246 OLD BABYLONIAN INSCRIPTIONS 



against Urbillum li , Shasliru li and Hite-tar(?')hu H , 1 and by Gimil (Kat)-Sin against 

 ZopshaW,- testify to the same effect. Moreover, a number of other tablets which 

 belong to members of the same dynasty, but cannot yet be referred to definite kings, 

 mention Kirnash H , JHumurti" and Huhu{nu)ru k ' 3 as devastated or invaded by Babylo- 

 nian armies. 4 Several of these cities and districts were situated on the east side of 

 the Tigris and must be sought in Elam and its neighboring countries. "We begin now 

 to understand why the Elamites soon afterwards when they invaded Babylonia made 

 such a terrible havoc of the temples and cities of their enemies; they simply retaliated 

 and took revenge for their own former losses and defeats. 



4. "When the Cassite kings conquered Babylonia, the site of the ancient archive 

 chamber was long forgotten and buried under a thick layer of debris. Their own store- 

 room, in which all the votive objects published on Pis. 18-27 and Pis. CO f, ISTos. 133- 

 142, were discovered, was situated at the edge of a branch of the Shatt-en-Nil outside 

 of the great S.-E. wall of the temple of Bel. 5 The destruction of the archive under 

 discussion must therefore have taken place between the ovei throw of the second 



1 PI. 58, No. 127, Obv. 2 ; resp: Obv. 6 ; resp. Obv. 7. 



2 PI. 58, No. 127, Rev. 4. 



3 Cf. Scbeil, I. c, p. 38. The city of Mark ashi (in N. Syria, according to Hommel, I. c, p 9) is mentioned in con- 

 nection with a daughter of Ine-Sin on PI. 55, No. 125, Obv. 14. 



*In view of all tbese facts above mentioned, Hommel will doubtless change his view (that the kings of the second 

 dynasty of Ur "were apparently confined to this city, as they did not possess Sumer and also lost Akkad '•'). That 

 they were Dot confined to Ur, but possessed the whole south is proven by their buildings in Eridu (I. R. 3, No. XII, 1, 2) 

 and in Nippur (cf. also the statements of the two chronological lists). If Winckler's theory as to the seat of the shariut 

 kibrat irbitti was generally accepted (Hommel apparently does not accept it), the second dynasty of Ur by this very 

 title would also have claimed N. Babylonia. Whatsoever our position may he as to the meaning of this and other 

 titles, as a matter of fact, the kings of the second dynasty of Ur possessed the south of Babylonia, and it is impossible 

 to believe that kings who were the lords of S. Babylonia and conquered parts of Arabia, Syria, Elam and other dis- 

 tricts between the four natural boundaries defined in Part I, p. 25, note 4, and who doubtless in consequence of their 

 conquests assumed the proud title " king of the four quarters of the world," should not have been in the possession of 

 all Babylonia (the case of Gudea is entirely different). The kings of the second dynasty of Ur changed the title of their 

 predecessors, not because they had lost Sumer and Akkad, but because they owned more than the old title indicated. 

 The title of Sumer and Akkad — as I understand its meaning — is practically contained in that of "king of the four 

 quarters of the world" (Part I, pp. 24 f.), and the kings of the second dynasty of Ur dropped it therefore for the 

 same reason as Dungi. when he assumed 1he title sliar kibrat arba'im (Z. A., Ill, p. 94). As to the meanings of the 

 different titles, Hommel (whose latest opinion is briefly stated in Aus der babylonisclien Altertumskunde, p. 8) and I agree 

 entirely, differing from Winckler especially in his interpretation of shar kibrat arba'im and shar mdtuSIiumeri u 

 Akkadi in the oldest Babylonian insciiplions down to Hammurabi. Notwithstanding that, or rather because I read 

 and studied his Altorientalische Forschungcn III, pp. 201-243, and all his previous papers on the same subject sine 

 ira et stutlio again and again, I have been unable to convince myself of the correctness of his views. 

 Tiele (Z. A., VII, p. 368), Lehmann (Shamashshttmuliin, pp. 68 ff.), Hommel (I. c.) and I apparently reached similar 

 conclusions on this important question. 



5 Cf. Part I, "Table of Contents," p. 48 (PI. 8, No. 15). Cf. also Peters in The American Journal of Arclweology 

 X, p. 15. 



