Assyrian Historiography | Page 3

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