iew is
plausible, but it still remains to be proved.

[187] Scheil, "Le Culte de Gudea sous le II^e Dynastie d'Ur" (_Recueil
des Travaux, etc._ xviii. 64-74). W. R. Arnold, _Ancient Babylonian
Temple Records_ (New York, 1896). The Telloh tablets appear to be
largely lists of offerings made to the temples at Lagash, and temple
accounts. (See now Reisner, Tempelurkunden aus Telloh (Berlin, 1901).)

[188] See besides Scheil's article (above), Lehmann's note, _Zeits. fuer
Assyr._ x. 381.

[189] Our knowledge of the documents of this period is due chiefly to
Strassmaier and Meissner.

[190] At times under rather curious forms, _e.g._, Shush-sha;
Strassmaier, Warka, no. 30, l. 21. The form Sha-ash-sha also occurs in
nos. 43 and 105 (_cf._ Meissner's note, _Beitraege zum Altbabylonischen
Privatrecht_, p. 156).

[191] Meissner, no. 42. Also in a proper name, Khusha-ilu, _i.e._,
'Khusha is god.'

[192] Meissner, nos. 40 and 118.

[193] See chapter xi.

[194] IIR. 60, 18a. Pinches (_Journal Victoria Institute_, xxviii. 36
reads Shu-gid-la; Hommel, _ib._ 36, Shu-sil-la).

[195] For this deity, see a paper by the writer, "The Element _Bosheth_
in Hebrew Proper Names," in the _Journal of Bibl. Liter._ xiii. 20-30.

CHAPTER X.

THE MINOR GODS IN THE PERIOD OF HAMMURABI.

Coming back now to the historical texts and placing the minor deities
together that occur in the inscriptions of Hammurabi and his successors
down through the restoration of native rulers on the throne of
Babylonia, we obtain the following list: Zakar, Lugal-mit-tu (?),
Nin-dim-su, Ba-kad, Pap-u, Belit-ekalli, Shumalia, Shukamuna, Gula,
Shir, Shubu, Belit of Akkad, Malik, Bunene, Nin-igi-nangar-bu,
Gushgin-banda, Nin-kurra, Nin-zadim. In view of the limited amount of
historical material at our disposal for the second period of Babylonian
history, the list of course does not permit us to form a definite notion
of the total number of minor gods that were still occasionally invoked
by the side of the great gods. By comparison, however, with the pantheon
so far as ascertained of the first period, the conclusion is justified
that with the systematization of cults and beliefs characteristic of the
Hammurabi, a marked tendency appears towards a reduction of the
pantheon, a weeding out of the numerous local cults, their absorption by
the larger ones, and the relegation of the minor gods of only local
significance to a place among the spirits and demon