^{page 35 note 1} One such is already extant in the long-known fragment of a stele in the British Museum, no. 90837: see King, L. W., Babylonian Boundary Stones, etc., Pl. XCIII f., pp. 128 fGoogle Scholar. (reproduced here, Plate III (a)), and for later references Borger, R., Die Inschriften Asarhaddons (AfO., Beiheft 9), p. 121Google Scholar. Owing to absence of all direct information of provenance for this important object, which will several times be mentioned in the succeeding pages, I do not venture to give it the designation Nabon. H 3, although its inscription was clearly different from the two here in question, and its origin from Harran must be considered probable. It had already been acutely assigned to Nabonidus by Professor B. Landsberger, in his study to be named immediately.

^{page 36 note 1} This article, when quoted in the following pages, will sometimes be indicated simply by the letter L, with page or plate numbers.

^{page 36 note 2} In a work of the Muslim author called Ibn al-Kalbi, Kitāb al-Aṣnām (which I was recommended to consult by Professor R. B. Serjeant), occurs the following very pertinent account (tr. Faris, Nabih Amin, The Book of Idols, Princeton Oriental Series, vol. 14, pp. 29 ff.Google Scholar): “Among these idols too was dhu-al-Khalaṣah. It was a carved piece of white quartz with something in the form of a crown upon its head. It stood in Tabālah, between Mecca and Ṣan'ā., at a distance of seven nights' journey from Mecca.” After a slight anecdote about its disappointing performance as an oracle, and some verses, the author relates that the Prophet sent Jarīr to destroy this false god. By dint of a bloody combat with its guardians “he demolished the building which stood over dhu-al-Khalaṣah and set it on fire”. The account continues with these words: “at the present time dhu-al-Khalaṣah constitutes the threshold of the gate of the mosque at Tabālah”. One wonders whether he is still there, hiding his face in some neglected pavement.

^{page 37 note 1} It is very hazardous to make any suggestion about the form of this base, but close scrutiny of the photograph (which may be very deceptive) seems to reveal one end of a boat, with upturned in-raking contour, such as are often depicted in art as well as found in ancient models, and such as are used in the marsh-country of Southern Iraq to this day; their likeness to the boat-shaped crescent moon, in its passage over the waters, led early to similes in the literature. Most like the outline which can (possibly) be discerned in this relief is the boat sculptured on a fragment of a boundary-stone from Susa, see Contenau, G., Manuel d'Archéologie Orientale, II, pp. 768, 904 f.Google Scholar, fig. 624; also Dhorme, E., Les Religions de Babylonie et d'Assyrie, p. 85Google Scholar; Tallqvist, K., Akkadische Götterepitheta, p. 445Google Scholar. On the top of the staff borne by the figure of B.M. 90837 is a crescent upon an unclear base.

^{page 37 note 2} See some recent observations by Barnett, R. D., Catalogue of the Nimrud Ivories in the British Museum, p. 78Google Scholar.

^{page 37 note 3} In the first figure this can be seen to have the curved rising edge of the outside fold richly embroidered and fringed, as in the better-preserved examples on H 2, A and B, and many similar figures.

^{page 37 note 4} It is not impossible that this arrangement in line really depicts two pairs (a) King and Mother, and (b) their respective attendants, each side by side.

^{page 38 note 1} Appearance of a female in a religious rite beside the figure of a king is now paralleled by a bronze fragment in the Louvre, recently published by Parrot, A. et Nougayrol, J. in Syria, XXXIII, pp. 147 ff.Google Scholar, which depicts Esarhaddon with his formidable Mother Naqi'a. This remarkable likeness between two Aramaean matriarchs extends beyond artistic innovation to a striking similarity of achievement, and doubtless of character.

^{page 38 note 2} Because it is clear from the fuller text of H 1, B that it did not deal with all those concluding topics which L. p. 145 presumed.

^{page 39 note 1} This characteristic article of dress is alone retained by the curious bronze figure of an Assyrian king in penance published in the British Museum Quarterly, XIX (1954), pl. xviii, p. 51Google Scholar. A possible explanation of its conical upright may be furnished by the headdress called khlaw, worn by the better sort of the population in Southern Kurdistan, and recently described as “not the ordinary skull-cap, but a rather stiff cone made of green, purple, or orange velvet” (Edmonds, C. J., Kurds, Turks, and Arabs (1957), p. 90Google Scholar and Plate I (a)). Around this other wrappings are worn, and at least one such detachable piece can be observed (see below) in the Assyrian “crown”.

