long narrative concerning Nabu zer lishir. As at least four lines were devoted to this introduction in the usually much shorter D, it must have been fairly long in B. Why A omitted all this is a question. That these two events are the first in the reign is made clear by the Babylonian Chronicle, so that thus far the chronological order has been followed. The next event in B and the first in A is the story of the Sidon troubles, and again the Chronicle shows it to be in chronological order. Since A has no less than 49 lines to deal with the events in the lost beginning of column III, it is clear that the much fuller B has here lost much. In the gap in Column IV, we are to place the Aduma narrative and the traces where we can begin to read show that they are in the conclusion of the Median troubles. [Footnote: _Shepashun_ of B. is the _elishun ukin_ is virtually the same as _ukin sirushun_.] For the lost part of the fifth column, we must count the Iadi and Gambulu expeditions, and a part of the building narrative. About the same building account as in A must be placed at the commencement of column VI. The irregularity in the minimum numbers for the different columns, on the basis of A, shows that B had in some cases much longer accounts than in others, and this is confirmed where B gives a complete list of Arabian and of Syrian kings while A does not. These minimum numbers also indicate that but about one-fourth of B has been preserved. However, the overlapping gives us some reason to hope that nearly all its facts have been preserved in the one or the other edition. We have already seen that strict chronology is followed by B, strange to relate, in the order, punishment of the assassins, 681, Babylon, 680, and Sidon, 677. Then A gives the Kundu troubles which, according 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.