The Domestication of The Camel

The Domestication of the Camel
Biological, Archaeological and Inscriptional Evidence from Mesopotamia,

Egypt, Israel and Arabia, and Literary Evidence from the Hebrew Bible
Martin Heide, Marburg
“When you have excluded the impossible,
whatever remains, however improbable,
must be the truth.”
(Sherlock Holmes in Sir Arthur Conan Doyle:
The Adventure of the Beryl Coronet)
Introduction ............................................................................................................. 331
Early proof for the domestication of the dromedary (important biological
and artistic evidence) ......................................................................................... 339
The Bactrian or two-humped camel (important biological and artistic evidence) ... 343
Inscriptional evidence for the camel from Mesopotamia ........................................ 345
The archaeological and inscriptional evidence and the patriarchs ........................... 360
A tentative conclusion ............................................................................................. 367
Acknowledgments ................................................................................................... 369
Bibliography ............................................................................................................ 370
Introduction
This essay deals with an old conundrum, namely with the question concerning
the date of the domestication of the camel, and with the camel’s earliest references
in the Hebrew Bible. First of all, some of the references to the camel in the
Patriarchal narratives will come under scrutiny, because “the question of the
origin of camel domestication traditionally begins [...] with the book of Genesis”
(Bulliet, 1990, 35). After that, I will give an account of the most important
zooarchaeological evidence and, more specifically, of the inscriptional evidence.
Finally, to come to a tentative conclusion, I will try to combine the data which
are available today.
The very first event where this intriguing species is mentioned in the Hebrew
Bible deals with Abraham’s sojourn in Egypt. The larger context (where he is
still called Abram), reads as follows (Gen 12:11–13):
When Abram was about to enter Egypt, he said to Sarai his wife, “I know
that you are a woman beautiful in appearance, and when the Egyptians
332 M. Heide [UF 42
see you, they will say, ‘This is his wife.’ Then they will kill me, but they
will let you live. Say you are my sister, that it may go well with me because
of you, and that my life may be spared for your sake.”
Abram’s fear is that when the Egyptians will see his beautiful wife Sarai they
will try to dispose of him and take possession of Sarai. So Abram cunningly
pretends to be her brother. At first sight, his plan succeeds, for not only is
Abram’s life spared, but he benefits from this endeavor (Gen 12:14–16):
When Abram entered Egypt, the Egyptians saw that the woman was very
beautiful. And when the princes of Pharaoh saw her, they praised her to
Pharaoh. And the woman was taken into Pharaoh’s house. And for her
sake he dealt well with Abram. And he had sheep, oxen, male donkeys,1
male servants, female servants, female donkeys, and camels.
The well-being of Abram seems to have been measured in his possessions, for it
says “he had sheep, oxen, male donkeys, male servants, female servants, female
donkeys, and camels.”
According to one of the most important commentaries on Genesis, by C. Westermann,
the enumeration of Abram’s possessions, who lived according to the
Biblical chronology somewhere at the beginning of the 2nd millennium BCE,
belongs to the theme “the wealth of the patriarchs”, which can be encountered
throughout the Patriarchal narratives.2 This theme “is to be understood functionally,
not statistically, and is meant to portray the wealth of the patriarchs for
listeners of a later age; the later elaboration and the anachronism (camels) are to
be explained in the same way”. Most of the commentaries of the 19th and 20th
centuries give similar interpretations of verse 16. In general, there is agreement
in answering the following questions:
1. How did Abram get these possessions? Most commentators say: They
were given to him by the Pharaoh.
2. Why were these goods given to Abram? Most commentators say: as a
kind of compensation for Abram being the ‘brother’ of so beautiful a sister
and for losing her.
3. Why are female donkeys together with camels named last? Westermann
(1995, 165) comments: “The elaboration is obvious: ‘male and female
servants’ has been inserted between ‘male donkeys’ and ‘female donkeys’”.
4. Why are camels named among the possessions of Abraham? Most commentators
are of the opinion that mention of domesticated camels in the
––––––––––––––––––––––
1 In this essay, ‫ חמור‬is consistently translated by “male donkey” to differentiate it from
the noun ‫“ אתון‬female donkey”, although in some places ‫ חמורים‬embraces both genders
and has to be translated “donkeys”.
2 In Gen 13:2; 20:14; 24:35; 30:43; 32:15f. (Westermann, 1995, 165; cf. Skinner,
1930, 249).
2010] The Domestication of the Camel 333
Patriarchal narratives constitutes an anachronism and was added at a later
time. As will be seen during the discussion, this question is left open, and
a hypothesis is proposed which tries to combine archaeological, inscriptional
and literary evidence.
As to No 1: According to Gen 12:16 Abram owned “sheep, oxen, male donkeys,
male servants, female servants, female donkeys, and camels”. The text does not
say how Abram obtained these possessions. The Hebrew used here is ‫וַיְהִ י־לֹו‬
which is known as an idiom to give the extent of one’s household or of one’s
possessions, not only in the Patriarchal narratives, but throughout the Hebrew
Bible.3 Has his wealth been given to him by the Pharaoh directly, or did the
Pharaoh use his influence to help Abram to attain it? Were these “sheep, oxen,
donkeys” of Egyptian origin, of foreign, or of mixed origin – that means, have
they been raised in Egypt, or have they been brought into Egypt? Abram must
have already brought at least some of these possessions into Egypt. When he
started to leave Mesopotamia, he took “... all the possessions they had accumulated”
(Gen 12:5); what did he gain in addition? A look at a similar incident
in the life of Abram (Gen 20) may help to answer these questions. Abraham
(alias Abram) moves on to dwell in southern Canaan, in the Philistine city of
Gerar. Again, he impersonates the “brother” of Sarah (alias Sarai) in fear of the
local residents. Again, Sarah is taken into the ruler’s house, and again God intervenes
and prevents Abimelech, the local ruler, from taking Sarah to be his
wife. Abimelech is alarmed in view of the fact that he was on the verge of committing
adultery. He returns Sarah to Abraham, not without considerable reparation:
“Abimelech took sheep and oxen, and male servants and female servants,
and gave them to Abraham, and returned Sarah his wife to him ... And to Sarah
he said, Behold, I have given your brother a thousand pieces of silver: behold, it
is your vindication before all that are with you; and in respect of all you are
cleared” (Gen 20:14–16). Here the text states explicitly that Abimelech “took
... and gave to Abraham” ( ‫ וַיִ תֵּ ן לְ אַ ְב ָרהָ ם‬... ‫) וַיִ קַ ח‬, and added “1000 pieces of
silver” to recompense Sarah. But no male and female donkeys are involved, nor
camels. Here we do not have the possessions in total, which are introduced in
Gen 12:16 with the ‫ וַיְהִ י־לֹו‬-formula, but only the goods actually given to him by
the local ruler. In view of that, an interpretation which runs similar to Bulliet’s
statement that the possessions listed in Gen 12:16 were “among the bribes received
by Abraham from the Pharaoh of Egypt in prospect of taking Sarah into
his harem” (Bulliet, 1990, 35; cf. Staubli, 1991, 200) misses the point. His so-
––––––––––––––––––––––
3 Gen 26:14; 30:43; Judges 10:4; 12.9.14; 1Kings 11:3; 1Chron 2:22; Job 42:12
etc. The correct translation of the verb in Gen 12:16 is “and he had sheep, oxen, male
donkeys . ..” (English Standard Version), not “and [he, i. e. the Pharaoh] gave him sheep,
oxen, male donkeys . ..” (New American Standard Bible). The old versions (Targum,
LXX, Vulgate, Peshitta) translated the verse verbally, in similar fashion as the Targum
Onqelos: ... ‫“ והוו ליה ען ותורין וחמרין‬and to him belonged sheep, oxen, male donkeys
.. . ”
334 M. Heide [UF 42
journ in Egypt may have increased his possessions considerably, as the -‫וַיְ הִ י־לֹו‬
formula denotes generally the culmination of accumulated wealth (cf. Gen
26:13–14; 30:43; 32:6). But the text does not say where and how Abram came
into the possession of the various species belonging to his live-stock, and which
of these he had already in his possession.
As to No 2: the context seems to be suggestive of this interpretation and may
have been interpreted accordingly already in the Genesis Apocryphon,4 but
“treating well” ( ‫יטיב‬ִ ֵּ‫ ה‬, the hiph®il of ‫ יטב‬in Gen 12:16) does not necessarily imply
giving, but denotes generally “do well, act benevolently” (DCH IV, 204). In
other words, Pharaoh’s benevolence towards Abram may have opened for him
special ways of increasing his wealth and gaining possessions, but it does not
imply that he personally or through one of his agents endowed Abram with these
goods. Also, “for her sake he dealt well” (Gen 12:16) does not imply any retribution,
because “for her sake” ( ‫ֲבּורּה‬ָ ‫ ) בַ ע‬denotes the person which is revered,
and does not introduce any equivalent value. In fact, all passages numbering the
possessions of the Patriarchs view the increase of their wealth as a mixture of
personal endeavors and general circumstances on the one hand, and of God’s
blessings on the other hand.
As to No 3: According to Speiser, this verse has been subject “to some reshuffling
in the course of transmission” (Speiser, 1962, 90), and Reuter believes
that these lists have “a tendency to attract later additions” (Reuter, 2006, 407).
Westermann is more specific in arguing that Gen 12:16 has been elaborated for
listeners of a later age. According to Westermann, “male and female servants”
has been inserted between “asses” and “she-asses”. He adds, however, that it is
unimportant whether “male and female servants” has been added, as H. Gunkel,
A. Dillmann and other supposed, or “she asses” and “camels”, as R. Kilian and
B. Brentjes opined (Westermann, 1995, 165).
It seems that, regardless of when the Abraham narrative was written, at least
three possibilities are imaginable which account for the insertion of female and
male servants and for the inclusion of camels in Gen 12:16:
a) The situation portrayed by the Genesis narrator of Abraham possessing
sheep, oxen, donkeys, servants and camels reflects the situation as it was
in the time of Abraham at the beginning of the 2nd millennium BCE. The
word order is peculiar, but reflects nevertheless the goods Abraham had
in his possession.
b) The story narrated in Gen 12 has partly been transmitted from earlier
sources, but additional material (such as the “servants” or the “camels”)
has been added before the time of its final composition, or during the
transmission after it had been written down. Therefore, this additional
––––––––––––––––––––––
4 Column XX, 10: ‫“ הוית מתגר על דילהא‬I could profit at her expense” (Fitzmyer, 2004,
100. 200). The Genesis Apocryphon, however, does not specify any animals among the
gifts Abram received (column XIX, 25; column XX, 31).
material, added with good intentions (or whatever reasons) by those who
transmitted the Abraham narrative, may be regarded as anachronistic
from our point of view.
c) The story narrated in Gen 12 has no historical core at all. It was composed
shortly before its final form was written down, perhaps somewhere
at the beginning of the first millennium BCE or later (cf. Van Seters,
1975, 17. 310).
The problem with all three opinions is that there is no archaeological or similar
evidence to prove any of these. Possibility b), which seems to have been embraced
by most commentators, relies heavily on literary observations. But also
these observations can hardly be seen as clear-cut evidence of a later elaboration.
As to the peculiar word order of Gen 12:16 it is interesting that its only
textual variant is known from the Samaritan Pentateuch which transposes “male
donkeys” to follow “female servants”. This kind of smoothing out is typical for
the Samaritan version and virtually supports the lectio difficilior found in the
Masoretic text.5 Neither the Septuagint, nor the Targumim, nor the Latin Vulgate,
nor the Peshitta read different from the Hebrew in Gen 12:16. Moreover, a
careful look at the order of the various lists of the Patriarch’s possessions6 does
not reveal any special motive for inserting or adding anything. Most commentators
point out the fact that these verses look as if they have been enriched by
later additions.
Nevertheless, the sequence “male donkeys, male servants, female servants,
female donkeys, and camels” of Gen 12:16 is certainly peculiar. ‫ חמור‬ḥămōr is
the most frequently word used for “donkey”, the Semitic root ḥmr occurring in
all the major Semitic languages except Ethiopic (Sima, 2000, 96). In later Hebrew
as well as in Aramaic, Syriac and Arabic, a feminine form of the root ḥmr
by adding the respective endings was in use. ‫ חמור‬can denote donkeys in general,
especially when referring to large numbers of donkeys of mixed gender
(Way, 2011, 164). Usually, however, the “female donkey” or „jenny“ is denoted
in various Semitic languages by the root ¬tn, which in Hebrew is ‫¬ אתון‬ătōn. This
noun has a feminine gender, but not a feminine ending. In Gen 12:16 the list of
Abram’s property embraces ‫ּוש ָפחתִֹ ַואֲתנתִֹ ּוגְ מַ לִ ים‬
ְ ‫ֲמר ים ַועֲבָ ִדים‬
ִִֹ ‫“ ח‬male donkeys,
and male servants, and female servants, and female donkeys, and camels”. The
servants ( ִֹ‫ּוש ָפחת‬
ְ ‫ ) עֲבָ ִדים‬are sandwiched between the ‫“ חֲמ ִרים‬male donkeys” and
the ִֹ‫“ אֲתנת‬female donkeys”.
In Gen 24:35 and Gen 30:43, on the other hand, donkeys of both gender are
referred to as ‫ֲמרים‬ ִ ‫ ח‬and they are mentioned last together with camels. In Gen
12:16 the more common property is listed first (“sheep, and oxen, and male
––––––––––––––––––––––
5 The harmonizations in the Samaritan Pentateuch „reflect a tendency to remove internal
contradictions or irregularities from the Torah text that were considered harmful to its
sanctity” (Tov, 2012, 82).
6 Gen 12:16; 13:2; 20:14; 24:35; 30:43; 32:6. 14–15.
336 M. Heide [UF 42
donkeys, and male servants, and female servants”), while the particular property
is given in addition (“female donkeys and camels”); but on different occasions
the order may be arbitrary. Nevertheless, for the listings of the patriarchs’ property,
some rules do apply: a) male and female servants ( ִֹ‫ּוש ָפחת‬
ְ ‫ ) עֲבָ ִדים‬are never
listed first, but are always mentioned together; b) female donkeys are never
listed immediately following male donkeys; the sequence ִֹ‫ֲמרים ַואֲתנת‬ ִ ‫ ח‬is unknown
in the Hebrew Bible. The observation that “‘male and female servants’
has been inserted between ‘male donkeys’ and ‘female donkeys’” in Gen 12:16
is correct from a purely linguistic or syntactical perspective, but this insertion
does not provide enough evidence to claim a later reshuffling of Gen 12:16.
The reason for the specific mention of female donkeys at the end of Gen
12:16 may be found in the special attention and value female donkeys are given
in the Patriarchal narratives and in the Hebrew Bible as well as in some Ancient
Near Eastern texts. In Gen 32:15, among the special presents for his brother
Esau, Jacob selects female donkeys and foals, but no male donkeys. In Gen
45:23, the specific load of the female donkeys is given in distinction to the male
donkeys’ load. They are the means of transportation for rulers (Gen 49:10–11).
In Num 22:22–30, YHWH uses a jenny to rebuke the prophet Bileam. They are
given special attention in the book of Job (1:3.14; 42:12), where no male donkeys
are mentioned. Female donkeys are used by wealthy people (Judges 5:10;
cf. Borowski, 1998, 97), their loss is to be taken seriously (1Sam 9:2–10:16).
Among the stewards of David’s property, “over the female donkeys was Jehdeiah
the Meronothite” (1Chron 27:30), but nobody is mentioned as caretaker
of the male donkeys. In Sumerian and Akkadian texts, female donkeys were
sometimes evaluated higher than male donkeys (Salonen, 1955, 59). In the
phrase ḫayaram mār atānim „a jackass, the offspring of a jenny“, from Mari
(ARM 2.37,11), mār atānim qualifies, similar as in Gen 49:11 ‫ בְ נִ י אֲתנֹו‬, the ḫayarum
or ‫ עִ יר‬respectively as a purebred donkey (Way, 2011, 80–81; HALOT
102). From all that we can deduce that ‘female donkeys” were mentioned deliberately
in Gen 12:16 at the end of the more common property to point to the fact
that their owner could breed pure donkeys.
Most of our discussion will quite naturally dwell on question No 4, but we
will come back to Abraham later. It is often referred to as a fact that camels
were not domesticated until late in the 2nd millennium BCE, centuries after the
Patriarchs were supposed to have lived. Even the great William F. Albright, well
known for his support of the historicity of the Patriarchal narratives, concluded
that references to camel domestication in the book of Genesis are spurious:
“Any mention of camels in the period of Abraham is a blatant anachronism, the
product of later priestly tampering with the earlier texts in order to bring them
more in line with altered social conditions” (Albright, 1942, 96). The Semites of
the time of Abraham, he maintains, herded sheep, goats, and donkeys but not
camels, for the latter had not yet been domesticated and did not really enter the
orbit of Biblical history until about 1100–1000 BCE with the coming of the
Midianites, the camel riding foes of Gideon.
Proving that something did not exist at some time and place in the past is
every archaeologist’s nightmare because proof of its existence may, despite all
claims to the contrary, be unearthed at some future date. The domestication of
the camel is today seen as a complex issue. The original reason for the domestication
of the camel is more or less a matter of speculation (Köhler, 1981, 75;
Bulliet, 1990, 49; Uerpmann/Uerpmann, 2002, 250). It cannot have been long
before its usefulness as a beast of burden became apparent (Macdonald, 1995,
1357), which later led to its usage as a mount.
Of the family Camelidae, two species are known to have come into contact
with the cultures of the Near East, the long-legged, one-humped Camelus dromedarius
or dromedary, and the stocky, two-humped Camelus bactrianus or
Bactrian camel. The former is the well-known species of Northern Africa and
the Arabian Peninsula, while the latter is native to the cold deserts of Inner Asia.
Unfortunately, some scholars who dealt with the question of the camel’s domestication
did not make the effort to differentiate between the two species.
At the beginning of the 20th century it was assumed that the dromedary was
but a domestic variant of the two-humped camel. The separation, however, of
the two species of the camel must have occurred long before their domestication.
Both domesticated forms seem to have had wild ancestors (Peters, 1997,
560–562; von den Driesch / Obermaier, 2007, 154).
The specific adaption of the camel to desert life has been extensively described
in various publications (most notably Schmidt-Nielsen, 1964), so that we
can confine ourselves to a short sketch of its characteristic features.
Camels have a split upper lip and can open their mouth very wide, which
permits them to select the soft parts of thorny desert plants. In a sandstorm, they
can close their nostrils. Camels can survive up to six months on the fat in their
humps (Macfarlane, 1977). While in other mammals fat is distributed throughout
the body under the skin, the camel is perfectly adapted to life in an arid environment,
because its fat accumulates in a single location, the hump(s). This allows
the camel to dissipate heat with a minimal loss of water. In addition, water
loss through sweating in very hot climates is mitigated by the camel’s capacity
to absorb heat. In the course of a hot day, they allow their blood temperature to
rise, without ill effect, over 6 degrees Fahrenheit before they begin to perspire
(Bulliet, 1990, 31), and they allow it to drop up to 6 degrees Fahrenheit to adapt
to a chilly night. Unlike other mammals, the camel’s hair is not involved in the
perspiration process and is an effective shield against the radiant heat of the sun.
Loss of water may after a long period reach up to 30 % of the camel’s weight
without ill effect (Köhler, 1981, 43). Camels usually face the sun to expose only
a minimum of their body area to the bright sunlight. Camels have the capability
of reprocessing urea, disenthralling the organism from using water to expel it.
The urine of the camel is deposited in highly concentrated form and does on a
summer day not exceed one liter. By comparison, the fluctuation of temperature
in humans does not exceed 2 degrees Fahrenheit, and a loss of more than 12%
of human plasma is considered to be fatal.
338 M. Heide [UF 42
Due to the camel’s natural habitat outside urban centers (and therefore also
outside the normal range of archaeologists in the Near and Middle East, who
concentrate on the settled communities in the more densely populated areas), the
early evidence for camel-man contacts is meager (cf. Rosen/Saidel, 2010, 64).
The camel was used primarily in the desert, where it would die. It has to be kept
in mind that the domestication of the camel does not, as in most cases of domestication,
imply an adaption of the animal’s ways of life to man, but an adaption
of man to the camel’s way of life; an analogy for that may be found in the domestication
of the reindeer. This is especially true for the use of the camel as a
beast of burden under hostile desert conditions. While the wild Bactrian camel
of the Gobi desert in Mongolia is a fugitive animal and is known to be very shy
– which may as well apply to the non-domesticated form of the dromedary –
there are some factors which are thought to have advanced tameability in the
process of domestication:
a) Climatic changes, notably long-lasting droughts in the Near East probably
forced the camel to draw nearer to human habitations, which made it
easier to catch it.
b) Camel mares tend to return to the place where they foaled the first time,
even if it takes a journey of several hundred miles. Also, suckling mares
have the habit of returning to where they suckled their foal recently (Baskin,
1974).
c) Camels remember places which are good for grazing (Köhler, 1981, 50–
51).
