or probable administrative personnel who receive rations, family members of temple personnel, etc.). 9 The feminine or masculine form of the verb does not agree grammatically with the name of the god or goddess mentioned in the name, but rather with the gender of the name-bearer (Edzard 1962; 1998, 108).

Vol. 51 (2016) 5 V. Replacement Names (see below) VI. Slave Names VII. Official’s Names VIII. Unclassified or Uncertain Names

In contrast, Edzard (1998) classifies names purely grammatically:

I. Personal Names Consisting of One Element: A. without suffix; B. with suffix II. Names Consisting of Two or More Elements A. Connected by Genitive B. Sentence (a. with a nominal predicate; b. with a verbal predicate) C. Petition, Wish, Question, and Lament III. Abbreviated Names

Hackl (2013, 138–141) apparently combined Stamm’s classification with Edzard’s. He classifies female slave names first into three simple categories and several subcategories based on meaning:

A. Designation 1. Thanksgiving; 2. Physical or Natural Characteristics; 3. Plant Names; 4. Animal Names; 5. Trust Names; 6. Affectionate Names; 7. Pure Affectionate Names; 8. Affiliation; 9. Other B. Sentence 1. Attribute; 2. Petition; 3. Lament; 4. Praise; 5. Abstract and Concrete Thanksgiving; 6. Prospective Thanksgiving; 7. Retrospective Thanksgiving; 8. Prospective Trust; 9. Retrospective Trust; 10. Wish; 11. Other C. Uncertain

He then further divides each category into subcategories based on Edzard’s classification. In this paper, we adopt a classification on the basis of meaning, consulting the classification of Hackl, which is simpler than that of Stamm, and making a few modifications. We classify the names as follows:

A. Designation Names 1. Thanksgiving; 2. Familial Relationship; 3. Trust (related to deities); 4. Pure Affectionate Names; 5. Animals; 6. Plants (fruit, aromatics, etc.); 7. Jewelry, Stones, or Textiles; 8. Baby’s Physical Characteristics, and Origin or Condition of Birth; 9. Other B. Sentence Names 1. Attribute Names; 2. Petition; 3. Trust (1. Prospective Trust; 2. Retrospective Trust); 4. Wish; 5. Thanksgiving (1. Retrospective Thanksgiving; 2. Abstract Thanksgiving; 3. Prospective Thanksgiving); 6. Lament; 7. Praise; 8. Other

6 ORIENT Onomastics of Women in Babylonia in the First Millennium BC

A. Designation Names The designation names are grammatically nominal and are generally composed of only one element, but occasionally two. It is possible that some apparent designation names are the abbreviated forms of sentence names. It is difficult, however, to distinguish a full name from an abbreviated name or a nickname, as Hackl (2013, 128–130) has remarked. Prosopographical studies reveal that some women have two different names; for example, Kurrunam-tabni, daughter of Bēl-upaḫḫir, descendant of Sîn-šadunu, is called Kuttaya in some texts,10 and Bēlessunu, daughter of Zababa-erība, descendant of Eppeš-ilī, is also called Bissāya.11 The name Ina-Esagil-ramât was frequently shortened to Esagil-ramât with ellipsis of ina. Although we know that women in some cases had other names, or nicknames, we have evidence only in a very few cases. One criterion for distinguishing shortened names is the existence of a hypocoristic suffix such as -ia. For example, a woman known as Amat-Nanaya (“servant of the goddess Nanaya”) is called Amtiya in another text. However, we do not have evidence to conclude that all instances of Amtiya — fifteen in our corpus — come from an original Amat-DN. Similarly, the name Ēṭirtu (“rescuer”) is thought to be the abbreviated form of DN-ēṭirat (“DN saves”), but we cannot identify any particular Ēṭirtu in our documents with a possible “original” name such as Nanaya- ēṭirat, Ba’u-ēṭirat, etc.12 Thus, we can either treat all short names as abbreviations functioning as bynames or nicknames, or regard short and apparently abbreviated names as original names, and distinguish them from the supposed original sentence names. In view of the large number of short names and the frequent absence of the possible original names, we believe that the short (seemingly abbreviated) names were used in daily life. They were even valid on legal contracts. It seems, therefore, unnecessary to draw a sharp line between original and secondary names. While most sentence names were theophoric, a number of designation names are so-called “profane names,” which do not include a divine name, but instead signify an animal, plant, physical characteristic, familial relation, etc.

A.1. Thanksgiving Hackl (2013, 138) classifies the names of two slave women, Šulum-abišu (“well-being of her father”) and Nidintu (“gift [of DN]”), as thanksgiving names. We can add Šulum-aḫātu (“wellbeing of the sister”) (VS 5, 95: 9, 20, 23), Nidintu-bēltiya (“my lady’s gift” (BM 47492 = Wunsch 2003, No. 7: 2, 5, 9, 22), and the popular name Nūptaya, a synonym of Nidintu, to this category, though Hackl (2013, 172) includes Nūptaya with sentence names.13

10 She is called by Kurrunam-tabni, for example, in BM 30238 (= Wunsch 2000, No. 83): 5, 13, 16, 21, 24f., and by Kuttaya in Nbn 442 (= Wunsch 2000, No. 87): 5. 11 She is mentioned by the name Bēlessunu in BM 46685, and by Bissāya in BM 46962 and BM 46698. See Wunsch 2005, 373. 12 Stamm categorizes names like Ēṭirtu as the affectionate name type of designation name (1939, 247–248), and separates them from the original full names (1939, 114–116). Hackl (2013, 157) seems to consider them as the shortened form of original sentence names. 13 According to CAD N/II, 343b, Nūptaya is “possibly abbreviated from such a name as Nu-up-tum-dNa-na-a BRM 2 43: 11, 14, 17f., VAS 15, 25: 1, etc.”

Vol. 51 (2016) 7 Table 1: Thanksgiving Names and the Social Groups of Their Bearers Akkadian name Translation Free Women14 Slaves Other Total Nūptaya Gift 19 5 2 26 Nidintu Gift 3 1 4 Nidintu-bēltiya My lady’s gift Šulum-abišu Wellbeing of her father 1 1 Šulum-aḫātu Wellbeing of the sister 1 1 Total 23 7 2 32

A.2. Familial Relationship We find two types of familial relationship names. The first is like Aḫāssunu (“their sister”) or Aḫātu/Aḫāti/Aḫāta (“[my] sister”), and simply indicates the relationship of the newborn to her brothers and sisters. The second type is like Aḫāt-abišu (“aunt [father’s sister]”) or Aḫāt-ummīšu (“aunt [mother’s sister]”); babies with this type of name were possibly considered to be the replacement or reincarnation of a recently deceased family member.15 Names with bēltu (“lady”), such as Bēlessunu (“their lady”), also belong in this category according to Stamm (1939, 242–247). However, it is also possible that bēltu names were abbreviated forms of theophoric sentence names. Most of familial relationship names were given to women of free status; however, slave women could also have these names. Stamm explains that slave names including familial relationship concerned their masters’ families. Further investigation is required as to when and by whom slaves were named. Normally slave families served their masters/mistresses together. Probably slave girls were named by their fathers or mothers, or by their masters/mistresses at the time of birth. However, it is also possible that slaves were renamed by their new masters after being sold.

Table 2: Familial Relationship Names Akkadian Name Translation Royal Women Free Women Slaves Other Total Bēlessunu Their lady 9 9 Aḫāssunu Their sister 2 1 2 5 Aḫātu/ta/ti (My) sister 1 2 1 4 Bēlet Lady 2 1 3 Bunnanītu Representation of the face 2 1 3 Aḫāt-ummīšu Sister of her mother 1 1 2 Aḫāt-abišu Sister of her father 1 1 Bēlessu His/her lady 1 1 Bēleta My lady 1 1 Total 1 20 6 2 29

A.3. Trust Names (related to deities) This type has the form Amat-DN “servant of DN” with the name of a goddess (see Chapter III for the goddesses). Almost all theophoric designation names belong to this category.

14 The numbers indicate those of separate individuals. 15 Stamm (1939) called such names Ersatznamen (replacement names).