^{page 39 note 2} See the description by Meissner, B. in OLZ. 21 (1918), 119 f.Google Scholar, of the figure on B.M. 90837, to which many comparisons are adduced.

^{page 39 note 3} Seyrig, H. and Starcky, J. in Syria, XXVI, p. 232Google Scholar.

^{page 39 note 4} Ghirshman, R. in Artibus Asiae, XVI, p. 58Google Scholar.

^{page 39 note 5} Parrot, A. in Syria, XXXIII, p. 148Google Scholar.

^{page 39 note 6} Leemans, W. F., Ishtar of Lagaba and her Dress, pp. 12 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 40 note 1} On the Merodach-baladan Stone it has the form of a long appendix continuing the point of the hat.

^{page 40 note 2} See the description by L. W. King, op. cit. p. 128, note 2.

^{page 40 note 3} Smith, S. in BSOAS. IV (1926), p. 72Google Scholar; Danthine, H., Le Palmier-dattier et les Arbre sacrés, I, pp. 79 f., 138 fGoogle Scholar.

^{page 40 note 4} It is enough here to direct attention to the important article by H. and Lewy, J. in Orientalia, 1948, pp. 146 ffGoogle Scholar. See also JCS. 4, 138Google Scholar; Bibl. Orient. XI, 172, note 8Google Scholar; Tallqvist, , Götterepitheta, p. 143Google Scholar. Nabonidus himself refers to the sceptre bestowed upon him by the god Nabu in a shrine named after that ceremony (VAB. IV, p. 280Google Scholar, col. vii, 24–9; new translation in ANET. p. 310).

^{page 40 note 5} Especially Mém. Délégat. en Perse, I, fig. 379, a lamp inscribed (d) Nusku.

^{page 40 note 6} Tallqvist, loc. cit., where the sceptre is also called eširti, ṣirti.

^{page 41 note 1} Parrot, A. and Nougayrol, J., Syria, XXXIII, pp. 148, 159Google Scholar. On the Louvre bronze of Esarhaddon and Naqi'a this has a peculiar character in that the figures are applying these closely to their noses; for a possible parallel Dr. H. W. F. Saggs has pointed out to me the unexplained allusion in Ezekiel VIII, 17 (the house of Judah commit abominations), “and, lo, they put the branch to their nose.”

^{page 41 note 2} Possibly the atalu, “eclipsed moon” of the Verse Account, I, 25.

^{page 41 note 3} Van Buren, E. D., Symbols of the Gods, pp. 94 ff.Google Scholar; Roes, A. in JEOL. Deel I, Introd. xvii ff.Google Scholar, and Gardiner, A. H. in JEA. 30, pp. 46 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 41 note 4} CIS. Pars II, tome I, tabl. IX, pp. 108–115Google Scholar. A new photograph of the Taima figure sent to me by the courtesy of Monsieur A. Parrot, is given here on Pl. III (b).

^{page 41 note 5} marru, but this is now thought to describe a triangular-shaped spade—many references, see last Driver, G. R. and Miles, J. C., The Babylonian Laws, II, p. 172Google Scholar. In the Verse Account, col. V, 21, is related an argument of Nabonidus concerning this emblem in a sense which his enemies denounced as blasphemous.

^{page 42 note 1} Many Assyrian references to figures of this kind may be found in the monograph of Frankena, R., Tākultu, p. 112Google Scholar.

^{page 42 note 2} Upon this see Smith, S., Isaiah Ch. XL–LV, pp. 86, 90Google Scholar. The 5th century date is still supported by Brockelmann, C. in Handbuch der Orientalistik, Bd. III, p. 138Google Scholar.

^{page 44 note 1} It is much to be desired that the reading here presented may now be carefully collated with these by a scholar fortunate enough to have access.

^{page 56 note 1} B has (d.)XV.

^{page 56 note 2} B -man.

^{page 56 note 3} B ma-a-tu.

^{page 56 note 4} B inserts -u(?)-ni(?).

^{page 56 note 5} B DUB.

^{page 56 note 6} B (d.) XV.

^{page 56 note 7} B reads -tú šá.

^{page 56 note 8} B (d.) PA. I.

^{page 56 note 9} Two lines missing from B.

^{page 56 note 10} B -tú.

^{page 56 note 11} B -zu.

^{page 56 note 12} om. B.

^{page 56 note 13} B -tú.

