ASSYRIAN HISTORIOGRAPHYA SOURCE STUDY

THEUNIVERSITY OF MISSOURISTUDIES

SOCIAL SCIENCE SERIESVOLUME III NUMBER 1

ASSYRIAN HISTORIOGRAPHY

A Source StudyByALBERT TEN EYCK OLMSTEADAssociate Professor of Ancient History

CONTENTS

CHAPTER IAssyrian Historians and their Histories

CHAPTER IIThe Beginnings of True History(Tiglath Pileser I)

CHAPTER IIIThe Development of Historical Writing(Ashur nasir apal and Shalmaneser III)

CHAPTER IVShamshi Adad and the Synchronistic History

CHAPTER VSargon and the Modern Historical Criticism

CHAPTER VIAnnals and Display Inscriptions(Sennacherib and Esarhaddon)

CHAPTER VIIAshur bani apal and Assyrian Editing

CHAPTER VIIIThe Babylonian Chronicle and Berossus

CHAPTER I

ASSYRIAN HISTORIANS AND THEIR HISTORIES

To the serious student of Assyrian history, it is obvious that wecannot write that history until we have adequately discussed thesources. We must learn what these are, in other words, we must beginwith a bibliography of the various documents. Then we must divide theminto their various classes, for different classes of inscriptions areof varying degrees of accuracy. Finally, we must study in detail foreach reign the sources, discover which of the various documents orgroups of documents are the most nearly contemporaneous with theevents they narrate, and on these, and on these alone, base ourhistory of the period. 

To the less narrowly technical reader, the development of thehistorical sense in one of the earlier culture peoples has an interestall its own. The historical writings of the Assyrians form one of themost important branches of their literature. Indeed, it may be claimedwith much truth that it is the most characteristically Assyrian ofthem all. [Footnote: This study is a source investigation and not abibliography. The only royal inscriptions studied in detail are thosepresenting source problems. Minor inscriptions of these rulers areaccorded no more space than is absolutely necessary, and rulers whohave not given us strictly historical inscriptions are generallypassed in silence. The bibliographical notes are condensed as much aspossible and make no pretense of completeness, though they willprobably be found the most complete yet printed. Every possible carehas been taken to make the references accurate, but the fact that manywere consulted in the libraries of Cornell University, University ofChicago, Columbia University, and the University of Pennsylvania, andare thus inaccessible at the time when the work is passing through thepress, leaves some possibility of error. Dr. B. B. Charles, Instructorin Semitics in the University of Pennsylvania, has kindly verifiedthose where error has seemed at all likely. --For the English speakingreader, practically all the inscriptions for the earlier half of thehistory are found in Budge-Kjing, _Annals of the Kings ofAssyria. 1_. For the remainder, Harper, _Assyrian and BabylonianLiterature_, is adequate, though somewhat out of date. Rogers, _Cuneiform Parallels to the, Old Testament_, gives an up to datetranslation of those passages which throw light on the Biblicalwritings. Other works cited are generally of interest only tospecialists and the most common are cited by abbreviations which willbe found at the close of the study. ]

The Assyrians derived their historical writing, as they did so manyother cultural elements, from the Babylonians. In that country, therehad existed from the earliest times two types of historicalinscriptions. The more common form developed from the desire of thekings to commemorate, not their deeds in war, but their buildingoperations, and more especially the buildings erected in honor of thegods. Now and then we have an incidental reference to militaryactivities, but rarely indeed do we find a document devoted primarilyto the narration of warlike deeds. Side by side with these buildinginscriptions were to be found dry lists of kings, sometimes with thelength of their reigns, but, save for an occasional legend, there seemto have been no detailed histories. It was from the former type thatthe earliest Assyrian inscriptions were derived. In actual fact, wehave no right to call them historical in any sense of the word, eventhough they are our only sources for the few facts we know about thisearly period. A typical inscription of this type will have the form"Irishum the vice gerent of the god Ashur, the son of Ilushuma thevice gerent of the god Ashur, unto the god Ashur, his Lord, for hisown life and for the life of his son has dedicated". Thus there was asyet little difference in form from their Babylonian models and thehistorical data were of the slightest. This type persisted until thelatest days of the Assyrian empire in the inscriptions placed on thebricks, or, in slightly more developed form, in the inscriptionswritten on the slabs of stone used for the adornment of palace ortemple. For these later periods, they rarely have a value other thanfor the architectural history, and so demand no further study in thisplace. Nevertheless, the architectural origin of the historicalinscription should not be forgotten. Even to the end, it is a raredocument which does not have as its conclusion a more or less fullaccount of the building operations carried on by the monarch whoerected it. 

It was not long until the inscriptions were incised onlimestone. These slabs, giving more surface for the writing, easilyinduced the addition of other data, including naturally some accountof the monarch's exploits in war. The typical inscription of thistype, 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. XII143 ff. ] has a brief titulary, then a slightly longer sketch of thecampaigns, but the greater portion by far is devoted to the narrationof his buildings. This type also continued until the latest days ofthe empire, and, like the former, is of no value where we have thefuller documents. 

When the German excavations were begun at Ashur, the earliest capitalof the Assyrian empire, it was hoped that the scanty data with whichwe were forced to content ourselves in writing the early history wouldsoon be much amplified. In part, our expectations have beengratified. We now know the names of many new rulers and the number ofnew inscriptions has been enormously increased. But not a singleannals inscription from this earlier period has been discovered, andit is now becoming clear that such documents are not to beexpected. Only the so-called "Display" inscriptions, and those withthe scantiest content, have been found, and it is not probable thatany will be hereafter discovered. 

It was not until the end of the fourteenth century B. C. With thereign of Arik den ilu, that we have the appearance of actualannalistic inscriptions. That we are at the very beginning ofannalistic writing is clear, even from the fragmentary remains. Thework is in annals form, in so far as the events of the various yearsare separated by lines, but it is hardly more than a list of placescaptured and of booty taken, strung together by a fewformulae. [Footnote: Scheil, OLZ. VII. 216. Now in the Morgancollection, Johns, _Cuneiform Inscriptions_, 33. ]

With this one exception, we do not have a strictly historical documentnor do we have any source problem worthy of our study until the timeof Tiglath Pileser I, about 1100 B. C. To be sure, we have a goodplenty of inscriptions before this time, [Footnote: L. Messerschmidt, _Keilschrifttexte aus Assur_. I. Berlin 1911; _Mittheilungender Deutschen Orient Gesellschaft_; cf, D. D. Luckenbill, AJSL. XXVIII. 153 ff. ] and the problems they present are seriousenough, but they are not of the sort that can be solved by sourcestudy. Accordingly, we shall begin our detailed study with theinscriptions from this reign. Then, after a gap in our knowledge, caused by the temporary decline of Assyrian power, we shall take upthe many problems presented by the numerous inscriptions of Ashurnasir apal (885-860 B. C. ) and of his son Shalmaneser III (860-825B. C. ). In the case of the latter, especially, we shall see how aproper evaluation of the documents secures a proper appreciation ofthe events in the reign. With these we shall discuss their lessimportant successors until the downfall of the dynasty. The revival ofAssyrian power under Tiglath Pileser IV (745-728 B. C. ) means a revivalof history writing and our problems begin again. The Sargonidae, themost important of the various Assyrian dynasties, comprising Sargon(722-705 B. C. ), Sennacherib (705-686 B. C. ), Esarhaddon (686-668 B. C. ), and Ashur bani apal (668-626 B. C. ), furnish us a most embarrassingwealth of historical material, while the problems, especially as topriority of date and as to consequent authority, become mostcomplicated. 

Before taking up a more detailed study of these questions, it isnecessary to secure a general view of the situation we must face. Thetypes of inscriptions, especially in the later days of the empire, arenumerous. In addition to the brick and slab inscriptions, rarely ofvalue in this later period, we have numerous examples on a largerscale of the so called "Display" inscriptions. They are usually onslabs of stone and are intended for architectural adornment. In somecases, we have clay tablets with the original drafts prepared for theworkmen. Still others are on clay prisms or cylinders. These latter donot differ in form from many actual annals, but this likeness in formshould not blind us to the fact that their text is radically differentin character. 

All the display inscriptions are primarily of architectural character, whether intended to face the walls of the palace or to be deposited asa sort of corner stone under the gates or at the corners of thewall. We should not expect their value to be high, and indeed they areof but little worth when the corresponding annals on which they arebased has been preserved. For example, we have four differentrecensions of a very long display inscription, as well as literallyscores of minor ones, also of a display character, from the lateryears of Sargon. The minor inscriptions are merely more or less fullabstracts of the greater and offer absolutely nothing new. The longdisplay inscription might be equally well disregarded, had not theedition of the annals on which it is based come down to us infragmentary condition. We may thus use the Display inscription to fillgaps in the Annals, but it has not the slightest authority when itdisagrees with its original. 

It is true that for many reigns, even at a fairly late date, thedisplay inscriptions are of great value. For the very important reignof Adad nirari (812-785 B. C. ), it is our only recourse as the annalswhich we may postulate for such a period of development are totallylost. The deliberate destruction of the greater portion of the annalsof Tiglath Pileser IV forces us to study the display documents ingreater detail and the loss of all but a fragment of the annals ofEsarhaddon makes for this period, too, a fuller discussion of thedisplay inscriptions than would be otherwise necessary. In addition, we may note that there are a few inscriptions from other reigns, forexample, the Nimrud inscription of Sargon, which are seemingly basedon an earlier edition of the annals than that which has come down tous and which therefore do give us a few new facts. 

Since, then, it is necessary at times to use these displayinscriptions, we must frankly recognize their inferior value. We mustrealize that their main purpose was not to give a connected history ofthe reign, but simply to list the various conquests for the greaterglory of the monarch. Equally serious is it that they rarely have achronological order. Instead, the survey generally follows ageographical sweep from east to west. That they are to be used withcaution is obvious. 

Much more fortunate is our position when we have to deal with theannalistic inscriptions. We have here a regular chronology, and iferrors, intentional or otherwise, can sometimes be found, the relativechronology at least is generally correct. The narrative is fuller andinteresting details not found in other sources are often given. But itwould be a great mistake to assume that the annals are alwaystrustworthy. Earlier historians have too generally accepted theirstatements unless they had definite proof of inaccuracy. In the lastfew years, there has been discovered a mass of new material which wemay use for the criticism of the Sargonide documents. Most valuableare the letters, sometimes from the king himself, more often fromothers to the monarch. Some are from the generals in the field, othersfrom the governors in the provinces, still others from palaceofficials. All are of course absolutely authentic documents, and thelight they throw upon the annals is interesting. To these we may addthe prayers at the oracle of the sun god, coming from the reigns ofEsarhaddon and Ashur bani apal, and they show us the break up of theempire as we never should have suspected from the grandiloquentaccounts of the monarchs themselves. Even the business documentsoccasionally yield us a slight help toward criticism. Add to this thereferences in foreign sources such as Hebrew or Babylonian, and wehardly need internal study to convince us that the annals are far fromreliable. 

Yet even internal evidence may be utilized. For example, when the kingis said to have been the same year in two widely separated parts ofthe empire, warring with the natives, it is clear that in one of thesethe deeds of a general have been falsely ascribed to the king, and thesuspicion is raised that he may have been at home in Assyria all thetime. That there are many such false attributions to the king isproved by much other evidence, the letters from the generals incommand to their ruler; an occasional reference to outsideauthorities, as when the editor of the book of Isaiah shows that thefamous Ashdod expedition was actually led by the Turtanu or primeminister; or such a document as the dream of Ashur bani apal, whichclearly shows that he was a frightened degenerate who had not thestamina to take his place in the field with the generals whosevictories he usurped. Again, various versions differ amongthemselves. To what a degree this is true, only those who have made adetailed study of the documents can appreciate. Typical examples fromSargon's Annals were pointed out several years ago. [Footnote:Olmstead. _Western Asia in the Reign of Sargon of Assyria_, 1908. ] The most striking of these, the murder of the Armenian kingRusash by--the cold blooded Assyrian scribe, --has now been clearlyproved false by a contemporaneous document emanating from Sargonhimself. Another good illustration is found in the cool taking byAshur bani apal of bit after bit of the last two Egyptian campaigns ofhis father until in the final edition there is nothing that he has notclaimed for himself. 

The Assyrians, as their business documents show, could be exceedinglyexact with numbers. But this exactness did not extend to theirhistorical inscriptions. We could forgive them for giving us in roundnumbers the total of enemies slain or of booty carried off and even aslight exaggeration would be pardonable. But what shall we say as tothe accuracy of numbers in our documents when one edition gives thetotal slain in a battle as 14, 000, another as 20, 500, the next as25, 000, and the last as 29, 000! Is it surprising that we begin towonder whether the victory was only a victory on the clay tablet ofthe scribe? What shall we say when we find that the reviser hastransformed a booty of 1, 235 sheep in his original into a booty of100, 225! This last procedure, the addition of a huge round number tothe fairly small amount of the original, is a common trick of theSargonide scribe, of which many examples may be detected by acomparison of Sargon's Display inscription with its original, theAnnals. So when Sennacherib tells us that he took from little Judah noless than 200, 150 prisoners, and that in spite of the fact thatJerusalem itself was not captured, we may deduct the 200, 000 as aproduct of the exuberant fancy of the Assyrian scribe and accept the150 as somewhere near the actual number captured and carried off. 

This discussion has led to another problem, that of the relative orderof the various annals editions. For that there were such variouseditions can be proved for nearly every reign. And in nearly everyreign it has been the latest and worst edition which has regularlybeen taken by the modern historians as the basis for theirstudies. How prejudicial this may be to a correct view of the Assyrianhistory, the following pages will show. The procedure of the Assyrianscribe is regularly the same. As soon as the king had won his firstimportant victory, the first edition of the annals was issued. Withthe next great victory, a new edition was made out. For the partcovered by the earlier edition, an abbreviated form of this wasincorporated. When the scribe reached the period not covered by theearlier document, he naturally wrote more fully, as it was morevividly in his mind and therefore seemed to him to have a greaterimportance. Now it would seem that all Assyriologists should have longago recognized that _any one of these editions is of value only whenit is the most nearly contemporaneous of all those preserved. When itis not so contemporaneous, it has absolutely no value when we do havethe original from which it was derived. _ Yet it still remains truethat the most accessible editions of these annals are those which arethe latest and poorest. Many of the earlier and more valuable editionshave not been republished for many years, so that for our mostcontemporaneous sources we must often go to old books, long out ofprint and difficult to secure, while both translation and commentaryare hopelessly behind the times. Particularly is this the case withthe inscriptions of Sennacherib and Ashur bani apal. The greatest boonto the historian of Assyria would be an edition of the Assyrianhistorical inscriptions in which would be given, only those editionsor portions of editions which may be considered as contemporaneous andof first class value. With such a collection before him, notable asmuch for what it excluded as for what was included, many of the moststubborn problems in Assyrian history would cease to be problems. 

The historian of Assyria must test his sources before he can use themin his history. To do this, he must first of all be able todistinguish the primary sources which will reward future study fromthose which are secondary and are based on other and more contemporarydocuments which even now are actually in our possession. When theselatter are cast aside as of no practical value, save perhaps as theyshow the peculiar mental operations of the Assyrian editor, we arethen ready to test the remainder by the various methods known to thehistorian. The second part of this task must be worked out by thehistorian when he studies the actual history in detail. It is thediscovery of what are the primary sources for the various reigns andof the value of the contributions which they make to Assyrian historythat is to be the subject of the more detailed discussion in thefollowing chapters. 

CHAPTER II

THE BEGINNINGS OF TRUE HISTORY

(Tiglath Pileser I)

We shall begin, then, our detailed study of the sources for Assyrianhistory with the data for the reign of Tiglath Pileser I (circa 1100B. C. ). Taking up first the Annals, we find that the annalisticdocuments from the reign may be divided into two general groups. One, the Annals proper, is the so called Cylinder, in reality written on anumber of hexagonal prisms. [Footnote: Photographs of B and A, Budge-King, xliii; xlvii; of the Ashur fragments, of at least fiveprisms, Andrä, _Anu-Adad Tempel_, Pl. Xiii ff. I R. 9 ff. ;Winckler, _Sammlung_, I. 1 ff. ; Budge-King, 27 ff. , with variantsand BM numbers. Lotz, _Inschriften Tiglathpilesers_ I, 1880;Winckler, KB. I. 14 ff. Rawlinson, Hincks, Talbot, Oppert, JRAS. OS. XVIII. 150 ff. ; Oppert, _Histoire des empires de Chaldéeet d'Assyrie, 1865, 44f; Menant, 35 ff. ; Rawlinson, Rp1, V. 7ff. Sayce RP², I. 92 ff. ; Muss-Arnolt in Harper, llff. ; MDOG. 25, 21f;28, 22; 29, 40; 47, 33; King, _Supplement_, 116; Andrä, _Tempel_, 32 ff. ] First comes the praise of the gods and selfpraise of the ruler himself. Then follow the campaigns, not numberedas in the more developed style of later rulers, but separated into sixsections, for the six years whose events are narrated, by briefglorifications of the monarch. Next we have the various huntingexploits of the king, and the document ends with an elaborate accountof the building operations and with threats against the later rulerwho should destroy the inscription or refuse credit to the king inwhose honor it was made. 

