What is the difference between annals and chronicles? Annual re-ports or annals usually relate to the military, cultural and polit-ical achievements of a particular king or dynasty, often year after year. Usually such annals are in autobiographical style, but oc-casionally annalistic inscriptions are in biographic style, perhaps because, as some scholars suppose, they were compiled from cur-rent war journals.16 Annalistically structured records appear in royal inscriptions of, for instance, the Third Dynasty of Ur as early as the beginning of the second millennium bce, but the
14W.E. Krul, ‘Huizinga’s definitie van de geschiedenis’, in: J. Huizinga, De taak der cultuurgeschiedenis, samengesteld, verzorgd en van een nawoord voorzien door W.E. Krul, Groningen 1995, 284; F.R. Ankersmit, De spiegel van het verleden, Exploraties 1: Geschiedtheorie, Kampen 1996, 7-9; Van Seters, In Search of History, 1; DeJong Ellis, JCS 41 (1989), 182-4; Becking,
‘Inscribed Seals as Evidence for Biblical Israel’, 66; but see also the problems with this definition in Brettler, Creation of History in Ancient Israel, 11.
Note that Peter Machinist also emphasised this Eigenbegrifflichkeit in his lecture ‘The Old Testament in Comparative Perspective’ (SOTS/SBL 2003 Cambridge).
15This is seemingly the point missed by Brettler, Creation of History in Ancient Israel, 11. Even if Huizinga made a sharp distinction between history and literature and if, according to Brettler, modern scholarship may not do so, this correction applies also to Israelite and Mesopotamian historiographic tradition.
16This theory of war journals in combination with letters (reports) to the deity as Vorlage for the Assyrian annals is in Mayer’s view essential for the credibility of the inscriptions (Mayer, Politik und Kriegskunst, 56-59); but for the pitfalls of this theory, see Grayson, Or. 49 (1980), 164-70 = ‘Assyri¨e en Babyloni¨e’, 64-67; Bagg, ‘Geschichtsschreibung’, 105.
genre may go back to kings from the third millennium such as Sargon of Akkad, and even to pre-Sargonic times.17 Collections of such annual reports written on tablets and stored in archives for consultation, study and reference are known in Mesopotamia only from the Late Middle Assyrian Period onwards (1132-935 bce). Similar texts are found in Anatolian archives such as the pinaˇsdar ‘(masculine) acts’ compiled in chronological order. They are annalistically composed texts, which approach the later chro-nographic texts, being the earliest examples of ancient Near East-ern historiography.18 We think here especially of the Annals of Mursilis II (ca 1300 bce), in particular the decennial records, series of ten years of annals (TUAT, 1/5, 471-81), which were ex-tracts, taken and summarised from extensive running yearbooks.
The genre of the chronicle, with its fundamental focus on the past, its selective structure, eclectic preference and hardly hid-den historiographic bias emerges after the first quarter of the first millennium. But it did not appear out of the blue. The change in viewpoint from annals to chronicles is a gradual one. In essence, annals focus on the exploits of their sponsor in time and space.
Though they may show interest in the past (usually the recent past), their focus is the present, not the past.19In some early his-torical texts, even as early as the Sumerian hishis-torical inscription of Enmetana of Lagaˇs (ca 2400 bce), there are historical surveys summing up events that constitute the prelude to the present
17See the survey W.W. Hallo, ‘Sumerian Historiography’, in: H. Tadmor, M. Weinfeld, History, Historiography and Interpretation: Studies in Bib-lical and Cuneiform Literatures, Jerusalem 1983, 9-20; R.E. Averbeck, ‘The Sumerian Historiographic Tradition and its Implications for Genesis 1-11’, in: A.R. Millard et al. (eds), Faith, Tradition, and History, Winona Lake, Indiana 1994, 79=102. It follows the observations of Grayson, Or. 49 (1980), 142; D.O. Edzard, RLA 6, 77-86; Van de Mieroop, Cuneiform Texts and the Writing of History, 59-75. Beside the most interesting predecessor of Assyrian-Babylonian historiography, i.e. the Sumerian King List, there is the
‘Tummal Chronicle’, actually a building chronicle. See, however, the criticism of the designation ‘chronicle’ by Edzard, RLA 6, 85-86.
