THE ASSYRIAN EMPIRE. TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

RECORDS OF THE REIGN OF TUKULTI-NINIB I

KING OF ASSYRIA,

ABOUT B.C. 1275

 

EDITED AND TRANSLATED FROM A MEMORIAL TABLET IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM

BY

L. W. KING

 

 

PREFACE.

 

SOME two years ago, in the first volume of The Annals of the Kings of Assyria, issued by the Trustees of the British Museum, a collection was published of all the historical inscriptions of the early Assyrian kings, from about B.C. 2000 to B.C. 860, which are preserved in the British Museum. In that work the period between the reign of Adad-nirari I, about B.C. 1325, and that of Tiglath-pileser I, about BC. 1100, is represented only by a brick-inscription and some votive texts inscribed upon fragments of clay bowls. In fact, the only historical inscription of any length belonging to the early Assyrian period which had up to that time been recovered was the memorial tablet of Adad-nirari I, brought from Mosul by the late Mr. George Smith in 1875. the present volume the text is published of a very similar memorial tablet of Tukulti-Ninib I, the grandson of Adad-nirari I, which is of great historical value, inasmuch as it supplements our knowledge of the history of Assyria and her relations with Babylonia during the early part of the thirteenth century B.C.

The limestone tablet from which the text is taken was made by the orders of Tukulti-Ninib I, who had it buried as a foundation memorial in, or under, the wall of the city of Kar-Tukulti-Ninib, which was situated near the Tigris between Kuyunjik and Kala Sherkat. The text contains an account of the founding of the city by the king and the building of the city-wall, preceded by a list of the military expeditions which he had con­ducted up to the time the tablet was engraved. From these records we learn for the first time of extensive conquests to the north and east of Assyria made in a series of expeditions by Tukulti-Ninib I, who closes the narrative of his campaigns by an account of his invasion of Babylonia and the complete subjugation of Sumer and Akkad

That Tukulti-Ninib I conquered Babylon and ruled it for seven years during the period of the Third, or Kassite, Dynasty was already known from a tablet of the "Babylonian Chronicle," and it has been suggested that the Babylonian king he conquered was Bibe, or Bibeiashu, whose name occurs in the Babylonian List of Kings, and on a fragment of the "Synchronous History" of Babylonia and Assyria, and upon some votive objects found at Nippur. From his memorial tablet we learn that the opponent of Tukulti-Ninib was Bibeiashu, who was not only defeated but was deported to Assyria. The new text thus confirms the suggested synchronism between Babylonian and Assyrian history, and is of great importance in its bearings upon the problems of Babylonian chronology.

In addition to the publication of the new memorial tablet, the texts and translations are given of a number of supplementary inscriptions which treat of the history and date of Tukulti-Ninib I. Of these mention may be made of the portion of the "Babylonian Chronicle" dealing with Tukulti-Ninib's reign, and the famous copy of Tukulti-Ninib's seal-inscription written upon a tablet of the time of Sennacherib, by means of which the date of Tukulti-Ninib is fixed. In the account of the conquest of Babylon by Tukulti-Ninib on the former of these two documents, I have succeeded in deciphering the name of Bibeiashu, which has escaped the notice of those who have hitherto edited and translated the text. On the latter I believe I have made out the meaning of the line of archaic characters, twice repeated on the tablet, which has puzzled translators of the text during the last thirty years. According to my interpretation the line in question gives the name and title of Shagarakti-Shuriash, the father of Bibeiashu, who is thus proved to have owned the seal before Tukulti-Ninib captured it in Babylon. Sennacherib's scribe was un­familiar with the Old-Babylonian character in which the name was written upon the seal, and he did not recognize many of the signs, but he has made a fairly accurate copy of their general form.

 

In the Introduction to this volume an analysis and description are given of Tukulti-Ninib's memorial tablet, and the information which it supplies on the early history of Assyria is fully treated. An attempt has also been made to discuss the class of foundation memorials to which it belongs, and a comparison has been drawn between the origin and object of these documents and those of the foundation deposits found during recent years under the walls and pavements of Egyptian buildings dating from the Fifth Dynasty down to the Ptolemaic period. It may here be added that the recent find of foundation-pits by Mr. Howard Carter at the entrance to the tomb of Hatshepset at Der el-Bahari supports the theory as to the origin of the Egyptian foundation deposits which is suggested below. The object of the Babylonian and Assyrian foundation memorials was of a less magical and more practical character than that of the Egyptian foundation deposits. With the Babylonian practice we may fairly compare our custom of burying coins and current newspapers in the foundations of public buildings at the present day, though it is unlikely that the newspapers will serve our purpose as effectively as the stone and almost imperish­able clay have preserved the records of the early kings of Western Asia.

As the text of the memorial tablet of Tukulti-Ninib I is of great interest for the study of Assyrian epigraphy, the tablet is published in facsimile in a series of outline blocks. The text which accompanies the translation and transliteration is printed in the larger cuneiform type of Messrs. Harrison and Sons, which was specially designed from the lapidary forms of the later Assyrian characters.

The present book is the first in a series of small volumes which I have prepared on various epochs in the history of Western Asia. In addition to a number of historical studies the volumes will contain unpublished documents which throw new light upon the periods of which they treat.

My thanks are due to Dr. E. A. Wallis Budge for his help during the preparation of the work.

 

L. W. KING.

London,

October 3rd, 1904.

 

Introduction :

Texts:

I. The Annals of Tukulti-Ninib I

II. Supplementary Texts:

1. Passage from a tablet of the "Babylonian Chronicle" recording the defeat of Bibeiashu, king of babylon, by tukulti-nIinib i, and the latter's rule in Babylonia

2. Passage from the "Synchronous History " referring to Bibeashu, king of Babylon, and its context

3. Seal-inscription of Tukulti-Ninib I from a clay tablet of the time of Sennacherib

4. Accounts of the capture of Babylon by Sennacherib in 702 BC and 689 BC., on one of which occasions he recovered the seal of Tukulti-Ninib I 

 

 

INTRODUCTION.-

 

THE materials for writing the history of Assyria, until the end of the twelfth century BC, are very scanty, and any text which throws light upon the struggles and conquests of her earlier kings is of great value in determining the relations of the Northern kingdom with Babylonia, and in tracing the gradual rise of the former to a position of pre-eminence in Western Asia. A considerable portion of our knowledge of Assyrian history during this early period is obtained from two late documents, viz., the "Synchronous History," and a table inscribed with a section of the "Babylonian Chronicle"; both of these, when complete, contained brief summaries of the relations which existed between Assyria and Babylonia from the earliest times. Ad­ditional information concerning the campaigns and building operations of the early Assyrian kings is furnished by the historical inscriptions of later rulers, especially those of Tiglath-pileser I and Sennacherib. The contemporary records of the early kings themselves are our third principal source of information; these comprise a few brick inscriptions and a number of fragmentary votive texts inscribed upon clay bowls with the object of recording the restoration of certain temples of the gods.

The only early Assyrian inscription of any length that has hitherto been published is the famous memorial slab of Adad-nirari I, which was acquired for the Trustees of the British Museum at Mosul by the late Mr. George Smith in 1875. The text, eighty lines in length, is inscribed in archaic Assyrian characters upon both sides of a limestone slab, and was engraved to commemorate the restoration of a portion of the temple of the god Ashur in the city of Ashur. The introductory phrases with which the inscription opens are the most important part of the text, for they give the names of the peoples conquered by Adad-nirari himself, and by his father Pudi-ilu, and by his grand­father Bel-nirari, and by his great-grandfather Ashur-uballit. From the information thus furnished it was found possible to trace in outline the gradual extension of the Assyrian Empire during a great part of the fourteenth century BC.

In the present volume is published for the first time an inscribed memorial slab of Tukulti-Ninib I, king of Assyria about 1275 BC., which is very similar to that of his grandfather Adad-nirari I. Like the earlier document, Tukulti-Ninib's slab was engraved to commemorate certain building operations, but instead of merely recording the restoration of a portion of a single temple, it commemorates the founding of a new city, the erection therein of temples to eight deities, the cutting of a canal for the supply of water to the city, the building of a royal palace, and the erection of a wall round the city with the object of rendering it secure against the attacks of enemies. It was on the occasion of the completion of the city wall that the tablet was inscribed.

Another point of resemblance between the memorial slabs of Adad-nirari I and Tukulti-Ninib I may be seen in the fact that the most interesting events recorded by them are not those which they were primarily intended to commemorate; the most important facts are to be found in the introductory portions of the text. We have already noted that Adad-nirari prefixed to the record of his building operations a long genealogy, with lists of the peoples conquered by himself and his forefathers; in like manner Tukulti-Ninib, before recounting the founding of his city of Kar-Tukulti-Ninib, supplies valuable information concerning his own military expeditions.

