Skip to main content

Full text of "Recent Assyro-Babylonian Literature"

See other formats


Early Journal Content on JSTOR, Free to Anyone in the World 

This article is one of nearly 500,000 scholarly works digitized and made freely available to everyone in 
the world by JSTOR. 

Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other 
writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the 
mid-seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries. 

We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this 
resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non-commercial 

Read more about Early Journal Content at 
journal-content . 

JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people 
discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching 
platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not-for-profit 
organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please 


The Old Testament in the Light of the Ancient Bast. Manual of 
Biblical Archeology. By Alfred JerEmias, Licentiate Doctor, 
Pastor of the Lutherkirche, and Lecturer at the University of 
Leipzig. English edition, translated from the second German 
edition, revised and enlarged by the author, by C. L. Beaumont, 
edited by Rev. Canon C. H. W. Johns, Litt. D., Master of 
Catharine's College, Cambridge. II volumes. New York : G. T. 
Putnam's Sons, London, Williams and Norgate, 1911. pp. 
683, with 214 illustrations and 2 maps. 

The theory of 'new ages' that we meet with so frequently in 
this book, suggests, by an association of ideas, that we too have 
entered upon a new age. Not many years ago, we lived in the age 
of the Higher Criticism. It is now replaced by that of Pan- 
Babylonism. Hugo Winckler, who ushered in this new era, 
deserves, like the Oriental heroes of antiquity, to be endowed with 
the qualities of a 'deliverer,' as he saves the Bible from enemies by 
which it was torn into shreds, in the preceding age. Who, however, 
will save it from this modern persecutor? For it is evident that 
another passing fancy, Pan-Babylonism, is becoming an important 
factor in biblical exegesis and it must be taken cognizance of by 
biblical students. But it is a laborious task to learn all about this 
theory from the numerous works of Winckler and his followers. 
We owe, therefore, a debt of gratitude to the author of this work 
who for the first time made an attempt to classify this system and 
to present an index of documentary references and proofs from 
other mythologies for the biblical interpretation. But, though only 
claiming to have elaborated Winckler's ideas into a system, the 
author is by no means as radical as the originator. The latter sees 
in the mythological motifs the basis of the biblical narratives, whilst 



the author contends that they merely are used for the form of 
presentment, without eliminating the historical facts. This admis- 
sion would be extremely valuable for biblical exegesis, if it were 
the result of scientific research. It looks, however, as if this stand- 
point is not that of the unbiased Lecturer at the University, but of 
the Pastor of the Lutherkirche in Leipzig. For in dealing with 
angelology, the author says as follows: "On the ground of the 
religious truths set forth in the Christian conception, and in review 
of the gospel records of the life of Jesus, we recognize realities of 
the transcendental world in the angelology of the Ancient-Israelite 

religion And when the cuneiform texts speak of 'the divine 

messengers of grace' who accompany the king in his campaign, or 
of 'the guardian of health and life' who stands at the king's side, 
they are representing a religious truth" (p. 53, II). We need not 
comment upon such a standpoint. The author thus holds that 
mythological motifs which adhere to the narrative, prove nothing 
against the historical probability of the whole fact. But the 
primitive tales must be judged differently from the legends of the 
fathers and the stories of the time before the kings, and these again 
differently from the stories of the time of the kings, lying in full 
light of history. The motifs form only an artificial part in the true 
historical books. 

The present writer freely confesses that if given no alternative 
but to choose between the author's and Winckler's opinions, he 
would not hesitate to give preference to the latter. It is logical to 
assume that the movements of the stars were personified and pre- 
sented as stories of certain heroes who never existed. But it taxes 
too strongly our credulity to believe that ancient writers were 
unable to present a simple, true story of a fight, without referring 
to 'the dismembering of the dragon,' the life of a warrior of flesh 
and blood, without endowing him with the motifs of a deliverer, 
etc., etc. 

The designation 'Pan-Babylonian' is replaced in this book by 
'Ancient-Oriental teaching,' but it still asserts that the astral doc- 
trine issued from Babylonia, claiming that the oldest and clearest 
statements of it have been discovered in Babylonia, and it is 
founded upon astronomy which originated in this country. Thence 


it spread out over the whole world, and exerting a different influ- 
ence over every civilization, it developed into many new forms. 
Accordingly, the theory of a borrowed literature is to be abandoned. 
There can only be the question of a common mythological ancestry. 

The chief aim of this book is to trace the Ancient Oriental 
teaching throughout the Old Testament, and for this purpose the 
author reconstructs the astral system, supporting each point by 
documentary evidence. This support is, however, though admirably 
ingenious, very weak. It may be characterized as circumstantial 
evidence, based by no means upon cuneiform texts, but gathered 
from figures of speech, the meaning of pictures, sense of the 
calendars, and here and there from late Greek and other writers. 
It is homiletic exegesis, similar to that of Talmud and Midrash, 
and in many respects identical with that of the Kabbalah. The 
author is fully aware of it, and believing that the Kabbalah had 
its starting-point in Babylonia, quotes in several places kabbalistic 
notions in support of his theories. But his acquaintance with 
kabbalistic ideas is very limited. The same may be said of his 
talmudic knowledge. He does not know that the main idea of this 
system 'word-motifs and play upon words' is identical with the 
main halakic principle applied in rw iTVTJ. If true, it would show 
that the Talmud possessed the only right key to biblical interpre- 
tation. Pan-Babylonian scholars ought to make a special study of 
mediaeval kabbalistic literature, of the "init, "imtn , Jlp , n, and the 
works of Rabbi Isaak Loria and his followers. They will find 
abundance of material for their purpose. Let us take a few in- 
stances. The fundament of the system, seeing a pre-established 
harmony between a celestial and terrestrial image, the earth being 
a counterpart of heaven, is the leading thought of the Kabbalah. 
Even in the Talmud we often meet with the same idea, and it 
became, a halakic principle, in the sentence KJTI3;>D p5J3 KJOJO Sni3?D 
STpTI 'the earthly kingdom is a counterpart of the heavenly kingdom.' 
The theory of sacred numbers plays an exceedingly important part 
in the Kabbalah: 50 and 72 — in Babylonian: 50 = Bel, as comple- 
tion of the cycle; 50 + 72 = Saros, 3,600 — are the most sacred 
numbers, 50 representing i1F2 "Hye* D^Dn 'the 50 gates of reason,' 
72 corresponding to EHISDn DC 'the secret name of God.' 42 is 


another fcniSDPI DC mentioned in Talmud Kiddushin, transmitted 
only to initiates of highest character. 1 13 is the numerical value of 
ins, representing the unity and the 13 attributes of God. 14 corre- 
sponds to WvDfl BjnnK, that is to say, the word itself counts as a 
unit. It will be of interest to New Testament students to learn 
that disciples of Jesus applied the same mystical numbers. In the 
genealogy of Jesus we are told that from Abraham to Jesus there 
were 3 + 14 generations = 42. It undoubtedly indicates that the 
most holy name of God, having been proclaimed during 42 genera- 
tions, was now fulfilled, as fulfilment of the name of God, in 
Talmud and Kabbalah, is a postulate for redemption. The 3 + 14 
contains in all probability an allusion to the Trinity-doctrine. 

