to the Chronicle, follow in 676, and Arzani and the brook of Egypt,
which fit well enough with the Egyptian expedition given under
675. These are the only sections we can date chronologically, and the
order is chronologically correct. But whether we can assume this for
all the events mentioned may be doubted in the light of the
disagreement between A and B in their order. In placing the Arabs
before Bazu, or the Babylonian Nabu zer lishir before Bit Dakkuri, A
is clearly attempting a more geographical order. We shall then use B
as our main source whenever preserved, supplemented by A when the
former is missing, but we must not forget that all are simply display
inscriptions.

Another display inscription of the same type we shall call D. It is
close to B as is shown in the story of Nabu zer lishir, is seemingly
briefer than that document, but is certainly fuller than A, and is
independent of both. The order of events is Babylon, Egypt,
Hubushna. As D omits Sidon and the Cilician cities, found in one of
the others and proved to the period by the Babylonian Chronicle, it is
clear that we have here only extracts, even though the events narrated
are given more fully than in A. [Footnote: K. 2671; Winckler,
ZA. II. 299 ff.; AOF. I. 522.] Still another document of similar
character may be called E. As it mentions the Uabu rebellion which is
not in A, it should date after 673, and its order, Chaldaeans,
Gambulu, Egypt, Arabs, Sidon, Asia Minor, is not chronological but
geographical. It has some striking variants in the proper names, for
example, we have here Musur, universally recognized as meaning Egypt,
where A has Musri, and thus we have exact proof that Musri does equal
Egypt, the advocates of the Musri theory, if any still survive, to the
contrary notwithstanding. [Footnote: Cf. Olmstead, _Sargon_, 56
ff.] It is also longer than A in the River of Egypt section, and than