Description (Catalog Card): Clay tablet. Letter reverse damaged. Time of Ibi-Sin. Soldiers (workmen) sent on their way, may be returned. H.C.1     
Find Context (Catalog Card): ES.B     
Material (Catalog Card): Clay2     
[1] Woolley's description
[2] Material as described by Woolley

Files

Locations: 3042 Export: JSON - XML - CSV

Location Context Title Context Description Description (Modern)
Enunmah | TTB | ES That its foundation goes back behind the Third Dynasty of Ur is certain, for fragments of walls and pavements in pIano-convex brick (PI. 30a) prove the fact, but of the character of that original structure nothing can be said. Ur-Nammu was responsible for the temple in its existing form; he built it in mud brick, or at any rate made much use of that material, and his work was added to and probably completed by his son Dungi. Bur-Sin replaced with burnt brick the mud-brick walls of his grandfather and Gimil-Sin added further details. The temple was completely overthrown by the Elamites on the occasion of the downfall of Ibi-Sin and under the Isin Dynasty was rebuilt by Gimil-ilishu, who faithfully followed the lines of the Third Dynasty ground-plan. Ishme-Dagan, Nur-Adad, and Sin-idinnam all in turn undertook repairs of its structure and Kudur-Mabug seems to have done some more radical restoration, but his building was destroyed by the Babylonians in the time of Samsu-iluna. It was probably restored after a fashion not much later, but the first actual record of its re-establishment is that of Kuri-Galzu; the Kassite ruler still kept to the original plan, but added a few new features. His building was repaired, without any noticeable alterations, by Marduk-nadin-ahhe in the 11th century B.C. Nebuchadnezzar was the first to tamper seriously with the ancient ground-plan; his reconstruction involved a complete change of character corresponding to a change of ritual in the temple services, and in the temple as he left it the old E-nun-mah is barely recognisable. Nabonidus repaired but does not seem to have modified his predecessor's work. Finally we find, above the Nabonidus level, remains of a further reconstruction which we can attribute only to Cyrus of Persia., The building was an almost exact square measuring some 57.00 m. in either direction; its angles were, as usual, orientated to the cardinal points of the compass. It was surrounded by a wall 2.70 m. thick strengthened by double buttresses, of which there were five on each side, and the area thus enclosed was raised to form a platform about 2.00 m. above the level of the ground outside; this wall is fairly well preserved on the NE (v. Pis. 28b., 29b), has suffered a good deal, and is partly masked by subsequent additions in the SE (PI. 29a), could be traced only by its foundations on the SW, where the building has been remodelled, and on the NW it has been completely eradicated by a drain of Nebuchadnezzar. There is a doorway in the SE wall which, however, would seem to have led only into two small chambers having no communication with the rest of the building. In view of the denudation of the walls, which here do not rise above floor level, it is not possible to assert definitely that such communication never existed, but the facts that the wall between rooms 17 and 18 is whereas in almost every other case the doorways can be distinguished even at this level (rooms 8, 9, and 10 are the sole exceptions), and that no hinge-box or doorsocket stone was found here, make the theory of a door hazardous. Probably the real entrance to the building was in the NW front. (none)
ESB This is the excavation area south of area ES, beyond the southernmost wall of the enunmah and just east of the dublalmah (likely it extends further west than the reference image shows). It was in this area that a door socket of Kurigalzu mentioning a building called the emuriana was found and Woolley attempted to uncover this building here. The socket was not found in its original position, however, and Woolley eventually felt that the emuriana building was never in this location or that it had been completely destroyed. What he found in the area was mostly related to the enunmah and/or the NeoBabylonian Giparu or were scattered walls that were very difficult to follow. Indeed, this area of the temenos zone, from the eastern edge of the dublalmah to the northeast wall of the NeoBabylonian temenos wall, was badly denuded. Area ES/ESB was sometimes equated with the dublalmah because it was initially thought that building may have extended here and it was included as part of the NeoBabylonian Giparu. (none)
  • 2 Locations

Media: 3042 Export: JSON - XML - CSV

Media Media Title Title Label Author Omeka Label
Ur Excavations Texts III: Business Documents of the Third Dynasty Ur Excavations Texts III: Business Documents of the Third Dynasty 1937 Legrain, L. (none)
Ur Excavations VIII; The Kassite Period and the period of the Assyrian Kings Ur Excavations VIII; The Kassite Period and the period of the Assyrian Kings 1965 Woolley, Leonard (none)
Woolley's Catalog Cards Woolley's Catalog Cards Card -- BM ID:194 Box:29 Page:249 Card -- BM ID:194 Box:29 Page:249 (none)
  • 3 Media