Western Asia in the days of Sargon of Assyria

Introduction

The present work is a thesis presented to the President White School of History and Political Science at Cornell University, and is published as one of its studies. It is an attempt to investigate methodically a brief period of Oriental history, interesting alike to the Assyriologist, the Biblical scholar, and the student of classical antiquity.

I began the study of the Sargon inscriptions with Professor Schmidt in 1901. A year later this subject was chosen for my thesis for the degree of Master of Arts from Cornell University. The year 1903-1904 was spent in preparation for a trip to Syria lasting from May, 1904, to August, 1905, while I was Fellow of the American School for Oriental Studies at Jerusalem. In preparation for this trip a collection of the published Assyrian data relating to Syria had been made, and these were again studied in Syria. The towns of Hamath, Cimirra, Damascus, Tyre, Samaria, Ashdod, Gaza, and Raphia, actually mentioned by the scribes of Sargon, were visited. The Mugri question, so important for our whole conception of Sargon's Syrian policy, was studied in the Negeb itself. Possibly most valuable of all was the constant and very close contact with the natives of all conditions, nations, and religions.

Among points to which special attention may perhaps be invited in this work are the chronological clue to the eponym canon fragment, the utilization and placing together of the fragments of Prism B, the use of which has materially modified the chronology of the reign, the discussion of the Negeb and Mugri question from a personal knowledge of the

VI WESTERN ASIA IN THE DAYS OF SARGON

field, the relegation of the Dur Sharrukin group to its proper place, and the reconstruction of the history on the basis ot the topography, resulting in a number of new identifications, especially in Asia Minor.

Credit should be given to those who have generously afforded me help. I desire to express my thanks to my friends, Mr. B. B. Charles, assistant in Semitics at Cornell, and Mr. J. E. Wrench, fellow in history at Wisconsin, both of whom were with me in Syria, for many suggestions. Professor J. R. S. Sterrett, who has an intimate personal knowledge of Asia Minor, has often rendered important assistance. From Professor G. L. Burr I have received valuable aid in applying a strict historical method, and Professor H. A. Sill has helped on the side of classical history. Above all, I owe a heavy debt of gratitude to Professor N. Schmidt. For eight years it has been my good fortune to be closely associated with him, first as student, and then as assistant, both at Cornell University and later in Syria. To him I owe my knowledge of Semitic languages and Oriental history. In a very real sense this work owes to his inspiration both its origin and its completion.

A. T. Olmstead.

The President White Library, Cornell University, June 8, 1906.

Contents

Introduction • v

The Sources i

The Armenian Wars 1 03

Chapter I

The resurrection of the Assyrian world and the discovery of Sargon are synchronous. Prior to 1843, when Botta made his first excavations, it was no exaggeration to say that " a case scarcely three feet square enclosed all that remained, not only of the great city, Nineveh, but of Babylon itself." ^ When that scholar left his consulate at Baghdad to excavate in the huge shapeless mound of Khorsabad, a new world came into being. A new people and a new language, new customs and a new art, surprised the world ; and Sargon, thus far known only by a single reference in the Bible,^ suddenly took his place by the side of Cyrus or Croesus as one of the great monarchs of the ancient Orient.

The first efforts of Botta were confined almost entirely to the securing of bas-reliefs and inscriptions.^ A later expedition, led by Place in 1851, yielded a less rich booty of such finds, but, by the careful uncovering of the whole palace mound, gave us what is still the best plan of an Assyrian

'A. H. Layard, Nineveh and its Remains, 1 849, xxv.

"Isaiah 20'.

