the speakers had no intercourse in later times. Making this survey it was noticed that the Semitic numerals owe their origin to the manner of reckoning on the fingers, as among all primitive people, for this reason they run in groups of five. One is the hand, two is the double or repetition, three means after, four great, and five means fist; passing to the other hand the Semites in expressing the figure. six said the other (hand), and next, six-extended for seven, six-two for eight; nine is obscure, but seems to have meant the highest division; the word used for ten has been for some time past quite clear, meaning together. The Egyptian and other Hamitic tongues have taken for the word ten the same root as that adopted amongst the Semites for hundred. The Assyrian in writing numerals greater than ten placed the units before the sign used for ten, as in Hebrew and Latin, and the word istin-esrit, or 1 + 10, explains how on the tablet of the eleventh year of Cambyses, which owing to its probably having been written quickly from dictation, the signs are impressed in the clay nearly one over the other, as when the scribe heard istin he wrote I and had hardly space to add the sign for ten in its proper position. The same might have happened to a Roman scribe if writing under dictation uno decim.

M. Bertin remarked that in his opinion the study of the African tongues, and especially the dialects of Abyssinia, have been too much neglected by Semitic scholars. There were to be found, he stated in the Abyssinian dialects some forms of numerals exactly similar to those of the Assyrians, though no corresponding ones are to be found in Arabic or other Semitic dialects; this he thought seemed to prove that the forms had been handed down from ancient times. In these tongues the quinal system is rigorously observed. As an example of their affinity with the Assyrian, it was pointed out that the word for one according to the different dialects, is, iso, usu, asa, ista, which give the root es or is, also to be found in the Assyrian istin. Numerals phonetically written in the inscriptions are one to eleven, fifteen, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, sixty, hundred, and thousand; and among the ordinal numbers from the first to the seventh and the thirtieth.

References for the Assyrian and other words quoted were given in the form of notes.

Remarks were added by the Rev. A Löwy, Theo. G. Pinches, and the President.

The following communication was read by the writer :

"On a cuneiform Tablet relating to the Capture of Babylon by Cyrus, and the Events which preceded and led to it." By Theo. G. Pinches.

This tablet gave a history of events during the reign of Nabonidus, and is arranged in the form of annals, containing the history of four years, viz. :—7th-10th years, almost complete, and the history of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 6th, 11th, and 17th years in a fragmentary state. As it has been doubted that the text referred to the regnal years of Nabonidus, the author found it necessary to say a few words proving the chronology he had first asserted.

The reasons given were, that in each paragraph, after the word "year," there is the word "king," for which, in the 9th year, the name of Nabonidus is substituted. These and the words following are to be translated: "(In) such a year the king was in the city of Teva," &c., or "Nabonidus was in the city of Tevā," so that, though the regnal years are not necessarily those of Nabonidus, yet, if they referred to Cyrus, we should probably have had it so expressed, and it is hardly likely that Cyrus would throughout call Nabonidus king, and yet date his annals according to his own Persian regnal years. The principal proof, however, that the years mentioned are those of Nabonidus, lies in the tablet itself. Preceding the paragraph which gives the events of the 7th year, there is the latter half of the paragraph of the 6th year, showing that the first column must have contained the annals of five years and a half. We can from this guess the probable length of the tablet when complete, and calculate that the second column contained the annals of years 7-13 inclusive, and the third column (the first column of the reverse), which contains the account of the taking of Babylon, the annals of years 14-17 inclusive-the exact length of the reign of Nabonidus.

In his first year, Nabonidus seems to have fought against a king whose name ends -su'isse, and brought spoil from the country of that king to Babylon. At the end of the year he seems to have gone against a chief named Khumē.

In his second year, in the month Tebet, there seems to have been a rising in Hamath.

In his third year, Nabonidus evidently went to a mountainous country called Ammananu (probably the classical Amanus, the

Khamanu of the Assyrian inscriptions) to cut down trees.

After this

the sea of Phoenicia is mentioned, and something is said about a

numerous army.

The record now breaks off till we come to the latter half of the 6th year. Cyrus, who is called king of Ansan, is now fighting with Astyages (Istuvegu), king of Ecbatana (Agamtanu). The army of Astyages, the text says, revolted against him, and, seizing him, sent him to Cyrus. Cyrus then entered Ecbatana and spoiled it.

The paragraph of the 7th year refers to affairs in Babylonia. The king, it says, was in the city of Teva, the king's son, the great men, and the army were in Akkad. Nabonidus seems to have been neglecting the religious ceremonies and festivals, for the record then says, “The king did not go to Babylon, Nebo did not go to Babylon, Bel did not go forth," evidently referring to some religious processions. A festival and sacrifice was made, however, and victims in E-saggil and E-zida to the gods of Babylon and Borsippa for peace were offered, and some officer was appointed for " the plantation and house."