8 ORIENT Onomastics of Women in Babylonia in the First Millennium BC

Table 3: Trust Names Akkadian Name Translation Free Women Slaves Other Total Amtiya (Andiya) Servant (of DN) 8 5 2 15 Amat-Mullissu Servant of Mullissu 13 1 1 15 Amat-Nanaya Servant of Nanaya 6 1 1 8 Amat-Šerua Servant of Šerua 3 3 Amat-Baba/Ba’u Servant of Baba/Ba’u 2 2 Amat-Sutīti Servant of Sutīti 2 2 Amat-bēlti Servant of the lady 1 1 2 Amat-Esi’ Servant of Isis 1 1 Amat-Zarpanītu Servant of Zarpanītu 1 1 Total 34 8 7 49

A.4. Pure Affectionate Names This category of names seems to reflect the affection of the name-giver for the baby, as seen in names like Rē’indu (“beloved”), Bu’ītu (“desired one”), Maqartu (“precious one”), etc., or certain traits hoped for in the babies, as in Ṭābatu (“goodness”), Kāribtu (or Kāribūtu) (“prayerful one”), Kabtaya (> kabtu) (“honored”), Emuqtu (“wise”), Kuzbatu (or Kunzubtu) (“attractive”), Kidinnītu (“protégée”), etc. Hackl (2013, 138) put names like Kabtaya and Ṭābatu in the category of “physical or natural characteristics.” However, in our opinion, these names are different from those reflecting physical characteristics; words like “honored” and “goodness” seem to indicate the hope that the girls would become honored or good women, rather than focusing on pure characteristics. It is often difficult to distinguish an affectionate name from an abbreviated sentence name, in cases such as Bālṭu (“health”), Tuqnaya (or Tuqniya) (“security”), or Gūziya (or Gūzumma) (“favor”).16 Although these names may originally have been abbreviated from sentence names, we include them with affectionate names because we cannot reconstruct the original names. Most of the name-bearers are of free status; however, these names could also be given to slave women.

Table 4: Pure Affectionate Names Akkadian Name Translation Free Women Slaves Other Total Ṭābatu Good 13 4 17 Kabtaya Honored 10 1 11 Rē’indu One loved 7 1 1 9 Bu’ītu One desired 8 8 Tuqnaya, Tuqniya Security 2 4 6 Kāribtu, Kāribūtu One who prays 6 6 Rēšaya Rejoice 2 2 1 5 Etellitu Princess, lady 5 5 Damqaya Goodness 4 4 Gūziya, Gūzumma Favor 3 1 4

16 Hackl (2013, 158) considers these names to be sentence names.

Vol. 51 (2016) 9 Kuzbatu, Kunzubtu, Attractive 2 2 4 Kuzbāya Kidinnītu Protégée 1 1 2 Erištu One desired 2 2 Health (balṭu) or dignity Balṭu/Bāltu 1 1 2 (bāštu/bāltu) Maqartu Precious one 1 1 2 Zākītu Clean 1 1 2 Bulṭu Health 1 1 Matuqtu Sweet 1 1 Duššuptu Sweet 1 1 Ṣaḫirtu Young woman (?) 1 1 Batûltu Young woman 1 1 Ṭubbutu Goodness 1 1 Gāmiltu Pardoner 1 1 Rubuttu Princess 1 1 Hamatiyâ Help, assistance 1 1 Emuqtu Wise, clever 1? 1 Re’indu-abišu Beloved of her father 1 1 Balāṭ-napišti Preservation of life 1 1 2 Ḫimiltu Plan 1 1 Dīnuyātu Judgment 1 1 Total 74 17 13 104

A.5. Animal Names We find women called by animal names, sometimes with a hypocoristic suffix. The most popular animal name for girls is “mongoose” (šikkû, šikkuttu). Sixteen bearers of this name were slaves,17 one seems to have been a member of the temple staff at the Ebabbar temple,18 and one was a free woman.19 Most of the bearers of this name were therefore slave women. This also applies to the name meaning “(female) mouse,” the third most numerous. Seven women with this name are slaves20 and one is a free woman.21 The second-ranked name, Bazītu, on the contrary, is apparently unrelated to the social group of the bearer; five women of free status,22 one temple worker,23 and six slave women24 have this name. More than twice as many slave women (50) are called by animal names as free women (19). It is interesting to note that a slave woman called Bazitu (or Pagītu) (“female ape”) serves a mistress called Iqūpâta (i-qu-pu-a-ta), which also refers to a kind of monkey (VAS 5, 95: 2, 14, 22).

17 Eleven Šikkû and four Šikkûtu are listed by Hackl (2013, 176–177), and one Šikkû is mentioned in TEBR (Joannès 1982) 82: 1, 6. 18 Šikkû, spouse of Lābāši, who received silver from the Ebabbar temple (Cyr 294: 5). 19 Šikkûtu, daughter of Marduk-šākin-šumi, descendant of uru.dù-mansum, spouse of Ea-šuma-uṣur (BM 46581 [= Wunsch 2003a, No. 30]: 8', Rs 1, 8, etc.). 20 There are five examples of Ḫabaṣirtu and two of Ḫabaṣiru in the list of Hackl (2013, 158–159). 21 Ḫabaṣirtu, spouse of […]-nadin-apli, descendant of Šangu-[…], mother of Etellu (TCL 12 51: 5). 22 One was imprisoned by a creditor (IMT 103 3, 7, 9); two appear in marriage contracts (RA 25, 81 23 [= Roth 1989b, No.11]: 4, 6, 9; BM 61176 [dupl. BM 67388 = Roth 1989b No. 5]: 3, 7, 9, 10, 13); one appears as a debtor in contracts (TuM 2/3, 81 [= Joannès 1989, 184]: 5; NBC 8360 [= Joannès 1989, 343: 5, 10, 11]); one put her children up for adoption (BM 54117 [dupl. BM 54295 = Wunsch 2005b, No. 10): 7' [dupl. 6'], 15'. 23 Dar 43: Rs 5'. 24 See the list of Hackl (2013, 157) (except for Dar 43).

10 ORIENT Onomastics of Women in Babylonia in the First Millennium BC

It is quite interesting, but also quite difficult, to examine why name-givers chose these animals. We find generally no difference between the kinds of animals chosen for male and female names. For example, we are aware of Immeru (masculine) and Immertu (feminine) (“sheep”), Uqūpu/Iqūpu (masculine) and Uqūpatu/Iqūpatu (feminine) (“monkey”), Mūrāšû (masculine) and Mūrāšîtu (feminine) (“wildcat”) and so on (see also Stamm 1939, 253– 255). However, we also find cases of the masculine form used as a woman’s name: Šikkû (“mongoose”) and Ḫabaṣīru (“mouse”). Certain animal names seem not to distinguish between the male and female animal, like Gadû (“young goat”) and Sāsa (“moth[?]”).25 Bearing a name referring to an insect is not unusual in the ancient Near East; examples from Mari include mBaqqum (“fly”), mBuqâqu (“fly”), fRimmatum (“maggot”), mṢarṣarum (“cricket”), and fKulîla (“dragonfly”) (Millet-Albà 2000, 484–487). Following the Neo-Babylonian period, Puršu (“flea”) was the nickname of one of the brothers of Marduk-nāṣir-apli, son of Itti-Marduk-balāṭu of the Egibi family, showing that this kind of name was chosen in all strata of society. Both wild and domestic animals are found as names. The wild animals include the mongoose, monkey, mouse, dormouse, vixen, wildcat, turtle, and crab, as well as birds (such as the dove and the swallow) and insects (locust, grasshopper, moth, caterpillar). The sheep, dog, pig, goat, and calf are domestic animals used in naming. It is interesting that wild animals seem to be more popular than domestic animals in the Babylonian onomasticon. Why were wild animals chosen? We imagine that their toughness, quick movement, and cleverness were qualities desired in babies.

Table 5: Animal Names Akkadian Name Translation Free Woman Slaves Other Total Šikkû (13), Šikkuttu (5) Mongoose 1 16 1 18 Bazītu (or Pagītu) Female monkey/exotic 5 6 1 12 animal/meerkat26 Ḫabaṣirtu (7), Ḫabaṣīru (1) Mouse, female mouse 1 7 8 Kalabuttu Locust 3 1 4 Šeleppûtu She-turtle 4 4 Uqūpatu (2), Iqūpâta (1) Female monkey 1 2 3 Sinūnu Swallow or swallow fish 3 3 Immertu Ewe 2 1 3 Mūrānatu Female young dog 2 1 3 Arrabatu Dormouse 2 2 Kalbatu Female dog 1 1 2 Mūrāšîtu Wildcat 2 2 Šaḫitu Female pig 1 1 2 Summatu Female dove, pigeon 1 1 2 Gadaya ( > gadû) Young goat 1 1 Šēlibūtu Vixen 1 1 Ṣāṣiru Grasshopper 1 1

25 The name Sāsa is puzzling: CAD S (196b, sāsu) refers to such a name, but it seems to be principally used for men. Sāsa is perhaps hypocoristic, but it is impossible to determine the root from which it is formed. 26 Hackl (2013, 157) recently translated the name Bazītu as “Meerkat.”

