Camels in the Biblical World 9781646021703

Citation preview

Camels in the Biblical World

History, Archaeology, and Culture of the Levant Edited by

Jeffrey A. Blakely, University of Wisconsin, Madison K. Lawson Younger, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School 1. The Horsemen of Israel: Horses and Chariotry in Monarchic Israel (Ninth–Eighth Centuries b.c.e.), by Deborah O’Daniel Cantrell 2. Donkeys in the Biblical World: Ceremony and Symbol, by Kenneth C. Way 3. The Wilderness Itineraries: Genre, Geography, and the Growth of Torah, by Angela R. Roskop 4. Temples and Sanctuaries from the Early Iron Age Levant: Recovery after Collapse, by William E. Mierse 5. Poetic Astronomy in the Ancient Near East: The Reflexes of Celestial Science in the Literature of Ancient Mesopotamia, Ugarit, and Israel, by Jeffrey L. Cooley 6. A Monetary and Political History of the Phoenician City of Byblos in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries b.c.e., by J. Elayi and A. G. Elayi 7. The Land before the Kingdom of Israel: A History of the Southern Levant and the People Who Populated It, by Brendon C. Benz 8. Baal, St. George, and Khidr, by Robert D. Miller II 9. Scribal Tools in Ancient Israel: A Study of Biblical Hebrew Terms for Writing Materials and Implements, by Philip Zhakevich 10. Camels in the Biblical World, by Martin Heide and Joris Peters

Camels in the Biblical World

Martin Heide and Joris Peters

Eisenbrauns   |  University Park, Pennsylvania

Library of Congress Cataloging-​in-​Publication Data Names: Heide, Martin (Bible scholar), author. | Peters, Joris, author. Title: Camels in the Biblical world / Martin Heide, Joris Peters. Other titles: History, archaeology, and culture of the Levant ; 10. Description: University Park, Pennsylvania : Eisenbrauns, [2021] | Series: History, archaeology, and culture of the Levant ; 10 | Includes bibliographical references and index. Summary: “A reappraisal of the early cultural history of the Bactrian camel and the dromedary based on archaeology, iconography, inscriptions, and other text sources. Critically evaluates the various camel references in the Hebrew Bible and in the Gospels”—Provided by publisher. Identifiers: LCCN 2021006597 | ISBN 9781646021369 (hardback) Subjects: LCSH: Camels—Middle East—History. | Camels in the Bible. Classification: LCC SF401.C2 H45 2021 | DDC 636​.2​/950956—dc23 LC record available at https://​lccn​.loc​.gov​/2021006597 Copyright © 2021 The Pennsylvania State University All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America Published by The Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, PA 16802–1003 Eisenbrauns is an imprint of The Pennsylvania State University Press. The Pennsylvania State University Press is a member of the Association of University Presses. It is the policy of The Pennsylvania State University Press to use acid-​free paper. Publications on uncoated stock satisfy the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Material, ansi z39.48–1992.

Contents List of Illustrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii List of Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv

Chapter 1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Chapter 2.  Old World Camelids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.1. Taxonomy, Evolutionary Adaptations, and Human Exploitation  6 2.1.1. Taxonomy  6 2.1.2. Evolutionary Adaptations  7 2.1.3. Human Exploitation  12 2.2. Ancestry and Early Domestication History  14 2.2.1. Ancestry  14 2.2.2. Early Domestication History  18 2.3. A Most Useful Hybrid  22 2.4. Ancient Camel Nomenclature  24 Chapter 3.  Zooarchaeological, Iconographic, and Textual Evidence for the Presence of Camels in the Biblical World and Adjacent Regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 3.1. Camels in Central Asia and Iran  28 3.1.1. Camel Remains  28 3.1.2. Camel Iconography  31 3.1.3. Camels in Inscriptions from Iran  33 3.2. Camels in Mesopotamia and the Northern Levant  35 3.2.1. Camel Remains  35 3.2.2. Camels on Seals and Reliefs  36 3.2.3. Camel Figurines  39 3.2.4. The Cuneiform Record  56 3.2.5. Domestication Scenarios for the “Donkey of the Sealand”  120 3.3. Camels in Arabia  126 3.3.1. The Osteological Record  127 3.3.2. The Dromedary Saddle and Its Supposed Evolution  134

vi

Contents

3.3.3. Dromedary Figurines  141 3.3.4. Camels in North Arabian Inscriptions and in Classical Arabic  144 3.3.5. Camels in South Arabian Inscriptions  150 3.3.6. Camels in Arabian Rock Art  151 3.3.7. Hybrids and Bactrian Camels in Arabia  154 3.4. Camels in Egypt  156 3.4.1. Camel Remains  156 3.4.2. Camel Figurines and Artistic Camel Representations  158 3.4.3. Camels in Ancient Egyptian Inscriptions and Literature  172 3.4.4. Camel Depictions in Rock Art in the Sinai Peninsula and in Egypt  177 3.5. Camels in the Southern Levant  178 3.5.1. Camel Remains  178 3.5.2. Camel Figurines and Camel Depictions  187 3.5.3. Camels from Israel and Judah in Inscriptions  191 Chapter 4.  Camels in the Patriarchal Narratives and Israel’s Early History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 4.1. The Text of the Hebrew Bible  194 4.1.1. Camels in the Biblical Manuscripts from Qumran  195 4.2. Camels in the Genesis Narratives  201 4.2.1. Abram and Sarai’s Sojourn in Egypt (Gen 12:10–13:1)  202 4.2.2. Abram’s Camels on Their Journey to Aram-​Naharaim  228 4.2.3. Jacob’s Camels on His Return from Aram-​Naharaim to Canaan  233 4.2.4. The Camels of the Ishmaelites and the Donkeys of the Patriarchs  238 4.2.5. Concluding Remarks  244 4.3. Camels and the Exodus  246 4.4. Camels in the Dietary Laws of the Pentateuch  247 4.5. Camels in the Book of Judges  248 4.6. Camels in the Books of Samuel  255 Chapter 5.  Camels in the United and Divided Kingdoms . . . . . . 259 5.1. The Queen of Sheba and Her Caravan  259 5.1.1. Historical Considerations  260 5.2. The Forty Camel Loads from Syria  272 5.3. Incidents Involving Camels from the Books of Chronicles  274 5.3.1. The Camels of the Hagrites  274 5.3.2. Camels as Transport Animals in the Wake of the United Monarchy  275

Contents

vii

5.3.3. Camels in the Royal Administration of King David  277 5.3.4. The Camels of “Zerah the Cushite”  280 Chapter 6.  Camels in the Prophets and Other Writings . . . . . . . 282 6.1. Camels in Isaiah’s Prophecies  282 6.1.1. The Advancing Enemy of Babylon  283 6.1.2. The Oracle Against Egypt  283 6.1.3. “Dust Clouds of Camels” in Israel’s Glorious Future  284 6.1.4. Chariots, Dancing Camels, or Joyous People?  285 6.2. Camels in Jeremiah’s Prophecies  287 6.2.1. The Unreliable She-​Camel and the Hot Jenny  287 6.2.2. The Oracle Against Qedar  290 6.3. Camels in the Book of Ezekiel  293 6.4. Camels in the Book of Zechariah  294 6.5. Camels in the Book of Job  294 6.6. Camels on Their Return from Exile  295 Chapter 7.  Camels in the Gospels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296 7.1. John the Baptist’s Ascetic Lifestyle  296 7.2. The Camel and the Needle’s Eye  297 Chapter 8.  Domestic Camels in the Biblical World: Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301 Chapter 9.  Epilogue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 312 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Index of Ancient Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Index of Animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Index of Proper Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Index of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

315 395 399 403 407

Illustrations

Figures 2.1. Dromedary feeding its calf  8 2.2. Bactrian camel in the Shanghai Zoo  9 2.3. The possibilities and results of crossbreeding between Bactrian camels dromedaries, and F1 hybrids  23 3.1. Cylinder seal impression of a Bactrian camel carrying a divine couple  37 3.2. Carchemish, Neohittite relief of a soldier(?) riding a dromedary  38 3.3. Slab with dromedary-​rider from Tell Ḥalaf  38 3.4. Camel figurines with crest from Nippur  41 3.5. Camel figurines from Nippur, side view  42 3.6. Zebu (?) figurine from Ur  43 3.7. Head of figurine from Ur  44 3.8. Small camel figurine from Uruk  46 3.9. Small camel figurine, front view  46 3.10. Camel figurine from Uruk  46 3.11. Head and neck of camel (fragment) from Uruk with crest  46 3.12. Camel figurine from Uruk, top view  46 3.13. Fragment of camel figurine with load or saddlebag construction from Uruk  47 3.14. Fragment of camel figurine with load or saddlebag construction from Uruk, top view  47 3.15. Fragment of camel figurine with load or saddlebag construction from Uruk  47 3.16. Fragment of camel figurine with load or saddlebag construction from Uruk, top view  47 3.17. Fragment of camel figurine from Uruk with load or saddlebag construction  47

x

Illustrations

3.18. Fragment of camel figurine from Uruk, front view  47 3.19. Nabatean camel figurine, first century AD  48 3.20. Fragment of camel figurine from Hama  49 3.21. Terra-​cotta animal figurines from Hama according to Fugman  50 3.22. Camel figurine from Hama  50 3.23. Fragment of camel figurine from Hama  51 3.24. Fragment of camel figurine from Hama with load- and saddle-​construction  51 3.25. Fragment of camel figurine from Hama with saddle and harness  53 3.26. Camel figurine from Uruk, with small crest, and with two humps?  53 3.27. Camel figurine (?) from Ur with two humps?  54 3.28. Double-​humped (?) camel figurine from Ur  54 3.29. Camel figurine with rider and load from southwest Arabia  55 3.30. Camel figurine with board or cushion from southwest Arabia  55 3.31. Emar, Msk 7522, lines 225′–234′  71 3.32. Tell Alalakh, Tablet 269:59  74 3.33. Tell Alalakh, Tablet 269:59, corrected to 1 šà.gal anšegam*.mal*  74 3.34. Bronze camel from southwest Arabia with rider, holding a stick  135 3.35. Šadād saddle (north Arabian camel-​saddle construction)  136 3.36. Ḥawlānī saddle  136 3.37. Camel rider (?), baked clay plaque from Tell Asmar  137 3.38. Camel figurine (?) from Tell Taʿannek (view from the left)  138 3.39. Camel figurine (?) from Tell Taʿannek (view from the right)  138 3.40. Fragments of dromedary figurines  142 3.41. Detailed views of dromedary figurine from Muweilah  143 3.42. Camel with load and rider from southwest Arabia  144 3.43. Bronze camel from Ṣanʿā with hump construction and uplifted head  145 3.44. Bronze camel from southwest Arabia with lowered head  146 3.45. Zoomorphic vessel from Abu Sir Al-​Maliq  159 3.46. Head of the zoomorphic vessel (Ägyptisches Museum Berlin)  159 3.47. Drawing of bowl fragment with camel incision, city of Rameses  160 3.48. Fragment of a faience bowl  162 3.49. “Camel with water jar” from Rifeh  163 3.50. Camel figurine from Rifeh  164 3.51. Camel figurine from Rifeh, view from the left  165 3.52. Artistic donkey representation from the burial chamber of Panehsi  166 3.53. Zoomorphic vessel with jar-​like fillers from Ekron  166 3.54. Head of camel figurine from Rifeh  167 3.55. Zoomorphic vessel from the Leo Mildenberg Collection  167 3.56. Zoomorphic vessel from Yoqneʿam  168

Illustrations

3.57. Camel figurine from Abydos  170 3.58. Camel figurine with Persian warrior from Memphis  171 3.59. Incense burner with camel depiction  189 3.60. Sherd depicting two camels from Tell Deir ‘Alla  190 3.61. Sherd from Qurayyah with depiction of a dromedary  191 8.1. Drawing of Bactrian camels on a silver vessel from Gonur Depe (Turkmenistan)  302 Tables 3.1. Ḫḫ XIV, canonical version  60 3.2. Emar Tablet Msk 74103b  61 3.3. Emar Tablet Msk 7522  70 3.4. Camel terms in annals, tribute lists, and campaign reports  85 3.5. Camel term explanations  96 3.6. Main Semitic camel terms  98 3.7. Safaitic graffiti mentioning ʾbl  148 4.1. Early variants of Judges 6:5  198 4.2. Abram, Sarai, and Lot  210 4.3. Context of the Hebrew verb ‫רכב‬‎ 232 5.1. Evaluating Solomon’s splendor  272 5.2. The stewards of King David’s property according to 1 Chronicles 27:29–31  278 8.1. Earliest written, iconographical, and osteological evidence for one-​ humped camels  306 8.2. Sumerian and Akkadian camel terms  307 8.3. Camel incidents in the Torah and the Former Prophets  310

xi

Foreword

No scientific study is written by one person alone. While collecting, sorting, and interpreting data from the various fields pertaining to the cultural history of the camel, the study got a completely new direction at the international conference about animals as “Cultural Identifiers in Ancient Societies” in Munich (2016). After sharing my thoughts, Joris Peters gave me the privilege of commenting on my paper, which gradually led to his full collaboration in the camel project. The approach taken by us started as an experiment with uncertain outcome. In retrospect, however, it proved to be a very productive, mutually enriching time in which we were able to scrutinize and critically assess all sorts of evidence from philology, biblical studies, zooarchaeology, and the natural sciences, which then served as a basis for testing existing hypotheses and formulating new ones. I am also greatly indebted to various scholars who provided suggestions, corrections, practical help, and encouragement. Among these, my former teacher Walter W. Müller must be named first. He always had the “camel” project in the back of his mind, kindly commented upon suggestions for etymologies of camel terms and drew my attention to new insights on the subject. Michael P. Streck never grew weary of answering the many questions on Sumerian and Akkadian readings. Niek Veldhuis’s suggestions considerably extended my understanding of the Sumerian lexical lists. Alan Millard took a great interest in the work, with insights from his vast knowledge across various fields, and with hints to promising sources. Damien Agut-​Labordère and Bérangère Redon kindly granted me insight into their fundamental research on the camel in Egypt. I want to particularly thank Michael Macdonald, who offered many corrections, and immensely helpful suggestions from his wide field of expertise, especially for the subjects of the Safaitic inscriptions and the camel’s saddle. Francesco G. Fedele sent me an important article of his prior of its publication, commented upon the logical arrangement of the book, and on important issues of archaeozoology. Viktor Golinets, with his keen eye and mind, saved the reader many xiii

xiv

Foreword

logical inconsistencies and minor lapses. Besides, I received encouragements, ideas, hints and comments from many colleagues and friends, such as Mohammad Ababneh, Christian Askeland, Siam Bhayro, Veronika Goebel, Hani Hayajneh, Richard Hess, Ahmad Al-​Jallad, Jan Joosten, Friedhelm Hoffmann, Oliver Kahl, Manfred Krebernik, André Lemaire, D’arne O’Neill, Guy Bar-Oz, Anja Prust, Joachim Friedrich Quack, Luis Saénz, Lidar Sapir-Hen, Robert Sataev, Peter Stein, Christoffer Theis, Günther Thomas, Peter van der Veen, Jean-Denis Vigne, Tommy Wasserman, Stefan Weninger, Pete Williams, Sylvia Winkelmann, and Wolfgang Zwickel. I am also indebted to the curators of museums and collections in Baltimore, Berlin, Chicago, Copenhagen, Jerusalem, Leiden, London, Manchester, Munich, Paris, Philadelphia, and Zürich, who allowed me to print pictures of camel figurines in excellent quality. Special thanks go to Nadeschda Dubova, Peter Magee, Gerrit van der Kooij, and Jona Lendering, who generously provided high-​resolution photos of camel depictions, and to Alisa Moussaieff, the widow of the famous private collector Shlomo Moussaieff, who allowed me to use high-​resolution photos of camel figurines from the vast collection of her late husband. I would like to thank the Scholars Initiative for their financial support, and I am grateful for Pete Myers’s competent and careful proofreading. Last, not least, I want to thank the publisher Jim Eisenbrauns for the great interest he took in the camel idea for more than five years, Matthew Williams and James Spinti for their competence and long-suffering in shepherding the book through copyediting and layout, Jen Singletary for her strong commitment to guarantee a superb production, and Jeffrey A. Blakely as well as K. Lawson Younger for receiving the book in the series History, Archaeology, and Culture of the Levant. While immersed in the preparation of this book, my dear wife Esther has been an unfathomable source of inspiration, feedback, and encouragement. Tutzing, Munich, and Marburg, January 2021.

Abbreviations

General ANA ASA BP CA CBH DN ESV L. LBH LL LXX MT NASB obv. pl(s). PN rev. UAE

Ancient North Arabian Ancient South Arabian Before Present Classical Arabic Classical Biblical Hebrew Divine name English Standard Version Linnaeus (cf. Linné 1758) Late Biblical Hebrew Lexical lists The Septuagint Masoretic Text according to the Codex Leningradensis New American Standard Bible obverse plate(s) Personal name reverse United Arab Emirates

Journals, Reference Works, and Book Series AAE Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy AB Anchor (Yale) Bible ABD D. N. Freedman, ed. Anchor Bible Dictionary. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992. ABS Archaeology and Biblical Studies ADOG Abhandlungen der Deutschen Orient-​Gesellschaft

xv

xvi

ADPV AEN AfO AHw ANES AOAT AoF BaM BARIS BASOR BKAT BTAVO BZAW CAD

CAL CBH CDA

CDD

CDLI CHANE COS CUSAS DCCLT DCH DDD

DJD DNWSI DOAB

Abbreviations

Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palästina-​Vereins Arabian Epigraphic Notes Archiv für Orientforschnung Wolfram von Soden. Akkadisches Handwörterbuch. 3 vols. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1965–1981. Ancient Near Eastern Studies Alter Orient und Altes Testament Altorientalische Forschungen Baghdader Mitteilungen British Archaeological Reports International Reports Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients Beiheft zur Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Edited by Ignace J. Gelb et al. 21 vols. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1956–2011. The Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon Project, http://​cal​.huc​.edu Classical Biblical Hebrew Jeremy Black, Andrew George, and John Nicholas Postgate. A Concise Dictionary of Akkadian. 2nd corrected printing. Santag 5. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2000. Chicago Demotic Dictionary, https://​oi​.uchicago​.edu​/research​ /publications​/demotic​-dictionary​-oriental​-institute​-university​ -chicago Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative, http://​cdli​.ucla​.edu Culture and History of the Ancient Near East William W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger, eds. The Context of Scripture. 3 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1997–2002. Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology Digital Corpus of Cuneiform Lexical Texts, http://​oracc​.museum​ .upenn. edu/dcclt D. J. A. Clines. The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. 9 vols. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993–2014. Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. Edited by Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der Horst. 2nd ed. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Jacob Hoftijzer and Karel Jongeling. Dictionary of the North-​ West Semitic Inscriptions. 2 vols. HdO 1/21. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Documenta Archaeobiologiae

Abbreviations

DRS DUL2

DUL3

eCUT EDA ePSD2 eSAD eTCSL HAH HALOT

HdO HThKAT IAAR ICC IEJ JAOS JAS JBL JCS JESHO JNES JSJ JSS KAI

xvii

David Cohen. Dictionnaire des racines sémitiques ou attestees dans les langues semitiques. Paris: Mouton, 1970–. Gregorio del Olmo Lete and Joaquín Sanmartín. A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language. Translated and edited by Wilfred G. E. Wilson. 2nd ed. 2 vols. HdO 1/67. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Gregorio del Olmo Lete and Joaquín Sanmartín. A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic Tradition. Translated and edited by Wilfred G. E. Wilson. 3rd ed. 2 vols. HdO 1/112. Leiden: Brill, 2015. Electronic Corpus of Urartian Texts Project, http://​oracc​.museum​ .upenn​.edu​/ecut Leonid Kogan and Manfred Krebernik. Etymological Dictionary of Akkadian. Berlin: De Gruyter 2020–. The Electronic Pennsylvania Sumerian Dictionary 2.0, http://​ oracc​.museum​.upenn​.edu​/epsd2 Supplement to the Akkadian Dictionaries, http://​altorient​.gko​.uni​ -leipzig​.de​/etymd​.html The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature, http://​etcsl​ .orinst​.ox​.ac​.uk Wilhelm Gesenius. Hebräisches und Aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament. 18th ed. Berlin: Springer, 1987–. Ludwig Koehler, Walter Baumgartner, and Johann J. Stamm. Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Translated and edited under the supervision of Mervyn E. J. Richardson. 4 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1994–1999. Online edition 2017. Handbuch der Orientalistik Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament Israel Antiquities Authorities Reports International Critical Commentary Israel Exploration Journal Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of Archaeological Science Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Cuneiform Studies Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient Journal of Near Eastern Studies Journal for the Study of Judaism Journal of Semitic Studies Herbert Donner and Wolfgang Röllig. Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften. 5th ed. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2002.

xviii

Abbreviations

KTU

LBH LdÄ LSJ

MC MSL

ND OBO OCIANA OECT OIP OLA Or ORACC PAT PIA PIB PNAS PSAS RB RlA

SAA SANER SED SHAJ SHCANE SSLL STDJ

Manfried Dietrich, Oswald Loretz, and Joaquín Sanmartín, eds. Die keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit. 2nd ed. Münster: Ugarit-​Verlag, 1976. Late Biblical Hebrew Wolfgang Helck and Wolfhart Westendorf. Lexikon der Ägyptologie. 7 vols. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1972–1992. Liddell, Henry George, Robert Scott, and Henry Stuart Jones. A Greek-​English Lexicon. 9th ed. with revised supplement. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. Mesopotamian Civilizations Materialien zum sumerischen Lexikon/Materials for the Sumerian Lexicon. 17 vols. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1937–2004. Nimrūd Documents Orbis biblicus et orientalis Online Corpus of the Inscriptions of Ancient North Arabia, http://​krc​.orient​.ox​.ac​.uk​/ociana​/index​.php Oxford Editions of Cuneiform Texts Oriental Institute Publications Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta Orientalia (NS) The Open Richly Annotated Cuneiform Corpus, http://​oracc​.org Delbert R. Hillers and Eleonora Cussini. Palmyrene Aramaic Texts, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996. Publications of the Institute of Archaeology Pontificium Institutum Biblicum / Pontificio Istituto Biblico Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies Revue biblique Erich Ebeling et al., eds. Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie. 15 vols. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1928–. State Archives of Assyria Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Records Alexander Militarev and Leonid Kogan. Semitic Etymological Dictionary. 2 vols. AOAT 278. Münster: Ugarit-​Verlag, 2000. Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah

Abbreviations

TA TDOT

TSO UAVA UET UF VT WBC WKAS WO WVDOG YOS ZA ZÄS ZAW ZDMG ZDPV ZOrA

xix

Tel Aviv: Journal of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University Johannes G. Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren, eds. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Translated by D. E. Green. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974–2006. Texte und Studien zur Orientalistik Untersuchungen zur Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archäologie Ur Excavations, Texts Ugarit-​Forschungen Vetus Testamentum Word Biblical Commentary Manfred Ullmann et al. Wörterbuch der klassischen arabischen Sprache. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1970–2009. Die Welt des Orients Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient Gesellschaft Yale Oriental Series Zeitschrift für Assyriologie Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-​Vereins Zeitschrift für Orient-​Archäologie

Chapter 1

Introduction

“What’s the name of them wild beasts with humps, old chap?” “Camels?” said I, wondering why he could possibly want to know. —Joe and Pip in Charles Dickens, Great Expectations

This book is about an animal that is not as prominent in the Bible as sheep and goats, not to speak of horses, donkeys, cattle, and snakes. The camel suddenly appears as a pack animal in the life of the patriarchs but vanishes on the brothers’ way down to meet Joseph as the Egyptian vizier. In the books of Judges and Samuel, it is mainly seen in the hands of the “sons of the east” and culturally related peoples. The animal most prominently served as a long-​ distance mount for the myth-​enshrouded queen of Sheba, who came all the way up from southwest Arabia to Jerusalem. The kings of Israel and their administration did not care much about the camel. Camel caravans in the service of imperial powers are first mentioned by the Latter Prophets. According to the postexilic narratives, the Jews that had been exiled to Babylon returned with donkeys, mules, camels, and horses. Last, but not least, the camel becomes proverbial in the Gospels, when Jesus talks about the sheer impossibility of a large animal going through a needle’s eye. The camel never played a prominent role in biblical studies. However, with the rise of Egyptology and Near Eastern studies as major fields of research in the nineteenth century, scholars recognized that the camel was rarely ever mentioned in ancient texts before the first millennium BC. Back then (and till this day), Egyptologists were unable to find the camel in hieroglyphic writing. Although François Joseph Chabas (1872, 408–9) assumed to have identified a reading for “camel,” an assumption endorsed by William Houghton (1889, 83–84) and Heinrich Brugsch (1897, 387), this reading was later rejected by E. Lefébure (1907, 25–30) and others (Caminos 1954, 14). Moreover, pictorial evidence for the camel in Egyptian art was almost nonexistent at that time and 1

2

Camels in the Biblical World

restricted to a faience bowl with a kneeling camel published by Auguste Mariette in 1880. Nevertheless, some scholars tried to integrate Chabas’s misleading conclusion into the broader picture of camel descriptions in the Pentateuch and the Former Prophets. Others began to question the camel incidents in the book of Genesis, particularly in the Abram in Egypt episode (Gen 12:16). John Skinner (1910, 250), for instance, postulated that the “she-​donkeys and camels” of Gen 12:16 represented a late gloss. Fresh momentum was gained with William F. Albright’s influential study Archaeology and the Religion of Israel (1942). Although Albright had been a strong supporter of the authenticity of the patriarchal narratives, he nonetheless echoed the skepticism expressed by earlier scholars, contending that any mention of camels in Genesis constituted an anachronism (96), and that dromedaries entered the biblical world no earlier than ca. 1200 BC. Albright’s skepticism elicited Joseph P. Free (1944) to publish a summary article elaborating on various representations of camels and their osseous remains from Egypt, and on inscriptional evidence from Mesopotamia. He concluded that “it is quite true that the total evidence would indicate that the camel came into general use in the Greco-​Roman period, . . . but . . . it would appear somewhat presumptuous to set completely aside as an anachronism the reference to Abraham’s having camels in Egypt” (193). However, some of the evidence pointing to an early use of the camel in Egypt presented by Free was dubious at best, as argued by Albright (1945) and Roland de Vaux (1949, 287–88), a point to which we will return below (§3.4). A major limitation to the study of the camel’s origins and its exploitation in the Levant and adjacent regions was the poor knowledge of the dromedary’s domestication history. This issue was addressed for the first time in detail by Reinhard Walz in 1951. Based on his critical review and weighing of the available evidence, Walz postulated that the most likely area of domestication was central Arabia. He did not propose a definite domestication date, thus leaving open the question as to whether Gen 24 and Gen 37 had to be considered anachronistic, although he realized the difficulty of reconciling Gen 12:16 with the general situation in Egypt. Three years later, Walz (1954) published a follow-​up article that focused on the early cultural history of the Bactrian camel, notwithstanding that at that time hard evidence was scanty at best. While essentially in line with Albright’s thesis, Walz wisely refrained from committing himself to a definite domestication date. During the following decades, both Albright’s and Walz’s conclusions received broad acceptance (cf. Weippert 1967, 107). Moreover, Walz conceded that if the camels at Abram’s disposal were Bactrians, he would not consider it an anachronism (Walz 1956, 196 n. 27), a most unexpected but striking conclusion that unfortunately was overlooked in subsequent studies dealing with the topic.

Introduction

3

Shortly thereafter, an entirely new approach to the development of ancient Bedouin life was presented by Walter Dostal (1958, 1), which implied that dromedaries must have already been in use as mounts by the end of the third millennium BC. Dostal argued that the success of Bedouin tribes engaging in war-​like activities depended largely on the type of camel saddle available. According to him, the second millennium BC witnessed the development and use of such innovative equipment. For decades Dostal’s hypothesis exerted influence on subsequent studies dealing with the relationship and value of dromedaries for Bedouin tribes (see, e.g., Bulliet 1975, 71–110), until it was put ad acta by Michael C. A. Macdonald (2015). Broadly contemporaneous with Albright’s work, the mid-1940s witnessed the publication by A. Leo Oppenheim and Louis F. Hartman (1945) of an important set of lexical tablets from first-​millennium BC Babylonia. Containing many intriguing entries for domesticated and wild animals, their study formed the basis for a critical edition of the bilingual lexical series Ḫar.ra = ḫubullu by the famous Benno Landsberger (MSL 8.1).1 The same year witnessed the publication of Wilfred G. Lambert’s study in which he pointed to the mention of dromedaries in Middle Babylonian copies of lexical texts, arguing that the species must already have been known in the Old Babylonian period ca. 2000– 1600 BC (Lambert 1960b).2 Nonetheless, most work subsequently published lent support to the assumption that the camel was a comparably late addition to the biblical animal world. Probably the most influential study published during the 1970s was the monograph by Richard W. Bulliet (1975), entitled The Camel and the Wheel. As the title suggests, Bulliet pointed to the rivalry of both modes of transportation, starting with the observation that the camel replaced wheeled vehicles after the decline of the Roman Empire. To elucidate his viewpoint, the author presented a state-​of-​the-​art history of domestication, husbandry, mode of exploitation, and the rest of both the Bactrian and Arabian camel, thereby drawing upon a variety of research disciplines, including anthropology, archaeology, art, biology, history, philology, and technology. Relative to the dromedary, Bulliet argued that the most probable region of domestication would be south Arabia, and the most probable date for the onset of the process the beginning of the second millennium BC. He furthermore distinguished carefully between the early domestication of the camel, its very limited use prior to the beginning of the Iron Age around 1200 BC, and the species’ widespread use in long-​distance trade in arid 1.  Also referred to as u r r a = ḫubullu, u r 5-r a = ḫubullu or H A R-r a = hubullu. The series is called after its incipit, wherein ḫubullu means “interest-​bearing loan.” See §3.2.4 for more details. 2.  The Old and Middle Babylonian periods are reckoned in this study according to the Middle Chronology.

4

Camels in the Biblical World

southwest Asia during the first millennium BC. He also addressed the history of the development and decline of the incense trade and the partial integration of the Arabian camel nomads into ancient Near Eastern civilizations. Two years after the publication of Bulliet’s book, another contribution particularly relevant to our understanding of the spatio-​temporal exploitation of the camel in the biblical world appeared. Therein Béatrix Midant-​Reynes and Florence Braunstein-​Silvestre (1977) critically reassessed the zooarchaeological, pictorial, and inscriptional evidence for camel use in Egypt. These authors were able to discard some of the shakiest claims for early camel exploitation in Northeast Africa, a point to which we will return later (§3.4). Since the 1980s, researchers from the humanities and natural sciences have been adding pieces to the jigsaw, but detailing the cultural history of the camel has faced several major obstacles. One of these concerned the late nineteenth century AD view that the two domestic forms, the Bactrian or two-​humped camel and the Arabian camel or one-​humped dromedary, would descend from a single wild ancestral species possessing two humps (Lombardini 1879). This assumption was based on Luigi Lombardini’s observation in histological specimens of a reduced second hump-​like structure in fetal dromedaries. Later on, his conclusions seemed reinforced by the close resemblance of the two species in postcranial morphology (cf. I. Köhler 1981, 24; Herre and Röhrs 1990). Yet, detailed analysis of the postcranial osteology of the two forms discounted this view, influential for such a long time (Lesbre 1903; Steiger 1990; Peters and von den Driesch 1997). Finally, after more than 130 years, the rebuttal of this erroneous assumption of a two-​humped stage characterizing fetal development in one-​humped camels (Kinne et al. 2010; Knospe et al. 2012) opened new venues for interpreting archaeological, iconographic, and textual evidence. Equally important in this respect was the conclusion that in biblical times, camels were not species native to the Levant or Mesopotamia but had to be introduced from outside. Comparative analysis of ancient texts confirms that human-​motivated introduction of the domestic form already occurred prior to 1000 BC. In his entry “Kamel” in the Reallexikon der Assyriologie, Wolfgang Heimpel (1980a) drew attention to the mentioning of the Bactrian camel in Sumerian literature of the early second millennium, and of the Arabian camel in a lexical list of the late second millennium BC. Recently Wayne Horowitz (2008) revisited the early cuneiform sources and presented inscriptional evidence for the (Bactrian) camel that would push this domesticate’s presence as far back as the Early Dynastic period, dated to around 2900–2350 BC. Moreover, another camel term might be concealed in a tablet dating to the Ur III period (ca. 2100–2000 BC, Steinkeller 2009). As such, Horowitz’s article stimulated me to dig deeper into the Mesopotamian evidence for the camel (Heide 2011), and Horowitz in turn commented on some of my proposals (Horowitz 2014).

Introduction

5

Despite growing evidence to the contrary, some scholars still continue claiming that camels are absent from second-​millennium BC written sources of the ancient Near East (e.g., Na’aman 2010, 176). Moreover, in biblical studies focusing on the Levant, the species of camel (‫ גָּמָ ל‬gāmāl) mentioned in the Pentateuch has never been evaluated in detail. In other words, previous work has always assumed that camels appearing in the Genesis narratives were one-​humped Arabian dromedaries, which would invariably imply that their mention is judged to be merely a literary intrusion (e.g., Ebach 2007, 99–100). In conclusion, in order to address the spatio-​temporal history of the camel in the biblical world, integration of data generated by different disciplines is essential, but similar efforts up to now have suffered from ineffective dialogue. To achieve this goal, a reappraisal of published information and of lines of evidence gleaned from archaeological camel remains, iconography, inscriptions, and texts is intended, starting around 3000 BC and covering a time period of some three millennia. Because the history of the camel in the biblical world can only be understood against the background of the species’ domestication and early exploitation in the respective regions of origin, portraying the cultural trajectories of the two domestic forms necessitates inclusion of relevant data from southwest Asia, Iran, and Arabia. However, before any historical data can be properly assessed (from chapter 3 onward), it is imperative to have a clear picture of the biology of the camel, including the species’ adaptations to arid landscapes, which will be presented in chapter 2.

Chapter 2

Old World Camelids

2.1. Taxonomy, Evolutionary Adaptations, and Human Exploitation 2.1.1. Taxonomy Old World camels comprise two widespread domestic forms, the Bactrian or two-​humped camel (Camelus bactrianus Linnaeus 1758, fig 2.2) and the Arabian one-​humped camel or dromedary (Camelus dromedarius L., fig. 2.1). Interestingly, in the twelfth edition of his Systema Naturae, Carl von Linné mentioned Africa as the Bactrian camel’s habitat (Linné 1766, 90),1 yet the specific name bactrianus mentioned by Aristotle (384–322 BC) associated the two-​humped domestic form with Bactria (§2 n. 2), the eastern region of the Achaemenid Empire broadly located north of the Hindu Kush mountain range and south of the Amu Darya (Oxus) River. Furthermore, in the thirteenth edition of the Systema naturae amended by Johann Friedrich Gmelin, which was published in 1789–1790 and augmented and translated into English by R. Kerr (1792), it is stated that the two-​humped camel “inhabits, in a wild state, the western parts of India, and in the deserts near the Chinese Empire” (289; emphasis added). Almost a century later, more specific information about the two-​humped wild camel was provided by the Russian explorer Nikolay Przewalski who, during his second journey to Central Asia (1876–1877), observed herds of these animals in the Lop Nur Desert. He reported his discovery in 1878 and named this species of “wild camel” Camelus ferus (C. ferus, Przewalski 1878). Compared to its domestic Bactrian relative, C. ferus is characterized by a somewhat higher frame, slimmer and more laterally compressed body, slender limbs, shorter, sparser wool, smaller ears, and very narrow feet. The humps are lower, pointed, conical-​shaped, 1.  The online version (http://​linnean​-online​.org​/119985/ BL​.22​/1, image 172) shows copious corrections and additions by “Linn. Pat. et Fil.,” whereas the location “Africa” has been struck through and replaced by “Asia temperata desertis” in the printed version.

6

Old World Camelids

7

and usually half the size or less of the domestic Bactrian’s (Franklin 2011, 243). Conceivably, wild two-​humped camels were still widely distributed in historical times, possibly ranging from the west of the great bend of the Yellow River in the deserts of southern Mongolia, northwest China, and central Kazakhstan (Hare 2008). Due to habitat deterioration by pastoralists and their herds as well as (over-) hunting with firearms, numbers declined in the nineteenth century in such a way that in the 1920s, only relic populations were left in remote Mongolia and China. Today, C. ferus number an estimated one thousand four hundred individuals. These are confined to the Taklamakan and Gashun Gobi Deserts of northwest China and to Mongolia (Hare 2008). Whether these animals represent feral Bactrian camels, or a discrete species as originally proposed (e.g., Clutton-​Brock 1986), has been debated for decades, until genetic studies conclusively answered this issue, affirming its specific status (Ji et al. 2009; Silbermayr et al. 2010). Moreover, evolutionary time estimates applying the molecular clock suggest that the ancestral lineages of Camelus bactrianus and Camelus ferus diverged already about one million years ago (Mohandesan et al. 2017). Accordingly, since the last living wild representative of the genus Camelus did not participate in the gene pool giving way to the domestic Bactrian camel, one must ultimately consider its current designation in scientific literature, “Wild Bactrian camel,” misleading. Summing up, being neither geographically connected to Bactria, nor very closely related genetically to the Bactrian camel, we prefer addressing the Camelus ferus populations confined to the Gobi and Taklamakan as wild two-​humped camels rather than as wild Bactrian camels. Contrary to the limited distribution of Camelus ferus, the two domestic forms are still widespread in the Old World. Prior to motorization, industrialization, forced settlement of formerly nomadic tribes, and so on, one-​humped (Arabian) camels were widely exploited across North and East Africa, Southwest Asia, western Central Asia, and Northeast India (Altmann 1990, 120–21). Camel imports to Australia since the 1860s and their escape and release in the wild in the twentieth century explain the existence of a large feral dromedary population in that country (Gauthier-​Pilters and Dagg 1981; Spencer et al. 2012). Today, Bactrian camels are mainly found in the cold, arid biomes of eastern Central Asia and East Asia, with smaller populations living in Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan (Altmann 1990, 121). However, until early historic times the species was more widely used across Central Asia, before Bactrian camels were replaced in much of their former western range by their one-​humped relatives (Tapper 2011). 2.1.2. Evolutionary Adaptations Camels thrive in regions with sparse vegetation and limited water sources. The summer-​hot and winter-​mild deserts and their fringes in the Arabian Peninsula

8

Camels in the Biblical World

Figure 2.1.  Dromedary feeding its calf. Wikimedia Commons (Garrondo).

are the natural habitat of the one-​humped Arabian camel, while the extreme summer-​hot and winter-​cold deserts of Central Asia are the preferred environment of the two-​humped Bactrian camels. Although in the latter regions summer temperatures can become nearly as hot as in the Arabian Peninsula, they drop far below the minimum recorded there, reaching minus forty degrees Celsius in winter. Correspondingly, Bactrian camels exhibit a more compact, stouter habitus with relatively shorter extremities compared to dromedaries. Another conspicuous feature of Bactrians is their shaggy, long-​fibred winter coat, offering adequate insulation against extremes. Dromedaries are slimmer and usually taller than their Asian relatives, with shoulder heights averaging 180–200 cm versus 160–80 cm in Bactrians. Body weight centers around 400–600 kg in dromedaries and 450–500 kg in Bactrian camels (Franklin 2011, 243), but much heavier animals have been recorded in literature as well (Altmann 1990, 149). Both camel species are mixed feeders, cover considerable distances while foraging, and can survive longer periods on poor-​quality forage when their preferred food plants are seasonally unavailable. The diet of Arabian camels is diverse, comprising over three hundred plant species. They feed on shrubs, trees, herbs, and grasses, often with a preference for acacia (Acacia) and two

Old World Camelids

9

Figure 2.2.  Bactrian camel in the Shanghai Zoo. Wikimedia Commons (J. Patrick Fischer).

halophyte taxa growing on saline soils, namely saltwort (Salsola) and saltbush (Atriplex) (Franklin 2011, 245). In their diet, halophytes can make up to 30 percent. Living under natural conditions, dromedaries disperse widely, ingesting some plant food here and there before moving on. When allowed to forage freely, they will never overgraze the vegetation (Gauthier-​Pilters and Dagg 1981, 33; Köhler-​Rollefson, Rathore, and Rollefson 2013, 8–17), yet they can damage trees when obliged to draw repeatedly on the same foliage (Varisco 2012, 154). Bactrian camels exhibit a broad diet as well, with a strong predilection for forbs and halophytic taxa growing on salt-lake shores. They are also highly dependent upon browsing. Thus, during most of the year, the foliage of saxaul shrubs and small trees (Haloxylon) forms a staple component in the diet of free-​ ranging Bactrians (Franklin 2011, 221). In camels, the relationship of food intake to body size is low compared to other large herbivores. Arabian camels, for instance, can live just on two kilograms of dry matter per day for limited periods (Franklin 2011, 222). However, working animals carrying loads of around 130–230 kg for six hours a day at a speed of five kilometers per hour for a twenty-​four-​day trip will need eight to twelve kilograms of dry matter per day. Provided forage conditions are lush,

10

Camels in the Biblical World

camels can eat more than needed and store the excess energy as fat in their humps (Franklin 2011, 245). While intended for energy storage—Arabian camels can live up to six months on their hump’s fat (Macfarlane 1977)—it is noteworthy that humps also provide effective isolation against temperature extremes. In body parts other than the hump, the subcutis is almost fat-​free, allowing camels to dissipate heat with a minimal loss of water (Altmann 1990, 129–30). In accordance with their environment, free-​ranging camels will rarely drink, covering most of their water requirements from plant moisture. Yet, Bactrian camels have been observed eating ice and snow in winter, while Arabian camels need access to waterholes in times of extreme drought. Both domestic forms have also been reported drinking salty water to satisfy not only their liquid but also their considerable salt demand, which in dromedaries is six to eight times higher than in other livestock species. Since high salt intake is imperative for alimentary absorption of water and the camel’s well-​being (Peck 1939), consumption of salty water forms an essential adaptation for their survival (Franklin 2011, 244). As such, dromedaries can even drink sodium chloride (NaCl) solutions of up to 5.5 percent, which are values surpassing salt concentrations in seawater (Maloiy 1972, 255–58). Since salt deficiency causes cramps and cutaneous necrosis (Peck 1939), salt must be supplemented in absence of disposable natural sources. It is stated that a daily ration between about 50 and 140 g will keep camels in good condition (Dorman 1984, 632). Alternatively, salted food stuffs can be provided, for instance in the form of salted fish, which was supplied to Bactrian camels serving in nineteenth century AD caravan trade in Turkmenistan (Kolpakow 1935, 571 n. 3). Even in present-​day Oman, dromedaries are supplemented with salted sardines or salt-​dried shark meat to meet their salt demand (Thesiger 1991, 49, 79; Varisco 2012, 156; Eades, Watson, and al-​Mahri 2013, 170). Apart from their dietary adaptations, additional anatomical, physiological, and behavioral particularities help explain the fitness of camels in desert habitats with sparse vegetation, limited surface water, and extreme temperatures. Emblematic for camels is their exposure to substantial dust during sandstorms. Protective anatomical features include sealable nostrils, protruding, bushy eyebrows, long and heavy eyelashes, and small ears lined with fur that make them virtually impenetrable for swirling dust particles. Another eye-​catching feature of camels is their pacing gait. Anatomical adaptations for efficient locomotion in desert landscapes include wide and splayed-​toed feet, strong ligaments supporting the extremities, limb positioning near the body’s midline, and low-​forward placement of the head and the neck to counterbalance the side-​to-​side sway of the body during pacing (Franklin 2011, 207). The undivided, flexible leathery footpad, with two broad toes that are able to splay widely, enables camels to walk on loose, sandy soils or gravel roads with stones up to three and a half centimeters across (Dagg 1974, 68).

Old World Camelids

11

Since the camel is inhabiting environments with strongly fluctuating temperatures, both daily and seasonal, adaptations enabling minimization of water loss are essential. For instance, dromedaries usually face the sun to reduce exposure of the body to insolation. During the heat of the day, camels will stand in the shade or close together in herds, thus offering one another protection against sun radiation. Particularly advantageous in hot climates is the camel’s ability to regulate body temperature with rising and falling temperatures during the day. Whereas body temperature in well-​watered camels varies between 36°C and 38°C (Wilson 1989, 15), it will fluctuate as much as 6°C in camels deprived of water. Under such circumstances, their body temperature can heat up to 41°C during the day and cool down to 35°C at night without affecting health (Yagil 1985, 11; Gilbert 2002, 20; Franklin 2011, 245). Camels also conserve water through heat storage, as they will start sweating only when the deep body temperature surpasses 42°C (Brauer 1993, 109). During perspiration they do not wet their hair coat but produce a moisture film on the skin surface that helps to cool the body. Because it is unaffected by perspiration, the hairy coat continues to provide an effective shield against the radiant heat of the sun (Wilson 1989, 77). Other anatomical features that help reduce the loss of water are located in the kidneys. These organs reprocess urea, thereby reabsorbing 99.8 percent of its total water content (Maloiy 1972, 253). This adaptation explains why the camel’s urine is syrupy with a salt concentration almost twice that of seawater (Yagil 1985, 33). Under conditions of dehydration, camels can further reduce the volume of urine, which on a very hot day will not exceed one liter. Moreover, when urinating, the sphincter rhythmically releases the urine in small jets, thus moistening the hindlegs and providing an additional cooling effect (Wilson 1989, 88). Dehydrated camels also excrete the driest feces of all domestic ruminants due to water absorption during its passage through the colon (Wilson 1989, 82; Gilbert 2002, 20). Besides being more suited to withstand low temperatures, Bactrian camels exhibit physiological adaptations similar to that of their Arabian relatives. Like the latter they rarely sweat, thus facilitating conservation of body fluids (Franklin 2011, 245). As already mentioned, camels survive on the water contents of their food plants, explaining why they can go without water for more than six months in suitable vegetation. But during the hottest part of the year, camels used in caravanning need to be watered at least once a week. While they can tolerate water loss greater than 30 percent of their body weight without visible negative effects (I. Köhler 1981, 43), camels are reported rehydrating quickly by drinking large quantities of water within minutes. Arabian camels, for instance, can quickly take up to 130 liters, whereas Bactrian camels have been observed drinking 135 liters in thirteen minutes (Franklin 2011, 243, 245). Of course, consumption of large quantities of water also affects blood physiology. Whereas in

12

Camels in the Biblical World

other mammalian taxa the quantities mentioned above would cause hemolysis (= rupturing of red blood cells), this is not the case in camels since they possess erythrocytes able to swell to 240 percent of their initial size (Yagil 1985, 78–85). Turning to reproduction, Old World camels are sexually mature at four or five years, but in males, full reproductive vigor is only reached with six years of age. Camels are seasonal breeders. Arabian camels, for instance, mate during the rainy or cold season (Yagil and Etzion 1980). Both the rutting season and the birthing periods coincide with adequate water and food supplies (Yagil 1982). Gestation lasts about 365–395 days in dromedaries and 390–410 days in Bactrian camels (Altmann 1990, 147; Franklin 2011, 244, 246). Since lactation takes another eleven months, calving intervals last approximately twenty-​four months. Moreover, fertility rates do not surpass 50 percent in pastoral economies (Yagil 1985, 136). Under good conditions and an intercalving time of two years, a female reaching thirty years of age would have given birth to thirteen calves (Evans and Powys 1984). All in all, camel herds need a considerable period of time to become large-​sized (cf. Robin 1996, 1198). 2.1.3. Human Exploitation Conceivably, the most valuable property of domestic camels is their capacity to carry persons as well as substantial amounts and/or heavy goods over long distances in hostile, basically waterless environments. When forced to move on, camels may roar, snarl, and gurgle, and occasionally make attempts to bite. However, once they set forth on a journey, they carry on patiently and endure uncomfortable situations with stoical indifference. Present-​day camel caravans can cover distances of more than 160 km in twenty-​four hours, and under favorable conditions a journey of 700 km will last less than nine days (Thesiger 1991, 31). If led by cameleers, the animals’ speed adjusts to the human pace of about 5 km per hour. They can journey twenty days without water (118), depending on temperature, food, and travel speed. Notwithstanding the fact that camels exhibit great endurance, any journey of considerable distance must be interrupted by their need to forage. Like other beasts of burden, such as donkeys, camels have low energy expenditure during locomotion. In contrast to the first, however, energy expenditure in resting camels is proportionately lower (Maloiy, Rugangazi, and Rowe 2009). Since heavy work throughout the seasons and bodily stress due to long journeys appear to have no significant effects on the calcium, phosphorus, and magnesium levels in the blood, camels are optimally adapted to cope with most challenges they are exposed to (Abd-​el-​Salam et al. 2008). Depending on the breed and size of camel and the nature of the terrain, dromedaries can carry up to three hundred kilograms and Bactrians even more

Old World Camelids

13

(cf. Walz 1954, 56). Hybrids of the two species (§2.3) have been reported carrying up to five hundred kilograms (Tapper 1985, 57). For long strenuous journeys, however, loads in dromedaries usually do not surpass one hundred kilograms (Thesiger 1991, 58). It was also noted that energy consumption in camels does not increase proportionally to the weight of their load (Yousef, Webster, and Yousef 1989). Apart from their use in transportation of persons and goods, camels provide other lifetime products valued by their herders and owners, such as milk, hair or wool, and dung. Depending on the region and culture, camel milk and derived products contribute to the human diet to varying extents. It can even become a staple and therefore an integral part of human subsistence and thus of local traditions, for instance, in the Horn of Africa or in Kazakhstan (Yagil 1982). In traditional pastoralism, average daily milk production in Arabian camels varies between nine to twelve liters, while Bactrians and hybrids have somewhat lower yields, averaging five to eight liters. Under modern dairy farm conditions, however, twenty liters of milk per day are usual (Varisco 2012, 157). Even if exposed to extreme conditions, camels are still able to produce some four liters of milk per day. Long marches without the possibility of drinking do not reduce milk secretion (Yagil 1985, 109), and even when females hardly have access to water, for instance during droughts, they may still secrete milk containing more than 90 percent of water (112), thereby supplying their offspring adequately with liquid (Wilson 1989, 93). Provided they are not fertilized, she-​camels will lactate for up to a year. Dams that lose their calves will dry up soon thereafter, unless cameleers retain a piece of the calf’s skin that by its smell stimulates the letdown (milk ejection) reflex in the dam, allowing herders to continue milking them (Horwitz and Rosen 2005, 123). Weaning starts when calves are nine to eleven months old. Different techniques exist to shorten the lactation period, for instance by placing a leather band with protruding thorns on the calf’s head in such a way that the dam’s udder is pricked every time the young attempts to suckle, forcing the mother to move away. A wooden peg drawn through the nostrils of the calf has similar effects. For more sophisticated techniques applied to wean the offspring while obtaining the milk for human consumption, the reader is referred to Dioli (2012). Camel milk has a sweet, sharp, and sometimes salty taste (Thesiger 1991, 79), is rich in chloride (Yoganandi et al. 2014) and vitamin C, and is more nutritious than cow milk. Another lifetime product of economic interest is the camel’s hair coat. Bactrians shed their woolly coat at the end of winter. The wool is collected and processed into padded cloth, quilts, and mattresses. Camels also possess long hair from which ropes are made (Yagil 1982). Dromedary hair is used to make a variety of things including clothes, tents, carpets, robes, saddle-​girths, and

14

Camels in the Biblical World

blankets (Cloudsley-​Thompson 1969; el-​Amin 1984, 47; cf. Henkelman 2017, 213 n. 218). Besides milk and hair, camel dung is valued as well, particularly in treeless environments. Due to its high cellulose content (Irwin 2010, 56), it is an excellent fuel with the same energy-​to-​weight yield as wood. However, it burns with a hotter and cleaner flame than wood, which is important for tent fires (Chapman 1985, 18). Exploitation of dung is most typical in the distribution range of the Bactrian camel, adult individuals producing up to 230 kg of dung per year. On caravan journeys, the last person in a camel train is usually responsible for collecting the dung. Other lifetime products occasionally exploited by camel pastoralists are urine (used for hygienic purposes) and blood, the latter in very arid environments, as for instance in southern Ethiopia and northern Kenya (Gebreab 2003), where camel blood supplies humans with iron, salts, and other essential nutrients (Dahl and Hjort 1984). Turning to so-​called primary products, camel meat plays an important role in human nutrition in the respective native ranges. It is characterized by low cholesterol and high-​protein contents (Horwitz and Rosen 2005; Kadim et al. 2014). However, the low reproduction rate in camels (see above) explains the species’ minor role for meat procurement even in the more arid regions of the ancient world. Leaving aside special meat markets in urban centers, consumption of camel meat mainly took and still takes place in communities that depend on these animals for their basic needs. However, they are usually butchered on special occasions only. These include festive gatherings following the return of the herd from grazing (Hartley 1984) and ritual celebrations (Dickson 1949; Dahl and Hjort 1984). In certain tribes, people utterly refrain from slaughtering animals that have been given names (Gast, Maubois, and Adda 1969).

2.2. Ancestry and Early Domestication History 2.2.1. Ancestry Old World camels descend from taxa distributed across the northern Americas (possibly Paracamelus) that prior to the beginning of the Quaternary some 2.6 million years ago (Cohen et al. 2013) had already migrated into Asia via the Beringian Land Bridge. Widely distributed in Pleistocene times across warm temperate and arid Eurasia and Africa, climatic oscillations with colder intervals caused the extinction of most camelid species confined to Europe and Africa. Thus, following the Younger Dryas cold spell, wild camels withdrew to Southwest, Central, and East Asia, the respective regions of origin of the domestic

Old World Camelids

15

Arabian camel or dromedary (Camelus dromedarius L.) and the domestic two-​ humped or Bactrian camel (Camelus bactrianus L.). By historic times, however, only these two domestic forms seem to have survived as well as a wild two-​humped population, well adapted to the climatic and ecological challenges imposed by the Gobi and Taklamakan Deserts. The fact that only a single species historically survived in the wild led to the two-​fold hypothesis that (1) Camelus ferus is ancestral to the Bactrian camel and (2) the dromedary represents a domestic lineage resulting from directed breeding of domestic Bactrian camels (I. Köhler 1981, 24; Herre and Röhrs 1990; Altmann 1990, 117). The assumption of a common ancestry of Bactrian and Arabian camels was fostered by the aforementioned histological study of Lombardini (1879). As to the common ancestry hypothesis, recent research into the genetic make-​up of modern Camelus ferus and Camelus bactrianus shows that the first is genetically too distant to be regarded as the origin of the second (Ji et al. 2009; Silbermayr et al. 2010; Feng et al. 2011). Moreover, ancient DNA analysis has revealed that Bactrian camels from Bronze and Iron Age contexts in Central Asia are closely related to domestic two-​humped animals found in Asia and kept in European zoological gardens (Trinks et al. 2012). Obviously, the ancestral lineage(s) from which the Bactrian camel originated lived elsewhere, but in order to clarify the geographic origin of the parental population, higher spatio-​ temporal resolution of the species’ Holocene history is necessary. Addressing this issue is complicated by millennia of admixture and long-​distance exchange of sires (cf. Çakırlar and Berthon 2014). Relative to the second hypothesis, proponents of a separate ancestry of Bactrian and Arabian camels have pointed out differences in gross anatomy (e.g., Lesbre 1903; Steiger 1990; Peters and von den Driesch 1997) and ecophysiological adaptations (e.g., Cauvet 1926; Gauthier-​Pilters and Dagg 1981), but it was only during the last two decades that the common ancestry hypothesis received its coup de grâce based on four lines of evidence that we detail below. 1. Reevaluation of the osseous remains of a large-​sized camel excavated in a late Pleistocene Nile terrace near present-​day Wadi Halfa, a Sudanese border town with Egypt, refuted earlier work by Achilles Gautier (1966) postulating close morphological relationship between this extinct Northeast African species and the Asiatic line of camels. Rather, renewed analysis of diagnostic elements illustrated morphological features found also in modern C. dromedarius (Peters 1998a). Since Thomas’s camel (Camelus thomasi Pomel 1893) was the only wild camel species described from Late Pleistocene northern Africa, Joris Peters (1998a) assigned the Wadi Halfa remains to this species, but substantiating this taxonomic classification necessitates additional diagnostic finds from Late Quaternary sites across northern Africa (Rowan et al. 2017; Martini and Geraads 2018). Having said this, the presence of a wild camel showing close

16

Camels in the Biblical World

morphological resemblance to modern dromedaries in late Pleistocene Northeast Africa opens up the possibility that in the wider region, including Southwest Asia (Martini et al. 2015; cf. Pokines et al. 2019), either this or a closely related Camelus taxon survived the climatic bottleneck caused by the Last Glacial Maximum and the Younger Dryas cold spell, thus constituting the ancestral stock from which the domestic Arabian camel descended. 2. Prehistoric sites excavated in the last decades in the Arabian Peninsula (cf. §3.3.1.1) have revealed the presence of large camels exhibiting dromedary morphology (Uerpmann and Uerpmann 2002; von den Driesch and Obermaier 2007; Beech et al. 2009). Apart from being larger sized than modern Arabian camels, several other elements support their wild status, as is illustrated with the archaeofauna from the Bronze Age site of Al-​Sufouh 2 (aṣ-Ṣufūḥ, Dubai, UAE). Located near the ancient coastline, it is probably not surprising that marine fish and mollusks dominate the faunal assemblage from Al-​Sufouh 2 (> 120 taxa; von den Driesch and Obermaier 2007). The large majority of the gastropod and bivalve taxa identified in the extensive archaeofauna totaling more than eighty thousand specimens are unsuitable for human consumption because of their small size. They represent the natural taphocoenosis characteristic for settings located on the coast, with littoral taxa being washed up on the shore. Among the edible snails, however, the high number of Terebralia palustris, the large mud creeper, is noted. This gastropod is frequently found in mangrove habitat and marine or brackish tidal creek systems, named ‫ خور‬ḫaur “inlet, bay” in Arabic, and usually transcribed as “khor.” Khors typically consist of broad intertidal flats dotted with supratidal islets that are covered with halophyte vegetation, the latter representing an essential component in the diet of camels (see above). Arguably, prehistoric communities took advantage of khor settings to ambush animals, and this appears to explain the case at Al-​Sufouh 2 as well: 99.4 percent of the terrestrial mammalian assemblage encompassing 17,911 specimens can be assigned to camels, while sheep, goat, cattle, dog, gazelle, Arabian oryx, and striped hyena taken together account for only 0.6 percent (von den Driesch and Obermaier 2007). In this respect, species composition at Al-​Sufouh 2 clearly contrasts with that observed in Bronze Age settlements of the region, which are heavily dominated by small livestock and cattle. Moreover, with barely one hundred potsherds and few artifacts including an arrowhead as well as a copper axe, material culture at Al-​Sufouh 2 is extremely poor, despite extensive excavations. Significantly, a survey near the site revealed the absence of contemporaneous habitation in the khor’s vicinity, excluding the possibility that the camel remains represent refuse from intentional butchering at the periphery of a permanent settlement. Judging from the cut and chop marks on the bones, carcasses were dismembered on the spot, yet skeletal part distribution suggests that the skins with the foot bones still attached as well as the shoulder region had

Old World Camelids

17

been removed systematically, conceivably to be processed elsewhere (von den Driesch and Obermaier 2007). Conversely, the proportionately high frequency of complete marrow-​yielding long bones—body parts often portioned in the domestic space—does not fit either, since no architecture has been found. The camel remains from Al-​Sufouh 2 can therefore be considered as resulting from an outdoor activity. It is also of interest that, based on dental status, only a single animal out of twenty-​nine evaluable individuals proved younger than two years. Animals six years and older accounted for a quarter of the assemblage, while more than two-​thirds of it represented animals aged between two and six years old, the majority of these being older than four years when killed. Since this age cohort would be essential for sustainable production in a pastoral economy, these findings would contradict human management of camels at Al-​Sufouh 2. Moreover, analysis of pelvic remains from seventy mature individuals showed that males numbered twice as many as females. Sex-​related demographic profiling thus suggests that mainly young adult males aged four to six years were killed. However, in case breeding aims at providing animals for labor and caravan trade, this age cohort corresponds to the population segment usually kept alive. In sum, the site’s ecological setting, material culture, and faunal composition as well as the morphology, relative frequency, age, and body part distribution, ratio of male to female, and finally the animals’ comparably large size allow the conclusion that during the third and second millennia BC, the khor site of Al-​Sufouh 2 witnessed the hunt of wild dromedaries on consecutive occasions, possibly on a seasonal basis, and with a focus on bachelor males. 3. Comparison of ancient DNA sequences obtained from Al-​Sufouh 2 and other wild camels as well as early domestic Arabian camels (based on contextual evidence) with genetic information obtained from modern Arabian camels clearly illustrate that during the Bronze and Iron Ages, the southeast Arabian Peninsula seems to have harbored (part of) the parental stock that contributed to the gene pool of the domestic Arabian camel. In addition, the high initial genetic diversity noted in prehistoric camels from the Gulf region points to local domestication in this part of the Arabian Peninsula (Almathen et al. 2016a). 4. To verify Lombardini’s claim of a two-​humped stage in the embryonic development of Camelus dromedarius, systematic anatomical research into fetal morphology of unborn and newborn camels was carried out. Based on the study of thirty-​six fetal and newborn individuals, no such stage could be observed (Kinne et al. 2010; Knospe et al. 2012). Arguably, Lombardini’s conclusion may have been based on a specimen resulting from hybridizing a Bactrian camel with a dromedary (Knospe et al. 2012; Dioli 2014), a widespread practice since ancient times to which we will return below (§2.3). In sum, currently available evidence allows concluding that both domestic forms descend from two morphologically distinct camel species that became

18

Camels in the Biblical World

extinct in the Holocene, namely a one-​humped species populating Southwest Asia and a two-​humped distributed across Central and East Asia. 2.2.2. Early Domestication History Pathways to domestication differ between mammalian species (Vigne et al. 2011; Zeder 2012) and it has been argued that the camel entered a closer relationship with humans following the so-​called directed pathway (Zeder 2012). This could imply that appropriating camels was not intended for the supply of meat, fat, and other primary products, but for so-​called lifetime products, particularly labor. Such a pathway has been suggested for other animals employed for transporting people and goods, including donkeys and horses (Zeder 2012). Arguably, in view of the camel’s long gestation and subsequent lactation periods resulting in birth intervals of two years, camel husbandry aiming at meat production seems hardly economic at first glance, annual herd growth amounting to 8 percent in camels (Spencer et al. 2012) versus 18 percent in sheep and—due to twins and triplets—more than 33 percent in goats (Dahl and Hjort 1976). Of course, the cold and arid climates prevailing in the natural habitats of wild camels offer suitable conditions for long-​term storage of meat and fat of these animals both in winter (dry and cold) and summer (dry and hot). This is extremely useful when hunting large game, supplying more than two hundred kilograms of edible protein and fat. That being said, for the moment, neither the beginnings nor the cultural circumstances triggering the intensification of the human-​camel relationship can be traced in the archaeological record, hampering our attempts to investigate the motives pursued by ancient communities engaging in early camel husbandry. As with other ungulate taxa, initial management required the know-​how of people experienced in camel behavior. It can therefore be hypothesized that the process of domestication involved cultures with a long tradition of camel observation and hunting, considering that like in other medium to large herbivores, spatial control as well as feeding and breeding in captivity must have presented challenging issues (e.g., Peters, Pöllath, and Arbuckle 2014; Peters, Arbuckle, and Pöllath 2017; Zimmermann et al. 2018). Although still in need of verification for Bactrian camels, some behavioral traits reported in female Arabian camels possibly helped to promote a closer relationship with humans. First is the fact that she-​camels tend to return to the place where they calved the first time, even if it takes them a journey of several hundred kilometers, which explains why change of ownership of females ideally occurs prior to the animal’s first gestation (I. Köhler 1981, 51). Female dromedaries may even return years later to where they were born (Yagil 1985, 6). Second, lactating dams revisit the place where they suckled their calf recently (Baskin 1974).

Old World Camelids

19

Domestication necessitates prolonged human-​controlled breeding of populations of animals originally taken from the wild (Uerpmann and Uerpmann 2002, 250). Considering the slow reproduction and low fertility rates noted in the domestic forms (see above), appropriating camels must have been a lengthy process. Margarethe Uerpmann and Hans-​Peter Uerpmann (2012, 113), for instance, estimate that some fifty to one hundred years elapsed between the onset of a closer human-​camel relationship and the first noticeable characteristic features that differentiate the domestic camel from its wild relative. Since early management likely involved stabling animals on-​site for longer periods, potential domestication sites should be examined for accumulations of camel dung, preferably in demarcated spaces. For sheep living under circumstances of confinement more than ten thousand years ago, it could be shown that these animals developed specific intra-​articular lesions, which are osteopathological conditions that have been interpreted as resulting from reduced mobility, unphysiological strain, and poor hygienic conditions due to stabling (Zimmermann et al. 2018). One might therefore reasonably assume that osteological change uncharacteristic of or inappropriate to the organism’s normal functioning also occurred during early management of camels. Unfortunately, since feeding and human exploitation of camels, including their use for labor as well as slaughtering, mainly take place outside the residential area proper, early human-​camel interactions may simply pass unattended, as archaeology in Southwest and Central Asia usually focuses on residential areas (cf. Rosen and Saidel 2010, 64). For the moment, we are not aware of sites illustrating convincingly initial camel management and domestication, but osseous remains found in contexts located outside the presumed geographical range of the respective wild ancestor provide a terminus ante quem (e.g., Davis 1985; Grigson 2014). Additional criteria for evidencing human interference and a domestic status include a reduction in body size (Uerpmann 1979; Peters et al. 1999; Peters, von den Driesch, and Helmer 2005) and differences in the proportion of sexes or demographic profiles (Zeder and Hesse 2000). Even if these parameters do not necessarily represent markers of initial domestication (e.g., Zeder 2011; Arbuckle and Atici 2013), they nonetheless can help to frame the process spatio-​temporally. As to the domestication history of the Camelus bactrianus, the toponym mentioned by Aristotle (Historia animalium 498b, 499a) suggested Bactria as the species’ region of origin and hence domestication.2 Joris Peters and Angela von den Driesch (1997) thus evaluated the Holocene archaeofaunal and pictorial 2.  Historia Animalium 499a: Διαφέρουσι δ’ αἱ Βάκτριαι τῶν Ἀραβίων· αἱ μὲν γὰρ δύο ἔχουσιν ὕβους, αἱ δ’ ἕνα μόνον. “Bactrian camels differ from Arabians; for the former have two humps and the latter only one.”

20

Camels in the Biblical World

record of West, Central, and South Asia in order to verify the presence of an ancestral wild population in Bactria and adjacent regions. They concluded that the genus Camelus was likely absent from Mesolithic to Aeneolithic South Asia, eastern Iran, and northwestern Central Asia. Only from the Bronze Age onward would Bactrian camels appear in the faunal record of the latter regions, implying their domestic status. Consequently, early management of wild camels likely started east of the Kopet Dag region (or Turkmen-​Khorasan mountain range), but the lack of well-​dated archaeofaunas illustrating the Holocene pre-​Bronze Age animal world of arid eastern Central and Eastern Asia hampered detailing the story further. Conceivably, the most important addition to the aforementioned study comes from recent excavations at Neolithic Ajakagytma (Zeravshan, southwest Uzbekistan). Archaeofaunal analysis by Jean-​Denis Vigne revealed the presence of camel remains in levels of the Kel’teminar culture, dating to the sixth millennium BC. These specimens show morphological traits typical of modern Camelus bactrianus but are clearly larger-​sized than their domestic relatives (Vigne, forthcoming). Ajakagytma is located in the Kyzylkum Desert on a flat elevation overlooking the eponymous salt lake, which existed already in Neolithic times (Brunet, Hudžanazarov, and Szymczak 2013, figs. 1A, B). According to the Köppen climate classification system, the Kyzylkum Desert is characterized by a cold desert climate with salt lakes and associated plant cover including halophytes, similar to the Taklamakan and Gobi Deserts populated by wild C. ferus today. Moreover, the Köppen climate classification system shows that Central Asia encompasses two vast regions facing such extreme climatic conditions (Peel, Finlayson, and McMahon 2007, fig. 5), one situated east of the Caspian Sea in western Central Asia covering large parts of Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and southern Kazakhstan, and the other in southeastern Central Asia stretching from northwest China to southern Mongolia. Major climatic and ecogeographic barriers separate these two regions, such as the Pamir and Tian Shan mountain ranges and their vast forelands. Consequently, climatic and zooarchaeological evidence strongly suggests that contemporaneous to Camelus ferus populating the Taklamakan and Gobi Deserts of southeastern Central Asia, a second geographically separate two-​humped wild camel population existed in similar habitats further west. In accordance with genetic research implying a separate ancestry from the southeastern Central Asian species Camelus ferus, it can therefore be hypothesized that Camelus bactrianus descended from this western population of two-​humped wild camels. Following domestication of individuals originating from the western wild two-​humped population and dispersal beyond their native range, introgression with the eastern wild population may have occurred. Although additional research is needed to delineate more precisely the Holocene range of this (north)western wild camel population, the lack of camel

Old World Camelids

21

remains in Jeitun culture sites (ca. 7000–5400 BC) excavated in the foothills of the Kopet Dag Mountains suggests that in Neolithic times, wild camels were still absent from the western Karakum Desert (Peters and von den Driesch 1997). As illustrated by the large bone specimens from Ajakagytma, their contemporaneous presence in Transoxiana beyond the Oxus River could eventually imply that the Amu Darya marked the western boundary of the (north)western wild camel population’s Holocene distribution range. The absence of camel remains in Mesolithic–Neolithic assemblages from the Kopet Dag foothills and their sudden appearance in the course of the Early Bronze Age (3500–2300 BC) suggest that the wild two-​humped camel’s domestication was accomplished by the fourth millennium BC at the latest. In this respect, the fact that the Holocene distribution of the (north)western wild two-​ humped camel population likely encompassed southern Kazakhstan, the possibility must be considered that its domestication was culturally connected to that of the horse, domesticated in northern Kazakhstan during the fifth to fourth millennium BC (Outram et al. 2009; Gaunitz et al. 2018). In sum, information about the wild two-​humped camel and its exploitation in Central Asia remains scanty for the moment. Interestingly, since the two-​humped camels hunted at sixth millennium BC Ajakagytma are clearly larger-​sized than historic or modern domestic Bactrians (Vigne, forthcoming), it is obvious that in the course of human management and domestication, animals on average became significantly smaller. Applying osteometry as well, Uerpmann and Uerpmann (2002, 252) assigned the dromedary remains from Iron Age II contexts at Tell Abraq to the domestic form, since they are significantly smaller-​sized than their Bronze Age relatives from the same and related sites in coastal southeast Arabia such as Al-​Sufouh and Umm an-​Nar (§3.3.1). Contrary to Tell Abraq, dromedaries acquired real economic importance at the fortified town of Muweilah (Muwaylaḥ, Šāriqah, UAE), inhabited between 1000 and 660 BC. Apart from the smaller size of some specimens, additional arguments favor a domestic status for most camels, namely (1) the fact that they represent the second most important mammalian food species outnumbered only by sheep and goats, (2) the location of the finds in residential areas, (3) the presence of several finds of statuettes representing one-​humped camels with a load or saddle on their hump, and (4) the population’s demographic profile suggesting that animals were not only kept for meat, but also for milk and labor (Uerpmann and Uerpmann 2017), thus reflecting an advanced stage of the domestication process. Since the settlement at Muweilah dates to the first half of the first millennium BC (§3.3.1.1), it can be concluded that the process of camel domestication may have started decidedly earlier, probably at the transition period from the Late Bronze Age to the early Iron Age I.

22

Camels in the Biblical World

To conclude, insight into the process of domestication of the Bactrian and the Arabian camel is hampered by the lack of faunal assemblages enabling the assessment of on-​site changes in human-​camel relationships. Conceivably, the most important difference between Camelus bactrianus and Camelus dromedarius concerns the timing of their domestication, which on present evidence appears separated by at least two millennia, the first likely in the fourth and the second in the late second millennium BC. Based essentially on zooarchaeological analyses, these estimates may not be entirely consistent with the dates proposed by researchers from other disciplines, necessitating a closer look at published evidence including figurines, inscriptions, and literary traditions (see chs. 3 and 4).

2.3. A Most Useful Hybrid Hybridization of ungulate species has a long tradition in ancient Near Eastern cultures. Most renowned are crosses between equids, of which the most valuable appears to be the mule, the usually sterile offspring of a jackass and a horse mare. Its breeding likely began in the course of the third millennium BC, when the distributions of horses and donkeys overlapped in Mesopotamia. Whereas donkeys are well adapted to the constraints of the Irano-​Turanian steppe, the hot and arid climatic conditions of that ecozone are not particularly favorable for breeding horses, eventually resulting in the promotion of mule breeding. These hybrids were economically highly valued, as is documented by a Hittite price list for livestock, illustrating that mules are the most expensive animals per se (Otten 1961, 400; P. Mitchell 2018, 102). Arguably, this economic assessment relates to the fact that mules usually exhibit hybrid vigor, which means that they perform better than either of their parents: apart from being able to carry heavier loads than donkeys or horses, mules are also significantly more surefooted than horses in mountainous terrain, can thrive on food of lesser quality, are more resistant to disease, and have longer life spans (Tegetmeier and Sutherland 1895, 71–78). Similar considerations may have led to the crossbreeding of Bactrian camels and dromedaries once their distribution ranges overlapped. Because the two-​ humped camel was domesticated decidedly earlier than its one-​humped relative (§2.2.2), hybridization likely took place in Southwest Asia after the introduction of (male) Bactrian camels, the timing of which will be discussed below (§3.2.5). In the nineteenth century AD, Bactrian camel trains in Turkmenistan traditionally comprised mainly male individuals (Kolpakow 1935a), and this was probably also the case in ancient caravans (cf. fig. 8.1). Hybridization involved Bactrian sires in predominantly dromedary country and one-​humped bulls in regions where the two-​humped form was common

Old World Camelids

23

Figure 2.3.  The possibilities and results of crossbreeding between Bactrian camels, dromedaries, and F1 hybrids. After Legel 1990 2:135. Description of camels added by author. Used by permission of the Deutscher Apotheker Verlag.

(Burckhardt 1830, 110–11; van Lennep 1870, 2:163; Legel 1990, 134; Uerpmann, Uerpmann, and Kutterer 2019). In Turkey, camel breeders traditionally used the former method, and first generation hybrids (F1) became widely known under the name “tülü” (see Legel 1990, 134; Dioli 2020, 4–5). In Kazakhstan, where hybridizing is practiced even today, hybrid nomenclature differentiates between the offspring of male Bactrian × female dromedary camels (“iner,” male, or “iner-​ maya,” female), and that of male dromedary × female Bactrians (“nar,” male, or “nar-​maya,” female; Dioli 2020, 8). Although tülüs are able to produce offspring, camel breeders do not much appreciate F2 animals, because they often exhibit a bad character, weak progeny, and poor conformity, and have health problems as well (Kolpakow 1935b; Faye and Konuspayeva 2012, 32). Therefore, male tülüs are usually castrated (Kolpakow 1935a; Bogoljubskij 1959, 418). Conversely, backcrossing of female tülüs with either male Bactrian camels or dromedaries is rewarding. The first causes an improvement of fat and wool production and hence cold resistance (= the Bactrian effect), backcrossing with the latter generates an increase of milk production and heat resistance (= the dromedary effect) (Faye and Konuspayeva 2012, 32). Both backcrossed hybrids are stronger than purebred dromedaries or Bactrians respectively and have a greater productive longevity. Considerations similar to the hybridization goals in nineteenth and twentieth-​ century Southwest Asia may have also motivated crossbreeding in the more

24

Camels in the Biblical World

distant past. However, the main reason for crossing Bactrian camels and dromedaries presumably lies in the fact that tülüs—by analogy with mules—outperform parental stock in many ways. They are larger and stronger than either of their parents and better able to withstand both heat and cold. While dromedaries—and arguably, tülüs as well—have been observed to need watering at least every fifth day in summer, Bactrian camels cannot survive more than three days without water during the hot season (Nolde 1895, 125). Rendering service on mountain trails, walking in snow, on ice, or through mud also holds fewer obstacles. Besides their exceptional physique, hybrid camels can be recognized by the fact that they possess a single large, elongated, lightly indented hump (Dioli 2020, figs. 12, 13, 20). Historic sources attest to the hybridization and widespread use of tülüs in nineteenth-​century AD Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Iran, Syria, and Turkey (Tapper 1985, 2011; Çakırlar and Berthon 2014; Galik et al. 2015). Similarly, written sources, iconography, and zooarchaeological findings confirm the exploitation of this type of hybrid in distant trade long ago. In Central Asia, for instance, these animals were already involved in long distance trade more than two millennia earlier (Bulliet 1975, 167–68), as well as in southeast Arabia (Uerpmann 1999; Potts 2004, 159–60) and the Levant (Toplyn 2006, 490; S. Parker 2006, 556).

2.4. Ancient Camel Nomenclature Large ungulate taxa exploited in ancient Southwest Asia include cattle, donkeys, horses, elephants, and camels. Human control of cattle had already started in the ninth millennium BC (Peters, von den Driesch, and Helmer 2005; Helmer et al. 2005; von den Driesch 2007; Peters, Arbuckle, and Pöllath 2014; Arbuckle et al. 2016), whereas donkeys and horses were domesticated much later, presumably in the sixth and/or fifth millennia BC (Kimura et al. 2011; Outram et al. 2009). Archaeofaunal studies and iconography confirm that prior to the arrival of the camel, donkeys were the preferred animal for transport over long distances in the arid ancient Near East and northern Africa (Rossel et al. 2008; Boivin and Fuller 2009, 134–35; Kimura et al. 2011; Förster 2015). In contrast to cattle, donkeys, and horses, however, elephants were only tamed, not domesticated. Breeding of elephants in captivity is unviable because of the species’ long generation time of about 20 years (e.g., Zeuner 1963, 283–86; Becker 1994, 169). People therefore train young elephants captured in the wild. Still practiced today, the exploitation of elephants likely dates back to the beginning of the second millennium BC, if not earlier (Prothero and Schoch 2002, 179). At the time of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (ca. 283–246 BC), written records mention African elephants being captured, tamed, and trained for combat (Thiers 2001).

Old World Camelids

25

Like the domestic horse, the Bactrian camel arrived in Southwest Asia in the third millennium BC, as will be detailed further below. Consequently, when the cuneiform script emerged, the peoples inhabiting Mesopotamia were unfamiliar with these species. This situation is mirrored in cuneiform animal nomenclature, with single names being given to common animals, for example anš e for the domestic donkey or g u 4 for the ox. In order to name related, but less familiar wild or domestic or perhaps even alien species, composite nouns were devised that add a specification considered typical of that particular species (Selz, Grinevald, and Goldwasser 2018, 311). The cuneiform notion for the horse, anše.kur.ra, literally means “donkey of the mountain” (Postgate 1986; Weszeli 2004, 471; Zarins 2014, 170), which takes into account that horses arrived in Mesopotamia either via the Anti-​Taurus or Zagros mountain ranges. The Sumerian name for the one-​humped camel is anš e.a.ab.ba, literally “donkey of the Sea[land].” Most remarkable here is the fact that this notion does not link the species to its commonly believed terra typica, the desert, but rather to a region located by the sea, an aspect to which we will return later (§3.2.4.3). The Bactrian camel, in contrast to its one-​humped relative and likewise unexpected from a nomenclatural point of view, was not classified within the anš e clade, but in the am.s i clade. A m.s i, referring to the elephant, literally means “aurochs with teeth,” implying an alien origin for this species as well. Possible explanations for the elephant’s compound term could be its limited geographic distribution in Mesopotamia and absence from the region where cuneiform writing developed. The Bactrian camel was referred to as am.si.kur.ra (“elephant of the mountain”) or a m . s i . ḫ a r. r a . a n (“elephant of the caravan”).3 It seems therefore logical to assume that the Sumerians knew elephants before becoming familiar with Bactrian camels. Obviously, the species’ naming confirms its exploitation in organized long-​distance trade and an origin and/or route of introduction from the east, that is, across the Zagros coming from the Iranian Plateau.4 Unlike in Sumerian, composite nouns for basic camels terms in Akkadian, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic are lacking. Each animal has one or several lexemes that can overlap in meaning. When in the course of the first millennium BC camels became a common sight in the Near East, the Semitic root of the noun 3.  am.s i.ḫar.ra. an could also mean “elephant of the journey/passage/path road/route.” 4.  It is noteworthy that in his Historia animalium, Aristotle repeatedly refers to camels, putting his observations next to those related to elephants (499a; 540a; 546b; 571b; 578a; 596a; 604a; 630b). Both animals are also referred to in a single chapter of Aelian’s On the Characteristics of Animals (17:7). The famous saying of Jesus that “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God” (Matt 19:24) seems to have a late echo in the Babylonian Talmud, where Rabbi Samuel ben Nahmani is quoted as saying, “a man is never shown in a dream . . . an elephant going through the eye of a needle” (Berakot 55b).

26

Camels in the Biblical World

“camel”—gml—became widespread. It refers to both the one- and two-​humped species as well as their hybrids. Likewise, Greek κάμηλος, a Semitic loanword, does not differentiate between the different forms. Expectedly, by far the largest camel vocabulary emerges from the Arab culture, which is known to distinguish between camel types, breeds, local strains, age groups, and so on (see, e.g., Eades, Watson, and al-​Mahri 2013). From the vast pool of about 160 primary (Hommel 1879) and about 5,700 secondary, metaphorical, or allusive terms in classical Arabic literature (Hammer-​Purgstall 1856), only those that are in common with the Northwest Semitic languages and Akkadian will be considered in this study.5 From this brief overview of common ancient Near Eastern camel designations, it becomes obvious that past animal classifications clearly diverge from the systematic approach first proposed by Carl von Linné in his Systema Naturae (1758). Since ancient camel nomenclature is rarely unambiguous, addressing the cultural trajectories of Old World camels and their hybrids in the biblical world faces limitations. In the following we intend to approach this complex issue by integrating datasets from disciplines as diverse as linguistics, art history, and (zoo)archaeology.

5.  A first impression of the camel’s prominence in Arabic literature and culture can be gathered by scanning through Lane’s Lexicon (1863) with its about seven thousand instances of the word “camel” on three thousand pages, but cf. also Krotkoff 1992, 266.

Chapter 3

Zooarchaeological, Iconographic, and Textual Evidence for the Presence of Camels in the Biblical World and Adjacent Regions

For several reasons, tracing the early history of camel exploitation in Central and Southwest Asia based on osseous remains is confronted with restrictions. Compared to other economically important livestock taxa, for instance, remains of camels are usually rare in human consumption waste, which can partly be explained by the fact that large-​sized animals were mainly slaughtered and dismembered outside of residential areas. Yet, excavations usually focus on palatial stone architecture rather than on the periphery of settlements. Another major issue in our study concerns the archaeological age of isolated camel bone and tooth specimens. This is usually deduced from the position of the finds in the site’s stratigraphy in conjunction with radiocarbon dating of the corresponding levels or contexts by means of associated charcoal finds. However, since people used dry wood for building, cooking, and so on, charcoal dates can be too early. Moreover, due to architectural activities like building, settlement restructuring or leveling, specimens may have been translocated into underlying strata, necessitating direct radiocarbon ​dating to confirm their supposed age (cf. Grigson 2014). The latter also applies to articulated camel skeletons, since discarded individuals might be intrusive as well (cf. §3.5.1.4 and §3 n. 158). Sometimes, specific identification can help narrowing down a specimen’s archaeological age. For instance, since the introduction of the Arabian camel into Central Asia and the Indian subcontinent first happened in late prehistoric and/or early historic times, archaeological dromedary specimens in these regions would indicate a comparably late age. In other words, since the distribution of Bactrian and Arabian camels has changed considerably over time, specific determination based on zoogeographical considerations should ideally be supported by other evidence. Understandably, identification of the species of camel including their hybrids based on fragmented skeletal remains requires considerable morphological experience and adequate comparative specimens, which unfortunately may not be readily available when studying faunal remains in the field or in archaeological museums (Becker 2008b, 83–87; and Martini, Schmid, and Costeur 2017). 27

28

Camels in the Biblical World

During our study, we noted that few faunal studies have dealt with all these issues in detail, complicating evaluation of published results. Having said this, since we have to rely on such data, we assume in the following that in the absence of current (zoo)archaeological proof for the occurrence of domestic Arabian camels in sites antedating the last centuries of the Late Bronze Age, specimens identified in contexts located outside the Arabian Peninsula predating circa 1400–1200 BC most likely represent Bactrian camels. As an additional criterion, we considered temporal clustering of finds within a single culture group a passable indicator of camel exploitation.

3.1. Camels in Central Asia and Iran Although our knowledge about the origins and dispersal of the Bactrian camel from its core region of domestication is still inconclusive, excavations in Central Asia point to the domestic form’s integration in human subsistence by the third millennium BC (Peters and von den Driesch 1997, 651). Evidence for long-​ distance trade between the Central Asian Bronze Age cultures and Mesopotamia with the possible exploitation of the camel dates broadly contemporaneous (cf. Roaf 1990, 78–83; Wilkinson 2014, 295–304; Steinkeller 2016). Exchange between the Bronze Age Central Asian cultures and the Indus Valley civilization introduced the camel to Baluchistan and the Indian subcontinent (Jarrige and Santoni 1979; Kohl 2007, 199; Caubet 2012, 2016). 3.1.1. Camel Remains Camel bones excavated in the Kopet Dag foothill sites of Altyn Depe, Khapuz Depe, and Namazga Depe in southern Turkmenistan point to the appearance and exploitation of the domestic two-​humped camel in the third millennium BC (Peters and von den Driesch 1997, 659). However, direct radiocarbon dating is needed in order to get a more precise time estimate of the species’ incorporation into Central Asian economies. For the moment, the geographic origin of these early representatives is unknown, but the lack of camel remains in Early Bronze Age civilizations inhabiting the Iranian Plateau and the fact that Bactrian camels would have enabled people and goods to cross the three hundred kilometer wide Karakum Desert separating the Kopet Dag from the Oxus (Amu Darya) River civilizations point to an introduction from the latter cultural area. Intentional burials of Bactrian camels have been reported from various sites belonging to the Andronovo culture flourishing in the central Eurasian Steppe and western Siberia circa 2000–900 BC (Kuz’mina 2007, 108–9, 149). These burials are indicative of the species’ sociocultural significance in arid Central Asia.

Camels in the Biblical World and Adjacent Regions

29

At Gonur Depe in the Murghab (Margiana) Delta region, Turkmenistan, camels have been interred in various tombs that bear witness to the Oxus civilization (ca. 2400–1700 BC). Most remarkable are the “royal” tombs of Gonur Depe. Their complex architecture includes multiroomed underground houses with tables, niches and hearths, fine mosaic artistic decoration, rich gold, silver, and bronze funeral gifts, and four-​wheeled wagons. Two regal tombs (nos. 3200 and 3225) discovered in 2004 contained the remains of human beings, a small wagon, a dog, four camels, and a horse foal, dated to circa 2200 BC (Dubova 2015). Another tomb (no. 3900) in the same area was unearthed in 2009. It remained untouched until excavation and can be radiocarbon dated to circa 2200 BC (3940 ± 240 BP, lab code Le-8782). It yielded a four-​wheeled wooden cart, two camels, two donkeys, seven large dogs, as well as seven human skeletons (Dubova 2018). Large, powerful dogs have been reported from Assyria and Mesopotamia and the type of wooden cart is also known from Susa. Moreover, the kind of objects and their decoration unearthed at the site suggest distant trade connections with Indian and Mesopotamian civilizations. A neighboring royal tomb (no. 3880) contained bones of a dog and a camel, along with human bones and a variety of funerary goods (Sarianidi and Dubova 2010; Francfort 2020). Since prehistoric times, the Bolan Pass served as the major gateway from Central to South Asia. By this route camels were introduced into the Indus Valley civilization, as is illustrated by camel bones from late Harappan levels (ca. 1900–1400 BC). Whereas the bone finds themselves have been classified as camels (Meadow 1984, 136; Potts 2005, 58 n. 11), only the Bactrian camel seems relevant, provided their dating is correct. The species’ exploitation in the region is confirmed by numerous finds of clay figurines showing two-​humped animals unearthed at the site of Pirak in Pakistani Baluchistan.1 Some of the camel figurines have been decorated with color lines over the humps, body, and neck, suggesting either textile coverings, leather straps to fasten loads, or perhaps even saddles (Meadow 1984, 136). Nonetheless, in view of the few osseous remains found in Harappan faunal assemblages the camel was probably not of primary economic importance in this area (Meadow 1984, 137).2 From Iron Age I levels (ca. 1250–1050 BC) at Sagzabad in the northern Central Plateau of Iran, dromedary bones have been collected (Mashkour 2002, 31–32; Potts 2005, 58 n. 12). The phalanx of a Bactrian camel has been unearthed 1.  Kuz’mina 2007, 114, 434; 2008, 59; Santoni 1979, 177–79; Enault and Jarrige 1979, figs. 94–95, pl. 42B–43; Jarrige and Enault 1976, 35: “These are the oldest representations of horses and camels known in these regions” (“il s’agit là des plus anciennes figurations des chevaux et de chameaux connues dans ces régions”) from period I. Period II, from the end of the second to the beginning of the first millennium BC, has decorated two-​humped camel figurines (39; cf. 44). 2.  Most of the finds listed by Kumar (2014) have already been dealt with by Peters and von den Driesch (1997, 658).

30

Camels in the Biblical World

at Konar Sandal in southeastern Iran (Mashkour et al. 2013, 229, 239–40). Excavated in the site’s northern part, the specimen has been radiocarbon dated directly, the value obtained being 2784±35 BP (lab code AA74916)—that is, 1011–838 cal BC at 95.4 percent probability. The faunal record also yields some questionable specimens that require a reassessment of their original identification. Furthermore, as some specimens were collected from settlement mounds with complex stratigraphies, a review of the respective archaeological context as well as direct radiocarbon dating might be necessary to confirm their archaeological age. From sites located in the alluvial plain of the Indus in Pakistan, for instance, camel bone specimens have been collected in levels dating to the Mature Harappan period (ca. 2,600– 2000 BC). At least some, if not all of these bones are considered belonging to the dromedary, but this must be considered unlikely, as the species was not yet domesticated. Of course, at the time of publication (Badam 1984), an osteological guide for distinguishing Bactrian from Arabian camels was not yet available. Moreover, nowadays only the dromedary occurs in the region, and skeletons of Bactrian camels might not have been available for direct comparison. Unfortunately, since a detailed account of the bones is missing, reidentification of the specimens was not possible (Badam 1984, 349; Peters and von den Driesch 1997, 658; Potts 2004, 151). It is noteworthy, though, that large-​scale excavations at third-​millennium BC Harappa in the 1990s failed to produce additional camel finds (Meadow 1991). For Harappan contexts, therefore, direct radiocarbon dating of early camel finds is necessary. At Anau, situated in the border region between Khurasan (Iran) and Turkmenistan, camel bones presumably dating to the late fourth or early third millennium BC had been unearthed during excavations early in the twentieth century. These finds were reported to belong to Bactrian camels (Duerst 1908; Compagnoni and Tosi 1978, 98). Since the site witnessed extensive subsequent occupation, direct radiocarbon dating is required to confirm the age of the purportedly earlier bones (Duerst 1908, 383; Peters and von den Driesch 1997, 658). Five bones assigned to Bactrian camels and presumably dating to 2700– 2500 BC have been unearthed at Shahr-​i Sokhta in Sistan, eastern Iran (Compagnoni and Tosi 1978; Zarins 1992, 825). In addition, camel hair and dung has been found in close association with the ancient dwelling place, which would imply a domestic status (Peters and von den Driesch 1997, 656). It is noted, however, that camel bones are missing from later occupation stages. The long-​lasting occupation (ca. 3200–1800 BC) and the complex stratigraphy of the site does not exclude that the archaeological context had witnessed subsequent disturbance by later cultural debris, which implies that the finds should be radiocarbon dated directly. Moreover, based on the distinctive criteria described by Corinna Steiger (1991, 60–61), one of the specimens figured by Bruno Compagnoni and

Camels in the Biblical World and Adjacent Regions

31

Maurizio Tosi (1978, 92–93), a left calcanaeus, seems to exhibit a dromedary-​ like morphology (Peters and von den Driesch 1997, 656).3 Thus, reanalysis of the original assemblage and direct dating is necessary to clarify this issue. 3.1.2. Camel Iconography The rock painting in the cave of Khoit Zenger Agui, Khovd Aimag, in northwestern Mongolia, is considered an early figuration of a two-​humped camel (Baumer 2012, 28–30). Other animals depicted in the same cave are antelopes, a small elephant (?), ibexes, mammoths, ostriches, and wild sheep. Unfortunately, dating rock art is highly problematic (cf. §§3.3.6 and 3.4.4).4 Moreover, some species depicted are psychrophile taxa and therefore able to withstand low temperatures, such as mammoth and ibex, while others are decidedly more thermophile, namely ostrich and antelopes, implying that depictions likely originated in different epochs. Unfortunately, these paintings are not accessible anymore. Conceivably, some depictions may represent wild two-​humped camels, especially when depicted with other game species, such as red deer, gazelle, or Siberian ibex. But as a rule, contemporaneity of depictions is difficult to confirm. Moreover, millennia of surface weathering and recent human intervention did not pass without a trace. Since dating rock art is very difficult, the possibility that some representations refer to domestic Bactrian camels cannot be entirely excluded (Peters and von den Driesch 1997, 653; cf. Mukhareva 2007; Kuz’mina 2007, 109). From southern Mongolia, a petroglyph depicting a camel hunt has been reported. It has been suggested that the scene would date to circa 1000 BC, but this estimate should be confirmed. Moreover, it is impossible to determine whether the hunted camel is a wild, feral or free-​roaming domestic animal.5 From northern and central Kazakhstan as well as Kyrgyzstan, petroglyphs of camel-​drawn two-​wheeled carts with solid or crossbar wheels have been reported (Kuz’mina 2008, 51, 163, 178), obviously referring to domesticated animals. For further depictions of Bactrian camels in rock-​art from Uzbekistan, 3.  For another disputable find from Sha-​Tepe in Northern Iran, see Hančar 1955, 380; and Peters and von den Driesch 1997, 660. 4.  “Most scholars agree that some of the paintings there may go back to the late Paleolithic period; such a date is suggested by the possible representations of ostriches, a mammoth, and a (wild) camel. Unfortunately, both during and since the original documentation of the cave, the original imagery has been either effectively obliterated or else so repainted that it is impossible to judge the quality or the chronology of the original paintings” (Jacobson-​Tepfer 2006). 5.  Baumer 2012, 36–37. For a similar petroglyph from the same era, cf. Jacobson-​Tepfer 2012, 180. Later images also depict camel riders (181–82). Interestingly, no camel images are part of the rock art in the Gobi Desert (186).

32

Camels in the Biblical World

Kazakhstan, Tajikisthan, Siberia, and Mongolia, the reader is referred to Henri-​ Paul Francfort 2020. Turning to material culture, images of two-​humped camels appear on copper stamp and stone seals from Bactria. However, not all seals have been found in situ, and in many cases detailed descriptions fail. Contextual evidence and the primary materials used are indicative of a Bronze Age date after circa 1800 BC.6 A shaft-​hole axe from a grave in Khurab in Iranian Baluchistan is believed to show a Bactrian camel in repose. Based on the find context, the object is dated to the late third or early second millennium BC.7 The exact origin of the axe being unclear, a close similarity to objects from Bronze Age graves in Bactria has been noted (Pottier 1984, 32, 204–5). Early Bronze Age finds of clay camels attached to miniature clay carts suggest that since the third millennium BC, two-​humped camels were employed for pulling loads in southern Turkmenistan.8 According to L. B. Kirtcho, the cart models, together with other finds, illustrate developments in wheeled transportation in arid Central Asia. The author argues that by 3000 BC, increased aridity caused the inhabitants of Altyn Depe to replace ox carts with camel carts when traveling far. Given that two-​humped camels were clearly better adapted to deal with the arid environment, camel carts became the new standard for this region in the second half of the third millennium BC (Kirtcho 2009, 32). As an alternative explanation, it is equally possible that the camel opened new venues for long-​distance transportation of goods across hostile terrain, such as the Karakum and Kyzylkum Deserts. Of particular interest are some gold and silver vessels from Gonur Depe (Oxus civilization) that bear fine, carefully crafted representations of Bactrian camels (fig. 8.1). They were found in situ in Early Bronze Age levels and are dated to the late third millennium BC.9 In addition, clay camel figurines and soft-​ stone stamp seals belonging to the same so-​called Bactria-​Margiana Archaeological Complex, dated circa 2200–1700 BC, were unearthed at Togolok, about twelve kilometers south of Gonur Depe (Kuz’mina 2007, 377; 2008, 67, 177; cf. Potts 2004, 150). The Metropolitan Museum houses an unprovenanced hollow-​cast body of a Bactrian camel that by comparison with similar figurines can be dated to the early second-​millennium BC (Muscarella 1988, no. 359). 6.  Lamberg-​Karlovsky 1969; Pittmann 1984, 40–43. Winkelmann 1995; 1999, 122–26, 133–37, 189 pl. 4; 200 pl. 16; Potts 2004, 150; Kohl 2007, 209; Kuz’mina 2008, 67; Francfort 2018. 7.  Maxwell-​Hyslop 1955; Zeuner 1955; Potts 2004, 151; Pittmann 2013, 313; but cf. Peters and von den Driesch 1997, 657–58. 8.  Peters and von den Driesch 1997, 658–60; Kohl 1984, 186; Kirtcho 2009; Francfort 2009, 98–101. 9.  Kohl 2007, 196–99; Sarianidi 2005, 234–38, figs. 94–97, and 252; Dubova 2019, 40; Sataev 2020.

Camels in the Biblical World and Adjacent Regions

33

Much later in Achaemenid times (ca. 550–330 BC) it is noteworthy that iconography hardly featured camels, although they occurred frequently in inscriptions (§3.1.3), as pointed out by Margaret Cool Root (2002, 203–4): “Not a single camel appears in the corpus of associated seals impressed on these [Persepolis fortification] tablets. In the art of the Achaemenid period the animal seems to have found little resonance outside its value as indicating a specific prestige gift characteristic of particular camel-​rich regions such as Arabia, Bactria, and Parthia.” Of the few iconographical camel representations from the Achaemenid period, the animals figured on the Apadana stairway reliefs at Persepolis are executed faithfully, “even down to the accurate rendition of the nose-​halter for the one-​humped dromedary and the nose-​peg for the two-​humped variety. There is, thus, no question of the artists at the Persian court having difficulty producing compelling naturalistic renditions of this animal when called to do so” (203–4). 3.1.3. Camels in Inscriptions from Iran For more than two thousand years, the importance of the camel in the Persian army of the Achaemenid period has been recognized, based on the writings of Herodotus (Historia 1.80; 3.9). The camel is also mentioned in contemporaneous inscriptions. Old Persian is the earliest Iranian language from which texts have survived. In the Behistun Inscription, the Persian king Darius I (522– 486 BC) reports how he subdued the rebellion of the Babylonian rebel king Nidintu-​Bēl in 522 BC: “Then I marched against that Nadintabaira [Nidintu-​ Bēl], who called himself Nabukudracara [Nebuchadnezzar]. The army of Nidintu-​Bēl held the Tigris; there it took its stand, and on account of the waters (the river) was unfordable. Thereupon I supported my army on inflated skins, for others I arranged that [they] could be borne by camels, for the rest I brought horses” (DB §18; R. Schmitt 2009, 49, cf. also Haebler 2001, 64). At that time the Tigris was obviously swollen, explaining why the Persian army not only used skin rafts to traverse the river but also ordered its mounted troops to wade or swim across. They knew that horses as well as camels were natural swimmers (§3.2.4.3), so that its cameleers reached the opposite bank of the Tigris camel-​borne. The form uša-​bāri “camel-​borne” is composed of Old Persian ušša “camel” and the verbal adjective bāri. The Indo-​Iranian root of ušša is *uštra, which is also known from the Old Iranian dialect of Avestan (Tavernier 2007, 566; Mackenzie 1990; G. Redard 1964; C. Redard 2020). Avestan uštra (ca. 1000–500 BC), Old Persian ušša (sixth to fourth century BC), and Middle Persian uštar (fourth to ninth century AD) do not mean “Bactrian camel” or “two humped camel,” but simply “camel.” In other words, they represented the generic terms for “camel” used in Iran (Bulliet 1975, 144). The root also served as a loanword in Sanskrit (Mayrhofer 1956

34

Camels in the Biblical World

1:113–14; 3:652; Gode 1958). Moreover, there is a phonetically related Urartian word for camel, ulṭu, that later entered the Armenian language as ułt (Greppin 1991, 204).10 Uštra is also known from the famous name Zarathustra, or Zaraϑuštra in Avestan, the native language of Zarathustra. In Zaraϑuštra, the latter part, uštra, can be clearly determined as meaning “camel.” Current consensus places Zarathustra in Central Asia or eastern Iran circa 1000 BC (Stausberg 2015). The meaning of the entire name is not clear, but could indicate a person “skilled at handling camels.” Moreover, uštra is part of the Persian loanword ‫“ אשתרפניא‬camel-​keepers,” an Aramaic plural form of Persian uštra-​pāna-. Camel-​keepers are mentioned in an Aramaic letter from ancient Bactria, written about 353 BC, in a complaint against a certain Bagavant (A1:2–3; Naveh and Shaked 2012, 68–70). Bagavant unnecessarily detained and imposed improper taxes on some camel-​keepers that were in charge of keeping the “camels of the king” (‫)גמלן זי מלכא‬. In this context the term “king” (‫ )מלכא‬may mean the satrap (25).11 It is unclear whether the camels (‫ גמלן‬gmln) should be regarded as Bactrian camels, dromedaries, or hybrids. Bactria is not only the country to which the domestic two-​humped camel owes its name, but also a region that exported hybrids to the west (Çakırlar and Berthon 2014, 241). Moreover, camels in the service of the royal administration (cf. Henkelman 2017, 56) may well have been hybrids trained to perform as pack animals and therefore regarded as particularly valuable. For comparison, the special array of hybrids in a graveyard of camels and horses in southeast Arabia (second century AD) betrays their significance as status animals for the social elite (Uerpmann and Uerpmann 2012, 118). The absence of earlier references to camels from Iranian inscriptions is not evidence of absence, as can be demonstrated by the Assyrian cuneiform texts. The Iranian word for camel, ušša or uštra respectively, is attested as a loanword in Akkadian inscriptions from the eleventh century BC onward, in the form of udru “camel” (AHw 3:1401; Bulliet 1975, 150–57; Mackenzie 1990; eSAD, s.v.; see §3.2.4.10). Camels, camel hides, and camel drivers are also mentioned in the Persepolis Fortification Tablets (Hallock 1969), dated to 509–494 BC. In these Elamite texts, the camel was written with the same logograph that appears in Sumerian and Akkadian texts from Mesopotamia and that predominantly designated the dromedary (a n š e.a.a b.b a . l g; cf. §3.2.4.3). The Babylonian and Elamite versions of the Behistun Inscription mentioned above use the Sumerogram 10.  Urartian refers to the language(s) spoken by the people living in Urartu in the first millennium BC, situated north of the river Tigris, around Lake Van and Mount Ararat. 11.  An equivalent expression is used in the demotic Papyrus D 4 from Heidelberg (§3.5.3).

Camels in the Biblical World and Adjacent Regions

35

anš e.a.ab. ba “dromedary/camel” in §18 and translate the corresponding text passages “with horses and camels we crossed the Tigris” (Babylonian), and “another group I set on camels” (Elamite) respectively (Haebler 2001, 56; Parian 2017, 6, 12–13).

3.2. Camels in Mesopotamia and the Northern Levant 3.2.1. Camel Remains Despite the fact that Mesopotamia and the Levant cover a vast area with extensive trade relationships in many directions, zooarchaeological evidence for the early use of the camel is rare. Notwithstanding, this dearth is to a certain extent outweighed by the evidence gathered from figurines (§3.2.3) and inscriptions (§3.2.4). Early finds recorded so far have been excavated in Iron Age contexts—for example, at Tell Āfis in northern Syria, about sixty kilometers southeast of Aleppo (Wilkens 1992, 201), and Tell Shuyukh Fawqani, ancient Būr-​mar’īna near Carchemish in upper Mesopotamia (Vila 2005, 1084). During excavations undertaken by the Chicago Oriental Institute at Nippur, southeast of Babylon, a camel bone was unearthed, most likely of a dromedary, and dated to the post-​ Kassite period (Boessneck 1993, 289). From Ras Shamra (Ugarit) in northern Syria there is, so far, no evidence for camels in archaeological contexts (Chahoud and Vila 2017). A pre-​Iron Age presence of the camel in western Asia is suggested by the large faunal assemblage excavated at Tell Nebi Mend (Tall an-​Nabī Mandū) in central Syria, near the River Orontes, about 100 km north of Damascus and 150 km southeast of Ugarit. At this site, faunal analysis testifies to animal husbandry from the Early Bronze Age to the Iron Age, expectedly with a focus on sheep and goat husbandry. Camels were present in Iron Age I (ca. 1200–1000 BC; 5 bones) and II (16 bones) levels, but unexpectedly also in Late Bronze Age II contexts (ca. 1400– 1200 BC; 12 bones; Grigson 2015). Most of these Late Bronze Age camel bones could not be identified to the species, except for one classified as belonging to a dromedary.12 Size comparison demonstrated that the distal breadth index of this specimen is slightly below the average measured at Bronze Age Tell Abraq (§3.3.1.1), and close to the maximum measured at Iron Age Tell Abraq (Grigson 2015, 16). Located far away from the ancient natural distribution of the wild 12.  Classified according to the anatomical criteria that were established by Steiger (1990, 73–75, 103). This specimen is an anterior proximal phalanx.

36

Camels in the Biblical World

Arabian camel, it is highly unlikely that any of the remains from Tell Nebi Mend would pertain to wild animals. By combining the morphological criteria outlined by Steiger and applying the logarithmic size index method to compare bone size (e.g., Meadow 1999), Caroline Grigson (2012a, 88; 2015, 15–16) could show that the camel remains from Tell Nebi Mend as well as those from Tell Hesban (Jordan) and Tell Qasile (§3.5.1.1) represent domestic dromedaries. The bones belonged in all likelihood to camel imports employed in overland trade, rather than to locally bred animals (2015, 23). Unfortunately, direct radiocarbon dating of a camel carpal bone from Tell Nebi Mend to the Hellenistic period contradicts the presumed Late Iron Age of this specimen (Grigson 2014, 227, 234). This means that many more camel finds from this mound site may be intrusive and must therefore be excluded from further consideration for the time being. Early camel bones have also been unearthed from Tell Sheikh Ḥamad (Dūr-​ Katlimmu) on the Khabur River, a major tributary of the Euphrates. Both Arabian and Bactrian camels have been identified in the Neo-​Assyrian assemblage. From Middle Assyrian contexts dating to the thirteenth to twelfth centuries BC, the remains of at least three Bactrian camels have been reported. These animals had most likely been exploited in overland caravan trade. However, their use as sires for crossbreeding with dromedaries must be taken into consideration as well, since remains of camel hybrids could be present in the Tell Sheikh Ḥamad assemblage (Becker 2008b, 83–87; cf. Martini, Schmid, and Costeur 2017). From the area of Urartu, only isolated camel bone finds are known (Herles 2010, 137, cf. 109; cf. Çifçi 2017, 109). Finally, only a few camel remains have been reported from Babylon itself. They date to Persian and Hellenistic times (Klengel-​Brandt 1978, 104; Karvonen-​Kannas 1995, 196). Among the questionable finds, we can mention the third-​millennium BC camel bones reported from Mari by André Parrot (1955, 323). The same location also produced a camel head identified as a dromedary (Parrot 1967, 192, fig. 237), but details of the specimen and its context are lacking. A camel tooth dating to the Dilmun era (third to second millennium BC) and an astralagus from Hellenistic times have been found on the island of Failaka, south of Mesopotamia in the Persian Gulf (Desse and Desse-​Berset 1990, 57). Since we are dealing with isolated specimens, direct radiocarbon dating would be helpful to confirm their archaeological age, while ancient DNA analysis could help identifying the species. Prior to these actions we cannot but refrain from considering these specimens as primary evidence (cf. §3.5.1). 3.2.2. Camels on Seals and Reliefs The cylinder seal housed in the Walters Art Museum (fig. 3.1), dated to 1800– 1650 BC for stylistic reasons, depicts various wild animals and a Bactrian camel

Camels in the Biblical World and Adjacent Regions

37

Figure 3.1.  Cylinder seal impression of a Bactrian camel carrying a divine couple. Walters Art Museum, Baltimore. Photograph courtesy of Walters Art Museum.

bearing a divine couple.13 According to the museum records, it was likely discovered in Syria. It resembles cylinder seals found in the larger area of about the same period. Well-​known are two reliefs from upper Mesopotamia, depicting dromedary and rider, from Carchemish (fig. 3.2) and Tell Ḥalaf (fig. 3.3), the ancient Gūzānu or Gozan of the Hebrew Bible. The camel-​rider slab from Carchemish (Orthmann 1971, 29–45; Hawkins 1980, 439) probably dates to the ninth century BC, the one from Tell Ḥalaf to the tenth or ninth centuries BC (von Oppenheim 1955, 15–16; Orthmann 1971, 119–29; Genge 1979, 126–42; Gilibert 2011, 118; Bonatz 2013, 217–19). “In addition to their chronology, a combination of ideology, economic-​political context, and sheer distance from Arabia gives them special interest” (Fedele 2017, 305). Provided camel riding represented a further development from the animal’s use as a pack animal, this would imply that dromedaries had already been exploited as pack animals before the ninth century BC. The metal mounts of the Balawat Gates, dating to the times of Shalmaneser III (ca. 858–824 BC), provide the earliest pictorial evidence for camels 13.  Gordon 1939, 21 and no. 55; Porada 1977; Potts 2004, 150; cf. also Porter 2015. For another Bactrian camel figurine with a goddess from Persian times, see Karaghiorga 1969. For deities mounted on camels, see also some figurines from Petra (Nehmé 2020, 223).

38

Camels in the Biblical World

Figure 3.2.  Carchemish, Neo-​Hittite relief of a soldier(?) riding a dromedary. Ankara, Museum of Anatolian Civilizations. Used by permission from Jona Lendering, http://​www​.Livius​.org. Figure 3.3.  Slab with dromedary-​rider from Tell Ḥalaf. Walters Art Museum, Baltimore. Photograph courtesy of Walters Art Museum.

Camels in the Biblical World and Adjacent Regions

39

serving as pack animals in the Assyrian army.14 Camels on reliefs from the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III and the palaces of the Neo-​Assyrian kings have already been treated extensively in literature (Staubli 1991; T. Mitchell 2000; Schachner 2007; Herles 2008, 2010). The results of these studies together with additional observations will be presented when dealing with the accompanying inscriptions (§§3.2.4.6 and 3.2.4.10) or appropriate questions (§3.5.3). A unprovenanced seal with a finely engraved one-​humped camel, inscribed with ‫( למראהד‬Galling 1941, 143, table 6, no. 44), probably dates to the seventh to sixth centuries BC for paleographical reasons. Finally, from the kingdom of Urartu east of the Tigridian Region, a two-​ humped camel has been incised on a sherd dating to the eighth to sixth centuries BC (Herles 2008, 167–68). 3.2.3. Camel Figurines 3.2.3.1. Nippur During the Chicago Oriental Institute’s excavations at Nippur, a single camel figurine was found in a pit, dating to the tenth century BC at the earliest.15 The excavation also yielded a camel bone from post-​Kassite times (Boessneck 1993, 289).16 From another excavation area in Nippur, however, more than fifteen camel figurines were collected. Two of these are dated to the Kassite period (McCown and Haines 1967, 93) and are therefore roughly contemporary with the lexical list from Nippur explicitly mentioning the dromedary as the a n š e . a . a b . b a “donkey of the Sealand” (§3.2.4.3.1). Finally, three fragmentary one-​humped camel figurines excavated during the twelfth season at Nippur 14.  Schachner 2007, 43, 51; pls. 30b (dromedary) and 39b (two Bactrian camels). The two Bactrian camels seem to be young animals. They are relatively small and do not bear any load. See also Staubli 1991, 79–80. 15.  Zettler 1993, 52, and pl. 57. This fragment, a trunk of a camel figurine (13 N 303), cannot be dated earlier than the tenth century BC. 16.  Magee (2015, 262 n. 49) stresses the fact that only one camel bone is known from Nippur, dating to the post-​Kassite period, and that the camel figurines from the Kassite period as well as the camel term anš e. a. ab . b a are therefore evidence that the inhabitants of Nippur saw dromedaries, rather than capturing or hunting them. However, basing conclusions on the scarcity of animal bones may be ambiguous for several reasons. First, excavations concentrate on residential and elite buildings that usually do not yield camel bones. Second, by comparison, would the absence of osseous remains of lions (Boessneck 1978, 1993; Boessneck and Kokabi 1993; cf. Wrede 2003, 60), but their depiction on various terra-​cotta reliefs from Nippur justify the conclusion that the inhabitants of Nippur did not hunt or capture lions, but only knew them by sight? Third, although there is a rich textual attestation of am.si.ḫar.ra.an and am.si.kur.ra camels in second-​millennium BC Nippur (§§3.2.4.1.1 and 3.2.4.1.2), bones of two-​humped camels are absent from Nippur. Does this suggest that the inhabitants of Nippur had no acquaintance with these animals?

40

Camels in the Biblical World

would confirm the inhabitants’ acquaintance with the animal since late Kassite times, circa 1250 BC. One item is relatively well preserved and shows the trunk of an Arabian camel.17 In his amply illustrated study, Peter Magee suggests that there is no reason to think that the late second-​millennium BC figurines from Nippur, which do not seem to feature any saddle or harness, represent domestic dromedaries. According to Magee, these figurines were likely representations of wild camels seen by “merchants and government officials” during their travels (2015, 262). It has been noted, however, that the Neo-​Assyrian camel figurines from Nippur do not show any saddles either (fig. 3.5), and figurines of domestic camels without saddles are quite common throughout the centuries. Arguably, the absence of saddles or harnesses is not a conclusive marker of a wild status. As such, the situation in Kassite Nippur resembles that in Neo-​Babylonian Uruk: While the largely stylized one-​humped camel figurines found at Uruk most often do not feature a saddle or saddlebag at all (Wrede 1990, 271; §3.2.3.3), written Mesopotamian sources from this period nonetheless imply a domestic status for these animals (§3.2.4.3 and §3.2.4.11).18 Conceivably, the presence of terra-​cotta animal figurines in urban settlement contexts largely reflects how people perceived their environs (Wrede 2003, 22, 32; cf. Pruß and Sallaberger 2004, 305). The frequency of animal species in the figurine corpus seems therefore related to the animals’ economic importance to the inhabitants of that particular site (Pruß 2015, 280).19 17.  Gibson et al. 1978, 68, 99, and fig. 48: 7. The figurine is from locus 18 (12 N 604). Further fragmentary camel figurines excavated at Nippur from the late Kassite period were found in locus 11 (12 N 410; Gibson et al. 1978, 38) and locus 21 (12 N 482; p. 40). Figurines from the post-​Kassite period were found in locus 3 (12 N 97; p. 40) and locus 5 (12 N 271; p. 100). Cf. also Gibson et al. 1978, 55, table 2. 18.  For camel figurines from Nippur, Susa, and Assur, dating to the Persian period and beyond, see Van Buren 1930, 167, nos. 808–12; and Legrain 1930, 3, 35, nos. 322–25. 19.  This observation also applies to other regions, e.g., Anatolia (Romano 1995, 49–55). It is likewise applicable to southwest Arabia (first millennium BC), where terra-​cottas largely feature the domesticated dromedary for obvious reasons. The remaining assemblage of animal terra-​cottas is similar to other regions and periods, featuring bulls, rams, birds, a dog, and possibly a horse (O’Neill 2014, 332). At Sabr, on the coastal plain of south Arabia, the animal terra-​cotta assemblage consists mainly of domesticated animals and includes goats, sheep, and cattle (fourteenth to ninth centuries BC; Vogt and Sedov 1998, 264). For comparison, inscribed dromedary figurines from late antique Yemen were intended to serve as votive offerings in temples, with a petition to a deity for protection of the animals and their owner, or connected with the plea for the herd’s fertility, or as ex-​voto offerings thanking the deity for preserving the herd (Sima 2000, 21–22; Ludwig 2015, 93, 95). Although figurines from late antique Yemen cannot be uncritically compared with Iron Age figurines from Mesopotamia, the primary underlying idea to produce animal figurines was most likely similar, i.e., to have a token instead of an animal that was dear and important to its owner, presenting it to his deity to pray or thank for its protection, fertility, etc. (cf. Ziegler 1962, 173–74; Downey 2003,17).

Camels in the Biblical World and Adjacent Regions

41

Figure 3.4.  Camel figurines with crest from Nippur. Courtesy of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. See McCown and Haines 1967, pl. 141, 8.

This observation applies to many archaeological sites in Mesopotamia yielding substantial amounts of terra-​cotta figurines and dating to the Bronze and Iron Ages.20 In the Arabian Peninsula, as will be outlined below, dromedary figurines antedating the first millennium BC have not been recorded so far, despite clear evidence for the presence of wild Arabian camels at least in the southeast. As such, the numerous dromedary figurines from the Arabian Peninsula (§3.3.3) obviously originate from settlements whose inhabitants knew and exploited the domestic dromedary. One of the places where wild dromedaries left a clear imprint in the zooarchaeological record is Tell Abraq in southeast Arabia (§3.3.1.1). Here, camel remains proportionately decreased in the course of the Bronze Age. In Iron Age I occupation (ca. 1300–1000 BC), which broadly correlates with the Kassite period in Mesopotamia, camel remains are minimal and the animal almost invisible (Uerpmann and Uerpmann 2002, 254–55, 258; Magee et al. 2017, 212). In this respect, southeast Arabia once offered suitable living conditions for wild Arabian camels (§3.3.1.1), but population density in this species likely was already declining in the later second millennium BC (Uerpmann and Uerpmann 2002, 258; von den Driesch et al. 2008, 494) due to increasing anthropization of suitable camel habitat and small livestock and cattle pastoralism. It must therefore be questioned whether “merchants and government officials” (Magee 2015, 262) spotted wild dromedaries during their travels. 20.  McCown and Haines 1967, 93, pls. 139–42; Gibson et al. 1978. For other sites in Mesopotamia with animal terra-​cotta figurines, largely from the Bronze Age, see Pruß and Link 1994; Wrede 2003, 29; Rittig 2010; Pruß 2011, 2015.

42

Camels in the Biblical World

Figure 3.5.  Camel figurines from Nippur, side view. Courtesy of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. See McCown and Haines 1967, pl. 141, 8.

In addition, some of the dromedary figurines from Neo-​Assyrian Nippur have lines across the muzzle top indicative of ropes or straps implying human handling (figs. 3.4 and 3.5; cf. McCown and Haines 1967, 93). Unfortunately, it remains to be seen whether camels from the Kassite period show this feature as well (cf. figs. 3.9 and 3.12 from Uruk). 3.2.3.2. Ur A hand-​modeled terra-​cotta figurine from Ur has been interpreted as a depiction of a camel either with “remains of pack (?) on his back” or the torso of a rider (fig. 3.6). This highly stylized figurine is considered by Leonard Woolley to date to the Larsa period (i.e., ca. 2000–1800 BC), but with the cautious remark that “many of the types which on the extant evidence we must attribute to Larsa may . . . have originated earlier” (Woolley and Mallowan 1976, 172). However, the specimen was found in a badly ruined house, so it is reasonable to assume

Camels in the Biblical World and Adjacent Regions

43

Figure 3.6.  Zebu (?) figurine from Ur. Photograph used by permission from the University of Pennsylvania. Photograph by Richard Zettler, Associate Curator-​in-​Charge, Near East Section.

only the latest closing date of the habitation, which would be the middle of the second millennium BC.21 As we see it, neither the short neck of the animal, nor the feature identified as “pack” or “torso” that from its anatomical position could be indicative of a hump, favor its identification as a camel. This raises the question whether we are dealing with a figurine of a zebu. Part of the harness seems indicated as well, either between the animal’s ears or at the bases of its horns, which would be an atypical position to secure loads on camels (fig. 3.7). The neck’s lower side has a bent curve that might correspond to a dewlap typical of zebus as well. On the other hand, the head is maintained in nearly horizontal position and the tail is close to the trunk. Both features fit better the camel than the zebu. In sum, the identification of this figurine as a camel is very uncertain at best. With regard to our alternative interpretation, zebu cattle (Bos indicus) are native to the Indian subcontinent. Genomic analysis recently demonstrated that humped cattle were already introduced to Iran and Mesopotamia toward the beginning 21.  Woolley and Mallowan 1976, 168. 182, no. 246/U. 16401; 238; pl. 91: 246. The figurine is housed in the University of Pennsylvania Museum (date reg. number: 31–43–342). The description of Woolley has been confirmed by the Pennsylvania Museum research team, see http://​www​.ur​ -online​.org​/subject​/16904. Cf. Magee 2015, 261.

44

Camels in the Biblical World

Figure 3.7.  Head of figurine from Ur. Photograph used by permission from the University of Pennsylvania. Photograph by Richard Zettler, Associate Curator-​in-​Charge, Near East Section.

of the third millennium BC (Meiri et al. 2017). They were crossbred with taurine cattle to produce much valued hybrid offspring (Arbuckle 2012, 215). Zoomorphic representations and drawings of zebu cattle have been found in various places in Syria and the southern Levant (Ziffer and Jakoel 2017; Bang and Borowski 2017). For camel figurines from Ur from the first millennium BC, see §3.2.3.5. 3.2.3.3. Uruk Among the earlier finds from Uruk, there is the torso of a one-​humped camel lacking its head and legs considered to date to the ‘Ubaid-​period or the early fourth millennium BC.22 According to Wrede (2003, 28, 197), this would be the oldest representation of a domestic dromedary from Mesopotamia. However, the 2,500 year-​time-​gap separating this specimen from later figurines in Mesopotamia is more than notable, since it casts serious doubt on the stratigraphic position of this find. Moreover, unequivocal evidence for the animal’s domestic 22.  Ziegler 1962, 35, no. 194; table 4 no. 69. Ziegler (152) points to the fact that the dromedary has stripes on its back as the ox (table 3 nos. 45, 51–52); cf. Wrede 2003, 55, 197; table 24:722.

Camels in the Biblical World and Adjacent Regions

45

status is lacking as well. Comparison with other camel figurines reported from the region illustrate parallels in shape with finds from Iron Age contexts (Ziegler 1962, 152), strongly suggesting that the said specimen from Uruk was manufactured at that time as well. Most of the hand-​made figurines from Uruk date to the Neo-​Babylonian period. They exhibit a stylized, rather rough shape with only few naturalistic characteristics.23 Because of their large numbers, it has been suggested that they represent toys (Lenzen and Schmidt 1967, 44). However, it is more likely that they functioned as substitutes for living animals or a herd that camel owners could present to a deity when asking or thanking for protection, fertility, and so on (see §3 n. 19). Several of the camel figurines have notches on their necks, and one figurine (no. 598) has notches between the hump and the tail, which may either point to its use as draught animal or represent signs of ownership (§3.3.3; cf. fig. 3.22).24 During excavation work at Uruk, camel figurines have also been unearthed from Seleucid-​Parthian occupation levels (Wrede 2003, 52). Among the dromedary figurines manufactured at Uruk, the animal reproduced in figure 3.8, albeit relatively small with legs and ears broken off, nonetheless shows a typical dromedary habitus. The head is positioned nearly horizontally, and the single hump is relatively small.25 Lines on the head are indicative of a harness (fig. 3.9). Another fragment of a camel figurine from Neo-​Babylonian Uruk (fig. 3.10) has a similar head and indication of a harness (fig. 3.12), but a clearly longer neck. Only some fragmentary camel figurines from Neo-​Babylonian Uruk show a saddle construction, which could be used for riding or (more likely) transportation of goods (figs. 3.13–3.18; Ziegler 1962, 92, nos. 618–21). The shape of these 23.  Ziegler 1962, 88–91; nos. 585–612; table 21: 308a–316; for the dating and general description, see pp. 173–74; and Wrede 2003, 52. Wrede (1991) has a list and description of further dromedary terra-​cotta figurines, dating to the first half of the first millennium BC and unearthed during a later excavation; cf. also Lenzen 1960, 46; 1968, 28–29. Cf. also a camel in repose from the Neo-​Assyrian period (Mottahedeh 1997, no. 123; Keel and Staubli 2001, 43). 24.  For notches, see nos. 585 (see fig. 3.26), 586, 597, 602, 603; see also Ziegler 1962, 174. Such signs are probably due to branding, for instance with a hot iron, which is a traditional way of proving ownership. 25.  “The unusually small figure is ill-​proportioned; the legs, the left ear and the tip of the tail that protrudes straight are broken off. The neck, which is too short, has a small head with pointed ears and a cylindrical mouth, in which the opening is incised. The upper cross folds are also incised. The eyes are depressed with a very thin cane. In the middle of the body, which is greatly enlarged at the back, sits a small, burr-​like hump ” (“Das ungewöhnlich kleine Figürchen ist schlecht proportioniert; die Beine, das linke Ohr und die Spitze des gerade abstehenden Schwanzes sind abgebrochen. Der zu kurze Hals trägt einen kleinen Kopf mit spitzen Ohren und walzenförmigem Maul, in welches die Öffnung eingeritzt ist. Auch die oberen Querfalten sind eingeritzt. Die Augen sind mit einem sehr dünnen Rohrstengel eingedrückt. Auf dem hinten stark verbreiterten Leib sitzt in der Mitte ein kleiner, gratartig zusammengedrückter Höcker”) (Ziegler 1962, 90, no. 600, pl. 311; cf. Magee 2015, 258). Cf. Legrain 1930, no. 324; Lenzen 1960, 46; B. Fischer 2000.

46

Camels in the Biblical World

Figure 3.8. (top left)  Small camel figurine from Uruk. VA 12075. Staatliche Museen zu Berlin—Vorderasiatisches Museum. Photograph by Olaf M. Teßmer. Figure 3.9. (top right)  Small camel figurine, front view. VA 12075. Staatliche Museen zu Berlin—Vorderasiatisches Museum. Photograph by Olaf M. Teßmer. Figure 3.10. (bottom left)  Camel figurine from Uruk. VA 12086. Staatliche Museen zu Berlin—Vorderasiatisches Museum. Photograph by Olaf M. Teßmer. Figure 3.11. (bottom center)  Head and neck of camel (fragment) from Uruk with crest. VA 12194. Staatliche Museen zu Berlin—Vorderasiatisches Museum. See also Ziegler 1962, 91, 174, and pl. 315. Photograph by Olaf M. Teßmer. Figure 3.12. (bottom right)  Camel figurine from Uruk, top view. VA 12086. Staatliche Museen zu Berlin—Vorderasiatisches Museum. Photograph by Olaf M. Teßmer.

Camels in the Biblical World and Adjacent Regions

47

Figure 3.13. (top left)  Fragment of camel figurine with load or saddlebag construction from Uruk. VA 12095. Staatliche Museen zu Berlin—Vorderasiatisches Museum. Photograph by Olaf M. Teßmer. Figure 3.14. (top right)  Fragment of camel figurine with load or saddlebag construction from Uruk, top view. VA 12095. Staatliche Museen zu Berlin—Vorderasiatisches Museum. Photograph by Olaf M. Teßmer. Figure 3.15. (middle left)  Fragment of camel figurine with load or saddlebag construction from Uruk. VA 12096. Staatliche Museen zu Berlin—Vorderasiatisches Museum. Photograph by Olaf M. Teßmer. Figure 3.16. (middle right)  Fragment of camel figurine with load or saddlebag construction from Uruk, top view. VA 12096. Staatliche Museen zu Berlin—Vorderasiatisches Museum. Photograph by Olaf M. Teßmer. Figure 3.17. (bottom left)  Fragment of camel figurine from Uruk with load or saddlebag construction. VA 12098. Staatliche Museen zu Berlin—Vorderasiatisches Museum. Photograph by Olaf M. Teßmer. Figure 3.18. (bottom right)  Fragment of camel figurine from Uruk, front view. VA 12098. Staatliche Museen zu Berlin—Vorderasiatisches Museum. Photograph by Olaf M. Teßmer.

48

Camels in the Biblical World

Figure 3.19.  Nabatean camel figurine, first century AD. Item is of unknown provenance. Photograph provided by the Israel Museum, Jerusalem, Israel. Used by permission from the Israel Museum.

load-​carrying or saddlebag constructions is paralleled in the fragmentary camel figurine collected at Hama (§3.2.3.4, fig. 3.24), and in the well-​preserved specimen recovered from Muweilah (§3.3.3, fig. 3.41). Camel figurines from later periods sometimes exhibit conservative features. For instance, among the terra-​cotta dromedaries excavated at Veh Ardashir (Seleucia-on-Tigris), dating to the third to fifth century AD, there are figurines that are reminiscent of the camel terra-​cottas from first-​millennium BC Uruk (Cellerino and Messina 2013, 125, 131). In general, however, figurines from later epochs are crafted more elaborately, especially under Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman influences (cf. fig. 3.25), as is illustrated, for example, by the figurines manufactured during the Parthian period (van Ingen 1939, 320–24). Moreover, the molded camel figurines from Nabatean Petra (fig. 3.19), presumably dating to the first century AD (Parlasca 1986), are much more elaborately manufactured and detailed than those made in Mesopotamia: “Except for two hand-​made pieces, all the camel figurines were moulded by using a number of moulds to form the right and left sides of the camel. In the case of the figurines of

Camels in the Biblical World and Adjacent Regions

49

Figure 3.20.  Fragment of camel figurine from Hama. Used by permission of the National Museum of Denmark, Copenhagen. Expedition photograph.

multiple moulds, each side has different features and details. Attention was paid to show the riding equipment of the camel, such as the trappings and the saddles” (el-Khouri 2002, 25). Thus, the camel figurines recorded from Petra are characterized by their elaborate production and attention to detail, illustrated best by the sophisticated harness.26 3.2.3.4. Hama In Hama, a prehistoric city on the bank of the Orontes River in present-​day northwest Syria, several camel figurines have been excavated and dated to the Bronze Age (ca. 2200–1600 BC; Fugman 1958, 85, 116; Riis and Buhl 1990, 200). However, most of the items displayed in figure 3.21 exhibit similarities in shape with camel figurines reported from first-​millennium BC Mesopotamia (figs. 3.6–10).27 Specimen 3C628 (fig. 3.20), for instance, shows the trunk and broken forepart (or hind extremity?) of a one-​humped camel without any saddle or load. Its manufacturing contrasts with the highly stylized figurine 3A650 (fig. 3.22), showing close resemblance with camel figurines found in 26.  The saddle depicted in the Nabatean individual (fig. 3.19) resembles the saddle (?) of the specimen from Ur (fig. 3.28 from Ur). Camel figurines from Greco-​Roman Egypt have a similar shape as the camel figurines from Petra; cf. Boutantin 2014, 314–15. For the camel figurines from Petra, cf. also Tuttle 2009, 105, 177–81. 27.  Figure 3.21 displays animal figurines from Fugman 1958, 58 fig. 64: 3C598, 64 fig. 74: 3C628 (allegedly dating from ca. 2200–1900 BC), and 74 fig. 93: 3A650, 95 fig. 117: 3A3 and 3A4, 98 fig. 120: 1L429, 101 fig. 124: P265, allegedly dating from ca. 1900–1600 BC. Of these figurines, only 3A4, 3A650, 3C598, and 3C628 are in the National Museum of Denmark. The other figurines were probably left in Syria (pers. comm. from the curator).

50

Camels in the Biblical World Figure 3.21.  Terra-​cotta animal figurines from Hama according to Ejnar Fugman. See Fugman 1958. Figure 64: 3C598, 64; figure 74: 3C628, 74; figure 93: 3A650, 95; figure 117: 3A3, 98; figure 120: L429, 101; figure 124: P265. Used by permission of the National Museum of Denmark, Copenhagen. Figure 3.22.  Camel figurine from Hama. Hama 3A 650. Used by permission of the National Museum of Denmark, Copenhagen. Expedition photograph.

southwest Arabia in displaying a load “wrapped” around the hump (cf. §3.2.3.5, figs. 3.29 and 3.42). Figurine P265 (in fig. 3.21), a camel’s neck and head with crest, bears some similarity to a similar piece from Uruk (fig. 3.11).28 Example 3C598 (fig.3.23), of which only a fragment of the trunk has remained, is similar to 3A650 (fig. 3.22), with the exception that the hump and its load is positioned close on the crupper. Specimen 3A3 (fig. 3.24) is an intriguing fragment, showing the same type of figurine as recorded from south Arabian Muweilah (figs. 3.40–41). Despite its fragmentary condition, the representation of a construction on top of the hump 28.  For a later figurine with an elaborate crest from Nippur, see Legrain 1930, no. 322.

Camels in the Biblical World and Adjacent Regions

51

Figure 3.23. Fragment of camel figurine from Hama 3C 598. Used by permission of the National Museum of Denmark, Copenhagen. Expedition photograph. Figure 3.24.  Figure of camel figurine from Hama with load- and saddle-​ construction. 3A 3. Used by permission of the National Museum of Denmark, Copenhagen. Expedition photograph.

is still discernible. The animal’s very steep neck is noteworthy as well, a feature reported in camel figurines from Taymāʾ (Eichman et al. 2010, pl. 4, 27). The crupper is slightly elevated, showing a stylized cushion or board that kept the rider in place (cf. §3.2.3.5). This feature suggests that the construction covering the hump is not a riding device, but was either used to keep the load in place, or represented the load itself. Some figurines are more difficult to identify: 1L429 (in fig. 3.21) may be interpreted as a camel with a saddle-​like construction, but the hump itself is not visible; 3A4 (in fig. 3.21) shares some similarities with the figurine from Ur (fig. 3.6), showing a small hump that immediately follows the short and stocky neck; it probably represents a zebu. All in all, the stylistic parallels of the Hama figurines with their homologues from first-​millennium BC Mesopotamia and Arabia cast considerable doubt on

52

Camels in the Biblical World

their Bronze Age classification by Ejnar Fugman (1958) and Paul Jørgen Riis and Marie-​Louise Buhl (1990). Besides these specimens, the authors also depict a more elaborately worked figurine (5A17; fig. 3.25), which they date to the early Iron Age (Riis and Buhl 1990, 200–201). Yet, as Magee (2015, 262) has pointed out, its detailed and elaborate shape rather suggests a Persian or Hellenistic age. Conceivably, the other figurines from Hama discussed above might be wrongly dated as well, possibly even in the same order of magnitude as the specimen mentioned above: all of them resemble camel figurines reported from first-​millennium BC contexts in southern Mesopotamia and Arabia. In other words, their design connects them with similar figurines from Nippur (§3.2.3.1), Ur (§3.2.3.2), Uruk (§3.2.3.3), and Muweilah (§3.3.3). In addition, their common stylistic features suggest trade relations between these regions. 3.2.3.5. Figurines from Mesopotamia with Two Humps? Single figurines from first-​millennium BC Ur (fig.  3.26), possibly Uruk (fig. 3.27), and Failaka (Salles 1986, 167) seem at first glance to be referring to two-​humped animals. However, the distance between the humps, the extreme position of the posterior hump and the difference in height between the two challenge their identification as Bactrian camels. On the other hand, the (much earlier) drawings of Bactrian camels from the Oxus civilization (fig. 8.1) suggest that the second hump might be positioned in a similar way as in figures 3.26–27 (see also Sataev 2020). Figures 3.29–30 from the Moussaieff collection provide another perspective into this type of camel figurines, which have been reported from southwest Arabia, and date to the first millennium BC. Figure 3.30, for instance, exhibits a small protrusion on the croup, which does not represent the second hump, but a kind of board or cushion serving as a saddle to keep the camel rider in place. A similar figurine was published more than sixty years ago by Rathjens.29 Some figurines unearthed from first-​millennium BC Mārib and from the Awam cemetery show the same type of camel saddle (O’Neill 2014, pl. 2, MT1–2; pl. 3, Aw8), and there are also figurines from later times that are roughly of the same type (Daems 2004). Figurine 3A3 (fig. 3.24) from Hama corresponds to this type as well. This saddle is basically of the ḥawlānī type (see §3.3.2 for more details). Figure 3.30 suggests that this kind of saddle was not designed for fast movements, but a kind of working saddle for transporting goods in a special retainer 29.  Rathjens 1955, 114–17 and 248–50 (photo 401–13). Cf. Bulliet 1975, 69; and Staubli 1991, 192–93. However, Rathjens’s dating proposal (second millennium BC) must be corrected to the first millennium BC (O’Neill 2012, 374; cf. Dostal 1958, 2).

Camels in the Biblical World and Adjacent Regions

53

Figure 3.25.  Fragment of camel figurine from Hama with saddle and harness. 5A 17. Used by permission of the National Museum of Denmark, Copenhagen. Expedition photograph. Figure 3.26.  Camel figurine from Uruk, with small crest, and with two humps? See Ziegler 1962, pl. 21, fig. 308b; Lenzen and Schmidt 1967, 44. Courtesy of Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Orient-​Abteilung.

around the hump. The Mesopotamian figurines (figs. 3.26–27) seem to be either more stylized than the south Arabian ones (figs. 3.29–30), or reflect the use of less conspicuous cushions to support the rider. A comparable depiction found at Beer-​Sheba in Israel (fig. 3.59) suggests that these saddles were used in overland trade (§3.5.2). The hump of the south Arabian figurines has a hollow that can be used to burn substances, including incense (see also §§3.2.3.3 and 3.3.3). It is tempting to ascribe a related purpose to some figurines from Uruk (figs. 3.13–18), Hama (fig. 3.24), and Muweilah (fig. 3.41). Figure 3.28 exhibits two small humps. Arguably, the fact that a (saddle?) girth is indicated on the figurine could imply that the hump’s division into two parts is due to a load-​carrying construction. Alternatively, we are dealing with a hybrid camel characterized by a large, slightly indented hump, perhaps a BC1 Bactrian camel (cf. fig. 2.3). Unfortunately, figs. 3.27–30 lack specific provenances.

54

Camels in the Biblical World

Figure 3.27.  Camel figurine (?) from Ur with two humps? Photograph used by permission from the University of Pennsylvania. Photograph by Richard Zettler, Associate Curator-​in-​Charge, Near East Section. Figure 3.28.  Double-​humped (?) camel figurine from Ur. Photograph used by permission from the University of Pennsylvania. Photograph by Richard Zettler, Associate Curator-​in-​Charge, Near East Section.

Camels in the Biblical World and Adjacent Regions

55

Figure 3.29.  Camel figurine with rider and load from southwest Arabia. Item is of unknown provenance. Photograph by Aran Patinkin, Israel. Used by permission of A. Moussaieff. Figure 3.30.  Camel figurine with board or cushion from southwest Arabia. Item is of unknown provenance. Photograph by Aran Patinkin, Israel. Used by permission of A. Moussaieff.

3.2.3.6. Disputable Finds Sometimes figurines have been thought to represent camel-​like animals, but the lack of distinctive anatomical features questions these interpretations. Besides some fragmentary figurines from the site of Hama mentioned above, this concerns among others the camel-​shaped terra-​cotta fragment unearthed from the Ishtar temple in Assur, dating to the Ur III period (Klengel-​Brandt 1978, 104, no. 691). Also in this category falls an incomplete specimen showing some resemblance to

56

Camels in the Biblical World

a camel’s head with crest and neck from Tall Bīʿa, ancient Tuttul in upper Mesopotamia. It has been dated to the third millennium BC, but lacks the phentotypic characteristics to unequivocally assign it to a camel (Rittig 2010, 59, pl. 56:4). 3.2.4. The Cuneiform Record “Material cultural remains are rarely as explicit or as potentially unambiguous as the more complete information gleaned from written sources” (Kohl 2007, 8). Thus, the possible presence of camels in Mesopotamia since the third millennium BC (§§3.2.1–3.2.3) merits a closer look at the mentions in Sumerian and Akkadian textual sources. The earliest inscriptional references to camels in Mesopotamia are in Sumerian. Sumerian is an agglutinative language for which no cognate has been identified. During the third millennium BC, the cuneiform script was adapted to record Akkadian. In the first part of the second millennium BC, Sumerian had become a virtually dead language, only kept alive through magic, liturgical, and educational literature, the ongoing use of the cuneiform script, and Sumerian loanwords (Crisostomo 2015). In the second and first millennia BC, the scribal schools of Mesopotamia that knew Akkadian studied the older Sumerian language with the help of uni- or bilingual lexical lists, written in Sumerian (and Akkadian). It is therefore necessary to study later Akkadian terms for “camel” first before turning to the Sumerian terms. Akkadian has the common term gammalu for “camel,” uses the term ibilu to denote the “camel” in lexical lists (§3.2.4.8), and refers to udru for the “[Iranian] camel” in campaign reports (§§3.2.4.6 and 3.2.4.10). To what extent the Akkadian designations relate to earlier Sumerian terms can be deduced from a key cultural achievement, the lexical lists, particularly the Sumerian-​Akkadian series Ḫ ar-​r a = ḫubullu (see §1 n. 1; henceforth Ḫḫ). In Ḫḫ, Sumerian entries, arranged according to subject, point to Akkadian equivalents. Many textual witnesses of the Ḫḫ series are careful copies of the first millennium BC, when a kind of canonical or standardized version had emerged, with only marginal differences between the various textual witnesses (Matouš 1933, 2). This canonical version is considered to represent the ultimate outcome of a very old tradition (Cavigneaux 1983, 609). It had bilingual and unilingual “Vorläufer” or forerunners, which go back to the earliest cuneiform tablets dating to the beginning of the third millennium BC. The canonical Ḫḫ series has twenty-​four tablets with nearly ten thousand entries (Cavigneaux 1983, 627). They are ordered according to their main subject and deal with things as diverse as hides and leather products (Ḫḫ XI), metals and metal products (Ḫḫ XII), domesticated animals (Ḫḫ XIII), wild animals (Ḫḫ XIV), and meat cuts (Ḫḫ XV). The section Ḫḫ XIII provides hundreds of

Camels in the Biblical World and Adjacent Regions

57

entries and lists different domestic mammals, including sheep, goats, oxen, and donkeys, as well as hybrids, such as mules. Further subdivisions refer to gender, age, color, maturity, variety, domestic uses, terms for diseases, specific tasks, such as shearing, castration, and more. The Ḫḫ series XIII and XIV were primarily designed to teach Sumerian, they can of course not be equated with modern dictionaries (Crisostomo 2019, 47–48) and with modern zoological taxonomy respectively (Streck 2014a, 17). Lexical lists (LL) are not only reported from southern Mesopotamia, where they originated, but also far away from the centers of learning, for instance in upper Mesopotamia, the Levant, and Elam. During the copying process over the centuries, and before they reached their final status, the lists where updated and adapted to local needs, but the general structure remained intact (Matouš 1933, 1–2; Civil 1995, 2306; see also Weiershäuser and Hrůša 2018). 3.2.4.1. The “Elephant of the Caravan” and the “Elephant of the Mountain” The oldest Sumerian camel names are a m . s i . ḫ a r. r a . a n “elephant of the caravan” and a m . s i . k u r. r a “elephant of the (foreign, eastern) mountain.” Both names appear in Ḫḫ XIV, which lists wild animals “mainly according to morphological similarity” (Streck 2014a, 17). Each section in the Ḫḫ lists is roughly arranged in descending order. It begins with a single-​word entry (here: a m “aurochs,” line 48), and terminates with the animal that has the maximal number of words included (here: am.s i.ḫar.ra.an “elephant of the caravan,” line 56).30 Because Ḫḫ XIII, listing domesticated animals (§3.2.4.3), has no am section, and because the names of these camels are derived from the name for the aurochs (am) and/or the elephant (am.si), they are listed after the elephant. The Ḫḫ XIV list of the first millennium BC defines them as am.s i.kur.ra = i-​bi-​lu “camel” (MSL 8.2:10, 55–56; cf. Horowitz 2008, 599) and am.s i.ḫar.ra.an = i-​bi-​lu “camel.”31 The commentary series Ḫ a r. g u d (cf. §3.2.4.3) provides the entry a m . s i . ḫ a r. r a . a n = i-​bi-​lu = [gam-​ma-​lu] “camel” (MSL 8.2:44, 249). Both entries point to ibilu as the Akkadian equivalent in the second column.32 30.  The Ḫḫ entries are cited according to MSL 8.2. MSL 8.2 is a critical edition of the textual witnesses of Ḫḫ XIV, consisting of the cuneiform tablets that were available in 1960–1962. This material can also be accessed, including new textual witnesses, via the CDLI, the ORACC, and the DCCLT. See also Weiershäuser and Hrůša 2018. 31.  It should be emphasized that the bilingual LL do not always provide the Akkadian equivalent for each Sumerian entry, but sometimes give etymological or other explanations; cf. table 3.1 n. a. Cf. the new transcription of the main textual witness, VAT 11517, in the online edition of the “Digitale Keilschriftbibliothek Lexikalischer Listen aus Assur (DKB-​LLA),” http://​keil​.uni​-goettingen​.de. 32.  CAD 7:2; and Salonen 1955, 88 are giving the entry ibilu as referring to the “Arabian camel; dromedary,” while AHw 1:363; Heimpel 1980a; and CDA, 124 are more cautious in specifying the meaning of ibilu as “camel; dromedary”; for a detailed discussion, see §3.2.4.8.

58

Camels in the Biblical World

The usual modern interpretation of the evidence is that a m . s i . ḫ a r. r a . a n and a m . s i . k u r. r a are Sumerian designations for the Bactrian camel and that a n š e . a . a b . b a (§3.2.4.3) is the Sumerian term for the dromedary (CAD 7:2; Heimpel 1980a; Maaijer and Jagersma 2004, 355; Heide 2011, 348). Sometimes, a m . s i . ḫ a r. r a . a n and a m . s i . k u r. r a were equated solely with the Bactrian camel. Yet, both terms are never expressis verbis identified as referring to two-​ humped camels in the bilingual lists or anywhere else. The ePSD2, DCCLT, and eTCSL identify am.si.ḫar.ra.an and am.s i.kur. r a simply as “camel” (cf. Sommerfeld 2014, 226–27). However, the evidence for the exploitation of Bactrian camels in overland trade from Central Asia and Iran (§3.1) as well as for camel remains and artistic camel representations from Mesopotamia and Syria (§§3.2.1–2), versus the missing evidence for dromedary exploitation during the third and second millennia BC in Mesopotamia and the Arabian Peninsula, suggest that both terms refer to the Bactrian camel. Moreover, the sign si “horn; protuberance” (𒋛) of the two camel names (am. si.ḥar.ran/am.si.kur.ra) is shared by several Sumerian animal designations, pointing to paired protruding features. Thus, si is shared by the horned viper (muš. si.gùr.ru, muš.si.gar), the “horned” cat or caracal (sa.a.si), various forms of wild cattle (am.si.è, etc.), domestic cattle (ab 2 .si.babbar, gud.si etc.), sheep (udu.si.gal etc.), and the elephant (am.si). In these species, the paired protrusions refer respectively to the supraocular enlarged scales of the viper (Pientka-​ Hinz 2009, 209), the tufts of black hair on the tips of the caracal’s ears (Heimpel 1980b; CAD 21:135), particularly shaped horns of the aurochs (Landsberger 1934, 4), cattle, and sheep, the tusks of the elephant, and probably the humps of the Bactrian camel. Thus, on the one hand, the am.si-​element of both camel-​names etymologically refers to a “horned” aurochs, that is, a bull (am) with conspicuous horns, tusks, or protrusions (si). As a matter of fact, the steeply rising humps peaking out of the massive trunk of the Bactrian camel may well embody such protrusions to an observer used to the sight of taurine cattle and donkeys (cf. figs. 2.2 and 8.1; Horowitz 2008). This interpretation gains support from ura III and Ḫḫ XIV that seemingly regarded elephants and camels listed between the aurochs (am) and the wild cow (sumun 2) as somehow related to large horned animals (§3, n. 37; Weiershäuser and Hrůša 2018, 146). On the other hand, the a m . s i-​ element, which became “frozen” into a fixed expression governing kur.ra, refers to the elephant, likely implying that both elephants and Bactrian camels are large animals trained for labor, can carry heavy loads, amble on wide and soft feet, and might have been perceived as semiwild, as they would be often seen foraging in the wider landscape in order to satisfy their dietary needs.33 33.  Köhler-​Rollefson (1992) writes about the Rajasthan camel pastoralists: “In the extremely arid and sparsely populated most western parts of Rajasthan where hardly any agriculture is

Camels in the Biblical World and Adjacent Regions

59

In am.si.ḫar.ra.an, the Akkadian loanword ḫarrānu “road (outside of town); caravan; journey” refers primarily to the use of this specific camel on the road and in caravan trading (cf. §2 n. 3; Heimpel 1980a; Edzard 1980). In am.si.kur. r a, the specification k u r “mountain; land” points to the mountainous areas adjacent to Mesopotamia, as it does also in the term a n š e . k u r. r a or “horse,” literally “donkey of the mountain.” Conceivably, Bactrian camels, being well suited for crossing mountainous terrain, were associated with the mountains east of Mesopotamia, which had to be traversed when trading goods from Central Asia to Mesopotamia. However, why do camels turn up in a list of wild animals (Ḫḫ XIV), not only in the Old Babylonian period, but also in the canonical lists of the first millennium BC? Arguably, Ḫḫ lexicographers did not classify animals according to modern biological understanding. These lists, particularly the thematic word lists itemizing animals (Ḫḫ XIII and XIV), were not composed following taxonomic principles. They rather follow a classification system that is based on cultural, functional, and linguistic principles (cf. Veldhuis 2006, 26). They are “just lists of words, only indirectly list of things. The scribes did not mean to catalogue primarily the physical and social elements of their world, only the words used for their designation” (Civil 2010, 2; emphasis original). Principally being a list of wild animals excluding fish and birds (which have lists of their own), Ḫḫ XIV opens with snakes. Wild mammals follow, but the list also includes some domesticates, like the dog, the pig, and the camel. Obviously, these taxa were listed according to their names rather than to their domestication status. As mentioned above, the camel—most likely the two-​humped species or Bactrian camel—was named after the elephant (a m . s i), but since there is no a m-​section in the Ḫḫ XIII list of domestic animals, it had to be placed in the am-​section of Ḫḫ XIV. The same happened to š áḫ, the pig (Veldhuis 2006, 27), since there is no š á ḫ-section in the Ḫḫ XIII list. All the different kinds of domestic pigs, be it fattened pigs, breeding pigs, or pigs owned by a lord, or any other, are listed together in Ḫḫ XIV and in conjunction with the wild boar (š áḫ. ĝiš .gi). By the same logic, the dog (ur) is found in the u r-​section in Ḫḫ XIV, followed by the lion (ur.maḫ, “big dog”). The carnivorous behavior of the latter could easily explain its classification in the domestic dog category. Of interest is the fact that by Neo-​Assyrian times (ca. 900 BC), the Sumerian terms am.si.ḫar.ra.an and am.si.kur.ra had vanished from common usage, practiced, camels can be left to themselves for most of the year. Many of them return at regular intervals to the villages for water, but they can also range several hundred kilometers from their owner’s home. The Raikas are able to keep track of their movements, because they can identify the footprints of each of their camels, and a well-​functioning information network on the whereabouts of individual animals seems to exist” (78). Similar patterns of camel care have been observed in the Arabian Peninsula (Thesiger 1991, 66, 114).

