Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions - 2-volume SET (Handbook of Oriental Studies Handbuch Der Orientalistik)

DICTIONARY THE NORTH-WEST

OF SEMITIC

INSCRIPTIONS PART O N E

HANDBUGH DER ORIENTALISTIK HANDBOOK OF ORIENTAL STUDIES ERSTE

ABTEILUNG

DER NAHE UND MITTLERE OSTEN THE

NEAR AND MIDDLE

EAST

HERAUSOEGEBEN VON

H. A L T E N M U L L E R • B . H R O U D A • B . A . L E V I N E K.R. VEENHOF

EINUNDZWANZIGSTER

BAND

DICTIONARY OF THE N O R T H - W E S T SEMITIC INSCRIPTIONS PART

ONE

DICTIONARY OF THE NORTH-WEST SEMITIC INSCRIPTIONS BY

J. H O F T I J Z E R AND K . J O N G E L I N G

W I T H APPENDICES BY R.C.

STEINER, A . MOSAK MOSHAVI AND B. PORTEN

PART

ONE

•'68"*'

E J. BRILL LEIDEN •NEW Y O R K • KOLN 1995

The paper in this book meets the guidelines for permanence and durability of the Committee on Production Guidelines for Book Longevity of the Council on Library Resources.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data HoftijzerJ. (Jacob) Dictionary of the North-West Semitic inscriptions /J. Hoftijzer & K. Jongeling : with appendices by R.C. Steiner, A. Mosak Moshavi and B. Porten. p. cm.— (Handbuch der Orientalistik. Erstc Abteilung, Der Nahe und Mittlere Osten ; 21. Bd., T. 1-2 Based on: Dicxtionnaire des inscriptions semitiques de l'oucst / C.F.Jean and J. Hoftijzer. Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 9004098178 (v. 1). — ISBN 9004098208 (v. 2) 1. Inscriptions, Semitic—Dictionaries—English. 2. Semitic languages, Northwest--Dictionaries—English. I. Jongeling, K. II. Steiner, Richard C. III. Moshavi, A. Mosak. IV.' Porten, Bezalel. V. Jean, Charles-F. (Charles-Frangois), b. 1874. Dictionnaire des inscriptions semitiques de l'oucst. V. Tide. VI. Series. PJ3085.H63 1995 492—dc20 94-39945 CIP

ISSN ISBN ISBN ISBN

0169-9423 90 04 09817 8 [Vol. 1) 90 04 09820 8 [Vol. 2) 90 04 09821 6 (Set)

© Copyright 1995 by E.J. Brill, Leiden, The Netherlands All rights reserved. Mo part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by E.J. Brill provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910 DanversMA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. PRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDS

THIS BOOK IS DEDICATED TO THE MEMORY OF

JOHANNES HENDRIK H O S P E R S

1921 - 1993

Contents

PART ONE

Contents Introduction Abbreviations Dictionary - 1 3

vii ix xix 1-585

PART TWO

Contents vii Dictionary m - t 586-1236 Appendix I Glossary of new Readings from T A D A E C, by B. Porten 1237 Appendix II A Selective Glossary of Aramaic Texts in Egyptian Script, by R.C. Steiner k A . Mosak Moshavi 1249

Introduction

This dictionary of the Northwestsemitic epigraphic material is based on the Dictionnaire des inscriptions semitiques de Vouesi by C.F.Jean and J.Hoftijzer (DISO), published in five fascicles (I/II in 1960, III in 1962 and I V / V in 1965). Lexemes from texts first published after the completion of fascicles I and II were not included in the later fascicles, but new comments on texts already known were. Since 1960 not only quite a number of previously unknown texts have been published, but also many texts previously known have been commented upon anew. Consequently the authors have made many additions to the original text, and in many instances they have proposed other solutions than the ones favoured in DISO. What remains, however, is the structure of the book and the presentation of the material. As in DISO the discussion of a lexeme is normally divided into two: - a) the enumeration of the various grammatical forms (wherever appropriate in their various orthographical representations) attested in the texts, grouped by language - b) the translation of the lexeme, with special attention to contextual data (see also below). In an optional third part, references are given to other lexemes where the lexeme under discussion is mentioned. As in the previous edition no etymological information is given, ex­ cept in the case of loan words, or in those instances where the context makes a reference unavoidable. This does not mean we are not inter­ ested in etymological questions, but we are of the opinion that Semitic etymology has to be dealt with by specialists. Etymology cannot be treated as a mere complement in a dictionary mainly devoted to one language or language group. The first part of the discussion of a lexeme is subdivided according to the languages in which it is attested. The order of the subdivision is the following: Old Can(aanite), Ph(oenician), Pun(ic), Mo(abite), Amm(onite), Edom(ite), Ilebr(ew), Samal(ian) (Yaudic), D(eir) A(lla dialect), Old Ar(amaic), Off(icial) Ar(amaic), Nab(atean), Palm(yrenean), Hatra, Waw, J(ewish) A(ramaic). This subdivision is necessary because the Northwestsemitic epi­ graphic texts are very heterogeneous from a linguistic point of view, but it would be incorrect to see it as absolute. As in DISO, Ugaritic is not treated in this dictionary. This does not mean that the authors do not consider it highly desirable to have a new

