Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T05:19:08.113Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 3 - Babylonian Female Names

from Part I - Babylonian Names

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2024

Caroline Waerzeggers
Affiliation:
Rijksuniversiteit Leiden, The Netherlands
Melanie M. Groß
Affiliation:
Rijksuniversiteit Leiden, The Netherlands

Summary

This chapter discusses the typology and the social and gender aspects of Babylonian female names recorded in the Neo-Babylonian and Persian periods (626–330 BCE). As to typology, a distinction is made between names that constitute a sentence and those that constitute a noun. In both categories, further subdivisions are possible. As to the social use of female names, the chapter discusses how names indicate the social status and origins of their bearers. Although most female names were given to women of any social status, some names were typical of enslaved women. Finally, the chapter discusses the distinctions between male and female names.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2024
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This content is Open Access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/cclicenses/

A vast corpus of women’s names appears in the documentation from the Neo-Babylonian and Persian periods (626–330 BCE). This chapter establishes a typology of Babylonian female names and discusses the question of whether and how female personal names contributed to the construction of a female identity, in contrast to a male identity.

Typology of Female Names

Introduction

In cuneiform writing, female names are marked with the determinative MUNUS, as opposed to male names, which are marked with a single vertical wedge (see Chapter 1). Modern transliterations usually represent the female sign by placing f in superscript in front of the name. In this volume, we maintain this convention also in normalised versions of the names. In this way, normalised names can be easily recognised as male (unmarked) or female (preceded by f).

The structure of Akkadian female names is similar to the structure of male names; that is, they are composed of one or more elements (maximum four) and constitute either a sentence or a substantive. There is, however, a grammatical difference between male and female names. A verb, an adjective, or a noun forming part of a woman’s name is generally given a feminine form. For example, the name Iddin-Marduk ‘Marduk gave’ (i.e., Marduk gave the child who bears the name) is a male name, while the name fBānītu-taddin ‘Bānītu gave’, with the feminine form of the verb nadānu ‘to give’, is a female name. Here the form of the verb (or the adjective) does not correspond to the gender of the deity, but to the gender of the name-bearer.Footnote 1 Another example of the grammatical difference between male and female names is Aḫūšunu ‘Their brother’, which is a male name, while fAḫāssunu ‘Their sister’ is the equivalent borne by women.

An additional feature is that female theophoric names include the name of a goddess. There are only a few examples of female names containing the name of a male god.Footnote 2 By contrast, male names with a female theophoric element are well known, albeit not very numerous (see ‘Gendered Theophoric Elements’).

Finally, it should be noted that there are some names that were borne by both men and women. Examples of such names include: Silim-Bābu ‘Be friendly, O Bābu!’ (with the masculine form of the imperative of the verb salāmu), Šulum-Bābili ‘Well-being of Babylon’, Nidintu ‘Gift’, and Ša-pî-kalbi ‘Out of the mouth of a dog’, which refers to an abandoned child.

Classification of Sentence Names

Babylonian female names can be classified in two main types: names which constitute a sentence and names which constitute a substantive. In each type, further divisions are possible. Starting with sentence names, we discern roughly eight subcategories.

  1. 1) Attribute names express an attribute of the divinity, with a divine name accompanying a nominal form such as fNanāya-šarrat ‘Nanāya is the queen’, an adjective such as fNanāya-damqat ‘Nanāya is good’, or a stative verb such as fBābu-ēṭirat ‘Bābu saves’. fDN-šarrat, fDN-damqat, and fDN-ēṭirat are very common names, but many different verbs, nouns, and adjectives, such as ṭābu ‘good’ (fMammītu-ṭābat ‘Mammītu is good’), ilatu ‘goddess’ (fNinlil-ilat ‘Ninlil is goddess’), aqāru ‘to be precious’ (fAya-aqrat ‘Aya is precious’), ramû ‘to dwell’ (fAttar-ramât ‘Attar lives’), rêšu ‘to rejoice’ (fNanāya-rīšat ‘Nanāya rejoices’), dannu ‘strong’ (fBānītu-dannat ‘Bānītu is strong’), and kašāru ‘to compensate’ (fNanāya-kēširat ‘Nanāya compensates’), are also used. The names of goddesses are omitted in some cases, such as in the names fIna-Esagil-bēlet ‘She is the lady in Esagil’ and fIna-Esagil-ramât ‘She lives in Esagil’. Certain substantive names were regarded as an abbreviated form of attribute names; for example, the name fLēˀītu was likely an abbreviated form of fLēˀi-DN ‘DN is capable’ (see Reference HacklHackl 2013, 164–5).

  2. 2) Petition names generally contain a verb in the imperative and express a plea to a divinity from the speaker, such as fNanāya-šimînni ‘Listen to me, O Nanāya!’ and fAya-bulliṭanni ‘Keep me healthy, O Aya!’. The speaker in these names was probably the name-bearer or possibly her mother. In addition to šemû ‘to listen’ and bulluṭu ‘to make healthy’, petition names include diverse verbs such as salāmu ‘to be friendly’ (fBānītu-silim ‘Be friendly, O Bānītu!’), râmu ‘to love’ (fRīminni-Ištar ‘Love me, O Ištar!’), dânu ‘to judge’ (fNanāya-dīninni ‘Judge me, O Nanāya!’), naṣāru ‘to protect’ (fNanāya-kilīlu-uṣrī ‘Protect my wreath, O Nanāya!’), maḫāru ‘to receive’ (fBānītu-supê-muḫur ‘Receive my prayer, O Bānītu!’), eṭēru ‘to save’ (fBānītu-eṭrīnni ‘Save me, O Bānītu!’), and bâšu (fLā-tubāšinni ‘Don’t put me to shame!’).

