THE BABYLONIAN EXPEDITION
TI-IE
U.NIVERSITY O
PENNSYLVANIA
SERIES A : CUNEIFORM TEXTS
EDITEU BY
H. V. HILPRECHq
VOLUME I
PARTI. PLATES
1-50
PHILADELPHIA
Reprint from the Transactions of the Amer. Philos. Society, N. S., Vol. XVIII, No. 7
D. hnaox P a a T n r D o ~ ,PX~ISTEX
AXD L I T I I ~ G I ~ ~ E E R
1893
OLD BABYLONIAN INSCRIPTIONS
CHIEFLY FROM NIPPUR
PART-I
PLATES
-1-35
@'+
1"
AND
I-XV
,iJ e'
,,I/'
BY 11: V. HILPRECHT, PH.D.,
Professor o j Assyrian am' C2rvnfor of the Dnbyio~rin~r
.iZ,tsnn?i
PHILADELPHIA
1893
2jz fjie
UnIve~-li/yof Pennsj,ivnniiz
PREFACE.
Tkrl? old l%~~byloni;cu
Cuneiform Texts, which arc i~nblisl~ccl
in t l ~ cf o l l o w i ~ ~ ~
l)agc% arc a part of the harvest gathered by the Esl~cditionsent out in the snlnmer
of 1888, under the i~nslicesof the University oC I'en~lsylvania, for tllc exploration
of Babylonia. The Rev. Dr. John P. I.'etcrs, Professor of FIcl~rewill the University
of Pcnnsylvauin, was the I)il.cctor of the Eslicditiol~,wllilc the suhscribor, as the
Assyriologist of the Ul~iversity,:~ccoml~nnicd
it clnring t.11~tirst yeitt. of its labors.
As the history of the Expedition is to bc l~ublishcdby its l)i~.ctctor at an e:lrly date,
1 here ahskuin frorn giving i~tiyaccollilt of its o~.igin,members, n~~clertalrings
and
results. I n the mea~ltimcfor the student I have a1)j)cndecl to the I~itrocli~ction
a
Bibliogral~hyof tllose contributions of its me1nbe1,s to various pcrioclicals which
relate to its ~vorli.
Towards tlie elosc of the gear IS91 there arrircd at the Musculn of the University sonle eight thousancl clay tablets, t,ogcthcr with scvc~,alhu~ldrcdfiilgnicnts ot'
vases and other i~iscribcdobjects in stone, which had bee11 disintcrrccl in N i p p ~ ~orr
NufYar.':: I \\-as ahlc at ollce to ljrocced with the work of elcaning and esamilling
thcm. Three 111onthslater 1 had obtained s gc~ierslidca. of thcir coi~telitsand their
age, and had catalogr~edabout a t l ~ i r dof tliein. On the basis of :I rej)ort snbmitted
to the l'~1b1ication Committee of the Expedition, of n-hicli Mr. Clarence 13. Clark
is Chairman, a plaa was ci~rcfi~lly
devised for maliing tl~csccul~ciformi11scril)tioiis
accessible to a wider circle of students, \\-it11 as much speed aucl nletl~odas 1)ossible.
Wit11 this view the A ~ s g r i o l o ~ i sof
t s Amelica i u ~ dCanada were invited to l c ~ l dtheir
aid to the l~reparation of ail exte~isive\ ~ o r l ion tllc Exl)cditio~~
and its rcsolts. A
nnmhct of thcm !lave given nssul.:~nceof their ~ C : I ~ ~ I I C Sto
S do SO.
I n April, 1892, t l ~ cu~rcle~.signed
was e~rtrustcdby t l ~ cColnn~itlecwitli the editing of t l ~ escric:s contait~ingthe C~ltlcifo~.m
Tests, and, at thc s:imc ti~nc,was rcclncsted
* This is lllc prcsi:nL ~lesigllationof tllc axtenaii,: ruins l,y tile .\fYci> t~.iI,cs,i o ~vllosctol.lriLary tlicy a1.u sitnatcil.
.lltl~ougli I rclic;,tcdl~-1ii:~d the .Lri~l~sof liic ncigl~lrorl~a,?~l
[~~.oitau<tc<:
fix me tlie n:tlztc t l i e j give t o l i i e ancient
Nilq,ur, 1 nevel. 1le:rril f n ~ mtlieil. l i l ~ sllle l~ronnucialionXiliel., to mliicii L ~ y i ~ r nuil
r l Li,ftus l i i ~ r cgiven currency
alllong dssyrialo~isls.
6
OLD HATIYLOKIAK TNSCRIPTIO~-s
to u~lclcrtalieat ollcc the iwel>aratiotl of the lirst volume of thesc texts. I t is estimated that thc series will extend to oight or l~ossiblyten vol~un~os.Their general
l'lan and character :we wcll e x l ~ l : ~ i ~ill
~ ( ::Id report siibmittcd to the ;\ rnerican I'llilosol~hicl~l
Society by :I s11eci:tl comrnittec, of which Mr. 'l'alcott \Yilliams \V:LS the
Chairman, at thc stntcd ~licetingof May 20, 1892.
1 take this opportnaity to aclino\vlcdgc the libcralily of tllc vc~tct.ahl(:Atnc~~ican
Philosophical Society of Pl~iladclljlli:~,
as sho~vni n the promptness mith which it has
1111dcrta1rcnthe p~~blication
of the present volume, by giving it :L place in its learned
tlie Socicty xvill coutini1c t o
and val~iablcTransactions. I hope that in the f~1t~11.e
evince its interest in malting such labors :~ccessiblcto tlie rel~nl~lic
ol' letters, by c s t t n d i ~ ~itsg sytn11atI1y and si~pportto the tlndertakitlg whose plan has 1)een described.
A word more must be said as to the manner in which it is intended to prepare
the Cuneifbrm Texts for the use of the Assyriologist. F o r the sake of securing
uniformity tllro~~ghoot
the series, aild of avoitling :.d~atwo~ililmalie it exccssivcly
costly, i t was necessary to ~ c l ~ r o c l l ~the
c c iirscril>tions by photograph froin copies
n ~ a d eby hand, rather than from the objects themselves. Bcsides, the editor some time
ago reached the conclusion that thc method of direct photograplly is not a t all satis.factory ill tlie casc of many itiscriptions. The best which has been dolie by that
cxpensivc process is beyolrd claestion the ~vorl;cditcd by E r l ~ c s tde Sarzec and Lkon
Helizcy nnder the allspices of the govcrlimcnt of France : Dr~cozccerle~s
en Chc~ldt:e. I t
1Iossesscs unique merits. Bnt in s l ~ i t cof all the care that has heen taltcn to secru,c
an exact t.ept.oc1uction of tlie inonrunc~lts,ally Assyriologist ~ v h ohas mo~,kcdthrough
such tcxts as arc fouuri on I'lates 33, 35 n11t141! xo. 1, will :lgt.ee mith nie that tlie
decipher~ncrit,esl)cci:~llyof t,hc margins, mi~liesn veyy scvcrc detoand upon tllc eyesight-a circnmstance which inaltos the pt.ornl)t and coml~rchcnsiveuse of the contents of this bcautifhl vvot.li sonletil~icstliHic111t. After matore coi~sidcration,thercforc, t l ~ eCommittee fb111ld it most suit:~ble to rel~rodiicethe Coneiform Texts Groin
copies made by the hand, and to t,,nll)loyphotog~.al>hs
from the ol~jcctsthcmselves only
occasionally, to cnablc the Assyriologist to verify the copies anrl to perceive the
archeological cha~.actcrof the inscribed objects.
Z'he first vol~une,wl~osefirst part I 111111lisIihcrcmith, contains only inscril)tions
in old Bahyloliian which have l,ceii fonncl on v:lscs, door sockets, stone tablets, votive
axes, briclis, st:rmps, c l a j cylindo~.~,
and si~nil;~,r
ol!jects of 21. ntonruncnt31 character.
A s the most ol' the111 belong to that pcl.iod of 1:abylollinn Itistory of which our
knowlodge is r c q clcfectivc, thc inost 1xti11st:~l;ingcare has been applied to antographically r c l > r o d ~ ~ c ithc
i ~ g originals with thc r~tmostfaitlif~~lncss.The editor has
kept in view, not only the mal<ing fresh and irnporta~lt materials accessible to
s t ~ ~ c l e noft sAssyriology, but also the doing his part in placing Babylonian 1)aleography
011 a better foundation. F o r t,liis end c\rcry text has bee11 rcl)rodr~cedin its actual
size and form-that is, so as to show all i l ~ cljccnliaritics oS the scribes, not olily as
to the dimensions, shape and position of every e h a ~ ~ c t and
c r gro111) of S I L C I ~ ,but a130
their distance from one another, as \vas so admirably clone by Sir IIenry lta~vlinson
ant1 Etlwin Norris in the first volnn~cof Tlze Ci~~zeyorn~
. f i ~ s c r ~ ~ ~ qj'
t i oIl'este~n
ns
Asirc.
The investigations and collections I l~a\rcmade since the ye:w 1883, and my Icctures regnlarly held since 1886 on "'l.'lie Develolnnent of C~uneiformWriting i n
Babylonia, and Assyria.," hlrve led me to conclndc that the size and relative position
of individnal e~uneiformcharacters, and certain conlhi~lationiiin \vl~ir?lithey frccl~~cntly
occor, have been a factor of importance in the derclopment of tlie stcrcotyped fhrn1.s
of later date. Tile detailed proof of this I milst reserve for the 1)rescnt until more
lugent matters havc been disl>osed ol: &kt ally rate, c a ~ t f ' ~
editions
~l
ol' tests, and
a fiaithf111rel~rodnctionof the pecnliarities of the incliviclual Babylo~lianscribe, have
heconlc a pressing necessity for the llrogress ol' ~issyriology,if we a1.e to attain in
this field anything like the results w h i d ~Enting lias achieved in other cl(,p:~rtnlents
of Seinitic palcog~~al~lly,
;rncI which me so ilecessary in detc~,mi~iing
the age of f'racya
nientury and undated inseril~tions. I n spite of' the scantiness of' rel~resentativeold
Babylonii~n tcxts ol' which the Assyriologists could ninltc use, it wo111d not l ~ a v c
been possible for them to have ~1iKcredby 500,1000 or e\.en 2000 years as t o the clate
of inscriptions, if sncli tcxts had always been rel~rodnccdea,t,efully for their use.
It is to be cxlxxted that the excavations still proceeding at 5ufYa.r \!-ill fi1111plg
the completion of texts here given in f~.ngmcntaryshape, and that several Iinds will
make their way into various Eurol~eanand i\nle~.lcan ninseuins hy rcason of the
thievishness of the Arabs employed in them, ~ v h oalso iiiay C:LI.I.~ on excavations 011
their own i~cco~111t.:::
For this reason I ha.ve fihown as exactly as possible the fracture
of such fragments. It was thus that 1 myself, artcr the pri~ltinghad i~cgun,was
enabled to recognize the eollncction of PI. 21, No. 41 and 'KO. 4(i, and bctwcen PI.
22, 1'0
50,
. and PI. 26, Ko. 74.
Where I have shaded the inscri1)tion in my copy, it is not mcXantto illdieate
that the reading is to me unccrt:lin, bnt that it can be ~ccognizedonly in a sl>ecial
light and by a practiced eye, loolting a t it fronl an cs11cei:~la ~ ~ g l eIIow
.
necessary it
was to malie an alrtog~aphcopy of snch inscriptions may be seen by eo~nl)aringPI. 23,
Xos. 56,57, and the direct l~hotog~~aphic
rel)roduetion on P1.S. >\ rcsto~.ationof broken
charilcters and lines I. havc avoided 011 princil)lc, even m1ic11there \vns no doubt in my
will show in due tinle what my
own mind as to what was missing. My t~,anslatio~is
'Cf.
3,
xv.
Illy note in ZeitscIL).Vt fur. Assyiiologie, IV, 11. 282 sty.
Sttyco, neeu~rlsrf,
f i r e l'iisi?, Vol. 111, 1111. r, note
8
OLD XAXYLOKIAAr IKSCRIPr~IOYS
understanding of sue11 passages is. For obvior~sreasons, I have given the characters
in some inseril)tions only in ontline. O f ' t l ~ cplates which reproduce tlrc inscril~tionon
the A b u Hahba slab I have avoided altogether maliing an : ~ l ~ t o g r u pcopy,
l ~ si~iccI
t l ~ o u g h tthis needless. This stone was fbrurd ill i l b u IIabba c1111.ingthe excuv:ttioi~
undertalte~~
at the private expense of the Snltnn in 1889, and is now in the iml~erial
M ~ i s e r ~at
m Constantinople. Through the courtesy of IIis Excelle~xcy1I:rmcly-Bey,
a cast of it was fi~rnishedto orir Expedition. U ~ ~ f o r t ~ i n a t ethis
l y was brolicll in
pieces in transportatior~,but it was restored by one of my stndents. I t is this cast
that has been directly l~Iiotog~.al)hed
for t l ~ cpresent p~iblicatioli. Some portions of
its margin have ail indistinct~~css,
whicl~is faithfr~llyshow~lby the pllotogral~liic reproduction.
r c tlie ruins of PITippl~r,a i d to show the
T o convey to scholars a clearer l ~ i c t ~ i of
sites at mllich the several inscriptio~rswere found, a 111:1n of t l ~ ccscavntions of the
first year is given. I n the Tablc of Contents the texts are described with reference
to this I'lan, which has been prcl~arcdin accordance with the bas-relief of the rnins
macle by Mr. Cha1.1esMrlret in Paris ~uiidcrthe snl~crvisionof Mr. I'crcz IIastings
Field, the architect of the Expeditio~i.
111 determining the mineralogic character of the several stones, I liave l ~ a dthe
assistance of my colleagues, Drs. G. A. ICocaig and E. Smitl~,of the Uni\.ersity of
I'eansylvania, to whom I extend my thnnlis. , i s I was able to nccorn1)auy the
Expeditiorr only during the first year, I am greatly indebteti to my esteemed colleague, Dr. Peters, for mnch val~lablc informa,tion as to t l ~ csites in which ol?jccts
were found, and for sketches and copies of a series of objects and inscriptio~lswhich
he made during its second year. A s the a ~ ~ t i r l ~ ~disinterred
ities
arl,ivcd in this cormtry at 1o11g intervals, I found myself o l ~ l i ~ etod l~roceedwit,h the help of casts,
squeezes, electrotpl~esand Prof. Peters' noteboolis, in order not to delay ~lccdlessly
the pablicntion of the Texts. This cil.c~imstance,howcvcr, prevented 111y (leterl~lining a t the outset t l ~ ematcrinl of the whole voliinie, A t the opening of each new
box 1 for~ndm y ~ e l fcompelled to withd~,awsome pages and sul)stitntc others, 1111til
the comme~~cen~etit
of the l ~ r i n t i n in
~ , October of last year, made fi~rtheralteratio~is
and a more systenlatic arrangement impossible. T l ~ eseco~idpart of this volume,
which will al>pear in about half a yew, will fnraish further inscriptions of l t i ~ ~ g . ;
who are already represented in the first. Kor will it be llossible entirely to avoid
this defect of arrangement in other volumes, so long as the excavations a t ATip1)~~r
contint~eto bring to light new i~iseriptionsof tlie sallle rulers. If; howcrer, we
were to delay the publication of the inscriptions until the complete results of the
systematic explorations of the rui~~-heaps
a t Pr'ipptir were a t hand, it 17;ould have
CfIIERLY F R O X NIPPUII.
9
bcen necessary, according to rily careful calculation, to wait some twcnt,y years, supposing that. the excavations were pnslicd forward with a force of some h~ui~drcd
Arab
worltmen.
0
1
1 account of its iml~ortanecmltl its close coniiection with the class of Cassite votivc inscriptions liere published? I have incloded the crlnciform text on the
lapis Iazoli disc of I i i n g IITaclash~na~r-l'r~~gro,
which probably calile from Xippnr,:"
and is iiow i n the Musenm of IIarvard University,? Cambridge, Mass. Prof. D. G.
Lyon l t i ~ ~ d gave
ly
me leave to pi~blishthis, i ~ n dljlaced at my dis1,osal a ca,st of tlic
disc, for which he has my warmest thun1;s.
The tra1iscril)tion of tlie names of kings in the Table of Co~rtclrtsis the usnal
~
oiily where t11e1,e arc sufficient
one. 21 new ti.ansliteratio11 has l ~ e e isr~bstituted
grounds for departing from tli:it forine1.1yr~secl. T11c texts ill t l ~ cmail1 have been
arranged chronologically, in the order of the Bubylonian dynasties; yet where the
better ~~tilizatioii
of sljacc seemed to justify this, and also, its already said, because
it was impossible to obtain at the outset all tlie matc~ialof tlic piesent volume, I
havc departed from that order in ZI few insta~~ccs.Nor liavc 1 :~ttcml~ted
to distinguish between the iiiscriptioiis of' I < u r i g t l z ~1~ aud 11, simply bccausc, with the
material now ; t t our disposal, it is not lmssihle to do so with any certainty.
Threc other volumes of cruneiform texts are in l~reparation. The transcription and
translation of the iiisc~~il~tions
liere given arc :rs good as cotnljlctcd, and will allpear
at an early clate. From this translation I have excludccl tlic A b t ~Ilabha slab and
the two Yolcha tablets (l'latcs 1'1-lTIII). These latter arc to ljc t~.eatcdin coi~nection
with other tablets of similar character ant1 coi~tents. .I tr:tllsl:rtion of t l ~ cformer I
propose to publish separately ill the coursc of iiext sntnmer, in c o i i l ~ e ~ ~ t with
i o n my
esteemed colleague, Dr. P. Jensen, Professor ill llie Uni\~ersityol'illarbnrg.
I n conclusion, it is hut just that I shonld expl.ess lierc pitblicly my profo~uid
gratitude to Dr. William Pepl>ei., I'rovost oftlie Uuiversity of I'ennsylvaiiia, hIcssrs.
Clarence H. Clarli, E. W. Clarli, W. W. Frazicr, Charles C. Harrison, Prof. Dr.
Horace Jaync, I'rof. Al1e11 Narqua~id,Jos. U. Potts, Rev. Dr. H. Clay Trrlmboll,
Talcott Williams, Ilichard TVood, Stuart Wood, and to all thc othergcntlcmcn whose
lively interest in the liistory and civilization of allcieiit Babylonia, and \\-hose liberal
and constant sulpport, have made 11ossible the thorang11 researches a t one of' the ~ilost
ancient ruins of the world. $ That the priblicatioll of this first part of the results
'Cf. llilprecllt,
iCf. I,you,
cxxsiv-uii.
+ Cf
"Die VotivInscIrrift eioes nicht erktllilltell I<assitt:nliBnigs," Z 11. VII, p. 318.
"On n 1,npis 1,:~zoii Disc" ill tlic l'ioecoilii~gs of the A,i~ei.C.a,~O~.ie,~tnlSociatg, ?.lay, lSSD, pp.
Pincl~es,Ilccol'ds of the P<ust', Val. VI, 11. 109, 1. ti. (The Kou-Semitic Version of tllc Creation Story).
obtained by the ,Imcric;Ln Exl~eclitio~~
docs not take place until nearly four ycars after
it was begnu, is dac to tllc cxtraorcli~larydiflienlties i t cnco~ultered,on both sea snll
land, t l ~ r o n g lshipw~.cck
~
near Snmos, throngh the hostility of Arab tribes, through
the bnrning and p l ~ u r d c ~ ~ of
i n gonr camp, through the outbrcalc of malignant cholera
ill Uabylo~lia,throogh the rlcluy of the antiquitics on their way to L\mcrica, and
through the serere illness iYom which nearly all the mcmllcrs suiFcrcd. Often it
set.mecl as though tllc gl.ewsome cnric oS 1ii11gS a r g o ~1,~olle of the oldcsl monuments
of Semitic speech published in tlie fbllowing pages, lrad i.cstcd on tho hmcricml ExpeItillg E s l n n ~ u ~ a z a
rcstcd
r
011 Napoleon : '' Whosocvcr
dition, as that of the Pha:nicia~~
1,cnioves this i~lsc~,ibed
stone, his f'onndatio~~
nlay BPI and Shaniash and Xin11:ltear ul),
and extermillate his seed!" \Vc trust, ho11-cvcr, that the r:~,gcol' Enlil, 1ot.d of' the
dctnol~s,who set loose against the E x p e d i t i o ~:dl
~ tllc igigi ancl i l l l l ~ ~ ~ n awill
k i , ab:rtc
with the l~ublicatio~l
of these cu~~eiforrn
inscril~tions,almost every onc of which proclaims the glory of the great Bzl, " lord ol'thc lands," and that tlre crlrse of nearly six
thousand ycars ago will be transfot.mcd into the ltindly blessing- which I i i n g N a ~ i Maruttasli utters in his poetic prayer:
to licar liis prayct',
to gl.ant liis snpplicatiou,
to accopl his sigh,
to preserve liis life,
lo lcugtheu his ~1;lys.
(1'1, 27,
S,,.
7s.)
INTRODUCTION.
THEc~ineiforllitablet8 and stone inscriptions, csc2tv:~ted by the Expedition in
Nippnr, embrace a period of abont 3350 ye:n.s-c. 3800 to c. 450' B. C. About one
hundred and twenty Icings of Bt~bylon,U r and other cities nrc known to belong to
this period of Babjlonian history. Forty-five of tlrcse, accoiding to our 1)resellt
li~lowlcdge,have left personal iiiscril)tio~rsor cloc~unientsdated according to their reigns
in Kiljpur. Several of these rnlcrs, whose names were only 1):irtly l)rcecrvcd or otherwise obscure, or whose c l ~ r o ~ ~ o l onncl
g y d~untionof reign wc~.cdoubtfill, 11:tvc been
placed in new light by the American cxcnrations, while otl~crscall now for the
first time be studied from their own inscriptions. Amolrg otl~cr1)oints t.he following
have been cstablishctl: Tlrc corl.ect reading of U r - X n i b of Isin, inslead of G'nmilT i m ' b ' as heretofore; the proof of the cxiste~lccor Icing lbil-Ain, or better, 31Sin of UI*,:'already disco\,ered by George Smitll,' b u t not gcnel.ally ncccl~tedby
Assyriologists ; the proper proniinciation of the nanic Kizi-Nhirtittusl,;' the correct
trsnscription of the group lil-dash-mctn, instcad of thc liithc~toIlii-CCTCL,
in a series of
Cassitc proper names;" the comyletioii of tllc i~nmeof the twenty-seventh Icing in
the Babylonian list b ' to S'lir~yasliulti-l)'~,z~~~ic~sl~,
"Shanlasl~ is delivelanee), instend of
the usual Xl~cr!jcishalti-B~~1~iris71,
"(Kamrn?n is delivcvance) ; the eon~plctionof t l ~ cCassite king [ . . . . . iln-s7,u in 8. 2106, O h . 1. t),'" to Jlibeictshzc, a ~ r dthe identity of'
the latter with Uibe? the son of Sliag~slialti-Sh~iriaslr;
the first inscril,tion of the
.
'
Contract ditted i n t h o reign of Icing hrtnserxcs I. h nunibcr of coins, abollt one llrutdreil term ciotta lx,wls
hearing Hebrew, Syriac n n d A~.nbici>rscriptionz, : ~ u drnnny otilcr r>l?jccts,wiiich lrclong tn tlle S i l > p u rof tlle Ci~ristiiln
ern, are l ~ e r eexcluded.
IIilprecl~t," Dic TTotiv-Inscllrift cines n i c l ~ tcriraniiti:n l<;~ssitenkiinign"i n Z.A. VII, 17. 315, note 1.
:' IIiiprecl~t,"IiijliisIni-Sin vorl U r " in Z. A, VII, pp. ::4?-:14li.
' Trans. Sot. Bi6l. Amh. I, 1,. 41.
1~1il~~r~!cllt,
1. c., y ~ :$lo.
. 811.
Hilprecllt, 1. e., pp. 800, 314, 315.
Winckler, liiitersiicl~tii~gen
r w r Alfo~~ieiiti~liselrm
G?sel~iehle,p. 140, coi. ii, li.
"Iilprecht, "Die E~giinz~un!:iler Nameo zweicr I<;~ssitenkiinigv,"Z.A , i n p r i n t .
Cf. Winckler in 2. A. 11, y. 310, nnrl Unlers., 11. :30.
'"Vinckler,
U,tters., p. 182.
'
12
01~11RABYI,ONIAN
INSCRIL"PIONS
Icings Bctrnm*in-s7~~71~-u?t1r'
a ~ i dhis s o 1 1 iMili-f7hiLh7s;' and the dctcrminatioli of
the app~~oximatc
duration of the rcigus of the Cassite kings Iiur.igaZzu, 1VnziMaruttccsh, ctc., their succession and k i l ~ . ; h i p with each o t l i e r . 111 a d d i t i o n , the
following new kings have heen added by the E s p e d i t i o i l to those already l i n o w ~ :l
1. ~ l u s 7 t a ~ s 1 1 i c l2.
; Brcr-Sin .T; 3. Qu~atle;" 4. ICatbnsh~~zco~-T~cr!ju
(Ificclnsh~~~c~n5'81) ; 5. I c r - T i (
1 ; 6. BI:l-~~~iCEi7~-rc~)lu.
Tatending to give in the near f t ~ t n r ethe t,ranscription and translation of the i l l scriptioils here published, I co~lfi~ie
inyself a t present to the followi~igl~oints:
THE OLDEST SEMITIC KINGS O F BABYLONIA.