Vol. 51 (2016) 11 Sāsa Moth (?) 1 1 Akiltu Caterpillar (?) 1 1 Alluttu Crab 1 1 Arḫaya (> arḫu) Calf 1 1 Total 19 50 7 76

A.6. Plants (Fruits, Aromatics, etc.) The majority of plant names, mainly several types of fruit and aromatic, were borne by free women. Sweet tastes and smells were probably regarded as agreeable for girls’ names. We note that apples and pomegranates, said to have been loved by the goddess Inanna, were used by men to attract and seduce women in love incantations (šà.zi.ga).27 Additionally, fruit such as grapes and pomegranates, and also bread and dough, may have evoked fertility and richness of life. We do not find names based on trees, precious wood, or vegetables.

Table 6: Plant Names Akkadian Name Translation Free Women Slaves Other Total Inbaya, Inbiya Fruit 9 2 1 12 Burāšu Juniper 6 2 4? 12 Ḫubuṣītu, Ḫibuṣītu, Lump of dough 4 2 6 Ḫibuṣu (> humbiṣītu) Qunnabatu Hemp (an aromatic) 6 6 Isḫunnu, Isḫunnatu Grape cluster 3 2 5 Lūrindu Pomegranate 2 2 4 Suluppā Date 1 1 2 Ḫilbunnu, Ḫilbūnītu Galbanum (perfume) 1 1 2 Karānatu Little wine 1 1 Kusippitu Flat, thin bread 1 1 Kibtaya Wheat (?) 1 1 Nurmû Pomegranate 1 1 Total 35 12 6 53

A.7. Jewelry, Stones, or Textiles Precious and beautiful accessories were principally but not exclusively used as the names of free women. They may have been regarded as symbols of feminine beauty or wealth. The name Qudāšu could be given either to a royal woman (see n. 5) or a slave woman.

Table 7: Names Based on Jewelry, Stones, or Textiles Akkadian Name Translation Royal Women Free Women Slaves Other Total Qudāšu Ring/earring 1 11 1 13 Inṣabtu Ring/earring 10 2 12 Šaddinnatu Satin (?) 1 1 2 Kussigi (Name of a stone) 1 1 Siḫūnu (A type of wool?) 1 1

27 Biggs (1967, 70–74); see also Faraone (2002, 65ff.)

12 ORIENT Onomastics of Women in Babylonia in the First Millennium BC

Tukpītu (A kidney-shaped 1 1 bead) Total 1 24 2 3 30

A.8. Baby’s Physical Characteristics, Origin, or Condition of Birth A.8.1. Physical Characteristics For the most part, names related to physical characteristics were given to slave women.

Table 8: Names Based on Physical Characteristics Akkadian Name Translation Free Women Slaves Other Total Miṣatu Small one 4 13 3 20 Kubbuttu Plump 5 1 6 Lā-qīptu Unbelievable28 1 2 1 4 Šaḫundu, Šaḫnā Warmth, warm 1 1 1 3 Gudāditu Very small 1 2 3 Ṭuppuštu Very plump 1 1 2 Šahurrātu Deathly silence (?) 1 1 Total 8 25 6 39

A.8.2. Origin or Condition of Birth On the whole, we can say that this type of name was given both to free women and to slaves. Kaššaya is an exception, since all those bearing this name were princesses or free women. It is not certain that all were true Kassites, however, considering that the daughter of Nebuchadnezzar II bore this name. Kassite lineage must have been considered prestigious.

Table 9: Names Referring to Origin or Condition of Birth Akkadian Name Translation Royal Free Women Slaves Other Total Kaššaya Kassite 1 10 11 Ubartu/i Foreigner 6 10 3 19 Sūqa’ītu/i Found child 4 1 5 Kuttaya Person of Kuta (?) (or an 2 3 5 abbreviation of Kurrunam- tabni [see above]) Ša-pî-kalbi Found child 1 1 2 Šanītu Second (child or daughter) 2 2 Barsippītu Person of Borsippa 1 1 Gandarāyītu Person of Gandaru 1 1 Issināyītu Person of Isin 1 1 Sipparāyītu Person of Sippar 1 1

28 Stamm (1939, 252) presents two possibilities for the meaning of Lā-qīptu: the first concerns the unbelievable beauty of the baby (as a physical characteristic), and the second is that the name was given to a child whose birth or recovery one cannot believe. According to the CAD Q, 263b, qīpu signifies “trustworthy, trusted (person),” and lā qīpu means “unbelievable (occ. in personal names only).” Hackl (2013, 164) classifies this name under the physical or natural characteristics. We include it with physical characteristics, as did our predecessors. According to the second possibility mentioned by Stamm, however, it may refer to circumstances of birth or thanksgiving. In addition, it may be possible to translate it literally as “untrustworthy.”

Vol. 51 (2016) 13 Šušannu Person of Susa (?) 1 1 2 Sindiya Indian (?) 1 1 Kinūnītu Person born in the month 1 1 of Kinūnû Multēr’îtu Early morning 1 1 Nubattātu Evenings (?) 1 1 Total 1 29 19 5 54

A.9. Other We also have names signifying a negative character, such as Lā-māgirtu (“disobedient”), and Lā- ṣaḫittu (“undesired one”). Stamm (1939, 205) called this type “tender censure (zärtlicher Tadel).” The situation of naming is however unknown. Perhaps a Lā-māgirtu cried too much and gave her family trouble when she was born, or a Lā-ṣaḫittu was an unwed mother or was born to a very poor family. We find two women (slaves) called Lā-māgirtu, and one (a free woman) named Lā- ṣaḫittu. Other names include a “babble name,” such as Babunu, and names of unknown signification, such as Bissāya.

B. Sentence Names Sentence names are normally composed of more than two elements, occasionally only one, and form a sentence. Sentence names reflect the spoken language, and can be classified into eleven subcategories. While the second through the tenth categories are connected to the personal situation and sentiment of the name-giver or the name-bearer, the first category (attribute names) expresses a generalized characterization of a divinity.

Table 10: Types of Sentence Names and the Social Group of Their Bearer Type Repertoire of Number of Name-bearers Names (free women/slaves)29 Attribute 86 160 (74/62) Petition 45 89 (4/75) Trust Prospective trust 46 61 (5/47) Retrospective trust 11 19 (230/17) Wish 23 61 (7/43) Thanksgiving (Retrospective) thanksgiving 13 37 (12/16) Abstract thanksgiving 2 2 (1/1) Prospective thanksgiving 8 12 (4/7)31 Lament 1 1 (0/1) Praise 2 9 (0/9) Other 3 5 (2/2) Total 240 456 (111/280)

29 We exclude oblates, tenant farmers, workers/probable administrative personnel who received rations, family members of temple personnel, etc. 30 One of the two women of free status is a found child (Šēpītāya, probably an abbreviated form of Šēpīt-DN-aṣbat (“I grasped your foot”) in VAS 6, 116: 6). 31 We note that all four free women have the same name: Nādā (“praise [DN]!”).

14 ORIENT Onomastics of Women in Babylonia in the First Millennium BC

Overall, twice as many slaves as free women bear a sentence name, while free women predominate in most of the designation name categories. Certain categories (petition, prospective and retrospective trust, wish, and praise) are primarily occupied by slave women.

B.1. Attribute Names Here a divine name accompanies a nominal form (including participles), such as Nanaya-šarrat (“Nanaya is the queen”), an adjective, such as Nanaya-damqat (“Nanaya is good”), or a stative verb, such as Ba’u-ēṭirat (“Ba’u saves”) to express the divinity’s attributes. Attribute names account for the majority of Neo-Babylonian female names.

B.2. Petition Petition names comprise generally a verb in the imperative and reflect the point of view of the name-bearer, as in Bānītu-eṭrînni (“help me, Bānītu!”), Ištar-šimînni (“hear me, Ištar!”), and so on.