60

Camels in the Biblical World

Table 3.1.  Ḫḫ XIV, canonical version. 4 8  a m → a m  .  .  .

ri-​i-​mu ri-​i-​mu . . .

5 3 a m.si 5 4  a m . si . k u r. r a

pi-​i-​lu pi-​i-​lu k u r -i

5 5  a m . si . k u r. r a 5 6  a m . si . ḫ a r. r a . an

i-​bi-​lu i-​bi-​lu

aurochs = aurochs (several entries, special forms of the aurochs) elephant = elephant elephant of the mountain = elephant of the mountaina elephant of the mountain = camel elephant of the caravan/road = camel

The entry pi-​i-​lu → k u r -i “elephant of the mountain” is a literal or etymological translation of the Sumerian term am.s i.kur.ra (Maaijer and Jagersma 2004, 355), only known from some textual witnesses of the canonical version. Scribes of the first millennium BC tended to collect as many lexical entries as possible, adding sometimes new Sumerian equivalencies to Akkadian words or vice versa (see Wagensonner 2010, 285; cf. Crisostomo 2019, 59, 122). In addition, the form pīlu is common in LL of the first millennium BC, earlier texts feature pīru (CAD 12:418; EDA:P0323). Lines 55–56 provide i-​bi-​lu as the actual meaning of am.si.kur.ra and am.si.ḫar.ra.an respectively. a

given their absence in inscriptions outside of the lexical lists. As such, the former term remained only in use to define a medicinal plant, pizzalurtu, written ú am.si.ḫar.ra.na (AHw 2:871; CAD 12:451–52), the “plant [preferred by?/named after?/of ?] the am.s i.ḫar.ra.an” (Landsberger 1934, 92 n. 3). 3.2.4.1.1. Early Inscriptional Evidence for the “Elephant of the Caravan” and the “Elephant of the Mountain” from Lexical Lists In the canonical versions of the first millennium BC, the am-​section of Ḫḫ XIV was copied as in table 3.1 (cf. Landsberger 1934, 5–6; MSL 8.2:10). Unilingual tablets usually have fewer entries than their elaborate, integrated, and updated bilingual equivalents of the first millennium BC, but follow the same basic structure as in later lexical lists. They inform us about the words that were in use for these animals. Students who learned these words were expected to use them in economical and administrative documents (Wagensonner 2012; but cf. Crisostomo 2019, 46–50). A textual witness of the unilingual ura IX list from Middle Babylonian Emar (late fourteenth to early twelfth century BC) with wild animals, which has a similar structure as the later bilingual Ḫḫ XIV list of the first millennium BC, has the order [am].si and [am.si].kur.ra.34 Another ura IX list from Nippur, 34.  Arnaud 1985 1:166; Msk 731086 and 7342. The tablet is partly broken, but the restoration is certain. Use the number P271388 to see the textual witness online; it is recognized by the CDLI (http://​cdli​.ucla​.edu), DCCLT (http://​oracc​.museum​.upenn.edu/dcclt), and ORACC (http://​oracc​ .org) databases, giving access to editions, photos, hand copies, and metadata, where available. This applies also to all 6-digit numbers preceded by P or Q in the footnotes below. The unilingual tablets

Camels in the Biblical World and Adjacent Regions

61

Table 3.2.  Emar Tablet Msk 74103b. 1 2 3 4 5

[k u š] kuš gud kuš am k u š a m. s i k u š am. s i. k u r. ra

ku-​uš

[maš-​ku] [maš-​ka al-​pi-​í] [MIN ri-​i-​mi] [MIN pi-​i-​li] ⸢MIN⸣ [i-​bi-​li]

hide ox hide aurochs hide elephant hide camel hide

dating to the same period, has the unusual order am.edin.na, am, am.s i, and am.si.kur.ra.35 Middle Babylonian Emar also features bilingual textual witnesses of Ḫḫ VII, corresponding to Ḫḫ XI of the first millennium BC, presenting lists of animal hides and leather products. Thus the textual witness Msk 74103b (table 3.2) has entries familiar from the first millennium BC.36 Although the Akkadian equivalents are largely restored, the Sumerian entries are clearly recognizable. The whole set as well as the entries further down stereotypically follow similar bilingual lists, witnessing to a standardized version of entries. The restoration of i-​bi-​li (in []) has a high probability of being correct and points to the earliest written form of the Semitic root ʾbl with the meaning “camel” (Middle Babylonian period, late fourteenth to early twelfth centuries BC). Another unilingual list of hides and leather products (u r a VII) from Emar mentions the familiar entries [ k u š ] ⸢ a m⸣, [ k u š ] k u š ⸢ a m⸣ . s i, and ⸢ a m⸣ . s i.kur.ra (see §3 n. 69, lines obv. 1 3–5). From Old Babylonian Nippur (ca. 2000–1600 BC), there are nine textual witnesses of ura III, integrating domestic and wild animals, with the order am, am.si, and am.si.kur.ra.37 Another unusual ura III tablet from the same period has the sequence a m (wild cattle or aurochs), a m . si (elephant), a m . s i . ḫ a r. r a . a n . n a, and a m . [ s i . ] k u r. r a (camel).38 Another tablet from the Old Babylonian period arranges leather products, animals, and plants (u r a II–IV), and are called u r a to distinguish them from the bilingual Ḫḫ series. For the diachronic development, cf. Veldhuis 2014, 149. 35.  Chiera 1929: no. 45, cat. no. 8769. Fragment B, column 1, lines 17′–20′; P228065. 36.  Msk 74103b, lines obv. i 1–5. Arnaud 1985 1:257; P271466. 37.  P227736 (CBS 13589); P229423 (CBS 06118; MSL 14:21 Dg); P229454 (Ni 03776; MSL 14:23 Fs); P229040 (HS 1858; MSL 14:29 Lh); P229518 (IM 058670 + IM 058671; MSL 12:29 R); P228700 (UM 29–16–031; MSL 8.1:82 V38); P230541 (UM 29–13–715); P229962 (HS 1799 c ii 17); cf. Q000001, lines 318–320. Line ri l′ in N 4058 is barely decipherable but should read am.si.kur.ra as well for contextual reasons. The textual witnesses of u r a III listed above have preserved, usually in fragmental condition, the am-​section with the entry for camels. It goes without saying that there are numerous fragmental textual witnesses that cover other sections of ura III and thus testify to the same tradition that can be reconstructed as Q000001, but unfortunately are broken in the am-​section. 38.  YBC 4679, P235796; Wagensonner 2016, 209. The text reads a m k u r. r a, likely a scribal error for am.s i.kur.r a (Veldhuis 2006, 28).

62

Camels in the Biblical World

reads am.s i.kas kal.an.na, subsequent to am.s i “elephant,” which is a variant writing for am.s i.ḫar.an.na.39 Similarly, an ura III exercise list of animal terms from Nippur from roughly the same period repeats the sequence dog (ka. lab), wild cat (su.a and su.a.ri), European bison (alim), deer (lulim), elephant (a m.s i), and camel (ḫ a r. r a . a n) in three columns.40 Here, ḫ a r. r a . a n is either an error or a shortened form for a m . s i . ḫ a r. r a . a n . The text continues on the reverse with a meteorological list. The Akkadian term i-​lu-​la-​a-​a answers to a m . s i . ḫ a r. r a . a n . n a in a puzzling bilingual vocabulary list from the Old Babylonian period.41 According to this list, am.si.ḫar.ra.an.na “elephant of the road/caravan,” that is, “camel,” i.lu.kur.kur.ra “deity/demon (?) of the mountains” (alluding to am.s i.kur. ra?), and maškim.ḫar.ra.an.DU “lurker that walks on the road/caravan,” are all assigned to i-​lu-​la-​a-​a, that is, ilulāya, the name of a demon (Sjöberg 1996, 231). All three entries play with similarities in the Sumerian column and use an unusual Akkadian form, ilulāya, alluding to the insect/demon ḫallulāya (CAD 6:46), and perhaps to ibilu. In texts like that, scholars could demonstrate their command of the cuneiform writing system, creating or inventing forms on the basis of analogical hermeneutics (Crisostomo 2016, 29; 2019). The earliest known Mesopotamian lexical evidence for the camel is provided by an animal list from ancient Shuruppak (modern Fara, ca. fifty kilometers south of Nippur) of the Early Dynastic period (ca. 2600–2500 BC). This list is not a forerunner of the later Ḫḫ tradition, but another Early Dynastic animal list, type C. In this fragmentary list, the Sumerian term a m . s i . ḫ a r. a n occurs after the European bison (alim), before the bí.lam, the ox, and the bear; further down, sheep, goats, dogs and wolves, mice, flies, lizards, worms, and others are listed.42 The unusual order of the Early Dynastic animal type C list deviates from the stereotypical sequence of the sections “cow, ox, calves, aurochs” (ab2, gu 4, amar, and am), noted in contemporaneous animal lists or in later lexical 39.  A 7896, P230258. On the correspondence of Sumerian kaskal “way, road; journey, caravan” and Akkadian ḫarrānu, see CAD 6:106; Borger 2010, 312; and ePSD2, s.v. 40.  Cf. Proust 2007, 353, tablets Ni 10135* + CBS 10181* + CBS 10207*; P230163. 41.  See Gurney 1974: no. 93: pl. 43; P347052; Sjöberg 1996, 222 and 231, reverse, lines 14–16. The three entries are preceded by the dust fly, the mouse, the butterfly, and similar small animals (lines rev. 1–13) and followed by a list of demons (lines rev. 17–24). The tentative translation of ilulāya with “camel” in AHw 3:1553 (cf. CDA, 127) was published prior to Sjöberg’s study. The assignment of am.s i. ḫ a r. r a . a n . n a to i-​lu-​la-​a-​a could be seen as an allusion to i-​bi-​lu, in a similar way as a n š e . a . a b . b a to the “ghost of Tiamat” in the Neo-​Assyrian period (§3.2.4.3.4). That camels are somehow related to demons has a late repercussion in the pastoral ministry of the church father Hilarion, who learned Syriac in order to exorcise demons from a possessed Bactrian camel (Jerome, Vita Hilarionis 23 [4th century AD]). The animal in question was probably a camel stud during the rutting season exhibiting the most ludicrous behaviors, such as gargling, gnashing its teeth, frothing, and roaring. 42.  TSŠ 46; Sjöberg 2000, 407; Wagensonner 2016, 429; P010717.

Camels in the Biblical World and Adjacent Regions

63

lists (Wagensonner, forthcoming). The order of Early Dynastic animal type C list suggests a common feature of these animals that is elusive to our modern understanding (Wagensonner 2016, 429). However, taking into account the literal meaning of am.s i.ḫar.ran as a “horned aurochs of the road,” that is, as a bull with paired conspicuous protrusions (§3.2.4.1), may elucidate its position between the European bison, the bí.lam (elephant?), and the ox. Similar to the Middle Babylonian lists of leather products presented above, a textual witness of ura II from Old Babylonian Nerebtum, corresponding in part to Ḫḫ XI of later times, has preserved the familiar sequence k u š a m (aurochs hide), k u š a m.s i (elephant hide), and k u š a m.s i.[k u r-r a] (camel hide).43 The same ura II arrangement is known from Old Babylonian Nippur.44 From the same time, lexical lists of plants (u r a IV, line 225) know of the medical plant ú am.si.ḫar.ra.an.na (§3.2.4.1; CAD 12:451–52). In texts of the third and early second millennium BC, it is most likely that both a m . s i . ḫ a r. r a . a n and a m . s i . k u r. r a predominantly, if not exclusively, refer to Bactrian camels known to have been domesticated prior to the composition of these written sources (see also §3.2.4.1.2). Although many second-​millennium BC lexical lists are unilingual, “there is good reason to assume that in the classroom the text was treated as a bilingual and that the traditional Akkadian translations were committed to memory by the pupils” (Veldhuis 2014, 151). First, the spoken language at that time most likely was Akkadian; Sumerian was in retreat and kept alive by Akkadian-​speaking scribes. Second, there are at least some Old Babylonian lists that add Akkadian glosses, and even more Middle Babylonian lists that are bilingual, particularly from Emar (cf. above; for Nippur, see A. Bartelmus 2016, 171 n. 645). Third, there is the Old Babylonian bilingual tablet BM 85983 (P247857), showing features that are known from later times, such as repeating the Akkadian translation by numbers, leaving the Akkadian column frequently empty, or omitting the determinatives (Veldhuis 2017, 364). Fourth, the existence of an empty, nonwritten Akkadian column in Old Babylonian unilingual lists is indicated by repeated Sumerian entries. Bilingual tablets from the later second and first millennia BC often have more than one Akkadian equivalent for the same Sumerian entry. In unilingual Old Babylonian tablets, these repetitions only make sense when “we assume that the Akkadian translation was indeed part of the text as it was learned by the scribal pupils. The students had to know the Akkadian equivalents in order to understand Sumerian vocabulary—writing the Akkadian down, however, did not add to the value of the exercise” (Veldhuis 2014, 151, 202; 43.  Greengus 1979, 284; P247525 (here, kuš gud “ox-​hide” precedes the sequence; cf. table 3.2). 44.  P231771 (Chiera 1929: no. 41); P230466 (CBS 10158); P229801 (HS 1666); P229879 (HS 1671); P227673 (MSL 7:209 V01); P229072 (Chiera 1929: no. 188).

64

Camels in the Biblical World

cf. van Soldt 1995, 175). After the Old Babylonian period, it became increasingly common to write the Akkadian translation in a second column next to the Sumerian word, especially in the periphery of Mesopotamia where Sumerian and Akkadian were foreign languages. Based on the foregoing, there are good reasons to assume that ibilu “camel,” corresponding to both Sumerian terms am.si.kur.ra and am.si.ḫar.ra.an in the first millennium BC, had been their equivalent since Old Babylonian times. This applies especially to the term am.s i.kur.ra, which appears frequently in the am.s i sequence, because sections that are well attested are also well standardized (Veldhuis 2014, 155). This observation implies, of course, that ibilu was understood to correspond semantically to the domestic Bactrian camel in lexical lists (see §3.2.4.8) before it was used for the domestic dromedary. 3.2.4.1.2. The “Elephant of the Caravan” in Sumerian Literature A Sumerian love song mentioning camel milk provides further evidence for the a m . s i . ḫ a r. r a . a n camel from the Old Babylonian period. In this love song, the Sumerian deity of love, Inanna, addresses Dumuzi.45 They are known in Semitic sources as Ishtar and Tammuz. The larger context reads as follows (col. iii, 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 the holy butterchurn. . . . O Dumuzi, make the milk of the camel [am.s i.ḫar.r a.an] yellow for me—the camel [am.s i.ḫar.ra.an], its milk is sweet. . . . Its buttermilk, which is sweet, make yellow for me.”46 This love song from Nippur belongs to the genre of pastoral poetry. In Sumerian mythology, Dumuzi is the son of Duttur, the divine mother sheep (Alster 1999, 832; 2012, 436). Dumuzi, with his surname or title Sipad “shepherd,” appears as the lord of the shepherds and flocks and is the god in charge of domestic herd animals in the Sumerian pantheon, “a manifestation of all aspects of the life of the herdsmen, as opposed to that of the farmers” (Alster 1999, 828). The myth begins with a long monologue by Inanna, followed by the song itself (col. ii lines obv. 18–28). Inanna compares her vulva to, among other things, fallow land, a field, and a hillock, and ends by asking who will plow it for her. To this query comes the answer: King Dumuzi will plow it for her 45.  On the influence of popular Sumerian literature on the Dumuzi-​Inanna love songs, see Klein and Sefati 2008, 614–18. 46.  See Sefati 1998, 221–22; and Horowitz 2008, 604, citing the cuneiform text Ni 9602. Cf. P478874 and CAD 9:2. Instead of translating “the camel,” it is also possible to understand a m . s i . ḫ a r. r a . a n collectively here, hence “milk of camels . . . camels, their milk is sweet.” It is questionable to simply dismiss the evidence for a m . s i . ḫ a r. r a . a n on the ground that the context is comparable “with the Romulus and Remus story of the foundation of Rome” (Rosen and Saidel 2010, 75). There is a much better comparison for Romulus and Remus, namely the epic of Gilgamesh, which lets Enkidu, one of its main characters, suck the milk of wild animals (Pritchard 1969, 77–78; tablet II: iii.2; v: 20; cf. George 2003: I. 177, line 85; I. 179, line 188).

Camels in the Biblical World and Adjacent Regions

65

(col. ii, lines obv. 29–30). The sexual union of the couple (col. ii, lines 32–33) is followed by a detailed description of the ensuing vegetation (col. iii, lines obv. 1(?)–11). After which, Inanna, now dwelling joyfully by Dumuzi’s side in the palace, “the house of life,” utters a plea to the king to supply her with rich fresh milk and cream (col. iii, lines 18–27), and makes him the reassuring promise, reiterated again and again, that she will watch over and preserve the palace and its prosperity (col. iii, line 28– col. iv, line 2).47 In this poetry, Inanna is seen as caring for the prosperity of the land, particularly to its vegetation. Goat’s milk, camel’s milk, buttermilk, and/or cream are part of the wedding banquet, which follows the sexual union of the couple (Renger 1972–1975, 255–56). The repeated plea to make the milk “yellow” either refers to the high fat content of the milk from good pasture (Jacobsen 1983, 196), or to milk products such as yogurt and cream (Sefati 1998, 110). Milk, cream, yogurt, and butter belong to the typical products of the shepherd Dumuzi, as is evident from the Sumerian poem The Shepherd and the Farmer (Sefati 1998, 96, 333) and similar love songs (239, 290). To interpret a m.s i.ḫ a r.r a.a n, the “elephant of the caravan” (§3.2.4.1), in view of this context as a wild camel puts undue strain on the understanding of the poetry, let alone the sheer impossibility of meeting a wild Bactrian camel in Mesopotamia. In addition, knowledge of the quality of camel’s milk is impossible as long as these animals are wild. A considerable time must be allowed for the camel to be domesticated and to allow humans to milk it (Caubet 2012, 151). Therefore, in this love song, am.s i. ḫar.ra.an denotes a domestic animal, most likely the Bactrian camel. “Camel milk is nutritious and is especially high in potassium, iron, vitamin C, vitamin B and A complex as well as polyunsaturated acids and linoleic acid which are essential for human nutrition” (Horwitz and Rosen 2005, 123). The churned camel milk as well as the goat milk Inanna requests are described as pleasant and “sweet.” Camel milk is drunk fresh. Only extensive churning will result in some butter (124). Dromedary milk is usually not processed to butter; goat or sheep milk is more suitable for that (Jabbur 1995, 215–16). Dromedary milk is soured by admixing sheep or goat milk, because dromedary milk needs special treatment and more time to ferment sufficiently (Yagil 1985, 119; Zubeir and Jabreel 2008). The milk of the Bactrian camel, on the other hand, has a higher share of fat and dry matter, and can be processed into a variety of fermented products (Chapman 1985, 17; Brezovečki 2015, 83). Finally, the camel (am.si.ḫar.ra.an) also features in a Sumerian incantation text from the Old Babylonian period.48 47.  This citation is a condensed version of Kramer’s commentary (1963, 507); cf. Sefati 1998, 227–28. 48.  See Gurney and Kramer 1976: no 23; Bod S 296 (P345804). The incantation is directed against internal illness associated with the “wind” (flatulence?); Cunningham 2007, 138.

66

Camels in the Biblical World

3.2.4.2. Another Sumerian Name for the Bactrian Camel? A decade ago, Piotr Steinkeller (2009) presented his in-​depth study of a Sumerian tablet of the Ur III period (ca. 2100–2000 BC) that could refer to camels as well. Excavated in Puzrish-​Dagan, a suburb of Nippur, this tablet (Hilgert 1998, 141–42; P123310) lists male and female animals written as GÚ.URU×GU. These animals were received from three different suppliers, from Hundasher of Anshan, Yabrat the Shimashkian, and Shu-​Adad. According to Steinkeller, the unknown animal name GÚ.URU×GU could be read as g ú.g u r 5 and consequently be linked to the verb gú.gúr(GAM), corresponding to Akkadian kanāšu “to bend down, to bow down” (CAD 8:144), a vivid characterization of the camel’s behavior. The hitherto unknown animal name GÚ.URU×GU shows up once more in another tablet (Calvot 1969, 102; P127971), summing up the animals from the first tablet and referring to them in a single line. One of the men who delivered these animals obviously originated from Anshan, a city located in the eastern Iranian plateau. Yabrat the Shimashkian, the second supplier, seems to come from Shimashki, the central Iranian plateau. The third supplier has the Akkadian name Shu-​Adad, and he is also known as the “herder” of the GÚ.URU×GU mentioned before. The animals he supplies are designated as an “earlier” delivery. In the second tablet, where the supply of GÚ.URU×GU numbers thirty, the animals are preceded in the list by oxen, red deer, and fallow deer, and followed by horses, mules, and donkeys. Steinkeller draws the conclusion that the GÚ.URU×GU referred to in these tablets must be large, hoofed herbivores. This suggestion is further corroborated by the fact that the age of some of these animals is given, a detail otherwise documented only for valuable, long-​living cattle, equids, and deer. Thus, there are good reasons to maintain that the Bactrian camel, whether referred to with the rare term GÚ.URU×GU, which possibly reflects an Elamite noun of the type *ku(r)kur (Lafont 2020, 60), or with am.s i.kur.ra or am.s i.ḫar.ra.an, reached Mesopotamia before the end of the third millennium BC through trade relations with Iran and with the Oxus civilization (§3.1; Steinkeller 2016, 128; cf. Kohl and Lyonnet 2008). 3.2.4.3. The “Donkey of the Sealand” Babylonian scribes did not register the (domestic) Arabian camel together with a m . s i . ḫ a r. r a . a n and a m . s i . k u r. r a camels in Ḫḫ XIV (§3.2.4.1), but in the equid clade and thus in the a n š e-​section in Ḫḫ XIII, which lists all animals thought to be somehow related to the donkey (a n š e ). This way, the economically important and widely used donkey was placed into a list that with time

Camels in the Biblical World and Adjacent Regions

67

absorbed various foreign imported animals exploited in a broadly similar way, that is, as pack and riding animals, such as the horse and the camel (Goldwasser 2017, 56; Selz, Grinevald, and Goldwasser 2018, 312–14). The equid section in Ḫḫ XIII begins with a n š e “donkey” in line 354, and terminates with the animal that has the largest number of words included, namely a n š e . k u . k a . i k . k í d . e, literally “donkey whose thighs are open (?),” line 375).49 It is noteworthy that the a n š e-​section comprises beasts of burden (with the exception of the Asiatic wild ass) that as a rule did not play a key role in meat procurement. They were, however, capable of producing hybrid offspring. Male Asiatic wild asses (a n š e . e d i n . n a) were crossed with jennies, producing strong hybrids named a n š e.k u n g a (Postgate 1986; Weber 2008). The offspring of (female) horses (a n š e . k u r. r a) and (male) donkeys is the mule (a n š e . g ì r. n u n . n a). The dromedary (a n š e . a . a b . b a) is capable of interbreeding with the Bactrian camel as well as with female hybrid offspring (§2.3). In Ḫ ḫ XIII texts of the first millennium BC, the camel appears in the anš e-​ section (lines 354–375) as a n š e . a . a b . b a = i-​bi-​lu “camel” (MSL 8.1:51, 366). It is listed after the “donkey for the wagon” (364) and the “second donkey [in a yoke]”50 (365) and before the “runner” (367), the “brayer,” and the “roarer” (368–369), which seem to be vernacular terms for the donkey.51 Prima facie, the Sumerian term anš e.a.ab.ba has the meaning “Meer-​Esel” (Heimpel 1980a) or “donkey [anš e] of the sea [a.ab.ba]” (Lambert 1960b, 43), which seems to denote that the animal was known from across the sea. Yet, animals from the Mesopotamian fauna that include a.ab. ba in their name are not known from across the sea, but in the sea, such as muš .a.ab.ba “serpent of the sea; sea snake” (CAD 2:141), anše.kur.ra ša a.ab.ba “horse of the sea” (Lundström 2012, 326), or buru 5 .a.ab.ba “locust of the sea” (CAD 4:290). Not surprisingly, there are various kinds of fish, such as u b i a b . b a k u “ubi of the sea,” which usually have the determinative ku 6 for “fish.” In addition and depending on the context, a.a b.b a can have the meaning “Sealand,” truncated from kur a.ab.ba, “land of the sea,” which in Akkadian 6

49.  The Ḫḫ entries are cited according to MSL 8.1, which is a critical edition of the textual witnesses of Ḫḫ XIII (cf. §3 n. 30). The main textual witness (A) for Ḫḫ XIII is in the Metropolitan Museum (New York) and was published by Oppenheim and Hartman in 1945. Another important textual witness (B) is housed in the Ashmolean Museum (Oxford) and was published by Meer in 1939. 50.  Cf. Oppenheim and Hartman 1945, 173; read te-​nu-​ú instead of di-​nu-​ú; AHw 3:1347; and CAD 18:344. 51.  The “runner” may be seen as a designation for the donkey or for the camel. In the Ḫ a r. g u d series, a kind of commentary to the LL, the “runner” (šá-​nu-​ú) is listed in line 248, between anš e.a.ab. ba and am. s i. ḫ ar. r a. an. For the “brayer,” it is interesting to note that a rutting camel bull is called “the braying one” by Bedouin (Jabbur 1995, 232).

68

Camels in the Biblical World

is Māt-​Tâmti.52 The term “Sealand” initially referring to the southern Euphrates area, was later transferred, pars pro toto, to the region encompassing the coast of the Persian Gulf, the delta region of the Babylonian alluvial plain. 53 The Sealand was active in trade with the Arabian Peninsula, Elam, the Euphrates area, and the Persian Gulf.54 The term “Sealand” came into use after the region came under Kassite rule.  It is sparsely attested prior to the fifteenth century BC (Brinkman 1993, 6; Földi 2014, 37 n. 31). The first Sealand Dynasty coincided with or dated immediately after the Old Babylonian period (ca. 2000–1600 BC). Therefore, if the a n š e . a . a b . b a “donkey of a . a b . b a” is not an animal living in the sea, but is instead assigned to ibilu “camel,” and if a . a b . b a can embrace both meanings, sea and Sealand, the most plausible interpretation is that a n š e . a . a b . b a is the “donkey of the Sealand” (Streck 2014a, 17). By way of comparison, cattle that were bred in the Sealand and brought to Nippur were registered as g u 4 . n í n d a ša t a a . a b . b a il-​qú-​ni “young oxen that they took from the Sealand [a.ab.ba],” or related terms (Kessler 1992, 96). What may be regarded as an additional cause linking camels with the Sealand and the sea itself is that camels are known to forage in mangrove habitats that lined parts of the Arabian coast, and most likely also on the Sealand’s halophyte vegetation of tidal flats or khors (§2.2). Mangrove habitats and tidal creek systems are attractive to camels because of their high salt contents (§2.1.2). The camel is a natural swimmer in addition to—or despite—its desert adaptation (Robinson 1936, 55). Such behavior is well known from Arabian camels populating the coastal habitat of the Kutch region, Gujarat, India. These animals have been observed to swim voluntarily several kilometers off the seacoast to reach islands that are rich in mangrove forests.55 By analogy, it can be assumed that by the second-​millennium BC, the inhabitants of coastal Mesopotamia were aware of one-​humped camels crossing brackish or marine water channels to forage in vegetated islands located in the Gulf region. If so, the name “donkey of the Sealand” (literally “donkey of the sea”) for one-​humped camels would expressis 52.  See Brinkman 1993, 8; Horowitz 1998, 301–2; O. Boivin 2018, 23–24, 29–32. 53.  Cf. CAD 18, s.v. “tâmtu,” 2a; Nashef 1982, 193; O. Boivin 2018, 32. 54.  Cf. Howard-​Carter 1983, 394; Potts 2014; O. Boivin 2016; Brinkman 2017, 8; Laursen and Steinkeller 2017, 47–70. Dougherty (1932, 155–74) proposed that the Sealand itself encompassed a great part of the Arabian Desert, and that consequently the “donkey of the sea” was just another expression for the “donkey of Arabia.” Dougherty was followed in this respect by Salonen (1955, 88) and others (Cole 1996b, 34 n. 85), and partly by me (Heide 2011), but Dougherty’s insights are mostly based on the later evidence of the first millennium BC, and his study is now considered largely obsolete (Oppenheim 1977, 414; O. Boivin 2018, 4–5). 55.  “The Indian Kharai dromedary breed takes to the sea and stays on islands that have an abundance of mangroves, their favorite feed. The camels swim along with their handlers, taking anywhere between two and three hours to reach the islands, locally called Bet, along the Gulf of Kutch. The camels swim long distances in the sea to reach the grazing areas—usually more than 3 km at a time even in deep waters” (abbreviated from The Hindu, April 23, 2017).

Camels in the Biblical World and Adjacent Regions

69

verbis reflect such behavior. The aforementioned camel remains excavated in Failaka off the southern Mesopotamian coast could well originate from animals that had reached the island by swimming (Desse and Desse-​Berset 1990, 57). The series Ḫ ar.gud, a kind of first-​millennium BC revised version or commentary of the Ḫḫ series, provides additional information.56 Ḫ a r. g u d “is a three-​column list, with the first two columns repeating selected entries from Ḫ a r- ​r a, and the third supplying additional Akkadian equations” (Frahm 2011, 250; cf. Cavigneaux 1983, 628), turning Ḫ a r. g u d into a commentary. In Ḫ a r. gud, the entry am.si.ḫar.ra.an = i-b​ i-l​ u = [gam-​ma-​lu] “camel” (MSL 8.2:44, 249; cf. §3.2.4.1) follows immediately upon anš e.a.ab.ba = i-​bi-​lu = [gam-​ma-​ lu] “camel” and dùr.gir5 = šá-​nu-​ú = [ ] “running male donkey” (MSL 8.1:54, 247–48).57 Moreover, at the time Ḫ a r. g u d was written down, the word gammalu must already have been widespread and added deliberately in order to elucidate the more archaic term ibilu that, by that time, may already have fallen in disuse (Matouš 1933, 2; Selz 2019, 40). In the Practical Vocabulary of Assur (ca. eighth to seventh centuries BC), anš e.a.ab.ba is even directly associated with gammalu (cf. §3.2.4.8, table 3.5). Furthermore, the Practical Vocabulary of Nineveh, a sort of updated compendium of Ḫḫ (Cavigneaux 1983, 631), provides the entries a n š e . a . a b . b a “camel” and a n š e . g a . m a l . m e š “camels,” followed by horses and various other equids.58 Another tablet that belongs to the same tradition lists items that are closely related to each other, for instance ribs and legs, kidneys and intestines, horses (ANŠE.KUR.RA.meš) and camels (anše.a.ab.ba.meš), camels (anšegam.mal.meš) and other large quadrupeds (anš e.KU.DIN. meš = camels?), bulls and breeding bulls, and so on.59 3.2.4.3.1. Early Inscriptional Evidence for the Dromedary from Lexical Lists Of interest is the fact that the Sumerian name for the one-​humped camel, a n š e . a . a b . b a, already shows up in lists dating to the second millennium BC. The earliest mention is found in UM 29-16-338, a unilingual Sumerian excerpt of Ḫḫ XIII from Nippur, dating between approximately 1360–1225 BC.60 UM 29-16-338 is a Middle Babylonian scribal exercise tablet. Usually pillow-​ shaped, such tablets measure about seven by four centimeters. The obverse 56.  Also called u r 5 - g u d or m u r- g​ u d. 57.  See also MSL 7:62 and 64; P400388 and P393770. 58.  K. 1520; Gesche 2001, 666; Landsberger and Gurney 1957–1958, 340–41. P349825. See also MSL 7:62, 64; and cf. P393770. 59.  K. 4405; Landsberger and Gurney 1957–1958, 340–41; P395531. 60.  Veldhuis 2000, 94; Bartelmus 2016, 40, 54 n. 239, 469; P228739. According to Cole (1996b, 12) and Sassmannshausen (2001, 4), the Nippur lists most likely date between 1360–1225 BC, based upon the general historical and cultural context; according to van Soldt (2011b, 203) between 1400–1225 BC.

70

Camels in the Biblical World

Table 3.3.  Emar Tablet Msk 7522. Emar Msk 7522 (Ḫḫ VIII) 230′ 231′ 232′ 233′ 234′

[MIN.] gišg u . z a [MIN.] gišg i g i r [MIN. gišm a r.g í d . d a [MIN.b] al. lá [MIN.a.a ] b. b a

MSL 8.1:51 (Ḫḫ XIII) 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

362 363 364 365 366

a n še. gišgu.z a a n še. gišgigir anše.gišmar.gíd.da an š e.á.bal an še .a .a b.ba

i-mir ku-​us-​su-​ú i-mir nar-​kab-​tu i-mir e-​riq-​qum te-​nu-​ú i-​bi-​lu

typically offers a literary extract in landscape format, often from the Gilgamesh Epic, and the reverse contains a few lines from a lexical text in portrait format. The obverse of UM 29-16-338 is erased, the reverse is a seven-​line extract of a lexical list (Veldhuis 2000, 67, 84; cf. Bartelmus 2016, 6–7, 53). It lists the “donkey of the Sealand” in nearly the same position as is the case in Ḫḫ XIII of subsequent periods (Bartelmus 2016, 54 n. 239), after the donkey (anš e), various kinds of equids, and the yoked donkey (anše.érin.lá).61 The well-​structured arrangement strongly suggests that the extract was copied from a complete Vorlage that had been known for some time. The minor variations common to this and other tablets are due to practicing of more or less advanced students (van Soldt 1995, 175). The scribal exercise from Nippur is just one of many textual witnesses of a literary tradition that flourished during the Kassite period. During this era, Babylon played a crucial role in international politics, and Akkadian virtually became the lingua franca of the Fertile Crescent, as the Amarna correspondence demonstrates (van Soldt 2011a). It seems that the advantages of conducting scribal education via lexical lists influenced even the scribal curriculum of the West Semitic tradition (Schniedewind 2019). The series Ḫḫ was also copied at Ugarit, where many fragments of about fifteen Ḫḫ series have been found (van Soldt 1995, 173). Eleven textual witnesses cover various parts of Ḫḫ XIII (201). The relatively large unilingual tablet RŠ 17.40 has around two hundred lines (201 n. 6). It was probably written during the last fifty years of Ugarit’s existence (174), between the late thirteenth and the early twelfth centuries BC and mentions the dromedary in the form [anš e.a]. ⸢ ab ⸣ .ba in nearly the same position as Ḫḫ XIII of the later periods.62 Numerous textual witnesses of Ḫḫ have also been found at Middle Babylonian Emar located on the middle Euphrates. The tablet Msk 7522 provides a few 61.  For the diachronic development of the lists, cf. Gantzert 2011 2:169. 62.  MSL 8.1:102. For details of the restoration and its reliability, cf. §3 n. 66; and Horowitz 2008, 601 n. 17. See P273335, rev. i 22.

Camels in the Biblical World and Adjacent Regions

71

Figure 3.31.  Emar, Msk 7522, lines 225′–234′ (Arnaud 1987, 112).

lines of Ḫḫ VIII that correspond well to a later, first-​millennium BC version of Ḫḫ XIII. The position of anš e.a.ab.ba after the “donkey for the wagon” (anš e. giš mar.gíd.da) and “second donkey in a yoke” (anš e.á.b al) meets expectations. The surface of the tablet has partly suffered from erosion and fragmentation, which erroneously led this author (Heide 2011, 353) to propose a reading different from Daniel Arnaud’s (1987, 112), but Michael Streck concluded that Arnaud’s original reading was correct (eSAD, s.v.; see below). Table 3.3 lists the readings from Emar according to Arnaud, juxtaposed to the readings of the canonical version of the first millennium BC; cf. also figure 3.31.63 Ba-​lu-​u (line 233′) is a Sumerian loanword meaning “spare donkey” (eSAD, s.v.), corresponding to te-​nu-​ú with the same meaning. The reading e!-ba-​lu64 (line 234′) was entered as a “new by-​form” of ibilu in the eSAD.65 It is tempting to see a connection between Akkadian ebalu and Syriac ‫ ܐܒܠܬܐ‬ʾebbālətā (§3.2.4.8). However, as ebalu is an early singular reading in a fragmental context, it is best to refrain from further conclusions. 63.  Arnaud 1985, 2:731. In the second column, the sign of repetition, MIN, is repeating a n š e all the way down from line 222′. 64.  In the last line, the third cuneiform sign from the right does not look like the expected 𒄿 i (as in i-​bi-​lu), but rather as 𒂊 e (e-​ba-​lu), cf. the similar sign in line 232′. Ebalu seems to represent a Middle-​Babylonian phonetic variant of ibilu; cf. the entry ibilu in the eSAD. The DCCLT proposes the reading 𒀉 á (á-​ba-​lu). Gantzert (2011 1:163) leaves the interpretation open and provides Arnaud’s reading in a footnote. 65.  The LL from Emar were not in a state of confusion, nor had the entry an š e.a. ab . b a been moved from Ḫḫ XIII to Ḫḫ XI, as Magee suggests (2014, 203). The dromedary appears in Ḫḫ VIII of Emar (corresponding to Ḫḫ XIII of the canonical lists of the first millennium BC), and dromedary hides appear in ura VII (corresponding to Ḫḫ XI of the canonical lists of the first millennium BC), which meets expectations.

72

Camels in the Biblical World

Another textual witness of Ḫḫ recovered at Shibaniba in the Tigridian region and dating to the reign of the Assyrian king Shalmaneser I (ca. 1263–1234 BC), UM 33-58-140, has a lacuna of about eight lines in the a n š e-​listing. According to the editio princeps, these lines should “be restored according to R[as] Š[amra] III, 20ff” (MSL 8.1:98)—that is, according to the Ugaritic textual witness RŠ 17.40 that mentions the “donkey of the Sealand.”66 This suggestion receives support from the Emar tablets. Remarkably, the text UM 33-58-140 from Shibaniba is almost word for word identical to the Ugarit version RŠ 17.40 and corresponds to what little is left of the Emar version. The tablet UM 33-58140 from Shibaniba is another textual witness of the same tradition (Veldhuis 2012, 21 n. 43; 2014, 321). Due to the scanty nature of these lists, further information is unfortunately missing. For the “donkey of the Sealand” (a n š e.a.a b.b a), the inscriptional evidence of the second millennium BC reveals that this designation for the one-​ humped camel was copied in Middle Babylonian Nippur (ca. 1360–1225 BC), in Ugarit and Emar (ca. late fourteenth century to 1185 BC), and probably in Shibaniba (thirteenth century).67 As such, the term anš e.a.ab.ba “donkey of the Sealand” is of Mesopotamian origin, considering the zoological and botanical terminologies in the lists from Emar and Ugarit (Civil 1995, 2306; cf. van Soldt 2011b). From the Sealand, knowledge of the one-​humped camel spread north to the middle Euphrates and adjacent regions.68 This Sumerian term was created in the scribal schools of Mesopotamia after Sumerian had been largely replaced by Akkadian, probably in a similar way as Latin was used in Western Europe as the common language of science, long after Latin had ceased to be a spoken language. 66.  The table below gives the readings of the tablets from Shibaniba (UM 33–58–140; MSL 8.1:98, lines rev. ii 2–4; P282737), from Ras Shamra (RŠ 17.40; MSL 8.1:102, lines rev. i 18–23; P273335), and from the canonical Ḫḫ list of the first millennium BC (MSL 8.1:51, lines 362–368). Preceding question marks indicate lines that are broken; cf. also J. J. Finkelstein 1953, 134. Shibaniba 2 3 4 ? ?

giš

⸢anše. ⸣gu.za [anš e. gišgigir.]⸢ ra⸣ [anš e. gišmar.gíd].da anše.bal.bal anše.a.ab.ba

? anše.gù.dé

Ras Shamra

Ḫḫ XIII

18 19 20 21 22

362 363 364 365 366 367 368

MIN. gu.za MIN.g iš gigir.ra MIN.gišmar.gíd.da [MIN].⸢ bal⸣.bal [MIN.a].⸢ ab⸣.ba giš

23 [MIN.xx.x]x

anše.gišgu.za anše.gišgigir anše.gišmar.gíd.da anše.á.bal anše.a.ab.ba vacat anše.gù.dé

See also http://​oracc​.museum​.upenn​.edu​/dcclt​/lexicallistsperiods​/middlebabylonian​/shibaniba. 67.  “The end of Emar can be dated to or soon after 1185” (Van de Mieroop 2004, 158; cf. Veldhuis 2014, 279). 68.  It is remarkable that Uruk, one of the major cities in southern Mesopotamia, yielded more terra-​cotta figurines of camels from the first millennium BC than any other place (Wrede 2003, 55).

Camels in the Biblical World and Adjacent Regions

73

There is also an u r a VII listing from Emar, corresponding to Ḫḫ XI of the later periods.69 It lists hides of wild and domesticated animals and provides the entry k u š a n š e.a.a b.b a “dromedary hide.” This item is listed after k u š. anš e “donkey hide,” kuš anš e.kur.ra “horse hide,” and kuš anš e.edin.n a “Asiatic wild ass (or hemione) hide,” and before ku š š aḫ “pig hide.” The ur a VII evidence from Emar follows the same principle as mentioned above: four taxa belonging to the Sumerian anš e clade are written in the same order as in first-​millennium BC Ḫḫ XIII. Another textual witness from Emar provides the same entries in the same sequence.70 Animal hides were basic commodities at all times. Administrative texts mention animal hides for tanning (CAD 17.3:230–31; R. Reed 1972, 87–89; Stol 1983; van Soldt 2015, 482). In third-​millennium BC Mesopotamia, skins were obtained from different species of equids (Zarins 2014, 220–22). During the Ur III period, animal skins and other by-​products, such as tendons and wool, were processed in a special craft center and stored until external demand called for their distribution (Tsouparopoulou 2013), suggesting that they were valued as objects of trade. By comparison, cut marks on camel bones from tenth-​century BC Timna (§3.5.1.3) suggest skinning, probably to acquire hides for manufacturing harnesses, bellows used in copper ore smelting, and receptacles for mining products (Grigson 2012a, 88, 94; cf. Gode 1958, 135). Assyrian campaign reports of the first millennium BC do not list camel hides as tribute, they only mention elephant hides, which are usually written k u š a m . s i.71 However, in the Persepolis Fortification Tablets, hides of camels (a n š e.a.a b.b a) are often mentioned beside those of sheep, goat, and cattle (PF 77). They were presumably used to produce parchments (Hallock 1969, 4). When the Persian king Cambyses II (530–522 BC) planned to march against Egypt, the king of the Arabs was willing to provide drinking water in the desert using camel skins as containers: “He took skins of camels [ἀσκοὺς καμήλων] and filled them with water and loaded them upon the backs of all the living camels that he had; and having so done he drove them to the waterless region and there awaited the army of Cambyses” (Herodotus, Historia 3.9). The usual meaning of the Greek term ἀσκός is “skin made into a bag” (LSJ, s.v. “ἀσκός,” 69.  Arnaud 1987, 91, line 67; 1985, 264. Textual witness Msk 74105a; P271483; lines obv. ii 5–9. Gantzert 2011, 1:139. 70.  Arnaud 1987, 571, line obv. ii 10. Textual witness Msk 74247; P271995; Gantzert 2011 1:130. Another badly damaged textual witness, Msk 74128, breaks off after listing k u š [a n š e ] “donkey hide,” k u š a n š e.[ k u r.r a ] “horse hide,” and k u š a n š e . [ e d i n . n a ] “wild ass hide,” but from the stereotypical order of the two textual witnesses Msk 74247 and Msk 74105a, it is virtually certain that Msk 74128 would have continued with kuš anše.a.ab.ba “dromedary hide.” The same applies to another fragment from Emar published by Watanabe (1987) that breaks off after “horse hide.” 71.  The Judaean king Hezekiah had to procure ivory and elephant hides through trade (Holladay 2006, 314) as part of tribute payments for his Assyrian overlord Sennacherib (Cogan 2000).

74

Camels in the Biblical World Figure 3.32. (left)  Tell Alalakh, Tablet 269:59 (Wiseman 1953). Figure 3.33. (right)  Tell Alalakh, Tablet 269:59, corrected to 1 šà.gal anšegam*. mal* (Wiseman 1959).

258). Herodotus’s report implies that manufacturing camel skins into containers for transporting water may have been a widespread practice. Camel hides are also mentioned in the later Palmyrene inscriptions (gldyʾ dy gmly[ʾ], DNWSI, 223, 531). Animal hides were primarily used to store and carry wine, water, and other liquids, but could also be turned into carpets or modified into buckets, straps, belts, and sandals (Jabbur 1995, 219). According to Pliny (Naturalis historia 12.68), Indian spices were marketed in bottles made of camel or rhinoceros hides. 3.2.4.3.2. Fodder for Camels in Tell Alalakh? In 1953, Donald J. Wiseman published drawings of cuneiform inscriptions from Tell Alalakh, located about 110 km northeast of Ugarit, and dating to the fifteenth century BC. Wiseman copied line 59 of tablet no. 269 (1953, 86; pl. 32), an animal ration list, as depicted in figure 3.32. The last two signs of line 59 are not easily decipherable. Some years later, Wiseman collated the tablets afresh and presented a transliteration of the Ala­ lakh texts (Wiseman 1959, 29), correcting the last two cuneiform signs in line 59 to the reading GAM*.MAL* (33; fig. 3.33), so that line 59 presumably reads “one [measure of] fodder—camel.” Albrecht Goetze (1959, 37) commented that “this early occurrence of camels, missing in CAD, to be fed and therefore domesticated, is worthy of special note.” To this reading, which in standard cuneiform script is 𒁹 𒊮 𒃲 𒀲 𒃵 𒂷, Lambert objected that feeding rations of fodder to camels is “too bizarre.”72 More specifically, Lambert argued that the fourth sign is not the typical sign for a n š e, while the other a n š e-​signs in the immediate context of the same tablet look regular. Together with the two following diagonal strokes, the fourth sign 72.  “The whole idea of feeding rations of fodder to camels in any area or period is something too bizarre to need further consideration” (Lambert 1960b, 43). In the Persepolis Fortification Tablets, camels receive flour (PF 1418, 1711, 1786, 1787), barley or grain (PF 1957), and wine (PF 1845) on a regular basis (Hallock 1969, 50; Hinz and Koch 1987, 586, 634; NN 2265:16 in Henkelman 2017, 206). Likewise, an Aramaic text from the period of Alexander the Great mentions fodder rations for camels (Khalili C3:22; Naveh and Shaked 2012, 195), as do likewise the demotic texts from Biʾr Samūt (Chaufray 2020). Food rations given to cameleers may at least have included fodder for their animals. Cf. also NN 0431, where the food rations for cameleers and camels are detailed (Henkelman 2017, 58, 187–89).

Camels in the Biblical World and Adjacent Regions

75

should be read as dàra. The remaining sign according to figure 3.32 should be read as maš 𒈦, so that the text is interpreted as 1 š à.gal dàra.maš 𒁹 𒊮 𒃲 𒅁 𒈦 “one [measure of] fodder—stag” (Lambert 1960b, 42). Instead of Lambert’s reading d à r a.m a š “stag,” Wolfram von Soden suggested the reading 𒀲 𒃵 𒉣 ANŠE.GÚR.NUN “mule” (AHw 1:499), which not only respects as much as possible the corrected reading of Wiseman (fig. 3.33), but also proposes an animal that fits better into the general context (Zeeb 2001, 396). About Wiseman’s reading anšeg a m*.m a l*, an additional observation of Lambert settles the question. In this reading, the last two signs embody pseudoideograms that employ Sumerian in a stereotypical form, disregarding the rules of good Akkadian grammar (Schaudig 2001, 102). Pseudoideograms are not attested in Assyrian documents before the first millennium BC. Moreover, Wiseman’s reading presupposes the Semitic root gml with the meaning “camel,” which is not attested in Akkadian texts before the Neo-​Assyrian period.73 In sum, camels have to be excluded from the list of species to which fodder should be provided. It is nevertheless noteworthy that four unilingual Sumerian textual witnesses of lexical lists are known from Alalakh (ca. 1300 BC), all belonging to the thematic series Ḫḫ (Lauinger 2005). They are related to lexical lists from nearby Ugarit and Emar. Although no textual witness of u r a VIII or Ḫḫ XIII respectively from Alalakh survived, it is reasonable to suggest that animal lists similar to those known from Ugarit and Emar (§3.2.4.3.1) were also copied in Alalakh. 3.2.4.3.3. Domestication Status of the “Donkey of the Sealand” The available textual witnesses do not specify the camel’s domestication status. A nš e.a.ab.ba, therefore, although part of the anš e-​section of ura VII and Ḫḫ XIII that itemize domesticated animals, may have been regarded as a wild species in the oldest textual witnesses from Nippur, Ugarit, and Emar. In the classification of the lexical lists, the anš e-​section is missing from Ḫḫ XIV, the list of wild animals. The presence of anš e.a.ab.ba in the ura VII or Ḫḫ XIII series could therefore have been caused by linguistic considerations, as there are in fact some wild taxa in the ura VII or Ḫḫ XIII series for this very reason. However, among nearly four hundred entries of the canonical version of the first millennium BC, wild animals comprise only, as far as we know, the aurochs (am = ri-​i-[mu], MSL 8.1:41, 281), the European bison (gu 4 .alim = ku-​sa-​rik-​ku, MSL 8.1:45, 310), and the Asiatic wild ass, or hemione, Equus hemionus (anše.edin. na = sír-​ri-​mu, MSL 8.1:52, 374). 73.  Unfortunately, Lambert’s conclusions are sometimes ignored in favor of Wiseman’s, and sometimes, Lambert’s article is cited as if Wiseman’s conclusion were actually shared by Lambert (I. Köhler 1981, 98; Bulliet 1975, 64; Herles 2010, 130).

76

Camels in the Biblical World

The aurochs (Waetzold 2007, 375) also features in Ḫ ḫ XIV (a m = ri-​i-​mu, MSL 8.2:10, 48), where it heads the am-​section (§3.2.4.1). The additional entry for the aurochs in Ḫ ḫ XIII comes after the first entry for domestic cattle (gud/ g u 4 = al-​pi, MSL 8.1:41, 280), and before the bull-​calf (g u 4.á b = mi-​i-​rù) and different types of oxen and cows (MSL 8.1:41, 282–332). The reason for the unexpected position of the additional entry has to do with the peculiarities of the cuneiform script (Wagensonner 2010, 286). In terms of paleography, the sign for am “wild cattle” or “aurochs” is based on the combination of the signs for g u d/g u 4 (𒄞) “ox” and k u r (𒆳) “mountain,” which results in the ligature GUD×KUR (𒄠). GUD×KUR, then, is the paleographic origin of am. For this reason, the entry a m (𒄠) was placed immediately after the entry g u 4 (𒄞). The aurochs is regarded as the ancestor of all domestic cattle in Western Asia, Europe, and Africa. For taurine cattle, the Euphrates River basin is a region of early domestication (Peters et al. 1999; Helmer et al. 2005).74 From there, the domestic form was translocated to Europe, the Levant, Africa, and Central Asia. Throughout the native range of the aurochs, which extended across Eurasia and northern Africa, introgression with introduced domestic cattle took place. As such, backcrossing between aurochs and domestic cattle may have continued into the second millennium BC.75 The European bison also features in Ḫ ḫ XIV as alim (MSL 8.2:18, line 144b), but the writing gu 4 .alim marked it in addition as a bovid. Being based on the entry gud/gu 4, it was placed in the appropriate gu 4-entry of Ḫ ḫ XIII (cf. Waetzold 2007, 387). Furthermore, the Asiatic wild ass or hemione (a n š e . e d i n . n a) was integrated into the anš e-​section of Ḫ ḫ XIII because Ḫ ḫ XIV has no anš e-​section. Occasionally, Asiatic wild asses were captured, fed with grain, and crossbred with domestic donkeys. The hybrid was called anše.kunga. Most interestingly, Asiatic wild asses apparently were not domesticated.76 The inclusion of some wild animals in Ḫ ḫ XIII may raise suspicions that (at least in the early LL) there were additional, yet undetected, wild animals 74.  Indicine cattle (zebu) descended from aurochsen that inhabited India (Meadow 1978). 75.  Heimpel (1968, 79) points to the Sumerian terms áb a am “cow which originates from the aurochs,” gu 4 a am “cattle which originates from the aurochs,” and similar expressions (cf. Waetzold 2007). See also Postgate 1992, 162; and Sallaberger 1993, 116, for a list of crossbred animals offered to the gods from the Ur III period. For crossbreeding the aurochs with domesticated cattle outside of Mesopotamia, see Götherström et al. 2005. 76.  During the third and second millennia BC, hemiones were captured with nets and in pits, and crossbred with domestic asses. See Postgate 1986; 1992, 166; cf. Maekawa 1979; Clutton-​Brock 1986, 213; 1999, 122–27; Heimpel 1990; von den Driesch and Raulwing 2004, 494–96; Grigson 2012b, 189. More recent research has confirmed the possibility of identifying these hybrids: Michel 2004; Becker 2008a, 82; Weber 2008, 2017; Zarins 2014, 176, 217–19; Dolce 2014; P. Mitchell 2018, 89. Hybrids written anše.kunga2, anše.BAR×AN, anše.kunga appear already in the economic texts from Shuruppak (modern Fara, ca. fifty kilometers south of Nippur) of the Early Dynastic period (ePSD2, s.v.; Steible and Yıldız 2015, 4–5).

Camels in the Biblical World and Adjacent Regions

77

included, such as anš e.a.ab.ba, the dromedary (Lambert 1960b, 43; Weippert 1967, 107; Mitchell 2018, 184 n. 161). However, there are several facts that sit at odds with these considerations. 1. Sumerian anše.a.ab.ba is one of the most frequently used camel terms of the Neo-​Assyrian period (ca. 900–600 BC). It has always been equaled with the Akkadian terms ibilu or gammalu (cf. §3.2.4.8) and has never been identified as a wild animal in the bilingual lexical lists or in any other literature. Although it is conceivable that ibilu may have been used for wild dromedary herds prior to the knowledge of the two-​humped and one-​humped domestic species, there is no evidence that the terms ibilu or gammalu were ever used for wild camels either in Akkadian or in any other contemporaneous language (§§3.3.4 and 3.3.5). 2. On the other hand, the few wild taxa mentioned in Ḫḫ XIII are explicitly identified as such. A n š e . e d i n . n a was assigned to serrēmu “wild ass,” and Akkadian literature that employed the respective Sumerogram unambiguously referred to the species in question (AHw 2:1038; CAD 15:318–19). A Middle Babylonian exercise list, CBS 8538 (P263338), identifies anš e.edin.na as a-​ra-​du (line 14), which reflects ʿrd, the common West-​Semitic term for the wild ass (SED 2 no. 37). The identification is corroborated by the synonym list Malku = šarru5, which equals serrēmu and (ḫ)aradu.77 Likewise, a m was assigned to rīmu, the aurochs (AHw 2:986; CAD 14:359–63), and g u 4 . a l i m to kusarikku, the European bison (AHw 1:514; CAD 8:584; cf. Waetzold 2007, 375). These designations consistently refer to wild taxa. 3. Typical lists of large wild species, except for the Ḫḫ lists, include the aurochs, brown bear, cheetah, elephant, striped hyena, ibex, leopard, lion, the ostrich, and various species of deer (cf. CAD 1:225; Streck 2011), as well as the wild boar (CAD 3:38), lacking any (wild) camel. 4. There is no Sumerian text that sees a n š e.a.a b.b a as a wild dromedary. The Mesopotamian scribes differentiated between the domesticated sheep (udu) and its wild relative (udu.idim), between domestic cattle (gu4), aurochs (a m), and bison (g u 4 . a l i m), between the donkey (a n š e) and the Asiatic wild ass (anše.edin.na), as well as between the domestic pig (šáḫ) and the wild boar (š áḫ.ĝiš.g i). But for anš e.a.ab.ba, no wild congener is mentioned. 5. Moreover, during the Middle Babylonian period, when the term anše.a.ab. b a came into use, the population of wild dromedaries was already on the decline (cf. §3.3.1.1). If the wild form of the dromedary would be known at all, anš e.a.ab.ba would be expected to have come into use during the Bronze Age. However, the anš e clade of Old Babylonian lexical lists is consistently devoid of anš e.a.ab.ba.78 77.  See http://​oracc​.museum​.upenn​.edu​/dcclt​/Q000315​/score​?sb​.Q000315​.46. 78.  The following textual witnesses of the LL from the Old Babylonian period have the an š e-​ section, but do not include the anše.a.ab.ba: P228700 (UM 29-16-031), lines rev. i 22–27; P228399

78

Camels in the Biblical World

6. The dromedary’s peculiar name, a n š e.a.a b.b a “donkey of the Sealand,” does not point to the natural habitat of the wild dromedary in southeast Arabia, but to the saline marshlands of southern Mesopotamia and northeastern Arabia bordering the Persian Gulf (CAD 18:155). Arguably, the most likely explanation for this is that Mesopotamian scribes did not gain knowledge of one-humped camels through contacts with camel pastoralists inhabiting the Arabian Peninsula, but from exchange with coastal southern Mesopotamia called “Sealand” by the middle of the second millennium BC (§3.2.4.3). 7. Outside of the lexical lists, a n š e.a.a b.b a shows up first in the tribute lists of Shalmaneser III around 829 BC (Grayson 1996, no. A.0.102.87). On the famous Black Obelisk they are mentioned as anš e.a.ab.ba.meš šá šu-​na-​a ṣe-​ ri-​ši-​na “donkeys-​of-​the-​Sealand with their two backs.” In the accompanying panel, they are identified as Bactrian camels. They show some harness and are led by a rope and controlled by a stick. The addition “with two humps” strongly suggests that anš e.a.ab.ba was commonly perceived as a one-​humped camel, which seems corroborated by the general use of this term for the dromedary during the first millennium BC (see nos. 8 and 9 below). This designation in turn implies that the term anš e.a.ab.ba had become well established from about the thirteenth century BC, when its first use is attested in lexical lists, until the ninth century BC. Arguably, by that time, the term anš e.a.ab.ba had superseded the earlier terms am.s i.kur.ra and am.s i.ḫar.ra.an (§3.2.4.1.1). 8. By the first millennium BC, a n š e.a.a b.b a was predominantly in use for the dromedary, as demonstrated by the contents of letters, campaign reports, and administrative documents (§3.2.4.11). Therefore, it is highly unlikely that it had been in use for the wild dromedary before. As Sumerian was already a dead language by the first millennium BC, Sumerograms were given Akkadian readings. From the beginning of the first millennium BC onward, anš e.a.ab.ba was usually read as gammalu, as the bilingual lists, the practical vocabularies (§3.2.4.3), campaign reports (table 3.4), and administrative texts suggest. 9. Until the Persian period, the term anš e.a.ab.ba “donkey of the Sealand” occurs frequently in Akkadian campaign reports. As can be deduced from table 3.4, it was used to describe tribute camels from Southwest Asia, mainly from Arabs, as opposed to udru camels, originating from eastern regions, such as the Zagros Mountains and the Iranian Plateau. Sargon II used anš e.a.ab.ba as pack animals but referred to the tribute of the Medes as udru camels. During the time of Esarhaddon (seventh century BC), two-​humped camels were dubbed 2 anš e.a.ab.ba ša 2-a za-​kar-​ru-​u-​ni “two anš e.a.ab.ba that are called two-[humped]” (SAA 6 no. 241; cf. §3 n. 102), again revealing that anš e.a.ab. ba was by default used for the domestic one-​humped camel. (N 5173), lines 1–5; P227697 (Chiera 1929: no. 57), lines rev. i 1′–9′; P229116 (Chiera 1929: no. 256). lines 7′–10′; P235796 (YBC 4679), lines rev. iii 15–35.

Camels in the Biblical World and Adjacent Regions

79

3.2.4.3.4. The “Donkey of the Sealand” in bilingual literature for scribal education Several intriguing animals appear in a bilingual proverb collection from Nippur, most likely from the Middle Babylonian period. In segment A, line 4 of tablet N 3395 (Alster 1997 1:289), which starts a new proverb, one notices the “donkey of Anšan” (di.bi.id an.ša4.anki.na = i-​me-​er An-​ša-​ni-[im]). This expression has been interpreted as referring to the camel, probably due to its similarity with the phrase “donkey of the Sealand.”79 Furthermore, line 7 of the same segment produced another expression for the “elephant of the mountain.” It is written til. lu.ug sa 12 .ti.umki, and its Akkadian translation is given as pi-​i-​ir80 ša-​ad-​di-[im] “mountain elephant.” Sumerian til.lu.ug is known as an alternative writing of am.si (Alster 1997 2:461; cf. ePSD2, s.v.). Pi-​i-​lu kur.i, or pi-​i-​lu šá-​di-i, “mountain elephant,” is known from the bilingual lexical lists of the first millennium BC, being assigned to am.si.kur.ra.81 The proverb then seems to read (segment A, lines 4–7), “The donkey of Anšan (camel? hybrid?), the bear of Marḫaši, the cat of Meluḫḫa, the mountain elephant (camel?), cut off [šab.šab.e and i-ḫa-​ra-[ṣu] respectively] the Euphrates poplars as if they were leeks.” The proverb plays with unusual Sumerian animal names (Alster 1997 2:461), probably for scribal exercises (cf. Veldhuis 2014, 209–12; Crisostomo 2019, 123–24) and progresses from west to east. Anshan is a city in ancient Elam, situated about two hundred kilometers east of the Sealand. Marḫashi has to be located east of Elam (Steinkeller 1982, 248), and Meluḫḫa was the name by which Mesopotamian scribes identified the Indus Valley or the Harappan civilization (Potts 2016, 114). Unfortunately, it is impossible to be more specific about the “donkey of Anshan,” so we have to live with this interpretation until further evidence clarifies the nature of the di.bi.id an.ša4.anki.na and the i-​me-​er An-​ša-​ni-[im] respectively. Likewise, the identification of the “mountain elephant” with the camel in this poem should be taken cum grano salis; the context (“cut off the Euphrates poplar”) rather suggests the Syrian elephant (cf. Caubet and Poplin 2010; Pfälzner 2013). A literary text from Neo-​Assyrian times refers to the camel as “the ghost of Tiamat,” or “the ghost of the Sea.”82 This expression serves as a wordplay. The association between Tiamat and the camel is obvious, because Tiamat, the goddess of the ocean, and the “donkey of the Sealand,” share the same Sumerian expression a.ab.ba (Niederreiter 2008, 64). The context of KAR 307 is about the mythological fight between Bel, who is also known as Marduk, and Tiamat, 79.  Civil 1998, 11 n. 6; Steinkeller 2009, 417 n. 14. Cf. Lambert 1960a, 273; Alster 1997 1:288–90; and the eTCSL translation t.6.2.1; P231662. 80.  On the Sumerian writing, and the development from pīru to pīlu, see CAD 12:418; EDA no. P0323. 81.  See table 3.1 n. a. See also Weiher 1988, 110; and P274485. 82.  CAD 18:146, 157; KAR 307 [VAT 8917] = SAA 3 no. 39, rev. 13–16 (Livingstone 1989); P336234.

80

Camels in the Biblical World

alluding to the famous creation poem Enuma Elish: “The camel is the ghost of Tiamat. Bel defeated her. Bel cut off her horns, clove her feet and docked her tail. Bel vanquished her and displayed her to mankind, lest she be forgotten. Its name is tamriqātu, as it is said among the people: ētamar qātāia [“He learned from my example”].” For the implications of the latter part of this etymological explanation, see §3.2.4.10, no. 13. There is also a Late Babylonian omen text that has the Sumerian entry sal anše anše.a.ab.ba ù.tu “if a donkey-​mare gives birth to a donkey of the Sealand” (Falkenstein 1931: no. 124, rev. 9; CAD 5:36; 7:2). 3.2.4.4. The Camel in Cuneiform Texts from Mari, Amarna, and Ugarit? During the second millennium BC, the donkey served as the preferred pack animal for distant trade on soils that were hard-​surfaced, provided sufficient water was available. “Donkeys are tough desert-​adapted animals, and their ability to carry heavy loads through arid lands enabled pastoralists to move farther and more frequently and to transport their households with their herds” (Rossel et al. 2008, 3715). Furthermore, special donkey burials witness to the high esteem of these animals throughout the ancient Near East and in Egypt.83 Donkeys are the preferred transport animals in the letters from the royal archives of Middle Bronze Age Mari (nineteenth to eighteenth centuries BC) on the Euphrates. During the hot season, herders would pasture their sheep near the river valleys, close to human habitation. During the cold season, the steppe still provided sufficient vegetation. It seems that sedentary farmers and shepherds active in transhumance constituted a dimorphic society at Mari (cf. Streck 2002, 160–67), although it is perhaps more correct to consider both groups as farmers participating in husbandry (Rosen and Lehmann 2010, 167). The seasonal transhumance practiced by the pastoralists was essential to the survival of their caprine flocks (Streck 2014b). These pastoralists thus lived virtually a sedentary life in villages during summer, and a mobile lifestyle exploiting the steppe during winter (Van de Mieroop 2004, 82). In the Mari letters that document such livestock rounds (Heimpel 2003, 29–36), the camel is never mentioned (Streck 2002, 172; Charpin 2003, 42). The camel is nonetheless known from contemporaneous lexical lists (§3.2.4.1.1) and from poetic literature (§3.2.4.1.2). The poetry addressing Dumuzi, the divine mother sheep and lord of shepherds and flocks, together with the mention of camel (am.si.ḫar.ra.an) and goat milk, portrays a context of husbandry that differs from the picture emerging from the Mari texts. The 83.  Rossel et al. 2008; Way 2011, 103–59; Lönnqvist 2014; Shai et al. 2016; Sapir-​Hen, Gadot, and Lipschits 2017; Horwitz, Master, and Motro 2017; Greenfield et al. 2018; P. Mitchell 2018, 95–100; Beeri et al. 2020.

Camels in the Biblical World and Adjacent Regions

81

inhabitants of Mari were predominantly small livestock breeders, focusing on secondary products such as wool and milk as well as meat and fat. These circumstances suggest that the letters from Mari simply did not mention camels because of their minor role in the city’s economy, where donkeys or humans provided sufficient means of transport (Durand 2018; cf. Heimpel 2003, 506). Moreover, the horse was still considered an inappropriate mount at that time. It is noteworthy that the Babylonian king Hammurabi compiled a law collection, now famous as the Laws of Hammurabi, and inscribed it on multiple copies that were placed in major cities of his realm. Textual witnesses that provide all or part of his laws cover a time period ranging from the eighteenth century BC until the middle of the first millennium BC (Roth 2000, 335–36). In the paragraphs dealing with property and the use of animals, cattle, donkeys, pigs, and sheep are counted as common livestock, while camels and horses are not mentioned at all (Codex Hammurabi §§6–8, 57–58, 224–25, 241, 244–51, 255–56, 258, 261–70). By the early fourteenth century BC, however, horses already stood in high esteem and were counted among the blessings of the royal families, as illustrated by the royal correspondence known as the Amarna letters (EA 1–2; 9–11, etc.). Donkeys served as the common means of transport. Conversely, camels were mostly used in overland trade and did not belong to the pack- and riding animals of the royal household and its staff during the Amarna period. Donkeys, on the other hand, may be worthy of a search operation (EA 96; cf. 1 Sam 9:3–5), and “taking ox or donkey” was proverbial for being unfaithful (EA 280; cf. 1 Sam 12:3). The people inhabiting in the Canaanite cities of the Amarna period relied on donkeys for transportation (cf. also Judg 5:10; 10:4; 12:14). Of interest, however, is the fact that the biblical books just mentioned in connection with donkeys, Judges and Samuel, referring to conditions of roughly the twelfth to eleventh centuries BC, mention camels as the transport animals of the sons of the east (Judg 6), and as the riding mounts of the Amalekites (1 Sam 30:17). However, neither the Amalekites, nor the “sons of the east,” nor their camels, show up in the Amarna letters. The Aḫlamû mentioned in EA 200 were mobile pastoralists (Herles 2007; Younger 2016, 80–88) and seem to have raided a Babylonian caravan (Moran 1992, 277), but the Amarna correspondence is silent about any further details. It thus seems that the Amarna letters are an unproductive source when it comes to camels. In contrast, lexical lists (Ḫḫ) dating almost to the same period mention more than one camel species (§§3.2.4.1.1 and §3.2.4.3.1). Despite the fact that in Ugaritic cuneiform texts in the alphabetic tradition inscriptional evidence for the dromedary (ỉbl or gml) or the udru camel (ủdr) is lacking, the root ʾbl was nevertheless used in the personal name (PN) Ibln.84 84.  DUL3 9–10. The occurrence of ủdr “[Iranian] camel” is very doubtful (DUL3 22). The root gml is not attested with the meaning “camel” in Ugaritic (DUL3 297). The animal terms bdn (Watson 2006, 447 n. 22) and ʿtk (454) are of uncertain etymology, hardly referring to camels.

82

Camels in the Biblical World

This personal name appears in three different lists.85 While it was explained earlier as perhaps derived from the geographic name Ebla (Gröndahl 1967, 87), Michael Astour had already in 1964 pointed tentatively to the connection of Ibln to Akkadian ibilu “camel; dromedary” (245 n. 61). Furthermore, Pelio Fronzaroli argued that there is no proof that Ibln refers to the royal city of Ebla, considering that in the wake of the culturally disruptive collapse characterizing the transition from the Late Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age, only a small village was left. Moreover, for Ibln, there seems to be no evidence for “the existence of a corresponding word in Ugaritic, nor more generally in the Semitic languages of the Syro-​Palestinian urban area. . . . As in the case of ’Obil, the name of an Ishmaelite superintendent to king David’s dromedaries (I Chr. xxvii. 30), one must rather think of a personal name coming from nomad regions; in that area, moreover, ibln finds an exact correspondence in ʾbln (attested as a personal name in Safaitic and Qatabanian).”86 The Ugaritic name Ibln was also investigated by Wilfred G. E. Watson (1990b, 244). Initially, Watson, as well as DUL2 (8), referred to Ibln as having an uncertain etymology (cf. DUL3 9–10). Later on, Watson argued that Ibln should be interpreted as a personal name with the etymology ʾbl “dromedary” (2006, 447; 2007, 108). According to us, however, it is more appropriate to understand ʾbl simply as “camel.” Thus, besides Ubūlu (§3.2.4.8), Ibln is another ʾbl-based term that served as a proper name. As personal names are often archaic or may have traveled from another language into Ugaritic, Ibln, as an animal name, merely points to the presence or at least awareness of camels being used in the wider region toward the end of the second millennium BC. In addition, the Sumerian lexical list RŠ 17.40 from Ugarit that dates to the same period has the entry a n š e . a . a b . b a (§3.2.4.3.1). It is noteworthy that Ibln most likely means “camel,” having the same meaning as in Akkadian, ASA (§3.3.5), and in some ANA personal names (§3.3.4), in contrast to ANA and CA texts that understand ʾbl as “camel herd.” After all, it seems that during the second millennium BC, cameleers and their animals were of no concern to the administrative centers in Mari and in the northern Levant, as there is only very limited evidence for camels in that region at that time. However, it must be emphasized that this conclusion is based on a tiny fraction of the correspondence of the second millennium BC that was found at random, thus providing only a limited insight into ancient Near Eastern societies and their use of animals. In other words, “much of what we know or think to know depends on textual finds from short periods and from a small number of sites—with large blanks in between” (Veldhuis 2017, 364). 85.  KTU 4.35: I 18; 4.311:10; 4.545: II 7. 86.  Fronzaroli 1977, 154–55 n. 5; cf. Pardee 1989–1990, 391; Hayajneh 1998, 62. See OCIANA and DASI.

Camels in the Biblical World and Adjacent Regions

83

3.2.4.5. Is There a Diachronic Development of Sumerian Camel Terms? It is usually stated that the two Sumerian designations for the camel used during the Old Babylonian period, am.s i.ḫar.ra.an and am.s i.kur.ra, are synonymous (ePSD2 s.v.). In addition, both expressions seem to be part of a diachronic development. A m.s i.ḫar.ra.an, the “elephant of the caravan,” was primarily used in transport, as suggested by its name. In addition, its milk was cherished (§3.2.4.1.2). Herders of the a m . s i . ḫ a r. r a . a n probably observed that these camels preferred a particular species of food plants, the ú am.si.ḫar.r a.na plant (Landsberger 1934, 92 n. 3; AHw 2:871; CAD 12:451–52). Moreover, its name was common enough to be alluded to in the canal name dI7. am.si.ḪAR (Westenholz 1975, 76) and to be assigned to the demon name ilulāya (Sjöberg 1996, 231). However, it seems that during or after the Old Babylonian period, the ancient camel term am.si.ḫar.ra.an gradually gave way to the expression am.si.kur. ra “elephant of the mountain”(§3.2.4.1.1). The former is absent from lexical lists of the Middle Babylonian period (ePSD s.v.), which prefer the same order as the common Old Babylonian ura III lists (§3 n. 37). It is only in the Neo-Assyrian period that both terms regularly appear together (table 3.1). By comparison, during the Old Babylonian period, the old term for the horse, anše s í.s í, gave way to anš e.kur.ra “donkey of the mountain” (Weszeli 2004, 469). In the process of rearranging the scribal education, Old Babylonian scribes introduced many lexical novelties (Veldhuis 2014, 143). “Perhaps complex geographical, political, and ecological conditions created a changing vocabulary that is not adequately reflected in the simple lexical changes” (Zarins 2014, 170). Thus, from the Old Babylonian period onward, the Sumerian language knows of two large taxa carrying the designation k u r “mountain” that appear introduced to Western Asia from the mountainous regions bordering Mesopotamia. 3.2.4.6. Camel Terms in Campaign Reports of the Iron Age Besides the Sumerogram anše.a.ab.ba “donkey of the Sealand,” created in the second millennium BC (§3.2.4.3), the Akkadian term gammalu prevails in texts of the first millennium BC (§3.2.4.8). Sometimes, scribes took care to differentiate the camels they registered as (a)naqātu “she-​camels” and bakkarū “camel calves” (§3.2.4.9). In addition, from the last Middle Assyrian and the earliest Neo-​Assyrian campaign reports onward, the Iranian loanwords udru “camel” and its possible equivalent tamru came into use (§3.2.4.10). Two-​humped animals were considered a special kind of camel (§3.2.4.7). As already mentioned, the usual Akkadian interpretation of anše.a.ab.ba in the first millennium BC was gammalu. This is reflected by the increasing replacement of a n š e . a . a b . b a by gammalu in the ninth to seventh centuries BC (see

84

Camels in the Biblical World

above), and by the alteration between anš e.a.ab.ba, gam.mal, and gammalu in some inscriptions (§3.2.4.8). Nevertheless, the Sumerogram for the “donkey of the Sealand,” anš e.a.ab.ba, known already in Ḫḫ exercise tablets dated to 1400–1100 BC, remained in use until the Persian period. 3.2.4.7. Neo-​Assyrian Terms for Two-​Humped Camels Based on the foregoing considerations, it can be assumed that at the turn of the second to the first millennium BC, domestic one-​humped camels had become an increasingly common sight. The Sumerian term anš e.a.ab.ba became the standard written designation for camels, while the Sumerian camel names a m . s i . ḫar.ra.an “elephant of the caravan” and am.si.kur.ra “elephant of the mountain” became confined to lexical lists (§3.2.4.1). In the latter, all three Sumerian terms were assigned to ibilu “camel” (§3.2.4.8). To unambiguously refer to two-​ humped camels, however, Neo-​Assyrian scribes deliberately used basic camel terms (a n š e . a . a b . b a , udru, or tamru) and added typical features characterizing its habitus, most prominently the species’ number of humps. Correspondingly, the scribes of Shalmaneser III (ca. 858–824 BC) specified two-​humped camels as šá šu-u​ n-n​ a-a​ gu-g​ a-l​ i-p​ e-​ši-​na “whose humps are two” or šá šu-​na-​a ṣe-​ri-​ši-​na “whose backs are two,” or in other similar terms. Their value is emphasized, and they find mention together with horses (Grayson 1996, no. A.0.102.1:39). On the Kurkh monolith, two-​humped camels are listed with horses, oxen, sheep, and wine (2: i 28; 2: ii 62; cf. §3.2.4.6, table 3.4). The Black Obelisk of the same Assyrian king details the tribute of camels from Muṣri and likewise the tribute from Sua the Gilzanean as, ‟donkeys-​of-​the-​Sealand whose backs are two” (a n š e . a . a b . b a . m e š šá šu-​na-​a ṣe-​ri-​ši-​na, A.0.102.87). The animals are highlighted by their prominent position heading the tribute list from Muṣri: “two-​humped camels, a water buffalo, a rhinoceros, an antelope, female elephants, female monkeys, (and) apes” (A.0.102.89). In the carved scene from Gilzanu, they are depicted in the same way as the camels from Muṣri. They figure after horses in the inscription and on the engraved panel. It seems that Bactrian camels were highly valued in the ninth century BC, but neither perceived as wild nor necessarily as exotic despite being listed together with wild beasts on Shalmanesar III’s Black Obelisk (cf. Kuhrt 1999, 180). The two camels, being a tribute from Muṣri, are carved on a separate panel of the Black Obelisk and detailed properly. They are set apart from the wild, exotic, and partly caricatural animals that follow, which are depicted either unbridled (water buffalo, rhinoceros, antelope), or controlled by thick ropes or chains (elephant, monkeys, apes). Both camels carry some harness around the neck. The first camel is led single-​handed, using a short cord; the second camel is controlled by a stick. The camels are being led in a similar manner as the dromedary,

udru with their two humps

tribute from Asû the Gilzānean “camelry” of Gindibu the Arab tribute from Ḫargu . . . and Gilzānu

7 ud-​ra-​te šá 2 gu-​un-​gu-​li-​pi-​ši-​na

1 l im

ú-​du-​rimeš šá šu-​un-​na gu-​ga-​li-​pe-​ši-​na a nš e.a.ab.ba . me š šá šu-​na-​a ṣe-​ri-​ši-​na a n še.a.a b.b a.m eš šá šu-​na-​a ṣe-​ri-​ši-​na anše ud-​ra-​a-​ti ša 2.ta .à m iš-​qu-​bé(e)-ti šaknā

booty from the people of Mēsu

tribute from Muṣri

tribute from Sūa the Gilzānean

1000 dcamels

tribute from Asû the Gilzānean

2 ud-​ra-​a-​te ša 2 gu-​un-​gu-​li-​pi

A.0.102.87 (Black Obelisk) A.0.102.89 (Black Obelisk) Shamshi-​Adad V 823–811 BC A.0.103.1: ii 56

female udru with their two backs

tribute from Asû the Gilzānean

ta-​ma-​ra-​te šá šu-​un-​na ṣe-​ri-​ši-​na

gam-​ma-​lu

female udru

tribute from Ḫaiānu of Ḫindānu

ud-​ra-​a-​te

anše

30 female udru

tribute from Amme-​alaba of Ḫindānu

30 ud-​ra-​te

donkeys-​of-​the-​Sealand with their two backs donkeys-​of-​the-​Sealand with their two backs female dudru provided with 2 hunches

7 fem. udru with their 2 humps

2 female udru with 2 humps

female udru

bought from merchant for breeding

ud-​ra-​a-​temeš

verbal translation

Assur-​bel-​kala 1073–1056 BC A.0.89.7: iv 26–27 Tukulti-​Ninurta II 890 BC . . . A.0.100.5: 78 Assurnasirpal II 883 BC . . . A.0.101.1: 97 Shalmaneser III 858 BC . . . A.0.102.1: 39 A.0.102.2: i 28 (Kurkh monolith) A.0.102.2: ii 62 (Kurkh monolith) A.0.102.2: ii 94 (Kurkh monolith) A.0.102.28: 18

origin

written term

Assyrian kinga

Table 3.4.  Camel terms in annals, tribute lists, and campaign reports.

Camels in the Biblical World and Adjacent Regions 85

an š e.a.ab.ba

Urartian king Rusa I taught his people how to use the camel

tribute of animals that are “native of their [Medes] land”

ud-​re i-​lit-​ti k u r-šu-​nu

anše

a nš e.a.ab.ba . me š

Sargon II 727 BC . . .

Eighth campaign against Urartu, line 26 Sargon II Eighth campaign against Urartu, line 50 Sargon II Eighth campaign against Urartu, line 210

a nš e.a.ab.ba . me š a-​na-​qa-​a-​te

munus.anše

tribute from various western rulers, mainly from Zabibe and Samsi, queens of the Arabs booty from Samsi, queen of the Arabs tribute from Taymāʾ, Saba, and other western people, with aromatics pack camels and donkeys of his army “leaped mountain peaks like wild mountain goats”

booty from Bīt-​Kapsi, Bīt-​Sangi, Bīt-​Urzakki, Mount Silḫazu, etc., tribute of the Medes, eastern Mountains

origin

a n še.a.a b.b a.m eš a-​na-​qa-​a-​te a-​di anše ba-​ak-​ka-​ri-​ši-​na 30 l im a nš e.a.ab.ba .me š

munus.anše

anše

RINAP 42:32′; 44:13′–14′; 47: rev. 5′

RINAP 42:20′

7:8; 17:10; 35: i14′, iii 28; 47:33, 39 15:4–5; 28:2; 35: iii 22–23; 47: rev.1′; 48:27′; 49:21

anše

Tiglath-​pileser III 745 BC . . .

ud-​ra-​a-​te, ud-​ra-​a-​te-​šú-​nu

written term

Assyrian kinga

Table 3.4. (continud)  Camel terms in annals, tribute lists, and campaign reports.

donkey-​of-​the-​Sealand

udru. Context: running horses, fiery mules, cattle, and sheep d

donkeys-​of-​the-​Sealand

donkeys-​of-​the-​Sealand, she-​dromedaries d

donkeys-​of-​the-​Sealand, dshe-​ dromedaries together with their d young 30,000 donkeys-​of-​the-​Sealand

female dudru

verbal translation

86 Camels in the Biblical World

35:54′

a n še.a.a b.b a.m eš ud-​ri

Sennacherib 705 BC . . . 1:29 2:7; 3:7; 9:6; 213:29 1:57–61; 2:16–17; 3:17; 4:14, 27, 51; 8:15; 17: i 62, 68, ii 32, iii 49; etc.; see also texts nos. 22, 23, 138, 139, 140, 142, 165, 213 3:16; 4:14; 8:14; 213:59

7,200 horses,mules, 11,073 donkeys, 5,230 anše g a m. ma l.me š  . . . LIM a n še . ga m.m al. me š

a nš e.g a m. ma l.m eš anšeud-​ri a n še . ga m.m al. me š

anše

g am. mal.me š a nš e.g a m.m al

Ann 352, 406; 450; Prunk 27, 185

5230 dcamels 1000 dcamels

booty of Teʾelḫu nu, queen of Arabs

d

d

camels, dudru camels

donkeys-​of-​the-​Sealand, dudru

camels d

donkeys-​of-​the-​Sealand (6054 donkeys-​of-​the-​Sealand from the Babylonians)

donkeys-​of-​the-​Sealand

donkeys-​of-​the-​Sealand

verbal translation

booty from insubmissive Arameans

tribute from Ḫararatu, booty of Ḫirimmu, of the Arameans, of the land Ellipi, of Judah, etc.

tribute from Egypt, Arabia, and Saba: “gold . . . perfumes . . . horses, camels” booty of the Aramean tribes Gambulu and Iadburu, east of the river Tigris, and of the Babylon. (354, 371) booty from campaign against Babylon (352) and Hittites (406), tribute of all his vassals booty of the Arabian Basqānu, and of the Babylonian ruler

a n še.a.a b.b a.m eš

a nš e.a.ab.ba . me š

horses, mules, camels, and donkeys as pack animals in Sargon II’s army

a n še.a.a b.b a.

Sargon II Eighth campaign against Urartu, line 263 Sargon II Ann 125; Prunk 27

Sargon II Ann 272, 297, 354, 371

origin

written term

Assyrian kinga

Table 3.4. (continud)  Camel terms in annals, tribute lists, and campaign reports.

Camels in the Biblical World and Adjacent Regions 87

a nš e.a.ab.ba . me š

a n še . ga m.m al. me š

a n še . ga m.m al. me š anše gam-​ma-​li

booty from the people of Ḫurarina in the desert, . . . Arabs

camels camels

countless donkeys-​of-​the-​Sealand

oxen, sheep and goats. donkeys, camels, people without number; d camels “I distributed like sheep” d

d

d

a Sources are cited according to Grayson 1991 and 1996; Mayer 2013; Fuchs 1994; and according to the online corpus http://​oracc​.museum​.upenn​.edu​ /rinap​/corpus/. Textual witnesses that are largely damaged and restored are not cited. Texts are cited according to their number (or name) and lines. Only important occurrences of the frequent camel-​term anš e.g am. mal. meš are covered. If Akkadian camel names are prefixed by the determinative anše “donkey”, the English translation is prefixed by d.

Assurbanipal  . . . 631 BC 3: viii 5–29; 4: viii 8–33; etc. 11: viii 115; ix 5; etc.

d

booty of Medes living in the salt desert inspection of his army at New Year loan from the Arabian kings in campaign against Egypt booty from the people of Arabia

anše

udru

camels

ú-​du-​ri

d

tribute of Hazael of Syria, with gold, stones, aromatic substances

65, and 50, anšeg am. ma l.me š

Esarhaddon 681 BC . . . 1:17, 21. See texts nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, 31 1: iv 51; 2: iii 60; 3: iv 2′; 4: iii′ 10’; 8: i′10′ 1:59; 2: vi 33; 3: vi 13′ 34: rev. 2

verbal translation

origin

written term

Assyrian kinga

Table 3.4. (continud)  Camel terms in annals, tribute lists, and campaign reports.

88 Camels in the Biblical World

Camels in the Biblical World and Adjacent Regions

89

the horse, and the ox on the Balawat Gates of Shalmaneser III (Schachner 2007, 180, fig. 130; 294, no. 77), and as the dromedary on the famous reliefs of Sennacherib depicting the siege of Lachish (WA 124902–15; cf. T. Mitchell 2000). In addition, two humped camels are qualified as šá 2 t a . à m iš-​qu-​bé(-e)-ti šaknā “who are provided with two hunches” in the campaign report of Shamshi-​ Adad V (ca. 823–811 BC), and ša 2-a-​a kar-​ru-​u-​ni “whose knobs are two” in a debt note from the reign of Esarhaddon (dated to 674 BC; SAA 6 no. 241). 3.2.4.8. The Akkadian Camel Terms ibilu and gammalu Unilingual literary texts and lexical lists that were copied during the Old Babylonian period itemize camels as am.si.ḫar.ra.an and am.si.kur.ra (§3.2.4.1). However, the unilingual lexical lists of that time were virtually bilingual, their unwritten Akkadian translations being memorized by students. Later on in the first millennium BC, both Sumerian camel terms were assigned to Akkadian ibilu “camel” (see ePSD2, s.v.). Yet, how did Mesopotamian scribes interpret am.si.ḫar.ra.an and am.si.kur.ra in the Old Babylonian period? As already argued above, there are good reasons to assume that the Akkadian equivalent ibilu, encompassing both am.si.kur.ra and am.si.ḫar.ra.an in the first millennium BC, dates back to the Old Babylonian period (§3.2.4.1.1). Moreover, the first millennium BC commentary series Ḫ a r. g u d (MSL 8.2: 44, 249) aligned am.si.ḫar.ra.an with ibilu, and ibilu in turn most likely with gammalu, which renders it unlikely that am.si.ḫar.ra.an had been read as gammalu before. The latter would imply that am.si.ḫar.ra.an was first interpreted as gammalu, then as ibilu, and then again as gammalu. The same line of argument likely applies to am.si.kur.ra as well. Beyond the lexical lists, the earliest attested Akkadian camel term is udru, a designation used to identify camels arriving from the east (§§3.2.4.6 and 3.2.4.10), so that udru would be a likely candidate for identifying am.si.ḫar.ra.an and am.si.kur.ra camels as well. However, udru was never assigned to any of the two Sumerian camel terms. This observation is supported by the inscriptions of Shalmaneser III, which use udru interchangeably with anše.a.ab.ba, and by an etymological wordplay that connects udru’s rare variant tamru with anš e.a.ab. ba (§3 n. 82). In other words, if udru was assigned to any Sumerian camel term at all, then to anš e.a.ab.ba, the usual expression for the dromedary that appears in lexical lists no earlier than the fourteenth century BC (§3.2.4.3.1) and therewith about five hundred years later than the Old Babylonian camel designations a m . s i . ḫ a r. r a . a n and a m . s i . k u r. r a. Moreover, if udru had been assigned to either or both of the latter, there would have been no discernible cause to change it to ibilu in the lexical lists, particularly in face of the fact that udru was in use in campaign reports at least from about 1170 to 680 BC, while ibilu was avoided (table 3.4). To conclude, it is at least

90

Camels in the Biblical World

plausible, if not probable, that both am.s i.ḫar.ra.an and am.s i.kur.ra were already assigned to ibilu in the second millennium BC. There is no clue that a m . s i . ḫ a r. r a . a n and a m . s i . k u r. r a camels were semantically aligned with an additional, unknown Akkadian camel term in the Old Babylonian period that was only later replaced by ibilu. The term ibilu “camel,” based on the root ʾbl, follows the unusual nominal pattern qitil. That ibilu would be derived from the Akkadian root (w)abālum “to carry,” from the participle ābilu “bearer, carrier,” or from similar forms is highly unlikely.87 Ibilu seems to be a loanword of unknown origin into Akkadian (Zimmern 1917, 50; CAD 7:2; AHw 1:363a; Sima 2000, 18). The famous Assyriologist von Soden compared ibilu with the name Igigu, reasoning that “because of its form, ibilu seems to be a loanword from the Semitic language that I call ‘Old Amorite’ ” (cited in Henninger 1968, 53; see also von Soden 1966, 144).88 It is reasonable to suggest an Amorite origin of the root (in the Old Babylonian period or earlier), as von Soden did. However, the geographic provenance of the Bactrian camel must be sought further east, and with it the possibility that ibilu originated there as well. Bactrian camels from the camel-​breeding cultures populating northeastern Iran and adjacent regions appeared in Mesopotamia during the third and second millennia BC, earlier and independently of cultural developments in the Arabian Peninsula, where camel keeping developed decidedly later (§3.3). A cylinder seal unearthed in Gonur Depe with cuneiform imprints, probably dating to the Ur III period, points to long-​distance trade relations between the Oxus civilization and Mesopotamia (Francfort 2007, 112; cf. Salvatori 2008). Arguably, camels were widely employed by the Oxus people (§3.1) and caravan trains leaving that region may have introduced the species to Mesopotamia and further south (Potts 2008). The long-​distance interregional trade contacts of the third millennium BC were only surpassed by the Persian Empire and the conquests of Alexander the Great (Steinkeller 2016, 127). However, although the Central Asian languages provide many diverse names for the Bactrian camel (“The names of Camelus bactrianus in the region are diverse, in all languages” [Francfort 2020, 28]), there is, so far, no linguistic evidence for any Central Asian origin of the lexeme ibilu.89 More than a century ago, Vollers (1896, 652) argued that at some early stage, the Indo-​Iranian noun pīl “elephant” (Tavernier 2007, 35) was transferred to the camel, although his line of argument is questionable (Lehmann 1986, 375; Frisk 1960 1:494). 87. DRS 1:3–4; CAD 1.1:10, 53; cf. Sima 2000, 18 n. 34; SED 2:LII; cf. also Aramaic ‫“ יבל‬to bring/ carry.” There is in fact a verbal form i-​bi-​lu, being an unusual imperative of (w)abālum (MSL SS 1:58; P450811), which can hardly be considered as the origin of the camel’s name. 88.  “Ibilu möchte ich aufgrund seiner Form als Entlehnung aus der von mir altamoritisch genannten semitischen Sprache ansehen.” 89.  “Les noms du Camelus bactrianus dans la région sont divers, dans toutes les langues.”

Camels in the Biblical World and Adjacent Regions

91

On the one hand, it is probably not too far-​fetched to assume “that some remote proto-​designation existed from which evolved semantically ‘elephant’ on the one hand, ‘camel’ on the other” (Puhvel 1993, 188), because this development is visible in Sumerian (§3.2.4.1). On the other, it may be difficult to explain any development from pīl to ibilu as well as the presence of both forms in Akkadian (early pīru/later pīlu and ibilu). For instance, some Arabian dialects treat ibil as a biliteral noun—bil—which is very close to pīl (DRS 1:4). Did ibilu emerge from pīru or pīlu (EDA no. P0323), furnished with an aleph and with secondary voicing of p to b? Václav Blažek (1999, 17–18) points to East Chadic ʾělbi “elephant” that may be another explanation for the supposed development from pīl or related forms to ibilu. However, none of these hypothetical musings has yet had any convincing force. In addition, it is unclear to what extent these possible linguistic processes would harmonizes with the very distinct biological properties of the two species. Besides the above considerations, the Gothic language seems to offer another lexeme that may help to explain the origin of ibilu. While investigating ulbandus “camel,” Jaan Puhvel drew attention to Hittite ḫu(wa) lpant- “hunchbacked” as the possible forerunner of the Gothic form (1991, 426; 1993; Blažek 1999, 20; cf. Pronk-​Tiethoff 2013, 147). “As Indo-​European reconstruction of this root can serve *Hwlb(h)o- related etymologically to Sanskrit úlbam, and Latin volba ‘uterus, womb’ ” (Puhvel 1993, 189). It is tempting to see this reconstructed Indo-​European root as cognate with Akkadian ibilu and similar forms, but definitely not without difficulty. In sum, for now, any non-​ Semitic and/or Central Asian origin of the root ibilu remains elusive. Considering the rich camel terminology of the Arabian languages, it seems counterintuitive to suppose that scribes of Mesopotamia should not have borrowed ibilu from thence. Akkadian ibilu, ANA and ASA ʾbl, and CA ‫ إبل‬ʾibil are conspicuously identical in form—which language has to be regarded as the donor language? During the third and the early second millennia BC, camels in the Arabian Peninsula would have been wild animals that were largely confined to southeast Arabia (§§2.2.2 and 3.3), perhaps occasionally moving up to southern Mesopotamia, dromedary husbandry and caravanning being unknown. Yet, during the same period, domestic camels from Central Asia were obviously known in Mesopotamia. Thus, on the one hand, there are good reasons to suppose that ibilu is “probably an Akkadian loanword in Arabic. . . . It may be a culture word that entered the Semitic language sphere along with the innovation of the domesticated camel” (Fox 2003, 289; Sima 2000, 18). Moreover, ibilu was in use for the Bactrian camel as well as for the dromedary, not only in Akkadian, but also in ANA and CA, although Bactrian camels feature comparatively rarely in Arabian texts (§3.3.7). In addition, the first evidence for the term ibilu in Akkadian appears almost one thousand years prior to the earliest evidence for ʾbl in ANA (§3.2.4.3.1). On the other hand, it is not inconceivable

92

Camels in the Biblical World

that ibilu represents an ancient Amorite camel term, as suggested by von Soden (see above). A third, less likely possibility is that ibilu was used to denote wild camel herds roaming southeast Arabia and perhaps even the Sealand of Mesopotamia (cf. §3.2.4.3.3). With the introduction of domestic camels, this term may have been transferred to these animals as well, but developed different shades of meaning and uses in Akkadian and the Arabian languages respectively. Following the domestication and wide dispersal of the dromedary in the Arabian Peninsula, the root ʾbl and many other camel-​related terms became prominent in Arabian vocabularies (§§3.3.4 and 3.3.5). However, the same root had a comparatively small impact on other Semitic languages, including Akkadian, because the camel played only a minor role in livestock husbandry. Akkadian is a witness of its early use in lexical lists, but so far, there is no evidence that Akkadian ibilu (in syllabic writing) was ever used in campaign reports and administrative texts of the Neo-​Assyrian Empire, although contacts with Arabian chieftains and knowledge of their camel herds were then at its height. Neo-​Assyrian scribes rather preferred gammalu, udru, or the Sumerian term anše.a.ab.ba. The CAD 7:2 and AHw 1:363 cite the annals of Sennacherib with the reading i-bi-li in the Taylor Prism and i-​be-​li in the Oriental Institute Prism, which both made use of the same template. However, both readings should be abandoned. Instead of the supposed reading a-​ga-​li i-​bi-​li “agalu-​ donkeys, riding camels,” the text actually has a-​ga-​li-​i til-​li “agalu-​donkeys, military equipment.”90 The use of ibilu was confined to the Akkadian columns of lexical lists (§3.2.4.3). Unlike ANA and CA, Akkadian ibilu does not seem to denote the camel herd, but the individual animal and/or the species, as reflected in ASA.91 The hitherto earliest mentioning of ibilu is found in the bilingual lexical lists of Middle Babylonian Emar (ca. thirteenth century BC), where it presumably appears twice, once as the translation of am.si.kur.ra (§3.2.4.1.1, table 3.2), and once in the form ebalu as the translation of anš e.a.ab.ba (§3.2.4.3.1, table 3.3; see also eSAD, s.v.). However, from the beginning of the Neo-​Assyrian period onward, the traditional use of ibilu in lexical lists, and the disuse of ibilu in 90.  Cf. Rawlinson 1861: 1, no. 42, column VI, line 55; Luckenbill 1924, 130, 187, lines 66–67; Borger 1979 1:86; 2:335; Frahm 1997, 105; Borger 2010, 271; P421809 (CDLI); and the eSAD, s.vv. “ibilu” and “tillû.” 91.  That Akkadian ibilu most likely denotes the individual camel was already noticed by Zimmern (1890, 387–388 n. 2). However, ibilu may be interpreted as a collective noun in the same way as its Sumerian equivalent am.si.ḫar.ran—at least in certain contexts (§3.2.4.1.2). In ASA, the use of ʾbl to refer to the species is obvious from JA 2856 “whosoever buys an ox [ṯwrm] or a camel [ʾblm] or a donkey [ḥmrm] [from] the tribe of Ṣrwḥ” and RES 3910/Gl 542 “all sales and transactions . . . regarding man [ʾnsm], camel [ʾblm], ox [ṯwrm], and other animals”; see Sima 2000, 14–15, nos. (27) and (30). However, in contrast to Akkadian, the term was common in ASA campaign reports, administrative texts, and votive inscriptions; see §3.3.5; for ANA, §3.3.4.

Camels in the Biblical World and Adjacent Regions

93

administrative texts and in campaign reports strongly suggests that by that time, archaic ibilu had either fallen into oblivion, or was merely regarded as a sophisticated Akkadian equivalent of the Sumerian camel names. It is noteworthy that the development from ibilu to gammalu in Akkadian has a late repercussion in ASA: While ʾbl(t) was used from the earliest ASA texts on (seventh century BC), gml came into use, albeit on a limited scale, almost one thousand years later. The root gml, either in its plural form or as a collective noun, designated the group in a similar way as in Akkadian and the Northwest Semitic languages (Sima 2000, 93). There are also traces of the root ʾbl in some Semitic languages outside of Akkadian and Arabic. The name of the Aramean Ubūlu tribe of southern Mesopotamia as well as attenuated forms, such as uruI-​bu-​li, follow the qutūl pattern of the root ʾbl (Zadok 2013, 273, 285–86; cf. Lipiński 2000, 460). That the Ubūlu tribe is mentioned in connection with camels (§3.2.4.11; Younger 2016, 692) is not unexpected. The camels of the Ubūlu are referred to as anš e.a.ab. b a, which was most likely read as gammalu (Cole 1996a, 310). Thus, the root ʾbl belongs to an archaic or foreign lexeme that remained visible in the name Ubūlu, and, as it seems, sometimes also in personal names (Schwiderski 2008, 6), but was absent from administrative documents, which preferred gml (gammalu). Likewise, Hebrew knows of the personal name ‫ אֹובִ יל‬ʾŌbīl, with the possible meaning “camel herder,” but uses ‫ גָּמָ ל‬gāmāl as the generic lexeme for the camel: ‫ אֹובִ יל‬ʾŌbīl was responsible for the ‫ ּגְ מַ ּלִ ים‬gəmallīm (§5.3.3).92 We may add to that the Ugaritic texts in the alphabetic tradition, which unfortunately do not mention camels, but have the personal name Ibln (§3.2.4.4). The Syriac noun ‫ ܗܒܠܬܐ‬həḇālətā (cf. the variant ‫ ܐܒܠܬܐ‬ʾebbālətā) “herd” seems to reflect an early coexistence of ʾ/hbl, or a later development from ʾbl to hbl. In addition, the Syriac root hbl(t) simply conveys the meaning “herd.”93 ܿ habbālā, being derived from the same root, has the meaning Syriac ‫ܗܒܐܠ‬ “swineherd.”94 However, the generic lexeme for the camel is ‫ ܓܡܐܠ‬gamlā in 92. For the doubled third radical in ‫גְּ מָ לּים‬, cf. Huehnergard 2015, 41. ܿ ʾebbālətā “herd,” (4). Cf. Nöldeke 1879, 93. See Sokoloff 2009, 328, with the variant ‫ܐܒܠܬܐ‬ ̈ ܿ ̈ 1268; DRS 1:3; SED 2:4. The expression ‫ ܐܒܠܬܐ ܕܓܡܐܠ‬ʾebbālətā [or həḇālətā] dəgamlē “herds of camels” appears already in manuscripts of the Syriac Peshitta and of the Syriac Hexapla respectively, translating Hebrew ‫“ ִׁשפְ ַעת ּגְ מַ ּלִ ים‬an abundance of camels” (§6.1.3; Isa 60:6). In the Arabic languages/dialects, ʾibil itself has the meaning “camels” or “camel herd.” An expression like ‫إبل‬ ‫ الجمال‬ʾibilu l-​ǧimāl would therefore result in a tautology. Although Nöldeke (1884) suggested that the meaning “herd,” as attested in Syriac, is original, and the meaning(s) “camels; camel herd,” etc. a posterior semantic development of ʾbl, the overwhelming early evidence from Akkadian, ANA, and ASA sources (largely unknown in Nöldeke’s time) rather points to the contrary (Sima 2000, 18 n. 34). ܿ habbālā is “swineherd” (subulcus, Brockelmann 1928, 170; 94. The usual meaning of ‫ܗܒܐܠ‬ ܿ habbālā was interpreted by Brockelmann and Sokoloff Sokoloff 2009, 328). In MiS 347 a:5, ‫ܗܒܐܠ‬ ܿ as “camel herder.” This unique occurrence is probably based on a miswriting of ‫ܐܒܠܬܐ‬, cf. the

94

Camels in the Biblical World

Syriac, as ‫ גַּמלָא‬gamlā in Aramaic and its dialects, for example Nabatean (Nehmé 2020), and the root gml is much more common in Syriac than both ʾbl or hbl (Payne-​Smith 1901, 736, 965). Thus, except for the Arabic languages, the root ʾbl fell into disuse, while gml became dominant in the lexical field of camel terms (table 3.6). Even Ethiopic, which is otherwise a likely candidate for linguistic influences from the Arabian Peninsula (Leslau 1990; Weninger 2004), does not betray any use of the root ʾbl (Leslau 1991). Akkadian gammalu “camel” (CAD 5:35) is seen as a West-​Semitic loanword (AHw 1:279; DRS 3:140), while no direct evidence in favor of an inter-​Semitic borrowing of the root gml is available for other Semitic languages. More specific, it seems that Akkadian gammalu is a loanword from an early Arabic dialect (SED 2:117). The earliest written evidence for the Semitic root gml “camel” is found in the Kurkh Stela of Shalmaneser III. Dating to the middle of the ninth century BC, it mentions one thousand dromedaries (1 lim anšegam-​ma-​lu) as the “camelry” of Gindibu the Arab (Grayson 1996, no. A.0.102.2: ii 102). However, North Arabian mobile pastoralists and cameleers would have called an assemblage herd of one thousand camels ʾbl rather than gml. Moreover, Akkadian scribes could have used their own knowledge of the archaic word ibilu (e.g., 1 lim anšei-​bi-​lu/li), but they preferred gammalu instead. Yet, in the ANA languages/dialects, particularly in Safaitic, the root gml was almost exclusively used for small numbers of male camels (§3.3.4).95 Somewhat later in the eighth century BC, Akkadian scribes referred to the loot of a large caravan from Taymāʾ and Sabaʾ as 2 ME gam-​ma-​lu-​šú-​nu a-di GÚ.UN-šú-​nu “200 of their camels including their load” (Cavigneaux and Ismail 1990, 346, 351), using gammalu as a generic noun in the same way as the scribes of Shalmaneser III. Again, it is conspicuous that the Assyrian scribes referred to these camels simply as gammalu, which is not attested in ASA of the first millennium BC (§3.3.5) and which designated male camels only in ANA. Likewise, in the seventh century BC, Esarhaddon refers to camels that he “collected from all the Arabian kings” as anšegam-​mal-​li (34 rev. 2). Although the ANA inscriptions were incised long after the Assyrian campaign reports, several observations support the assumption that the ANA languages with their basic camel terms gml and ʾbl hardly changed over time. First, context in Chabot (1901, 308; and 1910, 347): “The Persian Taiyaye invaded the region of the Christian Taiyaye and took all their pastures and herds of camels” [“Les Ṭaiyayê persans envahirent la région des Ṭaiyayê chrétiens et prirent tous leurs pâturages et leurs troupeaux de chameaux”] ‫ܟܠܗ‬ ̈ ‫( ܪܥܝܘܬܗܘܢ‬emphasis added); cf. Nöldeke 1884, n.2, and the similar expres̈ ‫ܕܓܡܠܝܗܘܢ‬ ‫ܘܗ ܿܒܠ[ܬ]ܐ‬ sion in Isa 60:6 of the Peshitta (see the preceding footnote). 95.  Moreover, none of the specific ANA and ASA camel terms, such as rkb “riding camel,” the ANA roots rmḫ and gl with the meaning “camel herd,” and ḥlb “she-​camel” (OCIANA), found their way into Akkadian.

Camels in the Biblical World and Adjacent Regions

95

the Arabian background of Gindibu himself is obvious in his name, meaning “locust” and being exclusively Arabic (Krebernik 2008, 257), and in his geographic affiliation, which is explicitly given as mGi-​in-​di-​bu-ʾu kurAr-​ba-​a-​a “Gindibu the Arbāy [= Arabian].” Second, the size of Gindibu’s camel population strongly indicates that by the middle of the ninth century BC, camel breeding and herding was already well developed in northern Arabia. By that time, people demonstrably exploited camels in other parts of the Arabian Peninsula as well as in Mesopotamia and in the Levant. Third, the meanings of the basic camel terms ʾbl, bkr(t), gml, and nqt are the same in the North Arabian languages that are close to CA, particularly Safaitic and Hismaic (Al-Jallad 2018, 35), as far as can be judged from their inscriptional attestations (OCIANA).96 Fourth, late pre-exilic Hebrew distinguishes between male and female “young camels” (‫בכר‬ and ‫)בכרה‬, indicating the influence of ANA camel terms (bkr and bkrt) before the Persian period (§6.2.1). Fifth, it is possible that the Safaitic inscriptions were older than previously thought. The chronology of the entire corpus of more than thirty-​three thousand inscriptions has been established on some late inscriptions containing a dating formula, but some inscriptions may well reach further back into the first millennium BC (Al-​Jallad 2019, 347). And finally, CA has the same basic distinctions between ‫ جمل‬ǧamal and ‫ إبل‬ʾibil as ANA (§3.3.4). In sum, whether Akkadian gammalu can be called “almost certainly a loanword from an early Arabic dialect” (SED 2:117; Hommel 1879, 430) is not at all obvious. Gammalu was the word of choice whenever Assyrian scribes listed large numbers of camels in syllabic script, which contrasts with its use in ANA and CA. In addition, the variation between a n š e . a . a b . b a, g a m . m a l, and gammalu in campaign reports (table 3.4; CAD 5:36) and administrative texts (§3.2.4.11), and the equation of a n š e . a . a b . b a with gammalu in the Practical Vocabulary of Assur (table 3.5) strongly suggest that gammalu represented the common Akkadian lexeme for the camel. On the other hand, except for lexical lists, ibilu was never used, not even for camels that came from Arabia. It seems that from the earliest mention of a n š e . a . a b . b a in campaign reports onward, its proper Akkadian reading was gammalu, despite the fact that lexical lists preferred (traditionally or for linguistic reasons) ibilu (§§3.2.4.1 and 3.2.4.3). This understanding is corroborated by the commentary series Ḫ ar.gud. According to table 3.5, the three Sumerian camel terms as well as udru required explanation, while ibilu was equaled with gammalu. In contrast, gammalu itself was obviously regarded as self-​explanatory. 96.  Hismaic has fewer than forty inscriptions mentioning camels (OCIANA), and inscriptions referring to camel herds (ʾbl) are lacking (perhaps with the exception of CH.R707.06, which mentions bkrt “young she-​camels,” accompanied by a drawing of four camels; Al-​Jallad and Jaworska 2019, s.v. “ʾbl”). However, the terms gml and bkr(t) and their drawings agree with their typical appearance in Safaitic inscriptions.

96

Camels in the Biblical World

Table 3.5.  Camel term explanations. camel terms that require . . .

explanation

1 2 3 4

am.si.ḫar.ra.an

am.si.kur.ra

ibilua

ibilu

ibilu

anše.a.ab.ba ibilu gammalu anše.ga.mal ibilu

ibilu

udru gammalu

[gammalu]

a 1 = LL; 2 = Practical Vocabulary of Assur (Landsberger and Gurney 1957–1958, 332); 3 = Practical Vocabulary of Nineveh (Landsberger and Gurney 1957–1958, 340; P349825); 4 = Ḫ ar. g u d (MSL 8.1:54; 8.2:44; P400388 and P393770).

Moreover, in the Neo-​Assyrian Practical Vocabulary of Assur (Landsberger and Gurney 1957, 332), female camels were listed as gammalāti. Augmenting the root gml by the morpheme-t to designate she-​camels is also known from Syriac (Sokoloff 2009, 241) and from modern Arabian dialects (e.g., A. Barthélemy 1935, 121). We may compare with that the lactating camels of Gen 32:16 that are called gəmallīm, which would be almost unthinkable in ANA and very unusual in CA (Lane 1863, 460a). Taken together, we conclude that gammalu most likely belonged to the Akkadian language before Assyrian scribes took notice of specific camel terms used by cameleers of North Arabian origin. 3.2.4.9. The Akkadian Camel Terms anaqāte and bakkarū The inscriptions of Tiglath-​pileser III are the first to detail Arabian camels as anše.a.ab.ba.meš, munus.anšea-​na-​qa-​a-​te a-​di anšeba-​ak-​ka-​ri-​ši-​na “donkeys-​ of-​the-​Sealand, she-​dromedaries together with their calves” (table 3.4; ca.740 BC). The mention of munus.anšea-​na-​qa-​a-​te a-​di anšeba-​ak-​ka-​ri-​ši-​na are reminiscent of the terms nqt “female camel” and bkr “young camel,” which are common in ANA and CA (§3.3.4). These similarities have led to the assumption that “camels being unfamiliar in Assyria, the Assyrian scribes simply took over from the speech of the defeated Arabs their words for the she-​camel and its young, in terms of later Arabic nāqah and bakr” (Livingstone 1997, 261; cf. Walz 1951, 44 n. 4). However, camels were not that unfamiliar in eighth century BC Assyria. First, by that time the Sumerian term anše.a.ab.ba “donkey of the Sealand” employed here had been in use for several hundred years. It was most likely read as gammalu, which had been known for some time as well (§3.2.4.8). Second, nāqatu “she-​camel” agrees with nearly identical forms in ANA, ASA, CA, Aramaic, and (late) Hebrew, but the plural forms anaqāte/ naqāte “she-​camels” align with Northwest Semitic rather than with ANA or

Camels in the Biblical World and Adjacent Regions

97

CA patterns (table 3.6).97 It is noteworthy that the Northwest Semitic languages exhibit a variety of noun formations in the singular, which is unattested in Arabic. Akkadian has two basic forms for the singular as well: nāqatu (written na-​ qa-​ti), unfortunately only attested once in the available corpus, and the personal name Anāqatu. Moreover, Akkadian anaqāte can hardly be regarded as rendering the ANA broken plural, which was most likely read as ʾanuq (Ababneh 2005, 261; Al-​Jallad 2015, 63), not to speak of the unusual broken plural ‫ أنواق‬ʾanwāq known from CA (Salonen 1955, 89).98 Both naqāte and anaqāte are plural forms of the two Akkadian nouns nāqatu and Anāqatu (in a personal name), which are reflected as well in later Northwest Semitic, ‫( אנקה‬Sokoloff 1992, 66), ‫ ֲאנָקְ תָ א‬and ‫( יְ נָקְ תָ א‬Dalman 1938, 27, 185; cf. Segal 1927, 35), and ‫( נָאקְ תָ ה‬Sokoloff 2002, 725) in Aramaic, ‫ ֲאנָקָ ה‬, and ‫ נָקָ ה‬in postbiblical Hebrew (Jastrow 1992, 867; J. Levy 1924 3:436; cf. Hommel 1879, 148). At least some of these late lexemes likely represent forms that were common during the Neo-​Assyrian period. They suggest that similar Akkadian forms developed either independently or had been imparted by Northwest Semitic language contacts, while Arabic seems to have been less influential.99 Last, but not least, in ANA and ASA, bkr specifies the “young he-​camel” that may be mounted, and bkrt the “young she-​camel” that gives birth for the first time, implying an animal aged at least four years (§2.1.2). Classical Arabic dictionaries define ‫ بكر(ة)‏‬bakr, rarely bakra, as a youthful camel that is between two and nine years old, and bikr as a she-​camel “that has brought forth but once” (Lane 1863, 240; Hommel 1879, 160–61). On the other hand, Akkadian bakkarū (plural of bakru, EDA no. P0256) denotes camel calves or donkey foals that are not yet weaned (CAD 2:35). The Akkadian connotation is known both from the inscriptions of Tiglath-​pileser III (see above) and Assurbanipal (seventh century BC): “The calf (of camels) [ba-​ak-​ru], the foal (of donkeys), the calf, (and) the spring lamb sucked more than seven times at (their) wet nurses and (yet) they could not satisfy their stomachs with milk” (CAD 2:35; cf. RINAP 5, Assurbanipal 11: ix, 65). That the combination of ANA nqt “she-​camel” and bkr “young camel” should have generated the Neo-​Assyrian expression anšea-​na-​qa-​a-​te 97.  The singular na-​qa-​ti “she-​camel” occurs once in SAA 17, no. 139, rev. 11 (P237905); see §3 n. 110. The PN fA-​na-​q[a-​tú] (Radner 1998, 110) is recorded in a letter from the time of Sennacherib. Tiglath-​pileser III’s inscriptions use nine times a-​na-​qa-​a-t​ i/e, but once na-q​ a-a​ -t​ i for the plural (Tadmor 2007, 108, line 23: na-​qa-​a-​ti; cf. Krebernik 2008, 259 n. 78). 98.  The CA plural forms of the noun nāqa in table 3.6 are from ibn M ​ anẓūr 1999, s.v., excluding nūq, which is unrelated to ANA, and the “plural of the plural.” The two plural forms nāq and nāqāt given by Freytag 1830, s.v. and other dictionaries are probably secondary developments. 99.  Furthermore, there is no need to reconstruct a spoken form *han-​nāqātu to explain the existence of the first vowel, as Livingstone (1997) did, wherein *han would signify an early attestation of the Arabic definite article. Cf. Beyer 1994, 38; Hämeen-​Anttila 2009, 100–101; Sima 2000, 126–27; SED 2:212–13.

nwq ʾnq

ʾbl

gml

gammali gammalāti

gammalu —

ibilu — —

ibilu —

nāqatu

anaqāte nāqāte(?)

Anāqatu

spec. PN

masc. fem. group

spec. PN

sg.

pl.

PN

—

fem.

group

gammalu

masc.

Akkadian

Table 3.6.  Main Semitic camel terms.a

—

—

ʾnq

—

nqt (rare)

ʾbl ʾʾbl

ʾbl ʾblt ʾʾbl

— Gml

gmlm (late)

—

—

ASA

nqt

— ʾbl

— — ʾbl

— Gml

ʾgml (male) camels

—

gml

ANA

—

ʾanwuq ʾawnuq ʾanʾuq ʾaynuq ʾanyuq ʾanwāq —

nāqa

— Ubaylā

— — ʾibil

ǧamla (late) ǧuml ǧimāl etc. ǧamal Ǧamal

ǧamal

CA

—

naqatat näqayət

naqät

— —

— — —

gämäl —

gämälat, ʾagmal

—

gämäl

Ethiopic

ʾnqh

ʾanqā nāqā nāqtā *ʾanqātā *nāqātā

— — — — — ʾbl, Ubūlu

gamlā Gml(w)

gamlayyā gəmaltā

gml gamlā —

Aramaic

—

—

—

—

— — ʾebbālətā həbālətā

gamlā

gamlā, gamalətā gamlayyā

gamlā

Syriac

—

*ʾanāqōt *nāqōt

ʾanāqā nāqā nəʾāqā

— ʾŌbīl

— — —

gāmāl Gǝmallī

gəmallīm

—

gāmāl

Hebrew

98 Camels in the Biblical World

—

PN Bkr

bkr bkrt —

ANA

Bkrm

bkr bkrt —

ASA bakr bikr ʾabkār, ʾabkur bikār Bakr

CA

—

— — —

Ethiopic

Bkrw

bkrn — —

Aramaic

Bkry

būkrā — būkrē bəkūrē

Syriac

Beker

beker bikrā —

Hebrew

a The various lexemes are based on AHw; CAD; Dozy 1881; Biberstein-​Kazimirski 1860; Lane 1863; Leslau 1991; Payne-​Smith 1901; Sima 2000; SED 2; Schwiderski 2008; Sokoloff 2009; OCIANA; and SabaWeb. For the plurals of Akkadian nāqatu, see §3.2.4.9 n. 98. For the PNs, see Hayajneh 1998; and Dirbas 2019. Udru is excluded, as it is unknown outside of Akkadian. Cf. also table 4 and §3.2.4.4. The transliteration is simplified; spirantization of consonants (in Aramaic, Hebrew, and Syriac) is not indicated. The second row merely lists forms that are morphologically feminine. Gml is in some Semitic languages epicene, being of either gender, so that, e.g., gml, although masculine morphologically, can denote a she-​ camel; see the mention of Gen 32:16 above (Waltke and O’Connor 1990, 107).

bkr

bakru — bakkarū

masc. fem. masc. pl.

Akkadian

Table 3.6. (continued)  Main Semitic camel terms. Camels in the Biblical World and Adjacent Regions 99

100

Camels in the Biblical World

a-​di anšeba-​ak-​ka-​ri-​ši-​na “she-​camels and their calves” is difficult to imagine. Among the hundreds of ANA inscriptions mentioning bkr(t), there is not a single inscription that refers to a female camel (nqt) nursing its bkr or that somehow constructs the two nouns as an idiom expressing “she-​camel(s) and its (their) calf(ves).” Quite to the contrary: young she-​camels (bkrt) are often displayed as lactating their calves (OCIANA; §3.3.4). It is also highly unlikely that ‫ ناقة‬nāqa and ‫ بكر‬bakr/bikr were combined in any pre-​CA dialect in the same way as in the Akkadian expression cited above. It is nonetheless remarkable that the notion of Syriac ‫ ܒܟܘ̈ܪܐ‬bəkūrē “weaned camels” is close to Akkadian bakkarū “[camel] calves.”100 The meaning underlying both expressions is camel calves before (bakkarū) and shortly after (bəkūrē) weaning, and therefore about one year of age (§2.1.2). The major outcome of our discussion on camel terms is that in the Neo-​ Assyrian period (ca. 900–600 BC), with the exception of udru (§3.2.4.10), Akkadian seems to have more in common with the Northwest Semitic than with the Arabian languages (table 3.6). In addition, it is not inconceivable that some camel terms may have been mediated and/or influenced by contacts with Arameans. This argument receives some support from the iconography of Tell Ḥalaf (fig. 3.3) showing a camel rider, which reflects an early Aramean acquaintance with camels (§3.2.2; Genge 1979, 132; Bonatz 2013, 219). If so, contacts between Arameans and Assyrians may have furthered the acquaintance with camels and exchange of camel nomenclature (Gibson 1991, 35; cf. Fales 2017). Thus, during the first encounters between domestic Arabian dromedaries and Akkadian scribes, the latter most likely had already a small, but fixed set of camel expressions at hand. 3.2.4.10. The Akkadian Camel Term udru In the Neo-​Assyrian Practical Vocabulary of Assur, anšeud-​ra-​a-​ti “female udru camels” are elucidated as gam-​ma-[la]-ti “female camels.”101 The lexeme udru, which has no cognate in any other Semitic language, is usually assumed to be an unequivocal term for the two-​humped camel (Salonen 1955, 85–87). Akkadian dictionaries explain udru/uduru as “Zweihöckriges Kamel, Trampeltier” (AHw 100. The Syriac-​Arabic lexicon of Abū l-Ḥasan bar Bahlūl (tenth century AD), which is cited ̈ by Sokoloff (2009, 152), has the entry ‫ ܒܟܘ̈ܪܐ‬bəkūrē and elucidates it as follows: ‫ܘܒܟܘܫܐ ܚܕ‬ ‫ܒܟܘ̈ܪܐ‬ ‫ البُكر من الفصالن‬،‫ܐܢܘܢ܂ فصالن الجمال‬. “bəkūrē and bəkūšē are both one [in meaning, namely], weaned camels, the young camel of the weaned” (Duval 1901, 393; cf. 367; “pullus camelinus a matre ablactatus,” Payne-​Smith 1901, 525; Hommel 1879, 153). The Arabic-​Syriac lexicon of Elīyā bar Šīnāyā ̈ (eleventh century AD) offers the same explanation in its chapter about camels: ‫ܒܘܟܫܐ‬ ‫فصالن الجمال‬ “weaned camels: būkšē [variant of bəkūšē]” (Lagarde 1879, 41). In ANA, weaned camels occur as ʾfl or grft, corresponding to ‫ أفيل‬ʾafīl and ‫ جرفة‬ǧarfa respectively in CA (Al-​Jallad 2017, 85, 87). 101.  Landsberger and Gurney 1957–58, 332, lines 349–50; cf. Gurney 1982, 98.

Camels in the Biblical World and Adjacent Regions

101

3:1401), “Bactrian camel” (CAD 30:22), or, more carefully, as “(Bactrian) camel” (CDA, 418). Although I argued along these lines as well (Heide 2011, 348–49), this presumably clear assignment of udru to the Bactrian camel is debatable, as the following observations and considerations suggest, based on the data of table 3.4 (§3.2.4.6): 1. The term udru is an Iranian loanword. Yet, its oldest known forms, uštra, as well as Old Persian ušša and Middle Persian uštar, do not mean “Bactrian camel” or “two humped camel,” but simply “camel” (§3.1.3). In other words, we are dealing here with generic terms for “camel” used widely in ancient Iran (cf. Bulliet 1975, 144). Correspondingly, udru may have offered such ambivalence as well. There is also a phonetically related Urartian word for camel, ulṭu, which later entered Armenian as ułt (Greppin 1991, 204). 2. If udru means “two-​humped camel,” there would be no need for the scribes of Shalmaneser III and Shamshi-​Adad V to specify the animals’ exterior, like “whose humps/backs are two” and “who are provided with two hunches” respectively, considering that by that time, the term udru was already in use for more than two hundred years. 3. The foregoing is corroborated by the description of a Bactrian camel as an “a nše.a.a b.b a with two humps” in two epigraphs on the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III, and in a debt note from the reign of Esarhaddon (§3.2.4.7).102 The qualifier “with two humps” does not tell us what an a nše.a.a b.b a usually is, but that the very animals in question were, by way of exemption, two-​ humped. The same logic seems valid for udru. Support comes from the fact that the tribute from Asû the Gilzānean is described as 2 ud-​ra-​a-​te ša 2 gu-​ un-​gu-​li-​pi “2 female udru with two humps” in the Kurkh monolith (i 28) of Shalmaneser III, and as a n š e . a . a b . b a . m e š šá šu-​na-​a ṣe-​ri-​ši-​na “donkeys-​ of-​the-​Sealand with their two backs” in the Black Obelisk of the same king, thus virtually equating anš e.a.ab.ba and udru.103 4. Our suggestion that udru refers to the “camel” in general is further substantiated by the fact that the dromedary is never described as an “udru with one hump.” 5. It is noteworthy that Adam Olearius, traveling through Iran in 1637– 1638, observed “several sorts of camels. Those which have two bunches, they call Bughur, and those, which have but one, Schuttur” (Olearius 1669, 228). As already mentioned above, udru is an Iranian loanword, known in Old Persian as ušša (§3.1.3). In later Persian, it is known as ‫ اشتر‬uštur “camel” and ‫ شتر‬šutur 102.  The camels are introduced as, 2 anše.a.ab.ba ša 2-a za-​kar-​ru-​u-​ni “two anše.a.ab.ba that are called two-[humped]” (SAA 6 no. 241; Kwasman and Parpola 1991; Postgate 1976: no. 38; see also http://​oracc​.museum​.upenn​.edu​/saao​/saa06​/corpus). The Bactrians mentioned in SAA 6 no. 241 may have served for hybridization, as suggested by Potts (2004, 154–55). 103.  Asû is otherwise called “Sūa”; cf. Na’aman 1997b.

102

Camels in the Biblical World

(Vullers 1855–1864 1:102; 2:411), and from there it entered Ottoman Turkish as ‫ شتر‬šutur “camel” (Redhouse 1856, 755). The Turkic cameleers Olearius met on his journey through northeast Persia perceived the one-​humped camel as the common camel and called it by the generic term Schuttur, derived from šutur. The Bactrian camel was called ‫ شتر دو كوهانه‬šutur du-​kohāna “double-​humped camel” (Steingass 1892, 545b). 6. Recently the entry for udru in the eSAD has been changed into “camel.” The accompanying note says, “the more specific transl. ‘Bactrian camel’ is most probably wrong” (eSAD, s.v.). Independently of our suggestions, Sayyid-​Ali al-​Zaidi (2017) and Laura Cousin (2020) reached a similar conclusion. 7. In the campaign reports of Šalmaneser III, tribute camels that are specified as “two-​humped” were invariably received from the northeast (Gilzanu), located beyond the Zagros Mountains in the plain south of Lake Urmia. The only exception is probably the tribute of Muṣri, referred to in the Black Obelisk (§3.2.4.7). 8. In the campaign report of Shamshi-​Adad V, booty camels that are specified as “two-​humped” came from the city of Mesu in the Zagros Mountains (Grayson 1996, no. A.0.103.1:56; Bryce 2009, 469). 9. A. Kirk Grayson (1996), probably realizing the implications of the aforementioned facts, translated the three earlier occurrences of udru in the campaign reports of Assur-​bel-​kala, Tukulti-​Ninurta II, and Assurnasirpal II with “dromedaries” (cf. Friedrich Delitzsch 1896, 30; Landsberger 1934, 142). Heimpel (1980a) thought at least the udru camels of Tukulti-​Ninurta II to be dromedaries. These identifications have been criticized (Potts 2004, 153; Herles 2010, 137–38; Heide 2011, 349 n. 41), because udru was supposed to mean “Bactrian camel,” inspired by the lexical entries mentioned above (AHw, CAD, CDA) that probably relied on Walz (1954, 73 n. 3). Notwithstanding, in all three cases, the udru camels were not specified as “two-​humped” and did not come from the Zagros Mountains, but were either bought from a local merchant, probably to complete the set of strange animals Assur-​bel-​kala had encountered during his campaign (§3.2.4.10.1), or were received as tribute from the city of Ḫindānu on the Euphrates. 10. In the Practical Vocabulary of Assur (seventh century BC), female udru camels are equaled with ga-m ​ a-[la]-ti “she-​camels,” immediately following the entry anš e.a.ab.ba that is identified as ga-​ma-​lu “camel” (§3 n. 101). However, udru camels should not be identified as “dromedaries,” because they are usually distinguished from Arabian dromedaries. At the middle of the eighth century BC, Ninurta-​kudurri-​usur, the governor of Suḫu and Mari at the Euphrates, reported that his troops had plundered a large caravan of the people from Taymāʾ and Sabaʾ (Cavigneaux and Ismail 1990, 346, 351). He had seized “200 of their camels including their load” (2 ME gam-​ma-​lu-​šú-​nu a-​di GÚ.UN-šú-​nu), very likely a caravan of dromedaries from the Arabian Peninsula. Shortly afterward, Tiglath-​pileser III mentions udru camels as booty from enemies belonging to the

Camels in the Biblical World and Adjacent Regions

103

northeast, but an š e.a.ab.b a.meš “dromedaries” as booty from the west. Sennacherib mentions anš e.a.ab.ba.meš “dromedaries” and anšeud-​ri side by side as the booty of his enemies, the allied forces of the Arabians and Babylonians. 11. Udru camels were never assigned to the Sumerian terms a m . s i . ḫ a r. r a . a n or a m . s i . k u r. r a. Conversely, udru camels were frequently classified into the a n š e category with anšeudri or anšeudrāte. This scribal habit naturally links them to the a n š e section of Ḫḫ XIII and thus to one-​humped animals (anše.a.ab.ba). 12. There are also some minor inscriptions from Urartu, dating to the ninth to eighth centuries BC. They mention dromedaries as booty, using the familiar form a n š e.a.a b.b a . m e š, without further specification.104 Therefore, it is unlikely that Bactrian camels were meant (cf. Herles 2008, 169). Camels rank after horses but before oxen and sheep and in numbers varying between 62 and 365. Camels always number lower than horses, and considerably lower than oxen and sheep. Sargon II (eighth campaign, line 210) confirms that the Urar­tian king Rusa I had introduced dromedary (a n š e.a.a b.b a) expertise into his land. Moreover, the scribes of Sargon II’s campaign report differentiated between the dromedary (anš e.a.ab.ba, lines 26, 210, 263) and the udru (line 50). 13. There is one inscription dating to the reign of Shalmaneser  III (A.0.102.1:39) that unequivocally reads ta-​ma-​ra-​te šá šu-​un-​na ṣe-​ri-​ši-​na, employing the term tamru (pl. tamrāte) instead of the expected term udru. This suggests that tamru is an equivalent of udru. Although tamru is used nowhere else, it features in a literary text that refers to the camel as “the ghost of Tiamat” (§3.2.4.3.4) and then explains the reading of anš e.a.ab.ba: “Its name is tam[UD]riqātu, as it is said among the people: ētamar qātāya.”105 On the one hand, the word tamriqātu (designation of a ritual) is etymologized as ētamar qātāya, on the other hand, the term tamriqātu implies reading a n š e . a . a b . b a as tamru. Be that as it may, all three terms, tamru, udru, and a n š e . a . a b . b a, were used interchangeably in the inscriptions of Shalmaneser III, and all three terms did not mean per se the two-​humped camel, requiring the qualification “with two humps” when designating the Bactrian form. Thus, the tribute from Asû the Gilzanean is described as ta-​ma-​ra-​te šá šu-​un-​na ṣe-​ri-​ši-​na, ud-​ra-​te šá 2 gu-​un-​gu-​li-​pi(-ši-​na), and anš e.a.ab.ba.meš šá šu-​na-​a ṣe-​ri-​ši-​na. 14. The high value attributed to female udru camels in sources dating to the middle of the eleventh and the middle of the ninth centuries BC merits particular 104.  Hančar 1955, 157 n. 126, 176; Herles 2008, 166–69. See now the online corpus eCUT, based on Salvini’s Corpus dei testi urartei I–V (2008–2018), with the sigla CTU 1 A 8–2: obv. 33′ (Q007003); 8–3: iii 39; 8–3: iv 58; 8–3: iv 81b (all Q007004); 8–9: obv. 23 (Q006894). 105.  Literally “he learned from my example.” For “the ghost of Tiamat,” cf. CAD 18:146, 157; KAR 307 [VAT 8917] = SAA 3 no. 39, rev. 13–16 (Livingstone 1989); P336234. Courtesy Michael P. Streck.

104

Camels in the Biblical World

attention. Assur-​bel-​kala had to dispatch merchants to acquire “female udru camels.” Tukulti-​Ninurta II begins his list of animals received from Ḫaianu of Ḫindānu, located in the middle Euphrates region, with “30 female udru camels [ud-​ra-​te], 50 oxen, 30 asses, 14 ducks, 200 sheep” (Grayson 1991, no. A.0.100.5:78). Assurnasirpal II mentions female udru camels as the only livestock tribute that he had received from Amme’alaba of Ḫindānu, subsequently to “silver, gold, tin, bronze, šammu-stone, gišnugallu-alabaster, purple wool” (A.0.101.1:97). Therefore, in all probability, the term udru and its possible equivalent tamru refer to (relatives of ) one-​humped camels. More specific, we would like to argue that udru- or tamru-camels have to be regarded as one-​humped hybrids, and those udru or tamru-camels “with two humps” as Bactrian camels or BC1 hybrids (cf. §2.3). Although there is, so far, no osteological evidence for camel hybridization from second- to first-​millennium BC Mesopotamia and Iran, “the occurrence of hybrids is extremely likely for any time period and region where the human-​induced geographical overlap between the two species is expected” (Berthon et al. 2020, 24). The lack of osteological evidence has not least to do with the fact that the presence of hybrids has been rarely investigated or considered (Çakırlar and Berthon 2014, 248; cf. Becker 2008b, 83–87). In addition, there are no cuneiform texts that point expressis verbis to the hybridization of camels. Yet, this is not exceptional given that in other species, for instance, equids, hybridization is not detailed either (Zarins 2014, 170–76). However, hybridization can be deduced from the names, the value, and the use of the animals in question (Michel 2004).106 The following critical evaluation of the available data is intended to shed light on whether our hypothesis of udrus being hybrid camels has a demonstrable foundation. 15. Around the middle of the ninth century BC, Shalmaneser III lists one thousand dromedaries (1 lim anšegam-​ma-​lu) as the “camelry” of Gindibu the Arab, without any further comment (cf. §3 n. 112). It seems that Shalmaneser III had no specific interest in Gindibu’s dromedaries. Gindibu’s warriors most likely used dromedaries to reach the scene of battle and to make a speedy escape in the event of defeat (Macdonald 2000). Shalmaneser III did not invade the territories of his enemies or exact booty or tribute. The inscription merely states that he took away from the alliance of hostile kings, in which Gindibu had a prominent part, “chariots, cavalry, (and) teams of horses” (Grayson 1996, no. A.0.102.2: ii 102). 106.  It is noteworthy that neither Aristotle in his Historia animalium, nor Pliny in his Naturalis historia, knew of camel hybridization. Even in the writings of Diodorus Siculus, the practice can at best be inferred from his description of various camel breeds (Potts 2004, 159–60; Gatier 2020, 238–39), although camel hybridization at his time was common.

Camels in the Biblical World and Adjacent Regions

105

16. The same king deemed it noteworthy to record repeatedly the tribute of merely two two-​humped camels from Gilzanu. On the Kurkh monolith (A.0.102.2: i 28), he claims to have received “two female udru camels whose humps are two” (2 ud-​ra-​a-​te ša 2 gu-​un-​gu-​li-​pi) during his campaign against Urartu in 859 BC.107 The same event is told in another inscription (A.0.102.28:18), in very general terms, without specifying the number. It is retold on one of the captions of the Black Obelisk, this time expressed as ‟donkeys-​of-​the-​Sealand whose backs are two” (a n š e . a . a b . b a . m e š šá šu-​na-​a ṣe-​ri-​ši-​na). The corresponding sculptured relief displays a pair of two-​humped camels. The context of the latter inscription underlines their value: “I received tribute from Sūa the Gilzānean: silver, gold, tin, bronze casseroles, the staffs of the king’s hand, horses, (and) two-​humped camels.” On the Black Obelisk, two-​humped camels are highlighted by their position at the top of the tribute list (§3.2.4.7). Some years later, Shalmaneser III again received camels from Asû (alias Sūa) the Gilzānean, “7 female udru camels whose humps are two” (7 tam(a)-ra-​te šá 2 gu-​un-​gu-​li-​pi-​ši-​na), this time listed subsequently to “numerous [chariots], teams of horses, oxen, sheep, and wine” (A.0.102.2: ii 62). 17. With Shamshi-​Adad V (ca. 823–811 BC), female two-​humped udru camels (anšeud-​ra-​a-​ti ša 2 . t a . à m) were not only received as tribute, but also as booty, which explains their increasing numbers. They are listed after “countless quantities of booty, property, possessions, oxen, donkeys, sheep, teams of horses” (A.0.103.1: ii 55). 18. Around the middle of the eighth century BC, Tiglath-​pileser III obtained one-​humped female udru camels (anšeud-r​ a-a​ -t​ e) in large numbers as booty from the Medes and other nations living in the Zagros Mountains (see table 3.4). They are usually listed after horses and mules, but before oxen and caprines (sheep and goats). Tiglath-​pileser III begins his tribute lists with horses, followed by anše pa-​re-​e anšeud-​ra-a​ -t​ e “mules (and) udru camels.” The animals were received from tributaries in the (south)east, namely from the Medes and other livestock breeding peoples that had specialized in hybridization. On the other hand, Tiglath-​pileser III terminates his livestock lists from the Arabian Peninsula and adjacent regions with the dromedary tribute (a n š e . a . a b . b a . m e š) more precisely as “camels, she-​camels, together with their calves.” Only the extremely high camel tribute from Samsi, queen of the Arabs, is worthy of special mention, sometimes together with gold and aromatic plant resins. Whereas mules and udru camels were bred in the east and imported from there, dromedaries 107.  In an earlier version (A.0.102.1:39), the same event is told in different words (“female tamru camels whose backs are two,” ta-​ma-​ra-​te šá šu-​un-​na ṣe-​ri-​ši-​na), without specifying the number of camels. For the reading tamru, see above. There is some doubt regarding the number “2,” which may have slipped in by dittography (Grayson 1996, 15 n. i 28.2), but it does not look suspicious in view of the number “7” on another inscription; see below.

106

Camels in the Biblical World

were received from the Arabian Peninsula as complete herds that could settle and reproduce in the new region to which they were brought. 19. Similarly, the tribute Sargon II received from the Medes during his eighth campaign consisted of “running horses, fiery mules, udru camels that are native of their land [anšeud-​re i-​lit-​ti k u r-šu-​nu], oxen, [and] sheep” (line 50). On the other hand, tribute from southern and western vassals are usually listed in the order “horses, mules, donkeys, camels” (anš e.a.ab.ba.meš). 20. Sennacherib typically lists camels as transport animals of minor importance. If udru camels are mentioned, they are listed after camels, so that a typical complete booty list has, “horses, mules, donkeys, camels, udru camels, oxen, sheep and goats without number.” 21. Esarhaddon lists booty from the Medes as, “riding horses, oxen, sheep and goats, donkeys, (and) udru camels.” Since listed after donkeys, this unique order suggests that udru camels were basically in use as pack animals. 22. It seems that with the growing numbers of dromedaries available since the western campaigns of Tiglath-​pileser III and Sargon II, the value of udru camels began to decline. Against the background of the development of camel nomenclature, their value as booty or breeding stock, and their declining value as against increasing numbers of dromedaries from various breeds, we postulate that udru camels in most cases represented hybrids. Because of their variable habitus due to different possible crosses, it is understandable that observers classified them either as animals exhibiting one (large) hump in case of F1 or BC1 hybrids, or as udru camels showing two humps in case of BC1 Bactrian camels or purebred Bactrian camels. Hybrids were often highly valued for their size, their ability to cope with cold and wet weather, and their carrying capacity, especially when these animals had been trained to serve in caravanning (§2.3). Thus, the Akkadian term udru may be compared with the CA term for hybrids from Iran, ‫بخت‬ buḫt (§3.3.4), which likewise denoted one-​humped hybrids, but was occasionally used to identify Bactrian camels. Female hybrids were (and are) mainly, if not exclusively used for breeding. Indeed, the very first inscription mentioning female udru camels, the Broken Obelisk of Assur-​bel-​kala (ca. 1073–1056 BC), sees these animals as “dams” in a breeding project (§3.2.4.10.1). Backcrossing female F1 hybrids with male dromedaries would result in BC1 dromedaries, featuring an increase of milk production and heat resistance (= the dromedary effect). Backcrossing with male Bactrian camels would result in BC1 Bactrian camels, featuring an improvement of fat and wool production and hence cold resistance (= the Bactrian effect) (see §2.3; Faye and Konuspayeva 2012, 32). Further crossbreeding and/or backcrossing can produce various camel hybrids (F3, F4, F5), which, compared with pure-​bred

Camels in the Biblical World and Adjacent Regions

107

dromedaries or Bactrians, have advantages that make these breeding strategies worthwhile (Dioli 2020, 10–12). In the campaign reports and annals of the eleventh to ninth centuries BC, the camels acquired by Assur-​bel-​kala and those received by Tukulti-​Ninurta II and Assurnasirpal II were all obtained in Mesopotamia. Assur-​bel-​kala’s merchant had to deliver udru camels that he had in turn acquired directly from persons acquainted with hybrid breeding or through intermediaries. Ammelaba and Ḫaianu delivered udru camels that had either been imported from the east or bred in the vicinity of Ḫindānu. Tiglath-​pileser III, on the other hand, had direct and lasting access to people living in the eastern mountains. He could cover the demand of udru camels directly from there. In addition, Tiglath-​pileser III received complete dromedary (a n š e . a . a b . b a) herds from camel breeders in Arabia. From the eighth century BC onward, large numbers of camels appear in the campaign reports, more precisely dromedaries in the west, and udru camels in the east. With Tiglath-​pileser III, campaigns were no longer the instrument of policy, but the policy goal itself. A military economy developed that had to serve the state as a whole, which relied heavily on the income produced by the execution of warfare (Richardson 2011, 32–33). The foregoing considerations suggest that either she-​dromedaries, F1 hybrids, or BC1 hybrids must have been available to cross with Bactrian camels in Mesopotamia and western Iran in the eleventh to ninth centuries BC, and that their numbers increased considerably after the ninth century BC. This is paralleled by the modest earliest inscriptional evidence for the “donkey of the Sealand” (anš e.a.ab.ba) in lexical lists, which implies the necessity to define the species, because the term was used in written documents in fourteenth to twelfth centuries BC Mesopotamia and adjacent regions (§3.2.4.3.1). Conceivably, early in the process, camel breeders in ancient Iran did not have to import dromedaries from Arabia, but likely from the Sealand. Indeed, “donkeys of the Sealand” were known after the middle of the second millennium BC in cities such as Nippur and probably also Shibaniba, which are closer to Iran than to the Arabian Peninsula. Furthermore, if the domestication of dromedaries was largely in the hands of cameleers that engaged in overland trade between Iran and Mesopotamia (§3.2.5), it is not surprising that dromedaries were used to produce udru camels in Mesopotamia and Iran around the turn from the second to the first millennia BC. 3.2.4.10.1. The Udru Camels of Assur-​bel-​k ala The first inscription using the Akkadian term udru is the Broken Obelisk of Assur-​bel-​kala, referring to his campaign directed against the Arameans that

108

Camels in the Biblical World

lived in the middle Euphrates and Jezirah regions (table 3.4; see Younger 2016, 177–182). The most striking feature of this inscription is the lengthy and detailed description of the king’s hunting activities. He hunted wild bulls, lions, elephants, panthers, bears, and ostriches. Moreover, he trapped gazelles, ibex, and deer, “bred them and numbered their offspring like the offspring of sheep.” The text then explicitly refers to merchants that the king dispatched. They had to acquire burṭiš (bur-ḫí-​iš, eSAD s.v.), udru, and tešēnu animals. The burṭiš and the tešēnu are probably horned animals, such as water-​buffalos or zebus (cf. AHw 1:139, 3:1352; CAD 2:329, 18:373, 20:22; eSAD, s.v.; cf. Landsberger 1934, 142). As such, the udru camels were purchased from herdsmen, cameleers, or other local merchants. This practice contrasts with all the other animals, namely gazelles, ibexes, panthers, wild asses, and wild boars, which the king either hunted or trapped, and the strange animals the king of Egypt had sent him: a large female monkey, a crocodile, and a “river man.” Then the text proceeds: “He gathered female camels108 [ud-​ra-​a-​temeš], caused them to give birth [and] displayed herds of them to the people of his land.” Contrary to the true game species the king had hunted, such as the lion, wolf, deer, ibex, and gazelle, the udru camels were acquired through animal merchants in Assur, they were neither hunted nor directly tributed by foreign states. If the camels complete the inventory of wild and strange animals that the king had noticed during his campaign, which is reported on the same inscription, they would naturally belong to the middle Euphrates and Jezirah areas. It is possible that Assur-​bel-​kala saw some udru camels in caravans crossing these regions and that he wanted to breed them for his own administration. The context of Assur-​bel-​kala’s report suggests that udru camels were a novelty or curiosity that generated as much attention as wild and exotic animals. If udru camels were Bactrian camels, this would be puzzling. Although Bactrian camels were not a common sight in Mesopotamia, they must have been known in the area for hundreds of years, as is suggested by Sumerian camel names (§§3.2.4.1–3.2.4.2) and camel remains from Tell Sheikh Ḥamad (Dūr-​Katlimmu) from the thirteenth to twelfth centuries BC (§3.2.1). However, if the udru camels were hybrids that had been generated in growing numbers, the triumphal report of Assur-​bel-​kala falls into place. F1 hybrids are larger and stronger than dromedaries and Bactrian camels, caused by a genetic condition called heterosis (Dioli 2020, 1). Assumedly, the height, body mass, and strength of these animals would have created a similar impression as that of the burṭiš and the tešēnu, and been astounding for every observer; in other words: a worthy display for the royal zoo. The report sandwiches udru camels between the burṭiš and tešēnu, 108.  Or “he formed [herds] of female camels”; cf. CAD 1.1:293; and Grayson 1991, no. A.0.89.7:27.

