Ugaritic nhl and udbr: etymology and semantic field.

• Author: Del Olmo Lete, Gregorio
• Position: Essay

The text RS 94.2050+:52, 56, (1) from the "Maison d' Ourtenu," contains a word that has been poorly documented in Ugarit to date: udbr(h). (2) In the French edition, it is defined as "norm comun de sens inconnu." In the English edition, it is given the meaning 'heir by oath' (p.274) II 'sworn (heir)* (p. 309), derived from the base *dbr, 'to speak' > 'he who has een made to speak', which is not strongly attested in Ugaritic. (3) This semantic derivation comes from a combinaiton of the contextual and primary meanings of the lexical base. Nevertheless, it is highly hypothetical and clearly etymologizing. Even the morphological type is non-existent (/udbarul

Indeed, in Ugaritic lexicography nhl is traditionally taken to mean 'heir' (DUL 627), However, this interpretation is debatable for two reasons. First, the original meaning of this base is 'to acquire possession, to own' (HALOT 686) or, in drived forms, 'bequeath'. In contrast, 'inherit', as such, corresponds ot the base *wrt (5) and therefore 'take possession', in a semantic process that is the reverse of that of the previous base. Likewise, the nominal form nhlt clearly means 'possession, property' that has not been obtained through "inheritance" or a testament in casu mortis, but rather through a donation or transfer from its original owner (HALOT 567). It only takes the meaning 'inheritance' in derived forms.

It is inappropriate to use the term "inheritance" in the case of Baal (KTU 1.3 HI 30; 1.3 IV 16 and par.), except in the broad sense noted above, as in the case of Israel ([nah.sup.a]lah; HALOT 687). The meaning is not strictly "inheritance" in either of these cases. Instead, it is to take possession of a "property" that has been given graciously or gained by force. This lexeme has the same meaning in Akkadian (nihlatum, 'transferred property') and in Arabic (nihlat-, 'present, donation'), and specifically in the Akkadian of Mari (CAD N 2: 'property handed over'), which is possibly a loanword from Northwest Semitic (NWS). (6)

This is the meaning that the term tenahlati has in Emar, in the only attestation of the base /n-h-l/ found in documents from this city. (7) The construction nigh that we come across in Ugaritic texts indicates that the "holder" (in coordination with the PNN) is subordinate to another. This other individual could be considered the primary owner of the possession, who in some way continues to have certain rights or title deeds--even if they are delegated--on the object that is held, which is now directly controlled by "his nhl." In this case, the term could be interpreted as 'his feudatory/sharecropper/concessionaire/lessee', who manages and exploits the property and shares the profits with the owner.

Hence, both individuals are listed in the same register as liable for ground rent or tax. This would explain why in other cases, when the tax/service is associated with the "property" (land), both the owner and the concessionaire are registered per modum unius: PN + w ntilh unt cihd (KTU 4.299:1-22). Here we find the second reason for rejecting the meaning 'heir' for in the case of an "inheritance," the property and potential taxes would be registered or recorded twice (the well-known principle of "double taxation" that so infuriates modem taxpayers, for example, with respect to inheritance tax). Finally, we should question why the other PNN did not have "heirs"(!).

Some of the Ugaritic texts list only owners and their nlilm, who are either anonymous (e.g.. KTU 4.57:11; 4.59:2 and following'?; 4.69:4 and following; 4.715:3; 4.759:7, 10), or mentioned by name (e.g., KTU 4.7:13; 4.35:20 and following; 4.155:12; 4.631:2 and following). Other texts record the transfer of "fields" from one owner to another using the markers of attribution /1/ and /bd/8 (KTU 4.7:2 and following [I]; 4.103:2 and following [bd]; 4.110:2 [bd gt1; 4.357:1-32 [bd, with no mention of the original holder]; 4.692:2 and following [M. However, in at least one text, the records are combined and the recipient of the transfer is specifically designated as n1.21h (KTU 4.631:2 and following [I]). Therefore, nhl is clearly the recipient of a property transfer, rather than an inheritance. Occasionally, nhl even appears as the owner of a field that is transferred to another mil, in turn (KTU 4.7:13; 103:12; 4.356:10). This fact that an 171.71 can also transfer property helps us to understand the awkward sequence PN w nhlh wnhllum (KTU 4.69 I 6-9, II 9-11, 20-22; 4.704:6-8) as an expression of "subcontracting" by 0/. The new n171 therefore has this relation to both (-hm) his immediate manager and the original holder of the property. (9)