B.3. Trust B.3.1. Prospective Trust These names represent the utterance of the name bearer expressing trust or respect for a deity, such as Ana-muḫḫi-Nanaya-taklāku (“in Nanaya I trust”). Following the classification of Hackl, we can add some names to this category that Stamm included in the category of generalization, such as Gabbi-ina-qātē-Bānītu (“all is in the hands of Bānītu”) and Mullissu-rē’û’ā (“Mullissu is my shepherdess”).

B.3.2. Retrospective Trust Retrospective trust names signify the rewarding of trust. Eleven names like Ana(-muḫḫi)- Tašmētu-atkal (“I trusted in Tašmētu”) and Ina-dannāti-alsiš (“in distress, I called her”) are included in this category.

B.4. Wish Wish names contain either the precative or imperative of a verb. The difference between petition names and wish names is that the former generally contain a first-person pronoun, as in Aya- bulliṭīnni (“keep me healthy, Aya!”), while the latter contain the third-person pronoun, as in Nanaya-bullissu (“keep her healthy, Nanaya!) and Lū-balṭat (“may she be healthy”). In other words, the former is from the name bearer’s point of view, and the latter is from the name- giver’s, although both petitions and wishes refer to the name-bearer.

B.5. Thanksgiving B.5.1. Retrospective Thanksgiving This type contains the past tense of a verb. There are two categories: thanksgiving from the viewpoint of the name-giver, such as Tašmētu-tabni (“Tašmētu created [a child]”), and from the viewpoint of the name-bearer, such as Bānītu-ṣullê-tašme (“Bānītu heard my prayer”).

Vol. 51 (2016) 15 B.5.2. Abstract Thanksgiving Abstract thanksgiving names comprise joyful expressions of gratitude. Two names belong to this type: Itti-ālišu-ilu-ḫadû (“the god rejoices over [?] his city”), and Ina-šamê-bēltu (“she is the lady in the sky”). The former mentions the joy brought by the birth of a newborn in the city, and the latter refers to the celestial body at the moment of birth.

B.5.3. Prospective Thanksgiving Prospective thanksgiving names form a declaration of praise for the divinity. We have five such names, including Ina-Eanna-lūmuršu (“I should see her in the Eanna”) and (DN-)Nadā (“praise [DN]!”).

B.6. Lament We know of only two lament names: Atanaḫ-šimînni (“I am tired; listen to me!”) (the divine name is omitted) and Adī-mati-Ištar (“how long, Ištar?”) The former accompanies the imperative, and the latter is an interrogative sentence.

B.7. Praise Like the lament names, this type is rare. We have two praise names: Mannu-akī-Ištariya (“who is like my Ištar?”) and Mannu-idassu-īde (“who knows his/her strength?”) Eight persons have the latter name, and one the former; all nine women are slaves. These praise names, like most, use the interrogative form.

B.8. Other Nearly all of the sentence names are theophoric, but we find some profane examples: Abī-baltī (“my father is my dignity”), Abī-kī-ili (“my father is like a god”),32 Abi-ul-tīde (“she does not know the father”), and Aḫat-aqrat (“the sister is precious”), for example.

3. Female Names That Were à la mode in the Neo-Babylonian Period In our corpus, the most popular names, with the number of separate individuals, are as follows: Nūptaya (“gift”) 27 Miṣatu (“small one”) 20 Ubartu (“foreigner”) 19 Tābaṭu (“good”) 17 Tabluṭu (“she recovered the health”) 17 Amtiya (“servant [of DN]”) 15 Šikkû (“mongoose”) 14 Amat-Mullissu (“servant of Mullissu”) 14 Qudāšu (“ring/earring”) 13

32 These two names are considered as the replacement names according to Stamm’s classification.

16 ORIENT Onomastics of Women in Babylonia in the First Millennium BC

Inṣabtu (“ring/earring”) 12 Bazītu (“female monkey”) 12 Burāšu (“juniper”) 12 Nanaya-keširat (“Nanaya compensates”) 12 Nanaya-silim (“be friendly, Nanaya!”) 12

Some names (Nūptaya, Tābaṭu, Amat-Mullissu, Qudāšu, Inṣabtu) were principally given to free women, some (Šikkû, Miṣatu, Nanaya-keširat,33 Nanaya-silim34) to slave women, and others equally to both (Ubartu, Tabluṭu,35 Amtiya, Bazītu). Almost all of these are designation names with one component. There are 220 names composed of one element, 180 of two elements, 76 of three, and 8 of four, in our corpus. That is to say, 45%, or about half, of Akkadian female names in the corpus have only one element, including abbreviated names. We find that slave women’s names tend to have many components (three or four), while many of the free women were called by names with one or two components.

Table 11: Number of Components of Female Personal Names Number of Components 1 2 3 4 Number of different names 220 180 76 8 Number of name-bearers 646 329 136 11 (free women/slaves)36 (382/234) (92/175) (24/100) (1/9)

III. Theophoric Elements 1. Survey of the Goddesses Included in Personal Names Regarding the theophoric elements, the most popular goddesses are Nanaya, Bānītu and Mullissu (Ninlil). Bearers of names with these goddesses as the theophoric element appear in contracts drafted in various cities, while, for example, bearers of names with the goddess Aya appear exclusively in documents from Sippar or Larsa, cities whose god was Šamaš, the spouse of Aya. Similarly, Tašmētu-names appear in documents from Babylon, and most Ištar-names in documents from Uruk. We find an interesting phenomenon in the acceptance of a foreign goddess in Akkadian names, Amat-Esi’ (PBS 2/1, 17: 2, 13), and, in contrast, the appearance of an Akkadian goddess in a West Semitic name: Gubb-Ištar (BagM 21, 602 n.3: 3, 5, apud Hackl 2013, 182).

Table 12: Goddesses Mentioned in Female Names Goddess Repertoire of Names Number of Name-bearers Nanaya 52 106 Bānītu 29 43 Bēltu, Bēltiya 21 36 Mullissu 14 39 33 In our corpus, ten bearers of the name Nanaya-keširat are slave women, one is a free woman, and one is an oblate. 34 All of the bearers of the name Nanaya-silim are slaves. 35 Five bearers of the name Tabluṭu are free, six are slaves, and six are “other.” 36 These numbers do not include oblates and temple personnel.

Vol. 51 (2016) 17 Ba’u 13 25 Ištar 13 23 Māmītu 6 12 Aya 6 6 Tašmētu 5 8 Kurunnam 3 5 Attar 3 3 Aška’ītu 2 6 Zarpanītu 2 2 Annunītu 2 2 Gula 2 2 Nikkal (Ningal) 2 2 Šalmu (?) 1 4 Šerua 1 3 Sutīti 1 2 Lāṣ 1 2 Qībi’-dumqī 1 1 Mārat-Anu 1 1 Mārat-bīti 1 1 Esi’ (Isis) 1 1 Apatu (?) 1 1 Kanisurra 1 1 Nin-aḫa-kud-du (Nin-girima) 1 1 Šuzianna 1 1

2. Roles of Goddesses Theophoric Names with Ba’u and Mullissu: An Expression of Mesopotamian Antiquarianism? Ba’u37 is one of the most frequently represented goddesses in women’s names during the Neo- Babylonian period. For example, in our corpus, we find:

- Amat-Ba’u (géme.ká or géme-ba-ú, “servant of Ba’u,” in VAS 3, 152, 153, 156, 158, 160, 165 209 and VAS 5, 110), daughter of Šamaš-iddin, descendant of Šangû-Dilbat, and the wife of Nabû-ah-ittannu, son of Uraš-kaṣir of the Dabibi family. - Ba’u-enqet (ba-ú-en-qet, “Ba’u suckles” for example in VAS 3, 48: 3) who acts as creditor together with her son. - Ba’u-šarrat (ba-ú-šar-rat or ká-šar-rat, “Ba’u is the queen” in VAS 3, 56 and 70 and VAS 5, 49 and 145), nicknamed Babunu (ba-bu-nu in VAS 4, 27 and 199), daughter of Iqišaya, descendant of Kutimmu, and the wife of Ṭabiya of the Sîn-ilī family. - Silim-Ba’u (si-lim-ba-ú, “be friendly, Ba’u” in VAS 4, 46: 8), a slave-woman.

d In addition, one of the daughters of Nebuchadnezzar II bears the name Ba’u-asītu ( ba-ú-a-si-tu4, “Ba’u is the physician”) which shows that this theophoric element was highly regarded during the Neo-Babylonian period (Beaulieu 1998, 174–181). Ba’u is one facet of the healing goddess Gula, recently discussed in depth by Böck (2014). On the basis of gods list An = Anum, Gula is identified with Ba’u, described as a healing goddess and spouse of Ningirsu. Together with Ba’u, 37 For the debate about reading of dba-ú, see Marchesi 2002, 161–172.