^{page 56 note 14} A e-zi-is-su, B e-zi-iz-zu MÚRUB.

^{page 58 note 15} B i-ta-na-kal.

^{page 58 note 16} B ú-ṣa-ḫi-ri.

^{page 58 note 17} B a-na-.

^{page 58 note 18} B (ālu)te-ma-'a.

^{page 58 note 19} nu- only in B.

^{page 58 note 20} poss. -Ki in A; B has -ka.

^{page 58 note 21} B reverses order of Padakka and Ḫibrâ.

^{page 58 note 22} B ia-.

^{page 58 note 23} B at-tal-lak.

^{page 58 note 24} B (d.)iš-tar.

^{page 58 note 25} B -tú.

^{page 58 note 26} B ú-šal-li-mu-'u.

^{page 58 note 27} B has MU.AX.NA-a-šú, prob. scribal omission for (šá)-a-šú.

^{page 58 note 28} B. om. ina.

^{page 58 note 29} B. KUR.MEŠ.

^{page 58 note 30} B -tú.

^{page 58 note 31} rest, from B.

^{page 58 note 32} B -tú.

^{page 58 note 33} B om. -a-.

^{page 58 note 34} B -šaq-.

^{page 58 note 35} uncert. in A; B reads NÍG-šú-nu.

^{page 58 note 36} A illegible, B prob. as text.

^{page 58 note 37} B IGI.

^{page 58 note 38} B (d.)iš-tar.

^{page 58 note 39} B ta-ḫa-zu.

^{page 58 note 40} B -tú.

^{page 58 note 41} B GÁL-ú.

^{page 58 note 42} B a-na.

^{page 58 note 43} Rest, from B.

^{page 58 note 44} So app. A; B has (ālu).

^{page 58 note 45} This name, illegible in A, is preserved only in B, col. I of which ends here.

^{page 58 note 46} From this point A mostly illegible; the foll. text partly rest. from B, col. II, 1–6.

^{page 58 note 47} End of A, col. I.

^{page 60 note 48} After this B, col. II, has lost one line and seven more are defective.

^{page 60 note 49} B qí-bit.

^{page 60 note 50} B om. -ma.

^{page 60 note 51} B i-ma-ag-gàr.

^{page 60 note 52} B has EN. AN.

^{page 60 note 53} B mu-gam-mi-ru pa-ra-aḫ.

^{page 60 note 54} B has PA.AN.

^{page 60 note 55} B has (d.)BE-ú-tu.

^{page 60 note 56} B has PA.AN.

^{page 60 note 57} B qa-ti-šú.

^{page 60 note 58} Thus both A and B, but not clear.

^{page 60 note 59} B supplies this word.

^{page 60 note 60} Partly indistinct both in A and B.

^{page 60 note 61} End of line from B.

^{page 60 note 62} End of line from B.

^{page 60 note 63} B -na.

^{page 60 note 64} B -la.

^{page 60 note 65} -mu ends a line in B.

^{page 60 note 66} B has -tú.

^{page 60 note 67} B qí-bit.

^{page 60 note 68} B -mir.

^{page 62 note 69} So in B, end of sign only in A.

^{page 62 note 70} Begin, of line from B.

^{page 62 note 71} B -mu.

^{page 62 note 72} From B.

^{page 62 note 73} B tan-na-an-du-u.

^{page 62 note 74} From B, where followed by ma-a-tú.

^{page 62 note 75} B ib-ba-šu-u, and here ends B, col. II.

^{page 62 note 76} From B, col. III, 1.

^{page 62 note 77} From B.

^{page 62 note 78} From B.

^{page 62 note 79} B šá-di-i.

^{page 62 note 80} Ends of lines 43–8, invisible in A, are taken from ends of broken lines in B.

^{page 62 note 81} From B.

^{page 62 note 82} From B.

^{page 62 note 83} From B.

^{page 62 note 84} B has še-pi-iá.

^{page 62 note 85} From B.

^{page 62 note 86} B has INANNA and A has MEŠ.

^{page 62 note 87} From B.

^{page 62 note 88} From B.

^{page 62 note 89} From B.

^{page 62 note 90} From B.

^{page 64 note 90a} B has aš.

^{page 64 note 91} From B.

^{page 64 note 92} B has KUR.

^{page 64 note 93} B inserts -u-. A is very defective from here onwards: text mostly from B but alignment of A observed.

^{page 64 note 94} Last sign illegible in A, uncertain in B.

^{page 64 note 95} B has EN.EN. EN.