Of the cuneiform inscril~tionsof the oldest Scrnitic kings of Babj~louiavery few
them togctliel. in his illtbccbyhave been discovered. Wincklcr recently pnl~lisl~cd
ZolaiscT~eICeilsch7.ifttezte, 11. 22:' Undoubtedly to this a~lcientl~erioclbelongs also the
i n s c ~ , i p t i o n "of the Iting of the country of Goti, i. e., " of t l l e coiultry mid people to t , h c
cast of the lower Zib, in the upper seetioil of the region t h r o n g 1 1 \vliich the Adlreln and
the Dijkl?~rivel.s flow." V a r i o ~ ~
reas011s'
s
coml~elmc to diffcr fro111 Wincliler's dct e r r n i ~ ~ a t i oas
i ~ to the date of this inscril~tioiiby : ~ b o r ~
2000
t
years, i. e., to transfer it
from the timc of A g n m (IVincliler, CJescl,ic7~te,11. 82), about l(j00 13. C., baclc to the
time of Sargon, about 3800 B. C.' Because of the very archaic form of the c~mciI IIitirerto reprosenled unly b y a bo~undarystonc <lntcil in t l ~ ctime of tlie kings RiunmXn.sl~um-iddin&,
llatnm2n.
sllum-ucur and llili-Shikhu. Cf. lielsor in 6Eitrhge zur Assyviolo!jie 11, pp. 157-20:1 (quotccl 1~erc:~flcr
as 11. A . ) a n d
Peiser in Schrader's lieilhiscIi~if(1irILeBifilioll~ek111, P a r t 1, pp. 154-163 (ijootcil 1,et.enftcr ns Ii. B . )
' Far t h e reasons for identifying the kiny of tire inscription PI. 29, KO.8?,mitlr Xili-Si,ikllu, see below, p. 3G.
a Unless identical with Gandilsh, tlro first iiiug of tllc C ~ s s i t edynasty. Cf, plr. 28-50.
' Cf. Wincklcr, in Scllrttiler's Ii. n. 111, P a r t I, pp. 98-107.
Published b y Winclrler, Z.A. ITT, p. 406.
" Dclilzsclr, Wo lay d m Pm"dies? 111,. 283-237. Cf. IIohttre, l'A.iie oeePlotliilc ,kiss les iiisi~iptiuiisilssyriennes.
Tile predominant use of tho nl.cIl;iic line-silnped clinr~rcters,their markocl agrceluont with n tiiiole scries of
cl~nracterson Plates 1 t o 5, the Semitic speech, a n d its ~vllolepl>raseolr,gy, together xvitll tllc pccu1i:iiities t o hc sccn
in the sihilnnts, mllicll are thc s a u e in :lie tcxts of S:n.gon I from Nippur, tile f i ~ c that
t
l b o ll;ibb:~,where other texts ui'
the same lligll antiquity linve been disinterred, is the 1,l;ice i'f its discurery, the use of a " p e ~ f o ~ ~ a t cs ti ol u e " as votive
olrject for t h e inscription, itself a cllaracleristic of nucient times, tlrc mluernlogic cllnl.ncter of tile stone, and last o f
nll-just w h a t Wincl<lcr (Z. A. IV, 1,. 40G) is disposecl to regard ;is proof of a later ot.igin-the notably s1~ol.pa n d
skillful carving of tlro inscription. This last proof is especinlly convincina, for it is n clinractesistic tmit of tllc oliicst
Semitic cuneiforln inscriptions carved in stone, tllnt they are enymveil witlr n beauty and n sll;lrpness whicll are
:~bsentfrom tilose nf iater date (cf. also IIonlmcl, Geschichte, p. 501).
I t will not be objected that t h e cluneifunn clinsacters, indeed, seem to ilidicnte n great antiquity, but that t h e y
may very well he an imitation of tlre mwrk of an cnrlier period b y x later king. This lms beconle a very favorite
mode of reasonii~gwhen tlllt date of a n undated inscl.iption is to be determined from its writing (a. g., hminuii e t
~I(.clllneau, 12t61eau Co~npnr6,p. xiii stqq., I'inclies, IIelivnieic TI,11. 57), nud servos t o pradace a very cilnos of unccrtointy in the province of Babylonian paleography. I think it opportune In stnte llere tlmt I :un :lot nciluainterl w i t h
'
form characters and of certain mutilatcd passages, this inscription of t,he I c i n g of Guti
presents great difficulties, so that, to my lcnowledge, it has never hecn translated, and
Winclclcr has come to the conclusion that it was con~poscd" : ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ a r ei nn part
t l y in the
native tongue " of the I c i n g of Gnti. TVincltler wonld not be entirely incorrect if lie
nnderstood by this "native tongnc " ' the Semitic-Babylonia11 of the inscriptions of
Sargon I, for the text is written in p11re Scmitic-Babylonian, and reads as follolvs:
1 Lrc-si(?)-rci(?)-rcb(?)
2. dcc-num' 3. SILC~T
4. GZL-ti-%'in
5-10. vacant 11. ~ ~ - z L ~ J L ( ? )
-mu 12. icldi~c. 13. shci dzi2)pu 14. s h d - n V 5 . u-su-za-kzc-lai 16. z i k i ~S~LUWL-SZI
17. i-sn-dci-TZL18. ""Cu-ti-iin 19. i'"Silzl~o. 20. ii 21. ""Xil~ 22. ishid-szs 23. li-sz~-l/cc
24. & 25. z&m-SIL26. li-il-qtc-dcc 27. i, 28. ~,a1.~(1^12cel7~at(-7~~ct)-~u
29. ci i-si-il; " L a s i rab (?), the mighty I c i n g of Guti, . . . . has made and presented (it). Whosoever
removes this inscribed stone and writes (the rnentio~lof) his n:Lmc t h e r e u l ~ o ~his
~,
a solitary instance in wllicll siicli n n ililitatioll of tile older cuneiform cllaracters by a later 13itbyloni;is ruler has been
sllown witlk certninty. \ J r h ~ is
t c o l l l t ~ ~ ~ regardecl
nly
as sucll luay be traced to a lack of carefulness in examining the
single cl~nriictersof tlie inscriptions in question. Gande's cnrlc:~vorto imitate tile c1iaractor.s of earlicr Babylonian kings
is to be judged entirely diffcrcntly (see belom). In Bdbylooia tall tinles t ~ systems
a
of writing-a hicrntic and a
demotic-existed side by side. The latter is tlie system usetl iu tlie nll;iirs of everyda)- life, &nil was sllbject to it cont i ~ ~ u pwcess
o ~ ~ s o f c l ~ a n g ennil deuelapment, \\71iicl~rcsulterl at last in tlre stereotyped cuneifurm characters of the Ncoliabylonk~nand Pcrsinl~contract tablets. \\'hat I lravo called the lricratic system of cuneiform writiiig rvss identicnl
wit11 tile demotic iu the earliost timcs ; but later was cunfinccl to religious lilcrntore (inciulliog seiii-cylinders) &nil
formulsries originally bcarlllg a religious cl~alucteriboundnry stones, etc ). Bltltoagh, in tlle nature of things, it n-as
less subject to cl~angothan tile otlrcr, yet it dovelopoil distinctly diifkrent frlrrns of lnost cilaracters in the diifelsnt
periods of its history. In more or less dependence upon the lnaterial inscribed, tlie local trtiilition and the pecnliaritics of tilo inrliviclual scribe, tlle hieratic writing also passed tllro~igha course of development, more litniteil in extent,
but peculinr to itself. Wlrcn clue attelltion is given to tliese Facts in every case, tllere will be ;rn end to llic weltering
confusion uf cnrly not1 late texts, nnrl of tile critical lrclplessness ~ v h i e lresults
~
from this, in tllc field of Uitbgloninn
paleogl.iipBy.
' I t is true, indeed, tllut tlre question ns to wlletlrcr the enrliest inllabitants of Gnti spolio Seiilitic 1nngu:lge (cf.
EIommel, Cesehichte, PD. 270, 30i;, noto 2) ci~nnotbe rcgi~rcleilas dofiuitely answered, if we maintaiil that the "pcrforated stone" w ; ~ sn gift of tile Icing of Guli to the temple ill Siplix~rn (cf. "Tile icing of Ch:~na," Trans. Soc. Ribl.
Arch. VIII, p. 35%). In this case the inscription ~ n i ~ lvery
r t well linl'o bee11 composcil in tllc Selllitic iiiulect used in
Sippara. I liold, home vet^, that the object was not :I gift of the king uf Guti to tile telnjlle rrf Silrlmr;~(obsono the
absence of gud S1~arn:~sl~
:xnd the f i ~ s position
t
given to god Guti), but tllet it had been carl.ie~lolF as booty fro111 tlie
land of Guti by one of tllc enrliest Babylonitin king?, in the sanie way as tho vase of NnlXm-Sin (iiamriili X r g n n )
and most of tho vases of Alusharsl~i~l
(cf. PI. 4, 1. 11, 13 : t~iciisrnitiEli~rnti)xve1.e c.zrl.ie,l to l i a b y l o n i ~ . From this it
certainly wo~ildresult tlli~t, just like tile inliabit~ntsof Llililbi (rf. Scllcil, li'eeiieil d o l'i.itna!Lx S I V , 1iz.r. 1 et 2,
p. 104), so also tllose of Gutl spoke Semitic and rvorsl~iperl the Baby1oni;in gods Ninnn :mil Sill, along wjtll tlicir principal nntioonl god Gutl. This last deity secnls to llave givou his niune t," their country, its did tho god dsllur to the
city ancl land of Ashnr (cf. also Ni(;r?)nna and Xinovell, etc.), and tho god Sl,iisliinak to the ciiy of Slrasllinak o r
Susa (cf. ITagen in D.A. 11, p. 233).
' Cf. Jensen,
iu Scllmder's If.n.111, P w t I, p. 11G, note 5.
"Wiklev
oKors za. Apparently Illis rending results from an ovcrsigl~tcitller ou the part of \J7inckler or of the
ancient scribe ; for cf. P1. 1, 13 ; PI. 2 (and I), 14.
14
OLD BABYLONIAN INSCHIPTIONS
fo~~ndation
may Gnti, Ninna and Sin tear u p and exterminate liis seed, and may
whatsoever he nndertakes not prosper ! " '
'ro the time of Sargon and Narkm-Sin "elongs also thc first of the two inscriptions of Ser-i-Po1 (8tr:le.s de ZohrFb), p~~hlished
by 3fcss1.s. J. dc Xorgan and V.
Scheil i l l Recueil de 2 i . n a c t u x ~elatifs ZCL P I 1 i l o l o ~ j i eet ,i l'A~chdolo~/ie
+ypk>nnes et
assy~iennesXIV, Liv. 1, 2, 1892, 1111. 100-106. Both of these badly mntilatcd
inscriptions arc written in a Sernitic"ialcct,
and the phraseology is very similar to
that of the king of Gnti. Scheil offere a transliteration and trni~slatioll of the
preserved portions. In regard to the first inscril~tionI remark, howevcr, that col. I,
11: il DUB BA AM, can hardly he read (with Scheil) u d1~b6ana.'Tl1cpreceding
phrase, salmZtum uanltum, "these images," and the i ~ a i ~ a l l cpassage
l
of the Guti
text and 11
' . 1 a ~ i d2 of the present v o l u m c - c l l q ) p r i
shu'ci-rcqr~ire a dc~lionstrative
11ronoun in conncction with duppa. I therefore regard B A as the idcogr. fnr s7i?.~'att~;'
and rcad duppc~s 7 t u ' n t c c m ( - a m ) , "this inscribed stonc." The secoiicl character in
col. 11, 10, which Scheil docs not recognize (2. c., 11. 105) is il," and tlre line
I In the interpl.etation I r o n ~ n r kthe ful:awing : 1
,. 2. & < - I L L O IisL not to be reg;,rclcd in<leponilcntly ns nu npposi.
live representing the usnnl shavvu dn~nzmi.
(Stile de ZohRb I, col. 1, Z), bnt ltlust bc juinerl with shiw Quti,iz, as "tllo
lnigl~lyk i n s of Gnti." T h e posilion uf tire adjective bcfcne the subslnntive is not so mucll dne t o llie emphasis of the
ndjcctive (Uel. Gl'trm., $ 121) as to the endenvar t o nvoiil sclinraling 1,Iie :~cljoctirefrom tho noun to wl~icllit belolrgs.
' n ~hi~ziin)
is the older form fiom mliicll a I u ~ ' a t i ~I.esp.
,
s b ~ ' i l t f II~LS
~ , lieen ( l ~ r i r e d . Cf. Arabic I L U Z O ~ ,
L. 14. 8 I ~ z ~(or
Del. Q v a ~ n . , 57, :tnd .Tiger, i n 4. A. I, p. 481 seq. L. 1 5 . 17. t~snzi~kiiiii,
isa!iiru :ire ,lot Itresent tonsei; of tllc
steins TI1,and I, respeclivcly (= z&tsuznhani,ilsa?nvu), bnt, i n ronsi(1er:~lionr i f I. 20, are to bc regnlrled a s 111, ant1 I,
. , ,5) llnd i~ha!01.1~.
:ushnzoklisi (Slile de Zoltrib I, lZ) = Z ( S ~ ~ Z Z ( L ILU
? CI JLI ~L C ~ E ( ( ~ U , t i (Dcl. G ~ . < ( ~ I L70
S6
hotween two vowels, or with an m follar~ing,was nliparontly yt'ono~uiccd 21s s (el: ;~1soW . 1 i ~ u d2). Tile rout of
uaazaku is lil or ?;I, 11 1t. 30, 42, e, f (Jensen, Iiosmologie, 11. 350), not 3x3 (Scheil, 1. e., 11. 103). I t nlcans "to be in
motion, to rnove " (intr.). Cf. nnzilctu, I1 11. 23, OZ, e, S, synon. of rln!tu, "door " = " tililt wllicil inoves (on n l~inge);"
iziulti rnu11i~t~llt~
(Creation Talllet IV, 101), "the spear ijuivel.ei1." 111, r "Lo m o w (traus.), to reo~ove." This
lnoaning is sopported hy p:~r:~llel
pass;tges, as V R. 33, coi. VIII, 42 : mnn,iiL s6n iliibitiib (densen, in Scllm~ler'sIf. B . ,
111, Pirrt I, p. 152, note 3) sIu~?nislir~
di,nia shurni'n ishi~(i<r!a,
" Wl~oovcrc;~rries
OK (the tnlilel) nnd wl.itcs his nalrlo ns
my nilrnc." L. 16. T h o sign giui~-,linlcct. for MU-signifies appal~entlyz i i ~ ~ i(Sai.:ul~
6
Cyl., 1. 50). Cf. Jensen,
Z.A , I, p. 184. I,. 2 % . lisai,il= li.~ss!ri, n31. Cf. PI. 2, 20 (PI. 1, 21 : lissuh'i). For tho ir of [lie 3l1 1ioss. m;lsc.
x
cf. PI. 2, 23. 1'1. I , 24
plnr., cf. Del. G~nm.,$ 00, c. L. 5 . li-il(sic !=Briil,now, 1. c., 4847)-gv-dn. ~ lili,.ri(R,
rends in its glacc l i - i l g u ~ t u:zli!ku!li, n ~ 5 . Cf. Llte correri,onrling S ~ ~ t n c r i npnI ~ l . ~ sact Lllc close of the inscril~tianof
E c ~ d a a h m a n - l l ' r ~ ~PI.
g t ~ ,24, 9 0 . 03. IJ. L'H is uncertnin. Tlie secontl cllnrnctcr I regard ns I)I= i~lchir,niirl tire
thirtl ch;rractcr, Tat (Driinnuw, Lial, 2701), :L lilronetic com1,limcnt. ilctording lo tile scribc's ~nctllorlof ,\riling, w e
2 . a i s b . = G ishi,; Pr:ct. I , of 10.. CL 111 It. 01, Nu. 2, 14 : n l l ~ n t
should expect h u t one ward ou this line.
,,ibilli 12 ishshi~., " t h e bllsille~s(Hnndel lend 1lTa7idel,Ilel.) of t h e land may not prosper."
"l'hus, correctly, Scheil, 1. c., p. 105. Tlre sccood is cunsiilerabli yourigel..
' Also the features of the Icing Asta-bai~iniof Lulobi, ctlrved togctller wilh tlrc inscription in tlle rock, ;ire m;~ni.
fcstly Somitic.
I Schcil tmnslates "cclte tnblelle," but i~clds"cettc" only fionl tile genersi contest.
Perhaps it is to he read directly sli?~,a n d the two cll:lrnctcrs inust be tmnscribed as s?~uiim. Cf. also Amk~ud,
iu Z . A. 11, p. 202.
Ko. 75 in Aminorl el Mdcl~ineau, Tableau comnpnr6, must be corrected nccordingly.
+
.
ClIiKFLY FROM NIPPITX.
15
reads li-il-kzl-tlu = I:lku!,1.
The scconcl ir~seril)tion(st& tle C'l~ei/;l~-Kl~ri?~)
is, in
iny estimation, misunderstood by Schcil. There is no tlucstion of "restoration,"
but of the first ercctioil of the image.
T o this, the already li~rowirinatc~ialt o ~ ~ c l i i nthe
g oldest Seniitic period, has
come now to be added PI. 1-7. The above rcmarlts upon the tcsts of' the liiiigs of
Guti and Lnllubi o l ~ e nthe way for a better understanding of tlicsc new tcsts. T l ~ c
following notes sr~pplyall that still llccds to be added.
The cxcavatiolls have brought to light six inscribed ol)jccts of Ssrgon 1 : two
brick stamps of halted clay, the fi.ag~nentof a third, and t111.c~(1001. soclrets. The
I~ricl; stamps ' are made from tlie same moultl. Thc i1iscril)tion (PI. 3, No. 3) reads
as follows: 1. ~ l ~ u ~ ~ - ~ ~ - r ~ i - s 2.
7 ~sh,((~.
c ~ ~ 3.
- c A-qii-tle!i
ili
4. h : h i (BA-GIN) 5 . h:t
6 . "lLB61,
"Sharg%oishar.:!li, icing of Agade, builder" of tlrc temple of BC1." Judging
from their alq~earallcc,these briclc stamps werc never practically nsed, but werc prcsentccl by Sargon as teml)le-offe~.i~~gs
t o B+l ill co~nmcmoratio~i
of his worli ; 01.l3Whaps they were placed in the corners of t,hc str~icturcerected by him, as was the case
with the later clay cylinders.' That ot11cl.s ~vliichwere of t11c same form as these
were i ~ s c dfor starnping bricks can neither be l>rovccl nor denied.'
Of greater importance ale the door soclicts, which contain the longest inscril~tions
of Sargon thus far ltnown. Two of these arc cxnctly alilie in t,heir contents (PI. 2).
The inscription of' the thi~.cl(PI. 1) diEers somewhat. PI. '1, as the more important,
h amr -(~iiJtti(-tb)-i'8iBi?l
~l i
3. tln-num 4. shrtr
reads as follows : I. ' ~ ~ f l / i u ~ - g r i - ~ ~ i - , ~2.
5.A-ga-dek".
2 7. su"-1;-lti-ti 8. "I"UI:Z 9. bii~li 10. z-L.u~' 11. bit il'llli2l 12. i r ~
N@~JU?'",
ctc.," " Sharg2nisllar:Ii, son of Itti-BCl, the mighty lting of Agade 2~ndoftlie
dominion(?) . . . . of BCI, builderorElia~,,tcml~leof BCl ill Nippnr." From this text.
we losrll the interrsting fact that Sa~,goli'sfathcr was Itti-BPI (" With-B?I").Viias-
'
iivhziz ncxrcr signifies "to restot.c," but " t o set ug ;" P,zr~,nic l i l b ~ its
~ ~Scll~il
~,
~S;LUSCI.~~C
CUIII,I
S,
m v e r be ( G ~ ~ L L I I mar ! ? ) the Babylonian or even Luluhitic e y i ~ i r n l c n tfor "alors (lo' elle tombnit."
' T l ~ ecuneiforlil clinri~cterslmve been executed iin relief, an0 are larger at the iiase 1ll:~uul the top. My copy
gives the exsct size of tlle cllaractors at t l l ~hasc, wllile the ~ l l o t r , g n ~ p l rcproduclion
~ic
i!lust~.ates tile size a t tho top.
"cii~4 OBIIS IS to bllilcl ~ o n i e t h i n gor to build a1 s o m o t l l i n ~that nlre;~dyexisted, i, 8.. to add to it or to restore it i f
it \\.as in ruins. All tiiat we can say of Sargou is tll;it, ile W;LS ;L irnildcr of tile tonrple, but tiat ils first buildcr.
"One of tile cylinc1el.s i r o n l%ithylon,now i n the I<l.itisll &fuseurn, was nut found, ;LSI was nblo to learn from tile
lnau ~ v l l o<lisca\~orctlit, in a corner, but i n a nichc in (Ile sidc of a long wall" (Peters).
V W i I ~ l c r ' scloubts ((r'escl~.,p. 26) iLre ilissiliateil by tlie evidence of the pllrnses b.iui bit Ed1 a n d b h a i Xkh.lil. bit
Bi1 bi. A-ijipz~r(Plates 1-3).
" Briinnow, I. c.. YO2 (.Jenscn). The siguifici~nceof si6lafi (or l ~ l a r .8612ti2 ) is n u t certaiu. Is 7)ij (Jer. 33, 4)
to be co~llparcdI
This-not X-s6irv (T~elit~,scll,
Cesch., 1,. 3::)-ir:ts
11rc nilm,: of t h o tcnli,lc o f U&l in Piil,i>~u.. Cf, denson, Ihs?i&oloyie, pp. 186 soy., 106 sey.
For the rest, cf. BD. 10. 13, 14.
Perlraps sllorteuecl from Illi-B;l.bitlir(u, "Vitll 13il is l i ~ ~ ' ~ S l r ; ~ s s u i nXiucbro. i ~ .4FF, 13 ; L7<n,zbgljs.373, 10). Cf.
the sillliliLr forllii~tionsI t l i ~ J I L ~ r d(~IYIbfi,
~k
-SILO~IL(LSIL,
.02~10, etc.)~balL(uin the Contract literature.
'
16
OLT) B A B Y L O N I A N INSURIPTI3NS
much as the latter does not bear the title of i c i n g , we may' see therein a confirmation of the legcnd%f Sargon, I. 2, a-hi ul i-di
ahi-ia i-ra-mi shcc-da-a, "my
father I know not, wlicrea~the brother of my father i n h t t b i t s the m o ~ ~ n t a i n ,viz.,
" that
Sargon, being of zn inferior birth on his f a t t i e r ' s side, was a usurper.
My nse of Slznrgrini-s11a~-cilias identical with S h . a r - g i - ? z u - l i ~ ~ o w ~ ~from the inscriptions of Nabfina'id as the father of Na~$rn-Sin-re(~r~i~.cs
a word of cxl~laiiatio~~.
S a y c e , " IIommel' and Tiele' have never called in question the identity of thc t w o
irames, reading the name of' our kingas Sl~cw-ga-IZ~,
and regarding shnl- (Pli as his first
title. Simi1a1.l~
Pinches d i 3 t i n g o i s h e d between the name and the title, at first'' interpreting the latter with Mbnant as lugnl-lai, " the messenger king," but after\vards7
with Hornmcl as shew rili, " k i n g of the city." Mhnant %and Oppcrt, on the contrary,
believe that flha~-g~-ni-shcel.-l~ch
(Mi.nant), or Sh.c~r(J~i1~)-gcl-1zi-s7iu~~-irnsi
(Opl~ert!'),
or S7~ur(IZr,Ili~z)-gcc-~zi-sl~rt~-ccli
(Oppe~.t'~)
is to be rcgarded as one word, containing o ~ i l ythe name of the king. More recently \Vincl;ler," adopting Oppert's view,
mads the name Slcar-gc~-r~i-s7~nl-mclhrizi.He considers the identity of this name with
Sargon as an open question, whilst Oppert holds it to be f i i m p l y an i n r t d n z i s s i b l e
i z t i e . It is not clear t o me what induced Oppert to regard S/~ar-gu-?~'L'
as
identical with .Bin-~CL-ni.'"
The syllabic valoc of bin for the sign SHAR is nnproven,
and in itself improbable." On the other hand, I share the view of Oppert-M6nant in
'
This conclusion is very pl.obi~ble,bnt not absolutely certain, as the titlc of king is very freiluently ornittell mlien
the nsulus of tlio f ~ t h e r of
s Cnssite kings arc referred to, althougl~tlley ;arc lruawn to lmve been "%in:s."
'! Althougl~evidently containing Iristory internwven wit11 legend, it is nevcl.theleus histurically impvrtsnt, as giving
expression to tile Babylonim conception of tile history of the ancient Snrgon. Itu value increases iu proportion as
ao find in it stato~nentswllicll are proven from other sources to be correct. Incidenttlly, it may be remar.ked tlii~ton
account of the mention of tlie fntlrer's brotllor in tho "Legend," nncl bccz~useof Sargou's own sl;ltoolont concorning
Itti-Bal, the clause obi a1 idi can only be r e p r d e d as trieaniog that Sargou dill not kuom his fatller personally, since
tllc latter was dead (Tiele, 2. e., p. 114), 01.for variuus re;Lsons w&s compollod to koep lliuiself in concealment.
Wf.e.g.,R.p.I,1~.5
1. o., p. 503 8ep.
1. c., p. 488, note 1.
V .5'.' B. A. VI, py. 11-13, G8 my. Cf. V, pp. 8, 8, 1% VLt, pp. 63-71. Z'riins. 9. B. 8. VILI. pp. 347-331.