In addition, dromedaries can be easily herded and are far more tolerant of human
handling than horses or cattle (Köhler, 1984, 203), a fact that may have allowed
for a relatively short time for taming the camel (cf. Compagnoni/Tosi, 1978,
100). Domestication is the final product of a gradually intensifying relationship
between man and animal (Köhler, 1981, 73); it “is a process which happens
through continued breeding in captivity of populations – not individuals – of
animals which have been taken from the wild” (Uerpmann/Uerpmann, 2002,
250). This applies in particular to the domestication of the camel, which must
have covered an extensive period of time, because its breeding season is short
and the gestation period is long. Suckling females do not go into heat. Investigations
in livestock growth in Africa suggest that the annual growth rate of
camel herds reaches on average about 1.5% and exceeds not 8%, as against
18 % for sheep and more than 33% for goats (Dahl/Hjort, 1976, 82–83.98.
103). Domesticated camel mares give birth to their first foal after 5–6 years, and
allow at maximum one foal every two years (Wilson, 1984, 97). A considerable
amount of time must be allowed between the commencement of the domestication
and the first noticeable characteristic features which differentiate the domesticated
camel from its wild counterpart. Under human control it is still to be
regarded as wild as long as it is held in captivity and closely resembles its wild
relative. Only when significant differences arise can the animal be called domestic.
Early proof for the domestication of the dromedary
(important biological and artistic evidence)
The modern dromedary is distributed from Morocco to Western India (Wapnish,
1997, 407). This distribution probably differs from its range in antiquity.
In the past, camel remains of hunted animals from Umm an-Nār island (at
the south-eastern fringe of the Arabian peninsula) from the 3rd millennium have
been assigned by several scholars to the domesticated dromedary. These camel
remains are seen today as evidence to the contrary (Uerpmann/Uerpmann, 2002,
238. 258; cf. Köhler, 1981, 78), especially in light of the fact that on Umm an-
Nār island bones of other wild hunted species such as the sea cow, the Arabian
oryx and the Arabian sand gazelle have been unearthed as well. In addition, a
bas-relief of a dromedary on one of the collective graves at Umm an-Nār could
refer to the wild form as well as to the domesticated form. Some neighboring
sites with hunted animal remains did not yield any camel bones, which would
have been expected if domesticated dromedaries were kept in the area. Any
features pointing definitely to the domesticated form are missing (Uerpmann/
Uerpmann, 2002, 241), although contact with the wild dromedary must
have been extensive in this area.
Another important site in south-east Arabia is Tell Abraq which was excavated
between 1989 (cf. Stephan, 2005) and 1998. Among some 100,000 bones
which have been analyzed from this site, which was occupied between 2300 and
300 BCE, there are frequent camel remains. In all probability, camel bones from
the Bronze Age in Tell Abraq can be assigned to the wild camel. Up to the end
of the Bronze Age, these findings decrease by and by virtually to zero, probably
by over-hunting. In the Iron Age I level (ca. 1300–1000 BCE), archaeozoological
data are minimal. Later finds from the Iron Age II level (first third of the first
millennium) should be assigned to its domesticated relative (Uerpmann/Uerpmann,
2002, 254–255.258). This hypothesis is further corroborated by bone
measurements which revealed a size decrease from the wild to the domesticated
form at Tell Abraq. Although the finds from Tell Abraq, like most finds, are
neither numerous nor well enough preserved to directly compare the skeletal
remains of different stratigraphic layers, logarithmic size indices were calculated
for scaling all available measurements of skeletal elements which made them
comparable with each other (Uerpmann, 2008, 437). As a result, the camel remains
from the Iron Age levels were generally smaller than those from the
Bronze Age, while the Bronze Age sizes generally matched those from the
Umm an-Nār island. Size decrease is a typical indicator in animal bones if these
animals underwent the domestication process.7 When all these data were compared
to another Iron Age II site (Muwaylaḥ), they suggested that in Muwaylaḥ
both forms existed side by side, the domesticated dromedary and its wild relative
which must have been hunted near the site. The data found in Tell Abraq,
––––––––––––––––––––––
7 But cf. the cautions brought forward by Zeder (2006, 109).
340 M. Heide [UF 42
however, give no evidence of the local domestication of the dromedary. The
wild form disappeared gradually, while the domesticated form seems to have
turned up at once (Uerpmann/Uerpmann, 2002, 255–258).8
The largest amount of camel bones ever unearthed (nearly 18,000 bones,
belonging to more than 123 camels) were excavated between 2001 and 2004 in
aṣ-Ṣufūḥ (Al Sufouh, Dubai, UAE). This site was in use between the middle of
the 3rd millennium through the middle of the 2nd millennium BCE. Cut and chop
marks on the various bones, as well as the fact that they were not found in anatomical
association, indicates that these animals were butchered onsite. Using
the same method of logarithmic size indices as applied to the Tell Abraq and
Umm an-Nār bones, these camel remains could be demonstrated to be generally
of the same size than those from Tell Abraq and Umm an-Nār. The bones from
aṣ-Ṣufūḥ should therefore likewise be seen as belonging to wild animals (von
den Driesch / Obermaier, 2007, 148–149). The dromedaries probably visited the
site at certain times to feed on salty plants and were waylaid, hunted down and
butchered over an extended period of time. Although some facts may indicate
that these animals belonged to the domesticated kind (von den Driesch / Obermaier,
2007, 151), a critical analysis of all the data points convincingly to the
wild camel. A further site with camel remains has been discovered in Baynūna
(Baynunah, UAE). These bones had no cut and chop marks and were partly of
the same and partly of larger size than those found in aṣ-Ṣufūḥ. They can be
dated to the 5th millennium BCE (Beech/Mashkour et al., 2008).
All these data suggest that the dromedary, at least in south-east Arabia, did
not appear in its domesticated form before the end of the 2nd millennium. Besides
the biological remains and their evaluation via bone measurements, however,
archaeological and historical evidence is required to reach a more secure
knowledge of the domestication process. Moreover, it has to be kept in mind
that most of the processes involved with the use of the camel – i. e. breeding,
nurturing, milking, and riding – are not reflected in the archaeological record.
More specific evidence of when and where the dromedary was domesticated is
largely unknown.
Camel remains are also known from Israel and its surrounding areas, but
there are only very few dromedary remains before the Iron Age which usually
do not give any further evidence as to their domestication status (Hakker-Orion,
1984, 209).9 In 1970, more than 400 camel bones were recovered at Tell Jemmeh,
in the southern part of Israel’s southern plain, about 10 km south of Gaza
(Wapnish, 1984, 171). Only some of these, however, can be assigned to the stra-
––––––––––––––––––––––
8A different scenario seems to have been reported by Agatharchides of Cnidos, who,
writing in the 2nd century BCE, knew of wild camels at the coastal regions of the Erythraean
sea, hundreds of years after the camel had been domesticated (Burstein, 1989,
152); these, however, may be seen as the feral offspring of domesticated animals.
9 For an overview of all sites where camel remains have been found in the Southern Levant,
see Horwitz/Rosen, 2005, 127–128.
tigraphic context of the late Bronze Age, while most bones have to be dated to
the 7th century BCE. Most of these camel bones bear cut and chop marks at major
skeletal joints, which points to their use as a meat source. They probably
derive from transport animals in the service of the Assyrian kings eventually utilized
as a source of food (Wapnish, 1984, 179). The earlier stratigraphic layers
(first half of the 2nd millennium and earlier) did not yield any camel remains. The
overall picture seems to be clear: Domesticated dromedaries appeared en masse
after the beginning of the first millennium BCE in the Arabian Peninsula and the
Southern Levant (Zarins, 1992, 825). From about these times, we have also the
first references to camel riders further north.10
Well-known are the terracotta dromedaries from Uruk from the first half of
the first millennium BCE.11 Several of these camel-figurines have ornamental
notches on their necks,12 and one figurine has notches (No 598) between its
hump and its tail which may point to its use as a draught animal. Among the
earlier Uruk finds, there is the body of a terracotta dromedary (without its legs
and its head) from the Ubaid-period (early 4th millennium BCE) which does not
yield enough information to mark it as “domesticated”.13
It has been claimed that several camel remains and artifacts from Egypt can
be assigned to the 3rd millennium or even earlier (Ripinsky, 1985), but again it is
not clear whether they belong to domesticated or wild animals, or to camels at
all.14 Well-known is a camel with a basket on its back in repose from Abu Sir
Al-Malaq, dated to the 3rd millennium BCE or earlier.15 There are, however, no
humps visible, and the shape is somewhat clumsy; it more likely represents the
Bactrian camel than its Arabian relative. Nevertheless, there seems to be no animal
except the camel which would look close enough to the shape represented
by this tomb find. Due to many items from Western Asia which were found in
these tombs, the Abu Sir Al-Malaq camel is usually held to be an import, which
would be in favor of its interpretation as a Bactrian camel. It is on display in the
“Neues Museum” in Berlin, which reopened in 2009.
––––––––––––––––––––––
10 The camel-riders carved in limestone, which have been found in Tell Ḥalaf and Karkemiš,
have been dated from the 10th to the 8th centuries BCE (Orthmann, 1971, plate 8.
28; Staubli, 1991, Abb. 54. 55; cf. http://art.thewalters.org/detail/37529/slab-withdromedary-
rider-from-tell-halaf/).
11 Ziegler, 1962, 88–91; No 585–612; plate 21, 308a–316; for the dating, see Ziegler,
1962, 173.
12 No 585 586 597 602 603; see also Ziegler, 1962, 174.
13 Ziegler, 1962, 35, No 194; plate 4, No 69. Ziegler (1962, 152) points to the fact that the
dromedary has stripes on its back as the ox (plate 3, No 45. 51–52). Clear signs of its
domestication status, however, are missing (Heimpel, 1980, 330).
14 For a detailed discussion see Midant-Reynes/Braunstein-Silvestre, 1977; Köhler,
1981, 105–108; Rowley-Conwy, 1988.
15 The location is often cited as “Abusir El-Melek”. See also Scharff, 1926, 40; Keimer,
1929, 85–87.
342 M. Heide [UF 42
A bone fragment, which can definitely be assigned to a dromedary, was
found during the excavation of several graves belonging to the Nubian Pan
Grave Culture16 (1800–1600 BCE) at the upper Nile (Bietak, 1966, 34.38).
Given the rare occurrence of camel remains in Egypt, the find of some sherds
with an incised sketch of a dromedary has to be regarded as one of the most
spectacular finds of the last decades. The sherds from the city of Ramses belong
to a dish made from local Nile clay which is dated to the late 18th or early 19th
dynasty (14th–13th centuries BCE). It seems that dromedaries were principally
known during that period (Pusch, 1996). It should be stressed that the Nile Delta
is not the natural habitat of the dromedary because of its high humidity; therefore,
any artifact depicting the camel from the city of Ramses has a strong
probability to refer to domesticated animals. This evidence virtually supports a
long-known artifact from a tomb of the later 13th century, namely, a kneeling
camel loaded with two jars (Petrie, 1907, pl. XXVII).17 From the early first
millennium BCE, we have some camel remains (dung pellets) which were found
in Qaṣr Ibrim in Egyptian Nubia (Rowley-Conwy, 1988).
In view of this it is all the more astonishing that the camel is never mentioned
in any Egyptian text known today (Free, 1944, 192; Albright, 1946b,
120). There are no entries of “camel”/“Kamel” in the Egyptian dictionaries,18
and no depictions of camels are known. Did the Egyptians use another word or
phrase for “camel” which has not yet been identified? Some suggested that the
camel was ignored by the Egyptians for aesthetic reasons (Müller, 1893, 142;
Jensen 1895, 333), but there is virtually no evidence for this (Mikesell, 1955,
237–238; cf. Skinner, 1930, 250). Another reason may be seen in the fact that
––––––––––––––––––––––
16 The Pan Grave Culture is named after the typical circular pit graves, which sometimes
have a small stone circle as their superstructure.
17 “The pottery figure of a camel laden with water-jars was found in a tomb of the XIXth
dynasty in the northern cemetery. There were no traces of a later re-use of the tomb; the
style of the figure is of the rough fingered pottery of the XIXth dynasty, and quite unlike
any of the moulded Roman figures; and the water-jar is of the XVIIIth–XIXth dynasty
type and not of a form used in Greek or Roman times. Hence it is impossible to assign
this to the age when the camel is familiar in Egypt, and it shows that as early as Ramesside
times it was sufficiently common to be used as a beast of burden” (Petrie, 1907, 23).
In addition, it seems that more recently some camel petroglyphs, in association with
human figures, could be identified in the Sinai Peninsula, dating back to ca. 1500 BCE
(Younker/Koudele, 2007, 57). Yet the dating of these petroglyphs is possible only indirectly,
supposing that inscriptions and petroglyphs were made at the same time. There is
no secure way of linking the inscriptions and the petroglyphs because the texts make no
mention of the drawings. Moreover, if the petroglyphs were made some hundred years
later, they would very probably look the same today. Perhaps it might be possible to
compare the patina on the inscriptions and the petroglyphs, but this would presuppose
that the two carvings received the same amount of exposure.
18 See Erman/Grapow, 1982, 85. 197, and Hannig, 2000, 695. For earlier suggestions
like those of Houghton, 1890, see Müller 1893, 142, and Midant-Reynes/Braunstein-Silvestre,
1977, 354; cf. also Walz, 1954, 40.
the camel was associated with people from Western Asia who were often regarded
as enemies (cf. Keimer, 1929, 89).
Nevertheless, in the later stages of the Egyptian language, a term for “camel”
turns up as a Semitic loanword (Vycichl, 1983, 341). The form of the word for
“camel” in Demotic (gmwl) and Coptic (kjamūl) shows inner-Egyptian sound
changes which require its adoption before the 7th century BCE (Quack, 2002,
899), probably at the beginning of the first millennium BCE (Quack, 2005, 321;
cf. Kuhrt, 1999, 183) or earlier (Vittmann, 1996, 435.444.447; cf. Albright,
1950).
Curiously, the earliest known inscriptional references to camels in Egypt are
not from Egypt but from Mesopotamia. On the famous Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser
III (9th century BCE), two Bactrian camels are depicted on relief No 9
as the “tribute of the land of Muṣri” (Egypt).19 Some two hundred years later,
Esarhaddon introduced camels which he had obtained from Arabian chieftains to
carry water for the use of his army into Egypt.20
The evidence for the camel in Egypt has to be evaluated in the light of the
natural habitat of this animal. The evidence of a desert animal should be expected
to be marginal in comparison with the commonly well attested livestock
(sheep, goats, cattle and donkeys).
While for Egypt, the Arabian Peninsula and the Levant well-defined archaeological
and artistic evidence for the domesticated camel before the first millennium
BCE is elusive, Iran and its adjacent regions is an area which definitely
yields more data.
The Bactrian or two-humped camel (important biological and
artistic evidence)
Modern Bactrian camels are distributed from Anatolia to Mongolia. This distribution
was probably different in antiquity due to environmental conditions
(Wapnish, 1997, 407). The wild two-humped camel (Camelus ferus) of Asia,
which survived in two areas of the Gobi desert, is usually considered to be the
progenitor of the domestic Bactrian camel, but this connection has recently
come under scrutiny.21 Representations of this wild species are known from sev-
––––––––––––––––––––––
19 The Bactrian camels are led by Egyptian tribute bearers and did not necessarily
originate from Egypt itself (Houlihan, 1996, 39). For a discussion of the identity of Muṣ-
ri cf. Tadmor, 1961; Elat, 1978, 21; Mitchell, 2000, 188–190; Kessler, 1993–1997, 497,
and Röllig, 1993–1997, 267–268. The writing of mu-uṣ-ri for “Egypt” was common in
Akkadian sources (Röllig, 1993–1997, 264–265). The date of this event (i. e. of the
receipt of tribute from Egypt as displayed on the Black Obelisk) is unknown.
20 Borger, 1956, 112, Rs, line 2: anšegam-mal-li šá šarrânimeš mât A-ri-bi ka-li-šú-un a[dkêma
nâdâti ê?-mi]d-su-nu-ti.
21 The Camelus ferus of the Gobi desert seems to differ more from the Bactrian camel
than was formerly believed and may not be related genealogically to its supposed do 344
M. Heide [UF 42
eral rock-art paintings in Mongolia and from the regions between Inner Asia and
Siberia, which, however, are not easily dateable (Potts, 2004a, 146; Peters / von
den Driesch, 1997, 652). Camel remains which are believed to belong to the
two-humped camel are likewise not easily assignable, and isolated camel bone
finds are often not found in situ. Peters and von den Driesch (1997, 656) developed
three criteria which allow the assignment of camel bone finds to the domesticated
two-humped camel: a) Bones of the domestic two-humped camel
cannot be distinguished from those of its wild progenitor. Therefore, only bones
which are found outside those areas where there is no early to mid-Holocene
record of wild C. ferus should be assigned to the domesticated Bactrian camel.
b) Only bones from dated stratigraphic contexts are considered, which either
have no overlying younger strata or which can be dated directly. c) The documentation
of these early finds must be done thoroughly, and detailed photographs
or drawings must be included in the publication to be able to verify their
specific status.
These criteria can now be applied to the most important finds. At the border
region between Khurasan (Iran) and Turkmenistan, camel bones dating presumably
to the late 4th / early 3rd millennium were unearthed over 100 years ago
(Duerst, 1908; Compagnoni/Tosi, 1978, 98). Of these, the species (two humped
/ dromedary), however, is uncertain, and feature b) (overlying younger stratum /
bones have not been dated) is lacking. The often referred to camel bone finds
from Shahr-i Sokhta in Sistan (Zarins, 1992, 825), found in a stratum which can
be dated to 2700–2500 BCE, lack feature b) (there are overlying younger strata /
bones have not been dated). A shaft-hole axe from a grave in Khurab (Iranian
Baluchistan) is believed to show a Bactrian camel in repose and is dated (on the
basis of comparable finds from datable contexts) to the end of the 3rd / beginning
of the 2nd millennium BCE,22 but the ultimate origin of this axe is unclear. On
the alluvial plain of the Indus valley in Pakistan, sites which can be assigned to
the Harappan Period (second half of the 3rd millennium BCE) yielded some
camel bones, but here the investigation could not be carried out thoroughly.23
Further faunal remains, pointing to the appearance of the domesticated camel in
the middle of the 3rd millennium, have been found at the Kopet Dagh foothill
sides in Ulug-depe, Altyn-depe and Namazga-depe in Southern Turkmenistan
(Potts, 2004a, 149).
Some Early Bronze Age finds of clay camels attached to miniature clay carts
in the same area suggest that the two-humped camel was already employed in
Southern Turkmenistan by the early 3rd millennium BCE (Peters / von den
Driesch, 1997, 658–660; Kohl, 1984, 186). Recently, Kirtcho (2009) pointed to
––––––––––––––––––––––
mesticated successor ; “the extant wild camel is a separate lineage but not the direct progenitor
of the domestic Bactrian camel” (Ji/Cui, 2009, 377).
22 Maxwell-Hyslop, 1955; Zeuner, 1955; Lamberg-Karlovsky, 1969; Potts, 2004a, 151;
but cf. Peters / von den Driesch, 1997, 657–658.
23 Badam, 1984, 349; Peters / von den Driesch, 1997, 658; Potts, 2004a, 151.
the implications of these cart models. Together with other finds, the cart models
provide a history of how wheeled transportation emerged in the area and later
developed. By 3,000 BCE, the climate became more arid and the people of
Altyn-depe could no longer trust their cattle-pulled carts to make long journeys.
Two-humped camels were more able to handle the drier climate, so that (Bactrian)
camel-pulled carts became the new standard for this region in the second
half of the 3rd millennium (Kirtcho, 2009, 32).
Potts (2004a, 150) also points to the two-humped camel on some iconographic
copper stamp seals from Bactria. Some of these seals were not found in situ,
and they are often not described in detail and are very generally assigned to
the Bronze Age (Winkelmann, 1999, 122–126; 133–137; 189 Abb. 4; 200 Abb.
16). Of particular interest, however, are some gold- and silver vessels from
Gonur Depe in Turkmenistan which bear representations of Bactrian camels.
