Journal of Cuneiform Studies Volume 62 2010 Editor Piotr Michalowski, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor Associate Editors Gary Beckman, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor Elizabeth Carter, University of California, Los Angeles Piotr Steinkeller, Harvard University Matthew W. Stolper, he Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago Managing Editor Billie Jean Collins CONTENTS Massimo Maiocchi: Decorative Parts and Precious Artifacts at Ebla. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Sarood T. Mohammed Taher: Texts in the Sulaimaniah Museum Related to the Turam-ili Archive . . . . . 25 Gonzalo Rubio: Reading Sumerian Names, I: Ensuhkešdanna and Baba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 homas E. Balke: he Sumerian Ternary Numeral System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Paul Delnero: Sumerian Extract Tablets and Scribal Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Cécile Michel: Deux textes atypiques découverts à Kültepe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Jan Tavernier: Akkadian Personal Names with paḫāru or saḫāru as Initial Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 John P. Nielsen: hree Early Neo-Babylonian Tablets Belonging to Bēl-ētir of the Misirāya Kin Group . . 95 Alice Mouton: Sorcellerie hittite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 Jeanette C. Fincke: Zu den akkadischen Hemerologien aus Ḫ attuŠa (CTH 546), Teil II: Die „Opferbrot-Hemerologie“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 READING SUMERIAN NAMES, I: ENSUHKEŠDANNA AND BABA Gonzalo Rubio (Pennsylvania State University) A. Ensuhkešdanna or Enšubakešdanna 1. On the Meaning of MUŠ2-KEŠ2 The name of the ruler of Aratta with whom Enmerkar engages in various challenges is written en-MUŠ2-KEŠ2an-na. At least two versions of the name are attested in modern scholarship: Ensuhkešdanna and Ensuhgiranna. This name contains the element MUŠ2-KEŠ2, which a priori could be read either su h-keš 2 (or su h-keš d a) or su h-g ir 11. As will be shown below, the evidence clearly supports a reading with keš 2. Moreover, the term su hkeš 2 has often been understood as a kind of headgear, although a pectoral ornament or a low-hanging necklace are perhaps more likely interpretations (Klein 1981: 91; Civil 2008: 67). The word denotes a symbol of en-ship, the same way that a crown is a symbol of kingship (Falkenstein 1959: 96–97). The connection with headgear is based on the fact that this term occurs alongside other symbols of power worn on one’s head (men “tiara,” aga “crown”). However, su h-keš 2 may have been a different piece of regalia, as there is a limit to how many things even a deity can wear on her head. In fact, this study will suggest that su h-keš 2 may have consisted of stones mounted on a pectoral or necklace. Still, any specific interpretation of its meaning beyond its symbolic function remains tentative.1 The reading su h of MUŠ2 (MUŠ3-gunû) is attested in a couple of lexical items: • The verb su h “to pull out; to choose from,” often translated as nasāḫu; Aa 8/1: 167 (MSL 14, 493); Syllabary B Voc. 1: 20 (MSL 3, 97); and reconstructed for Ea 8: 59 (MSL 14, 478); see CAD N/2, 1. This verb is also written su h 5 (KU), as in Ea 1: 152 (MSL 14, 184). This verb is well attested in literary compositions: Uruk Lament 4.29, 5.21 (Green 1984: 273–74); Lugalbanda I 294, 309 (Wilcke’s ms.); Lugale 297 (van Dijk 1983, 2: 94); Diatribe C 12 (Sjöberg 1972: 107); Ur-Ninurta A 32 (Falkenstein 1950: 108; Sjöberg 1977: 190); The Tree and the Reed 59 (Civil’s ms.). • The compound verb ig i — su h, meaning both “to be angry” (nekelmû, CAD N/2, 152) and “to choose” (nasāqu, CAD N/2, 21); see Civil 1999–2000: 185–86; Karahashi 2000: 127–28. Probably the general I must thank Miguel Civil and an anonymous reviewer for reading an earlier version of this article and making useful suggestions. Needless to say, responsibility for all opinions expressed here rests solely with the author. 1. Of all the passages in which su h- ke š 2 is attested (see a sample in Steinkeller 1998: 93–95), the only one that may actually point to a meaning related to headgear is Lamentation over Sumer and Ur 458: si g 2- p a nam- e n - na su h ke š 2-d a - g a 2 (Michałowski 1989: 183), since si g 2- p a refers to hair (Klein 1981: 149; Attinger 1984: 46). To the selected occurrences of su h- keš 2 listed by Steinkeller, one should add ŠuSîn hymn J 7 (BM 100042; Kramer 1989: 304), Ibbi-Sîn hymn E 8 (su h 10-ke š 2, CBS 15158; Sjöberg 1970–1971: 149), and Nanna hymn E 48 (su h 10-ke š 2, UET 6/1 67; Charpin 1986: 367). 29 JCS 62 (2010) 30 GONZALO RUBIO meaning of this compound verb is “to make a gesture with one’s eyes or eyebrows,” which could be understood both as “to frown (wrinkling the eyebrows)” and “to glare or stare (raising the eyebrows in approval).” There exists another word su h, which is also written su h 10 (MUŠ3), and which is often understood as “crown” and, by extension, “the top of something,” such as a building (Attinger 1993: 513; Steinkeller 1998: 93–95; Cavigneaux and al-Rawi 2000: 53 n. 160). This is the su h that occurs in the sequence MUŠ2.KEŠ2. It is, nonetheless, not always easy to decide between the readings su h/su h 10 and muš 2/muš 3. The latter has two basic meanings in lexical and bilingual texts: “appearance, look, glow” (zīmu; CAD Z, 119), and “plain, flat area” (mātu; CAD M/1, 414).2 Moreover, one should not confuse the aforementioned architectural term (su h/su h 10) with the use of MUŠ2 instead of sur 3 (MUŠ4 = HI×AŠ), which alternates with sur 6 (KI.GAL) and sur 7 (KI.KAK). The noun sur 3/sur 6/ sur 7 refers to the foundation of a building, canal, or pit, and normally corresponds to Akkadian sūru “ditch” (CAD S, 415), berūtu “foundation pit” (CAD B, 213), and even uŠŠu “foundation” (AHw 1442; Borger 2003: 284). The reading sur 3 is attested already in the Ebla Sign List (66), where HI×MAŠ (or rather HI×TIL) corresponds to suru12-um (Archi 1987: 96; Steinkeller 1992: 16–17 n. 11).3 2. Reading MUŠ2.KEŠ2 as suh-keš 2 In the Late Babylonian bilingual composition the Exaltation of Ishtar III 83 (Hruška 1969: 485), one finds the following syllabic gloss: su-ki-išMUŠ2-KEŠ2 ma h-a... (TCL 6 51 rev. 33). Zgoll (1997: 305–6) argues that this su-k iiš could be glossing either MUŠ2.KEŠ2 as a whole or MUŠ2 alone. The latter possibility is based on the gloss suku-uš for MUŠ3 (not MUŠ2) in Nabnītu 9: 104 (MSL 16, 120): MUŠ3su-ku-ušKA-KA = si-ip-ra-a-tum (sipru “stone bead”; CAD S, 204–5; Civil 2008: 68). Moreover, the reading su-ku (su ku 5) is assigned to MUŠ2 (MUŠ3-gunû) in Proto-Ea 755 (MSL 14, 60), in alternation with su-u h 2; the latter occurs as the reading of MUŠ2 in the previous line, Proto-Ea 754. In the Exaltation of Ishtar, glosses pertaining to a sequence of signs are as frequent as glosses providing the reading of a single sign (e.g., III 69, 81, 85, 87; IV 13). Thus, it seems quite likely that, in the Exaltation of Ishtar, su-k i-iš is intended to provide the