18H.G. G¨uterbock, ‘Hittite Historiography: A Survey’, in: Tadmor, Wein-feld, History, Historiography and Interpretation, 30-1 = ‘Hettitische geschied-schrijving: een overzicht’, in: Geschiedschrijving, 108.
19J. Renger, ‘Vergangenes Geschehen in der Text¨uberlieferung des al-ten Mesopotamien’, in: H.-J. Gehrke, A. M¨oller (eds), Vergangenheit und Lebenswelt: Soziale Kommunikation, Traditionsbildung und historische Be-wußtsein, T¨ubingen 1996, 9-60; Van de Mieroop, Cuneiform Texts and the Writing of History, 25.
‘As for the other events . . . ’ 21
situation. In that particular text, the previous history comprises a period of about 150 years, divided into a distant past (Mesilim of Kiˇs, ca 2550 bce) and the recent past (Eanatum, the uncle and predecessor of Enmetena).20Such reviews of the past often occur, leading up to the occasion for which the inscription was made. A good example is the early Hittite Anitta text (CTH 1),21 which is actually a compilation of inscriptional tablets.22The technique of reviewing the recent past (sometimes even the distant mythical or legendary past)23 as a ‘historical’ introduction and then de-scribing the current state of affairs stemming from this previous history, is best known from Hittite tradition.24Famous examples are the Proclamation of Telepinu and the Apology of Hattusilis,25 but such historical reviews also appear often in treaty texts, after the preambles,26 and in West Semitic royal inscriptions, such as the Kulamuwa inscription (lines 2-8) and the Mesha stela (lines 5-8).
However, such texts have sometimes been called chronicles, but they are not really part of this genre, since they follow no
sys-20See the discussion of this text by Averbeck, ‘Sumerian Historiography’, 93-8; Th.J.H. Krispijn, ‘Het relaas van Enmetana, stadvorst van Lagasj over de strijd met Umma om het Guedana’, in: R.J. Demar´ee, K.R. Veenhof, Zij schreven geschiedenis: historische documenten uit het oude Nabije Oosten, Leiden 2003, 3-9.
21Hittite texts referred to after E. Laroche, Catalogue des textes hittites (EeC, 75), Paris 1971.
22As noted by Van Seters, In Search of History, 106-7; see further G.
McMahon, ‘History and Legend in Early Hittite Historiography’, in: Faith, Tradition, and History, 149-57, esp. 151. Indeed, Van Seters minimises its importance, but McMahon seems to overstate its innovative character. Its annalistic structure does not make it a kind of early Hittite history.
23As in the Hittite Zalpa legend (CTH 3), H.A. Hoffner, ‘The Queen of Kanesh and the Tale of Zalpa’, in: W.W. Hallo (ed.), The Context of Scrip-ture, vol. 1: Canonical Compositions from the Biblical World, Leiden 1997 = ContS 1, 181-182 (1.71), discussed in the literature cited in n. 22.
24See H.A. Hoffner, ‘Histories and Historians of the Ancient Near East:
the Hittites’, Or. 49 (1980), 283-332; G¨uterbock, ‘Hittite Historiography:
A Survey’, 21-35 = ‘Hettitische Geschiedschrijving: een overzicht’, 99-113;
McMahon, ‘History and Legend in Early Hittite Historiography’, 149-57.
25See the new translation and comments of Th.P.J. van den Hout in re-spectively, ContS 1, 194-98 (1.76) and 199-204 (1.77); also H. de Roos, ‘De troonsbestijging van Hattusili III’, in: Zij schreven geschiedenis, 169-79.
