HEIDE Martin - The Domestication of the Camel (2011)

7/22/2019 HEIDE Martin - The Domestication of the Camel (2011)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/heide-martin-the-domestication-of-the-camel-2011 1/62

Sonderdruck aus

UGARIT-FORSCHUNGEN

Internationales Jahrbuch

für die

Altertumskunde Syrien-Palästinas

Herausgegeben von

Manfried Dietrich • Oswald Loretz

Band 42

2010

Ugarit-Verlag Münster2011



HerausgeberManfried Dietrich / Oswald Loretz, Ugarit-Verlag, Ricarda-Huch-Str. 6,D-48161 Münster

(Manfried Dietrich: [email protected])

RedaktionUgarit-Verlag, c/o Institut für Altorientalische Philologie und Vorderasiatische

Altertumskunde, Rosenstr. 9, D-48143 Münster

(Kai A. Metzler: [email protected])

Für unverlangt eingesandte Manuskripte kann keine Gewähr übernommen werden.

Die Herausgeber sind nicht verpflichtet,

unangeforderte Rezensionsexemplare zu besprechen.

Manuskripte für die einzelnen Jahresbände werden jeweils bis zum 31. 12. des vorausgehenden Jahres erbeten.

© 2011 Ugarit-Verlag, Münster

(www.ugarit-verlag.de)Alle Rechte vorbehalten

All rights preserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,

stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,

electronic, mechanical, photo-copying, recording, or otherwise,

without the prior permission of the publisher.

Herstellung: Hubert & Co, Göttingen

Printed in Germany

ISBN 978-3-86835-053-1

Printed on acid-free paper



Inhalt

Artikel

Al-Shorman, Abdulla / Al-Bashaireh, Khaled /

Bani Doomi, Mohammad

The Paleoclimate of the Northwestern Jordan in Late Antiquity .................... 1

Best, Jan / Rietveld, Lia

Structuring Byblos Tablets c and d ................................................................ 15

Bloch, Yigal

Setting the Dates: Re-evaluation of the Chronology of Babyloniain the 14th –11th Centuries B. C. E. and Its Implicationsfor the Reigns of Ramesses II and Ḫattušili III ............................................. 41

Carbillet, Aurélie

Un chapiteau hathorique inédit d’Amathonte (Chypre) ................................ 97

Devecchi, Elena

RS 17.62 + RS 17.237 (CTH 64) : Treaty, Edict or Verdict? ...................... 105

Dietrich, Manfried / Loretz, Oswald

Die Seevölkergruppe der ṯ rtnm „Šardana/ Šerdena“ in Ugarit.Bemerkungen zum Brief KTU 2.61 und zur Liste KTU3 4.497+.. . .......... 109


Bestallungsurkunde KTU 3.11 (RS 15.117) für B®l ṣdq als„obersten Verwaltungsbeamten ( skn) des Palastes“ .......................................... 125


Rhabdomantie im mykenischen Palast von Tiryns. Das Fragment eineskurz-keilalphabetisch beschrifteten Elfenbeinstabs(Ti 02 LXIII 34/91 VI d12.80 = KTU3

6.104) ............................................. 141

El-Khouri, Lamia

Barsinia 1st Century BC – 1st Century AD. Pottery from the Cistern,Area A ......................................................................................................... 161

Gerhards, Meik

„Die Sonne lässt am Himmel erkennen Jahwe …“.Text- und religionsgeschichtliche Überlegungen zum Tempelweihspruchaus I Reg 8,12f. (M) (III Reg 8,53a [LXX]) ................................................ 191



iv Inhalt [UF 42

Gestoso Singer, Graciela

Forms of payment in the Amarna Age and in the Uluburun andCape Gelidonya shipwrecks ........................................................................ 261

Gillmann, NicolasUn exemple de Hilâni à Til Barsip? ............................................................ 279

Halayqa, Issam K. H.

The Demise of Ugarit in the Light of its Connections with Ḫatti................ 297

Heide, Martin

The Domestication of the Camel: Biological, Archaeological andInscriptional Evidence from Mesopotamia, Egypt, Israel and Arabia,and Literary Evidence from the Hebrew Bible ............................................ 331

Kassian, Alexei

Hurro-Urartian from the lexicostatistical viewpoint .................................... 383

Lipschits, Oded / Koch, Ido / Shaus, Arie / Guil, ShlomoThe Enigma of the Biblical Bath and the System of Liquid VolumeMeasurement during the First Temple Period ............................................. 453

Loretz, Oswald

Ugaritisch-altisraelitische Elemente des Neujahrsfestesim nachexilischen Psalm 24 ............................................................................. 479

Na¬aman, Nadav

Khirbet Qeiyafa in Context ......................................................................... 497

Park, Sung Jin

Short Notes on the Etymology of Asherah .................................................. 527

Peterson, Jeremiah

Sumerian Literary Fragments in the University Museum,Philadelphia II: Eduba Compositions, Debate Poems, Diatribes,Elegies, Wisdom Literature, and Other Compositions ................................ 535

Peterson, Jeremiah

Sumerian Literary Fragments in the University Museum,Philadelphia III: Hymns to Deities .............................................................. 573

Sazonov, Vladimir

Einige Bemerkungen zur altassyrischen Königstitulatur.Entwicklungsgeschichte und südmesopotamische Einflüsse ...................... 613

Snyder, Josey Bridges

Did Kemosh Have a Consort (or Any Other Friends)?Re-assessing the Moabite Pantheon ............................................................ 645

Theis, Christoffer

Sollte Re sich schämen? Eine subliminale Bedeutung des Namens in Jeremia 44,30 .................................................................................. 677חפ ע



2010] Inhalt v

Tropper, Josef / Vita, Juan-Pablo

Die keilalphabetische Inschrift aus Tiryns .................................................. 693

Tugendhaft, Aaron

On ym and

d

A.AB.BA at Ugarit .................................................................. 697Vernet, Eulàlia / Vernet, Mariona

Die große Sphinx von Gizeh. Vergleichende undsprachwissenschaftliche Überlegungen zu einerafroasiatischen Etymologie ......................................................................... 713

Vidal, Jordi

Ugarit at War (3) : Prisoners of War ............................................................ 719

von der Osten-Sacken, Elisabeth

„Aššur, großer Berg, König von Himmel und Erde“. Darstellungen desassyrischen Hauptgottes im Wandel vom numen loci zum Götterherrn ...... 731

Watson, Wilfred G. E.Getting to Grips with Ugaritic td ġ l .............................................................. 823

Watson, Wilfred G. E.

Non-Semitic Words in the Ugaritic Lexicon (8) ......................................... 831

Yogev, Johnathan

How wide should a Column be? .................................................................. 847

Yogev, Johnathan

The Strange Case of “Diagonal Writing” .................................................... 853

Zadok, Ran

Philistian Notes II ........................................................................................ 859

Zukerman, Alexander

On Aegean Involvement in Trade with the Near East duringthe Late Bronze Age .................................................................................... 887

Replik

Pardee, D.

Illustrated Epigraphic Remarks to the First Tablet of the ¬ Aqhatu Text,Lines 1–24 ................................................................................................... 903

Buchbesprechungen und Buchanzeigen

Yoram COHEN / Amir GILAN / Jared L. MILLER (Hrsg.): Pax Hethitica.Studies on the Hittites and their Neighbours in Honour of Itamar

Singer (Manfred Hutter) .............................................................................. 919



vi Inhalt [UF 42

Charles DOYEN : Poséidon souverain. Contribution à l’histoire religieuse

de la Grèce mycénienne et archaïque (Oswald Loretz) .............................. 923J.-M. DURAND / Th. R ÖMER / M. LANGLOIS (Hrsg.): Le jeune héros.

Recherches sur la formation et la diffusion d’un thème littéraire au

Proche-Orient ancient. Actes du colloque organisé par les chairesd’Assyriologie et des Milieux bibliques du Collège de France,

Paris, le 6 et 7 avril 2009 (Oswald Loretz) ................................................. 924Giovanni GARBINI: Dio della Terra, Dio del Cielo. Dalle religioni

semitiche al giudaismo e al cristianesimo (Oswald Loretz) ........................ 925Brigitte GRONEBERG / Herrmann SPIECKERMANN (Hrsg.) : Die Welt der

Götterbilder (Michael Herles) ..................................................................... 926Joel M. LEMON : Yahweh’s Winged Form in the Psalms. Exploring

Congruent Iconography and Texts (Oswald Loretz) ................................... 932Hartmut MATTHÄUS / Norbert OETTINGER / Stephan SCHRÖDER (Hrsg.) :

Der Orient und die Anfänge Europas. Kulturelle Beziehungen von

der Späten Bronzezeit bis zur Frühen Eisenzeit (Oswald Loretz) ............... 933Kevin M. MCGEOUGH, edited by Mark S. SMITH : Ugaritic Economic

Tablets: Text, Translation and Notes (Oswald Loretz) ............................... 934Terence C. MITCHELL / Ann SEARIGHT: Catalogue of the Western Asiatic

Seals in the British Museum. Stamp Seals III. Impressions of Stamps

Seals on Cuneiform Tablets, Clay Bullae, and Jar Handles

(Ellen Rehm) ............................................................................................... 935Ludwig D. MORENZ: Die Genese der Alphabetschrift. Ein Markstein

ägyptisch-kanaanäischer Kulturkontakte. Wahrnehmungen und

Spuren Altägyptens (Oswald Loretz) ........................................................... 936Andreas SCHACHNER : Bilder eines Weltreichs. Kunst- und Kultur-

geschichtliche Untersuchungen zu den Verzierungen eines Tores aus

Balawat (IMGUR-ENLIL) aus der Zeit von Salmanassar III, König von Assyrien (Ellen Rehm) ............................................................... 937

Itamar SINGER (Hrsg.): ipamati kistamati pari tumatimis. Luwian and Hittite

Studies presented to J. David Hawkins on the Occasion of his 70th

Birthday (Manfred Hutter) .......................................................................... 940Richard C. STEINER : Early Northwest Semitic Serpent Spells in the

Pyramid Texts (Oswald Loretz) ................................................................... 944[Raymond WESTBROOK :] Law from the Tigris to the Tiber.

The Writings of Raymond Westbrook. Edited by Bruce Wellsand F. Rachel Magdalene (Kristin Kleber) .................................................. 945

Lorenz WINKLER -HORAČEK (ed.): Wege der Sphinx. Monster zwischen

Orient und Okzident. Eine Ausstellung der Abguss-Sammlung Antiker

Plastik des Instituts für Klassische Archäologie der Freien Universität Berlin (Nadine Nys) .................................................................................... 947



2010] Inhalt vii

Abkürzungsverzeichnis ..................................................................... 951

Indizes

A Stellen ......................................................................................................... 967B Wörter ......................................................................................................... 972C Namen ......................................................................................................... 975D Sachen ......................................................................................................... 986

Anschriften der Autorinnen und Autoren ................................................. 989





The Domestication of the Camel

Biological, Archaeological and Inscriptional Evidence from Mesopotamia,

Egypt, Israel and Arabia, and Literary Evidence from the Hebrew Bible

Martin Heide, Marburg

“When you have excluded the impossible,whatever remains, however improbable,must be the truth.”

(Sherlock Holmes in Sir Arthur Conan Doyle:

The Adventure of the Beryl Coronet)

Introduction ............................................................................................................. 331Early proof for the domestication of the dromedary (important biological

and artistic evidence) .................................. ................................... .................... 339The Bactrian or two-humped camel (important biological and artistic evidence) ... 343Inscriptional evidence for the camel from Mesopotamia ........................................ 345The archaeological and inscriptional evidence and the patriarchs ........................... 360A tentative conclusion ............................................................................................. 367Acknowledgments ................................................................................................... 369Bibliography ............................................................................................................ 370

Introduction

This essay deals with an old conundrum, namely with the question concerningthe date of the domestication of the camel, and with the camel’s earliest refer-ences in the Hebrew Bible. First of all, some of the references to the camel in thePatriarchal narratives will come under scrutiny, because “the question of theorigin of camel domestication traditionally begins [...] with the book of Gene-sis” (Bulliet, 1990, 35). After that, I will give an account of the most importantzooarchaeological evidence and, more specifically, of the inscriptional evidence.Finally, to come to a tentative conclusion, I will try to combine the data whichare available today.

The very first event where this intriguing species is mentioned in the HebrewBible deals with Abraham’s sojourn in Egypt. The larger context (where he isstill called Abram), reads as follows (Gen 12:11–13):

When Abram was about to enter Egypt, he said to Sarai his wife, “I knowthat you are a woman beautiful in appearance, and when the Egyptians



332 M. Heide [UF 42

see you, they will say, ‘This is his wife.’ Then they will kill me, but theywill let you live. Say you are my sister, that it may go well with me be-cause of you, and that my life may be spared for your sake.”

Abram’s fear is that when the Egyptians will see his beautiful wife Sarai theywill try to dispose of him and take possession of Sarai. So Abram cunningly pretends to be her brother. At first sight, his plan succeeds, for not only isAbram’s life spared, but he benefits from this endeavor (Gen 12:14–16):

When Abram entered Egypt, the Egyptians saw that the woman was very beautiful. And when the princes of Pharaoh saw her, they praised her toPharaoh. And the woman was taken into Pharaoh’s house. And for hersake he dealt well with Abram. And he had sheep, oxen, male donkeys, 1 male servants, female servants, female donkeys, and camels.

The well-being of Abram seems to have been measured in his possessions, for itsays “he had sheep, oxen, male donkeys, male servants, female servants, female

donkeys, and camels.”According to one of the most important commentaries on Genesis, by C. We-stermann, the enumeration of Abram’s possessions, who lived according to theBiblical chronology somewhere at the beginning of the 2nd millennium BCE, belongs to the theme “the wealth of the patriarchs”, which can be encounteredthroughout the Patriarchal narratives.2 This theme “is to be understood function-ally, not statistically, and is meant to portray the wealth of the patriarchs forlisteners of a later age; the later elaboration and the anachronism (camels) are to be explained in the same way”. Most of the commentaries of the 19th and 20th centuries give similar interpretations of verse 16. In general, there is agreementin answering the following questions:

1. How did Abram get these possessions? Most commentators say: Theywere given to him by the Pharaoh.2. Why were these goods given to Abram? Most commentators say: as a

kind of compensation for Abram being the ‘brother’ of so beautiful a sis-ter and for losing her.

3. Why are female donkeys together with camels named last? Westermann(1995, 165) comments: “The elaboration is obvious: ‘male and femaleservants’ has been inserted between ‘male donkeys’ and ‘female don-keys’”.

4. Why are camels named among the possessions of Abraham? Most com-mentators are of the opinion that mention of domesticated camels in the

––––––––––––––––––––––1 In this essay, מוח is consistently translated by “male donkey” to differentiate it from

the noun ן ו ת א “female donkey”, although in some places ים ר ו מ ח embraces both gendersand has to be translated “donkeys”.2 In Gen 13:2; 20:14; 24:35; 30:43; 32:15f. (Westermann, 1995, 165; cf. Skinner,1930, 249).



2010] The Domestication of the Camel 333

Patriarchal narratives constitutes an anachronism and was added at a latertime. As will be seen during the discussion, this question is left open, anda hypothesis is proposed which tries to combine archaeological, inscrip-tional and literary evidence.

As to No 1: According to Gen 12:16 Abram owned “sheep, oxen, male donkeys,male servants, female servants, female donkeys, and camels”. The text does notsay how Abram obtained these possessions. The Hebrew used here is ו ל ־ י ה י which is known as an idiom to give the extent of one’s household or of one’s possessions, not only in the Patriarchal narratives, but throughout the HebrewBible.3 Has his wealth been given to him by the Pharaoh directly, or did thePharaoh use his influence to help Abram to attain it? Were these “sheep, oxen,donkeys” of Egyptian origin, of foreign, or of mixed origin – that means, havethey been raised in Egypt, or have they been brought into Egypt? Abram musthave already brought at least some of these possessions into Egypt. When hestarted to leave Mesopotamia, he took “... all the possessions they had accu-

mulated” (Gen 12:5); what did he gain in addition? A look at a similar incidentin the life of Abram (Gen 20) may help to answer these questions. Abraham(alias Abram) moves on to dwell in southern Canaan, in the Philistine city ofGerar. Again, he impersonates the “brother” of Sarah (alias Sarai) in fear of thelocal residents. Again, Sarah is taken into the ruler’s house, and again God in-tervenes and prevents Abimelech, the local ruler, from taking Sarah to be hiswife. Abimelech is alarmed in view of the fact that he was on the verge of com-mitting adultery. He returns Sarah to Abraham, not without considerable repara-tion: “Abimelech took sheep and oxen, and male servants and female servants,and gave them to Abraham, and returned Sarah his wife to him ... And to Sarahhe said, Behold, I have given your brother a thousand pieces of silver: behold, itis your vindication before all that are with you; and in respect of all you arecleared” (Gen 20:14–16). Here the text states explicitly that Abimelech “took... and gave to Abraham” ( .יקח . ה. אב ל יתן ), and added “1000 pieces ofsilver” to recompense Sarah. But no male and female donkeys are involved, norcamels. Here we do not have the possessions in total, which are introduced inGen 12:16 with the ו ל ־ י ה י -formula, but only the goods actually given to him bythe local ruler. In view of that, an interpretation which runs similar to Bulliet’sstatement that the possessions listed in Gen 12:16 were “among the bribes re-ceived by Abraham from the Pharaoh of Egypt in prospect of taking Sarah intohis harem” (Bulliet, 1990, 35; cf. Staubli, 1991, 200) misses the point. His so-

––––––––––––––––––––––3 Gen 26:14; 30:43; Judges 10:4; 12.9.14; 1Kings 11:3; 1Chron 2:22; Job 42:12

etc. The correct translation of the verb in Gen 12:16 is “and he had sheep, oxen, maledonkeys .. . ” (English Standard Version), not “and [he, i. e. the Pharaoh] gave him sheep,oxen, male donkeys ...” (New American Standard Bible). The old versions (Targum,LXX, Vulgate, Peshitta) translated the verse verbally, in similar fashion as the TargumOnqelos: וו ה ו ילעי ר ו ת ו י ר מ ח ו . . . “and to him belonged sheep, oxen, male donkeys.. .”



334 M. Heide [UF 42

journ in Egypt may have increased his possessions considerably, as the ו ל ־ י ה י -formula denotes generally the culmination of accumulated wealth (cf. Gen26: 13–14; 30:43; 32: 6). But the text does not say where and how Abram cameinto the possession of the various species belonging to his live-stock, and which

of these he had already in his possession.As to No 2: the context seems to be suggestive of this interpretation and may

have been interpreted accordingly already in the Genesis Apocryphon,4 but“treating well” (בי יט , the hiph®il ofה טב - in Gen 12:16) does not necessarily imי ply giving, but denotes generally “do well, act benevolently” (DCH IV, 204). Inother words, Pharaoh’s benevolence towards Abram may have opened for himspecial ways of increasing his wealth and gaining possessions, but it does notimply that he personally or through one of his agents endowed Abram with thesegoods. Also, “for her sake he dealt well” (Gen 12:16) does not imply any retri- bution, because “for her sake” (ה ו ב עב) denotes the person which is revered,and does not introduce any equivalent value. In fact, all passages numbering the

possessions of the Patriarchs view the increase of their wealth as a mixture of personal endeavors and general circumstances on the one hand, and of God’s blessings on the other hand.

As to No 3: According to Speiser, this verse has been subject “to some re-shuf fling in the course of transmission” (Speiser, 1962, 90), and Reuter believesthat these lists have “a tendency to attract later additions” (Reuter, 2006, 407).Westermann is more specific in arguing that Gen 12:16 has been elaborated forlisteners of a later age. According to Westermann, “male and female servants”has been inserted between “asses” and “she-asses”. He adds, however, that it isunimportant whether “male and female servants” has been added, as H. Gunkel,A. Dillmann and other supposed, or “she asses” and “camels”, as R. Kilian andB. Brentjes opined (Westermann, 1995, 165).

It seems that, regardless of when the Abraham narrative was written, at leastthree possibilities are imaginable which account for the insertion of female andmale servants and for the inclusion of camels in Gen 12:16:

a) The situation portrayed by the Genesis narrator of Abraham possessingsheep, oxen, donkeys, servants and camels reflects the situation as it wasin the time of Abraham at the beginning of the 2nd millennium BCE. Theword order is peculiar, but reflects nevertheless the goods Abraham hadin his possession.

b) The story narrated in Gen 12 has partly been transmitted from earliersources, but additional material (such as the “servants” or the “camels”)has been added before the time of its final composition, or during the

transmission after it had been written down. Therefore, this additional

––––––––––––––––––––––4 Column XX, 10: אה ל י ד לע ית מתג ו ה “I could profit at her expense” (Fitzmyer, 2004,100.200). The Genesis Apocryphon, however, does not specify any animals among thegifts Abram received (column XIX, 25; column XX, 31).




material, added with good intentions (or whatever reasons) by those whotransmitted the Abraham narrative, may be regarded as anachronisticfrom our point of view.

c) The story narrated in Gen 12 has no historical core at all. It was com-

posed shortly before its final form was written down, perhaps somewhereat the beginning of the first millennium BCE or later (cf. Van Seters,1975, 17. 310).

