Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Author(s): I. J. Gelb
Reviewed work(s):
Source: Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Vol. 15, No. 1 (1961), pp. 27-47
Published by: The American Schools of Oriental Research
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1359584 .
Accessed: 17/01/2012 12:15
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
The American Schools of Oriental Research is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Journal of Cuneiform Studies.
http://www.jstor.org
28
JOURNAL
OFCUNEIFORM
STUDIES,
VOL.15 (1961)
".
29
30
JOURNAL
OFC:UNEIFORM
STUDIES,
VOL.15 (1961)
permitsus to drawcertainconclusionsas to
their linguisticcharacter.The personsbearing
such namescomefromdifferentcities of Babylonia. In some,suchas Lagash,theybearnames
whichare largelySumerianor Akkadian,while
in others,suchas Drehem,theybearnameswhich
are largelyneitherSumeriannor Akkadian,but
obviouslySemitic. Some Ur III texts referto
prisoners
takenin bootyfromMAR.TU(p. 156).
Wenotethat in someareasthe Amoritesbecame
so assimilatedas to give their childrenlocal
names,whilein othersthey-retainedtheir own,
native, onomastichabits. The languageof the
latter names we call simply Amorite. More
aboutit later.
BABYLONIA IN THE OLD BABYLONIAN PERIOD
GELB:THE EARLYHISTORY
OFTHEWESTSEMITIC
PEOPLES
abuml3 and Sumu-la-El, bear non-Akkadian
names; they are followedby three rulersbearing
Akkadiannames, lvith Hammurapiand the rest
of the dynasty reviving the old, non-Akkadian,
tra(iltlonlll name glvlng.
As soon as scholarsbegan to study these new
Semitic names, appearingso profuselyin the Old
Babylonian period, they recognized that they
were couched in a West Semitic and not East
Semitic (= Akkadian) tongue. Up to about
thirtDr-five
years ago the question of what these
names were to be called was answered simply:
they were to be called Amorite. This conclu3ion
was based partly on the fact that some West
Semitic names occur with the denotation
MAR.TU and partly on the observationthat the
West Semitic names without this ethnic denotation begin to appear in mass in Babylonia after
and as a consequenceof the Amorite invasions
and conquestswhich took pl$ce at the end of the
Ur III dynasty and the beginning of the Old
Babylonian-period. The practical identity of
the West Semitic names of the Old Babylonian
period with names of persons called Amorite in
the Ur III period was taken for granted. The
fact that Amurruxvasknown from the previous
periods to be situated in the West (see above
p. 30), the recognizedhome of the West Semites,
seemed to strengthen the conclusion that the
West Semitic namesof Babyloniaare to be called
Amorite.
This picturewas completelyupset by the theories propoundedin 1925-26 by B. Landsbergerl4
and Theo Bauer,15accordingto whichthe country
Amurruwas not situated in the West but east
of the Tigris and the language of the TJrIII
.
31
JOURNAL
OFCUNEIFORM
STUDIES,
VOL.15 (1961)
GELB:THE EARLYHISTORY
OFTHEWESTSEMITIC
PEOPLES
rejects the term "East Canaanite" of Landsberger and Bauer for the language of the nonAkkadian names of the Old Babylonian period
(pp. 239f., 243), and prefers to call it "West
Semitic"on the groundsthat "WestSemitic"is a
general, noncommittalterm, which leaves open
to the future the exact assignment of the onomastic material in question. In rejecting the
term "East Canaanite" on the grounds of its
narrowness, Kupper is completely right. The
proponentsof the term "East Canaanite"based
their conclusionson an all too subjectiveevaluation of a limited numberof isoglosseswhich link
the language of the West Semitic names of the
Old Babylonian period with Canaanite, that is,
for instance, Hebrew and Phoenician,and overlooked or played down all thoiseisoglosseswhich
link the Old Babyloniannames with other West
Semiticlanguages,for instance,Aramaicor South
Arabic. Indicative of the cavalier use of terminology is Bauer's defence of the term "East
Canaanite"in ZA XXXVIII 155. When forced
to admit the existence of certain important
isoglosseslinking the language of the Old Babylonian names with Aramaic,he began to consider
the possibility of a "hebr.-aram.Sprachgemeinschaft" and of a "kan.-aram.Gruppe,"and was
not unvilling to consider early Aramaic simply
as a dialect of Canaanite. The fact is that, if
Aramaicis to be includedunder Canaanite,then
the term "Canaanite"loses all its independent
value,l9as it could just as well be identifiedwith
North West Semitic. Up to the time of Bauer's
writing the term "Canaanite"had meaningonly
when used for a group of languages or dialects
(especially Hebrew and Phoenician) to be contrastedwith the Aramaicgroup,all linkedtogether
within the frame of North West Semitic. Now
Ugaritic has to be added to that group. The
preferencein favor of the term "West Semitic"
rather than "North West Semitic" for the language of the non-Akkadiannames of the Old
