MnsoPoTAMrANOrucINs

THE BASIC POPULATION of the NEAR EAST

By EPHRAIM A. SPEISER Assistant ProJessoroj St*i'tirs U ttirersity oJ Pennsyloania

PHILADELPHIA UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA PRESS LONDON HUMPHREY MILFORD: OXFORD UNI\DRSITY PRESS 1930 Copvnrcnr 1930 UNIVERSITY OF PENNS\'LVANIA PRBSS

Printed.in the Uni,tedStates of America

APR1 1 1s31 t|''ost't! tI* *O.n "r X PREFACE

It will probably seemrash and prembtureto attempt at this time a sketchof Mesopotamianorigins, when scarcelya month passeswithout someimportant discoveryin one or the other of the ancientBible Lands. But it is preciselybecause of these discoveriesthat a fresh study of the material now extant may be found both advisableand useful' The Near East, past as well as present, holds today the interest of the scholar and the layman. The ever restlesstribes of the Orient compel almost universalattention; and the oldest centersof civiliza- tion have a peculiar fascinationfor even the casualobserver. The picture, however,is complexas a whole, and the details are all too often confusingand obscure. The present study has essayedthe task ofclarifying the contoursof that picture' If this aim has been at all achieved,the book may be held justified. The central thesisof this essayis, briefly, that nearly all of the hitherto unclassifiedcultures and peoplesof the ancient Near East can be organizedinto a single, genetically inter- related, group; the membersof that group formed the basic population of Hither Asia, producedits earliestcivilizations, utrd hun" continued to this day to furnish its ethnic back- ground. The approachto the subject-and this point will bear stres- sing-has beenthreefold: archaeology,historical records,and the internal evidenceof philology, have all beenbrought into the investigation. It wilI be evident that no exhaustivetreat- ment of any of these essentiallyindependent disciplines has been attempted in the following pages. To present the sum of facts,attested and alleged,gathered from three suchdiverse fields,would haverequired a work of encyclopedicproportions; lviil PREFACE

it would have certainly exceededby far the competenceof the author. Moreover, in a work of this kind, where the main argument should be constantly kept in the foreground,one must bewarelest the details overshadowthe whole. On the other hand, a syntheticcoordination of resultsarrived. at inde- pendently in severalautonomous branches of research,could conceivablybe ventured with rather lessdiffidence. Such a study might evenprove of greaterimmediate value sincethe comparativemethod servesto broaden the scopeand topro_ vide a mutual checkfor the main results. fn courseof the discussionthe present author was con- strained to depart on a number of occasionsfrom current interpretations and to suggest solutions that appeared to derive from the available evidence more efiective support. The argumentrequired as a consequencecareful ancl complete documentation. This will accountfor the unusualprominence given to the footnotes,which have taken up one-third of the total space;they may help to justify the existenceof the book, though they will hardly enhanceits outward appearance. It is perhapsneedless to add that not all of the material as- sembled could be utilized without seriously distorting the relative importance of text and comments. However, it is doubtlesstrue that some studieshave been, unfortunately, overlooked which might have proved really relevant to the presenttheme; the wish to avoid such omissionsis more pious than simple and easy of fulfilment. Of the author's indebtednessto the many workers in the field of Oriental History and Philology the notes will bear the best and most eloquent testimony. The kind invitation of the AmericanPhilosophical Society, extended through Doctor Cyrus Adler, to preparea paper on Early Civilizations, fur- nished the incentive to present this study in writing. The encouragementand interest of professor GeorgeA. Barton have been to the writer of inestimablehelp, and a constant

I vl]l .l PREFACE sourceof inspiration. ProfessorJames A. Montgomery had the goodness,and the patience,to read the manuscript and the entire proof; it is a foregoneconclusion that this book has benefited greatly by his generosity. The author has also enjoyed the assistanceof membersof his Seminarin Ancient Oriental History: Miss M. RogersWarren was good enough to go over the entire manuscript,while Mr. Allan A. MacRae and Mr. Z.Harris read portions of the proof. One acknowledgmenthas been left for the end. To the American Schoolsof Oriental Researchthe author owesmuch of what may be new and useful in this work. The personal knowledgeof most of the territories with which the present study deals,the acquaintancewith the topographicalintrica- cies of the Central Zagros, the survey and excavation of sites containing prehistoric painted pottery, and the extensive study of the Hurrian documents from the Kirkuk area, are all due to opportunitiesprovided directly or indirectly by the Schools, in conjunction with the Guggenheim Memorial Foundation,the DropsieCollege, and the Harvard Expedition under ProfessorEdward Chiera. For more than a quarter of a century the Schoolshave beenan important factor in the field of Oriental Research. Their work was carriedon under precarious financial circumstances. Now that the leanest years have been left behind, thanks to a generousgrant from the RockefellerFoundation, it is peculiarly fitting to look back upon that period and to commemorateits scientific accomplishments. To do so is indeeda rare privilege; if the presentcontribution be thought too slender to warrant this distinction, the presumption may be mitigated by the cir- cumstancethat the act is not untimely. Philadel,phia,JuIy 15th, 1930.

tixl CONTtrNTS

CHAPTER I

THE BACKGROUND

-{ncient boundaries greatly extended-Intimate contacts between earlv civilizations-Confusing ethnic conditions in the third millennium- A large group of peoples awaiting further identification-Kret- schmer's study of pre-Grecian place-names and the decipherment of Elamite by Heinrich Winkler-Non-Semitic languages preserved in the cuneiform script-The "Caucasian" hlpothesis alluring- Caucasian philology in an embryonic state-The valuable work of Adolf Dirr-Hasty conclusions of Caucasian scholars-The theories of N. Marr untenable-The need for a useful designation to replace '(Caucasian"-Circumspect application of the term "Japhethite" proposed-Premature conclusions of Trombetti-Philological and archaeological results to be coordinated-The distribution of First and Second Aeneolithic (Susa I and II)-Lines of investieation converge in Anatolia-Numerous preliminary studies essential- Scope of present work limited to Mesopotamia and immediate neighbors

CHAPTER II

ELA},{ AND SUMER IN THE EPIGRAPHICAI SOURCES

The designations for Elam-The nature of the epigraphical material- Phonetic peculiarities-The subject suffixes-Elam in Sumero- Akkadian sources-Ceaseless wars with Sumer and Akkad-The fall of Sumer-The testimony of tradition-The king lists largely vindicated by recent finds-The Awan Dynasty of Elamite origin- Wars with Elam traced back to First Dynasty of Kish-Philological evidence-The "prediluvian" place-namespredominantly Elamite- Names ending in ah and ir-Awan and Awak identical-The pre- Sumerian population of Lower Mesopotamia-Names ending in a sibilant-The internal evidence of Sumerian dialects-Phonetic traces of apre-Sumerian substratum-Eme Ku and Eme Sol-Pho- netic correspondences-A probabie labiovelar in the northern dialect -Eme Sal' localized in Akkad-The origin of the name "Sumer"- Suggestive traces oI palatalization-Recapitulation 26 r 'l txr.l CONTENTS

CHAPTER III

THE EARLIEST CIVIIZATIONS OF THE NEAR EAST

The oldest strata of Musyan-The First Style of Susa-Susian pottery- Other First Aeneolithic sites-The extraordinary expansion of First Aeneolithic-Southern and Nothern Mesopotamia-The First Style probably of sub-Caucasian origin-The remarkable agreement between archaeological and philological data-The problem of Jem- det Nasr-Second Styirlts characteristics and distribution- Significant western connections-Jemdet Nasr only superficially Sumerian-Original home of SecondAeneolithic-Ethnic representa- tives-The evidence from Tepe Gawra-Common ultimate origin of both styles-Proto-Elamites, Sumerians, and Semites-First Aeneolithic supplanted-Simultaneous appearance of the Second Style and of the Sumerians-Temporary political impasse-Su- merian contributions 59

CHAPTER IV THE LIILLU AND THE GUTI

The peoples of the Central Zagros-The valley of Shehrizor-The Lullu in the third millennium-Late: history-Lullu and Elamite place- names related-The labial ending-The spread of the Lullu-The Dynasty of Gutium-Gutian personal names-The name "Lagash" -Phonetic peculiarities-Alleged relationship of Gutians and Indo- Europeans-The documentary basis for the theory reviewed- The myth of Gutian blondness-The application of the word namru-Gtftians in Assyria-References in Assyrian annals-The Guti and the Qurti-The Qurti and the Kurds-The antiquity of the Kurds-The sufix hi-The Kurds originally a Zagros-Japhe- thite people 87

CHAPTER V

THE KASSITES AND THE HURRIANS

Foreign rulers in the second millennium-The Kassites-The language of the Kassites-Ethnic affiliations-The Hurrians-The name "Subartu" a grographical term-The "Mitanni"-The Hurrians in the archives of Boghazkoi-Horites and Hurrians-The Hurrians in Palestine-Hanigalbat, Mitanni, Subartu, and Hurri-The philo- logical position of Hurrian-Relationship with the Elamites-The evidence of Hurrian proper names-Origin of the name "Hanigal- bat"-Hurrian words and formatives-Hurrians as the western counterpart of the Elamites-Hurrian elements in Sumer and Akkad Ixul CONTENTS

-Important traces in the First Dynasty of Kish-The Hurrian- Elamite group the original population of Mesopotamia-The Hur- rian substratumin Palestineand Syria-Hurrians and Assyrians- Palestineand Babylonia-Prediluvian kings and patriarchs-West- ern versions of the Gilgamesh Epic-The names of the predi- luvian patriarchs not derived from Babylonia-Habiru and Hurrians 120

CHAPTER VI OTHER CONTACTS_CONCLUSION Anatolia and Armenia-The pre-Indo-EuropeanAnatolians-The posi- tion of Haldian-The oldestcivilizations in the lands of the Fertile Crescent-The third ethnic element of ancient Eurasia-Fusions with Semites,and Indo-Europeans-Cultural dependence,and un- usual tenacity of physical characteristics-The basic population of the Near East-Its rdle in Mesopotamianhistory greatly under- estimated-Long periods of Japhethite domination-The ageJong strugglefor the Fertile Crescent t64 BIBLIOGRAPHY r79 INDEX 191

lxruJ CHAPTER I THE BACKGROUND

NCIENT Oriental History is, in the presentsense of the term, a discipline of ever changing, ever increasing scope. The numerousgaps in its structureare being gradually trlled, and its beginningsare constantly moved back and down by the busy spade of the excavator. What was the most ancientEast of yesterda.yconstitutes at presentan advanced chapter in the history of early civilizations, which have been male articulate through the researchesand discoveriesof the last few decades. Today the origins of Oriental history lie largely within a period that until recently was left almost to prehistoric research. The age of Hammurabi, ".rtireiy the time of the XIIth Dynasty of Egypt, the Third Minoan period, appear to us now as comparatively modern, although it is not so long ago that the turn of the third millennium was rvithin the realm of legend rather than of history' A round millennium has thus been added to the scopeof historical investigation,and the present decadeis mainly responsible for this considerableextension.l It is natural, then, that our traditional conception of the r6le and distribution of the oldest cultural centersshould re- quire modification. Not that Mesopotamia,Egypt, and the A"g.un, can be displacedfrom the positions which they have

1 A very good illustration is furnished by our recent change of attitude perfectly towards the First Dynasty of Ur. As late as 1920,B' Meissnerwas uns justified in writing: "Namen wie Mesonnipad'aoder Meskiognunnasagen ,'orlaufig noch niihts." (Babylonienunil Assyri'enI 23') Today l\{esanni- of padda iJ a well-known historical personality thanks to the splendidresults the Ur excavations. tll T,TESO POT A M I A N ORIGI N S hitherto held; but the center of gravity is shifting, slowly and almost imperceptibly,and seatsof civilization are begin- ning to appear on the peripheries. Eastern Anatolia, Ar- menia,Elam, and India, cannotnow be kept out of the exclu- sive circle of ancient cultures. It is as yet far too early to realize the full implication of this enonnous extension of ancient boundaries;2but the appearanceof so many new ele- ments makes a preliminary rearrangement of the available material, and a slight shifting of emphasis,not only desirable, but imperative. Perhapsthe most valuable contribution of modern archae- ologicalresearch is the establishmentofthe essentiallydynamic character of early civilizations. Neolithic man may have lived in Egypt, Crete, or in Elam, in comparativeisolation from other cultural provinces. But with the introduction of copper the tempo of life was powerfully accelerated.3 The attainments of the first aeneolithic civilizations do not remain confinedto the regionsof their originators. Thus the painted pottery of the so-calledFirst Style of Susais also represented in Mesopotamiaand in eastern Persia. The First Minoan civilization reflectsSyrian and Mesopotamianimprovements. Early contactsbetween Sumer and Egypt can now hardly be denied by anyone. Migrations due to climatic conditions, wars, trade connections,all of thesecontributed to a more or less intimate interrelationshipbetween the various members of the ancientworld at the beginningof the CopperAge. If we are, therefore,to gain an insight into conditions at

'A popular account of the radical enlargementof the historical horizon in recent years is given by V. Gordon Childe in his book on The Most Ancienl Eosl (New York, 1929). Childe is not a specialiston this particularsubject, but his summary of the latest archaeologicalresults provides a useful intro- duction to a very extensivefield of study. 3On the revolutionary effect which the coming of copper had upon the earliest civilizations, seethe admirable account of Frankfort ithis Studiesin Eorly PotteryoJ the Near EastII 5 fi (London,1927). 12l THE BACKGROAND the very beginningof history, we must attempt to differen- tiate, as clearly as it is possibleat the present state of our knowledge, between the individual cultural groups. For the foundations laid in those early days appear to have persisted, in most cases,long into later, one might say modern, times. New elementsmake their appearance,especially in the second millennium; someof the old factorsdisappear from the scene. But the effect,the contributions,of thosepioneering days are clearly distinguishable in the later settings, regardlessof the unceasingethnic changesand political realignments. Before the discussionis continued,a few words may be in place with regard to cultural and linguistic designations. As is well known, namesemployed to signify a certain linguistic group are alsoused, often quite indiscriminately,as the terms for related cultures, and even for ethnic connotations. We read about Indo-Europeanlanguages and peoples,or about Hamitic linguistic and cultural elements. Now it is quite true that a group known to us as the Sumeriansspoke a language peculiar to themselves,and possesseda civilization which was in many important detailsvery differentfrom that, let us say, of the Egyptians. Furthermore, to judge from Sumerian monuments,the physicalcharacteristics of the peoplemarked them often as differentfrom their variousneighbors. We hear thereforeabout theSumerianlanguage,aswellas of the culture and raceof the Sumerians. In the strictestsense of the term, horvever,only the first usageis tenable: the morphological characteristicsof the Sumerianspeech are sufficientlydistinct ro mark it from unrelatedlinguistic groups,like Akkadian or Elamite. But in the caseof culture there is no sirnilarclean- cut line of demarcation. It is often impossible to decide n-hethera given cultural peculiarityof SouthernMesopotamia is due to Akkadians, Sumerians,or Elamites. The question becomeseven more complicatedwhen the abovethree groups are to be differentiatedas racial stocks. In the first place,our t3l MESOPOTAMIAN ORIGINS data about the Sumeriansor the Elamites are not complete enoughin this respectlmoreover, racial intermixture is sureto have played a prominent part in moulding the physical type of the early inhabitantsof Sumer. Under thesecircumstances a uniform terminology is obviously a difficult matter. And it must not be forgotten that in the caseof the Sumerianswe are dealing with a type whose various characteristics are much more distinctivethan thoseof other ancientgroups. In short, absolute homogeneity of language, culture, and race, is vir- tually impossiblein a civilized community that is in touch with the outside world. The three elements mentioned above may often remainconcentric, so to speak;they never coincide completely.a If it is necessary,nevertheless, to retain a commondesigna- tion for the three concepts,it is only in order to avoid greater confusion by introducing additional labels. We must, how- ever, understandit quite clearly that terms like "Hamitic," or "sumerian" are usedprimarily to denotedefinitely related linguistic groups; the same narnesmay also be applied more generally to the cultures attested for the speakersof those languagesby material and literary remainsl and lastly, they can be employed, but only with the greatest circumspection, to refer to special physical characteristics which may be demonstratedas common to the majority of such speakers.s Theseremarks are doubtlessobvious to most studentsof the subject. Still, scientific literature shows many instances wherethe abovedistinctions are disregarded,and wherethese terms are not used with sufficientprecision; I may be par- doned, therefore, for dwelling somewhat on such rather elementarydetails.

