Overview of Sarmatian chronology
Ogur and Oguz
Balkan K. Relations between language of Gutians and Old
Landsberger B. Basic questions of the early history of the Near East
Landsberger B. Grundfragen der Frühgeschichte Vorderasiens
Guties and Zhou portrait
P.N. Stearns “Zhou Culture”
Keightley D. Synopsis of Zhou story
Professor, Ph. D., Emeritus professor and ex-chairman of Ankara University Sumerology Department,
Faculty of Language, History and Geography.
RELATIONS BETWEEN THE LANGUAGE OF THE GUTIANS AND OLD TURKISH
(Eski Ön Asya ’da Kut Halkının Dili ile Eski Türkçe Arasındaki Benzerlik)
Journal of Erdemir, C. VI (Erdem Dergisi, C. VI)
© Copyright Kemal Balkan
The Kemal Balkan's work “Relations Between The Language Of The Gutians And Old Turkish” summarizes the body of knowledge on the Gutian language, and provides a detail analysis on its parallels with the oldest systematic records of the Türkic languages, commonly called the Old Türkic Language. The Guties in question came to light because they ruled the Akkadian Empire in the Middle East for about a century, within the short chronology their rule is accepted as 91 years ca. 2154 – 2112 BC, and not more than 124 years. Gutians were a horse nomadic tribe, one of conglomerate of the horse nomadic tribes in the heart of the Messopotamia and Southern Azarbajan in the modern Iran.
The body of Gutian-related records is not large, consisting of mostly onomasticon and morphological elements. None of the neighborhood contemporary languages of the 24th c. BC come close linguistically, so the parallels must be sought elsewhere. It is generally agreed that onomastics is irrelevant in ethnological attributions (Cf. not all Alexanders are Greek, not all Joshuas are Hebrew); that is one of the main objections to the V. Abaev & Co's Scytho-Iranian Theory (see Dremin G. Abaev's Scythian Hoax). The title-names do not fall into the category of the names because generally they are semantic designations peculiar to individual languages (Cf. title “King”, “Judge” in the European languages: Pol. krol; Lat. rex, regis; Hu. kiraly; Gmn. König; etc. vs. sędziavs; iudex; bíró; Richter, etc. respectively). The ethnical examination of the Gutian names as personal names, on the model of the Christian-type European and Semitic names, would be credible only with a questionable assumption that in the majority they are not borrowings but specifically Gutian native names. In contrast, the ethnical examination of the Gutian names as titles (title-names) is credible, since the assumption that in the majority they are not borrowings but peculiar Gutian native titles, and can be empirically validated by systemic concordance with the titles of a candidate language, and with the morphology of a candidate language. These criteria underlie the validity of the K. Balkan's work.
The genetical dating suggests that Gutians belonged to the same Kurgan horse nomadic people that in waves flooded Europe starting at about 4400 BC. The fairly well studied Neolithic Europe experienced three major Kurgan overland migration waves, the dating of the migration waves, produced by archeologists using radiocarbon analysis, is in concert with the genetic dating: wave 1 at ca. 4400-4300 BC, wave 2 at ca. 3500 BC or somewhat later, and wave 3 soon after 3000 BC; Gutians and their nomadic kin tribes might be the southern prong of the westward waves. The insights provided by archeology and genetic, and their converging conclusions advance a contention that the Türkic (Proto-Türkic) linguistic field dominated the whole Eurasia reaching the Atlantic Ocean on one end and Pacific Ocean on another end, and the linguistic relicts may corroborate that the non-Indo-European Kurgan vernaculars were rooted in the Türkic (Proto-Türkic) linguistic field.
Map schematically depicts migrations in the Western Eurasia
In the Eastern Eurasia, Kurgan expansion reached Pacific
The Celtic Kurgan circum-mediterranean migration is not shown
Migration of non-Kurgan Indo-Aryan farmers ca. 2000-1500 BC
Arrows show flow, not the waves, i.e. they are timeless.
Page numbers are shown at the beginning of the page in blue. Posting notes and explanations, added to the text of the author, are shown in (blue italics) in parentheses and in blue boxes, or highlighted by blue headers. The use of diatric fonts is intentionally minimized; minor stylistic corrections were made for easier reading.
RELATIONS BETWEEN THE LANGUAGE OF THE GUTIANS AND OLD TURKISH
The details presented below on the history of the Gutians and their language have been gleaned from the lectures of my former professor, the late B. Landsberger and are in particular inspired by a communication he presented at the Second Congress of Turkish History. This communication of Landsberger has, in contrast to his other publications, hardly evoked the interest of scientific circles. It may be said that, with a few exception, it has not been referred to in Turkish publications either. This may be due to the fact that the communication in question is of an early date (1937) and that it is difficult to find the original German version of it anywhere. It should be noted here that in the present article the reading of some of the words had to be modified.
In the light of the above-mentioned circumstances it was deemed necessary to republish this important article of Landsberger and it was also considered appropriate to recall to the mind the cherished memory of my former teacher and mentor. I must, on this occasion, thank Professor Aydın Sayılı who has been of great assistance in the publication of this article, Professor Aydın Sayılı is also an admirer of Professor Landsberger.
I shall start this article by presenting the above-mentioned communication of Professor Landsberger.
Important Texts for the Study of Sumerian King List
Other abbreviations and signs:
col. : column
A remark on Gutian Language
The Second International Congress on Turkish History convened on the September 20-25, 1937, at the Palace of Dolmabahçe in Istanbul. All sessions of the Congress were attended by Kemal Atatürk, the President of Turkish Republic. Benno Landsberger, then Ordinarius Professor at the Faculty of Language, History and Geography (Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi) in Ankara, presented at the Congress a communication on the subject “Grundfragen der Frühgeschichte Vorderasiens” (Basic questions on the Near Eastern early history).1 Among other problems of the Near-East, Landsberger dealt with the Gutian language in his lecture in the Congress and he pointed to its resemblance with Old Turkish2, an important point that he reiterated many times in Ankara, and so far as I know, he remained loyal to this view until his death in 1968. With respect to the relation of the Gutian language to Old Turkish, he emphasized the fact that he was enlightened on the problem by A. von Gabain and L. Raszonyi, professors at the Faculty in Ankara, both of whom were well-known Turcologists (see Acts of the Congress, p. 73, note 1*).
In this respect Landsberger noted the following interesting view: Dieses Volk der Gutium oder Kutium, dessen Namen wir nach Streichung der akkadischen Nisbe als Kut ansetzen können, ist aber, wenn nicht \82\ gewichtige Anzeichen trügen, der weitaus alteste in unsere Geschichte eingetretene Stamm, der mit den Türken aufs engste verwandt, ja vielleicht identisch ist.” (The nation of Gutium or Kutium, whose name after deletion of the Akkadian Nisbe is identified as Kut, provides a weighty evidence that the largest and oldest in our history tribe is closely related to the Turks, and perhaps is identical with them.) (Acts of the Congress, pp.72-73).