No relationship has been made out between the fragments, but thefour-fairly complete prisms fall into two groups, A and C, B and D, asregards both the form of writing and the character of the text. Alldate seemingly from the same month of the same year, though fromseparate days. The most fragmentary of these, D, seems the best, as ithas the smallest number of unique readings and has also the largestnumber of omissions, [Footnote: II. 21b-23a; III. 37b-39a; IV. 36. ]all of which are clearly interpolations in the places where they aregiven. This is especially true of the one [Footnote: IV. 36. ] whichrefers to the Anu-Adad and Ishtar temples, for not only is theinsertion awkward, we know from the Obelisk [Footnote: II. 13. ] thatthe Anu-Adad temple was not completed till year five, so that it mustbe an interpolation of that date. In spite of its general resemblanceto D, especially in its omissions, B is very poorly written and hasover two hundred unique readings. One of its omissions would seriouslydisarrange the chronology, [Footnote: IV. 40-42. ] others are clearlyunwarranted, [Footnote: II. 79081; V. 4; VIII. 29b-33. ] and one longaddition [Footnote: VII. 17-27; also I. 35; different in VI. 37. ]further marks its peculiar character. Our conclusion must be that itis a poor copy of a good original. C is between A and B, agreeing withthe latter in a strange interpolation [Footnote: III. 2a-c. ] and inthe omission of the five kings of the Muski. [Footnote: I. 63b. King, _Supplement_, 116 follows C. ] A is the latest but best preserved, while the character of the text warrants us in making this ourstandard as it has but few unique readings and but one improbableomission. [Footnote: VII. 105-8. ] The same account, in slightlydifferent form and seemingly later in date [Footnote: K. 2815 is datedin the eponomy of Ninib nadin apal, the LAH MA GAL E official. Heprobably is after the rab bi lul official in whose year the hexagonsare dated. ] is also found in some tablet inscriptions. [Footnote:Budge-King, 125 n. 3; K. 2815, with different conclusion; 81-2-4, 220, where reverse different; K. 12009; K. 13840; 79-7-8, 280; 89-4-26, 28;Rm. 573: Winckler, AOF. III. 245. ]

A second annalistic group is that postulated as the original of the socalled Broken Obelisk. Of documents coming directly from TiglathPileser himself, the only one that can with any probability beassigned to this is the tiny fragment which refers to the capture ofBabylon. [Footnote: K. 10042; Winckler, AOF. I. 387. ] But that such agroup did exist is proved by the extracts from it in the obeliskprepared by a descendant of Tiglath Pileser, probably one of his sons, Shamshi Adad or Ashur bel kala. [Footnote: Photograph, Budge-King, li;Paterson, _Assyr. Sculptures_, 63. I R. 28; III R. 4, 1;Budge-King, 128 ff. Lotz, _op. Cit. _, 196 ff. ; Peiser, KB. I. 122 ff. ; Talbot, JRAS. OS. XIX. 124 ff. ; Houghton-Finlay, RP(1), XI. 9ff. ; Oppert, _Hist. _, 132 ff. ; Hommel, _Gesch. _, 532 ff. ;Menant, 49 ff. Proved to Tiglath Pileser, Lotz, _op. Cit. _, 193f. ; cf. Budge-King, 131 n. 4, though Streck, ZA. XVIII. 187 ff. , stillbelieves that it belongs to an earlier king. Found at Nineveh, thoughit deals with Ashur constructions. ] Only the upper portion, probablyless than half to judge by the proportions, is preserved, and eventhis is terribly mutilated. Fortunately, the parts best preserved arethose relating to the years not dealt with in the Annals. The firsthalf of the document is devoted to the campaigns of Tiglath Pileser, then come his hunting exploits, and only a bit at the end is reservedfor the building operations of the unknown ruler under whom it waserected. Its source seems to have had the same relation to theearliest form of the Annals that the Obelisk of Shalmaneser III had tothe Monolith, that is, it gave the data for the earlier part of thereign, that covered by the other source, very briefly, only expandingas it reached a period where the facts were not represented by anyother document. That our earlier Annals, or perhaps rather, one of itssources, was a main source of our second type, is proved by thecoincidences in language in the two, in one case no less than twentysigns the same, [Footnote: In year V we have _ishtu. .. Adi aluKargamish sha matu Hatte. .. Isu elippe pl mashku tahshe_. ] not tospeak of the hunting expeditions. But this earlier Annals was not theonly, or at least not the direct source for the Obelisk, nor was thatsource merely a fuller recension of it. Data for the first six years, not found in the earlier Annals, are given in the Obelisk, [Footnote:Obl. I. 17, reference to Marduk nadin ahe, King of Akkad; II. 1, onethousand men of land of. .. ; II. 2, four thousand of them carriedprisoner to Assyria, the position of which shows that it cannot, withBudge-King, 132 n. , be referred to Ann. III. 2, the Kashi; II. 12, theMushki (?); II. 13, temple of Ami and Adad. These all precede theCarchemish episode. ] while our document also, for the first time inAssyrian historical inscriptions, dates the events by the name of theeponym for the year, and, still more unusual, by the month aswell. That the Obelisk may be considered merely a resume of thisoriginal source is shown by the statement that he conquered otherlands and made many wars, but these he did not record. [Footnote:Obl. IV. 37. ] As they seem to have been given after the hunting feats, in the lost lower part of column IV, we may assume that all thatpreceded is taken from that source. Furthermore, we are given theother hunting exploits "which my [father] did not record. " [Footnote:Obl. IV. 33. ] The numbers of beasts killed, which the scribe intendedespecially to emphasize, have never, curiously enough, been inscribedin the blanks left for their insertion. [Footnote: E. G. , Obl. IV. 4. ]

Opposed to the Annals proper are the Display inscriptions in whichchronological considerations and details as to the campaigns aresubordinated to the desire to give a general view of the monarch'smight. Two have been found in foreign lands, one at the source of theTigris, [Footnote: Discovery, J. Taylor, cf. H. Rawlinson, _Athenaeum_, 1862, II. 811; 1863, I. 229. III R. 4, 6; Schrader, _Abh. K. Preuss. Akad. _, 1885, I. Winckler, _Sammlung_, I. 30: Budge-King, 127 n. 1. Meissner, _Chrestomathie_, 6;Abel-Winckler, 5; Menant, 49. Winckler, KB. I. 48 f. Dated after theArvad expedition as shown by reference to Great Sea of Amurru, and ofsame date as Melazgerd inscription, Belck, _Verh. Berl_. ] theother near Melazgerd in Armenia. [Footnote: From Gonjalu, nearMelazgerd, Belck-Lehmann, _Verh. Berl. Anthr. Ges. _ 1898, 574. Photograph, Lehmann, _Sitzungsber. Berl. Akad. _, 1900, 627. Is this one of the "cuneiform inscriptions near Moosh" reportedto Taylor, _Athenaeum_, 1863, I. 229?] Drafts for similarinscriptions have been found on clay tablets, written for the use ofthe workmen who were to incise them on stone. Of these, one, which isvirtually complete as regards number of lines, seems to date from yearfour as it has no reference to later events. [Footnote: S. 1874;K. 2805, Tabl. I of Budge-King, 109 ff. III R. 5; Winckler, _Sammlung_, I. 26 ff. ; cf. Lotz, _op. Cit. _, 193; Tiele, Gesch. , 159 n. 2; Meissner, ZA. IX. 101 ff. Meissner's restoration ofthese as parts of one tablet in chronological order will not stand inview of the fact that I is complete in itself while there arevariations in the order of Nairi and totally different endings. ] Itwould then be our earliest extant source. It is also of value indating the erection of the palace whose mention shows that the tabletis complete. That the compiler had before him the document used by theAnnals in its account of the Nairi campaign [Footnote: Ann. IV. 71 ff. ]is proved by his writing "from Tumme to Daiene" for these are thefirst and last names in the well known list of Nairi states. The orderof the tablet is neither chronological nor geographical. Anothertablet dates from year five to which most of its data belong. In thefirst half, it follows the order of Tablet I, and in the remainderfollows closely the words of its source in the Annals, merelyabbreviating. [Footnote: K. 2806 with K. 2804, Tabl. II ofBudge-King, 116 ff. ] Possibly in its present form, it may be later thanyear five [Footnote: The badly damaged reverse of K. 2806 has onereference to the Euphrates which _may_ be connected withObl. III. 24, probably of year IX. ] for a third tablet of year tenduplicates this first part. [Footnote: K. 2804, Tabl. V ofBudge-King, 125 f. ] Unfortunately, this latter gives next to nohistorical data, but its reference to the "Lower Zab" and to the"Temple of Ishtar" may perhaps allow us to date to this same tenthyear the highly important tablet which gives a full account of thecampaign in Kirhi and Lulume and which also ends with the restorationof the Ishtar temple. [Footnote: K. 2807; 91-5-9, 196. III R. 5, 4;Tablet IV of Budge-King, 121 ff. Winckler, AOF. III. 246. Hommel, _Gesch. _, 511 f. ] Here too and not with the Annals must be placedthe fragment with the Arvad episode. [Footnote: Scheil, RT. XXII. 157. Restorations, Streck, ZA. XVIII. 186 n. 2. Firstattributed to Tiglath Pileser, Peiser, OLZ. III. 476; Winckler, ibid. IV. 296; cf. AOF. III. 247. --Bricks I R. 6, 5; Scheil, _op. Cit. _ 37; Winckler, _Sammlung_, I. 31; Budge-King, 127. Other inss. , King, _Supplement_, 453, 488. ]

CHAPTER III

THE DEVELOPMENT OF HISTORICAL WRITING

(Ashur nasir apal and Shalmaneser III)

After the death of Tiglath Pileser, there is a period of darkness. Afew bricks and other minor inscriptions give us the names of therulers and possibly a bit of other information, but there is not asingle inscription which is important enough to furnish sourceproblems. It is not until we reach the reign of Tukulti Ninib(890-885) that we again have an Annals [Footnote: Scheil, _Annalesde Tukulti Ninip_ II, 1909; cf. Winckler, OLZ. XIII. 112 ff. ] andnot until the reign of his son Ashur nasir apal (885-860) that we haveproblems of the sources. 

The problem of the sources for the reign of Ashur nasir apal may beapproached from a somewhat different angle than we took for those ofTiglath Pileser. Here we have a single document, the so called Annals, which gives practically all the known data of the reign. Earlierwriters on the history of Assyria have therefore generally contentedthemselves with references to this one document, with, at most, anoccasional reference to the others. This should not blind us, however, to the fact that the problem of the sources is by no means as simpleas this. Indeed, for far the greater portion of the events given inthe Annals, we have earlier and better sources. We may therefore bestattack the problem as to the sources of the reign by working out thesources of the Annals. 

Taking up the introduction to the Annals, [Footnote: I R. 17 ff. ;Budge-King, 254 ff. Le Gac, _Les Inscriptions d'Assur-Nasir-Aplu_III. 1907, 1 ff. Peiser, KB. I. 50 ff. H. Lhotzky, _AnnalenAsurnazirpals_, 1885. Oppert, _Expédition en Mésopotamie_, 1863, I. 311 ff. ; Rodwell, RP¹, III. 37 ff. ; Sayce, RP², II. 134 ff. ;Menant, 67 ff. ; _Manuel_, 1880, 335 ff. ] it at once strikes us ascurious that it consists of a hymn to Ninib, at the entrance to whosetemple these slabs were placed, and not of a general invocation to thegods, beginning with Ashur, such as we are accustomed to find in otherannalistic inscriptions. Further, we have other slabs in which thisNinib hymn occurs as a separate composition, [Footnote: Slabs 27-30, Budge-King, 255 n. --Other invocations are the Bel altar at Kalhu, BM. 71, Budge-King 160; Strong, JRAS. 1891, 157; and the Ishtar lionBM. 96, II R. 66, 1; S. A. Strong, RP², IV. 91 f. ; dupl. Budge-King, 206 ff. ] and this leads us to assume that it is not the originalintroduction. This is still further confirmed by the fact that we dofind such a required invocation in the beginning of the Monolithinscription. Clearly, this is the original invocation. The secondsection of the Annals begins with the praise of the monarch, and heretoo begins the parallelism with the Monolith. The last eventsmentioned in the Monolith date from 880 and it is thus far earlierthan our present edition of the Annals, which contains events from solate a date as 867. To this extent, then, the Monolith is a betterdocument. It was not, however, the direct source of the Annals, as isshown by certain cases where the latter has preserved the betterreadings of proper names. Indeed, we should not over rate theMonolith, for it too is a compilation like its younger sister, and isby no means free from obvious mistakes, though in general better thanthe Annals. [Footnote: BM. 847. Photograph, Budge-King, lxix; Paterson, _Assyr. Sculptures, _ 64. I R. 27; Budge-King, 242 ff. ; cf. 254ff. ; Le Gac, 129 ff. Peiser, KB. I. 118 ff. Menant, 66 f. Talbot, _Trans. Roy. Soc. Lit. , _ VII. 189 ff. ; RP¹, VII. 15 ff. ] For someportions of this earlier section, we have also separate slabs withsmall portions of the text, [Footnote: BM. 90830, cf. Budge-King, 255n. ; L. 48 f. ] and these regularly agree with the Monolith as againstthe Annals. [Footnote: I. 57, transposition; I. 69, the significantomission of _shadu;_ and a large number of cases where they agreein spelling as against the Annals. ]

For the last of these years, 880, we have also the inscription fromKirkh, [Footnote: III R. 6; Budge-King, 222 ff. ; Le Gac, 137ff. Peiser, KB. I. 92 ff. ] which contains data for this year alone, and ends abruptly with the return from Nairi. This might be expectedfrom its location at Tushhan, on the border of that country, and weare therefore warranted in assuming that it was set up hereimmediately after the return from the campaign and that in it we havea strictly contemporaneous document. Judged by this, the Annals, andeven the Monolith, do not rank very high. Important sections areomitted by each, in fact, they seem to agree in these omissions, though in general they agree fairly closely with the account set up inthe border city. It would seem as if the official narrative of thecampaign had been prepared at Kirkh, immediately after its close, bythe scribes who followed the army. [Footnote: Cf. Johns, _Assyr. Deeds and Documents_, II. 168. ] One copy of this becamethe basis of the Kirkh inscription while another was made at Kalhu andit was from this that the Monolith and Annals are derived. [Footnote:Ann. II. 109, where Mon. Has 300 as against 700 of Kir. And Ann. , shows Ann. Did not use Kir. Through Mon. ; Kir. Has 40 as against 50 ofthe others in II. 111, and 200 for 2000 in II. 115; proper names suchas Tushha for Tushhan show nearness of Mon. To Kir. , but the likenesscan hardly be considered striking. ] From this, too, must have beenderived the slab which gives a fourth witness for thissection. [Footnote: L. 48 f. ]

With this year, 880, the Monolith fails us. But even if we had noother document, the Annals itself would show us that the year 880 wasan important one in the development of our sources. At the end of theaccount for this year, we have a closing paragraph, taken bodily fromthe Ninib inscription, which may thus be assigned to 880. This isfurther confirmed by the manner in which, this passage in the Annalsabstracts the last lines of the Monolith, [Footnote: Ann. II. 125-135ais the same as the Ninib inscription l-23a (BM. 30; Budge-King, 209ff. ), and this in turn is merely a resume of the close of theMonolith. ] which is repeated almost in its entirety at the close ofthe Annals itself. The column thus ends a separate document, whoselast line, giving a list of temples erected, seems to go back to onerecension of the Standard inscription, which in its turn goes back tothe various separate building inscriptions. 

