CHIEFLY FROM NIPPUR. 245 



three kings mentioned devoted their attention to the interests of Inlil and Ninlil and 

 other gods worshiped in Nippur, as we learn from excavated bricks and door-sockets 

 (PI. 12 f.), 1 from two chronological lists (PI. 55, No. 125, and PI. 58, No. 127), 2 and 

 from the large number of dated contracts discovered in Tello, Numtr and other Babylo- 

 nian mounds.* That the country as a whole was quiet and enjoyed peace and prosper- 

 ity under their government, is evident from the many business contracts executed 

 everywhere in Babylonia and from certain statements contained in them. The con- 

 stant references to successful expeditions carried on by Ine-Sin against the countries of 

 Karhar H , Harshi ki , 8imurram u , i Luldbu ki , Anshan 11 and 8hashra u , h by Bur-Sin II 



occurred at other times (e. g., in Bur-Sin's sixth year, PI. 58, No. 127, Obv. 6). But the fact that this conquest is 

 placed between Bur-Sin's accession to the throne and a very characteristic event at the close of Ine-Sin's govern- 

 ment (cf. Pi. 55, No. 125, Rev. 18-21) settles the question. Ine-Sin ruled at least forty-one years, according to the 

 chronological list on PI. 55. As, however, a part of it is wanting, it will be safe to assign a reign of c. 50 years to 

 him. Bur-Sin II ruled at least twelve years (PI. 58, No. 127), and in all probability not more than sixteen to eighteen 

 years. That the events mentioned on the two tablets are arranged chronologically, is beyond question. For (1) 

 events which happened more than once are quoted in their consecutive order, but often separated from each other by 

 other events which occurred between them. Cf. PI. 55, Rev. 3 and 10 ; Rev. 4, 5 and 11, and especially Obv. 5 and 

 Rev. 15 (between the two similar events lie twenty-eight years!). (2) In case a year was not characterized by an 

 event prominent enough to give it its name, such a year is quoted as "joined to" or " following" the previous year in 

 which a certain event took place (ush-sa). Cf. PI. 55, Rev. 7-8, 11-12, 13-14, 16-17, 18-20. (3) As we expect in a 

 list arranged chronologically, PI. 58, No. 127, opens with "the year in which Bur-Sin became king." If the king 

 accomplished something worth mentioning in the year of his accession, this deed was added. Cf. PI. 58, No. 127, 

 Rev. £: MudingirQimil-<i''>girSin lugal Urumki-ma-ge mada Za-ap-sha-liki mu-'gul-a "In the year when (Gimil-Sin 

 became king and =) King Gimil-Sin brought evil upon the land of Zapshali." 



1 Cf. also Peters in The American Journal of Archeology X, p. 16 f. 



2 Cf. No. 125, Obv. 2, 4, 10, 17, 18 (Ine-Sin), No. 127, Obv. 3, Rev. 3 (Bur-Sin II). 



3 Cf. for the present Scheil in Recueil XVII, p. 37 f. 



4 On a tablet in Constantinople written at the time of Ine-Sin, we read the following date : mu Simu-ur-ru-um ki Lu- 

 lu bu'"ba-gul. From the fact that Simurru and Lulubunre here mentioned together, Scheil (Recueil XVII, p. 38) draws 

 the conclusion that "Siumru setrouvait done dans les m§mes parages que la ou la stele de Zohab fixe lepaysdefjulubi." 

 This assertion is by no means proven. The king may have conquered two countries far distant from each other in the 

 same year. I call attention to Scheil's theory in order to prevent conclusions similar to those which for several years 

 were drawn from the titles of Nebuchadrezzar I (col. I, 9-11 : sha danna »«?<" Lulubi ushamkitu ina kakki, kashid 

 matuAmurri, shalilu Kashshi) and led to curious conceptions about the land Amurri (cf. e. g. Eduard Meyer, Geschichte 

 des Alterthums, p. 329, and especially Winckler, Untersuchungen, p. 37, note 2). Hommel's identification of Simurru 

 with Simyra in Phenicia is by far more probable (Aim der babylonischen Altertumskunde, p. 9). 



6 PI. 55, No. 125, Rev. 3 ; resp. Rev. 6, 10 ; resp. Rev. 4, 5, 11 ; resp. Scheil, I. c, p. 37 (beginning); resp. Rev. 13 ; 

 resp. Rev. 21. In connection with Anshan it may be mentioned that Scheil in Recueil XVII, p 38 (especially note 6), 

 translated PI. 55, No. 125, Rev. 9 : mu dumu-sal lugal pa te-si An-sha-anki-ge ba-tug by "annee ou la fille du roi 

 tlevint patesi dans le pays d'Anshan." Notwithstanding that Hommel (Aus der babylonischen Altertumskunde, p. 9) 

 and Sayce (in The Academy of Sept. 7, 1895, col. b) reproduce this translation, which grammatically is possible, I 

 reject it on the ground that there is no evidence that in ancient Babylonia women were permitted to occupy the high- 

 est political or religious positions independently, and translate : "In the year when the patesi of Anshan married, a 

 daughter of the king (tug = abazu, "to take a wife, to marry," cf. Delitzsch, Assyrisches Handwbrterbuch, p. 42). 

 A. P. S — VOL. XVIII. 2 F. 



