initial commit of ebook 6559HEADmain

5 files changed, 2829 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/.gitattributes b/.gitattributes
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6833f05
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.gitattributes
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+* text=auto
+*.txt text
+*.md text
diff --git a/6559-8.txt b/6559-8.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..d60b59f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/6559-8.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,2813 @@
+Project Gutenberg's Assyrian Historiography, by Albert Ten Eyck Olmstead
+
+Copyright laws are changing all over the world. Be sure to check the
+copyright laws for your country before downloading or redistributing
+this or any other Project Gutenberg eBook.
+
+This header should be the first thing seen when viewing this Project
+Gutenberg file.  Please do not remove it.  Do not change or edit the
+header without written permission.
+
+Please read the "legal small print," and other information about the
+eBook and Project Gutenberg at the bottom of this file.  Included is
+important information about your specific rights and restrictions in
+how the file may be used.  You can also find out about how to make a
+donation to Project Gutenberg, and how to get involved.
+
+
+**Welcome To The World of Free Plain Vanilla Electronic Texts**
+
+**eBooks Readable By Both Humans and By Computers, Since 1971**
+
+*****These eBooks Were Prepared By Thousands of Volunteers!*****
+
+
+Title: Assyrian Historiography
+
+Author: Albert Ten Eyck Olmstead
+
+Release Date: September, 2004 [EBook #6559]
+[Yes, we are more than one year ahead of schedule]
+[This file was first posted on December 28, 2002]
+
+Edition: 10
+
+Language: English
+
+Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1
+
+*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ASSYRIAN HISTORIOGRAPHY ***
+
+
+
+
+Produced by Arno Peters, David Moynihan
+Charles Franks and the Online Distributed Proofing Team.
+
+
+
+
+
+ASSYRIAN HISTORIOGRAPHY
+A SOURCE STUDY
+
+
+
+
+THE
+UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI
+STUDIES
+
+SOCIAL SCIENCE SERIES
+VOLUME III NUMBER 1
+
+ASSYRIAN HISTORIOGRAPHY
+
+A Source Study
+By
+ALBERT TEN EYCK OLMSTEAD
+Associate Professor of Ancient History
+
+
+
+
+CONTENTS
+
+CHAPTER I
+Assyrian Historians and their Histories
+
+CHAPTER II
+The Beginnings of True History
+(Tiglath Pileser I)
+
+CHAPTER III
+The Development of Historical Writing
+(Ashur nasir apal and Shalmaneser III)
+
+CHAPTER IV
+Shamshi Adad and the Synchronistic History
+
+CHAPTER V
+Sargon and the Modern Historical Criticism
+
+CHAPTER VI
+Annals and Display Inscriptions
+(Sennacherib and Esarhaddon)
+
+CHAPTER VII
+Ashur bani apal and Assyrian Editing
+
+CHAPTER VIII
+The Babylonian Chronicle and Berossus
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER I
+
+ASSYRIAN HISTORIANS AND THEIR HISTORIES
+
+
+To the serious student of Assyrian history, it is obvious that we
+cannot write that history until we have adequately discussed the
+sources. We must learn what these are, in other words, we must begin
+with a bibliography of the various documents. Then we must divide them
+into their various classes, for different classes of inscriptions are
+of varying degrees of accuracy. Finally, we must study in detail for
+each reign the sources, discover which of the various documents or
+groups of documents are the most nearly contemporaneous with the
+events they narrate, and on these, and on these alone, base our
+history of the period.
+
+To the less narrowly technical reader, the development of the
+historical sense in one of the earlier culture peoples has an interest
+all its own. The historical writings of the Assyrians form one of the
+most important branches of their literature. Indeed, it may be claimed
+with much truth that it is the most characteristically Assyrian of
+them all. [Footnote: This study is a source investigation and not a
+bibliography. The only royal inscriptions studied in detail are those
+presenting source problems. Minor inscriptions of these rulers are
+accorded no more space than is absolutely necessary, and rulers who
+have not given us strictly historical inscriptions are generally
+passed in silence. The bibliographical notes are condensed as much as
+possible and make no pretense of completeness, though they will
+probably be found the most complete yet printed. Every possible care
+has been taken to make the references accurate, but the fact that many
+were consulted in the libraries of Cornell University, University of
+Chicago, Columbia University, and the University of Pennsylvania, and
+are thus inaccessible at the time when the work is passing through the
+press, leaves some possibility of error. Dr. B. B. Charles, Instructor
+in Semitics in the University of Pennsylvania, has kindly verified
+those where error has seemed at all likely.--For the English speaking
+reader, practically all the inscriptions for the earlier half of the
+history are found in Budge-Kjing, _Annals of the Kings of
+Assyria. 1_. For the remainder, Harper, _Assyrian and Babylonian
+Literature_, is adequate, though somewhat out of date. Rogers,
+_Cuneiform Parallels to the, Old Testament_, gives an up to date
+translation of those passages which throw light on the Biblical
+writings. Other works cited are generally of interest only to
+specialists and the most common are cited by abbreviations which will
+be found at the close of the study.]
+
+The Assyrians derived their historical writing, as they did so many
+other cultural elements, from the Babylonians. In that country, there
+had existed from the earliest times two types of historical
+inscriptions. The more common form developed from the desire of the
+kings to commemorate, not their deeds in war, but their building
+operations, and more especially the buildings erected in honor of the
+gods. Now and then we have an incidental reference to military
+activities, but rarely indeed do we find a document devoted primarily
+to the narration of warlike deeds. Side by side with these building
+inscriptions were to be found dry lists of kings, sometimes with the
+length of their reigns, but, save for an occasional legend, there seem
+to have been no detailed histories. It was from the former type that
+the earliest Assyrian inscriptions were derived. In actual fact, we
+have no right to call them historical in any sense of the word, even
+though they are our only sources for the few facts we know about this
+early period. A typical inscription of this type will have the form
+"Irishum the vice gerent of the god Ashur, the son of Ilushuma the
+vice gerent of the god Ashur, unto the god Ashur, his Lord, for his
+own life and for the life of his son has dedicated". Thus there was as
+yet little difference in form from their Babylonian models and the
+historical data were of the slightest. This type persisted until the
+latest days of the Assyrian empire in the inscriptions placed on the
+bricks, or, in slightly more developed form, in the inscriptions
+written on the slabs of stone used for the adornment of palace or
+temple. For these later periods, they rarely have a value other than
+for the architectural history, and so demand no further study in this
+place. Nevertheless, the architectural origin of the historical
+inscription should not be forgotten. Even to the end, it is a rare
+document which does not have as its conclusion a more or less full
+account of the building operations carried on by the monarch who
+erected it.
+
+It was not long until the inscriptions were incised on
+limestone. These slabs, giving more surface for the writing, easily
+induced the addition of other data, including naturally some account
+of the monarch's exploits in war. The typical inscription of this
+type, take, for example that of Adad nirari I, [Footnote: BM. 90,978;
+IV. R. 44 f.; G. Smith, _Assyr. Discoveries_, 1875, 242 ff.;
+Pognon, JA. 1884, 293 ff.; Peiser, KB. I. 4 ff.; Budge-King, 4 ff.;
+duplicate Scheil, RT. XV. 138 ff.; Jastrow, ZA. X. 35 ff.; AJSL. XII
+143 ff.] has a brief titulary, then a slightly longer sketch of the
+campaigns, but the greater portion by far is devoted to the narration
+of his buildings. This type also continued until the latest days of
+the empire, and, like the former, is of no value where we have the
+fuller documents.
+
+When the German excavations were begun at Ashur, the earliest capital
+of the Assyrian empire, it was hoped that the scanty data with which
+we were forced to content ourselves in writing the early history would
+soon be much amplified. In part, our expectations have been
+gratified. We now know the names of many new rulers and the number of
+new inscriptions has been enormously increased. But not a single
+annals inscription from this earlier period has been discovered, and
+it is now becoming clear that such documents are not to be
+expected. Only the so-called "Display" inscriptions, and those with
+the scantiest content, have been found, and it is not probable that
+any will be hereafter discovered.
+
+It was not until the end of the fourteenth century B. C. with the
+reign of Arik den ilu, that we have the appearance of actual
+annalistic inscriptions. That we are at the very beginning of
+annalistic writing is clear, even from the fragmentary remains. The
+work is in annals form, in so far as the events of the various years
+are separated by lines, but it is hardly more than a list of places
+captured and of booty taken, strung together by a few
+formulae. [Footnote: Scheil, OLZ. VII. 216. Now in the Morgan
+collection, Johns, _Cuneiform Inscriptions_, 33.]
+
+With this one exception, we do not have a strictly historical document
+nor do we have any source problem worthy of our study until the time
+of Tiglath Pileser I, about 1100 B.C. To be sure, we have a good
+plenty of inscriptions before this time, [Footnote: L. Messerschmidt,
+_Keilschrifttexte aus Assur_. I. Berlin 1911; _Mittheilungen
+der Deutschen Orient Gesellschaft_; cf, D. D. Luckenbill,
+AJSL. XXVIII. 153 ff.] and the problems they present are serious
+enough, but they are not of the sort that can be solved by source
+study. Accordingly, we shall begin our detailed study with the
+inscriptions from this reign. Then, after a gap in our knowledge,
+caused by the temporary decline of Assyrian power, we shall take up
+the many problems presented by the numerous inscriptions of Ashur
+nasir apal (885-860 B.C.) and of his son Shalmaneser III (860-825
+B.C.). In the case of the latter, especially, we shall see how a
+proper evaluation of the documents secures a proper appreciation of
+the events in the reign. With these we shall discuss their less
+important successors until the downfall of the dynasty. The revival of
+Assyrian power under Tiglath Pileser IV (745-728 B.C.) means a revival
+of history writing and our problems begin again. The Sargonidae, the
+most 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 embarrassing
+wealth of historical material, while the problems, especially as to
+priority of date and as to consequent authority, become most
+complicated.
+
+Before taking up a more detailed study of these questions, it is
+necessary to secure a general view of the situation we must face. The
+types of inscriptions, especially in the later days of the empire, are
+numerous. In addition to the brick and slab inscriptions, rarely of
+value in this later period, we have numerous examples on a larger
+scale of the so called "Display" inscriptions. They are usually on
+slabs of stone and are intended for architectural adornment. In some
+cases, we have clay tablets with the original drafts prepared for the
+workmen. Still others are on clay prisms or cylinders. These latter do
+not differ in form from many actual annals, but this likeness in form
+should not blind us to the fact that their text is radically different
+in character.
+
+All the display inscriptions are primarily of architectural character,
+whether intended to face the walls of the palace or to be deposited as
+a sort of corner stone under the gates or at the corners of the
+wall. We should not expect their value to be high, and indeed they are
+of but little worth when the corresponding annals on which they are
+based has been preserved. For example, we have four different
+recensions of a very long display inscription, as well as literally
+scores of minor ones, also of a display character, from the later
+years of Sargon. The minor inscriptions are merely more or less full
+abstracts of the greater and offer absolutely nothing new. The long
+display inscription might be equally well disregarded, had not the
+edition of the annals on which it is based come down to us in
+fragmentary condition. We may thus use the Display inscription to fill
+gaps in the Annals, but it has not the slightest authority when it
+disagrees with its original.
+
+It is true that for many reigns, even at a fairly late date, the
+display inscriptions are of great value. For the very important reign
+of Adad nirari (812-785 B.C.), it is our only recourse as the annals
+which we may postulate for such a period of development are totally
+lost. The deliberate destruction of the greater portion of the annals
+of Tiglath Pileser IV forces us to study the display documents in
+greater detail and the loss of all but a fragment of the annals of
+Esarhaddon makes for this period, too, a fuller discussion of the
+display inscriptions than would be otherwise necessary. In addition,
+we may note that there are a few inscriptions from other reigns, for
+example, the Nimrud inscription of Sargon, which are seemingly based
+on an earlier edition of the annals than that which has come down to
+us and which therefore do give us a few new facts.
+
+Since, then, it is necessary at times to use these display
+inscriptions, we must frankly recognize their inferior value. We must
+realize that their main purpose was not to give a connected history of
+the reign, but simply to list the various conquests for the greater
+glory of the monarch. Equally serious is it that they rarely have a
+chronological order. Instead, the survey generally follows a
+geographical sweep from east to west. That they are to be used with
+caution is obvious.
+
+Much more fortunate is our position when we have to deal with the
+annalistic inscriptions. We have here a regular chronology, and if
+errors, intentional or otherwise, can sometimes be found, the relative
+chronology at least is generally correct. The narrative is fuller and
+interesting details not found in other sources are often given. But it
+would be a great mistake to assume that the annals are always
+trustworthy. Earlier historians have too generally accepted their
+statements unless they had definite proof of inaccuracy. In the last
+few years, there has been discovered a mass of new material which we
+may use for the criticism of the Sargonide documents. Most valuable
+are the letters, sometimes from the king himself, more often from
+others to the monarch. Some are from the generals in the field, others
+from the governors in the provinces, still others from palace
+officials. All are of course absolutely authentic documents, and the
+light they throw upon the annals is interesting. To these we may add
+the prayers at the oracle of the sun god, coming from the reigns of
+Esarhaddon and Ashur bani apal, and they show us the break up of the
+empire as we never should have suspected from the grandiloquent
+accounts of the monarchs themselves. Even the business documents
+occasionally yield us a slight help toward criticism. Add to this the
+references in foreign sources such as Hebrew or Babylonian, and we
+hardly need internal study to convince us that the annals are far from
+reliable.
+
+Yet even internal evidence may be utilized. For example, when the king
+is said to have been the same year in two widely separated parts of
+the empire, warring with the natives, it is clear that in one of these
+the deeds of a general have been falsely ascribed to the king, and the
+suspicion is raised that he may have been at home in Assyria all the
+time. That there are many such false attributions to the king is
+proved by much other evidence, the letters from the generals in
+command to their ruler; an occasional reference to outside
+authorities, as when the editor of the book of Isaiah shows that the
+famous Ashdod expedition was actually led by the Turtanu or prime
+minister; or such a document as the dream of Ashur bani apal, which
+clearly shows that he was a frightened degenerate who had not the
+stamina to take his place in the field with the generals whose
+victories he usurped. Again, various versions differ among
+themselves. To what a degree this is true, only those who have made a
+detailed study of the documents can appreciate. Typical examples from
+Sargon'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 king
+Rusash by--the cold blooded Assyrian scribe,--has now been clearly
+proved false by a contemporaneous document emanating from Sargon
+himself. Another good illustration is found in the cool taking by
+Ashur bani apal of bit after bit of the last two Egyptian campaigns of
+his father until in the final edition there is nothing that he has not
+claimed for himself.