1 “Grundfragen der Frühgeschichte Verderasiens”
(Basic questions on the Near Eastern early history) (II. Türkischer
Geschichtskongress. Devlet Matbaası, Istanbul 1937. Mentioned in this study as (Acts of the
Congress, p. 65-78).
Landsberger was aware of the fact that the comparison of the two languages involved great difficulties, so that the following note, i.e. Landsberger’s remark is quite appropriate to illustrate the situation: “Von einer Spraphe, die um mehr als 3000 Jahre alter ist als das alteste Zeugnis aus ihrer Familie, dürfen wir nicht erwarten, dass sich alle Erscheinungen glatt in das Schema der Sprache fügen oder sogar ohne weiteres etymologisch verstândlich sind. ... Ich erlaube mir, dieses Material der Türkologie zur Prüfung vorzulegen, sie mögen entscheiden, ob die Namen nach Lautgestalt, Formund Stammelementen die Einordnung in die Türkische Sprachfamilie zulassen oder ob man zu ihrer Erklarung mit Erfolg die entfernter vervandten altaischen Sprachen heranzuziehen hat.” (For a language by more than 3000 years older than the oldest evidence from its family, should not be expected that all phenomena smoothly fit in a linguistic scheme or even are readily understandable etymologically. ...Allow me to present this Turkological material for examination, to assess the sound form of the names, whether the root elements favor their attribution to the Türkic linguistic family, or the Altaic languages support a more successful explanation.) (Acts of the Congress, pp.73- 74).
In the present study I have collected the following subjects concerning the Gutian language: word roots, word structures, personal names, treasury of the Gutian words and some sounds peculiar to the Gutian language. The subjects pertaining to the Gutian language which have been dealt with by Landsberger very briefly in the Acts of the Congress (p. 711) are taken up in this study of mine and compared with the grammatical rules of the Old Turkish.
According to Landsberger the relation of the two languages, in his own words, were ‘striking’, ‘auffallend’ (Belleten, vol. 3, No. 10, p. 223, note 34).
Apparently, with the sole exception of Hamit Z. Koşay, Landsberger’s views in his communication is neglected in the literature on the subject3; however, in some publications Landsberger’s article in Belleten (vol. 3, No. 10, pp. 207-224) is mentioned. One may think therefore that the word ‘auffallend’ mentioned in note 34 of that article4 should have made the \83\ authors of those publications curious about this communication. Indeed, H. Z. Koşay, in 22 . 7 . 1971 in Szeged (Hungary) during the Permanent International Conference of Altaic Languages5, in his communication made known Landsberger’s view of Gutian.6 [Sadi Bayram also refers to this work of Landsberger (Kaynaklara Göre Güney-Doğu Anadolu'da Proto-Türk İlleri, 1980, p. 79 ff.)].
3 JMES 4, 1950, pp. 1-62 “To Benno Landsberger, on his Sixtieth
According to B. Hrozny, the Gutians were cognates of the Lullubians and the Kassites.7 A map drown by him (see below) shows that the Gutians were living in prehistoric times in Turkestan, in the region between the south-east of Caspian Sea and the Oxus River (Amu Darya).8 Later moving to the west along the Caspian Sea and down to the south-west, the Gutians occupied north-eastern Zagros Mountains (2500-2400 BC).9 Considering the relation between Gutian and Old Turkish one may speak in favor of the opinion of Hrozny regarding the original homeland of the Gutians.
Foothills in Türkic are called saqa, hence the appellation Saka for mountaineer pastoralists
(Cf. Tauar, Tagar for “mountaineer”, Suar, Suvar for “river people”, Alan, As, Yas for “steppe occupants”, Agachir for “forest people”, etc.)
M. S. Beek in his Atlas of Mesopotamia10 shows the Gutians as settled down in the Mountains of Zagros to the east of Nuzu (= Yorgon Tepe) and Arrapha (= Kerkuk), between the Rivers of Litle Zab and Diyala.
The cadastre document of Sargon of Akkad (2340-2284 BC), KA V 92, has attracted the attention of scholars (cf. A. Goetze, JMES, vol. I2, 1953, p.118, 2) which placed Gutium between Lullubu (at the source of Diyala River) in the north, and Der (= Badrah) in the south. It must be noted also that some legendary texts before Old Akkadians (+ 2400 BC) and the “Weidner Chronicle” (H. G. Güterbock, J?A, vol. 42, 1934, pp. 47-57) show that the Gutian people were living between Subartu in the north and along Elam in the south.
5 Hamit Zübeyir Koşay, Makaleler ve tncelemelr (Ankara 1974), p. 300,
The Migration of the Gutians Westward
The main bulk of the Gutians may have remained in the mountainous regions of Zagros, but a group of them apparently migrated to the \84\ north-west to upper Tigris River regions to live intermingled with the Subarians (= SU.BAPPIR.A)", perhaps after Narâm-Sin (2260-2223 BC) toward the end of the rule of the Old Akkadian ruler Sar-kali-sarri (2223- 2193 BC).12 A Sargonic text confirms probably this fact.13
The destruction of a palace at Tell Brak in the valley of Hâbür, built by the Old Akkadian ruler Naram-Sin, falls probably in the reign of Sarkali- sarri14, son and successor of Naram-Sin, and is associated with the occupation of the region by the Gutians. Likewise, it was believed that the devastation of a stronghold at the same area is also explained by the Gutian invasion.15 Some historians have advanced the opinion that the Gutians were also the responsible agents of the destruction of the City of Assur and its great and flourishing temple of Istar.16
A dating formula of Sar-kali-sarri revealed that the Gutian king Sar lag was defeated by this Old Akkadian king.17 Gelb found the name As-sar-la-ag in the collection of Adab tablets (Adab 405; unpublished) in the Archaeological Museum of Istanbul which is communicated by W.W. Hallo.18 It is believed that this king was identical with Sarlag in SKL, the fourth ruler of the Gutians. However, the ruling center of this king has so far remained unknown.
From Narâm-Sin’s later years on, probably from the reign of Sar-kalisarri, these early Gutian kings, including Elulumes (= Elulu) reigned simultaneously with the Old Akkadian souvereigns. We do not know how far this parallel ruling lasted.
11 I.J. Gelb, “New light on Hurrians and Subarians”//Study
Orientalislici in onore Giorgio Levi Della Vida, vol. I, Roma, 1957, p. 383, see names of
persons called SU.BAPPIR.A-ne;
ITT, vol. II, 2, 35, No. 4640, lines (2) Ga-ga-ni, (4) Sa-an-me (6) Si-na-mt
(7) x-us-du-ga?-an (8) x-x?-en-na-an.