Camels in the Biblical World and Adjacent Regions

109

pointing to some common features (height, body mass, performance?) between all three species. After that, Assur-​bel-​kala focuses on the udru camels to tell the reader of his breeding project. Moreover, this very early (if not the earliest) use of an Iranian loanword in Akkadian, namely udru, suggests that the animals in question were regarded as novelties by the Assyrian scribes (pers. comm. Manfred Krebernik, September 2017). Assur-​bel-​kala simply states that he “bred them” or “caused them to give birth” (ú-​šá-​lid). Camels only reach full sexual maturity after the age of four, and a female camel will calve only every second year (§2.1.2). It is probably for these reasons that Assur-​bel-​kala tells us only in general terms of his camel-​ breeding project: “he displayed herds of them [su-g​ ul-l​ a-t​ e-š​ ú-n​ u] to the people of his land.” Moreover, if Assur-​bel-​kala’s camel-​herders used male F1 hybrids to serve the udrāte camels, their offspring (F2) would have a bad character, or weak progeny. It is only by backcrossing female F1 hybrids with male Bactrian or dromedary camels that Assur-​bel-​kala’s camel herders would obtain valuable stock (cf. §2.3). Other breeding projects of Assur-​bel-​kala resulted in larger herds. For instance, in the same inscription, he claimed that he had created herds (su-​ gul-​la-​a-​te-​šu-​nu ik-ṣur) of gazelles, ibex, and deer, that he bred (ú-​šá-​lid ) them “and numbered their livestock (or “offspring” [mar-​ši-​su-​nu]) like the livestock [mar-​ši-​it] of sheep” (lines 15–22). In a similar way, Assurnasirpal II (ca. 883–859 BC) recorded that he “bred livestock of them [mar-​ši-​si-​na ú-​šá-​ li-​di] [namely, of monkeys] in great numbers,” as well as lion cubs “in great numbers” (Grayson 1991, no. A.0.101.2:32). From a later inscription, we learn that he had “formed herds of them [su-​gul-​la-​te-​šú-​nu],” namely wild bulls, lions, ostriches, and monkeys. Subsequently he “bred livestock of them [mar-​ ši-​si-​na ú-​šá-​lid]” (Grayson 1991, no. A.0.101.30:100). Yet, Assur-​bel-​kala does not mention any livestock (mar​šītu) in connection with the camel herds (su-​gul-​ la-​te-​šú-​nu) that he “displayed to the people of his land.” 3.2.4.10.2. The Udru Camels of Tukulti-​Ninurta II and Assurnasirpal II In the eleventh and tenth centuries, Aramean city-​states gained control in several regions of Mesopotamia. The Assyrian king Tukulti-​Ninurta II (ca. 890– 884 BC) initiated the process of resubjugation of these city-​states (Younger 2016, 221). Tukulti-​Ninurta II received gold, silver, tin, myrrh, bronze, antimony, and several hundred animals, among them thirty female udru camels, from Ḫindānu, a city-​state located in the middle Euphrates region. Tukulti-​Ninurta II demanded the tribute during his campaign to the upper Euphrates areas. His son Assurnasirpal II (ca. 883–859 BC) obtained besides silver, gold, tin, bronze, and purple wool from Ḫindānu also an unspecified number of female udru camels.

110

Camels in the Biblical World

Assurnasirpal received this tribute in the wake of a fierce punitive expedition to the Aramean confederacy of Bīt Ḫalupē at the lower Khabur river (Younger 2016, 275, 286–87). The rulers of Ḫindānu had engaged in some overland trade with Arabia, as is evident from such goods as myrrh, purple, and wool (Liverani 1992). Some one hundred years later, Ninurta-​kudurri-​usur, the governor of Suḫu and Mari at the Euphrates, reported that his troops had plundered a large caravan coming from Taymāʾ and Sabaʾ, which had entered the city of Ḫindānu (Cavigneaux and Ismail 1990, 346, 351). He seized, “200 of their camels including their load” (2 ME gam-​ma-​lu-​šú-​nu a-​di GÚ.UN-šú-​nu), in all probability dromedaries. If Arabian tribute-​goods were already available in the city of Ḫindānu during the reign of Tukulti-​Ninurta II and Assurnasirpal II, it is most likely that they had reached Ḫindānu on dromedaries’ backs as well (Liverani 1992; Fedele 2017, 305). Now, if Ḫindānu was able to deliver udru camels as tribute to both kings, these animals had either been imported from the east or crossbred in the larger area. Conceivably, dromedaries came in through caravan trade with the Arabian Peninsula, whereas Bactrian camels had to be imported from beyond the Zagros Mountains, as the reports of Shalmaneser III (ca. 858–824 BC) demonstrate. 3.2.4.10.3. The Udru Camels of the Later Neo-​Assyrian Period It seems that up to the reign of Tiglath-​pileser III, the Assyrian rulers were particularly interested in female udru camels. From Sargon II onward, the campaign reports exclusively mention male udru camels. Male F1 hybrids do not produce valuable offspring and are therefore usually castrated (§2.3). While female F1 hybrids are mainly used for breeding purposes, male F1 hybrids are superior load animals with a carrying capacity of nearly half a ton (Tapper 2011). Against the background of their military campaigns, the extraordinary performance of (castrated?) male udru camels may explain why Sargon II and his successors were specifically interested in obtaining these animals that they exacted from camel breeders in the east (see §3.2.4.10.4). Mentioning udru camels does not exclude female animals per se, as the term might have been used in a generic or epicene way, but it emphasizes the preference for high-​performance male pack animals. Sennacherib’s South-​West Palace at Nineveh provides perhaps the only pictorial evidence of an udru camel from southern Babylonia. As T. C. Mitchell (2000, 192) observed, the drawing of the slab in question shows “a pair of very large one-​humped camels being led along in a file of booty. They have a cord in front of the hump and around the chest behind the foreleg” (Barnett, Bleibtreu, and Turner 1998: no. 553a on pl. 428). So far, there is no inscriptional evidence for udru camels from Neo-​ Babylonian times, one of the best-​documented periods of ancient Mesopotamian

Camels in the Biblical World and Adjacent Regions

111

history.109 The identification of female udru camels as gammalāti in the Practical Vocabulary of Assur (seventh century BC) implies that the very term needed further explanation, probably because it was receding in common parlance (see §3.2.4.8; table 3.5). From Sargon II onward, only male udru camels are registered in campaign reports. Moreover, increasing supply of dromedaries and special dromedary breeds from Arabian camel breeders probably lowered the need to import udru camels during the Neo-​Babylonian period. Various dromedary breeds could now meet the demand for riding animals, pack animals, or animals that would be able to traverse mountainous terrain (cf. Morrison 2014, 474). Furthermore, it seems that long-​distance trade became the monopoly of Arameans and other non-​Akkadian people during Neo-​Babylonian times. These people did not write in cuneiform. Thus, their eventual use of camels, not to speak of hybrids, has not been documented (Graslin-​Thomé 2016, 177). Cuneiform inscriptions of the Neo-​Babylonian period that refer to long-​distance trade never mention camels (cf. §3.2.4.11; Jursa 2010, 224–25). 3.2.4.10.4. Two-​Humped Udru Camels as Highly Valued Tribute While Assur-​bel-​kala (ca. 1073–1056 BC) bought female udru camels from a merchant, Tukulti-​Ninurta II and Assurnasirpal II (ca. 883–859 BC) received these animals as tribute (table 3.4). Crossing these animals with Bactrian or dromedary studs would result in BC1 hybrids with strong cold or heat resistance respectively and various positive effects generated by heterosis (§2.3). Taking one step further, the Assyrian administration under Shalmaneser III (ca. 858–824 BC) could lay its hands on some two-​humped she-​camels. The tribute received by Shalmaneser III has a conspicuous preference for small numbers of female two-​humped camels. Shalmaneser III mentions male Bactrian camels as well (A.0.102.28:18). The two-​humped female camels seized by his successor, Shamshi-​Adad V, appear last after “countless quantities of booty, property, possessions, oxen, donkeys, sheep, teams of horses” (A.0.103.1 ii:53–55). Shamshi-​ Adad V’s camel booty was larger than Shalmaneser III’s, but most likely still comparatively small. These female two-​humped camels were most likely brought into Mesopotamia to serve the purpose of camel hybridization. However, female two-​humped camels can only be successfully crossbred with special breeds of dromedaries (Dioli 2020, 8), so that the highly prized tribute is 109.  Salonen (1955, 87) refers to growing numbers of udru camels in Neo-​Babylonian sources, but this interpretation is based on misreadings. Actually, the first two terms in question read par-​ri and par-r​ at “young (he/she) lamb”; cf. Strassmaier 1889, 119 with 143; and CAD 12:189, 192. In addition, the text from TMH 2/3 8.37 (see Krückmann 1933: shelf no. HS 452, line 37; cf. San Nicolò 1951, 6) mentions the camel herder Abi-ṭāb as witness in a bill of sale. His title is lú.sipa anše.a.ab. ba.meš, “dromedary herder,” which is (mis-)interpreted by Krückmann (1933, 20, 49) as rē’ū udrāti (courtesy Michael P. Streck).

112

Camels in the Biblical World

best explained as an endeavor to breed (pure) Bactrian camels in Assyria itself, and in turn to let male Bactrians cover female dromedaries for the generation of udru camels (see §2.3). By comparison, in present-​day Azerbaijan, Bactrian camels are kept “solely for breeding purposes. Female Bactrians are rarely if ever bought or sold, though they may change hands as gifts or be demanded as part of a bride-​wealth” (Tapper 2011). These facts may help explain the low number, but high value, of Bactrian camels that were acquired by Shalmaneser III. Here we remind that still in the nineteenth century, Henry van Lennep observed that “Bactrians were kept in small numbers all over southern Asia Minor, for breeding with dromedaries, a yearly supply of which was brought in from Mesopotamia. The hybrids were best adapted to the climate, but as their own offspring were degenerate, they were recrossed with fresh dromedaries and Bactrians. A few female Bactrians were raised to keep the breed pure” (Tapper 2011, referring to van Lennep 1870 2:162–63; cf. Potts 2004, 156; Çakırlar and Berthon 2014, 241). An administrative document from the much later reign of Esarhaddon (dated to 674 BC) likewise points to the high value of Bactrian camels: “Two camels [anš e.a.ab.ba] that are two-​humped [ša 2-a-​a kar-​ru-​u-​ni] belonging to Dannaya, at the disposal of Yaḫuṭu, Ilu-​kenu[uṣur], and Adad-​aplu-[iddina]. They shall give the camels [gam.mal] back on the 1st of [Marchesvan] (VIII). If they do not give them, they shall pay 6 minas of silver[. . . I]f they do not pay the silver, it will increase by 2 shekels per mina” (SAA 6 no. 241). This debt-​note of the high official Dannaya, of which a duplicate exists as well (SAA 6 no. 242), suggests that male Bactrian camels were either used for the breeding of pure Bactrian camels that in turn were needed for hybridization, or that male Bactrian camels were employed essentially for crossbreeding with one-​humped camels (§2.3; cf. Potts 2004, 154–58). This suggestion is supported by the relatively high price implied in the penalty clause, three minas of silver for each camel. For comparison, a letter dating to the reign of Sargon II mentions one mina as the price for a nāqatu “she-​camel.”110 From another letter of the same period we know that the eunuch Nabû-​epush bought one camel (anš e.gam.mal) for one and two-​thirds mina of silver (SAA 15 no. 182). Later prices for camels were lower. The records of Assurbanipal (669–627 BC), who boasted of having “distributed camels like sheep,” give the camel’s worth as one shekel. During the reign of Nabonidus (556–539 BC), one camel was exchanged for less than fifty shekels (Jursa 2010, 550; cf. Gaspa 2016, 148–49). 110.  The singular na-​qa-​ti “she-​camel” occurs once in SAA 17, no. 139, rev. 11 (P237905). This noun can also be understood as a dual (Cousin 2000, 78), but most likely represents a singular form. The sender of the message was giving an account of his expenses. Claiming that he spent one mina for “she-​camels” (without any details) sounds rather odd; cf. the usual prices for small numbers of camels above.

Camels in the Biblical World and Adjacent Regions

113

The debt-​note of Dannaya does not suggest that inscriptions of later times (i.e., after the ninth century BC) simply dropped the qualification “[with] two humps.” They could do so in the immediate context, as gam.mal serves as reference to anše.a.ab.ba in the letter quoted above, but there is no evidence that they did it systematically. It is, of course, possible that some two-​humped camels were subsumed under large numbers of (one-​humped) udru camels in the Neo-​Assyrian campaign reports (cf. al-​Zaidi 2017, 14). In this case, udru may have been used in a similar way as the CA term ‫ بخت‬buḫt about one thousand five hundred years later, that is, as a common term denoting various hybrids (F1, F2, F3, etc.) from Iran, sometimes referring to Bactrian camels as well (§3.3.4). Returning to the campaign reports (table 3.4), it seems that the number of female Bactrian camels brought into Mesopotamia peaked under the reign of Shamshi-​Adad V (ca. 823–811 BC), at least when taking the military administration as benchmark. Moreover, Tiglath-​pileser III (ca. 745–727 BC) received female udru-camels not from merchants or intermediaries in Ḫindānu, but directly from cameleers living in Media. During the reign of Sargon II (ca. 722–705 BC), however, this development became reversed (§3.2.4.10.3): In lieu of importing two-​humped camel mares into Mesopotamia to breed hybrids, he explicitly points to the fact that he received male udru camels that are “native” of the land of the Medes (anšeud-​ re i-​lit-​ti kur-šu-​nu). Taking male F1 hybrids with their high carrying capacity as tribute or booty from Media was more convenient than breeding them, in a similar way as taking horses or mules from Iranian city states was more effective than breeding them locally in Mesopotamia (cf. Radner 2003). Identifying udru camels as F1 hybrids or closely related breeds also corresponds well with their mention during the reigns of Sennacherib (705–681 BC) and Esarhaddon (681–669 BC; see table 3.4; cf. the drawing cited in §3.2.4.10.3). Furthermore, with Tiglath-​pileser III and Sargon II’s military influence in the east, there was no need to import two-​humped udru camels in order to breed hybrids. The Assyrian army rather preferred udru camels that were “native to the land” of the Medes. This development may explain why two-​humped camels do not feature anymore in campaign reports from Tiglath-​pileser III onward. About one thousand years earlier, the milk of the Bactrian camel (am.si.ḫar. ra.an) was praised in a Sumerian love song (§3.2.4.1.2). Enjoying cream or butter from camel’s milk implies, of course, that Bactrian she-​camels were known in Old Babylonian Nippur. They were probably kept in moderate numbers for breeding purposes to meet the demand for pack animals in overland trade. However, in Neo-​Assyrian times, the dromedary was bred in large numbers, thus becoming the usual camel, while two-​humped camels were mainly used for cross-​breeding. In terms of terminology, Sumerian scribes of the third and second millennia compared Bactrian camels with elephants (am.s i), probably

114

Camels in the Biblical World

perceiving their well-​developed peaked humps as conspicuous horn-​like protrusions (§3.2.4; cf. figs. 3.1 and 8.1). Toward the end of the second millennium BC, dromedaries with their inconspicuous elongated single humps (cf. figs. 3.2–3.3) were regarded as donkey-​like creatures (a n š e), characterized by their affinity to the Sealand (§3.2.4.3). Neo-​Assyrian scribes, however, defined two-​humped camels as animals having gungulīpi (“hunches” or “humps”). They also referred to the latter as asqubītti, which denotes bovine humps and deformities found in fetuses (CAD 1.2:339), as ṣēri (“backs”), and as karri (“knobs,” §3.2.4.7), leaving the impression that they were not only used to the sight of purebred Bactrian camels, but also to hybrids with their widely varying humps, featuring well-​ developed distinct humps, humps that touch each other at the base, one large hump with two visible mounds at the apex, and so on (Dioli 2020). 3.2.4.11. Camels in Warfare, Trade, and Royal Service of the Neo-​Assyrian and Neo-​Babylonian Empires Sometime after the middle of the second millennium BC, cameleers must have introduced the “donkey of the Sealand” to Mesopotamia proper (§§3.2.4.3.1 and 3.2.5). However, in settlement contexts of the Arabian Peninsula, camel remains only turn up from the ninth century BC onward (§3.3.1). From the Neo-​Assyrian perspective, the human populations inhabiting the Sinai Peninsula, the Syro-​Arabian Desert, and the northern part of the Arabian Peninsula as well as the oases were called “Arabs.”111 They are mainly described as mobile pastoralists that raised camels and sheep, but they also participated in trade and farming (Retsö 2005, 129; Macdonald 2010, 18). Various documents mention not only mobile pastoralists, but also cameleers that attended camels, and camels that supposedly were attended by specialists in the service of the administration. Any crossing of larger stretches of desert was virtually impossible without the help of camels and cameleers (Elat 1998, 39). Neo-​Assyrian documents reveal that by that time, Arabs had also become important for the upkeeping of major trade routes (Hoyland 2001, 60–63; Frame 2013, 116–17), and that Aramean tribes were active in the handling of camels as well. For the moment, the Kurkh Stela of Shalmaneser III (ca. 853 BC) is the oldest Neo-​Assyrian document mentioning Arabs under the direction of Gindibu. It is at the same time the oldest Assyrian document mentioning a large population of camels (anšegam-​ma-​lu). In the same document, Shalmaneser III 111.  It is important to note that “Arabs” is an ethnicon, not necessarily a way of life, although Arabs were often perceived as nomads (Macdonald 2009a; 2009b, V.2; cf. Bagg 2010; Al-​Jallad 2020). Furthermore, “according to linguistic and onomastic criteria,” Arabs did not always bear names that are “Arabian” (Zadok 1981, 44).

Camels in the Biblical World and Adjacent Regions

115

refers to an alliance of twelve kings that attacked him, and details their armies as follows: 1,200 chariots, 1,200 cavalry, (and) 20,000 troops of Hadad-​ezer [Adadidri], the Damascene; 700 chariots, 700 cavalry, (and) 10,000 troops of Irḫulēnu, the Ḫamatite; 2,000 chariots (and) 10,000 troops of Aḫab [Aḫabbu] the Israelite [Sirʾalāia]; 500 troops of Byblos; 1,000 troops of Egypt; 10 chariots (and) 10,000 troops of the land Irqanatu; 200 troops of Matinu-​baʾal of the city Arvad; 200 troops of the land Usanātu; 30 chariots (and) [N],000 troops of Adunubaʿal of the land Šianu; 1,000 camels of Gindibu the Arab; [N] hundred troops of Baʾasa, the man of Bit-​Ruḫubi, the Ammonite.112 It is clear from the collocation of Shalmaneser III’s enemies that troops and chariots are in view, not pack animals. Therefore, it is very likely that the camels used by Gindibu were cavalry animals able to reach the scene of battle quickly. About one hundred years later, Tiglath-​pileser III claimed that he had seized thirty thousand dromedaries (anše.a.ab.ba.meš) from Samsi, the queen of the Arabs, together with twenty thousand cattle and all kinds of precious goods.113 In all probability, we are dealing with camels hired (or commandeered?) from owners who otherwise exploited their camels in overland trade.114 After Samsi had been defeated, Tiglath-​pileser III “installed an inspector over her and 10,000 soldiers” (Younger 2000b), accepting her surrender and assigning her a supervisor. Tiglath-​pileser III obviously wanted to avoid “disturbing the governmental framework and social organization in the border regions of his realm, whose inhabitants were a vital mediating link in international trade” (Ephʿal 1982, 87). 112.  A.0.102.2 in Grayson 1996, 23; Younger 2000a, 264. On the one hand, some of the large rounded numbers used in this inscription may have been inflated for propaganda purposes—some data may have been available, while others were not—(De Odorico 1995, 104–6); on the other hand, “they were certainly not used in a whimsical or impromptu manner” (179; cf. Millard 1991). Furthermore, while the number of seventy-​five thousand Syrian troops at Qarqar seems to be excessive, “the Arabian and Egyptian contingents, according to the inscriptions, were composed of only 1,000 camels and 1,000 troops respectively” (De Ororico 1995, 104). Gindibu most likely had more than five hundred, but fewer than one thousand camels at his disposal. “All in all, then, it must be said that both the opponents’ forces at Qarqar and the reconstructed Assyrian host assembled during Shalmaneser’s reign yield numbers not too remote from the purported 120,000 of the overall total” (Fales 2000, 53; cf. Ephʿal 1982, 76–77). 113.  Summary Inscription 4: 20′ (Tadmor 2007, 143). 114.  It is highly unlikely that Tiglath-​pileser III received these animals as one huge train of camels. The rounded number rather sums up several supplies for various places and on various occasions. For the immense logistic obstacles of moving a vast number of thirty thousand camels, see Morrison 2014, who details the Russian winter expedition with Bactrian camels to Khiva in AD 1839. For the problem of their magnitude, cf. §3 n. 112.

116

Camels in the Biblical World

As already mentioned above, the large camel herds in inscriptions of the first millennium BC and the hundreds of camel figurines that have been unearthed (§3.2.3) are in obvious disproportion to the few camel remains (§3.2.1). The same intention of Tiglath-​pileser III is visible in the Summary Inscription no. 13. It adds about ten lines to the event with Samsi (Tadmor 2007, 142–43, 198–203), mentioning several tribes that brought “gold, silver, camels [anš e.a.ab.ba.meš], she-​camels [sal.anšea-na-​qa-​a-​ti], all kinds of spices” as tribute (cf. §3.2.4.9). The special mention of camels in general and of she-​ camels probably points to Shalmaneser III’s (see above) and Tiglath-​pileser III’s intention to have trained dromedaries for riding or transport purposes, and she-​dromedaries for breeding purposes. Moreover, she-​dromedaries have the habit of returning to where they suckled their calf recently (Baskin 1974), which would tie the mare and its calf to the new location they were brought to. Finally, Tiglath-​pileser III appointed the Arab Idibiʾilu “as the gatekeeper facing Egypt” (line 16′).115 Taken together, these measures suggest that Shalmaneser III and Tiglath-​pileser III wanted to establish the use of camels in their own armies. Camels and cameleers from tribes that had sworn loyalty to the Assyrians may have also been desirable for the state-​owned overland trade, in a way similar to how the later Palmyrene administration engaged camel pastoralists living at the margins of the settlements for overland trade (Seland 2016, 65–68). In Sargon II’s eighth campaign (ca.714 BC), Sargon gives an account of the astonishing cultural achievements of his enemy, the Urartian king Rusa I (ca. 730–713 BC). He had used irrigation systems to cultivate vineyards and orchards and had managed woods and fields. Rusa thus had transformed the country around the southwestern part of Lake Urmia “to a pasturage for horses and herds, and had taught his whole inaccessible land the dromedary, so that they heaped up river bank stabilizations” (a n š e . a [ . a b . b a g]i-​mer k u r-šu kut-​tum-​te ú-​šal-​mid-​ma i-​šap-​pa-​ku er-​re-​tu; col. 3, line 210; Mayer 2013, 118; cf. Çifçi 2017, 28–73). Sargon very probably acquired these details through insider information (Çifçi 2017, 70–71). By way of comparison, 14,600 camels were exploited in the construction of the Mārib Dam in southwest Arabia in AD 450 (inscription CIH 541; Sima 2000, 12). Sargon’s campaign report implies that Rusa had established camel expertise in his own “inaccessible” country. The one-​humped camels exploited in Urartu were probably strains performing well in mountainous regions (cf. Altmann 1990, 135). Despite their soft-​cushioned feet, camels are able to walk on rough and rocky terrain (Nolde 1895, 128). In the early Neo-​Babylonian archive from Nippur (eighth century BC), several letters mention dromedaries as means of transport. They are always 115.  For a discussion of this event, and for further evidence of “Arabs” as intermediaries, see Ephʿal 1982, 93–100.

Camels in the Biblical World and Adjacent Regions

117

written anše.a.ab.ba, and were most likely read as gammalu (Cole 1996a, 310; cf. §3.2.4.8). According to letter no. 32 (Cole 1996b, 26), the Aramean Ubūlu tribe was under suspicion to have plundered camels from Uruk. Camels could be hired (no. 95; cf. no. 103) and loaded, for instance, with dates (no. 39), wheat (no. 51), or silver (no. 65). Text no. 62 probably mentions a dromedary herder (l ú . s i p a a n š e . a . a b . b a). Another dromedary herder served as witness in a bill of sale (San Nicolò 1951, 6), and another letter mentions camels accompanied by “workers” (no. 4). Generally, camels are more often associated with Arameans than Chaldeans in the texts from early Neo-​Babylonian Nippur (Cole 1996a, 29 n. 43). The texts also document the settlement of Aramean people from Syria in the lands between Nippur and Bit-​Iakin (Graslin-​Thomé 2016, 176). However, camels are missing from Neo-​Babylonian texts referring to overland trade, implying that donkeys remained the preferred means of transporting goods in the empire (Jursa 2010, 224–25). All in all, it seems that during Neo-​Babylonian times, long-​distance trade became the monopoly of Arameans and other non-​Akkadian people. However, since these people did not write in cuneiform (Graslin-​Thomé 2016, 177), information about their activities was not handed down. Texts from the seventh century BC reveal that Esarhaddon (681–669 BC) used camels that he had obtained from Arabian chieftains to carry water skins for his army into Egypt: “I mobilized the camels of all the kings of Arabia [anšegam-​ma-​ li šá lugal.meš kura-​ri-​bi] and loaded them with [water skins and water containers]. Twenty ‘miles’ of land, a journey of 15 days, I marched through [mighty sand] dunes” (Radner 2008, 306–7). Texts from the royal or local administration and dating to the eighth to seventh centuries BC also refer to cameleers. The Nimrud letter SAA 1 no. 175 informs the king that a certain Ammiliʾti had dispatched a caravan from Damascus “with 300 she-​dromedaries [anšea-n​ a-q​ a-a​ -t​ e], intending to attack the booty being [tran]sferred from Damascus to Assyria” (line obv. 4). As she-​camels were mainly held for breeding purposes, the specific mention of three hundred of these animals suggests that in the time of Ammiliʾti, camel breeding was already well developed, so that she-​dromedaries could be used and trained for other purposes. Alternatively, Ammiliʾti may have felt urged to seize the opportunity and used the camels he had at his disposal, his male camels being used otherwise, perhaps in overland trade. When the Assyrians tried to stop him, Ammiliʾti and his camels were outrunning the Assyrian horses and chariots. The Assyrians “could not catch up with him; (the terrain) was too difficult, [it was not fit] either for horses or for chariots” (lines rev. 30–rev. 37).116 Yet, in another letter (SAA 1 no. 177), it is reported that “the Arabs are going in and out as before, everything is all right. Ammiliʾti son of Amiri came to me 116.  A similar incident is known from the time of Sargon II (SAA 18 no. 149).

118

Camels in the Biblical World

in Ṣupat and I asked him for news, everything is fine” (lines rev. 7–rev. 13). Conceivably, the Assyrians had to rely on Ammiliʾti and his good will (Fales 2002, 149), but his cameleers would at times act arbitrarily. Thus, the loyalty of the Arab tribes had to be monitored constantly (Dubovský 2006, 124–33; cf. Bagg 2010, 195). In another letter from Sargon’s reign, an Assyrian commander is entrusted with the task of returning Arab fugitives to Samsi’s custody, and also 125 “stray camels” (anše.gam.mal.meš pa-ṣu-​u-​te, SAA 11 no. 162; cf. Byrne 2003, 18). Probably this statement suggests that the animals were freely foraging in the landscape, a typical behavior of camels in order not to overgraze pastures. From the same era, administrative tablets of the Assyrian civil service have been excavated in Nimrud. Among them is a list (ND 2442) mentioning mares, male donkeys, mules, and camels (g a m . m a l) that had been under the care of pastoralists for several days (B. Parker 1961, 26–27; Desző 2016, 65–66). Further tablets list camels as moveable property (ND 2782; B. Parker 1961, 51), cameleers (ND 2497; B. Parker 1961, 35, 67), or camel pastoralists (ND 2728+2739; B. Parker 1961, 46; cf. AHw 2:977a). The Neo-​Assyrian contract SAA 6 no. 138 documents the purchase of three slaves, among them Aḫabû, the cameleer (lú.uš anš e.a.ab.ba.meš), and his wife Rimuttu. Another document (SAA 6 no. 300) refers likewise to the purchase of a camel driver (this time written lú.uš gam.mal.meš; Kwasman and Parpola 1991). Cameleers are also mentioned several times in SAA 12 no. 27 (l ú . u š g a m . m a l . m e š; Kataja and Whiting 1995; Galil 2007, 110–11), and in administrative texts from Persian times (batera of anše.a.ab.ba, Hallock 1969; see PF 1080, 1711, 1845, 1950). The letter SAA 1 no. 82 refers to the transgression of Arabian pastoralists from their allotted grazing areas (Parpola 1987), and asks, “why do they graze their sheep and dromedaries [a n š e . a . a b . b a . m e š] in the desert where they must resort to plundering when hungry?” “We should envisage the possibility, that these Arabs [sic] groups were ‘friendly.’ In other words, we should consider that they had been originally brought in to graze their camels in the Jezirah as part of a specific policy (whether as deportees, or to keep out the Arameans, or in view of a plan to make them into Sargon’s meharis, etc.)—a policy which did not, all told, work out as intended” (Fales 2002, 147). The text SAA 15 no. 182 refers to the sale of camels. Camels come up in a broken and therefore hardly intelligent tablet (SAA 15 no. 195), and in several other letters (Fuchs and Parpola 2001).117 Text SAA 5 no. 48 reports to the king that the mule stable 117.  For all administrative texts, see also http://​oracc​.museum​.upenn​.edu​/saao​/corpus; and Cousin 2020.

Camels in the Biblical World and Adjacent Regions

119

attendant had delivered “15 mules, 52 donkeys, x camels [a n š e . a . a b . b a], 43 sheep, 2 carts, and 4 wagons” (Lanfranchi and Parpola 1990). Besides donkeys and mules, camels had to be mustered for the army. Tablet ND 2366 (SAA 19 no. 177) lists 2 dromedaries (anš e.a.ab.ba.meš), together with 198 soldiers and 195 donkeys (Saggs 2001, 241–42; Luukko 2012). As the text does not mention cavalrymen, the soldiers probably served in a military caravan with escort and pack animals (Desző 2016, 43). Another letter (ND 2647; SAA 19 no. 175) informs about the pack animals of the Suḫeans, stating that “I have reviewed them: 6 chariots, 1 wooden implement, 11 teams of horses, 3 teams of mules, 120 donkeys, and 60 camels” (a n š e . a . a b . b a . m e š) (Saggs 2001, 283; Luukko 2012). This inspection was probably done in preparation for grain transport from one location to another (Desző 2016, 81). In a royal decree, the Assyrian king orders to “check and receive all the camels [a n š e . g a m . m a l . m e š], as many as the commander in chief will give to you” (Saggs 2001, 175–77; SAA 19 no. 3). The Assyrians knew that camels need a wide area for grazing: “Badi’-Il is with you; entrust them to him and let them be grazed in the midst of the land.” The intriguing text SAA 17 no. 122 from the end of the eighth century BC reports how a certain Nabû-​shumu-​lishir is preparing everything “for the journey of Abu-​eriba, the king’s relative, and his wife.” The letter continues with the gift the couple received on their arrival: “Abu-​eriba has been given a kusītu-​gown, a woollen cover, a threaded work dress of Tukriš, bracelets worth 1/3 shekels gold, 2 silver dishes, 35 dependents, 2 female singers, 1 horse, 2 dromedaries [a n š e . a . a b . b a . m e š], 4 donkeys, 20 cows, 300 sheep, and 1 wagon; and his wife was provided with jewelry worth 2/3 minas of gold. She [with] all [her lady staff . . .] was dressed in garments” (M. Dietrich 2003). The Late-​ Babylonian text YOS 6 no. 134 (Dougherty 1920) tells how camels were sold “that transported the provisions of the king with him to Tema” (CAD 11.2:87; Beaulieu 1989, 154). The Late Babylonian letter OECT 10 no. 388 (Hackl, Jursa, and Schmidl 2014, 295) is about the difficulties of a certain man to obtain a dromedary (a n š e . a . a b . b a) of good quality. He could not find such a camel, and therefore asked his “lord” to send a camel of good quality that he, of course, was ready to pay for. The camel also became known in regions northwest of the Assyrian Empire, probably being mentioned as /kamara-/ in a letter from an Iron Age Luwian merchant (Giusfredi 2020). So far, the only explicit reference to a two-​humped camel in a Neo-​Assyrian administrative document is a debt-​note from the reign of Esarhaddon (SAA 6 no. 241; §3.2.4.10.4). Although the previous mentions suggest that camels became a common sight over time and that the locals occasionally became familiar with handling

120

Camels in the Biblical World

them, major military operations that involved the crossing of vast desert areas still required logistic support of experienced cameleers (Elat 1998, 50–51). So, when the Persian king Cambyses II (530–522 BC) planned to march against Egypt, he made sure that the king of the Arabs was willing to provide water for his troops while crossing the desert. Provisioning was done with camels, as Herodotus elucidates: “Cambyses . . . sent envoys to the Arabian king and from him asked and obtained the safe passage, having given him pledges of friendship and received them from him in return. . . . So then when the Arabian king had given the pledge of friendship to the men who had come to him from Cambyses, he contrived as follows: he took skins of camels and filled them with water and loaded them upon the backs of all the living camels that he had; and having so done he drove them to the waterless region and there awaited the army of Cambyses” (Herodotus, Historia 3.7–9). 3.2.5. Domestication Scenarios for the “Donkey of the Sealand” The underlying motif(s) as well as the process of domestication of the wild dromedary have been addressed in literature on several occasions (e.g., Uerpmann and Uerpmann 2002). The need for beasts of burden that were more powerful than donkeys for transporting heavy loads, including copper ore, has been proposed as one major driving force initiating early management and domestication of wild dromedaries. Against the background of increasing evidence for wild dromedaries in Bronze Age settlements of southeast Arabia (§3.3.1.1), Uerpmann and Uerpmann (2002, 250) postulated that “taking into account normal patterns of human behavior, it seems likely that the inhabitants of Bronze Age settlements like Umm an Nar . . . quite often nursed and raised baby camels taken home by the hunters. Hence, the material for a start of the domestication process must have been available.” As suggested by these authors, the apparent failure to transform wild dromedaries at that time into useful creatures “can only be explained by the very nature of these animals. Anyone who has once witnessed the virtual uproar of dromedaries being loaded can imagine what effort it must have taken to make a camel accept a burden without the benefit of 3,000 years of constant selection for this particular task” (250). Another major issue addressed by Uerpmann and Uerpmann (2002, 241) concerned the initial phase of the species’ management in an anthropogenic environment, since wild dromedaries “would have to be fed and maintained in captivity. Given the slow reproduction of camels such an effort would not have been counterbalanced by the short-​term yields of this species.” Conceivably, management and domestication of the dromedary started in the late second millennium BC (Almathen et al. 2016a). However, since camels are usually handled outside the urban space (Rostovtzeff 1932, 94; Fedele 2014,

Camels in the Biblical World and Adjacent Regions

121

2017), their osseous remains will seldom be encountered in Bronze Age residential architecture, the main archaeological feature excavated in southwest Asia. Moreover, in more densely inhabited quarters, people understandably employed donkeys for transporting goods intra muros, including those delivered by camel trains to city gates. In addition, the noisy urban environment probably frightened animals used to travel in deserted landscapes, so any attempt to guide a cumbersome, swaying camel through narrow crowded alleys would be a fraught and adventuresome task. Together with the habit of slaughtering large animals outside residential areas, this helps explain the quasi absence of camel remains in the actual archaeological record, thus hampering insight into the initial stages of wild dromedary management and subsequent domestication. As mentioned above, inscriptional evidence for Bactrian camels is best documented at Old Babylonian Nippur (§§3.2.4.1.1–3.2.4.1.2), when overland trade repeatedly introduced them into southern Mesopotamia and adjacent regions (cf. Roaf 1990, 78–83; Wilkinson 2014, 295–304; Steinkeller 2016; cf. §§3.2.1– 3.2.2; 3.2.4.1–3.2.4.2). Ongoing exploitation of Bactrians in southwest Asia coincides with increased archaeological visibility of wild dromedaries in Bronze Age southeast Arabian coastal sites (§3.3.1.1), indicating considerable population density at that time. As explained above, contextual evidence shows that wild dromedaries foraged in mangrove and khor habitat (e.g., von den Driesch and Obermaier 2007; Almathen et al. 2016a, 6708), at least seasonally. Since extensive brackish water habitat with halophyte plant associations also existed and still exists along the northeast Arabian coast and in the Shatt al-Arab estuary, it can be safely assumed that in former times the distribution range of wild dromedaries extended into coastal northeast Arabia and possibly even southern Mesopotamia, albeit unequivocal archaeological evidence for their presence in estuarine habitat this far north is lacking for the moment. Because Sumerian texts (§3.2.4.3) name the “Sealand” as the region of origin of the one-​humped camel (“donkey of the Sealand”), and provided this toponym refers to the marshlands and mangroves bordering coastal northeast Arabia and southern Mesopotamia, it is very possible that by the Late Bronze Age, domestic Bactrians performing in caravan trains descending from the Zagros Mountains and traveling to southern Mesopotamia were introduced to regions still frequented by wild dromedaries at that time. Under such circumstances, their human exploitation as beasts of burden could have acted as an incentive to domesticate their wild one-​humped relatives (Walz 1954, 71–72 n. 3; Magee 2014, 207; Uerpmann and Uerpmann 2017, 318). The starting point for autochthonous domestication efforts would then be the management of young wild animals and, after becoming sexually mature at about four years of age, their reproduction in captivity to establish founder flocks. From the very beginning, selection in captivity likely favored more docile animals tolerant of the living conditions imposed by the anthropogenic environment

122

Camels in the Biblical World

on the one hand, and the constraints of human handling and ultimately training to accustom the animals to carry loads on the other. Given the species’ behavioral particularities, sharing of know-​how between camel keepers seems essential for successful breeding and training of founder dromedary flocks. However, since the rate of fertility may not have been that high (based on present-​day observations in dromedaries; e.g., Padalino, Monaco, and Lacalandra 2015) and because birth intervals usually last some two years or more, wild dromedary management may have been a costly and failure-​prone process, despite highly motivational factors including their use as mounts or pack animals. Long-​standing in camel research, this kind of domestication scenario has never been questioned so far, despite the issue that decades of trial and error may separate initial management from the emergence of one-​humped camel populations capable of performing heavy duties. This observation and the fact that the geographic distributions of the two species may have overlapped in Bronze Age southwest Asia allow us to postulate an alternative scenario as to how wild dromedaries were incorporated in domestic economies. Our alternative scenario postulates a much more active role of Bactrian camels in the process of domestication. As outlined above, two-​humped camels serving in extensive caravan trade are predominantly males (§2.3), she-​camels being mainly left at home for breeding purposes and rearing offspring. Traveling for months, caravan camels forcibly need long periods of recuperation to restore their energy reserves. Cameleers usually allow their animals to forage freely in suitable pasture lands, preferably in areas vegetated with halophytes (see above). Provided caravan trains arriving from Central Asia were allowed to recover during the cooler time of the year, their presence in southwest Asia would have coincided (at least partly) with the rutting season of the wild dromedary as well as the onset of good pasture (Bulliet 1975, 265). As such, purposeful hybridization of closely related taxa has a tradition in ancient Mesopotamia, for instance between male donkeys (a n š e) and mares (anše.kur.ra) producing anše.gìr.nun.na (mules), or between anše.edin. na (the Asiatic wild ass) and anše, resulting in F1 animals named anše.kunga. In the latter case, either hemione stallions would be caught for crossbreeding and kept in enclosures, or jennies would be allowed grazing outside, offering the opportunity to free-​ranging hemione stallions to cover them. Relative to two-​humped camels, it was also noted that in the natural distribution range of Camelus ferus in Mongolia, hybridization between C. ferus and C. bactrianus occurred (Silbermayr et al. 2010; Silbermayr and Burger 2012).118 Turning to 118.  Hybridization is also known to occur between the different species of South American camelids (Marin et al. 2017) and between free-​ranging camels of the two- and one-​humped species

Camels in the Biblical World and Adjacent Regions

123

Bronze Age southwest Asia, even if free-​roaming male Bactrians were observed chasing and perhaps even covering female wild dromedaries, one potential way of gaining control over reproduction would have been by capturing juvenile females, accommodating these animals to the human environment, and allowing amenable Bactrian sires to reproduce with such founder individuals. That being said, early breeding efforts using exclusively she-​camels would avoid major difficulties when handling male wild dromedaries in rut; despite three thousand years of human selection, high aggressiveness in the domestic form still represents a major cause of economic loss in modern Arabian camel breeding (Padalino, Monaco, and Lacalandra 2015)! Alternatively, hybridization efforts aiming at domestication could have imported Bactrian females to crossbreed them with wild male dromedaries. However, Maurizio Dioli’s (2020, fig. 10) detailed study of hybrids clearly illustrates that whereas the crossing of a Bactrian sire with a female dromedary is unproblematic, mating of a male dromedary with a female Bactrian usually fails, except with special long-bodied dromedary breeds. In case reproduction was successful, the resulting F1 hybrids would get accustomed to the conditions of the anthropogenic environment from the very beginning of their lives. Behaviorally “compatible” male F1 hybrids could have been trained and integrated in caravan trains, thus compensating for losses of Bactrians during outward journeys. As in cattle intended for labor, however, it is possible that untamable male F1 hybrids were castrated, or even released, or delivered to the meat market. Understandably, female F1 hybrids accustomed to human handling would represent extremely valuable animals for interbreeding with Bactrian sires, thus producing BC1 offspring. What would render this approach attractive? As one of the parents is already a fully domesticated animal, efforts accommodating the F1 offspring to the constraints of the anthropogenic environment including handling by humans may have been facilitated. Compared to domestication from the wild, the presence of semidomestic F1 hybrids likely shortened the time period separating initial breeding efforts in captivity from offspring suitable to serve as pack animals deployable in caravan trade, ore transport, and others. In other words, crossbreeding of male Bactrians with captive wild she-​dromedaries would represent a sort of domestication shortcut. Besides being stronger, hybrid lineages would also benefit from their dromedary genome, since one-​humped camels are usually more performant than Bactrians in the hot and arid climates characterizing southwest Asia (e.g., Faye and Konuspayeva 2012). Once female hybrid in modern Kazakhstan (Dioli 2020, 17). In antiquity, crossing wild taxa with their domestic relatives or related domestic forms was common practice, for example, in the native North African range of wild asses (e.g., Columella, De re rustica 6.37). This may explain why in donkeys, reduction in body size was incipient during early domestication (Rossel et al. 2008; Marshall et al. 2014).

124

Camels in the Biblical World

offspring thrived well under human control, gene flow with male wild dromedaries may have been an option, either by allowing she-​camels to pasture away from the settlement in order to be covered, or by raising young wild dromedary bulls in captivity and managing them until they reach sexual maturity. That being said, possible genetic signatures initially introduced by male Bactrians into wild or early domestic dromedary lineages, resulting in F1 hybrids or BC1 hybrids, would have been eroded by subsequent millennia of backcrossing female hybrids and their offspring with male (wild and domestic) dromedaries, producing in three generations so-​called seven-​eights and in four generations fifteen-​sixteenths dromedaries. Termed absorption crossing, this breeding strategy would result in almost pure-​bred dromedaries within six generations (Faye and Konuspayeva 2012, 32). In sum, using Bactrian sires to produce offspring with wild she-​dromedaries would definitely shorten the process of gaining cultural control over a species whose potential as a working animal could be formally predicted. Applying the hybridization pathway as a means for domesticating wild dromedaries, initial camel management were not necessarily in the hands of caprine or cattle breeders, but more likely in those of cameleers acquainted with the handling and breeding of Bactrian camels. Moreover, rather than dealing with a process initiated by the inhabitants of the southeast Arabian Peninsula, early efforts to manage wild dromedaries may have started away from the hitherto presumed core area of camel domestication, for example, in the northeast Arabian Peninsula and/or southern Mesopotamia, where Bactrian camels were exploited since the Bronze Age. In other words, the early stages of the domestication process could eventually have been effectuated in the Mesopotamian sphere of influence rather than in that of Arabia proper. Already Walz (1954) pondered that if the Bactrian camel had served as a model for appropriating its wild one-​humped relative, domestication of the latter would not have been initiated in Arabia, but was mediated to it through Mesopotamia.119 Similar musings occurred to Carl Rathjens (1955, 115), Ilse Köhler (1981, 116), and McGuire Gibson (1991, 35). 119.  “Another question is whether dromedary breeding was triggered by suggestions that came from camel breeders and perhaps were conveyed via Mesopotamia, because the breeding of the two-​humped camel is older than that of the single-​humped one. So it is conceivable that Mesopotamia passed on the principle of camel breeding to Arabia.” [“Eine andere Frage ist es dann, ob die Dromedarzucht ausgelöst wurde durch Anregungen, die von den Trampeltierzüchtern stammen u. vielleicht grade über Mesopotamien vermittelt wurden, denn die Zucht des Zweihöckers ist ja älter als die des Einhöckers. Es wäre also denkbar, daß das Zweistromland das Prinzip der Kamelzüchtung nach Arabien weitergab.”] Walz nevertheless maintained that in central Arabia, the dromedary was domesticated independently of its Bactrian congener (Walz 1954, 71–72 n. 3). However, parallel inventions seem to be rare in prehistory and history, rendering it unlikely that the domestic Bactrian camel may not have provided an impulse for the domestication of the one-​humped camel (Coon et al. 2012).

Camels in the Biblical World and Adjacent Regions

125

Despite the fact that only a few archaeological specimens with limited geographic coverage could be analyzed genetically, ancient DNA analysis already suggested the possibility of multiple domestication centers, since initial diversity included ancestral lineages that could not be detected in the gene pool of wild dromedaries from the southeast Arabian Peninsula. Currently available ancient and modern dromedary mitogenomes suggest that at least two (i.e., Haplogroups A and B), but more likely six or more wild maternal lineages were captured during the process of domestication (Almathen et al. 2016a). Compared to haplotype B, however, haplotype A animals are quite rare in modern dromedary populations. Thus, whereas the contribution of ancient southeast Arabian wild dromedary populations to the modern domestic gene pool is illustrated by the sharing between ancient wild and modern individuals of mitochondrial sequences characteristic of Haplogroup B, Haplogroup A individuals have not been evidenced in archaeological wild dromedaries so far. This strongly suggests that a second, geographically distinct wild dromedary population participated in the gene pool, probably one that was confined to regions with less intense archaeological research and/or poor faunal preservation, as, for instance, coastal northeastern Arabia or estuarine Mesopotamia. Needless to say, future ancient DNA analyses will need to verify our hypothesis that during the Bronze and Iron Ages, the aforementioned regions were indeed home to Haplogroup A lineages. As already mentioned before, the term “donkey of the Sealand” (anše.a.ab. b a) first features in the equid section of Ḫḫ XIII, the earliest textual witness being from Nippur, dating to 1400–1225 BC (§3.2.4.3.1). Its classification in the “donkey clade” fits its primary role as a pack animal, whereas the—somewhat unexpected—specification “Sealand” takes up the species’ geographic origin and/or nutritional preference for marine khor, marshland, or mangrove habitat vegetated by halophytes (§3.2.4.3). Significantly, and as outlined above, the taxa listed in the anš e (donkey) section in Ḫḫ XIII are known to hybridize with closely related species. Most interestingly, if the term “donkey of the Sealand” implies the exploitation of domestic dromedaries since the Kassite period, their mention in cuneiform texts would clearly antedate osteological evidence for the species’ husbandry in the Arabian Peninsula (see above). It is also of interest based on the above (§3.2.4.10), that female one-​humped camels (F1 hybrids) were highly valued in late Middle- and early Neo-​Assyrian times, and that following the dispersal of domestic dromedaries across southwest Asia, hybridization became a widespread (and profitable) practice. Written sources indicate that by the eleventh century BC, hybrid offspring termed udru (§3.2.4.10) were known and used for backcrossing. The first inscription using the Akkadian term udru appears on the Broken Obelisk of Assur-​bel-​kala (ca. 1073–1056 BC). The inscription refers to merchants dispatched by Assur-​bel-​kala to acquire udru camels, which were likely bought from herdsmen, cameleers, or local livestock

126

Camels in the Biblical World

merchants in Assur (§3.2.4.10.1). The king’s “breeding program” likely involved two-​humped sires, given the long-​term presence of Bactrian camels in the region. Subsequent written sources affirm the value of udru camels (§3.2.4.10). Their importance declined with increasing numbers of dromedaries and the selection of breeding lines suitable for carrying heavy loads, which were introduced to Mesopotamia and the Levant after circa 700 BC. To sum up, in terms of domestication pathways, the case of the one-​humped camel may be particular. Apart from the directed pathway involving exclusively wild dromedaries, the hybridization pathway involving female wild dromedaries and domestic Bactrian sires offers an alternative mechanism, allowing wild dromedaries to enter into a novel human-​dromedary relationship in regions where the two camel species co-​occurred. In this respect, if the main domestication motive were exploitation for labor rather than for protein and fat supply, this goal may have been achieved more stringently through the hybridization pathway. One candidate region for such interactions appears to be the region termed “Sealand,” but based on the study of ancient and modern mitogenomes, appropriation of one-​humped camels obviously occurred in several places (Almathen et al. 2016b), thus implying that domestication was perhaps achieved applying two, rather than a single pathway. Whereas the foregoing considerations allow postulating different domestication scenarios, testing any of these remains problematic for several reasons. First, camel bone specimens from secure archaeological contexts coinciding with the supposed time window during the Late Bronze Age are rare for the moment. Second, whereas specific identification of fragmented camel bones is possible, few comparative collections contain F1 specimens, hampering osteological identification of hybrids in archaeological assemblages. Finally, given the likely possibility of absorption crossing with the growing economic importance of domestic dromedaries after 500 BC, only the study of ancient chromosomal DNA may betray Bronze Age gene flow between dromedaries and Bactrian sires. In this respect, certainly one limiting factor concerns ancient DNA preservation in ancient archaeological camel specimens, which proved extremely poor (Almathen et al. 2016a; Mohandesan et al. 2017).

3.3. Camels in Arabia The Arabian Peninsula yields an abundance of evidence for the history of the dromedary, from prehistoric until modern times. Although emblematic for the region today, camels only became omnipresent in everyday life, art, trade, and in warfare, as well as in death in later prehistory.

Camels in the Biblical World and Adjacent Regions

127

3.3.1. The Osteological Record 3.3.1.1. Southeast Arabia There is now growing evidence for the presence of camels in southeast Arabia from the fifth millennium BC onward, though almost exclusively in an area that is known today as the United Arab Emirates (UAE). During excavations at the site BHS 18 at Jebel Buhais (Ǧabal Buḥayṣ) in the Emirate of Sharjah (Šāriqah, UAE), some bones of wild camels were found. Archaeological evidence and 14C analysis of charcoal allow dating the site roughly to the fifth millennium BC (Uerpmann, Uerpmann, and Jasim 2006, 96). From the study of the faunal remains it can be seen that the site’s animal economy is based on small livestock and cattle herding. Game species are represented by bone finds of gazelles, wild asses, and wild camels (M. Uerpmann et al. 2012, 391). Another contemporaneous site yielding remains of wild camels was discovered at Baynunah (Baynūna, UAE), where camel carcasses and parts thereof have been found in anatomical dressing. They exhibit neither cut nor chop marks and correspond to animals similar or even larger in size than those excavated at Al-​Sufouh 2 (see below) (Beech et al. 2009). Several Bronze Age sites in the study area produced camel bone remains too, including Saar and Qalaʾat al-​Bahrain in the island of Bahrain, as well as Raʾs Ghanada and Hili 8 in the Emirate of Abu Dhabi, and Maysar in the Sultanate of Oman. The bone finds from these sites are attributed to the third millennium BC (Uerpmann and Uerpmann 2002, 237–38), which also applies to the camel bone assemblage excavated by Ella Hoch (1979, 1995) at Umm an-​Nar Island near Abu Dhabi. Various arguments have been brought forward assigning these remains to domestic camels (see, e.g., Zarins 1992, 825; Dobney and Jaques 1994, 113–14; Peters 2001). Yet, in view of more recent findings, their interpretation as wild dromedaries gained considerably in probability (Uerpmann and Uerpmann 2002, 238, 258). Besides camel remains, bones of other wild mammals including the Arabian oryx, dugong, and the Arabian sand gazelle have been unearthed as well. Of interest is the fact that one of the collective graves at Umm an-​Nar depicts a bas-​relief of a dromedary, but features illustrating a domestic status are missing. Depictions of two Arabian oryx on another collective grave, this time at Hili, strongly suggest that representation of game was intended (Uerpmann and Uerpmann 2002, 241). At Saruq al-​Hadid (Sārūq al-Ḥadīd, Dubai, UAE), an archaeological site with a rich artefactual and zooarchaeological record has been discovered recently (Roberts et al. 2018). Site occupation began during the Umm an-​Nar period and lasted until Iron Age II. Most intriguing are camel bones that show signs

128

Camels in the Biblical World

of burning and/or butchery from the Late Bronze Age. They are considered representing waste from human consumption of wild camels’ meat. The Iron Age material was found to be distinctly different from the earlier assemblages, consisting predominantly of lower caudal vertebrae and fragmented lower limb-​ bones from dromedaries, oryxes, gazelles, sheep, and goats. Especially the latter elements are quite difficult to remove from animal skins and are therefore interpreted as indicators of hide processing (Weeks et al. 2017). A key site with early camel remains in southeast Arabia is Tell Abraq, situated on the border between the Emirate of Sharjah and the Emirate of Umm al-​Qaiwain, UAE. Its importance lies in the fact that interpretation of the Tell Abraq camel remains play a key role in determining the domestication status of other archaeological specimens from the wider area. Tell Abraq was excavated between 1989 (cf. Stephan 1995) and 1998. More than one hundred thousand bones have been analyzed from this site, which was occupied between 2300 and 300 BC. Throughout site occupation, camel remains decline in relative numbers toward the end of the Bronze Age, strongly suggesting that the species had almost disappeared from the site catchment prior to Iron Age I (ca. 1300– 1000 BC). During Iron Age II occupation (ca. 1000–700 BC) camels increase again in relative numbers. This diachronic pattern has been interpreted to reflect a shift from hunting wild camels in the Bronze Age toward animals exhibiting a domestic status in the Iron Age (Uerpmann and Uerpmann 2002, 254–55, 258). This hypothesis, based on diachronic fluctuation in relative frequencies of camel remains, is further corroborated by bone measurements revealing a decrease in camel size from earlier to later site occupation at Tell Abraq. Since camel bones at Tell Abraq, as at most other sites, are not numerous enough to compare size of single elements, measurements of different skeletal elements were amalgamated using the logarithmic size index method (Meadow 1999; Uerpmann 2008, 437). It thus turned out that the camel remains from the Iron Age levels represented smaller individuals than those found in Bronze Age levels, the latter matching in size their relatives excavated at Umm an-​Nar Island. In the context of human economies, size decrease is a useful indicator of anthropogenic interference with a species life cycle. However, the data obtained from Tell Abraq contradict its interpretation as a domestication site, considering that during site occupation the wild form disappeared gradually from the site catchment, while the domestic form seems to have appeared as if from nowhere. The latter implies that it was introduced from elsewhere rather than the product of local domestication efforts.120 120.  See Uerpmann and Uerpmann 2002, 255–58; 2017, 318. A different scenario seems to have been reported by Agatharchides of Cnidus, who, writing in the second century BC, knew of wild camels at the coastal regions of the Erythrean Sea, hundreds of years after the camel had been

Camels in the Biblical World and Adjacent Regions

129

Apart from the fact that the bulk of the camel remains from Tell Abraq most likely belong to the wild species, the presence of some domesticated dromedaries is attested in the early Iron Age levels (Uerpmann and Uerpmann 2002, 253). With reference to the domestication scenarios outlined above, one potential region of origin of the domestic dromedary could have been the Sealand (§3.2.5). However, during the early stage of domestication, when dromedary breeding still involved wild one-​humped males and/or hybrids, size would not be a suitable marker to separate wild from anthropogenically managed and/or domestic forms. In other words, smaller-​sized individuals likely appeared at a later stage in the domestication process, thus representing a delayed marker of it (e.g., Arbuckle 2005, 23; Peters, von den Driesch, and Helmer 2005; Zeder 2006a, 109; 2006b, 143). Nevertheless, it must be reemphasized that in the case of Tell Abraq, the evaluation of Bronze Age camel bone finds did not rely solely on osteometric comparisons. Furthermore, the conclusion that most, if not all, of these finds belong to wild dromedaries is much more compelling if they are compared with the camel remains from Al-​Sufouh 2 in southeast Arabia (Uerpmann and Uerpmann 2017, 315–16). Excavated between 2001 and 2004, Al-​Sufouh (aṣ-Ṣufūḥ, Dubai, UAE) is particular in that it produced nearly 18,000 camel bone specimens and only a negligible amount of remains of other mammals (see §2.2.1). These remains represent at least 123 individuals. The site appears to have been in use in the later third and first half of the second millennium BC. Bones from the later occupation stage were found together with sherds pertaining to the so-called Wadi Suq period (ca. 1900–1650 BC).121 Cut and chop marks on the various elements as well as the fact that body parts were not found in anatomical dressing indicate that these animals were butchered on site. A comparative morphological study of the better-​preserved bone material including many smaller bones led to the conclusion that only features typical for dromedaries were present (von den Driesch et al. 2008, 490). Using the same method of comparison to analyze bone size using different skeletal elements (see above), the osseous remains could be demonstrated to be broadly similar-​sized as those from Bronze Age Tell Abraq and Umm an-​Nar. The bones from Al-​Sufouh are therefore likewise interpreted as belonging to wild animals (von den Driesch and Obermaier 2007, 148–49). domesticated (Burstein 1989, 152). Yet, it is more likely that these camels either represented the feral offspring of domesticated animals, or were domesticates, pasturing by themselves, and supposed to be wild (Hommel 1879, 217 n. 3). For instance, a letter from Neo-​Assyrian times (Sargon II) documents the collection of 125 “stray camels” (anš e. g am. mal.meš pa-ṣu-​u-​te, SAA 11 no. 162; cf. §3.2.4.11). See also Thesiger 1991, 264: “When asked about our camels, he said they would be taken into the desert where there was grazing and brought back when we required them.” 121.  See the project report, http://​www​.vorderas​-archaeologie​.uni​-muenchen​.de​/forschung​ /abgeschl​_projekte​/projekt​_al​_sufouh​/index​.html.

130

Camels in the Biblical World

In sum, Bronze Age archaeofaunas from southeast Arabia betray the presence of one-​humped camels in this region, but all osteological parameters investigated so far point to wild dromedaries rather than to animals living in a cultural environment amenable to management. That being said, analyses of ancient and modern mitochondrial DNA in camel bones recovered from Tell Abraq and Al-​Sufouh as well as from domestic dromedaries of historic periods reveal that wild dromedary herds populating the southeast coastal region of the Arabian Peninsula definitely contributed to the gene pool of most modern domestic lineages (Almathen et al. 2016a). In the context of finds from southeast Arabia presented above, and in addition to the domestication scenarios presented in §3.2.5, it is enlightening to explore the site of Muweilah and its possible contribution to the domestication of the dromedary. Muweilah is located at a distance of only twenty-​five kilometers from Al-​Sufouh in southeast Arabia. Based on radiocarbon dates, the site was founded circa 900 BC and probably destroyed before the seventh century BC (Magee et al. 2002, 153–54; Magee 2014, 212). Its faunal assemblage is dominated by sheep, but the second most important species is the one-​humped camel, represented by about seven hundred bones (Magee 2014, 204).122 Demographic profiling shows that almost half of the camel bones come from animals less than one year old. Such a high contribution of suckling animals implies that the inhabitants of Muweilah bred camels locally (Uerpmann and Uerpmann 2012, 116). Surplus young camels could contribute to meat provisioning while their culling allowed people to exploit the milk. Moreover, it is possible that the elimination of (male) offspring may have been necessary for the specific reason that availability of adequate pasturelands was limited. These results promoted the idea that initial domestication may—perhaps—have been driven by the need for meat and milk, and that it probably happened in Iron Age Arabia (Magee 2014, 206). However, the situation in Muweilah rather points to a situation where camels were already fully incorporated in local subsistence and perhaps even transport logistics. Indeed, culling a considerable part of camel offspring in the first year is not very reasonable during the initial stages of the species’ management in an anthropogenic environment, considering the camel’s long gestation period of two years and high rate of infant mortality. It thus seems that the domestic dromedary had already attained significant “economic importance for the community of Muweilah during the first quarter of the 1st millennium BC” (Uerpmann and Uerpmann 2017, 314–15). It should also be noted that camel milk is a secondary, 122.  Cf. Uerpmann and Uerpmann 2017, 312. Nabatean assemblages dating one thousand years later provide a similar picture as in Muweilah, with camel bones being the most frequently represented mammalian taxon after sheep and goats (Studer 2007, 258).

Camels in the Biblical World and Adjacent Regions

131

so-​called lifetime product that will only be readily available if larger numbers of lactating she-​dromedaries are available. Decades or even centuries may have separated initial camel management and domestication from husbandry practices involving the systematic exploitation of milk, since this activity is hardly imaginable for animals that have just been taken from the wild (Uerpmann and Uerpmann 2002, 250). Thus, the situation at early Iron Age Muweilah implies that efforts appropriating wild dromedaries clearly predated site occupation at Muweilah, possibly in a magnitude of centuries. We consider this consistent with our interpretation of early mentions of the “donkey of the Sealand,” dating the wild dromedary’s management and domestication to the later second millennium BC (§3.2.5). Relative to systematic exploitation of milk, selection practices leading to camel lineages with good milk yields likely represent a later historic phenomenon. The site of Muweilah also illustrates that the meat of (young) camels was consumed at considerable scale. Beyond the Arabian Peninsula, however, camel meat was not a favorite dish. Here, the exploitation of camels for food remains uncommon even in Islamic times (Wellhausen 1927, 115). Moreover, even if the consumption of camel meat was already embedded in the cultural tradition of prehistoric Arabia, there have always been people, past and present, who exploited the camel solely for transporting goods thereby refraining completely from eating its meat (Köhler-​Rollefson 1992). Nonetheless, meat being a rare commodity in poorer rural households or when traveling with camel caravans, the animal’s meat would not have been spurned when the occasion presented itself, as the seventeenth-​century traveler Olearius narrates: “This animal is seldom eaten, as being more serviceable in point of work; but when they fall under their Burthens or in case they be flung by one of the Moheres, they kill them, with two thrusts into the Throat, one at the place where it joyns to the Head, the other, towards the Breast, and then they eat them” (Olearius 1669, 230). It is also noteworthy that early pictorial evidence for the exploitation of the camel illustrates its use as a beast of burden or as a mount (§§3.1.2; 3.2.3; 3.4.2), while there is no evidence for camel milking. Studies of dromedary mortality profiles and bone lesions have led to the same conclusion (Grigson 2012a, 87–89). Although one of the earliest inscriptional sources praise the milk of the (Bactrian) camel (§3.2.4.1.2), its very name “elephant of the caravan/road” points to its primary use as a beast of burden. Likewise, the earliest inscriptional sources that mention the dromedary included it as the “donkey of the Sealand” in a list of transport animals (§3.2.4.1). In sum, the currently available zooarchaeological and pictorial records suggest that the animal’s potential for carrying things was the major incentive to appropriate wild dromedaries, likely stimulated by the arrival of the Bactrian camel in the region (§3.2.5). Whereas the meat of wild camels played a role in

132

Camels in the Biblical World

prehistoric southeast Arabian hunter-​farmer communities, their focus on small livestock and cattle turns camel meat into an economically secondary product. 3.3.1.2. Northwest Arabia Archaeological investigations at the oasis of Taymāʾ point to “the existence of a flourishing oasis as early as the 1st half of the 2nd millennium BC” (Hausleiter 2014, 400). At Taymāʾ, various crops as well as figs, dates, and vines were grown. Archaeological remains of administrative buildings, of fortified city walls, and Bronze Age weapons of Syro-​Palestinian origin suggest that Taymāʾ maintained trade contacts with Mesopotamia and the Levant. The Bronze Age faunal assemblages are clearly dominated by sheep. Dromedaries first show up in the faunal record during the early Iron Age (eleventh to ninth centuries BC, Prust and Hausleiter 2020). The lack of butchery marks or other traces of carcass processing suggest that we are dealing with animals used in overland trade (Hausleiter 2011, 104–11). Conversely, butchery marks on camel bones from the Nabatean Period (fourth century BC to first century AD) reveal that by that time, camels contributed to the meat diet of the inhabitants at Taymāʾ (Prust and Hausleiter 2020). 3.3.1.3. Southwest Arabia Excavations in the early Sabean town of Yalā, ancient Ḥafaray, situated southwest of Mārib, yielded about three thousand animal bone specimens. This assemblage includes the refuse from a single two-​story house (dated ca. 850– 650 BC), and bone finds from strata beneath the house, encompassing the thirteenth to ninth centuries BC. Similar to sites in the southern Levant from the same period, sheep and goats dominate the faunal assemblage (82 percent), followed by cattle (12 percent), donkey (1.0 percent), and dromedary (1.6 percent) remains. Of interest to us is that at Yalā, camel remains are restricted to the later occupation phase. Size comparison using the logarithmic size index method demonstrates that the specimens represent comparably small-​sized individuals. This and contextual evidence allow concluding that we are dealing with domestic dromedaries (Fedele 2009, 141). At Barāqish or ancient Yaṯill, situated in the Wādī al-​Jawf in Yemen, excavations allowed the investigation of bone assemblages from Sabean until post-​ Minean occupation levels (thirteenth century BC to AD 1). Yaṯill is situated on the frankincense caravan route that came into use during the early first millennium BC. It was known to classical writers such as Pliny (Naturalis historia 12.63). Faunal composition at Yaṯill shows close similarities with bone assemblages from excavations in the southern Levant. The bone assemblage is largely dominated by remains of sheep and goats. Cattle bones number few,

Camels in the Biblical World and Adjacent Regions

133

as do the remains of donkeys and dromedaries. The latter animals are comparably large, attaining even the size of the wild form (Fedele 2014, 185). However, since secure osteological evidence for the presence of wild camel populations in southwest Arabia during the Bronze Age is lacking, a domestic status for these early Iron Age animals seems likely. By the late ninth century BC, dromedaries had already become sufficiently numerous, so that their remains can be found consistently among food refuse in Sabean cities situated along the semidesert belt (Fedele 2017, 304). The presence of camel bones in extramural locations interpreted archaeologically as campsites suggests that the animals were handled by nonlocal people, presumably cameleers participating in overland trade (Fedele 2014, 177, 179), although this conclusion has to remain tentative (188). Camel-​dung enriched layers throughout the Minean period (ca. sixth to second centuries BC) suggest repeated stationing of camels and donkeys in this extramural campsite (190). Hajar ar-​Rayḥānī, fifty kilometers south of Mārib and the site of ancient Mardaʿ, is the largest Iron Age settlement in the Wādī al-​Jūbah. Here, the faunal assemblage comprises 25,540 specimens, of which about a fifth could be identified. The bulk of the identifiable material pertains to sheep and goat (97 percent). Remains of camels and cattle contributed less than 3 percent, while donkey remains number few. It is only in much later times that dromedaries became the dominant livestock species (Monchot 2014, 198). Although the evaluation of the data from Hajar ar-​Rayḥānī faces problems due to its complex stratigraphy (Fedele 2017, 295–97), it is possible that the earliest camel bones date to the tenth century BC. Ideally, this would be confirmed by direct radiocarbon dating. 3.3.1.4. Camel Burials Another intriguing field of study in Arabia is the custom of camel burials. Some camel burials may date to the late Iron Age or Persian period, but most of them do not predate the Hellenistic period (Vogt 1994, 289–90). The remains of two buried dromedaries were unearthed in two late Iron Age graves in Wādī ʿUyūn at Sināw (al-​Sharqiyyah, Sultanate of Oman). Both animals were found in a kneeling position and were probably sacrificed during a ‫( بليّة‬baliyya) sacrifice according to pre-​Islamic and Islamic traditions (Curci and Maini 2017). Usually, baliyya does not imply the disarticulation of the skeleton. In Mleiha, in the interior of the Sharjah Emirate (UAE), twenty-​six tombs were excavated that date from the third century BC to the third century AD. Of these, twelve tombs were largely intact camel tombs. In two tombs, a camel and a horse were interred beside each other. Each camel was found in a kneeling position with the head pulled back toward its back, the very same posture in which camels are killed in modern times in the UAE. The osseous remains

134

Camels in the Biblical World

included three hybrids in graves 1, 4, and 11 (Uerpmann 1999). The hybrids were highly esteemed, judging by their position in the graveyard (Uerpmann and Uerpmann 2012, 118). The animals were led into the pit alive and had to kneel. Then their throats were cut in order to let them bleed to death on the spot.123 However, in this case, it seems that the skull, the neck, or parts of it, were removed afterward, probably to prevent the camel from “raising from its ‘grave’ and to leave its proprietor” (Pellat 2012). Two of the intriguing implications of the Mleiha finds are that hybrids must have been bred systematically in southeast Arabia in the first centuries AD (cf. §3.2.5) and that Bactrian male camels would have to be imported from the northern side of the Gulf (Uerpmann, Uerpmann, and Kutterer 2019). From pre-​Islamic Nabatean and North Arabian inscriptions, and from Islamic literature, we also know that some Arabs dedicated certain camels to their deities. Sacrificial rituals reminiscent of these offerings are also reported from the pre- and early Islamic periods (Dirbas 2014; Eisenstein 2010, 172).124 3.3.1.5. Disputable Finds Burnt camel remains retrieved near Sihi from a large shell midden on the Tihama Plain in coastal southwest Saudi Arabia and originally dated to about 7000 BC (Grigson, Zarins, and Gowlett 1989) have now been re-radiocarbon dated to the post-​Christian era (Grigson 2014, 228–30). In this respect it is important to note that radiocarbon dating of camel bones often profoundly disagrees with their stratigraphic position and corresponding archaeological assignment, a point to which we must return once more below (§3.5.1). 3.3.2. The Dromedary Saddle and Its Supposed Evolution In antiquity, several kinds of camel saddles were in use (Macdonald 2015, 59). Two basic saddle types widespread today are often quoted, the šadād or North Arabian camel saddle, which rests over the front slope of the hump, and the ḥawlānī or South Arabia saddle that rests between the crupper and the hump (cf. Ludwig 2015, 105). As such, it is more appropriate to specify the camel saddle as a saddle construction or saddle apparatus, as it widely differs from the familiar horse saddle (Monod 1967). 123.  Jasim 1999, 96–97; Uerpmann and Uerpmann 2012, 118. See also Sedov 1999; Hayajneh 2006. For camel burials of later times, and the practice of animal burials in general, see Uerpmann and Uerpmann 1999; King 2009; and Dirbas 2014. 124.  Camel burials have also been reported from Mesopotamia and Cyprus (Karaghiorga 1969, 98), but the documentation of these finds is meagre and does not allow further conclusions. For burials of two-​humped camels during the late third millennium BC, see §3.1.1.

Camels in the Biblical World and Adjacent Regions

135

Figure 3.34.  Bronze camel from southwest Arabia with rider, holding a stick. Museum Fünf Kontinente, München, Inv. 92–317030. Photograph by M. Weidner.

In 1958, Dostal postulated that the success of Bedouin who engage in war-​ like activities largely depended on the kind of camel saddle used, an assumption strongly influencing some of the most important later studies on Bedouin and the camel.125 Dostal’s assumption thus refined an earlier hypothesis proposed by Werner Caskel (1953b; 1954) that saw a “pre-​Bedouinized” phase of Arabia prior to circa 100 AD, and a full Bedouin phase after that. This idea was already criticized in the past, and it has recently been refuted by Macdonald (2015), who concludes that it “was based on a shockingly superficial, and often incorrect, view of a very limited amount of evidence and on a great many argumenta ex silentio” (43).126 125.  E.g., Henninger 1968, 15–18; Bulliet 1975, 71–110; Högemann 1985, 34–40; Knauf 1986, 79; Staubli 1991, 72. 184–99; Brauer 1993, 126. 126.  The famous Old Testament scholar Martin Noth (cited in Caskel 1953a, 26) was one of the first to question the evidence when Caskel presented his thesis. Although Löffler’s (1969) review of Dostal’s hypothesis seems to have been influenced by personal feelings, he was not the only one

136

Camels in the Biblical World Figure 3.35.  Šadād saddle (North Arabian camel-​saddle construction). Monod 1967, figure no. 9. Figure 3.36.  Ḥawlānī saddle. Monod 1967, figure no. 10.

Dostal saw three stages in the development of the Bedouin, which he arbitrarily labeled “camel-​herders accustomed to fighting as rider warriors” [“reiterkriegerische Kamelhirten”]: First, the so-​called proto-​Bedouin phase, divided in two stages: A first stage, predating about 1500 BC, during which dromedaries were domesticated and bred in small herds. Riding on the crupper (fig. 3.36) did not allow fast movements and long distances. A second stage starting in the middle of the second millennium BC, when dromedaries were already bred in larger numbers. During this stage cameleers start positioning the saddle on the hump. Horse riding further influences the mode of dromedary riding. During this period, exploitation of the dromedary in military endeavors first commences, but its usefulness is limited by the type of saddle in use. This period is succeeded by the so-​called actual Bedouin period, dating from the middle of the first millennium AD until modern times (Dostal 1958, 9–10), in which the Bedouin became “full bedouins” (“Vollbeduinen”) that are also characterized to point to the poor evidential basis of Caskel’s and Dostal’s Bedouin hypotheses (cf. Phillips 1966, 263 n. 2; Monod 1967; W. W. Müller 1968, 399).

Camels in the Biblical World and Adjacent Regions

137

Figure 3.37.  Camel rider (?), baked clay plaque from Tell Asmar. See Frankfort, Lloyd, and Jacobsen 1940, 212; figure 126f. Courtesy of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.

as “reiterkriegerische Kamelhirten.” The last stage presupposed the adoption of the ‫ شداد‬šadād-saddle, or North Arabian camel saddle, which rests over the hump (fig. 3.35), and which allegedly allowed them to fight while riding.127 In a similar vein, Dostal claimed that the ‫ حوالني‬ḥawlānī-saddle (fig. 3.36), which was largely in use in South Arabia, did not allow any fighting from the camel’s back.128 However, Dostal did not realize that these two saddles are “only two of the numerous different types of camel saddle used in the Middle East and North Africa” (Macdonald 2015, 59).129 His assumption that the construction of the 127. ‫ شداد‬šadād is derived from the root ّ‫ شد‬šadda “to be hard, firm, solid; to tighten, pull taut, draw tight,” hence “to saddle [an animal]” (Wehr 1980, 459–60; cf. Lane 1863, 1517–1518). The North Arabian saddle basically consists of two upside-​down Y’s (⅄), one placed in front of the hump, the other behind, joined together by two pieces on each side. These sidepieces are arranged in either a criss-​crossed fashion, or straight and parallel to the ground. The weight is carried by the camel’s wide ribcage, with the pads more or less transforming the rounded contours of the hump into a level plane upon which to place the saddle (Baum 2013). 128. ‫ حوالني‬ḥawlānī is of unknown origin. Its morphology suggests that it is derived from a geographic name in Arabia. 129.  By comparison, numerous camel figurines were found in Petra (Jordan). The camel figurines from Petra can be divided into four main groups: camels with, or without stands, camels with

138

Camels in the Biblical World Figure 3.38.  Camel figurine (?) from Tell Taʿannek (view from the left). See Sellin 1904, 46, fig. 48. Figure 3.39.  Camel figurine (?) from Tell Taʿannek (view from the right). See Sellin 1904, 46, fig. 48.

šadād-saddle was borrowed from the “arched” horse saddle (Yule 2014, 73) is not borne out by evidence (Monod 1967, 239–40; Macdonald 2015, 61). In addition, there is no proof that the ḥawlānī-saddle is more archaic than the šadād-saddle (Monod 1967, 236). Last, but not least, clear evidence that the camel pastoralists of Syria and Arabia had ever used the camel as a fighting mount, except in an emergency, is lacking (Macdonald 2015, 67). In his most recent article that appeared posthumously, Dostal (2012, 127) partly corrected his previously published interpretation, already leaning toward the now prevailing view that warriors used dromedaries to reach the scene of battle, but changed to horses, or simply walked on foot, to engage in the battle itself. For his now outdated hypothesis regarding saddle development, Dostal nonetheless made some interesting observations that we consider worth mentioning. riders, and other types of camels (el-​Khouri 2002, 25). The Nabateans did not use the šadād-saddle (Macdonald 1991, 103 n. 15), but their camel saddles rather resemble horse saddles; “similarities between horse and camel figurines are readily noticed” (el-​Khouri 2002, 25).

Camels in the Biblical World and Adjacent Regions

139

The camel’s back has three possible seats or riding positions: (1) on the withers, before the hump; (2) on the hump itself, more precisely above its front slope (Macdonald 2015, 61); and (3) on the crupper behind the hump, above the back slope of the hump (Dostal 1958, 2; 1967, 15; 2012, 123). To demonstrate that all three options were known in antiquity, Dostal referred to several pieces of artwork demonstrating camel riding. An illustration of the first option is found in a rock drawing from late antique southern Egypt, published by Hans Alexander Winkler (1938 1:table 3.1) and reprinted by Franz Altheim (1943, table 176) and Bulliet (1975, 133). Further evidence comes from a camel figurine from Egyptian Abydos (fig. 3.57), even though the animal is kneeling. By sitting on the withers, the rider can control the animal by applying foot pressure on its neck. According to Dostal, this way of camel riding has been documented in North African tribal nomads (Dostal 2012, 123 n. 1; cf. Bulliet 1975, 125, 131). The second manner of riding is attested on a relief from Tell Ḥalaf (fig. 3.3), in southwest Arabian (figs. 3.40) and in Mesopotamian iconography (§4 n. 53). As the earliest evidence for the third manner of riding a camel, Dostal referred to a relief found at late third/early second millennium BC Tell Asmar in Iraq (fig. 3.37; Frankfort, Lloyd, and Jacobsen 1940, 212; fig. 126f; Pohl 1950, 252), and to a statue of a camel-​riding man unearthed in second-​ millennium BC Taʿannek in Israel (fig. 3.38; fig. 3.39; Sellin 1904, 46). Yet, the assignment of the fragment from Tell Asmar to the Ur III period is debatable (Walz 1954, 74–75). Apart from antedating the process of early domestication of the wild one-​humped camel (cf. §3.2.5), the species’ identification is insecure (cf. Moorey 1970, 40–41), as neither hump nor neck are visible, and the trunk of the animal is so small that it is almost covered by the bended legs of the rider (by contrast, cf. fig. 3.2). Regarding the second representation from Taʿannek, the figurine’s missing hump contradicts its identification as a dromedary.130 130.  Sellin (1904) argued for the interpretation of the figurine as a rather primitive work of art: “That the animal should represent a camel, I would like to hold in spite of some wavering, as it was our very first common conviction. The head convincingly tries to reproduce the characteristic features of this animal and the size ratio of the man to the mount shows that the potter thought of a particularly large animal. One should also accept that in the middle of the back of the animal something has broken off, thereby indicating the hump of the camel probably even sharper. The fact that the potter did not succeed better in reproducing the animal he wanted to represent must be excused by the primitiveness of his art. The hind legs of the latter, for example, remain abnormal, no matter which animal is in view.” [“Daß das Tier ein Kamel darstellen sollte, möchte ich trotz manchen Schwankens festhalten wie es gleich unsere erste gemeinsame Überzeugung war. Der Kopf sucht entschieden die charakteristischen Züge dieses Tieres wiederzugeben und das Größenverhältnis des Menschen zu dem Reittiere zeigt, daß der Töpfer an ein besonders großes Tier gedacht hat. Man muß auch hinzunehmen, daß gerade in der Mitte des Rückens desselben etwas abgebrochen ist, was den Höcker des Kamels noch schärfer angedeutet haben kann. Daß es dem Töpfer nicht besser gelungen ist, das Tier, welches er darstellen wollte, wiederzugeben, muß man mit der Primitivität seiner Kunst entschuldigen. Die Hinterbeine jenes bleiben z. B., man mag denken an welches Tier man will, abnorm”] (46). Cf. Grigson 2012a, 94.

140

Camels in the Biblical World

Notwithstanding these objections, sitting behind the hump is known from several camel figurines with saddle-​like constructions from the first millennium BC (see §3.2.3.5; figs. 3.26–30). The figurines suggest a riding position between the hump and the crupper, while the animal is transporting goods. This riding mode is also depicted when riding bare back, or when riding with different kinds of saddle constructions (Macdonald 2015, 58–60; Lancaster and Lancaster 2011, 177, 180, 185–86; cf. Staubli 2010). Moreover, figure 3.2 from Carchemish (§3.2.2) actually depicts a camel rider using a saddle reminiscent of but different from the ḥawlānī-saddle. Some Neo-​Assyrian panels picture Arabian warriors as sitting behind the hump-​rider and firing arrows at their pursuers (§4 n. 93). These famous scenes depict a dramatic escape, therefore this particular riding mode should not be considered normative. The rear riders most likely fell off after a short while. In the end, the evidence Dostal could gather for early camel riding is very limited, to say the least. There is no unambiguous archaeological or artistic evidence for camel riding before the Syrian stone slabs from Carchemish and Tell Ḥalaf, both dating to the early first millennium BC (§3.2.2, figs. 3.2–3). Even the literary sources do not help here. It is, for instance, doubtful, whether the Midianites, Amalekites, and “sons of the east” from Judg 6, described by Bulliet (1975, 36) in his citation of the famous W. F. Albright as “the camel riding foes of Gideon,” appeared on the scene as camel riders (§4.5). It is more likely that their camels served as pack animals, rather than mounts, except in case of need. The same applies to the camels referred to in the book of Genesis. Camel riders are only unequivocally mentioned for the first time in 1 Sam 30:17 (§4.6), but in this context, riding represents the ultimate option to escape the battlefield and does not indicate mounted and armed forces. In his synthesis on camels, Bulliet (1975, 71–86) discussed the evolution of the camel saddle in detail. Apart from mentioning the limited evidence presented above, his account includes many artistic representations dated to the first millennium BC. They clearly demonstrate the use of cushion saddles and also of framed saddle constructions. By integrating parallels from modern cultures, Bulliet concludes that the second half of the first millennium BC marks the major turning point in saddle-​evolution. This period, he maintains, saw the development of the so-​called North Arabian saddle “that transformed the economic, political, and social history of the Middle East” (87). Since essentially borrowed from Dostal, Bulliet’s assumption lacks evidentiary value. It is also noteworthy that the early Muslim armies did not employ the dromedary in camel cavalry but used the animal to cover long distances rapidly. They also benefited from the camel’s adaptations and familiarity with arid environments, using desert landscapes as a starting base for raids and as a refuge. “In all

Camels in the Biblical World and Adjacent Regions

141

this the camel’s vital role was in transport, and the type of riding-​saddle— or even whether there was a riding-​saddle at all—was irrelevant” (Macdonald 2015, 73). 3.3.3. Dromedary Figurines More than three hundred terra-​cotta figurines have been recovered from the Mārib Oasis and the nearby city of Sirwah in Yemen, dated between the seventh century BC and the fourth century AD (O’Neill 2014, 2015). Nearly half of the figurines feature animal motifs, mostly of stylized dromedaries. Occasionally, the latter are adorned with red painted stripes. Additional sites with dromedary figurines from the first millennium BC are Taymāʾ, ed-​Dur, Rumeilah (Boucharlat and Lombard 1985), Qaryat al-​Faw, Yaṯill, and more, but Mārib has yielded by far the largest number. These figurines may have been used as toys, dedicatory objects, substitutes for offerings or burials of real dromedaries, or for some other purpose that remains hidden to us (Rathjens 1955, 115; O’Neill 2014, 332). Besides numerous neck and leg fragments as well as a dromedary-​shaped lid of an incense burner, a near-​complete camel artifact and a separate torso figurine were recovered from Muweilah in southeast Arabia (Magee 2015, 263–66; Magee et al. 2017, 234), dating to Iron Age II (ca. 1000–600 BC). They were made from local clay and decorated with black and red lines (Arbach and Schietecatte 2006, 69–70; O’Neill 2014, 331). Similar figurines dating roughly to the same period are known from Bithnah (Benoist 2007, 48, 50) and Manāl (Elmahi and Ibrahim 2003, 92). One of the fragments from Muweilah (fig. 3.40) features the representation of a load (b). A complete camel figurine demonstrates how the load is fused with the dromedary’s hump (fig. 3.41). A very similar figurine hails from Hama in Syria (§3.2.3.4; fig. 3.24). This type of load or saddlebag is also visible on some fragments that have been unearthed in Uruk (figs. 3.13–18; cf. Ziegler 1962, 92–93). However, Muweilah figurines are more elaborate and have their muzzle pointing upward. As mentioned above, dromedary figurines from Muweilah date to the earliest phase of the inhabitation, which also yielded abundant zooarchaeological evidence (§3.3.1.1). According to Magee (2014, 212), the appearance of camel figurines (figs. 3.40–41) since Iron Age II (ca. 1000–600 BC) presumably illustrates the relative novelty of using dromedaries for trade and transport. By comparison, camel figurines from Mārib and its vicinity (ca. first millennium BC) sometimes do not show any saddles (O’Neill 2014). The same applies to most figurines from Mesopotamia (§3.2.3), although at that time camels were undoubtably used in trade and transport. The camel figurines from Muweilah are certainly among the earlier finds of their kind. Yet, they cannot tell us whether

142

Camels in the Biblical World

Figure 3.40.  Fragments of dromedary figurines. Photograph by Peter Magee. Used by permission from Peter Magee, Bryn Mawr University.

riding commenced during that period, and whether the real animals they represent descended from wild one-​humped populations once roaming southeast Arabia, or from dromedary herds introduced to the area from elsewhere. That being said, the elaborateness of the camel figurines from Muweilah and their saddle(bag) constructions, which bear apparent similarities to figurines excavated from Hama in the northern Levant (§3.2.3.4, fig. 3.24) and at Uruk in southern Mesopotamia (§3.2.3.3, figs. 3.13–18), suggest that by Iron Age II times, the exploitation of dromedaries for carrying goods and persons was already well established. Camel figurines from the Arabian Peninsula often exhibit muzzles pointing upward (e.g., in figure 3.41). Rathjens (1955, 250) published a similar figurine from the antiquities market of Ṣanʿā, this time made of bronze (fig. 3.43). Similarly fashioned figurines are also known from Taymāʾ (Jantzen 2009, 12; Eichmann et al. 2010, 136–37; Magee 2015, 263). Some of these show signs of wusūm (plural of ‫ وسم‬wasm) that are burn marks indicating ownership. Other camel figurines show a board or cushion directly on the crupper, as was already discussed in §3.2.3.5 (cf. Rathjens 1955, 248; O’Neill 2014, pl. 2, MT2; pl. 3, Aw8), allowing the rider to sit between the hump and the crupper and, by holding on to the load, helping to keep it fastened around the hump in an upward position (fig. 3.30; cf. Bulliet 1975, 70). An unprovenanced figurine illustrates an analogous situation but lacks the “seat cushion” (fig. 3.42). Another unprovenanced figurine of similar shape published by Richard Barnett (1985, fig. 6) exhibits a hump with a depression that, “when moistened during cleaning emitted a distinct aroma of incense.” Even if these figurines were modified to

Camels in the Biblical World and Adjacent Regions

Figure 3.41.  Detailed views of dromedary figurine from Muweilah. Photograph by Peter Magee. Used by permission from Peter Magee, Bryn Mawr University.

143

144

Camels in the Biblical World Figure 3.42.  Camel with load and rider from southwest Arabia. Item is of unknown provenance. Photograph by Aran Patinkin, Israel. Used by permission of A. Moussaieff.

incense burners, it is likely that at least some of the saddlebag constructions of the various camel figurines from Mesopotamia (§3.2.3.5; figs. 3.13–17, 3.24) and south Arabia (figs. 3.41–42) represent riding or transport saddles. More than sixty mostly unprovenanced bronze camel figurines from southwest Arabia, hailing from the Hellenistic period to late antiquity, were recently analyzed and published by Anja Ludwig (2015). The majority of these are the animals only, but some of them have a rider. Since some of the bronze figurines show inscriptions, they may have been destinated as votive offerings, with a petition for protection of the camel(s) and its owner (Sima 2000, 21; Ludwig 2015, 90–94). Additional specimens dating to the Greco-​Roman period were unearthed in several sites, for instance at Petra (fig. 3.19), Oboda, and Seleucia-​ on-​Tigris (el-​Khouri 2002, 28–29; Daems 2004, 230). Two seals from southeastern Arabia, which can only be vaguely dated to sometime within the Iron Age, depict roughly stylized camels (Yule 2014, 42–43). 3.3.4. Camels in North Arabian Inscriptions and in Classical Arabic Literacy was widespread among the populations of North Arabia between the mid-​first millennium BC and the fourth (?) century AD (Macdonald 2018, iii).

Camels in the Biblical World and Adjacent Regions

145

Figure 3.43.  Bronze camel from Ṣanʿā with hump construction and uplifted head. Adapted from Rathjens 1955, 250; photograph 414.

Linguistically, we are dealing with several levels or strata of related Arabian languages or dialects of North Arabia, namely Dadanitic, Hismaic, Safaitic, Taymanitic, and Thamudic, which are attested epigraphically and distributed widely (cf. Hayajneh 2011, 760). While Hismaic and Safaitic are closely related to Classical Arabic (CA), Taymanitic has some features in common with the Northwest Semitic languages, Dadanitic seems to belong to neither group (Macdonald 2018, iv; Kootstra 2016, 107), and the various Thamudic subgroups are difficult to class with Arabic. Despite the mention of dromedaries in the service of an Arabian chieftain in the Kurkh Stela of Shalmaneser III (ca. 853 BC; §3.2.4.4; table 3.4), their earliest appearance in epigraphic sources from northern Arabia does not predate the Persian period. A fragmental inscription from the oasis of Dadan in northwest Arabia, dating to the Persian period, possibly mentions the noun gml, which is surprising considering that the nearly two thousand Dadanitic inscriptions do not mention camels at all (OCIANA).131 Yet, the roots ʾbl (JaL 169 w), meaning “camel,” and bkr (Ǧabal Iṯlib 1) “young camel” appear in personal names (PNs). Camels are also mentioned in Thamudic B and Hismaic (formerly “Thamudic E”) graffiti, and camel drawings feature frequently as kinds of signatures to Taymanitic (formerly “Thamudic A”) and Hismaic rock inscriptions. The Thamudic script must have been in use in the mid-​sixth century BC, because 131.  The noun gml occurs in inscription JSLih 56 (OCIANA). Dadanitic was formerly subdivided into “Dedanite” and “Lihyanite” (cf. Sima 2000, 92; Macdonald 2004, 490–92).

146

Camels in the Biblical World

Figure 3.44.  Bronze camel from southwest Arabia with lowered head. Museum Fünf Kontinente, München, Inv. 92–316687. Photograph by M. Weidner.

the text PH 279 aw (Thamudic B) from Taymāʾ mentions the “king of Babylon.” By contrast, the Thamudic D inscription JSTham 1 dates much later, namely AD 267 (Macdonald 2004, 492). Thamudic B and Hismaic inscriptions mention camels as single males (gml) and as young camels (bkr; OCIANA). The bulk of the Ancient North Arabian (ANA) texts mentioning camels belong to the more than thirty-three thousand Safaitic graffiti from southern Syria, northeastern Jordan, and northern Saudi Arabia. They are dated somewhere between the first century BC and the fourth century AD, but some inscriptions may reach further back. Safaitic texts are built in a formulaic structure and are usually accompanied by rock drawings. Several texts indicate that their authors were mobile pastoralists, herding camels, sheep, and goats. Safaitic is considered to be predominantly Old Arabic, giving us a view of the Arabic language more than five hundred years before the rise of Islam and the emergence of CA (Al-​Jallad 2019, 343–44). It is most closely related to CA and Qurʾanic Arabic. Most of the Safaitic rock graffiti mentioning camels are of a commemorative nature, being merely short notes of the author and the respective animal(s) present. These notes are often structured as l {PN} h-{camel expression} “By {PN} is the {camel expression},” wherein personal name, the name of the author,

Camels in the Biblical World and Adjacent Regions

147

is usually extended by his genealogy and tribal affiliation. The {camel expression} denotes small numbers of male camels (gml “one male camel,” or gmln “two male camels,” etc., more than two hundred graffiti) or young camels (bkr(n) or bkrt(n), more than seven hundred), a female camel (nqt, ca. sixty), or a camel assemblage or herd (ʾbl, ca. five graffiti, OCIANA). The corresponding rock drawings facilitate their identification. For instance, male camels (gml, bkr) exhibit tails hanging down, while female camels (bkrt, nqt) are usually drawn with a cocked tail (Ababneh 2005, 62). The term nqt (pl. ʾnq) refers to mature female camels. Some graffiti that mention female camels (nqt) also feature the drawing of a camel calf (C 2998; HaNSB 316). However, the lactating bkrt is worth mentioning rather than the nqt (see below). The root bkr in ANA and ASA sources points to an animal that “does s.th. for the first time.” Its usual meaning is “youthful he-​camel,” compare CA (Lane 1863, 240). Some graffiti refer to young camels as bkr with incisions depicting mounted camels.132 A bkrt is a young female camel that is pregnant for the first time or has given birth once (Sima 2000, 44). Many ANA inscriptions read bkrt(n) “young she-​camel(s),” the attached drawings showing one or two single grown-​up camels. There are not a few inscriptions that read h-​bkrt “the young camel,” while the drawing displays a camel nursing its calf, bkrt obviously referring to the young she-​camel rather than to its calf.133 Furthermore, there are many inscriptions that begin with l {PN}, added by genealogies and tribal affiliations, which inform the reader about the author’s further engagements with camels (ʾbl), such as: he “pastured the camels” (nearly one hundred graffiti), he “spent the night in this place on account of the camels” (three graffiti), he “migrated to the inner desert with the camels” (ten graffiti), and similar items. Of particular interest are some texts as displayed in table 3.7 (for all sigla and texts, see OCIANA). Considering these camel designations, it is obvious that gml in most ANA languages/dialects specifies single male camels or small numbers of male camels, rarely groups of (male) camels (ʾgml).134 The word bkr refers to young male camels that are able to bear a rider, bkrt to young she-​camels that may become pregnant or are lactating for the first time, nqt to mature she-​camels. The term ʾbl designates camel herds or camel assemblages. Hundreds of years down the road, the basic meaning of these camel terms is nearly the same in CA texts, except 132.  AWS 202, CH.07–0001–01.04, HaNS 452, ISB 165, KRS 2981, MuNJ 1 (OCIANA). 133.  AbaNS 54, 64, 94, 95, 315, 364.1; AGQ 20, ASFF 158, AWS 116, AWS 332, BS 1028, HaNS 471, KhBG 98, etc. (OCIANA). 134.  Cf. C 1148, C 2556, AbSWS 80, QWs 10, al-​Mafraq Museum 51. Also SIJ 210, SIJ 295, KRS 1560, and KWQ 40: here gml, probably to be vocalized as gimāl, may refer to “bull camels” (all sigla referred to are taken from OCIANA).

148

Camels in the Biblical World

Table 3.7.  Safaitic graffiti mentioning ʾbl. siglum

inscription

MSTJ 11

w ʾʿwr b-ʾbl “and he was in danger of being plundered because [he had] many camels” w ġzz b-ʾbl “and he was on a raid with camels,” or “and he raided camels” h lt ġnmt m-​s²nʾ ʾbl “O Lt, let there be camels as spoil from enemies” w ġnmt ʾbl l-ḏ dʿy “and [grant] booty in camels to whoever reads aloud [the inscription]” h s²ʿhqm s¹lm [m] ʿl-​h-ʾbl “O S²ʿhqm, keep safe what is upon [the backs of] the camels” w mṭy f ġnm ʾbl s¹nt “and he journeyed (in haste) and took camels as spoil [?]”

KRS 117, HaNSB 349 C 4332 SESP.D 12 KRS 756 BS 907

that ‫ بعير‬baʿīr, which is rare in ANA, now becomes an additional major term to designate individual camels of either gender (cf. Ullmann 1989, 12), and that ‫بكر‬ bakr likewise does usually not differentiate the gender of the animal in question. In a similar way as ʾbl in ANA, CA ‫ إبل‬ʾibil not only denotes herds of domestic camels, but is also used for any large number of camels. One of the early Islamic battle scenes involving camels from the Kitāb futūḥ al-​buldān (Book of the Conquests of Lands), by Aḥmad b. Yaḥyā b. Jābir al-​Balādhūrī (died ca. AD 892), reports that, “the king of al-​Buǧa made a sally with his numerous men on camels [ʾibil] fastened [with girths]. Al-​Qummi took bells and put them on horses. As soon as the camels [ʾibil] heard the bell sounds, they broke away from the al-​Buǧa men through the valleys and hills” (De Goeje 1866, 238; Ḥitti 1916). The famous early Islamic historian al-Ṭabarī (AD 839–923) frequently mentions camels in his monumental Taʾrīḫ al-​rusul wa-​l-​mulūk (History of the Prophets and Kings), for example, “Ḫālid departed from al-ʿAyn, heading for al-​Muṣayyaḫ on camels [ʾibil], avoiding horses” (De Goeje et al. 1879–1898, 2069; Blankinship 1993). During a fierce battle, it is reported that “the camels [ʾibil] bumped into one another” (De Goeje et al. 1879–1898, 1660; Poonawala 1990). Following the peace treaty between the Banū al-​Naḍīr and the “messenger of God,” the former were allowed “for every three of them a camel [baʿīr] and a water skin,” but according to another source, they were only permitted “to keep what their camels [ʾibil] could carry” (De Goeje et al. 1879–1898, 1451; Watt and McDonald 1987). On the other hand, referring to an individual male camel, the narrator tells that, “he also took Abū Ǧahli’s camel [ǧamal] as booty . . . which he used to put to stud with his milch camels” (De Goeje et al. 1879–1898, 1359). Large numbers can be expressed by “{number} min ʾal-ʾibil” (1077; Watt and McDonald 1988), or “{number} baʿīr” (De Goeje et al. 1879–1898, 939; Bosworth 1999), and a

Camels in the Biblical World and Adjacent Regions

149

booty of camels as “fayʾu l-ʾibil” (De Goeje et al. 1879–1898, 1679). These and similar records demonstrate that the term ʾibil was not only used in the context of pastoralism, but also in military movements, raids, and campaigns. Al-Ṭabarī further reports that during the conquest of Kirmān in Iran, Iranian camels and dromedaries were distributed as spoil: “They seized what camels [baʿīr] and ewes they wished, putting a value on the camels [ʾibil] and sheep and dividing them up among themselves according to the prices (they would fetch), because the Iranian camels [buḫt] were bigger than the Arabian [ʿirāb]” (De Goeje et al. 1879–1898, 2704; Smith 1994). Obviously, ʾibil and baʿīr could serve as terms for both dromedaries and hybrids (buḫt), while the exact species had to be further detailed. The Arabic lexicon of Al-​Zabīdī (s.v. “‫بخت‬,” “buḫt”) identifies these hybrids as “Khurasanian camels” (‫اإلبل الخراسانيّة‬, ʾal-ʾibilu l-ḫurāsāniyya), that is, camels form northeastern Iran (Lane 1863, 158b; cf. Bulliet 1975, 144), which were usually, but not always, regarded as one-​humped (cf. Usṭāṯ’s Historia animalium below; also §3.2.4.10). Moreover, according to the Kitāb al-​buldān (Book of the Countries) of al-​Yaʿqūbī (died AD 897), one can find “camel herds [ʾibil] of large ʾal-​buḫātī,” that is, hybrids, in regions bordering on the Caspian Sea (De Goeje 1892, 277; Bulliet 2011, 110). While the specific term for an individual Bactrian camel is ʾal-​fāliǧ (De Goeje et al. 1879–1890, 2243, 2251; Rosenthal 1985), the collective noun for Bactrian camels is the same as that for dromedaries and hybrids, ʾibil. This broad understanding of ʾibil is reflected in the Diwān luγāt al-​Turk, the first comprehensive dictionary of the Turkic languages of Central Asia, which was compiled by the eleventh century AD lexicographer Maḥmūd al-​Kāshgarī (Hauenschild 2003). In his treatise on Turkic camel terms, he equated tewe(y), denoting the Bactrian camel or camel herd, with ʾibil (206), identified buγra, the Bactrian camel stud, as ‫ فحل اإلبل‬faḥlu l-ʾibil (73), a gelded Bactrian camel stud as ‫الخاصي من اإلبل‬ al-ḫaṣī min ʾal-ʾibil (39), and both two-​humped (ingǟn) and one-​humped (titir) she-​camels as ‫ الناقة‬ʾal-​nāqa (94, 214); compare also Pellat 2012. Although ǧamal is usually reserved for the male camel in ANA and CA (Hommel 1879, 140), it occasionally serves as a generic term, particularly when there are contacts with other languages (cf. Weninger 2011, 751; Retsö 2011). According to al-Ṭabarī’s version of the final campaign against Zenobia, the Queen of Palmyra (third century AD), the leader of the victor’s army availed himself of a ruse, putting men in sacks on camels’ backs, and leading them into the city (De Goeje et al. 1879–1898, 765–766; Perlmann 1987). Speaking of these camels, the narrator repeatedly uses ʾibil. However, portraying Queen Zenobia as wondering about the camels and their load, he puts these words in her mouth: “what is the matter with the camels [ʾaǧmāl] that their march is so slow.” Although it is possible that she was referring to what she actually saw, that is, male camels, reading it in its context renders it more likely that the

150

Camels in the Biblical World

narrator wanted to point to her Aramean background by using the plural of ǧamal, the usual Northwest Semitic way of expressing any number of camels (§3.2.4.8). Moreover, in Usṭāṯ’s Arabic version of Aristotle’s Historia animalium (ca. AD 850), the Greek generic term κάμηλος appears as ǧamal and its plural κάμηλοι as ǧimāl (Filius 2019, 425), disregarding both baʿīr and ʾibil. This is probably not only due to the Greek source language, but also to the book’s many Syriac influences (Filius 2019, 9–14). Aristotle’s statement on camels, αἱ κάμηλοι ἀμφότεραι, αἵ τε Βακτριαναὶ καὶ αἱ Ἀράβιαι, appears as ‫والجمال البخاتي‬ ‫والعرابي‬, “and camels [ǧimāl], there are the Bactrians [ʾal-​buḫātī] and the Arabians [ʾal-ʿirābī]” (Historia animalium 498b), translating not only κάμηλοι verbally as ǧimāl and using it as a generic term, but also “Bactrians” with buḫātī, although the latter usually denotes one-​humped hybrids (Historia animalium 499a; cf. buḫt above). In this connection, it is noteworthy that the proverb of the camel and the needle’s eye in the surat al-​Aʿrāf (sura 7:40) likewise features ǧamal as a generic term in the context of a proverb that has a Greek and/or Syriac background (§7.2), the Qur’ān otherwise using the same basic camel terms as, for example, al-Ṭabarī (Khoury 2001). Local coloring of this kind and/ or further dialectal developments are probably responsible for the generic use of gamal in the Arabic papyri from Egypt, pointing to (male) individuals or larger groups of mixed gender, both ʾibil and baʿīr being in disuse.135 Not surprisingly, in ANA, and CA, some personal names are based on camel terms, particularly Bkr(t) “young camel,” Bʿr “beast of burden, camel,” Gml “male camel,” and Ḥwrn “young camel” (Dirbas 2019, 213–14).There are seven ANA inscriptions that feature the name ʾbl, which belonged to only five individuals, presumably with the meaning “camel” (and not “camel herd”; OCIANA).136 3.3.5. Camels in South Arabian Inscriptions The seventh century BC marks the appearance of camel mentions in the Ancient South Arabian (ASA) inscriptions of the highly developed cultures of southwest Arabia (cf. Nebes 2014). Camels mostly feature as livestock booty in campaign reports. The most prominent inscription, RES 3945 (ca. 680 BC), lists ʾʾblm wbqrm wḥmrm wqnym ṯty mʾtm ʾlfm “dromedaries, cattle, donkeys, and small cattle, 200,000 [animals]” (line 19; Sima 2000, 15, 21). They were taken from tribes living in southwest Arabia. It is highly likely that these tribes were active in camel breeding. Later campaign reports mention camels in explicit numbers. 135.  Cf. the Arabic Papyrology Database, https://​www​.apd​.gwi​.uni​-muenchen​.de​/apd​/asearch​ .jsp, and the Princeton Geniza Project, https://​geniza​.princeton​.edu; cf. also Hinds and Badawi 1986. However, in Egypt and the Levant, Bedouin continued the use of camel terms common in CA; see A. Barthélemy 1935, 53. 136.  ʾbl bn qnt: KRS 470–72; ʾbl: CSNS 533; CEDS 549; Is.Mu 823; JaL 169 w.

Camels in the Biblical World and Adjacent Regions

151

Thereby, livestock booties of five camels are as much worth mentioning as ones numbering sixteen thousand camels (Sima 2000, 11, 13). Interestingly, from the earliest attestation (seventh century BC) onward, the ASA inscriptions feature ʾbl rather than gml. While ANA inscriptions (§3.3.4) usually refer to single or several camels as gml (male) and nqt (female), and camel herds or large numbers as ʾbl, ASA texts refer to individual camels as ʾbl or ʾblt and use the plural ʾʾbl to designate larger number of camels (livestock booty, camel herds). As such, gml is not attested until almost a millennium later, after AD 250, in four inscriptions only. It primarily denotes the camel as a beast of burden (Sima 2000, 93). Additionally, ASA inscriptions refer to rkb “riding camel(s)” and bʿr “transport camel(s).”137 It should also be emphasized that the absence of earlier references to camels in ANA and ASA inscriptions is not evidence of absence, as can be deduced from the zooarchaeological record (§3.3.1) and demonstrated by Assyrian cuneiform texts (§3.2.4.11). At present the earliest inscriptional reference to camels in the service of the Sabean kingdom comes from Assyria (Robin 1996, 1117). It mentions the looting of a large caravan coming from Taymāʾ and Sabaʾ and concerned “200 of their camels including their load” (Cavigneaux and Ismail 1990, 346, 351; see also §§3.2.4.10 and 3.2.4.10.2). So far as we could ascertain from the various camel designations and their use in inscriptions in ANA and ASA sources, they never refer to wild camels. This is in line with expectations, since by the time this information was written down, the population of wild dromedaries had presumably already greatly decreased in numbers, so that herds of wild Arabian camels could only survive away from civilization in remote areas. 3.3.6. The Camel in Arabian Rock Art Rock drawings of camels can be found across the Arabian Desert. Some scholars estimate these drawings to date back to the third millennium BC (Nayeem 2000, 50–57. 72–75; Spassov and Stoytchev 2004) or even earlier (Khan 2007, 131), but it is very difficult to correlate petroglyphs and rock drawings with archaeological findings and their chronologies. Depending on region and/or chronology, Arabian rock art features common hunted game species, such as the ibex, Arabian oryx, gazelle, and ostrich. Inscriptions of the first millennium BC show a similar picture (cf. Maraqten 2015, 215, 228; Corbett 2010, 152–57). In scenes illustrating game species or hunts, camels figure rarely, suggesting that encounters in such context may not 137.  For an updated list of ASA inscriptions mentioning camels, see Ludwig 2015, 25–30; for the various lexemes, see SabaWeb, http://​sabaweb​.uni​-jena​.de and DASI, http://dasi.cnr.it.

152

Camels in the Biblical World

have been that frequent. Only with the Thamudic rock drawings do we find iconographic evidence depicting mounted (and thus domestic) camels. This rock art is dated to the mid-​first millennium BC.138 However, inscriptions written in the ANA languages Safaitic and Thamudic, which sometimes accompany camel scenes from the first century BC onward, rarely give more details than the personal and tribal names of the camel owners (§3.3.4). Despite the fact that rock art in the Arabian Peninsula can only be dated in very general terms (Khan 2007, 131–64), some observations seem noteworthy. A first prominent rock art location is Almulihiah in the Hail area, some six hundred kilometers northwest of Riyadh. The drawings have a focus on camels, ibexes, ostriches, and humans, the latter sometimes riding a horse or a camel. It is apparent that the carvings depict animals that frequented the area and were part of the local landscape as well as daily life, some being domestic, and others wild. Dating is notoriously difficult and is only meaningful under certain conditions and in time spans of 500 years or more (Al-​Talhi 2012, 96). Not very far from Almulihiah, at Shuwaymis, 254 panels with rock engravings have been recorded. Here, earlier hunting scenes are superposed by later engravings of camels and domestic horses (Charloux, Guagnin, and Norris 2020, 92–93; Andrae et al. 2020). At Jubbah, another rock art site in North Arabia, depictions of nine camels are accompanied by one engraving of a camel footprint. Since estimated to hail from the early Holocene (ca. eighth to seventh millennium BC) by studying the regrowth of rock varnish coatings directly in the engravings (Macholdt et al. 2018), these animals represent wild dromedaries. The same site also features later engravings showing domestic dromedaries (Guagnin et al. 2018). Surveys in the Wadi Najrān area and in the foothills bordering the desert north of Wadi Najrān led to the discovery of rich rock art panels from supposedly prehistoric times until the pre-​Islamic era. The rock carvings from Biʾr Ḥimā, ʿĀn Jamal, al-Ḫushayba, and ʿĀn Halkān appear particularly well preserved and have been studied systematically (Arbach et al. 2015). Disregarding the inscriptions, the 367 petroglyphs depict human beings, animals, and trees. The corpus of animals features predominantly dromedaries, with 116 groups and/or individuals. Some of the dromedaries from Biʾr Ḥimā and ʿĀn Jamal appear in hunting scenes that might hail from the end of the Bronze Age or beginning of the Iron Age. That being said, their status can be either wild or feral. Other petroglyphs of later date depict mounted camels, some of these appearing in raiding scenes (Arbach et al. 2015, 29 and 38). Besides dromedaries, mounted horses feature prominently as well (32). However, although horses had 138.  Cf. Zarins 1978, 44; Nayeem 2000, 60–61; Lancaster and Lancaster 2011; Eisenberg-​Degen and Rosen 2013; Gallinaro 2013; Jennings et al. 2013, 2014.

Camels in the Biblical World and Adjacent Regions

153

been domesticated before the third millennium BC (§ 2.2.2), horsemen appear comparably late in the Arabian Peninsula, that is, not before the second half of the first millennium BC in northern, eastern, and central Arabia (Macdonald 2006, 73), and in Yemen no earlier than the end of the first millennium BC (Frantsouzoff 2015). In the latter country, iconography predating the Islamic period features mostly camels—sometimes with, and sometimes without riders—as well as horses, ibexes, antelopes, gazelles, and dogs (Jung 1994). Despite the difficulties of dating representations directly, rock art reveals that artists depicted dromedaries throughout prehistory, but with an emphasis on later periods. However, in many instances the absence of humans and/or specific objects indicating the reason for their exploitation, makes differentiating between wild, domestic, and feral dromedaries difficult to approach with scientific methods. This observation also applies to rock engravings from later periods, for example, from Hellenistic or pre-​Islamic periods, where animals have been depicted occasionally without saddles and/or riders. Unless there is a decidedly domestic context, such as mounted or packed animals, the status of the rock-​art-​dromedaries, namely wild, feral, or domestic, remains unclear. Similarly, it applies to camel depictions in Bronze Age contexts, for example, at Umm an-​Nar. Because remains attributed to wild one-​humped camels have been unearthed (§3.3.1.1), the one-​humped individual carved in bas-​relief on one of the collective graves could be wild as well, as pointed out earlier: “If the camel had borne a rider or other load, this would at least indicate a tamed status of the animal” (Uerpmann and Uerpmann 2002, 241). One of the largest collections of rock art photographs from Arabia was assembled by Muhammed Abdul Nayeem (2000). From a total of nearly five hundred representative rock art panels from all over Arabia, only a few panels may be interpreted as displaying camel hunting. They are dated vaguely to the “Bronze Age” (fig. 258), and “Bronze/Iron Age” (fig. 378).139 Majeed Khan (2007, figs. 115–116) also published some rock art plates portraying horsemen hunting camels, allegedly from the Iron Age, but it remains unclear whether these scenes show camel hunting at all. Since for the moment rock art dating proposals are either vague, tentative, or ambiguous, rock art is not particularly helpful in unveiling the camel’s early management and domestication, nor its cultural history. Hence, whether rock art bears witness to “an intensification of dromedary hunting along the desert frontier across Arabia” between the fourth and second millennium BC (Magee 2014, 200) remains to be seen. Sometimes, hunting scenes are superposed by 139.  The dating on fig. 258 is erroneous, because it shows a horseman (Macdonald 2006). The horseman is in fact raiding a camel, a process in which the raider touches a camel with his lance to claim it as his prize (Macdonald 1990, 24–28).

154

Camels in the Biblical World

later engravings of camels (apparently without being hunted), and domestic horses (Guagnin et al. 2015, 2, 10–11). Drawings of different periods are often merged, complicating investigation and interpretation. The large assemblages of camel remains in southeast Arabia, adjacent to the Arabian Gulf (Tell Abraq, Al-​Sufouh, Umm an-​Nar, Baynunah), which are identified as wild dromedaries (§3.3.1.1), nourished expectations that there are more such sites from the second millennium BC or earlier along the desert fringes of the Arabian Peninsula, particularly in face of the rock art studies of Emmanuel Anati (1968, 47–80). Anati referred to two petroglyph panels where humans are hunting dromedaries from areas outside of southeast Arabia. However, Anati’s dating of these pictures to the third to second millennium BC has come under scrutiny and is debatable.140 Recently, a very intriguing discovery was made, when a dozen life-​sized camelids and equids carved in low- and high-​relief were found in a place called the Camel Site in northern Saudi Arabia. At first, these carvings were dated to the first centuries BC and AD (Charloux et al. 2018) because of their similarity to Nabatean camel engravings. Ongoing work at the site now classifies the representations as prehistoric, “based on analyses of the lithic industry, rock varnish and weathering processes, and archaeometric studies” (Charloux, Guagnin, and Norris 2020, 88; Andrae et al. 2020). As long as there are no anchors to date rock art prior to the middle of the first millennium BC more precisely, any inference from individual camel depictions in Arabian rock art remains speculative. And in the absence of contextually secured (zoo)archaeological and/or inscriptional evidence, rock art cannot inform us about the circumstances and developments that resulted in the domestic form (cf. Arbach et al. 2015, 37–39; see also §3.4.4). 3.3.7. Hybrids and Bactrian Camels in Arabia During his first campaign against Merodach-​Baladan, Sennacherib confronted the Arabian allies of the Babylonian king. The booty collected consisted of 140.  See Anati 1968, 54, fig. 4 and 57, pl. 4; and 62 and 69, pl. 8. Anati could not visit the sites he described, “and used, interpreted and ‘analysed’ the photographs others had made” (Bednarik and Khan 2002, 75). Most of the rock art was recorded at or near Jabal Qara, north of Najrān (Bednarik and Khan 2009, 7). “All the evidence we have collected so far from Najran sites implies that most of Anati’s ‘preliterate phases’ post-​date the introduction of Southern Arabic, or at least the preceding Thamudic scripts” (Bednarik and Khan 2005, 71). Anati’s conclusions are based on his interpretation of a subset of 200 from a total of 232 diapositives made by the Philby-​Ryckmans-​Lippens expedition in 1951–1952. He had no size scale, “his information lacked details of site geography, topography, geomorphology, petrography, and panel orientation or exposure made” (Bednarik and Khan 2005, 72–73; see also Khan 1998). The general uncertainty in the assessment of camel depictions also applies to various camel hunting scenes referred to by Zarins 1989, 144–47; cf. also Macdonald 1990.

Camels in the Biblical World and Adjacent Regions

155

chariots, wagons, horses, mules, donkeys, camels (a n š e . a b . b a . m e š, 1:27, or a n š e . g a m . m a l . m e š, 213:29), [and] udru camels (anšeud-​ri) which had been abandoned during the battle (table 3.4). This incident points to the use of udru camels in the Babylonian army, probably male F1 hybrids (§§3.2.4.6 and 3.2.4.10). Whether their use implies the involvement of Arabian cameleers must remain open for the time being. Of particular interest is the Safaitic inscription KRS 1000 that, according to the associated depiction, refers to a male Bactrian camel (gml). There are also several drawings of two-​humped camels without inscription (Ababneh 2005, 64).141 Inscription SIJ Extra 20 mentions a camel herd (ʾbl), accompanied by a drawing of a dromedary and a Bactrian camel (§3.3.4). According to Diodorus Siculus, Bactrian camels were bred in large numbers in the Arabian Peninsula (Bibliotheca historica II.54:6). This testimony seems somewhat exaggerated, though, as the preceding text passage mentions that elephants “and other monstrous animals” were bred in the Arabian Peninsula as well (Bibliotheca historica II.54:5; cf. Schuegraf and Terbuyken 2002, 64). However, it is more likely that Diodorus referred to the breeding of hybrids, rather than of pure Bactrians (Potts 2004, 160; Gatier 2020, 238–39). Furthermore, there are at least some Safaitic inscriptions that possibly mention hybrids (ʿyr) between equids (OCIANA; Macdonald 2019), so the practice of crossbreeding seems well established in the northwestern Arabian Peninsula. As already mentioned, camel burials in contemporaneous southeast Arabia revealed the presence of three F1 hybrids among twelve camels (§3.3.1.4), one of the hybrids being bred nearby in the region of Mleiha in southeast Arabia. “Apparently male two-​humped camels were locally available and the knowledge of how to breed hybrids existed” (Uerpmann, Uerpmann, and Kutterer 2019, 306). During the reign of the Roman emperor Trajan (AD 98–117), a series of silver drachms was issued, showing on the reverse either the goddess Arabia or a two-​humped camel (Dioli 2020, fig. 2). Because drachms depicting Bactrian camels are completely absent in hoards from Asia Minor and Syria, it is unlikely that the coins were minted outside of Arabia. Some of the local Arabian coins were overstruck in another, Nabatean currency; this also applies to at least one Bactrian-​camel coin. Therefore, whoever decided the design of these coins did not confound the two species of camel but must have been familiar with the local situation. Although this does not mean that the two-​humped camel was a common sight in the Arabian Peninsula, the coins nonetheless reveal 141.  Drawings of two-​humped camels, sometimes besides one-​humped camels, also appear in KRS 881 and LP 326.1 (OCIANA). The date of the Bactrian camel’s introduction into the Arabian Peninsula is unknown (Winnett and Harding 1978, 23, 119–20). Bactrian camels appear only in some drawings, while dromedaries prevail (cf. Macdonald, Al-​Mu’azzin, and Nehmé 1996, 467–72; Ababneh 2005, 61–64).

156

Camels in the Biblical World

the acquaintance of Arabian officials with Bactrian camels. They were aware of their existence, either through camel caravans passing by, or through camel breeders that had specialized in hybridization. Moreover, the photographs published by Dioli (2020, fig. 13) clearly show the phenotypic variability of camel hybrids, so it is worth considering at this point whether the representation on the coins might not even represent such an animal.

3.4. Camels in Egypt Usually considered a culture with a long-​standing tradition in camel husbandry, a critical reassessment of the archaeological and pictorial record by Béatrix Midant-​Reynes and Florence Braunstein-​Silvestre published in 1977 modified this picture considerably. They concluded that camels were essentially absent from Egypt before the first millennium BC. This conclusion is paralleled by the written record, which remains silent prior to the middle of the first millennium BC. 3.4.1. Camel Remains The synopsis presented by Midant-​Reynes and Braunstein-​Silvestre (1977) basically argues that several camel finds from Pre- and Early Dynastic archaeological contexts represent later intrusions. Moreover, in the absence of secure osteological evidence for camels prior to the first millennium BC Egypt, any older date proposed for archaeological specimens must be confirmed by detailed contextual analyses and direct radiocarbon dating. This concerns specimens like, for instance, the isolated dromedary bone collected in the sediment of a human burial belonging to the Nubian Pan-​Grave Culture, dated ca. 1800– 1600 BC (Bietak 1966, 34, 38; I. Köhler 1981, 107).142 Turning to the first millennium BC, several instances of camel remains have been found, but the overall impression is that the animal may not have been that frequent. Osseous remains of the species have been reported from Kom al-​Negus (ancient Plinthine) near Lake Mareotis (Lake Mariout), located at the western fringe of the Nile Delta. The Ptolemaic and Roman past of Plinthine is well attested, whereas the region’s pharaonic history is almost unknown. Excavations undertaken quite recently unearthed bones probably belonging to a camel in a dump associated with a stratum likely dating to the eighth century BC (Barahona-​Mendieta, Pesenti, and Redon 2016, 7–8). Other archaeological finds—including ceramics, botanical remains, and faunal remains collected in 142.  The Pan Grave Culture is named after the typical circular pit graves, which sometimes have a small stone circle as their superstructure.

Camels in the Biblical World and Adjacent Regions

157

domestic contexts—suggest that the site was occupied from the eighth to the fifth centuries BC.143 Further west, in Kom Abu Billou, situated at the border to the Libyan Desert, a single camel bone has been found in a level dated to the fifth century BC.144 Some of the camel bones collected during excavations in a cave at Mosta­ gedda, Upper Egypt (Brunton 1937, 146), and originally attributed to the Dynastic age, have recently been directly radiocarbon dated to the Persian Period (Grigson 2014, 227, 234). Roughly from the same period two camel teeth could be identified among the faunal remains from excavations at Tell Qedwa in the northern Sinai (Leclant and Clerc 1995, 249). Additional evidence for the presence of the camel in Egypt comes from the site of Qasr Ibrim in Lower Nubia, where a fragmental mandible and some dung pellets were collected from Napatan layers, radiocarbon dated (with a rather wide absolute date range) to the middle of the first millennium BC (Rowley-​Conwy 1988; cf. Chaix 2006; Grigson 2014, 227). 3.4.1.1. Disputable Finds As briefly mentioned above, several claims for the early presence of camels based on osseous remains have been made in the past, but the body of evidence is less than convincing (Midant-​Reynes and Braunstein-​Silvestre 1977; Agut-​ Labordère 2018). For instance, five cervical vertebrae (third to seventh) and an incomplete axis, together with the first seven thoracic vertebrae and eight ribs found in an “intact, rectangular tomb cut in gravel” in Heluan (Saad 1951, 38; pl. 48–49) would imply the camel’s presence in Egypt as early as the First Dynasty (ca. 3200–2900 BC). However, in absence of a detailed taphonomic analysis and other unequivocal contextual evidence, this seems very unlikely (Midant-​Reynes and Braunstein-​Silvestre 1977, 344; Helck and Otto 1987, 169). The same applies to an alleged camel’s head found in Maadi and dating to 3200 BC (Menghin and Amer 1932, pl. 22). Its chronological classification depends “mainly on the goodwill of the observer.”145 Early claims for camels were not restricted to the species’ skeletal remains, but also referred to other organic matters. One such example is a cord fragment from Um as-​Sawwan in northern Faiyum, once quoted as evidence for the domestication of the camel (Caton-​Thompson 1934; Alfi 1992, 339). However, reevaluation of the cord revealed that it most likely was made from sheep 143.  The excavation was undertaken by Bérangère Redon and Marie-​Françoise Boussac in 2012. For a general description of the site, see Boussac, Dhennin, and Redon 2015. 144.  The excavation was undertaken by Sylvain Dhennin (see previous note). 145.  “Essentiellement de la bonne volonté de l’observateur” (Agut-​Labordère 2018, 177).

158

Camels in the Biblical World

fleece (Midant-​Reynes and Braunstein-​Silvestre 1977, 347). Finally, claims that ancient Egyptians processed camel hides as early as the first half of the second millennium BC have never been backed up by any archaeological evidence so far (R. Reed 1972, 86). 3.4.2. Camel Figurines and Artistic Camel Representations As with organic remains, a dynastic presence of camels based on iconography has been postulated several times. One well-​known and intriguing find made by Georg Möller (1906, 16–17) is an ointment vessel of yellow limestone in the form of a camel with a basket on its back in repose. The discovery was made at Abu Sir Al-​Malaq, ten kilometers south of Cairo in a tomb from the First Dynasty.146 There are no humps visible, because the larger part of the animal’s body is shaped into a vessel. The slightly lowered head has only some features reminding us of a camel, explaining why occasionally other identifications have been offered, for example, a lioness (cf. I. Köhler 1981, 106). However, lions exhibit shorter necks, have a much wider and flatter nose, less conspicuous eyes, and larger ears in relation to their eye area. In addition, the crouching position of the animal, with its forelegs bent under the body, is typical for camels. Lions, on the other hand, stretch their forelegs forward. That being said, if the figurine does represent a camel, it resembles a Bactrian more closely than an Arabian camel. Since the Abu Sir Al-​Malaq tombs yielded many imports from Western Asia, the zoomorphic vessel is usually classified as such (Helck 1977, 948) and is thought to have probably been imported from Baluchistan (Helck and Otto 1987, 169), which was at that time integrated in the ancient Indus Valley civilization or Harappan culture. Whereas this context is in favor of its interpretation as a Bactrian camel (cf. §3.1; cf. Brentjes 1960, 48), the presence of two-​humped camels in Baluchistan around 3000 BC must be questioned, given the lack of evidence for either the wild or domestic form in the Early Bronze Age archaeofaunal record of that region (Peters and von den Driesch 1997). Arguably, this challenges the supposed geographic origin of the vessel and/or its chronological classification. Given the rare occurrence of camel remains in Egypt, the find of some sherds with an incised sketch of a one-​humped camel must be regarded as one of the most spectacular finds of recent decades (Pusch 1996). These sherds from Piramesse, modern Qantir, belong to a dish made from local Nile clay and are dated to the late Eighteenth or early Nineteenth Dynasty (fourteenth to thirteenth centuries BC). Although the incised figure (fig. 3.47) is not complete, the visible 146.  The location is often cited as “Abusir El-​Melek.” Scharff 1926, 40; Keimer 1929, 85–87. Today’s location is the Neues Museum in Berlin, no. ÄM 18593. See Kaiser 1967, 16, catalog no. 142.

Camels in the Biblical World and Adjacent Regions

159

Figure 3.45.  Zoomorphic vessel from Abu Sir Al-Maliq. Staatliche Museen zu Berlin—Ägyptisches Museum und Papyrussammlung, Inv.-Nr. ÄM 18593. Photograph by Sandra Steiß. Figure 3.46.  Head of the zoomorphic vessel. Staatliche Museen zu Berlin—Ägyptisches Museum und Papyrussammlung, Inv.-Nr. ÄM 18593. Photograph by Sandra Steiß.

parts perfectly represent the typical pose of a dromedary, and the reconstruction of the missing part is virtually certain. The complete absence of wild dromedaries from Holocene northeast Africa excludes the presence of a free-​ranging one-​ humped camel population as the source of inspiration for the artist. As already mentioned earlier, the presence of wild dromedaries in the second millennium BC has only been confirmed in coastal southeast Arabia, some three thousand kilometers away from the Nile Delta. One also notes that the picture on this

160

Camels in the Biblical World

Figure 3.47.  Drawing of bowl fragment with camel incision, city of Rameses. Pusch 1996, fig. 7. Qantir, Q I—b.c.10.11, Stratum B/3: Schale aus Nilton mit Ritzung eines Dromedars, Detail der Darstellung, M 1:2, entzerrt und ergänzt. Drawing by B. Ditze, J. Klang, and J. Lindemann. Used by permission of the Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.

sherd is not a rough, stylized camel.147 Its realism suggests that it was made from a life model. Conceivably, cameleers who were on the move through the Nile Delta could have made it, or an artist who lived in the delta and who knew camels from his own observation.148 There is also a chance that the incision was inspired by camels kept in the royal “zoo” (Pitsch 1986) in the city of Rameses. Excavations at Piramesse revealed the presence of elephants, gazelles, lions, and other local and exotic wild taxa (Pusch 2001). So even if the dish from the city of Rameses most likely depicts a domestic dromedary, it does not allow the conclusion that one-​humped camels were present in Egypt at that time. 147.  Thus, the evidence cannot simply be dismissed, because the camel sherd seems to look like a “crudely scratched figure . . . like all the other proposed early illustrations of the beast, its [sic] fails to convince” (Houlihan 2002, 107 n. 3). By contrast, Pusch pointed distinctly to the precision of the figure (1996, 111). 148.  For the Egyptian perspective on mobile pastoralists in the late second millennium BC, most prominently the Shasu, see Staubli 1991, 20–55. For nomads using ceramics, see Cribb 1991, 75–76. Earlier references to wandering tribes from the Sinai Peninsula and the southern Levant in Egyptian sources are difficult to assess, because they seem to be subsumed, together with the sedentary population, under the label “Asians” (Zarins 1989, 131–32).

Camels in the Biblical World and Adjacent Regions

161

In the Egyptian paintings and inscriptions from the New Kingdom (Eighteenth to Twentieth Dynasties, ca. sixteenth to eleventh centuries BC) handed down to us, transport animals of mobile pastoralists from the northeast, such as the Shasu (šꜢsw) tribes, are not represented at all. The famous Papyrus Harris I lists the wealth of various temples during the reign of Ramesses III (ca. 1185– 1156 BC), and also reports how Ramesses III destroyed “the people of Seir among the Shasu tribes. I razed their tents: their people, their property, and their cattle as well, without number, pinioned and carried away in captivity, as the tribute of Egypt” (cf. Giveon 1971, 136). It is noteworthy that Ramesses III mentions the “housing” of the Shasu, namely their tents, and small cattle (jꜢwt; Weippert 1974, 275), but not any transport or pack animals.149 Besides cattle, donkeys might have been necessary for transporting the tents and their furniture. Similarly, another papyrus refers to the Shasu and their cattle as well, but without further specification (jꜢwt; Papyrus Anastasi VI; Giveon 1971, 132). In addition, and according to Papyrus Harris I, the twelfth century BC royal copper trade made use either of ships or of donkeys (Birch 1876, pl. 78). The “highway” for transport of any bulky goods in Egypt was the Nile and roads following the river. This mode of transport required primarily ships and donkeys, but not necessarily camels. The donkey was also used in expeditions through the Egyptian desert. Large distances (up to four hundred kilometers) through the desert could be managed with the help of caravan stations that provided water in ceramic vessels (Förster 2015, 341–84). The long-​term acquaintance of the ancient Egyptians with the donkey explains why it was their principal means of transport since late Predynastic times. Up until now, evidence that camels were used for transportation through the Eastern and Western Deserts has only been attested from Roman times (Adams 2007, 56). The association of the camel with hostile environments is reflected by an unprovenanced base sherd of a faience dish depicting a camel together with game of the desert (fig. 3.48).150 However, the dating of this sherd is disputable. Although a New Kingdom origin has been suggested in literature, other researchers date it to the eighth to seventh centuries BC.151 The sherd has a head of Bes on the inside and 149. The Egyptian word used here for tents is a loanword from Semitic ʾhl “tent; family,” such as in ‫ אֹ הֶ ל‬or in ‫ أهل‬ʾahl; see J. Hoch 1994 no. 24; Rosen and Saidel 2010, 71. 150.  According to Boessneck (1988, 35–46), pictures of wild animals in Egypt did not include camels. A famous demotic list of desert game includes mountain beasts, such as the “giraffe, gazelle, hyena, wolf, hart, and all sorts of beasts,” but no camels (Smith and Tait 1983, 130; Shedid 1994, 73; Bohms 2013, 87, 89). Moreover, in the rock art of ancient Egypt, camels do not turn up before the Late period (Huyge 2003, 64). 151.  The body proportions of the camel, notably its long trunk and its short legs have been shaped (probably for artistic reasons) to fit those of the other animals. The relative flat hump of the dromedary seems to point to a camel that had been either active in a long journey recently, or that was held in captivity. In their review, Midant-​Reynes and Braunstein-​Silvestre (1977) did not

162

Camels in the Biblical World Figure 3.48.  Fragment of a faience bowl. Used by permission of the British Museum, Item no. 65553. Photograph YCA26391.

a frieze of animals including “a gazelle, an antelope, a lioness, an ostrich, an ibex, a camel, and another antelope” (James 1954, 17) on the outside. The arrangement of these animals does not mean that the camel was necessarily regarded as a wild animal, but that it belonged, from the perspective of the artist, either to animals kept in a royal zoo or to the game of the desert. In this respect, the fact that camel pastoralists allowed their animals to pasture freely could indeed suggest to the unversed observer that these camels were wild (cf. §3 nn. 33 and 120). consider this piece of evidence although repeatedly cited in literature (Bissing 1923–1924, 194–97; James 1954; Brentjes 1960). Brentjes’s dating to the eighth century BC (40, and 43 n. 2; cf. Ripinsky 1985, 140) seems to be based on Bissing’s (1923–1924, 195) dating proposals. This author argued that the style of the animals seemed reminiscent of the New Kingdom (195). Then he compares the vessel with another bowl and concludes that “our bowl should consequently be dated prior to the Saite period (circa 700 BC)” [“denn man wird unsere Schale am wahrscheinlichsten kurz vor die Saitenzeit setzen (also um 700)”]. Yet it remains unclear which object is precisely meant by “our bowl” [“unsere Schale”]. After the bowl was acquired by the British Museum, James (1954) examined it and tentatively concluded that “objects in glazed composition with decoration of this kind from Egypt are not uncommon from the New Kingdom onwards. . . . The Museum collection has one fine complete glazed composition bowl with friezes of animals and birds on the inside, dated to the XXXth Dynasty (No. 57385). The present example, however, from the colour of the glaze and the details of the representation of Bes is to be dated more probably to the XVIIIth–XIXth Dynasties.” Neither Brentjes, nor Midant-​Reynes and Braunstein-​Silvestre, nor Ripinsky, seem to have been aware of James’s (1954) publication.

Camels in the Biblical World and Adjacent Regions

163

Figure 3.49.  “Camel with water jar” from Rifeh. See Petrie 1907, pl. 27.

Another interesting artifact unearthed from a thirteenth-​century BC tomb at Rifeh (Middle Egypt) is a pottery figure of a camel loaded with two jars. As W. M. Flinders Petrie (1907, 23) reported, The pottery figure of a camel laden with water-​jars was found in a tomb of the XIXth dynasty in the northern cemetery. There were no traces of a later reuse of the tomb; the style of the figure is of the rough fingered pottery of the XIXth dynasty, and quite unlike any of the molded Roman figures; and the water-​jar is of the XVIIIth–XIXth dynasty type and not of a form used in Greek or Roman times. Hence it is impossible to assign this to the age when the camel is familiar in Egypt, and it shows that as early as Ramesside times it was sufficiently common to be used as a beast of burden.152 3.4.2.1. The Zoomorphic Vessel from Rifeh in the Context of Similar Finds Many researchers consider the zoomorphic vessel from Rifeh (figure 3.50) to be sufficient proof for the presence of camels in Ramesside Egypt. Midant-​Reynes and Braunstein-​Silvestre (1977, 351) admitted that “this is a Ramesside period camel.”153 I. Köhler (1981, 106) allows it to be “The most legitimate argument for the camel being known in Egypt during the Ramesside period,” and Heidi Köpp-​Junk (2015, 113) sees it as the earliest evidence of the camel “in a transport 152.  Albright (1945, 287) is of the opinion that the figurine should be dated “still later,” which, regarding Petri’s limited archaeological experience compared with Albright’s or today’s state-​of the-​art seems to be not unwarranted, but Albright offers no evidence whatsoever. 153.  “Il s’agit d’un chameau d’époque ramesside” (cf. Agut-​Labordère 2018, 179).

164

Camels in the Biblical World

Figure 3.50.  Camel figurine from Rifeh. Photo of item no. 4333, made by, and used by permission of, the Manchester Museum, University of Manchester.

situation.”154 This figurine is the oldest witness to the use of a camel as a beast of burden found in situ during excavation. For a long time, scholars published pictures of the figurine merely as copies from Petrie’s report (fig. 3.49; cf. Köpp 2013, 111). The figurine is housed in the Egyptian Collection of the Manchester Museum, no. 4333. The hump is clearly visible. The prominent orbital roof, the stocky shape of the head in comparison to the elongated head of the donkey, and the long neck all speak in favor of the identification as a dromedary. The angle of its head is not typical, though. First-​millennium BC camel figurines from Mesopotamia and from South Arabia exhibit a stylized posture, mostly with the head in near-​horizontal position (cf. fig. 3.55), but some with a lowered head (fig. 3.44), and some with the muzzle lifted upward.155 Although the Rifeh camel 154.  I. Köhler: “das legitimste Argument für das Bekanntsein des Kamels im Ägypten der Ramessidenzeit”; Köpp-​Junk: “in einer Transportsituation.” 155.  For a lowered head, see Ziegler 1962, 88–91; nos. 585–612; table 21, 308a–16; Legrain 1930: pl. 61, no. 324. Cf. Ludwig 2015, nos. 1, 5–6, 31, 35. Similarly, the camel figurines from Nabataean Petra give the impression that “the relationship between each body part of the camel, comprising the legs, the neck, the head, the hump, the tail, and the belly is not well achieved and far from realistic” (el-​Khouri 2002, 26). By comparison, donkey figurines and donkeys in wall paintings from ancient

Camels in the Biblical World and Adjacent Regions

165

Figure 3.51.  Camel figurine from Rifeh, view from the left. Photo of item no. 4333, made by, and used by permission of, the Manchester Museum, University of Manchester.

does not represent a particularly elaborated artwork, its specific identification is not up for discussion. By way of comparison, figure 3.52 depicts a packed donkey from the burial chamber of Panehsi (Thebes, New Kingdom, ca. 1298–1235 BC). The differences between figure 3.52 and figure 3.50 are obvious, not only in the shape of the donkey’s back and neck, but also in its load covering a considerable part of its body. There is a similar figurine from Tel Miqne-​Eqron in the shape of a donkey or horse, bearing two jars or loads (fig. 3.53; Ben-​Shlomo 2008, 36), dated to Iron Egypt usually depict the donkey with long pointed ears that are pulled backward, a lathy head with a strong lower jaw, a short neck, and a straight and long back (Newberry 1893, pl. 31); cf. Schroer and Keel 2005, 202. Camel figurines with the head pointed upward are mostly known from south Arabia, from the beginning of the first millennium BC (see fig. 3.40; cf. O’Neill 2014, pls. 2–3) until late antiquity (Ludwig 2015, nos. 3, 21, 27, 40–41, etc.). For a camel figurine carrying jars, and an uplifted head, see Arbach and Schiettecatte 2006, pl. 20, fig. 67. The uplifted muzzle is reminiscent of the rutting camel bull: lifting its head, foaming, and braying are some of its behaviors during the rutting season before approaching a female. From the first half of the first millennium BC, there are also camel figurines from Taymāʾ showing an uplifted head and signs of domestic use (Jantzen 2009, 12; Eichmann et al. 2010, 136–37; Magee 2015, 263).

166

Camels in the Biblical World

Figure 3.52.  Artistic donkey representation from the burial chamber of Panehsi. The Yorck Project: 10.000 Meisterwerke der Malerei, DVD-​ROM, 2002. © Zenodot Verlagsgesellschaft mbH, licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. Figure 3.53.  Zoomorphic vessel with jar-​like fillers from Ekron. See Ben-​Shlomo 2008, 37. Copy of drawing used by permission from the author.

Age I (ca. 1200–925 BC), and an almost identical piece from Tall Abū al-​Kharaz in the Jordan Valley, dated to about 800 BC (P. Fischer 2001, 308, 314). Another Iron Age animal figurine with a vessel-like shape was unearthed in Beth Shemesh, its head being used as a spout. Two wide-​mouthed jars are fixed on each side of the figurine, which served as fillers for the vessel (Grant 1929, 167; 196, no. 506). The same applies to some crudely shaped zoomorphic vessels found at Iron Age Lachish (Tufnell 1953, pl. 30). Terra-​cottas depicting beasts with loads “appear in Palestine from the Chalcolithic period ([C.] Epstein 1985) and seem to have become more popular during the Late Iron Age” (Ben-​Shlomo 2008, 36). The figurines depicted in figures 3.50 and 3.53–56 belong to the genre of zoomorphic vessels that became common in Israel during the Iron Age (Holland 1995, 168; Kletter 2015). The vessels could be filled by pouring a costly fluid, such as oil, perfume, or wine, in through openings in the back or on the hump,

Camels in the Biblical World and Adjacent Regions

167

Figure 3.54.  Head of camel figurine from Rifeh. Photo of item no. 4333, made by, and used by permission of, the Manchester Museum, University of Manchester. Figure 3.55.  Zoomorphic vessel from the Leo Mildenberg Collection. Former collection of Dr. Leo Mildenberg, inv. M593. Photograph by Silvia Hertig, Archäologische Sammlung der Universität Zürich.

which could then be poured out through the orifice in the animal’s head. Most zoomorphic vessels were probably used for libation (Kletter 2015). An unprovenanced, stylistically more elaborate camel figurine comparable to figure 3.50 and housed in the Leo Mildenberg collection (fig. 3.55) can be dated to the Iron Age (Zahlhaas 1996, no. 121). From Tel Yoqneʿam near Mount Carmel (Israel), there is also a pottery figurine (fig. 3.56), dated, with some caution, to the early second millennium BC (Ben-​Tor 1993, 811). This zoomorphic vessel of peculiar shape carries a cup on its back. “Liquids could be poured into the opening of the cup, and out through

168

Camels in the Biblical World Figure 3.56.  Zoomorphic vessel, T. Yoqneʿam, IAA Number: 2004–2807. Courtesy Israel Antiquities Authority. Photograph by Meidad Suchowolski.

the animal’s mouth” (Ben-​Tor, Ben-​Ami and Livneh 2005, 39).156 The vessel from Yoqneʿam is largely stylized, it could, however, depict a donkey. Although figure 3.56 seems to have some camel-​like features—a hump underneath the cup, a long neck, the head held in horizontal position, protruding eyes, and short ears—it cannot be regarded as an unequivocal witness to a camel in use as a pack animal. The figurine rather requires a cup on its back to fill in the fluid, and a connection between the cup and the animal’s back that appears like a hump. Moreover, zoomorphic vessels do not in every case represent scenery from real life. Some zoomorphic vessels are shaped as wild animals, or even as animals that were never used as pack animals.157 156.  The opening in the mouth could function as well as an unobtrusive firing hole. “If the only opening on these vessels was the spout in the back, they probably would have exploded in the kiln. With two openings, air and heat could circulate evenly through the vessel during the firing process” (Koehl 2013, 240). Figures 3.51 and 3.53–56, however, have several openings, so that Koehl’s argument may not apply in every case. 157.  Cf. Koehl 2013, figs. 2 and 4; Tuchelt 1962, pls. 3–6. 22–24. Cf. also other zoomorphic or “laden” figurines from ez-​Zeraqōn (Bronze Age, ca. 2900–2300 BC) in al-​Ajlouny, Douglas, and Khrisat 2011, 96; al-​Ajlouny et al. 2012, 109. More than twenty-​three figurines representing laden animals and dating to the Early Bronze Age were found in the southern Levant. The animals that could be identified represented donkeys (al-​Ajlouny et al. 2012, 107).

Camels in the Biblical World and Adjacent Regions

169

Summing up, New Kingdom art provides three representations of camels that refer to different settings: The faience bowl (fig. 3.48), whether dated to the first millennium or earlier, sees the camel as a free-​roaming animal associated with the desert. The sherd from the city of Rameses (fig. 3.47) testifies to the knowledge of the camel by people living in or traveling through the delta. The find from Rifeh (fig. 3.50) seems to point to its use as a pack animal in Egypt, or in the Levant, in which case it is to be regarded as an import (Midant-​Reynes and Braunstein-​Silvestre 1977, 351). All three artifacts confirm the general impression gained from pre-​Persian-​period Egypt elsewhere. Camels were not everyday animals like sheep and goats, although there might have been some knowledge of them essentially gained by contacts with other cultures.158 3.4.2.2. Later Finds from the First Millennium BC To the assumedly late second millennium BC camels described above, we can add some informative finds that at present are considered to be manufactured in the first millennium BC. One of these, published by Mariette in 1880, features a faience figurine from Abydos showing a foreign-​looking rider and a kneeling camel with four pithoi attached to its back in pairs. Mariette dated the figurine to the later first millennium BC (namely to the “basses époques”; cf. Mariette-​ Pacha 1880, 54, and pl. 40), whereas Henry Wallis (1898, 50–55) placed it more precisely in the context of Ptolemaic finds, but without any comment. Contrary to this, Friedrich Wilhelm Freiherr von Bissing (1900, 68) tentatively dated it to the last century of the second millennium BC for artistic reasons. More generally, Lefébure (1907, 42–50) argued for a date between the Twenty-​second and the Twenty-​sixth Dynasties (ca. 950–560 BC). The similarities to figures 3.50, 3.53, and 3.55 are apparent, but one notes that the Abydos figurine (fig. 3.57) is worked much more elaborately than the ones discussed above. From Memphis, a fragmental camel-​shaped zoomorphic vessel has been unearthed, accompanied by a Persian warrior or cameleer, and dated to the fifth century BC. The various fragments of the figurine, such as the camel’s head and feet, were carefully evaluated, and as far as possible reassembled, so that the original state of the object could be restored (fig. 3.58; see Kahil 1972; Kaminski 2006, 495–96; Agut-​Labordère 2018, 179; Agut-​Labordère and Redon 2020). 158.  According to Free (1944, 189), Ripinsky (1985, 139), and Köpp-​Junk (2015, 113), there is another small camel figurine from Médamoud, dating to the New Kingdom. This dating is based on a misreading of Bisson de la Roque’s (1930, 56) excavation report, as Midant-​Reynes and Braunstein-​ Silvestre (1977, 352; cf. Agut-​Labordère 2018) have already demonstrated. The camel figurine was unearthed, together with many other small finds, from a feature dating to the Copto-​Byzantine period (Bisson de la Roque 1930, 36). Although the find context yielded, by intrusion, also some larger objects from the earlier period of the New Kingdom (37), this does not apply to the numerous small figurines (de Vaux 1949, 8 n. 5).

170

Camels in the Biblical World Figure 3.57.  Camel figurine from Abydos. Drawing adapted from Mariette-​Pacha 1880, pl. 40 u.

In the later first millennium BC, camel representations increase, as, for instance, a faience figurine that served as an amulet, dating to the Twenty-​ninth Dynasty (D. Graf 2011, 161; fourth century BC), a camel’s head from a Ptolemaic period context (D. Arnold 1995, no. 68), and several camel figurines from the Greco-​Roman period (Nachtergael 1989; Boutantin 2014, 293–321). Finally, some camel-​shaped figurines, most likely dating to the first millennium AD, appear among a large assemblage of terra-​cottas from Medinet Habu (Teeter 2010, 20–21, 129–33). Parallel to the iconographic evidence, ostraca and papyri from Greco-​Roman times bear witness to the ever-​expanding use of the camel as a freight vehicle in Egypt (M. Klein 1988, 52–53; Maxfield and Peacock 2001, 264, 296, 299; Boutantin 2014, 293–95; Ricciardetto 2016). Occasionally, it also served as a meat source, although there is no evidence for routine consumption of camel meat in Egypt prior to the Arab conquest (cf. Toplyn 2006, 490). It is unlikely that the camel became a domestic animal in Egypt in the proper sense before the first millennium BC.159 For instance, the famous wall painting of “Asians” from the tomb at Beni Hassan, dated to the early second millennium BC, portrays donkeys, but not camels.160 159.  Boessneck (1988, 83) accurately condensed the conclusions that can be drawn from the available evidence: “The dromedary . . . does not belong to the domestic animals of the ancient Egyptians, but that does not mean that they were unfamiliar with it.” [“Das Dromedar . . . gehört nicht zu den Haustieren der alten Ägypter, was aber nicht heißt, daß es ihnen unbekannt war”]. 160.  Newberry 1893, pl. 31. This famous party of thirty-​seven Asiatics, which has often been claimed to come from the southern Levant (cf. Kamrin 2013, 162), may simply belong to the Eastern Desert (Förster 2015, 390), or to an unknown location. Their entry into Egypt “was overseen by the ruler of the Oryx Nome, who was responsible for controlling the border between Egypt and the Eastern Desert” (S. Cohen 2015, 28). This party that according to the inscription was bringing black eye paint (msḏm.t), a mineral from the Eastern Desert, during the reign of Sesostris II (Shedid 1994, 60–62), can hardly be considered as a nomadic clan, or as a party of itinerant traders and

Camels in the Biblical World and Adjacent Regions

171

Figure 3.58.  Camel figurine with Persian warrior from Memphis. Reconstruction based on inv. CA 3825, Musée de Louvre, Paris. See Kahil 1972, fig. 7. Drawing made by G. Passardi.

3.4.2.3. Disputable Finds A recent reappraisal of early camel records by Damien Agut-​Labordère (2018) supports our interpretation that this livestock species was a comparably late addition to the ancient Egyptian pastoral economy. Without going into much detail, some objects are worth mentioning since cited repeatedly in the literature for almost a century now. For instance, in 1929, Alexander Scharff (69–72) published a set of flat figurines, probably make-​up palettes offered on sale as Pre-​Dynastic at the antiquities market. One palette seems to offer an unsuccessful representation of a camel (71), of which the identification is mainly based on the fact that the animal rests on bended knees (table 21, fig. 103). Also in 1929, Ludwig Keimer (88; pl. 4,1; Agut-​Labordère 2018, 178) published a camel rider on a terra-​cotta plate that would date to the First Dynasty as well. Since this is well before the domestication of the wild dromedary, the dating of the object is controversial. From the Egyptian temple at Byblos, Pierre Montet (1928a, musicians (cf. Albright 1961, 42; Staubli 1991, 33–34). They came to Egypt to be active in cooperative mining activities. Their leader IbšꜢ (probably a transcription of Semitic Abi-​šar, Helck 1971, 42) is called “ruler of the foreign countries” (ḥqꜢ ḫꜢswt). He is accompanied by women and children. The picture shows some hunting scenes, weapons, and instruments that may be interpreted as two bellows and a lyre.