They were found in situ and are dateable to the late 3rd millennium (Sarianidi,
2005, 234–238, figs. 94–97, and 252). Also, bones of the Bactrian camel from
later times have been found in the general area (Peters / von den Driesch, 1997,
661).
Numerous clay-figurines of Bactrian camels have been found at Pirak in Pakistani
Baluchistan (Santoni, 1979, 177–179; figs. 94–95, plates 42B and 43),
dating to 1800 BCE at the earliest. The often referred to cylinder seal from the
Walters Art Gallery, dateable to the 18th century (Porada, 1977, 1), seems to
depict in a (rather clumsy) Old Syrian style a Bactrian camel, bearing a divine
couple; yet it is unprovenanced.24 The excavations at Tall Šēḫ Ḥamad / Dūr-
Katlimmu at the Ḫābūr-river in Syria yielded bones of the Bactrian camel,
dateable to the 13th–12th centuries (Becker, 2008, 83–85).
With the beginning of the first millennium, the use of the domesticated Bactrian
camel in trade and war is well attested, which does not need any further
explanation. The evidence so far points “to an ever-expanding zone in which
C. bactrianus is attested archaeologically outside the presumed native habitat of
C. ferus” (Potts, 2004a, 153). It has to be kept in mind that the very term
C. bactrianus is virtually a misnomer because it does not denote the original
country of domestication (Bactria = northern Afghanistan / southern Uzbekistan),
but only points to the general region where the C. bactrianus was known
when the name was given (Bulliet, 1990, 143). The earliest known author to
have used this term is the Greek philosopher Aristotle.
Inscriptional evidence for the camel from Mesopotamia
If we take a look at the inscriptional evidence for the camel in Mesopotamian
sources, it is first of all important to clarify the lexical terms for the Bactrian
camel and for the dromedary. In the Akkadian language of the first millennium,
––––––––––––––––––––––
24 Gordon,
1939, 21 and no. 55; cf. http://art.thewalters.org/detail/27381/cylinder-sealwith-
a-two-humped-camel-carrying-a-divine-couple/ .
346 M. Heide [UF 42
the terms employed were mainly gammalu/gamlu25 for “camel”, ibilu26 for
“dromedary” and udru27 for “two-humped camel”.
The relationship of these Akkadian designations to the earlier Sumerian
sources can be illuminated by means of the Sumerian-Akkadian lexical series
urra28 = ḫubullu, where Sumerian entries point to Akkadian equivalents. Most
of the extant textual witnesses of these series are careful copies of the first millennium
BCE, when a kind of canonical or standardized version had emerged.
This version is the ultimate outcome of a very old tradition. The “canonical”
version had older Vorlagen, called “Vorläufer” (forerunners), which reach back
to the 2nd millennium.29 The urra series are ordered according to their main subject
and deal with such things as hides and leather products (urra XI), metals
and metal products (urra XII), domesticated animals (urra XIII), wild animals
(urra XIV) and meat products (urra XV). urra XIII has hundreds of entries
and lists all kinds of varieties and conditions of domesticated animals. These are
basically the sheep, the goat, the ox, the mule and the donkey. The urra series
were primarily designed to teach Sumerian and, as such, have no clear-cut taxonomy.
The dromedary is listed in the anše section (equids, lines 360–375) of urra
XIII and appears as anše.a.ab.ba → i-bi-lu (MSL 8/1, 51, 366). It follows
after the donkey for the wagon (364) and the second donkey [in a yoke]30 (365),
and comes before the “runner” (367),31 the “brayer” and the “roarer”(368–369),
which are vernacular terms for the donkey.
––––––––––––––––––––––
25 Gammalu (CAD G, 35) is a West-Semitic loanword (AHw 279; DRS 3, 140; SED II,
117).
26 ibilu follows the nominal pattern fi®il which is very unusual, not only in Akkadian
(CAD I/J, 2), but also in Arabic; the root has a non-Semitic origin (AHw 363). ibilu is
common in the Semitic languages except for the Canaanite group (Sima, 2000, 18). In
the Old Arabian (Sabean) texts of the first millennium BCE, it exclusively referred to the
domesticated dromedary. In the Islamic period ‫ إبل‬ibil indicated both the dromedary and
the Bactrian camel (Pellat, 1971).
27 udru is an Iranian/Persian loanword (AHw 1401) ; cf. ‫ اشتر‬uštur (Vullers I, 102),
which served also as a loanword in the form of úṣṭraḥ in Sanskrit (Mayrhofer I, 113–
114; III, 652).
28 Also referred to as ḪAR-ra or ur5 -ra. The series is called after its first line, ur ra =
ḫubullu, meaning “interest owed”.
29 Other lexical lists which are different from the ur ra series appear among the earliest
cuneiform tablets at the beginning of the 3rd millennium. For an introduction and more
details on ancient Mesopotamian lexicography see Civil, 1995 ; Veldhuis, 1999.
30 Cf. Oppenheim/ Hartman, 1945, 173; read te-nu-ú instead of di-nu-ú; AHw 1347 and
CAD T, 344.
31 The “runner” may be seen as a designation for the donkey or for the camel. In the
urgud series, the “runner” (šá-nu-ú) is listed in line 248, between anše.a.ab.ba and
am. si . ḫar.ra.an.
There are also some wild animals listed in urra XIII, but out of nearly 400
entries of the “canonical” version of the first millennium, these seem to account
only for the aurochs (am → ri-i-[mu], MSL 8/1, 41, 281) and the onager or
desert donkey (anše.edin.na → sér-re-mu, MSL 8/1, 52, 374).32 The aurochs
is listed also in urra XIV, a list of wild animals (am → ri-i-mu, MSL 8/2, 10,
48), where it functions as head of the am section.The entry for the aurochs in
urra XIII comes after the first entry for the (domesticated) ox (gud/gu4 → alpi,
MSL 8/1, 41, 280), and before the bull-calf (gu4.áb → mi-i-ru4) and all
kinds of oxen and cows (MSL 8/1, 41, 282–332). In terms of paleography, the
sign for am is based on the combination of the signs for gud/gu4 (𒄞) and
kur (𒄞) which results in the ligature GUD×KUR (𒄞). The onager (anše.
edin.na) belongs certainly from a linguistic perspective to the anše section.
These conditions account for the inclusion of the aurochs and the onager in urra
XIII. In addition, the aurochs, as the ancestor of all domestic cattle in Europe,
West Africa and Northern Asia, was at times, at least before the 2nd millennium,
cross-bred with its domesticated relative.33 Domestic asses were crossed with
onagers which resulted in a cross-breed which combined the docility of the donkey
with the strength and speed of the onager.34 These conditions could well
have influenced the inclusion of both animals in forerunners of the “canonical”
lists of the first millennium. But anše.a.ab.ba, although being for the same
linguistic reason as anše.edin.na in the anše section, was never identified as a
wild animal.35
––––––––––––––––––––––
32 It is not clear whether the “mountain[-bred] sheep” or “upcountry sheep” (udu.kur.
ra → im-mer-ri šá-di-i, MSL 8/1, 10, 35) and the “mountain[-bred] goat” (máš.kur .ra
→ ú-ri-ṣu ša-de-e, MSL 8/1, 32, 225) were regarded as wild animals; see Postgate,
1992, 162–163. In this case, they have also been listed according to their linguistic category
udu and máš respectively. Further designations of wild sheep known from other
lists are udu.til (bibbu) “wild sheep” (cf. Civil, 1989, 17) and udu.ḫur . sag “mountain
sheep”. These animals were used for cross-breeding with domesticated sheep (Postgate,
2009, 116; 1986, 199; Steinkeller, 1995, 50.54).
33 Heimpel (1968, 79) points to the Sumerian terms áb a am “cow which originates
from the aurochs”, gu4 a am “cattle which originates from the aurochs” and similar expressions
(see also Waetzold, 2006–2008, 377. 387) ; cf. also Postgate, 1992, 162 for a
list of crossbred animals offered to the gods from the Ur III period. For crossbreeding the
aurochs with domesticated cattle outside of Mesopotamia see Götherström/Anderung et
al., 2005.
34 See Postgate, 1986, and Postgate, 1992, 166; cf. Maekawa, 1979, and Clutton-Brock,
1986, 213; 1999, 122–127.
35 Typical lists of large wild animals (besides those known from lexical lists) include
bears, hyenas, lions, leopards, tigers, the deer, the aurochs and the ibex (CAD A, 225) as
well as panthers and boars (CAD D, 38). We further know of wild asses and onagers
(CAD A/1, 374–375; A/2, 344), but wild camels were never included. Cf. also the
catalogue of hunted animals (“Jagdtierkatalog”) in Salonen, 1976, 151ff.
348 M. Heide [UF 42
The series urgud, a kind of commentary to the urra series which is helping
with further suggestions of meaning, has the entry anše.a.ab.ba → i-bi-lu →
[gam-ma-lu]36 (MSL 8/1, 54, 247).
In urra XIV, a list of wild animals, the camel is listed in the context of such
animals as the elephant and the aurochs, and it appears as am.si.kur.ra → i-bilu
(MSL 8/2, 10, 55–56; cf. Horowitz, 2008, 599) and am.si.ḫar.ra.an →
i-bi-lu.37 In the series urgud, we have the entry am.si.ḫar.ra.an → i-bi-lu
[gam-ma-lu] (MSL 8/2, 44, 249).
All these entries point to ibilu38 as the Akkadian equivalent in the second
column, related to gammalu in the urgud series, which, as in Arabian sources,
primarily denoted the dromedary or one-humped camel.39
A consensus has evolved, however, to identify am.si.kur.ra and am.si.
ḫar.ra.an as Sumerian designations for the Bactrian camel and anše.a.ab.ba
as the Sumerian term for the dromedary. In the Sumerian term anše.a.ab.ba
“donkey of the sea”, the specification “of the sea” points either to the way by
which this animal reached Mesopotamia, or more probably to the country (“sea-
[land]”, i. e. Arabia) from where it was imported (Dougherty, 1932, 155–174;
Salonen, 1956, 88); cf. the designation anše.kur.ra “donkey of the mountain-
[land]” for the horse. On the other hand, the designation am.si.kur.ra for the
Bactrian camel refers to the east. The specification kur “mountain; land” seems
to point to the Zagros-mountains east of Mesopotamia. In am.si.ḫar.ra.an, the
Akkadian word ḫarrānum “way; road” or “journey; caravan” seems to refer
primarily to the use of the Bactrian camel in caravan trading.
If the Bactrian camel was referred to in the inscriptions of the first millennium
outside of the urra and urgud lists, it was either introduced as a special
form of the camel, “a camel [written anše.a.ab.ba] with two humps”,40 or it
––––––––––––––––––––––
36 For details of the reconstruction of the third column, see footnote 85.
37 For am. si.kur .ra being a synonym of am. si. ḫar .ra. an, see also de Maaijer / Jagersma,
2003–2004, 355.
38 A look at the oldest inscriptional evidence from the Arabian Peninsula reveals that in
Sabean, ¬bl “camel” (which in Sabean always refers to the dromedary) is epigraphically
attested in texts from the seventh century BCE onwards, but it never refers to the wild
form of the camel (Sima, 2000, 20).
39 CAD I/J, 2, and Salonen, 1956, 88, are giving the entry ibilu as referring to the “Arabian
camel; dromedary”, while AHw 363, Heimpel, 1980, 330, and CDA, 124, are more
cautious in specifying the meaning of ibilu as “camel; dromedary”.
40 The Bactrian camel is twice referred to as an “anše.a.ab.ba with two humps” on the
Black Obelisk inscription of Shalmaneser III (858–824; see footnote 77). A dated debt
note from the reign of Esarhaddon (674 BCE) is introduced with, 2 anše.a.ab.ba ša 2-
a za-kar-ru-u-ni “two anše.a.ab.ba that are called two-[humped] ...” (ADD, No 117,
1; Postgate, 1976, No 38; Kwasman/Parpola, 1991, No 241).
was called udru41 which designated exclusively the Bactrian camel. But even
when the Assyrian scribe employed the term udru for the Bactrian camel, he
pointed sometimes in a tautological fashion to the fact that it was two-humped,
as in the Kurkh-Stele of Shalmaneser III (858–824), where Bactrian camels are
specified among the tribute as 7 ud-ra-te42 šá 2 gu-un-gu-li-pi-ši-na “seven (female
Bactrian) camels whose humps are two”.43
It is a striking fact, however, that udru has never been assigned to am.si.
kur.ra and am.si.ḫar.ra.an in the lexical series urra and urgud, although
udru is attested in the Akkadian literature from the 11th century onwards (AHw
1401). The assignations of ibilu and gammalu to am.si.kur.ra and am.si.
ḫar.ra.an seem to have been well anchored in tradition, so that there was no
need to include udru as a new loanword in the urra lists. It is in the Neo-Assyrian
“practical vocabulary of Assur” only that we find an entry for udru in the
form anšeud-ra-a-ti; this entry, however, follows subsequently to anše.a.ab.ba
and does not include am.si.kur.ra or am.si.ḫar.ra.an.44
The dromedary, on the other hand, was never referred to in any literature as
an “anše.a.ab.ba/am.si.kur.ra/am.si.ḫar.ra.an/udru/ibilu/gammalu with
one hump”. In the same stele of Shalmaneser III, dromedaries are mentioned
outside of the lexical lists for the first time. Among the tribute of the Arabian
king Gindibu “1000 dromedaries” are simply listed as 1 LIM anšegam-ma-lu.45 In
the inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III (745–727) and in some inscriptions of his
––––––––––––––––––––––
41 The first reference in the form ud-ra-a-temeš is from the Obelisk-Inscription of Ashurbel-
kela (1074–1054 BCE; col. iv, line 27), formerly ascribed to Tiglath-Pileser I. In the
editio princeps (Budge/King, 1902, 142) and in the edition prepared by Grayson (1976,
55), the cuneiform-signs were translated as “dromedaries”; but cf. the correct translation
in Grayson, 1991, 104, and AHw 1401. The next mention of Bactrian camels comes
from the inscription of Tukulti-Ninurta II (890–884) where 30 (female) Bactrian camels
(not “dromedaries”; cf. Heimpel, 1980, 331, and Grayson, 1991, 175) are referred to as
“30 ud-ra-te” (Grayson, 1991, 175, line 78; AHw 1401).
42 Mitchell, 2000, 188, reads ud-ra-a-te, but the cuneiform copy according to Rawlinson
reads ud-ra-te (1861, plate 8, line 62), although ud-ra-a-te (fem. pl. with long ā) is to be
expected; cf. Grayson, 2002, 21, who reads tam(a)-ra-te(? typo for tam-ra(-a)-te, tam
being the same sign as ud) and AHw 1401, ud-ra(-a)-te.
43 Kurkh-Stela, col. II, line 62. For the text and its translation, see Grayson, 2002, 21; for
a discussion, see Mitchell, 2000, 187–189. A similar construction is found on the thronebase
inscription from Nimrud, where the text reads ú-du-ri meš šá šu-un-na gu-ga-li-pe-šina“
(Bactrian) camels whose humps are double” (Hulin, 1963, 51–52, line 18 ; cf. Hulin,
1963, 60; Grayson, 2002, 103; CAD U/W, 22). Another expression is known from
Shamshi-Adad V (823–810): anšeud-ra-a-ti šá 2.TA.ÀM iš-qu-bi-ti “(female Bactrian)
camels with two humps” (Grayson, 2002, 185, col. ii, line 56).
44 Landsberger /Gurney, 1957–1958, 332; cf. also footnote 85.
45 Grayson, 2002, 23, line 94. This is the earliest known inscriptional reference to the
West-Semitic root gml.
350 M. Heide [UF 42
successors, the dromedary was written anše.a.ab.ba46 and the Bactrian camel
appeared as anšeudru;47 in some of Sargon’s (721–705) inscriptions and in most
of the inscriptions of Sennacherib (705–681), Esarhaddon (681–669) and Ashurbanipal
(669–631/627), the dromedary was referred to as anšegam.mal.48 The
syllabic writing of ibilu is limited to some inscriptions of Sennacherib.49 The
sumerogram anše.a.ab.ba, however, survived until the Late Babylonian period.
50
These data strongly suggest that the Bactrian camel was seen as a special
form of the camel, while the dromedary was seen as the usual from of the camel.
The dromedary was not regarded as a novelty which had to be defined by its
relative, the Bactrian camel, which had been domesticated already in the 3rd millennium,
but vice versa: the Bactrian camel was in the lexical lists and sometimes
also in campaign reports and in contract-letters defined by going back to
the common terms used for the dromedary in the 2nd millennium (see below).
But how do we have to understand this if the dromedary, as the zooarchaeological
record from south-east Arabia suggests, was not domesticated before the
end of the 2nd millennium?
In addition, the two Sumerian terms for the Bactrian camel, am.si.kur.ra
and am.si.ḫar.ra.an, were never used, except in lexical lists, in any inscrip-
––––––––––––––––––––––
46 Ann. 14*:4; 4:2.20’ ; Iran Stele IIIA:22 (Tadmor, 2007, 68.88.108.226) ; see also
footnote 95. See also the inscriptions of Sargon: Ann. 125.272; var. lect. Prunk 27
(Fuchs, 1994, 110.240.198); campaign-report No 8:26.210.263 (Mayer, 1983, 70.88.
94). For Sennacherib, see Smith, 1921, 36. 62–63, line 29, and Frahm, 1997, 45.
47 The Bactrian camel is frequently mentioned in Tiglath-Pileser’s inscriptions in the
fem. pl. form udrāti: Ann. 11:8; 16:10; Stele 1B:14’; Iran Stele IIIA: 28; Summ.
7:33.39 (Tadmor, 2007, 48.74.98.108.164.166); for Sargon, see campaign-report
No 8, line 50: anšeud-re (Mayer, 1983, 72) ; for Sennacherib, see Luckenbill, 1924, 51, line
29. For Esarhaddon (anšeú-du-re) and Nabopolassar (625–605; ud-ru), see Salonen, 1956,
87.
48 For Sargon, see Ann. 352.406; Prunk 185 gam.mal meš; Prunk 27 anšegam.mal
(Fuchs, 1994, 163.178.246.198); cf. also the Nimrud letter XXIII, 3 (Saggs, 1955,
134). For Sennacherib, see Luckenbill, 1924, 25 (line 52) ; 26 (l. 56) ; 28 (l. 20) ; 33
(l. 25); 51 (l. 29) ; 57 (l. 16) ; Frahm, 1997, 51–52. 54 (anšegam.malmeš ; lines 14–15.
27. 51). It is not always clear whether dromedaries or Bactrian camels are in view in Sennacherib’s
inscription, but usually the context is clear ; cf. lim anšegam.malmeš “1000
dromedaries” (from Te¬elḫunu the Arabian queen) in the campaign-report No 8 (line 54’,
Frahm, 1997, 131). For Esarhaddon, see Borger, 1956, 53–54 (lines 17.21); 64 (line
59); 112, Rs line 2. For Ashurbanipal, see CAD G, 36.
49 Sennacherib’s scribes used i-bi-lu infrequently (Luckenbill, 1924, 130, lines 66–67;
CAD I/J, 2) and preferred to write anšegam.mal.
50 Cf. sal.anše anše.a.ab.ba ù.tu “if a mare gives birth to a dromedary” (Falkenstein,
1931, No 124, r. 9; CAD G, 36; I /J, 2).
tion of the first millennium.51 In the lexical lists urra and urgud, they were
assigned to the usual form of the camel, the dromedary (ibilu and gammalu
respectively). The main feature which distinguishes the Bactrian camel from the
dromedary was well-known. Assigning both am.si.kur.ra and am.si.ḫar.ra.
an to the dromedary or camel has been believed to be erroneous (Landsberger,
1934, 92; Salonen, 1956, 89; 1976, 176), but it should not be regarded as that.
In all probability, urra XIV implicated additional information which was not
written down because it was common knowledge or handed down orally; therefore,
am.si.kur.ra and am.si.ḫar.ra.an could be assigned to the dromedary.