Babylonianperiodcan be justifiedon the grounds
that the widerterm "West Semitic"also includes
South Arabic, which cannot a priori be excluded
from the considerationof the linguisticaffiliation
19. Cf. Moscati, The Semifes in Ancient Hisfory pp.
98 f. "As for Canaanite, this term has, so to speak, a
purely negative value, being applied to whatever is not
Aramaic; and hence for the earlier phase, before Aramaic
makes its appearance, it has no raison d'etre."
33
non-Semitic,
non-
VOL.15 (1961)
STUDIES,
OFCUNEIFORM
JOURNAL
must
sources,our picture
available
of
scarcity
of
names
be very sketchy.
wordsandrootsappearin theIII MAR.
same
the
necessarily
Ur
the
of
many
periodwe knowof a Mari
that
and
Pre-Sargonic
the
periods,
For
both
by
time over
disguised
is
which
appearin a form
holdinghegemonyfor a shortKingList.
names
TU
dynasty
of
ignorance
the
Sumerian
or
of Akkadian
accordingto the
influence
Babylonia,
the
scribes
Akkadian
of
excavatedat Marilist a
part
the
on
names
votiveinscriptions
Amorite
The
/
Mari bearing
as En-gi-mu-umforIa-an-q{-mu-um
of rulersand officialsof
names
number
such
/
unkllownlinSa-am-si-A-du
an
for
of
/ or dUTU-si-dIM
namesor names
Akkadian
Janqimum
connames.23
into
take
Semitic
we
when
but no West
/-and
affiliation,22
Samst-Haddu
guistic
MAR.
of the
part
additional
of
formed
the largenumber
SargonicperiodMari
the
sideratioll
Tn
from
period,
texts
Babylonian
Empire,and the economic scarceas
namesof the early Old
TU
Sargonic
the
as
class
Assur,
same
Bazar,Tell Brak,and
by usagebelongto the
which
Chagar
such
names
of Akkadian
period,
III
Ur
the
of
names
are, show only a population
MAR.TU
they
recently
Semites.
Isill
West
no
from
origins,but again
foundin the texts
unknown
those
as
and
slightly
Kalb-'II,
is
in BIN IX (Milk-li-'II, from Tell
the Ur III periodourinformation
published
For
In
concerned.
texts
is
and the unpublished
especiallyas faras Mari
Enusum)
richer,
BabyA-ba-EI,
of
rule
written
the
(Milk-la-'EI, 'Abba-'EI,
periodMari was under
Asmar
that
all bearing
certain charactersure,
be
To
sakanakku's,
Mutt-me-'EI).
lonian
of
MAR.TU
III
population
Ur
names. The general
can be detectedin the
istics
Akkadian
the
from
in
deduced
be
paralleled
whichcanllot be fully
wasalsoAkkadian,as can Marigathereda
Mari
names
be classedas
should
they
but
of personsconnectedwith [1938]80) and
Babylonian,
Old
alist
ratherthan
habits
onomastic
to
pertaining
time ago (Gelb,AJSL LV occurringin
points
long
instance,
for
note,
additionalnamesfrom Mari ethnicsitualinguisticdifferences.We MAR.TUnames
to
some
publishedtexts. A similar
predilectionof the Ur III degreeunparalrecently
the
betweenthe end
a
to
formation
prevailedevenin the period the Old Babythe
for
tion
Old
the
of
names
of
in the West Semitic
Ur III and the beginning fromthe texts
leled
of
that the divine
fact
The
period.
period,as can be gathered XLYI (1952)
Babylonian
loniall
rolein
important
an
such
plays
'I1
publishedby Jestin, RA
'E1or
recently
name
than
L (1956)
stranger
no
alld discussedby Gelb, RA
Ur III MAR.TUnamesis West Semitic
185-202,
the
the city
of
in
The Babyloniancharacteris strengthDagan, when appearing fromWIari
1-10.25
that
in
or
names
deducedfrompersonal
is moreat homein names
Mari
names,
with
connection
some
whichcan be drawnfrom
having
of persons
by considerations
elled
llames
69ff.).