This institutional and semantic deduction could appear to be too imaginative and have too little supporting evidence. However, a text from Emar details the process, and clearly shows that it existed at the time of Ugarit. The text in question is ME 17, which its editor called "Contrat de plantation a moitie entre PNN." (10) It describes how the owner of a field hands it over (it-ta-din) to another individual for sharecropping (a-na za-qa-pf), so that he can plant a vineyard and share (it-ti a-ha-mes i-za-zu) the profits. If a third person then appears to take the land and work on it, the profits should be divided between the two previous "co-owners." In this case, the primary owner cannot cancel the property rights of the second: in fact the contract remains valid when the primary owner dies and is registered in the inheritance rights in this case. In other words, the third party in question is a sharecropper for both the other individuals (nhlhm). Below is a rendering of the text from the transcription and version by Prof. D. Arnaud:

1. a.sa ma-la ma-su-u i-na ub ku-la-ti i-na ub A-wi-ri 3 iku l si-di-d[u.sub.4] sa iku gid.da-si ru-up-si kaskal-nu sa i-na ku-la-ti il-la-ku a-di [i.sub.7] na-ah-ba-ti 5. sa [.sup.1]Hab-i dumu A-mas-du u a-na [.sup.l]La-ad-[.sup.d]Kur dumu Qa-ba-ri kir[i.sub.6].gestin a-na mi-is-li za-qa-pi it-ta-din-si kir[i.sub.6].gestin [.sup.l]La-ad-[.sup.d]Kur i-na egir-ki u4-mi kiri 6.gestin lLa-ad-dKur dumu Qa-bi-ri u-ra-ab-ba 10. [.sup.1]lHab-u u [.sup.l]La-ad-[.sup.d]Kur it-ti a-ha.mes i-za-zu sum-ma ma-am-ma sa-nu-ma as-sum a.sa sa-a-su a-na [.sup.l]Hab-i dumu A-mas-du i-qa-bi ma-a a-ia-si id-na a-na-ku lu-uz-qu-up 15. 1/2 a.sa sa-a-su a-na lHab-i u 1/2-su-ma a-na lLa-ad-dKur it-ti-ih [.sup.l]Hab-u a-na muh-hi-su la-a i-ra-gu-um sum-ma i-ra-gu-um tup-pu an-nu-u i-la-sci 20. u sum-ma [.sup.l]Hab-u ba.u[g.sub.6] dumu.mes-su it-ti [.sup.1]La-ad-[.sup.d]Kur li-zu-zu n[a.sub.4].kisib [.sup.I]A-lal-a-bi n[a.sub].4kisib [.sup.l]Li-en dumu A-mi-ia dumu Qa-ba-ri n[a.sub.4]kisib [.sup.ID]Kur-ta-li-i' 25. dumu A-bu-qa-ri 1. Un champ, autant qu'il y en a, dans le canton de la glasiere, dans le canton d'Awiru, 3 ik[^.u] 1 siddu d'ik[^.u] sa longueur; la largeur: le chemin qui mene par la glasiere a l'aiguade, 5. appartient a Habu, fils d'Amasdu, et a Lad-Dagan. Fils de Qabaru, pour le planter, a moitie, en verger a vignes il l'a livre. Quand, dans la suite des jours, le verger a wignes Lad-Dagan. fils de Qabaru, aura fait croitre. 10. Habu et Lad-Dagan entre eux partageront. Si quelqu' un d'autre a propos de ce champ dit a Habu, fils d'Amasdu...