mentioned in the Monolith date from 880 and it is thus far earlier
than our present edition of the Annals, which contains events from so
late a date as 867. To this extent, then, the Monolith is a better
document. It was not, however, the direct source of the Annals, as is
shown by certain cases where the latter has preserved the better
readings of proper names. Indeed, we should not over rate the
Monolith, for it too is a compilation like its younger sister, and is
by no means free from obvious mistakes, though in general better than
the Annals. [Footnote: BM. 847. Photograph, Budge-King, lxix; Paterson,
_Assyr. Sculptures,_ 64. I R. 27; Budge-King, 242 ff.; cf. 254
ff.; Le Gac, 129 ff. Peiser, KB. I. 118 ff. Menant, 66 f. Talbot,
_Trans. Roy. Soc. Lit.,_ VII. 189 ff.; RP¹, VII. 15 ff.] For some
portions of this earlier section, we have also separate slabs with
small portions of the text, [Footnote: BM. 90830, cf. Budge-King, 255
n.; L. 48 f.] and these regularly agree with the Monolith as against
the Annals. [Footnote: I. 57, transposition; I. 69, the significant
omission of _shadu;_ and a large number of cases where they agree
in spelling as against the Annals.]

For the last of these years, 880, we have also the inscription from
Kirkh, [Footnote: III R. 6; Budge-King, 222 ff.; Le Gac, 137
ff. Peiser, KB. I. 92 ff.] which contains data for this year alone,
and ends abruptly with the return from Nairi. This might be expected
from its location at Tushhan, on the border of that country, and we
are therefore warranted in assuming that it was set up here
immediately after the return from the campaign and that in it we have
a strictly contemporaneous document. Judged by this, the Annals, and
even the Monolith, do not rank very high. Important sections are
omitted by each, in fact, they seem to agree in these omissions,
though in general they agree fairly closely with the account set up in