' The first results were published in Journal Asiatique, IV Series, vols. II-IV, and later as a separate work by Botta, Lettres sur les decouvertes de Khorsabad, 1845, the definitive edition of the results in Botta and Flandin, Monuments de Ninive, 1849-50. I I palace.* Another expedition, though adding nothing to our Assyrian material, gave Oppert an opportunity of studying the inscriptions and remains in situ.^

Thus for a considerable period, Sargon and his works were the most important matters Assyriologists had for discussion. But as new sites were excavated and new documents were found, the interest gradually shifted to other fields where more hope of startling discoveries was to be had. And, indeed, there is little reason to look for many new historical documents of Sargon's reign being found; for the palace he built has been thoroughly excavated and most of the other places he occupied have been more or less fully explored. From the philological side there is no likelihood of great change, and the standard edition by Winckler" is nearly final.

But though there is little call for a re-editing of the texts, two causes make a re-writing of the history very necessary. On the one hand, a large amount of new material has become available. This is not, of course, to any great extent of a historical nature. But in the wealth of letters, charters, business documents, and other material of this sort, we are not so very diffierently situated from the historian of Mediaeval Europe who uses the same kind of documents to check and amplify his chronicles.

But even more important is the change in our attitude toward these sources. We no longer are content with a collection, however exhaustive, of the material. We must first criticize our sources and then interpret them, not only m sympathy with the past, but with special reference to the historical demands of our own day. Let us see how all this afifects our estimates of these inscriptions.

* V. Place, Ninive et I'Assyrie, 1867-70.

° J. Oppert, Expedition ScientiAque en Mesopotamie, 1859-63.

' H. Winckler, Die Keilschrifttexte Sargons, 1889.

At first sight, nothing could be more certain than the accuracy of these sources. We have here no manuscripts corrupted by frequent copying. Our documents are originals, and, what is more, are the productions of contemporaries whose results are given us stamped with the stamp of official approval. Other reasons, no less potent though less recognized and less legitimate, were the natural prejudice in favor of the newest discoveries, especially when discovered in so wonderful a way, and the even more natural feeling of favor with which Christian men and women viewed the documents, risen from the earth, which so often refuted the over-zealous " higher critic." ^

Our report must be much less favorable. These records are official. In that fact lies their strength and their weakness. The opportunities for securing the truth were ample. Royal scribes accompanied the various expeditions' and the archive chambers were full of detailed reports from commanders in the field. But, like all official records, ancient or modern, these documents have been edited to a degree of which it is difficult to conceive. A few examples may not be out of place to show how far from trustworthy they are. Sometimes a foreign source may afford the needed correction, as when Rusash of Haldia turns up safe, sound, and victorious enough to erect the Topsana stele some time after the suicide the Assyrian scribes so pathetically describe, or as when the Hebrew account* declares that the leader of the Ashdod expedition was the Tartan and not the king^" him-

' S. Karppe, Les Documents historiques de la Chaldee et de I'Assyrie et la Verite, Revue Semitique, 1894, 347 ff., is rather trite but marks a step in the right direction.

' For the gittai officials who went as scribes to the field of battle, compare Johns, Deeds, II. 168.

" Isaiah, /. c.

" As claimed by Sargon, Prism B.

self, or as when from the Babylonian chronicle we learn that the victory Sargon claims to have won at Dur ilu was really a defeat." In each of these cases there was every inducement for Sargon's scribes not to tell the truth, while the foreign writers were under much less temptation.

But sometimes we do not need to go beyond Sargon himself. Out of his own mouth we may convict him of untruth. Note, for example, the three accounts of the fate of Merodach Baladan. In one he is captured.^^ In the second he begs for peace.^^ In the third, he runs away and escapes." Naturally, we are inclined to accept the last, and this is confirmed by the later course of events.^* But such an occurrence raises a doubt in our mind as to the accuracy of other cases where the official accounts do not agree among themselves. When, for instance, we have one account of the Ashdod expedition in which we are told that lamani was captured^^ and another where we learn that he fled to Meluhha whence he was brought back,^^ we are inclined to wonder if he did not really escape.^*

Another question and one which must affect our estimate of Sargon's character, is how far the use of the first person actually means personal command in the field. In one or two cases,^" where the absurdity of this would have been self-evident, due credit is given to the local commander. The use of the first person means no more than does the triumph of a Roman emperor mean that he was in the field

" Ci. the study of the battle of Dur ilu in chapter III.

