^{page 1 note 1} The fragments which pass as those of the history of Ctesias are no doubt those of a work of a Greek traveller who gave it as that of the physician of Artaxerxes.

^{page 2 note 1} This king is Assur-dan-apal, son of Salmanasar II., who put himself at the head of the inhabitants of the town of Assur, jealous of the pre-eminence given to Nineveh. He was defeated and buried himself under the ruins of Assur. The Greeks confounded this event with the fall of Assur-sar-iskun (Sarakos), the last king of Nineveh.

^{page 3 note 1} The Assyrians and Babylonians were not, however, very particular about chronology and dates, for even at a very late period in historical documents we read statements beginning in this way: ‘In a certain year’, or ‘In a year unknown.’ The deficiency of the system of dating by the year of the king is well illustrated by the Egyptian history; for instance, though every year of Ramses is well known, the writers disagree among themselves to the extent of centuries as to the age of this king.

^{page 3 note 2} Published by MrPinches, , S.B.A. Proc. 05 1884Google Scholar.

^{page 3 note 3} Published by Smith, G., S.B.A. vol. iii. Part II. 1874Google Scholar.

^{page 4 note 1} Published by MrPinches, , S.B.A. Proc. 12 1881Google Scholar. The contents of these three tablets are given by Professor Sayce in the Records of the Past, new series, vol. i.

^{page 4 note 2} Published by MrPinches, , S.B.A. Proc. 12 1880Google Scholar.

^{page 4 note 3} On the obverse of tablets the columns run from left to right, but on the reverse from right to left.

^{page 5 note 1} All the fragments of the tablets containing this history have not been published and some appear to be missing, though G. Smith consulted them. ProfessorSayce, has given a translation (Records of the Past, vol. iii.) of what he could get at the time (1874)Google Scholar. Some other fragments have been found since.

^{page 5 note 2} Published by Mr. Pinches in the Journal of the R.A.S. The translation is also given by ProfessorSayce, in the Records of the Past, new series, vol. i. p. 232Google Scholar et seq.

^{page 6 note 1} Professor Sayce accepts also the estimate of Mr. Pinches for the number of the missing lines.

^{page 6 note 2} I do not think that this system of average has ever been resorted to, but it is remarkable that the average of fifteen for a reign stands good, not only for ancient, but also modern times. The longer the period, the more accurate the average.

^{page 9 note 1} One name is Semitic, Apil-Sin; but this is not surprising. We are coming near the Semitic renaissance, and probably the Semites were already coming to the front.

^{page 10 note 1} W.A.I. i. pl. 36; Records of the Past, iii. p. 4.

^{page 11 note 1} See my Pre-Akkadian Semites, Journal R. A. S. xviii. Part III.

^{page 11 note 2} W.A.I. v. pl. 64, col. 3, 1. 27, 28.

^{page 11 note 3} Ibid. col. 2, 1. 56 et seq.; Records of the Past, new series, i. p. 5.

^{page 11 note 4} W.A.I. vol. i. pl. 69, col. 2, 1. 4 et seq. As published, the passage is not clear, but new fragments have been found since which take away all doubts.

^{page 11 note 5} Smith's, History of Assurbanipal, p. 254Google Scholar.

^{page 11 note 6} Records of the Past, new series, vol. i. p. 117.

^{page 11 note 7} Ibid.

^{page 11 note 8} W.A.I., iii. pl. 4, No. 2.

^{page 11 note 9} This number is at the beginning of line 50. This inscription has been often translated. The translation of Mr. Pinches appeared in the Records of the Past.

^{page 12 note 1} When I applied at the British Museum I was told that I might look for myself in the heap of squeezes preserved behind the Assyrian Bull, and Mr. Thompson had the whole turned out for me, but after spending three days I gave it up, as to go through the whole of the squeezes would require several months, and the Bavian inscription might not be, after all, in that heap, as other squeezes are preserved in other parts of the British Museum. The arrangements at the British Museum are far from satisfactory: if a student wish to collate a squeeze he has to find it himself; when he has done, it is again heaped up with the others, so that a new student wishing to consult the same squeeze has to go to the same trouble. Since I read this paper Mr. Boscowen told me that he and Professor Delitzsch have noticed the error, and that on the squeeze there is really 618 and not 418.

