¹ The report on the findings and method of the Survey of the Central Diyala Region, ready in manuscript since 1938, is scheduled for the last of the volumes of the Iraq Expedition reports and so has not yet appeared.

The Survey of Central Sumer was proposed by the writer when he was appointed Annual Professor of the Baghdad School in 1953–54. It was carried out under his direction as a joint project of the Baghdad School and the Iraq Department of Antiquities. Preliminary accounts based on reports from the field are “Mesopotamian Mound Survey,” Archaeology 7 (1954), 53–54 Google Scholar, Goetze, , “Archaeological Survey of Ancient Canals,” Sumer XI (1955), 127–128 Google Scholar with map facing page 128, and Jacobsen, , “La Géographie et les Voies de Communication du Pays de Sumer,” R.A. LII (1958), 127–129 Google Scholar. See also Jacobsen, , “Early Political Development in Mesopotamia,” Z.A. 52 (1957), 96–99 Google Scholar, and the article by V. Crawford in this volume (pp. 197–199).

The Survey of Accad, directed by Robert M. Adams, was undertaken jointly by the Baghdad School and the Oriental Institute of the Univeristy of Chicago. A preliminary report on results was given by Robert Adams, M., “Settlements in Ancient Akkad,” Archaeology 10 (1957), 270–273 Google Scholar. Map on page 270. A more detailed report is Adams, Robert M., “Survey of Ancient Watercourses and Settlements in Central Iraq”, Sumer XIV (1958), 101–104 Google Scholar with period maps.

The Diyala Basin Archaeological Project was undertaken jointly by the Oriental Institute and the Directorate General of Antiquities of Iraq for the Iraq Development Board. It carried out, under the direction of the writer, an archaeological investigation in the Diyala River Basin with the purpose of identifying ancient irrigation and agricultural practices with special attention to draining facilities and salinization of soils. The programme included both a Ceramic Surface Survey in charge of Robert M. Adams, excavations in charge of Mohammed Ali Mustafa and Fuad Safar, palaeo-botanical investigations in charge of Hans Helbaek, and an extensive programme of textual study. See Jacobsen, “Salinity and Irrigation Agriculture in Antiquity” (Mimeographed report, iv + 104 maps), Jacobsen; “Summary of Report by the Diyala Basin Archaeological Project …,” Sumer XIV (1958), 79–89 Google Scholar and Jacobsen, and Adams, , “Salt and Silt in Ancient Mesopotamian Agriculture,” Science vol. 128, 1251–1258 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

² Some Tigris supplies were brought into Sumer by Entemena shortly before the Agade Period. They grew steadily in volume and importance, so that by Old Babylonian times the feeder and the lower part of the Iturungal were considered a main branch of the Tigris.

³ Note: (1) Sippar. Hammurabi built the walls of Sippar, surrounded it with a moat, dredged the Euphrates down to Sippar and let it flow along a protective quay. L.I.H. 58, i. 10–20 Google Scholar and Accadian version idem. 57. 1.9–11.1. (2) Kish. Date-formula for 24th year of Samsuiluna mentions the building of the wall of Kish on the bank of the Euphrates. See e.g. H.G.T. no. 99. (3) Nippur. The Euphrates is shown on the ancient map of Nippur (probably of Cassite date) as touching the north side of the sacred quarter of the city. For a copy of the map see Kramer, , From the Tablets of Sumer, p. 274 Google Scholar. (4) Shuruppak. Location on the Euphrates is mentioned in the Gilgamesh Epic Tablet XI.11–12. (5) Uruk. Location on the Euphrates may be inferred from the Gilgamesh Epic Tablet VI. 176. (6) Larsa and (7) Ur. See the letter Ungnad, V.A.B. 6, no. 43, 27–28 Google Scholar mentioning “the Euphrates from Larsato Ur.”

⁴ The location of the upper part of the I r n i n a canal at Sippar is shown by the letter of Abieshuh, Ungnad, V.A.B. 6 no. 78. Its tail end can be shown from the Ur-Nammuk topographical texts published by Kraus, in Z.A. 51, 45–75 Google Scholar to have joined the Zubi (See Kraus op. cit., pp. 58 f. §4 and sketch on Taf. V. The broken name of the district dealt with in §4 we would restore as UŔ × Ú^ki rather than as Akshak) at a point where the latter flows southwards, the former first east then north-east to confluence. This point can hardly be other than the point of confluence east of Jemdet Nasr of the Euphrates branch from Sippar, which flows east, with the branch from Abu Ghubar, which here flows south, traced on the ground by Adams and Crawford. The large mounds below the point of confluence should represent ancient P u š.

⁵ For the route from Babylon up the Arahtum to Sippar and continuing up the Euphrates see Oppenheim, , Dreambook, p. 313 Google Scholar. For Luhaiat on the Arahḫu see the Dateformula of Abieshuh, Ungnad, Datenlisten, no. 204.

⁶ The name occurs as á b - g a 1 and a p k a 1 (NUN-ME), Accadian Apkallatum, Aplakattu, Greek Pallacottas. Arrian, , Anabasis VII.21 Google Scholar describes how Alexander sailed south from Babylon on the Euphrates (i.e. on the old Araḫtum course which at that period had long been the main Euphrates branch) down to the mouth of the Pallacottas. On the Apkallatum at Abiak see Kraus, Z.A. 51, 56 Google Scholar.

⁷ On the M e - ^dE n - l í l - l á from Kish south to Marad see Kraus, Z.A. 51, 57 Google Scholar.

⁸ The identification of Madinah with B à d - t i b i r a^ki was established by fragments of inscribed cones discovered by Dr. Crawford during our visit to the site. See his report elsewhere in this volume.

⁹ Identification of this canal with the I t u r u n-g a l (cf. D i r i IV 182 i - s u - r u - ( e n ) - g a l: ÍD-UD-NUN: Š U, 183 i - d a r - e n - g a l: ÍD-UD-NUN^ki: ŠU, II R. 50 ii.10 í d - e r í n - g a: i - t u - r u - u n - g a l, and the variants í d - u r ú - e n - g a l and í d-UD-NUN^ki in the two copies of the Utu-hegal inscription) is suggested by the fact that the latter must have followed an identical course. (1) The writing of the name Iturungal as í d-UD-NUN^ki seems to identify it as the “Canal of Adab (UD-NUN^ki).” (2) Proximity to Zabalam seems indicated by S.R.T. 3, iv. 6–7 Google Scholar which mention I t u r u n g a l (í d-UD-NUN)-g á “in my Iturungal” in close connection with a - š à Z a b a l a m (Z A + S U Ḫ-U N U)^ki - g a “on my field of Zabalam ” (the reason for the writing - g a for expected - g á are not clear to us). (3) It is mentioned as í d - u r ù. e n - g a 1 (written EN-URÙ-GAL) in the Umma text Nik. 153. (4) Its touching upon the region of Uruk is indicated by the fact that A n - à m of Uruk built a temple of ^dG a - î - s u r - r a, “the mistress of the I t u r u n g a l” ( Scheil, , R.A. XII, p. 193 Google Scholar). (5) In the myths of Nanna's Journey to Nippur and Inannak's Journey to Eridug the I t u r u n g a l is mentioned and can refer only to the common course of the canal here discussed and the Euphrates south of Larsa.

For the take-off of this canal from the Euphrates at K a - s a h a r - r a see on the one hand the round trips Nik. 116 and Oppenheim, Eames G.20: Umma-Ur-Kasaharrak-Umma, and on the other Nik. 119 where a boat is towed (g í d - d a) to Ka-sahar-ra and floated (d i r i - g a) down to Nippur, then towed in one day from Nippur back up to K a - s a h a r.

¹⁰ It is possible that this name applied only to the course south of Girsu. For identification see Gudea Cyl. A ii.4–5.

¹¹ Y.O.S. VIII no. 156.4. The canal is also mentioned in B.E. XVII.1 no. 3, 1. 14 and in O.B.I., no. 33, both of Cassite period.

¹² S.E.M. 97 obv. ii.

¹³ This is suggested by the name of the city-goddess (S.E.M. 98. ii.32), which seems to be Ninlil. For the presence of the ceremonial barge of Nanna of Ur at Shuruppak in the month of Akitu see Legrain T.R.U. no. 349 listing offerings in Shuruppak for m á - g i b i l - l á - U r í^ki - e - k i - á and cf. the name of the processional barge ^išm á- k i - á - U r í^ki in Hh IV 337, M.S.L. V, p. 179 Google Scholar. See also Landsberger, , Kult. kal., p. 74 Google Scholar.

¹⁴ For the myth as a whole see Kramer, , Sumerian Mythology, pp. 47–49 Google Scholar.

¹⁵ For this myth see Kramer, , Sumerian Mythology, pp. 64–68 Google Scholar.

¹⁶ For reading see M.S.L. II no. 779. Topographical considerations favour identification with the city K i - i s - s i k^ki mentioned by Sennacherib in the account of his first campaign (Sidney Smith, The First Campaign of Sennacherib) in col. i line 48 between Eridug and Nimid-Laguda.

¹⁷ S.T.V.C. 29 rev. iii & S.T.V.C. 28 & S.L.T.N. 100 & P.B.S. X. 4 no. 6 obv.

¹⁸ The identification of Magan with Egypt and Meluḫḫa with Ethiopia rests on clear and firm evidence. See the sane statement by Streck, in V.A.B. 7.3, 794–795 Google Scholar and the later review of the evidence by Albright, in J.E.A. VI, 89–98, 295 Google Scholar; VII, 80–86. Lansberger, , Z.A. N.F. I (1924), 217 Google Scholar and Weidner, , A.f.O. XVI (1952–1953), 6–11 Google Scholar base their location of Magan on the east and south coast of Arabia on a subjective judgment that the Sumerians could not have traded south of Arabia to the Red Sea. In view of the clear evidence of Mesopotamian influence in Egypt in Predynastic times (see e.g. Kantor, , J.N.E.S. XI (1952), 239–250 Google Scholar) and the representations of Mesopotamian type ships there such judgments may legitimately be questioned. Oppenheim's recent postulate of an “eastern” trade with Magan and Meluḫḫa—presumably points in India—and his statement “The toponyms Makkan and Meluḫḫa have then been, as is well known, transferred to two other far-off countries situated in the southern limits of the geographical horizon.”, J.A.O.S. 74 (1954), 16 Google Scholar, seem to us to have no verifiable basis in any fact.