Assyrian Historiography | Page 8

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, _Exp��dition en M��sopotamie_, 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