P. 8.B. A., VIII, PJI. 243 S8y.
RecI~~rcI~es
sur lo Gll/ptiyue oriewtnla, 1). 74. I! S. B. A. January Z, 1884.
Collcctio~~
de Clo~cy.,Yo. 46, p. 50.
' O Z. A. 111, p. 124.
'I Gosch., pp. 30, 3 1 , a n d Schrader's Ii. B. 111, llarL 1, p. 101 **. Cf. Uiblors., p. 44 soq.
Z. A . I . 4
Ibid. : "guoique voi d'Agode, il n'est p i ~ spliis Surgon, ~ U lo8
C
e m p i ~ e t ~ Lr sO I L eI~ Bi l o l b a i ) . ~i i e
sont un 7nBrnepwsui~nigo.'' TVincliler's article in Rruue d' Assy~iologicI1 (quatcd in ynte~s.,p. 70, note 4), was n n fortunately not accessible to mc.
In tlic llnliie l i l i n - g a - i ~ i ~ s h c ~on
~ Cnlsmtl
i cylinilor, publisheil by illdnant, Glyptiqzic I, PI. I , No. 1. Ci: \8inckler,
Altbnhylortisehe Ii'eilscl~~iftlexte(iluolc<l ns A . Ii.),No. GG.
" E v e n if it was proveil that SH.LR I n s tlle value of bin in a fzrv cases, it woulcl be utterly inipussible to give the
character this exceptional value in a Seluitic word list ( V R. 41, 1. ?
a,
!I
h,
) . Cf. p. 18, note 4.
'
'
''
"
CIIIEFI~YFROM NIPPUR.
17
regird to the close connection of tlicse three words as constituting the name of the
Icing, and read accordingly Shcirgcil~i-shn7,-cilias one worcl. For, as Oppert properly
states, i t is impossible to read thc name simply 87~ar-gri-7zi,inasmneh as, according to
the parallel passages of the oldest Semitic cuneiform texts, in this case we olionlcl expect the two parts (fll~c(rg(i~~i
and s7trir-tili) to be separated by a line. Only individl~al
worcis, or two expressions very intimately connected,' as "soil of Itti-BC.1," " temple
of BCl," "in Nipp~u,,"w e written togetl~crwithout this selxirating line.' Titles are
not considered to stand in such close connection with their antecedent proper names.
Hut, contrary to the view of the two E'rench scholars, I maintain the identity of
Sargon and 87zary1irti-shar-(?lifor the following reasons :
1. Ky the side of tlie l o i ~ gnames of ltings and private individuals we find-at
least in the last two thonsand five l~nnrlredyews of Babylonian history-abbreviated
forms in use. T h e lists of kings and the contract tablets, not to mention other passages, filmish amplc proof. Cf. e. y. Ki-an (List h:') with ifi-ctn,-)ti-lri (List a, Rev.) ;
I ! - g ( t l ( l i s t b) with Iiil~-gcil-tlni~cc-6nl~;
A-tlnrr, (List b) with A-darn-l;ctln7~z-m ;
Bibe (List h) with 1%-be-in-shi; ' (PI. 26, No. 70) ; ICnb-ti-in ccbil~slucshn Tirb-ni-e-a,:'
with Iiubti-il(ini->kirclz~X:
abil-sh,u sha ATcibri-teib-r~i-z1-.~7,1~~,'~
among hundreds of similar
examples.' It is tlicrcforc higl~lyprol~ablcthat a t some futnre time we shall find
the abbreviated form Sharg2ni even on Sargon's own monuments.
2. It was especially to bc expected in the cilse of a king famous above all others,
and who so early i~ecamethe hero of popnlar story, that t l ~ elonger naine should so"
be abbreviatecl in tlie month of tlie people, and, finally, when it had ceased to bc
intelligible, explained after the method of 'folk etyr~lology",'as
fl7icirru-ke^nzi, " the
true Icing." ~ o r e o ; c r , I'inchcs la has pointed out, by coml~arisonof Snmer. 7cuiyi?za=
rlssyr. ~CUI.I~.CL~LR,
gishlii9z = Jiishkc~?zri,
tliat the sign GI ({ye) was originally prononnced
i ~ yw,
s and that the EIcbr. jlJ7D represents this older pronui~ciation.~
I n this respect tllc writer of tlre stElc (18 Zohi,h is freer. Cf., Irowe~-ox.,sha duppn, wllich is alrnays n-ritten on
one linc eveti in the S a r ~ o ni ~ ~ s c r i p t i ofrom
~ l s K i p l > ~a~nrd in Illat of the bin^ oC Gnti.
'Cf.P1.1,1.3,11,24;P1.2,1.1,2,11,12,23;l'l.3,No.3,1.l;No.4,!.1,3.
\Vincliler, L i i ~ t e r s . ,11. 146, col. I, 4. For List a, cf. ibid., p. 14:.
' IIiIpl~ecl~t,"Die J'>rgiinxnog cler Namcn 7,~veierRassitenkijnige," io %. A. VIII, in print.
j Strassmzicr, X i b o i ~ .183, 4.
" Slrassmnier, j A i r 6 0 , ~ . 132, 4 .
Rahylo7~ischci~
IlecAt82cT~o~
I, 11. 11.
Cf. Peisel; d u x
'Tlie sntllo principle of nbhl.eri:ning lrames i n evc~.yclayaso occnrs among nearly all ancient nations. Cf. 0 . g.,
Erninn, q q y p i e n aiid &iypliaches Lebin i,n A l t e ~ t p.
~ 233
~ ~ ;~also
, the IIcbrcw clictionnrics ; Fick, L)iegi.icciLise?~enPersoniLelL~inLen;0. C~.usius,Are!ic Jitli~hiichet, 1801, 1'1,. 385.504 : "Die d n ~ v e n d u n gr a n Vullnatnen u n d I<urznn~llenbei
derselbcn Pcrsoi~." For lllc last t w o rcfercnces I a m inilcbtcd to ury fricnrl an11 collc;~gue,Prof. W. 8 . Lnmbcrton.
" tlic ~>ome~.f~?l."
See 11. 18, note 4.
Hommcl, Gcscb., 1,. 301.
1'. 8. B. A , , VII, 1., 07 seq.
Cf. IIoll~mel,1. o., 11. 303.
Shri?g;iiii,
'I'
"
18
OLD BABYLONIAN INSCRIPTIONS
3. It is absolutely impossiblc to regard Sargon, father of Nar3m-Sin, as
''perhaps an invention of legend."' B o t were he one of the best known and
mightiest rulcrs of the olden time,2 it was to bc expected that some monuments of
his would be found in the thorough exploration of the rnins of the temple a t Nil>pur,
where the greatest number of texts of his time3 ever fonnd has been brought to
light. Where inscriptions of his less icnown son Narim-Sin, and of the hitherto
altogetller ~ulltnownfilnsharshid, have bccn discovcrcd, i t was a priori probable that
inscriptions of S7~urg;~zn
= 87~c~ryZna
= Xharqrfni(u) wonld also comc to light.
Therefore thc very absencc of the name in thc inscriptions thcre discovered is, in
itself, a proof that the ancient king whose name commences wit11 Slzurgiini, and who
is represented by six inscri~~tions,
is no other than Sargon, thc father of Narknl-Sin.
From this i t follows naturally that the later S h n r g i ~ ~ was
c i mcrcly an abbreviation of
S7~c~rgBni-s7ia~-~?Zi,
According to Oppert, the name signifies "mighty is the lting of the city."
There were also found in Nippur two brick stamps of N a r h - S i n , son of Sargon
I. Both contain the same lcgcnd. The monlds, however, that wcrc used in malcing
them differ slightly in size a,nd shape. The inscription reads: 1. ~ l ~ . X ~ r i f r n 2. bkni 3. bit "UB&l,
"Narlim-Sin, builder of the templc of B@l." I f wc may base
an argoment on the place in which the stamps were found, as to the location of
Narkm-Sin's b ~ ~ i l d i n wc
g , might conclude that he h i l t a shrine immediately on the
canal south from the Ziqqzcrrcctu, whilst his father confinccl himself in his bnilding
to the east side of the temple platform. I n any case, rrom the contcnts of the
~ ~ ~ ~ i r z
-
' Winckler,
Oescl~.,p. 59.
' A s is proved by tire insc~.iptionsof NaXna'W, mllere ho is callod "Iriug of Dilbylon ", Ily the "Legencl of S R ~ .
gon," the Tablet of Omens I V It. 34, and tile nlention of his name in the List V R.44, IS, ( 6 , b. 5Ioinaiel, s l l o
reads erroneously Llcgel-girima (1. o., pp. 301, :107, note 4 ) in the last quoted passzge, clistilrguisbes Snrgon of the list
asSarzon 11, e. 2000 B.C., from the ancient Sargan I. IIis arguments aro not convincing (cf. also Vinckler, Ut~ters.,11. 45,
note 2). I t is especially "tlle lristoricnl bncBground of tho work "-llio mention of Elam, Guti, ole., at sucli nn onrly
l l ~ r i o ~mllicll
l,
is tlie ilrost valuable evidence for tlle high antiquity ;~n,lrclinbility of the stntemonts contained in tlie
astrologicnl mark. Cf. illy rcmnrI<s in connection with the inscriptio~~s
of the king of Guti 6~ud~ l i ~ s h & i . ~ l ~ i d .
'Six ioscriptions of Slmrgilni-shar-iili, two of N n ~ i i m - S i 7 ~and
,
sixty~oneinscribed rases (or fragments) a f
hlusharshid.
' %. A. 111, p. 124. Cf. V R. 4 1 , 20 n. b. : shar~gn-nu=dai~r&u.Slbnrqinu is ;L noun formi~tionin in (Dolitascl~,
Grnm., B 65, No. :IS) from aroot S?ba~ngl~,
which seerns tomenn " t o b e powerful, migllty." Cf tl~oIIebr.propor name
'
Likewise the nanles Hingtni-shar-ili and ~ l ~ u s h a 7 . s i ~contain
id
the fortnative elcmont ,ilu. Tlierc are reasons
for ideutifyiug this irlu (A^lzc) rvitll Lluki, used as fin i~loogramfor " n a l ~ y l o n " b y Nebucl~ndrczznrI1 (misundoratood
by Delilzsch, Mirte~buelb,11. 6 ) . Cf. Hill,rocllt, The S ~ n c 1 School
1 ~ ~ Times, 1802, No. 20, p. 30G szg. Nebncl~nilrezsar
uses even ma2iizu nluuo (urLs) for "Bnbylon." Cf. r. g.VR. 34 ( Z . A. 11, 11. 142-14), col. I, 13 : znain ?i~a&iizi,
"to adorn tho City" ( i . e. Bnbylun, not " d i e Slidliidte," Winckler in Schmtler's I< 0.111, P a r t 2, 11. 39), For tlw
use of ;ilu ~ill10lltki, cf. belorn IGsh (Iflshshatr~).
CHIEFIIY FROM NIPPUR.
19
inscriptions of Sargon r~ndNarim-Sin it follows that the domillions of both inclndcd
NLpp11r.~
'Phe list of ninety-two garmcnts,PI. 6, was found near the inscriptions of NammSin. A s i t is written in Semitic (cf. I. 6, rubtiturn), and as, paleographically, there is
no objection to such a conclusion, it belongs probably to Nar2m-Sin, or, in any case, to
one of the earliest Selnitic ltings of llabylonia.
I11 this connection, I call attention to tlic interesting and important f:ht that
the fragment of another vase (or probably of several) was discovered in the same
dcep-lying stratum as the inscriptions of Sargon and ~ l u s h a r s h i dand
, close by them.
This fragment "ontains the statemeilt that " En-te(rnen)-?%a,patesi' of Shirpnrla,"
presented the vase to BGI of Nippul: When to t l ~ i swe add that a vase of NarnmSin; and atlotl~el.of -4luslrarshid, as I have hccn informed, was fot~ndin Tello, we may
safely conclode : 1.That the dominion of Sargon,' NarLm-Sin and of their immediate
successors (or predecessors' ) extended also over the whole of Sooth Babylonia"
(at any rate, :LS far as Shirpurla. '). 2. That the cl~ronologyof the oldest Semitic
rulers of Babylonia is aljproximately the same8 as that of thc earliest patesis of
Shirpurla. 3. That the "kings of Sllirpurla" are carlicr than Sargon (or klusharshid ').
It was apparently Sargon I or Alusharshid who pnt an end to thc independence of'
the icingdon1 of Shirpurla. This is not the place for a detailed statement of all my
l
reasons. They will be fo11nd in i i ~ l elsc~where.
T o the early Sellxitic rulers of' Babylo~liaalready 1;nown must now be added, in
conseclnencc of the discoveries at Nippur, King URU-MU-USH, as his name
is written. K o t less than sixty-one fragments of different vases of' his have
been excavated from the temple.
As to the material of the vases cf. Table of Colitcnts. The fact that thcy were
fo~lndclose to the monttments of S a ~ g o n that
,
lihe then1 they rLre writtcn in Scmitie,
that the phraseology of PI. 4, 1. 11, 1 2 is very similar to lines 6, 7 of the vase inscrip-
' Cf. nbovo, p. 1%note 5, and p. 26, note 3.
It mill be ~iublisliedin Vol. I, Part 2.
the change of the title of lugal into pates6 in tire case of t h o princes of Shirpurln is an indication of
their iloliticnl dei)cndenee (IIou~mel,1. c., p. 290). Jcnson's view (Schrader's Ii, B. 111, Part 1, pp. 6-8) is somc-
" I llold that
what different.
'According to Oppert. Cf. IIommel, Geseh., pp. 200, tmto 1, 309.
Sce my rcmsrks in connection with the texts of $~lusharshid.
Cf. Hummel, 1. o., pp. 290, 311.
nTincliler's stlggcstlon that Shirliurln is not identical with tile modern Tella or part of these ruins (C?rsch., pp.
24, 31, note 1, 44, 320), but that it Pay in North Uabylooia, is qnlte improbable, to me eron impossible.
this I s l i ~ l ~ tdiffer
ly
fiom IIomlnel (1. c., p. 296), who places Sargon and Nargm-Sin a little later tlian tlle
uidest pntesis of Sliirpurla.
'
tion of IUar2m-Sia, that 1)~1eogra11Iiic~1lly
they s l ~ o wthe charactcristie features of the
inscril)tions of Sargon 311d his son7 all this p o i ~ ~to
t s the first half of' the fourth millel~ni~irn
as the approximatc date when tllcy were written. A s the language of the
iascril~tionsis Semitic, I regard the name of t l ~ clcii~galso as Seiilitic and read teni. e., " IIc (some deity) foundecl the city." '
tatively .~lt~-us/~ccrs7zid,'
The discovered inscril)tions of this Ling niay 11c c1:rsscd in SOL^ groups, consisteleven, six and three lincs resl>ectively. Only three of the threc line
ing of tliirtee~~,
I c g e ~ i ~have
I s ~ been preserrecl intact. Though not a single complete text of the sixline insc~.iptionshas been cxc:lvated, yet the faint traces to be seen i n the tl~ird-line
of PI. IV, No. 13, and the space left for the restoration of the text, jnstit'y my reading ofP1. 5, S o . 6, 1. 1-3. The fi.agment reprodneed on PI. 6, S o . 10, is the only
remnant of an eleven-linc inscril~tionfound at Nippnr. It is in all respects sinlilar to the thirteeli-line inscriptiolis, with this difference only that 1. 11, 12 of the
latter7 i t % i~ccmrcck3lurriti '" were on~ittcd. The inscriptioi~of tl~irtccnlines has been
rcconst~~icted
from eleve11 fiagmciits, threc of \\hiell (PI. 111, Fragm. 8891, 8Y92,
a, JJ)
belonged to a large doloniite vase and formed the basis of illy text. Eighteen
fraginents of all the cxcavatcd v u e s may confidently ' be referred to this group. The
long inscription, of which some of tlie shorter ones are 1)ossihly abbro~~iations,'
reads :
1. A-ncc 2. " ' 3 8 1 3. L"il~.r-zcslitcrehl4. shcrr 5. I\lishshcttls 6. 2-nu 7. h'lcclr~tu"'
8. il 9. Ila-rcc-'-se ' 10. inircc 11: i l l ~ C I , I I ~ - ~'C 12.
C - C.l$lirn~ti
L~C
13. iddin (A-MU-
'
Cf. B~.iinoom,1. c., 5032, 5068.
"f.
IIilprecllt, 2. A. VII, p. 315, note 1, and Pinclles, 2'Ite Acndeniy, September 5, 1801, p. 190. Even if the nnilio
be transliteraled UyarnzisT~,it may be Semitic. I n this case tlro O ~ e h r ~ m i bofs Ovid (IMeta.iii., 4, 212) offers itself for comparison.
I n spite of tlieii identicnl contents I rcproduceii two of them (PI. 5, Nos. 7 a n d 8 ) , because of tlie sligllt difference in the form of tllc clrernctsrs US11 nud si~awz', and becauso me <lo not possess a supernbut~dantsupply of texts
11:rting from that ancient pcriocl to mllich lhcy belollg. Tlre sign liublished on P l . 5, No. 9, nnd resembling the Old
Babylonian character for ilu, "god," is found on tilo bottorn of a tlilrtl vnsc of tile Lllreeline group, nnd is, n o doubt,
merely a " t r a d e ~ m a r l ~ . "
" I include hero only those f r s ~ m e n t sof wlricl~portions of I. 5-13 liarc been prcservcd. Some of tlio olller fragments, llowcver, l,robalily belong to tile s:tme group.
Necessary becnose of limited space.
"llis wort1 lias been variurlsly tmnslate(1. Ticle (Oesch., 11. 115) and otllers before ;end since chnngcd riamrald into
A p i m k , acitynientioneil on tile I1~bletof ot~iens,cnl. 11, 12-14. IIOIIIIIICI
(GLscIL.,11~.27!), 309) translntcs it " liolisl~ed
vorli," wllilst TVinclrler ((tesch., 1,. 38) is content to render it simply "work."
Bot all tllis is oxere s u e s work.
l o my k u ~ w l c ~ l gtile
e , worcl I ~ bee,,
s
fo~indILLI IS far only in three passages, in tire ;cbove text of h~usiiiirsi~ic~,
on tile
vase of Nal:tm-Sin and in Gnilca B, col. G, 06. In the last passage w e ~ . e ; ~1.d 64-F!) : sish I<U ~ t r i ~ A i ~ - s l ~Nima
n - a n !;i
mu-sif nanz-m ago-bi ~~~ioiilYi~r-gii-~i~L~c~
3 - i i i n ? i l i ~ ii~u-?la-ni-kc?
c~
" T i l l , (his) iveajron llc sltiatc the city of Anslinn in
Elam, brouglit its s~luilillto EnirlnG to Ningirsu." Cf. Jcnsen (If,B. 111, P a r t 1, PI>. 38, 30) on tills passage. Tlic
latter's llesitntion about tllo rPa~lillgiVi?ni~ji, " E i ; ~ m " (exnct,ly so \\,ritten above), and the lneauing of nnrnval; is
unnecessary. As early ;xs eigllt ycn1.s :ago. Aniinud, with liis n.untec1 illsight, conceive<l the correct n~eaningof tile
word (Z. K I, 17. 240). Wlietller it is Snmerian or Semitic remibins to be iletemincd. As we do not posscss long
,I
SHUB),' " ~ l a s h a r s h i d king
,
of liishshatn, presented (it) to Be1 from the spoil of
Elam, when ire had sul~jugatcclElam a ~ Bat.a7sc."
~ d
The inscription is of 11istorica1 importance. W e learn from it, that Icing ~ l n sharshid sobducd Elall1 and the co~untryof Bara'se, doubtless in close proximity
t o it,' and that in the booty hc carried off to Babylonia a nurnbcr of costly
marble vases. P a r t of them he dcclicated to BZ1 of Kipper, and part, perhaps, to
Shamash of Sippara, %after Rrst having engraved ul~onmost ' of them in bcautifi~l
clear-cut characters liis name aild the occasion of the gift. The inscription s~lffices
to show that i i l ~ ~ s h a r s h was
i d a mighty ruler., who in conrage and a d v e ~ ~ t n r o uspirit
s
was not second to NarCm-Sin. B u t it also offers most welcome ll~ntcrialfor detcrmining the extent of the dominion of the oldest Semitic rnlers. I t f ~ ~ r n i s h eaddis
tional sopport to Tielc's view (GescT~., p. 114), and a t the same time proves that
Wincltler's conception of the beginning of the North Babylonian history and of the
extent of Sargon's empire (Cesch., 1). 38) is incorrect. Vincliler proceeds npon t11e
crl.oneons supposition that the deeds of Sargon, as reported in the tablet of omens and
in the "Icgend," are purely legendary. Hommel also (d'esch., 11. 306 sep.) is hampered by similar prejudices. That Narrtm-Sin was in t h e poiscssion of Sonth Babylonia is demonstrated by his building in Xippur (brirti bit B8l), and by his vase
found in Tello, and is fnrthcrmore established beyond 311 doubt by his soccessfi~l
ol>erations in Magan," which, according to Wincliler, was situated 011 the eastern
,~
to this same
boundary of Arabia. A vase of thc Se~iliticliiiig of' G ~ t ibeloaging
ancient period, which was probably carried by a victorious Habyloniall king as trol111y
to Sippara, points to the extension of'tlie power of the oldest Korth Babyloniall rnlers
descriptions of compnigns i n Slnucrian, it cilnllut be surprising that tlie word does nut occur otl~erwicein Sumerinn
inscriptions, wl!icll dcal ~ ~ l o s t mitll
l y religious affairs and tLccounts of builclings. In favor of a Sen~iticetymology, to
wllicll I incline, it m:iy be said : ( I ) Tlrat the word "looks "cry nlucll lilro nn originnl m-furmatioil of a root 113 "
(Jenseu) nnrl (2) that it is twice found in tho Semitic inscriptions of the oldest North Bnbyloninn mlcis.
It is nut to ho read a.mu-~u
and to bo derived from ,GIIZ?TU will, the ti~eaningof "crscheii." (Honnuel, GesoA.,
p. 302). i a,, "to dedicate " (Pincl~cs,Trans. S. B. A. VIII, 17. 330). Of. Aniinud, Z. A . 11, p. 296, ilnd Jenscn in
Schritder's Ii. B, 111, Part 1, p. 26, note Xo. For s i ~ t ~=
b nailhtau-- nndQ (711, cf. n11. "gift," Ezek. xvi. 33), cf. Tallquist, Babglonisci~eS~?~e~il~t~1~gsbriefe,
p. 0.
T o t h i n g more ilrfinite can be sitid at present. It is, perlml~s,to be rend Pu~n'se. Cf. the rlnlne of t l lnountnin
~
Da-ti-<?
(sidle de Z o X b I, col. I, C), mllicil Scheil (1. c., p. 104) col.rectly identified lvitll the moantaiu Pad(d)i?.
(SI~amsAi-IlomnLan11, col. 11, 7).
:' According to Pinches ,Jeosen, inscriptiolls of
September 5, 1591, p. 10% P. S.
Blusllnrsilid lravo also
been founrl io Sippara.
Cf. T i ~ eAcademy,
' A nunlbci of vases of the same high workmanship and fo~,n<Iimiong them were without iilscriptions.
below, 1). 30.
I. R. 3, No. VII, 1. 7, i i a m ~ n kHagnn, "plunder of 3Iagun."
Wf. p. 12 seq.
Cf.
22
OLD BABYLONIAN I N S C I ~ I E T I O ~ S
fnrther northward. The inscriptions of ~ l u s l l a r s h i dtestify to his supremacy over
the South,' and to his victories in the East and Korth-East of Babylonia. 111view of
all this, I regard it as impossible t o qnestion the historical cl~aracterof the ~ t a t e m c n t s
of the tablet of omens relative to XarLm-Sin. Since we linow that about that time
a Semitic population dwelt in the northern and northeastern conntries of G u t i and
I ~ u l u b i ,whose
~
Icings wrote inscriptions on roclis and vases in a dialect crrtircly
identical with the Babylonian, it can no longer seem strange that Nar2m-Sin tool<
the Semitic king 12ish-Bcbmmrin, of Apiralc, prisoner. It is evident, however, that
Apirak, which by its termination forcibly recalls i~ameslike A ( E ) s h n ~ ~ n a l < , to
V sbe
songht in the North-East' of Babylonia rather than in the South. ' If the credibility
of the tablet of omens is tl~ereforcestablished as far as ATar?tm-Sin is conccnicd, we
are IIO longer at liberty to call in question what it relatcs concerning Sargon I , unless
more solid objections than have heretofore been raised, bc brought against it. V i t h
Tielc, therefore, I regard as h c t s what Wincliler dcscl.ibcs a s fiction, viz., that Sargo11 1 subjngatcd nearly the w-hole world liilown to him, or in other words, "the four
qnarters of the earth."
B u t llow is it that whilst Sargon always boars the title s l ~ a dunlzu
~ ~ r ~sl~rcrAgcitle
or dultnu shar Aylade or only slin?.Ayacie,' both in thc legend and in his own inscrip1 Includiug Layash.
Cf. p. 10.
T i l i s fact argues in favor af n ~nigratiouof the Semites into Babylonia from tlle Xorth. Cf. the "legend of SarSon," according to wllicll his uncle dwelt in tile monntains, and lli: himself was carried <lawn the rivor in an ark mado
of reed. Cf. also Wincirler, aesoh., p. 141.