But here the resemblance between the two documents ceases, for whereas the historical information supplied by Adad-nirari is obtained from incidental references in his genealogy, that given by Tukulti-Ninib takes the form of detailed annals, recording the campaigns which he conducted during the course of his reign. In his annals we read, in phrases which remind us of the great cylinder-inscription of Tiglath-pileser I, an account of the gradual conquest of the peoples to the north and east of Assyria, and the record ends with a description of the capture of Babylon and the complete subjugation of Sumer and Akkad.

 

 

 

TUKULTI-NINIB I AND BIBEIASHU.

 

We already know from a tablet of the "Babylonian Chronicle" that Tukulti-Ninib I conquered Babylonia and ruled the country for seven years until his death, and an inscription of Sennacherib records that this event took place six hundred years before Sennacherib himself captured the city. But Sennacherib does not mention the Babylonian king whom Tukulti-Ninib conquered, and the name of this king has not hitherto been read upon the tablet of the "Babylonian Chronicle" to which reference has been made. It has been suggested that Bibe, or Bibeiashu, a king of the Third Dynasty, was the opponent of Tukulti-Ninib I, and the annals of Tukulti-Ninib I prove that this was so. They record that Bibeashu, king of Babylon, was defeated and deported by Tukulti-Ninib I, and they thus supply another synchronism in Assyrian and Babylonian history, which is of great value for settling more definitely the dates of the Babylonian kings of the Third Dynasty.

Until recently it was believed that Bibe, or Bibeiashu, lived some sixty or seventy years after Tukulti-Ninib I. Prof. Hommel in his history placed Tukulti-Ninib I at about 1300 B.C., and assigned to Bibe’s reign the date 1233-1225 B.C. Prof. Delitzsch and Herr Mürdter assigned the date 1302 (or 1289) B.C. to Tukulti-Ninib I and 1228-1219 B.C. to Bibe, while Prof. Tiele did not attempt to construct an exact chronology for the period. During the American diggings at Nippur three votive objects were found, dedicated to the gods Bel and Nusku by a king of the Third, or Kassite, Dynasty, whose name was Bibeiashu. Dr. Hilprecht pointed out that the name Bibe, which occurs in the Babylonian List of Kings, is an abbreviated form of the name Bibeiashu, and that the two kings were to be identified with one another, and with a Kassite king the end of whose name, (…) ashu, is preserved on a tablet of the "Synchronous History". Assuming the second identification to be correct, it followed, from the position of this broken passage in the "Synchronous History," that a battle between Bibeiashu and an Assyrian king took place some time after the agreement made by Adad-nirari I and Nazi-marattash concerning the boundary between Assyria and Babylonia. Now the Chronicle 82-7-4, 38 records the conquest of Babylonia by Tukulti-Ninib I, and as he was the grandson of Adad-nirari I, it has been suggested that the opponent of Tukulti-Ninib I was Bibeiashu. The annals of Tukulti-Ninib I, and the new reading of Bibeiashu’s name on the Babylonian Chronicle, both confirm this suggestion, and they thus furnish another certain point of contact between Assyrian and Babylonian chronology.

After a short description and analysis of Tukulti-Ninib’s text, and a comparison of the class of foundation memorials to which it belongs with the foundation deposits of ancient Egypt, a sketch will be given of the information it supplies on the early history of Assyria.

The tablet upon which the Annals of Tukulti-Ninib I are inscribed is of limestone. The text is written upon both sides of the tablet, and many of the lines, especially those upon the obverse, run over on to the right hand edge. The lines of the text are separated from each other by lines cut upon the stone by the engraver, and on the reverse similar lines enclose the inscription on each side. On the obverse the enclosing line is omitted from the right side. The obverse contains thirty-seven lines of the text, and the reverse thirty lines, and at the end of the reverse a space of about four lines has been left blank. The text is cut in bold and clearly formed Assyrian characters. In the main, the engraver has done his work well and carefully, but in one or two places he has made mistakes. It may be noted that in nine passages he has been obliged to make erasures and has written the correct characters over the signs he has rubbed down; and in two passages he has left out a sign and has not detected the omission. Many of the characters are archaic, and the forms of some of them are of great interest. The text is of considerable value for the study of Assyrian epigraphy, inasmuch as it exhibits the style of Assyrian characters employed in monumental inscriptions in the early part of the thirteenth century BC.

The text inscribed upon the tablet falls into four main divisions, which may be enumerated as follows :— I. The introduction, giving the king’s titles and genealogy; II. The record of the king’s military expeditions; III. The account of the building of the city of Kar-Tukulti-Ninib ; and IV. The conclusion, containing a blessing and curses intended to protect the city wall and the king’s memorial tablet. The following is a more detailed analysis of the inscription arranged under the above four headings :—

 

I. Introduction.

1-7: The king's name and titles.

1. 8: His genealogy.

II. The Military Expeditions.

9-13 : His first campaign against the Kuti and the inhabitants of four other districts.

14-18: His conquest of Shubari and ten other districts.

19-27: His subjugation of forty kings of the lands of Nairi.

28- His defeat of Bibeashu, and his conquest of Sumer and Akkad.

III. The building of Kar-Tukulti-Ninib.

2-5 : The occasion of the founding of the city by the king.

6-8 : His building of temples to the gods therein.

8-11 : His cutting of a canal thereto, and the appointment of offerings for the gods.

11—14: His building of a mound within the city, and the erection of a palace thereon.

15-17: His building of a wall round the city, and the setting in place of his memorial tablet.

IV. Conclusion.

18-21 : Appeal to future rulers to keep the city wall in repair and his tablet in its place, and a blessing on those that do so.

22-30 : Curses on anyone who shall destroy the city wall, or shall remove his memorial tablet, or shall deface his name, or shall neglect or destroy the city.

 

OBJECT OF TUKULTI-NINIB'S TABLET. 

 

The occasion on which the memorial tablet was inscribed was the completion of the wall round the city of Kar-Tukulti-Ninib. This is clear from the opening lines of the concluding section of the text, which read: "In the days that are to come, when this wall shall have grown old and shall have fallen into ruins, may a future prince repair the damaged parts  thereof, and may he anoint my memorial tablet, and may he offer sacrifices and restore it unto its place, and then Ashur will hearken unto his prayers". In the lines which precede this passage the building of the city wall had been recorded, and we may therefore conclude that the memorial tablet was buried in a small recess or cavity within the wall, or possibly embedded in its foundations. The king’s object was to make certain that his fame as the founder of the city and the builder of its fortifications should not be forgotten.

The custom of building up inscribed memorial tablets, cones, and cylinders within the walls and in the foundations of palaces and temples was practised by both Babylonian and Assyrian kings, and to it we owe much of our knowledge of the history of the two countries. The Babylonian and Assyrian employed two words for their building inscriptions. The word used for the inscribed cylinders of clay which were buried in the walls near entrances, and perhaps in the foundations of a palace or temple, is always temennu. The second word is naru, and this is always used of inscriptions upon stone. It could be applied to rock inscriptions, such as those near Bavian and Behistun, or to inscribed monoliths, which were set up in conspicuous positions, or to smaller inscribed stones of irregular shape. But the most numerous class of inscriptions, which were termed nare, are stone tablets, such as that of Tukulti-Ninib I, which are comparatively small in size, and are inscribed on both sides. It is clear that these were not fixed in any way to the face of a wall, for they bear no trace of fastenings, and, had they been intended for this purpose, they would not have been inscribed upon the back. Those that record the erection of a building, such as a temple or a palace, may possibly have been deposited in a sanctuary or in an archive chamber; but where the record concerns the building of a city wall no such chamber would be available.

It therefore seems to me more probable that in all cases the tablet was not left lying in a room, where it might easily be damaged or carried off, but was built up in the wall or in the foundations of the building, probably in a box of clay or stone, or within a small recess or hollow lined with burnt brick. Such a plan would ensure the presence in the building of a permanent memorial to its founder; and it was probably in consequence of their having been preserved beneath or within the actual framework of the building that later kings, when clearing the site of a ruined temple, sometimes recovered the nare, or memorial tablets, of their predecessors who had founded or restored the building. In the event of the building- falling into ruins, the recess in which the tablet had been laid at its foundation would be "its place", to which the king in his inscription on the nare always prays his successors to restore it. This the later king is implored to do, after he has anointed the stone with oil, and has offered the duly appointed sacrifices to appease the gods and to obtain their protection. The anointing with oil no doubt possessed a ceremonial signification, and also tended to preserve the surface of the stone.

