THE BABYLONIAN EXPEDITION

FROM THE TEMPLE ARCHIVES Ol? NIPPUR. XI
addressed, sealed and handed over to a messenger in order to be delivered. What
then is the inference from this invocation? Does the invocation prove that the
letter was sent from Nippur to Nippur, where it was found? Such a thought would
be simply ridiculous. All we can say is this: the writer of No. 38, because he invokes
the gods of Nippur, was in all probability a Nippurian, but was away from Nippur
when writing that letter. The invocation of that letter, then, does not prove any-
thing at all with regard to the place whence that letter has been sent.
2. Prof. Hilprecht has some very good, convincing, and absolutely reliable
reasons why he assigns the Lushtamar letter to the business or administrative
section of the Temple Library of Nippur. We believe his words a thousand times
more than those of his accusers, which, at the very best, are merely hearsay. In
fact, his critics have absolutely nothing to bring forward in corroboration of their
claim that "the Lushtamar letter did not come from the ruins of Nippur, but from
those of Sippar." In corroboration of this hearsay talk Prof. Hilprecht's critics now
point out that the seal impression of the Lushtamar letter mentions certain persons
who are known from tablets that have been found at Sippar. What is there on the
envelope of the Lushtamar letter to justify such a strange conclusion? Besides the
address "to Lushtamar (a-na Lu-ush-ta-mar) ", I find a seal impression which reads:
Ilu-shh-Ba-nz dam-qar I m&r I-bi-"l"NiN.SHAff 1 ardi ""NiN.SHAH-ge. The same
persons occur again on a tablet published in B. E., VI1, 50 : 19, 20, which tablet
was "probably" excavated in Sippar. The critics draw the conclusion, it seems,
that, because the same persons occur on both tablets (the Lushtanzar letter and B. E.,
VI', 50), and because B. E., VI', 50, was "probably" found in Sippar, the Lushtamar
must have been found in Sippar likewise. But can anyone imagine that Ilu-shu-Ba-ni,
a resident of Sippar, would write to Lushtamar, another resident of Sippar, which he must
have done if the letter had been found at Sippar? If Lushtamar had been a resident of
Sippar, like Ilu-shu-Ba-ni, is it not much more probable that the latter would have
gone in person to the former and communicated to him his wishes orally? Instead of
this contention being against Prof. Hilpreeht, it much rather speaks decidedly for him.
We may admit that the ilu-shh-Ba-ni of the Lushtamar letter and the ilu-shu-Ba-ni
of B. E., VI', 50, are both one and the same person; we also may admit that both
were residents of Sippar; but from this it by no means follows that the addressee,
Mr. Lushtamar, 'lived likewise in Sippar. On the contrary, the fact that ilu-shi~-
Ba-ni, a possible inhabitant of Sippar, did write to Lushtamar would prove a priori
that the latter was not a resident of Sippar, but was, as Prof. Hilprecht, for reasons
given in his "Controversy," quite rightly and correctly claims, a resident of Nippur.
In conclusion, I must apologize to the Editor and the Publication Committee for