^{page 64 note 96} A has line-ending -d(k?)i-iq-ma, B reads an-na-d(k?)i-ma.

^{page 64 note 97} Uncert. remains in A: B has only a-na e-ma la-pan-iá aš-ku-un-ma.

^{page 64 note 98} B -tú.

^{page 64 note 99} B apparently māru-u-iá??. After aš-rat?? B ends abruptly (col. III, 51).

^{page 69 note 1} The first two of these summaries were already present in A, but the former was defective, and most of the figures missing.

^{page 69 note 2} Lit. “from before”, i.e. she came into the world during the lifetime of Aššurbanipal.

^{page 70 note 1} Langdon, S., VAB. IV, Nabon. no. 8, col. IV, 37 ff.Google Scholar; cf. ANET. p. 309.

^{page 70 note 2} Reason enough; for according to the same authority Nabonidus himself was among the “friends” by whom that hapless youth “was clubbed to death”.

^{page 70 note 3} This statement, occurring in the “1st. person” part of the inscription, is not conceivable as made by the deceased herself, but has been intruded by the author of the concluding (“3rd person”) part.

^{page 70 note 4} Quoted in Wiseman, D. J., Chronicles of Chaldaean Kings, p. 92Google Scholar, see n. 2.

^{page 70 note 5} Somewhat in the manner which Herodotus (II, 143) attributes to Hecataeus.

^{page 70 note 6} This is, in fact, where it used to be given, on the supposition that Aššurbanipal was identical with Kandalanu. The “42jährige Regierung” attributed in Scharff, A. und Moortgat, A., Ägypten und Vorderasien im Altertum, p. 425Google Scholar, evidently depends upon the same assumption.

^{page 70 note 7} Clearly, this does not indicate the whole reign of Aššur-etillu-ili, for there is a contract dated in the latter part of his 4th year (Wiseman, loc. cit. gives the reference). The royal Mother, however, rigidly confines herself to those whom she regarded as legitimate kings of Babylon. After the accession of the family to which she adhered all other pretenders are ignored.

^{page 70 note 8} Wiseman, op. cit. p. 50, lines 14, 15, cf. pp. 7, 93.

^{page 71 note 1} Ginzel, F. K., Handbuch der mathematischen und technischen Chronologie, I, p. 139Google Scholar.

^{page 71 note 2} Dubberstein, W. H. in JNES. III (1944), p. 38Google Scholar.

^{page 71 note 3} W. H. Dubberstein, loc. cit.

^{page 71 note 4} Wiseman, D. J., Chronicles, pp. 50 ff.Google Scholar, cf. pp. 43, 90.

^{page 71 note 5} Quoted by Goetze, A., in JNES. III, 44, with n. 15Google Scholar.

^{page 71 note 6} Schnabel, P., Berossos, p. 271Google Scholar.

^{page 72 note 1} See San Nicolò, M., Babylonische Rechtsurkunden … 8. und … 7. Jahrhunderts v. Chr., p. 129Google Scholar (at Erech).

^{page 72 note 2} It is possible, of course, that Aššurbanipal, having two sons, purported before his death to appoint them kings of Assyria and of Babylon respectively, following the precedent of his own accession. But there is absolutely no evidence of this, and nothing to show that they ever acted in these separate characters. In their scanty inscriptions both use the title “king of Assyria”; cf. also the “Nabopolassar Chronicle”, line 44.

^{page 72 note 3} D. J. Wiseman, op. cit. pp. 5 f., 91 f., also W. von Soden in a review of that work, WZKM. 53 (1957), p. 319Google Scholar.

^{page 72 note 4} There is no little irony in this situation—what more should a chronologist desire than a plain statement from an exceptionally long-lived contemporary, making a careful count of years?

^{page 72 note 5} Luckenbill, D. D., Ancient Records, II, §§ 914, 983Google Scholar; Bauer, T., Das Inschriftenwerk Assurbanipals, II, pp. 33 ffGoogle Scholar. It is mentioned also in the great slab from the Ninlil temple at Nineveh, Thompson, R. C. in LAAA. XX, p. 83Google Scholar, lines 60 ff., one of the last inscriptions of the reign.

^{page 72 note 6} VAB. IV, p. 220Google Scholar, lines 47 ff.; p. 224, lines 43 ff. (Nabonid no. 1).

^{page 73 note 1} ibid. pp. 218 ff.

^{page 73 note 2} ibid. pp. 284 ff., recently translated in ANET. p. 311.