Gutians must have also spread over the middle Euphrates valley. Landsberger pointed to this fact as follows: “Dieses Gebirgsvolk, ... ist \85\ neuerdings, um die gleiche Zeit 2400 auch am mittleren Euphrat nachgewiesen... Drei Stâdte, davon eine am mittleren Euphrat, sind nach einem König der Kutium genannt: Tirikan” (This mountain people around the same time in 2400 BC is also reported as located... in the area downstream of the middle Euphrates... Three cities belong to the King of Kutium, including one on the middle Euphrates called: Tirikan). 19 Landsberger had previously referred to this fact in his above-mentioned Communication (see, Acts of the Congress, p. 78 note A(2)).
Collapse o f the Old Akkadian Rule, and the Gutian Domination on a Part of the Lands of Akkad and Sumer
The ascription of the fall of the Old Akkadian administration to the Gutian assaults seems to be emendated as follows: the collapse of the Akkadian Imperium is probably due to some inner problems, as well as to some political foreign oppressions exercised by Elamites, Lullubians and Humans.20 As pointed out by traces of the Gutian expansion established in Hâbür valley after the reign of Narâm-Sin,21 they invaded certain parts of the Old Akkadian state. This state repulsed all Gutian assaults tried from the front, but their spreading over Hâbür, Balîh and the middle Euphrates valley could not be prevented22 Since the middle Euphrates valley constituted a vulnerable front against the Gutians, their invasion probably of Sippar and apparently of Umma could not be stopped by the Old Akkadians.23
19 Landsberger, Belleten, vol. 3, No.10, p. 217, and cf. Sidney
Smith, “The Three Cities called Tirqan”, JRAS, 1928, pp. 868-875.
It is stated that the Gutian domination in Akkad and Sumer lasted only about thirty or fourty-fifty years.24 There is no historical certitude that Agade, the capital of the Old Akkadians was destroyed to its \86\ foundations by the Gutians.25 There is no evidence either about the Gutian conquest of the City of U r .26 According to a Sumerian composition Elamites and Subarians were held responsible of the destruction of Ur.27 It is suggested that the date of Sumerian composition of the destruction of Ur falls sometime in the middle of the second millennium BC.28
Utu-hegal, king of the City of Uruk around 2116 BC, appears in two Old Babylonian copies of the composition,29 as ridding Sumer of the Gutian domination. The copies based perhaps on Sumerian original’s composed by Utu-hegal who narrated the poor characters of the Gutian enemy, describing them as “dragons of the mountain, enemy of gods”, and narrated the mistreatments suffered by Sumerians under the Gutian domination.30 Utu-hegal tells that he defeated Gutian forces and took prisoner the young and new Gutian king Tirigan.31
Gadd points out the following incident: “This famous victory, ..., was remembered in the diviners ’ books — the presence of six small vessels upon the liver was an ‘omen of the king Tirigan who fled in the midst of his host’. Still more menacing was an eclipse of the moon with certain attendant phenomena on the fourteenth of the month of Tammuz: a decision will be given to the king of the Gutians, there will be a dawnfall of the Gutians in battle, the land will be left naked”.32
25 Cf. Hartmut Schmökel, Das Land Sumer (Urban Biicher); (3. Auilage,
1962) p. 69.
According to the diviners’ books king Tirigan disappeared from the battle field without being taken prisenor of war. These documents apparently were based upon a different and reliable source than the one in RA, vol. 9, p. 111 ff. According to the diviners’ books king Tirigan retired alive from the battle and this situation may indicate that the Gutian domination of Sumer was not ended with this battle.
In this connection W.W. Hallo drew attention to another historical event: “The contemporary inscriptions of Utu-hegal cast him in a much more modest role: as an arbiter in the boundary disputes between Ur and Lagaš as a sovereign over the victory of Ur (JCS, vol. 20, 1966, pp. idem, RLA vol. 3, p. 715a)”. On the other hand the Gutian rule on Sumer and Akkad is a fact. In the light of all this the Gutian rule "does not really appear to have ended all at once” (Hallo, RLA, vol. 3, p. 715a). In the so-called “Weidner Chronicle” 33, written probably in Old Babylonian period, Ass. 13955 gv 22-29 mentions that Utu-hegal, a pious-minded person, was obliged to offer in regular intervals a fish to the temple of Esagila for god Marduk. But according to this Chronicle, the Gutians prevented Utu-hegal to submit the fish to the god.34 This conduct of the Gutians seems to have augmented the feelings of revenge of Utu-hegal against them, and it at the same time led the god Marduk to punish them by depriving the Gutians from the hegemony on Sumer and Akkad. God Marduk applied the same justice on Utu-hegal himself, after his committing an offence against him. Utu-hegal was obliged to pay this sin with his own life. The “Weidner Chronicle” reports that the hegemony of Utu-hegal on Sumer passed to Ur III (text gives the name of Ur III king as Sulgi).35
It seems the victory of Utu-hegal over the Gutians as perhaps explained in a hymn which describes the fight as happening between the goddess of Inana and Ebih.36 This hymn and the events related by Weidner Chronicle” are confirmed also by the compositions of Utu-hegal.
33 H.G. Güterbock, ZA, vol. 42, 1934, p. 15 f., 47 f.
Previously in the middle Euphrates valley under the rule of a certain Tirigan, the Gutians may have spent some time, and subsequently through the way of this valley they entered into Babylonia. Later the same route was used also by the Hittites and Kassites.
The hymns from the times of Ur III kings Umammu, Sulgi and Ibbi- Sin indicate also that the Gutians were still dwelling in the region of middle Euphrates and probably represented some political power. A legend of Narâm-Sin (Gurney, AnSt., vol. 5, 1955, p. 93 ff.) dealing with the Gutians, is dated by Gelb (MAD vol. 22, p. 16) to Ur III period.
In the Ur III era there were several persons with Gutian or West Semitic names in the middle Euphrates area: in a text from Mari a high ranking official is known with a perfect Gutian name: Lâ-âs-ga-an, son of As-ma-ti-en (Landsberger, apud Thureau-Dangin, RA, vol. 35, 1938, p. 10637). On personal names ending with -ga-an see below (pp. 91, 113). On the other hand we know of another Gutian person from the same area who carried a West Semitic (Amorite) name: Iasim.-dAdad (ARM, vol. 5, 2: 11).
All these facts indicate perhaps that the last Gutian king Tirigan, keeping still a part of Babylonia under his rule, retired to the middle Euphrates valley after being defeated by the Sumerian ruler Utu-hegal.