^{page 12 note 2} This letter, with some other tablets, has been acquired by the British Museum. It has been published with a few bad mistakes by Mr. Budge in Proc. of the S.B.A. together with two other tablets and some extracts. For the last two years the authorities have promised the publication of all of them, and in the meanwhile they do not allow anyone to publish any part of them—which is rather surprising, when Mr. Budge was allowed to publish the most important, for I cannot believe that he would have done so without permission.

^{page 13 note 1} These two documents are given by Professor Sayce in the Records of the Past, new series, vol. ii.

^{page 13 note 2} The Egyptian year began in August, the Persian and Armenian also; but the Athenian in June, the Macedonian in September, the Syrian began with Tisri (September–October), the Greco-Syrian with Elul (August–September). The beginning of the year varied even with the towns—at Tyr on October 19, at Gaza on the 28th of the same month, at Damas on the spring equinox. To make things worse, there are doubts about the beginning of the various eras: the Seleucidian era, which is used in some tablets, is fixed by some in 312, or 311, or even 310. I have adopted the first date, which is given by Ptolemy. It may be noticed that the era of Nabonassar never existed, but was invented by Ptolemy.

^{page 15 note 1} This would place the beginning of the first dynasty of Babylon, called Median by Berosus, according to the number given by his copyists, in 2559—nearly two centuries earlier than the chronological tablet.

^{page 15 note 2} Smith, G. seems to have understood it so, for in his table of the Berosian dynasties he leaves out this mythical queen (Records of the Past, vol. iii. p. 4)Google Scholar.

^{page 16 note 1} The word matu is considered by most Assyriologists as Akkadian in origin, and its pronunciation is then mada. I believe, however, the name to be Semitic, but this does not affect the question, as the Babylonians attributed everything to the Akkadians, and often changed the words to force an Akkadian etymology.

^{page 16 note 2} There is a difference in the number of kings, but figures are easily mistranscribed; besides, Berosus may have given more names than the tablet, which sometimes has neglected unimportant kings. For the following Arab dynasty (Pase of the tablet) the reverse happened; Berosus evidently neglected those kings who only ruled a few months.

^{page 16 note 3} This number of forty-six kings, with that of the tablet, forty-five, is striking, and is also an argument against terminating the Berosian dynasty at Nabonassar.

^{page 17 note 1} As these explanations are mere supposition I have not included this number in my table. I suppose provisionally the first Semitic invasion to have taken place 500 years before the Akkadian conquest, but I believe that it took place much earlier.

^{page 17 note 2} I called this race the ground race, because it forms, so to say, the lower stratum of the population everywhere. See my paper ‘The Races of the Babylonian Empire,’ Journal of the Anthrop. Institute, November 1888.

^{page 18 note 1} This has been proved by Loftus in several papers read before the Royal Geographical Society.

^{page 18 note 2} Some may be seen in the British Museum.

^{page 18 note 3} See my paper ‘Origin and Primitive Home of the Semites’ in the Journal of Anthrop. Institute; also my paper ‘Notes on the Assyrian and Akkadian Pronouns’ in the Journal of the R.A.S. vol. xvii. Part I. Since writing these papers I have gathered a great many more proofs.

^{page 18 note 4} In my Pre-Akkadian Semites the names of these kings have been so mutilated that identification is sometimes impossible.

^{page 19 note 1} Suidas says that Babylon was founded by a colony from Egypt led by Belus.

^{page 20 note 1} This passage is probably an interpolation, but it has preserved no doubt an old tradition.

^{page 20 note 2} For this question see my paper ‘Origin and Development of the Cuneiform Syllabary’ in Journal of the R.A.S. vol. xix. Part IV.

^{page 20 note 3} The name Akkad is a Semitic translation of Uru, ‘the strong ones’, by which these people called themselves.

^{page 20 note 4} This king has been for a long time confounded with Sargon of Agade; Mr. Pinches first separated them.

^{page 20 note 5} The Akkadians followed a religion in which the propitiation of evil spirits played the principal part, and used to bury the dead. They introduced their customs into Babylonia, but they were modified; however, there must have been a time of struggle. At this period I should therefore place the emigration of Abraham, who would not accept the innovations. This patriarch seems to have had a real existence, but later on he was made to represent a tribe, and his life was extended over centuries. The Abraham who went to Egypt can be neither the same as the one who emigrated from Uru, nor the same as the one who fought Kudur-Lagamar.