X

introduction

and complete dictionary of this language which includes also extensive references to the various readings and interpretational proposals. Our decision not to include Ugaritic was a purely practical one, based on the difference in approach between the study of Ugaritic and that of Northwestsemitic epigraphies. On the absence of Syriac, see below. Old Canaanite. Under this siglum are gathered the Canaanite glosses which are found in the Tell El-Amarna correspondence if they are in­ dicated as such by a Keil. We are aware that there are many words in these letters which are of Canaanite origin or show a (strong) influ­ ence of the Canaanite language/dialect of the scribe. However, by not putting a Keil before such a word, the scribe did not indicate that he meant to write a non-Akkadian word. For that reason such words and forms should be (and are) included in Akkadian dictionaries. The Old Canaanite words and forms in the Tell El-Amarna correspondence do not, of course, belong to one language or dialect. They were written by scribes from different regions who were probably speaking different lan­ guages or dialects. It would be a grave mistake to consider this material to represent only one language. Under this head the lexemic material from a few Canaanite texts written in syllabic script is also included. Phoenician. Under this head are gathered all those lexemic forms that are attested in Phoenician texts. These texts are not all writ­ ten in the same type of Phoenician. Some are in Official Phoenician, some in the Phoenician of Byblos and some in other dialects (cf. the magical texts from Arslan Tash and the text .published in Epigraphica Anatolica ix). Under this head the texts from Cyprus and Egypt are also treated. In addition, the texts in Official Phoenician and in the Phoenician of Byblos show clear signs of diachronic development. In this edition, as in the French one, we have nevertheless abstained from further subdividing this material because, had we done so, we would have had to subdivide material found under other sigla as well, and as a result the presentation of the morphological material would have become confusingly complex. Moreover, it is a nearly impossible task to give a satisfactory subdivision of the Official Phoenician material according to diachronic rules. Punic. Under this siglum are gathered all those lexemic forms that are attested in Punic texts, including those texts written in non-Semitic script. In nearly all instances we have maintained the geographical dis­ tinction between Phoenician and Punic texts commonly used, although we are aware that this distinction has only a relative value. There are many Punic texts which show none or only slight linguistic differences from texts written in Official Phoenician. Moreover, the material gath­ ered under the siglum Punic is neither linguistically nor orthographically uniform. There are clear signs of diachronic linguistic development