"Annals V; cf. F. Peiser, Zeitschrift fur Assyriologie, 1889, 412 ff.

"See further in chapter VII. n. 57.

"Cf. chapter III. n. 68.

himself. In many cases it would clearly have been impossible for Sargon to have been in widely separated parts of the empire at practically the same time. Many campaigns are too petty for the great king to have troubled himself about. Only once does the Hebrew allow us to check and then, in the important Ashdod revolt, it is the Tartan and not the king who is in command.^" Indeed, from the letters and the prayers to Shamash," we find that it was the exception rather than the rule for the king to war at the head of his army. In several cases it has already been recognized that we must see separate movements under separate commanders to the consequent clearing up of the history.^^ Much must still be done along this line.

A mere reference may be made here to the exaggerated and discordant figures given in the various documents. The plea of Oriental disregard for numbers may be made, but can hardly stand in the face of the small and exact numbers of the epistolary literature. Nor should we forget the stereotyped formulae which have no more real meaning than have the accounts of battles in Diodorus. Enough has been shown, it would seem, to indicate the care with which we must study these sources, even when their statements are not directly challenged by other evidence. Even within the official inscriptions themselves there are groups of varying degrees of trustworthiness. Unfortunately, the one least valuable is the fullest, and has, until the present, been too fully trusted. Unfortunately, too, our other evidence is of a fragmentary character and so often we must accept the version of the official inscriptions of this group or trust to

^J. A. Knudtzon, Assyrische Gebete, 1893.

'"A. Billerbeck, Susa, 1893, has done this for the Susa campaigns. In his Suleimania, 1898, he has done the same for the Median wars.

mere conjecture. This group is that comprising the various documents dating from about the year 707 and coming down to us inscribed on the walls of Sargon's new capital of Dur Sharrukin. It includes the Annals," the Annals of Hall XIV,^* the Display Inscription^" which form a sub-group of larger inscriptions, and a group of smaller ones including the Cylinders^^ from the foundations, the inscriptions on the Bulls," the tablets found in the foundation stone,^^ those

^ The Annals ; abbreviated as A., was first published by Botta, op. cit., pis. 70 ff., 104 if., 158 ff. The latest and best edition by Winckler, Sargon, II. pi. I ff. Translated by Oppert in Place, Ninive, II. 309 ff. ; in Les inscriptions de Dour Sarkayan, 1870 29 ff. ; in Records of the Past, I Series, 1873 if-, VII. 21 ff. ; by J. Menant, Annales des Rots d'Assyrie, 1874, 158 ff. ; by Winckler, De Inscriptione quae vocatur Annalium, 1886; in Sargon, I. 3 If.

°' The various parts of this inscription are published in their place with the other versions of the Annals by Winckler, but in his translation he has collected them separately, placing them after the Annals proper.

™ The Display Inscription is the Pastes of the French and the Prunkinschrift of the Germans. Text in Botta, op. cit., pi. 93 ff. ; Winckler, Sargon, II. pi. 30 ff. ; translated by Oppert and Menant, Les Pastes de Sargon, 1^63^ Journal Asiatique, 1863-65; Menant, Annales, 180 if.; Oppert, Records of the Past^ IX. i ff.\ Winckler, Sargon, I. 97 ff. ; F. E. Peiser, KeilinschriftUche Bibliothek, 1889 ff., II. 52 ff. There are four versions on the walls of rooms IV, VII, VIII, X. Of these, X is nearly complete while the others make only verbal changes. The date is the same as that of A. since D. 155-157^ A. 416-118. A further limitation is found in D. 23 where Sargon refers to his fifteenth year (707). Quoted as D.

