Assyrian Historiography A Source Study

The University Of Missouri Studies Social Science Series Volume III Number 1 1916 Assyrian Historiography A Source Study By Albert Ten Eyck Olmstead Associate Professor of Ancient History Assyrian International News Agency Books Online www.aina.org CONTENTS CHAPTER I Assyrian Historians and their Histories CHAPTER II The Beginnings of True History (Tiglath Pileser I) CHAPTER III The Development of Historical Writing (Ashur nasir apal and Shalmaneser III) CHAPTER IV Shamshi Adad and the Synchronistic History CHAPTER V Sargon and the Modern Historical Criticism CHAPTER VI Annals and Display Inscriptions (Sennacherib and Esarhaddon) CHAPTER VII Ashur bani apal and Assyrian Editing CHAPTER VIII The Babylonian Chronicle and Berossus CHAPTER I

ASSYRIAN HISTORIANS AND THEIR HISTORIES To the serious student of Assyrian history, it is obvious that we cannot write that history until we have adequately discussed the sources. We must learn what these are, in other words, we must begin with a bibliography of the various documents. Then we must divide them into their various classes, for different classes of inscriptions are of varying degrees of accuracy. Finally, we must study in detail for each reign the sources, discover which of the various documents or groups of documents are the most nearly contemporaneous with the events they narrate, and on these, and on these alone, base our history of the period. To the less narrowly technical reader, the development of the historical sense in one of the earlier culture peoples has an interest all its own. The historical writings of the Assyrians form one of the most important branches of their literature. Indeed, it may be claimed with much truth that it is the most characteristically Assyrian of them all. [Footnote: This study is a source investigation and not a bibliography. The only royal inscriptions studied in detail are those presenting source problems. Minor inscriptions of these rulers are accorded no more space than is absolutely necessary, and rulers who have not given us strictly historical inscriptions are generally passed in silence. The bibliographical notes are condensed as much as possible and make no pretense of completeness, though they will probably be found the most complete yet printed. Every possible care has been taken to make the references accurate, but the fact that many were consulted in the libraries of Cornell University, University of Chicago, Columbia University, and the University of Pennsylvania, and are thus inaccessible at the time when the work is passing through the press, leaves some possibility of error. Dr. B. B. Charles, Instructor in Semitics in the University of Pennsylvania, has kindly verified those where error has seemed at all likely.--For the English speaking reader, practically all the inscriptions for the earlier half of the history are found in Budge-Kjing, _Annals of the Kings of Assyria. 1_. For the remainder, Harper, _Assyrian and Babylonian Literature_, is adequate, though somewhat out of date. Rogers, _Cuneiform Parallels to the, Old Testament_, gives an up to date translation of those passages which throw light on the Biblical writings. Other works cited are generally of interest only to specialists and the most common are cited by abbreviations which will be found at the close of the study.] The Assyrians derived their historical writing, as they did so many other cultural elements, from the Babylonians. In that country, there had existed from the earliest times two types of historical inscriptions. The more common form developed from the desire of the kings to commemorate, not their deeds in war, but their building operations, and more especially the buildings erected in honor of the gods. Now and then we have an incidental reference to military activities, but rarely indeed do we find a document devoted primarily to the narration of warlike deeds. Side by side with these building inscriptions were to be found dry lists of kings, sometimes with the length of their reigns, but, save for an occasional legend, there seem to have been no detailed histories. It was from the former type that the earliest Assyrian inscriptions were derived. In actual fact, we have no right to call them historical in any sense of the word, even though they are our only sources for the few facts we know about this early period. A typical inscription of this type will have the form "Irishum the vice gerent of the god Ashur, the son of Ilushuma the vice gerent of the god Ashur, unto the god Ashur, his Lord, for his own life and for the life of his son has dedicated". Thus there was as yet little difference in form from their

Babylonian models and the historical data were of the slightest. This type persisted until the latest days of the Assyrian empire in the inscriptions placed on the bricks, or, in slightly more developed form, in the inscriptions written on the slabs of stone used for the adornment of palace or temple. For these later periods, they rarely have a value other than for the architectural history, and so demand no further study in this place. Nevertheless, the architectural origin of the historical inscription should not be forgotten. Even to the end, it is a rare document which does not have as its conclusion a more or less full account of the building operations carried on by the monarch who erected it. It was not long until the inscriptions were incised on limestone. These slabs, giving more surface for the writing, easily induced the addition of other data, including naturally some account of the monarch's exploits in war. The typical inscription of this type, take, for example that of Adad nirari I, [Footnote: BM. 90,978; IV. R. 44 f.; G. Smith, _Assyr. Discoveries_, 1875, 242 ff.; Pognon, JA. 1884, 293 ff.; Peiser, KB. I. 4 ff.; Budge-King, 4 ff.; duplicate Scheil, RT. XV. 138 ff.; Jastrow, ZA. X. 35 ff.; AJSL. XII 143 ff.] has a brief titulary, then a slightly longer sketch of the campaigns, but the greater portion by far is devoted to the narration of his buildings. This type also continued until the latest days of the empire, and, like the former, is of no value where we have the fuller documents. When the German excavations were begun at Ashur, the earliest capital of the Assyrian empire, it was hoped that the scanty data with which we were forced to content ourselves in writing the early history would soon be much amplified. In part, our expectations have been gratified. We now know the names of many new rulers and the number of new inscriptions has been enormously increased. But not a single annals inscription from this earlier period has been discovered, and it is now becoming clear that such documents are not to be expected. Only the so-called "Display" inscriptions, and those with the scantiest content, have been found, and it is not probable that any will be hereafter discovered. It was not until the end of the fourteenth century B. C. with the reign of Arik den ilu, that we have the appearance of actual annalistic inscriptions. That we are at the very beginning of annalistic writing is clear, even from the fragmentary remains. The work is in annals form, in so far as the events of the various years are separated by lines, but it is hardly more than a list of places captured and of booty taken, strung together by a few formulae. [Footnote: Scheil, OLZ. VII. 216. Now in the Morgan collection, Johns, _Cuneiform Inscriptions_, 33.] With this one exception, we do not have a strictly historical document nor do we have any source problem worthy of our study until the time of Tiglath Pileser I, about 1100 B.C. To be sure, we have a good plenty of inscriptions before this time, [Footnote: L. Messerschmidt, _Keilschrifttexte aus Assur_. I. Berlin 1911; _Mittheilungen der Deutschen Orient Gesellschaft_; cf, D. D. Luckenbill, AJSL. XXVIII. 153 ff.] and the problems they present are serious enough, but they are not of the sort that can be solved by source study. Accordingly, we shall begin our detailed study with the inscriptions from this reign. Then, after a gap in our knowledge, caused by the temporary decline of Assyrian power, we shall take up the many problems presented by the numerous inscriptions of Ashur nasir apal (885-860 B.C.) and of his son Shalmaneser III (860-825 B.C.). In the case of the latter, especially, we shall see how a proper evaluation of the documents secures a proper appreciation of the events in the reign. With these

for example. Still others are on clay prisms or cylinders.C.we shall discuss their less important successors until the downfall of the dynasty. but simply to list the various conquests for the greater glory of the monarch. We may thus use the Display inscription to fill gaps in the Annals. We should not expect their value to be high. the most important of the various Assyrian dynasties. Sennacherib (705-686 B. from the later years of Sargon. . These latter do not differ in form from many actual annals. The deliberate destruction of the greater portion of the annals of Tiglath Pileser IV forces us to study the display documents in greater detail and the loss of all but a fragment of the annals of Esarhaddon makes for this period. we have numerous examples on a larger scale of the so called "Display" inscriptions. In addition.). we must frankly recognize their inferior value. while the problems. we have four different recensions of a very long display inscription.). the display inscriptions are of great value. rarely of value in this later period. the survey generally follows a geographical sweep from east to west. comprising Sargon (722-705 B. had not the edition of the annals on which it is based come down to us in fragmentary condition. It is true that for many reigns. we may note that there are a few inscriptions from other reigns. The revival of Assyrian power under Tiglath Pileser IV (745-728 B. which are seemingly based on an earlier edition of the annals than that which has come down to us and which therefore do give us a few new facts.). it is our only recourse as the annals which we may postulate for such a period of development are totally lost. For the very important reign of Adad nirari (812-785 B. The long display inscription might be equally well disregarded. All the display inscriptions are primarily of architectural character. The types of inscriptions. we have clay tablets with the original drafts prepared for the workmen. too.C. it is necessary to secure a general view of the situation we must face. as well as literally scores of minor ones. but it has not the slightest authority when it disagrees with its original. become most complicated. Equally serious is it that they rarely have a chronological order.). That they are to be used with caution is obvious. In some cases. In addition to the brick and slab inscriptions.C. and indeed they are of but little worth when the corresponding annals on which they are based has been preserved.C. They are usually on slabs of stone and are intended for architectural adornment.). even at a fairly late date.C. especially in the later days of the empire. Instead.C. Since. also of a display character. Esarhaddon (686-668 B. whether intended to face the walls of the palace or to be deposited as a sort of corner stone under the gates or at the corners of the wall. Before taking up a more detailed study of these questions. a fuller discussion of the display inscriptions than would be otherwise necessary. furnish us a most embarrassing wealth of historical material. The Sargonidae. but this likeness in form should not blind us to the fact that their text is radically different in character. the Nimrud inscription of Sargon.) means a revival of history writing and our problems begin again. We must realize that their main purpose was not to give a connected history of the reign. especially as to priority of date and as to consequent authority. and Ashur bani apal (668-626 B. are numerous. For example. The minor inscriptions are merely more or less full abstracts of the greater and offer absolutely nothing new. then. it is necessary at times to use these display inscriptions.

[Footnote: Olmstead. others from the governors in the provinces. is a common trick of the Sargonide scribe. or such a document as the dream of Ashur bani apal. All are of course absolutely authentic documents. The Assyrians. So when . But this exactness did not extend to their historical inscriptions. an occasional reference to outside authorities. more often from others to the monarch. as when the editor of the book of Isaiah shows that the famous Ashdod expedition was actually led by the Turtanu or prime minister. there has been discovered a mass of new material which we may use for the criticism of the Sargonide documents. the letters from the generals in command to their ruler. But it would be a great mistake to assume that the annals are always trustworthy. In the last few years. which clearly shows that he was a frightened degenerate who had not the stamina to take his place in the field with the generals whose victories he usurped.000. But what shall we say as to the accuracy of numbers in our documents when one edition gives the total slain in a battle as 14. and they show us the break up of the empire as we never should have suspected from the grandiloquent accounts of the monarchs themselves. the Annals. and the suspicion is raised that he may have been at home in Assyria all the time. warring with the natives. of which many examples may be detected by a comparison of Sargon's Display inscription with its original. the relative chronology at least is generally correct. could be exceedingly exact with numbers. Another good illustration is found in the cool taking by Ashur bani apal of bit after bit of the last two Egyptian campaigns of his father until in the final edition there is nothing that he has not claimed for himself.--has now been clearly proved false by a contemporaneous document emanating from Sargon himself. can sometimes be found. 1908. Again. intentional or otherwise. Yet even internal evidence may be utilized. and the last as 29.000! Is it surprising that we begin to wonder whether the victory was only a victory on the clay tablet of the scribe? What shall we say when we find that the reviser has transformed a booty of 1. Some are from the generals in the field. still others from palace officials. it is clear that in one of these the deeds of a general have been falsely ascribed to the king. as their business documents show. That there are many such false attributions to the king is proved by much other evidence. the murder of the Armenian king Rusash by--the cold blooded Assyrian scribe. the next as 25.] The most striking of these. Earlier historians have too generally accepted their statements unless they had definite proof of inaccuracy. We could forgive them for giving us in round numbers the total of enemies slain or of booty carried off and even a slight exaggeration would be pardonable. Even the business documents occasionally yield us a slight help toward criticism. The narrative is fuller and interesting details not found in other sources are often given. _Western Asia in the Reign of Sargon of Assyria_. and we hardly need internal study to convince us that the annals are far from reliable.Much more fortunate is our position when we have to deal with the annalistic inscriptions. To what a degree this is true. We have here a regular chronology. only those who have made a detailed study of the documents can appreciate. sometimes from the king himself. To these we may add the prayers at the oracle of the sun god. coming from the reigns of Esarhaddon and Ashur bani apal. the addition of a huge round number to the fairly small amount of the original. and the light they throw upon the annals is interesting. when the king is said to have been the same year in two widely separated parts of the empire. Most valuable are the letters. another as 20.000.225! This last procedure. and if errors.500.235 sheep in his original into a booty of 100. Typical examples from Sargon's Annals were pointed out several years ago. Add to this the references in foreign sources such as Hebrew or Babylonian. various versions differ among themselves. For example.

CHAPTER II THE BEGINNINGS OF TRUE HISTORY . an abbreviated form of this was incorporated. so that for our most contemporaneous sources we must often go to old books. It is the discovery of what are the primary sources for the various reigns and of the value of the contributions which they make to Assyrian history that is to be the subject of the more detailed discussion in the following chapters. With the next great victory. we are then ready to test the remainder by the various methods known to the historian. while both translation and commentary are hopelessly behind the times. The greatest boon to the historian of Assyria would be an edition of the Assyrian historical inscriptions in which would be given. How prejudicial this may be to a correct view of the Assyrian history. And in nearly every reign it has been the latest and worst edition which has regularly been taken by the modern historians as the basis for their studies.000 as a product of the exuberant fancy of the Assyrian scribe and accept the 150 as somewhere near the actual number captured and carried off. notable as much for what it excluded as for what was included. The procedure of the Assyrian scribe is regularly the same. he must first of all be able to distinguish the primary sources which will reward future study from those which are secondary and are based on other and more contemporary documents which even now are actually in our possession._ Yet it still remains true that the most accessible editions of these annals are those which are the latest and poorest. When it is not so contemporaneous. Particularly is this the case with the inscriptions of Sennacherib and Ashur bani apal. When the scribe reached the period not covered by the earlier document. the following pages will show. a new edition was made out. we may deduct the 200. Many of the earlier and more valuable editions have not been republished for many years. long out of print and difficult to secure.Sennacherib tells us that he took from little Judah no less than 200. As soon as the king had won his first important victory. save perhaps as they show the peculiar mental operations of the Assyrian editor. For that there were such various editions can be proved for nearly every reign. that of the relative order of the various annals editions. The historian of Assyria must test his sources before he can use them in his history. it has absolutely no value when we do have the original from which it was derived.150 prisoners. To do this. When these latter are cast aside as of no practical value. he naturally wrote more fully. For the part covered by the earlier edition. With such a collection before him. Now it would seem that all Assyriologists should have long ago recognized that _any one of these editions is of value only when it is the most nearly contemporaneous of all those preserved. This discussion has led to another problem. many of the most stubborn problems in Assyrian history would cease to be problems. the first edition of the annals was issued. and that in spite of the fact that Jerusalem itself was not captured. The second part of this task must be worked out by the historian when he studies the actual history in detail. as it was more vividly in his mind and therefore seemed to him to have a greater importance. only those editions or portions of editions which may be considered as contemporaneous and of first class value.