That the Annals itself existed in several recensions is indicated bythe fact that, while there are no less than at least seventeendifferent duplicates of Column I, [Footnote: Le Gac, _Introd. _]there are but seven of II and five of III; that there is one of IIonly [Footnote: Le Gac, iii. ] and one of III; [Footnote: Ibid. 126 f. ]and that there is still another, in at least three exemplars, in whichparts of the Standard and Altar inscriptions are interpolated betweenthe Ninib invocation and the main inscription. [Footnote: Ibid, ii;123 f. (B). ]

The year 880 marks also the removal of the capital from Nineveh toKalhu, [Footnote: First mentioned as starting point of an expeditionin 879, Ann. III. 1. ] which indicates that to this year we are toattribute the majority of the building inscriptions. But, as they areall more or less identical with the closing section of the Annals, wemay best discuss them in that place. Continuing with the Annals, wenow reach a section where it is the only source. And just here theAnnals is lacking in its most essential feature, an exact chronology, no doubt because the dated year was not given in the source, thoughthe months are carefully noted! In the last of the years given in thissection, probably 876, we are to place the various bull and lioninscriptions, which in general agree with this portion of theAnnals. [Footnote: Bulls 76, 77; Lions 809, 841. Budge-King, 189ff. Le Gac, 181 ff. Made up of brief attribution to king, then regularbuilding text, then duplicates of Ann. III. 84 ff. ] One of these bullinscriptions, as well as the text of the great altar, adds a good bitin regard to the hunting expeditions, which may be dated, so far asthey can be dated at all, to this year. [Footnote: Bull 77;Budge-King, 201 ff. ; Peiser KB. I. 124 f. ; Altar, L. 43 ff. ; Le Gac, 171 ff. ] Here too we must place the Mahir document, [Footnote: V R. 69f. ; Budge-King, TSBA. VII. 59 ff. ; Budge-King, 167 ff. S. A. Strong, RP², IV. 83 ff. ; Harper, 29 ff. ] describing the erection of a templeto that deity at Imgur Bel, as is shown by the specific reference to acampaign to the Lebanon for the purpose of securing cedar. The years875-868 seem to have been years of peace, for the only reference wecan attribute to them is an expedition to the Mehri land for beams toerect a temple at Nineveh [Footnote: Ann. III. 91 f. ] and so to thisperiod we must assign the Ishtar bowl inscriptions. [Footnote: IIIR. 3, 10; Budge-King, 158 ff. ; S. A. Strong, RP², II. 95. ] Finally, wehave the campaign of 867, the last fixed date in the reign of Ashurnasir apal, and the reason for compiling the latest edition of theAnnals. For this year, and for this alone, this latest edition has thevalue of a strictly contemporaneous document. [Footnote: Ann. III. 92ff. ]

The last section of the Annals consists of the building account, foundalso in nearly all the other inscriptions, though naturally here it isin the form it last assumed. It may be seen in greater or less fulnessin the so called Standard Inscription, [Footnote: L. 1 ff. ; Schrader, _Inschrift Asur-nasir-abals_; Talbot, _Proc. Soc. Antiquariesof Scotland_, VI. 198 ff. ; Meissner, _Chestomathie_, 7 f. ;Abel-Winckler, 6. RP¹, VII. 11 ff. ; Ward, _Proc. Amer. OrientalSoc. _, X. Xcix; Budge-King, 212 ff. ; Le Gac, 153 ff. The number ofslabs containing this inscription which may be found in the variousMuseums of Europe and America is simply amazing. No full collection orcollation of these has ever been made. Many are still exposed to thedestructive effects of the atmosphere at Nimrud and are rapidly beingruined. Squeezes of these were taken by the Cornell Expedition. Othersat Ashur, MDOG. , xxi. 52; KTA. 25. Several are in the newly openedsection of the Constantinople Museum, cf. Bezold, _Ztf. F. Keilschriftforschung_, I. 269. An unknown number is inthe British Museum, and were utilized by Budge-King, 1. C. Streck, ZA. XIX. 258, lists those published from European Museums. These areEdinburgh, Talbot 1. C. ; Copenhagen, Knudtzon, ZA. XII. 256;St. Petersburg, Jeremias, ZA. I. 49; Bucharest, D. H. Müller, _Wiener Ztf, f. Kunde d. Morgenlandes_, XIII. 169 ff. ; Dresden, Jeremias, _l. C. _; Zürich, Bezold, _Literatur_, 71; Cannes, Le Gac, ZA. IX. 390; Lyons, Ley, RT. XVII. 55; Rome, O. Marucchi, _Museo Egizio Vaticano_, 334; Bezold, ZA. II. 229. In addition, there are, according to Budge-King, _l. C. _, copies at Paris, Berlin, Munich, the Hague, etc. For the Berlin inscriptions, cf. _Verzeichnis der vorderasiatischen Altertümer_, 92 ff. ;101. No less than 59 are known to have been or to be in America. Themajority have been listed by Ward, _op. Cit. _, xxxv, and Merrill, _ibid. _ xci. Ff. ; cf. _Bibliotheca Sacra_, xxxii. 320ff. Twelve in the possession of the New York Historical Society havenot been on exhibition since the society moved into its new quarters, and are completely inaccessible, the statements in the guide books tothe contrary notwithstanding. The Andover slab is published byMerrill, _op. Cit. _ lxxiii, and the one from Amherst by Ward, _l. C. _ These were presented by Rawelinson and Layard tomissionaries, and by them to the institutions named, as were thefollowing: Yale University; Union College, Schenectady; WilliamsCollege; Dartmouth College; Middlebury College; Bowdoin College;Auburn (N. Y. ) Theological Seminary; Connecticut Historical society atHartford; Meriden (Conn. ) Public Library; Theological Seminary ofVirginia; Mercantile Library of St. Louis. An inscribed relief towhich my attention has been called by Professor Allan Marquand, hasbeen presented by Mr. Garrett to Princeton University. Three similarslabs, loaned by the late Mr. J. P. Morgan, are in the MetropolitanMuseum in New York City. --In this place we may also note the brickinscriptions in America, listed by Merrill, _l. C. _, as well asthe statute inscription, III R. 4, 8; Menant, 65; Schrader, _Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_, ² 184. ] the shortaccount so monotonously repeated on the slabs at Kalhu and so familiarto all who have visited any Museum where Assyrian antiquities arepreserved. There seem to be two recensions, a longer and a shorter, [Footnote: Le Gac, xvii. ] and some, to judge from the variations inthe references, are much later than 880. The same inscriptionessentially is also found as the ending of the Ishtar, Mahir, CalahPalace, [Footnote: Budge-King, 173 ff. ; Le Gac, 188 ff. ] Calah wall, [Footnote: Budge-King, 177 ff. ] Bulls, and Ninib inscriptions, [Footnote: Budge-King, 209 ff. ] Variants are few, but are not withoutvalue in fixing the relative dates of the various recensions. Forexample, some of the Standard inscriptions, as well as the Ishtar andMahir ones, insert a reference to "Mount Lebanon and the Great Sea"which would place them after 876, and this is confirmed by thereference to Liburna of Patina which occurs in the Annals and theCalah wall inscription. Of course, this gives only the upper limit, for it would be dangerous to suggest a lower one in the case ofdocuments which copy so servilely. Some of the Standard inscriptions, as well as the Bulls, have a reference to Urartu, of great importanceas the first in any literature to the country which was soon to becomethe worthy rival of Assyria. Absence of such reference in the regularAnnals is pretty conclusive evidence that there were no warlikerelations, so that these too are to be dated after 876. With this isto be compared the addition telling of the conquest of Nairi, found inthe Ishtar, Mahir, and Calah Palace inscriptions, and which would seemto refer to the same period. The Suhi, Laqe, and Sirqu reference, through its omission in the Monolith, is also of value as adding proofthat that inscription dates to 880. [Footnote: Minor inscriptions, L. 83 f. ; G. Smith, _Disc_. , 76; Budge-King, 155 ff. , Le Gac, 172; the very fragmentary Obelisk, Le Gac, 207 ff. ; KTA. 25; MDOG. 20, 21 ff. ; 21, 15 ff. King, _Supplement_, no. 192, 470, 1805. Hommel. _Zwei Jagdinschriften_, 1879, with photographs;Andrä, _Tempel_, 86 ff. ]

Much the same situation as regards the sources is found in the reignof his son Shalmaneser III (860-825). Aside from a few minorinscriptions, our main source is again the official account which hascome down to us in several recensions of different date. The processby which these recensions were made is always the same. The nextearlier edition was taken as a basis, and from this were extracted, generally in the exact words of the original, such facts as seemed ofvalue to the compiler. When the end of this original was reached, andit was necessary for the editor to construct his own narrative, therecital becomes fuller, and, needless to say, becomes also a bettersource. If, then, we have the original from which the earliest portionof a certain document was copied or abstracted, we must entirely castaside the copy in favor of the contemporary writing. This would appearself evident, but failure to observe this distinction has led to morethan one error in the history of the reign. [Footnote: The majority ofthe inscriptions for the reign were first given in Layard, _Inscriptions_, and in the Rawlinson publication, cf. For firstworking over, Rawlinson, JRAS. OS. XII. 431 ff. The edition ofAmiaud-Scheil, _Les inscriptions de Salmanasar_ II, 1890, thoughwithout cuneiform text, is still valuable on account of itsarrangement by years, as well as of its full notes, cf. AlsoWinckler-Peiser, KB. I. 128 ff. The one edition which is up to date isN. Rasmussen, _Salmanasser den II's Indschriften_, 1907, thoughthe same may be said of the selections in Rogers, 293 ff. ]

Each of these editions ends with the account of some importantcampaign, the need of writing up which was the reason for thecollection of the events of previous years which were not inthemselves worthy of special commemoration. The first of these is theone which ends with the famous battle of Qarqara in 854. This has comedown to us in a monumental copy which was set up at Kirkh, the ancientTushhan, and which has been named the Monolith inscription. [Footnote:III R 7f; Rasmussen, cf. ; 2 ff. Photograph, Rogers, 537; _Hist_. , op. 226. Amiaud-Scheil, _passim_; Peiser, KB. I. 15off. Menant, 105 ff. ; Sayce, RP¹, III. 83 ff. ; Scheil, RP², IV. 55 ff. ; Craig, _Hebraica_, III. 201ff. ; Harper, 33 ff. ; cf. Jastrow, AJSL. IV. 244 ff. ] For the events of 860-854, then, we need go nofurther than this, for it is strictly contemporaneous with the eventsit describes. No actual errors can be pointed out in it, a seemingdistortion of the chronology being due simply to the desire of thescribe to indicate the unity of two campaigns, carried out indifferent years, but against the same country. [Footnote: II. 66. ] Howmoderate are its numbers is shown by comparing its 14, 000 killed atQarqara with the 20, 500 of the Obelisk, the 25, 000 of the Bulls, andthe 29, 000 of the recently discovered statue from Ashur. As we shallsee below, it is correct in giving no campaign for 855, though theBulls inscription, written a generation later, has not hesitated tofill the gap. This is the only edition which seems to be entirelyoriginal and a comparison with those which are in large partcompilations is favorable to it in every way. In fact, the oftrepeated reproach as to the catalogue nature of the Shalmaneserwritings, is due to the taking of the Obelisk as a fair sample, whereas it stands at the other extreme, that of a document almostentirely made up by abridgement of other documents, and so can hardlybe expected to retain much of the literary flavor of itsoriginals. The Monolith, on the other hand, free from the necessity ofabridging, will hold its own in literary value with the otherhistorical writings of the Assyrians. 

The next edition was prepared in 851, at the conclusion of theBabylonian expedition. The document as a whole is lost, but we haveexcerpts in the Balawat inscription. [Footnote: Pinches, PSBA. VII. 89ff. ; _The Bronze Ornaments of the Palace Gates of Balawat_, 1880;Rasmussen, XIff. ; Amiaud-Scheil, _passim_; Delitzsch, _Beitr. Z. Assyr. _, VI. 133 ff. ; Winckler KB. I. 134 ff. Scheil, RP², IV. 74 ff. ] For the years 859, 857, and 856, the excerpts arevery brief, but fortunately this is of no importance as we have theiroriginals in the Monolith. No mention is made of the years followinguntil 852-851 which are described so fully that we may believe we havehere the actual words of the document. It is interesting to noticethat there is no particular connection between the reliefs on thefamous bronzes [Footnote: Pinches, _Bronze Ornaments_, amagnificent publication. A cheaper edition of the reliefs, withvaluable analysis of and comments on the sculptures, Billerbeck;_Beitr. Z. Assyr. _ VI. 1 ff. Additional reliefs owned byG. Schlumberger, Lenormant, _Gazette Arch. _, 1878 p1. 22 ff. Andp. 119 ff. Still others, de Clerq, _Catalogue_, II 183 ff. , quoted Billerbeck, 2. I have not yet seen King, _Bronze Reliefs fromthe Gates of Shalmaneser_, 1915. ] and the inscription whichaccompanies them. The latter ends in 851, the pictures go on to849. The more conspicious pictures were brought up to date, but, forthe inscription which few would read, a few extracts, borrowed fromthe edition of two years previous, sufficed. Incidentally, it shows usthat no new edition had been made in those two years. For the yearsbefore 853, the practical loss of this edition need trouble us littleas it seems merely to have copied the original of the Monolith. Thatit might have had some slight value in restoring the text of that lostoriginal seems indicated by a hint of a fuller text in one place[Footnote: II. 6 f. ] and a more moderate number of enemies slaughteredin another. [Footnote: Balawat kills but 300 while Monolith slaughters3400. ] For the events of 853, as given in this edition, we have onlythe abstract of it in the Bulls inscription. [Footnote: Bull 75 ff. ]

The year 845, the year of the expedition to the sources of the Tigris, seems to mark the end of a third period, commemorated by a thirdedition, extracts from which are given in the inscriptions on theBulls. [Footnote: Discovery, Layard, NR. I. 59. L. 12 ff. ; 46 f. ;Rasmussen, XVff. ; 42 ff. Amiaud-Scheil, _passim_; Delitzsch, _op. Cit. _, 144 ff. ; Menant, 113 ff. ] That it actually began withthe year 850 is shown by the use of a new system of dating, by theking's year and the number of the Euphrates crossing. Comparison withpassages preserved in the Balawat extracts shows that the work ofexcerpting has been badly done by the editor of the third edition. Thecapture of Lahiru is placed in the wrong year, [Footnote: Bull 79;cf. Balawat IV. 6. ] the graphical error of Ukani for Amukkani shows itderived from the Balawat edition, while variations between the twocopies of the bull inscription indicate that we cannot be sure of theexact words of the original. [Footnote: Variants in Amiaud-Scheil, _passim_. The most striking is the different text with which theyend, of. Amiaud-Scheil, 58 n. 1. ] And we can also point to deliberatefalsification in the insertion of an expedition to Kashiari againstAnhitti of Shupria, when the older edition, the Monolith, knew of noexpedition for the year 855. It has already been shown elsewhere thatthis is closely connected with the attempt of the turtanu (primeminister) Dan Ashur to date his accession to power to 856 instead of854, and to hide the fact of the palace revolution which seems to havemarked the year 855. [Footnote: Cf. Below under the Obelisk, and, forfuller discussion, Olmstead, _Jour. Amer. Or. Soc. _ XXXIV. 346f. ]

From various hints, it is possible to prove that a fourth edition wasprepared in 837, the end of the wars with Tabal. The most strikingevidence for this is the fact that, after this year, the Obelisksuddenly becomes much fuller, a clear proof that the author knew thathe was now dealing with events not previously written up. We may see, then, in the Obelisk account from 844 to 837 an abstract of the lostedition of 837. But we are not confined to this. One actual fragmentof this edition is the fragment which deals with the events of 842 andis so well known because of its reference to Jehu. [Footnote: IIIR. 5, 6; Rasmussen, XXI; 56; Delitzsch, _Assyr. Lesestücke_, 51fAmiaud-Scheil, 58; Winckler, KB. I. 140; Ungnad, I. 112; Rogers, 303f. ] The first half of this is also intercalated after the introductionto one of the Bull inscriptions, and before year four, thus showingthat it was inserted to bring the edition of 845 up todate. [Footnote: L. 12f; Rasmussen, XIX; 53. ] Based on this edition, though only in very brief abstract, seems also the so called throneinscription from Ashur, whose references to Damascus, Que, Tabal, andMelidi form a group which can best be correlated with the events ofthe years 839, 840, 838, and 837, respectively. [Footnote: Discovery, Layard, NR. II. 46 ff. ; cf. G. Smith, TSBA. I. 77. L. 76f; Craig, _Hebraica_, II 140 ff. ; Rasmussen, XXXVIII; 84 ff. ;Amiaud-Scheil, 74 ff. ; Delitzsch, _Beitr. Z. Assyr. _, VI. 152f;cf. Jastrow, _Hebraica_, V. 230 ff. ] Another Ashur inscription ona royal statute gives selections from the events of the reign, up to835, but its main source is evidently the same. [Footnote: Andrä, MDOG. 21, 20 ff. 39 ff. ; Delitzsch, _ibid_. 52; KTA. 30; Langdon, _Expository Times_, XXIII, 69; Rogers, 298f; 529. ]