The idea that each of the planets can reflect the complete Divine 
power, is one of the main ideas of the Kabbalah. It is even more 
radical than the author's system. Bach of the seven JIWBD which 
undoubtedly correspond to the seven planets, not only Sin, Shamash, 
and Ishtar, contain, the power of all of them, thus becoming 49 
nWBD, so = God: a Thus we have TlD\ tDme> rtTQJ, 1DmE> lDn 
T1MB> 11 D\ IDHZV, etc., etc. 

1 The present writer has no doubt that it is the Divine Name ItPN Pl'PlM 
mriM (Exod. 3, 14) by which God revealed Himself for the first time (in E) 
to Israel, as fl'rlK DTIK gives 42. This double-name (= Gemini, Sin and 
Nergal?) may have been brought in connection with the /loyof-idea which is 
quaintly expressed in "inn (Genesis p. 10), where we find that from the S)1D |'H 
emanated D*rnN, the creator of the world, hence the mystery surrounding this 
Name. ATI!* placed in the Four Points of the universe, = 84, comprises all 
possible constellations, the seven planets multiplied by the 12 signs of the 
Zodiac. This tfllBOri Dtf may be seen as number-motif in the story of 
Elisha (II Kings 2, 24) where by his curse '31N DttO, 42 of the boys who 
derided him perished. In accordance with the motif, they were destroyed by 
two bears. We may even go a step farther, in the kabbalistic system, and 
maintain that 31*1 has the numerical value of rtTIS, computed JBp 1BD03 
(= 12) where ' counts only as a unit. 

2 It is quite systematical that God and Bel should have the same numbers, 
as to the Kemp njHS» D'B"Dri correspond ilKDlB n}W D'tT'DH. For in the 
Kabbalah, the KTflK K1BD ('the other side') is in every respect a counterpart 
of the HWtfTl K1BD ('the holy side'). 


It would be a hopeless task to present in a review a satisfactory 
synopsis of the system, as the author himself devotes to this 
purpose 141 pages. We can only discuss salient points. The 
student, desiring to get a clear conception of these theories, will 
have a hard time, as one is easily bewildered by the descriptions of 
the constellations, the solstices, the equinoctial points, the diagrams, 
etc. Some points are still very vague and we would have expected 
a fuller discussion. This is especially the case in the calendar. We 
see that in the most remote times the vernal equinox was in the 
sign of Gemini. Accordingly, the year must have begun with Sivan 
and ended with Iyyar. From about 3000 down, the vernal equinox 
was in the sign of Taurus, and the year began with Iyyar. In the 
eighth century B. C, the vernal equinox retrograded into the sign 
of Aries, and by the reform of the calendar of Nabu-nasir, the 
beginning of the year was transferred into Nisan. The question 
now arises: The Exodus having taken place in the age of Taurus, 
how could Nisan have been fixed as the beginning of the year? 
The simplest solution would be to assume that the Exodus took 
place in Iyyar, and it was the first month, but in Babylonia, by 
adopting the Babylonian calendar, the beginning of the year was 
advanced into Nisan. This suggestion might give some critics a 
plausible explanation for the institution of the second Pesah in 
Iyyar. But it does not seem to be the opinion of the author, 
though the passage to which we refer is obscure and contradictory. 
He says: "We are inclined also to think that Exod. 12, 2 (Nisan 
as the first month) agrees with old methods = the Babylonian 
calendar (age of Taurus)" (vol. I, p. 46). Those who deny the 
antiquity of the Jewish religion, could add a further proof that the 
story of Exodus was invented in the age of Aries. One could also 
suggest that Nisan was fixed as the beginning of the year, before 
the arrival of the vernal equinox, in direct opposition to the current 
calendar, and as protest against the prevailing sun-worship, in the 
age of Marduk. From a conservative point of view, however, 
Nisan became the first month of the year, as being the month, when 
the Jews gained their freedom, and it coincided accidentally with 
the vernal equinox in the later age of Aries. 


As a very weak point in this system we consider the fundamen- 
tal idea that the primitive religion of the Ancient-Babylonians was 
founded upon and regulated by the movements of the stars. It 
presupposes that, in a very remote period, the Babylonian already 
possessed a perfect knowledge of astronomy, and consequently a 
high standard of civilization. Primitiveness and civilization are 
incongruous terms. Theories of this kind could only have been 
elaborated in a speculative age. Jastrow in his recent book 'Aspects 
of religious belief and practice in Babylonia and Assyria' maintains 
indeed that the rise of astronomy in Babylonia was due to Greek 
modes of thought. Quotations from Greek, Latin, and Mohamme- 
dan authors, concerning the Babylonian views of the universe, are 
not to be relied upon, as all of them lived in periods when the 
science of astronomy was already established everywhere. Late 
speculative ideas they have ascribed to antiquity, and primitive 
tales, interpreted as reflecting occurrences and phenomena in the 
starry heaven. The inferences from other mythologies are too 
hazy to build upon. Even if we should find in them some cognate 
features, they are due to the fact that all primitive peoples were 
worshipers of the astral bodies, and the same conditions and the 
same phenomena lead to the same conclusion. — Many interpreta- 
tions of the Babylonian myths rest upon the assumption that shupuk 
shame is the Babylonian name for the Zodiac. The present writer 
is not convinced of it, and would rather see in this term the 
mountain of the world, the link between heaven and earth, upon 
which the heaven was erected (see Jensen, KB., VI, p. 462). R. 
IV, 5, proves nothing against it, it means only when the gods were 
threatened by hostile powers, Sin, Shamash, and Ishtar as the most 
powerful gods, were entrusted with guarding the entrance to 
heaven. The passage: Ishtar sha ina shupuk shame naphat 'Ishtar 
who rises in the shupuk shame' evidently shows that it is a locality 
where only Ishtar rises and not the other planets. Hence it cannot 
be identical with the Zodiac where all planets rise. 

