Assyrian Historiography | Page 8

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