Ex Libris UjAyii) L cpwen The Bernard and Jane Schapiro Professor of Ancient Near Eastern and Judaic Studies Cornell University Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2017 with funding from Getty Research Institute https://archive.org/details/sumerianadministOOmyhr THE BABYLONIAN EXPEDITION or THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA SERIES A: CUNEIFORM TEXTS EDITED BY H. V. HILPRECHT VOLUME III, Part 1 BY DAVID W. M YH R M AN “ECKLEY BR1NT0N COXE, JUNIOR, FUND” PHILADELPHIA Published by the Department of Archaeology, University of Pennsylvania 1910 T HE EDITOR determ mes the material to constitute a volume and reports to the Committee of Publication on the general merits of the manuscript and autograph plates submitted for publication ; but the Editor is not responsible for the views expressed by the writer. SUMERIAN ADMINISTRATIVE DOCUMENTS DATED IN THE REIGNS OF THE KINGS OF THE SECOND DYNASTY OF UR FROM THE (^jrmplr Qrd)tu?s of Qippur PRESERVED IN PHILADELPHIA BY DAVID W. MYHRMAN Docent of Semitic Languages at the University of Uppsala. Seventy Plates of Autographed Texts and Twelve Plates of Halftone Illustrations PHILADELPHIA Published by the Department of Archaeology, University of Pennsylvania 1910 MacCalla & Co. Inc., Printers * C. H. James, Lithographer Weeks Photo-Engraving Co., Halftones Co JYIrs. Charles Custis Garrison with Gsteem and Gratitude for F)er Interest, Generosity and Kindness PREFACE. The texts published in this volume were copied during my sojourn in Philadel- phia in 1907. They have since then been worked out at sundry hours, between the more immediately pressing work on other publications, especially my edition of the Arabic text of as-Subki’s kitab mu 1 id an-ni ‘am wa-mubid an-niqam, as well as the routine work of teaching and lecturing in connection with my duties as Docent of Semitic Languages at the University of Uppsala. This together with unfortunate and hindering circumstances has caused a delay in publication, which I am the first one most keenly to regret. The volume was accepted by the Editor- in-Chief and the Committee on Publication, December 21, 1909, and went into the printers’ hand early in January, after the means for printing it had again been generously provided. The title of the volume may call for an explanation. As can be gathered from the general survey of the contents of these texts, the documents included are legal and commercial as well as purely administrative. While it was desirable to give the volume as short a title as possible and yet to denote the general characteristics of the documents, the term administrative was selected on the suggestion of the Editor-in-Chief, as that term would include the different departments of the temple administration, to which these documents refer. In regard to the general plan as well as minor details of the volume, I naturally have followed the principles characteristic of the Series, of which it forms a part. In the matter of footnotes, however, I have aimed to place whatever I may have had to say or argue in the text proper, reserving the footnotes merely for references, except, of course, in the Chapters of Translations and Names. As this is the first volume of texts from the time of the second dynasty of Ur, published in this Series, I have judged it desirable, if not altogether necessary, to include a list of cuneiform signs, characteristic of this volume and the period in question. At present there is a great variety of systems, or rather lack of systems, employed in regard to the transcription of cuneiform signs, which makes it almost [vii] PREFACE. viii impossible to ascertain from a mere transcription, which particular sign on the cunei- form tablet is actually referred to. Hence I have also added the key to the system of transcription I have used, but for the time being only including signs or tran- scriptions of signs that actually occur in this volume. The most pleasant task remains to avow my obligations to those, who in one way or another have promoted the creation of this volume. To Professor Hilprecht, the Editor-in-Chief of this Series, I am under great obligations for the confidence he showed me by entrusting the publication of these tablets into my hands, as well as for his still greater confidence in entrusting to me the publication of other texts, the copying, interpretation and translation of which would tax the working ability, scientific skill and experience of any Assyriologist to the very utmost. In every way he has also facilitated my work, and he has been kind enough to assist me in reading the proofs. In this way the volume has greatly been enriched by his knowledge and experience. Likewise 1 am under great obligations to Provost Harrison, whose wide-hearted scientific interest and generosity in a large measure brought about my coming to Philadelphia, and also made my prolonged sojourn here in 1907 possible. To Mrs. Harrison I am most grateful for her enthusiastic interest in this work. By her generosity my return to this city and my work here this time was and is made possible. As a small token of my great esteem and devo- tion I have taken the liberty to dedicate this volume to her. I also beg to express mv high appreciation and my gratitude to Mr. Eckley Brinton Coxe, Jr., the Maecenas of Philadelphia, who, generously as ever, has sustained the heavy cost of printing. To Dr. Radau I am indebted for many a valuable suggestion. I also wish to acknowledge my obligations to the authorities and officers of the University of Pennsylvania, of the University Museum and the University Library, who as courteously as effectively have facilitated my work. And last, and first, I beg to thank my many noble friends of this city, who by their kindness and hospitality have made their own Philadelphia a home city to me. As this has been a con- slant source of encouragement and support during weary toil, my friends have a large share in the creation of this volume. One and all, I beg graciously to accept my sincere appreciation and heartfelt gratitude. David W. Myhrman, Philadelphia, February, 1910. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS. A. B A ssyriologische Bibliothek, ed. Delitzsch-Haupt, Leipzig, 1881. A. B. M Kiichler, Fr., Assyrisch-Babylonische Medizin, Leipzig, 1904. A. B. P Meissner, Br., Beitrdge zum Altbabylonisches Privatrecht. A. D. D Johns, C. H. W., Assyrian Deeds and Documents, London, 1898-1901. A. J. S. L American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literature, ed. Harper, Chicago. Amherst Pinches, T. G., The Amherst Tablets, etc., London, 1908. A. R. LJ ., I Schorr, Moses, Altbabylonische Rechtsurkunden, etc.; Sitzungsberichte der Philosophisch-Historischen Klasse der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Band 155, 2, Wien, 1908. A. R. U., II The second Part of the above, Band 160, 5, Wien, 1909. A. S. K. T Haupt, P., Akkadische und Sumerische Keilschrifttexte, etc., Leipzig, 1881. A. T Knudtzon, J. A., Die El-Amarna-Tafeln, Vorderasiatische Bibliothek, Leipzig, 1907-1909. A. V. Strassmaier, J. N., Alfabetisches Verzeichniss der Assyrischen und Akkadischen Wdrter, Leipzig, 1886. B. A Beitrdge zur Assyriologie, etc., ed. Delitzsch-Haupt, Leipzig, 1900. B. A. L. C Johns, C. H. W., Babylonian and Assyrian Laws, Contracts and Letters, London. B. E The Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, edited by H. V. Hilprecht, Series A and D, 1893-1910. The exact titles are given at the end of the present book. B. R Kohler und Peiser, A us dem Babylonischen Rechtsleben. Br Brtinnow, R. E., A Classified List, etc., Leyden, 1889. Br.-M Meissner, Br., Supplement zu den Assyrischen W orterbuchern, Leiden, 1898. B. T. Nk Strassmaier, J. N., Babylonische Texte, Inschriften von Nabuchodonosor, etc., Leipzig, 1889. B. T. Nn The same, Inschriften von Nabonidus, Leipzig, 1889. B. V Peiser, F. E., Babylonische Vertrdge der Berliner Museen, Berlin, 1890. C. B. M Catalogue of the Babylonian and General Semitic Section of the Free Museum of Science and Art, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, prepared by Prof. Hilprecht. C. C Virolleaud, Ch., Comptabilite Chaldeenne, Poitiers, 1903. Chronicles King, L. W., Chronicles concerning Early Babylonian King s, London, 1907. C. T Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets, London, 1896. D. P. M Delegation en Perse, Memoires, Paris, 1900. D. P. S Fuye, Alotte de la, Documents Presargoniques, Paris, 1908-1909. Di-tilla Virolleaud, Ch., Di-tilla, Textes Juridiques Chaldeens, etc., Poitiers, 1903. E. A. II The E. A. Hoffman Collection of Babylonian Clay Tablets in the General Theological Seminary, New York City. See E. B. H. E. B. H Radau, II., Early Babylonian History, etc., New York, 1900. Geschichte d. Alt? Meyer, Eduard, Geschichte des Altertums, 2d edition, Stuttgart and Berlin, 1909. Hilprecht Anniv Hilprecht Anniversary Volume, Studies in Assyriology and Archeology, dedicated to Herman V. Hilprecht upon the twenty-fifth anniversary of his doctorate and his fiftieth birthday (July 28), by his colleagues, friends and admirers, Leipzig, London, Paris, Chicago, 1909. H. L, C. T..,,., Barton, G. A., Haverford Library Collection of Cuneiform Tablets, etc., Part I, Philadelphia anci Lfonjon, 1905, Parted 1 , 1909. [ixl X LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS. // \y Delitzsch, Friedr., Assyrisches Handworterbuch, Leipzig, 1896. ./. .4. Journal Asiatique, Paris. ./ A. 0. S Journal oj the American Oriental Society, New Haven. ./ B. L Journal of the Society of Biblical Literature, New York. ./. R. A. S Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, London. K. .4. S Peiser, F. E., Keilschriftliche Acten-Stucke, etc., Berlin, 1889. K. B Keil inschriftl iche Bibliothek, ed. Schrader, Berlin, 1889-1900. L i H King, L. W„ Letters and Inscriptions of Hammurabi, 3 volumes, London, 1898-1900. L. S Leipziger Semitistische Studien, ed. Fischer-Zimmern, Leipzig, 1903ff. M Meissner, Br., Seltene Assyrische Ideogramme, Leipzig, 1906-1909. M . D. O. G Milteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft, Berlin. M. /. 0 Musee Imperial Ottoman, Constantinople. Morgan Johns, C. H. W., Cuneiform Inscriptions, etc., Collections contained in the Library of J. Pierpont Morgan, New York, 190S. Muss-Amolt Muss-Amolt, W., A Concise Dictionary of the Assyrian Language, Berlin, London and New York, 1895-1900. N. B. N Tallqvist, K. L., Neubabylonisches Namenbuch, Helsingfors, 1905. Nippur Peters, J. P., Nippur, or Explorations and Adventures on the Euphrates, etc., New York and London, 1897. O. B. T. R Lau, II. J., Old Babylonian Temple Records, New York, 1906. O. L. Z Orientalistische Literal ur zeit ung , ed. Peiser, Leipzig. P. K. U. N Huber, E., Die Personennamen in den Keilschrifturkunden aus der Zeit der Konige von Ur und Nisin, Leipzig, 1907. It Rawlinson, Sir H. C., The Inscriptions of Western Asia, Vols. I-V, London, 1861-1884. Second edition of Vol. IV, London, 1891. R. /I Revue d’Assyriologie, Paris, ed. Tliureau-Dangin. It. E. C Thureau-Dangin, F., Recherches sur VOrigine de VEcriture Cuneiforme, Paris, 1898, 1899. It. II Reisner, Sumerisch-Babylonische Hytnnen, etc., Konigliche Museen zu Berlin, in il Milteilungen aus den Orientalischen Sammlungen," Berlin, 1896. R. M . ,4 Thompson, R. C., The Reports of the Magicians and Astrologers, etc., London, 1900. R. S Revue Semitique, etc., ed. Halevy, Paris. R. T Recueil de Travaux de la Philologie et a V Archeologie, etc., ed. Maspero, Paris. R. T. C Thureau-Dungin, F., Recueil de Tablettes Chaldeennes, Paris, 1893. S. A. K. I Thureau-Dangin, F., Die Sumerischen und Akkadischen Konigsinschriften, Leipzig, 1907. Sd-tilla Pelagaud, F., Sd-tilla, Textes Juridiques, etc., in Babyloniaca, III, 2, Paris, 1909. S. C. N Tallqvist, K. L., Die Sprache der Contracte NabA-nd’ids, Helsingfors, 1890. S. C. P. II. C.. Hilprecht, H. V., The So-called Peter s-H ilprecht Controversy , Philadelphia, 1908. T. S. A Genouillac, H. de, Tablettes Sumeriennes Archaiques, etc., Paris, 1909. T. T Reisner, G., Tempelurkunden aus Telloh, Konigliche Museen zu Berlin, “ Mitteilungen aus den Orientalischen Sammlungen," Berlin, 1901. Urlcunden Peiser, F. E., Urkunden aus der Zeit der dritten Babylonischen Dynasty, Berlin, 1905. W. Z. K. M Wiener Zeitschrift fur die Kunde des Morgenlandes, Wien. Z. A ...Zeitschrift fur tssyriologie, etc., ed. Bezold, Strassburg. C 0 N T E N T S . PAGES Preface ............. vii, viii List of Abbreviations .......... ix, x Contents ......... . . xi, xii Introduction ............ 1-146 I. The Place in History of the Second Dynasty of Ur . . . 1-8 II. The Tablets 8-12 III. Similar Tablets ........... 13-15 IV. The Subject Matter ......... 16-20 In General ..... ...... 16, 17 Survey of Contents .......... 18-20 V. Dates . 21-27 VT. Reconstruction of the Dates of the Second Dynasty of Ur . 28-44 1. Dates of TJr-Engur ......... 33 2. Dates of Dungi .......... 34-39 3. Dates of Bur-Sin .......... 39-41 4. Dates of Gimil-Sin ......... 41-43 5. Dates of Ibi-Sin ......... 43 6. Uncertain Dates ......... 43 7. Unclassified Dates ......... 43, 44 VII. The Names and Order of the Months ..... 45-51 VIII. Transcription and Translation of Specimen Tablets . . . 52-73 IX. Gleanings ........... 74-83 1. Cuneiform Signs and Readings ....... 74-79 2. Terms of Court Proceedings ....... 79-80 3. Terms of Loan and Purchase Documents ..... 80, 81 4. Terms of Accounts . . . . . . . . .81,82 5. Officials and Employes ......... 82 6. Months 82, 83 7. Days 83 8. Date Formulas . . ....... 83 [ xi ] XU CONTENTS. X. Names and Titles ....... 1. Names of Men and Women . . . 2. Names of Gods ....... 3. Names of Countries and Cities ..... 4. Names of Temples and Houses .... 5. Names of Months ....... 6. Officials and Employees ...... XI. Description of Tablets XII. Numbers of the Catalogue of the Babylonian Museum Tablets Arranged According to Kings XIII. I jIst of Cuneiform Signs ....... XIV. System of Transcription ...... Cuneiform Texts .......... Halftone Illustrations ........ PAGES 84 84-89 89-91 91 92 92 92 . 93-111 112, 113 113 115-139 . 141-146 Pis. 1-70 Pis. I-XII I. THE PLACE IN HISTORY OF THE SECOND DYNASTY OF UIL The chronological material, so far advanced, does not enable us to determine the exact date of the second dynasty of Ur with absolute certainty. A review of the principal arguments on the subject and an attempt approximately to place this dynasty may, however, not be out of place in an introduction to a volume of texts from this period. On account of the publication of new and startling chronological material, a great deal has been written on the subject of old Babylonian chronology during the last two or three years. The discussion so far has shown a marked tendency to cut down old figures. The late Babylonian king Nabiina’id still holds his ground as the central figure in Babylonian chronology, only that the pendulum has swung in the opposite direction. On the tide of his authority old Babylonian dates once soared to swindling heights; the recent undermining of his trustworthiness tends to make the very foundations swerve. The high-water mark was reached by placing Sargon I at 3800 B.C. Eduard Meyer has reached the low-water mark by placing him 2500 B.C. 1 The one extreme was to take the round numbers of Nabuna’id’s scribes in regard to earlier and later dates as definite numbers; the other extreme is now to round them off, so to speak, altogether. The truth, no doubt, will be found some- where between. Leaving the dates of Sargon I and Naram-Sin, which stand rather isolated, there has been no lack of material in regard to Babylonian chronology from the beginning of the so-called first dynasty of Babylon down. But the difficulties, as well known, have been and are still in regard to the interpretation of the material at hand. At what widely different conclusions scholars have arrived from the study of the same material, can be gathered from the different dates assigned to the prominent figure of Hammurabi, as surveyed by King in his latest important book. 2 1 Geschichle des Alt. 2 , I, Part 2, p. 345. 2 Chronicles, I, pp. 83, 87. 1 [ 1 ] 9 SUMERIAN DOCUMENTS, II. DYNASTY OF UR Thus \ve note a difference as to the dates of that king between Winckler and Hommel of not less than 600 years, and between Hommel and Lehmann-Haupt of 500 years. Yet the calculations were made in the same year, 1898. To be sure, discrepancies are to be found in the statements of the Babylonian and Assyrian documents themselves, which tend to show, that the old Babylonian and Assyrian scribes, in their mode of interpretation and handling of the chronological material at their disposal, as well as in reaching different conclusions from it, almost vie with modern scholars. The chief impulse to the recent activity in chronological research came from the publications by Hilprecht 1 and King, 2 which showed, as others long ago had assumed, 3 that Bab> Ionian dynasties overlapped each other. The consequences of this dis- covery affect the old Babylonian chronology in general, but especially and in the first place the date of the first dynasty of Babylon. On the more or less definite determination of the date of this dynasty depend almost exclusively the earlier Babylonian dynasties, and among them the second dynasty of Ur, which is the oldest dynasty of Babylonia that at present can lie approximately placed, as its relation to the following or Isin dynasty is now exactly known by the new chronological tablet, published by Prof. Hilprecht, 4 while the relation of this dynasty to the first dynasty of Babylon, on the other hand, can be very approximately determined. On the ground of the new chronological material recently published by King, this scholar has placed the beginning of the first dynasty of Babylon at about 2100 B.C. 5 Eduard Meyer has not only accepted the conclusions of King in full, but he seems to place even more reliance on doubtful or disputed details." In regard to the second dynasty of Ur, King incidentally places the beginning of it at about 2320 or 2330 B.C. 7 ; Meyer places the whole dynasty 2304-2188 B.C. 8 Taking the conclusions drawn by King as a starting point, we note that his new construction of old Babylonian chronology principally rests on three stepping stones: (1) The end of the third or Kassite dynasty; (2) The immediate succession of the third dynasty on the first, with the toted elimina- tion of the second dynasty, the dynasty of the Sea-land, and 1 B. E., XX 1 , No. 47; also pp. 41ff. and 46. 2 Chronicles, I, pp. 70, 93, 97, 147ff.; II, p. 15ff. 3 See Hilprecht, B. E., XX 1 , p. 43. 4 B. E., XX 1 , No. 47 ; also p. 46. 6 Chronicles, I, pp. 126, 136, 137. 0 See Geschichte des Alt,. 2 , 1 2 , p. 341. 7 Chronicles, I, p. 168, 8 Geschichte des A lt. 2 , I 2 , p. 344. 3 From the temple archives of nippur. (3) The end of the dynasty of Isin. Now, as for the end of the third or Kassite dynasty, King has placed this event 1160 B.C., but, as he also remarks, the exact date cannot be definitely established. 1 Meyer, on the other hand, places it as high as 1185, 2 while Thureau-Dangin gives the date 1186, 3 not to speak of other most divergent dates advanced. 4 Hilprecht 5 and Hinke, 6 7 however, have shown that, especially on account of the statement on the new boundary stone in regard to Nebuchadrezzar I, the end of the third dynasty is to be placed as low as about 1140 B.C. The total elimination of the second dynasty, as far as the sequence of the first and third dynasties is concerned, and the assumption that the third dynasty followed immediately on the first, are, of course, questions of more important and far-reaching consequences in regard to the construction of earlier Babylonian chronology. King took the radical step to eliminate the second dynasty altogether. He did that in spite of the fact that Ea-gdmil, the last king of the second dynasty, according to the new chronological material he produced, is found to be a contemporary of Kas- tilias, 2 the Kassite. Rather than taking the most probable course 8 of identifying this Kastilias with the third king of the Kassite dynasty, he resorts to the extreme means of creating an entirely new set of later kings, to be placed in the gap of the Kings’ list. 9 The chief reason for the elimination of the second dynasty, and an argument on which King lays a great deal of stress, is the absence so far of any positive state- ment that the kings of the second dynasty actually ruled over Babylon itself. Indeed he considers this, of course, quite negative proof of such importance, that the more positive arguments in favor of the identification of Kastilias, the con- temporary of Ea-gdmil, with the third king of the Kassite dynasty have to be set aside, 10 and in this he is also supported by Meyer. 11 Now it is true that thus far we do not have any positive statement in the inscrip- 1 Chronicles, I, p. 110. 2 Geschichte des Alt?, I 2 , p. 338. 3 Z. A.,XXI,p. 185. 4 See Chronicles, I, p. 83; Poebel, Z. A., XXI, p. 167. 5 R. E., XX 1 , p. 44. 6 R. E., Series D, IV, p. 130ff. 7 Thus read the name with Thureau-Dangin, 0. L. Z., XI, p. 31, and Hommel, 0. L. Z., XII, p. 109, instead of King’s Betiliash. 8 See Thureau-Dangin, Z. A., XXI, p. 176ff.; also Ungnad, O. L. Z., X, p. 638. 9 Chronicles, I, p. 113. 10 Chronicles, I, p. 107. 11 Geschichte des Alt.-, I 2 , p. 340. 4 SUMERIAN DOCUMENTS, II. DYNASTY OF UR tions and dated documents that any of the kings of the second dynasty actually ruled over Babylon, but, as a matter of fact, we know very little about these kings in any respect. It is a question, on which further excavations and new material no doubt will supply more definite information. As long as we have no positive proof to the contrary, the mere absence of a definite statement cannot, of course, con- stitute a proof that none of these kings controlled Babylon. On the other hand, as has been pointed out before, 1 the very presence of this dynasty in a list, otherwise including only such dynasties as we know actually controlled Babylon, would be difficult to explain, if not at any time some one of these kings ruled in Babylon. But, of course, this does neither prove nor disprove the supposition that Babylon for a time at least was included in the domain of the second dynasty. But 1 am inclined to think that too much importance has been placed on the question, whether this dynasty ruled in Babylon or not. In itself it does not solve the problem of the relation between the first and third dynasty. King 2 and Meyer 3 * assume that the third dynasty followed immediately on the first. But in this respect they seem not only to have underestimated the Hittite invasion and conquest of Babylon, 1 but have gone so far as practically to eliminate its consequence on the chronology altogether. It is most difficult to see, how an event of such import- ance really can be so lightly disposed of historically. The conquest of Babylon, with the position this city had obtained in Babylonia dur ing the first dynasty, as well as the overthrow of this dynasty, would naturally be an event of great consequence. It is therefore difficult to see, how the Hittites, according to the natural order of things, could have been content only to make such a conquest, and then immediately leave another people, the Kassites, to reap the advantages of the whole conquest, unless, (what has not been shown), the Hittites and the Kassites are identical. A people like the Hittites, being able to conquer Babylon and overthrow the ruling dynasty, would also be able to keep the conquered territory in their hands, at least for some time. The Hittites, moreover, were no marauding tribes that would only be content with plunder. 5 A Hittite conquest and the overthrow of the native dynasty would naturally have as a consequence the establishment of Hittite rule. Hence some time must have elapsed between the end of the first dynasty and the beginning of the rule of the third over Babylon. On account of the facts, set forth by Prof. Hilprecht, B. E., XX 1 , pp. 44, 45, 1 Poebel, Z. A., XXI, p. 165; also Hilprecht, B. E., XX', p. 42. 2 Chronicles, I 2 , p. 10. 3 Geschichte des Alt}, I 2 , p. 341. 4 See new chronicle, King, Chronicles . II, p. 22. 6 See Jastrow’s Hittites in Babylonia, R. S., XVIII (1910), pp. 87ff., just issued. FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 5 and Hinke, B. E., Series D, pp. 130ff., viz., that ( Agum-)Kakrime 11 probably was the first emperor of Babylonia,” among the members of the Kassite dynasty, we possibly may have to bring down the dates, previous to the Kassite dynasty, some decades. The only positive chronological data, so far known, by which we can be guided in an attempt to calculate the length of the apparent gap between the first and third dynasty, are the facts known in regard to the second dynasty itself. It has never been questioned that the Iluma-ilu, who according to the new chronicle was a contemporary of Samsu-iluna and Abi-esu, is to be identified with the first king of the second dynasty. 1 Thus the beginning of this dynasty and the very approxi- mate length of time it was contemporaneous with the first dynasty can be determined. But, on the authority of the same material, the end of the second dynasty and the length of time it was contemporaneous with the third dynasty can also be fixed. The identification of Kastilias, the contemporary of Ea-gdmil, last king of the second dynasty, 2 with the third king of the third dynasty is certain, as far as the material now at hand shows, unless we, like King, and more recently Hommel, 3 postulate an entirely new set of kings, that would answer the conditions required. That Kastilias, the third king of the third dynasty, answers the statement of the new chronicle, or that he was the son of Agum, not the father, as the kings’ list erro- neously has it, is now established without a doubt by the emendation of V R., 33, col. I, according to King’s collations published by Hommel. 4 The passage relating to this special point runs as follows: 17 mar 5 Kas-til e -ia-su 18 aplu res-tu 19 sd A-gu-um ra-bi-i 20 zerum el-lum zer sarruti(-ti) 21 ta-mi-ih sir-ri-ti 22 mar 7 Gdn-di The order of the three first kings of the third dynasty would thus be: 1 Chronicles, I, pp. 70, 93, 97, 14711. ; II, p. 15ff. 2 Chronicles, I, p. 104ff., Ill, 113; II, p. 22ff. 3 O. L. Z„ XII, p. 110. 4 0. L. Z.,XII,pp. 108-110. 6 The shin is TUR = maru, not i. 6 BI.BE., according to collation by King. See ibid., p. 109. 7 Also according to collation by King. 6 SUMERIAN DOCUMENTS, II. DYNASTY OF UR (1) Gandi or Gandas, (2) Agum the great or first, (3) Kastilias, his firstborn son. Thus if we can within a few years 1 determine to what extent the second dynasty overlapped the first and the third, the balance of the sum total of the years attrib- uted to the second dynasty would, of course, denote the time that elapsed between the end of the first and beginning of the third dynasty. For this calculation, however, we depend entirely on the figures given by the kings’ list. The chief objection to this procedure has been the fact that these figures are unusually high. Still they are not impossible. Of eleven kings four ruled 60, 56, 55 and 50 years respectively, but others only 8, 15 and 20. That mistakes occur in the list is seen from the fact that that to Hammurabi are assigned 55 years, while according to the date lists he only ruled 43. But mistakes of reduction are also found, as Ammi-ditana is given only 25 years in the kings’ list, while he actually ruled 37 ; Abi-esu’ 25 instead of 28, and Samsu-iluna 35 instead of 38. 2 If subtraction has to be made from the sum total of these years, it would only be a question of a few decades. As long as we have no positive proof to the contrary, the safest course is to be guided by the figures given. As Thureau-Dangin 3 has calculated, we would have a period of about 177 years to be accounted for between the first and third dynasty. As for the fall of I sin and the overthrow of the Isin dynasty, King was inclined to join those two events and to identify them with the conquest of Isin in the 7th year of Hammurabi, rather than with the same event recorded as taking place in the seventeenth year of Sin-muballit. 4 Whether the conquest of the city of Isin in any of those years mentioned also marked the end of the Isin dynasty or not has not yet been definitely proven. The dynasty might have been overthrown at some earlier unknown conquest. These are two events that will have to be distinguished and kept separate. But that the conquest of Isin in the seventh year of Hammurabi did not in any case, as was quite obvious for other reasons, refer to the conquest of Isin by Rim-Sin is absolutely certain from the date formula for that year: mu Unu{g) ki it L-si-in H ba-an-dib , 5 which shows that Hammurabi took the city. We know for certain that Isin also was taken before that time by Sin-muballit in his seventeenth year. 0 1 See Thureau-Dangin, Z. A.; Poebel, Z. .4., XXI, p. 75; B. E., VI 2 , p. 122. 2 See Chronicles, 1, p. 95. 3 Z. A., XXI, p. 179. 4 Chronicles, 1, p. lOOff. 5 See Poebel, B. E., VI 2 , p. 57. 6 See Pinches, C. T ., VI, PI. 9, Bu. 91-5-9, 284, O., 44; King, L. I. II., II, No. 101. FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 7 In what relation his conquest of the city really stands to the well-known con- quest of Isin by Rim-Sin, and which must have occurred about the same time, is another question to consider. 