Skip to main content

Full text of "Evidence for the Horite Language from Nuzi"

See other formats


AMERICAN SCHOOLS OF ORIENTAL RESEARCH 


Evidence for the Horite Language from Nuzi 
Author(s): Cyrus H. Gordon 

Source: Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research , No. 64 (Dec., 1936), pp. 23-28 
Published by: The American Schools of Oriental Research 
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1355393 
Accessed: 03/02/2015 22:50 


Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at 
http ://www.j stor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms .j sp 

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. 


_ ® 

http ://www.j stor.org 



The American Schools of Oriental Research is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend 
access to Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research. 















Number 64 


December, 1936 


On the whole B is regular and symmetrical. It was, to be sure, quite easy 
to cut, for all its lines are straight. Figure A, on the contrary, is most 
irregular. The number of curved acroteria on the left is one less than on 
the right. What on the left side corresponded to the two unequal columns on 
the right it is impossible to say, but, whatever it was, it was not the same 
as what appears on the right. The doorways in both figures are uncer¬ 
tain. The architecture of figure A is most weird, entirely aside from its 
asymmetry. An arch and gable such as depicted has never been seen. 
Above the gable one thinks he has found an inscription, hut it wanders off 
at once into unintelligibility. What looks like OUI at the extreme left 
really has no such appearance. The unfinished quadrangles at the side are 
equally without meaning or relation to the whole. 

If any tomb were apparent on the hillside, or any signs of a place of 
worship, one might think of these as a pair of rock-cut fagades similar to 
those of Petra and Medain Salih, though they are much less effective because 
they are horizontal instead of vertical and they are comparatively small. 
If they were near either of those places, one might adopt a suggestion which 
one friend gave, that they are an apprentice-stonecutter’s practice exercises. 
One might almost think of them as an architect’s sketches for buildings he 
was to erect. In any case they represent an interesting jeu d’ esprit on the 
part of some ancient stonecutter. 


EVIDENCE FOR THE HORITE LANGUAGE FROM NUZI 

Cyrus H. Gordon 

A decade ago the biblical Horites were little more than a name. Today, 
however, thanks to a series of remarkable discoveries, much is known of 
their history, language and art. 

In Mesopotamia there is no trace of the Horites in the first half of the 
third millennium. Thus during the period of the Dynasty of Akkad (about 
2700-2500) no Horite names occur in the inscriptions at Nuzi (then called 
Gasur). 1 It is during the second half of the third millennium that per¬ 
sonal names first attest the presence of the Horites. The earliest known 
Horite name is that of Arishen, a king in the central Zagros country, before 
the twenty-fourth century. Horite names are found in Babylonian con¬ 
tracts of the Third Dynasty of Hr (twenty-third century) and become fre¬ 
quent in those of the First Dynasty of Babylon (about 2105-1806). 2 It is 

1 Meek, H., vol. X. 

The following abbreviations are used in this paper: AASOR: Annual of the 
American Schools of Oriental Research ; AJSL: American Journal of Semitic Lan¬ 
guages and Literatures ; ASAW: Abhandlungen der Sdchsichen Akademie der Wissen- 
schaften (Philologisch-historische Klasse) ; H: Harvard Semitic Series ; JAOS: 
Journal of American Oriental Society; X: the Nuzi texts copied by Chiera in Pub¬ 
lications of the Baghdad School I-V; OLZ : Orientalistische Liter at urzeitung ; RA: 
Revue d’Assyriologie; TC: Textes cuneiformes (Louvre); ZA: Zeitschrift fur 
Assyriologie. 

2 The evidence for the preceding statements is given by Albright, “ The Horites in 
Palestine,” in From the Pyramids to Paul (Robinson Festschrift), New York, 1935, 
pp. 9-26. 


23 



Number 64 


December, 1936 


now known that the Sorites were the most significant element in Upper 
Mesopotamia throughout the second millennium B. C. 3 

It is impossible as yet adequately to evaluate the role of the Sorites on 
the stage of human history. Nevertheless, excavation and research point 
unmistakably to the fact that Assyrian culture was forged from the com¬ 
bination of the Sorite and the Babylonian. 4 Babylonian civilization had 
been produced by a blending of Sumerian and Semite. Assyrian civiliza¬ 
tion received its individuality from the Sorites. 

