Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4rdrl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-24T21:30:54.643Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Giparu at Ur

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 August 2014


The purpose of the building called the giparu, built and rebuilt from possibly as early as Early Dynastic times down to the Neo-Babylonian period, was to serve as the official dwelling of the entu-priestess. This is clearly stated by the entu Enanedu herself. She describes herself as “patroness who had the giparu built for its entu office on the sacred site “, and speaks of the giparu as “my abode of the entu-ship”. King Nabonidus who rebuilt the giparu for the last time records on bricks that, “for Sin, my lord, I built the giparu-temple, the house of the entu-priestess.”

The entu living in the giparu was a priestess of the highest order, elected by the god Nanna and revealed to the country through omens. So important was the office that the priestess was always of royal blood, the daughter or sister of the king. Ninmetabarri, daughter of AN.BU, king of Mari, whose inscribed calcite cup was found at Ur, may be the first entu of Nanna who has left any written record of herself. Enanedu spoke of herself as daughter of Kudur-Mabuk, sister of Warad-Sin; and Nabonidus, who revived the office of entu after hundreds of years of oblivion, established his daughter Ennigaldi-Nanna as entu in Ur after learning through lengthy divination that she was Nanna's choice. The importance of the office of entu is further stressed by the evidence that the kings occasionally named their regnal years after the appointment and the installation of the entus.

Research Article
IRAQ , Volume 37 , Issue 2 , Autumn 1975 , pp. 101 - 128
Copyright © The British Institute for the Study of Iraq 1975

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)


1 This article is an abridged version of the dissertation, The Giparu at Ur: a study of archaeological remains and related textual material, supervised by ProfessorJacobsen, T. and submitted to the Faculty of the Division of the Humanities, University of Chicago, in 1958Google Scholar. It is cited as one of the sources for the entry Gipar” in the Reallexikon der Assyriologie (III/5 (1968), 377–9Google Scholar). Because of this, and because of its intrinsic interest, the Editors welcomed the suggestion of Professor Jacobsen that it should now be published in the present form. In the time which has elapsed since its submission, a number of studies relating to this subject have naturally appeared, but it was not considered appropriate to insert references to these into the present text. The opportunity has been taken however to add some notes on further publications of Ur material to which reference is made in this article. These are listed as Addenda at the end of the article and were kindly supplied by T. C. Mitchell of the British Museum.

2 Iraq 13 (1951), 27 ll. 14, 26CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Some from the entu's house built next to the giparu site, some from elsewhere in the sacred area. This statement also appears on a door socket found in situ at the Nabonidus gate leading into Etemenniguru. See UET I, 186 and 187Google Scholar.

4 See TOS I, 45 i 6–10Google Scholar.

5 UET I, 12Google Scholar.

6 UET I, 137 iiGoogle Scholar.

7 YOS I, 45 i 1–25Google Scholar.

8 Landsberger, B., OLZ 34 (1931), 129Google Scholar; Sollberger, E., AfO 17 (19541956), 23–6Google Scholar; Ungnad, A., “Datenlisten”, RLA II, 140 ff., nos. 16, 32, 34, 71, 130Google Scholar.

9 UET I, 23 l. 3Google Scholar; ibid., 25 l. 26.

10 Iraq 13 (1951), 27 l. 7CrossRefGoogle Scholar; read úr (!) nam-en-šè kù-ge-eš-e túm-ma.

11 TCL 16, Pl. 136: 30Google Scholar. See discussion of this passage by Jacobsen, T. in ZA NF 18 (1957), 107, n. 32Google Scholar.

12 Chiera, E., SRT I, 1 v 32–4Google Scholar; cf. A. Falkenstein and W. von Soden, SAHG, no. 18.

13 ZA NF 18 (1957), 126 n. 80Google Scholar.

14 Cf. Landsberger, B., ZA 30 (19151916), 6773CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gadd, C. J., Iraq 13 (1951), 31–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15 Enūma eliš VI, l. 105Google Scholar.

