¹ For a general orientation consult C. F. A. Schaeffer, Ugaritica 1 (1939), and the same author's book The Cuneiform Texts of Ras-Shamra-Ugarit (1939). The first-mentioned work contains an exhaustive bibliography.

In the footnotes to the present article, titles of periodicals and other works are abbreviated as follows: AfO = Archiv für Orientforschung; Arch. Or. = Archiv Orientální; BA = Beiträge zur Assyriologie; BASOR = Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research; EA = El Amarna; GGA = Göttinger Gelehrte Anzeigen; JAOS = Journal of the American Oriental Society; JBL = Journal of Biblical Literature; JPOS = Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society; JRAS = Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society; MAOG = Mitteilungen der Altorientalischen Gesellschaft; OLZ = Orientalistische Literatur Zeitung; Or. = Orientalia; RA = Revue d'Assyriologie; RHA = Revue Hittite et Asianique; RHR = Revue de l'Histoire des Religions; UET = Ur Excavations, Texts; UMBS = University of Pennsylvania, The University Museum, Publications of the Babylonian Section; VS = Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmäler; ZA = Zeitschrift für Assyriologie; ZAW = Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft; ZDMG = Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlädischen Gesellschaft; ZDPV = Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina Vereins; ZS = Zeitschrift für Semitistik.

² The identification was independently suggested by Albright (AfO 7.165, fn. 9 [1931]), Forrer, Dussaud, and Thureau-Dangin (Syria 18.26 ff. [1932]; 15.120 ff. [1934]). It has been universally accepted.

³ The term was first used by H. L. Ginsberg.

⁴ Schaeffer, Syria 20.287 (1939); Virolleaud, CR du Groupe linguistique d'études Chamito-Sémitiques 3.64 (1939); RHA 5.173 f. (1940).

⁵ F. M. Th. Böhl, Die Sprache der Amarnabriefe (1909); E. Ebeling, Das Verbum der El-Amarna-Briefe (= BA VIII 2) (1910); E. Dhorme, Rev. Bibl. 1913.369 ff.; 1914.37 ff., 344 ff.

⁶ Th. H. Gaster, JRAS 1932.857 ff.; R. Dussaud, RHR 100.274 (1932); Les découvertes de Ras Shamra et l'Ancien Testament 57 (1937); J. A. Montgomery, The Ras Shamra Mythological Texts 16 ff. (1935).

⁷ ViroUeaud, Syria 12.15 ff. (1931); Danel 78 (1936); Dussaud, RHR 118.168 (1938).

⁸ Ginsberg, Or. NS 5.178 f. (1936); Albright, JPOS 12.185 ff. (1932); 14.105 ff. (1934); cf. BASOR 70.20 ff. (1938) (Albright has propagated the term ‘North Canaanite‘); Z.S. Harris, A Grammar of the Phoenician Language 6 f., 67 ff. (1936); Smithsonian Report for 1937, 499 ff.; Guérinot, Syria 19.30 ff. (1938).

⁹ Among them the first decipherer of the Ugaritic alphabet, Hans Bauer; see Das Alphabet von Ras Schamra, seine Entzifferung und seine Gestalt 64 ff. (1932).

¹⁰ Cantineau, Syria 13.164 ff. (1932); Joh. Friedrich, AfO 8.241 (1932); ZA NF 7.311 (1933); Ras Schamra 27 (Der Alte Orient 33.1/2, 1933); A. Götze, Hethiter, Churriter und Assyrer 142 (1936).

¹¹ New Haven, Conn., 1939; see 10 f. (endorsed by Albright, JAOS 60.416 [1940]).

¹² Analecta Orientalia 20; Roma, 1940.

¹³ I.e. Primitive Semitic.

¹⁴ This shift is also Aramaic. For alleged preservation of ḫ as different from ḥ in Early Canaanite see below. The Canaanite alphabet has only one symbol for both sounds in Phoenicia as well as in Palestine.