. [Footnote: Budge-King. Oppert. K. I. Hincks. 92 ff. of at least five prisms. III. 105-8. D. [Footnote: Photographs of B and A. llff. One. 63b. 79081. 150 ff. I R. B and D. and the document ends with an elaborate account of the building operations and with threats against the later ruler who should destroy the inscription or refuse credit to the king in whose honor it was made. with different conclusion. 36. but the four-fairly complete prisms fall into two groups.(Tiglath Pileser I) We shall begin. C is between A and B. 220.] and in the omission of the five kings of the Muski. Andrä. Budge-King. Rp1. different in VI. 22.). Rawlinson.] The same account. by brief glorifications of the monarch. 14 ff..] which refers to the Anu-Adad and Ishtar temples.13840. _Inschriften Tiglathpilesers_ I. where reverse different. 116. xlvii. of the Ashur fragments. 27 ff.] A is the latest but best preserved. 17-27. is the so called Cylinder. IV. JRAS. 44f. 29b-33. In spite of its general resemblance to D.. OS. This is especially true of the one [Footnote: IV. Our conclusion must be that it is a poor copy of a good original. [Footnote: IV. I. for not only is the insertion awkward. we find that the annalistic documents from the reign may be divided into two general groups.12009.] is also found in some tablet inscriptions.2815. _Sammlung_. the LAH MA GAL E official. for the six years whose events are narrated. especially in its omissions.] First comes the praise of the gods and self praise of the ruler himself. One of its omissions would seriously disarrange the chronology. though from separate days. 280. then. Winckler. 37b-39a.. KB. as it has the smallest number of unique readings and has also the largest number of omissions. He probably is after the rab bi lul official in whose year the hexagons are dated. VIII. _Supplement_. Of documents coming directly from Tiglath Pileser himself. _Histoire des empires de Chaldée et d'Assyrie. Budge-King. Next we have the various hunting exploits of the king. V. with variants and BM numbers. in reality written on a number of hexagonal prisms. A and C. 36. Oppert. 1880. Menant. Taking up first the Annals. 35. we know from the Obelisk [Footnote: II. xiii ff. 28. No relationship has been made out between the fragments. _Supplement_. 116 follows C. XVIII. 21f. Winckler. Talbot. not numbered as in the more developed style of later rulers. 25.. Muss-Arnolt in Harper.2815 is dated in the eponomy of Ninib nadin apal. _Anu-Adad Tempel_. K.] all of which are clearly interpolations in the places where they are given. Andrä. 40-42. 13. 1865.] A second annalistic group is that postulated as the original of the so called Broken Obelisk. 32 ff. King. the Annals proper. Lotz. B is very poorly written and has over two hundred unique readings. but separated into six sections. 35 ff. 33. our detailed study of the sources for Assyrian history with the data for the reign of Tiglath Pileser I (circa 1100 B. [Footnote: VII. [Footnote: II. King. so that it must be an interpolation of that date. [Footnote: I. as regards both the form of writing and the character of the text. 245. 28.. Rm. 573: Winckler. Rawlinson. 7 ff.] others are clearly unwarranted. 37. The most fragmentary of these.] that the Anu-Adad temple was not completed till year five. 125 n.4. III. in slightly different form and seemingly later in date [Footnote: K. agreeing with the latter in a strange interpolation [Footnote: III.C. 40. 9 ff. AOF. also I.] and one long addition [Footnote: VII. 89-426. I. 79-7-8. 81-2-4. MDOG. 1 ff.] further marks its peculiar character. 2a-c. Sayce RP². Then follow the campaigns. 21b-23a. the only one that can with any probability be . V. Pl.3. _Tempel_.. 29. [Footnote: II. K. seems the best. All date seemingly from the same month of the same year. while the character of the text warrants us in making this our standard as it has but few unique readings and but one improbable omission. 47. xliii.

But this earlier Annals was not the only. Schrader. 30: Budge-King. cf.. 574. Budge-King. the parts best preserved are those relating to the years not dealt with in the Annals. KB. _Verh. Preuss. is proved by the coincidences in language in the two. II. 10042. then come his hunting exploits. Shamshi Adad or Ashur bel kala. or at least not the direct source for the Obelisk. King of Akkad. very briefly. by the month as well. BudgeKing. That the Obelisk may be considered merely a resume of this original source is shown by the statement that he conquered other lands and made many wars. K. 1. Furthermore. Lotz. 532 ff.] Opposed to the Annals proper are the Display inscriptions in which chronological considerations and details as to the campaigns are subordinated to the desire to give a general view of the monarch's might. 63. That our earlier Annals. XVIII. are given in the Obelisk. Obl. 1863. These all precede the Carchemish episode. _op. Proved to Tiglath Pileser. H.. JRAS. in the lost lower part of column IV. Belck. I. one at the source of the Tigris.isu elippe pl mashku tahshe_. Winckler. Meissner. Peiser. is preserved. 193 f._. _Sitzungsber.. _Sammlung_. XI. RP(1). 187 ff. Winckler... one thousand men of land of._. and. that is. probably one of his sons. 9 ff. 196 ff. 128 ff. and even this is terribly mutilated. 6.] The numbers of beasts killed. 1862.] not to speak of the hunting expeditions. 4. 37. 387. 28. 2.adi alu Kargamish sha matu Hatte. dates the events by the name of the eponym for the year. 229. IV. I. 12. for the first time in Assyrian historical inscriptions. II. and only a bit at the end is reserved for the building operations of the unknown ruler under whom it was erected. Winckler. _Verh.. the position of which shows that it cannot. IV. HoughtonFinlay. Lotz. 131 n._ 1898. reference to Marduk nadin ahe.g. though it deals with Ashur constructions. Rawlinson.. II. curiously enough. 49 ff. with Budge-King. 13.. Menant. 627. IV. 124 ff. been inscribed in the blanks left for their insertion.. Photograph. [Footnote: Obl. The first half of the document is devoted to the campaigns of Tiglath Pileser. not found in the earlier Annals.. Anthr. I. Taylor. KB. Belck-Lehmann.] the other near Melazgerd in Armenia. only expanding as it reached a period where the facts were not represented by any other document. 122 ff. I. 33. probably less than half to judge by the proportions. Ges. we are given the other hunting exploits "which my [father] did not record. 127 n. 49..] As they seem to have been given after the hunting feats. Akad. which the scribe intended especially to emphasize. or perhaps rather. Akad. be referred to Ann. Menant. [Footnote: Discovery._. in one case no less than twenty signs the same.. cf. [Footnote: K. ZA. XIX. Budge-King. 2. I. _op. Berl. cit. Fortunately. 1885. [Footnote: From Gonjalu. Talbot. Data for the first six years. 1900. have never.. still more unusual. 4. 1. Hommel.assigned to this is the tiny fragment which refers to the capture of Babylon. Berl_. it gave the data for the earlier part of the reign. _Gesch. 17. [Footnote: Obl. but these he did not record. 4.] Only the upper portion. III R. 4. near Melazgerd.. I R. _Chrestomathie_. Abel-Winckler. J. the Mushki (?). III. III R. 811. one of its sources. I. li. Two have been found in foreign lands. though Streck. Is this one . Found at Nineveh. II. _Athenaeum_. OS. 6. _Hist. that covered by the other source. _Abh. [Footnote: In year V we have _ishtu. Berl. [Footnote: E. [Footnote: Photograph. Dated after the Arvad expedition as shown by reference to Great Sea of Amurru. AOF. II. 132 ff.] But that such a group did exist is proved by the extracts from it in the obelisk prepared by a descendant of Tiglath Pileser. Sculptures_._. was a main source of our second type. nor was that source merely a fuller recension of it. _Assyr. Lehmann._. four thousand of them carried prisoner to Assyria." [Footnote: Obl... I. 48 f. Oppert. 1. 5. temple of Ami and Adad. Paterson. we may assume that all that preceded is taken from that source. cit. 132 n.] while our document also.._. still believes that it belongs to an earlier king. Its source seems to have had the same relation to the earliest form of the Annals that the Obelisk of Shalmaneser III had to the Monolith. the Kashi. and of same date as Melazgerd inscription.

III. it follows the order of Tablet I. III. 2807. Scheil.] for a third tablet of year ten duplicates this first part. Tabl. A few bricks and other minor inscriptions give us the names of the rulers and possibly a bit of other information. AOF. Meissner's restoration of these as parts of one tablet in chronological order will not stand in view of the fact that I is complete in itself while there are variations in the order of Nairi and totally different endings. 488. 5. _Sammlung_. ibid. Streck. Of these. it may be later than year five [Footnote: The badly damaged reverse of K.] Possibly in its present form. In the first half. 1863.] and not until the reign of his son Ashur nasir apal (885-860) that we have problems of the sources. K. 4. 157. 2804._. Tabl. I. First attributed to Tiglath Pileser. Winckler. [Footnote: S. IV. 125 f. 31. 5. 193. cit. 112 ff. King. 296. III. AOF. 2. I of BudgeKing. cit.. 511 f. [Footnote: K. III R. I.--Bricks I R. ZA. 186 n. seems to date from year four as it has no reference to later events. 2. 196. Hommel. this latter gives next to no historical data. 229?] Drafts for similar inscriptions have been found on clay tablets. _op. IV. 109 ff. but there is not a single inscription which is important enough to furnish source problems. Winckler.] CHAPTER III THE DEVELOPMENT OF HISTORICAL WRITING (Ashur nasir apal and Shalmaneser III) After the death of Tiglath Pileser.. Budge-King. The problem of the sources for the reign of Ashur nasir apal may be approached from a somewhat . I. Winckler.] is proved by his writing "from Tumme to Daiene" for these are the first and last names in the well known list of Nairi states. 5. That the compiler had before him the document used by the Annals in its account of the Nairi campaign [Footnote: Ann. Other inss. _Gesch. Tabl. _Sammlung_. _Supplement_. XXII.of the "cuneiform inscriptions near Moosh" reported to Taylor. [Footnote: K. 101 ff. 2804. It is not until we reach the reign of Tukulti Ninib (890-885) that we again have an Annals [Footnote: Scheil. 1874. 91-5-9._. _op. _Annales de Tukulti Ninip_ II. [Footnote: Scheil. RT._ 37.] Unfortunately. OLZ. XVIII. 246. but its reference to the "Lower Zab" and to the "Temple of Ishtar" may perhaps allow us to date to this same tenth year the highly important tablet which gives a full account of the campaign in Kirhi and Lulume and which also ends with the restoration of the Ishtar temple. merely abbreviating. 159 n. 476. IX. V of Budge-King. _Athenaeum_. cf. Tablet IV of Budge-King. 1909. 71 ff. XIII.. 24. It is also of value in dating the erection of the palace whose mention shows that the tablet is complete. Winckler. Winckler. Peiser. III. Lotz. probably of year IX. Restorations. cf. 6. III R. there is a period of darkness. one. Tiele. written for the use of the workmen who were to incise them on stone. and in the remainder follows closely the words of its source in the Annals. [Footnote: K. 116 ff. which is virtually complete as regards number of lines. 2805. 127. 453. The order of the tablet is neither chronological nor geographical. Another tablet dates from year five to which most of its data belong. II of Budge-King. 121 ff. 247.] It would then be our earliest extant source.] Here too and not with the Annals must be placed the fragment with the Arvad episode. ZA. 26 ff. OLZ. Gesch. cf. Meissner. 2806 with K. 2806 has one reference to the Euphrates which _may_ be connected with Obl.

1863. 48 f. Le Gac. Clearly.. Paterson. RP². [Footnote: BM. 1885. _Expédition en Mésopotamie_. Le Gac. and even the Monolith. for it too is a compilation like its younger sister. 17 ff. [Footnote: III R.--Other invocations are the Bel altar at Kalhu. A. 880. 15 ff. we have earlier and better sources. _Assyr. Strong. 50 ff. though in general they agree fairly closely with the account set up in the border city. _Manuel_. I. for far the greater portion of the events given in the Annals. L. I. 1907. Menant. _Annalen Asurnazirpals_.] which contains data for this year alone. 157. II. at the entrance to whose temple these slabs were placed.. and ends abruptly with the return from Nairi. Rodwell. though in general better than the Annals. KB. Indeed.] and this leads us to assume that it is not the original introduction. Budge-King.] For some portions of this earlier section. 255 n. in fact. 37 ff. BM. KB. VII. We may therefore best attack the problem as to the sources of the reign by working out the sources of the Annals. which gives practically all the known data of the reign. Budge-King. [Footnote: Slabs 27-30.. and we are therefore warranted in assuming that it was set up here immediately after the return from the campaign and that in it we have a strictly contemporaneous document. _Trans. then. 96. as is shown by certain cases where the latter has preserved the better readings of proper names. by the scribes who followed the army. Roy. 92 ff. 71. Sculptures. This might be expected from its location at Tushhan.] and these regularly agree with the Monolith as against the Annals. we have also the inscription from Kirkh. H. lxix. this is the original invocation. 57. we have also separate slabs with small portions of the text. 69. [Footnote: Cf. S. 189 ff. cf.. I.. Indeed. Strong. and is by no means free from obvious mistakes.] it at once strikes us as curious that it consists of a hymn to Ninib. the Monolith is a better document. 335 ff. 1 ff. The last events mentioned in the Monolith date from 880 and it is thus far earlier than our present edition of the Annals. 1. 134 ff. Taking up the introduction to the Annals. RP¹. 1891. 129 ff. and the Ishtar lion BM. Here we have a single document. 90830. 66. Photograph. III. beginning with Ashur. with. The second section of the Annals begins with the praise of the monarch. 118 ff. RP¹.. such as we are accustomed to find in other annalistic inscriptions. 311 ff. I R.. 67 ff. To this extent. transposition. Peiser. we should not over rate the Monolith. 254 ff. It would seem as if the official narrative of the campaign had been prepared at Kirkh. This should not blind us. Sayce. however. 847. BudgeKing._ VII. KB. dupl. the direct source of the Annals. [Footnote: I. _Les Inscriptions d'Assur-Nasir-Aplu_ III. 222 ff. It was not. 27. we have other slabs in which this Ninib hymn occurs as a separate composition. the Annals. 255 n. at most. 206 ff. Budge-King. Le Gac. which contains events from so late a date as 867. 1880. Lhotzky. RP². Judged by this. Budge-King. cf. JRAS.. _Assyr. Peiser. and not of a general invocation to the gods. Further.] For the last of these years. Lit. Important sections are omitted by each. Budge-King. II R._ and a large number of cases where they agree in spelling as against the Annals.. 66 f. 254 ff. This is still further confirmed by the fact that we do find such a required invocation in the beginning of the Monolith inscription. and here too begins the parallelism with the Monolith. Menant.different angle than we took for those of Tiglath Pileser. 6. they seem to agree in these omissions. on the border of that country. Johns. to the fact that the problem of the sources is by no means as simple as this. [Footnote: I R. the significant omission of _shadu. immediately after its close. Budge-King. Talbot. 91 f. [Footnote: BM. Soc.._ 64. Oppert. 242 ff. however. do not rank very high. the so called Annals. Budge-King 160. Peiser.. I. I. Earlier writers on the history of Assyria have therefore generally contented themselves with references to this one document. IV. 137 ff. . an occasional reference to the others..