But the strongest proof of the existence of this edition is to befound in the two fragments of clay tablets which are not, like all thepreceding, epigraphical copies of the originals, but form part of theoriginal itself. [Footnote: Boissier, RT. XXV. 82 ff. ] These two bitsare written in the cursive style, and, though their discovererbelieved them to belong to separate documents, the fact that one soclosely supplements the other, and that they have the same commonrelation to the other editions, justifies us in assuming that theyreally do belong together. At first sight, it might be argued thatthey are to be restored from the text of the Obelisk, with which theyoften agree verbally. Closer inspection shows, however, that theycontain matter which is not found in that monument, and that thereforethey belong to an earlier and fuller edition, yet the resemblance tothe Obelisk is so close that they cannot be much earlier. On the otherhand, the Bulls inscription can be compared for the events of 854-852and this has all that our tablets have, plus a good bit more. Theytherefore belong between these two editions, and the only time we canplace them is 837. Since the clay tablets so fully abstract the Bullsinscription wherever the latter is available for comparison, we mayassume that in 857-855 they give the minimum of that inscription. Thuswe have the editions of 845, of 837, and of 829, in a common line ofdescent. Although for 857-856, there are numerous verbal coincidenceswith the Balawat excerpts, it must be noted that not all the plus ofour tablets appears in that document, and we can only assume a commonsource, a conclusion which well agrees with our characterization ofthe Balawat inscription as a series of mere extracts. That this commonsource was also the source of the Monolith seems proved by a certainsimilarity of phraseology as well as by the reference to TiglathPileser in connection with Pitru, but this similarity is not greatenough fully to restore our plus passages. Unfortunately for thestudent of history, our tablets do not add any new facts, for, in theparts preserved, we already had the earlier representatives of theoriginal sources from which the edition was derived. It does, however, throw a most interesting light on the composition and development ofthese sources. 

Last and least valuable of all is the Obelisk. [Footnote: Discovery atKalhu, Layard, NR. II. 282. Layard, _Monuments of Nineve_, I. 53ff. ; L. 87 ff. ; Abel-Winckler, 7f; Rasmussen, XXXIIIff. ; 80 ff. Amiaud-Scheil, _passim_; Winckler, KB. I. 128 ff. Oppert, _Expèd. _ I. 342; _Hist. _ 108 ff. ; Menant, 97 ff. Sayce, RP¹, V. 29 ff. ; Scheil, RP², IV. 38; Jastrow, _Hebraica_, V. 230. Mengedoht, _Bab. Or. Rec. _, VIII, lllff. ; 141ff. ; 169ff. Photographs and drawings too frequent for notice. Casts are alsocommon, e. G. , in America, Metropolitan Museum, N. Y. City; Universityof Pennsylvania; Haskell Museum, University of Chicago; Boston Museumof Fine Arts. ] Because of its most interesting sculptures and becauseit gives a summary of almost the entire reign, it has either beengiven the place of honor, or a place second to the Monolith alone. Thecurrent view is given by one of our most prominent Assyriologists asfollows: "The first rank must be ascribed to the Black Obelisk, andfor the reason that it covers a greater period of Shalmaneser's reignthan any other. .. . It is clear then, that for a study of the reign ofShalmaneser II the black obelisk must form the starting point, andthat, in direct connection with it, the other inscriptions may best bestudied, grouping themselves around it as so many additionalfragmentary manuscripts would around the more complete one which wehit upon, for a fundamental text. " [Footnote: Jastrow, _l. C. _]

This view might be accepted were the problem one of the "lowercriticism". Unfortunately, it is clearly one for the "higher" andaccordingly we should quote the Black Obelisk only when an earlieredition has not been preserved. There is no single point where, incomparison with an earlier one, there is reason to believe that it hasthe correct text, in fact, it is, as might be expected in the case ofa show inscription, filled with mistakes, many of which were latercorrected, while in one case the engraver has been forced to eraseentire lines. [Footnote: Cf. The textual commentary in Amiaud-Scheil, _passim_, and especially 65 n. 6. ] Its date is 829, a wholegeneration later than the facts first related, and it can be shownthat it is a formal apology for the turtanu (prime minister), DanAshur, glorifies him at the expense of his monarch, and attempts toconceal the palace revolution which marked his coming into power bychanging the date of his eponomy from 854 to 856 and by filling in theyear 855 with another event. Nor is it without bearing in thisconnection that it was prepared in 829, the very year in which therevolt of Ashur dan apal broke out as a protest against the control ofhis father by the too powerful turtanu. [Footnote: Cf. Olmstead, _Jour. Amer. Or. Soc. , l. C. _] As these last years of the reignwere years of revolt, there is no reason for believing that there wasanother edition prepared, and the narrative of this revolt in theAnnals of his son Shamshi Adad points in the same direction. 

Of documents which do not belong to this connected series, the mostimportant is the recently discovered lion inscription from TilBarsip. Aside from its value in identifying the site of that importantcity and an extra detail or two, its importance is not great, as it isthe usual type of display inscription. [Footnote: R. C. Thompson, PSBA. XXXIV. 66 ff. ; cf. Hogarth, _Accidents of an Antiquary'sLife_, op. 175. ] The Tigris Tunnel inscription also has its mainimportance from the locality in which it was found. [Footnote: Scheil, RT. XXII. 38. ] Other brief inscriptions add a bit as to the buildingoperations, which, curiously enough, are neglected in the officialannals series. [Footnote: L. 77 f. ; Amiaud-Scheil, 78; Rasmussen, XLI;88 f. Layard, NR. II. 46; I. 281. Bricks in America, Merrill, _Proc. Amer. Or. Soc. _, X. C; _Bibl. Sacra. _ XXXII. 337 ff. ;Streck, _Ztf. Deutsch. Morg. Gesell. _, 1908, 758; Scheil, RT. XXVI. 35 ff. ; Pinches, PSBA. XXXII. 49 f. , of year I; KTA. 26 ff. ;77; MDOG. 21, 20f; 22, 29 ff. ; 22, 77; 28, 24f; 31, 15; 32, 15 ff. ;36, 16 ff. ; 48, 27; Andrä, _ Tempel_, 41ff; Taf. XX. XXIIf. ]

CHAPTER IV

SHAMSHI ADAD AND THE SYNCHRONISTIC HISTORY

The main source for the reign of Shamshi Adad (825-812) is theofficial Annals which exists in two recensions. One, written inarchaistic characters, from the south east palace at Kalhu, has longbeen known. After the usual introduction, it deals briefly with therevolt of Ashur dan apal. No attempt is made to differentiate the partwhich deals with his father's reign from that of his own, and thesingle paragraph which is devoted to it gives us no real idea of itsimportance or of its duration. Then follow four expeditions, the firsttwo given very briefly, the last rather fully. As the years of thereign are not indicated, there is considerable difficulty in obtaininga satisfactory chronology. [Footnote: IR. 29 ff. Scheil, _InscriptionAssyr. Archaïque de Samsi Ramman IV_, 1889. Abel, KB. I. 174ff. Oppert, _Hist. _, 122 ff. ; Menant, 119 ff. ; Sayce, RPi, I. 11ff. Harper, 45 ff. For errors in writing cf. Scheil, VI; for use ofrare words, _ibid. _ VII. ] The other carries the record two yearsfurther, but has not yet been published. [Footnote: MDOG. 28, 31f. Through the courtesy of Dr. Andra, I was permitted to see this inthe excavation house at Ashur in 1908. --Cf. Also the palace brick, Scheil, RT. XXII. 37. ]

The long list of expeditions which the Assyrian Chronicle attributesto the reign of Adad nirari (812-783) indicates that he must havecomposed Annals, but they have not as yet been discovered. Of extantinscriptions, the earliest is probably that on the statue base ofSammuramat (Semiramis), in which she is placed before her son andemphasis is laid on the fact that she is the widow of Shamshi Adadrather than that she is the mother of the reigning monarch. [Footnote:MDOG. 40, 24 ff. 42, 34 ff. ] Next in time comes the inscription on thefamous Nabu statue in which Adad nirari is placed first, but withSammuramat at his side, and which accordingly marks the decline of thequeen mother's power. [Footnote: Rawlinson, _Monarchies_, II. 118n. 7; Photograph, Rogers, 511; _Religion_, op. 86; I. R. 35, 2;Abel-Winckler, 14; Abel, KB. I. 192 f. ; Rogers, 307 f. ; Winckler, _Textbuch_3, 27 f. ; Meissner, _Chrestomathie_, 10; Menant, 127 f. ] Near the end of his reign must be placed the two Kalhuinscriptions in which Sammuramat is not mentioned. One refers to theconquests from the sea of the rising sun to the sea of the settingsun, a statement which would be possible only after the conquest ofKis in 786. This is the document which throws a vivid light on theearly history of Assyria, but the remainder is lost [Footnote: Layard, NR. II. 20. L. 70; I. R. 35, 3; Delitzsch, _Lesestücke_2, 99;Abel-Winckler, 13. Abel, KB. I. 188 ff. Sayce, RP¹, I. 3 ff. ;S. A. Strong, RP², IV. 88f; Harper, 50 f. ] and a duplicate addsnothing new. [Footnote: L. 70. ] The other Kalhu inscription addsconsiderable material, but in a condensed form which makes it mostdifficult to locate the facts in time. The historical portion isdivided into three sections which seem roughly to correspond with thechronological order. First comes a list of the peoples conquered onthe eastern frontier, arranged geographically from south to north. Asbut two of these names are listed in the Assyrian Chronicle, and aseach occurs several times, it is impossible to locate them exactly intime. The second section deals in considerable detail with anexpedition against Damascus but the Chronicle does not list one evenagainst central Syria. The fulness of this account shows that it tookplace not far from the subjugation of Kaldi land, the narrative ofwhich ends the document and shows it to have been written not far from786, its date in the Chronicle. [Footnote: Rawlinson, _Athenaeum_, 1856, 174; I R. 35, 1; Winckler, _Textbuch_3, 26 f. Abel, KB. I. 190 ff. Ungnad, I. 112 f. ; Rogers, 306 f. Talbot, JRAS. XIX. 182 ff. ; Harper, 51 f. ; Meissner, _Chrestomathie_, 9;Menant, 126 f. --Nineveh brick, I R. 35, 4. Abel, KB. I. 188 f. Ashurinscriptions, KTA. 35 f. ; MDOG. 22, 19; 26, 62. ]

For the remaining reigns of the dynasty, we have only the data in theAssyrian Chronicle. No annals or in fact any other inscription hascome down to us, and, so far at least as the annals are concerned, there is little likelihood of their discovery, as there is no reasonto believe that any were composed in this period of completedecline. But, curiously enough, from this very period comes thedocument which throws the most light on the earliest period ofAssyrian expansion, the so called Synchronistic history. [Footnote: IIR. 65, 1; III R. 4, 3; Winckler, _Untersuch_. , 148 ff. ;CT. XXXVI. 38 ff. ; cf. The introduction of Budge-King; King, _Tukulti Ninib. _ Peiser-Winckler, KB. I. 194 ff. ; G. Smith, _Disc_. 250 f. ; Sayce, TSBA. II. 119 ff. ; RP¹, III. 29 ff. ; RP², IV. 24 ff. ; Barta In Harper, 195; cf. Winckler, AOF. I. 114 ff. ;Belck, _Bettr. Geog. Gesch. _, I. 5 ff. ] Adad nirari is the lastruler mentioned, but the fact that he is named in the third personshows that it was compiled not earlier than the reign of his successorShalmaneser IV. 

Our present copy is a tablet from the library of a later king, seemingly Ashur bani apal. [Footnote: Maspero, _Hist_. , II. 595, dates its composition to this reign. ] In form, it marks an advanceover any historical document we have thus far studied, for it is anactual history for many centuries of the relations between Assyria andBabylonia. But it is as dry as possible, for only the barest facts aregiven, with none of the mass of picturesque details which we havelearned to expect in the annals of the individual kings. Nevertheless, its advance over preceding documents should not be over estimated. Itsemphasis on treaties and boundaries has led to the idea that it wascompiled from the archives as a sort of diplomatic pièce justificativein a controversy with Babylonia over the possession of a definiteterritory. [Footnote: Peiser-Winckler, KB. I. 194 n. 1. ] Its truecharacter, however, is clearly brought out in its closing words "Asucceeding prince whom they shall establish in the land of Akkad, victory and conquest may he write down, and on this inscribed stone(naru), eternal and not to be forgotten, may he [add it]. Whoevertakes it, may he listen to all that is written, the majesty of theland of Ashur may he worship continually. As for Shumer and Akkad, their sins may he expose to all the regions of the world. " [Footnote:IV. 32 ff. ]

Obviously, then, this tablet of clay is only a copy of an earlier_naru_ or memorial inscription on stone, and we should expect itto be only the usual display inscription. This is still further provedby the introduction, mutilated as it is, ". .. To the god Ashur . .. Hisprayer . .. Before his face I speak. .. . Eternally a [tablet] with themention. .. . The majesty and victory [which the kings of Ashur mad]e, they conquered all, [the march] of former [expedi]tions, whoconquered. .. .. [their booty to their lands they br]ought. .. " Clearly, this is the language of a display inscription and not of a diplomaticpiece justificative. So we can consider our document not even ahistory in the true sense of the word, merely an inscription erectedto the glory of Ashur and of his people, but with the "sins of Shumerand Akkad, " in other words, with the wars of the Babylonians against"the land" [Footnote: Cf. Belck, _Beitr. Geog. Gesch. I. _ 5ff. --The double mention of Ashur bel kala and Shalmaneser points todouble sources, one the original of BM. 27859, Peiser, OLZ. XI. 141. ]and with the sinful destruction of Assyrian property they caused, alsoin mind. When we take this view, we are no longer troubled by thenumerous mistakes, even to the order of the kings, which so greatlyreduce the value of the document where its testimony is mostneeded. [Footnote: Cf. Winckler, AOF. I. 109 ff. ] We can understandsuch "mistakes" in a display inscription, exposed to view in a placewhere it would not be safe for an individual to point out thetruth. But that it could have been used as a piece justificative, withall its errors, when the Babylonians could at once have refuted it, isincredible. 