¹⁵ For the alleged distinction between ṭ and š in Early Canaanite see below. Again the Canaanite alphabet possesses only one symbol. This circumstance gains in significance when it is realized that both Ugaritic and South Semitic share in a symbol for ṭ which can be assumed to have been inherited from a common source.

As to Phoenician, Friedrich (ZS 2.2 ff.) has demonstrated that the shift is prehistoric. There is no reason why an analogous assumption should not be true for Hebrew. In the Amarna letters we find glosses like ša-aḫ-ri ‘door’ (EA 244.16); iḫ-ri-šu ‘I till’ (AO 7098 [= RA 19.108, Mercer No. 248a], 11) and names with the element ši-ip-ti ‘judgment’ (EA 330.3), and there is no indication that the š set of signs is polyphonous. If one assumes a substitution, the s set or the z set (which in this syllabary also denotes sämekh plus vowel) would have offered a much better solution for the difficulty.

Harris (Development 62 f.) argues that the difference in spelling between La-ki-si and Ša-ak-mi in the Jerusalem letters (EA 285–90) warrants the statement that at least in Jerusalem etymological š and etymological ṭ were kept apart. This argument is upset not only by the occurrence in the Jerusalem letters of La-ki-ši (EA 289.13), but also by the general observation that (as in Nuzu, cf. Lang. 14.136) sa, si, su serve as mere scribal variants for ša, ši,šu; ef. māt Ka-si (EA 287.72) and māt Ka-ši (EA 287.74) both representing Eg. K-š, furthermore a-si-ru/i (EA 287.54; 288.21) and a-ši-ru (EA 173.13; 268.19) probably equaling (see Zimmern, ZA 6.254) Hebr. ‘āšīr < *‘áṯiru.

The oldest Aramaic preserved interdentals.

¹⁶ Harris, Development 43 f. Whether the shift is contingent on the stress or not, is irrelevant for our present purpose. The shift is older than the Amarna age for which we have witnesses from Byblos (sú-ki-na AO 7093 [= RA 19.102, Mercer 123a], edge 4) as well as from Jerusalem (zu-ru-uh EA 287.27). Aramaic preserved ā.

¹⁷ For the positing of PS ẓ see below fn. 42.

¹⁸ Examples are PS *mty > Hebr. māṣā ‘he arrived’; PS *'ar > Hebr. *'æræaṣs 'earth', Ph. 'rṣ; PS. *ṣalmu > Hebr. ṣæxlæm 'picture, statue'; PS *ẓillu > Hebr. ṣēl ‘shade, protection’. In Aram, one finds ṭ, '/q, ṣ, ṭ respectively.

¹⁹ Śin and šīn had coalesced in Phoenician (Harris, Grammar 20; Development 33 f.); the Hebrew Masoretes had to use diacritical points to keep (Jerusalem) ś and š apart. The cuneiform syllabary of the Amarna period was unable to differentiate graphically between the two sounds so that Akkadian writings cannot help us to recognize the difference (cf. šα-de-e EA 287.56; na-aš-ša-a AO 7096 [= RA 19.106, Mercer 290a], 13).

In Aramaic š is preserved, but š has merged with s.

²⁰ The same phenomenon in Akkadian and in Aramaic is due to independent development.

²¹ For Phoenician see Harris, Grammar §12.1.

A ‘perfect’ identical with that of Canaanite is extant also in Aramaic, in North and in South Arabic. The formal pecularities of this tense make it absolutely certain that its development is interrelated. All these languages exhibit (1) the predilection for the form with middle a, *qatala, (2) the final -a (which is never found in Akkadian, despite Albright, JBL 54.196 fn. 77), (3) the loss of the ā of -āku, the suffix of the first singular, (4) the replacement of the k in the remaining -ku by t (only South Arabic diverges by preservation of the older suffix), (5) a passival variety qutila. Thev also have in common the same force of the form.

²² E. Dhorme, Rev. Bibl. 10.381; Ebeling, Das Verbum der El-Amarna-Briefe 50 f.

