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 s?-si_ = 240 which
appear on the edge of the tablet. He also misunderstood the word
_s?-tu-ur_ in the colophon which he translated "written," taking
the word from a stem _sat?ru_, "write." The form _s?-tu-ur_ is III,
1, from _at?ru_, "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.
[29] According to Bezold's investigation, _Verbalsuffixformen als
Alterskriterien babylonisch-assyrischer Inschriften_ (Heidelberg
Akad. d. Wiss., Philos.-Histor. Klasse, 1910, 9te Abhandlung), the
bulk of the tablets in Ashurbanapal's library are copies of originals
dating from about 1500 B.C. It does not follow, however, that all
the copies date from originals of the same period. Bezold reaches
the conclusion on the basis of various forms for verbal suffixes,
that the fragments from the Ashurbanapal Library actually date from
three distinct periods ranging from before c.
Pages:
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176