1 The conquest of Isin and the overthrow of its vener- able dynasty, however, must have been an event of great consequence ; and as for Rim-Sin, it was the occasion for instituting a new era. Whether the dynasty of Isin actually went down with the city in the seventeenth year of Sin-muballit we do not know, but it is the very latest date, at which we can place the end of this dynasty. Thus by starting as low as possible, or placing the end of the third or Ivassite dynasty as late as 1140, adding 577 years, the length of the third dynasty, 177 years to be accounted for between the third and first dynasty, 201 years up to the seven- teenth year of Sin-muballit, 2254 years for the dynasty of Isin, and 117 years for the second dynasty of Ur, 2 we would have to place the beginning of the last mentioned dynasty about 2408 B.C. This calculation would place the beginning of the first dynasty about 2147 B.C., the reign of Hammurabi about 2045-2003. Hammurabi would then very well come within the round number of 700 years which, according to the scribes of Nabuna’id, separated him from Burnaburias, whom even Meyer places about 1380-1375. 3 Gulkisar would come within 696 years before Nebukadrezzar I, 4 as he would at least have ruled down to 1780, which also is the date assigned to him by Meyer. 5 These dates suggested can also be reconciled with the more trustworthy new chronological material brought to light by the German excavations in Assyria. 6 Sal- maneser I states that he rebuilt the temple of Assur, which had once been built by Uspia. It had fallen into decay, and Eresu rebuilt it. One hundred and fifty- nine years passed after the reign of Eresu and it fell into decay, and Samsi-Adad rebuilt it. During 5S0 years it grew old, fire broke out, and after that Salmaneser I restored it. According to figures given, Eresu would have to be placed within 739 years of Salmaneser I, who, according to Meyer, 7 ruled about 1300 B.C. The father of Eresu was Ilu-suma, who, according to the new chronological material published by King, 8 was a contemporary of Su-abu, probably identical with Sumu-abu, the first 1 Cf. Hilprecht, B. E., XX 1 , p. 53ff.; Poebel, B. E., VI 2 , p. 1 1 3ff . ; Thureau-Dangin, J.A., Ser. X, Vol.XIV, pp.339ff. 2 See Hilprecht, B. E., XX 1 , No. 47 ; also p. 46. 3 Geschichte des All. 2 , 1 2 , p. 335. 4 See King, Chronicles, I, p. 89; Hilprecht, B. E., XX 1 , p. 42ff. 5 Geschichte des Alt. 2 , I 2 , p. 585. 6 See M. D. O. G., No. 21, pp. 30, 34, 38, 40; King, Chronicles, I, p. 119ff. ; Meyer, Geschichte des Alt. 2 , I 2 , p. 342. 7 Geschichte des Alt. 2 , I 2 , pp. 338, 342. s Chronicles, II, p. 14, 8 SUMERIAN DOCUMENTS, II. DYNASTY OF UR king of the first, dynasty. Hence the first dynasty of Babylon would have begun about 2040, the reign of Eresu and Ilu-suma, and also perhaps a part of the reign of Sumu-abu. But in addition to this we will also have to make allowance for the years the temple was fallen into decay. How long Eresu and his father ruled we do not yet know, but the number of years these kings ruled and the years of the decay of the temple, and the uncertainties of other chronological figures used as a basis, may possibly make up for the discrepancy of about 100 years. The approximate tlat.es, as far as the chronological material at hand allows us to determine, for the kings of the second dynasty of Ur would be as follows: Ur-Engur 2408-2390 B.C. Dungi 2390-2332 B.C. Bur-Sin 2332-2323 B.C. Gimil-Sin 2323-2316 B.C. Ibi-Sin 2316-2291 B.C. II. THE TABLETS. The clay tablets, inscribed with old Babylonian cuneiform characters and written in the Sumerian language, now published for the first time in this volume, belong to the large and in many respects unrivalled collection of cuneiform tablets in The Free Museum of Science and Art of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. With two exceptions only, Nos. 132 and 155, they were excavated in the ruins of Nippur, in central Babylonia, during the first three expeditions of the University of Pennsylvania, viz., 1888-89, 1889-90 and 1893-96 respectively. 1 The documents published in this volume, however, constitute only a part of the tablets from this period, preserved in the Philadelphia Museum. Documents of the same character, from the same period and in part even found in the same mounds, were also excavated during the fourth expedition to Nippur. 2 These tablets will be included in volumes to follow. As could be gathered from the careful description of the tablets in The Catalogue of the Babylonian and General Semitic Section of the Museum , prepared by the Curator, Prof. H. V. Hilprecht, the larger part or 136 of the tablets, here published, were dug up during the second expedition to Nippur (1889-90). From the first expedition (1888-89) came only 8 tablets, Nos. 1, 5, 13, 66, 84, 91, 151 and 170; while from the third expedition thus far we have 25 tablets, namely, Nos. 3, 4, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 19, 29, 30, 36, 40, 41, 42, 46, 55, 70, 86, 95, 116, 125, 133 and 135. Two tablets were purchased in Nippur: No. 132 by Dr. Haynes during the third expedition and said to come from Yokha or Telloh; No. 155 by Dr. Peters from Mr. Noorian, the inter- preter of the first two expeditions, during the second campaign. Worthy of notice is the fact, that most of the more interesting tablets in this volume, or the so-called “contracts,” were unearthed during the first and third expeditions. 3 1 See Peters, Nippur or Explorations and Adventures on the Euphrates, and Hilprecht, The Excavations in Assyria and Babylonia ( The Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania , Series D, Vol. I), pp. 289-5GS. 2 Cf. Hilprecht, B. E., Series D, I, p. 488, and Th. S.-C., P. II. C., p. 195. 3 See Hilprecht, B. E., Series D, I, pp. 297-319 and 345-425. 2 [9] 10 SUMERIAN DOCUMENTS, II. DYNASTY OF UR As the Nippur tablets, here treated, vary in contents, it would be of great interest to know the exact places of discovery in the many elevations and depressions of certain parts of the ruins of Nippur, and to ascertain, in what environments and under what general conditions they were found. Thus it would be interesting to learn, whether the so-called “contract” tablets were found in the same places as the tablets containing various accounts, and whether these two kinds of tablets were found apart from or intermingled with each other. But unfortunately, no Assyri- ologist. being present during the second and third expeditions, no records of this kind could be kept by Dr. Peters and Dr. Haynes, who, moreover, at times worked at Nippur under very trying circumstances. From the Catalogue of the Philadelphia Museum, which also states the different expeditions during which the tablets were found, from the descriptions of the exca- vations by Peters 1 and Hilprecht , 2 as well as from the large raised map of the ruins of Nippur 3 in the University Museum, where by cuts or different colors the work of the four expeditions is designated, and also from personal information kindly furnished by Prof. Hilprecht, some facts at least can be gathered in regard to the mounds, where these tablets were dug up. During the first campaign most of the tablets unearthed in Nippur, according to Peters , 4 came from the so-called “Tablet Hill,” the site of the earlier “Temple Library,” the lull at present marked IV on the Museum map and Hilprecht’s repro- duction of it ,, 5 but Y on the same plan given by Peters . 6 This is the most southeast mound of the ruins of Nippur on the east side of the Satt en-Nil. According to information from Prof. Hilprecht, no dated administrative docu- ments from the second dynasty of Ur came from this section of the ruins during the first campaign, when he was at Nippur personally. The eight tablets then found came exclusively from the long trench cut in the southern slope of the long ridge on the west side of the Satt en-Nil, opposite “Tablet Hill .” 7 While the few tablets of the second dynasty of Ur, discovered in a trial trench by the first, expedition, evidently were found out of place in the general layer of that period, the second expedition reached the very rooms, in which they once had been 1 Nippur. 2 B. E ., Series D, I, pp. 289-568. 3 Made by Charles Muret, Paris, under the direction of Percy Hastings Field, architect. 4 Nippur, I, p. 247. 5 B. E., Series D, I, p. 305. 6 Nippur, Vol. I, pp. 242, 243. 7 Cf. Peters, Nippur, Vol. II, the plan facing p. 194, and Hilprecht, B. E., Series D, I, p. 305. In Peters’ map the mound Is called N; on Hilprecht’s No. VI. PROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OP NIPPUR. 11 stored, at a point marked E on the plan given by Peters ; 1 for, according to Hilprecht’s deciphering of the tablets, reported by Peters to have come from a certain level of that section of the ruins, they were dated according to kings of the second dynasty of Ur and according to events characteristic of their reigns . 3 During the third campaign Haynes also excavated thousands of tablets in the same mound, VI (IX), on the west side of Salt en-Nil , 3 and among them again were numerous tablets of the second dynasty of Ur . 4 According to Hilprecht, the mound IV (V) or 1 ‘Tablet Hill” was seemingly not touched at all, or only very slightly 0 by Haynes during the third campaign. To judge from the colors on the map of the ruins, provided by Mr. C. S. Fisher to indicate the work of the different campaigns, some kind of excavations were indeed made in this mound during the third expedition, but evidently without yielding any of the documents included in this volume. As to size, shape, make-up and paleographical character, these tablets share the peculiarities of similar documents from this period already published. The comparative absence, however, of large many-columned account tablets , 7 which occur in the Telloh collections frequently, 8 and also of round-shaped field accounts , 9 is to be noted. As to their state of preservation, many of these tablets show evidence of having been roughly handled by the vicissitudes that befell the ancient city with its temple library and archives. In this respect the Telloh tablets, to judge from the published texts, seem to have fared better. All the Nippur tablets with but one exception are baked, but, like many similar Telloh tablets, there is a certain number made from a kind of clay that now is crumbling. Most of the smaller tablets, which no doubt originally were enclosed in cases or envelopes, have seal impressions. A certain small group of tablets made of the same kind of clay, similarly shaped and inscribed but not ruled, is covered with seal impressions that mar the writing and make the decipherment a very difficult task. These tablets had apparently never been enclosed in envelopes. As a rule the seal impressions on the tablets of this volume are very faint and indistinct, 1 Nippur, Vol. II, facing p. 172. 2 B. E., Series D, p. 343. 3 Cf. B. E., Series D, I, pp. 353, 364. 4 Ibid., p. 408. 5 Ibid., p. 431. 8 Cf. Th. S.-C. P. II. C., p. 287. 7 According to Hilprecht there are a number of large fragments of this class known to him among the uncata- logued material. 8 See especially the T. T. and II. L. G. editions. 9 See especially C. T ., I. 12 SUMERIAN DOCUMENTS, II. DYNASTY OF UR so that it is almost impossible to trace them satisfactorily. In such cases I have not undertaken to restore the seals, although this, of course, can easily be done from the names on the tablet. A few impressions, however, are clear and distinct, and these are reproduced. The seals represent the picture characteristic of the second dynasty of Ur. The moon god is sitting on his throne. A worshipper is led into his presence by a priest and is followed by another. In accordance with the contents and character of the tablets, most of the seals are dub-sar seals . 1 One document has the seal of a patesi , 2 while another 3 has the seal of a judge. As the title of the volume indicates, all these tablets were made and inscribed during the reigns of the kings of the second dynasty of Ur, or during the second half of the third millennium B.C. About half of the number are duly dated, and may thus be assigned to this period without the slightest hesitation, while the undated documents have to be classified principally on the basis of their paleographical characteristics, their proper names and contents. The sifting and cataloguing of the immense mass of material in the Museum is exclusively done by Prof. Hilprecht. With his unrivalled experience and skill in deciphering original cuneiform script, older and later, he also classified, catalogued and assigned to the proper historical period the tablets here published. After a careful examination and study of every tablet, I have no occasion to differ from his in this respect almost unerring judgment. 1 See No. 32. Cf. also the seals reproduced by Pinches in the Amherst volume. 2 See No. 13. 3 See No. 14. III. SIMILAR TABLETS. In regard to their contents, these tablets will have to be classed together with other collections of tablets from the same period already published by others. But while they contain, of course, material of a character similar to that of the texts published before, they also, as will be found, furnish a good deal of new information of special interest for the time, to which they belong. The first tablets of a similar character from this period of Babylonian history were published by Prof. Hilprecht. As early as 1893-96 he published the first ordinary clay tablets of the second dynasty of Ur, together with other older Babylonian inscriptions, in “B. E.,” Vol. I, Parts 1-2. Cf. Nos. 124-127 and such other inscrip- tions from the Ur period as Part 1 (1893), Nos. 14 (a basalt tablet), 15 (an agate tablet), 16 (a soapstone tablet), 20, 21 (door-sockets), and 22 (a brick), and Nos. 121 (a door-socket) and 122, 123 (soapstone tablets). Publications of texts and also transcriptions, translations and treatments of sundry documents from this period were made in different journals and published works, as in Recueil de Travaux, etc., by Halevy, Yol. XI (1889), pp. 17 Iff. ; by Scheil, Vol. XVII (1895), pp. 27ff., Vol. XVIII (1896), pp. 64ff., and also scattered through his “Notes d’ epigraphie et d’ archeologie Assyrienne ” in the same journal, Vols. XVII- XXII; in Revue d’Assyriologie, etc., by Thureau-Dangin, Vol. Ill (1895), pp. llSff., and Vol. V. (1902), pp. 67ff. ; in Revue Semitique, by Virolleaud, Vol. XI (1893-1902), pp. 76ff. and 180ff. ; in Zeitschrift fur Assyriologie by Scheil, Vol. XII (1897), pp. 260ff., and Delaporte, Vol. XVIII (1904-05), pp. 252ff. ; in Comptes rendus by Thureau- Dangin (1896); in Orientalistische Litteraturzeitung by the same author, Vol. I, pp. 16 Iff . ; in Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek by Winckler, Vol. Ill, p. 76 (1902). The most recent contributions to the literature from the Ur period, and which have come into my hands only while reading the proofs, are by Delaporte, Em- preintes de Cachets de la Collection Amherst, pp. 101-104; Genouillac, Tahlettes d'Ur, pp. 137-141; and Huber, Die Altbabylonischen Dahrlehnstexte aus der Nippur-Samm- [ 13 ] 14 SUMERIAN DOCUMENTS, II. DYNASTY OF UR lung im K. 0. Museum in Konstantinopel, pp. 189-222, all included in the magnificent Hilprecht Anniversary Volume (1909) just issued. Complete collections of documents of the same special character as the tablets published in this volume began to lie published in 1896. Thus we have to note the small collection published by \V. R. Arnold in his dissertation for the doctorate at the Columbia University Ancient Babylonian Temple Records in the Columbia Uni- versity Library, New York, 1896. In the same year the British Museum commenced the publication of its Cunei- form Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum, of which Vols. I, III, V, VII, IX and X, copied by King, contain documents from the Ur period. Unfor- tunately, on account of the fact that at first, the material submitted was not arranged or numbered, these otherwise excellently edited volumes are most difficult to handle. Hence it is most gratifying to note that this quite formal defect has been remedied in later volumes, and especially in the latest, or XXVI, where not only the texts, but also an extensive introduction, accompanied by translations and notes, as well as by beautifully made photographic reproductions, are presented. A study of these texts has recently been made by Deimel, Zeitschrift fur Assyri- ologie, Vol. XXII, pp. 17ff. As an appendix to his Early Babylonian History, Radau published The E. A. Hoffman Collection of Babylonian Clay Tablets in the General Theological Seminary, New York City, New York, 1900, which for the greater part belong to the period of the second dynasty of Ur. Reisner published a large and well-edited collection of tablets of this character and period from the Konigliche Museen, Berlin, in his Tempelurkunden aus Telloh (M itteilungen aus den Orientalischen Sammlungen, Heft XVI), Berlin, 1901. Thureau-Dangin published a collection of old Babylonian tablets from the Louvre, Paris, and the Imperial Ottoman Museum, Constantinople, in Recueil de Tablettes Chaldeenncs, Paris, 1903. Of these tablets (a large number of which he had published before in Revue d' Assyriologie) a part of the 4th, the 5th and 6th series date from the Ur period. Virolleaud edited a small volume of Ur texts, principally documents, of which the texts had been published before, but which he now transliterated and translated under the title Comptabilite Chaldeenne , Parts I and II, Poitiers, 1903, and in the same year another small volume of similar texts, likewise published before by Scheil and Thureau-Dangin, entitled Di-tilla, textes juridiques chaldeennes, Poitiers, 1903. In 1905 (?) — no date is to be found in the volume itself — Prof. Barton pub- lished the first part of his Haverford Library Collection of Cuneiform Tablets, being FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 15 tablets from the Ur period, said to have been dug up at Telloh. To judge from the copies the Haverforcl Library possesses a collection of unusually large, carefully inscribed and well preserved tablets. Most unfortunately, however, this volume has been subjected to very severe criticism on account of the many mistakes in the copies as well as hasty and erroneous interpretations. A more careful and reliable edition of Babylonian tablets, bought from dealers and presented to American institutions, is the collection of Ur tablets published by Lau in his Old Babylonian Temple Records, New York, 1906. The tablets published in that volume belong to the Columbia University. The collection was bought in 1896 from Noorian, formerly interpreter with the Babylonian expeditions of the University of Pennsylvania. The tablets are represented as coming from Telloh, but it is quite certain that at least some of them have come from Nippur. Pinches published a beautifully made-up volume entitled The Amherst T ablets, London, 1908, “being an account of the Babylonian inscriptions in the collection of the Bight Hon. Lord Amherst of Hackney, F.S.A., at Didlington Hall, Norfolk.” Among the tablets published in this volume more than a hundred are Ur tablets. Pelagaud published in transliteration and translation, with an introduction, notes, indexes and in part the cuneiform texts, a revised edition of texts previously published and translated by Scheil, Thureau-Dangin and Yirolleaud, in his Sa-tilla, textes iuridiques, etc., Babyloniaca . Tome III, 2, Paris, 1909. Lastly, Barton has published a second part of his Haverforcl Library Collection of Cuneiform Tablets, Part II, Philadelphia (1909). This volume contains ninety- four tablets, all of which are from the second dynasty of Ur, and said to have come from Telloh. This second volume is done with more care than the first. Barton has also given a list of corrections in regard to his first volume. The list is not complete, however. It is a cause of regret that I have not been able to get access to the volume of old Babylonian tablets preserved in the Eremitage, St. Petersburg, in order to ascer- tain whether it contains any tablets from this period. IV. THE SUBJECT MATTER. As to the content, or subject matter of the tablets, published in this volume, the comparatively large number of so-called “contract” tablets is to be especially noted. Tablets of this character from the second dynasty of Ur have so far been rather rare. Though about 1,500 tablets have already been published or described in catalogues, there are only about a score of “contracts” among them. 1 The Hoffman collection, containing about 165 tablets from this period and partly described and partly published by Radau, 2 has not a single contract. Among the 267 tablets published by the British Museum there is none, in spite of the term “contracts” in the preface to Parts I, III, V, VII. Nor is there a single “contract” among the 211 tablets published by Barton. 3 Neither is there any one among the 254 tablets described or published by Lau, nor among the 120 Amherst tablets. Among Reisner’s 310 numbers there is a single “contract,” No. 51, probably a sale of sheep. Broken as it is, the true character of the document escaped even the otherwise so keen and observant eye of Reisner. The collection published by Tlmreau-Dangin, however, have among its 171 tablets from this period eight “con- tracts.” With these few exceptions all these tablets are account, and receipts of various kinds. 4 The fact that among the tablets, excavated by the Philadelphia expeditions, there is a comparatively large number of these rare documents from the second dynasty of Ur will again tend to accentuate the interesting and valuable character of the Nippur collections. 1 Pelagaud lias recently collected and practically republished all of them, twenty-two in number, in his Sa-tilla texts. See Chapter III. 2 For this and the following collections published see Chapter III. 3 The tablets which Barton represents and translates as “ an appointment to a clerkship,” H. L. C ., I, p. 10, and “the establishment of a Food Office” (corrected to business), are only accounts. Cf. the similar tablets T. T . , 164 1 " 6, 8 ; Amh., 121. 4 According to the Catalogue of the Morgan collection in New York, made by Johns, Nos. 49, 70, 71 , 85, 86, 87, 88 and 108, all from this period, are “contracts.” Some of them have been already published by Scheil, No. 108, in R. T XVII, p. 38, and Nos. 70, 71 in R. T., XIX, p. 63. [ 16 ] 1 FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 17 Among the 171 numbers published in this volume about thirty are “contract” tablets. Some of them, however, are fragmentary and their specific character cannot be determined definitely. The balance are accounts of various kinds. The term “contract” I understand to mean a document recording a legal or business transaction, or some agreement between different parties, in regard to which a docu- ment is legally drawn up, signed and attested. Into the collection here published has also strayed a very fragmentary tablet, No. 154, which is of special interest, as it is a fragment of a literary tablet 1 dating from this early period. Fragment of a Literary Tablet. 2 [ ] [ ] [s]u zu[ ] [ ] s[u u ¥ ri-[ ] [ ] ni za ib-[ ] 5. [ ] ni za ib-[ ] [....] clurnu ama nu-tug [....] [ ] Pi-Pi iH ] [ u]m-mi dug-[ ] [ ]se ib-[ ] 10. [ e]n [ ] [ ] [ ] As easily seen, the fragmentary condition of the tablet renders any attempt of a translation or interpretation impossible, but that it is of a literary character seems certain. The ib at the end of the broken lines 3, 4, 5, 7 and 9 is, of course, a verbal prefix. The nu-tug, line 6, followed by dumu, “son,” and ama, “mother,” looks like a negative followed by the verb or “not” and some form of the verb “to lie.” As far as paleographical and archaeological evidences tend to show, the tablet was written during the period of the second dynasty of Ur, and would thus form another link in the arguments as to the age of Babylonian literature, 3 definitely showing, that literary documents existed as far back as in the period of the second dynasty of Ur. 1 For another tablet of this kind in the Nippur collections of the Imperial Ottoman Museum in Constantinople, cf. Huber in Hilprecht Anniversary Volume, pp. 22Qff. 2 See PI. 67, No. 154, and Description of Tablets, Chapter XI. 3 Cf. Hilprecht, B. E., Series A, Vol, XX, pp. 1-10. 3 18 SUMERIAN DOCUMENTS, II. DYNASTY OF UR As for a general survey of the subject matter of the tablets of this volume, the following may be noted Court proceedings : Legal documents in regard to slaves Nos. 1 (I), 4 (III). Legal document in regard to an office No. 2 (II). Contracts: Agreements between parties Nos. 4, 10. Documents of sale: Deed of sale of palm grove No. 14 (VII). Deed of sale of a male slave No. 15 (VIII). Receipt of purchase money for a pair of slaves No. 16 (IX) . Loan documents: Documents in regard to loans of silver Nos. 19 (?) , 20, 21. Promissory notes Nos. 11 (V), 13 (VI). Acknowledgments of loans of silver Nos. 11 (V), 17-20, 22 (X), 29 (XIII). Acknowledgments of loans of grain Nos. 23 (XI), 24 (XII). Acknowledgment of loan of dates No. 31. A bond No. 7 (IV). Fragmentary ‘ ‘contracts” : Only parts of tablets remaining, the names of witnesses indicating the character of the documents Nos. 3, 5, 8, 9, 12. Account of loans ( or payments ) Receipts: 2 Receipt for silver Receipts for corn Receipt for wheat Receipts for grains Receipts for vegetables of various kinds Receipts for different kinds of beans. . . . Receipt for dates Receipts for figs Receipts for provisions Receipts for straw No. 56. No. 29 (XIII). . . . .Nos. 34, 37-39, 43, 45. No. 36. Nos. 30, 32, 35, 40, 41, 48. Nos. 47, 49, 53. Nos. 44, 45. No. 31. No. 54. No. 35. No. 48. 1 For a more detailed description of the contents of every tablet see the Description of the Tablets, Chapter XI. 2 Some of these receipts may be acknowledgments of loans, FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 19 Accounts of income: Accounts of the receipts for corn Nos. 37, etc. Account of the receipts for bronze Nos. 71-74. Accounts of supplies received and at hand: Statement of silver, corn, oil, etc., received and at hand No. 151. Statements of shiploads of grain delivered Nos. 60, 66. Statement of corn, wheat and vegetables delivered and at hand Nos. 63, 65. Statement of garments at hand No. 143. Statement of chairs on hand No. 62. Storehouse accounts: Account of corn No. 119. Account of corn and wheat Nos. 67, 84, 100-104. Account of grain Nos. 56, 58. Account of beans No. 68. Account of vegetables No. 169. Account of figs, dates, etc No. 105. Account of bronze No. 71. Account of grain received and paid out Nos. 57-59. Unique account of a fruit harvest No. 76 (XVIII). Cattle accounts: A “ round up” of cattle No. 79 (XIX). Various cattle accounts Nos. 80-82. Field accounts: Accounts of the cost of the tilling of fields, as wages, feed of oxen, seed, etc Nos. 83, 89, 90 (XX), 91 (XXI). Renting of fields to different persons No. 144. Account of fields, their measurements, condition, etc No. 91. Inventories: Enumeration of belongings, as implements, weapons, victuals, silver, cattle, skins, etc Nos. 76, 77 (XVIII). Memoranda Nos. 6 (XXIV), 155. Accounts of expenditures: Expenditures of corn No. 135. Expenditures of different kinds of grain No. 129 (XXI). Various expenditures of corn and wheat; among these are 1 gur wheat for porphyry stone for a couch for the god Nusku No. 1 17. Expenditure of wool. No. 134 (XXIII). 20 SUMERIAN DOCUMENTS, II. DYNASTY OE UR Assignments of garments Nos. 137-142. Expenditures of sesam Nos. 134, 136. Expenditure of sesam oil No. 125. Expenditure of straw No. 161. Special temple accounts: .Grain for the temple of En-lil No. 131. Grain for temple offerings No. 88. Flour and grain for temple offerings No. 132 (XXII). Temple offerings and porphyry stone for couches for the deities No. 133. Accounts of expenditures of supplies to special persons named, as usages or for sustenance: Expenditures and distributions of grain. . .Nos. 85, 93-95, 97, 147, 149, 165, 166. Distribution of grain and vegetables Nos. 53, 63, 65, 146, 148. Distribution of fish No. 106. Distribution of drink No. 120 (XX). Pay-lists: Lists of officials, employes, artisans and laborers, generally the amount of wages being stated Nos. 88, 96, 107-110, 123, 170. Various accounts: Accounts, the character of which cannot be definitely determined on account of the broken condition of the tablets Nos. 61, 69, 72, 86, 98, 111, 114, 145, 152, 171. Fragments Nos. 157-159, 164. V. DATES. One of the most valuable features of these documents, especially for the recon- struction of Old Babylonian history, are, of course, the dates. Of the 171 tablets, published in this volume, about 115 are more or less completely dated. Some have complete dates, giving year, month and day, others year and month, others year, and five give only month and day. The rest, or about 56, are either originally undated or the dates are broken away. As for the dates themselves, most of them were, of course, known before, either as certain or uncertain dates, but there are also to be found entirely new dates, as well as new variations of previously known date formulas. 1 The certain and known dates represent the latter part of the reign of Dungi, from the 35th to the 53d year of his reign, with documents from every year men- tioned except the 38th, 39th, 42d, 43d and 48th-52d years; the entire reign of Bur-Sin except his 4th year; the whole of Gimil-Sin, and the 1st year of Ibi-Sm, thus covering a period of at least 45 years. The dates found in this volume, giving year, month and day, are the following: Certain Dates. Dates from the reign of Dungi. 35th: 2 mu Si-mu-ru-um ki ba-hul : itu Ezen- d N in-a-zu itu [ Ezen-]mah itu As-a, ud X -f itu Engar-du-a, ud XIX itu Se-kin-kud, udVIII . No. 17. No. 57. No. 111.. Nos. 23 (XI), 24 (XII). No. 79 (XIX). 1 See New dales and New variations of known dates, p. 27. 2 For the identification and the chronological order of the dates see next chapter, Reconstruction of the Dates of the Second Dynasty of Ur. [ 21 ] 22 SUMERIAN DOCUMENTS, II. DYNASTY OF UR (No day) No. 80. itu Ezen- d Me-ki-gal, (no day) No. 81. 36th: muus-sa Si-mu-ru-um H ba-hul: 1 itu Bar-zag, (no day) No. 44. 37th: mu Ha-ar-si ki ba-hul: itu Ezen-'Dun-gi No. 156. mu Ha-ar-sum ki ba-hul: (No month) Nos. 83, 84, 112. 