248 OLD BABYLONIAN INSCRIPTIONS 



The inscriptions Nos. 86-112 have many palseographic features in common and doubt- 

 less belong to the same general period, the precise extent of which cannot be given. 

 Two groups, however, may be clearly distinguished within it, differing from each other 

 principally in the forms used for mu (Briinnow, Last 1222) and dam {ibid., 11105). 

 Instead of the two familiar Old Babylonian characters, in mu the two pairs of parallel 

 lines found at or near the middle of the horizontal line, sometimes cross each other 

 (Nos. 92, 5 ; 98, 3 ; 99, 4 ; 101, 3, etc.), while dam occasionally has a curved or straight 

 line between the two elements of which it is composed (No. Ill, 3 and 6 ; No. 98, 2 

 and 5 ; cf. No. 94, 3). 1 This peculiar form of dam has so far not been met with outside 

 of a very limited number of inscriptions from Nippur; that of mu occurs also on the 

 barrel cylinder of Urukagina, 2 although in a more developed stage. Whenever one 

 of these characters has its peculiar form in an inscription of Nippur, the other, if 

 accidentally occurring in the same inscription, also has its peculiar form as described 

 above (cf. No. 94, 3 and 4 ; No. 98, 2 (5) and 3 ; No. Ill, 3 and 6). The two char- 

 acters represent therefore the same period in the history of cuneiform writing, to the 

 end of which the cylinder of Urukagina also belongs. This period has not yet been 

 definitely fixed. As various historical considerations seemed unfavorable to placing this 

 ruler after the other kings of Shirpurla, Jensen provisionally placed him before them ; 3 

 Heuzey was less positive ; 4 Hommel 5 and Winckler 6 regarded him as later, while Mas- 

 pero, without hesitation, but without giving any reasons, made him " the first in date 

 of the kings of Lagash." 7 Aside from the reasons given by Jensen, and a few simi- 

 lar arguments which could be brought forth in favor of his theory, the following palse- 

 ographic evidence proves the chronological arrangement of Jensen and Maspero to be 

 correct : 



1. The peculiar form of mu occurs in inscriptions from Nippur which, if deter- 



1 This short line, about the significance of which I refer to rny greater work, Qesehiclite und System der Keilschrift, 

 was originally curved, became then straight and was later placed at the end of the character (No. 93, 6 ; 96, 4 ; 113, 

 12), finally developing into a full sized wedge (De Sarzec, Decouvertes en Ghaldee, PI. 26, No.l, col. II, 1; Heuzey 

 in Revue d' Assyriologie II, p. 79, No. 1, 13 [a duplicate of this inscription is in M. I. O., Constantinople], and the 

 present work, No. 123, Obverse, 1). Sometimes this line is entirely omitted (No. 112, 6). 



2 De Sarzec, I. c, PI. 32, col. I, 7 ; col. II, 1, 4, 12 ; col. Ill, 3, 7. The form of mu is more developed in Uruka- 

 gina's inscription, indicating that the latter is somewhat later than the corresponding Nippur texts. On the other 

 monuments of Urukagina the regular Old Babylonian form is used exclusively. 



3 In Schradcr's KeilinseJiriflliche Bibliothek, Vol. Ill, Part 1, p. 8. 



* Formerly he regarded him as decidedly later than the other kings of Lagash (in De Sarzec, Decouvertes en Chal- 

 dee, pp. 110, 112). More recently he expressed himself as doubtful : " II en resulte que le roi Ourou-ka-ghi-na doit 

 etre tenu, soit pour appartenir a une dynastie anterieure a celle du roi Our-Nina, soit pour avoir, apies l'apparition 

 des premiers patesi, releve' le titre royal a Sirpourla" {Revue d' Assyriologie II, p. 84). 



5 Qesehiclite Babyloniens und Assyriens, pp. 290f. 



6 Gescldchte Babyloniens und Assyriens, p. 41. 



7 2 he Daicn of Civilization, p. 604. 