V o g n o n fonnd tllere Semitic inscriptions xvritlon by palesin of Ashnunak. Sothing can be said with cerfainty
as to thc enact date of tllese texts, but tlrey secm to belong to t l ~ esecond millenuium U. C. Cf. Poguun, d)uelqucs ~ o i s
du pays < l ' A e k i ~ o u n n a krend
,
nt the Acad6,i~iedes i n s c ~ i p t i o n set belles lelfres, I I i ~ r c 18,
l ~ 1898. On this country see fnrtller Delilasch, Parndics, 1,. 230 sey.; Iiossiicr, p. GO ; nud also Jetisell in Scl~l.ilder'~
li. B., P ~ r I,t p. 137, noteu.
Homrnel is on tho right tracli (Gesch., 11. 310, note 1). His rcndlng A-nia-rnk, Ilowever, has oeitlier supt>ort 1101
probability.
Delitzscl~,A~,,udies,p. B31, " zicmlicI&acdlich zu suci~e?~."
"regard also Sargon's campaign in tlle West, to tile IIediterrsnean Sca and to Cyprus, as I~istoiicfacts. Tile
cylinrler of Xilri~m-Sin'sservant found a t Cypros, and now in the IIetrupalitan Xoseum af New Tork (cf. Sayco,
l'ra7ts. 8. 13. A. V, p. 441 s c y . ) , has, l~owever,no direct benriog npoo the ~vliulequostion. Through tlio kintlness of
Prof. Isaac IIall, Curator of tile JIusoi~m,I vbtaiueii au accurate imgressian of tl~ecylinrlor,to whicll, for pnlco~rapliic
reasons (obscrre, e. g . , tlle form of the character ru), I cannot assign an enrlior date than c. 2000-1500 B. C. Tho
pictures an it also point to a more recent date. I%otthe cylinder is ~uldoubteillyno modern forgery (IIammol, 1. c.,
1,. 309).
I t is in itself not i~npossiblet l ~ a ttilere were kings of
7 Kabana'id calls liim, for apparent reasons, s76ar Bbbili.
Fur
the
place
where
the vase of Sarilm-Sin was founrl by tho French
Babylon a t some time in that ancient pcriail.
expetlition, the tablet of omens (I, 7-11. ef. my restorntion of this passage below, 11. 20) and the occasional mentioning
of Babylon (under another nnmc) in tlre Snmerian inscriptions of the kings and !,ntcsis of Shirpurlu clenrly show that
Babylon not only existed at this early time :~iidbelonged to Sargon's kingclom, but that it eve~rlradnlreaily obtaincd
considerable prominence (cf. below, p. 20). Cf. I~owovor,Winclilet', Linters., p. 76 sey., and Lehn~ann,SI~i~,nnshskurn&in, p. 00, note 4.
OIIIEFLY FROM NIPPUR.
23
tions, his immediate successor, Narkm-Sin, styles himself shnr l c i b ~ n tn~ha'i,and
~ l u s h a r s h i dand MA-AX-ISH-TU-SU1 even s l ~ u rIfishsl~atu? This qnestion is
closely connected with the other, What do the last two titles mean? It is impossible
for me to enter here into as full a discussio~~
of this qnestion as its importance demands. I thcrcforc content mysclf for the present with giving the results of my
investigations. A s I am now considering the meaning of these titles i n the earliest
times only, I ~latiu.allyexclnde their use with the later Babylonian and with the
,\ssyrian ltings.'
I. ,Ls to the Old Babylonian titlc, s I b c 1 ~liisl~sl~atu,
we h a w been accustomed to
follow IVincltler, and to repird it as simply the eqnivale~ltof the later PILCLT
kishsl~citi,"1,ing of thc world." ' This identification, howcvn, is not proved. On the
other hand, it is worthy of notc, (1) that s~lpposiilig~ l u s h a r s h i dlived after NarhmSin, and even supposing further that he fouudcd s new dynasty, it vould still be
matter for astonisl~mentthat he s11o11ldexchange a titlc, that was not only satisfactory
to Nar2m-Sill, known as a grcat conqneror, but was in itsclf sufficiently significant,
for the sy~lonymoilssliur k i s l i s l ~ n t i , "Icing of tlic world;" ' (2) that no later Bahylonian Icing, beforc Mcrodachbaladan I, not eve11 the powcrfnl Hammnrabi, bears this
title, though many of them apply to thcmsclvcs the titlc s71nr 1 ~ i l ; i . u t a ~ b u ' i ; (3) t h a t
Winclilcr's thcory, which sees in Harran thc original seat of the shnrrcit /a's7zshati, is
imlwobablc for the later Babylono-Assyrian time, and altogether ont of qncstion for
'TVincklor, A. X., No. 67, Pnloograpiiic reasons, tile Semitic 1an:unge of the inscription and tho titlc shnr E s h si'atffl, establish for tllis iiillg a date not o n l y earlier than 2000 B. C. (Winckler, Gesci~.,p. 155), but even earlier thnn
3000 B. C. 110 is to be classctl with &losirarslli~l. T h e white marl~ledock (Norris, 01 the A s s y r i a n and Rabyln,8iiin
Il'eigi~ts, PI. 2, No. 2). bearing the uzlme of AVaTa6B-sI~~s~.li5al.
SILIII.
I C i s l ~ s l ~ aremains
t~,
\vitllout consideratiou here, ;LS I
du 1101 fool at liberty to base a n y pnleograpllic conclnsions on tlic cuneiform tent ns it is publisi~crltherc.
'I llilpe to treat the nliole questiou in anotller place. That me m ; ~ yunderstand correctly t,lle meailing of this
title in Assyrian, the folloming points inust be exalninell moro cnrofuily : ( I ) Is tilo titic simply to be regarilerl as b o r ~
rowed from Bilhylonin (cf. pufosi, templo names, etc.) and exten<leil to cover Assyrian conditk,ns, so tlrat only thc
name is B a h y l o n h n , wiiilo its seinnsiulogical dcvolopk~~cnt
is essentinlly Assyi.inn? (2) Or, in using tlie title, did t h c
.%ssyrinns claim tile satno right over tlic snme district ns tilo Babylonians, i. e . , suppose tirat in Babylonia a claim
was tllcreby erpscssed to IInrran (TYinckler), did tile ilsayrit~nsby tlleir use of tlic phrase mi~lceexactly the snme
clni~nupon this city? (3) Or is tilere no colrt,ection botweon the Assyrian nnil the B i ~ b y i o n i i ~title?
n
Thesequestions
have hitllerto not been ans~vererlsnlllcientiy.
:'~IIitteilt~ngeii;
cles Akarles~iuri~.
O1,iantnlise6en Fewins z i BerlDz
~
I , p. 14.
'Cf. .Tensen in Schmdor's If. 11. 111. P a r t 1, p. 106, nolc 4.
"I wc may draw :any C O ~ C ~ I I S ~ Ofi.011l
II
t,lx later CLIS~OIIISof l3abyloi1ia~1iwd Assyrian Irings, v e rather expect
titat in t h e n.l,ovc givcn case, ~ i u s l ~ ; l r s h iwiloso
~l,
empire mas scnrcely slualler than tli;ct of Nnrim-Sin, nccording to
our present kl~owledge,~voul,lh n r e Been p:~rticnlal.iynasious to :~dlu:reto n title whicil \\,as connected by tilo Babyioni,zu pcolile with tho niune of n very powerful ruler, ;tnii rrgnrtle<lb y the later Icings ns especially ioipol.tnrrt. L\nil
vice ue?sn, if ~ l u s h t % r s b ilivocl
rl
before Snrzon nod lvarl founcled i~shorriLt kishshnii, "kingdom of the ~1.orlc1," it would
be strange that Narilm-Sin sl~oullliisve used siinr k i b ~ a arba'i
t
instead, if the othor titlc meant exactly the same.
24
OLD BABYLONIAN INSORII'TIOXS
the earliest period.' I therefore wolild propose another e x p l a o a t i o ~of
~ thc title,
viz , to regard s7mr liishshntu (or s7~cwICish) as idelltical with s7tcc~ IL'ish, "lting of
Icish."' I n other words, I infer from this title t h a t there \\.as a Lingdo111 of the city
of Kish similar to those or Shirpurla, Llgadc, ctc., at the earliest time of the Babyl o n i a ~Iiistory.
~
Two of its rulers are so far k ~ l o m n ;both xrrotc Semitic, and one of
the111 at least possessed South Babylollis a n d defeated Ela111. Whether these I c i n g s
li\red after the dgl~astyor Sargon, or whether they preceded it and were c l e t h r o n c d
by Sargon, will be. considered irelow. A t all erelits, it will be well to seyarnte the
lii~~gs
of Iiish "om
those of Agade. . There is n1nc11 in favor of the vie\\- that
e v e 1 1 in the A s s y ~ . i a rni~ld'
i~
the title s71ar kishshuti mas originally connecttxl with the
possessio~l of Xish, x \ ~ l i c r e Tiglath-Pilcser 111 offered sacrifices to the gods ( I 1 R.
67, 11).
11. nut what does shai l;ib~r(tarbu'i mean in the oldcst B:~hgloninnhistory?
After Sargon had sabj,jngntedthe Elamites; thus fixing the 11at11raleastern boundary
of liis projected great empire, hc marched to the West, " subdued ' the land of the
Wcst,' conqnered the fonr qualtcrs of the ~vorld." The last part of the previous sentence, literally quoted fi.om the tablet of omens, call in itself be i~lterpretcd a s
meaning ( a ) that "the four quarters of the world" lay still beyond " t h e land or the
West," imd therefore were geographically distinct from it, or (6) that the conclr~est
'Cf. :iIso A. hIcz, Geschichle der' Sladf ifir,.~iini n jllesopotamies, 11. 27.
' A s I remarked above, I cannot statc nil the rcasons for my tlieory liere. At y e s e n t it tnny suillce to give tlic falloivlng : (1) Cf. my restoration of I V R . 34, 7-11 below. (2) Cf. DDik~scll,Pavurlies, p.218 s e q . , mhere it is stated tllnt
tile Semitic R~~bylonians
nut1 Assyrians wrotc lliis city ;ilso ICi-si~n(and E-c.isl~, Brit. AILIS.,81-8-10, 1, col. I, 41,published by s. .\. Smitll, !llisecZliaiicozas Assyrinx Trzts, PI. 20 ; cf. also the prescut volumz, Pi. 8, No. 14, 1. 7 ) , nnd Ifi8Rs7ln.tu, "according to a smnll nnpublislled vocnbulary " (cf. Pkrailies, p, 230). (a) Cf also the n;tme of tile nncient
king, iibil-Ifishhi, known from the frngmcnt of n Babylonian cllrouicle (Trnns. 8.B. A. 111, 372), aucl to wllom
Delitzscl~(Gesci~.,13. 7 2 ) correctly assigns ilrc fourill millennium.
' I nfterwarcls found lliat Jenselr (Sch7.nder's K. B, 111,Pilrt I, p. 202, note), indopendently of me, i~.auslitted"king
of I<ish" in tile inscription of AIaniihtusu (Winckler, A. I<., No. 07). lIis rcasons for so doing and his eouclusions
nro botll unknown to me.
Tile facts that Rilmmin.nirhri, nllu defc;ited tlie 13sbylonian king, Nnzi-Ilt~ruttasll,nonr I<%r-Isht;lr,is the fi~.st
Assyrian ruler who bcnrs the title shn, kishsl~nti (in tlro ioscription of his sun, Slinlrr~anescrI , I R. 0, No. IV, 1. 2 ) ;
and further, tliat Tokr~lti-SlnibI, Iris gl.andson, \vllo also claims tile title, must hnvo been in tile possessiou of I<isl~,
Vol. V, p. 111, col. IV, ?,my.); and last, t l u t neilllcr h s h u r d n u I, nor
as he had c ~ p l o r o dcven llabylon (18. P.%,
IIotakBil-Nnskn, nor even Aslinr-r0slr-islli llas tliis title (I11 R. 3, No. 6, 1. 1 null S), deserve especial ~ t t e n l i o nin tollncctiou \\.it11 my hypotliesis. Aftorwards the ancient mcnning of the title v n s lost, nnd s l ~ aIfislLskc~ti,
~
"king of
Kish," becatirc shar kishs7~icli,"king of tile world " (mliich m;ty, llowevi!r, have h e n tho very first meaning of lire
title boforc it wirs connectecl ~vitllIciih ; cf. the ilevolol>mcntof tlre menniog sl~ai.1;ihat iwhn'i).
"V R." 34, col I, 1-3. 1 regnnl the nrruugement of tire inrlivido;rl ileeils, relntcil in t l ~ ctablet of ooicus, as cIil.onologic:il. Among ollicr rc:lsonF tllc accaiult of Sargon's lllree expeditions ng;\inst tile West fi~r.ol.s tllis view. It nws
:~lsou:ltnral tiir~ltilo king, before marchio: to the West, slloulii protect l~ilnselfin the rear by s~~bjrignling
tllc Elawites
in t l ~ eEast, so that during liis long nbscncc no danger uligllt t l l r e ~ t e nB;~bylanii~
from that quarter.
CHIEFLY FROM NIPPUR.
25
of "the four quarters of' the world" is identical with his conqt~cstof "the lsnd of
the Wcst," or (c) that the conquest of " the four quarters of the world " followed as
a rcsnlt upon his snbduing the West. I n opposition to the first view is thc fact that
a liingdo~nof "the four quarters of the ~vorlcl" in the far West is nowhere else
mentioned, that the phrase stands withont the usnal determinative m.itu, cilu, etc.,
and that this title was claimed by Babylonia11 kings even when they made no conquests in the West.' The identification of thc "four quarters of the world" with
"the land of the W e s t " needs 110 rcfi~tation,as it has never been advanced, and
in fact has no support. W c can, therefore, only regard the conquest of " t h e four
qua,rters of the world " as the result of Sargon's victories in the West, so that by the
nsc of the title the claim is made t o a quasi-worldwicle dominion,' as has been corrcctly stated by Lehnlann ( I . e., 1). 94). Arid indeed, Sargon, after having coilqnered
the West, was fully jnstificd in the Babylonian sense of the word "world," in thus
designating his large dominion. For?in order to subjugate the West, he was obliged,
because of thc Arabian desert, to march victoriously first to the ATorth, then to the
W e s t and finally southward. The ene1nie.i in the East having been l~revionslys u b ducd, and South Babylonia b e i ~ i galso brought under his sceptre," he could indccd
call a kingdom his own which was enclosed on all sides by natoral honndaries.'
The city which had obtained the Iiegemoay through Sargon's deeds was ilgade."
F o r he calls it "my city " ("Legend," 1. 26). It is the city in which he was shut 111)
doriug the insurrection against him (IV R.2, 34, col. I, 37). A n d fi~rtherillore,in
all his inscriptions as yet fotulld, lie calls himself' "liing of Agade." But, if I
understand the tablet of onlens correctly, Agade does not appear to have been the
capital of the cnlpirc of the fonr quarters of the world, as one would naturally have
supposed. After Sargon had sul)jngated "the whole world," he regarded as his next
work the building of a capital worthy of this grand empire. T h c account of this
important work is evidently related in I V R.', 34, I. 7-10, a passage6 nnfortuuately
much mutilated and heretofore entirely mis~ulderstood. After a careful comparison
'Against Tiele, Gesch., p. 78.
2Tiele (1. c., py. 73, 78) concedes the possibility, indeed even the probibility of tllis explanation, but adds, that
the title lllay also lravelrad a n entirely different meaning (11. 75). But wllat else coulil it 1l:lve lnesuL with Sargon 1 1
J T h i s is evident from liis building in Nippur, ant1 from the fact t l ~ a teven his son, who was less prominent tllnn
his father, extended his iuHuence to Shirpurla. Cf. also the express statonleuts of the "Legend."
'The Elamite mouutaius on the oast, the mountains of h r m e n i ~o n the north, the Ifediterranean Sea (and
Cyprus) on the west and tile Persian Gulf on the soutll.
'In spite of nil that has been said in support of Agunc, I regard this rendiog as improbable (cf. my remarks on
Le11m;~nn'sstatements (I. c., 1,. 73) prove nothing nyailrst Agnde. 3101'0 as to this in another 13lace.
Qande, 1). 28).
T o r recent trallslntions cf. IIonlmcl, Cesclb., p. 305, and Wi~icklerin Schn~dor'sh: B. 111, Part 1, 11. 102 scg.
of the text as give11 in the first and second editions of IV R.,' 1transliterate and
restore the passage as follows : BI~a~-ge-nn
sh,cc ilzrc, 8311B cm-ni-i lii's7~-shu['i2]
Bibit~'%-[[sI~ii-]'shu11~-mcc,epr2 shn shnl-la btibu TU-NAi) is-su-&mu . . . .
[ilzcc, lime?]-221. A-ya-cle ""?lu i bu-s7~t~-mw[UB. DA]"hi slzum-s7~;im-67,~-u. . .
[inn lib-] bi u-she-s7ti-bu, " Sargon, who under this omell bronght sorrow upon Rish
and Babylon, tore away the earth of' . . . and built a city in the vicinity of (or
"after the pattern of"?) Agade, called its name 'place (city) of the wo~,ld,' and
caused the inhahitants of lilsh and Babylon (?) to dwell there."
1 infer from this ( ( 1 ) that IiZsh and Babylon existed as prolnincnt cities already
in the time of Sargon 1, as this great ruler deemed it necessary to render them harmless; (b) that the clyllasty of Xish was overthrown by Sargon I,6 and that the~.cfore
iilnsharshid and Manishtusu are t o bc placed before Sargon 1;' (c) that the reason
why the vases of ~ l n s h a r s h i d ,all badly broken, were found lying closc by the corn~ ~ a m t i v e well-preserved
ly
monuments of Sargon, but not by those of Sar%m-Sin,is
t h a t ~ l n s h a r s h i dapparently ruled before Sargon, not after Nal.:lrn-Sia.
The question arises, Which city corresponds in later times to that bnilt by Sargon
"in the vicinity (?) of Agade," and with which the title "Icing of the four quarters
of' the world " ' was associated ? There are reasons for ideutif.yiying i t with l i u t h a ,
as Wincklcr Qoes. B o t stronger arguments seem to l ~ o i n tto U r ~ a g k a l a m a with
' ~ its
famous temple, "the mountain of the world," (always iileiltiolled in close connection
as being identical with "the
with Iiish, the probable seat of the shal,rl;t 7;is7~s7~uti),
city of the world" 'I founded by Sargon I.
.
.
-
~
-
I This important test soellls to llavo srtffcrcd still more since its first l~ublicntionby George Slniill iu I V R.', as B
conlparison with Pincl~es'lrcw edition clearly s11on.s. EIatl all tlie differences botwecn the first and sccond editions of
tile text, broilglit about by n decon~positio~~
of tho tablet, lrcen c;~vehllynoted, it would have bcen of great value, ns
the first edition is n<,tnl~vnysnccessiblo 10 students.
Cf. V R. 12, No. 6, 50 ; 11R. VZ, 67 c : Il-i.sht~ (cf. aboye, p. 24, note 2 ) . Pcl.l(aps X i is rr2auting, nail 76, "and,"
is tu bo substituted.
),
IV
:"Ilis is the most probable rci~diog, according to the tracos in I V R.?. Cf. I<. 3667, col. I, (I ( i - 8 7 h ? i - t ~ ~ h and
H.' 1," 42, a, " tlie sickness rvllich b~.ingsrroe upon tile country" (i-nsia-siioshzi).
'Thcse five cllnracters are not qilile clcar to me, tlroi~gllit is evident that Sargon pnrliusely dcstrogcd solnctliing.
6 T l ~ etwo vedges begiiirliog tllo c1,aracter Ul3 arc ciearly to be seen in I V It.', and tllc last tn-0 wedges of D h
still remain in I V R.'. 31ol.c Illnil two cl~uracterscannot birve stood there. For the nlenniug of UB.DA, witliont
arba'i, cf. Jensen, Kosmoluyie, 1). 167.
BFor v a r i o u ~other retisons tllc city k i l l g ~ l of
~ t 1~' 3~ ~ 1C&UIIOL
~
bc placed aftor Sarxon I.
7P:tleogrtlphical reasons also favor this cl>ronologicalarrengemont of tlro two dgnastics. I reacllcd llry conclusion
aftcr tile plates in question were p~.inted. 1'1. 4 5 and TII-V arc to be plsced before those of Sargon I and Narim-Sin.
& I t is quite possible that monuments of Sargoil may yet be found, on wllich l ~ cells
e
llilnself "Iring of tlle four
quarters of tile eaitll."
= e . g., Gesoh., pp. 31, 33.
IOFor this rending cf. deusen in Scl~nr<Ier's& B. 111, P i ~ r 1,
t 11. 2& note 3.
LLCf.Wiuckler's roorarks, 1, c., p. 33, in connection with " G'l~arsagknlama."
THE D Y N A S T Y OF ISIN.'
Thrce liings of this dynasty were among the builders of the temple a t Nippur,
U~-Niwib,
JSu1.-651)lil~. J, and Ishme-Dagcin.'
Specimens of brick legends of the latter
will be given i11 the second half or this volume. The fragment of a stone published on PI. I), No. 17, is nnfbrtnnately so small that we learn nothing new
from it.
More important are the inscriptions of both the other rulers, PI. 1 0 and 11.
They are talcen from bricks which, at the time of their excavation, were out of
their origioal place. These formed rather part of a platform of the Ziqqnrratu constructed or restored by Mili-Shilthu, who toolr them fi.om the ruined walls of his
predecessors, as old b a t still serviceable material for his own worlr. Various briclis
of Ur-Ninib have thus been preserved, all with the same inscribed (not stamped)
legend. Of Bur-Sin, on the other band, only a single brick, brolicn in two pieces,
has as yet been fonnd.
Ur-Ninib, " Ma11 (servant) of God Nillib," is tlie king hitherto wrongly transcribed as Gamil-Ninib.' Elis inscription, here published, is identical with 1V
R.' 35, No. 5. The fragment of a brick from Nippnr, I It. 5, No. XXlV, erroneously
ascribed to Isl1me-Dag3n, is obvionsly the lowcr half of the same legend. I n
additiou to the complete name of the r~ller,the new text o&rs the correct reading of
1. 4, ~LU-gid,'
i. e., nzkiclu, EIebr. ~ p j "shcphcrd
,
" (of Ur), and of 1.6, mi-shti-il, "he
who delivers the commal~ds" (of Eridu).
Bur-Sin I, so designated by me to distinguish him from another Iting of the
same name,' Bnr-Sin I1 of the second dynasty of Ur,"s a new liing of the dynasty
of Isin. The phraseology of his i~~scription
is very similar to that of Ur-Ninib and
L i b i t - A n ~ u l i t(I
~ it. 5, No. X V I I I ) , alid thereby assures the correct reading of several
characters of the latter illscription. The first sign of 1. 4 is not du (Wincltler) hnt
illgar (identical with Briinnow, I. c. 1024), and tlie second sign in 1. 8 is probably
-
'
Not N ~ ~ DasLhas
, heen generally read-last hy Delitzscl~, GescRioI~teBabyloniens z l i ~ dAssg~iens,p. 70. Cf. tlie
hymn 80, 7-19, 126, 1. 3, 4, publislled by Berold in Z. A. IV, p. 430.
PI. 9, No. 17, lras been placed before Plates 10 and 11 only to savo space. Islrme-Dag2u was the last king of the
dynasty of Isin.
Cf. FIilprecht in Z. A. VII, p. 315, note 1.
' F o r this Semitic lorn ward of the S ~ l r ~ ~ e rInngnage,
ian
found also in tllo inscrililions af G u d e s (F. col. IT, 12),
cf. Jensen-Zlulrnern in Z. A. 111, 200, 308 seq. Cf. also Jensen in I<.11. 111, P ; ~ r 1,
t p. 4.
A l t l l o ~ ~alrvays
gl~
written will, the atller sign L?UT(BI.U~IIOW,1, c., 0068).
Cf. Plates 12, 13, and Vol. I, Part 2.
According to TVinckler in Sclirader's IT. B. 111, Pait I, p. 80, Libit-hlitnr.
Ct: Jcusen-Zimmem, Z. A. 111, p. 109 sep.
'
CHIEFLY FROM NIPPUH.
BQI,his beloved lord, G a ~ i d ehas presented it."
29
B u t who was this Gande who left
his name on a number of marble vases,' on a large nnhewn block of white marble,
on two others of reddish granite and 011 the edge of two door socltets belonging to
former Babylonian icings? A due consideration of the following points will enable
us to answer the question.
1. The short inscription of Gande jnst translated is written not only on bis own
monliments by this Icing, but is also found on the rough edges of a door socltet of
Sargon I, n.nd another of Bor-Sin IT. Hence it follows, that Gsnde must have lived
after their time, i. e., after c. 2400 B. C.
2. On the other hand, it follows from the depth of the place in which the stones
were fonnd and also from the peculiar characters of the inscriptions (see below), that
Gandc could not have ruled arter Mili-Shikhu, or, as the immediate seven or eight
predecessors of the latter arc known, not after c. 1240 I%.C.
3. It is remnrltable that Gande by two of his inscriptions characterizes door
socltets which had previously been presented to the temple as his own gifts. I t is
in itself clear that these inscriptions cannot be regarded in the sense of inventory
labels, as they are sometimes fb1111d in connection mith Egyptian antiqnitieu. Only
one explanation seems possible, namely, that Gande was not a native iring, but
invaded and conq~leredBabylonia and regarded the property of the temple in Nippnr
as his legitimate spoil. As however he, with his victorious hordes, did not leave tbe
subjected conlltry again, hut u s ~ u l ~ cthe
d Babylonian throne, thereby becoming the
fo~ulderof a new dynasty, the conquered cities and temples became part of his new
empire, to which he 110~1-restored the trophies of his victory as his owlr personal gifts.