+
+The Assyrians, as their business documents show, could be exceedingly
+exact with numbers. But this exactness did not extend to their
+historical inscriptions. We could forgive them for giving us in round
+numbers the total of enemies slain or of booty carried off and even a
+slight exaggeration would be pardonable. But what shall we say as to
+the accuracy of numbers in our documents when one edition gives the
+total slain in a battle as 14,000, another as 20,500, the next as
+25,000, and the last as 29,000! Is it surprising that we begin to
+wonder whether the victory was only a victory on the clay tablet of
+the scribe? What shall we say when we find that the reviser has
+transformed a booty of 1,235 sheep in his original into a booty of
+100,225! This last procedure, the addition of a huge round number to
+the fairly small amount of the original, is a common trick of the
+Sargonide scribe, of which many examples may be detected by a
+comparison of Sargon's Display inscription with its original, the
+Annals. So when Sennacherib tells us that he took from little Judah no
+less than 200,150 prisoners, and that in spite of the fact that
+Jerusalem itself was not captured, we may deduct the 200,000 as a
+product of the exuberant fancy of the Assyrian scribe and accept the
+150 as somewhere near the actual number captured and carried off.
+
+This discussion has led to another problem, that of the relative order
+of the various annals editions. For that there were such various
+editions can be proved for nearly every reign. And in nearly every
+reign it has been the latest and worst edition which has regularly
+been taken by the modern historians as the basis for their
+studies. How prejudicial this may be to a correct view of the Assyrian
+history, the following pages will show. The procedure of the Assyrian
+scribe is regularly the same. As soon as the king had won his first
+important victory, the first edition of the annals was issued. With
+the next great victory, a new edition was made out. For the part
+covered by the earlier edition, an abbreviated form of this was
+incorporated. When the scribe reached the period not covered by the
+earlier document, he naturally wrote more fully, as it was more
+vividly in his mind and therefore seemed to him to have a greater
+importance. Now it would seem that all Assyriologists should have long
+ago recognized that _any one of these editions is of value only when
+it is the most nearly contemporaneous of all those preserved. When it
+is not so contemporaneous, it has absolutely no value when we do have
+the original from which it was derived._ Yet it still remains true
+that the most accessible editions of these annals are those which are
+the latest and poorest. Many of the earlier and more valuable editions
+have not been republished for many years, so that for our most
+contemporaneous sources we must often go to old books, long out of
+print and difficult to secure, while both translation and commentary
+are hopelessly behind the times. Particularly is this the case with
+the inscriptions of Sennacherib and Ashur bani apal. The greatest boon
+to the historian of Assyria would be an edition of the Assyrian
+historical inscriptions in which would be given, only those editions
+or portions of editions which may be considered as contemporaneous and
+of first class value. With such a collection before him, notable as
+much for what it excluded as for what was included, many of the most
+stubborn problems in Assyrian history would cease to be problems.
+
+The historian of Assyria must test his sources before he can use them
+in his history. To do this, he must first of all be able to
+distinguish the primary sources which will reward future study from
+those which are secondary and are based on other and more contemporary
+documents which even now are actually in our possession. When these
+latter are cast aside as of no practical value, save perhaps as they
+show the peculiar mental operations of the Assyrian editor, we are
+then ready to test the remainder by the various methods known to the
+historian. The second part of this task must be worked out by the
+historian when he studies the actual history in detail. It is the
+discovery of what are the primary sources for the various reigns and
+of the value of the contributions which they make to Assyrian history
+that is to be the subject of the more detailed discussion in the
+following chapters.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER II
+
+THE BEGINNINGS OF TRUE HISTORY
+
+(Tiglath Pileser I)
+
+
+We shall begin, then, our detailed study of the sources for Assyrian
+history with the data for the reign of Tiglath Pileser I (circa 1100
+B.C.). Taking up first the Annals, we find that the annalistic
+documents from the reign may be divided into two general groups. One,
+the Annals proper, is the so called Cylinder, in reality written on a
+number of hexagonal prisms. [Footnote: Photographs of B and A,
+Budge-King, xliii; xlvii; of the Ashur fragments, of at least five
+prisms, Andrä, _Anu-Adad Tempel_, Pl. xiii ff. I R. 9 ff.;
+Winckler, _Sammlung_, I. 1 ff.; Budge-King, 27 ff., with variants
+and 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 Chaldée
+et d'Assyrie, 1865, 44f; Menant, 35 ff.; Rawlinson, Rp1, V. 7
+ff. 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 self
+praise of the ruler himself. Then follow the campaigns, not numbered
+as in the more developed style of later rulers, but separated into six
+sections, for the six years whose events are narrated, by brief
+glorifications of the monarch. Next we have the various hunting
+exploits of the king, and the document ends with an elaborate account
+of the building operations and with threats against the later ruler
+who should destroy the inscription or refuse credit to the king in
+whose honor it was made.
+
+No relationship has been made out between the fragments, but the
+four-fairly complete prisms fall into two groups, A and C, B and D, as
+regards both the form of writing and the character of the text. All
+date seemingly from the same month of the same year, though from
+separate days. The most fragmentary of these, D, seems the best, as it
+has the smallest number of unique readings and has also the largest
+number of omissions, [Footnote: II. 21b-23a; III. 37b-39a; IV. 36.]
+all of which are clearly interpolations in the places where they are
+given. This is especially true of the one [Footnote: IV. 36.] which
+refers to the Anu-Adad and Ishtar temples, for not only is the
+insertion awkward, we know from the Obelisk [Footnote: II. 13.] that
+the Anu-Adad temple was not completed till year five, so that it must
+be an interpolation of that date. In spite of its general resemblance
+to D, especially in its omissions, B is very poorly written and has
+over two hundred unique readings. One of its omissions would seriously
+disarrange the chronology, [Footnote: IV. 40-42.] others are clearly
+unwarranted, [Footnote: II. 79081; V.4; VIII. 29b-33.] and one long
+addition [Footnote: VII. 17-27; also I. 35; different in VI. 37.]
+further marks its peculiar character. Our conclusion must be that it
+is a poor copy of a good original. C is between A and B, agreeing with
+the latter in a strange interpolation [Footnote: III. 2a-c.] and in
+the 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 our
+standard as it has but few unique readings and but one improbable
+omission. [Footnote: VII. 105-8.] The same account, in slightly
+different form and seemingly later in date [Footnote: K.2815 is dated
+in the eponomy of Ninib nadin apal, the LAH MA GAL E official. He
+probably is after the rab bi lul official in whose year the hexagons
+are 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 so
+called Broken Obelisk. Of documents coming directly from Tiglath
+Pileser himself, the only one that can with any probability be
+assigned to this is the tiny fragment which refers to the capture of
+Babylon. [Footnote: K. 10042; Winckler, AOF. I. 387.] But that such a
+group did exist is proved by the extracts from it in the obelisk
+prepared 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. 9
+ff.; Oppert, _Hist._, 132 ff.; Hommel, _Gesch._, 532 ff.;
+Menant, 49 ff. Proved to Tiglath Pileser, Lotz, _op. cit._, 193
+f.; cf. Budge-King, 131 n. 4, though Streck, ZA. XVIII. 187 ff., still
+believes that it belongs to an earlier king. Found at Nineveh, though
+it deals with Ashur constructions.] Only the upper portion, probably
+less than half to judge by the proportions, is preserved, and even
+this is terribly mutilated. Fortunately, the parts best preserved are
+those relating to the years not dealt with in the Annals. The first
+half of the document is devoted to the campaigns of Tiglath Pileser,
+then come his hunting exploits, and only a bit at the end is reserved
+for the building operations of the unknown ruler under whom it was
+erected. Its source seems to have had the same relation to the
+earliest form of the Annals that the Obelisk of Shalmaneser III had to
+the Monolith, that is, it gave the data for the earlier part of the
+reign, that covered by the other source, very briefly, only expanding
+as it reached a period where the facts were not represented by any
+other document. That our earlier Annals, or perhaps rather, one of its
+sources, was a main source of our second type, is proved by the
+coincidences in language in the two, in one case no less than twenty
+signs the same, [Footnote: In year V we have _ishtu...adi alu
+Kargamish sha matu Hatte...isu elippe pl mashku tahshe_.] not to
+speak of the hunting expeditions. But this earlier Annals was not the
+only, or at least not the direct source for the Obelisk, nor was that
+source 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, one
+thousand men of land of...; II. 2, four thousand of them carried
+prisoner to Assyria, the position of which shows that it cannot, with
+Budge-King, 132 n., be referred to Ann. III. 2, the Kashi; II. 12, the
+Mushki (?); II. 13, temple of Ami and Adad. These all precede the
+Carchemish episode.] while our document also, for the first time in
+Assyrian historical inscriptions, dates the events by the name of the
+eponym for the year, and, still more unusual, by the month as
+well. That the Obelisk may be considered merely a resume of this
+original source is shown by the statement that he conquered other
+lands and made many wars, 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 that
+preceded is taken from that source. Furthermore, we are given the
+other hunting exploits "which my [father] did not record." [Footnote:
+Obl. IV. 33.] The numbers of beasts killed, which the scribe intended
+especially to emphasize, have never, curiously enough, been inscribed
+in the blanks left for their insertion. [Footnote: E.g., Obl. IV. 4.]
+
+Opposed to the Annals proper are the Display inscriptions in which
+chronological considerations and details as to the campaigns are
+subordinated to the desire to give a general view of the monarch's
+might. Two have been found in foreign lands, one at the source of the
+Tigris, [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 the
+Arvad expedition as shown by reference to Great Sea of Amurru, and of
+same date as Melazgerd inscription, Belck, _Verh. Berl_.] the
+other near Melazgerd in Armenia. [Footnote: From Gonjalu, near
+Melazgerd, Belck-Lehmann, _Verh. Berl. Anthr. Ges._ 1898,
+574. Photograph, Lehmann, _Sitzungsber. Berl. Akad._, 1900,
+627. Is this one of the "cuneiform inscriptions near Moosh" reported
+to Taylor, _Athenaeum_, 1863, I. 229?] Drafts for similar
+inscriptions have been found on clay tablets, written for the use of
+the workmen who were to incise them on stone. Of these, one, which is
+virtually complete as regards number of lines, seems to date from year
+four 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 of
+these as parts of one tablet in chronological order will not stand in
+view of the fact that I is complete in itself while there are
+variations in the order of Nairi and totally different endings.] It
+would then be our earliest extant source. It is also of value in
+dating the erection of the palace whose mention shows that the tablet
+is complete. That the compiler had before him the document used by the
+Annals in its account of the Nairi campaign [Footnote: Ann. IV. 71 ff.]
+is proved by his writing "from Tumme to Daiene" for these are the
+first and last names in the well known list of Nairi states. The order
+of the tablet is neither chronological nor geographical. Another
+tablet dates from year five to which most of its data belong. In the
+first half, it follows the order of Tablet I, and in the remainder
+follows closely the words of its source in the Annals, merely
+abbreviating. [Footnote: K. 2806 with K. 2804, Tabl. II of
+Budge-King, 116 ff.] Possibly in its present form, it may be later than
+year five [Footnote: The badly damaged reverse of K. 2806 has one
+reference to the Euphrates which _may_ be connected with
+Obl. III. 24, probably of year IX.] for a third tablet of year ten
+duplicates this first part. [Footnote: K. 2804, Tabl. V of
+Budge-King, 125 f.] Unfortunately, this latter gives next to no
+historical data, but its reference to the "Lower Zab" and to the
+"Temple of Ishtar" may perhaps allow us to date to this same tenth
+year the highly important tablet which gives a full account of the
+campaign in Kirhi and Lulume and which also ends with the restoration
+of the Ishtar temple. [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 placed
+the fragment with the Arvad episode. [Footnote: Scheil,
+RT. XXII. 157. Restorations, Streck, ZA. XVIII. 186 n. 2. First
+attributed 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. A
+few bricks and other minor inscriptions give us the names of the
+rulers and possibly a bit of other information, but there is not a
+single inscription which is important enough to furnish source
+problems. It is not until we reach the reign of Tukulti Ninib
+(890-885) that we again have an Annals [Footnote: Scheil, _Annales
+de Tukulti Ninip_ II, 1909; cf. Winckler, OLZ. XIII. 112 ff.] and
+not until the reign of his son Ashur nasir apal (885-860) that we have
+problems of the sources.
+
+The problem of the sources for the reign of Ashur nasir apal may be
+approached from a somewhat different angle than we took for those of
+Tiglath Pileser. Here we have a single document, the so called Annals,
+which gives practically all the known data of the reign. Earlier
+writers on the history of Assyria have therefore generally contented
+themselves with references to this one document, with, at most, an
+occasional reference to the others. This should not blind us, however,
+to the fact that the problem of the sources is by no means as simple
+as this. Indeed, for far the greater portion of the events given in
+the Annals, we have earlier and better sources. We may therefore best
+attack the problem as to the sources of the reign by working out the
+sources 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, _Annalen
+Asurnazirpals_, 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 as
+curious that it consists of a hymn to Ninib, at the entrance to whose
+temple these slabs were placed, and not of a general invocation to the
+gods, beginning with Ashur, such as we are accustomed to find in other
+annalistic inscriptions. Further, we have other slabs in which this
+Ninib 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 lion
+BM. 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 original
+introduction. This is still further confirmed by the fact that we do
+find such a required invocation in the beginning of the Monolith
+inscription. Clearly, this is the original invocation. The second
+section of the Annals begins with the praise of the monarch, and here
+too begins the parallelism with the Monolith. The last events
+mentioned in the Monolith date from 880 and it is thus far earlier
+than our present edition of the Annals, which contains events from so
+late a date as 867. To this extent, then, the Monolith is a better
+document. It was not, however, the direct source of the Annals, as is
+shown by certain cases where the latter has preserved the better
+readings of proper names. Indeed, we should not over rate the
+Monolith, for it too is a compilation like its younger sister, and is
+by no means free from obvious mistakes, though in general better than
+the Annals. [Footnote: BM. 847. Photograph, Budge-King, lxix; Paterson,
+_Assyr. Sculptures,_ 64. I R. 27; Budge-King, 242 ff.; cf. 254
+ff.; 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 some
+portions of this earlier section, we have also separate slabs with
+small portions of the text, [Footnote: BM. 90830, cf. Budge-King, 255
+n.; L. 48 f.] and these regularly agree with the Monolith as against
+the Annals. [Footnote: I. 57, transposition; I. 69, the significant
+omission of _shadu;_ and a large number of cases where they agree
+in spelling as against the Annals.]
