HURRIANS AND SUBARIANS BY IGNACE j. GELB | THE ORIENTAL INSTITUTE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO STUDIES IN ANCIENT ORIENTAL CIVILIZATION + NO. 22 THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS - CHICAGO - ILLINOISTHE ORIENTAL INSTITUTE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO ‘NT ORIENTAL CIVILIZATION STUDIES IN ANCI JOHN ALBERT WILSON s THOMAS GEORGE ALLEN - EDITORS ITOR ELIZABETH BLAISDELL HAUSER - ASSISTANT E. THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS » CHICAGO Agent: THE GAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS + LONDON PREFACE ‘The present monograph grew out of what was originally intended to be merely a chapter serving as historical introduction to Nuzi Personal Nam “Oriental In- stitute Publications,” Vol. LVII). But during preparation of the m became apparent that such a sober volume as Nuzi Personal Names was no place for complicated discussions on the history and relationship of the Hurrians and Subarians. This fact, coupled with the steady growth of the manuscript, made it imperative to give up the original intention and to publish warately, To Dr. John A. Wilson and Dr. T. George Allen are due my thanks and gratitude for hav- ing accepted the monograph for publication in the Oriental Institute’s “Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization.” ‘The manuscript had attained approximately its present size, if not its present form, at the beginning of 1940. The gist of it was presented in a lecture, “The Hur- tian-Subarian Problem,” given February 26, 1940, at a meeting of the Near East Club of the University of Chicago. The main object of this monograph is the elucidation of the status of Hurrians and Subarians within the historical framework of the ancient Near East. As erally known, two scholars in particular—Speiser in his book Mesopotan and Ungnad in his book Subartu—have in recent years rendered outstanding service in assembling and presenting data on the Hurrians and Subarians. They both treated of the aboriginal population of Mesopotamia; but, while Speiser called it “Hurrian,”” Ungnad called it “Subarian.” In accordance with their conclusions the practical equivalence of the two terms has become generally accepted. Study of carly Sumerian and Akkadian sourees hitherto overlooked or differently interpreted has, however, led me to an entirely different conclusion. The terms are not used for one and the same ethnic unit, as generally assumed; they do not even apply to separate branches of a single ethnic family, as Speiser seems to imply later treatise on “Ethnic Movements in the Near East.” On the contrary, I hope to be able to prove in this monograph that from now on it will be necessary to distin- guish sharply between two entirely different and unrelated ethnie units: the Su- nus ipt it soon. s is gen- ian Origins ina barians, who from the earliest historieal periods are found not only occupying vast mountainous areas north of Babylonia but also living peacefully within Babylonia side by side with Sumerians and Akkadians, and the much younger Hurrians, who appeared relatively late on the Mesopotamian seene and who played an important role in the history of the Near Bast in the middle of the 24 millennium x.c. At the time when the Hurrians first enter the Mesopotamian scene the Subarians ean look back on a long past. The subsequent histories of the two ethnic units develop along, independent and unrelated courses. Only in the 2d millennium, when the Hurriansiv Prerac ins, may there have been occupied territories previously inhabited by the Subaris some confusion of the two. In spite of the fact that the final results of this monograph are so different from those reached by Speiser and Ungnad, it is but fair to state how much it owes to the works of these two scholars. Certainly it owes more to them than one might realize from a casual perusal of the remarks and criticisms scattered throughout this study It was not my intention to write a complete history of the Hurrians and Subarians which would supersede entirely the works of my predecessors. Since my chief aim is to show that Hurrians and Subarians were of different and unrelated origins, it was only natural for me to treat the earliest sources, that is, those of the 3d millennium x.c., more exhaustively than those of the next two millenniums. For this reason the treatment of these later sources remains in some respects fuller in the works of my’ predec Grown as it has from a historical introduction to Nuzi Personal Names, the pre ent study was intended to be a historical monograph on the Hurrians and the Su- barians. In theory a historical monograph should be based on studies involving nu- merous avenues of approach, including philology, physical anthropology, areheol- ogy, history of art, and history of religion, The reader ean see at a glance how little this monograph approaches sueh an idea I have intentionally avoided calling upon physical anthropology and archeology, not because of skepticism as regards their validity in general but because for the de- termination of ethnic relationships and cthnic movements in the ancient Near East till have too little to offer, In the years after the first World War great en- thusiasm prevailed in the fields of physical anthropology and archeology. In con- st to the eustom formerly prevalent of throwing away as useless most of the ex- vated skeletal and material remains which did not have the flashiness of gold ob- jects or the immediate appeal of written records, recent excavators have saved and studied diligently everything recovered from the carth. The newly acquired ma ‘oon given exaggerated value, Often on the basis of a few skulls “races new “cultures” were reconstructed. We ors. terials were were identified, and from scattered artifac know how short-lived have bee such reconstructions. The time is now ripe to take a definite stand toward such methods. Just as a language usually cannot be safely identified on the basis of a few scattered linguistic phenomena, so new races and of a few skulls or artifacts. Not until cultures cannot be reconstructed on the bas further avations have filled many lacunae in our knowledge and all the available materials have been thoroughly analyzed and classified shall we be ready to propose conchisions as to race and culture. And only after the prineiples gov- ab- any synthetic erning the relations of race and culture to tribe, people, and nation have been es lished will the time be ripe for applying the data of physical anthropology and arehe- ology to the solution of the ethnie problems of the ancient Near East PREFAce v Contributions from the history of art and the history of religion would have been very valuable, but unfortunately limitations in the sourees or in our understanding of them prevent us from making full use of these two disciplines, Our slight knowl- ge of the art and religion of the Hurrians and our total ignorance of the art and re- ligion of the Subarians