{ For definitions of the above terms the reader may be referred to the introductory chapter by J. L. Myres in Cambrid.geAncient History I (New York, 1924). 5 Seealso Frankfort, Slud.iesI 72 L t4l THE BACKGROUND

An ethnic map of the ancient world at a given period of the third millennium, reconstructed and pieced together on the basis of the available sources,would produce the impression of very chaotic conditions. fn Mesopotamiawe shouldfind the more or less defined Sumeriansand Akkadians, probably with an addition of Amorite elements. In the north-eastwe should encounterthe Elamites,the Lullu, and the Guti, to- gether with a host of less distinct mountain tribes. In the north therewould be "Assyrians" and Subareans,or Hurrians. Syria and Asia Minor would be representedby a number of West-semitic and Anatolian groups. Then we should come upon the Egyptians, the Cretans, the people of the mainland of Greece, with nurnerous branches and sub- divisions. Clearly,no adequatepicture of the period couldbe obtainedon an ethnic basis. No wonder,then, that works ort ancient history have been dealing, instead, in terms of culture. Here the sectional division producesmore clarity. We speak of the cultures of Egypt, Mesopotamia, and of the Aegean section. The linguistic correspondentsfor the first trvo give us Hamitic and Semitic, and the added advantage of this terminology is that Libya, the Sinaitic peninsula,Pales- tine, and Syria, are also includedin suchgeneral connotations. -{,nother step gives us the Hamitic and Semitic types which, as anthropologiststell us, are representativeof the Mediter- ranean race. The Aegeansection, on the other hand, must remain ill-defined,as there is no singlewell-known linguistic family that may be definitely connected with the material culture of the district. As for the Elamites and the various other Mesopotamian outsiders (including eastern Anatolia and Armenia), they have been doomed to remain unclassi- nable,since they do not boast the comparativecultural unity of the Aegean. The Sumeriansare a group apart, and the Indo-Europeans,who becomeprominent in the secondmillen- [-(] MESOPOTAMIAN ORIGINS nium,6 are taken care of rather well. Their linguistic affilia- tions are well known, and the dominant racial type of the group is connected by anthropologists with the Nordic element.T With the better defined groups, such as the Hamites, Semites,Sumerians, and Indo-Europeans,out of the way, we are still confronted with a long and continuous chain of peoples,that extendsfrom Elam, through Upper Mesopotamia and Anatolia,into the Aegeanlands and beyond;these peoples and tribes are as yet in need of further identification. The problemis oneof greatinterest and of considerableimportance, and it has occupiedthe minds of numerousscholars since the end of the past century. Their researches,carried on often independently and from sevcral different angles,have served to sheda great deal of light upon the question,and have made it possibleto combinethe numerouselements scattered along this wide belt into severalinterconnected groups. The first approach to the problem was on a philological basis. The study was taken up simultaneouslyat both ends of the line, in the Aegean and in Elam, although neither group realized at first that there might be the remotest con- nection between the two termini. The starting point at the western end was a closer scrutiny of the pre-Grecian place namesin the Aegeanregion. In the easternterminus atten- tion turned to the secondcolumn of the Achaemenidtrilingual inscriptions, which was later to be identified as Elamite. It is an interesting coincidencethat the first reliable results in both fieldswere published in the sameyear, 1896. P. Kretschmer's Einleitung in d.ieGeschichte der griechischenSprache demon- stratedbeyond the possibilityof disputethat the greaterpart

6 On the possibility of the appearanceof the so-calledproto-Indo-Europeans in the third millennium, seebelow. 7 For a discussionof the white racesof man see Myres, CAE I 28 fi., and W. H. Worrell, A Sludy of Racesin theAncient Near Eost (Cambridge,1927). t6l THE BACKGROAND of the Aegean toponl'rnic material, for which there are no satisfactoryGreek or Indo-Europeanetymologies, had plaus- ible analogain Anatolian placenarnes. Heinrich Winkler, on the other hand, suggested,in his study of the Elamite inscrip- tions, the theory that the languagein questionhad elements in commonwith the large linguistic group that is represented primarily in the Caucasusarea and is referred to as the "Caucasian" family of languages.s Both views have since been further elaborated,and to a certain extent modified' The study of the Aegeanand Anatolian connectionshas been continued among others by Ficke and Sundwall;lo in the Elamite field, in which the patient labor of P. Scheillt has considerably enriched the inscriptional apparatus, fu.rther progresshas been noted, thanks to the studies of men like Hiising,l2Bork,ra and Kcinig.l{

6 Cf. Heinrich Winkler, Die Sprache der aweiten Columne d,erd'reisprachigen I nscltriften und. ilas Altai'sche (Breslau, 1896). e August Fick, Vorgriechische Ortsnamen ols Quelle Jiir ilie Vorgeschi'chte Griechenland.s (Gcittingen, 1905); Hattid.en und. Danubier in Griechenland (Gdttingen, 1909). Both monographs are now antiquated in view of the decipherment of the archives of Boghazkoi and the consequent rnodification of the term "Hittite." t0 Joh. SundwalI, Die einheimischen Namen der Lyki'er nebst einem Verzeich' nisse kl,einasiatischer Narnenstiirnme (Leipzig, l9l3). The author's attempt to connect all Anatolian names known frorn Greek sources with Lycian tribes is certainly unjustified. Cf. also P. Kretschmer, "Der Name der Lykier und andere kleinasiatische Vdlkernamen," Kleinosiatische Forschttngen I (1927) 1-18, and F. Bork, Skitze d,esLtikischen (Leipzig, 1926). u M6moires de la D6l6gation en Perse, w. II, III, V, VI, X, XI' XVU. 12For more than thirty years Hiising has been contributing to the scientific periodicals numerous articles on Elamite. Of his monographs may be men- tioned, Die Sprache Eloms (Breslat 1908); "Die elamische Sprachforschung," Jlemnon IV (1910), pp. 5-40; Die einheimischen Quellen zur GeschichteElams (,Leipzig, 1916); cf. also his study eneitled "Der Zagtos und seine Vtilker," Der AIte Orien, (AO) IX (1908), nos. 3-4. Hiising's work is invariably stimu- Iating even if it often fails to prove convincing. For a deeper understanding of the intricate problems of Elamite philology Hiising's publications are of greatest importance. riCf. the bibliography in Hiising's QueIIen,3T f., and the article "Elam B t7l MESOPOTAMIAT{ ORIGINS

Since the beginning of the present century new avenues havebeen opened for the study of the easternas well asthe west- ern part of the "unidentifiedbelt." In both casesit is the cu- neiform recordsthat have helped to swellthe availablesources. On the one hand we see the appearanceof new linguistic units such as the Hurri-Mitanni, and the Haldian or Vannic. It is very significant that both these languages have dis- closedaffinities with someof the modern Caucasiantongues.l5 On the other side of the line, the most notable achievement has been,of course,the deciphermentof the recordsfound in the archivesof Boghazkoi. They are composedin sev- eral languages,thus bearing eloquent witness to the exist- ence of a variety of linguistic and ethnic elementsin ancient Anatolia.l6 But if we disregardthe Akkadian and Sumerian influences,which naturally followed the adoption of the cunei- form script, and if we further eliminate the superimposed Indo-European elements, the two main ethnic stocks that can be postulated for central and eastern Anatolia on the basis of the new inscriptional evidence,prove to be proto- Hittite and Hurrian. Here we have clearly a bridge b,etween the East and the West. The Hurrians are known to have penetratedinto the region east of the Tigris, and even into Sumer,not to mentionSyria and Palestine;17the proto-Hittites gravitate more definitely towards the West and link up with Aegeanelements. At the same time, cognatefeatures have beenrecognized in both groups. Even if we arenot asyet in a

(Sprache)" which Bork has contributed to the Reallerikon der Vorgeschichle (RI/) III (1925),pp. 70-83. raFr. W. Konig, Drei altelamischeStelen (Leipzig, 1925): K6nig is also the editor of the CorpusInscriptionunt' El'amicanrm (Hannover, 1926fr.). 15Cf. ch. V. and VI. 16See Forrer, "Die Inschriften und Sprachendes flatti-Reiches," ZDMG LXXVI (1922)t7+-269, andHrozn! "Uber die Vdlker und Sprachendes alten Chatti-Reiches,"B oghazhoi, S tud.ien V (1920). 17For further details cf. ch. V. t8I THE BACKGROUIVD position to prove a geneticrelationship between proto-Hittite and Hurrian, we must assumevery extensiveinterpenetration. Linguistic evidence has thus helped to illuminate very markedly the long road from Elam to the Aegean,and further westwards. Even a scholar of Kretschmer's reputation has suggestedconnections between Elam and Sicily, on purely philological grounds.l8 For the present, however, judicious scepticism is absolutely essential for the sober evaluation of the ancientlinguistic material,which has been so suddenlyand substantiallyaugmented. Our studiesin this field are still in an embryonicstate, and mature judgment must await a more thorough sifting of the available data. In the meantime we must look to other quartersfor further light on the subject. We have seenthat our ancient sourcespoint to the Caucasus as the proba,ble center of their modern analogues. It is relevant, therefore, to inquire what aid and encouragement may be expectedfrom that side. For if Caucasianphilology could furnish results that tally with those of the Hurro-Elam- ite and Aegeo-Anatolian disciplines, the chain of evidence rvould be practically complete for a positive identification of this enormous ancient group. Unfortunately, conditions are not yet favorable for such an ideal solution. Before presentingthe Caucasianside, I should like to sum up the reasonswhy the Caucasianclaims are bound to meet rvith a warm reception on the part of scholars. The main families of languagesnow spoken by members of the white

18P. Kretschmer, "Die protoindogermanische Schicht," Glotta XIV (1925 pp. 300-319. Cf. especially p. 319, n. 1, where attention is called to the fact that the Sicilian port Artrrlp4 lay near to the territories of the Elymites ("Etrupor or 'Etrutrra?or)and that the two names recall the Asiatic Elamites and Lullubi. These parallels are indeed striking, but I doubt whether they are due to any- thing more than coincidence. For Elam was only the Semitic and not the native name for the country north-east of Sumer, and it is improbable that the Sicilian Elymites were indebted for their own name to Semitic sources. Cf. ch. IL tel M ESOPOTA M I A I{ ORIG/AIS race are, as is well known, the Hamito-Semiticand the fndo- European,together with a third group usuallylisted as "Cau- casian"" Hamito-Semitic is connected by anthropologists with the Mediterranean branch of the white race, while Indo-Europeanis derived from an origina[y Nordic center.le The remajininggroup of pure whites is generally designatedas Alpine. Now a largeportion of the Alpine stockis notablefor its hypo-brachycephalic skulls; to that group the term "Ar- menoid"is almostuniversally applied. Incidentally,the people with abnormally short skulls are found primarily in Armenia, as the name implies, and also in the Caucasusand in Anato- lia.20 Accordingto a recent theory, the entire Alpine branch is said to haveoriginated in the Armenian highlands.2l The hypothesis that Aegean-Elamiteelements have sur- vived among the modern Caucasianswould thus solve with one stroke the whole problem of the "unidentified belt." Correspondingto the Hamito-Semitic Mediterraneans,and the Indo-EuropeanNordics, we shouldhave a third group of CaucasianAlpines, which is to include,according to the advo- catesof this view, not only the Aegeans,Anatolians, Elamites, Hurrians, Haldians, and their various relatives,but also the Philistines,Etruscans, Iberians, Ligurians, Basques,etc. In short, any doubtful Europeanor Near-Easternwhite becomes automatically Caucasoid. The slmmetrical juxtaposition of racial and linguistic divisions is in this manner beautifully established. I have outlined briefly this all-embracingpanacea not with

re This does not imply, of course, that all the peoples that use Indo-European languages are members of the Nordic branch, but merely that the Indo-Euro- pean speech originated with the so-called Nordics. However, racial groupings are exceedingly uncertain, as may be gathered from the fact that the physical anthropologists themselves are not in accord with one another as regards such classifications. Cf.. CAH I28 fr. 'zoCf. F. v. Luschan, Voelker,Rassen, Slrachen,S5 fi. (Berlin, 1922). rr J. L. lVlyres, CAH I62.

[10] THE BACKGROUND a view to ridiculing it, but in order to warn againstits alluring plausibility. On the face of it, the connectionbetween the ancient Aegeansand eastern highlanders,with the modern Caucasians,is not only possiblebut even highly probable. One might add also the ethnological argument basedupon the occurrenceof Armenoid types on Hittite and north Syrian monumentq,and further deducedfrom the finding of some hypo-brachycephalic skulls in Mesopotamia,22and even in Egypt.rt But all of this doesnot entitle us to claim that the relationship in question has been establishedsatisfactorily on philologicalgrounds. For this an entirely different set of evidenceis required,and such evidencehas not yet beenpre- sented. In fact, it cannot be adduced for a long time to come,owing to the presentstatus of Caucasianphilology. When one fust examinesthe term "Caucasianlanguages," onenaturally expectsto find herea group of interrelatedmem- bers comparableto Semiticor Indo-European. This impres- sion is not borne out upon further examination. The Cau- casusis a district where,within a comparativelysmall area, severaldozens of languagesare used. After the Indo-Euro- pean and Turco-Tartar dialectshave been eliminated, there still remains an alarmingly large number of speech-unitsthat require classification. To add to the existing difficulties, few of thoselanguages possess written records,and thesedo not go back more than a few centuries. For many individual mem- bers of the group, griunmars and glossariesare available, thanks to the industry of severalRussian scholars. But the rvork is very uneven in value, and a good many dialectsare still imperfectly recorded. Under these circumstances,a comparativegrammar of the Caucasianlanguages that shall

22Cf. Langdon,Ercatations at Kish (Pais, 1924),p.64, and the appendix b1'Buxton,ib.124. %CAH I244 fr. The "Caucasian" origin of the Eglptians is claimedby Petlie, AncientEgyPt,1926,4l fr.