+
+For the last of these years, 880, we have also the inscription from
+Kirkh, [Footnote: III R. 6; Budge-King, 222 ff.; Le Gac, 137
+ff. Peiser, KB. I. 92 ff.] which contains data for this year alone,
+and ends abruptly with the return from Nairi. This might be expected
+from its location at Tushhan, on the border of that country, and we
+are therefore warranted in assuming that it was set up here
+immediately after the return from the campaign and that in it we have
+a strictly contemporaneous document. Judged by this, the Annals, and
+even the Monolith, do not rank very high. Important sections are
+omitted by each, in fact, they seem to agree in these omissions,
+though in general they agree fairly closely with the account set up in
+the border city. It would seem as if the official narrative of the
+campaign had been prepared at Kirkh, immediately after its close, by
+the scribes who followed the army. [Footnote: Cf. Johns,
+_Assyr. Deeds and Documents_, II. 168.] One copy of this became
+the basis of the Kirkh inscription while another was made at Kalhu and
+it was from this that the Monolith and Annals are derived. [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 of
+the others in II. 111, and 200 for 2000 in II. 115; proper names such
+as Tushha for Tushhan show nearness of Mon. to Kir., but the likeness
+can hardly be considered striking.] From this, too, must have been
+derived the slab which gives a fourth witness for this
+section. [Footnote: L. 48 f.]
+
+With this year, 880, the Monolith fails us. But even if we had no
+other document, the Annals itself would show us that the year 880 was
+an important one in the development of our sources. At the end of the
+account for this year, we have a closing paragraph, taken bodily from
+the Ninib inscription, which may thus be assigned to 880. This is
+further confirmed by the manner in which, this passage in the Annals
+abstracts the last lines of the Monolith, [Footnote: Ann. II. 125-135a
+is the same as the Ninib inscription l-23a (BM. 30; Budge-King, 209
+ff.), and this in turn is merely a resume of the close of the
+Monolith.] which is repeated almost in its entirety at the close of
+the Annals itself. The column thus ends a separate document, whose
+last line, giving a list of temples erected, seems to go back to one
+recension of the Standard inscription, which in its turn goes back to
+the various separate building inscriptions.
+
+That the Annals itself existed in several recensions is indicated by
+the fact that, while there are no less than at least seventeen
+different duplicates of Column I, [Footnote: Le Gac, _Introd._]
+there are but seven of II and five of III; that there is one of II
+only [Footnote: Le Gac, iii.] and one of III; [Footnote: Ibid. 126 f.]
+and that there is still another, in at least three exemplars, in which
+parts of the Standard and Altar inscriptions are interpolated between
+the Ninib invocation and the main inscription. [Footnote: Ibid, ii;
+123 f. (B).]
+
+The year 880 marks also the removal of the capital from Nineveh to
+Kalhu, [Footnote: First mentioned as starting point of an expedition
+in 879, Ann. III. 1.] which indicates that to this year we are to
+attribute the majority of the building inscriptions. But, as they are
+all more or less identical with the closing section of the Annals, we
+may best discuss them in that place. Continuing with the Annals, we
+now reach a section where it is the only source. And just here the
+Annals is lacking in its most essential feature, an exact chronology,
+no doubt because the dated year was not given in the source, though
+the months are carefully noted! In the last of the years given in this
+section, probably 876, we are to place the various bull and lion
+inscriptions, which in general agree with this portion of the
+Annals. [Footnote: Bulls 76, 77; Lions 809, 841. Budge-King, 189
+ff. Le Gac, 181 ff. Made up of brief attribution to king, then regular
+building text, then duplicates of Ann. III. 84 ff.] One of these bull
+inscriptions, as well as the text of the great altar, adds a good bit
+in regard to the hunting expeditions, which may be dated, so far as
+they 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. 69
+f.; 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 temple
+to that deity at Imgur Bel, as is shown by the specific reference to a
+campaign to the Lebanon for the purpose of securing cedar. The years
+875-868 seem to have been years of peace, for the only reference we
+can attribute to them is an expedition to the Mehri land for beams to
+erect a temple at Nineveh [Footnote: Ann. III. 91 f.]  and so to this
+period we must assign the Ishtar bowl inscriptions.  [Footnote: III
+R. 3, 10; Budge-King, 158 ff.; S. A. Strong, RP², II. 95.] Finally, we
+have the campaign of 867, the last fixed date in the reign of Ashur
+nasir apal, and the reason for compiling the latest edition of the
+Annals. For this year, and for this alone, this latest edition has the
+value of a strictly contemporaneous document.  [Footnote: Ann. III. 92
+ff.]
+
+The last section of the Annals consists of the building account, found
+also in nearly all the other inscriptions, though naturally here it is
+in the form it last assumed. It may be seen in greater or less fulness
+in the so called Standard Inscription, [Footnote: L. 1 ff.; Schrader,
+_Inschrift Asur-nasir-abals_; Talbot, _Proc. Soc. Antiquaries
+of Scotland_, VI. 198 ff.; Meissner, _Chestomathie_, 7 f.;
+Abel-Winckler, 6. RP¹, VII. 11 ff.; Ward, _Proc. Amer. Oriental
+Soc._, X. xcix; Budge-King, 212 ff.; Le Gac, 153 ff. The number of
+slabs containing this inscription which may be found in the various
+Museums of Europe and America is simply amazing. No full collection or
+collation of these has ever been made. Many are still exposed to the
+destructive effects of the atmosphere at Nimrud and are rapidly being
+ruined. Squeezes of these were taken by the Cornell Expedition. Others
+at Ashur, MDOG., xxi. 52; KTA. 25. Several are in the newly opened
+section of the Constantinople Museum, cf. Bezold,
+_Ztf. f. Keilschriftforschung_, I. 269. An unknown number is in
+the British Museum, and were utilized by Budge-King, 1. c. Streck,
+ZA. XIX. 258, lists those published from European Museums. These are
+Edinburgh, 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. The
+majority have been listed by Ward, _op. cit._, xxxv, and Merrill,
+_ibid._ xci. ff.; cf. _Bibliotheca Sacra_, xxxii. 320
+ff. Twelve in the possession of the New York Historical Society have
+not been on exhibition since the society moved into its new quarters,
+and are completely inaccessible, the statements in the guide books to
+the contrary notwithstanding. The Andover slab is published by
+Merrill, _op. cit._ lxxiii, and the one from Amherst by Ward,
+_l. c._ These were presented by Rawelinson and Layard to
+missionaries, and by them to the institutions named, as were the
+following: Yale University; Union College, Schenectady; Williams
+College; Dartmouth College; Middlebury College; Bowdoin College;
+Auburn (N. Y.) Theological Seminary; Connecticut Historical society at
+Hartford; Meriden (Conn.) Public Library; Theological Seminary of
+Virginia; Mercantile Library of St. Louis. An inscribed relief to
+which my attention has been called by Professor Allan Marquand, has
+been presented by Mr. Garrett to Princeton University. Three similar
+slabs, loaned by the late Mr. J. P. Morgan, are in the Metropolitan
+Museum in New York City.--In this place we may also note the brick
+inscriptions in America, listed by Merrill, _l. c._, as well as
+the statute inscription, III R. 4, 8; Menant, 65; Schrader,
+_Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_,² 184.] the short
+account so monotonously repeated on the slabs at Kalhu and so familiar
+to all who have visited any Museum where Assyrian antiquities are
+preserved. There seem to be two recensions, a longer and a shorter,
+[Footnote: Le Gac, xvii.] and some, to judge from the variations in
+the references, are much later than 880. The same inscription
+essentially is also found as the ending of the Ishtar, Mahir, Calah
+Palace, [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 without
+value in fixing the relative dates of the various recensions. For
+example, some of the Standard inscriptions, as well as the Ishtar and
+Mahir ones, insert a reference to "Mount Lebanon and the Great Sea"
+which would place them after 876, and this is confirmed by the
+reference to Liburna of Patina which occurs in the Annals and the
+Calah wall inscription. Of course, this gives only the upper limit,
+for it would be dangerous to suggest a lower one in the case of
+documents which copy so servilely. Some of the Standard inscriptions,
+as well as the Bulls, have a reference to Urartu, of great importance
+as the first in any literature to the country which was soon to become
+the worthy rival of Assyria. Absence of such reference in the regular
+Annals is pretty conclusive evidence that there were no warlike
+relations, so that these too are to be dated after 876. With this is
+to be compared the addition telling of the conquest of Nairi, found in
+the Ishtar, Mahir, and Calah Palace inscriptions, and which would seem
+to refer to the same period. The Suhi, Laqe, and Sirqu reference,
+through its omission in the Monolith, is also of value as adding proof
+that 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 reign
+of his son Shalmaneser III (860-825). Aside from a few minor
+inscriptions, our main source is again the official account which has
+come down to us in several recensions of different date. The process
+by which these recensions were made is always the same. The next
+earlier edition was taken as a basis, and from this were extracted,
+generally in the exact words of the original, such facts as seemed of
+value to the compiler. When the end of this original was reached, and
+it was necessary for the editor to construct his own narrative, the
+recital becomes fuller, and, needless to say, becomes also a better
+source. If, then, we have the original from which the earliest portion
+of a certain document was copied or abstracted, we must entirely cast
+aside the copy in favor of the contemporary writing. This would appear
+self evident, but failure to observe this distinction has led to more
+than one error in the history of the reign. [Footnote: The majority of
+the inscriptions for the reign were first given in Layard,
+_Inscriptions_, and in the Rawlinson publication, cf. for first
+working over, Rawlinson, JRAS. OS. XII. 431 ff. The edition of
+Amiaud-Scheil, _Les inscriptions de Salmanasar_ II, 1890, though
+without cuneiform text, is still valuable on account of its
+arrangement by years, as well as of its full notes, cf. also
+Winckler-Peiser, KB. I. 128 ff. The one edition which is up to date is
+N. Rasmussen, _Salmanasser den II's Indschriften_, 1907, though
+the same may be said of the selections in Rogers, 293 ff.]
+
+Each of these editions ends with the account of some important
+campaign, the need of writing up which was the reason for the
+collection of the events of previous years which were not in
+themselves worthy of special commemoration. The first of these is the
+one which ends with the famous battle of Qarqara in 854. This has come
+down to us in a monumental copy which was set up at Kirkh, the ancient
+Tushhan, 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 no
+further than this, for it is strictly contemporaneous with the events
+it describes. No actual errors can be pointed out in it, a seeming
+distortion of the chronology being due simply to the desire of the
+scribe to indicate the unity of two campaigns, carried out in
+different years, but against the same country. [Footnote: II. 66.] How
+moderate are its numbers is shown by comparing its 14,000 killed at
+Qarqara with the 20,500 of the Obelisk, the 25,000 of the Bulls, and
+the 29,000 of the recently discovered statue from Ashur. As we shall
+see below, it is correct in giving no campaign for 855, though the
+Bulls inscription, written a generation later, has not hesitated to
+fill the gap. This is the only edition which seems to be entirely
+original and a comparison with those which are in large part
+compilations is favorable to it in every way. In fact, the oft
+repeated reproach as to the catalogue nature of the Shalmaneser
+writings, is due to the taking of the Obelisk as a fair sample,
+whereas it stands at the other extreme, that of a document almost
+entirely made up by abridgement of other documents, and so can hardly
+be expected to retain much of the literary flavor of its
+originals. The Monolith, on the other hand, free from the necessity of
+abridging, will hold its own in literary value with the other
+historical writings of the Assyrians.
+
+The next edition was prepared in 851, at the conclusion of the
+Babylonian expedition. The document as a whole is lost, but we have
+excerpts in the Balawat inscription. [Footnote: Pinches, PSBA. VII. 89
+ff.; _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 are
+very brief, but fortunately this is of no importance as we have their
+originals in the Monolith. No mention is made of the years following
+until 852-851 which are described so fully that we may believe we have
+here the actual words of the document. It is interesting to notice
+that there is no particular connection between the reliefs on the
+famous bronzes [Footnote: Pinches, _Bronze Ornaments_, a
+magnificent publication. A cheaper edition of the reliefs, with
+valuable analysis of and comments on the sculptures, Billerbeck;
+_Beitr. z. Assyr._ VI. 1 ff. Additional reliefs owned by
+G. Schlumberger, Lenormant, _Gazette Arch._, 1878 p1. 22 ff. and
+p. 119 ff. Still others, de Clerq, _Catalogue_, II 183 ff.,
+quoted Billerbeck, 2. I have not yet seen King, _Bronze Reliefs from
+the Gates of Shalmaneser_, 1915.] and the inscription which
+accompanies them. The latter ends in 851, the pictures go on to
+849. The more conspicious pictures were brought up to date, but, for
+the inscription which few would read, a few extracts, borrowed from
+the edition of two years previous, sufficed. Incidentally, it shows us
+that no new edition had been made in those two years. For the years
+before 853, the practical loss of this edition need trouble us little
+as it seems merely to have copied the original of the Monolith. That
+it might have had some slight value in restoring the text of that lost
+original seems indicated by a hint of a fuller text in one place
+[Footnote: II.6 f.] and a more moderate number of enemies slaughtered
+in another. [Footnote: Balawat kills but 300 while Monolith slaughters
+3400.] For the events of 853, as given in this edition, we have only
+the 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 third
+edition, extracts from which are given in the inscriptions on the
+Bulls. [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 with
+the year 850 is shown by the use of a new system of dating, by the
+king's year and the number of the Euphrates crossing. Comparison with
+passages preserved in the Balawat extracts shows that the work of
+excerpting has been badly done by the editor of the third edition. The
+capture of Lahiru is placed in the wrong year, [Footnote: Bull 79;
+cf. Balawat IV. 6.] the graphical error of Ukani for Amukkani shows it
+derived from the Balawat edition, while variations between the two
+copies of the bull inscription indicate that we cannot be sure of the
+exact words of the original. [Footnote: Variants in Amiaud-Scheil,
+_passim_. The most striking is the different text with which they
+end, of. Amiaud-Scheil, 58 n. 1.] And we can also point to deliberate
+falsification in the insertion of an expedition to Kashiari against
+Anhitti of Shupria, when the older edition, the Monolith, knew of no
+expedition for the year 855. It has already been shown elsewhere that
+this is closely connected with the attempt of the turtanu (prime
+minister) Dan Ashur to date his accession to power to 856 instead of
+854, and to hide the fact of the palace revolution which seems to have
+marked the year 855. [Footnote: Cf. below under the Obelisk, and, for
+fuller discussion, Olmstead, _Jour. Amer. Or. Soc._ XXXIV. 346
+f.]