We cannot approve of the author's method of making sugges- 
tions and then converting them into indisputable facts. Thus vol. 
I, p. 344, he mentions the columns of Ta'annek which were probably 
sprinkled with oil or blood, and vol. II, p. 104, he asserts that the 


Canaanite Asherim, stricken with blood, give evidence of the strik- 
ing of the doorposts with blood, in pre-Israelite Canaan. For the 
cosmic double-peaked mountain where the nibiru-point is said to be, 
we have in this book the only evidence in Babylonia in figure 11 
which, as the author says, possibly shows the mountain, with the 
sun-god emerging from between the two peaks. There are many 
other points of the same kind. 

A valuable addition to this book is Dr. Johns' introduction. 
His mild, ironical criticism is an antidote against the influence of 
Pan-Babylonism, and at the same time a warning to its opponents 
not to dismiss it by ignorance in contemptuous condemnation. 

It is surprising to see scholars, so well-acquainted with events 
in the most remote antiquity, and occurrences in the starry heaven, 
knowing so little about what happens everyday about them, being 
ignorant of Jewish customs practised everywhere by religious Jews. 
Fancy only that "among orthodox Jews, mothers still teach their 
sons to take off their caps to the new-moon!" (vol. I, p. 45, n. 2). 
The author does not know that an orthodox Jew never uncovers 
his head in holy places and in the presence of holy objects, and not 
about niapn Hip which has its origin in moon-worship. Scholars 
ought to mix more carefully the stagnant waters of the Euphrates 
and Nile with the still flowing spring-water of Jewish life and 
religious practice. 

Die Sprache der Amarnabriefe mit besonderer Berucksichtigung 
der Kanaanismen, Von Dr. phil. Franz M. Th. Boehe. (Leipsiger 
Semitistische Sttidien, V, 2. Herausgegeben von A. Fischer 
und H. ZimmErn). Leipzig: I. C. HiNRiCHs'sche Buchhand- 
EUNG, 1909. pp. 96. 

Kanaander und Hebrder. Untersuchungen ziir Vorgeschichte des 
Volkstums und der Religion Israels auf dem Boden Kanaans. 
Von Franz Boehl, Lie. theol., Dr. phil. (Beitrage zur Wissen- 
schaft vom Alt en Testament. Herausgegeben von Rudoeph 
Kittel, Heft 9.) Leipzig: I. C. HiNRiCHs'sche Buchhandeung, 
191 1. pp. 118. 


The most important information we possess about the condition 
of pre-Israelite Canaan is found in the tablets discovered in Tell-el- 
Amarna, in Egypt, in the year 1887. Their significance lies not 
only in their contents which is eminently of historical value, but 
also in themselves. Though many of them consist of letters of 
governors and rulers of Canaan addressed to the king of Egypt, the 
script and language in which they are written are cuneiform and 
■Babylonian. It shows that Canaan was strongly influenced by the 
Babylonian civilization. But the style of writing and language 
differ considerably from th&t of the cuneiform texts in Babylonia. 
It sheds light upon the identity of the Canaanite population. On 
the one hand a considerable number of glosses — Canaanite trans- 
lations of Babylonian words and ideograms — , verbal forms and 
expressions that in Babylonian proper are impossible and can only 
be explained by comparing West-Semitic dialects, prove that Canaan 
was inhabited by West-Semites. On the other hand, in some of 
the letters occur many words and personal names that are non- 
Semitic, and it shows again that Canaan's Semitic population was 
interspersed with foreign elements. If we believe that Israel's 
culture and religion grew up on the soil of Canaan — an opinion 
shared by all critics, — the facts that Canaan was inhabited by a 
mixed population and that the cast of the Canaanite culture was 
Babylonian would be of fundamental interest for the history of 
Israel's religion. For this purpose we have to investigate two 
points: With what layers of nations have we to deal in the pre- 
Israelite Canaan ? And what were their relations to the Babylonians 
on the one hand, to the Hebfews on the other hand? The main 
source for such an investigation are the Amarna-letters, and it can 
only be conducted upon a linguistic basis. 

The first of the present volumes points out and discusses all the 
linguistic peculiarities of the Amarna-letters, dealing with the style 
of writing, phonology, morphology, syntax, and the Canaanisms. 
Of special interest is the part describing the verbal forms, where 
we are shown the strong influence of the Canaanite language 
upon the Babylonian formation, in the permansive, the inflections, 
and the hybrid forms. It is a very useful work, and will be greatly 
appreciated by students interested in this subject. Though it does 


not require any amount of ingenuity to arrive at exactly the same 
conclusions, especially with the help of Knudtzon's splendid 
transliteration and translation of the Amarna-letters, the basis of 
this work, the merit of this book, however, is to have given the 
complete material to all the forms under discussion, and by this 
index, the study of this subject is gratly facilitated. 

The second volume deals with historical problems, mentioned 
above. The author does not claim to have arrived at definite 
results, but merely aims to give a complete collection of the extant 
material, concerning the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, and He- 
brews in the cuneiform, Egyptian, Greek-Phoenician, and biblical 

The author holds that the names Canaanites and Amorites are 
not geographical, but ethnographical terms. The latter were 
Semites and had the whole Westland in possession, reaching to the 
borders of Babylonia, already in a very early period. But a non- 
Semitic immigration, from North and East, of the Hittites, con- 
sisting of a group of nations of different races and languages, at 
the time of the first Babylonian dynasty, brought into Palestine the 
Canaanites, a branch of the Hittites. They settled down in the 
most fertile part of the country, in the valleys and on the coast 
and confined the former inhabitants of the country, the Amorites, 
to the mountainous regions and the Negeb. The same opinion was 
expressed by the present writer in his review of Clay's "AmurBu" 
(see JQR., New Series, vol. I, p. 150). 

