194 



THEOPHILUS G. PINCHES, LL.D., M.R.A.S., ON 



commercial men, and of some extent. Other suburbs were 

 named after personages, perhaps those who first built houses 

 there. 



Of special interest are the duplicate tablets mentioning a 

 certain Xabonidus as " king of the city." This records the 

 sale of a slave named Marduka (or Mardukava, Mordecai), 

 by Adi-ili and Huliti, his wife (the divine Hulitu!), for a price, 

 to a man named Sulaya. Idi'-ilu and Akkadu, his son, took all 

 responsibility for the possible non-fulfiJment of the contract. 



But who, it may be asked, was this Marduka or Mordecai ? 

 Generally the person sold is a slave, purchased for money, and 

 therefore capable of being parted with for the same consideration. 

 In this case, however, the person sold was not the slave of the 

 sellers, but their son. Let us hope that Marduka was not a 

 real son, but an adopted one, otherwise " the divine Hulitu " 

 certainly had many moments of grief. 



Another tablet of historical interest refers to Xeridissar, and 

 deserves mention here. In this text Akkiya son of Sumaya 

 responds for Nabu-usur son of Xabu-sabit-qate, (servant of) 

 Xeriglissar son of Bel-sum-iskun. "If he goes to another place, 

 he shall pay six mane of silver." The list of witnesses is exceedingly 

 illegible, but one of them seems to have been Iddia, who is 

 mentioned in the tablet referring to Xeriglissar already described. 

 The present text is dated in Xebuchadrezzar's 9th year (month 

 and day lost). 



As we know from his cylinder inscription published in the first 

 volume of the TF. Asia Inscriptions, Vol. I, PI. 67, Xeriglissar's 

 parentage was as here stated — he was of the family of Bel-sum- 

 iskun, an ancestor whose name we may expect to find in earlier 

 documents. 



A tablet has already been described in which are names 

 compounded with that of the Amorite god Amurru. Here is 

 another, seemingly a contract transferring a responsibility 

 from Sulaya to Sama'-ilu (? Samuel), the person responded 

 for being Xabu-naser son of Musezib. " The Amorite god " 

 occurs in the name of the fourth witness, Amurru-zer-iddina son 

 of Amurru-ibni, and also in the name of the town or district — 

 " city of the god Amurru " — where the contract was made. 

 The date is the 1st of Ab in the 10th year of Xebuchadrezzar. 



In these inscriptions there is but little bearing upon the 

 topography of the city, about which we should much like to 

 have details. The 90th text in Strassmaier's Inschriften von N., 