+
+From various hints, it is possible to prove that a fourth edition was
+prepared in 837, the end of the wars with Tabal. The most striking
+evidence for this is the fact that, after this year, the Obelisk
+suddenly becomes much fuller, a clear proof that the author knew that
+he 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 lost
+edition of 837. But we are not confined to this. One actual fragment
+of this edition is the fragment which deals with the events of 842 and
+is so well known because of its reference to Jehu. [Footnote: III
+R. 5, 6; Rasmussen, XXI; 56; Delitzsch, _Assyr. Lesestücke_, 51f
+Amiaud-Scheil, 58; Winckler, KB. I. 140; Ungnad, I. 112; Rogers, 303
+f.] The first half of this is also intercalated after the introduction
+to one of the Bull inscriptions, and before year four, thus showing
+that it was inserted to bring the edition of 845 up to
+date. [Footnote: L. 12f; Rasmussen, XIX; 53.] Based on this edition,
+though only in very brief abstract, seems also the so called throne
+inscription from Ashur, whose references to Damascus, Que, Tabal, and
+Melidi form a group which can best be correlated with the events of
+the 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 on
+a royal statute gives selections from the events of the reign, up to
+835, 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 be
+found in the two fragments of clay tablets which are not, like all the
+preceding, epigraphical copies of the originals, but form part of the
+original itself. [Footnote: Boissier, RT. XXV. 82 ff.] These two bits
+are written in the cursive style, and, though their discoverer
+believed them to belong to separate documents, the fact that one so
+closely supplements the other, and that they have the same common
+relation to the other editions, justifies us in assuming that they
+really do belong together. At first sight, it might be argued that
+they are to be restored from the text of the Obelisk, with which they
+often agree verbally. Closer inspection shows, however, that they
+contain matter which is not found in that monument, and that therefore
+they belong to an earlier and fuller edition, yet the resemblance to
+the Obelisk is so close that they cannot be much earlier. On the other
+hand, the Bulls inscription can be compared for the events of 854-852
+and this has all that our tablets have, plus a good bit more. They
+therefore belong between these two editions, and the only time we can
+place them is 837. Since the clay tablets so fully abstract the Bulls
+inscription wherever the latter is available for comparison, we may
+assume that in 857-855 they give the minimum of that inscription. Thus
+we have the editions of 845, of 837, and of 829, in a common line of
+descent. Although for 857-856, there are numerous verbal coincidences
+with the Balawat excerpts, it must be noted that not all the plus of
+our tablets appears in that document, and we can only assume a common
+source, a conclusion which well agrees with our characterization of
+the Balawat inscription as a series of mere extracts. That this common
+source was also the source of the Monolith seems proved by a certain
+similarity of phraseology as well as by the reference to Tiglath
+Pileser in connection with Pitru, but this similarity is not great
+enough fully to restore our plus passages. Unfortunately for the
+student of history, our tablets do not add any new facts, for, in the
+parts preserved, we already had the earlier representatives of the
+original sources from which the edition was derived. It does, however,
+throw a most interesting light on the composition and development of
+these sources.
+
+Last and least valuable of all is the Obelisk. [Footnote: Discovery at
+Kalhu, Layard, NR. II. 282. Layard, _Monuments of Nineve_, I. 53
+ff.; 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.; 169
+ff. Photographs and drawings too frequent for notice. Casts are also
+common, e. g., in America, Metropolitan Museum, N. Y. City; University
+of Pennsylvania; Haskell Museum, University of Chicago; Boston Museum
+of Fine Arts.] Because of its most interesting sculptures and because
+it gives a summary of almost the entire reign, it has either been
+given the place of honor, or a place second to the Monolith alone. The
+current view is given by one of our most prominent Assyriologists as
+follows: "The first rank must be ascribed to the Black Obelisk, and
+for the reason that it covers a greater period of Shalmaneser's reign
+than any other.... It is clear then, that for a study of the reign of
+Shalmaneser II the black obelisk must form the starting point, and
+that, in direct connection with it, the other inscriptions may best be
+studied, grouping themselves around it as so many additional
+fragmentary manuscripts would around the more complete one which we
+hit upon, for a fundamental text." [Footnote: Jastrow, _l. c._]
+
+This view might be accepted were the problem one of the "lower
+criticism". Unfortunately, it is clearly one for the "higher" and
+accordingly we should quote the Black Obelisk only when an earlier
+edition has not been preserved. There is no single point where, in
+comparison with an earlier one, there is reason to believe that it has
+the correct text, in fact, it is, as might be expected in the case of
+a show inscription, filled with mistakes, many of which were later
+corrected, while in one case the engraver has been forced to erase
+entire lines. [Footnote: Cf. the textual commentary in Amiaud-Scheil,
+_passim_, and especially 65 n. 6.] Its date is 829, a whole
+generation later than the facts first related, and it can be shown
+that it is a formal apology for the turtanu (prime minister), Dan
+Ashur, glorifies him at the expense of his monarch, and attempts to
+conceal the palace revolution which marked his coming into power by
+changing the date of his eponomy from 854 to 856 and by filling in the
+year 855 with another event. Nor is it without bearing in this
+connection that it was prepared in 829, the very year in which the
+revolt of Ashur dan apal broke out as a protest against the control of
+his father by the too powerful turtanu. [Footnote: Cf. Olmstead,
+_Jour. Amer. Or. Soc., l. c._] As these last years of the reign
+were years of revolt, there is no reason for believing that there was
+another edition prepared, and the narrative of this revolt in the
+Annals of his son Shamshi Adad points in the same direction.
+
+Of documents which do not belong to this connected series, the most
+important is the recently discovered lion inscription from Til
+Barsip. Aside from its value in identifying the site of that important
+city and an extra detail or two, its importance is not great, as it is
+the usual type of display inscription. [Footnote: R. C. Thompson,
+PSBA. XXXIV. 66 ff.; cf. Hogarth, _Accidents of an Antiquary's
+Life_, op. 175.] The Tigris Tunnel inscription also has its main
+importance from the locality in which it was found. [Footnote: Scheil,
+RT. XXII. 38.] Other brief inscriptions add a bit as to the building
+operations, which, curiously enough, are neglected in the official
+annals 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 the
+official Annals which exists in two recensions. One, written in
+archaistic characters, from the south east palace at Kalhu, has long
+been known. After the usual introduction, it deals briefly with the
+revolt of Ashur dan apal. No attempt is made to differentiate the part
+which deals with his father's reign from that of his own, and the
+single paragraph which is devoted to it gives us no real idea of its
+importance or of its duration. Then follow four expeditions, the first
+two given very briefly, the last rather fully. As the years of the
+reign are not indicated, there is considerable difficulty in obtaining
+a satisfactory chronology. [Footnote: IR. 29 ff. Scheil, _Inscription
+Assyr. Archaïque de Samsi Ramman IV_, 1889. Abel, KB. I. 174
+ff. Oppert, _Hist._, 122 ff.; Menant, 119 ff.; Sayce, RPi, I. 11
+ff. Harper, 45 ff. For errors in writing cf. Scheil, VI; for use of
+rare words, _ibid._ VII.] The other carries the record two years
+further, but has not yet been published. [Footnote: MDOG. 28, 31
+f. Through the courtesy of Dr. Andra, I was permitted to see this in
+the excavation house at Ashur in 1908.--Cf. also the palace brick,
+Scheil, RT. XXII. 37.]
+
+The long list of expeditions which the Assyrian Chronicle attributes
+to the reign of Adad nirari (812-783) indicates that he must have
+composed Annals, but they have not as yet been discovered. Of extant
+inscriptions, the earliest is probably that on the statue base of
+Sammuramat (Semiramis), in which she is placed before her son and
+emphasis is laid on the fact that she is the widow of Shamshi Adad
+rather than that she is the mother of the reigning monarch. [Footnote:
+MDOG. 40, 24 ff. 42, 34 ff.] Next in time comes the inscription on the
+famous Nabu statue in which Adad nirari is placed first, but with
+Sammuramat at his side, and which accordingly marks the decline of the
+queen mother's power. [Footnote: Rawlinson, _Monarchies_, II. 118
+n. 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 Kalhu
+inscriptions in which Sammuramat is not mentioned. One refers to the
+conquests from the sea of the rising sun to the sea of the setting
+sun, a statement which would be possible only after the conquest of
+Kis in 786. This is the document which throws a vivid light on the
+early 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 adds
+nothing new. [Footnote: L. 70.] The other Kalhu inscription adds
+considerable material, but in a condensed form which makes it most
+difficult to locate the facts in time. The historical portion is
+divided into three sections which seem roughly to correspond with the
+chronological order. First comes a list of the peoples conquered on
+the eastern frontier, arranged geographically from south to north. As
+but two of these names are listed in the Assyrian Chronicle, and as
+each occurs several times, it is impossible to locate them exactly in
+time. The second section deals in considerable detail with an
+expedition against Damascus but the Chronicle does not list one even
+against central Syria. The fulness of this account shows that it took
+place not far from the subjugation of Kaldi land, the narrative of
+which ends the document and shows it to have been written not far from
+786, 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. Ashur
+inscriptions, KTA. 35 f.; MDOG. 22, 19; 26, 62.]
+
+For the remaining reigns of the dynasty, we have only the data in the
+Assyrian Chronicle. No annals or in fact any other inscription has
+come down to us, and, so far at least as the annals are concerned,
+there is little likelihood of their discovery, as there is no reason
+to believe that any were composed in this period of complete
+decline. But, curiously enough, from this very period comes the
+document which throws the most light on the earliest period of
+Assyrian expansion, the so called Synchronistic history. [Footnote: II
+R. 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 last
+ruler mentioned, but the fact that he is named in the third person
+shows that it was compiled not earlier than the reign of his successor
+Shalmaneser IV.
+
+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 advance
+over any historical document we have thus far studied, for it is an
+actual history for many centuries of the relations between Assyria and
+Babylonia. But it is as dry as possible, for only the barest facts are
+given, with none of the mass of picturesque details which we have
+learned to expect in the annals of the individual kings. Nevertheless,
+its advance over preceding documents should not be over estimated. Its
+emphasis on treaties and boundaries has led to the idea that it was
+compiled from the archives as a sort of diplomatic pièce justificative
+in a controversy with Babylonia over the possession of a definite
+territory. [Footnote: Peiser-Winckler, KB. I. 194 n. 1.] Its true
+character, however, is clearly brought out in its closing words "A
+succeeding 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]. Whoever
+takes it, may he listen to all that is written, the majesty of the
+land 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 it
+to be only the usual display inscription. This is still further proved
+by the introduction, mutilated as it is, "... to the god Ashur ... his
+prayer ... before his face I speak.... eternally a [tablet] with the
+mention.... the majesty and victory [which the kings of Ashur mad]e,
+they conquered all, [the march] of former [expedi]tions, who
+conquered..... [their booty to their lands they br]ought..." Clearly,
+this is the language of a display inscription and not of a diplomatic
+piece justificative. So we can consider our document not even a
+history in the true sense of the word, merely an inscription erected
+to the glory of Ashur and of his people, but with the "sins of Shumer
+and Akkad," in other words, with the wars of the Babylonians against
+"the land" [Footnote: Cf. Belck, _Beitr. Geog. Gesch. I._ 5
+ff.--The double mention of Ashur bel kala and Shalmaneser points to
+double sources, one the original of BM. 27859, Peiser, OLZ. XI. 141.]
+and with the sinful destruction of Assyrian property they caused, also
+in mind. When we take this view, we are no longer troubled by the
+numerous mistakes, even to the order of the kings, which so greatly
+reduce the value of the document where its testimony is most
+needed. [Footnote: Cf. Winckler, AOF. I. 109 ff.] We can understand
+such "mistakes" in a display inscription, exposed to view in a place
+where it would not be safe for an individual to point out the
+truth. But that it could have been used as a piece justificative, with
+all its errors, when the Babylonians could at once have refuted it, is
+incredible.
+
+The accession of Tiglath Pileser IV (745-728) marks a return to
+warfare, and the consequent prosperity is reflected in an increase of
+the sources both in quantity and in quality. [Footnote: For
+inscriptions of reign, cf. Rost, _Keilschrifttexte Tiglat-Pilesers
+III_; cf. also Anspacher, _Tiglath Pileser_, 1 ff.] Tiglath
+Pileser prepared for the walls of his palace a series of annals, in
+three recensions, marked by the number of lines to the slab, seven,
+twelve, or sixteen, and seemingly by little else. Originally they
+adorned the walls of the central palace at Kalhu, but Esarhaddon, a
+later king of another dynasty, defaced many of the slabs and built
+them into his south west palace. Thus, even with the three different
+recensions, a large part of the Annals has been lost forever. For
+years, the great problem of the reign of Tiglath Pileser was the
+proper chronological arrangement of this inscription. Thanks to the
+aid of the Assyrian Chronicle, it is now fairly fixed, though with
+serious gaps. Once they are arranged, little further criticism is
+needed, for they are the usual type, rather dry and uninteresting to
+judge from the extant fragments. [Footnote: Detailed bibliography of
+the fragments, Anspacher, _Tiglath Pileser_, 3 ff.; Discovery,
+Layard, NR. II. 300. L. 19 ff.; III R. 9 f. Rost, _de inscriptione
+Tiglat-Pileser III quae vocatur Annalium_, 1892; Rost, Iff.; 2 ff.;
+Winckler, _Textbuchs³_, 28 ff. Ungnad I. 113 ff.; Rogers, 313
+ff.; Schrader KB. II. 24 ff.; Rodwell, RP¹, V. 45 ff.; Menant, 144
+ff. 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 the
+sculptured slabs in Zürich with selections from the Annals. [Footnote:
+Boissier, PSBA. I have not seen his _Notice sur quelque Monuments
+Assyr. a l'université de Zürich_, 1912.]
+
+Next to the Annals comes the clay tablet from Kalhu, from which, if we
+are to judge by the proportions, less than a half has
+survived. [Footnote: Usually called the Nimrud inscription, a cause of
+confusion. K. 3751. Photograph of obverse, "but upside down, Rogers,
+541; _History_, op. 267. II R. 67; _Rost_, XXXVff; 54
+ff. 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 the
+method used by the Assyrians in turning the tablet for writing, only
+the first and last parts are preserved. Unfortunately, the greater
+part of what is preserved is taken up with an elaborate introduction
+and conclusion which we would gladly exchange for more strictly
+historical data. The other contents are, first an elaborate account of
+the wars in Babylonia, next of the wars on the Elamite frontier, a
+brief paragraph on Ulluba and Kirbu, and then the beginning of the war
+with Urartu. Each of these paragraphs is marked off by a line across
+the tablet. Thus far, it is clear, we have a geographical order for
+the paragraphs. After the break, we have an account of the Arab tribes
+on the border of Egypt. It is therefore clear that the order was
+continued in the break which must have contained the most of the
+Urartu account and whatever was said about Syria. The fulness with
+which the extant portion chronicles the Babylonian affairs makes it
+probable that the part now lost in the break dealt with Armenian and
+Syrian relations with equal fulness. The next paragraph seems to be a
+sort of summary of the various western rulers who had paid tribute,
+and the length of this list is another proof of the large amount
+lost. The very brief Tabal and Tyre paragraphs, out of the regular
+geographical order, are obvious postscripts and this dates them to
+year XVII (729), unless we are to assume that the scribe did not have
+them in mind when he wrote the reference to that year in the
+introduction. That they really did date to the next year, 728, is
+indicated by the fact that the Assyrian Chronicle seems to have had a
+Tyre expedition in that year. [Footnote: Cf. Olmstead,
+_Jour. Amer. Or. Soc._, XXXIV. 357.] If so, then our inscription
+must date from the last months of Tiglath Pileser's reign. Though
+written on clay, it is clearly a draft from which to engrave a display
+inscription on stone as it begins "Palace of Tiglath Pileser." The
+identity of certain passages [Footnote: I. 5, 9 ff., 16, 22, 47.] with
+the Nimrud slab shows close connection, but naturally the much fuller
+recital of the tablet is not derived from it. We have also a duplicate
+fragment from the Nabu temple at Kalhu and this is marked by obvious
+Babylonianisms. [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 Nimrud
+slab. [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 dates
+from 743 and is thus the earliest inscription from the reign. But its
+account is so brief that it is of but trifling value. It assists a
+little in, conjecturing what is lost from the tablet and mention of an
+event here is naturally of value as establishing a minimum date. But
+where 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 and
+Babylon_, 140 f.]