reading of MUŠ2.KEŠ2 as a whole. Moreover, the Akkadian translation of the aforementioned entry in Nabnītu, siprātu, plural of sipru “stone bead, precious stone trim,” suggests a connection with the general meaning of MUŠ2-KEŠ2 proposed by Klein and Civil. If one assumes that in that Nabnītu entry MUŠ3 stands for MUŠ2, then MUŠ2-KEŠ2 could be interpreted literally as “stone beads (MUŠ3/MUŠ2 = siprātu) bound together (keš d a = raksātu).”4 In fact, one should bear in mind that earlier occurrences of MUŠ3, particularly in the third millennium, often correspond to MUŠ2 in later texts (Civil 2008: 67). In sum, the gloss su-k i-iš in the Exaltation of Ishtar provides the reading of MUŠ2.KEŠ2 as a whole sequence, which supports the reading su h-keš 2 (or su h-keš d a) of MUŠ2.KEŠ2 in the name en-MUŠ2-KEŠ2-an-na.5 2. On muš 2/muš 3, see Sjöberg 1969: 55–56; 1973: 39; Heimpel 1972: 286–87; Klein 1981: 90–91; Attinger 1993: 513 n. 1416. he meaning tūšaru (or tušaru) of MUŠ2 given in Erimhuš frag. b ii 3ʹ (MSL 17, 89) has to do with a kind of reed fence, since it appears in sequence with sippu (“doorjambs, doorframe”; CAD S, 300–303) and zamû (a type of wall; CAD Z, 41), and this is likely the same tūšaru that occurs in the sequence qan tūšari, equated with g i nam- e r i m 2 in two lexical lists (CAD T, 495). Elsewhere, g i nam- e r i m 2 (lit. “the oath reed”) is translated as kilkillu, probably a room separated by reed screens, in which the emblems used for oath-taking were stored (Reiter 1989, 1991; pace CAD K, 359). It has been assumed that this tūšaru = MUŠ2 is the same tūšaru that means “lat land, desert” (CAD T, 495–96); see Sjöberg 1969: 56; Heimpel 1972: 286. However, the context in that fragment of Erimhuš and the connection with kilkilum point to a diferent word. 3. he reading su r 3 of HI×AŠ (MUŠ4) is further established in Proto-Ea 369 (MSL 14, 46), Aa 5/2: 92–99 (MSL 14, 417), Ea 5: 93 (MSL 14, 399), and Syllabary B Voc. 1: 26 (MSL 3, 98). he readings su r 6 of KI.GAL and su r 7 of KI.KAK stem from Diri 4: 311–312 (MSL 15, 162–63). See also širimtu “cutting” (CAD Š/3, 105) and šiḫittu (CAD Š/2, 415). 4. Since sipru comes from sepēru, which can mean “to strand (hair, linen)” (CAD S, 132), Cohen (1975–1976: 32–33) argued that the MUŠ2.KEŠ2 was a sort of braided or wrapped headgear. 5. Civil (2008: 68) argues that the gloss su - k i - iš in TCL 5 51 comes from *sub - ke š 2, with simpliication of the cluster /bk/. However, READING SUMERIAN NAMES, I 31 The alternation between /k/ and /h/ is well attested in the readings of MUŠ2 (MUŠ3-gunû) in lexical lists, but not so in the case of MUŠ3, as can be seen in Proto-Ea 752–756 (MSL 14, 60): mu-uš mu-uš-ku su-u h 2 su-ku s e-e MUŠ3 MUŠ3 MUŠ2 MUŠ2 MUŠ2 The reading /su ku/ also occurs in Erimhuš 5: 245a (MSL 17, 77): su-kuMUŠ2 = ma-šá-ḫu “to flare up, to shine brightly” (CAD M/1, 354). Moreover, the catchline at the end of Erimhuš 6 is šu-ukMUŠ2 = ma-ša-ḫu (MSL 17, 88). However, the reading /su h/ is the most commonly attested, as in the lexical references for su h = nasāḫu given above, as well as the list of sign names in Ea 8 Assur MAss excerpt 27 (MSL 14, 485). Note also the gloss in Nabnītu O 156 (MSL 16, 291): dug 3du-su-uhMUŠ2 (= messētu “distance”; CAD M/2, 29). 3. The Signs MUŠ3 and MUŠ2 (MUŠ3-gunû ) In spite of the aforementioned passage in Proto-Ea (752–756), the sign MUŠ2 occurs instead of MUŠ3 in a number of instances in the second and first millennium, particularly in the spelling of /šub a/ with ZA.MUŠ3. This can be seen also in the variants of a passage from a canonical lamentation attested in manuscripts from the Old Babylonian (CT 44: 12 [BM 78175] = A) and the Seleucid periods (SBH 57 = C), as well as Sultantepe (STT 156 = B):6 82 A obv. 13 B obv. 9 C obv. 24 83 A obv. 14 B obv. 11 C obv. 26 u2-nu su-bi-a mi du-ga-zu [ ZA].MUŠ2 mi2 �dug4�-ga-�a?�-zu šá x x x-i ú-sa-�aḫ�-ḫ[u]-ka TE.<UNU> a2 ZA.MUŠ2 : šu-ku-ut-ta-ki : mi2 dug4-ga-zu šu-bat-ka šá el-li-iš ku-un-na-a-at �su-ba-a� za-gi ša-ša-ra-zu e2-ne-ba-ta-re ZA.[MUŠ2 z]a-gin3-n[a] �em3!�-šar2-[šar2]-ra-zu ina šu-bi-i el-[li] ú-<taq>-qi[n]!-k[a] ZA.MUŠ2 za-gin3-na em3-šar2-šar2-ra-[zu] ina šu-be-i u uq-ni-i ša!(RA)-ak-ka-at Along with this and other examples mentioned throughout this article, one finds additional instances of the exchangeable nature of the signs MUŠ2 and MUŠ3 in several second- and first-millennium sources (see also Attinger 1993: 513 n. 1416, 619–20): • Most manuscripts of The Hoe and the Plow 113 have su h written with MUŠ2, but at least one has MUŠ3. DI (YBC 8959; Civil’s ms.); compare, among the published manuscripts: BE 31; 50 obv. 14ʹ (Kramer 1940: 252): ig i-zu dug gešt in-na-g in 7 a im-t a-su h(MUŠ2)-en 3N-T905, 10 (SLFN 49): [ i]m-t a-su h(MUŠ2)-e-en su - k i - iš may also stem from the weakening of /-h/ in syllable coda: su h- ke š 2 > su - k i - iš. 6. See Civil 1967: 206–7; Cohen 1988: 54; Löhnert 2009: 220–21. 32 GONZALO RUBIO The erroneous spelling MUŠ3.DI may stem from an analogy predicated on the readings /s e d/ and / š e d/ that this sign shares with MUŠ2/3. MUŠ3.DI can be read s e d 4/š e d 10, in alternation with A.MUŠ3.DI (š e d 11), as, for instance, in OB Diri Nippur 343 (MSL 15, 24–25); see Klein 1981: 208. Likewise, MUŠ2 can be read s e d 7/š e d 13, and MUŠ3 s e d 6/š e d 12 (Borger 2003: 77). • Two Nippur manuscripts of the Keš Temple Hymn have muš 2 on two lines (14, 26) on which all the others have muš 3 (Delnero 2006: 2187, 2191). • ZA.MUŠ3 = šub a 2 occurs in an Old Babylonian lament: NBC 1315 (RA 16: 208) rev. 16 (cf. Cohen 1988: 291). However, ZA.MUŠ2 = šub a is attested in first-millennium manuscripts of an eršemma: SBH 53 rev. 19 // Sm. 954 (Delitzsch AL3, 135) obv. 19 (cf. Cohen 1981: 131; Oberhuber 1990: 456). • In AN = dAnum III 249, one manuscript (CT 25: 21 [Rm. 11,32] rev. 17) has dZA.MUŠ2-nun-na, whereas the other manuscripts have dZA.MUŠ3-nun-na. This same deity is also spelled dZA.MUŠ3-nun-na in a Neo-Assyrian god list (KAV 48 iiʹ 3ʹ); see Litke 1998: 143. Although MUŠ3 is usually the early spelling, which gets replaced with MUŠ2 later on, there are also examples of MUŠ3 occurring instead of MUŠ2 in the Old Babylonian period, coincidentally in the very writing of su h-keš2 as su h 10(MUŠ3)-keš 2: Ibbi-Sîn hymn E 8 (CBS 15158; Sjöberg 1970–1971: 149); Nanna hymn E 48 (UET 6/1 67; Charpin 1986: 367); Gilgameš and Huwawa B 29 (Edzard 1993: 19). The occurrences of MUŠ2 instead of MUŠ3 and vice versa in a variety of second- and first-millennium contexts, lexical and otherwise, should not be disregarded as a matter of confusion or simple errors. These are not isolated instances produced by a single scribe or typical of a specific period or school. On the contrary, they correspond to a sufficiently widespread phenomenon that began during the Old Babylonian period. 