^{page 73 note 3} Wiseman, D. J., Chronicles concerning Chaldaean Kings, pp. 60 ff.Google Scholar, cf. p. 45.

^{page 73 note 4} This still-dubious question has been discussed recently by D. J. Wiseman, op. cit. pp. 16, 81. A coincidence which has perhaps not been remarked is that another decisive contest, involving at least some of the same antagonists, occurred at exactly the same place at very nearly the same time after the Christian era began, when Heraclius defeated the general of Chosroes II on 12th December, 627, in a great battle fought over the ruins of Nineveh itself (Gibbon, chapter XLVI). In view of the controversies in the middle of the 19th century it is also of interest to observe that Gibbon, writing about 1785, was in no doubt as to the site of Nineveh, and even twits Niebuhr for having “passed over Nineveh without perceiving it”.

^{page 74 note 1} Although the reference to her own, and her son's, long service at the court of the Chaldaean kings insinuates clearly enough the powerful influence which she certainly exercised there.

^{page 74 note 2} There seems no need to suppose, as some have done, that Harran was effectively occupied by the Babylonians in 610, and that the situation in 556, when it was certainly controlled by the Medes, had been caused by some subsequent rupture, presumed to have occurred under Neriglissar. There is no evidence for this, and it is implied by the language of Nabonidus himself (extract (e) above) that the Babylonian king had not at the beginning (nor is he likely to have acquired afterwards) more than a subordinate control of affairs at Harran.

With this discretion, of adapting the account to the readers, may be compared the respective descriptions of the famous dream in which the command was given to restore the cult of Harran. In the version known hitherto (VAB. IV, 218 f.Google Scholar, of which there is a recent new translation by Oppenheim, A. L., Interpretation of Dreams in the Ancient Near East, p. 250Google Scholar, cf. p. 203) there is not only the prophecy of the defeat of Astyages and the Medes (which of course had to be omitted at Harran) but there is an opposite addition for the benefit of another audience, the Babylonians. This comprises (1) the introduction of Marduk as the principal figure (called “Enlil of the gods”) and as the sole speaker, reducing the Moon-god to a mere spectator, and (2) the injunction to bring the bricks in the royal chariot, evidently from Babylon, with the notion of authenticity thence derived. All of this is in stark contrast with the brief, direct and independent command of the Moon-god related in H. 2, col. I, 12–14. The artful elaboration of this incident to the taste of Babylonian readers is as deliberate as it is disingenuous (they had not been rightly informed, it seems, as H.2 is at pains to explain at its outset). I am not sure whether political reporting of this kind remains within “the stylistic requirements evolved in this specific type of literature”.

^{page 75 note 1} Yet how could this be, when the king was still refusing to enter Babylon, where the gods of Harran were in temporary residence (in Šuanna)?

^{page 75 note 2} Their opposition was probably motivated by dislike of seeing re-created what they had themselves destroyed, and especially by the fear of a new Assyrian power gathering in the place where it had made its last stand. For the importance of Harran during the last years of the Assyrian monarchy see the observations of Thompson, R. C. in Liverpool Annals, XX, 112Google Scholar. The elaborate works there of Aššurbanipal at the outset of his reign might seem to attest his appreciation of the dangers then already menacing the older Assyrian homeland.

^{page 76 note 1} Re-published recently by Wiseman, D. J., Chronicles of Chaldaean Kings, pls. XX, XXI, see p. 94Google Scholar.

^{page 76 note 2} Smith, S., Isaiah, Ch. XL–LV, pp. 38 ff., 140Google Scholar; Dougherty, R. P., Nabonidus and Belshazzar, pp. 152 ff.Google Scholar; Segall, B., American Journal of Archaeology, 59 (1955), pp. 315 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

^{page 76 note 3} Almost ominal: e.g. CT. XX, pl. vii, 9, “thy enemy will send (overtures of) peace to thee.” To extend the idea of “king” over the two following descriptions would be contrary to Babylonian usage.

^{page 76 note 4} See above, p. 74, n. 2.

^{page 77 note 1} On the titles of Cyrus see Gray, G. B. in Cambridge Ancient History, IV, 8Google Scholar.

^{page 77 note 2} See, however, a different interpretation by S. Smith, op. cit. pp. 33, 128.

^{page 77 note 3} Their rivalries are clearly displayed in Aššurbanipal's account of his dealings with them, and are reflected in the “haters of peace” whom the Psalmist (120, 5 f.) deprecates as typical inhabitants of the “tents of Qedar”.

