^{page 849 note 1} I retain this form arbitrarily; the only syllabic spelling favours s, and the second consonant is uncertain.

^{page 849 note 2} Gadd, in JRAS., 1925, p. 94Google Scholar.

^{page 849 note 3} Hilprecht, , Exploration in Bible Lands, p. 469Google Scholar.

^{page 849 note 4} Thureau-Dangin, in RA., xxii, p. 176Google Scholar, note 9. There will be found the hymn to Iahtar constantly referred to in this article. Such unwarranted renderings as “Grabmal” (Meissner, , Babylonien und Assyrien, i, 312Google Scholar) are not here considered.

^{page 849 note 5} Not, I think, meaning “as high as heaven” here, though that may sometimes be included in the expression, but definitely “after the manner of heaven”, implying that the construction of the temple tower resembled the structure of the upper world. This avoids imputing a ridiculous exaggeration to the phrase.

^{page 850 note 1} The presence of three gods in one single abode, in view of the relation of male and female goddesses in the gigunu, is surprising. But Shamash and Adad were very closely connected at the time of the Amorite dynasty of Babylon (see Jastrow, , Religion, i, p. 148Google Scholar), perhaps owing to Western beliefs, since the name Shamshi-Adad appears to belong to the people of the Middle Euphrates. This subject needs a full reconsideration.

^{page 851 note 1} On this subject see Babylonian Historical Texts, pp. 56–7. The garden round the New Year Festival House at the city of Ashur clearly belongs to the same cycle of ideas. My colleague, Mr. Gadd, takes another, very possible, view of mušalbiš warqim gigune (ilu) Ai. Adducing the use of arqu for the colour “blue”, he would translate “covering the gigunus of Ai with blue”, supposing that Hammurabi means that he built the top stages of certain temple towers with blue-glazed bricks just as Nabonidus did. There are, to my mind, two objections; I doubt whether warqu in the adjectival sense “blue” fits here, some concrete substance is require, and we have no proof that blue-glazed bricks could be designated simply warqu; secondly, though the excavations at Ur have revealed very early use of glaze, the blue-glazing of bricks in the manner indicated in the time of Hammurabi would indicate a more advanced technique at an earlier period than we have as yet a right to assume.

^{page 853 note 1} During the New Year Festival at Babylon, Marduk was represented by a statue, by the king, and perhaps also by the chief priest; Nabu was a statue or a priest, and so with the others. Strictly logical attitudes on this question are probably required only by the modern mind.

^{page 853 note 2} On uššu see Gadd, , Ur Excavations. Texts, i, No. 126Google Scholar, and Woolley, in Antiquaries Journal, vi, p. 367Google Scholar.

^{page 853 note 3} Translate so, not “destroyed its foundation”, Luckenbill, , Annals of Sennacherib, p. 99Google Scholar.

^{page 855 note 1} See Pallis, Babylonian akitu Festival, a work to which I am greatly indebted in this article.

^{page 855 note 2} The word, in the form hariu, also occurs in a difficult text which describes and explains certain mimetic actions in the ritual of the New Year Festival to which Zimmern first drew attention. The particular passage reads šarru ša hariu ina lisni ipattū (ilu) Marduk ša ina ušarišu par (?) rak (?) hi (?) … “the king who opens a ditch with a lisnu is Marduk who when he proceeded straight along, the shrine (?) of …” Zimmern read ibattu, and translated “zerschmeisst”; but ipattu is a more natural transliteration. One “opens” a ditch as one “opens” a canal or a road, in Akkadian idiom. There is no proof that hariu here stands for (karpat) hariu and the omission of the determinative seems to me improbable, lisnu remains a puzzle. If it may be compared with Arabic. “tongueshaped”, “pointed”, the implement intended may have been a special kind of spade. In favour of this view may be urged the possible transliteration par (?)-rak (?); the signs prohibit Zimmern's interpretation. But I have no confidence in these suggestions.