make any constructive comparisons impossible at present In view of the circumstances just outlined I have depended almost exclusively upon written reeords—historical inseriptions, legends, traditions, year names, ad- strative documents, letters, syllabaries, lists of synonyms—bearing directly or indirectly upon my subject. If points of philological interest have been overempha- sized, I hope that professional historians will look with forbearance upon the di- gressions of a philologist. Proper names, especially personal names, have been par- ticularly useful. Even in the ancient Near East, however, personal names are not wholly dependable indicators of ethnic relationships. st Nuzi and some Subarians in Babylonia were giv borne by the people do not invali ‘or example, some Hurrians Akkadian names sueh as were mong whom they lived. Though such exceptions occur, they ¢ the principle that a personal name is normally couched in the language spoken by the recipient’s parents. In general the principle of testis unus ‘estis nullus has been observed, But occasionally a name found only once had to be used when it furnished a badly needed link in some reconstruction and fitted into the picture T was trying to give. Of course I am fully aware of the fact that objections similar in nature to those voiced above against, nthropology and archeology might be raised against. philology. language sufficiently istic of a people to justify dependence upon it as an ethnic eriterion? In answer to this question we must try to define “people (edinos) as opposed to “nation” (démos). The definition of “nation” is relatively y: “nation” is a political term denoting a body of persons linked together by state or by the common will to a state, Definition of the ethnic term “people” is more difficult, as the traits charac character erizing a people are more numerous and more complex. The main traits of a people are community of tradition, customs, religion, culture, language, and geographic position, Not all of these traits are of equal strength, and indeed some of them may even be absent. Quite influential are the ties of common tradition in respect to descent. Compacetne: of geographic position is an important factor, even though parts of the same ethnic unit may at times in- habit widely scattered areas. Religion as an ethnic tie varies in strength. Language 1s the vehicle of tradition is one of the strongest foundations of a people. As an out- ward expre sion language becomes the symbol with which a people is most casily identified. For a people to give up its ls guage in favor of another normally means the renunciation of its own ethnie identity and subsequent assimilation into the ethnic group from whieh the new language has been taken ‘The importance of language in ethnie reconstructions is more evident in conn’vi PREAce tion with ancient than with modern times, for in our day ethnie values are frequently confused with political, nationalistic, and racial attitudes. The ancient Near Fast is full of pertinent illustrations proving the closest connections between language and people. To quote just a few examples, we know that the Sumerians lost their ethnie identity when they gave up their language in favor of Babylonian, and that later the Babylonians and Assyrians disappeared as a people when they accepted the Aramaie language. The same trend continued when with the advent of Islam the Arabic language spread over the broad area extending from Mesopotamia to Egypt and beyond. Such eases as these, I believe, justify my acceptance of language as a basic means of distinguishing various ethnie units in the ancient Near Bast. ‘At present there is no generally accepted Mesopotamian chronology. Recent dis- coveries at Mari and a recently published Assyrian king list from Khor helped to clarify many problems; but even with them scholars have not yet attained a firm bas Albright’s latest reconstruction." For Assyria Albright accepts Poebel’s conclusions? except that he assigns to the two kings Asturrabl I and AgSur-ndin-abbé I together 22 ye Poebel’s 0. With this change he dates all the kings who ruled previous to those two 22 years earlier than does Poebel. For Babylonia Albright proposes to utilize the astronomical basis established by 8. Langdon and J. K. Fotheringham® and carried farther by Smith and Sewell,é but to lower by 64 more years even Smith's dating of the Hammurabi dynasty. The resulting dates for Samsi-Adad I, 1748-1716, and for Hammurabi, 1728-1686, seem to him to fit a mention of Hammurabi and Saméi- ‘Adad together in a Babylonian tablet dated to the former's 10th year* and are in line with the general opinion of Mari scholars, who consider SamSi-Adad I a con- temporary of Hammurabi, In spite of some misgivings about the correetness of Albright’s reconstruction, I am using it in this study because it fills the need for at least an approximately correct relative chronology by which events ean be correlated and because T am not yet able to clear up remaining difficulties by a reconstruction of my own. [ should like, however, to mention a few points which may deserve consideration, Intensive study of the Mari texts within the last few months has made it apparent to me that instead of favoring the commonly aecepted SamS-Adad I-Hammurabi synchronism the published texts actually present evidence whieh would make Hammurabi’s rule abad have ‘This monograph follows provisional! ss of rule in place of AW. Albright, “A third revision of the early chronology of Western Asia,"" BASOR No. $8. (1912) 28-38, +A. Poebel, “The Assyrian king list from Khorsabad,” JNES T (1912) 247-06, 460-f 1943) 56-90. *The V “Sidney Smith, Alnlakh and Chronology (London, 1940. "BE VI 1 No. 26 (collated at my request by Dr. 8. N. Kramer. 1 nus Tablets of Anumiznduga (London, 1928). Pr vii in Babylonia correspond to the period of disorganization under Tg Jagan T in Assyria. This would mean that the reign of the powerful Assyrian king Samsi-Adad I paralleled the reigns of the weak rulers Apil-Sin and Sin-muballit in Babylonia, Mathematical caleulations which cannot be pre the reigns of Ismé-Dagan in Assyria, Hammurabi in Babylonia, and Zimri-Lim in ‘Mari all began within about five years after Samsi-Adad’s death. This reconstruc tion disregards the Sam&i-Adad-Hammurabi synchronism of the BE VI 1 tablet, since it is quite possible that the Samsi-Adad there mentioned may be not the well known Assyrian king but a local Babylonian ruler. For further clarification we must await future Mari publications, In this study proper names have in general been tra ancient or modern spellings. For fami ames, however, such as Amar- na, Carchemish, Hamath, and Lagash, standard English forms are used. ‘Thus the name of the people whom we call Hurrians in English is transliterated from eunei- form as Hurti and the Jike; and the name of the Subarians in its Akkadian form appears as Subarijt. For use of plain s in the anglieized form of the page 30. Its simplified spelling with final -ian (in