The custom of burying memorial tablets may, perhaps, be said to find its equivalent in Egypt in the groups of foundation deposits which have been found in recent years among the remains of ancient cities. The most complete Egyptian foundation deposits that have yet been recovered belong to the Ptolemaic and Saite periods, and these were the first deposits that were discovered; but since then they have been found in Egyptian buildings of all periods, extending back to the Fifth Dynasty. Unlike the Babylonian and Assyrian clay cylinders and foundation memorials, the Egyptian foundation deposits consist of a number of different kinds of objects which may be classified under the following headings : (1) pottery, consisting of libation vases and cups for offerings, and often models of the same; under this heading may also be set the models of corn-grinders and mortars which are often found; (2) models of tools used in building operations, generally made of bronze, but sometimes having wooden handles; (3) specimens of building materials, including models of mud bricks, specimens of mortar, pieces of gold, silver, lead, copper, iron and precious stones, cut into the form of small plaques, and often engraved with the name of the king who erected the building; and (4) small objects of glazed faience, generally consisting of models of animal offerings; this last class of deposit is generally found in temples of the Middle and Late Empires, and rarely in Ptolemaic buildings.

 

EGYPTIAN FOUNDATION DEPOSITS.

 

As a good specimen of a single foundation deposit we give in the note below a list of the contents of a deposit from those found in the great temenos at Naucratis. We may also cite the sets of foundation deposits from Gemayemi, and those of Psammetichus I from Tell Dafna, of Amasis II from Tell Nebesha, of Thothmes III and Usertesen I from Abydos, and of Queen Hatshepsut from Der el-Bahari, which are preserved in the British Museum.

While the Babylonian and Assyrian foundation memorials were chiefly intended to preserve the name of the king and the record of his building operations, the object of the Egyptian foundation deposits seems to have been of a purely magical nature, It will have been seen that many of the objects found in the deposits represent the materials and implements employed in the actual work of the building: such are the models of tools and bricks and the specimens of building materials, the gold and precious stones representing the materials employed in mosaic work and in the decorations of the shrine. The remaining objects found in the deposits may for the most part be connected with a ceremonial or sacrificial object, e.g., the pottery, the models of libation cups, the mortars and corn-grinders, and some of the bronze models of knives and axes. We may therefore conclude that the Egyptian deposits were closely connected with a religious ceremony and sacrifice carried out at the laying of the temple's foundations.

 

 

THE FOUNDATION SACRIFICE.

This conclusion is supported by the fact that skulls of oxen have been found in deposits possibly dating from the Fifth Dynasty at Abydos, and in the deposits of Usertesen I at the same site were the bones and heads of oxen; also in the south-east corner of the fort at Dafna were some teeth and bones of an ox with a foundation deposit of Psammetichus I. Similarly in a deposit in the Ramesseum a bone from a calf's foot was found, and the bones of a calf were also discovered in the south-east deposit in the Ptolemaic temenos at Tukh el-Karamus. We may also note that in the south-west corner of the building of the fort at Dafna, in a small cylindrical hole below the base of the brickwork, were found charcoal and the burnt bones of a small bird (probably a pigeon), which were evidently the remains of a foundation sacrifice.

In connection with these actual remains of animals and birds, may be mentioned the models of animal offerings made of glazed faience and found among the smaller objects in foundation deposits of the Middle Empire. Thus in the temples of Ta-usert and of Sa-Ptah, at Thebes, were found representations of the heads and haunches of bulls, oxen beheaded and with their legs tied together ready for sacrifice, a calf's head, and figures of fish, ducks, and a pigeon. Similar models of the heads of bulls and calves, and of the haunches and bodies of bulls, have been found in deposits of Rameses III and of Apries, at Abydos, and others in the Ramesseum and at El-Kab. It may be concluded that these models of animal offerings are to be connected with the foundation sacrifice, and an explanation of them is attempted below.

Professor Petrie suggested that the models of stone and metal libation vessels and pottery found in the foundation deposits were cheap substitutes for more valuable vessels, which were deposited in earlier times under temples after they had been used in the foundation ceremony, in order to prevent their being used again. Similarly the models of tools have been explained as representing the actual tools which had already been used in the foundation ceremony and would otherwise have been forfeit to the gods. But this suggestion leaves unexplained the specimens of building materials and the plaques of precious stones and metals, for these represent materials employed and placed permanently in the structure of the temple, and they cannot in any sense be declared forfeit to the gods, to whose service they were already dedicated.

 

OBJECT OF FOUNDATION DEPOSITS.

 

No satisfactory explanation has yet been offered of the meaning and object of the Egyptian foundation deposits, but the inquiry may perhaps be forwarded by considering the origin of the buildings under the walls of which they are generally found. The Egyptian temple in one of its primitive forms was merely a mortuary chapel attached to the tomb of the deceased, and it is possible that in their primitive state the foundation deposits were placed under its walls in much the same way that ushabti figures were placed in the tomb itself near the body of the dead man. As it was believed that the latter would do the work of the deceased and serve him in the future life, so it is conceivable that the foundation deposits were buried in order to furnish him with materials and implements for any building operations he might desire to carry out. The models of animal offerings would supply him with animals for the foundation sacrifice, whose bones he would bury, as we find the actual skulls and bones of bulls and calves buried under the foundations of buildings during later periods. Similarly the models of libation vases and sacrificial knives, and the mortars and corn-grinders would furnish him with other necessary adjuncts to the ceremony. In course of time the original significance of the deposits may have been forgotten, although the custom of burying them was still continued. In the Ptolemaic period the burying of models of animal offerings seems to have been discontinued, and the other deposits were placed not only under the walls of temples, but also under those of secular buildings, such as the fort at Dafna.

Whatever their origin, it will be seen that the Egyptian foundation deposits in many respects present a contrast to the foundation cylinders and memorial tablets of the Babylonians and Assyrians. It is true that the inscribed plaques preserve the name of the founder of the building under which they are buried, but as a whole the Egyptian deposits seem to be of a purely magical nature. A closer Babylonian parallel may perhaps be seen in the small clay figures of demi­gods or good spirits in human form, and the clay models of birds, which are buried in clay boxes near entrances in Babylonian temples, a foot or two below the surface of the pavement. Sometimes bones are found lying in the bottom of the boxes in which the models of the birds are buried. The burial of these little models may have had some connection with the religious ceremony at the foundation of the temple, and it is probable that the little human figures at any rate were believed to be potent for guarding the entrance from the approach of devils. If this were so, their origin and object would differ from those suggested above for the Egyptian foundation deposits.

Of the Babylonian and Assyrian foundation memorials we know that the temenne, or inscribed clay cylinders, were often, if not always, built into the unburnt brick in the interior of the walls on either side of entrances, but the place, and, to some extent, the manner in which the nare, or stone memorial tablets, were buried is still to a great extent a matter for conjecture. That at least in some instances the tablets were enclosed in coffers of stone or clay is proved by two memorial tablets of Ashur-nasir-pal (B.C. 885—B.C. 860) and the so-called "Sun-god Tablet" of Nabu-pal-iddina (about B.C. 870), which were found in the coffers in which they were originally buried. The two tablets of Ashur-nasir-pal, British Museum, Nos. 90,980 and 90,981, which record the founding of the temple of Makhir, in the city of Imgur-Bel, were found in the limestone coffer in which they were originally buried, British Museum, No. 73. The same inscription, recording the building of the temple, is engraved on each of the tablets, and in a shorter form upon the coffer. The "Sun-god Tablet" was made by Nabu-pal-iddina to record his restoration of E-babbara, the temple of the Sun-god at Sippar. It was found in a clay box or coffer, buried about three feet below the asphalt pavement of a chamber in the temple at Abu-Habba. It is probable that the chamber had been originally paved with burnt bricks, which had been removed, leaving only the asphalt in which they had originally been bedded. The tablet had not lain undisturbed since the time of Nabu-pal-iddina, for in the box with it were found clay impressions of the scene sculptured upon the tablet, one of which bears an inscription of Nabopolassar (B.C. 625-604); also two baked clay cylinders of Nabonidus (B.C. 555-538) were found in the box with it. It is clear therefore that both Nabopolassar and Nabonidus each in turn came across Nabu-pal-iddina’s tablet in the course of rebuilding the temple of the Sun-god, and each in turn restored it "unto its place", burying it again with due honor. It is probable that the clay box it which it was found was not made by Nabu-pal-iddina, but dates from Nabopolassar's reign. The above two examples show that at any rate in some cases the nare was protected by a stone coffer of clay box before it was built up in the structure of the wall or buried under the pavement of a chamber. No statistics are yet available for determining in what part of the Babylonian or Assyrian building the nare were placed, but a good deal has been noted and published with regard to the position and manner of burial of foundation deposits in Egyptian buildings. A sketch of the character of these deposits has already been given, and their object has been discussed and compared with that of their Babylonian and Assyrian equivalents. The description of them may here be supplemented by giving a short summary of what is known with regard to the positions in which they have been found and the manner in which they are buried.