In the Amarna-period, however, a new Semitic immigration 
swept over the country, the Ha-bi-ri = DH3J?, of which Israel 
formed a branch. But the foundation upon which this contention 
rests is extremely frail. There is no necessity to assume that the 
term Ha-bi-ri comprises besides Israel other cognate tribes. Israel 
could have assisted Amorite princes of the Lebanon against 
Phoenician cities. And as to Hani ha-ab-bi-ri 'the gods of the He- 
brews' mentioned in the treaties, it exactly corresponds to WN 

In the last chapter, the author discusses the two different 
methods for the understanding of Israel's religion, the method of 


the higher critics, as first applied by Kuenen, and that of Winckler, 
and contends that each separately is bound to be one-sided, and 
only a combination of both will give us a true picture of Israel's 
religion. Its starting point was in the desert of Kadesh, outside 
of the centers of culture, like Christianity and other religious move- 
ments. The influence of the Babylonian culture upon the religion 
of Kadesh corresponds to the influence of Hellenism upon the 
shaping of Christianity. Both influences, though contributing to 
the development of the respective religions, were only superficial. 

The present writer differs from the author in many points. 
He does not believe with Kuenen, Wellhausen, etc, that Israel's 
religion grew out of primitive peasant religious conceptions. Nor 
does he admit that the religion of Kadesh was developed under 
Canaanite-Babylonian influence. But he contends that Israel's 
tribes, being descendants of those who emigrated from Canaan, and 
originally from Babylonia, undoubtedly must have been in posses- 
sion of the Canaanite-Babylonian culture. It accordingly was the 
fundamental basis upon which the edifice of Israel's religion was 
erected. The task of the Sinaitic legislation consisted merely in 
purging, and purifying, and here and there suppressing the old 
Canaanite-Babylonian religious conceptions. We must always 
keep in mind that Israel did not immigrate into Canaan, but re- 
turned to its old home. Hellenism, however, was not the basis of 
Christianity, and its influence, without having a destructive effect, 
was bound to be only superficial. It would have been more logical 
to draw a parallel between Judaism and Hellenism, shaping and 
modifying old religious conceptions. 

The main value of this book consists in the collection of the 
material concerning the pre-Israelite inhabitants of Canaan which 
confirms the biblical records, not in its deductions. 

Cuneiform Parallels to the Old Testament. Translated and edited 
by Robert Wiluam Rogers, Ph. D. (Leipzig), Litt. D., LL. D., 
F. R. G. S., Professor in Drew Theological Seminary. New 
York: Eaton & Mains, 1912. pp. 562 + 4§ photographic illus- 
trations and a chronological table. 


Keilschriftliches Urkundenbuch sum Alten Testament in Urschrift. 
Zusammengestellt, autographiert und herausgegeben von Dr. 
A. Sarsowsky. Mit einem Worter-und Eigennamenver- 
zeichnis von Dr. M. Schorr, Privatdozenten an der Universitat 
in Lemberg. I. Teil : Historische Texte. Leiden : E. J. Brill, 
ion. pp. 71. 

These two volumes, though not bringing forward any new 
material, are extremely useful. They supply a real need, and will, 
therefore, be duly appreciated by many students, especially those 
whose interest in Assyriology is limited to those documents which 
shed light upon the Old Testament. For these texts are widely 
scattered in many rather expensive works and thus not easily ac- 
cessible and it is, moreover, a laborious task to collect all the data 
illustrative of the Bible. 

The first volume by Professor Rogers contains mythological, 
liturgical, doctrinal, chronological, historical, and legal texts, tran- 
scribed and translated, besides the parallels from classic writers, 
in Greek and translation. It offers the largest collection of cunei- 
form texts necessary for biblical exegesis, yet published in any 
language. Of special value is the historical part, as the author, 
well known as a reliable historian, prefaces the texts with brief 
historical introductions. The chronological table is up to date. 
It is, however, incomplete, as the approximate dates of the pre- 
Hammurabi period ought to have been given as well. But the 
value of this book does not only consist in its contents, but also in 
its omissions. The author does not thresh out all sensational 
theories and make every possible comparison with the Old Testa- 
ment, but only supplies the material and lets the student exercise 
his own judgment upon it. The translations are in many cases 
superior to those of previous editions by others. We regret, how- 
ever, that we cannot give equal praise to all the transliterations. 
The present writer has compared the chronological texts with the 
original and found not a few errors and misprints. Variants and 
even apparent scribal errors ought not to have been omitted. Why 
not give an exact transliteration of the proper names in the 
Assyrian Eponym List? The Author having used Delitzsch's 
Assyrische Lesestucke, zweite Auflage, as indicated in the footnote 


(p. 219), there was no reason, why the list should be incomplete. 8 

These slight inaccuracies might easily have been corrected by 
careful proof-reading, and the author seems to be well aware of 
these imperfections, perhaps better than the reviewer, and expresses 
it in his Preface, in saying that this work has cost him so much 
that his early hopes and enthusiasm for it have slipped away. It 
shows, however, how precarious it is to rely upon transliterations. 
The second volume, therefore, will be heartily welcomed by 
students who are able to read cuneiform. The historical texts it 
contains are for the most part identical with those given by 
Professor Rogers, in the chronological and historical sections. It 