16 Jacobsen, T., JNES 12 (1953), 181Google Scholar.

17 Cf. above, the text cited with note 11.

18 KAR, 144 rev. 5.

19 Iraq 13 (1951), 27 ll. 21–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20 UET I, 106 l. 22Google Scholar.

21 UET V, 544Google Scholar; Iraq 13 (1951), 29Google Scholar.

22 UET I, 137, fragment 2 iiGoogle Scholar.

23 Ibid., col. v 1–6.

24 Ibid., col. v 24–5.

25 UET III, 911Google Scholar.

26 UET I, 137 iv 3–8, 20–7Google Scholar.

27 UET III, 52Google Scholar. This text was found in the giparu on the Amar-Sin pavement, and is mentioned with its sealing below, p. 107, n. 54.

28 YOS I, 45 ii 18–29Google Scholar.

29 See above, p. 102.

30 Deimel, A., Or 2 (1920), 32 ffGoogle Scholar.

31 en-en-ni-ne and KU.KU, ibid., p. 45.

32 An.Or. 19, no. 170.

33 Figulla, H. H., “Accounts concerning allocation of provisions from offerings in the Ningal Temple at Ur” (Iraq 15 (1953), especially 104–11, 176–80)Google Scholar.

34 Ibid., 104–11.

35 Iraq 13 (1951), 29Google Scholar.

36 For discussion of the length of the entu's tenure see Gadd, C.J., Iraq 13 (1951), 30CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Sollberger, E., AfO 17 (19541956), 23–6Google Scholar.

37 The findings were published in the Antiquaries Journal, 5 (1985), 1–20, 347402Google Scholar; and 6 (1926), 365–401. The same material in a more abbreviated form also appeared in the Museum Journal of the University of Pennsylvania. [See Addendum].

38 AJ 6, 366. [See Addendum].

39 See the List of Known Entus, below p. 127 f.

40 It is possible that we have the name of an even earlier entu, that of Ninmetabarri, daughter of AN.BU. This name was inscribed on a calcite cup discovered on the Ehursag site just south-east of the giparu (AJ 10 (1930), Pl. XXIVGoogle Scholar; UET I, 12Google Scholar). For the reading of the name AN.BU, see Landsberger, B., OLZ 34 (1931), 127Google Scholar, and Jacobsen, T., The Sumerian King List (Chicago, 1939), n. 189Google Scholar. As for AN.BU's time, it may be noted first that, as indicated by the Sumerian King List and supported by the finds of inscriptions in Ur, AN.BU was a ruler of Mari who succeeded in conquering large parts of Sumer. Stylistic and epigraphic criteria suggest a dating to the outgoing Early Dynastic Period, and it seems possible, as suggested by Jacobsen, T. in ZA NF 18 (1957), 133Google Scholar, that AN.BU's invasion is identical with the attack by Mari on Lagash which is mentioned in Eannatum's inscription (Boulder A, vi 2a; SAKI 20–3). In Ninmetabarri, as Burrows suggests (UE II, 321–2), we may have the first example of a king's daughter made a priestess at Ur. Since the inscription in question is the only record we have of AN.BU's daughter and since it was discovered outside the giparu, no certainty is possible, but it is tempting to associate this Early Dynastic royal princess with the earliest architectural remains found on the giparu site.

41 UET I, 23Google Scholar.

42 Ibid., 69.

43 Ibid., 24 and 25. There is one other object which should be mentioned with the Sargonid material as possible further evidence of the existence of a giparu at Ur in this early period. A cylinder seal, discovered loose in Pit X in the grave area of Ur south-east of the sacred precinct with objects datable to the Jemdet Nasr, Early Dynastic, and Sargonid periods (Woolley, L., UE IV, 77–9, 195Google Scholar; published by Legrain, L. in UE X, no. 353Google Scholar) shows a woman standing before a seated female deity. Behind the standing figure are the signs en and munus and two crescent moons. One would like to see in this scene the entu standing before Ningal with the accompanying inscription identifying the woman as the entu of Nanna, the moon god. Legrain mentions that the same en sign surmounted by a crescent is engraved on a fragment of black stone bowl beside the inscription Enmahgalanna en dNANNA (see UET I, 64Google Scholar). The seal, on stylistic grounds, has been tentatively assigned to the Sargonid period.

