Nov. 7] SOCIETYOF BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGY. [1893.thatis, in Roman transliteration:Anti-ma(Sumerian|{ -—] = Semitic -ma)
ab-baummdn(Sum.ki-suluku-gar= Semit. umm&nu)
Unug(-ki)-ga -gi (-gi being postpositionof genitive), the whole
line to be read in Semitic sha Unuk)
mar(Sum.dur)BcI-Si-mi-a(or Nab-U-mi-d)
d&r (Sum. bad)Unug(-hi-)ga (i.e., Unuk)
nin-gim-gim.malabar-ra(Sem.ipshttulabirtu)
S.P.Gi-bil-ga-mis-gi(Sem.sha Gibil-gamis)
kibini-in-gi-a(Sem.anaaszi-suvttr).or in English : Anti-ma (perhapsalsoHti-md),rulerof the hosts (or
people)of Erech, son of Bcl-shimia (or Nab-shimia), (who)the wall
of Erech, the old building (or construction) of Gibil-gamish, has
restored(lit. has brought againto his place).
In this text, in the first placeit is worthy of remark, thatour old
Gibil-gamisis regarded as the founder of the wall of Erech, the same
townwhosemythicalkingwasGish-dubarrain the epic ; and being
at the same timethe best confirmationof the identification of Gish-
dubarwithGilgamish(Aelian's Gilgamos) in Mr. Pinches' tablet.
But the most interestingpointis, that evenin so early a time (about
2000 b.c), this old legend is alluded to in an old Babylonian
historicalinscription.
Secondly,we gain from this inscriptionthe important fact,that
the founder of the so-called seconddynasty of Babel, the king
►"-JEJ >-*-y (Anu-ma-ilu)of the list,was reallyonlya prince of
Erech,and further, thatthe ££m* {$ ( Uru-ku, alsoto be read Ura-
azagga,or Sis-ku, Sis-azag)of the list, is only anotherideographical
form of writing Unug, Uruk,Erech. For I think it beyond all
doubtthatthe name Anu-ma-iluof the list is only a fuller formfor
Anti-maof our text. NowI am more confirmedthanever,thatthe
dynastyof Anu-ma-ilu ....Gulhiiar(comp.for him the chrono
logicaldate,Hilprecht,pi. 30, No. 83, obverse, line 6 ff, "from Gul-
ki-Sar,kingof the sea-land, to Nabu-kudurri-ussur I, King of Babel,
was 696 years "), etc., is contemporaneous withthe dynasty of Sumu-
abi Hammu-rabi, etc. In this case, the approximate date
of our text wouldbz circa 2080 insteadof 2250, the inscription being
thus perhapstwo centuriesolderthan Hammurabi (whoreigned
thenabout1900-1845b.C.).S
14