3 In the Babylonian Chronicle: Col. I, 6: Rab-bi-ku read Rab-bi-lu; 23: 
Tukulti-apal-e-shar-ra, original: Tukulti-apal(ash)-e-shar-ra; 40 (translation): 
Ishtar-kundu read: Ishtar-khundu; Col. II, 3: ihlih (HA«A); 28: ra-buti-shu 
read rabuti-shu; Col. Ill, 3 : is-hu-shu-mu read is-fyu-shu-ma; 3 1 ; i}um-ma-hal- 
da-shu original: ffum-ma-AN-da-shu (AN scribal error or = i! ~ al and of. 
JJm-mariral-da-si?) ; 13: XVIII read VIII; 35: idakl-shu] read idtik-shu; Col. 
IV, 12: yum-ma-hal-da-shu original: yum-ma-an-da-shu; 24: after illiku insert 
Qfi-bi) ; 25 : after dtkat insert, according to Duplicate 2,marat-su shal-lat Hani- 
shu i-tab-ku; 28: ul-tal-lu-ni read ish-tal-lu-ni. The Assyrian Eponym List: 825 
Shamash-upahir read Shamash-upakhkhir ; 861 Nergal4s-ka-u-danni4n read 
Nergal4s-ka-udanni(.KAL,)4n; 850 Ha.di\-ebushu read Kha-di-li-bu-shu; 830 
Khu-bak-ba-ai read Khu-ba-a[i]; 829 Ilu-mukin-aki read Ilu-mukin-akhi ; 820 
Ninib-upakhkhir read Ninib-ub-la; 762 Sab-Bel read Jab-BU; 720 Asshur-is- 
ka-udannis read Asshur-is-ka-udmni-in; 712 Sharru-limurmni read $harru-c- 
murani-ni; There are nine lines (not; some lines) wanting, containing of 
course the Eponyms of 665-657, and the original Col. VI, 256-265 gives follow- 
ing names: (656) Slia-Nabft-shu-u, (655) ha-ba-si, (654) Mil-ki-ra-mu, (653) 
Am-ia-a-nu, (652) Asshur-nasi-ir (651) Asshur-malik, (650) Assur-dtir-usur, 
(649) Sa-gab-bu, (648) BSI-ellat(shadf)(-u)-a, (642) Bel(.?)-MaUk(?). In the 
names at the end of the List: Bel-nai'd read Bil-na-'i-di; Tabu read Tab-shar- 
Sin; Silim Asshur, better -.Lishir-Asshur. The Assyrian Eponym List with 
notes: 855 Asshur-ina-ekalli-lilbur read Abu-ina-ekalli-lilbur ; Asshur-takkil 
read Asshur-tak-lak ; 798 Lu-u-si-a read Lu-u-shi-a; 792 erini read e-ri-ni; 770 
Ma-ra-ad original shu-ra-ad; 766 Til-li-e read Til-e; 743 dtkat read di-kat 731 
Sa-pi-ia read Sha-pi-ia; 707 sha Ashur-du-ub-bu read Sha-Ashur-du-ub-bu; 
sharru ishtu(anaf) Babili read Isarru ishtu(anaf) Babili]; 704 epi-esh read 
e-pi-esh. The Babylonian Kings List: A: Zamamu-shum-iddin read Za~ma-ma- 
shum-iddin; B: to Adara-kalama add: son of the former. 


has also a short useful glossary — an advantage which we badly 
miss in Rogers's work. The present writer has examined most of 
the texts, especially the Amarna-letters, comparing them with those 
published by Winckler, and found them to be in every respect 
faultless. It is to be hoped that the author will soon publish the 
promised second part, containing the religious and mythological 
texts. We need especially an edition of the Creation-tablets and the 
Gilgamish-epic in which all the fragments are pieced together, 
with the probable restorations. 

Bismya or The Lost City of Adah. A story of adventure, of 
exploration and of excavation among the ruins of the oldest of 
the buried cities of Babylonia. By Edgar James Banks, 
Ph. D., Field Director of the Expedition of the Oriental 
Exploration Fund of the University of Chicago to Babylonia. 
With 174 illustrations. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 
1912. pp. 455, with a map. 

This volume is justly designated by the author as a story, as 
it describes in a popular way the discoveries made by him in the 
Babylonian mound of Bismya and has been especially written for 
the general reader who is interested in days and things long passed. 
It dwells, therefore, at full length on many things well known to 
the scholar. As a story, it is a very entertaining and instructive 
book which one would like to read through at a single sitting. The 
scholar, however, is less interested in the esthetic beauty of the 
description and the author's adventures and travels than in the 
results of the Expedition, which are given in chapters 
XI-XVIII. The most important discovery was a statue of a king 
which showed that the place of the excavation was once the 
ancient city of Adab. The inscription on it was published and 
translated in the American Journal of Semitic Languages, XXI, p. 
59 and reads, according to the author: 1) E-sar (MAQ) 2) lugal 
Da-udu 3) lugal Ud-nu Ki "(The temple) E-sar (or E-Mah), king 
David, king of Adab," and he remarks that the appearance of the 
name Da-udu may end the discussion as to the derivation of the 
biblical name David. But the reading of the name is not only 
quite improbable, as the sign for udu has the syllabic value lu and 


dib, but simply impossible. In the first place, the title "king" can 
neither in Sumerian nor in Babylonian precede the proper 
name. In the second place, Da-udu, if Sumerian, could only 
mean "with a sheep" or, "with me is a sheep," and thus 
be, as a proper name out of place. But we can neither agree 
with Thureau-Dangin (SAK., p. 152) who reads: "1) B-sar 
2) shar rum da-lu 3) shar Adab *»' and translates "Bsar, 
the mighty king, king of Adab," as the suggestion that da-lu 
stands for da-num "mighty" is too daring. We believe, therefore, 
that the name of this king was Lugal-da-lu — just as good a name 
as Lugal-anda, Lugal-kisal-si, Lugal-zag-gi-si, etc., etc. — B-sar 
— so of course, not B-mah — means "the temple of the park" = Bit 
kiri. This temple may have been situated in the precincts of the 
temple B-Mah. The latter was restored by Hammurabi (Code, 
Col. Ill, 69) and is also mentioned in the copper tablet inscription, 
discovered at Bismya. But it is more probable, as we shall see, 
that both B-sar and B-Mah are identical and synonymous. The 
name of the pa-te-si found in the above mentioned inscription is to 
be read B-igi-nim-sig-e, not — as the author reads — B-she-ul-pa-ud- 
du, which may be translated into Semitic Bit-Blamti-Shupu "the 
house of Elam is excellent" and suggest some connection of this 
ruler with Elam. On igi-nim = Blamtu see Briin. 9376. The 
characters on this inscription are identical with those on the 
Obelisk of Manishtusu (about 2700 B. C), and may thus be pre- 
Sargonic and not belong to a period between Naram-Sin and 
Ur-Engur, as the author believes. As the author does not say 
anything about its contents, the present writer will do so, tenta- 
tively. It reads : 

Col. I 1) Dingir Mah For the goddess Belit (?), 

2) B-igi-nim-sig-e- has this B-igi-nim-stg-e, 

3) ni pa-te-si the sovereign-priest 

4) Ud-nunki of the city of Adab, 

5) B-Mah, mu-na-du the temple B-Mah built; 
Col. II 1 ) gim-bi ki-shu by its architect, on the place, 
2) temen ba-sig the temen was laid. 