  3. 3) Wish names contain either the precative or imperative of a verb and express a plea to a divinity for a third person, generally the child who bears the name, such as fLū-balṭat ‘May she be healthy!’, fNanāya-bullissu ‘Keep her healthy, O Nanāya!’, and fBēltia-uṣrīšu ‘Protect her, O Bēltia!’, but sometimes for someone else, such as in the slave name fNanāya-bēlu-uṣrī ‘Protect my master, O Nanāya!’. The verbs naṣāru ‘to protect’ and bulluṭu ‘to make healthy’ are used frequently. The verb is omitted in some names, such as fNanāya-ana-bītišu (or fAna-bītišu) ‘(Show it) to her family, O Nanāya!’ and fAna-makānišu ‘(Show it) to her dwelling place!’.

  4. 4) Trust names represent the name-bearer’s expression of trust or respect for a deity (‘Prospective trust’), such as fAna-muḫḫi-Nanāya-taklāku ‘I trust in Nanāya’, or the reward of trust (‘Retrospective trust’) such as fTašmētu-atkal ‘I trusted in Tašmētu’. Other examples of the former are fDN-ittia ‘DN is with me’, fDN-lūmur ‘I will see DN’, as well as the names meaning ‘DN is my … ’, such as fDN-šadû’a ‘DN is my mountain’. fItti-Nanāya-īnāya/-būnū’a ‘My eyes/face (are/is turned to) Nanāya’ and fGabbi-ina-qātē-Bānītu ‘All are in Bānītu’s hands’ are also included in this category. The latter category, the retrospective trust name, includes fIna-bāb-magāri-alsišu ‘At the gate of favour, I invoked her’, and fŠēpet(/Šēpessu)-DN-aṣbat ‘I took the feet of DN’, often abbreviated to fŠēpetaya.

  5. 5) Thanksgiving names generally contain the preterite of a verb whose subject is a deity. They express the thanksgiving from the viewpoint of the name-giver, such as fTašmētu-tabni ‘Tašmētu created (the child who bears the name)’ or fBānītu-ṣullê-tašme ‘Bānītu heard my prayer’.

  6. 6) Lament names include fĀtanaḫ-šimînni ‘I am tired, listen to me!’ and fAdi-māti-Ištar ‘How long, O Ištar?’. It may also be better to include fIna-dannāti-alsišu ‘In distress, I called her’ in this category, rather than in trust names. The speaker in these names is generally thought to have been the name-bearer, but it seems possible that the names expressed the feelings of the mother during or after giving birth. If so, it was presumably the mother who named the newborn girl.

  7. 7) Praise names are also found, such as fMannu-akî-Ištaria ‘Who is like my Ištar?’, but this type of name is rare.

  8. 8) All of the types listed here are theophoric names that refer to divinities, but a minority of sentence names do not refer to divinities. Examples include fAbu-ul-tīde ‘She does not know the father’ and fAḫātu-aqrat ‘The sister is precious’.

    The same classification can be applied to male names (Chapter 2), but there are some differences in the choice and preference of words and name types between female and male names. For example, some verbs such as nadānu ‘to give’ and kânu ‘to be(come) firm’ are common in male names, whereas female names with these verbs are rare. The terms māru ‘son’ and aplu ‘son, heir’ feature in many male names, but mārtu ‘daughter’ was not generally used for female names. Thanksgiving names are thus frequently attested for men, but rarely for women.

Classification of Substantive Names

Substantive names, or designation names, are grammatically nominal and are usually composed of one or, occasionally, two elements.Footnote 3 The following subcategories can be discerned:

  1. 1) Theophoric names. While most of the sentence names are theophoric, the majority of designation names are not. The most popular type of theophoric designation name consists of amat- (or andi-) along with a divine name, such as fAmat-Nanāya ‘Servant of Nanāya’. Several names which do not include a divine name are considered to be theophoric names in which the divine element is omitted. For example, fṬābatu, which means ‘Good’, may be an abbreviated form of the attribute name fṬābatu-DN ‘(The goddess) DN is good’; for example, fṬābatu-Iššar ‘Iššar (Ištar) is good’. Similarly, fInbāya or fInbia, which consists of inbu ‘fruit’ with a hypocoristic suffix, may be a shortened form of fInbi-DN ‘Fruit of DN’.

  2. 2) Familial relationships. There are two types of names expressing familial relationships. The first includes names such as fAḫāssunu ‘Their sister’. Such names simply indicate the relationship of the newborn child with her siblings. The name fAḫāssunu means that the name-bearer had two or more elder brothers or sisters. The other type consists of names such as fAḫāt-abīšu ‘Aunt’ – literally, ‘Sister of his father’. According to Johann J. Reference StammStamm (1939, 301–5), babies with this type of name were possibly considered to be a replacement for, or the reincarnation of, a recently deceased family member.