The problem with all three opinions is that there is no archaeological or similarevidence to prove any of these. Possibility b), which seems to have been em- braced by most commentators, relies heavily on literary observations. But alsothese observations can hardly be seen as clear-cut evidence of a later elabora-tion. As to the peculiar word order of Gen 12:16 it is interesting that its onlytextual variant is known from the Samaritan Pentateuch which transposes “maledonkeys” to follow “female servants”. This kind of smoothing out is typical forthe Samaritan version and virtually supports the lectio dif ficilior found in the

Masoretic text.5

Neither the Septuagint, nor the Targumim, nor the Latin Vul-gate, nor the Peshitta read different from the Hebrew in Gen 12:16. Moreover, acareful look at the order of the various lists of the Patriarch’s possessions6 doesnot reveal any special motive for inserting or adding anything. Most commen-tators point out the fact that these verses look as if they have been enriched bylater additions.

Nevertheless, the sequence “male donkeys, male servants, female servants,female donkeys, and camels” of Gen 12:16 is certainly peculiar. ור מ ח ḥămōr isthe most frequently word used for “donkey”, the Semitic root ḥmr occurring inall the major Semitic languages except Ethiopic (Sima, 2000, 96). In later He- brew as well as in Aramaic, Syriac and Arabic, a feminine form of the root ḥmr

by adding the respective endings was in use. ור מ ח can denote donkeys in gen-

eral, especially when referring to large numbers of donkeys of mixed gender(Way, 2011, 164). Usually, however, the “female donkey” or „jenny“ is denotedin various Semitic languages by the root ¬tn, which in Hebrew is ן ו ת א ¬ăt ōn. Thisnoun has a feminine gender, but not a feminine ending. In Gen 12:16 the list ofAbram’s property embraces מ וגמליח חת תנת שפ ים ו עבד ים “male donkeys,and male servants, and female servants, and female donkeys, and camels”. Theservants (תח שפ ים ו ) are sandwiched between theעבד יחמ “male donkeys” and

the תנת “female donkeys”.In Gen 24:35 and Gen 30:43, on the other hand, donkeys of both gender are

referred to as ם י מ and they are mentioned last together with camels. In Genח12:16 the more common property is listed first (“sheep, and oxen, and male

––––––––––––––––––––––5 The harmonizations in the Samaritan Pentateuch „reflect a tendency to remove internalcontradictions or irregularities from the Torah text that were considered harmful to itssanctity” (Tov, 2012, 82).6 Gen 12:16; 13:2; 20:14; 24:35; 30:43; 32:6.14–15.



336 M. Heide [UF 42

donkeys, and male servants, and female servants”), while the particular propertyis given in addition (“female donkeys and camels”); but on different occasionsthe order may be arbitrary. Nevertheless, for the listings of the patriarchs’ prop-erty, some rules do apply: a) male and female servants ( חעבדים שפ ו ) are never

listed first, but are always mentioned together; b) female donkeys are neverlisted immediately following male donkeys; the sequence תנת ם י מ ח is un-known in the Hebrew Bible. The observation that “‘male and female servants’has been inserted between ‘male donkeys’ and ‘female donkeys’” in Gen 12:16is correct from a purely linguistic or syntactical perspective, but this insertiondoes not provide enough evidence to claim a later reshuffling of Gen 12:16.

The reason for the specific mention of female donkeys at the end of Gen12:16 may be found in the special attention and value female donkeys are givenin the Patriarchal narratives and in the Hebrew Bible as well as in some Ancient Near Eastern texts. In Gen 32:15, among the special presents for his brotherEsau, Jacob selects female donkeys and foals, but no male donkeys. In Gen45: 23, the specific load of the female donkeys is given in distinction to the male

donkeys’ load. They are the means of transportation for rulers (Gen 49:10–11).In Num 22:22–30, YHWH uses a jenny to rebuke the prophet Bileam. They aregiven special attention in the book of Job (1:3.14; 42:12), where no male don-keys are mentioned. Female donkeys are used by wealthy people (Judges 5:10;cf. Borowski, 1998, 97), their loss is to be taken seriously (1Sam 9:2–10:16).Among the stewards of David’s property, “over the female donkeys was Jeh-deiah the Meronothite” (1Chron 27:30), but nobody is mentioned as caretakerof the male donkeys. In Sumerian and Akkadian texts, female donkeys weresometimes evaluated higher than male donkeys (Salonen, 1955, 59). In the phrase ḫayaram mār at ānim „a jackass, the offspring of a jenny“, from Mari(ARM 2.37,11), mār at ānim qualifies, similar as in Gen 49:11 ונת ינ , theב ḫa-

yarum or יר ע respectively as a purebred donkey (Way, 2011, 80–81; HALOT102). From all that we can deduce that ‘female donkeys” were mentioned delib-erately in Gen 12:16 at the end of the more common property to point to the factthat their owner could breed pure donkeys.

Most of our discussion will quite naturally dwell on question No 4, but wewill come back to Abraham later. It is often referred to as a fact that camelswere not domesticated until late in the 2nd millennium BCE, centuries after thePatriarchs were supposed to have lived. Even the great William F. Albright, wellknown for his support of the historicity of the Patriarchal narratives, concludedthat references to camel domestication in the book of Genesis are spurious:“Any mention of camels in the period of Abraham is a blatant anachronism, the product of later priestly tampering with the earlier texts in order to bring them

more in line with altered social conditions” (Albright, 1942, 96). The Semites ofthe time of Abraham, he maintains, herded sheep, goats, and donkeys but notcamels, for the latter had not yet been domesticated and did not really enter theorbit of Biblical history until about 1100–1000 BCE with the coming of theMidianites, the camel riding foes of Gideon.




Proving that something did not exist at some time and place in the past isevery archaeologist’s nightmare because proof of its existence may, despite allclaims to the contrary, be unearthed at some future date. The domestication ofthe camel is today seen as a complex issue. The original reason for the domesti-

cation of the camel is more or less a matter of speculation (Köhler, 1981, 75;Bulliet, 1990, 49; Uerpmann/Uerpmann, 2002, 250). It cannot have been long before its usefulness as a beast of burden became apparent (Macdonald, 1995,1357), which later led to its usage as a mount.

Of the family Camelidae, two species are known to have come into contactwith the cultures of the Near East, the long-legged, one-humped Camelus dro-medarius or dromedary, and the stocky, two-humped Camelus bactrianus orBactrian camel. The former is the well-known species of Northern Africa andthe Arabian Peninsula, while the latter is native to the cold deserts of Inner Asia.Unfortunately, some scholars who dealt with the question of the camel’s domes-tication did not make the effort to differentiate between the two species.

At the beginning of the 20th century it was assumed that the dromedary was but a domestic variant of the two-humped camel. The separation, however, ofthe two species of the camel must have occurred long before their domestica-tion. Both domesticated forms seem to have had wild ancestors (Peters, 1997,560–562; von den Driesch / Obermaier, 2007, 154).

The specific adaption of the camel to desert life has been extensively de-scribed in various publications (most notably Schmidt-Nielsen, 1964), so that wecan confine ourselves to a short sketch of its characteristic features.

Camels have a split upper lip and can open their mouth very wide, which permits them to select the soft parts of thorny desert plants. In a sandstorm, theycan close their nostrils. Camels can survive up to six months on the fat in theirhumps (Macfarlane, 1977). While in other mammals fat is distributed through-

out the body under the skin, the camel is perfectly adapted to life in an arid envi-ronment, because its fat accumulates in a single location, the hump(s). This al-lows the camel to dissipate heat with a minimal loss of water. In addition, waterloss through sweating in very hot climates is mitigated by the camel’s capacityto absorb heat. In the course of a hot day, they allow their blood temperature torise, without ill effect, over 6 degrees Fahrenheit before they begin to perspire(Bulliet, 1990, 31), and they allow it to drop up to 6 degrees Fahrenheit to adaptto a chilly night. Unlike other mammals, the camel’s hair is not involved in the perspiration process and is an effective shield against the radiant heat of the sun.Loss of water may after a long period reach up to 30 % of the camel’s weightwithout ill effect (Köhler, 1981, 43). Camels usually face the sun to expose onlya minimum of their body area to the bright sunlight. Camels have the capability

of reprocessing urea, disenthralling the organism from using water to expel it.The urine of the camel is deposited in highly concentrated form and does on asummer day not exceed one liter. By comparison, the fluctuation of temperaturein humans does not exceed 2 degrees Fahrenheit, and a loss of more than 12 %of human plasma is considered to be fatal.



338 M. Heide [UF 42

Due to the camel’s natural habitat outside urban centers (and therefore alsooutside the normal range of archaeologists in the Near and Middle East, whoconcentrate on the settled communities in the more densely populated areas), theearly evidence for camel-man contacts is meager (cf. Rosen/Saidel, 2010, 64).

The camel was used primarily in the desert, where it would die. It has to be keptin mind that the domestication of the camel does not, as in most cases of domes-tication, imply an adaption of the animal’s ways of life to man, but an adaptionof man to the camel’s way of life; an analogy for that may be found in the do-mestication of the reindeer. This is especially true for the use of the camel as a beast of burden under hostile desert conditions. While the wild Bactrian camelof the Gobi desert in Mongolia is a fugitive animal and is known to be very shy – which may as well apply to the non-domesticated form of the dromedary – there are some factors which are thought to have advanced tameability in the process of domestication:

a) Climatic changes, notably long-lasting droughts in the Near East probably

forced the camel to draw nearer to human habitations, which made iteasier to catch it. b) Camel mares tend to return to the place where they foaled the first time,

even if it takes a journey of several hundred miles. Also, suckling mareshave the habit of returning to where they suckled their foal recently (Bas-kin, 1974).

c) Camels remember places which are good for grazing (Köhler, 1981, 50– 51).

In addition, dromedaries can be easily herded and are far more tolerant of humanhandling than horses or cattle (Köhler, 1984, 203), a fact that may have allowedfor a relatively short time for taming the camel (cf. Compagnoni/Tosi, 1978,

100). Domestication is thefi

nal product of a gradually intensifying relationship between man and animal (Köhler, 1981, 73); it “is a process which happensthrough continued breeding in captivity of populations – not individuals – ofanimals which have been taken from the wild” (Uerpmann/Uerpmann, 2002,250). This applies in particular to the domestication of the camel, which musthave covered an extensive period of time, because its breeding season is shortand the gestation period is long. Suckling females do not go into heat. Investi-gations in livestock growth in Africa suggest that the annual growth rate ofcamel herds reaches on average about 1.5 % and exceeds not 8 %, as against18 % for sheep and more than 33 % for goats (Dahl/ Hjort, 1976, 82–83. 98.103). Domesticated camel mares give birth to their first foal after 5–6 years, andallow at maximum one foal every two years (Wilson, 1984, 97). A considerable

amount of time must be allowed between the commencement of the domestica-tion and the first noticeable characteristic features which differentiate the do-mesticated camel from its wild counterpart. Under human control it is still to beregarded as wild as long as it is held in captivity and closely resembles its wildrelative. Only when significant differences arise can the animal be called do-mestic.




Early proof for the domestication of the dromedary

(important biological and artistic evidence)

The modern dromedary is distributed from Morocco to Western India (Wapnish,

1997, 407). This distribution probably differs from its range in antiquity.In the past, camel remains of hunted animals from Umm an-Nār island (atthe south-eastern fringe of the Arabian peninsula) from the 3rd millennium have been assigned by several scholars to the domesticated dromedary. These camelremains are seen today as evidence to the contrary (Uerpmann/Uerpmann, 2002,238. 258; cf. Köhler, 1981, 78), especially in light of the fact that on Umm an- Nār island bones of other wild hunted species such as the sea cow, the Arabianoryx and the Arabian sand gazelle have been unearthed as well. In addition, a bas-relief of a dromedary on one of the collective graves at Umm an-Nār couldrefer to the wild form as well as to the domesticated form. Some neighboringsites with hunted animal remains did not yield any camel bones, which wouldhave been expected if domesticated dromedaries were kept in the area. Any

features pointing definitely to the domesticated form are missing (Uerp-mann/Uerpmann, 2002, 241), although contact with the wild dromedary musthave been extensive in this area.

Another important site in south-east Arabia is Tell Abraq which was exca-vated between 1989 (cf. Stephan, 2005) and 1998. Among some 100,000 boneswhich have been analyzed from this site, which was occupied between 2300 and300 BCE, there are frequent camel remains. In all probability, camel bones fromthe Bronze Age in Tell Abraq can be assigned to the wild camel. Up to the endof the Bronze Age, these findings decrease by and by virtually to zero, probably by over-hunting. In the Iron Age I level (ca. 1300–1000 BCE), archaeozoologi-cal data are minimal. Later finds from the Iron Age II level (first third of the firstmillennium) should be assigned to its domesticated relative (Uerpmann/Uerp-mann, 2002, 254–255.258). This hypothesis is further corroborated by bonemeasurements which revealed a size decrease from the wild to the domesticatedform at Tell Abraq. Although the finds from Tell Abraq, like most finds, areneither numerous nor well enough preserved to directly compare the skeletalremains of different stratigraphic layers, logarithmic size indices were calculatedfor scaling all available measurements of skeletal elements which made themcomparable with each other (Uerpmann, 2008, 437). As a result, the camel re-mains from the Iron Age levels were generally smaller than those from theBronze Age, while the Bronze Age sizes generally matched those from theUmm an-Nār island. Size decrease is a typical indicator in animal bones if theseanimals underwent the domestication process.7 When all these data were com-

pared to another Iron Age II site (Muwaylaḥ), they suggested that in Muwaylaḥ both forms existed side by side, the domesticated dromedary and its wild rela-tive which must have been hunted near the site. The data found in Tell Abraq,

––––––––––––––––––––––7 But cf. the cautions brought forward by Zeder (2006, 109).



340 M. Heide [UF 42

however, give no evidence of the local domestication of the dromedary. Thewild form disappeared gradually, while the domesticated form seems to haveturned up at once (Uerpmann/Uerpmann, 2002, 255–258).8

The largest amount of camel bones ever unearthed (nearly 18,000 bones,

belonging to more than 123 camels) were excavated between 2001 and 2004 inaṣ-Ṣuf ūḥ (Al Sufouh, Dubai, UAE). This site was in use between the middle ofthe 3rd millennium through the middle of the 2nd millennium BCE. Cut and chopmarks on the various bones, as well as the fact that they were not found in ana-tomical association, indicates that these animals were butchered onsite. Usingthe same method of logarithmic size indices as applied to the Tell Abraq andUmm an-Nār bones, these camel remains could be demonstrated to be generallyof the same size than those from Tell Abraq and Umm an-Nār. The bones fromaṣ-Ṣuf ūḥ should therefore likewise be seen as belonging to wild animals (vonden Driesch / Obermaier, 2007, 148–149). The dromedaries probably visited thesite at certain times to feed on salty plants and were waylaid, hunted down and butchered over an extended period of time. Although some facts may indicatethat these animals belonged to the domesticated kind (von den Driesch / Ober-maier, 2007, 151), a critical analysis of all the data points convincingly to thewild camel. A further site with camel remains has been discovered in Baynūna(Baynunah, UAE). These bones had no cut and chop marks and were partly ofthe same and partly of larger size than those found in aṣ-Ṣuf ūḥ. They can bedated to the 5th millennium BCE (Beech/Mashkour et al ., 2008).

All these data suggest that the dromedary, at least in south-east Arabia, didnot appear in its domesticated form before the end of the 2 nd millennium. Be-sides the biological remains and their evaluation via bone measurements, how-ever, archaeological and historical evidence is required to reach a more secureknowledge of the domestication process. Moreover, it has to be kept in mind

that most of the processes involved with the use of the camel – i. e. breeding,nurturing, milking, and riding – are not reflected in the archaeological record.More specific evidence of when and where the dromedary was domesticated islargely unknown.

Camel remains are also known from Israel and its surrounding areas, butthere are only very few dromedary remains before the Iron Age which usuallydo not give any further evidence as to their domestication status (Hakker-Orion,1984, 209).9 In 1970, more than 400 camel bones were recovered at Tell Jem-meh, in the southern part of Israel’s southern plain, about 10 km south of Gaza(Wapnish, 1984, 171). Only some of these, however, can be assigned to the stra-

––––––––––––––––––––––8

A different scenario seems to have been reported by Agatharchides of Cnidos, who,writing in the 2nd century BCE, knew of wild camels at the coastal regions of the Eryth-raean sea, hundreds of years after the camel had been domesticated (Burstein, 1989,152); these, however, may be seen as the feral offspring of domesticated animals.9 For an overview of all sites where camel remains have been found in the Southern Le-vant, see Horwitz/Rosen, 2005, 127–128.




tigraphic context of the late Bronze Age, while most bones have to be dated tothe 7th century BCE. Most of these camel bones bear cut and chop marks at major skeletal joints, which points to their use as a meat source. They probablyderive from transport animals in the service of the Assyrian kings eventually uti-

lized as a source of food (Wapnish, 1984, 179). The earlier stratigraphic layers(first half of the 2nd millennium and earlier) did not yield any camel remains. Theoverall picture seems to be clear: Domesticated dromedaries appeared en masseafter the beginning of the first millennium BCE in the Arabian Peninsula and theSouthern Levant (Zarins, 1992, 825). From about these times, we have also thefirst references to camel riders further north.10

Well-known are the terracotta dromedaries from Uruk from the first half ofthe first millennium BCE.11 Several of these camel-figurines have ornamentalnotches on their necks,12 and one figurine has notches (No 598) between itshump and its tail which may point to its use as a draught animal. Among theearlier Uruk finds, there is the body of a terracotta dromedary (without its legsand its head) from the Ubaid-period (early 4th millennium BCE) which does notyield enough information to mark it as “domesticated”.13

It has been claimed that several camel remains and artifacts from Egypt can be assigned to the 3rd millennium or even earlier (Ripinsky, 1985), but again it isnot clear whether they belong to domesticated or wild animals, or to camels atall.14 Well-known is a camel with a basket on its back in repose from Abu SirAl-Malaq, dated to the 3rd millennium BCE or earlier.15 There are, however, nohumps visible, and the shape is somewhat clumsy; it more likely represents theBactrian camel than its Arabian relative. Nevertheless, there seems to be no ani-mal except the camel which would look close enough to the shape represented by this tomb find. Due to many items from Western Asia which were found inthese tombs, the Abu Sir Al-Malaq camel is usually held to be an import, which

would be in favor of its interpretation as a Bactrian camel. It is on display in the“Neues Museum” in Berlin, which reopened in 2009.

––––––––––––––––––––––10 The camel-riders carved in limestone, which have been found in Tell Ḥalaf and Karke-miš, have been dated from the 10 th to the 8th centuries BCE (Orthmann, 1971, plate 8.28; Staubli, 1991, Abb. 54. 55; cf. http://art.thewalters.org/detail/37529/slab-with-dromedary-rider-from-tell-halaf/).11 Ziegler, 1962, 88–91; No 585–612; plate 21, 308a–316; for the dating, see Ziegler,1962, 173.12 No 585 586 597 602 603; see also Ziegler, 1962, 174.13 Ziegler, 1962, 35, No 194; plate 4, No 69. Ziegler (1962, 152) points to the fact that thedromedary has stripes on its back as the ox (plate 3, No 45. 51–52). Clear signs of itsdomestication status, however, are missing (Heimpel, 1980, 330).14 For a detailed discussion see Midant-Reynes/Braunstein-Silvestre, 1977; Köhler,1981, 105–108; Rowley-Conwy, 1988.15 The location is often cited as “Abusir El-Melek”. See also Scharff, 1926, 40; Keimer,1929, 85–87.



342 M. Heide [UF 42

A bone fragment, which can definitely be assigned to a dromedary, wasfound during the excavation of several graves belonging to the Nubian PanGrave Culture16 (1800–1600 BCE) at the upper Nile (Bietak, 1966, 34.38).Given the rare occurrence of camel remains in Egypt, the find of some sherds

with an incised sketch of a dromedary has to be regarded as one of the mostspectacular finds of the last decades. The sherds from the city of Ramses belongto a dish made from local Nile clay which is dated to the late 18 th or early 19th dynasty (14th –13th centuries BCE). It seems that dromedaries were principallyknown during that period (Pusch, 1996). It should be stressed that the Nile Deltais not the natural habitat of the dromedary because of its high humidity; there-fore, any artifact depicting the camel from the city of Ramses has a strong probability to refer to domesticated animals. This evidence virtually supports along-known artifact from a tomb of the later 13th century, namely, a kneelingcamel loaded with two jars (Petrie, 1907, pl. XXVII).17 From the early firstmillennium BCE, we have some camel remains (dung pellets) which were foundin Qaṣr Ibrim in Egyptian Nubia (Rowley-Conwy, 1988).

In view of this it is all the more astonishing that the camel is never men-tioned in any Egyptian text known today (Free, 1944, 192; Albright, 1946b,120). There are no entries of “camel”/“Kamel” in the Egyptian dictionaries,18 and no depictions of camels are known. Did the Egyptians use another word or phrase for “camel” which has not yet been identified? Some suggested that thecamel was ignored by the Egyptians for aesthetic reasons (Müller, 1893, 142;Jensen 1895, 333), but there is virtually no evidence for this (Mikesell, 1955,237–238; cf. Skinner, 1930, 250). Another reason may be seen in the fact that

––––––––––––––––––––––16 The Pan Grave Culture is named after the typical circular pit graves, which sometimeshave a small stone circle as their superstructure.17

“The pottery figure of a camel laden with water-jars was found in a tomb of the XIX th dynasty in the northern cemetery. There were no traces of a later re-use of the tomb; thestyle of the figure is of the rough fingered pottery of the XIXth dynasty, and quite unlikeany of the moulded Roman figures; and the water-jar is of the XVIII th –XIXth dynastytype and not of a form used in Greek or Roman times. Hence it is impossible to assignthis to the age when the camel is familiar in Egypt, and it shows that as early as Rames-side times it was suf ficiently common to be used as a beast of burden” (Petrie, 1907, 23).