The Egyptian foundation deposits are generally found in the corners of a building and under the actual wall. Thus at Naukratis four foundation deposits, all alike, were found under each corner of the great temenos, and smaller deposits were found under two of the corners of the central hall. Two instances are known of buildings in which deposits were placed under only three of the corners. Thus in the smaller temple at Nebesha, built by Amasis II, B.C. 572, deposits were found in the brick-containing wall of the foundation under all the corners except the north-east one. As a double set of foundation plaques was found in the deposit in the south-west corner, it was suggested by Prof. Petrie that through accident the north-east corner might not have been prepared properly, and the surplus deposits put in the south-west corner. But we meet with the same arrangement in the principal building at Gemayemi (of the Ptolemaic or perhaps the Saitc period), so that the suggestion that the arrangement was due to accident is scarcely probable. Generally the deposits are buried under the actual wall, but in some instances they are found within the walls in the corners under the pavement. In addition to their usual places in the corners, deposits were also found both at Nebesha and Gemayemi under the centre of the building, and in the temples built at Thebes by Ta-usert and her husband Sa-Ptah, a king of the Nineteenth Dynasty, they occur not only in the corners but also along the walls of chambers and under doorways.

The deposits are usually found in small rectangular or circular pits which were cut in the ground before the wall was built. At Naukratis rectangular pits were cut in the ground beneath the stones which lined the wall on the inside of the building, and after the deposits were placed in them the holes were filled up with yellow sand, which was also spread in a layer a few inches deep under the foundations of the walls. At Koptos circular pits were cut in the clay on which the building stood, and in the temple of Amen-hetep II at Thebes the pits arc cut out of the rock. Sometimes two foundation pits are found in each corner of a building, as in the small temple of Thothmes III at El-Kab. Here one pit is set exactly in the corner, and the second one is a metre's distance from it along the side wall.

 

EGYPTIAN FOUNDATION PITS.

 

The filling of the pits with sand after the foundation deposits had been placed in them was practised not only in Ptolemaic times but also under the Middle and Early Empires. We can trace the practice back to the Fifth Dynasty, for in some pits at Abydos, probably dating from this period, sand is found, while others had been filled in with the brown muddy earth which had been dug out of the holes. Usually the deposits were only protected by the sand or earth with which the pits were filled, but some foundation-pits in the Ramesseum were covered with great sandstone blocks cut and painted with cartouches of Rameses II. Pits were not always used for the foundation deposits, as in a building of Rameses III at Abydos, where they were placed in a deep bed of sand spread above earlier remains on which the building was constructed. And it has been suggested that foundation deposits may sometimes have been buried, not in pits, but in stone boxes sunk into the ground, but there is little evidence to prove that this was so.

Generally the pits are not lined or floored in any way, but in some foundation pits in the Ramesseum floors of mud bricks were found, not at the bottom, but half way down the pit The bulk of the deposit was found below these floors, which thus acted as a protection, and in all cases the rest of the pit was filled up with clean sand. It is hard to trace any system or order in the arrangement in the pit of the objects forming the foundation deposits. In Ptolemaic times at any rate it is probable that the chips of precious stones and fragments of building materials were placed in glazed cups to keep them together and arranged in order in the pit. In the Middle Empire the models of tools are sometimes found under a reed mat, on which rests a block of limestone engraved with cartouches of the builder, and above the limestone block are found numbers of small objects of glazed faience. But no order or system seems to have been followed in their arrangement. They have the appearance of having been poured into the pit without regard to their relative positions.

From the preceding paragraphs it will be clear that a good deal of information has already been accumulated with regard to the manner in which the Egyptian foundation deposits were buried, and it is to be hoped that it will not be long before similar information is obtained concerning the burial of Babylonian and Assyrian foundation memorials. In Tukulti-Ninib's memorial tablet it may be noted that in 11. 17, 20 and 22 of the reverse he speaks of only one naru, not of nare in the plural, but it does not follow from this that only one tablet was inscribed and placed in or under the wall, the building of which the inscription records. It is clear that the city of Kar-Tukulti-Ninib was of considerable size, and it is probable that tablets similar to the one that has been recovered were bricked in or buried at several points in the wall around the city.

The existence of the city of Kar-Tukulti-Ninib was already known from the tablet of the "Babylonian Chronicle", which gives an account of his reign; for it is there recorded that it was in this city the king met his death. The Chronicle recounts how his son Ashur-nasir-pal headed a revolt of the nobles of Assyria against his father. Tukulti-Ninib took refuge in the city of Kar-Tukulti-Ninib, but they surrounded him in a house within the city, and on capturing him put him to death. The memorial tablet does not tell us at what period of his reign the king founded the city, but from the extensive building operations he carried out there, it is clear that the building of the city must have extended over several years of his reign. This may be concluded from the fact that he erected temples in the city dedicated to the gods Ashur, and Adad, and Shamash, and Ninib, and Nusku, and Nergal, and Imina-bi, and to the goddess Ishtar. He also cut a canal for the supply of water from the Tigris to the interior of the city, and he constructed a high mound upon which be built his palace. And finally he fortified the city by building a high wall round it. It is not improbable that he founded the city in the early years of his reign, and that he continued to enrich and strengthen it when he returned to Assyria in the intervals between his various campaigns.

In his annals Tukulti-Ninib does not number his campaigns, nor, with the exception of the first, does he state in which year of his reign they took place. He describes his expeditions in four successive paragraphs of his inscription, and it is probable that to a great extent his conquests are enumerated on a geographical basis, and not necessarily in the order in which they were made. His first campaign is recorded in 11. 9-13 of the obverse of the memorial tablet, and in the opening words of the paragraph it is described as having taken place "in the beginning of my sovereignty, in the first year of my reign." It was directed against the Kuti and the inhabitants of four other districts.

The second paragraph, consisting of 11. 14 18 of the obverse of the tablet, records the conquest of eleven districts, enumerated by name, of which "the broad extent of the land of Shubari" may probably be regarded as the most important. The paragraph is introduced by the vague phrase i-tia u-mi-su-ma, "at that time," which, following as it docs the account of his first expedition, may perhaps indicate that the districts were subdued in the earlier rather than in the latter part of his reign. The conquest of forty kings of the lands of Nairi is the subject of the third paragraph (11. 19 27). This section follows the preceding one without any indication of time, and is introduced only by a reference to the difficult nature of the country traversed. It is possible that the conquest of the forty kings was not achieved in one campaign, but was effected during several expeditions the total results of which are here grouped together.

 

DESCRIPTION OF THE CAMPAIGNS.

 

The fourth paragraph describes the defeat of Bibeashu, king of Babylon, and the complete subjugation of Sumer and Akkad. From the tablet of the "Babylonian Chronicle", to which reference has already been made, we know that Tukulti-Ninib ruled in Babylonia for seven years, until "the nobles of Akkad and Karduniash revolted and set Adad-shum-usur upon his father's throne". What interval there was between this revolt and that of Ashur-nasir-pal, another of Tukulti-Ninib's sons, who succeeded in slaying his father and seating himself on the Assyrian throne, the Chronicle does not say. But it is not unlikely that the troubles in Babylonia and Assyria were contemporaneous, or at any rate that they followed swiftly upon one another. If this were so, the conquest of Babylonia by Tukulti-Ninib I would fall some eight years before the end of his reign. In any case we may conclude that he did not turn his attention to the subjugation of the Southern Kingdom until he had secured himself against the attacks of other foes.

In addition to the detailed record of his campaigns, the king's principal conquests are commemorated in the royal titles with which the inscription opens. Here the order in which the districts are enumerated is different to that adopted in the four paragraphs which follow. The titles "the king of Karduniash, the king of Sumer and Akkad," naturally head the list of foreign conquests and follow the titles "the king of Assyria, the king of the four quarters (of the world)." In the title "the king of the Shubari and the Kuti", the order of the paragraphs is reversed, possibly because Shubari was considered the more important of the two regions. "The king of all the lands of Nairi" occupies the last place in the list of titles, and with reference to the Shubari and the Kuti its position in the list corresponds to that which it occupies in the more detailed account.