^{page 21 note 1} Formerly called Giodubar and wrongly identified with Nimrod. Mr. Pinches has found lately the real reading of the name, and Professor Sayce noticed that this name is given by Ælian under the form of Gilgamos.

^{page 21 note 2} The Sumerians were the southern branch of the Akkadians, and spoke a dialect of the same language. The name Somer is still applied by the Arabs to the south-west part of Babylonia.

^{page 21 note 3} It is during this dynasty that I should be inclined to place a conquest of Egypt by a Sumerian king; this is no doubt the origin of the tradition which makes Semiramis rule on the Nile.

^{page 21 note 4} I call this period heroic because it is the period during which appeared all the Babylonian heroes and were written all the heroic poems.

^{page 22 note 1} The oldest seal we possess—that of the scribe or librarian of Sargon of Agade—is perhaps the best of all those which have come down to us. Those of later kings show a decay in the art.

^{page 22 note 2} As is known, the papyrus plant has disappeared also from Egypt. It is still found in Sicily and in Central Africa.

^{page 22 note 3} The annals of his reign and that of his son have been preserved in omen tablets. They are translated by ProfessorSayce, (Records of the Past, new series, vol. i. pp. 37–41)Google Scholar.

^{page 22 note 4} Some read also Cyprus.

^{page 23 note 1} The end of his reign was filled with a series of revolts; the king was even besieged in his capital. Naram-Sin struggled probably in vain all his reign to maintain the conquests of his father.

^{page 23 note 2} The relative positions of the kings and empires have been calculated from the position of the bricks in the monuments, as the kings gloried in repairing the structures of their predecessors. The style of the writing has also been used, but all these data are very unsatisfactory, and we cannot know the real position of the kings of this period until we find the missing portion of the Royal Canon.

^{page 24 note 1} Of this dynasty we possess numerous private contract tablets, which indicate a great development of commerce. It is rather curious that the contract tablets seem to cease with this dynasty. We have a long period extending till the second Ninevite empire, of which we have no contract tablets. No doubt the centre of commerce had shifted and the locality has not been yet found.

^{page 25 page 1} As the tablet has chronology as its object, ideograms are often used for the sake of shortness. The same thing happens in the trade documents, which are even at late date more ideographic than the early historical inscriptions.

^{page 25 note 2} The copy we possess has been made by the Assyrians. It has been translated in the Records of the Past, vol. vii. (first series).

^{page 26 note 1} The longer notice in the Royal Canon would incline one to believe that the writer had a national prejudice in favour of these kings. Mr. Pinches understood it so, but it is only a supposition, as we have no documents of the period.

^{page 26 note 2} This is the cause of all the revolts of Babylon: this city would not accept the position of a provincial town. It probably tired the patience of the Ninevite kings.

^{page 27 note 1} The fact has been doubted, but I have found a tablet mentioning this event.

^{page 27 note 2} We have tablets down to the Christian era, and perhaps later.

^{page 28 note 1} Drs. Epping and Strassmaier have published a book under the title of Astronomisches aus Babylon; but this title is rather a misnomer, as the book treats only of the Seleucidian period. See on this subject my lectures at the British Museum reported in Nature, July 4, 11, 18, and August 8, 1889.

^{page 30 page 1} If we accept the number of 4 neri, given by Berosus for the length of the reign of Evekhous, as representing the duration of the prehistoric period, it would place the first king at B.C. 8655 and an average of 160 kings. As the first Akkadian dynasty contained 50 kings, is leaves 110 kings for 1650 years for the pre-Akkadian Semitic dynasty.

^{page 32 note 1} Instead of Entil it may be Murube, which is the name of Bel in Kassite.

^{page 36 note 1} These two names are restored from the Babylonian translation.

^{page 36 note 2} This name is generally read Illat. Prof. Sayce reads it Illadu, but adds that it seems to have been Pallil in Akkadian.

^{page 38 note 1} This reading is still uncertain, it might be Ur-Gur; but the name is found written Ur-Babi and Ur-Bau, though we may have here three, or at least two, different kings.

^{page 47 note 1} The position of these two kings is not certain.