In addition, it seems that more recently some camel petroglyphs, in association withhuman figures, could be identified in the Sinai Peninsula, dating back to ca. 1500 BCE(Younker/Koudele, 2007, 57). Yet the dating of these petroglyphs is possible only indi-rectly, supposing that inscriptions and petroglyphs were made at the same time. There isno secure way of linking the inscriptions and the petroglyphs because the texts make nomention of the drawings. Moreover, if the petroglyphs were made some hundred years

later, they would very probably look the same today. Perhaps it might be possible tocompare the patina on the inscriptions and the petroglyphs, but this would presupposethat the two carvings received the same amount of exposure.18 See Erman/Grapow, 1982, 85.197, and Hannig, 2000, 695. For earlier suggestionslike those of Houghton, 1890, see Müller 1893, 142, and Midant-Reynes/Braunstein-Sil-vestre, 1977, 354; cf. also Walz, 1954, 40.




the camel was associated with people from Western Asia who were often re-garded as enemies (cf. Keimer, 1929, 89).

Nevertheless, in the later stages of the Egyptian language, a term for “camel”turns up as a Semitic loanword (Vycichl, 1983, 341). The form of the word for

“camel” in Demotic ( gmwl ) and Coptic (kjamūl ) shows inner-Egyptian soundchanges which require its adoption before the 7th century BCE (Quack, 2002,899), probably at the beginning of the first millennium BCE (Quack, 2005, 321;cf. Kuhrt, 1999, 183) or earlier (Vittmann, 1996, 435.444.447; cf. Albright,1950).

Curiously, the earliest known inscriptional references to camels in Egypt arenot from Egypt but from Mesopotamia. On the famous Black Obelisk of Shal-maneser III (9th century BCE), two Bactrian camels are depicted on relief No 9as the “tribute of the land of Muṣri” (Egypt).19 Some two hundred years later,Esarhaddon introduced camels which he had obtained from Arabian chieftains tocarry water for the use of his army into Egypt.20

The evidence for the camel in Egypt has to be evaluated in the light of thenatural habitat of this animal. The evidence of a desert animal should be expected to be marginal in comparison with the commonly well attested livestock(sheep, goats, cattle and donkeys).

While for Egypt, the Arabian Peninsula and the Levant well-defined archaeo-logical and artistic evidence for the domesticated camel before the first millen-nium BCE is elusive, Iran and its adjacent regions is an area which definitelyyields more data.

The Bactrian or two-humped camel (important biological and

artistic evidence)

Modern Bactrian camels are distributed from Anatolia to Mongolia. This distribution was probably different in antiquity due to environmental conditions(Wapnish, 1997, 407). The wild two-humped camel (Camelus ferus) of Asia,which survived in two areas of the Gobi desert, is usually considered to be the progenitor of the domestic Bactrian camel, but this connection has recentlycome under scrutiny.21 Representations of this wild species are known from sev-

––––––––––––––––––––––19 The Bactrian camels are led by Egyptian tribute bearers and did not necessarilyoriginate from Egypt itself (Houlihan, 1996, 39). For a discussion of the identity of Muṣ-ri cf. Tadmor, 1961; Elat, 1978, 21; Mitchell, 2000, 188–190; Kessler, 1993–1997, 497,and Röllig, 1993–1997, 267–268. The writing of mu-u ṣ-ri for “Egypt” was common in

Akkadian sources (Röllig, 1993–1997, 264–265). The date of this event (i. e. of thereceipt of tribute from Egypt as displayed on the Black Obelisk) is unknown.20 Borger, 1956, 112, Rs, line 2: anše gam-mal-li šá šarrâni meš mât A-ri-bi ka-li-šú-un a[d-kêma nâdâti ê?-mi]d-su-nu-ti.21 The Camelus ferus of the Gobi desert seems to differ more from the Bactrian camelthan was formerly believed and may not be related genealogically to its supposed do-



344 M. Heide [UF 42

eral rock-art paintings in Mongolia and from the regions between Inner Asia andSiberia, which, however, are not easily dateable (Potts, 2004a, 146; Peters / vonden Driesch, 1997, 652). Camel remains which are believed to belong to thetwo-humped camel are likewise not easily assignable, and isolated camel bone

finds are often not found in situ. Peters and von den Driesch (1997, 656) devel-oped three criteria which allow the assignment of camel bone finds to the do-mesticated two-humped camel: a) Bones of the domestic two-humped camelcannot be distinguished from those of its wild progenitor. Therefore, only boneswhich are found outside those areas where there is no early to mid-Holocenerecord of wild C. ferus should be assigned to the domesticated Bactrian camel. b) Only bones from dated stratigraphic contexts are considered, which eitherhave no overlying younger strata or which can be dated directly. c) The docu-mentation of these early finds must be done thoroughly, and detailed photo-graphs or drawings must be included in the publication to be able to verify theirspecific status.

These criteria can now be applied to the most important finds. At the borderregion between Khurasan (Iran) and Turkmenistan, camel bones dating pre-sumably to the late 4th / early 3rd millennium were unearthed over 100 years ago(Duerst, 1908; Compagnoni/Tosi, 1978, 98). Of these, the species (two humped/ dromedary), however, is uncertain, and feature b) (overlying younger stratum / bones have not been dated) is lacking. The often referred to camel bone findsfrom Shahr-i Sokhta in Sistan (Zarins, 1992, 825), found in a stratum which can be dated to 2700–2500 BCE, lack feature b) (there are overlying younger strata / bones have not been dated). A shaft-hole axe from a grave in Khurab (IranianBaluchistan) is believed to show a Bactrian camel in repose and is dated (on the basis of comparable finds from datable contexts) to the end of the 3rd / beginningof the 2nd millennium BCE,22 but the ultimate origin of this axe is unclear. On

the alluvial plain of the Indus valley in Pakistan, sites which can be assigned tothe Harappan Period (second half of the 3rd millennium BCE) yielded somecamel bones, but here the investigation could not be carried out thoroughly.23 Further faunal remains, pointing to the appearance of the domesticated camel inthe middle of the 3rd millennium, have been found at the Kopet Dagh foothillsides in Ulug-depe, Altyn-depe and Namazga-depe in Southern Turkmenistan(Potts, 2004a, 149).

Some Early Bronze Age finds of clay camels attached to miniature clay cartsin the same area suggest that the two-humped camel was already employed inSouthern Turkmenistan by the early 3rd millennium BCE (Peters / von denDriesch, 1997, 658–660; Kohl, 1984, 186). Recently, Kirtcho (2009) pointed to

––––––––––––––––––––––mesticated successor; “the extant wild camel is a separate lineage but not the direct pro-genitor of the domestic Bactrian camel” (Ji/Cui, 2009, 377).22 Maxwell-Hyslop, 1955; Zeuner, 1955; Lamberg-Karlovsky, 1969; Potts, 2004a, 151;

but cf. Peters / von den Driesch, 1997, 657–658.23 Badam, 1984, 349; Peters / von den Driesch, 1997, 658; Potts, 2004a, 151.




the implications of these cart models. Together with other finds, the cart models provide a history of how wheeled transportation emerged in the area and laterdeveloped. By 3,000 BCE, the climate became more arid and the people ofAltyn-depe could no longer trust their cattle-pulled carts to make long journeys.

Two-humped camels were more able to handle the drier climate, so that (Bac-trian) camel-pulled carts became the new standard for this region in the secondhalf of the 3rd millennium (Kirtcho, 2009, 32).

Potts (2004a, 150) also points to the two-humped camel on some iconographic copper stamp seals from Bactria. Some of these seals were not found in si-tu, and they are often not described in detail and are very generally assigned tothe Bronze Age (Winkelmann, 1999, 122–126; 133–137; 189 Abb. 4; 200 Abb.16). Of particular interest, however, are some gold- and silver vessels fromGonur Depe in Turkmenistan which bear representations of Bactrian camels.They were found in situ and are dateable to the late 3rd millennium (Sarianidi,2005, 234–238, figs. 94–97, and 252). Also, bones of the Bactrian camel fromlater times have been found in the general area (Peters / von den Driesch, 1997,661).

Numerous clay-figurines of Bactrian camels have been found at Pirak in Pa-kistani Baluchistan (Santoni, 1979, 177–179; figs. 94–95, plates 42B and 43),dating to 1800 BCE at the earliest. The often referred to cylinder seal from theWalters Art Gallery, dateable to the 18th century (Porada, 1977, 1), seems todepict in a (rather clumsy) Old Syrian style a Bactrian camel, bearing a divinecouple; yet it is unprovenanced.24 The excavations at Tall Šēḫ Ḥamad / Dūr-Katlimmu at the Ḫā būr-river in Syria yielded bones of the Bactrian camel,dateable to the 13th –12th centuries (Becker, 2008, 83–85).

With the beginning of the first millennium, the use of the domesticated Bac-trian camel in trade and war is well attested, which does not need any further

explanation. The evidence so far points “to an ever-expanding zone in whichC. bactrianus is attested archaeologically outside the presumed native habitat ofC. ferus” (Potts, 2004a, 153). It has to be kept in mind that the very termC. bactrianus is virtually a misnomer because it does not denote the originalcountry of domestication (Bactria = northern Afghanistan / southern Uzbekis-tan), but only points to the general region where the C. bactrianus was knownwhen the name was given (Bulliet, 1990, 143). The earliest known author tohave used this term is the Greek philosopher Aristotle.

Inscriptional evidence for the camel from Mesopotamia

If we take a look at the inscriptional evidence for the camel in Mesopotamian

sources, it is first of all important to clarify the lexical terms for the Bactriancamel and for the dromedary. In the Akkadian language of the first millennium,

––––––––––––––––––––––24 Gordon, 1939, 21 and no. 55; cf. http://art.thewalters.org/detail/27381/cylinder-seal-with-a-two-humped-camel-carrying-a-divine-couple/ .



346 M. Heide [UF 42

the terms employed were mainly gammalu/ gamlu25 for “camel”, ibilu26 for“dromedary” and udru27 for “two-humped camel”.

The relationship of these Akkadian designations to the earlier Sumeriansources can be illuminated by means of the Sumerian-Akkadian lexical series

urra28 = ḫubullu, where Sumerian entries point to Akkadian equivalents. Mostof the extant textual witnesses of these series are careful copies of the first mil-lennium BCE, when a kind of canonical or standardized version had emerged.This version is the ultimate outcome of a very old tradition. The “canonical”version had older Vorlagen, called “Vorläufer” (forerunners), which reach backto the 2nd millennium.29 The urra series are ordered according to their main subject and deal with such things as hides and leather products (urra XI), metalsand metal products (urra XII), domesticated animals (urra XIII), wild animals(urra XIV) and meat products (urra XV). urra XIII has hundreds of entriesand lists all kinds of varieties and conditions of domesticated animals. These are basically the sheep, the goat, the ox, the mule and the donkey. The u rra serieswere primarily designed to teach Sumerian and, as such, have no clear-cut tax-onomy.

The dromedary is listed in the anše section (equids, lines 360–375) of urraXIII and appears as anše.a.ab.ba → i-bi-lu (MSL 8/1, 51, 366). It followsafter the donkey for the wagon (364) and the second donkey [in a yoke]30 (365),and comes before the “runner” (367),31 the “brayer” and the “roarer”(368–369),which are vernacular terms for the donkey.

––––––––––––––––––––––25 Gammalu (CAD G, 35) is a West-Semitic loanword (AHw 279; DRS 3, 140; SED II,117).26 ibilu follows the nominal pattern fi®il which is very unusual, not only in Akkadian(CAD I/J, 2), but also in Arabic; the root has a non-Semitic origin (AHw 363). ibilu is

common in the Semitic languages except for the Canaanite group (Sima, 2000, 18). Inthe Old Arabian (Sabean) texts of the first millennium BCE, it exclusively referred to thedomesticated dromedary. In the Islamic period بل ibilإ indicated both the dromedary andthe Bactrian camel (Pellat, 1971).27

udru is an Iranian/Persian loanword (AHw 1401); cf. تر ش ا uštur (Vullers I, 102),which served also as a loanword in the form of ú ṣṭ raḥ in Sanskrit (Mayrhofer I, 113– 114; III, 652).28 Also referred to as ḪAR-r a or ur 5 -ra. The series is called after its first line, urra =ḫubullu, meaning “interest owed”.29 Other lexical lists which are different from the urra series appear among the earliestcuneiform tablets at the beginning of the 3 rd millennium. For an introduction and moredetails on ancient Mesopotamian lexicography see Civil, 1995; Veldhuis, 1999.30 Cf. Oppenheim/Hartman, 1945, 173; read te-nu-ú instead of di-nu-ú ; AHw 1347 andCAD T, 344.31 The “runner” may be seen as a designation for the donkey or for the camel. In theurgud series, the “runner” ( šá-nu-ú) is listed in line 248, between anše.a.ab.ba andam.s i .ḫar .ra .an.




There are also some wild animals listed in urra XIII, but out of nearly 400entries of the “canonical” version of the first millennium, these seem to accountonly for the aurochs (am → ri-i-[mu], MSL 8/1, 41, 281) and the onager ordesert donkey (a nš e. ed in .n a → sér-re-mu, MSL 8/1, 52, 374).32 The aurochs

is listed also in urra XIV, a list of wild animals (am → ri-i-mu, MSL 8/2, 10,48), where it functions as head of the am section.The entry for the aurochs inurra XIII comes after the first entry for the (domesticated) ox (gud/gu 4 → al-

pi, MSL 8/1, 41, 280), and before the bull-calf (gu 4 .áb → mi-i-ru4) and allkinds of oxen and cows (MSL 8/1, 41, 282–332). In terms of paleography, thesign for am is based on the combination of the signs for gud/gu 4 ( ) andkur ( ) which results in the ligature GUD×KUR ( ). The onager (anše.edin.na) belongs certainly from a linguistic perspective to the anše section.These conditions account for the inclusion of the aurochs and the onager in urraXIII. In addition, the aurochs, as the ancestor of all domestic cattle in Europe,West Africa and Northern Asia, was at times, at least before the 2nd millennium,cross-bred with its domesticated relative.33 Domestic asses were crossed with

onagers which resulted in a cross-breed which combined the docility of the don-key with the strength and speed of the onager.34 These conditions could wellhave influenced the inclusion of both animals in forerunners of the “canonical”lists of the first millennium. But anše.a.ab.ba, although being for the samelinguistic reason as anše .e di n.n a in the an še section, was never identified as awild animal.35

––––––––––––––––––––––32 It is not clear whether the “mountain[-bred] sheep” or “upcountry sheep” (udu.kur.ra → im-mer-ri šá-di-i, MSL 8/1, 10, 35) and the “mountain[-bred] goat” (m áš. kur .r a→ ú-ri- ṣu ša-de-e, MSL 8/1, 32, 225) were regarded as wild animals; see Postgate,

1992, 162–163. In this case, they have also been listed according to their linguistic cate-gory udu and máš respectively. Further designations of wild sheep known from otherlists are udu .t il (bibbu) “wild sheep” (cf. Civil, 1989, 17) and ud u.ḫur .s ag “mountainsheep”. These animals were used for cross-breeding with domesticated sheep (Postgate,2009, 116; 1986, 199; Steinkeller, 1995, 50. 54).33 Heimpel (1968, 79) points to the Sumerian terms áb a am “cow which originatesfrom the aurochs”, gu 4 a am “cattle which originates from the aurochs” and similar ex-

pressions (see also Waetzold, 2006–2008, 377. 387); cf. also Postgate, 1992, 162 for alist of crossbred animals offered to the gods from the Ur III period. For crossbreeding theaurochs with domesticated cattle outside of Mesopotamia see Götherström/Anderung etal., 2005.34 See Postgate, 1986, and Postgate, 1992, 166; cf. Maekawa, 1979, and Clutton-Brock,

1986, 213; 1999, 122–127.35 Typical lists of large wild animals (besides those known from lexical lists) include

bears, hyenas, lions, leopards, tigers, the deer, the aurochs and the ibex (CAD A, 225) aswell as panthers and boars (CAD D, 38). We further know of wild asses and onagers(CAD A/1, 374–375; A/2, 344), but wild camels were never included. Cf. also thecatalogue of hunted animals (“Jagdtierkatalog”) in Salonen, 1976, 151ff.



348 M. Heide [UF 42

The series urgud, a kind of commentary to the urra series which is helpingwith further suggestions of meaning, has the entry anše.a.ab.ba → i-bi-lu → [ gam-ma-lu]36 (MSL 8/ 1, 54, 247).

In urra XIV, a list of wild animals, the camel is listed in the context of such

animals as the elephant and the aurochs, and it appears as am.si.kur.ra → i-bi-lu (MSL 8/2, 10, 55–56; cf. Horowitz, 2008, 599) and am.si. ḫar.ra.an → i-bi-lu.37 In the series urgud, we have the entry am.si.ḫar.ra.an → i-bi-lu[ gam-ma-lu] (MSL 8/2, 44, 249).

All these entries point to ibilu38 as the Akkadian equivalent in the secondcolumn, related to gammalu in the urgud series, which, as in Arabian sources, primarily denoted the dromedary or one-humped camel.39

A consensus has evolved, however, to identify am.si.kur.ra and am.si.ḫar.ra.an as Sumerian designations for the Bactrian camel and anše.a.ab.baas the Sumerian term for the dromedary. In the Sumerian term anše.a.ab.ba“donkey of the sea”, the specification “of the sea” points either to the way bywhich this animal reached Mesopotamia, or more probably to the country (“sea-[land]”, i. e. Arabia) from where it was imported (Dougherty, 1932, 155–174;Salonen, 1956, 88); cf. the designation anše.kur.ra “donkey of the mountain-[land]” for the horse. On the other hand, the designation am.si.kur.ra for theBactrian camel refers to the east. The specification ku r “mountain; land” seemsto point to the Zagros-mountains east of Mesopotamia. In a m.si .ḫar. ra. an, theAkkadian word ḫarr ānum “way; road” or “journey; caravan” seems to refer primarily to the use of the Bactrian camel in caravan trading.

If the Bactrian camel was referred to in the inscriptions of the first millen-nium outside of the urra and urgud lists, it was either introduced as a specialform of the camel, “a camel [written anše.a.ab.ba] with two humps”,40 or it

––––––––––––––––––––––36 For details of the reconstruction of the third column, see footnote 85.37 For am.si.kur.ra being a synonym of am.si.ḫar .r a. an , see also de Maaijer / Ja-gersma, 2003–2004, 355.38 A look at the oldest inscriptional evidence from the Arabian Peninsula reveals that inSabean, ¬bl “camel” (which in Sabean always refers to the dromedary) is epigraphicallyattested in texts from the seventh century BCE onwards, but it never refers to the wildform of the camel (Sima, 2000, 20).39 CAD I/J, 2, and Salonen, 1956, 88, are giving the entry ibilu as referring to the “Ara-

bian camel ; dromedary”, while AHw 363, Heimpel, 1980, 330, and CDA, 124, are more

cautious in specifying the meaning of ibilu as “camel; dromedary”.40 The Bactrian camel is twice referred to as an “anše.a.ab.ba with two humps” on theBlack Obelisk inscription of Shalmaneser III (858–824; see footnote 77). A dated debtnote from the reign of Esarhaddon (674 BCE) is introduced with, 2 anše.a.ab.ba ša 2-a za-kar-ru-u-ni “two anše.a.ab.ba that are called two-[humped] ...” (ADD, No 117,1 ; Postgate, 1976, No 38 ; Kwasman/Parpola, 1991, No 241).




was called udru41 which designated exclusively the Bactrian camel. But evenwhen the Assyrian scribe employed the term udru for the Bactrian camel, he pointed sometimes in a tautological fashion to the fact that it was two-humped,as in the Kurkh-Stele of Shalmaneser III (858–824), where Bactrian camels are

specified among the tribute as 7 ud-ra-te42 šá 2 gu-un-gu-li-pi-ši-na “seven (fe-male Bactrian) camels whose humps are two”.43

It is a striking fact, however, that udru has never been assigned to am.si.kur. ra and am.si.ḫar.ra.an in the lexical series urra and urgud, althoughudru is attested in the Akkadian literature from the 11th century onwards (AHw1401). The assignations of ibilu and gammalu to am.si.kur.ra and am.si.ḫar.ra.an seem to have been well anchored in tradition, so that there was noneed to include udru as a new loanword in the urra lists. It is in the Neo-As-syrian “practical vocabulary of Assur” only that we find an entry for udru in theform anšeud-ra-a-ti; this entry, however, follows subsequently to anše.a.ab.baand does not include am .s i. ku r. ra or am. si .ḫar.ra.an.44

The dromedary, on the other hand, was never referred to in any literature asan “anše.a.ab.ba/am.si.kur.ra/am. si.ḫar.ra.an/udru / ibilu / gammalu withone hump”. In the same stele of Shalmaneser III, dromedaries are mentionedoutside of the lexical lists for the first time. Among the tribute of the Arabianking Gindibu “1000 dromedaries” are simply listed as 1 LIM anše gam-ma-lu.45 Inthe inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III (745–727) and in some inscriptions of his

––––––––––––––––––––––41 The first reference in the form ud-ra-a-temeš is from the Obelisk-Inscription of Ashur-

bel-kela (1074–1054 BCE ; col. iv, line 27), formerly ascribed to Tiglath-Pileser I. In theeditio princeps (Budge/King, 1902, 142) and in the edition prepared by Grayson (1976,55), the cuneiform-signs were translated as “dromedaries”; but cf. the correct translation

in Grayson, 1991, 104, and AHw 1401. The next mention of Bactrian camels comesfrom the inscription of Tukulti-Ninurta II (890–884) where 30 (female) Bactrian camels(not “dromedaries”; cf. Heimpel, 1980, 331, and Grayson, 1991, 175) are referred to as“30 ud-ra-te” (Grayson, 1991, 175, line 78; AHw 1401).42 Mitchell, 2000, 188, reads ud-ra-a-te, but the cuneiform copy according to Rawlinsonreads ud-ra-te (1861, plate 8, line 62), although ud-ra-a-te (fem. pl. with long ā) is to beexpected; cf. Grayson, 2002, 21, who reads tam(a)-ra-te(? typo for tam-ra(-a)-te, tam

being the same sign as ud ) and AHw 1401, ud-ra(-a)-te.43 Kurkh-Stela, col. II, line 62. For the text and its translation, see Grayson, 2002, 21; fora discussion, see Mitchell, 2000, 187–189. A similar construction is found on the throne-

base inscription from Nimrud, where the text reads ú-du-ri meš šá šu-un-na gu-ga-li-pe-ši-na“ (Bactrian) camels whose humps are double” (Hulin, 1963, 51–52, line 18; cf. Hulin,1963, 60; Grayson, 2002, 103; CAD U/W, 22). Another expression is known fromShamshi-Adad V (823–810): anšeud-ra-a-ti šá 2.TA.ÀM iš-qu-bi-ti “(female Bactrian)camels with two humps” (Grayson, 2002, 185, col. ii, line 56).44 Landsberger/Gurney, 1957–1958, 332; cf. also footnote 85.45 Grayson, 2002, 23, line 94. This is the earliest known inscriptional reference to theWest-Semitic root gml .