40th: mudumu-sal lugal pa-te-si An-sa ki ba-an-tug : 2 (Month broken off) No. 140. (No month) No. 142. mu dumu-sal lugal: (No month) No. 141. 41st: mu a-du II-kam Gan-har ki ba-hul: itu d Ne-[su ] No. 115. itu Ezen-An-na No. 34. (No month) Nos. 301, 100 : 8, 49. 44th: mu An-sa-an ki ba-hul: (No month) Nos. 100 : 71, 83. itu Se-sag 3 -kud Nos. 100 : 79. itu Se-kin-kud Nos. 100 : 55, 56. 45th: muus-sa An-sa-an ki ba-hul: (No month) Nos. 100: 17, 72. 46 th : m u d N annar Kar-zi (d) -da : ' a-du II-kam-ma-su : 5 e-an-na ba-an-tu(r) : 8 itu Se-kin-kud * No. 14 (VII). 47 th: mubdd-ma-da 1 ba-ru: 8 (No month) Nos. 64, 101: 19. 1 This date formula must denote the same year as the formula mu Si-mu-ru-urnr 1 a-du II-kam-ma-al ba-foul (see next chapter) and must have been used until Simurum was captured the second time. 2 Note in these cases the variation ba-an-tug instead of the usual ba-tug. 3 Note the sign SAG instead of the usual KIN. 4 Note omission of Ki. 5 Note variation of sw for as. 6 Note variation for e-a ba-tu(r). 7 Ki wanting. 8 Cf. T. T„ 164 14 , IV, 9. FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 23 53d : mu en d Innanna unu{g) ki mds-e ni-pa(d ) : itu Gdn-gan No. 22 (X). itu As-a, ud III No. 56. Dates from the reign of Bur-Sin. 1 1st: mu Bur- d Sin lugal-am: (No month) No. 55. 2d : mu d Bur- d Sin-ge Ur-bi-lum ki mu-hul-a: itu Azag-sim, 2 3 4 ud IX No. 15 (VIII). 3d: muus-sa Ur-bil-l[um ki ] ba-h[ul\: itu Ne-\suf No. 35. mugu-za d En-lil-ld ba-dim: (No month) No. 36. mu gish gu-za i ba-dim: (Month broken off) No. 124. 5th: muen am-gal An-na en d Innanna ba-tug-ga : 5 itu Ab-e No. 41. (No month) No. 95. mu en unu(g)-gal d Innanna ba tug-ga: itu As, ud XI No. 11. muen unu (g) -gal d Innanna ba-tiig: itu Gan-gan, ud II No. 47. mu en har-gal [ ]: itu Bdr-zag-gar-[ra] No. 18. 6th: muus-sa en am-gal An-na en d Innanna ba-tiig: itu A[zag ( ?). . .] No. 42. 7 th: mu Hu-hu~nu-ri k ’ 6 ba-hul-a: itu Bdr-zag, ud XX V No. 4. itu As-a, ud XIV No. 8. 1 From the important chronological tablet published by Prof. Hilprecht, B. E., Series A, Vol. XX, No. 47, li. 3; also p. 46, we know definitely that Bur-Sin ruled nine years. Tablets dated in every year of his reign except 4th and 6th occur in this volume. 2 Cf. Nos. 1.5 : 17; 42 :8;48 : 7. 3 Or Bil-bil-gar-ra . 4 mati wanting. 5 See next chapter VI and IX. 6 Written fiu. 24 SUMERIAN DOCUMENTS, II. DYNASTY OF UR 8th: muen Eridu ki ba-tug: (Month broken off) No. 3. itu Su-sa-es N o . 46 . 9th: mu us-sa en Eridu ki ba-tug: itu d N e-sit itu Ezen- d N in-a-zu it u K i-k in- d N in-a-zu itu Ezen- d Dun-gi (No month) mu us-sa en d En-ki Eridu ki ba-tug : x itu d N e-sit muen d Nanna Kar-zi(d)-da ba-tug: itu Su-kul-a . . . No. 54 (XV) . No. 32. No. 45. Nos. 104, 157. . . .Nos. 59, 103. No. 134 (XXV). No. 60. Dates from the reign of Gimil-Sin. As for the chronological arrangement of the dates, see following chapter on reconstruction of the dates of this dynasty. 1st: mu d G imil- d S in lugal : itu Su-kul, ud XXIII No. 62. itu Ab-e No. 63. 2d: m[u md-dara]-zu-ab ba-ab-ba-du (Note form of date): itu Se-kin-kud No. 158. 3d: mu Si-ma-num? ba-hul: it u A zag-s i m 3 No. 48. 4th : mu bad mar-tit mik-rit: itu A-ki-ti No. 116. 5th: mu us-sa d Gimil- d Sin lugal-e bad mar -t it mu-ri-ik Ti-id-ni-im mu-[ru]: itu Sig No. 49. mu us-sa bad mar-tu ba-ru : itu Se-kin-kud No. 1 (I). 1 New variation of date. 2 Written with sign LUM, cf. E. B. II., p. 276. That the name is to he read Si-ma-num not Si-ma-lum is evident from /?. T. XIX, p. 57, No. 210, where it is written Si-ma-nu-um. Hence the sign LUM must also have the phonetic value of NUM, known already from the door-sockets of Sargon and Naram-Sin of Nippur (Hilprecht, B. E , Series A, Vol. I, Part 1, No. 1 : 4; 2 : 3, and Jensen in Schrader’s K. B. } Vol. Ill, Part 1, p. 116, note 5); cf. No. 15 : 1. Note also even here the omission of Ki after the name. Cf. E. B. II ., p. 276, S. A. K. /., p. 234. 3 New name of month. See Chapter VII. 4 To be noted is the use of mu as prefix of the verb. Otherwise mu is used when the active agent is given, and ba is prefix when not given. Cf. the form of date of 5th year. FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 25 6th: mu d Gimil- d Sin lugal Uru-unu(gY-ma-ge na?-ru-a-mah d En-lil d Nin-lil-ra mu-ne-du: itu Dir-Se-kin-kud No. 2 (II). 7th: mu d Gimil- d Sin lugal Uru-unu (g) ki -ma ma-da Za-ab-sa-li ki mu-lml: itu B[ar]-zag No. 117. itu Gu(d)-si No. 117. itu Sig Nos. 13, 49, 88. itu Su-kul, ud XXX No. 21. (No clay) Nos. 75 (XVII), 117. itu B d-b il-gar-ra No . 1 26 . itu Dul-azag Nos. 85, 128. itu Engar-du-a, ud VII No. 37. (No day) ' No. 25. itu Gdn-gdn-e No. 129. itu As No. 117. itu S e-kin-kud Nos. 117, 153. (Month broken off) Nos. 90 (XX), 145. (No month) No. 152. 8th 3 : mu d Gimil- d Sin lugal Uru-unu (g) k '-ma-ge md-gur-mah d En-lil d Nin-lil-ra mu-dim: it u S ig itu Ezen-Me-ki-gal / itu S> e-kin-kud ) mu ma-g ur-mah ba-d in i : itu Gu{d)-si-zu itu As-a itu Azag-sim Gimil-Sin in seal No. 13 (VI). No. 93. No. 130. No. 131. . .No. 9. .No. 65. Dates from the reign of Ibl-Sin . 4 1st: mu d I-bi- d Sin lugal: itu Bar-zag-g[ar-ra ] No. 51. 1 Ki omitted. 2 Must be na, but looks like ki. Note form na-ru-a instead of usual na. Cf. next chapter. 3 See next chapter. 4 Of the twenty-five years of the reign of Ibf-Sin, according to the Hilprecht chronological tablet, B. E., XX, Part 1, No. 47; also p. 46, only two tablets are to be found in this volume, and one of them cannot yet be identified with a certain year. 4 26 SUMERIAN DOCUMENTS, II. DYNASTY OF UR No. 16 (IX). .Nos. 82, 94. itu Gu(cl)-si-zu. . . itu Ezen- d Nin-zu l 2 Uncertain Dates. From the reign of Ibi-Sin. mu d I-bi- d Sin lugal Si-mu-ru-um ki ba-hul: itu Kin- d Innanna No. 39. Unclassified Dates. 1. mu bad-gal Nibru ki Uru-unu{g) ki -ma ba-ni: [itu G]u(d)-si-zu No. 133. 2. muus-sa bad-gal Nibru ki Urii-unu(g) ki -ma ba-ru: [itu S]u-kul-a No. 133. 3 . mu m[d ( ?) ]-da z[u (?) ] n[e(?) ] : itu Gu(d)-si-zu No. 50. 4. mu Tu-ki-in-P A-mi-ig-ri-sa dumu-sal lu[gal pa-te-si Za-ab-sa-li ki ba-an-tug: itu Gdn-gdn-e No. 135. ) ba-hu[l-]a. z]u [ . . 1 . [ 2 - [ 3. mu [...... [ . • _ itu Se-kin-kud, ud IX 4- [ • g]al [ . . itu Se-kin-kud, ud I 5. m[u ] d [ . itu[ ] 6. m[u ] e[n . itu Pap +e(?)[ ] : Fragmentary Dates. Originally complete dates. ] ba-hul ]■ Dated month and day only. itu Bil-bil, ud XVI itu Su-es-k[ul ]( ?) m[u](?), ud XV .No. 19. .No. 26. .No. 27. .No. 28. .No. 31. No. 137. No. 143. No. 163. No. 53. 1 Note omission of a . 2 Cf. T . 7'., p. 31. Perhaps Dim -[ ku]l FROMjTHE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 27 itu Ab-e, ud XVIII No. 52. itu A[s-a\ No. 87. itu Se-kin-kud, ud XV No. 159. New Variations of Dates. 1. mu us-sa en d En-ki Eridu ki ba-tiig: 1 itu Ne-sii No. 134. New Dates. 1. mu bad-gal Nibru ki Uru-unu(g) ki -ma ba-rit 2 No. 133. 2. mu us-sa bad-gal Nibru ki Uru-unu(g) ki -ma ba-ru 3 No. 133. 1 Bur-Sin, 9th year. 2 Unclassified dates, No. 1. 3 Unclassified dates, No. 2. VI. RECONSTRUCTION OF THE DATES OF THE SECOND DYNASTY OF UR, The dates of the kings of the second dynasty of Ur, especially those of king Dungi and his followers, Bur-Sin and Gimil-Sin, have been more or less completely arranged chronologically by Radau 1 and Thureau-Dangin. 2 Both scholars encoun- tered the difficulty, and in fact the impossibility, of a definite classification of these dates, owing partly to the gaps in the date lists, published long ago by Hilprecht, 3 on which they principally founded the order of arrangement, and partly to the fact that the exact number of years the different kings ruled was yet unknown. Recent material, and especially the new chronological list published by Hil- precht, 4 will now enable us to reconstruct the dates of the kings of the second dynasty of Ur with more certainty. That a reconstruction of these dates according to the very latest chronological material at hand, such as I have undertaken, is not only justified but also necessary, can be gathered from the fact that scholars so far practically have overlooked the important bearing on the dates of the second dynasty of Ur, and especially on the dates of Dungi, which this new Hilprecht chronological list really has. Thus Thureau-Dangin makes no correction of the date lists in the German edition of his Lcs Inscriptions cle Sumer et cV Akkad, although it was pub- lished in the year after the Hilprecht tablet was published. Pinches, in his Amherst Tablets, published in 1908, even reproduces a part of the new Hilprecht list, 5 at the same time reproducing, translating and elucidating the date lists previously pub- lished by Hilprecht and Radau; but as for the identification of the years he still refers to Radau, who, of course, would be the first to disavow his former conclusions in face of all the new material published since. 1 E. B. H., pp. 252-287 (1900). 2 Les Inscriptions de Sumer et d’ Akkad (1905), pp. 329ft'., and the German edition of the same work, to which I refer in this volume, S. A. K. I. (1907), pp. 228-236. 1 B. E., I 2 , 125, 127. 4 B. E., XX 1 , 47, also p. 46. 5 Arnh., pp. xiiiff. [ 28 ] FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 29 Pelagaud in his Sd-tilla texts 1 still follows the figures given by Thureau-Dangin, by giving two dates of Dungi as the 30th and 46th year, though they should now be made the 43d and 58th respectively. Even Eduard Mayer 2 follows Thureau-Dangin, although he remarks that the figures of the dates of Dungi ought to be raised by 12. Barton in his latest volume of IJr tablets (1909) likewise follows Thureau-Dangin. In regard to King Ur-Engur, the founder of the second dynasty of Ur, we now know from the new Hilprecht chronological list that he ruled eighteen years. Of the date formulas of this king, however, we know for certain only one: mu Ur- d Engur lugal-e sig-ta igi-nim-su gir si-ne-sd-a. The formulas for the first and second years of his reign we may perhaps, with more or less hesitation, restore in accordance with the formulas used by the following kings of the dynasty. The dates mu Ur- Ab-ba pa-te-si and mu en d Innanna Unu{g) ki -a dumu Ur- d Engur lugal-a mas-e ba- pa(d)-da, given by Thureau-Dangin 3 as belonging to the reign of Ur-Engur, may be the date formulas of the patesi Ur-Abba of Lagas, just as well as the date Gu-de-a pa-te-si, etc., 4 is given by the same author as the date formula of Gudea. The same may be the case with the fourth date given by Thureau-Dangin. 5 What we know, however, is that Ur-Ab-ba was patesi of Lagas? and that he was a contemporary of Ur-Engur. 1 The dates of Dungi, the second king of the dynasty, are those most affected by the new Hilprecht chronological list. Working on the basis of the material published or at hand at the time, Radau and Thureau-Dangin succeeded in establishing chro- nological order in the dates of Dungi, as far as the latter part of his reign is concerned, Thureau-Dangin, of course, having the advantage of more recent material. As far as the last 45 years of Dungi are concerned, Radau and Thureau-Dangin have presented identical lists, not to mention differences in transcriptions and interpretations of the date formulas. The order of the last 45 (according to Thureau- Dangin 46) years is thus established with considerable certainty; but in regard to the identification of the date formulas with the respective years, the whole list was hanging in the air. That the chronological numbers given by Thureau-Dangin to these dates neither can nor were meant to represent the exact year is seen from the fact that he, in spite of the gap after the first year, begins anew with No. 1. 1 Babyloniaca, III (1909), p. 82. 2 Geschichte des Altertums, I 2 , p. 341. 3 S. A. K. /., p. 228. 4 R. T. C„ 200, R. II, 8. 6 Ibid. * See seal R. T. C., 287 ; S. A. K. /., pp. 148, 149. 7 R. T. C., 261, R. II, 12. 30 SUMERIAN DOCUMENTS, II. DYNASTY OF UR The whole list, thus far constructed, can now be nailed down to its proper place, and every date formula can be exactly identified with the year which it represents. Thus we know from the new Hilprecht chronological list 1 that Dungi ruled 58 years. We also know that the last date formula of the reign of Dungi was mu us-sa Ha-ar-si ki Ki-mas ki u Hu-mur-ti ki ba-hid, which would denote the same year as that which in its later months have the date formula of the new king, or mu d Bur- d Sin lugal, both dates occurring during the patesiship of Ur-Samas. 2 The last full year of Dungi would then have the formula mu Ha-ar-si ki Hu- mur-ti ki u Ki-mas ki ba-hul, or the last date of the established list. Hence that for- mula would represent the 58th year of Dungi. Now by simply counting backward from this date we can establish the order of the known and certain dates of the last 46 full years of Dungi. 3 As for King Bur-Sin, the third ruler of this dynasty, we know from the same source that he ruled nine years. If the translation of a date given by Lau from an unpublished tablet is correct, 4 we have ten elate formulas from the reign of Bur- Sin, the last formula, mu us-sa en d Nanna Kar-zi(d)-da ba-tug, denoting his last year, which is the same as the accession year of Gimil-Sin, while the preceding date formula, mu en d Nanna Kar-ziid) -da ba-tug, would represent the last full year of the reign of Bur-Sin. Thus we have a complete list of the dates of this king. 5 In regard to Gimil-Sin, the fourth ruler of the dynasty, we now know from the new chronological list that he only ruled seven years. The perfectly clear cuneiform numbers, as can be seen from the photographic reproduction of the tablet, 6 excludes every shadow of doubt. On account of certain date formulas, however, a larger number of years have been assigned to this ruler. 7 The chronological list, published by Hilprecht many years ago, 8 gives the date formula mu ma-da Za-ab-sa-li ki ba-hid, or the recognized formula for the 7th year, as the last. The supposition that this is the formula for the 7th year is strengthened by the fact that the preceding date formula, mu na-mah d En-ld-ld ba-ru, is in its turn preceded by an us-sa-bi year of mu bad mar-tu ba-ru, denoting the 4th year. From the breaks of the tablet it would seem as if the date formula originally had 1 B. E., XX 1 , 47 ; also p. 46. 2 See dates. 3 See dates. *0. B. T. R., No. 168, p. 68. 5 See dates. 6 B. E., XX 1 , Phototype illustrations , PI. XV, No. 17, Rev. 7 Radau, E. B. II., pp. 275-277; Thureau-Dangin, S. A. K. /., p. 234. *B. E„ I 2 , 127, R. FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 31 been mu bad mar-tu ba-ru us-sa-bi. 1 In any case this date formula cannot cor- respond to the following. Hence the two formulas must represent two different years or the 5th and 6th respectively. But if the Za-ab-sa-li ki formula is the 7th and last on the tablet, as is clearly shown by the uninscribed place below, it is not the last of the reign of Gimil-Sin. It is most likely that the very tablets were made in this year of Gimil-Sin, and thus naturally the following date formulas could not be given. We know two more date formulas from the reign of Gimil-Sin, for which there is no place except after the 7th year. 2 Thus in fact we have date formulas for 9 years of Gimil-Sin, although this king, according to the new Hilprecht chronological tablet, ruled only 7 years. There is, however, a very plausible explanation of this apparent discrepancy between the chronological list and the date formulas at hand. The chronicler only counted the full years of the king’s rule, while date formulas also for his first and last year, of which only a few months came within his rule, are to be found. His 1st year date formula would then designate the part of this year in which he ruled, 3 the 2d year formula the 1st full year, the 8th formula would designate the 7th full year and the 9th the first part of the year in which he died, which year would be the same as the 1st year of his successor. Thus the seven years assigned to Gimil-Sin by the chronicler is a round number, only the full years being counted. As far as we know, he ruled at least eight years and three months in all. This tends to show that instead of the Babylonian chroniclers being apt to raise the length of the rules of their kings by giving round numbers, 4 they were more apt to lower the total sum of the rule of a dynasty by only giving the number of full years. An interesting case tablet bearing on the subject of the relation between the decession of Bur-Sin and the accession of Gimil-Sin has been published by Pinches. 5 The tablet itself bears the date: itu d Dumu-zi mu Gimil- d Sin lugal; the case or envelope on the other hand : itu Ezen- d Ba-u mu en d Nanna Kar-zi{d ) ba-tiig. 1 Cf. the date formula of the 14th year of Dungi. 2 See dates of Gimil-Sin. 3 We know that Gimil-Sin had ascended the throne already in the month Ne-su or 4th month, C. T., Ill, 16371, 7. 4 Thus we have one tablet dated in the 4th month of his 1st year, C. T., Ill, 16371, 7, and another dated in the 6th month of his 9th year, R. T . C 429, R., 2. 5 Amh., p. xviii. 32 SUMERIAN DOCUMENTS, II. DYNASTY OF UR Thus the tablet is dated in the 7th month of the accession year of Gimil-Sin ; but the envelope, as the text actually is transcribed by Pinches, is dated in the 9th month of the 9th year of Bur-Sin, that is ten months earlier, as we know, if Lau 1 gives an authentic translation, that the last or tenth year of Bur-Sin had the formula mu-us-sa en Kar-zi{d)-da . 2 Of course, the date on the envelope must have been made after the tablet was enclosed, hence later. In any case there must lie some mistake on the envelope. Perhaps the scribe wrote mu for mu us-sa. The explanation offered by Pinches, that the en Kar-zi(d)-da formula must designate the 2d year of Gimil-Sin, and Iris to lie taken away from Bur-Sin, cannot be main- tained. It would upset the whole order of dates. If, however, the date of the envelope really is meant for the last year of Bur- Sin, i.e., the mu us-sa en Kar-zi(d)-da, as is the most plausible explanation, this would show that a scribe in principle perhaps would continue to date according to the formula of a dead king even after the new king had been established, or possibly by ignorance of the change, or by mistake pure and simple, just as we in the beginning of a new year are apt to forget and continue to write the old accus- tomed year. It will lie noted that I have identified the formulas for the last year of Bur- Sin and the mu lugal of the first year of Gimil-Sin, as well as the last year of Gimil- Sin and the first year of Ibi-Sin, as denoting the same year respectively. This, to be sure, in spite of Kugler’s very positive statement to the contrary. 3 The only proof that Kugler advances for his dogmatic statement is the fact that the same years are designated by two date formulas. To my mind, and as long as no stronger proofs are presented, this fact proves the very opposite of what Kugler’s 11 These" asserts. Thus it is certain that a year, beginning at the New Year, was designated by a mu us-sa formula of the date formula for the preceding year, until some event took place, which would make the occasion for the giving out of a new date formula. As far as the kings of the second dynasty of Ur are concerned, the last year of three of them is designated by a mu us-sa formula. 4 Naturally this formula would be used in the beginning of the year, which also, as of course could not be foreseen, proved to be the last year of the king. The accession of the new king would 1 0. B. T. R., No. 168, p. 68. 2 That the mu en Kar-zi(d)-da does not designate the last year of Gimil-Sin is seen from the dating in this year even up to the month Dir-Se-kin-kud, Amh., 118, 6. 3 Z. A., XXII, p. 65, i.e.: “These 1. mu X lugal(-e) bezeichnet durchaus nichl das Antritts-J ahr (accession year) des Konigs, sondern sein erstes voiles Jahr." 4 Dungi, Bur-Sin and Gimil-Sin; see dates. FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 33 certainly be such an important event as to make it the occasion for the issue of a new date formula, which, according to ordinary usage, would serve as date formula for the rest of the year. This view of the matter also explains satisfactorily the nine date formulas of Gimil-Sin, while according to the new Hilprecht tablet he ruled only seven (full) years. As long as Kugler does not give more convincing proofs for his “These,” it would also in this respect be safer to rely on the statement of the Babylonian chronicler. In regard to Ibi-Sin, the fifth and last king of the dynasty, the new list has assigned twenty-five years to his rule. Of the date formulas of this king we know only two, the formula for his first year and another that cannot be identified with a certain year. DATE FORMULAS OF THE SECOND DYNASTY OF UR. 1. Certain Dates. 1st: [mu Ur- d Engur lugal](?) 2d: [mu us-sa Ur- d Engur lugal ) ( ?) 3d: [ ] 4th: [ ] 5th: [ ] 6th: [ ] 7th: [ ] 8th: [ ] 9th: [ ] 10th: [ ] 11th: [ ] 12th: [ ] 13th: [ ] 14th: [ ] 15th: [ ] 16th: [ ] 17th: [ ] 18th: [ ] 1 R. T. C., 261, R., II, 14; 262, R., II, 2; 263, R. 2 R. T. C., 264, R,, II, 5. 3 1?. T. C. } 264, R., II, 2. 4 R. T. C., 265, R., Ill, 7. Certain : mu Ur-Engur lugal-e sig-ta igi-nim- su gir si-ne-sd-a x Uncertain: mu Ur-Ab-ba pa-te-si 1 2 3 mu en d Innanna Unu(g) ki -a dumu Ur- d Engur lugal-a mas-e ba-pa(d) -d mu us-sa en am-gal An-na ba-tiig 16 mu d Bur- d Sin lugal-e Sa-as-ru-um ki ba-hul 17 mu Sa-as-ru ki ba-hul 18 7 th: mu us-sa Sa-as-ru-um ki ba-hul 19 mu Hu-hii-nu-ri ki20 ba-hiil-a 21 mu Hu-hu-nu-ri km ba-hul 23 1 R. T., NIX, p. GO, No. 615; Dates of Bur-Sin (41 : S; 95 : 34). 2 See Dates of Bur-Sin (II : 17). 3 C. T. Ill, 14606, R., 1. 4 II. L. C., PI. 78, No. 67, VII, 14. 5 T. T 291 ; R. T. C., 303, R„ 2; Amh., 102, R., 7. fl //. L. C. t PI. 50, No. 283, R„ 5. 7 Amh., 104, 6. 8 R. T. C , 298, R., 5(?); Amh., 81, 10; Amh., 83, 13 ( ba-a-tiig ); Dates of Bur-Sin (47 : 7). 8 E. A. II., 74-77; E. B. II., p. 268; R. T. C„ 298, R., 5. 10 Amh., 82, 6. 11 B. E„ I 2 , 127, 0., 5. 12 Dates of Bur-Sin (18 : 11). 13 For the dates of the 6th year of Bur-Sin see Chapter IX. 14 Amh., 84, L. E. 15 Dates of Bur-Sin (42 : 7). 16 T. T., 50, R„ 3; 75, L. E. 17 E. II. B., 78-86 ; E. B. H., p. 268. 18 B. E., I 2 , 127, 0., 6; Amh., 85, 7 (Sa-as-ru-um ki ) . 19 C. T ., X, 19065, L. E. This date- may belong to Dungi, 54. See Thureau-Dangin, S. A. K. /., p. 233. 20 Written few . 21 Dates of Bur-Sin (4 : 16). 22 The signs ]m and n have changed places in B. E., I 2 , 127, 0., 7. 23 C T ., X, 12248, R., 12; Amh., 86, R., 2; 87, 11, etc. See preceding reference. FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 41 8th: mu us-sa Hu-u-hu-nu-ri kl ba-Jiid 1 mu us-sa Hu-hu-nu-ri kl ba-hul 2 mu e-gal d Bur-' 1 Sin ki-dg d en Eridu ki ba-tug 3 mu en Eridu kl ba-a-tug 4 mu en Eridu ki ba-tug-gcd mu en Eridu ki ba-tug 6 9th : mu us-sa en d En-ki Eridu kl ba-tug 7 mu us-sa en Eridu kl ba-tug 8 mu us-sa en Eridu kl 9 mu en d Nanna Kar-zi(d)-da ba-a-tug 10 mu en d Nanna Kar-zi(d)-da ba-tug 11 mu en d Nanna Kar-zi{d)-da 12 10th 13 : mu us-sa en d Nanna Kar-zi(d)-da ba-tug 14 Gimil-Sin. 1st : mu d Gimil- d Sin lugal li 2d : mw md-dara-zu-ab ba-ab-ba-dii lB mu md-dara-zu-ab ba-du 17 3d: mu us-sa md-dara zu-ab ba-du 18 mn Si-ma-num ki19 ba-hid 20 1 C. r., X, 24959, R., E. 2 C. 7 1 ., I, 94-10-16, 2, R., Ill, 1; I, 94-10-16, 4, R„ III, 9. 3 C. T., I, 94-10-16, 5, E. 4 Amh., 97, 14; 99, 14; 99, 11; 100, 14. 3 E. A. H., 87; E. B. H., p. 269. 6 B. E., I 2 , 127, O., 8; Amh., 96, R„ 2; Dates of Bur-Sin (3 : 7; 46 : 15). 7 Dates of Bur-Sin (134 : 13). 8 E. A. H., 88; E. B. II., p. 269; Dates of Bur-Sin (32; 45; 54; 59; 103; 104). 9 Amh., 106, 8. 10 Amh., 117, 10. 11 B. E., I 2 , 127, 0., 9; E. A. II., 89; E. B. II., p. 269; Amh.. 107, 7; 109, 19; 110, 9; 112, 10; 114, 10; 116, 13; 118, 7; 121, 6; Dates of Bur-Sin (60 : 5). 12 Amh., 119, 10. 13 Last year of Bur-Sin, the same as the accession year of Gimil-Sin. 14 0. B. T. R., 169, according to the catalogue given by Lau, p. 68. The tablet is not published. I have given the Sumerian text according to the English translation by Lau. 15 R. A., Ill, p. 144; E. A. II., 91; E. B. H., p. 275; Dates of Gimil-Sin (62 : 10; 63 : 7). 16 Dates of Gimil-Sin (158 : 7). 17 R. A., Ill, p. 144. 18 T. T., 240. 19 See note to Dates of Gimil-Sin, 3d year. 20 R. T. C ., 415, R., 4; Dates of Gimil-Sin (48 : 8). 6 42 SUMERIAN DOCUMENTS, II. DYNASTY OF UR 4th: mu us-sa Si-ma-num ki ba-hul 1 11 mu d Gimil- d Sin lugal Uru-unu{g) kl -ma-ge bad-mar-tu mu-ri-ik Ti-id-ni-im mu-du 2 mu bdd-mar-tu ki ba-du 3 mu bad-mar-tu ba-du 4 mu bad-mar-tu mu 3 -did [mu b]ad-mar-t[u ba-du ] us-sa-bi 7 5th: mu us-sa d Gimil- d Sin lugal Urii-unu (g) ki -ma-ge bad-mar-tu mu-ri-ik Td-id- ni-im mu-du a mu us-sa d Gimil- d Sin lugal-e bad-mar-tu mu-ri-ik Ti-id-ni-im mu-[du ] 10 mu us-sa bad-mar-tu kl na-dii 1 mu us-sa bad-mar-tu ba-du 13 mu us-sa bad-mar-tu kl ba-du mu us-sa-bi 13 6th: mu d Gimil- d Sin lugal uru-unu (g) ki -ma-ge na-ru-a-mah d En-lil d Nin-lil-ra mu- ne-dii 14 mu na-mah d En-lil-ld ba-du 15 7th: mu d Gimil- d Sin lugal ur ii-unu (g) ki -ma-ge ma-da Za-ab-sa-li ki mu-hid-a 16 8th 17 : mu d Gimil- d Sin lugal uru-unu(g) ki -ma-ge ma-gur-mah d En-lil d Nin-lil-ra mu- ne-dim 18 mu ma-gur-mah ba-dini 9 1 T. T. t 76; A., Ill, p. 144. 2 C. T„ III, 14608, R., 5. 3 R. T., XVIII, p. 71. 4 R. A., Ill, p. 144; E. A. H„ 93; E. B. H„ p. 276. 5 Note the prefix mu. 6 Dates of Gimil-Sin (116 : 21)> 7 B. E„ I 2 , 127, R„ 1. 8 Ti omitted in R. T. C., 428, R., 7. 8 R. T„ XIX, p. 186; R. T. C„ 428, R„ 4. 10 Dates of Gimil-Sin (49 : 9). 11 R. T„ XVIII, p. 71. 12 Dates of Gimil-Sin (1 : 23). 13 R. T., XVIII, p. 71. 14 R. T. C., 295, 0., 9; Dates of Gimil-Sin (2 : 19, ki after ur ii-unu (g ) is wanting). 15 B. E., I 2 , 127, R., 2. 16 B. E. } I 2 , 127, It., 3; Dates of Gimil-Sin (a number of tablets). 17 See above. 18 R. A., Ill, p. 124. 19 Dates of Gimil-Sin (9, 130, 131). FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 43 9th 1 : mu d Gimil- d Sin lugal uru-unu{g) kl -ma-ge e d Lagab + sig 2 aish Hu kl mu-du 3 mu e d Lagab + sig ba-du* Ibi'-Sin. 1st: mu d l-bi- d Sin lugal 2 ' 2d : mu d I nnan[na] ba-tug e 3d-25th: mu d I-bi- d Sin lugal Si-mu-ru-um ki ba-huV 2. Uncertain Dates. 8 Dungi. 1. mu d Dun-gi-ra d-su(m)-ma 9 mu lugal-ra a [ • • ] su(m)-ma 10 2. mu en-nam-X 11 d Dun-gi-ra-ge ba-gub ba-tug 12 Ibi'-Sin. 1. [m]u d I-bi- d Sin lu[gal] uru-[unu(g) ki -ma-ge \ Si-mu-ru-um kl mu-hul 13 mu d I-bi- d Sin lugal Si-mu-ru-um ki ba-hul li 3. Unclassified Dates. 15 1. mu bdd-gal Nibru kl urii-unu (g) ki - tna ba-rii 16 2. mu bad urii-unu(g) ki ba-ru 17 1 Last year of Gimil-Sin, the same as the accession year of Ibi-Sin. See above. 2 Barton simply copies the sign as GAL, H . L. C., I, PI. 50, No. 144, R., 3, and translates, “the great god Gi-shul},” p. 50; but this is no doubt a misinterpretation of the usual Lagab + sig sign. 3 R. T. C., 309, 4 ; 429, R., 3; and reference in preceding note. 4 R. A., Ill, p. 144; R. S., p. 74. Lau, 0. B. T. R., No. 206 (text not given) gives this date as “the year in which the temple of dlnBir GIS.Umi) was built.” He has probably overlooked the sign of the name of the deity. 5 R. A., Ill, p. 144; C. T., Ill, 16366, L. E., 16367, R., 13; 16368, R„ 17; Dates of Ibi-Sin (16, 51, 82, 94). 6 According to Thureau-Dangin, from an unpublished tablet in Constantinople, M. I. 0., 831. See S. A. K. /., pp. 229, 235. 7 Dates of Ibi-Sin (39 : 7). ■ For uncertain dates of Ur-Engur see dates of that king. 9 See Dungi, 3d-12th. 10 R. T. C.. 268, R., 8. 11 Sign R. E. C., No. 316. 12 E. A. H„ 109, R„ 7 :E.B. H„ pp. 280, 420. 13 R. A., Ill, p. 126. 14 Dates of Ibi-Sin. 15 Under this head would naturally fall the date given by Pinches, Amh., pp. 15, 16, as mu a-ba-gi, “Year the water returned,” but the phrase is certainly no date at all. Under this head would also come the date given by Barton, II. L. C., IT, p. 29, as “The year the king repaired the house.” How Barton derived this meaning from the text is not easily seen, but he has copied the last signs of the line, II. L. C., II, PI 56, No. 56, V, 7, something like in-Se-za, omitting the horizontal wedge at the bottom of the last sign. As it now stands, it has, of course, no meaning. The line no doubt has to be read mu lugal ge in-pa(d), “By tire name of the king he (they) swore.” It is no date. 16 New dates (133 : 17). This may be a fuller formula for the following. v R. T. C., 269, R., 3. This may be a shorter formula for the preceding. 44 SUMERIAN DOCUMENTS, II. DYNASTY OF UR 3. mu us-sa bad-gal Nibru kl uru-unu(g) ki -ma ba-ru 1 4. mu id A- d Nin-tu ba-al 2 5. mu us e d Nin-BAD + [?] 3 ki-ba-a-gar 4 6. mu lugal-e d Nibru kl -ta r ‘ 7. mu us-sa Lu-lu-bu-um ki ba-hul “ 8. mu en Ga-es ki ba-tug 1 9. mu en d Innanna unu(g) ki -ga H mds-e ni 9 -pa(d.) 10 mu en d Innanna unu{g) ki mds-e i[b ] u 10. mu m[d(l)]-da z[u(l)]-a[b(l) ] n[e(?) ] 12 11. mu Tu-ki-in-PA-mi-ig-ri-sa dumu-sal lugal pa-te-si Za-ab-sa-li ki ba-an-tug 13 mu dumu-sal lugal pa-te-si Za-ab-sa-li ki ba-tug 14 mu-dumu-sal lugal pa-te-si Za-ab-sa-li ki ba-an-tug 15 mu us-sa ki a-du II-kam-as ba-kul 16 13. mu Sibum kl ba-hul 17 14. mu H, udnuri ki ba-hul 18 1 New dates (133 : 20). 2 R. T. C., 270, R., 6. 3 The sign in R. T. C., 271, is BAD with a broken sign inside. May be R. E. C., No. 366, but not certain. Cf. Thureau-Dangin, S. A. K. /., p. 235. i R. T. C., 271, R„ 3. 5 R. T. C„ 272, R„ 3. 6 E. A. H., 106, 6 -,E.B. II., pp. 279, 42S. 7 R. T. C„ 378, R„ 5. 8 ga is wanting in No. 56 : 46. 9 T. T ., 296, has ni-e. 10 R. T. C., 401, R., Ill, 3; T. T ., 296. Unclassified dates (22, tablet: 7 ; 56 : 46). 11 Unclassified dates (22, case: R., 2). 12 Unclassified dates (50 : 9). 13 R. T. C., 404, R., 21; Unclassified dates (135 : 42). 14 T. 7'., 237, R., 5; 276, R„ 6. 15 T. T„ 243, R„ 6. 