²³ One may expect that the distribution of the two forms followed the pattern preserved in Ethiopic.

²⁴ This is an innovation which is not shared by either Aramaic or Arabic. For Phoenician see Harris, Grammar 39 fn. 3; for the Amarna period Böhl, Die Sprache der Amarna-briefe 46.

²⁵ The hiqtīl is probably represented by ḫi-iḫ,-bi-e EA 256.7; in Phoenician it has developed into a yiqtīl (Harris, Grammar §13.6). Aramaic, with an 'aqtel, stands aside.

²⁶ For Phoenician see Harris, Grammar §14.3; for Amarna Canaanite the gloss yi-ṣa (EA 151.70) is pertinent. Aramaic apparently had corresponding forms which thus must be carried back to PS.

²⁷ This is a clear innovation in which Phoenician (Harris, Grammar §15.1) and Amarna Canaanite (a-nu-ki EA 287.66, 69) share. Aramaic knows only the shorter form 'enā.

²⁸ The initial is due to an analogy which is found in both Hebrew and Phoenician (Harris, Grammar §15.1); for Amarna Canaanite evidence is lacking.

²⁹ For this innovation—in PS one has to reconstruct *-nā—evidence is lacking in Phoenician, but extant in Amarna Canaanite; see Böhl, Die Sprache der Amarnabriefe 27 (§ 15B).

³⁰ In Hebrew *miya has yielded mī, but in Phoenician the spelling my seems to indicate a bisyllabic form. In Amarna one finds mi-ia-me 'who?' (Böhl, Die Sprache der Amarnabriefe §18c). Contrast Aramaic man 'who?' and mā 'what?'.

³¹ Since Arabic with prefixed al- and Aramaic with suffixed -ā diverge, this is probably an innovation. For Phoenician see Harris, Grammar §16.4; for Amarna Canaanite no evidence is available.

³² For a possible occurrence in Phoenician see Harris, Grammar 60; in Amarna we read the gloss ḫi-na-ia ‘my (two) eyes (nom.)‘ 144.17.

³³ For Phoenician see Harris, Grammar §18.2. On the basis of the Amarna gloss ša-mu-ma (EA 211.17) it may be doubted whether the limitation to one form is old. The quoted form is genitive, however. In Moabite one finds (as in Aramaic) -īn instead of -īm.

³⁴ For Hebrew see Gesenius-Kautzsch §117.1, for Phoenician Harris, Grammar 63, 76. The reconstruction of the original form is difficult because of the variations with which the word occurs; cf. Brockelmann, Grundriss 1.313 ff.; Bauer-Leander, Hist. Gram. der Hebr. Sprache 641 f.

³⁵ Evidence is available only in Hebrew (‘ēn also on the Moabite stone), but the absence of the words in our Phoenician material is probably accidental. Aramaic possesses the related words ‘īθay (īθ) and lat.

³⁶ The Hebrew spelling lw suggests that (just as in hw ‘he’ < *huwa) the w was originally consonantal. Compare Akk. lũ and Syr. lway.

³⁷ Cantineau, Syria 13.167; J. Friedrich, Ras Schamra 23. It should be recalled that Aramaic acts like Hebrew in this respect; it cannot be proven, however, that the shift goes back to Northwest Semitic.

³⁸ H. Bauer, Alphabet 21 ff.; Cantineau, Syria 13.166; J. Friedrich, ZA NF 7.311; Ras Schamra 23. For an older period an interesting example seems to be offered by the geographical name Ba-at-na contained in the Old Assyrian tablet Hahn 3 (J. Lewy, Die Kültepetexte aus der Sammlung Frida Hahn, Berlin; see translation 4). In view of the Westsemitisms of the tablet in question the assumption is reasonable that the name is likewise West Semitic (Amurrite), i.e. represents the word baţnā ‘snake’ (cf. Bāšān, Bataneia in Transjordan). The spelling with t tends to show that the interdental had not shifted to š; it may well indicate a preserved t which could be spelled only by approximation.