The bilingual urra lists are very scanty and do not offer more information than
was absolutely necessary. Additional information which would have helped to
render a Sumerian term with more precision was seldom given.52 The scribe
who used these lists to practice writing was expected to know that the special
camel “with two humps” was in view, just as outside of the lexical lists the Bactrian
camel was sometimes called a “camel with two humps”. In other words,
the best explanation for the assignments of ibilu and gammalu to am.si.kur.ra
and am.si.ḫar.ra.an in urra XIV and urgud is that these lines were read or
understood to mean that am.si.ḫar.ra.an should be identified with (or at least
assigned to) an ibilu or gammalu with two humps, and that am.si.kur.ra likewise
should be assigned to or identified with an ibilu or gammalu with two
humps. Further evidence can be drawn from another lexical list, the practical
vocabulary of Assur, where the term for (female) Bactrian camels is written
anšeud-ra-a-ti and its meaning is given as ga-ma-[la]-ti “she-camels”, which
should likewise be seen as referring to “she-camels with two humps”.53
The usual Akkadian reading of anše.a.ab.ba in the first millennium BCE
was gammalu, as can be seen by the development from the earlier use of the
sumerogram anše.a.ab.ba to the more frequent use of the Akkadian gammalu
in the 9th–7th centuries presented above, and by the interchange of anše.a.ab.
ba and gammalu in some inscriptions.54 The designation for the dromedary,
however, the old name anše.a.ab.ba, known already in the urra XIII list of
the 13th century (see below), continued to be in use as a sumerogram until the
Late Babylonian period.
––––––––––––––––––––––
51 The basic term continued to be used for designating a medicinal plant, the pizzalurtum,
which was also written úam. s i . ḫar. ra.na (AHw 871; CAD P, 451–452), the “plant
[eaten by] the (Bactrian) camel”(?).
52 For a good characterization of the bilingual lists, see Cavigneaux, 1976, 2–6 (one
Sumerian term is usually rendered by one Akkadian term; involvement of insiderknowledge
and oral tradition played a great role) ; 29–35 (various types of entries) ; 100–
102 (additional information, introduced with ša in the Akkadian column, is optional and
late).
53 Landsberger /Gurney, 1957–1958, 332; cf. also footnote 85.
54 See CAD G, 36, Smith, 1921, 36, line 29, and Frahm, 1997, 45; cf. Luckenbill, 1924,
51, line 29.
352 M. Heide [UF 42
Earlier, Sumerian-only designations for the dromedary from the 2nd millennium
seem to have been written in the form anše.a.ab.ba “donkey of the sea”
only. The oldest evidence known today comes from Nippur, from the Middle-
Babylonian period (14th–13thcenturies); it turns up in urra XIII, one of the
monolingual Sumerian “forerunners” of the urra = ḫubullu lists.55 It is listed
after the donkey (anše and dúsu), the mule (anše.kúnga, anše.nun.na and
anše.gìr.nun.na) and the donkey of the yoke (anše.érin.lá). Any further
information is missing.
Another forerunner of urra XIII from Ugarit, written somewhere around or
before 1200 BCE, mentions the dromedary in the form [anše.a.a]b.ba.56
The Middle-Assyrian urra forerunner from Tell Billa (ancient Šibaniba, not
very far from Assur) has a lacuna of about 8 lines in the anše listing, which, by
suggestion of the editors, should “be restored according to R[as] Š[amra] III,
20ff ”, that means according to the Ugaritic forerunner including its mention of
the “donkey of the sea”.57 The urra = ḫubullu XI listing from Emar (Arnaud,
1987, 91, line 67; 1985, 264), with a list of hides of wild and domesticated animals,
has the entry kuš.anše.a.ab.ba “dromedary hide”.58 It is listed after
––––––––––––––––––––––
55 This urra forerunner (UM 29-16-338) is online accessible at http://oracc.museum.
upenn.edu/dcclt/P228739 (courtesy of N. Veldhuis).
56 MSL 8/1, 102, rev. III 22. For details of the restoration and its reliability cf. footnote
57, table 1, and Horowitz, 2008, 601, footnote.
57 Table 1 below gives the readings of the Middle-Assyrian forerunner from Tell Billa
(UM 33-58-140; published in MSL 8/1, 98, lines 2–4; see also http://oracc.museum.
upenn.edu/dcclt/P282737), the Ras Šamra forerunner (MSL 8/1, 102, lines 18–23), and
the ur ra XIII list (MSL 8/1, 51, lines 362–368) according to its editor, updated by Horowitz’
corrections. Readings in italics (lines preceded by?) indicate where the tablet is
broken and which lines have been restored on the basis of the corresponding series; cf.
also Finkelstein, 1953, 134. The sign of repetition in the list from Ras Šamra, MIN, is repeating
anše which appears in line 10 (MSL 8/1, 102) :
u r r a (Middle Assyrian)
2 a n [ š e ] . ˹*gi š ˺ .gu.za
3 [anše . g i š .gi g i r . r ] a
4 [ anš e . g i šmar . g íd].da
? an še.bal .bal
? a n š e . a . ab.ba
? a n š e .gù.dé
u r r a (Ras Šamra)
18 MIN.g i š .gu.z a
19 MIN.g i š .gigi r . ra
20 MIN. gišmar .g í d .da
21 [MIN. b ] a l .bal
22 [MIN. a . a ] b .ba
23 [MIN.gù.d]é*
ur r a = ḫubullu
362 an š e .g i š . gu. z a
363 an š e .g i š .g ig i r
364 an š e . gišmar . g íd .da
365 an š e . á .b a l
366 an š e . a . ab .ba
367 (vacat)
368 an š e .g ù .d é
Table 1: The Sumerian part of the urra = ḫubullu XIII series from the Neo-
Babylonian period, and its Middle-Assyrian and Ras Šamra Sumerian-only forerunners.
A restoration like that does not look very reliable. It has a certain probability only in
providing an inscriptional reference to the dromedary from the 13th century (Finkelstein,
1953, 115).
58 In addition, Arnaud (1987, 112) points to inscriptional evidence for the dromedary in
kuš.anše “donkey hide”, kuš.anše.kur.ra “horse hide” and kuš.anše.edin.na
“onager hide”, and before kuš.šaḫ “pig hide” and kuš.gír.tab “scorpion
hide”. This means that four animals, belonging to the Sumerian class anše
“donkey” and to animals listed in urra XIII,59 were named together. Due to the
meager character of these lists, more detailed information is missing. For the
“donkey of the sea”, the inscriptional evidence of the 2nd millennium reveals that
this designation for the dromedary was copied in Nippur in the 14th–13th centuries,
in Ugarit in the 13th century and in Emar in the 13th–12th centuries.
It could be argued, of course, that anše.a.ab.ba was regarded as a wild animal
in Nippur, Ugarit and Emar, that its presence in the urra XIII series is due
to linguistic reasons only and that consequently anše.a.ab.ba could designate
both the wild and the domesticated dromedary. After all, anše.a.ab.ba belongs
naturally to the anše section, which is missing from urra XIV. First of all, the
name anše.a.ab.ba “donkey of the sea[-land]” must be of Mesopotamian
origin; only from the perspective of Southern Mesopotamia can Arabia be called
––––––––––––––––––––––
the urra = ḫubullu XIII series from Emar. Table 2 lists the readings according to Arnaud
187, 112 from Emar :
Emar MSL 8 / 1, 51
230’ [MIN.]g i š .gu . z a
231’ [MIN.]g i š .gi g i r
232’ [MIN.gišmar .g íd .da
233’ [MIN.b ] a l . l á
234’ [MIN.a.a]b.ba
anše ku-us-si-i
anše nir-kab-ti
š]a e!-ri-iq-qí
ba-lu-u
e!-ba-lu
362 a nš e . gi š .gu . z a
363 a nš e . gi š .g ig i r
364 a nš e . gišmar .g íd .da
365 a nš e . á .b a l
366 a nš e . a . ab .b a
i-mir ku-us-su-ú
i-mir nar-kab-tu
i-mir e-riq-qum
te-nu-ú
i-bi-lu
Table 2: Urra = ḫubullu XIII series from Emar and the canonical version from
the first millennium. The sign of repetition, MIN, is repeating anše which appears
in line 222’ (Arnaud, 1987, 112).
A close inspection of lines 230’–234’, however, confirmed only lines 230’–231’ to be
comparable to lines 362–363 of the canonical ur ra = ḫubullu XIII series. Lines 230’–
234’ should be read as follows:
Emar (only textual witness: tablet 7522)
230’ [MIN. ]g i š .g u . z a a n š e ku-us-si-i
231’ [MIN. ]g i š .g ig i r a n š e nir-kab-ti
232’ [MIN. ???] ba?-ri-iq-qí
233’ [MIN.b ] a l . l á ba-lu-u
234’ [????]? ku r ? iš?-ba-lu
Table 3: Urra = ḫubullu XIII series from Emar with corrected readings. Note that
lines 232’ and 234’ have emendations proposed by Arnaud. The sign in line 232’
conjectured as e looks similar to ba, the sign in line 234 conjectured as e looks
similar to iš or da, but hardly like e. According to tablet 7522, the sign of division
between the Sumerian and Akkadian entry is missing in line 234’ (courtesy of
W. Sommerfeld). See tablet No 7522, the only textual witness to these lines, in
Arnaud, 1985, 731.
59 For the “desert-donkey hide” (kuš.anše.edin.na), cf. the discussion of the entry
anše.edin.na in urra XIII above.
354 M. Heide [UF 42
the “sea-land”. The zoological and botanical terminologies of the lists from
Emar and Ugarit betray likewise their Mesopotamian origin (cf. Civil, 1995,
2306). This means that the Sumerian scribes either had information that a special
animal with some donkey-like features lived in the “sea-land”, or more
likely that this animal had been brought to Mesopotamia. In addition, viewing
anše.a.ab.ba as a wild dromedary cannot be reconciled with the fact that its
first inscriptional record is not earlier than the 14th century. If anše.a.ab.ba
was a wild animal, why had it not been noted before, when much more wild
dromedaries roamed the Arabian Desert? Moreover, anše.a.ab.ba has always
been assigned to ibilu or gammalu and has never been assigned to any wild animal
in the canonical bilingual lists or in any other literature. Nor is there any
Sumerian or bilingual text which identifies anše.a.ab.ba as a wild dromedary.
As we already saw, the scribes differentiated between the domesticated sheep
(udu) and its wild relative (udu.idim), between the domesticated ox (gu4 )
and the wild ox or aurochs (am), between the donkey (anše) and the desertdonkey
(anše.edin.na), between the domesticated pig (šaḫ) and the wild pig
(šaḫ.ĝiš.gi). But for anše.a.ab.ba, there is no wild counterpart. It is tempting
to draw a parallel to the horse, which was also introduced into Mesopotamia
in its full domesticated form. It was listed in urra XIII as anše.kur.ra “donkey
of the mountain”. anše.kur.ra has also no wild counterpart in the Sumerian
literature.
Moreover, anše.a.ab.ba was sometimes used as the common name for the
camel at the beginning of the first millennium (when the Bactrian camel had
been domesticated long before), and the dromedary was seen as the usual form
of the camel (see above). This is hardly explicable if anše.a.ab.ba was up to
that time seen as a wild animal living in a remote country (“sea-land”).
There is no inscriptional evidence from the Ugaritic cuneiform texts in the
alphabetic tradition60 and from the Amarna letters (14th century BCE), neither of
the Bactrian camel nor of the dromedary. In light of the Sumerian-only evidence
from Ugarit and Emar and in light of the finds from Tall Šēḫ Ḥamad / Dūr-Katlimmu
and of earlier evidence for the Bactrian camel (see below), this cannot
prove that domesticated camels were totally unknown. It is difficult to explain
this fact, which probably points to the primary use of the camel outside of urban
centers.
If we move further back, the inscriptional evidence seems to point to the
Bactrian camel only.61 A forerunner of the urra lists from the Yale Babylonian
––––––––––––––––––––––
60 The Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language does not have any entry of the roots þbl or
gml with the meaning “camel” (DUL 8. 300), and the occurrence of ÿdr “Bactrian
camel” is doubtful (DUL 22). In Ugarit, the only clear reference to the camel is found in
the Sumerian ur ra forerunners.
61 For possible references to the dromedary, from the Old Babylonian period or somewhat
earlier, in the form “donkey of Anshan” (di.bi. id. an.ša4.anki.na = i-mi-ir Anša-
ni-[im]) see Civil, 1998, 11, footnote 6, and Steinkeller, 2009, 417, footnote 14.
collection, belonging to the Old Babylonian period (ca. 1800–1600 BCE), has
the entry am.si.ḫar.ra.an.na.62 Similar to the later lists of the first millennium,
this forerunner has the sequence am (aurochs), am.si (elephant), am.si.
ḫar.ra.an.na and am.si.kur.ra63 (Bactrian camel).
But why does the Bactrian camel turn up in a list of wild animals (urra
XIV) after such species as the aurochs and the elephant, not only in the earlier
lists from the Old Babylonian period, but also in the canonical lists of the first
millennium? And why has it nevertheless been assigned in the bilingual lists of
the first millennium to ibilu and gammalu, both of which usually designate the
domesticated dromedary?
The urra lexicographers did not classify their lexical lists according to our
modern biological understanding. These lists were not composed according to
(biological) taxonomy, but follow an ordering system that is based on cultural
and linguistic principles (Veldhuis, 2006, 26). We have already seen that in
urra XIII, a list of domesticated animals, some non-domesticated animals have
been included for specific reasons. urra XIV is a list of wild animals, beginning
with snakes. Nevertheless, some domesticated animals appear in urra XIV as
well. In addition, some animals are listed according to their name rather than
according to their nature. The Bactrian camel was named for reasons we do not
entirely understand am.si.ḫar.ra.an “elephant of the road/caravan” or am.si.
kur.ra “elephant of the mountain”.64 As there is no am section in urra XIII, it
was referred to in the am section of urra XIV. The same happened to šáḫ,65 the
pig (Veldhuis, 2006, 27). There is no šáḫ section in the list of domesticated animals.
Besides the wild pig (šáḫ.ĝiš.gi), all types of domesticated pigs (fattened
pig, breeding pig, pig owned by a lord, etc.) are listed together in urra
XIV.
All names given to camels in Sumerian (descriptive names) and Akkadian
(loanwords) suggest that the camel was not native to Mesopotamia (Albright,
1950). The dromedary seems to have come from Arabia, and the Bactrian camel
must have come from the east. The first two elements of its Sumerian name,
am.si “elephant”, suggest that the Bactrian animal was seen as an exotic animal
whose behavior was perceived as very strange. The name, however, once given,
remained unchanged (Horowitz, 2008, 608).
The Akkadian term i-lu-la-a-a, which answers to am.si.ḫar.ra.an.na in a
bilingual lexical list from the Old Babylonian period, has been suggested of
––––––––––––––––––––––
62 For the text, see the tablet YBC 4679, online accessible via http://cdli.ucla.edu/
P235796.
63 The text reads am kur . ra which is very probably an error for am. si kur. ra (Veldhuis,
2006, 28).
64 When referring to the bull (am), its horns ( si) are meant; when referring to the elephant
(am. si → pi-i-lu), its tusks are in view, and when referring to the Bactrian camel,
its two humps seem to be meant.
65 In texts of the 2nd millennium, the pig appears as “ šaḫ”; in later texts, as “ šáḫ”.
356 M. Heide [UF 42
being another word for the camel. But the context of the list speaks against this
suggestion and the identification of i-lu-la-a-a as another word for the camel is
hardly convincing.66
Further evidence from the Old Babylonian period is provided by a Sumerian
literary text with mention of the camel’s (am.si.ḫar.ra.an) milk. This Sumerian
love song in which Inanna addresses Dumuzi has in general a mythological
context.67 It is, however, very questionable to dismiss the evidence for am.si.
ḫar.ra.an on the ground that the context is comparable “with the Romulus and
Remus story of the foundation of Rome”.68 The larger context reads as follows
(lines 18–27, abbreviated):
“Make the milk yellow for me, my bridegroom ... O my bridegroom,
may I drink milk with you, with goat milk from the sheepfold ... fill the
holy butter churn ... O Dumuzi, make the milk of the camel [am.si.
ḫar.ra.an] yellow for me – the camel [am.si.ḫar.ra.an], its milk is
sweet ... Its butter-milk, which is sweet, make yellow for me ...”69
In this love song, belonging to the genre of pastoral poetry, am.si.ḫar.ra.an
implicates a domesticated animal. In Sumerian mythology, Dumuzi is the son of
Duttur, the divine mother sheep (Alster, 1999, 832). Dumuzi (known also in
West-Semitic sources as Tammuz), with his surname or title Sipad “shepherd”,
appears as the lord of the shepherds and flocks and is the god in charge of domesticated
herd animals in the Sumerian pantheon. Inanna requests churned
camel’s milk as well as goat’s milk. Both are described as pleasant and “sweet”.
Camel’s milk is either drunk fresh or soured, and extensive churning will result
in some butter (Horwitz/Rosen, 2005, 124). To interpret am.si.ḫar.ra.an in
––––––––––––––––––––––
66 For the text, see UET 7, No 93, plate XLIII, and Sjöberg, 1996, 222, reverse, lines 14–
16: am. si. ḫar.ra.an.na, i. lu.kur.kur.ra, maškim. ḫar .ra.an.DU. These three entries
are all assigned to i-lu-la-a-a. According to AHw 1563, am. si. ḫar.ra.an.na
designates probably a camel. According to Sjöberg, 1996, 231, i-lu-la-a-a is comparable
to Old Assyrian i-lu-la-a attested in ARRIM 3,12:31, in the construction bāb di-lu-la-a
“the gate of I.” Being written with the divine determinative, di-lu-la-a denotes a deity or
demon. In the lexical text UET 7, No 93, i-lu-la-a-a is preceded by the dust fly, the
mouse, the butterfly and probably similar small animals (lines rev. 1–13) and it is followed
by a list of demons (lines rev. 17–24). It is tempting to draw a parallel to a late
Babylonian religious text, where the dromedary is said to be “the ghost of Tiamat” (CAD
I/J, 2).
67 On the influence of popular love songs on the Dumuzi-Inanna love songs, see
Klein/Sefati, 2008, 614–618.
68 See Rosen/Saidel, 2010, 75. There is a much better comparison for Romulus and
Remus, namely the story of Gilgamesh wherein Enkidu is reported to have sucked the
milk of wild animals (ANET 77–78; tablet II, iii 2; v 20; cf. George, 2003, vol. I, 177,
line 85; vol. I, 179, line 188).
69 Cf. CAD I/J, 2; Sefati, 1998, 221–222 and Horowitz, 2008, 604, based on the tablet
Ni 9602.
this context as a wild camel puts considerable strain on the interpretation of the
poetry.
Furthermore, there is an unpublished tablet from the Old Babylonian period70
with the reading am.si.kaskal.an.na, subsequently to am.si “elephant”,
which certainly should be seen as an ancient (or transcriptional) error for am.
si.ḫar.an.na, the Bactrian camel. Another lexical list71 of animals from Nippur
from roughly the same period has the reading ḫar.ra.an (doubtless an error or
abbreviation for am.si.ḫar.ra.an) appearing after the dog (ka.lab), the (wild)
cat (su.a and su.a.ri), the bison (alim), the deer (lulim) and the elephant
(am.si). In both lists, the Bactrian camel is listed subsequently to am.si, the
“elephant”, for reasons which were discussed already above.
Recently, P. Steinkeller (2009) made an in-depth study of a Sumerian tablet
of the Ur III period (2100–2000 BCE) with possible mention of camels. This
tablet (P123310)72 mentions male and female animals, written with the ligature
GÚ.URU×GU, which were received from three different suppliers, from Hundašer
of Anšan, from Yabrat the Šimaškian and from Šu-Adad. According to
Steinkeller, the unknown animal name GÚ.URU×GU should be read as the
Sumerian term gú.gur5 (see also the online-text) and it could be linked to
gú.gúr(GAM), corresponding to Akkadian kanāsu “to bend down, to bow
down” (CAD K, 144), a vivid characterization of the camel’s behavior.73
The hitherto unknown animal name GÚ.URU×GU occurs once more on
another tablet (P127971),74 apparently summing up the 30 animals from the first
tablet and referring to them in a single line. One of the men who delivered these
animals is said to come from Anšan, which is to be located at the eastern part of
the Iranian plateau. The Šimaškian, the second supplier, seems to come from
Šimaški, the central part of the Iranian plateau. The third supplier has an Akkadian
name (Šu-Adad), he is also known as a “herder” of the GÚ.URU×GU
––––––––––––––––––––––
70 Tablet No A 07896, online accessible at http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/dcclt/
P230258, line x’ 8; courtesy of N. Veldhuis. On the relation of Sumerian kaskal and
Akkadian ḫarrānu, see CAD Ḫ, 106.
71 See Proust, 2007, 353, tablets Ni 10135* + CBS 10181* + CBS 10207*, brought to
my attention by N. Veldhuis.
72 Online accessible at http://cdli.ucla.edu/search/result.pt?id_text= P123310&start=0&
result_format=single&-op_id_text=eq&size=100. The tablet has been published by Hilgert,
1998, 141–142.