^{page 856 note 1} There were some other names for a “house of the bed”. In a New Babylonian inscription, unfortunately badly broken, there is an instructive passage concerning some such place under different names, ištu rebit abul (ilu) Šamaš adi kisikki belti ša šarrani abea kirbašu ipušu ganuni tallaktašu la šuddulat la dummuqu šibiršu in gušur erini banu zululšu ša egal šualim šubat hidatim. …; “… from the place of the gate of Shamash as far as the kisikku wherein the kings my fathers made a ganunu, its way was not broad, its workmanship was not good, its roof was made of cedar-beams—of that great house, a seat of joy …” From this it is clear that the kisikku was a building which contained a ganunu, that a prepared way led to it from a gateway, and that it was “a seat of joy”. The word ganunu probably means “bedchamber”, and kisikku was a term closely associated with goddesses resting. The GA.NUN.MAH or “great ganunu”, described as a bit hilṣi “treasure (?)-house”, lay within the temenos at Ur, and the inscription mentioned seems to be speaking of a similar ganunu, since it describes the kisikku as an egallu. It would seem that the ganunu differed in location and nature from the gigunu or E.PA.

^{page 857 note 1} This feature, fully discussed by Pallis, is also illustrated by the text published by Langdon, Le Poème Sumérien du Paradis, the magical character of which has been stressed by King, Legends of Babylon and Egypt.

^{page 858 note 1} These horns must be compared to the horns of Esagila at Babylon, , Creation Epic, vi, 49Google Scholar, and many temple towers may have had them, for reasons we do not yet know. Some writers have considered this a peculiar feature at Susa.

^{page 858 note 2} The nature of the purification is revealed by a variant, ušabbira “I broke”; it was a method as effective as another.

^{page 858 note 3} Streck, , Assurbanipal, p. 53Google Scholar, translates “dessen göttliches Wirken”; possible, but one hardly expects Ashurbanipal to attribute efficient power to Elamite gods. The use of amaru implies a concrete object, and I understand the reference to be to a statue or the like.

^{page 858 note 4} Herodotus speaks of χρηστήριου in connexion with the god in the shrine on the tower, a striking testimony to the fact that his account depended on Babylonian priests.

^{page 859 note 1} Two points are noteworthy: (a) the -i ending, which does occur elsewhere, but is extremely rare; the verbal endings -u (generally subjunctive), -a (generally called “energicus”: one scholar would call it “Ventiv”, but the conception cannot be applied in all cases) and -i are parallel to the singular case endings of the noun, and stand in the same relation to the indicative as the noun cases to the absolute form. The question has never been adequately discussed; the fact was apprehended by Bertin, Languages of the Cuneiform Inscriptions; (b) the position of the verb, the additional objects being thrown to the end of the sentence.

^{page 859 note 2} Pl. acc. of a noun, asyndetic, must indicate another class of animals. Does it perhaps stand for nimre “leopards” ?

^{page 860 note 1} Intercession by the goddess was a constant theme; it is a frequent subject on cylinder seals, and during the time of the Amorite dynasty by far the most common.

^{page 860 note 2} Deer and leopards (?) and other game of the kind are not mentioned in connexion with the New Year ceremonies at Babylon, though these are in other respects closely similar to those conducted at the gigunu.

^{page 861 note 1} This sacrifice of a pig, when the general character of the New Year Festival as a fertility cult is remembered, forms an odd parallel to the rites at Eleusis. There are amulets from the time of the Amorite dynasty in the form of a pig's head, presumably based on the principle that evil averts evil, as in the case of Pazuzu heads. On an elaborate inlaid frieze from this year's excavation at Ur, a pig's head is carried on the table for the banquet (?).

^{page 861 note 2} JEA., viii, 41–1, RA., xxi, 84, Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies, iv, 72, Cambridge Ancient History, iii, 91.

^{page 862 note 1} This does not conflict with Mr. Woolley's argument that these tombs must, from the circumstances in which they were found, cover a long period. The point here is that culturally these tombs belong to the epoch indicated, and that we know of earlier Sumerian epochs. That there is nothing in the objects themselves to lead to a dating prior to the First Dynasty of Ur, and that the writing is the developed linear style, will be generally agreed.

