CHIEFLY FEOM NIPPUR. 13 



form characters and of certain mutilated passages, this inscription of the king of Gruti 

 presents great difficulties, so that, to my knowledge, it has never been translated, and 

 Winckler has come to the conclusion that it was composed " apparently in part in the 

 native tongue " of the king of Gruti. Winckler would not be entirely incorrect if he 

 understood by this " native tongue " 1 the Semitic-Babylonian of the inscriptions of 

 Sargon I, for the text is written in pure Semitic-Babylonian, and reads as follows : 

 1. Isa-si(?)-ra(?)-ab(?) 2. da-num 2 3. sliar 4. Gu-ti-im 5-10. vacant 11. ip-ush(?) 

 -ma 12. iddin 13. sha duppa 14. shd-a "° 15. u-sa-za-ku-ni 16. zikir shum-su 

 17. i-sa-da-ru 18. Uu Ou-ti-im 19. il "Mnna 20. u 21. tla Sin 22. ishid-su 23. li-su-ha 

 24. u 25. zera-su 26. li-il-gu-da '21. u 28. harrdn alkat{-kat)-su 29. a i-si-ir, " Lasi- 

 rab(?), the mighty king of Guti, .... has made and presented (it). Whosoever 

 removes this inscribed stone and writes (the mention of) his name thereupon, his 



a solitary instance in which such an imitation of the older cuneiform characters by a later Babylonian ruler has been 

 shown with certainty. What is commonly regarded as such may be traced to a lack of carefulness in examining the 

 single characters of the inscriptions in question. Gande's endeavor to imitate the characters of earlier Babylonian kings 

 is to be judged entirely differently (see below). In Babylonia at all times two systems of writing — a hieratic and a 

 demotic — existed side by side. The latter is the system used in the affairs of everyday life, and was subject to a con- 

 tinuous process of change and development, which resulted at last in the stereotyped cuneiform characters of the Neo- 

 Babylonian and Persian contract tablets. What I have called the hieratic system of cuneiform writing was identical 

 with the demotic in the earliest times ; but later was confined to religious literature (including seal-cylinders) and 

 formularies originally bearing a religious character (boundary stones, etc.). Although, in the nature of things, it was 

 less subject to change than the other, yet it developed distinctly different forms of most characters in the different 

 periods of its history. In more or less dependence upon the material inscribed, the local tradition and the peculiari- 

 ties of the individual scribe, the hieratic writing also passed through a course of development, more limited in extent, 

 but peculiar to itself. When due attention is given to these facts in every case, there will be an end to the weltering 

 confusion of early and late texts, and of the critical helplessness which results from this, in the field of Babylonian 

 paleography. 



1 It is true, indeed, that the question as to whether the earliest inhabitants of Guti spoke a Semitic language (cf. 

 Hommel, Qeschichte, pp. 279, 306, note 2) cannot be regarded as definitely answered, if we maintain that the "perfo- 

 rated stone" was a gift of the king of Guti to the temple in Sippara (cf. "The King of Chaua," Trans. Soc. Bibl. 

 Arch. VIII, p. 352). In this case the inscription might very well have been composed in the Semitic dialect used in 

 Sippara. I hold, however, that the object was not a gift of the king of Guti to the temple of Sippara (observe the 

 absence of god Shamash and the first position given to god Guti), but that it had been carried off as booty from the 

 land of Guti by one of the earliest Babylonian kings, in the same way as the vase of Naram-Sin {namrak Magan) 

 and most of the vases of Alusharshid (cf. PI. 4, 1. 11, 12 : namrak Elamti) were carried to Babylonia. From this it 

 certainly would result that, just like the inhabitants of Lulubi (cf. Scheil, Becueil de Travaux XIV, livr. 1 et 2, 

 p. 104), so also those of Guti spoke Semitic and worshiped the Babylonian gods Ninna and Sin, along with their prin- 

 cipal national god Guti. This last deity seems to have given his name to their country, as did the god Ashur to the 

 city and land of Ashur (cf. also Ni(a?)nna and Nineveh, etc.), and the god Shushinak to the city of Shushinak or 

 Susa (cf. Hagen in B. A. II, p. 233). 



2 Cf. Jensen, in Schrader's K. B. Ill, Part I, p. 116, note 5. 



3 Winckler offers ea. Apparently this reading results from an oversight either on the part of Winckler or of the 

 ancient scribe ; for cf. PI. 1, 13 ; PI. 2 (and I), 14. 