In the next paragraph there are only the words "The 8th year." In the 9th year the same state of things continued in Babylon as was recorded for the 7th year; the king was still in Teva and did not go to Babylon, and the army was still in Akkad. The same religious ceremonies were performed.

On the 5th day of Nisan, the king's mother, who was "in the fortress and camp on the Euphrates beyond Sipar," died. The son of the king and the army mourned for three days, and "there was weeping in Akkad over the mother of the king."

The remainder of the paragraph refers to Cyrus, who, the record says, gathered his army and crossed the Tigris below Arbela →N <I>H<YY (Ar-ba-h-il), and went against

some ruler there. The record, however, is unfortunately mutilated and no certain sense can be made out.

In the 10th year the same state of things continued in Babylon, and the same religious ceremonies were performed. Some person, evidently Cyrus, at this time in Elam, marched into Akkad. What was done there we do not know, for the record again becomes mutilated.

For the 11th year, we have only the record that Nabonidus was in Teva, and that his son, the great men, and army were in Akkad.

The same religious ceremonies were performed as related for the preceding years. We have now no record till we come to the 17th year, except a few words of the preceding paragraph, of which can only be made out "in the month Adar, Istar of Erech . . . .”

For the 17th year there is a long paragraph, the beginning of which is, unfortunately, somewhat broken. We get from it, however, the information that the king in this year went down to the temple called E-tur-kalama, and we are informed that the people of "the lower sea" revolted. This is evidently the beginning of the end, and the king begins to think of his neglected gods, and various festivals were performed; the gods of Kis, Kharsak-kalama, and Akkad were brought to Babylon.

In the month Tammuz, Cyrus fought at Rutum, a city which the author supposed to be near Pekod, some distance to the south of of Babylon. Cyrus's conquest was a most easy one, however, for, on his marching into Akkad, the people of Akkad revolted against Nabonidus, the result being that, on the 14th of Tammuz, Sipar was taken without fighting. Nabonidus fled, and was captured by Gobryas two days after, when the latter, without any fighting, entered Babylon. The only resistance they experienced was when, at the end of the month, some "rebels of the land of Gutium" closed the gates of E-saggil, shutting themselves up within the temple, but having no weapons, they could do nothing.

On the 3rd Marchesvan Cyrus entered Babylon, and as he did so, "the roads before him were dark." Cyrus proclaimed peace to the city, and appointed Gobryas and other governors in the city. In the "dark month of Marchesvan," on the 11th day, Gobyras seems to have gone on some expedition, and the king (Nabonidus) died. The people of Akkad mourned for him six days. This token of respect for their king Cyrus did not begrudge, for by the death of Nabonidus "all the people from their chief were free," and could now transfer their allegiance to Cyrus.

Cyrus now commenced his policy of conciliation, by showing his respect for the national gods. From the month Kislev to the month Adar the gods of Akkad, whom Nabonidus had sent down to Babylon, were returned to their shrines, and on the 4th day of Nisan, the first month of the new year, Cambyses, son of Cyrus, took part in the religious ceremonies to the various gods of Babylon. The author now briefly examined this text, pointing out the parts

which bore out the statements of the Greek historians. He fixed the date when the Persians acquired their independence at about 552 B.C. (instead of 559 B.C., as is the general computation), and the final triumph of Persia over Media occurred about 550 B.C. (the 6th year of Nabonidus).

The cause of the easy conquest of Babylon by Cyrus was Nabonidus's inactivity during the greater part of his reign, for the army was always in the north of Babylonia (Akkad), and does not seem to have stirred thence for ten years. The city of Teva, where Nabonidus seems to have spent most of his time, is, most likely, to be identified with the Te of the contract tablets, which, it is stated, formed a part of the city of Babylon. Nabonidus's neglect of the national gods seems to have offended the priests, and was not without its influence in causing the people to bow to the

conqueror.

Throughout the record, Belshazzar is not once named. It is he, probably, who is meant when "the son of the king," commanding the army in Akhad, is mentioned, but there is no record of his death on the day of the taking of Babylon. Is it possible that he rebelled against his father, and was one of the "rebels of Gutium" who shut themselves up in E-sagil, and that Cyrus therefore revenged himself by not even mentioning his name, so that it might not (as in the case of the destroyer of the temple of Diana at Ephesus) descend to posterity?

Remarks were added by H. H. Howorth, F.S.A., Thomas Tyler, M.A., H. Rassam, Theo. G. Pinches, and the President.

The following communication from Richard Cull, F.S.A., was read:

"On the Existence and Expression in Assyrian of the hard guttural sound of the Hebrew y.

Was an alphabetic system of writing in use by the ancient Babylonians when they adopted the syllabic system in cuneiform characters? Neither system could be adopted until an analysis of the words had been made-first into syllables, and after into the component sounds of those syllables. It is obvious that the analysis into syllables must have preceded that into the elementary sounds