350 M. Heide [UF 42

successors, the dromedary was written anše .a .ab .ba 46 and the Bactrian camelappeared as anšeudru;47 in some of Sargon’s (721–705) inscriptions and in mostof the inscriptions of Sennacherib (705–681), Esarhaddon (681–669) and Ashur- banipal (669–631/ 627), the dromedary was referred to as anšegam.mal.48 The

syllabic writing of ibilu is limited to some inscriptions of Sennacherib.49 Thesumerogram anše.a.ab.ba, however, survived until the Late Babylonian pe-riod.50

These data strongly suggest that the Bactrian camel was seen as a special form of the camel, while the dromedary was seen as the usual from of the camel.The dromedary was not regarded as a novelty which had to be defined by itsrelative, the Bactrian camel, which had been domesticated already in the 3rd mil-lennium, but vice versa: the Bactrian camel was in the lexical lists and some-times also in campaign reports and in contract-letters defined by going back tothe common terms used for the dromedary in the 2nd millennium (see below).But how do we have to understand this if the dromedary, as the zooarchaeo-logical record from south-east Arabia suggests, was not domesticated before theend of the 2nd millennium?

In addition, the two Sumerian terms for the Bactrian camel, am.si.kur.raand am. si. ḫar.ra.an, were never used, except in lexical lists, in any inscrip-

––––––––––––––––––––––46 Ann. 14*:4; 4:2.20’; Iran Stele IIIA:22 (Tadmor, 2007, 68.88.108.226); see alsofootnote 95. See also the inscriptions of Sargon: Ann. 125.272; var. lect . Prunk 27(Fuchs, 1994, 110.240.198); campaign-report No 8 :26 .210. 263 (Mayer, 1983, 70.88.94). For Sennacherib, see Smith, 1921, 36.62–63, line 29, and Frahm, 1997, 45.47 The Bactrian camel is frequently mentioned in Tiglath-Pileser’s inscriptions in the

fem. pl. form udr āti : Ann. 11:8; 16:10; Stele 1B:14’; Iran Stele IIIA: 28; Summ.7:33.39 (Tadmor, 2007, 48.74.98.108.164.166); for Sargon, see campaign-report

No 8, line 50: anšeud-re (Mayer, 1983, 72); for Sennacherib, see Luckenbill, 1924, 51, line29. For Esarhaddon (anšeú-du-re) and Nabopolassar (625–605; ud-ru), see Salonen, 1956,87.48 For Sargon, see Ann. 352.406; Prunk 185 gam.mal meš ; Prunk 27 anšegam.mal(Fuchs, 1994, 163.178.246.198); cf. also the Nimrud letter XXIII, 3 (Saggs, 1955,134). For Sennacherib, see Luckenbill, 1924, 25 (line 52); 26 (l. 56); 28 (l. 20); 33(l. 25); 51 (l. 29); 57 (l. 16); Frahm, 1997, 51–52.54 ( anšegam.malmeš ; lines 14–15.27.51). It is not always clear whether dromedaries or Bactrian camels are in view in Sen-nacherib’s inscription, but usually the context is clear; cf. lim anšegam.malmeš “1000dromedaries” (from Te¬elḫunu the Arabian queen) in the campaign-report No 8 (line 54’,Frahm, 1997, 131). For Esarhaddon, see Borger, 1956, 53–54 (lines 17.21); 64 (line59); 112, Rs line 2. For Ashurbanipal, see CAD G, 36.49 Sennacherib’s scribes used i-bi-lu infrequently (Luckenbill, 1924, 130, lines 66–67;CAD I / J, 2) and preferred to write anšegam.mal.50 Cf. sal.anše anše.a.ab.ba ù.tu “if a mare gives birth to a dromedary” (Falken-stein, 1931, No 124, r. 9; CAD G, 36; I/J, 2).




tion of the first millennium.51 In the lexical lists urra and urgud, they wereassigned to the usual form of the camel, the dromedary (ibilu and gammalu respectively). The main feature which distinguishes the Bactrian camel from thedromedary was well-known. Assigning both am.si.kur.ra and am.si.ḫar.ra.

an to the dromedary or camel has been believed to be erroneous (Landsberger,1934, 92; Salonen, 1956, 89; 1976, 176), but it should not be regarded as that.In all probability, urra XIV implicated additional information which was notwritten down because it was common knowledge or handed down orally; there-fore, am.s i. kur .ra and am. si.ḫar.ra.an could be assigned to the dromedary.The bilingual urra lists are very scanty and do not offer more information thanwas absolutely necessary. Additional information which would have helped torender a Sumerian term with more precision was seldom given.52 The scribewho used these lists to practice writing was expected to know that the specialcamel “with two humps” was in view, just as outside of the lexical lists the Bac-trian camel was sometimes called a “camel with two humps”. In other words,the best explanation for the assignments of ibilu and gammalu to am.si .kur .raand am.s i.ḫar.ra.an in urra XIV and urgud is that these lines were read orunderstood to mean that am.si.ḫar .r a. an should be identified with (or at leastassigned to) an ibilu or gammalu with two humps, and that am.si.kur.ra like-wise should be assigned to or identified with an ibilu or gammalu with twohumps. Further evidence can be drawn from another lexical list, the practicalvocabulary of Assur, where the term for (female) Bactrian camels is writtenanšeud-ra-a-ti and its meaning is given as ga-ma-[la]-ti “she-camels”, whichshould likewise be seen as referring to “she-camels with two humps”.53

The usual Akkadian reading of anše.a.ab.ba in the first millennium BCEwas gammalu, as can be seen by the development from the earlier use of thesumerogram anše.a.ab.ba to the more frequent use of the Akkadian gammalu

in the 9

th

–7

th

centuries presented above, and by the interchange of anše.a.ab. ba and gammalu in some inscriptions.54 The designation for the dromedary,however, the old name anše.a.ab.ba, known already in the urra XIII list ofthe 13th century (see below), continued to be in use as a sumerogram until theLate Babylonian period.

––––––––––––––––––––––51 The basic term continued to be used for designating a medicinal plant, the pizzalurtum,which was also written ú am.s i .ḫar.ra.na (AHw 871; CAD P, 451–452), the “plant[eaten by] the (Bactrian) camel”(?).52 For a good characterization of the bilingual lists, see Cavigneaux, 1976, 2–6 (one Sumerian term is usually rendered by one Akkadian term; involvement of insider-knowledge and oral tradition played a great role); 29–35 (various types of entries); 100– 102 (additional information, introduced with ša in the Akkadian column, is optional andlate).53 Landsberger/Gurney, 1957–1958, 332; cf. also footnote 85.54 See CAD G, 36, Smith, 1921, 36, line 29, and Frahm, 1997, 45; cf. Luckenbill, 1924,51, line 29.



352 M. Heide [UF 42

Earlier, Sumerian-only designations for the dromedary from the 2nd millen-nium seem to have been written in the form anše.a.ab.ba “donkey of the sea”only. The oldest evidence known today comes from Nippur, from the Middle-Babylonian period (14th –13thcenturies); it turns up in urra XIII, one of the

monolingual Sumerian “forerunners” of the urra = ḫubullu lists.55 It is listedafter the donkey (an še and dúsu ), the mule (an še .k únga , anše .nun .n a andanše.gìr.nun.na) and the donkey of the yoke (anše.érin.lá). Any furtherinformation is missing.

Another forerunner of urra XIII from Ugarit, written somewhere around or before 1200 BCE, mentions the dromedary in the form [a nše.a.a]b.ba.56

The Middle-Assyrian urra forerunner from Tell Billa (ancient Šibaniba, notvery far from Assur) has a lacuna of about 8 lines in the anše listing, which, bysuggestion of the editors, should “be restored according to R[as] Š[amra] III,20ff ”, that means according to the Ugaritic forerunner including its mention ofthe “donkey of the sea”.57 The urra = ḫubullu XI listing from Emar (Arnaud,1987, 91, line 67; 1985, 264), with a list of hides of wild and domesticated ani-mals, has the entry kuš.anše.a.ab.ba “dromedary hide”.58 It is listed after

––––––––––––––––––––––55 This urra forerunner (UM 29-16-338) is online accessible at http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/dcclt/P228739 (courtesy of N. Veldhuis).56 MSL 8/1, 102, rev. III 22. For details of the restoration and its reliability cf. footnote57, table 1, and Horowitz, 2008, 601, footnote.57 Table 1 below gives the readings of the Middle-Assyrian forerunner from Tell Billa(UM 33-58-140; published in MSL 8/1, 98, lines 2–4; see also http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/dcclt/P282737), the Ras Šamra forerunner (MSL 8/1, 102, lines 18–23), andthe urra XIII list (MSL 8/1, 51, lines 362–368) according to its editor, updated by Ho-rowitz’ corrections. Readings in italics (lines preceded by?) indicate where the tablet is

broken and which lines have been restored on the basis of the corresponding series ; cf.also Finkelstein, 1953, 134. The sign of repetition in the list from Ras Šamra, MIN, is repeating anše which appears in line 10 (MSL 8/1, 102) :

urra (Middle Assyrian)

2 an[še ]. ˹*g iš ˺ .gu .za

3 [anše .g i š .g ig i r . r ]a

4 [anše. g i š mar .g íd ] .da

? anše .ba l .ba l

? anše .a .ab .ba

? anše .gù .dé

u rr a (Ras Šamra)

18 MIN.giš.gu.za

19 MIN.gi š .g ig ir .r a

20 MIN. gišmar .g íd .da

21 [MIN.b] al. bal

22 [MIN.a. a]b .ba

23 [MIN.g ù. d] é*

urra = ḫubullu

362 anše.g iš . gu .za

363 anše.g iš . g ig ir

364 anš e. gišmar .g íd .da

365 anše. á.ba l

366 anše.a .ab .b a

367 (vacat)

368 anše.gù.dé

Table 1: The Sumerian part of the urra = ḫubullu XIII series from the Neo-

Babylonian period, and its Middle-Assyrian and Ras Šamra Sumerian-only fore-runners.

A restoration like that does not look very reliable. It has a certain probability only in providing an inscriptional reference to the dromedary from the 13th century (Finkelstein,1953, 115).58 In addition, Arnaud (1987, 112) points to inscriptional evidence for the dromedary in




kuš.anše “donkey hide”, kuš.anše.kur.ra “horse hide” and kuš.anše.edin.na“onager hide”, and before kuš.šaḫ “pig hide” and kuš.gír.tab “scorpionhide”. This means that four animals, belonging to the Sumerian class anše“donkey” and to animals listed in urra XIII,59 were named together. Due to the

meager character of these lists, more detailed information is missing. For the“donkey of the sea”, the inscriptional evidence of the 2nd millennium reveals thatthis designation for the dromedary was copied in Nippur in the 14 th –13th centu-ries, in Ugarit in the 13th century and in Emar in the 13th –12th centuries.

It could be argued, of course, that anše.a.ab.ba was regarded as a wild ani-mal in Nippur, Ugarit and Emar, that its presence in the urra XIII series is dueto linguistic reasons only and that consequently anše.a.ab.ba could designate both the wild and the domesticated dromedary. After all, anše.a.ab.ba belongsnaturally to the anše section, which is missing from urra XIV. First of all, thename anše.a.ab.ba “donkey of the sea[-land]” must be of Mesopotamianorigin; only from the perspective of Southern Mesopotamia can Arabia be called

––––––––––––––––––––––the urr a = ḫubullu XIII series from Emar. Table 2 lists the readings according to Arnaud187, 112 from Emar:

Emar MSL 8 / 1, 51230’ [MIN.]g iš .g u. za

231’ [MIN.]g iš .g ig ir

232’ [MIN.giš mar .g íd .da

233’ [MIN.b] al .l á

234’ [MIN.a.a]b.ba

a n š e ku-us-si-i

a n š e nir-kab-ti

š ]a e!-ri-iq-qí

ba-lu-u

e!-ba-lu

362 anše.g iš .gu .z a

363 anše.g iš .g ig i r

364 anš e. gišmar .g íd .da

365 anše. á.bal

366 anše.a .ab . ba

i-mir ku-us-su-ú

i-mir nar-kab-tu

i-mir e-riq-qum

te-nu-ú

i-bi-lu

Table 2: Urra = ḫubullu XIII series from Emar and the canonical version fromthe first millennium. The sign of repetition, MIN, is repeating anše which ap-

pears in line 222’ (Arnaud, 1987, 112).

A close inspection of lines 230’–234’, however, confirmed only lines 230’–231’ to becomparable to lines 362–363 of the canonical urra = ḫubullu XIII series. Lines 230’– 234’ should be read as follows:

Emar (only textual witness: tablet 7522)

230’ [MIN.]gi š.g u.z a anš e ku-us-si-i

231’ [MIN.]gi š.g igi r anš e nir-kab-ti

232’ [MIN. ???] ba?-ri-iq-qí

233’ [MIN.b ]a l. lá ba-lu-u

234’ [????]? kur ? iš ?-ba-lu

Table 3: Urra = ḫubullu XIII series from Emar with corrected readings. Note thatlines 232’ and 234’ have emendations proposed by Arnaud. The sign in line 232’conjectured as e looks similar to ba, the sign in line 234 conjectured as e looks

similar to iš or da, but hardly like e. According to tablet 7522, the sign of division between the Sumerian and Akkadian entry is missing in line 234’ (courtesy ofW. Sommerfeld). See tablet No 7522, the only textual witness to these lines, inArnaud, 1985, 731.

59 For the “desert-donkey hide” (kuš.anše.edin.na), cf. the discussion of the entryan še .e di n. na in urr a XIII above.



354 M. Heide [UF 42

the “sea-land”. The zoological and botanical terminologies of the lists fromEmar and Ugarit betray likewise their Mesopotamian origin (cf. Civil, 1995,2306). This means that the Sumerian scribes either had information that a spe-cial animal with some donkey-like features lived in the “sea-land”, or more

likely that this animal had been brought to Mesopotamia. In addition, viewinganše.a.ab.ba as a wild dromedary cannot be reconciled with the fact that itsfirst inscriptional record is not earlier than the 14 th century. If anše.a.ab.bawas a wild animal, why had it not been noted before, when much more wilddromedaries roamed the Arabian Desert? Moreover, anše.a.ab.ba has always been assigned to ibilu or gammalu and has never been assigned to any wild ani-mal in the canonical bilingual lists or in any other literature. Nor is there anySumerian or bilingual text which identifies anš e. a. ab .b a as a wild dromedary.As we already saw, the scribes differentiated between the domesticated sheep(udu) and its wild relative (udu.idim), between the domesticated ox (gu 4 )and the wild ox or aurochs (am), between the donkey (anše) and the desert-donkey (anše.edin.na), between the domesticated pig (šaḫ) and the wild pig(šaḫ .ĝ iš.gi). But for anše.a.ab.ba, there is no wild counterpart. It is tempt-ing to draw a parallel to the horse, which was also introduced into Mesopotamiain its full domesticated form. It was listed in urra XIII as anše.kur.ra “donkeyof the mountain”. anše.kur.ra has also no wild counterpart in the Sumerianliterature.

Moreover, anše.a.ab.ba was sometimes used as the common name for thecamel at the beginning of the first millennium (when the Bactrian camel had been domesticated long before), and the dromedary was seen as the usual formof the camel (see above). This is hardly explicable if anše.a.ab.ba was up tothat time seen as a wild animal living in a remote country (“sea-land”).

There is no inscriptional evidence from the Ugaritic cuneiform texts in the

alphabetic tradition

60

and from the Amarna letters (14

th

century BCE), neither ofthe Bactrian camel nor of the dromedary. In light of the Sumerian-only evidencefrom Ugarit and Emar and in light of the finds from Tall Šēḫ Ḥamad / Dūr-Kat-limmu and of earlier evidence for the Bactrian camel (see below), this cannot prove that domesticated camels were totally unknown. It is dif ficult to explainthis fact, which probably points to the primary use of the camel outside of urbancenters.

If we move further back, the inscriptional evidence seems to point to theBactrian camel only.61 A forerunner of the urra lists from the Yale Babylonian

––––––––––––––––––––––60 The Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language does not have any entry of the roots þbl or

gml with the meaning “camel” (DUL 8. 300), and the occurrence of ÿdr “Bactriancamel” is doubtful (DUL 22). In Ugarit, the only clear reference to the camel is found inthe Sumerian urra forerunners.61 For possible references to the dromedary, from the Old Babylonian period or some-what earlier, in the form “donkey of Anshan” (di.bi.id. an.ša 4 . an ki.na = i-mi-ir An- ša-ni-[im]) see Civil, 1998, 11, footnote 6, and Steinkeller, 2009, 417, footnote 14.




collection, belonging to the Old Babylonian period (ca. 1800–1600 BCE), hasthe entry am.si.ḫar.ra.an.na.62 Similar to the later lists of the first millen-nium, this forerunner has the sequence am (aurochs), am.si (elephant), am.si.ḫar.ra .an.n a and am.si .kur. ra 63 (Bactrian camel).

But why does the Bactrian camel turn up in a list of wild animals (urraXIV) after such species as the aurochs and the elephant, not only in the earlierlists from the Old Babylonian period, but also in the canonical lists of the firstmillennium? And why has it nevertheless been assigned in the bilingual lists ofthe first millennium to ibilu and gammalu, both of which usually designate thedomesticated dromedary?

The urra lexicographers did not classify their lexical lists according to ourmodern biological understanding. These lists were not composed according to(biological) taxonomy, but follow an ordering system that is based on culturaland linguistic principles (Veldhuis, 2006, 26). We have already seen that inurra XIII, a list of domesticated animals, some non-domesticated animals have been included for specific reasons. urra XIV is a list of wild animals, beginningwith snakes. Nevertheless, some domesticated animals appear in urra XIV aswell. In addition, some animals are listed according to their name rather thanaccording to their nature. The Bactrian camel was named for reasons we do notentirely understand am.si.ḫar.ra.an “elephant of the road/caravan” or am.si.kur.ra “elephant of the mountain”.64 As there is no am section in urra XIII, itwas referred to in the am section of urra XIV. The same happened to šáḫ ,65 the pig (Veldhuis, 2006, 27). There is no šáḫ section in the list of domesticated ani-mals. Besides the wild pig (šáḫ .ĝ iš.gi), all types of domesticated pigs (fat-tened pig, breeding pig, pig owned by a lord, etc.) are listed together in urraXIV.

All names given to camels in Sumerian (descriptive names) and Akkadian

(loanwords) suggest that the camel was not native to Mesopotamia (Albright,1950). The dromedary seems to have come from Arabia, and the Bactrian camelmust have come from the east. The first two elements of its Sumerian name,am.si “elephant”, suggest that the Bactrian animal was seen as an exotic animalwhose behavior was perceived as very strange. The name, however, once given,remained unchanged (Horowitz, 2008, 608).

The Akkadian term i-lu-la-a-a, which answers to am.si.ḫar.ra .an.n a in a bilingual lexical list from the Old Babylonian period, has been suggested of

––––––––––––––––––––––62 For the text, see the tablet YBC 4679, online accessible via http://cdli.ucla.edu/P235796.63 The text reads am kur.ra which is very probably an error for am.si kur.ra (Veld-huis, 2006, 28).64 When referring to the bull (am), its horns (si) are meant; when referring to the ele-

phant ( am.si → pi-i-lu), its tusks are in view, and when referring to the Bactrian camel,its two humps seem to be meant.65 In texts of the 2nd millennium, the pig appears as “šaḫ”; in later texts, as “š áḫ”.