³⁹ It seems improbable that this was merely orthographic. In favor of this possibility one has quoted the circumstance that for the usual dpid (a divine epithet) once the variant žpid is found (cf. Gordon, Ugaritic Grammar §4.1); since ž is a spirant, one has argued, d should be likewise. But the meaning of the epithet is altogether doubtful, it is not even necessarily Semitic.—A pertinent example, if not from Ugaritic, from ‘Western Amurrite’ is contained in the name of the city Damascus. When the Assyrians spelled this name ideographically as šá imēri-šu (for passages see Delitzsch, Wo lag das Paradies 280), they were aware of the fact that the name contained the determinative pronoun. We are thus justified to interpret the name as *ḏū-maśqi, gen. *ḏī-maśqi etc. ‘the one (possessing)...‘. Old occurrences of the name include t-m-ś-q (Thutmosis, No. 13); Du-ma-aš-qa (EA 107.28); Di-maš-qa (EA 197.21); Dì-ma-aš-qì (EA 53.63); they invariably display a dental stop.

⁴⁰ Albright, JPOS 12.189; Friedrich, ZA NF 7.310.

⁴¹ The sound thus transliterated corresponds in part to etymological ğ, a fact that justifies the transliteration. Compare Albright, JPOS 14.104 f.; H. Bauer, Die alphabetischen Keilschrifttexte von Ras Schamra 66. The view of C. G. von Brandenstein (ZDMG 91.575) that we are dealing with a graphic variant of t is in my opinion untenable; cf. Speiser, Lang. 16.334.

⁴² For this sound see Albright, JPOS 14.105 f.

⁴³ Examples: ṭ in mğy ‘arrive’, nğr ‘protect’, ğm' 'be thirsty' ğr ‘mountain’; ḍ in árṣ ‘earth’, 'ṣ 'tree', ṣin ‘Kleinvieh’, ṣb' 'soldier' etc.; ṣ in ṣd 'hunt, ṣğrt 'smallness', nṣb ‘set up’, ṣḥ ‘yell, call’ etc.; ẓ in qẓ ‘summer’, ḥẓ ‘arrow’, ḥẓr ‘enclosure’, 'ẓm 'be strong', rẓ ‘run’, ẓl ‘shade’, ẓr ‘back’.—As to the age of the shift from to ğ, the observation is interesting that an Amurrite word ˘ūru ‘mountain’ seems already to occur in the phrase a-dì-ma ḫu-ri kaspim ‘to the silver mountain’ in an inscription of Maništusu (Akkad Dynasty) (UMBS V 34 XXVI 62 f.).

⁴⁴ As far as ś and š are concerned, the situation has been correctly described by Ginsberg, Or. NS 7.3.

⁴⁵ C. H. Gordon, Ugaritic Grammar 4.12.

⁴⁶ JAOS 58.266 ff. Gordon, Ugaritic Grammar 50 fn. 2 asserts that Ginsberg Or. NS 7.1 ff. (does he refer to Or. NS 8.319 ff.?) has shown that yaqattal- does not exist. Ginsberg has not made such a sweeping demonstration; he has attacked a single point in my argument which does not affect my position. I may say here in passing that Ginsberg has convinced me of the validity of Barth's law, and that I have to make certain adjustments in my views.

⁴⁷ For examples see Gordon, Ugaritic Grammar 8.4.

⁴⁸ Agreement seems to be reached that the šaf'el is the normal causative in Ugaritic; cf. Harris, JAOS 58.103 ff.; Gordon, Ugaritic Grammar 8.34; Albright, JAOS 60.415. In our present context it is irrelevant whether or not there existed more or less isolated examples of an ‘af'el; I agree with Ginsberg (Or. NS 7.3 f.) that there is no unequivocal evidence for the ‘af'el.

⁴⁹ See JAOS 58.303 (1938).