[ 11] MESOPOTAMIAN OR/G/NS

be on the scientificlevel of similar Indo-Europeanor Semitic works,is for the presenthardly possible. As a matter of fact, we had to wait until the year t928 before the less ambitious, but most urgently needed, introduction to the subject of Caucasianlanguages could be produced. Now that we have Adolf Dirr's excellent Einfi.ihrung in das Studi,om der kau- hasischen Sprachen,2awe can realize how far Caucasian philology must still travel beforeit becomesa reliable guide for the student of comparativephilology, not to say for the pur- poseof ethnologicaldeductions. Dirr finds among the Caucasianlanguages.three large and distinct groups: the southwestern,which includes Georgian; the northwestern,which comprisesCircassianl and lastly, the northeasterngroup centeredaround the CaspianSea. These three divisions, we are told, may ultimately prove to be genet- ically related; for the present they must be kept strictly apart.25 It is obvious from the precedingthat, from the point of view of a philologist,the term "Caucasianlanguages" is not much more illuminating than "Asiatic languages," or the like. If the three Caucasianstocks should ever prove descendedfrom a single source,the phonetic system of proto-Caucasianwill have to be abstracted,and only then shall we be justified in comparinga given ancient language,or remnants thereof, with the Caucasian group as a whole. Whether this shall everbe cannotbe decidedbefore many more yearsof intensive work have beendevoted to the subject. I would not attempt to minimize the importance of the studies in which Elamite or Hurrian have been plausibly connectedwith individual Caucasianlanguages. It is per- fectly possibleto demonstratethat the structuratrprinciples of Elamite morphology have no satisfactory parallels in Semitic

2aFor further bibliography cf. pp. 379-380of the above work. 5 Ib. pp. 1 fi. l12l THE BACKGROUND or in Indo-European,but that they resemblein this respectone of the known Caucasiangroups. Somewhatsimilarly, Sumer- ian is demonstrablyagglutinative, and it matters very little that its relatives are yet to be discovered among the other agglutinativetongues. But it is an altogetherdifferent mat- ter to singleout a word or two from somemodern Caucasian speech-centerin order to compare it triumphantly with ran- dom wordsscattered all over Europeand Hither Asia, building on this slenderstructure weighty ethnic and racial theories. Yet this is preciselywhat the more exuberantpan-Caucasian- ists havebeen doing in recentyears.2s This is an important distinctionand it cannotbe emphasized too strongly. An examplewill perhaps serve to bring out the point more clearly. The most extremeadvocate of the pan- Caucasianschool is undoubtedly the Russo-Georgianscholar NicholasMarr. His conclusionshave been summedup ir, a pamphlet, which is now available in a German translat;on under the title: Der japhetitische Kaukasus und das dritte ethnische Element im Bil,dungsprozessder mi.ttell(indischen Kultur.21 The title speaks for itself, and the general thesis is probableenough, as we have seen. But it is Marr's method that no trained scholar can possibly take seriously. The author starts with the assumptionthat Semiticand Caucasian (which he calls Japhethite) are related. To establish this theory he has deviseda set of very obscurephonetic rules. So obliging is his phonetic system that by the simple expedient of the applicationof theserules, he provesto his own complete satisfaction that the names for Philistines, Crete, Corsica, Sardinia, Pyr(h)enees, Britain, Etruscans and Pelasgians, have all the sameelement Ot) in common.28 It follows that

26Cf. e-g., the article by A. Wirth entitled "Kasische Forschungen," in Ifemnon III (1909-10),pp. 1-48. A sounderview is taken by Th. Kluge, ib.,169ft.. 27Published in Berlin, 1923. 28.Ib.,pp. 16 f. t 13l M ESOPOTA M I A I{ ORIGIIV S the Caucasianshad much to do with all of the abovepeoples and countries. Little further comment is required. If we had proto-Caucasianand proto-Semiticto operate with, one could perhapsunderstand this fanciful flight of a man with a highly speculativeturn of mind. As it happens,we do not even know that the Caucasiangroups themselvesare at all related. Marr's work is likely to prejudice students rather than to gain adherents. If the Caucasianhypotheses still retain their attractiveness,it is in spite of. their most radical advocates,and not becauseof them.2e The one useful contribution that Marr has made in his theorizingis the introduction of a serviceablename. It will havebecome evidentbythis time that ever!generalreferenceto the linguisticand ethnic elementsunder considerationis made cumbersomebecause of the lack of a convenientand univer- sally understoodlabel. Our "unidentifiedbelt" has beenbad enough. Scholarshave tried to get around the difficulty by introducing a numberof new terms,or by modifying someold ones; they have all had little success. Thus Hommel's "Alarodians" is based on the Greek rendering of. Urarlu, or Armenia,3oand is properly applicableto but one peopleout of

2eIt may be that I have expressed myself too strongly on this point. That Marr is a scholar with vision and foresight can hardly be denieC, His tireless industry has gained for him the admiration of his associates and his students. According to Tseretheli ("fR,4S, 1916: p. 57) Marr has correctly appraised the non-Indo-European elements in modern Armenian. Cf. also R. Bleichsteiner, "Kaukasische Sprachen,'r RV VI, 261. He has also made important contri- butions to the study of Haldian, though his transliteration and translation of the latter have not met with the approval of other students of Haldian; cf. Tseretheli, Die neuen llaldischen Inschriften des Ki;ni.gs Sard,urs aon Urorlu (Heidelberg, 1928), p. III. The fact remains, however, that Marr's method is unscientific, and that his conclusions are strongly influenced by his beliefs rather than by his results. See Dirr, Einfiihrung, p. YI. 30Fr. Horrrmel, Ethnologie und Geographie des Alten Orients (Mlnich, 1926), pp. 7, 512. It rnay be added in this connection that Hommel was one of the first to appreciate the importance of the "Caucasian" languages for the ancient history of the Near East (cf. 0.c.,p.34). IJrisEthnologie is a stupendous work

[ 11] THE BACKGROUND so many. "Armenoicls" suffersfrom the same shortcoming, though it may be useful as a racial term' "Aegean," "Ana- toliai," "Elamite," etc. also substitute a part for the whole' ,,Highlanders"commits us to placingthe sceneof our investiga- justified tions in mountainouszones' and this is not always by the facts.31 The name which has perhapsthe greatestvogue proves equally is "Caucasian." But upon examination it inadequate. In the first place,it is a definite and restricted geographicalterm, scarcelyapplicable to Mesopotamiaor to t'r"i".- l\{oreover, it is already monopolizedfor an entirely different purpose' being employed to designate, however incorrectly, the entire white race' Even Caucasian philo- Iogiansin the restrictedsense of the term have found it neces- sa"ryto introduce a further distinction by apocopatingthe word into Casite;32this on the other hand, might get us in trouble is with the MesopotamianKassites. Clearly, a useful name not to be found amongany of thoselisted above' Marr seemsto have solved the problem satisfactorily by in the reviving the Biblical Japheth. Semand Ham have been hurness-fora long time, and the third brother can also be of service. we neednot of courseadhere to the division given

iawhichtheoldmasterhascollectedanenormousamountofvaluableinforma. ety'mologies tion. Unfortunately, however, Hommel is often iond of suggesting this drawback the that have little regard for phonetic laws. In spite of Ethnotrogieis a verY useful work. fr' Frankfort (Antiquories tr Foi the "Highland Zone" see CAH I 57 JottnalVIII(1928)217fi.)usestheterm.,HighlandCulture''fortheFirst also applied to Civilization of Susa. Curiously enough, the old Sumerians however' this l.lam the term "Highland" (NiM). If used in a wider sense, place, not all members Cesignation is likely to cause confusion. For in the first oit"nutg.oopoccupiedthehill-countryinhistoricaltirnes.Inthesecond II the tenn pl"ce, Flnkiort would apply to the civilization-related to Susa i.Lo*lurrd culturel'r si.rc" ih" bearers of this latter culture are ethnically of the :elated to the people of Susa I, as will be shown below, the separation rro by means of difierent names would also be misleading' !t Wirth. MemnonLLI|ff. l1sl M ESOPOTA M I A T{ ORIG I I{ S

in the table of nations as listed in GenesisX. The Semites and Hamites of modern scholarship do not correspond at all with the Biblical classifications.3sThe Indo-Europeansare a well establishedgroup, and no confusionneed be fearedfrom that quarter. "Japhetic" would then be inclusive of all the elementshitherto considered,which are not already placed with the Hamites, Semites,fndo-Europeans, or with any other well-definedgroup such as the Altaic, Dravidian, and the like. The nameneed not be committal geographically,Iinguistically, or in any other way; its main value would lie in the fact that it is indefinite and flexible;its sensewould be primarily nega- tive, as the term would designate elements not located else- where. I am not unawareof the objectionsthat may be raised against it. But this is no lesstrue of other similar designa- tions. We hardly ever stop to considerhow clumsy, and alto- gether inexact "fndo-European" happensto be, not to men- tion "fndo-Germanic."3a On the whole, the term ,,Japhetic', or "Japhethite" appearsto be preferableto any other name hitherto proposed. For more definite specificationswe can use Eastern Japhethite in dealing with Mesopotamia and Elam, Western Japhethite in connection with Anatolia and the Aegean,and the like. But it must be understoodclearly that, for the time being at least, no geneticrelationship can be implied by thesedesignations. ft cannot be emphasizedtoo strongly that in a study of ethnic relationships premature assumptions are more likely to retard the progressof the work rather than to advanceit. This is especiallytrue of the purely philological part of the 33 As is well known, according to the classifcation of Genesis, we should have to consider as Hamites the Canaanites, the l{ittites, and even Nimrod who is introduced as a Mesopotamian hero. On the other hand, the Elamites are listed among descendants of Shem. Philology has therefore borrowed the names only, while largely disregarding the ethnic data. 3a With the discovery of the Tocharian branch, even the geographic signifi- cance of the name "Indo-European" ceased to be adequate. [16] THE BACKGROUND inquiry. Unfortunately, scholars have not always been careful enough to guard against the pitfalls that lurk behind hasty conclusions. It is certainly strange to find in the work of a linguist like Trombetti misleadingstatements, which are likely to produce the impression of well ascertained results whereonly the surfacehas really beenskimmed. This is what Trombetti has to say in his El,ementidi Glottol'ogiog5with regard to the further relationsof the "Caucasian" Ianguages:"The latest studieshave tendedto demonstratethat with the origi- nal Caucasian group the following languages, which I shall placein threeclasses, are more or lessdlrectly connected: I. 1. Haldian or Vannic (proto-Armenian). 2' Mitanni' 3. Elamite, and Kassiteor Caspian. 4. Hittite and Arzawa' II. 1. The languagesthat are original with Asia Minor (Lycian, Lydian, Carian, Mysian, and in addition, Pisidian, fsaurian, Lycaonian, and Cappadocian). 2. Etruscan and Lemnian. 3. Cretan. III. Iberian and Basque. All the above languages are extinct with the exception of Basque. For those of the first group we have documentsin cuneiform characters, for Hittite also is a Iocal hieroglyphic script."36 I do not feelthat this classificationcalls for many comments' The wholesale comparison with an allegedly uniform group of modern Caucasianlanguages is, as we have seen,wholly unwarranted. The grouping sufiers from a deplorablelack of precision. "Hittite" is apparently meant to comprisesuch markedly diversified dialects as the Japhetic Hattic or proto- Hittite, as well as the radically Indo-Europeanizedspeech of

si A. Trombetti, Elementiili Glollologio134 (Bologna,1922)' 36For a scholarly and soberreview of the languagesof Asia Minor seethe RV I 126- article of Joh. Friedrich entitled "Altkleinasiatische Sprachen," t+2. Cf. also the resum6 of v. christian in Reollerihon der Assyriotrogie (RL,l), "AltkleinasiatischeVcilker," pp. 7G88. t17l MESOPOTAMIAN ORIGINS the later Hittite empire.37 Misleading is also Trombetti's attempt to dismiss the numerous dialects of Anatolia, as recordedin classicalsources, with the statement that they are indigenousto Asia Minor. It has beenshown that severalof them have demonstrable proto-Indo-European affinities which Trombetti himselfnotes;38.until we are sureof the com- ponent elements,we must beware of conclusionsthat give the impressionof finality. And need I call attention to the fact that the inscriptionsof the Aegean section proper still remain a tantalizing puzzle? f have dwelt long enough on linguistic considerations. It must be evident to the unpre- judiced student that philology alone will not solve, for the time being at least,the variousand highly complicatedethnic and cultural problems that arise from the study of the ancient Japhethites. Nor is archaeologyable to do it with the material now at its disposal. Ancient remains,when tolerably abundant and complete,may enableus to reconstructa picture of the timesto which theseremains belong. But we cannot forget that cul-

37There has been considerable dificulty in determining the name by which "Hittite" was really known. Forrer has suggested the term "Kaneshite," after the old Cappadocian city of Kanesh. His reasons for introducing this term have not been found convincing. On the other hand, Hroznf bas recently shown that the adjective naii,-li, which was applied to the oficial language of Boghazkoi, was reaily connected with the name of the city.VeJoJ; he has therefore suggested for the Indo-European Hittites the general designa- tion "Neshi-tes" cf . Archi,zt Orientd.ln1,I295. The Indo-European aff.liations of "Hittite" are discussed by E. H. Sturtevant in his article ,,On the Position of Hittite among the Indo-European Languages," published in Language II 25-34. The author reaches the conciusion that Hittite was not a descendant but a sister language of proto-Indo-European, a view which was already indicated by Forrer In MDOG 6l (1921) 26. Cf. also the afore-mentioned article of Kretschmer (see note 18). Sturtevant makes in his publication the important point that the usually accepted division of the Indo-European groups into centum and satern-languagesis inexact, and that its application to Hittite is peculiarly inept (1.c.29). 38 See especially Kretschmer, I.c., and the same author's "Das z!-Suffix," a'6., 84-106. [18] THE BACKGROUND

ture, race, and language,are by no meansidentical subjects. Archaeologybecomes of decisivesignificance for ethnological purposesonly when it can be linked satisfactorilywith philo- logicaldata; then the independentresults of the two disciplines become mutually corroborative, and the validity of the con- certed evidenceis thus greatly enhanced. To what extent do archaeologicalresults from the Japhetic areas affect and supplement the linguistic data heretofore reviewed? The answerto that question need not detain us very long. Researchesof scholarslike de Morgan,sePottier,ao Rostovtzeff,arMatz,a2 and Frankfort,asto mention only the latest authorities, have provided us with the means to view the ample material from the angleof comparative archaeology. I may limit myself, therefore,to a very brief summary' reserv- ing several important details for the subsequent chapters of this study. Very reassuringin this connectionis the fact that we have in the areaunder discussiona comparatively restricted group of cultures as against a large number of languagesand dialects. On the other hand, the individuality of a given linguistic unit can be determinedwith greater precisionthan the dividing line between cultural groups; the latter shade off irequently the one into the other, and the resultsare necessarilyiess decisive' With thesegeneral reservations in mind, we may proceedto a brief review of the relationship to our problem of the civiliza-

3eJ. de Morgan, Leslremiires ciuil,isatiotrs(Paris, 1909),and his posthumous work f,o prthistoireOrienlale (Paris, 1925-27). a0E. Pottier, C1romiquepeinte de Suseet peti.tsmonumnents (MDEP,XIII), and "Une th6orie nouvellesur les vasesdes Susa," Ran-eArch^ologique #III (1926) r,sg. a1M. Rostovtzefr, Iranians and.Greeks i,n SouthRassio (Odord , 1922), and' "The Sumerian Treasure of Astrabad," fournal. of Egyptian ArchaeologyYI (re20)r-27. a2Studiu, vs. I-II, and Anti'quariesJotrlnoMll 217-235. azF. Matz, Die JrilhkretischenSiegel (Berlin, 1928). [1el MESOPOTAMIAN ORIGINS tions named after such centersas SusaI and II, Syria, Ana- tolia, and the Aegeanwith its subdivisionsin Crete and on the mainlando{ Greece. To start with the easternmostand probably oldest of these civilizations,Susa I is representedas early as the end of the fourth millennium over a wide area extending from the Habur, a tributary of the Euphrates,across Mesopbtamia and Elam, as far eastas Baluchistan. The most characteristicproduct of this civilizationis a specialtype of painted pottery, decorated with geometric motives combined with highly stylized repre- sentations of naturalistic types. Among the objects that make their appearancein this culture may be mentioned prim- tive implements of copper as well as the earliest known stamp- seals.aa In the Elamite capital the civilization of SusaI gave way to a later culture, commonlydesignated as SusaII. The earlier abstract style changesinto a pronounced realistic one; a polychrome color-schemeis in vogue, theriomorph and com- partment vases appear for the fi.rst time, and by the side of the stamp-sealwe begin to get cylinder seals. During the course of this civilization the Elamite pictographic script is introduced. This style doesnot seemto haveextended further east,but it has numerouscongeners in the west. In Mesopo- tamia we find it representedin the region of Kish, also in con- junction with a pictographic script. With the aid of the theriomorph vasesand the polychromedecoration we can trace it to Syria and even to Palestine,while Anatolia displays many relatedfeatures. The division betweenthe earlier and the later stylesis not everywheremarked as clearly,in point of time at least,as it is in Susa.as The expansionof theseearly types of painted pottery cor- respondsremarkably well with the distribution of the eastern

aaFrankfort, Stud.iesI chs. II and III. a5For further details cf. ch. IIL [20] THE BACKGROUND