16 II. L. C\, II, PI. 63, No. 31, R... 1. Barton translates: “The year the land was devastated a second time,” p. 30. But the KI is no doubt only the remaining postposition after the name of a country; the name itself being left out, whether by the old Babylonian scribe or by the American copyist, cannot be seen from the reproduced text. Both are possible, however. If this explanation is correct, the only known date formula that would answer all conditions, not considering the ul-sa, would be the formula for the 41st year of Dungi, mu Gan-lyaA a-du II-kam-as ba-hul. This would be an us-sa formula of the same and would designate the following or 42d year of Dimgi, for which year no us-sa formula has been found as yet. Hence we would have to read: mu us-sa Gan-had 1 a-du II-kam-as ba-hul. 17 Thus according to Lau in his catalogue, O. B. T. R., No. 147, but no text is given. Cf., however, the name Sabum in connection with Puhunuri, Morgan, Scheil collection, No. 112. 18 Thus according to Lau, O. B. T. R., No. 71, but again no text is given. May be an error for // uhunuri. VII. THE NAMES AND ORDER OF THE MONTHS DURING THE SECOND DYNASTY OF UR . 1 In regard to the old Babylonian months of the year, there has been and is still a great deal of uncertainty. It is true that Kugler 2 recently proposed to brush away all difficulties in the matter by pointing out the fact that Gan-mas was the first month of the year. Unfortunately, however, even if this proposition be granted, there are still, as will be seen, other problems to be solved in a more satisfactory way. First, then, we have to note the fact that not only two, as Kugler puts the case, but at least four different nomenclatures of the months are used at the same time during the second dynasty of Ur. And still there are names for months to be found that cannot as yet be identified with certainty, e.g., Mes-an-du and Azag-sim, etc. 3 That other different nomenclatures of the old Babylonian months existed is clearly shown by the list in V R., 43., where six old Babylonian names are given for every name of the months written ideographically during later periods. As for the time of the second dynasty of Ur, however, we know that at least four nomenclatures were used. Thus we find a list of names occurring at the time of Sargon /, and even before, 4 still used during this later period. Although Kugler speaks with great authority and considers the order of months, he presents as definitely settled, the list of old Babylonian months in use at the time of Sargon I, which he gives as List A, is absolutely wrong. 5 1 For treatises on the Babylonian calendar, see Ginzel, Handbuch d. mathem. u. techn. Chronologie, I, pp. 107ff. ; Kugler, Z. A., XXII, pp. 68ff.; Mahler, Hilprecht Anniv., pp. Iff., and references given to previous publications on the same subject; Meissner, IF. Z. K. M., V, p. 180; Muss-Amolt, ./. B. L., XI, pp. 72, 160; Pinches, Amh., pp. XIXff.; Radau, E. B. II., pp. 287ff.; Thureau-Dangin, ./. A., Ser. IX, Vol. VII (1896), pp. 339ff. ; R. A., IV, pp. 88, 89; 0. L. Z., I, p. 164; Z. A., XV, pp. 409ff.; Weisbach, Hilprecht Anniv., pp. 281ff., etc. 2 Z. A., XXII, pp. 68ff. 3 See Chapter IX. 4 See text-editions by Genouillac and De la Fuye. 6 Z. A., XXII, pp. 68ff. [45 ] 46 SUMERIAN DOCUMENTS, II. DYNASTY OF UR Disavowing the suggestion, made by Thureau-Dangin, that Mes-an-du is to be regarded as an intercalary month, he inserts it between Mu-su-du and Ezen- Amar-a-a-si , thus not only bringing the whole list out of harmony with List B, but giving the list 13 months, without counting the intercalary month. Thus Amar- a-a-si, for example, would be both the 10th and lltli month at the same time. Now the order as well as the number of the months of this list, from Dumu-zi to Dir-Se-kin-kud, are definitely fixed by R. A., IV, PI. XXVIII, No. 77. We have here not only the order and number of months given, but these are also checked by the summary at the end. Thus from Dumu-zi to Dir-Se-kin-kud are seven months, the full month of those given always being counted. There is no place for Mes-en-du in this list, and hence it has to be placed in some other list of nomen- clatures. This list, marked I in the comparative list of nomenclatures, has to be constructed as given in the first column below. Then another list can be constructed, which by Thureau-Dangin is designed as being characteristic for this period, 1 and which has been marked II in the comparative lists. 2 This is given in the second column below. I. itu Ezen-Gan-mas, I. itu Gan-mas, II. itu Ezen-Gu(d)-du 3 -ne-sar-sar, II. itu Gu(d)-ne-sar-sar, III. itu Ezen- d N e-su, III. itu d Ne-su, IV. itu Su-kul, IV. itu Su-kul, V. itu Ezen-Dvm-ku, V. itu Dim-kit, VI. itu Ezen- 1 Dumu-zi, VI. itu Dumu-zi, VII. itu Ur, VII. itu Ezen- d Dun-gi, VIII. itu Ezen- d Ba-u, VIII. itu Ezen-Ba-u, IN. itu Mu-su-du, IX. itu Mu-su-du , 6 X. itu Amar-a-a-si, X. itu Amar-a-a-si, XIa. itu Se-kin-kud-du , 4 XIa. itu Se-kin-kud, 7 XI6. itu Dir-Se-kin-kud, Xlh. itu Dir-Se-kin-kud* XII. itu Se-il-la. 5 XII. itu Se-il-la. But we find even in this comparatively early period names, which are practically 1 It. A., IV, pp. S3, 84. 2 See R. T. C., 403; T. T., 3. 3 Also written to, R. T. C., 357, edge; 326, R. 5; and ta, Amh., 53, 7. 4 See R. T . C . , 55, It., II, 2; Se-kin-a, R. T. C., 180, 0., 3; cf. itu Se-ir-fm-um Se-kiu-kud-a and the remarkable variant, As-kin-kud-a, D. P. M . , X, Nos. 11, 12. 6 For names see also R. T. C., 180; Amh., pp. xixff. 6 No. 136: 18. 7 Written itu Se-sag-kud, Nos. 100 . 117. See also Nos. 1, 14, 28, 31, 79, 80, 93, 100, 158, 159. 8 No. 2. FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 47 r-\ V4j identical with the names of the months, written ideographically, used during the time of Hammurabi and even at later periods, marked III in comparative lists: I. itu Bcir-zag-gar, 1 II. itu Gu{d)-si-zu , 2 III. itu Slg-ga , 3 IV. itu Su-kul-a , 4 V. itu Bil-bil-gar , 5 VI. itu K in-' 1 Innanna , 6 VII. itu Dul-azag, 7 VIII. itu Engar-du-a , 8 IX. itu Gdn-gdn-e , 9 X. itu Ab-ba-e, 10 XI. itu As-a, 11 XI la. itu Se-kin-kud, 12 XII6. itu Dir- Se-kin-kud. 13 Lastly we have an altogether new and different list of nomenclatures from this period, given in the interesting but somewhat mysterious tablet of the E. A. H. collection No. 134, published by Radau, IV in comparative lists: la. itu Se-kin-kud, 16. itu Dir-Se-kin-kud, II. itu Bar-azag-ku, III. itu Dun-da-ku, IV. itu U-ne-ri-mu, V. itu Ki-sig- d N in-a-zu , 1 5 VI. itu Ezen- d N in-a-zu , 1 6 14 which begins with Se-kin-kud, marked VII. itu A-ki-ti, 17 VIII. itu Ezen- d Dun-gi, IX. itu Su-es-sa , 18 X. itu Ezen-Mah , 19 XI. itu Ezen-An-na, 20 XII. itu Ezen-Me-ki-gal. 21 As far as the order of the months goes, these four lists are prettj 7 well estab- lished. The difficulty lies in the identification of these different names with the particular months referred to. In some cases the names, although varying more or less, can be identified with each other, and the order is known. This gives starting points for the comparison of others; but in other cases we are still at a loss as to the reconciliation of these different nomenclatures. The chief problem, however, is to determine which month in the different lists actually was the first month of the year. In the beginning of his study of old Baby- I Nos. 4, 44. 51, 85. 117. 3 Nos. 13, 49, 88. 5 Nos. 126, 163. 7 Nos. 85, 128. 9 Nos. 129, 135. II Nos. 8, 11, 56, 87, 111, 117, 131. 13 Nos. 100, 117. 15 No. 45. 17 No. 116. 10 Nos. 57, 104. 2 Also read gu(d)-si-sa. See Nos. 16, 50, 117, 130. 4 Nos. 21, 60, 62, 75, 117. 6 Nos. 39, 86. 8 Nos. 23, 24, 25, 37. 10 Nos. 41, 52, 63, 65. 12 Nos. 1, 14, 28, 31, 79, 80, 93, 100, 158, 159. 14 E. B. H., p. 299. 16 Nos. 17, 32, 94. 18 No. 53. Also written Su-Sa-es, No. 46 : 14. 21 Nos. 81, 93. 20 No. 34. 48 SUMERIAN DOCUMENTS, II. DYNASTY OF UR Ionian months, Thureau-Dangin placed Gan-mas as the second, Se-il-la as the first month. 1 Later he has been a staunch supporter of the view that Gan-mas was the first and Se-il-la the last. 2 This against Radau, who maintained the previous position taken. 3 Radau, however, lias found his followers 4 as well as Thureau- Dangin. 5 As for the documents from Telloh, and as far as the lists I and II are concerned, (he facts seem to support the view that Gan-mas was the first, Se-il-la the last month of the year at this period. But there are difficulties yet to be surmounted, as will lie seen later, in regard to the other lists. That accounts in the Telloli tablets run from Gan-mas to Se-il-la does not prove the numerical order of these months in the slightest degree. Accounts run between any months in the same year, as well as from any month in one year to any other month in another year, as from Se-il-la to Dir- Se-kin-kud, e from Se-il-la to Gu(d)-ra-ne-sar-sar, 7 from Gu(d)-du- ne-sar-sar to Se-kin-kud, 8 from Gu(d)-si-zu to Bdr-zag-gar-ra , 9 from Gu{d)-si-zu to Su-kul the next year, 10 from Dim-kii to Gan-mas, 11 and from Amar-a-a-si to Amar- a-a-si the following year. 12 But, as has been asserted before, 13 the summary of 62 months during 5 years in C. T ., Y, PL 44, No. 18358, Y, 10, and also the summary of 15 months during 2 years in 0. B. T. R., 251, IV, 18, 14 would show that, as far as the methods used in Telloh are concerned, Gan-mas was counted as the first month and Se-il-la as the last. But how are the lines 0. B. T. R., 251, III, 1-10, Se-kin- kud | u Se-il-la | mu-gu-za, etc. | . . . . | itu Xll-kam | to be explained? To these proofs may now be added Amh., 31, last col., 9-17, itu Gan-mas \ mu us-sa bdd-ma-da-ta \ itu Se-il-la | mu us-sa e, etc. | itu dir ni-gdl \ itu-bi XXVII \ . Thus from Gan-mas, as the first month of the 48th year of Dungi, to Se-il-la, the last month of the 50th year, with one intercalary month, will make 27 months. Also, if Se-il-la were the first month, we would expect an us-sa formula when tablets were 1 See J. A., Ser. IX, Vol. VII (1896), p. 339ff.; R. A., IV, pp. 88, 89. 2 See especially Z. A., XV, pp. 409ff. ; also 0. L. Z., I, p. 164. 3 E. B. II., p. 287ff. 4 Ginzel, Handbuch, p. 114; Lau, O. B. T. R., p. 41 ; Pinches, Amh... p. XXIII. 6 Huber, P. K. U. N., p. X; Kugler, Z. A., XXII, pp. 68ff. 6 R. T. C„ 402, O., 11; R„ 18. 7 Amh., 53, 1-7. 8 C. T ., V, PI. 39, No. 17752, IV, 5-10. 9 No. 117. 10 No. 133. 11 T. T ., 3. 12 II. L. C„ I, PI. 1, No. 67. 13 Thureau-Dangin, Z. A., XV, pp. 409ff. ; Kugler, Z. A., XXII, pp. 7 Iff 14 Kugler, Z. .4., XXII, p. 72. FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 49 dated in this month, as only in exceptional cases the event, on account of which a new date formula would be instituted, would occur in the very first month of the year. Thus Amh., 81 and 86, are dated itu Se-il-la | mu en, etc., and C. T ., Ill, 14600, itu Se-il-la | mu Ur-bil-lum ki \ , and not mu us-sa d Bur- Sin lugal, which was an earlier date formula for t he same year. On the other hand, Gan-mas has an us-sa formula, mu us-sa en-mah, Amh., 80, 8; but the later formula of the same year was mu en am-gal, etc., being the 5th year of Bur-Sin. In C. T., I, PI. 1, Nos. 94-10-16, 59, R., 12, the phrase itu X-kam takes the regular place of the name of a month immediately before the date formula of the year. By itself the phrase might perhaps mean “10 months” as well as “the 10th month.” Still no summary of the months given above on the tablet will make 10 months. On the other hand, the last month of the accounts is Amar-a- a-si, which is the 10th month of the year, if Gan-mas is placed first. The material and hence the findings in regard to Gan-mas and Se-il-la, how- ever, are entirely confined to Telloh tablets. In regard to the tablets excavated at Nippur, on the other hand, I have not found, as yet, a single tablet where the months Gan-mas or Se-il-la are mentioned. From this fact it might be argued that the lists of which these two months form part, were used particularly at Telloh. Still other names of these lists, as Gu{d)-du-ne-sar-sar, N e-sit and Dumu-zi, are found on Nippur tablets. In regard to the lists III and IV, which seem to predominate on the Nippur tablets, the burning question is also the numerical order of the months. Which were the first months? Unfortunately, this cannot be absolutely determined with the material at hand. In the document published and discussed by Radau, 1 the month Se-kin-kud heads the list of months, while at the same time the order of the months is conclu- sively determined. 2 This would point to this month as the first month of the year during some period of the second dynasty of Ur; but it does not, of course, by itself supply a conclusive argument for such a proposition. Another document from the same period, Amh., 85, seems to support this view, however. The tablet in question is dated in the month of Ezen-Ba-u, but the envelope or case, in which it was originally enclosed, is dated in the month Se-kin-kud. The year, according to Pinches 3 — the text of the envelope not being published in extenso — is the same on both 1 E. B. H„ pp. 299ff. 2 See also No. 93 : 8-10, itu Se-kin-kud-ta | itu Ezen Me-ki-gdl-su | itu-bi Xll-a-an , which establishes the order of the mouths. 3 Amh ., p. 156. 7 50 SUMERIAN DOCUMENTS, II. DYNASTY OF UR the tablet and the envelope, viz., the 52d year of Dungi 1 or the 6th year of Bur-Sm. As the tablet must have been made and dated before being enclosed in the envelope, and as the latter consequently must have been dated later than the tablet — but, if Pinches is right, in the same year — Se-kin-kud must precede Ezen-Bau, and thus be the first month of the year. On the other hand, it is clear that Se-kin-kud could not very well be the first month. Tablets are dated in this month without an us-sa formula, which would show that this month came later in the year. 2 Still the Se-kin-kud of these tablets may belong to list I or II, where it was the 11th month, or to list III, where it per- haps was the 12th month, and would tend to prove that during the reign of the kings of the second dynasty of Ur the calendar was changed so as to make Se-kin- kud the 11th month of List I and II, the 12th month of List III and the 1st month of the list IV. This would also relieve us of the difficulty, otherwise arising, that although Hammurabi changed the calendar by inserting an extra month, 3 the numerical order of the list III of the Ur dynasty would be the same as that of the Hammurabi period and of later Babylonian and Assyrian times. This would also satisfactorily explain, why the 7th month was called A-ki-ti, the beginning month of the (half) year. Bdr-azag-ku , if it really is to be identified with Bdr-zag- gar, will come a month later than in the list III, likewise Ezen-Dungi. Ezen-Me- ki-gdl would lie the 12th month, to which there are no known obstacles. On the contrary, V R., 43, R., 7, places this month opposite Se-kin-kud, or the 12th month of List III. In any case, the customary identification of the old month of Dumu-zi with the later arhu Du'uzu cannot be maintained. Thus, as over against the certainty of Kugler, I still fully agree with such a careful and experienced investigator as Pinches, that “there is still much to learn concerning the calendar of this early period.” 4 On the supposition that there were changes made in the calendar during this period, of which we still have no definite knowledge, or on the supposition that perhaps different nomenclatures were used in different Babylonian centres, and until fresh material will throw new light on the subject, I venture, provisionally, to harmonize the four different nomenclatures used during the second dynasty of Ur in the following comparative lists. In regard to list IV, however, I am not sure, whether it would not prove more harmonious simply to ignore the evidence which the E. A. H. tablet and Amh,., 85, seem to furnish, and consequently make Bar-azag- ku the first, Se-kin-kud the last month. 1 In the 9th year of Bur-Sin, Se-kin-kud, according to the year formula, would not be the first month. See Amh. 116, 12. 2 H. L. C., I, PI. 45, No. 35; Amh., 116, Nos, 1, 14, 28, 31, 79, 80, 93, 158 and 159. 3 L. /. H., No. 14, 6. 4 Amh., p. XXII, From the temple archives of nippur. 51 Nomenclatures of Old Babylonian Months USED DURING THE SECOND DYNASTY OF Ur. I. II. III. IV. Ia 16 itu Gan-mas itu Gan-mas itu Bdr-zag-gar itu Se-kin-kud itu D ir- Se-kin-k ud II. itu Gu(d)-du-ne-sar- sar itu Gu(d)-ne-sar- sar itu Gu (d) -si-zu itu Bar-azag-ku III. itu Ezen- d N e-sit itu d Ne-su itu Sig-ga itu Dun-da-ku IV. itu Su-kul itu Su-kul itu Su-kul-a itu U -ne-ri-mu V. itu Ezen-Dim-ku itu Dim-ku itu Bil-bil-gar itu Ki-sig- d Nm-a- zu VI. itu Ezen- d Dumu-zi itu Ezen- d Dumu- zi itu Kin- d Innanna itu Ezen- d Nin-a- zu VII. itu Ur itu Ezen- d Dun-gi itu Dul-azag itu A-ki-ti VIII. itu Ezen- d Ba-u itu Ezen- d Ba-u itu E?igar-du-a itu Ezen- d Dun-gi IX. itu Mu-su-du itu Mu-su-du . itu Gdn-gan-e itu Su-es-sa X. itu Amar-a-a-si itu Amar-a-a-si itu Ab-ba-e itu Ezen-Mah XIa XI6 itu Se-kin-kud-du itu Dir- Se-kin-kud- du itu Se-kin-kud itu Dir-Se-kin- kud itu As-a-an itu Ezen-An-na Xlla 1 XII6 : itu Se-il-la itu Se-il-la itu Se-kin-kud itu D ir-Se-k in-k ud i itu Ezen-M e-k i-gdl VIII. TRANSCRIPTION AND TRANSLATION OF SPECIMEN TABLETS. In presenting these translations of specimen tablets, it hardly needs to be emphasized that some of them, especially the translations of the documents of court proceedings, necessarily must be more or less tentative. In some cases the texts will allow more than one rendering and interpretation grammatically and lexicographically possible. A number of terms stand either quite isolated or are used in a connection different from others known before. Hence a definite inter- pretation is not possible with the rather scant material at hand. As pointed out before, the so-called ‘ ‘contracts” have been rather rare from this period so far, but further publications of new texts will no doubt throw fresh light on many problems, which it has been impossible to solve satisfactorily in this book. The most tangible translation of the documents in question are here given, however, mostly with a view of calling attention to the difficulties and possibilities, and thus paving the way for a more definite and final interpretation of these and similar documents, which no doubt will come to light later. I. (Text, PI. 1, No. 1; Halft., Plate I, Nos. 1, 2.) Court Proceedings. A-la-la brings his slave Sir-kci into court, in order to have put on record that whenever Sir-ka runs away, he would be subjected to the treatment accorded to a runaway. His mother and his sister seem to be made responsible for his conduct. 1. Y Sir-ka 2. ur A-la-la-kam 3. A-la[-i]a igi[-n]i-ni- \ig]i + gar 1 2 3 1 A certain Sir-ka, who is a slave of A-la-la, A-la-la made to appear. 1 Cf. igi-ni-in-gar-ar-ra, Sd-tilla, IX, 5; also p. 126. Here the phrase is causative and corresponds to the later kurrubu, A. B. P. R., p. 125, or better uktarriteu, A. D. D., No. 1, p. 262. [52] FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 53 5. mu lugal [ujd-ba 1 HA +A 2 ge 3 - 6. n[a] 4 -ma 7. ner-da he-a 5 8. ne-[i]n-du(gY 9. Zci-an-me-ni ama-ni 10. u Gin- d En-zu nin- 1 1 . na-ni 12. su-tu(r ) nu-HA -jA-da 1 13. ba-an-gub-su 8 14. Y Lugal- Lagab 15. Y Nam-ha-ni 16. Y Ur-E-gi-a 9 17. Y Ses-kal-la 18. Y E(GA ) j-ner-e-ba-ul 19. Y Us-a-ni 20. Y Pap-ni-mu 2 1 . galu-enim-ma-bi-me 22. Se-kin-kud II ‘ ‘By the name of the king, on the day when an escape indeed he will make, a ner-da may he be/’ he said. Zan-me-ni, his mother, and Gin-Sin, his sister, for (his) remaining (?), that he shall not run away, they shall stand. Lugal-Lagab, Nam-ha-ni, Ur-E-gi-a, Ses-kalla , E(GA) +ner-e-ba-ul, Us-ani, Pap-ni-mu, witnesses. Month Se-kin-kud, second, 1 The inside of the sign preceding bn is broken away, but the outside lines seem to make the reading UD cer- tain. It could be E, however. In any case the interpretation would be very much the same. UD by itself might of course stand for enu, Br. 7781, besides i-nu, also written i-na, .4. B. it. U., 121, 7; 187, 6. The ba could possibly be verbal prefix to IJA + .1 , cf. V It., 25, 16a, but on account of the verb following it is better to take IJA +A as an infinitive form. Thus I read ud-ba, “the day when.” Cf. C. 7'., XV, 24, 16; XXIV, 16, 17 ; also Radau, Hilprecht Anniv., p. 386. 2 The sign is IJA enclosed by .4 ; cf. line 12 and No. 4 (III) : 7. I take the sign as a composition of IJA and A, which later were written separately, IJA- A, and expressing the verbal meaning of fialriku, Br. 11856. I take the form here as infinitive, followed by a finite verb expressed by Ma. For the construction cf. Gudea, Cyl. A, XI, 14; B, IX, 2. See further Chapter IX. 3 NE could possibly be taken as postposition, also expressing the idea of “when,” cf. C. T ., XV, 17, 15, 19, 21. It could be overhanging vowel, de, as it appears to be in No. 4 (III): 7, cf. R. II., No. 38, 1 -3; C. T., XVII, 17, 8, 9; Gudea, Cyl. A, VIII, 2; XIV, 7. Still it seems better to take it a.s the emphatic ge, equal to fie, Br.. p. 542. 4 The sign is badly broken, but it is most likely na. 5 NER.DA may perhaps be taken as a term for a runaway slave, who is at the entire mercy of his master See Chapter IX. 6 Cf. Sd-tilla, XVI, 7; XVII, 10; XVIII, 2. 1 SU.T(J(R) may be a phonetic writing for SU.DUR, i.e., TU(R) for DUR —KU, aisdbu, Br. 10523. Cf. Gudea, Cyl. A, XXVI, 27. Cf., however, the term St) .DU-ma, B. T. N., 135, 28; S. C. N., p. 131. 8 DU = kanu, Br. 2884, or nazazu, Br. 4893, or sak&nu, Br. 4897. 8 Or Ur-Mu-gi a. 54 SUMERIAN DOCUMENTS, IT. DYNASTY OF UR 23. mu us-sa bad-mar- year after westland- 24. tu ba-du wall built. II. (Text, PI. 2, No. 2; Halft., Plate I, Nos. 3,4.) Court Proceedings. Lugal-iskim-zidda brings suit against Ur-Rammdn in regard to a head office of the temple. 1 . nam-pa-isib-da 1 2 . Lugal- isk i n t-zi(d) - da 3 3. hi Ur-IM du(g) ni-gdl-la 3 5. Ur-'IM la-ba- tS. a-du-u-da 4 7. Lugal- iskim-zi( d)-da 8. [m]u lugal-bi in-na-pa(d) 9. [ . . . . d]u(g)-ga-ni nu-banda 10. [ . . . . ] jl Dim-pa-e 11. damn Ur-Ba-u 12. Lul-a damn Ur-gu 13. A-ka-ka-mw' In regard to the head priestly office, concerning which Lugal-iskim-zidda has brought suit against Ur-Rammdn, and to which Ur-Rammdn has not given attention, Lugal- isk im-z idda by the name of the king swore. [ . . . . d]ug-ga-ni, the overseer, [ . . . . ]-Dun-pa-e, son of Ur-Bau, Lul-a, son of Ur-gu, A-ka-ka-mu, ‘The NAM. PA. ME, as can be seen from the autograph and halftone reproductions, is not very certain as far as the PA. ME is concerned. The signs could possibly be read GUIt or PA.DIS. GUR = kunukku. Hr. 3362, and NAM. GUR might denote the oflice of sealing, a “clerkship.” GUR also stands for tarn, Br. 3367, and NAM .GUR could thus mean “restitution.” ME, read isib, on the other hand denotes a priestly office, as pasisu, Br. 10375, ramku, Br. 10376, siptu, Br. 10379, and tertu, Br. 10380. See also II . IF., p. 147a; K. 1 ! . , VI 1 , p. 463. PA always denotes a head officer, with others under his charge, or an overseer. See Radau, E. B. H ., p. 413. Temple offices are always the object of bartering in the contracts and lawsuits. See, for example, Poebel, B. E. } VP, Nos. 37, 39 and 66. The nam-pa-isib would thus be an overseer of priests, a priestly head office. 2 For the reading of iskim, IGI.DUB, see M. 7142. Of. Tallqvist, N. B. N., pp. xii, 335; also M. 7149. 3 KA-ni-gdl generally stands for ruggurnu, Br. 612, with the preposition a-na, see Urkunden, 117, 12, ell or rnuli-hi, S. P. G. A ., p. 126; B. F., CXIII, 14; but the construction here would correspond to the it-ti , B. V ., CXIII, 16, used with denu in similar connections. 4 The la as a Sumerian negative is emphatic, a expresses lu. Cf. R. H., 80, 20; Hdprecht Anniv., pp. 400, 419. The difficulty as to the translation of this document, aside from the exact meaning of the first term, is to be able to decide in what definite meaning the verb KAK here is employed. As it apparently is a question in regard to an office, epesu with the meaning “to practise, exercise,” may be suggested. The accused man has not or shall not exer- cise that office. Also pak.adu would express this idea. Another interpretation would be to take KAK as meaning sanaku, which also expresses the idea “to appear before the judge, to be summoned, also obey.” Hence the docu- ment would be a second appeal for the dispute to be settled, the defendant having paid no attention to the first, or he having not been summoned. 6 MU may be a title. FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 55 14. Ba-ka-ka Ba-ka-ka , 15. Ur- d En-zu Ur-Sin 16. Ur-Engar- d Utu Ur-Engar-Samas, 17. galu-enmi-ma-bi-me witnesses. 18. itu Dir-Se-kin-kud Month 1) ir-Se-k in-kud, 19. mu d Gimil- d Sin lugal Year Gimil-Sin, king 20. Urii-unu ( g ) -ma-ge of Ur made the 21. na-ru-a-mah d En-lil great stele 22. d Nin-lil-ra mu-ne-du for Enlil and Ninlil. III. (Text, PI. 3, No. 4.) Court Proceedings. Galu-Enlil takes the oath that he will not run away from the house of Ur- Nusku. 1 . Gal u- d En-l il-l a 2. clumu Galu- d U (d) -du(g ) -ge 3. Ur- d PA.KU-ra 4. mu-lugal ni-na-pa(d) 5. e-za ga-gin 1 2 6. ga-a-an-ta-e 3 4 5 7. [ba]-ra-ba-H A +A-d e-sid 8. [ne ( ?) -in-n]a-du (g) 9. [ Y][ . . . ]-e-el-la 10. Y Ba-la-an-gi 11. Y Su-JJr-ra 12. ukus-nita pa-al 3 Galu-Enlil, son of Galu-Udug, to Ur-Nusku by the name of the king he swore: “From thv house I will go, I will indeed depart, (but) not shall I run away,” he said. [ . . . ]-e-el-la, Ba-lan-gi, Su-Ur-ra the ukus-nita of the pa-al , 1 For the scheme of this document cf. the much later document of a similar nature, B. V., No. CXLV. 2 Schorr makes the statement that the second person, as a pronoun or subject, is never found in old Babylo- nian contracts, Hilprecht Anniv., p. 28, but this seems to be a clear case. 3 The two lines could perhaps also be translated: "Thy house I will come to, from thy house I will go out,” i.e., he would go in and out, but not run away. 4 Cf. No. 1 (I) : 5, 12. See Chapter IX. 5 For the sign see Code of Hfammurabi, IX, 90 ; L. I. II ., No. 1, 19, 22; 3, 7,11; C . T ., VI, 29, 5. In regard to the reading of MIR.US, it will be noted that the explaining gloss stands between the MIR and the US, and this would point to the, reading ukus, not uku, for MER, thus for the group ukus-us, or better ukus-nita. That the ukus-nita in our text was hi the service of a pa-al would tend to support the view expressed by Daiches, Z. A., XVIII, p. 222, that these officials, in some instances at least, did not hold positions of great trust. Cf. also Meissner, Z. A., XVIII, p. 393; and Langdon, Babploniaca, I, pp. 289, 290. 50 SUMERIAN DOCUMENTS, II. DYNASTY OF UR 1 3 . galu-en im-ma-b i-me witnesses. 14. itu Bdr-zag-gar-ra Month B ar-zag-gar-ra 15. ud XXV-ba-ni 1 day 15th, 16. mu Ilu-h u-nu-ri' 1 year when IJuhunuri 17. ba-hfd-a IV. devastated. (Text, PI. 4, No. 7; Halft., Plate II, Nos. 5, 6.) Bond. In case Ur-Enlil does not pay the grain on his account, Ur- Da-mu shall do it. 1. tukundi-bv' In case 2. sa(g) dub Ur- En-ld-ld-ka on account of Ur-Enlil , 3. X se-gur 10 gur corn, 4. nu-ub-ma 4 are not forthcoming, 5. se-bi Ur- Da-mu-ge its corn Ur-Da-mu 6. ib-zu-ziv' shall bring in. 7. mu lugal-bi By the name of his king 8. ni-pa(d) he has sworn. 9. Y Ur- d Su-mah Ur-Su-mah, 10. Y Ad-da-kal-la Ad-da-kal-la , 11. Y Kalam-ne-mu 6 Kalam-ne-mu , 12. Y Utu-sd(g)-ga Utu-sagga, 1 3 . gal u-e n im-ma-b i- me witnesses. 14. mu Si-mu-ru-um Year Simurum 15. ll ba-hul. devastated. V. (Text, PI. 5, No. 11.) Promissory Note. Elag-nu-a and Nur-ili has given Lugal-salim 1 sekel of silver as a loan. On a certain day he promises to pay it hack. 1 Perhaps to be read ml. 2 Erroneously written TJU. 3 See Chapter IX. 4 Whatever particular verb Shi II stands for, as asu, Br. 4302; kasddu, 4319; kunukku, 4322; satdru , 4336, it must denote deliver y or payment. Cf. ib-ta-b-a = u-se-si, B. E., VI 1 , 42, 6; Urkunden, V. A. Th., 4922, p. 32. 5 ZU .ZU = causative form of ercbu, cf. Br. 133; also afiazu, IIP, Br. 143, “cause to take, i.e., give, pay.” It would perhaps be possible to interpret the document in a different way by considering Ur-Da-mu as the lender , not the bond-giver. The stipulation then would be that if the grain was not delivered, the creditor would increase, i.e., place interest on the loan. 6 Or TJku-ne-niu. FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 57 1. [E]-la-ag-nu-a l 2. u Nu-ur-i-Ti 3. dumu Da- d I-li 4. I gin azag-ud-ta mu-si(d)-dam 2 5. \Lu\gal-sa-lim-ra 6. [p]ad-da 3 mu lugal- 7. bi ni-pa(d) -da 8. igi A-kal-la pa 9. igi Galu- d Ra 10. igi Galu- d En-lil-ld 11. igi Ur-Luh 12. igi !J u-pi-pi ses-gal- 13. nam* 14. igi Ma-da-i-li 15. galu-enim-ma-bi-me 16. itu As ud XI ni-la 5 17. mu en-am-unu (g) -gal- 18. d Innanna ba-tug-gd 6 Elag-nu-a, and Nur-ili, son of Da-Ili, 1 sekel of silver have given to Lugal-salim as a partial payment^?). By the name of his king he has sworn before A-kal-la, the pa, before Galu-Ra, before Galu-Enlil, before Ur-Luh, before Hu-pi-pi, his oldest brother, before Mada-ili, witnesses. In the month of As, the 11th day, he shall pay it. Year when the high priest of the great abode of Innanna appointed. VI. (Text, PI. 6, No. 13; Halft., Plate II, Nos. 7, S; III, Nos. 9-14.) Promissory Note. At the making up of the accounts of the business transactions between Ur-Luh and Galu-Utu there is found a surplus of 1 mana 10 sekel of silver. Galu-Utu receives this amount as a loan, or as an investment and promises to pay it at a stated time. 1 The seal reads I-la-ag-nu-a. Thus the name obviously is written phonetically and is Semitic as the following Nu-fir-i-l'i. 2 Cf. the document of the same character, .4. B. P., No. 19. 8 In later contracts azag pad-da is equal to sebirtu, Br. 9918, which Meissner explains as “die Nebenkosten beim Kaufe” ; also partial payment, Muss-Arnolt, p. 10056. Here it is something that has to be repaid, if ni-la, line 16, is futurum, which seems to be the case. 4 Cf. T. T ., 104, R., 8, se)-a-na. 5 That ni-la is written phonetically for ni-la is seen from C. T., VI, Pi. 38, 11; VIII, PI. 39, 10, as Ranke has pointed out, B. E., VI 1 , p. 19. Cf. ni-la-a, No. 13 (VI): 5, and ni-la, No. 15 (VIII): 17. That it stands for Osakal, not iikul, see the form ni-ld-e on tablet, but i-sa-ya-al on envelope, B. E., VI 1 , No. 51, 13. Cf. also A.R. U., II, Nos. 35, 10; 36, 9; 47, 10; 49, 10; 51, 10, 13. See Nos. 13 (VI): 15; 15 (VIII): 17; cf. Huber, Hilprechl Anniv., pp . 