introduction

xi

and in some instances also indications of dialectal differences. But in this case too it is impossible to give a satisfactory subdivision of the material that can be used in a dictionary. Often in one and the same text forms are attested which, according to their orthography, belong to different linguistic levels. This means that an "old-fashioned" orthog­ raphy cannot prove that a text in which it is used represents an older linguistic level. So, a subdivision based on orthography is less useful. A subdivision between Punic and Neopunic texts, which is sometimes made, is based on non-linguistic palaeographical grounds. There is no reason to believe that this subdivision coincides with a diachronic lin­ guistic subdivision. Therefore and for the general reason mentioned un­ der the heading "Phoenician" we have preferred not to introduce any subdivisions into the Punic material. Mainly for practical reasons we have however maintained the division between Phoenician and Punic material. Under the headings "Phoenician" and "Punic" we have also in­ cluded forms of Phoenician and Punic lexemes attested in Greek and Latin texts, e.g. the plays of Plautus and the works of Dioscurides and Augustine. W e are aware that we don't have to do here with North­ westsemitic epigraphical material in the strict sense. Nevertheless we have included this material in the dictionary to supplement the scanty material known from Phoenician and Punic epigraphical texts. Moabite. Under this head are gathered those lexemic forms that are attested in the texts from the kingdom of Moab: the Mesha-inscription, some inscriptional fragments and a number of seal inscriptions which can be identified as Moabite in origin. Moabite has its own linguistic character, which is different from that of other Northwestsemitic lan­ guages or dialects of the relevant period (see below), and also from Classical Hebrew. Ammonite. Under this siglum are gathered those lexemic forms that are attested in the texts from the Ammonite kingdom: some inscrip­ tional fragments, an inscription on a bottle, a number of ostraca and quite a number of seal inscriptions which can be identified as being of Ammonite origin. This siglum is introduced because these texts have their own orthographical and linguistic character, which differs from that of other' Northwestsemitic languages or dialects of the relevant period (see below). Hebrew. Under this siglum are gathered those lexemic forms that are attested in Hebrew epigraphic texts. The Hebrew texts of the relevant period (see below) are, of course, neither orthographically nor linguisti­ cally uniform. A number of subdivisions might be made in the material in question, e.g. a subdivision based on diachronic arguments or a di­ vision between Northern Israelite Hebrew (e.g. found in the Samaria

xii

introduction

ostraca) and Southern Israelite (Judean) Hebrew. The older Southern Israelite epigraphical texts are not orthographically and linguistically uniform either. However, we have decided to collect this heterogeneous material under one head in order to avoid unnecessary complications. Deir Alia. Under this siglum are collected those lexemic forms that are found in the Deir Alia plaster texts. The language or dialect re­ flected in these texts stands completely on its own and is neither strictly Canaanite nor strictly Aramaic in type. This necessitates its special treatment. Samalian. Under this siglum are gathered those lexemic forms that are attested in the three texts written in the local language or dialect of Sam'al. Although this language is considered to be Aramaic by many authors and although it undoubtedly possesses many linguistic charac­ teristics which can be considered as Aramaic, it also possesses a num­ ber of characteristics absent from other Aramaic languages or dialects. Therefore it seems undesirable to include the relevant material under the heading "Old Aramaic". Old Aramaic. Under this siglum are gathered those lexemic forms that are attested in Aramaic epigraphical texts from the period before 700 B.C. These texts are not linguistically homogeneous. The TellFekheriye inscription especially has its own characteristics, but the other texts also differ from each other. However, in order to avoid mak­ ing the presentation of this material too complicated we have decided to present it under one siglum and to refrain from further subdividing it. The terminus ad quern is chosen, because around 700 B.C. Aramaic begins to be used as a lingua franca. However, we are aware of the fact that not all Aramaic material from before that date can be clearly dis­ tinguished from some of the Aramaic material which has to be dated after 700 B.C. Official Aramaic. Under this siglum are gathered those lexemic forms that are attested in Aramaic epigraphical texts from the pe­ riod after 700 B.C., in as far as they are not written in Nabatean or Palmyrenean script, are not written in Jewish Aramaic, and are not written in Hatrean (or the related Assur) Aramaic; included is the text from Warka in syllabic cuneiform script. Although all these texts are to a certain extent linguistically uniform (Aramaic having been used for quite a period as a lingua franca in the Near East), there are also many internal differences. These differences are caused by the decreasing in­ fluence of the lingua franca (especially after the fall of the Achaemenid empire), by the influence of the Aramaic dialects of the scribes (or their non-Aramaic languages), sometimes already at an early date (cf. the Hermopolis-papyri), and by linguistic development. However, in order to avoid making the presentation of this material too complicated, we