Japhethites deduced tentatively on philoiogical grounds. The tracespoint to Anatolia where they becomeless distinct amongthe varietiesof typically local wares.a6But hereother threadsmay be picked up, which lead us ultimately into the Aegean. For in Crete, Cyprus, and even in the mainland of Greece,we find definiteAnatolian affinitiesinterposed between Iocal neolithic depositson the one hand, and the later ware with spiral decoration that is also characteristicfor other sectionsof Europe.aT It has been suggestedamong others that the neolithic pottery of the Aegeanshould be assigned to an early Mediterraneanpopulation, while the third stratum is probably due to the proto-Indo-Europeans.asThe middle layer with its Anatolian orientation is connectedwith the Alpine stock. fn other words,the successionof ethnic groups in that area would thus be: Hamitic (or the like), Japhe- thite, and fndo-European, primarily in the cultural senseof these terms. The above presentationhas beenextremely schematic,for which I must apologize,pleading asmy excusethe desirenot to

aGFrankfort, Studi.esII ch.III. a7ID., chs. II and IV. {8 Matz, o.c. 263 f. That in the second half of the third millennium the mainland of Greece and the Aegean islands were dependent upon Anatolia has been pointed out by J. B. Haley and C. W. Blegen in their article entitled "The coming of the Greeks," Arnerican Iownol' oJ Archaeology, >OOilI (1928) 141-154. The dfficult problem of the Achaeans has been admirably discussed in the same journal (XXXIII 206-218) by W. K. Prentice. His conclusion is that the Achaeans were not Greek at all, and that they came to Greece from southern Asia Minor. This may help to clarify the very controversial question as to whether the Greeks are mentioned in the Boghazkoi records, according to the theory of Forrer. The latter has attempted to silence his numerous critics with an article, which has recently appeared in the Kleinasiatische Forschungen ''Fiir | (1929) 252 ft. (1929) under the title die Griechen in den Boghazkoi Inschriften." A convenient r6sum6 of the Aegeo-Hittite problems is given by S. Przeworski in I*s lroblimes Myctniens et les textes Hittites (reptinted from Eos XXVIII, Lernberg. 1925). Valuable is also the same author's Stud.ja nail osiadnictwem i rolq Hetytdw w irodkowej Anatolji, (Warsaw,1929). l2tl MESOPOTAMIAN ORIGII{S have the forest obscuredby the trees. My main purposehas been to indicate the lines of reasoningwhereby the racial deductionshave beenobtained from the archaeologicaldata; for further details I must refer the reader to the afore-men- tioned authorities. On comparingthe evidenceof the linguistic sourceswith the results of archaeologicalresearches, we find that the conclu- sions tally admirably. Correspondingto the eastern and western Japhethitesas deducedon philological grounds, we find an eastern and a western cultural center disclosedfrom material remains. In both instancesAnatolia is the meeting place; and in both caseswe are still in need of further proof of a closerrelationship between the two groups. Just as the Caucasianlanguages are said to form the apex in a philological triangle, claimsare made that the Caucasianregion may hold the clue to important archaeologicalproblems. Related civilizations have been discoveredin the Kuban valley,aeand the introduction of metallurgy, the most powerful single element in the rise of proto-historic cultures, is frequently traced back to Caucasiansources.s0 The promise is now doubly alluring, owing to the combined indications of the two independentlines of study. But again a note of warning againstoverconfidence is strictly in place. The archaeologicaldeductions which I have sketchedabove are plausiblebut not definite. For one, there is here no uni- versal agreementamong scholars. The work of Frankfort, who has painted an intensely fascinating picture of early interrelations,has met with severecriticism in severalquar- ters.61 But even if we assumethat Frankfort's main results will stand the test of future investigations,the gaps in the

{e Cf. the works of Rostovtzeffmentioned above. 50Frankfort, Antiqu. J. VIIL 233f. 51Cf. Pottier, R,lR XXIII. 1-39, and v. Bissing,Archiv f iir Orientforschung v (1929\. 49-81. 1,22| THE BACKGROUND picture are still numerousand often of a seriousnature' The comparative study has barely begun, and the expeditions which are in the field at presentare bound to introduceimpor- tant modifications into our present theoretical structures' As for the agreementof the linguistic and archaeologicaldata, the two bodiesof evidenceate at best parallel only; to work out their preciseinterconnection and synchronismis still an unaccomplished task. This must be done separately in the severaldepartments of the large field;52it is a matter of many yearsof minute and painstaking work, an undertaking in which archaeologyand philology must go hand in hand'53

62G. Glotz, in his Ia Ciailisalion Egienne has coilected a number of words which though found both in Greek and in the Semitic languages do not have, he asserts, a satisfactory etymology in either family. Consequently, Glotz considers those words as originally Aegean, and this view is probably correct in a number of instances (cf. p. 441 of his book). Some of the words in question, however, are obviously good Akkadian; but I cannot go here into details' The subject is discussed by ch. Autran in an article entitled "De quelques vestiges probables, m6connus jusqu'ici, du lexique m6diterran6en dans le s6mitique d'Asie Mineure, et notamment, de Canaan," Journal Asi'atique 1926: l-79' But Autran's results are extremely doubtful; a number of his words have quite satisfactory Indo-European ety'mologies, see OLZ 1929:747 tr" On the oiher hand, it is well known that some pre-Semitic names of Palestine have interesting parallels in the Aegean area. Cf. especially, E' Meyer, Geschi'chte desAllertims (GA) I. 2 (4th ed., Stuttgart 1921), $476, and Eberhard Hommel, ,,Der Name und die Legende des Jordan in altkanaaniiischer zeit," Journal of the Society of Oriental Research (,rSOR) XI (1927) 169 fi' saArchaeological evidence of contacts between the caucasus and the Aegean has been recently presented by H. R. Hall in an article entitled "The caucasian Relations of the Peoples of the sea," Ktio >oi\Il (1928) 335-344. Hall calls has attention to the valuable work of the Russian scholar A. A. Zakharov, who stressed the importance of a number of copper and bronze statuettes frorn the Caucasus, which link up with similar objects from southern Europe' They bear remarkable resemblance to bronze-figures of warriors found in Sardinia, and they share with them the same horned helmets which the Egyptians represented as characteristic of the shorilana. The daggers from the caucasus also resem- In ble those of the shard.ana, which in turn connect with Philistine weapons. ,,the summing up Hall says that Shardana, who afterwards colonized Sardinia, and the nearly related Philistines and other sea-tribes came originally from the 1231 M ESOPOT A M I A I{ ORIGI I{ S

When thesepreliminary studieshave beensufficiently synthe- sizedin Mesopotamia,Anatolia, in the Caucasusand in the Aegean,it will be possibleto defi.nethe preciserelationship of the oldest non-Semitic, non-Indo-European,and otherwise undefinedpeoples of the ancientworld, who may be included under the commonname of Japhethites. f have tried to describein the presentchapter the general setting in order that the detailsmight appearin their proper historical perspective. In the chapters that follow an at- tempt has been made to give a connectedaccount of one of the main issuesindicated in the precedingpages: the part played by the non-Sumerianand non-Semiticpopulation of Mesopotamiaand of the adjoining lands, basedon the cunei- form sourcesand in conjunction with the archaeologicaldata. Current histories of Babylonia and of Assyria have not given the subject the amount of attention it deserves;and since they regard the problem from without rather than from within, many valuable indications have been overlooked and lost. Furthermore, our epigraphic and archaeologicalmaterial has beenenormously enriched by the most recentexcavations in Mesopotamia;this fact aloneshould make a re-examination caucasian region." The famous Phaistos disk, the representations of which seem to connect the Philistines with Anatolia, is considered by Hali a docurnent ,,Die of Lycian origin. Cf. also v. Bissing, Uberlieferung ilber die Shirdani,,' WZKM XXXIV (1927) 230-259. For the Anatolian origin of the philistines cf. Przeworski, Snd.ja 36, n. 154. .,Peoples In connection with the of the Sea,', it may be added that while the majority of scholars still upholds the theory that the Etruscans (Tur1a) came from Asia Minor, the connection of the Etruscans with the Trnia, and. the Anatolian origin of the former, have lately been questioned by v. Bissing; cf..WZKM XXXV (1928) 177 fr. On the other hand, however, there are numer- ous philological indications of Etruscan-Anatoiian contacts (cf. CAH II 400 fi.), not to speak of the rather ambiguous evidence of matriarchal conditions. For traditions of matriarchal systems in both Anatolia and northern caucasus cf. Rostovtzefi, Iranians and. Greeks,34. For Elam see F. W. Kiinig, ,,Mutterrecht und rhronfolge im alten Elam," FestschriJt iler Notionalbibtiorhek wien (1926) 529-552. I24l THE BACKGROUND desirable. Picking up the thread in Elam, we shall be able to follow the peoplesin question through the districts of Mesopo- tamia, all the way to the Mediterraneancoast. Particular attention will be paid to the question of the relationship of those peoples to their better known neighbors. Much that is not immediately relevant to this central topic will have to be omitted from the discussionif the main picture is to remain in the foreground. This much I may be allowed to anticipate: when the inquiry has been completed,the results are likely to have considerablebearing upon the problem of the oldestpopulation of the Near East.

[2s] CHAPTER VI OTHER CONTACTS-CONCLUSION

tTtHE survey of the immediate neighborsof Babylonia I and Assyria has thus been brought to an end. The investigation concernedprimarily the non_Semiticand non_ sumerianethnic elementswhose influence was felt in Mesopo- tamia from the earliest known times. The peoplesof ihe Zagros,among whom the Elamites, the Lullu, the Gutians, and the Kassites,were most prominent, have been found to constitute an eastern group, r,vhilethe Hurrians formed the westerndivision of the peoplesunder discussion. The philo_ logical material available for study was not sufficient for a final solution of the problem as regards the genetic relationship of the two groups. But scatteredindications of linguistic inier- pendencein both sectionsare so numerous,and. the connecting links are so closely interwoven, that an ultimate relation betweenthe Hurrian and Elamitic familiesmay be regardedas reasonablycertain. This cumulativeevidence is corroborated to a large extent by the results of archaeological research. Numerous historical and geographicar considerations favor the sameassumption. The probability that both the Hurrian and Elamite languageshave left structural survivals among the modern Caucasiangroup may be used,with due cautionl as a further supporting argument. And lastly, there is the somatic evidence of racial similarity between the mod.ern representativesof the two stocksin question. The thread that wasfirst picked up in Elam hasthus led us, through many paths and bypaths, to the gates of Anatolia. The problem of ethnic relations betweenthe groups which we have been studying and the peoplesof Anatolia is, strictlv [164] OTH ER CONT ACT S-CO NCLU SIO N speaking,not within our province. Nor can the questionbe settled at presentwith any approximation to certainty. I shall only take up a few paragraphsin order to indicate the generalstatus of the subject.r Beforethe arrival of the centum-Indo-Europeans,who gave the Hittite languageits Indo-Europeancharacter, large por- tions of Anatoliawere inhabited by a peoplewhose place-names contained the formatives -nd-, and -ss-.2 According to the evidence of the archives from Boghazkoi, the pre-Hittite populationof easternAnatolia consistedlargely of the Hatti, or proto-Hittites.s And finally, the non-Semitic personal namesin the Cappadociantabletsa furnish material for a lin- guistic study of the ancient inhabitants of the district of Caesarea,in easternAnatolia. Now it is probable,though not absolutely certain, that the place-nameswith -nd- and -ss-, the fragmentsof the proto-Hittite recordsfrom Boghazkoi, and the native personalnames from the Cappadociantablets, all belong to the same ethnic group, viz., the proto-Hittites. From the sundry fragments of connected texts in proto- Hittite, Forrer hasconcluded that the languagewas essentially prefixal, since suffixesdid not seemto play any part in its morphology. Bleichsteinerhas tried to find parallelsfor proto- Hittite in the north-westerngroup of the Caucasianlan- guages.s As for the onomasticmaterial, the most characteris- tic featureof the non-Semiticnames found in the Cappadocian tablets is the repetition or iteration of elementsin the same name. Theseare, briefly, the few meagerindications for the

I For a broader outline of the subject the reader may be referred to the in- ductory chapter of the present study. 2 For referencescf ib., notes 9 and 37. 3Ib., n. 16. a Cf. Landsberger, ZA XXXY (1924) 221-2, and especially F. J. Stephens, yOR Personal, Names Jrom Cu,neiJorm Inscriptions oJ Coppad.ocia, XIII-1, (New Haven, 1928). 5 Cf. his articles on "Kaukasische Sprachen," RV VI 2ffi-263. l16sl M ESOPOTA M I A N ORIGITT.S character of the pre-Hittite language or languagesof eastern Anatolia, which might be considered for comparative pur- poses. Now there is no typically prefixal languageamong the dia- lectswhich we have hitherto discussed. To be sure,there are no continuoustexts extant in Guti, Lullubian, or Kassite.6 Any one of thesedialects may conceivably,though not prob- ably, have employed pre.frxesto a notable degree. At all events,we are bound to operatein this casewith too many unknown quantities, and the resultant argumentscould not be consideredas conclusive,or even convincing. The following few details, however, are suffi.ciently interesting to deserve mention. It has been indicated in a precedingchapter that Kassite (as well as trlamite), and proto-Hittite, appear to have had severalsignificant words in common.T The stops are treated. in proto-Hittite in precisely the same way as in the Hurrian and Zagrosdialects. The sameapplies to the interchangesof liquids and nasals. The phoneticequipment of proto-Hittite included also the peculiar ll-sound. And lastly, Hurrian proper names, personal as well as geographical, employ fre- quently the elements-ii-s and -zz-, whlle -nd,-is even found in Lullu territory;e now, all these onomastic elements are

6 Unless, of course, we consider as such the personal names that consist of brief sentences, 7 See ch. V notes 9-11. Incidentally, iteration to not uncommon in the Elamitic group. 8 In reality, pronounced -ss-. s Cf. ch. IV note 21. This wide difiusion of. the -nt sufix makes me some- what sceptical of the view of Kretschmer (GlottaXIY 84-106) that the element in question may be in a1Iinstances of proto-Indo-European origin. It would be of great value to determine to what extent did the dissimilation of a long or a double dental contribute to the appearance of forms containing nt or nd, anrJ. conversely, to establish where the latter groups of sounds resulted in a double. or even simplified dental. Cf. e.g., the spellings Purushanda, purusulhtin, etc.

[166] OTH ER COI{T AC TS-CO N CLU SI ON particularly characteristicof Anatolia. The allegedrelation- ship betweenproto-Hittite and north-west Caucasianis not without interestin this connection,l0and the racial evidenceof the "Anatolian" type is not totally dissimilarfrom that of the Hurrian group. All these scattered indications cannot be entirely ignored. It is not by any meansout of the question that there existedin proto-historictimes somedegree of rela- tionship betweenproto-Hittite and its easternneighbors; but the whole matter is necessarily doubtful. The appearance of the First Aeneolithic civilization in Elam marks the end of the pro-ethnic period of Japhethite or Caucasian' Conse- quently, by the end of the third millennium, when we first encountertraces of Anatolian languages,the various branches of the original Japhetic family must have had about two thousand years of independent development. Moreover, Anatolia was apparently from very early times the meeting place of several heterogeneousgroups. The arrival of the proto-Indo-Europeansin Asia Minor is now assumedto have taken place rather early in the third millennium. Hittite is the most instructive exampleof what is likely to happen to a languagethat is the product of more than one ethnic group. Proto-Hittite may have fared similarly in an area where "Caucasians,"Semites, and Indo-Europeanswere all present in very remote times. Suspendedjudgment is, therefore, the bestpolicy under thesecircumstances. With the ancient inhabitants of Armenia,rt and of the ad- joining districts to the east, we are on much safer ground. But the available material is of late date, belonging in its entirety to the first millennium B.C.r2 It haslittle bearingon

roCf. n. 5. 11See the work of Lehman-Haupt, Armenien einst und jelzt, I and II (1910- 1926). 12Except for a small number of place-names recorded in the annals of the Middle-Assyrian kings, in connection with their campaigns against Urartu. 1167l MESOPOTAMiAN ORIGINS our main subject, except perhaps as potential evidencefor the continuity of the elements which we have studied. The pre-Indo-Europeanlanguage of Armenia was Haldian or Van- nic; it is known to us from a numberof royal inscriptions,some of which are bilinguals. The relation of Haldian to modern Armenian is approximately the same as that of proto-Hittite to the main languageof the Hittite empire. That is to say, numerousHaldian linguistic elementshave beenincorporated in Armenian, which belongsto the satem-branchof the Indo- European family. The study of Haldian has been keenly pursuedby a considerablenumber of scholars,and it is safeto say that one of the main inducementshas been actually the possiblebearing of that languageupon modern Armenian.l3 The characteristic physical type of a large number of the Armenians was evidently taken over from the Haldians. Philologically, Haldian is most clearly related to Hurrian, which is a much older language. Ungnad is in doubt only as to whether we should consider Haldian as a descendantof Hurrian, or merely as a sister language.ra This view takes perhapstoo much for granted, but the closerelationship of the two linguistic units under discussioncan hardly be denied. Just as in Hurrian, we have in Haldian a singular subject suf- fix -s (S), and a similar plural suffix (i)na. The god Teshup is sharedby both groups,in commonwith easternAnatolia. According to an admirable recent study of Tseretheli, the Haldian verb employsz as the elementwhich is indicative of the first person singular, while o has the samefunction in the third person.15 I would call attention to the fact that this is preciselythe casein Hurrian, where e.g., tan-ol-u means ,I

13For the literature on the subject cf. Tseretheli, Die neuen fialdischcn ,,Znr IwchriJten, 1, to which may be added A. Gotze, Kelischin Stele,', ZA nocrx (1929)99-128. raKulhtfragen I7 . t5O.c., pp.64-7.

