CHIEFLY FROM NIPPUR. 23 



tions, his immediate successor, ISTaram-Sin, styles himself shar hibrat arba'i, and 

 Alusharshid and MA-A1S"-ISH-TU"-SU J even shar Kislisliatu? This question is 

 closely connected with the other, "What do the last two titles mean ? It is impossible 

 for me to enter here into as full a discussion of this question as its importance de- 

 mands. I therefore content myself for the present with giving the results of my 

 investigations. As I am now considering the meaning of these titles in the earliest 

 times only, I naturally exclude their use with the later Babylonian and with the 

 Assyrian kings. 2 



I. As to the Old Babylonian title, shar Kislisliatu, we have been accustomed to 

 follow Winckler, 3 and to regard it as simply the equivalent of the later shar hisli- 

 sliati, "king of the world." 4 This identification, however, is not proved. On the 

 other hand, it is worthy of note, (1) that supposing Alusharshid lived after Naram- 

 Sin, and even supposing further that he founded a new dynasty, it would still be 

 matter for astonishment that he should exchange a title, that was not only satisfactory 

 to Naram-Sin, known as a great conqueror, but was in itself sufficiently significant, 

 for the synonymous shar kishsliati, " king of the world ; " 5 (2) that no later Baby- 

 lonian king, before Merodachbaladan I, not even the powerful Hammurabi, bears this 

 title, though many of them apply to themselves the title shar hibrat arba'i ; (3) that 

 Winckler's theory, which sees in Harran the original seat of the sharrtd kishsliati, is 

 improbable for the later Babylono- Assyrian time, and altogether out of question for 



1 Winckler, A. K., No. 67. Paleographic reasons, the Semitic language of the inscription and the title shar Kisli- 

 sliatu, establish for this king a date not only earlier than 2000 B. C. (Winckler, Gescli., p. 155), but even earlier than 

 3000 B. C. He is to be classed with Alusharshid. The white marble duck (Norris, On the Assyrian and Babylonian 

 Weights, PI. 2, No. 2), bearing the name of JSfabu-shum-libur shar Kishshatu, remains without consideration here, as I 

 do not feel at liberty to base any paleographic conclusions on the cuneiform text as it is published there. 



2 1 hope to treat' the whole question in another place. That we may understand correctly the meaning of this 

 title in Assyrian, the following points must be examined more carefully : (1) Is the title simply to be regarded as bor- 

 rowed from Babylonia (cf. patesi, temple names, etc.) and extended to cover Assyrian conditions, so that only the 

 name is Babylonian, while its semasiological development is essentially Assyrian ? (2) Or, in using the title, did the 

 Assyrians claim the same right over the same district as the Babylonians, i. e., suppose that in Babylonia a claim 

 was thereby expressed to Harran (Winckler), did the Assyrians by their use of the phrase make exactly the same 

 claim upon this city ? (3) Or is there no connection between the Assyrian and the Babylonian title ? These questions 

 have hitherto not been answered sufficiently. 



3 Mitteilungen des Akademisch- Orientalischen Vereins zu Berlin I, p. 14. 



4 Cf. Jensen in Schrader's K. B. Ill, Part 1, p. 196, note 4. 



5 If we may draw any conclusion from the later customs of Babylonian and Assyrian kings, we rather expect 

 that in the above given case, Alusharshid, whose empire was scarcely smaller than that of Narfmi-Sin, according to 

 our present knowledge, would have been particularly anxious to adhere to a title which was connected by the Baby- 

 lonian people with the name of a very powerful ruler, and regarded by the later kings as especially important. And 

 like versa, if Alusharshid lived before Sargon and had founded a sharrut kishsliati, "kingdom of the world," it would 

 be strange that Naram-Sin should have used shar kibrat arba'i instead, if the other title meant exactly the same. 