  3. 3) Affectionate names. This type of name expresses the affection of the name-giver for the baby. Examples are fRēˀindu ‘Beloved one’, fNūptāya ‘Gift (of DN)’, fBuˀītu ‘Desired one’, and fBēlessunu ‘Their lady’. This category may include certain traits which the name-giver hoped for in the baby, such as fKāribtu ‘Prayerful one’ and fEmuqtu ‘Wise one’.

  4. 4) Words for animals, plants, and objects. We find personal names inspired by animals for both genders. In the Neo-Babylonian corpus, most animal names for women refer to small wild animals, while fewer pertain to domestic animals. In the latter category, we have names such as fImmertu ‘Ewe’ and fMūrānatu ‘(Female) puppy’.Footnote 4 It seems that the most popular animal names for women were fŠikkû (or fŠikkūtu) ‘Mongoose’, fBazītu, which may refer to a kind of monkey, and fḪabaṣirtu (or, exceptionally with the masculine form, fḪabaṣīru) ‘Mouse.’ It is interesting to note that fŠikkû and fBazītu were only chosen for women. Grammatically, the terms šikkû and bazītu are feminine, which explains why they could only be used for naming a girl. ‘Mouse’ was also used for naming men. Thus, small animals, in particular those which are non-domestic, are principally chosen for women. We also find ‘Monkey’ (fUqūpatu), ‘Dormouse’ (fArrabtu), and ‘Wildcat’ (fMurašītu) as female names. The masculine forms of these animal names were also used for men. The decision to name children after these small animals seems readily comprehensible, while it is more difficult to imagine why some babies were named ‘Turtle’ (fŠeleppūtu) or were named after insects such as the locust (fKallabuttu), the cricket (fṢāṣiru), and the caterpillar (fAkiltu; see Reference Cousin, Watai, Budin, Cifarelli, Garcia-Ventura and Millet-AlbàCousin and Watai 2018, 246).

    Plant names, mainly those of fruits and aromatic plants, such as ‘Juniper’ (fBurāšu), ‘Bunch of grapes’ (fIsḫunnu, fIsḫunnatu), ‘Hemp’ (fQunnabatu), and ‘Pomegranate’ (fLurindu), were popular female names. Apart from Burāšu, these names were apparently not given to men.

    Names based on accessories, such as fQudāšu and fInṣabtu, meaning ‘Ring’ and ‘Earring’, were frequently used for women of free status. We have found no evidence of their use for men.

  5. 5) Physical characteristics, origins, or conditions of birth of a baby, such as fMīṣātu ‘Small one’, fUbārtu ‘Foreigner’, and fSūqaˀītu ‘The one found on the street’, are also referred to in women’s names.

  6. 6) Negative names, such as fLā-magirtu ‘Disobedient’, appear occasionally. Reference StammJohann J. Stamm (1939, 205) described this name type as ‘tender censure’, but the actual circumstances of naming are usually unknown.

Hypocoristics, Abbreviated, and Double Names

Certain female names were often abbreviated. The most striking example is the name fIna-Esagil-ramât ‘She (a goddess) lives in Esagil’, which is frequently shortened to fEsagil-ramât with ellipsis of ina ‘in’. Another way of shortening personal names is found in the case of a woman called fAmat-Nanāya ‘Servant of Nanāya’, who appears as fAmtia in another text. The suffix -ia (/-ya), usually the possessive pronoun for the first person singular, is often difficult to distinguish from the hypocoristic suffix -ia. For instance, fAmtia does not mean ‘My female servant’; in such names, the -ia is a hypocoristic ending.

Archival studies reveal that some women bore two different names, both valid in legal texts. For example, a fKurunnam-tabni ‘Kurunnam created’ is also called fKuttāya (obscure meaning), a fBēlessunu ‘Their sister’ is also called fBissāya (obscure meaning), and an fAmat-Ninlil ‘Servant of Ninlil’ is alternatively called fGigītu (obscure meaning).Footnote 5 The practice of double naming is further discussed in Chapter 2.

Female Onomastics and the Construction of Social and Gender Identities

Social Status

A number of personal names were given to women of free status as well as slave women, as observed by Johannes Reference HacklHackl (2013). Nevertheless, we can discern preferences in the name selection of free women and slave women. Overall, sentence names tended to be given to slave women (Reference Cousin, Watai, Budin, Cifarelli, Garcia-Ventura and Millet-AlbàCousin and Watai 2018). Certain names, especially those with the element silim accompanying a divine name, such as fNanāya-silim ‘Be friendly, O Nanāya!’ and the name fNanāya-bēlu-uṣrī ‘O Nanāya, protect (my) master!’, seem to have been reserved for slave women. Animal names, too, were primarily chosen for slave women; in particular, almost all women called fŠikkû ‘Mongoose’ and fḪabaṣirtu ‘Mouse’ were slaves. By contrast, certain names seem to have been chosen for free women, such as the aforementioned name fIna-Esagil-ramât and the similar name fIna-Esagil-bēlet ‘She is the lady in Esagil’. Other names for free women – if not exclusively given to free women – are, for example, fBēlessunu ‘Their lady’, fBuˀītu ‘Desired one’, fKaššāya ‘Kassite’, fInṣabtu and fQudāšu ‘Ring’ or ‘Earring’, fṬābatu ‘Good’, fNūptāya ‘Gift (of DN)’, fAmat-DN ‘Servant of DN’, and fRē’indu ‘Beloved one’. The name fKaššāya ‘Kassite’ was used mostly by elite women, including Nebuchadnezzar II’s daughter, although it is occasionally borne by non-free women as well. Thus, all names could have been given to all women regardless of social status, although each status had its own popular names. It remains to be studied which social and cultural values are reflected in these name choices for free and unfree women.

