* The passage from the _Synchronous History_, republished by Winckler, contains the termination of the mutilated name of a Babylonian king... _ashu_, which, originally left undecided by Winckler, has been restored “Bibeiashu” by Hilprecht, in the light of monuments discovered at Nipur, an emendation which has since then been accepted by Winckler. Winckler, on his part, has restored the passage on the assumption that the name of the King of Assyria engaged against Bibeiashu was Tukulti-ninip; then, combining this fragment with that in the _Pinches Chronicle_, which deals with the taking of Babylon, he argues that Bibeiashu was the king dethroned by Tukulti-ninip. An examination of the dates, in so far as they are at present known to us from the various documents, seems to me to render this arrangement inadmissible. The _Pinches Chronicle_ practically tells us that Tukulti-ninip reigned over Babylon for _seven years_, when the Chaldæans revolted, and named Rammânshumusur king. Now, the Babylonian Canon gives us the following reigns for this epoch: Bibeiashu _8 years_, Belnadînshumu _1 year 6 months_, Kadashmankharbe _1 year 6 months_, Rammânnadînshumu _6 years_, Rammânshumusur _30 years,_ or _9 years_ between the end of the reign of Bibeiashu and the beginning of that of Rammânshumusur, instead of the _7 years_ given us by the _Pinches Chronicle_ for the length of the reign of Tukulti- ninip at Babylon. If we reckon, as the only documents known require us to do, seven years from the beginning of the reign of Rammânshumusur to the date of the taking of Babylon, we are forced to admit that this took place in the reign of Kadashmankharbe IL, and, consequently, that the passage in the _Synchronous History_, in which mention is made of Bibeiashu, must be interpreted as I have done in the text, by the hypothesis of a war prior to that in which Babylon fell, which was followed by a treaty between this prince and the King of Assyria.