[168] OTH ER CON TACT S-1OI{ CLU SI ON give (repeatedly),' and.tan-ol-a is the correspondingthird person.lo In Elamite zz signifies,quite similarly, the first p.rron singular,both as a possessiveelement and as a personal pronoun('I' and'mine';'tz Finally, the place-namesand the personal names of the northern and north-easternprovinces of the late Assyrianem- pire show numerous formations which have previously been notedin Hurrian and in the Zagrosdialects.t8 The conclusion is inevitable that near relatives of Elamites, Gutians, Lullu- bians, etc., were to be found originally all the way to the Caspian Sea. However, the relevant material belongs pri- marily, as has beenindicated, to the first millennium B'C', or in other words, to a period when the number of Iranian ele- ments is steadily on the increase. It is not always a simple task to separatein the cuneiform sourcesthe Iranian ono- mastic material from the other non-Semitic designations'tg Moreover, we can scarcelyexpect from such late recordsinfor- mation of decisiveimport as regardsour main problem' For it is in the ethnic and cultural origins that we have been prin- cipally interested; but on reaching the first millennium before our era we have left the earliest civilizations of the Near East very far behind. In point of time, the rise of the Persian empire, to give a single illustration, is nearer to the present age than to the First City of Susa. Our case,then, must presently be rested; we shall rely on what testimony we have Leen able to obtain from the long array of witnesseshitherto examined. ,< {< rr< 16Bork, MitonnisPrache48. \1Id.,rRAS 1928,68. 18Cf. especiallyThureau-Dangin, Sargon. le The first attempt at a scientific treatment oI the subject was made by ,,Die Eduard Meyer in his article on iiJtestendatierten Zeugnisseder iranischen Sprache,r.ri .1", zoroastrischenReligion," ZeikchriJtJil.r ttergleichendeS{a1h- materialhas come to light, firschungxLfi (1g0g)l_27 . Sincethen muchnew which is, ho'wever,"Indic" rather than Iranian. [16e] r-

MESOPOTAMIAN ORIGINS

In concluding,it remains to recapitulatethe most salient facts which the present inquiry has established,in order to realizewhat bearing they may have upon our approach to the problemsof the ancient East. In the fi.rstplace, it has been shown that the entire highland zone between Anatolia and Elam was in the aeneolithicperiod under the influenceof two relatedcivilizations ,which are representedin Elam by the First and SecondCultures of Susa. The plainsto the south of that highlandzone, which constitutethe so-calledFertile Crescent, belongat the start to the samecultural spheres. Correspond- ing to the distribution of the two aeneolithiccivilizations, of which the first is deeply rooted in the easternsection of the zonein question,while the secondis specializedin the west,we have the spreadof two relatedethnic branches. The eastern groupmay be identifiedwith the Elamitesand their congeners, and the Hurrians constitute the western portion. The evi- dencefor theseethnic deductionsis primarily philological, and especiallyonomatological; when linked with the archaeological data the two types of sourcesbecome mutually corroborative to a very marked extent. The constituent elementsof those two interrelated groups formed the oldestpopulation of Hither Asia, as far as we can trace it at present. Their material remains are stratigraphi- cally earlier than those of any other cultural group. Ihe place-namesthat may be safely assignedto them are,similariy, the oldestknown in theentirearea. Itisveryprobable, there- fore, that we are dealing here with the population that was indigenousto the highlandzones of the Near East. We knorv that those highlanders were neither Semitic nor Sumerian;it is equallycertain that they werenot relatedto the Indo-Europeanspeaking peoples. AII of these were clearly later arrivals. The later historical civi[zations of Mesopo- tamia, Syria, and easternAnatolia, are thus products of the

[170] OTH ER CONT ACT S-C OT{C LU SIO N fusion of native elementswith those that were superimposed upon them. Ethnically, the highlanders,whom we may now call ancient Japhethites, formed the foundation upon which the invading raceswere able to build. Culturally, the invad- ersowed a great deal,no doubt, to the original population;we have seen how highly developed were metallurgy and the potter's crafts in the two aeneolithiccivilizations' And lastly, the languagesof the oldestinhabitants of Hither Asia left their mark upon the various forms of speechthat were brought in at later periods. This is particularly true of easternAnatolia and Armenia. In Mesopotamiathis influenceis much lessin evidence,though a certaindegree of it may be safelyassumed, especiallywith regard to phonology.2o The toponymic mate- rial of the ancient Elamites and Hurrians has survived in many instancesunto our own times. In the introductory chapterof this study a generalreview was given of the problems arising from the investigation of the so-called "third ethnic element" in ancient Eurasia; that elementconsisted of peopleswhich could not be linked gene- tically with the Hamito-Semitic and the Indo-European fami- lies. It was shown how some scholarsspoke with confi'dence

20Most instructive in this respect is a comparison of the Semitic inscriptions of the Dynasty of Agade with the documents of the period of Hammurabi' The latter are generally as precise with regard to spelling as the cuneiform characters permit. But the writing of the Sargonide inscriptions is as bar- barous from the point of view of phonetics as it is often astonishingly fine as regards the external appearance of the signs. To be sure, it must have been difficult at the start to write a semitic dialect with characters designed for a difierent language. But this explanation would apply only to the very 6rst documents written in Akkadian. There can be little doubt that eariy Akkadian had a markediy un-semitic phonology, which was corrected in part by the arrival of large numbers of Western Semites. Now the early decadence of Semitic speech-sounds in Akkad can be due in part only to the Sumerians' The pre-Sumerian population of the country had undoubtedly much to do with this particular casel in fact, it has been shown that Sumerian phonology, too' was afiected by the same influences, cI. ch. II, notes 77 ff. [ 171] MESOPOTAMIAN ORIGIT{S

of a uniform "caucasian" group that is ailegedto have spread in ancient times over the wide area extendingfrom Spuin to Persia' rn connectionwith thesebord craimsan outline was given of the methodologicalfallacies from which thesetheories suffered. At the conclusionof the presentinquiry we must still distinguishclearly three separateconstituenls oi the Japh- etic group: the Aegean-Anatolianelements are not to be confusedwith the Hurrian-Elamite branches,while the speak_ ers of the modern caucasianranguages form a third division. All that can be said at present is that the Mesopotamian and Zagros Japhethites were interrelated, and that thev mav have survived to some extent among the modern ,,Cuu."r_ ians." The same applies largely to the Aegeans and their neighbors. The Hurrians may possibly have been the con_ nectinglink betweenthe Elamite and the Aegeanworlds, and. scattered indications that have been forthcoming from Ana- tolia make it appear probable that some ultimate connection between the European and the Asiastic Japhethitesis likely to be establishedin the near future. rn the meantimewe must guard againstconfusing probability with certainty. Further study of the modern Caucasianlanguages may contribute material of importance for the solution of the Japhethite problem. When it will have been definitely estabiishedthat those languagesare all derived from a common source, Cau_ casianphilology will be in a positionto castthe decidingvote. But it is hardly necessaryfor the present to anticipate so much. Each sectionof the highland zone has its own con_ tribution to make. The conclusionsto which this study has led us are of appreciableconsequence for the better under_ standingof the earliesthistory oi Mesopotamia;in fact, they help to clarify the difficult problemof Mesopotamianorigins. And sincethe first civilizationsof Mesopotamiaand of Elam are not antedatedby any other well-establishedcivilization.

11721 OTH ER CON TACTS-COT{ C LU SIU{ the earliesthistory of Hither Asiais, in a certainsense, also the beginningof history in the Ancient World. Let us seenow how the appearanceof other racesafiected the ethnic conditionsof the most ancient Near East. The basic stock of the area which extendsfrom easternAnatolia to Elam, and also of the adjoining plains to the south, consisted of the peoplefrom whom the Hurrians and the Elamites were descended. That group formed a branch of the so-called Alpine race, and spoke a languagewhose nearest relations must be sought in the modern Caucasus. Culturally it was characterized, in very early times, by the production of painted pottery and by the application of the knowledge of metallurgy. Was that group comparatively isolated, or did it have extensiveconnections with other ethnic elements? What went on in pro-ethnictimes, beforethe Elamitesand the Hurrians may be assumedto have divided into an easternand a western group, we have not the meansof judging. Such primordial conditionsare entirely beyondour power to recon- struct evenin their barestoutlines. All we do have a right to assumeis a pro-ethnic symbiosis of the ancestorsof the Elamites and the Hurrians. For, to recapitulateonce more, the extant philological material points to a common origin, and the similaritiesbetween the First and the SecondAeneo- lithic Cultures also suggesta single source;the distribution of the remainsof those early civilizationsindicates that the disseminatingcenter must be lookedfor in the north, between the Black Seaand the Caspian. Now, it is not unlikely that this assumedcenter had some relations with the peoplesof Central Asia in the east,whoever they may have been. It is even more probable that there was at the same time some degreeof intercoursewith other Alpine groupsin the west,and possiblyalso with someMediterranean peoples. All this is of coursetoo speculativefor seriousconsideration. Thesepossi-

[173] MESOPOTAMIAAI ORIGINS

bilities are mentioned only in order to indicate that even in remotest antiquity it may have been diffrcult for an ethnic group, which was in possessionof the rudiments of civiliza- tion, to remain culturally and racially quite pure and uncon- taminated. We get on lessuncertain ground when we passthe middle of the fourth millennium. The appearanceof the Sumerians and of the Semitesin Mesopotamiafurnishes us with two new ethnicelements that join and eventuallydispossess the original population. In Lower Mesopotamiathe Elamite speechgives way to Sumerian,though the original population appearsto adjust at least one dialect of Sumerianto its own phonetic habits. In the north and in the west the results of racial fu- sionmay be eslimatedwith moreprecision. The Hurrians, or their older relatives, are also compelledgradually to give up their dialects in favor of Semitic forms of speech. But in physical type it is the Semite who is in turn strongly in- fluencedby the older inhabitants of the country. This recessivequality of cultural elements coupled with an extraordinarytenacity of physicalcharacteristics seems to be true of the Japhetic groups in general. The Elamites were able to maintain their speechonly in the comparativeisolation of the hills of Huzistan. The Kassitesand the Hurrians could not fare so well in the plains. Not only do their Ianguages give way to Semitic dialects,but they appear equally receptive to Indo-Europeaninfluences. About the middleof the second millenniumwe find Indic godsin the pantheonof the Kassites as well as in that of the Hurrians, and the X[itannian Kikkuli employsat the sametime good Indic technicalterms. Fur- ther north, where the Indo-Europeaninfluence was stronger, the changesare more thorough-going. The commonspeech of Anatolia is in the Amarna period Hittite, which is in its structuralform an Indo-Europeanlanguage. In the following

It74l OTH ER CONT ACT S_CON C LU SION millennium Haldian is supersededby another Indo-European language,viz. Armenian. That the original physical charac- teristics were not sacrificedtogether with the languagesis clear from the exampleof the present-dayArmenians. In view of thesefacts, it cannot be thought a too bold gen- eralizationwhen we say that the Elamites,Ilurrians, and their congeners,formed the backboneof the ethnic groups in the Near East. From the south thosepeoples were pressed by the Semites,2lfrom the north by the Indo-Europeans. These conditionsmust haveobtained from very early times,and they are still largeiy true today. While the "Armenoid" type is so prevalentin the Near East, the languagesof the "third ethnic element" are now to be found only in the Caucasiandistrict, where the comparative difficulty of accesscontributed, no doubt, to the preservationof thosedialects. It doesnot appearthat the other cultural elementsof the oldest population of Mesopotamia fared better than the

21The perplexing question of Semitic origins does not concern us directly in the present work. Professor Barton has informed me personally that he is planning to rewrite hisShetch of SemiticOri,gizs to bring it up to date. The older view that the Semites came from Arabia is now vigorously assailed by a number of modern scholars. This is not the place to go into details; a convenient sum- mary of the various theories on the subject is given in Contenau, Ilfanttel d'arch1ologi.eorientoleIch.III. Incidentally Contenau considers Amurru as the early home of the Semites (ib. p. nD. According to Ungnad (Kulhtrfragen I 5) the Semites and the Indo-Europeans formed originally one group, lvhose home is to be sought in Europe. One fact is only too frequently ignored in all these discussions. Semitic is linked philologically with Hamitic much more closely than with any other linguistic group; and of all the Semitic languages, Akkadian has preserved the greatest number of morphological features that are known otherwise from Hamitic languages (cf. especially Barth, Die Pro- norainalbildung in d.en semitischen Sprachen,Leipzig 7913, XIV-XV). It fol- lows that the homeland of the Semites must be sought in conjunction with that of the Hamites, since the philological correspondences in question presuppose a pro-ethnic Hamito-Semitic group. And whatever thefu ultimate place of origin may have been, it is very unlikely, to my thinking, that the proto-historic Hamito-Semites are to be sought anywhere else than in north Africa, and perhaps Arabia. [17s] MESOPOTAMIAN ORIGINS languagesof that group. That the people in question could be culturally productive is proved amply by the magnificent civilization of Susa I, whose pottery has for sheer beauty of decorationfew equalsin the ancientworld. But in Mesopo- tamia that pottery disappearscompletely with the arrival of the Sumerians. The long Kassite period is not impressive from an artistic point of view. On the other hand, the Hurrians appearto have had a keen sensefor decorativearts. The fine mural paintings from Nuzi antedate the earliest known Assyrian wall paintings by several centuries, apart from representingthe more finished and graceful effort. All in all, however, the ancient Japhethites of the Near Easl do not seem to have possesseda great amount of cultural inde- pendence. Politically, too, they required a stimulus from without whereverorganizing ability was required. The king- dom of Mitanni was primarily, it would seem, the result of efforts on the part of an Indo-Iranian aristocracy. Yet we must not underestimate the r6le which the non- Semitic and non-Sumerianelements in Mesopotamia played in the political life of the land. The First Dynasty of Ur suc- cumbed to the Elamitic rulers of Awan. The powerful rulers of Agade could not stave ofi defeat at the hands of the Gutians. The Third Dynasty of Ur is alsobrought to an end by the Elamites, whereuponthe Sumeriansdisappear from the stage as a political factor;2zthe Elamite Kudur Mabuk is

22The order of events in this connection tempts one to assume that there is something like poetic justice even in history. The Elamites were the 6rst set- tlers in Lower Mesopotamia, as we have seen, In course of time they were forced, however, to yield their valuable lands to the invading Sumerians. Superior culture enabled the remarkably talented newcomers to stave ofi the counter-attacks of the hardier original stock for several centuries. Even after such serious setbacks as the overthrow of the First Dynasty of Ur the Sumerians were not to be denied. But the ultimate result co'rld almost have been pre- dicted. The complete elimination of the Sumerians from the politicai stage is accomplished at lengttr by none other than Elam. Ibi-Sin, the hapless epigon It76l OTH ER CONT ACT S-CONC LU SIO N sufficiently master of Babylonia to impose upon it the rule of his two sons,Warad-Sin and Rim-Sin. It is evident, then, that the higilanders had in the third millennium as much to do with the shaping of the political destiniesof Lower Mesopo- tamia as the Sumeriansand Akkadians themselves.23In the secondmillennium the Kassitesare the dominant power in Babylonia, following the brilliant period of Hammurabi and of the Amorite Dynasty. The entire history of Babylonia thus resolvesitself into a constant struggle between the original population of the land and the Sumero-Akkadianinvaders' A Mesannipadda,a Sargon,or a Hammurabi, md! have suc- ceededin subduing and pacifying the mountaineersfor a short time. But the latter, reinforced by kinsmen from the nearby hills, would invariably turn against the Sumeriansor the Akkadians, eventually bringing about the downiall of their most powerful dynasties. As for Assyria, that country was unable to enjoy complete independencefor even as long as a thousand years, ali told' About the middle of the second millennium Ashur is under the domination of the Hurrians. Little is known abut the earlier political conditions; at aII events,the city-state of Ashur was founded by non-Semiticrulers. Here' too, it is necessaryto interpret the history of the country in terms o,f the ceaselessstruggle between the Semitic invaders and the olderinhabitants of the land. We will never be able to appreciate fully the cultural and

of a great race, is dragged away in fetters to Anshan where he weeps and begs for mercy (cf. MF 236). Unfortunately, it is the more refined and cultivated group which succumbs in this case. Their efiort to become fuily acclimated appears to have sapped the vitality of the Sumerians in the long and bitter contest. 23As is well known, not a few of the finest examples of Sumero-Akkadian art, as well as some invaluable literary monuments of Babylonia, were actually recovered at Susa, and not in their respective places of origin.