172

Camels in the Biblical World

pl. 52, 179; 1928b, 91, 179) published a vase-​like figurine of a kneeling camel (“A crouching camel (?)” [“un chameau (?) accroupi”]), dated to the nineteenth century BC. This art object has a clumsy appearance. It is unclear whether it exhibits the characteristic features of a camel, or of a ram in repose. Although it seems to be of Egyptian style, it is uncertain whether it was produced in Egypt or somewhere else (H. Epstein 1954, 249), and its dating is disputed (Brentjes 1960, 34). Finally, from the Persian period, there are two figurines from the fifth century BC, with questionable identification (F. Colin 2004; Boutantin 2014, 292 n. 2). 3.4.3. Camels in Ancient Egyptian Inscriptions and Literature Not surprisingly, Assyrian inscriptions give the earliest information about camels connected with Egypt. Around 671 BC, the Assyrian king Esarhaddon used camels, which he had obtained from Arabian chieftains in the Sinai, to guarantee the success of his campaign. They were carrying water provisions for his troops and animals through the desert, probably even into Egypt itself (Radner 2008; Bagg 2010, 207; see §3.2.4.11). The earliest known inscriptional reference to camels from Egypt, or from a country at least connected with Egypt, dates to the ninth century BC. On the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III (ca. 858–824 BC), five scenes wrap around the famous stela. Each scene depicts the tribute Shalmaneser received from a vassal, further specified in a cuneiform caption. The vassals from all parts of the Assyrian Empire demonstrate the far-​reaching power and influence of its sovereignty. Two Bactrian camels are led by tribute bearers (Houlihan 1996, 39) as the “tribute of the land of Muṣri.”161 They seem to have been provided by Egypt—not necessarily by Egypt itself, but probably by vassal states in the Levant that were under Egyptian hegemony and had such animals at their disposal. In this context, it is noteworthy that the earliest possible inscriptional hint to camels in Egyptian sources has a West Semitic background. It is hidden in the personal name bkr(t) of a royal administrator from the Ninteenth Dynasty (ca. 1292–1190 BC). This personal name can be interpreted as an animal name, meaning “young camel” (Dirbas 2019, 213; Rechenmacher 2012, 170; cf §3.3.4; Schneider 1992, 98–99). For a long time, it has been opinio communis that camels went unmentioned in Egyptian texts before the Ptolemaic period (Brogan 1954, 127; Midant-​ Reynes and Braunstein-​Silvestre 1977, 338; Budka 2004). In addition, there is no hieroglyph corresponding to “camel,” and there are no entries for “camel” or 161.  For a discussion of the geographical location of Muṣri, see Tadmor 1961; Elat 1978, 21; Röllig 1993, 268, Kessler 1997, and T. Mitchell 2000, 188–90. The writing of mu-​uṣ-ri for “Egypt” was common in Akkadian sources of the first millennium BC (Röllig 1993, 264–65).

Camels in the Biblical World and Adjacent Regions

173

“Kamel” in the dictionaries of hieroglyphic Egyptian.162 However, more recent inscriptional evidence has augmented considerably our understanding of camels in first-​millennium BC Egypt. Actually, the first mention of the camel in Egyptian appears as a Semitic loanword in the later dialect of demotic.163 Two demotic ostraca (O. Man. 3928 and 4304) that were found only recently during the excavations at ʿAyn Manāwir (Kharga oasis, ca. two hundred kilometers west of the Nile Valley), and dating to the late fifth century BC, mention the camel in the form gmr (Chauveau 2015).164 In O. Man. 3928, the camel does not appear as the ship of the desert, but as a draught animal or carrier of heavy loads in agricultural fieldwork (Agut-​Labordère 2018, 182). According to this ostracon, a certain Ḥor gives another man the right to irrigate a field at the border of the desert in autumn 410 BC, during the reign of Darius II (Tryhwš, 423–404 BC).165 The ostracon O. Man. 4304, likewise written during the reign of Darius II, but preserved rather fragmentary, points to another situation in which the camel (gmr) is counted as property.166 The noun gmr is written with the determinative for the ox (𓃒), underlining the engagement of the camel in heavy fieldwork (Agut-​Labordère 2020, 127). It is noteworthy that there are no other beasts of burden mentioned in the demotic ostraca from ʿAyn Manāwir (Agut-​ Labordère and Newton 2013, 11). Camels and cameleers are also mentioned in the demotic ostraca from Biʾr Samūt, a Ptolemaic fortress located on one of the ancient roads connecting the Nile Valley with the Red Sea. The ostraca date from the early Ptolemaic period until the end of the third century BC. Textual evidence of the camel occurs frequently in alphabetic script (forty-​two texts), going back ultimately to the form gml and written mostly as such, but it also occurs in the form gmwl, gmr, and gmwr (Chaufray 2020). These forms are augmented by the animal’s 162.  See Erman and Grapow 1982, 85, 197; and Hannig 2000, 695; cf. also Walz 1951, 40. Chabas (1872, 408–9), followed by Houghton (1889, 83–84), Brugsch (1897, 387), and Volten (1937,157–58), translated a reading in the Instruction of Ani (Eighteenth or early Nineteenth Dynasty) as “[she-] camel.” Westendorf (2008, 457) similarly read it as kꜢmnj “camel (?),” an apparent misreading. The correct reading is tꜢ kry.t “the she-​monkey” (Quack 1994, 61, 122–23; cf. Caminos 1954, 14). See also Wiedemann 1890, 32–33; Lefébure 1907, 25–30. The alleged reference to a camel, in the form kamāȧl, in Papyrus Anastasi (BM no. 10,247), is likewise a misreading (Budge 1909, 95); cf. Midant-​ Reynes and Braunstein-​Silvestre 1977, 354. 163.  See CDD G:31; Erichsen 1954, 581; and Vycichl 1983, 341. Demotic offers a cursive form of the hieroglyphs. It is attested from ca. 650 BC onward. 164.  In the New Kingdom, the Semitic phoneme l was usually written as r. In later times, scribes increasingly differentiated between l and r. For details cf. J. Hoch 1994, 432; Junge 1999, 42; and Peust 1999, 130, esp. 142. 165.  O. Man. 3928, lines 2–3 of the concave side; Agut-​Labordère 2020, 124. 166.  Both ostraca can be studied online at http://​www​.achemenet​.com​/fr​/tree​/​?​/sources​ -textuelles​/textes​-par​-langues​-et​-ecritures​/egyptien​-hieroglyphique​-et​-demotique​/ostraca​-d​-ayn​ -manawir.

174

Camels in the Biblical World

tail (𓄛), which is the usual determinative for the ox from the Hellenistic period onward (Agut-​Labordère 2020, 127). As such, camels were employed in the transport of wood, cereals, and in the postal service. The texts mention various rations of barley that should be fed to the camels. Camels are also mentioned in the Greek papyri from Biʾr Samūt. The finds from ʿAyn Manāwir and Biʾr Samūt also revise suggestions that the introduction of camels on a substantial scale into Egypt did not occur prior to the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (ca. 283–246 BC; Bagnall 1985, 3). Particularly the finds from ʿAyn Manāwir “show that the inhabitants of this small oasis community have long maintained regular contact with ‘camel’ populations. Located in the extreme south of the oasis of Kharga, the oasis village was probably an important stopover for the caravans passing between Egypt and Nubia.”167 Moreover, there is an unpublished demotic papyrus from early Ptolemaic times in the Institut für Papyrologie in Heidelberg (shelf no. D 4), hailing from the German excavations in El-​Hiba. It mentions the “camels of the king,” which is reminiscent of a similar expression in an Aramaic administrative text from ancient Bactria, dating to the fourth century BC (Naveh and Shaked 2012, 67).168 This expression is also known from the Greek ostraca of Biʾr Samūt, which mention various persons in charge of “royal camels” (βασιλικῶν καμηλιτῶν; Cuvigny 2020). Furthermore, papyrus BM 10591 (British Museum), dated to 170 BC, refers several times to a certain cameleer named Ḥr pe-​f mn gmwr, or Ḥr pe-​f mn gmwl (BM 10591 i:24; iii:8; v:1.25; H. Thompson 1934), “Ḥor his [i.e., of the herd-​owner] camel-​keeper.” Also of interest is the camel’s appearance in a magic spell from Ptolemaic times (pBerlin 8278b). Herein, the camel (gmlꜢ) is nicknamed “the vain.” It was seen as a Typhonic or Sethian beast (Spiegelberg 1902, 21 and fig. 95), associated with the alien and with chaos. Now, being regarded as a Typhonic beast does not automatically mean that the camel was avoided in Egyptian literature (cf. Vandenbeusch 2019). For instance, pBerlin 8278b sees the camel side by side with the donkey (Bohms 2013, 131–33). Donkeys were likewise regarded as Typhonic beasts (H. Epstein 1954, 253), but they are often mentioned in Egyptian texts. However, one of the unique characteristics of camels, particularly of the bull camel during the rutting season, is its ability to spit and spray its urine, which was considered defiling and offensive. Furthermore, the camels’ supposed lack of intelligence and its vindictive character certainly did nothing to alleviate 167.  “Montre que les habitants de cette petite communauté oasienne entretenaient depuis longtemps des contacts réguliers avec les populations « chamelières ». Situé à l’extrême sud de l’oasis de Kharga, le village oasien constituait vraisemblablement une étape importante pour les caravanes qui transitaient entre l’Égypte et la Nubie” (Agut-​Labordère 2018, 188). 168.  Pers. comm. Joachim Friedrich Quack, Heidelberg.

Camels in the Biblical World and Adjacent Regions

175

these negative impressions (Gaudard 2017, 44). The disregard for the camel has a late repercussion in the Sahidic version of the Testament of Isaac 5:8, where Isaac sees demons that have faces of camels (ϬⲀⲘⲞⲨⲖ), dogs, and lions, the Arabic and Ethiopic versions adding hyenas and leopards.169 The unlucky camel heads a list of predators and scavengers. The Testament of Isaac is of Egyptian origin and was composed between the fourth and eighth centuries AD.170 Evidently then, the camel did not belong to the preferred animals, at least in the eyes of the educated elite. Nevertheless, the negative image of this animal does not suffice to explain why it remains invisible in any literary context prior to the Persian period. Turning to Egyptian literature, its debut is in the Contest for the Armor of Inaros. This story, a dispute about the claim to Inaros’s personal weapons after his death, seems to have been composed after the middle of the third century BC (Hoffmann 1996, 122). The main textual witness, papyrus Krall (1897), dates around 137 AD. It mentions riders, camels (gmwl.w), chariots, and soldiers marching on (14:10; Hoffmann 1996, 295), and grasshopper and camel images (gmwl.w) as decoration on Inaros’s armor (13:2; Hoffmann 1996, 279). In addition, the son of Inaros bears the remarkable name wḫs-​nꜢy⸗f-​gmwl.w “extensive [i.e., numerous] are his camels” (17:33; Hoffmann 1996, 329). The narrative belongs to the Inaros Cycle that commemorates the courage of Egyptian rulers from the seventh century BC, when Assyria invaded Egypt.171 Roughly from the same time, there is also the statue of a man in repose and a demotic inscription, with a camel in the background (Vleeming 2001, 90). The demotic spelling gmwl or gmwr respectively and the Coptic spelling ϬⲀⲘⲞⲨⲖ (Westendorf 2008, 457) reflect the inner-​Egyptian sound change from ā to ū after m (Schenkel 1990, 88–89; Peust 1999, 222–25). This sound change in turn implies the adoption of the Semitic root gml before the seventh century BC (Quack 2002, 899), probably at the beginning of the first millennium BC.172 The reception of the root gml into the Egyptian language thus roughly coincides with the earliest use of the root gml by Assyrian scribes in the Kurkh Stela of Shalmaneser III, 853 BC (see §3.2.4.6, table 3.4, and §3.2.4.8). 169.  Kuhn 1957, 234, line 3; 1967, 332, line 23. Cf. the Bohairic, Arabic, and Ethiopic versions (Heide 2000). 170.  See Heide 2012a; 2012b, 49–50. According to some Islamic popular beliefs, attested by Islamic authors from the ninth century AD, the camel descended from demons, and the jinn “could take on the form of a camel, which urinated backwards so as not to soil Abraham” (Khoury 2001). For later sources that connect the camel with evil forces, see Gaudard 2017, 45. 171.  See Hoffmann and Quack 2007, 59–60; Salim 2013, 111. In the Apis Embalming Ritual from the second century BC, the term gml is used. The boat-​shrine of the wr-​irj-priest should have “gypsum according to what they need. A gml of copper according to what. . . .” However, gml is probably based here on a different root and seems to denote “tusks” (Vos 1993, 57, 192). 172.  Quack 2005, 321; cf. Kuhrt 1999, 183; Vittmann 1996, 435, 444, 447; and Albright 1950.

176

Camels in the Biblical World

As yet, no hieroglyph meaning “camel” has been identified. However, the pool of hieroglyphs in the Egyptian writing system was always subject to change (Schenkel 1994, 293). For example, in hieroglyphic writing the image of a horse was added as a determinative to point unequivocally to the meaning ḥtr “team of horses,” distinguishing it from the homonym ḥtr “tax.” It seems that this sign for “horse” was introduced around the middle of the second millennium (Seventeenth Dynasty), sometime after horses became known in Egypt (Köpp-​Junk 2015, 167; cf. Schrader et al. 2018, 384–87). In connection with the observation on the root gmwl/r made above, it is therefore reasonable to suggest that potentially a term referring to the camel could have been introduced around the beginning of the first millennium BC, sometime after the Egyptians became acquainted with this animal. With the conquests of Alexander the Great, Greek became the lingua franca in Egypt. Consequently, the camel is usually referred to as κάμηλος, as, for instance, in the Greek papyri from Biʾr Samūt. Moreover, from the Zenon archive (middle of the third century BC), we know of thirteen documents mentioning camels (cf. Leone 1988, 47–88; Adams 2007, 51). According to papyrus Michigan Inv. 6981 (third century BC), donkeys, mules, horses, and camels were regarded as the common transport or pack animals. Donkeys were supposed to carry 480, horses and mules 720, and dromedaries 960 units of weight (Gagos and Koenen 2001, 534–35). During the great festival of Ptolemy II Philadelphus, camels (dromedaries? hybrids? Bactrians?) were still displayed as curiosities to the public, which suggests that they were still not a common sight in the third century BC, although Egyptians at that time were probably “well acquainted with camels, and, at any rate, there is nothing in the text of Kallixeinos of Rhodes to suggest that camels were extraordinary” (Adams 2007, 51). Various reasons have been brought forward for the general scarcity of camel evidence before the Persian period. Some scholars have suggested that the camel was ignored by the Egyptians for religious or aesthetic reasons (W. M. Müller 1893, 142; Jensen 1895, 333), but this assessment is unrealistic (Mikesell 1955, 237–38). As a species typically associated with people practicing transhumance, the Egyptians had no interest or need to integrate the camel into their sedentary farming lifestyle focusing on the Nile Valley and its alluvial plains. They rather preferred the donkey, known to them for millennia and well suited to perform a wide range of tasks under local conditions. The disregard or avoidance of the camel in Egyptian literature before the Ptolemaic period may also lie in the fact that the camel was associated with people from Western Asia who were often regarded as enemies (cf. Keimer 1929, 89; Gaudard 2017, 44). Other scholars argue that Lower Egypt, and especially the delta, is climatically unsuitable for camels. The high humidity of the delta makes camels liable

Camels in the Biblical World and Adjacent Regions

177

to diseases, and the focus on farming renders an animal that prefers to roam arid landscapes redundant. Today, camels may be prone to die of fly-​borne diseases (Bulliet 1975, 116) and need to be constantly reimported from Upper Egypt and from Libya. This situation applies particularly to the oases of Bahariya and Siwa. However, the vast stretches of arid landscapes of the Eastern and Western Deserts away from the Nile Valley provided suitable living conditions for the camel, far away from the disadvantaged climate of the delta (H. Epstein 1954, 253). That being said, camel remains (§3.4.1) and artistic representations from the delta (§3.4.2) as well as fifth century BC inscriptions (see above) demonstrate that people nevertheless exploited camels in the delta and the oases to perform certain tasks. As already mentioned before, donkeys were more suitable for travel and transport in local economic networks and for covering the short distances between wells, ditches, or canals in irrigated agricultural areas during the pharaonic period (Grigson 2012a, 95). Under such circumstances there was no immediate use for the camel, which is particularly well-​adapted to cover large distances with limited water access and sparse desert vegetation. Consequently, and like their neighbors in the Arabian Peninsula, the Egyptians basically used camels for long-​distance trade through dry and hot environments. Despite the fact that the camel gained acceptance as a pack animal in Persian and Greco-​ Roman times, the donkey remained as valuable as before; it was never replaced by the camel (Köpp-​Junk 2015, 115). 3.4.4. Camel Depictions in Rock Art in the Sinai Peninsula and in Egypt Generally, camel petroglyphs from the Sinai and Negev are not considered to predate the middle of the first millennium BC (Anati 1981, 28). Randall W. Younker and Katharine Koudele (2007, 57) identified some camel petroglyphs in association with human figures that they interpret to date back to around 1500 BC. These camel petroglyphs supposedly belong to the “Bedouin-​oriented” petroglyphs from the westernmost part of the Negev Desert and Sinai Peninsula. Yet, such an early date presupposes that inscriptions and petroglyphs were made almost concurrently. There is no secure way of linking the inscriptions and the petroglyphs because the texts do not allude to the drawings. Perhaps it might be possible to compare the patina on the inscriptions with the petroglyphs, but this would presuppose that both carvings received the same amount of exposure (cf. Macholdt et al. 2018). Moreover, comparable petroglyphs from Egypt with camels and human figures are dated between approximately 700 BC and AD 640 (Huyge 2003, 64, 69). Further south in the stone formations bordering the Upper Egyptian and Nubian Nile River valleys and in the adjacent eastern and western deserts, the

178

Camels in the Biblical World

rock surfaces have been used as canvases for thousands of years. Schematic figures of humans and camels usually belong to the later rock art of the Greco-​ Roman and Islamic periods (Huyge 2003). Moreover, rock paintings of camels from Nubia can hardly be allocated to a certain time frame (Suková 2011, 192). Even further south in Sudan, many petroglyphs with camels have been found, sometimes showing the animal in motion. They are dated to the Meroitic period (300 BC–400 AD; Kleinitz 2007, 217–18). Up to now, the oldest representation of a camel in Meroe stems from between about 12 BC and AD 12 (Mohamed 2015, 163). It consists of a small bronze figurine, which points to connections with south Arabia for stylistic reasons (cf. §3.3.3).

3.5. Camels in the Southern Levant The early evidence for the camel in the southern Levant differs profoundly from the situation in Mesopotamia (§3.2). There is an abundance of inscriptional and artistic evidence for the camel from Mesopotamia, but osseous remains are very few. The southern Levant, on the other hand, and particularly Israel, can boast of a considerable number of camel remains due to intensive archaeological research. Conversely, inscriptional and artistic evidence of the species is scarce. 3.5.1. Camel Remains Many archaeological projects carried out in the southern Levant investigated tells (Arabic ‫ تل‬tall “hill,” “elevation”), which are accumulations of settlement debris built up over thousands of years. Tells, therefore, not only encompass consecutive cultural periods, they also exhibit complex stratigraphies due to varied human activities, such as waste management, leveling and building, and natural processes, such as site erosional events and bioturbation by rodents, badgers, and other taxa occupying underground tunnel systems. These circumstances may provoke the displacement of material culture and concomitant disturbance of the cultural sequence. When studying the temporal origins of human exploitation of animal taxa previously unknown in a given region, as in the case of camels, archaeofaunas from tells empirically bear the inherent risk of blurring the picture due to vertical dislocation of animal bone finds. And although careful excavation and documentation may help in recognizing intrusive specimens, justified doubts about a specimens’ position in the stratigraphy may remain, and in such cases the means of choice will be direct radiocarbon dating of corresponding bone or tooth specimens. In the frame of the camel bone dating project initiated by Caroline Grigson and coworkers, for instance, significant discrepancies between the original assignment of Levantine archaeological key

Camels in the Biblical World and Adjacent Regions

179

specimens and their radicocarbon dates were noted, age estimates often disagreeing in a magnitude of several hundred or even thousand years (Grigson, Zarins, and Gowlett 1989; see also Grigson 2014). A restricting feature for studying the spatio-​temporal history of camels in the southern Levant is certainly their low visibility in more ephemeral settings in arid regions, despite good archaeological coverage. Like elsewhere in Southwest Asia, post-​Neolithc southern Levantine sites show a predominance of caprine remains in their archaeofaunas, reflecting the importance of sheep and goat as meat, milk, and/or wool animals. Depending on environmental conditions and cultural preferences, cattle and pigs were consumed as well. Conversely, transport and pack animals like donkeys, horses, and camels were rarely of dietary interest (cf. A. Sasson 2010, 2; 2013, 1165; Fedele 2009, 145; Becker 2008a, 574), explaining why their remains can be largely absent from anthropogenic accumulations containing mainly waste of carcass processing and meat consumption.173 In addition, and contrary to donkeys, camels had no connection to any particular social status in the Iron Age southern Levant (Sapir-​Hen 2020; cf. §§3.1.1 and 3.3.1.4). In view of the fact that the majority of camels would have been managed outside residential areas, single bone finds should therefore not be treated as negligible evidence for camel husbandry. In publications of the last decades, as a rule of thumb, camel remains collected from cultural levels predating the middle of the second millennium BC were usually considered representing wild dromedaries (cf. Sapir-​Hen and Ben-​Yosef 2013, 280), while those originating from first-​millennium BC contexts were usually assumed to belong to domestic dromedaries. In view of the currently known distribution of the wild dromedary in Bronze and Iron Age southwest Asia (§2.2.1), however, this dichotomic approach must be abandoned. As discussed above (§3.2.1), if camel remains would be found securely associated with pre-1500 BC contexts, only the Bactrian camel would come into question based on present knowledge of its preclassical exploitation in western Asia. Throughout southwest Asia, however, camel bones collected during earlier excavations have usually not been identified specifically (cf. Martini, Schmid and Costeur 2017), due to the difficulties of separating osteologically bone elements of one- and two-​humped camels. This major hurdle was partly taken 173.  According to the Hebrew Bible, only dire conditions forced the people of Samaria to eat donkey heads (2 Kgs 6:25) in the ninth century BC. A later tradition transmitted in the Babylonian Talmud allows donkey’s meat “if one is attacked by jaundice” (b. Yoma 84a). “Dove’s dung,” which was likewise sold at an absurd prize during the siege of Samaria, does not refer to the excrements, but to the giblets of the dove, probably inclusive of their contents; cf. W. W. Müller 1989, 20–23. Judges 6:4 may imply that a donkey could serve as food during times of famine. Similar food preferences seem to account for the relatively small amount of horse and camel bones in Bronze Age and Iron Age levels at Pirak (Pakistan) versus the large proportion of cattle, sheep, and goat remains (§3.1.1; cf. Ahmed 2014, 117).

180

Camels in the Biblical World

with the publication of Steiger’s comparative study of camel osteology (Steiger 1990). As repeatedly stressed, however, one complicating issue remained, namely that upon the introduction of the domestic dromedary, hybridization would become an economically meaningful option that zooarchaeologists need to consider when identifying archaeological camel remains. Located in the region where the ancient distributions of the two domestic forms once overlapped, it can therefore not entirely be excluded that specimens from southern Levantine sites determined decades ago would be in need of revision as well. 3.5.1.1. Single Camel Specimens from Bronze Age and Early Iron Age Contexts In the southern Levant, camel remains have occasionally been reported from contexts predating the first millennium BC, but their stratigraphic position appears not well secured due to extensive post-​second-​millennium BC human occupation at most of the sites. One of these is Tel Arad, where camel bones have been reported from Early Bronze Age strata (Lernau 1978, 87). Being abandoned after the Early Bronze Age but reoccupied some one thousand five hundred years later, the Tel Arad area witnessed large-​scale human presence starting in Iron Age I until the Abbasid period, with some shorter episodes of abandonment. Since they represented very early records, samples of these early Bronze Age camel remains were submitted to radiocarbon analysis, but poor collagen preservation prevented their dating (Grigson 2014, 235). However, the fact that animal figurines from the same levels only point to the presence of caprines, bovines, and donkeys (P. Beck 1978, 54), strongly suggests that the aforementioned camel remains are not contemporaneous, but intrusive specimens. Other Bronze Age camel bones, whose stratigraphic position and late third-​millennium BC date must be confirmed by direct radiocarbon dating, come from the site of Be’er Resisim, located in the Negev highlands (Dever 1995, 159). Conversely, dating being carried out with a Middle Bronze Age camel metapodial condyle excavated by Kathleen Kenyon in Jericho in 1950 and identified by J. Clutton-​Brock (1979) produced a 14C value 2900 ± 160 BC. According to Grigson (2014, 227), however, the date “is based on such a small concentration of collagen (3​.1 mg​/gm) that it cannot be relied upon.” During the German excavations at Megiddo (1903–1905), camel teeth were found associated with a deposit of human skeletons in a closed Middle Bronze Age burial chamber dated to the twentieth century BC. The teeth were found together with scarabs, jewelry, bowls, plates, flasks, and storage vessels (Schumacher 1908, 15) and may have been part of a necklace or an amulet.174 As this 174.  The single camel tooth from Megiddo (I. Köhler 1981, 101; Herles 2010, 130) is of doubtful identification (“Zahn eines Kamels (?)”). This camel tooth, together with a camel tailbone, turned

Camels in the Biblical World and Adjacent Regions

181

seems to be the only occurrence of camel teeth modified into a decorative object in the prehistoric southern Levant, it would be helpful to confirm its species determination and the age of the specimen. If the latter turns out to be correct, the possibility that we are dealing with an object of trade must be considered. At the biblical city of Shiloh in the Judean highlands, a single camel toe bone had been retrieved from a Late Bronze Age context (Hellwing, Sade, and Kishon 1993, 311). Inhabited from the Bronze Age until the Byzantine period, however, it cannot be excluded that this small compact bone shifted into this level. Direct radiocarbon dating is therefore desirable. This also applies to a camel rib from a large early Iron Age garbage pit at Tall al-ʿUmayri in the Jordanian Highlands (Peters, Pöllath, and von den Driesch 2002, 311). Based on its material culture it was concluded that the garbage pit must have been in use during the transition period from the Bronze to the Iron Age, circa 1250–1150 BC. The isolated camel astragalus (Davis 1985) from a late eleventh-​to early tenth-​century BC stratum at Tell Qasile near Tel Aviv (Mazar 1980, 9) as well as two other early Iron Age specimens found in eleventh- to tenth-​century BC occupation levels at Tell Jemmeh, in Israel’s southern coastal plain about twelve kilometers south of Gaza (Wapnish 1984, 171), are candidate specimens for direct dating as well (cf. Burger et al. 2016). The same applies to 3 camel bones identified among 650 identifiable mammal remains excavated in an early Iron Age stratum at Tell Hesban, Jordan, with a supposed date of 1200–1150 BC (von den Driesch and Boessneck 1995, 72), and to a single specimen from Khirbat al-​Mudayna al-ʿAliya, west-​central Jordan, probably dating to the eleventh century BC or later (Lev-​Tov, Porter, and Routledge 2011, 74). 3.5.1.2. Camel Remains from the First Millennium BC The area-​wide appearance of camel bones in contexts dated archaeologically to the first half of the first millennium BC illustrates that the species was integrated into local economies. At aforementioned Tell Hesban, for instance, Joachim Boessneck and Angela von den Driesch identified 5 specimens (out of 1,843 bones) in a refuse pit dated 1150–500 BC (von den Driesch and Boessneck 1995, 72). They also noted that the specimens represented camels of similar size compared to modern dromedary lineages bred in Jordan (84–85). In the Arabah Valley, forming part of the border between Israel and Jordan, camels have been identified in levels dating to 1100–900 BC (Sapir-​Hen and Ben-​Yosef 2013, 281). Bones of at least five individuals have been retrieved from ʿIzbet Ṣarṭah in contexts dated around 950 BC (Hellwing and Adjeman 1986, 143–44; Finkelstein up near a hearth in a house in Megiddo, among burnt animal remains (Schumacher 1908, 158). The unburnt camel remains are most likely intrusive.

182

Camels in the Biblical World

and Piasetzky 2006, 55). A first cervical vertebra has been reported from an Iron Age IIB level at Tel Arad. Of interest is the fact that the specimen had “a cut-​ mark that is indicative of decapitation. . . . The cut-​mark now discovered for the first time on a camel bone [in Israel] suggests that the animal was utilized for food as well. However, this conclusion must be considered with caution, as the bone was found in a fill” (Talis 2015). Increased use of dromedaries after 800 BC is well illustrated by the large camel bone assemblage (n=472) recovered at Tell Jemmeh (Horwitz and Rosen 2005). Apart from a few smaller compact bones in late second-​millennium BC levels that should be radiocarbon dated to confirm their stratigraphic position (see above), camels appear progressively integrated into the community’s economy from the eighth century BC onward (n=8; Wapnish 1984, 171), with increasing tendency in Babylonian, Persian, and Hellenistic periods (171–74). Given their adult age, these animals were likely used for labor. Approximately 20 percent of the bones bear cut and chop marks (174, 178), implying carcass dressing and hence camel meat consumption. However, it cannot be entirely excluded that part of these traces concerned animals no longer suitable for work that had to be skinned and dismembered prior to disposal. From an eighth century BC (Iron Age II) stratum at Tel Beer-​Sheba yielding more than ten thousand animal remains, fourteen camel bones in ten loci were reported (A. Sasson 2010, 62–70). Among the approximately sixteen thousand animal bones excavated at Tel Michal on the Mediterranean coast, camel bones were noted in levels inhabited during the Iron Age (n=1), in Persian (n=21), and Hellenistic times (n=6), and in later periods (n=3) (Hellwing and Feig 1989, 237–39). Investigations at Iron Age Tel Malḥata in the Negev confirm the general picture illustrating that camels were exploited, albeit in low numbers, comprising only 0.05 percent of the total animal assemblage (Sade 2015, 716). Early excavations at the site of Lachish revealed a camel skull and several limb bones in tombs containing human remains (Bate 1953). Whereas an Iron Age date for these specimens needs to be confirmed, renewed excavations at Lachish produced another three camel bones from Iron Age IIb–c levels (ca. 925– 586 BC), and one camel bone each from a Persian and a Hellenistic context. Camel remains thus make up less than 0.2 percent of the faunal assemblage comprising more than three thousand large mammals (Croft 2004). According to Grigson (2012a, 96), this “dearth of camels” in the site’s economy is puzzling, as we know, for instance, that camels were used as pack animals during the sack of Lachish (§3.5.2). Faunal research also identified camel remains in at least six from a total of thirteen “forts” in the Negev (Hakker-​Orion 2004, 221)—that is, at Ḥorbat Raḥba (n=5), Ḥorbat Ramat Bōqer (n=2), Be’er Ḥafīr (n=5), Meṣūdat Har Saʿar (n=10), Meṣūdat ʿAyn Qadīs (n=15), and Kadesh-​Barnea. Faunal composition

Camels in the Biblical World and Adjacent Regions

183

at these forts corresponds to the general picture mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, except for Kadesh-​Barnea, an oasis site in the eastern part of the northern Sinai desert (Hakker-​Orion 2007; Ussishkin, Singer-​Avitz, and Shanks 2015). Its archaeofauna is characterized by a high contribution of camels (n=95) to the total assemblage (n=580). Regarding Iron Age occupation, camels were present in levels dating to the tenth (n=18), eighth (n=42), and seventh to sixth centuries BC (n=5). Since most of the bones belonged to adult animals, it can be concluded that these camels had served primarily in transport (Hakker-​Orion 2007, 289, 295). In sum, although the specific status of the animals, namely dromedary, Bactrian camel, or hybrid could not always be ascertained, the zooarchaeological record of the southern Levant nonetheless illustrates that camel exploitation gained momentum early in the first millennium BC. Whereas the use of camels in vast arid landscapes like the Negev is obvious at first, archaeological research revealed another reason for the species’ successful integration in southern Levantine economies: their use as transport animals in copper mining. 3.5.1.3. Camels and Their Role in Iron Age Copper Mining The detailed study of faunal remains from the Arabah Valley copper mining sites of Khirbet en-​Naḥas (“ruin of copper”) in the Wadi Faynan area and at Timna, situated close to the northern tip of the Gulf of Aqaba, not only provided insight into subsistence in arid environments, but also opened a unique window about the employment of camels in a region renowned for copper mining and smelting in biblical times. Excavations at the site of Khirbet en-​Naḥas produced a faunal assemblage dominated by sheep and goat (n=3148; cf. A. Sasson 2010, 34–39); cattle ranked second (n=152), while donkeys (n=64) and camels (n=7) contributed only minor shares (Muniz and Levy 2014, 631). However, some donkey bones show cut and chop marks, suggesting that the Iron Age miners occasionally consumed donkey and probably even camel meat (640, 656). For sure, not all cut and chop marks may relate to meat provisioning, since work animals that died naturally in the settlement needed to be discarded outside residential areas. Moreover, meat-bearing body parts could have been chopped into pieces to be fed to dogs. On the other hand and despite their obvious role in mining economies, the species’ low bone frequencies strongly suggest that camels or donkeys that had perished at some distance from the settlement did not enter the nutrition cycle of the settlement’s inhabitants. As to the dating of the camel bones, these were almost exclusively found in late tenth and ninth centuries BC strata. In connection with the broadly contemporaneous large-​ scale intensification of the copper production in the Arabah Valley, the presence of donkeys and camels suggest that both species participated in heavy transports

184

Camels in the Biblical World

of copper ore and melted products, estimated in the range of many thousand tons (659). And although transport capacity of camels is superior to that of donkeys, the latter seemed nonetheless more frequently employed at Khirbet en-​Naḥas, implying that for reasons unknown to us, donkeys were the miners’ first choice (P. Mitchell 2018, 106). Findings at Khirbet en-​Naḥas are paralleled by those in another site of the Wadi Arabah region, namely Site 30 in Timna. The predominant taxa found in Timna were caprines, with a few cattle and carnivores, camels, and equids (Grigson 2012a, 84). Site 30 yielded seventy-​nine camel bones, one of the largest camel bone assemblages from the Iron Age Near East. One of the bone specimens was identified osteologically as belonging to a dromedary (Grigson 2012a, 85). At Timna, equid bones (n=57) number fewer than camels; all of them probably belong to donkeys (89–92). Radiocarbon dating has been applied to charcoal inclusions to obtain a time frame for site inhabitation. The radiocarbon dates from layers III–II imply site occupation from the late eleventh to the late tenth centuries BC (94). According to Lidar Sapir-​Hen and Erez Ben-​Yosef (2013, 279), however, the camel finds from Timna likely originate from layer I dated to the tenth to ninth centuries BC (cf. Ben-​Yosef et al. 2012, 65). One of the camel bones has been radiocarbon dated to around 770 BC, with a 2σ-range of 1023–516 BC. A thirteenth-​century BC presence of camels in the Wadi Arabah region seems therefore not very likely (cf. Grigson 2012a; 2014, 230). That being said, the sudden appearance of camel bones in the faunal record of the Wadi Arabah region and their comparably high frequency at Timna in particular suggests deliberate (multiple?) introduction of a relatively large number of animals, which supposedly relates to reorganization of the mining and/or processing of copper in the region (Sapir-​Hen and Ben-​Yosef 2013, 282). Of course, the picture outlined by Sapir-​Hen and Ben-​Yosef primarily addresses the final action of disposal of camels after their use (Wapnish 1981, 107), rather than the timing of the species’ initial arrival in the region. In other words, the camel remains from Timna and Khirbet en-​Naḥas provide us with a terminus a quo for their arrival in a region that has been mined since the twelfth century BC (Tebes 2014, 7). Francesco Fedele (2017, 304) raised a major point in this respect when discussing the presence of the dromedary in several archaeological sites across southwest Yemen dating around 800 BC: according to this author, this pattern would indicate that “the animals had already become sufficiently numerous by the late ninth century BC for their remains to be found consistently among food refuse in Sabaean cities.” Some other aspects of the Timna camels appear of interest. Most remains were not only collected in a spatially confined area, but they also pertained mainly to adult animals, except for one or two subadults. Bones of newborns or juveniles were not observed, suggesting that the animals had been introduced

Camels in the Biblical World and Adjacent Regions

185

to the mining area from abroad, rather than being bred on-​site. Bulgy lesions on some of the bones that also tend to occur in old animals “are thought to indicate the use of the animal for pulling or carrying heavy loads” (Grigson 2012a, 87). Despite their on average advanced age, over half of the camel bones of Site 30 show butchery marks, implying that the camels had been butchered at, or close to, the site. Some of the animals contributed to meat supply, some were probably only skinned (88). Conversely, camel bones were absent from the food refuse collected at Site 34, one of the largest smelting camps in the Timna Valley, which has been radiocarbon dated to the tenth century BC (Sapir-​Hen and Ben-​Yosef 2014; cf. Ben-​Yosef, Langgut and Sapir-​Hen 2017). These data suggest that camels had not yet been introduced to the area. Notwithstanding, they appeared only several decades later at Site 30 and at Khirbet en-Naḥas, probably because their incomparably high benefit for carrying heavy loads was crucial. At Site 30, camels and donkeys were slaughtered and their meat consumed as well, “but they were not kept primarily for eating, all the indications are that they were used for transport,” although their skins may have been valued too (Grigson 2012a, 93). Camel and donkey leather may have been used as raw material for harnesses and belts, or for the manufacture of bellows for metal smelting (94). Since the Timna camels were found in close vicinity of the copper smelting sites, it is not very likely that these animals were employed in overland trade, because the majority of such caravan camels die when traveling (Grigson 2012a, 96). Their presence in numbers in the archaeofauna of Timna suggests that they were essential in the functioning of the copper smelting camp. A variety of bulk goods including victuals, daily necessities, and mining devices had to be transferred by donkeys and camels to this remote place. Once available on site, people would employ them for carrying heavy loads, such as soil containing copper ore, firewood, water, and copper end-​products. It has therefore been argued that in the southern Levant, the exploitation of camels in the context of copper mining preceded their use in long-​distance overland trade employing camel caravans: “As most probably significant trade between southern Arabia and the Levant was not feasible before the use of camels as pack animals (see, e.g., Jasmin 2006), it could not have commenced before the last third of the 10th century BCE” (Sapir-​Hen and Ben-​Yosef 2013, 283). However, looking into comparable undertakings from later times, it is noteworthy that the exploiting of camels to carry heavy loads in construction or fieldwork does not precede the use of camel caravans. For instance, the scribes of Sargon II reported that the Urartian king Rusa I (ca. 730–713 BC) had transformed the country around the southwestern part of Lake Urmia “to a pasturage for horses and herds, and had taught his whole inaccessible land the dromedary, so that they heaped up river bank stabilizations” (anše.a.[ab.ba g]i-​mer kur-šu kut-​tum-​te ú-​šal-​mid-​ma i-​šap-​pa-​ku er-​re-​tu; col. 3, line 210; Mayer 2013, 118). It is the first time that dromedaries

186

Camels in the Biblical World

are mentioned as animals carrying heavy loads for reinforcing and raising river embankments (cf. §3.2.4.11). Thus, in the Lake Urmia region, employment of dromedaries for heavy work obviously happened after its use as a beast of burden in distant overland (caravan) trade, by which these animals likely reached Urartu. The same applies to the camels that were employed in agricultural fieldwork at the Kharga oasis in Egypt at the end of the fifth century BC (see §3.4.3). In other words, in regions located far away from the dromedary’s native country, like, for instance, Urartu or Egypt, its exploitation in consolidation of river banks as well as in agriculture seems to point to a secondary development. Finally, since Timna was inhabited by “highly skilled craftspeople and the elite of a society responsible for large-​scale copper production and trade” (Ben-​ Yosef 2016, 195; cf. Dever 2017, 356), it must be questioned who was in charge of handling, loading, driving, and caretaking of these at that time still exotic animals? Taking into account the absence of young camels in the Wadi Arabah assemblages and considering the skills needed to handle adult camels, a model postulating the hiring of (foreign) cameleers bringing with them trained camels that served as pack animals is not entirely implausible. Similarly, bones of neonate and juvenile donkeys have not been reported either, suggesting that donkeys were likewise introduced to the sites and not bred in the immediate vicinity (Grigson 2012a, 93). Contrary to the exotic dromedary, however, handling of donkeys could already look back on a long tradition in the southern Levant. Based on archaeological findings, interference of pharaonic Egypt with the copper industry of the southern Levant becomes visible. For instance, a scarab seal with the throne name of Shoshenq I (ca. 945–924 BC) was found in the area (Münger and Levy 2014, 759). From Shoshenq I’s inscriptions, we know that one part of his army advanced into the northern Negev around 925 BC from where it moved further south (Kitchen 1986, 296–97; Kletter 2004, 36). Furthermore, a petroglyph of a smiting pharaoh, found in the central Negev, may offer additional evidence of contact with pharaonic Egypt. Apart from a very crude image, this intriguing petroglyph also depicts a dromedary. Unfortunately, the scene is heavily weathered, with the risk of not being able to exclude that the camel might be a chronologically later and consequently a superimposed image (Eisenberg-​Degen 2015). Yet, if Egyptians were importing the copper end-​products from Timna or Faynan (cf. Rademakers, Rehren, and Pernicka 2017, 56), they would perhaps not rely on camels but on donkeys (Grigson 2012a, 95; cf. §3.4.3), or they would ship the end products across the Red Sea. In other words, the use of camels as heavy pack animals at Timna does not imply the onset of significant overland trade between Southwest Asia and Northeast Africa. This does, however, not exclude incipient trade on camel backs between Egypt and its neighbors either, but evidence prior to 700 BC remains scarce (see §3.4).

Camels in the Biblical World and Adjacent Regions

187

3.5.1.4. Disputable Finds The site of Tell Taʿannek produced a camel skull lying on the floor of a collapsed Late Bronze Age house. Its position next to one of the human skeletons that were deposited on the floor points to a disturbed context, rendering the skull most likely intrusive (Sellin 1906, 13–16). Likewise, the camel bones found in a rock-​cut tomb “packed with drift sand to the top,” at al-​Jisr near Tel Abu Sultān, fourteen kilometers south of Jaffa, are of doubtful origin: “The human remains were so much decayed that their position could hardly be recorded. Fragments of a human skull and other bones were, however, discovered in sifting. The animal bones were slightly better preserved. They presented remains of ox, camel, and sheep” (Ory 1946, 33). The tomb contained pottery finds dated to the seventeenth to sixteenth centuries BC (41), but this observation does not help securing the age of the camel remains. 3.5.2. Camel Figurines and Camel Depictions While camel bones from Kadesh-​Barnea outnumber those of horses and donkeys (§3.5.1.2), no camel-​shaped figurines or vessels have been unearthed (Gera 2007, 211–12). Zoomorphic figurines and vessels from strata III–I remind us exclusively of equids. Similarly, the zoomorphic vessels from Tel Michal figure equids and cattle, but no camels (Kertesz 1989). From the more than one thousand three hundred fragments of clay figurines that give a glimpse into the faunal world of Jerusalem’s City of David (tenth through sixth centuries BC), the largest assemblage of its kind in Palestine (Gilbert-​Peretz 1996, 32), more than two hundred items depict identifiable animals’ heads. Horses are most prominent (n=211), but many other taxa including cattle, sheep, hippopotamus, hyena, elephant, bear, and ostrich have been identified too, as well as a single camel’s head (Tchernov 1996, 85). The Jewish Quarter Excavations yielded similar results: one or two camel heads among many horse figurines from the Iron Age II levels (Yezerski and Geva 2003, 65–66). Obviously, the figurines most cherished during the eighth to seventh centuries BC were Judean horse riders, not camel riders (Holland 1977, 1995; Kletter and Saarelainen 2014). Iconographic representations of animals from Iron Age Philistia outnumber human depictions by two-​to-​one. The clear majority illustrate bulls, mostly in the form of zoomorphic vessels. Other figurations show horses (cf. Holland 1995), donkeys, lions, ibexes, rams or goats (Ben-​Shlomo 2010, 100), and birds. The absence of camels in this rich inventory is noteworthy. From Iron Age Amman, there is one clay object (in addition to some horse figurines) that may point to a camel (Dornemann 1983, 142, 279). Unequivocal

188

Camels in the Biblical World

camel figurines have been found in Iron Age II contexts at Busayra, Jordan (‘Amr 1980, 217, fig. 176). Based on the foregoing, it can be argued that the very low frequency of camel figurines in the zoomorphic record mirrors their hardly noticeable role in local large livestock economies. This situation differs from sites rich in camel bones like Tell Jemmeh, where several dromedary figurines were excavated. Originally described by Petrie (1928, 18, pl. 37, 10–18, 24, 26) as zebu-​type bovines, some of these were recently reidentified as camels. A few figurines were also excavated in later campaigns; they date from the ninth to the mid-​seventh century BC (Wapnish 1984, 179; Ben-​Shlomo, Gardiner, and Van Beek 2014, 819). In addition, from the same region and the same period, a number of cuboid incense burners were found, suggesting a link between the presence of camels at Tell Jemmeh (§3.5.1.2) and the use of incense, the combined evidence thus pointing to overland trade with southern Arabia. Moreover, incised depictions on the incense burners feature animals typically at home in the Arabian Peninsula, such as the oryx, the ibex, and the one-​humped camel (Petrie 1928, 19, pl. 40–42; Hassell 2005, 157). Interestingly, the earliest incense burner reported from Tell Jemmeh was found in strata dating 1100–900 BC, which roughly corresponds to the appearance of camels in the site’s faunal record (Hassell 2005, 155). The incense burners and some of its incisions are reminiscent of patterns reported from the Arabian Peninsula (cf. O’Neill 2010; Zimmerle 2014, 337). Assumedly, trade with incense burners must have been extensive in the first millennium BC (Millard 1984; 2011, 114–15; Zimmerle 2014). Of particular interest is an incense burner with an incised camel (fig. 3.59) from eighth century Beer-​Sheba (Singer-​Avitz 1999, 41, 50–52, 57–59). Although locally produced, the Arabian influence on the design of the incense burners is unmistakable and reflected by both shapes and incised motifs (Bang and Borowski 2017, 53, 63). Yet, this would contradict Yohanan Aharoni’s (1973, 52–53) and Ho Seung Bang’s and Oded Borowski’s (2017, 53) assumption that the animal depicted in figure 3.59 represents a two-​humped camel and thus is— ultimately—indicative of a Central Asian influence. However, Bactrian camels or hybrids may have been sometimes used in caravans from Arabia as well (see §§3.3.4 and 3.3.7). It is difficult to interpret the figuration correctly. On the one hand, it seems to feature a dromedary with a saddle installation on its crupper, as observed from Mesopotamian and Arabian dromedary figurines (§3.2.3.5). Note that in figure 3.59 there are some indicators of a saddle construction and that the rear protrusion is lower than the (first) hump, being in line with the camel’s hind legs, which speaks in favor of our assumption. In other words, the “second hump” would be a kind of board or cushion keeping the load or rider respectively in place. By contrast, depictions of Bactrian camels in Safaitic inscriptions clearly feature two humps of broadly similar height and positioned

Camels in the Biblical World and Adjacent Regions

189

Figure 3.59.  Incense burner with camel depiction. See Aharoni 1973, pl. 52:6. Used by permission from the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University.

close to each other (§3 n. 141). On the other hand, drawings of Bactrian camels from the Oxus civilization (fig. 8.1) demonstrate that from an artistic point of view, the second hump can have a similar position as in figure 3.59, but these drawings are of a considerably earlier date and were made far away from the Levant. From Transjordanian Tell Deir ‘Alla, a sherd was unearthed that depicts two or three one-​humped camels (fig. 3.60; Ibrahim and van der Kooij 1983, pl. 127). This find was interpreted by Ernst Axel Knauf (1987, 20) and Thomas Staubli (1991, 186) as evidence for camel caravans as early as the Late Bronze Age. Although retrieved from an Iron Age II deposit, the sherd was considered of Late Bronze or Iron Age I origin based on its decoration and typology (van der Kooij and Ibrahim 1989, 93). That being said, associated finds undoubtedly allow for a later date as well.175 175.  The sherd was found in phase V/VI. This phase consists of surface accumulations and pits. The inward slope of the pits is lined with mud bricks. It seems that at the beginning of phase IX (ca. 900 BC), a very large pit was dug well into the Iron I or Late Bronze phases, ca. fifteen meters wide and five meters deep. “Both sherds probably originate from the LB settlements, and are an indication of how, especially through pit making, artifacts can travel through the strata” (Ibrahim and van der Kooij 1983, 581). According to a later publication by the same authors, the sherd “was found in an Iron Age II deposit, but the decoration indicates a date in the Late Bronze Age or Iron Age I” (van der Kooij and Ibrahim 1989, 93). Phase V is dated to the fifth century BC. In phase VI, grains of wheat where found that could be radiocarbon dated to the seventh to sixth centuries BC (Ibrahim and van der Kooij 1983, 581), and an Aramaic ostracon that paleographically dates to the seventh century BC. The camel sherd was found with another sherd that shows some painted decoration. Typologically, this kind of creamy-​orange pottery sherd with red-​brown paint is not part of the Iron II–III assemblage at Deir Alla, but seems to belong to the Late Bronze or Iron Age I.

190

Camels in the Biblical World

Figure 3.60.  Sherd depicting two camels from Tell Deir ‘Alla. Used by permission from Gerrit van der Kooij, Deir Alla archive, University of Leiden. Photograph by Hubert de Haas.

Among the so-​called Qurayyah painted ware excavated in northwest Arabia and characterized by dichromatic, painted decorations, a single sherd with the depiction of a dromedary was found on the surface of the eponymous site (fig. 3.61; Grigson 2012a, 95–96). Interestingly, Qurayyah painted ware was also unearthed from the copper mining site of Timna and at several other places in the southern Levant, more precisely in levels directly related to metal production and dated to the thirteenth to ninth centuries BC (Ben-​Yosef et al. 2012; Singer-​Avitz 2014, 138; Intilia 2016, 177, 213; Kleiman, Kleiman, and Ben-​Yosef 2017, 251–54). The occurrence of Qurayyah painted ware pottery in these southern Levantine contexts strongly suggests a connection with camel pastoralists or cameleers from northwest Arabia (Ingraham 1981, 71–75, pl. 79:14). It is, moreover, highly unlikely that the animal depicted represents a wild camel (cf. Sapir-​ Hen and Ben-​Yosef 2013, 278 n. 2; and see §3.5.1). Another camel representation of interest comes from the famous Assyrian relief depicting the conquest of Lachish. Found in the Palace of Sennacherib at Nineveh, it features a man driving a dromedary, laden with two or three large pithoi (Barnett 1985, 15–16).

Camels in the Biblical World and Adjacent Regions

191

Figure 3.61.  Sherd from Qurayyah with depiction of a dromedary. See Ingraham 1981, pl. 79, part 14b.

3.5.3. Camels from Israel and Judah in Inscriptions Israelite camels are also counted among the booty of the Assyrian kings. In Tiglath-​pileser III’s (ca. 745–727 BC) campaign against Hatti in the Syro-​ Palestine region, he met all kinds of people from the Levant and northern Arabia, among them “Raqiānu [Rezin] of the land Damascus, Menahem of the land Samaria, Tubaʾil of the city Tyre, Sibitti-​baʾil of the city Byblos . . . , (and) Zabibe, queen of Arabia.” Tiglath-​pileser III imposed upon them tribute, namely, “payment of silver, gold, tin, iron, elephant hide(s), ivory, blue-​purple (and) red-​purple garments, multicolored linen garments, camels [a n š e . a . a b . ba.meš], (and) she-​camels, together with their calves [munus.anšea-n​ a-q​ a-a​ -t​ e a-d​ i anše ba-​ak-​ka-​ri-​ši-n​ a]” (Iran Stela IIIA: 1–23; Tadmor 2007, 106–9; see table 3.4). The context, of course, does not allow us to differentiate between the tributes brought from the various countries, but we may assume that the camels referred to in the tribute list were not provided by the Israelite king Menahem, but by the Arabian queen Zabibe. In the famous Rassam cylinder and in later copies, Sennacherib reports that “as for Hezekiah of the land Judah, I besieged 46 of his fortified walled cities and small(er) settlements in their environs, which were without number . . . I brought out of them 200,150 people, young (and) old, male and female, horses, mules, donkeys, camels [anše.gam.mal.meš], oxen, and sheep and goat, without number, and I counted (them) as booty” (cf. Cogan 2000). From their positioning in the list, it is very possible that camels were less valued as pack and riding animals compared to horses, mules, and donkeys. Camels also appear in one Hebrew letter, written on an (unprovenanced) ostracon dating to the seventh to sixth centuries BC (Eshel and Eshel 2008). A certain Nathanyahu informs Shelemyahu that the tax-​collecting shepherds

192

Camels in the Biblical World

(‫ )נקדם‬had arrived to levy sheep and goats (‫)צאן‬. Shelemyahu should also investigate the whereabouts of the camels (‫)גמלם‬.176 Finally, there is an unprovenanced seal, probably datable to the fourth century BC, depicting a two-​humped camel and engraved with the name ‫ אבל‬meaning “camel” in Aramaic (?) script (Deutsch and Lemaire 2000, 156, no. 149).

176. Aḥituv (2008, 197) tends to understand the ‫ גמלם‬as “cameleers,” because “camels themselves have no choice but to go where the cameleers direct them” (199). However, it is much more likely that camels are in view here, which were sometimes allowed to pasture freely, occasionally going astray; cf. SAA 11 no. 162, mentioning the collection of 125 “stray camels” (anše.gam.mal. meš pa-ṣu-​u-​te; cf. §3.2.4.11). By analogy, lines 8–9 ‫“ אשר פ[נו] הגמלם‬where did the cameleers turn” should perhaps be amended to ‫“ אשר פ[צו] הגמלם‬where the camels scattered,” cf. DCH 6:667.

Chapter 4

Camels in the Patriarchal Narratives and Israel’s Early History

Although there is evidence for the presence of the Bactrian camel in Central Asia, Iran, and Mesopotamia from the third millennium BC onward, the situation is different for the dromedary. Artistic, inscriptional, and zooarchaeological evidence including that from neighboring regions strongly suggest that the acquaintance of the Hebrew world with the dromedary dates to the Late Bronze/early Iron Age at the earliest (ca. 1200–1000 BC). Moreover, if camels are mentioned in the Hebrew Bible, a corpus of various books written in the ancient Near East essentially dealing with events that occurred northwest of the Arabian Peninsula, they are usually expected to be dromedaries. However, the Hebrew term ‫ גָּמָ ל‬gāmāl “camel” is not unambiguous in this respect. Furthermore, investigations into camel occurrences in the Hebrew Bible have to evaluate critically their nature and cultural context. As such, the term gāmāl for “camel” is mentioned about twenty-​five times in the book of Genesis (Bucher-​Gillmayr 1994, 421). Yet, the number of camels given in the patriarchal narratives is comparatively small, probably never exceeding thirty camels (Gen 32:16). By contrast, the books of the Former Prophets (Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings), covering a time period of more than seven hundred years between the later second millennium and the middle of the first millennium BC, never mention any camels as being originally in Hebrew possession, although the camel had already been integrated up to a noticeable extent in Mesopotamian and adjacent economies by the end of the ninth century BC at the latest. These books, refraining from giving any details on any other aspect of camel husbandry or herding, see large numbers of camels solely in the possession of eastern tribes or tribal confederacies (Judg 6; 1 Sam 30:17), and moderate numbers as pack animals in the hands of south Arabian (1 Kgs 10:2) and Syrian cameleers (2 Kgs 8:9). During this period of more than seven hundred years, Israelite camel owners are mentioned only twice in the last book of the Hebrew Bible (1 Chr 12:40; 27:30), and probably once in a prophetic utterance (Isa 30:6). However, before we explore further details of camel mentions in the text of the Hebrew Bible

193

194

Camels in the Biblical World

(from §4.2 onward), it is necessary to take a closer look at the text itself as transmitting the various camel traditions.

4.1. The Text of the Hebrew Bible The Hebrew text commonly in use today is the Masoretic Text (MT) as known from Codex Firkovitch B19A (AD 1009).1 It is used in the diplomatic editions of the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia and the Biblia Hebraica Quinta. The MT almost perfectly preserves the official consonantal Hebrew text from the pre-​ Christian era. The codices in this tradition also attest a written vowel and accent system that graphically records the sung tradition of reading the Hebrew Bible ultimately inherited from the Second Temple period. The St. Petersburg Codex is one of the most complete and reliable witnesses of this consonantal text and written vocalization system. The Aleppo Codex (tenth century AD), considered by many scholars to be the most accurate text (albeit incomplete), and used as the textual witness in the Hebrew University Bible Project, attests no variants to the St Petersburg Codex of relevance for the various camel passages. The earliest extant witnesses to the text tradition inherited by the MT were preserved at sites in the Judean Desert, and date from the late Hellenistic and Roman periods. They were especially favored in rabbinic circles (Tov 2012, 158–60). This proto-​MT is one of many differing texts that were available during the Second Temple Period. The rich textual tradition of the Second Temple period as evidenced in Qumran and its surroundings shows features that are partly known from the MT, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the LXX, and other versions (see below). These texts were copied from Hebrew exemplars of Hellenistic times that have disappeared since then. They ultimately reach back to texts that partly received their final shape during the First Temple period or shortly thereafter (such as the Pentateuch), and partly during the Persian period or shortly thereafter (such as Nehemiah-​Ezra and Chronicles). Because of traditional considerations (Hendel 2016, 65–100) and of the fragmental condition of early Hebrew texts from Qumran and its environments (except for the book of Isaiah), the available modern editions of the Hebrew Bible are usually diplomatic, having the St. Petersburg Codex, or the Aleppo Codex, as their base text, and providing the variants from Qumran and from the old versions in the critical apparatus. Despite the many copies that basically are witnesses of the same text and that were around during the Second Temple period and beyond (for instance, the many copies of the book of Isaiah), the manifold variants that can be found 1.  Also known as the Codex Leningradensis or the St. Petersburg Codex.

Camels in the Patriarchal Narratives and Israel’s Early History

195

in these texts have very limited implications for the study of the camel. They are less significant than the alterations that are found in the “rewritten Bible,” such as the Genesis Apocryphon (first century BC), which is “strongly inspired by the canonical stories of the patriarchs, but abundantly enhanced by imaginative details” (Fitzmyer 2004, 20). However, even in the Genesis Apocryphon, no camel traditions were introduced to alter or enrich the narrative. In the following, the MT will be the main departing point for investigations of the camel references in the Hebrew Bible, but important variant readings present in the Qumran manuscripts or in the Aramaic, Greek, Syriac, and Latin versions will be considered. The old versions (Samaritan Pentateuch, LXX, Aramaic Targumim, Syriac Peshitta, Latin Vulgate) came into being somewhere between the third century BC (Samaritan Pentateuch, LXX) and the (late) Roman period (Targumim Onqelos, Syriac Peshitta, Latin Vulgate, Targum Jonathan).2 Regarding the few camel passages considered here, the earliest available textual witnesses that usually form the basis of critical editions date to the fourth century AD (LXX), fifth century AD (Syriac Peshitta), eighth century AD (Latin Vulgate), and the Middle Ages (Samaritan Pentateuch; Targumim Onqelos and Jonathan). They usually agree with the MT, although some of them may show at times expansionistic, abbreviating, or harmonizing tendencies. 4.1.1. Camels in the Biblical Manuscripts from Qumran Several textual witnesses from Qumran and Masada preserve the earliest mentions of camels in the Hebrew Bible.3 4.1.1.1. The Pentateuch Fragment no. 5 of 1Q1 (1QGen) (ca. second century BC?), line 1, provides the two letters ‫ ל‬and ‫ ם‬in the phrase ‫“ כאשר כלו הגמלים לשתות‬when the camels had finished drinking” and some letters of the immediate context (Gen 24:22; D. Barthélemy and Milik 1955, 50; pl. 8). Fragment no. 8 of 4Q1 (4QGen-​Exoda) (ca. 125–100 BC), line 4, preserves part of Gen 37:25 ‫וישאו עיניהם ויראו והנה ארחת ישמעאלים באה מגלעד וגמליהם נשאים‬ ‫“ נכאת וצרי ולט‬And looking up they saw a caravan of Ishmaelites coming from Gilead, with their camels bearing gum, balm, and ladanum” (Davila, Ulrich, and Cross 1994, 7–15); 4Q1 witnesses to the proto-​MT tradition (Davila 1993, 14). 2.  For more details, see Tov 2012. 3.  For easy access to these texts, see Ulrich 2013 (all texts in Hebrew); and Abegg, Flint, and Ulrich 1999 (English translation). The dates given are based on the paleographical assessments according to Tov 2002, 351–463, if not stated otherwise. Preserved text fragments are underlined to make the short text segments more legible.

196

Camels in the Biblical World

Fragment no. 1 of 4Q22 (4QpaleoExodm) (ca. 100–25 BC) belongs to a de luxe edition of the biblical text (Tov 2004, 126). It shares all major typological features with the Samaritan version, including its harmonizations, rearrangements, and expansions (Skehan, Ulrich, and Sanderson 1992, 53–130; Tov 2012, 90–92). Unfortunately, the passage dealing with camels is not preserved (column V:1; Exod 9:3), but yhwh’s announcement and the list of animals are rearranged and repeated after Exod 9:5 in the same manner as in the Samaritan Pentateuch (Gall 1914, 130): ‫ויבא משה ואהרן אל פרעה ויאמרו אליו כה אמר יהוה אלהי העברים שלח את עמי ויעבדני‬ ‫כי אם מאן אתה לשלח ועודך מחזק בם הנה יד יהוה היה במקניך אשר בשדה בסוסים‬ ‫ובחמרים ובגמלים בבקר ובצון דבר כבד מאד‬ And Moses and Aaron went to the pharaoh and said to him: Thus says yhwh, the God of the Hebrews: Let my people go that they serve me. Yet, if you are refusing to let my people go, and you continue to burden them, behold, the hand of yhwh comes upon your cattle that is in the field, on the horses, and on the donkeys, and on the camels, and on the cattle, and on the flocks: a very heavy plague. (Exod 9:5b) The section dealing with camels in Mas1b (MasLevb) (1 BC–AD 30; Hendel 2016, 213) has to be restored (column 11:6; Lev 11:4), but the textual condition of the fragments leaves no doubt that Mas1b agrees with the MT (Talmon 1999, 40–50). 4.1.1.2. The Book of Judges The ancient texts of Judges exhibit a greater diversity than the texts of the Pentateuch. The texts of the LXX in the codices Vaticanus (fourth century AD) and Alexandrinus (fifth century AD) are the result of two different textual developments from an Old Greek version. They are edited separately in the critical edition of Rahlfs and Hanhart (2006). Only part of the book of Judges is preserved in Codex Sinaiticus, but in the passage cited here, it agrees with Codex Vaticanus except for orthographic matters. Codex Alexandrinus disagrees with the other two codices in minor substitutions of nouns and verbs, which do not affect the general meaning of Judg 6:5 and its immediate context (cf. table 4.1). For further details of the Septuagint’s transmission of Judg 6, see Lesemann (2016). Three Hebrew manuscripts of the book of Judges that are known from Qumran generally reflect the textual character of the early biblical texts provided by the MT and the early translations (1Q6 [1QJudg], 4Q50 [4QJudgb], and XJudg). However, fragment 4Q49 (4QJudga) “is independent from any other known

Camels in the Patriarchal Narratives and Israel’s Early History

197

texttype, although it shares readings with the proto-​Lucianic text” (Trebolle Barrera 1995, 162; 1989, 239). This fragment, dated to 50–25 BC, may point to a different literary edition of Judg 6, wherein Judg 6:7–10 is missing (Tov 2012, 313–14). Some scholars find such a possibility “very attractive” (Ausloos 2014, 370; cf. Rezetko 2013), while others think that the paragraph was skipped erroneously (Fernández Marcos 2011, 67*; J. Sasson 2014, 6–7). Be that as it may, the paragraph Judg 6:7–10 is written in preexilic Hebrew prose, so that it is possible that both versions, with and without the paragraph, existed side by side for some time (Hendel and Joosten 2018, 57–58). At the end of 6:3, 4Q49 lacks ‫ועלו עליו‬, “and they came up against it” [i.e., the land], in agreement with the Latin Vulgate and the Syriac Peshitta. Some scholars (e.g., Rezetko 2013, 38) suspect this phrase to be a secondary addition, though. It is attested in the MT, the LXX, and Targum Jonathan. However, one of the basic principles of textual criticism is to prefer the reading that explains best the origin of all later readings. There was certainly no pressure for any scribe to introduce the phrase in question, but there was reason enough to eliminate it, as it prima facie sounded repetitive in the face of the immediately preceding ‫“ וְ ָעלָה ִמ ְדיָן ֽ ַועֲמָ לֵק ּובְ נֵי־קֶ דֶ ם‬and Midian and Amalek and the sons of the east came up.” Therefore, it may be argued that this phrase is the lectio difficilior and is more likely to be the older reading than its omission. It reinforces the notion that the enemy and its multitudes subdued the country, which is detailed later on in the narrative. In 6:4, the text omits ‫“ בישראל‬in Israel,” and the scribe or a later corrector squeezed it in above the line. The text abbreviates the conjunctions of the subsequent listing of ‫“ ושה ושור וחמור‬neither sheep, nor ox, nor donkey” to ‫שה שור‬ ‫[“ וחמור‬neither] sheep, ox, nor donkey,” but it is difficult to decide what was original, and—suffice to say—the variants have no bearing on the meaning or significance of camel terms. Looking into the specific verse that mentions camels (Judg 6:5), 4Q49 omits ‫“ וגמליהם‬and their camels” at the expected location. Nevertheless, 4Q49 sometimes agrees with the Lucianic tradition of the LXX (Trebolle Barrera 1995, 162), so that the text attested in 4Q49 likely shifted the reference to camels from the end of 6:5 (‫ )ולהם ולגמליהם אין מספר‬to its beginning (‫)ואהליהם וגמליהם יבאו‬, in the same way as the Lucianic recension (Trebolle Barrera 1989, 236–37; 1995, 163; Abegg, Flint, and Ulrich 1999, 208). As table 4.1 demonstrates, the various readings provided by the MT, by 4Q49 and its supposed restitution, by the LXX according to the Codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus (fourth century AD), and by the later Lucianic recension provide some rearrangements in phraseology and word-​order, but do not imply any substantial alteration of the contents regarding camels and their use. One also notes that the reading provided by the MT in Judg 6:5 is the shorter and the more

198

Camels in the Biblical World

Table 4.1.  Early variants of Judges 6:5. Masoretic Text ‫ּומקְ נֵיהֶ ם ַיעֲלּו‬ ִ ‫ּכִ י הֵ ם‬ ‫ וְ לָהֶ ם‬. . . ‫וְ אָ ֳהלֵיהֶ ם יבאו‬ ‫וְ לִ גְ מַ ּלֵיהֶ ם אֵ ין ִמ ְסּפָר‬

LXX (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) For they came up with their livestock, and their tents came in; . . . both they and their camels were without number

For they came up with their livestock, and their tents, . . . both they and their camels were without number

LXX, Lucianic recension (Brooke and McLean 1917 1:810)

4Q49 (4QJudga) ‫כי הם ומקניהם יעלו‬ ‫ואהליהם וגמליהם‬ ‫ ולהם אין מספר‬. . . ‫יבאו‬

ὅτι αὐτοὶ καὶ αἱ κτήσεις αὐτῶν ἀνέβαινον καὶ αἱ σκηναὶ αὐτῶν, . . . καὶ αὐτοῖς καὶ τοῖς καμήλοις αὐτῶν οὐκ ἦν ἀριθμός

For they came up with their livestock and their tents, and their camels came in; . . . and they were without number

ὅτι αὐτοὶ καὶ αἱ κτήσεις αὐτῶν ἀνέβαινον καὶ τὰς σκηνὰς αὐτῶν παρέφερον καὶ τὰς καμήλους αὐτῶν ἤγον . . . καὶ αὐτοῖς οὐκ ἦν ἀριθμός

For they came up with their livestock and brought in their tents and led in their camels; . . . and they were without number

difficult one. Its consonantal stratum was already known during the Second Temple Period and can account for all the variations presented above. It seems that especially the phrase ‫“ ואהליהם יבאו‬and their tent-​dwellers came in” was misunderstood and interpreted as “and their tents came in” (cf. the discussion in §4.5). This misinterpretation in turn led to the rearrangement of “camels” as displayed in table 4.1 to create a more natural meaning. Further distant from the Hebrew text is the Old Latin of Codex Lugdunensis, which simply skips in 6:5 the phrase καὶ τὰς καμήλους αὐτῶν ἤγον from its proto-​Lucianic LXX-Vorlage (Robert 1900, 118): Quoniam ipsi et iumenta eorum ascendebant et ad tabernacula sua adferebant . . . , quorum non erat numerus. 4.1.1.3. The Books of Samuel It seems that 4Q51 (4QSama), the Qumran scroll of the books of Samuel, often reflects a more reliable text than the MT, which exhibits many textual corruptions (see, e.g., Tov 2012, 311–13); 4Q51 (50–25 BC, Hugo 2010, 2) is written in Hebrew Herodian script and attests about 60 percent of the Hebrew text of Samuel. It often agrees with the LXX, or with readings that are known from Josephus’s Jewish Antiquities, or goes its own way (Fincke 2001, 3–8; Hugo

Camels in the Patriarchal Narratives and Israel’s Early History

199

2010, 4–7). Unfortunately, the two text passages dealing with camels, 1 Sam 15:3 and 1 Sam 30:17 (see §4.6), are not extant in 4Q51. However, the immediate context of the two passages hints at least to the textual condition of 4Q51. Its fragment no. 8 attests some phrases of 1 Sam 15:24–32, providing five textual variants that deviate from the MT (cf. Abegg, Flint, and Ulrich 1999, 227). Besides some minor readings, 1 Sam 15:29 has two noteworthy variants: Instead of “the glory of Israel does not lie,” 4Q51 reads similarly to (the Greek of ) the Septuagint and Josephus’s Jewish Antiquities 6.153 “. . . does not change [his mind].” In 1 Sam 15:31, 4Q51 leaves the grammatical subject open (‫וישתחו ליהוה‬ “and he worshiped yhwh”), in agreement with the LXX (based here on Codex Vaticanus), the Lucianic recension (LXX), and Josephus’s Jewish Antiquities 6.154, but against the MT and other early versions that define the subject as Saul (‫“ וישתחו שאול ליהוה‬and Saul worshiped yhwh”; Ulrich 2013, 276). In both cases, 4Q51 seems to provide the preferable reading, especially in 1 Sam 15:31. Saul was expected to be the logical subject here (cf. 1 Sam 15:30), so that there was no need to introduce the name expressis verbis. No variants in the old versions of 1 Sam 15:3 (LXX, Vulgate, Peshitta, Targum Jonathan) and its immediate context suggest a different setting or meaning of the event, or fundamentally alter the specific mention of camels. For instance, some manuscripts of the Syriac Peshitta have a different word order, shuffling ‫“ ܬܘܪ̈ܐ‬oxen” with ‫“ ܓܡ̈ܐܠ‬camels” in 1 Sam 15:3 (Dirksen 1978, 35). There are also some variants in the larger contexts of each version, and some harmonizations and additions in Targum Jonathan in accordance with its general character. First Samuel 30:17 is not preserved in 4Q51. Fragments 45–46 provide only some words from the larger context. These words are in agreement with the MT. The LXX, Peshitta, and Vulgate have no variants that significantly affect the meaning of 1 Sam 30:15–20, let alone the camel tradition of 1 Sam 30:17 (see §4.6). Further early readings are provided by fragments of 4Q52 (4QSamb) (ca. 250– 200 BC), another textual witness that often agrees with the LXX against the MT, which is typical of the complex and eventful history of the Hebrew text of Samuel (Hugo 2010, 4); 4Q52, fragment no. 3, attests some readings from the context around 1 Sam 15:16–18. Unfortunately, the fragment is very scrappy and had to be largely restored, but it seems to offer no deviations from the MT at this place. Taking the Hebrew text with its actual variants during the Second Temple period and beyond into consideration, it becomes clear that the plurality of textual versions from Qumran, or the variant readings found in the old versions, rarely affect the passages dealing with our subject. This observation leads to the conclusion that the various camel traditions of Judges and 1 Samuel must be older than the oldest textual witness of each reference that was cited above.

200

Camels in the Biblical World

The various books of the Pentateuch and the Former Prophets (Joshua–Kings) as well as the prose sections of the preexilic prophets have a unified linguistic appearance. The Hebrew used in these texts has certain linguistic features that point to a preexilic form of Hebrew, also dubbed Classical Biblical Hebrew (CBH). Classical Biblical Hebrew was in use in preexilic times, roughly during the period of the Hebrew monarchy, before about 590 BC.4 The later books of the Hebrew Bible, such as Esther, Ezra-​Nehemiah, and Chronicles, have linguistic elements that are assigned to Late Biblical Hebrew (LBH). The camel traditions from the earlier books of the Hebrew Bible are written in CBH. They were not necessarily composed during the monarchy. They may hail from earlier times and should be inspected on the assumptions they make, but at least were most likely edited in CBH during the preexilic period, and linguistically revised, where appropriate, during and after that. 4.1.1.4. The Book of Isaiah In Isa 21:7, the advance of the Babylonian army is seen in a vision specified as ‫“ רכב צמד פרשים רכב חמור רכב גמל‬a train of cavalry, pairs of horsemen, a train of donkeys, and a train of camels” (MT; cf §6.1.1). The famous Qumran scroll 1QIsaa (125–100 BC) has the textual variant ‫רכב צמד איש פרשים רוכב חמור רוכב‬ ‫גמל‬: “chariots, each man with a pair of horses, a rider on a donkey, a rider on a camel.” The “scribe may have perceived a difficulty in pairing ‫[ ֶרכֶב‬rekeb] (often meaning ‘chariot’?) with asses and camels, and thus he changed the noun ‫ֶרכֶב‬ to the ptc. ‫( רוכב‬meaning ‘riders, a riding company”)” (Parry 2019, 162–63). Fragments 10–14 of 4Q55 (4QIsaa) have the same reading, departing from 1QIsaa only orthographically: ‫רכב צמיד איש פרשים רכב חמור רוכב גמל‬. This reading is partly reflected by the LXX (and, similarly, by the Vulgate): ἀναβάτας ἱππεῖς δύο, ἀναβάτην ὄνου καὶ ἀναβάτην καμήλου “two riders on horses, a rider on a donkey, and a rider on a camel.” The Targum of Isaiah has ‫רתך אנש ועמיה זוג‬ ‫“ פרשין רכיב על חמור רכיב על גמל‬a man’s chariot, and with it a pair of horsemen, a rider on an ass, a rider on camel.” The Syriac Peshitta reads ‫ܪܟܘܒܐ ܕܬ̈ܪܝܢ ܦ̈ܪܫܝܢ܂‬ ‫“ ܕܪܟܝܒ ܚܡܪܐ ܘܕܪܟܝܒ ܓܡܐܠ‬a chariot with two horsemen, a rider on an ass, and a rider on a camel.” The lectio difficilior and lectio brevior respectively of the MT is to be preferred, as it best explains the emergence of all other readings (cf. Wildberger 1978, 766; Roberts 2015, 276, 278; Parry 2019, 162). In the passage about Israel’s future (Isa 60:6), instead of the geographical names Epha (‫ )עיפה‬and Sheba (‫שבא‬‎), 1QIsaa attests the readings Ephu (‫ )עיפו‬and 4.  For views that date the two main categories, CBH and LBH, differently, see, e.g., Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd 2008; the review in Joosten 2012b; and the discussions in Hendel and Joosten 2018.

Camels in the Patriarchal Narratives and Israel’s Early History

201

Shebu (‫ )שבו‬respectively (Reymond 2014, 176), while 1QIsab (first century BC) agrees with the MT and the old versions. The reading ‫ ובכרכרות‬of Isa 66:20, usually interpreted as “and on dromedaries,” is found in 1QIsab as well as in the MT and will be discussed in detail in §6.1.4. However, 1QIsaa has the peculiar variant ‫ ;ובכורכובות‬cf. Parry 2019, 440. 4.1.1.5. Further Camel Occurrences There are no textual witnesses from Qumran that may attest to the camel occurrences in the book of Kings, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Zechariah, Job, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles.

4.2. Camels in the Genesis Narratives Genesis has a complex literary history, and its individual literary strands are vigorously debated. For our study, it is assumed that the ancestral narratives or text sources treated here received their CBH framework during the First Temple period (Hendel and Joosten 2018, 45–46; cf. §4.1.1). It seems that these narratives often show traces of editing, but it would nonetheless be difficult to ignore their legacy to earlier material from the second millennium BC within which its narratives are situated.5 Moreover, neither archaeology nor epigraphy can unequivocally confirm any of the events described in the narratives of Gen 12–50, nor do ancient inscriptions mention any of the Hebrew ancestors. However, it is noteworthy that the most prominent patriarch, Abram or Abraham, seems to have already been venerated during the Judean monarchy, based on the reference to “Abram’s enclosure” (or “Fort Abram”) on the victory stela of Pharaoh Shoshenq I (Hendel 2005, 47–50; Kitchen 2017, 16; Lipiński 2018, 10). That being said, to what extent the Genesis narratives are relevant from a historical perspective remains a matter of debate. For instance, Thomas Thompson (1974, 315) regards any attempt to gain historical information from the patriarchal stories as futile. He and long before him other opponents of the narratives’ historic value (notably Julius Wellhausen 1899) assumed that literary circles created the rich and complex narrative of Abraham somewhere during or after the middle of the first millennium BC (see, e.g., Blenkinsopp 2015). The earliest allusions to the Abraham tradition in prophetic writings nonetheless suggest 5.  E.g., Gen 12:6 and 13:7 point to the “Canaanites” as living in the land, which makes only sense if the envisioned readers were living in the first millennium BC. For other explanations, see König 1925, 459–60 n. 4.

202

Camels in the Biblical World

that the tale was already well known and widely established during the Persian period (Isa 41:8–9; 51:2; and Ezek 33:24; Polak 2016). Up to the middle of the twentieth century, it was more or less believed that “Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are historical persons, and that the accounts which we have of them are in outline historically true” (Driver 1898, 534; emphasis original). However, contemporary scholars, such as William G. Dever (2017, 120), merely admit “that there may have been some authentic memories, or oral traditions, that were available to the authors and redactors of Genesis,” and, “that some of the events narrated in Genesis may have some historical basis.” Others, such as Ronald Hendel (2010), see the patriarchal narratives as a means to preserve cultural memories. They seem to be true existentially and morally, but only intermittently true historically. On the other hand, there are scholars who argue that placing Abraham at the early second millennium BC “is sustainable” (Millard 1992, 40; cf. 2000). Unfortunately, an  in-​d epth evaluation and discussion of the various approaches to and interpretations of the patriarchal narratives lie beyond the scope of our study dealing with camels. Moreover, proof for one particular position in the debate is as hard to generate as evidence to proof the contrary (Millard 1983, 42). Extrabiblical evidence can neither demand nor exclude the historicity of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Therefore, the question will merely be whether the presentation of camels and their context in the patriarchal narratives allow us to extend our knowledge about the cultural history of these intriguing animals. The following chapters will therefore combine the new insights into the early exploitation of camels with a close reading of the species’ appearance and its context in the Genesis narratives. 4.2.1. Abram and Sarai’s Sojourn in Egypt (Gen 12:10–13:1) Camels suddenly appear in the center of the Abram in Egypt episode (Gen 12:16), marking the oldest reference to camels in the Hebrew Bible according to the chronological framework inherent to the Pentateuch (early second millennium BC).6 To fully understand the implications of this episode for the cultural history of the camel, we need to elaborate in more detail on the embedding of Gen 12:16 in its wider context and on the most common interpretive approaches to Abram and Sarai’s sojourn in Egypt. 6.  According to Exod 12:40, the exodus happened 430 years after Jacob’s descent into Egypt. If the years between the exodus and the united monarchy are added to that, with more than 300 (cf. §4.3), but less than 480 years (1 Kgs 6:1), a possible time window of ca. 2100–1700 BC is obtained for the period of the patriarchs; cf. Bimson 1980. If we follow the LXX reading of Exod 12:40 (cf. Gal 3:17), combining in the figure of 430 years the patriarchs’ sojourns in Canaan and in Egypt, this time frame is lowered by more than 200 years.

Camels in the Patriarchal Narratives and Israel’s Early History

203

4.2.1.1. Abram and Sarai’s Sojourn in Egypt and the Exodus Genesis 12:16b states that Abram, “had flocks,7 oxen, donkeys, male servants, female servants, female donkeys, and camels.” It was long ago hypothesized that this statement, embedded in the early part of the Abraham Cycle (Gen 12:10–13:1), should be regarded as late and secondary (for recent dating proposals, see Na’aman 2015). Wellhausen (1899, 23) proposed to take a shortcut from Gen 12:9 to Gen 13:4 by regarding Abram’s sojourn in Egypt as a late insertion, namely even later as Gen 12:1–9, that up to the twentieth century was usually ascribed to the Yahwist, a hypothetical literary source believed to have been composed in the early first millennium BC. Christoph Levin elaborated Wellhausen’s conjecture further and offered a telling motive why: Abram’s itinerary must have included Egypt, because Abram had to walk the route of the elected nation prior to the exodus.8 Forced by a famine, he exiled to Egypt. From here, the pharaoh decided to let Abram go only after having been plagued by yhwh, an allusion to Exod 11:1 (C. Levin 1993, 142; 2014; Becking 2009, 42–43). The arrangement of Gen 12:10–13:1 doubtless has intended parallels to the exodus tradition (Cassuto 1964, 334–36; Römer 2010, 7–8; C. Levin 2014; Grossman 2016, 116). More conspicuous allusions unfold when all individual stories of Gen 11–15 are included in the investigation. It seems that a large part of the Abram narrative, namely Gen 11–15, was “strategically arranged to correspond with Israel’s story as told in the Book of Exodus” (Postell 2016, 161). These allusions, however, are not in the foreground and do not belong to the main subject of Gen 12:10–13:1. Euphemistic readings of the passage from the Hellenistic period onward point to the fact that Abram and Sarai’s sojourn in Egypt was perceived as an embarrassing episode in the life of the ancestors. In these compositions, aspects of the life of Abram and Sarai are elevated and events that might reflect negatively on Abram’s character are downplayed (Ego 2010, 233).9 This applies particularly to the Genesis Apocryphon (1QapGenar, 7. The Hebrew term ‫צ ֹאן‬, which is translated here as “flocks,” usually embraces small livestock, i.e., sheep and goats. 8.  According to Wellhausen and Levin, the Abram in Egypt episode is a late insertion: “You can recognize it by the fact that Gen 13 points back to the itinerary in 12:8–9” (“Man erkennt es daran, daß Gen 13 auf das Itinerar 12,8–9 zurücklenkt”) (C. Levin 1993, 141; cf. 2014, 109). However, the underlying presupposition, that the Yahwist could not, or would not, refer to the former whereabouts of his main protagonist after he had returned from Egypt (Gen 13:3), is baseless. 9.  The most notable euphemistic interpretations of Gen 12:10–13:1 (cf. Wacholder 1964) are found in 1QapGenar 19:10–20:32 (Machiela 2009, 70–77; Screnock 2017; cf. Grossfeld 1988, 65 n. 9); Jub. 13:11–16 (van Ruiten 2012, 74–80; VanderKam 2018, 472–74); Pseudo-​Eupolemus as cited by Eusebius (Preparation for the Gospel 9.17.2–9); Josephus (Jewish Antiquities 1.161–68; Jewish War 5.375; cf. A. Reed 2004, 2009; Tervanotko and Uusimäki 2018, 280–83); and Philo (De Abrahamo 92–98). There is another, rather unknown late and embroidered version, the Ethiopic Sojourn of Abraham and Sara in Egypt, attributed to St. Mari Ephrem, which in Ethiopic manuscripts usually

204

Camels in the Biblical World

first century BC/AD), which transforms “the ostensibly craven Abram” into an exemplary patriarch and Jewish hero (Jurgens 2018, 358, 382), remodeling the entire story to proclaim the ideals of virtue and wisdom. Several hundred years down the road, Genesis Rabbah chapter 40 (fifth century AD) draws many parallels between the book of Exodus and Abram’s sojourn in Egypt. However, Genesis Rabbah is usually taking pains to portray Abram as an unblemished patriarch. Therefore, various minor details and the underlying allusions to the exodus narrative are brought to the foreground, while Abram’s apparent failure is ignored. It is only in later rabbinic sources that Abram’s behavior is mildly criticized, for example in the writings of Nahmanides (Grossman 2016, 105–7). Looking closer at the Egypt incident reveals that it contributes little to enhance Abram’s image. Instead of being a blessing to all nations (Gen 12:2–3), Abram sparked the “wife-​sister” ruse for his own benefit, having primarily his own life and well-​being in view, although it has to be admitted that by calling Sarai his sister, he was not alienated from her (cf. Cassuto 1964, 350–52). Abram, who suspected the Egyptians to be murderous womanizers, was treated as a friend in Egypt (12:16), but nonetheless got pharaoh into trouble because his host relied on Abram’s half-​truth (12:17). In the end, pharaoh appears more pious than Abram. Moreover, important details of Gen 12:10–13:1 do not match their supposed counterparts in the exodus narrative. Abram’s descendants were suppressed and suffered considerably in Egypt. By contrast, Abram was not afflicted in Egypt, but his host treated him and his wife kindly during their stay. The Hebrews of the exodus were determined to leave Egypt, but Abram had no ready plan to return to Canaan. When the exodus plagues started hitting Egypt, yhwh is repeatedly quoted as instructing Moses and Aaron, while both men are threatening pharaoh, announcing plagues at fixed times. The plagues or afflictions of Gen 12 were neither announced by yhwh nor by Abram. The exodus plagues occurred nationwide, attracting wide attention, while the afflictions were meant for pharaoh and his household. Whereas the carefully announced exodus plagues hardened pharaoh’s heart and ultimately lead to destruction, the silent afflictions of Gen 12 accomplish the very opposite. They compelled pharaoh to question his own situation and thus to uncover Abram’s half-​truth. The afflictions were not intended to let Abram go (cf. Exod 5:1, etc.), but to allow Sarai to return to her husband (cf. Blum 1984, 307–9). While the exodus plagues cease only with Aaron’s and Moses’s intercession, the afflictions of Gen 12 cease spontaneously. Abram had to go again, this time expressively with Sarai (cf. ‫ לְֶך־לְ ָך‬Gen 12:1 with 12:19 ‫ ;קַ ח ָולְֵך‬cf. 12:10 and 13:1; Alter 1996, 53). Abram did not “plunder the Egyptians” (Exod 3:22), but pharaoh encouraged him to take what rightfully belonged to him (cf. Gen 12:16, 19). Finally, pharaoh did not pursue Abram and Sarai in a follows the Testaments of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Caquot 1988). Even more than the ancient sources cited above, it euphemistically reinterprets and lavishly enlarges the biblical account.

Camels in the Patriarchal Narratives and Israel’s Early History

205

dramatic attempt of escape to prevent them from leaving but ordered his men to escort them. Abram and Sarai did not walk the same route as the Hebrews of the exodus—they were neither sold to Egypt, such as Joseph, nor invited to Egypt, such as Jacob. They were not suppressed, such as Jacob’s descendants were, and after their comfortable stay, they did not leave as fugitives. They neither crossed the Red Sea, nor encountered yhwh in the Sinai Peninsula, nor entered Canaan by wading through the river Jordan. Taking all this into account, it is unlikely that the Abram in Egypt episode had merely been created to provide the reader with a (humorous) allusion to the exodus, or “to present the patriarch and his wife as the prototypes of those who experienced the Exodus” (Joosten 2012a, 375; cf. Arnold 2009, 138). This interpretation would underestimate the importance of the two dialogues (Westermann 1995, 168), which cover half of the episode (Gen 12:11–13, 18–19), but have no relation to the exodus. Abram and Sarai did not behave like the beneficiaries and heralds of yhwh’s blessings (Gen 12:2–3), neither is their life story comparable with the ill-​treated Hebrew slaves that desperately cried for a change (Exod 2:23). Interpreters of the Hellenistic and later periods were careful to circumnavigate and/or sugarcoat the essence of the story that portrays Abram and Sarai as a worried, but shrewd couple. The euphemizing of Abram’s experience in Egypt in the Genesis Apocryphon “presupposes a form of Genesis at least akin to our major versions (LXX, MT, SP), which was venerated enough to warrant an interpretative rewriting” (Machiela 2009, 131). Moreover, the linguistic features of Gen 12 do not support a postexilic dating of the passage (Hendel and Joosten 2018, 38–39; cf. Polak 2016). Finally, the prophets of the (late) preexilic, exilic, and postexilic periods strongly opposed any suggestion of seeking help in Egypt, let alone the idea that pharaoh would embody a sincere man of high moral standing.10 Another critical point regards the fact that Abram was married to his half-​sister, which is at odds with the Torah (cf. Becking 2009, 37–38).11 10.  Isa 30:2; 31:1–3; 36:4–10; Jer 2:18, 36; 42–44; Ezek 16:26; 17:15; 23:19; 30:21; 32:2; cf. 2 Kgs 18:24; Lam 5:6. According to Albertz (2003, 259), Abram and Sarai’s sojourn in Egypt was integrated into the Abram narrative as a critique of the exiles who emigrated to Egypt during the Persian period. They should learn from Abram that “Egypt was not a place where Judeans could live without danger and compromise. They belonged back in Palestine!” However, if any editor wanted “to demonstrate dramatically to his exilic contemporaries” (259) that Egypt was not a good place to sojourn, why would he create or choose a story about a protagonist who is treated kindly in Egypt and becomes wealthy during his stay, and about a pharaoh of high moral standing? Besides, Abram is not blamed for sojourning in Egypt, but for posing as his wife’s brother. The story teaches rather that Egypt may be a good place to stay, provided its protagonist behaves correctly, a thread that is taken up in the Joseph story. 11.  Cf. Gen 12:13; 20:12; and 26:7; with Lev 18:9; and Deut 27:22. There is one more incident where a man is married to his half-​sister, Exod 6:20; 2 Sam 13:12 only mentions this as a possible option; cf. Sarna 1989, 143; Westermann 1995, 326.

206

Camels in the Biblical World

4.2.1.2. Abram and Sarai’s Sojourn in Egypt and the Sister-​Wife Episodes of Genesis The episode of Gen 12:10–13:1 (1) has not only allusions to the book of Exodus, but naturally invites the reader to compare it with two very similar incidents, where a patriarch’s wife is impersonated as his sister in order to save themselves from trouble, namely Gen 20:1–18 (2) and Gen 26:1–14 (3). In the end, the patriarch leaves the scene with his reidentified wife and increased wealth. Because of their obvious commonalities, it is often argued that all three events are, in one way or another, interdependent on each other (Golinets 2016). Incidents (1), (2), and (3) have subtle, but significant variations in seeming repetitions (Alter 1992, 146; Bar-​Efrat 1989, 134; Gunn and Fewell 1993, 108–9; Hong 2007, 150–54; Golinets 2016). Moreover, all three incidents feature a common pattern where a narrative element is present in two out of three accounts. For instance, two incidents take place in Gerar (2–3), one in Egypt (1); two times, the beauty of the patriarch’s wife is addressed (1, 3), once it is not; two journeys are caused by a famine (1, 3), one is not (2), and the rest. Taken together, there are about twenty such occurrences (Hetzenauer 1910, 232; cf. Becking 2009, 39–40). Nevertheless, the three episodes feature progressing elements as well. For instance, in the first episode (1), pharaoh is plagued without warning, in the second episode (2), the local ruler receives a death threat in a dream from yhwh, and in the last episode (3), the local ruler himself issues warnings implying a death threat. The local ruler painfully learns the true identity of the patriarch’s “sister” in (1), gets it revealed in a dream (‫ )ּבַ חֲלֹום‬in (2), and concludes it by looking through a window (‫ )ּבְ עַד הַ חַ ּלֹון‬in (3). Corresponding with these three modes or stages of revelation, questions about truth, innocence, and marriage emerge. The local ruler’s innocence is not directly addressed in (1) but becomes obvious by his questions after he had been plagued by yhwh. Learning the truth in a dream in (2), the ruler claims to be innocent (“in the integrity of my heart and the innocence of my hands I have done this”), and, after having been endorsed by God (“I know that you have done this in the integrity of your heart”), accuses the patriarch of bringing “on me and my kingdom a great sin.” Seeing the truth in broad daylight in (3), the ruler blames the patriarch without much ado, since he “would have brought guilt upon us.” It seems that the ruler married the ancestor’s wife in (1) and (2), but he is plagued in (1) to prevent any progress, he is kept from approaching (‫ )קָ ַרב‬and touching (‫ )חֲטֹו‬the patriarch’s wife in (2), and he is worried that somebody else may “lie with your wife” (‫ת־א ְׁשּתֶ ָך‬ ִ ֶ‫ א‬. . . ‫ )ׁשָ כַב‬in (3). The narrator carefully arranged all three episodes to underline their similarities and dissimilarities. Which episode was first? It is “beyond doubt that Gen 26 [3], as well as Gen 20 [2], is dependent on Gen 12 [1]” (Westermann 1995, 161).

Camels in the Patriarchal Narratives and Israel’s Early History

207

C. Levin (2014, 119) argues differently: “the origin of the first [1] lies in Gen 26 [2]” (“der Ursprung des Stoffes [1] liegt in Gen 26 [2]”) (cf. G. Wenham 1987, 286). Viktor Golinets (2016, 112) sees (2) dependent on (1), and (3) dependent on (1) and (2). However, “the search for the original version of which the other two are rewritings leads into a dead end” (Joosten 2012a, 371). In addition, ponderings about literary dependency cannot answer the question whether these incidents have a historical background or not (G. Wenham 1987, 287; cf. Alter 1981, 49–50). Episode (1) happens to be the shortest, but it deserves close inspection. Pivotal elements of its setting, context, and moral (§4.2.1.3) as well as some of its details (§4.2.1.4) are unique. Gen 12:10–13:1 undoubtedly has a concentric structure, although it lacks the regularity of a strong chiasm (cf. Walsh 2001, 27): Abram leaves the Negev to go down to Egypt; famine (a; Gen 12:9–10) Abram is about to enter Egypt (b; 11a) He suggests: “Look, you are a beautiful woman, Egyp. see you . . .” (c; 11b) “. . . and say ‘This is his wife!’ They’ll kill me and let you live” (d; 12) “Say you are my sister . . .” (e; 13) “. . . that it may go well with me because of you, that my life is spared for your sake (f; 13) Egyptians saw the woman was very beautiful, officials saw her, praise her, the woman enters pharaoh’s house (g; 14–15) Pharaoh deals well with Abram because of her (h; 16a) Abram’s moveable property (Z; 16b) yhwh plagues pharoah because of Sarai, Abram’s wife (h′; 17) Pharaoh summons Abram [into his house?] (g′; 18) “What have you done to me? Why did you not tell me that she is your wife?” (f ′; 18) “Why did you say she is my sister . . . (e′; 19) . . . that I took her for my wife? Look, your wife! Take her and go!” (d′; 19) Pharaoh gave men orders concerning him (c′; 20) Egyptians escort Abram and his wife out of Egypt (b′; 20) Abram and his wife and Lot and property arrive in the Negev; wealth (a′; 13:1–2) Starting from the center (Z), the concentric structure guides the reader in the understanding of the episode: As soon as pharaoh’s well-​doings (h) are answered by yhwh’s plagues (h′),12 pharaoh summons Abram (g′) to question him, a very 12. Has the object “and his house” (‫ )וְ אֶ ת־ּבֵ יתֹו‬in Gen 12:17 been added by a later hand or taken from Gen 20:17 (see. Westermann 1995, 166; C. Levin 2014, 110)? Suggesting another explanation, it is likely that Gen 12:17 rather sees pharaoh as the main object of the plagues, who married

208

Camels in the Biblical World

sobering development from the acclamations and praises for Sarai’s beauty (g). This reversal is underlined by a blatant disproportion between (g) and (g′). Abram had been concerned about himself (f) but had not realized what he had done to others, let alone that he had offended the mighty and hospitable pharaoh (f ′). Declaring Sarai to be his sister (e) was seen as a half-​truth, if not worse (e′); instead of Abram’s hasty conclusion that his beautiful wife would lead to “kill-​me-​and-​save-​you” (d), pharaoh acknowledges Sarai as Abram’s wife and returns her to her husband with the friendly, albeit determined advice to “take-​her-​and-​go” (d′; cf. Gen 24:51); instead of Abram’s worries about Sarai’s beauty and his fear of the Egyptians (c–d), the pharaoh is a man of action: he put his men under strict orders, presumably to safeguard Abram and Sarai, thereby preventing anybody from harassing them (c′). Abram and Sarai are escorted out of Egypt (b′).13 Finally, Abram and his wife arrive in the Negev, not anymore stricken by a famine, but well off (a′). It is precisely at the center or turning point (Z) that Gen 12:16b with its mention of animals and servants is situated. The most plausible function of (Z) is to explain Abram’s silence in h′–a′. Realizing that he had been blessed both by yhwh and pharaoh (Z), while pharaoh’s life and Sarai’s integrity were in jeopardy because of his own cunning, Abram felt deeply ashamed and unable to answer pharaoh’s accusations. Furthermore, (Z) explains the property mentioned in a′. Line (Z) also explains Sarai’s silence in a–h: realizing that Abram’s plan went well, Sarai seems to have accepted her fate. The text is highly succinct and does not dwell on details that can be concluded from the context, employing the technique that “the answer can be left out where silence suffices” (Westermann 1995, 163). Line (Z) is also a dividing line for the theme of Sarai’s beauty, which is the main motivator for every decisive action in c–h. Instead, every action in g′–a′ seems to be ultimately motivated by the plagues, diseases, or afflictions of h′ (DCH 5:611). Moreover, as the diseases remain private in h′–a′, so does Sarai’s beauty. However, pharaoh does not blame Abram for the severe afflictions, but for his ruse. While pharaoh takes full responsibility (and immediately revokes his marriage with Sarai), he expects the same of Abram: He does not blame Sarai, but Abram for calling her “my sister,” and encourages him to take care of his wife. In a–h, Sarai increasingly appears disconnected from Abram (Sarai, his wife, a fair woman; his wife; my sister; the woman; her; the woman; her), whereas h′–a′ stresses her true identity (Sarai, Abram’s wife; your wife; my sister? my wife? your wife! Abram and his wife). (or intended to marry) Sarai, and who takes full responsibility for the situation. Therefore, “and his house” was added only after the phrase “with great plagues” (‫)נְ גָעִ ים ּגְ דֹ לִ ים‬. 13. For ‫( ׁשּלח‬piel) having the meaning “escort,” cf Gen 18:16; 31:27; HAH 1362; DCH 8:385; Westermann 1995, 167; Kopf 1958, 179.

Camels in the Patriarchal Narratives and Israel’s Early History

209

4.2.1.3. Abram and Sarai’s Sojourn in Egypt in Its Larger Context Looking at the broader context of Abram’s sojourn in Egypt, several intriguing parallels become obvious between Gen 12:8–19 and Gen 13–14 (see table 4.2 below). The storylines of X and Y have a different chronological order and their purported parallels may be debatable in detail, primarily because the Lot episode has a long and complex development with many more agents and detailed movements. Furthermore, in each of the three chapters recapitulated in table 4.3 one notices minor additional structures (Grossman 2016, 93, 99, 125). Although we cannot deal with Gen 12–14 and their implications here in more detail, some parallels become obvious: Whereas Gen 12:8–19 (X) deals with the identity and integrity of Sarai, Abram’s wife, and of marriage, Gen 13–14 (Y) is concerned with the identity and integrity of Lot, Abram’s nephew, and of his property (‫ ְרכֻׁש‬rəkuš). While X dwells on Abram’s disputable behavior in reaction to a severe famine, which unveils his groundless fear of the Egyptians, his failure to stand by his own wife (whom he merely treats as his sister), and his shrewdness in accumulating wealth, Y portrays a person with changed attitudes and values. As such, the Sarai and Lot episodes are directly linked through pharaoh’s decision: By sending away both Abram and Sarai to Canaan, he reaffirms yhwh’s calling (Gen 12:1) and offers Abram the opportunity to start afresh. From now on, the patriarch cares for the welfare of his nephew. He treats him as a brother, yields to his nephew’s choice, risks his own life to rescue him and his property, and refuses to accept any reward from those whom he dislikes. Genesis 13 is not only largely preparatory for what follows in Gen 14 (B. Arnold 2009, 139), but both chapters together have strong ties with Gen 12. Thus, on their own, X and Y can be understood each in light of the other. While Abram uses others in the sister-​wife ruse in X, he takes action to rescue others who are in jeopardy following their own decision in Y. While his hands are bound because he is willfully hiding his true relationship with Sarai from pharaoh (X), the hostile kings are simply unaware of Lot’s true relationship with Abram and his allies and thus are caught by surprise when Abram takes action (Y). Information is crucial: In X, pharaoh is plagued and deprived of his marriage prospects because information was withheld (“why did you not tell me [ ָ‫]הִ ּג ְַדּת‬,” Gen 12:18), while the hostile kings are beaten and robbed of their booty because a fugitive informs (‫ ) ַו ַּיּגֵד‬Abram in Y (Gen 14:13). Table 4.2 illustrates the parallels that unfold in alliterations, allusions (marked in bold, e.g., ‫ קח ולך‬as against ‫)קח לך‬, catchwords, similar grammatical structures (e.g., ‫ כי‬. . . ‫)ויראו‬, and similar or opposing phrases, all of which are embedded in two distinct setups. While X has its own skillful structure, the complex arrangement of the two episodes X and Y as detailed in table 4.2 suggests that Abram’s sojourn in Egypt

plea

evaluation

scene before movement land is inhabited cause of movement

nonactors

relationship Onset: protagonists and key terms

Table 4.2.  Abram, Sarai, and Lot. Y Abram and Lot Gen 13–14

Abram’s nephew 12:5 ‫ויקח אברם את שרי אשתו ואת לוט בן אחיו ואת כל רכושם אשר רכשו ואת הנפש‬ Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his nephew, and all their possessions that they had gathered, and the persons/slaves 12:5 Lot is silent Sarai is silent Sarai plays no role Lot plays no role Yhwh sends plagues to Pharaoh, but does not talk Yhwh talks to Abram, but does not interfere through action Bethel/Negev; altar built 12:8 Negev/Bethel; altar built 13:1–4 Canaanites 12:6 Canaanites & Perizzites 13:7 “there was famine” (‫ ;)ויהי רעב‬famine is severe “there was strife” (‫ ;)ויהי ריב‬Abram heavy (‫)כבד‬ (‫ )כבד‬in the land (‫ )בארץ‬‎12:10 in riches, Abram & Lot have many goods (‫;)רכש‬ the land (‫ )הארץ‬cannot support both 13:2,6,7 Please, I know that you are a beautiful woman Please let there be no strife between me & you, 12:11 we are men, brothers13:8 ‫הנה נא ידעתי כי אשה יפת מראה‬ ‫ כי אנשים אחים‬. . . ‫אל נא תהי מריבה‬ “We are men, brothers . . . please separate yourself “Please say you are my sister that it may go well from me” (upgrade of relationship) 13:8–9 with me” (downgrade of relationship) 12:13 . . . ‫אחים אנחנּו‬ . . . ‫אמרי־נא אחתי את‬ ‫הּפרד נא מעלי‬ ‫מלמען ייטב־לי‬

Abram’s wife 12:5

X Abram and Sarai Gen 12:8–13:1

210 Camels in the Biblical World

royal conversations: . . . evaluate action,a

solution

intervention

information

capture

royal interests

movement

power of beauty/attraction

A triplet of royal blame: “What is it . . . why did you not tell . . . why did you say” 12:18–19 ‫ למה‬. . . ‫ למה‬. . . ‫ויאמר מה‬

withheld: “why did you not tell me”, 12:18 ‫למה לא הגדת לי‬ Yhwh afflicts Pharaoh with great afflictions 12:17 ‫וינגע את פרעה נגעים גדלים‬ Pharaoh returns “your wife” (‫אשתך‬‎) 12:19

‫ את האשה כי יפה הוא מאד‬. . . ‫ויראו המצרים‬ Abram goes down to Egypt in search for food 12:10 (‫ מצרימה‬. . . ‫)וירד‬ . . . approaches (‫ )הקריב לבוא‬Egypt 12:11 enters (‫ )כבוא מצרימה‬Egypt 12:14 court officials praise her to Pharaoh because of Sarai’s beauty12:15 the woman (‫ )האשה‬is taken (‫ )תקח‬into Pharaoh’s house; Abram’s goods increase 12:15–16

Egyptians saw that Sarai was beautiful 12:14–15

X Abram and Sarai Gen 12:8–13:1

Table 4.2. (continued)  Abram, Sarai, and Lot.

Lot saw that Jordan Valley was well watered, like the land of Egypt 13:10 ‫ כארץ מצרים‬. . . ‫וירא את כל ככר הירדן כי כלה משקה‬ Lot goes east to the Jordan Valley because of abundant pasture 13:10–11 (‫)ככר הירדן‬ . . . moved tents unto (‫ )ויאהל עד‬Sodom 13:12 . . . dwells in (‫ )ישב בסדם‬Sodom 14:12 foreign kings wage war against the kings of Sodom and others because of missing revenues 14:1–10 kings take (‫ )ויקחו‬goods (‫ )רכשו‬of Sodom and go (‫)וילכו‬, take Lot and his goods and go 14:11–12; cf. 12:19 given: a fugitive informs Abram, 14:13 ‫ויבא הפליט ויגד לאברם‬ Kings defeat (‫ )ויכו‬Rephaim . . . defeat (‫ )ויכו‬country . . . Abram defeats them (‫ )ויכם‬‎14:5,7,15 Abram returns all goods (‫)כל רכש‬, his brother (‫)אחיו‬ Lot and his goods (‫)רכשו‬, women, people 14:16 A triplet of royal blessings: “he blessed him and said, ‘blessed is Abram . . . and blessed be God’ ” 14:19–20 ‫ וברוך‬. . . ‫ויברכהו ויאמר ברוך‬

Y Abram and Lot Gen 13–14

Camels in the Patriarchal Narratives and Israel’s Early History 211

Abram, Sarai, and Lot return to Canaan 12:20–13:1

Pharaoh would not take Abram’s wife (‫)אשה‬‎ 12:18–19 ‫אמרת אחתי הוא ואקח אתה לי לאשה‬ “behold, your wife (‫ ;)הנה אשתך‬take her and go” (‫ )קח ולך‬‎12:19 Pharaoh does not claim Sarai

Abram would not take king of Sodom’s goods (‫רכׁש‬‎) 14:21 ‫ואם אקח מכל אשר לך‬ “take for yourself (‫ )קח לך‬the goods (‫ ;”)רכש‬the men “may take (‫ )יקחו‬their part” 14:21,24 king of Sodom’s claim: “Give me the persons/slaves” 14:21 ‫תן־לי הנפש‬ Lot does not return to Canaan

Y Abram and Lot Gen 13–14

a The narrator uses the “sophisticated technique of embedded evaluation. This is accomplished by having the characters register the evaluation, either by their words or actions” (Berlin 1994, 105).

outcome

 . . . encourage to take what is rightful.

 . . . reveal motivation, and . . .

X Abram and Sarai Gen 12:8–13:1

Table 4.2. (continued)  Abram, Sarai, and Lot.

212 Camels in the Biblical World

Camels in the Patriarchal Narratives and Israel’s Early History

213

is neither a secondary posterior implement, nor is its sole raison d’être to provide a parallel to the exodus or another sister-​wife episode (§4.2.1.2). Obviously, the Abram and Sarai in Egypt episode is part of a larger whole (cf. Hendel 2019, 592, citing Eißfeldt 1962, 144). There is another intriguing relationship between H, the center of Abram’s sojourn in Egypt (§4.2.1.2), and the Abram/Abraham cycle. Genesis 12:5 is the first verse in the Hebrew Bible to refer to the movable property of a wealthy man (“all their possessions,” ‫ָל־רכּוׁשָ ם‬ ְ ‫)ּכ‬. Then, Gen 12:16b details his property. In the following chapters, every part of Abram’s movable property is involved in the progressive stages of the narrative. Cattle and small livestock beasts are the cause of strife between Abram’s and Lot’s herdsmen (Gen 13:1–7). His servants fight on his side against the superior eastern coalition (Gen 14:15), and his house-​ servant Eliezer is seen as the supposed heir (Gen 15:2). Hagar, his maidservant, becomes his second wife (Gen 16), and her son is Abram’s firstborn (Gen 17, 21). Abraham’s donkey plays a secondary role in the Akedah, the binding of Isaac (Gen 22:3–5). Abraham’s camels play a major secondary role in finding the bride for the junior master (Gen 24). Finally, the thread of Abraham’s property accumulated over the years comes to a close with Gen 25:5: “Abraham gave all he had to Isaac.” If the Abram in Egypt episode were not primarily composed to anticipate the exodus, what is its raison d’être? It is tempting to compare the positive connotation of pharaoh in Gen 12 with his appearance in the Joseph narrative (Gen 41:14–50:7). However, Gen 12 remains the only incident where the patriarch’s piety appears inferior to the pharaoh’s, whereas Joseph is consistently portrayed as above reproach. According to Joosten (2012a, 377), Gen 12 introduces a correction to make the point that “the elect [i.e., Abram and Sarai] are not ipso facto morally superior.” However, there is no ancient source, version, or tradition that sees Abram and Sarai’s sojourn as being a correction of some wrong impression they may have left on the Egyptians or on the later Hebrews. Their sojourn was rather perceived as an embarrassing incident that required appropriate interpretation (§4.2.1.1). Moreover, the narrator does not treat the subject of Abram’s conduct in Gen 12 as an end in itself, but takes it up again in Gen 13–14 to let the reader see the beneficial development of his character. Therefore, seeing Abram and Sarai’s sojourn in Egypt as written and/or oral memories of real-​life events should at least be seen as a plausible interpretation of the story. These memories were probably molded into the form known today during the first half of the first millennium BC. Following these observations, we can now have a closer look at the middle passage of the Abram-​in-​Egypt episode and the story of Abram’s camels.

214

Camels in the Biblical World

4.2.1.4. The Servants and Animals in Genesis 12:16 The narrator conveys Abram’s well-​being through the description of his possessions as listed in Gen 12:16b. According to Claus Westermann, the enumeration of Abram’s possessions belongs to the theme “the wealth of the patriarchs,” which is repeatedly addressed in the patriarchal narratives.14 This theme “is to be understood functionally, not statistically, and is meant to portray the wealth of the patriarchs for listeners of a later age; the later elaboration and the anachronism (camels) are to be explained in the same way” (1995, 165; emphasis added). Many commentaries and translations of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries suggest the following explanations of 12:16b: 1. The animals and servants were given to Abram by pharaoh. 2. The naming of female donkeys together with camels and the separation of donkey mares from stallions is an obvious elaboration: “ ‘male and female servants’ has been inserted between ‘male donkeys’ and ‘female donkeys’ ” (Westermann 1995, 165). 3. The mention of domestic camels in the Genesis narratives constitutes an anachronism added at a later date. However, on closer inspection, these common exegetical claims partly result from simplifying the text and/or its understanding. As to number 1: According to Gen 12:16b, Abram owned “flocks, oxen, donkeys, male servants, female servants, female donkeys, and camels.” The text does not say how Abram obtained these possessions. The Hebrew idiom used here is ‫ וַיְ הִ י־לֹו‬wayəhī-lō, which expresses nothing more than merely “and he had.”15 Has pharaoh given this wealth to Abram? Did pharaoh use his influence to help Abram to attain it? Were these “flocks, oxen, donkeys” of Egyptian, of foreign, or of mixed origin—meaning, were they raised in Egypt, or imported into Egypt? Abram must have entered Egypt with at least some of his moveable property. The narrator tells us that when he started to leave the upper Euphrates area, he took “all the possessions they had gathered and the people they had acquired in Haran” (‫אֶ ת־‬ ‫ָל־רכּוׁשָ ם אֲׁשֶ ר ָרכָׁשּו וְ אֶ ת־הַ ֶּנפֶׁש אֲׁשֶ ר־עָׂשּו בְ חָ ָרן‬ ְ ‫ּכ‬, Gen 12:5). Most notably, the servant able to handle Abram’s camels (Gen 24:2,10 etc.) is said to be an old familiar 14.  Gen 13:2; 24:35; 30:43; 32:15–16; cf. Westermann 1995, 165; Skinner 1930, 249. 15. Gen 26:14; 30:43; Judg 10:4; 12:9, 14; 1 Kings 11:3; 1 Chron 2:22; Job 42:12, etc.; Gen 12:16b should therefore be translated “and he had sheep, oxen, donkeys” (ESV), or “and he acquired” (Westermann 1995, 160; cf. Sarna 1989, 95–96: “he acquired much wealth, the source of which is not explained”), not “and he [i.e., pharaoh] gave him sheep, oxen, donkeys” (NASB; cf. Dillmann 1886, 224; Soggin 1997, 16). The old versions (Targum, LXX, Vulgate, Peshitta) translated the phrase verbally, in similar fashion as Targum Onqelos: ‫“ והוו ליה ען ותורין וחמרין‬and to him belonged sheep, oxen, donkeys.”

Camels in the Patriarchal Narratives and Israel’s Early History

215

confidant who most likely had accompanied him since Haran. Conversely, the specific wealth Abram accumulated in Egypt seems of no interest to the narrator. Thus, interpreting the possessions listed in Gen 12:16b as “the bribes received by Abraham from the Pharaoh of Egypt in prospect of taking Sarah into his harem” (Bulliet 1975, 35) is not quite true.16 Assumedly, his sojourn in Egypt may have increased his possessions considerably, as ‫ וַיְ הִ י־לֹו‬generally denotes the culmination of accumulated wealth (cf. Gen 26:13–14; 30:43; 32:6), but the narratives do not say where, when, and how Abram came into possession of the various animals constituting his herds (B. Jacob 1934, 351–52), some of which belonged to the “possessions they had gathered . . . in Haran” (Gen 12:5). As to claim number 2, the elaborated word-​order: According to E. A. Speiser (1962, 90), Gen 12:16b has been subject “to some reshuffling in the course of transmission”; Eleonore Reuter (2006, 407) believes that the wealth lists of the patriarchs have “a tendency to attract later additions”; and C. Levin (2014, 112; cf. also Seebass 1997, 26) has the impression that 12:16b is in disorder. Westermann is more specific in arguing that 12:16b has been elaborated for listeners of a later age. According to Westermann (1995, 165), “male and female servants” has been inserted between “asses” and “she-​asses.” He adds that it is unimportant whether “male and female servants” has been inserted, as Hermann Gunkel, August Dillmann, and others have supposed, or “she-​asses and camels” has been added, as Rudolf Kilian and Burchard Brentjes suggested. Needless to say, none of these alternatives can be verified. It is, of course, possible that scribes at various stages of transmission deliberately changed the words or their order, as, for instance, in Gen 12:16b. However, we cannot offer any testable evidence to substantiate this assumption. The only textual variant that affects the word order of Gen 12:16b is known from the Samaritan Pentateuch, which, besides some embellishment, transposes “donkeys” and “male and female servants.” This kind of smoothing out is typical for the Samaritan version and virtually supports the lectio difficilior found in the MT.17 The Septuagint substitutes “female donkeys” with “mules” or “hemiones,” but does not change the word order.18 The Targumim, the Latin Vulgate, 16.  This interpretation appears occasionally in commentaries, such as Gunkel’s (“The gifts of pharaoh are intended to replace Sarah” [“Die Geschenke Pharaos sind als Ersatz für Sara gedacht”], 1922, 171); cf. also Keimer 1929, 88; Barnett 1985, 17; Staubli 1991, 200. 17. The Samaritan Pentateuch reads “flocks and oxen: a very heavy livestock, and male servants, and female servants, and donkeys, and she-​donkeys, and camels” (‫צאן ובקר מקנה כבד מאד ועבדים‬ ‫ ;ושפחות וחמרים ואתנות וגמלים‬see Gall 1914). The harmonizations of the Samaritan Pentateuch “reflect a tendency to remove internal contradictions or irregularities from the Torah text that were considered harmful to its sanctity” (Tov 2012, 82). See also Tal 2015, 108*. 18.  Καὶ ἐγένοντο αὐτῷ πρόβατα καὶ μόσχοι καὶ ὄνοι παῖδες καὶ παιδίσκαι ἡμίονοι καὶ κάμηλοι “and he had sheep and young bulls and donkeys, male servants and female servants, mules and camels.” For the presence of mules in the Bronze Age Levant, see Grigson 2012b, 192–93.

216

Camels in the Biblical World

and the Peshitta agree with the Hebrew of Gen 12:16b.19 Moreover, a careful look at the order of items in the various lists of the patriarch’s possessions does not reveal any special motive for inserting or adding anything.20 Most commentators thus argue that these verses look as if they were enriched by later additions. Nevertheless, as pointed out above, Gen 12:16b seems to be in disorder (C. Levin 2014, 112), which already came to the mind of the editor(s) of the Samaritan Pentateuch. The sequence of ‫“ חֲמֹ ִרים‬donkeys” and ‫“ אֲתֹ נֹ ת‬female donkeys” appears to be interrupted by ‫ּוׁשפָחֹ ת‬ ְ ‫“ עֲבָ ִדים‬male servants and female servants.” This observation led Walther Zimmerli (1976) to infer that “the breaking up of the connected pair ‘donkeys and she-​donkeys’ through ‘servants and maids’ makes it seem very likely that the latter represents a clumsily interpolated extension.”21 Contrary to Zimmerli, however, there are good reasons to conclude that this is not the case. First, the narrator seems to have made a humorous allusion to Abram and Sarai’s situation. The list of servants and animals appears immediately after Sarai “was taken into pharaoh’s house” (Gen 12:15). Thus, the “connected pair” Abram and Sarai became separated, in the same way as jackasses and jennies appear now separated (Gen 12:16b). Second, the peculiar word order of Gen 12:16b relates to the setting of this verse in the center (Z) of an artfully arranged concentric structure (§4.2.1.2). Considering the Masoretic punctuation, the animal list of Gen 12:16b in (Z) has a chiastic order (Walsh 2001, 27): flocks-​and-​oxen are grammatically epicene and form one unit (a). The structure ends with camels that are grammatically epicene as well (a′):22 (a) flocks and oxen (‫)צ ֹאן־ּובָ קָ ר‬  (b) donkeys (‫) ַוחֲמֹ ִרים‬   (c) male servants (‫) ַועֲבָ ִדים‬   (c′) female servants (‫)ּוׁשפָחֹ ת‬ ְ  (b′) female donkeys (‫) ַואֲתֹ נֹ ת‬ (a′) camels (‫)ּוגְ מַ ּלִ ים‬ 19. The Syriac version partly repeats in Gen 30:43 the order of Gen 12:16b: Jacob had “large ̈ flocks, male servants, female servants, female donkeys, camels, and donkeys” (‫ܘܥܒܕܐ‬ ‫ܥܢܐ ܣܓܝܐܬܐ‬ ̈ ̈ ̈ ‫)ܘܐܡܗܬܐ ܘܐܬܢܐ ܘܓܡܐܠ ܘܚܡ̈ܪܐ‬. 20.  Gen 12:16; 13:2; 20:14; 24:35; 30:43; 32:6, 15–16. 21.  “Die Zerreißung des zusammengehörigen Paares ‘Esel und Eselinnen’ durch ‘Knechte und Mägde’ läßt es als sehr wahrscheinlich erscheinen, daß letzteres eine nachträglich an ungeschickter Stelle eingeschobene Erweiterung darstellt” (Zimmerli 1976, 25 n. 5, emphasis added). 22. Cf. ‫ צ ֹאן ּובָ קָ ר‬in Gen 20:14; 21:27; and 24:35. Although ‫ גְ מַ ּלִ ים‬is masculine morphologically, its syntactical gender can be feminine (Waltke and O’Connor 1990, 107), cf. the ‫ ּגְ מַ ּלִ ים מֵ ינִ יקֹות‬of Gen 32:16. In the LXX, the threefold structure is also evident through the deliberate insertion and omission respectively of the conjunction καί: πρόβατα καὶ μόσχοι καὶ ὄνοι (a–b), παῖδες καὶ παιδίσκαι (c–c′), ἡμίονοι καὶ κάμηλοι (b′–a′).

Camels in the Patriarchal Narratives and Israel’s Early History

217

This arrangement brings the male and female counterparts in juxtaposition and intensifies the allusion observed above (§4.2.1.3). Third, a closer look at the animal list of Gen 12:16b reveals further peculiarities. Hebrew ‫ חָ מֹור‬ḥāmōr is the most frequent word used for “donkey,” the Semitic root ḥmr occurring in all the major Semitic languages except Ethiopic (Sima 2000, 96). In Mishnaic Hebrew as well as in Aramaic, Syriac, and Classical Arabic, a feminine form of the root ḥmr was in use. In Classical Hebrew, Aramaic, Ugaritic, ANA, and Akkadian, female donkeys or jennies are usually denoted by reflexes of the Semitic root ʾtn, which in Hebrew is ‫ אָ תֹון‬ʾātōn. However, if jackasses and jennies are mentioned consecutively in the same text, specific numbers of both sexes are given in addition. In Gen 32:16, Jacob’s gift for Esau is detailed as “twenty female donkeys [‫ ] ֲאתֹ נֹ ת‬and ten jackasses [‫]עְ י ִָרם‬.” Similarly, Gen 45:23 refers to, “ten donkeys [‫ ]חֲמֹ ִרים‬loaded with the good things of Egypt, and ten female donkeys [‫ ] ֲאתֹ נֹ ת‬loaded with grain.” Genesis 12:16b details the donkeys belonging to Abram as ‫ חֲמֹ ִרים‬and ‫ ֲאתֹ נֹ ת‬, but Gen 24:35 refers to all of Abraham’s donkeys as ‫חֲמֹ ִרים‬. Likewise, ‫חֲמֹ ִרים‬ in Gen 30:43, 34:28, and 47:17 obviously includes both jackasses and jennies. In Gen 12:16b and 45:23, the LXX renders ‫ אֲתֹ נֹ ת‬as ἡμίονοι “mules.”23 The LXX translator(s) obviously understood ‫ חֲמֹ ִרים‬to include female donkeys and therefore translated ‫ אֲתֹ נֹ ת‬differently (cf. Way 2011, 80–81).24 Hebrew ‫“ אָ תֹון‬she-​ass” always denotes the jenny (Way 2011, 162). In the cuneiform texts from Mari, a highly prized donkey was called mār a-​ta-​ni-​im (CAD 1.2:481) “the young of a she-​ass.” This expression is similar to ‫עַיִ ר ּבֶ ן־אֲתֹ נֹות‬ “an ass, the young of she-​asses” (Zech 9:9). In the latter phrase, the plural ‫אֲתֹ נֹ ת‬ is used, as if it would describe a donkey lineage of its own.25 It is noteworthy that herds of ‫ אֲתֹ נֹ ת‬are sometimes mentioned without giving any number of jackasses or donkeys (‫ חֲמֹורים‬or ‫) ֲעי ִָרים‬, thus creating the impression that ‫ֲאתֹ נֹ ת‬ denotes a free-​ranging population used for breeding, comprising jennies and their foals (Job 1:3, 14; 42:12; 1 Chr 27:30). Moreover, the ‫ אֲתֹ נֹ ת‬of Kish, Saul’s father (1Sa 9:3), likewise belonged to a population of free-​ranging jennies that roamed a wide area, they could even go astray (‫ּת ֹאבַ ְדנָה‬, DCH 1:99; cf. 1 Sam 9:4). By nature, free-​ranging domestic donkeys have a territorial social system. Some donkey populations organize in a semiharem type territorial breeding group with a small number of males (McDonnell 1998; Rubenstein 2011). 23.  Greek ἡμίονοι usually denotes “mules,” but it literally means “half-​donkeys” (Montanari 2015, 912) and lies at the bottom of the English term “hemiones.” 24.  Several manuscripts of the Vulgate omit et asinae “and she donkeys” in Gen 12:16, but this omission is probably an inner-​Vulgate development, because asini could be understood to include she-​donkeys as well. 25. ‫ עַיִ ר ּבֶ ן־אֲתֹ נֹות‬may be compared with ‫ ּכְ פִ יר א ֲָריֹות‬in Judg 14:5 and ‫ ְׂשעִ יר עִ ּזִים‬in Gen 37:31 and Lev 4:23. In all these genitives, the construct states are governing a generic noun (lions, goats, and ‫ אֲתֹ נֹות‬respectively).

218

Camels in the Biblical World

Moreover, it is conceivable that jennies were allowed to interbreed with either feral jackasses or wild hemione stallions, producing in the latter case highly prized hybrids (see §3 n. 76). Thus, there are good reasons to maintain that the word order of Gen 12:16b has been deliberately chosen by the Genesis narrator. It was unusual to list asses and she-​asses simply as ‫חֲמֹ ִרים ֲאתֹ נֹ ת‬. The reason for that seems to be that ‫חֲמֹור‬ “donkey” is not gender specific (Way 2011, 164), especially when used in the plural,26 a fact not clearly stated in some Hebrew dictionaries (e.g., HALOT, s.v.; in der Smitten 1980, 467). Mentioning ‫“ חֲמֹ ִרים‬donkeys” was usually understood to include male and female individuals.27 The narrator wanted to emphasize the ‫ ֲאתֹ נֹ ת‬in Abram’s possession, which allowed him to engage in donkey breeding. Yet, he had no intention to express specific numbers. Listing them in addition to the generic term ‫“ חֲמֹ ִרים‬donkeys,” but setting them apart together with camels, he minimized any confusion on the reader’s side, at the same time highlighting the theme of separation (§4.2.1.2). We may therefore tentatively conclude that the ‫ חֲמֹ ִרים‬were mostly male donkeys used for transport, while the ‫ ֲאתֹ נֹ ת‬denoted a donkey harem including its foals kept essentially for breeding purposes.28 After all, donkeys were the most common transport animals in the second millennium BC. Genesis 12:16b with its emphasis on donkeys reflects the crucial importance of this equid as a pack animal, corroborated by many textual references and iconographic representations from the Fertile Crescent (Boessneck 1988; Houlihan 1996; Bar-​Oz et al. 2013; Förster 2015). Sometimes, it is difficult to assess the intentions behind the order of the animal lists in the patriarchal narratives. For instance, when Abraham’s servant raves enthusiastically about of his master’s wealth to Rebekah’s family, he enumerates camels before donkeys (Gen 24:35). This prioritization may be due to the fact that Rebekah’s family lived in Aram-​Naharaim, more precisely in the city of Haran in Paddan-​Aram, where camel caravans were not a strange sight, and where these animals were valued differently compared to the Levant or in Egypt, where camels were hardly known, if at all. The same may apply to the list of Jacob’s possessions in Gen 30:43. The special list of animals that Jacob presented to Esau, after he returned from Paddan-​Aram, mentions lactating camels before cattle and donkeys (Gen 32:16). 26. In 2 Sam 19:27, ‫ חֲמֹור‬is constructed as a noun of feminine gender: ָ‫אֶ חְ ּבְ ׁשָ ה־ּלִ י הַ חֲמֹור וְ אֶ ְרּכַב ָעלֶיה‬ (König 1897, 168–69). 27.  E.g., Gen 47:17; Num 31:34, 39, 45; 1 Sam 8:16; 12:3; 27:9; Ezr 2:67; Neh 7:68. 28.  Mesopotamian animal lists detail slaves or certain professions often as “male and female,” but rarely ever animals, except in administrative texts that provide specific numbers. Cf. J. J. Finkelstein 1968; Demsky 2012. See, for slaves, CAD 1.1:14a, 122b; 1.2:54b, 81a, 82a, 245b; 2:13a, 23a etc. For animals, CAD 4:182b, 344b; 5:9a; 7:133a–b, 300a–b; 8:23b, etc. The tribute and booty lists of the Neo-​Assyrian kings sometimes count “people, male and female,” and sometimes “male musicians, female musicians,” but they scarcely detail animals according to gender, and never donkeys.

Camels in the Patriarchal Narratives and Israel’s Early History

219

As to number 3, the mention of camels: It is usually held that the mention of camels in Genesis is a late insertion and therefore an anachronism. An anachronism is defined as a chronological inconsistency, by which incidents, persons or their behavior, objects, events, or elements of language from different periods are brought together. In the following, the camel anachronism will be dealt with in more detail. 4.2.1.5. Anachronisms and Anachronistic Camels in the Genesis Narratives Provided the Genesis narratives of Israel’s ancestors have been “enriched” in the later Iron Age, the incorporation of text fragments dealing with camels can be tentatively explained by at least three different kinds of anachronisms. First, works of art often provide impressive examples of deliberate anachronisms, for instance in the sixteenth to seventeenth centuries’ works of Dutch painters. Through their deliberate use of anachronisms in buildings, clothing, weapons, and so on, events from antiquity, stories from the biblical world, or figures from mythology were adopted as such, but they were complemented with objects and features of later periods. Sometimes, the latter technique was used to give a topical message to the painted event or story, a feature widely used in modern movies and television shows as well. Such deliberate anachronisms have an actualizing intention and help to understand why this technique was occasionally employed in the (old) translations of the Hebrew Bible. For example, the scribe of the Targum Chronicles identified geographical and ethnographical proper names with sites and people of his time. “Cush, Egypt, Put, and Canaan” (‫ּומצְ ַריִם ּפּוט ּוכְ ָנעַן‬ ִ ‫)ּכּוׁש‬, the sons of Ham in 1 Chr 1:8, become ‫“ ערב ומצרים אליחרק וכנען‬Arab, Egypt, Allihroq, and Canaan.” “Seba, Havilah, Sabta, Raama, and Sabteca,” the sons of Cush, are attributed to the “Sinidians, the Indians, the Semarians, the Libyans, Mauritanus, and the Zingites.” Furthermore, renowned personalitites of premonarchic times, such as Boaz, David, and Benaiah, are denoted as talmudic scholars or rabbis.29 A second category of anachronisms appear unintentional. The book of Judith features some wonderful examples of unintentional anachronisms, although it can be argued that sometimes these too were intentional to serve irony, one of the key themes in the book (C. Moore 1985, 78–85). Composed in the Hellenistic period several hundred years after the events setting the stage at that time, it is by and large a historically plausible narration with only a few elements beyond the bounds of realism.30 The destruction of Holofernes, the general in the ser29.  For more details on the composition of the Targum of 1 Chr 1, see McIvor 1994, 36–45. For persons from premonarchic times, see 1 Chr 4:22; 8:29; 11:25; and Kalimi 2015, 195. 30.  The prominence of camels in the enumeration of an “exceedingly large multitude of camels, donkeys, and mules” is noteworthy (Jdt 2:17: καὶ ἔλαβεν καμήλους καὶ ὄνους καὶ ἡμιόνους εἰς τὴν ἀπαρτίαν αὐτῶν, πλῆθος πολὺ σφόδρα), especially when read in the shorter (Vulgate) recension,

220

Camels in the Biblical World

vice of Nebuchadnezzar, is accomplished through human efforts and brings out Judith’s mortal courage. Notwithstanding, the author of the book incorporated some blatant blunders into the text. Nebuchadnezzar is considered reigning over the Assyrians from his capital Nineveh (Jdt 1:1). The Median king with the unknown name Arphaxad rules over Ecbatana, but Ecbatana was actually conquered in 554 BC (1:1–4). Holofernes marched from Nineveh to northern Cilicia (ca. five hundred kilometers apart) in just three days (2:21). The schism between Israel and Judah is totally absent, and more (Moore 1985, 46–49; Millard 1999; Joosten 2007). A third category of anachronisms comprises anachronistic glosses or updates. The ten thousand “darics” (‫אדרכון‬, from Greek δραχμῶν) collected by King David (1 Chr 29:7) are most likely a later gloss of the author of Chronicles, a book compiled no earlier than Persian times (cf. Ezra 8:27). These Darics can likely be regarded as Greek coins that were common in Palestine during the Persian period (Noonan 2019, 88), more than five hundred years after King David. The author of Chronicles apparently converted the ancient currency from the time of David to gold coins common during the Persian era to make the amount intelligible to readers of his time (Hendel and Joosten 2018, 27–28). There are similar glosses in the Pentateuch, where early names or localities are identified with later ones by scribes (Fishbane 1985, 78–88). To this category of functional anachronisms, we can add the mention of Arameans in the Genesis narratives (Younger 2016, 104–7). Israel’s ancestors arriving from Mesopotamia are viewed as belonging to ethnic groups that the Genesis narrator subsumed under the name “Arameans” (Younger 2016, 94–107; cf. Rainey and Notley 2014, 107), belonging to Aram-​Naharaim, the “Aram of the two rivers,” the upper Euphrates and Tigris region that is known today as ‫ الجزيرة‬al-​Jazīrah “the island.” Particularly within the Jacob cycle, the ancestors of Jacob are connected repeatedly with “Arameans” living in “Aram-​Naharaim” (Gen 24–31), more specifically in “Paddan-​Aram,” although there is (so far) no inscriptional evidence of an Aramean ethnic identity in the early second millennium BC, and only meagre and indirect attestation for the use of Aramaic from the second millennium BC (but cf. Heimpel 2003, 26–28; Gzella 2017, 22). On the other hand, the Arameans, often the foes of Iron Age Israel, would have hardly been introduced as the ancestors of the Jews during the first millennium BC (Wilke 1907, 20; cf. Tigay 1996, 240). Moreover, Arameans certainly existed prior to their first known contacts with the Assyrian kings and their scribes (Kühne 2009, 44). In a similar way as Israel’s ancestors were seen as “Arameans,” the Aḫlamû and Sutû tribes, which are already mentioned in Old Babylonian sources, were which omits donkeys and mules: “an innumerable number of camels” (Jdt 2:8, multitudinem innumerabilium camelorum); cf. Judg 6:5.

Camels in the Patriarchal Narratives and Israel’s Early History

221

in Akkadian campaign reports of the late second and early first millennia BC identified as having this ethnicon (Charpin 2003, 43; Younger 2016, 82–98; cf. Bunnens 2019, 353). Scholars who perceive camels as untimely intruders in the Genesis narratives rarely reflect on the precise nature of the supposed anachronism (cf. Speiser 1962, 90). As far back as 1936, Arthur Ernest Robinson (1936, 50) had already claimed that “mention of camels in the Biblical story of Abraham’s journey is merely an instance of contemporary influences similar to the Florentine pictures of Biblical life in which medieval costume is shown by the artist.” Albright maintained that the domestication of the camel at the end of the second millennium BC does “not necessarily prove that earlier references to the camel in Genesis and Exodus are anachronistic,” but certainly “suggest such an explanation.” He then continued, “such anachronisms in local colour no more disprove the historicity of the underlying tradition than Tissot’s painted scenes of Bible life falsify the biblical story by depicting heroes as modern Palestinian Arabs” (1949, 207; cf. Bulliet 1975, 36). According to Albright, literary camels were introduced at a time when the narratives of Israel’s ancestors (Genesis–Exodus) were already undergoing their final redaction and incorporated into larger units. The local color of a later time thus overlaid the original story, which nevertheless still conveyed its original message. Of course, in view of the late appearance of the dromedary in the Levant, most scholars follow the mainstream claim that camels in the Genesis narratives are nothing more than literary additions (see Redford 1970, 195; Ebach 2007, 99–100; Becking 2009, 41). This raises the question, however, about the motives underlying the introduction of this particular anachronism. Some scholars argued that, from the perspective of scribes of the first millennium BC, the patriarchs had to be regarded as camel-​owners and -riders because they were either seminomads or mobile pastoralists (Loretz 2011, 337–38). According to this view, (1) camels were more appropriate than donkeys, let alone horses, for Israel’s ancestors practicing transhumance (Gen 12; 24; 30:43; 31:17, 34; 32:7, 15). (2) Camels in the Joseph story (Gen 37:25) seem to have the same raison d’être. (3) A similar explanation is offered for camels prior to the exodus (Exod 9:3); commentators usually refer the reader to the camel occurrences in Genesis and their interpretation (Dillmann 1897, 93). However, transhumance as the reason for (1) may not be applicable to (2) and (3). If the patriarchs are supposed to have owned camels, why should this also apply to the Ishmaelites (2) and pharaoh (3)? It could be argued, of course, that the Ishmaelites were regarded as mobile cameleers anyway. Yet, why did the Jacob clan on his way down to Egypt use donkeys, in contrast to the Ishmaelite cameleers (Gen 42–49)? In fact, their donkeys carried the same trading goods to Egypt as the animals of the Ishmaelites (Gen 43:11). Besides, the very first

222

Camels in the Biblical World

time Joseph’s brothers moved down to Egypt to buy grain, they obviously used donkeys (Gen 42:26), although any first-​millennium BC text editor would have known that transporting heavy loads through the Sinai Desert would be a great opportunity to introduce literary camels. And when pharaoh invited Jacob and his family to Egypt (Gen 45:17–19), Joseph’s brothers were asked to use their own donkeys. Although the pharaoh of the exodus is portrayed as having camels at his disposal (Exod 9:3), neither the Egyptians, nor the Israelites seem to have used any camels during the exodus (3). Furthermore, the reason for (1), namely their transhumant or seminomadic lifestyle, seems at odds with the fact that camels are missing in other, important narratives in Genesis and Exodus, where people used donkeys instead (Gen 22; Gen 36; Gen 42–49; Exod 4). Neither is the reason for (1) a sufficient explanation for the wanderings in the desert, where the Israelites led a partly nomadic life, but were never portrayed as using camels (cf. also Exod 12:32). Let us consider for a moment that we cannot expect any redactor(s) of the first millennium BC to be consistent in their approach. It then follows that each redactor or literary circle could have introduced text passages mentioning camels in the Genesis narratives independently of one another, for instance, to enhance the ancestors’ mobile lifestyle in the perception of the readership, or to make the contents more appealing to contemporaneous generations. But even if this were the case, the text revisers were very reluctant to feature camels as a dynamic add-​on to enrich the narrative. Although camels make up part of Abram’s and Jacob’s wealth (Gen 12:16; 24:10, 35; 30:43) and seem to have been highly valued (§4.2.5), the patriarchs are never described as riding camels. They rather preferred donkeys. Moreover, camels have their debut as items of a list in a very embarrassing situation for Abram (Gen 12:16; §4.2.1). Years later, Abraham’s servant led the camels that carried Rebekah and her maidens to her first rendezvous, but Rebekah dismounted, literally “fell down from the camel” (‫)ו ִַּתּפֹ ל מֵ עַל הַ ּגָמָ ל‬, as soon as she saw her future husband (Gen 24:64; 4.2.2). Some decades thereafter, the wives and children of Jacob were set on camels led by him (Gen 31:17; 4.2.3), while his wife Rachel stole her father’s household idols, hid them in her camel’s saddle-​ bolster, and lied to her father when asked about the theft (Gen 31:34; §4.2.3.1). After that, as a sort of compensation for his earlier deception of his twin-​brother (Gen 27), Jacob gave away a promising founder flock of thirty camels, probably comprising fifteen lactating camels and their young, to his brother Esau or Edom, the ancestor of one of Israel’s political archenemies (Gen 32:16; §4.2.3.2). Joseph, Jacob’s darling son, is either traveling on a camel or (more probable) had to walk behind the Ishmaelites’ camels when setting off into Egyptian slavery (Gen 37:25; 39:1; §4.2.4). Several generations later, the few camels in the possession of the Egyptian administration are mentioned suffering from a “very severe plague” (Exod 9:3; §4.3). According to us, it is this opposition between an arid-​adapted

Camels in the Patriarchal Narratives and Israel’s Early History

223

livestock species appreciated for its unique performance on the one hand, but used in varying and sometimes even embarrassing situations on the other hand that gives the camel’s appearance in the Pentateuch the touch of veritableness. Furthermore, if literary camels were added during the first millennium BC, it is more than odd that they do not show up in a distinct Arabian context, as one would naturally expect, but rather in an Aramean one (Gen 24 and 31). The only indication of an Arabian background could be the Ishmaelites of Gen 37 (§4.2.4). Yet, even here, the origin of the camel caravan in the Gilead Mountains does not necessarily point to dromedaries of Arabian origin (§4.2.4). In addition, the Canaanite citizens of the Genesis narratives are never seen as leading or riding camels, let alone as camel herders, but rather as donkey breeders (§4.2.3.3), and the most prominent animal in Abram’s possession is the donkey, detailed as ‫“ חֲמֹ ִרים‬donkeys” and ‫“ אֲתֹ נֹ ת‬female donkeys” (§4.2.1.4). Moreover, during the supposed finalization of the patriarchal narratives in the course of the Iron Age, there was certainly no pressure or urgency to include literary camels, particularly in view of the fact that it is the first animal that is explicitly mentioned as unclean in the dietary laws of the book of Leviticus on the one hand (Lev 11:4; cf. Deut 14:7) and that camels had no special social status in the southern Levant on the other (Sapir-​Hen 2020). The species is also absent from the nonbiblical Qumran writings. Conversely, in the deuterocanonical book of Tobit (ca. second century BC), there is mention of two camels in possession of the Jewish protagonist who lived in Nineveh, without giving further details (Tob 9:2). Written roughly during the same period, the deuterocanonical book of Judith describes how Holofernes, the military leader of the Assyrian forces, assembled a large number of camels, asses, and mules (Jdt 2:17). Arguably, camels were allochthonous faunal elements in Palestine and primarily associated with Israel’s enemies. Besides the animals, their products also are hardly appreciated. For instance, in the Babylonian Talmud, camel’s meat and milk are specifically declared as unclean (b. Bekorot 5b), likewise is the camel’s saddle (b. Kelim 23.2; cf. Gen 31:34–35).31 According to the Mishna, only garments woven from camel’s hair are allowed (m. Kil’ayim 9:1; m. Nega’im 11:2). A closer look at the camel traditions in the book of Genesis reveals certain peculiarities. Genesis 24 features camels more than any other chapter of the Hebrew Bible. The corresponding narrative would be deprived of its specific couleur if camels were replaced by donkeys. Having pointed out the camel problem in the Genesis narratives, Robert Alter (1996, 114) has to admit, “What is puzzling is that the narrative reflects careful attention to other details 31.  The later Jewish tradition seems to have had a disfavor for cameleers. “Jewish cameleers were regarded as mostly wicked” (Feliks 2007; but cf. Schuegraf and Terbuyken 2002, 72; Rosenfeld 2016, 30).

224

Camels in the Biblical World

of historical authenticity: horses, which also were domesticated centuries later,32 are scrupulously excluded from the Patriarchal Tales. . . . In any case, the camels here are more than a prop, for their needs and treatment are turned into a pivot of the plot” (114). This conclusion also applies to the story of Jacob and his family (§4.2.3), where it is explicitly mentioned that Jacob “lifted [‫ ]וַּיִ ּׂשָ א‬his children and his wives upon camels” (Gen 31:17). Whereas Moses helped his family to mount a donkey (‫ ; ַוּי ְַרּכִ בֵ ם עַל־הַ חֲמֹ ר‬Exod 4:20), to lift a family on camels is comparable to lifting sacks of grain on asses (‫ת־ׁשבְ ָרם עַל־חֲמֹ ֵריהֶ ם‬ ִ ֶ‫ ;וַּיִ ְׂשאּו א‬Gen 42:26). Whoever wants to travel with camels has to get into (or to be lifted on) the saddle of a kneeled-​down animal, grab the saddle pommel, and hold on tight when the animal rises, first on its hind legs and then on its front legs. The delicate detail of Rachel’s teraphim would be very uncomfortable, if not impossible when traveling with donkeys: “Rachel had taken the household idols and put them in the camel’s saddle-​bolster [‫]ּבְ כַר הַ ּגָמָ ל‬, and she sat on them” (Gen 31:34; see §4.2.3.1). In addition, having thirty lactating pack animals including their calves (Gen 32:16; see §4.2.3.2) seems worthy of note if they are camels. Camel calves will stay with their mares and thus get quickly accustomed to their new surroundings. It also implies the possibility of using the much-​desired camel’s milk. In contrast to these fine-​grain details of the Genesis narrative that are consistent with their handling and husbandry, camels in later narratives have sometimes been presented in a simplistic or even jarring and unrealistic fashion. For instance, in the Apocalypse of Abraham (composed around the second century AD), Terah manufactured five gods in his own workshop and ordered Abraham to sell them. Abraham packed the idols on his donkey and went into town. When he encountered a camel caravan, one of the camels screamed, thus frightening the donkey so that it panicked and threw off the gods (Apocalypse of Abraham 2:4). Three of them were broken, considerably increasing Abraham’s doubts about the power of idols. In chapter 61 of the Kəbrä nägäśt (see §5.1.1.1), the story of the ark of the covenant in the land of the Philistines (1 Sam 6) is retold in retrospective, and the two lactating cows “on which there has never come a yoke” (1 Sam 6:7) are replaced by two lactating camels and their calves. In the Kəbrä nägäśt, the embedding of literary camels spoils the older narrative of 1 Sam 6, since a burnt offering of camels in Israel seems abstruse, to say the least.33 In this respect, similar markers of intentional manipulation of text passages featuring camels are absent from Genesis. 32.  Horses were domesticated in temperate Asia by the fourth millennium BC (Outram et al. 2009), so it should actually read here: “domestic horses, which also were introduced centuries later.” 33.  Just for the sake of logic and ignoring the obvious fact that the Kəbrä nägäśt is a late and embroidered version of 1 Sam 6, the three most important arguments for anachronistic camels in the

Camels in the Patriarchal Narratives and Israel’s Early History

225

We therefore conclude that regarding the book of Genesis, the assumption that camels would represent anachronisms is simply not convincing. Rather, the respective text passages show a reference to reality. This will therefore be the basis for further considerations. 4.2.1.6. The Species of Camel In the book of Genesis, the lexeme camels (‫ ּגָמָ ל‬gāmāl) is commonly equated with the dromedary (HAH 223). The origin of the Hebrew noun ‫ּגָמָ ל‬, occurring once on an ostracon dated to the seventh to sixth centuries BC (Eshel and Eshel 2008, 582) and several times in the Hebrew Bible, is usually given as “West Semitic,” but see the discussion in §3.2.4.8. While the root gml denotes the male camel in ANA and CA, it is a generic noun in Hebrew and Aramaic, referring to the camel as species or as an individual. Moreover, in texts dating to the first millennium BC, gml usually refers to the one-​humped camel, but not always.34 In Aramaic sources (DNWSI, 226; PAT, 353), the species of gml exploited can often be inferred from the context. Aramaic ostraca from Levantine contexts most likely refer to the dromedary, whereas Aramaic letters from ancient Bactria (fifth to fourth century BC) refer to camels as ‫גמלן‬, although these mentions most probably referred to hybrids or to Bactrian camels (A1:3, B8:1, C3:22; Naveh and Shaked 2012, 276). Jewish Babylonian Aramaic likewise seems to have been in need of further specification to differentiate between the two species, as does Syriac.35 The same applies to Greek κάμηλος, which is a Semitic loanword (Lewy 1895, 1; Lokotsch 1927: no. 653; Frisk 1960, 771; Agut-​Labordére and Redon 2020, 10).36 The Septuagint translated Hebrew ‫ ּגָמָ ל‬accordingly with κάμηλος. When the Greek historian Herodotus reported how Lydian horses were Kəbrä nägäśt version of 1 Sam 6 are: 1. Absence of evidence that the contemporary sedentary population of Palestine exploited camels. 2. Lack of evidence for dromedaries being used as draft animals before Persian times (cf. §3.5.3). 3. There is no evidence whatsoever that the Hebrews sacrificed camels or parts thereof as burnt offerings; quite to the contrary, camels were regarded as culticly unclean. 34.  In the first millennium Sumero-Akkadian lexical commentary series Ḫar.gud, am.si.ḫar. ra.an, the Bactrian camel, points to i-​bi-[lu], which in turn most likely is assigned to [gammalu]; see §3.2.4.8, table 3.5. A dated debt note from the reign of Esarhaddon (674 BC) refers to Bactrian camels simply as “camels” (g a m . m a l), “on the 1st of [Marchesvan], they shall give the camels back” (SAA 6 no. 241; Kwasman and Parpola 1991; Postgate 1976: no. 38); cf. §3.2.4.10.4. 35. Babylonian Talmud, Baba Qamma 55a: ‫גמלא פרסא וגמלא טייעא דהאי אלים קועיה והאי קטין קועיה‬ “the Persian camel and the Arabian camel: this one’s neck is thick, and that one’s neck is thin.” In Syriac, the dromedary is explicitly referred to with an additional qualifier (‫ )ܗܘܓܢܐ‬while ‫ܓܡܐܠ‬ gamlā simply denotes “camel” (Sokoloff 2009, 241); cf. ‫ ܓܡܐܠ ܪܗܛܐ‬dromedaries and ‫ܓܡܐܠ‬ ‫ ܐܪܐܒܝܬܐ‬Arabian camel in Payne-​Smith 1901, 736. 36. When the Semitic root gml (cf. Hebrew ‫ )גָּמָ ל‬was adopted into Greek, the first consonant became devoiced, resulting in κάμηλος. Similar developments are Greek κάμiλος from Semitic gml “rope” (Frisk 1960, 771–72). Likewise, κοράλλιον is related to ‫“ גֹּ ָורל‬stone” (916), and κυπάρισσος may be derived from ‫גּפרית‬ ִ “sulphur” (Lewy 1895, 33); cf. also Zaborski 2013. In the case of κάμηλος,

226

Camels in the Biblical World

scared away by camels from the army of Cyrus II, which were arguably predominantly Bactrian camels or hybrids, he used the word κάμηλος (Historia 1.80).37 In the famous Palmyra bilingual tariff inscription (AD 137), which details the taxes on camel loads moved in and out of the city, Aramaic ‫ גמלא‬is given with κάμηλος. The Greek term κάμηλος refers to both species of the camel and needs further specification to clarify its exact meaning.38 Even in ANA inscriptions, the use of gml for the bull camel may refer to a Bactrian camel (h-​gml, “the male [Bactrian] camel”; cf. §3.3.7). Compared to Aramaic, Hebrew reflects a similar broad semantic field of gml. The Hebrew Bible implies the ambiguity of ‫“ ּגָמָ ל‬camel” in the context of the diet laws in Lev 11 and Deut 14. Camels were regarded as culticly unclean (Lev 11:4; Deut 14:7), regardless of the exact species (§4.4). The term ‫ ּגָמָ ל‬of Genesis could apply to various camel types that were available in the Near East in the second millennium BC, including the two-​ humped camel. Bactrian camels were not only exploited in trade networks linking Central Asia with Mesopotamia, but also with regions further west up to the Mediterranean coast. In Sumerian terms, ‫ ּגָמָ ל‬could apply to the a m . s i . ḫ a r. ra.an or the am.si.kur.ra camel (§3.2.4.1). In other words, the Bactrian camel was known in the Fertile Crescent long before people became acquainted with the domestic dromedary, as we already pointed out above (§3.2). Based on state-​of-​the-​art knowledge about the cultural history of the two camel species in southwest Asia, a single conclusion seems formally inescapable: the ‫ּגָמָ ל‬-references in the Genesis narratives can only refer to Bactrian camels (see also Walz 1956, 196 n. 27). If so, Abram had to use am.si.ḫar. r a . a n or a m . s i . k u r. r a camels available in Aram-​Naharaim. It is noteworthy that Aram-​Naharaim, and specifically the Haran plain, is one of the most western areas upstream the Euphrates connected by extensive trade routes in north-​south and east-​west directions. Located adjacent to the southern piedmont of the Taurus Mountains, the Haran plain faces similar climatic conditions as large parts of Iran (see the “Geobotanical outline map of the Middle East” in Zohary 1973; cf. Peel, Finlayson, and McMahon 2007, fig. 8). Correspondingly, the climate in this region is more appealing to Bactrian camels than to dromedaries. Haran in Aram-​Naharaim may therefore have functioned as one of the destinations of it is possible that the root gml was mediated by Luwian, since Luwian does not allow voiced consonants in word-​initial position (Yakubovich 2016, 87 n. 30). 37.  The soldiers came from Iran, where two-​humped camels and hybrids were bred. According to Herodotus, these camels served as pack animals in the Persian army. However, after the two armies had met and prepared for combat, Cyrus gathered together all camels, took off their burdens, had men with cavalry equipment mounted, and ordered them to approach the battle line. 38.  Aristotle, Historia animalium 498b; 499a. On Aristotle’s general reliability in these matters, see Bouffartigue 2002, 136–40.