introduction

xiii

have decided to present it under one siglum. This decision was also taken because many of the texts are written in an official language influenced to a greater or lesser degree by the dialect or language of the scribe. This makes a further subdivision very difficult, if not im­ possible. Under the heading "Official Aramaic" we have also included references to the Aramaic ideograms found in Parthian, Pehlevic, Sogdian and Chwarezmian texts. Although we are not concerned here with Northwestsemitic epigraphic material in the strict sense, it is clearly material related to the Official Aramaic material and for that reason is best presented in this dictionary. Nabatean. Under this head are gathered all those lexemic forms that are attested in Aramaic texts written in some form of Nabatean script. For practical reasons we have followed here the generally accepted way of dividing the Aramaic material, although this division is not based on linguistic grounds and the texts in question are often greatly in­ fluenced by the lingua franca mentioned above and quite a number of them do not show any differences from texts belonging to the Offical Aramaic material. On the other hand one should be aware that the Nabatean material is not absolutely homogeneous, texts with different geographical backgrounds, for example, sometimes differing from each other. Palmyrenean. Under this siglum are gathered all those lexemic forms that are attested in Aramaic texts written in some form of Palmyrenean script. Here also we have, for practical reasons, followed the generally accepted division of the Aramaic material, although this division is not based on linguistic grounds and these texts are still influenced by the lingua franca mentioned above. Nevertheless, they display more differ­ ences from texts belonging to the Official Aramaic material than the texts written in Nabatean script. Material which differs from that found in Official Aramaic texts and material which does not is often found in one and the same text. This makes a subdivision of the Palmyrenean material less advisable. Haira. Under this siglum are gathered all those lexemic forms that are attested in the Aramaic epigraphic texts found in Hatra and in some other epigraphic texts written in the same script, but found elsewhere. These texts show a (sometimes much) greater linguistic difference from the Official Aramaic material, than the Nabatean and Palmyrenean texts. This fact alone justifies their being gathered under one heading. Under the same heading we have also gathered the lexemic forms which are attested in Aramaic texts from the first centuries A . D . from Assur, which are palaeographically, orthographically and linguistically similar to the Hatrean texts (although there are some differences). Waui. Under this siglum are gathered those lexemic forms that are

xiv

introduction

attested in the amulet AMB 6. Although this text is written in Syriac (see below), we have decided to include it in the dictionary because the other amulets of the collection published in AMB are also included. Jewish Aramaic. Under this siglum are gathered those lexemic forms that are attested in Jewish Aramaic epigraphic texts. This material is not subdivided, in order to avoid making the presentation too compli­ cated, although it is clearly not linguistically homogeneous. As in the first edition we have not included divine names, personal names, geographical names and names of months. We have used the terms "inscription" and "epigraphic" in their widest sense. We have not only included lexemes from inscriptions on stone, but also those attested in texts on ostraca, coins, seals, on pa­ pyrus or leather, in stamps and graffiti. Only forms of lexemes which are attested in texts published with transcription and commentary have been included. From a strictly linguistic point of view objections may be raised against a dictionary containing only lexemes from epigraphical ma­ terial, if not only epigraphical but also non-epigraphical texts of the language in question have been preserved. According to this, in itself linguistically correct, point of view the epigraphic southern-Israelite material ought to be treated in the same dictionary as the biblical Hebrew texts, the Hebrew texts from Qumran and the Hebrew frag­ ments of Sirach, and the epigraphic Jewish Aramaic texts ought to be treated in the same dictionaries as the Rabbinic Jewish Aramaic texts. However, in the past dictionaries have been mainly based upon certain collections of texts, resulting in dictionaries of the Old Testament, of Rabbinic literature, etc. Although there is change for the better at this moment, not all the relevant material is dealt with in this way yet. For this reason it is still fully justified, and even advisable, to publish a dictionary of only the epigraphic material of languages of which nonepigraphic texts have also been preserved. We have also included in this dictionary (as was done in DISO) comprehensive references to the scholarly literature on the relevant texts, which is not done in, e.g., the more recent dictionaries of, e.g., Classical Hebrew, Jewish Aramaic, etc. Because, from the Hebrew and Jewish Aramaic texts, only words from epigraphical material are included, we have maintained the deci­ sion already taken in DISO not to include the literary, non-epigraphic texts from Qumran, Massada, etc. As a rule we have included in this dictionary only the forms of the lexemes which are attested in epigraphic texts which with reasonable certainty can be dated to the period before 300 A . D . The decision not to include material from a later date is of course a subjective one, but any

