Toponymic Remarks to RIH 83/47+ (RIH II, no. 43)
Andrew Burlingame
GMU 1 | 2024 | DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.13941016PDF
| Title: | |
| Author: | Andrew Burlingame  Wheaton College  drew.burlingame@wheaton.edu |
| Keywords: | Ugarit, toponymy, topography, Ras Ibn Hani, Late Bronze Age administration |
| Abstract: | This article proposes toponymic identifications for several entries appearing in RIH 83/47+, first published in 2019. The new insights resulting from this study include an identification of the first alphabetic attestation of the toponym Paṯaratu (previously attested only in logosyllabic texts and in one alphabetic text as a gentilic), a second attestation of the previously hapax toponym ʿry, a series of arguments in favor of identifying the entries appearing in this text as uniformly toponymic, and a number of topographic observations intended to contribute to the challenging work of locating these settlements within the kingdom of Ugarit. |
| Date: | 2024-11-15 (date of publication) |
| Issue: | Göttinger Miszellen zur Ugaritistik (GMU) 1 |
| DOI: | DOI |
| License: |  This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. © Andrew Burlingame 2024. |
| Citation: | Burlingame, Andrew. 2024. “Toponymic Remarks to RIH 83/47+ (RIH II, no. 43).” Göttinger Miszellen zur Ugaritistik 1. https://doi.org/ |
1. Introduction
The text under consideration, RIH 83/47+, was discovered during the 1983 season of excavations at the site of Ras Ibn Hani, and was first published in 2019 (). As the fragments from which this tablet was reconstituted were found at Locus XXIX of the North Palace at Ras Ibn Hani, the text belongs to Lagarce’s “Groupe 4” and can be dated, along with most of the texts recovered from the North Palace, to the reign of ʿAmmiṯtamru III (see Lagarce apud ).Note that Lagarce refers to this king as ʿAmmiṯtamru II, reflecting the traditional enumeration of Ugaritian kings found in works like / and . The numbering employed here follows the revised system proposed in .
In his “Catalogue raisonné des textes de Ras Ibn Hani 1977-2002,” Pardee classified the text among other “Textes économiques” and, more specifically, among “Relevés de comptes” (). The introductory formula of the text is unusual, and this together with the structure and organization of the text merit further study, but the focus of the present study is strictly toponymic. The editors identify the opening four lines as a summary of silver owed by ʿAmmuyānu (215 shekels). The remainder of the text is treated as a list of “creditors,” i.e., the individual contributors to whom repayment is due.
As the editors observe, most of these creditors are actually the names of settlements within the kingdom, but they correctly note that several of the entries could be interpreted as either toponyms (TNs) or personal names (PNs), a fact introducing a measure of uncertainty into the interpretation of the text. In this brief article, I suggest that all of the entries can now be recognized as toponyms based on two varieties of evidence.
First, some of the names in this text treated as ambiguous in the edition can now be more clearly identified with attested toponyms. Second, in one case of clear ambiguity, an independently observable trend in Ugaritian administrative practice can be invoked to achieve resolution. Before introducing the specific entries at issue, I reproduce the text in its entirety as presented in the editio princeps (, no. 43; a proposed revision is offered at the conclusion of this study).
