Babyloniaca, études de philologie assyro-babylonienne.

Review of L. w. KING'S Bab. Chron.

131

are results which will probably stand the test of criticism. Thus by
the aid of the two chronicles we are able to rearrange the synchronous histories of Assyria, Babylon, Larsa and the Sea-dynasty.
But the author produces still another chronicle whose entries
consist simply in giving the length of reigns and occasionally
an event, Vol. III 143-14M5. Inasmuch as the first dynasty of
Suabu begins on col. I of the rev. and we have oni col. II of the
obv. the names of three early Semitic (?) rulers, it is a natural
inference that the chronicle if complete would take us back to
a very early date. If the rev. extended from the first dynasty to
Neo-Babylonian times, ie. about 1500 years, the obv. should take
us back to at least 3000 BC allowing for overlapping Semitic and
Sumerian dynasties. The fact that Dungi of Ur occurs in the chronicle BM 26472 rev. 5-7 leads us to infer that Babylonian historians
included these early Sumerian dynasties in their histories of Babylonia. This chronicle should warn us not to go to an extreme in
reducing the dates of Sargon I, Urukagina and the beginnings of
Chaldean history. Of the translation of this chronicle one passage
appears to be misunderstood, Vol. III 521. 3 saba pallDamiq-iliSu ina kakki ba-an-siy-gi-in. The Sumerian verb sig (Pa)-nmahasu
is here followed by in which is a variant of ni, ne, a sign at the
end of a verb to show that the phrase is dependent. This construction was first discovered by THUREAU-DANGIN and used by me to
develop the psychology of Sumerian syntax in Babyl. I 214 f;
see especially page 215 note 2. But in CT IV 8 a 3 al-du-un and
ib-pad-di-in 1. 22, ni has become simply n after vowels. The same
construction occurs in ha-an-sig-gi-in above. Furthermore the form
has the sign of instrument, ba, and object an for ni assimilated to
ha, hence the translation must be active, see Babyl. I 223. The only
translation justified by Sumerian grammar is " whom a man of the
dynasty of Damiq-ili-su slew ".
In the religious chronicle translated Vol. III 70-86, col. II 6-22
hal-ri region is translated as though Sumerian =-ebirtu; this seems
unnecessary, cf. HW 177 a; CT II 32, 4; VI5 a 2. Col. III 18
seru perhaps used here in sense of " omen ".