Ruhurater

This paper presents an assessment of a distinctive standing stone which is currently on display in the Imhotep Museum, Saqqara. The prominent snake decoration of the stela is compared with other examples of snake-stelae from Ancient Egypt, leading to the proposed identification of the monument as part of an Early Dynastic senut(i)-shrine, a shrine associated with the cult of Ra.

N. Strudwick, H. Strudwick (eds), Old Kingdom. New Perspectives: Egyptian Art and Archaeology, p. 229-233

Over the Mountains and Far Away: Studies in Near Eastern history and archaeology presented to Mirjo Salvini on the occasion of his 80th birthday, 2019

Bīsotūn, 'Urartians' and 'Armenians' of the Achaemenid Texts, and the Origins of the Exonyms Armina and Arminiya ..1 Gregory E. Areshian Human Images from the Eastern Urartian Periphery: Anthropomorphic Sculpture of Syunik on the Cusp of the 2nd and 1st Millennia BC .

The Ritual Sphere In Cultic Texts And Practices From The Ancient And Early Medieval East. Edited by Paola COTTICELLI-KURRAS and Velizar SADOVSKI with the editorial assistance of Alfredo RIZZA. Oslo: Hermes 2020. ISBN 978-82-8034-206-5 (ebk); ISBN 978-82-8034-219-5 (pbk)., 2020

ASJ 14 (1992) pp. 54f. refers to the rise of Anu in Uruk during the Achaemenid period (on which see § 2 below), which culminated in the construction of the rēš temple in Seleucid times. P.-A. BEAULIEU, RlA 14 pp. 454f. draws attention to Anu's rise to prominence in Uruk in the 5th century BC, which eventually led to the building of the rēš sanctuary which dominated the landscape of the Hellenistic city. P.-A. BEAULIEU, Fs. W.W. Hallo p. 48 states that the rise of Anu that began in the 5th century BC was consummated with the final construction of the rēš in the Seleucid period. According to C. WAERZEGGERS, Ezida p. 115, and P.-A. BEAULIEU, MARG 16 (2004) pp. 315f. the rēš did not yet exist in the time of Nabopolassar (625-605 BC). For evidence that the roots of the Hellenistic rēš temple lie further in the past and indeed can be traced back to the preand protohistoric periods, see A. FALKENSTEIN, Topographie pp. 8f. and the archaeological literature; see below, § 2. 4 The inscription of Nikarchos is extant on a clay cylinder, YOS 1 52. For an edition, see A. FALKENSTEIN, Topographie pp. 4f. The inscription of Kephalon is extant on several bricks. It has been treated by A. FALKENSTEIN, Topographie pp. 6f. and J. VAN DIJK, UVB 18 pp. 47f. I am preparing a study of both inscriptions, along with a new edition of Kephalon's brick inscriptions, that will appear in a forthcoming book.

Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires [N.A.B.U.], 2023

texts, seems to be more of an epithet than a divine name; the god's actual name does not appear in these texts, nor in any other legal or administrative text from the late Achaemenid period. However, a compilation of esoterica, commonly referred to as the Nippur Compendium (GEORGE 1992: 143-162), will shed some light on the matter. The Nippur Compendium (nibru ki ní.bi.ta dù.a) is known primarily from two late Babylonian manuscripts (IM 44150; IM 76975) with the same structure and content, and three additional, smaller tablets, two of which come from Nineveh (K 2892+ K 8397; K 10062) and the third one is a late Babylonian excerpt tablet (BM 38413, GEORGE 1992: 145-146). 2) The text begins with a listing of the names and titles for the city of Nippur and its main temple, Ekur, followed by a list of deities. This list, in which each deity is represented as 'lord of (my) city + of place name', occurs only in the two late Babylonian manuscripts, and is of particular interest to our case as it contains a series of 'dieux topiques' and their localities. Among the legible place names in the list, we find the lords of Borsippa and Dēr, but also deities of smaller settlements in the region between Uruk and Nippur, such as the lords of Šalammu and Kār-Ninurta (GEORGE 1992: 150: 19'; 21'; 24'). 3) Interestingly, the list happens to mention a deity by the name of Erimabinutuku, who is designated as the 'dieu topique' (bēl-āliya) of a place named uru sá.sá.érim (GEORGE 1992: §7, 22'). We suggest to slightly emend the reading of the toponym to sá.di.érim (sá=di), because this spelling (sá.di.érim) stands for the city of Šāṭir, as demonstrated by the late 5 th century BCE text TÉBR 32 (ll. 11 and 14). As noted earlier, the 'dieux topiques' section in the Nippur Compendium, refers not only to Šāṭir, but also to several other sites in the region between Nippur and Uruk, such as Šalammu and Kār-Ninurta, which, like Šāṭir, were still inhabited in the 5 th century BCE. Thus, our suggestion matches the evidence in the section on 'dieux topiques' in the Nippur Compendium in more than one way: they share the same spelling for Šāṭir (sá.di.érim), the same geographical horizon, and the same chronological framework. If we come back to the question of the identity of Lord-of-Šāṭir, it is now clear that according to the Nippur Compendium the deity Erimabinutuku is the Lord-of-Šāṭir. Despite the scarcity in textual sources regarding Erimabinutuku, the Sumerian composition Angim, allows us a better understanding of his nature. According to Angim, Erimabinutuku, the worshipped entity of Šāṭir, is named after one of Ninurta's divine weapons known 'to have established the people in heaven and earth' (COOPER 1978: 82, 146; GEORGE 1992: 447). Notes 1. See, for example, the case of 'Bēl-ālīya-ša-Šarrabānu'('lord-of-my-city-of-Šarrabānu', Baker 2004: 127:128). The city was also located in Bīt-Amukānu.

Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 2005

This eagerly awaited grammar presents an account of the Sumerian language in eighteen chapters: the first three provide an introduction to the features, affiliation and sounds of Sumerian, plus a guide to how it was written; these are followed by twelve chapters on the various parts of speech; the book rounds off with three further chapters to discuss Emesal and the influence of Akkadian on Sumerian, and to offer a few words to tie up loose ends. The book is modern in a number of ways. As could be expected, it incorporates recent advances in our understanding of the language, including some that have very recently appeared and even some yet to appear (the long-awaited results of the sixth Sumerian grammar discussion group, held in Oxford in 1999). It also draws on the ISSL (http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/psd/ www/ISSL-form.html) and provides references to ETCSL (http://www-etcsl. orient.ox.ac.uk/), demonstrating the utility of Internet-based Assyriological materials. But more striking is the adoption of the transliteration style which has started to become more common among Sumerologists in recent times, giving us readings such as ninta 'male' and ses 'brother'. Looking for criticisms, one might point to proofreading. Works intended as reference tools-especially those aimed at students-require even more rigorous attention than others, since students can easily be confused. Spare a thought for the beginner who learns that 'city' is read eri (passim; p. 19 URU), as in the name of the ED ruler of Lagas (pp. 19, 104, 124, 153 Lagaš), Irikagina (p. 102, Erikagina), whose inscriptions are referred to using the abbreviation Ukg. Likewise, 'wood' is g teš and G t EŠ (except for: pp. 103, 146 giš ; p. 8 GIŠ; p. 31 g t iš-gi-g t iš-gi 'cane-brakes'), as used phonetically in g téštug (p. 8; passim g téštu and g t éštu(-g)), which is written GIŠ.TÚG.PI (pp. 8, 150) and may alternatively be rendered giš-túg g t eštug (p. 8). Again in the interests of student sanity, perhaps it would have been better to have kept length marks off Sumerian vowels, e.g. p. 13, where some vowels have length marks, others accents; note also '50' read ninnû (passim; see esp. p. 65), although [û] is absent from the repertory of Sumerian vocalic phonemes listed in 3.1.1. Given that the author extends his remit to take in elements of the writing system, a brief note on modern transliteration habits-especially with reference to accents and subscript numbers-would have been welcome. That the author does extend his remit in this way is a positive thing, however, since he thus greatly facilitates the difficult journey from transliteration to the transcription of grammatical analysis. There are a few slips of the pen. In the list of determinatives, LÚ (the use of which is not actually reserved for male professions) is exemplified with (p. 9) lú nu-kiri 6 , although the lú determinative in Sumerian texts is not normally, REVIEWS An example for the ventive dimensional indicator for 3 rd pl. dative-locative (33 on p. 93) is provided by NBC 8058 ((6.1.02) proverb 2.7 source WWWW): zu-a ùr-ra mu-ne-a-e 11. The ventive 1 st pl. comitative indicator (38) might also be found as meda, as in 1.8.1.5 Gilgameš and Huwawa A 10: d utu šul d utu h b é-me-da-an-zu 'Utu, der junge Utu, sollte es von uns erfahren haben' (p. 171). Both meda and mueda are more commonly found marking 2 nd sg. forms. An example for the ventive 2 nd pl. dative-locative indicator may be found in proverb 5 A 71 = B 74: g tá-e ga-mu-e-ne-h b a-la 'Let me share out for you' (said by a fox to nine wolves). A possible example of a personal pronoun with terminative ending (see p. 56) might be found in (6.1.13) proverb 13.26: g t á-šè. Diachronic and geographic variations in Sumerian receive little attention but a sensible balance must be struck, as it has been here. To provide a coherent, comprehensive, detailed introduction to Sumerian in 200 pages is no mean feat. Inevitably the author did not have space to discuss issues in as much detail as one might have liked, but there are plenty of references to more detailed discussions and divergent opinion elsewhere. The HdO series aims carefully to select 'scholarly reference works of lasting value, under the editorship of major scholars in the field', criteria easily fulfilled by this volume. Throughout the book, one is struck by the learning and insight, as well as the humanity, which the author injects into his work. This grammar is a must for anyone concerned with Sumerian, at whatever level.