In this respect C. J. Gadd notes the following in The Dynasty of Agade and the Gutian Invasion (CAH vols. 1 and 2, revised edition, 1963) p. 30: “The Gutians are not easy to fix upon the map; they were close neighbors, hardly to be distinguished from the Lullu, but no territorial monuments mark their abodes. Their descendants, called Qutu, can be found dubiously mentioned in the Mari letters, but appear most prominently much later in the campaigns of Assyrian kings towards the end of the second millennium and subsequently. In those times they were a great and powerful, if loose-knit, people; their epithet was ‘wide-spread’ and their land seems to have been in the mountains south of the Lower Zab, to the north of Sulaimaniyyah and of the legendary Mount Nişir, where the ark of Babylonian Noah rested after the Deluge”.
37 See F. Thureau-Dangin, RA, vol. 35, 1938, p, 106: “Le Pr.
Landsberger (lettre du 7 août) tient Lasgan pour un nom gutient, â cause de la simmilitude de
suffixe avec les noms royaux Iarlagen et Tirigan” (Proff. Landsberger
(letter of August 7) holds the name Lasgan as Gutian, because of the suffix similitude with the
royal names Iarlagen and Tirigan) .
A number of Gutian personal names ending with -an, -en, -g/kan (p. 102) have been collected from the Old Babylonian period at the region of Chagar Bazar.38 We note that a certain person from Chagar Bazar, is called Ti-ri-ka-an in Gutian (below s.v.).
In the late Old Babylonian period at the town of Sippar or Kis a person is fixed with the name Bi-ga-an (MCL1518, unpublished; see Finkelstein, JCS, vol. 20, 1966; p. 1075'; Hallo, RLA, vol. 3, p. 717b), whose origin is designated as Gutian (SÂ.ERİN gu-ti-t^1). Dating lists from the reign of Hammurabi show that the countries of GutiumKI (A. Ungnad, RLA, vol. 2, p. 180 No. 132), Esnunna and Subartu (Ungnad, ibid. No. 134) were in fight with Babylonia.
Racial Characteristics of Gutians
The epithet namrütum is used for Gutian slaves. According to some scholars the meaning is “fair-skinned”, 39 but according to some it “cannot be used to identify their supposed racial characteristics”.40
Economic Situation During the Domination of Babylonia by the Gutians
Contrary to the general belief, the part of the countries of Akkad and Sumer under the hegemony of the Gutians were probably in a comparatively good state of economy. Indeed, during the Gutian rule these countries produced plenty of cereals, oils, lumber and textiles, that is, agrarian products, in addition of the metals like copper and others.41 It may be admitted that the Gutians possessed some knowledge about the production of the above mentioned materials even prior to their immigration to the Zagros mountainous region. It may be assumed also that the Gutians even developed their skill on the subject in the period when a group of them invaded the valleys of Hâbür, Ballh and middle Euphrates. Undoubtedly the Gutians continued their accumulation of knowledge on \90\ agrarian and mineral products in the land of Akkad and Sumer where they reigned for some time.
38 See W.W. Hallo, RLA, vol. 3, p. 716a “Rather, a considerable number of
distinctly Gutian” personal names have been noted there ...:.
The Element -ium in kut-ium
The element -ium is used in Old Akkadian as a suffix serving to form an adjective element, to designate the people of different origins. Landsberger explained the name as Kut (the name of the people) + -ium (Semitic gentilitious) (Here and below: gentilitious (adj.) = peculiar to particular people or nation; national, hereditary) (see: Acts of the Congress, p. 72. The same subject was treated once more by Landsberger in an article by him which appeared in Belleten(vol. 3, No. 10, 1939, p. 217): “Wenn wir von den relativ spat hier eingewanderten Semiten absehen, so müssen wir mindestens mit noch einem Bevölkerungselement am mittleren Euphrat und Tigris rechnen, den Kutium (= kut + semitisches gentilizium)” (If we disregard the Semite migrants who were relatively late there, at least one more population, the Kutium (= kut + Semitic peculiar suffix), should be expected in the middle Euphrates and Tigris). For the adjective element -ium see also W. von Soden Grundriss der akkadischen Grammatik (Roma 1952, § q 38) p. 70, who gives, as example, “Assurium > Assuru(m) “Assyrer”; -ium which is also encountered in Old Assyrian documents from Kiiltepe.42
Names of Gutian Kings Mentioned in SKL, and an Attempt of
Explaining Some of Them
No. 1: WB, col. VH 28, L n G, Su3+4
The example of Su3+4 yielded the name of the first Gutian king as [Ia-ar-la-g]a-an-de (cf. T. Jacobsen, AS II, p. 117, note 286; W.W. Hallo, RLA, vol. 3, p. 71 ib). But the versions WB, L, and probably G point out that the first king was without a name. Jacobsen remarked in this respect the following: “ ... clearly a copyist's note that a name has been obliterated by a lacuna in this place” (AS 11, p. 116 f., note 285), a view shared also by other scholars.433
A number of Gutian king names in SKL (Nos. 2-5, 9, 11, 19) with the element iarlaŋ (pp. 94, 115) led Hallo to advance the following interesting \91\ theory (RLA, vol 3, p. 711a):
42 K. Balkan, Letter of King Anum-Hirbi of Mama to King Warshama of
Kanish, Ankara, 1957, p. 19;
“Perhaps this name was, or became, more title than name, for the first entry already may be restored as [x-lag]a-an-de on one version [=Su3+4] ...”. We may express the position as follows: [Iarlag]an-de, at first was probably the name of the first Gutian king, but later iarlagan became a title like tabama among the Hittites. It is known that Tabarna was the name of the founder of Hittite Dynasty.44 However, iarlagan in Gutian was not, so far as is known, combined with some other Gutian element, as is seen, e.g. in the Hittite names tabarna Telepinu, and tabarna Hattušili.
Landsberger pointed out that iar or iarla contained the word of the first Gutian king’s name, and this element reminded Iargan in Old Turkish Orkhon inscriptions; furthermore the name of the founder of the Gutian dynasty contained the ending -de which may be a kind of Gutian gentilitious (peculiarity) (Acts of the Congress, p. 74).
We may suppose that the title iarlagan included an action which was highly praised by the Gutian community and expected from a king. For iarlagan (= iarlaŋ45 -an) see below (pp. 94, 115). We should like to add also that Gutian deverbal names based upon iarlaŋ- are modified by adding (agglutinating) different endings (semantical suffixes, as opposed to inflectional endings) to this root (p. 94, 115), and so names with different meanings and built in this manner did in each case denote a most cherished qualification of a king.
Jacobsen (AS n, p. 116 f., note 285) pointed out also the following: “Among the Nippur material in the University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania, Hilprecht found many years ago a copy46 of a long inscription of a ruler e-er-ri-du-pi-zi-ir47 (var. en-ri-da-pi-zi-ir), who styled himself da-nûm šar gu-ti-um u ki-ib-ra-tim ar-ba-im “The mighty one, king of Gutium and the four quarters”. This king of the Gutians, Erridupizir, according to Jacobsen (ibid. note 285) “is indeed very likely to be the anonymous Gutian ruler who ... laid foundation for Gutian supremacy”.