"Published by Place, Ninive, II. 291 ff.; Oppert, Dour Sarkayan, 11 ff.; I. R. 36; D. G. Lyon, Keilschrifttexte Sargons, 1883, i ff.; Winckler, op. cit., II. pi. 43. Translated by Oppert in Place, /. c. ; by Oppert, /. c. ; Menant, Annales, 199 ff.; Lyon, op. cit., 30 ff.; Peiser, Keilinschr. Bibl., II. 39 ff. ; A. Barta in R. F. Harper, Assyrian and Babylonian Literature, 1901, 59 ff. The variants are of small importance. A fragment of a somewhat similar text found at Jerusalem is published by Menant, Recueil de Travaux, 1890 (XIII), 194.

^ Published by Botta, op. cit., pi. 22 ff. ; Oppert in Place, op. cit., 283 ff.; Dour Sarkayan, 3 ff.; Lyon, op. cit., 13 ff.; Winckler, op. cit., II. pi. 41 f. Translated by Oppert, /. c, and Records of the Past^ XI. ly ff.- on the gate pavements,^* and those on the backs of the sculptured slabs.^"

Of the two sub-groups, the first is not only fuller, but generally more accurate, though there ye cases where the second seems to point to a more probable situation.'^ Of the first, again, the Annals is the most trustworthy as well as the backbone of our chronology. As compared with the other documents of the Dur Sharrukin group, details are given most fully, numbers are still fairly reasonable, and the facts seem least distorted. Yet often the four versions of the Annals differ among themselves in a most remarkable manner^- and in some cases two slightly differing accounts have

Menant, op. cit., 192 if.\ Lyons, op. cit., 40 ff. The inscriptions are on slabs under the colossi. A fragment in the Egyptian Museum of the Vatican is noted by C. Bezold, Zeitschr. f. Assyr., 1886, 229, cf. K. Badeker, Central Italy, 1904, 361. There is a close agreement, often verbal, between the Bull and the Cylinder Inscriptions. Quoted as C.

^ Seven inscriptions on slabs of gold, silver, copper, lead, alabaster, limestone (or tin(?)) and on the chest itself. For a discussion of the materials, cf. F. Delitzsch, Assyrisches Worterbuch, 1887, 50. The chest and two slabs were lost in the Tigris accident. The others published by Oppert in Place, op. cit., 303 ff. ; and in Dour Sarkayan, 23 ff. ; Lyon, op. cit., 20 ff.; Winckler, op. cit., II. pi. 37 ff. Translated by Oppert, /. 1,., and in Records of the Past^ XI. 31 ff. ; Lyon, op. cit., 48 ff. In general, it belongs to the group of minor inscriptions.

^ Published by Botta, op. cit., pi. i ff. ; Winckler, op. cit., II. pi. 37 ff. Translated by Menant, op. cit., 195 ff.; Winckler, op. cit., 136 ff. It is found on the pavements of nineteen gateways. There are five recensions of which IV found in nine gates is the longest and most important. Quoted as P.

'"Published by Botta, op. cit., pi. 164 ff.; Winckler, op. cit., II. pi. 40. Translated by Menant, op. cit., 196 ff.; Winckler, op. cit., 164 ff. It is the short display inscription placed on the backs of the slabs so that, even if they fell away from the walls, the name and titles of Sargon could still be seen.

" Cf. chap. IV. n. 43.