introduction

XV

decision on this point is subjective in one way or another. However, the decision not to draw a line somewhere would mean that all published Hebrew and Jewish Aramaic epigraphic material of later periods would have to be included. This would mean that texts from the Middle Ages and from modern times (as far as they have been published) would have had to be included. The line we have drawn includes the epigraphic material of all other languages in the dictionary (also the Palmyrenean material). In those instances where texts from a period after 300 A . D . have been published in the same text edition as a large number of texts from a period before that date, we have included them in the dictionary (e.g. texts published in Prey or in MPAT). The line drawn here has as a consequence that the material from Syriac epigraphical texts is not included. Only a minority of them could have been included, and it seems wrong to divide them from the ma­ jority which are to be dated after 300 A . D . In the second part of an entry the translation of the lexemes in ques­ tion is given. However, because the semantic field of a lexeme belonging to a certain language is often not identical with that of a single lexeme in another language, not only translations are given. It is impossible to define the semantic value of a lexeme without insight into the various context types in which it occurs. For that reason these various context types are also described. The forms of the lexemes attested for the relevant Northwestsemitic languages are transcribed in italics. We have decided not to use the well-known Hebrew square script at all, because its use would convey a pretence of originality, whereas for a huge majority of the texts it would only be a different transcription, since they are being written in other script types themselves. In case of verbs, the root radicals are used as headwords. In a number of instances the root does not consist of three (or more) radicals, but of two. However, for practical reasons, we have conformed ourselves to the practice still common in dictionaries in our field of constructing a root with at least three radicals. In case of nouns, the singular absolute form is used as the head­ word, and for adjectives the singular masculine absolute form is used. The feminine ending in nouns is always indicated by -h (according to the Hebrew and Aramaic way), unless it is also indicated by -t in these languages. Parallel lexemes from different languages which are etymologically related, but which (e.g. because of different developments in the phoneme structure) are differently spelled for different languages, are normally collected under the same heading (cf. zhb - dhb "gold", swb - twb "return"). If such a lexeme is attested in both Canaanite and Aramaic texts, the Canaanite spelling (zhb, swb) is used to indicate

xvi

introduction

the lexeme. In these instances cross-references are given referring the reader to the Canaanite form of the lexeme (e.g. dhb v. zhb). If, for some reason, etymologically related words are not gathered under the same heading, there are cross-references with both entries. In case a lexeme is only attested for (an) Aramaic language(s), an Aramaic form is used as indication of the headword. Possible lapsus and orthographical variants of any form listed in the first part of an entry are also included there. For these lapsus and orthographical variants usually no special entries with cross-references are introduced. A list of text references like Cowl l , 2 , 3 , Krael l , 2 , 3 , Driv l , 2 , 3 , etc., etc. does not exclude the possibility that there are other attestations of the relevant form from Cowley and Kraeling than those listed. Although the general interpretation of epigraphic texts is mostly reasonably certain (even though there are quite a number of exceptions to this rule), the interpretation of details often offers many difficul­ ties. Therefore we do not want to present the solutions preferred by us as certain. This is the reason why we not only present the solutions we prefer (with references to the relevant scholarly literature), but also references to other solutions (again with references to the relevant liter­ ature). W e want to underline that in those instances where we indicate a certain solution as preferable, only our personal preference is con­ cerned. Unfortunately a dictionary does not give the opportunity to present arguments for one's preferences. Although in the first part of an entry forms gathered under the same heading can occur in texts from very different times, we have, for practical reasons, decided to abstain from giving the (approximate) date of a text with every quotation. 1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

In 1977 we started the provisional collecting of new material for this dictionary. In 1981 we started writing the provisional text. This work was finished at the beginning of 1991. Material published since that date is not included. Since then we have added text references and references to additional scholarly literature. To the text of the dictionary a list of words from the Amherst Papyri is added (namely those words the interpretation of which is reasonably certain). We wish to thank Prof. R . C . Steiner and Mrs. A. Mosak Moshavi for their willingness to prepare this list. Prof. B. Porten was so kind as to compile a list of those words for which a new reading and/or interpretation was proposed in the recent Achiqar edition prepared by him and Dr. Yardeni. This list is also added to the dictionary.