The accession of Tiglath Pileser IV (745-728) marks a return towarfare, and the consequent prosperity is reflected in an increase ofthe sources both in quantity and in quality. [Footnote: Forinscriptions of reign, cf. Rost, _Keilschrifttexte Tiglat-PilesersIII_; cf. Also Anspacher, _Tiglath Pileser_, 1 ff. ] TiglathPileser prepared for the walls of his palace a series of annals, inthree recensions, marked by the number of lines to the slab, seven, twelve, or sixteen, and seemingly by little else. Originally theyadorned the walls of the central palace at Kalhu, but Esarhaddon, alater king of another dynasty, defaced many of the slabs and builtthem into his south west palace. Thus, even with the three differentrecensions, a large part of the Annals has been lost forever. Foryears, the great problem of the reign of Tiglath Pileser was theproper chronological arrangement of this inscription. Thanks to theaid of the Assyrian Chronicle, it is now fairly fixed, though withserious gaps. Once they are arranged, little further criticism isneeded, for they are the usual type, rather dry and uninteresting tojudge from the extant fragments. [Footnote: Detailed bibliography ofthe fragments, Anspacher, _Tiglath Pileser_, 3 ff. ; Discovery, Layard, NR. II. 300. L. 19 ff. ; III R. 9 f. Rost, _de inscriptioneTiglat-Pileser III quae vocatur Annalium_, 1892; Rost, Iff. ; 2 ff. ;Winckler, _Textbuchs³_, 28 ff. Ungnad I. 113 ff. ; Rogers, 313ff. ; Schrader KB. II. 24 ff. ; Rodwell, RP¹, V. 45 ff. ; Menant, 144ff. For discussion of arrangements of fragments, cf. G. Smith, _Ztf. F. Aegyptologie_, 1869, 9 ff. ; _Disc. _, 266; Schrader, _Keilschrift und Geschichtsforschung_, 395 ff. ; _Abh. Berl. Akad. _, 1880; Tiele, _Gesch. _, 224; Hommel, _Gesch_. , 648 ff. ] Perhaps separate notice should be given to thesculptured slabs in Zürich with selections from the Annals. [Footnote:Boissier, PSBA. I have not seen his _Notice sur quelque MonumentsAssyr. A l'université de Zürich_, 1912. ]

Next to the Annals comes the clay tablet from Kalhu, from which, if weare to judge by the proportions, less than a half hassurvived. [Footnote: Usually called the Nimrud inscription, a cause ofconfusion. K. 3751. Photograph of obverse, "but upside down, Rogers, 541; _History_, op. 267. II R. 67; _Rost_, XXXVff; 54ff. Schrader, KB. II. 8 ff. ; Erneberg, JA. VII. Ser. VI. 441ff. ;Menant, 14oft; Smith, _Disc. _, 25eff. ; Strong, RP³, V. 115 ff. ;J. M. P. Smith, in Harper, 52 ff. ; Rogers, 322. ] Thus, owing to themethod used by the Assyrians in turning the tablet for writing, onlythe first and last parts are preserved. Unfortunately, the greaterpart of what is preserved is taken up with an elaborate introductionand conclusion which we would gladly exchange for more strictlyhistorical data. The other contents are, first an elaborate account ofthe wars in Babylonia, next of the wars on the Elamite frontier, abrief paragraph on Ulluba and Kirbu, and then the beginning of the warwith Urartu. Each of these paragraphs is marked off by a line acrossthe tablet. Thus far, it is clear, we have a geographical order forthe paragraphs. After the break, we have an account of the Arab tribeson the border of Egypt. It is therefore clear that the order wascontinued in the break which must have contained the most of theUrartu account and whatever was said about Syria. The fulness withwhich the extant portion chronicles the Babylonian affairs makes itprobable that the part now lost in the break dealt with Armenian andSyrian relations with equal fulness. The next paragraph seems to be asort of summary of the various western rulers who had paid tribute, and the length of this list is another proof of the large amountlost. The very brief Tabal and Tyre paragraphs, out of the regulargeographical order, are obvious postscripts and this dates them toyear XVII (729), unless we are to assume that the scribe did not havethem in mind when he wrote the reference to that year in theintroduction. That they really did date to the next year, 728, isindicated by the fact that the Assyrian Chronicle seems to have had aTyre expedition in that year. [Footnote: Cf. Olmstead, _Jour. Amer. Or. Soc. _, XXXIV. 357. ] If so, then our inscriptionmust date from the last months of Tiglath Pileser's reign. Thoughwritten on clay, it is clearly a draft from which to engrave a displayinscription on stone as it begins "Palace of Tiglath Pileser. " Theidentity of certain passages [Footnote: I. 5, 9 ff. , 16, 22, 47. ] withthe Nimrud slab shows close connection, but naturally the much fullerrecital of the tablet is not derived from it. We have also a duplicatefragment from the Nabu temple at Kalhu and this is marked by obviousBabylonianisms. [Footnote: DT. 3. Schrader, _Abh. Berl. Akad. _1880, 15 ff. , with photograph. For the Babylonian character, cf. Rost, 11. ]

With the Nimrud clay tablet is easily confused the Nimrudslab. [Footnote: Layard, NR. II. 33. L. 17 f. Schrader, KB. II. 2 ff. ;Rost, 42 ff. ; Oppert, _Exped. _, 336; Smith, _Disc. _, 271;Meissner, _Chrestomathie_, 10 f. ; Menant, 138 ff. ] This datesfrom 743 and is thus the earliest inscription from the reign. But itsaccount is so brief that it is of but trifling value. It assists alittle in, conjecturing what is lost from the tablet and mention of anevent here is naturally of value as establishing a minimum date. Butwhere both have preserved the same account, the tablet is the fuller, and, in general, better, even though it is so much later. [Footnote:Other inscriptions, III R. 10, 3, the place list; 83-1-18, 215, Winckler, AOF. II. 3 f. ; painted fragments, Layard, _Nineveh andBabylon_, 140 f. ]

CHAPTER V

SARGON AND THE MODERN HISTORICAL CRITICISM

The sources for the reign of Sargon (722-705) [Footnote: Collected inWinckler, _Kellschrifttexte Sargons_, 1889. ] have already beendiscussed in detail elsewhere. All that is here needed is a summary ofresults. [Footnote: Olmstead, _Western Asia in the Days of Sargon ofAssyria_, 1908, 1 ff. ] They fall into three well marked groups. Thefirst includes the early inscriptions of the reign, which aremiscellaneous in character. [Footnote: _Sargon_, 17 ff. ] Thecircumstances under which Sargon came to the throne are indicated by atablet from the second year which is of all the more value in that itis not a formal annals or display inscription. [Footnote: K. 1349;Winckler, _Sammlung_, II, 1; AOF. I. 401 ff. ] The Nimrudinscription comes from Kalhu, the earliest capital ofSargon. Unfortunately, it is very brief and is not arranged inchronological order. Aside from the rather full account of Pisiris ofCarchemish, sufficient to date the inscription soon after its capture, we have only the briefest of references, and its value would benothing, could we only secure the original, perhaps the earliestedition of the Annals, on which it is based. [Footnote: L. 33f;Winckler, _Sargon_, I. 168 ff. II. 48; Lyon, _Assyr. Manual_, 9f; Pelser, KB, II. 34 ff. ; Menant, 204 ff. ] Abrief fragment may be noted because of its mention of the sixth year, though we cannot be sure of the class to which it belongs. [Footnote:K. 1660; Winckler, _Sammlung_, II. 4. ] Other fragments are eitherunpublished or of no importance. [Footnote: K. 221+2669; K. 3149;K. 3150; K. 4455; K. 4463, Winckler, _Sammlung_, II. 6; K. 4471, _ibid_. II. 4; DT. 310; 83-1-18, 215. The unpublished fragmentsknown from Bezold, _Catalogue, ad loc_. ]

As a proved source for the second group, the newly discovered tabletshould begin our study. [Footnote: Thureau-Dangin, _Relation de laHuitieme Campagne de Sargon_, 1912. ]From the standpoint of sourcestudy, it is of exceptional value as it is strictly contemporaneousand yet gives a very detailed account in Annals form of the events ofa single year. The tablet was "written", probably composed, though itmay mean copied, by Nabu shallimshunu, the great scribe of the King, the very learned, the man of Sargon, the eldest son ofHarmaki, --seemingly an Egyptian name, --and inhabitant of the city ofAshur. It was brought (before the God Ashur?) in the limmu or eponymyear of Ishtar duri, 714-713, and tells us of the events of 714. It iswritten on an unusually large tablet of clay and is in, the form of aletter. It begins "To Ashur the father of the gods. .. Greatly, greatlymay there be peace. To the gods of destiny and the goddesses whoinhabit Ehar sag gal kurkurra, their great temple, greatly, greatlymay there be peace. To the gods of destiny and the goddesses whoinhabit the city of Ashur their great temple, greatly, greatly maythere be peace. To the city and its inhabitants may there be peace. Tothe palace which is situated in the midst may there be peace. Asfor [Footnote: So Thureau-Dangin, _ad hoc_. ] Sargon the holypriest, the servant, who fears thy great godhead, and for his camp, greatly, greatly there is peace. " So this looks like a letter from theking to the god Ashur, to the city named from him, and to itsinhabitants. Yet it is a very unusual rescript, very different fromthose which have come down to us in the official archives, especiallyin the use of the third person in speaking of the king, while in theregular letters the first is always found. Further, in the body of thesupposed letter, the king, as is usual in the official annals, speaksin the first person. 

However it may be with the real character of the "letter, " there canbe no doubt as to its great value. To be sure, we may see in its boastthat in the campaign but six soldiers were lost a more or less severestretching of the truth, but, at least in comparison with the laterrecords, it is not only much fuller, but far more accurate. Indeed, comparison with the later Annals shows that document to be even worsethan we had dared suspect. 

Comparison of the newly discovered inscription with the parallelpassages of the broken prism B shows that this is simply a condensedform of its original. The booty seems to have been closely copied, butthe topographical details are much abbreviated. The discovery of thistablet, while supplying the lacunae in Prism B, has made this partuseless. But all the more clearly is brought out the superiority, inthis very section, of the Prism over the later Annals. Naturally, weassume the same to be true in the other portions preserved, in fact, the discovery of the tablet has been a brilliant confirmation of theproof long ago given that this was superior to the Annals. [Footnote:Olmstead, _Sargon_, 11 ff. , with reconstruction of the order ofthe various fragments, as against Prasek, OLZ. XII. 117, who sharplyattacked me "über den historischen wert den Stab zu brechen. "]Unfortunately but a part of these fragments has been published[Footnote: Winckler, _Sargon_, II. 45 ff. Cf. I. Xif. Photograph, Ball, _Light from the East_, 185. Thureau-Dangin, _op_. _cit_. , 76 ff. ] and the difficulties in the way ofcopying these fragments have made many mistakes. [Footnote: To judgeby a comparison of Winckler's text with that prepared by King forThureau-Dangin, _l. C. _] But a few of these fragments have as yetbeen translated or even discussed. [Footnote: Winckler, _Sargon_, I. 186 f. ; AOF. II. 71 ff. ; _Mitth. Vorderas. Gesell. _, 1898, 1, 53; Thureau-Dangin, _l. C. _] For all parts of the reign which theycover, save where we have the tablet, they are now clearly seen to beour best authorities, nearer in date to the events they chronicle andmuch freer from suspicion than the Annals. The most urgent need forthe history of the reign is that the fragments which are stillunpublished [Footnote: Cf. Bezold, ZA. 1889, 411 n. 1. ] should bepublished at once with a collation of those previously given. Even atranslation and examination of the fragments already published wouldmark a considerable advance in our knowledge of the period. [Footnote:For detailed study of Prism B, cf. Olmstead, _l. C. _]

Very similar to Prism B is our other broken prism, A. [Footnote:Winckler. _Sargon_, II. 44; 1. 186 ff. ;_Untersuch. Altor. Gesch. _, 118 ff. ; _Textbuch_3, 41 f. ;Rogers, 329 f. ; G. Smith, _Disc. _, 288 ff. Boscawen, _Bab. Or. Rec. _ IV. 118 ff. The Dalta episode and the beginningand end are still untranslated. ] Both were found at Nineveh [Footnote:G. Smith, _Disc. _, 147. ] and this of itself proves a date somedistance from the end of the reign when Sargon was established at DurSharruken. [Footnote: Cf. Olmstead, _Sargon_, 14 n. ] Prism A isof much the same type as the other, in fact, when we see how theAshdod expedition, begun in the one, can be continued in the other, [Footnote: As in Winckler, _Sargon_, I. 186 ff. ] we are led tobelieve that the two had a similar text. If, however, the Daltaepisode in each refers to the same event, then they had quitedifferent texts in this part of the history. Which of the two is theearlier and more trustworthy, if they did not have identical texts, and what are their relative relations cannot be decided in theirfragmentary state, but that they are superior to the Annals isclear. Like Prism B, Prism A is worthy of better treatment and greaterattention than it has yet been given. 

The third group consists of the documents from about the year 707, which have come down to us inscribed on the walls of Sargon's capital, Dur Sharruken. [Footnote: For discussion of this group, cf. Olmstead, _Sargon_, 6 ff. ] The earliest document of this group is naturallythe inscription of the cylinders which were deposited as cornerstones, [Footnote: Place, _Nineve_, II. 291 ff. ; Oppert, _DourSarkayan_, 11 ff. ; I R. 36; Lyon, _Keilschrifttexte Sargons_, 1 ff. Winckler, _Sargon_, II. 43; Menant, 199 ff. ; Peiser, KB. II. 38 ff. Barta, in Harper, 59 ff. ] indeed, it closely agreeswith the deed of gift which dated to 714. [Footnote: Cf. Olmstead, _Sargon_, 178 f. ] The same inscription is also found onslabs. [Footnote: Menant, RT. XIII. 194. ] It is the fullest and bestaccount of the building of Dur Sharruken, and from it the otherdocuments of the group seem to have derived their buildingrecital. Nor are other phases of the culture life neglected, aswitness, for example, the well known attempt to fix prices and lowerthe high cost of living by royal edict. 

The remaining inscriptions of the group are all closely related andall seem derived from the Annals. The display inscription gives thedata of the Annals in briefer form and in geographical order. Numbersare very much increased, and its only value is in filling the toonumerous lacunæ of its original. [Footnote: Botta, _Mon. DeNineve_, 95 ff. ; Winckler, _Sargon_, II. 30 ff. ; I. 97 ff. Oppert-Menant, _Fastes de Sargon_. -JA. 1863 ff. ; Menant, 18 ff. ;Oppert, RP¹, IX. 1 ff. ; Peiser, KB. II. 52 ff. ] Imperfect recognitionof its character has led many astray. [Footnote: The error inconnecting Piru and Hanunu, for example, already pointed out byOlmstead, _Sargon_, 10, is still held by S. A. Cook, art. Philistines, in the new _Encyclopedia Britannica_. ] Otherinscriptions of the group are incised on bulls, on founda-slabs, onbricks, pottery, and glass, or as labels on the sculptures. Save forthe last, they are of absolutely no value for the historian as theysimply abstract from the Annals. As for the Cyprus stole, its locationalone gives it a factitious importance. [Footnote: For fullbibliography of the minor inscriptions, cf. Olmstead, _Sargon_, 6f. For others since found at Ashur, cf. KTA. 37-42; 71; MDOG. 20, 24;22, 37; 25, 28, 31, 35; 26, 22; 31, 47; Andrä, _Tempel_, 91ff. ;Taf. XXI; Genouillac-Thureau-Dangin, RA. X. 83 ff. ]

The one important document of the group, then, is the Annals. That, with all its value, it is a very much over estimated document, hasalready been shown. [Footnote: Olmstead, _Sargon_, 3 ff. ] Thereare four recensions, some of which differ widely among themselves andfrom other inscriptions. For example, there are three accounts of thefate of Merodach Baladan. In one, he is captured; [Footnote: Display133. ] in the second he begs for peace; [Footnote: Annals V. ] in thethird, he runs away and escapes. [Footnote: Annals 349. ] Naturally, weare inclined to accept the last, which is actually confirmed by thelater course of events. 

But it is only when we compare the Annals with earlier documents thatwe realize how low it ranks, even among official inscriptions. Alreadywe have learned the dubious character of its chronology. The AssyrianChronicle has "in the land" for 712, that is, there was no campaign inthat year. Yet for that very year, the Annals has an expeditionagainst Asia Minor! It is prism B which solves the puzzle. In theearliest years, it seems to have had the same chronology as theAnnals. Later, it drops a year behind and, at the point where it ends, it has given the Ashdod expedition as two years earlier than theAnnals. [Footnote: Cf. Ohmstead, _Sargon_, 11. ] Even with the olddata, it was clear that the Prism was earlier and therefore probablymore trustworthy; and it was easy to explain the puzzle by assumingthat years "in the land" had been later padded out by the Annals, justas we have seen was done for Dan Ashur under Shalmaneser III. Now thediscovery of the tablet of the year 714 has completely vindicated thecharacter of Prism B while it has even more completely condemned theAnnals as a particularly untrustworthy example of annalistic writing. 

In the first place, it shows us how much we have lost. The tablet has430 lines, of which a remarkably small portion consists of passageswhich are mere glorifications or otherwise of no value. Out of thismass of material, the Annals has utilized but 36 lines. That this is afair sample of what we have lost in other years is hardly too much tosuspect. Further, it would seem that the Annals used, not the tabletitself, but, since it has a phrase common to the Annals and the Prism, [Footnote: Ann. 125 f. ; Prism B, Thureau-Dangin, _op. Cit. _, 76f. ] but not found in the tablet, either the Prism itself or a commonancestor. 