73 Yuhong, 2010, seemingly without knowledge of Steinkeller’s article, tentatively interprets
gú-gur5 as a name for the wild Bactrian camel (without further reasoning) and
suggests that it is listed after cattle, red deer and fallow deer because it belongs to the big
even-toed ungulates. Its name should be understood as “the lump-backed or pot-backed
one”.
74 Online accessible at http://cdli.ucla.edu/search/result.pt?id_text=P127971&start=0&re
sult_format=single&-op_id_text=eq&size=100. The tablet has been published by Calvot,
1969, 102.
358 M. Heide [UF 42
mentioned before. The animals he supplies are designated as an “earlier” delivery,
which means that they were delivered prior to those delivered from the
other two suppliers.
In the second tablet, where all these GÚ.URU×GU (or gú.gur5 respectively)
are summed up as 30 animals, they are listed following oxen, red deer, and fallow
deer, but before horses, mules, and donkeys. Steinkeller draws the conclusion
that the GÚ.URU×GU referred to in these tablets must be “large, hoofed
herbivore”. This is further corroborated by the fact that the age of some of these
animals is given, which is otherwise documented only for cattle, equids, and
deer. Steinkeller thinks that the Bactrian camel fits best to the features of the
GÚ.URU×GU presented above. If Steinkeller is correct, and there is every good
reason to accept his proposal (cf. Potts, 2008, 190), then the two tablets mentioned
above provide additional evidence for the domesticated Bactrian camel in
Mesopotamia towards the end of the 3rd millennium.
The earliest known Mesopotamian lexical evidence of the camel is provided
by an animal list from Fara of the Early Dynastic Period (ca. 2600–2500 BCE),
where the Sumerian term am.si.ḫar.an occurs again (Sjöberg, 2000, 407).75 In
this list, am.si.ḫar.an is found in the proximity of terms for wild animals, such
as the elephant, the water buffalo, the bear and the wolf. This looks as if the
Bactrian camel was regarded as domesticated in part only in the 3rd millennium
BCE (Horowitz, 2008, 607). But its name-element ḫar.an “road/caravan”
makes no sense if it would have been assigned to an animal which does not go
on the road or in a camel-caravan and Mesopotamia was far away from the natural
habitat of the wild Bactrian camel.
Apart from the Assyrian exploitation of the camel in the first millennium
BCE, it can be concluded that the people of Mesopotamia gained some acquaintance
with the Bactrian camel in the Old Babylonian period, at the end of
the 3rd / beginning of the 2nd millennium. This is suggested by the Sumerian love
song, by two lexical lists from the same period and probably also by the Sumerian
tablet mentioning the GÚ.URU×GU and the cylinder seal from the Walters
Art Gallery (see above). At the end of the 2nd millennium, however, the Bactrian
camel was again regarded as a curious animal, although the royal administration
had enough know-how to breed Bactrian camels. Ashur-bel-kela (1074–1054
BCE) presented herds of Bactrian camels and other curiosities to the people of
Assyria. They are listed between leopards, bears, wild boars, wild asses, deer
and wolves on the one side, and apes and crocodiles on the other side. Yet the
text says explicitly that the king dispatched merchants who had to acquire these
camels. Then it proceeds: “‘He collected the female camels [ud-ra-a-temeš], bred
(them), and displayed herds of them to the people of his land’”.76 On the famous
Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III (858–824 BCE) with twenty reliefs, five on
each side of the obelisk, two Bactrian camels are depicted on relief No 3
––––––––––––––––––––––
75 Online accessible at http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/dcclt/P010717.
76 Cf. footnote 41; CAD U/W, 22.
(counted from left to right and top to bottom), and a similar scene is depicted
again on relief No 9. While on relief No 3 the camels are listed after horses and
seem to have been regarded as pack animals, they can be seen in an exotic environment
on relief No 9, where the “tribute of the land of Muṣri” consists of
“camels whose backs are doubled” (No 9),77 a water buffalo (literally “river
ox”), a rhinoceros, an antelope (No 10), female elephants (No 11), female monkeys,
and apes (No 11–12). The camels displayed on panel No 3 belonged to the
tribute of the kingdom of Gilzānu, near lake Urmia, where two-humped camels
were in common use, while the camels displayed on panel No 9 came from
Egypt. The context may suggest the Egyptian royal zoo as their point of origin
(cf. Müller-Wollermann, 2003, 40). In the light of this, the strange Sumerian
names for the Bactrian camel, am.si.kur.ra and am.si.ḫar.ra.an, “elephant
of the mountain / of the road”, should not be seen as indicating a partly domesticated
animal at the time when the names were given, but as pointing to its exotic
and strange appeal. We may add to that a much later incident reported by Lucian
of Samosta (125–180 CE): Ptolemy I Lagi (305–285 BCE) presented a piebald
man, half black and half white, and a black Bactrian camel, which was decked
all over with gold and had a richly jeweled bridle, to the public in the theatre of
Alexandria. Some laughed at the man, but most shrank as from a monster. When
the audience saw the camel, however, they became terrified and almost stampeded.
78
To sum up the early evidence, it is certain that based on archaeological evidence
the domesticated two-humped camel appeared in Southern Turkmenistan
not later than the middle of the 3rd millennium BCE. From there or from adjacent
regions, the domesticated Bactrian camel must have reached Mesopotamia via
the Zagros Mountains. In Mesopotamia, the earliest knowledge of the camel
points to the middle of the 3rd millennium, where it seems to have been regarded
as a very exotic animal. The horse and the Bactrian camel may have been engaged
in sea-borne and overland global trading networks spanning much of the
ancient world from the third millennium BCE onwards (Zeder et al., 2006, 146).
For the domestication of the dromedary, the zooarchaeological evidence
points to the beginning of the first, and the inscriptional evidence to the 13th century
at the latest. It is noteworthy, however, that a) the earliest inscriptional reference
to the dromedary from Nippur implicitly points to the dromedary as a
domesticated animal. It is the meaning of anše.a.ab.ba “donkey of the sea”
which points to the dromedary as domesticated, and it is its entry in the urra
XIII series, referring to domesticated animals, which points to the same fact; b)
––––––––––––––––––––––
77 In both reliefs, the camels are named anše.a.ab.ba.meš šá šu-na-a-a ṣe-ri-ši-na.
See Grayson, 2002, 149–150; cf. COS II, 270; ARAB I §§ 589.591.
78 Lucian, Πρὸς τὸν εἰ πόντα Προμηθεὺς εἶ ἐν λόγοις (To One Who Said “You’re a Prometheus
in Words”, known also as A Literary Prometheus), 4. Cf. also Aristotle’s Historia
animalium, where he often refers to the camel, putting his observations next to those
he had made on elephants (499a; 540a; 546b; 571b; 578a; 596a; 604a; 630b).
360 M. Heide [UF 42
the dromedary’s earliest inscriptional attestation in Sumerian lists from the middle
of the 2nd millennium BCE presupposes its knowledge some time earlier;79 c)
the faunal remains point to the appearance of the domesticated dromedary in
south-east Arabia towards the beginning of the first millennium.
From the beginning of the first millennium onwards the usual form of the
domesticated camel was seen as the dromedary. This is the reason why the Bactrian
camel in texts from the 9th century BCE and later was sometimes described
as an “anše.a.ab.ba with two humps” or in similar terms. The scanty character
of the lexical lists allowed to render am.si.kur.ra and am.si.ḫar.ra.an as
ibilu and gammalu only, without any further information, implying the nonwritten
distinguishing feature “with two humps”. Therefore, the Sumerian etymologies
of am.si.kur.ra and am.si.ḫar.ra.an remain the only clues for the
identification of am.si.kur.ra and am.si.ḫar.ra.an as Bactrian camels.
If the usual form of the camel, however, was perceived as the dromedary by
the beginning of the first millennium, a considerable time-frame must be allowed
in which the term “dromedary” (anše.a.ab.ba) established itself as the
preferred designation for the camel. Before the 14th–13th centuries, the special
designation anše.a.ab.ba must have been coined which later became so predominant
that it was often used as a sumerogram in the first millennium.
The archaeological and inscriptional evidence and the patriarchs
Biological and archaeological evidence point to the fact that the domesticated
Bactrian camel first appeared in Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran,
and subsequently in Mesopotamia. For the dromedary, the Sumerian term anše.
a.ab.ba “donkey of the sea” implies that the “donkey of the sea” reached Mesopotamia
from across the sea and that it appeared in Mesopotamia in its fully
domesticated form. The inscriptions from Nippur and Ugarit point to its appearance
in Mesopotamia and Syria in lexical lists by the 14th–13th centuries, which
requires its appearance in Mesopotamia at least some decades, if not more than a
century earlier. But the dromedary seems to have appeared not only in Mesopotamia
in its fully domesticated form, but also in south-east Arabia (Uerpmann/
Uerpmann, 2002, 258; Uerpmann, 2008, 442–443). When and where the
––––––––––––––––––––––
79 See Horowitz, 2008, 601; Lambert, 1960; CAD I /J, 2, and the possible reference to
the dromedary in an Old Babylonian text (footnote 61). The absence of anše.a.ab.ba
in the Old Babylonian forerunner from Nippur (Heimpel, 1980, 330; cf. MSL 8/1, 88)
does not exclude this possibility. The anše section of the Nippur forerunner, although
completely preserved, has only about 10 entries, while the later “canonical” list has more
than 20 entries and differs considerably in arrangement. Sometimes, the later evidence of
a specific entry is missing: The kuš.anše.a.ab.ba “dromedary hide” in the urra =
ḫubullu XI list from Emar (Arnaud, 1987, 91) is missing in the lists from the first millennium
(MSL 7, 125). Different cities had their own version of the ur ra = ḫubullu series.
The entries and their arrangement continuously developed. Items could be added or
omitted or whole sections could be moved to another position (Veldhuis, 2006, 27).
dromedary was domesticated (apart from the general opinion that it seems to
have been in Arabia in the 2nd millennium) is still a matter of research, “why and
how this happened is still a matter of speculation” (Uerpmann, 2008, 442).
The westward expansion of the domesticated Bactrian camel was not confined
to Mesopotamia. The Bactrian camel, as we know it today, is usually
viewed as not adapted to the high temperatures of the Arabian Desert (cf. Walz,
1954, 55–56; Bulliet, 1990, 30). Diodorus Siculus, however, claimed that the
Bactrian camel was being bred in great numbers in the Arabian Desert (II.
54:6). These assumptions of Diodorus Siculus seem to be exaggerated, as he
claims that elephants were being bred in the Arabian Desert as well (II. 54:5).
We know, however, from the Safaitic inscriptions and rock drawings of North
Arabia that Bactrian camels were known by the people of the Arabian Desert.80
The knowledge of this species must have originated from the contacts of the
desert areas with the long-distance trading routes of that time. From about the
same time, nine dromedaries and three camel hybrids were found in animal
burials from a graveyard at Milayḥa in the interior of the aš-Šāriqa (Sharjah)
Emirate (UAE). The hybrids represent crossbreeds between Bactrian camels and
dromedaries (Uerpmann, 1999).
In the reign of Trajan (98–117 CE), a series of silver drachms were issued,
some with the goddess Arabia on the reverse, and some with a two-humped
camel on the reverse. It is unlikely that these coins were minted outside of Arabia,
because the “Bactrian camel” drachms are completely absent in hoards from
Asia Minor and Syria. This is further corroborated by the fact that some of the
local “Arabia” coins were over-struck on Nabataean coins; this applies also to at
least one “Bactrian camel” coin. In addition, the silver content of 50 % is typical
of the provincial issues of these coins, as well as the iconographic depiction of
Trajan (Graf, 2007, 440). Therefore, those who minted these coins did not confuse
the two species of the camel but were familiar with the Arabian fauna.
These coins can be seen as further evidence that the Bactrian camel was not as
uncommon in Arabia as has been suggested. In Roman times, the Bactrian camel
seems to have been used even further west and north, as camel bones which
were found near Central European settlements, such as Augsburg and Vienna,
suggest (Peters / von den Driesch, 1997, 662).
During the Hellenistic era, the Greeks were already acquainted with the Bactrian
camel. First contacts with this species seem to have been made as a result
––––––––––––––––––––––
80 As Winnett and Harding pointed out (1978, 23. 119–120), the date of the introduction
of the Bactrian camel into the Arabian peninsula is unknown, and we do not know what
it was called in Safaitic, but once it is referred to as h-gml (King, 1990, 64), probably in
the meaning “camel bull”; cf. Al-Manaser, 2008, 133. Bactrian camels appear only in
some drawings from the first and 2nd centuries CE, while dromedaries prevail. One of
these inscriptions refers to a horseman on a raid, who is seen in the adjacent drawing as
driving off a dromedary and a Bactrian camel (Macdonald et al., 1996, 467–472; Jung,
1994, 236). See also Macdonald, 1979, 106–107 and plate XLIV, No 12, and, for some
more recent discoveries, Ababneh, 2005, 61–64.
362 M. Heide [UF 42
of the Achaemenid expansion in the 6th century BCE.81
At the end of the 8th century BCE, the annals of Sennacherib report that he
captured in his first campaign against the Babylonian king Merodach-Baladan
and his allies mBa-as-qa-nu, the brother of the Arabian queen fIa-ti-¬-e, together
with booty consisting of chariots, wagons, horses, mules, donkeys, dromedaries
(anše.a.ab.bameš) [and] Bactrian camels (anšeud-ri) which had been abandoned
during the battle82. This incident points to the use of Bactrian camels in the
Babylonian army, probably by the Arabian allies who are mentioned in the text.
Tukulti-Ninurta II (890–884) received 30 Bactrian camels as tribute from the
Aramean king Ammealaba of the city of Ḫindânu (cf. footnote 41). Some of the
Bactrian camels mentioned on the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III came from
Egypt (see above, relief No 9, the “tribute of the land of Muṣri [mu-uṣ-ri,
Egypt]”) which provides a 9th century BCE reference to the Bactrian camel in
far-distance trading, as these animals were not being bred in Egypt (at least as
far as we know), but may have come to Egypt via the trading routes.83
In any case, Bactrian camels are known to have been used in long-distance
trading more than 300 years before that time, as is corroborated by the find of
camel bones as far west as Šēḫ Ḥamad in upper Mesopotamia from the 13th–
12thcenturies BCE (Becker, 2008, 85). Perhaps we can add to that, with some
hesitation, the unprovenanced Old Syrian cylinder seal from the Walters Art
Gallery, dated to the 18th century.84
It is usually assumed that camels in the book of Genesis are dromedaries.
The Semitic root gml, however, occurring once in a Hebrew inscription recently
found and dated to the 7th–6th centuries BCE (Eshel/Eshel, 2008, 582; see below),
and several times in the Hebrew Bible, as ‫ גָמָ ל‬gāmāl, does not betray to us
what species (Bactrian/Arabian) the animal belongs to. As in Akkadian, it refers
to the usual form of the camel, the dromedary, but not in every case.85 In Ara-
––––––––––––––––––––––
81 For more details, see Schauenberg, 1955, 64–75; Peters / von den Driesch, 1997, 662.
For Bactrian camels in Herodotus, Hist. 1:80, see footnote 88.
82 Cf. COS II, 301, with Smith, 1921, 36. 62–63, line 29, and Frahm, 1997, 45.
83 On Muṣri being Egypt, see footnote 19.
84 Gordon, 1939, 21 and no. 55; Potts, 2004a, 150; Porada, 1977, 1; cf. http://art.
thewalters.org/detail/27381/cylinder-seal-with-a-two-humped-camel-carrying-a-divinecouple/.
85 In the Neo-Assyrian practical vocabulary of Assur which is similar structured as the
urra = ḫubullu XI list, the dromedary appears in Sumerian as anše.a.ab.ba and is translated
as ga-ma-lu “camel”, while (female) Bactrian camels are written anšeud-ra-a-ti and
the meaning is given as ga-ma-[la]-ti “she-camels” (Landsberger /Gurney, 1957–1958,
332), which was meant to say “she-camels [with two humps]”. In the commentary to
urra, the series urgud (MSL 8/1, 54), anše.a.ab.ba is assigned to i-bi-lu in the second
column. The third column is broken, but it can be restored to [gam-ma-lu] “camel”,
based on the practical vocabulary of Assur cited above (line 247; CAD I/J, 2 ; Horowitz,
2008, 599). Two lines further down, am. si.ḫar .ra.an points again to i-bi-[lu], and it is
assigned to MIN in the third column, referring to gam-ma-lu above (line 249; MSL 8/2,
mean (DNWSI 226; PAT 353), Sabean and Ethiopian inscriptional sources
(Sima, 2000, 92–93) gamal is likewise not further specified. Later Aramean
likewise seems to have been in need of further specification to differentiate between
the two species,86 as also Syriac.87 The same applies to the Greek κάμη-
λος which is a Semitic loanword, although k- instead of g- is unusual (Lewy
1895, 1; Lokotsch, 1927, no. 653; Frisk, 1960, 771; SED II, 118). The Septuagint
translated Hebrew ‫ גָמָ ל‬accordingly with κάμηλος. When the Greek historian
Herodotus reported how Greek horses were scared away by Bactrian camels
from the army of Cyrus II, he used the word κάμηλος (Hist. 1:80).88 Among the
Safaitic inscriptions and rock drawings there is one drawing in which the Bactrian
camel is referred to as h-gml (King, 1990, 64). In the famous Palmyra
bilingual tariff inscription (137 CE), which details the taxes on camel loads going
in and out of the city, the Aramaic ‫ גמלא‬is given with κάμηλος. The Greek
term κάμηλος can be used to refer to both species of the camel and needs further
specification to clarify its exact meaning.89
Domesticated Bactrian camels may have been available in Mesopotamia by
the end of the 3rd / beginning of the 2nd millennium, which can be deduced from
the inscriptional material referred to above. In addition, Bactrian camels are
known to have been in use further west than Mesopotamia proper in later times.
Already Walz (1956, 196, footnote 27) suggested that at least some of the -‫גָמָ ל‬
occurrences in Genesis might imply Bactrian rather than Arabian camels. If we
suppose that all references to camels in Genesis are the outcome of a later elaboration
of the text we will not gain any new insight into the question of the
camel’s domestication from Genesis. In that case, the general circumstances of a
––––––––––––––––––––––
44). – A dated debt note from the reign of Esarhaddon (674 BCE) is introduced with, 2
anše.a.ab.ba ša 2-a za-kar-ru-u-ni “two camels that are called two-[humped] . ..” (line
1), while lines 7 and rev 1 refer to the same camels with the phrase, ina ud-1-kam š[a
iti.apin] gam.mal id-du-[nu] “on the 1st of [Marchesvan], they shall give the camels
back” (ADD, No 117; Postgate, 1976, No 38; Kwasman/Parpola, 1991, No 241). Cf. also
footnote 48.
86 Babylonian Talmud, Baba Qamma 55a: ‫גמלא פרסא וגמלא טייעא דהאי אלים קועיה‬
‫“ והאי קטין קועיה‬the Persian camel and the Arabian camel: this one’s neck is thick, and
that one’s neck is thin”. But this may apply to two different breeds of the dromedary
only, cf. Feliks, 2007.
87 In Syriac, the dromedary is explicitly referred to with an additional qualifier
(‫ )ܐܢܓܘܗ‬while ‫ ܐܠܡܓ‬gamlā denotes the general term “camel” only (Sokoloff, 2009,
241); cf. ‫ ܐܛܗܪ ܐܠܡܓ‬dromedaries and ‫ ܐܬܝܒܐܪܐ ܐܠܡܓ‬Arabian camel in
Payne Smith 1879, 736. For possible references to the camels’ gender in Aramaic and
Hebrew sources, see Klíma, 1965.
88 The soldiers who had the camels described in Hist. 1:80 at their disposal came from
Iran, where the Bactrian camel was well-known. According to Herodotus, these camels
served as pack animals which points to the typical use of the two-humped camel.
89 Aristotle, Historia animalium 498b; 499a.
364 M. Heide [UF 42
later age (end of the second / begin of the first millennium or later?) have been
superimposed on the Abraham narrative. In the following, the references to camels
in Genesis will be taken on a trial basis in their contextual time-frame, as if
referring to the beginning of the 2nd millennium. In this discussion, camels and
their use will be the only point of interest. Finally, a tentative conclusion will be
drawn.
It has already been pointed out that Gen 12:16 does not imply that domesticated
camels were commonly available in Egypt. As a semi-nomad, Abram may
have brought these camels with him, which would have been very useful on the
long journey from Haran to Canaan. Camels from the more remote areas of
Arabia and Mesopotamia must have sporadically reached Egypt at that time (cf.
Retsö, 1991, 200), which is also corroborated by some findings of camel remains
and camel figurines from Egypt. In Gen 12:5, a first hint at the property
of the Patriarchs is given: “And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his
brother’s son, and all their possessions that they had gathered, and the people
that they had acquired in Haran”. The expression “all their possessions”
‫ָל־רכּושָ ם‬
ְ ‫ ) )כ‬must have included mounts and pack animals as well, and there is a
high probability that Abram as a semi-nomadic pastoralist had acquired camels
already in Mesopotamia.90
The long journey of Eliezer from Canaan to upper Mesopotamia is the
second time we read of camels employed in Abram’s service. He “took ten of
his master’s camels and departed” (Gen 24:10). The ten camels were apparently
loaded with all the special gifts, jewels and precious goods which from times
immemorial are used to underline the seriousness of a marriage proposal. When
Eliezer reached his destination, “he made the camels kneel down” ( ;‫ַויַבְ ֵּרְך הַ גְ מַ לִ ים‬
Gen 24:11). This is the only instance in the Hebrew Bible that the root brk is
used in this sense. Comparable to the hiph®il of the Hebrew root brk is the 4th
stem of the same root in Arabic, used in the very same sense: “He made him
(namely, a camel) to lie down [or kneel down and lie down] upon his breast”
(Lane 1863, 193). The meaning is not that the camel should go down on its
knees, but that it should kneel down and subsequently lie down on its breast to
rest, which is a nicely observed detail by the Genesis narrator. Only when the
camels had finally been taken in to Laban were they “unloaded” ( ;‫וַיְ פַתַ ח הַ גְ מַ לִ ים‬
Gen 24:32); the verb denotes “loosen; untie; unburden” (DCH VI, 804). It is
usually employed for the untying of bonds and fetters and the unbolting of city
gates and pictures a very tight binding of the goods. When Rebecca finally
decides to join Eliezer with all her maids and belongings on the long journey to
her future husband, the narrator tells us that “they [fem. pl.] rode upon camels
and followed the man” ( ‫ ; ו ִַת ְרכַבְ נָה עַל־הַ גְ מַ לִ ים וַתֵּ ִַֹלכְ נָה אַ ח ֲֵּרי הָ ִאיש‬Gen 24:61).
The camels were loaded with Rebecca, her female servants and probably her
dowry. They were apparently not supposed to ride and lead the camels by
––––––––––––––––––––––
90 Note also 1Chron 27:30–31, where “female donkeys” and “camels” are listed among
the ‫ ְרכּוש‬of King David.
themselves. Rather, they sat on the camel with a special saddle or seat, while the
whole caravan was led by Eliezer. This is also suggested by the fact that when
Rebecca finally saw Isaac, “she jumped down from the camel” ( ;‫ּפל מֵּ עַל הַ גָמָ ל‬
ִֹ ‫ו ִַת‬
Gen 24:64), which implies that she did not know how to make the camel kneel
down and how to dismount.91
When decades later Isaac’s son Jacob takes his leave from Laban, he “set his
wives and his sons on camels” ( ‫ ; וַיִ שָ א אֶ ת־בָ נָיו וְ אֶ ת־נָשָ יו עַל־הַ גְ מַ לִ ים‬Gen 31:17).
Rachel herself, however, hides her household idols under the camel’s saddlebasket
( ‫הגָמָ ל‬
ִַֹ ‫ ; ו ְַת ִשמֵּ ם ְבכַר‬Gen 31:34). kar “saddle-basket” (DCH IV, 458) is a
hapax legomenon in the Hebrew Bible. The term is known from later times as
designating a kind of elaborated seat which was the preferred saddle for ladies.92
Comparable to this rare Hebrew noun is the Arabic noun kūr (WKAS I, 429),
known in the meaning of “camel-saddle”, and derived from the root kwr
“binding; winding”. The camel at that time was primarily a means for
transporting goods, women and children (cf. Staubli, 1991, 200); cf. also the
“caravan of Ishmaelites93 ... with their camels bearing gum, mastic resin and
ladanum94 on their way to carry it down to Egypt” (Gen 37:25). These three
products of merchandise from East Jordan were used in Egypt in medicine and
cosmetics, especially in embalming. This incident implies, of course, camel caravanning
between Canaan and Egypt, albeit on a limited scale. Later, Joseph’s
brothers were going to take the same products as presents down to Egypt, but
used donkeys instead (Gen 43:11.24; see below).
In contrast to his father Abraham and his son Jacob, Isaac is portrayed as
spending all of his life in Canaan. Long-distance journeys are not a part of his
life, and camels were apparently not in his use. It is interesting to note that as
long as his son Jacob remained in upper Mesopotamia (Paddan-Aram), Jacob is
seen as having camels (Gen 30:43). When he decided to return to Canaan from
his prolonged stay in upper Mesopotamia, camels are a prominent part of his
trek (Gen 31:17), and he seems to have bred a small herd of camels, which he
––––––––––––––––––––––
91 Literally“and she fell down from the camel”. The normal expression for ladies who
dismount is „she alighted from“ ; cf. ‫“ ו ִַתצְ נַח מֵּ עַל הַ חֲמֹור‬and she alighted from the donkey”
in Josh 15:18 and Judg 1:14, and ‫„ וַתֵּ ֶרד מֵּ ַעל הַ חֲמֹור‬and she dismounted from the
donkey“ in 1Sam 25:23.
92 Dillmann 1886, 347; cf. also the elaborated, but less precise meaning in Levy, 1924,
393. For the development of the saddle, see Staubli, 1991, 184–198.
93 “Ishmaelite” is no ethnic designation, but a general term used for nomadic traders who
handled camels (cf. Judg 8:24; 1Chr 27:30). For a similar designation, cf. “Canaanite”
for a merchant (HAH 557). For the identification of the Ishmaelites and the Midianites,
see Staubli, 1991, 200–201.
94 Hebrew ‫ נְ כאת ּוצְ ִרי וָֹלט‬. The exact meaning of ‫ נְ כאת‬is unknown (HAH 815). ‫צְ ִרי‬
denotes the resin of the mastic shrub (HAH 1138; Jacob/Jacob, 1992, 810) and ‫ֹלט‬
probably means “ladanum”, a special resin from Palestine (HAH 607; Jacob/Jacob,
1992, 812–813; Hoch, 1994, No 288) ; see also Vergote, 1959, 12–13.
366 M. Heide [UF 42
sent ahead to appease Esau (Gen 32:15–16).
The explicit mention of ‫ֹלשים‬
ִ ‫ּובנֵּיהֶ ם ְש‬
ְ ‫“ גְ מַ לִ ים מֵּ ינִ יקֹות‬thirty milking camels
and their colts” implies that these camels were seen as a particular milk-source.
No camel-bulls are mentioned (in contrast to all the other male animals), nor are
female goats, cows, ewes and female donkeys referred to as “milking”, nor is the
offspring of goats, cows, ewes and female donkeys listed. Camels produce little
more than the milk necessary for their foals, which made it necessary to breed a
small herd of camels to allow for a sufficient amount of milk. Camel’s milk was
highly appreciated, as we know from the Sumerian love song of the Old Babylonian
period (see above). Without calving, however, camels do not produce any
milk (Horwitz/Rosen, 2005, 122).95
When Jacob had settled down in Canaan, camels seem not to have been in
his use any more, because all the goods which were sent down to Egypt during
the famine were transported by donkeys (Gen 42:26–27; 43:24; 44:3.13).96
The donkey was also the common transport animal in Mari in the 19th–18th
centuries BCE, and between Southern Syria (Amurru) and Egypt some 500
years later during the Amarna period (EA 161:23).97 Neither the Egyptians nor
the family of Jacob are viewed as possessing camels in Egypt by the Genesis
narrator (Gen 45:23; 47:17; 50:8).
The Hebrews themselves apparently did not esteem the camel very highly
after the time of the Patriarchs. There are only two events reported where camels
were owned by the later Hebrews of the united Israelite kingdom. When David
was made king in Hebron, camels are mentioned among the animals that
––––––––––––––––––––––
95 Among the tribute of Tiglath-Pileser III (745–727) milking dromedaries are listed
several times. While there are certain differences from the animals Jacob presented to his
brother Esau (horses are included in Tiglath-Pileser’s list; female and male cows, goats
and sheep are not distinguished; she-camels have a special name of Arabian origin [anaqātum]
and are not explicitly stated as “milking”), the specific mention of “she-dromedaries
including their young” may be interpreted as pointing to the same reason, i. e. to
their use as a source for the highly appreciated camel’s milk. See Ann. 14*:4–5: “horses,
mules, cattle and sheep, dromedaries, she-dromedaries including their young”; Summ.
8:27’ and 9:21 “dromedaries, she-dromedaries including their young” (Tadmor, 2007,
69.179.189). The Akkadian expression is mí.anšea-na-qa-a-te/ti a-di anšuba-ak-ka-re-ši-na.
anaqātum “she-camel” is an Arabian loanword derived from ‫ ناق‬nāqa (root nwq). Similar
motives may have moved Ashur-bel-kela (1074–1054) who bred female Bactrain camels,
and who displayed herds of them to the people of his land (cf. above, and footnote
41).
96 In the later tradition of the Qur¬ān, however, the transport between Canaan and Egypt
is visualized as having been made by camels; cf. the reference to a “camel’s load” in the
Sura “Joseph”: ٍ‫( حمل بعير‬ḥimlu ba® īrin, Sura 12, 65. 72).
97 In the Amarna letters, camels are never referred to. Furthermore, horses, which are
often mentioned in the Amarna letters and were regarded as very desirable, especially for
effective protection and in warfare, are never mentioned during the stay of the Patriarchs
in Mesopotamia or Canaan.
brought food for the celebration (1Chr. 12:40). David had a herd of camels
which were under supervision of Obil, an Ishmaelite (1Chr 27:30). His name is
a Hebrew transliteration of the Arabic word for camel (ibil) and may be
regarded as a nickname. This means that the Israelites of the united Israelite
kingdom, seemingly without know-how in camel breeding and camel use, relied
on Arabian specialists. We know from cuneiform sources that the later Assyrians
likewise did not always have the know-how of camel breeding and
camel use (Retsö, 1991, 201). From later times, we have the intriguing information
that Esarhaddon asked “the kings of the Aribi” to provide for transport
camels for his campaign against Egypt.98
Recently, an (unprovenanced, but very probably genuine) Hebrew ostracon
of the late 7th / early 6th centuries BCE was acquired on the antiquities market, in
which the root gml in the term ‫“ גמלם‬camels” or “cameleers” is attested in Epigraphic
Hebrew for the first time.99
After the Babylonian captivity, 435 camels are listed among the beasts of
burden, which besides 736 horses and 245 mules consisted of 6,720 donkeys
(Neh 7:69; Ezra 2:67). Like their ancestors before, the Jews used camels on
their way from Mesopotamia to Canaan; unlike their ancestors, they used horses
in addition.
The Greek history writer Herodotus considered a precise description of the
camel to be superfluous, suggesting it to be a well-known species (Hist. 3:103).
Nevertheless, Herodotus erroneously believed that camels were just as fast as
horses (Hist. 3:102.3; 7:86.2), and his description of the camel’s hind legs is
inaccurate (Hist. 3:103). Aristotle refers to the camel often in his writings on
zoology (Historia anim. 499a; 578a; 630b) and differentiates between the Bactrian
camel and the dromedary (Historia anim. 499a). His descriptions of the
camel, however, are often inaccurate or contradictory (Becker / de Souza, 2009).
A tentative conclusion
The archaeological evidence points to the fact that the Bactrian camel was
domesticated before the dromedary and was put into use by the middle of the 3rd
millennium or earlier. The gradual spread of the Bactrian camel from the areas
east of the Zagros Mountains to the west seems to have reached the Mesopotamian
civilization sporadically by the middle of the 3rd millennium and more frequently
at the end of the 3rd / beginning of the 2nd millennium.
––––––––––––––––––––––
98 See footnote 20.
99 See Eshel/Eshel, 2008, 582; Aḥituv, 2008, 198–199. In the famous sculptures of the
palace of Sennacherib which illustrate the siege of Lachish, some Jewish captives appear,
leading a dromedary with its load (Paterson, 1915, 71–73; Staubli, 1991, 202). In
addition, camel bones were found in an Iron Age stratum at Lachish (Borowski, 1998,
120).
368 M. Heide [UF 42
The “camel” ( ‫ גָמָ ל‬gāmāl) in the patriarchal narratives may refer, at least in
some places, to the Bactrian camel. Abram is seen as having employed camels
for long-distance journeys in north-south direction, very probably commencing
in upper Mesopotamia. From there, he migrated to Canaan and moved further
down to Egypt (Gen 12:5.9.16). The same can be said for the opposite
direction, from Canaan to upper Mesopotamia and back again (Gen 24:10–64).
His son Isaac, who dwelt all his life in Canaan, is not portrayed as having used
any camels. His grandson Jacob, however, who spent a considerable time of his
life in upper Mesopotamia, did not only use, but bred a small herd of camels
(Gen 30:43; 31:17; 32:7.15). After he had settled down in Canaan again,
camels are not seen as belonging to his moveable property any more. Albright’s
dictum that “any mention of camels in the period of Abraham is a blatant
anachronism” (Albright, 1942, 96) is questionable.100 The archaeological and inscriptional
evidence allows at least the domesticated Bactrian camel to have
existed at Abraham’s time. In the daily life of the patriarchs, however, the camel
played a minor role. The later Hebrews never adopted it and regarded it as
unclean (Lev 11:4).
We know of inscriptional sources written after the middle of the 2nd millennium,
but being nevertheless copies of older traditions, in which the dromedary
is regarded as a domesticated animal, the “donkey of the sea”. Its domestication
must have taken place somewhat earlier. There are not enough data to know
where and when the dromedary was domesticated for the first time. Time will
tell. It is also important to make a distinction between domestication and
widespread use of the camel (Hoyland, 2001, 90). There is no evidence for a
wide-spread adoption of the camel into Near Eastern economies until the
beginning of the first millennium BCE. There is, however, a certain discrepancy
between the earliest unequivocal zooarchaeological evidence available today,
which points to the appearance of the domesticated dromedary not before the
end of the 2nd millennium in south-east Arabia, and the inscriptional evidence
from Mesopotamia, which requires its domestication around the middle of the
2nd millennium or before. One explanation is that the process of domestication
lasted a long time and that dromedaries were brought under some human control
well before 1000 BCE but were not used for widespread trade and transport until
––––––––––––––––––––––
100 C. H. Gordon had an anecdotal way of explaining Albright’s opinion on the camel.
He claimed that Albright „abominated camels and adored donkeys. This had a
subconscious effect on his pronouncements and publications concerning the patriarchal
age. He ‘got rid’ of the camels by turning their very mention in the patriarchal narratives
into anachronisms. His love of the donkey impelled him to stress the role of the Fathers
as donkey caravaneers” (Gordon, 1986, 53). After all, Gordon’s explanation is too simplistic.
Moreover, in his famous book From the Stone Age to Christianity (1946b, 120),
Albright conceded that “the effective domestication [of the dromedary] cannot antedate
the outgoing Bronze Age, though partial and sporadic domestication may go back several
centuries earlier”.
later.101 Another explanation offered is that dromedary domestication occurred
independently at various locations and times (cf. Walz, 1954, 48.58.83).
Bactrian camels, however, must have been available in Mesopotamia more
than 1000 years earlier. But also the Bactrian camel is not often mentioned in
Mesopotamian literature. It has to be kept in mind that most of the inscriptional
references to the camel from Mesopotamia are found in lexical lists and in
campaign reports. Even in the first millennium, when at last both species of the
camel were firmly established in trade and war and the number of camels used in
trade and war must have been enormous, there are only a few references to the
camel in letters and contracts and in prose and poetry outside of campaign
reports.102 While the elephant (not to speak of the omnipresence of the donkey,
the horse and the ox) seems to have been present in all kinds of literature (CAD
P, 418–420), the camel is rarely mentioned. Those people who used the camel as
a means of transport probably avoided to enter the cities and preferred to park
them outside (cf. Gen 24:11.30). This is in stark contrast to the Arabic literature
of the first millennium CE, in which we encounter many different terms for the
camel, its breeds, shapes, sizes, and accessories, and in which the camel plays a
prominent role in prose and poetry (cf. Hommel, 1879, 139–215).
After all, additional finds of both archaeological and inscriptional evidence
are necessary to have a more precise understanding of the camel’s role in the
Ancient Near East before the first millennium BCE.
Acknowledgments
My interest in camel domestication was born while working at the Institute for
the History of Veterinary Medicine in Munich, where Joris Peters drew my
attention to the matter. I am indebted to several scholars who assisted me very
kindly in reading an early draft of this paper, namely Michael Macdonald (Oxford),
Peter Magee (Bryn Mawr), Alan Millard (Liverpool), Walter W. Müller
(Marburg), Henriette Obermaier (München), Daniel Potts (Sydney), Niek Veldhuis
(Berkeley) and Wolfgang Zwickel (Mainz). I enjoyed especially the discussions
with Peter Magee and Michael Macdonald, and I am grateful for the
reading suggestions of the Emar tablet provided by Walter Sommerfeld (Marburg),
and for the many details Niek Veldhuis provided for the understanding of
the urra lists. Alexander Hepher (Munich) took the trouble to proofread the article.
The opinions brought forward in this essay are, of course, solely mine.
––––––––––––––––––––––
101 This is an explanation adduced already by Albright (1946b, 120) and Walz (1951,
50–51) and also by P. Magee (personal email).
102 It is also noteworthy that in Hebrew “this otherwise common word is extremely rare
in poetic texts” (SED II, 116).
370 M. Heide [UF 42
Bibliography
Ababneh, Mohammad I., 2005: Neue safaitische Inschriften und deren bildliche
Darstellung. Aachen: Shaker.
Aḥituv, Shmuel, 2008: Echoes from the Past. Hebrew and Cognate Inscriptions
from the Biblical Period. Jerusalem: Carta.
Albright, William F., 1942: Archaeology and the Religion of Israel, Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins Press.
— 1946a: Cuneiform Material for Egyptian Prosopography 1500–1200 B. C.
JNES 5: 7–25.
— 1946b: From the Stone Age to Christianity. Monotheism and the Historical
Process. Second edition. Baltimore: John Hopkins.
— 1950: Zur Zähmung des Kamels. Aus einem Brief von Prof. W. F. Albright
an Dr. Walz vom 19. Febr. 1949. ZAW N. S. 21, 315.
— 1961: The Archaeology of Palestine, Baltimore: Penguin Books.
Al-Manaser, Ali Yunes Khalid, 2008: Ein Korpus neuer safaitischer Inschriften
aus Jordanien. Semitica et Semitohamitica Berolinensia 10. Aachen.
Alster, Bendt, 1999: Tammuz ‫ תמוז‬. In 2DDD, pp. 828–834.
Anthony, David W., 2007: The Horse, the Wheel and Language. How Bronze-
Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World. Princeton/
Oxford: Princeton University Press.
Arnaud, Daniel, 1985: Recherches au pays d’Aštata. Emar VI/1–2: Textes sumériens
et accadiens (2 vols). Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations.
— 1987: Recherches au pays d’Aštata. Emar VI/4: Textes de la bibliothèque:
transcriptions et traductions. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations.
Artzy, Michal, 1994: Incense, Camels and Collared Rim Jars: Desert Trade
Routes and Maritime Outlets in the Second Millennium. OJA 13, 121–147.
Badam, G. L., 1984: Holocene Faunal Material from India with Special Reference
to Domesticated Animals. In Juliet Clotton-Brock / Caroline Grigson
(eds.): Animals and Archaeology 3: Herders and their Flocks. BAR International
Series 202. Oxford. Pp. 339–353.
Baskin, L.M., 1974: Management of Ungulate Herds in Relation to Domestication.
In V. Geist / F. Walther (eds.): The Behaviour of Ungulate and its Relation
to Management. International Union for Conservation of Nature Bulletin,
New Series II, paper No 27, 530–541.
Becker, Cornelia, 2008: Die Tierknochenfunde aus Tall Šēḫ Ḥamad / Dūr-Katlimmu
– eine zoogeographisch-haustierkundliche Studie. In Hartmut Kühne
et al. (eds.): Berichte der Ausgrabung aus Tall Šēḫ Ḥamad / Dūr-Katlimmu
8. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Pp. 61–131.
Becker, Cornelia / de Souza, Philip, 2009: Camel. In Hubert Cancik / Helmuth
Schneider (eds.): Brill’s New Pauly. Brill Online.
Beech, Mark / Mashkour, Marjan et al., 2009: Prehistoric Camels in South-
Eastern Arabia: the Discovery of a New Site in Abu Dhabi’s Western Region,
United Arab Emirates. In Janet Starkey (ed.): Proceedings of the
Seminar for Arabian Studies 39. Pp. 17–30.