Camels in the Patriarchal Narratives and Israel’s Early History

227

camel caravans employed in overland trade during the early second millennium BC. Thus, it even seems very plausible that Abram had Bactrian camels at his disposal for his journey to Canaan and Egypt.39 Conceivably, the naturalness with which the camels of Abram’s servant were received in Aram-​Naharaim (Gen 24:25–32; see §4.2.5) supports the idea of people experienced in handling these animals. Ultimately, even the camel caravan of the Ishmaelites may have originated from Aram-​Naharaim (Gen 37:25; see §4.2.4). Returning at this point to earlier commentaries of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, Abram’s camels were often referred to as “camels”/“Kamele,” but understood as one-​humped animals (Dillmann 1886, 225; Skinner 1910, 250; Westermann 1995, 77). Obviously, it did not come to the mind of these and other authors that Bactrian camels could have been moved into the Levant, let alone into Egypt (Tristram 1883, 65; Benzinger 1901). Of course, archaeological and inscriptional evidence illustrating the presence of two-​humped camels in second-​millennium BC upper Mesopotamia was unknown before the twentieth century and—once available—often ignored (cf. §3.2). As we described above, references to camels in population size are lacking in Mesopotamian writings prior to the military campaign reports mentioning the animals as booty (§3.2.4.6). Because the breeding of these animals depended on imports from afar, overall population density of Bactrian camels may have been very low, except in communities taking up responsibility for replenishing caravan trains (cf. §3.2.4.1.2). Camels, therefore, may not have been commonplace in the cultural realm of the Israelites and Egyptians. In this respect, Gen 12:16b does indeed not imply that domestic camels were widely available in Egypt. On his journey, Abram may have brought camels with him when entering Egypt. If that is the case, these may not have been the first camels in Egypt, as assumedly pharaoh kept some camels in his royal zoo as well (Pitsch 1986). In Gen 12:5, a first hint at the property of Abram is given: “And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother’s son, and all their possessions that they had gathered, and the people that they had acquired in Haran.” The expression “all their possessions” (‫ָל־רכּוׁשָ ם‬ ְ ‫ )ּכ‬must have included mounts and pack animals, and there is a high probability that from the very onset of his journey, Abram used camels for transporting household goods.40 According to us, integrating camels into the caravan at a later stage of the journey—as, for instance, in Egypt—would be strange in itself, since the handling of these animals requires either cameleers or a lot of experience, which cannot be learned in a short time. 39. It is a strange coincidence that the camel-​owner Abram is said to have emigrated from Haran (‫)חָ ָרן‬, a term that etymologically means “highway” and “caravan” (CAD 6:106, s.v. “ḫarrānu”), which in turn is part of the Sumerian camel name am. s i. ḫ ar. r a. an (Kobayashi 1992). 40. Note also 1 Chr 27:30–31, where “female donkeys” and “camels” are listed among the ‫ְרכּוׁש‬ of King David.

228

Camels in the Biblical World

4.2.2. Abram’s Camels on Their Journey to Aram-​Naharaim The wooing of Rebekah (Gen 24) is one of the most fascinating pericopes of the Torah. Genesis 24 has more to tell about camels than any other chapter of the Hebrew Bible (Bucher-​Gillmayr 1994). However, the source and dating of the story is contested. Félix García López (1980) argues that Gen 24 is substantially an early text, and according to Kenneth Aitken (1984; cf. Polak 2016), the account has an earlier parallel in the Ugaritic tale of King Kirta (twelfth century BC). According to Alexander Rofé (1990), however, the narrative must be dated into the Persian period, because linguistically it has various elements from Aramaic and Mishnaic Hebrew. This raises the question whether occasional Aramaisms and elements of Late Biblical Hebrew (LBH) suffice to conclude that Gen 24 originated in the Persian period.41 Gary Rendsburg (2002, 24) assessed the situation as follows, Rofé is not incorrect; there are Aramaisms in Gen 24. But Rofé is wrong in utilizing these features to date the text to the Persian period, for he has not paid attention to the setting of the story. Abraham sends his trusted servant to Aram to procure a proper bride for Isaac. As occurs elsewhere in the Bible, so here: the Aramean setting serves as the catalyst for the inclusion of Aramaisms in the narrative. The best example of this technique occurs only a bit down the road in the book of Genesis, in the story of Jacob and Laban [Gen 30–31], where the language is filled with Aramaisms. After Abram’s servant, the protagonist of Gen 24, had been sworn in to take a wife from Abram’s larger family in Aram-​Naharaim in upper Mesopotamia and then to return, he “took ten of his master’s camels and departed” (Gen 24:10).42 41.  Rofé also investigated the legal background, religious doctrine, literary form, and the moral of the story. His main point is the language of Gen 24, which seems to betray its late origin through the appearance of some phrases that belong to LBH, especially Aramaisms. However, the sporadic appearances of some Aramaisms and seemingly LBH features in an otherwise Classical Biblical Hebrew (CBH) context, with CBH orthography and without Persian loanwords, are insufficient to classify the text as LBH (Hurvitz 2014, 9–11). In fact, at every point where Gen 24 could have used a LBH feature, a CBH feature is found instead. “We are led to conclude that this chapter is an exemplar of preexilic Hebrew, and that the sprinkling of Aramaisms in the story constitutes a literary device, to transport the reader, along with Abraham’s servant, to the land of Aram” (Rendsburg 2006, 166). It is also noteworthy that half of the phrases Rofé adduced as evidence for LBH are quotes of direct speech. In another study of Gen 24 from Diebner and Schult (1975), the authors claim, without considering any details, that the “nomadic” elements are only visible in camels and in Sarah’s tent and had been created, with some naiveté, in postexilic times (“to this day, this is what every child knows about nomads” [“soviel weiss bis auf den heutigen Tag jedes Kind über Nomaden”], 11). 42.  Much has been made of the phrase “God of heaven” in Gen 24:7 as pointing to a postexilic concept of God (e.g., Rofé 1990, 28; Soggin 1997, 330). However, Gen 24 uses yhwh most of the

Camels in the Patriarchal Narratives and Israel’s Early History

229

In all probability, Abram had been in possession of a sizeable camel herd since his departure from Haran, but the animals played no explicit role during his stay in Canaan (Gen 13–23). It is only in Gen 24 that they are mentioned, because his servant has to embark on a long and important mission to Aram-​Naharaim. Genesis 24 delineates the only incident in the Hebrew Bible where a small caravan, consisting solely of camels, is led from the southern Levant to the upper Euphrates area. Abram’s servant loaded his master’s camels with golden vessels, silver vessels, garments for Isaac’s future wife, and precious things for her family (Gen 24:53). When the servant reached his destination, “he made the camels kneel down” (‫ ; ַוּיַבְ ֵרְך הַ ּגְ מַ ּלִ ים‬Gen 24:11). The verbal form ‫ ַוּיַבְ ֵרְך‬is derived from the Semitic root brk “knee.” The verb ‫“ ברך‬to kneel” is rare in Hebrew, in contrast to its homonym ‫“ ברך‬to bless/be blessed,” but known from Ugaritic (DUL3 234), and common in CA, especially in connection with camels. Genesis 24:11 is the only instance where this verb is used in the hiphil, corresponding to the fourth stem of the same root in Arabic (‫ أبرك‬ʾabraka): “He made him [namely, a camel] to lie down [or kneel down and lie down] upon his breast” (Lane 1863, 193).43 The meaning is that the camel should kneel down and subsequently lie down to rest on its brisket or chest callus, which takes the main weight of the body. Wilfred Thesiger (1991, 57) gives a vivid description of the procedure: “[The cameleer] jerked downward on it [the she-​camel], saying ‘Khrr, khrr,’ and she dropped to her knees; she then swayed backwards, and after settling her hind legs under her, sank down on to her hocks; she then shuffled her knees forward until she was comfortably settled on the ground, her chest resting on the horny pad between her forelegs.” The brisket supports the body and isolates it against the heat of the desert sand. After a caravan day, it is important to let camels rest first, before they are watered and fed (Kolpakow 1935a). As soon as the camels had kneeled, Rebekah enters the scene.44 As Jack Sasson (2006) points out, “camels are normally made to kneel when taking time, but two titles are unique: “yhwh, God of heaven and God of the earth” (3) and “yhwh, God of my Lord Abraham” (12, 27, 42, 48). Moreover, it would be unwise to claim that Abram or a preexilic narrator could not have used the epithet “God of heaven.” For instance, the epithet “god of heaven” or “heavenly god(s)” is well known from various deities of the Mesopotamian pantheon (CAD 7:92). 43. The evidence for the root brk “to kneel” in Ugaritic (DUL3 237) is no longer doubtful (Rofé 1990, 29), which means that the use of ‫ ַוּיַבְ ֵרְך‬in Gen 24:11 cannot be held as an exclusively late phenomenon. Moreover, its use in Ps 95:6 is no evidence for a LBH context. Furthermore, there is semantically no CBH equivalent for “to kneel” or “cause to kneel” that the narrator could have used instead, which means that it could be used throughout the history of the Hebrew language and does not exclusively reflect LBH (Rendsburg 2002, 25–26). 44. The irregular syntax of ‫ טֶ ֶרם‬+ perfect in Gen 24:15 ‫“ וַיְ הִ י־הּוא טֶ ֶרם ּכִ ּלָה לְ דַ ּבֵ ר‬before he had finished speaking” is rare, but not absent from preexilic Hebrew; see Ps 90:2, Prov 8:25, and 1 Sam 3:7; cf. DCH 3:374–76; Joüon 2008, §113j. Moreover, 1 Sam 3 exhibits the same grammatical blurriness as Gen 24: ‫ טֶ ֶרם‬is used with the perfect (qatal) and with the imperfect (yiqtol) in virtually

230

Camels in the Biblical World

or dropping passengers, but if they are loaded with goods, kneeling comes at the end of a journey when they can be relieved and then made to stand for the watering. The seemingly superfluous notice about where the servant parked his camels gives yet another indication that he was predisposed to look for the potential bride among the water-​drawers” (252). The servant asks her for a sip of water (Gen 24:17), which ultimately provokes the young lady to offer help in watering the camels as well (24:19–20). Rebekah thus repeatedly emptied her jug (‫ )ו ְַּתעַר ּכַּדָ ּה‬into the trough (Gen 24:20).45 The servant then took the camels into Laban’s estate and unloaded them (‫ ;וַיְ פַּתַ ח הַ ּגְ מַ ּלִ ים‬Gen 24:32). The verb ‫( פתח‬piel: pittaḥ) denotes here “loosen; untie; unburden” (DCH 6:804). It is usually employed for the unbolting of city gates, the untying of bonds and fetters, and the ungirding of weapons and clothing (1 Kgs 20:11; Isa 20:2; R. Bartelmus 2003, 183–84). Genesis 24:32 is the only instance where the root ‫ פתח‬is used in connection with unpacking and loosening the saddle girths of an animal. The narrator does not use the noun ‫“ מֶ תֶ ג‬bridle” typically used for steering donkeys and horses (HAH, 763). After that, the camels were given “straw and fodder” (‫ּומ ְסּפֹוא לַּגְ מַ ּלִ ים‬ ִ ‫וַּיִ ּתֵ ן ּתֶ בֶ ן‬, Gen 24:32). Their diet thus comprised straw or hay (‫ )ּתֶ בֶ ן‬and dried fodder (‫)מ ְסּפֹוא‬. ִ The mixture serves as food for donkeys on longer journeys as well (Judg 19:19). Fodder (‫)מ ְסּפֹוא‬ ִ could be carried in sacks (Gen 42:27; 43:24) and probably consisted of barley, bran, or a pomace of various seeds. According to the seed and pollen analysis from the Timna Valley, donkeys exploited in copper mining during the tenth century BC had high-​quality sustenance of hay and grape pomace (Ben-​Yosef, Langgut, and Sapir-​Hen 2017). Camels can feed on low-​quality straw (‫ )ּתֶ בֶ ן‬or weeds, but the fodder described in Gen 24:32 was of a higher quality, suggesting special treatment and care for performant caravan animals.46 identical settings; cf. 1 Sam 3:7 ‫ּוׁשמּואֵ ל טֶ ֶרם יָדַ ע אֶ ת־יְ הוָה וְ טֶ ֶרם יִ ָּגלֶה אֵ לָיו ְּדבַ ר־יְ הוָה׃‬ ְ with Gen 24:15 ‫וַיְ הִ י־הּוא‬ ‫ טֶ ֶרם ּכִ ּלָה לְ דַ ּבֵ ר‬and Gen 24:45 ‫אֲנִ י טֶ ֶרם ֲא ַכּלֶה לְ דַ ּבֵ ר‬. If the late forms had been introduced by a postexilic scribe, why did he not consistently use ‫ טֶ ֶרם‬with the perfect? Both verbs, ‫ ידע‬and ‫ּכלה‬, are common in the Hebrew Bible, as is ‫ ילד‬in Ps 90:2. It is likely that ‫ טֶ ֶרם‬+ imperfect came into disuse already in preexilic times, because the use of the imperfect in this context was seen as inappropriate (cf. Waltke and O’Connor 1990, 498). It seems that the new form coexisted with the corresponding older form within the speech community (cf. Holmstedt 2013). 45. The meaning of ‫( ערה‬piel) employed here is basically “to lay bare, uncover, expose” (DCH 6:554). Its meaning naturally signifies “to empty” in Gen 24:20, as in 2 Chr 24:11, and in Aramaic. Moreover, ‫“ כַּד‬jug,” is used nine times in Gen 24. It occurs otherwise only in northern settings, in a preexilic jar inscription of northern provenience (Dobbs-​Allsopp et al. 2005, 398), in Ugaritic, and in Aramaic, probably pointing to an Aramaic connection for Gen 24 (Schniedewind and Sivan 1997, 327). ‫ כַּד‬seems to be ultimately of Mediterranean origin (Noonan 2019, 115). The use of ‫( ערה‬piel) in Gen 24:20 does not merely describe the controlled outpouring of a fluid, but most likely denotes here the upside-​down emptying of the jug into the trough. 46. Straw (tibnu) is often mentioned beside fodder in administrative texts from Mesopotamia (CAD 18:381–82); cf. also straw (‫ )תבן‬besides wheat and barley as harvest deliveries in fourth-​ century BC Idumea (Ephʿal and Naveh 1996, 12).

Camels in the Patriarchal Narratives and Israel’s Early History

231

These nutritious additions to their usually modest diet of shrubs, trees, forbs, and grasses during traveling differed hardly from those supplied by nineteenth-​ century AD Turkmenic cameleers to their animals, comprising of barley, pomace of various sorts, and hay (Kolpakow 1935a). On their return to Canaan, Rebekah and her maids “mounted the camels and followed the man” (‫ ו ִַּת ְרּכַבְ נָה עַל־הַ ּגְ מַ ּלִ ים וַּתֵ לַכְ נָה אַ ח ֲֵרי הָ ִאיׁש‬Gen 24:61). The Semitic root rkb has primarily a vertical connotation (Barrick and Ringgren 2004, 485). In Hebrew, this sense is sometimes reinforced by adding the preposition ‫על‬. The context is decisive, as W. Boyd Barrick (1982) has demonstrated. If the expression ‫ רכב על‬is followed by another verb denoting a horizontal movement, its meaning is “to mount [a riding animal].” The expression ‫ רכב על‬reveals thus an inchoative aspect (1). But if the expression is used absolutely, without any verb denoting movement, the meaning is “to be mounted upon,” and the expression reveals a durative aspect, especially with the participle ‫רֹ כֵב‬‎(2). Table 4.3 lists all expressions with meaning (1), and the most important expressions with meaning (2). In light of table 4.3, the meaning of ‫( ו ִַּת ְרּכַבְ נָה עַל־הַ ּגְ מַ ּלִ ים‬Gen 24:61) is not “they rode upon camels,” but “they mounted camels.”47 The explicit phrase “they followed after the man” (‫)וַּתֵ לַכְ נָה אַ ח ֲֵרי הָ ִאיׁש‬, which adds a verb denoting a horizontal movement, suggests that the servant was heading the caravan. Rebekah and her entourage are not described as camel-​riders in the proper sense. The notion that the patriarchs “rode” on camels (Loretz 2011, 337) unduly connects camel riding with horse riding. “No man, incidentally, is described as riding a camel, only women, who seem to have perched atop camp goods instead of riding in an enclosed woman’s traveling compartment as was later to be the norm” (Bulliet 1975, 65). This observation is also supported by Rebekah’s reaction on seeing her future husband: “She jumped down from the camel” (‫ ו ִַּתּפֹ ל מֵ ַעל הַ ּגָמָ ל‬Gen 24:64). Being the typical way of dismounting a camel that was about or just had finished to kneel down, the picture is that of person being used to such action.48 47. Cf. the LXX: ἐπέβησαν ἐπὶ τὰς καμήλους; Vulgate: ascensis camelis; similar expressions are used in 1 Sam 25:42; 30:17. Although the LXX translates ‫ רכב‬in most verses with ἐπιβαίνω, the Vulgate differentiates in Num 22, using sedere, etc. In some cases, ‫ רכב‬is used without ‫על‬, but ‫ ַו ֵּילְֶך‬, the next verb, expresses horizontal movement and thus ‫ רכב‬gets the meaning “to mount [a chariot]” (1 Kgs 18:45; 2 Kgs 9:16; HALOT, s.v.). “Mounting” a camel, of course, is different from mounting a donkey or horse. Loads or persons must be lifted on the camel while the camel crouches on the ground. Subsequently, the camel is made to rise. Note that 2 Sam 18:9 is a special case, with a circumstantial clause picturing Absalom as seated on his mule (‫ )רֹ כֵב‬while the mule is carrying him to his fate. 48. Literally “and she fell down from the camel.” The normal expression for ladies dismounting from riding animals is “she alighted from”; cf. ‫“ ו ִַּתצְ נַח מֵ עַל הַ חֲמֹור‬and she alighted from the donkey” in Josh 15:18 and Judg 1:14; and ‫“ וַּתֵ ֶרד מֵ עַל הַ חֲמֹור‬and she dismounted from the donkey” in 1 Sam 25:23; but cf. 2 Kgs 5:21: Na’aman ‫“ וַּיִ ּפֹ ל מֵ עַל הַ ּמֶ ְרּכָבָ ה‬and he dismounted [lit. fell down] from the chariot.”

232

Camels in the Biblical World

Table 4.3. Context of the Hebrew verb ‫רכב‬. Meaning (1) Gen 24:61 Exod 4:20 1 Sam 25:42 1 Sam 30: 17 2 Sam 13:29 2 Sam 19:27 1 Kgs 13:13–14

‫ו ִַּת ְרּכַבְ נָה עַל־הַ ּגְ מַ ּלִ ים וַּתֵ לַכְ נָה אַ ח ֲֵרי הָ ִאיׁש‬ they mounted the camels and followed the man ‫ַוּי ְַרּכִ בֵ ם עַל־הַ חֲמֹ ר ַוּיָׁשָ ב אַ ְרצָ ה ִמצְ ָריִ ם‬ he mounted them on a donkey and went back to Egypt ‫ וַּתֵ לְֶך אַ ח ֲֵרי מַ לְ ֲאכֵי דָ וִ ד‬. . . ‫ו ִַּת ְרּכַב עַל־הַ חֲמֹור‬ she mounted a donkey, . . . and followed the messengers of David ‫ָרכְ בּו עַל־הַ ּגְ מַ ּלִ ים ַו ָּינֻסּו‬ they mounted camels and fled ‫וַּיִ ְרּכְ בּו ִאיׁש עַל־ּפִ ְרּדֹו ַו ָּינֻסּו‬ each mounted his mule and fled ‫וְ אֶ ְרּכַב ָעלֶיהָ וְ אֵ לְֵך אֶ ת־הַ ּמֶ לְֶך‬ I may mount it and go with the king ‫וַּיִ ְרּכַב ָעלָיו ַו ֵּילְֶך אַ ח ֲֵרי ִאיׁש הָ אֱֹלהִ ים‬ he mounted it and followed the man of God Meaning (2)

Num 22:22 Num 22:30 Judg 10:4 2 Sam 18:9 Hosea 14:4 Hab 3:8 Zech 1:8

‫ּוׁשנֵי נְ ע ָָריו עִ ּמֹו‬ ְ ‫וְ הּוא רֹ כֵב עַל־אֲתֹ נֹו‬ now he was mounted upon his jenny, and his two servants were with him. ‫עֹודָך עַד־הַ ּיֹום‬ ְ ֵ‫ר־רכַבְ ּתָ ָעלַי מ‬ ָ ֶ‫אָ נֹ כִ י אֲתֹ נְ ָך אֲׁש‬ am I not your jenny, on which you were mounted all your life long to this day? ‫ֹלׁשים ֲעי ִָרים‬ ִ ‫ַל־ׁש‬ ְ ‫ֹלׁשים ּבָ נִ ים רֹ כְ בִ ים ע‬ ִ ‫וַיְ הִ י־לֹו ְׁש‬ he had thirty sons who were mounted upon thirty jackasses ‫וְ אַ בְ ׁשָ לֹום רֹ כֵב עַל־הַ ּפ ֶֶרד ַו ָּיב ֹא הַ ּפ ֶֶרד‬ Absalom was mounted upon his mule, and the mule went ‫עַל־סּוס ל ֹא נִ ְרּכָב‬ we will not be mounted upon horses ‫ּכִ י ִת ְרּכַב עַל־סּוסֶ יָך מַ ְרּכְ בֹ תֶ יָך יְ ׁשּועָה‬ when you were mounted upon your horses, on your chariots of salvation? ‫ֵה־איׁש רֹ כֵב עַל־סּוס אָ דֹ ם וְ הּוא עֹ מֵ ד ּבֵ ין הַ הֲדַ ִּסים‬ ִ ‫וְ הִ ּנ‬ behold, a man mounted upon a red horse, and he was standing among the myrtle trees

In contrast to his father Abraham and his son Jacob, Isaac is portrayed as spending all his life in Canaan. Furthermore, camels were not listed among Isaac’s property, even after he became very wealthy (Gen 26:13–14). Obviously, long-​distance journeys were not part of his life, rendering the possession of camels pointless.

Camels in the Patriarchal Narratives and Israel’s Early History

233

4.2.3. Jacob’s Camels on His Return from Aram-​Naharaim to Canaan When Isaac’s son Jacob fled from his twin-​brother Esau to his uncle Laban in Aram-​Naharaim or Paddan-​Aram respectively (Gen 28), he did not take any camels, although he traveled the same road and intended to visit the same family as Abram’s servant had done several decades before (Gen 24). Later on Jacob married two of Laban’s daughters, he engaged in small livestock husbandry and became a successful breeder. After Jacob’s wealth had increased considerably, growing tensions with his father-​in-​law forced him to return from his prolonged stay in Paddan-​Aram, in the Haran region, to Canaan. Similar to the list of animals in Gen 12:16 being central to Abram’s sojourn in Egypt (§4.2.1.4), animals are equally pivotal in Gen 30, “the architectonic and motivational mid-​point” of the Jacob-​Cycle that stretches from Gen 25:19 to 35:22 (Fishbane 1975, 32). The corresponding animal list includes camels and appears in Gen 30:43, immediately before the tensions between him and his father-​in-​law began to tighten up, which ultimately led to his hasty leave.49 When Jacob stole himself away from Laban during one of the busiest periods of the year (Gen 31:17–21; Frankena 1972, 57), he “lifted his children and his wives upon camels” (‫וַּיִ ּׂשָ א אֶ ת־ּבָ נָיו וְ אֶ ת־נָׁשָ יו ַעל־הַ ּגְ מַ ִ ּֽלים‬, Gen 31:17; cf. §4.2.1.5). Jacob “fled with all that he had,” crossing the Euphrates and heading toward the hill country of Gilead (Gen 31:21). From there, he journeyed in south-​ southwest direction through the desert. Upon learning of Jacob’s successful escape, Laban pursued him hotly (Gen 31:36) on a “route of seven days” (‫ּדֶ ֶרְך‬ ‫)ׁשבְ עַת י ִָמים‬. ִ He came close to Jacob somewhere before,50 but followed him into the Gilead Mountains (‫) ַוּי ְַדּבֵ ק אֹ תֹו ּבְ הַ ר הַ ּגִ לְ עָד‬. Laban caught up with Jacob in the Gilead Mountains (Gen 31:25: ‫) ַוּיַּׂשֵ ג לָבָ ן אֶ ת־ ַיעֲקֹ ב‬. Therefore, the “route of seven days” (covering some 250 km when using donkeys, cf. Streck 2007, 302; Köpp-​ Junk 2015, 294–95) most likely refers to the route on which Laban was in hot pursuit. As soon as Jacob’s huge dust-​raising and slowly moving caravan of sheep, goats, cattle, donkeys, and camels was in sight, he could slow down, following him closely, being himself virtually unseen, and wait for an occasion to act. Finally, Jacob pitched camp in the Gilead Mountains, a suitable opportunity 49.  On the final confrontation between Jacob and Laban and the cultural background of the episode, see J. J. Finkelstein 1968. 50. The usual meaning of Hebrew ‫ דבק‬is “stick, adhere, cling.” Thus, ‫( ַוּי ְַדּבֵ ק‬hiphil) seems to denote “he pursued closely.” Since Gen 31:23 already has the meaning “he pursued after him” (‫וַּיִ ְרּדֹ ף‬ ‫אַ ח ֲָריו‬‎), ‫ ַוּי ְַדּבֵ ק אֹ תֹו ּבְ הַ ר הַ ּגִ לְ עָד‬seems to denote “he overtook him in the Gilead Mountains” (DCH 2:386; cf. Blum 1984, 129). The actual overtaking of Jacob happened only after God had warned Laban during one of the following nights (Gen 31:24), and it is explicitly introduced with the words ‫ַוּיַּׂשֵ ג‬ ‫“ לָבָ ן אֶ ת־ ַיעֲקֹ ב‬and Laban reached/overtook Jacob.” Therefore, it might be preferable to translate the phrase ‫ ַוּי ְַדּבֵ ק אֹ תֹו ּבְ הַ ר הַ ּגִ לְ עָד‬with “he followed him closely into the Gilead Mountains”; cf. DCH 2:386 with the meanings for ְ‫ בּ‬in Waltke and O’Connor 1990, 11.2.5.b.

234

Camels in the Biblical World

for Laban to confront him with his questionable escape, and to look for his own missing teraphim or household gods (Gen 31:25–34). 4.2.3.1. Rachel’s Camel Saddle At that point, Laban did not know that Rachel had taken the teraphim and was hiding his household gods in the camel’s (saddle-)bolster (‫ ו ְַּת ִׂשמֵ ם ּבְ כַר הַ ּגָמָ ל‬Gen 31:34). The noun ‫ כַּר‬kar (“saddle)-bolster” is a hapax legomenon in the Hebrew Bible, which requires a careful look into its meaning in other Semitic languages. In Hebrew dictionaries, ‫ כַּר‬is usually explained in light of the Arabic noun ‫كور‬ kūr.51 The kūr-saddle is a camel’s saddle (WKAS 1: 429), with or without its apparatus (Lane 1863, 2637). The meanings derived from kūr and given to ‫כַּר‬ range from “Kamelsattel” (HAH, 469), “saddle-​basket” (DCH 4:458), “saddlebag” (HALOT, s.v.), to “basket-​saddle” (Brown, Driver, and Briggs 1951, 468).52 The additional explanation given in the latter dictionary (“a sort of palankeen bound upon the saddle proper”) becomes the main meaning in its Corrigenda: “camel-​palankeen, or tent-​like erection, on the saddle” (1124). This meaning relies on John Lewis Burckhardt’s (1830, 265–66) notes that he had collected during his travels. Burckhardt (266) describes the ‫ شبريّة‬šibriyya, a saddle palanquin (cf. Dozy 1881 1:719): “In Hedjaz the name of shebrýe [šibriyya] is given to a kind of palanquin, having a seat made of twisted straw, about five feet in length, which is placed across the saddle of the camel, with ropes fastened to it. On its four sides are slender poles, joined above by cross bars, over which either mats or carpets are placed, to shade the traveler from the sun. This among the natives of Hedjaz is the favourite vehicle for traveling, because it admits of their stretching themselves at full length and sleeping at pleasure.” However, the kūr-saddle and the šibriyya-construction were common in North Arabia, more than a thousand years after the type of saddle described in Gen 31 (‫ )כַּר‬was in use. Furthermore, Rachel had put the teraphim in the ‫ כַּר‬and sat on them (‫ ;וַּתֵ ׁשֶ ב ֲעלֵיהֶ ם‬Gen 31:34). This little detail only makes sense if the teraphim were put deeply into the bolster of the saddle, not somewhere else into the basket-​saddle, nor in any special basket or bag that might have been part of the saddle construction as suggested by DCH 4:458 and HALOT, s.v. (cf. Morgenstern 1942–1943, 255 n. 172). 51. HAH (569) also refers to CA ‫قر‬ ّ qarr, which means “pilentum camelinum” (Freytag 1830 3:416), a kind of solid structure on the back of camels; cf. Biberstein-​Kazimirski 1860 2:699. The root denotes “become, steady, firm, fixed,” etc. (Lane 1863, 2499). Yet, the noun qarr refers to the wooden saddle frame, not to the saddle itself. Moreover, it is difficult to account for the substantial difference between qrr and kr; cf. Barth 1893, 35; and DRS 10:1202. 52.  Both DCH’s and HALOT’s translations may have been influenced by the LXX, which renders the verse freely by, Ραχηλ δὲ ἔλαβεν τὰ εἴδωλα καὶ ἐνέβαλεν αὐτὰ εἰς τὰ σάγματα τῆς καμήλου καὶ ἐπεκάθισεν αὐτοῖς “Now Rachel took the idols and cast them into the camel’s saddlebags and sat on them.”

Camels in the Patriarchal Narratives and Israel’s Early History

235

One of the earliest artistic representations of a camel saddle from ancient Gūzāna, modern Tell Ḥalaf, illustrates the expected features of ‫ כַּר‬saddles better than its Arabian successors (§3.2.2; fig. 3.3). It is the earliest depiction of a camel rider, featuring not an Arabian, but rather an Aramean type of rider (cf. von Oppenheim 1931, 140; 1955, 15–16; Genge 1979, 132; Bonatz 2013, 219). This relief not only hails from an area in upper Mesopotamia that is situated in the wider Haran region, Rachel’s home country (Kobayashi 1992), it is also more than one thousand five hundred years older than the earliest CA literature mentioning camel saddles. Its main part is a large cushion or bolster that is compressed by two crossed girths and securely fastened by two other ones on the camel’s belly. Bolsters of this type were usually stuffed with flax, straw, or wool that could be replaced if necessary (cf. Dalman 1942, 188; Krauss 1910 1:391 n. 111). This type of bolster, probably doughnut or horseshoe-​shaped because of the camel’s hump (Bulliet 1975, 78), may have been used for Bactrian camels as well (regularly shaped), most likely the camel species in Jacob’s possession. We estimate that the saddle cushion in figure 3.3 is probably about one-​half meter in length or less, thus allowing it to be perhaps placed between the two humps of a Bactrian camel.53 This type of saddle differs from the two main types of Arabian saddles, the šadād-saddle and the ḥawlānī-saddle (§3.3.2), typically adjusted to the single hump anatomy of the dromedary. Arabian saddles have elaborate wooden frames that cannot be used in two-​humped animals. Even today, saddles for Bactrian camels may lack any wooden structure. Rather than interpreting the rare Hebrew noun ‫ כַּר‬of Gen 31:34 in light of Arabic kūr, it is more reasonable to connect it with Aramaic ‫כַּרא‬, meaning “mattress; bolster” (E. Klein 1987, 285).54 Thus, ‫ כַּר הַ ּגָמָ ל‬has been literally translated by the Samaritan Targum as ‫“ כרה דגמלה‬bolster/mattress of the camel” (Gen 31:34 CAL; Sokoloff 1992, 268).55 Moreover, kūr means “camel saddle”—there is no 53.  A relief from Tiglath-​pileser III’s Nimrud palace seems to show a woman seated on a similar box-​like cushion saddle (Barnett and Falkner 1962, pl. 17; cf. Staubli 1991, 83–84; Dercksen 2009, 90). Another modification of this saddle is depicted in Assurbanipal’s North Palace (Barnett 1976, pl. 32; Macdonald 2015, 68). Another camel rider is depicted on a cylinder seal, dated to the sixth or fifth century BC and housed in the British Museum, no. 117716. The camel-​rider is seated on a cushion (probably doughnut-​shaped), which rests on a vertically crosshatched saddlecloth secured by two girths, one around the belly and the other around the camel’s chest. He rests his feet against the base of the camel’s neck. He is followed by a warrior seated on a leaping horse (Bulliet 1975, 85, fig. 36; see 78–86 for details on Neo-Assyrian cushion saddles). For the distance between the humps of Bactrian camels, see Dioli 2020, fig. 15. 54. Cf. Sokoloff 1992, 268; 2002, 598. The Akkadian noun karru “knob, pommel” (CAD 8:221) has also been offered as an explanation for ‫כַּר‬, arguing that “the placing of the saddle on the back of the camel must have given it the form of a knob” (Frankena 1972, 61). This explanation presumes features that are impossible to validate. 55. In a similar way, the Latin Vulgate translates ‫ כַר הַ ּגָמָ ל‬by stramen cameli “straw/cloth of the camel.” Targum Onqelos translates it as ‫ כַר הַ ּגָמָ ל‬by ‫“ ַעבִ יטָ א ְדגַמלָא‬basket-​saddle of the camel”

236

Camels in the Biblical World

need to add “of the camel”—while ‫ כַּר‬must be explicitly constructed with the genitive to give it a special meaning: ‫כַּר הַ ּגָמָ ל‬: “the camel’s (saddle-)bolster.”56 The word ‫ כַּר‬is also attested in Mishnaic Hebrew (Krauss 1910 1:391 n. 111; Jastrow 1992, 663). Moreover, the root became a Semitic loanword in Neo-​ Egyptian, with the meaning kr “saddle” (J. Hoch 1994, no. 472) or “couch” (Hannig 1995, 886). One may therefore assume that it was also known in earlier Northwest Semitic. It is in this ‫ כַּר‬or bolster that Rachel had hidden the small-​ sized teraphim of her father (Lewis 1999, 847; cf. Blum 1984, 126 n. 32). Following the journey to the Gilead mountains, the camels were unloaded, and the (saddle-)bolster with the teraphim inside used as makeshift furniture in Rachel’s tent. To prevent her father not only from looking for the teraphim, but also groping (‫וַיְ מַ ּׁשֵ ׁש‬, Fokkelman 1991, 170) the bolster, Rachel pretended to be menstruating so that she could remain seated on it (cf. Hendel 1987, 96–97). As Laban could not find them and did not dare to trouble Rachel (for cultural or religious taboos, or simply out of courtesy?), he gave up his search and had to listen to Jacob’s complaints about Laban’s arbitrary accusations. Both men finally agreed to make a covenant, and Laban returned to Paddan-​Aram. 4.2.3.2. Jacob’s Lactating Camels On his way into Canaan, Jacob felt obliged to make peace with his alienated brother Esau. He sends word to Esau that he has “oxen, donkeys, flocks, male servants, and female servants . . . in order that I may find favor in your sight” (Gen 32:6). When he learns that his brother Esau is accompanied by four hundred men, Jacob becomes frightened and makes special preparations to appease Esau, largely with animals from his moveable property (Gen 32:8). It is only now that camels are mentioned (Gen 32:8,16), which obviously belonged to Jacob’s favored property, and which he had not planned to give away. The list, totaling 550 small livestock beasts, camels, cattle, and donkeys, is divided into small and large animals (Gen 32:14–22). Of goats, sheep, cows, and donkeys, both sexes are listed. Aaron Demsky (2012, 214) notes that the larger animals “are arranged possibly in descending order according to their individual value: milch camels and their colts; cows and bulls, and lastly jennies and jackasses. The whole list is also influenced by the reduced proportion between male and female in the individual herd with the exception of the pivotal milch camels (Sokoloff 2002, 840), the Peshitta as well (‫)ܥܒܝܛܐ ܕܓܡܐܠ‬. The Aramaic root ʿbṭ seems to be derived from Arabic ġbṭ (cf. ‫ غبيط‬ġabīṭ); see also Brockelmann 1928, 507; Lane 1863, 2226; Hommel 1879, 213 n. 2. 56. Therefore, ‫ كور بعير‬or ‫ كور الجمل‬and similar constructions, denoting “kūr of the camel,” are unknown; cf. WKAS 1:429–31. The proposed meaning “Kamelsattel” for ‫( כַּר‬HAH, 569) results in a tautology: ‫“ כַּר הַ ּגָמָ ל‬camel’s saddle of the camel” (Gen 31:34).

Camels in the Patriarchal Narratives and Israel’s Early History

237

and their young. The question might be asked, ‘Does this precise relationship reflect actual practice of animal husbandry or is it a literary device of rounding off numbers?’ ” After quoting various sources from the ancient Near East, especially administrative texts from third- to second-​millennium BC Mesopotamia, Demsky concludes that “the ratio of male to female in breeding herds provides a realistic picture not that far from the biblical account of a selected number of animals making up Jacob’s votive gift” (219). The specific mention of lactating camels is conspicuous and leads to some further observations. First, the present of “lactating camels and their young, thirty” (‫ֹלׁשים‬ ִ ‫ּגְ מַ ּלִ ים מֵ ינִ יקֹות ּובְ נֵיהֶ ם ְׁש‬, Gen 32:16) enabled their new owner to enter the breeding business. Even if camels can cover wide areas when grazing, they would stay near their young when lactating, thus getting more easily accustomed to their new environment. Second, the explicit mention of “lactating camels and their young” may imply that these camels were regarded as a primary source of milk. No male individuals are mentioned, which contrasts with the other livestock species, nor are female goats, cows, ewes, or jennies referred to as “lactating animals,” nor is the offspring of goats, cows, ewes, and female donkeys listed. Camel’s milk was highly appreciated, as can be deduced from the Sumerian love song of the Old Babylonian period (§3.2.4.1.2). Since lactation lasted about one year, she camels were able to provide milk that long.57 Camels do not produce milk unless they have calved (Horwitz and Rosen 2005, 122), whereby milk is only let down when the (dummy) calf is standing or lying nearby (Dorman 1984, 626). Dairy performance in the animals of Gen 32:16 could be indicative of a longer breeding history, which in the second millennium BC can only apply to the two-​humped camel.58 We do not know the exact nature of Jacob’s camels, but they most likely were am.s i.ḫar.r a.an or am.s i.kur. ra camels, that is Bactrian camels. That that Jacob offered these very animals to Esau testifies to their value. Even male camels that were used in overland trade were probably not easy to obtain, but lactating camels with their calves were extraordinary. This situation differs considerably from mentions in the later narratives of the books of Judges and Samuel. When the brothers finally meet, Esau accepts Jacob’s generous presents, although with some reservation (Gen 33:10–11; cf. Hendel 1987, 130). Following their separation, Jacob settles down in Canaan. 57.  Camels have a lactation period of one year, cattle of six months, and sheep and goats of three months. 58. By comparison, among the tribute of Tiglath-​pileser III (745–727 BC), dromedaries are listed several times “together with their calves” (table 3.4). In Gen 32:16, however, the narrator does not employ a specific word for she-​camels (cf. Akkadian anaqāte) but refers to “lactating camels” (‫)ּגְ מַ ּלִ ים מֵ ינִ יקֹות‬. Furthermore, the camel calves are called ‫“ בְּ נֵיהֶ ם‬their young,” not ‫“ בכריהם‬their calves” (anšeba-​ak-​ka-​ri-​ši-​na); see §§3.2.4.9 and 6.2.1.

238

Camels in the Biblical World

4.2.3.3. No Camels in Canaan Once in Canaan, Jacob likely abandoned camel husbandry, because all the goods sent down to Egypt by him during the famine were transported by donkeys (Gen 42:26–27; 43:24; 44:3,13).59 Being sedentary now, Jacob preferred the donkey.60 During this period, neither the Egyptians nor Jacob’s family living in Egypt possessed camels either (Gen 45:23; 47:17; 50:8). The donkey was the preferred mount for the inhabitants of Canaan at that time (cf. Horwitz, Master, and Motro 2017), as we also learn from the narrative of Jacob’s daughter Dinah (Gen 34). After their sister had been raped, Jacob’s sons plundered the city of Shechem and “took their flocks and their oxen and their donkeys” (Gen 34:27). The preponderance of donkeys as transport animals is further underlined by the personal name of Hamor (‫)חֲמֹור‬, the local ruler of Shechem (Gen 33:19). His personal name has at least three possible interpretations that are related to its obvious meaning “donkey.” First, there is a distant likelihood that the treaty between Jacob and Hamor was ratified with a donkey sacrifice, but Gen 33–34 does not provide enough data to substantiate such an interpretation (Way 2011, 174–75). Second, Hamor may refer to the primary business of the local ruler, namely a donkey breeder (cf. Zarins 2014, 162; ḥmr7 in DNWSI, 384). And third, Hamor may simply be the personal name of the local ruler of Shechem, which seems the most reasonable interpretation. This type of personal name belongs to the category of animal names (cf. HAH, 365; Zarins 2014, 162; Dirbas 2019, 130; Shai et al. 2016, 8–9). 4.2.4. The Camels of the Ishmaelites and the Donkeys of the Patriarchs The Joseph story, already a masterly woven plot filled with emotion and surprises, is built from a well-​conceived blueprint expertly executed by the individual responsible for this classic tale narrative (Rendsburg 1990, 229). While the grammar and vocabulary of the Joseph story widely resembles CBH, there are some words that have cognates in Aramaic and that may either be regarded as minor updates of the biblical text by Persian-​period scribes or as rare CBH words (Joosten 2019, 31–34). In addition, Gen 39 shows some late features that are difficult to date (38–41). Be that as it may, except for some possible modifications, the story very likely obtained its essential linguistic elaboration during 59. In the tradition of the Qur’an, the transport between Canaan and Egypt is visualized as being performed with camels; cf. the reference to a “camel’s load” in the Sura “Joseph”: ‫بعير‬ ٍ ‫حمل‬ (ḥimlu baʿīrin, Sura 12:65, 72). 60.  By comparison, in the Amarna letters, camels are never referred to. Furthermore, horses, which are often mentioned in the Amarna letters and were regarded as very desirable, especially for effective protection and in warfare, are never mentioned during the stay of the patriarchs in Mesopotamia or Canaan; cf. §3.2.4.4.

Camels in the Patriarchal Narratives and Israel’s Early History

239

the Israelite monarchy. It cannot be ultimately demonstrated whether the Joseph story relies on authentic templates from the second millennium BC, although there are persuasive reasons for such a position.61 Of particular interest here is the mention of a camel caravan in the Joseph story (Gen 37). According to the chronology of the Genesis narrator, the events depicted in Gen 37:25–28 should be dated to the seventeenth to sixteenth centuries BC at the latest (see §4 n. 6). As the plot of the Joseph story tightens and the enmity between the protagonist and his brothers reached its peak, the sons of Jacob decided to put Joseph to death. However, becoming soft, they threw him instead into a pit and enjoyed their triumph (Gen 37:18–25). Later, they saw Ishmaelite caravanners approaching and decided to sell their brother into slavery (Gen 37:27). At this point, the narrative continues ambiguously, telling that “then men, Midianite merchants, passed through, and they drew Joseph up and lifted him out of the pit, and sold him to the Ishmaelites for twenty [shekels of] silver” (‫ַו ַּיעַבְ רּו ֲאנ ִָׁשים ִמ ְדיָנִ ים סֹ ח ֲִרים‬ ‫וַּיִ ְמ ְׁשכּו ַו ַּיעֲלּו אֶ ת־יֹוסֵ ף ִמן־הַ ּבֹור וַּיִ ְמּכְ רּו אֶ ת־יֹוסֵ ף לַּיִ ְׁש ְמעֵאלִ ים ּבְ ע ְֶׂש ִרים ּכָסֶ ף‬: Gen 37:28). The first impression here is that “Ishmaelites” is another term, or a later gloss, for “Midianites.” Therefore, traditional exegesis sees Jacob’s brothers as embodying the “they” of 37:28. Other scholars believe in a two-​fold source behind 37:28 accounting for the different names.62 The narrator obviously introduces another group of people, stating that “men, Midianites, merchants, were passing through” (‫) ַו ַּי ַעבְ רּו ֲאנ ִָׁשים ִמ ְדיָנִ ים סֹ ח ֲִרים‬. This expression is moving from indefiniteness (“men”) to “Midianites” to “traders, merchants.” It stands in opposition to “the Ishmaelites” (‫ )לַּיִ ְׁש ְמעֵאלִ ים‬of 37:27–28.63 Notwithstanding, the narrator seems to present the Midianites as traveling merchants, and the Ishmaelites as camel caravanners or cameleers. Genesis 37:25–28 is often read in the light of Judg 8:24, so that the Midianites are seen as almost synonymous to the Ishmaelites. However, this reasoning is based on the presence of a large Midianite population existing in the wider region, whereas Gen 37 merely refers to a group of traveling merchants accompanied by cameleers.64 61.  For discussions of the various dating proposals offered by Egyptologists and biblical scholars, see, e.g., Westermann 1986, 25; Hoffmeier 1997, 77–106; Millgram 2012, 11–16; Blum and Weingart 2017; Schipper 2019. 62.  For this position, see, e.g., Speiser 1962, 291; cf. Blum 1984, 244–45; but cf. Staubli 1991, 200–201; Berlin 1994, 113–20; Gaß 2012, 292–93 n. 28; see also H.-C. Schmitt 2015, 175–79. 63.  Cf. similar expressions in Exod 2:13; 1 Kgs 11:17; Jer 43:9. 64.  Conceivably, the Midianite merchants bear some resemblance to the Old Babylonian tamkāri. The tamkāri were traveling merchants that usually relied on agents who acted on their behalf. The Codex Hammurabi has special regulations for the relationship of the tamkārum and his agent, the šamallûm. Trading slaves was one of their special occupations. The merchants usually had money in the form of silver at hand and stored it in a kīsum “bag” (Leemans 1950, 22–35; 1972, 84–85).

240

Camels in the Biblical World

As such, the Joseph story highlights the special nature of the Ishmaelite caravan using camels, whereas other contemporary caravans traveling from Canaan to Egypt and back preferred donkeys (Gen 42:26–27; 43:18, 24; 44:3, 13; 45:23). As the story goes, it looks as if either the Midianites, who were traveling together with (or independent of?) the Ishmaelites, or Joseph’s brothers, eventually in cooperation with the first (the text remains ambiguous here, but cf. Long­ acre 1989, 31, 155; Berlin 1994, 51), lifted Joseph out of the pit and expected the Ishmaelite cameleers to sell Joseph in Egypt (cf. Jacob 1934, 706–7; Kass 2003, 523 n. 19). Such business was lucrative, since slaves stood in high demand in Egypt (Helck 1971, 347–50). This course of action seems to be in agreement with Gen 37:36, which refers to 37:28, concluding that “the Midianites65 had sold him to Egypt” (‫ל־מצְ ָריִ ם‬ ִ ֶ‫)וְ הַ ְּמדָ נִ ים מָ כְ רּו אֹ תֹו א‬. In Egypt, the captain of the guard bought him “from the hand of the Ishmaelites who had brought him down there” (‫ִמּיַד‬ ‫הֹורדֻהּו ָ ֽׁשּמָ ה‬ ִ ‫ הַ ּיִ ְׁש ְמעֵאלִ ים אֲׁשֶ ר‬Gen 39:1). While the two patriarchs Abraham and Jacob had close connections to Mesopotamia from where they moved their camels into Canaan, the caravan of Gen 37 came from the land of Gilead in Transjordan. In addition, it is likely that the Ishmaelites had their settlements further northeast from the Gilead area in the Syrian Desert, from where it was virtually equidistant to Egypt and to upper Mesopotamia. The camels were loaded with spices, which, in all probability, had been cultivated and harvested in the Gilead area (cf. Jericke 2013, 198). One obvious question concerns the species of camel used by the Ishmaelites. If the narrative is based on an earlier Vorlage and its author was aware of trade with caravans during the first half of the second millennium BC, it most likely refers to Bactrian camels that were already used in overland trade (§3.2.4.1). Thus, it can be argued that the Ishmaelites had learned about the usefulness of these animals for overland trade due to contacts to upper Mesopotamia, where they had purchased animals for their own use. This does not make them camel breeders, since the camels of Gen 37 were solely used as pack animals and therefore likely males. They belonged to a caravan (‫ )אֹ ְרחַ ה‬slowly walking (. . . ‫ּבָ אָ ה‬ ‫ )הֹולְ כִ ים‬and carrying (‫ )נֹ ְשׂ ִאים‬their costly merchandise (37:27), trading valuable products highly desired in Egypt, thereby being forced to cross vast desert terrain. Later, when Joseph’s brothers took similar merchandise to Egypt, they obviously used donkeys (Gen 43:11.24) and probably took a different route. Even pharaoh himself did not send camels to ease the descent of Jacob’s family into Egypt (Gen 45:17–19), and when Joseph sent a small caravan to his father in Canaan, he used donkeys as well (Gen 45:23). This fact illustrates the limited benefit of camels on the (western) route between Canaan and Egypt, which was 65. ‫ הַ ְּמדָ נִ ים‬seems to be a misspelling for ‫( הַ ִּמ ְדיָנִ ים‬Friedrich Delitzsch 1920 §90b).

Camels in the Patriarchal Narratives and Israel’s Early History

241

well-​suited for donkeys, implying an adequate supply of water. On the other hand, the Ishmaelites deployed camels, which could be trained with reasonable effort to traverse the arid terrain between the Gilead Mountains and Egypt, as well as in additional trading operations via the northwestern fringes of the Arabian Peninsula to the wider Euphrates area. In this context, it is also noteworthy that the patriarchs rarely used their donkeys as mounts. In the famous Isaac story, Abram’s donkey carried the firewood and eventually Abram himself (Gen 22:3–6). Yet, the donkeys that are so prominent in the Joseph narrative essentially functioned as pack animals (Gen 42:26; 44:13; 45:23). Even Moses, on his way back from Midian, put his family on a donkey (‫ ַוּי ְַרּכִ בֵ ם עַל־הַ חֲמֹ ר‬, Exod 4:20), but it is doubtful whether they were in control of the animal. In Egypt, donkeys were rarely used for transporting persons, except in the case of foreigners (Förster 2015, 390–91). They served primarily as pack animals (Gautier 1999, 301; Köpp-​Junk 2015, 165). Yet, there is occasional artistic and textual evidence for ass-​riding from Bronze Age Mesopotamia (Weszeli 2007; Zarins 2014, 198) and from the southern Levant (al-​Ajlouny, Douglas, and Khrisat 2011, 117; Shai et al. 2016). Roughly during the same period, the find of a ritually interred donkey with harnessing equipment seems to point to its use in pulling chariots (Bar-​Oz et al. 2013). In the Hebrew Bible, the first person mentioned by name that is traveling on the back of a donkey is Balaam (Num 22:22), who appears in a story situated by the narrator after the middle of the second millennium BC. With time, however, donkeys became prominent riding animals (cf. the books of Judges and Samuel); compare also the donkeys in the texts from Ugarit (Way 2011, 49–55) and in the Amarna letters (EA 161:23). 4.2.4.1. The Aromatics of the Caravan Regarding the goods imported into Egypt, an increased demand for incense and other aromatic plant resins has been noted from the end of the third millennium BC onward. These resins mainly originated from southern Arabia (Zarins 2001, 76, 91; Sperveslage and Eichmann 2012, 378). However, the merchandise transported on camels coming from the Gilead Mountains comprised “gum, balm, and ladanum” (‫ נְ כ ֹאת ּוצְ ִרי וָֹלט‬Gen 37:25), which could be harvested in the Gilead area. These products were imported to Egypt for use in medicine and cosmetics, especially in embalming (Vergote 1959, 12–14). In some dictionaries, the meaning of ‫ נְ כ ֹאת‬is given as “ladanum,” the resin of the cistus rose (DCH 5:684; HALOT, s.v.), but this interpretation is debatable. Ladanum is more likely denoted by ‫( ֹלט‬see below). The noun ‫ נכאת‬is mentioned twice in the Ammonite ostracon Ḥisbān A1, dated to the end of the seventh

242

Camels in the Biblical World

century BC (Cross 2003, 71).66 It most likely denotes the “gum of tragacanth, an aromatic resin from the evergreen shrub Astragalus gummifer and Astragalus tragacantha, used in food and medicine” (73).67 Hebrew ‫ צְ ִרי‬denotes the “balm [of Gilead].”68 This product was especially in use for healing wounds. The word ‫ צרי‬is also known from two unprovenanced preexilic Hebrew ostraca from Khirbet el-Qom (?), where it appears as ‫הצרי‬. The exact identification remains controversial, though (Lemaire 2015a, 98–103). Some authors argue that it denotes the resin of the mastic shrub (HAH, 1138; Jacob and Jacob 1992, 810; Lev and Amar 2008, 349), Commiphora opobalsamum (L.). However, this resin is already referred to by ‫( ּבֹ ׂשֶ ם‬cf. §5.1.1.4; HAH, 182; Lemaire 2015a). Michael Zohary (1982, 192), on the other hand, considers an identification as Liquidambar orientalis (L.) more plausible. The West Semitic root of the term is already attested in one of the Amarna letters, sent from the queen of Ugarit to the queen of Egypt: “I herewith send to my mistress . . . a jar of aromatic substance: resin [of the mastic shrub]” (riq-​qu ṣú-​ur-​ wa; EA 48:8).69 The Ugaritic root ẓrw could denote the same substance, but the exact meaning remains difficult to determine (DUL3 988). 66. The reading of ‫ נכאת‬in the Neo-​Punic inscription N 2 from Hr. Medeine (KAI 160:3) is debatable, and most of the text remains obscure (Jongeling 2008, 158; Arbel et al. 2015, 81–82). 67. The term is related to Akkadian nukkatu (AHw 2:802) and to CA ‫ نكأة‬nakaʾa and ‫ نكعة‬nakaʿa “Gummi tragacanthae.” DCH (5:905) and HALOT, s.v., refer to L. Köhler (1940, 233), who claimed that ‫ נְ כ ֹאת‬means “ladanum,” the gum of the cistus rose. Yet, his observation that “It is the resin of the plant, which is called ṭurṯūṯ in Arabic, and this plant is also called . . . nakaʾatun and nakʾatun” (“es ist das Harz der Pflanze, die arabisch ṭurṯūṯ heißt, und eben diese Pflanze heißt . . . auch nakaʾatun und nakʾatun”), is based on a misinterpretation. This was already noticed by Knauf 1989, 15–16. According to the CA lexicographers ibn Manẓūr (1999 14:285) and al-​Zabīdī (1985 22:286), ‫نكعة‬, with the variant spelling ‫نكأة‬, coinciding with Hebrew ‫נְ כ ֹאת‬, has two meanings in relation to plants (cf. ibn Manẓūr 1999 14:275; Freytag 1830 4:330): First, the fruit of ‫ نقاوى‬naqāwā (plants used for the washing of cloth). Second, the red flower of ‫ طرثوث‬ṭurṯūṯ (not the cistus rose, but the “Maltese fungus” or Cynomorium coccineum, Ullmann 1972, 369; cf. Löw 1967 2:300). In addition, al-​Fīrūzābādī (1843, 514) and al-​Bustānī (1987, 916) provide the meaning ‫ صمغ القتاد‬ṣamġu l-​qatādi, i.e., Gummi tragacanthae (cf. Freytag 1830 4:335; and Biberstein-​Kazimirski 1860 1:1343); see also Löw 1967 2:420–21; Zohary 1982, 195; Lev and Amar 2008, 302–5; Verbeken, Dierckx, and Dewettinck 2003. 68.  See Gen 37:25; 43:11; Jer 8:22; 46:11; 51:8; Ezek 27:17. Papyrus Turin B, from the time of Ramesses II, gives a list of merchandise from the Levant: several types of oil, unguent, Shasu-​ unguent and wood, coverings for horses and chariots, and weapons. The particular mention of “Shasu-​ unguent” can be illustrated by Gen 37:25: “It is therefore curious to note that in the book of Genesis, a people who, according to tradition, lived in the south, transported goods from northeastern Palestine (Gilead) to Egypt, via Dothan in the center of the country. The shosou ointment may have been called so after the region where it was prepared or after the people who brought it, either to Egypt or on the ships that anchored in Palestine or Syria” (“Il est dès lors curieux de noter que dans le livre de la Genèse, un peuple qui, selon la tradition, vivait dans le Sud, transporte des marchandises de la Palestine du ord-​Est [Galaad] vers l’Égypte, en passant par Dothan au centre du pays. L’onguent shosou peut s’être appelé ainsi d’après la région où on le préparait ou encore d’après les gens qui l’apportaient, soit en Égypte, soit sur les bateaux qui jetaient l’ancre en Palestine ou en Syrie”) (Giveon 1971, 124). 69.  Knudtzon 1915, 316, 1498, 1549; AHw 2:988; CAD 14:370; Moran 1992, 120.

Camels in the Patriarchal Narratives and Israel’s Early History

243

As mentioned above, ‫ ֹלט‬denotes “ladanum” (HAH, 607; Jacob and Jacob 1992, 812–13) and refers most likely to the gum obtained from the pink or hoary rock rose, Cistus incanus (L.), widely distributed across the eastern Mediterranean (Zohary 1982, 194).70 The word ‫ ֹלט‬does not seem to stand etymologically in any relation to the Aramaic form ‫ לדנה‬and its European loanwords, notably Latin ladanum.71 Therefore, the meaning ladanum for ‫ ֹלט‬should only be used in a general way. The Samaritan Pentateuch reads ‫( לוט‬Gall 1914, 78, 93) in Gen 37:25, which is common in Modern Hebrew as well. Mishnaic Hebrew attests both ‫ ֹלטֶ ם‬and ‫ לֹוטֶ ם‬with the same meaning (E. Klein 1987, 299; Sokoloff 1992, 281). Then we have the root ‫ לטם‬or ‫ לטום‬in Aramaic (Targum Onqelos in Gen 37:25; Sokoloff 1992, 281; 2003, 60).72 Furthermore, Arabic ‫ لطيمة‬laṭīma “fragrant essence, spice” is related to ‫( לטם‬WKAS 2:755; Fraenkel 1886, 176–77). The noun ‫ לוטם‬in Mishnaic Hebrew may point to an early intrusion from Aramaic, so that lṭm and lṭ possibly refer to two different forms that existed side by side in Hebrew.73 Two of the three aromatic gums mentioned here, ‫ נְ כ ֹאת‬and ‫ֹלט‬, are not known besides Gen 37:25 and 43:11. Obviously, the Egyptian translators of the Septuagint were unfamiliar with these resins. They translated ‫ נְ כ ֹאת‬with the vague 70. L. Köhler (1940, 233) identifies Hebrew ‫ ֹלט‬with Arabic ‫ ليط‬līṭ, and then līṭ with Arabic ‫كمكام‬ kamkām, which he assumes to be the bark of the tree named ‫ צְ ִרי‬in Gen 37:25. These equations are unlikely. Līṭ denotes bark of any kind (WKAS 2:1988). Kamkām, on the other hand, denotes the resin, or the leaves, of the terebinth (WKAS 1:346; W. W. Müller 1997, 201–2); cf. κάγκαμον, a “kind of gum” (LSJ 848), and cancamum (Pliny, Naturalis historia 12.98). Only some Arabic lexicographers think that kamkām also refers to the bark of the terebinth (Freytag 1830 4:59). Be that as it may, neither ‫ليط‬, nor ‫ֹלט‬, stand for the bark of the ‫ צְ ִרי‬tree. 71. The usual term for ladanum is common in Aramaic (‫ לדנה‬or ‫ ;לודנה‬Sokoloff 2002, 618) and Syriac (‫ ;ܠܕܢܐ‬Sokoloff 2009, 674). It is also known in ASA as ldn (W. W. Müller 1997, 204–25), in Akkadian as ladnu (Jursa 2009, 162), and in CA as ‫ الدن‬lādan or ‫ الذن‬lāḏan (WKAS 2:35). Hebrew ‫ לדנה‬and its loanwords in Greek and Latin (λάδανον, ladanum) are directly related to what is commonly designated as ladanum in English. It is also found as a loanword in Egyptian (J. Hoch 1994, no. 288). It is a gum produced by the gum rock-​rose Cistus ladanifer L. (Sima 2000, 272). ̈ 72. The Syriac version translates ‫ ֹלט‬in Gen 43:11 with ‫ܠܛܡܐ‬, which is usually understood to mean “pistachios,” but the original form more likely lacked the plural marker seyame and was simply, as in the Targum Onqelos, a translation of Hebrew ‫( ֹלט‬Löw 1967 1:362). Syriac ‫ ܠܛܡܐ‬seems to have been mixed up with ‫( ܒܛܡܐ‬Arabic ‫)بُطم‬, the fruit of the terebinth-​tree or Pistacia terebinthus (L.). The Peshitta reads ‫ ܒܛܡܐ‬for Hebrew ‫ ֹלט‬in Gen 37:5, but ‫ ܠܛܡܐ‬for the same Hebrew noun in Gen 43:11. See also Payne-​Smith 1901, 1934. 73.  Knauf (1989, 16) proposes that “*luṭm . . . becomes *luṭṭ through regressive assimilation” (“*luṭm . . . wird durch regressive Assimilation zu *luṭṭ”). However, it is unlikely that the elision of –m is due to progressive assimilation (not regressive assimilation: in this case, m would modify ṭ), where ṭ would affect m. First, because there is rarely ever a case in Biblical Hebrew, if at all, where mim assimilates to ṭeṭ. Second, because progressive assimilation, where the immediately following consonant adjusts to the preceding consonant, is the less common type of assimilation in Hebrew. Cf. the consonant cluster-nt-, which regularly changes to-tt, but-tn- rarely ever changes to-tt- (Blau 2010, 57; Bergsträsser 1983 §19). Third, there is no compelling reason or condition that would trigger a development from *luṭm to *luṭṭ.

244

Camels in the Biblical World

θυμιάματα “incense” (cf. aromata “spices” of the Vulgate), and ‫ ֹלט‬with στακτή “oil of myrrh.” It is noteworthy that the Hebrew text neither mentions myrrh (‫ )מר‬nor frankincense (‫)לבנה‬. Both resins had to be imported from southern Arabia and possibly even the Horn of Africa rather than from the southeastern Levant (Vergote 1959, 11; cf. Middeke-​Conlin 2014, 18). 4.2.5. Concluding Remarks During the second millennium BC, camels were neither commonly exploited nor locally bred in the Levant (§4.2.4). The camel occurrences in the Genesis narratives are therefore peculiar, revealing a distinct sort of wealth and special usage associated with this animal (cf. Speiser 1962, 90): 1. It occurs first in a list of Abraham’s movable property while introducing the theme “the wealth of the patriarchs” (Gen 12:16), recurring several times in the Genesis narratives (Gen 13:2; 24:35; 30:43; 32:15–16). 2. Abraham’s camels seem to have been handled solely by his old family confidant, who most likely had migrated with him from Haran to Canaan (Gen 24). He deliberately selected camels, not donkeys, to transport golden vessels, silver vessels, garments, and precious things to Aram-​ Naharaim (Gen 24:10, 53). The explicit mention of the “camels of his master” (‫ )גְ מַ ּלִ ים ִמּגְ מַ ּלֵי אֲדֹ נָיו‬suggests that it somehow felt like a privilege, probably because camels were owned only by wealthy people, had a slow reproduction rate, and needed extensive pasture areas. 3. When the caravan arrives in Haran, Rebekah volunteers to get water not only for the stranger but also for all the camels. Sometimes it is suggested that camels are known for drinking vast quantities of water after a long desert journey (Bucher-​Gillmayr 1994, 424; Alter 1996, 116), so that Rebekah should be admired for hauling several hundred liters of water. Yet, the text does not tell us how often the camels had been watered during their long journey. Moreover, if Abraham’s servant had made his journey during the cooler time of the year, his camels would only need small amounts of water. However, if at that time having camels was a sign of wealth, which the larger context suggests, then Rebekah had, besides her amiableness and readiness to be of help, a very good reason to treat the stranger and his camels kindly. Signs of wealth seem also to have generated the interest of her brother Laban. As soon as he saw the golden jewelry on his sister’s arms, he became very kind and hospitable (Alter 1996, 117; Horowitz 2014, 7; Gen 24:22). 4. Abraham’s servant was invited from outdoors (‫ )ּבַ חּוץ‬into the house and its courtyard with a special place for the camels (‫ ;)ּומָ קֹום לַּגְ מַ ּלִ ים‬cf. Gen

Camels in the Patriarchal Narratives and Israel’s Early History

245

24:25. Then the narrator proceeds, “so the man came to the house and unharnessed the camels and gave straw and fodder to the camels” (‫ַו ָּיב ֹא‬ ‫ּומ ְסּפֹוא לַּגְ מַ ּלִ ים‬ ִ ‫הָ ִאיׁש הַ ּבַ יְ תָ ה וַיְ פַּתַ ח הַ ּגְ מַ ּלִ ים וַּיִ ּתֵ ן ּתֶ בֶ ן‬, Gen 24:31–32). All camels were taken inside a courtyard or stable and treated as highly valuable animals representing third-​party property that must not be lost under any circumstances. Of course, the fact that the animals were not allowed to graze outside likely avoided damage to crops cultivated in the immediate surroundings of the property as well. 5. When Jacob returned to Canaan and prepared to appease his brother Esau with a generous gift from his livestock, camels are mentioned after sheep and goats, but before cows and bulls, and female and male donkeys (Gen 32:16). In addition, the explicit mention of “lactating camels and their young, thirty” (‫ )ּגְ מַ ּלִ ים מֵ ינִ יקֹות ּובְ נֵיהֶ ם ְׁשל ִֹׁשים‬seems to underline the particular value of these animals once more. 6. The Ishmaelites exploited camels to trade valuable merchandise including resins considered essential for embalming (Gen 37:25). 7. However, when the patriarchs’ wealth became endangered through a prolonged and severe period of famine, they used donkeys to transport the same valuable goods as well as other merchandise including grain (Gen 42:26–27; 43:18,24; 44:3,13); but cf. §4.2.4. These observations gain support from the fact that camels are thrice mentioned in connection with the Hebrew phrase ‫“ הִ ּנֵה‬behold,” pointing to something noteworthy. In Gen 24:30, Abram’s servant is seen as standing “by the camels” (‫וְ הִ ּנֵה‬ ‫)עֹ מֵ ד עַל־הַ ּגְ מַ ּלִ ים‬, verbally “over the camels,” watching his camels and their load. In Gen 24:63, Isaac sees camels coming in (‫)וְ הִ ּנֵה גְ מַ ּלִ ים ּבָ ִאים‬. If camels had been a normal sight, more information would have been needed to inform the reader that these camels were exactly the same that had left Canaan some weeks before. Be that as it may, the narrator implicitly connects the arrival of camels with the servant’s return and Isaac’s expectations respectively. In Gen 37:25, Joseph’s brothers watch the caravan of Ishmaelites passing by, giving special attention to the camels and their load: ‫וְ הִ ּנֵה אֹ ְרחַ ת יִ ְׁש ְמעֵאלִ ים ּבָ אָ ה ִמּגִ לְ עָד ּוגְ מַ ּלֵיהֶ ם ֽ ֹנ ְׂש ִאים‬. The camel mentions of the book of Genesis do not necessarily exclude a first-​millennium BC time of composition, but the general description of the animals fits best into an earlier period in which camels still may have been a rare sight. The high value of camels at this time is comprehensible if they were not widely used, and if they originally had been acquired in the upper Euphrates region, such as am.si.ḫar. r a.an or am.si.kur.ra camels. In sum, whereas donkeys are the animals used in daily life and in local trade networks, the mentions dealing with camels invariably place them in a context of wealth and of distant, exhausting journeys lasting weeks in (hyper)arid

246

Camels in the Biblical World

landscapes with varying conditions of temperature and soil substrate. Through caravan trade with Central Asia starting in the late third and intensifying in the second millennium BC, people likely associated Bactrian camels with outstanding performance under harsh conditions, which according to us would offer a reasonable explanation why in the Genesis narratives, (two-​humped) camels and not donkeys appear in the few text passages involving distant strenuous travels and considerable amounts of luggage.

4.3. Camels and the Exodus There is much debate whether the exodus occurred in the fifteenth century BC or later (1), whether it really had the scope and impact described in the book of Exodus (2), happened in Egypt or elsewhere (3), or took place at all (4). The latter view is held by many scholars, advocating the explanation that the Israelites descended from the indigenous population of Canaan.74 As has been pointed out already in the introduction, our study pursues a cautious modus operandi that seeks to examine the claims made by the biblical camel traditions and compare them with the evidence gathered from other sources. If indeed the case, the exodus most likely occurred before 1209 BC (but cf. Rendsburg 1992), predating the first inscriptional mention of Israel in the so-​called Merenptah Stela (Kitchen 2004). The book of Exodus was finalized in CBH somewhere during the First Temple period, but “the question who eventually wrote down the biblical story of the Exodus—when, where, or why—is of secondary importance for the historian, whose primary concern is the original events and their documentation” (Dever 2015, 399). During the New Kingdom (sixteenth to eleventh centuries BC), Egypt commanded a vast territory and reached the peak of its power and wealth. At that time, Canaan, Syria, and part of northern Mesopotamia were under Egyptian hegemony. With its centralized administration, the pharaoh, through the hands of his officials, controlled every move into and out of Egypt. Papyrus Anastasi VI provides a glimpse into the situation at the time of Pharaoh Merenptah, reigning in the last decade of the thirteenth century BC. Papyrus Anastasi VI represents a model letter, comprising four scribal exercises in a single document. It informs about the arrival of mobile Shasu and their flocks in one of the Egyptian forts in the northern Sinai. They were allowed to pasture their herds in Egypt only with pharaoh’s permission: “Another information for my lord that we have just let Shasu tribes of Edom pass the fortress . . . in order to revive themselves and revive 74.  For a recent discussion on the subject, see Levy, Schneider, and Propp (2015); and Hoffmeier, Millard, and Rendsburg (2016). See also Aḥituv and Oren (1998); Hoffmeier (1997); and Frerichs and Lesko (1997).

Camels in the Patriarchal Narratives and Israel’s Early History

247

their cattle from the great life force of pharaoh . . . in regnal year 8, third epagomenal day. . . . It is word sent to let my lord know” (Allen 2002; cf. Giveon 1971, 132). Under an administrative hegemony encompassing much of the Fertile Crescent, camel pastoralists could enter Egypt as well. The Shasu mentioned above could well have led camels into Egypt, but the few Egyptian texts dealing with these mobile pastoralists do not mention transport animals explicitly (cf. Giveon 1971). However, there is no decisive evidence illustrating the physical presence of (herds of) camels in Egypt during the New Kingdom (§3.4.1). Conversely, donkeys figure prominently in the Joseph and early Moses stories and are the usual means of transport between Canaan and Egypt (Gen 42–49; Exod 4:20). The exodus narrative does not mention any camels, and Egyptian camel-​riders pursuing the Israelites on their escape route are absent (Exod 14:6–7; 15:19). At no point are the fleeing Israelites described as nomadic cameleers (Exod 12:38). In Gen 12:16 and 37:25, the mention of camels does not necessarily imply that the Egyptian administration disposed of camels, as has already been pointed out. Yet, Exod 9:3 explicitly lists camels as part of pharaoh’s livestock: “Behold, the hand of yhwh will be on your livestock in the field, on the horses [‫ּסּוסים‬ ִ ַ‫]ּב‬, on the donkeys [‫]ּבַ חֲמֹ ִרים‬, on the camels [‫]ּבַ ּגְ מַ ּלִ ים‬, on the cattle [‫]ּבַ ּבָ קָ ר‬, and on the flocks [‫—]ּובַ ּצ ֹאן‬a very severe plague.” In this list, horses are valued most, owned by wealthy people or by the state (Brewer, Redford, and Redford 2004, 102). Camels are preceded by donkeys, which suggests their minor economic importance compared to horses and donkeys, which could moreover be used to breed mules (von den Driesch and Peters 2001). The very contagious cattle plague, which is not further specified, hit the animals “in the field” (‫)ּבַ ּׂשָ דֶ ה‬. In sum, the Exodus narrative mentions camels only in the context of the livestock owned by pharaoh and endangered by several kinds of plagues. Unfortunately, their role and geographic distribution in the ancient Egyptian economy remain obscure.

4.4. Camels in the Dietary Laws of the Pentateuch The book of Leviticus, which largely introduces laws for the priestly service in the tabernacle, contains many indications of high antiquity. The formative years that determined the final shape of Leviticus ought to be sought in preexilic times (Milgrom 1991, 1–35; Hurvitz 2000). According to the dietary laws of Lev 11, the camel was regarded as unclean (Lev 11:4). It is listed as the first unclean quadruped (Lev 11:2–8). The same law is repeated in Deut 14:7. The context Deut 14:4–21 serves as an abridgment of Lev 11 (Milgrom 1991, 698–704). The reason given for its impurity is that the camel “chews the cud,” but “has no hoof ” (643).

248

Camels in the Biblical World

Typical for camels is their complex digestive tract, which is distinct in shape and structure from the four-​chambered stomach common in ruminants, such as sheep or cattle (Smuts and Bezuidenhout 1987, 124–29). In camels, the first two chambers termed rumen and reticulum are equipped with “glandular sac areas” that are divided into a number of smaller chambers by mucosal folds.75 Up to the middle of the twentieth century AD, scholars ascribed a water-​storage function to these glandular sacs (Bohlken 1960, 208). However, closer inspection revealed that these glandular sacs contained food mash either in the same or in a more solid state than in the rumen. Camels, like ruminants, regurgitate and rechew ingested fodder. When camels are fed ad libitum, they spend eight hours daily eating, eleven hours ruminating, and five hours resting (Kaske et al. 1989). Like ruminants, camels are even-​toed ungulates (Artiodactyla). They possess cushion-​like soles surrounded by hardened skins, showing some resemblance with elephants. According to Lev 11:4, “it does not hoof a hoof” (literally translated), meaning that “it does not grow a hoof” (‫ ;פ ְַרסָ ה אֵ ינֶּנּו מַ פְ ִריס‬Milgrom 1991, 646; cf. DCH 6:771).76 This fits the anatomy of the camel’s foot tip, which has two toes with their nails situated in front of the foot, but no hoofs (Franklin 2011, 211). The dietary law forbids consuming its meat, thus implying that elsewhere in southwest Asia camel meat contributed to the diet. The dietary law applies to wild and domestic camels, and to both types of camels, one- and two-​humped alike. More recently, this law also concerns New World camelids—namely, the wild species vicuña and guanaco and their closely related domestic forms llama and alpaca.

4.5. Camels in the Book of Judges Judges is the second book of the Former Prophets, which comprise Joshua, Judges, 1–2 Samuel, and 1–2 Kings.77 These books are often dubbed the “Deuteronomistic History,” because their language and reasoning seem to be largely patterned according to the book of Deuteronomy, offering a unified presentation of Israel’s 75.  Köhler-​Rollefson 1991, 3. For a detailed description of the digestive system of the camel, see Yagil 1985, 45–46; Smuts and Bezuidenhout 1987, 124–29; Wilson 1989, 98–101; and Al-​Jassim and Hogan 2012. 76. Many translations rely on the LXX and the Targumim and translate ‫ ַפ ְרסָ ה אֵ ינֶּנּו מַ פְ ִריס‬with “it does not divide the hoof,” but ‫( מַ פְ ִריס‬hiphil) “to grow a hoof” is a denominative form of ‫ַפ ְרסָ ה‬ “hoof” and is best translated accordingly. 77.  §4.5 is a revised version of Heide 2020, by permission of the organizers of the conference Les vaisseaux du désert, Lyon 2016, and editors of the volume Les vaisseaux du désert et des steppes: Les camélidés dans l’antiquité (Camelus dromedarius et Camelus bactrianus), Lyon: MOM (Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée) 2020.

Camels in the Patriarchal Narratives and Israel’s Early History

249

history roughly between the fourteenth and sixth centuries BC. However, Josephus pointed to the fact that these books were written by prophets (Against Apion 1:40), so that there are good reasons to see the book of Judges according to tradition as part of the “Former Prophets.” The Former Prophets transmitted only data that served their primary purpose of Heilsgeschichte. In close conjunction with this concept appear the varying appraisals of the people, their priests, and their rulers. It is usually assumed that the various narratives in the book of Judges were woven together into an elaborate composition somewhere between the tenth to sixth centuries BC.78 Besides, there is strong positive evidence that the actual form of the book was the work of one unifying mind (Gooding 1982). In contrast to the dearth of archaeological material from the period of the united monarchy, there seems at least indirect evidence from the premonarchial period that points to the people of Israel as delineated in the book of Judges. Most notably, there is the victory stela of Pharaoh Merenptah (ca. 1213– 1203 BC), erected around 1209 BC in commemoration of the defeat of various intruders into the delta. This stela mentions Israel in the form Yisra’il and claims that “Israel is laid waste; his seed is not.” While three city-​states in the same stela, Ashkelon, Gezer and Yenoam, have the throw-​stick determinative for ‘foreign’ entity and the three-​hills sign for foreign territory, “Israel” is written with the throw-​stick of foreigners, plus a man and woman and plural strokes. These signs usually serve as determinatives for a group of peoples. The Egyptian determinative sees Israel thus not as a fixed foreign entity, such as a “state” or “country,” but simply as a “people.” As Ashkelon in Merenptah’s stela represents the coastlands, “Gezer represents the inlands behind the coast and below the hill-​country proper, and Yenoam represents the Galilee region, the logic of the situation leaves only the hill-​country to which ‘Israel’ may be assigned. Which . . . is precisely where the biblical traditions about the Hebrew premonarchic period place that entity” (Kitchen 2004, 272). The book of Judges describes premonarchial Israel as a group of peoples or tribes without any king (Judg 21:25). Several details of everyday life in the book of Judges, especially in the Gideon narrative (Judg 6–8), correlate well with archaeological observations, such as the designation of the “house of the father,” the worship of Baal and Asherah, the use of oxen for heavy deconstruction work, and the mention of “threshing floor, winepress, household shrine, and village kinsmen and collaborators” (Mazar 2014, 350; Dever 2017, 188; cf. Stager 1985; R. Miller 2014). In the Gideon narrative (Judg 6–8), camels are the means of transport for some of Israel’s neighbors. The camels were used by eastern tribes that 78.  Commentators are usually reluctant to date the final composition of the book; cf. the introductions in Niditch 2008; Groß 2009; and J. Sasson 2014.

250

Camels in the Biblical World

repeatedly invaded Israel. These raids happened probably around 1100 BC, according to the chronology inherent to the Former Prophets.79 Compared to the Genesis narratives, camels feature regularly and in numbers in text passages in the books of Judges, Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles. In the Judges narrative, camels are even described as “innumerable” (Judg 6:5). Yet, even here, their number is only relatively large from the perspective of the Israelites, who owned no camels at all. As we explained earlier, during the fourteenth to twelfth centuries BC the term “donkey of the Sealand” turns up in Sumerian texts, more precisely from Nippur in southern Mesopotamia as far as north as Ugarit in the northern Levant (§3.2.4.3.1). This is paralleled by single finds of camel bone remains (§3.4.1) and figurines from Egypt (§3.4.2) and Mesopotamia (§3.2.1) dating roughly to the same period. The camels of the eastern coalition in Judg 6 probably represent the results of the first successful camel breeding endeavors (cf. Uerpmann and Uerpmann 2002, 251). As has been mentioned previously, the annual growth rate of domestic camel herds does not seem to exceed 8 percent (Dahl and Hjort 1976, 82–83, 98, 103), implying that domestic camel populations may double every eight to ten years at best. By comparison, the population of feral camels in Australia doubles every six to eight years (Spencer et al. 2012, 1255). Thus, camel breeding efforts starting with a small population of, for example, ten individual camels (nine females, one sire), can result in more than one thousand camels after seventy years, provided it is not extensively used for labor and is free from food shortages and (infectious) diseases. The famous passage of Judg 6 seems to portray the Midianites, Amalekites, and the Bene Qedem or “sons of the east” (‫ )ּבְ נֵי־קֶ דֶ ם‬as camel warriors.80 This interpretation is fostered by Bulliet (1975, 36), who refers to the Midianites and Amalekites as “the camel riding foes of Gideon.” Albright also maintained that camel-​riding nomads first appeared with Gideon.81 Yet, the Midianites and their 79.  The individual “judges” of the book are difficult to assign chronologically, depending on the key data given by the exodus on the one hand and the emergence of the united monarchy on the other (not to speak of archaeological issues). Thus, the story of Gideon may have happened somewhere between the Late Bronze and early Iron Age, i.e., the middle of the twelfth and the middle of the eleventh century BC (cf. J. Sasson 2014, 24). 80. In the Pentateuch and the Former Prophets, the Ishmaelite, Midianite, and Amalekite people groups are only distinguished in narrative contexts set prior to the tenth century BC; after that, they, or at least people related to them, are collectively called “Arabs,” and various tribes not mentioned in the earlier sources begin to appear instead, such as Dedan and Dumah. In contrast, the “sons of the east” (‫ )בְּ נֵי קֶ דֶ ם‬appear in both earlier and later sources (Ephʿal 1982, 63). This phrase applied to (a) specific tribal group(s) (J. Sasson 2014, 328). For the location of the ‫ ּבְ נֵי־קֶ דֶ ם‬and their allies, see Jericke 2013, 187–88. 81.  Albright 1942, 96; Henninger 1968, 18; Wilson 1984, 9; cf. Barako 2000, 520; Uerpmann and Uerpmann 2002, 251.

Camels in the Patriarchal Narratives and Israel’s Early History

251

allies are hardly described as camel riders or camel warriors, but more likely as cameleers accompanying and supervising pack animals. The Midianites did not invade the country to face the Israelites in open battle, but to disperse widely and temporarily settle down in large numbers, consuming the crops grown and seizing the cattle tended by their enemies. It is worth taking a detailed look at the text in question (Judg 6:3–6):82 For it was whenever Israel seeded its land, Midian would come up with the Amalekites and the Bene Qedem, and they would go against it. And then they would encamp against them and ravage the produce of the earth as far as Gaza and leave no sustenance in Israel as well as no flocks [‫]ׂשֶ ה‬, ox, or donkey. For they would come up with their livestock, and their tent-​ dwellers would march in, like locusts in number. Both they and their camels were innumerable, and they came into the land just to devastate it. So Israel was brought very low because of Midian. Looking closer at the Hebrew text, its various conjugations are peculiar. The text changes, from stating the norm through several wəqatals with iterative force in Judg 6:3 (‫“ וְ הָ יָה ִאם־ז ַָרע יִ ְׂש ָראֵ ל‬it was whenever Israel seeded”), to wayyiqtol to describe the extent of these raids (‫ עַד־ּבֹואֲָך ַעּזָה‬. . . ‫“ ַו ַּיחֲנּו ֲעלֵיהֶ ם‬then they would encamp against them . . . as far as Gaza”; cf. Joüon 2008 §118h–ia), and a negated yiqtol to summarize the repeatedly bitter outcome (‫וְ ֽל ֹא־י ְַׁש ִאירּו ִ ֽמחְ יָה‬ ‫“ ּבְ יִ ְׂש ָראֵ ל‬and leave no sustenance in Israel,” 6:4). Next, the narrator introduces ‫ ּכִ י‬to particularize the force of the enemy in 6:5. Then, he uses yiqtol to detail the repeated actions (‫ּומקְ נֵיהֶ ם ַיעֲלּו וְ אָ ֳהלֵיהֶ ם יבאּו‬ ִ ‫“ ּכִ י הֵ ם‬for they would come up with their livestock, and their tent-​dwellers would march in”), and some nominal phrases to describe the enemy’s superior numbers. Judges 6:5 provides background information and does not introduce actions subsequent to 6:3–4 (cf. Joüon 2008 §113e–ga). Finally, the narrative makes use of two wayyiqtols that summarize the aim of the enemy and the destructive impact of the repeated raids (‫“ ַוּיָבֹ אּו בָ אָ ֶרץ לְ ׁשַ ח ָ ֲֽתּה׃ וַּיִ ּדַ ל יִ ְׂש ָראֵ ל ְמאֹ ד ִמּפְ נֵי ִמ ְדיָן‬they came into the land just to devastate it. So, Israel was brought very low because of Midian”). A similar array of Hebrew conjugations is found in Judg 2:17, where a wayyiqtol (‫)ו ִ ַּֽי ְׁשּתַ חֲוּו‬, embedded in a series of wəqatals representing iterative actions, is used to express the impact and climax of apostasy (Dawson 1994, 130).83 82.  The quoted scripture is a modified version of J. Sasson’s (2014, 324) translation. For “tent-​ dwellers” instead of “tents,” cf. the discussion below. 83. Cf. also Judg 12:5, where ‫ֹאמרּו‬ ְ ‫ ַוּי‬introduces the reaction to the request of each Ephraimite who wanted to cross the river Jordan (‫ֹאמרּו‬ ְ ‫ֹאמרּו ּפְ לִ יטֵ י אֶ פְ ַריִ ם אֶ עֱבֹ ָרה ַוּי‬ ְ ‫)והָ יָה ּכִ י י‬. ֽ ְ A similar resultative wayyiqtol is found in Judg 16:16 “so that his soul was vexed to death” (‫)ו ִַּתקְ צַ ר נַפְ ׁשֹו ל ָֽמּות‬. Burney’s (1920, 176) comment on Judg 6:3–6 that “the somewhat curious combination of tenses in

252

Camels in the Biblical World

Judges 6:5 gives a lively description of the overwhelming superiority of the opponent. The Midianites and their allied tribesmen would invade the country with their own livestock and leave the country with the livestock of the Israelites, suggesting in fact a slow-​moving invasion of the country rather than a rapid raid of camel riders. The tribesmen, including their families, would pitch their tents anywhere, and numerous camels would pasture the land (‫וְ לָהֶ ם וְ לִ גְ מַ ּלֵיהֶ ם אֵ ין‬ ‫)מ ְסּפָר‬. ִ The tactic of the Midianites was to consume and thus destroy the livelihood of Israel by heavily reducing or at least damaging the different kinds of crops and other suitable pasture before the harvest. As such, the intruders consumed the available legumes, fruits, and vegetables, while their cattle grazed the fields and devoured the unripe cereals. Sheep, and especially goats, are quite modest in their demand for grass and shrubs, so they would consume what was left. Camels in large numbers that were allowed to roam freely would consume shrubs that even small livestock flocks had passed over and higher above ground vegetation (cf. Jabbur 1995, 224). Moreover, the Israelites, possessing no camels, but only flocks of small livestock as well as oxen and donkeys (Judg 6:4), did not know how to capture or chase away camels and were thus at the mercy of their oppressors. In this way, the Midianites consumed the produce of the land (‫)יְ בּול הָ אָ ֶרץ‬. Finally, to make sure that they did not oversee any food or means of transport, they seized the cattle, sheep, goats, and donkeys of the local population during withdrawal. Prima facie, the verbal translation of Judg 6:5, “For they would come up with their livestock, and their tents would come like locusts in number” (‫ּומקְ נֵיהֶ ם‬ ִ ‫ּכִ י הֵ ם‬ ‫) ַיעֲלּו וְ אָ ֳהלֵיהֶ ם יבאו כְ ֵ ֽדי־אַ ְרּבֶ ה לָרֹ ב‬, based on the ketiv, seems to result in an awkward expression. Although the qere disconnects the expression ‫ וְ אָ ֳהלֵיהֶ ם‬from the verbal form ‫יבאו‬, isolating it between two verbal expressions, the general meaning is the same (‫ּומקְ נֵיהֶ ם ַיעֲלּו וְ אָ ֳהלֵיהֶ ם ּובָ אּו כְ ֵ ֽדי־אַ ְרּבֶ ה לָרֹ ב‬ ִ ‫“ ּכִ י הֵ ם‬For they would come up with their livestock, and their tents, and they came like locusts in number”).84 the Heb[rew] suggest that elements from more than one source have been combined; and these it is useless to attempt to unravel” is based on a misinterpretation of the embedded wayyiqtols. The same applies to Budde’s (1897, 52) assumption of “incorrect imperfect constructions with consecutive force” (“falschen Impff. conss.”), and to G. Moore’s (1966, 178) remark that “the confusion of tenses, which in English is only awkward, is in Hebrew ungrammatical.” 84. This particular ketiv/qere variation may have been caused due to graphical error (a simple variation between waw and yod at the beginning of a word). Some of the Greek textual witnesses read τὰς σκηνὰς αὐτῶν παρέφερον καὶ παρεγίνοντο ὡς ἀκρὶς εἰς πλῆθος, combining the ketiv (reading it as hiphil) and the qere: ‫“ וְ אָ ֳהלֵיהֶ ם יבאו ּובָ אּו כְ דֵ י־אַ ְרּבֶ ה לָרֹ ב‬they brought their tents, and they came like locusts in number” (Fernández Marcos 2011, 65*). The Syriac version simplifies the syntax, but ̈ its meaning leans to the ketiv: ‫ܘܡܫܟܢܝܗܘܢ ܐܬܝܢ ܗܘܘ ܐܝܟ ܩܡܨܐ ܣܓܝܐܐ‬ ‫“ ܡܛܠ ܕܗܢܘܢ ܘܒܥܝܪܗܘܢ‬for they and their animals and their tents would come like many locusts”; likewise, the Vulgate: ipsi enim et universi greges eorum veniebant cum tabernaculis “for they and all their livestock came with tents.” Targum Onqelos supports the qere. Groß (2009, 355–56) prefers the ketiv, reading ‫ יבאו‬as hiphil: “They brought in their tents, as numerous as grasshoppers” (“Ihre Zelte brachten sie herein,

Camels in the Patriarchal Narratives and Israel’s Early History

253

Either way, both expressions, ‫( וְ אָ ֳהלֵיהֶ ם יבאו‬ketiv) and ‫ ַיעֲלּו וְ אָ ֳהלֵיהֶ ם‬. . . ‫ּכִ י הֵ ם‬ (qere), have “tents” as their subject. Tents are normally not expected to “come up” or “walk in.” All the same, the “walking tents” of Judg 6:5 can at least be interpreted in two ways. First, in the sense of camels being piled high with tents and their furnishings. Thus, the arriving pack train would give the impression of tents marching in. They would be, quite naturally, the first detail noticed by an observer from afar. By comparison, Richard Wilson describes a train of camels on a 160 km journey in Sudan. They carried each three one-​hundred-​kilogram sacks of sugar over long distances, “festooned like Christmas trees with various other bits of baggage” (1984, 166). Second, one could easily interpret the expression ‫“ אָ הֳל‬tent” in the overall context of mobile desert-​dwellers, having the same connotation as Arabic ‫ أهل‬ʾahl (HAH, 20). This semantic connection is known from 1 Chr 4:41 and 2 Chr 14:14 (see §5.3.4), but it likely applies here as well. In CA, ʾahl expresses “the people of a house or dwelling, and of a town or village, and of a country” (Lane 1863, 121). The same meaning is known from ASA (Beeston et al. 1982, 3). Syriac has the equivalent ‫ ܝܗܐܠ‬yahlā “tribe; clan” (Sokoloff 2009, 567). In ANA, it is closely connected to the tent itself, denoting the close family group that lives together in a single tent (Nehmé and Macdonald 2015). Thus, following the ketiv, Judg 6:5 could be translated as, “For they would come up with their livestock, and their tent-​dwellers would come in like locusts in number.” With the qere, we read, “They and their camels would come up, and their tent-​dwellers—and they came like locusts in number.” The subsequent phrase, “like locusts in number,” supports this understanding of the verse in question, pointing to a horde of uninvited tent-​dwellers that swarmed across the land. That the Midianites bringing in their livestock or cattle (‫)מקְ נֵיהֶ ם‬ ִ were accompanied by other persons dwelling in tents may come as no surprise. As Gregory Wong (2007, 539–40) and others have observed, the whole scene is a vivid reminiscence of a real locust-​like invasion as narrated in Exod 10:14–15 (cf. Joel 1:4): In Exod 10:14, the locusts were advancing against Egypt, then they settled down, damaged the vegetation, and spared next to nothing—just as in Judg 6:3–4. Here the “locust-​behaving” Midianite oppressors (Judg 7:12) are sent against God’s own people. Whereas the camel itself does not seem to have struck the writer as extraordinary, its large numbers (Judg 6:5), “as the sand on the seashore” (Judg 7:12), surely did (Bulliet 1975, 77). Judges 6:5, with its description of the Midianites and their allies (“for they would come up with their livestock, and their tent-​dwellers would march in”), has some similarity to Papyrus Harris I, housed in the British Museum, where so massenhaft wie Heuschrecken”). However, both verbs ‫ בוא‬. . . ‫“ עלה‬come up . . . go” usually form a sequence to describe directed movements and, in that case, are always found in the qal stem; cf. Gen 45:23; Exod 7:28; Num 13:22; Judg 20:26; 1 Sam 25:5; 2 Kgs 1:13; 2 Kgs 18:17.

254

Camels in the Biblical World

Ramesses III is described as destroying “the people of Seir among the Shasu tribes.” Although the Egyptian text bypasses any specific information about transport animals that would have carried the tents of the Shasu, the very mention of tents as a Semitic loanword (cf. §3 n. 149), and small cattle (jꜢwt, Weippert 1974, 275), is noteworthy: “I razed their tents: their people, their property, and their cattle as well, without number, pinioned and carried away in captivity, as the tribute of Egypt” (cf. Giveon 1971, 136). After years of assault, Gideon and his warriors managed to attack the camp of their oppressors immediately before they tried to invade the country once again (Judg 7:1). They succeeded and pursued them through the northern part of the Jordan Valley, from where the enemy tried to escape to the east (Judg 7:22–8:12), but finally had to accept total defeat. It is noteworthy that the battle against the Midianites and their allies was set off by three hundred men smashing jars, waving torches, blowing horns, and shouting the war cry in proximity of the Midianite war camp around midnight (Judg 7:19–20). It is not hard to imagine how a large camel herd (Judg 7:12), commonly characterized as spooky, would perceive the sight of flickering lights and the racket of cracking jars, accompanied by a choir of three hundred horns and strident war cries. Once the camels were terrified, out of control and in stampede mode, the whole camp was in turmoil. The resulting chaos was compounded by yhwh entering the fray, turning one man against the other (J. Sasson 2014, 355). After their defeat, Gideon killed the two Midianite kings Zebah and Zalmunna, and took away “the crescents on their camel’s necks” (‫אֶ ת־הַ ּׂשַ הֲרֹ נִ ים אֲׁשֶ ר‬ ‫ארי גְ מַ ּלֵיהֶ ם‬ ֵ ְ‫ּבְ צַ ּו‬, Judg 8:21).85 In addition, their camels had collars (‫ ) ֲענָקֹות‬around their necks (Judg 8:26). The names of Zalmunna and Zebah, as well as the ornaments, reveal features that are similar to those of the later inhabitants of the northwestern Arabian Peninsula. This makes it plausible to locate the Midianites of the Hebrew Bible geographically in the wider region of the Gulf of Aqaba (Knauf 1988, 1–2). Their continued attacks seem to have affected particularly the northeast of Israel, which they reached via the lower Galilee and the Jezreel Valley. 85. Zebah, ‫“ זֶבַ ח‬offering,” reflecting the Semitic root ḏbḥ, is a PN known in ASA and CA (Hayajneh 1998, 137). Zalmunna (‫צַ לְ ֻמּנָע‬, Judg 8:5–21) seems to mean “shadow is denied” in Hebrew (HAH, 1120). Yet, this meaning most likely serves as a euphemistic reinterpretation, superimposed on the text by the Masoretes, of a PN that is composed of the DN Ṣalm and the root manaʿ “to hinder, prevent, ward off, etc.” A stela that records an offering to Ṣalm, being a DN that is part of the PN Zalmunna, displays a winged disk, a star, and a crescent moon (Dalley 1986, 86). The root manaʿ is known from ASA (Beeston et al.1982, 86) and CA (‫ منع‬Lane 1863, 3024). The PN Zalmunna consequently denotes “Ṣalm has prevented” (cf. Knauf 1988, 91), “Ṣalm has denied,” or “Ṣalm has protected.” The deity Ṣalm is known from Akkadian texts of the second millennium BC (Dalley 1986, 89–90). He was worshiped in Taymāʾ in northwestern Arabia in the first millennium BC (Kootstra 2017). It is not entirely clear whether Ṣalm was a sun god (Maraqten 1996) or a moon god (Knauf 1989, 78–80, 150–51; Wenning 2013, 336).

Camels in the Patriarchal Narratives and Israel’s Early History

255

In later times, Gideon’s victory over the Midianites as narrated in Judg 6–8 even became a piece of wartime nostalgia (Olivier 1981): around the turn of the eighth to the seventh centuries BC, the prophet Isaiah recalled the decisive battle against the Midianite superiority “as the day of Midian” (‫ּכְ יֹום ִמ ְדיָן‬, Isa 9:3).

4.6. Camels in the Books of Samuel The prophet Samuel is a key figure in closing the period of Judges, and in defining and establishing kingship in early Israel. Samuel anoints, introduces, and approves Saul, Israel’s first king, toward the end of the eleventh century BC. Archaeological evidence from this period is comparably scarce (Mazar 1990, 371). However, the recently excavated, strategically located fortress at Khirbet Qeiyafa, near the border with Philistia (Y. Levin 2012; Dever 2017, 323–24, 344), as well as the “Governor’s Residency” at Tel ʿEton in the Judean Shephelah (Faust and Sapir 2018) suggest that at that time a centralized government must already have been in place. Shortly after his enthronement, Samuel orders Saul to “strike Amalek and all that belongs to him . . . and slay from man to woman, from infant to suckling, from ox to small cattle, from camel to donkey” (1 Sam 15:3). This comprehensive listing is reinforced by way of structural as well as thematical allusions to Judg 6:3–5 (cf. Fokkelman 1986, 89; Sternberg 1992, 239; W. Dietrich 2015, 154). The idiom ‫ עד‬. . . ‫“ מן‬from . . . to,” repeatedly employed in the phrase of 1 Sam 15:3, “from man to woman, from infant to suckling, from ox to small cattle, from camel to donkey” (‫ )מֵ ִאיׁש ִאּׁשָ ה ֵ ֽמעֹ לֵל וְ עַד־יֹונֵק ִמּׁשֹור וְ עַד־ׂשֶ ה ִמּגָמָ ל וְ עַד־ח ֲֽמֹור‬expresses the elimination of humans and beasts alike. The listing progresses from the larger to the smaller object, so that camels are named before donkeys, despite the fact that they were the least important animals in the eyes of the Israelites. This incident is unique in portraying the Amalekites as city dwellers in the Hebrew Bible (1 Sam 15:5; cf. R. Klein 1983, 149–50; W. Dietrich 2015, 156–57). According to Gen 36:12,16, the Amalekites were closely related to the Edomites. They also had good relations with kingdoms located southeast of Israel, such as Moab and Ammon (Judg 3:13). In the Gideon narrative, they allied with the Midianites, so that in this case camels became the preferred means of transport (Judg 6:3). In the period portrayed in 1 Sam 15, the Amalekites were partly sedentary, occupying a sparsely populated area of southern Palestine as far as the Egyptian border (1 Sam 15:7). They used donkeys and camels as transport animals.86 86.  For camps and villages side-​by-​side, and tents in a sedentary context, see Cribb 1991, 151–61; also Rosenhouse 2010, 101: “Wherever they [Arabs during the early Islamic conquest] reached, their temporary camps often became new Arab settlements and permanent towns.”

256

Camels in the Biblical World

Saul obeyed Samuel’s command to put the Amalekites and their livestock under a ban (‫)הַ ח ֲַר ְמּתֶ ם‬, a practice known from the books of Deuteronomy (7:2; 20:17) and Joshua (6:21). Such action is also known from King Mesha of Moab some 150 years later: he took men, boys, women, girls, and maid-​servants and devoted them (‫ )החרמתה‬to Ashtar-​Chemosh, which means to destruction.87 In the end, Saul’s mission failed, because he spared (‫ ; ַוּיַחְ מֹ ל‬cf. Alter 1992, 149–51) king Agag and the best of the livestock, against yhwh’s and Samuel’s order respectively (‫ל ֹא תַ חְ מֹ ל‬, literally “do not have pity”; Sternberg 1992, 243–45). The text does not imply that Saul spared all donkeys and camels, but rather those animals suitable for future breeding and exploitation of secondary products (milk, wool): “the best of the small cattle, the oxen, the fattened calves, the lambs, and all that was good” (1 Sam 15:9, 14–15). Some years later, Samuel anointed David as a replacement for Saul by the order of yhwh, while Saul was still in office. However, David had to flee for his life and was forced into exile in Ziklag, located in the neighboring country under Philistine reign. From Ziklag, he conducted repeated attacks on traditional enemies of Israel: “His men went up, and made a raid upon the Geshurites,88 and the Girzites,89 and the Amalekites: for those nations were the inhabitants of the land from of old, as far as Shur, to the land of Egypt. David would strike the land, and would leave neither man nor woman alive, but would take away flocks, cattle, donkeys, camels, and garments, and come back to Achish” (1 Sam 27:8–9). David’s spoil of the repeated raids consisted of “flocks, cattle, donkeys, camels, and garments” (‫)צ ֹאן ּובָ קָ ר ַוחֲמֹ ִרים ּוגְ מַ ּלִ ים ּובְ ג ִָדים‬.90 The order of animals is reminiscent of excavation reports from the Levant, where archaeofaunal assemblages usually consist of large quantities of sheep and goats, some cattle, and 87.  Mesha Stela, lines 14–17. Lines 10–14 of the same inscription give further details, namely “Two important characteristics of ḥerem: The massacre of the entire population and the transfer of part of the booty, concretely objects of worship of the enemy deity, to the sanctuary of the national deity. Moreover, the mention of the installation of new groups, apparently Moabites, seems to reveal that the practice of ḥerem takes place within the framework of an offensive war of annexation of new territories and the installation of a new population (“deux caractéristiques importantes du ḥérem: le massacre de toute la population et le transfert d’une partie du butin, concrètement des objets de culte de la divinité ennemie, dans le sanctuaire de la divinité nationale. Bien plus, la mention de l’installation de nouveaux groupes, apparemment moabites, semble révéler que la pratique du ḥérem se situe dans le cadre d’une guerre offensive d’annexion de nouveaux territoires et d’installation d’une nouvelle population”) (Lemaire 2015b, 90). See also Malul 1999. 88.  The Geshurites here are not to be identified with the people living in Geshur further north (Deut 3:14; Josh 12:5), but with people living southwest of the Philistine settlements (Josh 13:2). 89. According to the qere, supported by Codex A (Γεζραιον; B ‫ א‬omit), the Targumim (‫)גזראי‬, and the Vulgate (Gedri), the text reads ‫“ גזרים‬Gizrites,” probably denoting the inhabitants of Gezer, or people that lived in its vicinity. The Semitic roots gzr and grz have nearly identical meanings in the various languages, and the letters r and z are sometimes subject to metathesis (DRS 3:185). 90. The repetition is obvious from the wəqatals and the lō-​yiqtol employed in 27:9: ‫ וְ ל ֹא‬. . . ‫וְ הִ ּכָה‬ ‫ וְ לָקַ ח‬. . . ‫( יְ חַ ּיֶה‬cf. Stoebe 1973, 479).

Camels in the Patriarchal Narratives and Israel’s Early History

257

minor quantities of transport animals. This enumeration runs reverse to that in the campaign reports of the southwest Arabian kings from the seventh century BC onward, where dromedaries are always listed first, so that a typical list would include “camels, oxen, donkeys, and small livestock” (ʾʾblm wbqrm wḥmrm wqnym, Sima 2000, 11–17). As a reaction to David’s lootings, the Amalekites launched an extensive raid (‫ )פשׁט‬against the Philistines and Judah (1 Sam 30:15), more specifically “against the Negev of the Cherethites, and against that which belongs to Judah, and against the Negev of Caleb,” and burned Ziklag to the ground (1 Sam 30:14).91 Finally, David struck them down, and the victory over the Amalekites allowed him to take possession of their sheep and goats (1 Sam 30:20). After their defeat, four hundred Amalekites “mounted camels and fled” (‫רכְ בּו עַל־הַ ּגְ מַ ּלִ ים ַו ָּינֻסוּ‬‎ָ , 1 Sam 30:17). This event is the first time that camel riding is explicitly mentioned in the Hebrew Bible. These “young men” (‫)איׁש־ ַנעַר‬ ִ had to know how to ride and control a camel, how to make it gallop—camels usually walk in a pace of five to seven kilometers per hour, and never trot—and how to direct the animals until they leave the battlefield. The Amalekites succeeded in escaping, possibly because David’s warriors had neither horses nor camels to pursue them. It has been hypothesized at several occasions that the camel riders of 1 Sam 30:17 are anachronistic (Redford 1992, 305; Na’aman 1994, 227). Yet, there are archaeological sites in the Levant yielding few dromedary remains that—if their age is confirmed—might predate 1000 BC, with increasing numbers after this date (see §3.5). In addition, there is inscriptional evidence from Ugarit, Emar, and Nippur dating to the final second millennium BC (§3.2.4.3.1), and occasional representations from the Fertile Crescent (§§3.2.3; 3.4.2). Camel riding even became fashionable in sedentary communities situated north of Arabia and southern Mesopotamia either during or shortly after these events, as attested by the stone slabs from Tell Ḥalaf and Carchemish (figs. 3.2 and 3.3; ca. ninth century BC).92 In the battle of Qarqar dated 853 BC, Arabian warriors employed dromedaries as riding animals (§3.2.4.11). They used the animals to approach the battlefield, where they dismounted and went into battle. In the event of defeat, camels 91.  The Cherethites are associated with the Philistines and lived south and southeast of Gaza, “but it is not clear whether they were identical with the Philistines, a subgroup of the Philistines, or a separate ethnical identity” (Ehrlich 1992, 899). The name itself seems to point to the island of Crete in the Aegean. The “Negev of Caleb” is the homeland of the Calebites in southern Palestine (Fretz and Raphael 1992, 809). 92.  From early first millennium BC Tell Ḥalaf, there is also evidence for competent riding and controlling of the horse. Prior to that, horses were mainly used for pulling chariots (Drews 2004, 68), or for transporting messengers (Kletter and Saarelainen 2014, 213–14). The chariot was favored, and men on horseback were rare (Drews 2004, 1). Calvary represents a later development and has been reported from the ninth century BC Neo-Assyrian empire.

258

Camels in the Biblical World

were used to make a speedy escape (Macdonald 2000), just as in 1 Sam 30:17. The four hundred men who ‫“ ָרכְ בּו ַעל־הַ ּגְ מַ ּלִ ים ַו ָּינֻסּו‬mounted camels and fled” availed themselves of camels as soon as they realized the desperateness of their situation. Whether their hasty escape involved four hundred camels—one per person—remains to be seen, though.93 Currently, there is no evidence that the early mobile camel pastoralists of Syria and Arabia employed camels as fighting mounts, except in an emergency (Hill 1975, 34; Macdonald 1991, 103; 2015, 67; O. Schmitt 2005, 285). In this respect, “riding a galloping camel, especially over rough ground, is like sitting on a bucking horse” (Thesiger 1991, 59); it will therefore hardly permit efficient combatting. We are, however, aware of later incidents involving Arabian archers mounted on dromedaries that were directly deployed in combat operations, as told by classical authors.94

93.  In the famous panel from Assurbanipal’s palace at Nineveh, Arabian warriors are pictured as sitting behind the hump-​rider and firing arrows at their pursuers (WA 124926, British Museum). Each camel bore two riders. See also §3.3.2. 94.  Livy, History of Rome 37:40, about the famous Battle of Magnesia 189 BC: “In front of this mass of cavalry were scythe chariots and the camels which they call dromedaries. Seated on these were Arabian archers provided with narrow swords four cubits long so that they could reach the enemy from the height on which they were perched”; cf. also Appian, The Syrian Wars 6.32. Conceivably, this account may not be very reliable, as Macdonald (2015, 77) has pointed out: “It is certainly difficult to imagine wielding a bow and a four-​cubit (ca. 2 m) sword from a camel’s back, with or without the shadād [saddle]. Moreover, . . . in a mêlée among infantry, the rider’s height is a positive disadvantage for close fighting while his mount provides a large and easy target.”

Chapter 5

Camels in the United and Divided Kingdoms

From the book of Kings onward, camels are no longer seen as the sole and typical companions of mobile camel pastoralists. The civilizations of Israel and adjacent countries followed the general trend in this respect: camels became increasingly exploited in trade and transport, albeit often with the help of people experienced in handling camels. The book of Kings, transmitted in two parts, covers about four hundred years of history, from the united monarchy under Solomon until the last Judean king Zedekiah, who was exiled at the beginning of the sixth century BC. The final composition was very likely put into circulation during the Persian period or shortly thereafter. For further historical considerations, see §5.1.1.

5.1. The Queen of Sheba and Her Caravan The most prominent camel caravan reported in the Hebrew Bible was led by the queen of Sheba. According to the biblical chronology, it happened during the tenth century BC. Her caravan camels were packed with spices, gold, and precious stones. Sheba (‫)ׁשבָ א‬ ְ denotes the ancient kingdom of southwest Arabia, today located in southern Yemen. The Hebrew root ‫ ׁשבא‬šbʾ has its equivalence in the ASA root s1bʾ. It was realized as Σαβα in the LXX, and as Saba in the Vulgate. The extremely valuable goods given to Solomon by the queen of Sheba, the intriguing personality of a royal woman interested in philosophy, and the appearance and disappearance of a bold, autonomous, loquacious, exotic, and yet unnamed queen has always fascinated the mind of both the reader and the audience. Moreover, the encounter between two exceedingly rich and highly educated sovereigns of different gender with all its unsaid details has generated a wealth of pious and less pious speculations, from antiquity until modern times.

259

260

Camels in the Biblical World

5.1.1. Historical Considerations It may be difficult to prove and/or accept every detail surrounding the visit of the queen of Sheba according to 1 Kgs 10 at face value, explaining why not a few scholars have dismissed the story as fiction. However, the narrative does not present itself as such and does clearly refrain from unrealistic embellishments. Although there is little doubt that the Hebrew Bible was edited at a later stage, the Former Prophets definitely included earlier traditions and dwelled on important historical events that took place well before the text was composed, edited, and transmitted (Uziel and Shai 2007, 163–64; cf. Emerton 2006).1 Unfortunately, there are no extrabiblical sources explicitly mentioning David, Solomon, or the queen of Sheba, but this lack of evidence is not very surprising, given that “all Syro-​Palestinian inscriptions of the tenth century refer to local affairs and shed no light on international relations” (Na’aman 1997a, 58). In addition, the distant western campaigns of the Assyrian kings, who usually documented interactions with foreign rulers on nonperishable materials, did not begin until the ninth century BC. Moreover, textual information once written on soft materials, such as papyrus, may have been lost. Although King Solomon is nowhere mentioned, his dynasty, and therewith his father’s name, is referred to in the famous Tel Dan stela (ninth century BC), where the Davidic dynasty is called the “house of David” (‫בית דוד‬, Aḥituv 2008, 472).2 One of the major achievements of Solomon’s reign was the building of the temple in Jerusalem. Circumstantial evidence from archaeology lends support to the claim that the temple of Jerusalem and its implements “were more likely built during the time of King Solomon than in any other period of the history of Israel and Judah” (Zwickel 2015, 151; cf. Mazar 2014, 360; Dever 2017, 352). The nucleus of the relevant text (1 Kgs 5:15–9:9), even though it seems to have a complicated literary history, was most likely composed in the latter part of Solomon’s reign (Galil 2012). Furthermore, Shoshenq I’s/Shishak’s (Sagrillo 2015) raid through the central Judean hill country in the later tenth century BC (1 Kgs 14:25–28) must have been inspired by the existence of a substantial political power in the Levant, in this case believed to be Judah (Dever 2017, 334; Kitchen 2017; Mazar 2010, 30–31; cf. Lemaire 2009). It is noteworthy that Israelite and Judahite kings mentioned in inscriptions are attested in the times and sequence as outlined in the book of Kings, while no 1.  For an assessment of the hypothesis that Hebrew scribes could not produce literature prior to the eighth century BC, see Richelle 2016. 2. The “House of David” is probably mentioned as well in the stela of King Mesha of Moab, written ‫( בת [ד]וד‬line 31; Lemaire 2007, 288–89). This reading has recently been questioned (Finkelstein, Na’aman, and Römer 2019; Na’aman 2019), but there are good reasons to retain it (Langlois 2019, 35–47).

Camels in the United and Divided Kingdoms

261

king unknown from both books appears in them (cf. Hendel and Joosten 2018, 106–7). The recollection of major foreign kings, such as Shishak and Hiram, is also accurate, and minor kingdoms, such as Moab, are attested as well. Mentions of foreign kings are associated with the right places and times, except for Ben-​Hadad, whose identity poses some difficulties (Halpern and Lemaire 2010, 136). Taken together, the foregoing strongly suggests that the queen of Sheba is not a fictive person and that her appearance has been recollected accurately. However, relative to the queen of Sheba herself, there is, so far, no evidence for her existence from the earliest ASA inscriptions onward. Therefore, the queen of Sheba has sometimes been associated with North Arabian queens, such as Samsi or Zabibe (cf. Retsö 2003, 173–76). Others, such as Kenneth Kitchen (2010, 382), regard the queen of Sheba “as the consort of a ruling mukarrib (paramount ruler) of Saba who gave her executive power to bargain with Solomon on trade matters.” Nevertheless, André Lemaire (2014, xxii) provides a condensed version of a historian’s skepticism toward 1 Kgs 10: “It is always difficult for a historian to appreciate a tradition that is mentioned only once in a historical record, especially when that record consists of a complex literary tradition within a book, the last redaction of which is probably to be dated more than four centuries after the initial event and about twenty-​five centuries ago. It is all the more difficult that this event would have taken place in the tenth century BC, a generally obscure enough period in the history of the ancient Near East.” Lemaire thinks that some details of the narrative reveal deuteronomistic ideology and should be regarded as secondary (xiii; cf. Briend 1996). After a careful consideration of the meagre inscriptional and archaeological evidence from neighboring cultures of the tenth century BC, he finally concludes that “this diplomatic Sabean embassy could well have been historical” (xxiv). More recent inscriptional evidence from Yemen lends support to this conclusion, strengthening the case for a well-​established Sabean hegemony early in the first millennium BC (§5.1.1.2). Behind the story of King Solomon and the queen of Sheba is at least the historical awareness that there were trade relations connecting Palestine and south Arabia from the early first millennium BC (Nebes 2014, 15; cf. Master 2014, 89). 5.1.1.1. Mythological Embellishments In the Second Targum of Esther (seventh century AD), a hoopoe3 informs Solomon that a woman rules over the town of Kitor, who is called “queen of Sheba.” 3. Translated in Grossfeld 1991, 114–15 verbally as “wild rooster.” The Aramaic reads ‫תרנגלא‬ ‫( ברא‬Grossfeld 1994, concordance, 195; Gelbhaus 1893, 25–28), which is the usual designation of the “hoopoe” (Sokoloff 2002, 1235).

262

Camels in the Biblical World

The hoopoe then “airmails” letters to the queen of Sheba, in which Solomon tells of his appointment as “king over the beasts of the field and the birds of the heaven, and over the demons, spirits,” and more. After three years, the queen visits Jerusalem. Seeing Solomon in a room of glass, and imagining that the king was sitting in water, she bared herself to go through it. Finally, she praises Solomon’s magnificence. The Qur’ān (Sura 27 “The Ants”) features a different version of the same story.4 The Ethiopic (Gə‘əz) composition ክብረ፡ነገሥት Kəbrä nägäśt “Nobility of the Kings” probably offers the most intriguing elaboration of 1 Kgs 10. In the Kəbrä nägäśt, the so-​called Ethiopian Solomonic dynasty is justified and glorified by establishing its Israelite descent.5 The second part of the book features the story of Solomon and the queen of Sheba. She is called Makədda, and her title is, by way of adaption to Matt 12:42, “queen of the South,” and “queen of Ethiopia.” Tamrin, a merchant, tells her of Solomon’s wisdom and abilities, and she decides to go and meet him. On her visit to Jerusalem, the Queen becomes pregnant, after having been tricked by Solomon into sexual relations with him. After returning home, she gives birth to a son called Mənilək. Mənilək returns to Jerusalem twenty-​two years later, where he is made king by his father Solomon and receives the name “David.” On his return to Ethiopia, his sons make off with the ark of the covenant, which thus has remained in Ethiopia. The author of the Kəbrä nägäśt loved camels and provided a wonderful array of literary camels.6 The Ethiopian merchant Tamrin, who learned about Solomon 4.  For more details and sources, see Speyer 1931, 384–88; Philby 1981, 43–52. 5.  According to the colophon, the Ethiopic version was composed in the fourteenth century AD. It is debatable whether the Kəbrä nägäśt was translated (and reshaped) from Arabic, which itself may reach back to a Coptic Vorlage, or whether it is, to a certain measure, an original Ethiopian work. The Kəbrä nägäśt draws, besides the Bible, on older traditions and books, such as rabbinical and midrashic texts, as well as on apocryphal works, namely the book of Enoch, the book of Jubilees, the book of Adam and Eve, and the Wisdom of Sirach; as well as the Gospel of Nicodemus, the Acts of Philip, the Didascalia, and the Ascension of Isaiah, etc. (Marrassini 2007, 366). For more details, see Piovanelli 2013; and Bausi 2016. 6.  Another incredible tale of camels became known through Diodorus Siculus (Bibliotheca historica II, 16–19). The tale is embedded in the story of Queen Semiramis, and her battle with the Indian ruler Stabrobates, “a second-​century BC report of a late fifth-​century description of legendary events ascribed to the ninth century” (Macdonald 2015, 76). “Stabrobates . . . had a multitude of soldiers without number; and many elephants were also at his disposal, fitted out in an exceedingly splendid fashion with such things as would strike terror in war. . . . Observing that she was greatly inferior because of her lack of elephants, Semiramis conceived the plan of making dummies like these animals, in the hope that the Indians would be struck with terror because of their belief that no elephants ever existed at all apart from those found in India. Accordingly, she chose out 300,000 black oxen and distributed their meat among her artisans and the men who had been assigned to the task of making the figures, but the hides she sewed together and stuffed with straw, and thus made dummies, copying in every detail the natural appearance of these animals. Each dummy had within it a man to take care of it and a camel and, when it was moved by the latter, to those who saw it from a distance it looked like an actual animal. . . . There were also men mounted on camels, carrying

Camels in the United and Divided Kingdoms

263

through his trade with gold, precious stones, and wood, had some 500 camels at his disposal, and 73 ships (ch. 22).7 Queen Makkəda’s journey to Jerusalem involved 797 camels, and countless mules and donkeys (ch. 24). King Solomon gave her in return 6,000 riding camels (ch. 30). In addition, he later gave female riding-​camels to her son Mənilək, who was otherwise called “David” (ch. 43). On the return of Mənilək, the archangel Michael led the caravan of horses, mules, and camels. He eased the journey by lifting all mounts one cubit above the ground (ch. 52). In Ethiopia, some priests and elders of Israel who had accompanied Mənilək, describe their journey as that of a camel that was led by a thin but untearable nose rein (ch. 88). In chapter 61, the story of the ark of the covenant in the land of the Philistines (1 Sam 6) is rephrased, and the “two milk cows on which there has never come a yoke” (1 Sam 6:7) are replaced by two female camels. These camels go to Jerusalem and are finally sacrificed, despite the fact that chapter 91 is based on the dietary laws of Lev 11:4 that declare camels unclean. 5.1.1.2. Cultural Contacts Between Southwest Arabia, Egypt, and the Levant The south-​Arabian civilization started before the turn of the second to the first millennium BC (Schippmann 1998, 45–49). Archaeological excavations, like those in Yalā (§3.3.1.3), provide evidence of significant settlements at the end of the second millennium BC. The dating of the earliest south-​Arabian inscriptions to roughly the same period, written in the specific south-​Arabian script on various materials, such as on wooden sticks (Stein 2010, 45–47; 2013, 191), is supported by radiocarbon dating, by archaeological context, and by paleography (Sedov 1997, 43–47; Stein 2013, 189). In addition, several inscribed potsherds dating to the ninth century BC have been unearthed in Sabaʾ (Robin 1993, 23). Cultural contacts between the Levant and southwest Arabia before the turn of the second to the first millennium BC are suggested by a major variant sequence of the alphabet in the Levant, which ultimately seems to be of Egyptian origin (Kammerzell 2001; Hamilton 2006).8 The ASA and Northwest Semitic swords four cubits long, as many in number as the chariots. . . . Camels also bore the dummies of the elephants, as has been mentioned; and the soldiers, by bringing their horses up to these camels, accustomed them not to fear the savage nature of the beasts. A similar thing was also done many years later by Perseus, the king of the Macedonians, before his decisive conflict with the Romans who had elephants from Libya” (trans. Oldfather 1933). 7.  Chapter divisions are according to the Ethiopic edition and German translation of Bezold (1905), and of the English translation of Budge (1932). The French translations of G. Colin (2002) and Beylot (2008) use the same chapter divisions. 8.  The common version of the alphabet is the well-​known abgad sequence, as known from Ugaritic, Aramaic, Hebrew, and its cognate dialects, which is also the ancestral sequence of the European alphabets: ʾa b g (ḫ) d h w z ḥ ṭ y k l m, etc. The second version is the halaḥam sequence: h l ḥ m q w š r b t s k n ḫ, etc. It was most likely already used in an Egyptian word list of the late

264

Camels in the Biblical World

languages not only share a common origin of their alphabets, research has also clarified that these languages exhibit significant morphological, syntactical, and lexical commonalities (Stein 2017, 110). There is, moreover, at least some evidence that is suggestive of trade relations between the early Sabean kingdom and Egypt. The toponym Šb, known from several hieroglyphic stelae of Darius I (ca. 522–486 BC), is written once ŠꜢ-Ꜣ-b, and two times ŠꜢ-Ꜣ-bỉꜢ, thus closely resembling the Sabaic root s1bʾ that denotes Sabaʾ (Klotz 2015, 270). The only locations mentioned in these stelae are the ancient Suez Canal, Persia as the final destination, and Sabaʾ in midway location (272). However, the same toponym, this time written ŠꜢ-Ꜣ-b-​y, occurs already among the enemy territories on the First Pylon of Medinet Habu from the times of Ramesses III (ca. 1185–1156 BC).9 A rock inscription with cartouches of Ramesses III from Taymāʾ that was discovered in 2010 witnesses to the fact that the Egyptian armed forces at that time were able to advance into major parts of the Arabian Peninsula (Somaglino and Tallet 2013). “The members of the Egyptian expedition who carved the cartouches . . . may have tried to join the caravan route that linked the South-​Arabian Peninsula to the northern coastal cities” (515). In addition, archaeological remains from the end of the second millennium BC confirm the existence of at least occasional contacts between Taymāʾ and Egypt (516; Sperveslage 2016, 308; 2013; Hausleiter 2011, 111). If pharaonic forces went as far as Taymāʾ, and if the kingdom of Sabaʾ was already known to Ramesses III, a commercial interest in the incense trade between south Arabia and the Levant is the most likely explanation for the pharaonic expedition to Taymāʾ (Sperveslage and Eichmann 2012, 375; Tallet 2013, 201; Klotz 2015, 271; Sperveslage 2016). As so often, cuneiform sources provide the earliest direct evidence relative to long-​distance trade: Ninurta-​kudurri-​usur, the governor of Suḫu and Mari on the Euphrates during the eighth century BC, reports that his troops had plundered a large caravan of the people from Taymāʾ and Sabaʾ, “whose abode is far away” (Cavigneaux and Ismail 1990, 346, 351). It has been noted, though, that none of the merchandise mentioned in the report of Ninurta-​kudurri-​usur, that is, blue-​purple wool, wool, and iron, would effectively come from south Arabia fifteenth century BC (Haring 2015, 195; Fischer-​Elfert and Krebernik 2016), probably together with the abgad sequence (Schneider 2018). It is also known from some specimens of the fourteenth to thirteenth centuries BC alphabetic cuneiform writing system of Ugarit (Hayajneh and Tropper 1997; Lemaire 2017, 109), from first millennium BC southwest Arabia (Stein 2003, 11), and from first millennium AD Ethiopia. The sequence and shape of the ASA letters can be explained, for the most part, as depending on the Northwest Semitic halaḥam sequence (Hayajneh and Tropper 1997, 192). 9.  In earlier publications, the identification of ŠꜢby with Sabaʾ was ruled out because it was deemed impossible that Egypt should have relations with south Arabia during Ramesses III (Klotz 2015, 271).

Camels in the United and Divided Kingdoms

265

(Macdonald 2009b, IX 339). Some of the goods plundered by Ninurta-​kudurri-​ usur are also mentioned in the annals of Assurnasirpal II (ca. 883–859 BC) and his predecessor, Tukulti-​Ninurta II (ca. 890–884 BC, cf. §3.2.4.6). These goods were tribute from Ḫindānu and cities further north on the Euphrates, such as Dūr-​Katlimmu on the Khabur River, and these cities in turn had at least imported blue-​purple wool from Phoenicia. “It therefore looks as if the caravan may have been in the middle of a trading cycle . . . having already exchanged its South Arabian goods for textiles in Phoenicia” (Macdonald 2009b, IX, 340, 343). It is also possible that a similar caravan had been on its way before, using Ḫindānu as a caravan outpost (Liverani 1992, 112, 114; Singer-​Avitz 1999, 5; §3.2.4.10.2). Mario Liverani (1992, 114) further argues that “a starting point of the South Arabian trade in the second half of the tenth century would perfectly agree both with the Old Testament traditions and with the Assyrian royal inscriptions—and would also fit in the technological development of the Arabian mastery of the ‘desert’ environment and its caravan network.” In addition, there is the famous Sabean inscription of Yiṯaʿʾamar Watar bin Yakrubmalik from Ṣirwāḥ, dated to 715 BC (Nebes 2016). The res gestae of Yiṯaʿʾamar suggests that the Sabean rulers were not only involved in securing overland trade by that time but were active in the trade itself (33). The same inscription mentions the ʾAmīr, which are known to belong to a tribe or clan active in camel breeding with many branches in southwest Arabia (line 6; Nebes 2016, 31). That being said, inscriptional and archaeological evidence from Yemen unearthed in the last decades strongly suggests that the Sabean supremacy in southwest Arabia was established well before the eighth century BC. First, the southwest Arabian monumental script was already fully fledged by the end of the tenth/beginning of the ninth centuries BC. Second, the line of succession of the Sabean rulers very likely reached back into the tenth century BC, as evidenced by numerous short building inscriptions on the city wall of Ṣirwāḥ, dating to about 900 BC. Third, early Sabean hegemony even extended across the Red Sea, as reflected by two prestigious buildings of Sabean style in Tigray (Ethiopia), dating to circa 800 and circa 700 BC respectively, presupposing a well-​established and far-​reaching political and economic system with a long history (Nebes 2016, 72). In sum, the Sabean kingdom may have had the potential to plan, conduct, and protect long distance trade from Sabaʾ across the western Arabian Peninsula to the north. In other words, there are no data that would render a visit of a south Arabian queen and her delegation in Jerusalem in the tenth century BC utterly impossible (Stein 2017, 113). Of course, the visit of the queen of Sheba as mentioned in 1 Kgs 10 presupposes the existence of domestic camels, or, more precisely, the training of dromedaries as pack animals in overland trade (§5.1.1.4; cf. Holladay and Klassen 2014, 38–43).

266

Camels in the Biblical World

5.1.1.3. Mission or Queen of Sheba? Recently, Lemaire proposed the reading “the delegation/mission of Sheba” (‫ֶת־ׁשבָ א‬ ְ ‫)מלֶאכ‬ ְ instead of “the queen of Sheba” (‫ַת־ׁשבָ א‬ ְ ‫מַ לְ ּכ‬‎, 1 Kgs 10:1; Lemaire 2015c). Although Lemaire has pointed out that textual and grammatical considerations lend a certain probability to this reading—there are indeed a few cases where an internal aleph got lost—there is no evidence that 1 Kgs 10 was ever read in this way. First Kings 10 refers to the “queen of Sheba” several times (1 Kgs 10:1, 4, 10, 13; cf. 2 Chr 9:1–12), without giving the slightest hint in the MT and in the versions that “the queen of Sheba” (‫ַת־ׁשבָ א‬ ְ ‫ )מַ לְ ּכ‬should be read as “the delegation/mission of Sheba” (‫ֶת־ׁשבָ א‬ ְ ‫)מלֶאכ‬. ְ 10 Therefore, introducing the reading “the delegation/mission of Sheba” (‫ֶת־ׁשבָ א‬ ְ ‫)מלֶאכ‬ ְ into 1 Kgs 10 cannot be substantiated. This observation does not mean that the queen came without any delegation or mission, but the phrase ‫ַת־ׁשבָ א‬ ְ ‫ מַ לְ ּכ‬simply does not contain information on this. Nonetheless, in the same article, Lemaire (2015c, 196) made another important observation: “The best parallel for the story of the delegation from Sheba to Jerusalem at the end of Solomon’s reign is the embassy from Babylon to Jerusalem during Hezekiah’s reign, where it is recorded that: ‘B/Merodach-​ baladan son of Baladan king of Babylon sent envoys with a gift to Hezekiah. . . . Hezekiah welcomed them and showed them all his treasury’ (2 Kgs 20:12–13).” The two stories share a surprising element. In both stories, the etiquette of a state visit is in the foreground, with the exchange of official courtesies. The king of Babylon sent an envoy “with letters and a present to Hezekiah, for he heard that Hezekiah had been sick” (2 Kgs 20:12). Hezekiah welcomed the Babylonian visitors “and showed them all his treasure house, the silver, the gold, the spices, the precious oil, his armory, all that was found in his storehouses. There was nothing in his house or in all his realm that Hezekiah did not show them” (2 Kgs 20:13). Behind the scenes and with the help of the Babylonians, however, Hezekiah was preparing arrangements for a future uprising against the Assyrian supremacy. His background efforts are not obvious to the reader (and they were most likely unknown to the average citizen of Jerusalem), but they become clear on second thought, and have already been suggested by Josephus (Begg 2000, 10. See the discussion in Lemaire 2015c, 194–96. All cases where a reading based on the root mlk got confused with a reading based on the root mlʾk in the MT are in favor of mlk. According to the principles of textual criticism, the readings based on the root mlk should be regarded as the lectiones potiores. For 2 Sam 11:1; 1 Chr 21:20, Ps 68:13, cf. also Delitzsch 1920 §§31a; 99b. For Jer 7:18; 44:17–25, see Rabin, Talmon, and Tov 1997. The MT and the versions of 2 Kgs 6:33 offer no variant reading for ‫מלאך‬, yet here again, ‫ מלך‬seems to be preferable to ‫( מלאך‬cf. the apparatus of the BHS, Friedrich Delitzsch 1920: §99b; and Lemaire 2015c). In all these instances, ‫ מלך‬is suggested as the correct reading. Considering that the MT and the versions offer no ‫מלאך‬/‫מלך‬, etc. variants in 1 Kgs 10, there is no reason why ‫ מלאכת‬should be preferable to ‫מלכת‬.

Camels in the United and Divided Kingdoms

267

428–35). This can be deduced from Hezekiah’s behavior (“he showed them all his treasure”), and, of course, from Isaiah’s reaction. On the other hand, the explanation offered for the visit of the queen of Sheba was to challenge Solomon’s wisdom “with hard questions” (‫לְ נַּסֹ תֹו ּבְ חִ ידֹות‬‎, 1 Kgs 10:1). She came “with a very great force [guarding] camels bearing aromatic resins, and very much gold, and precious stones,” and she was invited to see the glory of Solomon’s court and of his royal household (1 Kgs 10:2–5). As Lemaire points out, “Visiting the royal palace and describing how it is organized is also part of the ritual of a high-​level diplomatic meeting which could include a general visit to the country (see EA 15:6–7). The greatness of a king was measured by the importance of his palace (see EA 89:48–53) and the riches it contained” (Lemaire 2002, 46–47).11 Behind the scenes with all their public display of royal glory and education, trade arrangements had to be made to secure the high demand of aromatic substances and gold for times to come (46). These negotiations are likewise not obvious to the reader, but they become clear from the thought-​flow of 1 Kgs 10. After the queen and her entourage left the scene ( ָ‫ הִ יא ַועֲבָ דֶ יה‬could well be phrased as “she and her ministers”), a series of short notes (10:14–22) “is associatively connected by the repeated mention of gold, acquired through trade and tribute. The theme of incomparability ties them all to the previous unit on the visit of the queen of Sheba (vv. 10, 12, 20). Everything is wrapped up by the summary in vv. 23–25” (Cogan 2001, 322). In a way, the queen’s magnificent appearance is reminiscent of state visits of antiquity as well as of modern times. When rulers partake in officially arranged state banquets, exchange courtesies, and are introduced into prestigious and imposing settings, high officials commissioned to conduct the real negotiations are working behind the scenes. 5.1.1.4. The Queen’s Camels and Her Gifts The narrator of the book of Kings reports that “she [the queen of Sheba] came to Jerusalem with a very great force [guarding] camels bearing perfumes, and very much gold, and precious stones” (‫וַּתָ ב ֹא יְ רּוׁשָ ַל ְמָ ה ּבְ חַ יִ ל ּכָבֵ ד ְמאֹ ד ּגְ מַ ּלִ ים נֹ ְׂש ִאים ּבְ ׂשָ ִמים‬ ‫ב־מאֹ ד וְ אֶ בֶ ן יְ קָ ָרה‬ ְ ‫וְ זָהָ ב ַר‬‎, 1 Kgs 10:2). “Investigators of long-​distance exchange frequently have observed that the objects exchanged were not in the first instance necessities, but luxuries and prestige items.”12 It seems that the queen of Sheba exclusively utilized camels as transport animals on her journey of about two 11.  “La visite du palais royal et la description de la manière dont il est organisé font aussi partie du rituel d’une rencontre diplomatique de haut niveau qui pouvait inclure une visite générale du pays (cf. EA 15:6–7). La grandeur d’un roi se mesurait à l’importance de son palais (cf. EA 89:48–53) et aux richesses qu’il renfermait.” 12.  Kohl 2007, 57, translating Avilova, Antonova, and Teneishvili, 1999, 61, 64. Cf. also Cole 1996b, 64.

268

Camels in the Biblical World

thousand kilometers. However, nothing is said about the accompanying military escort, denoted by “a very great force” (‫ּבְ חַ יִ ל ּכָבֵ ד ְמאֹ ד‬‎, 2 Kgs 18:17; cf. Cogan 2001, 311; Lemaire 2002, 46). The asyndetic junction of ‫ ּגְ מַ ּלִ ים‬to the first part of the sentence is unusual, so that most scholars prefer to read ‫ּוגְ מַ ּלִ ים‬, as suggested by 2 Chr 9:1. Targum Jonathan reflects the same asyndetic construction (‫בוּסמין וְ דַ הְ בָ א סַ גִ י‬ ִ ‫)גַמלִ ין ְטעִ ינִ ין‬. In Hebrew, “camels” (‫ )ּגְ מַ ּלִ ים‬heads a circumstantial clause that details goods guarded by the “very great force” of the introductory statement. The text does not detail the nature of the camels, nor does it say anything to suggest that the camels exploited in the queen’s caravan represented the common mode of transport for persons and goods. The carefully guarded camel-​ caravan (“a very great force,” ‫ )ּבְ חַ יִ ל ּכָבֵ ד ְמאֹ ד‬rather points to an unusual event. First Kings 10 is the first time that a large caravan coming from the Arabian Peninsula into the Levant is mentioned in the Hebrew Bible. The text does not suggest that contemporaneous Hebrew communities exploited camels on a large scale, or that they had introduced camels into their own economy. Camels are only seen in the caravan of the south-​Arabian queen. We know, however, that during the eleventh century BC Assyrians had already started breeding camels, most likely using udru hybrids (Bactrian camels × dromedaries) that could be bought from merchants (§3.2.4.10.1). As such, the stone slabs from Carchemish and Tell Ḥalaf showing mounted dromedaries date later (§3.2.2). Yet, as camel riding seems a further development from using it for transporting goods, dromedaries must have been exploited as pack animals before. Texts from the ninth century BC point to systematic breeding efforts in the larger area of Ḫindānu requiring dromedaries. In the northern Arabian Peninsula, “donkeys of the Sealand” probably had been bred in numbers after their initial domestication, which likely had been accomplished by the twelfth century BC (§§3.2.4.11, 3.2.4.3, and 3.2.5), camels thus becoming increasingly available to various tribes living in North Arabia and adjacent regions prior to 1000 BC (cf. §§4.5 and 4.6). Even if a large camel caravan traversing the Arabian Peninsula in the later tenth century BC might still be considered an unusual phenomenon, it is certainly not asking for impossibilities. From this we conclude that the Sabean kingdom very likely already disposed of the logistic capabilities for such a large-​scale enterprise (§5.1.1.2). The camels of the queen were carrying “perfumes, very much gold, and precious stones” (1 Kgs 10:2). The aromatic oils or perfumes (‫ּבְ ׂשָ ִמים‬, bəśāmīm) are sometimes used to denote Commiphora opobalsamum (L.), the aromatic resin of the balsam-​tree (Cant 5:1, 13; 6:2; Löw 1967 1:299–304). The balm tree or balm shrub grows in hot deserts or semideserts. Balm was used as an ingredient for the holy oil in the sanctuary, as an ingredient of perfume, and as a healing agent for wounds (Zohary 1982, 198). It grows in southwest Arabia. Usually, ‫ ּבְ ׂשָ ִמים‬carries the general meaning of “perfumes, spices,” which most likely

Camels in the United and Divided Kingdoms

269

included frankincense as well. The versions translate ‫ ּבְ ׂשָ ִמים‬similar to the LXX (ἡδύσματα “spices, aromatics”). According to Josephus, the famous balm trees of Gilead were part of the “perfumes” (‫ )ּבְ ׂשָ ִמים‬brought by the queen of Sheba (Lev and Amar 2008, 350).13 Although this connection is possible, it is more reasonable that the balm trees of Gilead were cultivated by the peasants of Jericho and En Gedi (Zohary 1982, 198). Moreover, the “balm of Gilead” is more specifically referred to as ‫צְ ִרי‬ (cf. Gen 37:25; see §4.2.4). The second most important gift in the Queen’s caravan was gold, followed by “precious stones.” The queen of Sheba is said to have given “120 talents of gold” to king Solomon (‫ו ִַּתּתֵ ן לַּמֶ לְֶך מֵ אָ ה וְ ע ְֶׂש ִרים ּכִ ּכַר זָהָ ב‬‎, 1 Kgs 10:20). In Babylonia, a talent is defined as having 60 minas, and each mina is divided into 60 shekels (Powell 1990, 510). In Israel, a talent (‫ )ככר‬is defined as 3,000 shekels (‫ ;שקל‬Exod 38:25). If one shekel averages to around 11 g (Kletter 1991, 134), one talent equals 33 kg. In other words, the camels of the queen of Sheba are said to have carried nearly four tons of gold, distributed on thirty camels, provided each camel was loaded with 133 kg (cf. Dorman 1984, 623). Nineteenth-​century British army veterinary advice was not to exceed 135–180 kg for prolonged journeys, and in Roman Egypt, a normal camel load was estimated at approximately 180 kg (Seland 2011, 402). Generally, recommendations for camel loads are somewhere between 130 and 400 kg, depending on the terrain and the distance covered (Gatier 2020, 242). Camels are ideal for carrying heavy loads, as is evident from their almost contemporaneous exploitation in copper mining (§3.5.1.3). The scribe of Targum Jonathan hinted to this by translating the phrase “camels carrying” (‫ּגְ מַ ּלִ ים נֹ ְׂש ִאים‬‎, 1 Kgs 10:2) with “camels loaded” (‫)גַמלִ ין ְטעִ ינִ ין‬. On the other hand, the thirty camels needed for the queen’s gold, and probably some fifty camels in addition to carry the remaining freight did not make a particularly large caravan, but in the tenth century BC, this may well have been perceived as such. In later times, much larger caravan trains were employed consisting of up to five thousand camels (Seland 2015a, 49). The 120 talents amount to 18 percent of Solomon’s yearly income in gold, 666 talents (1 Kgs 10:14). These figures seem to be exaggerative, but hardly conspicuous if compared to similar figures from the ancient Near East, especially from Egypt and Mesopotamia. In the Amarna letters, for instance, there is so much talk about gold (ḫurāṣum) that it seems to have been regarded as a common give-​away to facilitate diplomatic relations (cf. Edzard 1960). The Assyrian king 13.  Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 8.165: λέγουσι δ᾽ ὅτι καὶ τὴν τοῦ ὀποβαλσάμου ῥίζαν, ἣν ἔτι νῦν ἡμῶν ἡ χώρα φέρει, δούσης ταύτης τῆς γυναικὸς ἔχομεν “They also say that we possess the root of that balsam that our country still bears by this woman’s gift.” Josephus was also one of the first to attribute to the illustrious queen the kingdoms of Egypt and Ethiopia instead of Sheba: τῆς Αἰγύπτου καὶ τῆς Αἰθιοπίας.

270

Camels in the Biblical World

Assur-​uballit (ca. 1363–1328 BC) writes to pharaoh that “gold in your country is dirt; one simply gathers it up. . . . When Assur-​nadin-​ahhe, my ancestor, wrote to Egypt, 20 talents of gold [ca. 600 kg] were sent to him. When the king of Ḫanigalbat wrote to your father in Egypt, he sent 20 talents of gold [ca. 600 kg] to him. . . . If your intention is one of friendship, send me much gold!” (EA 16:13– 34). Tushrattu, king of Mitanni, writes to pharaoh (ca. 1350 BC) that “I also asked my brother for much gold, saying, ‘May my brother grant me more than he did to my father and send it to me. You sent my father much gold. You sent him large gold jars and gold jugs. You sent him gold bricks as if they were copper’ ” (EA 19:34–38). Kings of the Amarna period seem to have considered gold as commonplace as dirt or dust, an opinion that reverberates in the notion that during the time of King Solomon, gold was “as common in Jerusalem as stones” (1 Kgs 10:27). The Amarna letters also refer to golden toilet articles, as well as to furniture and chariots that were plated with gold. In addition, precious stones (1 Kgs 10:2, 10) like lapis lazuli were often sent as diplomatic greeting gifts (EA 7:55–56; 8:43; 11:24; 16:12, etc.). Roughly in the same period, Pharaoh Amenhotep III (fourteenth century BC) ornamented a temple in honor of Amun at Thebes, plating it with gold throughout, adorning its floor with silver, and all its doorways with electrum (Breasted 1906 2:§883). During the Amarna period, Babylon imported so much gold from Egypt that it could even switch for one hundred years from the silver to the gold standard (Sommerfeld 1995, 920; J. Miller 2017, 98). However, such fabulous riches are not only known from the fourteenth century BC, but also, to a lesser amount, from the times of King Solomon and even beyond. Some years after Pharaoh Shoshenq I (biblical Shishak; Sagrillo 2015) had stripped Solomon’s son Rehoboam of his riches (1 Kgs 14:25), Shoshenq’s son Osorkon I (ca. 924–889 BC) claims to have devoted hundreds of tons of gold, silver, and lapis lazuli to the gods of Heliopolis (Störk 1977, 728; Millard 1997, 40; Schipper 1999, 133 n. 110). The Neo-​Assyrian king Adad-​ Narari III (810–783 BC) received one hundred talents of gold and one thousand talents of silver from Mari of Damascus (Grayson 1996, no. A.0.104.6: 20). By the end of the eighth century BC, when Sennacherib received thirty talents (nine hundred kilograms) of gold and eight hundred talents (twenty-​four thousand kilograms) of silver (Cogan 2000) from the Judean King Hezekiah, it seems that the amount of gold available to the rulers of Israel and Judah had already begun to dwindle, so that alternatives had to be found, which nevertheless witnessed to the grandeur of earlier times: “Hezekiah stripped the gold from the doors of the temple of yhwh and from the doorposts that Hezekiah king of Judah had overlaid, and gave it to the king of Assyria” (2 Kgs 18:16). Mining in the Arabian Peninsula could well have been one of the sources for the queen of Sheba’s gold, but most of the gold income of South Arabia was likely obtained by supra-regional trade. There seems to be evidence for gold

Camels in the United and Divided Kingdoms

271

mining in the Iron Age, although precise dating of these activities is impossible (Hester et al. 1984; cf. W. W. Müller 1992). Copper and gold deposits “are abundant further to the south and west of the Ḥījāz” (Sperveslage and Eichmann 2012, 376), but “published data on metal production in the Arabian Peninsula at the beginning of the 1st millennium BC are very scarce” (Renzi et al. 2016, 243). Of course, it has been objected that the gold income of a small state such as Israel cannot be compared to that of much larger empires such as Assyria and Egypt. However, the Assyrian tribute lists of the Iron Age testify to the fact that the small kingdoms of the Levant repeatedly offered large amounts of gold and silver to their Assyrian overlords, which at least implies that much of this wealth was gained through economic activities that must have started earlier than the eighth century BC (J. Holladay 2006). Similarly, the demand for aromatic resins and perfumed oils was high toward the end of the second millennium BC. For instance, letters from the Amarna period, such as EA 34 and 35, “show that perfumed oils were considered appropriate goods for the so-​called ‘gift exchange’ ” (Fappas 2011, 496).14 The foregoing considerations and comparisons do not lend certainty (J. M. Miller 1997), but enhance the plausibility that King Solomon could have been visited by the queen of Sheba.15 Some believe that her visit is nothing more than a foundation legend for the south Arabian trade, but reading 1 Kgs 10 in the context of currently available data including the reasonable assumption of camel husbandry emerging in the late second millennium BC, it lacks the embellishments widely known from legendary tales. In other words, “there is no hint of sensationalism, nothing to provide a foundation or justification for the legends and fables which had come to be woven about her name by a millennium later” (Philby 1981, 28). It is remarkable that none of Solomon’s riches were gathered in his own country, but rather imported from foreign nations through trade and tribute. Precious metals and stones as well as exotic creatures all had to be provided by nonyhwh worshipers (1 Kgs 10:25). For his own ambitious building and furnishing projects including the temple, he had to rely on the expertise and materials of foreign rulers (1 Kgs 9:11). In turn, Israel and its visitors benefited from Solomon’s wisdom and the splendor of his magnificent capital (1 Kgs 10:3–5). If at all, the only substantive countervalue Solomon could offer in exchange were 14.  By comparison, Polybius states that the Gerrheans paid Antiochus III (ca. 223–187 BC) five hundred talents of silver (about ten tons), one thousand talents of frankincense, and one thousand talents of aromatic resin(s) for their political independence: Πεντακοσίοις ἀργυρίου ταλάντοις, χιλίοις δὲ λιβανωτοῦ καὶ διακοσίοις τῆς λεγομένης στακτῆς (Histories XIII 9:5). 15.  Soon after the glorious days of Solomon, more gold was carried off than was brought in, for various reasons, by various foreign nations (1 Kgs 14:26; 15:18; 2 Kgs 12:19; 14:14; 16:8; 18:14, 16; 23:33–35).

