258 OLD BABYLONIAN INSCRIPTIONS 



I have a right to expect from those who criticise my statements on this subject, must 

 necessarily come to the conclusion that a much longer period of development lies be- 

 tween Lugalzaggisi, Urukagina, Ur-Nina and Edingiranagin, on the one hand, and 

 Sargon and Naram-Sin, on the other, than between the latter and TJr-Ba'u Gudea, 

 Ur-Gur, etc. It is surely remarkable that Monsieur Heuzey 1 and myself, who have 

 devoted years of constant study to the paleography of the earliest original inscriptions 

 of Babylonia, quite independently of each other, have reached exactly the same 

 conclusions. It is out of regard for the view of those who do not accept Nabonidos' 

 3200 years as correct, that on pal geographic evidence alone I assign to Lugalzaggisi 

 the minimal date of 4000 B.C. My own personal conviction, however, is that he can- 

 not have lived later than 4500 B.C. 



3. That my determination of the age of Lugalzaggisi is not too high is proved 

 by the discovery of an uninscribed vase of precisely the same material and character- 

 istic shape' 2 as most of the vases which bear Lugalzaggisi's inscription. It was found 

 1.54 m. below the pavement of Naram-Sin, and must therefore considerably antedate 

 the rule of the latter. 



4. From palteographic and other reasons, I came to the conclusion above, that the 

 inscriptions of Lugalzaggisi and of the other kings, patcsis, etc., from Nippur 

 grouped together with them, are surely older than Edingiranagin. Jleuzey, on the 

 basis of other arguments, had inferred that the stele of vultures and the reliefs of Ur- 

 Nina are "surely older than Naram-Sin." Hence it would follow, that if Ileuzey's 

 judgment of the age of these specimens of art is correct, also the monuments of Lu- 

 galzaggisi, etc., antedate Naram-Sin. I am now in the position to prove the correct- 

 ness of Ileuzey's view beyond question. Since a specimen of the workmanship of the 

 artists at Naram-Sin's time was recently discovered (cf. PL XXII, No. 61), showing 

 exactly the same high degree of execution as the script on his monuments, every Assyri- 

 ologist is enabled to judge for himself as to the value of Ileuzey's judgment. There 

 are, however, a few fragments of a relief in clay lately discovered in Nippur, which must 

 be regarded as the strongest evidence in favor of the French scholar's determination. 

 While Heuzey declared Ur-Nma's and Edingiranagin's reliefs to be of greater anti- 



1 It is needless to quote passages from Mi - . Heuzey's works in addition to those given on p. 237, note 6. In connec- 

 tion with his discussion of the age of the stele of vultures he makes the emphatic statement, "le type line lire do 

 l'ecrilure est assurement plus ancien que celui des inscriptions de Naram-Sin.etc." (cf. Les Origines Orieniales, p. 50). 



2 Haynes reported on this vase, August 10, 1895, expressing the hope that I might he able to use it in support of 

 my theory as to the age of most of the other ancient vase fragments from Nippur. He found it covered with earth 

 and black ashes. It consists of white Cdlcite stalagmite and has a very characteristic shape never found at a later period 

 in Nippur again. In general this class of vases resembles a flower-pot, the diameter at the top being larger than that 

 at the bottom, while the walls frequently recede a little at the middle. The size of the above-mentioned vase is : h., 

 26.5 ; d. at the top, 18 ; at the bottom, 14.8 ; at the middle, 13.8 cm. 