18 ORIENT Onomastics of Women in Babylonia in the First Millennium BC

Nintinuga, Ninkarrak and Gula are characterized as healing goddesses (Böck 2014, 7–8). During the third millennium BC, Gula and Ba’u are considered to be different: Ba’u was worshipped in Girsu and she is the divine wife of its tutelary god. She becomes well known through cylinders and statues of Gudea (Böck 2014, 13). Gula is first attested in the Early Dynastic Period, notably in the gods list from Fara (Böck 2014, 9; Krebernik 1986, 194). She is worshipped in Umma and other cities like Isin, where Gula and Ninkarrak are both called Ninisina (“Lady of Isin”).

Thus, in literary compositions from the middle of the second to the first millennium BC, Gula is usually worshipped under several names. This is best illustrated in the hymn of a certain Bullussa-rabi to the healing goddess Gula, which roughly dates between 1400 and 700 BC and a bilingual incantation or prayer addressed to Ninisina attested in Old Babylonian times. The hymn to Gula mentions, among other names, Nintinuga, Ninkarak, and Baba. The bilingual incantation is directed to Ninisina who in the Akkadian version appears as Gula and Ninkarak; further names given are Nintinuga and Baba (Böck 2014, 9).

However, syncretism between Ba’u, Ninisina and Gula takes place during Ur III times (Böck 2014, 13). But why did people in the Neo-Babylonian period use the divine name Ba’u instead of Gula? Is it possible that this divine element is a new expression of the antiquarianism adopted of the Neo-Babylonian dynasty? During the reign of Nabopolassar, a new tendency arises which is expressed in the utilization of an archaizing script in the commemorative inscriptions, a practice that declines during Nebuchanezzar’s reign (Beaulieu 2013, 131). However Ba’u, healing goddess, belongs to the ancient divine pantheon, and not to the pantheon of Marduk, chief of the gods during the first millennium. The interest for Ba’u can be explained by her high status as spouse of Ningirsu, one of the most powerful gods of the third millennium. During the Neo- Sumerian period in Girsu, she is considered as the queen of her divine husband (Asher-Greve and Westenholz 2013, 67), which can be put in parallel to the name “Ba’u-šarrat”. The goddess Mullissu/Ninlil is also interesting to study: at least fifteen women in our corpus bear the name Amat-Mullissu, written gemé.dnin.líl (“servant of Mullissu”), for example:

- Amat-Mullissu, daughter of Ṭabiya and descendant of Sîn-ilī (VAS 4, 46: 6, 10, 14). - Amat-Mullissu, daughter of Šulaya and descendant of Paḫāru (VAS 4, 50: 2, 10). - Amat-Mullissu, descendant of Arad-Nergal (VAS 4, 65: 7). The divine name Mullissu (“Lady”) is used in Assyria and is a dialectal form of Muliltu, itself derived from a Sumerian dialectal form of Ninlil (Black and Green 1992, 141), Enlil’s spouse who exercises a great power. Mullissu is considered to be a merciful divinity and is perhaps a form of mother goddess (Black and Green 1992, 140). She is adopted in Assyria because Aššur needs a divine spouse, and Mullissu was chosen because of the equation of Enlil with Aššur. In the syncretistic hymn of the exorcist Bulussa-rabi, Ninlil is presented as a facet of Gula, along with Nintinuga, Nanše, Ninkarrak, Ninigizibara, Ba’u, Ungal-Nibru and Ninsumuna:

Vol. 51 (2016) 19 I am merciful, I can hear from afar, I bring up the dead from the underworld, I gird myself with the leather bag, the scalpel, the lancet, …, I look over the weary, I watch the sick, I… the wound, Mistress of health am I. I am physician, I am a diviner, I am an exorcist, I look over him who is in … No one has made plain my cuneiform signs, But I … [every] one of them. In my […] there is recovery, The merciful [goddess] Ninlil am I (Lambert 1967, 126–129 for transcription and translation).

Ninlil/Mullissu is here, as Ba’u, characterized as a healing goddess. According to Asher- Greve and Westenholz (2013, 116), the convergence in roles derives from the syncretism of the goddess Sud, Enlil’s spouse, with Gula. However, in any case it is also an example of the extension of the roles of Ninlil in the first millennium.

Distinction between Nanaya and Ištar Nanaya is attested in Mesopotamia since the Ur III period her earliest mention being in the Weidner gods-list, composed at the end of the third millennium BC. She is associated with Uruk since the time of the Third Dynasty of Ur, and is one of the most important goddesses of the pantheon of Uruk. She is a daughter of the great god Anu and of Inanna and is considered to be the goddess of love. Additionally she takes an active role in some cultic festivals (Beaulieu 2003, 184). Syncretism between Inanna and Nanaya occurs at an early stage. Beaulieu (2003, 183) emphasizes that Nanaya is mentioned in an inscription of Lipit-Ištar (1934–1924 BC), where she is described as the daughter of Inanna and as residing in the E-me-ur-ur temple (“House which Gathers the Mê”) of Isin. Sanctuaries with the same name exist in Larsa, Mari, and Aššur (all devoted to Ištar) and in Uruk and Babylon (both devoted to Nanaya), according to George (1993, 126). Syncretism between Nanaya and Ištar also occurs very early, as this bilingual Sumero- Akkadian hymn shows:

My mistress, Sîn, Inanna, born of …, similarly. Wise daughter of Sîn, beloved sister of Šamaš, I am powerful in Borsippa, I am a hierodule in Uruk, I have heavy breasts in Daduni, I have a beard in Babylon, still I am Nanaya. Ur, Ur, temple of the great gods, similarly. They call me the Daughter of Ur, the Queen of Ur, the daughter of princely Sîn, she who goes around and enters every house, Holy one who holds the ordinances; she takes away the young man in his prime. She removes the young girl from her bedchamber – still I am Nanaya (Reiner 1974, 224 and 23338).

During the Neo-Babylonian period in Uruk, Nanaya is described as šarrat Uruk (“Queen of Uruk”), while Ištar is bēltu ša Uruk (“Lady of Uruk”) (Beaulieu 2003, 76). In Uruk, Ištar is adressed in various ways: Ištar, Ištar of Uruk, Lady of Uruk, Innin and Bēltiya. The theophoric element dInnin is used in the name of one of the daughters of Nebuchadnezzar II, Innin-ēṭirat, who was identified thanks to BM 64650 (MacGinnis 1993, 99–106). In this text, she liberates

38 See also Asher-Greve and Westenholz 2013, 116–117.

20 ORIENT Onomastics of Women in Babylonia in the First Millennium BC a royal slave, whose name is Nabû-mukki-elip. Although the text was drafted in Babylon, it can be assumed that the royal princess lives in Uruk with her sisters, Kaššaya and Ba’u-asītu. Theophoric names beginning with dInnin occur only in the city of Uruk (Beaulieu 1998, 198). Innin is attested as a name for Ištar since the third millennium, its origin and etymology are uncertain, but the name is perhaps Sumerian (meaning “Lady of Heaven”) (Beaulieu 2003, 123). The cult of Ištar becomes less popular during the first millennium in Uruk. Her representation is removed from the Eanna temple twice during the period: - in the 8th century during the reign of Erība-Marduk or during that of Nabû-šum-iškun (Beaulieu 2003, 131–134). - in 693, Sennacherib captures Uruk and consequently the statue of the goddess is removed and carries by the Assyrians. During the first absence of Ištar of Uruk, an other goddess is installed in the Eanna temple, and the Babylon Stela of Nabonidus echoes to this event:

(As for) Ištar-of-Uruk, the lofty princess, who dwells in a golden shrine, who drives (a team of) seven lions, whose cult the citizens of Uruk altered during the reign of Erība-Marduk, removing her shrine and unharnessing her team, (who) left Eanna in anger to dwell in a place not her dwelling, (and) in whose cella they introduced a divine representation not belonging to Eanna, he (Nebuchadnezzar II) brought Ištar back safely, reestablished her shrine for her, (and) harnessed for her the seven lions befitting her godhead. The inappropriate goddess he removed from Eanna and returned Innin to Eanna, her sanctuary.39

