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.]