Geographical Origins

Some female names reflect the geographical origin of their bearers.Footnote 6 In the documentation from Babylon, the naophoric element – an element deriving from a temple name – ‘Esagil’ is frequently attested in female names, such as in fIna-Esagil-ramât ‘She lives in Esagil’ and in fIna-Esagil-bēlet ‘She is the lady in Esagil’. The Esagil temple was the main sanctuary of the god Marduk, the chief god of the city of Babylon and the king of the gods in first millennium BCE Babylonia. Other temple designations were also used in female names, especially in the names borne by oblates, such as fIna-Eturkalamma-alsišu ‘In the Eturkalamma temple, I called (the god)’ and fIna-Eigikalamma-lūmuršu ‘In the Eigikalamma temple, I want to see (the god)’.Footnote 7

Theophoric elements also indicate the geographical origin of individuals (see also Chapter 1). We can take the example of three minor female deities: the goddesses Zarpanītu, Aya, and Mammītu. Women called fAmat-Zarpanītu ‘Servant of Zarpanītu’ come from Babylon, in light of the fact that Zarpanītu is the divine spouse of Marduk. Likewise, women, who bear names with the theophoric element Aya, such as fAya-aqrat ‘Aya is precious’ and fAya-bēlu-uṣrī ‘O Aya, protect my master’, often come from Sippar or Larsa, two cities which housed an Ebabbar temple dedicated to the sun god Šamaš, the husband of Aya. The same is the case with Mammītu, divine spouse of the infernal god Nergal. Women who bore a name with this theophoric element usually originated from the city of Cutha, near Babylon, where the goddess was worshipped. Moreover, names with a reference to a major deity, such as the healing goddess Bābu, the goddess Ninlil,Footnote 8 the wife of Enlil, and the love goddess Nanāya, were often borne by women from the major cities of Nippur, Borsippa, Uruk, or Babylon.

Some names are more explicit about a person’s origins. We find, for example, women called fBarsipītu (‘Woman from Borsippa’), fGandarāˀītu (‘Woman from Gandar’), fIsinnāˀītu (‘Woman from Isin’), and fSipparāˀītu (‘Woman from Sippar’).

Gendered Theophoric Elements

Whereas some personal names are neutral names applying to both sexes, many names contain gendered elements. This is especially the case with gendered theophoric elements. Like verbs and their conjugations, they help to define the names as female or male. It seems that in Babylonia a whole range of male divinities was restricted to male names, including Adad, Anu, Bēl, Ea, Enlil, Marduk, Nabû, Nergal, Ninurta, Sîn, Šamaš, and Uraš. The major and most powerful male divinities of first millennium BCE Babylonia were thus used to name men (Reference Cousin, Watai, Budin, Cifarelli, Garcia-Ventura and Millet-AlbàCousin and Watai 2018, 248–51).

In accordance with the fact that male theophoric elements were usually only used to compose masculine names, some female divinities predominantly occur in names borne by women. They were minor goddesses, often consorts of great gods, or goddesses related to fertility, two qualities particularly ascribed to women. To the already mentioned Aya, Mammītu, and Zarpanītu, we can add Kurunnam, the goddess of beer, and Ninlil, Enlil’s consort. Some examples are fKurunnam-tabni ‘Kurunnam created’, fItti-Ninlil-īnāya ‘My eyes are set on Ninlil’, and fAmat-Ninlil ‘Servant of Ninlil’.

However, some theophoric elements referring to goddesses are used for men and women in the Neo-Babylonian period. This observation applies to major goddesses such as Ištar,Footnote 9 Nanāya, and the goddesses of medicine, Gula and Bābu. Ištar (as well as her other aspects, Anunnītu and Bānītu) was a goddess of passionate love, but also a warrior deity, a quality which complies with the Mesopotamian idea of masculinity. Finally, among goddesses who feature in both masculine and feminine names (Anunnītu, Bānītu, Bābu, Bēltu, Gula, Ištar, Nanāya, Ningal, and Tašmētu), we find several consorts of major male deities of the Babylonian pantheon (Marduk or Bēl, Nabû, and Sîn).Footnote 10

If the study of some personal names allows preliminary conclusions about gender identity in Babylonia, a few other names seem rather atypical. At least two women bear a name with the theophoric element Marduk and two men bear a name with the theophoric element Zarpanītu; they are Arad-Zarpanītu ‘Servant of Zarpanītu’ and Arad-Erua ‘Servant of (the goddess) Erua’ (both witnesses in Nbk. 76 and 106), fMarduk-ēṭirat ‘Marduk saves’ (a land owner in Cyr. 331), and fMarduk-uballiṭ ‘Marduk has kept alive’ (a woman who receives rations from a temple in Reference JoannèsJoannès 1982 no. 104).