" Cf . n. 13 with n. 12. There are over a dozen such instances according to Winckler, Ins. Sarg., 11.

been incorporated one after the other.^' The greatest value of the Annals lies in its chronology, for indeed without it we would have no solid basis for the dating of many events of the reign and no general chronology at all. Yet a careful examination of its chronological data gives an unsatisfactory impression. Under the year 710, for example, we have a brief account of the events from the accession of Merodach Baladan," while at the end of the same year we have the account of the " seizing the hands of Bel," which logically closes the Babylonian campaign, but really belongs to the following year.^^ The section dealing with 716, as already seen, clearly contains the records of more than one year.^^ The frontier wars were evidently chronic, yet they are forced into the chronological scheme. Nor does the scheme agree with what we find elsewhere. It is difficult to acknowledge that the scribes of Sargon, near the close of his reign, did not know or did not care to know the real succession of affairs. The putting together of the Prism fragments has perhaps given a new point of view. In the earlier years, the date is one year earlier than that of the Annals, in the later, two years. It is simply inconceivable that in 707 the scribes did not know whether the Ashdod revolt took place four or six years before. There are two distinct systems here, one in the Annals and one in the Prism B, both probably artificial to a considerable extent. Which is more probable and to how great a degree either is true is a difficult question, but a study of the whole chronology seems to indicate that that of Prism B should

""A. 309 ff. '" A. 52 if. Cf. discussion, chap. V.

be more trusted, and this seems to be borne out by a comparison of the two. It is difficult to explain the system of the Annals from that of the Prism, but the reverse is easy. It looks a little as if there had been a break in the series of campaigns, — the Assyrian Chronicle has for one year " in the land," that is, no expedition, — and that later the scribes had padded out these gaps with the events of other more crowded years.^' A most glaring example of the inaccuracy of the Annals is in its dating the battle of Dur ilu in 721, whereas not only the Babylonian Chronicle, but also an official inscription of Sargon of very early date assign it to 720. Again we ask: Why was this transfer and what really happened in 721 ? Was that year taken up with putting down revolts ? ^* The chronology of the Assyrian Chronicle belongs to a group of its own, but so far as its data can be brought into relation to the others, it rather supports that of the Prism.^' But, however we may distrust the artificial scheme of the Annals, we must acknowledge that the others may also have an artificial character while, as the only full and complete system, it must still be retained for at least relative chronology in so far as an artificial system cannot be detected. A very inferior version of the Annals is that of Hall XIV, which omits much and abandons the chronological order.

If the Annals had been completely preserved, there would be little use for the Display Inscription, but the former is so badly mutilated that the frequently literal quotation by the latter is often our only source. But the accounts are much abbreviated and are arranged in geographical rather than in chronological order, although chronology does play some part within these sections. Failure to understand this

=^ Ci. chap. III. u. 8.

lO WESTERN ASIA IN THE DAYS OF SARGON

arrangement has led to sad mistakes, an example of which is the time-honored error which places an Arabian tribute immediately after the battle of Rapihu, merely because the two are closely connected in this inscription.*"

The minor inscriptions of this group give but little that is new. There is no chronological arrangement and their variant readings, though interesting to the philologist and topographer, have but little for the historian. The Cylinders seem to be the earliest as they are the most important. In fact, so close is the agreement in places with the deed of gift document of 714 that we may postulate an earlier date for this, perhaps soon after the conquest of Babylon. For the building of Dur Sharrukin, it is our best authority and may perhaps be a source for the accounts of the others, while it is often of value for other phases of the culture life. The Larnaka stele is of interest, because it is the identical stone Sargon sent to Cyprus, as we are informed in the other inscriptions. Its text is comparatively short, but in type it agrees rather with the large than the small ones. Sometimes it gives a more likely account, as when we have the version of the subjection of Cyprus intended for the Cypriotes themselves, or the fuller account of Hamath. Its date is about the same as that of the Dur Sharrukin group, to which it belongs in spite of its distant location.*^

*" In D. 27 the tribute of Piru follows D. 26 where Hanunu of Gaza appears. These events have been placed together by E. Schrader, Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament^ 1872, 285; i&./ 1883, 297; L. B. Paton, Early History of Syria and Palestine, igoi, 247; G. S. Goodspeed, History of the Babylonians and Assyrians, 1902, 249. But this a clear case of error, for D. 27 is identical with A. 97 which is, of course, under 715.