contrast with the previous spellings “Subarean”” and “Subaraean”) is based on the eurrent tendency in English gentili formation. Sign-by-sign transliterations, including determinatives, are italicized, with « tionable syllables in roman instead. Logograms (e.g, sv.pin,* in Akkadian texts) and signs with undetermined reading (ef. e.g. U-na-ap-xat, p. 112) are printed in 1 roman capitals. In conneeted writing both names and determinatives appear sented here lead me to believe that nnsliterated in their respective ur geogr’ st term see in roman, with question marks instead of change of type to indicate uncertainties. Parentheses in sign-by-sign spellings inclose logograms whose reading precedes (ef e.g. Subaritum(sat.su.bin.)), whole signs sometimes present, sometimes omitted or final components unpronouneed (ef. e.g. si(g)-8, p. 93, n. 7); in normalized connected spellings by elements they inclose components sometimes written, sometimes unwritten (ef. e.g. the name Tab()S-atal). The notation sic indicates that a sign is unexpected or unusual in its context; contrasting with this, an exclamation point means that a sign is abnormal in form but is to be read as transliterated, For use of standard symbols, not explained above, see Nu: Names pp. xvii. Personal Wherever Nuzi personal names or name elements are mentioned without refer- enees it is understood that they are taken up in the Nuzi Personal Names volume and can be found there in their alphabetie order in the lists concerned. In the preparation of this monograph I enjoyed the constant help of several G. Cameron, 8. I. Feigin, F. W. Geers, and T, Jacobsen and Drs. P. M. Purves and A. Sachs kindly read the whole manuscript at one stage or seholars, Professorsviii Provact another and offered many valuable suggestions which helped greatly to clarify facts nd to make the presentation of the argument more logical. It is impossible here to list in detail the contributions of these scholars. Some of them are noted in the work itself. I should like, however, to single out gratefully the suggestions of Dr. Cameron which led me to adopt the present order of chapters iii and iv and the constant help received from Dr. Jacobsen in matters of Sumerian history and philology. Dr. T. G. Allen as one of the editors of the series in which this monograph is published super- vised capably its preparation and printing, and to him chiefly is due the organizé tion of the index.’ Miss E. Porada kindly contributed the drawing of the Nuzi seal reproduced on the title-page. To all of these scholars may I offer in this place my warmest thanks and appreciation. Ienace J. Ges ©[Dr, Gelb examined and offered suggestions on a preliminary version of the index, but his military duties prevented him from checking its final form. For the latter Dr. Allen in his editorial umes responsibility.) ceapacity or ApmreviATioNs LE srorY OF THs: Hurriax-SuBARIAN PROBLEM Earliest Interpretations Amarna Diseoveries : Hurrian Personal Names from Kirkuk, Nippur, and Dilbat Bognzkiy Diseoveries Nuzi Discoveries Speiser’s Barlier Interpretations Gasur Documents Speiser’s New Interpretation Ungnad’s Subaru Latest Es Latest Hurrian Studies rations II, Arp Hurrans Ipenrican wrt Scnartans? ‘Terminology: Mittannian, Hurrian, Subs Definition of Terms Premises Alleged to Favor Identifieation of Hurrians with Subarians Hurrian Words Used in Snbartu Hurrians in Subartu Subarians’ Names Alleged to Be Hurrian Résumé Premises Favoring Distinetion of Hurrians from Subarians Names of Subarians of the Ur III Period Definitely Non-Hurrian Hurriane and Subarians Distingnished in a Ra's Shamrah ‘Text Hurrian Names of Tins and Buphrates Difeent fom ‘Those Used in Su- hart Other Evidence Conelusion IL. History ov sie Sunartans Terminology Logozraphie Writings Syllabie Writings Earliest Traces BAA! Dynasty? Pre-Sargonie Period Old Akkadian Period Ur TIT Period Old Babylonian Period Kassite and Late Babylonian Periods Middle and Late Assyrian Periods Non-Mesopotamian Sources 15 19 20 20 20 a 22x ‘Tante or ConTENts Revs Shamrah Bogazkoy IV. History oF THe Hurnians Terminology Earliest Tra Ur III Period Old Assyrian Period Old Babylonian Period "Tell Hartt Chagar Bazar ‘Tell This relationship was later proved conclusively by A. Ungnad, “Das hurritiselie Fragment samesch-Epos,” ZA XXXV (1924) 133-10. * KBo V (1921) in Inhaltstibersicht.—On this reading see pp. 50f. subs * Untersuchungen zu den... Urkunden aus Dilbat . den von Boghas-k Misrony or tHe HunniaN-Sunartay Prosiem 5 wed that Mittanni was political and not a linguistic unit, he suggested that the vin “Mittannian” for the language of the Tusratta letter and of related personal ssunes be abandoned entirely and 4 in 1923 Ungnad for the first time expressed his ideas clear hurian merchants and slaves living in Babylonia as early as 1 that Assur, the ‘Subarian” be used instead. In a study pub- ly.** He found 2500-2000 1.c.; he be- , was built by USpia and according to him are Subarian. In the Amarna period Ungnad turally had no difficulty in finding Subarians practically all over the Near Ea lestine, and Egypt. And sinee Subartu aecord- of the four quarters into whieh the world hen known was divided, Ungnad arrived at the far-reaching conclusion that the capital of the Assyrian Empi Kikin, whose nami » Anatolia, Mesopotamia, Syria, P ng to Akkadian tradition formed « barians formed the aboriginal population of the whole region extending from Halestine to Armenia or even to the Caueasus and that even in Babylonia th juups preceded the Sumerians. per- In much of the art usually considered to represent d Hittite hieroglyphie” writing was really the oldest writing of the Subarians, ‘Thus an Ungnad’s Pan-Subarian theory, which was destined to exercise a pern fluence on the writings of many Hittites he was inclined to sce Subarians; and he even suspected that the so-call ent authors to come Nua Discoveries We have referred on page 3 to a discussion by Pinches of names from a eunciform iblet found years ago in the neighborhood of Kirkuk. Later many more tablets f the same type, brought to light through clandestine exeavations by the ni were published.” The urge to find the site from which these tablets h to the local market led Edward Chiera in 1925 to the di Yorgan ‘Tepe, a small vill ad been coming covery of Nuzi, modern e situated about ten iles southwest of Kirkuk. The ‘xeavations conducted at that site, first under the directorship of Chiera, later under that of Robert 11. Pfeiffer and then of Richard F. O1Z XVIL (1915) 201 * Die dtesten Vilkerwanderumgen Vordora aiten, Arier, Hothiter und Suberiier (“Kulturfra Sturt," resulted in the diseovery is. Kin Beitrag zur Geschichte und Kultur der mn," Heft 1 [Breslau 1923) pp. AS, exp. p. 8 "18. Meissner, “Thontafeln ans Vyran Sebir,” OLZ V (1902 Lettre assyrienne de Kerkouk,” Recueil de travaux relatifs Ia identic with V. Sheil, ‘oloxie Gg. ot aye, XXX (1400) 55-58; A. Ungnad, VAS 1 106-11; Seheil, “Tablettes de Kerkouk," RA-XV 1918) 65-73; L. Speleers, Recueil des inscriptions de I'Asie Antérieure ... (Bruxelles, 1925 09; G. Contenan, TCL 1X 1-46 (includes the two tablets published by Schell in RA XV ©. 