Physical Characteristics

If certain physical qualifications can be referred to in names for both sexes, others were crucial for creating gendered identities of men and women. Masculine names referring to physical features single out strength (e.g., the family name Dannēa), power (e.g., the family name Lēˀêa), and prosperity (e.g., Nuḫšānu). Regarding women, their names recall physical aspects of baby girls and probably also of female appearance. Examples include fḪibuṣu ‘Chubby’, fKubbutu ‘Plump’, and fṬuppuštu ‘Very plump’. Some female names refer to the beauty and the attractiveness of the woman, as is the case with the names based on fruits and jewels that were discussed earlier. On the other hand, we do not find names referring to ugliness, whereas such names are attested in the Old Babylonian documentation (second millennium BCE), as in the case of fMasiktum ‘Ugly’.

There is also another group of names dealing with physical characteristics and anatomies, namely those referring to disabilities. This phenomenon is well attested in the Old Babylonian period, where one finds male names such as Sukkuku (‘Deaf’) and Upputu or Ubbudu (‘Blind’Footnote 11). In the Neo-Babylonian period we can probably identify the name of a mute woman. A female slave bore the name fŠaḫḫurratu ‘Deathly hush’, which derives from the verb šuḫarruru ‘to be deathly still’ (Reference JoannèsJoannès 1989, 280–1).

Desired Characteristics

Three qualities reflected in personal names are shared by men and women: goodness, joy, and the value of the person. For the latter, we may refer to names formed with the verb (w)aqāru, with the masculine rendering Aqru and the feminine rendering fMaqartu ‘Precious’. The Egibi archive provides a lot of names of this type (Reference WunschWunsch 1993, Reference Wunsch2000a/b, and Reference AbrahamAbraham 2004). We can also quote the name fKabtāya ‘Honoured’, pointing to the importance of the person. Names referring to joy include Ḫaddāya ‘Joyful’ for men and fRīšat or fRīšāya ‘Joy’ for women. Goodness is expressed in names built with the verbs damāqu and ṭâbu, popular for both men and women. Names like Damqu, Damqāya, and Dummuqu were used for men. Being a grammatically neutral name, fDamqāya could also be applied to women. With the verb ṭâbu, the male name Ṭābia and the female names fṬābatu, as well as the superlative fṬubbutu ‘The very good one’, are built.

In addition, names related to personality traits could reflect the role and place of men and women in Babylonian society. Men were more likely associated with wisdom (e.g., Apkallu), loyalty and truth (e.g., Kīnāya ‘The faithful’), and mercy (e.g., Ḫan(n)an(u) ‘Merciful’).Footnote 12 Epithets devoted to women often contain laudations. They include affectionate names, but also names symbolising their place in society. According to these names, women were supposed to be sweet (fDuššuptu) and provide an anchorage for the family (fḪamatāya ‘Help’; fIndu ‘Support’).Footnote 13 Furthermore, women were ideally kind (fTaslimu ‘Friendly’), pure (fḪiptāya), and obedient (fḪanašu).Footnote 14 We also find the counterpart, fLā-magirtu ‘Disobedient’, as the name of a slave woman (Dar. 379). The very existence of this name suggests that such a personality trait was not desirable for a woman, a fortiori a slave woman.

Footnotes

1 This is clear because male names that include the name of a goddess as the theophoric element contain the masculine form of the verb, such as Gula-zēru-ibni ‘Gula created the descendant’ (Reference WunschWunsch 2000b no. 149). Hence, the male variant of the female name fBānītu-taddin is Bānītu-iddin (e.g., Nbn. 772:4 and Reference WunschWunsch 1993 no. 181: rev. 8).

2 Two rare examples are fMarduk-ēṭirat ‘Marduk saves’ in Cyr. 331 and fMārat-Sîn-banât ‘The daughter of Sîn is good’ in UET 4 163. Gendered theophoric elements are discussed in greater detail later in the chapter (see section ‘Gendered Theophoric Elements’).

3 On compound names borne by men, see Chapter 2.

4 By contrast, in the Mari texts from the second millennium BCE the animal names used for women mostly pertain to domestic animals (Reference Millet-Albà and ParayreMillet-Albà 2000).

5 For these women, see, respectively, Reference WunschWunsch (2000a, 108, n. 231), Reference Wunsch, Baker and JursaWunsch (2005, 373), and Reference BakerBaker (2004, 26).

6 For a more complete study of geographical names, see Francis Joannès’ contribution to this volume (Chapter 1), especially the part devoted to gods in personal names.

7 The term ‘oblate’ refers to an individual dedicated to a divinity; their names often marked their attachment to a sanctuary (Reference HacklHackl 2013, 160). The Eturkalamma temple was the sanctuary of the goddess Bēlet-Bābili in Babylon, while the Eigikalamma temple was the sanctuary of the warrior god Ninurta, in his aspect as Lugal-Marada, in the city of Marad.

8 It should be noted that the name of the goddess Mullēšu is written syllabically in N/LB texts (e.g., Reference PirngruberPirngruber 2020 no. 12:12).

9 We note that Ištar has a masculine gender in some contexts. For example, Ištar is identified with the planet Venus, and in some texts, the evening star is considered female while the morning star is considered male. We thank the anonymous reviewer for this suggestion.