The cases where we can prove that the editor of the Annals "improved"his original are few but striking. It is indeed curious that he has ina few cases lowered the numbers of his original, even to the extent ofgiving three fortified cities and twenty four villages [Footnote:Ann. 105. ] where the tablet has twelve fortified cities and eightyfour villages. [Footnote: Tabl. 89. ] On the other hand, by a trickespecially common among the Sargonide scribes, the 1, 235 sheep of thetablet [Footnote: Tabl. 349. ] has reached the enormous total of100, 225! [Footnote: Ann. 129; of. Thureau-Dangin, _op. Cit. _, 68, n. 4 for comparison of numbers. The same phenomenon can be constantlyseen in the huge increases of the numbers of the Display inscriptionas compared with its original, the Annals. ] More serious, because lesslikely to be allowed for, is the statement that Parda wascaptured [Footnote: Ann. 106. ] when the original merely says that itwas abandoned by its chief. [Footnote: Tabl. 84. ] But the most glaringinnovation of the scribe is where, in speaking of the fate of Rusash, the Haldian king, after his defeat, he adds "with his own iron dagger, like a pig, his heart he pierced, and his life he ended. " [Footnote:Ann. 139. ] This has long been doubted on general principles, [Footnote:Cf. Olmstead, _Sargon_, 111. ] but now we have the proof that itis only history as the scribe would like it to have been written. Forthe new inscription, while giving the conventional picture of thedespair of the defeated king, says not a word of anysuicide. [Footnote: Tabl. 411ff. ] However, the tablet does elsewheremention the sickness of Rusash, [Footnote: _Ibid. _ 115. ] and itmay well be that it is to this sickness that we must attribute hisdeath later. [Footnote: Cf. Thureau-Dangin, _op. Cit. _, xix. ] Thecomplete misunderstanding of the whole campaign by earlierwriters [Footnote: Compare, for example, the brief and inaccurateaccount in Olmstead, _Sargon_, 112 ff. , with that inthureau-Dangin, _op. Cit. _ on the basis of the new tablet]furnishes the clearest indication of the unsatisfactory character ofour recital so long as we must rely entirely on the Annals. It is thediscovery of conditions like these which forces us to subject ourofficial inscriptions to the most rigid scrutiny before we dare usethem in our history. [Footnote: Botta, _Monuments de Ninive_, pi. 70 ff. ; 104 ff. ; 158f£. ; Winckler, _Sargon_ II. Pl. 1ff. Oppert in Place, _Ninive_, II. 309 ff. ; _Les Inscriptionsde Dour Sarkayan_, 29 ff. ; RP: VII. 21 ff. ; Menant, 158 ff. ;Winckler, _De inscriptione quae vocatur Annalium_, 1886;_Sargon_, I. 3 ff. ]

CHAPTER VI

ANNALS AND DISPLAY INSCRIPTIONS

(Sennacherib and Esarhaddon)

Of the sources for the reign of Sennacherib (705-686), [Footnote: Theonly fairly complete collection of sources for the reign is stillSmith-Sayce, _History of Sennacherib_, 1878, though nearly allthe data needed for a study of the Annals are given by Bezold, KB. II. 80 ff. Extracts, Rogers, 340 ff. Cf. Also Olmstead, _WesternAsia in the reign of Sennacherib, Proceedings of Amer. HistoricalAssn. _, 1909, 94 ff. ] the chief is the Annals, added to atintervals of a few years, and so existing in several editions. Asusual, the latest of these, the Taylor inscription, has been accordedthe place of honor, so that the earliest edition, the so calledBellino Cylinder, can be called by a well known historian "a sort ofduplicate of" the Taylor inscription. [Footnote: Maspero, _Histoire_, III. 273 _n. 1. _] As we have seen repeatedly, the exact reverse should be our procedure, though here, as in the caseof Ashur nasir apal, the evil results in the writing of history areless serious than in the case of most reigns. This is due to theunusual circumstances that, with comparatively few exceptions, therewas little omission or addition of the earlier data. Regularly, thenew edition simply added to the old, and, as a result, the form of themass of clay on which these Annals were written changes with theincreased length of the document, the earlier being true cylinders, while the latter are prisms. [Footnote: King, _Cuneiform Texts_, XXVI. 7 f. ] At the same time that the narrative of military events waslengthened, the account of the building operations followed suit. Aserious defect is the fact that these documents are dated, not byyears, but by campaigns, with the result that there are seriousquestions in chronology. The increase in the number of our editions, however, has solved many of these, as the date of the campaign can nowusually be fixed by observing in which dated document it last occurs. 

Of the more than twenty five more or less complete documents, thefirst is the so called Bellino Cylinder which dates from October, 702. The fact that it has been studied separately has tended toprevent the realization that it is actually only a recension. As afirst edition, it is a trifle fuller, but surprisinglylittle. [Footnote: K. 1680. Grotefend, _Abh. Göttingen, Gesell_. 1850. L. 63 f. Smith-Sayce, 1 f. , 24 ff. , cf. 43ff. Oppert, _Exped. _ I. 297 ff. ; Menant, 225 ff. ; Talbot, JRAS. XVIII. 76 ff. ; _Trans. Roy. Soc. Lit. _ VIII, 369 ff. ; RP¹, I. 23 ff. It is the Bl. Of Bezold. ] Next comes Cylinder B, nowrepresented by six complete and seven fragmentary cylinders. Itincludes campaign three and is dated in May, 700. [Footnote:Smith-Sayce, 30, 70 f. , cf. 24, 43, 53; Evetts, ZA. III. 311 ff. ; forlist of tablets, cf. Bezold, _l. C. _] Cylinder C dates from 697and contains the fourth expedition. [Footnote: K. 1674; Smith-Sayce, 14, 76, cf. 30, 43, 53, 73, 78. The A 2 of Bezold. ] The mutilated dateof Cylinder D may be either 697 or 695, but as it has one campaignmore than Cylinder C of 697, we should probably date it to the latteryear. [Footnote: BM. 22, 508; K. 1675; Smith-Sayce, 24, 30, 43, 53, 73, 79; King, _Cuneiform Texts_, XXVI. 38, cf. P. 10, n. 2. The A 8of Bezold. ] From this recension seems to have been derived thedisplay inscription recently discovered on Mt. Nipur, which wasinscribed at the end of campaign five. [Footnote: Inscription atHasanah (Hassan Agha?) King, PSBA. XXXV. 66 ff. ]

Somewhat different from these is the newest Sennacherib inscription, [Footnote: BM. 103, 000; King, _Cuneiform Texts, XXVI_;cf. Pinches, JRAS. 1910, 387 ff. ] which marks the transition from theshorter to the longer cylinders. [Footnote: King, _op. Cit. _, 9. ]After the narrative of the fifth campaign, two others are given, anddated, not by the number of campaign as in the documents of theregular series, but by the eponyms, so that here we have actualchronology. The two campaigns took place in 698 and 695 respectively, the inscription itself being dated in 694. That they are not dated bythe campaigns of the king and that they are not given in the latereditions is perhaps due to the fact that the king did not conduct themin person. [Footnote: King, _op. Cit. _, p. 10. ] The occasion forthis new edition is not to be found, however, in these petty frontierwars, but in the completion of the new palace, in the increase in thesize of the city of Nineveh, in the building of a park, and in theinstallation of a water supply, as these take up nearly a half of theinscription. The recovery of this document has also enabled us toplace in the same group two other fragments, now recognized asduplicates. [Footnote: BM. 102, 996, King, _Cuneiform Texts_, XXVI. 38; cf. P. 15, n. 1; K. 4492, ibid. 39, not a reference toTarbisi, as Meiasner-Rost, _Bauinschriften_, 94f; as is shown byKing, p. 18 n. 1. ]

At about the same time must be placed the various inscriptions on thebulls which were intended to decorate this new palace. One containsonly five expeditions, [Footnote: Bull 2, Smith-Sayce, 3, 24, 30 f. , 43, 51 f. , 53, 67 f. , 73, 78 f. , 86. L. 60 ff. (Bull 1 occurs onlySmith-Sayce, 3. )] the other has a brief sketch of the sixth, [Footnote: Bull 3, Smith-Sayce, _l. C. _, and also 88 f. ] but bothhave references to the enthronement of the crown prince Ashur nadinshum in Babylon. [Footnote: Smith-Sayce, 30 f. ] Still another gives avery full account of the sixth expedition, but there is no mention ofAshur nadin shum. [Footnote: Bull 4, Smith-Sayce, 3 f. , 24, 32 ff. , 43, 51, 53, 65 ff. ; 73, 77 ff. , 89 ff. ; A. Paterson, _Palace ofSinacherib_, 5 f. ; III R. 12 f. ; L. 38 ff. ] This dates very closelythe inscriptions of the period. The new inscription was written inAugust of 694. At this time as well as when the inscription was placedon Bull II, the news of the sixth expedition, that across the PersianGulf to Nagitu, had not yet come in. When this arrived, a briefaccount was hastily compiled and added to Bull III. But before afuller narrative could be prepared, news came of the capture of Ashurnadin shum, which took place, as we know, soon after the Nagituexpedition, seemingly in the beginning of November. [Footnote:Bab. Chron. II. 36 ff. ; for _kat Tashriti_ in line 40, cf. Delitzsch, _Chronik, ad loc_. ] The inscription on Bull IVaccordingly had an elaborate narrative of the Nagitu expedition, butall mention of the captured prince was cut out. 

The last in the series of Annals editions is the Taylor Prism of 690, generally taken as the standard inscription of the reign, andsubstantially the same text is found on seven other prisms. [Footnote: BM. 91, 032, often given in photograph, especially in the"_Bible Helps_. " A good photograph, Rogers, 543;_Hist_. Op. 353. I R. 37 ff. Smith-Sayce, _passim_;Delitzsch, _Lesestücke_, 54 ff. ; Abel-Winckler, 17 ff. Hörnung, _Das Sechsseitige Prisma des Sanherib_, 1878; Bezold, KB. II. 80ff. , with numbers of the duplicates; Oppert, _Les Ins. Assyr. DesSargonides_, 41ff. ; Menant, 214 ff. ; Talbot, RP¹, I. 33 ff. ;Rogers, RP², VI. 80 ff. ; Harper, 68 ff. Here also seem to belong thefragments 79-7-8, 305; K. 1665; 1651; S. 1026, as their text inclinestoward that of the Taylor Prism. ] As has already been made evident, this is of no value for the earlier parts of the reign, since for thatwe have much better data, but it ranks well up in its class ascomparatively little has been omitted or changed. Slightly earlierthan the Taylor Cylinder is the Memorial or Nebi Yunus inscription, now at Constantinople, which ends about where the other does. Here andthere, it has the same language as the Annals group, but thesecoincidences are so rare that we must assume that they are due only tothe use of well known formulae. In general, it is an abridgement ofearlier records, though a few new facts are found. But for the secondhalf of the sixth expedition, the revolt of Babylon, it is our bestsource. Not only is it fuller than the Taylor prism, it gives a quitedifferent account in which it is not the king but his generals who arethe victors. Yet curiously enough, in the seventh expedition theTaylor cylinder is fuller and better. [Footnote: I R. 43; A. Paterson, _Palace of Sinacherib_, 3; Smith-Sayce, 7 f. , 39 f. , 68 f. , 86f. , 102 ff. , lllff. , 127 ff. ; Bezold, KB. II. 118 f. ; cf. King, _Cuneiform Texts_, XXVI. P. 10 n. 1. Seen at Constantinople in1907-1908. ]

Here too we may discuss the Bavian inscription, the displayinscriptions cut in the rock where began the irrigation worksconstructed to carry water to the capital. In their historicalportions, they parallel the last campaign of the Taylor Prism, thoughin such different fashion that they may be considered separatesources. They then add the final capture and destruction of Babylon, of which they are the only Assyrian authority. [Footnote: III R. 14;Pognon, _L'inscription de Bavian_, 1879; Smith-Sayce, 129 ff. 157;King, _Tukulti Ninib_, 114 ff. Menant, _Nineve et l'Assyrie_, 234 ff. ; Pinches, RP¹, IX. 21ff. ; Bezold, KB. II. 116 ff. The order ofdate is B, C, A, D, Meissner-Rost, _Bauinschriften_, 67. Squeezeswere secured by the Cornell Expedition. ] Here too may be mentioned thetwo fragments from the later part of the reign, on which is based alater expedition of Sennacherib against Palestine, [Footnote:Smíth-Sayce, 137 f. ; the later fragment, Scheil, OLZ. VII. 69f;Ungnad, _Vorderas. Denkmäler_, I. 73 ff. ; in Gressmann, I. 121;Rogers, 345 f. ] as well as a tablet which seems to be a draft of aninscription to be set up in Kirbit in commemoration of the flight ofMerodach Baladan. [Footnote: III R. 4, 4; Strong, JRAS. XXIII. 148ff. ]

To complete our study of the sources for the reign, the morespecifically building inscriptions may be noted. [Footnote:Meissner-Rost, _Bauinschriften Sanheribs_, 1893. ] The greaterpart of what we know concerning the building operations of the reigncomes from the documents already discussed. Of the specificallybuilding inscriptions, perhaps the most important is the New Year'sHouse inscription from Ashur, [Footnote: MDOG. 33, 14. ] and theexcavations there have also given a good number of displayinscriptions on slabs [Footnote: KTA. 43 ff. , 73 f. ; MDOG. 21, 13 ff. ;22, 17 ff. ; 26, 27 ff. 43, 31; 44, 29. ] and on bricks, [Footnote:I. R. 7, VIII. H; Bezold, KB. 114f; KTA. 46-49; 72; MDOG. 20, 24; 21, 12 ff. 22, 15; 25, 36 f. ] as well as some building prisms. [Footnote:MDOG. 21, 37; 25, 22f; 47, 39. ]

Esarhaddon (686-668), [Footnote: Inscriptions of the reign collectedby Budge, _History of Esarhaddon_, 1880. ] like the others of hisdynasty, prepared elaborate Annals. [Footnote: First reference, G. Smith, TSBA. III. 457. Boscawen, _ibid_. IV. 84 ff. ; IIIR. 35, 4; Budge, 114 ff. ; Rogers, _Haverford Studies_, II. Winckler, _Untersuch z. Altor. Gesch. _, 97f; Winckler, _Textbuch_, 52 ff. ; Ungnad, I. 123; Rogers, 357 ff. Cf. AlsoG. Smith, _Disc_. 311ff. ; Delattre, _L'Asie_, 149; Olmstead, _Bull. Amer. Geog. Soc_. , XLIV. 1912, 434. ] It is a poeticjustice rarely found in history that the man who so ruthlesslydestroyed the Annals of Tiglath Pileser IV is today known to us bystill smaller fragments of his own. Aside from five mutilated linesfrom the ninth expedition, only a part of the first expedition againstEgypt has survived and that in a very incomplete manner. We areaccordingly dependent for our knowledge of the reign on the displayinscriptions, with all their possibilities for error, and only theBabylonian Chronicle gives a little help toward fixing the relativeorder of events. 