44 H. Otten, Kulturgeschichle des alien Orients, 1961, p. 339.
In connection with the inscription the following remark seems to be convenient: the length of this inscription and the title of the first king, the founder of the Gutian Dynasty, may arouse some doubts with respect to its originality though it is pointed out that the text was a copy.
Some Gutian kings seem to have double names according to the following variants in SKL:
One of the above-mentioned names is probably the name of the person before he is enthroned. This is a practice observed later among some of the Hittite kings51. Erridupizir is apparently the name of a Gutian king, perhaps before he is enthroned, but, it can be doubted that he had been the first ruler of the Gutian Dynasty.
No. 2 : WB, col. VII 29 Im-i[a]-a; This name is attested also in P4 and probably in G; see Jacobsen, AS 11, p. 118 and ibid. note 286; J, Bottero, Fischer Weltgeschichle, vol. 2, 1965, p. 96; P. Garelli, Le Proche-Orient Asialique (Nouvelle Clio 2, 1968), p. 81; but cf. W. W. Hallo, RLA, vol. 3, p. 711a: “The army of Gutium had no king, it is ruled by itself (ni-bi-a) for 5 years”. This view is also accepted by D. O, Edzard, RLA, vol. 6, p. 83 *Imtâ: “lies ni-bi-a.”
48 Jacobsen, ibid. p. 117, note 285.
No. 3: WB, col. VII 30 In-ki-ŝuŝ; P4 In-ki-; L, In-gi4-ŝuŝ; but Su3+4 [x x]-da-[x], see T. Jacobsen, AS 11, p. 118, note 290. Is the name to be restored as [x x]-da-ba? (Cf. Jacobsen, ibid. notes 289-290). Probably it is the rest of a throne name.
The writing as I-ge4-eŝ-a-uŝ of the name of the eighth Gutian king led Jacobsen to suggest that this writing represented also the name of the third Gutian king as Iğeŝoŝ (AS 11, p. 119, note 301).
No. 4: WB, col. VII 31 Zar(NI)-lagabla-gab or L, Zar-arla-ga-ba. It is clear that both texts offer almost the same reading of the name in question. This name must be identical with Ŝa-ar-la-ag. (p. 73), or Aŝ-ŝar-la-ag. The difference between Ŝarlag, Aŝŝarlag, Zarlag-ap and Zarlag-apa is aimed probably at rendering the sound at the beginning of the name, which seems quite difficult to express, in cuneiform writing. Landsberger suggested in his communication in Istanbul, that this sound was actually č (see Acts of the Congress, p. 73, 78). He emphasized also that the ending - lag in Ŝarlag or Ĉarlag helps to build denominals (Acts of the Congress, p. 73). He considered the ending -lag in the Gutian language as the strongest evidence for the fact that the Gutian language and Old Turkish are relatives of each other (ibid., p. 72), and he pointed also to the -lak in Old Turkish.
Such a suffix is quoted by A. von Gabain in Alttürk. Gram. § 52, p. 61: +laɣ, +laɣ (< -la-ɣ); § 53, p. 61: -loɣ, -log; it denotes a matter furnished with something.
T. Banguoğlu (Türkçenin Grameri, No. 39, p. 186) gives the relevant information on this matter: a denominal verb with an ending -le-, plus the suffix -ik (in which -i- is dropped) forms -lek. This ending serves to build denominal adjectives and nouns.
W. Radloff, in his Versuch eines Worterbuch der Türk Dialekte (St. Petersburg 1899. vol.
3) column, 1868), pointed out that the word
čarlak in kumd. (= Kumander) dialect means “der litis” (= polecat, fitched
(skunk)), whereas in tel.
(= Teleut) dialect the word čarlak is in the sense of “die Möve” (= sea-gull, mew). Radloff
denotes also that this word corresponded to çaylak meaning in osm. (= osmanische) dialect
“der Habicht” (= hawk). For the latter see T. Banguoğlu (ibid. § 152, No. 39, p, 186):
No. 5: WB, col. VII33 Ŝul-me-e; its variant in L, is la-ar-la-ga-aš. We may suppose that this latter is a throne name. It seems that it is quite difficult to analyze the name Ŝul-me-e; for the suffix -me-e, -me, see below, p. 119.
For the element iarlaŋ- in the name Iarlagaš see the following personal names:
Gutian personal names and some other Gutian common nouns ending in -egan, -agan are observed by Landsberger (see Acts of the Congress, p. 73). Indeed, a similar Old Turkish suffix, reminding this Gutian ending, is encountered also in Old Turkish personal names (Landsberger, Acts of the Congress, p. 73). For the ending -ɣan (see von Gabain, Alttürk. Gram. § 113, p. 71), served to form deverbal nouns which are used seldom in Old Turkish: bazygan “drückend, packend (pressed)” (bas- “drücken” (= to press)).
In Old Turkish there existed a deverbal adjective, terminating in -egan, -egen, which is supposed to be formed actually by adding to the verb an intensive-adjective element -ge- or -ga-, out of which the -g- is dropped, then a -n- adjectival-verb followed by still another adjective adverb ending in -gen, -gan, and so a deverbal adjective is obtained: tep-ge-gen > tep-e-gen. The oldest example of this formation seems to be the personal name of Kapagan Kagan (see T. Banguoğlu, Türkçenin Grameri, No. 8, § 196, p. 229; cf. D. Sinor, JRAS, 1954, p 174-184). The Gutian suffix -agan, which turned to be later Gutian -gan is of great interest. I believe that this fact points to the relationship between Gutian and Old Turkish.
Hence, we may suppose that the Gutian kings name Iarlaŋ-gan probably followed the same
development in Gutian: *Iarl-gaŋ-gan > larl-aŋ-gan (= Iarlaŋ-gan). Probably variants
of the same name are represented by
*Iarl-gaŋ-gab > *Iarl-aŋ-gab; *Iarl-gaŋ-gan-da > Iarl-aŋ-gan-da: *Iarl-gaŋ-gan-de >
Iarl-aŋ-gan-de: *Iarl-gaŋ-gaš > larl-aŋ-gaš (= Iarlaŋ-gač; see above).
It is likely that the following name of a Gutian kings name to exist in accordance with the same rule: Zarlaŋ-gaŋ-gab > Zarl-aŋ-gab or *Zarlaŋ-gaŋ-gab-a > Zarla-gaŋ-gab-a.