| RIH 83/47+ = RIH II, no. 43 | |
|---|---|
| Recto | |
| 1 tgmr . k[s]⸢p⸣ | Total d’argent |
| 2 d ʿly . w d [ʿ]⸢l⸣ | qui est passé en compte débiteur, à savoir au [débi]t |
| 3 ʿmyn . ḫm[š]⸢t⸣ | de ʿAmmuyānu : deux cent |
| 4 ʿšrt . k⸢bd⸣ mi͗tm | quinze (sicles). |
| 5 a͗!r . ḫmšm | (De la ville de) ʾAru : cinquante (sicles) ; |
| 6 ḫrlm . ḫmšt | (de) ḪRLM : cinq (sicles) ; |
| 7 kṯtġlm . ḫmšt | (de l’individu) KṮTĠLM : quinze (sicles) ; |
| 8 ʿšrt | |
| 9 ʿry . ḫmšt | (de) ʿRY : quinze (sicles) ; |
| 10 ʿšrt | |
| 11 ṯmry . ʿšrt | (de la ville de) Ṯamrāya : dix (sicles) ; |
| 12 pṯrt . ʿšrt | (de) PṮRT : dix (sicles) ; |
| Tranche inférieure | |
| 13 ypr . ʿšrt | (de) YPR : dix (sicles) ; |
| Verso | |
| 14 mṣbt . ḫmšt | (de la ville de) Maṣibatu : cinq (sicles) ; |
| 15 ma͗dḫ . ḫmšt | (de la ville de) Maʾaduḫu : cinq (sicles) ; |
| 16 mri͗l! . ḫmšt | (de la ville de) Maraʾilu : cinq (sicles) ; |
| 17 ḫlb ṣpn . ḫmšt | (de la ville de) Ḫalbuṣapuni : cinq (sicles) ; |
| 18 šbn . ʿšrt | (de la ville de) Šubbanu : dix (sicles) ; |
| 19 u͗škn . ḫmšm | (de la ville de) ʾUškanu : cinquante (sicles) ; |
| 20 [ .] ⸢ʿ⸣šrm | [(de …)] : [v]ingt (sicles) ; |
| 21 [ . ḫ]mšt | [(de …)] : [c]inq (sicles). |
2. Toponymic and Topographic Discussion
The editors identified most of these entries as well-known toponyms, as indicated by their introduction of the parenthetical clarification, “(de la ville de).” They judiciouslyCases of personal names that were identical to toponyms were already known, but the editors’ identification of the first clear evidence for the personal name u͗škn, found in RIH 83/17+:27' (= , no. 9), demonstrated that even greater caution was required than most would have previously thought necessary (see ). Prior to the discovery of this evidence, no interpreter would have hesitated to identify an instance of {u͗škn} in an alphabetic Ugaritic text with the prominent settlement of that name located in the southern coastal plain of the kingdom, but the new textual evidence from Ras Ibn Hani demonstrated beyond doubt that even such apparently obvious identifications could turn out to be misleading. observed, however, that several entries were strictly ambiguous and could perhaps be identified as either personal names or toponyms. The entries {ḫrlm} in l. 6, {kṯtġlm} in l. 7, {ʿry} in l. 9, {ṯmry} in l. 11, {pṯrt} in l. 12, {ypr} in l. 13, and {u͗škn} in l. 19 were all regarded as potentially problematic (). Of these, the editors treated {kṯtġlm} in l. 7 as a personal name (adding “(de l’individu)” in their translation) and provisionally preferred to understand {ṯmry} in l. 11 and {u͗škn} in l. 19 as toponyms (though noting that both could also be personal names). The other four entries were deemed ambiguous and were left without an indication of their status (“ville” vs. “individu”) in the published translation (see above).
The entry {ḫrlm} in l. 6 is (to my knowledge) unique, as the editors state.Moreover, as this text was first published in 2019, the lexeme ḫrlm does not appear in the dictionary of del Olmo Lete and Sanmartín, the most recent edition of which was published in . The remaining entries, however, can now be shown to have parallels elsewhere that may serve to clarify the function of the text as a whole.
The entry {kṯtġlm} in l. 7 can be identified as a toponym discussed in van Soldt’s The Topography of the City-State of Ugarit () and is found in two other alphabetic texts (RS 17.392:2 [= KTU1–2 4.310; KTU3 3.18] and RS 19.105:25–26 [= KTU1–3 4.643]).The first of these attestations, appearing in RS 17.392, is potentially ambiguous, as it refers to nsk kṯtġlm, “the founder(s) of kṯtġlm.” The same text mentions nsk a͗rym (ll. 5–6) and nsk a͗rt (l. 8). The latter of these clearly involves a TN (“founder(s) of ʾArutu”), but the former involves a gentilic (“founder(s) of the men of ʾAru”). In other words, the case could be made for interpreting kṯtġlm either as a TN (like a͗rt in l. 8) or as a plural term referring to a group of individuals, comparable to the toponymically defined group a͗rym in l. 6. Virolleaud seems to have had the latter possibility in mind when he suggested in his editio princeps of RS 17.392 () that kṯtġlm might represent “un mot composé au pl.” like mḏrġlm and ḫḏġlm (both terms referring to professional groups and incorporating the Hurrian morpheme ⸗o⸗ḫ(e)⸗li [-uḫli], used to form Hurrian nomina actoris [see ]). Such a classification was suggested more explicitly by Friedrich (: “ugar. Berufsbezeichnung”), Aistleitner (: “Bez. e. Berufs?”), and Dietrich and Loretz ().