On dingir Mah = Belit see Muss-Arnolt, Dictionary, p. 120. 
But as mah is the usual ideogram for sxru "exalted," dingir-mafy 


could be = Anum strum "the exalted Anu," cf. Code of Ham- 
murabi, Col. I, 1. The first suggestion, however, is more probable, 
as Nin-har-sag, mentioned in Dungi's Brick-inscription, to whom 
the temple B-Mah or a part of it, was dedicated, and who by Ur- 
Bau is called "mother of the gods" (see SAK., p. 60, 3, 8) appears 
indeed to have been identified with Belit of Nippur. Thus dingir 
Mah would be identical with Nin-har-sag, and B-Mah would mean 
— not the great temple — but the Temple of Mah i. e. Belit. — To the 
particle ni = shu "this," affixed to B-igi-nim-sig-e , comp. Gu-de-a-ni 
"this Gudea" (Cylinder, passim). — On gim = architect, cf. Code of 
Hamur., XXXV, 56. — ki-shu = ana ashri: "to the place." — To sig, 
in connection with temen (TE), cf. Gudea Cylinder, A, XI, 18: ud 
temen-mu ma-si-gi-na. For the function of ba as passive prefix, 
see Langdon's Sumerian Grammar, § 189. 

The author's translation of the Brick inscription is in the most 
important point wrong. It reads as follows : 

1) dingir Nin-har-sag For the goddess Nin-har-sag, 

2) Nin-a-ni his mistress, 

3) Dun-gi has Dungi, 

4) nitah kalag-ga the mighty man, 

5) lugal Uru-ki-ma the king of Ur, 

6) lugal Ki-en-gi the king of Shumer, 
ki-Uri-ge and of Akkad, 

7) gish kesh-du the (temple-)park, 

8) kenag-ni her beloved one, 

9) mu-na-du (lit. for her, he) made. 

The author translates gish kesh-du by "platform." But the 
fact that kesh-du is preceded by gish, the determinative for wood, 
ought to have shown him that the object which Dungi dedicated to 
his goddess, was made of wood, not a brick-platform. Besides the 
word for platform is kisal. In all probability, however, the signs 
for keshda and sar, which in a later period became in the script 
identical, have a cognate meaning, as keshda = rakasu "to bind," 
and sher, ser, unquestionably identical with sar, = kasciru "to bind" 
(see Muss-Arnolt, Dictionary, a. 1.). Prince {Sumerian Lexicon, 
P. 3 l 3)> therefore, rightly assumes that the meaning of both comes 


from the idea "thick growth of the forest," the meaning of sar 
"forest, park" = kirii. Thus keshda alone has the secondary 
meaning "to bind," but e^h kesh-da is a synonym of ««* sar = kirii 
"park." If so, the gish kesh-du which Dungi dedicated would be 
identical with the temple B-sar which, as we have seen, means "the 
temple of the park." It would be indeed surprising that Dungi 
should not have mentioned the temple B-sar or B-Mah. We see 
now that he did, but used a different expression. The gold 
inscription of Naram-Sin is of special interest, as it appears to 
confirm the fact that this king was indeed deified. The author did 
not notice it. It reads: 

i) Na-ra-am dingir Bn-su Naram-Sin, 

2) lugal the king 

3) A-ga-deki of Akkad, 

4) dingir uru-ge the god of the city, 

5) ... sub (KA + SHU) .... prayer 

6) ilulgal... king (?) 

For dingir-uru-ge cf. •'" Na-ra-am-Ut* Sin ilu Akkadimki (SAK., 
p. 168). 

The legend on the boat-shaped vase reads: 

1) Nin dingir... To the mistress, the goddess... 

2) Ur dingir Bn i-lill has Ur-Bnlil, 

3) dumu Ur dingir £,ugal-edin-son of Ur-Lugal-edin-na, 


4) nam-til-la-lnil-shu- for his wife 
4) a mu-na-tru] dedicated 

For Lugal-edin-na "the king of the desert" see Briinnow 4530. 

The author ought to have told us the meaning of the Vase 
inscription of Bar-ki, king of Kish, as it might show whether this 
king was a Sumerian, or a Semite like Uru-mush and Manishtusu. 
The other Vase inscription of this king (p. 266) reads: 

1) Bar-ki Bar-ki, 

2) lugal kish the king of Kish, 


3) dumu kenag the beloved son 

4) Wiin-har-sag dingir. . , of Nin-har-sag, the goddess 


Personal Names from Cuneiform Inscriptions of the Cassite 
Period, By AijsErt T. Clay, William M. I^affan Professor of 
Assyriology and Babylonian Literature, Yale University, (Yale 
Oriental Series, I,) New Haven: Yale University Press, 1912. 
pp. 208. 

The Assyrian language expresses the idea of "bringing into 
existence" by the phrase shumu nabil "to give a name." The truth 
of this metaphor found its best confirmation in modern research. 
Many fundamental theories and conclusions concerning the history, 
culture, and religious conceptions of the Mesopotamian people, 
owe either their very existence to proper names, or have been first 
suggested by them, and were subsequently found to be true. The 
importance of this material has been generally recognized long ago. 
In recent years, three Name-Books, comprising all the names of 
certain periods, have been published, and it is also customary to 
give indices of proper names with text publications. 

There is no period in which proper names would more con- 
tribute to the solving of historical problems, than that of the 
Cassites. We have no documentary information concerning the 
origin of this people, and where they came from, knowing only 
that Cassite rulers held sway over Babylonia for a period of about 
700 years. This historical question can only be solved by means 
of the proper names, which seem indeed to indicate that there was a 
certain linguistic relationship between the Cassites and Hittites. If 
this fact should be confirmed, the former may have been among the 
Hittites who, as it seems, invaded Babylonia in the reign of Samsu- 
ditana, and were responsible for the overthrow of the first 
Babylonian dynasty. The first step toward solving this problem 
is a survey of the whole material of Cassite proper names. 