206ff. 8 See Chapter IX. 8 58 SUMERIAN DOCUMENTS, II. DYNASTY OF UR 1. I ma-na X gin azag-ucl 2. si-ni-ib nig-sid-ag 3. ki Ur-Luh-ta 4 . Galu- d Ut u su-ba-t i 5. itu Su-kul ud VII ni-la-a 1 6. si(m) -mu-da 2 7. mu lugal vn-pa(d) 8. tukundi-bi 9. nu-na-an-si(m) 10. ib-tap-pi-a? mu lugal 11. in-pa(d ) 12. igi Lugal-azag-zu 13. [igi] Lugal-itu-Da 14. [igi] A-lul-a 15. [h/]f Ur- d Ma-mi 16. [i]tu Sig it-ru ba-gar 4 17. mu d Su- d En-zu 18. lugal Uru-unu(g) kl -ge 19. md-gur-mah 20. d En-lil d Nin-lil-ra ba-dim 1 mana 10 sekel of silver, being a surplus, when the accounts had been made up, from Ur-Luh, Galu-Utu has received. On the 7th day of Su-kul he shall pay it. Concerning the payment, by the name of the king he swore. In case he does not pay it, it shall be increased. By the name of the king he has sworn, bef ore Lugal-azag-zu, before Lugal-itu-Da, before A-lul-a, before Ur-Ma-mi. (In) the month of Sig, the document was drawn up ; year Gimil-Sin, king of Ur, built the great ship of Enlil and Ninhl. VII. (Text, PI. 8, No. 14; Halft., Plate IV, Nos. 15, 16.) Purchase of a Palm Grove. A commercial agent, Ur-Nusku, purchases a palm grove, 40 sar in area, on behalf of En-lil-al-sdg, and he pays as purchase money 4 mana 84- sekel of silver. 1. XL sar ki-' jish sar-sd(g) 40 sar of a grove of palm trees, 2. 4 ma-na VIII 4 gin azag-ud-su for half a mana 84- sekel of silver, 1 Cf. No. 11 (V): 16. 2 The envelope adds ne-ka. si(m ) = nadinu , Br. 4118. 3 TAB = esepu, Br. 3762, “to add, increase, double,” hence the term may simply designate the payment of interest. It may, however, have the meaning “to increase to the double amount.” Cf. Code of Hammurabi, § 101; 124. The sign may, of course, also stand for sand, Br. 3370, See Chapter IX, 4 For ii-ru, cf, U-RA — labirtu , Br. 1435, FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 59 3. d En-lil-ld-al-sa{g) 1 4. dumu Lugal-nanga-su 5. Ur- d PA.KU dumu Ka-ka-ge 6. in-si-sa(m ) 2 7. igi Ur- d Dumu-zi(d)-[d]a 8. di-kud lugal-k[a‘?]-su 9. [i]n(?)-[pa(d)?] 10. i\giO)] [A]b(T)-gi[ 11. mu lugal-bi [in-pa (d)] 12. Y Lugal-itu-Da 3 13. Y Lugal-[ ] 14. Y[ ] 15-20. [ ] 21. [Y] Ur- d Da-m[u ] 22. [Y] Ur-[ ] 23 . galu-en im-ma-b i-me 24. itu Se-kin-kud 25. mu d Nanna Kar-zi(d)-[d]a 26. a-du Il-kam-ma-su 27. E-a-na ba-an-tu(r ) for En-lil-al-sdg , son of Lugal-nanga, Ur-Nusku, son of Ka-ka, has bought. Before Ur-Dumu-zi, judge of the king, they have sworn (?). Before Ab-gi [ . . . ] by the name of the king they swore. Y Lugal-itu Da, Y Lugal [ ], Y [ ], [ ], [Y] Ur-Da-m[u ], [Y] Ur-[ ], witnesses. Month Se-kin-kud. year (when he) brought Nanna of Kar-zidda into his temple for the second time. VIII. (Text, PL 9, No. 15.) Purchase of a Male Slave. The commercial agent Ur-Nusku has bought a male slave for Ur-e-lugalani, the price being 11 sekel of silver. 1. / sag-iir 4 \mu-n]i LUM 5 1 male slave, his name is called (?) 1 al-sd(g ) could possibly be a title, but also a part of the name, “Enlil is the gracious protector.” Cf. Ur-sag- ga-al, P. K. U. N ., p. 666. 2 For the reading sa(m), or sa-a, see M. 3235. 3 Cf. No. 13 (IV) : 13. 4 1 sag, “one head,” cf. A. B. P., Nos. 1-5. 5 The sign is LUM, but this sign is interchanged with LAM, A. V. 2611, and ref., and often in this period with NUM. See especially the date formula for the 3d year of Gimil-Sin, p. 24. Here it may denote a verb or be a part of the name of the slave. LUM as well as LAM is also equal to un-nu-bu, us-su-bu, A. V. 2611, Br. 11186-11188, which Haupt, Hebraica, I, p. 219, derives from a stem andbu, “to spring,” hence annabu, “a hare,” “a jumper, springer,” SUMERIAN DOCUMENTS, II. DYNASTY OF UR GO [Luga]l-I M l 2. XI gin azag-ud-su 3 . Ur-E-lugal-a-ni-su 4. Ur-PA.KU dam-kar 5. in-si-sa[(m )] 2 6. igi Gii-de-a MU -e-dub 3 7. igi S[u-du](g)-ga-zi(d)-da is-ku 4 8-15. [ ] 1 6 . gal u-en i m- ma-b i-me 17. itu Azag-sim ud X-lal-I ni-la 5 18. mu d Bur- d En-zu-ge 19. Ur-bil-lum kl mu-hul-a 1 Aigal- Ra m man, for 11 sekel of silver, on behalf of Ur-E-lugal-ani, Ur-Nusku, the agent, has bought. Before Gudea, the MU -official of the tablet house before Su-du(g) ga-zidda, the is-ku- priest. witnesses. In the month Azag-sim, on the 9th day, he shall pay. Year when Bur-Sin devastated Urbillum. IX. (Text, PI. 1), No. 1(5.) Sale of a Pair of Slaves. Gimd-Tammuz acknowledges the receipt from Azidda of one rnana of silver, being the payment for a pair of slaves. The document was enclosed in an envelope. 1. I ma-na azag-ud 1 maria of silver, 2. azag 6 nam-galu-tab-ba-su 7 the purchase money for a slave pair, 3. ki A-zi(d)-da-ta from A-zidda, Muss-Arnolt, p. 68 b. NUM, NIM, Br. 9011, is equal to samA, read enim, Br. 9017. This sign also represents gir-ru, C. T . , XII, 30a; XIV, 1, 3a, which may denote “a runner.” Moreover it stands for saku, which denotes some kind of servant, “cupbearer,” etc., of which amelu rab sakA is the head. See Muss-Arnolt, p. 10996. The LUM may thus be a verb, referring to mu-ni, or a part of the name of the slave. Possibly LUM might also have the reading I M , mu-ni-im, “his name.” See Chapter IX. 1 Or Galu-IM. If LUM belongs to the name, Girru(l)-lugal(galu)-IM. 2 Cf. No. VII: 6. 3 See Chapter IX. 4 See Chapter IX. 5 Cf. Nos. 11 (V); 16; 13 (VI); 5. s Here azag is equivalent to sa{m), “purchase money.” 7 NAM.GALU = amelutu , Br. 2200, i.e., the human race, but it is also used as collective for slaves, servants. See Muss-Arnolt, p. 576. TAB-ba = esepu, Br. 3762, “to increase, double,” also sanA, Br. 3770, “to double,” hence here nam-galu-tab-ba is literally “a double slave-ship, a slave pair.” PROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 61 4. Su- d Dumu-zi 5. su-ba-ti 6. Y A-ab-gal-mu 1 7. Y Ur- d Dun-pa-e 8. Y Galu- d En-lil-ld 9. Y (%r-[n]z-scR/ 10. Y Ses-Da-da 1 1 . Galu-e n im- ma-b i-nie 12. itu Gu(d)-si-[z]u 13. mu d I-bi- d En-zu lugal X. (Text, PL 11, Receipt for Gir-ili-sag acknowledges the receipt of as a loan, on which he is to pay an interest of twenty per cent. 1. ^ ma-na azag-ud 2. mas 2 V gin I gin-ta 3 3. ki Ur- d Dun-pa- e-ta 4 . [Gi]r-i-li-s a (g) 5. [. su-ba-ti ] 6. itu Gdn-gdn-e 7. muen d Innanna Unu(g) kl 8. md[s-e ni-pa(d)Y Gimil-T ammuz has received. Ab-gal-mu(?) , Ur-Dun-pa-e, Galu-Enlil, Gir-ni-sag, Ses-Da-da, witnesses. Month Gu(d)-si-zu, year Ibl-Sin (became) king. No. 22.) a Loan. half a rnana of silver from Ur-Dun-pa-e of one sekel for five sekel, or at the rate \ mana of silver, interest 1 sekel for 5 sekel, from Ur-Dun-pa-e, Gir-ili-sdg has received. Month Gdn-gdn-e, year the high priest of Innanna of Erech appointed. XI. (Text, PL 12, No. 23; Halit., Plate V, Nos. 17, 18.) Receipt for a Loan. Isme-ilu acknowledges the receipt of three gar of grain from Ur-Dun-pa-e as 1 MU may be a title, i.e., “baker.” Cf. also MU-c-dub, No. 15 (VIII): 9. It may also belong to the name. 2 MAS = siptu, Br. 2029, from escpu, “to gather, add, increase,” hence increase, interest. See Muss-Arnoll, p. 67a. Cf. HAR, No. XI, 1. 3 Literally “Interest 5 gin 1 gin according.” 4 The envelope has mu en d Innanna Unu(g) ki mds-e ib-\jpa(d)'\. 62 SUMERIAN DOCUMENTS, 11. DYNASTY OF UR a loan, on which he is to pay ail interest of 90 qa to a gur (300 qa), or at the rate ot more than 30 per cent. Ur-Dun-pa-e transacts another loan to another person on the same day. 1 1. Ill se-gur ha[r-su ] 2 2. mas l gur XC-ta 3. ki Ur- Dun-pa- 4 . e-la 5. Is-me-ilu 3 6. su-ba-ti 7. itu Engar-du-a 8. ud XlX-ba-ni 9. mu Si-mu-ru-um k ba-hul 3 gur corn at interest, interest for 1 gur 90 (qa) f rom Ur- Du n- pa-e Isme-ilu has received. Month Engar du-a, day 19th, year S imurum devastated. XII. (Text, PI. 12, No. 24.) Receipt for a Loan. A-bilalum acknowledges the receipt of ten gur of corn from Ur-Dun-pa-e as a loan, on which he agrees to pay an interest of 90 qa to a gur, or at the rate of more than 30 per cent. 1. X se-gur har-sii 4 2. mas I gur XC-ta 3. ki Ur- d Dun-pa-e- ta 4. A-bil-la-lum 5. su-ba-ti 6. itu Engar-du-a 7. ud XlX-ba-ni 8. mu Si-mu-ru-um 1 ba-hul 1 See next document translated. 2 QAR-su, as emended from No. 24 (XII) : 1, may be taken as ana Jvubulli, cf. Br. 8530, “ar interest,” thus refer- ring to the nature of the loan transaction, or it may be taken as ana akali, "for food,” stating the object of the loan, as often is the case. 3 The name is no doubt Semitic. 4 Cf. No. 23 (XI): 1, as emended in analogy with this tablet. 10 gur corn at interest, interest (for) 1 gur 90 qa, from Ur-Dun-pa-e, A-bil-la-lum has received. Month Engar-du-a , day 19th, year S imurum devastated. FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 63 XIII. (Text, PI. 13, No. 29; Halit., Plate V, Nos. 17, IS.) Receipt for Silver. 1 A-zidda acknowledges the receipt of one sekel of silver from Lugal-N amtar . 1 sekel of silver, from Lugal-N amtar, A-zidda has received. Month Se-kin-kud, year the high priest of the great abode of Innanna appointed. XIV. (Text, PI. 10, No. 41.) Receipt for Grain. Lugcd-N amtar acknowledges the receipt of twenty gar of grain for cattle feed from Ur-Azag-sim. 2 1. I gin azag-ud 2. ki Lugal-N am-tar- ri.-ta 3. A-zi(d)-da 4. su-ba-ti 5. itu Se-kin-kud 6. mu en-am-gal 7. d lnnanna ba-tug 1. XX se-gur 2. sa(g)-gal amar-ra 3 3. ki Ur- d Azag-sim-ta 4. Lugal-N am-tar-ri 5. su-ba-ti 6. club Galu- d En-zu 7. itu Ab-e 8. mu en-am-gal An-na 9. en d Innanna ba-tug 20 cgur of corn, feed for young cattle, from Azag-sim Lugal-N amtar has received. Account of Amel-Sin. Month Ab-e, year the high priest of Ana, high priest of Innanna appointed. XV. (Text, PI. 27, No. 75; Halft., Plate VI, Nos. 23, 24.) Account of a Date Harvest. This tablet is unique both in regard to make-up and contents. It supplies 1 Probably also a loan, but without a statement as to the interest to be paid. Still it may also be only a receipt. 2 Note the transaction recorded in previous document in regard to the same man. 64 SUMERIAN DOCUMENTS, II. DYNASTY OF UR an excellent illustration of the queer and laborious, but exceedingly exact and painstaking methods of classification employed by the Babylonian account makers. It is an account or report in regard to the results of the harvest of a palm grove, stating : 1. Number of date palms yielding a certain amount of dates each. 2. Number of date palms from which the dates had already been taken away or plundered. 3. Total number of date palms, from which dates had been gathered. 4. Total of date palms plundered. 5. Total amount of dates gathered. VII 9i * h gisimmar l I gv[r-laj 7 date palms at 1 gu[r each]. o U gisha CCXL-ta 2 trees 240 (qa) e[ach]. 3. XII aish C LX XX 12 trees 180 4. XVI gish CL 16 trees 150 5. XXIV gish exx 24 trees 1.20 6. XXI gish xc 21 trees 90 7. XXII gish LX XX 22 trees 80 8. XXVII gish LX 27 trees ........ 60 9. J/~ gish L 5 trees 50 10. ~y gish XL 5 trees 40 1 1. XX[II] gish XXX 2[2] trees 30 12. gishA XXV trees 25 13. XXII gish XX 22 trees 20 14. XIV gish X 14 trees 10 15. XL rjisimmar ka-lum sir 16. sunigin CXC oish gisimmar tig-a? 40 date palms, the dates taken away. Total : 190 date palms harvested, 1 The fruit gathered is ka-lum, dates, lienee ° is,l gi$immar must signify date palms. 2 Ta restored after the remaining part of la at the end of line 2. 3 Of course gi) is only the determinative, but I have translated “trees’’ as a matter ot convenience, to mark the mode of abbreviation employed by scribe. 4 Numeral is wanting, but according to the amount of fruit gathered the numeral I ought to be inserted, or it may be simply understood. 5 BU must here designate na.s i hit, “to tear out, take away, remove,” Br. 7528, and hence it could also be read gid and bur. No doubt this term designates the fact that the dates of these 40 palms had already been harvested or plun- dered. In any case these 40 trees stand in opposition to the 190 trees from which the dates are now gathered. 0 TIG-u is no doubt a verb form with the meaning of pah'iru, “to gather together.” Cl. Br. 3220, 3222. Thus the term would denote harvesting, or the gathering of dates from these palm trees, in contrast to the 40, which had no fruit. FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 65 17. sunigin XL 9ish gisimmar sir 18. sunigin LIV C[LXXX ka-lu]m [gu]r 19. itu Su-[kul .... b]a-ni 20. mu ma-d[a Za-ab-s]a-li [ k ‘b]a-hul Total: 40 date palms plundered. Total: 44 gur 180 (qa) of dates. Month Su-kul, day [....] th. Year the co[untry of Zabs]ali [devastated. XVI. (Text, PI. 29, No. 77.) Inventory. A list of implements, tools, furniture, skins, cattle, articles of food, etc., being the property of Sarrum-ili of the city of -Basime. 1. XLIV aish g id-da 1 2. V gish ku-ma-ru 2 3. Ill gish na-ba-tum 3 4. VII ° ish ga-am-lu 4 5. XIII aish dubbin kes-da 5 6. XII 9i l sh ]PA-us-sa 0 7. I gu(d)- 9ish PA 1 8. IV uz [V]II mas-us 9. IV [ . . . ]-us 8 10. Ill gas ni-gis 9 11. V gas ni-nun 12. I gas-tur ni-nun 44 wooden g id-da, 5 wooden ku-ma-ru, 3 wooden nabatum, 7 wooden gamlu, 13 wooden dubbin-kes-da, 12 wooden staffs (?), second size (?), 1 ox goad(?), 4 goats, 7 male lambs, 9 male . . . , 3 gas of wood oil, 5 gas of butter, 1 small gas of butter, 1 GIS.GID.DA means really long or heavy wood, or rather something made of wood, long or heavy, cf. Br. 7511, 7518, but it is no doubt here some special object or implement made of wood. Cf. the sehu, Br. 7584. See also Z. A. VIII, p. 77, urudu $un-ka)-lum — si-i-Jiu, weapon or instrument. 2 gishj^u _ Br. 10529. 3 Seems to be Semitic word. Cf. nibittu, “rope, fetter, bond.” 4 Also Semitic; no doubt some instrument, implement or weapon. See Muss-Arnolt, p. 221. 5 DUBBIN = sapdru, Br. 2714, “be sharp,” hence sip-ri tar-ta-hi, “sharp tools, or points of spears,” see Muss- Arnolt, p. 886. It might also come from galabu, Br. 2710, 2711, 2724, 2725, 2727, “make a mark, whip,” and also masaru, Br. 2716, “send, drive,” hence perhaps a “whip.” It might also stand for sumbu, Br. 2716, “wagon, freight wagon,” see Muss-Arnolt, 881. KES-da = rakdsu, Br. 4331, “bind,” sardfiu, Br. 4333, “excite”; su-up-pu-ru, Br. 4334, “sharp points;” also tarddu, “hunt, drive,” Br. 4344, which also points to the meaning of whip, “wagon whips.” “team whips.” 6 GIS.PA = fiattu, “staff, scepter,” Br. 5573. US-sa means next, perhaps next in size to the regular ones. 7 Literally “ox staff.” 8 Perhaps gu(d)-us, “male, t.e., virile oxen, bulls.” 9 GAS seems to be a measure or jar. NI.GIS wood oil, sesam. 9 66 SUMERIAN DOCUMENTS, II. DYNASTY OF UR 13. I su-gu(d) 1 ox hide, 14. \ AN .DAH.StJM i AN.DAH.StJM, 15. LX XXV I si-KAb i 86 si of KAB 16. XXX-lal-I su-hd 29 hides, 17. I su dug -g an 2 1 good(?) hide, 18. II 9ish bansur-gis 2 wooden tables. 19. [ . . .] [d]ir ma-dub 3 Account of the 20. nig-ga Sar-ru-um-i-li property of Sarrum-ih 21. sa(g) Ba-si-me kl ni-gdl in the city of Basime. XVII. (Text, PI. 31, No. 79; Halft., PI. VIII, Nos. 27, 28.) Account of Cattle Herds. A specific account given of four different herds of large and small cattle, entrusted to the keeping of Ur- d Dun-pa-e, the son of Ur-Ramman. 1 . I db l amar ru-a 5 1 cow calf (new) born, 2. II ab-amar-na{d)-a 6 2 cow calves of the fold, 3. IV db-al 4 full grown cows, 1 SI = karnu, “horn,” also malu, “fill,” “amount.” KAB, gub, jtiibl = sumelul “left horns”? 2 The sign H.I , read dug, may possibly be cib. GAN may stand for gd. Cf. Br. 8261. 3 Of the sign that probably stood at the beginning of the line only traces of a vertical or slanting wedge can be distinguished. The following sign, SI, is not very clear, but on account of the following .4, I am inclined to read the two signs dir. Besides malu and atom, which perhaps do not fit so well in this connection, dir also stands for afoazu, Br. 3724, and asdhu, Br. 3725, which is a synonym of asdru, i.e., “to bind, enclose.” The IM.Gl.A — e-si-ri sa-duppi, II R., 48, 40, must signify the making up of a document; IM, read imi, standing for duppu, Br. 8360. Cf. SAM.SEBIR.AB.MU.SAR = uz-zu-uh-tu, A. V. 2622, Br. 8851. The dir ma-dub may thus be an equivalent of esiri duppi, and signify the making up of a document. The md- dub, generally written md-dub-ba, really signifies some kind of receptable of a tablet. It could possibly, among other things, be applied to the envelope or case of a tablet. The phrase sometimes apparently is employed to signify an office equal to the dub-sar. See Chapter IX. 4 That the Sumerian of the sign, usually given the value of LID, is to be read db, cf. Br. 8865, is clearly shown by the gloss to “LID” .GU(D).gI.A, bb-ba-gu(d)-ha-a, R. M. A., PI. 25, No. 103, O. 11. 5 KAK-a = band, Br. 5298, is most likely to be considered as a synonymous term for tu(d)-da, lines 21, 23 and 30, which must stand for some form of alddu, and would then denote a (new) born calf, as a careful distinction always was made as to the age of cattle. Here the ru-a calves are distinguished from the na(d)-a calves, see next line. See also KAK. KAK-a = kalamu, Br. 5286, denoting mar or young offspring, especially of lambs; but the term can, of course, be applied to other animals. See Z. A., IV, p. 266; Muss-Amolt, p. 389. Of course, the term may also come from le-u, Br. 5257, “be strong”; pakadu, Br. 5263, “given in keeping”; nadu, Br. 52, “deposited,” etc. 9 NA(D) = rabasu, na’alu, etc., with the meaning “to lie down, to rest,” hence couch, but here it must stand for rubsu, Br. 8998, a place of rest and shelter, hence the fold. Calves of the fold would be those that still were kept in special care, not being developed enough to go with the herd. Cf, “lamb of the fold,” line 19, 67 FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 4. XI gu(d)-gis 11 bulls, 5. I ab-mu-III 5 cows 3 years (old), 6. I db-mu-11 1 cow 2 years (old), 7. III db-mu-I 3 cows 1 year (old), 8. II gu{d)-mu-I 2 oxen 1 year (old), 9. XXVIII gu(d)-db-hd 1 28 cattle, 10. gir A-a-du-n[a(d )] gir-officer A a-d'u-na(d ) . 11. XXIV ganam 24 sheep, 12. CCLXVIII udu-us 268 virile sheep, 13. XX sal-sil-uz 2 20 female kid goats, 14. XXIII mas-gal 3 young ones grown up, 15. mds-us 15 male offspring, 16. CCCXL udu-mds-hd 340 sheep (and) lambs, 17. ki Ur-zag-e from (with) Ur-zage. 18. CLIV ganam 154 sheep, 19. sa{g)-ba X ganam-sil-na(dy among them 10 lambs of the fold 20. in-gub are 21. CXXXV sil tu(d)-da 5 135 young ones born. 22. XLVIII uz 48 goats, 23. XLV‘ 7nas-tu(d)-da 7 45 (46?) young ones born, 24. CCCLXXXII udu-uz-mds- 382 young ones of hd sheep and goats 25. ki Da-bi-a from (with) Dabia. 26. XLII ganam 42 sheep, 27. VII udu-us 7 virile sheep, 28. LVIII sal-sil-[u]z 58 female kid goats, 29. XLI sil-us-uz 41 male kid goats, 30. XXXVIII sil-tu(d)-da s 38 young ones born 31. III uz 3 goats, 1 That QI-A is to be read fed is seen from the gloss, C. T., XXV, 20a, 2; R. M . A., PL 28, No. 103, O. 11. 2 For the reading sil see J. R. A. S., 1905, p. 144, cuneiform text, line 8. 3 MAS = urisu, i.e., offspring, young ones, both of sheep and goats, hence may denote both kids and lambs. See Muss-Arnolt, p. 1046. 4 Cf. line 2. 5 TU(D)-da (see also lines 23 and 30) must probably be taken in the meaning of aladu, Br. 1070. Cf. the term rd-a, line 1. 6 Mav be XLVI. 7 Cf. lines 21 and 30. 8 Cf. lines 21 and 23. 68 32. XIII sal-AS.KAR 1 33. CCII udu-uz-mas-ha 34. hi A-bil-lum-ma 35. sunigin XXVIII gu(d)-ab-ha 36. sunigin 2 udu-ha 37. sunigin CXXXVIII uz-mas-ha 38. si(U)-la Ur- d Dun-pa-e dumu Ur- d IM 3 II. DYNASTY OF UR 13 sucklings. 202 lambs (and) kids, from (with) A-bdlum. Total : 28 large cattle, Total : sheep, Total: 138 kids, in the keeping ( ?) of Ur-pa-e, son of Ur-Rammdn. SUMERIAN DOCUMENTS XVIII. (Text, PI. 37, No. 90.) Cost of Cultivation of Fields. Statement of the amount of grain required for wages, or sustenance of slaves, employed in the cultivation of certain fields. 1. I tV tV g° n sag-did 725 (. sar ) of land, the labor cost of 2. ai-diP XX sar-ta 3. ci-kal I CCXLVI qa-ta 7 4. d-bi XXX VI XV gin 5. kal ud-l-su 6. se-bi CCXVII \ qa s 7. -jJg gan al 9 VI sar-ta tilling; for 20 sar wages of slaves 1 (pur) 246 qa, the wages 30 (gur) 6 (qa) 15 gin for slaves per day, the grain 2174 qa. 100 (sar) land cultivated; for 6 sar 1 In later Babylonian and Assyrian SU.KAR = uneku, Br. 10980. 2 As the numerals now stand in the text, cf. Halftone Reproductions, the sum total according to the values of numerals hi corresponding positions given by Hilprecht, B. E., XX, p. 26, would be 3600 + 600 + 3 X 60 + 6 = 4.550. But this is altogether too high, as can be seen by adding together the number of animals specified. 3 SI. LA may stand for SI. LA = pukudu, Br. 3467, written phonetically, cf. ni-la for ni-ld, Nos. 11 (V) : 16; 13 (VI) : 15; 15 (VIII) : 17. But it is not quite certain that the sign is SI. It may be SU + NIGtN, the wedges in front being indistinct. If such is the case, the la would, of course, be the overhanging vowel and would prove that the composite sign, generally read sunigin, will have to be read sukil. 4 That is 600 + 100 + 25 sar. 5 SAG = restu in the phrase resti kisri, meaning the payment of rent, B. E., VI 1 , 33 (8) : 10; 47 (A. R. U ,, II, 18) : 10 ; 49 {A. R. U ., II, 19) : 11. In analogy with this SAG.KAK would then here express resti zikpi or resti epsi, “payment, cost of cultivation.” SAG might also be explained as referring to the slaves employed for the tilling of these fields, hence SAG.KAK might mean something like “slave-labor.” Cf. nmclu KAK = amelu banu, M. 3608. 6 Cf. al-ag, line 30. AL prefixed to the verb has the force of the permansive. Cf. the phrases AL.BAD, “being completed,” AL.DUG, “being satisfied,” A. B. P., 2, 10, 11, etc. GAN AL.DU = eklu zikpu or eklu epsu, “field under cultivation.” 7 For a different way of calculating cost of cultivation see 0. B. T. R., 254, 6, 7. 8 Here we would expect a grand total given, but this comparatively small amount must denote a ratio of the cost. 9 KAK = du omitted. FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 69 8. d-bi X VI | kal ud I-su 9. se-bi XC 10. Lagab +sig durnu dumu A-a-bi 11. T 2 g y 1 2 gaii al VI sar-ta 12. d-bi XL LX \ kal ud I-su 13. se-bi CCI 14. ^ T V gan al-du X [ + sar-t]a 15. d-bi X kal ud [I-su] 16. se-bi LX [ . . .?] 17. [ . . . ]-ba-lul-ge [....] 18. T 2 g- gan al-[du . . . . ] 19. sar-t[a] 20. d-bi XXX III i kal [ud I-su] 21. s[e-b]i [ ] 22-29. [ ] 30. [ . . . . ] gan al-ag a-sa(g) [gab-. .] d A[ma?]- d KA 1 31. [mu d Su- d En-zu l]ugal-[e ma~] da Za-a)b-sa-li l - m[u-hul] the wages 10 (gur) 6§ qa, for slaves per day, the grain is 90, Lagab-sig the son-son of A-a-bi. 225 ( sar ) land cultivated for 6 sar the wages 40 ( gur ) 60§ (qa), for slaves per day the grain is 201. 125 (sar) land cultivated; for 10 + ? sar the wages 10 (gur) for slaves per day, the grain 60. [ ] 200 (sar) land cultivated ; for sar the wages 30 (gur) 3^ qa for slaves per day the grain [ ] i . . . . ] land cultivation of field [ 1 year Gimil-Sin, the king, devastated the country of Zabsali. XIX. (Text, PI. 39, No. 92; Halit., PI. IX, Nos. 29, 30.) Field Account. An account of the amount of grain required for seed and the feed of oxen at the cultivation of different fields. 1. I 3 gem ab-nam-bi 3 1 gan 50 sar of land; its cultivation, 1 Of. O. B. T. R„ 254. 2 That is 1 gan + 600 + 300 + 50 sar = ll gan 50 sar. 3 AB = erehi, cf. Br. 3819, also nasetku, of. Br. 3820, “to place, appoint,” but also “to do, perform,” and thus = epesu. NAM =sdmu, Br. 2103, also “to place, settle, fix,” see M uss-A rrwlt , p. 701. AB.NAM is equal to AB.ENGAR. line 15. Cf. ameluAB = amelui r - r i-$ Ui Br. 3819; ameluAB = ameluna-si-ku, Br. 3820. Hence the term AB.NAM and AB.ENGAR must stand for farming. SUMERIAN DOCUMENTS, II. DYNASTY OF UR 70 2. I gar 1 VIII \-a-an 2 3. se-kul-bi I XXIX 4 qa V gin lu gal 4. Ill -3 T 8 g 3 gan ab-nam-bi 5. I gar X-lal I-ta-a-an ni-gal 6. se-bi III XXXVIII qa-gur 7. har-gu(d)-bi II LXVII1 § qa 8 . VII y gin-gur 9. sunigin se-bi VI CCVI I qa 10. II 4 gin se-kul har-gu(d) 1 1. Za-la-lum engar 12. / § T \- gan ab-nam-bi 13. I gar VIII 4 a-an ni-gal 14. se-bi 4 XXX III y'j qa-gur 15. II | gan ab-engar-b[i] 10. / gar X-lal- I-ta-a-an ni-gal 17. se-bi II CXX 4 gur 18. har-gu(d)-bi I CCLXXI § qa-gur 19. s[unigin se-b]i V CCLXXV qa-gur 20. s[e-ku]l har-gu(d ) 21. [ en]gar 22. [ a]b-nam I gar 23. [....... ] ni-gal 24. [ q]a XV gin 25. ha[r q]a VII Ik gi[n]~ gur 26. [ ] qa Ilk gin 27. [ 28. [ ] 29. [ ] ki ba-hul for 1 gar according to 84, the seed is 1 (gur) 29| qa 5 gin royal, 3^ gan of land ; its cultivation, for 1 gar 9 (qa), the grain is 3 gur 38 qa, feed for oxen, 2 gur 68 § qa, 74 gin, Total: its grain 6 gur 206-g- qa, 24 gin for seed and feed. Za-la-lum, farmer. 1 gan 1400 sar of land; its cultivation, for 1 gar 8y (qa), the grain is 4 gur 3 2 qa. 2 gan 1400 sar of land; its cultivation, for 1 gar 9 (qa) the grain is 2 gur 1204 qa, feed for oxen, 1 gur 271 § qa. Total: the amount of grain is 5 gur 275 qa, for seed and feed. [ 3 [ 3 [ • 3 [ 3 [ 3 [ 3 [ 3 [ 3 [ 3 [ ] devastated. XX. (Text, P], 55, No. 120; Halft,, PI. XII, Nos. 39, 40.) Expenditure for Drink. An account of expenditure of grain for drink to a number of men. 1 For gar as a measure of area see B. E., VI 1 , 44, 1; 60, 6. 2 Cf. ta-a-an, line 5. 3 That is 3 gan + 600 + 300 sar = 3J gan. FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 71 4. Ill qa Ri-pi-pi dub-sar 5. V qa a-du II-kam-ma-as 6. gir A-dug-ga 7. V qa gas gir Lugal-sirim 8. dumu Hal-hal-la 9. V qa er-su 10. A-dug-ga 11. sunigin XXVIII qa se 12. ba-zi 13. sa(g) In-si k, -na 14. gir A-dug-ga 1. V qa s[e-g]as 2. gir Ur- d En-ki gin 1 3. V qa gas A-dug-ga 2 5 qa grain (for) drink, t/w-officer Arad-Ea (for) journey, 5 qa drink (to) A-dug-ga , 3 qa (to) Ri-pi-pi, the scribe, 5 qa a second time (to) gir A-dug-ga, 5 qa drink (to) gir Lugal-sirim, son of Hal-hal-la 5 qa for the city, (to) A-dug-ga. Total: 28 qa of grain given out in Isin(l). Gir A-dug-ga. XXI. (Text, PI. 59, No. 129.) Expenditure of Grain. An account of expenditure of grain for different purposes and to different persons. 1. VIII CCLXXV qa se-gur 2. XLVIII XII qa ds-gur 3. sd-du(g) Gu-du MU 3 4 4. XXX se XXX as gar-ezen-ma 5. Gdn-gdn-e 6. IX CC gur se-ba and 7. sam il-me 5 6 7 8 8. II XC gur se-ba amar-tur-me 8 gur 275 qa corn, 48 gur 12 qa wheat, temple offerings to Gu-du, the baker, 30 (qa) corn, 30 (qa) wheat, food during the festival of Gdn-gdn-e, 9 gur 100 qa 2 gur 90 (qa) feed for young cattle, 1 Cf. T. T. } p. 17. 2 gir A-dug-ga, see li. 6. 3 For name cf. Gu-du, the farmer, C. T., I, 94-10-15, 3, O., Ill, 17. MU as a title = nuhatimmu, “baker,” Muss-Arnolt, pp. 6666, 667a; Zimmern, Z.D.M.G., Vol. 53, p. 115. DI.KA, as denoting temple offerings, would thus include bread. 4 SE.BA = ib-ru, Br. 7440, “corn, food,” and would thus have the same meaning as GAR, line 4, but here food that is prepared in a certain way. PAR. PAR, read ara = lenu, Br. 8587, “to grind, cut, chop, or prepare in some way,” here prepared from some plant, see next line. Cf. A .B.M PI. XV, 49; pp. 16, 47, 136, cf. the °» >elv P A R ,p^ 1 R , “ miller.” and zinnishiup A R.pA R , M. 6504; also Pinches, Amh., p. 151. 5 Lit. “plants lifted up,” grown up. In any case plants from which the se-ba or food was cut or prepared. SUMERIAN DOCUMENTS, II. DYNASTY OF UR 72 9. LX Ri-ug-ba 1 10. LX Da-a-lim 1 1 . XXX d Utu-ha-ba 2 3 12. sum g hi XXI CCLXV get se-gur 13. sunigin XLVII CLI1 qa ds-gur 14. E.NUN ka 1,1 Ib-al-tiv 1 15. ba-zi itu Gan-gan-e 16. mu d Su- d En-zu lugal- 17. e ma-da Za-ab-sa-li kl 18. mu-hul XXII. 60 (qa) to Ri-ug-ba, 60 (qa) to Da-a-lim (Tdlimf) 30 (qa) to* Utu-ha-ba. Total: 21 guv 265 qa of corn, Total: 47 gar 152 qa of wheat, E.NUN at the mouth of the river Ib-al, has been given out. Month Gan-gan-e, year Gimil-Sin, the king, devastated the country of Z ah mli. (Text, PI. 00, No. 132; Halft., PI. XII, No. 41.) Expenditure of Flour. An account of expenditure of flour and vegetables given out for temple offerings. 1. X 4 S z id -kid sd-du(g)-g ud I-kam 2. A" zid sd-du(g) ud I I-kam 3. VIII [q]a sd-du(g) ud 1 1 I-kam 4. XV qa sd-du(g) ud IV-kam 5. XV qa sd-du(g) ud V -kam 6. X zid-gar si(g)-ga 6 7. V qa zid V qa [ ] 8. II m[u . . . ] 9. V [ 10 (qa) gu- flour, temple offerings for the 1st- day, 10 (qa), temple offerings for the 2d day, 8 [q]a, temple offerings for the 3d day, 15 qa, temple offerings for the 4th day, 15 qa, temple offerings for the 5th day, 10 (qa) flour food given away(?). 5 qa flour, 5 qa [ ] 2 m[u . . . ] 5 [ ] 1 The name may be read Ri-kalam-ba, “The shepherd of his land,” as well as reading above, “The shepherd of his people.” 2 Possibly zu, cf. Z. A., XII, p. 343. 3 E.NUN, “the great house.” KA = pu, “mouth,” or possibly “side.” 4 The sign is BAR and might mean but in analogy with following lines, where the offerings vary between S and 15 per day, it must here mean 10, as also in line 2. 3 K U must denote some cereal or plant from which flour could be made. See Reisner, T . 7’., p. 15a. 6 SI(G)-ija may = sapuku, “pour out,” also “store,” Br. 4425, but also nadanu, “give, offer,” Br. 4418, as well as nadu. “deposit,” Br. 4418. FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 73 XXIII. (Text, PI. 61, No. 134.) Expenditure of Wool. An account of expenditures of different quantities of wool to a number of persons, given out by (or from) U r-N igin-gar: 1. IV ma-na sig-yi 2. A-na-na 3. IV d Ur-ra-kal 4. Ill Igi-ni-da-a 5. Ill A-ni-a-bi 6. Ill Im-ti-dam 7. IV Ur- d Lugal-edin- 8. na-ka 9. sunigin XXI mci-na dig 10. zi(g)-ga 11. Id U r-N igin-yar-ta 12. itu d Ne-su 13. mu us-sa 14. en d En-ki Eridu'- ba-tug 4 mana wool (to) A-na-na, 4 (to) Ur-ra-kal, 3 (to) Igi-ni-da, 3 (to) A-ni-abi, 3 (to) Im-ti-dam, 7 (to) Ur-Lugal-edin. Total: 21 mana wool given out, by (from) U r-N igin-gar. Month Nesu, year after the high priest of Ea of Eridu appointed. XXIV. , : (Text, PI. 3, No. 6.) Memorandum . 