CHIEFLY FROM NIPPUR. 29 



Bel, his beloved lord, Gande has presented it." But who was this Gande who left 

 his name on a number of marble vases, 1 on a large unhewn block of white marble, 

 on two others of reddish granite and on the edge of two door sockets belonging to 

 former Babylonian kings? A due consideration of the following points will enable 

 us to answer the question. 



1. The short inscription of Gande just translated is written not only on his own 

 monuments by this king, but is also found ou the rough edges of a door socket of 

 Sargon I, and another of Bur-Sin II. Hence it follows, that Gande must have lived 

 after their time, i. e., after c. 2400 B. C. 



2. On the other hand, it follows from the depth of the place in which the stones 

 were found and also from the peculiar characters of the inscriptions (see below), that 

 Gande could not have ruled after Mili-Shikhu, or, as the immediate seven or eight 

 predecessors of the latter are known, not after c. 1240 B. C. 



3. It is remarkable that Gande by two of his inscriptions characterizes door 

 sockets which had previously been presented to the temple as his own gifts. It is 

 in itself clear that these inscriptions cannot be regarded in the sense of inventory 

 labels, as they are sometimes found in connection with Egyptian antiquities. Only 

 one explanation seems possible, namely, that Gande was not a native king, but 

 invaded and conquered Babylonia and regarded the property of the temple in Nippur 

 as his legitimate spoil. As however he, with his victorious hordes, did not leave the 

 subjected country again, but usurped the Babylonian throne, thereby becoming the 

 founder of a new dynasty, the conquered cities and temples became part of his new 

 empire, to which he now restored the trophies of his victory as his own personal gifts. 

 Had he left Babylonia, he certainly would have carried away the treasures of the 

 temple as spoil to his own country, just as Alusharshid and Naram-Sin did, after 

 they had conquered Elam and Magan, or Nebuchadrezzar I, alter the destruction of 

 Jerusalem. 



4. This explanation of Gande is supported by the character of his inscribed 

 objects and by the peculiarity of their cuneiform writing. All his inscriptions are 

 carelessly executed and are engraved very shallowly ; indeed, those on the door 

 sockets and large blocks are only scratched in the unhewn stone. Besides, the char- 

 acters employed violate the laws which underlie the regular development of the 

 Babylonian cuneiform writing. They appear to have been cut by men unaccustomed 

 to use the chisel in writing, who, it is plain, had adopted the Babylonian 

 system of writing, even endeavoring to imitate the characters of a certain 

 period, 2 but who were neither familiar with their original meaning, nor with the 



1 Cf. Vol. I, Part 2. 



2 Cf. e. g the characters of the inscriptions of Ur-Nina, cle Sarzec, Decouvertes, PI. 31, No. 1. 