26Examples may be found in ContS 1, 94, 96, 98-9, 100; E. von Schuler,
‘Die akkadische Fassung des Vertr¨ages zwischen Suppiluliuma I. von Hatti und Niqmaddu II. Von Ugarit’, Staatsvertr¨age, TUAT 1/2, 131-4.
tematic chronology.27A good example is also the ‘Synchronistic History’ from the library of Assurbanipal (AssBabC 21). This historiographic work is not a chronicle in the proper sense, but actually contains a chronologically arranged survey of Assyrian-Babylonian relations from the 15thcentury bce until the reign of Adad-Nerari III (870-783 bce), within the framework of the set-tlement of a boundary dispute. This document suggests itself as being the copy of a royal inscription on a stela that once allegedly marked the border between both countries. To what extent the text was fictitious in character, but created to be ‘legal proof’ of the fortunes of war that led to the fixation of the present border, is a matter of debate.28An interesting feature is the suggestion of precise factuality that is clare et distincte, but using pre-existing chronographic records with a hardly hidden political agenda.
Apart from this kind of extract in monumental inscriptions, un-fortunately few library copies of such annalistic records have been preserved in Assyria.29 This Synchronistic Chronicle (AssBabC
27Such a misnomer is, for instance, the Hittite ‘Palace Chronicle’ (CTH 8);
cf. McMahon, ‘History and Legend’, 153; J. Klinger, ‘Aus der sogenannten
“Palastchronik” ’, TUAT, Erg¨anzungslieferung, G¨utersloh 2001, 61-4.
28Grayson, AssBabC, 50-6; Grayson, Or. 49 (1980), 181-2 = ‘Assyri¨e en Babyloni¨e’, 83-4; J.A. Brinkman, ‘The Babylonian Chronicle Revisited’, in:
T. Abusch et al. (eds), Lingering over Words: Studies in Ancient Near East-ern Literature in Honor of William L. Moran (HSS, 37), Harvard 1990, 73-104; Hallo, Origins, 140-1.
29Fragments in Grayson, AssBabC, 184-9; J.-J. Glassner, Chroniques m´ eso-potamiennes, Paris 1993, 174-8. All these fragments, presumably belonging to the same text, have the library of Tiglath-Pileser I as their provenance (1143-1076 bce). They comprise a period from Enlil-Nirari (ca 1329 bce) up to Tiglath-Pileser I (ca 1050 bce). The text does survey the Assyrian-Babylonian conflicts but that does not make it a chronicle. See my remarks above on the Synchronistic History (AssBabC 21). About the possible exist-ence of early Assyrian chronicles, see Grayson, Or. 49 (1980), 181, n. 191a
= ‘Assyri¨e en Babyloni¨e’, 84, n. 200; H. Tadmor, ‘Observations of Assyrian Historiography’, in: M. deJong Ellis (ed.), Essays on the Ancient Near East in Memory of Jacob Joel Finkelstein (MCAA, 19), Hamden 1977, 211, in contrast to Van Seters, In Search of History, 82-4. Whether this text was a chronicle in the proper sense remains to be seen, for it is at present too fragmentary to warrant such a designation. It is remarkable that we have so many Assyrian annals, especially in monumental fashion, but that such archival historiographic works, comparable to the Babylonian Chronicles, seem to have been absent from the Library of Assurbanipal, despite so many other texts witnessing to the existence of a historical tradition (king lists – even one synchronistically arranged – historical epics, prophecies of Marduk and ˇSulgi, the Weidner Chronicle and so on).
‘As for the other events . . . ’ 23
21) ends just before Nabu-Nasir’s immediate predecessor, but that is perhaps pure coincidence.30From the same period, or per-haps some later date is the P(inches)-Chronicle (AssBabC 22), describing political relations between Babylon (Karduniaˇs), As-syria and Elam from the perspective of their dealings with the cult of Marduk.31 A related text is also the ‘Weidner-Chronicle’
(AssBabC 19).32 This document was recently discovered not to be a chronicle, but a letter allegedly written by two early second millennium kings. It has interesting parallels in the prognostic texts known as the Marduk and ˇSulgi prophecies, suggesting that it too was a pia fraus counterfeited for propaganda purposes.