In texts from the 7th century, a goddess named Bēltiya (one of the names of the divine spouse of Marduk, Ṣarpanitum) occurs in place of Ištar. It is possible therefore that the “inappropriate goddess” put in Ištar’s place in Uruk was Bēltiya, who is connected to the city of Babylon. This reflects consequently the predominance of the pantheon of Marduk in the whole Babylonia. During the Achaemenid and Seleucid periods, reforms are undertaken to restore Anu and Antu as the real and sole tutelary gods of Uruk, residing in the Rēš Temple. Ištar becomes a secondary divinity inside her city (Beaulieu 1995, 187–213), and Antu absorbs her characteristics. So the relative absence of Ištar from her city, and the case of the “inappropriate goddess” may explain how she became less popular than Nanaya, even in the use of her theophoric element in personal names. In addition, the complex nature of Ištar, who appears as an angry, capricious and sometimes cruel goddess, makes her less honorable than Nanaya. In the Uruk legal texts of the Seleucid period, it appears that Anu and his spouse Antu are at the head of the new pantheon (Linssen 2004, 14–15 and Beaulieu 1992), and theophoric names with Anu are dominant during the period between Xerxes and Alexander.40 However according

39 dinanna! unug!ki ru-ba-a-ti ṣir-ti a-ši-bat at-ma-nu kù.gi ša sa-an-da-ti 7 la-ab-bu ša i-na bala-e Ieri-ba-damar.utu lugal lúunugki-a-a šu.luh-hi-šu uš-pe-el-lu at-ma-an-šú id-ku-ma ip-ṭu-ru ṣi-mi-it-tuš i-na uz-zi iš-tu qé-reb é!.an.na tu- su-ma tu-ši-bu la šu-bat-su dlamma la si-mat é!.an.na ú-še-ši-bu i-na si-ma-ak-ki-šú d15 ú-šal-lim at-man-šú ú-kin-šu d ! d ! 7 la-ab-ba si-mat i-lu-ti-šu iṣ-mi-id-su 15 la si-ma-a-tú iš-tu qé-reb é .an.na ú-še-ṣi-ma in.nin9.na ú-tir a-na é .an.na ki-iṣ-ṣi-šu (See transcription and translation in Schaudig 2001, 517 Col. iii, l. 11–39, and in Beaulieu 2003, 131). 40 See the study of Stolper 1990, 559–662.

Vol. 51 (2016) 21 to onomastic evidences, the process of change at the head of the Urukean pantheon from Ištar to Anu occurs between 521 and 424 BC (Beaulieu 1992, 54–55).

IV. Foreign Names and Names of Foreigners 1. Āl-Yāḫūdu Interest in the town of Āl-Yāḫūdu (previously called “Āl-Yāḫūdāya,” “town of Judeans”) arose with two major publications by Abraham (2005–2006, 198–219) and recently by Pearce and Wunsch (2014). In 587, Nebuchadnezzar exiles the people of Jerusalem to Babylonia, as related by the Old Testament (2 Kings, Jeremiah, and Lamentations). Until recently, sources were scarce about the fate of the people of Judah in Babylonia. But almost 200 texts written in Akkadian, dispersed in museums and private collections describe the life of the Judean community in Babylonia, and particularly in the town of Āl-Yāḫūdu, which location remains unknown, including the life of the Judean people, their work, and even their marriage alliances for three generations. Although Cyrus allowed the Judean community to return to Jerusalem, some families stay in Āl- Yāḫūdu. The town of Našar (Ālu-ša-Našar) is known from the Borsippa texts, and Našar and Āl-Yāḫūdu were close to each other (Pearce and Wunsch 2014, 6). However, even though its location remains uncertain, Judean and West Semitic people were living in Našar (Pearce and Wunsch 2014, 6). Pearce and Wunsch (2014, 7) propose that the region of the Āl-Yāḫūdu texts could be “to the east and south-east of Babylon, beyond the city of Nippur, delimited to the east by the river Tigris and to the south by the marshlands.”

Some Observations on Women’s Names in the Āl-Yāḫūdu Documents In the documents from the town of Āl-Yāḫūdu, several feminine names of non-Babylonian origins are attested, implying the coexistence of several cultures. Some names contain Babylonian theophoric elements or Egyptian elements, but the most widespread names are West Semitic and Hebrew. These kinds of names are almost exclusively systematically written syllabically, unlike Babylonian names. Women’s names in Āl-Yāḫūdu texts are particularly interesting and could perhaps testify that it exists an assimilation of West Semitic and Judean populations to the Babylonian people.41 Yapa-Yāḫû (˹i˺-pa-dia-ḫu-ú, “Yahweh shone forth/appeared”) is the only bearer of a 42 43 Hebrew feminine name attested so far in the archive of Āl-Yāḫudu in text 8. She appears in a promissory note for dates and barley. Her husband, Rapā, son of Samak-Yāma, is the debtor and he owes goods to Ṭūb-Yāma, son of Mukkêa. This text is drafted in “the town of Ṭūb- 44 Yāma,”perhaps in the neighborhood of Āl-Yāḫūdu. In this document, Yapa-Yāḫû acts as the guarantor of the transaction. Except for the witnesses, the principal actors in the text bear

41 Note in Pearce and Wunsch 2014, there are references to texts which will be edited in a new volume, Babylonische Archive 6, but this one is not yet published when we write this article. 42 “This rare feminine Hebrew, and specifically Yahwistic, name is not without precedent in the cuneiform corpus” (Pearce and Wunsch 2014, 91). 43 The numbering of texts follows the presentation of Pearce and Wunsch’s monograph (2014). 44 Pearce and Wunsch (2014, 110, n. 16) remark that the same scribe writes texts 7 and 8. Text 7 was drafted in Āl- Yaḫudu, while text 8 was written in Ṭūb-Yāma and they are dated in the same year. The authors conclude “Judahtown and the town of Ṭūb-Yāma were in proximity to each other and were served by the same administration personnel.”

22 ORIENT Onomastics of Women in Babylonia in the First Millennium BC

Yahwistic names. The text is dated to the 5th year of Nabonidus (551 BC), and consequently it is perhaps the first generation of exiles who appears in the document. d In text 52 two women appear: Ana-muḫḫi-Nanaya-taklāk (a-na-ugu-ḫi- na-na-a-tak-lak, “in Nanaya I Trust”), a slave-woman, and Šalammû (šá-lam-mu-ú-u), her buyer:

Iqīšâ, son of Barīk-il, voluntarily sold to [Šalammû, the daughter of] Ḫannan, [Ana-muḫḫi- Nanaya-taklāk], his slave woman.45

The text is drafted in the city of Bīt-Ḫamma-[…], and is dated to the 7th year of Xerxes (479 BC) is thought to be related to the Āl-Yaḫūdu archives, although no reference to the city is made in the text.46 Ana-muḫḫi-Nanaya-taklāk is an example of prospective trust names. However, although it is clearly an Akkadian name, it perhaps does not reflect the origins of the woman. The names of the buyer and her father are particularly interesting:

- Ḫannan (ḫa-an-na-an) means “merciful” and has a West-Semitic origin as it is based on the root ḤNN, “to be gracious” (see Coogan 1976, 73–74). The name Ḫannan is mentioned, for example, in the book of Jeremiah (Jer. 35: 4: “I brought them in the house of Yahweh, into the room of the sons of Ḫannan, son of Igdaliah, the man of God”). - His daughter Šalammû (šá-lam-mu-ú-u) bears a hypocoristic name from the root ŠLM which means “to be well.” Although it is considered to be a West-Semitic name, it shares also similarities with other Akkadian names. The use of such a name is perhaps a mean of assimilating to the other populations of the region. Nanaya-baḫī/biḫī (dna-na-a-ba-a-ḫi-’ or dna-na-a-bi-ḫi-’) in text 45 means “desired by Nanaya.” It is an example of the mixing of an Akkadian theophoric element (the goddess Nanaya) with an Aramaic element (Baḫî/Biḫî). The bearer of the name is a female slave who appears in a division of inherited business shares after the death of her master Aḫīqam. The document is drafted in Babylon during the 16th year of Darius I (504 BC). Nanaya-biḫī was part of the share of Nīr-Yāma and Yāḫû-azza, sons of the latter Aḫīqam. ki Urkayītu-šarrat (UNUG -šar-rat) in text 51 is an Akkadian name and can be translated in two different ways, either “Urkayītu is queen” or “(In) Uruk she is queen” (Pearce and Wunsch 2014, 88). The goddess Urkayītu is one of the companions of Ištar and her name means “the Urukean.” Beaulieu states that Urkayītu was an epithet for Ištar of Uruk, as the list An = Anum (iv 117) shows it (Beaulieu 2003, 255). During the Old Babylonian period, Urkayītu and Ištar are different goddesses, and Urkayītu is worshipped in Kiš. Then, during the reign of Samsu- iluna her cult is transferred to Uruk (Charpin, Edzard and Stol 2004, 343). During the Neo- Babylonian period, distinctions between Urkayītu and Ištar persist and Urkayītu’s sanctuary is probably situated inside the Eanna Temple (Beaulieu 2003, 255–256). Text 51 relates the sale of an ox, and Urkayītu-šarrat is mentioned as the daughter of Bīt-il-šūru (é.dingir-šu-ru) and as wife

45 Copy, transcription and translation by Pearce and Wunsch (2014, 184–185). 46 “As persons bearing West Semitic and Yahwistic names appear in this record, it almost certainly relates to Judahtown” (Pearce and Wunsch 2014, 184).