4. Other Readings of MUŠ2/3 From the point of view of the second- and first-millennium lexical traditions, the alternation seen above (section 2) between the readings su h and /suk(u)/ of MUŠ2 would seem to correspond to two different verbs: • MUŠ2 = su h = nasāḫu “to tear out” (CAD N/2, 1); • MUŠ2 = su ku 5 or šu k = mašāḫu “to flare up, to shine brightly” (CAD M/1, 354). However, the interpretation mašāḫu is probably secondary and predicated on the phonetic similarity between that verb and nasāḫu. Nevertheless, besides the alternation between /h/ and /k/, MUŠ2 is assigned the reading susbu 2, sušbu, or šuzbu/šusbu in the name of a cultic functionary that corresponds to Akkadian ramku, as in Aa 8/1: 168 (MSL 14, 493), as well as susbû, as in Erimhuš 5: 10 (MSL 17, 67). On this cultic functionary, see CAD R, 126–27; CAD S, 416; Focke 1998: 218–19. A conventional distinction between susbu (MUŠ2.BU), susbu 2 (MUŠ2), susbu 3 (MUŠ3.BU), and susbu 4 (MUŠ3) is kept here (Borger 2003: 77). The spellings with BU are more frequent, but they are probably secondary. Compare the following lexical entries: [MUŠ2]su-uš-bu in LU2 4: 83 (MSL 12, 131) MUŠ2šu-uz-bu = [ra-a]m-ku in Nabnītu 23+Q: 288 (MSL 16, 220) MUŠ2su-us-biBU = su-us-bu-ú in Erimhuš 5: 10 (MSL 17, 67) Whereas in the first two BU is part of the gloss (/sušbu/, /šuzbu/), in the last one the gloss is /susbi/, to which a spurious BU has been added due to reanalysis of the sequence. This led to the extrapolation of a reading /sus/ for MUŠ2 and the interpretation of BU as a phonetic complement of the kind found in MUŠ3/2.DI, which can be read s e d 4/š e d 10 (see above, section 3). This reinterpretation of MUŠ2 as /sus/ found analogical basis in the readings su h and šu k. READING SUMERIAN NAMES, I 33 The assignation of a value /sus/ to MUŠ2 can be linked to its reading šušina k (šu-ši-na k) in Aa 8/1: 170 (MSL 14, 493). For the extension of the /sus/ or /šuš/ reading to MUŠ3 early on, see these parallel passages in the god list from Abū Salābīḫ: OIP 99 82 obv. iv 5 OIP 99 86 iiiʹ 4ʹ nin-MUŠ3.ŠEŠ4(LAK-668) nin-MUŠ3.EREN(LAK-671) d d Both instances can be read dnin-šušum, as MUŠ3.EREN = šušum; cf. OB Diri Oxford 462 (MSL 15, 47) and Diri 4: 94 (MSL 15, 152–53). Nonetheless, in the Abū Salābīḫ god list MUŠ3.EREN/ŠEŠ4 simply stands for / šušina k/. In fact, MUŠ3.EREN can be read /šušin/ or /šušina/ on the basis of syllabic spellings, such as su-sin 2 and su- sin 2-na (Sollberger 1956: 24; Steinkeller 1984: 140 n. 18). Thus, dnin-MUŠ3.EREN is an early spelling of what later on would be written syllabically as in-su-uš-na-ak and in-šu-ši-na-ak (Hinz 1976–1980: 117).7 On the other hand, the spelling dnin-MUŠ3.ŠEŠ4(LAK-668) from Abū Salābīḫ is somehow continued in the Old Babylonian period (RGTC 3, 230) and it resurfaces in some first-millennium god lists.8 Note also the spelling of the Sumerogram in the Annals of Assurbanipal, Prism A vi 30 (Borger 1996: 53): dMUŠ3.ŠEŠ2(SIG2.LAM).9 5. Enšubakešdanna The readings of MUŠ2/3 with /b/ have Early Dynastic precedents. In the ED Practical Vocabulary A (57–58)— also known as Archaic HAR-ra A, attested in Ebla (MEE 3 nos. 45, 46, 61, pp. 143–55, 247–50) and Abū Salābīḫ (OIP 99: 30–31, 33, 34, 37, 225–26)—one finds the following entries (Civil 1987: 143; 2008: 28–29, 67–68): ARES 4: EA (// EC) obv. iii 15 KEŠ2-za ARES 4: EA (// EC) obv. iii 16 MUŠ3-za ARES 4: EB rev. ii 2 = šè-ba-dum ARES 4: EB rev. ii 3 = su-bù-lu Eblaitic šè-ba-dum may correspond to the plural siprātu (“stone beads”), which was discussed above (section 2) in connection with Nabnītu 9: 104, with a not unparalleled inconsistency in the use of šè to write an emphatic (Civil 2008: 14, 68). Moreover, su-bù-lu is perhaps related to šubulu in Mari Akkadian, a term that occurs in a context of jewelry (ARMT 23: 535 rev. i 14; Civil 2008: 68). In both entries, ZA is merely a frozen classifier for names of stones. Thus, Civil (2008: 67) has proposed that, when designating a stone, both MUŠ3 and ZA.MUŠ2/MUŠ3 should be read /sub a/ or /subu/, or /šub a/ or /šubu/.10 However, as Civil notes, in the Old Babylonian period MUŠ2-KEŠ2 seems to be have been understood 7. See Sargonic and Ur III texts from Susa; e.g., dn i n -MUŠ3.EREN (MDP 11, pl. 1 obv. i 8), dMUŠ3.EREN (MDP 6, 7; pl. 2, I ii 5). Both spellings, with and without n i n , occur in Elamite texts (Hinz and Koch 1987: 957, 1002). he name Puzur-Inšušinak is written Puzur4-dMUŠ3. EREN and Puzur4-dn i n -MUŠ3.EREN in Sargonic inscriptions from Susa (FAOS 8, 56). 8. See II R 60 obv. i 9 (TuL no. 2, p. 12): dMUŠ2.ŠEŠ2(SIG2.LAM) ša šu-šá-anki; CT 29 (BM 46550): 46 iii 4: šu - ši - na k = dMUŠ3.ŠEŠ; AN = dAnum V 286 (Litke 1998: 194): dMUŠ3.ŠEŠ2 = du mu dt išp a k(MUŠ2)-ke 4. 9. MUŠ3.EREN is the common logographic spelling of the toponym Susa in the Early Dynastic period (RGTC 1, 154–55), in Sargonic texts (FAOS 8, 98–99), and in Ur III (RGTC 2, 187–91). It occurs in later periods as well, even as a Sumerogram in Akkadian, from a few Old Babylonian texts (RGTC 3, 230) to the Cyrus Cylinder (30). In addition, it is the logographic spelling in Elamite texts (Hinz and Koch 1987: 957), and MUŠ2/MUŠ3.EREN(ki) is attested in texts from Susa from various periods (RGTC 11, 270). Note the presence of both dMUŠ3.EREN and MUŠ3.ERENki in an inscription from Sargonic Susa (MDP 6 7). 10. Note the following conventions regarding indexes: šub a = ZA.MUŠ2, šub a 2 = ZA.MUŠ3, šub a 3 = MUŠ3.ZA or MUŠ3×ZA, and šub a 4 = MUŠ3 (Borger 2003: 77, 217; Mittermayer 2006: 19, 189). For the possibility of reading /šub a / as /sub a / or /subi /, see Sjöberg 1988: 172–73 n. 6. On the spellings and readings of /šub a /, see Wilcke 1969: 200–201; Sjöberg 1969: 113; Steinkeller 1989: 202; Rubio 2000: 210 n. 28. 34 GONZALO RUBIO as a sequence noun + verb; e.g., Ninurta’s Journey to Eridu B 12 (STVC 34 obv. ii 22): nam-en-š e 3 su h zag in 3 mu-un-keš 2 “for his lordship, he bound/tied the shining necklace/pectoral” (Falkenstein 1959: 82, 96–97; Reisman 1971: 4).11 On the contrary, the Ebla attestations would point to a construction noun + noun. In fact, MUŠ2.KEŠ2 is regarded as a noun and equated with tiqnu “adornment, ornament” in lexical lists, and in at least one instance it is clear that such an ornament was made of stones, in HAR-gud to HAR-ra 16: 100 (MSL 10, 32): NA4.MUŠ2.KEŠ2 = tiqnu (Steinkeller 1998: 93; Civil 2008: 67). In Ebla the sequence was taken to be a single word, which lends itself to be analyzed as noun + noun from our lexical perspective. Later on, the sequence was perhaps reanalyzed as a compound, which led to the reinterpretation of the form as noun + verb. There is evidence to support a /sub a/ or /šub a/ reading of MUŠ2 and MUŠ2.KEŠ2 in the Old Babylonian period as well: • A gloss in a manuscript of Šulgi hymn E 10 (YBC 7152 obv. 10) reads su-buMUŠ2 za-g in 2 keš 2-d a-meen (Civil 2008: 67–68). Note that Klein (1981: 90) proposed to emend the gloss and read su-u h !. On his part, Civil proposes to emend Antagal A 208, MUŠ2su-uh.SAR = tiqnu (MSL 17, 188; Civil 2008: 68 n. 137), and to read the gloss there as su-ub ! instead. In Antagal, MUŠ2su-ub!.SAR stands for MUŠ2su-ub!.KEŠ2, as SAR can occur instead of KEŠ2 in Neo-Assyrian texts (Borger 2003: 308, 359). KEŠ2 and EZEN had merged by the end of the Old Babylonian period (cf. Borger 2003: 98). • The whole sequence MUŠ2.KEŠ2 is glossed /sub a/ in an Old Babylonian eršemma of Dumuzi: u 3 k i-sik i l tur-re su-baMUŠ2.KEŠ2 b a-ni-in-a k ak (CT 58: 42 rev. 79; collated by I. Finkel).12 Nevertheless, in most instances, su-bu and šu-bu would not seem to gloss MUŠ2/MUŠ3 alone, but rather ZA.MUŠ3/ZA.MUŠ2; e.g., Diri 4: 47 (MSL 15, 150–51): [š]u-bu : U2.ZA.MUŠ2.KI = uruk (= u2-šub a ki) Hh 21 sec. 10: 8 (MSL 11, 19): RIG7ri-ig-šu-buZA.MUŠ3.KI In fact, ZA.MUŠ3 should be read šub a; cf. Diri 3: 99–110 (MSL 15, 140–41); Klein 1981: 152. As mentioned above, this ZA is a frozen occurrence of the classifier for names of stones, which in the second- and first-millennium lexical traditions was reinterpreted as part of the compound sign. Thus, the reading /šub a/ designates a kind of stone. Additional support in favor of a reading šub a x for MUŠ2 could be found in the use of kur šub a (2/3/4) as a common epithet of Aratta, as in Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta (34, 230, 432); see Rubio 2000: 210 n. 28; Mittermayer 2009: 224–25, 234–35. Note, however, elsewhere this may refer to other mythical locations (Sjöberg 1969: 113; 1975: 314–15). It is, therefore, quite logical to find the element /šub a/ in the name of the ruler of Aratta: en-šub a x-keš d a-an-na, perhaps to be understood as an appositional name, “The ruler (is) the heavenly šub a-stone pectoral.” Needless to say, this name is no actual person’s name, but rather a literary artifice purposely devised to convey the nature of this character within the Aratta compositional cycle. In conclusion, two possible readings of this name are supported by the evidence: en-su h-keš d a-an-na and en-šub a x-keš d a-an-na (or en-sub a x-keš d a-an-na). Nonetheless, one can find no particular reason to support a reading “en-su h-g ir 11-an-na.”13 Concerning the šub a stone as a real object in general (Akkadian šubû and šabû), particularly used in medical contexts, see CAD Š/3, 185–87; Scurlock 2006: 267–70 et passim; Schuster-Brandis 2008: 271–73, 288. he šub a stone should be distinguished from the sābu stone, the latter occurring in magical and medical contexts, including childbirth, with both stones oten attested in close proximity (CAD S, 5; Stol 2000: 50; Scurlock 2006: 269–70, 481–86). 11. Similar constructions of su h z a - g i n 3(- na ) with the verb ke š 2 occur in Šulgi hymn E 10 (Klein 1981: 90), Enki and the World Order 349 (Benito 1969: 105), Gilgameš and Huwawa B 29 (su h 10, Edzard 1993: 19), and Inanna-Dumuzi B (SRT 31 32; Sefati 1998: 129). 12. he gloss was originally regarded as an illegible sign by Kramer (1980: 8). Alster and Geller copied and read su - ku (CT 58 p. 19); see also Steinkeller 1998: 93 n. 42. However, I. Finkel’s collation (courtesy of M. Civil) reads the gloss as su - b a . 13. he reading g i r 11 for KEŠ2 corresponds to a verb meaning “to tie up, to yoke” (samādu, CAD S, 89–90); see Reciprocal Ea A 101 (MSL READING SUMERIAN NAMES, I 35 B. Baba 1. Baba in Fāra The name of Ningirsu’s spouse is alternatively read db a-U2, db a-b a 6, or db a-u 2. The main basis for the apparently unique reading b a 6 of U2 in this theonym lies in phonetic spellings with the sign b a (b a-b a). However, in a stimulating and learned contribution, Marchesi (2002) provided a reassessment of the evidence for such phonetic spellings and put forward various arguments in favor of the reading db a-u 2, as this would reflect the pronunciation of the name in the first half of the third millennium. One of the earliest phonetic spellings occurs in the Early Dynastic god list from Fāra (SF 1 rev. i 13΄). marchesi (2002: 162) follows here mander (1986: 84, 99) in reading db a ku !. This db a-ku 6 would be “the turtle (god),” an interpretation supported by ed Fish list 75 (MEE 3, 101): b a-ku 6, which would stem from b a-a l-gu 7 (Ba.aL.Ku2) and this from b a-a l-g i 4 (PSD B, 14–15; englund 1990: 223; Farber 1974: 195–96). However, mander’s reading should be corrected, as the third sign in that line of the Fāra god list is not Ha (ku 6) but Ba (Krebernik 1986: 179). The sign Ba can be seen in the CdLi photo, and as such is clearly reproduced in Krebernik’s copy.14 moreover, Joachim marzahn kindly collated the line for us. mander was probably misled by a couple of scratches: a small vertical scratch at the beginning of Ba, which may make it look like Ha, and another scratch that may seem to be an additional wedge at the top of Ba. as marzahn points out (personal communication), “the edge of the tablet is partly broken off but glued together and just in this position one may see some more wedges than originally written” (SF 1 is the result of joining VaT 12760+12762+12776). note that a few lines after db a-b a, the Fāra god list has dkuš 7-b a-u2 (SF 1 rev. i 21ʹ), a deity closely associated with db a-u2 (see below in regard to a-b a-b a). 6 2. Is Baba Short for Ababa? as in the god list from Fāra, third-millennium personal names exhibit an alternation between ur-(d)b a-b a and u r- db a-u2, and the corresponding hypocoristic name b a-b a, which supports the reading b a 6 of u2.15 marchesi (2002: 163) argues that in these names b a-b a does not stand for b a-u2 but rather for da-b a-b a or da-b a 4-b a 4, with apheresis of the initial vowel. He refers to parallels such as Inūrta for ninurta and Ingurisa/Imgursa for ningirsu (Parpola apud radner 1998: xxv). However, such cases of apheresis are not properly a sumerian phonetic development, but rather the result of dialectal realizations of original sumerian words that had long been incorporated into the native semitic lexicon of proper names. it is most certainly in neo-assyrian, and not in sumerian, that those instances of apheresis took place. in neo-assyrian, there are many examples of apheresis, particularly of aphesis, that is, the apheresis of an unstressed, generally short vowel: né-e-nu for anīnu; mar for ammar; šu-ungal-li for ušumgallu, etc. (Hämeen-anttila 2000: 37–38; Luukko 2004: 121–22). in general, apheresis does not commonly occur in sumerian (Jestin 1965: 131–33). The few instances that may come to mind include the initial element nin and would involve loans from sumerian into other languages, and perhaps from other languages into sumerian as well.16 a good example is provided by inšušinak, which comes 14, 526); Proto-ea 762 (MSL 14, 60); ea 8: 85 (MSL 14, 478); aa 8/2: 35–36 (MSL 14, 498); geller 1985: 114–16; 1989: 201. in this word, the sign KeŠ2 occurs along with glosses indicating a reading h i r in texts from meturan (Cavigneaux and al-rawi 1995: 34–35). hus, in the OB forerunners of Udug-hul 479 (geller 1985: 46), one should read �b a�-an - h i r hi-h i r hi-re - e š (Cavigneaux and al-rawi 1995: 34). here is no reason to assume that this verb occurs either in the noun or in the name discussed above. 