66 THEO. G. riNCHES : ON CERTAIN INSCRIPTIONS AND RECORDS 



really took place, treated poetically), there must have been 

 a severe thunderstorm, when " the gods flashed like lightning 

 and shook the (holy) places." so much so that the enemy 

 moved by superstitious fears, did not caiTy out his intention 

 of carrying away the crowns of the statue of the god. He 

 seems, however, to have taken and retained possession of 

 the place. 



The reverse seems to state why all these misfortunes 

 came, and what further happened. It was because they 

 accepted a foreign ruler (so it would seem from line 2) ; 

 because there was denial of righteousness or justice (line 6), 

 upon which the Babylonians set great store ; because the 

 sabara repeated evil (words) — the winged bulls of Bel came 

 down, causing " storm and evil wind." The house of the 

 host of heaven, '• the temple of the multitude of the gods " 

 (1. 7), apparently in Babylon, was destroyed, and the Elamite 

 plundered it; the barrier of the shrine of E-anna (probably 

 the temple of Nana at Erech) was broken down, and the 

 platform shaken (16 and 17), it is to be supposed by some 

 convulsion of nature. 



This is followed by the reference to Chedorlaomer and 

 the Umman-manda, whom he seems to have led when 

 invading Sumer or Shinar (lines 18-23 of the reverse).^ 



The next paragraph or stanza has a reference to E-zida> 

 the great temple-tower of Borsippa, the enclosure of which 

 was broken through. At this time Ine-Tutu, probably a 

 patesi or viceroy of this district, fled to Tiamtu, the region 

 of the Persian Gulf, where he founded a temporary capital 

 (lines 24-29). The invader thereupon seems to have pro- 

 ceeded to Borsippa, and afterwards took the road to the 

 north, to Mesech, probably the region north of Babylonia, 

 unless we are to read, with Prof. Sayce, Siskis, " To 

 Sheshach " or Babylon, as already stated. 



It is noteworthy that, in the reference to E-anna (reverse, 

 1. 16), there is no mention of the carrying away of the image 

 of the goddess Nana by Kudur-Nanhundi. The date given 

 by Assur-bani-fipli for the invasion of Akkad (Babylonia) by 

 this ruler is 1635 or 1535 years before his own time, that is, 

 about 2280 or 2180 B.C. Now the date of Hammurabi, who 

 was a contemporary of Chedorlaomer, was ;>bout 2220 B.C., 

 so that we ought probably to regard the earlier of Assur- 

 bani-apli's two dates for Kudur-Nanhundi's inroad as being 

 the more correct. 



In the foregoing pages, I have treated of the three texts 