⁵⁰ The vocalization *‘anākī and *‘anī (e.g. C. H. Gordon, Ugaritic Grammar 5.3) should be marked as conjectural in order not to prejudice the issue.

⁵¹ I am referring to the proper names ^dUTU-MU-na (i.e. Šapaš-šumu-na) ‘the sungod is our name’ (Syria 15.138, line 21, cf. 145) and ^dIM-la-na ‘the stormgod is ours’ (RS 8.213 = Syria 18.247, line 3). Whoever rejects the evidence of these names has to assume that the Semitic population of Ugarit did not speak Ugaritic.

⁵² The h of mh is of course consonantal; hence it cannot be equated with the orthographic h of Hebrew mā.

⁵³ For examples see C. H. Gordon, Ugaritic Grammar 7.4.

⁵⁴ Here the existence of two forms is certain from nouns with final alif; see C. H. Gordon 7.5.

⁵⁵ See C.H.Gordon 11.4.

⁵⁶ Since Hebrew lū and Akkadian lũ are probably originally bisyllabic (see above fn. 36), I don't consider the vocalization *lī (Gordon, Ugaritic Grammar 8.12) likely. More probte is li, as in Arabic.

⁵⁷ The material has been collected by Theo Bauer in his book Die Ostkanaanäer (1926); cf. the same author in MAOG 4.6 ff. and ZA NF 4.145 ff.

⁵⁸ See for the time being Dossin, Syria 18.105 ff., 20.97 ff.

⁵⁹ ZA NF 1.236 ff.

⁶⁰ Theo Bauer, Die Ostkanaanäer 64; Albright's opposition (AfO 3.125) is unjustified (cf. Theo Bauer, ZA NF 4.157) and seems to have been abandoned by Albright himself (cf. BASOR 79.29 fn.). Attention may be called to the following new examples: ša-p-ṭú ‘judge’ (Ostkanaanäer 81; Syria 18.111) because of Ug. ṭpṭ, ba-ša-ni ‘snake’ in the geographical name Zi-ri-ba-ša-ni (Amarna), cf. Aram, pαθnā; the deity A-ši-ir-tu or Aš-ra-tu, the consort of the god Amurru, because of Ug. áṭrt.

The essential fact is that PS ṭ, š (and also s) are kept distinct; the question as to the phonetic nature of the written š which appears in Amurrite is of minor importance. Before passing judgment, it is well to remember that the syllabary which is used for the Amurrite names is not the one created and used for Old Babylonian, but an older one which is related to Old Akkadian. In that syllabary ša, ši, šu represented the descendants of ṭ, while the signs usually transliterated (according to Neo-Assyrian usage) by sa, etc., were used for śa, etc. (śīn); sāmekh however was not differentiated from ẓ and ṣ. Thus, š may have been the closest available approximation to ṭ.

Cases of special interest are Ia-ás-ku-ur-AN (Bauer, Ostkanaanäer 30) and Ás-kur-^dAdad (Syria 18.111), which apparently reflect *yaḏkur and *‘aḏkur. If ḏ were regularly represented by z in this language, one should expect, with unvoicing of the dental sibilant, *yaskur with sāmekh. This, however, should appear as *ia-AZ-ku-ur and not with the sibilant of yaśma‘ (spelled ia-á-ma-aḫ). Hence it seems that ḏ was still preserved as an interdental.

⁶¹ Sa, si, su should better be transcribed as śa, śi, śu; for sāmekh za, zi, zu are written.

Theo Bauer's remarks ZA NF 4.158 are quite correct.

⁶² Examples: ša-pí-ṭú ‘judge’, i.e. šāpiṭu; Da-gan, i.e. Dagān, cf. Hebr. Dāγōn.

⁶³ Examples: in Ia-am-ZI-AU ‘E1 arrived’ (Bauer, Ostkanaanäer 78); in Iα-zi- . .‘. . . has left’ (ibid. 79); ṣ in Ṣí-id-qí-e-bu-uḫ (Syria 18.111), . . . -ṣa-du-qá ‘ ... is righteous’ (Ostkanaanäer 80); ẓ in ḫaẓērum ‘parc à mouton’ (Syria 18.108).