356 M. Heide [UF 42

being another word for the camel. But the context of the list speaks against thissuggestion and the identification of i-lu-la-a-a as another word for the camel ishardly convincing.66

Further evidence from the Old Babylonian period is provided by a Sumerian

literary text with mention of the camel’s (am.si.ḫar.ra.an) milk. This Sumer-ian love song in which Inanna addresses Dumuzi has in general a mythologicalcontext.67 It is, however, very questionable to dismiss the evidence for am.si.ḫar.ra.an on the ground that the context is comparable “with the Romulus andRemus story of the foundation of Rome”.68 The larger context reads as follows(lines 18–27, abbreviated):

“Make the milk yellow for me, my bridegroom ... O my bridegroom,may I drink milk with you, with goat milk from the sheepfold ... fill theholy butter churn ... O Dumuzi, make the milk of the camel [am.si.ḫar.ra.an] yellow for me – the camel [am.si.ḫar.ra.an], its milk issweet . . . Its butter-milk, which is sweet, make yellow for me . . .”69

In this love song, belonging to the genre of pastoral poetry, am.si. ḫar.ra.animplicates a domesticated animal. In Sumerian mythology, Dumuzi is the son ofDuttur, the divine mother sheep (Alster, 1999, 832). Dumuzi (known also inWest-Semitic sources as Tammuz), with his surname or title Sipad “shepherd”,appears as the lord of the shepherds and flocks and is the god in charge of do-mesticated herd animals in the Sumerian pantheon. Inanna requests churnedcamel’s milk as well as goat’s milk. Both are described as pleasant and “sweet”.Camel’s milk is either drunk fresh or soured, and extensive churning will resultin some butter (Horwitz/Rosen, 2005, 124). To interpret am.si.ḫar.ra. an in

––––––––––––––––––––––66 For the text, see UET 7, No 93, plate XLIII, and Sjöberg, 1996, 222, reverse, lines 14–

16: am.si .ḫar .ra .an.na, i . lu .kur .kur .ra , maškim.ḫar .r a. an .DU. These three en-tries are all assigned to i-lu-la-a-a. According to AHw 1563, am.si. ḫar . ra .an .nadesignates probably a camel. According to Sjöberg, 1996, 231, i-lu-la-a-a is comparableto Old Assyrian i-lu-la-a attested in ARRIM 3,12:31, in the construction bāb di-lu-la-a “the gate of I.” Being written with the divine determinative, di-lu-la-a denotes a deity ordemon. In the lexical text UET 7, No 93, i-lu-la-a-a is preceded by the dust fly, themouse, the butter fly and probably similar small animals (lines rev. 1–13) and it is fol-lowed by a list of demons (lines rev. 17–24). It is tempting to draw a parallel to a lateBabylonian religious text, where the dromedary is said to be “the ghost of Tiamat” (CADI/J, 2).67 On the influence of popular love songs on the Dumuzi-Inanna love songs, seeKlein/ Sefati, 2008, 614–618.68

See Rosen/Saidel, 2010, 75. There is a much better comparison for Romulus andRemus, namely the story of Gilgamesh wherein Enkidu is reported to have sucked themilk of wild animals (ANET 77–78; tablet II, iii 2; v 20; cf. George, 2003, vol. I, 177,line 85; vol. I, 179, line 188).69 Cf. CAD I/J, 2; Sefati, 1998, 221–222 and Horowitz, 2008, 604, based on the tablet

Ni 9602.




this context as a wild camel puts considerable strain on the interpretation of the poetry.

Furthermore, there is an unpublished tablet from the Old Babylonian period70 with the reading am.si.kaskal.an.na, subsequently to am.si “elephant”,

which certainly should be seen as an ancient (or transcriptional) error for am.si.ḫar.an.na, the Bactrian camel. Another lexical list71 of animals from Nippurfrom roughly the same period has the reading ḫar.ra.an (doubtless an error orabbreviation for am .si .ḫar . ra .an ) appearing after the dog (k a. la b), the (wild)cat (su.a and su.a.ri), the bison (alim), the deer (lulim) and the elephant(am.si). In both lists, the Bactrian camel is listed subsequently to am.si, the“elephant”, for reasons which were discussed already above.

Recently, P. Steinkeller (2009) made an in-depth study of a Sumerian tabletof the Ur III period (2100–2000 BCE) with possible mention of camels. Thistablet (P123310)72 mentions male and female animals, written with the ligatureGÚ.URU×GU, which were received from three different suppliers, from Hun-dašer of Anšan, from Yabrat the Šimaškian and from Šu-Adad. According toSteinkeller, the unknown animal name GÚ.URU×GU should be read as theSumerian term gú.gur 5 (see also the online-text) and it could be linked togú.gúr(GAM), corresponding to Akkadian kanā su “to bend down, to bowdown” (CAD K, 144), a vivid characterization of the camel’s behavior.73

The hitherto unknown animal name GÚ.URU×GU occurs once more onanother tablet (P127971),74 apparently summing up the 30 animals from the firsttablet and referring to them in a single line. One of the men who delivered theseanimals is said to come from Anšan, which is to be located at the eastern part ofthe Iranian plateau. The Šimaškian, the second supplier, seems to come fromŠimaški, the central part of the Iranian plateau. The third supplier has an Ak-kadian name (Šu-Adad), he is also known as a “herder” of the GÚ.URU×GU

––––––––––––––––––––––70 Tablet No A 07896, online accessible at http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/dcclt/P230258, line x’ 8; courtesy of N. Veldhuis. On the relation of Sumerian kaskal andAkkadian ḫarr ānu, see CAD Ḫ, 106.71 See Proust, 2007, 353, tablets Ni 10135* + CBS 10181* + CBS 10207*, brought tomy attention by N. Veldhuis.72 Online accessible at http://cdli.ucla.edu/search/result.pt?id_text= P123310&start=0&result_format=single&-op_id_text=eq&size=100. The tablet has been published by Hil-gert, 1998, 141–142.73 Yuhong, 2010, seemingly without knowledge of Steinkeller’s article, tentatively inter-

prets gú-gur 5 as a name for the wild Bactrian camel (without further reasoning) and

suggests that it is listed after cattle, red deer and fallow deer because it belongs to the bigeven-toed ungulates. Its name should be understood as “the lump-backed or pot-backedone”.74 Online accessible at http://cdli.ucla.edu/search/result.pt?id_text=P127971&start=0&result_format=single&-op_id_text=eq&size=100. The tablet has been published by Calvot,1969, 102.



358 M. Heide [UF 42

mentioned before. The animals he supplies are designated as an “earlier” deliv-ery, which means that they were delivered prior to those delivered from theother two suppliers.

In the second tablet, where all these GÚ.URU×GU (or gú.gur 5 respectively)

are summed up as 30 animals, they are listed following oxen, red deer, and fal-low deer, but before horses, mules, and donkeys. Steinkeller draws the conclu-sion that the GÚ.URU×GU referred to in these tablets must be “large, hoofedherbivore”. This is further corroborated by the fact that the age of some of theseanimals is given, which is otherwise documented only for cattle, equids, anddeer. Steinkeller thinks that the Bactrian camel fits best to the features of theGÚ.URU×GU presented above. If Steinkeller is correct, and there is every goodreason to accept his proposal (cf. Potts, 2008, 190), then the two tablets men-tioned above provide additional evidence for the domesticated Bactrian camel inMesopotamia towards the end of the 3rd millennium.

The earliest known Mesopotamian lexical evidence of the camel is provided by an animal list from Fara of the Early Dynastic Period (ca. 2600–2500 BCE),where the Sumerian term am.si.ḫar.an occurs again (Sjöberg, 2000, 407).75 Inthis list, am. si .ḫar.an is found in the proximity of terms for wild animals, suchas the elephant, the water buffalo, the bear and the wolf. This looks as if theBactrian camel was regarded as domesticated in part only in the 3rd millenniumBCE (Horowitz, 2008, 607). But its name-element ḫar.an “road/caravan”makes no sense if it would have been assigned to an animal which does not goon the road or in a camel-caravan and Mesopotamia was far away from the natu-ral habitat of the wild Bactrian camel.

Apart from the Assyrian exploitation of the camel in the first millenniumBCE, it can be concluded that the people of Mesopotamia gained some ac-quaintance with the Bactrian camel in the Old Babylonian period, at the end of

the 3

rd

/ beginning of the 2

nd

millennium. This is suggested by the Sumerian lovesong, by two lexical lists from the same period and probably also by the Sume-rian tablet mentioning the GÚ.URU×GU and the cylinder seal from the WaltersArt Gallery (see above). At the end of the 2nd millennium, however, the Bactriancamel was again regarded as a curious animal, although the royal administrationhad enough know-how to breed Bactrian camels. Ashur-bel-kela (1074–1054BCE) presented herds of Bactrian camels and other curiosities to the people ofAssyria. They are listed between leopards, bears, wild boars, wild asses, deerand wolves on the one side, and apes and crocodiles on the other side. Yet thetext says explicitly that the king dispatched merchants who had to acquire thesecamels. Then it proceeds: “‘He collected the female camels [ud-ra-a-temeš], bred(them), and displayed herds of them to the people of his land’”.76 On the famous

Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III (858–824 BCE) with twenty reliefs, five oneach side of the obelisk, two Bactrian camels are depicted on relief No 3

––––––––––––––––––––––75 Online accessible at http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/dcclt/P010717.76 Cf. footnote 41; CAD U/W, 22.




(counted from left to right and top to bottom), and a similar scene is depictedagain on relief No 9. While on relief No 3 the camels are listed after horses andseem to have been regarded as pack animals, they can be seen in an exotic envi-ronment on relief No 9, where the “tribute of the land of Muṣri” consists of

“camels whose backs are doubled” (No 9),77 a water buffalo (literally “riverox”), a rhinoceros, an antelope (No 10), female elephants (No 11), female mon-keys, and apes (No 11–12). The camels displayed on panel No 3 belonged to thetribute of the kingdom of Gilzānu, near lake Urmia, where two-humped camelswere in common use, while the camels displayed on panel No 9 came fromEgypt. The context may suggest the Egyptian royal zoo as their point of origin(cf. Müller-Wollermann, 2003, 40). In the light of this, the strange Sumeriannames for the Bactrian camel, am. si .k ur .r a and am .si .ḫar.ra.an, “elephantof the mountain / of the road”, should not be seen as indicating a partly domesti-cated animal at the time when the names were given, but as pointing to its exoticand strange appeal. We may add to that a much later incident reported by Lucianof Samosta (125–180 CE): Ptolemy I Lagi (305–285 BCE) presented a piebaldman, half black and half white, and a black Bactrian camel, which was deckedall over with gold and had a richly jeweled bridle, to the public in the theatre ofAlexandria. Some laughed at the man, but most shrank as from a monster. Whenthe audience saw the camel, however, they became terrified and almost stam- peded.78

To sum up the early evidence, it is certain that based on archaeological evi-dence the domesticated two-humped camel appeared in Southern Turkmenistannot later than the middle of the 3rd millennium BCE. From there or from adjacentregions, the domesticated Bactrian camel must have reached Mesopotamia viathe Zagros Mountains. In Mesopotamia, the earliest knowledge of the camel points to the middle of the 3rd millennium, where it seems to have been regarded

as a very exotic animal. The horse and the Bactrian camel may have been en-gaged in sea-borne and overland global trading networks spanning much of theancient world from the third millennium BCE onwards (Zeder et al ., 2006, 146).

For the domestication of the dromedary, the zooarchaeological evidence points to the beginning of the first, and the inscriptional evidence to the 13th cen-tury at the latest. It is noteworthy, however, that a) the earliest inscriptional re-ference to the dromedary from Nippur implicitly points to the dromedary as adomesticated animal. It is the meaning of anše.a.ab.ba “donkey of the sea”which points to the dromedary as domesticated, and it is its entry in the urraXIII series, referring to domesticated animals, which points to the same fact; b)

––––––––––––––––––––––77

In both reliefs, the camels are named anše.a.ab.ba.meš šá šu-na-a-a ṣe-ri-ši-na.See Grayson, 2002, 149–150; cf. COS II, 270; ARAB I §§ 589.591.78 Lucian, Πρὸς τὸν εἰ πόντα Προμηθεὺς εἶ ἐν λόγοις (To One Who Said “You’re a Pro-metheus in Words”, known also as A Literary Prometheus), 4. Cf. also Aristotle’s Histo-ria animalium, where he often refers to the camel, putting his observations next to thosehe had made on elephants (499a; 540a; 546b; 571b; 578a; 596a; 604a; 630b).



360 M. Heide [UF 42

the dromedary’s earliest inscriptional attestation in Sumerian lists from the mid-dle of the 2nd millennium BCE presupposes its knowledge some time earlier;79 c)the faunal remains point to the appearance of the domesticated dromedary insouth-east Arabia towards the beginning of the first millennium.

From the beginning of the first millennium onwards the usual form of thedomesticated camel was seen as the dromedary. This is the reason why the Bac-trian camel in texts from the 9th century BCE and later was sometimes describedas an “anše.a.ab.ba with two humps” or in similar terms. The scanty characterof the lexical lists allowed to render am.si.kur.ra and am.si. ḫar.ra.an asibilu and gammalu only, without any further information, implying the non-written distinguishing feature “with two humps”. Therefore, the Sumerian ety-mologies of am.si.kur.ra and am.si.ḫar . ra .a n remain the only clues for theidentification of am.s i. ku r. ra and am.s i.ḫar . ra .a n as Bactrian camels.

If the usual form of the camel, however, was perceived as the dromedary bythe beginning of the first millennium, a considerable time-frame must be al-lowed in which the term “dromedary” (anše.a.ab.ba) established itself as the preferred designation for the camel. Before the 14th –13th centuries, the specialdesignation anše.a.ab.ba must have been coined which later became so pre-dominant that it was often used as a sumerogram in the first millennium.

The archaeological and inscriptional evidence and the patriarchs

Biological and archaeological evidence point to the fact that the domesticatedBactrian camel first appeared in Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran,and subsequently in Mesopotamia. For the dromedary, the Sumerian term anše.a.ab.ba “donkey of the sea” implies that the “donkey of the sea” reached Me-sopotamia from across the sea and that it appeared in Mesopotamia in its fully

domesticated form. The inscriptions from Nippur and Ugarit point to its appear-ance in Mesopotamia and Syria in lexical lists by the 14th –13th centuries, whichrequires its appearance in Mesopotamia at least some decades, if not more than acentury earlier. But the dromedary seems to have appeared not only in Mesopo-tamia in its fully domesticated form, but also in south-east Arabia (Uerp-mann/Uerpmann, 2002, 258; Uerpmann, 2008, 442–443). When and where the

––––––––––––––––––––––79 See Horowitz, 2008, 601; Lambert, 1960; CAD I/J, 2, and the possible reference tothe dromedary in an Old Babylonian text (footnote 61). The absence of anše.a.ab.bain the Old Babylonian forerunner from Nippur (Heimpel, 1980, 330; cf. MSL 8/1, 88)does not exclude this possibility. The anše section of the Nippur forerunner, althoughcompletely preserved, has only about 10 entries, while the later “canonical” list has more

than 20 entries and differs considerably in arrangement. Sometimes, the later evidence ofa specific entry is missing: The kuš.anše.a.ab.ba “dromedary hide” in the urra =ḫubullu XI list from Emar (Arnaud, 1987, 91) is missing in the lists from the first millen-nium (MSL 7, 125). Different cities had their own version of the urra = ḫubullu series.The entries and their arrangement continuously developed. Items could be added oromitted or whole sections could be moved to another position (Veldhuis, 2006, 27).




dromedary was domesticated (apart from the general opinion that it seems tohave been in Arabia in the 2nd millennium) is still a matter of research, “why andhow this happened is still a matter of speculation” (Uerpmann, 2008, 442).

The westward expansion of the domesticated Bactrian camel was not con-

fined to Mesopotamia. The Bactrian camel, as we know it today, is usuallyviewed as not adapted to the high temperatures of the Arabian Desert (cf. Walz,1954, 55–56; Bulliet, 1990, 30). Diodorus Siculus, however, claimed that theBactrian camel was being bred in great numbers in the Arabian Desert (II.54:6). These assumptions of Diodorus Siculus seem to be exaggerated, as heclaims that elephants were being bred in the Arabian Desert as well (II. 54:5).We know, however, from the Safaitic inscriptions and rock drawings of NorthArabia that Bactrian camels were known by the people of the Arabian Desert.80 The knowledge of this species must have originated from the contacts of thedesert areas with the long-distance trading routes of that time. From about thesame time, nine dromedaries and three camel hybrids were found in animal burials from a graveyard at Milayḥa in the interior of the aš-Šāriqa (Sharjah)Emirate (UAE). The hybrids represent crossbreeds between Bactrian camels anddromedaries (Uerpmann, 1999).

In the reign of Trajan (98–117 CE), a series of silver drachms were issued,some with the goddess Arabia on the reverse, and some with a two-humpedcamel on the reverse. It is unlikely that these coins were minted outside of Ara- bia, because the “Bactrian camel” drachms are completely absent in hoards fromAsia Minor and Syria. This is further corroborated by the fact that some of thelocal “Arabia” coins were over-struck on Nabataean coins; this applies also to atleast one “Bactrian camel” coin. In addition, the silver content of 50 % is typicalof the provincial issues of these coins, as well as the iconographic depiction ofTrajan (Graf, 2007, 440). Therefore, those who minted these coins did not con-

fuse the two species of the camel but were familiar with the Arabian fauna.These coins can be seen as further evidence that the Bactrian camel was not asuncommon in Arabia as has been suggested. In Roman times, the Bactrian camelseems to have been used even further west and north, as camel bones whichwere found near Central European settlements, such as Augsburg and Vienna,suggest (Peters / von den Driesch, 1997, 662).

During the Hellenistic era, the Greeks were already acquainted with the Bac-trian camel. First contacts with this species seem to have been made as a result

––––––––––––––––––––––80 As Winnett and Harding pointed out (1978, 23.119–120), the date of the introductionof the Bactrian camel into the Arabian peninsula is unknown, and we do not know whatit was called in Safaitic, but once it is referred to as h-gml (King, 1990, 64), probably in

the meaning “camel bull”; cf. Al-Manaser, 2008, 133. Bactrian camels appear only insome drawings from the first and 2nd centuries CE, while dromedaries prevail. One ofthese inscriptions refers to a horseman on a raid, who is seen in the adjacent drawing asdriving off a dromedary and a Bactrian camel (Macdonald et al., 1996, 467–472; Jung,1994, 236). See also Macdonald, 1979, 106–107 and plate XLIV, N o 12, and, for somemore recent discoveries, Ababneh, 2005, 61–64.



362 M. Heide [UF 42

of the Achaemenid expansion in the 6th century BCE.81 At the end of the 8th century BCE, the annals of Sennacherib report that he

captured in his first campaign against the Babylonian king Merodach-Baladanand his allies m Ba-as-qa-nu, the brother of the Arabian queen f Ia-ti-¬-e, together

with booty consisting of chariots, wagons, horses, mules, donkeys, dromedaries(anše.a.ab.ba meš) [and] Bactrian camels (anšeud-ri) which had been abandonedduring the battle82. This incident points to the use of Bactrian camels in theBabylonian army, probably by the Arabian allies who are mentioned in the text.

