[25] The rite is represented upon other Sumerian monuments such as the Stele of the Vultures (see below, [p. 140]). Heuzey suggests that the liturgy may have forbidden the loss of the libation-water, the rite symbolizing its use for the profit of vegetation; cf. "Catalogue des antiquités chaldéennes," p. 118.
[26] See the plate opposite [p. 52].
[27] Cf. Heuzey, "Déc. en Chaldée," p. 218; "Catalogue," p. 149.
[28] See "Déc. en Chaldée," pl. 24, Fig. 4, pp. 216 ff.
[29] See the plate opposite [p. 268].
[30] For the seated statue of Gudea as the architect of Gatumdug's temple, see the plate opposite [p. 66]; and for descriptions of the statues, see Chap. IX., [p. 269 f].
[31] See the very beautiful drawing in outline which Heuzey prints on the title-page of his Catalogue.
[32] Cf. Heuzey, "Déc. en Chaldée," p. 158.
[33] It should be noted that of the seven objects from Nippur and other south-Babylonian sites which were submitted to analysis by Herr Otto Helm in Danzig, only two contained a percentage of tin (cf. "Zeitschrift für Ethnologie," 1901, pp. 157 ff.). Of these a nail (op. cit., p. 161) is from a stratum in Nippur, dated by Prof. Hilprecht himself after 300 A.D. The "stilusartige Instrument," which, like the nail, contained over five per cent, of tin, was not found at Nippur, but is said to have come from a mound about thirty miles to the south of it. Nothing is therefore known with accuracy as to its date. The percentage of antimony in the other objects is comparatively small, and the dates assigned to them are not clearly substantiated. These facts do not justify Hilprecht's confident statement in "Explorations," p. 252. Meyer also credits the earliest Sumerians with using bronze beside copper, and he describes the axe-heads and arm-rings found in the early graves as of bronze (cf. "Geschichte des Altertums," Bd. I., Hft. II., p. 416 f.); but he also describes the little foundation-figures from the oldest stratum at Tello as of bronze, whereas analysis has proved them to be copper.
[34] This point is made by Sayce (cf. "The Archaeology of the Cuneiform Inscriptions," p. 59 f.), who, however, holds the definite opinion that nothing of bronze has been discovered on the earlier sites (op. cit., p. 55 f.).