CHIEFLY FROM NIPPUR. 



41 



of Sayce, that line 17 contains the name of the second king of the Pashe dynasty, seems 

 to me improbable, since the same Elamite king-, Kidm-KJiutrutasJi, 1 who already had 

 attacked Akkad in the time of Belshumiddina, is again the assailant in this passage. 

 If Sayce were right, this Elamite would have made his second incursion into Akkad 

 about twenty years after the first. This in itself is possible, but it is made less proba- 

 ble by the expression " Rammanu-shum-iddina returned," which apparently connects 

 this section closely to that which precedes. Besides it will be noticed that Ramma- 

 nu-shum-iddina does not bear the title of king, as Belshumiddina. It seems more 

 probable, therefore, to see in Rammanu-shum-iddina, the unfortunate son (or possi- 

 bly another relative) of Belshumiddina, who " returned " from the place to which 

 Belshumiddina or his family had fled, in order to take possession of the throne as 

 his lawful inheritance. 



This leads me to the discussion of the reasons for regarding Nebuchadrezzar I 

 as the founder of the Pashe dynasty. 



1. It needs no proof that at a time when a country is harried by a powerful 

 enemy, 2 and a descendant of illustrious ancestors puts forward claims to the crown, 

 which are based on historic rights, a usurper who is to found a new dynasty must 

 distinguish himself by eminent courage and ability. Such an able ruler, who, 

 according to our present knowledge, surpassed in preeminence all the other kings of 

 his dynasty, Nebuchadrezzar I is certified to have been. He conducted successfully 

 the wars against Elam, the hereditary enemy of Babylon in the East, turned his arms 

 victoriously against the North by "casting down the mighty Lulubsean," and 

 marched, as no other Babylonian king for centuries had ventured, conquering into Syria. 



2. It is worthy of notice that both the documents bearing his name are written in 

 connection with his successful conflict with Elam. His wars with this country, 

 therefore, must have been especially important, perilous and of long duration. 3 Since 

 we have learned from Pinches' recent publication of the Babylonian Chronicle (col. 

 IV, 1. 14-22) that the Elamites took advantage of the weakness of the last Cassite 

 king to devastate Northern and Southern Babylonia, the campaigns of Nebuchadrez- 

 zar I against Elam become of especial significance. As a usurper he manifestly 

 was able to hold his position only by rendering the Elamites harmless and by 

 defeating them on their own soil, thus " avenging Akkad," 4 and restoring quiet and 

 peace to his own country. 



1 This and not Ehutru ana or EJmtrudish (Pinches, I. c, pp. 111-113) is the probable reading. For the value task 

 of the character in question see Hilprecht in Z. A. VII, pp. 309, 310, 314. .The name means "subject (servant) of the 

 god Khutrutash " (cf. god Maiutash). 



2 R. P. 2 , Vol. V, pp. Ill seq. 



3 Winckler, Oesch., p. 96. 



4 Hilprecht, Freibrief, col. I, 13. 



A. P. S. — VOL. XVTIL F. 