[Footnote: Ann. no doubt because the dated year was not given in the source. that there is one of II only [Footnote: Le Gac.. whose last line. while there are no less than at least seventeen different duplicates of Column I. which in its turn goes back to the various separate building inscriptions. to Kir. too. and 200 for 2000 in II. 123 f.] From this. VII. Budge-King.Deeds and Documents_. though the months are carefully noted! In the last of the years given in this section. 171 ff. 167 ff. 841. Continuing with the Annals. has 40 as against 50 of the others in II.). Budge-King. [Footnote: V R.. 209 ff.] Here too we must place the Mahir document. Made up of brief attribution to king. where Mon. III. 59 ff. and this in turn is merely a resume of the close of the Monolith. Lions 809.] which is repeated almost in its entirety at the close of the Annals itself. must have been derived the slab which gives a fourth witness for this section. as is shown by the specific reference to a campaign to the Lebanon for the purpose of securing cedar. 189 ff.] With this year. taken bodily from the Ninib inscription. we have a closing paragraph. 880. At the end of the account for this year. 30..] One copy of this became the basis of the Kirkh inscription while another was made at Kalhu and it was from this that the Monolith and Annals are derived. L. we may best discuss them in that place. [Footnote: Ibid. then regular building text. [Footnote: Le Gac. seems to go back to one recension of the Standard inscription. giving a list of temples erected. 181 ff. Le Gac. the Monolith fails us.. 201 ff. the Annals itself would show us that the year 880 was an important one in the development of our sources. S. But. II. Peiser KB. then duplicates of Ann.. II. in at least three exemplars. 168. The years 875-868 seem to have been years of peace. through Mon. III. 91 f.] and one of III.. 29 ff. (B)..] The year 880 marks also the removal of the capital from Nineveh to Kalhu. [Footnote: Ibid. 83 ff. 77.] describing the erection of a temple to that deity at Imgur Bel.] which indicates that to this year we are to attribute the majority of the building inscriptions. 43 ff. in which parts of the Standard and Altar inscriptions are interpolated between the Ninib invocation and the main inscription. Harper. for the only reference we can attribute to them is an expedition to the Mehri land for beams to erect a temple at Nineveh [Footnote: Ann. probably 876. 84 ff.] and that there is still another. [Footnote: Ann. TSBA. we are to place the various bull and lion inscriptions. which in general agree with this portion of the Annals. Altar. 125-135a is the same as the Ninib inscription l-23a (BM. which may be dated. Budge-King. RP². which may thus be assigned to 880. III. [Footnote: Bulls 76. The column thus ends a separate document. Budge-King. so far as they can be dated at all. Le Gac.. Kir. 69 f. IV. But even if we had no other document. That the Annals itself existed in several recensions is indicated by the fact that. 124 f. shows Ann. an exact chronology. but the likeness can hardly be considered striking. iii.. as they are all more or less identical with the closing section of the Annals. as well as the text of the great altar. II. did not use Kir._] there are but seven of II and five of III. _Introd. Strong. 126 f.] and so to this period we must assign the Ishtar bowl . [Footnote: L. this passage in the Annals abstracts the last lines of the Monolith. 1. Ann. Budge-King. ii. [Footnote: Bull 77. A. has 300 as against 700 of Kir. adds a good bit in regard to the hunting expeditions. I. and Ann.] One of these bull inscriptions. This is further confirmed by the manner in which. [Footnote: First mentioned as starting point of an expedition in 879. And just here the Annals is lacking in its most essential feature. 48 f. to this year. we now reach a section where it is the only source. 111. 115. 109. proper names such as Tushha for Tushhan show nearness of Mon.

Streck. 95. _ibid._ lxxiii._ These were presented by Rawelinson and Layard to missionaries. ZA._. copies at Paris. ZA. These are Edinburgh. there are. we have the campaign of 867.] and some. _Chestomathie_.. Meriden (Conn. Ley. Copenhagen. AbelWinckler. [Footnote: Budge-King.. as well as the statute inscription._. Middlebury College. No less than 59 are known to have been or to be in America. IX. _Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_. An unknown number is in the British Museum. Bezold. _Proc. Talbot. 65. Garrett to Princeton University. [Footnote: Le Gac. according to Budge-King. Petersburg. St. xxxii. D.._. Menant. Schrader. f. J. III R. and the reason for compiling the latest edition of the Annals.. Zürich. O. _Verzeichnis der vorderasiatischen Altertümer_. [Footnote: Budge-King. 49. found also in nearly all the other inscriptions. 173 ff. Le Gac. cf._ xci. No full collection or collation of these has ever been made. Y. H. Kunde d. Mercantile Library of St. Soc. [Footnote: BudgeKing. 198 ff. 3. 158 ff. _Bibliotheca Sacra_. _Wiener Ztf.² 184. cf. 92 ff. Le Gac. II.] Variants are few. _. f. Others at Ashur. Budge-King. 71. and are completely inaccessible. the Hague. Theological Seminary of Virginia. and by them to the institutions named. P. 1. cit. [Footnote: III R.--In this place we may also note the brick inscriptions in America. For this year.. Auburn (N. KTA. An inscribed relief to which my attention has been called by Professor Allan Marquand. III.] The last section of the Annals consists of the building account. 320 ff. Müller. Ward. Dartmouth College.] the short account so monotonously repeated on the slabs at Kalhu and so familiar to all who have visited any Museum where Assyrian antiquities are preserved. the statements in the guide books to the contrary notwithstanding. Dresden. are much later than 880. Le Gac. but are not without value in fixing the relative dates of . etc. c. Williams College. 229. Strong.] Bulls. VI. Keilschriftforschung_. 177 ff. _l.] Calah wall.inscriptions. Bezold. _Inschrift Asur-nasir-abals_. Schrader. _l. 10. Mahir. Lyons.. Three similar slabs. 55. _op. The number of slabs containing this inscription which may be found in the various Museums of Europe and America is simply amazing. 269. _l. 153 ff. the last fixed date in the reign of Ashur nasir apal. _Literatur_. XII. Twelve in the possession of the New York Historical Society have not been on exhibition since the society moved into its new quarters. S. ZA. 7 f. In addition. I.. c. cit. Union College. Louis. and were utilized by Budge-King. The majority have been listed by Ward. Jeremias. Berlin.. Squeezes of these were taken by the Cornell Expedition. 258. Morgenlandes_.. 4. 390. The Andover slab is published by Merrill. 256. 25. MDOG. _Ztf. Jeremias. Cannes. 11 ff. Talbot 1. ZA. Connecticut Historical society at Hartford. XIX. 8.) Theological Seminary. ff. For the Berlin inscriptions.] Finally. to judge from the variations in the references. VII. xxi. Marucchi.. Rome. RP¹. 169 ff. II. Bucharest. Antiquaries of Scotland_. a longer and a shorter. 101. X._. ZA. and for this alone. I. Bezold. XIII. Budge-King. [Footnote: L. c. 6. and Ninib inscriptions. xcix. Several are in the newly opened section of the Constantinople Museum.. and the one from Amherst by Ward. cf. Bowdoin College. though naturally here it is in the form it last assumed. Amer. RP². 334. this latest edition has the value of a strictly contemporaneous document. It may be seen in greater or less fulness in the so called Standard Inscription. Meissner. _Proc. Oriental Soc. 92 ff. has been presented by Mr. 209 ff. listed by Merrill. Knudtzon. c. [Footnote: Ann. A. as were the following: Yale University. 52. The same inscription essentially is also found as the ending of the Ishtar. _l. xxxv.. Calah Palace. c. Morgan. _Museo Egizio Vaticano_. xvii. There seem to be two recensions. are in the Metropolitan Museum in New York City. lists those published from European Museums. 1 ff. Many are still exposed to the destructive effects of the atmosphere at Nimrud and are rapidly being ruined. c. RT.) Public Library. Schenectady. _op. Munich. 212 ff. loaned by the late Mr. XVII. 188 ff. and Merrill.

Le Gac. we must entirely cast aside the copy in favor of the contemporary writing. This would appear self evident.. King.. Laqe. so that these too are to be dated after 876.the various recensions. and. found in the Ishtar. Budge-King. 25. For example. _Zwei Jagdinschriften_. Rawlinson. and which would seem to refer to the same period. The one edition which is up to date is N. _Salmanasser den II's Indschriften_. Smith. for it would be dangerous to suggest a lower one in the case of documents which copy so servilely. 1907. cf. JRAS. and Sirqu reference. Scheil. the ancient Tushhan.. 83 f. The edition of Amiaud-Scheil. KB. 105 ff. is also of value as adding proof that that inscription dates to 880. 293 ff. 15off.. cf.. but failure to observe this distinction has led to more than one error in the history of the reign. through its omission in the Monolith. with photographs. Hommel. cf. needless to say.. 55 ff. and in the Rawlinson publication. KB. Absence of such reference in the regular Annals is pretty conclusive evidence that there were no warlike relations. our main source is again the official account which has come down to us in several recensions of different date. _Supplement_. no. and from this were extracted. _Inscriptions_. 76. I.. 1805. Sayce. AJSL. Harper. as well as the Bulls. Rasmussen. 537. Rogers. OS. cf. 1879. have a reference to Urartu. III.. _Les inscriptions de Salmanasar_ II. 155 ff. as well as the Ishtar and Mahir ones. If.] For the events of 860-854. also Winckler-Peiser. RP². of great importance as the first in any literature to the country which was soon to become the worthy rival of Assyria. a seeming distortion of the chronology being due simply to the desire of the scribe to indicate the unity of . this gives only the upper limit. [Footnote: III R 7f. No actual errors can be pointed out in it. Amiaud-Scheil. Aside from a few minor inscriptions. we have the original from which the earliest portion of a certain document was copied or abstracted. 83 ff. KTA. Some of the Standard inscriptions.] Each of these editions ends with the account of some important campaign. 201ff. the need of writing up which was the reason for the collection of the events of previous years which were not in themselves worthy of special commemoration.. XII. _passim_. _Hist_. 86 ff. Menant. The first of these is the one which ends with the famous battle of Qarqara in 854. 431 ff. The Suhi. I. though the same may be said of the selections in Rogers. [Footnote: Minor inscriptions. generally in the exact words of the original. When the end of this original was reached. some of the Standard inscriptions. though without cuneiform text. becomes also a better source. 21. Le Gac. for it is strictly contemporaneous with the events it describes. [Footnote: The majority of the inscriptions for the reign were first given in Layard. III. op.. MDOG. and which has been named the Monolith inscription. 20. then. Craig. _Tempel_. 192. Peiser. 128 ff. as well as of its full notes. we need go no further than this. then. 226. Rasmussen.. IV. The next earlier edition was taken as a basis. 172. The process by which these recensions were made is always the same. G. Mahir. 21 ff. L. such facts as seemed of value to the compiler. Photograph.] Much the same situation as regards the sources is found in the reign of his son Shalmaneser III (860825). 15 ff. RP¹.. IV. is still valuable on account of its arrangement by years. 207 ff. and Calah Palace inscriptions. Of course. 244 ff. 33 ff. the recital becomes fuller. _Hebraica_. Jastrow. 2 ff. for first working over. This has come down to us in a monumental copy which was set up at Kirkh. _Disc_. 470. 1890. insert a reference to "Mount Lebanon and the Great Sea" which would place them after 876. the very fragmentary Obelisk. Andrä. and it was necessary for the editor to construct his own narrative. and this is confirmed by the reference to Liburna of Patina which occurs in the Annals and the Calah wall inscription. With this is to be compared the addition telling of the conquest of Nairi.

Winckler KB. the practical loss of this edition need trouble us little as it seems merely to have copied the original of the Monolith._ VI. cf. but fortunately this is of no importance as we have their originals in the Monolith.] and a more moderate number of enemies slaughtered in another. 12 ff. Scheil. L. the excerpts are very brief.. Delitzsch. Layard. z. 2.] That it actually began with the year 850 is shown by the use of a new system of dating.] For the years 859.._. 113 ff. Balawat IV. and p. and 856. whereas it stands at the other extreme. z. Rasmussen. [Footnote: Discovery.6 f. [Footnote: Pinches.] For the events of 853. 144 ff. NR.. cit. seems to mark the end of a third period. 133 ff. that of a document almost entirely made up by abridgement of other documents. extracts from which are given in the inscriptions on the Bulls. Billerbeck. _Catalogue_.] the graphical error of Ukani for Amukkani shows it derived from . PSBA. As we shall see below.] and the inscription which accompanies them... but we have excerpts in the Balawat inscription. The latter ends in 851. the year of the expedition to the sources of the Tigris. carried out in different years. Amiaud-Scheil. RP². at the conclusion of the Babylonian expedition. [Footnote: Balawat kills but 300 while Monolith slaughters 3400. 119 ff. The capture of Lahiru is placed in the wrong year. but against the same country. though the Bulls inscription. VI. VII. The more conspicious pictures were brought up to date. quoted Billerbeck. Schlumberger. Incidentally. A cheaper edition of the reliefs. will hold its own in literary value with the other historical writings of the Assyrians.000 of the Bulls. IV. I. 46 f. _passim_. and the 29. The next edition was prepared in 851. a few extracts._. In fact. on the other hand. Lenormant. The Monolith. the 25. as given in this edition. 1878 p1. 1 ff. 1915. borrowed from the edition of two years previous. 6. Assyr. we have only the abstract of it in the Bulls inscription. it is correct in giving no campaign for 855. Assyr. has not hesitated to fill the gap.000 of the recently discovered statue from Ashur. written a generation later. _Bronze Ornaments_. _Gazette Arch. 59. II 183 ff. Still others. the pictures go on to 849. 857. Amiaud-Scheil. Comparison with passages preserved in the Balawat extracts shows that the work of excerpting has been badly done by the editor of the third edition. 42 ff. but. 1880.. commemorated by a third edition. 66.] The year 845. is due to the taking of the Obelisk as a fair sample..500 of the Obelisk. Menant. 134 ff. _Beitr. That it might have had some slight value in restoring the text of that lost original seems indicated by a hint of a fuller text in one place [Footnote: II. 22 ff. XVff. and so can hardly be expected to retain much of the literary flavor of its originals. 89 ff. 74 ff.. with valuable analysis of and comments on the sculptures. No mention is made of the years following until 852-851 which are described so fully that we may believe we have here the actual words of the document. the oft repeated reproach as to the catalogue nature of the Shalmaneser writings. _passim_. This is the only edition which seems to be entirely original and a comparison with those which are in large part compilations is favorable to it in every way. Rasmussen. it shows us that no new edition had been made in those two years. [Footnote: Bull 79._. Additional reliefs owned by G. The document as a whole is lost. [Footnote: II. [Footnote: Bull 75 ff. sufficed. Delitzsch.] How moderate are its numbers is shown by comparing its 14. a magnificent publication. I. I have not yet seen King. by the king's year and the number of the Euphrates crossing. free from the necessity of abridging. _Beitr.000 killed at Qarqara with the 20. _Bronze Reliefs from the Gates of Shalmaneser_.two campaigns. _The Bronze Ornaments of the Palace Gates of Balawat_. for the inscription which few would read. _op. For the years before 853. de Clerq. XIff. It is interesting to notice that there is no particular connection between the reliefs on the famous bronzes [Footnote: Pinches.