⁶⁴ For PS š it is enough to refer to the frequent occurrences of śamśu ‘sun’, śumu ‘name, son’, śrn ‘hear’. For PS ś more detail must be given, since Albright has on repeated occasions (e.g. JPOS 2.124 fn. 3; AfO 3.125) advanced the opinion that PS ś is in Amurrite represented by š (i.e. that Amurrite acts like Arabic). He based his contention on doubtful etymologies (cf. Theo Bauer, ZA NF 4.157 fn.) which are invalidated by a few clear cases that the Mari texts have since contributed: si-im-a-al (Syria 18.116) i.e. śim'āl, cf. Hebr. śӘmδō, Aram, smālā; Ia-si-im-Da-gan (Syria 18.111) 'may Dagan establish (him)', cf. Hebr. YӘśïmi'ēl (Noth, Personennamen No. 743); Ṣidqu-la-naśi (RA 36.48) 'let him be an owner of righteousness', abbreviated La-na-su-ú-um (Syria 18.111; Bauer, Ostkanaanäer 33); furthermore perhaps (with H. Bauer, ZAW NF 10.83 fn. 4) the element sa-ri-e (Theo Bauer, Ostkanaanäer 80), if correctly connected with Arab, šariya ‘be resplendent’.

An example for the rare PS s (sāmekh; cf. Theo Bauer, ZA NF 4.159 fn. 2) is perhaps contained in Ia-aḫ-ZU-up-AN (Theo Bauer, Ostkanaanäer 26), which I am inclined to connect with Ug. yḫsp (I D 31) and derive from a root ḥsp; cf. Aram, ḥsp pa“el ‘break to pieces’, Ph. ḥsp ifta'al ‘be broken’, and Hebr. ḥāṣeβ ‘split’.

⁶⁵ Theo Bauer, Ostkanaanäer 64.

⁶⁶ P. Schnabel, GGA 1927.48 f., and M. Noth, Die israelitischen Personennamen 23 f. (cf. OLZ 1927.946), described the situation more correctly than Theo Bauer, Ostkanaanäer 59;ZA NF 4.164 ff.

⁶⁷ Theo Bauer (Ostkanaanäer 66 f.) mentions Ia-ú-zi-AN as a certain, and Ia-ú-zi-AN as a probable example of a hif'īl. It seems to me more likely that ia-ú-zi and ia-ú-ḫi should be read *yuṣī and *yuḫī and interpreted as imperfects of the basic stem. The perfect of the former has survived as ia-zi, i-zi. The relationship between yuṣī and yaṣi is analogous to that which exists between yurū/ī of Uru-śalim (Amarna), YӘrū-šālem (Hebr.), Urī-šem (Syr.) on the one hand and yari- of Y ari-muta (Amarna) on the other; they mean '(God) Šalim has founded' and ‘(God) Mut founded’ respectively (cf. now J. Lewy, JBL 59.521).

Unfortunately the existence of a šaf'el is not demonstrable. A possible occurrence may be contained in Ia-ás-pu-qum (VS XIII 3 rev. 15), if we are dealing with a form derived from the middle weak verb p-q which seems to denote ‘satisfy’ in Ugaritic (II AB VI 56; K 12).

⁶⁸ Cf. the preceding note.

⁶⁹ Theo Bauer, Ostkanaanäer 64; cf. Noth, OLZ 1927.947.

⁷⁰ Ma-na-ba-al-te-el is best explained as the Amurrite analog of the Akkadian type Mannum-balum-ilim ‘who (can be) without god?‘ (cf. J. J. Stamm, Die akkadische Namengebung 328).

⁷¹ Cf. Theo Bauer, Ostkanaanäer 77 s.v.; the meaning is perhaps ‘what with us, O (god)?‘.