11 See BE 15 163 for an example where the bearer of this name is a woman.

12 References to these names can be found in, respectively, Reference BakerBaker 2004 no. 130; Reference BongenaarBongenaar 1997: 162 and 228; CUSAS 28 28.

14 Reference RothRoth 1989 no. 12; CT 22 202; VS 4 21.

References

Further Reading

For the classification and meaning of Akkadian personal names, the most important systematic studies are those by Johann J. Stamm (1939) and Dietz-Otto Edzard (1998). Concerning women’s names in the first millennium BCE, Cornelia Wunsch (2006) treated metronymic ancestral names, Johannes Hackl (2013) discussed the names and naming of female slaves, and Laura Cousin and Yoko Watai (2016 and 2018) dealt with the social and gender-related aspects of female names. There are also some works on women’s names attested in the Mari documentation from the second millennium BCE: see Ichiro Nakata (1995) and Adelina Millet-Albà (2000). Finally, for the names of women in the Hellenistic period, we refer to the study of Julien Monerie (2014).

Abraham, K. 2004. Business and Politics under the Persian Empire: The Financial Dealings of Marduk-nāṣir-apli of the House of Egibi (521–487 BCE). Bethesda: CDL Press.Google Scholar
Baker, H. D. 2004. The Archive of the Nappāḫu Family, Archiv für Orientforschung Beiheft 30. Vienna: Institut für Orientalistik.Google Scholar
Bongenaar, A. C. V. M. 1997. The Neo-Babylonian Ebabbar Temple at Sippar: Its Administration and Its Prosopography, Publications de l’Institut historique-archéologique néerlandais de Stamboul 80. Leiden: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul.Google Scholar
Cousin, L. 2020. ‘Sweet girls and strong men: Onomastics and personality traits in first-millennium sources’, Die Welt des Orients 50/2, 339–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cousin, L. and Watai, Y. 2016. ‘Onomastics of women in Babylonia in the first millennium BC’, Orient (Journal of the Society for Near Eastern Studies in Japan) 51, 327.Google Scholar
Cousin, L. and Watai, Y. 2018. ‘Onomastics and gender identity in first-millennium BCE Babylonia’ in Budin, S. L., Cifarelli, M., Garcia-Ventura, A., and Millet-Albà, A. (eds.), Gender, Methodology and the Ancient Near East. Approaches from Assyriology and Beyond. Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona, pp. 243–55.Google Scholar
Edzard, D.-O. 1998. ‘Name, Namengebung (Onomastik). B. Akkadisch’, Reallexikon der Assyriologie und der Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 9, 103–16.Google Scholar
Hackl, J. 2013. ‘Frau Weintraube, Frau Heuschrecke und Frau Gut: Untersuchungen zu den babylonischen Namen von Sklavinnen in neubabylonischer und persischer Zeit’, Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 103, 121–87.Google Scholar
Joannès, F. 1982. Textes économiques de la Babylonie récente. Étude des textes de TBER, Recherches sur les civilisations, cahier 5. Paris: Éditions Recherches sur les Civilisations.Google Scholar
Joannès, F. 1989. Archives de Borsippa: La famille Ea-Ilûta-Bâni. Étude d’un lot d’archives familiales en Babylonie, du VIIIe au Ve siècle av. J.-C., Hautes Études Orientales 25. Geneva: Librairie Droz.Google Scholar
Millet-Albà, A. 2000. ‘Les noms d’animaux dans l’onomastique des archives de Mari’ in Parayre, D. (ed.), Les animaux et les hommes dans le monde syro-mésopotamien aux époques historiques, Topoi supplément 2. Lyon: Maison de l’Orient Méditerranéen, pp. 477–87.Google Scholar
Monerie, J. 2014. D’Alexandre à Zoilos: Dictionnaire prosopographique des porteurs de nom grec dans les sources cunéiformes, Oriens et Occidens 23. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.Google Scholar
Nakata, I. 1995. ‘A study of women’s theophoric personal names in the Old Babylonian texts from Mari’, Orient (Journal of the Society for Near Eastern Studies in Japan) 30–1, 234–53.Google Scholar
Pirngruber, R. 2020. ‘Minor archives from first-millennium BC Babylonia: the archive of Iššar-tarībi from Sippar’, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 72, 165–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roth, M. T. 1989. Babylonian Marriage Agreements: 7th–3rd centuries BC, Alter Orient und Altes Testament 222. Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Butzon u. Bercker/Neukirchener Verlag.Google Scholar
Stamm, J. J. 1939. Die akkadische Namengebung, Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatisch-Ägyptischen Gesellschaft 44. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs Verlag.Google Scholar
Wunsch, C. 1993. Die Urkunden des babylonischen Geschäftsmannes Iddin-Marduk, 2 Vols, Cuneiform Monographs 3a and 3b. Groningen: Styx.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wunsch, C. 2000a and 2000b. Das Egibi-Archiv. I. Die Felder und Gärten, 2 Vols, Cuneiform Monographs 20a and 20b. Groningen: Styx.Google Scholar
Wunsch, C. 2003. Urkunden zum Ehe-, Vermögens und Erbrecht aus verschiedenen neubabylonischen Archiven, Babylonische Archive 2. Dresden: ISLET.Google Scholar