Bienkowski, Piotr / Millard, Alan, (eds.), 2000: Dictionary of the Ancient Near
East. London: British Museum.
Bietak, Manfred, 1966: Ausgrabungen in Sayala-Nubien 1961–1965. Denkmäler
der C-Gruppe und der Pan-Gräber-Kultur. Berichte des Österreichischen
Nationalkomitees der UNESCO-Aktion für die Rettung der Nubischen
Altertümer. III. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-Hist.
Klasse, Denkschriften 92. Wien: Hermann Böhlaus Nachf.
Black, Jeremy / George, Andrew et al., 2000: A Concise Dictionary of Akkadian,
2nd (corrected) printing. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Borger, Riekele, 1956: Die Inschriften Asarhaddons, König von Assyrien.
BAfO 9. Wien
Borowski, Oded, 1998: Every Living Thing. Walnut Creek / London / New Delhi:
Altamira Press.
Bradley, D. G. / Magee, D. A., 2006: Genetics and the Origins of Domestic
Cattle. In M. A. Zeder / E. Emshwiller et al. (eds.): Documenting Domestication:
New Genetic and Archaeological Paradigms. California: University of
California Press. Pp. 317–328.
Budge, E. A. Wallis / King, L.W., 1902: Annals of the Kings of Assyria, vol. I.
London: British Museum.
Bulliet, Richard W., 1990: The Camel and the Wheel, New York: Columbia
University Press (reprint of 1975 edition, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press).
Burstein, Stanley M., (ed.), 1989: Agatharchides of Cnidus: On the Erythraean
Sea. London.
Calvot, Danielle, 1969: Deux documents inédits de Ṣelluš-Dagan. RA 63, 101–
114.
Caton-Thompson, Gertrude, 1934: The Camel in Dynastic Egypt. Man 34, 21.
Cavigneaux, Antoine, 1976: Die sumerisch-akkadischen Zeichenlisten. Überlieferungsprobleme.
Dissertation München.
Civil, Miguel, 1989: The Texts from Meskene-Emar. AuOr 7, 5–25.
— 1995: Ancient Mesopotamian Lexicography. In CANE IV, pp. 2305–2314.
— 1998: “Adamdun,” the Hippopotamus, and the Crocodile. JCS 50, 11–14.
Clines, David J. A., (ed.), 1993ff.: The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. 6 vols.
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
Clutton-Brock, J., 1986: Osteology of the Equids from Sumer. In Meadow/
Uerpmann: Equids in the Ancient World, vol. 1 (see below). Pp. 207–229.
— 21999: A Natural History of Domesticated Mammals. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Cohen, Chaim / Hurowitz, Victor A., et al. (eds.), 2008: Birkat Shalom: Studies
in the Bible, Ancient Near Eastern Literature, and Postbiblical Judaism presented
to Shalom M. Paul on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, 2
vols. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
372 M. Heide [UF 42
Cohen, David, 1970–2010: Dictionnaire des racines sémitiques ou attestées dans
les langues sémitiques. 9 fasc. (fasc. 3–9: avec la collaboration de Francois
Bron et Antoine Lonnet). Leuven: Peeters.
Compagnoni, Bruno / Tosi, Maurizio, 1978: The Camel: Its Distribution and
State of Domestication in the Middle East During the 3rd millennium B. C. in
the Light of Finds from Shahr-I Sokhta. In Richard H. Meadow / Melinda A.
Zeder (eds.): Approaches to the Faunal Analysis in the Middle East, Peabody
Museum Bulletin 2. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard
University. Pp. 91–103.
Dahl, Gudrun / Hjort, Anders, 1976: Having Herds. Pastoral Herd Growth and
Household Economy. Stockholm Studies in Social Anthropology 2. Stockholm:
University of Stockholm.
Dalman, Gustav, 1939: Arbeit und Sitte in Palästina. Vol. VI: Zeltleben, Viehund
Milchwirtschaft, Jagd, Fischfang. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann.
de Maaijer, Remco / Jagersma, Bram, 2003–2004: Review of Sjöberg, Åke W.,
(ed.) with the collaboration of Behrens, Hermann [et al.]: The Sumerian
Dictionary of the University of Pennsylvania Museum. Vol. I: A Part III.
AfO 50, 351–355.
de Vaux, Roland, 1946–1949: Les patriarches hébreux et les découvertes modernes.
RB 53, 321–348; 55, 321–347; 56, 5–36.
Dillmann, August, 1886: Die Genesis. 5. Auflage. Leipzig: Hirzel.
Dostal, Walter, 1967: Die Beduinen in Südarabien. Eine ethnologische Studie
zur Entwicklung der Kamelhirtenkultur in Arabien. Wiener Beiträge zur Kulturgeschichte
und Linguistik 16. Wien: Berger & Söhne.
Dougherty, Raymond Philip, 1932: The Sealand of Ancient Arabia. YOS 19.
Yale: University Press.
Duerst, J. Ulrich, 1908: Animal Remains from the Excavations at Anau and The
Horse of Anau in its Relation to the Races of Domestic Horses. In R. Pumpelly
(ed.): Explorations in Turkestan. Expedition of 1904. Washington:
Carnegie. Pp. 339–442.
Elat, Moshe, 1978: The Economic Relations of the Neo-Assyrian Empire with
Egypt. JAOS 98, 20–34.
Eph‘al, Israel, 1982: The Ancient Arabs. Nomads on the Borders of the Fertile
Crescent 9th–5th Centuries B. C. Jerusalem: Magnes / Leiden: Brill.
Erman, Adolf / Grapow, Hermann, 1982: Wörterbuch der Ägyptischen Sprache.
Vol. 6: Deutsch-Ägyptisches Wörterverzeichnis, Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.
Eshel, Esther / Eshel, Hanan, 2008: A Late Iron Age Hebrew Letter Containing
the Word Nôqedīm. In Cohen/Hurowitz, Birkat Shalom (see above), 2, 571–
584.
Falkenstein, Adam, 1931: Literarische Keilschrifttexte aus Uruk. Berlin: Staatliche
Museen.
Feliks, Jehuda, 2007: Camel. In Encyclopaedia Judaica. Second edition. Jerusalem:
Macmillan / Keter. Vol. 4, pp. 380–381.
Finkelstein, Jacob J., 1953: Cuneiform Texts from Billa. JCS 7, 111–176.
Firmage, Edwin, 1992: Zoology (Fauna). In ABD 6, pp. 1109–1167.
Fitzmyer, Joseph A., 2004: The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1
(1Q20). A Commentary. Third edition. Rome: Pontifical Institute.
Fleming, Daniel E., 2004: Genesis in History and Tradition: The Syrian Background
of Israel’s Ancestors, Reprise. In James K. Hoffmeier / Alan R. Millard
(eds.): The Future of Biblical Archaeology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Pp. 193–232.
Forbes, Robert James, 1993: Studies in Ancient Technology. 3rd edition. 2 vol.
Leiden: Brill.
Frahm, Eckart, 1997: Einleitung in die Sanherib-Inschriften. BAfO 26. Vienna:
Institut für Orientalistik.
Free, Joseph P., 1944: Abraham’s Camels. JNES 3, 187–193.
Frisk, Hjalmar, 1960: Griechisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch. Band I: A–Ko.
Fuchs, Andreas, 1994: Die Inschriften Sargons II. aus Khorsabad. Göttingen:
Cuvillier.
George, A. R., 2003: The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic. Introduction, Critical
Edition and Cuneiform Texts. 2 vols. Oxford: University Press.
Gesenius, Wilhelm, 1987–2010: Hebräisches und Aramäisches Wörterbuch
über das Alte Testament. Unter verantwortlicher Mitarbeit von Dr. U. Rüterswörden
bearbeitet und herausgegeben von R. Meyer und H. Donner.
Lieferung 1–6. 18. Auflage. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Götherström, Anders / Anderung, Cecilia, et al., 2005: Cattle domestication in
the Near East was followed by hybridization with aurochs bulls in Europe.
Proceedings of the Royal Society, Biological Sciences 272, 2345–2351.
Gordon, Cyrus H., 1939: Western Asiatic Seals in the Walters Art Gallery. Iraq
6, 3–34.
— 1986: The Pennsylvania Tradition of Semitics: A Century of Near Eastern
and Biblical Studies at the University of Pennsylvania. Atlanta: Scholars.
Graf, David F., 2007: Two-Humped Camel Drachms: Trajanic Propaganda or
Reality? In Fawwaz al-Khraysheh (ed.): Studies in the History and Archaeology
of Jordan IX, pp. 439–450.
Grayson, Albert Kirk, 1976: Assyrian Royal Inscriptions. Part 2: From Tiglathpileser
I to Ashur-nasir-apli II. Records of the Ancient Near East, ed. by
Hans Goedicke. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
— 1991: Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC I (1114–859 BC).
RIMA 2. Toronto: University of Toronto.
— 2002: Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC II (858–745 BC).
RIMA 3. Toronto: University of Toronto, Reprint of 1996 edition.
Hakker-Orion, Dalia, 1984: The Rôle of the Camel in Israel’s Early History. In
Juliet Clotton-Brock / Caroline Grigson (eds.): Animals and Archaeology 3:
Herders and their Flocks. BAR International Series 202. Oxford. Pp. 207–
212.
Hannig, Rainer, 2000: Großes Handwörterbuch Deutsch – Ägyptisch. Mainz:
Zabern.
374 M. Heide [UF 42
Heimpel, W., 1968: Tierbilder in der sumerischen Literatur. StP 2. Rom: Päpstliches
Bibelinstitut.
— 1980: Kamel. In RlA V, pp. 330–332.
— 1987–1990: Maultier. In RlA VII, pp. 602–605.
Hilgert, Markus, 1998: Drehem Administrative Documents from the Reign of
Šulgi. OIP 115. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.
Hoch, Ella, 1979: Reflections on Prehistoric Life at Umm an-Nar (Trucial
Oman) Based on Faunal Remains from the 3rd millennium BC. In Maurizio
Taddei (ed.): South Asian Archaeology 1977: Papers from the Fourth International
Conference of the Association of South Asian Archaeologists in
Western Europe, held in the Istituto Universitario Orientale, Naples. Naples:
Istituto Universitario Orientale. Vol. I, pp. 589–638.
Hoch, James E., 1994: Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts of the New Kingdom
and Third Intermediate Period. Princeton: University Press.
Hommel, Fritz, 1879: Die Namen der Säugetiere bei den südsemitischen Völ–
kern. Leipzig: Hinrichs.
Horowitz, Wayne, 2008: ‘The Ship of the Desert, the Donkey of the Sea’: The
Camel in Early Mesopotamia Revisited. In Cohen/Hurowitz, Birkat Shalom
(see above), vol. 2, pp. 597–612.
Horwitz, Liora K. / Rosen, B., 2005: A Review of camel milking in the Southern
Levant. In J. Mulville / A. K. Outram (eds.): The Zooarchaeology of
Fats, Oils, Milk and Dairying. Proceedings of the 9th Conference of the International
Council of Archaeozoology, Durham, August 2002. Oxford: Oxbow.
Pp. 121–131.
Houghton, William, 1890: Was the Camel known to the Early Egyptians? Proceedings
of the Society of Biblical Archaeology 12, 81–84.
Houlihan, Patrick F., 1996: The Animal World of the Pharaohs. Cairo: The
American University in Cairo.
Hoyland, Robert G., 2001: Arabia and the Arabs. From the Bronze Age to the
Coming of Islam. London: Routledge.
Hulin, P., 1963: The Inscriptions on the Carved Throne-Base of Shalmaneser
III. Iraq 25, 48–69.
Jacob, Irene / Jacob, Walter, 1992: Flora. In ABD 2, pp. 803–817.
Jensen, P. W., 1895 : Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen Denkmälern: Erörterungen
zu dem gleichnamigen Buche von W. Max Müller. ZA 10, 320–
376.
Ji, R. / Cui, P., et al., 2009: Monophyletic origin of domestic bactrian camel
(Camelus bactrianus) and its evolutionary relationship with the extant wild
camel (Camelus bactrianus ferus). Animal Genetics 40, 377–382.
Jung, Michael, 1994: On Representations of Camels and Camel-Riders in the
Rock Art of North Yemen. East and West 44, 231–248.
Kämmerer, Thomas R., 2007: Infektionskrankheiten: ihre keilschriftliche Überlieferung
und molekularbiologische Bewertung. In T. R. Kämmerer (ed.):
Studien zu Ritual und Sozialgeschichte im Alten Orient. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Pp. 133–146.
Keimer, Ludwig, 1929: Bemerkungen und Lesefrüchte zur altägyptischen Naturgeschichte.
Kêmi 2, 84–106.
Kessler, K, 1993–1997: Muṣri I, Muṣri II. In RlA 8, 497.
King, Geraldine, 1990: The Basalt Desert Rescue Survey and some preliminary
remarks on the Safaitic inscriptions and rock drawings. Proceedings of the
Seminar for Arabian Studies 20, 55–78.
Kirtcho, L. B., 2009: The Earliest Wheeled Transport in Southwestern Central
Asia: New Finds from Altyn-Depe. Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology
of Eurasia 37, 25–33.
Klein, Jakob / Sefati, Yitschak, 2008: ‘Secular’ Love Songs in Mesopotamian
Literature. In Cohen/Hurowitz, Birkat Shalom (see above), vol. 2, pp. 613–
626.
Klíma, Otokar, 1965: Zum palmyrenischen Zolltarif. In Stanislav Segert (ed.):
Studia semitica philologica necnon philosophica Ioanni Bakoš dictata. Bratislava:
Academia Scientiarum Slovaca. Pp. 147–151.
Knauf, Ernst Axel, 1988: Midian. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Palästinas
und Nordarabiens am Ende des 2. Jahrtausends v. Chr. ADPV. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz.
Kohl, Philip L., 1984: Central Asia (Western Turkestan). Robert W. Ehrich
(ed.): Chronologies in Old World Archaeology, 3rd edition, Chicago/London:
University of Chicago Press. Vol. I, pp. 179–195.
Köhler, Ilse, 1981: Zur Domestikation des Kamels, Inaugural Dissertation. Hannover:
Tierärztliche Hochschule.
Köhler-Rollefson, Ilse, 1984: The Dromedary in Modern Pastoral Societies and
Implications for its Process of Domestication. In Juliet Clotton-Brock /
Caroline Grigson (eds.): Animals and Archaeology. 3: Herders and their
Flocks. BAR International Series 202. Oxford. Pp. 201–206.
— 1993: Camels and Camel Pastoralism in Arabia. Biblical Archaeologist 56,
180–188.
Kurth, Amélie, 1999: The Exploitation of the Camel in the Neo-Assyrian Empire.
In Anthony Leahy / John Tait (eds.): Studies on Ancient Egypt in Honour
of H.S. Smith. London: Occasional Publications of the Egypt Exploration
Society. Pp. 179–184.
Kwasman, T. / Parpola, S., 1991: Legal transactions of the royal court of Niniveh.
Part I: Tiglath-Pileser III through Esarhaddon. SAA 6. Helsinki.
Lamberg-Karlovsky, G. C., 1969: Further Notes on the Shaft-Hole Pick-Axe
from Khurāb, Makrān. Iran 7, 163–168.
Lambert, W. G., 1960: The Domesticated Camel in the 2nd millennium – Evidence
from Alalakh and Ugarit. BASOR 160, 42–43.
Landsberger, Benno, 1934: Die Fauna des alten Mesopotamien nach der 14.
Tafel der Serie ḪAR-ra = ḫubullu. Leipzig: Hirzel.
376 M. Heide [UF 42
Landsberger, B., et al., 1959: Materialien zum sumerischen Lexikon. Vol. VII:
The Series ḪAR-ra = ḫubullu, Tablets VIII–XII. Rom: Pontificium Institutum
Biblicum.
— 1960: Materialien zum sumerischen Lexikon. Vol. VIII/1: The Fauna of Ancient
Mesopotamia, First Part. The Series ḪAR-ra = ḫubullu, Tablet XIII.
Rom: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum.
— 1962: Materialien zum sumerischen Lexikon. Vol. VIII/2: The Fauna of Ancient
Mesopotamia, Second Part. The Series ḪAR-ra = ḫubullu, Tablets
XIV and XVIII. Rom: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum.
Landsberger, B. / Gurney, O. R., 1957–1958: Practical Vocabulary of Assur.
AfO 18, 328–341.
Lane, Edward William, 1863–1893: An Arabic Englisch Lexicon in Eight Parts.
Edinburgh: Williams and Norgate.
Levy, Jacob, 1924: Wörterbuch über die Talmudim und Midraschim. 4 vols.
Berlin: Benjamin Harz.
Lewy, Heinrich, 1895: Die semitischen Fremdwörter im Griechischen. Berlin:
Gaertners.
Lion, Brigitte, 1992: La circulation des animaux exotiques au Proche-Orient
antique. In Dominique Charpin / Francis Johannès (eds.): La circulation des
biens, des personnes et des idées dans le Proche-Orient ancient. Paris: Editions
Recherches sur les Civilisations. Pp. 357–365.
Littmann E., 1943: Safaïtic Inscriptions. Syria. Publications of the Princeton
University Archaeological Expeditions to Syria in 1904–1905 and 1909. Division
IV. Section C. Leiden: Brill.
Lokotsch, Karl, 1927: Etymologisches Wörterbuch der europäischen (germanischen,
romanischen und slavischen) Wörter orientalischen Ursprungs. Heidelberg:
Winter.
Loretz, Oswald, 2011: Hippologia Ugaritica. Das Pferd in Kultur, Wirtschaft,
Kriegführung und Hippiatrie Ugarits – Pferd, Esel und Kamel in biblischen
Texten. Mit einem Beitrag von M. Stol über Pferde, Pferdekrankheiten und
Pferdemedizin in altbabylonischer Zeit. AOAT 386. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.
Luckenbill, Daniel David, 1924: The Annals of Sennacherib. OIP 2. Chicago:
University Press.
Macdonald, Michael C. A., 1979: Safaitic Inscriptions in the Amman Museum
and Other Collections I. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan
23, 101–119.
— 1995: North Arabia in the First Millennium BCE. In CANE II, pp. 1355–
1369 and 1351.
Macdonald, Michael C. A. / Al-Mu’azzin, Muna, et al., 1996: Les inscriptions
safaïtiques de Syrie, cent quarante ans après leur découverte. CRAIBL
1996, 435–494.
Macfarlane, W.T., 1977: Survival in an Arid Land. Australian Natural History
29, 18–23.
Maekawa, Kazuya, 1979: The ass and the onager in Sumer. ASJ 1, 35–62.
Marcus, Michelle I., 1987: Geography as an Organizing Principle in the Imperial
Art of Shalmaneser III. Iraq 49, 77–90.
Mayer, Walter, 1983: Sargons Feldzug gegen Urartu – 714 v. Chr. Text und
Übersetzung. MDOG 115, 65–132.
Mayrhofer, Manfred, 1956–1976: Kurzgefaßtes etymologisches Wörterbuch des
Altindischen. 3 vols. Heidelberg: Winter.
Maxwell-Hyslop, K. R., 1955: Note on a Shaft-Hole Axe-Pick from Khurab,
Makran. Iraq 17, 161.
Midant-Reynes, Béatrix / Braunstein-Silvestre, Florence, 1977: Le chamaeu en
Égypte. Orientalia 22, 337–362.
— 1980: Kamel. In LÄ III, pp. 304–306.
Mikesell, Marvin W., 1955: Notes on the Dispersal of the Dromedary. In Southwestern
Journal of Anthropology 11, 231–245.
Millard, Alan R., 1980: Methods of Studying the Patriarchal Narratives as Ancient
Texts. In A. R. Millard / D. J. Wiseman (eds.): Essays on the Patriarchal
Narratives. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Pp. 35–52.
— 1992: Abraham. In ABD 1, pp. 35–41.
Mitchell, T. C., 2000: Camels in the Assyrian Bas-Reliefs. Iraq 62, 187–194.
Müller, Max W., 1893: Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen Denkmälern.
Leipzig: Engelmann.
Müller-Wollermann, Renate, 2003: „Zoologische Gärten“ als Mittel der Herrschaftslegitimation
im Alten Ägypten. WO 33, 31–43.
Oppenheim, A. Leo / Hartman, Louis F., 1945: The Domestic Animals of Ancient
Mesopotamia According to the XIIIth Tablet of the Series ḪAR.ra =
ḫubullu. JNES 4, 152–177.
Orthmann, W., 1971: Untersuchungen zur späthethitischen Kunst. Bonn.
Paterson, Archibald, 1915: Assyrian Sculptures: Palace of Sennacherib. The
Hague.