Tukulti-Ninib's first campaign was directed against the peoples inhabiting the region to the east of Assyria. The most important district which he conquered on this expedition was that of the Kuti, which may with some probability be placed to the east of the Lower Zab

The Kuti had already been subdued by Adad-nirari I and Pudi-ilu, Tukulti-Ninib's grandfather and great­grandfather, but it is clear they were a warlike tribe, and on the first opportunity regained their independence. The Ukumani and the lands of Elkhunia and Sharnida and Mekhri are described as mountainous, and probably lay in about the same region as the Kuti, possibly to the north of the Lower Zab. Of these districts Mekhri was conquered at a later period by Tiglath-pileser I, and again by Ashur-nasir-pal II.

The country took its name from the mekhru-tree, probably a pine or fir, which grew there, and it is interesting to note that the name of the country is written at the time of Ashur-nasir-pal as "the land of the mekhru-trees". The trees found in the country seem to have been highly prized, for when he conquered the land, Ashur-nasir-pal brought back beams of mekhru-wood for the temple of Ishtar at Nineveh. In the tablet of Tiglath-pileser I the land of Mekhri is mentioned in connection with the conquest of the land of [Kuma]ni, var. [Kuma]ni, a name which is restored from 1. 18 of the same tablet, where "twenty thousand troops of the land of Kumafni]" are mentioned. From the association of Mekhri with Kumani by Tiglath-pileser I, and of Mekhri with Ukumani by Tukulti-Ninib I, it may perhaps be inferred that Kumani and Ukumani are variant names for the same district. In the account of this first campaign it is interesting to note that the conquered peoples are stated to have brought their yearly tribute to the city of Ashur, and not to Calah, which had been built and established as the capital by Shalmaneser I, Tukulti-Ninib's father. It may therefore be inferred that Tukulti-Ninib restored the ancient city of Ashur to her former position as the capital of the kingdom.

Of the eleven conquered districts enumerated in the second paragraph describing the campaigns, it is probable that the land of Shubari, which occurs last in the list, was regarded as the most important. This may be inferred partly from the reference to its broad extent, but chiefly from the fact that it is singled out for special mention in the list of the king's titles which precedes the account of the campaigns. A proof that the inhabitants of this district, like those of Kuti, were a powerful and warlike race may be seen in the necessity for their reconquest by Tukulti-Ninib I, although his grandfather, Adad-nirari I, had already subdued them.

The ten other conquered districts enumerated in the second paragraph are the lands of Kurti, Kummukhi, Pushshe, Mumme, Alzi, Madani, Nikhani, Alaia, Tearzi, and Purukuzzi. The first two districts on the list, the lands of Kurti and Kummukhi, are also closely associated by Tiglath-pileser I, who relates that the forces of the Kurte came to the rescue of the men of Kummukhi when the latter had been defeated by him. The districts lay to the north-west of Assyria, on the borders of Northern Syria. Pushshe is mentioned on a fragment of an early Assyrian bowl, which may possibly have borne an inscription of Tukulti-Ninib I himself. The lands of Alzi and Purukuzzu are also coupled together by Tiglath-pileser I, who relates that he brought them again into subjection to Assyria after they had been held for fifty years by the land of Mushki (Meshech). He also mentions them in connection with the land of Shubari. It is probable that all the districts enumerated in the second paragraph lay in the region to the north­west of Assyria.

The third paragraph records in general terms the defeat of "forty kings of the lands of Nairi." In like manner Tiglath-pileser I defeated "twenty-three kings of the land of Nairi," and he gives all the separate districts over which they ruled by name, and a little later on, in the Cylinder Inscription, he records his pursuit of "sixty kings of the lands of Nairi." The name Nairi was a general term for the mountainous districts to the north of Assyria, extending well to the west of Lake Van, and probably eastwards to the districts bordering on Lake Urmi. It will be seen that the conquests of Tukulti-Ninib enumerated in the first three paragraphs led to the subjugation of the territory to the north, and to the north-west, and to the east of Assyria; and it is probable that the campaigns occupied the earlier years of his reign, and were undertaken with the object of rendering his country secure against attack from these quarters when he concentrated his forces for operations against Babylon.

 

TUKULTI-NINIB'S CONQUEST OF BABYLON.

 

These operations resulted in the most important conquest of Tukulti-Ninib. They are recorded in the fourth paragraph, which relates how he defeated Bibeashu, the Kassite king of Babylon, and brought the whole of Sumer and Akkad into subjection to the Assyrian crown. Some details concerning this campaign and its results are already known to us from the Babylonian Chronicle, No. 82-7-4, 38. This document tells us that after defeating Bibeashu, Tukulti-Ninib destroyed the city-wall of Babylon and put many of the inhabitants to the sword. He despoiled Babylon of her riches, including the treasures of E-sagil, the great temple of Marduk, and carried away to Assyria the statue of the god himself. He then proceeded to appoint his own officers, and established his own system of administration in the capital. From Tukulti-Ninib's own annals we further learn that he carried Bibeashu away to Assyria, and led him a prisoner and in chains before Ashur, the national god.

The deportation of Bibeashu, the Babylonian king, was the symbol of the complete subjugation of the southern kingdom, and this was emphasized by the removal to Assyria of the great statue of Marduk, the national god of Babylon. Assyria had for centuries outgrown her dependence on the Southern Kingdom and had thrown off the Babylonian yoke, but, so far as we know, it was not until the reign of Tukulti-Ninib I that she succeeded in capturing Babylon and in subjugating Sumer and Akkad. Tukulti-Ninib's reign thus marks an epoch in Assyrian and Babylonian history.

In order to illustrate the significance of his conquest, we may here briefly summarize what is at present known of the early struggles of Assyria, which were at first directed to obtain her independence and afterwards to extend her empire on the south. From this summary it will be seen how the conquests of his predecessors paved Tukulti-Ninib's way and made it possible for him to conquer Babylon and govern her for seven years.

Up to the present time not very much information has been obtained with regard to the early history of Assyria, but, so far as our knowledge goes, we see Assyria first as part and parcel of the Babylonian kingdom, and later on governed by viceroys owing allegiance to Babylon, and afterwards ruled by independent kings. In the reign of Gudea, king of Shir- purla, when the Sumerians were still the predominant race in Babylonia, it is probable that the cities which later on formed the nucleus of the Assyrian empire were subject to their southern neighbours, for Gudea records that he rebuilt the temple of the goddess Ninni (Ishtar) in Nin&, and it is probable that this city may be identified with Nineveh. That in the time of Hammurabi the country to the north of Babylonia was known as Assyria, and probably formed an integral part of Hammurabi's dominions, was proved some six years ago by a reference to the country found in one of Hammurabi's letters to Sin-idinnam, governor ol Larsam, in which he directs him to despatch to him "two hundred and forty men of the King's Company" under the command of Nannar-iddina, who are of the "force that is in thy hand and who have left the country" of Ashur and the district of Shitullum."

The conclusion drawn from this letter of Hammurabi has met with striking confirmation in two phrases in the introduction to the Code of Laws of Hammurabi engraved upon the great diorite stele which was found at Susa by M. De Morgan. Here Hammurabi is described as one "who hath restored his (i.e. Ashur's) protecting image unto the city of Ashur", and a few lines further on as "the king who hath made the names of Ishtar glorious in the city of Nineveh in the temple of E-mishmish". From these passages it will be seen that Hammurabi conferred benefits upon Ashur and Nineveh, and speaks of both cities as though they lay within the limits of his own empire.

 

ASSYRIA AND BABYLON.

 

Until the publication of Hammurabi's letter referred to above, it had always been assumed that the earliest patesi, or "governors," of Assyria whose names were known to us were Ishme-Dagan and his son Shamshi- Adad, who, as was concluded from a reference to them on the cylinder of Tiglath-pileser I, ruled a little before B.C. 1800. Other Assyrian patesi whose names, but not dates, were known, such as Shamshi-Adad, the son of Igur-kapkapu, and Irishum, the son of Khallu, had hitherto been placed at some period after Ishme-Dagan and Shamshi-Adad. But in view of the early reference to Assyria upon Hammurabi's letter I made the suggestion that it was possible that they ruled at a considerably earlier date than Ishme-Dagan. This suggestion with regard to Shamshi-Adad has now been confirmed by an interesting oath-formula found by Dr. Hermann Ranke on a contract-tablet of the reign of Hammurabi preserved in the Pennsylvania Museum. From this document it may legitimately be inferred that an Assyrian patesi of the name of Shamshi-Adad ruled in Assyria as a viceroy or governor under Hammurabi, and as Shamshi-Adad, the son of Ishme-Dagan, lived too late to be identified with him, we may provisionally assume that Hammurabi's viceroy was Shamshi-Adad, the son of Igur-kapkapu. From the fact that his brick-inscription in the British Museum does not apply the title of patesi to his father, Igur-kapkapu, it may be inferred that he did not inherit the throne of Assyria, but owed his own appointment as patesi to Hammurabi.

