diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | .gitattributes | 3 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 6559-8.txt | 2813 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 6559-8.zip | bin | 0 -> 58599 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | LICENSE.txt | 11 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | README.md | 2 |
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 Binary files differnew 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) |