4, Gadd, “Tablets from Kirkuk,” RA XXIII (1926) 49-261 (neludes a history of the Kirkuk tablets then known! * Soe preli inary reports by Chiera in BASOR No. 20 (1925) pp. 19-25 and by Pfeiffer in the Smithsonian Report for 1985, pp. 535-58, and the final report by Stare: Nusi, Report on the F avations at Yorgan ‘Tepa near Kirkuk, Iraq, conducted by Harvard University in conjunction with the American Schools of Oriental’ Research and the Unives 1927-31 (2 vols.; Cambridge, Mass., ity Museum of Philadelphie,6 Hournians AN SuBARIANS of several thousand cuneiform tablets dated to the middle of the 2d. millennium 2.c.*" The tablets constitute private and official archives; almost all of them can be classified as legal, business, or administrative documents. They are all written in Akkadian but occasionally employ Hurrian words which add much to our knowl edge of the Hurrian vocabulary. The Hurrian population of Nuzi is best evidenced by the immense number of Hurrian personal name Sreiser’s Eanntrr INTERPRETATIONS In a preliminary evaluation of the finds at Nuzi, written by E. Chiera and E. A. Speiser, the Hurrian-Subarian problem was again attacked. In the first part of this article“? Speiser justified his preference for the term. “Hurri” or “Yurrite” instead of Ungnad’s “Subarian.” He then discussed the “Pan-Subarian” attitude, ‘ing: “Were the Hurrites the original population of Mesopotamia?” Decisive in the inception of this theory had been the assumption that the names of Uspia and Kikia, the supposed founders of Assur, were Subarian. But Speiser noted that excavations at Assur have since revealed the earliest cultural influences there, in strata ¢ than USpia and Kikia, to be Sumerian. So h reasonably stated in answer to his own query that “there is as yet nothing in the material available to justify such an assumption.” Besides rejecting Ungnad’s theory that the Subarians or Hurrians could have formed the oldest. population of Mesopotamia, Speiser placed the earlies traces of Hurri ier ns in the 3d millennium B.c., when some Hurrian tribes may have begun to occupy certain areas of Mesopotamia. Speiser’s extensive interest in the ‘uzi tablets soon led him to a further discus- sion of the Hurrian problem, this time, however, with entirely different results in relation to the oldest population of Mesopotamia and neighboring regions. As stated in his own words in his stimulating and attracti thesis of this written book, “the central essay is, briefly, that nearly all of the hitherto unclassified cultures and peoples of the ancient Near East ean be organized into a single, genetically inter- related, group; the members of that group formed the basie population of Hither Asia, produced its earliest civilizations, and have continued to this day to furnish its + Main publications: Chiera, Joint Expedition with the Iraq Museum at Nuzi (American chools of Oriental Research, Publications of the Baghdad School. ‘Texts. Vols. I-IIl (Paris, 1927-31], IV-V (Philadelphia, 1934], VI, by Emest R. Lacheman [New Haven, Conn., 1939] Chicra, HSS V; Pfeiffer, HSS 1X; Pfeiffer and Lacheman, HSS XIII; Pieiffer and Speiser, AASOR. tions are listed in NPN. “ Collected in part by C. H. Gordon in Bd VII (1938) 51-63, © Seo NPN, esp. p. 5. * “A new factor in the history of the ancient Bast,” AASOR VI (1926) 75-02. © Written by Speiser, as I have been informed by him “Op. cit. p. 82, * Mesopotamian Origins. The Basic Population of the Near Bast (Philadelphia, 1930) SOR No. 64 (1936) pp. 23-28 and Orientalia N.S. History oF rH HUnRraN-SupariaN Pronvem 7 nie background.’ For convenience he calls the whole group “Japhetie,” util mg a term first introduced by the Russian scholar Nicholas Marr, who applied it » the Caucasus.‘ “ ‘Saphetie, peiser continues, “would then be inclusive of all lve elements hitherto considered, which are not already placed with the Hamites, “mites, Indo-Europeans, or with any other well-defined group such as the Altaic, Pravidian, and the like. ‘The name need not be committal geographically, linguisti- cally, or in any other way; its main value would lie in the fact that it is indefinite nd flexible; its sense would be primarily negative, as the term would designate rlements not located elsewhere. .... For more definite specifications we ¢ Hastern Japhethite in dealing with Mesopotamia and I conncetion with Anatolia and the Aegean, and the lik ‘w tempting but in general still unprovable conneetions—linguistie, cultural, and Unie—with the Cx His book is dedicated mainly to the Ea s, whom he further subdivided: “The peoples of the Zagros, among whom the Hhunites, the Lullu, the Gutians, and the Kassites, were most prominent, have been ‘ound to constitute an eastern group, while the Hurrians formed the western division f the peoples under discussion.” ‘The chief representatives of the the Elamites, were the original, p Hurrians furnished the substratum in As n use m, Western Japhethite in * For both sections Speiser asus, fern Jupheth- eastern group, n, population of Babylonia. ‘The yria with this essential difference: they entered more prominently into the make-up of the later Assyrians, than the Elam- ites appear to have done in the Such, in brief, is Speiser’s ane ‘y: Everything unknown or little known in the nit Near East may be summed up as ‘“Japhetie.” Of the Japhethites in Mesopo- tinia and neighboring regions the Hurrians and Elamites played the most impor- unt roles. The Elamites in the south formed the basic population before the coming of the Sumerians, while the north was settled by the Hur wppeared, ans before the Assyrians Gasur Docuamxas Only a few months after the publication of Speiser's Mesopotamian Origins eame hie test of his theory of a Hurrian substratum in Mesopotamia. In new exeavations * Nuzi in 1930/31 a level of the Old Akkadian period about one thousand years older than the level containing th Nuzi tablets was reached, and in it were discovered more than two hundred tablets written in an Old Akkadian dialect OF some five hundred personal names found in the tablets many were Akkadian ind some Sumerian, but hardly any were Hurrian (ef. pp. 52). The differenece usu “ Lbid. p. vii Tid. pp. 22 and 171 0 Tid. pp. 134, & Thid, p, 164, Mid. p. 18, 4 Tid. p 24. ‘* Copies of the texts, lists of proper names, and a good introduction a iven by T. J. Meck, Old Akkadian, Sumerian, and Cappadocian Texts from Nuzi (HSS X [I8 Hournians ano Suns IANS fact that even the name sur, not Nuzi. Any considerable jan element at Nuzi or in the Nuzi region in general in the middle of the 3d , then, out of the question, Yet, if the Hurrians did form the oldest population anywhere in the Near Fast, they should surely have been at home first of all at Nuzi, which later became a very important center of distribution of Hur- rian eulture, between the two cultures were further manifested by the of the settlement in the earlier period was ( Speiser’s New Inerpreratton ‘That his theory had been found wanting must have become clear to Speiser al~ most immediately after the diseovery of the Old Akkadian tablets. In 1933 he pub- lished an article in which he modified his position. The negative evidence from Nuzi and also from Tell Billa, a site situated northeast of Mosul and about 2 hundred miles northwest of Nuzi, had shown him that there were no Hur this neighborhood in the 3d millennium p.c. and that “the Flu new-comers who made their appearanee at a comparatively late date. point Mesop. Orig., eh. V, “Leaving aside the question of the population of the district in prehistorie times, we know now that the Hurrians as such supplunted other ethnie elements, though these too were large nie,’ or ‘Japhethite.’ ” Since “large portions of Subartu possessed non-Hurrian populations prior to the second millennium ... . it follows .... that... they [the Subarians} cannot be equated with the Hurrians of the Boghazkoi texts, or with their Syrian re Speiser believes “that later Assyrian ” but s ans in ns were clearly ” “On this Yow subject to correction,” he says, then continues latives.”” ings referred to the Hurrians by the newly ws that “we cannot employ such a name indiseriminatel es of that ethnie group without wholly obscuring the historical coined term Subart, for all the branche background.” § ilarly later on he recognizes “that the Hurrian migrations belong in their entirety to the second millennium, and that upon overrunning the new terri- tories the Hurrians faced for the most part populations of Semitie or semitized stock,” while still emphasizing that the Semites did not constitute ¢ carliest ethnic group in those areas, ading Gasur is confirmed by the syllabie spelling Ga-si-ri-(im) found in Cuppadocian this spelling J. Lewy called attention in JAOS LVIII (19 tablets, Ethnie movements in the Near East in the second millennium s.c.,” AASOR XIII (193) 13-54 (also published separately as “Publications of the American Schools of Oriental Research, Offprint Series, No. 1). Speiser based his new interpretation on the Old Akkadian tublets from Gasur, referring to preliminary articles by Meck in BASOR No, 48 (1932) pp. 2-5 and in AASOR. XII (1933) 1-12 & Results of excavations at Tell Billa can be followed in BASOR Nos. 40-42, 44-46, 48-51 TT (1932-83) 249- 68, and 71 (1930-38) and in University of Pennsylvania Museum Journal 308 and XXIV (1935) 33-8. S©'The quotations up to this point ave taken from AASOR XII 26. # Mid. pp. 82. Hisrory or rae Hornran-Supanray Prosurat 9 In brief, I understand Speiser’s new reconstruction as follows: The Mesopotamian substratum. consists largely of “Asianie” or “ japhethite”’ elements, among which he includes the Subarians. Then Semites entered Mesopotamia; and later, in the 2d tuillennium ,c,, eame Hurrians, who, like the Subarians, were “Asiani Ja phethite.” The similarities and differences between these two groups Speiser has left undiscussed. In this connection we must: remember that his term “, or hethite” was a catchall covering ¥: ‘ous peoples ong whom he assumed some vague relationship, Unaxap’s Suparrt In 1936 Ungnad published a book which may well be taken as the fullest presents- tion of the Hurrian-Subarian problem to date2* After a general “introduction” the the “sources,” a section which ineludes not only all the mentions of Hurrians or Subarians known to its author but also an extensive and useful evaluation of them. The third part of the book consists of “results”—diseus- sion and formulation of it Ungnad’s mi main part of the book giv author's chief ideas about the problem in thesis (on its earlier expression sce pp. 4 f.) is that the Subarians formed the original population not only of Mesopotamia but of the regions extend~ ing westward to the Mediterranes and Cappadocia and eastward at least as far as the mountains on the Persian border, including perhaps Armenia in the north? All too little is known about the few skulls yet exeavated in Western A. and liter: ntribute seareely a clew to race, In this situation Ungnad depends primarily on sculpture. He interprets the fact that monuments depicting “Hittite” types are particularly abundant at Tell Halaf, outside Hittite territory, as meaning that those brachycephalie non-Indo-European figur sent what he calls the “Subarian”’ or “Hither-Asiatic-Subarian” race.” The Tell Malaf “Buntkeramik’® nd muuch diseussed Tell Halaf seulp- tures! he assigns to the early Subarians; the “Hittite hieroglyphie”’ writing is per- haps likewise Subarian.”* Linguistic differences between the Ugarit dialect of “Su darian” (see below) and the rest. of our material lead Ungnad to distinguish between West and East Subarian. Only the latter happens to be documented for the period before 2000 B.c.; and, at th for it to the region ¢ n Sea a, sourees ¢4 mpire repre s well as the famous a hea sumes that cirewnstanees restriet the evidence tof the Tigris. The linguistic evidence dated to the 2d millen- ium from as far west as Mittanni and beyond means to Ung ul that Subarian eul- © Arthur Ungnad, Subartu, Beitriige zur Kulturgeschichte und Volkerkunde Vorderasiens (Ber liuamnd Leipzig, 1986). According to its preface the book was almost completed three years earlier but various difficulties prevented its publication until 1936. © Tid. p. 19 © [bid. pp. 173-77, 195 f., 109. On both skulls and monuments ef. later diseu ‘conclusions hy W. M. Krogina IIT (OIP XXX [1937)) 208-76, in with different in H. H, von der Osten, The Alishar Huyuk, Seasons of 1980- © Tbid. pp. 182-85. © [bid. pp. 191 £. and 200,10 HUrRiaNs aN SUBARIANS ture centered around the headwaters of the Khabur, where WaSukkanni, Turatta’s capital, was situated, Near by lies Tell Halaf, whose very old and uniform eulture was uncovered by Baron Max von Oppenheim." In that region, not at Nuzi, says Ungnad, lies the heart of Subartu."* Latpsr EXCAVATIONS In the past fifteen years much important material from various sites in Syria and Mesopotamia has been brought to light. The exeavations of ancient Ugarit, moder Ra's Shamrah, situated a few miles north of Latakia in Syria, have yielded several hundred tablets of mid-2d millennium date wr the Akkadian language but mostly in a locally developed variety of cuneiform in a language closely related to Amorite, Aramaic, and Hebrew. The most important Hurrian finds at Ra’s Shamrah have been a Sumerian-Hurrian voeabulary,'? a few ten partly in normal cuneiform in Hurrian texts,* and some Hurrian personal names seattered through the other texts (cf. p. 69). The site of Mishrifch (ancient Qatna), situated south of Hamath, has likewise provided Hurrian material of approximately the same period, consisting of both personal names and other words used in tablets listing the temple treasure of the goddess ‘Nin-é-gal (cf. p. 69). Farther north, Tell *namjalu> *naon position occurs in the name of the divinity Manzat (Scheil in RA XXII [1925] 149), found also us Namizat (KAR 158 i 16). These two forms were brought together by Landsherger and J. Lewy Die Kultepetexte der Sammlung Rudolf Blanckertz (Berlin, 1929) p. 42, n. 1 7 OT XVII K V.8. IV (1985) 206 f. and in Subartu p. 96 Ungnad showed on the basis of a ‘Subartu" probably applied to only one of the two words listed as meaning ob nil. According to Profesor Dr. A. Sachs would interpret w>namallu, ‘The same trans 206 rev. i 19. In Orientalia fant text that old namely a-a-ra-hi, wherens zalju is presumably a Sumero-Akkadian word, Ann Horntans Ibe AL WITH SUBARIANS? 