"The Cyprus stele was first noted in 1845 by L. Ross, Reisen nach Kos, 1852, 87 n. 6. It had been discovered while digging a cellar in an otherwise unexcavated region on the west outskirts of the Mariana or

THE SOURCES I I

A second group would contain the inscriptions of the two Prisms. Prism A has been fairly well studied. It gives us the well-known Ashdod revolt, the list of Median princes, and a Dalta episode. Prism B has remained largely unnoticed. The fragments have now been arranged, and large parts of four out of eight columns recovered. The results are in general disappointingly meager in all but one direction. This is the chronology which, however artificial, seems, as already noted, to be more nearly correct than that of the Annals. The two prisms, though not identical, are quite similar. They are of Annal type, though entirely unrelated to the Annals. They seem earlier than the Dur Sharrukin group, though they cannot be much older. They appear to come from Nineveh, where Sargon would seem to have resided prior to his occupation of his new capital.*^

port of Larnaka. For location, cf. the map by Dozen in Corpus Inscriptionutn Semiticarum, 1881 /?., I. 1. 35. The stele, a large block of basaltic stone, bearing a life-size relief of the king, was secured for the Berlin Museum by M. Mattel, Prussian Consul in Cyprus. Reported by Mas Latrie, Arch, des Missions scientiUques, I. 112 and pi. 3, quoted Comptes Rendus of the French Academy, 1899, 716. H. Rawlinson recognized the figure as that of the founder of Khorsabad and took a. squeeze, Athenaeum, 1850, No. 1166. Lepsius noted the mention of Bittaeans in Menander, J. Bonomi, Nineveh and its Palaces,^ 1857, 144 if. Cf. also I. H. Hall, Proceedings of N. Y. University Convocation, 1876, 107, and L. P. di Cesnola, Cyprus, 1878, 47, for further details of the discovery. Published III. R. 11 and more fully, Schrader, Abhandlungen of Berlin Academy, 1881 and separately, Die Sargonstele, 1882 ; by Winckler, op. cit., 11. pi. 46 f. Translations by G. Smith, Zeitschr. f. Aegypt. Sprache, 1871, 68; Menant, Annales, 206 /f . ; Schrader, op. cit.; Winckler, op. cit., I. 174 if. The date is year III of Sargon, King of Babylon = year XV as king of Assyria = 707. The affinity is rather with the large than with the small inscriptions. Quoted as S. In I. 51 ff. it adds a fair amount of new information about Hamath. In I. 46 if. the battle with Rusash is placed after the capture of Mugagir, which is perhaps correct.

" The greater number of the fragments of Prisms A. and B. have been published by Winckler, Sargon, II. pi. 43 ff- There is no doubt as to

Another group is that containing the more strictly chron-

the order of the fragments of Prism A., for they actually join. Of the three legible sections, one, that relating to the Medes, has been translated by G. Smith, Assyrian Discoveries," 1876, 288 f. and by Winckler, Untersuchungen sur Altorientalischen Geschichte, 1889, 118 ff.; another, relating to the Ashdod expedition, by G. Smith, op. cit., 289 ff. and by Winckler, Sargon, 187 ff. ; the third, relating to Dalta is still untranslated but may be used. The fragments are K. 1668 b + DT. b.

Prism B. is almost identical with Prism A. in size and character of writing. The fragments are K. 1668 a -|- 1671, 1668, 1672, 1673, 8536 (the unnumerirt of Winckler's plate) S. 2021, 2022, 2050, 79-7-8, 14. K. 4818 which is also given by Winckler clearly does not belong here and may be excluded. K. 1668a has already been joined to 1671 and a beautifully clear though minute photograph of these is given by C. J. Ball, Light from the East, 1889, 185. The other fragments are still unjoined and practically undeciphered. Bezold, Zeitchr. f. Assyr., 1889, 411, n." has pointed out that S. 2049, Rm. 292, and 82-5-22, 8 belong to the same prism but they are still unpublished.