(pp.
else
at Mari, all of
alist of divinitiesworshippedbackground(cf.
theMariregiollthan anywhere
one
if
difference,
are of Akkado-Sumerian [1954] 270).
pointsof emphasis,oreven
whom
Such
the Ur III
XIII
comparing
in
found
be
myconclusionsin JNES the Maripopulation
will,as can
Semitic
West
of
and the OldBabylonian
the characterization
MAR.TU
Thus
conexpected,
by Kupperp. 244
be
to
period
are
than
more
Babyloniall
areno
the Old
of
names
separating
time
or "accadisee"is llOt
the knowndifferencein
beillg "babylonisee"
as
sidering
unknown
an
as
well
linguistic affiliation" (or
thetwogroupsin question,as that the different
22. The term "unknown
possibility
study, refers to languages
the
this
as used in
factor,namely
of
"background"),
been
have
might
groupsof invadingllomads
The question of the
background.
geographical
Sumerian, and non-Hurrian. ''urlknown" languages
different
of these
34
"viceroys,"24
-anum2l
vlltimate relationship
north
of Anatolia and the areas
of
and peoples with those
purposes
the
for
importance
of Mesopotamia is of no
this study.
Parrot, Syria XXX (1953)
23. Cf. provisionally
33.
208-211.
" (= ensis), Kupper p.
24. Not "grands 'patesis'
144
(1959)
IV
SemiticStudies
25. Goetze, Journalof
over 60 names, some ver>
of
out
that
out
n. 4, pointed
and s?l(or
such as Ala-ah-?i-EI?
few-may be Amorite,
Su)-m.u-dDa-gan.
TY
lllTT
/r
35
36
VOL.15 (1961)
STUDIES,
OFCUNEIFORM
JOURNAL
He-naKI
(p.
He-a-naKI
Ha-naMES
arilya generalmeaning"nomads,""bedouins"32.
The referencesto the ganeans may be rounded
out by mentioninglists of ganean workers
livingat MariandSuprumand receivingrations
(p. 34), and noting that Haniahhe, that is,
"Haneans"in Hurrian,representa social class
at AlalahIV (see belowp. 39) belowthe ruling
marijanni (pp. 44f.). For a discussionof the
term"Hanean"
see belowpp. 45fl.
Thus we can see that the Haneansrepresent
diSerentkindsof people:the nomadicand seminomadicpeoples who occupy extensive territoriesin Mesopotamia
andSouthof theEuphrates,
partlyin the serviceof the kingsof Mari,partly
in hostilityto them;the rulingdynastyof Mari;
and the West Semiticpopulationof Alalahand
presumablyother areasof northernSyria,subjugatedby the Hurrians.
ChapterII of Kupper's
monograph
is dedicated
to a discussionof the people whom he calls
Benjaminitesin French (after biblical usage)
and Bene-Yamina(p. 47) or Binimes-ia-mi-im
(p. 72) in WestSemitic(parallelto Bene-Sim'al,
pp. 54, 68, 81). Beforeacceptingeitherterm,we
shoulddiscussall the pertinelltspellingsfound
in the Maritexts. Fromthe materialsgathered
by Dossin,MelangesDussaud II 982, and RA
LII 60ff.,we knowthat the nameof the peoplein
questionis writtenregularlywith the logogram
DUMU.MESor (morerarely)DUMI:J,
followed
by the syllabicspellings-ia-mi-na, -ia-mi-naKI,
-
37
38
VOL.15 (1961)
STUDIES,
OFCUNEIFORM
JOURNAL
to the Syro-PalesMovingfromMesopotamia
tinianareawe findthat ouravailableinformation
onthelatterupto andincludingthe UrIII period
scanty. Whatevercanbe saidfor
is exceedingly
sure about the few scatterednamesconnected
with NorthernSyriaandthe adjacentareaseast
of the Euphrates(seeabove p. 35) is that they
arenot WestSemitic.
Fora periodfrom1900to 1850B.C.,important
light Ollthe ethnicsituationof Palestineis shed
by the EgyptianExecrationTexts (pp. 238f.).
The majorityof the personalnamesoccurringin
the texts are clearly West Semitic. While a
numberof namescannotbe safely interpreted,
mainly becauseof difficultiesof the Egyptian
system of writing,there is no evidencein the
Textsof anyHurriannamesor names
Execration
35. Not Wilanu, as in K. p. 282; see above p. 29.
PEOPLES
OFTHEWESTSEMITIC
GELB:THE EARLYHISTORY
40
JOURNAL
OFCUNEIFORM
STUDIES,
VOL.15 (1961)
GELB:THEEARLYHISTORY
OFTHEWESTSEMITIC
PEOPLES
nothingsurprisingabout this, since we knowfrom
many parallelsthat, while the geographicalnames
are conservative and tend to preserve the old
ethnic picture, personal names tend quickly-to
reflect a new ethnic situation. Our best parallel
comes from Babyloniaof the most ancient times,
wherealmost all the geographicalnames are nonSumerianand non-Akkadian,while the-personal
names are Sumerian and Semitic.