In the centuries succeeding the period of the First Dynasty we have little knowledge of the relations which existed between Assyria and Babylonia, but such indications as we possess point to the gradual growth of Assyria in power until she ultimately obtained her independence. We may perhaps regard Bel-ibni as the first independent king of Assyria, inasmuch as Esarhaddon describes him as "the founder of the kingdom of Assyria", but the circumstances which led to the founding of the kingdom and the period at which the event took place are alike unknown. No doubt the pressure of the Kassite tribes, which was already beginning to be felt during the latter half of the First Dynasty, considerably weakened Babylon and gave Assyria her opportunity.

 

ASSYRIA AND EGYPT.

As one of the results of her emancipation we know that at about 1500 B.C. the reigning Assyrian king sent gifts, as an independent ruler, to Thothmes III, king of Egypt. This took place in the twenty-fourth year of the reign of Thothmes, and in his fortieth year he records that he received another present from an Assyrian king. In like manner at the end of the fifteenth century B.C. Ashur-nadin-akhe, the father of Ashur-uballit, established friendly relations with the king of Egypt and exchanged gifts with him, and a similar friendship existed between Ashur-uballit, the son of Ashur-nadin-akhe, and Amen-hetep IV. This evidence is sufficient to prove that during the fifteenth century Assyria was a powerful and independent nation with a well-defined foreign policy.

 

TUKULTI-NINIB’S PREDECESSORS

 

At this point in her history the so-called "Synchronous History" of Assyria and Babylonia furnishes us with a series of brief notices concerning the relations which existed between the two countries, and from them we learn the sequence of events which culminated nearly two hundred years later in Tukulti-Ninib's conquest of Babylon. About B.C. 1450 Ashur-bel-nisheshu, king of Assyria, and Kara-indash, king of Babylonia, made a friendly agreement with one another with regard to the boundary separating their two countries, and some twenty-five years later a similar agreement was entered into by Puzur-Ashur and Burnaburiash, the Babylonian king. These friendly relations were continued by Ashur-uballit (about B.C. 1400), who married his daughter Muballitat-Sherua to Burnaburiash. On the death of Burnaburiash, Kara-khardash his son, who was the grandson of Ashur-uballit, ascended the throne of Babylon, and it was probably due to his Assyrian sympathies that the Kassite party in Babylon revolted and slew him and set Nazibugash in his place. Ashur-uballit invaded Babylonia, and having slain Nazibugash, put Kurigalzu the younger, another son of Burnaburiash, upon the throne.

But Ashur-uballit did not succeed in permanently restoring the intimate relations which had existed for so many years between Assyria and Babylonia, for under his son, Bel-nirari, Kurigalzu led an expedition against Assyria. Kurigalzu’s attempt to conquer Assyria was not successful, and after his defeat he was obliged to cede territory to Bel-nirari. A further extension of Assyrian territory took place under Adad-nirari I, who defeated Nazi-marattash, the Babylonian king. Thus it will be seen that at the end of the fourteenth century two Assyrian kings, one of them the grandfather of Tukulti-Ninib I, had defeated Babylonian armies, and had exacted cessions of Babylonian territory as the result of their victories. Tukulti-Ninib I was only following in their steps when he defeated Bibeashu. His achievement, however, differs from those of his predecessors in degree, for he succeeded in capturing Babylon itself and in deporting the Babylonian king, and, instead of merely acquiring a fresh strip of Babylonian territory, he subdued the whole country and administered it as a province of his empire until his death.

In addition to the information concerning Tukulti-Ninib's reign afforded by his memorial tablet and by the Chronicle 83-7-4, 38, we also know from inscribed bricks found at Kuyunjik that he restored the great temple of Ishtar at Nineveh. The only other inscription of Tukulti-Ninib I which has been recovered up to the present time is his well-known seal-inscription, which was engraved upon a seal of lapis-lazuli, and is now extant in a copy on a clay tablet made by a scribe of Sennacherib. This tablet, by means of which the date of Tukulti-Ninib can be approximately fixed, is numbered K. 2673, and it is published and translated in the present volume under the Supplementary Texts.

The tablet is inscribed with a rough draft of the lines which Sennacherib desired to be added to the inscription already engraved upon the seal, in commemoration of its recovery by himself on the occasion of his conquest of Babylon. On the reverse of the tablet is a copy of the text which Sennacherib found upon the seal; on the obverse and edge a copy of the original text is repeated, together with the additional lines which Sennacherib proposed to have inscribed. The meaning of the phrase gar-ri ik-ta-din, which occurs in the first line of Sennacherib’s addition, is not certain. If, as is suggested in the translation of the text given below, the words may be rendered "the enemy carried away", it follows that Tukulti-Ninib's seal was removed from Assyria to Babylon either at the time of the successful revolt headed by Adad-shum-usur, or at some subsequent period, and was recaptured by Sennacherib on his conquest of Babylon "after six hundred years." The phrase "after six hundred years" is usually taken to refer to the interval between Tukulti-Ninib's date and the capture of Babylon by Sennacherib; but it may equally well apply to the date of the removal of the seal from Assyria, which may possibly have taken place some years after Tukulti-Ninib's death.

Another element of uncertainty which enters into the problem is due to the fact that Sennacherib conquered Babylon twice, the first time in 702 B.C., and again in 689 B.C. On the first occasion he states that he entered Merodach-baladan's palace in Babylon with joy, and opened his treasure-house, and carried away the treasures it contained,[ and Tukulti-Ninib's seal may well have been among the objects he then removed. But on the second occasion, in 689 B.C., Sennacherib records that he not only despoiled Babylon of her costly treasures, but recovered two images, of Adad and Shala, which Marduk-nadin-akhe had carried away to Babylon in the time of Tiglath-pileser I. It may with some probability be urged that the seal of Tukulti-Ninib was recovered at the same time that the statues of Adad and Shala were brought back, for both the seal and the statues were trophies of victories over Assyria, and may well have been preserved in the same building.

 

TUKULTI-NINIB'S DATE.

 

But the question whether the seal was recovered in 702 B.C. or in 689 B.C. is not of very great importance, for it is obvious that Sennacherib in mentioning six hundred years is speaking in round numbers. To accept the six hundred years as mathematically accurate to a day, and to assert on this evidence that Tukulti-Ninib I was reigning in 1302 B.C. or in 1289 B.C., is to force too rigid a meaning into Sennacherib's words. They can only be legitimately held to prove that in the time of Sennacherib it was believed that Tukulti-Ninib's reign might be approximately referred to the beginning, or the early part, of the thirteenth century. His reign may be provisionally placed at about 1275 B.C.

The tablet inscribed with Sennacherib's copy 01 Tukulti-Ninib's seal contains a line of text, partly written in archaic characters and repeated on the reverse of the tablet, which has always proved puzzling, and has not hitherto been satisfactorily explained. The late Mr. George Smith in his translation of the text did not attempt a rendering of it, neither did Prof. Hommel, nor Prof. Bezold, nor Prof. Schrader in the renderings they have published. Prof. Sayce took the line to be the concluding part of the seal-inscription of Tukulti-Ninib, and rendered it as a complete sentence with a relative clause.

In the Annals of the Kings of Assyria the possibility is suggested that the line "was not part of Tukulti-Ninib's inscription, but was engraved upon the seal by its first owner before Tukulti-Ninib captured it in Babylon." At the time that was written I recognized that the line contained a proper name, but I had not succeeded in making it out. Now, however, I think it can be shown that the line contains the name and title of Shagarakti-Shuriash, the former owner of the seal, who immediately preceded Bibeashu upon the throne of Babylon, and was living within nine years of Tukulti-Ninib's capture of the city. I have given a conjectural restoration of the original Old-Babylonian inscription which was engraved upon the seal of lapis-lazuli. Under it is the copy made by the Assyrian scribe of the time of Sennacherib upon the clay tablet K. 2673. On the plate I have numbered the twelve signs of the inscription, and have placed under them the values which should be assigned to them. I think that a single glance at the plate will suffice to show that the conjectural restoration of the original text is correct.

 

INSCRIPTION OF SHAGARAKTI-SHURIASU.

 

It should be noted that the scribe himself did not recognize many of the characters upon the seal. This is clear from an examination of his copy of Tukulti-Ninib's inscription. As this was written in archaic Assyrian characters, and not in archaic Babylonian characters, he could read the greater part of it, and he has therefore turned it into modern Assyrian characters. But the verb in 1. 2 he did not understand, so in the case of this word he has copied the archaic forms of the characters as he saw them. Similarly in the lines under discussion he was certain of the signs TI and IA, and he has there­fore given them their modern Assyrian forms. But the other signs he failed to make out, and so he gave a copy of what he saw upon the stone. It will be observed that his copy is fairly accurate, and that he has reproduced the essential form of each of the signs.