^{page 77 note 4} She is called kumirtu, “priestess” and also apkallatu, “wise-woman” (for the latter see Borger, R. in Orientalia, 1957, pp. 8 ff.Google Scholar).

^{page 78 note 1} Albright, W. F., Dedan, p. 6Google Scholar (in Geschichte und Altes Testament, Festschrift für Albrecht Alt, 1953); see also van den Branden, A. in Bibliotheca Orientalis, XIV (1957), 13 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 78 note 2} For this see a recent article by Rabinowitz, I. in JNES. XV (1956), pp. 1 ffGoogle Scholar. (inscription C). In that place will also be found a large number of references which it would be superfluous to repeat here; in view of this the present account has been made quite summary.

^{page 78 note 3} W. F. Albright, loc. cit. p. 6.

^{page 78 note 4} By van den Branden, A. in Textes Thamoudéens de Philby, vol. II, pp. 54 ff.Google Scholar, and p. xiv, also his article entitled L'Unité de l'Alphabet Thamoudéen in Brunschvig, R. and Schacht, J., Studio Islamica, fasc. vii, pp. 12 fGoogle Scholar. I owe knowledge of these to the kindness of Père van den Branden himself, who also sent me a copy of the latter publication.

^{page 79 note 1} The name is written in the present inscription H 2, col. I, 24, as (āl) te-ma-a (in A), (al)te-ma-'a (in B); col. III, 5, (āl)te-ma-'a (in both). Elsewhere in the texts connected with Nabonidus it appears indifferently as te-ma-a and te-ma (e.g. in the Chronicle, col. II, 5, 10, 19, 23), te-ma-'a in the “Verse Account” (see below). For other mentions, in contracts (all te-ma-a), see Dougherty, R. P., Nabonidus and Belshazzar, pp. 114, 116, 139Google Scholar.

^{page 79 note 2} Republished most recently by Smith, S., Babylonian Historical Texts, 98 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 79 note 3} Some 500 miles even in a straight line. For the actual route taken see Smith, S., Isaiah: Chapters XL–LV, Literary Criticism and History (The Schweich Lectures of the British Academy, 1940), 37 f., 136 f., 139Google Scholar.

^{page 79 note 4} Dougherty, R. P., op. cit. p. 105Google Scholar, n. 344 for references.

^{page 79 note 5} Smith, S., Babylonian Historical Texts, 27 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 79 note 6} This rendering, although it has been altered by subsequent translators, certainly gives the best sense; it has been defended by its author in his Isaiah: Chapters XL–LV, p. 136. The other version has nevertheless been accepted by the contributor of this piece to Pritchard, J. B., Ancient Near Eastern Texts, p. 313Google Scholar.

^{page 80 note 1} As no more than a general testimony to the prestige of Babylon, for a similar compliment, with as little reason, is lavished upon Sennacherib's settlement at Tarsus by the excerptors of Berossus: Schnabel, P., Berossos, pp. 269 fGoogle Scholar.

^{page 81 note 1} Further discussion of Dedan and al-‘Ulā is not necessary in this place, for they have been the subject of an important book and two valuable articles recently, viz. Caskel, W., Lihyan und Lihyanisch (Köln, 1954)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Albright, W. F., “Dedan,” in Geschichte und Altes Testament (Festschrift A. Alt, 1953), pp. 1 ff.Google Scholar; van den Branden, A., “La Chronologie de Dedan et de Lihyân,” in Bibliotheca Orientalis, XIV (1957), 13 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 81 note 2} According to Musil, A., Arabia Deserta, p. 519Google Scholar (from Taima to al-Ḥijr, 105 km.).

^{page 81 note 3} Wüstenfeld, F., Das Gebiet von Medina, pp. 70–2 (Abhandl. Konig. Gesells. Wissens. Göttingen, XVIII, 1873)Google Scholar.

^{page 81 note 4} von Soden, W., Grundriss der Akkadischen Grammatik, § 58Google Scholar (mainly from Sumerian which, of course, is not in question here).

^{page 81 note 5} Watt, W. Montgomery, Muhammad at Medina, p. 218Google Scholar; Jones, J. M. B. in BSOAS. XIX (1957), 253 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 82 note 1} But Wüstenfeld, F., in another monograph, Die von Medina auslaufenden Hauptstrassen (published in the same Abhandlungen XI, 1862), p. 15Google Scholar, makes it 3 days.