In respect to the question Semitic: nonSemitic,the ethnic situationin the South, that is,
in Palestine and along the Phoenician Coast,
differsthoroughlyfrom that reconstructedabove
for the North. The Egyptian ExecrationTexts
(see above p. 38) attest for Palestineonly West
Semitic personal and geographicalnames and a
small groupof nameswhichcannotbe interpreted
at the presenttime, but no trace of anythingthat
might safely be called Hurrian. The EA sources,
a few centurieslater, list a largenumberof Semitic
names, most of them agreeingin structureboth
with the names of the older Execration Texts
and the younger O.T. The non-Semitic geographicalnames of Palestine and Phoenicia occurring in the EA sources such as Lakisa =
Lachish in Palestine and Ammija in Phoenicia,
are exceedinglyfew. The correspondingpersonal
names in this area are either West Semitic or
Hurrian. The evidenceof the ExecrationTexts,
contrasted with that of the EA sources, shows
clearly that Hurriansare newcomersin Palestine
and Phoenicia.
Certain important conclusions can be drawnfor the whole Syro-Palestinianarea. (1) The
oldest attested populationof Syria is of unknown
ethnic affiliation,followedby West Semites, and
then by Hurrians,while the oldest attested population of Palestine and the Phoenician Coast is
West Semitic, follo^redby Hurrians. (2) Palestine and the Phoenician Coast were settled by
West Semites long before Syria was. (3) Palestine, and perhaps the Phoenician Coast, may
representthe originalhabitat of the West Semites.
Ournext problemis to investigatethe relationship of the West Semitic names occurring in
Syria and Palestineto the conceptof Amurruand
the Amorites.
In discussingthe Babyloniansourcesup to the
Ur III period we found Amurruto be situated
generallyin the West from the point of view of
41
42
JOURNAL
OFCUNEIFORM
STUDIES,
VOL.15 (1961)
PEOPLES
OFTHEWESTSEMITIC
GELB:THEEARLYHISTORY
First we shalldiscussthe casesin the Palestinian
and Phoenicianareaswherea occursinsteadof the
showexpectedo. The name dDa-ga-an-ta-ka-la,
ing Dagan, not Dagon, occurs in the WA letters
317-318, but theirbeing groupedwith Palestinian
letters in Knudtzon's WA edition is completely
arbitrary, as the letters could very well have
originated in the North. The occurrence of
Bisitanu (beside Sabi-ilu, Maja, and Arzaja)
at Sumur (EA 131) may mean that Sumur lies
on the boundary between the Amorite and
Canaaniteareas.
As for the cases in the Amorite area where o,
instead of a, occurs, we should note, first of all,
A-du-na-dIMat Mari (Syria XIX 109), which
was interpretedby Albright,JAOS LXXIV 228
n. 39, and Landsberger,JCS VIII 56 n. 103, as
containing the Hebrew word 'adon "lord;X5n
similarly interpretedby Gordon,RA L 132 was
the name A-du-ni-dUat Ugarit (MRS VI p. 196
No. 15.42 ii 20'). As the interpretationof a-duna/ni as ''lord" is impossiblein Amorite (since
the many occurrencesfrom Mari, ChagarBazar,
and Ugarit show only the form 'adattum,from
'adantum"lady," presupposinga masculineform
'adanum"lord"in the Amoritearea), the elemellt
a-du-namust be taken as "ouradum;"cf., for the
word, such parallels as A-di-DINGIR and, for
the formation,Na-ap-su-na-dIlM,both at Mari.
The interpretationof the divine name Elkunirsa,
husband of Asertu, occurringin a myth from
BogazkoySas Canaanite 'L QN 'RS "Schopfer
(oder Besitzer) der Erde" by Otten, JqIOF I
(1953) 125-150, esp. 135ff., and others, looks
speciouslygood in favor of the existence of o in
the north. Nevertheless,the phoneticdiHiculties
involved in the 'RS: irsa identificationand the
difficultquestionof houra Canaaniteform could
have reached the Hittites across the Amorite
territory make me hesitant about accepting the
proposed interpretationof the name Elkunirsa.
The word ab(b)utu ';fathers" occurs quite frequently in the EA letters (cf. EA Glossary p.