14. For the CdLi photo, see http://www.cdli.ucla.edu/dl/photo/P010566.jpg. Krebernik’s copy can be found here: http://www.cdli.ucla. edu/dl/lineart/P010566_l.jpg 15. see Limet 1968: 105, 108, 383, 536; di Vito 1993: 30; sauren 1969: 28; rubio 2001: 272 n. 26. note that, pace rubio, the sequence e2 b a b a-t a (YOS 4: 203 obv. 5) probably does not mean “from the temple of Baba,” but rather “from the house of Baba (Pn)” (marchesi 2002: 163). 16. Words such as g iš- e re n 2 or g iš-r in 2 (gišrinnu “balance, scale”; CAD g, 107; steinkeller 1989: 95 n. 276) have nothing to do with apheresis, since there g iš was actually read. he fall of posttonic vowel is a common phenomenon completely unrelated to apheresis. 36 GONZALO RUBIO from dnin-šušina k (Hinz 1976–1980; Selz 1991: 31; Malbran-Labat 1995: 190). The case of the name of Inanna, which is commonly assumed to come from /nin an-a k/, may pose a complication, since this may be merely a folk etymology (Gelb 1960; Jestin 1965: 133; cf. Selz 2002: 662). The idea that b a-b a may be the apheresis version of a-b a-b a presents also a frequency problem. For instance, a search of the CDLI database yields 3,124 texts containing the name ur- db a-U2 of which 135 are Early Dynastic, seven Sargonic, 475 from Lagash II, and almost 2,500 from Ur III. Without the divine determinative, ur-b a-U2 occurs only 8 times, always in Ur III. The name ur-b a-b a occurs 34 times: 7 in the Early Dynastic, once in the Sargonic and Lagash II periods respectively, and 24 times in Ur III.17 The name with the determinative, ur-db ab a, is attested twice in Ur III (TMH nF 1/2: 11 and an unpublished Schøyen tablet). These figures correspond to one’s expectations: the phonetic spelling b a-b a is substantially less frequent than the spelling ba-U2. On the other hand, the name ur-da-b a-b a turns up only 19 times in the CDLI corpus, with 16 attestations in Ur III and three in Sargonic texts; and ur-a-b a-b a seems unattested.18 If a-b a-b a were the original form, one would expect it to be more frequent than the form that would have allegedly undergone apheresis, b a-b a. However, personal names with b a-b a are twice more frequent than names with a-b a-b a. In fact, besides a handful of anthroponyms, dab a-b a is very rare in the third millennium and afterwards.19 In terms of context, in god lists and offering lists, both in Ur III and later on, Ababa normally appears as one of the deities associated with Ninimma (Such-Gutiérrez 2003, 1: 311; Richter 2004: 93). However, the db a-b a that occurs in the Fāra god list is not close to any mention of Ninimma, whose name does appear elsewhere in that list (SF 1 obv. v 24ʹ). Moreover, in the Fāra god list, db a-b a (SF 1 rev. i 13ʹ) occurs a few lines away from dkuš 7-b a-U2 (SF 1 rev. i 21). In the god list from Abū Salābīḫ, db a !-U2 occurs immediately before dkuš 7-b a-U2 (OIP 99: 82 obv. iv 21–22). The association between db a-U2 and dkuš 7-b a-U2 is well documented (Selz 1995: 157). In sum, there is no reason to suppose that b a-b a is short for a-b a-b a.20 3. The Problem of Reading ba6 The third-millennium phonetic spellings of the name of Ningirsu’s wife are continued in second and first millennium sources. For instance, a Neo-Assyrian god list from Assur (KAV 46 i 14ʹ) has [b a]-a-bu : d�b a�-U2, which points to a reading bu 11 of U2, corresponding perhaps to a Semiticized pronunciation. Concerning the reading of U2 as b a 6, the famous god list AN: dAnum exhibits two variant spellings for the same line (II 268; Litke 1998: 99):21 ms. A (YBC 2401 iv 27 [MAss]) ms. B (CT 24: 28 [K. 4349] iii 72 [MAss]) ms. C (CT 24: 16 [K. 4332] iii 17 [NAss]) ab-b a ab-b a d ab-U2 d d All three manuscripts refer to the doorkeeper of the Esagila, the spelling of whose name exhibits an alternation between dab-b a and dab-U2 (Richter 2004: 117–19, 197). In the three manuscripts, this theonym is followed by 17. Instances of u r- b a - b a in ED: NTSŠ 165; WF 17, 18, 26, 27, 29, 125. In the Sargonic period: OSP 1 131. In Lagash II: ITT 4 7716. Of the Ur III attestations, see, e.g., NATN 423, 518, 573; TMH nF 1/2: 48, 312, 327; UET 3 10; SANTAG 7 26. 18. Spellings of this anthroponym with a - b a 4-b a 4 seem unattested. In fact, the spelling a - b a 4-b a 4 seems limited to god lists and lexical texts before the irst millennium (Such-Gutiérrez 2003, 1: 311; Richter 2004: 93). For the reading of this theonym, see OB Diri Nippur section 11: 4 (MSL 15, 36): dA.GA2.GA2 = a- b a - b a . 19. da - b a - b a occurs in two ofering lists from Ur III: MVN 10 144, and TCL 5 6053. See Such-Gutiérrez 2003, 1: 311; 2003, 2: 353. 20. he occurrence of b a - b a (?) in the OB Nippur god list, sandwiched between b a -ab - b a and a - b a (Peterson 2009: 47), is of little consequence here. he scribe of SLT 122 did not carefully distinguish between BA and KU, so this could b e ku - ku instead (Peterson 2009: 76). 21. he association between ab -U2 and lu g a l u 2 “lord of plants” is explicit in Enki and Ninhursag 270 (Attinger 1984: 30; Peterson 2009: 49). However, this seems to be a learned folk etymology (Attinger 1984: 46), the sort of phenomenon that Selz (2002) has called Babilismus. READING SUMERIAN NAMES, I 37 t a-KU-na. Nevertheless, Marchesi (2002: 168–69) believes that these variants respond to two different traditions. In the Middle Assyrian tradition, the doorkeeper of Marduk’s temple in Babylon would have been Abba, but this would have been replaced with Abu in the first millennium. Such a substitution would be reflected also in Tintir II 29ʹ: (manzāz) dab-U2 šá sip-pi [MIN] “the station of Ab-U2 at the doorsill of (ditto)” (George 1992: 54–55, 292–93). The assumption is that the first-millennium scribes would have suddenly resurrected a very obscure third-millennium deity, dab-U2.22 However, as is the case of compositions with a long textual history, such as Angim and Lugale, this is another instance of first-millennium scribal traditions being closer to earlier ones—here in the use of U2 as b a 6—and Middle Assyrian scribes departing substantially from such traditions (Rubio 2009: 44).23 The evidence for the reading b a 6 of U2 is not limited to this god list. In an entry of the ED Geographical List (189), the sign bu 3 (KA×GAN2-tenû; Rubio 2006: 113) in Ebla corresponds to U2 in Abū Salābīḫ (MEE 3, 236): d MEE 3, 56 obv. ix 5 OIP 99, 91 obv. viiʹ 6 OIP 99, 103 iiʹ 1ʹ bu 3-bu 3ki b a 6-b a !ki b[a 6-b]a ki Moreover, the word for “ax” and “small hoe,” normally spelled ha-bu 3-d a or ha-bu-d a, appears as ha-U2-d a in at least two Early Dynastic texts from Lagash (VAS 27 74 obv. ii 7) and Umma (BIN 8 87 obv. 1), and in two texts from Umma probably dating to the Sargonic period (BIN 8 89, 1; 8 99 obv. 2).24 Marchesi (2002: 170 n. 99) advocates against the reading ha-bu 11-d a of ha-U2-d a, and prefers to read ha-u 2-d a representing /ḫ awud a/ “from a Semitic etymon *ḫawūd/ta.” However, such a Semitic root meaning “hoe” or “ax” does not really exist. Moreover, since Akkadian ḫapūtu “small hoe” and ha-U2-d a are clearly related, one wonders why there is no spelling ḫa-wutum in Akkadian texts (CAD Ḫ , 86; AHw 322, 1559). In this regard, Marchesi argues that some Semitic loans in Sumerian underwent a shift /w/ > /b/ in intervocalic position. However, cases such as ḫawû, which occur as ha-um and ha-bu-um in Sumerian texts, reflect internal Akkadian phenomena. These are not loanwords (Lehnwörter) properly speaking, but rather Fremdwörter, whose every occurrence in Sumerian reflects the various individual realizations of the word in Akkadian: ḫawû, ḫabû, ḫaʾû (CAD Ḫ , 162–63). Regardless, the term /habud a/ may well have a Semitic origin.25 Nonetheless, many Mesopotamian terms for agricultural implements and tools are ultimately Wanderwörter and Kulturwörter (Rubio 1999: 5, 8–9).26 22. On dab -U2, particularly in connection to Kuwara, see Sallaberger 1993, 2: 134; Selz 1995: 115 n. 429; Steinkeller 1995: 277; Such-Gutiérrez 2003, 1: 171 n. 722, 247 n. 1078. 