⁷² This is the view of J. Lewy (ZA NF 4.243 f.; cf. JBL 54.198 fn. 85) and of Hrozný (Arch. Or. 1.67 f.). The form ila can hardly be separated from the other nouns in a like ḫala, kumra; hence the equation with 'ilāh (Dhorme, Rev. Bibl. 37.68, 164) is unsatisfactory.

⁷³ See Albright, JAOS 60.415 f.

⁷⁴ Theo Bauer's explanation of La-ši-el-ka-a-bi-im is not convincing.

⁷⁵ It occurs in la-naśi, see above fn. 64.

⁷⁶ The most complete collection is that of M. Burchardt, Altkanaanäische Fremdworte und Eigennamen im Aegyptischen.

⁷⁷ The latest edition is that of J. Simons in Egyptian Topographical Lists (178 ff.).

⁷⁸ Cf. Harris, Development 63 fn. 64. The examples š'r 'gate' and š'r 'fangs' (Albright, Syll. Orthography 15.4, 5) are perhaps of a special kind, inasmuch as ṭ and r begin consecutive syllables. This may even in Amurrite have influenced the pronunciation without the Amurrites themselves indicating the shift. The proper name Kwšr of the execration texts, if equaling Kušaru and Ug. Kṭr, seems likewise to belong here.

If the Eg. transliteration škm, which seems to reflect ṭkm, refers to Šxxxm in Palestine, an Amurrite form of the name would not be surprising; Gen. 48.22 still recalls that Shekhem had been an Amurrite city.

⁷⁹ Latest edition by J. Simons in Egyptian Topographical Lists 109 ff. M. Noth, ZDPV 61.26 ff., holds that the cities No. 1–52 are situated to the north, and the cities No. 53–119 to the south of a line running roughly from Mt. Karmel to Betshan.

⁸⁰ See B. Maisler, Untersuchungen zur alten Geschichte und Ethnographie Syriens und Palästinas.

⁸¹ W. Borée, Die alten Ortsnamen Palästinas, made no attempt to distinguish the various layers of Semitic names.

⁸² Most characteristic is the scheme Yaf'al-'el; see M. Noth, Die israelitischen Personennamen im Rahmen der gemeinsemitischen Namengebung 41 ff.

⁸³ Weber apud Knudtzon, Die El-Amarna-Tafeln 1132 ff.; F. Bilabel, Geschichte Vorderasiens und Aegyptens passim (see index); Ed. Meyer, Gesch. des Altertums 2.1².347 ff.; Honigmann and Forrer in Reallex. der Assyriologie 1.99 ff.; A. T. Olmstead, Hist, of Palestine and Syria passim (see index).

^83a Cf. W. F. Edgerton, JAOS 60.492 fn. 44, and W. F. Albright, BASOR 81.16 ff.

⁸⁴ Albright, JPOS 8.223 ff.

⁸⁵ There is no reason to doubt the Amurrite character of Dagān, the god to whom Sargon and Narām-Sīn according to their own words (UMBS V 34 + UMBS XV 41; cf. Poebel, UMBS IV p. 173 ff. and Legrain, UMBS XV p. 12 ff.; UET I 274 ff.) owed the domination of Syria, nor any reason to reject the Amurrite names of the Narām-Sīn legend 2BoTU 3 as altogether fictitious (cf. Hrozný, Arch. Or. 1.65 ff.; Lewy, ZA NF 4.260 ff.; Güterbock, ZA NF 10.66 ff.).

⁸⁶ Rich material is contained in J. Lewy's article Les textes paléo-assyriens et l'Ancient Testament (RHR 110.29 ff.). Compare further H. S. Nyberg, Studien zum Religionskampf im Alten Testament (Archiv für Religionswissenschaft 35.329 ff.).

⁸⁷ The close relationship which connects Ugaritic literature with the Phoenician inscriptions on the one hand and with certain parts of the Old Testament on the other is explained by the cultural influence which the Amurrites exercised upon Syria and Palestine during the earlier part of the second millennium.