Professor Clay, who for many years has made a special study 
of proper, names, the results of which are embodied in the valuable 
introductions and indices to his Cassite and Neo-Babylonian text 
publications, is unquestionably an authority on this subject. His 


present volume, containing all the proper names of the Cassite 
period which are at present accessible to us is a valuable work in 
every respect, and will serve as a reliable basis for further investi- 
gations. Apart from the Cassite names, the meaning of which, for 
the most part, is still obscure, and the Hittite-Mitani names, the 
full appreciation of which will be obtained, when the language of 
the Hittites is understood, the book greatly contributes to Semitic 
philology, as it largely deals with Semitic names of that period. 
The Table, showing the different theophorous name formations, is 
highly useful for the reading of ideographically written proper 
names. The many suggestions in the list of elements deserve 
serious consideration. The present writer, however, has some 
doubts, whether all the elements enumerated in the Cassite-group 
are Cassite. If the element Gal-zu belongs to this group, 
we would have to assume that Cassites lived in Babylonia a 
thousand years before they became the ruling people of this 
country, as we find bearers of the names Gal-zu-daian, Gal-zu-ilu 
and Gal-zu, on the Obelisk of Manisthusu (about 2700 B. C). And 
even the element na-zi, which in the Cassite-Babylonian Vocabu- 
lary is translated by sillu "shade, protection," is found there in the 
hypocoristicon Na-zi-tim. It is not surprising to find the same 
elements in the Hammurabi period, in Damu-gal-zu, Ilu-na-zi, for 
at that time Cassites were indeed in Babylonia, as we know from 
the Dilbat inscriptions, published by Ungnad. 

Tiglath Pileser III. By Abraham S. AnspachEr, Ph. D. (Contri- 
butions to Oriental History and Philology, No. V.). New 
York: Columbia University Press, 1912. pp. 72. 

The reign of Tiglath-pileser the Third— or as we ought to say 
now, the Fourth — was not only of great importance for the 
Assyrian empire, as his accession gave a new lease of life to this 
scourge of the world, but also fateful for Israel, as it was this king 
to whom Ahaz of Judea applied for help, and his interference was 
fraught with disaster for the Northern Tribes of Israel. The 
present volume deals at length with all the details of the life and 
history of this king. 

The special aim of the author is to fix, by the aid of all the 
available historical inscriptions which are very fragmentary, the 


geographical localities and the routes of march of this king's 
campaigns. In this respect, the author has greatly contributed to a 
better knowledge of ancient geography. The discussion of many 
historical points concerning the antecedents of this king's accession 
and the political condition of Assyria are also noteworthy, though 
in some parts there may be more fancy than truth. We notice, 
however, that the author overlooks the fact that the first month of 
the year in Assyria, at that time at least, was not Nisan but Iyyar; 
and as Tiglath-pileser ascended the throne 745 B. C, on the 13th 
(not 12th) of Iyyar, he was justified in considering it as a full 
calendar year of his reign. As we see, no satisfactory explanation 
for Pulu, the Babylonian name of Tiglath-pileser is forthcoming. 
If we may assume a root pelu "to subdue" — as has been done, 
though it is doubtful — the present writer would see in Pulu a per- 
mansive form of the Pa"el Pu'ulu "the conqueror" which subse- 
quently became Pulu. 

Ancient Assyria. By C. H. W. Johns, Litt. D., Master of St. 
Catharine's College, Cambridge. (The Cambridge Manuals of 
Science and Literature.) Cambridge: at the University Press, 
1912. pp. 172, with 13 illustrations and two maps. 

The name of Johns, well known as a careful and moderate 
scholar, is in itself a full guarantee for the reliability of the present 
volume which contains a brief history of Assyria. It indeed 
presents an up-to-date history, in which the latest, results are 
embodied. It will, therefore, be useful, not only to the general 
reader, for whom the Cambridge Manuals are chiefly intended, but 
also to students well acquainted with the earlier works on 
Assyrian history, by Tiele, Hommel, Winckler, etc., as these works 
have been rendered nearly obsolete, by recent discoveries. The 
Deutsche Orientgesellschaft, which since 1903 has been exploring 
the site of the ancient capital Ashur, has nearly doubled the 
number of monarchs of Assyria known to us. It is rather annoying 
to learn that Shalmaneser II. of the Black Obelisk is to be termed 
Sh. III., Tiglathpileser III. was T. IV., etc., etc. But Assyriology is 
in this respect no exception. It shares the fate of all sciences in 
which theories are being continually upset and displaced by facts. 
And even this work is only of ephemeral value. Any day may bring 


more information and the history will have to be re-written and 
studied again. We notice that the illustration to page 66, represent- 
ing the statue of Ashur-nasir-pal is, by some mistake, ascribed to 
the first bearer of this name (a contemporary of the Babylonian 
king Adad-shum-usur, about 1250 B. C). It is of course the statue 
of the great Ashur-nasir-pal III, as the inscription, which gives the 
genealogy of this king shows. 

Mesopotamian Archaeology. An Introduction to the archaeology of 
Babylonia and Assyria. By Percy S. P. Hancock, M. A. With 
numerous illustrations, also maps. New York : G. P. Putnam's 
Sons, 1912. pp. 423. 

In this volume the author attempts to give an account of the 
civilization of ancient Babylonia and Assyria, in the light of the 
new material which has been made accessible to us since the 
publications of the pioneers in the field of excavation and research. 
The attempt is, as a whole, successful, and this book may, at 
present, be regarded as the standard- work on Babylonian and 
Assyrian archaeology. The fourteen chapters, into which the book 
is divided, deal with all the subjects which go to make up the 
civilization of any country. 

The first chapter traces the origin of the Sumerian, holding as 
probable that they emigrated from Elam, describes the physical 
characteristics of the country, the soil, the various kinds of trees 
and cereals which flourished there, and the animals the people were 
familiar with, discusses the date of the arrival of the Semites in 
the Mesopotamian Valley, and gives a sketch of Babylonian- 
Assyrian history. The following three chapters give a historical 
review of the excavations, describe in a very clear and precise way 
the decipherment of the cuneiform writing, its pictorial origin and 
the materials used for the purposes of writing. 

Chapters V-XII deal with architecture, sculpture, metallurgy, 
cylinder-seals, shell-engraving and ivory-work, terra-cotta figures 
and reliefs, and stoneware and pottery. The use of stone, as a 
building accessory, dates from the most ancient Sumerian times. 
Though Babylonia is as poor in wood as it is in stone, there is 
sufficient evidence for the use of wood as building material, in all 


periods. Metal seems to have been added more for the adornment 
of the conspicuous parts of the buildings, than used as an integral 
part of the structure. As to the general plan of Sumerian temples, 
we are still in a state of ignorance. Other buildings of a 
secular character have been preserved in a more satisfactory state. 
Of the arrangement of private houses, we know comparatively little. 
The column never seems to have occupied a prominent position in 
the architecture — a fact which was again due to the dearth of stone 
and wood. To the same is owing the general use of the arch, which 
was indispensable to a people whose building materials were of 
small size. 