The greater part of the history of the reign must be secured from thethree most important cylinders. A and C are complete and arepractically identical. [Footnote: 48-10-31, 2; L. 20 ff. ; I R. 45 ff. ;Abel-Winckler, 22 ff. ; Budge, 32 ff. ; Harper, _Hebraica_, III. 177 ff. IV. 99 ff. Abel, KB. II. 124 ff. ; Oppert, _Ins. DesSargonides_, 53 ff. ; Talbot, _Jour. Sacr. Lit_. , IX. 68 ff. _Trans. Roy. Soc. Lit_. , VII. 551 ff. ; RP¹, III 109 ff. ; Menant, 241ff; Harper, 81ff. C was used by R. For restoring A. Text, Harper, _Hebraica_, IV. 18 ff. , with the parallels 80-7-19, 15, andK. 1679. Also King, _Supplement_, 108 f. ] B is broken and wasoriginally considerably fuller, but seems to be from the same generalseries. [Footnote: 48-11-4, 315; III R. 15 f. ; Budge, 20 ff. ; 97 ff. ;Harper, _Hebraica_, III. 177 ff. ; IV. 146 ff. ; Abel-Winckler, 25f. Winckler, KB, II. 140 ff. Harper, 80 f. ; Menant, 248 ff. ; Talbot, RP¹, III. 102 ff. ; _North Brit. Rev_. , 1870, quoted Harper, _Hebr. L. C_. ] The date of all three is probably 673. [Footnote:C is dated in the month Abu, cf. Harper, _Hebr_, IV. 24; B, according to Budge, _ad loc_. , has Abu of the year 673, butWinckler, _l. C_. , omits the month. If the month is to beretained, the identity of month points to identity of year, and thereis nothing in B to prevent this conjecture. A is from Nebi Yunus, Bfrom Koyunjik. ] In comparing the texts of A-C and B, we note that inthe first part, there seem to be no important differences, save that Badds an account of the accession. In the broken part before this, Bmust have given the introduction and the murder ofSennacherib. Computation of the minimum in each column of B, based onthe amount actually preserved in A and C, will give us some idea ofwhat has been lost. Column II of B must have been devoted in part tothe final defeat of the rebels and in part to the introduction to thelong narrative concerning Nabu zer lishir. As at least four lines weredevoted to this introduction in the usually much shorter D, it musthave been fairly long in B. Why A omitted all this is a question. Thatthese two events are the first in the reign is made clear by theBabylonian Chronicle, so that thus far the chronological order hasbeen followed. The next event in B and the first in A is the story ofthe Sidon troubles, and again the Chronicle shows it to be inchronological order. Since A has no less than 49 lines to deal withthe events in the lost beginning of column III, it is clear that themuch fuller B has here lost much. In the gap in Column IV, we are toplace the Aduma narrative and the traces where we can begin to readshow that they are in the conclusion of the Mediantroubles. [Footnote: _Shepashun_ of B. Is the _elishun ukin_is virtually the same as _ukin sirushun_. ] For the lost part ofthe fifth column, we must count the Iadi and Gambulu expeditions, anda part of the building narrative. About the same building account asin A must be placed at the commencement of column VI. The irregularityin the minimum numbers for the different columns, on the basis of A, shows that B had in some cases much longer accounts than in others, and this is confirmed where B gives a complete list of Arabian and ofSyrian kings while A does not. These minimum numbers also indicatethat but about one-fourth of B has been preserved. However, theoverlapping gives us some reason to hope that nearly all its factshave been preserved in the one or the other edition. 

We have already seen that strict chronology is followed by B, strangeto relate, in the order, punishment of the assassins, 681, Babylon, 680, and Sidon, 677. Then A gives the Kundu troubles which, accordingto the Chronicle, follow in 676, and Arzani and the brook of Egypt, which fit well enough with the Egyptian expedition given under675. These are the only sections we can date chronologically, and theorder is chronologically correct. But whether we can assume this forall the events mentioned may be doubted in the light of thedisagreement between A and B in their order. In placing the Arabsbefore Bazu, or the Babylonian Nabu zer lishir before Bit Dakkuri, Ais clearly attempting a more geographical order. We shall then use Bas our main source whenever preserved, supplemented by A when theformer is missing, but we must not forget that all are simply displayinscriptions. 

Another display inscription of the same type we shall call D. It isclose to B as is shown in the story of Nabu zer lishir, is seeminglybriefer than that document, but is certainly fuller than A, and isindependent of both. The order of events is Babylon, Egypt, Hubushna. As D omits Sidon and the Cilician cities, found in one ofthe others and proved to the period by the Babylonian Chronicle, it isclear that we have here only extracts, even though the events narratedare given more fully than in A. [Footnote: K. 2671; Winckler, ZA. II. 299 ff. ; AOF. I. 522. ] Still another document of similarcharacter may be called E. As it mentions the Uabu rebellion which isnot in A, it should date after 673, and its order, Chaldaeans, Gambulu, Egypt, Arabs, Sidon, Asia Minor, is not chronological butgeographical. It has some striking variants in the proper names, forexample, we have here Musur, universally recognized as meaning Egypt, where A has Musri, and thus we have exact proof that Musri does equalEgypt, the advocates of the Musri theory, if any still survive, to thecontrary notwithstanding. [Footnote: Cf. Olmstead, _Sargon_, 56ff. ] It is also longer than A in the River of Egypt section, and thanB in the Elam account. As a late document, it is of value only for theUabu affair. [Footnote: Winckler, ZA. II pl. II; AOF. I. 526 ff. ] Wemay also note here another prism fragment [Footnote: 80-7-19, 15;Winckler, _Untersuch. Z. Altor. Gesch. _, 98. Cf. King, _Supplement_, 109. ] and a slab with a brief account of manycampaigns. The first, that against Bazu, we know dates to 676. Theothers, to Uruk, to Buesh king of an unknown land, Akku, and the kingof Elam, are of doubtful date, but are almost certainlylater. [Footnote: K. 8544; Winckler, AOF. I. 532. --I have been unableto see Scheil, _Le Prisme S d'Assarhaddon. _]

Finally, we must discuss two display inscriptions from the very end ofthe reign, whose importance is in no small degree due to the localityin which they were found. One is the famous stele discovered amid theruins of the North Syrian town of Sinjirli. It dates after the captureof Memphis, 671, and seems to have been composed on the spot, as itshows no relationship to other inscriptions. [Footnote: Photograph andtext, Schrader, in Luschan, _Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli_, I. 11ff. , and pl. Cf. Rogers, 551; _Hist_, op. 399; Paterson, _Sculptures_, 103. Harper, 90 ff. I have been able to consultsqueezes in the library of Cornell University. ] The same is probablytrue of the equally famous rock cut inscription at the Dog River (Nahrel Kelb), north of Berut. Though the oldest Assyrian inscription tohave a cast taken, it seems never to have been published. It israpidly disappearing, as the fact that it was cut through a very thinlayer of hard rock has caused much flaking. Esarhaddon is called Kingof Babylon and King of Musur and Kusi, Egypt and Ethiopia, and theexpedition against Tarqu, which ended with the capture and sack ofMemphis, is given. Thus it agrees with the Sinjirli inscription andmay well date from the same year. [Footnote: Translation, G. Smith, _Eponym Canon_, 167 ff. The text, so far as I know, has neverbeen published, even in connection with the elaborate study of theNahr el Kelb sculptures by Boscawen, TSBA. VII. 345. I have been ableto use the squeeze taken in 1904 in connection with Messrs. Charlesand Wrench, but much less can now be seen than what Smith evidentlyfound on the cast. Cast, Bonomi, _Trans. Roy. Soc. Lit. _, III. 105; _Nineveh and its Palaces_, 5 f. 86. 142 ff. , 367. ]

We have a considerable number of building inscriptions, but there arefew source problems in connection with them. [Footnote: Collected inMeissner-Rost, _Beitr. Z. Assyr_. , III. 189 ff. Thureau-Dangin, _Rev. Assyr_. XI, 96 ff. ] Perhaps the most important is the prismwhich tells so much in regard to the earliest days ofAssyria. [Footnote: KTA. 51; MDOG. 25, 33. ] Another important documentis the Black Stone, a four sided prism with archaistic writing. It wasfound at Nineveh, though it deals with the rebuilding of Babylon, andseems to date from the first year. [Footnote: I R. 49; Winckler, KB. II. 120 ff. ; Meissner-Rost, 218 ff. Oppert, _Exped. _, I. 180f. ; Menant, 248; _Babylone et Chaldée_, 167 f. ; Harper, 88f. King, _Supplement_, 38, dates from Aru of accession year. ] Twoothers date after 675 as the one on a stone slab from the south westpalace at Kalhu states that he took captive the king of Meluh, [Footnote: L. 19a. Winckler, KB. II. 150 f. Oppert, _Exped. _, I. 324; Menant, 240. ] and the other stone tablet gives him Egyptiantitles, [Footnote: I R. 48, 5; Winckler, KB. II. 150 f. ;Meissner-Rost, 204 ff. ; Menant, 249. ] so that they must be placedafter the capture of that country. We may also mention in conclusionthe one which gives the restoration of the Ishtar temple at Uruk[Footnote: 81-6-7, 209: Winckler, KB, II. 120 n. 1; Barton, _Proc. Amer. Or. Soc. _, 1891, cxxx. ] and the various ones foundat Ashur by the German excavators. [Footnote: KTA. 51-55; 75;MDOG. 20, 26 ff. ; 22, 12 f. ; 25, 33, 65; 26, 20 f. ; 26, 41ff. ; 28, 13, 49, 10 f. Weissbach, in Koldewey, _Die Tempel von Babylon_, 71. ]

CHAPTER VII

ASHUR BANI APAL AND ASSYRIAN EDITING

The reign of Ashur bani apal (668-626), stands preeminent for the massof material available, and this has twice been collected. [Footnote:G. Smith, _History of Assurbanipal_, 1871; S. A. Smith, _Keilschrifttexte Asurbanipals_, 1887 ff. ] Yet in spite of allthis, the greater number of the inscriptions for the reign are notbefore us in adequate form, and there are problems which only arenewed study of the originals can solve. 

Once again we have the usual Annals as our main source. Earlierscholars have in general satisfied themselves with the publication andstudy of the latest edition, sometimes supplemented by more or lessfull extracts from the others. There are reigns, such as that ofSennacherib, where such procedure results in comparatively littledistortion of the history. But in no reign is the distortion of theearlier statements more serious, indeed one can hardly recognize theearlier documents in their later and "corrected" form. Accordingly, inno reign is it more imperative that we should disentangle the varioussources and give the proper value to each. When we have discoveredwhich document is our earliest and most authentic source for any givenevent, we have already solved some of the most stubborn problems inthe history of the reign. The various conflicting accounts of theEgyptian campaigns, for example, have caused much trouble, but if werecognize that each is a step in the movement toward increasing thecredit the king should receive for them, and trust for our historyonly the first in date, we have at last placed the history of thereign on a firm basis. 

Our very earliest document furnishes a beautiful illustration of thisprinciple. It is a detailed narrative of the unimportant Kirbitexpedition, which is ascribed to the governor Nur ekalli umu. CylinderE gives a briefer account and Cylinder F one still shorter. Bothvaguely ascribe it to the "governors" but do not attempt to claim itfor the king. It remained for Cylinder B, a score of years later, totake the final step, and to inform us that the king in personconducted the expedition. Further, the formal conclusion, whichimmediately follows the Kirbit expedition in our earliest document, shows that this event, unimportant as it was, was the only one whichcould be claimed for the "beginning of the reign. " This campaign isfurther fixed by the Babylonian Chronicle to the accession year. Yetlater cylinders can place before it no less than two expeditionsagainst Egypt and one against Tyre! Our earliest document alone wouldbe enough to prove that these had been taken over from the reign ofhis father, even did we not have some of this verified by that fatherhimself. [Footnote: K. 2846; Winckler, AOF. I. 474 ff. ]

Next in date and therefore in value we are probably to place CylinderE, a decagon fragment, which contains a somewhat less full account ofthe Kirbit campaign, and a picturesque narrative of the opening ofdiplomatic relations with Lydia. Before these events, it placed anaccount of the Egyptian expedition. Although only a portion ispreserved, it is sufficient to show that the "first Egyptianexpedition" at least was credited to his father. [Footnote: G. Smith, 34f, 76 f. , 82f; K. 3083 is identical for a line each with Cyl. E andF. ]

A third account, which we may call F, gave credit for the earlier halfof the Egyptian campaigns to his father and for the latter half to hisown lieutenants. The references to Tabal and Arvad indicate that sometime had elapsed in which memorable events in his own reign could havetaken place, and this is confirmed by the much more developed form ofthe Lydian narrative, with its dream from Ashur to Gyges, and itsorder for servitude. That this account is of value as over against thelater ones has been recognized, [Footnote: Tiele, _Gesch_. 372. ]but we should not forget that it already represents a developed formof the tradition. [Footnote: K. 2675; III R. 28 f. ; G. Smith, 36 ff. , 56 ff. , 73 ff. , 80 ff. ; cf. 319 and S. A. Smith, II. 12 ff. , forending giving erection of moon temple at Harran, a proof that we havethe conclusion and so can date approximately; Winckler, _Untersuch. Z. Altor. Gesch. _, 102 ff. ; Jensen, KB. II. 236 ff. Afragmentary stone duplicate from Babylon, Delitzsch, MDOG. , XVII 2n. *] Somewhat later would seem to be the account we may call G. Herethe Egyptian wars are still counted as one expedition, but a secondhas been stolen for Ashur bani apal by taking over that campaign ofhis father against Baal of Tyre which is given in the Sinjirliinscription. [Footnote: K. 3402; G. Smith, 78. ]

With Cylinder B, we reach the first of what is practically a newseries, so greatly has the older narrative been "corrected" in theselater documents. Both the Egyptian wars have now been definitelyassigned to the king, and the making of two expeditions into Egypt haspushed the one against Baal of Tyre up to the position of third. Theoctagon B dates from the midst of the revolt of Shamash shum ukin andis a most highly "corrected" document. [Footnote: G. Smith, _passim;_ Jensen, KB. II. 240 ff. ; Menant, 278 ff. ; for theduplicate K. 1729 from which most of the B text is taken, cf. Johns, PSBA. XXVII. 97. ]

The story of the Shamash shum ukin revolt is continued by Cylinder C, a decagon, whose form points to the fact that it is a fulleredition. In general, its text holds an intermediate position between Aand B, the lists of Syrian and Cypriote kings, which are copiedverbatim from the Cylinder B of Esarhaddon, [Footnote: V. 13 ff. ]being found only in it. [Footnote: Rm. 3; G. Smith, 30 ff. , 178 ff. , cf. 15, 52, 151, 319; S. A. Smith, II. 25 ff. ; Menant, 277 f. Jensen, KB. II. 238 ff. , 266 ff. ] With C should in all probability be listedtwo decagons one of which is called Cylinder D. [Footnote: G. Smith, 317 f. K. 1794; III. R. 27a; S. A. Smith, II. 18, cf. G. Smith, 319. ]Then comes a document which we may call H, with several duplicates, and as the Ummanaldas episode is dealt with in fuller form than in A, it probably dates earlier. [Footnote: K. 2656; G. Smith, 215 ff. Arethe duplicates mentioned here to be found in K. 2833 and K. 3085, G. Smith, 205?] For the Tamaritu events, we have a group of tablets ofunknown connections. [Footnote: K. 1364; 3062; 2664; 3101; 2631;G. Smith, 243 ff. -Where we are to place the cylinder Rm. 281, dealingwith Urtaki's reign, Winckler, AOF. I. 478 n. 2, cannot be told untilit is published. ]

All the documents thus far considered are fuller and more accurate indealing with the events they narrate than is the group which has solong been considered the standard. The first known was Cylinder A, adecagon, whose lines divide the document into thirteen parts. It isdated the first of Nisan (March) in the eponymy of Shamash dananni, probably 644. [Footnote: G. Smith, _passim_, III R. 17 ff. RP¹, IX 37 ff. ; Menant, 253 ff. ] Earlier scholars made this the basis ofstudy, but it has since been supplanted by the so called Rassamcylinder, a slightly better preserved copy, found in the north palaceof Nineveh, and dated in Aru (May) of the same year. [Footnote:BM. 91, 026; Rm. 1; Photograph, Rogers, 555;_Hist_. Op. 444. V. R. 1-10; Abel-Winckler, 26 ff. ; Winckler, _Sammlung_, III; S. A. Smith, I. Jensen, KB. II. 152ff. J. M. P. Smith, in Harper, 94 ff. ; Lau & Langdon, _Annals ofAshurbanapal_, 1903. ] Still a third is dated in Ululu (September)of this year. [Footnote: G. Smith, 316. ]

That this document is by no means impeccable has long beenrecognized. Already George Smith had written "The contempt ofchronology in the Assyrian records is well shown by the fact that inCylinder A, the account of the revolt of Psammitichus is given underthe third expedition, while the general account of the rebellion of[Shamash shum ukin] is given under the sixth expedition, the affair ofNebobelzikri under the eighth expedition, and the Arabian and Syrianevents in connection are given under the ninth expedition. " [Footnote:_Ibid_. , 202 n. *] If this severe criticism is not justified by astudy of the Assyrian sources as a whole, the reference to Cylinder Amay well begin our consideration of the shortcomings of thatgroup. The Karbit and Urtaki episodes are entirely omitted. Theomission of Karbit has dropped the Manna from the fifth to fourth andthe omission of the latter has made the Teumman campaign the fifthinstead of the seventh as in B, while the Gambulu expedition is alsolisted in the fifth though B makes it the eighth! The death of Gygesis added immediately after the other Lydian narrative, without a hintthat years had intervened. The elaborate account of Teumman given by Bhas been cut decidedly and the interesting Ishtar dream is entirelyomitted. 