That does not mean, however, that they were completely unhis-torical, because the authors clearly drew their source-material for their historical surveys from existing annals, astronomical diaries and historical chronicles.33
The ˇSamaˇs-ˇSuma-Ukin Chronicle (AssBabC 15) is an ex-cerpt, presumably made for study. It was compiled from differ-ent chronicles,34 as is clearly stated in the colophon. Apart from the chronicles of the 4th to the 18th year of this king, it con-tains some unintegrated lines copied from a writing board about Babylonian kings from earlier periods than ˇSamaˇs-ˇSuma-Ukin’s reign.35 The Akitu Chronicle, the Religious Chronicle and the
30It is unclear whether it yet reveals awareness and forms another argument for the existence of a Nabonassar Era. Pace Hallo, Origins, 141.
31This text stems from Babylon. Van Seters, In Search of History, 86–
7, defends convincingly its literary dependence on the Synchronistic History (AssBabC 21), in contrast to Grayson, AssBabC, 58; Idem, RLA 5, 88 (dating it ca 1155 bce).
32G¨uterbock, ZA 42 (1932), 47-57 (Assur 13955gv photograph and copy);
Grayson, AssBabC, 43-5; 147-51; Glassner, Chroniques, 215-8, known from a Neo-Assyrian copy from Assur, a few fragments from Babylon and now also a copy from Sippar. See A.R. Millard, ‘The Weidner Chronicle’ (1.138), in:
ContS, vol. 1,468-70, and further literature below.
33In the later periods chronicles were also composed about the Kassite Period and even older dynasties; cf. for instance Chronicle 25. See Grayson, RLA 6, 89; C.B.F. Walker, ‘Babylonian Chronicle 25: A Chronicle of the Kassite and Isin II Dynasties’, in: G. van Driel et al. (eds), ZIKIR ˇSUMIM:
Assyriological Studies Presented to F.R.. Kraus on the Occasion of his Sev-entieth Birthday (SFSMD, 5), Leiden 1982, 398-417.
34A.R. Millard, ‘Another Babylonian Chronicle’, Iraq 26 (1964), 14-35;
Grayson, AssBabC, No. 15, 32-4; 128-30; Glassner, Chroniques, 189-90.
35Millard, Iraq 26 (1964), 31; Grayson, AssBabC, 32-3, 130; Glassner, Chro-niques, 189-90, covering such Babylonian kings as Assur-Nadin-ˇSumi
(699-Eclectic Chronicle (AssBabC 16, 17, 24) probably used existing chronicles of which they are extracts36 written for the special reason of summarising a particular historical development such as the varying fortunes of Bel and the New Year festival (includ-ing the Akitu ritual), or to indicate conjunctions of events and extraordinary (ominous?) signs. In a way, they stand outside the mainstream of Babylonian Chronicles, but emphasise the eclectic nature of these Chronicles. This is no longer recording events for the greater glory of royalty (the res gestae), even if some authors are rather biased in their description of certain kings and their fortunes: it also gives a distant view of the past manipulating and rewriting it where necessary according to the writer’s own his-torical perspective. And that is indeed the mark of true ancient historiography.
The most complete series of chronicles that really deserve this name are the Babylonian Chronicles, known in two versions. An older Neo-Babylonian version, which runs from King Nabu-Nasir (747-734 bce) to Darius II, has a colophon dated the 22nd year of Darius and is written on tablets with four columns (AssBabC 1 and 7, Appendix B).37 The second version is known from Late Babylonian sources (Appendix B). This version is expanded with preceding chronicles of early kings,38 and is supplemented with chronicles about the Persian and Greek dynasties until the
Seleu-694 bce, contemporary with Sennacherib); ˇSirikti-ˇSuqamuna (ca 984 bce) and Nabu-ˇSuma-Iˇskun (760?-748 bce).