LLt t I MESOPOTAIIIAN ORIGINS political events in the Valley of Two Rivers unlesswe give due considerationto the third ethnic element in that area, which in reality constituted the original population of the land. That group might be subdued for a long time, but it could never be completely suppressed. It might degenerate into cultural insignificance, but it always remained a powerful physical factor. In the nillennia that have followed the destruction of Nineveh and of Babylon there has not been much changein the essentialjuxtaposition of the mountaineers and the plain-dwellers in the heart of the Near East. The Kurds and the Arabs faceone anotherjust as did the Elamites and the Sumerians,or the Hurrians and the Assyrians. In wordsof ProfessorBreasted,t4itis "an age-longstruggle between the mountain peoplesof the north and the desert-wanderers of the grass-lands-a struggle which is still going on-for the possessionof the Fertile Crescent."

2aAncient Tintes l0l.

[1i8] ABBREVIATIONS

Axo PnrNcrpar,PusrrcATroNs Crrpo

A A S O R. Annual oJ the American Schoolsof Ori,erctal'Research, New Haven. A B. AssyriologischeBibliothek,Lapzig. A J O. Arahia fiir Orientforschung,Berlin. A J A. Ameri'canJournal of Archaeology,Norwood, Mass. Albright, W. F. "A Babylonian Geographical Treatise on Sargon of Akkad's Empire," JAOS 45 (1926) 193-245- Id. "Proto-1\{esopotamianPainted Ware from the Balikh Valley," MavXXYI (1925),no. 25. Id. "T,he Anatolian GoddessKubaba," AJOV (1929) 229f". Id. "The Readjustment of Assyro-BabylonianChro- nology by the Elimination of False Synchro- nisms," JSOR VIII (L924) 5ll. Anderson, J. G. "Preliminary Report on Archaeological Research in Kansu," Memoirs oJ the Geographical'Suraey of China, Peking, 1925. Antiq. J. Antiquari.esJournol, London. A O. Der alte Orient, Leipzig. A O B I. Al,tori,entalisiheBibl,iothek, vol. I: "Die Inschriften der altassyrischenKcinige," ed. by E. Ebeling, B. Meissner, and E. F. Weidner, Leipzig, 1926. A O R. Archia Orientdlni.,Prague. Autran Ch. "De quelquesvestiges probables, m6connus jusqu'ici, du lexique m€diterran6en dans Ie s6mitique d'Asie \llineure, et notamment, de Canaan," Journal' Asiatique 209 (1926) l-79. Id. Sumtriett et Ind'o-Europ(en:L'aspect, norphologiqtr'e de la questiott,Paris, 1925. Babylovs;oto,rur' t. lrTel MESOPOTAMIAN ORIGINS

Barth, J. Die Pronominalbildung in den Semitischen Sprachen, Leipzig, 1913. Barton, G. A. Sketchof Sem,iticOrigins, Social and, Religious,New York, 1902. Id. The Origi.n and.Developm,ent of Babyl,onianWriting, Leipzig,I9l3. Id. RISA-The Royal Inscriptions oJSumer and,Ahkad., New Haven, 1929. Id. "Whence came the Sumerians,,,JAOS 49 (lg2g) 263t. B A S O R. Bull,etin of the American Schoolsof Oriental,Researclt, South Hadley, Mass. Bauer, Theo. Die Ostkanaaniier: Eine philologish historische Untersuchung iiber die Wanderschicht der soge- ttAmoriter" nannten in Babylonien. -Leipzig, 1926. Bender,H. H. The Home of theInd,o-Europeans, princeton, 1922. Bergstrdsser,G. EinJiihrung in d.iesemitischen Sprachez, Munich, 1928. Bilabel, F. GeschichteVorilerasiens und, Agyptens vom 16-11. Johrhundertv. Chr., Heidelberg,1927. v. Bissing, Fr. W. "Probleme der iigyptischen Vorgeschichte,', Afo v (re2e)4r-8r. Id, "Die Uberlieferung iiber die Schirdani,', wzKM xxxlv (1927)2j0-259. Id. "Die Uberlieferung iiber die Turuscha,', wzKM xxxv (t928)r77-r87. Bleichsteiner,R. "Kaukasiche Sprachen,,,RV VI 260fr. B oghaz k t)i- Stud.i en, Leip zig. Boissier, A. "Inscription de Nardm-Sin," R,4 XXIII (1919) 157_t6+. Bork, F. "Das Sumerischeeine kaukasischeSprache,', OLZ (27) 1924: 169 fr. Id. "Die Mitannisprache,"MVAGXM/2 (1909),Berlin. Id. "Elam. B. Sprache,"RIl III (1925)i0-83. Id. "Mitlani," JRAS 1928: 5I-62. Id. Sk'izzedes Ltikischen, Leipzig, t926. [180] ABBREV I ATIOT{ S AN D BI BLIOGRAPHY

Boudou, P. "Liste des noms g6ographiques," Ori.enlalia, nos. s6-38(re29). B o T U BoghazkdiTelte in Umschri,ft,Leipzig. Breasted,J. H. Ancient Times,Boston, 1914. Burney, C. F. The Booh oJJtdges, London, 1918. C A H. Cambrid.geAncient History, New York. Chiera,E. InheritanceTexts,Paris,1927 . Id, TertsoJ Varied' Contents: l/SS V, Cambridge,U. S.4., 1929.

I J. SumerianLerica.l T exts , Ch\cago,1929 . Chiera,E. and Speiser,E. A. "A New Factor in the History of the Ancient East," AASOR VI (1926) 75-92. Eid. "Selected Kirkuk Documents." JAOS47 (1927)36-60. Childe, V. Gordon. TIeeAr1,6,p5, New York, 1926. Id. The fu[ostAncient -Easl,New York, t929, Christian, V. "AltkleinasiatischeVcilker," RLA I 76-88. Id. "Das erste Auftreten der Indogermanenin Vorde- rasien," MAG\V LVIII (1928) 2t0-229. Christian, V. and Weidner, E. F. "Das Alter der Grziberfunde ausrJr," AfOV (1929)139-150. Clay, A. T. A HebreutDelu,ge Story in CuneiJorm, YORV 3, New Haven, 1922. Id. Personal,Names of the Cassite Period, YOR 1, New Haven 1912. Corpus Inscriptioroum, Elamicarum, ed. by Fr. W. Kdnig, Han- nover 1926 f. Contenau, G. "Les tablettes de Kerkouk et les otigines de la civilisation assyrienne," Babyl'oni'acaIX (1926) nos. 2-4. Id, M anuel d,'ar ch1 obgi e orient al e, I, P aris, 1977. CT, Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum, London. Deimel, A. Pantheonbabyl,oni.cum, Rome, 1914. Id. Surner'ischeGrammq.tik d.er archai.schenTexle, Rome, t924. [181] MESOPOTAMIAN ORIGINS

Delitzsch, Fr. AssyrischesHandwrirterbuch, Leipzig,. 1896. Id. Die Sprached,er Kossrier, Leipzig, 1884. Id. Wo log tlos Poradies.2,Leipzig, 1881. Dhorme, P. t'Abraham dans le cadre de I'histoire," RB 1928: 367-385;481-511. Id. "L'auroredel'histoirebabylonienne,"RBl924tS33- 556;ib. 1926: 66-82; 223-239; 535-548. Id. "Les Amorrh6ens," RB t928: 6i-79; 161-180. Dirr, A. Ei.nJiihrung i.n das Studiunt' d,er kaukasi.schenSprachen, Leipzig, 1927. Driver, G. R. "The Name Kurd in its philological connexions," JRAS 1923:393-403. Ebeling, E. Babylorcisch,-assyr'ischeTerte, in Gressmann, ,4/lo- r'ientali,scheTexte zwn Alten Testz,ment,Berhn, 1926. Edmonds, C. J. "Two Ancient Monuments in Kurdistan," GeographicolJournal LXV 63 f. E H A. SeeSmith, S. Ehelolf, H. "Ein Wortfolgeprinzip im Assyrisch-Babylonischem," Leip.'igerSemiti,sche Studien VI, no. 3 (1916). Enzykl,optid.ied.es Isl,am, Leiden-Leipzig, 1913 fi. F M. Festschri.ftMeissner: Altorientalische Stud.ien Bruno Mei's' slter zuln sechzigstetcGeburtstage geoi.d,met, Leipzig, 1928-9. Fick, A. Uattid.enund Danubier in Gri,echenland,Gottingen, 1909. Id, Vorgriechi.scheOrtsnamen als QuelleJiir d'ie Vorgeschichle Gri,e c henl ands, Grittingen, 1905. Forrer, E. Bo T U: Boghazkdi Terte in Urnschrift, Leipzig. Id. "Die Inschriften und Sprachen des Hatti-Reiches," ZDMG L)O(W (re22)t74-269. Id, "Fiir die Griechen in den Boghazk

Friedrich, J. "Altkleinasiatische Sprachen," RV I 126-142' Id. "Die hethitischen Bruchstiicke des GilgameE- Epos," ZA'YJXIXt-82. G A. SeeXfeyer, E. Geschichtedes Altertums. Gadd, C. J. HMU: Hi'story and' Monuments oJ Ur, New York, 1929. Id. Kirhuh: Tabtetsfrom Kirkuk, RA XXIII (1926) 49-161. Gautier, J. E. and Lampre, G' "Fouilles i Moussian," MDEP vrrr 59-148. Glotta. Zei.schriJtfiir griechischeund,l,ateinische Sprache, Gcittingen. Glotz, G. La cirsi,l,i.sationEg\enne, Paris, 1913. G

Id. "Die elamischeSprachforschung," Memnon IV (1910) 5-40. Id. "Die Kassiteriden," OLZ (10) 1907;25 f.. Id. Die SpracheElams, Breslau, 1908. Id. "Kaspisches," OLZ (20) t9I7:106-108; 178-181; 205-209;ib. (2t) 1918:43; 48;264-272. Id. Quellen: Die einheirni.schenQuel.l,en zur Geschichte Elams, AB XXM, Leipzig, 1916. Id. "Palatale Spirans in Lullu-Land?" OLZ (6) 1903: 399-402. Id. Zagros: Der Zagros unil sei.neVdl,ker,.4O ,IX nos. 3-4, Leipzig, 1908. Id. "Zur elamischen Genetivkonstruktion," OLZ (8) 1905:549-553. J A O S. Journal, of the American Oriental,Society, New Haven. J E A. Journal oJEgyptian Archaeology,London. Jean, Ch. F. "Larsa d'apresles textes cun6iformes,"Babyloniaca x(1927)16r-237. Jensen, P. Assyrisch-babylonischeMythen und Epen, KB VI (1900),Berlin. Jeremias, A. H ond.buchder al,torient alis chen G ei steskul,tur, Leipzig, t929. Jespersen,O. Langwage,New York, 1924. J R A S . J ournal of the Royal Asiatic Society,London. Jirku, A. Die Wand.erungender Hebriier im 3. und. 2. Johrtausend, a. Chr.,,4O XXIV 2 (1924). "f .SO R. Journol of the Society of Oriental Reseorch,Toronto. K A H. KeischriJttex,teaus Assur histori,schenInhal,ls, w. I and II, Berlin. K A F. Klei,nasiatischeForschungen, Leipzig. K A V. Keilschriftterte aus Assur aerschied.enenInhalts, Leipzig. K B. KeilinschriftlicheBibliotheft, Berlin. King, L. W. Chronicles Concerrcing Early Bobylonian Kings, w. I-II. London. 1907. Kl,io. B eitrii gezur alten Ge s c hicht e, Leipzig.

[184] ABBKEV I ATIONS AN D BI B LIOGRAPEY

Kluge, Th. "Uber das Etruskische und seine Stellung zu den kaukasischen Sprachen," Memnon III (1909-10) 169 ff. Id. Welcher Sprachengruppe ist das Sumeri,scheanzu- gl,ied.ern?,Leipzig, 1921. Knudtzon, J. A. Amarna: Die El-Amorna-TaJeln, VAB II, Leipzig, 1915. Kohler-Ungnad. A ss yrische Rechtsurhunden, Leipzig, 1913. Kiinig, Fr. W. Drei. altelamischeStelen,Leipzig, t925. Id. "Mutterrecht und Thronfolge im alten Elam," Festschri.ft der Nationalbibliothek Wien (1926) 529-552. Koschoker,P. NRA: Neue kei.lschri.ftlicheRechtsurkunilen ous d.erEl, Amarna-Z eit, Leipzig, 1928. '(Das Kretschmer, P. rl-Suffix," GlottaXIV (1925)84-106. Id. "Der Name der Lykier und anderekleinasiatische Vcilkernamen," KAFI (1927) l-18. Id. "Die protoindogermanischeSchicht," GtottaXIY (1e25)300-319. Id. Einleitung: Einleitung in d.ieGeschichte der griech- ischenSprache, Gcittingen, 1896. Landsberger, B. Der kultischeKalend.erd.er Babyloni.er und. Assyrcr, Leipziger SemitischeStudien 71, nos. l-2 (lgti). Id. "Uabi.u und Lulabbu," KAF I (t929) 32I-334. Id. Uber die Vcilker Vorderasiensim dritten Jahrt- ausend," ZAXXXV (192) 213-238. Langdon, S. Ausgrabungenin Babylonien seit lglt, AO XXVI (1e28). Id. Excaaotions at Ki.sh, Paris, 1924. Id. The ll/eld-Btund.el,I Col,lection i,n the Ashnol,ean Museum,OECT I-II, Oxford,1923. Id. Pictographic Inscriptions from Jemd,et Nasr, OECT VII, Oxford, 1928. Longuage. Journal of the Linguistic Societyof Anterica, Baltimore. Leander, P. Uber die Sumerischen Fremilwiirler im Assyr'i,schen, Uppsala, 1903. Legrain, L. Empreintes des cachets|lotnites, IIDEP XVI, 192L. [18s] MESOPOTAMIAN ORIGINS

