THE FALL OF BABYLO^^ AND DANIEL V, 30. 



19 



are dated in " the 17th year of Xaboiiidus, King of Babylon" — 

 whilst all those dated later than the 11th of that month are 

 dated in " the Accession year of Cyrus." Gobryas is said to 

 have ''entered Babylon" on the IGth day of Tammuz (June- 

 July) and yet there is a tablet dated the 22nd of that month 

 "in the ITth year of ^^abonidus, King of Babylon." Others are 

 dated in the same way on the 5th, 21st, and 29th of Ab (July- 

 Aug.) and on the 3rd, 5th, 11th, 18th, 21st, and 28th of Elul 

 (Aug.-Sept.). 



Surely Babylon cannot have been held for Cyrus yet. 



On the third Marchesvan (Oct.-ISrov.) the AnuaHstic Tablet 

 records " Cyrus entered Babylon " — yet even after this there is 

 a tablet dated 10th Marchesvan "in the 17th year of N"abonidus, 

 King of Babylon." On the very next niglit — the night of the 

 11th Marchesvan — that occurrence took place recorded on the 

 Annalistic Tablet — 



"On the 11th of Marchesvan in the night Gubaru (Gobryas) made 

 an assault and slew the King's son." 



And after this occurs the first tablet dated in " the Accession 

 year of Cyrus." It is a tablet — to be seen in the case at the 

 British Museum — referring to workmen's rations — and it is 

 dated the 24th Marchesvan " in the Accession year of Cyrus." 

 Another occurs in the next month Chisleu (Nov.-Dec.) dated 

 " Babylon 7Lh Chisleu in the Accession year of Cyrus." 



In the note already referred to Professor Sayce writes — 



" It should be added that the contracts dated in the reign of 

 Nahonidus which were witnessed on the 21st of Ab and the 5th of 

 Eh^l were drawn up in ' the city of the king's palace Babylon ' — 

 whilst one dated the 7th Chisleu of the Accession year of Cyrus is 

 simply inscribed ' Babylon.' " 



Does it not seem as if the words "the city of the king's 

 palace Babylon" were intended to define the city of Babylon on 

 the eastern side of the river, where the king's palace was — 

 as distinguished from Babylon on the western side of the 

 river — then in the hands of Cyrus. 



In conclusion the present lecturer would claim to have laid 

 before you an array of solid facts which clearly show — that so 

 far from the account of the Fall of Babylon, which has come 

 down from the classical writers, being contradicted by the 

 cuneiform in.^ciiptions of the Age of Cyrus — they are, on the 

 contrary, confirmed by them. And accordingly the 5th chapter 