Vol. 51 (2016) 23 of Kinâ, son of Ḫannā. The text is drafted in Āl-šarri, possibly during the 2nd year of Cambyses (528 BC). Although Urkayītu-šarrat bears an Akkadian name, her father has an Aramaic one, since Bīt-il is an Aramaic deity who was also worshipped in Elephantine. The Judean community of Elephantine venerates Yahweh, but also foreign deities like Bethel (see for example Liverani 2008, 299–300). Urkayītu-šarrat’s husband, probably originated from an Aramaic family too, as his father was named Ḫannā. Both fathers are probably of western origin, but children were given Akkadian names, perhaps to facilitate assimilation.

Observations on Marriage Contracts A marriage contract from Āl-Yāḫūdu refers to a bride named Nanaya-kānat. Her marriage occurs during the 5th year of Cyrus (533 BC) and is concluded by the mother’s bride, Dibbî, daughter of Dannâ (Abraham 2005–06, 198–211). The groom, Nabû-bān-aḫi, son of Kinâ, bears a Babylonian name. Nanaya-kānat (dna-na-a-ka-na-ta “Nanaya is reliable”) is another example of mixing a Babylonian theophoric element and a West Semitic element (Abraham 2005–06, 216). This text is probably an example of marriage between members of West Semitic, or Judean family, and a Babylonian family. One or possibly two other members of Nanaya-kānat’s family bear West Semitic names:

- Her brother Mešallam has an Aramaic name, meaning “the one recompensed by god” (Abraham 2005–06, 216). - Her mother’s name, Dibbî or Qibî is of uncertain origin, related either to the West Se- mitic root DBB, or to the Akkadian root QB’ (“to say”) (Abraham 2005–06, 217). - Her maternal ancestor’s name, Dannâ or Dānâ, is a Babylonian hypocoristic formed on the term dannu “strong” or on the verb dânu “to judge” (Abraham 2005–06, 217). It is perhaps another case of assimilation of West Semitic people into Babylonian culture.

The marriage contract between Kaššaya and Gūzanu (BM 65149 = BM 68921, see Roth 1989 text 26) is another such case.47 This marriage takes place in Sippar in 535 BC and reflects the life in the Judean community in Babylonia. Although the bride and groom bear Akkadian names, like the bride’s mother (Gudadītu) and brother (Bēl-uballiṭ), her father, who is surely dead, was named Amušē (a-mu-še-e), probably a form of the Judean name Hosea.

2. Women with Iranian Names Some women in our corpus bear what are certainty an Iranian names, such as Abēsukku or Abi-sauka (a-be-e-su-uk-ku “shining”) who appears in the text VAS 4, 152: 2, 6, 8, 12, 14. Her activity is quite interesting; she acts as a creditor and loans silver to a man, taking his house in pledge. In spite of her name, Abēsukku is probably not Iranian, since her father’s name is Rēmut. Furthermore, this case is not isolated (see Zadok 1977, 94–95). A possible second is Gambiya (ga-am-bi-ia), although the analysis of the name remains

47 For transcription and translation of this text, see Roth 1989b, 92–95.

24 ORIENT Onomastics of Women in Babylonia in the First Millennium BC

48 uncertain. Her father is Parnakku and she is the wife of Zerūtu. Parnakku is the Akkadian writing of the Persian Farnaka. Gambiya and her husband appear in VAS 5, 101. She possesses lands near the Adad Gate in Babylon but we are not informed about her activities.

V. Conclusion Our conclusions thus far are as follows: (1) We do not find any name with a meaning particularly connected to slavery, as Hackl also has noted. A great number of personal names are given both to women of free status and to slave women, and we find the name Qudāšu given to a royal woman, to free women, and to a slave. Nevertheless, we observe some different preferences in name selection between free women and slaves. For example, designation names (except animal names and physical characteristic names), generally composed of only one or two elements, seem to be preferred for free women. Examples of popular names for free women include Nūptaya “gift,” probably signifying the joy of family members and their affection for the baby, Tābāṭu “goodness,” reflecting a desirable character trait, Qudāšu and Inṣabtu “ring, earring,” which may represent qualities like feminine beauty. In contrast, slaves frequently possessed sentence names, generally with theophoric elements. Although many slaves had designation names, bearers of long names with three or four elements were mainly slave women. Sentence names had probably become stereotyped, rather than being a direct reflection of personal situations. We have not been able to determine whether the differences in naming preferences for free women and slaves were related to name-giving traditions or merely to Neo-Babylonian social trends. (2) This preparatory study of onomastics in the Neo-Babylonian and Achaemenid periods enables us to conclude that the Sumero-Akkadian pantheon is still in force, even after the accession of Marduk, the tutelary god of Babylon, to the head of the pantheon during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar I (1125–1104 BC). The use of theophoric elements like dBa’u, a form of the healing goddess Gula, is a reflection of the importance of the ancient pantheon in the first millennium BC and is perhaps an aspect of the emergence of antiquarianism that has been noted during the Neo-Babylonian period. The distribution of theophoric elements according to cities, or according to different periods is an interesting phenomenon that emanates from a study of onomastic data. For example in Uruk, the gradual replacement of Ištar by Anu and his spouse Antu is noticeable in the attribution of names. Onomastics always represents a large field of research, especially for the Neo-Babylonian period. Problems to the choice of particular theophoric elements and to the occurrence of non-Babylonian names remain for future exploration, in particular with the publication of studies (such as Wunch forthcoming study) concerning foreign communities living in Babylonia during the Neo-Babylonian and Achaemenid periods.

48 For example, see Zadok 1977, 94, n. 26. He views Gambiya as being close to Gabiya, and therefore takes the name to be Semitic.

Vol. 51 (2016) 25 Acknowlegments We thank Frederick W. Knobloch for corrections and comments, and Laura Cousin warmly thanks Elodie Fiette for her kind help with the translation of this paper. We would like also to express our thanks to Francis Joannès and Fumi Karahashi for inviting us to participate to the REFEMA-Project, and thank all the members of the project for the stimulating discussions we had during the workshops.