But these names of Iarla(ŋ)gan, Iarlaganda/e, Iarlagaš may also be constituted of the
There are examples of a present participle in the form of -ab/p (see Landsberger, Acts of the Congress p. 73) which are obtained by omitting the hiatus, peculiar to Turkish. Although in Anatolian Turkish such a formation does not exist, in Old Turkish dialects perhaps it did.
Old Turkish personal names beginning with the verb iar- or iarlaŋ-, may mean “one who is giving just orders or the like” (see p. 94). The Gutian name reminds the name Iargan in Orhon inscriptions, (see above p. 73). In Landsherger’s own words Gutian Tirigan in A 2 (p. 78) is flawless as far as the form is concerned, and it meant the one who aids (Acts of the Congress, p. 73) and it reminds the word tiriga- “perfect” in the Uygur dialect of Turkish (ibid, p. 73).
We may suggest that the Gutian name Iarlaŋgan meant perhaps “one who orders equitably, decrees justly”, and this is a quite suitable name for a king.
Gutian deverbal names beginning with Iarlaŋ- (see p. 94) may be compared with the following Old Turkish words: yarlïqa-, yarlïɣga- “ befehlen (to order, to command), predigen (to preach); Modal, Respectivs verb (modal, verb of respect), “gnädigst etwas tun, bzw. sein (to act graciously; to be gracious)” (A. von Gabain, Alttiirk. Gram., p. 383b); yarlïqančsïz “erbarmungslos (merciless, pitiless)”; yarliqančuči, yarlïqančučï, yarlaɣqačučï barmherzig (merciful, pitiful)” (A. von Gabain, ibid); yarlïɣ” Entscheid, Erlass, Befehl, Lehre (decree, decision, order, instruction)” (A. yon Gabain, ibid.). For the same words see also A. Caferoğlu, EUTS, p. 287.
In connection of -gan, the examples of similar nature in Anatolian Turkish referred to by
T. Banguoğlu are of great interest (p. 240, § 207). He points that the Old Turkish present
participle ending -gen, by dropping its guttural sound [i.e. -g), produced, on the one
hand, present participle \96\ ending with -en, while on
the other hand, by preserving the guttural sound of -gen, formed adjectives of strengthening
characters differing in meaning; the latter denotes rather an adjective of habit.
Some Gutian personal names from periods of Ur III (see from Mari: La -aš-ga-an) and from Chagar Bazar (Te-ri-ka-an) end in -gan, but many names from Chager Bazar terminate with -an ending (p. 109).
It is highly interesting to note the resemblance in form between the Gutian names with endings in -gan, and -an, and the Old Turkish (even Anatolian Turkish) personal names on deverbal adjectives terminating with endings like -gen, -gan, -kan and those in -en and -an.
The Gutian personal name Iarlagaš contains clearly the verbal root of iarlaŋ-, and an ending -gaš, and so it is a deverbal substantive. The sound -š, ending with the suffix -gaš, probably represents originally the consonant -č (see p.78).
A. von Gabain, in her Alttürk. Gram. § 110 (p. 71) collected a number of Old Turkish deverbal substantives terminating in suffixes -ɣač, -gäč, -qač, -käč, often denoting several kinds of instruments. On the other hand, T. Banguoğlu (Türkçenin Grameri, § 195, No.7. p. 229; § 206, No. 22, p. 239 and § 209, No. 26, p. 242) emphasizes that deverbal substantives ending in suffixes -geç, -giç, actually are the results of the combination of the endings -ge-, plus -çe (dimunitive ending) combined to form -geç or -giç and these denote in Old Turkish nouns and instruments and intensive adjectives (ibid. p, 239).
No. 6. WB, col. VII 33 E-lu-lu-me-eš renders the name of the sixth Gutian king. Jacobsen (AS 11, p. 12, note 27) restored in the variant G, col. VII. 7' also as [E-lu-lu-me-eš], but the period of his rule is seven years (Jacobsen, ibid. note 296). This text is apparently copied from an unknown text.
Jacobsen (ibid. p. 52, 114, and note 266a, List II, p. 207) asserted that E-lu-lu (P3), (m)I-lu-lu (WB, S, Su3+4, Jacobsen, ibid. p. 52) are identical with Elulumeš. This is confirmed also by J. Bottero (Fischer Wellgeschichte, vol. 2, p. 97). The name I-lu-lu which appears on an Old Akkadian seal (A. Moorthgat, VR No. 186) is probably the same person (E/Ilulu).
Regarding the name of E-lu-lu-me-eš, in the Second Congress of Turkish History (Istanbul
1937), Landsberger made the folowing remark in \97,\
connection with the relation between the Gutian language and Old Turkish (Acts of the Congress,
p. 73: The name El-ulumiš in B 1, meaning a person who enlarged the country, enlarger of the
country, constitute an appropriate name for a king.
Old Turkish il, äl, el (Br.) mean “Land, Reich, Herrschaft (country, state, sovereignty)” in common Turkish (see A. von Gabain, Alttürk. Gram. p. 337b). We believe with Landsberger that the word el is used also in the name of the Gutian king E-lu-lu-me-eš = El-ulumeš.
The word uluɣ (= ulug) which is used as adjective and substantive in Old Turkish, means “gross, Grosser, Vorgesetzter (great, big, eminent, greatness, chief)” (see A. von Gabain, ibid. p. 377b; see also A. Caferogiu, EUTS, p. 264).
The following are occurrences of -miš, -meš ending in Old Turkish: -mïš, -miš, (in n-dialect) -maš, -mäš (also exceptionally) -muš, -müš (see A. von Gabain, ibid. § 145, p. 71).
Regarding -miš ending, T. Banguoğlu expresses his view (Türkçenin Grameri, p. 272 § 238, No. 52) as follows: The element -miš is added to deverbal substantives in various use: participles in -miš can be seen in Old Turkish since the eighth century on, beginning with dialects of Türkish (= Türkiş) and Uygur. Some other Turkish rulers have used the mentioned ending as suffixes in their titles: Il Etmiş, Il Tutmiş, Kut Bulmiş, Kut Almïš.
Personal names of Uygur, those from the eighth century on composed with the word il-, or other verbal substantives with the ending -miš are collected by A. Gaferoğlu (EUTS, p. 26 ff.) They indicate how widely used this type of names was among Turkish speaking communities:
No. 7 : WB, col. VII 34 I-ni-ma-ba-ki-eš. Variant G (col. VII 8') is restored by Jacobsen (AS 11, p. 12, note: 27) as [I-ni-ma-ba-ki-e]š. Regarding the relation of Gutian with Old Turkish, Landsberger noted the following (Acts of the Congress, p. 73): “Inima-bakaš in B 2 is permissible for interpretation of different meanings in Turkish”. In this respect I remind that ini, iniyi, *ini has in Old Turkish the meaning of “younger brother” (A. von. Gabain, ibid., p. 338).