The Sorites were wedged between the Sittite and Semitic domains and 
hence were a bridge for cultural traffic between the two. Language, law 
and art abundantly illustrate this phenomenon. The surprising thing is 
that so prominent a people as the Sorites was completely forgotten except 
for a few obscure references in the Bible and even there the Sorites were 
confused with the Sivites. 5 

One of our chief sources for the language and culture of the Sorites is the 
great corpus of some 4000 cuneiform tablets from Nuzi discovered by the 
joint expeditions of the Baghdad School first with the Iraq Museum and 
later with Sarvard University. 511 These tablets date from the fifteenth cen¬ 
tury B. C. and are written in a corrupt dialect of Middle Babylonian full of 
Soritisms in grammar and vocabulary. 

Our knowledge of the Sorite language is still in an early stage but is 
steadily progressing. The Sorite loan-words presented below are hound to 
further the decipherment of the ever increasing Sorite inscriptions found 
in excavations ranging from Tell el-'Amarnah in Egypt to Boghazkoy in 
Asia Minor, from Kirkuk beyond the Tigris to Bas esh-Shamrah on the 
Mediterranean. 6 

No. 1 suggests that the Horites used the decimal system. 

Nos. 5, 16, 21(?), 47, 50, 79 and 87 show that Horite loan-words often take the 
Semitic abstract suffix -ut {u). 

Nos. 6, 17, 27 (?), 28, 33, 62, 64, 77, 82, 83 (?) and 86 show the Horite termination 
- hu , though in some of these cases hu may be part of the root. 

Nos. 8, 14, 39, 43, 52, 68, 69, 70 and 71 are Horite months. Previous studies on the 
Nuzi calendar must now be revised in the light of unpublished documents in the 
Harvard Semitic Museum. Dr. Lacheman and the writer are preparing a study of 
the Nuzi menology on the basis of this material. 

Nos. 9, 11, 26, 29, 32 and 50 have the Horite suffix -uhlu, which designates pro¬ 
fession or occupation. This function, however, is not demonstrable in the case of 
no. 32. 

No. 13, unlike most of these loan-words, is sometimes written without a Semitic 
case ending. 

Nos. 41, 76 and 84 contain the H°rite numerals kik, sin(t) and tum{n)n. which 
Speiser defines as “3”(?), “2” and “4” respectively; summarized in JAOS LVI, 
1936, pp. 404-5. The following discussion is offered for consideration pending the 
appearance of Dr. Speiser’s final publication. The equation of “ sin = 2 ” is partly 
based on that of “ sinahilu — terdennu ‘ second Throughout his translation of 


3 Gotze, Hethiter, Churriter und Asssyrer, Oslo, 1936, o. 31. For previous treat¬ 
ments of the subject see especially Chiera and Speiser, AASOR VI, 75 ff.; Speiser, 
AASOB XIII, 13 ff. 

4 Cf. Gotze, op. cit., pp. 184-5 etc. 

5 Albright, op. cit., pp. 20 ff. 

5a See now Pfeiffer, “ Nuzi and the Hurrians,” from the Smithsonian Report for 
1935, pp. 535-558. 

6 For references to the literature of the Horites, see Gotze, op. cit., p. 99 and the 
work of Brandenstein cited under word no. 4. 


24 



Number 64 


December, 1936 


Tusratta’s Mitannian letter, Bork {Mitannisprache) suggests sin = 3 though no 
proof is given. In favor (not as proof!) of sin = 3 is the probable identity in 
meaning of sinamumma (no. 108) and sassumma (no. 110). Speiser has made the 
excellent observation that sassumma is a variant of salasumma (see no. 106) and 
thus contains the Semitic numeral mssu (for salsu) “3.” In view of this may it 
not be that sassumma is merely a Semitized adaptation of sinamumma , in which 
case sin ( am ) = sassu “ 3 ” ? The matter is important because numerals are among 
the most vital criteria for establishing linguistic kinship. Horite is definitely not 
Semitic, Indo-European or Sumerian. Resemblances to Elamite, Urartian and 
various languages of Caucasia have not established any organic relationship. The 
solution must await further discovery and research. 