272

Camels in the Biblical World

Table 5.1.  Evaluating Solomon’s splendor.

The foreign ruler’s generosity Returning the favor The visit

1 Kings 9:11–14

1 Kings 10:1–10

Hiram king of Tyre had supplied Solomon with cedar and cypress timber and gold, as much as he desired. King Solomon gave to Hiram twenty cities in the land of Galilee. But when Hiram came from Tyre to see the cities that Solomon had given him, they did not please him.

The queen . . . came to Jerusalem with a very great retinue, with camels bearing spices and very much gold and precious stones Solomon answered all her questions; there was nothing hidden . . . that he could not explain When the queen of Sheba had seen all the wisdom of Solomon, the house that he had built . . . and his burnt offerings that he offered . . . , there was no more breath in her. She said to the king, “The report was true that I heard in my own land . . . behold, . . . your wisdom and prosperity surpass the report that I heard” She gave the king 120 talents of gold, and a very great quantity of spices and precious stones.

The assessment

He said, “What kind of cities are these that you have given me, my brother?” So they are called the land of Cabul to this day.

The gift sent in exchange

Hiram had sent to the king 120 talents of gold.

some cities in the north, but even these were not a yardstick to foreign rulers, such as the Phoenician king Hiram of Tyre ruling 969–936 BC (table 5.1). In conclusion, objections to the queen’s visit largely dwell on the large distance between Sabaʾ and Jerusalem, the supposed later origin of the long-​distance trade between southwest Arabia and the Levant, the availability of camels constituting medium-​to-​large caravan trains, and the unknown extent of the kingdom of Sabaʾ in the tenth century BC. However, none of these objections is strong enough to invalidate the possible historical background (e.g., Lemaire 2002, 48–52).

5.2. The Forty Camel Loads from Syria When Ben-​Hadad, the king of Aram, was ill and heard “that the man of God was here,” the king told Hazael, the future king of Aram (2 Kgs 8:15), to take a present, “and go to meet the man of God, and inquire of yhwh through him, saying, ‘Shall I recover from this sickness?’ ” (2 Kgs 8:8). It seems that rumors of Elisha’s healing power had reached Damascus before (2 Kgs 5; cf. Šanda 1912, 67). The narrator continues that “Hazael went to meet him, and took a present with

Camels in the United and Divided Kingdoms

273

him, all kinds of goods of Damascus, a forty-​camel load” (2 Kgs 8:9). Comparing the forty-​camel load (‫ )מַ ּׂשָ א אַ ְרּבָ עִ ים ּגָמָ ל‬with expressions like “load of a yoke of donkeys” (‫משא צמד חמרם‬, ostracon Arad 3:4–5) and “load of a yoke of mules” (‫מַ ּׂשָ א צֶ מֶ ד־ּפְ ָר ִדים‬‎, 2 Kgs 5:17; Aḥituv 2008, 100) possibly suggests that “camel load(s)” were the usual way of roughly measuring substantial amounts of trade goods in Damascus. This event is to be localized somewhere between 846 and 842 BC, after Shalmaneser III had defeated Ben-​Hadad (called Hadadezer, Adad-​idri), and before he defeated Hazael (Brongers 1970, 76; Younger 2000a).16 Mordechai Cogan and Haym Tadmor (2008, 90) think that the extraordinary gift of forty camel loads, “worthy of royalty, can only be the product of the storyteller’s fancy,” and compare it with the more modest donation given to Ahijah by King Jeroboam’s wife (1 Kgs 14:2–4). Yet, Jeroboam’s wife had been explicitly told to disguise herself so that “they may not know that you are the wife of Jeroboam” (1 Kgs 14:3). The modest donation of Jeroboam’s wife was therefore calculated to be the one of a normal person, unsuspicious of belonging to royalty, consisting of nothing more than ten breads, pastries, and a jar of honey. The point of 2 Kgs 8:8–9 is that whereas Ben-​Hadad, the king in office, had put a rather personal question in Hazael’s mouth, to inquire “of yhwh through him, saying, ‘Shall I recover from this sickness?,’ ” Hazael saw an opportunity for his ambitious future plans. He approached the prophet with the highest possible royal authority, yet in a submissive way to gain his favor: “thy son Ben-​Hadad, the king of Syria” (‫)ּבִ נְָך ּבֶ ן־הֲדַ ֶּ ד מֶ ּלְֶך־א ֲָרם‬. Furthermore, he took the liberty to enlarge the moderate “present” (‫)ּמנְ חָ ה‬ ִ spoken of by Ben-​Hadad to a forty-​camel load, a gift fit for appeasement of any kind and designed to gain a favorable oracle (Šanda 1912, 68). There is therefore “no need to suggest the forty camel-​loads was just to impress by numbers, that the camels were only lightly loaded, or that the number conventionally indicates a large number” (Wiseman 1993, 213). The “goods of Damascus” gathered by Hazael are very likely a reference to agricultural produce and luxury goods. A wine list from the time of Assurbanipal with the most desired brands lists the wine from Ḥalbūn (near Damascus) as second best (Forbes 1965, 73), and Nebuchadnezzar listed it among his choicest wines for libations (Schrader 1890, 32). Ezekiel knew that Damascus bargained with Tyre, trading in “wine of Helbon [‫] ֶ ּחלְ בֹון‬, and wool of Sahar [‫( ”]צָ חַ ר‬Ezek 27:18). Notwithstanding, Elisha envisioned the true outcome of Ben-​Hadad’s ailment: Hazael would kill his master Ben-​Hadad and replace him as king (2 Kgs 8:10–15). The usurper Hazael was an enemy of the Assyrian king Shalmaneser III, who referred to him as “the son of a nobody” (Na’aman 1998). 16. Around the same time, in the twelfth year of King Joram of Israel, King Ahaziah became king over Judah (2 Kgs 8:25). This constellation has a famous echo in the Tel Dan inscription, where both kings seem to be mentioned as ‫ יורם‬and ‫ אחזיהו‬respectively (Aḥituv 2008, 472).

274

Camels in the Biblical World

5.3. Incidents Involving Camels from the Books of Chronicles The books of Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah were composed in postexilic times. The book of Chronicles relies partly on older sources from before the exile, partly on the books of Samuel and Kings, and partly on contemporary sources. On the one hand, the Chronicler has often come under attack because he seems to glorify pious kings, thus offering a biased historical view (e.g., Welten 1973, 195–98). On the other hand, a test case involving archaeological, inscriptional, and biblical material from the times of King Hezekiah concludes that the Chronicler is more reliable than generally believed (Vaughn 1999, 169–81; cf. Vainstub 2017). Chronicles retells some minor incidents where camels are involved that are not found in the older canonical books. Thus, Chronicles justifies the title given to it by the Septuagint translators, παραλειπομένων, “[the things] omitted.” 5.3.1. The Camels of the Hagrites Chronicles mentions camels for the first time when the “Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half-​tribe of Manasseh” waged war with the Hagrites (1 Chr 5:18). It is not clear whether the war described here took place in the “days of Saul” (cf. 1 Chr 5:10), or somewhere during the ninth to eighth centuries BC, before the deportations under Tiglath-​pileser III (1 Chr 5:22, 26):17 “And they were helped against them, and the Hagrites and all who were with them were given into their hand; for they cried out to God in the battle, and he was entreated for them, because they trusted in him. And they took away their cattle: their 50,000 camels, 250,000 sheep and goats, 2,000 donkeys, and 100,000 men. For many fell slain, because the war was of God. And they settled in their place until the exile” (1 Chr 5:20–22). The kind of booty listed here is consistent “with other depictions of the seminomadic Ishmaelites and their assorted allies” (Knoppers 2003, 389). Camels, sheep, goats, and donkeys are subsumed under “cattle” (‫;מקְ נֶה‬ ִ cf. Exod 9:3 and Job 1:3). The order of the animal list is unique, and their numbers are excessively large. John Wenham (1967, 25) has proposed a special meaning for ‫אֶ לֶף‬. Instead of “one thousand,” he understands it in several places as denoting a “unit,” for instance, in Judg 20:2. Yet, this explanation does not account for every instance, and it cannot be applied to animal lists (Knoppers 17.  It is unclear whether the Hagrites were seen as descendants of Abram and Hagar (Gen 16). Furthermore, Tiglath-​pileser III mentions an Aramean tribe called LÚ ḫa-​ga-​ra-​a-​nu “Hagarites,” living in Mesopotamia (Summary Inscription 7:8; Tadmor 2007, 161). Sennacherib refers to these “Hagarites” several times. From classical writers, we know of Ἀγραῖοι living in northwest Arabia (Strabo, Geographica 16:4, 2; Ptolemaios, Geographia 5:19, 2; Pliny, Naturalis historia 6:159–61). It remains unclear whether the Hagrites of 1 Chr 5 are related to the two tribes mentioned above.

Camels in the United and Divided Kingdoms

275

2004, 570). Ralph Klein (2006, 168) compared the numbers of 1 Chr 5:19–22 with other important enumerations in the books of Chronicles, which are “pale in comparison with the booty taken in this battle”: “120,000 sheep sacrificed by Solomon at the dedication of the temple (2 Chr 7:5); 7,000 sheep captured during the reign of Asa (15:11); the Arabs brought 7,700 rams to Jehoshaphat (17:11); 3,000 sheep were sacrificed by Hezekiah (29:33); and 17,000 sheep were contributed to the assembly by Hezekiah and the officials (30:24).” These enumerations list either voluntary offerings, spoil, or tributes, whereas 1 Chr 5:19–22 speaks of the “cattle” that the sons of Reuben “took away.” It comprised a large part of the livestock of the Hagrites, who had suffered a bloody defeat and who were expelled from their settlements. The oldest documents mentioning large numbers of camels are camelry or booty lists respectively. The Kurkh Stela of Shalmaneser III, remembering the battle at Qarqar 853 BC, lists a camelry of one thousand animals in possession of “Gindibu the Arab.” About one hundred years later, Tiglath-​pileser III claimed that he had seized thirty thousand camels from Samsi (see §3 n. 114), the queen of the Arabs, and in 680 BC, the Sabean king Karibʾil Watar reported the booty of two hundred thousand animals, consisting of dromedaries, cattle, donkeys, and sheep, from camel-​breeding tribes in southwest Arabia (Sima 2000, 15, 21). The numbers given in 1 Chr 5:19–22, rounded to the one thousand, are still exceptionally large and may have suffered from faulty interpretation or transmission. This problem is known to occur in some passages in the books of Chronicles, especially when round numbers are provided that are merely based on approximate estimates.18 As it is impossible to correct the supposed wrong magnitude of the animals in 1 Chr 5:19–22, let alone to identify their exact numbers, it is best to refrain from detailed comments and to major on what is obvious: the Hagrites were small livestock herders that for transport purposes relied more on camels than on donkeys. 5.3.2. Camels as Transport Animals in the Wake of the United Monarchy During the united monarchy, in the days of King Saul, warriors from Israel and beyond sustained David on his way to royal rule. Some came to David while he was in Ziklag (1 Chr 12:1–8), some changed sides while he was in the stronghold in the wilderness (1 Chr 12:9–19), and some defected to him during the war with 18.  The problem is obvious in cases where the parallel passage exhibits a much smaller and more reasonable number. Cf. 1 Chr 18:4 with 2 Sam 8:4; 2 Chr 3:15 and 4:5 with 1 Kgs 7:15 and 26. See also §3 n. 112. Cf. 2 Sam 10:18 with 1 Chr 19:18; cf. also 1 Chr 12:23–37 (cf. G. Wenham 1967, 26: “It was not many years previously that the people had been almost without weapons. ‘There was neither sword nor spear found in the hand of any of the people . . . but with Saul and with Jonathan’ 1 Samuel 13:22, cf. Judges 5:8”); 2 Chr 13:3, 17; 14:8; 17:14–19; 28:8.

276

Camels in the Biblical World

the Philistines (1 Chr 12:20–23). Later, others came to Hebron to hail him as king of all Israel (1 Chr 12:24–39a), and “also all the rest of Israel were of one heart to make David king” (1 Chr 12:39b). Finally, “those who were near to them, even as far as Issachar and Zebulun and Naphtali, brought food [‫ ]לֶחֶ ם‬on donkeys, camels, mules, and on cattle, food provisions [consisting of] flour, fig cakes, raisin cakes, wine, oil, oxen, sheep and goats”‎ (1 Chr 12:41).19 Some of the followers of King David came from the northern frontier of the united kingdom, journeying nearly two hundred kilometers to reach Hebron. Unfortunately, the Chronicler does not specify the goods transported by the different animal taxa. The main beasts of burden were donkeys, followed by camels, mules, and oxen. Besides oil and wine, they also brought food provisions (‫)מַ ֲאכָל‬, namely flour (‫)קֶ מַ ח‬,20 fig cakes (‫)ּדבֵ לִ ים‬, ְ and raisin cakes (‫)וְ צִ ּמּוקִ ים‬,21 that is, durable staples that can withstand journeys lasting several days and more. They may have served partly as supplies on the journey (Japhet 1993, 269), but were, in the first place, brought as provisions to celebrate the newly installed king (1 Chr 12:40).22 Finally, the text adds animals that were 19. Here, the provisions later specified are subsumed under ‫לֶחֶ ם‬. It should not be translated with “bread” (cf. panes, Vulgate), but with “food.” 20. Some draw ‫ מַ ֲאכָל קֶ מַ ח‬together and translate, “flour cakes” (NASB). However, ‫ מַ ֲאכָל‬is grammatically not in the construct state, but appositionally precedes the list. A logical problem is that ‫ מַ ֲאכָל‬seems to be synonymous with ‫ לֶחֶ ם‬and therefore gives the impression of being redundant (cf. Prov 6:8). ‫ לֶחֶ ם‬is evidently the more general term for food, utilized ca. three hundred times in the Hebrew Bible, while ‫ מַ ֲאכָל‬is comparatively rare (ca. thirty times), and is best rendered as “food provision”; cf. Gen 40:17; 1 Kgs 10:5; Ezek 4:10; 2 Chr 11:11; Ezra 3:7. The versions struggled with this problem and offer various solutions: The LXX disregards ‫ לֶחֶ ם‬and translates, “brought to them upon camels, and asses, and mules, and upon cattle, victuals, meal, cakes of figs, raisins (ἔφερον αὐτοῖς ἐπὶ τῶν καμήλων καὶ τῶν ὄνων καὶ τῶν ἡμιόνων καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν μόσχων βρώματα, ἄλευρα, παλάθας, σταφίδας). The Targum of Chronicles disregards ‫ קֶ מַ ח‬and translates freely: “they brought food for them on asses, camels, mules and oxen; provisions, portions of pressed figs, and bunches of grapes” (‫ ;מיתין להון לחמא בחמרין ובגמלין ובכודנין ובתורין מזונא ומנן דדילין ואתכלין דענבין‬cf. McIvor 1994, 95). The Syriac version disregards ‫ מַ ֲאכָל‬and has, “they brought for them food on asses, on camels, ̈ ̈ and on mules, flour, fig cakes, and baskets of grapes” (‫ܘܒܟܘܕܢܘܬܐ܂‬ ‫ܘܒܓܡܐܠ܂‬ ‫ܡܝܬܝܢ ܗܘܘ ܠܚܡܐ ܒܚܡ̈ܪܐ‬ ̈ ̈ ‫)ܘܩܡܚܐ ܘܕܒܐܠ ܘܩ̈ܪܬܠܘܬܐ ܕܥܢܒܐ‬. The Vulgate has, “they brought breads on donkeys, camels, mules and oxen, for consumption, flour, fig cakes, dried grapes” (adferebant panes in asinis et camelis et mulis et bubus ad vescendum farinam palatas uvam passam). 21. Fig cakes (‫)ּדבֵ לִ ים‬ ְ consist of figs that are dried, crushed, kneaded, and formed to loaves (Löw 1967 1:244), probably in fixed units (Heltzer 1980), and conserved in jars. From Roman period Masada, ostraca of many jars inscribed with ‫ דבלה‬were excavated. The jars had served as food containers for this valuable basic and durable sweet food. Ostracon 516 actually reads ‫דבלה כתושה‬ ‫יפה‬, “a well pressed fig cake” (Yadin and Naveh 1989, 46). Fig cakes and ‫ צִ ּמּוקִ ים‬are usually named together (1 Sam 25:18; 30:12; cf. KTU 4:751; Heltzer 1980), so that ‫ צִ ּמּוקִ ים‬is probably best understood to mean raisin cakes, “cluster of raisins,” or “lumps of pressed raisins” (DCH 7:129), made in a similar fashion as fig cakes (Dalman 1935, 352). Cf. the fragment of a storage jar from Lachish (ostracon no. 30) with the inscription “juice of black raisins [‫( ”]צמקם‬Aḥituv 2008, 91). 22. Arad ostracon 1 documents that during the last few decades of the kingdom of Judah, flour (‫ )קֶ מַ ח‬had to be loaded on the mounts of the Kittim “to make bread for the troops” (Aḥituv 2008, 95), and wine is portioned in addition as provisions for their journey (Aharoni 1981, 13). Occasionally, oil

Camels in the United and Divided Kingdoms

277

valuable suppliers of meat and fat, namely cattle and small livestock beasts (‫ּובָ קָ ר‬ ‫)וְ צ ֹאן‬, which most likely were driven behind the train. 5.3.3. Camels in the Royal Administration of King David It is only with Chronicles that camels turn up in the possession of King David. The paragraph in question (1 Chr 27:25–31) is part of a list of royal stewards, who oversaw David’s movable and immovable properties. It begins with the royal treasurer in Jerusalem, continues with the king’s (and the people’s?, Japhet 1993, 479) estates, and finally turns to the crown officers overseeing the royal herds in various places (‫)ׂשָ ֵרי הָ ְרכּוׁש‬.23 The Chronicler details their responsibilities as follows: “Over the cattle that pastured in Sharon was Shitrai the Sharonite; over the cattle in the valleys was Shaphat the son of Adlai. Over the camels was Obil the Ishmaelite; and over the she-​donkeys was Jehdeiah the Meronothite. Over the small cattle was Jaziz the Hagrite” (1 Chr 27:29–31). Table 5.2 depicts the assignments in Hebrew. Noticeably, four out of five officers (‫)שרים‬ responsible for one specific species and/or category of the royal livestock have secondary names or nicknames, the remaining one (no. 2) has a very unusual patronym. Nicknames “could designate a person’s origin, occupation, characteristics, nature (good or bad), or even a physical defect” (Naveh 1990, 117). 1. Shitrai (‫ )שטרי‬the Sharonite (‫ )הַ ּׁשָ רֹונִ י‬is responsible for the cattle in the Sharon (‫)ׁשָ רֹון‬, the northern part of Israel’s coastal plain.24 People from this area were most likely experienced in large livestock husbandry (H. Weeks 1992, 1162). Conceivably, either he got this name because he originated from the Sharon plain, or because he was chief shepherd of the king’s cattle that was pastured in the plain. 2. Shaphat (‫ )ׁשָ ָפט‬is a hypocoristic personal name. Well-​known are forms such as ‫שפטיהו‬, and so on. His patronym or nickname Adlai (‫ )ע ְַדלָי‬is otherwise was also sent as provisions to the various fortresses (19). Wine and oil, delivered as tributes to the local administration in jars (‫)נבל‬, is often referred to in the Samaria ostraca (Aḥituv 2008, 258–310). 23.  These officers bear some resemblance to the “chief herdsman” that is mentioned in 1 Sam 21:7–8. By comparison, Assyrian sources “show direct imperial control of pasture, sheep, and other grazing animals in a system covering the empire that extends down from the king, to governors, to commanders of cohorts, to members of cohorts, and finally the individual shepherds. Grazing locations, permission to travel, and even routes taken to the capital were directed from the King’s Court” (Blakely and Hardin 2018, 255; cf. §3.2.4.11). 24. Shitrai ‫שטרי‬, the ketiv reading, is derived from the root ‫“ שטר‬to rule,” and its meaning is probably “[attached to] the foreman,” or “[attached to] the official” (‫)שֹׁ טֵ ר‬. This reading is also found in the LXX (Σατραις) and the Vulgate (Setrai). The qere ‫שרטי‬, which corresponds to the readings of the Aramaic Targum and the Syriac version, is not a West Semitic root, although Noth suggested that ‫ שרטי‬may be derived from Arabic ‫ سرط‬saraṭa. A ‫ سرط‬suraṭ is described as a man “that swallows quickly,” or that “eats quickly.” ‫ שרטי‬could therefore mean “one who swallows [much or quickly]” (Lane 1863, 1348; Noth 1928, no. 1327). Another option is to link the name with the rare Arabic root ‫ ثرطية‬ṯirṭiʾa “small” (Freytag 1830 1:214 “parvus vir, femina”).

278

Camels in the Biblical World Table 5.2.  The stewards of King David’s property according to 1 Chronicles 27:29–31. 1 2 3 4 5

‫הַ ּבָ קָ ר הָ רֹ עִ ים ּבַ ּׁשָ רֹון‬ the cattle that pastured in Sharon . . . ‫הַ ּבָ קָ ר ּבָ עֲמָ קִ ים‬ the cattle in the valleys . . . ‫הַ ּגְ מַ ּלִ ים‬  . . . the camels ‫הָ אֲתֹ נֹות‬  . . . the she-​donkeys ‫הַ ּצ ֹאן‬  . . . small cattle

‫שטרי הַ ּׁשָ רֹונִ י‬  . . . Shitrai the Sharonite ‫ׁשָ פָט ּבֶ ן־ע ְַדלָי‬  . . . Shaphat the son of Adlai ‫אֹובִ יל הַ ּיִ ְׁש ְמעֵלִ י‬ Obil the Ishmaelite . . . ‫יֶחְ ְּדיָהּו הַ ּמֵ רֹ נֹ ִתי‬ Jehdeiah the Meronothite . . . ‫ָיזִיז הַ הַ גְ ִרי‬ Jaziz the Hagrite . . .

unknown, and the root ‫ עדל‬is uncommon in Classical Hebrew. However, the personal name ʿdl is found in ANA inscriptions, probably meaning “he [i.e., the deity] has acted justly.”25 It is tempting to see, against the Masoretic vocalization, in ‫ עדלי‬a connection to the ancient town Adulis at the Red Sea coast (cf. W. W. Müller 2008, 44–46), so that ‫ עדלִ י‬could mean “the man from Adulis.” 3. The personal name Obil (‫ )אֹובִ יל‬seems to be based on the Semitic root ʾbl “camel.” More than 150 years ago, Nöldeke noted that this name may be related to CA ‫ آبل‬ʾābil “camel owner.”26 Others argue that Obil, the person in charge overseeing King David’s camels, is a professional designation for somebody who owns or pastures camels, and that it was put here to envision an experienced camel herdsman in the service of King David (Knauf 1989, 13; cf. Lipiński 2000, 460). However, in ASA and in ANA, where the root ʾbl is common, the form ʾʾbl or ʾbl is a personal name, not necessarily a professional designation (Hayajneh 1998, 53; cf. OCIANA). The same personal name also appears in an Aramaic papyrus (fifth century BC), and possibly on a fourth century BC Aramaic ostracon from Beersheba (Schwiderski 2008, 6; but cf. Naveh 1979, 190). The meaning “camel owner” or “camel herder” for these names is possible, but other meanings of the root have to be considered as well.27 There is also an unprovenanced seal depicting a two-​humped camel (fourth century BC?), 25. The name ‫ ע ְַדלָי‬seems to be derived from the root ʿdl with the hypocoristic ending –ay. This root is common in Arabic: ‫ عدل‬ʿadala “to act equitably, justly, or rightly” (Lane 1863, 1972; HAH, 927; cf. OCIANA). Less likely are relations of the PN ‫ ע ְַדלָי‬to Middle-​Hebrew ‫עדל‬, or Aramaic ‫עדלא‬, with the meaning “garden cress” (Lepidum sativum, or Lepidum latifolium L.; Dalman 1938, 306; Löw 1881, 37, no. 5). 26. “In dessen Name man versucht ist ein Arabisches Appellativ ‫‚ آبل‬Kameelhirt‘ zu sehen” (Nöldeke 1864, 5; likewise Dozy 1864, 194; cf. Lane 1863, 9; Hommel 1879, 141). 27.  Hayajneh 1998, 53. Knoppers (2004, 907) asserts that ʾbl is an “allocutory name” and lists the lexical entries for ʾbl in some dictionaries but does not point to the fact that ʾbl was also in use as a personal name.

Camels in the United and Divided Kingdoms

279

and engraved with the name ‫“ אבל‬camel” in Aramaic (?) script (Deutsch and Lemaire 2000, 156, no. 149). It is unclear whether the seal-​owner understood his name ‫ אבל‬to mean “camel,” or if the camel was merely depicted to allude to the name of the seal owner; neither can the engraved camel tell us if its owner was a merchant, a cameleer, or a camel pastoralist. Obil is called an Ishmaelite (‫)הַ ּיִ ְׁש ְמעֵלִ י‬. This nickname or tribal name connects him to the Ishmaelites who appeared already as cameleers in other sources (Gen 37; Judg 8:24).28 Some scholars, such as Reinhart Dozy (1864, 194), Edward Lewis Curtis and Albert Alonzo Madsen (1910, 203), and Ernst Axel Knauf (1989, 13), have maintained that the combination of “Obil,” the designation “Ishmaelite,” and the “Hagrite” of the following verse point to the artificial character of both verses. However, the Chronicler must have had some very odd reason to include Ishmaelites, Hagrites, and camels cunningly in a fictitious list in the service of King David. R. Klein (2006, 511) therefore argues that the various personal names demonstrate the very opposite and “may be signs of relative antiquity, since such foreigners would not be included in a late fictionalized list.” Klein’s interpretation seems more plausible to us, because Ishmaelites and Hagrites were definitely not seen as allies of Judah (cf. Gen 37:27; Ps 83:7), and the camel hardly represented the preferred transport animal. Some think it unlikely that King David owned camels, because the introduction of riding camels in the southern Levant had only just begun (Knauf 1989, 14). However, it is nowhere supposed in Chronicles that these were riding camels. They were most likely transport animals used in trade (Knoppers 2004, 909). 4. Jehdeiah (‫יֶחְ ְּדיָהּו‬, “yhwh gives joy”) is the only Yahwistic name in the list. Jehdeiah took care of the she-​donkeys, which were most likely held for breeding purposes (cf. §4.2.1.4), and he supposedly got his nickname “the Meronothite” because he was a townsman of ‫“ מֵ רֹ נֹ ת‬Meronot.” 5. Jaziz (‫ ) ָיזִיז‬is a very rare name, probably of Amorite or Arabic origin, known only from 1 Chr 27:31.29 He was called “the Hagrite” (‫)הַ הַ גְ ִרי‬, which likely points to his general connection with the Hagrites mentioned in 1 Chr 5:10, 18–22 (§5.3.1). He oversaw the royal sheep and goat herds. 28. In 1 Chr 2:17, the father of Amasa is called ‫יֶתֶ ר הַ ּיִ ְׁש ְמעֵאלִ י‬. According to 2 Sam 17:25, however, his name is ‫יִ ְת ָרא הַ ּיִ ְׂש ְראֵ לִ י‬. A scribe involved in the copying process of the second book of Samuel most likely committed a plain scribal error. The gentilicum ‫ הַ ּיִ ְׁש ְמעֵאלִ י‬was sandwiched between two occurrences of the name ‫ יִ ְׂש ָראֵ ל‬at the end of the preceding and beginning of the following verse, which may have triggered the variant ‫( הַ ּיִ ְׂש ְראֵ לִ י‬Friedrich Delitzsch 1920 §99c). 29. Cf. names such as ‫( יָבִ ין‬Josh 11:1) and ‫( י ִָאיר‬Num 32:41). For a conceivable Arabic origin, ّ wazza “to incite, set against,” but it is more plausible to connect ‫ ָיזִיז‬to the cf. the rare Arabic root ‫وز‬ Mehri root wḏḏ. This form also occurs in the form wěḏayḏ, and it may have been used as a personal name meaning “comfortable, pleasant” (Johnstone 1987, 422). Cf. also the root wzz in Ḥaḍramitic, in an inscription from the fifth to fourth century BC (Frantsouzoff 1999).

280

Camels in the Biblical World

5.3.4. The Camels of “Zerah the Cushite” From the reign of King Asa of Judah (ca. 913–873 BC), the Chronicler reports how Zerah the Cushite attacked them with a mighty army: Zerah the Cushite came out against them with an army of a multitude of men30 and 300 chariots, and came as far as Mareshah. And Asa went out to meet him, and they drew up their lines of battle in the Valley of Zephathah at Mareshah. . . . yhwh defeated the Ethiopians before Asa and before Judah, and the Cushites fled. Asa and the people who were with him pursued them as far as Gerar, and the Cushites fell until none remained alive. . . . The men of Judah carried away very much spoil. And they attacked all the cities around Gerar, for the fear of yhwh was upon them. They plundered all the cities, for there was much plunder in them, and they also smote the herd-​owning tent-​dwellers and carried away sheep and goats in abundance, and camels. (2 Chr 14:9–14) This fight resulted in a great victory for Judah. The Cushites were defeated, and the Judahites looted their abodes, which centered on Gerar at the coastal plain. The identity of “Zerah the Cushite” is unclear. In the past, some scholars have connected Zerah to Pharaoh Osorkon I (ca. 924–889 BC), but Zerah is a Cushite (‫ּכּוׁשי‬ ִ ַ‫ז ֶַרח ה‬‎14:8), not an Egyptian, nor a pharaoh, and his armies are called Cushites (‫ּכּוׁשים‬ ִ ַ‫ה‬‎14:11), not Egyptians. Moreover, Zerah (‫ )ז ֶַרח‬is a Semitic name, mentioned several times and for different persons in the Hebrew Bible (HAH, 312), notably for some Edomites (Gen 36:13, 17, 33; 1 Chr 1:37, 44), with the meaning “[God] shone forth.” Etymologically, it is based on the Semitic root ḏrḥ.31 Personal names based upon this root are common in Aramaic, Amorite, ASA, and ANA.32 It is reported that the enemy had his abode in “all the cities around Gerar” (‫) ָּכל־הֶ ָע ִרים ְסבִ יבֹות ּגְ ָרר‬. The expression ‫וְ גַם־אָ ֳהלֵי ִמקְ נֶה הִ ּכּו‬‎ (2 Chr 14:14) seems 30. The Hebrew text reads ‫אֶ לֶף ֲאלָפִ ים‬, “thousand of thousands” or “one million,” probably a hyperbole for a very great army. 31. The Hebrew and Aramaic transliterations of Egyptian names and loanwords never used the voiced sibilant z (‫“ ז ֶַרח‬Zerah”) to transliterate any of the Egyptian sibilants, not to speak of the plain Egyptian name Osorkon, written Wsrkn. Likewise, Hebrew ḥ is not a suitable representation of Egyptian k (Muchiki 1999, 186, 264). Kitchen (1986, 309 n. 372) pointed already to the fact that the names Osorkon and Zerah have only the consonant r in common. The proposal of van der Veen and James (2015) to see this event as an Egyptian campaign during the reign of Ramesses IV, and the name ‫ ז ֶַרח‬as a Hebrew transliteration of Userḫau, is somewhat strained. 32.  For Amorite, cf. Maraqten 1988, 152; Zadok 1993, 319. Due to its homonym that is based on the Semitic root zrḫ “to sow,” Amorite occurrences of this root are difficult to identify (cf. Huffmon 1965, 188). For ANA, see OCIANA and Tairan 1992, 117; Hayajneh 1998, 139; Sholan 1999, 112.

Camels in the United and Divided Kingdoms

281

to mean prima facie that the victorious Judahites “also smote the tents of the herds.” However, this does not look very meaningful, unless here, Hebrew ‫אָ הֳל‬ “tent” has a similar meaning as the CA equivalent ‫ أهل‬ʾahl (Schipper 1999, 138). In Arabic, ʾahl means foremost “the people of a house or dwelling, and of a town or village, and of a country” (Lane 1863, 121). The same meaning is known from ASA (Beeston et al. 1982, 3), and from Judg 6:5 (see §4.5). It also denotes the owners or possessors of property. The phrase ‫ וְ גַם־אָ ֳהלֵי ִמקְ נֶה הִ ּכּו‬should be translated accordingly: “and they also smote the herd-​owning tent-​dwellers” (cf. Welten 1973, 134). From them, they took “large herds of small cattle, and camels” (‫צ ֹאן לָרֹ ב ּוגְ מַ ּלִ ים‬,‎ 2 Chr 14:14). Assumedly, the “Cushites” relied on camels for transporting their tents and other belongings. The characterization of these aggressors as herd-​owning tent-​dwellers hardly agrees with a regular army, such as one from pharaonic Egypt.33 It is more plausible that the Cushites living near Gerar were essentially camel pastoralists, comparable to the Midianites. In 2 Chr 21:16, the Chronicler refers to Arabs who are living “near the Cushites,” pointing to a similar connection, and the prophet Habakkuk seems to have in mind a close affinity between “Cushan” and the Midianites (Hab 3:7). The Pentateuch offers an additional link between Cush and Midian. According to Exod 2:16–21, Moses married the daughter of a Midianite priest, but according to Num 12:1, she was a Cushite (Num 12:1; R. Klein 2012, 218).34 Although the defeat of the Cushites predates the battle of Qarqar in 853 BC by a few decades, it is noteworthy that Pharaoh Osorkon II (ca. 872–837 BC) had associated with a coalition of ten rulers, among them Ahab king of Israel, and Gindibu the Arab, to meet Shalmaneser III at Qarqar. In this battle, Gindibu supported the king of Qarqar with a large number of camels (§3.2.4.11; Younger 2000a, 264).

33.  Kitchen (1986, 309) thinks that Zerah the Cushite was an Egyptian general employed in the service of Osorkon I. It cannot be ruled out that Zerah and his camel-​and-​sheep herders acted on behalf of Egyptian rulers. Cf. also Ephʿal 1982, 78 n. 234. 34.  It seems that according to 2 Chr 16:8, the Cushites of 2 Chr 14 allied with the Libyans, and that many chariots and horses were involved. Yet, 2 Chr 14:8 mentions neither Libyans, nor any cavalry. It is only in the account of the invasion of Shishak that Libyans and Cushites are mentioned together. Shishak had invaded Judah with one thousand two hundred chariots and sixty thousand horsemen (2 Chr 12:2). Either Hanani, the seer, or the Chronicler, have merged the two incidents from 2 Chr 12 and 2 Chr 14 into one in 2 Chr 16:8 (R. Klein 2012, 240).

Chapter 6

Camels in the Prophets and Other Writings

Most prophecies mentioning camels can be assigned to historical events (§§6.1.1, 6.1.2, 6.2.1, 6.2.2, 6.3), which understandably facilitates their interpretation. The significance of the camel incidents is only marginally affected by the question of whether genuine vaticination is possible or not. The various camel traditions will be investigated in the chronological setting in which they were placed by the prophet, reflecting the general situation of the seventh and sixth centuries BC. As it is beyond question that by that time, domestic camels were widely in use, the analysis of the biblical passages will, from now on, only deal with issues of extrabiblical evidence where appropriate, thereby focusing on the proper understanding of the camel occurrences in their immediate context.

6.1. Camels in Isaiah’s Prophecies The book of Isaiah figures most prominently among the Latter Prophets. Isaiah began to prophesy during the second half of the eighth century BC. The first part (Isa 1–39) covers contemporary issues (e.g., Isa 6–7 and 36–37) as well as the immediate (e.g., Isa 10) and the distant future (e.g., Isa 21). The visions of the second part (Isa 40–66) are mainly concerned with Israel’s restoration after the Babylonian exile. This part, also known as “Deutero Isaiah” or “Second Isaiah,” never mentions the name of its author, and never identifies the time and place of his visions (cf. Isa 1:1; 6:1; 7:1; 14:28; 20:1; 36:1; 39:1, with Isa 40–66). The book of Isaiah must have been completely passed on for a considerable time before the second century BC. The great Isaiah scroll 1QIsaa (cf. §4.1.1.4) has no sign of separation between Isa 39 and Isa 40, and the Jewish scribe Ben Sira writes around 190 BC that Isaiah “prophesied with inspired power the future and consoled the mourners in Zion” (Hebrew Sir 48:24), alluding to both Isa 2:1 and Isa 61:2–3 (Paul 2012, 1).

282

Camels in the Prophets and Other Writings

283

6.1.1. The Advancing Enemy of Babylon In the vision against Babel (Isa 21), a “watcher” sees the advance of Babylon’s future enemy. The watcher is the prophet’s second self, whom the prophet objectifies and orders to receive a divine communication (Gray 1912, 354). Being told to look out diligently, the watcher sees mounted troops coming from Elam and Media (Isa 21:7) marching on Babylon, consisting of, “a train of cavalry, pairs of horsemen, a train of donkeys, and a train of camels” (‫וְ ָראָ ה ֶרכֶב צֶ מֶ ד ּפ ָָר ִׁשים ֶרכֶב‬ ‫)חֲמֹור ֶרכֶב ּגָמָ ל‬. Here, ‫ ֶרכֶב‬seems not to convey the usual meaning of “chariot,” but of “train” (i.e., a procession of mounted army troops), or “riding company.” As Franz Delitzsch (1867, 381) pointed out long ago, “Receb, both here and in ver. 9, signifies neither riding-​animals nor war-​chariots, but a troop seated upon animals—a procession of riders.”1 Conceivably, most of the camels envisioned here were probably Bactrian camels or hybrids, the preferred animal in mountainous terrain east of Mesopotamia during the Neo-​Babylonian and Persian periods. Presumably, many of these animals were used to carry heavy army equipment. 6.1.2. The Oracle Against Egypt Isaiah’s vision against Egypt is entitled, “The burden [‫ ]מַ ּׂשָ א‬of the beasts of the south” (Isa 30:6). The term ‫ מַ ּׂשָ א‬usually means “load” or “burden” in the sense of “oracle,” as in Isa 13–23, but here the connection to the loaded donkeys and camels in the same verse immediately comes to the foreground, and a double entendre seems to be intended (Beuken 2000, 155). A caravan is seen while traversing arid landscapes inhabited by lions and serpents, carrying its riches “to a people who cannot profit them” (Isa 30:6).2 The prophet here envisions the vain effort of the kingdom of Judah to convince Egypt into an alliance against the Assyrians (Isa 30:1–7). Sennacherib defeated Judah’s “vain help” around 701 BC, after the Egyptian army had advanced to Eltekeh (Cogan 2000). The prophet sees the caravans carrying their riches “on the shoulder [sic] of he-​ asses” (‫) ַעל־ּכֶתֶ ף ֲעי ִָרים‬, and their treasures “on the hump [sic] of camels” (‫ַעל־‬ ‫)ּדַ ּבֶ ׁשֶ ת ּגְ מַ ּלִ ים‬. Carrying something on the shoulder is normally expected from humans (Isa 46:7; 49:22, etc.); the idiom is uncommon for donkeys. The second hemistich repeats the idiom with a minor modification: just as donkeys carry 1.  See also Mowinckel 1962, 293–94, but cf. the variant readings discussed in §4.1.1.4. 2.  The identity of the caravan leaders is not entirely clear. Are these merchants or soldiers from Judah? Are these Arabian cameleers in the service of Judah? Is the caravan going to Egypt or somewhere else? Some even think that the caravan is of Egyptian origin. The wider context is in favor of the first option, but the ambiguity of the text leaves room for manifold speculations; cf. Schunck 1966.

284

Camels in the Biblical World

their riches “on the shoulder,” so camels likewise carry their treasures “on the hump.”3 The expression is slightly vague for the sake of parallelism. The most important attachment point of donkey-​loads is in front of the withers, the highest point of the spine, which is above the shoulder (cf. Newberry 1893: pl. 31; Bar-​Oz et al. 2013). Camels do not carry burdens exactly on the hump, except with a special, saddle-​like construction that spreads the weight on the camel’s wide ribcage. And with ‫“ ּדַ ּבֶ ׁשֶ ת‬hump,” the construct of ‫ּדֶ ּבֶ ׁש‬, Isaiah uses a very rare Hebrew word, known only from Isa 30:6.4 The whole verse can be considered as typical for Isaiah, who wants to capture his readership by revealing only gradually what he is talking about, and by couching his vision in highly poetical language (Wildberger 1982, 1161). 6.1.3. “Dust Clouds of Camels” in Israel’s Glorious Future In Isa 60:5, the “wealth of the nations” is brought to a glorious Israel of messianic times (Isa 60:5), and “dust clouds of camels shall cover you, the young camels of Midian and Ephah [‫ ;]ּבִ כְ ֵרי ִמ ְדיָן וְ עֵיפָה‬they come all together from Sheba.5 They shall bring gold and frankincense, and shall bring good news, the praises of yhwh” (Isa 60:6). In this vision, the Midianites, who in earlier times had acted as raiders and marauders (Judg 6), would bring gold and frankincense from Sheba to Israel. They are allied with Ephah, another Arabian tribe.6 According to the vision, the whole country is teeming with camels (‫ )ּגְ מַ ּלִ ים‬and many young camels from Midian and Epha (‫)ּבִ כְ ֵרי ִמ ְדיָן וְ ֵעי ָפה‬. The ‫( בכרים‬here used in the plural construct ‫ )ּבִ כְ ֵרי‬are young camels. Adding “young camels” (‫ )בכרים‬to “camels” (‫ )ּגְ מַ ּלִ ים‬reinforces the impression that both the Midianties and Ephatites were active in camel breeding. Hebrew ‫ ּבֶ כֶר‬beker is another rare word borrowed from the realm of cameleers (cf. §§3.2.4.9 and 3.3.4). 3. Wildberger (1982, 1163) thinks that dromedaries are referred to, because “hump” is in the singular (‫)ּדַ ּבֶ ׁשֶ ת‬. Yet, asses’ shoulders are in the singular as well (‫)ּכֶתֶ ף‬, for poetical reasons. The text does nothing to suggest any camel species, although it is likely that the prophet thought of dromedaries. 4. The LXX disregards ‫ ּכֶתֶ ף‬as well as ‫ּדַ ּבֶ ׁשֶ ת‬: “on donkeys and camels” (ἐπ’ ὄνων καὶ καμήλων). 5. Paul (2012, 522) pointed to the fact that ‫ׁשפְ עַת ּגְ מַ ּלִ ים ְּתכַּסֵ ְך‬, ִ verbally “an abundance of camels shall cover you,” is an idiom dominated by the combination of ‫ שפעה‬and ‫ כסה‬that elsewhere suggests “dust [or a cloud] shall cover you”: ‫“ ִמ ִּׁשפְ עַת סּוסָ יו יְ כַּסֵ ְך אֲבָ קָ ם‬from the clouds raised by his horses, dust shall cover you” (Ezek 26:10); ‫“ וְ ִׁשפְ עַת־מַ יִם ְּתכַּסֶ ָּך‬and a cloud of waters shall cover you” (Job 22:11; 38:34). 6. ‫ עֵיפָה‬is an Arabic name. The ʿayn represents Arabic ġayn, which is still visible in the LXX-​ rendering (Γαιφα). Etymologically, the name may be connected to the Arabic root ‫ غاف‬ġāfa “to incline” (Lane 1863, 2318), cf. ‫ غاف‬ġāf “a species of trees,” or ‫ غيفان‬ġayfān “[a proud and self-​ conceited carriage, with an affected inclining of the body from side to side] in pace, or [manner of ] going” (2318). Akkadian often renders Arabic ġayn with ḫā, so that Ephah becomes Ḫayappa, written Ḫa-​a-​a-​ap-​pa-​a-​a in the annals of Tiglath-​pileser III, and of Sargon II (Tadmor 2007, 298; Ephʿal 1982, 87–90, 216–17).

Camels in the Prophets and Other Writings

285

Conceivably, the ‫“ בכרים‬young camels” are probably not coming all the way up from Sheba. Since the Midianites and Ephatites bred camels, it is most likely that camel caravans leaving southwest Arabia made use of resources and infrastructure provided by the Midianites and Ephatites, much as in the way of the later caravanserai. On their long journey through the desert, exhausted or injured camels could be replaced by fresh ‫ בכרים‬to safely transport the luxury goods over the last part of the long route to Israel. Assumedly, one purpose of taking young camels on such journeys was to prepare them for their future tasks. 6.1.4. Chariots, Dancing Camels, or Joyous People? In Isa 66:20, the Jewish remnant is brought triumphantly back to Jerusalem: “They shall bring all your brothers from all the nations as an offering to yhwh, on horses and in chariots and in litters and on mules, and with dromedaries [traditional translation], to my holy mountain Jerusalem” (‫ּסּוסים ּובָ ֶרכֶב ּובַ ּצַ ּבִ ים‬ ִ ַ‫ּב‬ ‫ּובַ ּפְ ָר ִדים ּובַ ּכִ ְרּכָרֹות‬, Isa 66:20). Although ‫ ּכִ ְרּכָרֹות‬kirkārōt has traditionally been translated by “camels,” this interpretation has come under scrutiny (HAH, 571). Nevertheless, Shalom Paul offers some parallels from Assyrian royal inscriptions, particularly from the campaign reports of Sennacherib, “where the very same animals and vehicles are mentioned in the exact same order as here” (2005, 17; 2012, 628). However, the Hebrew form ‫ ּכִ ְרּכָרֹות‬does not correspond to any animals, let alone to the “dromedaries, udru camels” of the Akkadian text(s). Therefore, ‫ ּכִ ְרּכָרֹות‬is hardly “a semantic equivalent of Akk. gammalē” (Paul 2005, 17). Moreover, the ubiquitous donkey of the Assyrian inscriptions is missing in Isa 66:20.7 Furthermore, whether in Isa 66:20 dromedaries are meant at all is unclear. The rare form ‫ּכִ ְרּכָרֹות‬, a plural of ‫ּכִ ְרּכ ָָרה‬, is a hapax legomenon in the Hebrew Bible. The exact meaning of ‫ ּכִ ְרּכ ָָרה‬must be deduced from the context and with the help of comparative Semitics (cf. DCH 4:461; HAH, 571). The Hebrew form ‫ ּכִ ְרּכ ָָרה‬relates to the Semitic roots krkr or krr, which denote primarily “to move in turns” or “circles.”8 However, krkr or krr are not related to any known camel term. 7. Sennacherib claims several times that he had “seized the chariots, wagons, horses, mules, donkeys, camels, (and) udru camels” that his enemies had abandoned during battle (gišg i g i r. m e š gišṣu-​um-​bi a n š e . k u r.ra.m e š a n š e . k u n ga.m e š a n š e . m e š a n š e . a . a b . ba.m e š anšeud-​ri, cf. table 3.4; see RINAP Sennacherib 1:29; cf. 2:7; 3:7; 9:6). Why should the author of Isa 66:20 study Sennacherib’s booty lists for his prophetic utterances, why should he then omit donkeys, which are very common in Akkadian booty lists, and why should he subsume both a n š e . a . a b . ba.meš and anšeud-​ri under the puzzling phrase ‫?ּכִ ְרּכָרֹות‬ 8. Cf. DRS 10:1275; Hebrew ‫“ כִּ כָּר‬talent; disk; loaf of bread,” derived from ‫ כרכר‬and based on the root ‫“ כרר‬turn” (HAH, 543); Mishnaic Hebrew ‫“ כִּ רכֵּר‬to dance,” and ‫“ כִּ רכּוּר‬dancing” (Levy 1924 2:407), Aramaic ‫“ כִּ רכַּרתָּ א‬dance” (derived from the Hebrew text of Isa 66:20; Dalman 1938,

286

Camels in the Biblical World

It seems the explanation of ‫ ּכִ ְרּכָרֹות‬as “dromedaries” was first proposed by Rabbi Yonah (died ca. AD 1050), who connected ‫ ּכִ ְרּכָרֹות‬with the form ‫ְמכ ְַרּכֵר‬ “dancing” and thought that camels and other animals seem to dance “because of their agility.”9 David Kimchi (died AD 1235) elaborated on this interpretation and regarded the ‫ ּכִ ְרּכָרֹות‬as fast-​moving camels. This explanation is also cited in Wilhelm Gesenius’s famous Thesaurus.10 Yet, it is unlikely that Isa 66:20 has running dromedaries in view, which would be inconvenient as transport animals. Furthermore, none of the old versions saw in ‫ ּכִ ְרּכָרֹות‬anything that related to camels, but rather wagons or palanquins (see below). On second thought, it is certainly possible to connect ‫ ּכִ ְרּכָרֹות‬with the basic meaning “to dance” (without involving camels), as an expression of festive joy; compare David’s “dancing” (‫)מכ ְַרּכֵר‬ ְ in 2 Sam 6:14, Mishnaic Hebrew ‫כִּ רכֵּר‬ “to dance,” and ‫“ כִּ רכּוּר‬dancing” (J. Levy 1924 2:407). Isaiah 66:20 would then read, “They shall bring all your brothers . . . on horses, and in chariots, and in litters, and on mules, and with dances to my holy mountain Jerusalem.” Targum Jonathan followed a similar reasoning when translating ‫ וּבַ ּכִ ְרּכָרֹות‬with ‫“ וֻבתֻׁשבְ חָ ן‬and with praises.”11 Targum Jonathan thus corresponds with 2 Sam 6:14, where ‫ְמכ ְַרּכֵר‬ “dancing” is likewise translated as ‫“ ְמׁשַ בַ ח‬praising” to give a more pious impression of King David’s worship. According to this interpretation, Isa 66:20 alludes to 2 Sam 6:14–15. In the same way as King David brought the ark of the covenant up to Jerusalem with dancing, shouting, and the sound of the horn, so will the Jewish remnant be brought up “as an offering” with dances to Jerusalem’s holy mountain; compare also Isa 35:10; 51:11. Moreover, this interpretation of ‫ ּכִ ְרּכָרֹות‬leads to a symmetrical reading of the animals and vehicles in Isa 66:20. The “horses, chariots, litters, and mules” are arranged in chiastic order; any additional transport animal (“dromedary”) or vehicle (see below) would disturb the symmetry. 208), Ugaritic krkr “to twist, twiddle” (DUL3 450); Akkadian kakkaru “round loaf” or “disc” (CAD 8:49); CA ‫كر‬ ّ karra (intrans.) “to return, come repeatedly” (WKAS 1:100), ‫ كركر‬karkara (intrans.) “to withdraw, return” (109), ‫ كرة‬kura “globe; sphere; ball” (163), and Ethiopic ኵርኵር kwrkwr “roll around, revolve” (Leslau 1991, 292). 9. The Book of Hebrew Roots by Rabbi Yonah provides an explanation of the form ‫“ מכרכר‬dancing” in the context of 2 Sam 6:14 and 1 Chr 15:29: “therefore the noble [breeds; cf. Freytag 1830 4:240; Dozy 1881 2:649] are called ‫ ”ּכִ ְרּכָרֹות‬as in Isa 66:20, “because their walk is similar to the dance in its agility” (‫ النّ مشيها شبيها ً بالرقص لخفّتها‬. . . ‫ ;)ومن هذا س ّميت النجب כרכרות‬see Neubauer 1875, 337, 792; Bacher 1896, 234. 10. ‫ לפי שברוב קלותם ומהירתם דומים שמרקדים‬. . . ‫וּמזה נקרא הגמלים או הבהמות הקלות בהליכתם כרכרות‬ “therefore camels or light animals are called ‫ ּכִ ְרּכָרֹות‬in their [way of] running . . . because in most of them, their agility and velocity likens them to dancing [humans/animals]” (Kimchi 1847, 174; cf. Gesenius 1840, 716–17). In addition, Gesenius adduced the Arabic verb ‫ كري‬karā to illuminate the meaning of ‫ ּכִ ְרּכָרֹות‬‎(716), but this parallel is misleading. Karā means “to walk or prance in a particular manner (as an innate defect, of a horse)” (WKAS 1:159). 11. Targum Jonathan translates the passage as, “with horses and with chariots, and with ewes, and with mules, and with praises” (‫ֻבכֹוד ָנוָן וֻבתֻ שבְ חָ ן‬ ְ ‫רתכִ ין וֻבִ רחֵ י ָלוָן ו‬ ִ ִ‫)בְ סוּסָ וָון וֻב‬.

Camels in the Prophets and Other Writings

287

The ancient versions, such as Targum Jonathan, did not connect ‫ ּכִ ְרּכָרֹות‬with camels (see the discussion above). Interestingly, the Latin Vulgate sees in Isa 66:20 a reference to wheeled vehicles. Thus, ‫ בַּ ּכִ ְרּכָרֹות‬is translated as in carrucis “in vehicles.” The Syriac version seems to disregard ‫ ּובַ ּצַ ּבִ ים ּובַ ּפְ ָר ִדים‬and has “with horses, and with carriages, and with chariots” (‫)ܒ̈ܪܟܫܐ ܘܒܡ̈ܪܟܒܬܐ ܘܒܩ̈ܪܘܟܐ‬, translating ‫ ּובַ ּכִ ְרּכָרֹות‬with ‫“ ܘܒܩ̈ܪܘܟܐ‬and with chariots.” The Syriac version avails itself of the Greek and Latin loanwords καρούχα and carruca respectively (Sokoloff 2009, 1403). These interpretations derive ‫ ּכִ ְרּכָרֹות‬from the root ‫“ ּכרר‬to move to and fro, to turn about, to jump, to roll” (E. Klein 1987, 287, 288; cf. the Semitic roots krkr and krr cited above), rendering any connection to (dancing) camels suspect. The LXX translated ‫ בַּ ּכִ ְרּכָרֹות‬as μετὰ σκιαδίων “with canopies [of wagons]” (Montanari 2015, 1926). Thus, together with the foregoing, the LXX text of Is 66:20b reads, μεθ’ ἵππων καὶ ἁρμάτων ἐν λαμπήναις ἡμιόνων μετὰ σκιαδίων “with horses and chariots and in wagons of mules with canopies.” The medieval Jewish scholar Saʿadiah Gaon translated ‫ ּכִ ְרּכָרֹות‬into Arabic as ‫“ אלעמאריאת‬palanquins” (‫العماريات‬, ʾal-ʿammāriyyāt), providing a similar meaning as the rendering of the LXX.12 These versions once more do not suggest any connection between ‫ ּכִ ְרּכָרֹות‬and (dancing) camels.

6.2. Camels in Jeremiah’s Prophecies 6.2.1. The Unreliable She-​Camel and the Hot Jenny Jeremiah prophesied from the end of the seventh until the beginning of the sixth century BC. His main concerns are the moral decay of Judah and the impending Babylonian siege and subsequent conquest of Jerusalem, but he also announced divine punishments to neighboring kingdoms. The language of the book of Jeremiah betrays its late preexilic setting (Hornkohl 2014). Jeremiah compares Judah in an allegory to a young camel: “You are a swift young she-​camel intertwining her ways” (Jer 2:23b). The picture evoked here is one of an inexperienced, careless young she-​camel (‫ ּבִ כְ ָרה‬bikrāh) wandering around. Jeremiah 2:23 “is the only place in the Hebrew Bible where the camel 12. See Derenbourg 1896, 100 (Hebrew text). Dozy (1881 2:172), followed by Paul 2005, 17 n. 48, gives the meaning of ‫ العماريات‬ʾal-ʿammāriyyāt as “dromedaries,” but this explanation seems to be based on circular reasoning. The source Dozy cites, the Book of Hebrew Roots by Rabbi Yonah (see §6 n. 9), identifies in one of its textual witnesses ‫ ּכִ ְרּכָרֹות‬with ‫( العماريات‬written ‫אלעמאריאת‬, Neubauer 1875, 337 n. 57). This identification is most likely based on Saʿadyah’s translation. However, ‫العماريات‬ ʾal-ʿammāriyyātu always denotes “palanquins; sedans” (Dozy 1881 2:171–72). The same meaning is given in Derenbourg’s (1896, 116) French translation of Saʿadyah’s Arabic version; cf. Ben-Ḥayyim 1971, 238.

288

Camels in the Biblical World

is used as a metaphor” (Foreman 2011, 149). As such, the “young she-​camel” (‫ )ּבִ כְ ָרה‬is a hapax legomenon in Hebrew.13 The root bkr with the meaning “young camel” occurs frequently in Arabic, but its basic meaning “to do s.th. for the first time,” from which the meaning “young camel” is derived, is common to all Semitic languages (§3.3.4). The immediately following imagery used for Israel is a “wild ass used to the wilderness, in the desire of his soul. She sniffs wind in her passion—who can turn her away? All who seek her will not become weary; in her month they will find her” (Jer 2:24). Conceivably, the wild ass species considered here is the Syrian onager, Equus hemionus hemippus, the Syrian subspecies of hemione that went extinct in the first half of the twentieth century AD (von den Driesch and Raulwing 2004, 494–96). The text suggests that the wild ass is in heat and craving for sexual activity. In the MT of Jer 2:24a, ‫ ֶּפ ֶרה‬pereh is of masculine gender, and the context is constructed accordingly: “a wild ass used to the desert, in the desire of his soul” (‫)ּפ ֶֶרה לִ ּמֻד ִמ ְדּבָ ר ּבְ אַ ּוַת נפשו‬. Yet, the passage continues in the feminine gender: “she sniffs wind in her passion” (‫)ׁשָ ֲאפָה רּוחַ ּתַ ֲאנָתָ ּה‬. This shift in gender in Jer 2:24 may imply a change of subject. Dissatisfied with this anomaly, the Sopherim tried to bring both parts of the verse into line. They introduced the qere, which reads ‫ נַפְ ׁשָ ּה‬instead of ‫נפש‬, so that the first part of the text now reads: “a wild ass used to the desert, in the desire of her soul” (‫)ּפ ֶֶרה לִ ּמֻד ִמ ְדּבָ ר ּבְ אַ ּוַת נַפְ ׁשָ ּה‬. In addition, Hebrew names for large and impressive animals, such as the bear, lion, wolf, eagle, dog, cattle, camel, and wild ass, are masculine, but they may be modified according to sense with feminine forms (Waltke and O’Connor 1990, 107; Kautzsch 1909 §122d).14 Thus, ‫ ּפ ֶֶרה‬is epicene and may therefore be constructed grammatically with either gender. The prophet Jeremiah repeatedly uses the image of a prostitute to describe Israel’s unfaithfulness and readiness to receive suitors. According to the ketiv, the prophet started to create his image of unfaithful Israel with the wild ass (hemione stallion), or with hemiones in general (König 1897 §247f), but then deliberately switched to the female hemione. According to the qere, the female hemione was in view from the beginning. Although the behavior of the wild ass portrayed in Jer 2:24 is typical for a stallion, it may be copied by the mare. The phrase usually translated “sniffing wind” means verbally “she gasps wind,” 13. But cf. the masculine form in Isa 60:5. That late pre-exilic Hebrew features a feminine form is most likely due to the influence of ANA (§3.3.4), although other Hebrew camel terms or their uses cannot be explained by ANA influence, such as the use of ‫גמל‬, the occurrence of ‫“ דבשת‬hump,” and the lack of ʾbl (cf. §3.2.4.8). The LXX of Jer 2:23–24 largely deviates from the MT, probably due to misunderstanding the hapax legomenon ‫“ ּבִ כְ ָרה‬young camel” and the unusual form ‫“ ּפ ֶֶרה‬wild ass” (Karrer and Kraus 2011, 2741). 14. The word for camel (‫ )ּגָמָ ל‬is constructed as a masculine plural in Gen 24:10 (‫)עֲׂשָ ָרה גְ מַ ּלִ ים‬ and 63 (‫)גְ מַ ּלִ ים ּבָ ִאים‬. Note that in Gen 32:16, “lactating camels and their young” are expressed as ‫ּגְ מַ ּלִ ים מֵ ינִ יקֹות ּובְ נֵיהֶ ם‬.

Camels in the Prophets and Other Writings

289

ַ‫ׁשָ ֲאפָה רּוח‬, and most likely alludes to intensive sniffing or flehmen, whereby male equids test the urine of females to assess estrogen concentration.15 However, when jennies of feral and free-​ranging domestic donkeys are in heat, they may show similar patterns of behavior.16 Thus, by introducing the hemione and subsequently specifying it as a female, it seems that Jeremiah created a powerful image of a wild or feral jenny in estrus that behaves like a wild jackass: “a wild ass used to the desert, in the desire of his (ketiv)/her (qere) soul: she gasps wind in her passion—who can restrain her lust?” Some commentators regarded the first part of Jer 2:24a “a wild ass . . . of its soul” (‫ נפשו‬. . . ‫ )ּפ ֶֶרה‬as an early marginal gloss, or as an interpolation, and eliminated it by directly linking up Jer 2:23 with Jer 2:24b (e.g., Bailey and Holladay 1968, 257). Others, like Ludwig Köhler (1909, 35–36; cf. McKane 1986, 45–46), emended Jer 2:24a to refer to the she-​camel. Anyway, “she gasps wind in her passion” (‫ )ׁשָ ֲא ָפה רּוחַ ּתַ ֲאנָתָ ּה‬was thought by some commentators to refer to the young she-​camel (Jer 2:23), not to the wild ass (Jer 2:24). Kenneth Bailey and William Holladay (1968, 257) are of the opinion that an emendation or elimination of Jer 2:24a “becomes irrelevant if one inquires into the actual conduct of the young camel and of the wild ass in the Middle East . . . as to the camel, it is the male that experiences rut; the female does not come into heat.” Their assertion about the reproductive behavior in camels and donkeys supported the conclusion that Jer 2:23–24 indeed referred to two taxa: the haphazard, swift young she-​camel (Jer 2:23), and the she-​ass in heat (Jer 2:24). Their claim in turn influenced a number of subsequent studies of Jeremiah (Lundbom 1999, 281; G. Fischer 2005, 168; Foreman 2011, 147–50), despite the fact that from a zoological viewpoint, it is far from accurate. What is true is that male camels go into rut in the mating season (in the northern hemisphere during the winter), but equally true is the fact that she-​camels can go into heat as well, although the rut of the male is clearly more eye-​catching. She-​camels usually come into heat for the first time when they are three to four years old. The animals become excited and restless, and occasionally chase and mount other females. The animals’ vulva becomes swollen and discharges a foul-​smelling 15.  “Prior to ovulation, the urine of female equids contains elevated estrogen levels that males use to assess how likely a female is to conceive. Males test the urine of females by inhaling it into their mouths, where the Jacobson’s (vomeronasal) organ assesses estrogen concentration. This behavior is called flehming; the stallion curls his upper lip to close all his nostrils, his head pointed to the sky and his teeth exposed” (Rubenstein 2011, 120). 16.  “They periodically vocalize toward the jack and exhibit heterotypical and homotypical sexual behavior within the group. Heterotypical behaviors include mounting, herding, chasing, sniffing and nibbling, olfactory investigation and covering of each other’s urine and feces with urine and/or feces, and flehmen. Homotypical behaviors include . . . lowered head with neck extended forward, opening and closing of the mouth, ears back against the neck, hind legs splayed, one foreleg slightly back and the other slightly forward, tail raised from the perineum, and presentation of the perineum toward the jack” (McDonnell 1998, 278–79).

290

Camels in the Biblical World

slime. It bleats often, urinates frequently, and becomes receptive to the male (Wilson 1984, 86). Sometimes, the female even approaches the male first. A male camel will not rut before it is six years old. When rutting, the male often gargles, gnashes its teeth, froths, roars alarmingly, and is prone to violence. It secretes a sticky, tary substance from its glands on the back of the neck, which is attractive to the female. Its testicles grow bigger, and testosterone levels reach their peak. A male dromedary will occasionally blow out its soft and stinking palatal flap, the dulaa, like a pink ball, accompanied by gurgling sounds. It urinates on its tail and sprays the urine around. If a male in rut is approaching a receptive female, she will display her genitals, raise her tail, urinate and finally sit down spreading her hindlegs. “Camels copulate with the female in a sitting posture, and the male straddles over and covers her,” as Aristotle explained (Historia animalium 540a). The mating process will trigger the ovulation. If the female camel has been impregnated, it will cock its tail after 2–3 weeks, especially when approached by a male or handled by an attendant (Khanvilkar, Samant, and Ambore 2009; Skidmore 2008). Thus, Jer 2:23–24 uses two animals distinctive of Israel’s unfaithfulness. On the one hand, the “swift young she-​camel” (‫ּבִ כְ ָרה קַ ּלָה‬, Jer 2:23b) is illustrative of anything haphazard. It is “intertwining its ways” ( ָ‫)מׂשָ ֶרכֶת ְּד ָרכֶיה‬, ְ rushing right and left of her path instead of following it straight, perhaps because it refers to a young she-​camel in heat, which becomes excited and restless. The wild ass, on the other hand (Jer 2:24), seems to image Israel as a female hemione or feral jenny in estrus that tries to get the attention of jackasses by “gasping wind”: “None who seek her need weary themselves; in her month they will find her” (Jer 2:24). 6.2.2. The Oracle Against Qedar In one of Jeremiah’s prophecies against neighboring kingdoms, Qedar and “the kingdoms of Hazor” are in view, which were defeated by King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon: Thus says yhwh: ‘Rise up, advance against Qedar! Destroy the sons of the east! Their tents and their flocks shall be taken, their curtains and all their goods; their camels shall be led away from them, and men shall cry to them: ‘Terror all around!’ Flee, wander far away, dwell in the depths, O inhabitants of Hazor. . . . Rise up, advance against a nation at ease, that dwells securely, declares yhwh, that has no gates or bars, that dwells alone. Their camels shall become plunder, their herds of livestock a spoil. . . . Hazor shall become a haunt of jackals, an everlasting waste; no man shall dwell there; no man shall sojourn in her.’ (Jer 49:28–33 [LXX 30:23–28])

Camels in the Prophets and Other Writings

291

The order of yhwh is, “Arise, go up to Qedar and devastate the sons of the east [‫]ּבְ נֵי־קֶ דֶ ם‬.” The ‫ ּבְ נֵי־קֶ דֶ ם‬are seen as wandering sheep pastoralists, who relied on camels for travel and transport: “Their tents and their flocks shall they take away: they shall take to themselves their curtains, and all their vessels, and their camels” (‫)אָ ֳהלֵיהֶ ם וְ צ ֹאנָם יִ ּקָ חּו יְ ִריעֹותֵ יהֶ ם וְ כָל־ּכְ לֵיהֶ ם ּוגְ מַ ּלֵיהֶ ם יִ ְׂשאּו לָהֶ ם‬. Nomadic pastoralists possessing small livestock, tents, and camels are also mentioned elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible (Judg 6:3–6; 2 Chr 14:11–14), but here, additional details are given. The Babylonians shall also take away their curtains (Dalman 1939, 30) and their vessels. Curtains and tents belong together (Isa 54:2 and Jer 4:20), because tents are based on curtains, compare Exod 26:12–13 “the curtains of the tent” (‫)יְ ִריעֹ ת הָ אֹ הֶ ל‬.17 Nomadic life is also largely dependent on portable household contents including vessels and skins for transporting water and food that could be moved from one encampment to the next. At the end of the Assyrian period, Qedar was engaged in various conflicts and treaties respectively with the Assyrian kings.18 Despite several Assyrian attempts to subdue it, Qedar remained in firm control of a Syrian Desert confederacy. However, a devastating blow by the Babylonians occurred in 598 BC, when Nebuchadnezzar launched an attack against the “Arabs” (Dumbrell 1971, 38–39). From a Syrian base, he marched through the desert and took considerable booty from many Arabian tribes, including “their possessions, animals and gods” (ma-​ du-​tu NÍG-šú-​nu bu-​li-​šú-​nu u DINGIR.ME-šú-​nu, Beaulieu 2013, 47). Jeremiah concludes his oracle, reinforcing what he said before: “their camels will become plunder and the multitude of their cattle for booty” (Jer 49:32; ‫וְ הָ יּו‬ ‫)גְ מַ ּלֵיהֶ ם לָבַ ז ַוהֲמֹון ִמקְ נֵיהֶ ם לְ ׁשָ לָל‬. This verse suggests that the Babylonians regarded the camels as most valuable, probably for transporting the booty, while all other livestock species were taken as provisions for their huge army. 6.2.2.1. The Meaning of Hazor in Jer 49:28–33 The inclusion of Hazor in 49:28, 30, and 33 seems to point to the well-​known kingdom from the time of Joshua, situated north of the Sea of Galilee. However, it is highly unlikely that the Canaanite city Hazor is in view here. In Jer 49, yhwh is pronouncing judgment in a way very different from Josh 11 (cf. G. Fischer 2005, 552). Moreover, the judgment against Hazor in Josh 11 was brought about by the Israelites; here, the Babylonians are in charge. In other words, Hazor seems to point to another locality connected with Qedar. 17.  It has to be kept in mind that mobile people did not solely live in tents but relied at times on habitations made of stone and/or wood, in place of or besides their tents; cf. Rosen 2011, 33. 18.  See, with many references to Qedar, Ephʿal 1982; Knauf 1989, 96–103; and Staubli 1991, 86–99.

292

Camels in the Biblical World

The LXX, suggesting the same, disconnects the toponym here from Hazor of the times of Joshua.19 The LXX translates “Hazor” (‫ )חָ צֹור‬in 49:28, 30, and 33 with αὐλή, “palace,” which leads to the suggestion that the Hebrew noun ‫חָ צֵ ר‬ “court, enclosure, settlement, village” may have served as the LXX-​Vorlage.20 The wide array of meanings for ‫ חָ צֵ ר‬suggest that it is based on two different Semitic roots that have coalesced into one in Hebrew. Both roots are common in Arabic. The first means “court; enclosure,” comparable to the Arabic roots ‫ حِ ظار‬ḥiẓār “a wall, or wall of enclosure,” or ‫ حظيرة‬ḥaẓīra, “an enclosure of a thing [. . . , or] an enclosure for sheep and goats” (Lane 1863, 596). The other means “settlement, village,” the Arabic cognate being ‫ حضر‬ḥaḍar, “a region, district, or tract, of cities, towns, or villages, and of cultivated land” (589; cf. HAH, 385).21 In Hebrew, the latter meaning is also known from Gen 25:16 (the sons of Ishmael are said to live “in their encampments” ‫)ּבְ חַ צְ ֵריהֶ ם‬, Isa 42:11 (“the settlements where Qedar inhabits” ‫)חֲצֵ ִרים ּתֵ ׁשֵ ב קֵ דָ ר‬, and others (DCH 3:296). The LXX reading αὐλή “palace” of Jer 49:28, 30, 33 does not agree with the meanings outlined above. Nevertheless, it may well be that the Vorlage of the LXX is based on a Hebrew noun (or was understood as such) that is cognate to Arabic ‫ حصار‬ḥiṣār “a fortress; a fort; a castle” (Lane 1863, 583). The reading ‫ חָ צֹור‬of the MT is the lectio difficilior. It is not only supported by Targum Jonathan, by the Peshitta, and the Vulgate, but also by the Greek of Aquila and Symmachus (Barthélemy 1986, 813). If the MT is maintained, ‫חָ צֹור‬ could be interpreted as an unknown place name in the realm of the Qedarite settlements. Hazor was not an uncommon toponym, as Josh 15:23–25 and Neh 11:33 suggest, as well as cognate names, such as Hazar-​asam (ostracon Meṣad Ḥashavyahu, lines 3–4) and Hazer-​hatticon (Ezek 47:16). This means that ‫חָ צֹור‬ could well be derived from the Hebrew root ‫ חצר‬and its meanings discussed above. On the other hand, it cannot be excluded that the toponym ‫ חָ צֹור‬is of Arabic origin. Common to all place names mentioned below is the typical shift from Proto-​Semitic ā, still preserved in Arabic, toward Northwest Semitic ō (Gzella 2011, 81):

19.  On the other hand, the Vulgate, Targum Jonathan, and the Peshitta, transliterate Hazor in the same way as in Josh 11. 20. In 49:28, the LXX in fact offers the reading βασιλίσσῃ τῆς αὐλῆς, which presupposes the reading ‫“ מלכת חצר‬queen of the palace” instead of ‫“ ּוֽ לְ מַ ְמלְ כֹות חָ צֹור‬and to the kingdoms of Hazor” (MT). The Assyrian records mention several Arabian queens (Ephʿal 1982, 152–53). This may have been known to the author of the LXX Vorlage, or to the LXX translator respectively. 21. W. Holladay (1989, 383) cites Lane’s lexical entry of ‫ حاضر‬ḥāḍir, “any people that have alighted and taken up their abode by a constant source of water, and do not remove from it . . . or pitched their tents by the water, and remained there.” However, the form ‫ حاضر‬ḥāḍir is the participle of the root ‫ حضر‬and not the Arabic equivalent of Hebrew ‫ חצר‬or ‫חצור‬.

Camels in the Prophets and Other Writings

293

1. The etymology of ‫ חָ צֹור‬in Jer 49 could be explained by the Arabic root ‫ حظر‬ḥẓr.22 In this case, ‫ חָ צֹור‬is supposed to belong to the Semitic noun pattern qaṭāl that in Hebrew becomes ‫( קָ טֹול‬Bauer and Leander 1922 §61ea). According to Lane (1863, 595–96), the Arabic noun ‫ حظار‬ḥaẓār means “a wall,” and more specifically, “a wall made of trees placed one upon another to form a protection for camels or sheep or goats from the cold of the north wind in winter,” that is, a livestock enclosure or “kraal.” This explanation seems to be at odds with Hazor’s characterization as having “neither gates nor bars” (Jer 49:31), but the etymology of a place name is rarely describing its actual condition, and an enclosure to protect livestock is not comparable to a permanent settlement fortification. A similar case is known from the place name ‫גְ דֹור‬, explainable by the Arabic root ‫ جدار‬ǧidār “wall” (Bauer and Leander 1922 §61eβ). Hebrew ‫ חָ צֹור‬as well as Arabic ‫ حظار‬ḥaẓār also correlate well with Akkadian ḫaṣāru “enclosure; sheepfold” that features in the Mari letters. Folds occasionally developed into settlements, but their original meaning and function respectively may still be discernible in their name, based on the root ḫṣr (Malamat 1989, 47–48; Heimpel 2003, 30). 2. The etymology of ‫ חָ צֹור‬in Jer 49 could be related to the Arabic root ‫حصر‬ ḥṣr. According to Lane (1863, 583), the Arabic noun ‫ حصار‬ḥiṣār means “a fortress; a fort; a castle,” which also seems to account for the LXX translation “palace” (see above). The meaning is likewise at odds with Hazor’s characterization (Jer 49:31), but compare possibility 1. 3. There is also an Arabic place name that would correlate philologically with ‫חָ צֹור‬. The place is called ‫ الحصار‬al-ḥiṣāru (cf. 2), and it is described as a village in the province Jāzān, along the southern Red Sea coast.23 Disagreeing with the position of ‫ חָ צֹור‬geographically, it nevertheless demonstrates that toponyms like ‫ חָ צֹור‬implying an Arabic background may have existed.

6.3. Camels in the Book of Ezekiel Ezekiel, who prophesied among the Jewish exiles at the beginning of the sixth century BC, is the most prominent prophet of the Babylonian exile. The book of Ezekiel was probably written down and put into circulation during the Persian period. The author speaks about camels in an oracle against the Ammonites. 22. In fact, several Semitic roots could be adduced for the meaning(s) of ‫ ;חצר‬see Orlinsky 1939. 23. ‫ بمنطقة جازان‬،‫ من قرى العارضة‬:‫الحصار‬. (Al-​Ǧāsid 1977, 322).

294

Camels in the Biblical World

He accuses the Ammonites of schadenfreude when they learned that the Babylonians had destroyed Israel and exiled its inhabitants (Ezek 25:2–3). Therefore, their country with its civilized settlements will be depopulated and deserted. It will become some sort of desert fringe, only suitable for pasturing camels, sheep, and goats. Thus, Ammon’s frontier will be pushed back to the west. “And I shall make Rabbah a pasture for camels [‫ ]לִ נְ וֵה גְ מַ ּלִ ים‬and the sons of Ammon a resting place for flocks [‫]לְ ִמ ְרּבַ ץ־צ ֹאן‬. Thus you will know that I am yhwh” (Ezek 25:5). Ammon would be overrun by the “sons of the east” (‫ּבְ נֵי־‬ ‫קֶ דֶ ם‬, Ezek 25:10), who already arose in similar contexts, and given to them.

6.4. Camels in the Book of Zechariah Zechariah belongs to the Minor Prophets or the Book of the Twelve. His postexilic prophecies would be contemporaneous with the reign of Darius I (522–486 BC; Zech 1:1). As such, Zechariah looks forward to the great “day of yhwh,” when all the nations that are gathered against Jerusalem for battle will be defeated, and yhwh himself will be “king over all the earth” (Zech 14:1–2, 9). After listing the blessings that follow yhwh’s coming, a plague is pronounced “with which yhwh will strike all the peoples that wage war against Jerusalem” (Zech 14:12). A similar plague will fall on the animals in the hand of Israel’s foes: “and a plague like this plague shall fall on the horses, mules, the camels, the donkeys, and whatever beasts may be in those camps” (Zech 14:15). The list starts with the horse, the most important species when engaging in war-​like activities, and continues with different species of pack animals, such as mules, camels, and donkeys, which were exploited in the baggage train.24

6.5. Camels in the Book of Job The poetic book of Job provides neither chronological information nor indications about the use of camels at his time. It merely allows concluding that Job possessed a large number of camels: in the animal lists of Job 1:3 and 42:12, which are sorted according to their respective numbers, camels follow immediately after sheep and goats, and precede cattle and donkeys. In addition, Job is associated with the “sons of the east” (‫)ּבְ נֵי־קֶ דֶ ם‬, that is, the camel-​herding 24. Grammatically, all nouns are used in the absolute state, dependent on the construct ‫מַ ֵּג ַפת‬ “plague.” The nouns follow in the singular, as collectives: ‫מַ ֵּג ַפת הַ ּסּוס הַ ֶּפ ֶרד הַ ּגָמָ ל וְ הַ חֲמֹור וְ כָל־הַ ּבְ הֵ מָ ה‬, verbally “a plague on the horse, mule, camel, donkey, and all beasts.” The LXX translated ad sensum, as most of the modern versions do (καὶ αὕτη ἔσται ἡ πτῶσις τῶν ἵππων καὶ τῶν ἡμιόνων καὶ τῶν καμήλων καὶ τῶν ὄνων καὶ πάντων τῶν κτηνῶν).

Camels in the Prophets and Other Writings

295

pastoralists of the Arabian Peninsula. According to Job 1:17, “the Chaldeans formed three bands and made a raid on [Job’s] camels.”

6.6. Camels on Their Return from Exile The books of Ezra and Nehemiah, which were composed in the fourth century BC, provide us with details about the Jews returning with their families to Judah and Jerusalem following the Babylonian exile. The exact numbers of their transport animals are given as 736 horses, 245 mules, 435 camels, and 6,720 donkeys (Ezra 2:67; Neh 7:68; cf. 1 Esd 5:43). The Hebrew text of Nehemiah omits horses and mules and thus lists only donkeys and camels. The omission is due to an aberratio oculi between the two “200” (‫ )מָ אתַ יִ ם‬as they appear in Ezra 2:66–67 (D. Barthélemy 1982, 565). The Masoretes were well aware of that, as can be seen by a lacuna in the St. Petersburg Codex, and by a few Hebrew manuscripts that provide the missing text (Dotan 2001, 1116). The listing of the various labor animals versus the absence of cattle and caprines is remarkable. Nonetheless, as Kurt Galling (1951, 155) has observed, “what really concerned these people was ‘How many beasts of burden are available for the building project, right here and now?’ ” The animals listed above were used as transport animals for food, household effects (Ezra 1:7–11), children, and the rest, but at least a substantial proportion carried building materials and were destined to serve in the planned building project. The returning exiles numbered 42,360 people (Ezra 2:64), but if the individual numbers listed are added together, the total is 29,818. That leaves us with 12,000 women and children, a number considered comparatively low (Fensham 1982, 57). However, it is conceivable that this avant-​garde of returning expatriates encompassed mainly men in their prime who intended to actively participate in construction work.25 Many of these young men married women living near Jerusalem and beyond (Ezra 9:1–2; Neh 13:23–27), which suggests that only a comparatively low number of (marriageable) women had returned to Judah.

25.  See Weinberg 1972, 52–53; followed by Williamson 1985, 37–38; and Schunck 2009, 222.

Chapter 7

Camels in the Gospels

Dromedaries, Bactrian camels, and hybrids were extensively exploited in the Roman Empire. Thus, the time of the Gospels likely witnessed to the ubiquitous presence of camels in the everyday life of Roman Palestine, but their authors do not reveal further details about the camel as a mount or transport animal. In fact, camels only appear in the Synoptic Gospels, which were written down during the second half of the first century AD (Hengel 2008, 354).

7.1. John the Baptist’s Ascetic Lifestyle John the Baptist, “the voice of one crying in the wilderness,” who also features in Josephus’s Jewish Antiquities (18.116–19), lived in the Judean Desert around AD 30 according to the chronology of the Gospels. He had a “garment of camel’s hair, and a leather belt about his waist; and his food was locusts and wild honey” (τὸ ἔνδυμα αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τριχῶν καμήλου καὶ ζώνην δερματίνην περὶ τὴν ὀσφὺν αὐτοῦ, ἡ δὲ τροφὴ ἦν αὐτοῦ ἀκρίδες καὶ μέλι ἄγριον, Matt 3:4). John’s clothing of camel hair, reminiscent of Elijah’s (2 Kgs 1:8; cf. Zech 13:4), was a “cheap and hardwearing garment and not the apron (ἔνδυμα) of so much Christian art” (O. Michel 1965, 593).1 Dromedary wool is plucked at the end of spring, when the animal is molting. Approximately two kilograms of wool, or less, can be collected from a dromedary (Bodenheimer 1935, 125; Wilson 1984, 161–62). The wool of dromedaries is usually processed to coarse textiles, such as tent-​cloth panels, covers, carpets, ropes, bags, and caps.2 By comparison, Bedouin prefer goat’s or sheep’s wool for clothing, because of its fine 1.  For more details on Greek and Roman sources to John’s clothing and diet, and the various traditions emerging from this passage, cf. Allison 1988, 295–97. For the much thicker winter fleece of the Bactrian camel, cf. Peters and von den Driesch 1997, 664. For Mishnaic laws regarding garments woven from camel’s hair, cf. m. Kil’ayem 9:1; m. Nega’im 11:2. 2.  Jabbur 1995, 219. For the traditional process of shearing, ginning, the preparation of wool thread, and the production of ropes and carpets in India, see Chand, Jangid, and Rohilla 2011.

296

Camels in the Gospels

297

texture; camel’s hair is much coarser and therefore less esteemed (Burckhardt 1830, 27, 39). Based on modern food studies, it can be concluded that John’s locust diet yielded high protein contents as well as saturated and unsaturated fatty acids, and minerals. “About 62% of the dry weight of an adult desert locust consists of proteins, 17% as fats, with the remainder as inorganic constituents (Si, Cu, Fe, Mn, Na, K, Ca, Mg, Ti, Ni, P, S)” (Cheseto et al. 2015, 2). Swarms of locusts could be “harvested like termites by burning their wings whilst the animals were resting in a tree at night. Immobilized this way, substantial amounts of locusts could be gathered, dried, and stored for later consumption” (Peters, Dieckmann, and Vogelsang 2009, 119). The consumption of locusts has a long cultural tradition that was shared by many ancient Near Eastern peoples. Any indication about the species of locust consumed by John or whether he prepared them or not is absent from Mt 3:4 // Mk 1:6 (Kelhoffer 2004, 314). As outlined above, carbohydrate levels are very low in locusts, but this could be compensated by his intake of wild honey, a natural product rich in carbohydrates. Wild honey is not collected by keeping bees in beehives, but by gathering honey from wild colonies. Harvesting wild honey is attested from prehistory through modern times.3 John the Baptist’s remarkable diet is adequate to Mark’s statement that John’s disciples sometimes fasted (Mark 2:18), and to Luke’s statement that he avoided bread and wine (Luke 7:33).4

7.2. The Camel and the Needle’s Eye Jesus once uttered the prominent proverb that “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God” (Matt 19:24; cf. Mark 10:25; Luke 18:25).5 This proverb, phrased somewhere before AD 33, was esteemed too hard by many, resulting in manifold interpretations, besides more pious speculations. Some authors believed that the “eye of a needle” (τρυπήματος ῥαφίδος) referred to the small gate next to the city’s main entrance gate. When the large main gates were closed for the night, travelers could still enter the city through the “needle’s eye,” which was large 3.  See, e.g., Mazar 2018; Harissis 2015; Mazar and Panitz-​Cohen 2007; Dalman 1942, 291–96. 4.  For more details on John’s diet, see Kelhoffer 2005. By comparison, Bedouin of the nineteenth century preferred meat, milk, and unleavened bread (Burckhardt 1830, 135–38). 5.  Usually made of animal bone, needles with eyes have been retrieved on many occasions from archaeological contexts in the Near East. From Masada, e.g., there is evidence for the use of a needle and a short thread to knit a child’s linen sock (Sheffer 1995, 552). A bone needle found in a woman’s grave in Cyprus suggests that she worked as a seamstress. In connection with an analysis of her skeleton, it seems that she was working with heavy material, such as coarse textiles, animal skins, or nets (Baker, Terhune, and Papalexandrou 2012, 158–59).

298

Camels in the Biblical World

enough for camels to crawl through, provided they were unloaded. However, it is much more likely that, owing to the saying of Jesus, any such gate was called a “needle’s eye” (and not the other way round, Allison and Davies 1997, 51–52). As far as we could ascertain, there is no evidence that one of the city gates of Jerusalem or of any other city was called “needle’s eye” at Jesus’s time. Although it may be possible for a camel to crawl through a narrow city gate, the point made by Jesus was to picture the impossible: camels simply do not pass through a needle’s eye. This understanding is supported by the ensuing question of his disciples (Matt 19:25; Mark 10:26; Luke 18:26). In search of other explanations, some minuscules and lectionaries provide the reading κάμιλον “ship’s cable” instead of κάμηλον “camel” in Matt 19:24. According to Origen, some exegetes thought that κάμηλον in Matt 19:24 referred to a rope, others to the animal (οἱ μὲν τὸ σχοινίον τῆς μηχανῆς, οἱ δὲ τὸ ζῷον; Lampe 1968, 700a). Cyril of Alexandria (d. AD 444) made similar comments on Matt 19:24 and Luke 18:23 (Patrologia Graeca 72:429, 857). This reading may have been introduced to explain Jesus’s enigmatic statement as reported in Matt 19:24 and Mark 10:25. It may result from iotacism, namely the tendency of a vowel (here η) to acquire the pronunciation of the vowel iota (ι) (Metzger 1975, 169). However, this vowel change is distinctly rare in early New Testament manuscripts (Moulton and Howard 1929, 72). Considering all three Gospel references, the earliest Greek textual witness with the reading κάμιλον “ship’s cable” shows up in the ninth to tenth centuries AD (MS 1424). Yet, the dominant patristic tradition opted for the “camel” and adopted the literal interpretation (Allison and Davies 1997, 52). Only the Armenian and Georgian versions feature the reading “ship’s cable” in Luke 18:25.6 As is well known, both versions are heavily influenced by the Syriac and Armenian versions respectively, and their oldest textual witnesses date to the ninth to tenth centuries AD. 6. See the critical apparatus in Aland et al. 2014 for all three references, and see O. Michel 1965, n. 6. Lamsa’s (1964, 117) remark that “the Aramaic word gamla means camel, a large rope and a beam” is incorrect. It is perhaps partly based on the Syriac translation of Cyril’s observation that in turn seems to be based on Origen’s statement cited above. Cyril’s note is that κάμηλος in Luke 18:25 refers to a thick rope (Κάμηλον, οὐ τὸ ζῶον, ἀλλὰ τὸ ἐν τοῖς πλοίοις παχὺ σχοινίον; Patrologia Graeca 72:857). The Syriac translation reads that “by ‫[ ܓܡܐܠ‬gamlā] he means not the animal of that name, but rather a thick cable [‫]ܚܒܐܠ ܥܒܝܐ‬, for it is the custom of those well versed in navigä tion to call the thicker cables “camels” ‫ܓܡܐܠ‬ [gamlē]” (Payne-​Smith 1858, 338, lines 13–15; 1859, 571–72). See also https://​hmmlorientalia​.wordpress​.com​/2015​/07​/23​/a​-camel​-or​-a​-rope​-in​-the​-eye​ -of​-a​-needle​-the​-old​-georgian​-witness. However, in Jewish Babylonian Aramaic (‫ )גמלא‬and in Syriac (‫)ܓܡܐܠ‬, gamla means either “camel,” or, metaphorically, “beam; rafter” (Sokoloff 2002, 289; 2009, 241). It seems that the meaning “ship’s rope” was proposed by some Syrian church fathers solely on the basis of Matt 19:24 (Fraenkel 1886, 228; Brockelmann 1928, 120; Sokoloff 2009, 241; not clearly stated by Oberhuber 1985).

Camels in the Gospels

299

In 1860, a fragmentary manuscript with chapter 19 of Matthew’s gospel surfaced that suggested “cable” (καλών) instead of “camel” (κάμηλον; Matt 19:24). Its discoverer, the illustrious Constantine Simonides, believed that “most ancient expositors understood the word Κάμηλος or Κάμιλος in the passage under consideration, in the sense of a cable. The true reading however was, I have no doubt, neither Κάμηλον or Κάμιλον, but ΚΑΛΩΝ.” Simonides claimed to have found the reading καλών in “a most ancient manuscript of Matthew, preserved in the Monastery of Mount Sinai. . . . This remarkable and precious manuscript, which I inspected on the spot, was written only 15 years after Matthew’s death” (Simonides 1861, 46). Sadly enough, this manuscript turned out to be a downright forgery, which, together with other spectacular “findings,” had been made by Simonides himself (Elliott 1982, 131–63, esp. 153–54).7 Two similar proverbial statements about a large animal going through a needle’s eye are known from the Babylonian Talmud. According to the tractate Berakot (55b), one never dreams of impossible things, such as “of an elephant going through the eye of a needle.” In the tractate Baba Meṣi‘a (38b), it is suggested that those from Pumbeditha have such quirky teachings that they “let an elephant pass through a needle’s eye.”8 This phrase has also been suggested to refer to a rope instead of an elephant, but there is no hard evidence that it could be understood otherwise.9 Furthermore, in the talmudic lexicon of the seventeenth-​century scholar Johannes Buxtorf, the following Jewish proverb is quoted: “the eye of a needle is not too narrow for two friends, but the world is not too large for two enemies.”10 The proverb of the camel and the needle’s eye also found its way into the Qur’ān (surat al-​Aʿrāf; sura 7:40). It is the only sura generically using the CA term for the bull camel, ‫ جمل‬ǧamal. Otherwise, the Qur’ān uses ‫ بعير‬baʿīr (camel), ‫ ناقة‬nāqa (female camel), and ‫ إبل‬ʾibil (camels/camel herd; R. Khoury 7.  Courtesy Tommy Wasserman. Another apocryphal camel occurrence entered the Sahidic version of the Apocalypse (middle of the first millennium AD), which translated the animal-​list of Rev 18:13, κτήνη καὶ πρόβατα καὶ ἵππων καὶ ῥεδῶν “cattle and sheep, horses and chariots,” as ϩⲓ ⲧ̅ⲃ̅ⲛⲏ ϩⲓ ⲉⲥⲟⲟⲩ ϩⲓ ϩⲧⲟ ϩⲓ ⲙⲁⲥⲡⲟⲣ̅ⲕ̅ ϩⲓ ⲃ̅ⲣ̅ϭⲟⲟⲩⲧ ϩⲓ ϭⲁⲙⲟⲩⲗ “beast and sheep, horse, hinny, chariot, and camel” (Askeland 2017, 70). 8. ‫( פילא דעייל בקופא דמחטא‬b. Berakot 55b), and ‫( מעיילין פילא בקופא דמחטא‬b. Baba Meṣi‘a 38b). Both sayings are cited in J. Levy 1924 4:36; cf. Sokoloff 2002, 900. 9. Goldschmidt suggests that ‫“ פילא‬is nothing other than Latin filum” (“ist nichts anderes als das lat[einische] filum”; Goldschmidt 1996 7:563 n. 161 on b. Baba Meṣi‘a 38b), originally meaning “ship’s cable,” which by word similarity (filum, fil) was changed to elephant (“das durch Wortähnlichkeit (filum, fil) in Elefant geändert wurde”; 1:244 n. 84 on b. Berakot 55b). He further compares the talmudic saying with the κάμιλον reading of the Gospels. Yet, Goldschmidt’s interpretation leads the rabbinic saying ad absurdum, changing it from stating the impossible and absurd to the common and reasonable, because filum does not mean “ship’s cable,” but “thread” or “fiber,” cf. the proverb pendere filo “to hang by a thread.” Threads easily pass through a needle’s eye, elephants do not. 10. ‫( אין נקב המחט צר לשני אוהבים ואין רוחב העולם די לשני שונאים‬Buxtorf 1866, 699).

300

Camels in the Biblical World

2001; cf. §3.3.4). Moreover, it seems that the phrase about a camel passing through the eye of a needle is almost “the only direct quotation in the Quran from the New Testament” (Bishop 1941, 354), due to an engagement with or based on Tatian’s Syriac Diatessaron (357; Galadari 2018). Arguably, the Arabic Diatessaron underwent the same development as the surat al-​Aʿrāf. Arabic ǧamal (Ciasca 1888, ۱۱۰) is based on Syriac ‫ ܓܡܐܠ‬gamlā, and ultimately on Greek κάμηλος. Finally, although some Qur’ān commentators understood ‫جمل‬ ǧamal to refer to a rope by changing the vocalization from ǧamal to ǧummal (Watt 1972), the original meaning is to be preferred.11

11.  Cf. von Hammer-​Purgstall 1854, 70; 1856, 2; Tritton 1971; Blachère 1974; Schub 1976; Khalil 1978; Rippin 1980. See also §7 n. 6.

Chapter 8

Domestic Camels in the Biblical World: Summary and Conclusions

Old World camels comprise two domestic forms, the Bactrian or two-​ humped camel and the Arabian one-​humped camel or dromedary (§2.1.1). For the two-​humped camel, populations once roaming the arid oasis landscapes with their numerous salt lakes east of the Oxus River and west of the foothills of the Pamir-​Tian Shan mountain ranges now seem the likely ancestors. Regarding the one-​humped camel, populations inhabiting the western coastal fringe of the Gulf with its khor, mangrove, and marsh biotopes extending from southeast Arabia possibly as far north as the Shatt-​al Arab estuary obviously contributed to the domestic form. Most notably, both ecosystems are characterized by major occurrences of halophytes, a highly desired food playing a central role in the diet of free-​grazing camels even today. Zooarchaeological and iconographic evidence illustrates that by the third millennium BC, domestic Bactrian camels had already been introduced to southern Turkmenistan (§3.1). Material culture excavated in the Bronze Age civilizations of Central Asia (e.g., Oxus civilization) and Mesopotamia imply long-​distance interregional trade contacts in the third millennium BC that were only surpassed by the Persian Empire and the conquests of Alexander the Great (Steinkeller 2016, 127). Archaeological camel remains (§3.1.1) as well as pictorial evidence (§3.1.2; fig. 8.1) in southwest Asia strongly suggest that Bactrian camels may have been essential for transporting goods from Central Asia across vast, arid landscapes at varying altitudes and with fluctuating temperatures. The Bactrian camel most likely reached Mesopotamia via Iran and the Zagros Mountains. In Mesopotamia, inscriptional evidence points to its use by the middle of the third millennium BC (§3.2.4.1). In early animal lists encompassing large animals with symmetrical outgrowths, it is ranked after the elephant (am.si) and named am.si.ḫar.ra.an, the “elephant of the caravan.” During the Old Babylonian period, a second designation, a m . s i . k u r. r a or the “elephant of the mountain,” came into use. Most remarkably, although mentioned in lexical lists until the first millennium BC, these Sumerian terms do not show up in contemporaneous administrative texts or commercial lists. That being said, 301

302

Camels in the Biblical World

Figure 8.1.  Drawing of male Bactrian camels depicted in relief on a cylindrical silver vessel from Gonur Depe (Turkmenistan), hypogeum 3220. Drawing by A. Sapyev on the photograph by M. Babaev. © Margiana Archaeological Expedition.

inscriptional evidence supporting the camel’s exploitation in local trade or war in Mesopotamia and the Levant prior to the twelfth century BC is missing. Peoples practicing livestock transhumance in the second millennium BC—for example, in Mari—obviously preferred donkeys for transport (§3.2.4.4), which was also the case in caravan trains of that period (Faist 2001, 145–46; P. Mitchell 2018, 81–86). We thus conclude that until the late second millennium BC, camels were rarely exploited in local trade networks or transhumance in the biblical world. Apart from its mention in lexical lists, the Bactrian camel shows up occasionally in Sumerian writings: once in a puzzling commentary (§3.2.4.1.1), twice in a love song addressed to Dumuzi, the god of shepherds and flocks, once in an incantation text, perhaps once or twice in a proverb (§3.2.4.1.2), and presumably once in an administrative letter (§3.2.4.2). Turning to the Genesis narratives, the ultimate mention of camels (Genesis 12, 24) takes us to the Haran region in Aram-​Naharaim (§4.2). The Genesis narrator, if indeed referring to historical incidents from the second millennium BC, informs us that Abram left upper Mesopotamia early in the second millennium BC (§4.2.1), at a time when Bactrian camels had already been employed in distant overland trade for centuries. The life story of Abram thus coincides with the mention of am.s i.ḫar.ra.an and am.s i.kur.ra camels in cuneiform sources. In Abram’s story, camels are mentioned once as his property (§4.2.1.4) and—significantly—on several occasions in connection with long journeys.

Domestic Camels in the Biblical World

303

These include the one of his servant to Aram-​Naharaim (§4.2.2) and that of his grandson Jacob traveling with a small camel herd from upper Mesopotamia to Canaan (§4.2.3). In Abram’s lifetime, camels seem highly prized for carrying considerable loads long distance, but at the regional scale, donkeys remained the main means of transport in Bronze Age economies (§§4.2.4–4.2.5). Osseous remains of at least three Bactrian camels in Late Bronze Age sites like Tell Sheikh Ḥamad (Dūr-​Katlimmu) at the Khabur River attest to the presence of these animals in Mesopotamia during the Middle Assyrian period (§3.2.1). However, compared to the numerous second- and first-​millennium BC terra-​cotta figurines of other large livestock species bred in Mesopotamia, such as cattle and horses, two-​humped camel figurines number few (Wrede 1990, 270; 2003, 52). We interpret this as an expression of the limited interest on the part of herdsmen and livestock owners to breed these “alien animals” locally. Of course, caravan trains consisted essentially of male individuals, thus limiting considerably the potential for breeding them locally. This situation obviously changed the moment domestic one-​humped camels entered the scene, since from that time onward, exploitation of Bactrian camels in Mesopotamia became increasingly oriented toward producing hybrid offspring using mainly female dromedaries. Being superior in performance relative to each of its parents, hybrid camels were sought after for caravan trains transporting heavy loads. This advancement received its main impetus from corresponding developments in Iranian camel-​breeding communities (§3.2.4.10; cf. Bulliet 1975, 141–74; Peters and von den Driesch 1997, 662; Potts 2004). Nevertheless, the general scarcity of evidence indicates that the Bactrian camel, albeit representing a valuable beast of burden, was not a common transport animal in Mesopotamia. All data available illustrate that Bactrian camels reached Mesopotamia long before the appearance of the domestic dromedary. The delayed acquaintance of the inhabitants of Mesopotamia with one-​humped camels is also visible in lexical lists. Traditionally believed to be an Arabian loanword into Akkadian, the oldest camel designation, ibilu, seems to be a word of unknown origin that may have entered Akkadian prior to the Arabic languages. As such, it served as an equivalent for the Sumerian designations am.si.ḫar.ra.an and am.si.kur. ra in lexical lists (§3.2.4.8). In the later second millennium BC, however, an additional Sumerian camel term found its way into Mesopotamian writings, namely a n š e . a . a b . b a, literally “donkey of the Sealand.” Obviously, Mesopotamian scribes preferred using names of animals they were already familiar with, such as a m . s i “elephant” and anš e “donkey,” to classify “alien” species such as camels, complementing these with meaningful additions. In lexical lists, the new designation anše.a.ab.ba was likewise assigned to Akkadian ibilu, but its usual equivalent in campaign reports and administrative texts was gammalu. A n š e . a . a b . b a

304

Camels in the Biblical World

only gained textual visibility in the later second millennium BC, after a . a b . b a in the meaning of “Sealand” had come into use. Assumedly, this occurred during the fourteenth to thirteenth centuries BC, when Mesopotamian scribes updated the lexical lists to include the “donkey of the Sealand” and introduced this updated list into the curriculum of scribal education: The earliest textual witness that includes a n š e . a . a b . b a is a typical scribal exercise from Middle Babylonian Nippur dated to 1360–1225 BC (§3.2.4.3.1). The term “donkey of the Sealand” refers to one-humped, dromedary-like camels. As far as we could ascertain, anš e.a.ab.ba does not show up in Old Babylonian lexical lists, although populations of wild one-​humped camels existed in the eastern Arabian Peninsula in Neolithic until Iron Age times (e.g., Uerpmann and Uerpmann 2002; von den Driesch et al. 2008; Beech et al. 2009). Only from the Middle Babylonian period onward is anš e.a.ab.ba attested in lexical lists that were distributed from Nippur in the south to the northwestern regions of Emar and Ugarit. However, rather than dealing with wild dromedaries advancing into the region, we consider it much more likely that anš e.a.ab. ba refers to one-​humped camels exploited locally by humans (§3.2.4.3.3). Centuries later in Akkadian campaign reports and administrative texts, ibilu was superseded by gammalu. Conversely, ibilu became a major camel designation in ANA, ASA, and CA texts for domestic dromedaries. Linguistic comparison moreover revealed that the usage and meaning of the primary camel terms in Akkadian has more in common with the Northwest Semitic languages than with ANA or CA (§§3.2.4.8 and 3.2.4.9). The peculiar name for the one-​humped camel, “donkey of the Sealand,” points to a taxon that people associated with the marshlands and coastal mangrove habitats bordering the northern Gulf region. Provided that this kind of landscape represented suitable habitat for wild dromedaries as well, two domestication scenarios for the domestication of the wild one-​humped camel can be proposed. Mentioned repeatedly in the literature is the assumption that the presence of Bactrian camels initiated efforts to domesticate wild dromedaries, the latter being much better adapted to the arid climatic conditions prevailing in many regions of Southwest Asia including the Arabian Peninsula. As an alternative to this approach, and probably difficult to prove, we postulate that cameleers reached their goal of domesticating wild dromedaries by applying hybridization. In other words, cross-​breeding of wild dromedary mares with domestic two-​humped camel sires would have been a most natural and cost-​efficient way to engage in a novel relationship with wild dromedaries and integrate suitable hybrid offspring into the pastoralist economies of Mesopotamia and adjacent regions (§3.2.5). According to this scenario, domestication was initiated by interspecies hybridization first, whereby the possibility must be considered that the domestic form of the one-​humped camel, Camelus dromedarius, did not originate in Arabia proper,

Domestic Camels in the Biblical World

305

but was mediated to it through Mesopotamia, once suggested by Walz (1954, 71–72). With time, people gained experience handling and breeding one-​humped camels in anthropogenic environments, producing genuine dromedary lineages well suited for exploitation in the Arabian Peninsula and adjacent arid regions. It is not until circa 1100 BC, though, that the narrator of the book of Judges reports on domestic camels, most likely dromedaries, in a devastating raid into the southern Levant coming from the east. The book of Judges underlines the horror of the Israelites, who were only used to oxen and donkeys as transport animals, when suddenly confronted with camel pastoralists moving hundreds of these large beasts into their pastures and fields (§4.5). About one hundred years later, King Saul and King David had to deal with the camel-​owning Amalekites, who lived somewhere between Canaan and Egypt, and who were at least partly mobile (§4.6). It is in this context that camel riding is explicitly mentioned for the first time, perhaps somewhat surprisingly as a means of escape from the battlefield (1 Sam 30:17). At that time, camels appear exclusively as the property of mobile desert pastoralists, while the inhabitants of the Canaanite cities and villages continued to rely on donkeys for all kinds of transport. Turning again to Mesopotamia, another Akkadian camel term, namely udru, found its way into text sources dating to the late second millennium BC. This term, rooted in the Iranian language(s) (§3.1.3), is probably the oldest Iranian loanword into Akkadian (§3.2.4.10.1). Udru camels may have been bred in the larger area of Ḫindānu, located on the western bank of the Euphrates near ancient Mari, and further east in breeding places located beyond the Zagros Mountains. From the texts we occasionally learn about two-​humped udru camels, implying that most udru camels were one-​humped, although clearly distinct from dromedaries. Applying Occam’s razor, our synopsis suggests that udru camels corresponded best to hybrids (§3.2.4.10). These, according to the texts, highly prized animals combine the benefits of Bactrian camels and dromedaries (§2.3). However, following the middle of the eighth century BC, the value of udru camels began to decline (§3.2.4.10.3), probably to the advantage of the domestic dromedary, whose numbers and behavioral adaptations to the challenging conditions of life under human care had improved in the preceding centuries. In the course of the first millennium BC, one-​humped camels were increasingly regarded as the norm rather than the exception in Mesopotamia and neighboring kingdoms (§3.2.4.11). This is underscored by the relative paucity of Bactrian camels remains and two-​humped camel figurines versus hundreds of one-​humped camel figurines and numerous dromedary bones in distinct archaeological situations, from cities to copper mining sites. We also noted that in any of the texts investigated so far, camels are never qualified as having exclusively “one hump,” but in the ninth century BC, and occasionally even in seventh century BC administrative documents, two-​humped camels are

306

Camels in the Biblical World

Table 8.1.  Earliest written, iconographical, and osteological evidence for one-​humped camels.a Approximate dates B.C.

Type

Originb

Reference

1400–1200

a n š e. a. ab . b a in LL

Nippur, Emar, Ugarit, [Shibaniba]

§3.2.4.3.1

1200–1000

camel figurines

Nippur, Mesopotamia

§3.2.3.1

1300–1200

camel depiction

delta, Egypt

§3.4.2

1200

camel figurine

Egypt

§3.4.2

1100

camels as pack animals

east of the Levant

§4.5

1070

female udru camels as breeding mares

from merchants

§3.2.4.10.1

1000

camel riders

east of the Levant (?)

§4.6

960

camel caravan

southwest Arabia

§5.1

950–850

Aramean camel rider

northern Levant

§3.2.2

930

camel bones in the context of copper mining

southern Levant

§3.5.1.3

853

a n š e. a. ab . b a in warfare (campaign report)

Arabian Peninsula

§3.2.4.6

a The few incidents where it is likely that dromedaries are mentioned in the Hebrew Bible are added to the list but marked in gray. b This column gives the immediate origin of the figurine, the osseous remains, or the textual witness. In case of biblical references or campaign reports, the origin referred to in the text is given.

expressis verbis called “udrāte with two humps” or “a n š e . a . a b . b a with two humps” (§3.2.4.7). In sum, the cuneiform record available today allows us to propose a preliminary chronological framework for ancient camel nomenclature in the biblical world (table 8.2). Terms in the first column list the hitherto earliest occurrence of each Mesopotamian camel or camel-​related term. The second column gives the Akkadian equivalent of the respective Sumerian term. Akkadian terms in round brackets are deduced from the fact that from the Old Babylonian period onward, unilingual lexical lists were used by Akkadian-​speaking scribes of Sumerian (§3.2.4.1.1). Terms in square brackets are restored readings (§3.2.4.3). The third column provides the camel taxon most likely meant in the texts. During the Neo-​Assyrian period (ca. 900–600 BC), dromedaries figure in large numbers in campaign reports and booty lists. Expectedly, they are often mentioned in connection with North Arabian queens or kings, such as Zabibe, Samsi, and Gindibu (§§3.2.4.6 and 3.2.4.11). Needless to say that with time,

Domestic Camels in the Biblical World

307

Table 8.2.  Sumerian and Akkadian camel terms. Terms

Equivalent

am.s i . ḫ a r. r a . a n “elephant of the caravan” am.si . ḫ a r. r a . a n  . . . its milk  . . . its (?) plant am.s i . k u r. r a “elephant of the mountain”  . . . its hide

—

anše . a . a b . b a “donkey of the Sealand”  . . . its hide

[ibilu]

udru “[Iranian] camel”

gammalu

gammalu “camel”

—

anaqāte “she-​dromedaries”

—

bakkarū “camel calves”

—

(ibilu) — — (ibilu)

Species

Bactrian

(ibilu) one-​humped camel

(ibilu) hybrid

dromedary

BC

Region

Typea

2500

Fara

EDA

1900 1900 1900 1900

Nippur Nippur Nippur Nippur

LL Poetry LL LL

1900

Nippur

LL

1250

LL

1200

Nippur, Emar Emar

1070

Assur

AN

853

Arabian Peninsula Arabian Peninsula Arabian Peninsula

CR

740 740

LL

TL TL

a AN = annals; CR = campaign report; EDA = Early Dynastic Animal list; LL = lexical list; TL = tribute list (mostly incorporated in annals). The first occurrence of udru is the only event that explicitly refers to camel breeding: “[Assur-​bel-​kala] dispatched merchants, they acquired burṭiš, udru, tešēnu. He formed (herds) of udru, bred (them), (and) displayed herds of them to the people of his land.”

the domestic one-​humped camel became the most treasured livestock species in the Arabian Peninsula. Analysis of camel remains in the Arabian Peninsula from the sites of Tell Abraq, Muweilah, Yalā, and Yaṯill demonstrate that bone finds identified as domestic dromedaries appear around 900–800 BC (§3.3.1.3; Fedele 2009, 143). Osseous remains and figurines of the domestic form therefore postdate their earliest mention in Mesopotamian texts by more than two centuries (§3.2.4.3.1). And despite growing evidence in antiquity for the species’ exploitation across and beyond the Arabian Peninsula, camel bones remain comparatively rare in archaeological contexts. Obviously, camel bone finds do not correlate linearly to the explicit use of these animals, which might be explained best by the species’ large size complicating their handling in residential areas (unless for reasons of camel milk and meat supply), their extensive foraging behavior that takes them far away from human habitation, and last but not least, by the fact that severely ill or injured caravan animals were simply left behind at the roadside.

308

Camels in the Biblical World

First millennium BC camel figurines from the Arabian Peninsula, which often feature saddle(bag) constructions, bear apparent similarities to figurines from Hama in Syria (§3.2.3.4, fig. 3.24) and Uruk in Mesopotamia (§3.2.3.3, figs. 3.13–18). These figurines suggest that by this time, the exploitation of dromedaries was already well established. Prior to 1000 BC, however, there is for the moment no zooarchaeological, artistic, or inscriptional evidence for domestic dromedaries in the Arabian Peninsula. At present, different lines of evidence allow the conclusion that the large bone assemblages in archaeological contexts predating the onset of the Iron Age around 1200 BC represent wild animals. After the beginning of the first millennium BC, contextual evidence points to a different mode of exploitation illustrated by bones and figurines of dromedaries found in settlement debris, postdating written sources from Mesopotamia associating these animals with the Sealand—the coastal northern Gulf region— in the late second millennium BC. This opens up the possibility that the species so emblematic for the Arabian Peninsula was not domesticated there at all (§3.2.5). Be that as it may, dromedary remains (§3.3.1), camel figurines (§3.3.3), inscriptions (§§3.3.4 and 3.3.5), and Assyrian campaign reports (§3.2.4.6) illustrate the increasing importance of camels in the economies of the Arabian Peninsula during the Iron Age. Turning to Egypt, it is generally held that “the camel is not attested as a beast of burden in Egypt before the Ptolemaic period” (Vinson 2005; Gaudard 2017, 43), and that “there was no Egyptian word for camel” (Brewer, Redford and Redford 2004, 104). Thus, the scarcity of archaeological and dearth of inscriptional evidence has been regarded as positive evidence of absence. These and similar notions must now be revised, based on the ostraca from ʿAyn Manāwir and Biʾr Samūt illustrating their use since Achaemenid times (§3.4.3). In this regard, finds predating the Persian period probably represent animals that were kept in royal zoos, or that were introduced by means of overland caravan trade with Mesopotamia and Iran; they might even have belonged to mobile pastoralists traveling with their herds. Understandably, archaeological traces left by caravans in transit and by mobile camel pastoralists are not necessarily lush nor easily detected in the landscape (Cribb 1991, 44; Frendo 1996; A. Sasson 2010, 14; but cf. Rosen 1992; and Rosen and Lehmann 2010, 172).1 At least after 1.  A noteworthy attempt to study the archaeological and zooarchaeological evidence of a nonresident campsite in the Zagros region (Western Iran) from the Middle Chalcolithic was published by Mashkour and Abdi (2002). Another publication by Fedele (2014) links camel remains outside of the walled city of Yaṯill in Yemen to campsites possibly inhabited by nonresidents. The remains from Yaṯill date to 800 BC and later, after the major powers of the ancient Near East had begun to exploit the camel in overland trade. Any attempt to investigate the earlier history of cameleers will remain to some extent inferential or speculative (cf. Bacon 1954, 44), although methods can be expected to become much more refined (cf. Rosen 2011).

Domestic Camels in the Biblical World

309

circa 1000 BC, one-​humped camels gradually became known in Egypt, but their breeding seems not to have started before the Persian period (cf. Bulliet 1975, 65). The camel hardly played an economic role in the early Iron Age southern Levant. Figurines and depictions of camels predating the first millennium BC must be confirmed by additional research and direct radiocarbon dating of bone specimens. From what we know now, it seems that the tenth century BC marks the turning point regarding the use of camels in the region (Sapir-​Hen and Ben-​ Yosef 2013), with sporadic bone remains showing up in archaeological contexts dating to this century and increasingly afterward (see Zarins 1992, 825). Even in Late Iron Age archaeological contexts, camel bones only show up now and then and usually in small numbers, except for regions with copper mining (§3.5.1.2). Artistic (§3.5.2) and inscriptional (§3.5.3) evidence for camels is meagre as well. Conversely, the camel’s use in late second millennium BC Mesopotamia and its emanation to Israel and neighboring regions should not be ignored. The sometimes articulated claim that camels were not exploited at all in the Levant prior to the first millennium BC illustrates an unfortunate trend of ignoring or downplaying their second-​millennium BC presence in the region, emphasizing the simpler storyline over the more nuanced, and in our opinion more interesting interpretation of a diverse, complex set of data generated with different research disciplines (cf. Rowley-​Conwy and Zeder 2014, 838). The use of camels in the copper industry of the southern Levant is a very intriguing and well-​documented example of the species’ purposeful introduction (Sapir-​Hen and Ben-​Yosef 2013). The authors’ conclusion that, most probably, “significant trade between southern Arabia and the Levant was not feasible before the use of camels as pack animals,” and that “it could not have started before the last third of the 10th century BCE” (283) is justified by the available archaeological and zooarchaeological data.2 However, it should be emphasized that the exploitation of the camel in copper mining does not exclude earlier small-​scale and mobile, and therefore archaeologically mostly invisible uses, for instance, in caravan trade, as parallel developments in Egypt and Urartu suggest (§3.5.1.3). By comparison, large-​scale caravan trade explains the richness of peoples like the Nabateans, even if camel remains can be rare in corresponding sites, such as at first- to third-​century AD Madāʾin Sālih. This is in contrast with the rich camel bone assemblage from the site al-​Zantur, a domestic quarter of the city of Petra 2.  “Significant trade between Arabia and the Levant” could have been managed by the donkey as well (cf. Grigson 2012a, 95). Donkeys accustomed to the desert are extremely tough and were used by the Egyptians for long-distance transfer of goods. The advantage of the camel is that it can carry a bigger load over larger distances.

310

Camels in the Biblical World

Table 8.3.  Camel incidents in the Torah and the Former Prophets. Approximate date BC Gen 12:16 1900 Gen 24 19th century Gen 30:43 18th century Gen 31:17, 34 18th century Gen 37:27 1700 Exod 9:3 13th century (?) Judg 6–8 12th–11th centuries 1Sam 15:3 1000 1Sam 30:17 1000 1King 10 950

Cameleers

Ultimate origin Type of caravan of camels Route

m.p.a

private

m.p.

private

m.p.

private

m.p.

private

caravanners

small trading business unknown

unknown

Aram-​Nahar./ Mesopotamia Aram-​Nahar./ Mesopotamia Paddan-​Aram/ Mesopotamia Paddan-​Aram/ Mesopotamia Upper Mesopotamia? unknown

m.p. in large great raid to con- NW Arabia formation sume crops (m.)p. N/A NW Arabia/ Sinai (m.)p. (escape from) NW Arabia/ battle Sinai large economic/ SW Arabia guarded political caravan

Aram-​Naharaim to Egypt via Canaan Canaan to Aram-​ Naharaim and back Paddan-​Aram to Canaan Paddan-​Aram to Canaan Gilead to Egypt N/A NW Arabia to Canaan and back N/A NW Arabia to Canaan SW Arabia to Canaan and back

M.p. = mobile pastoralist(s), NW = northwest, SW = southwest.

a

(first century BC to third century AD; Studer and Schneider 2008). Excavations at Petra (cf. fig. 3.19) in addition revealed numerous camel figurines, underscoring the species’ role and wide-​scale exploitation (el-​Khouri 2002, 25; Nehmé 2020). However, it is only in the fourth to seventh centuries AD that the relative frequency of camel remains in archaeofaunal assemblages significantly increases. Relative to the biblical world, the mention of a large camel caravan traveling from southwest Arabia to Jerusalem during the first half of the tenth century BC is noteworthy. This event may point to the commencement of distant overland trade between the kingdoms of Sheba and Israel. Unfortunately, the text remains silent about details, such as the ultimate origin of the camels, how such logistically demanding undertakings were organized, and whether the camel caravan in the service of the queen was a singular event. Regarding the southern Levant, Late Bronze and (early) Iron Age economies did not build on camels at all. Except for few incidents (§5.3), large numbers of camels usually correspond to mounts of Israel’s neighbors or enemies. This experience is also reflected in the Hebrew language. A number of terms relating

Domestic Camels in the Biblical World

311

to the camel world are hapax legomena in the Hebrew Bible: (1) ‫ ּבֶ ֶכר‬beker “young camel” (Isa 60:6, §6.1.3), (2) ‫ ּבִ כְ ָרה‬bikrāh “young she-​camel” (Jer 2:34, §6.2.1), (3) ‫ ּדַ ּבֶ ׁשֶ ת‬dabbešet “(camel) hump” (Isa 30:6, §6.1.2), (4) ‫ כַּר‬kar “saddle-​ bolster” (of the camel; Gen 31:34, §4.2.3.1), (5) the root ʾbl in the personal name ‫ אֹובִ יל‬ʾŌbīl (§5.3.3). Furthermore, nouns based on the root (ʾ)nqt “she-​camel” are only found outside of Biblical Hebrew (cf. §3.2.4.9). Over time, knowledge and use of the camel intensified in the southern Levant. While it still played a minor role in the livestock economies of the Israelites’ during and immediately after their return from exile (§6.6), demand for camels obviously increased up to the point that camels even became proverbial (§7).

Chapter 9

Epilogue

I pass over the spectacle of Poirot on a camel. He started by groans and lamentations and ended by shrieks, gesticulations and invocations to the Virgin Mary and every Saint in the calendar. In the end, he descended ignominiously and finished the journey on a diminutive donkey. —Captain Hastings in Agatha Christie, Poirot Investigates: The Adventure of the Egyptian Tomb.

From classical times onward, Greek terms that bespeak the familiarity with the camel were created, such as καμηλοβοσκός “camel breeder,” καμηλοτρόφος “camel keeper,” καμηλάριος “camel driver,” καμηλάσιον “wages of a camel driver,” καμηλλία “camel load.”1 The term καμηλικός is used to describe sizes of stone blocks that are easily transportable by camels (LSJ, s.v.). Καμηλίζω means “to be like a camel,” and καμηλοσφαγέω “to sacrifice camels” (Montanari 2015:, s.v.). From later times, there are terms such as καμηλών “stable for camels,” καμηλεύω “tend camels,” καμηλοβάτης “camel rider” (Lampe 1968, s.v.), and καμηλάτης “toll for camels” (Montanari 2015, s.v.). Similar terms are common in Latin, such as camelarius “camel-​driver,” camelasia “camel fodder,” praepositus camellorum “overseer of the camels” (Kolendo 1969), dromedarius, signifying special camels in the army, and magister camelorum, which describes a military position (Georges 1988, s.v.; Gatier 2020, 253–54). All these words testify to the use of camels in the Greco-​Roman world, primarily as beasts of burden. Those who read the Christian scriptures, 1.  For a mosaic depicting a man called Μουχασος Καμηλαρις leading a small camel caravan from late antiquity, cf. Baumann 1999, 226–27. In various other mosaics, camels serve as beasts of burden for fluids such as wine or oil and building materials such as stones and wood. They are also pictured as carrying goods into and away from the battle (228–32).

312

Epilogue

313

or listened to sermons mentioning the camel, had very probably seen camels before, and understood the point of Jesus’s proverb about the needle’s eye, playing on the difficulty of a large animal (if not the largest in many regions) passing through a tiny opening (§7.2). The camel was regarded as the largest animal per se: Jewish Babylonian Aramaic knows of the adjective ‫ גמלנאה‬that is derived from ‫“ גמל‬camel” in the meaning of “large-​sized” (Sokoloff 2002, 289). The same understanding (of the camel as the largest domestic animal) underlies Jesus’s rebuke of the Pharisees in Matt 23:24, which is just another comparison of large versus small: “You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!” Exploited occasionally in public games, camels in antiquity usually served as pack and draught animals and military cavalry mounts (Toplyn 2006, 489). Evidence for this is found in the works of classical writers, such as Diodorus Siculus, Strabo, Pliny, Aelian, and Vegetius (Adams 2007, 52), as well as in early rabbinic literature (Rosenfeld 2016, 29–30) and in Egyptian papyri witnessing to the everyday use of camels (Boutantin 2014, 293–95). This picture is complemented by figurines and art work depicting camels (Brentjes 1960, 44; Toynbee 1973, 137–40; Kitchell 2014, 22; Ludwig 2015; Lichtenberger 2017, 168), as well as camel remains from various regions across the Roman Empire. Mainly employed in incense and spice trade from southern Arabia to Palestine and beyond (Roll 2005; cf. Seland 2015b; Rosenfeld 2016), the zooarchaeological record amply illustrates the species’ utility far beyond its natural habitat. Bone finds not only attest to the camel’s presence east of the Dead Sea region (Toplyn 2006) as well as in Egypt (Boutantin 2014, 293–95), northern Africa (Brogan 1954; Liverani 2006), and Mediterranean Europe (Morales-​ Muñiz, Riquelme, and Lettow-​Vorbeck 1995; De Grossi Mazzorin 2006), but also eastern Europe (Vuković-​Bogdanović and Blažić 2014; Tomczyk 2016), central Europe (Peters 1998b, 190; Bartosiewicz and Dirjec 2001; Bălăşescu 2014, 260; Daróczi-​szabó et al. 2014; Galik et al. 2015 [Ottoman period]), and western Europe (Lepetz and Yvinec 2002, 37–38; Toplyn 2006, 489; Pigière and Henrotay 2012; Dövener, Oelschlägel, and Bocherens 2018). The respective archaeological contexts illustrate once more the multiple roles played by camels in ancient societies, be it as mounts and baggage animals in the army and in trade, for spectators’ pleasure in the amphitheater, and the rest. Thus, for various reasons, both camel species and their hybrids accompanied people on long journeys far beyond their native range. It is here, in the area of the northwestern provinces of the Roman Empire, that we let the longue voyage of the camel come to a conclusion, more specifically in Bavaria, where this study has been undertaken. May it encourage future investigations into the cultural history of these behaviorally unique, yet willful creatures.

Bibliography

Ababneh, Mohammad I. 2005. Neue safaitische Inschriften und deren bildliche Darstellungen. Semitica et Semitohamitica Berolinensia 6. Aachen: Shaker. Abd-​el-​Salam, M. N., et al. 2008. “Effect of Some Physical Factors on Serum Levels of Calcium, Phosphorus and Magnesium in Camels in Upper Egypt.” Journal of Camelid Sciences 1:14–17. Abegg, Martin, Jr., Peter Flint, and Eugene Ulrich. 1999. The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible: The Oldest Known Bible Translated for the First Time in English. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco. Adams, Colin. 2007. Land Transport in Roman Egypt: A Study of Economics and Administration in a Roman Province. Oxford Classical Monographs. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Agut-​Labordère, Damien. 2018. “L’introduction du dromadaire dans le désert occidental égyptien au Ier millénaire av. J.-C.” Pages 175–95 in Mer et désert de l’Antiquité à nos jours: Approches croisées. Edited by G. Tallet and T. Sauzeau. Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes. ———. 2020. “Labourer avec des gml.w à ‘Ayn Manawir (oasis de Kharga, Égypte, fin du Ve siècle av. J.-C.).” Pages 123–33 in Les vaisseaux du désert et des steppes: Les camélidés dans l’Antiquité (Camelus dromedarius et Camelus bactrianus). Edited by D. Agut-​Labordère and B. Redon. Lyon: MOM (Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée). Agut-​Labordère, D., and Claire Newton. 2013. “L’économie végétale à ‘Ayn-​Manâwir à l’époque perse: Archéobotanique et sources démotiques.” Arta 2013.005:1–49. http://​www​.achemenet​.com​/pdf​/arta​/ARTA​_2013​.005​-Agut​-Newton​.pdf. Agut-​Labordère, D., and Bérangère Redon. 2020. Les vaisseaux du désert et des steppes: Les camélidés dans l’Antiquité (Camelus dromedarius et Camelus bactrianus). Lyon: MOM (Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée). Aharoni, Yohanan. 1973. Beer-​Sheba I: Excavations at Tel Beer-​Sheba, 1969–1971 Seasons. PIA 2. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University. ———. 1981. Arad Inscriptions. Judean Desert Studies. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Aḥituv, Shmuel. 2008. Echoes from the Past: Hebrew and Cognate Inscriptions from the Biblical Period. Jerusalem: Carta.

315

316

Bibliography

Aḥituv, Shmuel, and Eliezer D. Oren, eds. 1998. The Origin of Early Israel—Current Debate: Biblical, Historical and Archaeological Perspectives. Beer-​Sheva 12. Beer-​Sheva: Ben-​Gurion University of the Negev Press. Ahmed, Mukhtar. 2014. Ancient Pakistan: An Archaeological History. Vol. 5 of The End of the Harappan Civilization, and the Aftermath. Reidsville, NC: Foursome Group. Aitken, Kenneth T. 1984. “The Wooing of Rebekah: A Study in the Development of the Tradition.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 30:3–23. Al-Ajlouny, Fardous al-, et al. 2012. “Laden Animal and Riding Figurines from Ḫirbet ez-​Zeraqōn and Their Implications of Trade in the Early Bronze Age.” ZDPV 128:99–120. Al-Ajlouny, Fardous al-, Khaled Douglas, and Bilal Khrisat. 2011. “Spatial Distribution of the Early Bronze Clay Figurative Pieces from Khirbet ez-​Zeraqōn and Its Religious Aspects.” ANES 48:88–125. Aland, Barbara, et al., eds. 2014. The Greek New Testament. 5th rev. ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft; United Bible Societies. Albertz, Rainer. 2003. Israel in Exile: The History and Literature of the Sixth Century B.C.E. Studies in Biblical Literature 3. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. Albright, William F. 1942. Archaeology and the Religion of Israel. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. ———. 1945. Review of Hebrew Union College Annual, vols. 16–18, Cincinnati: 1941– 1943. JBL 64:285–96. ———. 1949. The Archaeology of Palestine. Baltimore: Penguin. ———. 1950. “Zur Zähmung des Kamels: Aus einem Brief von Prof. W. F. Albright an Dr. Walz vom 19. Febr. 1949.” ZAW 21:315. ———. 1961. “Abram the Hebrew: A New Archaeological Interpretation.” BASOR 163:36–54. Alfi, Mustafa el. 1992. “Means of Transport in Neolithic Egypt.” Pages 339–44 in The Nile Delta in Transition, 4th.–3rd. Millennium B.C.E.: Proceedings of the Seminar Held in Cairo, 21.–24. October 1990, at the Netherlands Institute of Archaeology and Arabic Studies. Edited by Edwin C. M. van den Brink, Tel Aviv: Van den Brink. Al-Ǧāsid, Ḥamad al-. 1977. ‫( المعجم الجغرافي للبالد العربية السعودية‬al-​Muʿǧam al-​ǧuġrāfī lil-​bilādi l-ʿarabiyyati s-​saʿūdiyya). Vol. 1, ‫أ—ض‬. Riyadh: Dār al-​yamāmati li-​lbaḥṯi wa-​ltarǧamati wa-​n-​našri. Al-Jallad, Ahmad. 2015. An Outline of the Grammar of the Safaitic Inscriptions. SSLL 80. Leiden: Brill. ———. 2017. “Marginal Notes on and Additions to An Outline of the Grammar of the Safaitic Inscriptions (SSLL 80; Leiden: Brill, 2015), with a Supplement to the Dictionary.” AEN 3:75–96. ———. 2018. “What Is Ancient North Arabian?” Pages 1–43 in Re-​engaging Comparative Semitic and Arabic Studies. Edited by Daniel Birnstiel and Na‘ama Pat-​El. Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 115. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ———. 2019. “Safaitic.” Pages 342–66 in The Semitic Languages. Edited by John Huehnergard and Na‘ama Pat-​El. 2nd ed. Routledge Language Family Series. London: Routledge. ———. 2020. “ʿArab, ʾAʿrāb, and Arabic in Ancient North Arabia: The First Attestation of (ʾ)ʿrb as a Group Name in Safaitic.” AAE 31:422–35. DOI: 10​.1111​/aae​.12157.

Bibliography

317

Al-Jallad, Ahmad, and Karolina Jaworska. 2019. A Dictionary of the Safaitic Inscriptions. SSLL 98. Leiden: Brill. Al-Jassim, R., and J. Hogan. 2012. “The Digestive System of the Camel: Its Anatomical, Histological and Functional Characteristics; A Comparative Approach.” Pages 75–86 in Proceedings of the 3rd Conference of the International Society of Camelid Research and Development. Muscat: ISOCARD. Allen, James P. 2002. “A Report of Bedouin.” COS 3.5:16–17. Allison, Dale C. 1988. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew.Vol. 1, Introduction and Commentary on Matthew I–VII. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. Allison, Dale C., and W. D. Davies. 1997. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew. Vol. 3, Commentary on Matthew XIX– XVIII. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. Almathen, Faisal, et al. 2016a. “Ancient and Modern DNA Reveal Dynamics of Domestication and Cross-​Continental Dispersal of the Dromedary.” PNAS 113:6707–12. ———. 2016b. “Ancient and Modern DNA Reveal Dynamics of Domestication and Cross-​Continental Dispersal of the Dromedary, Supporting Information” PNAS 113. Alster, Bendt. 1997. Proverbs of Ancient Sumer: The World’s Earliest Proverb Collections. 2 vols. Bethesda, MD: CDL. ———. 1999. “Tammuz ‫תמוז‬.” DDD, 828–34. ———. 2012. “Tammuz (/Dumuzi).” RlA 13:433–39. Al-Talhi, Daifallah. 2012. “Almulihiah: A Rock Art Site in the Hail Region, Saudi Arabia.” AAE 23:92–98. Alter, Robert. 1981. The Art of Biblical Narrative. New York: Basic Books. ———. 1992. The World of Biblical Literature. New York: Basic Books. ———. 1996. Genesis: Translation and Commentary. New York: Norton. Altheim, Franz. 1943. Die außerrömische Welt. Vol. 1 of Die Krise der Alten Welt im 3. Jahrhundert n. Zw. und ihre Ursachen. Berlin-​Dahlem: Ahnenerbe-​Stiftung Verlag. Altmann, Dietrich. 1990. “Abstammung, Domestikation und Verbreitung: Anatomie und Physiologie; Rassen; Allgemeine und spezielle Leistungen; Züchtung.” Pages 115–51 in Büffel, Kamele, Schafe, Ziegen, Wildtiere. Vol. 2 of Nutztiere der Tropen. Edited by Siegfried Legel. Leipzig: Hirzel. Al-Zaidi, Sayyid-​Ali. 2017. “Betwixt and Between the Bactrian Camel and the Dromedary: The Evolution of the Lexeme Udru During the 11th to 8th Centuries BCE.” AEN 3:11–18. Amin, F. M. el-. 1984. “The Dromedary Camel of the Sudan.” Pages 35–54 in vol. 2 of The Camelid: An All-​Purpose Animal; Proceedings of the Khartoum Workshop on Camels, December 1979. Edited by W. Ross Cockrill. 2 vols. Uppsala: Scandinavian Institute of African Studies. ‘Amr, Abdel-​Jalil. 1980. “A Study of the Clay Figurines and Zoomorphic Vessels of Trans-​Jordan During the Iron Age: With Special Reference to Their Symbolism and Function.” PhD diss., University of London. Anati, Emmanuel. 1968. Rock-​Art in Central Arabia. 4 vols. Bibliothèque de Muséon 50. Leuven: Institut Orientaliste. ———. 1981. Felskunst im Negev und auf Sinai. Frühe Spuren des Menschen. Bergisch Gladbach: Lübbe.

318

Bibliography

Andrae, Meinrat O., et al. 2020. “Archaeometric Studies on the Petroglyphs and Rock Varnish at Kilwa and Sakaka, Northern Saudi Arabia.” AAE 31: 219–44. DOI: 10​.1111​ /aae​.12167. Arbach, Mounir, et al. 2015. “Results of Four Seasons of Survey in the Province of Najrān (Saudi Arabia)—2007–2010.” Pages 11–46 in South Arabia and Its Neighbours: Phenomena of Intercultural Contacts; 14. Rencontres Sabéennes. Edited by Iris Gerlach. Archäologische Berichte aus dem Yemen 14. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Arbach, Mounir, and Jérémie Schiettecatte. 2006. Catalogue des pièces archéologiques et épigraphiques du Jawf au Musée National de Ṣan‘â. San‘a: Centre français d’archéologie et de sciences sociales. Arbel, V. Daphna, et al. 2015. Not Sparing the Child: Human Sacrifice in the Ancient World and Beyond; Studies in Honor of Professor Paul G. Mosca. London: T&T Clark. Arbuckle, Benjamin S. 2005. “Experimental Animal Domestication and Its Application to the Study of Animal Exploitation in Prehistory.” Pages 18–33 in First Steps of Animal Domestication: New Archaeozoological Approaches; Proceedings of the 9th Conference of the International Council of Archaeozoology, Durham, August 2002. Edited by J.-D. Vigne, J. Peters, and D. Helmer. Oxford: Oxbow. ———. 2012. “Animals in the Ancient World.” Pages 201–19 in vol. 1 of A Companion to the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East. Edited by Daniel T. Potts. 2 vols. Oxford: Wiley-​Blackwell. Arbuckle, Benjamin S., et al. 2016. “Documenting the Initial Appearance of Domestic Cattle in the Eastern Fertile Crescent (Northern Iraq and Western Iran).” JAS 72:1–9. Arbuckle, Benjamin S., and Levent Atici. 2013. “Initial Diversity in Sheep and Goat Management in Neolithic South-​Western Asia.” Levant 45:219–35. Arnaud, Daniel. 1985. Recherches au pays d’Aštata, Emar VI/1–2: Textes sumériens 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. Arnold, Bill T. 2009. Genesis. New Cambridge Bible Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Arnold, Dorothea. 1995. An Egyptian Bestiary. Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin 52.4. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art. Arnold, Elizabeth R., et al. 2016. “Isotopic Evidence for Early Trade in Animals between Old Kingdom Egypt and Canaan.” PLoS ONE 11(6): e0157650. DOI:​10​ .1371​/journal​.pone. 0157650. Askeland, Christian. 2017. “An Eclectic Edition of the Sahidic Apocalypse of John.” Pages 33–79 in Studien zum Text der Apokalypse II. Edited by Marcus Sigismund and Darius Müller. Arbeiten zur Neutestamentlichen Textforschung 50. Berlin: de Gruyter. Astour, Michael C. 1964. “Second Millennium B.C. Cypriot and Cretan Onomastica Reconsidered.” JAOS 84:240–54. Ausloos, Hans. 2014. “Literary Criticism and Textual Criticism in Judg 6:1–14 in Light of 4QJudga.” Old Testament Essays 27:358–76. Avilova L. I., E. V. Antonova, and T. O. Teneishvili. 1999. “Metallurgicheskoe proizvodstvo v yuzhnoi zone tsirkumpontiiskoi Metallurgicheskoi provintsii ve epokhu rannei bronzy”. Rossiiskaya Arkheologiya 1:51–65.

Bibliography

319

Bacher, Wilhelm. 1896. Sepher Haschoraschim: Wurzelwörterbuch der hebräischen Sprache von Abulwalîd Merwân Ibn Ganâh (Rabbi Jona); Aus dem Arabischen ins Hebräische übersetzt von Jehuda Ibn Tibbon. Berlin: Itzkowski. Bacon, Elizabeth E. 1954. “Types of Pastoral Nomadism in Central and Southwest Asia.” Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 10:44–68. Badam, G. L. 1984. “Holocene Faunal Material from India with Special Reference to Domesticated Animals.” Pages 339–53 in Early Herders and Their Flocks. Vol. 3 of Animals and Archaeology. Edited by by Juliet Clutton-​Brock and Caroline Grigson. BARIS 202. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Bagg, Ariel M. 2010. “Interaktionsformen zwischen Nomaden und Sesshaften in Palästina anhand neuassyrischer Quellen.” WO 40:190–215. Bagnall, Roger. 1985. “The Camel, the Wagon, and the Donkey in Later Roman Egypt.” Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 22:1–6. Bailey, Kenneth E., and William L. Holladay. 1968. “The ‘Young Camel’ and ‘Wild Ass’ in Jer. II 23–25.” VT 18:256–60. Baker, Brenda J., Claire E. Terhune, and Amy Papalexandrou. 2012. “Sew Long? The Osteobiography of a Woman from Medieval Polis, Cyprus.” Pages 151–61 in The Bioarchaeology of Individuals. Edited by Ann L. W. Stodder and Ann M. Palkovich. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. Bălăşescu, Adrian. 2014. “Camels in Romania.” Anthropozoologica 49:253–64. Bang, Ho Seung, and Oded Borowski. 2017. “Local Production of a Small Rectangular Limestone Incense Altar at Tell Halif, Israel: Iconographic Considerations.” BASOR 377:49–67. Barahona-​Mendieta, Zulema, Mikaël Pesenti, and Bérangère Redon. 2016. “Évolution des assemblages céramiques du kôm de Plinthine de la fin de la Troisième Période intermédiaire à l’époque saïto-​perse: Étude de deux contextes stratigraphiques du secteur 2.” Bulletin de la Céramique Egyptienne 26:5–38. Barako, Tristan J. 2000. “The Philistine Settlement as Mercantile Phenomenon?” American Journal of Archaeology 104:513–30. Bar-​Efrat, Shimon. 1989. Narrative Art in the Bible. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 70. Bible and Literature Series 17. Sheffield: Almond Press. Barnett, Richard D. 1976. Sculptures from the North Palace of Ashurbanipal at Nineveh (668–27 BC). London: British Museum. ———. 1985. “Lachish, Ashkelon and the Camel: A Discussion of Its Use in Southern Palestine.” Pages 15–30 in Palestine in the Bronze and Iron Ages: Papers in Honour of Olga Tufnell. Edited by Jonathan N. Tubb. Occasional Publications 11. London: Institute of Archaeology. Barnett, Richard D., Erika Bleibtreu, and Geoffrey Turner. 1998. Sculptures from the Southwest Palace of Sennacherib at Nineveh. 2 vols. London: British Museum. Barnett, Richard D., and Margarete Falkner. 1962. The Sculptures of Assur-​Naṣir-​ Apli II (883–859 bc), Tiglath-​Pileser III (745–727 bc), Esarhaddon (681–669 bc) from the Central and South-​West Palaces at Nimrud. London: British Museum. Bar-​Oz, Guy, et al. 2013. “Symbolic Metal Bit and Saddlebag Fastenings in a Middle Bronze Age Donkey Burial.” PLoS ONE 8(3): e58648. DOI: 10​.1371​/journal​.pone​ .0058648. Barrick, W. Boyd. 1982. “The Meaning and Usage of RKB in Biblical Hebrew.” JBL 101:481–503. Barrick, W. Boyd, and Helmer Ringgren. 2004. “‫רכַב‬.” ָ TDOT 13:485–91.

320

Bibliography

Bartelmus, Alexa. 2016. Fragmente einer großen Sprache: Sumerisch im Kontext der Schreiberausbildung des kassitenzeitlichen Babylonien. 2 vols. UAVA 12. Berlin: de Gruyter. Bartelmus, Rüdiger. 2003. “‫פָּתַ ח‬.” TDOT 12:173–91. Barth, Jakob. 1893. Etymologische Studien zum Semitischen, insbesondere zum hebräischen Lexicon. Leipzig: Hinrich. Barthélemy, Adrien. 1935. Dictionnaire Arabe-​Français: Dialectes de Syrie; Alep, Damas, Liban, Jérusalem. Paris: Geuthner. Barthélemy, Dominique. 1982. Josué, Juges, Ruth, Samuel, Rois, Chroniques, Esdras, Néhémie, Esther. Vol. 1 of Critique textuelle de l’ancien testament. OBO 50.1. Fribourg: Éditions Universitaires; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ———. 1986. Isaïe, Jérémie, Lamentations. Vol. 2 of Critique textuelle de l’ancien testament. OBO 50.2. Fribourg: Éditions Universitaires; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Barthélemy, Dominique, and Józef T. Milik. 1955. Qumran Cave 1. DJD I. Oxford: Clarendon. Bartosiewicz, László, and Janez Dirjec. 2001. “Camels in Antiquity: Roman Period Finds from Slovenia.” Antiquity 75:279–285. Baskin, L. M. 1974. “Management of Ungulate Herds in Relation to Domestication.” Pages 530–41 in The Behaviour of Ungulate and Its Relation to Management: The Papers of an International Symposium Held at the University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 2–5 November 1971. Edited by Valerius Geist and Fritz R. Walther. International Union for Conservation of Nature Supplementary Paper 24. Morges: International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. Bate, Dorothea M. A. 1953. “The Animal Bones.” Pages 410–11 of Lachish III (Tell Ed-​ Duweir): The Iron Age. Edited by Olga Tufnell. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bauer, Hans, and Pontus Leander. 1922. Historische Grammatik der hebräischen Sprache des Alten Testament: Einleitung; Schriftlehre; Laut- und Formenlehre. 2 vols. Halle: Niemeyer. Baum, Doug. 2013. “The Camel Saddle: A Study.” Unpublished lecture paper. Baumann, Peter. 1999. Spätantike Stifter im Heiligen Land: Darstellungen und Inschriften auf Bodenmosaiken in Kirchen, Synagogen und Privathäusern. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Baumer, Christoph. 2012. The Age of the Steppe Warriors. Vol. 1 of The History of Central Asia. New York: Tauris. Bausi, Alessandro. 2016. “La leggenda della Regina di Saba nella tradizione etiopica.” Pages 91–162 in La regina di Saba un mito fra oriente e occidente: Atti del seminario diretto da Riccardo Contini, Napoli, Università “l’orientale” 19 novembre 2009–14 gennaio 2010. Edited by Fabio Battiato, Dorota Hartman, and Giuseppe Stabile. Archivio di studi ebraici 8. Napoli: Università degli studi di Napoli “L’orientale.” Beaulieu, Paul-​Alain. 1989. The Reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylon 556–539 B.C. Yale Near Eastern Researches 10. New Haven: Yale University Press. ———. 2013. “Arameans, Chaldeans, and Arabs in Cuneiform Sources from the Late Babylonian Period.” Pages 31–55 in Arameans, Chaldeans, and Arabs in Babylonia and Palestine in the First Millennium B.C. Edited by Angelika Berlejung and Michael P. Streck. Leipziger Altorientalistische Studien 3. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Bibliography

321

Beck, Pirhiya. 1978. “The Seals, Strata III–II.” Pages 53–56 in First–Fifth Seasons of Excavations, 1962–1966. Vol. 1 of Early Arad: The Chalcolithic Settlement and Early Bronze City. Edited by Ruth Amiran et al. Judean Desert Studies. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Becker, Cornelia. 1994. “Elfenbein aus den syrischen Steppen? Gedanken zum Vorkommen von Elefanten in Nordostsyrien im Spätholozän.” Pages 169–81 in Arbeitstreffen der Osteologen Konstanz 1993 im Andenken an Joachim Boessneck. Vol. 8 of Beiträge zur Archäozoologie und Prähistorischen Anthropologie. Edited by Mostefa Kokabi und Joachim Wahl. Stuttgart: Theiss. ———. 2008a. “The Faunal Remains from Dur-​Katlimmu—Insights into the Diet of the Assyrians.” Pages 561–80 in vol. 2 of Archaeozoology of the Near East 8, Actes des huitièmes Rencontres internationales d’Archéozoologie de l’Asie du Sud-​Ouest et des régions adjacentes, Lyon 28 juin–1er juillet 2006. Edited by Emmanuelle Vila et al. 2 vols. Travaux de la Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée 49. Lyon: Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée. ———. 2008b. “Die Tierknochenfunde aus Tall Šēḫ Ḥamad/Dūr-​Katlimmu—Eine zoogeographisch-​haustierkundliche Studie.” Pages 61–125 in Umwelt und Subsistenz der assyrischen Stadt Dur-​Katlimmu am Unteren Habur. Edited by Hartmut Kühne et al. Berichte der Ausgrabung aus Tall Šēḫ Ḥamad/Dūr-​Katlimmu 8. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Becking, Bob. 2009. “Abram in Exile: Remarks on Genesis 12,10–20.” Pages 35–47 in Die Erzväter in der biblischen Tradition: Festschrift für Matthias Köckert. Edited by Anselm C. Hagedorn and Henrik Pfeiffer. BZAW 400. Berlin: de Gruyter. Bednarik, Robert G., and Majeed Khan. 2002. “The Saudi Arabian Rock Art Mission of November 2001.” Atlal 17:75–99. ———. 2005. “Scientific Studies of Saudi Arabian Rock Art.” Rock Art Research 22:49–81. ———. 2009. “The Rock Art of Southern Arabia Reconsidered.” Adumatu 20:7–20. Beech, Mark, et al. 2009. “Prehistoric Camels in South-​Eastern Arabia: The Discovery of a New Site in Abu Dhabi’s Western Region, United Arab Emirates.” PSAS 39:17–30. Beeri, Ron, et al. 2020. “Burials of Domesticated Animals in the Middle Bronze Age Rampart at Tel ‘Akko in Light of Archaeological Finds in the Levant and Ceremonies from the Ancient Near East.” Pages 54–68 in Nomads of the Mediterranean: Trade and Contact in the Bronze and Iron Ages; Studies in Honor of Michal Artzy. Edited by Ayelet Gilboa and Assaf Yasur-​Landau. CHANE 112. Leiden: Brill. Beeston, Alfred F. L., et al. 1982. Sabaic Dictionary (English-​French-​Arabic). Publications of the University of Sanaa, YAR. Leuven: Peeters; Beirut: Librairie du Liban. Begg, Christopher. 2000. Josephus’ Story of the Later Monarchy (AJ 9,1–10,185). Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 145. Leuven: Leuven University Press. Ben-Ḥayyim, Zeʾev. 1971. “‫ עיון מוּקדם בּרציפות ההיסטורית של משמעוּת המלה‬:‫כּרכּרה‬.” Lĕšonénu (36):236–40. Benoist, Anne. 2007. “An Iron Age II Snake Cult in the Oman Peninsula: Evidence from Bithnah (Emirate of Fujairah).” AAE 18:34–54. Ben-​Shlomo, David. 2008. “Zoomorphic Vessels from Tel Miqne-​Ekron and the Different Styles of Philistine Pottery.” IEJ 58:24–47. ———. 2010. Philistine Iconography: A Wealth of Style and Symbolism. OBO 241. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag.