epigraphical copies of the originals. seems also the so called throne inscription from Ashur. KB. Rogers. 46 ff. _ibid_. 840. then.the Balawat edition. 346 f. _Beitr. The most striking is the different text with which they end. whose references to Damascus. Ungnad. 230 ff.] And we can also point to deliberate falsification in the insertion of an expedition to Kashiari against Anhitti of Shupria. of 837. it might be argued that they are to be restored from the text of the Obelisk. we may assume that in 857-855 they give the minimum of that inscription. 112. I. Although for 857- . the fact that one so closely supplements the other. NR. _Expository Times_. We may see. 58. 77. in a common line of descent. 6. the Obelisk suddenly becomes much fuller. Rasmussen. in the Obelisk account from 844 to 837 an abstract of the lost edition of 837. and. [Footnote: Discovery. though only in very brief abstract. Amiaud-Scheil. Layard. It has already been shown elsewhere that this is closely connected with the attempt of the turtanu (prime minister) Dan Ashur to date his accession to power to 856 instead of 854. [Footnote: Boissier. XIX.] The first half of this is also intercalated after the introduction to one of the Bull inscriptions. I. On the other hand. Craig. and the only time we can place them is 837. that they contain matter which is not found in that monument. yet the resemblance to the Obelisk is so close that they cannot be much earlier. and to hide the fact of the palace revolution which seems to have marked the year 855. _Assyr. Tabal. 298f. Rasmussen.] These two bits are written in the cursive style. while variations between the two copies of the bull inscription indicate that we cannot be sure of the exact words of the original. XXI. 1. [Footnote: Variants in Amiaud-Scheil. plus a good bit more. however.] Another Ashur inscription on a royal statute gives selections from the events of the reign. and Melidi form a group which can best be correlated with the events of the years 839. XXIII. thus showing that it was inserted to bring the edition of 845 up to date. cf. 74 ff. Smith. after this year. the end of the wars with Tabal. like all the preceding. One actual fragment of this edition is the fragment which deals with the events of 842 and is so well known because of its reference to Jehu. Thus we have the editions of 845. Closer inspection shows. XXV. TSBA. 51f Amiaud-Scheil. and that therefore they belong to an earlier and fuller edition. Or. XXXVIII. 838. _Jour.. 52. the Bulls inscription can be compared for the events of 854-852 and this has all that our tablets have.] Based on this edition. VI. knew of no expedition for the year 855.. 303 f. respectively. Delitzsch. Soc. when the older edition. Rasmussen. 58 n. 140. 30.. and. up to 835. 152f. KTA. [Footnote: Cf. G. MDOG.] But the strongest proof of the existence of this edition is to be found in the two fragments of clay tablets which are not. Winckler. The most striking evidence for this is the fact that. Olmstead. cf. Langdon. Rogers. 76f._ XXXIV. They therefore belong between these two editions. justifies us in assuming that they really do belong together. though their discoverer believed them to belong to separate documents. _passim_. II 140 ff. Amer. V. [Footnote: L. 5. Delitzsch. it is possible to prove that a fourth edition was prepared in 837. 82 ff. Since the clay tablets so fully abstract the Bulls inscription wherever the latter is available for comparison. and that they have the same common relation to the other editions. L. for fuller discussion. Assyr. 69. Delitzsch. RT. of. _Hebraica_. [Footnote: Andrä. a clear proof that the author knew that he was now dealing with events not previously written up. but form part of the original itself. and of 829. with which they often agree verbally. Que. 39 ff. below under the Obelisk._. but its main source is evidently the same. I. 12f. 84 ff. 56. Lesestücke_. At first sight. z. 529. [Footnote: III R.. 20 ff. and before year four. Jastrow.] From various hints. Amiaud-Scheil. and 837.. the Monolith. But we are not confined to this. 21. 53. II. _Hebraica_.

e. Dan Ashur. filled with mistakes. grouping themselves around it as so many additional fragmentary manuscripts would around the more complete one which we hit upon. we already had the earlier representatives of the original sources from which the edition was derived. That this common source was also the source of the Monolith seems proved by a certain similarity of phraseology as well as by the reference to Tiglath Pileser in connection with Pitru. _Monuments of Nineve_. but this similarity is not great enough fully to restore our plus passages. 87 ff. lllff. in America. it is clearly one for the "higher" and accordingly we should quote the Black Obelisk only when an earlier edition has not been preserved. _Bab. and attempts to conceal the palace revolution which marked his coming into power by changing the date of his eponomy from 854 to 856 and by filling in the year 855 with another event. in direct connection with it.. It is clear then.] Its date is 829. a conclusion which well agrees with our characterization of the Balawat inscription as a series of mere extracts.. and the narrative of this revolt in the Annals of his son Shamshi Adad points in the same direction. Unfortunately. and it can be shown that it is a formal apology for the turtanu (prime minister). Photographs and drawings too frequent for notice. 6. Metropolitan Museum. as might be expected in the case of a show inscription. Scheil. The current view is given by one of our most prominent Assyriologists as follows: "The first rank must be ascribed to the Black Obelisk. Haskell Museum. [Footnote: Cf. and for the reason that it covers a greater period of Shalmaneser's reign than any other. and we can only assume a common source. _l. _Expèd. glorifies him at the expense of his monarch. throw a most interesting light on the composition and development of these sources.._] This view might be accepted were the problem one of the "lower criticism". City. 29 ff.. there is no reason for believing that there was another edition prepared.. University of Pennsylvania. II.. Or. the textual commentary in Amiaud-Scheil.. 97 ff. for. Abel-Winckler. Y. the most important is the recently . Jastrow. _Jour. KB. in fact. Winckler. [Footnote: Cf._. _Hist. 38. Amer._ I. Layard.. Unfortunately for the student of history. for a fundamental text. Layard. the very year in which the revolt of Ashur dan apal broke out as a protest against the control of his father by the too powerful turtanu. 342.._] As these last years of the reign were years of revolt. XXXIIIff. while in one case the engraver has been forced to erase entire lines.856. in comparison with an earlier one. Rasmussen. many of which were later corrected. Casts are also common. AmiaudScheil. Or. there is reason to believe that it has the correct text. Rec. it must be noted that not all the plus of our tablets appears in that document. a whole generation later than the facts first related. g.] Because of its most interesting sculptures and because it gives a summary of almost the entire reign.. 141ff.Oppert." [Footnote: Jastrow. _passim_. that for a study of the reign of Shalmaneser II the black obelisk must form the starting point. Boston Museum of Fine Arts. in the parts preserved. the other inscriptions may best be studied.. l. our tablets do not add any new facts. Mengedoht. 169 ff. V. L. NR._ 108 ff. RP¹. There is no single point where. Nor is it without bearing in this connection that it was prepared in 829. it has either been given the place of honor. there are numerous verbal coincidences with the Balawat excerpts. RP². V. Last and least valuable of all is the Obelisk. c. 128 ff. 282. 53 ff. c. VIII. Olmstead. however. and that.. IV. Of documents which do not belong to this connected series. [Footnote: Discovery at Kalhu. Sayce. 80 ff. _Hebraica_. N. 7f. I. I. 230. and especially 65 n. Soc. It does. or a place second to the Monolith alone. _passim_. Menant. University of Chicago. it is.

. 70. the earliest is probably that on the statue base of Sammuramat (Semiramis). c. _Inscription Assyr. 122 ff. XLI. 28. 86. Archaïque de Samsi Ramman IV_. 37. As the years of the reign are not indicated. I. Or. 2. 337 ff. 49 f. 88 f.. Layard. 29 ff. RPi. I. Thompson. 16 ff. Scheil. Meissner. 45 ff. there is considerable difficulty in obtaining a satisfactory chronology. MDOG. 14. but the remainder is lost [Footnote: Layard. 88f. in which she is placed before her son and emphasis is laid on the fact that she is the widow of Shamshi Adad rather than that she is the mother of the reigning monarch. I. curiously enough. Delitzsch. and the single paragraph which is devoted to it gives us no real idea of its importance or of its duration. 13. Sayce. XXIIf. 38. 15 ff. 78. XX. as it is the usual type of display inscription. [Footnote: MDOG. No attempt is made to differentiate the part which deals with his father's reign from that of his own.. _ibid. 35. its importance is not great. This is the document which throws a vivid light on the early history of Assyria. Bricks in America. Andra. 20. 34 ff. X..] Other brief inscriptions add a bit as to the building operations. Abel.. One refers to the conquests from the sea of the rising sun to the sea of the setting sun. I.discovered lion inscription from Til Barsip. 15.. Merrill. _Monarchies_.] The long list of expeditions which the Assyrian Chronicle attributes to the reign of Adad nirari (812783) indicates that he must have composed Annals.. 50 f. AbelWinckler. R. Streck. 99. 174 ff. [Footnote: R. RT. Menant. RP²._._ VII. Andrä.. Abel-Winckler. Scheil. 42. Harper. also the palace brick. 20f. XXII. NR. Amer. 77. 1908. RT. Gesell. _Ztf. 31 f. A. 10. Winckler.] and a . 24f. PSBA. [Footnote: MDOG. 77 f. 175. II. Pinches. L.] The other carries the record two years further. _Lesestücke_2. 29 ff. 22. [Footnote: Rawlinson. Aside from its value in identifying the site of that important city and an extra detail or two._ Tempel_. 188 ff. a statement which would be possible only after the conquest of Kis in 786. IV. but with Sammuramat at his side. I. 26 ff. Abel. 24 ff. XXXIV. 27 f. Sacra. 758. VI. for use of rare words. Scheil._. Hogarth. Scheil. of year I. it deals briefly with the revolt of Ashur dan apal. Then follow four expeditions. I was permitted to see this in the excavation house at Ashur in 1908. _Accidents of an Antiquary's Life_. One.. and which accordingly marks the decline of the queen mother's power._ XXXII. Morg.. PSBA. Deutsch. but they have not as yet been discovered. 118 n. _. Harper. the first two given very briefly. _Textbuch_3. NR. from the south east palace at Kalhu. 307 f. which. 3 ff.] Next in time comes the inscription on the famous Nabu statue in which Adad nirari is placed first. XXVI. R. Soc. [Footnote: IR. 27. After the usual introduction. Abel. C.. written in archaistic characters.. RT. 119 ff. _Hist. 281. Rasmussen. 31..--Cf. KB. KB. I. 35 ff. 511. I. 36. For errors in writing cf. 127 f. II.] CHAPTER IV SHAMSHI ADAD AND THE SYNCHRONISTIC HISTORY The main source for the reign of Shamshi Adad (825-812) is the official Annals which exists in two recensions. _Bibl.] The Tigris Tunnel inscription also has its main importance from the locality in which it was found. KB. 11 ff. 1889. Taf. 7. 41ff. but has not yet been published. _Proc. has long been known. Menant. II. the last rather fully. Rogers. 48. KTA. 192 f. 66 ff. Oppert. Photograph. [Footnote: Scheil. _Chrestomathie_. 3. [Footnote: L.. RP¹. 35. op. op. S. Strong. 21. Through the courtesy of Dr. cf. 28.] Near the end of his reign must be placed the two Kalhu inscriptions in which Sammuramat is not mentioned. Amiaud-Scheil. _Religion_. 32.. Sayce. XXXII. XXII. I. 77. Of extant inscriptions. 46. Rogers. 22. 40. are neglected in the official annals series.

The second section deals in considerable detail with an expedition against Damascus but the Chronicle does not list one even against central Syria.. Meissner. III R.. but in a condensed form which makes it most difficult to locate the facts in time.. _Bettr. 3. XXXVI. Rogers. 32 ff.. II. Gesch. 62. This is still further proved by the . No annals or in fact any other inscription has come down to us.] Obviously. the majesty of the land of Ashur may he worship continually. cf. and we should expect it to be only the usual display inscription.] In form. 595.] Adad nirari is the last ruler mentioned. it marks an advance over any historical document we have thus far studied. AOF. 65. _Tukulti Ninib. but the fact that he is named in the third person shows that it was compiled not earlier than the reign of his successor Shalmaneser IV. [Footnote: Maspero. 29 ff. Our present copy is a tablet from the library of a later king. _Chrestomathie_.. 114 ff. its advance over preceding documents should not be over estimated. Abel. As but two of these names are listed in the Assyrian Chronicle. may he [add it]. But it is as dry as possible. and on this inscribed stone (naru). Sayce. [Footnote: L.. I R. Barta In Harper.. _Disc_. may he listen to all that is written. _Textbuch_3. II. so far at least as the annals are concerned.. it is impossible to locate them exactly in time. Winckler. [Footnote: Rawlinson. 22. 26. King.." [Footnote: IV. CT. Abel. KB. Whoever takes it. 19. I. Menant. 1._. 4. eternal and not to be forgotten. Its emphasis on treaties and boundaries has led to the idea that it was compiled from the archives as a sort of diplomatic pièce justificative in a controversy with Babylonia over the possession of a definite territory. I R. the so called Synchronistic history. KB. KTA. 51 f. But. there is little likelihood of their discovery. I. 1856. arranged geographically from south to north. 9. for only the barest facts are given. 1. 35. The historical portion is divided into three sections which seem roughly to correspond with the chronological order. then. 190 ff. _Untersuch_. this tablet of clay is only a copy of an earlier _naru_ or memorial inscription on stone. 35 f. we have only the data in the Assyrian Chronicle. 182 ff. As for Shumer and Akkad. III. KB. Winckler.. 38 ff. 148 ff. for it is an actual history for many centuries of the relations between Assyria and Babylonia. and. JRAS. 250 f. 194 ff. curiously enough. KB. its date in the Chronicle. from this very period comes the document which throws the most light on the earliest period of Assyrian expansion. with none of the mass of picturesque details which we have learned to expect in the annals of the individual kings... The fulness of this account shows that it took place not far from the subjugation of Kaldi land. 1. 174. and as each occurs several times._ Peiser-Winckler. Winckler.] For the remaining reigns of the dynasty.duplicate adds nothing new. I.--Nineveh brick.] The other Kalhu inscription adds considerable material. First comes a list of the peoples conquered on the eastern frontier. Geog. IV. TSBA. victory and conquest may he write down. seemingly Ashur bani apal. 306 f. I. XIX. their sins may he expose to all the regions of the world. 194 n. 35. I. 112 f. 188 f. I. Harper. MDOG. 126 f. 24 ff. [Footnote: II R. is clearly brought out in its closing words "A succeeding prince whom they shall establish in the land of Akkad. Talbot. Ashur inscriptions. 26 f. _Athenaeum_. Smith. 119 ff. cf.] Its true character. Belck. the narrative of which ends the document and shows it to have been written not far from 786. Ungnad. dates its composition to this reign. however. 4.. 195. 5 ff. I. the introduction of Budge-King. Nevertheless. G. 70.. RP². [Footnote: Peiser-Winckler. as there is no reason to believe that any were composed in this period of complete decline. _Hist_. RP¹.

who conquered. to the god Ashur . Originally they adorned the walls of the central palace at Kalhu. J._. Geog. JA. Schrader KB. 322. _Gesch. Ungnad I. Winckler. Smith._ 5 ff. _Rost_. Peiser. 54 ff. V. Aegyptologie_. Rogers. For discussion of arrangements of fragments.] Perhaps separate notice should be given to the sculptured slabs in Zürich with selections from the Annals. but with the "sins of Shumer and Akkad. even with the three different recensions.. Smith. Anspacher. V.. 266. 14oft. Schrader. the great problem of the reign of Tiglath Pileser was the proper chronological arrangement of this inscription. AOF. _Keilschrift und Geschichtsforschung_. So we can consider our document not even a history in the true sense of the word. _. the majesty and victory [which the kings of Ashur mad]e. with all its errors. Erneberg.. seven.. 395 ff. they conquered all. merely an inscription erected to the glory of Ashur and of his people. 141. but Esarhaddon. 1892. OLZ.. Layard. Winckler. 109 ff. But that it could have been used as a piece justificative. 27859.." Clearly. Photograph of obverse. 24 ff. this is the language of a display inscription and not of a diplomatic piece justificative. M. one the original of BM." in other words. Thanks to the aid of the Assyrian Chronicle. 1 ff. I.. Rost. Strong. Akad.] Tiglath Pileser prepared for the walls of his palace a series of annals. XXXVff... 441ff. owing to the method used by the Assyrians in turning the tablet for writing. cf. _History_. [the march] of former [expedi]tions. op.] and with the sinful destruction of Assyrian property they caused._. 144 ff. 115 ff. PSBA.. is incredible. mutilated as it is. Rogers....--The double mention of Ashur bel kala and Shalmaneser points to double sources.. when the Babylonians could at once have refuted it. 9 f. Rogers.. _de inscriptione Tiglat-Pileser III quae vocatur Annalium_. _Abh. II.. [Footnote: Cf. exposed to view in a place where it would not be safe for an individual to point out the truth.] Next to the Annals comes the clay tablet from Kalhu. P.. [Footnote: Detailed bibliography of the fragments. I have not seen his _Notice sur quelque Monuments Assyr. 267. _Tiglath Pileser_. even to the order of the kings. 67. a l'université de Zürich_. XI.. with the wars of the Babylonians against "the land" [Footnote: Cf. _Beitr.introduction. or sixteen.. 2 ff. the greater part of what is preserved is taken up with an elaborate introduction and . [Footnote: Usually called the Nimrud inscription. Berl. and seemingly by little else. a large part of the Annals has been lost forever. for they are the usual type.. little further criticism is needed. VII. The accession of Tiglath Pileser IV (745-728) marks a return to warfare. and the consequent prosperity is reflected in an increase of the sources both in quantity and in quality... Rost. Iff. we are no longer troubled by the numerous mistakes. twelve. 113 ff. 300. 19 ff.. 8 ff. Smith. Discovery. Schrader. [Footnote: For inscriptions of reign. NR..] We can understand such "mistakes" in a display inscription. in Harper. [Footnote: Boissier.. II. II. 1869. VI. G. cf. Ser. I._. When we take this view. a cause of confusion. Rost.. Gesch. less than a half has survived. 25eff. "but upside down. Belck... 3 ff. marked by the number of lines to the slab. Unfortunately. Tiele. 28 ff. K. it is now fairly fixed. rather dry and uninteresting to judge from the extant fragments. [their booty to their lands they br]ought. ". also Anspacher. defaced many of the slabs and built them into his south west palace. _Disc. _Tiglath Pileser_. from which.. III R. 224. 313 ff. 3751. cf. _Textbuchs³_. before his face I speak. only the first and last parts are preserved.. Rodwell.] Thus. Hommel.... 45 ff. _Disc. RP¹. 1912. _Ztf. II R. his prayer . 648 ff. 9 ff. RP³. which so greatly reduce the value of the document where its testimony is most needed.. Thus. _Gesch_. if we are to judge by the proportions. f. though with serious gaps. 1880. _Keilschrifttexte Tiglat-Pilesers III_. Once they are arranged. in three recensions. For years. also in mind. 52 ff. L. a later king of another dynasty. eternally a [tablet] with the mention. Menant. KB. Menant. 541.