Tukulti-Ninurta II (890–884) received 30 Bactrian camels as tribute from theAramean king Ammealaba of the city of Ḫindânu (cf. footnote 41). Some of theBactrian camels mentioned on the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III came fromEgypt (see above, relief No 9, the “tribute of the land of Muṣri [mu-u ṣ-ri,Egypt]”) which provides a 9th century BCE reference to the Bactrian camel infar-distance trading, as these animals were not being bred in Egypt (at least asfar as we know), but may have come to Egypt via the trading routes.83

In any case, Bactrian camels are known to have been used in long-distancetrading more than 300 years before that time, as is corroborated by the find ofcamel bones as far west as Šēḫ Ḥamad in upper Mesopotamia from the 13 th – 12thcenturies BCE (Becker, 2008, 85). Perhaps we can add to that, with somehesitation, the unprovenanced Old Syrian cylinder seal from the Walters ArtGallery, dated to the 18th century.84

It is usually assumed that camels in the book of Genesis are dromedaries.The Semitic root gml , however, occurring once in a Hebrew inscription recentlyfound and dated to the 7th –6th centuries BCE (Eshel/Eshel, 2008, 582; see be-low), and several times in the Hebrew Bible, as מל g āmāl , does not betray to uswhat species (Bactrian/Arabian) the animal belongs to. As in Akkadian, it refersto the usual form of the camel, the dromedary, but not in every case.85 In Ara-

––––––––––––––––––––––81 For more details, see Schauenberg, 1955, 64–75; Peters / von den Driesch, 1997, 662.For Bactrian camels in Herodotus, Hist . 1 :80, see footnote 88.82 Cf. COS II, 301, with Smith, 1921, 36. 62–63, line 29, and Frahm, 1997, 45.83 On Mu ṣri being Egypt, see footnote 19.84 Gordon, 1939, 21 and no. 55; Potts, 2004a, 150; Porada, 1977, 1; cf. http://art.thewalters.org/detail/27381/cylinder-seal-with-a-two-humped-camel-carrying-a-divine-couple/.85 In the Neo-Assyrian practical vocabulary of Assur which is similar structured as theurra = ḫubullu XI list, the dromedary appears in Sumerian as anše.a.ab.ba and is trans-lated as ga-ma-lu “camel”, while (female) Bactrian camels are written anšeud-ra-a-ti andthe meaning is given as ga-ma-[la]-ti “she-camels” (Landsberger/Gurney, 1957–1958,332), which was meant to say “she-camels [with two humps]”. In the commentary tourra, the series urgud (MSL 8/1, 54), anše.a.ab.ba is assigned to i-bi-lu in the sec-ond column. The third column is broken, but it can be restored to [ gam-ma-lu] “camel”,

based on the practical vocabulary of Assur cited above (line 247 ; CAD I / J, 2 ; Horowitz,2008, 599). Two lines further down, am.si.ḫar .r a. an points again to i-bi-[lu], and it isassigned to MIN in the third column, referring to gam-ma-lu above (line 249; MSL 8/2,




mean (DNWSI 226; PAT 353), Sabean and Ethiopian inscriptional sources(Sima, 2000, 92–93) gamal is likewise not further specified. Later Arameanlikewise seems to have been in need of further specification to differentiate be-tween the two species,86 as also Syriac.87 The same applies to the Greek κάμη-

λος which is a Semitic loanword, although k- instead of g - is unusual (Lewy1895, 1; Lokotsch, 1927, no. 653; Frisk, 1960, 771; SED II, 118). The Septua-gint translated Hebrew מל accordingly with κάμηλος. When the Greek histo-rian Herodotus reported how Greek horses were scared away by Bactrian camelsfrom the army of Cyrus II, he used the word κάμηλος ( Hist . 1: 80).88 Among theSafaitic inscriptions and rock drawings there is one drawing in which the Bac-trian camel is referred to as h-gml (King, 1990, 64). In the famous Palmyra bilingual tariff inscription (137 CE), which details the taxes on camel loads go-ing in and out of the city, the Aramaic לא מ ג is given with κάμηλος. The Greekterm κάμηλος can be used to refer to both species of the camel and needs furtherspecification to clarify its exact meaning.89

Domesticated Bactrian camels may have been available in Mesopotamia bythe end of the 3rd / beginning of the 2nd millennium, which can be deduced fromthe inscriptional material referred to above. In addition, Bactrian camels areknown to have been in use further west than Mesopotamia proper in later times.Already Walz (1956, 196, footnote 27) suggested that at least some of the מל -occurrences in Genesis might imply Bactrian rather than Arabian camels. If wesuppose that all references to camels in Genesis are the outcome of a later elabo-ration of the text we will not gain any new insight into the question of thecamel’s domestication from Genesis. In that case, the general circumstances of a

––––––––––––––––––––––44). – A dated debt note from the reign of Esarhaddon (674 BCE) is introduced with, 2anše .a .ab .ba ša 2-a za-kar-ru-u-ni “two camels that are called two-[humped] ...” (line

1), while lines 7 and rev 1 refer to the same camels with the phrase, ina ud-1-kam š [ai t i . ap in] gam.mal id-du-[nu] “on the 1st of [Marchesvan], they shall give the camels

back” (ADD, No 117; Postgate, 1976, No 38; Kwasman/Parpola, 1991, No 241). Cf. alsofootnote 48.86 Babylonian Talmud, Baba Qamma 55a: רסמלג לפ מ ג ו עי י ט אה ליד יא עו ק

י א ה ו יט יק ע ו ק “the Persian camel and the Arabian camel: this one’s neck is thick, andthat one’s neck is thin”. But this may apply to two different breeds of the dromedaryonly, cf. Feliks, 2007.87 In Syriac, the dromedary is explicitly referred to with an additional qualifierܢܐ) ܓܘ ) whileܠܡܓ gaml ā denotes the general term “camel” only (Sokoloff, 2009,

241); cf. ܓܡܠ ܪ ܛܐ dromedaries and ܬܝ ܒ ܪ ܠܡ ܓ Arabian camel in

Payne Smith 1879, 736. For possible references to the camels’ gender in Aramaic andHebrew sources, see Klíma, 1965.88 The soldiers who had the camels described in Hist . 1:80 at their disposal came fromIran, where the Bactrian camel was well-known. According to Herodotus, these camelsserved as pack animals which points to the typical use of the two-humped camel.89 Aristotle, Historia animalium 498b; 499a.



364 M. Heide [UF 42

later age (end of the second / begin of the first millennium or later?) have beensuperimposed on the Abraham narrative. In the following, the references to cam-els in Genesis will be taken on a trial basis in their contextual time-frame, as ifreferring to the beginning of the 2nd millennium. In this discussion, camels and

their use will be the only point of interest. Finally, a tentative conclusion will bedrawn.

It has already been pointed out that Gen 12:16 does not imply that domesti-cated camels were commonly available in Egypt. As a semi-nomad, Abram mayhave brought these camels with him, which would have been very useful on thelong journey from Haran to Canaan. Camels from the more remote areas ofArabia and Mesopotamia must have sporadically reached Egypt at that time (cf.Retsö, 1991, 200), which is also corroborated by some findings of camel re-mains and camel figurines from Egypt. In Gen 12:5, a first hint at the propertyof the Patriarchs is given: “And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother’s son, and all their possessions that they had gathered, and the peoplethat they had acquired in Haran”. The expression “all their possessions”שם) ו כ ־ ל כ) must have included mounts and pack animals as well, and there is ahigh probability that Abram as a semi-nomadic pastoralist had acquired camelsalready in Mesopotamia.90

The long journey of Eliezer from Canaan to upper Mesopotamia is thesecond time we read of camels employed in Abram’s service. He “took ten ofhis master’s camels and departed” (Gen 24:10). The ten camels were apparentlyloaded with all the special gifts, jewels and precious goods which from timesimmemorial are used to underline the seriousness of a marriage proposal. WhenEliezer reached his destination, “he made the camels kneel down” ( ך הגמליב ;Gen 24:11). This is the only instance in the Hebrew Bible that the root brk isused in this sense. Comparable to the hiph®il of the Hebrew root brk is the 4th

stem of the same root in Arabic, used in the very same sense: “ He made him (namely, a camel) to lie down [or kneel down and lie down] upon his breast ”(Lane 1863, 193). The meaning is not that the camel should go down on itsknees, but that it should kneel down and subsequently lie down on its breast torest, which is a nicely observed detail by the Genesis narrator. Only when thecamels had finally been taken in to Laban were they “unloaded” ( הגמליי פתח ;Gen 24:32); the verb denotes “loosen; untie; unburden” (DCH VI, 804). It isusually employed for the untying of bonds and fetters and the unbolting of citygates and pictures a very tight binding of the goods. When Rebecca finallydecides to join Eliezer with all her maids and belongings on the long journey toher future husband, the narrator tells us that “they [fem. pl.] rode upon camelsand followed the man” (ש האי י אח ה נ תלכ ים הגמל ־ ל ע נה ת כב ; Gen 24:61).The camels were loaded with Rebecca, her female servants and probably herdowry. They were apparently not supposed to ride and lead the camels by ––––––––––––––––––––––90 Note also 1Chron 27:30–31, where “female donkeys” and “camels” are listed amongthe ש ו כ of King David.




themselves. Rather, they sat on the camel with a special saddle or seat, while thewhole caravan was led by Eliezer. This is also suggested by the fact that whenRebecca finally saw Isaac, “she jumped down from the camel” (למ פל מעל ה ת ;Gen 24:64), which implies that she did not know how to make the camel kneel

down and how to dismount.91 When decades later Isaac’s son Jacob takes his leave from Laban, he “set his

wives and his sons on camels” (םי הגמל ־ ל ע ויש נ־ת א וינ ב ־ ת א אשי ; Gen 31:17).Rachel herself, however, hides her household idols under the camel’s saddle- basket (למ תשמם בכר ה ; Gen 31:34). kar “saddle-basket” (DCH IV, 458) is ahapax legomenon in the Hebrew Bible. The term is known from later times asdesignating a kind of elaborated seat which was the preferred saddle for ladies.92 Comparable to this rare Hebrew noun is the Arabic noun k ūr (WKAS I, 429),known in the meaning of “camel-saddle”, and derived from the root kwr “binding; winding”. The camel at that time was primarily a means fortransporting goods, women and children (cf. Staubli, 1991, 200); cf. also the

“caravan of Ishmaelites93

... with their camels bearing gum, mastic resin andladanum94 on their way to carry it down to Egypt” (Gen 37:25). These three products of merchandise from East Jordan were used in Egypt in medicine andcosmetics, especially in embalming. This incident implies, of course, camel ca-ravanning between Canaan and Egypt, albeit on a limited scale. Later, Joseph’s brothers were going to take the same products as presents down to Egypt, butused donkeys instead (Gen 43:11. 24; see below).

In contrast to his father Abraham and his son Jacob, Isaac is portrayed asspending all of his life in Canaan. Long-distance journeys are not a part of hislife, and camels were apparently not in his use. It is interesting to note that aslong as his son Jacob remained in upper Mesopotamia (Paddan-Aram), Jacob isseen as having camels (Gen 30:43). When he decided to return to Canaan from

his prolonged stay in upper Mesopotamia, camels are a prominent part of histrek (Gen 31:17), and he seems to have bred a small herd of camels, which he ––––––––––––––––––––––91 Literally “and she fell down from the camel”. The normal expression for ladies whodismount is „she alighted from“; cf.ר ו מ חה לעמ ח תצ “and she alighted from the don-

key” in Josh 15:18 and Judg 1:14, and ר ו מ חה לעמ ד ת „and she dismounted from thedonkey“ in 1Sam 25: 23.92 Dillmann 1886, 347; cf. also the elaborated, but less precise meaning in Levy, 1924,393. For the development of the saddle, see Staubli, 1991, 184–198.93 “Ishmaelite” is no ethnic designation, but a general term used for nomadic traders whohandled camels (cf. Judg 8:24; 1Chr 27: 30). For a similar designation, cf. “Canaanite”

for a merchant (HAH 557). For the identifi

cation of the Ishmaelites and the Midianites,see Staubli, 1991, 200–201.94 Hebrew וצנ כאת . The exact meaning of נ כאת is unknown (HAH 815). י צdenotes the resin of the mastic shrub (HAH 1138; Jacob/Jacob, 1992, 810) and ט

probably means “ladanum”, a special resin from Palestine (HAH 607; Jacob/Jacob,1992, 812–813; Hoch, 1994, No 288); see also Vergote, 1959, 12–13.



366 M. Heide [UF 42

sent ahead to appease Esau (Gen 32:15–16).The explicit mention of ניהם וב יקות ני מ םי ששיגמל “thirty milking camels

and their colts” implies that these camels were seen as a particular milk-source. No camel-bulls are mentioned (in contrast to all the other male animals), nor are

female goats, cows, ewes and female donkeys referred to as “milking”, nor is theoffspring of goats, cows, ewes and female donkeys listed. Camels produce littlemore than the milk necessary for their foals, which made it necessary to breed asmall herd of camels to allow for a suf ficient amount of milk. Camel’s milk washighly appreciated, as we know from the Sumerian love song of the Old Baby-lonian period (see above). Without calving, however, camels do not produce anymilk (Horwitz/Rosen, 2005, 122).95

When Jacob had settled down in Canaan, camels seem not to have been inhis use any more, because all the goods which were sent down to Egypt duringthe famine were transported by donkeys (Gen 42:26–27; 43:24; 44:3.13).96 The donkey was also the common transport animal in Mari in the 19th –18th

centuries BCE, and between Southern Syria (Amurru) and Egypt some 500years later during the Amarna period (EA 161:23).97 Neither the Egyptians northe family of Jacob are viewed as possessing camels in Egypt by the Genesisnarrator (Gen 45: 23; 47:17 ; 50: 8).

The Hebrews themselves apparently did not esteem the camel very highlyafter the time of the Patriarchs. There are only two events reported where camelswere owned by the later Hebrews of the united Israelite kingdom. When Davidwas made king in Hebron, camels are mentioned among the animals that

––––––––––––––––––––––95 Among the tribute of Tiglath-Pileser III (745–727) milking dromedaries are listedseveral times. While there are certain differences from the animals Jacob presented to his

brother Esau (horses are included in Tiglath-Pileser’s list ; female and male cows, goats

and sheep are not distinguished; she-camels have a special name of Arabian origin [ana-qātum] and are not explicitly stated as “milking”), the specific mention of “she-drome-daries including their young” may be interpreted as pointing to the same reason, i. e. totheir use as a source for the highly appreciated camel’s milk. See Ann. 14*:4–5: “horses,mules, cattle and sheep, dromedaries, she-dromedaries including their young”; Summ.8:27’ and 9:21 “dromedaries, she-dromedaries including their young” (Tadmor, 2007,69.179.189). The Akkadian expression is mí.anšea-na-qa-a-te/ti a-di anšuba-ak-ka-re-ši-na.

anaqātum “she-camel” is an Arabian loanword derived from ق ن nāqa (root nwq). Simi-lar motives may have moved Ashur-bel-kela (1074–1054) who bred female Bactrain ca-mels, and who displayed herds of them to the people of his land (cf. above, and footnote41).96 In the later tradition of the Qur ¬ān, however, the transport between Canaan and Egypt

is visualized as having been made by camels; cf. the reference to a “camel’s load” in theSura “Joseph”: مل يرح ع ب (ḥimlu ba® ī rin, Sura 12, 65. 72).97 In the Amarna letters, camels are never referred to. Furthermore, horses, which areoften mentioned in the Amarna letters and were regarded as very desirable, especially foreffective protection and in warfare, are never mentioned during the stay of the Patriarchsin Mesopotamia or Canaan.




brought food for the celebration (1Chr. 12:40). David had a herd of camelswhich were under supervision of Obil, an Ishmaelite (1Chr 27:30). His name isa Hebrew transliteration of the Arabic word for camel (ibil ) and may beregarded as a nickname. This means that the Israelites of the united Israelite

kingdom, seemingly without know-how in camel breeding and camel use, reliedon Arabian specialists. We know from cuneiform sources that the later As-syrians likewise did not always have the know-how of camel breeding andcamel use (Retsö, 1991, 201). From later times, we have the intriguing infor-mation that Esarhaddon asked “the kings of the Aribi” to provide for transportcamels for his campaign against Egypt.98

Recently, an (unprovenanced, but very probably genuine) Hebrew ostraconof the late 7th / early 6th centuries BCE was acquired on the antiquities market, inwhich the root gml in the term לם מ ג “camels” or “cameleers” is attested in Epi-graphic Hebrew for the first time.99

After the Babylonian captivity, 435 camels are listed among the beasts of

burden, which besides 736 horses and 245 mules consisted of 6,720 donkeys(Neh 7:69; Ezra 2:67). Like their ancestors before, the Jews used camels ontheir way from Mesopotamia to Canaan; unlike their ancestors, they used horsesin addition.

The Greek history writer Herodotus considered a precise description of thecamel to be super fluous, suggesting it to be a well-known species ( Hist . 3 :103). Nevertheless, Herodotus erroneously believed that camels were just as fast ashorses ( Hist . 3:102.3; 7:86.2), and his description of the camel’s hind legs isinaccurate ( Hist . 3:103). Aristotle refers to the camel often in his writings onzoology ( Historia anim. 499a; 578a; 630b) and differentiates between the Bac-trian camel and the dromedary ( Historia anim. 499a). His descriptions of thecamel, however, are often inaccurate or contradictory (Becker / de Souza, 2009).

A tentative conclusion

The archaeological evidence points to the fact that the Bactrian camel wasdomesticated before the dromedary and was put into use by the middle of the 3rd

millennium or earlier. The gradual spread of the Bactrian camel from the areaseast of the Zagros Mountains to the west seems to have reached the Mesopota-mian civilization sporadically by the middle of the 3rd millennium and more fre-quently at the end of the 3rd / beginning of the 2nd millennium.

––––––––––––––––––––––98

See footnote 20.99 See Eshel/Eshel, 2008, 582; Aḥituv, 2008, 198–199. In the famous sculptures of the

palace of Sennacherib which illustrate the siege of Lachish, some Jewish captives appear, leading a dromedary with its load (Paterson, 1915, 71–73 ; Staubli, 1991, 202). Inaddition, camel bones were found in an Iron Age stratum at Lachish (Borowski, 1998,120).



368 M. Heide [UF 42

The “camel” (למ g āmāl ) in the patriarchal narratives may refer, at least insome places, to the Bactrian camel. Abram is seen as having employed camelsfor long-distance journeys in north-south direction, very probably commencingin upper Mesopotamia. From there, he migrated to Canaan and moved further

down to Egypt (Gen 12:5.9.16). The same can be said for the oppositedirection, from Canaan to upper Mesopotamia and back again (Gen 24:10–64).His son Isaac, who dwelt all his life in Canaan, is not portrayed as having usedany camels. His grandson Jacob, however, who spent a considerable time of hislife in upper Mesopotamia, did not only use, but bred a small herd of camels(Gen 30:43; 31:17; 32:7.15). After he had settled down in Canaan again,camels are not seen as belonging to his moveable property any more. Albright’sdictum that “any mention of camels in the period of Abraham is a blatantanachronism” (Albright, 1942, 96) is questionable.100 The archaeological and in-scriptional evidence allows at least the domesticated Bactrian camel to haveexisted at Abraham’s time. In the daily life of the patriarchs, however, the camel

played a minor role. The later Hebrews never adopted it and regarded it asunclean (Lev 11: 4).We know of inscriptional sources written after the middle of the 2 nd millen-

nium, but being nevertheless copies of older traditions, in which the dromedaryis regarded as a domesticated animal, the “donkey of the sea”. Its domesticationmust have taken place somewhat earlier. There are not enough data to knowwhere and when the dromedary was domesticated for the first time. Time willtell. It is also important to make a distinction between domestication andwidespread use of the camel (Hoyland, 2001, 90). There is no evidence for awide-spread adoption of the camel into Near Eastern economies until the beginning of the first millennium BCE. There is, however, a certain discrepancy between the earliest unequivocal zooarchaeological evidence available today,

which points to the appearance of the domesticated dromedary not before theend of the 2nd millennium in south-east Arabia, and the inscriptional evidencefrom Mesopotamia, which requires its domestication around the middle of the2nd millennium or before. One explanation is that the process of domesticationlasted a long time and that dromedaries were brought under some human controlwell before 1000 BCE but were not used for widespread trade and transport until

––––––––––––––––––––––100 C. H. Gordon had an anecdotal way of explaining Albright’s opinion on the camel.He claimed that Albright „abominated camels and adored donkeys. This had asubconscious effect on his pronouncements and publications concerning the patriarchalage. He ‘got rid’ of the camels by turning their very mention in the patriarchal narratives

into anachronisms. His love of the donkey impelled him to stress the role of the Fathersas donkey caravaneers” (Gordon, 1986, 53). After all, Gordon’s explanation is too sim-

plistic. Moreover, in his famous book From the Stone Age to Christianity (1946b, 120),Albright conceded that “the effective domestication [of the dromedary] cannot antedatethe outgoing Bronze Age, though partial and sporadic domestication may go back severalcenturies earlier”.




later.101 Another explanation offered is that dromedary domestication occurredindependently at various locations and times (cf. Walz, 1954, 48.58.83).

Bactrian camels, however, must have been available in Mesopotamia morethan 1000 years earlier. But also the Bactrian camel is not often mentioned in

Mesopotamian literature. It has to be kept in mind that most of the inscriptionalreferences to the camel from Mesopotamia are found in lexical lists and incampaign reports. Even in the first millennium, when at last both species of thecamel were firmly established in trade and war and the number of camels used intrade and war must have been enormous, there are only a few references to thecamel in letters and contracts and in prose and poetry outside of campaignreports.102 While the elephant (not to speak of the omnipresence of the donkey,the horse and the ox) seems to have been present in all kinds of literature (CADP, 418–420), the camel is rarely mentioned. Those people who used the camel asa means of transport probably avoided to enter the cities and preferred to parkthem outside (cf. Gen 24:11.30). This is in stark contrast to the Arabic literatureof the first millennium CE, in which we encounter many different terms for thecamel, its breeds, shapes, sizes, and accessories, and in which the camel plays a prominent role in prose and poetry (cf. Hommel, 1879, 139–215).

After all, additional finds of both archaeological and inscriptional evidenceare necessary to have a more precise understanding of the camel’s role in theAncient Near East before the first millennium BCE.

Acknowledgments

My interest in camel domestication was born while working at the Institute forthe History of Veterinary Medicine in Munich, where Joris Peters drew myattention to the matter. I am indebted to several scholars who assisted me very

kindly in reading an early draft of this paper, namely Michael Macdonald (Ox-ford), Peter Magee (Bryn Mawr), Alan Millard (Liverpool), Walter W. Müller(Marburg), Henriette Obermaier (München), Daniel Potts (Sydney), Niek Veld-huis (Berkeley) and Wolfgang Zwickel (Mainz). I enjoyed especially the dis-cussions with Peter Magee and Michael Macdonald, and I am grateful for thereading suggestions of the Emar tablet provided by Walter Sommerfeld (Mar- burg), and for the many details Niek Veldhuis provided for the understanding ofthe urra lists. Alexander Hepher (Munich) took the trouble to proofread the ar-ticle. The opinions brought forward in this essay are, of course, solely mine.

––––––––––––––––––––––101 This is an explanation adduced already by Albright (1946b, 120) and Walz (1951,50–51) and also by P. Magee (personal email).102 It is also noteworthy that in Hebrew “this otherwise common word is extremely rarein poetic texts” (SED II, 116).



370 M. Heide [UF 42

Bibliography

Ababneh, Mohammad I., 2005: Neue safaitische Inschriften und deren bildlicheDarstellung. Aachen: Shaker.

Aḥituv, Shmuel, 2008: Echoes from the Past. Hebrew and Cognate Inscriptionsfrom the Biblical Period. Jerusalem: Carta.Albright, William F., 1942: Archaeology and the Religion of Israel, Baltimore:

Johns Hopkins Press. — 1946a: Cuneiform Material for Egyptian Prosopography 1500–1200 B. C.

JNES 5: 7–25. — 1946b: From the Stone Age to Christianity. Monotheism and the Historical

Process. Second edition. Baltimore: John Hopkins. — 1950: Zur Zähmung des Kamels. Aus einem Brief von Prof. W. F. Albright

an Dr. Walz vom 19. Febr. 1949. ZAW N. S. 21, 315. — 1961: The Archaeology of Palestine, Baltimore: Penguin Books.Al-Manaser, Ali Yunes Khalid, 2008: Ein Korpus neuer safaitischer Inschriften

aus Jordanien. Semitica et Semitohamitica Berolinensia 10. Aachen.Alster, Bendt, 1999: Tammuz ז ו מ ת. In 2DDD, pp. 828–834.Anthony, David W., 2007: The Horse, the Wheel and Language. How Bronze-

Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World. Prince-ton/Oxford: Princeton University Press.