Nos. 60(?), 81(?), 104, 106, 107, 110 and 111 show that Babylonian had greatly 
affected the Horite dialect of Nuzi. We may safely assume that the Nuzian used 
many Akkadian loan-words in speaking his Horite vernacular. 

The Horite abstract suffix - um,mi , which Bork {op. cit., p. 82) normalizes -omme, 
appears in no. 104. This suffix is modified to -umma (probably due to contamina¬ 
tion with the Akkadian enclitic -ma) in the mixed Horite-Akkadian idioms in 
-umma epesu ; of. nos. 88-112. 

In the following list of words I have diverged from several readings and inter¬ 
pretations given in my forthcoming article “ Nouns in the Nuzi Tablets,” Babyloniaca 
XVI, 1936. The article was completed nearly three years ago and since then many 
new texts have appeared and much progress has been made in Nuzi studies. 

Though this paper is based on a study of every published tablet from Nuzi, it does 
not include discussions of passages which are hopelessly obscure nor exhaustive 
references to words whose meanings may now be regarded as certain. Many Nuzi 
tablets are now being prepared for publication by Professors Pfeiffer and Speiser and 
Dr. Lacheman and hence it is premature to attempt a definitive publication at this 
juncture. 


(1) awiharu (N I 89: 5) or amiharu (N I 15:6) “ one tenth of a homer (land 
measure)”; conjectured by Gadd, RA XXIII, 1926, p. 90; confirmed by N I 17: 5-11. 

(2) ien(n)u in the general relatival expression sa ien{n)u sa “ whosoever”; AJSL 
LI, 1934-35, p. 18; c/. ienamamin in Tusratta’s Mitannian letter, col. IV, line 21. 

(3) ii-a-an-ta (N II 179:5) “ booty ”(?); Koschaker, OLZ XXXV, 1932, p. 404. 

(4) awiru (N II 101: 3) = eqlu “field”; Bauer, OLZ XXXVII, 1934, p. 244; 

for the reading awaru in the Horite dialect of Asia Minor, cf. Brandenstein, Keil- 
schrifturkunden aus Boghazkoi XXVII, 1934, p. iv. (5) ewuru “heir”; Speiser, 
AASOR X, p. 8; JAOS LV, 1935, p. 436; Koschaker, OLZ XXXV, 1932, p. 400; 
with Semitic abstract suffix: ewurutu; Lacheman, JAOS LV, plate I (after p. 431), 
line 11; Speiser, ibid., p. 434. (6) ahukaphu (TC IX 1:21) “a certain object 

made of taskarhu- wood.” (7) amumunna (N II 126:30) = abullu “gate”(?); 
cf. N I 27 : 22-24 etc. (8) impurtannu: month-name. (9) awelema (n) tuhlu (H V 92: 9; 
N V 494: 1) “a member of some profession ” (perhaps “ agent ” or “ purveyor ”). 

(10) uka = dimtu “district”; Koschaker, OLZ XXXIX, 1936, pp. 155-156. 

(11) wuruhlu or puruhlu “east”; Gordon, JPOS XV, 1935, p. 349. (12) irwissa/i 

= ilku “feudal service”; Speiser, Mesopotamian Origins, Philadelphia, 1930, pp. 
145-146. (13) urihul{u) (N III 273: 19, 305: 9) “compensation given to an em¬ 

ployer (or * owner ’ in the case of cattle, N IV 374: 7) on account of absence from 
work”; Chiera-Speiser, JAOS XLVII, 1927, pp. 46-47. (14) arkapinnu: month- 

name. (15) urparinnu “cattle overseer”; Gordon, Orientalia V, 1936, pp. 326-327. 

(16) artarten {nu) tu (H V 36:4; 95:5) “ locatio operis ”; i.e., “a transaction 
whereby one party leaves raw material with another for manufacture.” 

(17) waratushu “chariot-shed”; Speiser and Gunn, AASOR XIII, pp. 49-50. 