Id. "Gem Cutters in Ancient Ur," Museum Journal 1929: 258-346. Id. Historical,Fragments, PBS XIII, Philadelphia, L922. Id. "The Boudoir of Queen Shubad.,"Museum Journal 192922lI-245. Lehmann-Haupt, C. F. Armenien einst und. jetzt, w. I-II, t9lvl926. Lewy,J. "I-fabiru und Hebrber," OLZ (30) 1927: 738-741; 825-833. v. Luschan, F. Voelker,Rossen, Sprachen,Berlin, t922. M A G W. Mi.tteilungen det anthropologischen Gesell'schoftin Wien,Yienna. Mon. A Monthl,y Record,of Anthropological' Science, London. Marr, N. Der japhetiti.sche Kaukasup unil d.os d,ritte ethnische Element im Bi,Idungs pr ozess d.ermittellcindi s chen Kultur, Berlin, 1923. Matz, F. Die JriihkretischenSiegel, Berlin, 1928. M D E P. M6m.oirsd.e la D4l|gation en Perse,Paris. M D O G. Mi,tteilungen der d.eutschenArient-Gesel'IschaJt, Berlin. Meissner,B. Babylonien und. Assyrien, vv. I-II, Heidelberg, 1920-1924. Id. Beitrrige zum oltbabyl'onischenPriaatrecht, AB II, Leipzig, 1893. Id. Selteneassyri,sche ld,eograme, Leipzig, 1910. Id. "Sumerer und Semiten in Babylonien," AfO Y (re2e)r-rr. Memnon. Zeitschrift far Kunst- und, Kultur-Geschichte des alten Orients, Berlin-S tuttg art-Leipzig. Meyer, E. "Die dltesten datierten Zeugnisse der iranischen Sprache und der zoroastrischen Religion," Zei'tschriJt fiir aergleichend.eSprachforschung XLII (1909) 1-27. Id. Die Israeliten und, ihre Nachbarskimme, Halle, 1906. Id. GA. Geschichted.es Altertums, t,2,4th ed., Stuttgart, t921. Id. Sumerer und Semiten in Babyloniero,Berlin, 1906. Minorsky, V. "Kurden," Enzyklopiidie des Isl,am II t2l2- t237. [186] A BBREVI AT IONS AN D BI BLIOGRAPHY de Morgan,J. La pr|histoireorientol'e, w. I-III, Paris, 1925- t927. Id. Les pr emiire s civi.l,isati on s, Paris, 1909. M useum J ournal, Philadelphia. Nassouhi,E. "Grande liste des rois d'Assyrie," AJO IV (1927) 1-11. N R A. SeeKoschaker. O EC T. Oxford,Editions of Cunei'JormTexts, Oxf-ord' Olmstead,A. T. History of Assyria, New York, 1923. O L Z, Oriental,i.stischeLiteraturzeittt'ttg, Leipzig. Orientol,ia: Commentarii de rebus Assyro-Babylonicis, Arobici's, AegyPliacis, elc., Rome. P A .S. Publ,i'cationsof the Bobyloni.anSection oJ the Unittersity of P ennsylaani,aM useum,Philadelphia. P6zard, M. Mission d'Bend'er-Bushire, MDEP XY. Pinches,Th. "The Language of the Kassites," JRAS l9l7: 101-114. Poebel,A. "Eine neuesumerische lVlundart," ZAXXJ{IX(1929) r29-t39. Id. HGT: Historical ond Grammalilal Terts, PBS Y (1e14). Id. HT: Historical,Texts, PBS IV 1 (1914). Id. SG: Sumeri'scheGra,mmati&,Rostock, 1923. Poplicha, J. "The Biblical Nimrod and the Kingdom of Eanna," JAOS 4e (192e) 303 fi. Pottier, E. C1ramiquepeinte de Suseet petits monuments,MDEP xIIr (1e12). Id. "Une th6orie nouvelle sur les vases de Susa," R4R xxlrr (re26)t-s9. Prentice, W. K. "The Achaeans", AJA XXXIII 206-2t8. Przeworski,S. "Les problBmesmyc6nniens et les texts hittitesr" repr. fr. Eos XXVIII, Lemberg, 1925. kt. Studja: Stud'jo nad. oSiad.nictwemi rolq Hetytfw w SrodkowejAnatolji, Warsaw, 1929' R A. Retued.'Assyriotrogie et il'archAologie orientole,Pafis. R A R. Reuaearchaologique,Pais. R B. RevueBibl.ique, Paris. [1871 MESOPOTAMIAN ORIGINS

R L A. Realleilkon der Assyriologie,Berlit-Leipzig. R V. Ebert, Realleri.kond,er Vorgesch,ichte, Berlin. R I S A. SeeBarron. Rostovtzeff,M. Iranians and. Greeksin south Russia, oxford. 1922. ,,The Id. Sumerian Treasure of Astrabad,,, JEA vr (re20)1-27. de Sarzecand Heuzey. D1cou,ertesen Chald.€e,r.w. f_II, paris, 188+1912. Schaeffer,F. H. "Les fouilles de tr{inet_el_Beidaet de Ras Shamra,,, SyriaX (1929) 2gS_302. Scheil,P. Tertes\l,amites-s|mitiqorcs, MDEp If, IV, VI, X. Id. Tertes 1lomites-anzaniles,MDE? flf, V, IX, XI. Id. Textes d.e comptabilit| proto-Elamites, nouvelle s6rie, MDEP XVII. schnabel, P. Berossos und d.ie babyronisch-rterlenisrischeLitera- tur,Leipzig, 1923. Schorr, M. Altb abylonische Reahtsurkund,en, Leipzig, lgl3. Skdld, H. "Sur la lettre en langue Mitanni,,, JRAS 1926: 667_ 678. Smith, S. EHA: Eaily History oJ Assyr,ia,New york, 1927. Speiser,E. A. "A Letter of Saushshatarand the Date of the Kirkuk Tablets," JAOS 49 (1929) 269_275. Id, Preliminary Excaaations at Tepe Gawra, AASOR rx (1e2e). Id. SouthernKurdistan in the Annals of Ashurnasirbal, and Today,AASOR VIII (1923). Id. See Chiera-Speiser. Stephens,F. Personal J. Namesfrom Cuneiform Inscriptions Jrom Cappad.ocia,I/OR XIII 1, 1928. Sturtevant, E. H. "On the position of Hittite among fndo_Euro_ pean Languages,',Languoge II 25_34. Sundwall, J. Die einheimischenNamen der Lykier selbsteinent. Verzeichnissekleinasiatischer l{amenstdmme. Leio- s y r i.a. o * r r ;:r; rtn)lrn t ot,r t d;ar c h € ot o gi e, p ar is. Tallquist, K. L. Assyrian Personall{ames,Leipzig, 1914. [188] ABBREVI ATIOI{ S AIf D BI BLIOGRAPHY

Thompson, R. C. "Abu-Shahrain," Archaeologia LXS- (1920) 109-124. Thureau-Dangin, F. Le Syllobaireaccadien,Paris, 1926. Id. Sargon: Une relation de I'a hu'itidmecampagne deSargon,Pais,1912. Trombetti, A. Elementid.i. glottologia, Bologna, 1922. v. Tseretheli, M. Di,e neuen fuoldischenInschr'iJten Kdnig Sardurs oon Urarlu, Heidelberg, 1928. Id. "Sumerianand Georgian,"JP-4S 1913-1915. Ungnad, A. Babylonische BrieJe aus der Zeit der flam,murapi- Dyruastie,VAB VI,Leipzig, 1914. Id. Die tiltestenVblkerwanderotngen Vorderasiens. (Ein Beitrag zur Geschichteder Semiten,Arier, Hethiter und Subarder),Kulturfragen l,Breslau, 1923. Id. "Sumerische und chinesische Schrift," WZKM xxxrv (1927)76-86. a R L Royal Inscriptions Jrom []r, ed. Gadd and Legrain, (Publications of the Joint Expedition of the British Museum and the Museum of the University of Pennsyl- vania to l\fesopotamia)Philadelphia, 1928. V A B. Vorderasiati,scheBibl,iothek, Leipzig. Virolleaud, Ch. "Les tablettes cun6iformesde Mishrif6-Katna," Syri.oIX (1928)90-96. Id. "Les inscriptionscun6iformes de Ras Shamra," SyriaX (1929)303 tr. Weidner, E. F. "Die grosseKtinigsliste aus Assur," AJO III 66-77. Id, "HistorischesMaterial in der babylonischen Omina-Literatnr," F M 226-240. Id. SeeChristian-Weidner. Winkler, Heinrich. Die Sprache iler zweiten Columne der drei- sprachigen Inschriften unil ilas Altaische, Breslau, 1896. Wirth, A. "Kasische Forschungen," Memnon III (1909-1910) 1-48. Woolley, L. C. The Sumeriars, Oxford, 1928. Id. SeeHall-Woollev. [18e] MESOPOTAMIAIV ORIGINS

Worrell, W. H. A Stud.y of Races in the Anci.ent Near East, Cambridge,1927. W Z K M. Wiener Zei.tschriftfiir d.ie Kund.e des Morgenlandes, Vienna. Y O R. Vale Oriental Series,New Haven. Z A. ZeitschriJt Jiir Assyriol,ogieund aerwand,teGebiete, Berlin- Leipzig. Z D M G. Zeitschri.ft d.er deutschenmorgenl,tindischerc Gesel,l,shaft, Leipzig. Zimmern, H. AkkadischeFremdwiirter als Betaeisfiir babylonischen Kultur einllwss,Leipzig, 1917. Id. "Die altbabylonischen vor- (und nach-) sintflut- lichen K

[1eo] INDEX

Aannipadda, King of Ur, 34. Amurru, 156,175; place names in the Abalgama|, Gutian origin of, 44. land o{, 155f. Adab,9tl, 125. oa-suffrx: in Elaminte territories, 41, Adamdun,41, 91. 91; in Gutian, 98; in Hurrian, 144 Adasi, 90. f.; in Lullu, 92; in the Zagrosgen- Aegean area: linguistic elements of, erally, 94. 23; place names, 6 f .; PoPulation of, Anau,pottery of, 65,67. 5; relations with Anatolia, 21. Anatolia, culturesof , 2, 22; languages Aeneolithic civilizations, 2; First of, 8; peoplesof, 164f. Style: 82, I47, 752, 167; chronologY Anatolian, physical type, 167; cf. of, 73; expansion of, 60 f.; origin of, Armenoid. 67, l7 3; racial background of, 67 f. ; Annubanini,39. Second Style: 70 f.; alleged Gutian Anshan, 32, 177; various spellingsof background of, 108 f.; expansion of, the name,27, 72 f.,76 f.; origin of,77 f.,80, 173; Anubanini, of Kuta, 89. racial background of, 78 f.; relation Apirak, 43. to Jemdet Nasr remains, 72; sPread or-element,in Hurrian, 145. by the Hurrians, 147. Arakdi, 145. Agod.e,origin of the name, 54, 143. Arbilum, 145;see Urbilum. o&-sufiEx: in Elam, tlO ff.; in Gutian, Archaeology, comparative studY of, 98; in Kassite, 122; in Sumer 40 ff; t9 f. cf. A-sufilx. ari-suff-r,in Hurrian, 139f. Akkad, probably rendered as Ltr'Iuina, Arisen, 1t[4,148. 119. Arman, in Lullu, 89,92, cf..Halman, Akkadian, language: glosses in syl- Alman;in Amurru, 154. labaries, 54; influence of ethnic Armenia,tll, 119,167 f.; connections substrata, 155, 171; phonologY of, with SusaI, 66; seeUrarqu, Urualri. 47; relation to Eme Sal,53 l. Armenoidstock, 10 t., 15, lt7,175. Akkadians, earliest appearance in Arrapha: 95, 119, 145; documents Mesopotamia,4T. from, 130; as neighborof Lullu, 88; Akshak, 43, 45. slavesfrom, 103f. Alarodians, 14. Aryans, 101, ll7; in l\{esoPotamia, Aleppo, origin of the name, 154. 122; cf . Indo-Europeans. Alman, 92; cf. Arman, Halman, Ial- Arzuhina, 140,145. man. o5-suffix:in Gutian, 97 f . ; in Hurrian, Alpine stock, 10, 21, 173. 146;in Kassite,98,122. Amorites, in Xlesopotamia, 5; in Pal- Ashnunnak,Eshnunnak, 43, 98. estine, 162, in prehistoric Surner, Assyria, ethnic strains in, 177; lan' 152t. guageof, 155. l le1I INDEX

Assyrians,5; laws of, 157; origin of, Damascus,origin of the name, 154. 156 f.; physical type of, 155; rela- damqu' synonyrnof namru.,107 f. tions with the Guti, 109f. dl-suffix, 51, 143; cl. at, ti-suffix. ol-suffix,95,143 t.; in Syria,154; see ti, di-suffix. Eannatum, wars with Elam, 30, 36, Atlila, city in the land of the Lullu, Egypt, early contact with Sumer, 2; 100. alleged connections with the Cau- Awak, seeAwan. casus,11. Awan,43, 91,745,148,176; Dynasty ehli, elementin Hnrrian proper names, of, Elamitein origin,35 f.; identity 145. with Awak, ttOf.; in coalition with F'Iam, passim; civilization of, 170; Elam,31. early history of, 29 f.; epigraphic sources for the study of, 27; etymol- Baiih, king of Kish, 150f.; river, 156. ogy of the name, 26,87, 94; variant Barahsi,-she, 43, 96, 98, 100,125 f., names of, 26; people of, 87; wars 141f .;in coalitionwith Elam, 31; with Eannatum, 3Q 36; with Kish, locationof, 91; propernamesfrom 36 f.; with Sargon of Agage, 30 f.; the region of, 44; variant spellings position among ancient cultures, 2. of the name,31. Elamite, language: connection with Bazai, king of Ashur, 90. the Caucasian group, 7, 52, 130 f.; Boghazkoi,archives of, 8. decipherment of,27 f .; four millen- nia of its history, 28; traces of pala- Canaan, language(s)of, 155; men- talization, 55; phonology, 28; re- tionedin the Kirkuk tests,141. lation with the Lullu language, 93; Cappadocia,Iinguistic elements of, 17, suffixes, 29, 91; districts, 31; dy- 140; Cappadociantablets, 165. nasty in Sumer and Akkad, 32; Carduchi,Karduchi, 115, 141. origin of the Dynasty of Awan, 35 Caspian,language, 17. f.; studies, 7, Casite, term employedby Caucasian Elamites: alleged reiations with Sicil- philologists,15. ians, 9; original population of Lower Caucasian:general hypothesis, 10 f.; Mesopotamia, 68; precede the languages:7, 9 fi.; classificationof, Sumerians, 46; put an end to the 12, 17; unscientific treatment of, political history of the Sumerians, 13 f.; relation to Elamite and Hur- 176; related to the Hurrians, 164, rian, 130f.; peoples,172; philology, t73. status of, 12 f.; relationswith the el-Obeid, temple of Ninkhursag, 34; Peoplesof the Sea, 23; rival term prehistoric remains,64, 67. for Japhethite,15. Elymites,94. centum-Ianguages,18, 165. EmeKu.49 f. Copper,importance of, in ancientcivil- Eme Satr: 49 f.; geographic distri- izations,2; implementsof, 20. bution of, 53; mentionedas lan- Cuneiformwriting, origin of, 741, cf. guage of Akkad, 53 t.; palataliza- writing. tion, 56; possibleorigin of the name, Cylinder seals,67, 7 7, 84. 56 f.; probableinfluence upon the Ire2l II{DEX