322

Bibliography

Ben-​Shlomo, David, Ron Gardiner, and Gus W. Van Beek. 2014. “Ceramic Figurines and Figurative Terracottas.” Pages 804–27 in The Smithsonian Institution Excavation at Tell Jemmeh, Israel, 1970–1990. Edited by David Ben-​Shlomo and Gus W. Van Beek. Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology 50. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution. Ben-​Tor, Amnon. 1993. “Jokneam.” Pages 805–11 in vol. 3 of The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Edited by Ephraim Stern et al. 5 vols. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Ben-​Tor, Amnon, Doron Ben-​Ami, and Ariella Livneh, eds. 2005. Yoqneʿam III: The Middle and Late Bronze Ages; Final Report of the Archaeological Excavations (1977–1988). Qedem Reports 7. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University; Israel Exploration Society. Ben-​Yosef, Erez. 2016. “Back to Solomon’s Era: Results of the First Excavations at ‘Slaves’ Hill’ (Site 34, Timna, Israel).” BASOR 376:169–98. Ben-​Yosef, Erez, et al. 2012. “A New Chronological Framework for Iron Age Copper Production at Timna (Israel).” BASOR 367:31–71. Ben-​Yosef, Erez, Dafna Langgut, and Lidar Sapir-​Hen. 2017. “Beyond Smelting: New Insights on Iron Age (10th c. BCE) Metalworkers Community from Excavations at a Gatehouse and Associated Livestock Pens in Timna, Israel.” JAS Reports 11:411–26. Benzinger, Immanuel G. A. 1901. “Kamel.” Pages 729–31 in vol. 9 of Realencyklopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche. Edited by Albert Hauck. 3rd ed. 24 vols. Leipzig: Hinrichs. Bergsträsser, Gotthelf. 1983. Hebräische Grammatik: Mit Benutzung der von E. Kautzsch bearbeiteten 28. Auflage von Wilhelm Gesenius’ hebräischer Grammatik; 1. Teil; Einleitung, Schrift- und Lautlehre. Repr., Hildesheim: Olms. Berlin, Adele. 1994. Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Berthon, Rémi, et al. 2020. “Domestication, Diffusion and Hybridization of the Bactrian Camel: A Zooarchaeological Perspective.” Pages 21–26 in Les vaisseaux du désert et des steppes: Les camélidés dans l’Antiquité (Camelus dromedarius et Camelus bactrianus). Edited by D. Agut-​Labordère and B. Redon. Lyon: MOM (Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée). Beuken, Willem A. M. 2000. Isaiah II: Isaiah 28–39. Historical Commentary on the Old Testament. Leuven: Peeters. Beyer, Klaus. 1984. Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer samt den Inschriften aus Palästina, dem Testament Levis aus der Kairoer Genisa, der Fastenrolle und den alten talmudischen Zitaten. Vol. 1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ———. 1994. Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer samt den Inschriften aus Palästina, dem Testament Levis aus der Kairoer Genisa, der Fastenrolle und den alten talmudischen Zitaten: Ergänzungsband. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Beylot, Robert. 2008. La Gloire des Rois ou l’Histoire de Salomon et la reine de Saba. Apocryphes 12. Turnhout: Brepols. Bezold, Carl. 1905. Kebra Nagast, die Herrlichkeit der Könige: Nach den Handschriften in Berlin, London, Oxford und Paris zum ersten Mal im äthiopischen Urtext herausgegeben und mit deutscher Übersetzung versehen.

Bibliography

323

Abhandlungen—Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften: Philosophisch-​ Historische Klasse 23.1. Munich: Akademie der Wissenschaften. Biberstein-​Kazimirski, Albert de. 1860. Dictionnaire Arabe Français. 2 vols. Paris: Maisonneuve. Bietak, Manfred. 1966. Ausgrabungen in Sayala-​Nubien 1961–1965: Denkmäler der C-​Gruppe und der Pan-​Gräber-​Kultur. Berichte des Österreichischen Nationalkomitees der UNESCO-​Aktion für die Rettung der Nubischen Altertümer 3. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften: Philosophisch-​Historische Klasse, Denkschriften 92. Vienna: Böhlaus Nachf. Bimson, John. 1980. “Archaeological Data and the Dating of the Patriarchs.” Pages 59–92 in Essays on the Patriarchal Narratives. Edited by Alan R. Millard and Donald J. Wiseman. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Birch, Samuel, ed. 1876. Facsimile of an Egyptian Hieratic Papyrus of the Reign of Rameses III, now in the British Museum. London: British Museum. Bishop, Eric F. F. 1941. “The Eye of the Needle.” Muslim World 31:354–59. Bissing, Friedrich Wilhelm Freiherr von. 1900. “Zur Geschichte des Kamels.” ZÄS 38:68–69. ———. 1923–1924. “Untersuchungen über die ‘phoinikischen’ Metallschalen.” Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 38/39:180–241. Bisson de la Roque, M. Fernand. 1930. Rapport sur les fouilles de Médamoud 1929. Fouilles de l’Institut Français d‘Archéologie Orientale du Caire 7. Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale. Blachère, Régis. 1974. “Regards sur un passage parallèle des Évangiles et du Coran.” Pages 69–73 in Mélanges d’Islamologie: Volume dédié à la mémoire d’Armand Abel par ses collègues, ses élèves et ses amis. Edited by Pierre Salmon. Leiden: Brill. Blakely, Jeffrey A., and James W. Hardin. 2018. “Coming to Recognize That Sedentary Agriculture, or Farming, Was Rarely Practiced in the Hesi Region.” Pages 229–63 in Archaeology and History of Eighth-​Century Judah. Edited by Zev I. Farber and Jacob L. Wright. Ancient Near East Monographs 23. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. Blankinship, Khalid Y. 1993. The Challenge to the Empires. Vol. 11 of The History of al-Ṭabarī. Albany: State University of New York Press. Blau, Joshua. 2010. Phonology and Morphology of Biblical Hebrew. Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic 2. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Blažek, Václav. 1999. “Two Greek Words of a Foreign Origin: I. ἐλέφας, II. φοῖνιξ.” Studia Minora Facultatis Philosophicae Universitatis Brunensis 3–4:11–28. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. 2015. Abraham: The Story of a Life. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Blum, Erhard. 1984. Die Komposition der Vätergeschichte. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 57. Neukirchen-​Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Blum, Erhard, and Kristin Weingart. 2017. “The Joseph Story: Diaspora Novella or North-​Israelite Narrative?” ZAW 129:501–21. Bodenheimer, Friedrich Simon. 1935. Animal Life in Palestine: An Introduction to the Problems of Animal Ecology and Zoogeography. Jerusalem: Mayer. Boessneck, Joachim. 1978. “Tierknochenfunde aus Nippur.” Pages 153–87 in Excavations at Nippur: Twelfth Season. Edited by McGuire Gibson et al. Oriental Institute Communications 23. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.

324

Bibliography

———. 1988. Die Tierwelt des Alten Ägypten: Untersucht anhand kulturgeschichtlicher und zoologischer Quellen. Munich: Beck. ———. 1993. “Appendix A: Tierknochenfunde aus Nippur’ 13th Season.” Pages 269– 98 in Nippur III: Kassite Buildings in Area WC-1. Edited by Richard L. Zettler. OIP 111. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Boessneck, Joachim, and Mostefa Kokabi. 1993. “Appendix B: Tierknochenfunde aus Nippur: 14th Season.” Pages 299–343 in Nippur III: Kassite Buildings in Area WC-1. Edited by Richard L. Zettler. OIP 111. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Bogoljubskij, Sergej N. 1959. Proischoždenie i preobrazovanie domašnich životnych. Moscow: Znanje. Bohlken, Herwart. 1960. “Remarks on the Stomach and the Systematic Position of the Tylopoda.” Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 134:207–15. Bohms, Ingrid. 2013. Säugetiere in der altägyptischen Literatur. Berlin: LIT. Boivin, Nicole, and Dorian Q. Fuller. 2009. “Shell Middens, Ships and Seeds: Exploring Coastal Subsistence, Maritime Trade, and the Dispersal of Domesticates in and Around the Ancient Arabian Peninsula.” Journal of World Prehistory 22:113–80. Boivin, Odette. 2016. “Agricultural Economy and Taxation in the Sealand I Kingdom.” JCS 68:45–65. ———. 2018. The First Dynasty of the Sealand in Mesopotamia. SANER 20. Berlin: de Gruyter. Bonatz, Dominik. 2013. “Art.” Pages 205–54 in The Aramaeans in Ancient Syria. Edited by Herbert Nier. HdO 1/106. Leiden: Brill. Borger, Rykle. 1979. Babylonisch-​Assyrische Lesestücke. 2nd ed. 2 vols. Analecta Orientalia 54. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. ———. 2010. Mesopotamisches Zeichenlexikon. 2nd ed. AOAT 305. Münster: Ugarit-​Verlag. Bosworth, Clifford E. 1999. The Sāsānids, the Byzantines, the Lakhmids, and Yemen. Vol. 5 of The History of al-Ṭabarī. Albany: State University of New York Press. Boucharlat, Remy, and Pierre Lombard. 1985. “The Oasis of Al Ain in the Iron Age: Excavations at Rumeilah, 1981–1983, Survey at Hili 14.” Archaeology in the United Arab Emirates 4:44–73. Bouffartigue, Jean. 2002. “Problématiques de l’animal dans l’Antiquité grecque.” Lalies 23:131–68. Boussac, Marie-​Françoise, Sylvain Dhennin, and Bérangère Redon. 2015. “Plinthine et la Maréotide pharaonique.” Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale 115:15–35. Boutantin, Céline. 2014. Terres cuites et culte domestique: Bestiaire de l’Égypte gréco-​ romaine. Religions in the Graeco-​Roman World 179. Leiden: Brill. Brauer, Ralph W. 1993. “The Camel and Its Role in Shaping Mideastern Nomad Societies.” Comparative Civilizations Review 28:106–51. Breasted, James Henry. 1906. Ancient Records of Egypt: Historical Documents from the Earliest Times to the Persian Conquest, Collected, Edited and Translated with Commentary. 5 vols. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Brentjes, Burchard. 1960. “Das Kamel im Alten Orient.” Klio 38:23–52. Brewer, Douglas J., Donald B. Redford, and Susan Redford. 2004. Domestic Plants and Animals: The Egyptian Origins. Warminster: Aris & Phillips. Brezovečki, Andreja. 2015. “Camel Milk and Milk Products.” Mljekarstvo 65:81–90.

Bibliography

325

Briend, Jacques. 1996. “Sheba I: Dans la Bible.” Cols. 1043–46 in vol. 12 of Dictionnaire de la Bible: Supplément. Edited by Jacques Briend and Édouard Cothenet. Paris: Letouzey & Ané. Brinkman, J. A. 1993. “Meerland (Sealand).” RlA 8:6–10. ———. 2017. “Babylonia Under the Kassites: Some Aspects for Consideration.” Pages 1–44 in vol. 1 of Karduniaš: Babylonia Under the Kassites; The Proceedings of the Symposium Held in Munich 30 June to 2 July 2011. Edited by Alexa Bartelmus and Katja Sternitzke. 2 vols. UAVA 11. Berlin: de Gruyter. Brockelmann, Carl. 1928. Lexicon Syriacum. 2nd ed. Halle: Niemeyer. Brogan, Olwen. 1954. “The Camel in Roman Tripolitania.” Papers of the British School at Rome 22:126–31. Brongers, H. A. 1970. II Koningen. Nijkerk: Callenbach. Brooke, Alan England, and Norman McLean, eds. 1917. The Octateuch, Part 4: Joshua, Judges and Ruth. Vol. 1 of The Old Testament in Greek According to the Text of Codex Vaticanus. 9 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brown, Francis, Samuel R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs. 1951. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Brugsch, Heinrich. 1897. Die Aegyptologie: Abriss der Entzifferungen und Forschungen auf dem Gebiete der aegyptischen Schrift, Sprache und Alterthumskunde. Leipzig: Heitz. Brunet, Frédérique, Muhiddin Hudžanazarov, and Karol Szymczak. 2013. “Le site d’Ajakagytma et le complexe culturel de Kel’teminar au sein des processus de néolithisation en Asie centrale.” Pages 191–205 in L’archeologie française en Asie centrale: Nouvelles recherches et enjeux socioculturels. Edited by J. Bendezu-​ Sarmiento. Cahiers d’Asie centrale 21/22. Paris: de Boccard. Brunton, Guy. 1937. Mostagedda and the Tasian Culture: British Museum Expedition to Middle Egypt, First and Second Years, 1928, 1929. London: Quaritch. Bryce, Trevor. 2009. The Routledge Handbook of the Peoples and Places of Ancient Western Asia: From the Early Bronze Age to the Fall of the Persian Empire. London: Routledge. Bucher-​Gillmayr, Susanne. 1994. “‫וְ הִ ּנֵה גְ מַ ּלִ ים ּבָ ִאים‬.” Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie 116:421–26. Budde, Karl. 1897. Das Buch der Richter. Kurzer Hand-​Commentar zum Alten Testament 7. Freiburg: Mohr. Budge, E. A. Wallis. 1909. A Guide to the Egyptian Collections in the British Museum. London: British Museum. ———. 1932. The Queen of Sheba and Her Only Son Menyelek (I), Being the “Book of the Glory of Kings” (Kebra nagast). 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Budka, Julia. 2004. “Das einhöckrige Kamel (Camelus Dromedarius)—Lastschiff der Wüste.” Kemet 13:39–43. Bulliet, Richard W. 1975. The Camel and the Wheel. New York: Columbia University Press. ———. 2011. Cotton, Climate, and Camels in Early Islamic Iran: A Moment in World History. New York: Columbia University Press. Bunnens, Guy. 2019. “History, Anthropology and the Aramaeans: Apropos of a New History of the Aramaeans.” ANES 56:347–66. Burckhardt, John Lewis. 1830. Notes on the Bedouins and Wahábys Collected During His Travels in the East. London: Colburn & Bentley.

326

Bibliography

Burger, Pamela A., Joris Peters, Peter Magee, and Oliver Hanotte. 2016. “Reply to Marom et al.: Mitochondrial Panmixia in Dromedaries Predates Ancient Caravan Trading.” PNAS 113.32:E4583–84. Burney, Charles Fox. 1920. The Book of Judges: With Introduction and Notes. Oxford: Rivingtons. Burstein, Stanley M., ed. 1989. Agatharchides of Cnidus: On the Erythraean Sea. London: Hakluyt Society. Bustānī, Buṭrus al-. 1987. ‫( محيط المحيط‬Muḥīṭ al-​muḥīṭ). Repr., Beirut: Maktaba Lubnān. Buxtorf, Johannes. 1866. Lexicon Chaldaicum, Talmudicum et Rabbinicum. Edited by Bernard Fischer. Leipzig: Schaefer. Byrne, Ryan. 2003. “Early Assyrian Contacts with Arabs and the Impact on Levantine Vassal Tribute.” BASOR 331:11–25. Çakırlar, Canan, and Rémi Berthon. 2014. “Caravans, Camel Wrestling and Cowrie Shells: Towards a Social Zooarchaeology of Camel Hybridization in Anatolia and Adjacent Regions.” Anthropozoologica 49:237–52. Calvot, Danielle. 1969. “Deux documents inédits de Ṣelluš-​Dagan.” Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 63:101–14. Caminos, Ricardo A. 1954. Late Egyptian Miscellanies. Brown Egyptological Studies 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Caquot, André. 1988. “Une homélie éthiopienne attribuée à Saint Mari Éphrem sur le séjour d’Abraham et Sara en Égypte.” Pages 173–85 of Mélanges Antoine Guillaumont a l’étude des christianismes orientaux. Edited by René-​G. Coquin. Cahiers d’orientalisme 20. Genève: Cramer. Caskel, Werner. 1953a. Die Bedeutung der Beduinen in der Geschichte der Araber. Cologne: Westdeutscher Verlag. ———. 1953b. “Zur Beduinisierung Arabiens.” ZDMG 103:*28–*36. ———. 1954. “The Bedouinization of Arabia.” Pages 36–46 in Studies in Islamic Cultural History. Edited by Gustave E. von Grunebaum. Menasha, WI: American Anthropological Association. Cassuto, Umberto. 1964. A Commentary on the Book of Genesis. Part 2, From Noah to Abraham; Genesis VI 9–XI 32. Jerusalem: Magnes. Caton-​Thompson, Gertrude. 1934. “The Camel in Dynastic Egypt.” Man 34(24):21. Caubet, Annie. 2012. “De l’Indus à l’Éuphrate: Quelques cas de circulation des biens et des savoirs.” Pages 147–60 in Orientalismes: De l’archéologie au musée; Mélanges offerts à Jean-​François Jarrige. Edited by Vincent Lefèvre. Turnhout: Brepols. ———. 2016. “Gonur and the Ivory Road.” Pages 356–60 in Памяти Виктора Ивановича Сарианиди (To the memory of Professor Victor Sarianidi). Edited by Nadežda A. Dubova. Труды марсианской археологической экспедиции 6. Moscow: Staryj Sad. Caubet, Annie, and François Poplin. 2010. “Réflexions sur la question de l’éléphant syrien.” Pages 1–9 in Dūr-​Katlimmu 2008 and Beyond. Edited by Hartmut Kühne. Studia Chaburensia 1. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Cauvet (Commandant). 1925–1926. Le chameau: Anatomie, physiologie, races, etc. 2 vols. Paris: P. Baillière et Fils. Cavigneaux, Antoine. 1983. “Lexikalische Listen.” RlA 6:609–41. Cavigneaux, Antoine, and Bahija Khalil Ismail. 1990. “Die Statthalter von Suḫu und Mari im 8. Jh. v. Chr. anhand neuer Texte aus den irakischen Grabungen im Staugebiet des Qadissiya-​Damms.” BaM 21:321–456.

Bibliography

327

Cellerino, Alessandro, and Vito Messina. 2013. “Terracotta Animal Figurines from Veh Ardashir (Coche) in the Collection of the Museo Civico d’arte Antica E Palazzo Madama (Torino).” Pages 123–34 in Animals, Gods and Men from East to West: Papers on Archaeology and History in Honour of Roberta Venco Ricciardi. Edited by Alessandra Peruzzetto, Francesca Dorna Metzger, and Lucinda Dirven. BARIS 2516. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Chabas, François Joseph. 1872. Études sur l’antiquité historique d’après les sources égyptiennes et les monumentes réputés préhistoriques. Paris: Maisonneuve. Chabot, Jean-​Baptiste. 1901. Chronique de Michel le Syrien Patriarche Jacobite d’Antioche (1166–1199). Vol. 2, Translation. Paris: Leroux. ———. 1910. Chronique de Michel le Syrien Patriarche Jacobite d’Antioche (1166– 1199). Vol. 4, Texte syriaque. Paris: Leroux. Chahoud, Jwana, and Emmanuelle Vila. 2017. “Exploitation of fauna at Ras Shamra: Case Study of the ‘Maison aux Albâtres,’ Late Bronze Age, Northern Levant.” Pages 197–216 in vol. 1 of Archaeozoology of the Near East 9: In Honour of Hans-​ Peter Uerpmann and François Poplin. Edited by Marjan Mashkour and Mark Beech. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxbow. Chaix, Louis. 2006. “The Animal Remains.” Pages 187–89 in Hillat El-​Arab: The Joint Sudanese-​Italian Expedition in the Napatan Region, Sudan. Edited by Irene Vincentelli. Sudan Archaeological Research Society 15. BARIS 1570. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Chand, Khem, B. L. Jangid, and P. P. Rohilla. 2011. “Traditional Knowledge of Processing and Value Addition to Dromedary Camel Wool.” Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge 10:316–18. Chapman, M. J. 1985. “Mongolia: Bactrian Camels.” World Animal Review 55:14–19. Charloux, Guillaume, et al. 2018. “The Art of Rock Relief in Ancient Arabia: New Evidence from the Jawf Province.” Antiquity 92:165–82. Charloux, G., Maria Guagnin, and Jérôme Norris. 2020. “Large-​Sized Camel Depictions in Western Arabia: A Characterization Across Time and Space.” PSAS 50:83–106. Charpin, Dominique. 2003. “ ‘Ein umherziehender Aramäer war mein Vater’: Abraham im Lichte der Quellen aus Mari.” Pages 40–52 in “Abraham, unser Vater”: Die gemeinsamen Wurzeln von Judentum, Christentum und Islam. Edited by Reinhard G. Kratz and Tilman Nagel. Göttingen: Wallstein. Chaufray, Marie-​Pierre. 2020. “Les chameaux dans les ostraca démotiques de Bi’r Samut (Égypte, désert Oriental).” Pages 135–70 in Les vaisseaux du désert et des steppes: Les camélidés dans l’Antiquité (Camelus dromedarius et Camelus bactrianus). Edited by D. Agut-​Labordère and B. Redon. Lyon: MOM (Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée). Chauveau, Michel. 2015. Ostraca démotiques d’Ayn-​Manâwir: Editio princeps en ligne. Paris: Achemenet-​Musée du Louvre. Cheseto, Xavier, et al. 2015. “Potential of the Desert Locust Schistocerca gregaria (Orthoptera: Acrididae) as an Unconventional Source of Dietary and Therapeutic Sterols.” PLoS ONE 10(5):e0127171. DOI: 10​.1371​/journal​.pone​.0127171. Chiera, Edward. 1929. Sumerian Lexical Texts from the Temple School of Nippur. OIP 11. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Ciasca, Agostino. 1888. ‫ دياطاسارون جمعه طظيانوس من المبشرين األربعة‬seu Tatiani Evangeliorum Harmoniae Arabice. Rome: S. C. de propaganda fide.

328

Bibliography

Çifçi, Ali. 2017. The Socio-​Economic Organisation of the Urartian Kingdom. CHANE 89. Leiden: Brill. Civil, Miguel. 1995. “Ancient Mesopotamian Lexicography.” Pages 2305–14 in vol. 4 of Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. Edited by Jack M. Sasson. New York: Scribner. ———. 1998. “ ‘Adamdun,’ the Hippopotamus, and the Crocodile.” JCS 50:11–14. ———. 2010. The Lexical Lists in the Schøyen Collection. CUSAS 12. Bethesda, MD: CDL. Cloudsley-​Thompson, John L. 1969. “Camel.” Pages 261–63 in vol. 5 of The Encyclopedia Americana. New York: Americana. Clutton-​Brock, J. 1979. “The Mammalian Remains from the Jericho Tell.” Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 45:135–57. ———. 1986. “Osteology of the Equids from Sumer.” Pages 207–29 in Equids in the Ancient World. Edited by Hans-​Peter Uerpmann and Richard H. Meadow. BTAVO/A 19.1. Wiesbaden: Reichert. ———. 1999. A Natural History of Domesticated Mammals. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cogan, Mordechai. 2000. “Sennacherib’s Siege of Jerusalem.” COS 2.119B:302–3. ———. 2001. 1 Kings: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 10. New York: Doubleday. Cogan, Mordechai, and Haym Tadmor. 2008. II Kings: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 11. Repr., New Haven: Yale University Press. Cohen, K., et al. 2013. “International Chronostratigraphic Chart 2013.” http://​www​ .stratigraphy​.org​/ICSchart​/ChronostratChart2013​-01​.pdf. Cohen, Susan. 2015. “Interpretative Uses and Abuses of the Beni Hasan Tomb Painting.” JNES 74:19–38. Cole, Steven W. 1996a. Nippur IV: The Early Neo-​Babylonian Governor’s Archive from Nippur. OIP 114. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. ———. 1996b. Nippur in Late Assyrian Times c. 755–612. State Archives of Assyria Studies 4. Helsinki: Neo-​Assyrian Text Corpus Project. Colin, Frédéric. 2004. “Qasr Allam: A Twenty-​Sixth Dynasty Settlement.” Egyptian Archaeology 24:30–33. Colin, Gérard. 2002. La gloire des rois (Kebra nagast): Epopée nationale de l’Éthiopie; Traduction française intégrale. Cahiers d’orientalisme 23. Geneva: Cramer. Compagnoni, Bruno, and Maurizio Tosi. 1978. “The Camel: Its Distribution and State of Domestication in the Middle East During the Third Millennium B.C. in Light of Finds from Shahr-​i Sokhta.” Pages 91–103 in Approaches to Faunal Analysis in the Middle East. Edited by Richard H. Meadow and Melinda A. Zeder. Peabody Museum Bulletin 2. Cambridge: Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University. Coon, C. S., et al. 2012. “Badw.” In Encyclopaedia of Islam. Edited by P. Bearman et al. 2nd ed. Leiden: Brill. https://​referenceworks​.brillonline​.com​/browse​ /encyclopaedia​-of​-islam​-2. Corbett, Glenn Joseph. 2010. “Mapping the Mute Immortals: A Locational and Contextual Analysis of Thamudic E/Ḥismaic Inscriptions and Rock Drawings from the Wādī Ḥafīr of Southern Jordan.” PhD diss., University of Chicago. Cousin, Laura. 2020. “Le dromadaire (Camelus dromedarius) dans le Proche-​Orient ancien au premier millénaire av. J.-C.: Présentation de la documentation épigraphique et retour sur quelques documents iconographiques.” Pages 65–79 in

Bibliography

329

Les vaisseaux du désert et des steppes: Les camélidés dans l’Antiquité (Camelus dromedarius et Camelus bactrianus). Edited by D. Agut-​Labordère and B. Redon. Lyon: MOM (Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée). Cribb, Roger. 1991. Nomads in Archaeology. New Studies in Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crisostomo, C. Jay. 2015. “Language, Writing, and Ideologies in Contact: Sumerian and Akkadian in the Early Second Millennium BCE.” Pages 158–80 in Semitic Languages in Contact. Edited by Aaron M. Butts. SSLL 82. Leiden: Brill. ———. 2016. “Multilingualism and Formulations of Scholarship: The Rosen Vocabulary.” ZA 106: 22–32. ———. 2019. Translation as Scholarship: Language, Writing, and Bilingual Education in Ancient Babylonia. SANER 22. Berlin: de Gruyter. Croft, Paul. 2004. “The Osteological Remains (Mammalian and Avian).” Pages 2254– 348 of The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994). Edited by David Ussishkin. 5 vols. Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archeology Monograph 22. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology. Cross, Frank Moore. 2003. Leaves from an Epigraphers Notebook: Collected Papers in Hebrew and West Semitic Palaeography and Epigraphy. Harvard Semitic Studies 51. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Cunningham, Graham. 2007. “Deliver Me from Evil”: Mesopotamian Incantations, 2500–1500 BC. Studia Pohl: Series maior 17. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. Curci, Antonio, Michela Carletti, and Maurizio Tosi. 2014. “The Camel Remains from Site HD-6 (Ra’s al-​Hadd, Sultanate of Oman): An Opportunity for a Critical Review of Dromedary Findings in Eastern Arabia.” Anthropozoologica 49:207–22. Curci, Antonio, and Elena Maini. 2017. “Zooarchaeological Analysis of Two Dromedaries (Camelus dromedarius L.) from Late Iron Age Graves in Wādī ʿUyūn at Sināw (al-​Sharqiyyah, Sultanate of Oman).” PSAS 47:67–74. Curtis, Edward Lewis, and Albert Alonzo Madsen. 1910. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Chronicles. ICC. New York: Scribners. Cuvigny, Hélène. 2020. “L’élevage des chameaux sur la route d’Edfou à Bérénice d’après une lettre trouvée à Bi’r Samut (IIIe siècle av. J.-C.).” Pages 171–80 in Les vaisseaux du désert et des steppes: Les camélidés dans l’antiquité (Camelus dromedarius et Camelus bactrianus). Edited by D. Agut-​Labordère and B. Redon. Lyon: MOM (Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée). Daems, Aurelie. 2004. “The Terracotta Figurines from ed-​Dur (Umm al-​Qaiwain, U.A.E.): The Animal Representations.” AAE 15:229–39. Dagg, Anne Innis. 1974. “The Locomotion of the Camel (Camelus dromedarius).” Journal of Zoology 174:67–78. Dahl, Gudrun, and Anders Hjort. 1976. Having Herds: Pastoral Herd Growth and Household Economy. Stockholm Studies in Social Anthropology 2. Stockholm: University of Stockholm. ———. 1984. “Dromedary Pastoralism in Africa and Arabia.” Pages 144–60 in The Camelid: An All-​Purpose Animal; Proceedings of the Khartoum Workshop on Camels, December 1979. Edited by W. Ross Cockrill. 2 vols. Uppsala: Scandinavian Institute of African Studies. Dalley, Stephanie. 1986. “The God Salmu and the Winged Disk.” Iraq 48:85–101. Dalman, Gustav. 1935. Brot, Öl und Wein. Vol. 4 of Arbeit und Sitte in Palästina. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann.

330

Bibliography

———. 1938. Aramäisch-​Neuhebräisches Handwörterbuch zu Targum, Talmud und Midrasch. 3rd ed. Göttingen: Pfeiffer. ———. 1939. Zeltleben, Vieh- und Milchwirtschaft, Jagd, Fischfang. Vol. 6 of Arbeit und Sitte in Palästina. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann. ———. 1942. Das Haus, Hühnerzucht, Taubenzucht, Bienenzucht. Vol. 7 of Arbeit und Sitte in Palästina. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann. Daróczi-​szabó, László, et al. 2014. “Recent Camel Finds from Hungary.” Anthropozoologica 49:265–80. Davila, James. 1993. “Text-​Type and Terminology: Genesis and Exodus as Test Cases.” Revue de Qumrân 16:3–37. Davila, James R., Eugene Ulrich, and Frank Moore Cross. 1994. Qumran Cave 4: VII Genesis to Numbers. DJD XII. Oxford: Clarendon. Davis, Simon. 1985. “The Large Mammal Bones.” Pages 148–50 in Excavations at Tell Qasile, Part 2: The Philistine Sanctuary; Various Finds, the Pottery, Conclusions, Appendixes. Edited by Amihai Mazar. Qedem 20. Jerusalem: Hebrew University. Dawson, David Allan. 1994. Text-​Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Suppplement 177. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. De Goeje, Michael Jan. 1866. Liber expugnationes regionum auctore Imámo Ahmed ibn Jahja ibn Djábir al-​Beládsorí. Leiden: Brill. ———. 1892. Kitâb al-​Aʿlâk an-​nafîsa VII auctore Abû Alî Ahmed ibn Omar ibn Rosteh et Kitâb al-​Boldân auctore Ahmed ibn abî Jakûb ibn Wâdhih al-​Kâtib al-​Jakûbî. Bibliotheca geographorum arabicorum 7. Leiden: Brill. De Goeje, Michael Jan., et al. 1879–1898. Annales quos scripsit Abu Djafar Mohammed ibn Djarir at-​Tabari. First series. 6 vols. Leiden: Brill. ———. 1879–1890. Annales quos scripsit Abu Djafar Mohammed ibn Djarir at-​Tabari. Third series. 3 vols. Leiden: Brill. De Grossi Mazzorin, Jacopo. 2006. “Cammelli nell’antichità: Le presenze in Italia.” Pages 231–42 in Archaeozoological Studies in Honour of Alfredo Riedel. Edited by Umberto Tecchiati and Benedetto Sala. Bolzano: Province of Bolzano. Delitzsch, Franz. 1867. Biblical Commentary on the Prophecies of Isaiah. 2 vols. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. Delitzsch, Friedrich. 1896. Assyrisches Handwörterbuch. Leipzig: Hinrichs. ———. 1920. Die Lese- und Schreibfehler im Alten Testament. Berlin: de Gruyter. Demsky, Aaron. 2012. “Jacob’s Herds in Light of Ancient Near Eastern Sources.” Pages 211–20 in Looking at the Ancient Near East and the Bible Through the Same Eyes: A Tribute to Aaron Skaist. Edited by Kathleen Abraham and Joseph Fleishman. Bethesda, MD: CDL. De Odorico, Marco. 1995. The Use of Numbers and Quantifications in the Assyrian Royal Inscriptions. State Archives of Assyria Studies 3. Helsinki: Neo-​Assyrian Text Corpus Project. Dercksen, Jan Gerrit. 2009. “Sattel.” RlA 12:90–93. Derenbourg, Joseph. 1896. Version arabe d’Isaïe. Vol. 3 of Oeuvres completes de R. Saadia ben Iosef al-​Fayyoûmî. Paris: Leroux. Desse, Jan, and Nathalie Desse-​Berset. 1990. “La faune: Les mammifères et les poissons.” Pages 51–70 in Failaka: Fouilles françaises 1986–1988. Edited by Yves Galvet and Jeaqueline Gachet. Travaux de la Maison de l’Orient 18. Lyon: Maison de l’Orient.

Bibliography

331

Desző, Tamás. 2016. The Assyrian Army. Vol. 2, Recruitment and Logistics. Antiqua et Orientalia 6. Budapest: Eötvös University Press. Deutsch, Robert, and André Lemaire. 2000. Biblical Period Personal Seals in the Shlomo Moussaieff Collection. Tel Aviv: Archaeological Center. Dever, William G. 1995. “Be’er Resisim.” Pages 158–60 in vol. 1 of The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Edited by Ephraim Stern et al. 5 vols. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. ———. 1997. “Archaeology and the ‘Age of Solomon’: A Case-​Study in Archaeology and Historiography.” Pages 217–51 in The Age of Solomon: Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium. Edited by Lowell K. Handy. SHCANE 11. Leiden: Brill. ———. 2015. “The Exodus and the Bible: What Was Known; What Was Remembered; What Was Forgotten?” Pages 399–408 in Israel’s Exodus in Transdisciplinary Perspective: Text, Archaeology, Culture, and Geoscience. Edited by Thomas E. Levy, Thomas Schneider, and William H. C. Propp. Quantitative Methods in the Humanities and Social Sciences. New York: Springer. ———. 2017. Beyond the Texts: An Archaeological Portrait of Ancient Israel and Judah. Atlanta: SBL Press. Dickson, Harold R. P. 1949. The Arab of the Desert. London: Allen & Unwin. Diebner, Bernd Jørg, and Hermann Schult. 1975. “Alter und geschichtlicher Hintergrund von Genesis 24.” Dielheimer Blätter zum Alten Testament 10:10–17. Dietrich, Manfred. 2003. The Neo-​Babylonian Correspondence of Sargon and Sennacherib. SAA 17. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press. Dietrich, Walter. 2015. Samuel (1 Sam 13–26). BKAT 8.2. Neukirchen-​Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Dillmann, August. 1886. Die Genesis. 5th ed. Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament. Leipzig: Hirzel. ———. 1897. Die Bücher Exodus und Leviticus. Edited by Victor Ryssel. 3rd ed. Leipzig: Hirzel. Dioli, Maurizio. 2012. “The Traditional Management of the One-​Humped Camel in the Horn of Africa: Milking, Fostering and Weaning Techniques.” Pages 199–205 in Camels in Asia and North Africa: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Their Past and Present Significance. Edited by Eva-​Maria Knoll and Pamela Burger. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften: Philosophisch-​Historische Klasse, Denkschriften 451. Veröffentlichungen zur Sozialanthropologie 18. Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. ———. 2014. “The Missing Hump: A Clarification on the Reported Two-​Humped Stage in the Embryonic Development of the Dromedary (Camelus dromedarius).” Journal of Camel Practice and Research 21:121–25. ———. 2020. “Dromedary (Camelus dromedarius) and Bactrian Camel (Camelus bactrianus) Crossbreeding Husbandry Practices in Turkey and Kazakhstan: An In-depth Review.” Pastoralism 10.6. DOI: 10​.1186​/s13570​-020​-0159​-3. Dirbas, Hekmat. 2014. “The Sacrifice of Riding Animals in Amorite and Arabic Traditions.” Subartu 8:3–12. ———. 2019. Animal Names in Semitic Name-​Giving. AOAT 464. Münster: Ugarit-​Verlag. Dirksen, Piet B. 1978. The Old Testament in Syriac According to the Peshiṭta Version, Part II,2: Judges–Samuel. Leiden: Brill.

332

Bibliography

Dobbs-​Allsopp, F. W., et al. 2005. Hebrew Inscriptions: Texts from the Biblical Period of the Monarchy with Concordance. New Haven: Yale University Press. Dobney, Keith M., and Deborah Jaques. 1994. “Preliminary Report on the Animal Bones from Saar.” AAE 5:106–20. Dolce, Rita. 2014. “Equids as Luxury Gifts at the Centre of Interregional Economic Dynamics in the Archaic Urban Cultures of the Ancient Near East.” Syria 91:55–75. Dorman, A. E. 1984. “Aspects of the Husbandry and Management of the Genus Camelus.” British Veterinary Journal 140:616–33. Dornemann, Rudolph H. 1983. The Archaeology of Transjordan in the Bronze and Iron Ages. Milwaukee, WI: Milwaukee Public Museum. Dostal, Walter. 1958. “Zur Frage der Entwicklung des Beduinentums.” Archiv für Völkerkunde 13:1–14. ———. 1967. Die Beduinen in Südarabien: Eine ethnologische Studie zur Entwicklung der Kamelhirtenkultur in Arabien. Wiener Beiträge zur Kulturgeschichte und Linguistik 16. Vienna: Berger. ———. 2012. “Riding Camels in Arabia: Outline of a Revised Cultural History.” Pages 123–29 in Camels in Asia and North Africa: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Their Past and Present Significance. Edited by Eva-​Maria Knoll and Pamela Burger. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften: Philosophisch-​Historische Klasse, Denkschriften 451. Veröffentlichungen zur Sozialanthropologie 18. Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Dotan, Aron, ed. 2001. ‫ ;תורה נביאים וכתובים‬Biblia Hebraica Leningradensia: Prepared According to the Vocalization, Accents, and Masora of Aaron ben Moses ben Asher in the Leningrad Codex. Leiden: Brill. Dougherty, Raymond Philip. 1920. Records from Erech, Time of Nabonidus (555– 538 BC). YOS Babylonian Texts 6. New Haven: Yale University Press. ———. 1932. The Sealand of Ancient Arabia. YOS Researches 19. New Haven: Yale University Press. Dövener, Franziska, Carola Oelschlägel, and Hervé Bocherens. 2018. “Kamele im westlichen Treverergebiet—Ein nahezu vollständig erhaltenes Dromedar aus dem vicus Mamer-​Bartringen (Luxemburg).” Pages 187–204 in Archäologie in der Großregion: Beiträge des internationalen Symposiums zur Archäologie in der Großregion in der Europäischen Akademie Otzenhausen vom 23.–26. März 2017. Edited by Michael Koch. Archäologentage Otzenhausen 4. Nonnweiler: Europäische Akademie Otzenhausen. Downey, Susan B. 2003. Terracotta Figurines and Plaques from Dura-​Europos. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Dozy, Reinhart P. A. 1864. Die Israeliten zu Mekka von Davids Zeit bis ins 5. Jahrhundert unserer Zeitrechnung: Ein Beitrag zur alttestamentlichen Kritik und Erforschung des Ursprungs des Islams. Leipzig: Engelmann. ———. 1881. Supplément aux Dictionnaires Arabes. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill. Drews, Robert. 2004. Early Riders: The Beginnings of Mounted Warfare in Asia and Europe. New York: Routledge. Driesch, Angela von den. 2007. “Rind. D. Archäozoologisch.” RlA 11:408–11. ———. 2014. “Trampeltier.” RlA 14:111–12. Driesch, Angela von den, et al. 2008. “The Hunt for Wild Dromedaries at the United Arab Emirates Coast During the 3rd and 2nd Millennia BCE: Camel Bones from the Excavations at Al Sufouh 2, Dubai, UAE.” Pages 487–97 in vol. 2 of

Bibliography

333

Archaeozoology of the Near East 8, Actes des huitièmes Rencontres internationales d’Archéozoologie de l’Asie du Sud-​Ouest et des régions adjacentes, Lyon 28 juin– 1er juillet 2006. Edited by Emmanuelle Vila et al. 2 vols. Travaux de la Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée 49. Lyon: Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée. Driesch, Angela von den, and Joachim Boessneck. 1995. “Final Report on the Zooarchaeological Investigation of Animal Bone Finds from Tell Hesban, Jordan.” Pages 65–108 in Faunal Remains: Taphonomical and Zooarchaeological Studies of the Animal Remains from Tell Hesban and Vicinity. Edited by Øystein S. LaBianca and Angela von den Driesch. Hesban 13. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press. Driesch, Angela von den, and Henriette Obermaier. 2007. “The Hunt for Wild Dromedaries During the 3rd and 2nd Millennia BCE on the United Arab Emirates Coast: Camel Bone Finds from the Excavation at Al Sufouh 2, Dubai, UAE.” Pages 133– 67 in Skeletal Series and Their Socio-​Economic Context. Edited by Gisela Grupe and Joris Peters. DOAB 5. Rahden: Leidorf. Driesch, Angela von den, and Joris Peters. 2001. “Frühe Pferde- und Maultierskelette aus Auaris (Tell el-​Dab‘a), östliches Nildelta.” Ägypten und Levante 11:301–11. ———. 2003. Geschichte der Tiermedizin: 5000 Jahre Tierheilkunde. 2nd ed. Stuttgart: Schattauer. Driesch, Angela von den, and Peter Raulwing. 2004. “Pferd (Esel, Halbesel, Maulesel, Maultier). D. Archäozoologisch.” RlA 10:493–503. Driver, Samuel R. 1898. “Jacob.” Pages 526–35 in vol. 2 of Hastings Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by James Hastings. 5 vols. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. Dubova, Nadezhda A. 2015. “Animal Burials and Their Cults in Margiana.” Pages 13–23 in Defining the Sacred: Approaches to the Archaeology of Religion in the Near East. Edited by Nicola Laneri. Oxford: Oxbow. ———. 2018. “Margiana in der Karakum-​Wüste: Gonur Depe, seine Nekropolen und ‘Königsgräber.’ ” Pages 103–13 in Margiana: Ein Königreich der Bronzezeit in Turkmenistan. Edited by Matthias Wemhoff et al. Berlin: Imhof. ———. 2019. “Gonur Depe—City of Kings and Gods, and the Capital of Margush Country (Modern Turkmenistan): Its Discovery by Professor Victor Sarianidi and Recent Finds.” Pages 29–53 in Urban Cultures of Central Asia from the Bronze Age to the Karakhanids: Learnings and Conclusions from New Archaeological Investigations and Discoveries; Proceedings of the First International Congress on Central Asian Archaeology Held at the University of Bern, 4–6 February 2016. Edited by Christoph Baumer and Mirko Novák. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Dubovský, Peter. 2006. Hezekiah and the Assyrian Spies: Reconstruction of the Neo-​ Assyrian Intelligence Services and Its Significance for 2 Kings 18–19. Biblica et Orientalia 49. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. 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.” Pages 339–442 in Explorations in Turkestan: Expedition of 1904; Prehistoric Civilizations of Anan, Origins, Growth, and Influence of Environment. Edited by Raphael W. Pumpelly. Washington, DC: Carnegie Institution. Dumbrell, William J. 1971. “The Tell el-​Maskhuta Bowls and the ‘Kingdom’ of Qedar in the Persian Period.” BASOR 203:33–44. Durand, Jean-​Marie. 2018. “Le commerce à longue distance de Mari d’après les textes du règne de Zimrî-​Lîm.” Pasiphae 12:69–87.

334

Bibliography

Duval, Rubens, ed. 1901. Lexicon Syriacum auctore Hassano Bar Bahlule. 3 vols. Paris: Leroux. Eades, Domenyk, Janet C. E. Watson, and Mohammed Ahmad al-​Mahri. 2013. “Camel Culture and Camel Terminology Among the Omani Bedouin.” JSS 58:169–86. Ebach, Jürgen. 2007. Genesis 37–50. HThKAT. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder. Edzard, Dietz Otto. 1960. “Die Beziehungen Babyloniens und Ägyptens in der mittelbabylonischen Zeit und das Gold.” JESHO 3:38–55. ———. 1980. “Karawane.” RlA 5:414–22. Ego, Beate. 2010. “The Figure of Abraham in the Genesis Apocryphon’s Re-​narration of Gen 12:10–20.” Pages 233–43 in Qumran Cave 1 Revisited: Texts from Cave 1 Sixty Years After Their Discovery; Proceedings of the Sixth Meeting of the IOQS in Ljubljana. Edited by Daniel K. Falk et al. STDJ 91. Leiden: Brill. Ehrlich, Carl S. 1992. “Cherethites.” ABD 1:898–99. Eichmann, Ricardo, et al. 2010. “Tayma—Autumn 2004 and Spring 2005, 2nd Report on the Joint Saudi-​Arabian-​German Archaeological Project.” Atlal 20:101–47. Eisenberg-​Degen, Davida. 2015. “A Petroglyph of a Smiting Pharaoh in the Negev.” AAE 26:12–15. Eisenberg-​Degen, Davida, and Steven A. Rosen. 2013. “Chronological Trends in Negev Rock Art: The Har Michia Petroglyphs as a Test Case.” Arts 2:225–52. https://​www​.mdpi​.com​/2076​-0752​/2​/4​/225. Eisenstein, Herbert. 2010. “Das Kamel in der arabischen Kulturgeschichte.” Pages 169–88 in Symbolische Repräsentation und Wirklichkeit nomadischen Lebens. Edited by Ute Pietruschka and Michael P. Streck. Nomaden und Sesshafte 12. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Eißfeldt, Otto. 1962. “Die kleinste literarische Einheit in den Erzählungsbüchern des Alten Testaments.” Pages 143–49 in vol. 1 of Kleine Schriften. Edited by Rudolf Sellheim and Fritz Maass. 6 vols. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Elat, Moshe. 1978. “The Economic Relations of the Neo-​Assyrian Empire with Egypt.” JAOS 98:20–34. ———. 1998. “Die wirtschaftlichen Beziehungen der Assyrer mit den Arabern.” Pages 39–57 in Festschrift fur Rykle Borger zu seinem 65. Geburtstag am 24. Mai 1994: Tikip santakki mala bašmu. Edited by Stefan Maul. Cuneiform Monographs 10. Groningen: Styx. Elliott, James Keith. 1982. Codex Sinaiticus and the Simonides Affair: An Examination of the Nineteenth Century Claim That Codex Sinaiticus Was Not an Ancient Manuscript. ΑΝΑΛΕΚΤΑ ΒΛΑΤΑΔΩΝ 33. Thessaloniki: Πατριαρχικών Ίδρυμα Πατερικών Μελετών. Elmahi, Ali Tigani, and Moawiyah Ibrahim. 2003. “Two Seasons of Investigations at Manāl Site in the Wādī Samāyil Area, Sultanate of Oman.” PSAS 33:77–98. Emerton, John A. 2006. “The Kingdoms of Judah and Israel and Ancient Hebrew History Writing.” Pages 33–49 in Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest Semitic Setting: Typological and Historical Perspectives. Edited by Steven E. Fassberg and Avi Hurwitz. Jerusalem: Magnes; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Enault, Jean-​François, and Catherine Jarrige. 1979. Fouilles de Pirak. Vol. 2, Études architecturale et figures. Paris: de Boccard. Ephʿal, Israel. 1982. The Ancient Arabs: Nomads on the Borders of the Fertile Crescent 9th–5th Centuries B.C. Jerusalem: Magnes; Leiden: Brill.

Bibliography

335

Ephʿal, Israel, and Joseph Naveh. 1996. Aramaic Ostraca of the Fourth Century BC from Idumaea. Jerusalem: Magnes. Epstein, Claire. 1985. “Laden Animal Figurines from the Chalcolithic Period in Palestine.” BASOR 258:53–62. Epstein, Hellmut. 1954. “Le dromadaire dans l’Ancien Orient.” Revue d’histoire des sciences et de leurs applications 7:247–68. Erichsen, Wolja. 1954. Demotisches Glossar. Copenhagen: Munksgaard. Erman, Adolf, and Hermann Grapow. 1982. Deutsch-​Ägyptisches Wörterverzeichnis. Vol. 6 of Wörterbuch der Ägyptischen Sprache. Berlin: Akademie. Eshel, Esther, and Hanan Eshel. 2008. “A Late Iron Age Hebrew Letter Containing the Word Nôqedīm.” Pages 571–84 in vol. 2 of Birkat Shalom: Studies in the Bible, Ancient Near Eastern Literature, and Postbiblical Judaism Presented to Shalom M. Paul on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday. Edited by Chaim Cohen et al. 2 vols. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Evans, J. O., and J. G. Powys. 1984. “Camel Husbandry in Kenya: Increasing the Productivity of Ranchland.” Pages 347–57 in vol. 1 of The Camelid: An All-​Purpose Animal; Proceedings of the Khartoum Workshop on Camels, December 1979. Edited by W. Ross Cockrill. 2 vols. Uppsala: Scandinavian Institute of African Studies. Faist, Bettina I. 2001. Der Fernhandel des assyrischen Reiches zwischen dem 14. und 11. Jh. v. Chr. AOAT 265. Münster: Ugarit-​Verlag. Fales, Frederick Mario. 2000. “Preparing for War in Assyria.” Pages 35–59 in Économie antique: La guerre dans les économies antiques. Edited by Jean Andreau, Pierre Briant, and Raymond Descat. Entretiens d’archéologie et d’histoire 5. Saint-​ Bertrand-​de-​Comminges: Musée archéologique départemental. ———. 2002. “Central Syria in the Letters to Sargon II.” Pages 134–52 in Kein Land für sich allein: Studien zum Kulturkontakt in Kanaan, Israel/Palästina und Ebirnâri für Manfred Weippert zum 65. Geburtstag. Edited by Ulrich Hübner and Ernst A. Knauf. OBO 186. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht ; Fribourg: Universitätsverlag. ———. 2017. “Ethnicity in the Assyrian Empire: A View from the Nisbe, (III) “Arameans” and Related Tribalists.” Pages 133–77 in vol. 1 of At the Dawn of History: Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honour of J. N. Postgate. Edited by Yağmur Heffron, Adam Stone, and Martin Worthington. 2 vols. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Falkenstein, Adam. 1931. Literarische Keilschrifttexte aus Uruk. Berlin: Staatliche Museen. Fappas, Ioannis. 2011. “Exchange of Ideas in the Eastern Mediterranean During the 14th and 13th Centuries BCE: The Case of Perfumed Oil Use and Ideology.” Pages 495–510 of Intercultural Contacts in the Ancient Mediterranean: Proceedings of the International Conference at the Netherlands-​Flemish Institute in Cairo, 25th to 29th October 2008. Edited by Kim Duistermaat and Ilona Regulski. OLA 202. Leuven: Peeters. Faust, Avraham, and Yair Sapir. 2018. “The ‘Governor’s Residency’ at Tel ‘Eton, the United Monarchy, and the Impact of the Old-​House Effect on Large-​Scale Archaeological Reconstructions.” Radiocarbon 60: 801–20. DOI: 10​.1017​/RDC​.2018​.10. Faye, Bernard, and Gaukhar Konuspayeva. 2012. “The Encounter Between Bactrian and Dromedary Camels in Central Asia.” Pages 27–33 in Camels in Asia and North

336

Bibliography

Africa: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Their Past and Present Significance. Edited by Eva-​Maria Knoll and Pamela Burger. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften: Philosophisch-​Historische Klasse, Denkschriften 451. Veröffentlichungen zur Sozialanthropologie 18. Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Fedele, Francesco G. 2009. “Sabaean Animal Economy and Household Consumption at Yalā, Eastern Khawlān al-Ṭiyāl, Yemen.” PSAS 39:135–54. ———. 2011. “The Wall and Talus at Barāqish, Ancient Yathill (al-​Jawf, Yemen): A Minaean Stratigraphy.” PSAS 41:101–20. ———. 2014. “Camels, Donkeys and Caravan Trade: An Emerging Context from Barāqish, Ancient Yathill (Wādī al-​Jawf, Yemen).” Anthropozoologica 49:177–94. ———. 2017. “New Data on Domestic and Wild Camels (Camelus dromedarius and Camelus sp.) in Sabaean and Minaean Yemen.” Pages 286–311 in vol. 2 of Archaeozoology of the Near East 9: In Honour of Hans-​Peter Uerpmann and François Poplin. Edited by Marjan Mashkour and Mark Beech. Oxford: Oxbow. Feliks, Jehuda. 2007. “Camel.” Pages 380–81 in vol. 4 of Encyclopaedia Judaica. Edited by Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik. 2nd ed. Detroit: Macmillan Reference. Feng, Wang, et al. 2011. “A Study of Kumtag Desert: Progresses and Achievements.” Journal of Resources and Ecology 2:193–201. Fensham, F. Charles. 1982. The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Fernández Marcos, Natalio, ed. 2011. Judges. Biblia Hebraica Quinta 7. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft. Filius, Lourus S. 2019. The Arabic Version of Aristotle’s Historia Animalium. Book I–X of the Kitāb Al-​Hayawān: A Critical Edition with Introduction and Selected Glossary. Aristoteles Semitico-​Latinus 23. Brill: Leiden. Fincke, Andrew. 2001. The Samuel Scroll from Qumran: 4QSamª Restored and Compared to the Septuagint and 4QSamc. STDJ 43. Leiden: Brill. Finkelstein, Israel. 2007. “Patriarchs, Exodus, Conquest: Fact or Fiction?” Pages 41–55 in The Quest for the Historical Israel: Debating Archaeology and the History of Early Israel. Edited by Brian B. Schmidt. ABS 17. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. Finkelstein, Israel, Nadav Na’aman, and Thomas Römer. 2019. “Restoring Line 31 in the Mesha Stele: The ‘House of David’ or Biblical Balak?” TA 46:3–11. Finkelstein, Israel, and Avi Perevolotsky. 1990. “Processes of Sedentarization and Nomadization in the History of Sinai and the Negev.” BASOR 279:67–88. Finkelstein, Israel, and Eliazer Piasetzky. 2006. “The Iron I‒IIA in the Highlands and Beyond: 14 C Anchors, Pottery Phases and the Shoshenq I Campaign.” Levant 38:45‒61. Finkelstein, Jacob J. 1953. “Cuneiform Texts from Tell Billa.” JCS 7:111–76. ———. 1968. “An Old Babylonian Herding Contract and Genesis 31:38 f.” JAOS 88:30–36. Fīrūzābādī, Muḥammad ibn Yaʿqūb al-. 1843. ‫( القاموس المحيط‬Al-​Qāmūs al-​muḥīṭ). Bombay. Fischer, Bettina. 2000. “Un dromadaire égaré? A propos d’une figurine archaïque en terre cuite de l’acropole d’Amathonte à Chypre.” Cahiers du Centre d’Études Chypriotes 30:27–43.

Bibliography

337

Fischer, Georg. 2005. Jeremia 26–52. HThKAT. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder. Fischer, Peter M. 2001. “The Iron Age at Tall Abū al-​Kharaz, Jordan Valley: The Third Major Period of Occupation; A Preliminary Synthesis.” SHAJ 7:305–16. Fischer-​Elfert, Hans-​W., and Manfred Krebernik. 2016. “Zu den Buchstabennamen auf dem Halaḥam-​Ostrakon aus TT 99 (Grab des Sennefri).” ZÄS 143:169–76. Fishbane, Michael. 1975. “Composition and Structure in the Jacob Cycle (Gen. 25:19– 35:22).” Journal of Jewish Studies 26:15–38. ———. 1985. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. 2004. The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1 (1Q20): A Commentary. 3rd ed. Biblica et Orientalia 18/B. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. Fleming, Daniel E. 2004. “Genesis in History and Tradition: The Syrian Background of Israel’s Ancestors, Reprise.” Pages 193–232 in The Future of Biblical Archaeology. Edited by James K. Hoffmeier and Alan R. Millard. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Fokkelman, Jan P. 1986. The Crossing Fates. Vol. 2 of Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel. Studia Semitica Neerlandica 23. Assen: Van Gorcum. ———. 1991. Narrative Art in Genesis: Specimens of Stylistic and Structural Analysis. 2nd ed. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock. Földi, Zsombor. 2014. “Cuneiform Texts in the Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien, Part IV: A New Text from Dūr-​Abī-​ēšuḫ.” Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 104:31–55. Forbes, Robert James. 1965. Studies in Ancient Technology. Vol. 3. 2nd ed. Leiden: Brill. ———. 1993. Studies in Ancient Technology. Vol. 2. 3rd ed. Leiden: Brill. Foreman, Benjamin A. 2011. Animal Metaphors and the People of Israel in the Book of Jeremiah. FRLANT 238. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Förster, Frank. 2015. Der Abu Ballas-​Weg: Eine pharaonische Karawanenroute durch die Libysche Wüste. Africa Praehistorica 28. Cologne: Heinrich-​Barth-​Institut. Fox, Joshua. 2003. Semitic Noun Patterns. Harvard Semitic Studies 52. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Fraenkel, Siegmund. 1886. Die aramäischen Fremdwörter im Arabischen. Leiden: Brill. Frahm, Eckart. 1997. Einleitung in die Sanherib-​Inschriften. Archiv für Orientforschung Beiheft 26. ———. 2011. Babylonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries. Guides to the Mesopotamian Textual Record 5. Münster: Ugarit-​Verlag. ———. 2017. “Assyria and the Far South: The Arabian Peninsula and the Persian Gulf.” Pages 299–310 in A Companion to Assyria. Edited by Eckhart Frahm. Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Frame, Grant. 2013. “The Political History and Historical Geography of the Aramean, Chaldean, and Arab Tribes in Babylonia in the Neo-​Assyrian Period.” Pages 87–121 in Arameans, Chaldeans, and Arabs in Babylonia and Palestine in the First Millennium B.C. Edited by Angelika Berlejung and Michael P. Streck. Leipziger Altorientalistische Studien 3. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Francfort, Henri-​Paul. 2007. “L’art de la Civilisation de l‘Oxus à l‘Âge du Bronze (2300–1700 av. J.-C. env.) et ses relations avec les régions voisines.” Pages 102–27 in Sulla Via delle Oasi: Tesori dell‘Oriente Antico. Edited by Giancarlo Ligabue et Gabriele Rossi-​Osmida. Padova: Il Punto. ———. 2009. “L’âge du bronze en Asie centrale: La civilisation de l’Oxus.” Anthropology of the Middle East 4:91–111.

338

Bibliography

———. 2018. “Die Siegel der Oxus-​Zivilisation.” Pages 133–39 in Margiana: Ein Königreich der Bronzezeit in Turkmenistan. Edited by Matthias Wemhoff et al. Berlin: Imhof. ———. 2020. “Les vestiges et les représentations du Camelus bactrianus en Asie centrale entre le IIIe et le Ier millénaire av. J.C.” Pages 27–54 in Les vaisseaux du désert et des steppes: Les camélidés dans l’Antiquité (Camelus dromedarius et camelus Bactrianus). Edited by D. Agut-​Labordère and B. Redon. Lyon: MOM (Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée). Frankena, Rintje. 1972. “Some Remarks on the Semitic Background of the Chapters XXIX–XXXI of the Book of Genesis.” Oudtestamentische Studien 17:53–64. Frankfort, Henri, Seton Lloyd, and Thorkild Jacobsen. 1940. The Gimilsin Temple and the Palace of the Rulers at Tell Asmar. OIP 43. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Franklin, William L. 2011. “Family Camelidae (Camels).” Pages 206–46 in Hoofed Mammals. Vol. 2 of Handbook of the Mammals of the World. Edited by Don E. Wilson and Russell A. Mittermeier. Barcelona: Lynx. Frantsouzoff, Serguei. 1999. “Hadramitic Documents Written on Palm-​Leaf Stalks.” PSAS 29:55–65. ———. 2015. “Horse-​Breeding in Ancient Yemen: Some New Suggestions.” Pages 87–94 in South Arabia and Its Neighbours: Phenomena of Intercultural Contacts. Edited by Iris Gerlach. Archäologische Berichte aus dem Yemen 14. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Free, Joseph P. 1944. “Abraham’s Camels.” JNES 3:187–93. Frendo, Anthony J. 1996. “The Capabilities and Limitations of Ancient Near Eastern Nomadic Archaeology.” Or 65:1–23. Frerichs, Ernest S., and Lesko, Leonard H., eds. 1997. Exodus: The Egyptian Evidence. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Fretz, Mark J., and Raphael I. Panitz. 1992. “Caleb.” ABD 1:808–10. Freytag, Georg Wilhelm. 1830–1837. Lexicon Arabico-​Latinum praesertim ex Djeuharii Firuzabadiique et aliorum Arabum operibus adhibitis Golii quoque et aliorum libris confectum. 4 vols. Halle: Schwetschke. Frisk, Hjalmar. 1960. Griechisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch. 3 vols. Heidelberg: Winter. Fronzaroli, Pelio. 1977. “West Semitic Toponymy in Northern Syria in the Third Millennium B.C.” JSS 22:145–66. Fuchs, Andreas. 1994. Die Inschriften Sargons II. aus Khorsabad. Göttingen: Cuvillier. Fuchs, Andreas, and Simo Parpola. 2001. The Correspondence of Sargon II, Part 3: Letters from Babylonia and the Eastern Provinces. SAA 15. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press. Fugman, Ejnar. 1958. L’architecture des périodes pré-​hellénistiques. Vol. 2.1 of Hama: Fouilles er Recherches de la fondation Carlsberg, 1931–1938. Nationalmuseets skrifter 4. Copenhagen: Nationalmuseet. Gagos, Traianos, and Ludwig Koenen. 2001. “The University of Michigan Papyrus Collection: Current Trends and Future Perspectives.” Pages 511–37 in Atti del XXII Congresso Internazionale di Papirologia (Firenze, 23–29 agosto 1998). Edited by I. Andorlini et al. Florence: Istituto Papirologico G. Vitelli. Galadari, Abdullah. 2018. “The Camel Passing Through the Eye of the Needle: A Qur’anic Interpretation of the Gospels.” ANES 55:77–89.

Bibliography

339

Galik, Alfred, et al. 2015. “A Sunken Ship of the Desert at the River Danube in Tulln, Austria.” PLoS ONE 10(4): e0121235. DOI: 10​.1371​/journal​.pone​.0121235. Galil, Gershon. 2007. The Lower Stratum Families in the Neo-​Assyrian Period. CHANE 27 Leiden: Brill. ———. 2012. “Solomon’s Temple: Fiction or Reality?” Pages 137–48 in The Ancient Near East in the 12th–10th Centuries BCE: Culture and History Proceedings of the Conference Held at the University of Haifa, 2–5 May 2010. Edited by Gershon Galil et al. AOAT 392. Münster: Ugarit-​Verlag. Gall, August Freiherr von, ed. 1914. Der Hebräische Pentateuch der Samaritaner, Part 1: Prolegomena und Genesis. 5 vols. Giessen: Töpelmann. Gallinaro, Marina. 2013. “Saharan Rock Art: Local Dynamics and Wider Perspectives.” Arts 2:350–82. Galling, Kurt. 1941. “Beschriftete Bildsiegel des ersten Jahrtausends v. Chr. vornehmlich aus Syrien und Palästina: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der phönikischen Kunst.” ZDPV 64:121–202. ———. 1951. “The ‘Gōlā-​List’ According to Ezra 2 // Nehemiah 7.” JBL 70:149–58. Gantzert, Merijn, ed. 2011. “The Emar Lexical Texts: Part 1, Text Edition; Part 2, Composite Edition; Part 3, Structural Analysis; Part 4, Theoretical Interpretation.” PhD diss., Leiden University. Gaspa, Salvatore. 2016. “Silver Circulation and the Development of the Private Economy.” Pages 125–66 in Dynamics of Production in the Ancient Near East, 1300– 500 BC. Edited by Juan Carlos Moreno García. Oxford: Oxbow. Gaß, Erasmus. 2012. “Die Midianiter: Feinde und Freunde Israels.” Pages 287–322 in Studien zum Richterbuch und seinen Völkernamen. Edited by Walter Groß and Erasmus Gaß. Stuttgarter Biblische Aufsatzbände 54. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk. Gast, Marceau, Jean-​Louis Maubois, and Jacques Adda. 1969. Le lait et les produits laitiers en Ahaggar. Paris: Arts & Metiers Graphiques. Gatier, Pierre Louis. 2020. “Le chameau de transport dans le Proche-​Orient antique.” Pages 227–55 in Les vaisseaux du désert et des steppes: Les camélidés dans l’Antiquité (Camelus dromedarius et Camelus bactrianus). Edited by D. Agut-​Labordère and B. Redon. Lyon: MOM (Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée). Gaudard, François. 2017. “The Camel as a Sethian Creature.” Pages 41–52 in Essays for the Library of Seshat: Studies Presented to Janet H. Johnson on the Occasion of Her 70th Birthday. Edited by Robert K. Ritner. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 70. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Gaunitz, Charleen, et al. 2018. “Ancient Genomes Revisit the Ancestry of Domestic and Przewalski’s Horses.” Science 360:111–14. Gauthier-​Pilters, Hilde, and Anne Innis Dagg. 1981. The Camel: Its Evolution, Ecology, Behavior, and Relationship to Man. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Gautier, Achilles. 1966. “Camelus thomasi from the Northern Sudan and Its Bearing on the Relationship C. thomasi—C. bactrianus.” Journal of Paleontology 40:1368–72. ———. 1999. “Fauna, Domesticated.” Pages 300–306 of Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt. Edited by Kathryn A. Bard. London: Routledge. Gebreab, Fisseha. 2003. “Animals.” Pages 268–72 in vol. 1 of Encyclopaedia Aethiopica. Edited by Siegbert Uhlig. 5 vols. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Gelbhaus, Sigmund. 1893. Das Targum Scheni zum Buche Esther. Vol. 1 of Die Targumliteratur. Frankfurt am Main: Kauffmann.

340

Bibliography

Genge, Heinz. 1979. Nordsyrisch-​südanatolische Reliefs: Eine archäologisch-​ historische Untersuchung—Datierung und Bestimmung. Vol. 1, Text. Vol. 2, Abbildungen, Anmerkungen. Historisk-​filosofiske meddelelser 49. Copenhagen: Munksgaard. George, Andrew R. 2003. The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic: Introduction, Critical Edition and Cuneiform Texts. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Georges, Karl Ernst. 1988. Ausführliches Lateinisch-​Deutsches Wörterbuch. 2 vols. Repr., Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Gera, Avivit. 2007. “The Small Finds.” Pages 211–35 in part 1 of Excavations at Kadesh Barnea (Tell el-​Qudeirat) 1976–1982. Edited by Rudolph Cohen and Hannah Bernick-​Greenberg. IAAR 34.1. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. Gesche, Petra D. 2001. Schulunterricht in Babylonien im 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. AOAT 275. Münster: Ugarit-​Verlag. Gesenius, Wilhelm. 1840. Thesaurus philologus criticus linguae Hebraeae et Chaldaeae Veteris Testamenti. Leipzig: Vogel. ———. 1987–2012. Hebräisches und Aramäisches Wörterbuch über das Alte Testament. Edited by Rudolph Meyer and Herbert Donner. 7 vols. 18th ed. Berlin: de Gruyter. Gibson, McGuire. 1991. “Duplicate Systems of Trade: A Key Element in Mesopotamian History.” Pages 27–37 in Asian Trade Routes. Edited by Karl R. Haellquist. Studies on Asian Topics 13. London: Curzon. Gibson, McGuire, et al. 1978. Excavations at Nippur: Twelfth Season. Oriental Institute Communications 23. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Gilbert, Allan S. 2002. “The Native Fauna of the Ancient Near East.” Pages 3–75 in A History of the Animal World in the Ancient Near East. Edited by Billie Jean Collins. HdO 1/64. Leiden: Brill. Gilbert-​Peretz, Diana. 1996. “Ceramic Figurines.” Pages 29–41 in Various Reports. Vol. 4 of Excavations at the City of David, 1978–1985, Directed by Yigal Shiloh. Edited by Donald T. Ariel and Alon de Groot. Qedem 35. Jerusalem: Hebrew University. Gilibert, Alessandra. 2011. Syro-​Hittite Monumental Art and the Archaeology of Performance: The Stone Reliefs at Carchemish and Zincirli in the Earlier First Millennium BCE. Topoi 2. Berlin: de Gruyter. Giusfredi, Federico. 2020. “Assyrian Camels and Luwian Officials.” NABU 2020.1:53–56. Giveon, Raphael. 1971. Les Bédouins Shosou des documents égyptiens. Documenta et monumenta orientis antiqui 18. Leiden: Brill. Gode, P. K. 1958. “Notes on the History of the Camel in India—Between B.C. 500 and A.D. 800.” Janus 47:133–38. Goetze, Albrecht. 1959. “Remarks on the Ration Lists from Alalakh VII.” JCS 13:34–38. Goldschmidt, Lazarus. 1996. Der Babylonische Talmud. 12 vols. Repr., Frankfurt: Jüdischer Verlag im Suhrkamp-​Verlag. Goldwasser, Orly. 2017. “What Is a Horse? Lexical Acculturation and Classification in Egyptian, Sumerian, and Nahuatl.” Pages 45–66 in Classification from Antiquity to Modern Times: Sources, Methods, and Theories from an Interdisciplinary Perspective. Edited by Tanja Pommerening and Walter Bisang. Berlin: de Gruyter. Golinets, Viktor. 2016. “Die Gefährdung der Ahnfrau: Anmerkungen zu literarischen Abhängigkeiten in den Versionen von Genesis 12, 20 und 26.” Pages 91–114 in Nächstenliebe und Gottesfurcht: Beiträge aus alttestamentlicher, semitistischer und

Bibliography

341

altorientalistischer Wissenschaft für Hans-​Peter Mathys zum 65. Geburtstag. Edited by Hanna Jenni and Markus Saur. AOAT 439. Münster: Ugarit-​Verlag. Gooding, David W. 1982. “The Composition of the Book of Judges.” Eretz-​Israel 16:70*–79*. Gordon, Cyrus H. 1939. “Western Asiatic Seals in the Walters Art Gallery.” Iraq 6:3–34. Götherström, Anders, et al. 2005. “Cattle Domestication in the Near East Was Followed by Hybridization with Aurochs Bulls in Europe.” Proceedings of the Royal Society: Biological Sciences 272:2345–50. Graf, David F. 2007. “Two-​Humped Camel Drachms: Trajanic Propaganda or Reality?” SHAJ 9:439–50. Graf, Friedrich. 2011. Der ägyptische Glaube. Vol. 1, Ägyptische Amulette. 2nd ed. Norderstedt: Books on Demand. Grant, Elihu. 1929. Beth Shemesh (Palestine): Progress of the Haverford Archaeological Expedition. Haverford, PA: Biblical and Kindred Studies. Graslin-​Thomé, Laetitia. 2016. “Long-​Distance Trade in Neo-​Babylonian Mesopotamia: The Effects of Institutional Changes.” Pages 167–86 in Dynamics of Production in the Ancient Near East, 1300–500 BC. Edited by Juan Carlos Moreno García. Oxford: Oxbow. Gray, George Buchanan. 1912. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Isaiah. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. Grayson, A. Kirk. 1991. Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC I (1114– 859 BC). The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia: Assyrian Periods 2. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. ———. 1996. Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC II (858–745 BC). The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia: Assyrian Periods 3. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Greenfield, Haskel J., et al. 2018. “Household Rituals and Sacrificial Donkeys: Why Are There So Many Domestic Donkeys Buried in an Early Bronze Age Neighborhood at Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath?” Near Eastern Archaeology 81:202–11. Greengus, Samuel. 1979. Old Babylonian Texts from Ishchali and Vicinity. Uitgaven van het Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten te Leiden 40. Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-​Archaeologisch Instituut. Greppin, John A. C. 1991. “The Survival of Ancient Anatolian and Mesopotamian Vocabulary Until the Present.” JNES 50:203–7. Grigson, Caroline. 2012a. “Camels, Copper and Donkeys in the Early Iron Age of the Southern Levant: Timna Revisited.” Levant 44:82–100. ———. 2012b. “Size Matters—Donkeys and Horses in the Prehistory of the Southernmost Levant.” Paléorient 38:185–201. ———. 2014. “The History of the Camel Bone Dating Project.” Anthropozoologica 49:225–35. ———. 2015. “The Fauna of Tell Nebi Mend (Syria) in the Bronze and Iron Age—​ A Diachronic Overview, Part 1: Stability and Change—Animal Husbandry.” Levant 47:5–29. Grigson, Caroline, Juris Zarins, and John A. J. Gowlett. 1989. “The Camel in Arabia— A Direct Radiocarbon Date, Calibrated to About 7000 BC.” JAS 16:355–62. Gröndahl, Frauke. 1967. Die Personennamen der Texte aus Ugarit. Studia Pohl 1. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute.

342

Bibliography

Groß, Walter. 2009. Richter. HThKAT. Freiburg: Herder. Grossfeld, Bernard. 1988. The Targum Onqelos to Genesis: Translated, with a Critical Introduction, Apparatus, and Notes. Aramaic Bible 6. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. ———. 1991. The Two Targums of Esther: Translated, with Apparatus and Notes. Aramaic Bible 18. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. ———. 1994. The Targum Sheni to the Book of Esther: A Critical Edition Based on MS. Sassoon 282 with Critical Apparatus. New York: Sepher-​Hermon. Grossman, Jonathan. 2016. Abram to Abraham: A Literary Analysis of the Abraham Narrative. Das Alte Testament im Dialog 11. Frankfurt am Main: Lang. Guagnin, Maria, et al. 2015. “Hunters and Herders: Exploring the Neolithic Transition in the Rock Art of Shuwaymis, Saudi Arabia.” Archaeological Research in Asia 4:3–16. ———. 2018. “Rock Art Provides New Evidence on the Biogeography of Kudu (Tragelaphus imberbis), Wild Dromedary, Aurochs (Bos primigenius) and African Wild Ass (Equus africanus) in the Early and Middle Holocene of North-​Western Arabia.” Journal of Biogeography 1–14. DOI: 10​.1111​/jbi​.13165. Gunkel, Hermann. 1922. Genesis. Göttinger Handkommentar zum Alten Testament. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Gunn, David M., and Danna Nolan Fewell. 1993. Narrative in the Hebrew Bible. Oxford Bible Series. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gurney, Oliver R. 1974. Middle Babylonian Legal Documents and Other Texts. UET 7. London: British Museum. ———. 1982. “The Sultantepe Tablets: Addenda and Further Corrigenda.” AfO 28:92–112. Gurney, Oliver R., and Samuel N. Kramer. 1976. Sumerian Literary Texts in the Ashmolean Museum. OECT 5. Oxford: Clarendon. Gzella, Holger. 2011. “Ancient Hebrew.” Pages 76–110 in Languages from the World of the Bible. Edited by Holger Gzella. 2nd ed. Berlin: de Gruyter. ———. 2017. “New Light on Linguistic Diversity in Pre-​Achaemenid Aramaic: Wandering Arameans or Language Spread?” Pages 19–37 in Wandering Arameans: Arameans Outside Syria: Textual and Archaeological Perspectives. Edited by Angelika Berlejung, Aren M. Maeir, and Andreas Schüle. Leipziger Altorientalistische Studien 5. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Hackl, Johannes, Michael Jursa, and Martina Schmidl. 2014. Spätbabylonische Briefe. Vol. 1, Spätbabylonische Privatbriefe. AOAT 414.1. Münster: Ugarit-​Verlag. Haebler, Claus. 2001. “Altpersisch /ušabāri-/.” Pages 55–67 in Philologica et Linguistica: Historia, Pluralitas, Universitas; Festschrift für Helmut Humbach zum 80. Geburtstag am 4. Dezember 2001. Edited by Maria Gabriela Schmidt and Walter Bisang. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag. Hakker-​Orion, Dalia. 2004. “‫עצמות בעלי חיים מאתרים מתקופת הברזל והתקופה הפרסית בהר‬ ‫[ ”הנגב‬Animal Bones from Sites of the Iron Age and Persian Period]. Pages 220–22 in The Iron Age and Persian Period. Vol. 2 of Ancient Settlement of the Negev Highland. Edited by Rudolf Cohen and Rebecca Cohen-​Amin. IAAR 20. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. ———. 2007. “The Faunal Remains.” Pages 285–302 in vol. 1 of Excavations at Kadesh Barnea (Tell el-​Qudeirat) 1976–1982. Edited by Rudolph Cohen and Hannah Bernick-​Greenberg. IAAR 34.1. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.

Bibliography

343

Hallock, Richard T. 1969. Persepolis Fortification Tablets. OIP 92. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Halpern, Baruch, and André Lemaire. 2010. “The Composition of Kings.” Pages 123– 53 in The Book of Kings: Sources, Composition, Historiography and Reception. Edited by André Lemaire and Baruch Halpern. VTSup 129. Leiden: Brill. Hämeen-​Anttila, Jaako. 2009. “The Camels of Tiglath-​pileser III and the Arabic Definite Article.” Studia Orientalia 106:99–102. Hamilton, Gordon P. 2006. The Origins of the West Semitic Alphabet in Egyptian Scripts. Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 40. Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America. Hammer-​Purgstall, Joseph, Freiherr von. 1854. Das Kamel. Philosophisch-​Historische Classe 6. Vienna: Kaiserlich-​königliche Hof- und Staatsdruckerei. ———. 1856. Das Kamel: Lexicalische Belege. Philosophisch-​Historische Classe 7. Vienna: Kaiserlich-​königliche Hof- und Staatsdruckerei. Hančar, Franz. 1955. Das Pferd in prähistorischer und früher historischer Zeit. Wiener Beiträge zur Kulturgeschichte und Linguistik 11. Vienna: Herold. Hannig, Rainer. 1995. Großes Handwörterbuch Ägyptisch—Deutsch (2800–950 v.Chr.). Kulturgeschichte der antiken Welt 64. Mainz: von Zabern. ———. 2000. Großes Handwörterbuch Deutsch—Ägyptisch (2800–950 v.Chr.). Kulturgeschichte der antiken Welt 86. Mainz: von Zabern. Hare, John. 2008. “Camelus ferus.” The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2008: e.T63543A12689285. https://​www​.iucnredlist​.org​/species​/63543​/12689285. Haring, Ben. 2015. “Halaḥam on an Ostracon of the Early New Kingdom?” JNES 74:189–96. Harissis, Haralampos V. 2015. “Beekeeping in Prehistoric Greece.” Pages 85–92 in Beekeeping in the Mediterranean from Antiquity to the Present: International Symposium, 9–11 October 2014, Syros. Edited by Fani Hatjina, Georgios Marfofridis, and Richard Jones. Nea Moudania: Institute of Animal Science. Hartley, Brian J. 1984. “The Dromedary of the Horn of Africa.” Pages 77–97 in vol. 1 of The Camelid: An All-​Purpose Animal; Proceedings of the Khartoum Workshop on Camels, December 1979. Edited by W. Ross Cockrill. 2 vols. Uppsala: Scandinavian Institute of African Studies. Hassell, Jonathan. 2005. “A Re-​examination of the Cuboid Incense-​Burning Altars from Flinders Petrie’s Palestinian Excavations at Tell Jemmeh.” Levant 37:133–62. Hauenschild, Ingeborg. 2003. Die Tierbezeichnungen bei Mahmud al-​Kaschgari: Eine Untersuchung aus sprach- und kulturhistorischer Sicht. Turcologica 53. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Hausleiter, Arnulf. 2011. “Das antike Taymaʾ: eine Oase im Kontaktbereich der Kulturen; Neue Forschungen an einem Zentralort der Karawanenstraße.” Pages 102–120 in Roads of Arabia; Archäologische Schätze aus Saudi-​Arabien. Edited by Ute Franke. Berlin: Museum für Islamische Kunst. Hausleiter, Arnulf, with Małgorzata Daszkiewicz. 2014. “Pottery Groups of the Late 2nd/Early 1st Millennia BC in Northwest Arabia and New Evidence from the Excavations at Tayma.” Pages 399–434 in Recent Trends in the Study of Late Bronze Age Ceramics in Syro-​Mesopotamia and Neighbouring Regions: Proceedings of the International Workshop in Berlin, 2–5 November 2006. Edited by Marta Luciani and Arnulf Hausleiter. Orient-​Archäologie 32. Rahden: Leidorf.

344

Bibliography

Hawkins, John David. 1980. “Karkamiš.” RlA 5:426–46. Hayajneh, Hani. 1998. Die Personennamen in den qatabānischen Inschriften: Lexikalische und grammatische Analyse im Kontext der semitischen Anthroponomastik. TSO 10. Hildesheim: Olms. ———. 2006. “The Nabataean Camel Burial Inscription from Wādī Ram, Jordan.” WO 36:104–15. ———. 2011. “Ancient North Arabian.” Pages 756–82 in The Semitic Languages: An International Handbook. Edited by Stefan Weninger. Handbücher zur Sprachund Kommunikationswissenschaft 36. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. Hayajneh, Hani, and Josef Tropper. 1997. “Die Genese des altsüdarabischen Alphabets.” UF 29:183–98. Heide, Martin. 2000. Die Testamente Isaaks und Jakobs: Edition und Übersetzung der arabischen und äthiopischen Versionen. Äthiopistische Forschungen 56. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ———. 2011. “The Domestication of the Camel: Biological, Archaeological and Inscriptional Evidence from Mesopotamia, Egypt, Israel and Arabia, and Literary Evidence from the Hebrew Bible.” UF 42:331–82. ———. 2012a. “The Coptic, Arabic and Ethiopic Versions of the Testament of Abraham and the Emergence of the Testaments of Isaac and Jacob.” Pages 61–72 in “Non-​canonical” Religious Texts in Early Judaism and Early Christianity. Edited by Lee Martin McDonald and James H. Charlesworth. London: T&T Clark. ———. 2012b. Das Testament Abrahams: Edition und Übersetzung der arabischen und äthiopischen Versionen. Äthiopistische Forschungen 76. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ———. 2020. “Dromedaries in the Hebrew Bible Towards the End of the 2nd Millennium BCE.” Pages 81–94 in Les vaisseaux du désert et des steppes: Les camélidés dans l’Antiquité (Camelus dromedarius et Camelus bactrianus). Edited by D. Agut-​ Labordère and B. Redon. Lyon: MOM (Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée). Heimpel, Wolfgang. 1968. Tierbilder in der sumerischen Literatur. Studia Pohl 2. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. ———. 1980a. “Kamel.” RlA 5:330–32. ———. 1980b. “Katze.” RlA 5:488–89. ———. 1990. “Maultier.” RlA 7:602–5. ———. 2003. Letters to the King of Mari: A New Translation, with Historical Introduction, Notes, and Commentary. MC 12. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Helck, Wolfgang. 1971. Die Beziehungen Ägyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. 2nd ed. Ägyptologische Abhandlungen 5. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ———. 1977. “Handel.” LdÄ 2:943–48. Helck, Wolfgang, and Eberhard Otto. 1987. Kleines Wörterbuch der Aegyptologie. 3rd ed. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Hellwing, Salo, and Yitzhak Adjeman. 1986. “Animal Bones.” Pages 141–52 in ʿIzbet Ṣarṭah: An Early Iron Age Site near Rosh Haʿayin, Israel. Edited by Israel Finkelstein. BARIS 299. Oxford British Archaeological Reports. Hellwing, Salo, and Nurit Feig. 1989. “Animal Bones.” Pages 236–47 in Excavations at Tel Michal, Israel. Edited by Ze’ev Herzog, George Rapp Jr., and Ora Negbi. PIA 8. Tel Aviv: Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology; Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Bibliography

345

Hellwing, Salo, M. Sade, and V. Kishon. 1993. “Faunal Remains.” Pages 309–50 in Shiloh, the Archaeology of a Biblical Site. Edited by Israel Finkelstein. PIA 10. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology. Helmer, Daniel, et al. 2005. “Identifying Early Domestic Cattle from the Pre-​Pottery Neolithic Sites on the Middle Euphrates Using Sexual Dimorphism.” Pages 86–94 of The First Steps of Animal Domestication: New Archaeological Approaches; Proceedings of the 9th ICAZ Conference, Durham, 2002. Edited by Jean-​Denis Vigne, Joris Peters, and Daniel Helmer. Oxford: Oxbow. Heltzer, Michael. 1980. “Der ugaritische Text KTU 4.751 und das Festmahl (?) der Dienstleute des Königs.” UF 12:413–15. Hendel, Ronald S. 1987. The Epic of the Patriarch: The Jacob Cycle and the Narrative Traditions of Canaan and Israel. Harvard Semitic Monographs 42. Atlanta: Scholars Press. ———. 2005. Remembering Abraham: Culture, Memory, and History in the Hebrew Bible. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ———. 2010. “Cultural Memory.” Pages 28–46 in Reading Genesis: Ten Methods. Edited by Ronald Hendel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. 2016. Steps to a New Edition of the Hebrew Bible. Text-​Critical Studies 10. Atlanta: SBL Press. ———. 2019. “Abram’s Journey as Nexus: Literarkritik and Literary Criticism.” VT 69:567–93. Hendel, Ronald S., and Jan Joosten. 2018. How Old Is the Hebrew Bible? A Linguistic, Textual, and Historical Study. Anchor Bible Reference Library. New Haven: Yale University Press. Hengel, Martin. 2008. Die vier Evangelien und das eine Evangelium von Jesus Christus. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 224. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Henkelman, Wouter F. M. 2017. “Imperial Signature and Imperial Paradigm: Achaemenid Administrative Structure and System Across and Beyond the Iranian Plateau.” Pages 45–256 in Administration in the Achaemenid Empire: Tracing the Imperial Signature. Edited by Bruno Jacobs, Wouter F. M. Henkelman, and Matthew W. Stolper. Classica et Orientalia 17. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Henninger, Joseph. 1968. Über Lebensraum und Lebensformen der Frühsemiten. Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Forschung des Landes Nordrhein-​Westfalen 151. Cologne: Westdeutscher Verlag. Herles, Michael. 2007. “Zur geographischen Einordnung der aḫlamû—Eine Bestandsaufnahme.” AoF 34:319–41. ———. 2008. “Das Kamel in Assyrien und Urartu.” Aramazd—Armenian Journal of Near Eastern Studies 3:153–80. ———. 2010. “Kamele in assyrischen Quellen—Ein Exot wird zur Selbstverständlichkeit.” Pages 127–68 in Symbolische Repräsentation und Wirklichkeit nomadischen Lebens. Edited by Ute Pietruschka and Michael P. Streck. Nomaden und Sesshafte 12. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Herre, Wolf, and Manfred Röhrs. 1990. Haustiere—Zoologisch gesehen: Untersuchung über die Entstehung und Geschichte der Haustiere. 2nd ed. Stuttgart: Fischer. Hester, J. et al. 1984. “Preliminary Report on the Third Phase of Ancient Mining Survey Southwestern Province—1403 AH 1983.” Atlal 8:115–41. Hetzenauer, Michael P. 1910. Commentarius in Librum Genesis. Vienna: Styria.

346

Bibliography

Hilgert, Markus. 1998. Drehem Administrative Documents from the Reign of Šulgi. OIP 115. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Hill, D. R. 1975. “The Role of the Camel and the Horse in the Early Arab Conquests.” Pages 32–43 in War, Technology and Society in the Middle East. Edited by V. J. Parry and M. E. Yapp. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hinds, Martin, and El-​Said Badawi. 1986. A Dictionary of Egyptian Arabic. Beirut: Libraire du Liban. Hinz, Walther, and Heidemarie Koch. 1987. Elamisches Wörterbuch. 2 vols. Archaeologische Mitteilungen aus Iran, Ergänzungsband 17. Berlin: Reimer. Ḥitti, Philip K. 1916. The Origins of the Islamic State. Vol. 1. New York: Columbia University. Hoch, Ella. 1979. “Reflections on Prehistoric Life at Umm an-​Nar (Trucial Oman) Based on Faunal Remains from the Third Millennium BC.” Pages 589–638 in vol. 1 of South Asian Archaeology, 1977: Papers from the Fourth International Conference of the Association of South Asian Archaeologists in Western Europe, Held in the Istituto Universitario Orientale, Naples. Edited by Maurizio Taddei. Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale. ———. 1995. “Animal Bones from the Umm an-​Nar Settlement.” Pages 249–56 in The Third Millennium Settlement. Vol. 2 of The Island of Umm an-​Nar. The Carlsberg Foundation’s Gulf Project. Jutland Archaeological Society Publications 26.2. Århus: Århus University Press. Hoch, James E. 1994. Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts of the New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Hoffmann, Friedhelm. 1996. Der Kampf um den Panzer des Inaros: Studien zum P. Krall und seiner Stellung innerhalb des Inaros-​Petubastis-​Zyklus. Mitteilungen aus der Papyrussammlung der österreichischen Nationalbibliothek (Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer) 26. Vienna: Hollinek. Hoffmann, Friedhelm, and Joachim Friedrich Quack, eds. 2007. Anthologie der demotischen Literatur. Einführungen und Quellentexte zur Ägyptologie 4. Berlin: LIT. Hoffmeier, James K. 1997. Israel in Egypt: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hoffmeier, James K., Alan Millard, and Gary Rendsburg, eds. 2016. “Did I Not Bring Israel Out of Egypt?” Biblical, Archaeological, and Egyptological Perspectives on the Exodus Narratives. Bulletin for Biblical Research Supplement 13. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Högemann, Peter. 1985. Alexander der Große und Arabien. Zetemata 82. Munich: Beck. Holladay, John S., Jr. 2006. “Hezekiah’s Tribute, Long-​Distance Trade, and the Wealth of Nations ca. 1000–600 BC: A New Perspective.” Pages 311–31 in Confronting the Past: Archaeological and Historical Essays on Ancient Israel in Honor of William G. Dever. Edited by Seymour Gitin, W. J. Edward, and J. P Dessel. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Holladay, John S., Jr. and Stanley Klassen. 2014. “From Bandit to King: David’s Time in the Negev and the Transformation of a Tribal Entity into a Nation State.” Pages 31–46 in Unearthing the Wilderness: Studies on the History and Archaeology of the Negev and Edom in the Iron Age. Edited by Juan Manuel Tebes. Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement 45. Leuven: Peeters.

Bibliography

347

Holladay, William L. 1989. Jeremiah 2: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, Chapters 26–52. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress. Holland, Thomas A. 1977. “A Study of Palestinian Iron Age Baked Clay Figurines with Special Reference to Jerusalem: Cave I.” Levant 9:121–55. ———. 1995. “A Study of Palestinian Iron Age Baked Clay Figurines with Special Reference to Jerusalem: Cave I.” Pages 159–89 in The Iron Age Cave Deposits in the South-​East Hill and Isolated Burials and Cemeteries Elsewhere. Vol. 4 of Excavations by K. M. Kenyon in Jerusalem, 1961–1967. Edited by Itzhaq Eshel and Kay Prag. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Holmstedt, Robert. 2013. “The Grammar of ‫ ׁש‬and ‫ אׁשר‬in Qohelet.” Pages 283–307 in The Words of the Wise Are like Goads: Engaging Qohelet in the 21st Century. Edited by Mark J. Boda, Tremper Longman III, and Cristian G. Rata. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Hommel, Fritz. 1879. Die Namen der Säugetiere bei den südsemitischen Völkern. Leipzig: Hinrichs. Hong, Kyu Sik. 2007. “An Exegetical Reading of the Abraham Narrative in Genesis: Semantic, Textuality and Theology.” PhD diss., University of Pretoria. Hornkohl, Aaron D. 2014. Ancient Hebrew Periodization and the Language of the Book of Jeremiah: The Case for a Sixth-​Century Date of Composition. SSLL 74. Leiden: Brill. Horowitz, Wayne. 1998. Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography. MC 8. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. ———. 2008. “ ‘The Ship of the Desert, the Donkey of the Sea’: The Camel in Early Mesopotamia Revisited.” Pages 597–612 in vol. 2 of Birkat Shalom: Studies in the Bible, Ancient Near Eastern Literature, and Postbiblical Judaism Presented to Shalom M. Paul on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday. 2 vols. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. ———. 2014. “ ‘Sweeter Than Camel’s Milk’: The Camel in Sumerian, the Bactrian Camel in Genesis?” Bible Lands e-​Review 2014/S3. https://​biblelandsreview​.files​ .wordpress​.com​/2014​/05​/horowitz​-bler​-2014​-s3​.pdf. Horwitz, Liora K., Daniel M. Master, and Hadas Motro. 2017. “A Middle Bronze Age Equid from Ashkelon: A Case of Ritual Interment or Refuse Disposal?” Pages 271– 96 in The Wide Lens in Archaeology: Honoring Brian Hesse’s Contributions to Anthropological Archaeology. Edited by Justin Lev-​Tov, Paula Hesse, and Allan Gilbert. Atlanta: Lockwood. Horwitz, Liora K., and B. Rosen. 2005. “A Review of Camel Milking in the Southern Levant.” Pages 121–31 in The Zooarchaeology of Fats, Oils, Milk and Dairying: Proceedings of the 9th Conference of the International Council of Archaeozoology, Durham, August 2002. Edited by J. Mulville and A. K. Outram. Oxford: Oxbow. Houghton, William. 1889. “Was the Camel Known to the Early Egyptians?” Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology 12:81–84. Houlihan, Patrick F. 1996. The Animal World of the Pharaohs. Cairo: American University in Cairo Press. ———. 2002. “Animals in Egyptian Art and Hieroglyphs.” Pages 97–143 in A History of the Animal World in the Ancient Near East. Edited by Billie Jean Collins. HdO 1/64. Leiden: Brill. Howard-​Carter, Theresa. 1983. “Kuwait.” RlA 6:389–97.

348

Bibliography

Hoyland, Robert G. 2001. Arabia and the Arabs: From the Bronze Age to the Coming of Islam. London: Routledge. Huehnergard, John. 2015. “Biblical Hebrew Nominal Patterns.” Pages 25–64 in Epigraphy, Philology, and the Hebrew Bible: Methodological Perspectives on Philological and Comparative Study of the Hebrew Bible in Honor of Jo Ann Hackett. Edited by Jeremy M. Hutton and Aaron D. Rubin. Ancient Near Eastern Monographs 12. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. Huffmon, Herbert B. 1965. Amorite Personal Names in the Mari Texts. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Hugo, Philippe. 2010. “Text History of the Books of Samuel: An Assessment of the Recent Research.” Pages 1–19 in Archaeology of the Books of Samuel: The Entangling of the Textual and Literary History. Edited by Adrian Schenker and Philippe Hugo. VTSup 132. Leiden: Brill. Hurvitz, Avi. 2000. “Once Again: The Linguistic Profile of the Priestly Material in the Pentateuch and Its Historical Age; A Response to J. Blenkinsopp.” ZAW 112:180–91. ———. 2014. A Concise Lexicon of Late Biblical Hebrew: Linguistic Innovations in the Writings of the Second Temple Period. VTSup 160. Leiden: Brill. Huyge, Dirk. 2003. “Grandeur in Confined Spaces: Current Rock Art Research in Egypt.” Pages 59–73 in Rock Art Studies: Developments in Rock Art Research, 1995–1999. Edited by Paul G. Bahn and Angelo Fossati. Oxford: Oxbow. Ibrahim, Moawiyah M., and Gerrit van der Kooij. 1983. “Excavations at Tell Deir ‘Alla, Season 1982.” Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 27:577–85. Ingen, Wilhelmina van. 1939. Figurines from Seleucia on the Tigris Discovered by the Expeditions Conducted by the University of Michigan with the Cooperation of the Toledo Museum of Art and the Cleveland Museum of Art, 1927–1932. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Ingraham, Michael Lloyd, et al. 1981. “Saudi Arabian Comprehensive Survey Program: C. Preliminary Report on a Reconnaissance Survey of the Northwestern Province (with a Note on a Brief Survey of the Northern Province).” Atlal 5:59–84; plates 78–80. Intilia, Andrea. 2016. “Qurayyah Painted Ware: A Reassessment of 40 Years of Research on Its Origins, Chronology and Distribution.” Pages 175–255 in The Archaeology of North Arabia: Oases and Landscapes; Proceedings of the International Congress Held at the University of Vienna, 5–8 December, 2013. Edited by Marta Luciani. Oriental and European Archaeology 4. Vienna: Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Irwin, Robert. 2010. Camel. London: Reaktion Books. Jabbur, Jibrail S. 1995. The Bedouins and the Desert: Aspects of Nomadic Life in the Arab East. Translated by Lawrence I. Conrad. SUNY Series in Near Eastern Studies. Albany: State University of New York Press. Jacob, Benno. 1934. Das erste Buch der Tora: Genesis. Berlin: Schocken. Jacob, Irene, and Walter Jacob. 1992. “Flora.” ABD 2:803–17. Jacobsen, Thorkild. 1983. “Lad in the Desert.” JAOS 103:193–200. Jacobson-​Tepfer, Esther. 2006. “The Rock Art of Mongolia.” Silk Road 4:5–13. ———. 2012. “Rock Art Research in Mongolia, 2005–2009.” Pages 164–95 in Rock Art Studies: News of the World IV. Edited by Paul Bahn, Natalie Franklin, and Matthias Strecker. Oxford: Oxbow.

Bibliography

349

James, Thomas G. H. 1954. “Two Egyptian Plastic Objects of the New Kingdom.” British Museum Quarterly 19:16–17. Jantzen, Heinz. 2009. “Das Dromedar im Spiegel archäologischer Quellen.” Alter Orient aktuell 9/10:10–14. Japhet, Sara. 1993. I and II Chronicles: A Commentary. Old Testament Library. London: SCM. Jarrige, Jean-​François, and Jean-​François Enault. 1976. “Fouilles de Pirak—Baluchistan.” Arts asiatiques 32:29–70. Jarrige, Jean-​François, and Marielle Santoni. 1979. Fouilles de Pirak. 2 vols. Fouilles du Pakistan 2. Paris: de Boccard. Jasim, Sabah Abboud. 1999. “The Excavation of a Camel Cemetery at Mleiha, Sharjah, U.A.E.” AAE 10:69–101. Jasmin, Michaël. 2006. “The Emergence and First Development of the Arabian Trade Across the Wadi Arabah.” Pages 143–50 in Crossing the Rift: Resources, Routes, Settlement Patterns and Interaction in the Wadi Arabah. Edited by Piotr Bienkowski and Katharina Galor. Levant Supplementary Series 3. Oxford: Oxbow. Jastrow, Marcus. 1992. A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature. Repr., New York: Judaica Press. Jennings, Richard P., et al. 2013. “Rock Art Landscapes Beside the Jubbah Palaeolake, Saudi Arabia.” Antiquity 87:666–83. ———. 2014. “High-​Resolution Geospatial Surveying Techniques Provide New Insights into Rock-​Art Landscapes at Shuwaymis, Saudi Arabia.” AAE 25:1–21. Jensen, Peter C. A. 1895. “Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen Denkmälern: Erörterungen zu dem gleichnamigen Buche von W. Max Müller.” ZA 10:320–76. Jericke, Detlef. 2013. Die Ortsangaben im Buch Genesis: Ein historisch-​ topographischer und literarisch-​topographischer Kommentar. FRLANT 248. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Ji, R., et al. 2009. “Monophyletic Origin of Domestic Bactrian Camel (Camelus bactrianus) and Its Evolutionary Relationship with the Extant Wild Camel (Camelus bactrianus ferus).” Animal Genetics 40:377–82. Johnstone, Thomas M. 1987. Mehri Lexicon and English Mehri Word List. London: School of Oriental and African Studies. Jongeling, Karel. 2008. Handbook of Neo-​Punic Inscriptions. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Joosten, Jan. 2007. “The Original Language and Historical Milieu of the Book of Judith.” Pages *159–*176 in Meghillot: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls; A Festschrift for Devorah Dimant. Edited by Moshe Bar-​Asher and Emanuel Tov. Haifa: University of Haifa. ———. 2012a. “Abram and Sarai in Egypt (Genesis 12:10–20).” Babel und Bibel 6:369–81. ———. 2012b. Review of Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts: An Introduction to Approaches and Problems, by Ian Young and Robert Rezetko. Babel und Bibel 6:535–42. ———. 2019. “The Linguistic Dating of the Joseph Story.” Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel 8:24–43. Joüon, Paul. 2008. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Translated and revised by Takamitsu Muraoka. 2nd ed. Subisida Biblica 27. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute.

350

Bibliography

Jung, Michael. 1994. “A Map of Southern Yemeni Rock Art with Notes on Some of the Subjects Depicted.” PSAS 24:135–56. Junge, Friedrich. 1999. Neuägyptisch: Einführung in die Grammatik. 2nd ed. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Jurgens, Blake A. 2018. “A Wandering Aramean in Pharaoh’s Court: The Literary Relationship Between Abram’s Sojourn in Egypt in 1QapGen 19–20 and Jewish Fictional Literature.” JSJ 49:356–89. Jursa, Michael. 2009. “Die Kralle des Meeres und andere Aromata.” Pages 147–80 in Philologisches und Historisches zwischen Anatolien und Sokotra: Analecta Semitica In Memoriam Alexander Sima. Edited by Werner Arnold et al. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ———. 2010. Aspects of the Economic History of Babylonia in the First Millennium BC: Economic Geography, Economic Mentalities, Agriculture, the Use of Money and the Problem of Economic Growth. AOAT 377. Münster: Ugarit-​Verlag. Kadim, I. T., et al. 2014. “Potential of Camel Meat as a Nontraditional High Quality Source of Protein for Human Consumption.” Animal Frontiers 4:13–17. Kahil, Lilly. 1972. “Un nouveau vase plastique du potier Sotadès au musée du Louvre.” Revue Archéologique NS 2:271–84. Kaiser, Werner. 1967. Ägyptisches Museum Berlin, östlicher Stülerbau am Schloss Charlottenburg. Berlin: Staatliche Museen; Preussischer Kulturbesitz. Kalimi, Isaac. 2015. “The Key Methods of Targum Chronicles.” Pages 177–99 in Visions of Life in Biblical Times: Essays in Honor of Meir Lubetski. Edited by Claire Gottlieb, Chaim Cohen, and Mayer Gruber. Hebrew Bible Monographs 76. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix. Kaminski, Gabrielle. 2006. “Busiris, Memnon und Andromeda: Aspekte des Fremdenbildes der Griechen in vorptolemäischer Zeit.” Pages 104–13 (text) and 491–97 (catalogue) in Ägypten Griechenland Rom: Abwehr und Berührung: Städelsches Kunstinstitut und Städtische Galerie, 26 November 2005–26. Februar 2006. Edited by Herbert Beck. Frankfurt am Main: Liebig-​Haus, Museum alter Plastik. Kammerzell, Frank. 2001. “Die Entstehung der Alphabetreihe: Zum ägyptischen Ursprung der semitischen und westlichen Schriften.” Pages 117–58 in Hieroglyphen, Alphabete, Schriftreformen: Studien zu Multiliteralismus, Schriftwechsel und Orthographieneuregelungen. Edited by Dörte Borchers, Frank Kammerzell, and Stefan Weninger. Lingua Aegytia Studia monographica 3. Göttingen: Seminar für Ägyptologie und Koptologie. Kamrin, Janice. 2013. “The Procession of ‘Asiatics’ at Beni Hasan.” Pages 156–69 of Cultures in Contact: From Mesopotamia to the Mediterranean in the Second Millennium BC. Edited by Joan Aruz, Sarah B. Graff, and Yelena Rakic. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art. Karaghiorga, Theodora. 1969. “Die Göttin auf dem Kamel.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Athenische Abteilung 84:87–102. Karrer, Martin, and Wolfgang Kraus, eds. 2011. Septuaginta Deutsch: Erläuterungen und Kommentare zum griechischen Alten Testament. 2 vols. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft. Karvonen-​Kannas, Kerttu. 1995. The Seleucid and Parthian Terracotta Figurines from Babylon in the Iraq Museum, the British Museum and the Louvre. Monografie di Mesopotamia 4. Firenze: Casa Editrice Le Lettere.

Bibliography

351

Kaske, M., et al. 1989. “Circadian Changes of Forestomach Motility and of Rumination in Camels.” Asian-​Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 2:301–2. Kass, Leon R. 2003. The Beginning of Wisdom: Reading Genesis. New York: Free Press. Kataja, Laura, and Robert Whiting. 1995. Grants, Decrees and Gifts of the Neo-​ Assyrian Period. SAA 12. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press. Kautzsch, Emil. 1909. Wilhelm Gesenius’ Hebräische Grammatik. 28th ed. Leipzig: Vogel. Keel, Othmar, and Thomas Staubli, eds. 2001. “Im Schatten Deiner Flügel”: Tiere in der Bibel und im Alten Orient. Fribourg: Universitätsverlag. Keimer, Ludwig. 1929. “Bemerkungen und Lesefrüchte zur altägyptischen Naturgeschichte.” Kêmi 2:84–106. Kelhoffer, James A. 2004. “Did John the Baptist Eat Like a Former Essene? Locust-​ Eating in the Ancient Near East and at Qumran.” Dead Sea Discoveries 11:293–314. ———. 2005. The Diet of John the Baptist: “Locusts and Wild Honey” in Synoptic and Patristic Interpretation. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 176. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Kerr, Robert. 1792. The Animal Kingdom, or Zoological System, of the Celebrated Sir Charles Linnaeus: Class I: Mammalia. Edinburgh: Creech. Kertesz, Trude. 1989. “Terracottas and Worked Bone Artifacts.” Pages 361–64 in Excavations at Tel Michal, Israel. Edited by Ze’ev Herzog, George Rapp Jr., and Ora Negbi. PIA 8. Tel Aviv: Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology; Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Kessler, Karlheinz. 1992. “Rinder aus dem Meerland: Eine kassitische Urkunde vom Tell Kirbāsi.” ZA 82:92–97. ———. 1997. “Muṣri I, Muṣri II.” RlA 8:497. Khalil, Samir. 1978. “Note sur le fonds sémitique commun de l’expression ‘un chameau passant par le trou d’une aiguille.’ ” Arabica 25:89–94. Khan, Majeed. 1998. “A Critical Review of Rock Art Studies in Saudi Arabia.” East and West 48:427–37. ———. 2007. Rock Art of Saudi Arabia Across Twelve Thousand Years. Riyadh: Deputy Ministry of Antiquities and Museums. Khanvilkar, A. V., S. R. Samant, and B. N. Ambore. 2009. “Reproduction in Camel.” Veterinary World 2:72–73. Khouri, Lamia S. el-. 2002. The Nabataean Terracotta Figurines. BARIS 1034. Oxford: Archaeopress. Khoury, Raif G. 2001. “Camel.” Pages 286–87 in vol. 1 of Encyclopaedia of Qurʾān. Edited by Jane Dammen McAuliffe. Leiden: Brill. Kimchi, David. 1847. ‫ספר השרשים‬: Radicum Liber sive Hebraeum Bibliorum Lexicon. Edited by Johann H. R. Biesenthal and Fürchtegott Lebrecht. Berlin: Bethge. Kimura, Brigitte, et al. 2011. “Ancient DNA from Nubian and Somali Wild Ass Provides Insights into Donkey Ancestry and Domestication.” Proceedings of the Royal Society: Biological Sciences 278:50–57. DOI: 10​.1098​/rspb​.2010​.0708. King, Geoffrey. 2009. “Camels and Arabian balîya and Other Forms of Sacrifice: A Review of Archaeological and Literary Evidence.” AAE 20:81–93. Kinne, Joerg, et al. 2010. “Is There a Two-​Humped Stage in the Embryonic Development of the Dromedary?” Anatomia Histologia Embryologia 39:479–80.

352

Bibliography

Kirtcho, L. B. 2009. “The Earliest Wheeled Transport in Southwestern Central Asia: New Finds from Altyn-​Depe.” Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 37:25–33. Kitchell, Kenneth F., Jr. 2014. Animals in the Ancient World from A to Z. London: Routledge. Kitchen, Kenneth A. 1986. The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100–650 BC). 2nd ed. with supplement. Warminster: Aris & Phillips. ———. 2004. “The Victories of Merenptah, and the Nature of Their Record.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 28:259–72. ———. 2010. “External Textual Sources—Early Arabia.” Pages 381–83 in The Book of Kings: Sources, Composition, Historiography and Reception. Edited by André Lemaire and Baruch Halpern. VTSup 129. Leiden: Brill. ———. 2017. “The Levant Campaign of Shoshenq I (945–24 BCE).” COS 4.3:14–18. Kleiman, Sabine, Assaf Kleiman, and Erez Ben-​Yosef. 2017. “Metalworkers’ Material Culture in the Early Iron Age Levant: The Ceramic Assemblage from Site 34 (Slaves’ Hill) in the Timna Valley.” TA 44:232–64. Klein, Ernest. 1987. A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language for Readers of English. Jerusalem: Carta. Klein, Jakob, and Yitschak Sefati. 2008. “ ‘Secular’ Love Songs in Mesopotamian Literature.” Pages 613–26 in vol. 2 of Birkat Shalom: Studies in the Bible, Ancient Near Eastern Literature, and Postbiblical Judaism Presented to Shalom M. Paul on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday. Edited by Chaim Cohen et al. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Klein, Michael J. 1988. Untersuchungen zu den kaiserlichen Steinbrüchen an Mons Porphyrites und Mons Claudianus in der östlichen Wüste Ägyptens. Bonn: Habelt. Klein, Ralph W. 1983. 1 Samuel. WBC 10. Waco, TX: Word. ———. 2006. 1 Chronicles: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress. ———. 2012. 2 Chronicles: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress. Kleinitz, Cornelia. 2007. “Rock Art Landscapes of the Fourth Nile Cataract: Characterisations and First Comparisons.” Pages 213–34 and pls. 55–61 in Proceedings of the Second International Conference on the Archaeology of the Fourth Nile Cataract. Edited by Claudia Näser and Mathias Lange. Meroitica 23. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Klengel-​Brandt, Evelyn. 1978. Die Terrakotten aus Assur im Vorderasiatischen Museum Berlin. Berlin: VEB. Kletter, Raz. 1991. “The Inscribed Weights of the Kingdom of Judah.” TA 18:121–63. ———. 2004. “Chronology and United Monarchy: A Methodological Review.” ZDPV 120:13–54. ———. 2015. “Zoomorphic Vessels.” Pages 85–88 in Yavneh II: The “Temple Hill” Repository Pit. Edited by Raz Kletter, Irit Ziffer, and Wolfgang Zwickel. OBO Series Archaeologica 36. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht; Fribourg: Academic Press. Kletter, Raz, and K. Saarelainen. 2014. “Horses and Riders and Riders and Horses.” Pages 197–224 in Family and Household Religion: Toward a Synthesis of Old Testament Studies, Archaeology, Epigraphy, and Cultural Studies. Edited by Rainer Abertz et al. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Klotz, David. 2015. “Darius I and the Sabaeans: Ancient Partners in Red Sea Navigation.” JNES 74:267–80.

Bibliography

353

Knauf, Ernst Axel. 1986. “Die Herkunft der Nabatäer.” Pages 74–86 in Petra: Neue Ausgrabungen und Entdeckungen. Edited by Manfred Lindner. Munich: Delp. ———. 1987. “Supplementa Ismaelitica: (11) Exodus 4,24–26, Philo Byblius 2,33 und der kanaanäisch-​städtische Hintergrund ‘jahwistischer’ Überlieferungen; (12) Camels in Late Bronze and Iron Age Jordan; The Archaeological Evidence.” Biblische Notizen 40:16–23. ———. 1988. Midian: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Palästinas und Nordarabiens am Ende des 2. Jahrtausends v.Chr. ADPV 10. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ———. 1989. Ismael: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Palästinas und Nordarabiens im 1. Jahrtausend v.Chr. 2nd ed. ADPV 7. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Knoppers, Gary N. 2003. 1 Chronicles 1–9: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 12. New York: Doubleday. ———. 2004. 1 Chronicles 10–29: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 12A. New York: Doubleday. Knospe, Clemens, et al. 2012. “Embryonic Hump Development and Ancestry in Old World Camels.” Pages 37–42 in Camels in Asia and North Africa: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Their Past and Present Significance. Edited by Eva-​Maria Knoll and Pamela Burger. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften: Philosophisch-​ Historische Klasse, Denkschriften 451. Veröffentlichungen zur Sozialanthropologie 18. Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Knudtzon, J. A., ed. 1915. Die El-​Amarna Tafeln. 2 vols. Leipzig: Hinrichs. Kobayashi, Yoshitaka. 1992. “Haran.” ABD 3:58–59. Koehl, Robert B. 2013. “Bibru and Rhyton: Zoomorphic Vessels in the Near East and Aegean.” Pages 238–47 in Cultures in Contact: From Mesopotamia to the Mediterranean in the Second Millennium BC. Edited by Joan Aruz, Sarah B. Graff, and Yelena Rakic. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art. Kohl, Philip L. 1984. “Central Asia (Western Turkestan): Neolithic to the Early Iron.” Pages 179–95 in vol. 1 of Chronologies in Old World Archaeology. Edited by Robert W. Ehrich. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ———. 2007. The Making of Bronze Age Eurasia. Cambridge World Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kohl, Philip L., and Bertille Lyonnet. 2008. “By Land and By Sea: The Circulation of Materials and Peoples, ca. 3500–1800 B.C.” Pages 29–42 in Intercultural Relations Between South and Southwest Asia: Studies in Commemoration of E. C. L. During Caspers (1934–1996). Edited by Eric Olijdam and Richard H. Spoor. BARIS 1826. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Köhler, Ilse. 1981. “Zur Domestikation des Kamels.” Vet. med. diss., Tierärztliche Hochschule. Köhler, Ludwig. 1909. “Beobachtungen am hebräischen und griechischen Text von Jeremia Kap. 1–9.” ZAW 29:1–39. ———. 1940. “Hebräische Vokabeln III.” ZAW 58:228–34. Köhler-​Rollefson, Ilse. 1991. “Camelus Dromedarius.” Mammalian Species 375:1–8. ———. 1992. “The Raika Dromedary Breeders of Rajasthan: A Pastoral System in Crisis.” Nomadic Peoples 30:74–83. Köhler-​Rollefson, Ilse, Hanwant Singh Rathore, and Aisha Rollefson. 2013. The Camels of Kumbhalgarh: A Biodiversity Treasure. Rajastan: Lokhit Pashu-​Palak Sansthan. Kolendo, Jerzy. 1969. “Épigraphie et archéologie: Le praepositus camellorum dans une inscription d’Ostie.” Klio 51:287–98.

354

Bibliography

Kolpakow, Viktor N. 1935a. “Das turkmenische Kamel.” Berliner Tierärztliche Wochenschrift 51:570–73. ———. 1935b. “Über Kamelkreuzungen.” Berliner Tierärztliche Wochenschrift 51:617–22. König, Friedrich Eduard. 1897. Historisch-​kritisches Lehrgebäude der hebräischen Sprache. Vol. 2.2. Leipzig: Hinrich. ———. 1925. Die Genesis: Eingeleitet, übersetzt und erklärt. 2nd and 3rd eds. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann. Kooij, Gerrit van der, and Moawiyah M. Ibrahim, eds. 1989. Picking up the Threads: A Continuing Review of Excavations at Deir Alla, Jordan. Leiden: University of Leiden, Archaeological Centre. Kootstra, Fokelien. 2016. “The Language of the Taymanitic Inscriptions and Its Classification.” AEN 2:67–140. ———. 2017. “The Taymanitic Onomasticon.” AAE 28:254–63. Kopf, Lothar. 1958. “Arabische Etymologien und Parallelen zum Bibelwörterbuch.” VT 8:161–215. Köpp, Heidi. 2013. “Desert Travel and Transport in Ancient Egypt: An Overview Based on Epigraphic, Pictorial and Archaeological Evidence.” Pages 107–32 in Desert Road Archaeology in Ancient Egypt and Beyond. Edited by H. Riemer and F. Förster. Africa Praehistorica 27. Cologne: Heinrich-​Barth-​Institut. Köpp-​Junk, Heidi. 2015. Reisen im Alten Ägypten: Reisekultur, Fortbewegungs- und Transportmittel in pharaonischer Zeit. Göttinger Orientforschungen 4. Reihe: Ägypten 55. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Krall, Jakob. 1897. Ein neuer historischer Roman in demotischer Schrift (Nach einem auf dem Orientalisten-​Congresse in Genf am 10. September 1894 gehaltenen Vortrage). Mitteilungen aus der Papyrussammlung der österreichischen Nationalbibliothek (Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer) 6. Vienna: Staatsdruckerei. Kramer, Samuel N. 1963. “Cuneiform Studies and the History of Literature: The Sumerian Sacred Marriage Texts.” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 107:485–527. Krauss, Samuel. 1910. Talmudische Archäologie. 3 vols. Repr., Hildesheim: Olms, 1966. Krebernik, Manfred. 2008. “Von Gindibu bis Muhammad: Stand, Probleme und Aufgaben altorientalisch-​arabistischer Philologie.” Pages 247–79 in Studien zur Semitistik und Arabistik: Festschrift für Hartmut Bobzin zum 60. Geburtstag. Edited by Otto Jastrow, Shabo Talay, and Herta Hafenrichter. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Krotkoff, Georg. 1992. “Hammer-​Purgstalls Schrift ‘Das Kamel.’ ” Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 82:261–68. Krückmann, Oluf. 1933. Neubabylonische Rechts- und Verwaltungstexte: Autographiert und mit Inventarverzeichnis und Namenlisten versehen. Leipzig: Hinrichs. Kuhn, Karl Heinz. 1957. “The Sahidic Version of the Testament of Isaac.” Journal of Theological Studies NS 8:225–39. ———. 1967. “An English Translation of the Sahidic Version of the Testament of Isaac.” Journal of Theological Studies NS 18:325–36. Kühne, Hartmut. 2009. “Interaction of Aramaeans and Assyrians on the Lower Khabur.” Syria 86:43–54. DOI: 10​.4000​/syria​.509. Kuhrt, Amélie. 1999. “The Exploitation of the Camel in the Neo-​Assyrian Empire.” Pages 179–84 in Studies on Ancient Egypt in Honour of H. S. Smith. Edited by Anthony Leahy and John Tait. London: Occasional Publications of the Egypt Exploration Society. London: Egypt Exploration Society.

Bibliography

355

Kumar, Sajjan. 2014. Domestication of Animals in Harappan Civilization. New Delhi: Research India Press. Kuz’mina, Elena E. 2007. The Origin of the Indo-​Iranians. Edited by by James P. Mallory. Leiden Indo-​European Etymological Dictionary Series 3. Leiden: Brill. ———. 2008. The Prehistory of the Silk Road. Edited by by Victor H. Mair. Encounters with Asia. Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press. Kwasman, Theodore, and Simo Parpola. 1991. Legal Transactions of the Royal Court of Nineveh, Part 1: Tiglath-​pileser III Through Esarhaddon. SAA 6. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press. Lafont, Bertrand. 2020. “Note sur les chameaux bactriens attestés à Sumer.” Pages 59–64 in Les vaisseaux du désert et des steppes: Les camélidés dans l’Antiquité (Camelus dromedarius et Camelus bactrianus). Edited by D. Agut-​Labordère and B. Redon. Lyon: MOM (Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée). Lagarde, Paul de, ed. 1879. Praetermissorum libri duo. Göttingen: Dieterich. Lamberg-​Karlovsky, G. C. 1969. “Further Notes on the Shaft-​Hole Pick-​Axe from Khurāb, Makrān.” Iran 7:163–68. Lambert, Wilfred G. 1960a. Babylonian Wisdom Literature. Oxford: Clarendon. ———. 1960b. “The Domesticated Camel in the Second Millennium—Evidence from Alalakh and Ugarit.” BASOR 160:42–43. Lampe, Geoffrey W. H. 1968. A Patristic Greek Lexicon. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lamsa, George M. 1964. Gospel Light: An Indispensable Guide to the Teachings of Jesus and the Customs of His Time. San Francisco: Harper & Row. Lancaster, William, and Fidelity Lancaster. 2011. “A Discussion of Rock Carvings in Ra’s al Khaimah Emirate, UAE, and Musandam Province, Sultanate of Oman, Using Local Considerations.” AAE 22:166–95. Landsberger, Benno. 1934. Die Fauna des alten Mesopotamien nach der 14. Tafel der Serie ḪAR-​RA = ḪUBULLU. Abhandlungen der philologisch-​historischen Klasse der sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 42.6. Leipzig: Hirzel. Landsberger, Benno, and Gurney, Oliver R. 1957–1958. “Practical Vocabulary of Assur.” AfO 18:328–41. Lane, Edward William. 1863–1893. An Arabic English Lexicon in Eight Parts. London: Williams & Norgate. Repr., Beirut: Libraire du Liban, 1980. Lanfranchi, Giovanni B., and Simo Parpola. 1990. The Correspondence of Sargon II, Part II: Letters from the Northern and Northeastern Provinces. SAA 5. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press. Langlois, Michael. 2019. “The Kings, the City and the House of David on the Mesha Stele in Light of New Imaging Techniques.” Semitica 61:23–47. Lauinger, Jacob. 2005. “Epigraphic Finds from the Oriental Institute’s 2003 Excavations at Alalakh.” JNES 64:53–58. Laursen, Steffen, and Piotr Steinkeller. 2017. Babylonia, the Gulf Region and the Indus: Archaeological and Textual Evidence for Contact in the Third and Early Second Millennia BC. MC 21. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Leclant, Jean, and Gisèle Clerc. 1995. “Fouilles et travaux en Égypte et au Soudan, 1993–1994.” Or 64:225–355. Leemans, Wilhelmus F. 1950. The Old Babylonian Merchant, His Business, and His Social Position. Studia et Documenta ad iura orientis antiqui pertinentia 3. Leiden: Brill.

356

Bibliography

———. 1972. “Handel. A. Mesopotamien.” RlA 4:76–90. Lefébure, E. 1907. “Le chameau en Égypte.” Pages 24–62 in Actes du XIVe congrès international des orientalistes Alger 1905. Part 2, section 7: Archéologie africaine et art musulman. Paris: Leroux. Legel, Siegfried, ed. 1990. Büffel, Kamele, Schafe, Ziegen, Wildtiere. Vol. 2 of Nutztiere der Tropen. Leipzig: Hirzel. Legrain, Léon. 1930. Terra-​Cottas from Nippur. Publications of the Babylonian Section 16. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Lehmann, Winfred P. 1986. A Gothic Etymological Dictionary: Based on the Third Edition of Vergleichendes Wörterbuch der gotischen Sprache by Sigmund Feist. Leiden: Brill. Lemaire, André. 2002. “La reine de Saba à Jérusalem: La tradition ancienne reconsidérée.” Pages 43–55 in Kein Land für sich allein: Studien zum Kulturkontakt in Kanaan, Israel/Palästina und Ebirnâri für Manfred Weippert zum 65. Geburtstag. Edited by Ulrich Hübner, and Ernst A. Knauf. OBO 186. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht ; Fribourg: Universitätsverlag. ———. 2007. “West Semitic Inscriptions and Ninth-​Century BCE Ancient Israel.” Pages 279–303 in Understanding the History of Ancient Israel. Edited by H. G. M. Williamson. Proceedings of the British Academy 143. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ———. 2009. “Tribute or Looting in Samaria and Jerusalem: Shoshenq in Jerusalem?” Pages 167–77 in Homeland and Exile: Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honour of Bustenay Oded. Edited by Gershon Galil, Mark Geller, and Alan Millard. VTSup 130. Leiden: Brill. ———. 2014. “The Queen of Sheba and the Trade Between South Arabia and Judah.” Pages xi–xxxiii in A Collection of Studies Dedicated to Prof. Yosef Tobi on the Occasion of His Retirement. Vol. 6 of Ben ʿEver La-ʿArav: Contacts Between Arabic Literature and Jewish Literature in the Middle Ages and Modern Times. Edited by Ali A. Hussein and Ayelet Oettinger. Haifa: Faculty of Humanities. ———. 2015a. “Balm/Basalm in a Hebrew Ostracon from the Kaufman Collection.” Pages 97–105 in Recording New Epigraphic Evidence: Essays in Honor of Robert Deutsch on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday. Edited by Meir Lubetski and Edith Lubetski. Jerusalem: Leshon Limudim. ———. 2015b. “Le ḥérem guerrier et sa transgression des deux côtés du Jourdain.” Pages 83–98 of Tabou et transgressions: Actes du colloque organisé par le Collège de France, Paris, les 11–12 avril 2012. Edited by Jean-​Marie Durand, Michaël Guichard, and Thomas Römer. OBO 274. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht; Fribourg: Universitätsverlag. ———. 2015c. “Queen or Delegation of Saba to Solomon?” Pages 191–96 in New Perspectives on Old Testament Prophecy and History: Essays in Honour of Hans M. Barstad. Edited by Rannfrid I. Thelle, Terje Stordalen, and Mervyn E. J. Richardson. VTSup 168. Leiden: Brill. ———. 2017. “Alphabetic Writing in the Mediterranean World: Transmission and Appropriation.” Pages 103–15 of Cultural Contact and Appropriation in the Axial-​ Age Mediterranean World. Edited by Baruch Halpern and Kenneth S. Sacks. CHANE 86. Leiden: Brill. Lenzen, Heinrich J. 1960. “Die Kleinfunde.” Pages 43–46 in XVI. vorläufiger Bericht über die von dem Deutschen Archäologischen Institut und der Deutschen

Bibliography

357

Orient-​Gesellschaft aus Mitteln der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft unternommenen Ausgrabungen in Uruk-​Warka; Winter 1957/58. ADOG 5. Berlin: Mann. ———. 1968. “Die Kleinfunde.” Pages 22–38 in XXIV. vorläufiger Bericht über die von dem Deutschen Archäologischen Institut und der Deutschen Orient-​Gesellschaft aus Mitteln der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft unternommenen Ausgrabungen in Uruk-​Warka; Winter 1965/66. ADOG 13. Berlin: Mann. Lenzen, Heinrich J., and Hans J. Schmidt. 1967. “Die Kleinfunde.” Pages 40–49 in XXIII. vorläufiger Bericht über die von dem Deutschen Archäologischen Institut und der Deutschen Orient-​Gesellschaft aus Mitteln der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft unternommenen Ausgrabungen in Uruk-​Warka; Winter 1965. ADOG 12. Berlin: Mann. Leone, Aurora. 1988. Gli animali da trasporto nell’Egitto greco, romano e bizantino. Papyrologica castroctaviana 12. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. Lepetz, Sébastien, and Jean-​Hervé Yvinec. 2002. “Présence d’espèces animales d’origine méditerranéenne en France du Nord pendant aux périodes romaines et médiévale: Actions anthropiques et mouvements naturels.” Pages 33–42 in Mouvements ou déplacements de populations animales en Méditerranée au cours de l’Holocène. Edited by Armelle Gardeisen. BARIS 1017. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Lernau, Hanan. 1978. “Faunal Remains, Strata III–I.” Pages 83–113 in First–Fifth Seasons of Excavations, 1962–1966. Vol. 1 of Early Arad: The Chalcolithic Settlement and Early Bronze City. Edited by Ruth Amiran. Judean Desert Studies. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Lesbre, M. François-​Xavier. 1903. Recherches anatomiques sur les camélidés. Lyon: George. Lesemann, Sven. 2016. “Und Gideon starb in einem guten Greisenalter”: Untersuchungen zu den hebräischen und griechischen Texttraditionen in Ri 6–8 unter Einbeziehung des jüdisch-​hellenistischen und frühen rabbinischen Schrifttums. De Septuaginta Investigationes 6. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck. Leslau, Wolf. 1990. Arabic Loanwords in Ethiopian Semitic. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ———. 1991. A Comparative Dictionary of Ge‘ez. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Lev, Efraim, and Zohar Amar. 2008. Practical Materia Medica of the Medieval Eastern Mediterranean According to the Cairo Genizah. Leiden: Brill. Levin, Christoph. 1993. Der Jahwist. FRLANT 157. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ———. 2014. “Abraham in Ägypten (Gen 12,10–20).” Pages 109–21 in Vom Leben umfangen: Ägypten, das Alte Testament und das Gespräch der Religionen; Gedenkschrift Manfred Görg. Edited by Stefan Wimmer and Georg Gafus. AOAT 80. Münster: Ugarit-​Verlag. Levin, Yigael. 2012. “The Identification of Khirbet Qeiyafa: A New Suggestion.” BASOR 367:73–86. Lev-​Tov, Justin S. E., Benjamin W. Porter, and Bruce E. Routledge. 2011. “Measuring Local Diversity in Early Iron Age Animal Economies: A View from Khirbat al-Mudayna al-‘Aliya (Jordan).” BASOR 361:67–93. Levy, Jacob. 1924. Wörterbuch über die Talmudim und Midraschim. 4 vols. Berlin: Harz. Levy, Thomas E., Thomas Schneider, and William H. C. Propp, eds. 2015. Israel’s Exodus in Transdisciplinary Perspective: Text, Archaeology, Culture, and Geoscience. Quantitative Methods in the Humanities and Social Sciences. New York: Springer.

358

Bibliography

Lewis, Theodore J. 1999. “Teraphim.” DDD, 844–50. Lewy, Heinrich. 1895. Die semitischen Fremdwörter im Griechischen. Berlin: Gaertners. Lichtenberger, Achim. 2017. Terrakotten aus Beit Nattif: Eine Untersuchung zur religiösen Alltagspraxis im spätantiken Judäa. Contextualizing the Sacred 7. Turnhout: Brepols. Linné, Carl von. 1758. Systema Naturae per regna tria naturae, secundum classes, ordines, genera, species, cum characteribus, differentiis, synonymis, locis. Vol. 1. 10th ed. Stockholm: Laurentii Salvii. ———. 1766. Systema Naturae per regna tria naturae, secundum classes, ordines, genera, species, cum characteribus, differentiis, synonymis, locis. Vol. 1. 12th ed. Stockholm: Laurentii Salvii. Lipiński, Edward. 2000. The Aramaeans: Their Ancient History, Culture, Religion. OLA 100. Leuven: Peeters. ———. 2018. A History of the Kingdom of Israel. OLA 275. Leuven: Peeters. Lipschits, Oded, Thomas Römer, and Hervé Gonzales. 2017. “The Pre-​Priestly Abraham Narratives from Monarchic to Persian Times.” Semitica 59:261–96. Liverani, Mario. 1992. “Early Caravan Trade Between South-​Arabia and Mesopotamia.” Yemen 1:111–15. ———. 2006. “Imperialismo, colonizzazione et progresso tecnico: Il caso del Sahara libico in età romana.” Studi Storici 47:1003–57. Livingstone, Alasdair. 1989. Court Poetry and Literary Miscellanea. SAA 3. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press. ———. 1997. “An Early Attestation of the Arabic Definite Article.” JSS 42:259–62. Löffler, Reinhold L. 1969. Review of Die Beduinen in Südarabien: Eine ethnologische Studie zur Entwicklung der Kamelhirtenkultur in Arabien, by Walter Dostal. American Anthropologist 71:325–26. Lokotsch, Karl. 1927. Etymologisches Wörterbuch der europäischen (germanischen, romanischen und slavischen) Wörter orientalischen Ursprungs. Heidelberg: Winter. Lombardini, Luigi. 1879. Dei cammelli ed in specie di quelli custoditi nelle cascine reali di S. Rossore. Annali delle Università Toscane 17. Pisa: Nistri. Longacre, Robert E. 1989. Joseph: A Story of Divine Providence; A Text Theoretical and Textlinguistic Analysis of Gen 37 and 39–48. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Lönnqvist, Minna Silver. 2014. “Equid Burials in Archaeological Contexts in the Amorite, Hurrian and Hyksos Cultural Intercourse.” ARAM 26:335–55. López, Félix García. 1980. “Del ‘Yahvista’ al ‘Deuteronomista’: Estudio critico de Genesis 24.” RB 87:242–73, 350–93, 514–59. Loretz, Oswald. 2011. Hippologia Ugaritica: Das Pferd in Kultur, Wirtschaft, Kriegführung und Hippiatrie Ugarits—Pferd, Esel und Kamel in biblischen Texten; Mit einem Beitrag von M. Stol über Pferde, Pferdekrankheiten und Pferdemedizin in altbabylonischer Zeit. AOAT 386. Münster: Ugarit-​Verlag. Löw, Immanuel. 1881. Aramaeische Pflanzennamen. Leipzig: Engelmann. ———. 1967. Die Flora der Juden. Vols. 1–4. Repr., Hildesheim: Olms. Luckenbill, Daniel David. 1924. The Annals of Sennacherib. OIP 2. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Ludwig, Anja. 2015. Kameldarstellungen aus Metall im vorislamischen Südarabien: Eine archäologische Fallstudie zu den Kulturkontakten zwischen Arabia felix und der Mittelmeerwelt. Jenaer Archäologische Schriften 1. Wiesbaden: Reichert.

Bibliography

359

Lundbom, Jack R. 1999. Jeremiah 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 21A. New York: Doubleday. Lundström, Steven. 2012. “The Hunt Is On Again! Tiglath-​pileser I’s and Aššur-​bel-​ kala’s nāḫirū-Sculptures in Assur.” Pages 232–338 in Stories of Long Ago: Festschrift für Michael D. Roaf. Edited by Heather Baker, Kai Kaniuth, and Adelheid Otto. AOAT 397. Münster: Ugarit-​Verlag. Luukko, Mikko. 2012. The Correspondence of Tiglath-​pileser III and Sargon II. SAA 19. Helsinki: Neo-​Assyrian Text Corpus Project. Maaijer, Remco de, and Bram Jagersma. 2004. Review of The Sumerian Dictionary of the University of Pennsylvania Museum, vol. 1, part 3, edited by Åke W. Sjöberg, with the collaboration of Hermann Behrens et al. AfO 50:351–55. Macdonald, Michael C. A. 1990. “Camel Hunting or Camel Raiding?” AAE 1:24–28. ———. 1991. “Was the Nabataean Kingdom a ‘Bedouin State’?” ZDPV 107:102–19. ———. 2000. “Camel.” Page 64 in Dictionary of the Ancient Near East. Edited by Piotr Bienkowski and Alan Millard. London: British Museum. ———. 2004. “Ancient North Arabian.” Pages 488–533 in The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World’s Ancient Languages. Edited by Roger D. Woodard. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. 2006. “Hunting, Fighting, and Raiding the Horse in Pre-​Islamic Arabia.” Pages 72–83 in The Horse in the Art of the Near East. Vol. 1 of Furusiyya. Edited by David Alexander. Riyadh: King Abdulaziz Public Library. ———. 2009a. “Arabs, Arabias, and Arabic Before Late Antiquity.” Topoi 16:277–332. ———. 2009b. Literacy and Identity in Pre-​Islamic Arabia. Collected Studies Series 906. Farnham : Ashgate. ———. 2010. “Ancient Arabia and the Written Word.” Pages 5–28 in The Development of Arabic as a Written Language: Papers from the Special Session of the Seminar for Arabian Studies Held on 24 July, 2009. Edited by Michael C. A. Macdonald. Oxford: Archaeopress. ———. 2015. “Was There a ‘Bedouinization of Arabia’?” Der Islam 92:42–84. ———. 2018. “Introduction.” Pages iii–vi in Languages, Scripts and Their Uses in Ancient North Arabia: Papers from the Special Session of the Seminar for Arabian Studies Held on 5 August 2017. Edited by Michael C. A. Macdonald. Supplement to the Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 48. Oxford: Archaeopress. ———. 2019. “Horses, Asses, Hybrids, and Their Use as Revealed in the Ancient Rock Art of the Syro-​Arabian Desert.” Pages 149–68 in Equids and Wheeled Vehicles in the Ancient World: Essays in Memory of Mary A. Littauer. Edited by Peter Raulwing, Katheryn M. Linduff, and Joost H. Crouwel. BARIS 2923. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Macdonald, Michael C. A., Muna Al-​Mu’azzin, and Laïla Nehmé. 1996. “Les inscriptions safaïtiques de Syrie, cent quarante ans après leur découverte.” Comptes-​ rendus des séances de l’Académie des inscriptions et belles-​lettres 140:435–94. Macfarlane, W. T. 1977. “Survival in an Arid Land.” Australian Natural History 19:18–23. Machiela, Daniel A. 2009. The Dead Sea Genesis Apocryphon: A New Text and Translation with Introduction and Special Treatment of Columns 13–17. STDJ 79. Leiden: Brill. Macholdt, Dorothea S., et al. 2018. “Growth of Desert Varnish on Petroglyphs from Jubbah and Shuwaymis, Ha’il Region.” The Holocene 28:1495–1511. DOI: 10​.1177​ /0959683618777075.

360

Bibliography

Mackenzie, David N. 1990. “Camel, šotor. i. Etymology.” Encyclopædia Iranica Online, www​.iranicaonline​.org​/articles​/camel​-sotor. Maekawa, Kazuya. 1979. “The Ass and the Onager in Sumer in the Late Third Millennium B.C.” Acta Sumerologica 1:35–62. Magee, Peter. 2014. The Archaeology of Prehistoric Arabia: Adaptation and Social Formation from the Neolithic to the Iron Age. Cambridge World Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. 2015. “When Was the Dromedary Domesticated in the Ancient Near East?” ZOrA 8:252–77. Magee, Peter, et al. 2002. “Further Evidence of Desert Settlement Complexity: Report on the 2001 Excavations at the Iron Age Site of Muweilah, Emirate of Sharjah, United Arab Emirates.” AAE 10:133–56. ———. 2017. “Tell Abraq During the Second and First Millennia BC: Site Layout, Spatial Organisation, and Economy.” AAE 28:209–37. Maigret, Alessandro de. 1998. “The Arab Nomadic People and the Cultural Interface Between the ‘Fertile Crescent’ and ‘Arabia Felix.’ ” AAE 10:220–24. Malamat, Abraham. 1989. Mari and the Early Israelite Experience: The Schweich Lectures, 1984. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Maloiy, Geoffrey M. O. 1972. “Renal Salt and Water Excretion in the Camel (Camelus dromedarius).” Pages 243–59 in Comparative Physiology of Desert Animals. Edited by Geoffrey M. O. Maloiy. Symposia of the Zoological Society of London 31. London: Academic Press. Maloiy, Geoffrey M. O., B. M. Rugangazi, and M. F. Rowe. 2009. “Energy Expenditure During Level Locomotion in Large Desert Ungulates: The One-​Humped Camel and the Domestic Donkey.” Journal of Zoology 277:248–55. Malul, Meir. 1999. “Taboo.” DDD, 824–27. Manẓūr, ibn Mukarram ibn. 1999. ‫( لسان العرب‬Lisān al-ʿarab). 18 vols. Repr., Beirut: Dār iḥiāʾi l-​turāṯi l-ʿarabiyyi. Maraqten, Mohammed. 1988. Die semitischen Personennamen in den alt- und reichsaramäischen Inschriften aus Vorderasien. TSO 5. Hildesheim: Olms. ———. 1996. “The Aramaic Pantheon of Taymāʿ.” AAE 7:17–31. ———. 2015. “Hunting in Pre-​Islamic Arabia in Light of the Epigraphic Evidence.” AAE 26:208–34. Mariette, Auguste. 1880. Catalogue général des monuments d’Abydos: Découverts pendant les fouilles de cette ville. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale. Mariette-​Pacha, Auguste. 1880. Abydos: Description des fouilles exécutée sur l‘emplacement de cette ville. 2 vols. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale. Marin, J. C., et al. 2017. “Y-​Chromosome and mtDNA Variation Confirms Independent Domestications and Directional Hybridization in South American Camelids.” Animal Genetics 48:591–95. Marrassini, Paolo. 2007. “Kəbrä nägäśt.” Pages 364–68 in vol. 3 of Encyclopaedia Aethiopica. Edited by Siegbert Uhlig. 5 vols. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Marshall, Fiona B., et al. 2014. “Evaluating the Roles of Directed Breeding and Gene Flow in Animal Domestication.” PNAS 111:6153–58. Martini, Pietro, et al. 2015. “Pleistocene Camelids from the Syrian Desert: The Diversity in El Kowm.” L’anthropologie 119:687–93. Martini, Pietro, and Denis Geraards. 2018. “Camelus thomasi Pomel, 1893 from the Pleistocene Type-​Locality Tighennif (Algeria): Comparisons with Modern Camelus.” Geodiversitas 40:115–34. DOI: 10​.5252​/geodiversitas2018v40a5.

Bibliography

361

Martini, Pietro, Peter Schmid, and Loïc Costeur. 2017. “Comparative Morphometry of Bactrian Camel and Dromedary.” Journal of Mammalian Evolution 25:407–25. DOI: 10​.1007​/s10914​-017​-9386​-9. Mashkour, Marjan. 2002. “Chasse et élevage au nord du Plateau central iranien entre le Néolithique et l’Âge du Fer.” Paléorient 28:27–42. Mashkour, Marjan, et al. 2013. “Bio-​Archaeological Studies at Konar Sandal, Halil Rud Basin, Southeastern Iran.” Journal of Environmental Archaeology 18:222–46. Mashkour, Marjan, and Kamyar Abdi. 2002. “The Question of Mobile Pastoralist Campsites in Archaeology: The Case of Tuwah Khoshkeh.” Pages 211–27 in Archaeozoology of the Near East 5: Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on the Archaeozoology of Southwestern Asia and Adjacent Regions. Edited by H. Buitenhuis et al. ARC Publicaties 62. Groningen: Archeological Research and Consultancy. Master, Daniel M. 2014. “Economy and Exchange in the Iron Age Kingdoms of the Southern Levant.” BASOR 372:81–97. Matouš, Lubor, ed. 1933. Gegenstandslisten (Serie ḪAR-​ra = ḫubullu). Vol. 1 of Die lexikalischen Tafelserien der Babylonier und Assyrer in den Berliner Museen. Berlin: Staatliche Museen, vorderasiatische Abteilung. Maxfield, Valerie A., and David P. S. Peacock. 2001. Survey and Excavation: Mons Claudianus, 1987–1993. Vol. 2, Excavations, Part 1. Fouilles de l’IFAQ 43. Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale. Maxwell-​Hyslop, K. Rachel. 1955. “Note on a Shaft-​Hole Axe-​Pick from Khurab, Makran.” Iraq 17:161. Mayer, Walter. 2013. Assyrien und Urarṭu I: Der Achte Feldzug Sargons II. im Jahr 714 v. Chr. AOAT 395.1. Münster: Ugarit-​Verlag. Mayrhofer, Manfred. 1956–1976. Kurzgefaßtes etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindischen. 3 vols. Heidelberg: Winter. Mazar, Amihai. 1980. Excavations at Tell Qasile, Part 1: The Philistine Sanctuary; Architecture and Cult Objects. Qedem 12. Jerusalem: Hebrew University. ———. 1990. Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, 10,000–586 B.C.E. Anchor Bible Reference Library. New York: Doubleday. ———. 2010. “Archaeology and the Biblical Narrative: The Case of the United Monarchy.” Pages 29–58 in One God—One Cult—One Nation: Archaeological and Biblical Perspectives. Edited by Reinhard G. Kratz and H. Spieckermann. BZAW 405. Berlin: de Gruyter. ———. 2014. “Archaeology and the Bible: Reflections on Historical Memory in the Deuteronomistic History.” Pages 347–69 in Congress Volume Munich 2013. Edited by Christl M. Maier. VTSup 163. Leiden: Brill. ———. 2018. “The Iron Age Apiary at Tel Reḥov, Israel.” Pages 40–49 in Beekeeping in the Mediterranean—From Antiquity to the Present. Edited by Fani Hatjina, Georgios Marfofridis, and Richard Jones. Nea Moudania: Institute of Animal Science. Mazar, Amihai, and Nava Panitz-​Cohen. 2007. “It Is the Land of Honey: Beekeeping at Tel Reḥov.” Near Eastern Archaeology 70:202–19. McCown, Donald E., and Richard C. Haines. 1967. Nippur I: Temple of Enlil, Scribal Quarter, and Soundings; Excavations of the Joint Expedition to Nippur of the University Museum of Philadelphia and the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. OIP 78. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. McDonnell, Sue M. 1998. “Reproductive Behavior of Donkeys (Equus asinus).” Applied Animal Behaviour Science 60:277–82.

362

Bibliography

McIvor, J. Stanley. 1994. The Targum of Chronicles: Translated, with Introduction, Apparatus, and Notes. Aramaic Bible 19. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. McKane, William. 1986. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah. Vol. 1, Introduction and Commentary on Jeremiah I–XXV. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. Meadow, Richard H. 1978. “Effects of Context on the Interpretation of Faunal Remains: A Case Study.” Pages 15–21 in Approaches to Faunal Analysis in the Middle East. Edited by Richard H. Meadow and Melinda A. Zeder. Peabody Museum Bulletin 2. Cambridge: Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University Press. ———. 1984. “A Camel Skeleton from Mohenjo-​daro.” Pages 133–39 in Frontiers of the Indus Civilization: Sir Mortimer Wheeler Commemoration Volume. Edited by B. B. Lal and S. P. Gupta. New Delhi: Sharma Books and Books. ———. 1991. “Faunal Remains and Urbanism at Harappa.” Pages 89–106 in Harappa Excavations, 1986–1990: A Multidisciplinary Approach to Third Millennium Urbanism. Edited by Richard H. Meadow. Monographs in World Archaeology 3. Madison, WI: Prehistory Press. ———. 1999. “The Use of Size Index Scaling Techniques for Research on Archaeozoological Collections from the Middle East.” Pages 285–300 in Historia animalium ex ossibus: Beiträge zur Paläoanatomie, Archäologie, Ägyptologie, Ethnologie, und Geschichte der Tiermedizin; Festschrift für Angela von den Driesch zum 65. Geburtstag. Edited by Cornelia Becker, Henriette Manhart, Joris Peters, and Jörg Schibler. Internationale Archäologie, Studia honoraria 8. Rahden: Leidorf. Meer, Petrus E. van der. 1939. “Tablets of the HAR-​ra = ḫubullu Series in the Ashmolean Museum.” Iraq 6:144–79. Meiri, Meirav, et al. 2017. “Eastern Mediterranean Mobility in the Bronze and Early Iron Ages: Inferences from Ancient DNA of Pigs and Cattle.” Scientific Reports 7:701. Menghin, Oswald, and Mustafa Amer. 1932. The Excavations of the Egyptian University in the Neolithic Site at Maadi. Vol. 1, First Preliminary Report: Season 1930– 1931. Faculty of Arts Publication 19. Cairo: Egyptian University. Metzger, Bruce M. 1975. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament: A Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament. 3rd ed. London: United Bible Societies. Michel, Cécile. 2004. “The perdum-Mule, a Mount for Distinguished Persons in Mesopotamia During the First Half of the Second Millennium BC.” Pages 190–200 in PECUS: Man and Animal in Antiquity: Proceedings of the Conference at the Swedish Institute in Rome, September 9–12, 2002. Edited by Barbro Santillo Frizell. Projects and Seminars 1. Rome: Swedish Institute in Rome. Michel, Otto. 1965. “Κάμηλος.” Pages 592–94 in vol. 3 of Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by Gerhard Kittel. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Midant-​Reynes, Béatrix, and Florence Braunstein-​Silvestre. 1977. “Le chameau en Égypte.” Or 46:337–62. Middeke-​Conlin, Robert. 2014. “The Scents of Larsa: A Study of the Aromatics Industry in an Old Babylonian Kingdom.” Cuneiform Digital Library Journal 1:1–53. http://​www​.cdli​.ucla. edu​/pubs​/cdlj​/2014​/cdlj2014​_001​.html. Mikesell, Marvin W. 1955. “Notes on the Dispersal of the Dromedary.” Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 11:231–45.

Bibliography

363

Milgrom, Jacob. 1991. Leviticus 1–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 3. New York: Doubleday. Millard, Alan R. 1983. “Methods of Studying the Patriarchal Narratives as Ancient Texts.” Pages 35–51 in Essays on the Patriarchal Narratives. Edited by Alan R. Millard and Donald J. Wiseman. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. ———. 1984. “The Small Cuboid Incense-​Burners: A Note on Their Age.” Levant 16:172–73. ———. 1991. “Large Numbers in the Assyrian Royal Inscriptions.” Pages 213–22 in Ah, Assyria . . . : Studies in Assyrian History and Ancient Near Eastern Historiography Presented to Hayim Tadmor. Edited by Mordechai Cogan and Israel Eph‘al. Scripta Hierosolomitana 33. Jerusalem: Magnes. ———. 1992. “Abraham.” ABD 1:35–41. ———. 1997. “King Solomon in His Ancient Context.” Pages 30–53 in The Age of Solomon: Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium. Edited by Lowell K. Handy. SHCANE 11. Leiden: Brill. ———. 1999. “Judith, Tobit, Ahiqar and History.” Pages 195–203 in New Heaven and New Earth: Prophecy and the Millennium; Essays in Honour of Anthony Gelston. Edited by Peter J. Harland and C. T. Robert Hayward. VTSup 77. Leiden: Brill. ———. 2000. “Patriarchs.” Pages 224–25 in Dictionary of the Ancient Near East. Edited by Piotr Bienkowski and Alan Millard. London: British Museum. ———. 2011. “Incense—The Ancient Room Freshener: The Exegesis of Daniel 2:46.” Pages 111–22 in On Stone and Scroll: Essays in Honour of Graham Ivor Davies. Edited by James K. Aitken, Katharine J. Dell, and Brian A. Mastin. BZAW 420. Berlin: de Gruyter. Miller, J. Maxwell. 1997. “Response to Millard.” Pages 54–56 in The Age of Solomon: Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium. Edited by Lowell K. Handy. SHCANE 11. Leiden: Brill. Miller, Jared L. 2017. “Political Interactions Between Kassite Babylonia and Assyria, Egypt and Ḫatti During the Amarna Age.” Pages 93–111 in vol. 1 of Karduniaš: Babylonia Under the Kassites: The Proceedings of the Symposium Held in Munich 30 June to 2 July 2011. Edited by Alexa Bartelmus and Katja Sternitzke. 2 vols. UAVA 11. Berlin: de Gruyter. Miller, Robert D., II. 2014. “The Judges and the Early Iron Age.” Pages 165–89 in Ancient Israel’s History: An Introduction to Issues and Sources. Edited by Bill T. Arnold and Richard S. Hess. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. Millgram, Hillel I. 2012. The Joseph Paradox: A Radical Reading of Genesis 37–50. Jefferson, NC: McFarland. Mitchell, Peter. 2018. The Donkey in Human History: An Archaeological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mitchell, T. C. 2000. “Camels in the Assyrian Bas-​Reliefs.” Iraq 62:187–94. Mohamed, Rageh Z. 2015. “The Relation Between Meroe and South Arabia.” Pages 157–70 of The Kushite World: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference for Meroitic Studies, Vienna, 1–4 September 2008. Beiträge zur Sudanforschung, Beiheft 9. Edited by Michael H. Zach. Vienna: Verein der Förderer der Sudanforschung. Mohandesan, Elmira, et al. 2017. “Mitogenome Sequencing in the Genus Camelus Reveals Evidence for Purifying Selection and Long-​Term Divergence Between Wild and Domestic Bactrian Camels.” Scientific Reports 7, article number 9970. DOI: 10​.1038​/s41598​-017​-08995​-8.