The first necessity is decipherment. When enough has been made out to assign each fragment its subject, an attempt at arrangement may be made. As a result of my attempts, I believe that I have secured large parts of four columns from the eight originally existing. The following is my arrangement :

I begin my first column, which really must have been preceded by one or more columns giving titles, introduction, and the earliest events of the reign, with Col. I of K. 1672 where we have references to Samalla and Hamath. Winckler, who has studied this fragment, Altorientalische Forschungen, II. 71 ff., thinks that this belongs probably to 711, but long before I had any hope of piecing the prism together, it had seemed to me that the whole general tenor allowed only 720, or year II. If now we look for a fragment continuing the same subject, we have it in Col. I of 79-7-8, 14, Winckler, Mitth. Vorderasiat. Gesellsch., 1898, I, 53, where we have references to Mu?ri and to Martu, or Syria, references which we naturally connect with the intrigues of Sibu of Egypt. The second part of this column deals with Urartu and the Mannai which would then be the Rusash troubles which began, as it would seem, in 719 or year III. We would then be inclined to place next Col. I of S. 2021, since we have a reference to Ursa or Rusash, and that our assigning of this Col. I to year III is not far wrong is proved by the fact that Col. II of S. 2021 is actually dated in year V, so that the upper part of this column must be year IV. These first columns of these three fragments are all that we can assign to the first column of the Prism. Comparison ological documents. The so-called Eponym Canon gives

with the other columns shows that, at the least, thirty-five lines from the lower part of the column have been lost. For Col. II of the Prism, we have, if our arrangement of Col. I is correct, Col. II of K. 1672, of 79-7-8, 14, and of S. 2021. Unfortunately, the first two are too mutilated to discover what country they belong to, and the same is true of the part in S. 2021 above the line. Below that, we have a new year, year V, when an expedition was made against Ashur liu. In consequence, all above the line must be year IV, or earlier. But more curious is the fact that the Ashur liu expedition is in year V, not year VI, as in the Annals. By this time, the Prism has fallen one year behind the Annals, and this peculiarity we shall find to the end. We naturally expect something else in this same year VI of the Annals == year V of the Prism, and we find it in K. 1669, with its references to Kishesim whose name was changed to Kar Adar, to the Madai, and to Kimirra. To be sure, the last place is not mentioned in the Annals until year VII, but the general locality is the same. Below the line and therefore in year VI is a section I cannot identify. But to this same year VI must be referred K. 8536, since the references to Ursa and Que agree well enough with the Que of Annals year VII. This ends Col. II of the Prism which must have had at least seventy-five lines. For the first part of Col. Ill of the Prism, we have A., B., C, of Winckler's arrangement of K. 1671 j-f- 1668. What A. deals with is not clear. B. and C. relate to Haldia and Ursa, that is, to the events of year VIII of the Annals. Making the correction of one year, our year VII fits in well. After this, we should probably place Col. I of S. 2022 where a joint may perhaps be made. Here a land whose name begins with I. may perhaps be in the Mannai region. This must be in the year VIII, for on Col. II of this fragment we have year IX. This ends Col. Ill of the Prism. At the beginning of Col. IV we place, though doubtfully, K. 1673 with its mention of Aragi, perhaps Median. At any rate, we can hardly deny to this D., E., F., of K. 1671 \+ 1668. We should naturally expect here events of year VIII or year IX of the Annals, and this we certainly have. D. and E. deal with Amitashshi of Karalla and with Itti of Allabria, and then below the line, with Dalta of EUi. So far all is well, and we must place this in the year VIII (IX). When we come to add to this column Col. II of S. 2022, we find ourselves in trouble; for the first half of this is given to Mita and Ambaris who are placed in year X in the Annals, yet, below the line, we have year IX for the Ashbod expedition which is year XI according to the Annals. In these last cases, then, we have slipped back two years beyond the Annals dates. What does this mean? Does this mean that some