No. 8: WB, col. VII 35 In-gi4-eš-a-uš. In the version G (col. VII 9') the name is restored as [In-gi4-eš-a-u]š (Jacobsen, ibid., p. 12, note 27; see also ibid. p. 118, note 289). The name is obviously In-ki-šuš (see above No. 3). A reading iğešoš is suggested by Jacobsen (ibid. p. 119, note 301. For us at the end of the name cf. -eš, p. 112).
For the name cf. Old Turkish idi, igä, ilä, iyä, see A. von Gabain, ibid. p. 237;
“Herr, Besitzer (gentleman, lord, owner)”; see also A. Caferoğ lu,
EUTS, p. 90.
No. 9: WB, col. VII 36 Ia-ar-la-gab. L, [Ia-ar-la-]gab, The name may be supposed as consisting of Iarlaŋ-(g)ab/p (below No. 11). For the present participle element in Gutian -ab/p, (p. 108). For the verbal element iarlaŋ- (see p. 94).
No. 10: WB, col. VII 37 I-ba-te. L, [I-b]a-ti. Landsberger suggested (Acts of the Congress, p. 73 the following: in B 10 (= WB, col. VII 37) seems to end with the suffix -ti of a verb. In other words, the name is a verbal substantive. In Old Turkish there is -d-, a deverbal element “not any more in use, perhaps serving as an intensive” (A. von Gabain, ibid. § 153, p. 80), cf. also T. Banguoğlu, Türkçenin Grameri: p. 275 (No. 2, § 191); he mentions a deverbal substantive terminating in -di (= < -it-i) which is the third person of the past tense. He mentions also a deverbal substantive in -ti (ibid. p. 273, No. 54, § 253).
No. 11 : WB, col. 38 Ia-ar-la <-an-gab>. L, [Ia-a]r-[Ia]-an-gab (Jacobsen, AS 11, p. 119, note 301). The name is certainly composed of iarlaŋ and -ab/-p (see p. 94).
No. 12: WB, col. VII 39 Ku-ru-um. L, [ ]-bi. The name Kurum is suggested to be Akkadian. But it seems that it is not very probable to name a king by referring to his bodily defects, a Kurrûm is “small, short” (Stamm, Die Akkadische Namengebung, p. 267). The variant L ends in -bi, which may be the end of a throne name? (see above p. 92), The name Ku-ru-um is perhaps Gutian, ending in Akkadian gentilice (peculiar) ending -(i)um, cf. also, La'e/arabum, S;'u(m).
No. 13: WB, col. VII 40 [x (x)]-ne-di-in, read by Jacobsen (ibid. 118 and notes 303-304) as [Ha]-bi-ki? (text: di)-in, meaning “der Echte ist tot (the real (son) is dead)” (Stamm, Die Akkadische Namengebung, pp. 296-297) as Akkadian and this reading has met with general acceptance. Its being Akkadian and this reading has met with general acceptance. But Landsberger is of the opinion (Acts of the Congress, p. 78) that the -ï- sound in the name is unexpressed in cuneiform; this sound is rendered by the help of the sign -ne-. So, the present name may be considered as Gutian, and the ending -in (= en6) is apparently a variant of Gutian -an (see p. 73).
No. 14: WB, col. VII 41 [Ia-e]-ra-bu-um (Jacobsen, ibid. p. 118, note 305).
H. Winkler (ZA, vol. 4, 1889, p. 406), published the dedication of an Old Akkadian
inscription of a macehead of a Gutian king (B.M. 90852, Photo: L. W. King, History of Sumer and
Akkad, p. 206; cf. W.W. Hallo, \100\
RLA, vol. 3, p.711b) in which the name
La-[e-ra-a]-b1 occurs, and this may be the same name of the person
mentioned in WB, col. VII 41.
On the inscriptions from the Diyala region also the name La-e-ra-ab occurs (I. J. Gelb, MAD, Vol. 1, 5 and 163). For the name cf. also Gelb, Old Akkadian Inscription, No. 28: La-a-ra-ab; idem, Glossary of Old Akkadian (MDP, vol. 3, p. 156), see W.W. Hallo, RLA (Vol. 3) p. 711b.
The name Laerab, or La’arab, terminating in -ab/p (p. 95) is certainly Gutian. The name Lae’rabum in WB, col. VII 41 ends with the Akkadian gentilitious (peculiarity), but it is Gutian. The ending of present participle in Old Turkish -ap (OTD p. 650, participle), disappeared from this language perhaps in the earlier years.
Nos. 15, 16: WB, col. VII 42, 43 I-ra-m-um and Ib-ra-nu-um. These names are Akkadian, but so far as I know no other examples are attested. The names terminating in Akkadian gentilitious (peculiarity) -(i)um are Ku-ru-um, [La-e-]ra-bu-um, Si-u-um.
Nos. 17, 18 : WB, col. VII 44-45 Ha-ab-lu-um and Puzur-dEŜ (= dSin), are Akkadian names (see Stamm, Die Akkadische Namengebung, pp. 282, 297; 56, 84, 276).
No. 19 : WB, col. VII 46 [Ia]-ar-la-ga-an-da is a name of Gutian language. As already pointed out above, the name is composed of the deverbal word iarlaŋ- and the endings -an-da (see p. 113f.), cf. anda, anta in Old Turkish (A. von Gabain, ibid., p. 319b), “dort (there)” etc. The name of the first Gutian king is [Ia-ar-la?-g]a-an-de (see pp. 90, 94, 1 13f.). Landsberger (Acts of the Congress, p. 74) considered the name lengthened with an ending -da, which is connected with -gan; cf. also Ia-ar-la-ga-an (ϓOS I, 13) from the period of Ur III (see W.W. Hallo, RLA, vol. 3, p. 711b).
For Old Turkish iarlaŋ-, p. 94!., and -ɣan, see A. von Gabain, ibid. §113, p. 71.
No. 20: WB, col. VII 48 [Si]-[u4] has been restored by Jacobsen (AS 11,
p. 120 and note 306) after the Gutian name Si-u-um (Scheil, CR, 191 pp. 318-337; cf.
Poebel, PBS IV, p. 134 ff.). Some personal names such as
Si-a-um and Si-um-mi have been established from the Diyala region and Gazur (Th. J.
Meek, H T T 10, p. XXXVI; see W.W. Hallo, RLA, vol 3, p. 712b). A king’s name like
Si-a-um from Old Akkadian period is attested in ϓOS 9, 8 (cf. Hallo, RLA,
vol. 3, p. 712b). A certain Si-um-me (Jacobsen,
CTS 4 VI 17) is seemingly a variant of Si’um. It may be assumed that
forms of Siaum and Siumme are from the Gutian language. The suffix \101\
-(i)um, as it occurs in Ku-ru-um, [La-e]-ra-bu-um must be an Akkadian
gentilitious (peculiarity) (pp. 72, 112).