The original text upon the seal, restored as indicated on p. 69, and written in modern Assyrian characters, reads: "Property of Shagarakti-Shuriash, king of hosts". It may be added that this reading of the name upon the seal proves that the king's name in question is to be read Shagarakti-Shuriash, and not Shagashalti-Shuriash, as it is often read at present.

Though by means of Sennacherib's addition to Tukulti-Ninib's seal-inscription we are enabled to fix approximately the date at which he lived, we have no means of determining the length of his reign. From the Chronicle, 82-7-4, 38, we know that he was slain in a revolt headed by his son Ashur-nasir-pal, who succeeded him upon the throne. This is the only information we possess of the reign of Ashur-nasir-pal I, but we may perhaps infer from 1. 12 of the Chronicle, that his successor was Tukulti-Ashur, in whose time the statue of Marduk, which Tukulti-Ninib had carried to Assyria, was restored to Babylon. Two other Assyrian kings may perhaps be added to the list of Tukulti-Ninib's immediate successors, i.e. Ashur-narara and Nabu-dani. The names of these two kings occur on a late Assyrian copy of an Old-Babylonian letter  addressed to them by a Babylonian king named Adad-shum-nasir. It is possible that this king is to be identified with Adad-shum-usur of the Babylonian List of Kings and of the Chronicle. In that case both the names should be read as Adad-shum-nasir, or as Adad-shum-usur, and it would follow that Ashur-narara and Nabudani reigned soon after Tukulti-Ninib.

 

TUKULTI-NINIB'S REIGN IN BABYLON. 

 

There is a difficulty with regard to Tukulti-Ninib's seven years' rule in Babylon, for his name is not men­tioned in the Babylonian List of Kings. According to this document three kings reigned between Bibe and Adad-shum-usur, the passage in the List which refers to this period and gives the names of the kings with the lengths of their reigns, reading:—

 

13 years                       Shagarak[ti-Shuria]sh.

8 years                         Bibe, his son.

1 year and                       

           6 months          Bel-nadin-shum.

 1 year and

           6 months          Kadashman-kharbi.

6 years                         Adad-shum-iddina

30 years                      Adad-shum-usur.

 

From the above extract it will be seen that the reigns of Bel-nadin-shum, Kadashman-kharbi, and Adad-shum-iddina occupied altogether nine years. According to the Chronicle, 82-7-4, 38, between Bibeiashu and Adad-shum-usur came the seven years of Tukulti-Ninib's rule in Babylon. Moreover, in the Chronicle the reigns of Bel-nadin-shum and Adad-shum-iddina occur after Adad-shum-usur, and not before him as in the Kings' List.

Prof. Hommel seeks to explain this discrepancy by identifying the period of Tukulti-Ninib's reign in Babylon (7 years) with the period of the reigns of Bel-nadin-shum, Kadashman-kharbi, and Adad-shum- iddina (9 years), and he suggests that these three rulers either were opponents who rose against Tukulti-Ninib and were defeated by him, or were vassal kings who ruled under him. In order to fit this theory in, he has to assume that the order of the separate sections in col. IV of the Chronicle, 82-7-4, 38, is not chronological, and that the second and third sections are added to the first by way of appendices. Also, he assumes that Adad-shum-usur was the son of Adad-shum-iddina and not of Tukulti-Ninib I, and that when the Chronicle (col. IV, 1. 9) says that the nobles of Akkad and Karduniash set Adad-shum-usur on his father's throne, the reference is to his succeeding Adad-shum-iddina, not Tukulti-Ninib.

But the difficulties of this reconciliation of the two documents are almost greater than the discrepancies which it sets out to explain away. For there is no other instance in the Babylonian Chronicle of the separate sections occurring out of chronological order, and if the compiler of the Chronicle knew that Tukulti-Ninib I defeated Bel-nadin-shum, Kadashman- kharbi, and Adad-shum-iddina, or appointed them as vassal kings, and if he knew that their reigns occurred before that of Adad-shum-usur, there is absolutely no reason why he should not have said so and have given their reigns in the proper order. It is easier to suppose that the discrepancies between the Kings’ List and the Chronicle are real discrepancies, resulting from two different traditions with regard to the order of the kings of this part of the Third Dynasty; and as a similar instance of a variant tradition preserved by the Chronicle, 82-7-4, 3$, we may compare the account it gives of Ashur-uballit’s intervention in Babylonian affairs with the corresponding narrative in the " Synchronous History."

We are thus in the position of having two variant accounts to choose from, both coming to us upon tablets of the late Babylonian period, and referring to events which took place many centuries before the time at which the texts upon them were compiled.

Instead of exercising our ingenuity in attempts at reconciling the two accounts, it is preferable to recognize the existence of two variant traditions, and to await the discovery of some contemporary document, such as the memorial tablet of Tukulti-Ninib I, which will offer unimpeachable evidence with regard to the correct sequence of the Babylonian kings of the period.

In the following pages the text of the annals of Tukulti-Ninib is given from his memorial tablet together with a translation and a transliteration. This is succeeded by a series of supplementary inscriptions, consisting of the texts and extracts referred to in the course of this introduction as throwing light upon Tukulti-Ninib's date and the period of his rule in Babylon.

 

 

                                                       TEXTS

I.

THE ANNALS OF TUKULTI-NINIB I.

 

THE KING'S TITLES.

1. Tukulti-Ninib, the king of hosts, the king of Assyria, the king of the four quarters (of the world),

2. the mighty king, the king of Karduniash, the king of Sumer and Akkad,

3. the king of the Upper and the Lower Sea, the king of the highlands

4. and of the broad plains, the king of the Shubari and the Kuti, and the king of all

5. the lands of Nairi, the king whom the gods have caused to attain unto the triumph of his heart’s desire,

 

HIS FIRST CAMPAIGN.

6. so that with the staff

7. of his might he hath shepherded the four quarters (of the world), am I;

8. the son of Shalmaneser, the king of hosts, the king of Assyria, the son of Adad-nirari, the king of hosts, the king of Assyria.

9. In the beginning of my sovereignty, in the first year of my reign, the Kuti

10. and the Ukumani and the lands of Elkhunia and Sharnida

11. and Mekhri my hand conquered, and the tribute of their mountains

12. and the wealth of their highlands every year

13. in my city of Ashur I received.

 

CONQUEST OF SHUBARl. 

14. At that time the Kurti, and the lands of Kummukhi, and Pushshe,

15. and Mumme, and Alzi, and Madani, and Nikhani, and Alaia,

16. and Tearzi, and Purukuzzi, and the broad extent of the land of Shubari

17. with flame I burned, and the kings, their rulers,

18. I cast down under my feet and ... I subjugated them.

19. Highlands and valleys, places that were impassable, whose paths no king

20. hath known, with the power of my abounding strength

 

CONQUEST OF NAIRI.

21. I traversed, and forty kings of the lands of Nairi

22. to wage war and battle set themselves in mighty array.

23. I fought with them,

24. and I defeated them, and with their blood

25. I flooded the ravines and gullies of the mountains.

26. All their mountains I conquered, and toll and tribute

27. I laid upon them for ever.

28. With the help of Ashur, Bel, and Shamash, the great gods,

29. my lords, and with the aid of Ishtar, the queen of heaven and earth,—

 

DEFEAT OF BIBEASHU. 

30. at the head of my warriors they (i.e., the gods)marched, and Bibeashu,

31. king of Karduniash, I hemmed in to force him to wage battle.

32. I defeated his warriors, and his fighting men I brought low.

33. In the midst of that battle Bibeashu, king of the Kassites,

34. my hand captured, and his lordly neck like refuse

35. I trampled under my feet, and as a captive and in fetters into the presence of Ashur,

36. my lord, I brought him. The whole of the lands of Sumer and Akkad

37. I conquered and unto the Lower Sea

 

FOUNDING OF KAR-TUKULTI-NINIB.

1. of the Rising of the Sun I established the frontier of my land.

2. At that time beyond my city of Ashur the lord Bel commanded

3. that I should found a city and build a dwelling-place for him.

4. In accordance with the desire of the gods a great city for my royal dwelling-place

5. I built, and Kar-Tukulti-Ninib I called its name.

6. In the midst thereof a temple for the gods Ashur, and Adad, and Shamash, and Ninib, and Nusku,

7. and Nergal, and Imina-bi, and Ishtar, the great gods, my lords,

8. I completed. A direct canal for the shrines thereof Rev.

 

FORTIFICATION OF KAR-TUKULTI-NINIB.