IIad he left Babylonia, he certainly would have carried away the treasnres of the
temple as spoil to his own country, just as ~ l u s h a r r h i dand Narhm-Sin did, after
they had conquered Elam and Magan, or Xebochadrezzar I, a ~ t e the
r destruction of'
Jernsalem.
4. This explanation of G m d e is sopported by the character of his inscribed
objects and by tbe pecnliarity of their cuneiform writing. All his inscriptions are
carelessly executed and are engraved very shallowly; indeed, those on the door
socliets and large bloclcs are only scratched in the unllewn stone. Besides, the characters employed violate the laws which underiie the regnlar developme~ltof the
t men nnaccustomed
Babylonian cuneiform writing. They appear to have been c ~ l by
t o use the chisel in writing, who, it is plain, had adopted the Babylonian
system of writing, even e~~deavoring
to imitate the characters of a ccrtain
period,' bnt who were neither familiar with their original meaning, nor with the
Cf. \'01. I, Part 2.
'Cf. e. g the characters of tlre inscviptions of Ur-Nina, de Sarzec, Dieoz~ae~les,
PI. 51, No 1.
30
OLL) B A B Y L O N I A N INSCtlIl'TIONS
exact form t l ~ e ~illi me. The scribe regarded e. y. G , I N (Pl. 1 4 , No. 22) as the
doubled form of a certain sign resembling the reversed ancient SAIG.' F o r oecasionidly he divides this character illto l~alves,placing one after the other (PI. 14, No. 24,
25). The artistic execution of the vases themselves stands in strilting contrast to
the rude appearance of the inscriplions on them and on the large stones. A s a numher of n~linscribedvascs of similar form and of the sarne sliillfiil workmanship were
fo~uldtogether with those of ~ l u s h a r s h i d , there is every reason to believe that
Gande's vases fornled originally part of the former's gift to the temple, the more so
t
Only the
as they were fonnd in close pl.oximity to those of that very a ~ ~ e i e nlting.
unhewn bloelis of marble aud granite, apparently intended for door soelzets, were
genuine gifts of Gande, probably brought from the Elamite mountains. From the
fact that the place occupied by the inscription was not polished or cvcll smoothed,
we likewise infer that the scribes of this ruler had neither the artistic taste nor teehnical training of the Babylonian stonccnttcrs.
5. The name Gunile has not a Babylonian sound. Besides, it is sometimes
fo~uldabbreviated into GUIL.This peenliarity of abbreviating l~arnesis eharacteristie of the rulers of the second and third dynasties of Babylon, as is shown by cornparing List b with List a and with the inseriptio~lsof Bibeiashu.' Only one liing
ft~lfillsthe requirements (viz., a foreigner, foru~lderof a new dynasty, a prince whose
name begins with Gnn, and who lived between e. 2400 and c. 1240 B. C.). This is
Gandash, the first r ~ ~ l of
e r the Cassite dynasty, which oceripied the throne of Babylonia for five hnndred and seventy-six years. Gande (otherw. Gan) is abbreviated
from Galldash in the same way as Ribe from Bibeiashn."
It is significant that, with the exception of f r a g m e ~ 13rit.
~ t Mus. 84-2-11, 178
(see riole 3), no m o n ~ i r ~ lof
e ~the
~ t founder of the Cassite dynasty and very few of its
other members have, up to the present, been found outside of Nippur. This latter was,
as 1shall later show in detail, the very centre and stronghold of the Cnssite dy~lasty.
It is not, therefore, accidental, that the representatives of this foreign l ~ o r ~ dedicated
se
so many valaable gifts to the temple of Be1 in Nil~pur. By not paying the same homage t o Mardulc of 12abylon and his illustrious city, which Hammurtabi9ad endeavored
t o raise to the most promi~ier~t
position in the political and religions life of the country,
Amiartd et llBchinoau, 1. c., No. 221.
'' Cf ~ b o v e p.
, 17.
" Who again is identical
with tho Gnddssh of Brit. IIus. 84-2-11, 178 (Winckler, L7nfers., p. 166, No. 6). Cf.
EIilprecht, 5.A. VII, p. 309 sey., especially note 4.
T f . Hilprecht, "Die Erginsung dcr Namen awoier I<assitenkoniga" in Z. ;I. VIII (in priot).
It is wortily of notice, that not ono votive object with an inscription of ruler of the first or second dynasty of
Dnbylun has so fnr been found in Nippur. These kings concenlrate~lttlleir sttention on Llle glorification of Babylon.
CIIIEFLY Y11031 NII'PUR.
31
but by restoring the former glory of Elror, the ancient national sanctnary ill Nipper,
so deeply rooted in tlic hearts of the Babylonia~ipeople, and by stepping forward as
the champions of tlie sacred rights of " t h e father of the gods,"' they were able to
bring about a reconciliation and a final melting together of the Cassite and Semitic
~ ~ rdreaded as daring
elcmcnts. Supl~ortedby the influential priesthood of N i l q ~ and
warriors by the discontented parties, the Cassites could lnonld and govern the destinies of Babylonia forl~earlysix hnadred years, until linally they were ovel.wheImed by
new invztsions from the East and by the gl.eat irational ul~risingin the South, which
resulted in placing the native dynasty of l'ashe on the throne of Babylon. The
essential results to be drawn from the fifty-five votive inseriljtions of the Cassitc
dyn;~stypublished on I'lates 14-29, I have given in several articles in Zeitschrift
~ ' I WA s s y ~ ~ i o l o g i e hi11:ly
~ ~ dtherefore confine myself to the following points.
T l ~ cinsc~iptionson PI. 8, Xo. 15, and PI 21, No. 43, are written on the obverse
and reverse of a tnblet in agate. Thc stone tells its own story. About 2750 B. C.,
tlie patcsi "of a city dedicated thc tablet to the goddess Ninna or Ishtar "for the life
of Dnngi, the powerr111cllampio~l,Jiil~gof Ur." Asterwards, possibly about 2285 B. C.,
i ~the
t time of the Elamite invasion, when Rodur-Nanlihrn~dilaid hand on the temples
of Aklcad and carried the image of the goddess Nan'? into Elam, the tnblet was also
taken away ancl remained in the possession of the enemies until c. 1300B. C. I<lu igalzn (donbtless the second of the name'), after his conquest of Susa, b ~ o ~ ~ gitl baeL
rt
to Babylonia and 1)rescntecl it to Bcltis of Nippur. F o r over threc tllo~isandyears it
lay within the walls of Eliur, 11nti1agai11 it became the spoil of invaders of Nipp~u..
This tinle it was ca1,ried far away to the modern """"Al,urri. Perhaps a later sl/ccr
Xibrcct ce~bce'Z11~will talte it bacli t o the resnrrected sanctuary of Nippor. Iiurigalza's i~isc~,iption
on this tablet is of 11istoric;~liml~ortance,because, for the first
time, we learn fro111 this 1,ing'i own inscril~tionsof' his successf~llcampsigll against
Elani,' in the conrse of' wl~ichhe conquered even Snsa.' The cuneiform text reads :
1.IZurigalau 2. s l m ~l i u ~ r ~ t l z ~ n i a3.s hr^XaLlccsha '"" S l ~ ~ i s l ~s1~1
~ u ]Clamti"'
'~.
5. ikslzz~dvan 6 . unu "'"8lit (XIS-LLIL) 7. btltishu 5.anu 6rclrifiskic 9. i%ish," l i ~ u i g a l z uIcing
,
of liarudniiiash, conclnered the 1)nlacc of Susa in Elnm and presented (this tablet)
t o Bclit, his mistress, for his life."
-
-
' Inscriptiun of IIadashmaoTurgn, PI, 84,
Ko. ti:l, 1. 1 and 2.
" Bibliograplry," 11, D, 11, I?.
:'This ward stoail nppi~rentlpin one of tile losl lines at tho lower end of t h e tablet.
' Cf. Pincllcs, "An Early l'ablct of the Babylonian Ci,ronicl@,"in R. F.', Vol. V, p. 109, col. 111, 10-18.
6 Tlie earliest mcntion of Suss in tile Xnhyluuian cnoelform lileratnre.
Tlle nbsolulo proof for tire identity of
Sllhsllid a.illl Shirki ( I V R.' 33, 40, h. JI R. 48, z9, b, a n d Delilzscl~,I'irradies, p. 32F), Sllaahni~or Sht~shun,is impossi.
b l e s t prosent. It seems, however, scarcely possible tlmt ihallu shn SIL~LSIL(L
sha Elamti can be anything else than
Tile
nnnle
was
prohnbly
pronoanced
Sliiisha(n).
Cf. also p. 15, uote 1 (end).
oyy? y u n?'>gpm@
(Dan. viii. 2).
' Cf.
32
01~1)BABYLONIAN IYSCI~IPTIONS
Anotlicr inscriptioil l~ublishedon the sanlc plate, Nos. 41 a ~ i d46, was dalnagcd
a t t l ~ eend of cach line when the scribe c u t it from the bloclc of lapis l:rzuli,' ~ ~ h i c h
Rurigalmi dedicated to BCl. I t reads: 1. A - ) ~ a " ' ~ l(Erb[-lil]
&l
) 2. be-el ma-ti-a-ti
?I" 4 . p a - Z - [shemu-zs
be- [li-2sh,;] 3. K u - [ ~ ] i - g a l - z uri-ia-urn iua-ram '"'"R6lit
"""UPl?],"'To
BFl, lord of the lands, his lord, ICurigalzu, the shep1ie1.d beloved
by Belit, he who fcars (and) obeys BCl."
The cuneiform text, of the lapis lazuli disc on PI. '8, No. 61, proves the correcth
of 1. 3 is,
ness of my conjecttire in Z. A. VII, pp. 305-318. The f o ~ ~ r tcharacter
Ilowever, not ZLSI sn1)1~0sed:l i a bnt fhd.' Thc disc thus fi~r~lishcs
us the new :lnd
iuteresting writing kacldashnicc~z'instead of tlle hitherto kcidccshtnan.
No. 66 and 67 of 1'1. 25 arc thc obverse and reverse of the same fi;rg:.li~eiitof an
:gate ring. The dedicatiotl on it was apparently written by o ~ i lting
c
only, wbo, in need
ol' sl~ace,inscribed both thc npper and lower side of his gift. A s the remnant of the
the ideolast charactcr of S o . 66 is donbtless t o be completed t o fin-[tli~~gir-rub],
gram shcr~,standing before it, nlust bc thc title of a king, whose name ended in LIL
(thc last character of ""'""EN-LIL or Bi.1). According to onr present linowledge
of the rulers of the Cassite dynasty, the name can he read either hisdur-'""""EXLILfi(cf. S o . 64) or Iiudasl~ntan-'""~~~E~1~-LIL
(Xo. 65). The obverse of thc rii~g
(No. 6 i ) contains part of :L nirme ending i11 [blcc-ri-icr[-c~s7~],
which again can be
the son of Bodur-""'""EJ-LIL, or' t c
completed either to S/i,r~gus7tnlti-Bu~~i11.s7~,
. . . . buriash (Xo. 68, col. 1, 5), the son of liaclnshrncc~~-'"'~~"~3N-LIL.
A s no inscriptions of the former seem t o have been found in Xippnr, aild the characters of
Kos. 66 and 67 resemble those of 30.68 more than of Yo. 64, I assign thc ring to
the Icing mentioned in S o . 68, i. e., in all prohability Hadashman-Bnriash, who,
according to 111 R. 4, No. 1, was a t mar with an Assyrian Icing.' The followi~lg
Cf. Hiiprecilt, " Z u r 1,i~pislaauliFrilgo in, Baliyloniscilen," Z. A. B I I I (io p1.int).
Brlinnow, 1. c., 5309. Cf. ?IIeissner, BDaitriige arum Allbabglonischen I'rLccrtrecibf, p. 113, No. Zl, 3.
'Uncertaill ; restored according to Brit. BIus., 51, 8-30, 9, 1. 8.0 (cf. Jcoseo, Schrader's li. B . 111, Part 1, p. 120):
~i-'&(sic!instead of Jensen's 'u)-u iLa~?.im
i l ~ ~ B i l ipta, l - l ~ ushe-nzib-u i l ~ l - S h n m a s / & .
' Briionow, I. c., 2701. Soe also my "Nachtrag" in % A. VII, 1). 318.
VTllis is nut to be used in fdvor of Pinches' ideutifici~tio~~
of liaddash xitil g i ~ d d a s 7and
~ gan(knn)-di~sh. I adhere
to Nhat I romarl'ed in Z . A. VII, p. 300, note 4, until G r c ~ l ~ l ior
~ s lGnndasl',
~
the founder of tilo Csssite dynasty, has
a c t ~ ~ a lbeen
l y fo~ind~ r i t t e nwill, tile character lin (or I<&), or tile Narc1 i;ad(d)ash iu Cassite proper nalues like IZad(d)ashmnn~Torgn,will, tilo value g n (or &a). C f Pi. 28, No. 68, col. I, 14, 15, d u n ~ usag l~ad.nsI~-ma-an-~li~~~irE~Y.LIL,
"( . . . . riasli) the first sou of Iiadnsllmau-EN-LII,." l l y writing di~inuKc~-dd-asI~-rno-u?~-diii~i
Bdl (Z. A. VII, 11.
300, note 3) is to bo corrected sccor<Iingly.
' (:e~ierally rend Ifudui..Bil. I t would be lilore ai~propriatoto translitorete llim IZIIIIIII.-TUT~LI
(see below). That
Ile n:ls king wiil be sliown in !ny article, " Dic Rrghnzong der Narnen aweier IZsssitenii6nigo," Z. A. V I l I (in print).
Fol. v;~~.ions
obvious reasons otllcr possibililies liavc liecn ercl~tdcilas improbaliie.
T i l o co~ljecturcof i)ciitzscl~(Ifossiia~,pi,. 10 s r q ; llommcl, G ~ s c i ~ p.
. , 437 seq.), that tho Assyrian kiug was
Sllalnlaneser I, is proved by the new cl!ronalogy n41ich I am able to establish for a, number of Cassitc kings. Cf.
below p. 57.
1
CHIEFLY XYOM NIPPUII.
33
is an attcmpt to restorc the legend according to the usual ph~.aseologyof this class
of inscriptions: Ol~verse, [D'":'"'A'n-Pil
Kcc-ila-ash-71~u-nn,-.B]z~-~i-ici[ash], Reverse, [dz~rnu(srrg) ICrc-du-ash,-mu-~n-"'~Z~~]-lil
lt~galXu[-din,yir-mi' u-?nunu-sliuh], " T o B@l,his lord, 1CadasIima11-Buriash, (first) son of Iiadashman-ENLIL, king of Babylon, presented it."
The question remains t o be settled, whether the name of the father of liadashman-Buriash is to be rcad Kadashman-B@l,as has gcaert~llybeen close,' or Kadashm a n - E n l i l h r still in another way. The second reading ilecds no rcf~~tation.It is
in itself impossible. T l ~ efirst seems to me a t present irnpl~obable. For while thcre
arc Babylonian propcr names which are conil~osedof Babylonian words and the name
of n foreigu god,' tbcrc is no evidence that there were in use : ~ n ywhich contain a
Cassitc word and a t the salne time the nallle of a Babylonian deity. The csaniplc
cpotcd by Deiitzseh%honld be rcad Nazi-Shihu.' F o r this vcry reason 1 regard
the correct prollulleiatio~~
of Iiadasl~maii-'""""BLT-LIL
as being either I<adashmanIiharhe%r ICadashman-Tnrgu," in othcr words the Cassite liing 1iad;rshmaa""""ET--LILmay rcprcsent either of the two persons. Which of the t ~ v o
is the more probable? There are two Cassites of' the name Iiadashman-Kharbc
to be considered. The one was the father of I<urigalzo I.' As,howcvel., there is no
1xoof that he was a icing,' we leavc him here out of co~lside~.ation,
the more readily,
as other reasons make his identification with I<adashman-""'°FEliV-LIL well-nigh
impossible. The other Iiadash~nan-Iiha~%e
is entirely out of the question," as none
of the six kings following the lattcr successively, according to List h: ends in . . . .
o. 9.. Dolitzsclr, Iiossiisl.,p. 20 ; I'incl~es, 2'J~eAcademy, September 5, 1891, p. 109, b, and last Iliipreclit, Z. A .
VII, p. 310.
Hommel, Desc?~.,11. 433 : Ifa7.a-fi~lil.
" a. I., Sl~u[~an~una-a&
idclirta (Doiitzsch, Iiossiier, pp, 18, 21, 28), lfashsli&-~~~rlin-c~~t~
(ih.).
" ICoesiicr, p. 18, note 1.
"or
Cnss. SILikl6 = E ~ b y l .5Iu.~d~lu
cf. D c l i t ~ s c I ~li08sher,
,
pp. 20, 21, 3!1. J*rom the few puMisliec1 docull~ents
i n ~ v h i c hNazi-Shihn or menlbers of Itis funily (cf. the passages on p. 42) are montioued, it is evidetit tlmt this Cnssito
fa~nilyliveci in N o r t h ~ r nR s l ~ y l u n i nnncl mas vcry prominent and iufluoutiul. E v e n Ncbuchadrozn~rI, sl~kliluICasl~.
shi, treated its chief with ilistil~ctian(F~eibrief,ccul. 11, 1 2 : lficlu Akknd). 111 viem of t h o truo cllnracter (IIilprecht, Z. A , p. 311, note 3) of theso.calle(1 "C~assito~Se~l~iticvocabulary
" (Delitzsch, A7080ssiier,17. 24 sty.), nud of w l ~ a t
Itas been said about the forn~ntionofproper namositbo~.o, I I~elieveNazi-Sllihn in V R. 44, 43a, to be the sanle person as
the higl, dignitary who appears as the first witness in the "Freibrief " of Ncbuchadrczaar I.
For Iiharbe = B81 cf. Dclitzsch, Kousiie~,p. 23 ; for Turgo = B&lcf. Ililpreclrt, Z. A. VII, p. 316, noto 3, and
t h o follamiog lines above.
Cf. Wincklcr in Z A. 11, pp. 3V7-311
Against Deiitzsch, Uescl~.("Ubersiclit"), WIN does not hesitate to number llitn among the Cassite rulers.
Tlle principle stated by Winckler in Z A. 11, 11. 310, 1. 7-10, is correct, but his identific:ition of RadashmanBe1 wit11 Iiadaslrmsn-KharI,e is impossible.
:14
OLI) BABYLOEIAX
INSCRIPTIONS
rictsh, as is required.' That l'u7.y is another Cassite equivalent for the Babylonian
Be1 (of Nippur), I have eadcavored to show in 2. A. VII, p. 316, note 3. B u t there
are other reasons for identifying Kadashman-Tnrgn with I i a d a s h m a n - " ' " " ' L I L :
(1) The cuneiform characters of the inscriptions of l i a d a s h m a a - T o r g on Plates
23, 24, are strikingly similar to thosc of X a d a s h m l t n - " i " i - L I L and especially
liis son (Pl. 23). (2) The son of I < a d a ~ h r n a n - ~ ' " ~ ~ ' E i \ ~bears
L I L l~rcciselythe
same title (PI. %,Xo. (58, col. I, (i)
as,I<adashman-Turgu (PI. 24, 1. 8).?
On P1. 28 we mect with the first personxl inscril~tionof Rarn?~zci~z-shum-u~z~r,
contemporary of the Assyrian Iring, B?l-liudnr-ustu. The bt.icli legend is written in
Snmcrian and reads : 1. Di"~"En-lil2. l/.~qrtl~ U T - ~ Z L T - T3.~ lugcil-a-mi-ir 4. "'"""
Ramnrri?z-shum-u~ur 5. sibn s7~e-gn-bi (i. /;-a En-lil ''-a '7. sag-ush h'-k7~~-ra 8.
3-lcur e ki-uy-gh-a-ni 9. '"'9" al-za.-~ct-ta 10. mu-ZL~Z-?LC-TU,
"TO H?l, lord of lands,
his lord, Ramm2n shum-ns~u.,his favorite shel~hcrd,:~dorneroS Xil~pur,chief of Ekrlr,
built Ekur, liis hcloved house, with hriclts."
Winelder, following Saycc, " Iattcrly inclines to regard the Babylonian Icing
" Iiamm211-shnm-na:iI.," in I l I It. 4, No. 5, ;t,s identical with the rolcr whose inscription has just been translated.' This, however, is utterly impossible. Sayce and
Winclcler misread the name of the king mentioned in 111 R. According to t,he law
underlying the formati011 of Babylono-Assyrian personal proper names, the ctulieiform
group Rarnrnn*~z-MU-~1~E~'iI~-IR
can only he read Bnrnrn~in-mush~sl~i1.,
" Rammhll is
directing (rnling)."' This Icing lived hefore B ~ ~ r n a b ~ u i aand
s h has uot even the
name in common with thc above-give11 Ramm211-sh1un-n~nr.
-
-
'
For liadasl1man-~~4oi~EN-LIL,
himself king (PI. 25, No. R5), was the father of another king (PI. Z:, 2\70, 68,
col. I, 16), ending in . . . riash (ibid., 1. 5).
"csides the persona! votive inscriptions of King Iindasllman-13ut.go,many tablets dated in his reign were found in
Nippnr. I t is cortain that h e was one of llle best koown princes of tile Cassito dynasty and ruled more tlmml fifteen
years. I t seems, tilerefore, stl.aogo tliat his name, being entirely Cnssitc, s l ~ o u l ~h la r e becn omittetl by the compiler
of K. 4426 (V R. 44, 21-44, a. b). As soon ns w e road tile naine io V R. 44, 20, n, Iiiidi~shman-Targu,ns I proposed
above, thc difficiilly is removed. And, indeed, tilis reading finds now coufir>nation. All the nainos placed together
by the compiler in V X.. 44, 25-44, are pnrcly Cassite. Thcrefore we aro aliliged to ~.cgardthe irlcogram in tlre nnmc
of Kadeshmiul-~lii~o1~E~Y-LIL,
wliicli is cxl,lainell by its Assyrian equivalent Tuloulti-Bdl in the t.iglrt columo, as Cassitc
in the left colown.
.
That ((i7'liii.Efl-LIL\\-as ]lot t~rono~lnced
Iillarbe seems, apsrt from the above-givcn reasons.
tu be indicaterlby the fact t i n t Iiiiarbe in V R. 4 4 S3 a (i.e., in the left colnmn) is written phonetically lfhar-be. Prom
names like li~a?bi-S?iil~u
(IV R.'34. No. 2, 1. 5, 141, "B8I ( = t h o lord) is Iiar~loL,"we may infer that tlro re;~1mean.
ing of Iiharloi n-as sornetlling like "lord." Tlie use of Iilrnrbi for the name of n certain gad, resembles, thercforc,
closely that of ~lz~~!iii.B~V
ill tile later Babylo~li:mtime (cf. Tielo, Geseh., p. 638). Turgu on tho otller hand seelns to
have been the Ei.1 of tile Cassites, i. e., cnactly col.rcs~,onilingin his rani< t,o tllc di~,r/ii.E~v.LIL
or R8l of Nippllr, tllo
highest god of their P ; ~ n t l ~ e u n .
R. P.', Val. 11, p. 207, note 1 (cf. TToi. I, p. 16).
' Gesch., 11. 102 (cf., liowever, p ~ 88,
. note, nud 157).
5Cf. u - s ? ~ e s l ~ ~ s ? ~Sanll.
e ~ ? ' uIiuy.
,
2, 31.
CHIEFLY FlLORZ NIPPUR.
35
The brick legend 011PI. 29 was already pnblishcd by Pinches i113Tehraica, Vol. VT,
it hcre, as Mr. Piaches' edition,
pp. 55-58. I need makc 110 apology for repnblislii~~g
I am sorry to say, is ol' little usc, the cuneiform text and translation offered by
him being nnfortunately incorrect in all essential points. The legend was stamped
"by means of a wooden block, on thc brick." The stamp, however, having becn
carved very shallowly, the inscription, " thong11 impressed evenly," is not very distinct
on any of the many hundreds of briclis which were fo1111d.' Besides, the surface is
covered "with a thin deposit, wliich adds to the difficulty of deciphering the inscription." Notwithstanding all this, I did not deem it necessary to mark any of
its caneiform charactcrs as donbtfnl. My copy was made after a long and careful
s t ~ ~ of
d yeach character, and especial attention was paid to cvery detail. Certaio
coneiform chai.acters could not be recognized distinctly on the original except in the
light immediately preceding snnrise, the best time for copying diffic~lltcnnciform inscriptions. On the following points I am obliged to differ from Mr. Pinches :
1. PincIles : "The date of this inscription is uncertain. J u d g i n g fi-om the style
of the charactcrs, i t should be about 1500 K. C., bnt it may bc as early as 2S00 B. C."
I n the present writer's opinioi~the iiiscril~tionbelongs to one of the last rulers of the
Cassite dynasty. For paleographic reasons i t cannot be older than 1250 13. C., and
in Fact belongs to a lting who rolcd c. 1165 B. C.
2. Pinches transliterates the name of the ruler (1. 4) " Nin-Dobba," rcgards its
bearer t o be a lady, and adds, tlie inscription "is tho only t e s t of u qneeu of Mesopotamia known." Mr. Pinches should have been the more careful in i~ltrodncingthis
(see below) and regard
regent us a female to A ~ s y r i o l o ~ i s t s .I read I. 4 Mili-fl7uilc7~~
this person as being the well-known Cassite liing who ruled c. 1171-1157 13. C.