Arnaud, Daniel, 1985: Recherches au pays d’Aštata. Emar VI/1–2: Textes su-mériens et accadiens (2 vols). Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations.

— 1987: Recherches au pays d’Aštata. Emar VI /4: Textes de la bibliothèque:transcriptions et traductions. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations.

Artzy, Michal, 1994: Incense, Camels and Collared Rim Jars: Desert TradeRoutes and Maritime Outlets in the Second Millennium. OJA 13, 121–147.

Badam, G. L., 1984: Holocene Faunal Material from India with Special Refe-rence to Domesticated Animals. In Juliet Clotton-Brock / Caroline Grigson(eds.): Animals and Archaeology 3: Herders and their Flocks. BAR Inter-national Series 202. Oxford. Pp. 339–353.

Baskin, L. M., 1974: Management of Ungulate Herds in Relation to Domestica-tion. In V. Geist / F. Walther (eds.): The Behaviour of Ungulate and its Rela-tion to Management. International Union for Conservation of Nature Bulle-tin, New Series II, paper No 27, 530–541.

Becker, Cornelia, 2008: Die Tierknochenfunde aus Tall Šēḫ Ḥamad / Dūr-Kat-limmu – eine zoogeographisch-haustierkundliche Studie. In Hartmut Kühneet al . (eds.): Berichte der Ausgrabung aus Tall Šēḫ Ḥamad / Dūr-Katlimmu8. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Pp. 61–131.

Becker, Cornelia / de Souza, Philip, 2009: Camel. In Hubert Cancik / HelmuthSchneider (eds.): Brill’s New Pauly. Brill Online.Beech, Mark / Mashkour, Marjan et al ., 2009: Prehistoric Camels in South-

Eastern Arabia: the Discovery of a New Site in Abu Dhabi’s Western Re-gion, United Arab Emirates. In Janet Starkey (ed.): Proceedings of theSeminar for Arabian Studies 39. Pp. 17–30.




Bienkowski, Piotr / Millard, Alan, (eds.), 2000: Dictionary of the Ancient NearEast. London: British Museum.

Bietak, Manfred, 1966: Ausgrabungen in Sayala-Nubien 1961–1965. Denk-mäler der C-Gruppe und der Pan-Gräber-Kultur. Berichte des Österreichi-

schen Nationalkomitees der UNESCO-Aktion für die Rettung der NubischenAltertümer. III. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-Hist.Klasse, Denkschriften 92. Wien: Hermann Böhlaus Nachf.

Black, Jeremy / George, Andrew et al ., 2000: A Concise Dictionary of Akka-dian, 2nd (corrected) printing. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Borger, Riekele, 1956: Die Inschriften Asarhaddons, König von Assyrien.BAfO 9. Wien

Borowski, Oded, 1998: Every Living Thing. Walnut Creek / London / New De-lhi: Altamira Press.

Bradley, D. G. / Magee, D.A., 2006: Genetics and the Origins of DomesticCattle. In M.A. Zeder / E. Emshwiller et al . (eds.): Documenting Domestica-tion: New Genetic and Archaeological Paradigms. California: University ofCalifornia Press. Pp. 317–328.

Budge, E. A. Wallis / King, L.W., 1902: Annals of the Kings of Assyria, vol. I.London: British Museum.

Bulliet, Richard W., 1990: The Camel and the Wheel, New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press (reprint of 1975 edition, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Uni-versity Press).

Burstein, Stanley M., (ed.), 1989: Agatharchides of Cnidus: On the ErythraeanSea. London.

Calvot, Danielle, 1969: Deux documents inédits de Ṣelluš-Dagan. RA 63, 101– 114.

Caton-Thompson, Gertrude, 1934: The Camel in Dynastic Egypt. Man 34, 21.

Cavigneaux, Antoine, 1976: Die sumerisch-akkadischen Zeichenlisten. Überlie-ferungsprobleme. Dissertation München.Civil, Miguel, 1989: The Texts from Meskene-Emar. AuOr 7, 5–25. — 1995: Ancient Mesopotamian Lexicography. In CANE IV, pp. 2305–2314. — 1998: “Adamdun,” the Hippopotamus, and the Crocodile. JCS 50, 11–14.Clines, David J. A., (ed.), 1993ff.: The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. 6 vols.

Shef field: Shef field Academic Press.Clutton-Brock, J., 1986: Osteology of the Equids from Sumer. In Meadow/

Uerpmann: Equids in the Ancient World, vol. 1 (see below). Pp. 207–229. — 21999: A Natural History of Domesticated Mammals. Cambridge: Cam-

bridge University Press.Cohen, Chaim / Hurowitz, Victor A., et al . (eds.), 2008: Birkat Shalom: Studies

in the Bible, Ancient Near Eastern Literature, and Postbiblical Judaism pre-sented to Shalom M. Paul on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, 2vols. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.



372 M. Heide [UF 42

Cohen, David, 1970–2010: Dictionnaire des racines sémitiques ou attestées dansles langues sémitiques. 9 fasc. (fasc. 3–9: avec la collaboration de FrancoisBron et Antoine Lonnet). Leuven: Peeters.

Compagnoni, Bruno / Tosi, Maurizio, 1978: The Camel: Its Distribution and

State of Domestication in the Middle East During the 3rd millennium B. C. inthe Light of Finds from Shahr-I Sokhta. In Richard H. Meadow / Melinda A.Zeder (eds.): Approaches to the Faunal Analysis in the Middle East, PeabodyMuseum Bulletin 2. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Har-vard University. Pp. 91–103.

Dahl, Gudrun / Hjort, Anders, 1976: Having Herds. Pastoral Herd Growth andHousehold Economy. Stockholm Studies in Social Anthropology 2. Stock-holm: University of Stockholm.

Dalman, Gustav, 1939: Arbeit und Sitte in Palästina. Vol. VI: Zeltleben, Vieh-und Milchwirtschaft, Jagd, Fischfang. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann.

de Maaijer, Remco / Jagersma, Bram, 2003–2004: Review of Sjöberg, Åke W.,(ed.) with the collaboration of Behrens, Hermann [et al .]: The SumerianDictionary of the University of Pennsylvania Museum. Vol. I: A Part III.AfO 50, 351–355.

de Vaux, Roland, 1946–1949: Les patriarches hébreux et les découvertes mo-dernes. RB 53, 321–348; 55, 321–347; 56, 5–36.

Dillmann, August, 1886: Die Genesis. 5. Auflage. Leipzig: Hirzel.Dostal, Walter, 1967: Die Beduinen in Südarabien. Eine ethnologische Studie

zur Entwicklung der Kamelhirtenkultur in Arabien. Wiener Beiträge zur Kul-turgeschichte und Linguistik 16. Wien: Berger & Söhne.

Dougherty, Raymond Philip, 1932: The Sealand of Ancient Arabia. YOS 19.Yale: University Press.

Duerst, J. Ulrich, 1908: Animal Remains from the Excavations at Anau and The

Horse of Anau in its Relation to the Races of Domestic Horses. In R. Pum- pelly (ed.): Explorations in Turkestan. Expedition of 1904. Washington:Carnegie. Pp. 339–442.

Elat, Moshe, 1978: The Economic Relations of the Neo-Assyrian Empire withEgypt. JAOS 98, 20–34.

Eph‘al, Israel, 1982: The Ancient Arabs. Nomads on the Borders of the FertileCrescent 9th –5th Centuries B. C. Jerusalem: Magnes / Leiden: Brill.

Erman, Adolf / Grapow, Hermann, 1982: Wörterbuch der Ägyptischen Sprache.Vol. 6: Deutsch-Ägyptisches Wörterverzeichnis, Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.

Eshel, Esther / Eshel, Hanan, 2008: A Late Iron Age Hebrew Letter Containingthe Word Nôqed ī m. In Cohen/Hurowitz, Birkat Shalom (see above), 2, 571– 584.

Falkenstein, Adam, 1931: Literarische Keilschrifttexte aus Uruk. Berlin: Staatli-che Museen.

Feliks, Jehuda, 2007: Camel. In Encyclopaedia Judaica. Second edition. Jerusa-lem: Macmillan / Keter. Vol. 4, pp. 380–381.

Finkelstein, Jacob J., 1953: Cuneiform Texts from Billa. JCS 7, 111–176.




Firmage, Edwin, 1992: Zoology (Fauna). In ABD 6, pp. 1109–1167.Fitzmyer, Joseph A., 2004: The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1

(1Q20). A Commentary. Third edition. Rome: Pontifical Institute.Fleming, Daniel E., 2004: Genesis in History and Tradition: The Syrian Back-

ground of Israel’s Ancestors, Reprise. In James K. Hoffmeier / Alan R. Mil-lard (eds.): The Future of Biblical Archaeology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.Pp. 193–232.

Forbes, Robert James, 1993: Studies in Ancient Technology. 3rd edition. 2 vol.Leiden: Brill.

Frahm, Eckart, 1997: Einleitung in die Sanherib-Inschriften. BAfO 26. Vienna:Institut für Orientalistik.

Free, Joseph P., 1944: Abraham’s Camels. JNES 3, 187–193.Frisk, Hjalmar, 1960: Griechisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch. Band I: A–Ko.Fuchs, Andreas, 1994: Die Inschriften Sargons II. aus Khorsabad. Göttingen:

Cuvillier.George, A. R., 2003: The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic. Introduction, Critical

Edition and Cuneiform Texts. 2 vols. Oxford: University Press.Gesenius, Wilhelm, 1987–2010: Hebräisches und Aramäisches Wörterbuch

über das Alte Testament. Unter verantwortlicher Mitarbeit von Dr. U. Rü-terswörden bearbeitet und herausgegeben von R. Meyer und H. Donner.Lieferung 1–6. 18. Auflage. Berlin: de Gruyter.

Götherström, Anders / Anderung, Cecilia, et al ., 2005: Cattle domestication inthe Near East was followed by hybridization with aurochs bulls in Europe.Proceedings of the Royal Society, Biological Sciences 272, 2345–2351.

Gordon, Cyrus H., 1939: Western Asiatic Seals in the Walters Art Gallery. Iraq6, 3–34.

— 1986: The Pennsylvania Tradition of Semitics: A Century of Near Eastern

and Biblical Studies at the University of Pennsylvania. Atlanta : Scholars.Graf, David F., 2007: Two-Humped Camel Drachms: Trajanic Propaganda orReality? In Fawwaz al-Khraysheh (ed.): Studies in the History and Archaeo-logy of Jordan IX, pp. 439–450.

Grayson, Albert Kirk, 1976: Assyrian Royal Inscriptions. Part 2: From Tiglath- pileser I to Ashur-nasir-apli II. Records of the Ancient Near East, ed. byHans Goedicke. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

— 1991: Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC I (1114–859 BC).RIMA 2. Toronto: University of Toronto.

— 2002: Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC II (858–745 BC).RIMA 3. Toronto: University of Toronto, Reprint of 1996 edition.

Hakker-Orion, Dalia, 1984: The Rôle of the Camel in Israel’s Early History. In

Juliet Clotton-Brock / Caroline Grigson (eds.): Animals and Archaeology 3:Herders and their Flocks. BAR International Series 202. Oxford. Pp. 207– 212.

Hannig, Rainer, 2000: Großes Handwörterbuch Deutsch – Ägyptisch. Mainz:Zabern.



374 M. Heide [UF 42

Heimpel, W., 1968: Tierbilder in der sumerischen Literatur. StP 2. Rom: Päpst-liches Bibelinstitut.

— 1980: Kamel. In RlA V, pp. 330–332. — 1987–1990: Maultier. In RlA VII, pp. 602–605.

Hilgert, Markus, 1998: Drehem Administrative Documents from the Reign ofŠulgi. OIP 115. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.

Hoch, Ella, 1979: Reflections on Prehistoric Life at Umm an-Nar (TrucialOman) Based on Faunal Remains from the 3 rd millennium BC. In MaurizioTaddei (ed.): South Asian Archaeology 1977: Papers from the Fourth Inter-national Conference of the Association of South Asian Archaeologists inWestern Europe, held in the Istituto Universitario Orientale, Naples. Naples:Istituto Universitario Orientale. Vol. I, pp. 589–638.

Hoch, James E., 1994: Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts of the New Kingdomand Third Intermediate Period. Princeton: University Press.

Hommel, Fritz, 1879: Die Namen der Säugetiere bei den südsemitischen Völ– kern. Leipzig: Hinrichs.

Horowitz, Wayne, 2008: ‘The Ship of the Desert, the Donkey of the Sea’: TheCamel in Early Mesopotamia Revisited. In Cohen/Hurowitz, Birkat Shalom(see above), vol. 2, pp. 597–612.

Horwitz, Liora K. / Rosen, B., 2005: A Review of camel milking in the South-ern Levant. In J. Mulville / A. K. Outram (eds.): The Zooarchaeology ofFats, Oils, Milk and Dairying. Proceedings of the 9th Conference of the In-ternational Council of Archaeozoology, Durham, August 2002. Oxford: Ox- bow. Pp. 121–131.

Houghton, William, 1890: Was the Camel known to the Early Egyptians? Pro-ceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology 12, 81–84.

Houlihan, Patrick F., 1996: The Animal World of the Pharaohs. Cairo: The

American University in Cairo.Hoyland, Robert G., 2001: Arabia and the Arabs. From the Bronze Age to theComing of Islam. London: Routledge.

Hulin, P., 1963: The Inscriptions on the Carved Throne-Base of ShalmaneserIII. Iraq 25, 48–69.

Jacob, Irene / Jacob, Walter, 1992: Flora. In ABD 2, pp. 803–817.Jensen, P. W., 1895 : Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen Denkmälern: Erör-

terungen zu dem gleichnamigen Buche von W. Max Müller. ZA 10, 320– 376.

Ji, R. / Cui, P., et al ., 2009: Monophyletic origin of domestic bactrian camel(Camelus bactrianus) and its evolutionary relationship with the extant wildcamel (Camelus bactrianus ferus). Animal Genetics 40, 377–382.

Jung, Michael, 1994: On Representations of Camels and Camel-Riders in theRock Art of North Yemen. East and West 44, 231–248.

Kämmerer, Thomas R., 2007: Infektionskrankheiten: ihre keilschriftliche Über-lieferung und molekularbiologische Bewertung. In T. R. Kämmerer (ed.):




Studien zu Ritual und Sozialgeschichte im Alten Orient. Berlin: de Gruyter.Pp. 133–146.

Keimer, Ludwig, 1929: Bemerkungen und Lesefrüchte zur altägyptischen Na-turgeschichte. Kêmi 2, 84–106.

Kessler, K, 1993–1997: Muṣri I, Muṣri II. In RlA 8, 497.King, Geraldine, 1990: The Basalt Desert Rescue Survey and some preliminary

remarks on the Safaitic inscriptions and rock drawings. Proceedings of theSeminar for Arabian Studies 20, 55–78.

Kirtcho, L. B., 2009: The Earliest Wheeled Transport in Southwestern CentralAsia: New Finds from Altyn-Depe. Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropol-ogy of Eurasia 37, 25–33.

Klein, Jakob / Sefati, Yitschak, 2008: ‘Secular’ Love Songs in MesopotamianLiterature. In Cohen/Hurowitz, Birkat Shalom (see above), vol. 2, pp. 613– 626.

Klíma, Otokar, 1965: Zum palmyrenischen Zolltarif. In Stanislav Segert (ed.):Studia semitica philologica necnon philosophica Ioanni Bakoš dictata. Brati-slava: Academia Scientiarum Slovaca. Pp. 147–151.

Knauf, Ernst Axel, 1988: Midian. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Palästinasund Nordarabiens am Ende des 2. Jahrtausends v. Chr. ADPV. Wiesbaden:Harrassowitz.

Kohl, Philip L., 1984: Central Asia (Western Turkestan). Robert W. Ehrich(ed.): Chronologies in Old World Archaeology, 3rd edition, Chicago/Lon-don: University of Chicago Press. Vol. I, pp. 179–195.

Köhler, Ilse, 1981: Zur Domestikation des Kamels, Inaugural Dissertation. Han-nover: Tierärztliche Hochschule.

Köhler-Rollefson, Ilse, 1984: The Dromedary in Modern Pastoral Societies andImplications for its Process of Domestication. In Juliet Clotton-Brock /

Caroline Grigson (eds.): Animals and Archaeology. 3: Herders and theirFlocks. BAR International Series 202. Oxford. Pp. 201–206. — 1993: Camels and Camel Pastoralism in Arabia. Biblical Archaeologist 56,

180–188.Kurth, Amélie, 1999: The Exploitation of the Camel in the Neo-Assyrian Em-

pire. In Anthony Leahy / John Tait (eds.) : Studies on Ancient Egypt in Hon-our of H.S. Smith. London: Occasional Publications of the Egypt Explora-tion Society. Pp. 179–184.

Kwasman, T. / Parpola, S., 1991: Legal transactions of the royal court of Nini-veh. Part I: Tiglath-Pileser III through Esarhaddon. SAA 6. Helsinki.

Lamberg-Karlovsky, G. C., 1969: Further Notes on the Shaft-Hole Pick-Axefrom Khur ā b, Makr ān. Iran 7, 163–168.

Lambert, W. G., 1960: The Domesticated Camel in the 2nd

millennium – Evi-dence from Alalakh and Ugarit. BASOR 160, 42–43.

Landsberger, Benno, 1934: Die Fauna des alten Mesopotamien nach der 14.Tafel der Serie ḪAR-r a = ḫubullu. Leipzig: Hirzel.



376 M. Heide [UF 42

Landsberger, B., et al ., 1959: Materialien zum sumerischen Lexikon. Vol. VII:The Series ḪAR-r a = ḫubullu, Tablets VIII–XII. Rom: Pontificium Institu-tum Biblicum.

— 1960: Materialien zum sumerischen Lexikon. Vol. VIII/1: The Fauna of An-

cient Mesopotamia, First Part. The Series ḪAR-ra = ḫubullu, Tablet XIII.Rom: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum.

— 1962: Materialien zum sumerischen Lexikon. Vol. VIII/2: The Fauna of An-cient Mesopotamia, Second Part. The Series ḪAR-ra = ḫubullu, TabletsXIV and XVIII. Rom: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum.

Landsberger, B. / Gurney, O. R., 1957–1958: Practical Vocabulary of Assur.AfO 18, 328–341.

Lane, Edward William, 1863–1893: An Arabic Englisch Lexicon in Eight Parts.Edinburgh: Williams and Norgate.

Levy, Jacob, 1924: Wörterbuch über die Talmudim und Midraschim. 4 vols.Berlin: Benjamin Harz.

Lewy, Heinrich, 1895: Die semitischen Fremdwörter im Griechischen. Berlin:Gaertners.

Lion, Brigitte, 1992: La circulation des animaux exotiques au Proche-Orientantique. In Dominique Charpin / Francis Johannès (eds.): La circulation des biens, des personnes et des idées dans le Proche-Orient ancient. Paris : Editi-ons Recherches sur les Civilisations. Pp. 357–365.

Littmann E., 1943: Safaïtic Inscriptions. Syria. Publications of the PrincetonUniversity Archaeological Expeditions to Syria in 1904–1905 and 1909. Di-vision IV. Section C. Leiden: Brill.

Lokotsch, Karl, 1927: Etymologisches Wörterbuch der europäischen (germani-schen, romanischen und slavischen) Wörter orientalischen Ursprungs. Hei-delberg: Winter.

Loretz, Oswald, 2011: Hippologia Ugaritica. Das Pferd in Kultur, Wirtschaft,Kriegführung und Hippiatrie Ugarits – Pferd, Esel und Kamel in biblischenTexten. Mit einem Beitrag von M. Stol über Pferde, Pferdekrankheiten undPferdemedizin in altbabylonischer Zeit. AOAT 386. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.

Luckenbill, Daniel David, 1924: The Annals of Sennacherib. OIP 2. Chicago:University Press.

Macdonald, Michael C. A., 1979: Safaitic Inscriptions in the Amman Museumand Other Collections I. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan23, 101–119.

— 1995: North Arabia in the First Millennium BCE. In CANE II, pp. 1355– 1369 and 1351.

Macdonald, Michael C. A. / Al-Mu’azzin, Muna, et al ., 1996: Les inscriptions

safaïtiques de Syrie, cent quarante ans après leur découverte. CRAIBL1996, 435–494.

Macfarlane, W.T., 1977: Survival in an Arid Land. Australian Natural History29, 18–23.

Maekawa, Kazuya, 1979: The ass and the onager in Sumer. ASJ 1, 35–62.




Marcus, Michelle I., 1987: Geography as an Organizing Principle in the Impe-rial Art of Shalmaneser III. Iraq 49, 77–90.

Mayer, Walter, 1983: Sargons Feldzug gegen Urartu – 714 v. Chr. Text undÜbersetzung. MDOG 115, 65–132.

Mayrhofer, Manfred, 1956–1976: Kurzgefaßtes etymologisches Wörterbuch desAltindischen. 3 vols. Heidelberg: Winter.

Maxwell-Hyslop, K. R., 1955: Note on a Shaft-Hole Axe-Pick from Khurab,Makran. Iraq 17, 161.

Midant-Reynes, Béatrix / Braunstein-Silvestre, Florence, 1977: Le chamaeu enÉgypte. Orientalia 22, 337–362.