(18) utu (not samtul) “movable property given by one and only one party to the 

other over and above the real estate in an exchange of real estate to supplement 
land inferior in extent (N V 487) or quality (N III 252) or simply given as (the 
Arabic) bahsis for good will when the pieces of land exchanged are of equal value 
(N III 223:8; 238:8).” For variant {ana) utari and Horite derivation, see 
Koschaker, OLZ XXXIX, 1936, p. 152. (19) attinasa “a landscape term”; proba¬ 

bly not synonymous with dimtu (AS AW XXXIX, no. 5, 1928, p. 14) in the light 


25 



Number 64 


December, 1936 


of Koschaker’s identification of uka above. (20) ittus (X V 465: 14) = lubuHu 
“ clothing ”(?) ; cf. Museon XLVIII, 1935, p. 114, lines 11-12. (21) itisutu (N II 

123: 5, 8) “ a sort of service.” (22) zianzu “ sheepfold ”(?) ; Gordon, Orientalia 
V, 1936, p. 315. (23) zianatu “ a certain object generally made of leather”; not, 

as previously held, “ a headdress,” as proved by Feigin, AJSL LI, pp. 26-29. 
(24) zulu~mullu “to pay” or “payment”; Orientalia V, p. 320. (25) zazulu 

“a kind of garment” specified (H V 95: 1-10) as made of wool, weighing 8 minas 
and measuring 15 cubits in length and 5 in width. (26) zilikuhlu *= situ “ witness ”; 
Gordon, JBL LIV, 1935, p. 141. (27) zi-il-lu-ut?-\t]a?-ar?-hu? (TC IX 1:2) “a 

kind of wood suitable for making tables.” (28) hawalhu = kird “grove” as shown 
by X IV 336: 27, 33. (29) halzuhlu. Weber-Knudtzon, El-Amarna Briefe, II, 

p. 1145, identify h . with hazannu “mayor” c/. Koschaker, OLZ XXXIV, 1931, p. 226 
and ASGW XLII, no. 1, 1931, p. 4; however, cf. Speiser, JAOS XLIX, 1929, p. 272. 
(30) halah(wu) (N I 83: 7; TC IX 44: 9) “a kind of land.” (31) hum: month- 
name. (32) harauzuhlu from context (H V 6: 10) is an adjective" describing a 
hulldnu-garment. It is tempting though hazardous to compare the parallel, RA 
XXIII 31: 25, p. 149. (33) harwarahhu (H IX 92; 1, 9) “a kind of (wooden) 

container or basket for straw ”(?). (34) hurhututu (H V 44: 12, 18) : an object 

of unknown description. (35) hararnu (X IV 384:6) “subdivision (one tenth?) 
of awiharu (land measure )” = kumanu (?). (36) hasahusennu = kaspu or sarpu 

“silver” (rather than adjective describing silver) as indicated especially in H V 
79: 12 where the usual ideogram KUBABBAR is absent; cf. H V 80: 7-8; see also 
Koschaker, ZA XLI, 1933, p. 32. (37) husa[k~\asu refers to “parental jurisdiction” 

in H V 11: 4; cf. Speiser, AASOR X, p. 65. (38) hessumaku (H V 29: 11, 14, 19) 

= hubullu “ debt ” (?). (39) hutalsu (not hurisufije\) : month-name. (40) 

kaza-ur {/tas/lik)nu (H V 105:8) ~ imeru “ass” (??); cf. lines 16, 20, 23. 
(41) kikarpu “x years old.” (42) kalku (XV 527: 1,3,5; 533: 6) “a certain unit 
of long measure.” (43) kurillu: month-name. (44) kurpizu (H V 106: 6) “a 
kind of bronze object.” (45) kaska according to Speiser, JAOS LII, 1932, pp. 
363 ff. = n?Jg “corner of field.” (46) kutuktu (H V 39': 3; 98:1) “a certain 
measure (of wool).” (47) makannu “gift”; makannutu “giving”; latest dis¬ 
cussion by Koschaker, ZA XLIII, 1936, p. 209. (48) milium (X V 533: 2) “an 

appendage to the leather coat of mail for horses.” (49) mamati ( f) epesu (X III 
314: 14-15) “to do textile work and tailoring ”(?). (50) ma{n)zatuhlu ^ an 

officer delegated by judges generally to supervise ordeal-oaths (ildni nasu; e. g., 
RA XXIII 28 : 27, p. 148) or to serve notices (H V 49: 15)”; the office is manzatuhlutu. 
(51) marinna (plural in X III 256: 14) “a kind of building.” (52) mitirunnu: 
month-name. (53J nawalpa*! [ + ?] (H IX 119: 11) “a kind of base metal” 
probably either eru “copper” or anaku “lead.” (54) awelnakkussu “a member of 
a certain professsion ”; cf. Gadd, RA XXIII, 1926, p. 134; see also RA XXVIII, 