364

Bibliography

Möller, Georg. 1906. Ausgrabung der Deutschen Orient-​Gesellschaft auf dem vorgeschichtlichen Friedhofe bei Abusir el-​Meleq im Sommer 1905. Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-​Gesellschaft 30. Berlin. Monchot, Hervé. 2014. “Camels in Saudi Oasis During the Last Two Millennia; the Examples of Dûmat al-​Jandal (Al-​Jawf Province) and al-​Yamâma (Riyadh Province).” Anthropozoologica 49:195–206. Monod, Théodore. 1967. “Notes sur le harnachement chamelier.” Bulletin de l’Institut Fondamental d’Afrique Noire, série B, 28:236–306. Montanari, Franco. 2015. The Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek. Leiden: Brill. Montet, Pierre. 1928a. Byblos et l’Égypte: Quatre campagnes de fouilles a Gebeil 1921–1924; Atlas. Bibliothèque archéologique et historique 11. Paris: Geuthner. ———. 1928b. Byblos et l’Égypte: Quatre campagnes de fouilles a Gebeil 1921–1924; Textes. Bibliothèque archéologique et historique 11. Paris: Geuthner. Moore, Carey A. 1985. Judith: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 7. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Moore, George F. 1966. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Judges. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. Moorey, P. R. S. 1970. “Pictorial Evidence for the History of Horse-​Riding in Iraq Before the Kassite Period.” Iraq 32:36–50. Morales-​Muñiz, Arturo, Jose A. Riquelme, and Corina Liesau von Lettow-​Vorbeck. 1995. “Dromedaries in Antiquity: Iberia and Beyond.” Antiquity 69:368–75. Moran, William L. 1992. The Amarna Letters. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press. Morgenstern, Julius. 1942–1943. “The Ark, the Ephod, and the ‘Tent of Meeting.’ ” Hebrew Union College Annual 17:153–266. Morrison, Alexander. 2014. “Camels and Colonial Armies: The Logistics of Warfare in Central Asia in the Early 19th Century.” JESHO 57:443–85. Mottahedeh, Patricia E. 1997. Out of Noah’s Ark: Animals in Ancient Art from the Leo Mildenberg Collection. Mainz: von Zabern; Jerusalem: Bible Lands Museum. Moulton, James Hope, and Wilbert Francis Howard. 1929. Accidence and Word-Formation. Vol 2. of A Grammar of New Testament Greek. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. Mowinckel, Sigmund. 1962. “Drive and/or Ride in the O.T.” VT 12:278–99. Muchiki, Yoshiyuki. 1999. Egyptian Proper Names and Loanwords in North-​West Semitic. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 173. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. Mukhareva, Anna N. 2007. “Camel Scenes in the Rock Art of the Minusinsk Basin.” Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 32:102–9. Müller, W. Max. 1893. Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen Denkmälern. Leipzig: Engelmann. Müller, Walter W. 1968. Review of Die Beduinen in Südarabien: Eine ethnologische Studie zur Entwicklung der Kamelhirtenkultur in Arabien, by Walter Dostal. ZDMG 118:399–402. ———. 1989. “Eselsfleisch und Taubendreck: Zur Hungersnotspeise in Samaria nach 2 Kön 6:25.” Biblische Notizen 46:17–23. ———. 1992. “Havilah (Place).” ABD 3:82. ———. 1997. “Namen von Aromata im antiken Südarabien.” Pages 193–210 in Profumi d’Arabia: Atti del Convegno. Edited by Alessandra Avanzini. Saggi di Storia Antica 11. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider. ———. 2008. “Abasener und Adulis.” Aethiopica 11:41–47.

Bibliography

365

Münger, Stefan, and Thomas E. Levy. 2014. “The Iron Age Egyptian Amulet Assemblage.” Pages 741–65 in vol. 2 of New Insights into the Iron Age Archaeology of Edom, Southern Jordan: Surveys, Excavations, and Research from the University of California, San Diego—Department of Antiquities of Jordan; Edom Lowlands Regional Archaeology Project (ELRAP). Edited by Thomas E. Levy, Mohammad Najjar, and Erez Ben-​Yosef. 2 vols. Monumenta archaeologica 35. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute. Muniz, Adolfo, and Thomas E. Levy. 2014. “Feeding the Iron Age Metalworkers at Khirbet en-​Nahas.” Pages 627–63 in vol. 2 of New Insights into the Iron Age Archaeology of Edom, Southern Jordan: Surveys, Excavations, and Research from the University of California, San Diego—Department of Antiquities of Jordan; Edom Lowlands Regional Archaeology Project (ELRAP). Edited by Thomas E. Levy, Mohammad Najjar, and Erez Ben-​Yosef. Monumenta archaeologica 35. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute. Muscarella, Oscar White. 1988. Bronze and Iron: Ancient Near Eastern Artifacts in The Metropolitan Museum of Art. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art. Na’aman, Nadav. 1994. “The ‘Conquest of Canaan’ in the Book of Joshua and in History.” Pages 218–81 in From Nomadism to Monarchy: Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early Israel. Edited by Israel Finkelstein and Nadav Na’aman. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. ———. 1997a. “Sources and Composition in the History of Solomon.” Pages 57–80 in The Age of Solomon: Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium. Edited by Lowell K. Handy. SHCANE 11. Leiden: Brill. ———. 1997b. “Transcribing the Theophoric Element in North Israelite Names.” Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires 1997 (1): 19–20. ———. 1998. “Jehu Son of Omri: Legitimizing a Loyal Vassal by His Overlord.” IEJ 48:236–38. ———. 2010. “The Date of the List of Towns That Received the Spoil of Amalek (1 Sam 30:26–31).” TA 37:175–87. ———. 2015. “The Pre-​Priestly Abraham Story as a Unified Exilic Work.” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 29:157–81. ———. 2019. “The Alleged ‘Beth David’ in the Mesha Stele: The Case Against It.” TA 46:192–97. Nachtergael, Georges. 1989. “Le chameau, l’âne et le mulet en Égypte gréco-​romaine: Le témoignage des terres cuites.” Chronique d’Égypte 64:287–336. Nashef, Khaled. 1982. Die Orts- und Gewässernamen der mittelbabylonischen und mittelassyrischen Zeit. Répertoire Géographique des Textes Cunéiformes 5. TAVO Beiheft B 7/5. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Naveh, Joseph. 1979. “The Aramaic Ostraca from Tel Beer-​Sheba (Seasons 1971– 1976).” TA 6:182–98. ———. 1990. “Nameless People.” IEJ 40:108–23. Naveh, Joseph, and Shaul Shaked. 2012. Aramaic Documents from Ancient Bactria (Fourth Century BCE) from the Khalili Collections. London: Khalili Family Trust. Nayeem, Muhammed Abdul. 2000. The Rock Art of Arabia: Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar, The Emirates and Yemen. Hyderabad: Hyderabad Publications. Nebes, Norbert. 2014. Könige der Weihrauchstraße: Zur Geschichte Südarabiens und Äthiopiens im frühen 1. Jahrtausend vor Christus. Fakultätsvorträge der Philologisch-​ Kulturwissenschaftlichen Fakultät der Universität Wien 11. Vienna: V&R Unipress.

366

Bibliography

———. 2016. Der Tatenbericht des Yiṯaʿʾamar Watar bin Yakrubmalik aus Ṣirwāḥ (Jemen): Zur Geschichte Südarabiens im frühen 1. Jahrtausend vor Christus. Epigraphische Forschungen auf der Arabischen Halbinsel 7. Tübingen: Wasmuth. Nehmé, Laïla. 2020. “The Camel in the Nabataean Realm.” Pages 207–26 in Les vaisseaux du désert et des steppes: Les camélidés dans l’Antiquité (Camelus dromedarius et Camelus bactrianus). Edited by D. Agut-​Labordère and B. Redon. Lyon: MOM (Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée). Nehmé, Laïla, and Michael C. A. Macdonald. 2015. “Bny, ʾl and ʾhl in Nabataean and Safaitic.” Pages 69–75 in Dûma 3: The 2012 Report of the Saudi–Italian–French Archaeological Project at Dûmat al-​Jandal, Saudi Arabia. Edited by Guillaume Charloux and Loreto Romolo. Riyâdh: King Fahd National Library. Neubauer, Adolf. 1875. The Book of Hebrew Roots by Abu ’l-​Walîd Marwân ibn Janâḥ, Otherwise Called Rabbî Yônâh. Oxford: Clarendon. Newberry, Percy E. 1893. Beni Hassan. Archaeological Survey of Egypt 1. London: Kegan Paul. Niditch, Susan. 2008. Judges: A Commentary. Old Testament Library. Louisville: Westminster John Knox. Niederreiter, Zoltán. 2008. “Le rôle des symboles figurés attribués aux membres de la Cour de Sargon II: Des emblèmes créés par les lettrés du palais au service de l’idéologie royale.” Iraq 70:51–86. Nolde, Eduard. 1895. Reise nach Innerarabien, Kurdistan und Armenien: 1892. Braunschweig: Vieweg. Nöldeke, Theodor. 1864. Ueber die Amalekiter und einige andere Nachbarvölker der Israeliten. Göttingen: Dieterich. ———. 1879. Review of Die Namen der Säugetiere bei den südsemitischen Völkern, by Fritz Hommel. Göttingische gelehrte Anzeigen 1879:1254–74. ———. 1884. “Zwei goldene Kameele als Votivgeschenke bei Arabern.” ZDMG 38:143–44. Noonan, Benjamin J. 2019. Non-​Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible: A Lexicon of Language Contact. Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic 14. University Park, PA: Eisenbrauns. Noth, Martin. 1928. Die israelitischen Personennamen im Rahmen der gemeinsemitischen Namengebung. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Oberhuber, Karl. 1985. “Nochmals ‘Kamel’ und Nadelöhr.” Pages 271–75 in Sprachwissenschaftliche Forschungen: Festschrift für Johann Knobloch zum 65. Geburtstag am 5. Januar 1984 dargebracht von Freunden und Kollegen. Edited by H. M. Ölberg, G. Schmidt, and H. Bothien. Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Kulturwissenschaft 23. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck. Oldfather, Charles Henry. 1933. Diodorus Siculus: Library of History. Vol. 1, Books 1–2.34. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Olearius, Adam. 1669. The Voyages & Travells of the Ambassadors Sent by Frederick, Duke of Holstein, to the Great Duke of Muscovy and the King of Persia: Begun in the Year M.DC.XXXIII. and Finish’d in M.DC.XXXIX. 2nd ed. London: Starkey. Olivier, J. P. J. 1981. “The Day of Midian and Isaiah 9:3b.” Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 9:143–49. O’Neill, D’arne. 2010. “South Arabian Stone and Metal Miniature Grave Goods.” Pages 205–13 in Death, Burial and the Transition to the Afterlife in Arabia and Adjacent Regions. Edited by Lloyd Weeks. BARIS 2107. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Bibliography

367

———. 2012. “South Arabian Figurines: A Preliminary Overview; The Awam Cemetery Repertoire, Marib Oasis, Yemen.” Pages 373–84 in Fieldwork and Recent Research Posters. Vol. 3 of Proceedings of the 7th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East. Edited by Roger Matthewe and John Curtis. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ———. 2014. “First Millennium BC South Arabian Terracotta Figurines from the Marib Oasis and Sirwah, Yemen.” ZOrA 7:324–66. ———. 2015. “Terracotta Figurines from the Mārib Oasis: A Preliminary Overview.” Pages 109–20 in South Arabia and Its Neighbours: Phenomena of Intercultural Contacts; 14. Rencontres Sabéennes. Edited by Iris Gerlach. Archäologische Berichte aus dem Yemen 14. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Oppenheim, A. Leo. 1977. Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead Civilization. Revised by Erica Reiner. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Oppenheim, A. Leo, and Louis F. Hartman. 1945. “The Domestic Animals of Ancient Mesopotamia According to the XIIIth Tablet of the Series ḪAR.ra = ḫubullu.” JNES 4:152–77. Oppenheim, Max Freiherr von. 1931. Der Tell Halaf: Eine neue Kultur im ältesten Mesopotamien. Leipzig: Brockhaus. ———. 1955. Tell Halaf. Vol. 3, Die Bildwerke, unter Verwendung der Bildbeschreibungen von Dietrich Opitz bearbeitet und herausgegeben von Anton Moortgat. Berlin: de Gruyter. Orlinsky, Harry M. 1939. “Ḥāṣēr in the Old Testament.” JAOS 59:22–37. Orthmann, Winfried. 1971. Untersuchungen zur späthethitischen Kunst. Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 8. Bonn: Habelt. Ory, J. 1946. “Bronze Age Tomb at el-​Jisr.” Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities of Palestine 12:31–42. Otten, Heinrich. 1961. “Das Hethiterreich.” Pages 311–446 in Kulturgeschichte des alten Orients: Mesopotamien, Hethiterreich, Syrien-​Palästina, Urartu. Edited by Hartmut Schmökel. Stuttgart: Kröner. Outram, Alan K., et al. 2009. “The Earliest Horse Harnessing and Milking.” Science 323:1332–35. DOI: 10​.1126​/science​.1168594. Padalino, Barbara, Davide Monaco, and Giovanni Lacalandra. 2015. “Male Camel Behavior and Breeding Management Strategies: How to Handle a Camel Bull During the Breeding Season?” Emirates Journal of Food Agriculture 27:338–49. DOI: 10​.9755​/ejfa​.v27i4​.19909. Pardee, Dennis. 1989–1990. “Ugaritic Proper Names.” AfO 36/37:390–513. Parian, Saber Amiri. 2017. “A New Edition of the Elamite Version of the Behistun Inscription (I).” Cuneiform Digital Library Bulletin 2017:3. http://​cdli​.ucla​.edu​ /pubs​/cdlb​/2017​/cdlb2017​_003​.html. Parker, Barbara. 1961. “Administrative Tablets from the North-​West Palace, Nimrud.” Iraq 23:15–67. Parker, S. Thomas. 2006. “History of the Roman Frontier East of the Dead Sea.” Pages 517–74 in vol. 2 of The Roman Frontier in Central Jordan: Final Report on the Limes Arabicus Project, 1980–1989. Edited by S. Thomas Parker. Dumbarton Oaks Studies 40. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks. Parlasca, Ingemarie. 1986. “Die nabatäischen Kamelterrakotten: Antiquarische Aspekte und Kulturgeschichtliche Bedeutung.” Pages 200–213 in Petra: Neue Ausgrabungen und Entdeckungen. Edited by Manfred Lindner. Munich: Delp.

368

Bibliography

Parpola, Simo. 1987. The Correspondence of Sargon II, Part 1: Letters from Assyria and the West. SAA 1. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press. Parrot, André. 1955. Review of La pénétration des Arabes en Syrie avant l’Islam, by René Dussaud. Syria 32:320–23. ———. 1967. Les Temples d’Ishtarat et de Ninni-​Zaza. Bibliothèque archéologique et historique 86. Mission Archéologique de Mari 3. Paris: Geuthner. Parry, Donald W. 2019. Exploring the Isaiah Scrolls and Their Textual Variants. Supplements to the Textual History of the Bible 3. Leiden: Brill. Paul, Shalom M. 2005. “Deutero-​Isaiah and Cuneiform Royal Inscriptions.” Pages 11–22 in Divrei Shalom: Collected Studies of Shalom M. Paul on the Bible and the Ancient Near East, 1967–2005. Edited by Shalom M. Paul. CHANE 23. Leiden: Brill. ———. 2012. Isaiah 40–66: Translation and Commentary. Eerdmans Critical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Payne-​Smith, Robert. 1858. S. Cyrilli Alexandriae Archiepiscopi Commentarii in Lucae Evangelium. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ———. 1859. A Commentary upon the Gospel According to St. Luke, by S. Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria, Now First Translated into English from an Ancient Syriac Version. Vol. 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ———. 1901. Thesaurus Syriacus. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon. Peck, E. F. 1939. “Salt Intake in Relation to Cutaneous Necrosis and Arthritis of One-​ Humped Camels (Camelus dromedarius) in British Somaliland.” Veterinary Record 51:1355–60. Peel, Murray C., Brian L. Finlayson, and Thomas McMahon. 2007. “Updated World Map of the Köppen-​Geiger Climate Classification.” Hydrology and Earth System Science 11:1633–44. Pellat, C. 2012. “Ibil.” In Encyclopaedia of Islam. Edited by Peri Bearman et al. 2nd ed. Leiden: Brill, https://​referenceworks​.brillonline​.com​/browse​ /encyclopaedia​-of​-islam​-2. Perlmann, Moshe. 1987. The Ancient Kingdoms. Vol. 4 of The History of al-Ṭabarī. Albany: State University of New York Press. Peters, Joris. 1997. “Das Dromedar: Herkunft, Domestikationsgeschichte und Krankheitsbehandlung in frühgeschichtlicher Zeit.” Tierärztliche Praxis 25:559–65. ———. 1998a. “Camelus thomasi Pomel, 1893, a Possible Ancestor of the One-​ Humped Camel?” Zeitschrift für Säugetierkunde 63:372–76. ———. 1998b. Römische Tierhaltung und Tierzucht: Eine Synthese aus archäozoologischer Untersuchung und schriftlich-​bildlicher Überlieferung. Passauer Universitätsschriften zur Archäologie 5. Rahden: Leidorf. ———. 2001. “Aspekte der Domestikations- und Kulturgeschichte des Dromedars (Camelus Dromedarius).” Pages 330–41 in Animals and Man in the Past: Essays in Honour of Dr. A. T. Clason, Emeritus Professor of Archaeozoology, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, the Netherlands. Edited by H. Buitenhuis and W. Prummel. ARC Publicatie 41. Groningen: Archeological Research and Consultancy. Peters, Joris, et al. 1999. “Early Animal Husbandry in the Northern Levant.” Paléorient 25:27–48. Peters, Joris, Benjamin S. Arbuckle, and Nadja Pöllath. 2014. “Subsistence and Beyond: Animals in Neolithic Anatolia.” Pages 135–203 in The Neolithic in Turkey, 10500–5200 BC: Environment, Settlement, Flora, Fauna, Dating, Symbols

Bibliography

369

of Belief, with Views from North, South, East, and West. Edited by Mehmet Özdoğan, Nezih Başgelen, and Peter Kuniholm. Istanbul: Archaeology & Art Publications. Peters, Joris, Ute Dieckmann, and Ralf Vogelsang. 2009. “Losing the Spoor: Hai||om Animal Exploitation in the Etosha Region.” Pages 103–85 in Tracking Down the Past: Ethnohistory Meets Archaeozoology. Edited by Gisela Grupe, George McGlynn, and Joris Peters. DOAB 7. Rahden: Leidorf. Peters, Joris, and Angela von den Driesch. 1997. “The Two-​Humped Camel (Camelus bactrianus): New Light on Its Distribution, Management and Medical Treatment in the Past.” Journal of Zoology 242:651–79. Peters, Joris, Angela von den Driesch, and Daniel Helmer. 2005. “The Upper Euphrates-​Tigris Basin: Cradle of Agro-​pastoralism?” Pages 96–124 in The First Steps of Animal Domestication: New Archaeological Approaches; Proceedings of the 9th ICAZ Conference, Durham, 2002. Edited by Jean-​Denis Vigne, Joris Peters, and Daniel Helmer. Oxford: Oxbow. Peters, Joris, Nadja Pöllath, and Benjamin Arbuckle. 2017. “The Emergence of Livestock Husbandry in Early Neolithic Anatolia.” Pages 247–65 in The Oxford Handbook of Zooarchaeology. Edited by Umberto Albarella et al. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Peters, Joris, Nadja Pöllath, and Angela von den Driesch. 2002. “Early and Late Bronze Age Transitional Subsistence at Tell al ‘Umayri.” Pages 305–47 in vol. 5 of Madaba Plains Project: The 1994 Season at Tall al-‘Umayri and Subsequent Studies. Edited by Larry G. Herr et al. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press. Petrie, W. M. Flinders. 1907. Gizeh and Rifeh. London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt. ———. 1928. Gerar. London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt. Peust, Carsten. 1999. Egyptian Phonology: An Introduction to the Phonology of a Dead Language. Monographien zur ägyptischen Sprache 2. Göttingen: Peust & Gutschmidt. Pfälzner, Peter. 2013. “The Elephant Hunters of Bronze Age Syria.” Pages 112–31 of Cultures in Contact: From Mesopotamia to the Mediterranean in the Second Millennium BC. Edited by Joan Aruz, Sarah B. Graff, and Yelena Rakic. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art. Philby, Harry St. John. 1981. The Queen of Sheba. London: Quartet Books. Phillips, Wendell. 1966. Unknown Oman. London: Longmans. Pientka-​Hinz, Rosel. 2009. “Schlange. A.” RlA 12:202–18. Pigière, Fabienne, and Denis Henrotay. 2012. “Camels in the Northern Provinces of the Roman Empire.” JAS 39:1531–39. Piovanelli, Pierluigi. 2013. “The Apocryphal Legitimization of a ‘Solomonic’ Dynasty in the Kəbrä nägäśt—A Reappraisal.” Aethiopica 13:7–44. Pitsch, Helmut. 1986. “Zoologischer Garten.” LdÄ 6:1419–23. Pittmann, Holly. 1984. Art of the Bronze Age: Southeastern Iran, Western Central Asia, and the Indus Valley. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art. ———. 2013. “Eastern Iran in the Early Bronze Age.” Pages 304–23 in The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran. Edited by Daniel T. Potts. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pohl, Alfred. 1950. “Das Kamel in Mesopotamien.” Or 19:251–53. ———. 1952. “Nochmals das Kamel in Mesopotamien.” Or 21:373–74.

370

Bibliography

Pokines, James T., et al. 2019. “Faunal Remains from Recent Excavations at Shishan Marsh 1 (SM1), a Late Lower Paleolithic Open-​Air Site in the Azraq Basin, Jordan.” Quaternary Research 91:768–91. DOI: 10​.1017​/qua​.2018​.113. Polak, Frank H. 2016. “Oral Platform and Language Usage in the Abraham Narrative.” Pages 405–42 in The Formation of the Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic Cultures of Europe, Israel, and North America. Edited by Jan C. Gertz et al. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 111. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Poonawala, Ismail K. 1990. The Last Years of the Prophet. Vol. 9 of The History of al-Ṭabarī. Albany: State University of New York Press. Porada, Edith. 1977. “A Cylinder Seal with a Camel in the Walters Art Gallery.” Journal of the Walters Art Gallery 36:1–6. Porter, Barbara A. 2015. “Tracing the Acquisition History of Some Old Syrian Popular Style Cylinder Seals.” Iraq 77:143–57. Postell, Seth D. 2016. “Abram as Israel, Israel as Abram: Literary Analogy as Macro-​ Structural Strategy in the Torah.” Tyndale Bulletin 67:161–82. Postgate, J. Nicholas. 1976. Fifty Neo-​Assyrian Legal Documents. Warminster: Aris & Phillips. ———. 1986. “The Equids of Sumer, Again.” Pages 194–206 in Equids in the Ancient World. BTAVO/A 19.1. Edited by Hans-​Peter Uerpmann, and Richard H. Meadow. Wiesbaden: Reichert. ———. 1992. Early Mesopotamia: Society and Economy at the Dawn of History. London: Routledge. Potts, Daniel T. 2004. “Camel Hybridization and the Role of Camelus Bactrianus in the Ancient Near East.” JESHO 47:143–65. ———. 2005. “Bactrian Camels and Bactrian-​Dromedary Hybrids.” Silk Road 3:49–58. ———. 2008. “An Umm an-​Nar–Type Compartmented Soft-​Stone Vessel from Gonur Depe, Turkmenistan.” AAE 18:167–80. ———. 2014. “Tilmun (Dilmun). B. Archäologisch.” RlA 14:52–54. ———. 2016. “Cultural, Economic and Political Relations Between Mesopotamia, the Gulf Region and India Before Alexander.” Pages 109–18 in Megasthenes und seine Zeit: Megasthenes and His Time. Edited by Josef Wiesehöfer, Horst Brinkhaus, and Reinhold Bichler. Classica und Orientalia 13. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Pottier, Marie-​Héléne. 1984. Matériel funéraire de la Bactriane méridionale de l’âge du Bronze. Mémoire 36. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les civilisations. Powell, Marvin A. 1990. “Masse und Gewichte.” RlA 7:457–517. Pritchard, James B., ed. 1969. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. 3rd ed. with supplement. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Pronk-​Tiethoff, Saskia. 2013. The Germanic Loanwords in Proto-​Slavic. Leiden Studies in Indo-​European 20. Leiden: Brill; Amsterdam: Rodopi. Prothero, Donald R., and Robert M. Schoch. 2002. Horns, Tusks, and Flippers: The Evolution of Hoofed Mammals. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Proust, Christine. 2007. Tablettes Mathématiques de Nippur. Varia Anatolica 18. Istanbul: Institut français d’études anatoliennes Georges Dumézil. Pruß, Alexander. 2011. “Figurines and Model Vehicles.” Pages 239–54 in Jezirah. Edited by Marc Lebeau. Associated Regional Chronologies for the Ancient Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean 1. Turnhout: Brepols.

Bibliography

371

———. 2015. “Animal Terracotta Figurines and Model Vehicles.” Pages 279–95 in Middle Euphrates. Edited by Uwe Finkbeiner et al. Associated Regional Chronologies for the Ancient Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean 4. Turnhout: Brepols. Pruß, Alexander, and Christine Link. 1994. “Zoomorphe Terrakotten.” Pages 111–55 in Die Kleinfunde von Tell Halawa A. Edited by Jan-​Waalke Meyer and Alexander Pruß. Ausgrabungen in Halawa 2. Schriften zur Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 6. Saarbrücken: Saarbrücker Druckerei und Verlag. Pruß, Alexander, and Walther Sallaberger. 2004. “Tierhaltung in Nabada/Tell Beydar und die Bilderwelt der Terrakotten als Spiegel von Wirtschaft und Umwelt.” AfO 50:293–307. Prust, Anja, and Arnulf Hausleiter. 2020. “Camel Exploitation in the Oasis of Taymāʾ— Caravan or Consumption?” Pages 95–121 in Les vaisseaux du désert et des steppes: Les camélidés dans l’antiquité (Camelus dromedarius et Camelus bactrianus). Edited by D. Agut-​Labordère and B. Redon. Lyon: MOM (Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée). Puhvel, Jaan. 1991. Hittite Etymological Dictionary. Vol. 3, Words Beginning with H. Trends in Linguistics, Documentation 5. Berlin: de Gruyter. ———. 1993. “On the Origin of Gothic ulbandus ‘Camel.’ ” Linguistica 33:187–90. Pusch, Edgar B. 1996. “Ein Dromedar aus der Ramses-​Stadt.” Egypt and the Levant 6:107–18. ———. 2001. “Piramesse.” Pages 48–50 in vol. 3 of The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt. Edited by Donald B. Redford. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Quack, Joachim Friedrich. 1994. Die Lehren des Ani: Ein neuägyptischer Weisheitstext in seinem kulturellen Umfeld. OBO 141. Fribourg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ———. 2002. Review of Das Tier im Alten Ägypten, by Philippe Germond. JAOS 122:899. ———. 2005. “Zu den vorarabischen semitischen Lehnwörtern des Koptischen.” Pages 307–38 in Studia semitica et Semitohamitica: Festschrift für Rainer Voigt anläßlich seines 60. Geburtstages am 17. Januar 2004. Edited by Bogdan Burtea, Josef Tropper and Helen Younansardaroud. AOAT 317. Münster: Ugarit-​Verlag. Rabin, Chaim, Shemaryahu Talmon, and Emanuel Tov. 1997. “:‫תורה נביאים כתובים‬ ‫מהדורת האוניברסיטה העברית בירושׁלים‬.” (Torah, Prophets, Writings: The Hebrew University Bible). Jerusalem: Magnes. Rademakers, Frederik W., Thilo Rehren, and Ernst Pernicka. 2017. “Copper for the Pharaoh: Identifying Multiple Metal Sources for Ramesses’ Workshops from Bronze and Crucible Remains.” JAS 80:50–73. Radner, Karen, ed. 1998. The Prosopography of the Neo-​Assyrian Empire. Vol. 1, Part 1, A. Helsinki: Neo-​Assyrian Text Corpus Project. ———. 2003. “An Assyrian View on the Medes.” Pages 37–64 in Continuity of Empire: Assyria, Media, Persia. Edited by Giovanni B. Lanfranchi, Michael Roaf, and Robert Rollinger. History of the Ancient Near East Monographs 5. Padova: S.A.R.G.O.N. ———. 2008. “Esarhaddon’s Expedition from Palestine to Egypt in 671 BCE: A Trek Through Negev and Sinai.” Pages 305–14 in Fundstellen: Gesammelte Schriften zur Archäologie und Geschichte Altvorderasiens ad honorem Hartmut Kühne. Edited by D. Bonatz, R. M. Czichon, and F. Janoscha Kreppner. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

372

Bibliography

Rahlfs, Alfred, and Robert Hanhart. 2006. Septuaginta: Editio altera. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft. Rainey, Anson F., and R. Steven Notley. 2014. The Sacred Bridge: Carta’s Atlas of the Biblical World. 2nd ed. Jerusalem: Carta. Rathjens, Carl. 1955. Sabaeica: Bericht über die archäologischen Ergebnisse seiner zweiten, dritten und vierten Reise nach Südarabien, Part 2; Die unlokalisierten Funde. Mitteilungen aus dem Museum für Völkerkunde in Hamburg 24. Hamburg: Appel. Rawlinson, H. C. 1861–1870. The Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia. 3 vols. London: British Museum. Rechenmacher, Hans. 2012. Althebräische Personennamen. Lehrbücher Orientalischer Sprachen 2/1. Münster: Ugarit-​Verlag. Redard, Céline. 2020. “Le nom du chameau dans les langues iraniennes anciennes.” Pages 55–57 in Les vaisseaux du désert et des steppes: Les camélidés dans l’Antiquité (Camelus dromedarius et Camelus bactrianus). Edited by D. Agut-​Labordère and B. Redon. Lyon: MOM (Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée). Redard, Georges. 1964. “Camelina: Notes de dialectologie iranienne, II.” Pages 155–62 in Indo-​Iranica: Mélanges présentés à Georg Morgenstierne à l’occasion de son soixante-​dixième anniversaire. Edited by Georges Redard. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Redford, Donald B. 1970. A Study of the Biblical Story of Joseph (Genesis 37–50). VTSup 20. Leiden: Brill. ———. 1992. Egypt, Canaan and Israel in Ancient Times. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Redhouse, J. W. 1856. An English and Turkish Dictionary. 2 parts. London: Quaritch. Reed, Ronald. 1972. Ancient Skins, Parchments and Leathers. Studies in Archaeological Science. London: Seminar Press. Reed, Annette Yoshiko. 2004. “Abraham as Chaldean Scientist and Father of the Jews: Josephus, Ant. 1.154–68, and the Greco-​Roman Discourse About Astronomy/Astrology.” JSJ 35:119–58. ———. 2009. “The Construction and Subversion of Patriarchal Perfection: Abraham and Exemplarity in Philo, Josephus, and the Testament of Abraham.” JSJ 40:185–212. Rendsburg, Gary A. 1990. “Redactional Structuring in the Joseph Story: Genesis 37–50.” Pages 215–32 in Mappings of the Biblical Terrain: The Bible as Text. Edited by Vincent L. Tollers and John R. Maier. Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press. ———. 1992. “The Date of the Exodus and the Conquest/Settlement: The Case for the 1100s.” VT 42:510–27. ———. 2002. “Some False Leads in the Identification of Late Biblical Hebrew Texts: The Cases of Genesis 24 and 1 Samuel 2:27–36.” JBL 121:23–46. ———. 2006. “Aramaic-​Like Features in the Pentateuch.” Hebrew Studies 47:163–76. ———. 2015. “Style-​Switching in Biblical Hebrew.” Pages 65–85 in Epigraphy, Philology, and the Hebrew Bible: Methodological Perspectives on Philological and Comparative Study of the Hebrew Bible in Honor of Jo Ann Hackett. Edited by Jeremy M. Hutton and Aaron D. Rubin. Ancient Near East Monographs 12. Atlanta: SBL Press. Renger, Johannes. 1972–1975. “Heilige Hochzeit. A. Philologisch.” RlA 4:251–59. Renzi, Martina, et al. 2016. “Early Iron Age Metal Circulation in the Arabian Peninsula: The Oasis of Taymāʾ as Part of a Dynamic Network (Poster).” PSAS 46:237–46.

Bibliography

373

Retsö, Jan. 1991. 2003. The Arabs in Antiquity: Their History from the Assyrians to the Umayyads. London: Routledge. ———. 2005. “Arabs in Pre-​Islamic South Arabia.” Archäologische Berichte aus dem Yemen 10:127–31. ———. 2011. “Aramaic / Syriac Loanwords.” In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics. Leiden: Brill. http://​dx​.doi​.org​/10​.1163​/1570​-6699​_eall​_EALL​_COM​ _0024. Reuter, Eleonore. 2006. “‫ׁשפְ חָ ה‬.” ִ TDOT 15:405–10. Reymond, Eric D. 2014. Qumran Hebrew: An Overview of Orthography, Phonology, and Morphology. Resources for Biblical Study 76. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. Rezetko, Robert. 2013. “The Qumran Scrolls of the Book of Judges: Literary Formation, Textual Criticism, and Historical Linguistics.” Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 13.2:1–68. Ricciardetto, Antonio. 2016. “Le marquage et les soins vétérinaires appliqués aux camélidés d’après la documentation papyrologique grecque d’Égypte.” Pallas 101:53–63. Richardson, Seth F. C. 2011. “Mesopotamia and the ‘New’ Military History.” Pages 11–51 in Recent Directions in the Military History of the Ancient World. Publications of the Association of Ancient Historians 10. Edited by Lee L. Brice and Jennifer T. Roberts. Claremont, CA: Regina. Richelle, Matthieu. 2016. “Elusive Scrolls: ‘Could Any Hebrew Literature Have Been Written Prior to the Eighth Century BCE?’ ” VT 66:556–94. Riis, Paul Jørgen, and Marie-​Louise Buhl. 1990. Hama: Fouilles et recherches de la Fondation Carlsberg 1931–1938. Vol. 2.2, Les objets de la période dite syro-​hittite (âge du fer). Nationalmuseets skrifter, Større beretninger 12. Aarhus: Universitetsforlag. Ripinsky, Michael. 1985. “The Camel in Dynastic Egypt.” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 71:134–41. Rippin, Andrew. 1980. “Qurʾān 7.40: ‘Until the Camel Passes Through the Eye of the Needle.’ ” Arabica 27:107–13. Rittig, Dessa. 2010. “Theriomorphe Figuren.” Pages 51–65 of Altorientalische Kleinfunde. Edited by Eva Strommenger and Peter A. Miglus. Ausgrabungen in Tall Bi‘a/Tuttul 5. WVDOG 126. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Roaf, Michael. 1990. Cultural Atlas of Mesopotamia and the Ancient Near East. Oxford: Equinox. Robert, Ulysse. 1900. Heptateuchi partis posterioris versio Latina antiquissima e Codice Lugdunensi: Version latine du Deutéronome, de Josué et de Juges antérieure á Saint Jérôme. Lyon: Rey. Roberts, J. J. M. 2015. First Isaiah. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress. Roberts, James, et al. 2018. “The Role of Wild Terrestrial Animals in Late Prehistoric Societies of South-​Eastern Arabia: New Insights from Saruq al-​Hadid.” AAE 29:115–34. Robin, Christian J. 1991. “La pénétration des Arabes nomades au Yémen.” Pages 71–88 in L’Arabie antique de Karibʾîl à Mahomet: Nouvelles données sur l‘histoire des Arabes grâce aux inscriptions. Revue du monde Musulman et de la Méditerranée 61/3. Aix-​en-​Provence : Edisud. ———. 1993. “L’Arabie des aromates et de la reine de Saba: Grandeur et declin des royaumes antiques.” Version originale 3:21–53.

374

Bibliography

———. 1996. “Sheba II: Dans le inscriptions de l’Arabie du Sud.” Cols. 1047–254 in vol. 12 of Dictionnaire de la Bible: Supplément. Edited by Jacques Briend and Édouard Cothenet. Paris: Letouzey & Ané. Robinson, Arthur Ernest. 1936. “The Camel in Antiquity.” Sudan Notes and Records 19:47–69. Rofé, Alexander. 1990. “An Enquiry into the Betrothal of Rebekah.” Pages 27–39 in Die Hebräische Bibel und ihre zweifache Nachgeschichte: Festschrift für Rolf Rendtorff zum 65. Geburtstag. Edited by Eberhard Blum, Christian Macholz, and Ekkehard W. Stegemann. Neukirchen-​Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Roll, Israel. 2005. “Imperial Roads Across and Trade Routes Beyond the Roman Provinces of Judaeapalaestina and Arabia: The State of Research.” TA 32:107–18. Röllig, Wolfgang. 1993. “Miṣir, Mizru, Muṣri III, Muzir.” RlA 8:264–69. Romano, Irene Bald. 1995. The Terracotta Figurines and Related Vessels. Gordion Special Studies II. University Museum Monograph 86. Philadelphia: University Museum. Römer, Thomas. 2010. “The Exodus in the Book of Genesis.” Svensk Exegetisk Årsbok 75:1–20. Root, Margaret Cool. 2002. “Animals in the Art of Ancient Iran.” Pages 169–209 in A History of the Animal World in the Ancient Near East. Edited by Billie Jean Collins. HdO 1/64. Leiden: Brill. Rosen, Steven A. 1992. “Nomads in Archaeology: A Response to Finkelstein and Perevolotsky.” BASOR 287:75–85. ———. 2011. An Investigation into Early Desert Pastoralism: Excavations at the Camel Site, Negev. Monograph 69. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology. Rosen, Steven A., and Gunnar Lehmann. 2010. “Hat das biblische Israel einen nomadischen Ursprung? Kritische Beobachtungen aus der Perspektive der Archäologie und Kulturanthropologie.” WO 40:160–89. Rosen, Steven A., and Benjamin A. Saidel. 2010. “The Camel and the Tent: An Exploration of Technological Change Among Early Pastoralists.” JNES 69:63–77. Rosenfeld, Ben Zion. 2016. “Camel Caravans from the Decapolis to the Galilee in the First Centuries C.E.: A Revolution in Regional Transport?” ARAM 28:27–34. Rosenhouse, Judith. 2010. “Arabic Language and Literature in Bedouin vs. Sedentary Communities: Trends in the 20th Century.” Pages 101–25 in Symbolische Repräsentation und Wirklichkeit nomadischen Lebens. Edited by Ute Pietruschka and Michael P. Streck. Nomaden und Sasshafte 12. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Rosenthal, Franz. 1985. The Return of the Caliphate to Baghdad. Vol. 38 of The History of al-Ṭabarī. Albany: State University of New York Press. Rossel, Stine, et al. 2008. “Domestication of the Donkey: Timing, Processes, and Indicators.” PNAS 105:3715–20. Rostovtzeff, Michael. 1932. Caravan Cities. Oxford: Clarendon. Roth, Martha. 2000. “The Laws of Hammurabi.” COS 2.131:335–53. Rowan, John, et al. 2017. “New Pliocene Remains of Camelus grattardi (Mammalia, Camelidae) from the Shungura Formation, Lower Omo Valley, Ethiopia, and the Evolution of African Camels.” Historical Biology 31:1123–34. DOI: 10​.1080​ /08912963​.2017​.1423485. Rowley-​Conwy, Peter. 1988. “The Camel in the Nile Valley: New Radiocarbon Accelerator (AMS) Dates from Qaṣr Ibrim.” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 74:245–48.

Bibliography

375

Rowley-​Conwy, Peter, and Melinda Zeder. 2014. “Wild Boar or Domestic Pigs? Response to Evin et al.” World Archaeology 46: 835–840. DOI: 10​.1080​/00438243​ .2014​.953712. Rubenstein, Daniel. 2011. “Family Equidae (Horses and Relatives).” Pages 106–43 in Hoofed Mammals. Vol. 2 of Handbook of the Mammals of the World. Edited by Don E. Wilson and Russell A. Mittermeier. Barcelona: Lynx. Ruiten, Jacques T. A. G. M van. 2012. Abraham in the Book of Jubilees: The Rewriting of Genesis 11:26–25:10 in the Book of Jubilees 11:14–23:8. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 161. Leiden: Brill. Saad, Zaki. 1951. “Some of the Tombs Explored and Objects Found During the Fourth Season (1945–1946) in the Royal Excavation at Helwan.” Pages 1–44 in The Royal Excavation at Helwan. Edited by Zaki Saad. Supplément aux annales du service des antiquités de l’Égypte 14. Cairo: L’Institut français d’archéologie orientale. Sade, Moshe. 2015. “Archaeozoological Remains.” Pages 714–23 in vol. 2 of Tel Malḥata: A Central City in the Biblical Negev. Edited by Itzhaq Beit-​Arieh and Liora Freud. 2 vols. Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archeology Monograph 32. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Saggs, Henry W. F. 2001. The Nimrud Letters, 1952. Cuneiform Texts from Nimrud 5. London: British School of Archaeology in Iraq. Sagrillo, Troy L. 2015. “Shoshenq I and Biblical Šîšaq: A Philological Defense of Their Traditional Equation.” Pages 61–81 in Solomon and Shishak: Current Perspectives from Archaeology, Epigraphy, History and Chronology; Proceedings of the Third BICANE Colloquium Held at Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge 26–27 March, 2011. Edited by Peter van der Veen and Peter James. BARIS 2732. Oxford: Archaeopress. Salim, Rana. 2013. “Cultural Identity and Self-​Presentation in Ancient Egyptian Fictional Narratives: An Intertextual Study of Narrative Motifs from the Middle Kingdom to the Roman Period.” PhD diss., University of Copenhagen. Sallaberger, Walther. 1993. Der kultische Kalender der Ur III-​Zeit. UAVA 7.1. Berlin: de Gruyter. Salles, Jean-​François. 1986. “Tell Khazneh: Les figurines en terre cuite.” Pages 143–200 of Failaka: Fouilles françaises 1984–1985, sous la direction d’Yves Calvet et Jean François Salles. Travaux de la Maison de l’Orient 12. Lyon: Maison de l’Orient. Salonen, Armas. 1955. Hippologica Accadica: Eine lexikalische und kulturgeschichtliche Untersuchung. Annales Academiae scientiarum fennicae B 100. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia. Salvatori, Sandro. 2008. “A New Cylinder Seal from Ancient Margiana: Cultural Exchange and Syncretism in a ‘World Wide Trade System’ at the End of the 3rd Millennium BC.” Pages 111–18 in The Bronze Age and Early Iron Age in the Margiana Lowlands: Facts and Methodological Proposals for a Redefinition of the Research Strategies. Edited by Sandro Salvatori, Maurizio Tosi, and Barbara Cerasetti. BARIS 1806. Oxford: Archaeopress. Šanda, Albert. 1912. Die Büche der Könige. Vol. 2, Das zweite Buch der Könige. Exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament 9. Münster in Westfalen: Aschendorff. San Nicolò, Mariano. 1951. Babylonische Rechtsurkunden des ausgehenden 8. und des 7. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. Abhandlungen der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften: Philosophisch-​historische Klasse, neue Folge 34. Munich: Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften.

376

Bibliography

Santoni, Marielle. 1979. “Les objets.” Pages 167–232 in vol. 1 of Fouilles de Pirak. Edited by Jean-​François Jarrige and Marielle Santoni. Paris: de Boccard. Sapir-​Hen, Lidar. 2020. “Human-​Animal Relationship with Work Animals: Donkeys and Camels During the Bronze and Iron Ages in the Southern Levant.” ZDPV 136:83–94. Sapir-​Hen, Lidar, and Erez Ben-​Yosef. 2013. “The Introduction of Domestic Camels to the Southern Levant: Evidence from the Aravah Valley.” TA 40:277–85. ———. 2014. “The Socioeconomic Status of Iron Age Metalworkers: Animal Economy in the ‘Slaves’ Hill,’ Timna, Israel.” Antiquity 88:775–90. Sapir-​Hen, Lidar, Yuval Gadot, and Oded Lipschits. 2017. “Ceremonial Donkey Burial, Social Status, and Settlement Hierarchy in the Early Bronze III: The Case of Tel Azekah.” Pages 259–70 in The Wide Lens in Archaeology: Honoring Brian Hesse’s Contributions to Anthropological Archaeology. Edited by Justin Lev-​Tov, Paula Hesse, and Allan Gilbert. Archaeobiology 2. Atlanta: Lockwood. Sarianidi, Viktor. 2005. Goňurdepe Turkmenistan: City of Kings and Gods. Aşgabat: Miras. Sarianidi, Viktor, and Nadezhda A. Dubova. 2010. “Nouvelles sépultures sur le territoire de la ‘nécropole royale’ de Gonur Dépé.” Arts Asiatiques 65:5–26. Sarna, Nahum M. 1989. Genesis: The Traditional Hebrew Text with New JPS Translation. JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society. Sassmannshausen, Leonhard. 2001. Beiträge zur Verwaltung und Gesellschaft Babyloniens in der Kassitenzeit. Baghdader Forschungen 21. Mainz: von Zabern. Sasson, Aharon. 2010. Animal Husbandry in Ancient Israel: A Zooarchaeological Perspective on Livestock Exploitation, Herd Management and Economic Strategies. Approaches to Anthropological Archaeology. London: Equinox. ———. 2013. “Faunal Remains from the Iron Age Levels.” Pages 1113–209 in vol. 3 of Megiddo V: The 2004–2008 Seasons. Edited by Israel Finkelstein, David Ussishkin, and Eric H. Cline. 3 vols. Publications of the Institute of Archaeology 31. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Sasson, Jack M. 2006. “The Servant’s Tale: How Rebekah Found a Spouse.” JNES 65:241–65. ———. 2014. Judges 1–12: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB6D. New Haven: Yale University Press. Sataev, Robert. 2020. “Animal Exploitation at Gonur Depe.” Pages 438–56 in The World of the Oxus Civilization. Edited by Bertille Lyonnet and Nadezhda A. Dubova. London: Routledge. Schachner, Andreas. 2007. Bilder eines Weltreichs: Kunst- und kulturgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu den Verzierungen eines Tores aus Balawat (Imgur-​Enhl) aus der Zeit von Salmanassar III, König von Assyrien. Subartu 20. Turnhout: Brepols. Scharff, Alexander. 1926. Das Vorgeschichtliche Gräberfeld von Abusir El-​Meleq: Die archäologischen Ergebnisse nach den Aufzeichnungen Georg Möllers. WVDOG 49. Leipzig: Hinrichs. ———. 1929. Die Altertümer der Vor- und Frühzeit Ägyptens. Staatliche Museen zu Berlin: Mitteilungen aus der Ägyptischen Sammlung 5. Berlin: Curtius. Schaudig, Hanspeter. 2001. Die Inschriften Nabonids von Babylon und Kyros‘ des Großen samt den in ihrem Umfeld entstandenen Tendenzschriften. AOAT 256. Münster: Ugarit-​Verlag. Schenkel, Wolfgang. 1990. Einführung in die altägyptische Sprachwissenschaft. Orientalische Einführungen. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

Bibliography

377

———. 1994. “Die ägyptische Hieroglyphenschrift und ihre Weiterentwicklungen.” Pages 289–97 in vol. 1 of Schrift und Schriftlichkeit/Writing and Its Use: Ein interdisziplinäres Handbuch internationaler Forschung/An Interdisciplinary Handbook of International Research. Edited by Hartmut Günther and Otto Ludwig. Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 10. Berlin: de Gruyter. Schipper, Bernd Ulrich. 1999. Israel und Ägypten in der Königszeit: Die kulturellen Kontakte von Salomo bis zum Fall Jerusalems. OBO 170. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht; Fribourg: Universitätsverlag. ———. 2019. “The Egyptian Background of the Joseph Story.” Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel 8:6–23. Schippmann, Klaus. 1998. Geschichte der alt-​südarabischen Reiche. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Schmitt, Hans-​Christoph. 2015. “Die Josefs- und die Exodus-​Geschichte: Ihre vorpriesterliche weisheitstheologische Verbindung.” ZAW 127:171–87. Schmitt, Oliver. 2005. “Rome and the Bedouins of the Near East from 70 BC to 630 AD: 700 Years of Confrontation and Coexistence.” Pages 271–88 in Shifts and Drifts in Nomadic-​Sedentary Relations. Edited by Stefan Leder and Bernhard Streck. Nomaden und Sesshafte 2. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Schmitt, Rüdiger. 2009. Die altpersischen Inschriften der Achaimeniden: Editio minor mit deutscher Übersetzung. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Schneider, Thomas. 1992. Asiatische Personennamen in ägyptischen Quellen des Neuen Reiches. OBO 114. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht; Fribourg: Universitätsverlag. ———. 2018. “A Double Abecedary? Halaḥam and ʾAbgad on the TT99 Ostracon.” BASOR 379:103–12. Schniedewind, William. 2019. “The Gezer Calendar as an Adaptation of the Mesopotamian Lexical Tradition (Ura 1).” Semitica 61:15–22. Schniedewind, William, and Daniel Sivan. 1997. “The Elijah-​Elisha Narratives: A Test Case for the Northern Dialect of Hebrew.” Jewish Quarterly Review 87:303–37. Schrader, Eberhard. 1890. Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek: Sammlung von assyrischen und babylonischen Texten in Umschrift und Übersetzung, 3.2; Historische Texte des neubabylonischen Reichs. Berlin: Reuther. Schrader, Sarah A., et al. 2018. “Symbolic Equids and Kushite State Formation: A Horse Burial at Tombos.” Antiquity 92:383–97. Schroer, Silvia, and Othmar Keel. 2005. Die Ikonographie Palästinas/Israels und der Alte Orient: Eine Religionsgeschichte in Bildern; 1, Vom ausgehenden Mesolithikum bis zur Frühbronzezeit. Fribourg: Academic Press. Schub, M. B. 1976. “It Is Easier for a Cable to Go Through the Eye of a Needle Than for a Rich Man to Enter God’s Kingdom.” Arabica 23:311–12. Schuegraf, Oliver, and Peri Johanna Terbuyken. 2002. “La Illa Il Allah! Aus voller Kehle jauchzten die Treiber der Kamele: Zur Verbreitung und Bedeutung antiker Cameliden zwischen Kaspischem Meer, Palästina und Arabischer Halbinsel.” Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum 45:62–76. Schumacher, Gottlieb. 1908. Tell El-​Mutesellim: Bericht über die 1903 bis 1905 mit Unterstützung Sr. Majestät des Deutschen Kaisers und der Deutschen Orient-​ Gesellschaft vom Deutschen Verein zur Erforschung Palästinas veranstalteten Ausgrabungen. Vol. 1, Fundbericht A: Text. Leipzig: Haupt. Schunck, Klaus Dietrich. 1966. “Jes 30 6–8 und die Deutung der Rahab im Alten Testament.” ZAW 78:48–56.

378

Bibliography

———. 2009. Nehemia. BKAT 23.2. Neukirchen-​Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Schwiderski, Dirk, ed. 2004. Die alt- und reichsaramäischen Inschriften: The Old and Imperial Aramaic Inscriptions. Vol. 2, Texte und Bibliographie. Fontes et Subsidia ad Bibliam pertinentes 2. Berlin: de Gruyter. ———. 2008. Die alt- und reichsaramäischen Inschriften: The Old and Imperial Aramaic Inscriptions. Vol. 1, Konkordanz. Fontes et Subsidia ad Bibliam pertinentes 1. Berlin: de Gruyter. Screnock, John. 2017. “Translation and Rewriting in the Genesis Apocryphon.” Pages 453–81 in Reading the Bible in Ancient Traditions and Modern Editions: Studies in Memory of Peter W. Flint. Edited by Andrew B. Perrin, Kyung S. Baek, and Daniel K. Falk. Early Judaism and Its Literature 47. Atlanta: SBL Press. Sedov, Aleksandr V. 1997. “Die archäologischen Denkmäler von Raybūn im unteren Wādī Dauʿan.” Mare Erythraeum 1:31–106. ———. 1999. “Kamelbestattungen.” Pages 183–85 in Im Land der Königin von Saba: Kunstschätze aus dem antiken Jemen; 7. Juli 1999–9. Januar 2000; eine Ausstellung des Staatlichen Museums für Völkerkunde München. Edited by Werner Daum, Norbert Nebes, and Walter W Müller. Munich: Staatliches Museum für Völkerkunde. Seebass, Horst. 1997. Genesis II/1: Vätergeschichte I (11,27–22,24). Neukirchen-​ Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Sefati, Yitschak. 1998. Love Songs in Sumerian Literature: Critical Editions of the Dumuzi-​Inanna Songs. Bar-​Ilan Studies in Near Eastern Languages and Culture. Ramat Gan: Bar-​Ilan University. Segal, M. H. 1927. A Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew. Oxford: Clarendon. Seland, Eivind Heldaas. 2011. “The Persian Gulf or the Red Sea? Two Axes in Ancient Indian Ocean Trade, Where to Go and Why.” World Archaeology 43:398–409. ———. 2015a. “Camels, Camel Nomadism and the Practicalities of Palmyrene Caravan Trade.” Aram 27:45–54. ———. 2015b. “Palmyrene Long-​Distance Trade: Land, River, and Maritime Routes in the First Three Centuries CE.” Pages 101–31 in Long-​Distance Trade, Culture, and Society. Vol. 1 of The Silk Road: Interwoven History. Edited by Mariko Namba Walter and James P. Ito-​Adler. Cambridge: Cambridge Institutes Press. ———. 2016. Ships of the Desert and Ships of the Sea: Palmyra in the World Trade of the First Three Centuries CE. Philippika. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Sellin, Ernst. 1904. Tell Taʿannek: Bericht über eine mit Unterstützung der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften und des K. K. Ministeriums für Kultus und Unterricht unternommene Ausgrabung In Palästina. Denkschriften der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien: Philosophisch-​Historische Klasse 50.4. Vienna: Gerold. ———. 1906. Eine Nachlese auf dem Tell Taʿannek in Palästina. Denkschriften der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften: Philosophisch-​Historische Klasse 52. Vienna: Hölder. Selz, Gebhard. 2019. “Reflections on the Pivotal Role of Animals in Early Mesopotamia”. Pages 23–56 in Animals and their Relation to Gods, Humans and Things in the Ancient World. Edited by Raija Mattila, Sanae Ito, and Sebastian Fink. Studies in Universal and Cultural History. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Selz, Gebhard J., Colette Grinevald, and Orly Goldwasser. 2018. “The Question of Sumerian ‘Determinatives’: Inventory, Classifier Analysis, and Comparison to

Bibliography

379

Egyptian Classifiers from the Linguistic Perspective of Noun Classification.” Journal of Egyptian Language Studies 25:281–344. Shai, Itzhaq, et al. 2016. “The Importance of the Donkey as a Pack Animal in the Early Bronze Age Southern Levant: A View from Tell eṣ-Ṣāfī/Gath.” ZDPV 132:1–25. Shedid, Abdel Ghaffar (Šadīd, ʿAbd al-​Ġaffār). 1994. Die Felsgräber von Beni Hassan in Mittelägypten. Zaberns Bildbände zur Archäologie 16. Mainz: von Zabern. Sheffer, Avigail. 1995. “Needlework and Sewing in Israel from Prehistoric Times to the Roman Period.” Pages 527–59 in Fortunate the Eyes That See: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Seventieth Birthday. Edited by Astrid B. Beck et al. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Sholan, Amida. 1999. Frauennamen in den altsüdarabischen Inschriften. TSO 11. Hildesheim: Olms. Silbermayr, Katja, et al. 2010. “High Mitochondrial Differentiation Levels Between Wild and Domestic Bactrian Camels: A Basis for Rapid Detection of Maternal Hybridization.” Animal Genetics 41:315–18. Silbermayr, Katja, and Pamela A. Burger. 2012. “Hybridization: A Threat to the Genetic Distinctiveness of the Last Wild Old World Camel Species.” Pages 69–76 in Camels in Asia and North Africa: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Their Past and Present Significance. Edited by Eva-​Maria Knoll and Pamela Burger. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften: Philosophisch-​Historische Klasse, Denkschriften 451. Veröffentlichungen zur Sozialanthropologie 18. Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Sima, Alexander. 2000. Tiere, Pflanzen, Steine und Metalle in den altsüdarabischen Inschriften: Eine lexikalische und realienkundliche Untersuchung. Veröffentlichungen der Orientalischen Kommission 46. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Simonides, Constantine. 1861. Fac-​Similes of Certain Portions of the Gospel of St. Matthew, and the Epistles of Ss. James and Jude. London: Trübner. Singer-​Avitz, Lily. 1999. “Beersheba—A Gateway Community in Southern Arabian Long-​Distance Trade in the Eighth Century B.C.E.” TA 26:3–75. ———. 2014. “The Date of the Qurayyah Painted Ware in the Southern Levant.” Antiguo Oriente 12:123–48. Sjöberg, Åke W. 1996. “UET 7 no. 93: A Lexical Text or a Commentary?” ZA 86:220–37. ———. 2000. “Early Dynastic Animal Names: R. Jestin, Tablettes sumériennes de Šuruppak, no. 46, pl. 183.” Pages 407–17 in Assyriologica et Semitica: Festschrift für Joachim Oelsner; Anlässlich seines 65. Geburtstages am 18. Februar 1997. Edited by Joachim Marzahn and Hans Neumann. AOAT 252. Münster: Ugarit-​Verlag. Skehan, Paul W., Eugene Ulrich, and Judith E. Sanderson. 1992. Qumran Cave 4.IV 4: Palaeo-​Hebrew and Greek Biblical Manuscripts. DJD IX. Oxford: Clarendon. Skidmore, L. 2008. “Reproductive Physiology in Male and Female Camels.” In Recent Advances in Camelid Reproduction. Edited by L. Skidmore and G. P. Adams. Ithaca, NY: International Veterinary Information Service. https://​www​.ivis​.org​ /library​/recent​-advances​-camelid​-reproduction​/reproductive​-physiology​-male​-and​ -female​-camels. Skinner, John. 1910. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark.

380

Bibliography

———. 1930. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis. 2nd ed. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. Smith, G. Rex. 1994. The Conquest of Iran. Vol. 14 of The History of al-Ṭabarī. Albany: State University of New York Press. Smith, Harry S., and William J. Tait. 1983. Saqqâra Demotic Papyri I (P. Dem. Saq. 1): Excavations at North Saqqâra. Documentary Series 5. London: Egypt Exploration Society. Smitten, Wilhelm T. in der. 1980. “‫חָ מֹור‬.” TDOT 4:465–70. Smuts, Malie M. S., and Abraham J. Bezuidenhout. 1987. Anatomy of the Dromedary. Oxford: Clarendon. Soden, Wolfram von. 1966. “Die Igigu-​Götter in altbabylonischer Zeit.” Iraq 28:140–45. Soggin, J. Alberto. 1997. Das Buch Genesis: Kommentar. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Sokoloff, Michael. 1992. A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period. Ramat-​Gan: Bar Ilan University. ———. 2002. A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and Geonic Periods. Ramat-​Gan: Bar Ilan University; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. ———. 2003. A Dictionary of Judean Aramaic. Ramat-​Gan: Bar Ilan University. ———. 2009. A Syriac Lexicon: A Translation from the Latin, Correction, Expansion, and Update of C. Brockelmann’s Lexicon Syriacum. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns; Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias. Soldt, Wilfred van. 1995. “Babylonian Lexical, Religious and Literary Texts and Scribal Education at Ugarit and Its Implications for the Alphabetic Literary Texts.” Pages 171–212 in Ugarit: Ein ostmediterranes Kulturzentrum im Alten Orient 1; Ugarit und seine altorientalische Umwelt. Edited by Manfred Dietrich and Oswald Loretz. Abhandlungen zur Literatur Alt-​Syrien-​Palästinas 7. Münster: Ugarit-​Verlag. ———. 2011a. “Akkadian as a Diplomatic Language.” Pages 405–15 in The Semitic Languages. Edited by Stefan Weninger. Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft/Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science 36. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. ———. 2011b. “The Role of Babylon in Western Peripheral Education.” Pages 197–211 of Babylon: Wissenskultur in Orient und Okzident. Edited by Eva Cancik-​ Kirschbaum, Margarete van Ess, and Joachim Marzahn. TOPOI 1. Berlin: de Gruyter. ———. 2015. Middle Babylonian Texts in the Cornell University Collections, Part 1: The Later Kings. CUSAS 30. Bethesda, MD: CDL. Somaglino, Claire, and Pierre Tallet. 2013. “A Road to the Arabian Peninsula in the Reign of Ramesses III.” Pages 511–18 in Desert Road Archaeology in Ancient Egypt and Beyond. Edited by Frank Förster and Heiko Riemer. Africa Praehistorica 27. Cologne: Barth Institut. Sommerfeld, Walter. 1995. “The Kassites of Ancient Mesopotamia: Origins, Politics and Culture.” Pages 917–30 in vol. 2 of Civilizations of the Near East. Edited by Jack M. Sasson. New York: Scribner. ———. 2014. Belegsammlung: Sumerische Glossare und Indices. Version 1.1. https://​ www​.uni​-marburg​.de​/cnms​/forschung​/dnms​/apps​/sgi.

Bibliography

381

Spassov Nikolai, and Todor Stoytchev. 2004. “The Dromedary Domestication Problem: 3000 BC Rock Art Evidence for the Existence of Wild One-​Humped Camel in Central Arabia.” Historia naturalis bulgarica 16:151–58. Speiser, E. A. 1962. Genesis: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 1. New York: Doubleday. Spencer, Peter B. S., et al. 2012. “Identification and Management of a Single Large Population of Wild Dromedary Camels.” Journal of Wildlife Management 76:1254–63. Sperveslage, Gunnar. 2013. “Ägyptische Einflüsse auf der Arabischen Halbinsel in vorislamischer Zeit am Beispiel der Oase von Tayma.” ZOrA 6:234–52. ———. 2016. “Intercultural Contacts Between Egypt and the Arabian Peninsula at the Turn of the 2nd to the 1st millennium BCE.” Pages 303–30 in Dynamics of Production in the Ancient Near East, 1300–500 BC. Edited by Juan Carlos Moreno García. Oxford: Oxbow. Sperveslage, Gunnar, and Ricardo Eichmann. 2012. “Egyptian Cultural Impact on North-​West Arabia in the Second and First Millennia BC.” PSAS 42:371–83. Speyer, Heinrich. 1931. Die biblischen Erzählungen im Qoran. Gräfenhainichen: Schulze. Spiegelberg, Wilhelm, ed. 1902. Demotische Papyrus aus den Königlichen Museen zu Berlin: Herausgegeben von der Generalverwaltung; Mit erläuterndem Texte von W. Spiegelberg. Leipzig: Giesecke & Devrient. Stager, Lawrence E. 1985. “The Archaeology of the Family in Ancient Israel.” BASOR 260:1–35. Staubli, Thomas. 1991. Das Image der Nomaden im Alten Israel und in der Ikonographie seiner sesshaften Nachbarn. OBO 107. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht; Fribourg: Universitätsverlag. ———. 2010. “Reiten/Reiter.” WiBiLex. http://​www​.bibelwissenschaft​.de​/stichwort​ /33122. Stausberg, Michael. 2015. “Zoroaster.” Brill’s New Pauly. Edited by Hubert Cancik and Helmuth Schneider. http://​static​.ribo​.brill​.semcs​.net​/entries​/brill​-s​-new​-pauly​ /zoroaster​-e12218030. Steible, Horst, and Fatma Yıldız. 2015. Wirtschaftstexte aus Fara II: Texte der Viehverwaltung von Šurruppak. WVDOG 143. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Steiger, Corinna. 1990. “Vergleichend morphologische Untersuchungen an Einzelknochen des postkranialen Skeletts der Altweltkamele.” Vet. med. diss., Ludwig-​ Maximilians-​Universität Munich. Stein, Peter. 2003. Untersuchungen zur Phonologie und Morphologie des Sabäischen. Epigraphische Forschungen auf der Arabischen Halbinsel 3. Rahden: Leidorf. ———. 2010. Die altsüdarabischen Minuskelinschriften auf Holzstäbchen aus der Bayerischen Staatsbibliothek im München, 1: Die Inschriften der mittel- und spätsabäischen Periode; Teil 1, Text. Epigraphische Forschungen auf der arabischen Halbinsel 5.1.1. Tübingen: Wasmuth. ———. 2013. “Palaeography of the Ancient South Arabian Script: New Evidence for an Absolute Chronology.” AAE 24:186–95. ———. 2017. “Sabäer in Juda, Juden in Saba: Sprach- und Kulturkontakt zwischen Südarabien und Palästina in der Antike.” Pages 91–120 in Sprachen in Palästina im 2. und 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. Edited by Ulrich Hübner and Herbert Niehr. ADPV 43. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

382

Bibliography

Steingass, Francis J. 1892. A Comprehensive Persian-​English Dictionary: Including the Arabic Words and Phrases to Be Met with in Persian Literature. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Steinkeller, Piotr. 1982. “The Question of Marḫaši: A Contribution to the Historical Geography of Iran in the Third Millennium B.C.” ZA 72:237–65. ———. 2009. “Camels in Ur III Babylonia?” Pages 415–19 in Exploring the Longue Durée, Essays in Honor of Lawrence E. Stager. Edited by J. David Schloen. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. ———. 2016. “The Role of Iran in the Inter-​Regional Exchange of Metals: Tin, Copper, Silver and Gold in the Second Half of the Third Millennium BC.” Pages 127– 150 in Ancient Iran: New Perspectives from Archaeology and Cuneiform Studies. Edited by Kazuya Maekawa. Ancient Text Studies in the National Museum 2. Kyoto: Nakanishi. Stephan, Elisabeth. 1995. “Preliminary Report on the Faunal Remains of the First Two Seasons of Tell Abraq/Umm al Quwain/United Arab Emirates.” Pages 52–63 in Archaeozoology of the Near East, 2: Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on the Archaeozoology of Southwestern Asia and Adjacent Areas. Edited by H. Buitenhuis and Hans-​Peter Uerpmann. Leiden: Backhuys. Sternberg, Meir. 1992. “The Bible’s Art of Persuasion: Ideology, Rhetoric, and Poetics in Saul’s Fall.” Pages 234–71 in Beyond Form Criticism: Essays in Old Testament Literary Criticism. Edited by Paul R. House. Sources for Biblical and Theological Study 2. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Stoebe, Hans Joachim. 1973. Das erste Buch Samuelis. Kommentar zum Alten Testament 8.1. Gütersloh: Mohn. Stol, Marten. 1983. “Leder(industrie).” RlA 6:527–43. Störk, Lothar. 1977. “Gold.” LdÄ 2:725–31. Strassmaier, Johann N. 1889. “Inschriften von Nabopalassar und Smerdis.” ZA 4:106–52. Streck, Michael P. 2002. “Zwischen Weide, Dorf und Stadt: Sozio-​ökonomische Strukturen des amurritischen Nomadismus am Mittleren Euphrat.” BaM 33:155–209. ———. 2007. “Reisen.” RlA 11:301–3. ———. 2011. “Steppe, Wüste.” RlA 13:146–49. ———. 2014a. “Tierwelt.” RlA 14:16–19. ———. 2014b. “Transhumanz.” RlA 14:113. Studer, Jacqueline. 2007. “Animal Exploitation in the Nabataean World.” Pages 251–72 in The World of the Nabataeans: Volume 2 of the International Conference The World of the Herods and the Nabataeans Held at the British Museum, 17–19 April 2001. Edited by Konstantinos D. Politis. Oriens et Occidens 15. Stuttgart: Steiner. Studer, Jacqueline, and Annegret Schneider. 2008. “Camel Use in the Petra Region, Jordan: lst Century BC to 4th Century AD.” Pages 581–96 in vol. 2 of Archaeozoology of the Near East 8, Actes des huitièmes Rencontres internationales d’Archéozoologie de l’Asie du Sud-​Ouest et des régions adjacentes, Lyon 28 juin– 1er juillet 2006. Edited by Emmanuelle Vila et al. Travaux de la Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée 49. Lyon: Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée. Suková, Lenka. 2011. The Rock Paintings of Lower Nubia: Czechoslovak Concession. Prague: Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Arts. Swete, Henry Barclay. 1934. The Old Testament in Greek According to the Septuagint. 3 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bibliography

383

Tadmor, Hayim. 1961. “Que and Muṣri.” IEJ 11:143–50. ———. 2007. The Inscriptions of Tiglath-​pileser III King of Assyria. 2nd printing with addenda and corrigenda. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. Tairan, Salem Ahmad. 1992. Die Personennamen in den altsabäischen Inschriften. TSO 8. Hildesheim: Olms. Tal, Abraham, ed. 2015. Genesis. Biblia Hebraica Quinta 1. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft. Talis, Svetlana. 2015. “Tel ‘Arad: Final Report.” Hadashot Arkheologiyot 127. https://​ www​.jstor​.org​/stable​/26678663. Tallet, Pierre. 2013. “Deux notes sur les expéditions au pays de Pount à la lumière de nouvelles données archéologiques.” Revue d’Égyptologie 64:189–209. Talmon, Shemaryahu. 1999. Masada VI: Yigael Yadin Excavations, 1963–1965; Final Reports; Hebrew Fragments from Masada. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Tapper, Richard. 1985. “One Hump or Two? Hybrid Camels and Pastoral Cultures.” Production pastorale et société 16:55–69. ———. 2011. “One Hump or Two? Hybrid Camels and Pastoral Cultures: An Update.” Paper delivered at the Camel Conference, SOAS. London, 23–25 May 2011. Tavernier, Jan. 2007. Iranica in the Achaemenid Period (ca. 550–330 BC): Lexicon of Old Iranian Proper Names and Loanwords, Attested in Non-​Iranian Texts. OLA 158. Leuven: Peeters. Tchernov, Eitan. 1996. “The Faunal World as Represented by the Figurines from the City of David.” Pages 85–86 in Various Reports. Vol. 4 of Excavations at the City of David, 1978–1985, Directed by Yigal Shiloh. Edited by Donald T. Ariel and Alon de Groot. Qedem 35. Jerusalem: Hebrew University. Tebes, Juan Manuel. 2014. “Socio-​economic Fluctuations and Chiefdom Formation in Edom, the Negev and the Hejaz During the First Millennium BCE.” Pages 1–29 in Unearthing the Wilderness: Studies on the History and Archaeology of the Negev and Edom in the Iron Age. Edited by Juan Manuel Tebes. Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement 45. Leuven: Peeters. Teeter, Emily. 2010. Baked Clay Figurines and Votive Beds from Medinet Habu. OIP 133. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Tegetmaier, William B., and Charles L. Sutherland. 1895. Horses, Asses, Zebras, Mules, and Mule Breeding. London: Cox. Tervanotko, Hanna, and Elisa Uusimäki. 2018. “Sarah the Princess: Tracing the Hellenistic Afterlife of a Pentateuchal Female Figure.” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 32:271–90. Thesiger, Wilfred. 1991. Arabian Sands. Repr., London: Penguin. Thiers, Christophe. 2001. “Ptolémée philadelphe, l’exploration des côtes de la Mer Rouge et la chasse à l’éléphant.” Egypte, Afrique et Orient 24:3–12. Thompson, Herbert. 1934. A Family Archive from Siut from Papyri in the British Museum, Including an Account of a Trial Before the Laocritae in the Year B.C. 170. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Thompson, Thomas L. 1974. The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives: The Quest for the Historical Abraham. BZAW 133. Berlin: de Gruyter. Tigay, Jeffrey H. 1996. Deuteronomy: The Traditional Hebrew Text with Translation. JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society. Tomczyk, Weronika. 2016. “Camels on the Northeastern Frontier of the Roman Empire.” Papers from the Institute of Archaeology 26:1–13.

384

Bibliography

Toplyn, Michael R. 2006. “Livestock and Limitanei: The Zooarchaeological Evidence.” Pages 463–508 in vol. 2 of The Roman Frontier in Central Jordan: Final Report on the Limes Arabicus Project, 1980–1989. Edited by S. Thomas Parker. Dumbarton Oaks Studies 40. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks. Tov, Emanuel. 2002. The Texts from the Judaean Desert: Indices and an Introduction to the Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Series. DJD XXXIX. Oxford: Clarendon. ———. 2004. Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert. STDJ 54. Leiden: Brill. ———. 2012. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 3rd ed. Minneapolis: Fortress. Toynbee, Jocelyn M. C. 1973. Animals in Roman Life and Art. Aspects of Greek and Roman Life. London: Thames & Hudson. Trebolle Barrera, Julio C. 1989. “Textual Variants in ‘4QJudga’ and the Textual and Editorial History of the Book of Judges.” Revue de Qumrân 14:229–45. ———. 1995. “4QJudg a (Pl. XXXVI).” Pages 161–64 in Qumran Cave 4.9: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings. Edited by Eugene Ulrich et al. DJD XIV. Oxford: Clarendon. Trinks, Alexandra, et al. 2012. “Ancient DNA Reveals Domestication Process: The Case of the Two-​Humped Camel.” Pages 79–86 in Camels in Asia and North Africa: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Their Past and Present Significance. Edited by Eva-​Maria Knoll and Pamela Burger. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften: Philosophisch-​Historische Klasse, Denkschriften 451. Veröffentlichungen zur Sozialanthropologie 18. Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Tristram, Henry B. 1883. The Natural History of the Bible: Being a Review of the Physical Geography, Geology, and Meteorology of the Holy Land. 7th ed. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. Tritton, A. S. 1971. “The Camel and the Needle’s Eye.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 34:139. Tsouparopoulou, Christina. 2013. “Killing and Skinning Animals in the Ur III Period: The Puzriš-​Dagan (Drehem) Office Managing of Dead Animals and Slaughter By-Products.” AoF 40:150–82. Tuchelt, Klaus. 1962. Tiergefäße in Kopf- und Protomengestalt: Untersuchungen zur Formengeschichte tierförmiger Gießgefäße. Istanbuler Froschungen 22. Berlin: Mann. Tufnell, Olga, ed. 1953. Lachish III (Tell Ed-​Duweir): The Iron Age, Part 2; Plates. Wellcome-​Marston Archaeological Research Expedition to the Near East 3. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tuttle, Christopher. 2009. “The Nabataean Coroplastic Arts: A Synthetic Approach for Studying Terracotta Figurines, Plaques, Vessels, and Other Clay Objects.” PhD diss., Brown University. Uerpmann, Hans-​Peter. 1979. Probleme der Neolithisierung des Mittelmeerraumes. BTAVO/B 28. Wiesbaden: Reichert. ———. 1999. “Camel and Horse Skeletons from Protohistoric Graves at Mleiha in the Emirate of Sharjah (U.A.E.).” AAE 10:102–18. ———. 2008. “Animal Domestication.” Pages 434–45 in vol. 1 of Encyclopedia of Archaeology. Edited by Deborah M. Pearsall. 3 vols. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Uerpmann, Hans-​Peter, and Margarethe Uerpmann. 1999. “The Camel Burial of al-Buhais 12 (Sharjah, U.A.E.).” Pages 455–62 in Historia animalium ex ossibus:

Bibliography

385

Beiträge zur Paläoanatomie, Archäologie, Ägyptologie, Ethnologie, und Geschichte der Tiermedizin; Festschrift für Angela von den Driesch zum 65. Geburtstag. Edited by Cornelia Becker, Henriette Manhart, Joris Peters, and Jörg Schibler. Internationale Archäologie, Studia honoraria 8. Rahden: Leidorf. ———. 2002. “The Appearance of the Domestic Camel in South-​East Arabia.” Journal of Oman Studies 12:235–60. Uerpmann, Margarethe, et al. 2012. “The Neolithic Site FAY-​NE15 in the Central Region of the Emirate of Sharjah (UAE).” PSAS 42:385–400. Uerpmann, Margarethe, and Hans-​Peter Uerpmann. 2012. “Archaeozoology of Camels in South-​Eastern Arabia.” Pages 109–22 in Camels in Asia and North Africa: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Their Past and Present Significance. Edited by Eva-​ Maria Knoll and Pamela Burger. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften: Philosophisch-​Historische Klasse, Denkschriften 451. Veröffentlichungen zur Sozialanthropologie 18. Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. ———. 2017. “The Iron Age Site of Muweilah (Sharjah, UAE) and the Problems of Dromedary Domestication.” Pages 312–19 in vol. 2 of Archaeozoology of the Near East 9: In Honour of Hans-​Peter Uerpmann and François Poplin. Edited by Mark Beech and Marjan Mashkour. Oxford: Oxbow. Uerpmann, Margarethe, Hans-​Peter Uerpmann, and S. A. Jasim. 2006. “Früher Wüstennomadismus auf der Arabischen Halbinsel.” Pages 87–103 in Die Sichtbarkeit von Nomaden und saisonaler Besiedlung in der Archäologie: Multidisziplinäre Annäherungen an ein methodisches Problem. Edited by Stefan R. Hauser. Mitteilungen des Sonderforschungsbereichs Differenz und Integration 9. Orientwissenschaftliche Hefte 21. Halle: Orientwissenschaftliches Zentrum. Uerpmann, Margarethe, Hans-​Peter Uerpmann, and Adelina Kutterer. 2019. “The Sacrifice of Camels and Horses in Association with Burials of the Late Pre-​Islamic Period in Southeast Arabia.” Pages 303–10 in Animals: Cultural Identifiers in Ancient Societies? Edited by Joris Peters, George McGlynn, and Veronika Goebel. DOAB 15. Rahden: Leidorf. Ullmann, Manfred. 1972. Review of Le “Kitāb al-​Tarbīʿ wa-1-Tadwīr” d’al-​Ğāḥiẓ, translated into French by M. Adad. Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 67:367–70. ———. 1989. Das arabische Nomen generis. Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften: Philologisch-​Historische Klasse 176. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Ulrich, Eugene. 2013. The Biblical Qumran Scrolls: Transcriptions and Textual Variants. 3 vols. VTSup 134. Leiden: Brill. Ussishkin, David, Lily Singer-​Avitz, and Hershel Shanks. 2015. “Kadesh-​Barnea in the Bible and on the Ground.” Biblical Archaeology Review 41.5:36–44. Uziel, Joe, and Itzhaq Shai. 2007. “Iron Age Jerusalem: Temple-​Palace, Capital City.” JAOS 127:161–70. Vainstub, Daniel. 2017. “The Sons of Joab at the Valley of Pottery.” RB 124:321–41. Van Buren, Elizabeth Douglas. 1930. Clay Figurines of Babylonia and Assyria. YOS Researches 16. New Haven: Yale University Press. Van de Mieroop, Marc. 2004. A History of the Ancient Near East, ca. 3000–323 BC. Oxford: Blackwell. Vandenbeusch, Marie. 2019. “Thinking and Writing ‘Donkey’ in Ancient Egypt”. AoF 46:135–46. VanderKam, James C. 2018. Jubilees: A Commentary on the Book of Jubilees. 2 vols. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress.

386

Bibliography

Van Lennep, Henry J. 1870. Travels in Little-​Known Parts of Asia Minor. 2 vols. London: Murray. Varisco, Daniel Martin. 2012. “What Camels Eat: A Study in Arabic Ethnobotany.” Pages 151–61 in Camels in Asia and North Africa: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Their Past and Present Significance. Edited by Eva-​Maria Knoll and Pamela Burger. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften: Philosophisch-​Historische Klasse, Denkschriften 451. Veröffentlichungen zur Sozialanthropologie 18. Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Vaughn, Andrew G. 1999. Theology, History, and Archaeology in the Chronicler’s Account of Hezekiah. ABS 4. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Vaux, Roland de. 1946. “Les patriarches hébreux et les découvertes modernes (1).” RB 53:321–48. ———. 1948. “Les patriarches hébreux et les découvertes modernes (2).” RB 55:321–47. ———. 1949. “Les patriarches hébreux et les découvertes modernes (3).” RB 56:5–36. Veen, Peter van der, and Peter James. 2015. “Zeraḥ the Kushite: A New Proposal Regarding His Identity.” Pages 117–26 in Solomon and Shishak: Current Perspectives from Archaeology, Epigraphy, History and Chronology; Proceedings of the Third BICANE Colloquium Held at Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge 26–27 March, 2011. Edited by Peter van der Veen and Peter James. BARIS 2732. Oxford: Archaeopress. Veldhuis, Niek C. 2000. “Kassite Exercises: Literary and Lexical Extracts.” JCS 52:67–94. ———. 2006. “How to Classify Pigs: Old Babylonian and Middle Babylonian Lexical Texts.” Pages 25–29 in De la domestication au tabou: Le cas des suidés dans le Proche-​Orient ancien. Edited by Cécile Michel, and Brigitte Lion. Paris: de Boccard. ———. 2012. “Domesticizing Babylonian Scribal Culture in Assyria: Transformation by Preservation.” Pages 11–24 of Theory and Practice of Knowledge Transfer Studies in School Education in the Ancient Near East and Beyond: Papers Read at a Symposium in Leiden, 17–19 December 2008. Edited by W. S. van Egmond and W. H. Van Soldt. Uitgaven van het Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten te Leiden 121. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. ———. 2014. History of the Cuneiform Lexical Tradition. Guides to the Mesopotamian Textual Record 6. Münster: Ugarit-​Verlag. ———. 2017. “Words and Grammar: Two Old Babylonian Lists.” Pages 363–95 in The First Ninety Years: A Sumerian Celebration in Honor of Miguel Civil. Edited by Lluís Feliu, Fumi Karahashi and Gonzalo Rubio. SANER 12. Berlin: de Gruyter. Verbeken, D., S. Diercks, and K. Dewettinck. 2003. “Exudate Gums: Occurrence, Production, and Applications.” Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 63:10–21. DOI: 10​.1007​/s00253​-003​-1354​-z. Vergote, Jozef. 1959. Joseph en Égypte: Genèse chap. 37–50 à la lumière des études égyptologiques récentes. Leuven: Publications Universitaires. Vigne, Jean-​Denis, et al. 2011. “The Early Process of Mammal Domestication in the Near East: New Evidence from the Pre-​Neolithic and Pre-​Pottery Neolithic in Cyprus.” Current Anthropology 52:S255–71. Vigne, Jean-​Denis, Joris Peters, and Daniel Helmer. 2005. “New Archaeozoological Approaches to Trace the First Steps of Animal Domestication: General

Bibliography

387

Presentation, Reflections and Proposals.” Pages 1–16 of The First Steps of Animal Domestication: New Archaeological Approaches; Proceedings of the 9th ICAZ Conference, Durham, 2002. Edited by Jean-​Denis Vigne, Joris Peters, and Daniel Helmer. Oxford: Oxbow. Vigne, Jean‑Denis, and Karyne Debue. Forthcoming. “La faune de vertébrés d’Ajakagytma (Ouzbékistan; Kel’teminar, 8500‑6000 cal BP).” In La néolithisation en Ouzbékistan: Étude de la culture de Kelteminar (VIIe‑Ve millénaires); Le site d’Ajakagytma. Edited by F. Brunet and M. Khudzhanazarov. Paris. Vila, Emmanuelle. 2005. “Analyse archéozoologique de la faune de Tell Shiukh Fawqani.” Pages 1081–108 in vol. 2 of Tell Shiukh Fawqani 1994–1998. Edited by Luc Bachelot and Frederick M. Fales. 2 vols. History of the Ancient Near East Monographs 6. Padova: S.A.R.G.O.N. Vinson, Steve. 2005. “Transportation.” In The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt. Edited by Donald B. Redford. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://​www​ .oxfordreference​.com​/view​/10​.1093​/acref​/9780195102345​.001​.0001​/acref​ -9780195102345​-e​-0735 Vittmann, Günter. 1996. “Semitisches Sprachgut im Demotischen.” Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 86:435–47. Vleeming, Sven P. 2001. Some Coins of Artaxerxes and Other Short Texts in the Demotic Script Found on Various Objects Gathered from Many Publications. Studia Demotica 5. Leuven: Peeters. Vogt, Burkhard. 1994. “Death, Resurrection and the Camel.” Pages 279–90 in Arabia Felix: Beiträge zur Sprache und Kultur des vorislamischen Arabien: Festschrift Walter W. Müller zum 60. Geburtstag. Edited by Norbert Nebes. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Vogt, Burkhard, and Alexander Sedov. 1998. “The Sabir Culture and Coastal Yemen During the Second Millennium BC—The Present State of Discussion.” PSAS 28:261–70. Vollers, Karl. 1896. “Beiträge zur Kenntniss der lebenden arabischen Sprache in Aegypten: II. Ueber die Lehnwörter; Fremdes und Eigenes.” ZDMG 50:607–57. Volten, Aksel. 1937. Studien zum Weisheitsbuch des Ani. Historisk-​filologiske Meddelelser 23.3. Copenhagen: Munksgaard. Vos, R. L. 1993. The Apis Embalming Ritual. P. Vindob. 3873. OLA 50. Leuven: Peeters. Vuković-​Bogdanović, Sonja, and Svetlana Blažić. 2014. “Camels from Roman Imperial Sites in Serbia.” Anthropozoologica 49:281–95. Vullers, Johann August. 1855–1864. Joannis Augusti Vullers Lexicon Persico-​Latinum etymologicum cum linguis maxime cognatis Sanscrita et Zendica et Pehlevica comparatum e lexicis Persice scriptis. . . . 2 vols. and supplement. Bonn: Marcus. Vycichl, Werner. 1983. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue copte. Leuven: Peeters. Wacholder, Ben Zion. 1964. “How Long Did Abram Stay in Egypt? A Study in Hellenistic, Qumran, and Rabbinic Chronography.” Hebrew Union College Annual 35:43–56. Waetzold, A. 2007. “Rind. A: In mesopotamischen Quellen des 3. Jahrtausends.” RlA 11:375–88. Wagensonner, Klaus. 2010. “Early Lexical Lists Revisited: Structures and Classification as a Mnemonic Device.” Pages 285–310 in vol. 1.1 of Language in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the 53e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale. Edited by Leonid Kogan et al. Babel und Bibel 4.1. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

388

Bibliography

———. 2012. “Early Lexical Lists and Their Impact on Economic Records: An Attempt of Correlation Between Two Seemingly Different Kinds of Data-​Sets.” Pages 805–17 in Organization, Representation, and Symbols of Power in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the 54th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale at Würzburg 20–25 July 2008. Edited by Gernot Wilhelm. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. ———. 2016. “Die frühen lexikalischen Texte und ihr Aufbau: Zu den archaischen und frühdynastischen Wortlisten, der Anordnung ihrer Einträge und den Klassifikationssystemen in den frühen Phasen der Keilschrift.” PhD diss., Universität Wien. ———. Forthcoming. “Animal Lists in the Third Millennium BC.” Wallis, Henry. 1898. Egyptian Ceramic Art: The Macgregor Collection; A Contribution Towards the History of Egyptian Pottery. London: Taylor & Francis. Walsh, Jerome T. 2001. Style and Structure in Biblical Hebrew Narrative. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press. Waltke, Bruce K., and Michael P. O’Connor. 1990. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Walz, Reinhard. 1951. “Zum Problem des Zeitpunkts der Domestikation der altweltlichen Cameliden.” ZDMG 101:29–51. ———. 1954. “Neue Untersuchungen zum Domestikationsproblem der altweltlichen Cameliden: Beiträge zur ältesten Geschichte des zweihöckrigen Kamels.” ZDMG 104:45–87. ———. 1956. “Beiträge zur ältesten Geschichte der altweltlichen Cameliden unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Problems des Domestikationszeitpunktes.” Pages 190–204 in Ethnologica, seconde partie, et rapport général. Vol. 3 of Actes du IVe Congrès International des Sciences Anthropologiques et Ethnologiques Vienne, 1–8 septembre 1952. Vienna: Holzhausen. Wapnish, Paula. 1981. “Camel Caravans and Camel Pastoralists at Tell Jemmeh.” Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 13:101–21. ———. 1984. “The Dromedary and Bactrian Camel in Levantine Historical Settings: The Evidence from Tell Jemmeh.” Pages 171–200 in Early Herders and Their Flocks. Vol.3 of Animals and Archaeology. Edited by Juliet Clutton-​Brock, and Caroline Grigson. BARIS 202. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Watanabe, Kazuko. 1987. “Freiburger Vorläufer zu ḪAR-​ra = ḫubullu XI und XII.” Acta Sumerologica 9:278–91. Watson, Wilfred G. E. 1990a. “Ugaritic Onomastics (1).” Aula Orientalis 8:113–27. ———. 1990b. “Ugaritic Onomastics (2).” Aula Orientalis 8:243–50. ———. 2006. “Names for Animals in the Ugaritic Texts.” Pages 445–58 in Šapal tibnim mû illakū: Studies Presented to Joaquín Sanmartín on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday. Edited by Gregorio del Olmo Lete, Lluís Feliu, and Adelina Millet Albà. Aula Orientalis Supplementa 22. Barcelona: AUSA. ———. 2007. “Additional Names for Animals in the Ugaritic Texts.” Historiae 4:93–116. Watt, W. Montgomery. 1972. “The Camel and the Needle’s Eye.” Pages 155–58 in vol. 2 of Ex Orbe Religionum: Studia Geo Widengren. Edited by C. J. Bleeker. Studies in the History of Religions 22. Leiden: Brill. Watt, W. Montgomery, and Michael V. McDonald. 1987. The Foundation of the Community. Vol. 7 of The History of al-Ṭabarī. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Bibliography

389

———. 1988. Muḥammad at Mecca. Vol. 6 of The History of al-Ṭabarī. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Way, Kenneth C. 2011. Donkeys in the Biblical World: Ceremony and Symbol. History, Archaeology, and Culture of the Levant 2. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Weber, Jill A. 2008. “Elite Equids: Redefining Equid Burials of the Mid- to Late 3rd Millennium B.C. from Umm El-​Marra, Syria.” Pages 499–519 in vol. 2 of Archaeozoology of the Near East 8, Actes des huitièmes Rencontres internationales d’Archéozoologie de l’Asie du Sud-​Ouest et des régions adjacentes, Lyon 28 juin— 1er juillet 2006. Edited by Emmanuelle Vila et al. 2 vols. Travaux de la Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée 49. Lyon: Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée. ———. 2017. “Elite Equids 2: Seeing the Dead.” Pages 340–52 in vol. 2 of Archaeozoology of the Near East 9: In Honour of Hans-​Peter Uerpmann and François Poplin. Edited by Mark Beech and Marjan Mashkour. Oxford: Oxbow. Weeks, Harry R. 1992. “Sharon.” ABD 5:1161–63. Weeks, Lloyd, et al. 2017. “Recent Archaeological Research at Saruq al-​Hadid, Dubai, UAE.” AAE 28:31–60. Wehr, Hans. 1980. A Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic. Edited by by J. Milton Cowan. Beirut: Librairie du Liban. Weiershäuser, Frauke, and Ivan Hrůša. 2018. Lexikalische Texte 1: ur5-ra = ḫubullu, mur-​gud = imrû = ballu, Lú-​Listen; Teil 1: Einleitung, Katalog, Texbearbeitungen, Verzeichnisse; Teil 2: Glossare und Keilschriftautographien. Keilschriften aus Assur literarischen Inhalts 8. WVDOG 153. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Weiher, Egbert von. 1988. Spätbabylonische Texte aus Uruk, Teil 3. Ausgrabungen der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft in Uruk-​Warka 12. Berlin: Mann. Weinberg, Joël P. 1972. “Demographische Notizen zur Geschichte der nachexilischen Gemeinde in Juda.” Klio 54:45–59. Weippert, Manfred. 1967. Die Landnahme der israelitischen Stämme in der neueren wissenschaftlichen Diskussion. FRLANT 92. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ———. 1974. “Semitische Nomaden des zweiten Jahrtausends: Über die Šśw der ägyptischen Quellen.” Biblica 55:265–80. Wellhausen, Julius. 1899. Die Composition des Hexateuchs. 3rd ed. Berlin: Reimer. ———. 1927. Reste arabischen Heidentums: Gesammelt und erläutert. 2nd ed. Berlin: de Gruyter. Welten, Peter. 1973. Geschichte und Geschichtsdarstellung in den Chronikbüchern. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 42. Neukirchen-​ Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Wenham, Gordon J. 1987. Genesis 1–15. WBC 1. Waco, TX: Word. Wenham, John W. 1967. “Large Numbers in the Old Testament.” Tyndale Bulletin 18:19–53. Weninger, Stefan. 2005. “Anmerkungen zu den arabischen Fremdwörtern im Äthiopischen.” Pages 361–69 in Studia Aethiopica: In Honour of Siegbert Uhlig on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday. Edited by Verena Böll et al. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ———. 2011. “Aramaic-​Arabic Language Contact.” Pages 747–55 in The Semitic Languages: An International Handbook. Edited by Stefan Weninger. Berlin: de Gruyter. Wenning, Robert. 2013. “North Arabian Deities and the Deities of Petra: An Approach to the Origins of the Nabataeans?” Pages 335–42 in Men on the Rocks: The

390

Bibliography

Formation of Nabataean Petra. Edited by Michael Mouton and Stephan G. Schmid. Supplement to the Bulletin of Nabatean Studies 1. Berlin: Logos. Westendorf, Wolfhart. 2008. Koptisches Handwörterbuch. 2nd ed. Heidelberg: Winter. Westenholz, Aage. 1975. Early Cuneiform Texts in Jena. Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab Historisk-​Filosofiske Skrifter 7.3. Copenhagen: Munksgaard. Westermann, Claus. 1986. Genesis 37–50: A Continental Commentary. Minneapolis: Fortress. ———. 1995. Genesis 12–36: A Continental Commentary. Minneapolis: Fortress. Weszeli, M. 2004. “Pferd. A. I. In Mesopotamien.” RlA 10:469–81. ———. 2007. “Reiten. A. In Mesopotamien.” RlA 11:303–7. Wiedemann, A. 1890. “Stela at Freiburg in Baden.” Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology 13:31–39. Wildberger, Hans. 1978. Jesaja, 2: Jesaja 13–27. BKAT 10.2. Neukirchen-​Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. ———. 1982. Jesaja, 3: Jesaja 28–39. BKAT 10.3. Neukirchen-​Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Wilke, Fritz. 1907. War Abraham eine historische Persönlichkeit? Vortrag gehalten auf der Lutherischen Konferenz zu Greifswald am 28. November 1906. Leipzig: Dieterich. Wilkens, Barbara. 1992. “I resti faunistici di Tell Afis.” Pages 197–213 in Tell Afis e l’età del ferro. Edited by S. Mazzoni. Seminari di Orientalistica 2. Pisa: Giardini. Wilkinson, Toby C. 2014. Tying the Threads of Eurasia: Trans-​regional Routes and Material Flows in Transcaucasia, Eastern Anatolia and Western Central Asia, c. 3000–1500 B.C. Leiden: Sidestone. Williamson, Hugh G. M. 1985. Ezra, Nehemiah. WBC 16. Waco, TX: Word. Wilson, Richard T. 1984. The Camel. London: Longman. ———. 1989. Ecophysiology of the Camelidae and Desert Ruminants. Berlin: Springer. Winkelmann, Sylvia. 1995. “Nordwestindische Bezüge auf baktrischen Siegeln.” AoF 22:165–82. ———. 1999. “Von Formen und Stilen—Ein Versuch der Gliederung baktrischer Stempel- und Rollsiegel.” Pages 112–211 in Zwischen Nil und Hindukusch: Archäologie im Orient. Edited by Markus Mode. Hallesche Beiträge zur Orientwissenschaft 28. Halle: Institut für Orientalische Archäologie und Kunst der Martin-​Luther-Universität. Winkler, Hans Alexander. 1938. Rock-​Drawings of Southern Upper Egypt. Vol. 1, Sir Robert Mond Desert Expedition, Season 1936–1937: Preliminary Report. Archaeological Survey of Egypt 26. London: Egypt Exploration Society. Winnett, Fred V., and G. Lankester Harding. 1978. Inscriptions from Fifty Safaitic Cairns. Near and Middle East Series 9. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Wiseman, Donald J. 1953. The Alalakh Tablets. Occasional Publications of the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara 2. London: British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara. ———. 1959. “Ration Lists from Alalakh VII.” JCS 13:19–33. ———. 1993. 1 and 2 Kings: An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries. Leicester: Inter-​Varsity Press. Wong, Gregory T. K. 2007. “Gideon: A New Moses?” Pages 529–45 in Reflection and Refraction: Studies in Biblical Historiography in Honour of A. Graeme Auld.

Bibliography

391

Edited by Robert Rezetko, Timothy H. Lim, and W. Brian Aucker. VTSup 113. Leiden: Brill. Woolley, Leonard, and Max E. Mallowan. 1976. The Old Babylonian Period. Ur Excavations 7. London: British Museum. Wrede, Nadja. 1990. “Katalog der Terrakotten der archäologischen Oberflächenuntersuchung (Survey) des Stadtgebiets von Uruk (Uruk 35–37).” BaM 21:215–301. ———. 1991. “Terrakotten und Objekte aus gebranntem Ton.” Pages 151–76 in Uruk: Kampagne 35–37 1982–1984: Die archäologische Oberflächenuntersuchung (Survey). Edited by Uwe Finkbeiner. Ausgrabungen in Uruk-​Warka, Endberichte 4. Mainz: von Zabern. ———. 2003. Uruk: Terrakotten I; Von der ‘Ubaid- bis zur altbabylonischen Zeit. Ausgrabungen in Uruk-​Warka, Endberichte 25. Mainz: von Zabern. Yadin, Yigael, and Joseph Naveh. 1989. Masada I: The Yigael Yadin Excavations, 1963–1965; Final Reports. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Yagil, Reuven. 1982. Camels and Camel Milk. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. www​.fao​.org​/docrep​/003​/x6528e​/X6528E00​.htm. ———. 1985. The Desert Camel: Comparative Physiological Adaptation. Comparative Animal Nutrition 5. Basel: Karger. Yagil, Reuven, and Zipora Etzion. 1980. “Hormonal and Behavioural Patterns in the Male Camel (Camelus dromedarius).” Journal of Reproduction and Fertility 58:61–65. Yakubovich, Ilya. 2016. “Some Transitive Motion Verbs and Related Lexemes in Late Luwian.” Indogermanische Forschungen 121:69–92. Yezerski, Irit, and Hillel Geva. 2003. “Iron Age II Clay Figurines.” Pages 63–84 in The Finds from Areas A, W and X-2: Final Report. Vol. 2 of Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982. Edited by Hillel Geva. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Yoganandi, Jaydeep, et al. 2014. “Evaluation and Comparison of Camel Milk with Cow Milk and Buffalo Milk for Gross Composition.” Journal of Camel Practice and Research 21:259–65. Young, Ian, Robert Rezetko, and Martin Ehrensvärd. 2008. Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts. 2 vols. Bible World. London: Equinox. Younger, K. Lawson, Jr. 2000a. “Kurkh Monolith.” COS 2.113A:261–64. ———. 2000b. “Summary Inscriptions 9–10.” COS 2.117F:291–92. ———. 2016. A Political History of the Arameans: From Their Origin to the End of Their Politics. ABS 13. Atlanta: SBL Press. Younker, Randall W., and Katharine Koudele. 2007. “Camel Petroglyphs in the Wadi Nasib and Their Implications for the Use of Camels in the Late Bronze Age.” SHAJ 9:53–59. Yousef, M. K., M. E. D. Webster, and O. M. Yousef. 1989. “Energy Costs of Walking in Camels, Camelus dromedarius.” Physiological Zoology 62:1080–88. Yule, Paul. 2014. Cross-​Roads—Early and Late Iron Age South-​Eastern Arabia. ADOG 30. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Zabīdī, Murtaḍā al-. 1965–. ‫تاج العروس من جواهر القاموس‬. (Tāğ al-ʿarūs min ğawāhir al-qāmūs). 40 vols. Al-​Kuwayt: Wizāraẗ al-iršād wa-​al-anbāʼ. Zaborski, Andrzej. 2013. “Semitic Loanwords in Greek.” In Encyclopedia of Ancient Greek Language and Linguistics. Leiden: Brill. https://​referenceworks​.brillonline​ .com​/entries​/encyclopedia​-of​-ancient​-greek​-language​-and​-linguistics​/semitic​ -loanwords​-in​-greek​-SIM​_00000476.

392

Bibliography

Zadok, Ran. 1981. “Arabians in Mesopotamia During the Late-​Assyrian, Chaldean, Achaemenian and Hellenistic Periods, Chiefly According to the Cuneiform Sources.” ZDMG 131:42–84. ———. 1993. “On the Amorite Material from Mesopotamia.” Pages 315–33 in The Tablet and the Scroll: Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William W. Hallo. Edited by Mark E. Cohen, Daniel C. Snell, and David B. Weisberg. Bethesda, MD: CDL. ———. 2013. “The Onomastics of the Chaldean, Aramean, and Arabian Tribes in Babylonia During the First Millennium.” Pages 261–336 in Arameans, Chaldeans, and Arabs in Babylonia and Palestine in the First Millennium B.C. Edited by Angelika Berlejung and Michael P. Streck. Leipziger Altorientalistische Studien 3. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Zahlhaas, Gisela. 1996. Aus Noahs Arche: Tierbilder der Sammlung Mildenberg aus fünf Jahrtausenden. Ausstellungskataloge der prähistorischen Staatssammlung 29. Mainz: von Zabern. Zarins, Juris. 1978. “The Camel in Ancient Arabia: A Further Note.” Antiquity 52:44–46. ———. 1989. “Pastoralism in Southwest Asia: The Second Millennium BC.” Pages 127–55 of The Walking Larder: Patterns of Domestication, Pastoralism, and Predation. Edited by Juliet Clutton-​Brock. One World Archaeology 2. London: Hyman. ———. 1992. “Camel.” ABD 1:824–26. ———. 2001. The Land of Incense: Archaeological Work in the Governorate of Dhofar, Sultanate of Oman, 1990–1995. Muscat: Sultan Qaboos University. ———. 2014. The Domestication of Equidae in Third-​Millennium BCE Mesopotamia. CUSAS 24. Bethesda, MD: CDL. Zeder, Melinda A. 2006a. “Central Questions in the Domestication of Plants and Animals.” Evolutionary Anthropology 15:105–17. ———. 2006b. “Colloque: Archaeozoology in Southwest Asia; A Status Report Based on the Eighth Meeting of the Archaeozoology of Southwest Asia and Adjacent Areas Working Group 2006 (Lyon, June 28th–July 1st 2006).” Paléorient 32:137–47. ———. 2011. “The Origins of Agriculture in the Near East.” Current Anthropology 52:S221–35. ———. 2012. “Pathways to Animal Domestication.” Pages 227–59 in Biodiversity in Agriculture: Domestication, Evolution and Sustainability. Edited by Paul Gepts et al. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Zeder, Melinda A., and Brian Hesse. 2000. “The Initial Domestication of Goats (Capra hircus) in the Zagros Mountains 10,000 Years Ago.” Science 287.5461:2254–57. Zeeb, Frank. 2001. Die Palastwirtschaft in Altsyrien nach den spätaltbabylonischen Getreidelieferlisten aus Alalaḫ (Schicht VII). AOAT 282. Münster: Ugarit-​Verlag. Zettler, Richard L. 1993. Nippur III: Kassite Buildings in Area WC-1. OIP 111. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Zeuner, Frederick E. 1955. “The Identity of the Camel on the Khurab Pick.” Iraq 17: 162–63. ———. 1963. A History of Domesticated Animals. New York: Harper & Row. Ziegler, Charlotte. 1962. Die Terrakotten von Warka. Ausgrabungen der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft in Uruk-​Warka 6. Berlin: Mann. Ziffer, Irit, and Eriola Jakoel. 2017. “A Cylinder Seal from Yehud.” IEJ 67:1–13.

Bibliography

393

Zimmerle, William G. 2014. “Ethnographic Light on the Form, Function, and Decoration of ‘Arabian-​Style’ Cuboid Incense Burners from First-​Millennium BC Nippur.” PSAS 44:337–51. Zimmerli, Walther. 1976. 1. Mose 12–25: Abraham. Zürcher Bibelkommentare. Zürich: TVZ. Zimmermann, Michaela I., et al. 2018. “Joint Health in Free-​Ranging and Confined Small Bovids—Implications for Early Stage Caprine Management.” JAS 92:13–27. Zimmern, Heinrich. 1890. “Zur assyrischen und vergleichenden semitischen Lautlehre.” ZA 5: 367–98. ———. 1917. Akkadische Fremdwörter als Beweis für babylonischen Kultureinfluß. Leipzig: Hinrichs. Zohary, Michael. 1973. Geobotanical Foundations of the Middle East. Vol. 2. Stuttgart: Fischer. ———. 1982. Plants of the Bible: A Complete Handbook to All the Plants with 200 Full-​Color Plates Taken in the Natural Habitat. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Zubeir, Ibtisam E M El, and Samah O Jabreel. 2008. “Fresh Cheese from Camel Milk Coagulated with Camifloc.” International Journal of Dairy Technology 61:90–95. Zwickel, Wolfgang. 2015. “Solomon’s Temple, Its Cultic Implements and the Historicity of Solomon’s Kingdom.” Pages 148–54 in Solomon and Shishak: Current Perspectives from Archaeology, Epigraphy, History and Chronology; Proceedings of the Third BICANE Colloquium Held at Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge 26–27 March, 2011. Edited by Peter van der Veen and Peter James. BARIS 2732. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Index of Ancient Sources

Apocalypse of Abraham II:4  224 Aelian On the Characteristics of Animals 17:7  25n4 Agatharchides of Cnidus On the Erythraean Sea  128n120 Amarna letters EA 1–2  81 EA 7:55  270 EA 8:43  270 EA 9–11  102 EA 11:24  270 EA 15  267 EA 16  270 EA 34  271 EA 35  271 EA 19  270 EA 48  242 EA 89  267 EA 96  81 EA 161  241 EA 200  81 EA 280  81 ANA inscriptions AbaNS 54, 64, 94–95, 315, 364.1  147n133 AbSWS 80  147n133 AGQ 29  147n133

ASFF 158  147n133 AWS 116, 202, 332  147nn132–3 BS 1028  147n133 C 1148, 2556  147n134 C 2998  147 CEDS 549  150n136 CH.07-0001-01.04  147n132 CSNS 533  150n136 Ǧabal Iṯlib 01  145 HaNS 452  147n132 HaNS 471  147n133 HaNSB 316  147 HaNSB 349  148 Is.Mu 823  150n136 ISB 165  147n132 JaL 169w  145, 150n136 JSLih 056  145n131 KhBG 98  147n133 KRS 117  148 KRS 470–72  150n136 KRS 881  155n141 KRS 1000  155 KRS 1560  147n134 KRS 2981  147n132 KWQ 40  147n134 LP 326.1  155n141 al-​Mafraq Museum 51  147n133 MuNJ 1  147n132 PH 279 aw  146 QWs 10  147n134 SIJ 210, 295  147n134 SIJ Extra 20  155

395

396

Index of Ancient Sources

Appian The Syrian Wars 6:32  258n94 Aristotle Hist. an.  104n106 Hist. an. 498b–499a  6, 19, 25n4, 150, 226n38 Hist. an. 540a etc.  25n4, 290 Kitāb al-​Hayawān  150 ASA inscriptions JA 2856  92n91 RES 3910/Gl 542  92n91 RES 3945  150 al-​Balādhūrī Kitāb futūḥ al-​buldān  148 Codex Hammurabi  81 Columella De re rustica  122n118 Cuneiform texts (sigla) A 7896  62n39 BM 85983  63 Bod S 296  65n48 CBS 6118  61n37 CBS 8538  77 CBS 13589  61n37 HS 1666  63n44 HS 1671  63n44 HS 1799  61n37 HS 1858  61n37 IM 58670  61n37 IM 58671  61n37 K. 1520  69n58 K. 4405  69n59 Msk 731086  60n34 Msk 7342  60n34 Msk 74103b  61 Msk 74105a  73n69 Msk 74128  73n70 Msk 74247  73n70 Msk 7522  70, 71 N 3395  79 ND 2366  119 ND 2442  118

ND 2497  119 ND 2647  119 ND 2728+2739  118 ND 2782  118 Ni 3776  61n37 OECT 10 no. 388  119 PF 1418  73, 74n72 PF 1711  74n72 PF 1786  74n72 PF 1787  74n72 PF 1845  73 PF 1957  74n72 PF 77  73 RŠ 17.40  70, 72, 82 SAA 1 no. 175  117 SAA 1 no. 177  117 SAA 1 no. 82  118 SAA 3 no. 39  79n82, 103n105 SAA 5 no. 48  118 SAA 6 no. 138  118 SAA 6 no. 241  78, 89, 101n102, 112, 119, 225n34 SAA 6 no. 242  112 SAA 6 no. 300  118 SAA 11 no. 162  118, 129n120, 192n176 SAA 12 no. 27  118 SAA 15 no. 182  112, 118 SAA 15 no. 195  118 SAA 17 no. 122  119 SAA 17 no. 139  97n97, 112n110 SAA 18 no. 149  117n116 SAA 19 no. 3  119 SAA 19 no. 175  119 SAA 19 no. 177  119 TSŠ 46  62n42 UM 29-13-715  61n37 UM 29-16-031  61n37, 77n78 UM 29-16-338  69 UM 33-58-140  72 YBC 4679  61n38, 77n78 YOS 6 no. 134  119 Cuneiform texts (DCCLT numbering) P010717  62n42 P123310  66 P127971  66 P227673  63n44

Index of Ancient Sources P227697  P227736  P228065  P228399  P228700  P228739  P229040  P229072  P229116  P229423  P229454  P229518  P229801  P229879  P229962  P230163  P230258  P230466  P230541  P231662  P231771  P235796  P237905  P247525  P247857  P263338  P271388  P271466  P271483  P271995  P273335  P274485  P282737  P336234  P345804  P347052  P349825  P393770  P395531  P400388  P421809  P450811  P478874 

77n78 61n37 61n35 77n78 61n37, 77n78 69n60 61n37 63n44 77n78 61n37 61n37 61n37 63n44 63n44 61n37 62n40 61n37 63n44 61n37 79n79 63n44 61n38, 77n78 97n97, 112n110 63n43 63 77 60n34 61n36 73n69 73n70 70n62, 72n66 79n81 72n66 79n82, 103n105 65n48 62n41 69n57, 96 69n57, 96 69n59 69n57, 96 92n90 90n87 64n46

Diodorus Siculus  104n106, 313 Bibl. Hist. II.16–19  262n6 Bibl. Hist. II.54:6  155

397

Eusebius Prep. for the Gospel  9.17.2–9  203n9 Genesis Apocryphon  195, 203 1QapGenar 19:10–20:32  205 Ḫar-​ra = ḫubullu  56–57, 81 Ḫḫ  XI  61, 63, 71n65, 73 Ḫḫ  XIII  59, 66–67, 69–73, 75–77, 103, 125 Ḫḫ  XIV  59, 66, 76 ura  II  63 ura  III  58, 61 ura  IV  63 ura  IX  60 Herodotus Hist. 1:80  33, 226 Hist. 3:7–9  120 Hist. 3:9  33, 73 Jerome Vita Hilarioni 23  62n41 Josephus Ag. Apion 1.40  249 Antiquities  198, 266 Ant. 1.161–8  203n9 Ant. 6.153–4  199 Ant. 8.165  269n13 Ant. 18.116–19  269 Jubilees Jubilees 13:11–16  203n9 al-​Kāshgarī Diwān luγāt al-​Turk  149 Lexical lists See Ḫar-​ra = ḫubullu Ostraca  170, 276n22 Arad 1  276n22 Arad 3  273 Beersheba 42  278 Biʾr Samūt  173–74 Demotic O. Man. 3928  173, 308 Demotic O. Man. 4304  173, 308

398

Index of Ancient Sources

Ostraca (continued) Ḥisbān A1  241 Lachish 30  276n20 Masada  276n21 Meṣad Ḥashavyahu  292 Noqedim*  192n176 Khirbet el-​Qom*  242 Samaria ostraca  277n22 Papyri Arabic papyri (Egypt)  150 Berlin pBerlin 8278b  174 British Museum Anastasi VI  161, 173n162, 246 British Museum BM 10591  174 British Museum Harris I  161, 253 Greek papyri (Biʾr Samūt)  174, 176 Heidelberg D 4  174 Khalili A1; B8; C3  34, 74n72, 225 Michigan Inv. 6981  176 Vienna Krall  175

Qumran manuscripts 1QApGenar  203n9 1QGen  195 1QIsaa  200–201, 282 1QIsab  201 1QJudg  196–98 4QGen-​Exoda  195 4QIsaa  200 4QJudga  196 4QJudgb  196 4QpaleoExodm  196 4QSama  198–99 4QSamb  199 XJudg  196 Qur’ān surat al-​Aʿrāf ​(sura 7:40)  150, 299–300 al-Ṭabarī Taʾrīḫ al-​rusul wa-​l-​mulūk  148–50

Pliny Natur. hist.  104n106 Natur. hist. 6.159–61  274n17 Natur. hist. 12.63  132 Natur. hist. 12.68  74 Natur. hist. 12.98  243n70

Talmud Berakot 55b  25n4, 299 Baba Meṣi’a 38b  299n8

Polybius Hist. XIII 9:5  271n14

al-​Yaʿqūbī Kitāb al-​buldān  149

Testament of ​Isaac 5:8  175

Index of Animals

antelope, 31, 84, 153, 162 aurochs, 25, 57, 58, 60–63, 75–77 bear, 62, 77, 79, 108, 187, 288 bison, European, 62, 63, 75–77 boar, see wild boar camel blood, 11–12, 14 body temperature, 8, 10–12, 31, 245, 301 breeding, 15, 17–19, 22–24, 36, 67, 85, 90, 95, 105–7, 109, 110, 112–13, 116, 117, 122–26, 129, 150, 155, 227, 237, 250, 265, 268, 275, 284, 303–7, 309 butter(milk), 64, 65, 113 cameleer, 12, 13, 33, 74, 94, 102, 107–8, 113–14, 116–18, 120, 122, 124–25, 133, 136, 155, 160, 169, 173–74, 186, 192n176, 193, 221, 223n31, 229, 231, 239, 241, 247, 251, 279, 304, 310 caravans, 10–12, 14, 17, 22, 25, 59, 83, 90, 94, 102, 117, 121–23, 131–32, 185, 189, 195, 229, 231, 233, 239, 283, 285, 302–3, 306–10 carcass, 16, 127, 132, 179, 182, 183 carry(ing capacity), 8–9, 12–13, 22, 58, 106, 110, 113, 117, 122, 126, 131, 142, 148, 164n155, 172, 176, 185, 240, 268– 69, 283–84, 303, 309n2, 312n1 crupper, 50–51, 134, 136, 139, 140, 142, 188 DNA, 15, 17, 36, 125–26, 130 dung, 13–14, 19, 30, 157







ears, 6, 10, 43, 45, 158 eye, 10, 168 F1 hybrids, 23, 106–10, 113, 122–26, 155 F2 hybrids, 23, 109, 113 fertility, 12, 19, 40n19, 45, 122 fighting mount, 136–38, 258 gestation, 12, 18, 130 hair, cord of, 157 harness, 40, 43, 45, 49, 53, 73, 78, 84, 185, 241, 244 hemolysis, 12 hide, 34, 61, 63, 73–74, 158, 307 hump(s), 10, 21, 24, 29, 43, 45, 50–54, 58, 84, 101–6, 112–14, 134, 136–37, 139–42, 145, 158, 160, 162n151, 164– 68, 188–89, 235, 283–84, 311 hybridization, 22–24, 101n102, 104–5, 111–12, 122–26, 156, 180, 304 hybrid(s), 13, 22–24, 26, 34, 36, 44, 53, 57, 67, 76, 79, 104–14, 123–26, 129, 134, 149–50, 154–56, 183, 218, 225– 26, 268, 283, 296, 303–5, 307 iner, 23 iner-​maya, 23 lactating, 18, 96, 100, 131, 147, 218, 222, 224, 237, 245 literary camels, 221–24, 262 meat, 14, 18, 21, 67, 123, 126, 128, 130– 32, 170, 179, 182–83, 185, 223, 248, 307 milk, 13–14, 21, 23, 64–65, 80, 83, 97, 106, 113, 130–31, 223–24, 237, 307 nar, 23 399

400

Index of Animals

camel (continued) nar-​maya, 23 nostrils, 10, 13 rider, 31n5, 37, 52, 100, 140, 171, 187, 231, 235, 247, 251–52, 257, 306, 312 riding, 37, 139–40, 250, 257, 268, 305 rutting, 12, 62n41, 67n51, 122, 164n155, 174, 289–90 saddle, 3, 13, 21, 29, 37, 40, 45, 47–53, 134–38, 140–42, 144, 153, 188, 222– 24, 234–36, 284, 308, 311 shoulder, 8 stomach, 248 swimming, 33, 68–69 teeth, 157, 180, 290 toes, 10, 181, 248 urine, 11, 14, 174, 289–90 warriors, 104, 136, 138, 140, 169, 171, 250–51, 257–58n93 weaning, 13, 100 weight, 8, 13–14, 229 wild camel, 14–15, 17–18, 20, 40, 55, 65, 77, 92, 133, 151, 190 w. dromedary, 17, 41, 77–78, 120–31, 151, 154, 159, 171, 179, 304 w. Bactrian, 7, 20–21, 65 w. two-​humped, 6–7, 15, 20–21, 31 withers, 139 wool, 6, 13, 23, 106, 296 Camelus bactrianus, 6, 7, 15, 19–20, 22, 90, 122, 248 Camelus dromedarius, 6, 7, 15, 17, 22, 248, 304 Camelus ferus, 6, 7, 15, 20, 122 Camelus thomasi, 15 caracal, 58 cat of ​Meluḫḫa, 79 cattle, 16, 24, 40, 43–44, 58, 61, 66, 68, 76–77, 81, 86, 115, 123–24, 127, 132– 33, 150, 161, 179, 183–84, 187, 196, 231, 218, 233, 236–37, 247–48, 252– 56, 274–78, 288, 291, 294–95, 299, 303 (see also oxen) deer, 31, 62, 66, 77, 108–9 dog, 16, 29, 40, 59, 62, 153, 175, 183, 288 donkey, 25, 66–73, 77–81, 92n91, 97, 114, 125, 132–33, 161, 164–68, 174, 176,

179n173, 183, 185, 195, 200, 213–18, 223–24, 232, 238, 241, 250, 255, 285, 303, 309n2 elephant, 24–25, 31, 57–65, 73, 77, 79, 84, 91, 108, 113, 155, 160, 187, 191, 248, 262n6, 299, 301, 303 gazelle, 16, 31, 108–9, 127, 128, 151, 153, 160–62 hemione, 73, 75–76, 122, 215–16, 218, 288–90 hoopoe, 261–62 horned viper, 58 horse, 18, 21–25, 29, 33–35, 40n19, 59, 66–69, 73, 81–89, 103–6, 111, 113, 116–17, 119, 133–34, 136, 138, 148, 152–55, 165, 176, 179, 185, 187, 191, 196, 200, 221, 224, 225, 230–32, 235, 238n60, 247, 257n92, 258, 263, 283– 87, 294–95, 303 hyena, 16, 77, 161n150, 175, 187 ibex, 31, 77, 108–9, 151–53, 162, 187–88 leopard, 77, 175 lion, 39n16, 59, 77, 108–9, 158, 160, 162, 175, 187, 217n25, 283, 288 monkey, 84, 108–9, 173n162 mud creeper, 16 mule, 22, 24, 57, 66–67, 75, 86–87, 105–6, 113, 118–19, 122, 155, 170, 176, 180, 191, 215, 217, 219–20, 223, 231–32, 263, 273, 276, 285–87, 294–95 oryx, 16, 127–28, 151, 188 ostrich, 31, 77, 108–9, 151–52, 162, 187 oxen, 57, 66, 68, 76, 84, 88, 103–6, 111, 191, 199, 203, 214–16, 236, 238, 249, 252, 256–57, 262, 276, 305 (see also cattle) Paracamelus, 14 pig, 59, 73, 77, 81, 179 rhinoceros, 74, 84 ruminants, 11, 248

Index of Animals

401

sheep and goat, 21, 35, 88, 105–6, 128, 130, 132–33, 146, 169, 179n173, 183, 191– 92, 203n7, 237n57, 245, 256–57, 274, 276, 279–80, 292, 294

wild ass, 67, 73, 75–77, 108, 122–23, 127, 288–90 wild boar, 59, 77, 108 wild bull, 108–9 (see also aurochs)

Typhonic beast, 174

zebu, 43–44, 51, 76n74, 108, 188

Index of Proper Names

Abram, 2, 201–18, 222, 226–29, 241, 302–3 Abraham, 175n170, 201–4, 213, 221, 224, 240, 244 Abu Dhabi, 127 Abu Sir Al-​Malaq, 158 Abydos, 139, 169–70 Adad Narari III, 270 Alexander the Great, 90, 176 Almulihiah, 152 Altyn Depe, 28, 32 Amalekites, 81, 140, 250–51, 255–57, 305 Amarna, 70, 81, 238n60, 241–42, 269–71 Arabah Valley, 181, 183–84, 186 Arabian Peninsula, 7–8, 16–17, 28, 41, 58, 68, 78, 90–95, 102, 105–7, 110, 114, 124–26, 130, 131, 142, 152–55, 177, 188, 254, 264–65, 268, 270–71, 304–8 Arad, 180, 182, 273, 276n22 Aram-​Naharaim, 218, 220, 226–29, 233, 244, 302, 303, 310 Arameans, 87, 93, 100, 107, 109–11, 114, 117–18, 150, 220, 223, 228, 235, 274n17, 306 Australia, 7, 250 ʿAyn Manāwir, 173–74, 308 Azerbaijan, 24, 112 Bactria, 6–7, 19–20, 32–34, 174, 225 Bahariya Oasis, 177 Baluchistan, 28–29, 32, 158 Balawat Gates, 37, 89 Baynunah, 127, 154

Beʾer Ḥafīr, 182 Beʾer Resisim, 180 Bedouin, 3, 67n51, 135–36, 150n135, 177, 296, 297n4 Beer-​Sheba, 53, 182, 188 Behistun inscription, 33, 34 Ben-​Hadad, 261, 272–73 Beth Shemesh, 166 Biʾr Samūt, 74n72, 173–74, 176, 308 Bīt Ḫalupē, 110 Black Obelisk, 39, 78, 84–85, 101–2, 105, 172 Bolan Pass, 29 Cambyses II, 73, 120 Carchemish, 35, 37–38, 140, 257, 268 Central Asia, 6–8, 15, 19–21, 27, 28, 32, 34, 58–59, 76, 90–91, 122, 149, 188, 193, 226, 246, 301 Cyprus, 134, 297n5 Darius I, 33, 264, 294 Darius II, 173 David, 82, 187, 219–20, 256–57, 260, 262– 63, 275–79, 286, 305 Dumuzi, 64–65, 80, 302 Dūr-​Katlimmu, 36, 108, 265, 303 Emar, 60–61, 63, 70–73, 75, 92, 188, 257, 304, 306–7 Esarhaddon, 78, 88–89, 94, 101, 106, 112– 13, 117, 119, 172, 225n34

403

404

Index of Proper Names

Failaka, 36, 52, 69 Gideon, 140, 249–50, 254–55 Gilzānu, 84–85, 102, 105 Gindibu, 85, 94–95, 104, 114–15, 275, 281, 306 Gobi desert, 7, 15, 20, 31n5 Gonur Depe, 29, 32, 90, 302 Gozan, 37 Greco-​Roman period, 2, 49, 144, 170, 177–78, 312 (see also Hellenistic and Roman periods) Haǧar ar-​Rayḥānī, 133 Hama, 48–53, 55, 141–42, 308 Hammurabi, 81 Harappan Culture, 29–30, 79, 158 Hazael, 88, 272–73 Hellenistic period, 2, 36, 48, 52, 133, 144, 153, 174, 182, 194, 203, 205, 219 Heluan, 157 Hezekiah, 73n71, 191, 266–67, 270, 274–75 Hili 8, 127 Ḫindānu, 85, 102, 104, 107, 109–10, 113, 265, 268, 305–6 Hiram of ​Tyre, 261, 272 Hismaic, 95, 145–46 Ḥorbat Raḥba, 182 Ḥorbat Ramat, 182 Inanna, 64–65 Inaros Cycle, 175 Indus Valley, 28–30, 79, 158 Isaac, 202, 204, 213, 228–29, 232, 241, 245 Ishmaelite(s), 82, 195, 221–23, 227, 238– 41, 245, 274, 277–79 ʿIzbet Ṣarṭah, 181 Jacob, 202, 217–18, 220–24, 228, 232–40, 245, 303 al-​Jazīra, 220 Jebel Buhais, 127 Jerusalem, 187, 260, 262–67, 270, 272, 277, 285–87, 294–95, 298, 310 al-​Jisr, 187 Joseph, 205, 213, 221–22, 238–41, 245 al-​Jūbah, 133 Jubbah, 152

Kadesh Barnea, 182–83, 187 Karakum Desert, 21, 28, 32 (post-)Kassite period, 35, 39–42, 68, 70, 125 Kazakhstan, 7, 13, 20–21, 31–32, 123n118 Kəbrä nägäśt, 224–25, 262 Khapuz Depe, 28 Kharai dromedaries, 68n55 Kharga Oasis, 173–74, 186 Khirbet en-​Naḥas, 183–85 Kopet Dag, 20–21, 28 Kurkh monolith, 84–85, 94, 101, 105, 114, 145, 175, 275 Kyzylkum Desert, 20, 32 Lachish, 89, 166, 182, 190, 276n21 Linné, 6, 26 Luwian, 119, 225n36 Maadi, 157 Madāʾin Sālih, 310 Mari, 36, 80–83, 102, 110, 217, 264, 270, 293, 302, 305 Mārib, 52, 116, 132–33, 141 Margiana, 29, 32, 302 Masoretic Text (MT), 194–201, 205, 215, 266, 288, 292 Māt-​Tâmti, 68 Medes, 78, 86, 88, 105–6, 113 Megiddo, 180 Memphis, 169, 171 Menahem, 191 Mənilək, 262–63 Merenptah stele, 246, 249 Meroe, 178 Mesha stele, 256, 260n2 Meṣudat ʿAyn Qadīs, 182 Meṣudat Har Saʿar, 182 Midianites, 140, 239–40, 250–55, 281, 284–85 Mleiha, 133–34, 155 Mongolia, 7, 20, 31–32, 122 Mostagedda, 157 Moussaieff collection, 52, 55, 144 al-​Mudayna al-ʿAliya, 181 Muṣri, 84–85, 102, 172 Muweilah, 21, 48, 50, 52–53, 130–31, 141– 43, 307

Index of Proper Names Nabatea, 48–49, 94, 130n122, 132, 134, 138n129, 154–55, 309–10 Nabonidus, 112 Namazga Depe, 28 Negev, 177, 180, 182–83, 186, 207–8, 210, 257 Neo-​Babylonian period, 40, 45, 110–11, 114, 116–17, 283 New Kingdom, 161–62, 165, 169, 173, 246–47 Nile Delta, 156, 159–60, 169, 176–77, 306 Nile valley, 173, 176–77 Ninurta-​kudurri-​usur, 102, 110, 264 Nippur, 35, 39–42, 50, 52, 60–70, 72, 75, 79, 113, 116–17, 121, 125, 188, 250, 257, 304, 306–7 Obil, 82, 93, 98, 277–79 Oboda, 144 Osorkon I, 270, 280 Oxus civilization, 29, 32, 52, 66, 90, 189, 301 Oxus River, 6, 21, 28, 301 Paddan-​Aram, 218, 220, 233, 236, 310 Parthian period, 45, 48 Persian Gulf, 17, 36, 68, 78, 134, 154, 301, 304, 308 Persian period, 36–37, 40n18, 48, 52, 73, 78, 84, 101, 118, 120, 133, 145, 157, 169–72, 175–77, 182, 194, 202, 205n10, 220, 228, 259, 283, 293, 308–9 Persian warrior, 169, 171 Petra, 37n13, 48–49, 137n129, 144, 164n155, 310 Pharaoh, 186, 203–9, 213–16, 221–22, 227, 240, 246–47, 264, 270 Ptolemaic period, 24, 156, 169–76, 308 (see also Hellenistic and Greco-​ Roman periods) Ptolemy II Philadelphus, 24, 174, 176 Qantir, 158, 160 Qarqar, 115n112, 257, 275, 281 Qurayyah, 190–91 Ramesses II, 242n68 Ramesses III, 161, 163, 254, 264

405

Ramesses IV, 280n31 Rifeh, 163–65, 167, 169 Roman period, 2–3, 48, 49n26, 144, 155– 56, 161, 163, 170, 177–78, 194–95, 269, 276n21, 296, 312–13 Rusa I, 86, 103, 116, 185 Sa‘adiah Gaon, 287 Saar, 127 Sabaʾ, 94, 102, 110, 151, 263–65, 272 Sabaic, see terms, ASA Safaitic, 82, 94–95, 145–46, 148, 152, 155, 188 (see also terms, ANA) Sagzabad, 29 Ṣalm, 254n85 Samsi, 86, 105, 115–16, 118, 275, 306 Saul, 199, 217, 255–56, 274–75, 305 Sargon II, 78, 86–87, 103, 106, 110–13, 116–18, 185 Sealand, 25, 67–68, 72, 78–79, 92, 107, 114, 121, 125, 129, 304, 308 Seleucia-​on-​Tigris, 48, 144 Sennacherib, 73n71, 87, 89, 92, 97, 103, 106, 110, 113, 154, 190–91, 270, 274, 283, 285 Shahr-​i Sokhta, 30 Shalmaneser I, 72 Shalmaneser III, 37, 39, 78, 84–85, 89, 94, 101, 103–5, 110–12, 114–16, 145, 172, 175, 273, 275, 281 Shamshi-​Adad V, 85, 89, 101–2, 105, 111, 113 al-​Sharqiyyah, 133 Shasu, 160n148, 161, 246–47, 254 Shechem, 238 Shibaniba, 72, 107 Shiloh, 181 Shoshenq I, 186, 201, 260, 270 Shuwaymis, 152 Siwa Oasis, 177 Solomon, 259–63, 266–72, 275 South Arabia, 3, 40n19, 50, 53, 134, 137, 144, 150, 164–65, 178, 193, 261, 263– 65, 268, 271, 279 Southwest Asia, 4–5, 7, 16, 18, 20, 22–25, 27, 29, 78 Suḫu, 102, 110, 264 al-​Sufouh, 16–17, 21, 127, 129–30, 154

406

Index of Proper Names

Taklamakan, 7, 15, 20 Tall al-​Umayri, 181 Tall Bīʿa, 56 Tammuz, 64 Taymāʾ, 51, 86, 94, 102, 110, 132, 141–42, 146, 151, 164n155, 254n85, 264 Tel Beer-​Sheba, 182 Tel Dan stele, 260 Tel Malḥata, 375 Tel Michal, 182, 187 Tel Miqne Eqron, 165 Tell Abraq, 21, 35, 41, 128–30, 154, 307 Tell Āfis, 35 Tell Alalakh, 74–75 Tell Asmar, 137, 139 Tell Deir ‘Alla, 189–90 Tell Ḥalaf, 37–38, 100, 139–40, 235, 257, 268 Tell Hesban, 36, 181 Tell Jemmeh, 181–82, 188 Tell Nebi Mend, 35–36 Tell Qasile, 36, 181 Tell Qedwa, 157 Tell Taʿannek, 138–39, 187 Thamudic, 145–46, 152, 154n140 Tiamat, 62n41, 79–80, 103 Tiglath-​pileser III, 86, 96–97, 102, 105–7, 110, 113, 115–16, 191, 235, 237, 274– 75, 284n6 Timna, 73, 183–86, 190, 230 Trajan, 155 Tukultī-​Ninurta II, 85, 102, 104, 107, 109– 11, 265 Turkmenistan, 10, 20, 22, 24, 28–30, 32, 301–2

UAE (United Arab Emirates), 16, 21, 127– 29, 133 Ubūlu, 82, 93, 98, 117 Ugarit, 35, 70, 72, 75, 80–82, 93, 217, 228–29, 230n45, 241–42, 250, 257, 263n8, 285n8, 304, 306 Umm an-​Nār, 21, 127–29, 153–54 Upper Mesopotamia, 35, 37, 56–57, 227– 28, 235, 240, 302–3, 310 Ur, 42–44, 49n26, 51–52, 54–55 Ur III period, 4, 55, 66, 73, 76n75, 90, 139 Urartu, 36, 39, 86–87, 103, 105, 116, 186, 309 Urmia, 102, 116, 185–86 Uruk, 40, 44–48, 50, 52–53, 72, 117, 141– 42, 308 Uzbekistan, 20, 31 Wadi Faynan, 183, 186 Wadi Najrān, 152, 154n140 Wadi Suq period, 129 Yalā, 132, 263, 307 Yaṯill, 132, 141, 307, 308n1 Yenoam, 249 Yoqneʿam, 167–68 Zabibe, 86, 191, 261, 306 Zagros mountains, 25, 78, 102, 105, 110, 121, 301, 305, 308 Zalmunna, 254 al-​Zantur, 309 Zenon archive, 176

Index of ​Terms

Akkadian ābilu, 90 agalu-​donkeys, 92 a-​ga-​li-​i, 92 Aḫlamû, 81, 220 a-​na-​qa-​a-​te, 86, 96–98, 116–17, 191 anaqāte, 97, 237, 307 Anāqatu, 97–98 ba-​ak-​ka-​ri-​ši-​na, 86, 96–97, 191, 237n58 burṭiš, 108–9, 307 e!-ba-​lu, 71, 92 gammalāti, 96, 98, 111 gammalu, 56, 69, 77–78, 83–84, 89, 92–98, 117, 225n34, 303–4, 307 ḫaradu, 77 ḫarrānum, 59, 62n39 i-​be-​li, 92 i-​bi-​li, 92 ibilu, 56, 57, 62, 64, 67–69, 71, 77, 82, 84, 89–93, 95–96, 98, 303–4, 307 Igigu, 90 i-​lu-​la-​a-​a, 62 ilulāya, 62 i-​me-​er, 79 i-​mir, 70 kanāšu, 66 kusarikku, 77 maršītu, 109 parratu, 111n109 parru, 111n109 pa-ṣu-​u-​te, 118, 128n120, 192n176 pi-​i-​ir ša-​ad-​di-[im], 79

pi-​i-​lu šá-​di-​i, 79 pīlu/pīru, 60, 79n80, 91 rē’ū udrāti, 111n109 rīmu, 77 serrēmu, 77 Sutû, 220 tamru, 83–84, 89, 103–5 tešēnu, 108–9, 307 tibnu, 230n46 til-​li, 92 tillû, 92n90 udrāte, 78, 103, 109, 306 udru, 34, 56, 81, 83–90, 92, 95–96, 99–113, 125, 155, 285, 305–7 ú-​šá-​lid, 109 (w)abālum, 90 ANA ʾbl, 91–95, 98, 147, 148, 150, 155, 278 bkr, 95–97, 99–100, 145–47, 150, 288 bkrt, 95, 97, 99–100, 147 gl, 94n95 gml, 94–96, 98–99, 145–47, 150, 155, 225–26 ḥlb, 94n95 nqt, 95–98, 100, 147, 151 rkb, 94n95 rmḫ, 94n95 Arabic (CA) ʾābil, 278 ʾahl, 161n149, 253, 281

407

408

Index of Terms

ʾibil, 91, 95, 98, 148–50, 299 buḫt, 106, 113, 149–50 ʿammāriyyāt, 287 baʿīr, 148–50, 238n59, 299 ǧamal, 95, 98, 148–50, 300 ǧummal, 300 ḥaḍar, 292 ḥawlānī, 137 ḫaur, khor, 16–17, 68, 121, 125, 301 ḥaẓīra, 292 ḥiṣār, 292 karā, 286n10 karkara, 285n8 karra, 285n8 kūr, 234–36 nāqa, 96–100, 112, 149, 300 qarr, 234n51 šadād, 137 šibriyya, 234 wasm, 142 ‫أبرك‬‎, 229 ‫إبل‬‎, 91‎, 95‎, 98‎, 148–50‎, 300 ‫آبل‬‎, 91‎, 93n93‎, 95‎, 148–49‎, 299 ‫أهل‬‎, 161n149‎, 253‎, 281 ‫بخاتي‬‎, 150 ‫بخت‬‎, 106‎, 113‎, 149‎–50 ‫بعير‬‎, 148–50‎, 238n59‎, 299 ‫حصار‬‎, 292 ‫حضر‬‎, 292 ‫حظار‬‎, 292 ‫حظيرة‬‎, 292 ‫حوالني‬‎, 137 ‫خاصي‬‎, 149 ‫خور‬‎, 16 ‫خراسانية‬‎, 149 ‫شبريّة‬‎, 234 ‫شداد‬‎, 137 ‫عرابي‬‎, 150 ‫عماريات‬‎, 287 ‫غبيط‬‎, 235n55 ‫فحل‬‎, 149 ‫قر‬‎ ّ , 234n51 ‫كر‬‎ ّ , 285n8 ‫كركر‬‎, 285n8 ‫كري‬‎, 286n10 ‫كور‬‎, 234–36 ‫ناقة‬‎, 96–100‎, 112‎, 149‎, 300 ‫وسم‬‎, 142

Aramaic gmlyʾ, 74 Ubūlu, 82, 93, 98, 117 ‫אבל‬‎, 192‎, 279 ‫בית דוד‬‎, 260 ‫גמלא‬‎, 94‎, 225n35‎, 226‎, 235n55 ‫גמלן‬‎, 34‎, 225 ‫גמלנאה‬‎, 313 ‫כַּרא‬‎, 235 ‫מׁשַ בַ ח‬‎ ְ , 286 ‫עביטא‬‎, 235n55 ‫פילא‬‎, 299n8–9 Armenian ułt, 34, 101 ASA ʾbl, 98 bkr, 97 bkrt, 97 gml, 93, 98, 151 nqt, 98 Coptic

ϬⲀⲘⲞⲨⲖ, 175, 299n7

Egyptian / demotic gmlꜢ, 174 gmwl, 175 gmwr, 175 kr, 236 Greek ἀσκός, 73 αὐλή, 292 καλών, 299 κάμiλος, 225n36 καμηλάριος, 312 καμηλάσιον, 312 καμηλεύω, 312 καμηλίζω, 312 καμηλικός, 312 καμηλλία, 312 καμηλοβάτης, 312 κάμηλον, 298–99 κάμηλος, 26, 73, 150, 176, 225–26, 284n4, 294n24, 298n6, 299–300, 312 καμηλοσφαγέω, 312

Index of Terms καμηλοτρόφος, 312 κάμιλον, 298–99 κοράλλιον, 225n36 κυπάρισσος, 225n36 Hebrew ʾātōn, 217 ʾbl, 93, 278, 311 beker, 99, 284, 311 bikrāh, 287, 311 bārak, 229 dabbešet, 311 gāmāl, 5, 93, 98, 193, 225 ḥamōr, 217 kar, 234, 311 ʾŌbīl, 93, 311 ‫אבל‬‎, 192‎, 278–79 ‫אָ הֳל‬‎, 161n149‎, 253‎, 280–81 ‫אֹובִ יל‬‎, 93‎, 278‎, 311 ‫אָ תֹון‬‎, 216–18‎, 223 ‫ּבֶ כֶר‬‎, 95, 284‎, 311 ‫ּבִ כְ ָרה‬‎, 95, 287–88‎, 290‎, 311 ‫ּבְ נֵי־קֶ דֶ ם‬‎, 250‎, 291‎, 294 ‫ברך‬‎, 229 ‫ּבֹ שֶ ם‬‎, 242‎, 267–69 ‫גֹּ ָורל‬‎, 225n36 ‫גָּמָ ל‬‎, 5‎, 93‎, 192–93‎, 195–98‎, 200‎, 215n17‎, 216‎, 222‎, 224–26‎, 229–37‎, 244– 245‎, 247‎, 254–58‎, 267–69‎, 273‎, 276‎, 281‎, 283‎, 284n5‎, 286n10‎, 288nn13–14‎, 291‎, 294n24 ‫גּפרית‬‎ ִ , 225n36 ‫ּדבֵ לִ ים‬‎ְ , 276 ‫דבק‬‎, 233 ‫ּדֶ ּבֶ ׁש‬‎, 283–84‎, 288n13, 311 ‫וַיְ הִ י־לֹו‬‎, 214–15‎, 232 ‫חֲמֹור‬,‎ 196–97‎, 200‎, 215n17‎, 217–18‎, 224‎, 231n48‎, 232‎, 238‎, 241‎, 255–56‎, 273‎, 283‎, 294n24 ‫חָ צֹור‬‎, 292 ‫טֶ ֶרם‬‎, 229n44 ‫ ָיזִיז‬‎, 278–79 ‫יֶחְ ְּדיָהּו‬‎, 278–79 ‫כַּד‬‎, 230n45 ‫כַּר‬‎, 234–36 ‫כִּ רכֵּר‬‎, 285n8 ‫ּכִ ְרּכָרֹות‬‎, 201‎, 285–87 ‫לֶחֶ ם‬‎, 276

‫ֹלט‬‎, 195‎, 241‎, 243–44 ‫לְֶך־לְ ָך‬‎, 204 ‫מַ ֲאכָל‬‎, 276 ‫מ ְדיָן‬‎ ִ , 251‎, 255‎, 284 ‫מכ ְַרּכֵר‬‎ ְ , 286 ‫ֶת־ׁשבָ א‬ ְ ‫מלֶאכ‬‎ ְ , 266 ‫ַת־ׁשבָ א‬ ְ ‫מַ לְ ּכ‬‎, 266 ‫מ ְסּפֹוא‬‎ ִ , 230‎, 245 ‫מַ פְ ִריס‬‎, 248 ‫מֶ תֶ ג‬‎, 230 ‫נְ כ ֹאת‬‎, 241–43 ‫נקדם‬‎, 192 ‫עדל‬‎, 277–78 ‫עֵיפָה‬‎, 200‎, 284 ‫ערה‬‎, 230n45 ‫ּפ ֶֶרה‬‎, 288–89 ‫פ ְַרסָ ה‬‎, 248 ‫פתח‬‎, 230 ‫צְ ִרי‬‎, 242 ‫קַ ח ָולְֵך‬‎, 204‎, 209‎, 212 ‫קַ ח לְ ָך‬‎, 209‎, 212 ‫קֶ מַ ח‬‎, 276 ‫רכֶב‬‎ֶ , 200‎, 283 ‫רכב‬‎, 231–32 ‫שבא‬‎, 200‎, 259‎, 266 ‫שטרי‬‎, 277–78 ‫ׁשָ פָט‬‎, 277–78 ‫תֶּ בֶ ן‬‎, 200‎, 259‎, 266 Hittite ḫu(wa)lpant, 91 Latin camelarius, 312 camelasia, 312 dromedarius, 312 fil, 299n9 filum, 299n9 ladanum, 195, 241–43 magister camelorum, 312 praepositus camellorum, 312 Persian šutur, 101–2 ušša, 33–34, 101 uštar, 33, 101 uštra, 34 uštur, 101

409

410

Index of Terms

Zaraϑuštra, 34 ‫اشتر‬‎, 101 ‫شتر‬‎, 101 ‫شتر دو كوهانه‬‎, 101 Semitic ʾbl, 61, 82, 90–95, 98, 278, 311 gml, 26, 75, 81, 82n84, 93–96, 98–99, 175, 225–26 Sumerian áb.si.babbar, 58 am, 57–63, 76–77 am.si, 25, 57–63, 79, 113–14 am.si.è, 58 am.si.ḪAR, 83 am.si.ḫar.ra.an, 25, 57–69, 78, 80, 83–84, 89–90, 96, 113n34, 225–26, 237, 245, 301–3, 307 ú am.si.ḫar.ra.an.na, 60, 63, 83 am.si.kaskal.an.na, 62 am.si.kur.ra(.meš), 25, 39n16, 57–66, 78–79, 83–84, 89–90, 96, 103, 226, 237, 245, 301–3, 307 anše, 25, 66–67, 70, 73, 76, 122, 125, 285n7 anše.a.ab.ba(.meš), 25, 34–35, 39, 58, 62n41, 67–73, 75, 77–78, 82–96, 101–7, 111–13, 115–19, 185, 191, 285n7, 303–4, 306–7 anše.á.bal, 70–72 anše.edin.na, 67, 75, 77, 122 anše.érin.lá, 70 anše.gam.mal, 112 anše.gam*.mal*, 74–75 anše.gam.mal.meš, 69, 87–88, 118, 129n120, 191, 192n176 anše.gìr.nun.na, 67, 112 anše.giš.gigir, 70, 72n66 anše.giš.gu.za, 70, 72n66 anše.giš.mar.gíd.da, 70–71, 72n66 ANŠE.GÚR.NUN, 75 anše.gù.dé, 72n66 anše.KU.DIN.meš, 69 anše.kunga, 67, 76, 122, 285n7 anše.kur.ra(.meš), 25, 67, 69, 83, 122, 285n7 dàra.maš, 75

di.bi.id an.ša4.anki.na, 79 gú.gúr, 66 gú.gur5, 66 GÚ.URU×GU, 66 gu4, 25, 62, 68, 75–77 gu4.áb, 76 gu4.alim, 77 gud, 61, 76 GUD×KUR, 76 Ḫar.gud, 57, 69, 89, 95–96, 225n34 kuš am.si, 61, 63, 73 kuš am.si.kur.ra, 61, 63 kuš anše, 73 kuš anše.a.ab.ba, 73 kuš anše.edin.na, 73 kuš anše.kur.ra, 73 kuš gud, 61, 63n43 kuš šaḫ, 73 lú.sipa anše.a.ab.ba, 111n109, 117 lú.uš anše.a.ab.ba.meš, 118 lú.uš gam.mal.meš, 118 muš.a.ab.ba, 67 muš.si.gar, 58 muš.si.gùr.ru, 58 sa.a.si, 58 šáḫ, 59, 77 šáḫ.ĝiš.gi, 59, 77 si, 58, 114 til.lu.ug sa12.ti.umki, 79 udu, 77 udu.idim, 77 udu.si.gal, 58 ur, 59 ur.maḫ, 59 Syriac ʾebbālətā, 71, 93, 98 bəkūrē, 99–100 bəkūšē, 100n100 həbālətā, 93, 98 ‫ܐܒܠܬܐ‬‎, 71‎, 93n93 ‫ܒܟܘܪ̈ܐ‬‎, 100 ‫ܒܟܘܫ̈ܐ‬‎, 100n100 ‫ܓܡܐܠ‬‎, 200‎, 298n6‎, 300 ‫ܓܡܠܬܐ‬‎, 96 ‫ܓܡ̈ܐܠ‬‎, 276n20‎, 298n6 ‫ܗܒܐܠ‬‎, 93 ‫ܗܒܠܬܐ‬‎, 93–94

Index of Terms ‫ܚܒܐܠ ܥܒܝܐ‬‎, 298n6 ‫ܚܡܪܐ‬‎, 200 ‫ܝܗܐܠ‬‎, 253 ‫ܠܕܢܐ‬‎, 243n71 ‫ܠܛܡ̈ܐ‬‎, 243n72 ‫ܡܪ̈ܟܒܬܐ‬‎, 287 ‫ܦܪ̈ܫܝܢ‬‎, 200 ‫ܩܪ̈ܘܟܐ‬‎, 287 ‫ܪܟܫ̈ܐ‬‎, 287 ‫ܪܟܘܒܐ‬‎, 200

Ugaritic ỉbl, 81 Ibln, 82, 93 krkr, 285–87 ủdr, 81–82 Urartian ulṭu, 34, 101

411