CHIEFLY FROM NIPPUR. 19 



inscriptions of Sargon and Naram-Sin it follows that the dominions of both included 

 Nippur. 1 



The list of ninety-two garments, PL 6, was found near the inscriptions of Naram- 

 Sin. As it is written in Semitic (cf. 1. 6, rahdtum), and as, paleographically, there is 

 no objection to such a conclusion, it belongs probably to Naram-Sin, or, in any case, to 

 one of the earliest Semitic kings of Babylonia. 



In this connection, I call attention to the interesting and important fact that 

 the fragment of another vase (or probably of several) was discovered in the same 

 deep-lying stratum as the inscriptions of Sargon and Alusharshid, and close by them. 

 This fragment 2 contains the statement that " JEa-ie{men)-na, patesi 3 of Shirpurla," 

 presented the vase to Bel of Nippur. "When to this we add that a vase of Naram- 

 Sin, 4 and another of Alusharshid, as I have been informed, was found in Tello, we may 

 safely conclude: 1. That the dominion of Sargon, 5 Naram-Sin and of their immediate 

 successors (or predecessors 5 ) extended also over the whole of South Babylonia 6 

 (at any rate, as far as Shirpurla 7 ). 2. That the chronology of the oldest Semitic 

 rulers of Babylonia is approximately the same 8 as that of the earliest patesis of 

 Shirpurla. 3. That the " kings of Shirpurla " are earlier than Sargon (or Alusharshid 5 ) . 

 It was apparently Sargon I or Alusharshid who put an end to the independence of 

 the kingdom of Shirpurla. This is not the place for a detailed statement of all my 

 reasons. They will be found in full elsewhere. 



To the early Semitic rulers of Babylonia already known must now be added, in 

 consequence of the discoveries at Nippur, King UEU-MU-USH, as his name 

 is written. Not less than sixty-one fragments of different vases of his have 

 been excavated from the temple. 



As to the material of the vases cf. Table of Contents. The fact that they were 

 found close to the monuments of Sargon, that like them they are written in Semitic,- 

 that the phraseology of PI. 4, 1. 11, 12 is very similar to lines 6, 7 of the vase inscrip- 



1 Cf. above, p. 15, note 5, and p. 25, note 3. 



2 It will be published in Vol. I, Part 2. 



3 1 hold that the change of the title of lugal into patesi in the case of the princes of Shirpurla is an indication of 

 their political dependence (Hommel, I. c, p. 296). Jensen's view (Schrader's E. B. Ill, Part 1, pp. 6-8) is some- 

 what different. 



4 According to Oppert. Cf. Homme], Gesch., pp. 299, note 1, 309. 



6 See my remarks in connection with the texts of Alusharshid. 



6 Cf. Hommel, I. c, pp. 296, 311. 



7 Wincklers suggestion that Shirpurla is not identical with the modern Tello or part of these ruins {Gesch., pp. 

 24, 31, note 1, 44, 326), but that it lay in North Babylonia, is quite improbable, to me even impossible. 



8 In this I slightly differ from Hommel {I. c, p. 296), who places Sargon and Naram-Sin a little later than the 

 oldest patesis of Shirpurla. 