1931, p. 30, text 4: 17. (55) nupu (RA XXIII, 68: 7, p. 159) “a certain number 

(of bricks).” (56) nirisu “a kind of watercourse”; that it is not the proper name 
of a certain stream is indicated by the addition of Sa ekalli “(the n.) of the palace” 
in X III 257: 6. (57) naswu/a (RA XXVIII, pp. 27, 30 ff., texts 1: 13, 4: 3, 7: 15) 

used as a title after personal names and therefore possibly a profession; also found 
as male personal name (RA XXIII 5:1, p. 143; X IV 397:16; V 474:38). 
(58) si-me (H IX 101: 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17) in the expression: x immeru y 
si-me za-ri-pu “po-many (=x) sheep si-me plucked (?) so-many-times (=y).” 
The verb sardpu is taken as an approximate synonym of gazdzu ( cf. sirapu “ shears 
for gizzu ”; Muss-Arnolt, p. 784a) as suggested by the parallel sa pa-ak-nu in line 
15. (59) paihu “land” = qaqqaru (RA XXIII 31: 4, p. 149) or eqlu (X I 19: 5). 

(60) puhi ( z ) zar ( u) “equivalent.” Koschaker interprets the word as “exchange” 
and points out the variants puzikar(ru) (H IX 14: 7) and puhukar(u) (H IX 
35:^ 9); ZA XLIII, 1936, p. 197. Puzikar may well be the original Horite word 
which was blended with its Akkadian synonym puhu {cf. Koschaker, OLZ XXXV, 

1932, p. 404) forming both the common puhizar and the rare puhukar. If so, this 

is additional evidence that puhizar — puhu “ equivalent ” rather than supe’ultu 
‘ exchange.” (Saarisalo, New Kirkuk Documents Relating to Slaves, Helsingfors, 
1934, p. 43, emends GAL-hi-za-ar-ru to pul-hi-za-ar-ru.) (61) penihuas = muselwu 
“surveyor”; Koschaker, ASAW XXXIX, no. 5, p. 15. (62) pdpa(h)hu , either 

north” or “south”; “direction opposite of seramu(h)hu (q.v.)”; see Gordon, 
RA XXXI, 1934, p. 103; see now X III 236: 5-8. (63) puritu “a certain unit of 



Number 64 


December, 1936 


length (in measuring land in X I 74: 7, 8)” = ammatu “ cubit ”(?), (64) purhu 

(? or possibly kalpurhu ?) “ a term descriptive of barley ” in XLII inter seu 
rabu{GAL) pu-ur-hu (RA XXIII 60: 7, p. 157). (65) parassanu (H V 106: 5) 

“a kind of bronze object.” (66) pasunu = mudu (Koschaker, OLZ XXXIX, 1936, 
p. 155) “a person acquainted with the description and legal title of some property 
or with the history of a case in court.” (67) rtni(?) “a kind of domestic 
animal ”(?) ; cf. Orientalia V, 1936, p. 327. (68) sehlu: month-name. (69) sehalu: 

month-name (does not = sehlul). (70) sehalu sa dIM: month-name. (71) sehalu 
sa dNergal: month-name. (72) suhhelu (X III 314: 17) su-uh-he-lu sa ku-zi-ti sa 
(18) m tar-mi-til-la-ma “the s. of the kuzitu-g arment belongs to Tehiptilla.” The 
context suggests “ use ” or “ ownership ” rather than “ a part of the garment ” as 
the meaning of s. (73) sahiru “the quantity of straw remaining from stalks yield¬ 
ing 1 homer of barley ” as indicated by the fact that the produce of a field always 
consists of just as many sahirus of straw as homers of barley; N II 111: 9; IV 348: 
39; 369: 46. (74) silannu (RA XXIII 31: 24, p. 149) “a kind of garment” or 
“a term descriptive of a garment.” (75) simumaku (H V 70: 13; 72: 47) 
“(testamentary) will”; Speiser, AASOR X, p. 55. (76) [ §]inarpu (N IV 360:6) 

and sintarpu (X II 102: 12, 25) “x years old.” (77) seramu{h)hu, either “north” 
or “south”; “direction opposite of papa{h)hu (q.v.),” see X III 236: 5-8. 