No. 21: WB, col. VII 49 [Ti -ri-g]a<-an> and L,. The same king’s name occurs also in the following froms: Ti-ri-ga-a-an (Thureau-Dangin, RA, vol. 9, 1912, p. r 11 ff.), Ti-ri-qa-an, in a religious text (Thureau-Dangin, Tablette d’Uruk, No.3). From Old Babylonian period: Te-ri-ka-an (Gadd, Iraq, vol. 7, p. 42). For the place name Tirikan before the Gutians entered into Akkad and Sumer, see Landsberger, Belleten, vol. 3, No. 10, 1939, p. 235 (see below p. 78, cf. p. 94); for Te-er-qa-an of Gutium, see RLA, vol. 3, p. 719b; for Terqan, facing Gutium, see W.W. Hallo, RLA, vol. 3, p. 719b; and for Terqan facing the mountain, see A. Goetze, JCS, vol. I8, p. 118; and Hallo, JCS, vol. I9, p. 57.
For Landsberger’s view about the origin of the name from Old Turkish, see above p. 98., (idem, Belleten, 3, No. 10, 1939, p. 217).
For the word tir- in Old Turkish, “sammeln (to gather, to collect)”, see A. von Gabain, Alttürk. Gram. p. 371b; A. Caferoğlu, EUTS, p. 240 “to gather”.
As noted by T. Banguoğlu, ibid. p. 229, No. 8, §. 196; some deverbal names are formed by adding the suffix -egen to the root as is seen in *tep-ge-gen > tep-e-gen. Hence, the name of Tirigan may be built accordingly: *Tir-ga-gan > *Tir-a-gan > Tir-i (according to vowel harmony)-gan. For -egan, -egen, see above pp. 73f. 94. The meaning of the name may be “the one who brings together, who revives (the country)” (Gatherer). It fits well for being the name of a king. From this meaning of the name it may be assumed that Tirigan sat on the throne when the Gutian community had a hard time.
Cf. also tirig (in Anatolian Turkish diri), “living, alive”, A. von Gabain,
ibid. p. 371b; tiril- (in Anatolian Turkish diril-) “to become animated,
revived”, A. von Gabain, ibid. p. 371b; tirin- “ to be gathered together, to be
assembled”, A. von Gabain, ibid. p. 371b; A. Caferoğlu,
LISTS OF GUTIAN ELEMENTS
A — List of Gutian Personal Names:
Here are assembled examples of Gutian personal names which began to appear in the literature from the Old Akkadian period (ca. 24-23 cc. BC) on until late Old Babylonian time (ca. 19-16 cc. BC). These names are collected from the regions where the Gutians lived. The names come from the places of upper Tigris, Diyala, Tell Asmar, Khafadje, Mari, Chagar Bazar and Babylonia. Our list includes also Gutian personal names from the Sumerian King List (= SKL). I have referred to their datings below.
Our list does not claim to be complete. We believe that some new examples may increase the number of names, and some may be removed from this list.
Old Babylonian personal names from Chagar Bazar which are considered to be of Gutian origin (see note 38 above) are included in the list that is published by C.J. Gadd in Iraq, vol. 7, pp. 28 ff. Such examples are abbreviated in the list below as Ch. B. and Iraq, vol. 7, pp. 35 ff. Names from SKL are only pointed to.
* İtalik yazılan isimler çağdaş yazlılarda geçen şahısların isimleridir. Farenrez içinde
gösterilen isimler ise asla tarihlenemezler. Baş taratina bir ca. konulmuş olan tarihler ise, gerek
başkaca bilinen bir şahsiyetle kurulan senkronizm, gerekse de tahmin yolu ile ana çizgileriyle
B — A Gutian Deity Name:
Only the name of A-bu-ub-la-ab (= dNinurta) is preserved out of seven god names of Gutian pantheon that included in the canonical list of divinities of YM 7 2401, co l VI 168-175. For ending -ab/p see pp. 95, 99, 108.
C — List of Geographical Names:
Ki-li-pa : name of a mount, Luckenbill, ARAB, vol I § 449.
Ku-ti-um, Gu-ti-um, Qu-ti-um : names of nations and a geographical name furnished with Akkadian gentilice (peculiar) element -ium, pp. 72, 90, and 89, 97.
me-er-me-er = gu-tu-u (Var. gu-du-u) malku-šarru, I 227. (A. Kilmer, JAOS, vol. 84, 1964, p. 428; vol. 85, 1965, p. 208.
Ti-ri-ka-an : A town in the middle Euphrates, Landsberger, Belletenvol. 3, No. 10, 1939, p. 217.
Tɛr-er-qa-an : 1) Tergan of Gutium, cf. Hallo, RLA., vol 3, p. 719b; 2)
Terqan facing the mountains, A. Goetze, JCS, vol. I8, 118: cf. Hallo, RLA,
vol. 3, 7-9.
D — Appellative in Gutian
U e-li-nu = U MIN (= kur-ka-nu-u) ina Qu-te-e, Uruanna II 256; kurkânû “the goose-plant”, CAD E, p. 90b; CAD K, p. 560b, a medical plant; AHw, 201b; CT, vol. 37 II 20; see Hallo, RLA, Vol. 3, p. 719a.
Û ha-ra- [x x x] .= Û MIN (= ba-ri-ra-tu ) ina Qu-te-e “in Gutian hara [xxx] plant which corresponds to Akkadian bariratu “sagapenum?” Uruanna II 80-86; see CAD B, 111a : cf. ha-ra-am-bi, a plant, CAD H, p. 89b; AHw, p. 328; CT, vol. I4 9 IV 13; cf. Hallo, RLA, vol. 3, p. 719a hara[mbi].
zibtu, CAD 104 A (a stone used as a charm); Hallo, RLA, vol. 3, p.717a.
E — List of Gutian Elements:
Gutium ve çağdaş Babilonya kralları listesi.
Bu listedeki tarihler şu eserden alınmıştır: Fischer Wellgeschichte, cilt 2, s. 92.
References (See Abbeviations for the balance of the references)
1. Landsberger B., 1937, (Acts of the Congress), Basic questions of the early history of the Near East (Grundfragen der Frühgeschichte Vorderasiens), Türkischer Geschichtskongress, Devlet Basımevi, Istanbul
Overview of Sarmatian chronology
Ogur and Oguz
Balkan K. Relations between language of Gutians and Old
Landsberger B. Basic questions of the early history of the Near East
Landsberger B. Grundfragen der Frühgeschichte Vorderasiens
Guties and Zhou portrait
P.N. Stearns “Zhou Culture”
Keightley D. Synopsis of Zhou story