1 This small tablet, containing only two lines of writing, is most likely to be regarded as ‘ ‘notes,” jotted down on pieces of clay by the scribes when preparing larger tablets of accounts. Two objects are recorded as wanting. 1. lal-ni I gi-md-ku 2 Wanting one gi-ma-ku. 2. lal-ni I Bish na(d) Wanting one couch. 1 Cf. No. 155; Amh., 46, 51. 2 Cf. ma + gi-ku, T. T ., 135, which Reisner explains as “eine Art Kleid oder Stoff,” p. 26. 10 IX. GLEANINGS. A complete and thorough discussion of the entire terminology of the texts of this period would be most desirable, but as this volume has to be kept within reasonable bounds, I must Ire content only to make some gleanings from these texts. 1. Cuneiform Signs and Readings. AB. That the Sumerian sign for the Semitic littu is to be read db, not lid, as Lau, Barton and even Pinches still continue to read it, is seen from R. M. A., No. 103, 0 . 11 . AB + gunu or ZAG? The new sign, Sign List No. 79, comes nearest to AB + gunu or ZAG (ef. No. 94), but does not exactly correspond to either. A + HA or HA + A. This sign, occurring thrice in these texts, No. 1 : 5, 12 and No. 4 : 7, Sign List No. 345, is composed of A with HA inside. This composite sign occurs, according to Thureau-Dangin, 1 already in Gudea texts, unfortunately not published. It also is found in accounts from the Ur period, see especially C. T ., X, Pis. 38, 39, No. 14316, where the signs stand before numerals, like BAD , referring to slaves. Whether this composite sign is the same as the later term HA. A, also used in regard to slaves, is a question that cannot be definitely settled, although this seems to be the case. In later “contracts” HA. A occurs in connection with BAD, metu, in the sense of halaqu, referring to slaves running away. Cf. V R., 25, 16a: ba-BAD ba-an-HA.A = im-tu-ud ih-ta-liq. Also A. D. D., I, p. 34, No. 61, 6, BAD BAD-ma HA. A NUN, referring to a slave girl, which no doubt is to be rendered enu metat-ma halqat, “when she dies or runs away,” etc. 2 The following NUN, which Johns 1 R. E. C. } No. 471. 2 Of. Johns, A. D. D., I, p. 89. For BAD = cnu, see Br. 1505. [74] FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 75 does not render, seems to stand for qarabu, cf. Br. 2626, which with ana means to “go, be against,” cf. Sennacherib, III, 1, I R., 31, 12. KnudtzoiTs rendering, sa [ . . . . s]a qi-ri-ib, etc., “[ d]er nahe stand deinem Vater,’ A. T., 1, 20, 21, is not possible, as qi-ri-ib is not permansive, and the following a-na in this case remains unexplained. In accordance with Knudtzon’s notes on the signs, the reading [it-t]a-qi-ri-ib, “none that is (goes) against your father,” may perhaps be better. Briinnow’s reading lip is to be changed to rib, or he-in-NUN = liq-qa-rib, No. 2626. In any case the meaning of this and similar phrases in the stipulations concerning slaves given as pledges 1 would be that in case the slave died or ran away, the loss of the pledge should be put against the owner. 2 The term A.IJA also occurs as a verbal preposition particle and also as a verb in the Anzanite texts, published by Scheil, 3 and composite cuneiform signs are among the noticeable characteristics of the Proto-Elamite script published by de Morgan. 4 In the translations of the documents, where this sign occurs I have given the reading haldqu as the most probable. 5 But HA. A also expresses the meaning of nabu, cf. Br. 11857, M. 9106, and tebii, M. 9107. The HA +A . . . Ad A, No. 1 (I) : 5, could very well be an equivalent of KA . . . GAL-la, cf. No. 2 (II) : 3, 4, = ruggumu, Br. 612, 676, or dababu, or kenu dababu, and the documents could refer not exactly to the running away of the slaves but in regard to bringing suit. Moreover, the composite sign A +HA or HA +A, with the reading ah, 6 and the meaning se-ru-u, is given in C. T., XIX, 21, 186. This seru occurs in groups with sanabu = emedu, “to erect, put up.” If this is the term employed in these texts, it might signify to “raise oneself against, to be refractory.” Cf. Muss-Arnolt, p. 1109. ALIAI. See sign No. 225 and date formula for the 26th year of Dungi. E + NUN. This sign, No. 283, may be composed of either E + NUN or MA + NUN . Cf. the E or MA.NUN, Amh., p. 200, line 3; also B. E., VI 1 , No. 57, 2. E + SE. A new sign, No. 339, composed of E + SE, or SE or LIL + SE. 1 See A. D. D., I, p. 89. 2 Cf. the phrase NER.DA, below. 3 D. P. M., Ill, Nos. XXIII, 4; LXIII, 14; V, No. LXXXVI, II, 46. i D. P. M., VI, pp. 83ff. 6 See translations and notes to Nos. 1 (I) and 4 (III). 6 From the broken remains of the sign there is very small reason for reading za, cf. M. 9075. 76 SUMERIAN DOCUMENTS, II. DYNASTY OF UR HA. The composite sign for plural, HI. A, is to be read hd, according to R. M. A., No. 103, 0., 11; not sun, as Schorr, A. R. XJ., II, p. 83. KA + GAR and SA. The signs composed of KA + GAR or SA interchange even with KA pure and simple, according to copy by Lau, in the date formulas of the 49— 51st years of Dung}. LA. LA, No. 276, stands for LA, No. 315, in the phrase ni-la and ni-la-a, which is equivalent to ni-la. See No. 11 : 16; 13 : 5. LAG AS +GAL or LA GAS -{-AIK + gunu. This new sign, No. 131 : 13, List No. 332, seems to correspond to these values, if the sign is not simply an error for Lagab + sig. BUM. This sign, No. 132, has the value of NUAI, see date formulas for the 3d and 4th years of Gimil-Sin, probably also for NIM and perhaps for IM. See No. 15:1. MA.DUS.SA. The term occurs only once in these texts, No. 77 : 15, and is written MA.DUB, but I have no doubt that it is the same as the MA.DUB. BA of other texts. The term denotes in the first hand a pisan duppi, ‘ ‘a receptacle for tablets.” Hence the ° ish MA.DUB.BA, Poebel, B. E., VP, p. 171; the oi MA and ai AIA.HAL, B. E , VP, 84, 17, 18, 19, 103 (A. R. U., II), 41, “Urkundenbehaltniss,” Schorr, A. R. U., II, p. 55. The determinatives GIS and GI denote the material of which these receptacles, ‘ ‘chests” or ‘ ‘safes,” were made. Could possibly the MA also be a term for “case” (tablet) or envelope? Cf. Muss-Arnolt,p.S15b; M. 3742. Most frequently MA.DUB. BA is heading tablets of accounts, as in the number of tablets under T. T., No. 146; and heading a list of officials, 0. B. T. R., No. 162; cf. Lau, p 44. Audi., No. 121 begins with MA.DUB. BA DUB GID.DA , which Pinches translates “the compiler of long accounts,” but which may be a pisan duppi of duppi, or may denote an account simply. To be noted is also MA.DUB. BA \ gii(d) engar gub ba \ E- d N in-mar-ti \ ni-gdl, C. T ., Ill, 14608; the dub ma- dub-ba, T. T ., 163, 8, and mci dub-ba \ nig-sid-ag ba-ni-ib, H. L. C., II, PI. 96, No. FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 77 118, 1, 2. In these cases MA.DUB.BA seems to signify an account, or possibly the making up of accounts. But it is quite certain that MA.DUB.BA also signifies an office, and in one instance it is made the equivalent of dub-sar. Thus the seal of R. T. C., 287, reads: | Ba sa(g)-ga \ md-dub ba nita-zu \ ; H. L. C., II, PI. 96, No. 120, R., 1, 2: | dub Ses-kal-la j md-dub ba; and A rnh., 42, 5 : | dub Gar-u-rum | md-dub-ba |, and on the seal: \ Gar-u-rum \ dub-sar \. Cf. the sign &ID + A = dub-sar-ru, Br. 6011. MA - pisan, but SID also = pisan, Br. 5978, stands also for kunukku, Br. 5971, hence MA might also express the idea of sealing, which of course again refers to the making up of accounts, or maker or sealer of account tablets. MAS. The misreading of this sign in face of the repeated corrections ought to be a thing of the past. Yet Lau still reads BIR. ME. Note the form of this sign, No. 99 : 11, List No. 300. Cf. Br. 2803, 2804; R. E. G., No. 531. MER. This sign, Nos. 88 and 314, especially in the connection with US, is made very like the sign IB or GlN. See note to No. 3 : 12. NER.DA. This term occurs only in the legal document, No. 1 (I) : 7, and in reference to a slave. The term occurs also in Gudea, Cyl. A, 12, 26: du(g)-du(g)-ga ne-gi ner-da e-ba im-ma-an-gi , which Thureau-Dangin translates: “Er beseitigte die Rechtsstreite, vom Tempel beseitigte er die 1 In Cyl. B, 18, 3 we have: nig-erim e ba im-ma-an-gi, “alles Ueble vom Tempel beseitigte er.'” 2 Here NER.DA seems to be a term fo: something undesirable, and as it is brought into connection with the instituting of lawsuits or legal quarrels, it might express the idea of “claimant” in a bad sense of this term. In regard to the term employed in No. 1 (I) of these texts, it might denote a runaway, refractory or troublesome slave. NER.DA also occurs in the well-known name for the deity, A-a, i.e., Se-ner-da- kallat-Samas, and in the feminine proper name, which is to be read Amat-A-a- kallat-Samas. 3 1 S. A. K. /., pp. 102, 103. 2 S. /I. K. /., pp. 13S, 139. 3 See Jensen, Z. A., I, pp. 398, 399; B. E., VI 1 , No. 94, 5, 6. 78 SUMERIAN DOCUMENTS, II. DYNASTY OF UR But- in regard to the NER.DA of our text, it might also be explained in accord- ance with phrases of late “contracts” in regard to slaves, or more particularly in the stipulations made in case of death or escape of a slave given as a pledge. NER could, of course, stand for belu and DA for the usual ina eli, ana or ina. Cf. the examples given by Johns, A. I). D., I, p. 89; also A. HA above and translation of No. 1 (I). NIT A. Note the form for this sign, No. 24; No. 67 : 4, omitting the last perpendicular wedge. SAG. This sign, No. 122, seems also to have the value of KIN, as it occurs in place of that sign in the name of the month Se-kin-kud. See No. 100 : 78. SAG + NI. This is a new composite sign, List No. 123, made up of SAG with NI inside, and occurring in accounts in regard to storage of grain. It occurs mostly in connection with DUB as SAG + NI.DUB, Nos. 100 and 104 passim, but also alone as SAG + Nl-bi, etc., No. 100 :91. Compare the usual term ni-dub in storage accounts. SAL + ME. See sign No. 294. SA(M). This sign, No. 56, occurs in these texts both with and without the addition A. AN. With the meaning “to buy,” it is to be read sa(m), not sam. See now M. 3235; Pinches, Amh., p. 104. SIL. The reading of the sign No. 280 is sil, see Pinches in J . R. A. S., 1905, p. 144, cuneiform text, line 7. Schorr, however, stills reads the ideogram BUHUDU , A. R. U ., II, p. 82. SA(G)-ba. This for sa(g)-bi, “in its midst,” No. 79 : 19. SE.PAD. SE.PAD =-- se-um, B. E., VI 1 , 131, 1. Cf. Babyloniaca, III, p. 196. FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 79 SU(G).GI. This most probably is only a phonetic writing for su-gi. See No. 3:2; cf. B. E., VI 1 , 95, 19 21; 101, 14. It denotes three officials, sebu, Br. 10841, baru , Br. 10826, lemu, Br. 10833. But su(g) = nazazu, Br. 10847 ; hence the term for witness may better be derived from asdbu, which would correspond to the mukinnu from kdnu. SU + NIGIN. If the first sign in No. 79 : 37 really is SU + NIGIN and not SI, which after all is the most probable, the following la would be the overhanging vowel of SU + NIGIN and would show that this composite sign is to be read SU + kil. SU.TtJ(R). This term may be explained as a phonetic writing for su-dur, see No. 1 (I) : 12, but it might also stand for tdru, perhaps with the meaning of reversion of judgment, reopening of a case, or reclamation. TAG. The rather unusual sign for this period, No. 346, must be TAG, KID or SID. Cf. Br. 1402-1409; R. E. C., No. 175. UD + gunu? This new sign, No. 102, comes nearest to UD + gunu, in analogy with the make- up of the IGI + gunu or slg. UM + ME. This, No. 72, is also a new sign and most likely a ligature of UM and ME. Z A. IN ANN A. This phrase occurs in several proper names, as ZA.IN ANN A or IN ANN A.ZA, and might be read sub or halbili (see Br. 11743; C. T., XXV, 27 a, 15, 6, 10; XXV, 3, 65) ; but it is doubtful to my mind whether these readings are to be applied to the phrase included in these names. 2. Terms of Court Proceedings. igi-ni-ni-igi-gar, ‘‘he made his face appear” = “to bring into court,” No. 1 (I) : 3. so SUMERIAN DOCUMENTS, II. DYNASTY OF UR du(g)-ni-g dl-la- , “lie has made suit” = “to bring suit or reclamation,” No. 2 (II) : 3. Of. du(g)-ma-ma, etc. = ruggumu, A. R. U., II, p. 84, etc. ba-a-n i-du-u, “he has not appeared” = “to appear before court,” No. 2 (II) : 5. Of. KAK = sandqu, a-na 1)1. KUD is-ni-qu-ma, B. E., VI 1 , No. 56, 6. mu lugal, “by the name of the king” - “to make accusation or arraign,” Nos. 1 (I) :5; also mu-lugal-bi in{-na or ni)-pa(d), Nos. 2 (II) :9; 4 (III) : 4. Of. itrna, itmu of later documents, A. R. U., II, p. 87. ba-an-gub, “they shall be responsible,” No. 1 (I) : 13. Of. nazazu, B. E., VI 1 , 2 (A. R. U., II 2 ), 11; 23 (.4. R. U., II, 10), 13. galu-enim-ma-bi-me, “the men of the proceedings,” Nos. 1 (I): 21; 2 (II) : 17; 4 (III) : 13, and passim = “the witnesses of the proceedings.” Of. mu-kin-nu of later documents. dis stands before the name of the witnesses, Nos. 1 (I) : 14-20; 4 (III) : 9—1 1 ; or the names are given without any sign before them, No. 2 (II) : 10-16. 3. Terms of Loan and Purchase Documents. in-si-sa(m), “he has bought,” No. 14:6. azag, “purchase money,” No. 16 : 2. mu-si(m)-dam, “has given (as a loan),” No. 14 : 4. har-su, “loan at interest,” Nos. 23 : 1 ; 24 : 1 ; 25 : 1. mas, “rate of interest,” Nos. 23 : 2; 24 : 2; 25 : 2; 27 : 2; 28 : 2; 31 : 2. si(m)-mu, “payment,” No. 13:6. gi-gi-ne, “shall return, pay back,” No. 18 : 14. ni-la, ni-la-a, “he shall weigh, pay,” Nos. 11 : 16; 13 : 5. nu-na-si(m), “(In case) he does not pay,” No. 13 : 9. nu-ub-ma(SAR) , “(In case) he does not bring in,” No. 7 :4; cf. No. 10 : 4. ib-zu-zu, “he shall cause to be brought, pay,” No. 7 : 6. su-ba-ti, “he has received (as a loan),” Nos. 13 : 4; 17 : 5; 18 : 5; 22 : 6; 25 : 5; 27 :6; 31 :6; “he has received (as purchase money), ”No. 16 : 5. ib-tab-pi, “it shall be increased, doubled,” No. 13 : 10. tukundi-bi ( Su.NIG.TUR.LA-bi ), Nos. 7:1; 10 : 1; 13 : 9 = sum-ma, Br. 7256, cf. Old Babylonian family laws and Code of Hammurabi, a legal phrase thus being employed as far back as the Ur period at least, a fact 1 that has to be taken into consideration in the historical study of the Code of Hammurabi. SV = ana, generally a postposition, but also occurring before the noun. Cf. S. A. K. T., 70, 1 As I pointed out in my paper read before the Fifteenth Congress of Orientalists in Copenhagen, 1908. FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 81 43-46. GAR, NIG — epesu, kcvnu, sakanu ; LA, among other things also sakanu, Br. 10111. GAR.TUR = minima i-su, Br. 12044. TUR and TUR.TUR.LA = sihhirutu, Br. 4113, which perhaps is not so easy to explain. The phrase seems to mean “for its happening,” “in case of its taking place,” and would be in analogy with our phrase “in case.” u-ru ba-gar, “the document was made,” No. 13 : 16. dis and igi interchange before the names of the galu-enim-ma-bi-me or witnesses. See Nos. 14 : 12-22 and 16 : 6—10 ; 18 : 6-7, respectively. In regard to the form of the documents, two kinds of documents of purchases are to be noted. One kind, Nos. 14, 15, is a deed of sale, where the whole transac- tion is stated ; others are simply acknowledgments of the receipt of the purchase money for an object sold. See Nos. 16, 17. 4. Terms of Accounts. In General. su-ba-ti, “he has (it is) received,” equivalent to dub, “to receive on account.” ba-gub, “he has (it is) brought in, is at hand.” ba-zi, “he has (it is) given, paid out.” gub-ba, credit, “at hand.” zi(g)-ga, debit, “given out, expenditures.” dub, “account, on account of.” mu, “by name, on behalf of.” gir, mse(?). lal-ni, “deficit.” si-ni-ib, “surplus, remainder.” azag, “silver value.” an-na, “lead value.” ma-dub-ba, “account.” nig-sid-ag, “making up of accounts.” ib-ra, ib-ru, “sealed,” cf. Br. 4970; B. E., VI 1 , 82, 11. Seals on account tablets are dub-sar seals. See especially the carefully repro- duced seals of the Amh. volume. In Itogard to Fields. ab-engar, No. 92 : 15, ab-nam, No. 92 : 1, al-du, No. 90 : 2, sag-du, No. 90 : 1, terms used to express the cultivation of fields. gar, a measure of area, No. 92 : 2, etc., cf. B. E., VI 1 , 44, 1; 60, 6. it 82 SUMERIAN DOCUMENTS, II. DYNASTY OF UR In Regard to Fruit Harvest. sir, “(fruit) taken away, or no fruit,” No. 75 : 15, 17. tig-a, “(trees) actually being harvested,” No. 75 : 16. In Regard to Cattle. rii-a, tu(d)-da, “(new) born,” No. 79 : 1, 21, 23, 29. 5. Officials and Employes. dub-sar, equivalent to ma-dub-ba, see above. gahi-ku-md-se-ti-a, “(lie man that receives the grain, grain receiver,” No. 1 IS : 9. gir, the most prominent official in these accounts. That gir is an official is seen from the fact that he is travelling, cf. No. 120 : 2, but in many cases it seems as if the term simply meant vise. This personage seems to be a representative official or commissioner, that would superintend, control and check off accounts kept and expenses made, cf. the gir si(g)-ga = manzaz pdni, Br. 2101; C. T., VII, 19984, R., 16; of temples, C. T., 21399, R., 24; of the pa-te-si, C. T., 12245, R., 5; royal commissioner, C. T., Ill, 13166, L. E. He would receive, distribute or perhaps transmit grains and other supplies brought in and given out. Cf. T. T., 94, X, 13; Amh. 102, R., 5; 120. Sometimes the pa seems to take the place of the gir, see Amh., No. 27; II. L. C., II, PI. 70, VIII, 11. The gir official also plays the same conspicuous part in the Elamite- Anzanite accounts, see D. P. M ., IX. See also the gir, not NER, Schorr, A. R. U., II, p. 82, in B. E.,Yl l , 24, 4; 32, 9; 102, 4; 104, 14; 106, 6. Note the sib gir, No. 96 : 13. ma-dub-ba, equivalent to dub-sar, see above. su(g)-gi, see above. ukus-nita pa-al, see No. 3 : 12. 6. Months. itu Azag-sim is a new month name. To judge from the meaning of the words that compose the name, it must be a spring month. See Nos. 15 : 17; 42 : 8; 48 : 7. itu Se-sag-kud, for itu Se-kin-kud. itu-Su-es-ku[l], No. 53 : 6, cf. itu Su-es-sa and itu Su-sa-es. itu-ge itu VI is a phrase occurring on these tablets just before the date formula. The only plausible explanation, unless the phrase signifies a name, is “its months (are) six months,” and would thus denote a half year account. See Nos. 83 :45; FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. S3 84 : 89; 112 : 19; 114 : 17; 168 : 2. Cf. R. T. C., No. 398; H. L. C., II, PI. 56, No. 8, V, 6; also itu V, C. T., X, PI. 39, No. 14316, III, 18. The two slanting wedges after itu Se-kin-kud, No. 1 (I) : 22, might denote “the second Se-kin-kud i.e., Dir- Se-kin-kud, or the 2d or 20th day. 7. Days. ud-X-ba-ni is the general term for denoting the days of the months in these texts. The term ba-ni may have to be read bci-zal. In any case it is equivalent to kam, and it is to be regarded as denoting an ordinal number. It has been pointed out that kam, when used after days in similar texts, stands before the month names, see C. T ., Ill, 19740, 192-194; but it is also found following the month, C. T., Ill, 21510, 55; V, 17767, R., 7; 13160, L. E. That ba-ni denotes an ordinal number is seen from examples like itu Se-kul ud XXV -ba-ni-ta, C. T ., I, 94-10-16, 59. 8. Date Formulas. For new date formulas and new variations of formulas known before, see p. 27. The different date formulas given under the 5th year of Bur-Sin are no doubt only variations of the same date formula. X. NAMES AND TITLES. The aim of the following list has been merely to register the names, Sumerian as well as Semitic, in the form they occur in these texts. To translate and com- ment on the names would have been an interesting and profitable study in itself, but it would have carried me over the limits set for this volume. By printing the Sumerian names in Italics I have not, of course, indicated that they really are to be read as they now stand. As almost every name presents more or less uncertain readings, I have simply shrunk back from disfiguring the pages by intro- ducing capitals where the reading is not known. The scholar will need no such warning, as far as Sumerian names are concerned. Abbreviations. !>., brother; (1., daughter; I'., father; feni., feminine; li., husband; m., mother; s., son; si., sister; w., wife. 1. Names op Men and Women. A-a-Zn, f. of Lagab + sig-tur, 90 : 10. A-ab-ga-mu, 16 : 6. A-a-galu-dug , 119 : 7. \A'\-a-ga-tum, 1 135 : 14. A-a-gin-n[a(d)], 2 79 : 10. A-a-kal-la, 56 : 31. [A]-a-na-ib-e, 19 : 3. A-a-ni, 6S : 12. [A~\-a-tu(r)-ra, 67 : 3, 10. A-a-ur-mu , 81 : 10, 12. A-ba-An-da, 96 : 22. A-ba- d En-lil, 96 : 21. Ab-ba-mu, 113 : 4. An-ba-ni , 3 27 : 5; seal, 94 : 6. A-ba-ra-an-na, 96 : 35. A-bil-[?] t 130 : 7. A-bil-Engar, f. of Ma-gur-ri, 139 : 6. A-bil-la-lum, 24 : 5; 79 : 33. A-E-a-ki, 96 : 20. A-ku-za, 56 : 30. Ab-ta-ab-e, 95 : 20. A-bu-iu-ni, 135 : 31. Ad-da , f. of (1) Su-Ad-da, (2) Su- d Nin-Safi, (3) Ur-Luji, (4) Ka- d I nnanna, (5) Ur-Nigin-gar, 110 : IX, 3-7. Ad-da-kal-la, 7 : 10; 55 : 13. Ad- d En-lil, 84 : 88. A-dug-ga, 120 : 3, 6, 10, 14. A -ga-ti, 135 : 28. 1 Perhaps only A-ga-tum, ef. A-ga-ti. 2 Huber, P. K. U. N., p. 41a, following Reisner, T. T 35, II, 11, reads A-a-gim-nad. 3 Cf. d Ba-ni. [ 84 ] FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 85 A-ga-lB, 1 135 : 14. A-ha-ni-sv , 135 : 2. A-feu-ni-lsul], 135 : 18. A-jvu-hu-ni , 2 64 : 3. A-fiu-um, 117 : 38. A-fcu-um-ma, 128 : 9. A-ka-gal-l\, 54 : 4. A-kal-la, 58 : 7; s. of Za-ma-[?\, 171 : 3. A-ku-za, 56 : 30. A-la-la, 1 :2, 3; 18 : 3; 35 : 3. A-Vi-a-bi, 134 : 5. A- d Luh, 96 : 30. A-lul-lul, 95 : 12. Ama-um + me, 20 : 10. A-mur-Kal-la , 116 : 11. A-na-na, 134 : 2. An-ba-ni 3 An-dirig-ga , 4 128 : 9. Alim-a , 5 135 : 18. A-NE-ni, 98 : 4. An-rii, 95 : 30. An-U tu-bar-ra , 6 7 67 : 7. A-iu, 32 : seal. Azag-zi{d)-da, 135 :7; s. of I-ba-ni-iz, 29 : 1, seal. B a-a -na-zal-la, 115 : 2. Ba-la-an-gi, 4 : 10. Ba-lul-e, 8:1. Ba-bd{g)-ga, 95 : 5. Ba-ta, 96 : 70. Be-li-sar, 116 : 5. Bu-bu, 95 : 27. Bu-bu-a, 133 : 14. Bu-ga-ga,’’ 135 : 35, 36. Bu-la-ni, 56 : 27. Bur- 1 Da-mu, 96 : 28. Bur-za-1 nnanna Bu-zi-na, 56 : 3. Da-a-[ . . . ], 130 : 5. Da-a-lim, 23 : 10; 129 : 10. Da-bi-a, 75 : 25. Da-gi, 126 : 7, 22. 1 Perhaps [A]-a-ga-tum, cf. A-ga-ti. 2 Cf. P. K. U. N., p. 45a. 3 See Dingir-ba-ni, 27 : 5; 94 : 6. 4 See d Dirig-gu, 5 Perhaps Qub-a. 0 Perhaps d U tu-bar-ra. 7 Or Sir-ga-ga. Da-ku-tum, 116 : 16. Da-da, 56 : 9. Da-gi, 126 : 7, 22. Dagal-ra, 126 : 10. Da- d l-l\, f. of Nu-ur-i-li, 11:3. Dam-[ ....], 56 : 13. Darn-[ . . .]-An, 96 : 49. Dam-bu-da-a, 56 : 13. Dir-de, s 153 : 2. Dingir-ba-ni , 9 27 : 5, and seal. d Dirig-ga, 10 128 : 9. Dub-bu-zi-na, 56 : 3. Du-du, s. of Ni, 110 : 13. Dug A . ■ . ], 96 : 52. Dumu-[ ....], (1) f. of Nin-[ ....], 163 : 3; (2) f. of Lugal- 1 Utu-[ . . . . ], 57 : 13. Dun-gi, 57 : 8, and dates of Dun-gi. d Du n-gi-ba-ni, 116 : 4. 1 'j-a-ma-ne, 139 : 1. E-gal-la-tu(r)-ra, 64 : 6. E-la-[ . . . ], 115 : 8. E-ia-ag-nu-a, n 11 : 1. E-mul- d Dumu, 111 : 5. En-[ . . . ], 96 : 53. Engar-dug , 96 : 14. Enim-ma-ni-galu, 96 : 57. d En-k[i]-du(g) , 96 : 59. En-lil-da-ner-gal, 86 : 14. En-lil-ld-[ . . . ], 56 : 10. En-lil-li, 96 : 41. En-lil-ld-a-An-azag-ga, Vi 111 : 8. En-lil-ld-sd{g) , s. of Lugal-nanga, 14 : 3. d En-lil-mu, 164 : 4. [ U]r 13 -En-ki-im-du, 111 : 2. En-ne-zu, 128 : 3. [ . . . ]- d En-ki, 57 : 2. E-pa-e, 96 : 31. G a-gi, 33 : 4. Galu- d [ . . . ], 96 : 3S. Galu-Bi, u 109 : 9. Galu-Bi-bi, 96 : 27. 8 See Si-a-de. 8 See An-ba-ni. 10 See An-dirig-ga. 11 See I-la-ag-nu-d. 12 “Enlil is the begotten one of the bright heaven.” 13 Or Su. 14 Or Gas. 86 SUMERIAN DOCUMENTS, II. DYNASTY OF UR [Ga]lu-bu-ga-ga, 135 : 36. Galu- d Dam-[ . . . ], 96 : 26. Galu d Da-mu, 70 : 10. Galu-Dingir-ra, 139 : 2. Galu-dug-ga-de-gal, 50 : 6. Galu- d En-lil-l&, (1) 111:9; (2) s. of galu- Utu , 3 : 4. Galu- d En-zu, (1) 41 :6; 56 : 22, 25; (2) s. of Ma -[...], 160 : 4. Gcdu-Gdn-[ . . ],' 12 : 11. Galu-gir-si-di-a, 110 : col. X, 9. Galu-[ . . . ]-cZi\ 95 : 25. Galu-ka-ni, 109 : 13. Gcilu-di[r(‘!)-]ri-e-r[u‘!], 46 : 9. Galu-Kin-gi-a, 46 : 8. Galu- d Lagab sig, 72 : 1; 104 : 31. Galu- d Luh- d KA , 104 : 7. Galu-na-ru-a , 126 : 6. Galu- d Nin-[ . . . ], 46 : case, 3. Galu- d Nin-gul, 58 : 12. G a iu-N i[g in]-ga r-[ ro] , 96 : 61. GalvJ^N in-safi , 61 : 6; 74 : 8; 101 : 18; 166 : 7. Galu- d Ra, 121 : 7. Galu- d Sug-[ . . . ], 12 : 12. [Ga]Iu-Ur, 96 ; 16. Galu-Ur-lci-[ . . ], 10S : 11. Galu^Utu, (1) 13 :4; (2) f. of Galu-En-lil-ld, 3 : 4. Galu-, 160 : 8. Ga-gi, 33 : 4. Gdn-sd(g ) , 1 2 95 : 29. Gar-kal-la, 47 : 3. Gar-sa(m)-bi, 130 : 9. d Gestin-an, 102 : 5. d G estin-an-ka , 102 : 2. Gln- d En-zu, fem., si. of Sir-ha, 1 ; 10. Gln-har-fiar, fem., 116 : 15. Gin-Nin-e-[ . . . ], f., 143 : 3. Gir-a, f. of Ur- d Igi-zi-bar-ra, 109 : 10. Glr- d Bi-li + li, 56 : 46. Glr- d En-li[l]-ga(l), 52 : 3. Giri-gi-na, 3 91 : 30. Gir i-li-sd(g), 22 :5; 95 : 11. Gir-Nin-[ . . . ], 135: 12 ; s. of Dumu-[ . . . ], 163 : 3 Gir-ni-$d(g) , 4 5 16 : 9. Gu(d)-da-ri-a, 128 : 6. Gu-de-a, 15 : 5; 96 : 40. Gu{d)- d GeUin-an, 102 : 3 Gu-du, 23 : 3. Gu-du-du, 73 : 3. Gu('?)-gu-a-la, 108 : 1. Gu-la-a, 139 : 4. [G]u-za-ni, s 123 : 5. H al-fial-la, f. of Lugal-sirim, 120 : 8. IJa-zi-in, 6 111 : 1. idc-sa(g), 95 : 29. H il-ma-gu-ra, 87 : 2. Qu-mu-u-sa, 128 : 1. IJu-pi-pi, 11 ; 12; 119 : 5; 147 : 5. JJus-a, 13 : 14. I -ba-m-iz, f. of A-zi(d)-da, 29 : seal. I-dim-dingir, s. of Su-sa-ra-ni, 39 : 3, and seal. d Igi-du, 144 : 8. Igi- d En-lU, 95 : 21. Igi-Ku , 7 S7 : 4. Igi-ni-da-a, 134 : 4. Igi-$d(g)-sd(g), 68': 3. I-la-ag-nu-u 8 t-li-be-ll, 56 : 24. t-lX-nu-ri, 56 : 22. Im-ti-dam, f., 134 : 6. Innanna-Kalam-ba , 9 129 : 9. d I nnanna-ur, 139 : 7. In-ta, 10 56 : 38. I-ri-bu-um, 56 : 2. I-sar-ba-kal, 116 : 14. I-sar-i-li, n s. of Su-la-ur{T)-ni, 39 : seal. I-sar-ni-si, 46 : 11. Is-me-i-ll, 23 : 5. /-to, 12 1 17 : 35. I-za-ur sig(‘l), 119 : S. 1-zi-zi,' 3 117 : 41. 1 C’f. Galu-gan-gu-la, P. K. U. N., p. 89a. 2 See JJ,c-sd{g). Cf. IJc(gdn)-na-sag, P. K. U. N., p. 123a. 3 Cf. Giri-gi, P. K. U. N., p. 109a. 4 Cf. Gir-ni-sa(g ) , C. T ., V, 1775S, I, 2. 5 Cf. P. K. U. N„ p. 111a. 0 Means “axe.” Possibly it is a noun, not a proper name. 7 Cf. d Ku, Br. 10569. 8 See E-la-ag-nu-u. 0 See Ri-Kalam-ba. 10 Cf. In-ta-e-a, P. K. U. N., p. 546. 11 Perhaps better I-md-i-Ti. 12 Cf. I-ta-e-a and In-ta-e-a, P. K. U. N., p. 546. 13 See Ni-zi-zi. FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 87 K a-gi-nci, 57 : 22. Ka-gu-du-ma, 88 : 11. Ka- d Innanna, 110 : col. IX, 6. Ka-itu-Ab-b, 37 : 5. Ka-ka, f. of Ur- d PA.KU, 14 : 5. Ka-la-a, 139 : 3. Kalam-da(?)-ga, 21 : 17. Kalam-da-r[a], 87 : 5. Kalam-il-e, 31 : 5. Kalam-lam-mu , 7:11. Kalam-ne-mu , l 7:11. Kal- d Engar, 17 : 6. Kal-la, 56 : 34. Ka-sag-a , 87 : 3. Ki-da-lum , 110 : col. X, 3. Kur-bi-[ „ . ], 142 : 9. Kur-ni-mu , 2 1 : 20. Kur-ru-ti, 110 : col. IX, 1. L agab + sig-tur, s. of A-a-bi, 90 : 10. Li-sa-be-i-ll-du ( ?) , 126 : 18. La-[ . J, f. of [ ]-Se-ha-m[a], 57 : 11. Lugal-[ . . . ], 96 : 73. Lugal-[ . . . ]-a6-[ ....], 96 : 62. Lugal-azag-'c , 67 : 8. Lugal-azag-z[u\, 3 13 : 12; 146 : 14. Lugal-A-zi(d)-da, 56 : 19; 81 : 8; 111 : 11. Lugal-Bdr , fem., w. of Su- d Dumu-zi, 125 : 7. [ Luga]l (l)-Bu-ga-ga , 135 : 36. Lugal-Dub-bu (?) , 96 : 43. Lugal-dug-ga, 84 : 63; 103 : 9; 122 : 4. Lugal-ezen, (1) 87 : 6; (2) s. of Qal-Jial-la, 120 : 7. Lugal-gis, 1 : 13. Lugal-giS-bar, 96 : 29. Lugal-fea-m[a ], 4 57 : 7. Liigal-iskim-zi, 31 : 3. Lugnl-iskim-zi(d)-da , 2 : 2, 7. Lugal-itu-Da, 13 : 13. Lugal-ka-gi-na, 32 : seal; 33 : 5; 45 : 5; 99 : 13. Lugal-ki, 96 : 19. Lugal-ms-a, 99 : 13. Lugal-N am-tar-ri , 29 : 2; 38 : 6; 42 : 3; 95 : 2. Lugal-nanga, (1) 47 : 2; (2) f. of En-lil-al-sag , 14 : 13. Lugal-N ibru kl , 96 : 46. [Lug]al(l) d Sag-[ . . . ], 12 : 12. 1 See Uku-ne-mu. 2 See Pap-ni-mu. 3 Cf. P. K. U. N., 129, p. 129a. 4 Cf. Lugal-fia-ma-til, P. K . U. N., p. 132a. Lugal-sd(g)-ga , (1) 3 : 2; (2) s. of Bur-za-Innanna , 40 : 3, and seal. Lugal-Sd(g)-ld, 160 : 6. Lugal-s d (g)-sa-ri [. Lug~\al{l)-Ur , 96 : 16. Lugal-ur-ra-ni, 18 : 4. Lugal-u(d)-da, 96 : 34. Lugal-u-Hm, 109 : 16. Lugal- d Utu, 13 : seal. [Lug]al(?)- d Utu-[ . . . ], s. of Dum[u-], 57 : 12. Lugal-te-fiu-e, s. of Alu-Jia, 8 : 3. Lugal-zag(7)-e, 96 : 43. Lu}i d Ka, 101 : 70. Lul-a, 109 : 11; 119 : 4. Lul-u-gu, 144 : 13. [ . . . ]- d Lu-$d(g), 149 : 5. Lu-u[d(7)], 12 : 4. M a-ad-i-l'i? 19 : 5; 30 : 3; 104 : 39. Ma-ba-tu(d)-da, 96 : 39. Ma-da-l-l'i , 6 11 : 14. Ma-du-du , 96 : 42. Ma-d[ug ]( ?), f. of Galu- d En-zu, 160 : 4. Ma-gu-um , 7 Md-gur-ri , 8 s. of A-bil-Engar, 139 : 5. Mas-urudu-Gu-la, 96 : 44. Mer-ab , 96 : 25. Me-ru-ru, 98 : 3. [ . . . ]- d Mu-ba-azag , 135 : 13. Mu-ha-ba-tug-tug , f. of Lugal-te-Jiu-e, 8 : 4. Mu-ma-da , 164 : 5. M u-ni-mah, 35 : 4. "No-ba-fia-su, 96 : 11. Na-ba-pi-su, 96 : 11. Na-ba-Sd(g), 109 : 9. Na-ru-a, 81 : 7. N am-tar-ri, 96 : 18. Nam-uru, 96 : 13. Ne-galu-urru-ki, 108 : 3. Ne-ra-ni, 116 : 2. Ne-sag, 96 : 33, 39. Ni, (1) f. of Dumu-nita-ga[b\, 108 : 10; (2) f. of Su- d Nin- sah, 110 : col. VIII, 1; IX, 2. Ni-ba-ab-ul, 111 : 7. Ni-du-l . . ], 102 : 7. 5 Semitic, “How long, my god?” 6 Cf. Ma-ad-i-li. 7 Cf. Ma-gu, P. K. U. N., p. 1356. 8 Cf. Lugal-md-gur-ri, P. K. U. N., p. 133a. 88 SUMERIAN DOCUMENTS, II. DYNASTY OF UR d Ni-e- d Se[S], 5:1. [A r ]i-iY-e, 104 : (i. AY /(-[ . . . ]. s. of Dumu-[ . . . ], 163 : 3. Ni-ne-za Xi-s[d(g)]-ga, 1 114 : 14. Ni[_n-]gis-tig-a-an-ti, 142 : 1. [ . . } d Nln-tu, 135 : 20. Xi-zi-zi, 2 117 : 41. Xu-iir-i-D , (1) 95 :2S; (2) s. of Da- d t-l i, 11 : 2. Xu-sa-na-zi, 64 : 8. Y*ap-ni-mu 2 1 : 20. /?<-[ . . . ], 56: 4. . . ]-ru, 56 : 6. Ri-Kcilam-ba , 4 129 : 9. Ri-pi-pi, 120 : 4. R i-ug-ba , 5 23 : 9. S«<7-[ . . . ], 96 : 72. Sag-cla-na, 34 : 6. Sal-mah, fern., 153 : 3. Si-a-de,® 153 : 2. Sig-a- d A[d], 58 : 15. Stg-a-Ad-d[a], 57 : 5. Sir-ka, s. of Za-an-me-ni ; br. of Gln-En-zu, 1:1. Sid-Ka-Ka, (1) 110 : 30 ; (2) f. of Dumu-nita-du, 110 : 5, 6, 29. Su-sa- d IM 8 Su-sci-ur(?)-ni, f. of I-sar-ilu, 39 :seal. Sa-ab-Sa-a-ba, 108 : 2. Sa-bil-mu] 53 : 4. Sa(g)-gal-lu, 116 : 9. Sa-ma-ni, 118 : 3. Sa-mu-sa-ti, 56 : 7. Sa(m)-se-kin, 116 : 12. Sar-ru-um-l-Vi, 77 : 20. [ . . . ]-Se-Jia-ma , s. of Lu-[ . . . 