(78) surathi [+ ?] (X II 108: 13) “a certain substance measured by the shekel.” 

(79) sututu “a release approximating the sabbatical year”(?); Gordon, Revue 

Biblique XLIV, 1935, pp. 38-41. (80) tawar: inq tawarwa (N III 314: 5; V 487: 8, 

15) : meaning uncertain. (81) taiaru (N I 3: 5 et passim) “measure” or “stand¬ 
ard.” Parallel passages have the Semitic mindatu (from madddu “ to measure ”; 
c/. N I 30: 6; 34: 5; 54: 6). However, t. may possibly be Semitic in the light of 
Dr. Albright’s comparison of t. with IND as used in Isaiah 44: 13. (82) takulathu 

“ an object made of bronze (TC IX 1: 17) or certain other materials (TC IX 1: 22- 
23).” (83) tamkarhu [+?] (N II 108: 12) “a kind of substance measured by the 

shekel.” (84) tum{u)narpu “ x years old.” (85) £a[r]a[p]7m(?) (TC IX 1: 7) 
“ a kind of wood used for making chairs.” (86) taskarhu “ a kind of wood used for 
making tables (TC IX 1: 1) and chairs (TC IX 1: 4).” (87) titennu “a person 

(X II 192: 16) or thing (H V 66: 8) whose usufruct is at the holder’s disposal 
during the term of a titemmtM-transaction.’’ A titennutu is an exchange of bona 
for a stipulated period at the end of which the bona revert to their first owners; 
Speiser, JAOS LII, 1932, pp. 350-367 and LIII, 1933, pp. 24-46. 

Mixed Horite-Akkadian Idioms in -umma epesu 

(88) ewurumma epesu (RA XXIII 51: 9, p. 155; N V 543: 7) “to inherit”; cf. 
ewuru above. (89) ippumma (less likely VRpumma) epesu (X IV 360: 8, 13, 17) 
= kdsu “to flay” (?; cf. N IV 326: 9, 11; 353: 6, 12). (90) amarwumma epesu 

(H V 97: 8) “the second of three stages in making bricks”; cf. zazumma e. and 
zahumma e. below. (91) [V\ustumma epesu (N IV 370: 12-13) “to let water 
into a canal.” Does comparison with lines 5 and 15 warrant the restoration 
[kur'\ustumma‘! (92) #i-[?-w]m-[m]a epesu (H V 17: 22) “to lose a case in 
court”; Speiser, AASOR X, p. 64. (93) zazumma epesu (H V 97: 7) “the first of 

three stages in making bricks ” (= “ to mix mortar (?)”). (94) zahumma epeSu 

(H V 97: 9) “the last of three stages in filling an order for bricks.” It is a ques¬ 
tion whether it is part of the manufacture or the delivery of the finished product. 
(95) zapumma epdsu (H IX 141: 11) “to steal ”(?). (96) hawumma epesu (TC 

IX 12: 22-23) “to vacate ”(?) ; cf. ana hawimini (line 21) which seems to be cog¬ 
nate. (97) he-wu-[-]-um-ma epesu “ to investigate ”( ?) ; Gordon, RA XXXIII, 1936, 
p. 5. (98) hesmumma epesu (N IV 331: 16) “to tear” ( ?) re the ordeal in court, 
in which the opponents seem to have had a tug-of-war with their girdles until a h. 
was effected. (99) husumma epesu (N IV 331: 6, 8) “to inflict a (kind of) physical 
injury,” probably “to break (as a person’s arm).” (100) hatumma epesu (X IV 
337: 20) “to stab (with a dagger).” (101) [?]KAK-umma (X IV 337: 17). 
Though the context is broken, a meaning similar to hatumma e. seems to be called 
for. (102) [-]napsumma epesu (H IX 8: 31) “to submit to an ordeal in court ” (?). 
(103) suatumma epesu. The passage is (RA XXIII 15: 12, p. 146) mwa-an-ti-i§- 
se-en-ni HA-[LA-su ] (13) mpu-i-ta-e a-na IV imdre A-[$A] (14) su-a-du-um-ma 

i-ip-pu-u(s] “as for W., P. acquire[d] (?) [his] inheritance] portion for 4 homers 
of la[nd].” (It is, however, conceivable, that the scribe wrote a-na over the edge 