The same is true of the Gambulu narrative. While B and C have the dataas to the Elamite side of the revolt of Shamash shum ukin, theintroduction and conclusion as well as many new details are found onlyin A. It is curious to find here, for the first time, the greater partof the long list of conquered Egyptian kings, written down when Egyptwas forever freed from Assyrian rule. That Cylinder B was not itsimmediate source is shown by the fact that in the first Egyptianexpedition it gives the pardon of Necho, which is not in B, but isfound in the earlier F. 

Although this document has regularly been presented as the base text, largely because it gives a view of the greater part of the reign, enough should have been said in the preceding paragraph to prove howunworthy of the honor it is. Of all the cases where such procedure hascaused damage, this is the worst. For the years from which we have noother data, we must use it, and we may hope that, as this period wasnearer the time of its editors, its information may here be of morevalue. But we should recognize once and for all that the otherportions are worthless and worse than worthless, save as they indicatethe "corrections" to the actual history thought necessary by the royalscribes. 

Later than this in date, in all probability, is the document we maycall I. To be sure, the Arabian expedition already occurs in B, but Ihas also sections which appear only in A, and which therefore probablydate later. The one indication that points to its being later than Ais the fact that, while A ascribes these actions to his generals, ourdocument speaks of them in the first person. [Footnote: K. 2802;G. Smith, 290 ff. ] Still later are the Beltis [Footnote: II R. 66;G. Smith 303 ff. ; S. A. Smith, II. 10 ff. ; cf. I. 112; Jensen, KB. II. 264 ff. ; Menant, 291 ff. ] and Nabu inscriptions, [Footnote:S. A. Smith, I. 112 ff. ; III. 128 ff. ; Strong, RA. II. 20 ff. ] thoughas these are merely display inscriptions, the date matterslittle. Here too belongs J in spite of its references to theaccession. [Footnote: K. 2867; S. A. Smith, II. 1 ff. ; cf. Olmstead, _Bull. Amer. Geog. Soc. _, XLIV. 434. --The various British Museumfragments, cited in King, _Supplement_, seem to be of no specialimportance for this study as they are duplicates with few variants. ]And to this very late period, when the empire was falling to pieces, is to be placed the hymn to Marduk which speaks of Tugdami theCilician. [Footnote: S. A. Strong, JA. 1893, 1. 368 ff. ]

We have already crossed the boundary which divides the reallyhistorical narratives from those which are merely sources. Among thelatter, and of the more value as they open to us the sculptures, arethe frequent notes inscribed over them, [Footnote: Scattered throughthe work of G. Smith, cf. Also Menant, 287 ff. ] while a number oftablets give much new historical information from the similar noteswhich the scribe was to thus incise. [Footnote: K. 2674; III R. 37;G. Smith, 140 ff. ; S. A. Smith, III. 1 ff. K. 4457; G. Smith, 191ff. K. 3096; G. Smith, 295 ff. ] The Ishtar prayer is a historicdocument of the first class, the more so as its author never dreamedthat some day it might be used to prove that the king was notaccustomed, as his annals declare, to go forth at the head of hisarmies, that he was, in fact, destitute of even commonbravery. [Footnote: K. 2652; III R. 16, 4; G. Smith, 139 f. ;S. A. Smith, III. 11 ff. ; cf. Jensen, KB. II. 246 ff. Talbot, TSBA. I. 346 ff. ]

For the period after the reign of Ashur bani apal, we have only thescantiest data. The fall of the empire was imminent and there were noglories for the scribe to chronicle. Some bricks from the south eastpalace at Kalhu, [Footnote: I R. 8, 3; Winckler, KB. II. 268f; Menant, 295. ] some from Nippur, [Footnote: Hilprecht, ZA. IV. 164;_Explorations_, 310. ] and some boundary inscriptions [Footnote:K. 6223, 6332; Winckler, AOF. II. 4f; Johns. PSBA. XX. 234. ] are allthat we have from Ashur itil ilani and from Sin shar ishkun onlyfragments of a cylinder dealing with building. [Footnote: K. 1662 anddupl. I R. 8, 6; Schrader, _SB. Berl. Gesell. _ 1880, 1 ff. ;Winckler, _Rev. Assyr. _ II. 66 ff. ; KB. II. 270 ff. ;MDOG. XXXVIII. 28. ] We have no contemporaneous Assyrian sources forthe fall of the kingdom, our only certain knowledge being derived froma mutilated letter [Footnote: BM. 51082; Thompson, _Late BabylonianLetters_ 248. ] and from a brief statement of the Babylonian kingNabu naid a generation later. [Footnote: Messerschmidt, _Mitth. Vorderas. Gesell. _, 1896. I. ]

CHAPTER VIII

THE BABYLONIAN CHRONICLE AND BEROSSUS

This concludes our detailed study of the "histories" of the reignswhich were set forth with the official sanction. Before summing up ourconclusions as to their general character, it will be well to devote amoment to the consideration of certain other sources for the Assyrianperiod. Many minor inscriptions have been passed by without notice, and a mere mention of the mass of business documents, letters, andappeals to the sun god will here be sufficient, though in a detailedhistory their help will be constantly invoked to fill in the sketchsecured by the study of the official documents, and not infrequentlyto correct them. Of foreign sources, those of the Hebrews furnish toocomplicated a problem for study in this place, [Footnote:Cf. Olmstead, AJSL. XXX. Iff. ; XXXI, 169 ff. For introduction to thesenew problems. ] and the scanty documents of the other peoples who usedthe cuneiform characters hardly furnish source problems. 

Even the Babylonians have furnished us with hardly a text whichdemands source study. To the end, as is shown so conspiciously in thecase of Nebuchadnezzar, scores of long inscriptions could be devotedto the building activities of the ruler while a tiny fragment is allthat is found of the Annals. Even his rock cut inscriptions in Syria, those in the Wadi Brissa and at the Nahr el Kelb, are almostexclusively devoted to architectural operations in far away Babylon![Footnote: It may be noted that the Cornell Expedition securedsqueezes of both these inscriptions. ]

Yet if the Babylonians were so deficient in their appreciation of theneed of historical annals for the individual reigns, they seem to havebeen, the superiors of the Assyrians when it came to the production ofactual histories dealing with long periods of time. While theBabylonians have preserved to us numerous lists of kings and twoexcellent works which we have every reason to call actual histories, the Babylonian Chronicle and the Nabunaid-Cyrus Chronicle, theAssyrians have but the Eponym Lists, the so called Assyrian Chronicle, and the so called Synchronous History. The last has already beendiscussed, and we have seen how little it deserved the title of a realhistory, yet it marks the greatest advance the Assyrians made alongthis line. The Eponym lists are merely lists of the officials whodated each year in rotation, and they seem to have been compiled forpractical calendar purposes. The so called Assyrian Chronicle is inreality nothing but a chronological table in three columns, the firstwith the name of the eponym for the year, the second with his office, and the third with the most important event, generally a campaign, ofthe year. As a historical source, more can be made out of this drylist than has previously been suspected, and this has been pointed outelsewhere. [Footnote: Olmstead, _Jour. Amer. Or. 80c. _, XXXIV. 344 ff. ] But, as a contribution to the writing of history, itholds a distinctly low place. 

On the other hand, the Babylonian Chronicle is a real, if somewhatcrude history. In fact, it can be said without fear of contradictionthat it is the best historical production of any cuneiform people. Ourpresent copy is dated in the twenty second year of Darius I of Persia, 500 B. C. , but, as it was copied and revised from an earlier exemplar, which could not always be read, its original must be a good bitearlier. Only the first tablet has come down to us, but the mention ofthe first proves that a second existed. What we have covers the period745-668, a period of seventy-seven years. The second tablet wouldcover a period nearer the time of the writer and would naturally dealwith the events more in detail, so that a smaller number of yearswould be given on this tablet. If but two tablets were written, theend of the work would be brought down close to the time when theAssyrian Empire fell (608). It is a tempting conjecture, thoughnothing more, that it was the fall of Assyria and the interest in therelations between the now dominant Babylonia and its former mistress, excited by this event, which led to the composition of the work. Bethat as it may, the author is remarkably fair, with no apparentprejudice for or against any of the nations or persons named. Theevents chosen are naturally almost exclusively of a military orpolitical nature, but within these limits he seems to have chosenwisely. In general, he confines himself to those events which have animmediate bearing on Babylonian history, but at times, as, forexample, in his narration of the Egyptian expeditions, he shows arather surprising range of interest. If we miss the picturesquelanguage which adds so much to the literary value of the Assyrianroyal annals, this can hardly be counted an objection by a generationof historians which has so subordinated the art of historical writingto the scientific discovery of historical facts. In its sobriety ofpresentation and its coldly impartial statement of fact, it may almostbe called modern. [Footnote: Photograph, Rogers, 515, C. T. XXXIV 43ff. Abstract, Pinches, PSBA. VI. 198 ff. Winckler, ZA. II. 148 ff. ;Pinches, JRAS. XIX. 655 ff. Abel-Winckler, 47 f. Duplicates, Bezold, PSBA. 1889, 181; Delitzsch, _Lesestücke_, 137 ff. Schrader, KB. II. 274 ff. ; Delitzsch, _Bab. Chronik_; Rogers, 208 ff. ;Barta, in Harper, 200 ff. Sarsowsky, _KeilschriftlichesUrkundenbuch_, 49 ff. ; Mercer, _Extra Biblical Sources_, 65ff. ]

We know the name of our other Babylonian historian, and we also knowhis date, though unfortunately we do not know his work in itsentirety. This was Berossus, the Babylonian priest, who prepared aBabyloniaca which was dedicated to Antiochus I. When we remember thatit is this same Antiochus who is the only one of the Seleucidae tofurnish us with an inscription in cuneiform and to the honor of one ofthe old gods, [Footnote: Best in Weissbach, _AchämenidenInschriften_, 132 ff. , cf. Xxx for bibliography. ] it becomes clearthat this work was prepared at the time when fusion of Greek andBabylonian seemed most possible, and with the desire to acquaint theMacedonian conquerors with the deeds of their predecessors in the ruleof Babylonia. The book was characteristically Babylonian in that onlythe last of the three books into which it was divided, that beginningwith the time of Nabonassar, can be considered historical in thestrictest sense, and even of this only the merest fragments, abstracts, or traces, have come down to us. And the most important ofthese fragments have come down through a tradition almost withoutparallel. Today we must consult a modern Latin translation of anArmenian translation of the lost Greek original of the Chronicle ofEusebius, [Footnote: A, Schoene, "_Eusebii Chronicorum libriduo_, 1866 ff. ; cf. Rogers, _Parallels_, 347 ff. ; J. Karst, _Eusebius Werke_, V. ] who borrowed in part from AlexanderPolyhistor who borrowed from Berossus direct, in part from Abydenuswho apparently borrowed from Juba who borrowed from AlexanderPolyhistor and so from Berossus. To make a worse confusion, Eusebiushas in some cases not recognized the fact that Abydenus is only afeeble echo of Polyhistor, and has quoted the accounts of each side byside! And this is not the worst. Although his Polyhistor account is ingeneral to be preferred, Eusebius seems to have used a poor manuscriptof that author. Furthermore, there is at least one case, that of thename of one of Sennacharib's sons, which can be secured only byassuming a mistake in the Armenian alphabet. 

It is in Eusebius that we find our most useful information, some ofthe facts being very real additions to our knowledge. But Berossus wasalso used by the early Apollodorus Chronicle, some time after 144B. C. , from which some of his information may have drifted into otherchronological writings. Alexander Polyhistor was used by Josephus, andAbydenus by Cyrillus, Syncellus, and the Armenian historian, thepseudo Moses of Chorene. So in these too, or even in others not herenamed, may lurk stray trifles from the work of Berossus. Perhaps fromthis, or from a similar source, comes the Babylonian part of the listof Kings known as the Canon of Ptolemy, which begins, as does theBabylonian Chronicle, with the accession of Nabonassar. [Footnote: Themost convenient edition Wachsmuth, _Einleitung in das Studium deralten Geschichte_, 304 ff. ; cf. Rogers, 239. ] Though directly ofEgyptian origin, as is shown by the system of dating, it undoubtedlygoes back to a first class Babylonian source, as do the astronomicaldata in the Almagest of the same author, though here too the Egyptiancalendar is used. [Footnote: Cf. Olmstead, _Sargon_, 34 f. ]Summing up, practically all the authentic knowledge that the classicalworld has of the Assyrians and Babylonians came fromBerossus. [Footnote: Of the literature on Berossus, we may quote hereonly Müller, _Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum_, II. 495 ff. ; andthe various articles by Schwartz, on Abydenus, Alexandros 88, andBerossus, in the Pauly-Wissowa _Real-encyclopädie_. ] Herodotusmay furnish a bit and something may be secured from the fragments ofthe Assyriaca of Ctesias, but it is necessary to test each fact fromother sources before it can be accepted. 

And now what shall we say by way of summing up the Assyrian writing ofhistory? First of all, it was developed from the building inscriptionand not from the boast of the soldier. That this throws a new light onthe Assyrian character must be admitted, though here is not the placeto prove that the Assyrian was far more than a mere man of war. Allthrough the development of the Assyrian historiography, the buildingoperations play a large part, and they dominate some even of the socalled Annals. But once we have Annals, the other types ofinscriptions may generally be disregarded. The Annals inscriptions, then, represent the height of Assyrian historical writing. From theliterary point of view, they are often most striking with their boldsimiles, and that great care was devoted to their production canfrequently be proved. But in their utilization, two principles mustconstantly be kept in mind. One is that the typical annals inscriptionwent through a series of editions, that these later editions not onlyomitted important facts but "corrected" the earlier recitals for thegreater glory of the ruler, real or nominal, and that accordingly onlythe earliest edition in which an event is narrated should be at allused. Secondly, we should never forget that these are officialdocuments, and that if we can trust them in certain respects the morebecause they had better opportunities for securing the truth, all thegreater must be our suspicion that they have concealed the truth whenit was not to the advantage of the monarch glorified. Only when wehave applied these principles in detail to the various documents canwe be sure of our Assyrian history and only then shall we understandthe mental processes of the Assyrian historians. 

ABBREVIATIONS

Abel-Winckler:

 L. Abel, H. Winckler, Keilschrifttexte, 1890. 

AJSL

 American Journal of Semitic Languages. 

Amiaud-Scheil

 A. Amiaud, V. Scheil, Les inscriptions de Salmanassar II, 1890. 

AOF

 H. Winckler, Altorientalische Forschungen, 1893 ff. 

BM

 British Museum number; special collections are marked K. , S. , Rm. , DT. , or by the year, month, and day, as 81-2-3, 79. 

Budge

 E. A. W. Budge, History of Esarhaddon, 1880. 

Budge-King

 E. A. W. Budge, L. W. King, Annals of Kings of Assyria, I. 1902. 

G. Smith

 G. Smith, History of Assurbanipal, 1871. 

Harper

 R. F. Harper, Assyrian and Babylonian Literature, 1901. 

JA

 Journal Asiatique. 

JRAS

 Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. 

KB

 E. Schrader, Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek, 1889 ff. 

KTA

 L. Messerschmidt, Keilschrifttexte aus Assur, I. 1911. 

L

 A. H. Layard, Inscriptions in the Cuneiform Character, 1851. 

Le Gac

 Y. Le Gac, Les inscriptions d'Assur-nasir-apal III, 1907. 

MDOQ

 Mittheilungen der Deutschen Orient Gesellschaft. 

Menant

 Menant, Annales dee rois d'Assyrie, 1874. 

NR

 A. H. Layard, Nineveh and its Remains, 1851. 

OLZ

 Orientalistische Literaturzeitung. 

PSBA

 Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology. 

R

 H. C. Rawlinson, Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia, 1861 ff. 

Rasmussen

 N. Rasmussen, Salmanasser den IPs Indskriften. 

Rogers

 R. W. Rogers, Cuneiform Parallels to the Old Testament, 1912. 

Rost

 P. Rost, Keilschrifttexte Tiglat-Pilesers, 1893. 

RP

 Records of the Past, Ser. I. 1875 ff. ; Ser. II. 1889 ff. 

RT

 Recueil de Travaux. 

S. A. Smith

 S. A. Smith, Keilschrifttexte Asurbanipals, 1887 ff. 

Smith-Sayce

 G. Smith, A. H. Sayce, History of Sennacherib, 1878. 

TSBA

 Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archaeology. 

Ungnad

 A. Ungnad, in H. Gressmann, Altorientalische Texte, 1909. 

ZA

 Zeitschrift für Assyriologie.