— 1980: Kamel. In LÄ III, pp. 304–306.Mikesell, Marvin W., 1955: Notes on the Dispersal of the Dromedary. In South-

western Journal of Anthropology 11, 231–245.Millard, Alan R., 1980: Methods of Studying the Patriarchal Narratives as An-

cient Texts. In A. R. Millard / D. J. Wiseman (eds.): Essays on the Patriar-chal Narratives. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Pp. 35–52.

— 1992: Abraham. In ABD 1, pp. 35–41.Mitchell, T. C., 2000: Camels in the Assyrian Bas-Reliefs. Iraq 62, 187–194.Müller, Max W., 1893: Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen Denkmälern.

Leipzig: Engelmann.Müller-Wollermann, Renate, 2003: „Zoologische Gärten“ als Mittel der Herr-

schaftslegitimation im Alten Ägypten. WO 33, 31–43.Oppenheim, A. Leo / Hartman, Louis F., 1945: The Domestic Animals of An-

cient Mesopotamia According to the XIIIth Tablet of the Series ḪAR.ra =ḫubullu. JNES 4, 152–177.

Orthmann, W., 1971: Untersuchungen zur späthethitischen Kunst. Bonn.Paterson, Archibald, 1915: Assyrian Sculptures: Palace of Sennacherib. The

Hague.Payne Smith, R., 1879–1901: Thesaurus Syriacus. 2 vols. Oxford.Pellat, Ch., 1971: Ibil. In Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition, Vol. III, Lei-

den: Brill, 665.Peters, Joris, 1997: Das Dromedar: Herkunft, Domestikationsgeschichte und

Krankheitsbehandlung in frühgeschichtlicher Zeit. Tierärztliche Praxis 25,559–565.

Peters, Joris / von den Driesch, Angela, 1997 : The two-humped camel (Camelus bactrianus): new light on its distribution, management and medical treatmentin the past. Journal of Zoology 242, 651–679.

Petrie, W. M. Flinders, 1907: Gizeh and Rifeh, London: School of Archaeologyin Egypt.

Pohl, Alfred, 1950: Das Kamel in Mesopotamien. Or N. S. 19, 251–253. — 1952: Nochmals das Kamel in Mesopotamien. Or N. S. 21, 373–374.Porada, Edith, 1977: A Cylinder Seal with a Camel in the Walters Art Gallery.

The Journal of the Walters Art Gallery, 36 (Essays in Honor of Dorothy KentHill), 1–6.



378 M. Heide [UF 42

Postgate, J. Nicholas, 1976: Fifty Neo-Assyrian Legal Documents. Warminster:Aris & Phillips.

— 1986: The Equids of Sumer, Again. In Uerpmann/ Meadow (eds.), Equids inthe Ancient World (see below), vol. 1, pp. 194–206.

— 1992: Early Mesopotamia: Society and Economy at the Dawn of History.London: Routledge.

— 2009: Schaf. In RlA XII, pp. 115–120.Potts, Daniel T., 1990: The Arabian Gulf in Antiquity. Vol. I: From Prehistory

to the Fall of the Achaemenid Empire. Oxford: Clarendon Press. — 2004a: Camel Hybridization and the Role of Camelus Bactrianus in the An-

cient Near East. JESHO 47, 143–165. — 2004b: Bactrian Camels and Bactrian-Dromedary Hybrids (modified version

of a lecture delivered for the Inner Asia/Silkroad Study Group (IASSG) 21October 2004). http://www.silkroadfoundation.org/newsletter/vol3num1/7_ bactrian.php as of 07/06/2009.

— 2008: Puzur-Inšušinak and the Oxus Civilization (BMAC): Reflections onŠimaški and the geo-political landscape of Iran and Central Asia in the Ur III period. ZA 98, 165–194.

Proust, Christine, 2007: Tablettes Mathematiqus de Nippur. Varia Anatolica 18.Istanbul: Institut français d’études anatoliennes Georges Dumézil.

Pusch, Edgar B., 1996: Ein Dromedar aus der Ramses-Stadt. Egypt and the Le-vant 6, 107–118.

Quack, Joachim Friedrich, 2002: Review of Das Tier im Alten Ägypten, by Phi-lippe Germond, München 2001, in JAOS 122, 899.

— 2005: Zu den vorarabischen semitischen Lehnwörtern des Koptischen. In B.Burtea / J. Tropper / H. Younansardaroud (eds.): Studia semitica et Semito-hamitica. Festschrift für Rainer Voigt anläßlich seines 60. Geburtstages am

17. Januar 2004. AOAT 317. Münster : Ugarit-Verlag. Pp. 307–338.Rawlinson, H. C., 1861–1866: The Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia.3 vols. London: British Museum.

Retsö, Jan, 1991: The Domestication of the Camel and the Establishment of theFrankincense Road from South Arabia. Orientalia Suecana 40, 187–219.

Reuter, E., 1974–2006: šipשפחה ḥâ. In Johannes G. Botterweck / Helmer Ring-gren et al . (eds.): Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Grand Ra- pids: Eerdmans. Vol. XV, pp. 405–410.

Ripinsky, Michael, 1985: The Camel in Dynastic Egypt. JEA 71, 134–141.Röllig, Wolfgang, 1993–1997: Miṣir, Mizru, Muṣri III, Muzir. In RlA VIII, pp.

264–269.Rosen, Steven A. / Saidel, Benjamin A., 2010: The Camel and the Tent: An

Exploration of Technological Change among Early Pastoralists. JNES 69,63–77.

Rowley-Conwy, Peter, 1988: The Camel in the Nile Valley: New RadiocarbonAccelerator (AMS) Dates from Qaṣr Ibrim. JEA 74, 245–248.

Saggs, H. W. F., 1955: The Nimrud Letters. Iraq 17, 126–160.




Salonen, Armas, 1956: Hippologica Accadica. Helsinki/Wiesbaden: Harrasso-witz.

— 1976: Jagd und Jagdtiere im alten Mesopotamien. Helsinki: AkateeminenKirjakauppa.

Santoni, M., 1979: Les objets. In J.-F. Jarrige / M. Santoni: Fouilles de Pirak.Vol. 1. Paris: Boccard. Pp. 167–232.

Sarianidi, Wiktor, 2005: Goňurdepe Turkmenistan. City of Kings and Gods. Aş-gabat Miras.

Scharff, Alexander, 1926: Das Vorgeschichtliche Gräberfeld von Abusir El-Me-leq. Die archäologischen Ergebnisse nach den Aufzeichnungen Georg Möl-lers. WVDOG 49. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrich.

Schauenberg, Konrad, 1955: Die Cameliden im Altertum. Bonner Jahrbücher155, 59–94.

— 1962: Neue antike Cameliden. Bonner Jahrbücher 162, 98–106.Schmidt-Nielsen, K., 1964: Desert Animals. The Physiology of Heat and Water,

Oxford: Clarendon Press.Sefati, Yitschak, 1998: Love Songs in Sumerian Literature: Critical Editions of

the Dumuzi-Inanna Songs. Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press.Sima, Alexander, 2000: Tiere, Pflanzen, Steine und Metalle in den altsüdarabi-

schen Inschriften. Veröffentlichungen der Orientalischen Kommission derAkademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, Mainz 46. Wiesbaden: Har-rassowitz.

Sjöberg, Åke W., 1996: UET 7 no. 93. A Lexical Text or a Commentary? ZA86, 220–237.

— 2000: Early Dynastic Animal Names. In J. Marzahn / H. Neumann (eds.):Assyriologica et Semitica: Festschrift für Joachim Oelsner. AOAT 252,Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Pp. 407–417.

Skinner, John, 1930: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis. Secondedition. Edinburgh: T & T Clark.Smith, Sidney, 1921: The First Campaign of Sennacherib, King of Assyria,

B. C. 705–681. London: British Museum.Sokoloff, Michael, 2009: A Syriac Lexicon. A Translation from the Latin, Cor-

rection, Expansion, and Update of C. Brockelmann’s Lexicon Syriacum. Wi-nona Lake: Eisenbrauns.

Speiser, E. A., 1962: Genesis. A New Translation with Introduction and Com-mentary. The Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday.

Staubli, Thomas, 1991: Das Image der Nomaden im Alten Israel und in der Iko-nographie seiner sesshaften Nachbarn. OBO 107. Freiburg/Göttingen: Van-denhoeck.

Steinkeller, Piotr, 1995: Sheep and Goat Terminology in Ur III Sources fromDrehem. In Domestic Animals of Mesopotamia Part II . BSA 8.

— 2009: Camels in Ur III Babylonia? In J. David Schloen (ed.) : Exploring theLongue Durée, Essays in Honor of Lawrence E. Stager. Winona Lake: Ei-senbrauns. Pp. 415–419.



380 M. Heide [UF 42

Stephan, Elisabeth, 2005: Preliminary Report on the Faunal Remains of the firsttwo Seasons of Tell Abraq / Umm al Quwain / United Arab Emirates. InH. Buitenhuis / H. P. Uerpmann (eds.): Archaeozoology of the Near East.Vol. II: Proceedings of the second international symposium on the archaeo-

zoology of southwestern Asia and adjacent areas. Leiden: Backhuys. Pp. 53– 63.

Tadmor, Hayim, 1961: Que and Muṣri. IEJ 11, 143–150. — 22007: The Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III King of Assyria. Second print-

ing with addenda et corrigenda. Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciencesand Humanities.

Troy, Christopher S. / MacHugh, David. E., et al ., 2001: Genetic evidence for Near-Eastern origins of European cattle. Nature 410, 1088–1091.

Tov, Emanuel, 2012: Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Third edition, re-vised and expanded. Minneapolis: Fortress.

Uerpmann, Hans-Peter, 1987: The Ancient Distribution of Ungulate Mammalsin the Middle East. Fauna and Archaeological Sites in Southwest Asia and Northeast Africa. TAVO, Beihefte A/27. Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert.

— 1999: Camel and horse skeletons from protohistoric graves at Mleiha in theEmirate of Sharjah (U. A. E.). Arabian archaeology and epigraphy 10, 102– 118.

— 2008: Animal Domestication. In Deborah M. Persall (ed.): Encyclopedia ofArchaeology. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Vol. I. pp. 434–445.

Uerpmann, H.P. / Meadow, R. H., (eds.), 1986: Equids in the Ancient World,Vol. 1. TAVO Beihefte, A/19.1. Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert.

Uerpmann, H. P. / Uerpmann, Margarethe, 2002: The Appearance of the Do-mestic Camel in South-East Arabia. Journal of Oman Studies 12, 235–260.

Van Seters, John, 1975: Abraham in History and Tradition. New Haven / Lon-

don: Yale University Press.Veldhuis, Niek C., 1999: Leren Lezen en Schrijven in Nippur. Phoenix 45, 30– 41.

— 2004: Religion, Literature, and Scholarship: The Sumerian Composition‘Nanše and the Birds,’ With a Catalogue of Sumerian Bird Names. CM 22.Leiden: Brill/Styx.

— 2006: How to Classify Pigs: Old Babylonian and Middle Babylonian LexicalTexts. In Cécile Michel / Brigitte Lion (eds.): De la domestication au tabou:le cas des suidés dans le Proche-Orient ancien. Paris: De Boccard. Pp. 25– 29.

— 2010: Guardians of Tradition: Early Dynastic Lexical Texts in Old Babylo-nian Copies. In Heather D. Baker / Eleanor Robson et al . (eds.): Your Praise

is Sweet. A Memorial Volume for Jeremy Black from Students, Colleaguesand Friends. Oakville/Oxford: Oxbow. Pp. 379–400.

Vergote, J., 1959: Joseph en Égypte. Genèse chap. 37–50 à la lumière desétudes égyptologiques récentes. Louvain: Publications Universitaires.




Vigne, J.-D. / Peters, J., et al . (eds.), 2005: The First Steps of Animal Domesti-cation. New archaeological approaches. Proceedings of the 9th ICAZ Confer-ence, Durham 2002. Oxford: Oxbow.

Vittmann, Günter, 1996: Semitisches Sprachgut im Demotischen. WZKM 86,

435–447.von den Driesch, Angela / Brückner, Helmut / Obermaier, Henriette / Zander,

Anja, 2008: The Hunt for Wild Dromedaries at the United Arab EmiratesCoastDuring the 3rd and 2ndmillennia BC. Camel Bonesfrom the Excavationsat Al Sufouh 2, Dubai, UAE. In E. Vila / L. Gourichon et al. (eds.): Archae-ozoology of the Near East VIII, Actes des huitièmes Rencontres internatio-nales d’Archéozoologie de l’Asie du Sud-Ouest et des régions adjacentes,Lyon 28 juin – 1er juillet 2006. Travaux de la maison de l’Orient et de la Mé-diterranée 49. Lyon: Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée. Vol. 2, pp.487–497.

von den Driesch, Angela / Obermaier, Henriette, 2007: The hunt for wild dro-medaries during the 3rd and 2nd millennia BC on the United Arab Emiratescoast. Camel bone finds from the excavation at Al Sufouh 2, Dubai, UAE. InGisela Grupe / Joris Peters (eds.): Documenta Archaeobiologiae. SkeletalSeries and their Socio-Economic Context. Jahrbuch der Staatssammlung fürAnthropologie und Paläoanatomie München 5. Rahden: Verlag Marie Lei-dorf. Pp. 133–167.

von den Driesch, Angela / Peters, Joris, 2003: Geschichte der Tiermedizin. 2.Aufl. Stuttgart: Schattauer.

Vullers, Johann August, 1855–1867: Joannis Augusti Vullers Lexicon Persico-Latinum etymologicum cum linguis maxime cognatis Sanscrita et Zendica etPehlevica comparatum e lexicis Persice scriptis ..., 2 vols. and Suppl. Bonn:Adolph Marcus.

Vycichl, Werner, 1983: Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue copte. Leuven:Peeters.Waetzold, A., 2006–2008: Rind. In RlA XI, pp. 375–388.Walz, Reinhard, 1951: Zum Problem des Zeitpunkts der Domestikation der

altweltlichen Cameliden. ZDMG 101, 29–51. — 1954: Neue Untersuchungen zum Domestikationsproblem der altweltlichen

Cameliden. ZDMG 105, 45–87. — 1956: Beitrage zur ältesten Geschichte der altweltlichen Cameliden unter be-

sonderer Berücksichtigung des Problems des Domestikationszeitpunktes. In Actes du IV e Congrès International des Sciences Anthropologiques et Eth-nologiques Vienne, 1–8 septembre 1952. Tome III: Ethnologica, seconde partie. Wien: Holzhausen. Pp. 190–204.

Wapnish, Paula, 1984: The dromedary and Bactrian camel in Levantine histori-cal settings: the evidence from Tell Jemmeh. In Juliet Clotton-Brock / Caro-line Grigson (eds.): Animals and Archaeology. 3: Herders and their Flocks.BAR International Series 202. Oxford. Pp. 171–200.



382 M. Heide [UF 42

— 1997: Camels. In American Schools of Oriental Research and Eric M. Mey-ers (eds.): Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, Oxford:Oxford University Press. Vol. I, pp. 407–408.

Way, Kenneth C., 2011: Donkeys in the Biblical World. Ceremony and Symbol.

History, Archaeology and Culture of the Levant 2. Winona Lake: Eisen- brauns.

Westermann, Claus, 1995: Genesis 12–36. A Continental Commentary, Min-neapolis: Fortress Press.

Wilson, R. T., 1984: The Camel. London: Longman.Winkelmann, Sylvia, 1999: Von Formen und Stilen – ein Versuch der Gliede-

rung baktrischer Stempel- und Rollsiegel. In Markus Mode (ed.): Zwischen Nil und Hindukusch. Archäologie im Orient. Hallesche Beiträge zur Orient-wissenschaft 28. Halle. Pp. 112–211.

Winnett, Fred V. / Harding, G. Lankester, 1978: Inscriptions from Fifty SafaiticCairns. Near and Middle East Series 9. Toronto: University of Toronto.

Younker, Randall W. / Koudele, Katharine, 2007: Camel Petroglyphs in the

Wadi Nasib and their Implications for the Use of Camels in the Late BronzeAge. In Fawwaz al-Khraysheh (ed.): Studies in the History and Archaeologyof Jordan IX. Pp. 53–59.

Yuhong, Wu, 2010: The Anonymous Nasa and Nasa of the Animal CenterDuring Šulgi 44–48 and the Camel (Gú-Gur 5), Hunchbacked Ox (Gur 8-Gur 8), Ubi, Habum and the Confusion of the Deer (Lulim) with Donkey(Anše) or Šeg9. Journal of Ancient Civilizations 25, 1–19.

Zarins, Juris, 1992: Camel. In ABD 1, pp. 824–826.Zeder, Melinda A., 2005: A View from the Zagros: New perspectives on live-

stock domestication in the Fertile Crescent. In J.-D. Vigne / J. Peters et al .(eds.): The First Steps of Animal Domestication. New archaeological ap-

proaches. Proceedings of the 9

th

ICAZ Conference, Durham 2002. Oxford:Oxbow. Pp. 125–147. — 2006: Central Questions in the Domestication of Plants and Animals. Evolu-

tionary Anthropology 15/3, 105–117.Zeder, Melinda A. / Emshwille, Eve, et al., 2006: Documenting domestication:

the intersection of genetics and archaeology. Trends in Genetics 22/3, 139– 155.

Zeuner, F. E., 1955: The Identity of the Camel on the Khurab Pick. Iraq 17,162–163.

Ziegler, Charlotte, 1962: Die Terrakotten von Warka. ADFU 6. Berlin: Mann.




akk anaqātum 366gamlu 346

gammalu 346, 348, 349, 351,354, 355, 360

ḫarr ānum 348ibilu 346, 348, 349, 350, 351,

354, 355, 360kanāsu 357udru 346, 349

akktADD No 117, 1 348

at1Chr 27,30 3671Chr. 12,40 367Gen 12,11–13 331Gen 12,14–16 332Gen 12,16 333, 334, 335, 364Gen 12,5 364Gen 24,10 364Gen 24,11 364Gen 24,32 364Gen 24,61 364Gen 24,64 365Gen 30,43 365Gen 31,17 365

Gen 31,34 365Gen 32,15–16 366Gen 37,25 365Gen 43,11.24 365ו ל ־ י ה י -formula 334

GNDumuzi 356, 379Tammuz 356, 370

griechκάμηλος 363

heb kar 365

ONAbu Sir Al-Malaq 341Altyn-depe 344, 345aṣ-Ṣuf ūḥ 340Baynūna 340

city of Ramses 342Egypt 331, 332, 333, 334, 341,

342, 343, 362, 364, 365, 366,

367, 368, 371, 372, 377, 378Emar 352, 353, 354, 360, 369,

370, 371Gonur Depe 345Khurab 344, 377, 382Khurasan (Iran) 344Kopet Dagh 344Milayḥa 361Muwaylaḥ 339 Namazga-depe 344 Nippur 352, 353, 357, 359, 360,

378, 380Pirak 345, 379Qaṣr Ibrim 342, 378Shahr-i Sokhta 344Tall Šēḫ Ḥamad 345, 354, 370Tell Abraq 339, 340, 380Tell Billa 352Tell Jemmeh 340, 381Turkmenistan 344, 345, 359,

360, 379Ugarit 352, 353, 354, 360, 375,

379

Umm an-Nār island 339Uruk 341, 372Zagros-mountains 348

PNAbimelech 333Abraham 331, 332, 333, 334,

335, 336, 364, 365, 368, 373,377

Abram 331, 332, 333, 334, 335,364, 368

Ashur-bel-kela 349, 358, 366Esarhaddon 343, 348, 350, 363,

367, 375Isaac 365, 368Jacob 365, 366, 368, 372, 374,

376Merodach-Baladan 362



384 M. Heide [UF 42

Sarah 333Sarai 331, 332, 333, 364Sennacherib 350, 362, 367, 376,

377, 379

Shalmaneser III 343, 348, 349,358, 362, 374, 377

Trajan 361s

Amarna letters (camel in a.l.)366

Bactrian camel 337, 338, 341,343, 344, 345, 346, 348, 349,350, 351, 354, 355, 357, 358,359, 360, 361, 362, 363, 367,368, 369, 381

Black Obelisk 343, 348, 358,362

camel PASSIM 331cart models 345donkey 332, 333, 335, 346, 347,

348, 352, 353, 354, 359, 360,365, 366, 368, 369

donkeys 332, 333, 334, 335,336, 343, 358, 362, 364, 365,366, 367, 368

dromedary PASSIM 331exotic 355, 359

Hebrew ostracon 367horse 348, 353, 354, 359, 369,380

horses 338, 358, 359, 362, 363,366, 367

Kamel PASSIM 331lobal trading networks 359milk (camel) 356, 366 pig 355silver drachms (with camels on

rev.) 361

two-humped camel 337, 343,344, 345, 346, 359, 361, 363,377

sem

gml 354, 361, 362, 363, 367ḥmr 335

sumam.si 346, 348, 355, 356, 357,

362am.si.ḫar.ra.an 346, 348, 349,

350, 351, 355, 356, 357, 359,360, 362

am.si.kur.ra 348, 349, 350, 351,355, 359, 360

anše 346, 347, 348, 349, 350,351, 352, 353, 354, 359, 360,362, 363

anše.a.ab.ba 346, 347, 348, 349,350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 359,360, 362, 363

anše.edin.na 347, 353, 354gam.mal 363gú.gúr(GAM) 357GÚ.URU×GU 357, 358gu4.áb 347GUD×KUR 347šáḫ 355

SUMkuš.anše.kur.ra 353sum text

urgud 346, 348, 349, 351, 362urra XIII 346, 347, 351, 352,

353, 354, 355, 359urra XIV 346, 347, 348, 351,

353, 355