then our inscription must date from the last months of Tiglath Pileser's reign. it is clearly a draft from which to engrave a display inscription on stone as it begins "Palace of Tiglath Pileser.. XXXIV. The other contents are. Though written on clay. _Kellschrifttexte Sargons_. For the Babylonian character._. 9 ff. and. 17 f. 728. We have also a duplicate fragment from the Nabu temple at Kalhu and this is marked by obvious Babylonianisms. Thus far. It assists a little in.] With the Nimrud clay tablet is easily confused the Nimrud slab. it is very brief . 1 ff. 336. better. we have a geographical order for the paragraphs. unless we are to assume that the scribe did not have them in mind when he wrote the reference to that year in the introduction. 10 f. [Footnote: Cf. 271. with photograph. The first includes the early inscriptions of the reign. the tablet is the fuller. Each of these paragraphs is marked off by a line across the tablet. a brief paragraph on Ulluba and Kirbu. But where both have preserved the same account. 357._. After the break. 401 ff. out of the regular geographical order. we have an account of the Arab tribes on the border of Egypt. are obvious postscripts and this dates them to year XVII (729). II. conjecturing what is lost from the tablet and mention of an event here is naturally of value as establishing a minimum date. 16. 215.] This dates from 743 and is thus the earliest inscription from the reign.. AOF. Rost. 15 ff. KB. 1349._. 17 ff. 1908.] have already been discussed in detail elsewhere. 22. L. [Footnote: K. in general. Unfortunately. which are miscellaneous in character. Winckler. Rost. 140 f.] They fall into three well marked groups. I. II. NR. [Footnote: Layard." The identity of certain passages [Footnote: I. and then the beginning of the war with Urartu. Winckler. Menant. first an elaborate account of the wars in Babylonia. That they really did date to the next year.. The fulness with which the extant portion chronicles the Babylonian affairs makes it probable that the part now lost in the break dealt with Armenian and Syrian relations with equal fulness. Amer. _Abh. Schrader. the earliest capital of Sargon. Smith. Olmstead.. but naturally the much fuller recital of the tablet is not derived from it. [Footnote: Other inscriptions. All that is here needed is a summary of results.conclusion which we would gladly exchange for more strictly historical data. But its account is so brief that it is of but trifling value. 11. [Footnote: DT. 1. _Sammlung_._ 1880. 42 ff. The very brief Tabal and Tyre paragraphs. the place list. 3. 3 f. _Western Asia in the Days of Sargon of Assyria_. 3. II.] CHAPTER V SARGON AND THE MODERN HISTORICAL CRITICISM The sources for the reign of Sargon (722-705) [Footnote: Collected in Winckler. 138 ff. even though it is so much later.] with the Nimrud slab shows close connection. 47.. Soc. and the length of this list is another proof of the large amount lost. Or.] The circumstances under which Sargon came to the throne are indicated by a tablet from the second year which is of all the more value in that it is not a formal annals or display inscription. next of the wars on the Elamite frontier. 5. _Exped. Layard.. _Disc. It is therefore clear that the order was continued in the break which must have contained the most of the Urartu account and whatever was said about Syria. 33. _Nineveh and Babylon_. Meissner. Schrader. [Footnote: Olmstead. cf. Oppert. 1889. II.] If so. 2 ff. 83-1-18. [Footnote: _Sargon_. painted fragments. _Jour. Berl. AOF. The next paragraph seems to be a sort of summary of the various western rulers who had paid tribute. 10. is indicated by the fact that the Assyrian Chronicle seems to have had a Tyre expedition in that year. III R. Akad. it is clear.] The Nimrud inscription comes from Kalhu. _Chrestomathie_.

] Sargon the holy priest. Lyon. K. but the topographical details are much abbreviated. it is of exceptional value as it is strictly contemporaneous and yet gives a very detailed account in Annals form of the events of a single year. K. Yet it is a very unusual rescript. It was brought (before the God Ashur?) in the limmu or eponym year of Ishtar duri. perhaps the earliest edition of the Annals. greatly. the great scribe of the King. it is not only much fuller..] Other fragments are either unpublished or of no importance. Manual_. Winckler. _Sammlung_. we may see in its boast that in the campaign but six soldiers were lost a more or less severe stretching of the truth. _Sammlung_. 3150. in this very section. It is written on an unusually large tablet of clay and is in. It begins "To Ashur the father of the gods. the form of a letter. we have only the briefest of references. to the city named from him. To the city and its inhabitants may there be peace. 714-713. the newly discovered tablet should begin our study. [Footnote: K. the eldest son of Harmaki. 3149. comparison with the later Annals shows that document to be even worse than we had dared suspect. very different from those which have come down to us in the official archives.] As a proved source for the second group.--and inhabitant of the city of Ashur. To the gods of destiny and the goddesses who inhabit Ehar sag gal kurkurra. Aside from the rather full account of Pisiris of Carchemish. [Footnote: Olmstead.]From the standpoint of source study. the king. especially in the use of the third person in speaking of the king.. II. 215. _ad hoc_. by Nabu shallimshunu. of the Prism over the later Annals. and for his camp. Indeed. _Sargon_. The discovery of this tablet. DT. 1912. Naturally. II. 33f. II. 204 ff. who fears thy great godhead. [Footnote: Thureau-Dangin. while supplying the lacunae in Prism B. 83-1-18. and its value would be nothing. 9f. probably composed. However it may be with the real character of the "letter. 4463. greatly. 4. 310. speaks in the first person. but. The unpublished fragments known from Bezold. the man of Sargon. Winckler. though we cannot be sure of the class to which it belongs. 168 ff. 4471. II. greatly may there be peace. their great temple. as is usual in the official annals. Pelser. KB. 48. 4. Further.. 1660. _Relation de la Huitieme Campagne de Sargon_. Menant. greatly there is peace. the servant. with . has made this part useless. Comparison of the newly discovered inscription with the parallel passages of the broken prism B shows that this is simply a condensed form of its original. The booty seems to have been closely copied. while in the regular letters the first is always found.--seemingly an Egyptian name. II. greatly may there be peace. at least in comparison with the later records. K. _Sargon_. the very learned. 11 ff. 221 +2669. ad loc_. K." So this looks like a letter from the king to the god Ashur. [Footnote: L. but far more accurate. _Assyr. To be sure.] A brief fragment may be noted because of its mention of the sixth year. 34 ff. on which it is based. 4455. 6. and tells us of the events of 714. greatly. As for [Footnote: So Thureau-Dangin. To the gods of destiny and the goddesses who inhabit the city of Ashur their great temple. To the palace which is situated in the midst may there be peace. in the body of the supposed letter. The tablet was "written". greatly. sufficient to date the inscription soon after its capture." there can be no doubt as to its great value. we assume the same to be true in the other portions preserved. the discovery of the tablet has been a brilliant confirmation of the proof long ago given that this was superior to the Annals. greatly may there be peace.. [Footnote: K. though it may mean copied. _Catalogue. could we only secure the original. But all the more clearly is brought out the superiority. _ibid_. in fact. I. K. and to its inhabitants. Winckler.and is not arranged in chronological order.

. RT. Menant. Gesell. and what are their relative relations cannot be decided in their fragmentary state.] The same inscription is also found on slabs. [Footnote: Cf. Lyon. and from it the other documents of the group seem to have derived their building recital. Photograph._. 185. 11 ff. II.. Ball. A. The Dalta episode and the beginning and end are still untranslated. [Footnote: To judge by a comparison of Winckler's text with that prepared by King for Thureau-Dangin. II. XII. 118 ff. _Textbuch_3.] and the difficulties in the way of copying these fragments have made many mistakes. Dur Sharruken. 53.] indeed. XIII. I._] For all parts of the reign which they cover. _Sargon_. save where we have the tablet. The most urgent need for the history of the reign is that the fragments which are still unpublished [Footnote: Cf. 1. 41 f. 45 ff. Altor. Winckler. 291 ff.] and this of itself proves a date some distance from the end of the reign when Sargon was established at Dur Sharruken. cf. [Footnote: For detailed study of Prism B. Olmstead. _Disc. _l. 6 ff. [Footnote: Winckler. 1898. I. when we see how the Ashdod expedition. 36. in Harper. _l. who sharply attacked me "über den historischen wert den Stab zu brechen. Thureau-Dangin. [Footnote: As in Winckler._. Like Prism B. the well known attempt to fix prices and lower the high cost of living by royal edict.] It is the fullest and best account of the building of Dur Sharruken. Numbers are . can be continued in the other. 411 n. 1889. _Sargon_. for example. [Footnote: Winckler. as witness. 118 ff. II. _Light from the East_. Rogers. _Sargon_.. _Sargon_. in fact.] should be published at once with a collation of those previously given. Thureau-Dangin. _Sargon_.c. Olmstead. _Nineve_. 186 f. 1. Prism A is worthy of better treatment and greater attention than it has yet been given. the Dalta episode in each refers to the same event. 199 ff. II. _Disc. 186 ff. II._] Very similar to Prism B is our other broken prism._] But a few of these fragments have as yet been translated or even discussed. [Footnote: Menant. [Footnote: Cf.. it closely agrees with the deed of gift which dated to 714. 147. 1 ff. Even a translation and examination of the fragments already published would mark a considerable advance in our knowledge of the period. Olmstead. 1. _Sargon_._ IV.] we are led to believe that the two had a similar text.. which have come down to us inscribed on the walls of Sargon's capital. 178 f. OLZ.c.] The earliest document of this group is naturally the inscription of the cylinders which were deposited as corner stones. Boscawen. Smith. ZA. 329 f. Olmstead. _Mitth. 117. _Sargon_.. Oppert._. _l.c. AOF._. xif. 288 ff. Barta. _Keilschrifttexte Sargons_. The third group consists of the documents from about the year 707. 186 ff. as against Prasek.. The display inscription gives the data of the Annals in briefer form and in geographical order. _cit_. _Dour Sarkayan_. I. 38 ff. Rec. 59 ff. cf. 44. but that they are superior to the Annals is clear. however. begun in the one.] Both were found at Nineveh [Footnote: G. they are now clearly seen to be our best authorities. if they did not have identical texts. Gesch. 76 ff. KB. Peiser. nearer in date to the events they chronicle and much freer from suspicion than the Annals. [Footnote: Place. then they had quite different texts in this part of the history. 43. If. Nor are other phases of the culture life neglected. Vorderas. Smith. Or. 14 n. I R.. [Footnote: For discussion of this group. _Untersuch. II. 71 ff. G. Which of the two is the earlier and more trustworthy.. Bezold. _op_.reconstruction of the order of the various fragments. cf. 194.] Prism A is of much the same type as the other. The remaining inscriptions of the group are all closely related and all seem derived from the Annals. _Bab.."] Unfortunately but a part of these fragments has been published [Footnote: Winckler. _Sargon_.

1 ff. 35. 6 f. either the Prism itself or a common ancestor.] but not found in the tablet. But it is only when we compare the Annals with earlier documents that we realize how low it ranks. IX. de Nineve_. and its only value is in filling the too numerous lacunæ of its original. 125 f. at the point where it ends. Genouillac-Thureau-Dangin. is the Annals. 22.] There are four recensions. That. 24. Later.. has already been shown. for example.very much increased. there are three accounts of the fate of Merodach Baladan. 18 ff. Menant. _Sargon_.-JA. It is indeed curious that he has in a few cases lowered the numbers of his original. since it has a phrase common to the Annals and the Prism. _op. 22. In the first place. Ohmstead. Oppert. Save for the last. 11. [Footnote: Annals V. Cook. [Footnote: Ann. cf. some of which differ widely among themselves and from other inscriptions. For example._. 1863 ff. of which a remarkably small portion consists of passages which are mere glorifications or otherwise of no value. _Sargon_. and glass. 20. even to the extent of . XXI. 83 ff. 31. Andrä. RA.] in the second he begs for peace.] The one important document of the group. 37-42. 95 ff. Now the discovery of the tablet of the year 714 has completely vindicated the character of Prism B while it has even more completely condemned the Annals as a particularly untrustworthy example of annalistic writing.. is still held by S. X. it has given the Ashdod expedition as two years earlier than the Annals. That this is a fair sample of what we have lost in other years is hardly too much to suspect. 71. _Sargon_. its location alone gives it a factitious importance. which is actually confirmed by the later course of events. Prism B.] Other inscriptions of the group are incised on bulls. 26. we are inclined to accept the last. Further. Olmstead. there was no campaign in that year. [Footnote: Cf. Peiser. 52 ff. then. MDOG. it shows us how much we have lost. it was clear that the Prism was earlier and therefore probably more trustworthy.] Imperfect recognition of its character has led many astray.] Naturally. [Footnote: Display 133. Already we have learned the dubious character of its chronology. [Footnote: Botta. the Annals has utilized but 36 lines. the Annals has an expedition against Asia Minor! It is prism B which solves the puzzle. Winckler. The Assyrian Chronicle has "in the land" for 712. _Tempel_. on founda-slabs. 47. it is a very much over estimated document. [Footnote: For full bibliography of the minor inscriptions. 37.. 76 f. 25. For others since found at Ashur. he runs away and escapes. Oppert-Menant. it drops a year behind and.. on bricks. 97 ff.. In one.] Even with the old data. 30 ff. with all its value. they are of absolutely no value for the historian as they simply abstract from the Annals. 91ff. 28. it would seem that the Annals used. he is captured. even among official inscriptions. RP¹. II. already pointed out by Olmstead. pottery. _Sargon_. Thureau-Dangin. [Footnote: The error in connecting Piru and Hanunu. [Footnote: Olmstead. not the tablet itself. cf. The tablet has 430 lines.] in the third. A. KB. Taf.. KTA. [Footnote: Annals 349. I. The cases where we can prove that the editor of the Annals "improved" his original are few but striking. Out of this mass of material. 31. but. in the new _Encyclopedia Britannica_. 10. and it was easy to explain the puzzle by assuming that years "in the land" had been later padded out by the Annals.. In the earliest years. cit. 3 ff. Philistines. _Sargon_. _Mon. II. that is. it seems to have had the same chronology as the Annals. just as we have seen was done for Dan Ashur under Shalmaneser III. art. Yet for that very year. or as labels on the sculptures. As for the Cyprus stole. _Fastes de Sargon_.