7 Still, even if we were to admit that all the words with the notation sv or supine in the Akkadi yllabaries are actually Hurrian and that they ean all be found in unquestionably Hurrian texts, would this prove that the terms “[urrian’ und “Subarian” are equivalent? No; for the notation sv!” or su. does not mean “Subarian” in the ethnie or lingu , but, like ina St “in Subartu”’ or “in the land of the Subarians.” Ungnad translates these terms cor retly but fails to consider the possibility that words so designated are not neces- Subarian in language but are wor ba-ri, it m used in Subartu. Since the syllabaries snd lists of deities containing the expressions under discussion were ail composed in sate Assyrian times, itis clear that they would mention words used in the Ak Jialeetsspoken in Subartu at approximately the that, besides Hurrian, other languag: adian, same period, ‘Thereis,indeed, no doubt s were actually in use at that time in Subartu. Hurrians in Subartu.—The lists of deities and the syllabaries show that Hurrian was spoken at one time in the land of Subartu, This fact implies the presence of Murrians. But to draw from it the conelusion that “Hurrian” and “Subarian” are synonymous would be as fallacious as to say tht Arabic is identical with Spanish because for centuries both languages were used contemporaneously in Spain, Both the land of the Hurrians and that of the Subarians included broad areas of the Near East, and it is not only possible but very probable that at times one people would move into territory previously occupied by the other. But only from the middle of the 2d millennium on do we hi ¢ souree material adequate to determine the extent of both lands at approximately the same period, The Amarna tablets mention the “land of the Subarians” (see p. 48). Since the Hurrian state of Mittanni in central Mesopotamia was then in its he hands hha , the two been identified with each other by all the scholars who have discussed this problem (sce p, 48). The texts themselves offer nothing in favor of this identifi- tion. But even if the identity of Subartu with Mittanni, and through Mittanni h Hurri, could be ¢ itely established from the Amarna tablets, it is obvious that such a conclusion would apply only to the Amarna period. Such confusion of the terms could possibly have arisen at some time in the 2d milleunium s.c. when the Hurrians invaded territories occupied by the Subarians. It would not be sur- prising, therefore, to find the Syrian seribes using for the same geneval area either the old name “Subartu” or the more modern name “Mittanni,” just as today the terms “Gallic” and “Preneh” or “Prussian” and “German” are often used inter- changeably, even though originally these terms had nothing in common with each other, nm Subarians’ names alleged to be Hurrian.—The third point in favor of the alleged identity of Hurrians and Subarians was reeently brought out by Ungnad as a result of his listing and study of the Subarian names of the 3d dynasty of Ur and of the st dyt abylon. asty of18 HURRIANS AND SUBARIANS As to the sv‘ or sv.a* names in Ur IIE documents,” Ungnad reasoned that, sinee su stands for su-brr," in late Assyrian syllabaries, so also in the Ur TIT tablets persons thus called should be considered Subarians. ‘The a of the longer form sv.a™ was to hin unexplainable, Naturally Ungnad’s belief that these nam should be connected linguistically with the Hurri arian” he ealls it) lar guage must have played a decisive part in his interpretation of them as Subavian, But are these names actually Subarian in Ungnad’s sense? That is, are they Hurrian (as that term is defined on p. My own investigation e pp. 24-27) shows that the su and sv.s%? names are indeed Subarian, but that they are not Hurrian, The Hur posedly proved by the occurrence among them of a few—Duli-a, Ku: Se-bi, and Ma-da-ti-na—for which Ungnad claims to find later, properly Hurrian analogies, especially in the Nuzi tablets.®” But ¢ perficial ex: four names will easily show how fallacious is such comparison, The first, Tu- does indeed oceur at Nuzi,** as noted by Ungnad, and might be hypocoristie for the Hurrian name which he gives as “Tul(i)-Te&up.” ‘That there is Hurrian root tul is proved convineingly by the Nuzi personal name Tulip-apu, where apu is certainly a Hurrian element. One might object, however, that in short names a y be purely accidental. Only if it ean be proved that some y be ealled n character of the su? or su.A® names listed by Ungnad is sup- uz, ion of similarity of sounds m other su(4™) names are Hun Hurrian.* an ean such a name as Duc-lia safe # Subartu pp. 105 f. and 137; see the com| 2 Subartu p. 137.—hn justice to other scholars it should be mentioned that Landsberger long. ago thought that the su’.a") people should not be connected with the Hurriaus (ZA XXXV {1924] 230 ., n, 3); he does not, however, identify them with the Subarians, and under the latter terin he understands the people called Hurrians by others. Landsberger’s further ideas on the 50.4 popilation are noted below, p. 108,n. 102, Goetze in a review of Ungnad’s Subartu in JAOS LVIT (1937) 108, u. 12, urged that the designation “tan from su” on tablets of the 3d dynasty of Ur must be used cautiously because only a few names of such people are “Subarean” (ie., what I understand as Hurrian). Speiser, Mes. Or. p. 143, n. $0, diseussed only one sv. name, Jabrat, in nection with the Hurvians; in his IF p. 3, n. 7, he states that “the description ‘mau from Su. take in proper names that are not Hurrian.” list of s0(.a}) names below, pp. 100-103, 3 In this tnonograph, as in NPN (ef. Purves iid. p. 184), only the voiceless consonants are em= ed in connected writing of Hurr NPN lists for this and other Nuzi names cited. ‘Tul-Tesup, the form actually found at another Hurrian name, Du-ul-bi-te-eneni, exhibits dul-f id. Incidentally, Ungnad’s belief that mative -l» is unjustified, inasmwch as «a occurs on & Cappadocian tablet also; see L. Oppenheim in RHA V (1938 ——) 17. In my IAV pp. 18f., where I discussed the Hurrian clement in Cappadocian personal names, I purposely omitted from my discussion, as hid Goetze from his (eited iid.) all the short names and with them the usually short hypoeoristie names in fa, My reluctance to base com- Ane Hertiaxs Ipexrican wrrit SUBARIANS? Much less can be said in favor of Hurrian origin of the other three names com- the fact that the sc(.a*") name Ku~ ri/zi docs not make K. ured by Ungnad. zu resembles such Nuzi ames as Ku-w2-2u and Kit-uz- eu Hurrian. Se-fi can- it be connected with Nuzian Se-bi-ia, for the latter name is in all probability Ak- vdiun.