¹ The abbreviations are those generally accepted or understood. Some special ones, which are used in the catalogue only, are explained in the prefatory notes to it. Corpus = my Corpus des inscriptions ‘royales’ présargoniques de Lagaš, Geneva, 1956 Google Scholar.—I wish to thank publicly here Dr. R. D. Barnett and his staff for enabling me to collate some of the texts now preserved in the British Museum.

² Thus, for example, the seals Nos. 138, 139, 142, 143, 148, 149, which are Sargonic, would have most probably been classified as Ur III if bought from a dealer.—Except for a few cases which will be dealt with in due course, I have generally followed Sir Leonard's dating of the graves.

³ Legrain, L., U.E. II, gives two field numbers U.13607 and 13676Google Scholar. The latter, which, incidentally, is listed neither in the index, p. 365, nor in the catalogue, p. 588, is in fact U.E. III, 504 Google Scholar.

⁴ The same number is given to U.E. III, 493 (= CBS 31.16.618)Google Scholar which comes from the same spot, but is a different, uninscribed impression.

⁵ In U.E. IV, p. 48 Google Scholar, Woolley assigns to ‘the period of Entemena’ the fifteen ‘Second-Dynasty’ graves he formerly regarded as ‘older than the time of Entemena’ ( U.E. II, p. 215 Google Scholar). This, however, should not affect the labelling of the graves as ‘Second-Dynasty’ since, as is known from the synchronism En-temena(k)—Lugal-kiniše-dudu(d) (Corpus, Ent. 45), En-temena(k) and the Second Dynasty of Ur Cand Uruk) are indeed contemporary. On the other hand, Buchanan, B., J.A.O.S. LXXIV, pp. 147 ff.Google Scholar, would date 14 of the 15 graves to the Sargonic period, the remaining one being ‘Early Dynastic’. His dating rests essentially upon a study of the style of the cylinder seals found in the graves.

⁶ Or CBS? The indications of the catalogue are not clear.

⁷ Described as ‘votive stela’ in U.E. IV, p. 172 Google Scholar.

⁸ Given also the museum number BM 120572 in the catalogue U.E. II, p. 540 Google Scholar.

⁹ Contrary to the catalogue U.E. IV, p. 168 Google Scholar, the king's name is not missing; see the copy, U.E.T. I, 8 (collated)Google Scholar.

¹⁰ With wrong CBS number.

¹¹ Or later.

¹² See now Hallo, W. W., A.O.S. XLI1I, pp. 13 and 31 Google Scholar.

¹³ Cf. the personal name n a n n a - u r - s a g at Fāra ( W.V.D.O.G. XLIII, 29 i 4Google Scholar; also u t u - u r - s a g̃, ibid., Rev. iii 7) and at Ur ( U.E.T. II, p. 38, No. 745Google Scholar; also No. 747). The correct sequence of signs is given by the Tellō name ^di n a n a - u r - s a g̃ (Corpus, Ukg. 32, 2).

¹⁴ IM 47456 ii 8–10 = Sumer XV, p. 5 ff. and pl. 1Google Scholar. It is a fragment of a clay vase, acquired by the Iraq Museum in 1940 and said to come from Tellō.

¹⁵ Corpus, Ean. 2 viii 6, where his grand-son calls him e n s i.

¹⁶ IM 61404 = Sumer XV, Arabic part, pp. 21 ff. and pl. 1 ffGoogle Scholar. (see also p. 107, 3 [Arabic part] and p. 43, 2 [English part]). It is interesting to note that the monument was found in 1958 at el-Hibba (thus according to the description of the place and in spite of the spelling of its name on p. 21)—now known to be the real site of Lagaš. The text of the stela is to be published by J. J. A. van Dijk in a forthcoming issue of Sumer.

¹⁷ For an interpretation of the name, see now Jacobsen, Th., Z.A., n.F. XVIII, p. 128, fn. 82Google Scholar.

¹⁸ That En-temena(k) calls him e n s i of Uruk is not relevant. We know that the rulers whom the Lagašite sources call e n s i's of Umma are ‘kings’ in their own inscriptions (see Orientalia, n.s. XXVIII, p. 336 Google Scholar).

¹⁹ On the title l u g a l u r i m a (k), see Hallo, W. W., A.O.S. XLIII, pp. 12 ffGoogle Scholar.

²⁰ ahum and šībum are within the same semantic area. For the interchange of AD.DA/AB.BA URU and AB × ÁŠ URU^(ki), see M.A.D. III, pp. 12 and 257 Google Scholar.

²¹ ME occurs also in other religious titles, such as SAL.ME = l u k u r, AH.ME = g u t u (g).

²² Note that NUNUZ appears also in another feminine (and, at least partly, religious) title, n u g i (g), which is spelt n u - g i g, i.e., n u-MI + NUNUZ.

²³ Should one be allowed to see some form of UNU in the yet unidentified archaic sign A.T.U., No. 166, the earliest occurrence of R.E.C. 316–aba₄ would be that of the Uruk text A.T.U., 241.

²⁴ Besides a slight variation in the attitude of the, lion-tamer, only the small crouching ibexes and, of course, the owners' names are different.

²⁵ This is apparently the text quoted by Deimel, A., Š.L. IV/1, No. 518.13, as BM 12023Google Scholar.

²⁶ A dedication to ‘Enki, his father who begat him’ (^de n - k i a t u - d [a] - n i, line 1).

²⁷ This is often misleading: see, e.g., the short inscriptions of Lugal-kiniše-dudu(d), B.E. I, 23–25 Google Scholar.

²⁸ See A.f.O. XVII, p. 21, Ad 2, and p. 22, tableGoogle Scholar.