20 OLD BABYLONIAN INSCRIPTIONS 



tion of ]STaram-Sin, that paleographically they show the characteristic features of the 

 inscriptions of Sargon and his son, all this points to the first half of the fourth mil- 

 lennium as the approximate date when they were written. As the language of the 

 inscriptions is Semitic, I regard the name of the king also as Semitic and read ten- 

 tatively Alu-usliarsliid, 1 i. e., " He (some deity) founded the city." 2 



The discovered inscriptions of this king may be classed in four groups, consist- 

 ing of thirteen, eleven, six and three lines respectively. Only three of the three line 

 legends 3 have been preserved intact. Though not a single complete text of the six- 

 line inscriptions has been excavated, yet the faint traces to be seen in the third-line 

 of PI. IV, lS"o. 13, and the space left for the restoration of the text, justify my read- 

 ing of PI. 5, No. 6, 1. 1-3. The fragment reproduced on PL 5, ]STo. 10, is the only 

 remnant of an eleven-line inscription found at Nippur, It is in all respects simi- 

 lar to the thirteen-line inscriptions, with this difference only that 1. 11, 12 of the 

 latter, in namraJc Mamti k \ were omitted. The inscription of thirteen lines has been 

 reconstructed from eleven fragments, three of which (PI. Ill, Fragm. 8891, 8892, 

 a, b) belonged to a large dolomite vase and formed the basis of my text. Eighteen 

 fragments of all the excavated vases may confidently i be referred to this group. The 

 long inscription, of which some of the shorter ones are possibly abbreviations, reads : 

 1. A-na 2. ilu Bel 3. Alu-usliarsliid 4. sliar 5. Kishshatu 6. i-nu 7. Mamtu k% 

 8. « 9. Ba-ra-'-se u 10. intra 11. in nam-ra-ak* 12. Mamti u 13. iddin (A-MU- 



1 Cf. Briinnow, I. c, 5032, 5068. 



2 Cf. Hilpreclit, Z. A. VII, p. 315, note 1, and Pinches, The Academy, September 5, 1891, p. 199. Even if the name 

 be transliterated UrumusJt, it may be Semitic. In this case the Orchamus of Ovid (Metam., 4, 212) offers itself for com- 

 parison. 



3 In spite of their identical contents I reproduced two of them (PI. 5, Nos. 7 and 8), because of the slight differ- 

 ence in the form of the characters USH and sharru, and because we do not possess a superabundant supply of texts 

 dating from that ancient period to which they belong. The sign published on PI. 5, No. 9, and resembling the Old 

 Babylonian character for ilu, "god," is found on the bottom of a third vase of the three-line group, and is, no doubt, 

 merely a "trade-mark." 



4 1 include here only those fragments of which portions of 1. 5-13 have been preserved. Some of the other frag- 

 ments, however, probably belong to the same group. 



5 Necessary because of limited space. 



6 This word has been variously translated. Tiele (Qesch., p. 115) and others before and since changed namrak into 

 Apirak, a city mentioned on the tablet of omens, col. II, 12-14. Honimel {Oescli., pp. 279, 309) translates it " polished 

 work," whilst Winckler {Qesch., p. 38) is content to render it simply "work." But all this is mere guess work. 

 To my knowledge, the word has been found thus far only in three passages, in the above text of Alusharshid, on the 

 vase of Naram-Sin and in Gudea B, col. 6, 66. In the last passage we read 1. 64-69 : gish KU uruAn-sha-an Nirna M 

 mu-sig nam-ra-aga-M<l in 9' r 2^in-gir-su-ra E-ninnu-a mu-na-ni-iur, "With (his) weapon he smote the city of Anshan in 

 Elam, brought its spoil into EniunQ to Ningirsu." Cf. Jensen (K B. Ill, Part 1, pp. 38, 39) on this passage. The 

 latter's hesitation about the reading Nima M, "Elam" (exactly so written above), and the meaning of namrak is 

 unnecessary. As early as eight years ago, Amiaud, with his wonted insight, conceived the correct meaning of the 

 word (Z. K. I, p. 249). Whether it is Sumerian or Semitic remains to be determined. As we do not possess long 