after his defeat. For the new inscription._.giving three fortified cities and twenty four villages [Footnote: Ann. 1886. the new edition simply added to the old. 94 ff. 89. the so called Bellino Cylinder. 158f£. pi. the tablet does elsewhere mention the sickness of Rusash.. there was little omission or addition of the earlier data. As usual.] CHAPTER VI ANNALS AND DISPLAY INSCRIPTIONS (Sennacherib and Esarhaddon) Of the sources for the reign of Sennacherib (705-686).. 70 ff. _Les Inscriptions de Dour Sarkayan_. _History of Sennacherib_. II.] This has long been doubted on general principles. II. This is due to the unusual circumstances that. [Footnote: Tabl. has been accorded the place of honor. though nearly all the data needed for a study of the Annals are given by Bezold. Regularly. _op. RP: VII. Oppert in Place. [Footnote: The only fairly complete collection of sources for the reign is still Smith-Sayce. as a result. [Footnote: Maspero. [Footnote: Tabl. the latest of these.. 1. the evil results in the writing of history are less serious than in the case of most reigns. though here. as in the case of Ashur nasir apal.225! [Footnote: Ann.] and it may well be that it is to this sickness that we must attribute his death later. 4 for comparison of numbers._ on the basis of the new tablet] furnishes the clearest indication of the unsatisfactory character of our recital so long as we must rely entirely on the Annals. by a trick especially common among the Sargonide scribes. the 1. Extracts. xix. 139. added to at intervals of a few years. Proceedings of Amer. [Footnote: Botta. says not a word of any suicide.235 sheep of the tablet [Footnote: Tabl. 1878. the exact reverse should be our procedure. _Sargon_. because less likely to be allowed for.] On the other hand._.._ 115. for example. can be called by a well known historian "a sort of duplicate of" the Taylor inscription.] More serious. 158 ff. 273 _n. with that in thureau-Dangin.] has reached the enormous total of 100. KB. with comparatively few exceptions. 411ff. [Footnote: Tabl. _Sargon_. Cf. _De inscriptione quae vocatur Annalium_. 3 ff.. cit. It is the discovery of conditions like these which forces us to subject our official inscriptions to the most rigid scrutiny before we dare use them in our history. 112 ff. Rogers. _Histoire_. 84. Menant. 106. Historical Assn. Winckler. the Haldian king. the form of the mass of . of. _Sargon_. [Footnote: Cf.] where the tablet has twelve fortified cities and eighty four villages. Olmstead. 68. 104 ff. _Western Asia in the reign of Sennacherib..] The complete misunderstanding of the whole campaign by earlier writers [Footnote: Compare. _Ninive_. Winckler. his heart he pierced. 111. 340 ff. 80 ff. 105. Thureau-Dangin. 21 ff.] However." [Footnote: Ann. _Monuments de Ninive_. Thureau-Dangin. _op. he adds "with his own iron dagger. and. 129. so that the earliest edition. [Footnote: _Ibid. cit. [Footnote: Cf. 1 ff.] But the most glaring innovation of the scribe is where. _op. 309 ff.] but now we have the proof that it is only history as the scribe would like it to have been written.] when the original merely says that it was abandoned by its chief. also Olmstead. _Sargon_ II. III. and so existing in several editions. 29 ff. in speaking of the fate of Rusash.. I. n. and his life he ended. The same phenomenon can be constantly seen in the huge increases of the numbers of the Display inscription as compared with its original. like a pig. cit. pl._.. 349. the Annals. the brief and inaccurate account in Olmstead. while giving the conventional picture of the despair of the defeated king. the Taylor inscription._] As we have seen repeatedly. is the statement that Parda was captured [Footnote: Ann. 1909.] the chief is the Annals.

_l. _Abh. 30 f. 78 f. but by campaigns. n. in these petty frontier wars. [Footnote: King. 73. 1 f. The increase in the number of our editions. now recognized as duplicates. 76 ff. 78. cf. the account of the building operations followed suit.)] the other has a brief sketch of the sixth. 3. ZA. 43._. K. 996. but surprisingly little.000. 60 ff. Pinches. 51 f. p. It includes campaign three and is dated in May. XXXV. 38. 22. cf.. and also 88 f. p.. 23 ff. 1674._ VIII. _Cuneiform Texts_. (Bull 1 occurs only Smith-Sayce. The A 8 of Bezold. however. 70 f. but in the completion of the new palace. as Meiasner-Rost. for list of tablets. 3. Smith-Sayce. 297 ff. in the building of a park. as these take up nearly a half of the inscription. JRAS. however. One contains only five expeditions. Bezold. L. c.] Somewhat different from these is the newest Sennacherib inscription. XXVI. Lit. 53. as the date of the campaign can now usually be fixed by observing in which dated document it last occurs. Soc. 30.. ibid. I. XXVI_. _op... _op.. PSBA._] Cylinder C dates from 697 and contains the fourth expedition. n. 94f.. as is shown by King. 1680. 30. 14. 24. which was inscribed at the end of campaign five. 24 ff. 102. King. the inscription itself being dated in 694. cf. 43. A serious defect is the fact that these documents are dated. As a first edition. p. 76. not by years. 7 f. 1850. 1. 369 ff. 53. That they are not dated by the campaigns of the king and that they are not given in the later editions is perhaps due to the fact that the king did not conduct them in person. [Footnote: BM. 700. 15. two others are given. The A 2 of Bezold. 67 f. [Footnote: King..86. 53. 10. 38._. Gesell_. 1.. [Footnote: K. 10. it is a trifle fuller._.] The occasion for this new edition is not to be found. the earlier being true cylinders. 18 n. 43. 73. [Footnote: K.. 103. King. Smith-Sayce. 73. we should probably date it to the latter year. Göttingen.. _l. [Footnote: Bull 2. 24. while the latter are prisms. [Footnote: Inscription at Hasanah (Hassan Agha?) King. cf. but by the eponyms. The fact that it has been studied separately has tended to prevent the realization that it is actually only a recension. but as it has one campaign more than Cylinder C of 697. cf.] but both have references to . 387 ff. XXVI. Nipur. [Footnote: King. Roy. [Footnote: BM. 66 ff.] Next comes Cylinder B. 225 ff. [Footnote: BM. 39. 30. 43. It is the Bl. RP¹. cit. 702. 1675. Menant. 1910. cit.] After the narrative of the fifth campaign._ I. cf. Talbot.. XXVI. 63 f. Smith-Sayce. XVIII. _Bauinschriften_. not a reference to Tarbisi. [Footnote: Smith-Sayce. Smith-Sayce. [Footnote: Bull 3.] At about the same time must be placed the various inscriptions on the bulls which were intended to decorate this new palace. cf. III. has solved many of these.508. so that here we have actual chronology. Grotefend. The recovery of this document has also enabled us to place in the same group two other fragments. Smith-Sayce. _Exped. K. JRAS. _Trans. L. not by the number of campaign as in the documents of the regular series. p. _Cuneiform Texts. 43 ff. c.clay on which these Annals were written changes with the increased length of the document. of Bezold. Evetts.] At the same time that the narrative of military events was lengthened. _Cuneiform Texts_.] which marks the transition from the shorter to the longer cylinders. and dated. the first is the so called Bellino Cylinder which dates from October. 9. in the increase in the size of the city of Nineveh. 2. Of the more than twenty five more or less complete documents. and in the installation of a water supply. now represented by six complete and seven fragmentary cylinders. 311 ff. Oppert. 79.] The mutilated date of Cylinder D may be either 697 or 695. King. 24.] From this recension seems to have been derived the display inscription recently discovered on Mt. 4492. The two campaigns took place in 698 and 695 respectively. 53. with the result that there are serious questions in chronology. _Cuneiform Texts_.

. KB. as we know.. Ungnad. II. often given in photograph.. Chron. 1879. Not only is it fuller than the Taylor prism. generally taken as the standard inscription of the reign. on which is based a later expedition of Sennacherib against Palestine. _Vorderas. The last in the series of Annals editions is the Taylor Prism of 690. 116 ff. Rogers. Menant. but all mention of the captured prince was cut out. 32 ff. KB. D. but there is no mention of Ashur nadin shum. des Sargonides_. 214 ff.] Here too may be mentioned the two fragments from the later part of the reign. Paterson.. 353. 17 ff. of which they are the only Assyrian authority. _Bauinschriften_. Yet curiously enough. 69f. that across the Persian Gulf to Nagitu. 1878. I. Denkmäler_. it has the same language as the Annals group. 65 ff. Bezold... The new inscription was written in August of 694. 80 ff. 12 f.. [Footnote: Smíth-Sayce. the later fragment. 39 f. 234 ff.032. and substantially the same text is found on seven other prisms. When this arrived. 1665. XXVI. King. They then add the final capture and destruction of Babylon. I. 129 ff. KB. 38 ff. _passim_. Rogers. Scheil. I. At this time as well as when the inscription was placed on Bull II. in the seventh expedition the Taylor cylinder is fuller and better. Rogers. but these coincidences are so rare that we must assume that they are due only to the use of well known formulae. 1. [Footnote: Bab._Nineve et l'Assyrie_. the revolt of Babylon.. 157. 51. in Gressmann.] As has already been made evident. seemingly in the beginning of November. 54 ff. 118 f.. this is of no value for the earlier parts of the reign. _Palace of Sinacherib_.. as their text inclines toward that of the Taylor Prism.. [Footnote: Bull 4. 53. Pognon. 121... 5 f. 137 f. 73 ff. Pinches. _Chronik. 80 ff. now at Constantinople. op. 305. II. 41ff. 14. In general. RP¹. 102 ff. Assyr. 68 f. the news of the sixth expedition. Oppert... cf. 543. C. they parallel the last campaign of the Taylor Prism. 21ff..] Here too we may discuss the Bavian inscription. Slightly earlier than the Taylor Cylinder is the Memorial or Nebi Yunus inscription. The order of date is B." A good photograph. 10 n. 37 ff. But before a fuller narrative could be prepared. L. RP².. A. In their historical portions. lllff. cf. But for the second half of the sixth expedition. news came of the capture of Ashur nadin shum. had not yet come in. the display inscriptions cut in the rock where began the irrigation works constructed to carry water to the capital.. 3 f. VII. soon after the Nagitu expedition. Here also seem to belong the fragments 79-7-8. S. Abel-Winckler. K.. 68 ff. _Hist_. 36 ff. Smith-Sayce. [Footnote: Smith-Sayce. OLZ. Squeezes were secured by the Cornell Expedition. 1026.. a brief account was hastily compiled and added to Bull III.. Smith-Sayce.] as well as a tablet which seems to be a draft of an inscription to be set up in Kirbit . I R. _Palace of Sinacherib_. 24. for _kat Tashriti_ in line 40. II. _Les Ins. though a few new facts are found. 30 f. especially in the "_Bible Helps_. 86 f.] This dates very closely the inscriptions of the period. Delitzsch. Bezold. 43. since for that we have much better data. Delitzsch. Harper. 33 ff. 91. Menant. Meissner-Rost. [Footnote: III R. Talbot. Bezold. though in such different fashion that they may be considered separate sources. 3. it is our best source.. 67. Hörnung.. IX. A. 7 f. 89 ff. A. 1651. _Tukulti Ninib_. King.. Here and there. it is an abridgement of earlier records._L'inscription de Bavian_. Seen at Constantinople in 1907-1908.. [Footnote: BM.the enthronement of the crown prince Ashur nadin shum in Babylon.] Still another gives a very full account of the sixth expedition. _Lesestücke_. II. which took place. 127 ff. ad loc_. Paterson. _Das Sechsseitige Prisma des Sanherib_. but it ranks well up in its class as comparatively little has been omitted or changed. 43. [Footnote: I R. _Cuneiform Texts_. p. III R. it gives a quite different account in which it is not the king but his generals who are the victors. 77 ff. 345 f. Smith-Sayce. with numbers of the duplicates. VI. RP¹. 114 ff. Smith-Sayce. which ends about where the other does.. 73.] The inscription on Bull IV accordingly had an elaborate narrative of the Nagitu expedition.

and there is nothing in B to prevent this conjecture. 45 ff. only a part of the first expedition against Egypt has survived and that in a very incomplete manner. III. A is from Nebi Yunus. 68 ff. _ad loc_. 26. 32 ff.. 311ff. 1679. III. 22 ff. The greater part of the history of the reign must be secured from the three most important cylinders. III R. Lit_. _Textbuch_. [Footnote: I. Smith. [Footnote: MDOG..] The date of all three is probably 673. _Jour.. [Footnote: Inscriptions of the reign collected by Budge. Strong.] It is a poetic justice rarely found in history that the man who so ruthlessly destroyed the Annals of Tiglath Pileser IV is today known to us by still smaller fragments of his own. Harper. VIII. Delattre. Lit_.. IV. 357 ff. Gesch. 114 ff. Rogers. Oppert.. XXIII. KTA.. 21.] In comparing the texts of A-C and B. IV. KB. 20. _Hebr_. has Abu of the year 673. the more specifically building inscriptions may be noted. _l. _Trans. _ibid_. III. _Hebr. l.. 1893. 22f. C was used by R. 1870. [Footnote: III R.._. _Hebraica_. Bezold.. We are accordingly dependent for our knowledge of the reign on the display inscriptions. 84 ff. 123. Olmstead. Cf. cf. 46-49. IV. _Ins. Abel. RP¹. 124 ff. save that B adds an account of the accession. 81ff... 27 ff. _Disc_.] and on bricks.. Menant. c_. Harper. _Hebraica_.. 17 ff. 20 ff. c_. 97 ff. 20 ff. II. Menant. Harper. Computation of the minimum in each column of B. 177 ff.. AbelWinckler. 434. 21. Winckler. 25 f. for restoring A. Sacr. IX. 149. 1912. 315. Ungnad.. [Footnote: First reference. 7. 22. IV. 36 f. MDOG. 72. As at least four lines were devoted to . If the month is to be retained. but seems to be from the same general series. 102 ff. Geog. 2. Rogers. B must have given the introduction and the murder of Sennacherib. with all their possibilities for error. there seem to be no important differences. 99 ff. perhaps the most important is the New Year's House inscription from Ashur. Of the specifically building inscriptions. 43 ff. G. III R. KB. Budge. 29. Rev_. Budge. 4. 248 ff. _Bull. 47. Talbot. Smith. _Bauinschriften Sanheribs_. 18 ff. 146 ff. Winckler.. RP¹. KB.] and the excavations there have also given a good number of display inscriptions on slabs [Footnote: KTA. R. _Hebraica_. 148 ff. Soc_. MDOG. 31.] The greater part of what we know concerning the building operations of the reign comes from the documents already discussed. based on the amount actually preserved in A and C. B from Koyunjik. 4. 35. [Footnote: 48-11-4.] Esarhaddon (686-668).] B is broken and was originally considerably fuller. 241ff. In the broken part before this.. 1880. 43. III.] as well as some building prisms. 15.. 108 f. 25. Column II of B must have been devoted in part to the final defeat of the rebels and in part to the introduction to the long narrative concerning Nabu zer lishir. 80 f. Amer. II. omits the month. will give us some idea of what has been lost.. Text. prepared elaborate Annals.. 52 ff. Winckler. and only the Babylonian Chronicle gives a little help toward fixing the relative order of events._History of Esarhaddon_. according to Budge. L. _L'Asie_. 4. 37. altor. IV. 140 ff. 73 f. H.. 15 f. 551 ff. 25. 24.. I R. 15. VII.. 53 ff. [Footnote: C is dated in the month Abu. Roy. Harper..] like the others of his dynasty. Abel-Winckler. III 109 ff.. _Supplement_. the identity of month points to identity of year. Soc. with the parallels 80-7-19. Budge. Also King.. TSBA. A and C are complete and are practically identical. 13 ff. but Winckler. 14. des Sargonides_.] To complete our study of the sources for the reign.. XLIV. 177 ff. 44. I. II. _Untersuch z. 22. 457. Aside from five mutilated lines from the ninth expedition. _North Brit. JRAS. and K. Harper. Talbot. 21. [Footnote: Meissner-Rost. 114f.. 33.in commemoration of the flight of Merodach Baladan. _Haverford Studies_. 97f. 24. also G. Harper. [Footnote: MDOG. Boscawen.. quoted Harper. [Footnote: 48-10-31. 39. 12 ff. B. we note that in the first part...