3. The first character in 1. 5 is, according to Mr. Pinches, nin, "lady," while in
reality the t e s t gives siba, "shephc~~d."
4. Mr. I'inches reads (1.6) tuyal Ega, " qneen of Ega," and adds, " E g a is probably
another name for this city [Nipp~lr],or for a part of it." The phrase thus misunderstood by Mr. Pinches is the very common title ltyal ly (P)' -gee, "the powerful king."
The inscription in question reads as follows: 1. n " ' - l i l - Z a ( l ) 2. lugctl kurkur-ra 3. lugul-a-xi-ir 4. " " ' ~ " ' M i l i - ' ~ i " ~5.
i i Xsibcc
~ i l ~ ~she-gu-bi
~
6. tugul lig (?)
-ga 7. lugal ub-dn tab-tab-ha 8. E - k w 9. e-ki-clg-yil-a-ni 10. ""'R"al-u~-ra-ta
11. mob-?in-na-~.u, " T o BC.1, lord of lands, his lord, Mili-Shikhu, his favorite shepherd, powerful king, king of the four quarters of the earth, built Eknr, his beloved
house, with bricks."
'Cf. "Table of Colltent~."
'densen in Z. A, I, p. 396, note 4.
36
OLI) BABYLONIAN INSCRIl'TIONS
My reasons for identitying the name ill I. 4 with that oS Mili-Shilrlin are as follows: (1) The liing mnst lrave lived after R ; L ~ I ~ ~ I I - S ~ I ~
because
I I I - LaIfew
~ I Ibricks
~,
of the latter' were found ill the l~latformof the temple erected hy him.' (2) Paleographic reasons point t o t l ~ eend of the Cassite dynasty as tlie date of his iaseription.
Apart from a certain difference of appearance between Ramrn$n-sli~~n~-ugt~r's
legend
and that of the king in question, the one having been inscribed, tlie other stdmped,
there is a decided similarity bct\vcc.t~ the characters of the two inscriptions. (3) One
of the titles (I. 5), the phraseology of the beginning (1. 1-3), and-what is especially
characteristic-that of the end of the two inscriptions (1. 8-11, otllerw. lo), i n other
words, Y (otherw. 7 ) lines are absolutely identical. Hence i t follows that the king in
qi~estionm ~ i s hsvc
t
ruled not long after Ramn1211-shnm-ugnr ; was possibly his snccessor. (4) This result is corroborated by an alrslysis of the first half of 1. 4. The
determinative dingir is not onfrequently found befhre the names of Cassite Icings.'
The secol~dand third cl~aractcrsare t o be read X1i-d (libbu)' + ba. The abse~lceof
the two ill~ierwedges in X I I d is doe to the shallowness with ~vhichthe characters of
the stamp were carved. They are found on anothcr (badly preserved) brick, of the
same liing, thr: lcgclld of wllich was written with the hand, and differs slightly in
othcr respects." A s the inscription is written in Sumerian, the syllable bu indicates
that the Sn~iicrianvalue of the preceding sign ended i11 h, in other words, was the
dialectic form of a word ending in y-probably s7iug. A s the personal proper names
occarl,i~igin thc later S~uncrianinscriptiol~sare, as a rule, not t o he rend Snmevian,
h u t as they were actually prono~urccd,''we read the ideogram (shaba) with one of its
common Scmitie equivalents, icirbu, libkic, mil*/&,
etc.'
Only one of the Semitic ideographic values of this character fulfills the requirement of forming the beginning of one of the well-known nanles of the last four Cassite
kings, i. e., milu or mili. As, on the other hand, there is only one Cassite king of
that period who begins with Mili, I confidently believe the last group of cuneiform
characters in 1. 4 t o he an ideogram for the god Marduk, or his Cassitc equivalent
Shilthu, and read the whole name accordingly Mili-Shithu.
The following list is a11 attempt a t restoring part of the brolren List b, and giving the chronology and s~iceessionof the last twenty-foor ltings of the Cassite
'Togetller with a few of Ur~Ninib,Rurigalzo, and onc of Bur-Sin I
2Cf. above, p. 27, and "Tithlo of Contents," PI. 29, No. 82.
:'Cf. Hilprecht in Z. A. VII, pp. 308-310.
'Cf. Brdnnorv, 1. c., 7083.
Cf. Vol. I, Pavt 2.
OCf. also Jensen in Scilmder's K, 11. 111, Part 1, p. 117, notes 0-0.
7 Cf. Driinuow, 1. c., 7985-1001.
CHIEFLY 1"1(0N NIl'l'U K.
37
dynasty, which ruled over Babylollia for 576 years.' My reasons for changing the
generally accepted order of several of these Icings will be formd in a special article.
If the date which I assigned to the first rulers of the Pashc dynasty be accepted,
u to B$l-shorn-iddina I1 must be regarded as absomy chronology frorn K ~ ~ r i g a l zI1
Il~tely certain. As the rtilers between Barnabtuiash and Ku1.igalzu I1 are well
known, it is also settled beyond donbt that Shagashalti-Bu~.iashlived before Rurig a l z ~1.~ Nabuna'id's statements concerning the ch~.onologyof Sargon I, Hammnrabi, Burns-Bnriash, and Shagaslialti-H~uiashmust bc regarded as only approxi~nate
dates. The events recorded rnay have occurred a t ally time in the century before or
after the year given.' Sennacherib's statement concerning Tali~llti-Xinib'scylinder
(600 years) is likewise to be tinderstood in a broad sense.
13. Ramm?tn-innshCshir5 . . . . . . c.1442-1423 (about twenty years).
14. Kallima(?)-Sin . . . . . . . . . c. 1422-1408 (about fifteen ycars).
15. Knd~u-TurgriI . . . . . . . . . c. 1407-1393 (about fifteen years?).
16. Shagashalti-Buriilsh (his son) . c. 1392-1373 (about twenty year^).
17. ICurigalzu I (son of Kadashman-Iil~arbe). . . . . . . . . c. 1372-1348 (aboot twenty-five years).
18. Iiara-illdasll (his older son?)' . c.1347-1343 (aboat five ycars?).
19. Borna-Bnriash (son of' 17) . . c.1342-1318 (about twcnty-five years).
20. Kara-Bhardash (son of 18) . . c.1317-1308 (abont ten ycars).
(about one year).
21. Nazi-bugash (osurper)! . . . . c. 1307
22. Knrigalzn T I (son of 19) . . . . 1306-1284 (nearly twenty-three ycars).
23. Nazi-3far1ittash (his son) . . . 1284-1258 (twenty-six years).
2L Kadashman-llarga (his son)'. . 1257-1241 (seventeen years).
25. Radashn~a~l-Bnriasl
(his son) . 1240-1239 (two years).
26. Is-am-me . . . . t i . . . . . . . 1238-1233 (six years).
27. Shagashalti-ShuriashS . . . . . . 1232-1220 (thirteen years).
.
.
' I regard Pciser's doubts as to the eol.rectness of tllc 576 years (ZA. TI, p. 207 sey.) as unnecessary. Tlirougi~
tile excavntionsnt Nippur weare enabled to substantiate part of the stst,emcnts given as to this dynasty in the list. l'ilis
fact teaches us P'slinu lenle!
? A n < in
l a sentence like "wllo built 700 years bcfare Bur~laburiasll,"we hnve to malrr oven a grenter allownnce,
as we do not know whicl~approximate date Nabuna'id hail in micd in connection with the reign of Burni~buriash.
He may have lived n t an earlier date.
'Generally rend Kudur-B8l. Cf. above, p. 32 sap.
S T l ~ssmo
e
ns I<ar.indash, son-in-law of ~\sl>ur-uballit,king of Assyria. Cf. R. P.5 Vol.V, p. 107, 1. 5, G, 12.
LCalled Su-zigash in R.P 2 , Vol. V,p. 107, I. 10, 13.
'Cf. Hilprccl~tin Z . A. VII, 11.311 (cf. PI. 23, No. 61). The date t l ~ e r oassigned to Rndashman-Turgu (c. 1540
see
13. C.) is to he correcteii according lo tllitt given above. For his identification with I<ailasI~man-~"Yif'EN~LII,
above, p. 33 sap.
8Cf. above, p. 11.
'
38
OLD BABYI.ONIAN
INSCRIPTIOXS
28. Bibe[iashn] (his son)'. . . . . . 1219-1211 (nine years).
29. B61-sham-iddina I . . . . . . . . 1210-1209 (onc year and a half).
30. Kadashman-Iiharbc . . . . . . . 1209-1208 (one year and a half).
31. Rsn~nlfin-shnm-iddill. . . . . . 1207-1202 (six years).
32. Ramm3n-shnm-us1u . . . . . . . 1201-1172 (thirty years).
33. Mili-Shikhu (his son)'. . . . . . 1171-1157 (fifteen years).
34. Marcluli-abal-idtiina (his s o ~ i ). 1156-1144 (thirteen yeavs).
35. Zanx~ma-shurn-iddin;1 . . . . . . 1143
(one gear).
36. BG1-shum-iddina 11" . . . . . . 1142-1140 (three years).
The last 24 kings = c. 303 years; thc first 4 icings = 68 years; the remaining 8
lii~lgs= 205 years and 9 inonths (each 25-26 years i n nveragc '). Total, 36 1ci11gs
= 576 years and nine months.
THE D Y N A S T Y O F P A S I I E ?
T h c cnneiform tablet poblishcd on PI. 30 nnd 31 forms a part of the collectioll
J S.,
purchased by the Expcciition from Joseph Shemtob' for the University of Pennsylvania, J u l y 21, 1888. Unfortunately i t is impossible to ascertain with certainty
where the stone tablet was fonnd.' I n regard to its size and mineralogical cl~aracter
it closely resembles the "black stone of Za'aleh," to be found in I R. (56, with which
i t also has much in common as to its contents. Both belong to the class of the socalled ~ u ~ u T inscriptions.@
~'?L
A piece of gro~uldsituated in the laud of Kaldi, in the
province of Bit-Sinm3gir (I, 1, 2), which for many years (1, 3-8) had been in possession of the Family of a certain NahR-shom-iddiaa (I, 15) bnt had been unlawfi~lly
rednced in size by Eltarra-il~isha,a t that time governor of Bit-Sinmagir (I, 9-15),
was ~111onthe complaint of the owner (I, 16-11, 5) restored to its original extent by
'Idonticnl wit11 S. 2106, 1. 9. See above, 11. 11.
2Cf. Uelser in U . A. 11, p. 107, 1. 31.
'Cf. R. P2,Vol. V, p. 111, 1. 1 4 ; p. 111, 1. 16. Cf. also below, p. 41.
"uch long reigns appear in no way improbable when compared with tho longer reigns of fifteen rnlers of the
first and second dynasties of Babylou.
Sayce (R. P2,V01. I, p. 17, note 3) regards tllis city as ideutical with Isin and Patesi. Cf. I1 R. 53, 13a.
'' Cf. Rarper, IIeleDraicr' V, pp. 7476.
Cf. "Table ofcontents," PI. 30, 31.
a I reckon as such not only "tllose Babylonian documents ~ l l i ~are
l l insc~ibedon blocks of stone not niwnys quite
regularly hewn" (Belser, B. A. 11, p. I l l ) , but hlso those whicli, like ours and the Za'aleh stone, 'wore kept within
doors and possibly as duplicstes of the '~stblos," wllich were nntnrally oxposed to destructive inflilences, so that in
disputes concerning boundaries tiley ~niglitf i ~ r n i s the
i ~ basis far II legal decision.
"
CHIEFLY FIlOM NIPPUIC.
39
Bi.l-n5din-al>lri, king of Babylon, in the fourth year of his reign (11, 6-10). Thc
document closes with a blessing for the official who in time to come shall respect
the decision (11,11-20), and with a curse against him who shall remove the boundary
again (11, 21-24).
Apart from thc fact that the stone furnishes us with the name of one of the early
kings of the " Sea-land," with that of a hitherto lunknown l>rovincc or colinty of tlic
land of Icaldi,' a ~ i dwith other details of interest, it is or the greatest importance for
its chronological bcarings. For the following reasons, the stone must be assigned to
the Pashe dynasty : (I) The cuneiform charaetcrs are those which a,rc characteristic of tlic documents of that period, and especially tbcy rcscmble those of the charter
(F~eihriq')
of' Nebnchadrezzar 1.' (2) Eliarra-ilcislia, son of Ea-iddina, is me~itioned
as an official9oth on our stonc (I, 10, 11; 11, 6) and on that of Za'aleh (11, 6).
From this it follows that our stone belongs to about the same ti~ilc:IS thc othcr
which bears the date of tlie first ycar of King Mardnirn2dina1_1@. (3) B u t we are
able to fix the date of our sto~iceven morc cxactly from the statement in col. I, 7-15,
according to which the piece of lalid in question was in l)osscssion of the farnily of
Nnbil-shnm-iddina until the time of Nebi~chadrczzsiI, but in the foruth ycar of K i n g
B@ln2dinapluwas unlawf~illyencro:~chedul1o11 by the governor, Elcaris-ilctsha. The
result naturally is that tllc stone dates from the reign of' B6ln2dinaplo, and that the
latter was the immediate successor of Kcbuchadrczzar I. This proves, a t the same
time, that the snpposition made by TVinclcler ' and Delitzsch,' that Mardukn;di~lal$
was the immediate succcssor of Neb~ichadrezza~
I, is wrong, and that the order is
rather Nebochadrezzar I, B$lnfidinapIu, Mard~ikn?~dina1_1@.
The q ~ ~ e s t i oarises,
n
W h a t place must bc assigned to this group of three ltings
in the dynasty of Pashc? This, i l l my opinion, can he answered with entire certainty.
F o r although the Baby1oni:~nlist" has been broken off at the very place mhcre tho
names of the rulers of this dynasty once stood, yet the cliaracters which rcmain of the
last threc kings serve us in solving the clucbtion. Of tlie five bnown kings of this dynasty, 1. Nebachadrezzar I, 2. B?ln2dinaplu, 3. l\lardokn?dini~~C,
4. Mardnlcshfipikzirim (sic!) (not A1ardnkt;bikzirim)' 5. Rarnm2n~pl~1iddina,
nolie of them fit into the
LDelitrsclr,Pc~rndies,11. 203np.; Wincl<lc~.,U,~tcrs.,11. 51 sey.
'i Cf. IIilprecllt, F?eihrirfSebzakailizrzia's I, nirrl V R. 55-57.
:'On our stone hc appears as "gavcrnor of liit-Sinnrinlr ;" oil tlrat of Za'alell ns "gorerllor of tlie city of Ishin ;"
so that he probably liiirl bccn tmnsferrcd on tllo accession of ~ l n r r l u 1 ~ - n x d i n - n wor, possilily a little earlier. Tlie 1iI.e.
vio~ls"governor of Isllin" was Sll;nnnsll~n%~lin
slrulrru, son of Attn~ililrrln(cf. Freib~ief1YeDul:irili~cznr'sI, col. ii, 17).
vm~sen., 91;.
aesdh., 93.
"Winckler, Uitlws., p. 146 s r g .
.4 cylinder fragment of this king, i n l~ussessiono i 311..Tttlcott Wiili;~ms, of P l ~ i l a d e l ~ h i mnsimiislilerete(l
a,
~xnii
translated in 5. A. IV, 301-323. Paleograpllic reasons :u.e rlcciaivo in fixing tile dnto of this cylinder. IIr. Willinrns
has given me his liincl pcrmissioll to publish the cuneiforni tcxt in thc secolld psrt ofthe present volume. Cf. below, p. 44.
'
40
OLD BABYLONIAN
IXSCI:IPTIONS
remaining characters of'the last three names of the dynasty. It follows, thereforc, that
a11 the five nulst have reigncd before these. A s the kings which have heen numbered 4
and 5 arc ltnown to have been successors of Mardaka%dinahi?,i t lilicwise follows that
Nebuchadrezzar I cannot have stood lower than the fourth place in the list. It may
be safely asserted, however, that he stood in the first place, and was, thercforc, thc
founder of the Pashc dynasty. T o this two objections may be offercd: (1) That the
traces of thc cnnciform characters which follow the number of the years in the l i s t b
do not favor the rending of iVnbI?; (2) that Sayce,' on the evidence furnished
by the "Early Tablet of the Babylonian Chroniclc,"' col. IV, 17, claims that place
in the list for a lting ZZumminu-shn~ru[or shum] "iddinci. I n reply to this the following is t o be said :
1. Scholars have adhcrcd too closely to the view that the mutilated beginthe
ning of the first linc of the List b contains after ilu traccs of tllc sign
ideogram for the god Marduli. Winckler, in his edition o r the list, cuts loose from
this assumption, and givcs a s ccrtain only ilu. This variation from the carefi~lly
guarded tradition is snyported by Bezold's remark' that " a t this point the tnblct
is in a most lamelltable condition." Thc latter, however, seems to recognize traccs
of two other wedges immediately following. B n t the chief probicm is whether
bcncath the two horizontal wedges of ilu, there can be seen a small horizontal wcdgc
so that the sign can be completed to the combination of ilu and AG,"he ideogram
f o Nubi?.
~
From thc fact that all those who have examined the list personally a1.c
silent on this point I infer that the tablet a t this place is too illdistinct to permit ally
definite conclnsion. Then, howcver, there is notlling in the remaining traces that
forhids the rending oS Ancibii instcad of Nardali.
2. Fro111 what wc know fro111 the scanty cuneiform aceoonts,' it is clcar that
the last years of the Cassite dynasty were a time of war and political disturbance,
and that it was the wealtncss of its last representative which fi~roishedthe opportuliity
for its own overthrow and for the rise of the house of Pashe. N o matter what verb
may have stood in the effaced passage R.P.; Vol. Y, p. 112, 1. lG,' the supposition
-
' R. P.', Vol. V, p. 112, note I.
' R. P.?, Vol. V, pp. 106-114.
The reading of the middle cht~rnctors e e u s Lo be doablfi~l.1Ir. Pincllcs\\~ouldrendor il grei~tservice to Ass>-rialogists by pnblishing tlleexnct cuneifbr~lltext at an early date.
" Briinnow, 1. c., 10834.
l%. 8.IV, p. 317, note 1.
"Jlriinuo\v, 1. c., 2756. C f IIomniel, Geseh., p. 448.
Cf. cspccialiy R.P,',TTol. V, pp. 111, 112, 1. 14-22.
a I favor umashshir, " h c left," instead of " l ~ erono~u~ceil"
or "abilicnted " (Piucllos). Cf. however, Tiele, 1. c.,
p. 165.
'
CIIIEFLY FROM NIPPUR.
41
of Sayce, that line 17 contains the name o f t h e second iring of thc Pashe dynasty, seems
to me improbable, since the samc Elamite king, Ki~iin-K7~utrutash,'
who already had
attacked Akkad in the time of BGlshnmiddina, is again the assailant in this passage.
I f Sayce were right, this Elsmite would have made his second incorsion into Aklrad
about twcnty years after the first. This in itself is l>ossible, but it is made less probable by the expression " Raniinknu-shorn-iddills ret~wncd,"which appat.ently co~lllects
this section closely to that which precedes. Besides it will be noticed that Rammino-shum-iddina does not bear the title of king, as BClshnmiddina. It seems morc
probable, therefore, to see in Ramm2nn-sh~~m-iddina,
thc unfort~ulateson (or possibly allother relative) of BFlshumiddina, who "returned" from the place to which
B6lsbumiddina or his family had fled, in order to take possession of the throne as
his lawf111 inheritance.
This leads me to the discossion of the reasons for regarding Nebuchadrezzar I
as tllc foullder of the Pashe dynast,y.
1. It needs no proof that a t a time when a country is harried by a powerful
enemy? and a descendant of illostrioos ancestors pots forward claims to the crown,
which are based on historic rights, a nsnrper who is to found a ncw dynasty must
d i s t i n g ~ ~ i sliimself
h
by eminent courage
and ability. S ~ ~ c an
l l able ~ ~ o l e rwho,
,
according to onr present lrnowledge, surpassed in pre~minenceall the other lrings of
his dynasty, Nebochadrezzar I is certified to have been. H c condncted s ~ ~ e c e s s f i ~ l l y
the wars against Elarn, the hereditary enemy of Babylon in the East, turned his arms
victoriously against the >Tort11 by " c a s ~ i n g down thc mighty Lulubman," and
marched, as no other Babyloniall Iting for centnrics had ventured, conqueringi~ltoSyria.
2. I t is worthy of notice that both the docnments bcaring his name are written in
coilnection with his soccessf~~l
conflict with Elan]. I l i s wars with this country,
therefore, must have been especially important, perilous and of long doration.' Since
we have learned from Pinches' rccent pnblication of the Babylonian Chronicle (col.
IV, 1. 14-22) that the Elamites toolc advantage of the wealrness of the last Cassite
king to devastate Northern and Southern Babylonia, the campaigns of Nebochadrezzar I against Elam become of especial significance. A s a usurper he manifestly
was able to hold his position only by rendering the Elamites harmless and by
defeating them on their own soil, thus " avenging Alrkad," and restoring quiet and
peace to his own conntry.
'This and not Iihut7.1~
icna or Iilcut~udis7~
(pinches,1. o., pp. 111-113) is the probable reading. For the value task
of the character in question see IIilprccht in Z . A. VII, 1,~.300, 310, 314. T l ~ enarno meana "sulrject (servant) of the
god I<butrutash" (cf. god fi1;~rhtash).
". F.5 Vol. V, pp. 111 sey.
Wincklel; Oesch., 11. OF.
Hilprecht, Freibrief, cool. I, 13.
"
'
43
OLD BABYLONIAN INSCI~IPTIONS
3. Nebuchadrezzar I bears titles which differ entirely from those at that time
characteristic of the rulers of Babylonia. He calls himself, in the manner of the
Egyptians, Shamnsh mitishu, "the Sun of his land ;" or mushammihu ~~jshishu,"he
who makes prosperous his people ;" 7 ~ t f skudlir&ti,
i~
mz~l;:inu
abl8,l "he who protects
the boundaries, establishes (meas~ired)tmcts of land;" sltai. Icinciti s7~udin misha~i
idinu, "the king of the right, he who judges a righteons judgment ;" all arc titles
which probably refer to the fact that just before the reign of Nebnchadrczzar I there
was in Babylonia a time of profound misery, when the land did not enjoy sunshine,
and when the peaceful possession of well-defined property was impossible, as the
violence of the strongcr superseded law and order, while, at the same time, the bonndaries of the empire mere constantly invaded by powei.fi11 enemies ; in other words,
anarchy as we l i i ~ o wit existed in Babylonia at the close of the reign of BClshr~middina. The significant title, sl~cililzc Kas7~shi,"the conqneror of the Cassites,"
acquires doubtless, in this connection, the significance of an allnsion to the circumstance that it was he who had achieved the restoration of the Semitic element through
the overthrow of the Cassite dynasty.'
4. The bonndary stone IV R.: 38, which is dated in the time of Merodachbaladan I, mentions the house (1, 10) and the son (11,34, 35) of a certain Nazi-Shilchu,
while in the "Freibrief" of Nebuchadrezzar I, a certain Nazi-Shikha is named as a
high dignitary, Eulu AEkud. In view of the rare occnrrence of this name in Babylonian literature "t is n a t ~ u a to
l regard the two bearers of the same name as identical. This identification, howerer, is possible only if Nebochadrezzar I reigned not
long after M e ~ o d a c h b a l a d a iI,4 i. e., if he, as fo~lndcrof the Pashe dynasty, came
into power some four years after the latter's death.
-
'
Iformerly transliterated this word apli (as Peiser still dues in Schmder's Ii. D,111, h r t 1, p. 1G1). But siucc
1880 I have cl~angedmy view and s~tbstitute~l
tlre above. As the ward stands parallel to kudcriti, it must have a
similar meaning. In spite of nalqhalu, 11 K. 22, 29, b, o., oh2 is to be compnrcrl wit11 the Hebrew,'iln wliicll, in view
p. 37, no. 30. I n view of the title above
of the Ethiopic and Arabic ?ah1 has I?. Cf. also Delitasch, V8~tcrhz~ch,
quoted it docs not seem improb;~blethat Nebnchadreeznr I sssomec! his lrighly si&lificant nsmc, " Nebo, protect the
boundary," only after his usurpation. Another i n t e r p r e t ~ t i oof
~ ~ tllc nillie, "Nehu, pratoct (thy) servant," llns
rocently boen oiFeret1 by Jiigcr (13. A. I,
471, note 5). But wllere is the "tlry " ? Tllc proper names l o u d u ? ' ~;~~ n d
hirlinnzc, quoted by Jiiger, (Lo.), are not to be regarded as exclu~i~ations
but as abbreviations af origiually looser names.
As the middle part of the nsnle of Nob~~cl~atlrezzar
is vritten either l<t~durru
or l c i i d t w ~ (Bezold,
i
Bobgloi~isck-As~yl.isc110
Litevatzw, p. 120), or k u c l t ~ ~(PI.
~ o 32, col. 11, 7, of the present volume), it cannot mean "my boundary," as I
formerly inteil,retecl (li'veibrief, 1). viii, note I), but " tllo boundary." Cf. my rcmarl;s in TIL~
Sxndny SoTLool Tiri~ss,
February 20,1802, p. 115, uote 3.
Wf. Hommel, Gesoh., p. 451.