44 See below, p. 107.

45 AJ 6, 367.

46 UET I, 35Google Scholar. One of the Ur-Nammu door sockets has the variant “for Ninegal” (AJ 6, 366), a name which appears elsewhere as an epithet for the goddess Inanna. Whether this door socket came from a special shrine to Inanna in the giparu, or originally was meant for a nearby temple to Inanna (for this see UET I, 36 and 37Google Scholar) cannot be decided on present evidence.

47 UET I, 67Google Scholar.

48 Ibid., 48.

49 In addition a stone dish was discovered in the Kassite giparu (AJ 6, Pl. LV, room 3) bearing the inscription UET I 34Google Scholar, a dedication by Ur-Nammu to Ningal.

50 Ungnad, A., “Datenlisten,” RLA II, 141, nos. 32. 34Google Scholar.

51 See UET I, 34Google Scholar; ibid., 51; UET III, 1320Google Scholar; also Sollberger, E., AfO 17 (19541956), 23 n. 62Google Scholar.

52 Ungnad, A., “Datenlisten,” RLA II, 143, no. 71Google Scholar.

53 Two door sockets dating from the reign of Shu-Sin were discovered in the giparu (UET I, 72 and 81Google Scholar). However, 72 is seemingly a building inscription for a structure built for Enlil by Shu-Sin, and 81 refers to a temple to the deified Shu-Sin built by his military governor. No information as to stratigraphy and exact provenience is available, but the likelihood is that they were found in secondary usage.

54 UET III, 52Google Scholar; the seal impression from it in UET I, 92Google Scholar.

55 Ibbi-Sin, in his twenty-fourth year, was defeated by Elam and Sua and carried off captive to Elam (Jacobsen, T., JCS 7 (1953), 44Google Scholar).

56 See Plate XXVIa.

57 See Plate XXVIa. The texts are described by Woolley as temple records (AJ 6, 374). No more specific information is available; it may be that when they are identified, they will prove to be relevant. [See Addendum].

58 UET I, 104Google Scholar.

59 AJ 6, Pl. LIIa; see UET I, 103Google Scholar.

60 Inscriptions on bricks and cones found in the giparu, É.NUN-mah, and Ehursag attest to the building activities in that area of Lipit-Ishtar of Isin, and this king may have repaired the giparu. However, the bricks, found scattered in three places, bear only the name and titles of the king, and the cones speak explicitly of the giparu of Nin-EZEN×LA. This building was not found and may have disappeared through denudation.

61 For the relationship between É.NUN-kug and giparu see below, p. 117.

62 The word tak(!?)-si-ru-um (read thus rather than KÁ-si-ru-um) would appear to be a loan word in Sumerian from Akkadian takšīrum “repair” from kašāru, “to repair” (on which see MSL I, 217Google Scholar). Since the inscribed cones were found embedded in mud plaster on the face of the wall, the repair referred to is, evidently, that of replastering the walls. Gadd and Legrain in the note on this passage (UET I, 34Google Scholar) are correct in discarding the earlier interpretation of the word as some kind of gate, but hardly in reading it ká-si-ru-um and in considering it as a variant of kisirtu, “dam” or “weir” (from kesēru— the sibilant would have been rendered with a sign of the ZA, ZI, ZU series at this period), to which they attribute an otherwise not attested meaning “facing of a wall.”

63 Later, because in the inscription she speaks of herself as the sister of Rim-Sin, king of Ur, who was Warad-Sin's successor.

64 Iraq 13 (1951), 27 ll. 34–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

65 YOS I, 45 ii 1–15, 12–13Google Scholar.

66 See discussion below p. 121 f.

67 The wall may have been breached by robbers in search of treasure in the tombs, or by soldiers in an attack on Ur during the struggle for power between Isin and Larsa.