but are almost certainly later. and Sidon. It is close to B as is shown in the story of Nabu zer lishir. it must have been fairly long in B. Gesch. to the contrary notwithstanding. 109. and this is confirmed where B gives a complete list of Arabian and of Syrian kings while A does not. follow in 676. Hubushna. Then A gives the Kundu troubles which. found in one of the others and proved to the period by the Babylonian Chronicle. The irregularity in the minimum numbers for the different columns. Akku. Gambulu. But whether we can assume this for all the events mentioned may be doubted in the light of the disagreement between A and B in their order. that against Bazu. In placing the Arabs before Bazu. where A has Musri.. which fit well enough with the Egyptian expedition given under 675. are of doubtful date. Cf. II. As it mentions the Uabu rebellion which is not in A. and than B in the Elam account. the overlapping gives us some reason to hope that nearly all its facts have been preserved in the one or the other edition. shows that B had in some cases much longer accounts than in others. Why A omitted all this is a question. on the basis of A. Egypt. I. 299 ff. We have already seen that strict chronology is followed by B.] Still another document of similar character may be called E. Arabs. Babylon. and the king of Elam. As a late document. strange to relate._.this introduction in the usually much shorter D. It has some striking variants in the proper names. AOF. I. 15. z. The others. 680. [Footnote: Winckler. it is clear that we have here only extracts. even though the events narrated are given more fully than in A. King. it is clear that the much fuller B has here lost much. according to the Chronicle. Asia Minor. As D omits Sidon and the Cilician cities. and is independent of both. ZA. supplemented by A when the former is missing. A is clearly attempting a more geographical order. These are the only sections we can date chronologically.] It is also longer than A in the River of Egypt section. The first.] For the lost part of the fifth column. 681. 677. and thus we have exact proof that Musri does equal Egypt. However. These minimum numbers also indicate that but about one-fourth of B has been preserved. AOF. we must count the Iadi and Gambulu expeditions. 56 ff. is seemingly briefer than that document. we know dates to 676. to Uruk. Olmstead. and Arzani and the brook of Egypt. it should date after 673. 522. 98. [Footnote: _Shepashun_ of B. so that thus far the chronological order has been followed. We shall then use B as our main source whenever preserved. About the same building account as in A must be placed at the commencement of column VI. Sidon. II pl. [Footnote: K. and again the Chronicle shows it to be in chronological order. Chaldaeans. II. _Sargon_. it is of value only for the Uabu affair. The order of events is Babylon. if any still survive. is not chronological but geographical. _Supplement_. and a part of the building narrative. Another display inscription of the same type we shall call D. is the _elishun ukin_ is virtually the same as _ukin sirushun_. the advocates of the Musri theory. Egypt. That these two events are the first in the reign is made clear by the Babylonian Chronicle. but we must not forget that all are simply display inscriptions. In the gap in Column IV. [Footnote: Cf. The next event in B and the first in A is the story of the Sidon troubles. universally recognized as meaning Egypt. Since A has no less than 49 lines to deal with the events in the lost beginning of column III. to Buesh king of an unknown land. we have here Musur. altor. . in the order. Winckler.] We may also note here another prism fragment [Footnote: 80-7-19. and its order. 2671. punishment of the assassins. ZA. Winckler. and the order is chronologically correct. but is certainly fuller than A. or the Babylonian Nabu zer lishir before Bit Dakkuri. for example. we are to place the Aduma narrative and the traces where we can begin to read show that they are in the conclusion of the Median troubles. _Untersuch. 526 ff.] and a slab with a brief account of many campaigns.

26 ff. 71._. Menant. _Supplement_. Meissner-Rost. Winckler.] Two others date after 675 as the one on a stone slab from the south west palace at Kalhu states that he took captive the king of Meluh. One is the famous stele discovered amid the ruins of the North Syrian town of Sinjirli. dates from Aru of accession year. 167 f. we must discuss two display inscriptions from the very end of the reign. 120 ff.] so that they must be placed after the capture of that country.] CHAPTER VII ASHUR BANI APAL AND ASSYRIAN EDITING . [Footnote: I R. in Luschan.] Perhaps the most important is the prism which tells so much in regard to the earliest days of Assyria. 218 ff. It is rapidly disappearing. op. Roy. but there are few source problems in connection with them... Soc. Cast. Charles and Wrench. 5 f. 11 ff. Barton. [Footnote: KTA. II. 180 f. Egypt and Ethiopia.[Footnote: K.] and the various ones found at Ashur by the German excavators.. 26. 105. though it deals with the rebuilding of Babylon. G. 28. [Footnote: Photograph and text. 150 f. Lit. and the expedition against Tarqu. _Hist_._. _Exped.] and the other stone tablet gives him Egyptian titles. so far as I know. 204 ff. Amer. Winckler. in Koldewey.. MDOG. cf. but much less can now be seen than what Smith evidently found on the cast. Assyr_. I have been able to consult squeezes in the library of Cornell University. 249. Winckler. _Babylone et Chaldée_. [Footnote: KTA. 41ff. Menant. as it shows no relationship to other inscriptions. 86. I have been able to use the squeeze taken in 1904 in connection with Messrs. _Die Tempel von Babylon_. _Nineveh and its Palaces_. 65. 20 f.] We have a considerable number of building inscriptions. 51-55.._.] The same is probably true of the equally famous rock cut inscription at the Dog River (Nahr el Kelb). 38. We may also mention in conclusion the one which gives the restoration of the Ishtar temple at Uruk [Footnote: 81-6-7. 25. 1. is given. 19a.--I have been unable to see Scheil. 8544. 13. Oppert. Weissbach._. 96 ff. II. 324. AOF. KB. Menant. north of Berut. 49. 12 f. has never been published. KB. 240. Esarhaddon is called King of Babylon and King of Musur and Kusi. 671. I. 399. Paterson. 189 ff. Smith. III. 51. as the fact that it was cut through a very thin layer of hard rock has caused much flaking. [Footnote: I R. Oppert. 248. Winckler. cxxx. 345. Bonomi. 150 f.. Schrader.. II.] Another important document is the Black Stone. 90 ff. even in connection with the elaborate study of the Nahr el Kelb sculptures by Boscawen. 551. Harper. Meissner-Rost. Rogers. III. _Proc. 167 ff. XI. 209: Winckler. I. it seems never to have been published. and seems to date from the first year. [Footnote: Translation. Thus it agrees with the Sinjirli inscription and may well date from the same year. Harper. I. whose importance is in no small degree due to the locality in which they were found. 22. Or. VII. and seems to have been composed on the spot. The text. _Le Prisme S d'Assarhaddon. Assyr_. 33. 120 n. II. 75.._] Finally. 142 ff. 367. 33. KB. KB. which ended with the capture and sack of Memphis. 88 f. _Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli_. _Eponym Canon_. 20. 10 f. 5. z. and pl. It was found at Nineveh. 49. a four sided prism with archaistic writing. _Trans. _Exped. MDOG. 48.. [Footnote: L. 532. [Footnote: Collected in Meissner-Rost. Soc. _Beitr. 1891. It dates after the capture of Memphis. TSBA. ThureauDangin... 26. Though the oldest Assyrian inscription to have a cast taken. King. I. 25. 103. _Rev.. _Sculptures_.

The references to Tabal and Arvad indicate that some time had elapsed in which memorable events in his own reign could have taken place. [Footnote: G. the greater number of the inscriptions for the reign are not before us in adequate form. 3083 is identical for a line each with Cyl. The various conflicting accounts of the Egyptian campaigns. 34f. with its dream from Ashur to Gyges. Winckler. S. and there are problems which only a renewed study of the originals can solve. _History of Assurbanipal_. But in no reign is the distortion of the earlier statements more serious. Earlier scholars have in general satisfied themselves with the publication and study of the latest edition. which contains a somewhat less full account of the Kirbit campaign. a score of years later. There are reigns. Both vaguely ascribe it to the "governors" but do not attempt to claim it for the king. a decagon fragment. stands preeminent for the mass of material available. the formal conclusion. Accordingly. K. It is a detailed narrative of the unimportant Kirbit expedition. [Footnote: G. but if we recognize that each is a step in the movement toward increasing the credit the king should receive for them. we have already solved some of the most stubborn problems in the history of the reign. Smith.The reign of Ashur bani apal (668-626).] Next in date and therefore in value we are probably to place Cylinder E. Cylinder E gives a briefer account and Cylinder F one still shorter. and this has twice been collected. it placed an account of the Egyptian expedition. AOF. for example. I. When we have discovered which document is our earliest and most authentic source for any given event. _Keilschrifttexte Asurbanipals_. which immediately follows the Kirbit expedition in our earliest document. where such procedure results in comparatively little distortion of the history. and its order for servitude. and trust for our history only the first in date. A. 82f. Smith. Further. and this is confirmed by the much more developed form of the Lydian narrative. 1887 ff. Although only a portion is preserved. 1871. and to inform us that the king in person conducted the expedition. to take the final step. Smith. have caused much trouble. 2846. it is sufficient to show that the "first Egyptian expedition" at least was credited to his father. [Footnote: K. and a picturesque narrative of the opening of diplomatic relations with Lydia. was the only one which could be claimed for the "beginning of the reign. which is ascribed to the governor Nur ekalli umu.. shows that this event. gave credit for the earlier half of the Egyptian campaigns to his father and for the latter half to his own lieutenants. It remained for Cylinder B.] A third account. Before these events. E and F. Yet later cylinders can place before it no less than two expeditions against Egypt and one against Tyre! Our earliest document alone would be enough to prove that these had been taken over from the reign of his father. such as that of Sennacherib. That this account is of value as over against the later ones has been . which we may call F. Our very earliest document furnishes a beautiful illustration of this principle. Once again we have the usual Annals as our main source. even did we not have some of this verified by that father himself. 76 f. we have at last placed the history of the reign on a firm basis. in no reign is it more imperative that we should disentangle the various sources and give the proper value to each." This campaign is further fixed by the Babylonian Chronicle to the accession year. indeed one can hardly recognize the earlier documents in their later and "corrected" form. sometimes supplemented by more or less full extracts from the others. 474 ff. unimportant as it was.] Yet in spite of all this.

178 ff. whose form points to the fact that it is a fuller edition.R. Lau & Langdon. Smith. 2. Johns. 3085. [Footnote: G. Here the Egyptian wars are still counted as one expedition.. 73 ff. 94 ff. 372. 18. Winckler.*] Somewhat later would seem to be the account we may call G. 1729 from which most of the B text is taken.. [Footnote: Rm. a proof that we have the conclusion and so can date approximately. 319. 1903. for ending giving erection of moon temple at Harran. op. II..P. but a second has been stolen for Ashur bani apal by taking over that campaign of his father against Baal of Tyre which is given in the Sinjirli inscription. its text holds an intermediate position between A and B. for the duplicate K. 52. but it has since been supplanted by the so called Rassam cylinder. a decagon. 2631.. 3101. which are copied verbatim from the Cylinder B of Esarhaddon. [Footnote: BM. whose lines divide the document into thirteen parts. II. with several duplicates. IX 37 ff. S. we reach the first of what is practically a new series. Jensen. Menant. S. [Footnote: V.026. _Sammlung_.] With C should in all probability be listed two decagons one of which is called Cylinder D. cannot be told until it is published. 15. 3402. XVII 2 n. 25 ff. 478 n._ Jensen. 316. A. It is dated the first of Nisan (March) in the eponymy of Shamash dananni.. Smith._.] All the documents thus far considered are fuller and more accurate in dealing with the events they narrate than is the group which has so long been considered the standard. Winckler. Rm. G. 236 ff. 317 f. Smith. 2656. G. [Footnote: K. III R. G. Smith.. a decagon. 91. 26 ff. I. cf. 2675. G. 2833 and K. II. 3062. Are the duplicates mentioned here to be found in K. 215 ff. Smith. 3. MDOG.. III.-Where we are to place the cylinder Rm. 555. I. 12 ff. Delitzsch. Smith.] but we should not forget that it already represents a developed form of the tradition. Jensen.] That this document is by no means impeccable has long been recognized. 78. [Footnote: G. G.. [Footnote: K. Menant. and as the Ummanaldas episode is dealt with in fuller form than in A. II. 243 ff. S.. 80 ff. Smith. R..] Still a third is dated in Ululu (September) of this year. 152 ff. Smith. and dated in Aru (May) of the same year. Smith.. 1. XXVII. 277 f. 238 ff. Photograph. KB. 36 ff. _Hist_. Menant. 319 and S. 27a. Smith.] With Cylinder B. 97.. II. 1794. Smith. PSBA. 2664. z. J. KB. KB. _Untersuch. 319. 28 f. cf. Already George Smith had written "The contempt of chronology in the Assyrian records is well shown by the fact that in Cylinder . 17 ff. cf. G. II. it probably dates earlier. II. III R. 205?] For the Tamaritu events. The first known was Cylinder A. Abel-Winckler. probably 644.. K. altor. Smith. Gesch. A. KB. Rogers. [Footnote: K. we have a group of tablets of unknown connections.. III. 56 ff. 266 ff. G. [Footnote: G. 151. 1364. Both the Egyptian wars have now been definitely assigned to the king.] Then comes a document which we may call H. Winckler.] The story of the Shamash shum ukin revolt is continued by Cylinder C.. _Gesch_. in Harper. 253 ff. 13 ff. the lists of Syrian and Cypriote kings. found in the north palace of Nineveh. 278 ff. Jensen. and the making of two expeditions into Egypt has pushed the one against Baal of Tyre up to the position of third. Smith.A. The octagon B dates from the midst of the revolt of Shamash shum ukin and is a most highly "corrected" document. so greatly has the older narrative been "corrected" in these later documents. RP¹. _passim_.recognized. 30 ff. 240 ff. 1-10. dealing with Urtaki's reign. [Footnote: Tiele. a slightly better preserved copy.] being found only in it. Smith. Smith. Smith. A fragmentary stone duplicate from Babylon.. In general.. 444. [Footnote: K. V. 102 ff. cf. _Annals of Ashurbanapal_. _passim. 281. [Footnote: G. A.M.] Earlier scholars made this the basis of study. AOF.

