fragmentary manuscripts would around the more complete one which we
hit upon, for a fundamental text." [Footnote: Jastrow, _l. c._]

This view might be accepted were the problem one of the "lower
criticism". Unfortunately, it is clearly one for the "higher" and
accordingly we should quote the Black Obelisk only when an earlier
edition has not been preserved. There is no single point where, in
comparison with an earlier one, there is reason to believe that it has
the correct text, in fact, it is, as might be expected in the case of
a show inscription, filled with mistakes, many of which were later
corrected, while in one case the engraver has been forced to erase
entire lines. [Footnote: Cf. the textual commentary in Amiaud-Scheil,
_passim_, and especially 65 n. 6.] Its date is 829, a whole
generation later than the facts first related, and it can be shown
that it is a formal apology for the turtanu (prime minister), Dan
Ashur, glorifies him at the expense of his monarch, and attempts to
conceal the palace revolution which marked his coming into power by
changing the date of his eponomy from 854 to 856 and by filling in the
year 855 with another event. Nor is it without bearing in this
connection that it was prepared in 829, the very year in which the
revolt of Ashur dan apal broke out as a protest against the control of
his father by the too powerful turtanu. [Footnote: Cf. Olmstead,
_Jour. Amer. Or. Soc., l. c._] As these last years of the reign
were years of revolt, there is no reason for believing that there was
another edition prepared, and the narrative of this revolt in the
Annals of his son Shamshi Adad points in the same direction.

Of documents which do not belong to this connected series, the most
important is the recently discovered lion inscription from Til
Barsip. Aside from its value in identifying the site of that important