12 



OLD BABYLONIAN INSCRIPTIONS 



kings Hammdn-sJium-usur 1 and his son Mill- Shikhu; 2 and the determination of 

 the approximate duration of the reigns of the Cassite kings Kurigalzu, Nazi- 

 Maruttasli, etc., their succession and kinship with each other. In addition, the 

 following new kings have been added by the Expedition to those already known : 

 1. AlusharsMd ; 2. Bur-Sin I; 3. Gande; 3 4. Kadashman-Turgu (Kadaskman- 

 BeT) ; 5. Kudur-Turgu {Bel) ; 6. Bel-nddin-aplu. 



Intending to give in the near future the transcription and translation of the in- 

 scriptions here published, I confine myself at present to the following points : 



THE OLDEST SEMITIC KINGS OF BABYLONIA. 



Of the cuneiform inscriptions of the oldest Semitic kings of Babylonia very few 

 have been discovered. Wmckler recently published them together in his Altbaby- 

 lomsche Keilsclirifttexte, p. 22. 4 Undoubtedly to this ancient period belongs also the 

 inscription 5 of the king of the country of Guti, i. e., " of the country and people to the 

 east of the lower Zab, in the upper section of the region through which the Adhem and 

 the Dijala rivers flow." 6 Various reasons 7 compel me to differ from Winckler's de- 

 termination as to the date of this inscription by about 2000 years, i. e., to transfer it 

 from the time of Agum ("Wmckler, QeschicMe, p. 82), about 1600 B. C, back to the 

 time of Sargon, about 3800 B. C. 8 Because of the very archaic form of the cunei- 



1 Hitherto represented only by a boundary stone dated in the time of the kings Rainman-shum-iddina, Ramman- 

 shum-usur and Mili-Shikhu. Cf. Belser in Beitmge zur Assyriologie II, pp. 187-203 (quoted hereafter as B. A.) and 

 Peiser in Schrader's Eeilinschriftliche Bihliothek III, Part 1, pp. 154-163 (quoted hereafter as K. B.) 



2 For the reasons for identifying the king of the inscription PI. 29, No. 82, with Mili-Shikhu, see below, p. 36. 



3 Unless identical with Gandash, the first king of the Cassite dynasty. Cf. pp. 28-30. 



4 Cf. Winckler, in Schrader's K. B. Ill, Part I, pp. 98-107. 



5 Published by Winckler, Z. A. IV, p. 406. 



6 Delitzsch, Wo lag das Paradies? pp. 233-237. Cf. Delattre, VAsie occidentale dans Us inscriptions Assyriennes. 



7 The predominant use of the archaic line-shaped characters, their marked agreement with a whole series of 

 characters on Plates 1 to 5, the Semitic speech, and its whole phraseology, together with the peculiarities to be seen 

 in the sibilants, which are the same in the texts of Sargon I from Nippur, the fact that Abu Habba, where other texts of 

 the same high antiquity have been disinterred, is the place of its discovery, the use of a " perforated stone " as votive 

 object for the inscription, itself a characteristic of ancient times, the mineralogic character of the stone, and last of 

 all— just what Winckler (Z. A. IV, p. 406) is disposed to regard as proof of a later origin— the notably sharp and 

 skillful carving of the inscription. This last proof is especially convincing, for it is a characteristic trait of the oldest 

 Semitic cuneiform inscriptions carved in stone, that they are engraved with a beauty and a sharpness which are 

 absent from those of later date (cf. also Hommel, GeschicMe, p. 301). 



8 It will not be objected that the cuneiform characters, indeed, seem to indicate a great antiquity, but that they 

 may very well be an imitation of the work of an earlier period by a later king. This has become a very favorite 

 mode of reasoning when the date of an undated inscription is to be determined from its writing (e. g., Amiaud et 

 Meebineau, Tableau Compare, p. xiii seqq., Pinches, Hebraica VI, p. 57), and serves to produce a very chaos of uncer- 

 tainty in the province of Babylonian paleography. I think it opportune to state here that I am not acquainted with 