xvii

introduction

We wish to thank all those who have helped us in any way with our work on this dictionary, with their advice, or by sending books and offprints. W e want to mention especially the names of Prof. M . G . Amadasi Guzzo, Prof. J . C . Greenfield and Prof. B. Porten. We owe much to the staff of the Library of Leiden University and that of the Library of the "Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten" in Lei­ den. The help they gave us was invaluable. W e want to thank Drs. P. Goedegebuure, Drs. S.B. ter Haar Romeny and Drs. M. Oldenhof, and Dr. H.Neudecker for the help they gave us in checking and computer­ izing the text. The book was typeset with the use of the typesetting program TEX(BTJJJX) by Dr. K . Jongeling. During the preparation of the text we had useful contacts with the publishing house of Brill. W e particularly want to mention the names of the late Drs. F.H. Pruyt and of Dr. F. Dijkema and to express our gratitude for their help. The work on this book, which has taken a long time, could not have been realized without the financial aid of the Dutch Organization for Scientific Research ( N W O ) and of the Faculty of Arts of Leiden University. We are glad to be able to express our great thanks and indebtedness to them. We dedicate this book to the memory of Prof. J.H. Hospers of Groningen University, who died in 1993, whom we remember with warm respect as a colleague, friend and teacher.

Leiden, November 1994.

J. Hoftijzer,

K. Jongeling.

List of a b b r e v i a t i o n s .

A A Acta Archaeologica.

Cambridge, 1901, Vol. 3, Cambridge,

A A A L T Arameans, Aramaic and

1901, Vol. 4, Cambridge, 1901.

the Aramaic Literary Tradition, ed.

a d j . adjective.

M.Sokoloff, Ramat-Gan, 1983.

A d o n i s u n d E s m u n see Baudissin.

A A G see a) Degen - b) Segert.

a d v . adverb.

A A S Les Annales Archeologiques

A E Ancient Egypt.

de Syrie. Revue d'archeologie et

a.e. and elsewhere.

d'histoire syriennes (since vol. xvi:

A e g Aegyptus. Rivista italiana di

(Les) Annales Archeologiques

egittologia et di papyrologia.

Arabes Syriennes. Revue

A E P H E Annuaire de l'Ecole

d'archeologie et d'histoire).

Pratique des Hautes-Etudes (Ve

A A S O R The Annual of the

section, sciences religieuses).

American Schools of Oriental

A f O Archiv fur Orientfoischung.

Research.

Internationale Zeitschrift fur die

A A W see Altheim & Stiehl.

Wissenschaft vom Vorderen Orient.

A b b a d i P I H S.Abbadi, Die

A f r i t Africa Italiana.

Personennamen der Inschriften aus

A G N.Aime-Giron, Textes arameens

Hatra ( = Texten und Studien zur

d'Egypte, Le Caire, 1931.

Orientalistik, Band 1),

A G G Gottingische Gelehrte

Hildesheim/Ziirich/New York, 1983.

Anzeigen.

A B C see Stevenson.

A G P P S see Holbi.

a b b r e v . abbreviation/abbreviated.

A G W G Abhandlungen der

A b e s s i n i e r see Glaser.

koniglichen Gesellschaft der

a b s . absolute.

Wissenschaften zu Gottingen;

A b y d o s see Kornfeld.

philologische-historisclie Klasse.

a c c . accusative.

Neue Folge.

A C F Annuaire du College de

A H A n Aramaic Handbook (ed.

France. Resume des cours et

F.Rosenthal), Wiesbaden, 1967.

travaux.

A h i q The story and wisdom of

a c t . active.

Ahiqar quoted after the edition in

A c t A n t H u n g Acta Antiqua

Cowl pp. 204-248.

Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae.

A h l s t r o m R A N R G.W.Ahlstrom,

A c t H y p Acta Hyperborea.

Royal Administration and National

A c t l r Acta Iranica.

Religion in ancient Palestine ( =

A c t O r Acta Orientalia.

Studies in the history of the ancient

A c t O r H u n g Acta Orientalia

Near East, I, ed. M.H.E.Weippert),

Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae.

Leiden, 1982.

A D A J Annual of the Department

A H W see v.Soden.

of Antiquities of Jordan.

A I see Clay.

A D D C . H . W J o h n s , Assyrian

A I A see Kaufman.