23. Richter (2004: 118 n. 526) wants to read dab - b a -U2 as dab -ba b a 6 in Ur Lament 24–25. However, all the manuscripts containing those lines have dab - b a -U2, with the exception of two that confuse the uncommon dab - b a -U2 and write instead db a -U2 (Römer 2004: 15, 109). he ubiquity of a phonetic gloss throughout a complete manuscript tradition would be rare. 24. On the Sumerian word for “ax” or “small hoe,” see Limet 1960: 243–49, 262–63, et passim; Salonen 1968: 143–47; Wilcke 1972–1975: 34–35. Pace Limet (1960: 119, 270) there is no word “u r u d a - b a 6-b a 6.” In Diri 6 B 84 (MSL 15, 192–93) the sequence URUDA.U2.U2 is given the reading ku - ku - uš and equated with Akkadian rātu, which means “channel, runnel, drain, metallic pipe” (CAD R, 219–20; Goetze 1945: 235; Salonen 1964: 124). his should then be read urudakuš 3-kuš 3 (U2 = kuš 3, as in Proto-Ea 231 [MSL 14, 41]). 25. A tantalizing possibility for Akkadian ḫapūtu and Sumerian ha - bu 3-d a is ofered by the Semitic root attested in the Arabic verb ḫabata “to beat, strike,” whose potential cognates would exhibit a mild irregularity in the labial second radical (Geʿez ḫafata “to scratch, engrave”; Leslau 1987: 260a). Another two semantically close Akkadian words have more likely Semitic cognates; marru “spade, shovel” (CAD M, 287: AHw 612) is related to Arabic marr “iron shovel, spade”—although this may be a Wanderwort (Rubio 1999: 9)—and allu “hoe” (CAD A/1, 356; AHw 37) has a possible cognate in Gurage wällät “forked digging stick” (Leslau 1979: 653). 26. he possibility of reading the anthroponym U2-U2 as bu 11-bu 11, taken to be a variant spelling of bu 3- bu 3, cannot be substantiated; see Steinkeller 2003: 621 n. 3. 38 GONZALO RUBIO 4. On the Nature of Glides in Sumerian In some regards, the reading b a 6 of U2 is related to its reading wa 3. The latter is well attested in Ur III spellings of the name Huwawa as hu-U2-U2 (hu-wa 3-wa 3), which coexists with the spelling hu-b a-b a in the same period.27 However, the reading wa 3 of U2 does not point to the presence of a velar glide (or voiced labiovelar approximant) in the name of Ningirsu’s spouse. Although there are specific sequences of syllabograms that seem to point to the existence of palatal and velar glides in Sumerian, there is little reason to assume that they had a true phonological entity or were anything other than secondary or marginal segments. The few possible instances of glides appear to be limited to allophonic variants, particularly junctural realizations in prefix and suffix sequences, as well as a few expressive words, interjections, and perhaps loanwords.28 Huwawa itself, particularly in its literary context, is obviously a motivated name intended to convey onomatopoeic suggestions of monstrosity, strangeness, and foreignness. Few Sumerian lexical morphemes seem to contain traces of glides. It is no coincidence that some of the best evidence for glides in Sumerian words and word sequences comes from Ebla (Civil 1982: 6, 13–15; 1984: 80), precisely where one expects a Semiticized reading of Sumerian (Civil 1983; Civil and Rubio 1999).29 Other Sumerian syllabograms with initial /w/ have more basic and common readings with initial labial stop: BA = wa 2, b e 4; PI = bi 3, be6, wa/we/w i. This by itself can be regarded as a symptom of the non-phonological and marginal nature of glides in Sumerian. Since our readings of Sumerian syllabograms are filtered through the intermediary lens of Akkadian phonology and Akkadian does have widespread phonological glides, it is difficult to find solid reasons for which glides would not be more obvious and frequently attested in the Sumerian writing interface, if this language actually had non-marginal phonological glides. In fact, the very readings of Sumerian syllabograms with /w/ most likely stemmed from the reinterpretation of signs with labial segments (BA, PI/bi 3) or back vowels (U2, u8/wa 4), a process that was primarily triggered by the need to write the velar glide in Akkadian.30 5. Bawu or Baba? While the idea of understanding db a-U2 as /b awu/ is not new (Kraus 1951: 67, 69, 74–75; Litke 1998: 173 n. 50), Marchesi (2002) has put forward the most erudite and comprehensive case for such a reading. However, as has been shown here, it is still very difficult to explain away all the evidence, which leads to the following conclusions: (a) The alternation between the spellings (d)b a-U2 and (d)b a-b a occurs already in the Early Dynastic period; (b) the reading b a 6 of U2 can be established already in Early Dynastic texts; (c) the possibility of having a velar 27. For hu - w a 3-w a 3 in Ur III, see 6N-T190+239 obv. i 38 (Zettler 1992: 271); 4N-T213 rev. v 8ʹ (Zettler 1992: 263); 6N-T199+ obv. ii 23 (Zettler 1992: 275); ITT 1 633 obv. i 8, 911 rev. 15; CT 3 19 (BM 018344) obv. ii 24; CT 3 44 (BM 021338) rev. iii 1; MVN 11 57 rev. 2, 7; MVN 13 835 rev. ii 5; TCTI 2, 3369 obv. 5; SAT 1 291 rev. 1. For hu - b a - b a in Ur III, see Nisaba 3/1 155 obv. 12; and possibly Nisaba 16 36 obv. 4. See also Limet 1968: 111–12, 430–31. 28. On the problem of glides in Sumerian, see Jestin 1965: 122–23, 139. For instance, it is possible that the locative-terminative verbal preix had both vocalic and glide allomorphs, but this only means that the latter are secondary (see Civil 1976: 90; Rubio 2007: 1356). However, spellings of the 2 sg. pronominal preix such as b a - e - d a -, mu - e - d a - and the like may be morphophonemic (compare to mu - u 3-d a - in Gudea); Rubio 2007: 1352. 29. Since the emesal form of e n is u 3- mu - u n , it could be assumed that the latter originates in /uw u n /, which would imply that e n came from /e wen /. his seems quite unlikely, if only because typologically the shit w > m is rare. Akkadian is rather exceptional in this regard. Cross-linguistically, the shit m > w, particularly in intervocalic position, is far more common. hus, if one were to postulate a hypothetical proto-form, or an underlying representation, the assumption should be e n < /*e we n / < /*e me n /, the emesal word being closer to the original (see Schretter 1990: 263–64). 