] and Nabu inscriptions. Menant. seem to be of no special importance for this study as they are duplicates with few variants. JA... XLIV. but I has also sections which appear only in A.] Still later are the Beltis [Footnote: II R. The elaborate account of Teumman given by B has been cut decidedly and the interesting Ishtar dream is entirely omitted. written down when Egypt was forever freed from Assyrian rule. in all probability. G. S.A. A. While B and C have the data as to the Elamite side of the revolt of Shamash shum ukin. 291 ff. Smith. 434. I. and the Arabian and Syrian events in connection are given under the ninth expedition. A. A. while A ascribes these actions to his generals. the affair of Nebobelzikri under the eighth expedition. II. Here too belongs J in spite of its references to the accession. and we may hope that. The Karbit and Urtaki episodes are entirely omitted. 264 ff._. RA. 290 ff. largely because it gives a view of the greater part of the reign. Smith. cited in King. is the document we may call I. To be sure. 1893. The one indication that points to its being later than A is the fact that." [Footnote: _Ibid_. _Supplement_. Amer.--The various British Museum fragments. II. The omission of Karbit has dropped the Manna from the fifth to fourth and the omission of the latter has made the Teumman campaign the fifth instead of the seventh as in B. The same is true of the Gambulu narrative. For the years from which we have no other data. 128 ff. save as they indicate the "corrections" to the actual history thought necessary by the royal scribes. 1 ff. Strong.. 20 ff. as this period was nearer the time of its editors. Of all the cases where such procedure has caused damage.. A. the introduction and conclusion as well as many new details are found only in A.] We have already crossed the boundary which divides the really historical narratives from those which . But we should recognize once and for all that the other portions are worthless and worse than worthless. 368 ff. 1. III. without a hint that years had intervened. I. when the empire was falling to pieces. S. Later than this in date. 202 n. Geog. this is the worst. we must use it. which is not in B. 112 ff. [Footnote: K. but is found in the earlier F. 2867. is to be placed the hymn to Marduk which speaks of Tugdami the Cilician. Strong. our document speaks of them in the first person.. It is curious to find here. the date matters little. II. Smith 303 ff. That Cylinder B was not its immediate source is shown by the fact that in the first Egyptian expedition it gives the pardon of Necho.*] If this severe criticism is not justified by a study of the Assyrian sources as a whole. G. cf. 2802. Smith. the reference to Cylinder A may well begin our consideration of the shortcomings of that group. [Footnote: K. KB. II. Smith. for the first time. 112. Although this document has regularly been presented as the base text. enough should have been said in the preceding paragraph to prove how unworthy of the honor it is.] though as these are merely display inscriptions.. Jensen.] And to this very late period. cf. the greater part of the long list of conquered Egyptian kings. while the general account of the rebellion of [Shamash shum ukin] is given under the sixth expedition. the Arabian expedition already occurs in B. 66. Soc.. while the Gambulu expedition is also listed in the fifth though B makes it the eighth! The death of Gyges is added immediately after the other Lydian narrative. [Footnote: S. Olmstead. [Footnote: S. _Bull. the account of the revolt of Psammitichus is given under the third expedition. 10 ff. its information may here be of more value. and which therefore probably date later.

268f. to go forth at the head of his armies. I.] For the period after the reign of Ashur bani apal. Schrader. Even the Babylonians have furnished us with hardly a text which demands source study. MDOG. 270 ff. 246 ff.. 234. 169 ff. Smith. 6. I R. Iff. Jensen. G. are almost exclusively devoted to architectural operations in far away Babylon! [Footnote: It may be noted that the Cornell . _Explorations_. letters. 8. 295 ff._ II. Smith. ZA.] while a number of tablets give much new historical information from the similar notes which the scribe was to thus incise. 4457. Winckler. 139 f. Vorderas. 287 ff. II.. II. A. Olmstead. 6223. Many minor inscriptions have been passed by without notice. scores of long inscriptions could be devoted to the building activities of the ruler while a tiny fragment is all that is found of the Annals. [Footnote: Messerschmidt. 3096.. destitute of even common bravery. Talbot. G. IV. 3. G. A.are merely sources. Even his rock cut inscriptions in Syria. K. Of foreign sources. for introduction to these new problems.] some from Nippur. Smith. our only certain knowledge being derived from a mutilated letter [Footnote: BM. 6332. [Footnote: Hilprecht. 37. the more so as its author never dreamed that some day it might be used to prove that the king was not accustomed.] and the scanty documents of the other peoples who used the cuneiform characters hardly furnish source problems. XX. 1 ff. Assyr._ 1880. 310. [Footnote: K. Thompson. 346 ff. cf. III. Gesell. _Late Babylonian Letters_ 248. XXX. [Footnote: K.] The Ishtar prayer is a historic document of the first class. III R. The fall of the empire was imminent and there were no glories for the scribe to chronicle. XXXI.. KB. Before summing up our conclusions as to their general character.] We have no contemporaneous Assyrian sources for the fall of the kingdom. II. Some bricks from the south east palace at Kalhu. 66 ff. those of the Hebrews furnish too complicated a problem for study in this place. also Menant. and of the more value as they open to us the sculptures. [Footnote: I R. [Footnote: K. AOF. in fact. Johns. Smith. III R. 4. Berl. [Footnote: Cf. Smith. _Mitth. 1 ff. as his annals declare. though in a detailed history their help will be constantly invoked to fill in the sketch secured by the study of the official documents.] and some boundary inscriptions [Footnote: K. Smith. S. 295. S. K. 164. 191 ff. 16. Winckler. Smith. 140 ff. AJSL. KB. Winckler. PSBA. and not infrequently to correct them. KB. XXXVIII. are the frequent notes inscribed over them. 51082. II. and appeals to the sun god will here be sufficient. I. _SB. 11 ff.] CHAPTER VIII THE BABYLONIAN CHRONICLE AND BEROSSUS This concludes our detailed study of the "histories" of the reigns which were set forth with the official sanction. Gesell.. G. 1896. and a mere mention of the mass of business documents. To the end. 2674. Menant. 4f.. III. that he was. [Footnote: Scattered through the work of G. cf. it will be well to devote a moment to the consideration of certain other sources for the Assyrian period. 2652. those in the Wadi Brissa and at the Nahr el Kelb. Among the latter. 8.. 28.] and from a brief statement of the Babylonian king Nabu naid a generation later. as is shown so conspiciously in the case of Nebuchadnezzar. we have only the scantiest data. _Rev. TSBA. 1662 and dupl.] are all that we have from Ashur itil ilani and from Sin shar ishkun only fragments of a cylinder dealing with building._.

the second with his office. JRAS. [Footnote: Photograph. In its sobriety of presentation and its coldly impartial statement of fact. _Bab. Bezold. The last has already been discussed. as.] Yet if the Babylonians were so deficient in their appreciation of the need of historical annals for the individual reigns. which led to the composition of the work. Schrader. excited by this event. 148 ff. II.Expedition secured squeezes of both these inscriptions. [Footnote: Olmstead. in Harper. ZA. Rogers.. 47 f. 344 ff. yet it marks the greatest advance the Assyrians made along this line.. though nothing more. Only the first tablet has come down to us._. and they seem to have been compiled for practical calendar purposes. the Babylonian Chronicle is a real. if somewhat crude history. Pinches. T. the Assyrians have but the Eponym Lists. Pinches. On the other hand. KB. If but two tablets were written. Chronik_..C. Be that as it may. 655 ff.. Rogers. 515. but within these limits he seems to have chosen wisely. he confines himself to those events which have an immediate bearing on Babylonian history. _Jour. 200 ff. Duplicates. 49 ff. Barta. 198 ff. it may almost be called modern. he shows a rather surprising range of interest. Abstract. Amer. the Babylonian Chronicle and the Nabunaid-Cyrus Chronicle. 65 ff.] But. generally a campaign. In general. What we have covers the period 745-668. _Extra Biblical Sources_. 1889. The second tablet would cover a period nearer the time of the writer and would naturally deal with the events more in detail. The so called Assyrian Chronicle is in reality nothing but a chronological table in three columns. but. 500 B. the first with the name of the eponym for the year. 80c. Our present copy is dated in the twenty second year of Darius I of Persia. As a historical source. this can hardly be counted an objection by a generation of historians which has so subordinated the art of historical writing to the scientific discovery of historical facts. its original must be a good bit earlier. the so called Assyrian Chronicle. While the Babylonians have preserved to us numerous lists of kings and two excellent works which we have every reason to call actual histories. the superiors of the Assyrians when it came to the production of actual histories dealing with long periods of time. The events chosen are naturally almost exclusively of a military or political nature. Delitzsch.. _Keilschriftliches Urkundenbuch_. 181. II. for example. 137 ff. XXXIV 43 ff. and the so called Synchronous History. in his narration of the Egyptian expeditions. with no apparent prejudice for or against any of the nations or persons named. but the mention of the first proves that a second existed. Sarsowsky. If we miss the picturesque language which adds so much to the literary value of the Assyrian royal annals. which could not always be read. PSBA. The Eponym lists are merely lists of the officials who dated each year in rotation. but at times. Mercer. the author is remarkably fair. of the year. the end of the work would be brought down close to the time when the Assyrian Empire fell (608). and this has been pointed out elsewhere. so that a smaller number of years would be given on this tablet. it holds a distinctly low place. In fact. more can be made out of this dry list than has previously been suspected. as it was copied and revised from an earlier exemplar.] . XIX. Abel-Winckler. it can be said without fear of contradiction that it is the best historical production of any cuneiform people. _Lesestücke_. a period of seventy-seven years. VI. that it was the fall of Assyria and the interest in the relations between the now dominant Babylonia and its former mistress. Winckler. 274 ff. C. XXXIV. they seem to have been. 208 ff. and we have seen how little it deserved the title of a real history. It is a tempting conjecture. as a contribution to the writing of history. PSBA. Or. and the third with the most important event. Delitzsch.

Syncellus.. _Sargon_. Eusebius seems to have used a poor manuscript of that author. _Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum_. it undoubtedly goes back to a first class Babylonian source. Perhaps from this.. the Babylonian priest. cf. which can be secured only by assuming a mistake in the Armenian alphabet. _Parallels_. or even in others not here named. Furthermore. though here too the Egyptian calendar is used. xxx for bibliography. Alexander Polyhistor was used by Josephus. And now what shall we say by way of summing up the Assyrian writing of history? First of all. and the various articles by Schwartz. 304 ff. and the Armenian historian. Eusebius has in some cases not recognized the fact that Abydenus is only a feeble echo of Polyhistor. Alexandros 88. on Abydenus.] it becomes clear that this work was prepared at the time when fusion of Greek and Babylonian seemed most possible. as is shown by the system of dating. some of the facts being very real additions to our knowledge. or traces. _Eusebius Werke_. and has quoted the accounts of each side by side! And this is not the worst. it was developed from the building inscription and not from the boast of the soldier. though unfortunately we do not know his work in its entirety.. some time after 144 B.] Herodotus may furnish a bit and something may be secured from the fragments of the Assyriaca of Ctesias.] Though directly of Egyptian origin. but it is necessary to test each fact from other sources before it can be accepted. Rogers.. as does the Babylonian Chronicle.We know the name of our other Babylonian historian. II. cf. It is in Eusebius that we find our most useful information. 239. And the most important of these fragments have come down through a tradition almost without parallel. But Berossus was also used by the early Apollodorus Chronicle. the pseudo Moses of Chorene. When we remember that it is this same Antiochus who is the only one of the Seleucidae to furnish us with an inscription in cuneiform and to the honor of one of the old gods.] who borrowed in part from Alexander Polyhistor who borrowed from Berossus direct. V. and with the desire to acquaint the Macedonian conquerors with the deeds of their predecessors in the rule of Babylonia. have come down to us. J. which begins. To make a worse confusion. Karst. Olmstead. there is at least one case. Schoene. [Footnote: Of the literature on Berossus. [Footnote: The most convenient edition Wachsmuth. as do the astronomical data in the Almagest of the same author.] Summing up. 132 ff. and Berossus. 1866 ff. who prepared a Babyloniaca which was dedicated to Antiochus I. Although his Polyhistor account is in general to be preferred. comes the Babylonian part of the list of Kings known as the Canon of Ptolemy. 495 ff. The book was characteristically Babylonian in that only the last of the three books into which it was divided. So in these too. abstracts. C. in the Pauly-Wissowa _Realencyclopädie_.. _Achämeniden Inschriften_. that beginning with the time of Nabonassar. 347 ff. Rogers. and even of this only the merest fragments. with the accession of Nabonassar. we may quote here only Müller. _Einleitung in das Studium der alten Geschichte_. "_Eusebii Chronicorum libri duo_. [Footnote: Cf.. may lurk stray trifles from the work of Berossus. or from a similar source. cf. can be considered historical in the strictest sense. from which some of his information may have drifted into other chronological writings. and Abydenus by Cyrillus. This was Berossus. [Footnote: Best in Weissbach. in part from Abydenus who apparently borrowed from Juba who borrowed from Alexander Polyhistor and so from Berossus. [Footnote: A. Today we must consult a modern Latin translation of an Armenian translation of the lost Greek original of the Chronicle of Eusebius. That this throws a new light on the Assyrian character must be admitted. and we also know his date. practically all the authentic knowledge that the classical world has of the Assyrians and Babylonians came from Berossus. 34 f. though here is not the place to prove that the Assyrian . that of the name of one of Sennacharib's sons.

special collections are marked K. Rm. then. the other types of inscriptions may generally be disregarded. or by the year. we should never forget that these are official documents. and that great care was devoted to their production can frequently be proved. Amiaud. Secondly. the building operations play a large part. Budge. 1890. Budge E. Scheil. AJSL American Journal of Semitic Languages. S. . But in their utilization. and that if we can trust them in certain respects the more because they had better opportunities for securing the truth. represent the height of Assyrian historical writing. as 81-2-3. month. From the literary point of view. One is that the typical annals inscription went through a series of editions. ABBREVIATIONS Abel-Winckler: L. and they dominate some even of the so called Annals. 1890.was far more than a mere man of war. 79. DT.. All through the development of the Assyrian historiography. they are often most striking with their bold similes... But once we have Annals. 1880. Keilschrifttexte. Amiaud-Scheil A. History of Esarhaddon. two principles must constantly be kept in mind. real or nominal. Winckler.. AOF H. W. that these later editions not only omitted important facts but "corrected" the earlier recitals for the greater glory of the ruler. H. Les inscriptions de Salmanassar II. all the greater must be our suspicion that they have concealed the truth when it was not to the advantage of the monarch glorified. V. A. Only when we have applied these principles in detail to the various documents can we be sure of our Assyrian history and only then shall we understand the mental processes of the Assyrian historians. BM British Museum number. The Annals inscriptions. and that accordingly only the earliest edition in which an event is narrated should be at all used. Winckler. Altorientalische Forschungen. and day. Abel. 1893 ff.

Le Gac Y. I. Harper R. Smith G. Annals of Kings of Assyria. JA Journal Asiatique. MDOQ Mittheilungen der Deutschen Orient Gesellschaft. KB E. 1907. 1911. King. 1871. Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek. Smith. L A. . G. 1851. Inscriptions in the Cuneiform Character. Keilschrifttexte aus Assur. Layard. Schrader. A. Messerschmidt. le Gac. W. Harper. W. 1889 ff. L. 1901. H. I.Budge-King E. KTA L. F. History of Assurbanipal. 1902. JRAS Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. Les inscriptions d'Assur-nasir-apal III. Budge. Assyrian and Babylonian Literature.

C. PSBA Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology. Ser. II. 1893. I. 1912. Rogers R. Rogers. Smith . Rasmussen. 1875 ff. Salmanasser den IPs Indskriften.Menant Menant. A. Ser. 1861 ff. OLZ Orientalistische Literaturzeitung. Annales dee rois d'Assyrie. Keilschrifttexte Tiglat-Pilesers.. Rawlinson. Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia. 1851. W. 1874. R H. 1889 ff. RT Recueil de Travaux. Layard. NR A. Cuneiform Parallels to the Old Testament. S. Nineveh and its Remains. Rost. RP Records of the Past. Rasmussen N. Rost P. H.

A. Sayce. Ungnad. History of Sennacherib. Smith. A. . 1878. Smith. Smith-Sayce G. TSBA Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archaeology. 1909.S. Keilschrifttexte Asurbanipals. Ungnad A. in H. H. Altorientalische Texte. ZA Zeitschrift für Assyriologie. Gressmann. 1887 ff.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful