natural, therefore,
to find several deities of a purely local type commemorated by kings who
belong to this region. The goddess Umu is not heard of again. The great
goddess of Uruk, Nana, absorbs the smaller ones, and hence
Nin-akha-kuddu survives chiefly in incantation texts as 'the lady of
shining waters,' of 'purification,' and of 'incantations.'[106]

* * * * *

Lastly, a passing reference may be made to several deities to whom
sanctuaries are erected by Uru-Kagina in the great temple of Bau at
Uru-azaga, and whom Amiaud regards as sons of Bau.

Uru-Kagina enumerates three, Za-za-uru, Im-pa-ud-du, and
Gim-nun-ta-ud-du-a.[107] The element _ud-du_ in the last two names
signifies 'radiant' or 'rising up'; while _pa-ud-du_ (like in
Shul-pa-ud-du, p. 99) means 'radiant sceptre.' If to this, we add that
_Im_ is 'storm,' it will appear plausible to see in the second name a
form of a raging solar deity and perhaps also in the third; _gim nun_ in
the latter name may mean 'creating lord.' To these Amiaud[108] adds from
other sources, Khi-gir-nunna, Khi-shaga, Gurmu, and Zarmu. He takes
these seven deities as sons of Bau, but he offers no conclusive evidence
for his theory. Some of these deities may turn out to be synonymous with
such as have already been met with.

FOOTNOTES:

[24] Indicated by separating the syllables composing the name.

[25] At the period when the kings of Ur extend their rule over Nippur,
they, too, do not omit to refer to the distinction of having been called
to the service of the great god at his temple.

[26] The name signifies, 'He has founded the city,' the subject of the
verb being some deity whose name is omitted.

[27] Jensen, _Keils Bibl._ 3, 1, p. 23, proposes to read Nin-Ur-sag, but
without sufficient reason, it seems to me. The writing being a purely
ideographic form, an _epitheton ornans_, the question of how the
ideographs are to be read is not of great moment.

[28] We may compare the poetic application 'rock' to Yahweh in the Old
Testament, _e.g._, Job 1. 12, and frequently in Psalms,--lxii. 3, 7;
xcii. 16, 18, etc.

[29] Reading doubtful. Jensen suggests Erim. Hommel (_Proc. Soc. Bibl.
Arch._ xv. 37 _seq._) endeavored to identify the place with Babylon, but
his views are untenable. If Gish-galla was not a part of Lagash, it
could not have been far removed from it. It was Amiaud who first
suggested that Shir-pur-la (or Lagash) was the general name