Cf. col. TI, 18 of tlre boundnry stone (publisl~otlby Bclscr in B. A. 11, ~q'.171-185), mllich fuvnislles us dntn
For ~ I Ytmnsliternt,ion nnd the forlllation of tlle
from the time of the kiugs Ninib-kv~d&~i-t~pt~~
and N~~b~.m~akin-~~plu.
name, cf. above, p. 33 and note 5.
*Foras tlie son of N~zi-Shiklmwho appenrs ns n witness under hIcrodacl~baladanI, was already i u possessioll of
the Important Office of a sulcailu, his father must have been adva~ucedin ycars.
CHIEFLY FROM NIPPUR.
4.7
5. The second king of the Pnshe dynasty, according t o List b, reigned only six
of Nebochadrezzar I in his "Freiyears. And indeed, \vhile thc titles and coilq~~ests
brief" imply a coml~arativclylong reign, thcre arc indications that his immediate
successor, B&lnkdi~ialjlu,rnled but a short time. This does not necessarily follow
from the circumstance that thc document on Plates 30 and 31 is dated in the fourth
year of his reign; bnt from the fact that Tkb-ashkp-Mardulr,' son of Esagilz&,' already mentioned under Nebnchadrezzar I as governor of Halwkn, appears
again as sukallz~in the first year of Marduk-nRdin-a@, i. e., about twenty years later;
for i t is very unlikely that the same person occupied a high and rcsponsiblc position
under three successive ltings, if both of the former two had reigned a long period.
6. Finally this assumption e ~ ~ a b l us
e s in the simplest way to dispose of certain
chronological difficulties, upon which I cannot enter into details herc (cf. e. q. Z. A.
111, p. 2GO).
The statenlent of Sen~iacherib~~f~~rnishes
us with a definite datum for the chronology of the Pashe dynasty. A s it seems most natural to connect the carrying off of the
images of the gods of Ekallkti, with Marduknkdinah&'s victory over Assyria, in the
tenth year of his reign,' we obtain 1107 13. C. as the tenth year of that iring's rule,
and 1116 B. C. as the year of his accession to the throne. I n accordance with what
has been said above, Nebaehadrezzar I reigned 1139-1123 B. C.,' and B61-nRdinaplu in 1122-1117 B. C.
A word remains to be said as to the length of the period cove~edby the Pashe
dynasty. That the reading of seventy-two years which have been generally assigned to
it is impossible, Peiser has shown beyond question by a very siml~lecalculation."
Thc number of twelve years for the seventh king of this dynasty, assumed by Tiele
' T h e reading ~nbu-~i'Pu-~Ialarurlu~,
"A beneficent king is DIsrduk," preferred by Tiele (Geso/c., 1). 101, note I ) ,
instead of that given above (and first proposed by Oppert and MCnnut in Docun~cntsJwiriiyues), nceds no refutstion.
TW-aship-&la~dzbkis the only possible anc and means "Goarl is the exorcism of Marduk." The L'ailloz~ rle iliiei~azi%
upon n.hicli TiLb-nsl~hp-Mir~~Zuk,
apparently not so far advanced in yezrrs, liliewise appears, belongs to the reign of
Nebnchadrezzar I or of B&luBdinaplu (cf. Tiele, 1. c., p. 161, and Hommcl, Gesci~.,pp. 454, 450).
'That EsagilzEr is identical wit11 the Ina-Escgi1i.d~of the Ze'alell stone (col. 11, l a ) , Was sllown in my commcntary on the "Freibrief Nebokadnezar's I," in 1882, which at the time was not printed because of a two years' illness.
At present the proof of their identity is unnecessary. Cf. l3tblbar-s7lur+i-iddina,111R. 43, col. I, 29, and Ina-Eulbnrshuvgi-iddina, V R. 60, col. I, 29. C f also Delitzsch, Kossiiev, p. 16 (ef. however Gesch., " Ubersicht "). To a different efect Jeremias in B. A. I, 1311. 210, 280 ; and Peiser in Schradcr's IL B. 111, Part 1, p. 117.
king of Akkad,
Baoias, 48-50. "Ramrn8.n and Sala, the gods of the city of Ekalliti, which &lardukn&dinah_L?,
at the time of Tiglath-Pilesor, king of Assyria, carried off and brousht to Babylon, 1 carried out of Babylon 418 years
later, and brought them back to Elrall8.ti, to their l~lace,"i.e., in the year B. C.689, wllen Sanlieribconqliered Bnbylon.
' Cf. 111, R. 43, col. I, 5, 27, 28.
This calculation confirms strikingly the ycnr 1130 R. C., which I gave as the spproxinlate date of his "Freibrief" in 1883.
2. A. VI, p. 268 sey.
44
OLD B A B Y L O N I A N INSCRIPTIONS CHTEH'LY FROM NIPPUR.
( I . c., p. 111) and favored by Delitzsch,' finds no support in Winclclcr's edition and
besides does not suffice to solve the chronological difficulty. As according to Peiscr
( I . c.) the passage is much effaced, %11d as his proposed reading, 60 t- 60 + 12 = 132
years, is the most simple and probable' solutiou of the existing difficulty, I accept it
and accordingly construct the following table :
1. Nebachadrezzar I, . . 1139-1123 (seventeen years).
2. B&l-nadin-aplu,. . .
1122-1117) (six years).
3. Marduk-nfidin-ah?, . . 11lG-c. 1102 (c. fifteen, at least ten, years).
4. Marduk-shapik-zirim,' 1
5. RammAn-aplu-iddiIla, 1 c. 1101-1053 (forty-nine years).
6-7. Two missing icings, 1i
5. . . . . . . . . . . . . , . 1052-1031 (twenty-two years).
9. Marduk-bCl . . . . , . 1030-1029 (one year and six montlis).
10. Marduk-z@r . . . . . , . 1029-1016 (thirteen years).
11. Nabfi-shum . . . . . , . 1016-1007 (ni~ieyears).
Total one hundred and thirty-two years and six months.
.
.
"Anhang" to his Geschichte.
I t is to be regretted that Winckler ilas not indicated the actual condition of tile passage by slracling the enaced
portions of the cliamcters.
Cf. also Wincklcr, Gesc7~.,1,. 329. note 17. Another possibility (that GO 10 10 2 =8? stood originally
there) is loss probable for various rcssons.
Thisname has been transliterated Hardr~k-sh~'~~ik-zi!r.~nilli
(Tiele, RoscR., p. 155 ; Delitzsclt, Oesch., "Ubersicht ")
I
regard
but11 transliterations as Incorrect, aud would substitute
or 1Wardi~k-si~apik-ku1.1a1
(Winckler, f3escli., p. 09).
that given above for the follon.ing reasons : (1) The cylinder fragment publislled by Dr. Jastrow (cf. above, 11. 31,
note 7) was uofortunately mis,~n~!erstooriby the latter and misread in various passages. Having eraminecl tlie fraglnont carefi~lly,I find that the old Babylonian character transliterated la by Jastrow is distioctly tho sign sha in tlle
form so characteristic for tlre documents of tho Pashe dynasty. T l ~ ounme can only he read .+Iarduk.slLipil:-zi-riii?nn
(2) This correct reatling is important in connection with the transliteration of the name of RammAn.apiu-iddina's predecessor. I t is in itself improbable that two rulers of a Hnbylonian dynasty of elcvon 1-ings bore names almost (if not
wl~olly)identical. The thuught forces itself upon ollr mint1 tllut Mardu1;-sl~Xpil<.zirimis the s ~ n l person
e
as tlie Iring
wllose name was heretofore genernlly read ~ I a r d u l ~ - s l r ~ ~ 1 l l i - z 2 r - 1Thnt
n ~ t i , at least tliese two names are identical is
certain. Tile lnst clraracter of the latter l~nmo(rWA2: IIriinnow, 1. c., 1386) v a s oitller erroneously read by tho Assyriologists wlio copied tile so-called "syncllronistic Ilistory," or by the Assyriaucompiler who used a Babylonian original,
t two cliarncinstead of tile cl~nractorRIJI (Briinnow, I. c., 8867). For it is well known anmng Assyriologists t l ~ a the
ters are nearly irleutical in the later-middle : ~ n dthe latest periods of l+nbyloninn cuneiform writing. I n consideration
of this Fact, and in view of the phonetic writing z i l i - i m on tlke cyliniles fragment, I uul~esitntlnglyresd the name in
or i,leograpl~icnlly (plus phonetic conlplement) ~?I~brdz~I~-shi?piiiquestion either phonctlcally iWard~~/o.sh~pi1;-~i~~-rim,
(
) The king, &DIrduk-t2hik-ziri1n,intl.oduced by Dr. Jastrow and accepted by Peiser (Sclirnder's II. B. 111,
Part 1, p. 102 sap.) as an llitherto unicuomn ruler of tlie Paslle dynasty thus disappears. As to my otllcr corrections
of certain readings offered by Dr. Jastrow In connection wit11 the cylinder in rlriestion cf. i'Spreclisnal" In one of
the next numbers of 2.A.
+ +- +
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF THE EXPEDITION.
~
~
I. JOAN
P. PETERS.
1. Letter on tile Babylonian Exped ilio~~
: The American Journal of Archmology VII, pp. 472475.
2. A Brief Statement concerning tho Babylonian Expedition sent out under the auspices of the University
of the American Oriental Society, April 21-23, 1832, pp. CXLVI-CLIII.
of Pennsylvania : I%.oceeili~li?~gs
3. Notes on lliirdter-Delitzsch's Geschicilte : Zeitscl~rvtfur Assyriologie VI, pp. 333-339.
4. A Few Ancient Sites, I and I1 : The Nation 1889, May 23, p. 423, and Nay 30, pp. 442, 443.
5. From Niffer to Tello, I and I1 : ibidem 1889, July 25, pp. 69, 70, and August 1, pp. 90-SJ.
6. Zenobin, Paimyra, and the Arabs : ibidem 1890, April 3, pp. 276, 271.
7. A Misrepresented Ruin : ibidem 1891, Hay 7, 1'11. 375-377.
11. H. V. IIILPRECHT.
1. Keilinschriftliche Funde in Niffer : ZeitschrLrift fiir Assyriologie 1V, pp. 16P168.
2. Aus einen~Briefe desselben an C. Eczold : ibidem IV, pp. 282-284.
3. Die jungsten Ausgrnbung.cn in Babylonien : EZniacha Zeiturry 1889, June 30, No. 179.
4. Neue Forschungen in Bubyionicn : Luthardt's Enangelisoh Lutherische Kirc7~enzeitung1888, June 14, pp.
568, 569.
5 . The &Iooti~
of the Na11r.el-I<olb: The Sunday School Tirnes 1889, Vol. XXXI, No. 11, p. 103.
6. Die Inschriften Nebukadnezar's irn Wadi Urissa : Lnthardt's Zeitsohrift fur Icirohliche Wissensc7iaft und
tcire7~lichesLebcn 1889 IX, pp. 491-498. Compare also Th6 Sunday School Times 1889, Val. XXXL
No. 35, yp. 547, 548 : Ti~eInscriptionsaf Nobucllt~dnozzarin the V a d y Brissa.
7. The Shnykh of Zeta : Tl~eSunday S~hoolTimes 1890, Vol. XXXII, No. 10, pp. 147, 148.
8. Babylon : ibidem 1892, Voi. XXXIV, No. 20, pp. 306-308.
9. Die Votivinsclirift eines nicllt erkannten I<assiteniiiinigs : Zeilschrift fur ilssyriologie VII, pp. 305-318.
10. I<iinig Ini-Sin von Ur : ibidem VII, pp. 343-346.
11. Die Erginzung clor Nnluen zmeier Rassitenkiinigr : ibicllem, in print.
12. Zur Lapislazuli Frnge im Uabylonischsn : ibidem, iin print.
111. ROBERT FnhNcrs HARFEII.
1. Babylonian Letter.-'J'ile
Joseph Sllemtab Collection of Babylonian Antiquities, recently purchased for
tile University of Pennsylvania : Hebraica IT,
pp. 74-76.
2. Tile Kll. Colleclion of Babylonian Antiquities belonging to the University of Pennsylwnin : ibidem VI,
pp. 59, GO.
3. The Destruction of Antiquities in the East : ibidem VI, pp. 225, 236.
4. Three Contract Tablets of Asl~urilililani: ibidm VII, p. 79.
5. A Visit to Zinjirli : l'he Old and New Zbstarnsnt Student VIII, pp. 183, 194.
6. A Visit to Carchemish : ibidem IX, pp. 308, 309.
7. Down tile Euphrates Valley 1-111 : ibidem X, pp. 58-57 ; 118, 119 ; 367, 308.
8. Tile Expcclition of the Babylonian Exl~lorztionFund, A. B. C. : ibidem XIV, DP. 160-165 ; 213-217 :
XV, PP 12-16 ; U. : Tho Biblical lVorld I, pp. 57-02.
0. Aus einelu Briefe desselben an C. Bozold : Zeitsch~iftj'iir Assyriologie ITT,pp. 163, 164. Compare also
Hebraica VIII, pp. 103, 104 : A-hi-e-shu-'= Ebishum.
10. Tile Site of Old Baghdid : The Academy 1880, February 23, p. 139.
11. A New Babylonian Contract : ibiden~1889, April 20, p. 374.
IV. T H E ~ P E I LG.
U ~P I N C E (based
E ~ upon comnnlnications fro111 Dr. Peters and Dr. IIarper).
1. An Early Babylonian Inscription from Niffer : Eebroica VI, pp. 55-58.
2. Thc Discoveries of tile American Expedition to Babylonia : The Academy 1891 September 5 , p . 109.
Compare also his note "Kadashman :" ibidem 1801, September 12, 11. 281.
c., circa; C. U. AI., Catnlogue of the Babylonian llusenm, University of Pennsylvania; col., colnmn(s) ;
d., dinmeter: US"., Dynasty ; E., East ; f~.agm., fragmont(ary) ; II., l~eigllt; I n s c r . , Inscription ; I., lengtll;
li., line(s) ; m., meter; N., North ; Nipynr I, 11, 111, etc., refers to the eorrcspontling numbers on Plate X V ;
No., number; Nos., numbers; N. P., Notel~ookof Dr. Peters made on the ruins of Nippur during tile second
year's excavations; Obv., Obverse; orig., nriginal(iy) ; p., page; Pllo., Pl~atograph; PI., Plate; Rev.,
Reverse; S., South ; Sq., Squeeze; T., Temple ofBP1 ; tlt., thiek(noss) ; W., Vest; w., width; Z., Ziqqurratu ;
Z. A., Zeitschrift fiir Assyriologie.
I\Ieasurements are given in centimetres. TVhenevcr the object sarios in size, the largest measurement is given
PLATE.TEST.
DATE.
1
1
Sargoil I.
2
2
Sargon I.
3
3
Sargon I.
3
4
Nadm-Sin.
4
5
Al-uslrarsl~id.
DEscnrrTroN.
Door socket in diorite, somewi~atsmaller t l ~ a tire
~ r following. Nippur.
111,beneath the rooms of T. on the S.E. side of %. Inscr. 18.5 x
10.12, 2 col., 24 Ii. Sq. On tlle rough edge, scratched in the rudest
way,is the same inscr. as P1.:14, Nos. 23-25(cf.also PI. 12, No. 20).
Door socket in diorite, 75 X 41.5 X 17.5. Nippu~'111, same place as
No. 1. Inscr. 17.8X 10.35, 2 col., 23 li. C. B. &I.8551. Cf. PI. I, 1.
The variants li. li and 21 have been take11from a third door socket
i n diorite, bearing the same inscr. as No. 2, and found in another
trench a short distance from it.
Briclc stamp of baked clay, brown, with handle, 9.45 X 13.55 X 2.
N i p p w 111, close to the S. E. wall of Z. Inscr. 2 col., 6 li.
C. H. M. 8751. Cf. PI. 11, 2.
Brick stamp of baked clay, crealn colored, handle wanting, 11.75 X
12.08 X 2. Nippur TT, in tlie N.TTT. extremity. Inscr. 3 li. C. B. JI.
8755. CP. PI. 11, 3.
Three fragmelrts of adolomite vase. Orig. (1. of the vase c. 10. Fragm.
8891 : 11.10 x 7.i x 3.8. Fragm. 8892 a and b (glued together):
20.5 x 9.8 x 3.8. Nippza 111,approximately same place as PI. 1,
No. 1. Inscr. orig. 25.57 X 7.2, 13 li. C. B. 31. 8891, 8802 a and b.
The text has beell restored by the aid of fragm. 8866, 8865, 8813,
8860, 8859, 8858, 8853, 8854 on the scale of fragm. 8892. Cf. PI.
111, 4-12.
OLD BABYLONIAN INSCRIl'TIONS
~)ESCIIIPTION.
Al-usl~arsl~i(l.
Same Period.
Fragm. of a vase in reddish numulite limestone, 11. 16.5, d. 18 (of hole
4.4). N i p p e r 111, same place a s PI. 4, No. 5. Inscr. orig. 11.76 X
7.05, 6 li. C. B. 11.8588. Tllc text has bee11 restored after No. 5.
Cf, Pl. I V , 13.
Fragul. of a white marble vase, h. 21, rl. 16.4 a t the base, 11.2 a t the
centre. N z j i p i a 111,same place as PI. 4, No. 5. Inscr. 4.8X 5.4,
3 li. C. B. M. 8870. Cf. PI. V, 14.
Fragm. of a white marble vase, orig. h. 6, d. 14.5. N i l ) p t ~ ~111,
.
same
place as PI. 4, No. 5 . Inscr. (same as Pi. 5, No. 7) 3.2 X 3.8, 3 li.
C. B. 11.8830.
Fragm. of e wliite marble vase, orig. 11. 13.5, d. 15 (of bole 6.3). XipPUT 111, same place a s 1'1. 1, Xo. 1. Mark on the bottom, 2.4 X 2.6.
Same inscr. a s PI. 6, KO. 7. N. P.
Fragm. of a diorite vase, 7.36 X 2.8 X 0.8, orig. d. 22.2. A7ij~jiur111,
salue place as PI. 4, No. 5. Inscr. 3, orig. 11 li. C. H. 11. 8842.
\\'l~ite marble tablet,Obv.flat, Itev, rounded, 11.3 X 7.2 X 2.65. ililippiir,
apparently from the X. 'W. extremity of V in the neighborliood of
PI. 3, No. 4 (cf. Hilprecl~tin Z . A. I V , pp. 282-284). Inscr.
8 (Obv.) 7 (Rev.) = 15 li. C. B. M. 8757. Copied by myself on
the ruins of Nippur, April 8, 1889.
Fragm. of a large vase in white marble, 10 X 12.5 X 6.2. Presumably
neighborhood of Ilabyloil. Inscr. 2 cul., 8 li. C. B. 31. 1128.
Fragm. of a slab in compact limestone, 12.8 X 7.35 X 5 . 6 . 1 T i p p u ~
111, inside of the great S.E. telilpie ~vall. Inscr. 3 col., 15 li.
C. B. 31. 8811.
Basalt tablet, Obv. Pat, Rev. rounded, lower left corner wanting,
12.25 X 5.68 X 2.2. Xorthern Babylonia, probably Uvsag-IiEsl~.
111scr. 8 (Obv.)
1 (Rev.) = 9 li. C. 11. 31.841.
Agate tdblet, bored lengtllwise, both sides convex, lower part manting,
4.4 X 4.3 X 0.8. i i p ] n i 111,
~ in a chamber on the edge of the canal
outside of tlie great S.E. wall of T. Obv. Inscr. 8 li. C. B. &I.
8698. For Rev. see Pi. 21, Xo. 43.
Soapstone tablet, Obv. flat, Rev. rounded, 8.6 x 5 x 1.88. Babylonia,
probably Jlurja!iy(cr. Iiiscr. G (Obv.)
2 (Ilev.) = 8 li. C. B. M.
842.
Frl~gm.of ;L slab in iliorite, 5.1 X 10.5 X 5.6. Nippz'r 111,S. of Z.
Inscr. 3 col., 3 f 2 217
li. C. B. hl. 3243.
Fragm. of a brick of baked clay, h r o \ ~ n ,32 (orig.) x 23 (fragm.) x
8.4 (orig.). A7ippti?' 111, foulld ont of plnce in a later s t r u c t ~ ~ r e
on the S.E. side of Z. (cf. PI. 20, No. 82; PI. 13, No. 22; P1. 20,
No. 38). Imscr. (writtell) 23.3 X 10.65, 13 li. C. H. 11. 0021. Cf.
IV, It. 352, No. 5.
Fragm. of ahrick of baked clay, brown, 30.6 (fragm.) x 20 (fragm.) x
6.5 (Eragm.). N i p p ~ 6 1 .111, follll(1 out of place, same place as PI.
10,Ko. 18. Inscr. (stamped) 22.5 x 10.5, 10 li. C. B. &I.8642.
Door socket in diorite, an irregular cube, c. 10 eacll side. i l ' i p p z i ~111,
in a small sllrille ouLside of tlle great S.E. ail of T. Inscr. 15.4 x
13.4,2col.,ll+G=lili.
C.B.M.8838.
+
Same Period.
o. SO00 B.C.
Ur-Gur.
+
Dungi.
Dungi.
+
+
Bur-Sin I.
BuliSin 11.
:HISFLY
FROM NIPPUR.
49
!)ATE.
Dn:scsrr~r~ox.
21
Bur-Sin I1
22
Bur-Sin 11.
26
c. 2 5 0 B.C.
27
Hammurabi.
28
Cassite Dgn,
20
Cassite Dyn.
30
Cassite Dyu.
31
Cassite Ilyn.
32
Cassite Ilyn.
33
Burna-Buriash.
33
3-1
Burna-Buriasli.
Burna-Buriash.
3.5
Kurigalzu,
36
Kurigalzu.
Door socket in cliorite, 53 X 28 X 23. N$,puv 111, same place as P1. 11,
No. 18. Inscr. aroutld the hole, 23.5 x 5.35,17 li. Sq. O n the
bottom a t the edge is tlie same inscr. as PI. 14,Nos. 23-25 (cf. also
PI. 1, KO. 1).
Briclr of baked clay, light brown, very soft, corered wit11 bitnmen, 30
x 30 x 6.5. Nipliu~111, same plilce as Pi. 11, No. 10. Iuscr.
(written) 5.97 x 5.3, 2 li. Scl. The inscription is generally re.
liel~tedthree or four times on the same brick (edges and sides).
Large mlhewn bloclis of white marble and reddish granite, varying in
cl. from 25-60. Iv7ipjiur 111, approximately same place as 1'1. 1,
No.1. I n s c r . 6 X 5 . : I ; 7 X G . 2 ; G . 5 X i . 7 ; e a c 1 1 3 l i .
Sq.
Cre;im-colored sonpstone tablet, Rev. broke11 off, 4.85 X 4 X 0.8. Pre.
surnably neigllborhood of B a h y l o l ~ . Inscr. 8 li. C. B. bf. 103.
Fragm. of an ornamented soapstoile stamp in Lhc sbape of a vase.
h. 13.3, d. 12.2 a t tlie bottom, 8.7 at tho centre. Presumably
neighborhood of Babylon. Inscr. (on the bottom) 8 li. C. B. M.
1126. Cf. PI. I S , 20.
1,:~pis lazuli disc, (1. 1.i. The thickness of this class of inscribed
objects foulid at the same place, if not expressly stated in the
following lines, varies from 0.2 to 0.8 cm. h'ipl,t~r111, same place
as PI. 8, No. 15. C. B. &I.8685.
Agate cameo, d. 1.56. Nipjiul' 111, same p1;~Ce as PI. 8, Xo. 15,
C. B. 31. 8687.
Lapis lazuli disc, d. 1.6. N ~ P I I Z111,
L T same place as PI. 8, No. 15.
C. H . M. 8721.
Agate cameo, bored lengtll~vise,1.7 X 1.9. Nil~llz~r
111, same place as
PI. S, No. 15. C. B. M. 8723.
Lapis lazuli tablet, bored lengtll~vise,I.(% X 1.8. NiZ,lixr I , apparently
out of place, i n a grdly on the snrfnce. C. B.At. 8720.
TVliite marble mortar; :LI~uninscribed l~ortionis broken from its side,
h. 14.4, d. 12.8. Presumably neighborhood of Babylon. Inscr.
3
X 1 1 . 5 27 1 C. B. M. 12. Cf. PI. I X , 21.
The same, continued.
Ivory knob of a sceptre (or corrventioi~alizedform of a phallus), top
rounded, base ilat, round hole in the centre, h. 3.5, d. 5.9 at the top,
6.2 a t tlie bottom. ATii~pzw111, same glace a s PI. 6 , No. 15.
Inscr. 5.8 X 2.42, 5 li. C. B. 31. 8730. Cf. PI. X, 23.
Tablet in feldspar (mottled dark lrrown and gray), upper (inscribed)
surface convex, lower Rat, 3 X 12.2 X 0.9. Adipiitw 111,same place
as PI. 8, No. 15. Inscr. 2 li. C. B. hf. HGOO.
Irregular block of lapis lazuli, upper part inscribell, 5.1 x 9.25 x 5.
1Vippsr 111, same place a s P1. 8, No. 16. Inscr. 3.38 X 4.48, 6 li.
C . B. 31. 8598. Cf. Pl. XI, 25.
Door socket in white marble Tvith rod veins here and there, 46.5 x 43.8
X22. Nipptw 111, 011 the N.E. side of T. near the onter mall. In.
scr. on both sides of the holc, 11 li. intended, but olily 7 ii. inscribed,
14.3 x 14.3. Copied by myself on the ruins of Nippur, April 6, 1889.