The discovery of RS 19.105 (= KTU 4.643) in 1955 (published in 1965) shed new and clearer light on the question, as the form {kṯtġlm} appeared following the preposition b “in” in l. 26 of the text and, by emendation, in the preceding line as well ({kṯ<t>ġlm}), in a context in which the resulting prepositional phrase could only be understood to indicate the town in which the individuals named at the beginning of each of these lines were to be found. Virolleaud () described the text as a “[l]iste de gens habitant diverses villes,” suggesting a toponymic status for kṯtġlm, and he listed this term in the index of “villes et pays” (). Gordon ( / ) drew on this new text and interpretation in producing his glossary entry for kṯtġlm, where it is treated as a place name (though without discussion). This new understanding of the term was quickly accepted by others, who noted that it was in fact preferable for RS 17.392 on internal grounds as well, as both a͗rym and a͗rt pertained to towns of origin (; ).
While some continued to hold that a term referring to a professional group (typically “bowmakers” is assumed) provided the etymology of the term (e.g., ; ; ; ), its toponymic value was generally accepted (exceptions include [citing , though these authors no longer held to the position outlined there, as noted above] and [rejecting the position outlined by Lipiński in an editorial note appearing in ; he does not, however, address the clear indications of the toponymic value of the term that Lipiński’s editorial remark had identified]) and remains normative today (see and ). Unfortunately, neither of these texts allows us to locate this settlement, and van Soldt () does not assign it to any of his groups of towns.
The entry {ʿry} (l. 9)Bordreuil may originally have read this entry as {ʿky} (see his remarks apud ; ; see further ). While the second sign of this sequence shows some damage in the published photograph, the editors indicate that the reading {ʿry} is certain (). was not included among toponyms gathered and studied in , as its first published attestation had not yet appeared. But a more recently published text, RS 94.2614 (= , no. 2; KTU3 4.820), provides an attestation of this graphic sequence in a context that makes its toponymic status virtually certain. The text in question consists of a list of town names followed by numerals, which, based on a note written on the reverse of the tablet in logosyllabic cuneiform, refer to quantities of animal hides. The list of settlements is arranged in two columns. All TNs appearing in the left-hand column are independently attested and belong to van Soldt’s Groups 6–8 (i.e., southern groups). Independently attested toponyms in the right-hand column belong to his Groups 1N, 1S, 1, and 2 (i.e., northern groups) (see ; ). Among these settlements in the right-hand column appears a new toponym, {ʿry} (RS 94.2614 ii 10). If the organization of these settlement names is consistent, then the town of ʿry is likely to be sought at the northern frontier of the kingdom (a possibility the present text may support, as discussed below).
The entries {pṯrt} in l. 12 and {ypr} in l. 13 can be identified as the towns of Paṯaratu and Yaparu.For Paṯaratu, see ; for additional bibliography, see and (pṯrty). For Yaparu, see ; for additional bibliography, see and . The former of these is significant, comprising the first alphabetic attestation of this TN, as previous attestations were limited to logosyllabic texts and one instance of an alphabetic gentilic (pṯrty).See references in preceding footnote for lists of attestations. Furthermore, the immediate juxtaposition of these two TNs in the present list aligns with their cooccurrence elsewhere and tends to support van Soldt’s placement of Paṯaratu in his Group 4 (see ).
If these identifications are correct, then {ḫrlm} is the only unique and uncertain term (unless it represents an error, to be corrected to {ḫr<bġ>lm}, a poorly attested town name [see , and further below]), and in this light, the editors’ preference to treat {ṯmry} and {u͗škn} as toponyms is surely justified. Independently observable trends in Ugaritian administration, however, provide a second reason to prefer the toponymic interpretation of {u͗škn} in this text. Specifically, the fact that the largest quantities of silver registered in the list are associated with ʾAru (50 shekels, l. 5) and ʾUškanu (50 shekels, l. 19) conforms precisely to evidence for the comparable size and importance of these two towns available among the administrative texts from Ras Shamra.These data are presented and examined in van Soldt () and suggest that ʾAru and ʾUškanu represented the towns of greatest administrative significance—and possibly size—in the southern plain (). Further discussion and bibliography can be found in .
