^{page 28 note 1} cf. Goossens, G. in R.A., XLII, 150Google Scholar.

^{page 29 note 1} Ur Excavations: Texts, vol. I, No. 137. This occurrence was pointed out by Landsberger in his review, O.L.Z. 1931, Sp. 129. That the inscription was of En-an-c-du₇ herself is also suggested by similarities of wording among the fragments to certain lines of the present inscription (especially col. V, 38, uru-nam-en-na-mu which puts the matter almost beyond doubt), and by the allusion to another priestess who was, it will be seen, her predecessor in office.

^{page 29 note 2} Editors have read en-(d)c-du₇ without explaining who the supposed “god E-du” might be.

^{page 29 note 3} ka-zù, gù-zù, mulṭu, “comb”.

^{page 29 note 4} Scarcely a “handle” here, in spite of J.N.E.S., VI, 127, for these gifts were doubtless separate objects, and some of the PI are of considerable weight.

^{page 29 note 5} LIŠ, itguru, a vessel or bowl, A.f.0. 9 XII, 544, n.4, Die Welt des Orients, Heft 5, p. 370.

^{page 29 note 6} EŠ-DÉ, ḫabattu, evidently a vessel.

^{page 30 note 1} The reduplicated form is most common in the dynasty of Agade, and a Pu-sa-sa actually occurs in Meek, T. J., Excavations at Nuzi III, No. 60, 3Google Scholar.

^{page 31 note 1} See Poebel, A., The Sumerian Prefix-forms E- and I-, etc., p. 2 ffGoogle Scholar, Böhl's explanation (loc. cit., p. 176) is so far correct, but there is no justification for his identifying en-an with the Moon-god, as the other ritual names collected by him (p. 154) sufficiently prove, for en is not an epithet of the god but a description of the priestess. It is true that the daughter of Kudur-Mabug was given a name which differs only in detail from that of Sargon's daughter En-ḫe-du₇-an-na.

^{page 31 note 2} For the titles in other cities see Böhl, loc. cit., p. 155. It is difficult to accept that, in the early period, NIN-DINGIR would denote only ugbabtum, whereas NIN-DINGIR-RA was required for EN, entum, as Nougayrol suggests, J.N.E.S. IX, 51 f.

^{page 32 note 1} Royal Cemetery, Text, p. 352, under no. 214 ; also R.A., XXX, 118, no. 4.

^{page 32 note 2} In spite of the following -da this may not be Akkad; the obscure URI in the significant context of U.E.T.I., no. 271 is, perhaps indicative, though it cannot be explained.

^{page 32 note 3} Nougayrol, J., in R.A., 28 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 35 note 1} The evidence quoted by Ungnad, , R.L.A., II, 155Google Scholar (without determinative) is not consistent with his transcription, ibid., 161 (with determinative), where however he adds “auch sonst belegt”. Among the several tablets from Ur dated in this year only one has the determinative.

^{page 35 note 2} It appears at least in the main date-list published by Thureau-Dangin, but this may be discounted as non-contemporary. The 11th formula is found in several examples from Ur, but these all omit the royal name from the wording.

^{page 36 note 1} See R.A., XXXII, 140Google Scholar, n.1, Meissner, , Beitr. zum assyr. Wörterbuch, II, 9Google Scholar, and Kraus, F. R., Orientalia, 1947, 194Google Scholar.

^{page 37 note 1} For the (uncertain) reading BÚR see Meissner, , M.V.A.G., 1913, 2, 17 note 22Google Scholar. If some kind of bush is indicated by this passage b(p)al(l)uk(k)u must be more than a “seed-cone”, as suggested by Goetze, in J.A.O.S., 65, 235, n.58Google Scholar. Thompson, , Dict. of Assyrian Botany, 540f.Google Scholar, would make it a larger growth, Liquidambar or Styrax.

^{page 37 note 2} The nearest seems to be (Šam)allu(m)zi, a kind of thorn: Thompson, op. cit., 185.