27 



Number 64 


December, 1936 


of line 12 [cf. line 9], in which case suatumma e. would mean “to sell or alienate 
property.”) (104) sibudummi (N IV 360: 38, 39) “testimony” (??). Though 
neither ending in a nor followed by epesu, s. is to be connected with these words. 7 
The initial element is apparently the Akkadian sibu “ witness.” The meaning has 
to do with testifying as far as can be told from the context. (105) sukarrumma 
epesu (N III 249: 6) = supa’ulu “to exchange.” (106) [s~\alasumma epesu (N V 
438: 4) “to relinquish claim on ”(?) ; cf. sassumma e. with Speiser, AASOR X, 
p. 17; note Koschaker, OLZ XXXIX, 1936, p. 155. (107) sanumma e[pes]u (X IV 

371: 19) “to change ”(?). The first element may be the Semitic numeral “2”; 
for meaning cf. Akkadian sunnu and Heb. HTZ'. (108) sinamumma epesu (H V 
30: 28, 32) “to forfeit ”(?). (109) surumma epesu “to testify”; Speiser, JAOS 

LV, p, 440; Gordon, RA XXXIII, pp. 4-5. (110) Sassumma epesu “to forfeit”; 

Speiser, AASOR X, p. 17. (Ill) tidukamma epesu “to fight”; Journal of the 
Palestine Oriental Society XV, 1935, p. 31. The first element is the Akkadian tiduku. 
Dr. Albright explains the first a as the Semitic accusative termination. (112) tah- 
rumma epesu (H IX 4: 17-18) “to withhold(?) or to fail to send(?).” (113) ka- 

zumma epesu (H V 43 : 6, 17) “to injure (a part of the body) ”; from qdt + su + umma 
“(to use) his/her hand”? (114) la/[a]t-ta-mu-[q\a-ru-um-ma dabdbu (N IV 
381: 10) “ to conspire ”(?). A noun in -umma with a verb other than epesu is rare. 8 


SOME RECENT PUBLICATIONS 

The Archaeology of Palestine and Transjordan 

Professor Garstang’s Fifth Report on Jericho: City and Necropolis 
(Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology , XXII, pp. 143-84 and plates 
23-59) describes the epoch-making results of the campaign of Dec., 1934- 
March, 1935. In this season the excavation was carried for the first time 
down to virgin soil in a small area, and the oldest continuous stratification 
of urban remains in the world was disclosed. Since the reviewer has 
expressed his views on the chronology of Garstang’s stratification in the 
American Journal of Archaeology , 1936, p. 155, he will refrain from a 
discussion here. In this connection it may be observed that the chronology 
given on plate 46 is rather low; the Ghassulian, which Garstang’s work has 
definitely proved to antedate the Early Bronze, must have come to an end 
before the middle of the fourth millennium, as now believed also by Koep- 
pel (Biblica, 17, 515 f.). For the chronology of the Early Bronze see 
Wright’s analysis in the Bulletin, No. 63, and for the date of the Ghassu- 
lian see the reviewer’s latest observations (Am. Jour. Archaeol ., 1936, p. 
389 1). 

The Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities, Vol. V, No. 4 and VI, 
No. 1, contains a wealth of important material for the Palestinian archae¬ 
ologist and topographer. Mr. J. Ory and Mrs. J. H. Iliffe (Keeper of the 
Museum) describe the soundings made at Ras el-‘Ain (happily identified 
by Alt with the Philistine Aphek) in connection with public works under¬ 
taken for the Water-Supply of Jerusalem. The pottery found belonged 
mainly to two groups: an earlier one from the first phases of Early Bronze; 
a later one identical with the G-F strata of Tell Beit Mirsim, described by 
the reviewer in Annals XII and XIII. Since this is the first large quantity 
of this ware to be found elsewhere in Palestine, it is chronologically impor- 

7 Cf. [ ]?-du-um-mi (N IV 372: 9). 8 Nos. 113-4 v/ere added in proof. 

28