In light of these observations, RIH 83/47+ can be understood to record quantities of silver that had been provided by a number of the kingdom’s settlements (aligning—even if only approximately—with Saadé’s [] inclusion of this text among “listes toponymiques”). The text does not provide any hint as to the purpose these contributions served, and this point of ambiguity is further complicated by both the unusual expression d ʿly found in the introduction (and remarked by the editors []) and the fact that the total recorded in the introductory paragraph, 215 shekels, does not agree with the total arrived at by adding up the individual entries, namely, 220 shekels (also noted by the editors []).One of the anonymous peer reviewers makes the clever observation that the final entry in the list may have comprised an unanticipated/last-minute addition to the list. In other words, the total of 215 was written down first, followed by the entries occupying lines 5–20, which do reach the stated total. The final entry of 5 shekels may then have been added after the fact. Though impossible to prove, this is imaginable and would account for the discrepancy. What appears certain, however, is that the contributors in this record were towns rather than individuals. These are presented here together with their respective contributions as well as the group number assigned to each in van Soldt’s study.
| Line | Settlement | Contribution | Group () |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | ʾAru | 50 | 8 |
| 6 | ḪRLM | 5 | [not treated in ] |
| 7–8 | KṮTĠLM | 15 | ? |
| 9–10 | ʿRY | 15 | [not treated in ] |
| 11 | Ṯamrāya | 10 | 1N |
| 12 | Paṯaratu | 10 | 4? |
| 13 | Yaparu | 10 | 4 |
| 14 | Maṣibatu | 5 | 2a |
| 15 | Maʾaduḫu | 5 | 2a |
| 16 | Maraʾilu | 5 | 2 |
| 17 | Ḫalbu-Ṣapuni | 5 | 2 |
| 18 | Šubbanu | 10 | 6 |
| 19 | ʾUškanu | 50 | 6 |
| 20 | […] | 20 | [not preserved] |
| 21 | […] | 5 | [not preserved] |
This presentation illustrates that, to the extent determinable, TNs appear together with other members of the same group in this list (that is, the groups are not interspersed as they are in some lists). As noted already, the fact that Paṯaratu and Yaparu appear together agrees with their treatment elsewhere and supports van Soldt’s placement of Paṯaratu in Group 4 ().
Regrettably, the three entries of uncertain location (ḫrlm, kṯtġlm, and ʿry) appear together between ʾAru (Group 8) and Ṯamrāya (Group 1N). Since ʿry appears in the right-hand column of RS 94.2614, which otherwise seems to include only northern settlements (as discussed above), its placement here immediately prior to Ṯamrāya may allow us to hypothesize a location among the towns of van Soldt’s Group 1.
This leaves the entries in ll. 6–8, which can only be addressed in the most speculative of terms. As noted already, kṯtġlm cannot presently be placed with any certainty. The etymology of the toponym is unclear (see , above), but the final three consonants (-ġlm) have been the subject of debate within studies dedicated to Ugaritic toponymy. Two settlements located in the vicinity of Ugarit’s northern frontier with Mukiš exhibit a final element conventionally normalized as -ḫuliwe, namely, Bītu-ḫuliwe and Ḫarbu-ḫuliwe. The final syllable of the former is spelled with both PI (read by van Soldt, among others, as we) and BI (read bé); the latter TN is attested only with the second of these spellings (see ). Van Soldt () follows Kühne () in regarding both TNs as Hurrianized (through the addition of the Hurrian morpheme ⸗ve/⸗weFor this genitive morpheme and case inflection in Hurrian, see ; ; .). He notes the further, though less certain, possibility that the TN represented in syllabic cuneiform as URU ḫar-ba-ḫu-li-bé (RS 17.062+:15' [= , p. 66]) may be identical to the alphabetically written TN ḫrbġlm (), a possibility first raised tentatively by Nougayrol (), then, more explicitly by Dietrich, Loretz, and Sanmartín (), and subsequently accepted by others (e.g., ; ; ; ; ; cf. ; for further relevant bibliography, see ).
If this equivalence is correct, then kṯtġlm may represent a similarly formed TN, and, given the placement of Bītu-ḫuliwe and Ḫarbu-ḫuliwe in Group 1N, perhaps kṯtġlm may be similarly located. This is admittedly speculative, resting entirely on a presumption that the existence of two similarly formed TNs on the northern frontier of the kingdom provides prima facie grounds for situating a third TN of the same sort in the same region, which need not be the case. It would, however, align with the likely northern placement of ʿry and Ṯamrāya, which follow it immediately in the text under discussion.
Turning to ḫrlm, methodological prudence requires that we leave the placement of this TN open for the moment. Nevertheless, I register here (with due caution) that, should this represent a simple error for an intended ḫr<bġ>lm, then this TN would (if it is in fact the alphabetic counterpart to syllabic Ḫarbu-ḫuliwe [see above]) represent another entry in this section of RIH 83/47+ belonging to van Soldt’s Group 1N, located at the northern frontier of the kingdom.