Concerning sculpture, the bas-relief was the favorite and the 
most successful expression of the artistic genius of both Babylon- 
ians and Assyrians. For the study of early Sumerian sculpture in 
the round, we have not much material at hand, for what they 
excelled in, they practised most. It was not till the age of Gudea 
that sculpture in the round assumed a prominent part in the artistic 
life of the people. In the art of working metals the Babylonians 
showed no small degree of proficiency. The metals which appear 
to have been most in use are copper and bronze. The copper age 
commenced in Mesopotamia at a very early period. Gold was only 
used for exceptional purposes. The same was the case with silver. 
Lead was used both in unmixed state and as an alloy. Iron was 
first known in its meteoric state. 

The Mesopotamian dwellers, like all Orientals, were fond of 
gay colors, and gratified their taste for such in various ways, but 
no attempt was made to faithfully represent the objects of nature, 
and the colors they frequently used were, from the naturalistic 
standpoint, entirely impossible. The colors chiefly employed are 
blue, yellow and white, while green, red and black are of rare 
occurrence. The background of the picture is generally a shade of 
royal blue. 

The engraved seals which kings and commoners used alike, 
was an indispensable convenience of civilized society in primitive 
times. The materials used in their manufacture were serpentine, 
marble, quartz crystal, chalcedony, carnelian, agate, jasper, syenite, 
jade, obsidion, onyx, limestone, schist, mother of emerald and 
amethyst. The interest of the seals is of course centered in the 


scenes depicted which elucidate many legendary uncertainties in the 
Babylonian religious conceptions. The art of engraving on shell 
dates back to the earliest period, ivory, however, not being 
procurable in Mesopotamia, was not used till the people extended 
their power outside. From this time, they were able to command a 
supply of this precious substance. Terra-cotta being comparatively 
fragile, and durability being one of the most important considera- 
tions of the artists, this material was not employed so frequently 
for objects of a votive character, as might have been expected. 
Various kinds of stone were used as materials for making bowls 
and vases from the earliest Sumerian days. 

The two last chapters describe dress, military accoutrements, 
life, manners, customs, law and religion. The full dress of the 
earliest Sumerians comprised nothing more elaborate than a skirt 
fastened round the waist and probably made of wool. The head of 
the majority of the figures on the early sculptures is hairless and 
beardless. The dress of early Sumerian women is somewhat uncer- 
tain. From the earliest times, marriage was regarded in the light 
of a legal contract. Polyandry was evidently not unknown. Wo- 
men were employed as weavers, gate-keepers and hairdressers. 
The trades pursued by men were numerous. The fertility of the 
soil naturally encouraged its cultivation. Part of the land belonged 
to the royal domains, the remainder being occupied by private 
individuals. The work of irrigation was undertaken by the state 
and not left to private enterprise. The gods worshipped in the age 
of Gudea (B. C. 2450) were known and venerated in the time of 
Uru-ka-gina (B. C. 2800). Many of the laws of Hammurabi's 
Code show little or no variation from those in force, if not actually 
systematized, in the time of Uru-ka-gina. 

The chief sources for the study of Babylonian symbolism are 
the cylinder-seals, the Babylonian Boundary-Stones, and the 
monoliths of Assyrian kings. The winged disc is clearly symbolic 
of Ashur. But the Babylonian boundary-stones provide more 
material for the study of Babylonian symbolism. In the last few 
pages the author discusses Babylonian eschatology and gives a short 

This book is, as we said above, of capital importance. But the 
author ought to have expressed himself with more reserve, in 


dealing with life, customs and religion of the early Sumerians, as 
far as their description is exclusively based on inscriptions. Our 
knowledge of the Sumerian language is still in its infancy, and we 
may be wide of the mark in many interpretations of early Sumerian 
inscriptions. They are for the time being merely more or less 
probable suggestions and ought not to be represented as indisputable 

From the author's descriptions we gain the impression that 
Babylonian culture was exclusively derived from the Sumerians 
and that the Semites did not contribute anything noteworthy 
towards it. This is hardly fair. In point of religion, at least, the 
Semites whom we find in the country as a ruling people about 300 
years before the age of Gudea, unquestionably influenced and 
modified the conceptions* of the Sumerians. In an Archeology we 
would expect a discussion about the original home of the Ham- 
murabi-dynasy, whether they were South-Arabians or West- 

We are not convinced by the author's arguments that the 
original home of the Sumerians was the Elamite plateau. The early 
Sumerian seals do not prove anything in this respect. Considering 
the mountains as the seats of the gods, they naturally depicted the 
animals and trees found in them as sacred symbols. Besides it is 
very improbable that the Sumerian civilization had its origin in 
Elam. The primitive religious and mythological conceptions point 
to Eridti as the earliest settlement of the Sumerians and the cradle 
of their civilization. 

Sumerian Tablets in the Harvard Semitic Museum. Part 1, 
chiefly from the reign of Lugalanda and Urukagina of Lagash. 
Copied with introduction and index of names of persons by 
Mary Inda Hussey, Ph. D. {Harvard Semitic Series, volume 
III.) Cambridge, U. S. A.: Harvard University, 1912. pp. 36, 
plates of autographed texts 75, and photographed reproduc- 
tions 6. 

The texts published in this volume belong to a very early 
period, approximately 2800 B. C, to the reigns of Lugal-an-da, 


sovereign-priest of Lagash, and his immediate successor ( ?), Urn- 
ka-gina, who on his accession to the high-priestly office, made himself 
king of this city. The tablets for the most part contain accounts 
of the palace and temple expenses. Though nine-tenths of the 
contents consist of proper names and numerals and in recent years 
many texts of exactly the same period and the same character have 
been published, they are nevertheless of great value. They contain 
many signs not identified yet and thus offer new problems in 
palaeography. The proper names are of course of great import- 
ance. So are the names of the months. But text editions of this 
kind ought not to be published without a list of the signs. The 
author should have explained the meaning of the Sumerian series 
designations. The arrangement of the columns, in the obverse 
from left to right and in the reverse from right to left, is confusing 
and unnecessary. The introduction, in which the author dwells at 
length on the use of the curvilinear and cuneiform numerical nota- 
tions, is not very satisfactory, as it does not give much help for 
the reading and understanding of the text. 

Dropsie College Jacob Hoschander