^{page 864 note 1} The views of Landsberger, and Bauer, , ZA. (NF.), iii, 67Google Scholar, have not convinced me of their correctness with regard to the use of ina; the views expressed about ina muhhi (pp. 85–6) are equally peculiar, and the rendering of Mr. Gadd's “at the city” by “in der Stadt” is a “howler”.

^{page 865 note 1} An unusual amulet, perhaps connected in significance with the sacrifice of stags as suitable to a particular occasion.

^{page 865 note 2} On the signification of the pomegranate as a love charm see Man, xxv, No. 87.

^{page 866 note 1} The golden table mentioned by Herodotus as a feature of the shrine on top of the temple tower was probably used for a similar banquet.

^{page 866 note 2} The bear is depicted only here to my knowledge in Babylonia. The Egyptians knew it as coming from the Lebanon, for it is represented among the strange tribute received by Thothmes III at Karnak, and also in the scene of the capture of Satuna. The Akkadians knew it and called it dabu; that they classed it in syllabaries as a kind of šahu “swine”, proves no more than that their classification was bad.

^{page 866 note 3} See Pallis, op. cit., pp. 276 ff., based on McClintock, The Old North Trail.

^{page 867 note 1} I may add that I hope in the future to be able to show that there was a fight of the gods, and a slaughter of certain underworld gods. The scene of the battle of the gods occurs on early seals; a notable example has been published by Langdon, , Illustrated London News, 2nd 06, 1928Google Scholar, found, be it noted, in the tomb already mentioned.

^{page 868 note 1} V R. 12, No. 6 (+II R. 52, No. 2) recently transliterated and discussed by Hommel, , Grundriss, pp. 459 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 869 note 1} This curious dittography does not seem to have any special significance other than that possessed by Šu or Min alone.

^{page 869 note 2} Arman is an overlap from the second column to which it belongs into the third, but a dividing mark is introduced to show that the third column entry is Hat-tin.

^{page 869 note 3} Albright, , in JAOS, xlv, p. 223Google Scholar, reads Pa-tin and equates with the land Padan mentioned by Agum-kakrime; Arman, he considers, refers to the eastern Arman, Holwān. There must then be two Tirqans east of Tigris. Albright's readjustment of the two texts to suit this interpretation is very violent, and, in my judgment, over hasty.

^{page 869 note 4} KAV, No. 183.

^{page 869 note 5} The copy gives the signs lu-ti (?) which may be an error; the surface is damaged.

^{page 872 note 1} Bulalais also said to be “of Ubasi”, an entry as obscure as those above discussed. Doubtless the deity is to be distinguished from the Bilala worshipped at Susa.

^{page 872 note 2} Ur Excavations. Texts, i, p. 80. On the interchange of m and p in Ḫalpa, Ḫalman, see Götze, , Madduwattaš, p. 112Google Scholar.

^{page 874 note 1} Albright, in JAOS., xlv, pp. 202–3Google Scholar, denies the possibility of this identification on the basis of his (and others') identification of the Tirga of the Hittite treaty as Tall 'Asharah.

^{page 874 note 2} So, clearly, the copy Boghazkōi Texte, i; Rev. 19. Forrer, , Forschungen, ii, pp. 41 ff.Google Scholar, has, repeatedly, A-hu-ma. Why ?

^{page 874 note 3} Forrer renders (with some unjustifiable restorations) “gegenüber von Bijassilis”; it would be hard to explain the grammatical construction so, and there is no instance to my knowledge which would support this rendering. Forrer claims that the passage proves that Ahuna and Tirga lay on the east bank; but that depends on his very questionable translation.

^{page 875 note 1} Note that this almost certain inference from the data reduces the extent of Ashtata very considerably, and invalidates most of Forrer's geographical identifications in this area.

^{page 875 note 2} Possibly Durgu, KAV., No. 92, 1. 28, should be included in this class.