30. he personal name w a - w a - t i occurs a few times in Ur III (MAD 3, 9). As Michalowski (personal communication) points out, w a w a - t i occurs mainly in contexts in which other anthroponyms are Semitic (TCL 2 5572; TIM 3 151; TCS 1 346; CST 328; Nisaba 16: 63; Owen and Young 1971: 98–99, 111 no. 8; Michalowski 1977: 95; Hruška 1980: 20). hus, w a - w a - t i is probably the Semitic version of the name normally written b a - b a - t i and, less oten, b a 4- b a 4- t i in properly Sumerian contexts (RIME 3/2, 340–42; Limet 1968: 383; Michalowski 1976: 48–56, 217–20; Walker 1983: 93). READING SUMERIAN NAMES, I 39 glide in db a-U2 is minimal, if only because of the limited and peripheral evidence for the marginal, non-phonological, and eminently secondary existence of glides in Sumerian. It seems, therefore, more logical to assume the reading db a-b a 6 (Selz 1995: 26; Richter 2004: 118–19 n. 526). Regardless of its ultimate origin, the name Baba exhibits a common pattern attested in other names of deities for which no obvious Sumerian or Semitic etymologies can usually be found, such as Alala, Aruru, Belili, Bulala, Bunene, Igigi, Inanna, Izuzu, Kubaba, Šidada, Zababa, and so forth (Rubio 1999: 3). References Archi, A. 1987 he “Sign-List” from Ebla. Eblaitica 1: 91–113. Attinger, P. 1984 Enki et Ninhursaa. ZA 74: 1–54. 1993 Eléments de linguistique sumérienne: La construction de du11/e/di. OBO Sonderband. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Benito, C. 1969 “Enki and Ninmah” and “Enki and the World Order.” Ph.D. dissertation. University of Pennsylvania. Borger, R. 1996 Beiträge zum Inschritenwerk Assurbanipals. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 2003 Mesopotamisches Zeichelexikon. AOAT 305. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Cavigneaux, A., and al-Rawi, F. N. H. 1995 Textes magiques de Tell Haddad (Textes de Tell Haddad II). Deuxième partie. ZA 85: 19–46. 2000 Gilgameš et la Mort: Texts de Tell Haddad VI, avec un appendice sur les textes funéraires sumériens. CM 19. Groningen: Styx. Charpin, D. 1986 Le clergé d’Ur au siècle d’Hammurabi. Geneva: Droz. Civil, M. 1967 Remarks on “Sumerian and Bilingual Texts” (review of O. R. Gurney and J. J. Finkelstein, he Sultantepe Tablets, vol. 2, London, 1964). JNES 26: 200–211. 1976 he Song of the Plowing Oxen. Pp. 83–95 in Kramer Anniversary Volume: Cuneiform Studies in Honor of Samuel Noah Kramer, ed. B. L. Eichler et al. AOAT 25. Kevelaer : Butzon & Bercker. 1982 Studies on Early Dynastic Lexicography, I. OrAn 21: 1–26. 1983 Bilingualism in Logographically Written Languages: Sumerian in Ebla. Pp. 75–97 in Il bilinguismo a Ebla, ed. L. Cagni. Naples: Istituto universitario orientale. 1987 he Early History of HAR-ra: he Ebla Link. Pp. 179–89 in Ebla 1975–1985, ed. L. Cagni. Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale. 1999– Reading Gilgameš. Pp. 179–89 in Arbor Scientiae: Estudios del Próximo Oriente Antiguo. Festschrit for Gregorio 2000 del Olmo Lete on Occasion of his 65th Anniversary, ed. M. Molina, I. Marquez, and J. Sanmartin. AuOr 17–18. Barcelona: Ausa. 2008 he Early Dynastic Practical Vocabulary A (Archaic HAR-ra A). ARETS 4. Rome: La Sapienza. Civil, M, and Rubio, G. 1999 An Ebla Incantation against Insomnia and the Semiticization of Sumerian: Notes on ARET 5 8b and 9. OrNS 68: 254–66. Cohen, M. E. 1975– ur.s ag .me.š ár.ur : A s i r namšubb a of Ninurta. WdO 8: 22–36. 1976 1981 Sumerian Hymnology: he Eršemma. HUCA Suppl. 2. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College. 1988 he Canonical Lamentations of Ancient Mesopotamia. Potomac, MD: CDL. Delnero, P. 2006 Variation in Sumerian Literary Compositions: A Case Study Based on the Decad. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Pennsylvania. Di Vito, R. A. 1993 Studies in hird Millennium Sumerian and Akkadian Personal Names. Studia Pohl 16. Rome: Pontiicio Istituto Biblico. 40 GONZALO RUBIO Edzard, D. O. 1993 “Gilgamesch und Huwawa”: Zwei Versionen der sumerischen Zedernwaldepisode nebst einer Edition von Version “B.” Sitzungberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaten, philos.-hist. Klasse, 1993, 14. Munich: Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaten. Englund, R. K. 1990 Organisation und Verwaltung der Ur III-Fischerei. BBVO 10. Berlin: Reimer. Farber, W. 1974 Von BA anderen Wassertieren: testudines sargonicae? JCS 26: 195–207. Falkenstein, A. 1950 Sumerische religiöse Texte. ZA 49: 80–150. 1959 Sumerische Götterlieder, I. Abhandlungen der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaten, Phil.-hist. Klasse, Jahrg. 1959. Heidelberg: Winter. Focke, K. 1998 Die Göttin Nin-imma. ZA 88: 196–224. Gelb, I. J. 1960 he Name of the Goddess Innin. JNES 19: 72–79. Geller, M. J. 1985 Forerunners to Udug-hul: Sumerian Exorcist Incantations. FAOS 12. Stuttgart: Steiner. 1989 A New Piece of Witchcrat. Pp. 193–205 in Dumu-e2-dub-ba-a: Studies in Honor of Åke W. Sjöberg, ed. H. Behrens et al. Philadelphia: University Museum. George, A. R. 1992 Babylonian Topographical Texts. OLA 40. Leuven: Peeters. Goetze, A. 1945 he Vocabulary of the Princeton heological Seminary. JAOS 65: 223–37. Green, M. W. 1984 he Uruk Lament. JAOS 104: 253–79. Hämeen-Anttila, J. 2000 A Sketch of Neo-Assyrian Grammar. SAAS 13. Helsinki: he Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project. Heimpel, W. 1972 Review of Å. Sjöberg, he Collection of the Sumerian Temple Hymns (Augustin, 1969). JAOS 92: 285–88. Hinz, W. 1976– Inšušinak. RlA 5: 117–19. 1980 Hinz, W., and H. Koch 1987 Elamisches Wörterbuch, I–II. AMI 17. Berlin: Reimer. Hruška, B. 1980 Drei neusumerische Texte aus Drehem. WdO 11: 17–22. 1969 Die spätbabylonische Lehrgedicht ‘Inannas Erhöhung.’ ArOr 37: 473–522. Jestin, R. 1965 Notes de graphie et de phonétique sumériennes. Paris: Honoré Champion. Karahashi, F. 2000 Sumerian Compound Verbs with Body-Part Terms. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Chicago. Klein, J. 1981 hree Šulgi Hymns: Sumerian Royal Hymns Glorifying King Šulgi of Ur. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press. Kramer, S. N. 1940 Langdon’s Historical and Religious Texts from the Temple Library of Nippur: Additions and Corrections. JAOS 60: 234–57. 1980 he Death of Dumuzi: A New Sumerian Version. AnSt 30: 5–13. 1989 BM 100042: A Hymn to Šu-Sin and an Adab to Nergal. Pp. 303–16 in Dumu-e2-dub-ba-a: Studies in Honor of Åke W. Sjöberg, ed. H. Behrens et al. Philadelphia: University Museum. Kraus, F. R. 1951 Nippur und Isin nach altbabylonischen Rechtsurkunden. JCS 3: 1–228. Krebernik, M. 1986 Die Götterlisten aus Fāra. ZA 76: 161–204. Leslau, W. 1979 Etymological Dictionary of Gurage (Ethiopic), I–III. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. READING SUMERIAN NAMES, I 1987 Limet, H. 1960 1968 Litke, R. L. 1998 41 Comparative Dictionary of Geʿez. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Le travail du métal au pays de Sumer au temps de la IIIe dynastie d’Ur. Bibliothèque de la Faculté de Philosophie de l’Université de Liège, 155. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. L’anthroponymie sumerienne dans les documents de la 3e dynastie d’Ur. Bibliothèque de la Faculté de Philosophie et Lettres de l’Université de Liège, 180. