[66] See Hincke, op. cit., p. 4.
[67] Cf. "Sumer and Akkad," pp. 206 ff.
[68] Cf. Cuq, "Nouvelle Revue Historique," 1907, p. 707 f., 1908, p. 476 f.
[69] Resemblances have been pointed out between the boundary-records of ancient Egypt and those of Babylonia; but of course no inference of borrowing need be inferred from them. The method of marking out the limits of a field or estate by means of boundary-stones, or boundary-tablets, is common among peoples who have abandoned nomad life for agriculture; and the further idea of inscribing the owner's name and title to the land is one that would naturally suggest itself.
[70] This is suggested by the fact that the symbols and curses so often do not correspond; had they both been bound up in a like origin, we should have expected the one to illustrate the other more closely.
[71] It was quite optional on the part of a Kassite landowner to engrave a boundary-stone, and, if he did so, it was simply to secure additional protection for his title. This is well illustrated by a kudurru of the reign of Nazi-maruttash (see Plate XXI.), which was only engraved after the original clay title-deed had been destroyed by the fall of the building in which it had been preserved.
[72] See Plate XXI., opposite; and cp. Scheil, "Textes Élam.-Sémit.," I., pp. 99 ff., pl. 21 ff.
[74] Cf. Cuq, "Nouv. Rev. Hist.," 1906, pp. 720 ff., 1908, p. 474 f. This view appears preferable to the theory that the land granted by the Kassite kings was taken from communal or public laud of a city, or district, of which the king had the right to dispose (cf. Hincke, "Boundary Stone of Nebuchadnezzar I.," p. 16).