These new toponymic identifications facilitate the uniform treatment of the contributors listed: all are best understood as the names of towns within the territory of the kingdom of Ugarit. Their arrangement in this list, however, is no clearer today than previously. The list begins with ʾAru, located at the southern end of the kingdom (see for detailed discussion), moves to three towns of uncertain location, but possibly to be situated together with Ṯamrāya on Ugarit’s northern frontier, moves next to towns in Group 4, just north of the city of Ugarit itself, then to Group 2a/2 at the northwest corner of the kingdom, and closes with entries from Group 6, occupying the southern coastal plain east/southeast of Lattakia. It is to be hoped that further work on the recently published administrative documents from Ras Ibn Hani will permit a clearer understanding of this text and its organization, but in the meantime, the entries treated here can be safely added to the growing body of evidence for the toponymy and topography of the kingdom of Ugarit.
3. A Revised Translation
To close this study, I offer here a revised presentation of the text with translation. I provisionally follow the editors’ understanding of the opening section appearing in lines 1–4 though, as noted above, the unusual wording found here precludes certainty.
| RIH 83/47+ = RIH II, no. 43 | |
|---|---|
| Obverse | |
| 1 tgmr . k[s]⸢p⸣ | Total amount of silver that has |
| 2 d ʿly . w d [ʿ]⸢l⸣ | “gone up” (is registered as owed?), and that is to the debit |
| 3 ʿmyn . ḫm[š]⸢t⸣ | of ʿAmmuyānu: two hundred |
| 4 ʿšrt . k⸢bd⸣ mi͗tm | and fifteen (shekels). |
| 5 a͗!r . ḫmšm | (From the city of) ʾAru: fifty (shekels); |
| 6 ḫrlm . ḫmšt | (From the city of) ḪRLM: five (shekels); |
| 7 kṯtġlm . ḫmšt | (From the city of) KṮTĠLM: fifteen (shekels); |
| 8 ʿšrt | |
| 9 ʿry . ḫmšt | (From the city of) ʿRY: fifteen (shekels); |
| 10 ʿšrt | |
| 11 ṯmry . ʿšrt | (From the city of) Ṯamrāya: ten (shekels); |
| 12 pṯrt . ʿšrt | (From the city of) Paṯaratu: ten (shekels); |
| Lower edge | |
| 13 ypr . ʿšrt | (From the city of) Yaparu: ten (shekels); |
| Reverse | |
| 14 mṣbt . ḫmšt | (From the city of) Maṣibatu: five (shekels); |
| 15 ma͗dḫ . ḫmšt | (From the city of) Maʾaduḫu: five (shekels); |
| 16 mri͗l! . ḫmšt | (From the city of) Maraʾilu: five (shekels); |
| 17 ḫlb ṣpn . ḫmšt | (From the city of) Ḫalbuṣapuni: five (shekels); |
| 18 šbn . ʿšrt | (From the city of) Šubbanu: ten (shekels); |
| 19 u͗škn . ḫmšm | (From the city of) ʾUškanu: fifty (shekels); |
| 20 [ .] ⸢ʿ⸣šrm | [(From the city of) …]: [t]wenty (shekels); |
| 21 [ . ḫ]mšt | [(From the city of) …]: [f]ive (shekels). |
Acknowledgments
I would like to express special appreciation to Dennis Pardee, who read an earlier version of this article and provided a number of very helpful suggestions, as well as to the anonymous peer reviewers, who further contributed to its improvement and clarity. Of course, I bear sole responsibility for any faults that may remain.
Notes
- Note that Lagarce refers to this king as ʿAmmiṯtamru II, reflecting the traditional enumeration of Ugaritian kings found in works like / and . The numbering employed here follows the revised system proposed in .
- The has “Maʾadiḫu,” but it is clear from the remark on p. 117 that Maʾaduḫu was intended.
- Cases of personal names that were identical to toponyms were already known, but the editors’ identification of the first clear evidence for the personal name u͗škn, found in RIH 83/17+:27' (= , no. 9), demonstrated that even greater caution was required than most would have previously thought necessary (see ). Prior to the discovery of this evidence, no interpreter would have hesitated to identify an instance of {u͗škn} in an alphabetic Ugaritic text with the prominent settlement of that name located in the southern coastal plain of the kingdom, but the new textual evidence from Ras Ibn Hani demonstrated beyond doubt that even such apparently obvious identifications could turn out to be misleading.