1361), especially in the letters from Byblos, but
also once each in the letters from Sidon (144),
Tyre (150), Samhuna in Palestine (224), and
Qat.na (55). While Byblos, Sidon, Tyre, and
50. The reading dA-dll-ni-AM on a seal inscription
tentativelr proposed by Albright, I0G.cit. should be
corrected most probably to A-dX.-an-n.i-am(I)UMU
Ri-is-I)INGIR IR dUTU-dIM).
t
43
44
JOURNAL
OF CUNEIFORM
STUDIES
VOL.15 (1961)
Ha-zu-urKI(var. Ha-surKI)
immediatelyfollowing
upon gallaba and Qatana.53 Thus gasura must
be located south of Qatna, which correspondsto
modern Mishrife, situated north of Hamath in
Syria, and nothing stands in the way of identifying the Mari and late Assyriangasur(u) with
gasura of the EA letters and the biblical Hasor
of Galilee, urhichurasone of the most ponrerful
Palestiniankingdomsin pre-Israelitetimes.54
The biblicalname of Hasorhas been generally
explainedas expressingthe urordhasar,55with the
standard Canaanite a > o change. The word
hasar occurs in chronologicalorder first in the
Akkadian asarum of the Ur III geographical
names (MAD III 7), then in hasarum"enclosure"
in a Mari text (CAD) and passimin New Babylonian (CAD), and finallyin Arabichazar"wall,"
"enclosure." Theoretical at least, Has.6rcould
developfromHasur,a qatulformation,but this is
muchless likelybecauseof lack of parallelsto that
formationfrom either the root HZR or HDR in
other Semiticlanguages.
If gasura of the Mari texts is identifiedwith
the biblical Hasor, if the name of the biblical
Hasor representsan original qatal formation
and I wish to reiteratehere that I do not see anything anywherethat would deny the validity of
these two assumptions then we are faced in
gasura of the Mari texts with the oldest example
of the a > o change and consequentlywith the
oldest evidence of a Canaanitelanguage.56 This
linguisticcontrastbetweena Canaaniteformwith
o in Palestineand formswith a everywherein the
North fits perfectlythe statementof a Mariletter,
discussed above (p. 43), which refers to gasura
RESUME
GELB:THE EARLYHISTORY
OFTHEWESTSEMITIC
PEOPLES
country called MAR.TU = Amurru,which contemporarysourcesplacein the West, morespecifically aroundJebel el-Bisrl, in the Syrian Desert
(abovep. 30).
Fromthe end of the Ur III and beginningof the
Old Babylonian periods, we find new waves of
West Semites entering Babylonia and Mesopotamia. They came in two large migrationsat an
interval of about two hundredyears. The first
wave enteringBabyloniasucceededin overthrowing the Ur III dynasty and establishingitself as
the dominant political force in the various parts
of the country,such as Larsa,Kish, Babylon,and
the Diyala region(above pp. 30 f.) Sinceduring
that periodMesopotamiawas most probablyfree
of West Semites we assume that the conquestof
Babyloniawas achievedby West Semitescoming
from the areas south of the Euphratesand not
from Mesopotamia. Two hundred years after
the beginningof the West Semitic penetrationof
Babyloniaimportantethnic changestook place in
the North. The thronesof MariandAssyriawere
occupiedby dynastiesof West Semiticbackground
and vast areasof Mesopotamiawere fully settled
by West Semitic peoples (above pp. 35 f.). It
may be taken for grantedthat the West Semitic
movement into Mesopotamiain the Old Babylonian periodoriginatedfrom acrossthe Euphrates, JUStas did the earlierWest Semiticmovement
towardBabylonia.
Our sourcespertainingto the West Semites in
Syria and Palestine flow almost uninterruptedly
from the Old Babylonian period on. Two important conclusionscan be drawnon the basis of
the study of geographicalnamesand of other, less
importantconsiderations:(1) The Semitesentered
Syria in mass in the Old Babylonianperiod, encountering a population of unknown, but certainly not Hurrian, ethnic affiliation. (2) The
Semites must have been establishedin Palestine
long before the Old Babylonian period, and
nothingpreventsus fromassumingthat they may
have been native to the area from time immemorial(abovep. 41).
Thetr Languages. The language of the first
West Semiticwave enteringBabyloniacan be reconstructedonly +rithsome difficultybecause of
the scarcity of adequatematerials,which consist
mainly of over one hundred names of persons
called MAR.TU in the Ur III period, many of
svhomhad becomeso assimilatedduringtheirlong
45
glnnlngs
ot Aramalc.
46
JOURNAL
OFCUNEIFORM
STUDIES,
VOL.15 (1961)
47