 

9. I opened, and through the abundance of water from that canal

10. regular offerings for the great gods, my lords, for ever

11. did I establish. In the midst of that city earth

12. in abundance beside the Tigris did I set, and for one hundred and twenty tikpi

13. on high I piled it. Above those tikpi

14. a palace corresponding to the size thereof, a mighty house, I built for my royal habitation.

15. At that time the wall of Kar-Tukulti-Ninib, the great city,

16. the fortress of my dominion, I built, and from the foundation

 

APPEAL TO FUTURE RULERS.

 

17. unto the coping thereof I completed it, and my memorial-tablet have I set in place.

18. In the days that are to come may a future prince, when this wall

19. shall have grown old and shall have fallen in ruins, repair the damaged parts thereof,

20. and may he anoint my memorial-tablet with oil, and may he offer sacrifices,

21. and restore it unto its place, and then Ashur will hearken unto his prayers.

22. But whosoever shall destroy this wall, or shall remove my memorial-tablet

23. or my name that is inscribed thereon, or shall leave deserted or shall destroy Kar-Tukulti-Ninib,

24. the city of my dominion,

 

CURSES ON THE IMPIOUS.

 

25. may the lord Ashur overthrow his kingdom,

26. and may he break his weapons, and may he cause his warriors to be defeated,

27. and may he diminish his boundaries,

28. and may he ordain that his rule shall be cut off, and on his days

29. may he bring sorrow, and his years may he make evil, and his name and his seed

30. may he blot out from the land !

 

 

II

SUPPLEMENTARY TEXTS.

 

1. Passage from a tablet of the "Babylonian Chronicle" recording the defeat of Bibeiashu, king of Babylon, by Tukulti-Ninib I, and the latter’s rule in Babylonia.

 

TUKULTI-NINIB'S SACK OF BABYLON.

 

1. [ ] the defeat of Bibeiashu]

2.[he accomplished ] before the god Ninib he set [ ]

3. [ Tukulti]-Ninib returned to Babylon and

4. [ ] they drew nigh. He destroyed the wall of Babylon, and the men of Babylon he slew with the sword.

5. The treasures or Esagil and of Babylon he profanely brought forth, and the great lord Marduk

 

DEATH OF TUKULTI-NINIB.

 

6. he removed from his dwelling-place, and he carried him away into Assyria. The administration of his governors

7. he set up in the land of Kar-Duniash. For seven years did Tukulti-Ninib rule over Kar-Duniash.

8. Afterwards the nobles of Akkad and of Kar-Duniash revolted,

9. and they set Adad-shum-usur upon his father’s throne. Against Tukulti-Ninib, who had brought evil upon Babylon,

10. Ashur-nasir-pal, his son, and the nobles of Assyria revolted,

11. and from his throne they cast him, and they besieged him in a house in the city of Kar-Tukulti-Ninib, and they slew him with the sword.

 

2. Passage from the "Synchronous History" referring to Bibeashu, king of Babylon, and its context.

 

RETURN OF MARDUK TO BABYLON.

 

12. For [ . . . .]-six years, until the time of Tukulti-Ashur, Bel dwelt in Assyria; in the time of Tukulti-Ashur did Bel

13. go unto Babylon.

12. [ ]6 sanatit1 a-di mTukulti-iluAssur iluBelx ina

 

1. [Adad-nirari, king of Assyria], and Nazi-marattash, king of Karduniash,

2. fought [with one another at] Kar-Ishtar of Akar-sallu.

3. [Adad-nirari] defeated Nazi-marattash,

BIBEASHU AND TUKULTI-NINIB.

4. [and he smote him], and his camp and his priests he captured from him.

5. [Concerning] the boundary (they agreed) as follows :

6. [Their boundary] from the land of Pilaski,

7. [which is on the further side of] the Tigris, (from) the city of Arman-Akarsali

8. as far as Lulume they established, and (thus) they divided it.

9. [ ] Bifbejashu, king of Karduni[ash],

10. [ ] in the midst of the fight

TUKULTI-NINIB S SUCCESSORS.

1. his slaves he made [ ]

2. as far as the city of Kullar[ ]

3. Bel-kudur-usur, king of Assyria, and [Adad-shum-usur, king of Karduniash],

4. fought. Bel-kudur-usur did Ada[d-shum-usur . . .

5. slay in the battle, and Ninib-apil-E[kur..... ]

6. returned unto his own land. His [numerous] forces [he (i.e., Adad-shum-usur) summoned],

7. and he marched against the city of Ashur to conquer it [ ],

8. and he fought therein, and turned, and [went back unto his own land].

 

3. Seal-inscription of Tukulti-Ninib I from a clay TABLET of THE TIME OF SENNACHERIB.

 

1. "Tukulti-Ninib, king of hosts, son of Shalmaneser, king of Assyria.

2. "Booty from the land of Kardu[nishi]. Whosoever altereth my inscription or my name,

3. "may Ashur and Adad destroy his,name and his land."

4. This seal the enemy carried away from Assyria to Akkad.

5. But I, Sennacherib, king of Assyria,

6. after six hundred years, conquered Babylon,

7. and from the spoil of Babylon I brought it forth.

 

Edge. «Property of Shagarakti-Shuriash, king of hosts."

Rev.

"Tukulti-Ninib, king of hosts, son of Shalman[eser], king of Assyria.

" [Booty] from the land of Kardunishi. Whosoever altereth my inscription or my name,

" may Ashur and Adad destroy his name and his land."

" Property of Shagarakti-Shuriash, king of hosts."

This is that which is written upon the seal of lapislazuli.

 

4. Accounts of the capture of Babylon by Sennacherib in 702 b.c. and 689 b.c., on one of which occasions he recovered the seal of tukulti-ninib I.

 

A.—The Capture of Babylon in 702 b.c.

 

19. In my first campaign I accomplished the overthrow of Merodach-baladan,

20. king of Kar-Duniash, together with the forces of Elam, his allies,

21. in the neighbourhood of the city of Kish.

22. In the midst of that battle he left his camp

23. and fled alone, and saved his life.

24. The chariots, and horses, and wagons, and mules,

25. which he had deserted at the attack of my forces in battle array, my hands seized.

26. Into his palace which is in the midst of Babylon I entered joyfully,

27. and I opened his treasure-house. Gold, and silver,

28. and precious vessels of gold and silver of every kind,

29. and property and possessions without number, a heavy spoil, and his palace-women,

30. and (his) high officers and attendants, and (his) male and female musicians,

31. and all the servants, as many as there were,

32. who ministered in his palace, I brought forth,

33. and I counted them as spoil. Through the might of Ashur, my lord,

34. seventy-six1 of his strongly fortified cities in the land of Kaldi

 

B.—The Capture of Babylon in 689 b.c. [From the inscriptions of Sennacherib near Bavian in Assyria.]

 

35. and four hundred and twenty small cities in the neighbourhood thereof

36. I besieged, I captured, and I carried off their spoil.

35. u 4201 alanitl(ni) sihrilti?1 sa li-me-li-su-nu

 

43. In my second3 campaign unto Babylon, to conquer which I had determined, swiftly

44. I marched, and I broke loose like the onset of a storm, and like a hurricane I overwhelmed it. I invested the city with a blockading force, and with

45. mines1 and siege-engines my hands [captured it .... ] the spoil of [ ] his mighty ones [ ] I left neither small nor great, and with their corpses I filled the open places of the city.

46. Shuzubu, king of Babylon, together: with his family and his [ ] alive I carried away into my land.

47. The property of that city, silver, and gold, and precious stones, and goods, and possessions I handed over unto my people, and I made them their own possessions.

48. The gods that dwelt therein the hands of my people captured, and they broke them in pieces, and they took their goods and possessions. Adad and Shala, the gods

49. of the city of Ekallati, whom Marduk-nadin-akhe, king of Akkad, at the time of Tiglath-pileser, king of Assyria, had taken and had brought unto Babylon,

50. after four hundred and eighteen-years I brought forth from Babylon, and I restored them unto their place in the city of E[kallati]. The city and the houses (thereof)

51. from the foundation unto the roof thereof I destroyed, I laid waste, I burned with fire. The inner and the outer wall, and the temples of the gods, and the temple-towers of brick and earth, all that there were,

52. I tore up, and I cast them into the Arakhtu-canal. In the midst of that city I cut channels, and the earth thereof I overwhelmed with water, and the structure

53. of its foundation I destroyed, and I spread abroad its brickwork more than after an inundation. That in future days the site of that city and the temples of the gods

54. no man may find, I destroyed it with water and blotted it out so that it became like unto a swamp.