- Moreover, as this text was first published in 2019, the lexeme ḫrlm does not appear in the dictionary of del Olmo Lete and Sanmartín, the most recent edition of which was published in .
- The first of these attestations, appearing in RS 17.392, is potentially ambiguous, as it refers to nsk kṯtġlm, “the founder(s) of kṯtġlm.” The same text mentions nsk a͗rym (ll. 5–6) and nsk a͗rt (l. 8). The latter of these clearly involves a TN (“founder(s) of ʾArutu”), but the former involves a gentilic (“founder(s) of the men of ʾAru”). In other words, the case could be made for interpreting kṯtġlm either as a TN (like a͗rt in l. 8) or as a plural term referring to a group of individuals, comparable to the toponymically defined group a͗rym in l. 6. Virolleaud seems to have had the latter possibility in mind when he suggested in his editio princeps of RS 17.392 () that kṯtġlm might represent “un mot composé au pl.” like mḏrġlm and ḫḏġlm (both terms referring to professional groups and incorporating the Hurrian morpheme ⸗o⸗ḫ(e)⸗li [-uḫli], used to form Hurrian nomina actoris [see ]). Such a classification was suggested more explicitly by Friedrich (: “ugar. Berufsbezeichnung”), Aistleitner (: “Bez. e. Berufs?”), and Dietrich and Loretz ().
The discovery of RS 19.105 (= KTU 4.643) in 1955 (published in 1965) shed new and clearer light on the question, as the form {kṯtġlm} appeared following the preposition b “in” in l. 26 of the text and, by emendation, in the preceding line as well ({kṯ<t>ġlm}), in a context in which the resulting prepositional phrase could only be understood to indicate the town in which the individuals named at the beginning of each of these lines were to be found. Virolleaud () described the text as a “[l]iste de gens habitant diverses villes,” suggesting a toponymic status for kṯtġlm, and he listed this term in the index of “villes et pays” (). Gordon ( / ) drew on this new text and interpretation in producing his glossary entry for kṯtġlm, where it is treated as a place name (though without discussion). This new understanding of the term was quickly accepted by others, who noted that it was in fact preferable for RS 17.392 on internal grounds as well, as both a͗rym and a͗rt pertained to towns of origin (; ).
While some continued to hold that a term referring to a professional group (typically “bowmakers” is assumed) provided the etymology of the term (e.g., ; ; ; ), its toponymic value was generally accepted (exceptions include [citing , though these authors no longer held to the position outlined there, as noted above] and [rejecting the position outlined by Lipiński in an editorial note appearing in ; he does not, however, address the clear indications of the toponymic value of the term that Lipiński’s editorial remark had identified]) and remains normative today (see and ). - Bordreuil may originally have read this entry as {ʿky} (see his remarks apud ; ; see further ). While the second sign of this sequence shows some damage in the published photograph, the editors indicate that the reading {ʿry} is certain ().
- For Paṯaratu, see ; for additional bibliography, see and (pṯrty). For Yaparu, see ; for additional bibliography, see and .
- See references in preceding footnote for lists of attestations.
- These data are presented and examined in van Soldt () and suggest that ʾAru and ʾUškanu represented the towns of greatest administrative significance—and possibly size—in the southern plain (). Further discussion and bibliography can be found in .
- One of the anonymous peer reviewers makes the clever observation that the final entry in the list may have comprised an unanticipated/last-minute addition to the list. In other words, the total of 215 was written down first, followed by the entries occupying lines 5–20, which do reach the stated total. The final entry of 5 shekels may then have been added after the fact. Though impossible to prove, this is imaginable and would account for the discrepancy.
- For this genitive morpheme and case inflection in Hurrian, see ; ; .
Abbreviations
The abbreviations generally follow RlA (Streck, Michael P., et al., eds. 1928–2016. Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie. Berlin etc.: De Gruyter [Download PDF]) and EUPT (list of abbreviations). Additional and deviating abbreviations:
References
Aistleitner, Joseph. 1963. Wörterbuch der ugaritischen Sprache. Berichte über die Verhandlungen der sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig: Philologisch-historische Klasse 106.3. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.
Arnaud, Daniel. 1999. “Prolégommènes à la rédaction d’une histoire d’Ougarit II: les bordereaux de rois divinisés.” Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 41: 153–173.