Wunsch, C. 2005. ‘The Šangû-Ninurta Archive’ in Baker, H. D. and Jursa, M. (eds), Approaching the Babylonian Economy, Alter Orient und Altes Testament 330. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, pp. 365–79.Google Scholar
Wunsch, C. 2006. ‘Metronymika in Babylonien: Frauen als Ahnherrin der Familie’ in del Olmo Lete, G., Feliu, L., and Millet-Albà, A. (eds.), Šapal tibnim mû ilakkū: Studies Presented to Joaquín Sanmartín on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday, Aula Orientalis Supplementa 22. Sabadell: Editorial AUSA, pp. 459–69.Google Scholar
Abraham, K. 2004. Business and Politics under the Persian Empire: The Financial Dealings of Marduk-nāṣir-apli of the House of Egibi (521–487 BCE). Bethesda: CDL Press.Google Scholar
Baker, H. D. 2004. The Archive of the Nappāḫu Family, Archiv für Orientforschung Beiheft 30. Vienna: Institut für Orientalistik.Google Scholar
Bongenaar, A. C. V. M. 1997. The Neo-Babylonian Ebabbar Temple at Sippar: Its Administration and Its Prosopography, Publications de l’Institut historique-archéologique néerlandais de Stamboul 80. Leiden: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul.Google Scholar
Cousin, L. 2020. ‘Sweet girls and strong men: Onomastics and personality traits in first-millennium sources’, Die Welt des Orients 50/2, 339–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cousin, L. and Watai, Y. 2016. ‘Onomastics of women in Babylonia in the first millennium BC’, Orient (Journal of the Society for Near Eastern Studies in Japan) 51, 327.Google Scholar
Cousin, L. and Watai, Y. 2018. ‘Onomastics and gender identity in first-millennium BCE Babylonia’ in Budin, S. L., Cifarelli, M., Garcia-Ventura, A., and Millet-Albà, A. (eds.), Gender, Methodology and the Ancient Near East. Approaches from Assyriology and Beyond. Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona, pp. 243–55.Google Scholar
Edzard, D.-O. 1998. ‘Name, Namengebung (Onomastik). B. Akkadisch’, Reallexikon der Assyriologie und der Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 9, 103–16.Google Scholar
Hackl, J. 2013. ‘Frau Weintraube, Frau Heuschrecke und Frau Gut: Untersuchungen zu den babylonischen Namen von Sklavinnen in neubabylonischer und persischer Zeit’, Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 103, 121–87.Google Scholar
Joannès, F. 1982. Textes économiques de la Babylonie récente. Étude des textes de TBER, Recherches sur les civilisations, cahier 5. Paris: Éditions Recherches sur les Civilisations.Google Scholar
Joannès, F. 1989. Archives de Borsippa: La famille Ea-Ilûta-Bâni. Étude d’un lot d’archives familiales en Babylonie, du VIIIe au Ve siècle av. J.-C., Hautes Études Orientales 25. Geneva: Librairie Droz.Google Scholar
Millet-Albà, A. 2000. ‘Les noms d’animaux dans l’onomastique des archives de Mari’ in Parayre, D. (ed.), Les animaux et les hommes dans le monde syro-mésopotamien aux époques historiques, Topoi supplément 2. Lyon: Maison de l’Orient Méditerranéen, pp. 477–87.Google Scholar
Monerie, J. 2014. D’Alexandre à Zoilos: Dictionnaire prosopographique des porteurs de nom grec dans les sources cunéiformes, Oriens et Occidens 23. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.Google Scholar
Nakata, I. 1995. ‘A study of women’s theophoric personal names in the Old Babylonian texts from Mari’, Orient (Journal of the Society for Near Eastern Studies in Japan) 30–1, 234–53.Google Scholar
Pirngruber, R. 2020. ‘Minor archives from first-millennium BC Babylonia: the archive of Iššar-tarībi from Sippar’, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 72, 165–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roth, M. T. 1989. Babylonian Marriage Agreements: 7th–3rd centuries BC, Alter Orient und Altes Testament 222. Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Butzon u. Bercker/Neukirchener Verlag.Google Scholar
Stamm, J. J. 1939. Die akkadische Namengebung, Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatisch-Ägyptischen Gesellschaft 44. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs Verlag.Google Scholar
Wunsch, C. 1993. Die Urkunden des babylonischen Geschäftsmannes Iddin-Marduk, 2 Vols, Cuneiform Monographs 3a and 3b. Groningen: Styx.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wunsch, C. 2000a and 2000b. Das Egibi-Archiv. I. Die Felder und Gärten, 2 Vols, Cuneiform Monographs 20a and 20b. Groningen: Styx.Google Scholar
Wunsch, C. 2003. Urkunden zum Ehe-, Vermögens und Erbrecht aus verschiedenen neubabylonischen Archiven, Babylonische Archive 2. Dresden: ISLET.Google Scholar
Wunsch, C. 2005. ‘The Šangû-Ninurta Archive’ in Baker, H. D. and Jursa, M. (eds), Approaching the Babylonian Economy, Alter Orient und Altes Testament 330. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, pp. 365–79.Google Scholar
Wunsch, C. 2006. ‘Metronymika in Babylonien: Frauen als Ahnherrin der Familie’ in del Olmo Lete, G., Feliu, L., and Millet-Albà, A. (eds.), Šapal tibnim mû ilakkū: Studies Presented to Joaquín Sanmartín on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday, Aula Orientalis Supplementa 22. Sabadell: Editorial AUSA, pp. 459–69.Google Scholar