** Ma-da-ti-na and the Hurrian names Ma-al-Te-tup and Ma-ti-ia from Nuzi slight similarity in sound. ave nothing in common outside of g Besides these few of the Su or SU.A names there are two other which Ungnad claims Hurrian origin, One of them is “Zigulae,” who si of Su-bire. However, the name is not Zi-gu-la-e but Zi-gu-um-e (see p. 38); mes for » bearer was ith this correction most of Ungnad’s arguments lose their basis.? The other name Um-mi-He-bi-it, whose bearer is called x woman of Subartu.8 This isan Akkadian ly a hy ume of a deity who is neither Akkadian nor necessarily Hurrian (see pp. 106 f on the strength of which ume, more ex prid composed of an Akkadian clement followed by the Résumé.—We have thus scen that the three premis entity of Hurrians and Subarians has been asserted mean little. The terms a i-ba-ri attached to certain Hurrian words in Akka\ ~s clearly indicate not that those words are Subarian ina linguistic sense nt in the land of Subartu, ‘The fact that Hurrians i, sui, and ina & yllabs vut merely that they were curr weupied in the 2d millennium some territories which then or at other tims were or may have been included under the broad term “Subartu” or “land of the Subarians” is no bearing on Hurrian-Subarian identity, beeanse the Hurrians are clearly new- bove mentioned article. [still do not enheim in his isons on such names was criticized by Opj wvever, how his viewpoint ean be defended. The dange 1g short names in any al study are readily apparent Ci. the Nuzi variant Sépi-ia, probably hypocoristic for Nuxian Sépe!Adad.—It eanwot he wo strongly emphasized that to call a name Hurrian if it has any parallels at Nuzi as de Ungnad . 4640, The mportance of this text will be estab= hed if and when it ean be proved definitely that the sv.uaerit are Subatians (ef. p. 40, n, 126 The list of seven men all clearly bearing non-Akkadian and non-Sumerian names may then form very welcome addition to our knowledge of Subarian personal names—A reading Maret narpn?-a in Luckenbill op. cil. 180:9 is very doubtful because both mareite and a are partly ken away on the tablet and the remaining, raves look different from the copy Dr. Geers points out that this value is supported by the apparent origin of the word bappir om b/par plus bj pir Of. N. Schneider, Die Keilsehriftzeichen der Wirtschaftsurkunden von Ur TL (Itom, 195 753 und 758. Por confusion by modem s jolars ef. the correction from mut to nari by Jacobsen (see below, p39)28 HurRIANS AND SUBARIANS while sv.sappre is used in the Old Akkadian and Ur IIT periods, the form su.prr.™ appears only sporadieally at the end of Ur III and does not become popular until the time of the Ist dynasty of Babylon. With the end of the 8d dynasty of Ur the logographie writing SU.Bm begins to appear as the name for the land Subartu, ‘This writing is then used—at times al- most exelusively—throughout the whole of Assyro-Babylonian history up to the very end. That su.str,"! means Subartu was established many years ago by means of several syllabaries,® but the Sumerian reading bir. for the sign otherwise called iest* showed rptN remained unknown until evidence from two different syllab beyond a doubt that npry in the combination su.zptn for the land name was to be read as bi-ir or biry? A variant Su-biir-e™ for Su-birs in a late Sumeriai-titerary composition referring to Nardm-Sin (see p. 86) is also interesting, for it links the spelling subir with the spelling subur discussed above. Still other logograms for Subartu, found as yet only in synonym lists and aries, are discussed in Appendix I (pp. 92ff.). Syllabic writings. —The oldest known form of the Akkadian gentilic formation is Subarijum, found on tablets from the Sargonie period.** The land name suBU glossed by Su-bar-tim in the genitive ina later copy of an inscription of Nardm- 5). No Akkadian syllabic spellings from the Ur III period are known to me, The ame Subartum and the gentilic form Subardm, contracted from Subarifum, subsequent Old Babylonian period. V ae (p. land oceur several times on tablets from the persons are deseribed as Su-ba-risim, Su-ba-ri-a-am, Su-ba-ri-tum, Su-ba-ructt, or onSy-ba-ri-i (pp. 43 £. and 105). The form Su-ba-ri occurs in tablets of the same pe- riod from Susa (p. 44). A Mari letter (p. 41) has a referenee to ma-a-at™ Su-bar and in a contemporary date formula (p. 42) is found the spelling ma-at Su-bar-tim. In a liver omen from Mari (p. 89) Su-ba-ri-d, “the Subarians,” a, the finst king of the dynasty of Isin Assyrians use quite consistently the rious im, are mentioned as being enemies of Isbi In the Middle and Late Ass spellings mat (or wn-ma-an) Su-ba-ri-i and mat Su-barte (pp. 45 £.). The so-called y,” written from the Assyrian (not Babylonian) point of view, fueba-ri (p. 45). rian periods the ‘Synchroni writes mat ‘The Kassite period in Babylonia, however, offers the spellings Su-bar-|ti], Su-ba- (p. 44). From outlying regions we have mat Su-ba-ri in rust, and Su-bu-ri-i~ 4 See already Rudolph B. Briinnow, A Classified List of All Simple and Compound Cuneiform Tdeographs .... (Leyden, 1889) No. 198, MOT XI 27 BM 93042:3 and the “Chicago Syllabary,” AJSL XX: See now Richard T Hallock, The Chicago Syllabary and the Louvre Syllaban [1940)) pp. 16 and 29. # Thureau-Dangin in RA XVII (1920) 8 The actual writings Suba-ri-tum, Sucbasinim, Sucha-rinit, contest on p. 37. ds to later # see p. 80, n. 55 KIT (1916/17) 1 AO 7661 (AS yenad, Subartut p. nd Suha-ri-a are quoted with History or THE SUBARIANS 29 \narna letters (p. 48) and both mat Su-ba-rieié and Zu-pa-riai at Bogazkiy 19) te Assyro-Bubylonian syllabaries and literary eompositions—omens, astro- ical texts, ete—largely subject to Babylonian cultural influence use spellings s, e.g. Su-bar-t,® Su-bar-tu(m),* Su-bar-ta,4 Su-bar-ti? The rare adjectival Suburttu in the yarera= hinbullu syllabary® is important be wuse it is based he form subur, swbur. Vor the Late Babylonian period the spellings Su-ba-ru-um va-la-a’ are attested (p. 45). The alloged spelling S{u-bji-r{a-tum] quoted Ungnad, Subartu p. 94, from V R 14:15 dis probably s[v-thum. tiesides the root gubar on which the name of the Subarians is based, there is also vwcter form, Subr, used in the gentilic formation Subriju(m) and in the land name ria (p. 47). The development of subar > fubr is in agreement with an Akkadian: wuctie prineiple which permits the elision of 2 short unaeeented medial vowel, vu and in the land name Naw/mar > Namri.