Astour, Michael C. 1977. “Continuité et changement dans la toponymie de la Syrie du nord.” In La toponymie antique : actes du colloque de Strasbourg, 12-14 juin 1975, 117–141. Travaux du Centre de Recherche sur le Proche-Orient et la Grèce Antiques 4. Leiden: Brill.
Astour, Michael C. 1981a. “Les frontières et les districts du royaume d’Ugarit.” Ugarit-Forschungen 13: 1–12.
Astour, Michael C. 1981b. “Toponymic Parallels between the Nuzi Area and Northern Syria.” In Studies on the Civilization and Culture of Nuzi and the Hurrians in Honor of Ernest R. Lacheman on His Seventy-Fifth Birthday, April 29, 1981, edited by Martha A. Morrison and David I. Owen, 11–26. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Astour, Michael C. 1995. “La topographie du royaume d’Ougarit.” In Le pays d’Ougarit autour de 1200 av. J.-C. Histoire et archéologie. Actes du Colloque International Paris 28 juin – 1er juillet 1993, edited by Marguerite Yon, Maurice Sznycer, and Pierre Bordreuil, 56–71. Ras Shamra–Ougarit XI. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations.
Belmonte Marín, Juan Antonio. 2001. Die Orts- und Gewässernamen der Texte aus Syrien im 2. Jt. v. Chr. Répertoire Géographique des Textes Cunéiformes 12/2. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag.
Bordreuil, Pierre, Jacques Lagarce, Élisabeth Lagarce, Adnan Bounni, and Nassib Saliby. 1984. “Les découvertes archéologiques et épigraphiques de Ras Ibn Hani (Syrie) en 1983 : un lot d’archives administratives.” Comptes-rendus des séances de l'Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres 128/2: 398–438.
Bordreuil, Pierre, and Dennis Pardee. 2012. “Bordereaux et listes (nos 1-55).” In Une bibliothèque au sud de la ville***. Textes 1994-2002 en cunéiforme alphabétique de la Maison d’Ourtenou, by Pierre Bordreuil and Dennis Pardee, with Robert Hawley, 11–133. Ras Shamra–Ougarit XVIII. Lyon: Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée.
Bordreuil, Pierre, and Dennis Pardee. 2019. “Les textes ougaritiques.” In Ras Ibn Hani II. Les textes en écritures cunéiformes de l’âge du Bronze récent (fouilles 1977 à 2002), by Pierre Bordreuil, Dennis Pardee, and Carole Roche-Hawley, 39–280. Bibliothèque Archéologique et Historique 214. Beirut: Presses de l’IFPO.
Bordreuil, Pierre, and Dennis Pardee, with Robert Hawley. 2012. Une bibliothèque au sud de la ville***. Textes 1994-2002 en cunéiforme alphabétique de la maison d’Ourtenou. Ras Shamra–Ougarit XVIII. Lyon: Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée.
Bordreuil, Pierre, Dennis Pardee, and Carole Roche-Hawley. 2019. Ras Ibn Hani II. Les textes en écritures cunéiformes de l’âge du Bronze récent (fouilles 1977 à 2002). Bibliothèque Archéologique et Historique 214. Beirut: Presses de l’IFPO.
Burlingame, Andrew. Forthcoming. “An Update on ʾAru and Arruwa.” To appear in Ugarit and Its World, edited by Shirly Natan-Yulzary, Reinhard Müller, and Clemens Steinberger. Kasion. Münster: Zaphon.
Campbell, Dennis R. M. 2015. Mood and Modality in Hurrian. Languages of the Ancient Near East 5. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Cunchillos, Jesús-Luis. 1989. “Correspondance. Introduction, traduction commentaire.” In Textes ougaritiques II, by André Caquot, Jean-Michel de Tarragon, and Jésus-Luis Cunchillos, 239–421. Littératures Anciennes du Proche-Orient 14. Paris: Cerf.
Dietrich, Manfried, and Oswald Loretz. 1966. “Die soziale Struktur von Alalaḫ und Ugarit: I. Die Berufsbezeichnungen mit der hurritischen Endung -ḫuli.” Die Welt des Orients 3: 188–205.
Dietrich, Manfried, Oswald Loretz, and Joaquín Sanmartín. 1973. “Zur ugaritischen Lexikographie (VIII). Lexikographische Einzelbemerkungen.” Ugarit-Forschungen 5: 105–117.