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER V
+
+SARGON AND THE MODERN HISTORICAL CRITICISM
+
+
+The sources for the reign of Sargon (722-705) [Footnote: Collected in
+Winckler, _Kellschrifttexte Sargons_, 1889.] have already been
+discussed in detail elsewhere. All that is here needed is a summary of
+results. [Footnote: Olmstead, _Western Asia in the Days of Sargon of
+Assyria_, 1908, 1 ff.] They fall into three well marked groups. The
+first includes the early inscriptions of the reign, which are
+miscellaneous in character. [Footnote: _Sargon_, 17 ff.] The
+circumstances under which Sargon came to the throne are indicated by a
+tablet from the second year which is of all the more value in that it
+is not a formal annals or display inscription. [Footnote: K. 1349;
+Winckler, _Sammlung_, II, 1; AOF. I. 401 ff.] The Nimrud
+inscription comes from Kalhu, the earliest capital of
+Sargon. Unfortunately, it is very brief and is not arranged in
+chronological order. Aside from the rather full account of Pisiris of
+Carchemish, sufficient to date the inscription soon after its capture,
+we have only the briefest of references, and its value would be
+nothing, could we only secure the original, perhaps the earliest
+edition 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.] A
+brief 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 either
+unpublished 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 fragments
+known from Bezold, _Catalogue, ad loc_.]
+
+As a proved source for the second group, the newly discovered tablet
+should begin our study. [Footnote: Thureau-Dangin, _Relation de la
+Huitieme Campagne de Sargon_, 1912.]From the standpoint of source
+study, it is of exceptional value as it is strictly contemporaneous
+and yet gives a very detailed account in Annals form of the events of
+a single year. The tablet was "written", probably composed, though it
+may mean copied, by Nabu shallimshunu, the great scribe of the King,
+the very learned, the man of Sargon, the eldest son of
+Harmaki,--seemingly an Egyptian name,--and inhabitant of the city of
+Ashur. It was brought (before the God Ashur?) in the limmu or eponym
+year of Ishtar duri, 714-713, and tells us of the events of 714. It is
+written on an unusually large tablet of clay and is in, the form of a
+letter. It begins "To Ashur the father of the gods... greatly, greatly
+may there be peace. To the gods of destiny and the goddesses who
+inhabit Ehar sag gal kurkurra, their great temple, greatly, greatly
+may there be peace. To the gods of destiny and the goddesses who
+inhabit the city of Ashur their great temple, greatly, greatly may
+there be peace. To the city and its inhabitants may there be peace. To
+the palace which is situated in the midst may there be peace. As
+for [Footnote: So Thureau-Dangin, _ad hoc_.] Sargon the holy
+priest, the servant, who fears thy great godhead, and for his camp,
+greatly, greatly there is peace." So this looks like a letter from the
+king to the god Ashur, to the city named from him, and to its
+inhabitants. Yet it is a very unusual rescript, very different from
+those which have come down to us in the official archives, especially
+in the use of the third person in speaking of the king, while in the
+regular letters the first is always found. Further, in the body of the
+supposed letter, the king, as is usual in the official annals, speaks
+in the first person.
+
+However it may be with the real character of the "letter," there can
+be no doubt as to its great value. To be sure, we may see in its boast
+that in the campaign but six soldiers were lost a more or less severe
+stretching of the truth, but, at least in comparison with the later
+records, it is not only much fuller, but far more accurate. Indeed,
+comparison with the later Annals shows that document to be even worse
+than we had dared suspect.
+
+Comparison of the newly discovered inscription with the parallel
+passages of the broken prism B shows that this is simply a condensed
+form of its original. The booty seems to have been closely copied, but
+the topographical details are much abbreviated. The discovery of this
+tablet, while supplying the lacunae in Prism B, has made this part
+useless. But all the more clearly is brought out the superiority, in
+this very section, of the Prism over the later Annals. Naturally, we
+assume the same to be true in the other portions preserved, in fact,
+the discovery of the tablet has been a brilliant confirmation of the
+proof long ago given that this was superior to the Annals. [Footnote:
+Olmstead, _Sargon_, 11 ff., with reconstruction of the order of
+the various fragments, as against Prasek, OLZ. XII. 117, who sharply
+attacked 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 of
+copying these fragments have made many mistakes. [Footnote: To judge
+by a comparison of Winckler's text with that prepared by King for
+Thureau-Dangin, _l.c._] But a few of these fragments have as yet
+been 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 they
+cover, save where we have the tablet, they are now clearly seen to be
+our best authorities, nearer in date to the events they chronicle and
+much freer from suspicion than the Annals. The most urgent need for
+the history of the reign is that the fragments which are still
+unpublished [Footnote: Cf. Bezold, ZA. 1889, 411 n. 1.] should be
+published at once with a collation of those previously given. Even a
+translation and examination of the fragments already published would
+mark 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 beginning
+and end are still untranslated.] Both were found at Nineveh [Footnote:
+G. Smith, _Disc._, 147.] and this of itself proves a date some
+distance from the end of the reign when Sargon was established at Dur
+Sharruken. [Footnote: Cf. Olmstead, _Sargon_, 14 n.] Prism A is
+of much the same type as the other, in fact, when we see how the
+Ashdod expedition, begun in the one, can be continued in the other,
+[Footnote: As in Winckler, _Sargon_, I. 186 ff.] we are led to
+believe that the two had a similar text. If, however, the Dalta
+episode in each refers to the same event, then they had quite
+different texts in this part of the history. Which of the two is the
+earlier and more trustworthy, if they did not have identical texts,
+and what are their relative relations cannot be decided in their
+fragmentary state, but that they are superior to the Annals is
+clear. Like Prism B, Prism A is worthy of better treatment and greater
+attention 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 naturally
+the inscription of the cylinders which were deposited as corner
+stones, [Footnote: Place, _Nineve_, II. 291 ff.; Oppert, _Dour
+Sarkayan_, 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 agrees
+with the deed of gift which dated to 714. [Footnote: Cf. Olmstead,
+_Sargon_, 178 f.] The same inscription is also found on
+slabs. [Footnote: Menant, RT. XIII. 194.] It is the fullest and best
+account of the building of Dur Sharruken, and from it the other
+documents of the group seem to have derived their building
+recital. Nor are other phases of the culture life neglected, as
+witness, for example, the well known attempt to fix prices and lower
+the high cost of living by royal edict.
+
+The remaining inscriptions of the group are all closely related and
+all seem derived from the Annals. The display inscription gives the
+data of the Annals in briefer form and in geographical order. Numbers
+are very much increased, and its only value is in filling the too
+numerous lacunæ of its original. [Footnote: Botta, _Mon. de
+Nineve_, 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 recognition
+of its character has led many astray. [Footnote: The error in
+connecting Piru and Hanunu, for example, already pointed out by
+Olmstead, _Sargon_, 10, is still held by S. A. Cook, art.
+Philistines, in the new _Encyclopedia Britannica_.] Other
+inscriptions of the group are incised on bulls, on founda-slabs, on
+bricks, pottery, and glass, or as labels on the sculptures. Save for
+the last, they are of absolutely no value for the historian as they
+simply abstract from the Annals. As for the Cyprus stole, its location
+alone gives it a factitious importance. [Footnote: For full
+bibliography of the minor inscriptions, cf. Olmstead, _Sargon_, 6
+f. 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, has
+already been shown. [Footnote: Olmstead, _Sargon_, 3 ff.] There
+are four recensions, some of which differ widely among themselves and
+from other inscriptions. For example, there are three accounts of the
+fate of Merodach Baladan. In one, he is captured; [Footnote: Display
+133.] in the second he begs for peace; [Footnote: Annals V.] in the
+third, he runs away and escapes. [Footnote: Annals 349.] Naturally, we
+are inclined to accept the last, which is actually confirmed by the
+later course of events.
+
+But it is only when we compare the Annals with earlier documents that
+we realize how low it ranks, even among official inscriptions. Already
+we have learned the dubious character of its chronology. The Assyrian
+Chronicle has "in the land" for 712, that is, there was no campaign in
+that year. Yet for that very year, the Annals has an expedition
+against Asia Minor! It is prism B which solves the puzzle. In the
+earliest years, it seems to have had the same chronology as the
+Annals. Later, it drops a year behind and, at the point where it ends,
+it has given the Ashdod expedition as two years earlier than the
+Annals. [Footnote: Cf. Ohmstead, _Sargon_, 11.] Even with the old
+data, it was clear that the Prism was earlier and therefore probably
+more trustworthy; and it was easy to explain the puzzle by assuming
+that years "in the land" had been later padded out by the Annals, just
+as we have seen was done for Dan Ashur under Shalmaneser III. Now the
+discovery of the tablet of the year 714 has completely vindicated the
+character of Prism B while it has even more completely condemned the
+Annals as a particularly untrustworthy example of annalistic writing.
+
+In the first place, it shows us how much we have lost. The tablet has
+430 lines, of which a remarkably small portion consists of passages
+which are mere glorifications or otherwise of no value. Out of this
+mass of material, the Annals has utilized but 36 lines. That this is a
+fair sample of what we have lost in other years is hardly too much to
+suspect. Further, it would seem that the Annals used, not the tablet
+itself, but, since it has a phrase common to the Annals and the Prism,
+[Footnote: Ann. 125 f.; Prism B, Thureau-Dangin, _op. cit._, 76
+f.]  but not found in the tablet, either the Prism itself or a common
+ancestor.
+
+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 in
+a few cases lowered the numbers of his original, even to the extent of
+giving three fortified cities and twenty four villages [Footnote:
+Ann. 105.] where the tablet has twelve fortified cities and eighty
+four villages. [Footnote: Tabl. 89.] On the other hand, by a trick
+especially common among the Sargonide scribes, the 1,235 sheep of the
+tablet [Footnote: Tabl. 349.] has reached the enormous total of
+100,225! [Footnote: Ann. 129; of. Thureau-Dangin, _op. cit._, 68,
+n. 4 for comparison of numbers. The same phenomenon can be constantly
+seen in the huge increases of the numbers of the Display inscription
+as compared with its original, the Annals.] More serious, because less
+likely to be allowed for, is the statement that Parda was
+captured [Footnote: Ann. 106.] when the original merely says that it
+was abandoned by its chief. [Footnote: Tabl. 84.] But the most glaring
+innovation 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 it
+is only history as the scribe would like it to have been written. For
+the new inscription, while giving the conventional picture of the
+despair of the defeated king, says not a word of any
+suicide. [Footnote: Tabl. 411ff.] However, the tablet does elsewhere
+mention the sickness of Rusash, [Footnote: _Ibid._ 115.] and it
+may well be that it is to this sickness that we must attribute his
+death later. [Footnote: Cf. Thureau-Dangin, _op. cit._, xix.] The
+complete misunderstanding of the whole campaign by earlier
+writers [Footnote: Compare, for example, the brief and inaccurate
+account in Olmstead, _Sargon_, 112 ff., with that in
+thureau-Dangin, _op. cit._ on the basis of the new tablet]
+furnishes the clearest indication of the unsatisfactory character of
+our recital so long as we must rely entirely on the Annals. It is the
+discovery of conditions like these which forces us to subject our
+official inscriptions to the most rigid scrutiny before we dare use
+them in our history. [Footnote: Botta, _Monuments de Ninive_,
+pi. 70 ff.; 104 ff.; 158f£.; Winckler, _Sargon_ II. pl. 1
+ff. Oppert in Place, _Ninive_, II. 309 ff.; _Les Inscriptions
+de 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: The
+only fairly complete collection of sources for the reign is still
+Smith-Sayce, _History of Sennacherib_, 1878, though nearly all
+the data needed for a study of the Annals are given by Bezold,
+KB. II. 80 ff. Extracts, Rogers, 340 ff. Cf. also Olmstead, _Western
+Asia in the reign of Sennacherib, Proceedings of Amer. Historical
+Assn._, 1909, 94 ff.] the chief is the Annals, added to at
+intervals of a few years, and so existing in several editions. As
+usual, the latest of these, the Taylor inscription, has been accorded
+the place of honor, so that the earliest edition, the so called
+Bellino Cylinder, can be called by a well known historian "a sort of
+duplicate 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 case
+of Ashur nasir apal, the evil results in the writing of history are
+less serious than in the case of most reigns. This is due to the
+unusual circumstances that, with comparatively few exceptions, there
+was little omission or addition of the earlier data. Regularly, the
+new edition simply added to the old, and, as a result, the form of the
+mass of clay on which these Annals were written changes with the
+increased 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 was
+lengthened, the account of the building operations followed suit. A
+serious defect is the fact that these documents are dated, not by
+years, but by campaigns, with the result that there are serious
+questions in chronology. The increase in the number of our editions,
+however, has solved many of these, as the date of the campaign can now
+usually be fixed by observing in which dated document it last occurs.
+
+Of the more than twenty five more or less complete documents, the
+first is the so called Bellino Cylinder which dates from October,
+702. The fact that it has been studied separately has tended to
+prevent the realization that it is actually only a recension. As a
+first edition, it is a trifle fuller, but surprisingly
+little. [Footnote: K. 1680. Grotefend, _Abh. Göttingen,
+Gesell_. 1850. L. 63 f. Smith-Sayce, 1 f., 24 ff., cf. 43
+ff. 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, now
+represented by six complete and seven fragmentary cylinders. It
+includes campaign three and is dated in May, 700. [Footnote:
+Smith-Sayce, 30, 70 f., cf. 24, 43, 53; Evetts, ZA. III. 311 ff.; for
+list of tablets, cf. Bezold, _l. c._] Cylinder C dates from 697
+and contains the fourth expedition. [Footnote: K. 1674; Smith-Sayce,
+14, 76, cf. 30, 43, 53, 73, 78. The A 2 of Bezold.] The mutilated date
+of Cylinder D may be either 697 or 695, but as it has one campaign
+more than Cylinder C of 697, we should probably date it to the latter
+year. [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 8
+of Bezold.]  From this recension seems to have been derived the
+display inscription recently discovered on Mt. Nipur, which was
+inscribed at the end of campaign five. [Footnote: Inscription at
+Hasanah (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 the
+shorter to the longer cylinders. [Footnote: King, _op. cit._, 9.]