68 Note that tombs were discovered under the floors of both rooms B 17 and 23. [See Addendum.]

69 One other possible location for the cemetery might perhaps be considered. Beyond the giparu to the south-east were discovered the ruins of a building the foundations of which were of Ur III date with Isin-Larsa period walls above them. A brick-built tomb was found beneath the floor of one of the rooms, and the whole complex had apparently been surrounded by a wall of Larsa date. However, since this structure does not fit the description of the cemetery as situated at the side of the giparu, since the surrounding wall is of too late a date to have been the one which Enanedu found breached, and since only one tomb was discovered in the building, it seems unlikely that this structure could be the cemetery which Enanedu and Nabonidus describe.

70 Cf. above, n. 33. For the discussion of these offerings to the entus made at the “place of libation,” perhaps to be understood as the grave, see below, p. 141 f.

71 Ungnad, A., “Datenlisten,” RLA II, 183, no. 156Google Scholar.

72 No plan of this phase is published.

73 See Plate XXVII. In no less than seven inscriptions of Kurigalzu's found at Ur does he claim to have restored an ancient building and returned it to its place: UET I, 153, 156, 157–9, 162, 164Google Scholar.

74 Compare Plate XXVIb with the upper section of Plate XXVII.

75 AJ 5, 373. Fig. 4; UE V, Pls. LXXII and LXXIII.

76 UET I, 156Google Scholar.

77 The other doorway appears on the plan to be blocked by a wall the thickness of one brick. However, it seems probable that this apparent blocking is simply a high sill.

78 The practice of decorating the exterior walls of religious buildings with niches had reached a high point of development in the very early days of Mesopotamian history as is shown by the 'Ubaid period temple at Tepe Gawra, Level XIII, known as the Northern Temple (Tobler, A., Excavations at Tepe Gawra (Philadelphia, 1950), Vol. II, Pls. XI, XIIGoogle Scholar). The continuation of this practice can be traced through Mesopotamian history with such examples as the Early Dynastic Shara temple at Tell Agrab (Delougaz, P. and Lloyd, S., Pre-Sargonid Temples in the Diyala Region (OIP LVIII), Pl. 26Google Scholar); and the III Dynasty of Ur Court of Nanna at Ur, and the Neo-Babylonian E-mah temple at Babylon (Koldewy, R., Die Tempel von Babylon wid Borsippa (WVDOG XV), Pl. IIIGoogle Scholar).

79 YOS I, 45 i 29–33Google Scholar.

80 Thirteen of his foundation cones were found in situ below the walls and pavement of the cella; see UET I, 171Google Scholar.

81 See AJ 10 (1930), Pl. XXXIIGoogle Scholar.

82 Ibid. [See also Addendum].

83 See YOS I, 45 i 39–44Google Scholar.

84 “The giparu as of old I built anew,” ibid., ii 5.

85 The statement of Nabonidus' construction of the giparu appears appended to the statement of the benefits bestowed upon the priesthood of Ekishnugal by Nabonidus on a door socket found in situ at the Nabonidus gate in the western temenos wall of Ekishnugal.

86 YOS I, 45 ii 7Google Scholar.

87 AJ 10, Pl. XXXII.

88 UET I, 37Google Scholar.

89 UET I, 186Google Scholar.

90 AJ 11 (1931), Pls. XLVI, LIIIGoogle Scholar.

91 Ibid., 376; the text is the same as that quoted in footnote 89.

92 For discussion of the name É.NUN see below, p. 117f.

93 Presumably, for otherwise there seems to be no explanation for leaving the south-east face of the giparu building undecorated while the other three sides were niched in accordance with the Mesopotamian practice of embellishing the exterior walls of religious buildings.