^{page 82 note 2} Musil, A., Arabia Deserta, p. 519Google Scholar.

^{page 82 note 3} By Professor W. F. Albright, who also kindly referred to W. Caskel, op. cit. p. 60, and to van den Branden, A., Les Inscriptions Thamoudéennes, p. 33Google Scholar.

^{page 82 note 4} Analogous contractions are found in bt for bayt, and ḥl for ḥayl, and trqh for tarqaiha, cited by the above-named authorities.

^{page 82 note 5} Caskel, however, writes that they have “selbstverständlich nichts mit der Aus sprache zu tun”. Yet how lightly such difference could be taken by Arabic tradition is shown by the explanation of the name Khaybar as derived from the Hebrew name Ḥeber; see above.

^{page 82 note 6} Dr. D. S. Rice gives this reference as vol. II (ed. F. Wüstenfeld), p. 503, which he translates as follows: “the term means ‘fort’ in the language of the Jews. As this region numbers [several of] these forts it has been named Khayābir”.

^{page 82 note 7} Their dialect is generally described by Lammens, H., L'Arabie occidentale avant l'hégire, p. 81Google Scholar.

^{page 82 note 8} See Dozy, R. P. A., Die Israeliten zu Mekka von Davids Zeit, etc., pp. 136 ff.Google Scholar, also id.Supplément aux Dictionnaires Arabes, I, p. 415a.

^{page 82 note 9} Another form of this tradition has been found by Dr. Rice in al-Samhūdī; he gives the following reference and translation: Kitāb wafā' al-wafi bi-akhbār dār al-muṣṭafā, Cairo, 1326 A.H., vol. II, p. 305, “Khaybar is a wilāya which includes many forts, fields, palm trees. In the language of the Jews Khaybar means fort, hence also Khayābir because its forts are so numerous. Abu l-Qāsim al-Zajājī said: It was named after Khaybar, brother of Yathrib, sons of Qāni‘a, son of Mahalīl, son of Aram, son of ‘Abīl. ‘Abīl was the brother of ‘Äd and the uncle of Rabda, Zarūd, and Safra. He (Khaybar) was the first to settle there, etc.”

^{page 83 note 1} Combe, E., Sauvaget, J., et Wiet, G., Répertoire chronologique d'épigraphie arabe, I, p. 3Google Scholar, no. 3 (with bibliography).

^{page 83 note 2} von Soden, W., Grundriss der Akkadischen Grammatik, § 25 aGoogle Scholar.

^{page 83 note 3} One more allusion to Yadī‘ in Arabic literature has been found by Dr. D. S. Rice, who contributes the following note: “that the place is not altogether obscure is evident from Hamdānī, op. cit. p. 218, line 26, where the name is mentioned in a mnemotechnic poem on Arabian place-names composed by al-‘Ajlānī, ‘well-watered Khaybar and also Yadī’, whose star is Gemini, well-soaked.’”

^{page 84 note 1} See above, p. 78, n. 4.

^{page 85 note 1} Col. II, 1, 2, 6–10; col. III, 14–16, 18–20, 33 f. Note also the corps of life-guards (col. I, 30) and the place called Dûr-karašu (“Fort Camp”) (Chron. col. II, 13) on the Euphrates above Sippar, where the king's Mother was interred while he was still refusing to enter Babylon. This suggests a military cantonment where troops from the “Ḫatti land” were embodied.

^{page 85 note 2} Wiseman, D. J., Chronicle of Chaldaean Kings, pp. 74 ff.Google Scholar, and ibid. pp. 95 f., for general activity of the New Babylonian armies.

^{page 85 note 3} This has always been translated “all lands” (cf. Delitzsch, , HWB. 435aGoogle Scholar) and recently, in this passage, “everywhere in the country” (Oppenheim, A. L. in ANET. p. 313Google Scholar), but here at least it might have rather an exclusive sense, defining that Belshazzar was given command only of the territorial or homeland troops (disaffected towards the king himself).

^{page 86 note 1} Cf. also his other work, L'Arabie occidentale avant l'hégire, p. 54; Margoliouth, D. S., The Relations between Arabs and Israelites prior to the Rise of Islam, pp. 50–62Google Scholar; Watt, W. Montgomery, Muhammad at Medina, p. 192Google Scholar, n. 2. The book of R. Leszynski, Die Juden in Arabien zur Zeit Mohammeds is not available to me.

^{page 86 note 2} See some references below, on p. 89, n. 2.