+After the narrative of the fifth campaign, two others are given, and
+dated, not by the number of campaign as in the documents of the
+regular series, but by the eponyms, so that here we have actual
+chronology. The two campaigns took place in 698 and 695 respectively,
+the inscription itself being dated in 694. That they are not dated by
+the campaigns of the king and that they are not given in the later
+editions is perhaps due to the fact that the king did not conduct them
+in person. [Footnote: King, _op. cit._, p. 10.] The occasion for
+this new edition is not to be found, however, in these petty frontier
+wars, but in the completion of the new palace, in the increase in the
+size of the city of Nineveh, in the building of a park, and in the
+installation of a water supply, as these take up nearly a half of the
+inscription. The recovery of this document has also enabled us to
+place in the same group two other fragments, now recognized as
+duplicates. [Footnote: BM. 102, 996, King, _Cuneiform Texts_,
+XXVI. 38; cf. p. 15, n. 1; K. 4492, ibid. 39, not a reference to
+Tarbisi, as Meiasner-Rost, _Bauinschriften_, 94f; as is shown by
+King, p. 18 n. 1.]
+
+At about the same time must be placed the various inscriptions on the
+bulls which were intended to decorate this new palace. One contains
+only 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 only
+Smith-Sayce, 3.)] the other has a brief sketch of the sixth,
+[Footnote: Bull 3, Smith-Sayce, _l. c._, and also 88 f.] but both
+have references to the enthronement of the crown prince Ashur nadin
+shum in Babylon. [Footnote: Smith-Sayce, 30 f.] Still another gives a
+very full account of the sixth expedition, but there is no mention of
+Ashur 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 of
+Sinacherib_, 5 f.; III R. 12 f.; L. 38 ff.] This dates very closely
+the inscriptions of the period. The new inscription was written in
+August of 694. At this time as well as when the inscription was placed
+on Bull II, the news of the sixth expedition, that across the Persian
+Gulf to Nagitu, had not yet come in. When this arrived, a brief
+account was hastily compiled and added to Bull III. But before a
+fuller narrative could be prepared, news came of the capture of Ashur
+nadin shum, which took place, as we know, soon after the Nagitu
+expedition, 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 IV
+accordingly had an elaborate narrative of the Nagitu expedition, but
+all 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, and
+substantially 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. 80
+ff., with numbers of the duplicates; Oppert, _Les Ins. Assyr. des
+Sargonides_, 41ff.; Menant, 214 ff.; Talbot, RP¹, I. 33 ff.;
+Rogers, RP², VI. 80 ff.; Harper, 68 ff. Here also seem to belong the
+fragments 79-7-8, 305; K. 1665; 1651; S. 1026, as their text inclines
+toward 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 that
+we have much better data, but it ranks well up in its class as
+comparatively little has been omitted or changed. Slightly earlier
+than the Taylor Cylinder is the Memorial or Nebi Yunus inscription,
+now at Constantinople, which ends about where the other does. Here and
+there, it has the same language as the Annals group, but these
+coincidences are so rare that we must assume that they are due only to
+the use of well known formulae. In general, it is an abridgement of
+earlier records, though a few new facts are found. But for the second
+half of the sixth expedition, the revolt of Babylon, it is our best
+source. Not only is it fuller than the Taylor prism, it gives a quite
+different account in which it is not the king but his generals who are
+the victors. Yet curiously enough, in the seventh expedition the
+Taylor cylinder is fuller and better. [Footnote: I R. 43; A. Paterson,
+_Palace of Sinacherib_, 3; Smith-Sayce, 7 f., 39 f., 68 f., 86
+f., 102 ff., lllff., 127 ff.; Bezold, KB. II. 118 f.; cf. King,
+_Cuneiform Texts_, XXVI. p. 10 n. 1. Seen at Constantinople in
+1907-1908.]
+
+Here too we may discuss the Bavian inscription, the display
+inscriptions cut in the rock where began the irrigation works
+constructed to carry water to the capital. In their historical
+portions, they parallel the last campaign of the Taylor Prism, though
+in such different fashion that they may be considered separate
+sources. 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 of
+date is B, C, A, D, Meissner-Rost, _Bauinschriften_, 67. Squeezes
+were secured by the Cornell Expedition.] Here too may be mentioned the
+two fragments from the later part of the reign, on which is based a
+later 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 an
+inscription to be set up in Kirbit in commemoration of the flight of
+Merodach Baladan. [Footnote: III R. 4, 4; Strong, JRAS. XXIII. 148
+ff.]
+
+To complete our study of the sources for the reign, the more
+specifically building inscriptions may be noted. [Footnote:
+Meissner-Rost, _Bauinschriften Sanheribs_, 1893.] The greater
+part of what we know concerning the building operations of the reign
+comes from the documents already discussed. Of the specifically
+building inscriptions, perhaps the most important is the New Year's
+House inscription from Ashur, [Footnote: MDOG. 33, 14.] and the
+excavations there have also given a good number of display
+inscriptions 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 collected
+by Budge,_History of Esarhaddon_, 1880.] like the others of his
+dynasty, prepared elaborate Annals. [Footnote: First reference,
+G. Smith, TSBA. III. 457. Boscawen, _ibid_. IV. 84 ff.; III
+R. 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. also
+G. Smith, _Disc_. 311ff.; Delattre, _L'Asie_, 149; Olmstead,
+_Bull. Amer. Geog. Soc_., XLIV. 1912, 434.] It is a poetic
+justice rarely found in history that the man who so ruthlessly
+destroyed the Annals of Tiglath Pileser IV is today known to us by
+still smaller fragments of his own. Aside from five mutilated lines
+from the ninth expedition, only a part of the first expedition against
+Egypt has survived and that in a very incomplete manner. We are
+accordingly dependent for our knowledge of the reign on the display
+inscriptions, with all their possibilities for error, and only the
+Babylonian Chronicle gives a little help toward fixing the relative
+order of events.
+
+The greater part of the history of the reign must be secured from the
+three most important cylinders. A and C are complete and are
+practically 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. des
+Sargonides_, 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, and
+K. 1679. Also King, _Supplement_, 108 f.] B is broken and was
+originally considerably fuller, but seems to be from the same general
+series. [Footnote: 48-11-4, 315; III R. 15 f.; Budge, 20 ff.; 97 ff.;
+Harper, _Hebraica_, III. 177 ff.; IV. 146 ff.; Abel-Winckler, 25
+f. 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, but
+Winckler, _l. c_., omits the month. If the month is to be
+retained, the identity of month points to identity of year, and there
+is nothing in B to prevent this conjecture. A is from Nebi Yunus, B
+from Koyunjik.] In comparing the texts of A-C and B, we note that in
+the first part, there seem to be no important differences, save that B
+adds an account of the accession. In the broken part before this, B
+must have given the introduction and the murder of
+Sennacherib. Computation of the minimum in each column of B, based on
+the amount actually preserved in A and C, will give us some idea of
+what has been lost. Column II of B must have been devoted in part to
+the final defeat of the rebels and in part to the introduction to the
+long narrative concerning Nabu zer lishir. As at least four lines were
+devoted to this introduction in the usually much shorter D, it must
+have been fairly long in B. Why A omitted all this is a question. That
+these two events are the first in the reign is made clear by the
+Babylonian Chronicle, so that thus far the chronological order has
+been followed. The next event in B and the first in A is the story of
+the Sidon troubles, and again the Chronicle shows it to be in
+chronological order. Since A has no less than 49 lines to deal with
+the events in the lost beginning of column III, it is clear that the
+much fuller B has here lost much. In the gap in Column IV, we are to
+place the Aduma narrative and the traces where we can begin to read
+show that they are in the conclusion of the Median
+troubles. [Footnote: _Shepashun_ of B. is the _elishun ukin_
+is virtually the same as _ukin sirushun_.] For the lost part of
+the fifth column, we must count the Iadi and Gambulu expeditions, and
+a part of the building narrative. About the same building account as
+in A must be placed at the commencement of column VI. The irregularity
+in 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 of
+Syrian kings while A does not. These minimum numbers also indicate
+that but about one-fourth of B has been preserved. However, the
+overlapping gives us some reason to hope that nearly all its facts
+have been preserved in the one or the other edition.
+
+We have already seen that strict chronology is followed by B, strange
+to relate, in the order, punishment of the assassins, 681, Babylon,
+680, and Sidon, 677. Then A gives the Kundu troubles which, according
+to the Chronicle, follow in 676, and Arzani and the brook of Egypt,
+which fit well enough with the Egyptian expedition given under
+675. These are the only sections we can date chronologically, and the
+order is chronologically correct. But whether we can assume this for
+all the events mentioned may be doubted in the light of the
+disagreement between A and B in their order. In placing the Arabs
+before Bazu, or the Babylonian Nabu zer lishir before Bit Dakkuri, A
+is clearly attempting a more geographical order. We shall then use B
+as our main source whenever preserved, supplemented by A when the
+former is missing, but we must not forget that all are simply display
+inscriptions.
+
+Another display inscription of the same type we shall call D. It is
+close to B as is shown in the story of Nabu zer lishir, is seemingly
+briefer than that document, but is certainly fuller than A, and is
+independent of both. The order of events is Babylon, Egypt,
+Hubushna. As D omits Sidon and the Cilician cities, found in one of
+the others and proved to the period by the Babylonian Chronicle, it is
+clear that we have here only extracts, even though the events narrated
+are given more fully than in A. [Footnote: K. 2671; Winckler,
+ZA. II. 299 ff.; AOF. I. 522.] Still another document of similar
+character may be called E. As it mentions the Uabu rebellion which is
+not in A, it should date after 673, and its order, Chaldaeans,
+Gambulu, Egypt, Arabs, Sidon, Asia Minor, is not chronological but
+geographical. It has some striking variants in the proper names, for
+example, we have here Musur, universally recognized as meaning Egypt,
+where A has Musri, and thus we have exact proof that Musri does equal
+Egypt, the advocates of the Musri theory, if any still survive, to the
+contrary notwithstanding. [Footnote: Cf. Olmstead, _Sargon_, 56
+ff.] It is also longer than A in the River of Egypt section, and than
+B in the Elam account. As a late document, it is of value only for the
+Uabu affair. [Footnote: Winckler, ZA. II pl. II; AOF. I. 526 ff.] We
+may 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 many
+campaigns. The first, that against Bazu, we know dates to 676. The
+others, to Uruk, to Buesh king of an unknown land, Akku, and the king
+of Elam, are of doubtful date, but are almost certainly
+later. [Footnote: K. 8544; Winckler, AOF. I. 532.--I have been unable
+to see Scheil, _Le Prisme S d'Assarhaddon._]
+
+Finally, we must discuss two display inscriptions from the very end of
+the reign, whose importance is in no small degree due to the locality
+in which they were found. One is the famous stele discovered amid the
+ruins of the North Syrian town of Sinjirli. It dates after the capture
+of Memphis, 671, and seems to have been composed on the spot, as it
+shows no relationship to other inscriptions. [Footnote: Photograph and
+text, Schrader, in Luschan, _Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli_, I. 11
+ff., and pl. cf. Rogers, 551; _Hist_, op. 399; Paterson,
+_Sculptures_, 103. Harper, 90 ff. I have been able to consult
+squeezes in the library of Cornell University.] The same is probably
+true of the equally famous rock cut inscription at the Dog River (Nahr
+el Kelb), north of Berut. Though the oldest Assyrian inscription to
+have a cast taken, it seems never to have been published. It is
+rapidly disappearing, as the fact that it was cut through a very thin
+layer of hard rock has caused much flaking. Esarhaddon is called King
+of Babylon and King of Musur and Kusi, Egypt and Ethiopia, and the
+expedition against Tarqu, which ended with the capture and sack of
+Memphis, is given. Thus it agrees with the Sinjirli inscription and
+may well date from the same year. [Footnote: Translation, G. Smith,
+_Eponym Canon_, 167 ff. The text, so far as I know, has never
+been published, even in connection with the elaborate study of the
+Nahr el Kelb sculptures by Boscawen, TSBA. VII. 345. I have been able
+to use the squeeze taken in 1904 in connection with Messrs. Charles
+and Wrench, but much less can now be seen than what Smith evidently
+found 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 are
+few source problems in connection with them. [Footnote: Collected in
+Meissner-Rost, _Beitr. z. Assyr_., III. 189 ff. Thureau-Dangin,
+_Rev. Assyr_. XI, 96 ff.] Perhaps the most important is the prism
+which tells so much in regard to the earliest days of
+Assyria. [Footnote: KTA. 51; MDOG. 25, 33.] Another important document
+is the Black Stone, a four sided prism with archaistic writing. It was
+found at Nineveh, though it deals with the rebuilding of Babylon, and
+seems to date from the first year. [Footnote: I R. 49; Winckler,
+KB. II. 120 ff.; Meissner-Rost, 218 ff. Oppert, _Exped._, I. 180
+f.; Menant, 248; _Babylone et Chaldée_, 167 f.; Harper, 88
+f. King, _Supplement_, 38, dates from Aru of accession year.] Two
+others date after 675 as the one on a stone slab from the south west
+palace at Kalhu states that he took captive the king of Meluh,
+[Footnote: L. 19a. Winckler, KB. II. 150 f. Oppert, _Exped._,
+I. 324; Menant, 240.] and the other stone tablet gives him Egyptian
+titles, [Footnote: I R. 48, 5; Winckler, KB. II. 150 f.;
+Meissner-Rost, 204 ff.; Menant, 249.] so that they must be placed
+after the capture of that country. We may also mention in conclusion
+the 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 found
+at 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 mass
+of 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 all
+this, the greater number of the inscriptions for the reign are not
+before us in adequate form, and there are problems which only a
+renewed study of the originals can solve.
