is a poor copy of a good original. C is between A and B, agreeing with
the latter in a strange interpolation [Footnote: III. 2a-c.] and in
the omission of the five kings of the Muski. [Footnote: I. 63b. King,
_Supplement_, 116 follows C.] A is the latest but best preserved,
while the character of the text warrants us in making this our
standard as it has but few unique readings and but one improbable
omission. [Footnote: VII. 105-8.] The same account, in slightly
different form and seemingly later in date [Footnote: K.2815 is dated
in the eponomy of Ninib nadin apal, the LAH MA GAL E official. He
probably is after the rab bi lul official in whose year the hexagons
are dated.] is also found in some tablet inscriptions. [Footnote:
Budge-King, 125 n.3; K.2815, with different conclusion; 81-2-4, 220,
where reverse different; K.12009; K.13840; 79-7-8, 280; 89-4-26, 28;
Rm. 573: Winckler, AOF. III. 245.]

A second annalistic group is that postulated as the original of the so
called Broken Obelisk. Of documents coming directly from Tiglath
Pileser himself, the only one that can with any probability be
assigned to this is the tiny fragment which refers to the capture of
Babylon. [Footnote: K. 10042; Winckler, AOF. I. 387.] But that such a
group did exist is proved by the extracts from it in the obelisk
prepared by a descendant of Tiglath Pileser, probably one of his sons,
Shamshi Adad or Ashur bel kala. [Footnote: Photograph, Budge-King, li;
Paterson, _Assyr. Sculptures_, 63. I R. 28; III R. 4, 1;
Budge-King, 128 ff. Lotz, _op. cit._, 196 ff.; Peiser, KB. I.
122 ff.; Talbot, JRAS. OS. XIX. 124 ff.; Houghton-Finlay, RP(1), XI. 9
ff.; Oppert, _Hist._, 132 ff.; Hommel, _Gesch._, 532 ff.;
Menant, 49 ff. Proved to Tiglath Pileser, Lotz, _op. cit._, 193
f.; cf. Budge-King, 131 n. 4, though Streck, ZA. XVIII. 187 ff., still
believes that it belongs to an earlier king. Found at Nineveh, though