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. A Reconstruction of the Assyro-Babylonian God-Lists, AN: dA-nu-um and AN: Anu šá amēli. TBC 3. New Haven: Yale Babylonian Collection. Löhnert, A. 2009 “Wie die Sonne tritt heraus!” Eine Klage zum Auszug Enlils mit einer Untersuchung zu Komposition und Tradition sumerischer Klagelieder in altbabylonischer Zeit. AOAT 365. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Luukko, M. 2004 Grammatical Variation in Neo-Assyrian. SAAS 16. Helsinki: he Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project. Malbran-Labat, F. 1995 Les inscriptions royales de Suse. Paris: Réunion des Musées Nationaux. Mander, P. 1986 Il pantheon di Abu-Sālabīkh (sic). Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale. Marchesi, G. 2002 On the Divine Name dBA.Ú. OrNS 71: 161–72. Michalowski, P. 1976 he Royal Correspondence of Ur. Ph.D. dissertation. Yale University. 1977 he Status of Durum and Uruk During the Ur III Period. Mesopotamia 12: 83–96. 1989 he Lamentation over the Destruction of Sumer and Ur. MC 1. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Mittermayer, C. 2006 Altbabylonische Zeichenliste der sumerischen-literarischen Texte. With P. Attinger. OBO, Sonderband. Fribourg: Academic Press. 2009 Enmerkara und der Herr von Arata. OBO 239. Fribourg: Academic Press. Oberhuber, K. 1990 Innsbrucker Sumerisches Lexikon, I.1. Innsbruck: Universität Innsbruck. Owen, D., and G. D. Young 1971 Ur III Texts in the Zion Research Library, Boston. JCS 23: 95–115. Peterson, J. 2009 Godlists from Old Babylonian Nippur in the University Museum, Philadelphia. AOAT 362. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Radner, K. 1998 he Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, I/1: A. Helsinki: he Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project. Reisman, D. 1971 Ninurta’s Journey to Eridu. JCS 24: 3–10. Reiter, K. 1989 kikkillu/kilkillu, “Raum zur Aubewahrung des Eidleistungssymbols (šu.nir = šurinnum) des Šamaš.” N.A.B.U.: 79–80 (no. 107). 1991 Kilkillu, archäologisch. N.A.B.U.: 55–57 (no. 84). Richter, h. 2004 Untersuchungen zu den lokalen Panthea Süd- und Mittelbabyloniens in altbabylonischer Zeit. 2nd ed. AOAT 257. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Römer, W. H. Ph. 2004 Die Klage über die Zerstörung von Ur. AOAT 309. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Rubio, G. 1999 On the Alleged Pre-Sumerian Substratum. JCS 51: 1–16. 2000 On the Orthography of the Sumerian Literary Texts from the Ur III Period. ASJ 22: 203–25. 2001 Inanna and Dumuzi: A Sumerian Love Story. JAOS 121: 268–74. 2006 Eblaite, Akkadian, and East Semitic. Pp. 110–39 in he Akkadian Language in its Semitic Context, ed. N. J. C. Kouwenberg and G. Deutscher. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. 2007 Sumerian Morphology. Pp. 1327–79 in Morphologies of Asia and Africa, ed. A. S. Kaye. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. 42 GONZALO RUBIO Sumerian literature. Pp. 11–75 in From an Antique Land: An Introduction to Ancient Near Eastern Literature, ed. C. S. Ehrlich. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littleield. Sallaberger, W. 1993 Der kultische Kalender der Ur III–Zeit, 1–2. UAVA 7. Berlin: De Gruyter. Salonen, A. 1964 Die Öfen der alten Mesopotamier. BaM 3: 100–124. 1968 Agricultura mesopotamica nach sumerisch-akkadischen Quellen. Annales Academiae scientiarum fennicae, series B, 149. Helsinki: Societas Orientalis Fennica. Sauren, H. 1969 Untersuchungen zur Schrit- und Lautlehre der neusumerischen Urkunden aus Nippur. ZA 59: 11–64. Schretter, M. K. 1990 Emesal-Studien. IBK 69. Innsbruck: Universität Innsbruck. Schuster-Brandis, A. 2008 Steine als Schutz- und Heilmittel: Untersuchung zu ihrer Verwendung in der Beschwörungskunst Mesopotamiens im 1. Jt. v. Chr. AOAT 46. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Scurlock, J.-A. 2006 Magico-Medical Means of Treating Ghost-Induced Illnesses in Ancient Mesopotamia. AMD 3. Leiden: Brill. Sefati, Y. 1998 Love Songs in Sumerian Literature. Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press. Selz, G. J. 1991 “Elam” und “Sumer”: Skizze einer Nachbarschat nach inschritlichen Quellen der vorsargonischen Zeit. Pp. 27– 43 in Mésopotamie et Elam, ed. L. De Meyer and H. Gasche. CRRAI 36. Ghent: University of Ghent. 1995 Untersuchungen zur Götterwelt des altsumerischen Stadtstaates von Lagaš. Philadelphia: University Museum. 2002 “Babilismus” und die Gottheit dNindagar. Pp. 647–84 in Ex Mesopotamia et Syria Lux: Festschrit für Manfried Dietrich zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, ed. O. Loretz, K. A. Metzler, und H. Schaudig. AOAT 281. Münster: UgaritVerlag. Sjöberg, Å. W. 1969 he Collection of the Sumerian Temple Hymns. With E. Bergmann. TCS 3. Locust Valley, NY: Augustin. 1970– Hymns to Meslamtaea, Lugalgirra and Nanna-Suen in Honour of King Ibbīsuen (Ibbīsîn) of Ur. OrSu 19–20: 1971 140–78. 1972 “He Is a Good Seed of a Dog” and “Engardu, the Fool.” JCS 24: 107–19. 1973 Nungal in the Ekur. AfO 24: 19–46. 1975 hree Hymns to the God Ningišzida. StOr 46: 301–22. 1977 A Blessing of King Urninurta. Pp. 185–95 in Essays on the Ancient Near East in Memory of Jacob Joel Finkelstein, ed. M. de Jong Ellis, Hamden, CT: Archon Books. 1988 A Hymn to Inanna and Her Self-Praise. JCS 40: 165–86. Sollberger, E. 1956 Selected Texts from American Collections. JCS 10: 11–31. Steinkeller, P. 1984 Sumerian Miscellanea. AuOr 2: 137–42. 1989 Sale Documents of the Ur III Period. FAOS 17. Stuttgart: Steiner. 1992 hird-Millennium Legal and Administrative Texts in the Iraq Museum, Baghdad. With J. N. Postgate. MC 4. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. 1995 A Rediscovered Akkadian City? ASJ 17: 275–81. 1998 Inanna’s Archaic Symbol. Pp. 87–100 in Written on Clay and Stone: Ancient Near Eastern Studies Presented to Krystyna Szarzyńska on the Occasion of Her 80th Birthday, ed. J. Braun et al. Warsaw: Agade. 2003 he Question of Lugalzagesi’s Origins. Pp. 621–37 in Festschirt für Burkhart Kienast, ed. G. J. Selz. AOAT 274. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Stol, M. 2000 Birth in Babylonia and the Bible: Its Mediterranean Setting. CM 13. Groningen: Styx. Such-Gutiérrez, M. 2003 Beiträge zum Pantheon von Nippur im 3. Jahrtausend. 2 vols. MVS 9. Rome: La Sapienza. van Dijk, J. J. A. 1983 LUGAL UD ME-LÁM-bi NIR-GÁL: Le récit épique et didactique des Travaux de Ninurta, du Déluge et de la Nouvelle Création. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill. 2009 READING SUMERIAN NAMES, I 43 Walker, C. B. F. 1983 Another Babati Inscription. JCS 35: 91–96. Wilcke, C. 1969 Das Lugalbandaepos. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 1972– Hacke, B. Philologisch. RlA 4: 33–38. 1975 Zettler, R. 1992 he Ur III Temple of Inanna at Nippur: he Operation and Organization of Urban Religious Institutions in Mesopotamia in the Late hird Millennium B.C. BBVO 11. Berlin: Reimer. Zgoll, A. 1997 Der Rechtsfall der En-ḫedu-Ana im Lied nin-me-šara. AOAT 246. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.