Friedrich, Johannes. 1961. Hethitisches Wörterbuch. Kurzgefasste kritische Sammlung der Deutungen hethitischer Wörter. 2. Ergänzungsheft. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
Giorgieri, Mauro. 1999. “Die hurritischen Kasusendungen.” In Nuzi at Seventy-Five, edited by David I. Owen and Gernot Wilhelm, 223–256. Studies on the Civilization and Culture of Nuzi and the Hurrians 10. Bethesda: CDL Press.
Gordon, Cyrus H. 1965. Ugaritic Textbook: Grammar, Texts in Transliteration, Cuneiform Selections, Glossary, Indices. Analecta Orientalia 38. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute.
Gordon, Cyrus H. 1998. Ugaritic Textbook: Grammar, Texts in Transliteration, Cuneiform Selections, Glossary, Indices. Revised Reprint. Analecta Orientalia 38. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute.
Heltzer, Michael. 1976. The Rural Community in Ancient Ugarit. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag.
Heltzer, Michael. 1979. “Royal Economy in Ancient Ugarit.” In State and Temple Economy in the Ancient Near East II, edited by Edward Lipiński, 459–496. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 6. Leuven: Departement Oriëntalistiek.
Heltzer, Michael. 1982. The Internal Organization of the Kingdom of Ugarit (Royal Service-System, Taxes, Royal Economy, Army and Administration). Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag.
Kühne, Cord. 1974. “Mit Glossenkeilen markierte fremde Wörter in akkadischen Ugarittexten.” Ugarit-Forschungen 6: 157–167.
Laroche, Emmanuel. 1980. Glossaire de la langue hourrite. Paris: Éditions Klincksieck.
Nougayrol, Jean. 1956. Le Palais royal d’Ugarit IV. Textes accadiens des archives sud (Archives internationales). Mission de Ras Shamra IX. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale.
Nougayrol, Jean. 1970. Le Palais royal d’Ugarit VI. Textes en cunéiformes babyloniens des archives du grand palais et du palais sud d’Ugarit. Mission de Ras Shamra XII. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale.
del Olmo Lete, Gregorio, and Joaquín Sanmartín. 2015. A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic Tradition. 3rd rev. ed. Handbuch der Orientalistik 1.112. Leiden: Brill.
Pardee, Dennis. 1974. “The Ugaritic Text 147(90).” Ugarit-Forschungen 6: 275–282.
Pardee, Dennis. 2019. “Catalogue raisonné des textes de Ras Ibn Hani 1977-2002.” In Ras Ibn Hani II. Les textes en écritures cunéiformes de l’âge du Bronze récent (fouilles 1977 à 2002), by Pierre Bordreuil, Dennis Pardee, and Carole Roche-Hawley, 31–36. Bibliothèque Archéologique et Historique 214. Beirut: Presses de l’IFPO.
Saadé, Gabriel. 2011. Ougarit et son royaume des origines à sa destruction, edited by Marguerite Yon and Leila Badre. Bibliothèque Archéologique et Historique 193. Beirut: Presses de l’IFPO.
Sanmartín, Joaquín. 1995. “Das Handwerk in Ugarit: Eine lexikalische Studie.” Studi epigrafici e linguistici sul Vicino Oriente antico 12: 169–190.
Singer, Itamar. 1999. “A Political History of Ugarit.” In Handbook of Ugaritic Studies, edited by Wilfred G. E. Watson and Nicolas Wyatt, 603–733. Handbuch der Orientalistik 1.39. Leiden: Brill.
van Soldt, Wilfred H. 2005. The Topography of the City-State of Ugarit. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 324. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.
Virolleaud, Charles. 1957. Le Palais royal d’Ugarit II. Textes en cunéiformes alphabétiques des archives est, ouest et centrales. Mission de Ras Shamra VII. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale.
Virolleaud, Charles. 1965. Le Palais royal d’Ugarit V. Textes en cunéiformes alphabétiques des archives sud, sud-ouest et du petit palais. Mission de Ras Shamra XI. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale.
Watson, Wilfred G. E. “The Lexical Aspect of Ugaritic Toponyms.” Aula Orientalis 19: 109–123.
Wegner, Ilse. 2007. Einführung in die hurritische Sprache. 2., überarbeitete Auflage. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Yon, Marguerite. 1997. La cité d’Ougarit sur le tell de Ras Shamra. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations.
Yon, Marguerite. 2006. The City of Ugarit at Tell Ras Shamra. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.