+
+Once again we have the usual Annals as our main source. Earlier
+scholars have in general satisfied themselves with the publication and
+study of the latest edition, sometimes supplemented by more or less
+full extracts from the others. There are reigns, such as that of
+Sennacherib, where such procedure results in comparatively little
+distortion of the history. But in no reign is the distortion of the
+earlier statements more serious, indeed one can hardly recognize the
+earlier documents in their later and "corrected" form. Accordingly, in
+no reign is it more imperative that we should disentangle the various
+sources and give the proper value to each. When we have discovered
+which document is our earliest and most authentic source for any given
+event, we have already solved some of the most stubborn problems in
+the history of the reign. The various conflicting accounts of the
+Egyptian campaigns, for example, have caused much trouble, but if we
+recognize that each is a step in the movement toward increasing the
+credit the king should receive for them, and trust for our history
+only the first in date, we have at last placed the history of the
+reign on a firm basis.
+
+Our very earliest document furnishes a beautiful illustration of this
+principle. It is a detailed narrative of the unimportant Kirbit
+expedition, which is ascribed to the governor Nur ekalli umu. Cylinder
+E gives a briefer account and Cylinder F one still shorter. Both
+vaguely ascribe it to the "governors" but do not attempt to claim it
+for the king. It remained for Cylinder B, a score of years later, to
+take the final step, and to inform us that the king in person
+conducted the expedition. Further, the formal conclusion, which
+immediately follows the Kirbit expedition in our earliest document,
+shows that this event, unimportant as it was, was the only one which
+could be claimed for the "beginning of the reign." This campaign is
+further fixed by the Babylonian Chronicle to the accession year. Yet
+later cylinders can place before it no less than two expeditions
+against Egypt and one against Tyre! Our earliest document alone would
+be enough to prove that these had been taken over from the reign of
+his father, even did we not have some of this verified by that father
+himself. [Footnote: K. 2846; Winckler, AOF. I. 474 ff.]
+
+Next in date and therefore in value we are probably to place Cylinder
+E, a decagon fragment, which contains a somewhat less full account of
+the Kirbit campaign, and a picturesque narrative of the opening of
+diplomatic relations with Lydia. Before these events, it placed an
+account of the Egyptian expedition. Although only a portion is
+preserved, it is sufficient to show that the "first Egyptian
+expedition" 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 and
+F.]
+
+A third account, which we may call F, gave credit for the earlier half
+of the Egyptian campaigns to his father and for the latter half to his
+own lieutenants. The references to Tabal and Arvad indicate that some
+time had elapsed in which memorable events in his own reign could have
+taken place, and this is confirmed by the much more developed form of
+the Lydian narrative, with its dream from Ashur to Gyges, and its
+order for servitude. That this account is of value as over against the
+later ones has been recognized, [Footnote: Tiele, _Gesch_. 372.]
+but we should not forget that it already represents a developed form
+of 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., for
+ending giving erection of moon temple at Harran, a proof that we have
+the conclusion and so can date approximately; Winckler,
+_Untersuch. z. altor. Gesch._, 102 ff.; Jensen, KB. II. 236 ff. A
+fragmentary stone duplicate from Babylon, Delitzsch, MDOG., XVII 2
+n.*] Somewhat later would seem to be the account we may call G. Here
+the Egyptian wars are still counted as one expedition, but a second
+has been stolen for Ashur bani apal by taking over that campaign of
+his father against Baal of Tyre which is given in the Sinjirli
+inscription. [Footnote: K. 3402; G. Smith, 78.]
+
+With Cylinder B, we reach the first of what is practically a new
+series, so greatly has the older narrative been "corrected" in these
+later documents. Both the Egyptian wars have now been definitely
+assigned to the king, and the making of two expeditions into Egypt has
+pushed the one against Baal of Tyre up to the position of third. The
+octagon B dates from the midst of the revolt of Shamash shum ukin and
+is a most highly "corrected" document. [Footnote: G. Smith,
+_passim;_ Jensen, KB. II. 240 ff.; Menant, 278 ff.; for the
+duplicate 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 fuller
+edition. In general, its text holds an intermediate position between A
+and B, the lists of Syrian and Cypriote kings, which are copied
+verbatim 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 listed
+two 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. Are
+the 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 of
+unknown connections. [Footnote: K. 1364; 3062; 2664; 3101; 2631;
+G. Smith, 243 ff.-Where we are to place the cylinder Rm. 281, dealing
+with Urtaki's reign, Winckler, AOF. I. 478 n. 2, cannot be told until
+it is published.]
+
+All the documents thus far considered are fuller and more accurate in
+dealing with the events they narrate than is the group which has so
+long been considered the standard. The first known was Cylinder A, a
+decagon, whose lines divide the document into thirteen parts. It is
+dated 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 of
+study, but it has since been supplanted by the so called Rassam
+cylinder, a slightly better preserved copy, found in the north palace
+of 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. 152
+ff. J.M.P. Smith, in Harper, 94 ff.; Lau & Langdon, _Annals of
+Ashurbanapal_, 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 been
+recognized. Already George Smith had written "The contempt of
+chronology in the Assyrian records is well shown by the fact that in
+Cylinder A, the account of the revolt of Psammitichus is given under
+the third expedition, while the general account of the rebellion of
+[Shamash shum ukin] is given under the sixth expedition, the affair of
+Nebobelzikri under the eighth expedition, and the Arabian and Syrian
+events in connection are given under the ninth expedition." [Footnote:
+_Ibid_., 202 n.*] If this severe criticism is not justified by a
+study of the Assyrian sources as a whole, the reference to Cylinder A
+may well begin our consideration of the shortcomings of that
+group. The Karbit and Urtaki episodes are entirely omitted. The
+omission of Karbit has dropped the Manna from the fifth to fourth and
+the omission of the latter has made the Teumman campaign the fifth
+instead of the seventh as in B, while the Gambulu expedition is also
+listed in the fifth though B makes it the eighth! The death of Gyges
+is added immediately after the other Lydian narrative, without a hint
+that years had intervened. The elaborate account of Teumman given by B
+has been cut decidedly and the interesting Ishtar dream is entirely
+omitted.
+
+The same is true of the Gambulu narrative. While B and C have the data
+as to the Elamite side of the revolt of Shamash shum ukin, the
+introduction and conclusion as well as many new details are found only
+in A. It is curious to find here, for the first time, the greater part
+of the long list of conquered Egyptian kings, written down when Egypt
+was forever freed from Assyrian rule. That Cylinder B was not its
+immediate source is shown by the fact that in the first Egyptian
+expedition it gives the pardon of Necho, which is not in B, but is
+found 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 how
+unworthy of the honor it is. Of all the cases where such procedure has
+caused damage, this is the worst. For the years from which we have no
+other data, we must use it, and we may hope that, as this period was
+nearer the time of its editors, its information may here be of more
+value. But we should recognize once and for all that the other
+portions are worthless and worse than worthless, save as they indicate
+the "corrections" to the actual history thought necessary by the royal
+scribes.
+
+Later than this in date, in all probability, is the document we may
+call I. To be sure, the Arabian expedition already occurs in B, but I
+has also sections which appear only in A, and which therefore probably
+date later. The one indication that points to its being later than A
+is the fact that, while A ascribes these actions to his generals, our
+document 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.] though
+as these are merely display inscriptions, the date matters
+little. Here too belongs J in spite of its references to the
+accession. [Footnote: K. 2867; S. A. Smith, II. 1 ff.; cf. Olmstead,
+_Bull. Amer. Geog. Soc._, XLIV. 434.--The various British Museum
+fragments, cited in King, _Supplement_, seem to be of no special
+importance 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 the
+Cilician. [Footnote: S. A. Strong, JA. 1893, 1. 368 ff.]
+
+We have already crossed the boundary which divides the really
+historical narratives from those which are merely sources. Among the
+latter, and of the more value as they open to us the sculptures, are
+the frequent notes inscribed over them, [Footnote: Scattered through
+the work of G. Smith, cf. also Menant, 287 ff.] while a number of
+tablets give much new historical information from the similar notes
+which 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, 191
+ff. K. 3096; G. Smith, 295 ff.] The Ishtar prayer is a historic
+document of the first class, the more so as its author never dreamed
+that some day it might be used to prove that the king was not
+accustomed, as his annals declare, to go forth at the head of his
+armies, that he was, in fact, destitute of even common
+bravery. [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 the
+scantiest data. The fall of the empire was imminent and there were no
+glories for the scribe to chronicle. Some bricks from the south east
+palace 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 all
+that we have from Ashur itil ilani and from Sin shar ishkun only
+fragments of a cylinder dealing with building. [Footnote: K. 1662 and
+dupl. 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 for
+the fall of the kingdom, our only certain knowledge being derived from
+a mutilated letter [Footnote: BM. 51082; Thompson, _Late Babylonian
+Letters_ 248.] and from a brief statement of the Babylonian king
+Nabu 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 reigns
+which were set forth with the official sanction. Before summing up our
+conclusions as to their general character, it will be well to devote a
+moment to the consideration of certain other sources for the Assyrian
+period. Many minor inscriptions have been passed by without notice,
+and a mere mention of the mass of business documents, letters, and
+appeals to the sun god will here be sufficient, though in a detailed
+history their help will be constantly invoked to fill in the sketch
+secured by the study of the official documents, and not infrequently
+to correct them. Of foreign sources, those of the Hebrews furnish too
+complicated a problem for study in this place, [Footnote:
+Cf. Olmstead, AJSL. XXX. Iff.; XXXI, 169 ff. for introduction to these
+new problems.] and the scanty documents of the other peoples who used
+the cuneiform characters hardly furnish source problems.
+
+Even the Babylonians have furnished us with hardly a text which
+demands source study. To the end, as is shown so conspiciously in the
+case of Nebuchadnezzar, scores of long inscriptions could be devoted
+to the building activities of the ruler while a tiny fragment is all
+that is found of the Annals. Even his rock cut inscriptions in Syria,
+those in the Wadi Brissa and at the Nahr el Kelb, are almost
+exclusively devoted to architectural operations in far away Babylon!
+[Footnote: It may be noted that the Cornell Expedition secured
+squeezes of both these inscriptions.]
+
+Yet if the Babylonians were so deficient in their appreciation of the
+need of historical annals for the individual reigns, they seem to have
+been, the superiors of the Assyrians when it came to the production of
+actual histories dealing with long periods of time. While the
+Babylonians have preserved to us numerous lists of kings and two
+excellent works which we have every reason to call actual histories,
+the Babylonian Chronicle and the Nabunaid-Cyrus Chronicle, the
+Assyrians have but the Eponym Lists, the so called Assyrian Chronicle,
+and the so called Synchronous History. The last has already been
+discussed, and we have seen how little it deserved the title of a real
+history, yet it marks the greatest advance the Assyrians made along
+this line. The Eponym lists are merely lists of the officials who
+dated each year in rotation, and they seem to have been compiled for
+practical calendar purposes. The so called Assyrian Chronicle is in
+reality nothing but a chronological table in three columns, the first
+with the name of the eponym for the year, the second with his office,
+and the third with the most important event, generally a campaign, of
+the year. As a historical source, more can be made out of this dry
+list than has previously been suspected, and this has been pointed out
+elsewhere. [Footnote: Olmstead, _Jour. Amer. Or. 80c._,
+XXXIV. 344 ff.] But, as a contribution to the writing of history, it
+holds a distinctly low place.
+
+On the other hand, the Babylonian Chronicle is a real, if somewhat
+crude history. In fact, it can be said without fear of contradiction
+that it is the best historical production of any cuneiform people. Our
+present 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 bit
+earlier. Only the first tablet has come down to us, but the mention of
+the first proves that a second existed. What we have covers the period
+745-668, a period of seventy-seven years. The second tablet would
+cover a period nearer the time of the writer and would naturally deal
+with the events more in detail, so that a smaller number of years
+would be given on this tablet. If but two tablets were written, the
+end of the work would be brought down close to the time when the
+Assyrian Empire fell (608). It is a tempting conjecture, though
+nothing more, that it was the fall of Assyria and the interest in the
+relations between the now dominant Babylonia and its former mistress,
+excited by this event, which led to the composition of the work. Be
+that as it may, the author is remarkably fair, with no apparent
+prejudice for or against any of the nations or persons named. The
+events chosen are naturally almost exclusively of a military or
+political nature, but within these limits he seems to have chosen
+wisely. In general, he confines himself to those events which have an
+immediate bearing on Babylonian history, but at times, as, for
+example, in his narration of the Egyptian expeditions, he shows a
+rather surprising range of interest. If we miss the picturesque
+language which adds so much to the literary value of the Assyrian
+royal annals, this can hardly be counted an objection by a generation
+of historians which has so subordinated the art of historical writing
+to the scientific discovery of historical facts. In its sobriety of
+presentation and its coldly impartial statement of fact, it may almost
+be called modern. [Footnote: Photograph, Rogers, 515, C. T. XXXIV 43
+ff. 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, _Keilschriftliches
+Urkundenbuch_, 49 ff.; Mercer, _Extra Biblical Sources_, 65
+ff.]
+
+We know the name of our other Babylonian historian, and we also know
+his date, though unfortunately we do not know his work in its
+entirety. This was Berossus, the Babylonian priest, who prepared a
+Babyloniaca which was dedicated to Antiochus I. When we remember that
+it is this same Antiochus who is the only one of the Seleucidae to
+furnish us with an inscription in cuneiform and to the honor of one of
+the old gods, [Footnote: Best in Weissbach, _Achämeniden
+Inschriften_, 132 ff., cf. xxx for bibliography.] it becomes clear
+that this work was prepared at the time when fusion of Greek and
+Babylonian seemed most possible, and with the desire to acquaint the
+Macedonian conquerors with the deeds of their predecessors in the rule
+of Babylonia. The book was characteristically Babylonian in that only
+the last of the three books into which it was divided, that beginning
+with the time of Nabonassar, can be considered historical in the
+strictest sense, and even of this only the merest fragments,
+abstracts, or traces, have come down to us. And the most important of
+these fragments have come down through a tradition almost without
+parallel. Today we must consult a modern Latin translation of an
+Armenian translation of the lost Greek original of the Chronicle of
+Eusebius, [Footnote: A, Schoene, "_Eusebii Chronicorum libri
+duo_, 1866 ff.; cf. Rogers, _Parallels_, 347 ff.; J. Karst,
+_Eusebius Werke_, V.] who borrowed in part from Alexander
+Polyhistor who borrowed from Berossus direct, in part from Abydenus
+who apparently borrowed from Juba who borrowed from Alexander
+Polyhistor and so from Berossus. To make a worse confusion, Eusebius
+has in some cases not recognized the fact that Abydenus is only a
+feeble echo of Polyhistor, and has quoted the accounts of each side by
+side! And this is not the worst. Although his Polyhistor account is in
+general to be preferred, Eusebius seems to have used a poor manuscript
+of that author. Furthermore, there is at least one case, that of the
+name of one of Sennacharib's sons, which can be secured only by
+assuming a mistake in the Armenian alphabet.