57 : 10. Ses-da-da, 16 : 10. Ses-kal-la, 56 : 16; 135 : 6. Sim-du, 116 : 10. Sim-du-gur, 169 : 2. Sim-sd(g) , 116 : 10, 17. Su-ad-da , 9 110 : IX, 5. Su- d BE-li x0 -li, 44 : 3. Su- d Bil -se-ga-dim-Sa , 44 : 3. Su-du(g)-ga-zi(d)-da, 15 : 7. Su- d Dumu-zi, (1) 16 : 4; (2) h. of Lugal-Bar, 125 : 7. Su- d En-lil. 86 : 13. Su-galu- d Ra, 110 : Y III, 2. Su-(g)is-dar, 56 : 22, 24, 42; 81 : 1 1 ; 96 : 51. Su-ni- d Nam, 95 : 24. Su- d Nin-safi, s. of AY, 110 : IX, 2. Su-Sa-ra-ni, f. of 1-dim-dingir , 39 : seal. Su-u-la, 135 : 32. Su-ur-ra, 4:11. Ta-mu-bi-ti, 56 : 7. \J-bar, 160 : 12. U-bar-a-a, 103 : 25. (Jd-sA(g)-ga , 7:12. U-dun-[ . . ], 84 : 36. Uku-ne-mu, n 7:11. Usar-id , 12 127 : 11. XJ-ma-ni, 117 : .39. tl-sa-ag-Hm, 149 : 4. d Utu-ha-b[a\, 23 : 11. d Utu-ha-z[u], 130 : 8. U-li, f. of [ . . . . ], 86 : 6. tl-na-ab-ku-in, 1 10 .: X. 4. Ur-[ . . . ], 96 : 48, 63. Ur- d [ . . . ], 59 : 60; 96 : 47. Ur-a- d IM, 20 : 6. Ur- d Ab-bar-ra, 43 : 3. Ur-An-na, 62 :seal. Ur-An-tu, 96 : 24. Ur- d Azag-sim, 41 : 3. Ur- d Ba-u, 51 : 3. Ur-Dam, 58 : 9. Ur- d Da-mu, 7 : 5; 14 : 21. Ur- d Du, br. of Ur-ki-Gu-la, 109 : 16. Ur-Dub, 96 : 58; 110 : XIII, 4. Ur-dul-du-e, 84 : 61 ; 106 : 2; 144 : 15. Ur- d Dumu-zi[(d)-da], 14 : 7. Ur- d Dun-pa-e , (1) 22 : 4; 23 : 3; 24 : 3; (2) s. of Ur- d IM, 79 : 37. Ur-E-an-na. 58 : 11. Ur-did-har-li-ba, 110 : VIII, 3. 7 May be read Kii. 8 Cf. Ku-za-zi, T. T ., 150, I, 14. 9 Cf. Su-ad-da-mu , P. K. U. N., p. 154a. 10 By mistake of scribe written se-ga. 11 See Kalam-ne-mu. 12 May be name of field. 1 Cf. P. K. U. N., p. 1415. 2 See t-zi-zi. 3 Or Kur-ni-rnu. 4 Perhaps to be read Innanna-Kalam-ba or Innanna-ug-ba. 5 See Ri-Kalam-ba. 6 See Dir-de. FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 89 Ur-fi-gi-o , 1 : 16. Ur-e- d Ka, 123 : 10. Ur- d En-ki, 56 : 26; 120 : 2. Ur- d En-lil, 96 : 32; 145 : 4. Ur- d E5-bar-ra, 43 : 3. Ur- d Gdl-i[n?]-ka, 135 : 26. Ur- d Gi-bil, 18 : 6. Ur-Gu(l), 96 :51. Ur-^a-ba-ba,' 83 : 25. Ur-Ib-al, 88 : 5; 111 : 6. Ur- d Igi-zi-bar-ra, s. of Lul-a, 109 : 10. Ur- d IM , f. of U r- d Dun-pd-'e , 79 : 37. Ur- d Innanna, 96 : 67. Ur-itu-Azag-ga, 95 : 1. Ur-itu-Mu, f. of Ur-sag-ga, 87 : 10. Ur- d Kal, (1) 58 : 7; 136 : 2; (2) s. of Ni, 48 : 9; 136 : 4. Ur-ki-dg, 56 : 12. Ur-kam, 135 : 12. Ur-ki-Gu-la, (1) 123 : 2; (2) br. of Ur- d Du, 109 : 16. Ur-li, 113 : 3. Ur-li-de, 99 : 15. Ur- d Lugal-[ . . . ], 110 : 5. Ur- d Lugal, s. of Da, 83 : 43; 84 : 83, 86. Ur- d Lugal-banda, 84 : 86. Ur- d Lugal-edin-na-ka, 134 : 7. Ur-Luh, 13 : 3; 56 : 36. [U]r-M a-a-me , 108 : 4. Ur-ma-gi-a, 1 : 16; 95 : 19; 135 : 11. Ur- d Ma-lum, 13 : 15. Ur-Ma-ma, 96 : 42. Ur-Me-me-e , 28 : 5. Ur-mu, 142 : 12. Ur-na-[ . . ], 102 : IV, 1. Ur-ni, 30 : 4. Ur-Nigin, 92 : 12; 96 ; 71. Ur-Nigin-gar, 2 (1) £4:5; 130:11; 134:11; 143:4; 144 : 15; (2) f. of Ad-da, 110 : IX, 8. Ur- d Nin-gis-[ . . . ], 152: seal. Ur- d Nin-t B, 82 : 5; 135 : 5, 8; 145 : 4. U r- d N in-ma-da , 96 : 38. Ur- d Nun-gal, 118 : 2. Ur- d PA.KU, (1) [ . . . ], 30 :2;(2)s.of KA-ka, 14 5. Ur- d PA .KU-ra, 4 : 3; 8 : 2. Ur-Ra-a, 12 : 9. Ur-ra-kal, 69 : 1; 134 : 3. Ur-ra-ku-ra, 116 :8. fjr-ra-ni, 96 : 68. Ur-sib, 96 : 20. Ur-Si-gar, 118 : 7. Ur-sd(g)-ga, (1) [ . . . ], 111 : 4; (2) s. of Ur-itu-Mu, 87 : 9. Ur- d Se-ga, s. of Ni-me-su, 58 : 13. Ur- d Su-An-[na], 57 : 4; 110 : 4. Ur- d Su-mah, 7 : 9. Ur-[ .... Hi], 96 : 72. U[r-] d Ti-u,ru, 135 : 27. Ur-Tum-al, 88 : 5. Ur-ud-mu, f. of Ur-, 87 : 10. Ur- d Ur-[ . . . ], 104 : 25. Ur-Zag(l) , 110: VIII, 4. d Utu-bar-ra, 67 : 7. d Utu-ha-zu, 127 : 11. Utu-sd(g)-ga, 7 : 12. Us-a-ni, 1 : 19. Us-me- d Nin-sa[h], 12 : 7. Z a-an-me-ni, fem., m. of Sir-ka, 1 : 9. Zag-mu, 96 : 54, 69. Za-la-lum, 92 : 11. Za-?na-[ . . . ], f. of A-ka[l ], 171 : 3. Za-ni-a, 117 : 36. Za-zi, 123 : 13. Zi-mu, 116 : 13. A -a: A-a-galu-ba, 119 : 7. A-a-gin-na(d) , 79 : 10. A-a-kal-la, 56 : 31. A-a-na-ib-e, 19 : 3. A-a-ni, 68 : 12. A-a-tu{r)-ra, 67 : 3. A-a-ur-mu, 81 : 10, 12. 2. Names of Gods. A-ab: A-ab-ga-mu, 16 : 6. d Ab: Ab-ta-ab-'e, 95 : 20. Ur- d Ab-bar-ra, 43 : 3. d Ad: Slg-a- d A[d], 58 : 15. . 1 Cf. d Ha-ab-ab , P. K. U . N ., p. 174, note 6. 12 2 Cf. U r- d N igin-gar , P. K. U. N., p. 127 a. 90 SUMERIAN DOCUMENTS, II. DYNASTY OF UR Ad-da: Ad-da-me, 110 : 24. Sig-a-A d-d[a~\, 57 : 5. A-ga: A-ga-ib, 135 : 14. Ama : Ama-ra, 120 : 10. An: An-galu-sag, 162 : 4. A-ba-An-da, 96 : 22. An-ni: 95 : 30. d A pin: Kal- d A pin, 17 : 6. d Azag-sim : Ur- d Azag-sim, 41:3 Ur- d Ba-u, 57 : 3. d Bi: Galu- d Bi, 109 : 9. d Bi-li-li: Gir- d Bi-li-li, 56 : 46. Bil-la-lum: d En-ki: d E n-ki-im-du , 111 : 2. Ur- d En-ki, 56 : 26. d En-lil: En-lU-da-ner-gal, 86 : 14. A-ba- d E n-lil , 96 : 19. Ad- d En-lil , 84 : 88. Galu- d En-lil-ld, 111 : 9. Gir- d En-lil-gal, 52 : 3. Jgi- d E n-lil, 95 : 21 ; 135 : 19. [ . . . ]-En-lil-rnu, 164 : 4. d En-zu: Galu- d En-zu, 41 : 6; 56 : 15; 160 : 4 G\n d En-zu, 1 : 10. d G 61: U r- d Gdl-i n ( ?)-ka , 135 : 26. d Gestin: Gu(d)- d Gestin-an, 102 : 3. d Gi-bil: Ur- d Gi-bil , 18 : 6. (G) is-dar: Su-(g)is-dar, 56 : 22; 81 : 11 . Gu-la: A-Bil-la-lum, 24 : 5. A-Bil-la-lum-ma, 79 : 33. Qu-ma-Gu-la, 87 : 2. Ha; d Bil-li l -li Su- d Bil-li-li , 44 : 3. Ur-Qa-ba-ba, 83 : 25. d lB: d Dci-gan: In date formulas. Da m : Ur-Dam, 58 : 9. d Da-mu: Ur d Da-mu, 7 : 5; 14 : 21 Gain d Da-mu, 70 : 10. d Du: Ur- d Du, 109 : 16. A-ga-IB(l), 135 : 4. [ . . . ]- d I[B], 148 : 9. d Igi: d Igi-du, 144 : 8. Ur- d Igi-zi-bar-ra, 109 : 9. d U\: Da- d f-li, 11:2. d lM: Ur- d IM, 79 : 37. d Du mu: Innanna: E-mul- d Dumu, 111 : 5. d Dumu-zi: Su- d Dumu-zi, 16 : 4. d Dun-gi: itu Ezen- d Dun-gi, passim. d Dun-pa-'e : B ur-za-Innanna, Galu-za-I nnanna , Ka- d Innanna, 110 : IX, 00. rf K a: Galu- d Lufi- d Ka, 104 : 7. Kal: Ur- d Dun-pa-e , 22 : 4; 23 : 3; 24 : 3; 79 : 37. Ur- d Kal, 48 : 9 YZngar: A-bil-Engar, 139 : 6. d Kal-la: A-mur- d Kal-la, 116 : 11. 1 Written se-ga, but scribe probably omitted the last perpendicular wedge, making the last part of the sign ga instead of sa. Probably the same name, i.e,, d Be-li-U, FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. Gar-Kal-la, 47 : 3. Ku: Igi-Ku 87 : 4. d Liagab + sig : Galu- d Lcigab + sig , 104 : 31; 121 : 13. Li: Ur-Li, 113 : 3. d Lugal: LJr- d Lugal, 110 : 5. d Lugal-banda: Ur- d Lugal-banda, 84 : 86. d Luga l-N am-tar-ri: Title for Nin-tB, 133 : 5. d Luh: Galu d LuhJ^Ka , 104 : 7. d Lu-sd(g): [ . . . ]- d Lu -sa(g), 149 : 5. a-lum: Ur- d Ma-lum, 13 : 15. d Me-ki-gdl: itu- d Me-ki-gdl, 81 : 13. d Mu: [ . . . -] d Mu-ba-azag, 135 : 12. d Sam: Su-ni- d Nam, 95 : 24. d Nanna: In dates, 14 : 25, et passim. d Ne-su: itu- d Ne-su, 54 : 7; 134 : 12, etc. Nigin: Ur-Nigin, 134 : 11. Ur-Nigin-gar, 54 : 5; 110 : IX, 8. d Nin-a-zu: itu- d Nin-a-zu, 17 : 9, etc. d Nin-gis: Ur- d Nin-gis, 152 : seal. d Nin-gul: Galu- d N in-gal, 58 : 12. d Nin-tB: Ur- d Nin-tB, 82 : 5; 135 : 5, 8. d Nin-lil: In dates, 2 : 22, et passim. d N in-safi : su- d N in-safi, 1 10 : IX, 2. Us-me- d N in-safi , 12 : 7. d Nin-tu: [ . . . ]- d Nin-tu, 135 : 20. d Nun-gal: Ur- d Nun-gal, 118 : 2. d PA.KU: TJr- d PA.KU, 3 : 1; 14 : 5; 15 : 4; 30 Galu- d Ra, 124 : 7. Ur-Ra-a, 12 : 9. d &ag: [Ga\lu {Lugal'I)- d Sag , 12 : 12. d Ses: A n-ni- d Ses, 5:1. d Sig: Galu- d Sig, 151: 29. Si-gar: Ur-Si-gar, 118 : 7. d Su-an-na: Ur- d Su-an-na, 57 : 4; 110 : 4. d Su-mafi: Ur- d Su-mah, 7 : 9. d Tisfiu: Nita- d Tisfiu , 1 2 93: seal. Ur: d Ur-ra-Kal, 134 : 3. d Ur: Ur- d Ur, 104 : 25. d Utu: Galu- d Utu , 13 : 4. Lugal- d Utu, 13 :seal; 52 : 12. 3. Names of Countries and Cities. A n-$a-an ki , 100 : 17, 56, 71, 79; 114 : 19; 136 : 22; 140: Ua-ar-si(sum) ki , 83 : 46; 156 : 10, etc. 12; 142 : 15. gu-}ru-nu-ri ki , 4 : 16; 8 : 8, etc. Ba-si-me ki , 3 77 : 21. JJ u-rnur-li kl , dates. G an-Kar kl , 100 : 9, 49, etc. I n-si- kl na, 120 : 13. Gir-zu kl , 136 : 17, 20. K ar-zi(d)-da ki , 14 : 25, etc. Gis-hu k \ 61 : 3; 136 : 19. Ki-mas ki 1 Qi. d KU, Br. 10569. 2 Or Ur- d Ti%u. 3 (jf_ & l u Ba-li-mu, Assurbanapal, Rassam Inscription, col. V, 17. 92 SUMERIAN DOCUMENTS, II. DYNASTY OF UR Tuu-lu-bi ki 'Sibru (. En-lil H ), 9G : 46, etc. S i-ma-num ki , 48 : 8. Si-mu-ru-umr 1 , 7 : 14, etc. U -bi\ 104 : 38. 4. Names of 1 fi-a-ku-[u. 102: 12. E-a-ni, 151 : 37. fj-nn-na, Ur-^-an-na, 58: 11. E-azag, Ur-E-azag-ga, 109:24. E- d En-lil-ld , 131: 3. E-gal, 71: 12, 16. 5. Names itu Ab-e, 63: 6; 65: 5; 95: 2. itu A-ki-ti, 116: 20. itu Amar-a-zi, 152:5. ituAH-a), 8:7; 11:16; 56:45; 87:13; 111:13; 131:5. itu Azag-sim, 15: 17; 42:8; 48:7. itu Bdr-zag-gar-ra, 4:14; 18: 11; 40: 10; 44: 6; 117 : 11, 64. itu Bil-bil-gar-ra, 126:30; 163:4. ■itu Da, Lugal-itu-Da, 14: 12. itu Dul-azag, 85:9; 128: 13. itu Dir-Se-kin-kud, 2: 18. itu Engar-du-a, 23: 9; 24:7; 25:9; 37:11; 135:34. itu Ezen-An-na, 34: 8. itu Ezen- d Dun-gi, 136:18; 156:9; 104:33; 157:9. itu Ezen- d Me-ki-gdl, 81:13; 93: 9. itu Ezen- d Nin-a-zu, 9:11; 17: 9; 32: 7 itu Gdn-gdn-'e, 22:8; 47: 5; 129: 14. U-bil ki , 59 : 13. Ur-bil-lum kl , 15 : 19, etc. Unu(g) kl , 22 : 9, etc. Uru-unu(g) kl , 14 : 25, etc. Z u-ab-sa-li^ , 21 : 21, et passim. jEs and Houses. E-gal-la, 64: 6. E-kur-ra, 3S: 3. E-mu-ta, 68: 5. E-nigin-gar-ra, 165: 19. E-nun, 68: 5. E-les-kal, 165:21. E-ii-ku, 60: 3. ’ Months. itu Gu{d)-si-zu, 16:12; 117:63; 130:14; 135:3. itu Kin- d Innanna, 117 : 43. itu Ki-s\g- d N in-a-zu , 45: 7. itu Mu, Ur-itu-Mu, 87: 10. itu Mu-lu-ul, 136: 20. itu Ne-su, 35:6; 54:,7; 134: 12. itu Pap + e[. . .], 143: 7. itu Sig, 13: 16; 49:7; 88: 17. itu Se-kin-kud, 1:22; 14:24; 28: 7; 29: 6; 31: 7; 79: 38; 80:6; 93:8; 100:55, 78; 117:55; 153:4; 158:6; 159:3. itu Se-sag-kud, 100:78. itu Su-kul(-a), 21 : 20; 60: 4; 62: 8; 75: 19; 117:42. itu Su-sa-es, 46: 14. itu Su-se-ku[l], 53: 6. 6. Officials and Employes . nb-ku, 106 : 3, 5. al-sd(ag) ? 14 : 3. ilam-qar, 56 : 45; 146 : 14, etc. di-kud, 14 : 8. dub-sar, 29 : seal ; 96 : 48, 60 ; 120 : 4. de, 96 : 68, 70, 73. dim?, Ill : 11. engar, 96 : 17. galu-kin-gi-a galu-ku-ma, 94 : 2; 117 : 34. galu-sig-a, 136 : 9; 136 : 11, 12. galu-Hm, 127 : 2. gin, 120 : 2, etc. gir, 96 : 22; 120 : 2, 6, 7, 14; 126 : 7; 128 : 9, etc. gir-ra gir-si(g)-ga, 141 : 7, etc. gu-za-lal, 135 : 7. \i.a-su-gab, 116 : 17. kud-dim, 96 : 40. 1(4, 96 : 10; 111 : 6; 133 : 10. lul, 96 : 22. lul-a, 109. m d-dub-ba md-du-du, 96 : 42; 100 : 89. ma-ra-ad, 116 : 8. maikim, 48 : 12. FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 93 mu, 15 : 6; 23 : 3. ni-gab, 88: 5. ni-ku, 88 : 5, etc. ni-ku-es, 81 : 11 nu-banda, 86 : 15. nu-banda-gu (d) , 102 : 3. nu-banda-lugal-me-ne , 86 : 15. nu-dug-as, 115 : 6. nu-ki-sar, 98 : 4, 5. nu-har, 71 : 12, 16. pa, 96 : 69, etc. pa-al, 3 : 12. na-isib , 2:1. pa-us-bar-ge, 55 : 13. Sal + me, 20 : 10, 11. sib, 21 : 17; 96 : 16, 21. sib gir, 96: 13. Sim + gar, 96 : 4. Sii(g)-gi, 96 : 12. wkuh-nita, 3 : 12. us-ku-gu-la , 96 : 57. XI. DESCRIPTION OF TAPPETS Abbreviations. C.B.M., Catalogue of the Babylonian Museum, University of Pennsylvania, prepared by Prof. Hilpreclit; col., column; inscr., inscription; L. E., Left Edge; li., lines; E. Lo. C., Left Lower Corner; Lo. 1*., Lower Part; E. S., Left Side; I.. U. C., Left Upper Corner; O., Obverse; R., Reverse; Ri. E., Right Edge; Ri. Lo. C., Right Lower Corner; Ri. S., Right Side; If. E., Upper Edge; U. 1*., Upper Part. The Roman numbers refer to the different expeditions of the University of Pennsylvania sent out to Nippur. Measurements are given in centimetres, leng th (height) X width X thickness. Tablets reproduced both in autograph and halftone are indicated by a bold number in the first column. 1. Autograph Reproductions. Text. Plate. King. 1 1 Gimil-Sin Gimil-Sin 3 3 Bur-Sin 4 3 Bur-Sin 5 3 6 3 Year. 5 6 8 7 Month. Day. S e-ki n-k ud 20 ( ?) Dir-Se- kin-kud 1 25 C.B.M. Description. 11176 Baked. Brown. Well preserved, only a few small pieces chipped off on O. 8.7 X 5.3 X 1.9. Inscr. 12 (O.) + 12 (R.) = 24. Ruled. I. Court 'proceedings. See Translation I. 11574 Baked. Bright brown, darkened on R. Pretty well preserved. L. Lo. C. chipped off. 8.3 X 5.2 X 2. Inscr. 10 (0.) X 1 (Lo. E.) + S (R.) + 3 (U. E.) = 22 li. Not ruled. II. Court proceedings. See Translation II. 12576 Baked. Light brown, darkened. Lower part broken off. 4.3 X 4 X 1.5. Inscr. 6 (0.) + 2 (R.) = 8 li. Ruled. III. Contract. 10480 Baked. Grayish brown. Lo. L. C. broken off. 4.8 X 3.9 X 1.8. Inscr. 7 (O.) + 10 (R.) = 17 li. Ruled. III. Court pro- ceedings. 11407 Baked. Reddish brown. Fragment of case. 3.7 X 3.9 X 0.4. Inscr. 3 li. Not ruled. Traces of seal impressions. I. Contract. 11224 Baked. Yellowish brown. Fairly well [ 94 ] FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 95 King. Year. Month. Day. C.B.M. Dungi 35 11572 Bur-Sin 7 11 14 12577 Gimil-Sin 8 Azag-sim 5 3412 3403 Bur-Sin 5 11 11 10156 Gimil-Sin 8 3 Dungi 46 Se-kin-kud 5136 Description. preserved. 3.2 X 2.8 X 2. Inscr. 2 li. Ruled. II. Memorandum. Baked. Dark brown. Tablet well pre- served. 6.7 X 4.6 X 1.8. Inscr. 7 (0.) + 9 (R.) = 16 li. Not ruled. Covered with seal impressions which mar the writing. II. Bond. Baked. Dark brown. Fragmentary. 3.2 X 9.9 X 1.2. Inscr. 5 (O.) + 1 (U. E.) + 2 (L. E.) = 8 li. Ruled. III. Frag- ment of a document of sale (?). Slightly baked. Yellowish white. Frag- mentary, badly preserved. 4.7 X 4.1 X 1.7. Inscr. 6 (O.) + 7 (R.) = 13 li. Not ruled. II. Contract. Baked. Blackish brown. Two pieces joined. Small pieces chipped off. 3.8 X 3.8 X 1.1. Inscr. 4 (0.) + 5 (R.) = 9 li. Not ruled. Faint traces of seal impressions, which partly mar the writing. II. Contract in regard to a plantation. Case tablet, found unopened. Tablet: Baked. Reddish brown. Well pre- served, only a few signs being damaged. 5.2 X 4.5 X 1.6. Inscr. 8 (O.) + 10 (R.) = 18 li. Ruled. III. Promissory note. Case: Baked. Light brown. R. broken. 6.2 X 4,2 X 2.2. Inscr. 5 (O.) + 2 (R.) = 7 li. Traces of seal impressions. 10492 Baked. Reddish brown. Fragmentary. 6 X 4.1 X 1.8. ' Inscr. 8 (O.) 4- 6 (R.) = 14 li. Ruled. III. “Contract.” 3593 Case tablet, found unopened. Tablet: Dull brown. Pieces of L. E. broken off. 5.S X 4.2 X 1. Inscr. S (O.) X 9 (R.) + 2 (U. E.) 4- 2 (L. E.) = 21 li. Ruled. I. Promissory note. See Trans- lation. Case: Baked. Dark brown. Lo. part of L. E. and L. comer broken off. R. E. cracked, pieces fallen away. 7.5 X 5.3 X 3.1. Inscr. 9 (0.) 4- 8 (R.) 4- 1 (L. E.) = 18 li. Covered with seal impressions, 14 in number, which mar the writing. Baked. Brown. Two pieces joined. 11 X 5.9 X 2.8. Inscr. 15 (0.) + 8 (R.) = 23 li. Ruled. Beautiful seal impres- 96 SUMERIAN DOCUMENTS, II. DYNASTY OF UR Text. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 oo Plate. King. Year. Month. Day. 9 Bur-Sin 2 Amg-Um 9 9 I -bi-Sin 1 9 Dungi 35 6 10 Bur-Sin 5 1 10 10 11 Gimil-Sin 7 4 30 11 Dungi 53 9 C.B.M. Description. sion on R. III. Purchase of palm, grove. See Translation. 10776 Baked. Darkened light brown. Three pieces joined. Lo. part of O. and L. E. broken off. 9.5 X 4.8 X 2.1. Inscr. 11 (O.) + 4 (R.) = 15 li. Ruled. Seal impressions on R. III. Purchase oj a male slave. See Translation. 12575 Baked. Reddish brown, darkened in places. Well preserved, only small pieces of R. chipped off. 4 X 3.5 X 1.3. Inscr. 5 (O.) + 7 (R.) + 2 (U. E.) = 14 li. Ruled. III. Acknowledgment of the re- ceipt of the price for a pair of slaves. See Translation. 11665 Baked. Black. Greater part of O. broken off. 4.9 X 3.9 X 1.5. Inscr. 4 (O.) X 7 (R.) = 11 li. Not ruled. Covered with traces of seal impressions. II. Loan of silver. Value received. 3411 Baked. Reddish brown. Two pieces joined. Pieces of R. chipped off. 4.1 X 3.5 X 1,8. Inscr. 5 (O.) + 6 (R.) + 2 (U. E.) + 2 (L. E.) = 15 li. Ruled. II. Loan of silver. Value received. 10932 Baked. Darkened brown. L. U. C. and most of R. broken off. 4.5 X 4.1 X 1.4. Inscr. 7 (O.) +5 (R.) + 1 (U. E.) = 13 li. Ruled. Originally dated: III. Loan of silver. Value received. 11197 Baked. Dull brown. Fragmentary. 6.1 X 4.3 X 1.5. Inscr. 10 (O.) + 2 (R.) = 12 li. Ruled. II. Loan of silver. Value received. 11575 Baked. Light brown. Crumbling, mostly illegible. 9 X 4.7 X 1 .9. Inscr. 15 (O.) + 8 (R.) = 23 li. Ruled. Traces of seal impressions. II. Document of sale. 3422 Case tablet. Tablet: Baked. Reddish brown, darkened in places. Pieces of surface of sides and edges chipped off. 4.6 X 4 X 2. Inscr. 5 (O.) + 4 (R.) = 9 li. Ruled. II. Loan of silver. Value received. Case: Baked. Reddish brown. Fragmen- tary, only part of R. remaining. 5.6 X 5.6 X 1.1. Inscr. 3 li. Covered with traces of seal impressions. FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 97 Text. Plate. King. 23 12 Dungi 24 12 Dungi 25 12 Gimil-Sin 26 12 27 13 28 13 29 13 Bur-Sin 30 13 Dungi 31 14 32 14 Bur-Sin Year. Month. Day. 35 8 19 35 8 18 7 8 Se-kin-kud 19 5 Se-kin-kud 41 Se-kin-kud 1 9 6 C.B.M. Description. 3378 Baked. Light brown. Well preserved, only small piece of U. Ri. C. chipped off. 4 X 3.5 X 2.2. Inscr. 6 (0.) + 4 (R.) = 10 li. Not ruled. Traces ot' seal impressions on sides and edges. II. Loan of grain. Value received. 11579 Baked. Light brown. Well preserved. 4.3 X 3.7 X 2.1. Inscr. 6 (0.) + 4 (R.) = 10 li. Not ruled. Faint traces of seal impressions. II. Loan of grain. Value received. 11587 Baked. Brown, darkened. Cracked, glued, small pieces wanting. 3.8 X 3.5 X 1.3. Inscr. 4 (0.) + 5 (R.) + 2 (U. E.) + 1 (L. E.) = 12 li. Not ruled. Cov- ered with traces of seal impressions. II. Loan of grain. Value received. 3398 Baked. Light brown. R. broken away. 3.9 X 3.9 X 1.1. Inscr. 5 fO.) + 1 (L.E.) = 6 li. Not ruled. Faint traces of seal impressions. Originally dated. II. Loan of grain. Value received. 3394 Baked. Light brown. Lo. part of R. chipped off. 4.2 X 3.8 X 1.4. Inscr. 5 (O.) + 3 (R.) =8 li. Not ruled. Covered with traces of seal impressions, which mar the writing. Originally dated. II. Loan of grain. Value received. 3400 Baked. Blackish brown U. L. C. and Lo. part of R. broken off. 4.5 X 3.7 X 1.4. Inscr. 7 (O.) + 1 (R.) = 8 li. Not ruled. Part of date broken off. Covered with seal impressions. II. Loan of grain. Value received. 10240 Baked. Reddish light brown. Well pre- served. 4 X 3.4 X 1.2. Inscr. 4 (O.) + 4 (R.) = 8 li. Not ruled. Covered with seal impressions which partly mar the writing. III. Receipt of silver. 10439 Baked. Pale brown. U. E. broken off. 3.8 X 3,5 X 2.5. Inscr. 5 (O.) + 2 (R.) = 7 li. Ruled. III. Receipt of grain. 11212 Baked. Dark brown. Lo. L. C. of R, broken off. 3.8 X 3.2 X 1.8. Inscr. 6 (O.) + 3 (R.) = 9 li. Ruled. II. Loan of dates. 1124 Case. Blackened brown. Broken and joined. Greater part of O. wanting. 13 SUMERIAN DOCUMENTS, II. DYNASTY OF UR King. Bur-Sin Dungi Bur Sin Bur-Sin Gimil-Sin Gimil-Sin Ibi-Sin Bur-Sin Bur- Sin Yeah. 9 41 3 ? ? 5 Month . 3 8 6 10 Day. 7 C.R.M. Description. 4.7 X 4 X 2.3. Inscr. 6 (O.) + 3 (R.) = 9 li. Covered with seal impressions. II. Receipt of grain. 11256 Baked. Dark brown. Part of R. chipped off. 3.8 X 3.3 X 1.7. Inscr. 6 (O.) + 1 (R.) = 10 li. Ruled. II. Receipt of corn, etc. 11259 Baked. Pale brown. Cracked and small pieces broken off. 3.6 X 3.2 X 1.6. Inscr. 6 (0.) -f- 3 (R.) = 9 li. Ruled. II. Receipt of corn. 3389 Baked. Light brown. Pieces of R. chipped off. 2.9 X 2.S X 1.2. Inscr. 1 (O.) + 6 (R.) = 10 li. Ruled. II. Receipt of grain. 10253 Case tablet. Tablet: Baked. Black. Pretty well preserved. 3.5 X 3 X 1.4. Inscr. 5 (O.) + 7 (R.) = 12 li. Ruled. III. Receipt of wheat. Case: Baked. Black. Two fragments. O., 4.8 X 2.3 X 1.6. Inscr. 4 li. R., 5.3 X 4 X 0.8. Inscr. 5 li. Traces of seal impressions. 11667 Baked. Reddish brown, darkened. L. side of R. chipped off. 3.7 X 3.5 X 1.6. Inscr. 5 (0.) + 6 (R.) + 1 (U. E.) + 1 (L. E.) — 13 li. Not ruled. Covered with traces of seal impressions. II. List of receipts of grain. 1 1583 Baked. Blackened brown. R. broken off. 4.2 X 4.1 X 1.3. Inscr. 4 li. Not ruled. Traces of seal impressions with name of Gimil-Sin. II. Receipt of corn. 3399 Baked. Blackened brown. Ri. Lo. C. of O. broken off. 4.4 X 3.8 X 1.7. Inscr. 5 (O.) + 5 (R.) = 10 li. Not ruled. Covered with seal impressions. II. Receipt of corn. 10256 Baked. Reddish brown. Well preserved. 4.7 X 4 X 1. Inscr. 5 (0.) + 7 (R.) = 12 li. Not ruled. Covered with seal impressions which partly mar the writing. III. Receipt of grain. 10424 Baked. Pale brown, darkened in places. Cracked. 4.5 X 3.8 X 1.1. Inscr. 5 (0.) + 4 (R.) = 9 li. Not ruled. Faint traces of seal impressions. III. Receipt of grain. liA'l 17 17 17 17 IS 18 18 19 19 19 20 FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 99 King. Bur-Sin Dungi Bur-Sin Dungi Bur-Sin Gimil-Sin Gimil-Sin ? I bi-Sin Year. Month. Day. G Azag-[-sim] 36 1 9 5 38 9 5 9 20 3 A zag-sim 5 1 1 10 IS C.B.M. Description. 10242 Baked. Light reddish brown. Small pieces chipped off. 4.1 X 3.8 X 1.3. Inscr. 6 (O.) + 4 (R.) = 10 li. Not ruled. Faint traces of seal impressions. III. Receipt of grain. 11214 Baked. Dark brown. R. broken off. Parts of writing on O. illegible. 3.1 X 3 X 1.5. Inscr. 5 li. Ruled. II. Receipt of corn. 115S6 Baked. Light brown. Well preserved. 2.8 X 2.6 X 1.3. Inscr. 4 (O.) + 6 (R.) =10 li. Ruled. II. Receipts of beans. 11193 Case tablet with fragments of case. Tablet: Baked. Dark brown. Cracked, but fairly well preserved. 3.3 X 3 X 1.6. Inscr. 6 (O.) + 5 (R.) = 11 li. Partly ruled. II. Receipt of corn and beans. 10230 Case tablet with O. of case. Tablet; Baked. Darkened brown. Pretty well preserved. 3.2 X 2.8 X 1.3. Inscr. 6 (O.) + 7 (R.) + 2 (L.E.) = 15. Ruled. III. Receipt of provisions. 3374 Baked. U. L. C. broken off. 3.6 X 3.7 X 1.2. Inscr. 4 (O.) + 4 (R.) = 8 li. Not ruled. Traces of seal impressions. II. Receipt of vegetables. 3373 Baked. Pale brown. Fairly well preserved . 3 X 3.3 X 1. Inscr. 5 (O.) + 3 (R.) = 8 li. Not ruled. Seal impressions on R., partly illegible. II. Receipt of straw. 3388 Baked. Light brown, darkened hi places. L. E.; Ri. E. and L. Lo. C. broken off. 4.4 X 4.4 X 1.2. Inscr. 6 (O.) + 6 (R.) = 12 li. Not ruled. Covered with seal impressions. II. Receipt of ku-mafi. 11585 Baked. Pale brown. U. Ri. C. broken off. 4.2 X 4 X 1.2. Inscr. 5 (O.) + 5 (R.) = 10 li. Not ruled. II. Receipt of ku-mafi. 3383 Baked. Light brown, blackened in places. Cracked. Two pieces joined. U. E. and U. L. E. broken off. Part of surface of R. chipped off. 3.8 X 3.1 X 1.2. Inscr. 6 (O.) + 6 (R.) = 12 li. Ruled. II. Receipt of ku-mah. 3391 Baked. Light brown. Fragmentary. 3.9 X 3.2 X 1.2. Inscr. 6 (O.) + 3 (R.) = 9 li. Ruled. II. Receipt of ku-mafi. 100 SUMERIAN DOCUMENTS, II. DYNASTY OF UR Text. Plate. King. 53 20 54 20 Bur-Sin 55 20 Bur-Sin 56 21 Dungi 57 22 Dungi 53 22 Bur-Sin 59 23 Bur-Sin 60 23 Bur-Sin 61 23 Gimil-Sin 62 23 Gimil-Sin Year. Month. Su-eS-kul Day. 15 C.B.M. 11581 9 3 11216 1 10765 53 11 30 (?) 11661 35 10 11185 9 1 1566 9 6 11203 9 4 3397 4 and 5 11255 1 4 23 11110 Description. Baked. Light brown. Cracked. Pieces fallen out. 4.1 X 3.5 X 0.9. Inscr. 6 (O.) + 1 (II.) = 7 li. Ruled. Traces of seal impressions on R. II. Receipt of ku-rnah. Baked. Dark brown. Well preserved, only small pieces of O. chipped off. 3.8 X 3.5 X 1.8. Inscr. 6 (O.) + 3 (R.) = 9 li. Ruled. II. Receipt of figs. Baked. Light brown. LL E. of O. broken away, and small pieces chipped off. 5.8 X 4.2 X 2. Inscr. 9 (O.) + 9 (R.) = 18 li. Ruled. III. Receipt of various objects. Baked. Reddish brown. Large pieces broken off. 9.8 X 6.8 X 2.3. Inscr. 17 (col. I) + 18 (col. II) + 13 (col. Ill) + 1 (col. IV) = 49 li. Writing partly effaced on R. Ruled. II. Account of grain paid out. Baked. Blackened reddish brown. Frag- mentary, badly preserved and crumbling. 10 X 4.9 X 2.6. Inscr. 16 (O.) + 10 (R.) = 26 li. Ruled. II. Account of grain received (?). Baked. Dark brown. Two pieces joined. Most of O. broken off. 7 X 4.3 X 1.8. Inscr. 6 (O.) + 9 (R.) + 1 (L. E.) = 16 li. Ruled. II. Receipt of grain received and paid out. Baked. Yellowish brown, blackened on O. Upper P. of O. broken off. Two pieces joined. 5.7 X 4.3 X 1.8. Inscr. 9 (O.) + 7 (R.) = 16 li. Ruled. II. Account of grain received. Baked. Pale brown. Two pieces joined. Small pieces chipped off on R. 3.5 X 3 X 1.3. Inscr. 4 (O.) + 3 (R.) = 7 li. Ruled. II. Statement in regard to grain at hand. Baked. Light brown, blackened. Frag- ment. 5 X 3.9 X 0.7. Inscr. 7 li. Ruled. II. “Account.” Baked. Dark brown. Pretty well pre- served. 5.4 X 4.5 X 1.3. Inscr. 6 (O.) + 5 (R.) = 11 li. Not ruled. Covered with seal impressions, which mar the FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 101 Text. Plate. King. Year. Month. Day 63 24 Gimil-Sin 1 10 64 24 Dungi 47 65 24 Gimil-Sin 10 66 24 67 25 6S 25 69 25 70 71 26 72 26 73 26 74 26 O.B.M. Description. writing. II. Account of chairs received and at hand. 11582 Baked. Light brown, darkened in places. Several pieces joined. Small pieces want- ing. 3.5 X 3.5 X 1.2. Inscr. 5 (O.) + 3 (R.) = 8 li. Not ruled. Covered with traces of seal impressions. II Statement of ku-rnah at hand. 11220 Baked. Yellowish brown. Varnished. Well preserved. 3.7 X 3.5 X 1.7. Inscr. 6 (0.1 + 5 (R.) = 11 li. Ruled. II. Account of grain. 11591 Baked. Darkened brown. Cracked. 3.4 X 3 X 1. Inscr. 4 (O.) + 1 (R.) = 5 li. Not ruled. Covered with seal impressions. II. Statement of ku-mah at hand. 11177 Baked. Dark brown. Fairly well preserved. Only U. P. of O. inscribed. 7.2 X 5.1 X 2.1. Inscr. 9 li. Ruled. 1. Shipload (?) of grain received. 11213 Baked. Reddish brown. Pieces chipped off. 4.4 X 4 X 1.7. Inscr. S (0.) + 6 (R.) = 14 li. Ruled. II. Account of grain. 11215 Baked. Dark gray. Fairly well preserved. 3.8 X 3.2 X 1.6. Inscr. 6 (O.) + 8 (R.) = 14 li. Ruled. II. Account of beans, etc. 11235 Baked. Brown. Fragment. 2.1 X 3.1 X I. 6. Inscr. 4 (O.) + 4 (R.) = 8 li. Ruled. II. Account. 10757 Baked. Dark brown. Only Lo. P. of tablet remaining. 4.7 X 5 X 1.9. Tnscr. 6 (O.) + 6 (R.) = 12 li. Ruled. III. Account of corn, its value seeming to be expressed in silver and lead (?). 11247 Baked. Reddish brown. Two large pieces joined. Broken, cracked and crumbling. 8 X 4.2 X 2.5. Inscr. 16 (O.) + 11 (R.) = 27 li. Ruled. II. Account of bronze. 11223 Baked. Blackened brown. Fragment. 2.5 X 4.5 X 1.2. Inscr. 4 li Ruled. II. Account. 11230 Baked. Blackened brown. Fragment. Crumbling. Varnished. 3.3 X 3.5 X 1.6. Inscr. 4 li. Ruled. II. Account of bronze received. 11206 Baked. Reddish brown. R. broken off. 5.5 X 4.3 X 1.1. Inscr. 9 li. Ruled. II. Account of bronze received. 102 SUMERIAN DOCUMENTS, II. DYNASTY OF UR Text. Pi, ate. King. Year. Month. Day 75 27 Gimil-Sin 7 4 76 28 29 78 30 79 31 Dungi 35 Se-kin-kud 8 80 32 Dungi 35 Se-kin-kud 81 32 Dungi 35 Se-kin-kud 82 32 Ibi-Sin 1 83 33 Dungi 37 84 34 Dungi 37 C.B.M. Description. 6064 Baked. Reddish brown, blackened in places. Pieces chipped off on R. 11.2 X 6.1 X 2.1. Inscr. 11 (0.) + 9 (R.) = 20 li. Unusually large signs, broad lines and heavy rulings. Nail marks. II. Account of fruit harvest. Phot. PI. IV. 11571 Baked. Dark brown. R. blackened. Lo. E. broken off. 10.3 X 6.3 X 2.7. Inscr. 15 (O.) + 15 (R.) + 2 (U. E.) + 2 (L. E.) = 34 li. Ruled. II. Inventory list. 11568 Baked. Dark brown. T\vo pieces joined. Cracked. 7.9 X 5 X 2.1. Inscr. 12 (O.) + • 9 (R.) = 21 li. Ruled. II. Inven- tory of the belongings of Sarrum-ili of the city of Basime. 11567 Baked. Dark brown. 8.5 X 5.8 X 2.4. Inscr. 12 (O.) + l (Lo. E.) F 7 (R.) = 20 li. Ruled. 3 lines on R. erased. Inventory. 3419 Baked . Light gray. Twc i pieces joined. 12.4 X 4.8 X 2.3. Inscr. 18 (0.) X 22 (R.) = 40 cattle. li. Ruled. IT. Account of / 11590 Baked. Black . U. Ri. C. broken off. 3.4 X 3.1 X 1.4. Inscr. 4 (0.) + 4 (R.) = 8 li. Not ruled. Covered with traces of seal impressions. Nail mark. II. Account of cattle. 5505 Case tablet. Baked. Blackish brown. Well preserved. 3.8 X 3.4 X 1.5. Inscr. 7 (O.) + S (R.) = 15 li. Ruled. II. Account of cattle. 3386 Baked. Dull brown. L. U. C. broken off. Pieces chipped off. 4.7 X 4.3 X 1.8. Inscr. 6 (O.) + 3 (R.) = 9 li. Ruled. IT. Account of cattle. 11181 Baked. Light brown, blackened. Cracked. Lo. E. of 0. broken off. Pieces of O. chipped off. Surface crumbling. 11X6 X 2.7. Inscr. 17 (col. I) + 18 (col. TI) + 7 (col. Ill) + 7 (col. IV) = 47 li. Ruled. II. Account of expenditures of grain for the sustenance of slaves, engaged in the tillage of certain fields. 11172 Baked. Blackish gray. Ri. U. C. broken off. Surface of O. damaged. 18.8 X 5.4 X 2.5. Inscr. 24 (col. T) + 24 (col. II) + 26 (col. Ill) + 19 (col. IV) LATE, 35 35 35 36 36 37 38 39 40 40 FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 103 King. Year. Month. Day. C.B.M. '■imil-Sin 7 7 1 11578 6 12 10760 11 ? 3409 Hmil-Sin 7 3 8 11664 11188 Gimil-Sin 7 11570 11148 11189 Gimil-Sin 8 Se-kin-[kud\ 11210 Ihi-Sin 1 6 3395 Description. = 93 li. Ruled. 1. Account oj grain for the sustenance nj workingmen. Baked. Grayish brown. Ri. U. C. of R. chipped off. 3.8 X 3.1 X 1.5. Inscr. 6 (O.) + 1 G>o. E.) + 6 (R.) = 13 li. Ruled. II. Account oj expenditures of grain. Baked. Blackish gray. L. Lo. C. broken off. 5.1 X 4.3 X 1.4. Tnscr. 8 (O.) + 8 (R.) = 16 li. Ruled. III. Accouyit of field expenditures. Baked. Light brown, darkened in places. Two pieces joined. Small pieces chipped off on R. 4.5 X 3.5 X 1.6. Inscr.fi (O.) + 7 (R.) = 13 li. Ruled. II. Account. Baked. Light brown, blackened on O. L. C. of R. broken off. 5.1 X 3.9 X 1.7. Inscr. S (O.) +8 (R.) + 2 (L. E.) = 18 li. Ruled. IT. Account of wages paid to workingmen. Baked. Reddish brown, blackened on surface. Fragmentary. R. and edges broken off. Crumbling. Varnished. 10.2 X 6.3 X 2.1. Inscr. 17 (col. I) + 10 (col. II) = 27 li. Ruled. II. Account of expenditures for the cultivation of fields. Baked. Dark brown. Ri Lo. C. of O. and Lo. P. of R. broken off. 10.5 X 4.7 X 2.1. Inscr. 16 (O.) + 13 (R.) + 2 (L. E.) = 31 li. Ruled. II. Account estimating the cost of cultivation of four fields. Baked. Reddish brown, blackened in places. Two pieces joined. U. P. and Lo. L. C. of R. broken off. 11.3 X 5.2 X 2.3. T nscr. 19 (O.) + 10 (R.) = 29 li. Ruled. I. Accounts of fields. Baked. Dark brown. U. P. of R. surface broken off. R. crumbling. 8.7 X 4.5 X 2. Inscr. 16 (O.) + 14 (R.) = 30 li. Ruled. II. Account of estimate in regard to the cultivation of fields. Baked. Light brown. Small pieces broken off. 4.6 X 4.2 X 1.6. Inscr. 