Emergence of di.kud.gal in Ur.ra5 = ḫubullu 2

Ur.ra5 = ḫubullu was one of the central pillars of Mesopotamia’s cuneiform lexical tradition. Over several centuries, these lexical lists were transmitted from Nippur to various regions in the ancient Near East (Kiš, Sultantepe, Emar, Alalah, Ugarit, Hattuša, Hazor, Askelon, and Amarna). Along with appreciable overlap, there is noticeable variation among them. Although some scholars have explained the variations quantitatively, there has been minimal explanation of the variations qualitatively. I examine one specific variation in Ur.ra5 = ḫubullu—viz., the emergence of multiple di.kud.gal entries and associated variant Akkadian translations in the second chapter division. Why did later versions incorporate multiple entries as opposed to just one? Furthermore, why did later scribes associate di.kud.gal with different Akkadian terms? Lastly, what does tracing this textual development reveal about the di.kud.gal category of leadership prior to the first millennium BCE? To answer these questions, I triangulate data from Ur.ra5 = ḫubullu 2, textual finds from the land of Hana, and a series of sociopolitical shifts that occurred along the Middle Euphrates during the late Old Babylonian and Middle Babylonian periods.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of the American Oriental Society
Published
2025-08-25
DOI
https://doi.org/10.7817/jaos.145.2.2025.ar023
Primary Topic
Ancient Near East History
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Emergence of di.kud.gal in Ur.ra5 = ḫubullu 2

Julian C. Chike
Journal of the American Oriental Society
Ancient Near East History
article

Emergence of di.kud.gal in Ur.ra5 = ḫubullu 2

Julian C. Chike
article en

Abstract

Ur.ra5 = ḫubullu was one of the central pillars of Mesopotamia’s cuneiform lexical tradition. Over several centuries, these lexical lists were transmitted from Nippur to various regions in the ancient Near East (Kiš, Sultantepe, Emar, Alalah, Ugarit, Hattuša, Hazor, Askelon, and Amarna). Along with appreciable overlap, there is noticeable variation among them. Although some scholars have explained the variations quantitatively, there has been minimal explanation of the variations qualitatively. I examine one specific variation in Ur.ra5 = ḫubullu—viz., the emergence of multiple di.kud.gal entries and associated variant Akkadian translations in the second chapter division. Why did later versions incorporate multiple entries as opposed to just one? Furthermore, why did later scribes associate di.kud.gal with different Akkadian terms? Lastly, what does tracing this textual development reveal about the di.kud.gal category of leadership prior to the first millennium BCE? To answer these questions, I triangulate data from Ur.ra5 = ḫubullu 2, textual finds from the land of Hana, and a series of sociopolitical shifts that occurred along the Middle Euphrates during the late Old Babylonian and Middle Babylonian periods.

Journal of the American Oriental SocietyVol. 145(3)
Openalex Percentile: Top 76%
Ancient Near East History
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.