Bibliography Abraham, K. 2004: Business and Politics under the Persian Empire: The Financial Dealings of Marduk-nāṣir-apli of the House of Egibi (521–487 B.C.E). Bethesda. Abraham, K. 2005–06: “West Semitic and Judean Brides in Cuneiform Sources from the Sixth Century BCE: New Evidence from a Marriage Contract from Āl-Yahudu,” AfO 51, 198–219. Asher-Greve, J. 2003: “Women and Gender in Ancient Near Eastern Cultures: Bibliography 1885 to 2001 AD,” NIN: Journal of Gender Studies in Antiquity 3, 33–114. Asher-Greve, J. and J. G. Westenholz. 2013: Goddesses in Context. On Divine Powers, Roles, Relationships and Gender in Mesopotamian Textual and Visual Sources, OBO 259, Fribourg and Göttingen. Baker, H. D. 2002: “Approaches to Akkadian Name-Giving in First-Millennium B.C. Babylonia,” in Mining the Archives: Festschrift for Christopher Walker on the Occasion of His 60th Birthday, 4 October 2002, 1–24. Baker, H. D. 2004: The Archive of the Nappāhu Family. AfO Beiheft 30: Institut für Orientalistik der Universität Wien, Wien. Barberon, L. 2012: Les religieuses et le culte de Marduk dans le royaume de Babylone, Mémoires de NABU 14, Archibab 1, Paris. Beaulieu, P. A. 1992: “Antiquarian Theology in Seleucid Uruk,” ASJ 14, 47–75. Beaulieu, P. A. 1995: “Theological and Philological Speculations on the Names of the Goddess Antu,” Orientalia 64, 187–213. Beaulieu, P. A.1998: “Ba’u-asītu and Kaššaya, Daughters of Nebuchadnezzar II,” Orientalia 64, 173–201. Beaulieu, P. A. 2003: The Pantheon of Uruk During the Neo-Babylonian Period, CM 23, Leiden-Boston. Beaulieu, P. A. 2013: “Mesopotamian Antiquarianism from Sumer to Babylon,” in A. Schnapp (ed.), World Antiquarianism: Comparative Perspectives, Los Angeles, 121–139. Black, J., and A. Green. 1992: Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia. An Illustrated Dictionary, London. Biggs, R. D. 1967: ŠÀ.ZI.GA: Ancient Mesopotamian Potency Incantations, New York. Böck, B. 2014: The Healing Goddess Gula: Towards an Understanding of Ancient Babylonian Medicine, Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 67, Leiden and Boston. Charpin, D. 2003: “L’onomastique des nourrices royales et des esclaves domestiques,” NABU 2003/2. Charpin, D., D. O. Edzard, and M. Stol. 2004: Mesopotamien. Die altbabylonische Zeit, OBO 160/4, Fribourg and Göttingen. Coogan, M. D. 1976: West Semitic Personal Names in the Murašû Documents, Harvard Semitic Monographs 7, Missoula, Montana. Edzard, D. O. 1962: “mNingal-gāmil, fIštar-damqat. Die Genuskongruenz in akkadisch theophoren Personnamen,” ZA 55, 113–130. Edzard, D. O. 1998: “Name, Namengebung (Onomastik). B. Akkadisch.,” in RlA 9/1–2, Berlin, 103–116. Evetts, B. T. A. 1892: Inscriptions of the Reigns of Evil-Merodach, Neriglissar and Laborosoarchod, Babylonische Texte VI B, Leipzig. Faraone, C. A. 2002: “From Magic Ritual to Semiotic Game: the Transformation of Neo-Assyrian Love Spells in Classical and Hellenistic Greece,” in A. Panaino and G. Pettinato (eds.), Ideologies as Intercultural Phenomena, Melammu Symposia III, Milano. George, A. R. 1992: Babylonian Topographical Texts, OLA 40, Leuven. George, A. R. 1993: House Most High. The Temples of Ancient Mesopotamia, MC 5, Winona Lake, Indiana. Hackl, J. 2013: “Frau Weintraube, Frau Heuschrecke und Frau Gut—Untersuchungen zu den babylonischen Namen von Sklavinnen in neubabylonischer und persischer Zeit,” WZKM 103, 121–187.

26 ORIENT Onomastics of Women in Babylonia in the First Millennium BC

Joannès, F. 1982: Texts Économiques de la Babylonie Récente (Étude des texte de TBER — Cahier no 6), Étude Assyriologiques, Paris. Joannès, F. 1989: Archives de Borsippa. La famille Ea-ilûta-bâni. Étude d’un lot d’archives familiales en Babylonie du VIIIe au Ve siècle av. J.-C., Genève. Jursa, M. 1999: Das Archiv des Bēl-rēmanni, PIHANS 86, Leiden. Jursa, M. 2003: “Spätachämenideische texte aus Kutha,” RA 97, 43–140. Krebernik, M. 1986: “Die Götterlisten aus Fara,” ZA 76, 161–204. Lambert, W. G. 1967: “The Gula-Hymn of Bulluṭsa-rabi,” Orientalia 36, 105–132. Linssen, M. J. H. 2004 : The Cults of Uruk and Babylon. The Temple Ritual Texts as Evidence for Hellenistic Cult Practice, CM 25, Leiden and Boston. Liverani, M. 2008: La Bible et l’invention de l’histoire, Paris (French edition). MacGinnis, J. 1993: “The Manumission of a Royal Slave,” ASJ 15, 99–106. Marchesi, G. 2002: “On the Divine Name dBA.Ú,” Orientalia 71/2, 161–172. Millet-Albà, A. 2000: “Les noms d’animaux dans l’onomastique des archives de Mari” in Les animaux et les hommes dans le monde syro-mésopotamien aux époques historiques, Topoi supplément 2, Lyon, 477–487. Nielsen, J. P. 2015: Personal Names in Early Neo-Babylonian Legal and Administrative Tablets, 747–626 B.C.E., Nisaba 29, Winona Lake Indiana. Pearce, L. E., and C. Wunsch 2014: Documents of Judean Exiles and West Semites in Babylonia in the Collection of David Sofer, CUSAS 28, Bethesda, Maryland. Reiner, E. 1974: “A Sumero-Akkadian Hymn to Nanâ,”, JNES 33, 221–236. Roth, M. T. 1989a: “The Material Composition of the Neo-Babylonian Dowry,” AfO 36–37, 1–55. Roth, M. T. 1989b: Babylonian Marriage Agreements, 7th–3rd Centuries B.C., AOAT 222, Kevelaer, Neukirchen- Vluyn. Roth, M. T. 1991a: “The Neo-Babylonian Widow,” JCS 43–45, 1–26. Roth, M. T. 1991b: “The Dowries of the Women of the Itti-Marduk-balāṭu Family,” JAOS 111/1, 19–37. Roth, M. T. 2000: “Tašmētu-damqat and Daughters,” in J. Oelsner, J. Marzahn, H, Neumann and A. Fuchs (eds.), Assyriologica et Semitica: Festschrift für Joachim Oelsner, AOAT 252, Münster, 387–400. Schaudig, H. 2001: Die Inschriften Nabonids von Babylon und Kyros’ des Großen samt den in ihrem Umfeld entstandenen Tendenzschriften, AOAT 256, Münster. Scheil, V. 1915: “La libération judiciaire d’un fils donné en gage sous Nériglissar en 558 av. J.-C.,” RA 12/1, 1–13. Stamm, J. J. 1939: Die Akkadische Namengebung, MVAG 44, Leipzig. Stolper, M. W. 1990: “Late Achaemenid Legal Texts from Uruk and Larsa,” BagM 21, 559–662. Tallqvist, K. L. 1905: Neubabylonisches Namenbuch zu den Geschäftsurkunden aus der Zeit des Šamaššumukîn bis Xerxes, Helsingfors. Waerzeggers, C. 1999: “The Records of Inṣabtu From the Naggaru Family,” AfO 46–47: 183–200. Westenholz, J. G. 2007: “Inanna and Ishtar in the Babylonian World,” in G. Leick (ed.), The Babylonian World, New- York and London, 332–347. Wunsch, C. 1993: “Die Urkunden des babylonischen Geschäftsmannes Iddin-Marduk: zum Handel mit Naturalien im 6. Jahrhundert v. Chr. CM 3, 2tomes, Groningen. Wunsch, C. 1995: “Die Frauen der Familie Egibi,” AfO 42–43, 33–63. Wunsch, C. 1997: “Und die Richter berieten... Streitfälle in Babylon aus der Zeit Neriglissars und Nabonids,” AfO 44–45, 59–100. Wunsch, C. 2000: Das Egibi Archive I. Die Felder und Gärten, CM 20, 2 tomes, Groningen. Wunsch, C. 2003: Urkunden zum Ehe-, Vermögens- und Erbrecht aus verschiedenen neubabylonischen Archiven, Babylonische Archive 2, Dresden. Wunsch, C. 2005a: “The Šangû-Ninurta Archive,” in H. D. Baker and M. Jursa (eds.), Approaching the Babylonian Economy: Proceedings of the START Project Symposium Held in Vienna, 1-3 July 2004, AOAT 330, Münster, 365– 379. Wunsch, C. 2005b: “Findelkinder und Adoption nach neubabylonischen Quellen,” AfO 50, 174–244. Wunsch forthcoming: Judeans by the Waters of Babylon: New Historical Evidence in Cuneiform Sources from Rural Babylonia, Babylonische Archive 6, Dresden. Zadok, R. 1977: “Iranians and Individuals Bearing Iranian Names in Achaemenian Babylonia,” IOS 7, 89–138.

Vol. 51 (2016) 27