[11] Among the Nippur tablets in the collection of the University of Pennsylvania Museum. The fragment was published by Dr. Poebel in his _Historical and Grammatical Texts_ No. 23. See also Poebel in the _Museum Journal_, Vol. IV, p. 47, and an article by Dr. Langdon in the same Journal, Vol. VII, pp. 178-181, though Langdon fails to credit Dr. Poebel with the discovery and publication of the important tablet. [12] No. 55 in Langdon's _Historical and Religious Texts from the Temple Library of Nippur_ (Munich, 1914). [13] No. 5 in his _Sumerian Liturgical Texts_. (Philadelphia, 1917) [14] See on this name below, p. 23. [15] See further below, p. 37 _seq_. [16] See Poebel, _Historical and Grammatical Texts_, No. 1, and Jastrow in _JAOS_, Vol. 36, pp. 122-131 and 274-299. [17] See an article by Jastrow, _Sumerian and Akkadian Views of Beginnings_ (_JAOS_ Vol. 36, pp. 274-299). [18] See on this point Eduard Meyer, _Sumerier und Semiten in Babylonien_ (Berlin, 1906), p. 107 _seq_., whose view is followed in Jastrow, _Civilization of Babylonia and Assyria_, p. 121. See also Clay, _Empire of the Amorites_ (Yale University Press, 1919), p. 23 _et seq_. [19] See the discussion below, p. 24 _seq_. [20] Dr. Poebel published an article on the tablet in _OLZ_, 1914, pp. 4-6, in which he called attention to the correct name for the mother of Gilgamesh, which was settled by the tablet as Ninsun. [21] _Historical Texts_ No. 2, Column 2, 26. See the discussion in _Historical and Grammatical Texts_, p. 123, _seq._ [22] See Fostat in _OLZ_, 1915, p. 367. [23] _Publications of the University of Pennsylvania Museum, Babylonian Section_, Vol. X, No. 3 (Philadelphia, 1917). It is to be regretted that Dr. Langdon should not have given full credit to Dr. Poebel for his discovery of the tablet. He merely refers in an obscure footnote to Dr. Poebel's having made a copy. [24] E.g., in the very first note on page 211, and again in a note on page 213. [25] Dr. Langdon neglected to copy the signs _4 sú-si_ = 240 which appear on the edge of the tablet. He also misunderstood the word _sú-tu-ur_ in the colophon which he translated "written," taking the word from a stem _satâru_, "write." The form _sú-tu-ur_ is III, 1, from _atâru_, "to be in excess of," and indicates, presumably, that the text is a copy "enlarged" from an older original. See the Commentary to the colophon, p. 86. [26] _Museum Journal_, Vol. VIII, p. 29. [27] See below, p. 23. [28] I follow the enumeration of tablets, columns and lines in Jensen's edition, though some fragments appear to have been placed by him in a wrong position.