Payne Smith, R., 1879–1901: Thesaurus Syriacus. 2 vols. Oxford.
Pellat, Ch., 1971: Ibil. In Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition, Vol. III, Leiden:
Brill, 665.
Peters, Joris, 1997: Das Dromedar: Herkunft, Domestikationsgeschichte und
Krankheitsbehandlung in frühgeschichtlicher Zeit. Tierärztliche Praxis 25,
559–565.
Peters, Joris / von den Driesch, Angela, 1997: The two-humped camel (Camelus
bactrianus): new light on its distribution, management and medical treatment
in the past. Journal of Zoology 242, 651–679.
Petrie, W.M. Flinders, 1907: Gizeh and Rifeh, London: School of Archaeology
in Egypt.
Pohl, Alfred, 1950: Das Kamel in Mesopotamien. Or N. S. 19, 251–253.
— 1952: Nochmals das Kamel in Mesopotamien. Or N. S. 21, 373–374.
Porada, Edith, 1977: A Cylinder Seal with a Camel in the Walters Art Gallery.
The Journal of the Walters Art Gallery, 36 (Essays in Honor of Dorothy Kent
Hill), 1–6.
378 M. Heide [UF 42
Postgate, J. Nicholas, 1976: Fifty Neo-Assyrian Legal Documents. Warminster:
Aris & Phillips.
— 1986: The Equids of Sumer, Again. In Uerpmann/Meadow (eds.), Equids in
the Ancient World (see below), vol. 1, pp. 194–206.
— 1992: Early Mesopotamia: Society and Economy at the Dawn of History.
London: Routledge.
— 2009: Schaf. In RlA XII, pp. 115–120.
Potts, Daniel T., 1990: The Arabian Gulf in Antiquity. Vol. I: From Prehistory
to the Fall of the Achaemenid Empire. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
— 2004a: Camel Hybridization and the Role of Camelus Bactrianus in the Ancient
Near East. JESHO 47, 143–165.
— 2004b: Bactrian Camels and Bactrian-Dromedary Hybrids (modified version
of a lecture delivered for the Inner Asia/Silkroad Study Group (IASSG) 21
October 2004). http://www.silkroadfoundation.org/newsletter/vol3num1/7_
bactrian.php as of 07/06/2009.
— 2008: Puzur-Inšušinak and the Oxus Civilization (BMAC): Reflections on
Šimaški and the geo-political landscape of Iran and Central Asia in the Ur III
period. ZA 98, 165–194.
Proust, Christine, 2007: Tablettes Mathematiqus de Nippur. Varia Anatolica 18.
Istanbul: Institut français d’études anatoliennes Georges Dumézil.
Pusch, Edgar B., 1996: Ein Dromedar aus der Ramses-Stadt. Egypt and the Levant
6, 107–118.
Quack, Joachim Friedrich, 2002: Review of Das Tier im Alten Ägypten, by Philippe
Germond, München 2001, in JAOS 122, 899.
— 2005: Zu den vorarabischen semitischen Lehnwörtern des Koptischen. In B.
Burtea / J. Tropper / H. Younansardaroud (eds.): Studia semitica et Semitohamitica.
Festschrift für Rainer Voigt anläßlich seines 60. Geburtstages am
17. Januar 2004. AOAT 317. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Pp. 307–338.
Rawlinson, H. C., 1861–1866: The Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia.
3 vols. London: British Museum.
Retsö, Jan, 1991: The Domestication of the Camel and the Establishment of the
Frankincense Road from South Arabia. Orientalia Suecana 40, 187–219.
Reuter, E., 1974–2006: ‫ ִשפְ חָ ה‬šip̱ḥâ. In Johannes G. Botterweck / Helmer Ringgren
et al. (eds.): Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans. Vol. XV, pp. 405–410.
Ripinsky, Michael, 1985: The Camel in Dynastic Egypt. JEA 71, 134–141.
Röllig, Wolfgang, 1993–1997: Miṣir, Mizru, Muṣri III, Muzir. In RlA VIII, pp.
264–269.
Rosen, Steven A. / Saidel, Benjamin A., 2010: The Camel and the Tent: An
Exploration of Technological Change among Early Pastoralists. JNES 69,
63–77.
Rowley-Conwy, Peter, 1988: The Camel in the Nile Valley: New Radiocarbon
Accelerator (AMS) Dates from Qaṣr Ibrim. JEA 74, 245–248.
Saggs, H. W. F., 1955: The Nimrud Letters. Iraq 17, 126–160.
Salonen, Armas, 1956: Hippologica Accadica. Helsinki/Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
— 1976: Jagd und Jagdtiere im alten Mesopotamien. Helsinki: Akateeminen
Kirjakauppa.
Santoni, M., 1979: Les objets. In J.-F. Jarrige / M. Santoni: Fouilles de Pirak.
Vol. 1. Paris: Boccard. Pp. 167–232.
Sarianidi, Wiktor, 2005: Goňurdepe Turkmenistan. City of Kings and Gods. Aşgabat
Miras.
Scharff, Alexander, 1926: Das Vorgeschichtliche Gräberfeld von Abusir El-Meleq.
Die archäologischen Ergebnisse nach den Aufzeichnungen Georg Möllers.
WVDOG 49. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrich.
Schauenberg, Konrad, 1955: Die Cameliden im Altertum. Bonner Jahrbücher
155, 59–94.
— 1962: Neue antike Cameliden. Bonner Jahrbücher 162, 98–106.
Schmidt-Nielsen, K., 1964: Desert Animals. The Physiology of Heat and Water,
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Sefati, Yitschak, 1998: Love Songs in Sumerian Literature: Critical Editions of
the Dumuzi-Inanna Songs. Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press.
Sima, Alexander, 2000: Tiere, Pflanzen, Steine und Metalle in den altsüdarabischen
Inschriften. Veröffentlichungen der Orientalischen Kommission der
Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, Mainz 46. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Sjöberg, Åke W., 1996: UET 7 no. 93. A Lexical Text or a Commentary? ZA
86, 220–237.
— 2000: Early Dynastic Animal Names. In J. Marzahn / H. Neumann (eds.):
Assyriologica et Semitica: Festschrift für Joachim Oelsner. AOAT 252,
Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Pp. 407–417.
Skinner, John, 1930: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis. Second
edition. Edinburgh: T&T Clark.
Smith, Sidney, 1921: The First Campaign of Sennacherib, King of Assyria,
B. C. 705–681. London: British Museum.
Sokoloff, Michael, 2009: A Syriac Lexicon. A Translation from the Latin, Correction,
Expansion, and Update of C. Brockelmann’s Lexicon Syriacum. Winona
Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Speiser, E. A., 1962: Genesis. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary.
The Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday.
Staubli, Thomas, 1991: Das Image der Nomaden im Alten Israel und in der Ikonographie
seiner sesshaften Nachbarn. OBO 107. Freiburg/Göttingen: Vandenhoeck.
Steinkeller, Piotr, 1995: Sheep and Goat Terminology in Ur III Sources from
Drehem. In Domestic Animals of Mesopotamia Part II. BSA 8.
— 2009: Camels in Ur III Babylonia? In J. David Schloen (ed.): Exploring the
Longue Durée, Essays in Honor of Lawrence E. Stager. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Pp. 415–419.
380 M. Heide [UF 42
Stephan, Elisabeth, 2005: Preliminary Report on the Faunal Remains of the first
two Seasons of Tell Abraq / Umm al Quwain / United Arab Emirates. In
H. Buitenhuis / H. P. Uerpmann (eds.): Archaeozoology of the Near East.
Vol. II: Proceedings of the second international symposium on the archaeozoology
of southwestern Asia and adjacent areas. Leiden: Backhuys. Pp. 53–
63.
Tadmor, Hayim, 1961: Que and Muṣri. IEJ 11, 143–150.
— 22007: The Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III King of Assyria. Second printing
with addenda et corrigenda. Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences
and Humanities.
Troy, Christopher S. / MacHugh, David. E., et al., 2001: Genetic evidence for
Near-Eastern origins of European cattle. Nature 410, 1088–1091.
Tov, Emanuel, 2012: Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Third edition, revised
and expanded. Minneapolis: Fortress.
Uerpmann, Hans-Peter, 1987: The Ancient Distribution of Ungulate Mammals
in the Middle East. Fauna and Archaeological Sites in Southwest Asia and
Northeast Africa. TAVO, Beihefte A/27. Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert.
— 1999: Camel and horse skeletons from protohistoric graves at Mleiha in the
Emirate of Sharjah (U. A. E.). Arabian archaeology and epigraphy 10, 102–
118.
— 2008: Animal Domestication. In Deborah M. Persall (ed.): Encyclopedia of
Archaeology. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Vol. I. pp. 434–445.
Uerpmann, H. P. / Meadow, R. H., (eds.), 1986: Equids in the Ancient World,
Vol. 1. TAVO Beihefte, A/19.1. Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert.
Uerpmann, H. P. / Uerpmann, Margarethe, 2002: The Appearance of the Domestic
Camel in South-East Arabia. Journal of Oman Studies 12, 235–260.
Van Seters, John, 1975: Abraham in History and Tradition. New Haven / London:
Yale University Press.
Veldhuis, Niek C., 1999: Leren Lezen en Schrijven in Nippur. Phoenix 45, 30–
41.
— 2004: Religion, Literature, and Scholarship: The Sumerian Composition
‘Nanše and the Birds,’ With a Catalogue of Sumerian Bird Names. CM 22.
Leiden: Brill/Styx.
— 2006: How to Classify Pigs: Old Babylonian and Middle Babylonian Lexical
Texts. In Cécile Michel / Brigitte Lion (eds.): De la domestication au tabou:
le cas des suidés dans le Proche-Orient ancien. Paris: De Boccard. Pp. 25–
29.
— 2010: Guardians of Tradition: Early Dynastic Lexical Texts in Old Babylonian
Copies. In Heather D. Baker / Eleanor Robson et al. (eds.): Your Praise
is Sweet. A Memorial Volume for Jeremy Black from Students, Colleagues
and Friends. Oakville/Oxford: Oxbow. Pp. 379–400.
Vergote, J., 1959: Joseph en Égypte. Genèse chap. 37–50 à la lumière des
études égyptologiques récentes. Louvain: Publications Universitaires.
Vigne, J.-D. / Peters, J., et al. (eds.), 2005: The First Steps of Animal Domestication.
New archaeological approaches. Proceedings of the 9th ICAZ Conference,
Durham 2002. Oxford: Oxbow.
Vittmann, Günter, 1996: Semitisches Sprachgut im Demotischen. WZKM 86,
435–447.
von den Driesch, Angela / Brückner, Helmut / Obermaier, Henriette / Zander,
Anja, 2008: The Hunt for Wild Dromedaries at the United Arab Emirates
CoastDuring the 3rd and 2ndmillennia BC. Camel Bonesfrom the Excavations
at Al Sufouh 2, Dubai, UAE. In E. Vila / L. Gourichon et al. (eds.): Archaeozoology
of the Near East VIII, Actes des huitièmes Rencontres internationales
d’Archéozoologie de l’Asie du Sud-Ouest et des régions adjacentes,
Lyon 28 juin – 1er juillet 2006. Travaux de la maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée
49. Lyon: Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée. Vol. 2, pp.
487–497.
von den Driesch, Angela / Obermaier, Henriette, 2007: The hunt for wild dromedaries
during the 3rd and 2nd millennia BC on the United Arab Emirates
coast. Camel bone finds from the excavation at Al Sufouh 2, Dubai, UAE. In
Gisela Grupe / Joris Peters (eds.): Documenta Archaeobiologiae. Skeletal
Series and their Socio-Economic Context. Jahrbuch der Staatssammlung für
Anthropologie und Paläoanatomie München 5. Rahden: Verlag Marie Leidorf.
Pp. 133–167.
von den Driesch, Angela / Peters, Joris, 2003: Geschichte der Tiermedizin. 2.
Aufl. Stuttgart: Schattauer.
Vullers, Johann August, 1855–1867: Joannis Augusti Vullers Lexicon Persico-
Latinum etymologicum cum linguis maxime cognatis Sanscrita et Zendica et
Pehlevica comparatum e lexicis Persice scriptis ..., 2 vols. and Suppl. Bonn:
Adolph Marcus.
Vycichl, Werner, 1983: Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue copte. Leuven:
Peeters.
Waetzold, A., 2006–2008: Rind. In RlA XI, pp. 375–388.
Walz, Reinhard, 1951: Zum Problem des Zeitpunkts der Domestikation der
altweltlichen Cameliden. ZDMG 101, 29–51.
— 1954: Neue Untersuchungen zum Domestikationsproblem der altweltlichen
Cameliden. ZDMG 105, 45–87.
— 1956: Beitrage zur ältesten Geschichte der altweltlichen Cameliden unter besonderer
Berücksichtigung des Problems des Domestikationszeitpunktes. In
Actes du IVe Congrès International des Sciences Anthropologiques et Ethnologiques
Vienne, 1–8 septembre 1952. Tome III: Ethnologica, seconde
partie. Wien: Holzhausen. Pp. 190–204.
Wapnish, Paula, 1984: The dromedary and Bactrian camel in Levantine historical
settings: the evidence from Tell Jemmeh. In Juliet Clotton-Brock / Caroline
Grigson (eds.): Animals and Archaeology. 3: Herders and their Flocks.
BAR International Series 202. Oxford. Pp. 171–200.
382 M. Heide [UF 42
— 1997: Camels. In American Schools of Oriental Research and Eric M. Meyers
(eds.): Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, Oxford:
Oxford University Press. Vol. I, pp. 407–408.
Way, Kenneth C., 2011: Donkeys in the Biblical World. Ceremony and Symbol.
History, Archaeology and Culture of the Levant 2. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Westermann, Claus, 1995: Genesis 12–36. A Continental Commentary, Minneapolis:
Fortress Press.
Wilson, R. T., 1984: The Camel. London: Longman.
Winkelmann, Sylvia, 1999: Von Formen und Stilen – ein Versuch der Gliederung
baktrischer Stempel- und Rollsiegel. In Markus Mode (ed.): Zwischen
Nil und Hindukusch. Archäologie im Orient. Hallesche Beiträge zur Orientwissenschaft
28. Halle. Pp. 112–211.
Winnett, Fred V. / Harding, G. Lankester, 1978: Inscriptions from Fifty Safaitic
Cairns. Near and Middle East Series 9. Toronto: University of Toronto.
Younker, Randall W. / Koudele, Katharine, 2007: Camel Petroglyphs in the
Wadi Nasib and their Implications for the Use of Camels in the Late Bronze
Age. In Fawwaz al-Khraysheh (ed.): Studies in the History and Archaeology
of Jordan IX. Pp. 53–59.
Yuhong, Wu, 2010: The Anonymous Nasa and Nasa of the Animal Center
During Šulgi 44–48 and the Camel (Gú-Gur5), Hunchbacked Ox (Gur8-
Gur8), Ubi, Habum and the Confusion of the Deer (Lulim) with Donkey
(Anše) or Šeg9. Journal of Ancient Civilizations 25, 1–19.
Zarins, Juris, 1992: Camel. In ABD 1, pp. 824–826.
Zeder, Melinda A., 2005: A View from the Zagros: New perspectives on livestock
domestication in the Fertile Crescent. In J.-D. Vigne / J. Peters et al.
(eds.): The First Steps of Animal Domestication. New archaeological approaches.
Proceedings of the 9th ICAZ Conference, Durham 2002. Oxford:
Oxbow. Pp. 125–147.
— 2006: Central Questions in the Domestication of Plants and Animals. Evolutionary
Anthropology 15/3, 105–117.
Zeder, Melinda A. / Emshwille, Eve, et al., 2006: Documenting domestication:
the intersection of genetics and archaeology. Trends in Genetics 22/3, 139–
155.
Zeuner, F. E., 1955: The Identity of the Camel on the Khurab Pick. Iraq 17,
162–163.
Ziegler, Charlotte, 1962: Die Terrakotten von Warka. ADFU 6. Berlin: Mann.
akk
anaqātum 366
gamlu 346
gammalu 346, 348, 349, 351,
354, 355, 360
ḫarrānum 348
ibilu 346, 348, 349, 350, 351,
354, 355, 360
kanāsu 357
udru 346, 349
akkt
ADD No 117, 1 348
at
1Chr 27,30 367
1Chr. 12,40 367
Gen 12,11–13 331
Gen 12,14–16 332
Gen 12,16 333, 334, 335, 364
Gen 12,5 364
Gen 24,10 364
Gen 24,11 364
Gen 24,32 364
Gen 24,61 364
Gen 24,64 365
Gen 30,43 365
Gen 31,17 365
Gen 31,34 365
Gen 32,15–16 366
Gen 37,25 365
Gen 43,11.24 365
‫ וַיְהִ י־לֹו‬-formula 334
GN
Dumuzi 356, 379
Tammuz 356, 370
griech
κάμηλος 363
heb
kar 365
ON
Abu Sir Al-Malaq 341
Altyn-depe 344, 345
aṣ-Ṣufūḥ 340
Baynūna 340
city of Ramses 342
Egypt 331, 332, 333, 334, 341,
342, 343, 362, 364, 365, 366,
367, 368, 371, 372, 377, 378
Emar 352, 353, 354, 360, 369,
370, 371
Gonur Depe 345
Khurab 344, 377, 382
Khurasan (Iran) 344
Kopet Dagh 344
Milayḥa 361
Muwaylaḥ 339
Namazga-depe 344
Nippur 352, 353, 357, 359, 360,
378, 380
Pirak 345, 379
Qaṣr Ibrim 342, 378
Shahr-i Sokhta 344
Tall Šēḫ Ḥamad 345, 354, 370
Tell Abraq 339, 340, 380
Tell Billa 352
Tell Jemmeh 340, 381
Turkmenistan 344, 345, 359,
360, 379
Ugarit 352, 353, 354, 360, 375,
379
Umm an-Nār island 339
Uruk 341, 372
Zagros-mountains 348
PN
Abimelech 333
Abraham 331, 332, 333, 334,
335, 336, 364, 365, 368, 373,
377
Abram 331, 332, 333, 334, 335,
364, 368
Ashur-bel-kela 349, 358, 366
Esarhaddon 343, 348, 350, 363,
367, 375
Isaac 365, 368
Jacob 365, 366, 368, 372, 374,
376
Merodach-Baladan 362
384 M. Heide [UF 42
Sarah 333
Sarai 331, 332, 333, 364
Sennacherib 350, 362, 367, 376,
377, 379
Shalmaneser III 343, 348, 349,
358, 362, 374, 377
Trajan 361
s
Amarna letters (camel in a.l.)
366
Bactrian camel 337, 338, 341,
343, 344, 345, 346, 348, 349,
350, 351, 354, 355, 357, 358,
359, 360, 361, 362, 363, 367,
368, 369, 381
Black Obelisk 343, 348, 358,
362
camel PASSIM 331
cart models 345
donkey 332, 333, 335, 346, 347,
348, 352, 353, 354, 359, 360,
365, 366, 368, 369
donkeys 332, 333, 334, 335,
336, 343, 358, 362, 364, 365,
366, 367, 368
dromedary PASSIM 331
exotic 355, 359
Hebrew ostracon 367
horse 348, 353, 354, 359, 369,
380
horses 338, 358, 359, 362, 363,
366, 367
Kamel PASSIM 331
lobal trading networks 359
milk (camel) 356, 366
pig 355
silver drachms (with camels on
rev.) 361
two-humped camel 337, 343,
344, 345, 346, 359, 361, 363,
377
sem
gml 354, 361, 362, 363, 367
ḥmr 335
sum
am.si 346, 348, 355, 356, 357,
362
am.si.ḫar.ra.an 346, 348, 349,
350, 351, 355, 356, 357, 359,
360, 362
am.si.kur.ra 348, 349, 350, 351,
355, 359, 360
anše 346, 347, 348, 349, 350,
351, 352, 353, 354, 359, 360,
362, 363
anše.a.ab.ba 346, 347, 348, 349,
350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 359,
360, 362, 363
anše.edin.na 347, 353, 354
gam.mal 363
gú.gúr(GAM) 357
GÚ.URU×GU 357, 358
gu4.áb 347
GUD×KUR 347
šáḫ 355
SUM
kuš.anše.kur.ra 353
sum text
urgud 346, 348, 349, 351, 362
urra XIII 346, 347, 351, 352,
353, 354, 355, 359
urra XIV 346, 347, 348, 351,
353, 355__

The Domestication of The Camel

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Domestication of The Camel

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Domestication of the Camel

Biological, Archaeological and Inscriptional Evidence from Mesopotamia,

You might also like