+
+It is in Eusebius that we find our most useful information, some of
+the facts being very real additions to our knowledge. But Berossus was
+also used by the early Apollodorus Chronicle, some time after 144
+B. C., from which some of his information may have drifted into other
+chronological writings. Alexander Polyhistor was used by Josephus, and
+Abydenus by Cyrillus, Syncellus, and the Armenian historian, the
+pseudo Moses of Chorene. So in these too, or even in others not here
+named, may lurk stray trifles from the work of Berossus. Perhaps from
+this, or from a similar source, comes the Babylonian part of the list
+of Kings known as the Canon of Ptolemy, which begins, as does the
+Babylonian Chronicle, with the accession of Nabonassar. [Footnote: The
+most convenient edition Wachsmuth, _Einleitung in das Studium der
+alten Geschichte_, 304 ff.; cf. Rogers, 239.] Though directly of
+Egyptian origin, as is shown by the system of dating, it undoubtedly
+goes back to a first class Babylonian source, as do the astronomical
+data in the Almagest of the same author, though here too the Egyptian
+calendar is used. [Footnote: Cf. Olmstead, _Sargon_, 34 f.]
+Summing up, practically all the authentic knowledge that the classical
+world has of the Assyrians and Babylonians came from
+Berossus. [Footnote: Of the literature on Berossus, we may quote here
+only Müller, _Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum_, II. 495 ff.; and
+the various articles by Schwartz, on Abydenus, Alexandros 88, and
+Berossus, in the Pauly-Wissowa _Real-encyclopädie_.] Herodotus
+may furnish a bit and something may be secured from the fragments of
+the Assyriaca of Ctesias, but it is necessary to test each fact from
+other sources before it can be accepted.
+
+And now what shall we say by way of summing up the Assyrian writing of
+history? First of all, it was developed from the building inscription
+and not from the boast of the soldier. That this throws a new light on
+the Assyrian character must be admitted, though here is not the place
+to prove that the Assyrian was far more than a mere man of war. All
+through the development of the Assyrian historiography, the building
+operations play a large part, and they dominate some even of the so
+called Annals. But once we have Annals, the other types of
+inscriptions may generally be disregarded. The Annals inscriptions,
+then, represent the height of Assyrian historical writing. From the
+literary point of view, they are often most striking with their bold
+similes, and that great care was devoted to their production can
+frequently be proved. But in their utilization, two principles must
+constantly be kept in mind. One is that the typical annals inscription
+went through a series of editions, that these later editions not only
+omitted important facts but "corrected" the earlier recitals for the
+greater glory of the ruler, real or nominal, and that accordingly only
+the earliest edition in which an event is narrated should be at all
+used. Secondly, we should never forget that these are official
+documents, and that if we can trust them in certain respects the more
+because they had better opportunities for securing the truth, all the
+greater must be our suspicion that they have concealed the truth when
+it was not to the advantage of the monarch glorified. Only when we
+have applied these principles in detail to the various documents can
+we be sure of our Assyrian history and only then shall we understand
+the mental processes of the Assyrian historians.
+
+
+
+
+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.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Assyrian Historiography
+by Albert Ten Eyck Olmstead
+
+*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ASSYRIAN HISTORIOGRAPHY ***
+
+This file should be named 6559-8.txt or 6559-8.zip
+
+Produced by Arno Peters, David Moynihan
+Charles Franks and the Online Distributed Proofing Team.
+
+Project Gutenberg eBooks are often created from several printed
+editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the US
+unless a copyright notice is included.  Thus, we usually do not
+keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
+
+We are now trying to release all our eBooks one year in advance
+of the official release dates, leaving time for better editing.
+Please be encouraged to tell us about any error or corrections,
+even years after the official publication date.
+
+Please note neither this listing nor its contents are final til
+midnight of the last day of the month of any such announcement.
+The official release date of all Project Gutenberg eBooks is at
+Midnight, Central Time, of the last day of the stated month.  A
+preliminary version may often be posted for suggestion, comment
+and editing by those who wish to do so.
+
+Most people start at our Web sites at:
+https://gutenberg.org or
+http://promo.net/pg
+
+These Web sites include award-winning information about Project
+Gutenberg, including how to donate, how to help produce our new
+eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter (free!).
+
+
+Those of you who want to download any eBook before announcement
+can get to them as follows, and just download by date.  This is
+also a good way to get them instantly upon announcement, as the
+indexes our cataloguers produce obviously take a while after an
+announcement goes out in the Project Gutenberg Newsletter.
+
+http://www.ibiblio.org/gutenberg/etext03 or
+ftp://ftp.ibiblio.org/pub/docs/books/gutenberg/etext03
+
+Or /etext02, 01, 00, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 92, 91 or 90
+
+Just search by the first five letters of the filename you want,
+as it appears in our Newsletters.
+
+
+Information about Project Gutenberg (one page)
+
+We produce about two million dollars for each hour we work.  The
+time it takes us, a rather conservative estimate, is fifty hours
+to get any eBook selected, entered, proofread, edited, copyright
+searched and analyzed, the copyright letters written, etc.   Our
+projected audience is one hundred million readers.  If the value
+per text is nominally estimated at one dollar then we produce $2
+million dollars per hour in 2002 as we release over 100 new text
+files per month:  1240 more eBooks in 2001 for a total of 4000+
+We are already on our way to trying for 2000 more eBooks in 2002
+If they reach just 1-2% of the world's population then the total
+will reach over half a trillion eBooks given away by year's end.
+
+The Goal of Project Gutenberg is to Give Away 1 Trillion eBooks!
+This is ten thousand titles each to one hundred million readers,
+which is only about 4% of the present number of computer users.
+
+Here is the briefest record of our progress (* means estimated):
+
+eBooks Year Month
+
+    1  1971 July
+   10  1991 January
+  100  1994 January
+ 1000  1997 August
+ 1500  1998 October
+ 2000  1999 December
+ 2500  2000 December
+ 3000  2001 November
+ 4000  2001 October/November
+ 6000  2002 December*
+ 9000  2003 November*
+10000  2004 January*
+
+
+The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation has been created
+to secure a future for Project Gutenberg into the next millennium.
+
+We need your donations more than ever!
+
+As of February, 2002, contributions are being solicited from people
+and organizations in: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut,
+Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois,
+Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts,
+Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New
+Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio,
+Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South
+Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West
+Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
+
+We have filed in all 50 states now, but these are the only ones
+that have responded.
+
+As the requirements for other states are met, additions to this list
+will be made and fund raising will begin in the additional states.
+Please feel free to ask to check the status of your state.
+
+In answer to various questions we have received on this:
+
+We are constantly working on finishing the paperwork to legally
+request donations in all 50 states.  If your state is not listed and
+you would like to know if we have added it since the list you have,
+just ask.
+
+While we cannot solicit donations from people in states where we are
+not yet registered, we know of no prohibition against accepting
+donations from donors in these states who approach us with an offer to
+donate.
+
+International donations are accepted, but we don't know ANYTHING about
+how to make them tax-deductible, or even if they CAN be made
+deductible, and don't have the staff to handle it even if there are
+ways.
+
+Donations by check or money order may be sent to:
+
+Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
+PMB 113
+1739 University Ave.
+Oxford, MS 38655-4109
+
+Contact us if you want to arrange for a wire transfer or payment
+method other than by check or money order.
+
+The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation has been approved by
+the US Internal Revenue Service as a 501(c)(3) organization with EIN
+[Employee Identification Number] 64-622154.  Donations are
+tax-deductible to the maximum extent permitted by law.  As fund-raising
+requirements for other states are met, additions to this list will be
+made and fund-raising will begin in the additional states.
+
+We need your donations more than ever!
+
+You can get up to date donation information online at:
+
+https://www.gutenberg.org/donation.html
+
+
+***
+
+If you can't reach Project Gutenberg,
+you can always email directly to:
+
+Michael S. Hart <hart@pobox.com>
+
+Prof. Hart will answer or forward your message.
+
+We would prefer to send you information by email.
+
+
+**The Legal Small Print**
+
+
+(Three Pages)
+
+***START**THE SMALL PRINT!**FOR PUBLIC DOMAIN EBOOKS**START***
+Why is this "Small Print!" statement here? You know: lawyers.
+They tell us you might sue us if there is something wrong with
+your copy of this eBook, even if you got it for free from
+someone other than us, and even if what's wrong is not our
+fault. So, among other things, this "Small Print!" statement
+disclaims most of our liability to you. It also tells you how
+you may distribute copies of this eBook if you want to.
+
+*BEFORE!* YOU USE OR READ THIS EBOOK
+By using or reading any part of this PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm
+eBook, you indicate that you understand, agree to and accept
+this "Small Print!" statement. If you do not, you can receive
+a refund of the money (if any) you paid for this eBook by
+sending a request within 30 days of receiving it to the person
+you got it from. If you received this eBook on a physical
+medium (such as a disk), you must return it with your request.
+
+ABOUT PROJECT GUTENBERG-TM EBOOKS
+This PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm eBook, like most PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm eBooks,
+is a "public domain" work distributed by Professor Michael S. Hart
+through the Project Gutenberg Association (the "Project").
+Among other things, this means that no one owns a United States copyright
+on or for this work, so the Project (and you!) can copy and
+distribute it in the United States without permission and
+without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth
+below, apply if you wish to copy and distribute this eBook
+under the "PROJECT GUTENBERG" trademark.
+
+Please do not use the "PROJECT GUTENBERG" trademark to market
+any commercial products without permission.
+
+To create these eBooks, the Project expends considerable
+efforts to identify, transcribe and proofread public domain
+works. Despite these efforts, the Project's eBooks and any
+medium they may be on may contain "Defects". Among other
+things, Defects may take the form of incomplete, inaccurate or
+corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
+intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged
+disk or other eBook medium, a computer virus, or computer
+codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.
+
+LIMITED WARRANTY; DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES
+But for the "Right of Replacement or Refund" described below,
+[1] Michael Hart and the Foundation (and any other party you may
+receive this eBook from as a PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm eBook) disclaims
+all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including
+legal fees, and [2] YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE OR
+UNDER STRICT LIABILITY, OR FOR BREACH OF WARRANTY OR CONTRACT,
+INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE
+OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE
+POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
+
+If you discover a Defect in this eBook within 90 days of
+receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any)
+you paid for it by sending an explanatory note within that
+time to the person you received it from. If you received it
+on a physical medium, you must return it with your note, and
+such person may choose to alternatively give you a replacement
+copy. If you received it electronically, such person may
+choose to alternatively give you a second opportunity to
+receive it electronically.
+
+THIS EBOOK IS OTHERWISE PROVIDED TO YOU "AS-IS". NO OTHER
+WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, ARE MADE TO YOU AS
+TO THE EBOOK OR ANY MEDIUM IT MAY BE ON, INCLUDING BUT NOT
+LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A
+PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
+
+Some states do not allow disclaimers of implied warranties or
+the exclusion or limitation of consequential damages, so the
+above disclaimers and exclusions may not apply to you, and you
+may have other legal rights.
+
+INDEMNITY
+You will indemnify and hold Michael Hart, the Foundation,
+and its trustees and agents, and any volunteers associated
+with the production and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm
+texts harmless, from all liability, cost and expense, including
+legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the
+following that you do or cause:  [1] distribution of this eBook,
+[2] alteration, modification, or addition to the eBook,
+or [3] any Defect.
+
+DISTRIBUTION UNDER "PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm"
+You may distribute copies of this eBook electronically, or by
+disk, book or any other medium if you either delete this
+"Small Print!" and all other references to Project Gutenberg,
+or:
+
+[1]  Only give exact copies of it.  Among other things, this
+     requires that you do not remove, alter or modify the
+     eBook or this "small print!" statement.  You may however,
+     if you wish, distribute this eBook in machine readable
+     binary, compressed, mark-up, or proprietary form,
+     including any form resulting from conversion by word
+     processing or hypertext software, but only so long as
+     *EITHER*:
+
+     [*]  The eBook, when displayed, is clearly readable, and
+          does *not* contain characters other than those
+          intended by the author of the work, although tilde
+          (~), asterisk (*) and underline (_) characters may
+          be used to convey punctuation intended by the
+          author, and additional characters may be used to
+          indicate hypertext links; OR
+
+     [*]  The eBook may be readily converted by the reader at
+          no expense into plain ASCII, EBCDIC or equivalent
+          form by the program that displays the eBook (as is
+          the case, for instance, with most word processors);
+          OR
+
+     [*]  You provide, or agree to also provide on request at
+          no additional cost, fee or expense, a copy of the
+          eBook in its original plain ASCII form (or in EBCDIC
+          or other equivalent proprietary form).
+
+[2]  Honor the eBook refund and replacement provisions of this
+     "Small Print!" statement.
+
+[3]  Pay a trademark license fee to the Foundation of 20% of the
+     gross profits you derive calculated using the method you
+     already use to calculate your applicable taxes.  If you
+     don't derive profits, no royalty is due.  Royalties are
+     payable to "Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation"
+     the 60 days following each date you prepare (or were
+     legally required to prepare) your annual (or equivalent
+     periodic) tax return.  Please contact us beforehand to
+     let us know your plans and to work out the details.
+
+WHAT IF YOU *WANT* TO SEND MONEY EVEN IF YOU DON'T HAVE TO?
+Project Gutenberg is dedicated to increasing the number of
+public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed
+in machine readable form.
+
+The Project gratefully accepts contributions of money, time,
+public domain materials, or royalty free copyright licenses.
+Money should be paid to the:
+"Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."
+
+If you are interested in contributing scanning equipment or
+software or other items, please contact Michael Hart at:
+hart@pobox.com
+
+[Portions of this eBook's header and trailer may be reprinted only
+when distributed free of all fees.  Copyright (C) 2001, 2002 by
+Michael S. Hart.  Project Gutenberg is a TradeMark and may not be
+used in any sales of Project Gutenberg eBooks or other materials be
+they hardware or software or any other related product without
+express permission.]
+
+*END THE SMALL PRINT! FOR PUBLIC DOMAIN EBOOKS*Ver.02/11/02*END*
+
diff --git a/6559-8.zip b/6559-8.zip
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..1aade14
--- /dev/null
+++ b/6559-8.zip
diff --git a/LICENSE.txt b/LICENSE.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6312041
--- /dev/null
+++ b/LICENSE.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+This eBook, including all associated images, markup, improvements,
+metadata, and any other content or labor, has been confirmed to be
+in the PUBLIC DOMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES.
+
+Procedures for determining public domain status are described in
+the "Copyright How-To" at https://www.gutenberg.org.
+
+No investigation has been made concerning possible copyrights in
+jurisdictions other than the United States. Anyone seeking to utilize
+this eBook outside of the United States should confirm copyright
+status under the laws that apply to them.
diff --git a/README.md b/README.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..3693989
--- /dev/null
+++ b/README.md
@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
+Project Gutenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org) public repository for
+eBook #6559 (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/6559)