and so on. The rest does not concern us here. But another letter,(876) evidently from the same writer, gives news from Armenia and a message from Argista, which the writer says he has answered, as the king directed. It also states that the commander keeps ward in Ḥarda. Ṭurushpîa is also mentioned on fragments not yet published. Other fragments occur which clearly belong to this group. Thus(877) a letter from an unknown writer names Ashur-riṣûa in connection with Kumai, Babutai, Ukkai, and Uliai, and narrates something about ten commanders. The loss of nine commanders in Armenia, at one time, is the subject of a very fragmentary letter,(878) but it is not clear that it refers to this period. To the same period seems to belong another letter of Sennacherib, probably to his father Sargon.(879) It begins with precisely the same formulæ of greeting in the first seven lines. Then it goes on: The chieftains of the land of Kumuḫai (Commagene) have come and brought tribute. Seven mule mares apiece they brought and tribute with the mules. The chieftains are in the house appointed for the Kumuḫai. They are fed at their own expense, they would journey on to Babylon [where Sargon evidently is]. They have brought _šaklâ_ (?), they have received them here. As we have told the king, my lord, let him send quickly. They brought cloth and fruit each of them. The factors say that we have received seven talents from them, that the Kumuḫai are not contented, saying, “Our produce is reduced, let them bring the king’s weavers and let them take charge.” Let the king, my lord, send word to whom they shall assign them. (M797) Another letter-fragment only preserves the opening address.(880) Another very defective letter(881) with the same introduction refers to Dûr-Sargon, “in the district of Kurban are excessively great floods, they go on.” We know from another source that this was the case, in B.C. 708, when the floods came into the lower part of the city, and the tribute could not be levied in the district.(882) Yet another fragment, opening in precisely the same manner, refers to a certain Nabû-eṭir-napshâte and the city of Kalḫu.(883) Here also we have too little left to make out any connected sense. VI. Letters From The Last Year Of Shamash-Shum-Ukîn (M798) Another period on which the letters throw considerable light is the close of the reign of Shamash-shum-ukîn in Babylon. This was coeval with the suppression of a great combined rebellion against the rule of Assyria. From the historical texts of Ashurbânipal’s reign we know the names of many of the actors in that great struggle. They are frequently referred to in the letters. Already G. Smith, in his _History of Assurbanipal_, 1871, had used the information given by some of the letters. This was utilized by C. P. Tiele in his _Babylonisch-assyrische Geschichte_.