94 AJ 6, Pl. XLVII a and b.

95 UET I, 146Google Scholar.

96 This feature, a place for ritual washing where the priest and worshipper would purify themselves before presenting themselves to the deity, seems to have been a characteristic element in early Mesopotamian temples, and examples have been discovered in the Northern Temple at Nippur (Oriental Institute Excavation, plan unpublished), and in the temples of the Diyala region—at Khafaje, the Sin Temple levels VII–IX; at Tell Asmar, the square Abu Temple; and at Tell Agrab, the Shara Temple (Delougaz and Lloyd, op. cit., Pls. VIII–XI, XXII, and XXVI respectively).

An example of a column such as mentioned above and bearing the inscription of the wife of Rim-Sin dedicating it as a stand for a water basin is published in YOS IX, 31 ll. 23–30Google Scholar.

97 These bases are in a similar position to those found in the Court of Nanna below the ziggurat terrace to the north-east. In a text dealing with offerings made at various doorways, gates and courts of the sacred area of Nanna a broken passage appears which is probably to be restored as [g]u-en-na, followed by a location possibly to be restored as [kisal-sag]-an-na (UET III, 270 obv. 2Google Scholar). Legrain suggests that the kisal-sag-an-na was the large open court below Etemenniguru, i.e., the Court of Nanna and the guenna would then be in the court.

The word guenna originally had the meaning “the totality of the lords” and came in Kassite times to be used as the title of a religious official, possibly because he was the spokesman for the religious assembly. Jacobsen translates the word as “the assembly of the administrators.” It is possible, then, that the bases in the Court of Nanna were the benches or daises for the divine administrators of the activities of the estates of the temple of Nanna, and correspondingly, the bases in the court of the Ningal temple were for the deities who supervised the affairs of that temple. See the discussion of the minor gods in the temple organization by Jacobsen, T., in Frankfort, al., Intellectual Adventure of Ancient Man (Chicago, 1946), 186–91Google Scholar; see also Gudea Cylinder B.

98 UET I, 137Google Scholar.

99 C 27—see Plate XXVI.

100 AJ 6, Pl. XLVIII a.

101 Ibid., Pl. LI a and b.

102 UET I, 24Google Scholar; also Sollberger, E., Af0 17 (19541956), 23, n. 62Google Scholar.

103 UET I, 103Google Scholar.

104 Woolley gives no more precise provenience.

105 UET III, 14 and 19Google Scholar; the seal impressions from these documents are published in UET I, 78 and 79Google Scholar.

106 UET III, 52Google Scholar; the seal impression from this document is published in UET I, 92Google Scholar. This text and its seal impression have been mentioned in other connections above p. 107, n. 54; p. 103, n. 27.

107 For a nearly contemporary parallel to this temple as the dwelling of the goddess Ningal, see Gudea's Cylinder B in which he describes the organization of the temple which he has built for the god Ningirsu—the temple is run as an estate with minor gods in charge of the various activities, such as the herds and the growing of grain. However since no trace of this temple has yet been uncovered, a comparison of the architectural plan of the two buildings is impossible.

108 See above, p. 115, n. 97.

109 Although the majority of the larger Mesopotamian temples in all periods had a room next to the cella, this room is obviously of a secondary nature, the entrance to it being at right angles to the axis of approach to the cella, leading off from the cella, rather than standing beside the cella entrance on the same axis of approach, e.g., the Western Temple of Tepe Gawra, level VIIIC (Speiser, E. A., Excavations at Tepe Gawra (Philadelphia, 1935), Vol. I, Pl. XIGoogle Scholar); the first five Sin temples at Khafaje (P. Delougaz and S. Lloyd, op. cit., Pls. 2–5); the Gimil-Sin temple and the palace chapel at Tell Asmar (Frankfort, H., Lloyd, S. and Jacobsen, T., The Gimil-Sin Temple and the Palace of the Rulers at Tell Asmar (OIP XLIII; Chicago, 1940), Pl. I)Google Scholar; and the Neo-Babylonian E-mah temple in Babylon (R. Koldewy, op. cit., Pl. III).