Tes,~..
50
OLD BABYLONIAN INSCRIPTIONS
PLATE. TEXT.
DATE.
DESCRIPTION.
Fragm. of a brick of baked clay, brown, 33 (orig.) x 17 (fragm.)X 7
o
g IY~,IJ~LT
111, found out of place in a later structure of
tlie inner wall of Z. (cf. PI. 29, No. 82; PI. 10, No. 18). Inscr.
13.5X 6, 9 li, stamped on the edge; the space being too small,
a portion of tlie last cheracter of each line is wanting. C . B. 31.
8636.
Fragm. of a n axe in imitation of lapis lnzuli, 9 x 6.3 x 2.7. ATiI,l,tw
111, sarric place as 1'1. 8, No. 15. Inscr. 7 li. C. 13. hI. 9462. Cf.
P1. XI, 26.
Fragm. of ail axe in imitatiou of lapis lazuli, 6 x 6.35 x 1.5. N i l ~ l ~ u ?
111, same place as 1'1. 8, No. 15. Inscr. 4 li. C. B. M. 8G(il.
Fragm. of a li~pislazuli tablet, 1.7 x 1.7. 3il)ijul- 111, same place a8
P1. 8, No. 15. Inscr. 3 li. C. B. 31. 8662. Originally it formed
y;vt of No. 46.
Fragm. of a lapis kvauli tablet, 1.8 X 1.2. Nipl~tc?111,same plwe as
PI. 8, No. 15. Inscr. 2 li. C. B. I f . 8663.
Agate tablet. Ilev. of PI. 8, No. 15. Inscr. 9 li.
I.'ragm. of a turquoise tablet. Obv. flat, Rev. rounded; 11ole bore11
iiearly perpetldicular to tlie lilies of tlie Obv.; 3.4 x 3.4 x 0.8.
Aril?pur 111, same place as P1. 8, No. 15. Iuscr. 4 li. C. B. &I.
8664.
L:il~is lazuli tablet, with two holes, 2 X 2.6. Nippnr. 111,same place
as PI. 8, No. 15. Insor. 2 li. C. B. 31. 8065.
Two fragm. of a lapis laztlli tablet, 3.65 X 7.25. ATil~j,~'?'111, same
place as PI.8, No. 15. Inscr. 4 li. In cutting tile tablet from the
original block of lal~islazuli the last cliaracters of each line were
lost. C B I . 8 6 6 The copy has been made from nn elrctrotype, on which the space between the two fragments mas giveti too
small (cf. No. 41).
Xitie fragm. of a lapis lazuli tablet, 5.1 x 6 x 0.7. Ni]il,tir 111, same
place as PI. 8, No. 15. Itscr. 6 1 C. U. M. 8667.
Lapis lazuli tablet, hole bored near the top parallel wit11 tile lines.
2.8 X 3.45. N i p p t ~ ?111, same place as PI. 8, No. 15. Inscr. 5 li.
C. B.&I. 8668.
Lapis lazuli disc, hole tored Itear tlie centre parallel with tlie lii~es
d. 2.5. Ni~,,jiur111, same place as PI. 8, No. 15. Inscr. 3 li. N. P.
Fragm. of an agate ring, a. 1, \v. 0.9. Niljpur 111, same place as PI.
8, No. 15. Iiiscr. 5 li. C. B. hl. 86G9. Tlie ring originally formed
tlie beginning of a votive cylinder (c. 2.6 em. long), which was
afterwards cut in 3 pieces, each tlms forming a ring. For the
centre part see 1'1. 26, Xo. 74. The last part has not been found.
Agate cameo, 3.2 X 2.4. hii,pzv 111, same pli~ceas fl. 8, Xo. 15.
Inscr. 4 li. N. P.
Fragm. of ail aagte cameo, 1.7 X 1.2. IYipp~cr111,same place as PI.
8, No. 15. Inscr. 2 li. C. B. DI. 8670.
Fragm. of a lapis lazuli disc, d. 2.97. Nippi' 111,same place as 1'1.
8, No. 15. Inscr. G li. N. P.
20
38
Kurigalzu.
20
39
Kurigalzu.
21
42
l'iurigalzu.
21
21
43
44
liurigalzu.
liurigalzu.
22
47
Xurigalzn.
22
48
I'iurigalzu.
22
49
Kurigalzu.
22
50
liurigalzu,
22
51
Iiurigalzu.
22
52
Kurigalzu.
22
53
Nazi-Maruttasl~,
I)ESCRIPTIOK.
[I<adasl~marl]-ENLIL.
[IZadiwhmaii ?IBuriash.
[Xatl;isl>rnxn?Bulriasll.
1,ajlis lazuli disc, d. 2.05. A7ij1pui.111, same place as Pl. 8, Xo. 15.
Inscr. 5 li. N.P.
Fragm. of an axe in imitatiou of lapis lazuli, 4.7 X 4.G x 1.7. A ' i i i p ~ ~ ~
111,same place as PI. 8, No. 15. Inscr. 4 li. C. B. M. 8671.
Magnesite knob of a sceptre (or conventionillized form of a pl~allns),
top rounded, base Rat, rounil l~olein the centre, h. 6.2, d. 6.9.
K i p p t ~111,
~ . same place as PI. 8, No. 16. Ittscr. around the top,
badly effaced. C. B.hI. 8728. Cf. PI. X, 24.
11ngnesite knob of a sceptro (or conve~itiollalizedform of a plti~llus),
top sliglltly rounded, base Rat, liole in the centro (round ;hove,
square bolow), 11. 5.2, d. G.1. n'i)il,~ri. 111, same place ;IS 1'1. 8 , S o .
1
Inscr. around the top, badly effaced. C. B. &I.8i27. Cf. PI.
X, 22.
Fr;igrn. of a lapis lazrlli disc, (I. 4.1. S i j i p u ~111, same place as PI. 8,
No. 15. Inscr. 5 li. (orig. 8). N. P.
Fragm. of a lapis krzuli disc, d. 3.7. Nip,i~rr 111, same 11l;lce as PI. 8,
No. 15. Inscr. G li. (orig. 7). N. P.
Fragm. of a lapis lazuli disc, d. 2.55. S i p p a r 111, same place as PI. 8,
S o . 15. IIISC~.
4 li. (orig. 5). C. B. 31. 8722.
Lapis lnzuli disc, d. 3.55, tlt. 0.35. Place uul~noivti,probably Sipptir.
c
. 8 I
Original in the Museum of 1I;lrvard University,
Cambridge, Mass. Cf. 1,yon in Pvocrecliags of tile An~eriran
Oriei~tnlSociel!], May, 1889, pp. cxxsiv-cxxxiii, ati(l Hil~~reclit
it1
Z. A. V I I , 1 1 ~ .505-518.
111, same pli~ceiis PI. 8, No. 1.5.
1.apislazuli disc, (1. 2.7. A-i~,~iul.
Inscr. 5 li. C. B. hl. UGi3.
Irregular block of lapis lazuli, 17.5 X I1 X 9. S i p l i 1 1 I11
~ in a room in
the monnds S. of T. Inscr. 16.4 X 0.5, 20 li. Sq.
I.apis lazuli disc, d. 2.5. lV!pj~ur 111, same place as P1. 8, No. 16.
I s c r 6 I . N. P .
Frt~gm.of an agate cameo, [I. 3.6. N i j i p u ~111, same place its PI. 8,
No. 13. Inscr. 5 li. C. B. hl. 8674.
Fragm. of an agate ring,orig.d. 2.7 (of the Ilole, 0.9), m. 0.90. A 7 i p ~ i u ~
111, same place as 1'1. 8, No. 15. C. H. M. 8676.
* tngm.
..
of an agate ring, Rev. of No. 66.
1
7
1rregol;tr block of lapis lazoli, convex on the inscribed surface,
13 X 7.32 X 3. 1Vijipur 111, same place as PI. 8, No. 15. Inscr.
11.5 X 5.0, 3 col., 63 li. (orig. G9 ?). Sq.
hhgnesite knob of a sceptre (or convet~tionalizedform of a hallus us),
top rounileil, base flat, round hole in the centre, 11. e. 5, d . 7.
hTippt~v
111, same place as PI. 8, No. 15. Inscr. around the top.
N. P.
Magnesite knob of a sceptre (or cor~veritionalizedform of a phallus),
top rounded, base flat, round llole in the centre, 11. 4.6, d. 6.8.
ATijipt~v111, same place as 1'1. 8, No. 15. Inscr. aroulid the top.
(>,3. &I.8729.
OLD BABYLONIAN INSCRIPTIONS
DE~~R~PTI~N.
[Uibeia.lsl~u.
Cassite Dyn.
Cassite Dyn.
. . . . . . ia-ash.
Csssite Dyn.
Nazi-Slaruttilsh.
IBiliei&-lsho.
c. 1100 B.C.
.
REI-&din-aplu.
Naboyolassar.
1.apis lazuli tablet, 2.35 X 2.1G. X p p u v 111, sallle plklce as PI. 8, No.
16. 1 1 s c 5 1 C. B. 31. 8682.
I?agm. of an axe in imitation of lapis Ittzuli, 11 x 625 x 1.25. nni]iptlr
111, same place as PI. 8, No. 15. Inscr. 3 li. C. I:. M. 8880.
Agate cameo, d. c. 1.8. I\iiiji?n. 111, same place as PI. 8, S o . 15.
C. 13. 11. 8883.
Fragm. of an agate ring, d. 1, w.1.1. S i l i l ~ t r111,
~ same place as PI.
8, No. 15. Inscr. 3 li. C. B. &I.S(jS4. Tlie ring originally formed
tlie centre part of a votive cyliniler. Cf. PI. 22, S o . 60.
Fragm. of a11 axe in imitation of lapis lazuli, (i x 2.5 x 1.5. A'ipi~ti~
111,same place as PI. 8, No. 15. Inscr. ci li. C. B. 11.8081.
Fragm. of a n axe in imitation of lapis Inzuli, 5.26 x 2.1. ATipl~ti~
111,
same place as 1'1. 8, No. 15. Inscr. 4 li. X. P.
Fragli~entof a vase in soapstone rock, 8.5 X 8.8 (orig. (I. a t tliel~ottolll
13.2). Aripjiuj,purV , o. 3 m. belom tlie surface. Inscr. 7 li. C. 11. 31.
8690.
Fragm. of an 8xe in imikttion of lapis lazuli, 6.2 x 6.2 x 1.7. S i p 2 , z ~ t .
111, same place as PI. 8, No. 15. Inscr. 9 li. C. B. hr. 8685.
Fragm. of a n axe in imitl~tionoflapis laznli, 2.36 x 2.85 x 1.5. Xipjiu~
111,same piace as Pi. 8, No. 15. Inscr. 4 li. C. B. 31. 8686.
Fragm. of a reddish granite (boundary) stone of pilallic sliape, 1. lZ.6.
l\'il,11l~1.
111, C. 1.5 111. below the surface on the slope of the T. llill
N.W. of Z. Inscr. 2 eol., 6 li. Pilo, aud S.P. Cf. PI.S I I , 32,33.
Fragm. of a baked brick, y e l l o ~ ~ i s very
h,
soft, pnrtly covered mitli
bitumen, 22.5 (fragln.) x 18.4 (fragm.) X 6.9 ("rig.). X i ~ i l i ~111,
~r
found out of place in ;L later structure of tlie inner wall of Z.(cf.
PI. 2'1, No. 82; PI. 10, No. 18; 11
' . 13, No. 22; PI. 20, Ko. 38).
IllsCr. written, 15.2 X 8.6, 10 li. C. B. 31.8643.
Brick of balzed clay, brown, pnrtly covered with bitumen, 20.i; X
30.2X 6.7. 1Qpuv 111, i~nler~ ~ aofl i %. Every brick of this
structure bears tlle name of hlili-Shiktlu \~.itll exactly tlie s;lme
inscription (stampell), except a few rvhicll belong to Ur-Ninib
(PI. 10, Xo. IS), Bur-Sin (PI. 11, No. 19), ICurigalau (PI. 20, No.
381, Rammffi~shuunc~~nv
(PI. 28, No. 81). The liittel. four evidei~tly
formed a part of tile ancient structure, and vere utilized by
Mili-Shikl~uill liis restoratio~i of the pkatform of Z. Inscr.
7, 11 li. C. B. &I. 8632. Cf. Pincl~es"An Early
stamped, 1 4 . 8 ~
Babylonian lnscriptio~ifrorn Niffer " in Hebrt~iei~
V I , pp. 55-58.
Black limestone tablet, 16.76 x 12.1 x 5.1. Presumably neigiiborliood
of Bub?~Zon. Obv., slightly rounded, 22 li. C. B. 11.13.
Tile same, Rev., rounded, 24 li.
Cylinder of baked clay, cartridge slreped, hollow, small hole a t the
top, dark bro17.n witlr grayis11 spots; when found, lialf covered
with bitumen; 11. 15.2, d. of Llle base 8.85, d. of tile bole 2.2.
Bahylon. Inscr. 3 col., 46 + 65 + 59 1-169 ii. C. U . 31. 9000. Cf.
1'1. X I I I , No. 34. The variants liave been taken from a mutilated
cylinder (B) in the British hlnseunl, published by Strassmaier in
Z. A. I V , pp. 129-136. Apparent mistakes in Strassmaier's edition
53
CHIEFLY FROM NIPPUR.
TEXT.
84
85
DATE.
h'abopolassar.
Kebucliadrezzar 11.
DESCRIPTION.
are not quoted as variants (cf. also Strnssniilier in Z. A. l V , pp.
106-113, and Winclder in Scl~r;ider's Iieilil~scii~~llichBeibliolhelc
111,Piirt 2, pp. 2-71,
The same, contin~ie~l.
Fragm. of a balied cl;iy cylinder, bxrrel sl~ajied,solid, light brown; 11.
23.0, d. 8.8 at tlie top and base, 11.6at tlie centre. Ijubylon. Inscr.
4 col., 23 (orig. c. 48) + 3'1 (orig. c. 66) 30 (orig C. 56) +?8 (orig.
c. 48)=113 (orig. c. 208) li. C. B. 11. li85. Cf. P1. XIV, S o . 33.
Aceorditig to illformation of tlie Arabs the cylinder mas found
wllole and intentionally broken lengthwise. Tlie other lialf is
supposed to be in existence.
The same, colrlr~ms111, IV.
+
85
Kebuchadrezznr 11.
Door soeliet in diorite. A'ipp~w. Cf. 1'1, 1.
Brick slam1ill of baked clay, Rev. i
t Cf. 1'1. 3 , S o . 3.
IlricB stamp of kilced clay, Obv. Xippzi~. Cf. PI. 3, KO. 4.
Fragments of vases from wbich the text on 1'1. 4 has been obt%iliod.
S i j j i ~ t ~ rNos.
.
4, 6 : dolomite; Kos. 6, 8, 0, 10: white nlarble; No.
i : red banded marble of agate structure; Nos. 11, 12: white
marble of staiaclitic structure. For the restoration of li. 6 fragm.
88GO (wl~itemarble) has been consulteil.
13
kl-usl~arsl>id.
Fragrn. of a vase in redclisl~nutnulite lii~~estone.I
. Cf. PI. 5 ,
KO. 6 .
14
11-ushnrshid.
Fragm. of a x7hite marble vnse rrith gray and reddish veins here niid
there. i t . Cf. PI. 5, NO. 7.
16 Not lator tllall 2400 U.C. Fragm. of a white marble slab, 2G.li5 X 16.8 X 7.0. Abu ilahha. Orig.
iii:il in Consta~itinople. l'llotograph taken from a cast. Inscr. on
botll sides and left edge, 301 li. Obv., 0 col., ('10 26 24 ?2
22+26+19+23+4r:)
185li.
16 Not later than 2400 11.C. The sanie, Rev., 9 c d . , (19+ 19+23 + 2:
28 f 24 + 25 22 +I3 --)
19s li.
17 Not later Uisn 2100 U.C. The same, left edge, 1 col., 18 li.
18, 19
c. 2100 D.C.
Tablets of baked clay, recldish bro~vnn.itli black spots. Those tablets have a peculiar sl~;ipe;tiley are roniided a t both ends alld on
the left side, but angular and flat on the riglit side, a s if cut off
from a larger tablet. Y o k h c ~ . NO. 18 : 10.3 x 4.3: th. 1.6 on tile
left, 2.2 on the right side. C. B. M. 0042. No. 10 : 10.li2 X 4.5, th.
1.7 on tlie left, 2.56 on the right side. C. B. M. 9011.
20
Axmmurabi.
Fragm. of am orilamel~terlsiamp in the shape of a vast., made of soapstone (composed of ;i green micaeeous and very soft tnineral, probably talc). Presumably ueigllborhood of Bc~bylon. Cf, PI. 16,
No. 27.
1
2
3
4-12
Sargon I.
Sargon I.
Nxrfm-Sin.
;\I-nshashid.
+ + + +
+
VIII
VIII
+
OLD BABYLONIAN INSCRIPTIONS CHIEFLY FROM NIPPUR.
DESC~IPTIOII.
Kurigalzu.
I<urigalzu.
c. 1350 B.C.
XI1
c. 1100 B.C.
XI11
Xabopolassar.
XIV
Nebuchxdrezzar 11.
XV
1889 A.D.
Fragm. of a white m:~rblo mortar. Presuml~blyneigl~borhood of
Babglo?~. Cf. Plates 16, 17.
Knob of a, sceptre (or conventionalized form of a phallus) in ivory.
Side view. ATij,pu~. Cf. PI. 15, KO. 34.
Icnobs of sceptres (cf. PI. S,23) in rnagnesite. Top vie\lrs. ATij~ptl~.
Cf. PI. 23, Nos. 5i, 56.
Inscribed block of lapis lazuli, tablet in process of ciitting. Ari]iii~~r.
Cf. PI. 18, No. 36.
Fragm. of a votive battle axe in imitation of lapis lazuli (blue glass).
Nipi~ur. Cf. PI. 20, No. 30.
Fragm. of a votive battle axe ill imiti~tionof lapis lazuli, 5.32 X
111, Same place as PI. 8, No. 15. C. B. h1.
5.65 x 5.1. Xi~jj)l)t~r
8800.
Fragm. of a, votive battle axe in lapis I ~ z u l i ,6.4 x 5.7 X 1.5. Tlie
inscription has been erased in order t o use the material. A7ip1lt~v
111, same place as 1'1. 8, No. 15. C. B. M. 8597.
Tliree small fragments of a n inscribed basrelief in a basaltic stone, 11.
c.5. Ahijj],tr 111: on the S.E. side of t h e Bur-Sin shrine (cf. P1.
11, No. 10).
Fragm. of a reddish granite (boundary) stone of phallic sliilpe. * I p ~ i v . T w o views of tlle same stone. Cf. PI. 27, No. 80.
Cylinder of baked clay, cartridge-shaped, hollow, smitll hole a t tile
top. Babylon. Cf. Plates 32, 33.
Cylinder of baked clay, barrel-shaped, solicl. Bcibglon. Cf. Plates
31, 35.
Plan of tlie first year's excavations a t Nippur (February 5 t o April 16).
T r a n s . A m . Phil. Soo., N.9.X V I I I , 1.
PI.1
Trans. Am. Phil. Soe.,N.S.XVITI, 1.
L. 15: @ is omitted by the scribe.
L. 17 and 21: m e dzcplicate reads
Phil. Soe., N.S.X V I I I , 1.
3
Trans. Am. Phil. Soc., N.S . X V I I I , 1.
Trans. Am. Phil. Soc.,N. S.X V I I I , 1.
Trans. Am. Phil. Soc., N. S. X V I I I , 1
Trans. Am. Phil. Soe.,N.S. X V I I I , 1
Trans. A m . Phil. Soo., N. S.X V I I I , I
Trans. Am. Phil. Soc.,N.S.X V I I I , I .
Obverse.
Trans. A m . Phil. Soc., N.S. X V I I I , 1.
18
PI.11
Trans. A m . Phil. Soo., N. S. X V I I I , 1.
19
Trans. A m . Fhil. Soo.,N.S.X V I I I , 1
Trans. A m . Phil. Soc.,N. S.X V I I I , I
Trans. A m . Phil. S o o . , N. S . X V I I I , I
Trans. Am. P h i l . Soe., N. S. X V I l 1 , I
Trans. A m . Phil. Soo., N. S. X V I I I , I
Trans. A m . Phil. Soo., N. S.xVIII, 1
Trans. Am. Phil. Soc.,N.S.X V I I I , 1.
Trans. A m . Phil. Soe., N. S.XVIII, 1
Hole, diameter 11.7 cm
Tmnr. A m Phil. Soo., N.S . XVIII. I
Trans. Am. Phil. Soo., N.S . X V I I I , 1
W No. 46.
Reverse
of No. 15.
Trans. A m . Phil. Soe., N.S.X V I I I , 1.
Mistake of scribe
fw Fl
57
50
5
cj No. 74
52
53
54
55
Trans. Am. Phil. Soc.,N.S.X V I I I , I.
Trans. Am. Phil. Soe.,N . S. X V I I I , I .
L. 7. Erasure 3f DINGIR, the second character of
written by the scribe erroneously hdore KA.
KA-DINGIR-RA,
Trans. A m . Phil. Soo., N. S.X V I I I , 1.
Trans. Am. Phil. Soe.,N.S. X V I I I , I
Trans. A m . Phil. soc.,N.
s
XVIII, 1
Trans. Am. Phil. S o c . , N. S. X V I I I , 1
Trans. A m . Phil. soc., N.S. X V I I I , I
'r1.8-sns.A171 Phil. Soc., N. S X V l l i .
1
Trans. A m . Phil. Soo.,N. S.X V I I I , 1
83
Reverse,
On the left margin of Reverse are tra
On the lower margin of Reverse is
,
PI.32
Trans. Am. Phil. S o c . , N. S . X V I I I , 1
T r a n s . Am. Phil. Soc.,N. S.X V I I I , I.
pl. 8s
PZ.34
Trans. A m . Phil. Soc., N.S . X V I I I , 1.
85
Col.
PZ.35
Trans. A m . Phil. Soo.,N . S . X V I I I , 1.
85
Continued
001. IIL
Col.I F
Trans. A m . P h i l . Soe.,N. S. X V I I I , I
DOOR-SOGKfT O F SARGON I.
N~ppur,
Trans. A m . ~ l ~ iSlO. C , N. S. X V I I I , 1
CLAY S T A M P S F O R B R I C K S ,
Nippur,
2.
S a l g a n I, Xrrerse.
3.
Nar.p~?uSin, Obverse
T r a m s , Am. Phll. Soc., N S X V I I I , I
V A S E FRAGMENTS O F A L U S H A R S M I D ( U R U - M U - U S H j ,
Nipou:.
Trans. An?. P h i l . soe., N . S. X V I I I , I
13
VASE F R A G M E N T OF ALUStibRSFiID (URU-MU-USn),
Nlppur,
Trans. Am. Phil. Soo.,N. S . X V I I I , 1.
V A S E F R A G M E N T O F A L U S H A R S H I D (URU-MU-USFI),
Nippur,
Trans A m . Phll. Soo., N. S. X V I I I , 1
IS
F R A G M E N T O F A MARBLE SLAB: OBVERSE.
~ l s dn a b n c l ,
Trans. A r n . P h i l . S o c . , N . S . X V I I I . 1
FRAGMENT O F A MARBLE SLAB: REVERSE,
bbu H a b b a ,
Traxrr. Am. Phil. Soc., N . S . X V I I I ,1
17. F R A G M E N T O F A MARBLE S L A B : EDGE-Abu
1 8 , 19, Toblets of Baked Glay-Yokha,
tfabba.
Trans. A m . P h i l . S o c . , N. S. X V I I I ,1
21
00. S T A M P O P t i A M M U R A R 1 ,
21 M O R T A R
Northern Babylonia.
OF B U R N R R U R I A S H ,
Trans. A m . P h i l . Sac.,N . s . X V I I I , I
24
KNOBS O F SGEPTRCS-Nippur,
22, 24. M o g n e s i t e (top view), Nazi-Mdruttosh
23. Ivory (side view), Burnuburiash,
rmns. A m . Phil. Soc..
N. S. X V l l l
2s
V O T I V E O B J E C T S I N L A P I S L A Z U L I AND I M I T A T I O N ,
N~ppur
Trams. A m . Phil. S a c . , N . S. X V I I I ,1
a2
33
F R A G M E N T S O F INSCRIBED BAS-RELIEFS.
Nippur,
rrans.A m . ~ i i i l soc.,
.
N. s
XVIII, I
84
POINTED CLAY CYLINDER O F NABOPOLASSAR
Babylon,
Trans. A m . P h i l . S o e . , N . S.X V I I I , 1.
B A R R E:L-SHAPED GLRY C Y L I N D E R OF N E R U G H A D R E Z Z P
Babylon,
Trans. A m . P h i l . Soc.,N . S. X V I I I , I
86
PLAN O F THE F I R S T YEAR'S EXCAVATIOIYS A T N I P P U R ,
The Ronmn l~ulnbcrsindicate the places where e*cnmtio?ls w r r e made: tke Aribic. the heiglit of t h e inouxlds,
in lurtres, above the present level ot the canal bed. Aboiit five metres most be added to u!,t;iin the nctil:hl hrixht
above the plain. I11 Ekur-BinL el-.imir iTemplr). Y i i Niniit->lardak (Wall).
Electronic publication prepared by
Kelvin Smith Library
Case Western Reserve University
Cleveland, Ohio
for
ETANA Core Texts
http://www.etana.org/coretexts.shtml