Deeds and Documents recording the

A I A I see Borowski.

transfer of property

A I O N Istituto (universitario)

Vol. 1 (sec.

edition), Cambridge 1924, Vol. 2,

Orientalc di Napoli; Annali nuova

abbreviations

XX

der Alten Welt, Band I, Berlin,

serie. A I O N - S L Istituto orientale di

1964, Band II, Berlin, 1965, Band

Napoli; Annali, sezione linguistica.

III, Berlin, 1966, Band I V , Berlin,

A I P H O S Annuaire de l'Institut de

1967, Band V / l , Berlin, 1968, Band

Philologie et d'Histoire Orientales et

V / 2 , Berlin, 1969.

Slaves.

A l t h e i m &: S t i e h l A S A Die

A I S see Fitzmyer.

aramaische Sprache unter den

A I S N see Hinz.

Achaimeniden, Band I,

A i s t l J.Aistleitner, Worterbuch der

Geschichtliche

ugaritischen Sprache, ed. O.Eissfeldt

Frankfurt am Main, 1963.

Untersuchungen,

( = Berichte Uber die Verhandlungen

A l t h e i m & Stiehl C R M

der sachsischen Akademie der

F.Altheim & R.Stiehl, Christentum

Wissenschaften zu Leipzig;

am Roten Meer, Band I, Berlin/New

philologisch-historische

York, 1971, Band II, Berlin/New

Klasse, Band

106, Heft 3), Berlin, 1963.

York, 1973.

A I T see Humbach.

A l t h e i m &; S t i e h l , D a s e r s t e

A J The Antiquaries Journal.

A u f t r e t e n der H u n n e n ;

A J B I Annual of the Japanese

supplement to Altheim & Stiehl

Biblical Institute.

Suppl.

A J C see Reifenberg.

A l t h e i m & S t i e h l G H F.Altheim

A J S L The American Journal of

k, R.Stiehl, Geschichte der Hunnen,

Semitic Languages and Literatures.

Band I, Berlin, 1959, Band II,

A J T American Journal of Theology.

Berlin, 1960, Band III, Berlin, 1961,

The divinity faculty of the

Band IV, Berlin, 1962.

university of Chicago.

A l t h e i m &: S t i e h l G M A

A k k a d . Akkadian,

F.Altheim & R.Stiehl, Geschichte

a.l. ad locum.

Mittelasiens im Altertum, Berlin,

Albright Archeology

1970.

W.F.Albright, Archeology and the

A l t h e i m & S t i e h l P h i l F.Altheim

religion of Israel (sec. edition),

& R.Stiehl, Philologia sacra ( =

Baltimore, 1946.

Aparchai, Untersuchungen zur

A l b r i g h t P S I W.F.Albright, The

klassischen Philologie und

Proto-Sinaitic Inscriptions and their

Geschichte des Altertums, Band 2),

decipherment, Cambridge (Mass.),

Tubingen, 1958.

1966.

A l t h e i m & Stiehl S u p p l

A l b r i g h t R e l i g i o n W.F.Albright,

F.Altheim & R.Stiehl,

Die Religion Israels im Lichte der

Supplementum aramaicum.

archaologischen Ausgrabungen,

Aramaisches aus Iran,

Munchen/Basel, 1956.

Baden-Baden, 1957.

A L I A see Jackson.

A l t o r F o r s c h see Winckler.

A l t h e i m L u G F.Altheim, Literatur

A l v a r e z D e l g a d o I L C J.Alvarez

und Gesellschaft im ausgehenden

Delgado, Inscripciones k'bicas de

Altertum, Band I, Halle (Saale),

Canarias. Ensayo di interpretacion

1948, Band II, Halle (Saale), 1950.

libica, La Laguna, 1964.

A l t h e i m & Stiehl A A W

A M a) Asia Maior (NS) - b) see

F.Altheim & R.Stiehl, Die Araber in

Cardascia.

xxi

abbreviations

AMB

J.Naveh &; Sh.Shaked,

A O A T x v i J.C.de Moor, The

Amulets and Magic Bowls, aramaic

seasonal pattern in the Ugaritic

incantations of late antiquity,

myth of Ba lu according to the

Jerusalem/Leiden, 1985.

version of Ilimilku ( = Alter Orient

A M C S The Age of the Monarchies:

und Altes Testament Band 16),

c

Culture and Society, edd.

Neukirchen/Vluyn, 1971.

A.Malamat & I.Eph