110 UET I, 103Google Scholar.

111 Ibid., 137 i 21.

112 Ibid., 111.

113 Ibid., 171.

114 YOS I, 45 i 39 ffGoogle Scholar.

115 Erimḫuš VI, 185 fGoogle Scholar.

116 Malku= šarru I, 255Google Scholar.

117 Enūma eliš VI, ll. 51–2.

118 von Soden, W., ZA NF 9 (1936), 306, l. 13 ffGoogle Scholar.

119 Enūma eliš, I, l. 75.

120 Sennacherib, , Annals v 43Google Scholar; Nebuchadnezzar, I R, 57 viii 27–30.

121 See above, n. 112.

122 The bedstead which must have stood in the bedroom (C 28) is mentioned by Enanedu as “the bed of Ningal” in a list of temple appurtenances in her very fragmentary inscription UET I, 137Google Scholar; see above, p. 103, n. 24.

123 UET I, 126Google Scholar.

124 Chiera, E., SRT I, 1 v 15Google Scholar; cf. W. von Soden and A. Falkenstein, SAHG, no. 18.

125 AJ 6, Pls. XLVIII b, XLIX a and b.

126 See above, p. 109 f.

127 Iraq 13 (1951), 27 ll. 34–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

128 There is another possible interpretation of this passage, that is, that the two elements are in apposition and are, therefore, synonymous. If this interpretation is to be accepted, one must assume that the urinnu-symbols are in some ritual way associated with the cemetery. Since there is no discoverable connection between the urinnu-symbol (which seems to be related to the “Bugelschäfte” depicted in seal impressions as standing at the doors of temples) and cemeteries or death, this interpretation would seem to be considerably less convincing.

129 AJ 6, Pl. XLVI b.

130 xhis inscription has not been published, presumably because it is the same as that appearing on the door sockets of Amar-Sin and published in UET I, 67Google Scholar.

131 The rulers of ancient Mesopotamia were not unaware of the fate which often overtook their monuments, and it was to prevent just this relegation to the attic that Shu-ilishu, second king of the Isin dynasty, inscribed on a stone door socket (UET I, 100 ll. 19–31Google Scholar) an appropriate curse.

132 Cf. n. 33 above, especially pp. 88–122, 171–92.

133 whether the à-an-da in the name Ningal-á-an-da represents, as Dr. Jacobsen thinks possible, a spoken variant of á-ná-da, “bedroom”, and refers to the small room next to the cella in the Ningal temple we prefer to leave undecided. The occurrence of the temple name É-á-an-da in an economic document of the period of the third dynasty of Ur should also be noted (UET III, 913 rev. 6Google Scholar); it is possible that our name refers to Ningal as goddess of this temple.

134 AJ 6, Pl. XLV b.

135 Ibid., Pl. XLV a.

136 Since only the foundations remain in the section of the building comprising rooms B 14–26 and the doorways are, therefore, uncertain, it is possible that the rooms B 20–2 were accessible from the rooms to the south-east of them (B 19, 23–4) as well as from the court A 6. However, because they open on to the court, they have been provisionally included in Unit A, instead of in Unit B as Woolley placed them. [See Addendum].

137 Cf. no. 3 Gay Street (AJ 7, Pl. XLI) a house of the Larsa period found in Ur.

138 The graves which the plan (see Plate XXVI) indicates below the floors of rooms A 7–9 are not discussed by Woolley.

139 AJ 6, Pl. XLVI a.

140 UET I, 116Google Scholar.

141 In plan the parallel between the Eshnunna building and Unit A is very close. The living-quarters of both structures include a private chapel; an ablution chamber stands in both structures between the entrance to the complex and the doorways to the various parts of the building, and both living-quarters have a large temple attached. See Frankfort, Lloyd and Jacobsen, op. cit., Pl. I.

142 We have already noted the fact that in Kassite times the Ningal temple was moved from its Ur III site to a site inside Etemenniguru. A comparison of the plan of the Kassite building remaining on the site of the old Ur III building with a plan of Unit A of the Ur III building (see Plates XXVI–XXVII) will suggest that Unit A of the original structure was rebuilt on the same plan wherever the old walls were preserved enough for the Kassite builders to find them. The domestic character of the unit not only remains, but is emphasized by the addition of structures of apparently domestic nature to the south-east of Unit A covering the area originally occupied by Unit B and the Ningal temple. Thus, it seems reasonable to assume that the building continued in use as the official dwelling of the entu-priestess.