6 (O.) + 8 (R.) + 3 (L. E.) = 17 li. Ruled. II. Account of expenditure of grain. Baked. Light brown. Pretty well pre- served. 4.2 X 3.7 X 1.7. Inscr. 6 (O.) 104 SUMERIAN DOCUMENTS, II. DYNASTY OF UR Text. Plate. King. Year. Month. Day 95 41 Bur-Sin 5 96 42 97 4.4 98 44 99 44 100 44,45 Dungi 41,44,45 Se-kin-kud 101 46 Dungi 47 102 46 C.B.M. Description. + 7 (R.) = 13 li. Ruled. II. Account of expenditures of grain. 10430 Baked. Reddish brown. Lo. Ri. C., L. E. and Lo. E. broken off. Pieces chipped off. 10.2 X 5.5 X 2. Inscr. 14 (O.) + 21 (R.) = 35 li. Ruled. III. Account of expenditures of corn. 11660 Baked. Light brown. Several pieces joined. U. E. broken off. Many cracks. Small pieces chipped off from surface. 10.5 X 7.8 X 2.4. Inscr. 22 (col. I) + 22 (col. II) + 22 (col. Ill) + 10 (col. IV) = 76 li. Ruled. II. List of officials and employees. 11569 Baked. Brown, darkened in places. Two pieces joined. 8.5 X 1.5 X 1.9. Inscr. 16 (O.) + S (R.) = 24 li. Ruled. II. Account of expenditures of corn. 11250 Baked. Reddish brown, blackened. Frag- mentary. 7.8 X 4.8 X 2.5. Inscr. 13 (O.) + 4 (II.) = 16 li. Ruled. II. .Account. 12631 Baked. Dark brown. U. P. broken off. Pieces chipped off. 5.7 X 4 X 2.4. Inscr. 9 (O.) + 8 (R.) = 17 li. Ruled. II. Account of silver. 11240 Baked. Grayish brown. L. Lo. C. broken off. 11 X 6 X 2.2. Inscr. 17 (col. I) + 20 (col. II) + 20 (col. Ill) + 31 (col. IV) + 2 (L. E. col. I) + 3 (L. E. col. II) = 94 li. Ruled. Writing on R. partly obliterated. II. Account of corn and wheat. 11242 Baked. Pale brown, blackened. Ri. U. C. of a large tablet. Three pieces joined. Originally three columns on each side, two remaining on O., of R. only Ri. E. 9.5 X 7.4 X 1.5. Inscr. 13 (col. I) + 22 (col. IT) + 24 (col. Ill) + 23 (col. IV) = 74 li. Ruled. IT. Account of corn and wheat. 11242 Baked. Pale brown, blackened. Fragment of large tablet . Enclosed in the same box and has the same catalogue number as No. 101, but does not belong to same tablet. 2.4 X 7 X 1.8. Inscr. 4 (col. I) + 6 (col. II) + 1 (col. Ill) + 3 (col. IV) = 14 li. Ruled. II. Account. FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 105 Text. Plate. King. 103 47 Dungi 104 48 Dungi 105 48 100 48 107 49 108 49 109 49 110 50 111 51 Dungi 112 51 Dungi 113 51 14 Year. Month. 39 39 7, 10 35(? 11 37 Day. C.B.M. 11241 11243 11207 11222 11244 11192 1 1245 11239 10+ (?) 3414 11249 3379 Descbiption. Baked. Reddish brown. Cracked and pieces broken away. 11.7 X 7.2 X 3.2. Inscr, 18 (col. I) + 18 (col. II) + 2 (col. Ill ) = 38 li. Ruled. II. Account of grain. Baked. Grayish brown. Three pieces joined. U. and L. E. broken off. 11 X 7.5 X 2.2. Inscr. 19 (col. I) + 19 (col. II) = 38 li. Rilled. II. Account of grain. Baked. Dark brown, blackened on R. Small pieces of surface chipped off. 4.3 X 3.3 X 1.9. Inscr. G (O.) + 2 (R.) = 8 li. Ruled. IT. Account of figs, dates, etc. Baked. Light brown. Well preserved. 3.2 X 3.1 X 1.5. Inscr. 4 (O.) + 1 (R.) = 5 li. Ruled. II. Account of fish oil. Baked. Reddish brown, blackened. Frag- ment of large tablet. Two pieces joined. 7.2 X 8.8 X 2.5. Inscr. 9 li. Writing small, but sharp and distinct. Ruled. II. Account of payments made to slaves. Baked. Reddish brown, darkened. Frag- ment of larger tablet. 5 X 7.3 X 2.2. Inscr. 8 (col. I) + 5 (col. II) = 13 li. Ruled. II. Pay-list. Baked. Reddish brown, blackened. Frag- ment of large tablet. 6.2 X 9.4 X 3.1. Inscr. 6 (col. I) + 14 (col. II) + 7 (col. Ill) = 27 li. Ruled. II. Pay-list. Baked. Reddish brown, blackened. Frag- ment of large tablet. Two pieces joined. Originally the tablet had 12 columns of writing. Only U. P. of R. remaining. 8.2 X 17.6 X 3.4. Inscr. 8 (col. VII. + 8 (col. VIII) + 9 (col. IX) + 1U (col. X) = 35 li. Ruled. II. Pay-list. Baked. Blackish yellow. U. L. C. and L. Lo. P. of R. broken off. 4.8 X 4 X I. 8. Inscr. 9 (O.) + 1 (Lo. E.) + 3 (R.) = 13 li. Ruled. II. Distributions to 8 men. Baked. Dark gray. Ri. side broken off. Pieces chipped off. Crumbling. 7 X 3.5 X 2. Inscr. 13 (O.) + 8 (R.) = 21 li. Writing on R. partly obliterated. Ruled, II. Account of grain oil. Baked. Dark gray, blackened in places. 106 SUMEIUAN DOCUMENTS, II. DYNASTY OI' U1I Text. lit 115 I Hi 1 17 1 IS 1 19 120 121 122 123 Plate. King Yeah. Month. Day. 52 Dungi 49 52 Dungi. 41 3 52 Gimil-Sin 4 7 53, 54 Gimil-Sin 7 1 54 55 55 56 50 C.B.M. Descbiption. Cracked. Pieces chipped off. 4.6 X 3.S X 1.6. Inscr. S (O.) + 2 (R.) = 10 li. Ruled. II. Account of corn. 11205 Baked. Pale brown, darkened. Cracked. Pieces chipped off. Crumbling. Var- nished. 6.8 X 4 X 2.2. Inscr. 13 (0.) X 6 (R.) = 19 li. Ruled. 11. Account. 11205 Raked. Reddish brown. Ri. Lo. C. and E. broken off. 4.4 X 4 X 2.1. Inscr. 8 (O.) + 5 (R.) = 13 li. Ruled. II. Account of expenditures of corn. 12592 Baked. Light brown. Well preserved. 5.5 X 4.4 X 1.8. Inscr. 10 (O.) X 12 (R.) = 22 li. Ruled. III. Account of expenditures of grain. 11659 Baked. Dark brown. U. and L. E. broken off. 12.5 > 7.5 X 2.4. Inscr. 11 (col. 1) + 21 (col. II) + 24 (col. Ill) + 12 (col. IV) = 59 li. Ruled. Writing partly effaced or broken off. II. Account of expenditures of corn and wheat. {One gur of wheat for porphyry stone for a couch for Nusku. 11217 Baked. Dark reddish brown. Well pre- served, only a small piece of surface chipped off. 3.5 X 3.3 X 2.8. Inscr. 7 (O.) + 3 (R.) = 10 li. Ruled. II. Account of expenditure of corn. 3401 Baked. Light brown, darkened in places. U. Ri. C. broken off. 4.5 X 3.8 X 1.6. Inscr. 5 (O.) -I- 6 (R.) =11 li. Ruled. II. Account of corn. 11895 Baked. Brown, darkened in places. Small pieces of surface chipped off. 4.7 X 3.8 X L7. Inscr. 8 (O.) + 6 (R.) = 14 li. Ruled. II. Account of expenditure of drink. 11246 Baked. Dark brown. Fragmentary. Three pieces joined. 8.4 X 5.3 X 2.5. Inscr. 15 (O.) + 6 (R.) = 21 li. Ruled. II. Account of expenditure of corn. 11208 Baked. Brown, blackened. Fragment. 5.3 X 5.2. Inscr. 8 li. Ruled. II. Account of expenditures of corn. 11195 Baked. Light brown, blackened. Frag- mentary. 5.5 X 3.7 X 1.9. Inscr. 9 (O.) + 7 (R.) = 16 li. Nail marks, Ruled, II. Pay-list. Text. 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 107 Plate. 56 56 57 58 58 59 59 59 60 60, 61 61 King. Year. Month. Bur- Sin 3 ? Gimil-Sin 7 5 Gimil-Sin 7 3 Gimil-Sin 7 7 Gimil-Sin 7 9 Gimil-Sin 8 Gimil-Sin 8 11 (New dates.) Bur-Sin 9 3 Day. C.B M. Description. 11580 Baked. Light brown. Ri. U. C. broken off. 3.5 X 3.5 X 1.5. Inscr. 5 (O.) + 5 (R.) = 10 li. Ruled. II. Account of expenditures. 12593 Baked. Reddish brown. 3.1 X 3.5 X 1.2. Inscr. 4 (O.) + 5 (R.) = 9 li. Ruled. III. Account of expenditure of sesam. 11577 Baked. Brown, blackened on R. U. and Lo. P. of O. chipped off. 7.8 X 3.8 X I. 8. Inscr. 13 (O.) + 16 (R.) + 1 (U. E.) + 1 (L. E) = 31 li. Ruled. II. Account of expenditures of A. TER and KU.KAL. 3387 Baked. Light brown, darkened. U. and Lo. P. broken off. 4.3 X 4.2 X 1.7 Inscr. 8 (0.) + 5 (R.) = 13 li. Ruled. II. Account of expenditures of grain. 3392 Baked. Black. 5.1 X 3.9 X 1.8. Inscr. 7 (O.) + 8 (R.) = 15 li. Ruled. Writing on R. partly illegible. II. Account of expenditure of grain. 3432 Baked. Light brown with black spots. Well preserved. 7.8 X 4.7 X 1.8. Inscr. 11 (O.) + 7 (R.) = 18 li. Ruled. II. Account of expenditures of grain. 3376 Baked. Reddish brown, darkened in places. 3.7 X 3.2 X 1.8. Inscr. 6 (O.) + 9 (R.) = 15 li. Ruled. II. Account of expend- itures of grain. 3410 Baked. Pale brown, blackened. Fragmentary, R. only remaining. 3.8 X 3.3 X 1.9. Inscr. 7 li. Ruled. II. Account of grain. Pay- ment of corn to Temple of Enlil. 11133 Baked. Brown. Fragmentary, only U. P. of O. remaining. 6.3 X 5.8 X 1.6. Inscr. 9 (O.) + 1 (R.) + 2 (L. E.) = 12 li, III. (Purchased by Dr. Haynes and said to come from Yoklia or Telloh.) Expen- ditures of flour , A. TER, etc., for temple offerings. 10160 Baked. Light brown. U. L. C. broken off. Small pieces chipped off. 7.2 X 4.9 X 1.8. Inscr. 12 (O.) + 10 (R.) = 22 li. Ruled. III. Account of expenditures of corn for temple offerings and stone for couches. 11204 Baked. Reddish brown. Well preserved. 4.4 X 3.8 X 1.7. Inscr. 8 (O.) + 7 (R.) = 15 li. Ruled. II. Account of expenditures of wool. 108 SUMERIAN DOCUMENTS, II. DYNASTY OF UR Text. 135 Plate. 62 King. (Uncertain date.) Yea r. Month. Day 9 136 63 Dungi 40 7 137 63 ? ? ? ? 138 63 139 63 140 64 Dungi 40 141 64 Dungi 40 142 64 Dungi 40 143 64 ? ? 144 65 C.B.M. Description. 10161 Baked. Reddish brown. Two pieces joined. Lo. P. broken and crumbling. 11.3 X 5.8 < 2.1. Inscr. 20 (O.) + 20 (R.) + 2 (Lo. E.) + 1 (L.E.) = 43 li. Ruled. III. Account of expenditures of corn. 11183 Baked. Pale brown, blackened. Crumbling. Varnished. 6.3 X 4.2 X 2.2. Inscr. 13 (O.) + 9 (R.) = 22 li. Ruled. II. Ac- count of expenditure of wool. 11182 Baked. Dark brown. Ri. E. and surface of R. broken off. 6.8 X 4.1 X 2. Inscr. 12 (O.) + 3 (R.) = 15 li. Ruled. Traces of date. II. Account of assignment of garments. 11232 Baked. Brown, blackened. Fragment. Crumbling. Varnished. 3.2 X 5 X 2.4. Inscr. 5 li. Ruled. II. Probably upper part of No. 139. Account of assignment of garments. 11194 Baked. Brown, blackened. Fragment. Crumbling. Varnished. 4.3 X 4.9 X 2.3. Inscr. 7 li. Ruled. II. Probably lower part of No. 138. Account of assignment of garments. 11199 Baked. Reddish brown, blackened. Broken and crumbling. Varnished. 4.4 X 3.8 X 1.7. Inscr. 9 (O.) + 3 (R.) = 12 li. Ruled. II. Account of assignment of garments. 11221 Baked. Brown, blackened. Ri. E. broken off. Crumbling. Varnished. 3.6 X 3.9 X 1.6. Inscr. 6 (O.) + 6 (R.) = 12 li. Ruled. II. Account of assignment of garments. 11201 Baked. Brown, blackened. Fragmentary. Crumbling. Varnished. 5.5 X 4.4 X 2.4. Inscr. 7 (O.) + 9 (R.) = 16 li. Ruled. II. Account of assignment of garments. 11225 Baked. Reddish brown. Ri. E. and most of R. broken off. 3.8 X 3.5 X 1.5. Inscr. 6 (O.) + 3 (R.) = 9 li. Ruled. Traces of date. II. Acknowledgment of garments received. 11186 Baked. Reddish brown. Fragmentary. Two pieces joined. U. P. wanting. 5.5 X 5.7 X 2.9. Inscr. 9 (O.l + 8 (R.) = 17 li. Ruled. II. Account of assignment of fields to a number of persons. PROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OP NTPPIJR. 109 Text. Plate. King. Yeah. Month. Day. 145 65 Gimil-Sin 7 146 65 147 65 14S 66 149 66 150 66 151 67 152 67 Gimil-Sin 7 153 67 Gimil-Sin 7 Se-kin-kud 154 67 155 67 C.B.M. Description. 11668 Baked. Dark gray. U. L. C. broken off. Surface crumbling. 3.7 X 3.9 X 1.2. Inscr. 5 (O.) 4- 3 (R.) = 8 li. Not ruled. Traces of seal impressions. II. Field, account. 3377 Baked. Yellowish brown with black spots. U. P. broken off . 4.7 X 3.7 X 1.8. Inscr. 7 (O.) + 8 (R.) = 15 li. Ruled. II. Account of assignment of vegetables. 3408 Baked. Reddish brown. Fragment. 4.3 X 4.2 X 1.8. Inscr. 7 (O.) + 1 (R.) = 8 li. Ruled. II. Account of assign- ment of corn to a. member of persons? 11187 Baked. Brown, blackened. IT. P. broken off. Cracked. Crumbling. 9.2 X 4.6 X 2.6. Inscr. 16 (O.) + 16 (R.) = 32 li. Ruled. II. Account of assign- ment. of grain , vegetables, etc., to a number of persons. 3405 Baked. Grayish brown. Fragmentary. L. E. broken away. 4.5 X 3.3 X 1.5. Inscr. 7 (O.) + 5 (R.) = 12 li. Ruled. II. Account of grain expended. 1 1 IDS Baked. Brown, blackened. Fragmentary. Crumbling. 6.2 X 3.9 X 1.8. Inscr. 7 li. Ruled. II. Account of cream. 11174 Baked. Dark brown, blackened. Frag- mentary. Middle P. of large tablet. 10 X 6.5 X 2. Inscr. 20 (col. I) + 20 (col. II) = 40 li. Ruled. Writing injured by small pieces chipped off. I. Account of silver, corn, etc., received and at hand. 3393 Baked. Reddish brown. Ri. E. broken off. 3.9 X 3.8 X 1. Inscr. 5 (O.) 4- 3 (R.) = 8 li. Not ruled. Covered with seal impressions. II. Account. 3380 Baked. Light brown, blackened in places. Pieces chipped off. 4.1 X 3.6 X 1.7. Inscr. 3 (O.) + 3 (R.) = 6 li. Ruled. II. Account of expenditures of grain. 11252 Baked. Reddish brown, blackened. Frag- ment. of larger tablet. Crumbling. 6.8 X 5.1 X 2.8. Inscr. 10 li. Ruled. II. Fragment of a literary document, written in the Ur period. 11136 Baked Reddish brown, darkened in places. 110 SUMERIAN DOCUMENTS, IT. DYNASTY OF UR Text. 156 157 1 58 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 16S Plate. King. Year. Month. Day. 68 Dungi 37 68 Dungi 39 68 Oi mil-Sin 2 Se-kin-kud 68 Se-kin-kud 25 69 69 69 69 5 16 69 70 70 70 70 Dungi 37 C.B.M. Description. R. broken off. 3 X 3.1 X 0.9. Inscr. 4 li. Ruled. II. Memorandum (?). 11258 Baked. Dark gray. Crumbling. 4.3 X 3.9 X 1 .6. Inscr. 5 (O.) + 6 (R.) = 11 li. Ruled. II. Receipt of corn. 11218 Baked. Blackish gray. Fragmentary. O., except E., broken off. 4 X 3.8 X 0.8. Inscr. 7 (O.) + 3 (R.) = 10 li. Ruled. II. Cannot be determined. 11584 Baked. Reddish brown. Fragmentary. Crumbling. Varnished. 3.8 X 3.5 X 1. Inscr. 4 (O.) + 3 (R.) = 7 li. Not ruled.. II. Can hardly be determined. 11669 Baked. Reddish brown. Fragmentary. U. L. C. broken off. 3.9 X 3.4 X 1.7. Inscr. 3 (O.) + 1 (R.) = 4 li. Ruled. II. Not to be determined. 11861 Baked. Yellowish brown, blackened in places. Small pieces chipped off. 7.5 X I. 8. Inscr. 10 (O.) + 2 (R.) = 12 li. Ruled. II. Account of copper. 11589 Baked. Brown, blackened. U. L. C. broken off. 1 X 3.6 X 1.5. Inscr. 6 (O.) + 3 (R.) = 9 li. Ruled. II. Account of distribution of straw to different persons during the same month. 3372 Baked. Brown. R. broken off. 3.9 X 3.6 1.1. Inscr. 3 li. Ruled. II. State- ment of the amount of wheat and corn at hand. 3390 Baked. Brown, darkened. Fragment. 4.7 X 3.6 X 1.9. Inscr. 6 li . Ruled. II. Account of corn. 11993 Baked. Brown, blackened. Fragment. 5 X 4.1 X 1.6. Inscr. 5 li. Ruled. II. Same account. 11190 Baked. Brown, blackened. Fragment of large tablet. 5 X 6 X 0.8. Inscr. 14 (col. I) + 11 (col. II) = 25 li. Ruled. II. Account of expenditure of grain, etc. 11209 Baked. Grayish brown. Fragment of larger tablet. 3.5 X 5 X 1.4. Inscr. 7 (col. I) + 7 (col. II) = 14 li. Ruled. II. Account of expenditure of grain , etc. 11231 Baked. Reddish brown, darkened in places. Fragmentary. 2.9 X 3 X 0.9. Inscr. 4(0.) + 1 (It.) = 5 li. Ruled. II- Account. 11219 Baked. Blackish gray. 0. broken off. FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. Ill Text. Plate. 1G9 70 170 70 171 70 Illustr. Plate. 1, 2 I 3, 4 I 5, 6 II 7. 8 II 9-12 III 15, 10 IV 17, 18 V 19, 20 V 21, 22 V 23, 24 VI 25, 26 VII 27, 28 VIII 29, 30 IX 31,32 IX 33, 34 X 35, 36 XI 37 XI 38 XII 39, 40 XII 41 XII King. Year. Month. Day. O.B.M. Description. 4 X 3.8 X LI. Inscr. 4 li. Ruled. II. Cannot be determined . 11236 Baked. Reddish brown, darkened. Frag- ment. Only Lo. E. remaining. 1.5 X 3.7 X 1.8. Inscr. 1 (O.) + 1 (R.) = 2 li. Ruled. II. Account of vegetables. 11418a Baked. Reddish brown, darkened. Frag- ment of larger tablet. 2.4 X 3.3 X 1.7. Inscr. 4 li. Ruled. I. Pay-list. 114181) Baked. Reddish brown, darkened. Frag- ment of a larger tablet. 2.3 X 2.3 X 0.9. Inscr. 4 li. Ruled. 1. Account. 2. Halftone Reproductions. Content. C.B.M. Description. O. and R. of a document of court proceedings in regard to a slave. See translation No. I. O. and II. of a document of court proceedings. See translation No. II. O. and R. of a bond in regard to corn. See translation IV. O. and R. of a promissory note in regard to silver. See translation No. VI. Case of above. O. and R. of a document in regard to the pur- chase of a palm grove. See translation No. VII. O. and R. of a document in regard to a loan of grain. See translation No. XIII. O. and R. of a receipt of silver. O. and R. of a case or envelope in which origin- ally was enclosed a receipt of grain. O. and R. of an account of a fruit harvest. See translation No. XV. O. and R. of an inventory list. O. and R. of an account of cattle. See trans- lation No. XVII. 0. and R. of an account of the cost for the til- lage of some fields. See translation No. XIX. O. and R. of an account. 0. and R. of a list of officials and employes. O. and R. of an account of com and wheat. Fragment of an account of payments made to a large number of slaves. It. of a pay-list. O. and R. of an account of the expenditure of drink. See translation No. XX. Fragment of an account of temple offerings. See translation No. XXII. 11176 See description of tablet No. 1. 11574 See description of tablet No. 2. 11572 See description of tablet No. 7. 3593 See description of tablet No. 13. 3593 See description of tablet No. 13. 5136 See description of tablet No. 14. 3378 See description of tablet No. 23. 10240 See description of tablet No. 29. 11248 See description of tablet No. 32. 6064 See description of tablet No. 75. 11571 See description of tablet No. 76. 3419 See description of tablet No. 79. 11189 See description of tablet No. 92. 10757 See description of tablet No. 70. 11660 See description of tablet No. 96. 11240 See description of tablet No. 100. 11244 See description of tablet No. 107. 11239 See description of tablet No. 110. 11895 See description of tablet No. 120. 11133 See description of tablet No. 132. XII NUMBERS OF THE CATALOGUE OF THE BABYLONIAN MUSEUM. C.B.M. Text. Plate. C.B.M. Text. Plate. C.B.M. Text. Plate 3372 162 69 3432 129 59 1 1 184 114 52 3373 48 18 3593 13 6, 7 11185 57 22 3374 47 18 5136 14 8 1 1 186 144 65 3376 130 59 551 15 81 32 11187 148 66 3377 146 65 6064 75 27 11188 89 36 3378 23 12 10156 11 5 11189 92 39 3379 113 51 10160 133 60 11190 165 70 3380 153 67 10161 135 62 11192 108 49 3383 51 19 10230 46 18 11193 45 17 3386 82 32 10240 29 13 11194 139 63 3387 127 58 10242 42 17 11195 123 56 3388 49 19 10253 36 15 11197 20 10 3389 35 15 10256 40 16 11198 150 66 3390 163 69 10424 41 16 11199 140 64 3391 52 20 10430 95 41 11201 142 64 3392 128 58 10439 30 13 1 1203 59 20 3393 152 67 10480 4 3 11204 134 61 3394 27 13 10492 12 5 1 1205 115 52 3395 94 40 10757 70 25 11206 74 26 3397 60 23 10760 86 35 1 1207 105 48 3398 26 12 10765 55 20 11208 122 56 3399 39 16 10776 15 9 1 1209 166 70 3400 28 13 10932 19 10 11210 93 40 3401 119 55 11110 62 23 11212 31 14 3403 10 4 11133 132 60 11213 67 25 3405 149 66 11136 155 67 11214 43 17 3408 147 65 11148 91 38 11215 68 25 3409 87 35 11172 84 34 1 1216 54 20 3410 131 59 11174 151 67 11217 118 54 3411 18 10 11176 1 1 1 1218 157 08 3412 9 4 11177 66 24 11219 168 70 3414 111 51 11181 83 33 1 1220 64 24 3419 79 31 11182 137 63 11221 141 . 64 3422 22 11 11183 136 63 11222 106 48 [ M2] FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES OF NIPPUR. 113 C.B.M. Text. Plate. C.B.M. Text Plate. C.B.M. Text. Plate. 11223 72 26 11256 33 14 11585 50 19 11224 0 3 11258 156 68 11586 44 17 11225 143 64 11259 34 14 1 1587 25 12 11230 73 26 11407 5 3 11589 161 69 11231 167 70 11418 170 70 11590 80 32 11232 138 63 11566 58 22 11591 65 24 11235 69 25 11567 78 30 11659 117 53, 54 11236 169 70 1 1568 77 29 11660 96 42 11239 110 50 11569 97 43 11661 56 21 11240 100 45 1 1570 90 37 11664 88 36 11241 103 47 11571 76 ' 82 11665 17 9 11242 101, 102 16 1 1572 7 4 11667 37 15 11243 104 48 1 1574 2 2 11668 145 65 11244 107 49 11575 21 11 11861 160 69 11245 109 49 11577 126 57 11895 120 55 11246 121 55 11578 85 35 11993 164 69 11247 71 26 1 1579 24 12 12575 16 9 11248 32 14 11580 124 56 12576 3 3 11249 112 51 11581 53 20 12577 8 4 11250 98 43 11582 63 24 12592 116 52 11252 154 67 11583 38 16 12593 125 56 11255 61 23 11584 158 68 12631 99 44 Tablets Arranged According to Kings. 1 Dungi: Nos. 7, 14, 17, 22, 23, 24, 30, 34, 44, 46, 56, 57, 64, 79, 80, 81, 83, 84, 100, 101, 103, 104, 111, 112, 114, 115, 136, 140, 141, 142, 156, 157, 168. Bur-Sin: Nos. 3, 4, 8, 11, 15, 18, 29, 32, 33, 35, 36, 40, 41, 42, 45-, 47, 54, 55, 58, 59, 60, 95, 124, 134. Gimil-Sin: Nos. 1, 2, 9, 13, 21, 25, 37, 38, 48, 49, 61, 62, 63, 65, 75, 85, 88, 90, 93, 116, 117, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 145, 152, 153, 158. Ibi-Sin: Nos. 16, 39, 51, 82, 94. 1 Cf. Dutes, Chapter V, and Description of Tablets, Chapter XI. 15 LIST OF CUNEIFORM SIGNS. II. Dyn. of Ur Assyrian Phonetic Values V- )> — CLA- ^ (VYUyWu. ^ (oMAj y 4^ 173 : 9 ,$. — AvcJL ^tr CjUu o^uy uu r- pc Hf CWu ( cliyvu|I/u- >^4 4L Mt; >■# Ovuu_ Fm>a-=^ B^FFK r ^ cJVci/n/vL(x_ m r- lYvxAxrv^. AYUX/VU- OW^CU, UA. AM. / | UA- w CUM if- ylrCUU- ^ fKYVCuf % m'-'Ou cf/£UL Ua-^um- Sm, Ao. ^1. m AOyvu- J2/VU ^ v '-V(XavUa- 116 37 R4 / 1/ (Yvux/x. 3s. ^ ppr Mjuu C|aXu_ Mo. ppT ^/Vvvuvvvyi.ou, ^1. )>^p^— pflv- Should n >L 43. Kfe r- to. HT^ 3i- ( S^J 4J. w rvuxAw™ ^ ?x ^TT / rwux^. 47. ^ PV= \ &MA- 48. ^fff— f t m- rruvA\_^ 41. fc= t 4"0lJr Jo. tt= + Oon/vw. i - o /VUA/WU , Tj- ^IL- ( />muL--- avdr (h(xXy /^CL^Vvu-) Inx, , Aju. JVo. Hi, 3*^, Alw- JV3. 115. vttu ( Aju JVo US'. (ju{i cL) Mi CX/Wi— cyaju * /ylXX $ /juL + oJL AjJr 4sr dvwv- >tfr OUA_ PF ^Vvu(x/u — lAmu / ( Yvux - *airv U/VVL + fl'YUL. JUaL ^J/o. 3i + 3 L fYm_ A- Ij'cu- h-tt-J/5 1 / \S &A ( vuvwl 8 ' 3 . M W\ \ cu trm C|/(U / (you- dx_ >W K . / AiU’/imuv ( MioI)U(y W\ v^ A/cl- ,H-^U PRR lr(Vu no % loo. 101 . f Y' / Au. + (u~ JL- m Wu mm (L qr? / U_ AX< ^c- /|va_ i ^ 1 %. aaAt M7. ^ \c OU (C^CUJ M». cfxc- ^ Jwk^~ ^ Vp ^F miy t 30 X- '*• fe>- AA_ 9 cK sriEji' ' ^>n, i ■ ^ ^ yE=[ 8o:6- : i% . ISi. ^ l4 Y~ m. — < £< (Wf* 0|A-A_ ❖ 4 (JLtuoj/' 1 \}V & m. dxCo^ w. ^ i.Tf XyC' wt - ^ ( \\ L. ,n 4l ±L- K* ^ VC \ 4^ /icaywu— xCCC^ 44 • / I/wl- ( /Vu_ %0. XfjH >~^=f H} /lco4_ 1 a. #= JUL $$>* s $kx- >A4/Wv, ■m m m. Hi. <^> HV 115 , 4 ( 115. x< m f\M — y^V (X/ < AX- ( Xu(c|/) ( Ai(9 (^ air ^ M (YXA/YY^-- i AXUayw • -4X OwX- f . i£>3: fr C|XAmxL~ fr 4^ juX ( dxL v" Ajx^ya/n — -4 frw oav- OC w. -<^T iuyjiA-. itlr in. m *gr cmb ) A Mau- 4- 111 — • . v< bo^‘ 1 Ax- 2,oo. a/u_ 2,oj. <5p^ v''” A/Cucj/ 3,0%. 4-^1 4|ff /|^a(cL) 4^1 502, iUj^ -+- CjXXA-, m. Ll. + \uL *b-" Z°S. 4-^r v v _. M, A.CL- cl, A/i 1 ' 20 AA-loyvvu-- m ' 4£i ao v.4-® 4->c4 \ v<_ ^A--' ( a»». ii 'ituX- fKu/w\_ . 60 . ao«j. i 4 - /(cutl. 2 , 10 . ^ $L dx/m. A ( AiA~-- ( ^ul, ^Xa/v\>w^- Xrtu Axa— i (X/wu(xA,_ ImA— i • . t/v''' Aaauaau. #1 AyaA_ 4# / (JM/L- $ AxAr $*=fc A>u|/ A v^ Aju Ill ^ JeeT hsi,,^. 4 ^ : a. . Hi,: SL y «£. St w-, eXc lit-: 1 / 131 v^ f'VVOAA. Lm^- /MO' yftC- ( /f-u|A-) -1 : 11. /ftA— ^ » /UL- JL + Xl J&W- aXWi^ AAA. U V“ /Vvu )u- A&A Aax^. t 1 tr w-.i f V u- /Wta- fW\Ju ( Tuir ■* m 7 - *- lmA_ 3». ^CAA/Vl- '3°3. fc^r (aM/Wvll- t soi PfY ^A'vvi-a.'TAyvuou- SoS'. ^ Try C|/aA_ t fYouy 3<*. T 3<>i. 7HI: 3S 3^,3^) ^ 0 & a AJl_ Sol Jb^ tffc. iStK= UA_ 3ii. jcq- AAA- / jg/iA/vu- 311. 515 TEA fi3T /{lr %)i-\ a® nrvuA_ Am.ro. ss i 315. y y~ IL laJL 1 3lfc. \^> rs XoX- + /wiL 3H. H§3 A 6 _aA— 137 11 : - 4 = 12 ,. XIV. SYSTEM OF TRANSCRIPTION OF CUNEIFORM SIGNS. A CL \ Qs CX- - cu ad- air dir act- n / aX (?) aX aivm- CWvu- / CX/vw- ^st ^=T CWrux- (Hi a/WUXA_ (Vvu flX/yu OA- OAXUM- V'' owl / w OA (Xgoujj/ Am B. irou ircX'd— ^ XXL XaX IrOAAUA IraA- £j— ira/L X_ Xu Xd XX XX u. U4. ^> teW MW NW 4*- iA- D. dcu cT^oX rhSf 7 « daX da/wu tfcl ota/u M dw_ id Xu ^Tf oUT du^- cUL cAaa, — cUL ciu/tr dJ rU £T cLmx)/ du(c (Ut ' ^ -'Wnxu- cLu/n & I. / Jt- \ IT 4 J^t/Wi/U- jiAaa^- zL i/H- iN 31 H/n-cuVL- ^ — -~-f £/VW>|M/U- JIA _£Aa/w- Myd/ V/ J2A 4< ^ H3T" G. CL/Q — f \ air od/ " ' Ly ife? 4ccxX^ / ro^u AcaXojy {t^f j luxio^ X /VjXjyv^- hmv •W- ^ /lAvu- /fox/i — h/K- i^f}^ Ac^u- cWnA/mva- AA- k*JC (frf T ( < w UdAr Kif ijipr ki\jvv^i. 44S[ Aou aAu gf /tout #1 i aX 4~ MaL Jlf Y ix „ /tcvvvu- AcCl^ U^{Y) xf /Icum- Aoa^(?) xt- n /Aou/u- ^ ArX/L- yXf /tcwu- /icuA_ Ml L r A 'CU IaL 1/CUj/ Axci/Cilr n LX- f~ m IX r i /YYVOu / /YWOU \ f Wvc )u U. L,-+ Au & IaJi Aaa^ Xu.Au XuA/ Iwwv- 4B= M. -6 /yvucu (YvCks fYvudy h: Aua/u 9f- (YY\A\As X / V/ fYWiVV. 'WUU- / "VVTJl/ 'YVlAA— / vrut- / 'YVUV \ 'YWAA^ T- XX XX :T O'YOA- O'VUMy /yvuJL 'Ywuav- /Ywwu 'Wua^ 'YyiWu- \/ OdoaaA^ V/ 'WiuAs^u Hit N. YUL- V ovajr 'Vux^i-) 'VUX^/ 'Tutyui- ^4-< 'VUWvu. Oau^u|A- JWuvv^ / V\JL_ •Yua_ > 5 ® 'Yw / 'YU- ' Vu ( c |') Yo<|aav- . / mju^vvu- . \ (Yu,q^/v^ 'Yu / vw- 'Yu/w- ttT ^>>< -|wi|v '4 Jt- lu. -<^— /|uaa_ 1. rvuAcu =* Aiy(-j AJupu Ai-X w aA je^t /iu^vw) ^ — ■<, — A 146 Ay- Awvu Aa. A(4) £^>4. Ay) ^r Ay) u. u. / U- \ U- u. AA_ A AA- aaIt u4_ u(cL) 4 \ A wy Mz il + C|UA_ \k\\Ms \S UtIguA AaJL Aa/vvu 'tT' /U/vw + 'Taj - H 'y i.*"- 4am_ fcW U/Vbu{y) m AA/VLu^y) 4A/vut[y) <^y) lA/vu^y) 4W 4A_ / UA- \ /UA_ UA- K[Mt UA_ ^SEf A UA- U UA/ UAAA- pt \ UAm- UAXu a ) AaAA/L- UAuJtu- srr UAOA. UA. AAAj >j^S- Y. r TF ( 4 z. ^cu Tf 5oy iP' 3^ 3-5- % ^Jr ^ 3My) 3*3 3A*- ^ CUNEIFORM TENTS PL 1 2 Pl. 2 1 m PL 3 11 PI. 5 Tablet. Case. PL 6 13 Case. PL 7 PL 8 o PI 9 10 PL 10 20 o. 5 f % Mf pFT^ IFl 21 22 Tablet. PL 11 PL 12 25 PL U 31 32 35 36 Pl. 15 38 Continued Pl. 17 46 PI 18 PI. 19 Pl. 20 52 Continued R. R. R. 55 54 0 . o. R. 5 Col- 1 . Col. II. Col. IV. Col. III. Pl. 21 o vf- ^ 3 - SB C) >«•< *0 59 61 PL 23 60 °- PL 2U R. a Wit PI 25 PL 26 PI 27 © Pl. 29 77 Pl. 30 78 Erasure. PI. 31 o PI. 32 80 82 15 PL 33 co oo xa Col. I. Col. II. Col. IV. Col. III. PI. 3 A *<5 Q> © 85 PL 35 Horizontal wedge mistake of scribe. PL 36 L. E. 89 20 PL 37 © PL 38 o PL 39 92 0. 15 R. 20 io ■ ■ ^wMumi 25 93 PL AO PL 41 l-O Oi o Pl. 43 99 PL 44 ' PL 45 WO Continued Col. IV. Col. III. L. E. PI 46 © o © o © o PI J,7 104 PL 48 107 PI A9 o—o Erasure, 10 Col. X. Col. IX. Col. VIII. Col. VII. Pl. 50 Ill PL 51 m PL 52 Continued 0. 5 10 116 y- W IT Pl. 53 5 121 PL 56 PL 57 L. E. Wl- < ) 127 Pl. 58 15 129 130 PI 59 PL 60 132 PL 61 Continued PL 62 <0 CO Ki *3 o 5 10 15 20 5 136 137 PL 63 HO 142 PL 6 A 144 145 PI. 65 JL. 5 10 15 20 25 30 148 149 PL 66 Pl. 67 PL 68 158 165 168 Pl. 70 PL. I 1. OBVERSE 2. REVERSE 3. OBVERSE 4 REVERSE 1, 2 , COURT PROCEEDINGS IN REGARD TO A SLAVE. 3, 4. COURT PROCEEDINGS IN REGARD TO AN OFFICE. PL. II 7 OBVERSE 8. REVERSE 5, 6. A BOND IN REGARD TO THE PAYMENT OF CORN. 7, 8. A PROMISSORY NOTE IN REGARD TO SILVER. PL. Ill 9 OBVERSE lO. REVERSE 9-14. CASE OR ENVELOPE OF PRECEDING TABLET (PL. II. 7. 8). PL. IV 15, 16. PURCHASE OF A PALM GROVE. 17 OBVERSE 18 REVERSE 19. OBVERSE 21. OBVERSE 20. REVERSE 22. REVERSE 17, 18o ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF A LOAN OF CORN. 19, 20. RECEIPT FOR SILVER. 21, 22. CASE OR ENVELOPE, IN WH I CH ORIGINALLY HAD BEEN ENCLOSED A RECEIPT FOR CORN. PL. VI 23,24. ACCOUNT OF DATE HARVEST. PL. VII 25,26. INVENTORY LIST. PL. VIII 28 REVERSE 2 7 . OBVERSE 27,28. A “ ROUND-UP” OF CATTLE PL. IX 29 . OBVERSE 30 REVERSE 31. OBVERSE 32. REVERSE 29, 30. ESTIMATE OF COST FOR TILLING A CERTAIN NUMBER OF FIELDS. 31, 32. ACCOUNT OF CORN, GIVING VALUE IN SILVER AND LEAD. 33. OBVERSE 34 - reverse PL. X 33, 34. LIST OF OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYES. •• c PL. XI 35. OBVERSE 36. REVERSE 35, 36. SUMMARY ACCOUNT OF CORN AND WHEAT, 37. FRAGMENT OF A PAY LIST. REVERSE PL. XII I THE BABYLONIAN EXPEDITION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA EDITED BY R. V. RUprecbt. The following volumes have been published or are in press : Series H, Cuneiform Ccxts : Vol. Is Old Babylonian Inscriptions, chiefly from Nippur, by H. Y. Hilprecht. Part 1, 1893, $5.00 (out of' print). Part 2, 1896, $5.00. Vol. Ill: Sumerian Administrative Documents from the Time of the Second Dynasty of Ur. Part 1, from the Nippur Collections in Philadelphia, by David W. Mykrman, 1910, $6.00. Part 2, from the Nippur Collections in Constantinople, by P. Engelbert Huber (ready for press). Vol. VI: Babylonian Legal and Business Documents from the Time of the First Dynasty of Babylon. Part 1, chiefly from Sippar, by H. Ranke, 1906, $6.00. Part 2, chiefly from Nippur , by Arno Poebel, 1909, $6.00. Vol. VIII: Legal and Commercial Transactions, dated in the Assyrian, Neo-Babylonian and Persian Periods. Part 1, chiefly from Nippur, by A. T. Clay, 1908, $6.00. Vol. IX: Business Documents of MurashA Sons of Nippur, dated in the Reign of Artaxerxes I, by H V. Hilprecht and A. T. Clay, 1898, $6.00. Vol. X: Business Documents of MurashA Sons of Nippur, dated in the Reign of Darius II, by A. T. Clay, 1904. $6.00. Vol. XIV: Documents from the Temple Archives of Nippur, dated in the Reigns of Cassite Rulers, with complete dates, by A. T Clay, 1906, $6.00. Vol. XV: Documents from the Temple Archives of Nippur, dated in the Reigns of Cassite Rulers, with incom- plete dates, by A. T. Clay, 1906, $6.00. Vol. XVII: Letters to Cassite Kings from the Temple Archives of Nippur. Part 1, by Hugo Radau, 1908, $6.00. Vol. XIX: Model Texts and Exercises from the Temple School of Nippur. Part 1, by H. V. Hilprecht (in press). Vol. XX: Mathematical, Metrological and Chronological Texts from the Temple Library of Nippur. Part 1, by H. V. Hilprecht, 1906, $5.00. Vol. XXVIII: Sumerian Hymns and Prayers to Enlil from the Temple Library of Nippur. Part 1, by Hugo Radau (in press). Vol. XXIX: Sumerian Hymns and Prayers to NIN=IB from the Temple Library of Nippur. Part 1, by Hugo Radau (in press). Vol. XXX: Sumerian Hymns and Prayers to TamAz from the Temple Library of Nippur. Part 1, by Hugo Radau (in press). Berks D, Researches and Creatises : Vol. Is The Excavations in Assyria and Babylonia (with 120 illustrations and 2 maps), by H. V. Hilprecht, 7th editioh, 1904, $2.50. Note: Entirely revised German and French editions are in the course of preparation. The first part of the German edition (bis sum Auftreten Be Sarzecs) appeared in December, 1904 (J. C. Hinrichs, Leipzig: A. J. Holman & Co., Philadelphia, Pa., sole agents for America). Price 4 Mark in paper covers, 5 Mark in cloth. Vol. Ill: Early Babylonian Personal Names from the published Tablets of the so-called Hammurabi Dynasty, by H. Ranke, 1905, $2.00. Vol. IV: A New Boundary Stone of Nebuchadrezzar 1 from Nippur (with 16 halftone illustrations and 36 drawings), by William J. Hinke, 1907, $3.50. Vol. V: Fragments of Epical Literature from the Temple Library of Nippur. Fasciculus t, The Oldest Version of the Babylonian Deluge Story and the Temple Library of Nippur, by H. V. Hilprecht, $0.75. Fasciculus 2, NIN-IB, the Determiner of Fates, according to the great Sumerian Epic, “ Lugale ug melambi nergal,” by Hugo Radau (in press). (other volumes will be announced latek.) All orders for these books to be addressed to THE MUSEUM OF ARCHAEOLOGY, University of Pennsylvania, SOLE AGENT FOR EUROPE : PHILADELPHIA, PA. Rudolf Merkel, Erlangen, Germany. . /