Assyrian Historiography | Page 6

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