143 Lenzen, H., Die Entwicklung der Zikurrat, Vol. IV: Ausgrabungen der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft in Uruk-Warka (Leipzig, 1941), 2526, and Pl. IXGoogle Scholar.

144 A. Poebel apud Schott, A., UVB I, 51 no. 4, n. 3Google Scholar. The genitive construction of the word giparu, and the use of the verb dím, to fashion, rather than dù, to build, indicates that not a building activity, but the fashioning of some object, in this case a weapon for the giparu of Inanna is involved.

145 Cf. Legrain, L., PBS 15, no. 46Google Scholar, an inscription occurring on bricks found scattered and in secondary use in private houses in Nippur. The inscription records the fashioning by Ishme-Dagan of a mace for Ninurta, and ends with the statement,” this (literally, “it”) is a baked brick upon which he set up his (Ninurta's) beloved weapon.” For the translation see Poebel's review of PBS in OLZ 31 (1928), 696Google Scholar.

146 Delougaz and Lloyd, op. cit., 261–5.

147 Delougaz, P., The Temple Oval at Khafaje, (OIP LIII; Chicago, 1940), Pl. IIIGoogle Scholar.

148 Delougaz suggested that House D might be the dwelling of the leader of the community in his role as chief priest. See The Temple Oval, 56.

149 Support for the suggestion that House D was occupied by the en, the economic manager of the community, comes from the discovery in House D of such agricultural appurtenances as lentil seeds and barley seeds, and fragments of flint set in bitumen (room K43:5), and traces of a fish-net and many clay net sinkers (room 14.3:7). See also, Falkenstein, A., CHM 1 (1953), 795801Google Scholar, for the role of the en in the political and religious life of the community.

150 Delougaz and Lloyd, op. cit., Pl. 26: for a comparison of the complex with House D made by Delougaz, see p. 261.

151 Sollberger, E. in his article in AfO 17, 19Google Scholar, would restore the word Karzida to a formula for the seventeenth year of Shulgi's reign, but this restoration cannot be accepted for Amar-Sin, Shulgi's successor, tells in an inscription (SAKI 200) of building the giparu at Karzida for the first time.

152 Dr.Sollberger, (AfO 17, 34)Google Scholar suggests that Enuburzianna and Enmahgalanna are the same person under two different names, for otherwise Enuburzianna, appointed in Shulgi 43, would have served the unusually short term of nine years, since Enmahgalanna was installed in Amar-Sin 4. However, there is no necessity to assume that we are dealing with two people. It is quite possible that Enuburzianna died and was replaced, and that the dates for the installation of Enuburzianna and the appointment of Enmahgalanna were not recorded.

153 Dr. Sollberger has commented on an extraordinary document, UET III, 1602Google Scholar: the text is dated to the fourth year of Ibbi-Sin, while the envelope bears the formula for the fourth year of Amar-Sin (AfO 17, 34Google Scholar). No solution can be offered for this curious problem.

154 We have provisionally followed Dr. Sollberger in his correction of Inanna to Nanna in the formula for the tenth year of Ibbi-Sin (UET I, 292Google Scholar), but his argument is not totally convincing (AfO 17, 24Google Scholar).

155 For Dr. Sollberger's argument, which we are provisionally following, for considering Ninzianna an entu of Nanna, see AfO 17, 25Google Scholar.

156 From a list of royal donors and their gifts (Gadd, C.J., Iraq 13, 39Google Scholar) two entus, Enshakiag-Nanna and Enanedu, appear as contemporaneous. Presumably the elder, Enshakiag-Nanna, was retired at the time of Enanedu's installation in the sixth year of Warad-Sin. See discussion of length of entu's tenure of office above, p. 104.