36See, in particular, in the Akitu Chronicle, the items shared with other chronicles (AssBabC 1 ending; AssBabC 14 ending; and once more AssBabC 15). The interesting thing is that excerpt AssBabC 15 does not mention the proceedings of the Akitu festival as is done in AssBabC 16 (and summarily found in AssBabC 1), but that they were included in the Late Babylonian ver-sion (AssBabC 14). This is an interesting case of re-writing history (Grayson, AssBabC, 30-1). See below.
37Grayson, AssBabC, 9 n. 7; D.J. Wiseman, Chronicles of the Chaldean Kings, London 1956, 3. Fragment BM 34779 (Sp II, 271; see on this fragment Grayson, AssBabC, 280) belongs also to this class of texts.
38Presumably also AssBabC 14 (Esarhaddon // AssBabC 1), 20 A and B (Sargon I–Agum III), 25 (Tukulti-Ninurta I 1244-1208 bce; Adad-ˇ Suma-Usur, 1216-1187 bce; Adad-Apla-Iddina 1068-1047 bce); 24 (from Marduk-Sapik-Zeri 1080–1068 bce to Nabu-Nasir 747-734 and Salmanassar V 726-722 bce) may have been part of this series (Appendix B). AssBabC 20A and 14 have a colophon suggesting that they belong to the same series (ANET, 266, 303; see, however, the critical remark of Grayson, AssBabC, 128).
‘As for the other events . . . ’ 25
cid Era (third century bce).39 There were at least two copies of the Late Babylonian version (AssBabC 3, 5, 10[?] written on long tablets with one column on each side and AssBabC 2, 4, 6 and 25 written on small business-tablets). The relation between the two copies is not completely clear, but is interesting to note that the text of tablets AssBabC 3, 4 and 5 joins without any gaps, though they belong to different copies. The chronicles AssBabC 11-13, 13a, 13b are related and begin to date according to years of the Seleucid Era after the elusive reigns of Philip III and Alexander IV (AssBabC 10), which indicates their Late Babylonian origin (the last date is the 88th year).40 The sources of information for this new type of chronicle were perhaps running reports record-ing astronomical and other data preserved in the so-called as-tronomical diaries and related texts, the regular observation and recording of which most probably was initiated under king Nabu-Nasir.41 If the Nabonassar Era were indeed the axial period for their emergence, their introduction into the ancient Near Eastern curriculum implies also a cultural, literary and historical differ-ence and development between annals and chronicles. Chronicles are those texts that digest a selection of traditions, events, ob-servations and other data in a chronographic structure and syn-thesise them into historiography. Interpreting those sources by selecting, summarising, revising and criticising from a distance is the true mark of early historiography.
39Grayson, AssBabC, 8–9; Idem, Or. 49 (1980), 174 = ‘Assyri¨e en Babylo-ni¨e’, 75.
40T. Boiy, ‘Dating Methods during the Early Hellenistic Period’, JCS 52 (2000), 115-20, esp. 117. The first six years of this Seleucid Era perhaps represent the rule of Alexander IV and Seleucus I together. See the King List 6, King List of the Hellenistic Period (RLA 6, 98-9). Only in his / the seventh year (305 bce) was Seleucus I apparently acknowledged as sole ruler when he accepted the royal title.
41Grayson, Or. 49 (1980), 174 = ‘Assyri¨e en Babyloni¨e’, 75; Van de Mie-roop, Cuneiform Texts and the Writing of History, 33-4. See the edition of A.
J. Sachs, H. Hunger, Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia, vol. 1: Diaries from 652 B.C. to 262 B.C. (D ¨OAW.PH, 195), Vienna 1988, 11-38. War journals were kept in Egypt alongside other kinds of log book such as the famous ‘journal’ of Amennakht under Ramses III. See recently R.J. Demar´ee, in: Zij schreven geschiedenis, 238-50. On the problem of war journals in Mesopotamia, see note 16.