^{page 86 note 3} Albright, W. F., Dedan, pp. 2, 7Google Scholar; Caskel, W., Liḥyan und Liḥyanisch, pp. 36 ff.Google Scholar; van den Branden, A. in Bibliotheca Orientalis, XIV, pp. 13 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 86 note 4} See Janssen, E., Juda in der Exilszeit, p. 56Google Scholar. The analogy is self-evident with the Jewish military colony, under officers having Babylonian and Persian names, found established at Elephantine in the next century; the origin of which is still a matter of conjecture, recently discussed by Kraeling, E. G., The Brooklyn Museum Aramaic Papyri, pp. 41–8Google Scholar. Still more recently another proposal by Gordon, C. H. in JNES. XIV (1955), pp. 56 ff.Google Scholar (“a Judean enclave in Aram”). It might be too hazardous to conclude from some fragmentary lines (A.f.O. XIV, 42Google Scholar) that Sargon II in 716 left some such garrison at Nahal Muṣur, upon the border of Egypt.

^{page 87 note 1} A long bibliography of the subject can be found appended to the work of Hirschberg, H. Z., Yisrā'ēl ba-‘Arāb, pp. 332–9Google Scholar. I have also obtained information from E. Brauer, Ethnologie der jemenitischen Juden.

^{page 87 note 2} And this, with the common substitution of Nebuchadrezzar for Nabonidus, has its place in Jewish and Arabic tradition: see Dozy, R. P. A., Die Israeliten zu Mekka von Davids Zeit, etc., p. 143Google Scholar.

^{page 87 note 3} Milik, J. T., “Prière de Nabonide,” in Revue biblique, 63 (1956), 407 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 88 note 1} In this document “years” (š^enîn), but in Daniel, ch. iv, the banishment of “Nebuchadnezzar” lasted for seven “times” (‘iddānîn). It is worthy of note, although of uncertain significance, that when H 2 mentions (col. II, 11; III, 4) the return of Nabonidus from exile after ten years it couples with these the word adannu, the equivalent, perhaps loan-word (see Driver, G. R. in Die Welt des Orients, pt. 5, p. 412Google Scholar, n. 51), of ‘iddān. Compare Ezechiel VII, 7 and 12.

^{page 88 note 2} For the possible connexion of this with the plague in Babylonia recorded by H 2, col. I, 21, 22, and with the motive for the king's removal to Taima, see below, p. 89.

^{page 88 note 3} Freeman, D. N. in BASOR. no. 145, pp. 31 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 88 note 4} Various proffered explanations have been summarised and examined by Dougherty, R. P., Nabonidus and Belshazzar, ch. XI, pp. 138 ff.Google Scholar, who was not satisfied by any of them.

^{page 89 note 1} R. P. Dougherty, op. cit. p. 159. If it was a more salubrious climate which the king was seeking, he should not have visited Khaybar, for that locality in recent times had a very evil reputation for a pestilent air: Doughty, , Arabia Deserta, II, p. 126Google Scholar.

^{page 89 note 2} Dougherty, op. cit. pp. 14 ff.; Smith, S., Isaiah XL–LV, pp. 37–40Google Scholar; Wiseman, D. J., Chronicles of Chaldaean Kings, pp. 32, 48, 70Google Scholar (Nebuchadrezzar's campaign in Arabia, 599 B.C.); Segall, B., “The Arts and Nabonidus” in American Journal of Archaeology, 59 (1955), pp. 316, 318CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

^{page 89 note 3} See Rice, D. S. in Illustrated London News, 21st September, 1957, pp. 468 ff.Google Scholar, also Landsberger, B. in Halil Edhem Hatıra Kitabı, Cilt I, p. 117Google Scholar.

^{page 90 note 1} See above, p. 36, n. 2.

^{page 90 note 2} Yet a strange disregard for the reader is evinced by the heedlessness which permitted H 2, B, to end before the inscription was finished, see above, pp. 43 f.

^{page 90 note 3} B Landsberger, loc. cit. pp. 140 ff.

^{page 90 note 4} The exceptionally long life of the “speaker” is artfully employed to insinuate the deliberation of the god's choice and the certainty of its interpretation.

^{page 90 note 5} Yet the total omission of any reference to a father of her son, in all this lengthy disquisition and amid all these biographical, even personal, details, is very noticeable and can hardly be inadvertent. However, the son himself, in his own words (H 2, col. I, 8, 9 as elsewhere), is at pains to disclaim a royal lineage.