r'Shunler," name 55; treatment of i-sufilr, in Hurrian,139 f..1511 see the g-sound, 50 f.; spoken by orig- ll-sulfix. inallynon-Sumerianpopulation,52f. lla. ,4, Sumerian cities, 38 f., -15;cf. Enmerkar, king of Uruk, 152. Shubari. Eridu, etymology of the name, 39 f. Habiru, 162. Ethnic connotations, 3; map in the Hadanish, king of Hamazi, .13,98. third millennium, 5; substratum in Haldian, language: 8, 17, 145, 168 f.; Sumer, 47 1., 52; in Assyria, 124 f.; study of, 14; sufixes, 119; verbal in Syria and Palestine, 155. elements, 168 f. Etruscans, 24; language of, 77. Haldians, 119. Haiigalbat, 95, 123, 135; cf. Hani- Fair complexion, its alleged ethnic galbat. significance, 103 ff. Hallapi, native name of the Elamites, 91. g-sound,treatment of in EmeSol, 50 t. Halman, 88t.,92,97; cf. Arman, Ial- gi-suffr-x,154. man, GilgameshEpic, 150, 159 f.; Hittite Hamitic: group,4, 9, 175;relation to fragments of, 160; Hurrian frag- Semitic,9, 175;physical type, 5. mentsof, 160. Hani,144. Greece, mainland of: dependence Hanigalbat, 111, 135; etymology of uponAnatolia, 21. the name, 144; interchange with Gutebum, probable connection witb Haligalbat,95; variant forms of, 95. the nameof the Guti, 100,143. Hama,zi,Dynasty of, 43. Guti, the 5, 88, 89 f., 96 f.; origin of Hapirti,26. the name, 143. Hatamti,26. Gutian, Gutians,passirn; alleged Ary- Hattic, 135;possible connections with anization of, 101 f.; connection Kassite,123; cf. proto-Hittite. with AeneolithicII, 108 f.; with Hepa,146. JemdetNasr, 73; descriptionin As- syrian annals, 111; early appear- hi-sufftx,in Hurrian, 118f . ance in Sumer, 99; ethnic affilia- Highland culture, 87; cf. Aeneolithic tions, 97; history in Assyrian times, I. 109;in the CentralZagros,97 f..; Highlanders, as rival term for Cau- kings,97 f., 109;regarded as Indo- casians,15. Europeans,101; as Semites,101; Hittite, language:correct name for, relationship with the Lullu, 99; 18; its Indo-Europeanizedchar- language:138, 166; elementsof, acter,17 I. 97 ff.1names, 44,99, 109;origin of Horites, etymology of the name, 133. the name Lagash, 99; relationship Hozi, language,28; cf. Elamite. with the dialects of Lu1lu, Barahsi, Hubaba, Huwawa, 160, 98. Humban,89. Gutium, Dynasty of, 97, t49; Ian- Hurri, connectionwith Horites,131 f .; guage,people of, 87; possiblecon- interchangeablewith Mitanni, 131; nectionwith Gutebum,100. readingof name ascettained,130 f; [1e3] INDEX

tracesof name in Egypt and Pales- in Mesopotamia,101, 122, 135;in tine,132;in the Septuagint,132. the Zagros,LOl, 174f.; cf. Aryans. Hurri-Mitanni, language,8. Indus valley, connectionswith Meso- Hurrian, passim; language:elements potamia,76. of, 1t4,136; in Boghazkoi,130; in iP-element,in Hurrian, 94. Ras Shamra,163; in Syria,154; re- Iranian elements,169. lationship with Elamite, 137; with irwi, iwri.,745. Haldian,168 f.; suffixes118 f. 151; irwi\|i,146. propernames: 138 fi., 151;in Pales- tine, 133 f.; in Syria, 154. pho- Japhethite, application of the term, nology, 139, 142.; versionof the 15f.; languages,167; term doesnot GilgameshEpic, 160. imply genetic relationship, 16 f.; Hurrians, passim; alleged blondness theory of N. IIarr, 13. of, i04 f.; art of., 176; connection Japhethites,78, l7l f.,176; in phil- with Aeneolithic II, 80; with Jem- ological and archaeologicalsources, det Nasr. 147 f.; ethnic stock in 22; intenelationship of, 22. Anatolia, 8; geographic distribu- Japhetic, 16 f.; lands, archaeologyof, tion of, 125fi.; in Akkad,in the 4th 19 f.; Iinguistic elements,94, 163; millennium,148 f .; in Palestine,134, peoples,t20,156,172. I47, 16l; in the Amarna letters, Jemdet Nasr, connection with Susa 118; mistakenfor Hittites, 134 f.; II, 72; finds from, 75; languageof name of, 135 f. (cf. Subareans); the inscriptions, 74 f.; pictographs, traces of possibleinfluence in the 72 ff .; ruceprobably of non-Sume- Bible, 161 f.; relation with the rianorigin, 74 f.; tablets,69 tr., 74 I. Caucasian group, 136; with the Jews,physical type of, 155,162. Elamites, 164; with the Habiru, 162; with the Semites,153; rulers ft-suffrx,142; in Elamite, 29, 9l; in of,109f. Lullu, 91; cf. a&-suffix. H urld\, H urlEs, H url,u-s,130. Kaneshite, suggesteddesignation for Hurlili, 130. the Hittite language,18. Huilfi, l3l. Karduchi, seeCarduchi. K apSoiyot,115, 118. Huzistan,17t1. Kas-pi, alleged native name of the Hypo-brachycephalicgroup, 10 f. Kassites,124. Kassite, language,l2l tr., 138, 166; Iakulaba, of Ashur, probably of Gu- relationship with Elamite, 122 f.; tian origin, 109. traces of connections with proto- Ialman,92. Hittite (Hattic), 123, 166. Dy- IbiSin, of Ur, 31f.., t76f.. nasty, l2l; invasion,32. itrku,146. Kassites,passimlname as found in the India, within the group of ancient Kirkuk tablets,119. cultures,2. Ko55z,Kashshu, t2l I. Indo-Europeans,120; dominant racial Kazallu,153 f. type, 6; elementsof in Anatolia,8; Kengir,55. [1e4j INDEX

Kenturipa,94. Larsa, cited xs prediluvian cily, .iSi Kikia, Kikkia, 109f ., 140. variant names, 38,'15. Kimash, 98,144; new Sumeriandialect Linguistic relationship, il linguistic from, 57. paleontology, 37 f. Kinohhi, oldest occurrence of the Liquids, interchange of, in Hurrian, name,141. 139, 145; in Lullu, 92; in Sumerian, King lists, 33 fi. 92; interchange with nasa1s,95; Kish, early rulers of, 150; First DY- in Central Zagros and in Hattic, nasty of, 36; SecondDYnastY of, 36 123. K ocoaio,121. Lugalannimundu, king of Adab, in- Kudur Mabuk, Elamite ruler, 32; at- scriptionof, 125. titude towards Amorites, 153. Lulohhu, in the Boghazkoitexts, their Kullab, origin of the name, 94. connectionwith the Lullu, 95. Kummuhi, neighbors of the Guti, 112 Lr.lld-owiltt,96. fi. Lullai, king of Ashur,90,110. Kurd, aileged etymology of the name, Lullu, countryof, 87 f.; spreadof the 116. name, 95; history of, 5, 89, 90; Kurdistan, 7ll, 115 t., 117. kings of Assyria of Lullu origin, 90 Kurds, originally of Zagros stock, 117 f.; neighborsof, 96; language;138, f.; physical characteristicsof, 117l.; 166; paTatalization,57 ; relationship racial heterogeneity of the people, with Elamite,93; with Gutian, 99; 11 7; variousdesignations for, 115 f.; suffxes, 93; variant forms of the present position in the Near East, name,93. propernames, M;94f.; t78. in Syria,154, 163. Lullu servants, Ku\hr,124. slaves,95, 105. KuiSnhai, name of Kassites in the Lullubati, the country of the Lullubi, Kirkuk documents, 119, l2l, 124, 143. 141. Lullubi, the people of Lullu, 88, 95, 124, 143; etymology of the name, l-suffix, in Hurrian, 146, 160 f. 93; similarname in Sicily,94. g3; 110f. Labial elements and suffixes, in Elam- LullumE, in Assyrianannals, ite, 29; in Gutian, 100, 114; in Hur- Lulu,ina, apparently a designationof rian,94, 142,154 (in Syrian names); Akkad,95,119. assimilated belore n in Hurrian, Luristan,l19. 145; occurrencein Lullu, 93 f.; in Lurs, 95. Sicily, 94; in south-IfesoPotamian Lycia, proper names, 7; languageof, names, 45, 94; in theZagrosarea,92. 17. Labio-velars, traces of in Eme Sal,5l f Maiteni, older form of l\fitanni, 129, Iaga, Grfiian formative element, 99. 135. Lagash, origin of the name, 99; wars mati-suffix,144. with Elam,30 ff. X{editerraneanrace, 5, 10,2t,173. Larak, prediluvian city, 38 f.; writing Mesannipadda,king of Ur, 1, 34, 149, of the name, 45. r77. t lesl INDEX

Metallurgy, 173; application of, 60; Palestine, connections with Aeneo- probability of Caucasian origin, 22 ; lithic II, 76,79; oiltural relations invention of,62f. with Babylonia,157 f. Metallic types, 64. Philistines,Anatolian origin of, 24. Mitanni, name interchanges with Pictographic script, in Elam, 20, 71, Subari, 129; with Hurri, 131; king- 74; in Jemdet Nasr, 72 f.; in the dom of, 128 f.; relation with Hurri, Indus vailey, 75. 135; position in Assyria, 109. Paharrashe,Hurrian city, M. Mitannian letter of Tushratta, cf . Parahsi,see Barahsi. Tushratta. Place names, in Anatolian districts, Mitlani, alleged variant for Nlitanni, 165 f.; in Hurrian, 140ff.; in Lullu, t29. 94 f.; in Syria (Hurrian) 154;pre- Mohammed Jafiar, mound of, 59. diluvian, in Sumer,38; pre-Grecian, Mohammedabad, pottery of, 65. 6 f.; similar in formation to personal Musyan, pottery of, 59, 63, 77; rc- names,91, 98; toponymicand topo- mains of Aeneolithic II, 72. graphicalstudies, 87. Polychromeware, 20, 72; from Tepe Nahmaulel, a character in the Hurrian \jawra, I t, version of the Gilgamesh Epic, 160 Pottery, painted, 20 f.; in northern f. Mesopotamia,64 f.; non-Sumerian Namar, Nawar, 130, 148. origin of, 69; seeAeneolithic I and namrtt., 102 f.; meaning of, 106 f. II. Naram-Sin, conquers Subartu, 126; Prediluvian, cities, 38 f.; kings of defeated by the Guti, 88; reaches Mesopotamia, 158 f.; patriarchs, Syria, 154; stele of, 88 f.; wars with 158f. the Lullu, 88 f. Pronominalelements, in Haldian and Nasals, interchange with liquids, 95, in Hurrian,168 f. 123. Proto-Elamites,52, 147, 152; cf. nd, nt-eIement,in Anatolia, 165 f.; in Elamites. Lullu, 166; in the Zagros, 92. Proto-Hittites,8, 134 f., 156, 165f.; Neolithic man, 2. cf. Hattic; languageof, allegedre- Neshites, probable name of the Indo- lationship with the Caucasian Europeanized Hittites, 18. group, 165, 167;analogies between Noah, possible etymology of the name, prcto-Hittite and Kassite, 123, 166. t6t. Proto-Indo-Europeans,in Anatolia, Nordic, racial element,6, 10. 18,166 f.; in the Aegeanarea, 18. Nullu, Nuiluai, variants of Lullu, 93, 95. Qalna, city in Syria, 95 f., 138, 143, 154,163. p-su&x, in Elamite, 29; cf. ip, labial Qurti, in Assyrianannals, 112 fi.; re- suffi,r. Iation to the Guti, 114f.; personal Palatalization,in Elamite, SS;in Eme namesof, 114. Sol, 56;in Lullu, 57,92. Quti, variantof Guti. 110f. t 1e6l INDEX

/-suffi.\, in Elamite, 29, tl0; indicative Shuruppak, Sumerian city, 38 f., 42; of Elamite origin, 42; in Hurrian, archaic texts from, 5il. 139f., in Lullu, 91; in south-Meso- sr',5e-su{trx, 44,90,98,123. potamian names,39 fr; cf. ar, ari- sibilant formatives and suffixes, 44, suffix. 90; in Anatolia, 165 f.; in Haldian, Ras Shamra,tablets from, 163. 168;in Hurrian, 141;in Syria,154; in the Zagros, 43, 47; cf. o5, 5, si- 5-suffix,in Gutian,98; in Lullu, 91; cf. suflx. oi si-sufix; sibilant formatives and Siciln alleged toponymic analogies suffixes. with EIam and Lullu, 94. Samarra, pottery of, 65, 67. Simaki mountain range in Lullu, 91. Saniru, origin of the name, 154. Slaves, Gutian, 101 ff. Sargon of Agade, wars with Elam, 30 Stamp seals, from Susa I,20,661 77; f. from Tepe Gawra, 66, Satawatti, Indo-European name in Subarean, Ianguage, confused with Hurrian texts, 135. Akkadian, 129, 136; cf. Hurrian satem-langrages, 18, 168. language. Saushshatar, king of Maiteni, Ietter of, 100,135. Subareans, unsatisfactory designa- tion for Hurrians, 135 fi. Seals,from SusaII, 71;from Jemdet Nasr, 72; cf. cylinder seals,stamp Subari, used for nlitanni, 129. seals. Subartu, 87, t29; as a geographical Seistan,pottery of, 64,67. term, L26; early occurrence of the Semites;arrival in Mesopotamia,152 name, 125 f.; interchanges with f., 174; connection with the First Ashur,127. Dynasty of Kish, 150, 152; lan- Subir,125 f. guages of, connection with the Sumer, early contacts with Egypt, 2; Hamitic group,175; origin of, 175; origin of the name, 55. physical type of, 5, 174; priority in Sumerian, dialects,46 f., 174; new dia- Mesopotamiaover the Sumerans, lect from Kirnash and Matka, 57; 81f; probabletraces at Tepe Gawra, phonetic correspondences, 50 f. I cf., 79,82; relationswith the Hurrans, Eme Ku, Eme Sal,; Ianguage, ag- 153f. glutinative character of, 13; influ- lenni, Hurrian wordlor'brother,' 142, enced by the speech of the pre- 144. Sumerian ethnic substratum, 47; Shehrizor,95; as center of the Luliu, interchange of liquids,92; mor- 88f. phological characteristics, 3; phon- Shubari,city in Sumer,38 ff., 44 f., ology, 48. 126;ci. Ha. A. Sumerians, comparatively late ap- Shubaru,people, 90; allegedlyblond, pearancein Mesopotamia,46,68 f ., 104; in Assyrian annals, I04; 17il; cultural contributions, 85; de- slaves,102 f.; cf. Subareans. cline, 176; origin, 83 f.; physical Shumer,possible origin of the'name, characteristics, 3 f.; reiation to the 58. semi-mythical dynasties, 149; con- lreTl INDEX

nection with the Jemdet Nasr peo- Turukki, Zagrospeople, 96. ple,73, 75 f. Tushratta,letter of, 128f., 136,138. SusaI, seeAeneolithic I; analoguesof, 63; highest development of, 67; Upi, variant of Akshak,45. northern origin of the style, 62, 66 Ur, aeneolithic depositsfrom, 64, 67; f.; relations with Armenia, 66; re- etyrnology of the name, 38, 92 f..; mains difierent from those of the First Dynasty of, 34 f.; proto- Sumerians,67 f.; sea,Ls,62, dynastic gravesof, 35; variants of SusaII, seeAeneolithic II; expansion the name,92. of, 20 l.; origin of, 70 f.; picto- Urartu, 14, 96. Cf. Haldian, Urua[ri. graphic script ftom, 71, 74. Urbilum, 148 Suti, 143. Urkish, 130,148. Urmia, pottery of, 65. Tarhu, 142f. Urualri, 96, l1l. Tarku, 143. Uruk, origin of the name,92 f. Tell Kaudeni,pottery of, 64. Ushpia, ruler of Ashur, 109 f. TellT,eidan,painted pottery of, 65. Vannic, language,8, 17; cf. Haldian. Tepe Cawra, pottery of, 64 f.; poly- chrome ware from, 77; traces of zao-sufflx,in Hurrian, 146. Semitic occupation, 79, 82. ld'riting,possible non-Sumerian origin Teshup, Te\up, 1L4, 146, 168. of, 75 1., 84. Cf. cuneiformwriting. Theriomorph,vases, 20, 7l f..,77. li-suffix, in the Elamite group, 143; in Zagros,87 f., ll0, 117,119, 169, 172; Hurrian. 143;cf . ot, di-suffix. phonetic peculiaritiesof the Zagros ll-sound, in Elamite, 28; in Gutian, languages, 92; as shelter of the 100;in Hattic, 123;in Lullu, 100. Amorites,153. Tukrish, languageand people,87, 96, zah-s,,tffix,in Hurrian, 151. 98, 163;origin of the name,44. Zamua, land of the Lullu, 90 f., 100, Tupzah,king of Kish, 150f. 113,154. Tursha, 144. Ziusudra.160.

[1e8]