* 1 used in Assyria and at Bogazkiy; they seem to be unknown to the Babylonians. rliest oceun “don Subr in zikaru >zi he shorter forms The ¢ s in a Cappadoeian soure nee,),** parallel to am-tam Ki-ld-ri-tém, m= Suub-ri-tém, “a § Kilarian(?) slave girl” Derivatives of subr are commoner in the Middle Assyrian period, when the gen- forms /Su-ub-ri-i-tu(m)* and /Su-ub-ri-tat are applied to slave ginls and a kind led Su-ul-ri-i, ‘The last form is found in the following e u(m) damrpu®™ Su-ub-ri-it;* 1 imir 0 qa Se-u(m) nin is ples mix 60 qd u-ub-ri- damqu bru; 16 imér S-u(m) Su-ulb-ri-i) Exe. KAR 169 rev, ii Vand KAR 169 rev. iii 38 (Hera ep nd Suture Irra epic); see also below, p. 92 (syllabaries! 83:11 (omens) u (LTBA T 6: gi-tennur-hur-ra yr. XXXVI [1014] 188: 10) © Gidema Subir LVL i 20), Sab 15; ef, Sumerian only in Syria XH (1981) PL Su-burrlictul (Wi eeueil de travaus relatifs & ka ilologie et & Pare ie Gx. ot Subarian plum (or media? 4 Sushir?| =Suburrli-tul (LTBA 58 v 1), “Subarian pomegranate”; gi-margidda [Slu-iueri-be (Altorientalisehe ‘Teste und Untersuchungen 11 [1016] p. 2 ef ‘wmerian only in Syria XIE PL NLVILN “The Inst example is eited by J. Lowy in AXXXV (1924) 145, 0.1 CCT LiL 25:55. Hoth this and the following parallel are cited by Lewy in ZA XXXVUL 19) 257, m. 4 TI 1:22, eo RAV 213, KAI 167:8; 17024, Cf. also 161 Su-d-ri-at pon.san mér Sa-mi-dé in a Tell Billa tablet of ap- KAS G2. , discussed by Speiser in Studia et documenta ad iura Orientis antiqui 8 KAI 6:6 KAS 6 ame in line 8 exept for quantity 6 dimer30 Hurwans anp Sunantans Sarru Su-ub-ri-a, “the Subrian king,” is mentioned se from Hanigalbat on a tablet from Bogazkéy,® and §: another Bogazkiy ta al times in distinetion b-ri-it alone is found on 1° But owing to the fragmentary condition of both tablets no important historieal facts ean be established. Vinal rivia-na-as“v-up-as, “Subrian Tesup,” appears ina Hurrian text from Bogarkéy."! As to the initial sibilant, it ean be observed that in the Old Akkadian and Old Babylonian periods its only pronune tion was £5 In the subsequent periods the writings of the sibilant diverge. While the Assyrians keep to &, writing it now as & the Babylonians from the Kassite period on begin to spell the name of the Subarians with s, The re suns for their introduction of the new spelling are unknown. Unguad's explanation of the forms with initial 4 as Assyrian and of those with initial » as Babylonian is incompatible with the faets, because at least the Old Babylonians 's observation’? that the Babylonians expressed with s (su-kal, su-bur, ote.) the same Sumerian sibilant whieh clearly used # in the writing. For the same reason Jacobse the Assyria xpressed with § Gu-uk-kal, su-bur, ete.) eannot be applied to our ease unless or until it can he proved that the differentiation in the transliteration of Su- incrian » began in the Kassite period. Sinee the form with init jal Sis older and better attested than that with initial s, we should, to be exact, say Subsrian or Shubarian instead of Subarian. But the modern practice of spelling many words—Sumerian, Samaritan, Sabbath, cte.~ with s, even though they go hack to original &, Ou us Sbr at Ras Shamrah (pp. 204.). Dhorme’s identification of the Sispeires, Si- ay justify our spelling Subarian, le of Mesopotamian euneiform sourees the name of the Subarians appears peires, Stbeires, SAbiroi, and SAbéroi (10 whom might possibly be added some other similarly named peoples not cited by Dhorme) of elassie sourees with the Subari- ans,” although phonctieally admissible," is at present. unprovable, The chief diffi- * KBo 1 20:12 and rey, 3 and 10; Unguad, Suburi pp, BLE, See also below, p. 46, 8 RUB LIL T7:7 and 15, KUB XXVII 46:19, 25 Dr. P.M. Paves, 0, sud 31 Guchiding several varius). Lowe this reference to © On Oll Akkadian spellings with s, to be pronounced as §, see peovisionally Gelly iw ASL LULL (1936/37) 31. Old Babylonian asses only spellings with & ‘The gloss Siu-ba-tim found ine an Old Babylonian copy of an Old Akkadian inscription (p. 28) his uf course to be taker as imitation of the Old Akkadian orthography of the original. Cf in the same inscription mi), ete. (ERT No, 2745 834154: 2 © Sabartu pp. 21 Hisaena, sted "In Delongauz and Loyd, Pros pp. 205, m, 10, & P. Dhorme, “Sonbartou-Mitani,”” RA VIE C911) 98 £ * The basie form salir would stand in the same relation to subir as sagir to sugir. Yhe last three ents of Subartat (py. 92) revntid Temples in the Diyala R O1P LYM [1912) forms are known as oxiv History or rae Sumantans 31 l1y lies in the fact that it is impossible to localize the peoples of the elassieal sour none definite region; at rious periods they seem to have occupied widely sepurat- Uareas of Asia, such as Armenia, Iran, and Turkestan,” Eantinsr Traces WW." dynasty’—Our carliest contact with Subarians may go. ba “ediluvian Sumerian dynasty, which is said to have resided at Exidu or, according va variint text, at ya.a™ Since the name of the lat ck to the first ler city, which is frequently wentioned in eonneetion with Eridu, is given in Akkadian translations vl the like, it is possible that the eity wa.a% named after the Subarians ueba-ri Su-ba-ri of the first Sumerian dynasty pp. 94-96) Vara.—As pictographie tablets found at Ur, Uruk, and Jemdet Nasr arc lirely ununderstandable at the present. stage alnost of our knowledge, the carlivst dable Sumerian documents are those from Fara in southern Babylonia. ‘The idence from these tablets for the existence of Subarians at Fara is of varied ire, and as sueh it has to be handled with caution Vhere is & personal name Subur in the Fara tablets which, to judge from the lists personal names made by Deimel and Jestin, te is the most commonly used name Fara, This personal name is written with the same logogram, ond name Subartum in a late Ur eopy of an inseription of Nara 4) presumably mea BR, used in the in (p. 35), and ubarian’’ or “Subartu.”” It would be, then, a persona wrallel in type to Freneh, P al name hee, Ireland in English, to Bayer, Frank, Sach n, and to similar names in many other languages. Just. as the * originally applied by the English only to Frenehmen living in I the name Subur at Fara wa: Hiab just as the later Frenehe hs in er name French itlish territory, presumably applied at first only to real Subarians, of England are considered to be English, so the uburs we have found at Fara must doubtless be considered ww indication whatsoever that persons bearing that name are mmerian, There is : thing but Sumeri- ts. Persons named Subur are bakers (mupaldim) or even chief bak ers (agula mahal 4)" smiths (sing), seribes (dubsar) or ehict seribes (ugula dubsar), ete., and Wissowa-Kroll, Real-Eneyelopyidie der elas iro} ancl Saspeires A. Deimel, Die I 1. Liste der archaischen Keilseliftzeiehen (WVDOG <1); HL Seluteste ens Fara (WVDOG XLIH); IIT, Wietechaitsteste ane Fara (WVDOG XL Jestin, Tablettes sumériomes de Surmppak eonservées an Musée de Stumbont! «P. ne tablets from later exeavations at Para were disenssedl hy 8. N. Krame 1034"” TAOS LIE (1932) 110-32 Barn 1 Op. cit. p. 1. “ Deimel, Farn £11 66 is, 71 iv, 104 i Jestin op. eit. 45 iv schon Altertamsw seuscheafh, amner cchriften vou ais, L937 New tablets froea Deimel op. eit. 76 xiv; Jestin op. cit. 570 iv Deimel op. cit. 25 v, 36 vif, 77 xvi; Festin op, cit, 480 iv, S97