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.]