An Iranian name in duplicate.

• Author: Tavernier, Jan

The archive of Bel-remanni contains various duplicates, (1) among which are the tablets CTMMA 3 89 and VAS 4 113. (2) The text is a receipt for silver, which Bel-remanni, son of Musibsi-Marduk, descendant of Sangu-Samas paid to Nabu-balassu-iqbi, son of Nabu-sumaukin, descendant of Sa-nasisu. The text is dated 4 March 514 B.C. One of the parties in the receipt is Balatu, on whose behalf Nabu-balassu-iqbi most probably acts. (3) Consequently Balatu is the creditor.

It is this person's father on whom this discussion focuses. Unexpectedly his name is spelled differently in the two tablets: [.sup.m.Mi]-it-ra-a-a in CTMMA 3 89:4 and [.sup.m.Mi]-hi-ra-a-a in VAS 4 113:3. [.sup.m.Mi]-it-ra-a-a is clearly the Babylonian rendering of a Median name *Mi[theta]raya-, (4) a hypocoristic form of a short name containing the theophoric element Mi[theta]ra-. [.sup.m.Mi]-hi-ra-a-a, however, cannot render such an Iranian form. (5) As all signs are clear, one cannot emend the spelling. (6) Consequently these two names contradict each other from an onomastic point of view, although the same individual is certainly meant by them. With regard to this problem two solutions have been put forward.

First, it might be that the reading of the Iranian patronymic is correct in CTMMA 3 89 and wrong in the other text. Damage to the original text, from which both texts have been copied, could be responsible for the spelling [.sup.m.Mi]-hi-ra-a-a. It would have to be postulated that the result of the damage was that only the HI-part of the sign IT was visible, so that the scribe of VAS 4 113 wrote [.sup.m.Mi]-hi-ra-a-a instead of [.sup.m.Mi]-it-ra-a-a, (7) a spelling which theoretically could reflect *Mi[theta]raya-. The second possibility is to invoke the reading of the sign HI as ta, which would bring one to a spelling [.sup.m.Mi]-ta-ra-a-a. (8) Although both solutions seem acceptable at first sight, objections can be made against them.

In order to be able to comment on Jursa's assumption one must reconstruct what happened at that particular moment when CTMMA 3 89 and VAS 4 113 were drafted. Both tablets were written by the same scribe, Bel-etir, son of Bel-uballit, descendant of Amil-Ea. Two possibilities come to mind. The scribe may have damaged the original text after he copied CTMMA 3 89 and before he copied VAS 4 113, which seems quite unlikely but of course not entirely impossible. Alternatively he may first have written VAS 4 113 (duly copying the visible HI-part of...