References

Abraham, K. 2004. Business and Politics under the Persian Empire: The Financial Dealings of Marduk-nāṣir-apli of the House of Egibi (521–487 BCE). Bethesda: CDL Press.Google Scholar
Baker, H. D. 2004. The Archive of the Nappāḫu Family, Archiv für Orientforschung Beiheft 30. Vienna: Institut für Orientalistik.Google Scholar
Bongenaar, A. C. V. M. 1997. The Neo-Babylonian Ebabbar Temple at Sippar: Its Administration and Its Prosopography, Publications de l’Institut historique-archéologique néerlandais de Stamboul 80. Leiden: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul.Google Scholar
Cousin, L. 2020. ‘Sweet girls and strong men: Onomastics and personality traits in first-millennium sources’, Die Welt des Orients 50/2, 339–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cousin, L. and Watai, Y. 2016. ‘Onomastics of women in Babylonia in the first millennium BC’, Orient (Journal of the Society for Near Eastern Studies in Japan) 51, 327.Google Scholar
Cousin, L. and Watai, Y. 2018. ‘Onomastics and gender identity in first-millennium BCE Babylonia’ in Budin, S. L., Cifarelli, M., Garcia-Ventura, A., and Millet-Albà, A. (eds.), Gender, Methodology and the Ancient Near East. Approaches from Assyriology and Beyond. Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona, pp. 243–55.Google Scholar
Edzard, D.-O. 1998. ‘Name, Namengebung (Onomastik). B. Akkadisch’, Reallexikon der Assyriologie und der Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 9, 103–16.Google Scholar
Hackl, J. 2013. ‘Frau Weintraube, Frau Heuschrecke und Frau Gut: Untersuchungen zu den babylonischen Namen von Sklavinnen in neubabylonischer und persischer Zeit’, Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 103, 121–87.Google Scholar
Joannès, F. 1982. Textes économiques de la Babylonie récente. Étude des textes de TBER, Recherches sur les civilisations, cahier 5. Paris: Éditions Recherches sur les Civilisations.Google Scholar
Joannès, F. 1989. Archives de Borsippa: La famille Ea-Ilûta-Bâni. Étude d’un lot d’archives familiales en Babylonie, du VIIIe au Ve siècle av. J.-C., Hautes Études Orientales 25. Geneva: Librairie Droz.Google Scholar
Millet-Albà, A. 2000. ‘Les noms d’animaux dans l’onomastique des archives de Mari’ in Parayre, D. (ed.), Les animaux et les hommes dans le monde syro-mésopotamien aux époques historiques, Topoi supplément 2. Lyon: Maison de l’Orient Méditerranéen, pp. 477–87.Google Scholar
Monerie, J. 2014. D’Alexandre à Zoilos: Dictionnaire prosopographique des porteurs de nom grec dans les sources cunéiformes, Oriens et Occidens 23. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.Google Scholar
Nakata, I. 1995. ‘A study of women’s theophoric personal names in the Old Babylonian texts from Mari’, Orient (Journal of the Society for Near Eastern Studies in Japan) 30–1, 234–53.Google Scholar
Pirngruber, R. 2020. ‘Minor archives from first-millennium BC Babylonia: the archive of Iššar-tarībi from Sippar’, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 72, 165–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roth, M. T. 1989. Babylonian Marriage Agreements: 7th–3rd centuries BC, Alter Orient und Altes Testament 222. Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Butzon u. Bercker/Neukirchener Verlag.Google Scholar
Stamm, J. J. 1939. Die akkadische Namengebung, Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatisch-Ägyptischen Gesellschaft 44. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs Verlag.Google Scholar
Wunsch, C. 1993. Die Urkunden des babylonischen Geschäftsmannes Iddin-Marduk, 2 Vols, Cuneiform Monographs 3a and 3b. Groningen: Styx.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wunsch, C. 2000a and 2000b. Das Egibi-Archiv. I. Die Felder und Gärten, 2 Vols, Cuneiform Monographs 20a and 20b. Groningen: Styx.Google Scholar
Wunsch, C. 2003. Urkunden zum Ehe-, Vermögens und Erbrecht aus verschiedenen neubabylonischen Archiven, Babylonische Archive 2. Dresden: ISLET.Google Scholar
Wunsch, C. 2005. ‘The Šangû-Ninurta Archive’ in Baker, H. D. and Jursa, M. (eds), Approaching the Babylonian Economy, Alter Orient und Altes Testament 330. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, pp. 365–79.Google Scholar
Wunsch, C. 2006. ‘Metronymika in Babylonien: Frauen als Ahnherrin der Familie’ in del Olmo Lete, G., Feliu, L., and Millet-Albà, A. (eds.), Šapal tibnim mû ilakkū: Studies Presented to Joaquín Sanmartín on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday, Aula Orientalis Supplementa 22. Sabadell: Editorial AUSA, pp. 459–69.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×